All Episodes
Previous Next
May 26, 2023 - Jim Fetzer
01:09:53
The Myth of the 'COVID-19 Pandemic' & Other Lies - Interview with Dr Denis Rancourt
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Very, very distorted by all sorts of false narratives, sophistry, misuse of statistics that have been guiding us into a very bad place.
And this didn't arise overnight.
It didn't arise with the emergence of a pandemic that was brought onto the scene.
This has been going on for some time.
And anybody who has been following Professor Encore's work over the past 15-20 years would notice that he has been speaking out and clarifying what the real issues are, what are the real dynamics shaping our reality, and what our choices are if we were informed, both in matters of climate science, as well as, oh man, you've published a lot, Denny!
You've published a lot of material, and that's what I like about you and why I'm really happy that we're going to be talking, because you have not isolated yourself As somebody who just focuses in one specialized domain?
Well, yeah, even in academia, you know, in my career in academia, you know, a couple of decades as a professor at the University of Ottawa, I was an interdisciplinary scientist.
I mean, my PhD is in physics, but I've always worked on Environmental biogeochemistry and organic chemistry, all kinds of things.
I've just was all over the place, everything from meteorites to theoretical physics of magnetism, you know.
So I've always, I led a large interdisciplinary lab when I was there, and it was really well funded.
It was one of the best funded labs.
For several years, so that's my mindset is that I let my curiosity go wild and I just I just try to dig up things and understand something if it's before me and I think it's important I look into it.
And I used to, you know, be head of the lab, so I was leading a big team and everything.
Now it's much more, it's smaller scale and it's things where you can do it without needing big instruments and machines and spectrometers and electron microscopes and so on.
So I've been looking at, in the COVID period, I've been looking at all-cause mortality.
Which is an extraordinarily powerful data set that can really cut through a lot of the propaganda where you can just really prove and establish things, you know?
Yeah, well that's what I really wanted to speak about today and that actually leads us into the conversation pretty well.
Recently you've published a number of papers dealing with just pure data sets that you've gleaned from Australia, from India, from Israel, and from the United States and Canada especially.
That debunked certain mythologies that have been provoked or promoted by the mainstream media around the idea that vaccines indisputably save lives, that, you know, we certainly, certainly would have had so much more death had there not been an emergency vaccine rollout, and that COVID was just the worst thing, the new Black Plague that would have wiped out human civilization if we had it.
There's two things.
One is, what can you rigorously say about what's really going on that can affect our lives that causes death in the world?
And that you can answer concretely with hard data.
And the other thing is, what did the government say is happening?
What do they say is going on?
And that's just crazy.
You're in la-la land there.
I mean, Theresa Tam, the Chief Officer of Health in Canada, has said that if they hadn't applied all these COVID measures and the vaccines and everything, there would have been approximately a million extra deaths in Canada.
It's just crazy because when you look at all-cause mortality as a function of time, let's say the number of deaths by week, let's say, you have the usual seasonal variations, but it's a flat line basically.
And she's claiming a million extra deaths.
So we made a graph of what that would look like, you know.
Here's the all-cause mortality and through the COVID period it barely changes.
And she's talking about a mortality that's like three times higher, way up here.
And she's claiming that all these different measures would have brought us down to exactly the same level as if nothing had happened.
Which is crazy.
What you really... I mean, it's just obscene to be even postulating these things on the basis of these ludicrous models.
I mean, there are all these very different things happening, yet it would have brought the mortality down to exactly the same level, not halfway in between, not 10% higher, nothing like that.
You see what I'm saying?
Mortality is very robust.
You have to do some really significant things to cause visible increases in mortality.
So in the past, it's typically a world war or a huge economic crash of the type, you know, the dust bowl in the United States and the Great Depression and various wars, the Second World War, where you see the mortality among men and so on.
You have to have these seismic To actually see a change in mortality and a change in the structure of the ages of the population and so on that would affect the ability of the nation to continue being a nation and continue with the same, you know, its economic activities and so on.
Nothing like that has happened with COVID.
What has happened is Governments have assaulted people, especially fragile and vulnerable people who are isolated, the elderly and so on.
They've assaulted them with these horrendous measures, and they accelerated their deaths, quite clearly, unambiguously.
So, in the United States, for example, you see all-cause mortality, the historic trend, and then as soon as the pandemic is announced, a pandemic is announced, there's an increase in mortality, a very significant one.
Significant in the sense you can really measure it, you can really see it, it's real, and it stays high throughout the pandemic period in the United States.
And there's various bumps and peaks and things, there's a peak Due to the vaccine rollout that was associated with so-called vaccine equity in the United States, which was a huge campaign, you see a peak of mortality related to that.
There's a lot in the data and I've written over 30 articles about this stuff.
When you look at the all-cause mortality, okay, so that extra mortality in the United States somehow didn't cross into Canada.
There's almost nothing visible in Canada.
It's virtually no change except for, well, I mean, there are clear peaks.
When you blow it up and take a fine look, you can see that young men in Alberta were killed by the devastating economic crash of the energy sector.
Okay, that's clear.
Depression, murder went up, everything.
That's where the truckers are from, you know.
That's the event that would have caused that despair and that desire to change things.
So you see specific things like that.
Aboriginals are killed way more in provinces that have many Aboriginals.
You can detect things like that in Canada, but overall there's virtually no change compared to the United States.
And the reason for that is the U.S.
has huge pools of extremely vulnerable people.
You know, people don't realize there are 13 million people in the United States that are certified disabled by mental illness and that are on heavy medication, you know, that have to be taken care of and so on.
If you isolate them, if you destroy their habits and their lives and their connection to the world, you will kill them in a short, in short order.
Okay?
So in the United States over the COVID period, there were 1.3 million extra deaths.
This is before the vaccine rollout?
This is including the vaccine rollout.
So if I look at everything roughly up to the date where we had done the study, which is now, the study is maybe four months, four or five months old now, there were 1.3 million deaths and they correlated, those deaths correlated perfectly with poverty.
And I mean perfectly.
For the mathematicians, the statisticians, there was a Pearson correlation coefficient of plus 0.86, which is just incredible.
Okay.
So it was really about poverty.
It was not a viral respiratory disease because it doesn't correlate to age and the median age or the average age in a state in the United States, for example.
So here's this high mortality.
In the U.S.
that is especially in the southern states where there's a lot of poverty and there's a lot of fragile people who already take a lot of antibiotics compared to people in other states and so they were they and then and they also cut the antibiotic prescriptions in half so they were not treating bacterial pneumonia they were describing everything to this presumed virus and So there was a part of the assault was just refusing to treat people in effect, you know, in effect, refusing to treat people.
So all of this was happening in the United States, 1.3 million deaths, virtually no deaths in Canada.
So this means that if it's a viral pathogen, it refused to cross the border.
It, you know, it didn't have a passport needed or something, you know, which is, it's crazy.
It's crazy.
This is like three or 4000 kilometer border, lots of exchanges continuously to the biggest exchange partners.
There's no way that this could be a viral respiratory disease that is contagious in the way that they were proposing.
There are many, many features in the all-cause mortality like that and I've made lists of them in our articles.
We've argued it in detail that prove that what happened is inconsistent, is disproved by the hard data.
Okay, so I could give more examples.
There were hot spots of deaths immediately after the pandemic was announced and The all-cause mortality surged in a rapid peak that lasted only a month or two.
And this happened synchronously everywhere where there was a hotspot.
It happened at the same time where the hospitals followed the treatment protocols and basically killed people.
Okay.
So what sort of treatment protocols were being put online that were artificially increasing the... Well, one of the main things was putting people on ventilators.
Okay.
So in Northern Italy, where they had a huge hotspot, they actually bragged about having Developed the ability to put two people per ventilator on ventilators.
So per machine, they, they, they developed a prototype where they could put two people and they bragged about this.
They said that we're going to beat COVID.
And so they were putting everyone on, on ventilators, uh, which, which are extremely deadly and increase the chance of getting a bacterial infection in, in, in, in the respiratory tract and so on.
So, um, um, Italy, Northern Italy, Paris, uh, London, New York.
The province of Quebec, these places have these huge spikes in mortality that did not spread, that were completely synchronous and coincident with the announcement of the pandemic where they got the go-ahead to go ahead and And apply these protocols and do what they did in hospitals.
Okay, so the big hospitals that followed this kind of militaristic new approach without thinking were killing fields, basically.
And it is completely that you cannot explain those synchronous peaks around the world with A with a the usual epidemiological theory of spread of a respiratory disease.
There is no way because you would need exactly the same kind of society happening in the same way seating all these places at the same time.
In the same structure in terms of how people contact each other, it's impossible.
So there's many, many theoretical papers that will show you that there's a huge sensitivity as to when this rise will occur on the seed.
So whether it's the nature of the seed, how big is the seed and what is the nature of the society, the contact structure and who contacts who, do the young and old people mix and so on.
So there is no way that this synchronicity, which was political, And directly related you look at the graphs and I showed this on our papers right after the 11th of March 2020 announcement of the pandemic.
Where there are these hotspots, you get a synchronous rise.
Now, in most places around the world, there's no such peak.
Okay?
The places where they didn't do this, or they didn't do it as aggressively, or they didn't have large hospitals, where they apply these protocols, you know, just military style, you did not get these peaks.
So there was about 30 states in the U.S.
that didn't have a peak at the beginning like that.
Nothing like it.
There are countries that had virtually no deaths.
I mean, no noticeable detectable deaths until they rolled out the vaccine.
India and Australia are really good examples of that, okay?
Absolutely flatline until you roll out the vaccine, suddenly, military style, you roll it out, and now, for the first time since the pandemic was announced, there is a huge rise in mortality, all-cause mortality.
That's important, and so you're saying that, just to be clear, clear, clear, they were not conducting the military style Ventilation protocols in Australia or India, that was not something they were doing as aggressively as they were in Quebec or Italy.
That's right, and they also didn't necessarily have the occasion to because Australia's in the southern hemisphere, so the seasonal peak of higher depth there, winter, is our summer.
So it was kind of not aligned with this announcement of the pandemic.
So you didn't have the usual people coming to hospital or feeling sick and now being told it's COVID, therefore they were running to the hospitals, you see.
So in Italy, for example, which was really one of the big hot spots, they actually, in the province that had the biggest problem, they actually decided consciously that they would tell people that we're going to make sure you can come in and be treated in the hospital.
We're not going to tell you to stay at home, whereas other jurisdictions that did tell people to stay at home didn't have, because they were worried about spread within the hospital, didn't have such a big peak, you know.
So the peaks were really related to what these systems were doing, what the hospitals were doing, what the governments were saying, how they handled it.
And now we're coming back to Australia.
So Um what what did you ask me?
You said you said okay so yeah right so because the for whatever reason there was no noticeable extra deaths in Australia until they rolled out the vaccine.
Okay for this combination of reasons that I'm trying to explain.
So um many for another really stunning example is Germany.
Okay if you if you look at a map of the intensity of these hot spots and you see these hot spots like London Paris and so on Spain Northern Italy The map of that, where you have these red spots, Germany is completely white.
Germany never had extra deaths in that time period, right after the pandemic was announced.
And the Germans did not apply these protocols.
The Germans did medicine as usual.
They came into the hospital, they used their judgment, their clinical evaluation, their clinical judgment, and they did not apply new protocols.
They did not put people on ventilators and give them drugs to sedate them and ease their death if you had pneumonia.
They didn't do those things in Germany and they did not have, you look at a map and Germany's white.
It stays white.
It's quite remarkable.
So, no virus decides not to enter Germany, okay?
You look at these maps and the border between Spain and France, for example, there is an absolute no crossing of deaths, extra deaths there, okay?
Between France and Germany, it's a hard border.
So, this tells you that these extra deaths are all about what was happening in the various jurisdictions.
What were the protocols?
What were the governments saying?
What were they doing?
That's what determined deaths.
So all of the so-called extra deaths that would have happened that are usually attributed by the establishment as due to COVID were due to assaults against people.
What was done and what was not done and how it was done and how quickly it was done and then it's all the more true with the vaccine.
Because, you know, there are countries where they didn't do all these other things and therefore it's really clean.
You really see it clearly.
Every time they roll out a booster, you have a peak in mortality.
It's completely coincident.
In Australia, we showed this exact coincidence between the third dose and a peak in what is their summer.
So what is normally a trough in deaths, they get a peak, okay?
Because they're rolling out this booster dose, and that peak is the same in all the states of Australia.
So you can take the data per state, and they might have rolled it out in slightly different times, but generally the same, but you get the same coincidence, the same peak.
So for us, this was completely convincing that the deaths were due to the vaccines.
And we know from the virus data that deaths occur immediately after the vaccine, that when you die, you die within the first few days, or within the first few months.
There's then an exponential decay of deaths with time, from the time that you were injected at.
So, knowing all of this, and we wrote a paper about the virus data, we can understand the all-cause mortality data.
So, we proved that, In India, the rollout of the vaccine killed 3.7 million people.
There were no deaths until they rolled out the vaccine.
Then the government said, we need to especially vaccinate the most elderly and those who have comorbidity conditions.
And they actually had a list of 12 comorbidity conditions.
They wanted you to absolutely get vaccinated if you're already dying from these things.
Okay.
So they assaulted these individuals in what they call the vaccine festival.
And that's what the President called it.
And the Premier, or the Prime Minister, I guess it is.
And they killed 3.7 million people in India.
And you can really see the peak.
And that I wrote a paper just on that.
Okay.
So that's, that's the kind of work that we do.
And it's hard to, because it's, we're talking about 30 papers and I'm trying in a short time to convey it all.
I'm just giving you stuff, right?
But people have to go to my website and if they're interested and look at the data and look at, look at these very rigorously written articles and see if you see, if you agree with me.
Yeah, and that new website and the new organization that you recently brought online with a team of your collaborators, your colleagues, who are very special.
I mean, these are some of the best minds in the field that you've assembled together, who are producing some remarkable good research, and it's called Correlation Research.
The website is correlation-canada.org.
It's a non-profit corporation.
And it's just growing.
It's nascent.
And we've got our most recent work is all published there.
So, correlation-canada.org.
And my website is much more complete.
My own personal website, which I put up because I was being censored.
I got closed down from ResearchGate and things like that.
So, I decided to have my own website.
That's where you can find all the papers from the very start.
of the COVID period.
That's denirancourt.ca.
Okay.
Dennis with one N, rancourt.ca, all one word.
Now, you just mentioned the two case studies that you did an amazing amount of work on analyzing the data of Australia and India.
I know when in, I think it was your...
But then we had another one where we, for the first time, we were the first to quantify the vaccine toxicity that is by age, stratified by age.
That's really important.
I don't know if that's where you were going.
I interrupted you, but I think that's a really important paper because we show that the risk of dying per injection rises exponentially with the age of the person.
And that risk doubles every five years of age of the person.
Doubles.
So what that means is when you're up in the 80 plus, 85 plus, you're at one or more percent risk per injection of dying.
So it's the exact opposite of what the governments have been telling us to go and vaccinate the elderly because they most need protection.
In fact, they are most at risk of dying from the injection and you are directly assaulting them with a toxic substance.
I guess the terrible thing here is that because those people, like I think you pointed out, it's a 1% death rate in Australia for people who are 85 years or older, 0.6% death rate for people 80 years of age or older in Israel, but because they're already old, The officials behind the scenes who are creating the protocols that are artificially increasing the death rate can always hide behind the idea that, oh, but they were old.
Look, they were already going to die anyway, probably.
Right.
But we're talking about the vaccines.
So the protocol is we inject them, right?
That's the protocol in this case.
But you're absolutely right.
How are you going to expect Clinicians who are told they will be disciplined and they're crazy if they want to start assigning deaths to the vaccine.
How are you going to, you know, it's just so easy for them to say, well, this person was 85 years old and had these co-conditions.
So, you know, what did they die of?
You know, they died of whatever they want to put on the, on the death certificate, but they, even if it's within hours of being injected, they generally will not ascribe it to the vaccine.
So it's very, very easy to hide those deaths.
And that's where most of the deaths occur, is in these elderly and fragile people.
Whereas with the athletes and so on, who have heart conditions, which, you know, there's an enormous problem in that relation, that's much more visible.
It's not normal for a 20-year-old to collapse on a soccer field.
You know, that's like Really not normal.
So it's more visible, but it's a much smaller number of people in terms of numbers of deaths.
And you won't see it very easily, although we do see a signal like that in the all-cause mortality.
We do see that the young adults have a constant risk of death per injection that is above the exponential that you get for the older ages.
Okay?
And it's constant.
And we quantified that.
So the vaccine is definitely toxic and definitely induces death.
It can kill you.
It can kill you.
It can be fatal.
So we quantified it in detail.
Yes.
Yeah.
When you brought up India, because it's so dramatic in India, and I think you outlined that it's something like 10 per thousand had died after the vaccine rollout was begun in force.
I was thinking about this question of Uttar Pradesh, that one province, That had very different, I was wondering if you, if you analyze that case study whereby they allowed for, although it was a bit, a bit more ambiguous, a treatment protocol that involved, um, hydroxychloroquine zinc and other things that were widely distributed.
I don't know if they, they encouraged the vaccination in that particular province, but I remember reading an article that once tried to get across that somehow the, the statistics were much better in that province.
Is that something you can?
Well, at the, at the time when I, when I, In that trilogy of papers about the vaccine, India was the first one that I wrote.
I saw four papers come out at about the same time where people had reported all-cause mortality for India.
Now, it's difficult to do that because they don't have the same data reporting, let's say, infrastructure as a Western country.
So, they don't put out mortality on a bi-week or bi-month basis.
Nationwide.
So you have to go into the various provinces that do it better, to the various big cities, big hospitals, you have to go in and do the fieldwork to get that data.
Okay, so there were four research groups that did this and they wrote four papers and they all saw this same incredible surge of deaths.
That is coincident with the vaccine rollout, and they rolled out the vaccine everywhere in India at about the same time.
Okay, so none of the provinces escaped it.
So they all saw it, and none of those authors even mentioned that it was coincident.
With the vaccine rollout.
So I was reading these papers and I thought, this is crazy.
There is, it's a flat line until you get there.
Nothing, no COVID, nothing.
And then it surges like we've never seen on the planet.
And it's coincident with a vaccine rollout.
Why did you not mention this?
What is going on?
So that's what prompted me to write that paper.
about India.
Then a fifth paper suggested that they saw this a similar thing in in the capital and they suggest that it was it was due to the Delta variant.
And when you read their paper you you will see that they actually adjust the virulence of their so-called Delta variant in order to get the right mortality.
In other words, they do not ab initio determine the virulence of the so called Delta variant, they adjusted in a model to get the right answer.
This is the kind of thing that they do.
And so I was very critical of their methods, and of their hypothesis that a Delta variant was widely spread in India and I critique that in my paper about India.
But that's the kind of garbage that's in the literature.
So in Australia, you have this huge, you know, zero to one increase in mortality with the vaccine rollout and then peaks with each successive booster and so on.
And they, the government ascribed it to Omicron.
So it's not Delta in Australia, it's Omicron.
And Omicron is not supposed to be particularly deadly, but they claim that, you know, it's so contagious that it must have done this.
Yeah, there's a lot of garbage there in what governments say and even in the scientific literature.
I guess the public debate, which is permitted in polite society, tends to be, I've noticed, schism between these two false extremes of either taking the Theresa Tam type of mainstream approach to still maintain the idea that this was a naturally occurring mutant virus that just occurred and that killed massive amounts of people.
And thank God we did exactly what we did every step of the way from the masking, the injections, and the lockdown.
Thank God we did everything just the just the right way.
And then the other, because it was just such a, you know, dark age style pandemic that was going to explode and kill us all.
Yeah, the narrative is that this thing is really dangerous.
And the other extreme was was that no, no, no, no, no.
It's a manmade bioweapon released either by accident or by design from a lab.
Generally, the Wuhan lab is where they want everyone thinking about.
And, you know, the idea is that China's Uh, trying to destroy the Western liberal order, ultimately, and it's part of the new biological warfare.
And then you get these people who are, because look what they did, look at the devastation and death that they, that the Chinese inflicted on themselves and on us.
And it's like, wait a minute, this all presumes That this really was this deadly disease but as you've pointed out there is all of the evidence is showcasing that whatever deaths did happen before the vaccine rollout occurred because of the protocols locking people down destroying their lives putting them on ventilators Or fudging data.
I was hoping you could say a word about the... Well, no, no, no, no.
The fudging data is a whole other thing.
That's another thing?
Well, don't forget, I'm looking at all-cause mortality.
Okay.
There's no fudging.
You're counting... In terms of the dying with COVID versus of COVID... Oh, yeah.
That's... that's... I don't... you know...
I refuse to look at that because that's garbage.
That's garbage in, garbage out.
You cannot talk about COVID deaths because the diagnosis of death, when you're calling it a COVID death, is completely biased and unreliable.
I like to cut through it and say, look, I'm only going to deal with actual mortality.
You know, someone died.
I'm going to count it.
I know when they died.
I know how old they were.
I know where they died.
I know what jurisdiction.
And on that basis, I can prove that this was not a viral respiratory disease pandemic.
Okay?
Period.
Period.
Now, you pointed out these two theories and you're right.
The thing that links the two theories is they're both of the opinion that a novel pathogen came onto the planet and caused havoc and death.
And what we have proven is that there was no such thing.
There was no viral respiratory disease pandemic.
All of the anomalies in all cause mortality are inconsistent with this complete hypothesis that it was a Uh, a contagious viral respiratory disease.
Completely inconsistent.
Disproves it completely and is consistent with what we know of the measures that were being applied.
Okay?
We know that ventilators killed people.
There's a scientific study that demonstrated it unambiguously.
We know that, uh, uh, all these things we, we, we, we know that The biggest impact on human health or animal health in animal societies is psychological stress.
The stress that the animal is subjected to and experiences because of the dominance hierarchy.
This random stress from being put in your place by the system and so on.
That, you know, a terrible boss or whatever, There's two big sources of stress in your life.
One is this random, chaotic, dominance hierarchy stress that puts you in your place in the social order.
This is really, really well known.
Those individuals that are at the bottom of that social order are sick more often and are more sick when they get sick, and they die much sooner, okay?
And the other big cause is also stress, but it's stress related to big life changes.
So you lose your job, you lose your home, you lose your partner, you lose your parent.
It may all happen at the same time or you know there's these tectonic changes in your life that changes your own self-image, your place in the world.
It makes no sense anymore in all of this.
Those are massive upheavals that cause In many cases, immediate heart attack, cancer, death, you know, the correlations are very, very clear.
So those are the, they're both stress induced, and those are the main causes of ill health and death in animal societies that inhabit dominance hierarchies.
Can we please agree on that?
Because the scientific data on this is not controversial.
This is super well established.
It's been known since the 50s, 60s, 70s.
All the smartest people have pointed this out repeatedly.
And the modern science, which uses molecular techniques, has demonstrated unambiguously that this psychological stress and social isolation has a direct impact on your immune system.
It completely degrades your immune system.
So, you know, Sheldon Cohen is a professor in the United States who spent decades studying influenza-type symptoms and showed that the thing that among university students, when he was allowed to try to infect them with his concoction, He showed that the probability of getting sick and how sick you were going to be was dependent on the psychological stress you were experiencing in your life.
That was the very first determining factor.
And the next most important factor was the degree to which you were socially isolated.
Okay, so nothing else mattered, didn't matter what you ate, didn't matter anything, nothing else mattered in this group.
Now, since then, we've learned that elderly people, that the impact of stress on their immune system is even greater, like much, much greater than on young people.
So elderly people are particularly susceptible to things that will stress them out and they will avoid stress.
You'll notice that elderly people completely avoid stress because it's deadly for them.
And these are the real things.
This is what should be, this is what 90% of medicine should be about, okay?
If you're serious about the health of individuals.
And yet we talk about all this other crap, all this other nonsense.
There's a whole industry trying to, trying to pretend that That that class structure and that stress in your life and that these conflicts have nothing to do with health, but you need to just get the right vitamins, eat the right things, do exercise and so on.
I mean, I'm not saying exercise is not important.
If you're actually sitting immobile in front of your TV the whole day and you never walk, You will die sooner than someone who walks at least half an hour a day.
That's been demonstrated unambiguously also in the scientific literature.
But the big thing for under normal conditions is stress.
Yes.
So have a pandemic.
Isolate vulnerable people.
Tear them out of the ICUs and put them in homes.
Don't allow them to go to the washroom.
Don't allow them to mix with each other.
Don't allow anyone to see them.
Isolate them like they are the plague or they could get sick from someone who's asymptomatic.
Do all that and you will kill people.
There's no doubt.
Yeah, and mask them up, make sure everybody doesn't see each other's faces, can't live in a normal human culture where you're actually looking face-to-face and communicating, developing social skills, make sure that that's a new norm.
And I know you got a lot of flack early on for being an early voice demonstrating scientifically that the masks don't do very much good at all when it comes to a situation as a pandemic or a virus.
And you got attacked a lot, but recently Fauci He gave an interview this week where he said, uh, yeah, I was misled on masks.
I was wrong.
Sorry.
Oops.
But I'm glad we didn't.
We should have done it anyway, even though I was wrong.
How do you feel about that?
Come on.
I wrote an article on the on the 11th of April.
That's when I published it on ResearchGate of 2020.
Very early on.
And the article was entitled, Masks Don't Work.
A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy.
Right?
And that article was read 400,000 times on ResearchGate before they took it down.
And when I asked them why they took it down, they said it was being read too much and it was being, uh, linked to on various websites that they didn't like.
And so they took it down.
Um, and a little, and somewhat later when I was critical of vaccines, they actually shut me down from research gate.
Okay.
But that article I reviewed the science at the time, it was completely unambiguous.
The highest quality science, the randomized control trials with verified outcome, which means you actually analyze to make sure that someone's infected with something, you know, that you can detect it.
They all showed the same thing, that any benefit from wearing masks was too small to be detected statistically.
It was too small to be detected statistically.
Now when you have a dozen independent studies of this type that are of the highest quality where you do everything you can to remove the possibility of bias in the study.
That's what a randomized control trial attempts to do and they all say well the effect is too small to be detected statistically.
That means that there is no way that there could be a significant benefit from the masks when you have 12 different studies saying this.
So it was it's so unambiguous That this mask thing about preventing viral transmission is complete nonsense.
It's complete nonsense.
You take rigorous science, you apply the method to test to look for a small effect, because the only reason you do a randomized control trial is because you know the effect is going to be small.
Otherwise, you wouldn't need to take so much care and look for in the statistical noise whether there's a little benefit, you know?
And they can't detect any benefit.
So I said, this is crazy.
Masks don't work.
And you're right, I got a lot of flack for it.
Yes, you did.
And now in fact, she is sounding more and more like you in April 2020.
Yeah, but you know, I take no pleasure in that because it was moronic.
Anyone who said that you should wear a mask was just being an idiot.
They were not following the science whatsoever.
They were contradicting the science.
In the face of all these studies and more and more studies that were coming out, and they all showed the same thing, that you could barely detect an advantage if there was one.
In the face of all that, they kept saying, wear a mask, wear a mask.
I mean, we're in a kind of a nightmarish situation where these officials are just saying whatever, you know.
Do you think that there's Do you think that this would have been possible, this mess where the experts, the people that we thought were the smartest people in the room in society, who we gave our trust to in policymaking?
I never thought that, by the way.
Huh?
I never thought that, by the way.
Well, I say the we in the broad general sense.
Yeah, I know, I know, I know.
The majority of the people out there all had given their faith to the trust and judgment.
And yeah, you, I think, got burnt earlier on than most people and broke free of your naivete of the system and the wisdom of the system.
Oh yeah, that was a decade before.
That's right, yeah.
A lot of people, yeah, it was a later lesson.
But do you think that this would have been possible had the world scientific community especially, yeah, I'll say the world scientific community, not been conditioned over some decades to believe that human beings are Causing global warming and climate change as it's come to be called.
Do you think that there's a connection between the statistical thinking associated with justifying this one particular molecule and global climate change and extreme weather that's been promoted over decades that allowed us to then fall into the argumentation and the soft street of COVID?
I think you're reversing the causal link there.
I think that scientists gobbled up and believed and repeated the global warming nonsense because they had been conditioned and because they had been made into these You know, people who don't think, who don't think for themselves, who are not independent thinkers, who are looking for grants, and who are writing grant applications, and who are basically following orders and following the system.
It took decades to create that.
The last time there was independent, a significant number of independent thinking scientists was the 1950s and 60s.
uh and 70s and 70s of course you have to include the 70s but uh starting seriously in the 80s 90s and so on um the university system was completely transformed even the publication system the reward system the grant you see every there's a lot of uh institutions involved in so-called science and granting institutions are a big deal
And they changed all their protocols, they changed all the criteria for getting grants and the reasons and the motives for getting grants.
In Canada, you went from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, giving you research grants to do independent research, to do whatever you wanted, basically.
And they actually explained that this is what they wanted.
They wanted that kind of freedom because that way creativity would be out there and you'd be useful to society, be able to critique things and so on.
You'd be mobile, thought-wise and so on.
And they dropped that system and replaced it with, you have to have a cooperation and a collaboration with industry.
You have to do what the government's interested in.
You have to this.
You have to that.
And so scientists went from being free thinkers.
They were made to go from free thinking to where can I get some money from these people?
What do they want me to say?
I'll say it.
And so over decades, they just became That way but it's not it's not the fault of scientists.
The entire society was this was happening in the entire society.
The educational system was being gutted.
Democracy was considered dangerous and was being removed.
The political system was being corrupted.
All of this was happening at the same time.
The wealthy elite especially well you know a lot about those guys and the deep state in the USA and so on.
They They did not want education.
They did not want economic freedom of people domestically in countries.
They did not want any sources of power other than what they say and what they decide and everyone else should just be indoctrinated and that's really easy to do with the professional class.
You give them a high salary and you tell them what to repeat and They're happy to have those relative advantages.
Um, but the working class is, is, is much harder to indoctrinate.
And so you end up with the yellow vests and the truckers and you know, those various movements because, because the working class is not as easily indoctrinated as, as the professional class and so on.
But it has, it has taken decades and it's been structural and every step of the way, the elite and big financiers and so on, Have made sure that the laws were changed to their advantage.
So basically you have industry and finance writing the laws and handing it up to the politicians to pass them and telling them what language to use to make it sound good.
And you do that for decades, you end up with something that is that is a totalitarian system.
And that's where we're at now.
It's that simple.
I don't think the scientists could have saved us.
What we needed was patriots to save us.
We needed members of parliament to be smart, but how can you be smart if they gutted the educational system?
How can you be smart if they keep Training you to obey rather than think for yourself and reward you for being creative and so on.
So anyway, we would have needed more people to stand up rather than and resist this.
In a strong way, detect the corruption and ferret it out and eliminate it.
You know, you would have needed this vigilance that the United States in its development period had.
For a long time, and you could, you could look at, you can just look at Supreme Court decisions and see when a state was if it ever was independent thinking and understood the importance of having enough individual power that you could push back against elite corruption of the whole system.
You just look historically, you can follow it in Supreme Court decisions.
You know, Supreme Courts that upheld that notion, decisions were fantastic and were helping to make the democracy more resilient and so on.
And as you move towards decisions that are just aligned with what corporate and government wants and where the actual rights of the individuals are no longer really considered that important, It's a clear sign that you've got degradation.
You've got, you're creeping towards totalitarianism.
So you could, there are many ways to follow it and you can see it in lots of different kinds of data.
Yeah, absolutely.
Do you think that... I mean, I was surprised.
I was quite happily surprised, since I didn't think Canada, Canadians, had it within them to do the sort of thing that I did see with my own eyes on the ground in Ottawa last year in February with the truckers' convoy.
And what you just said, I think, helps put a little bit of meat on the bones, how that happens.
Because just like Socrates, you know, who would go into the Agora, would talk to people, and he always made a point that he found more respect for the minds of craftsmen, of people who actually were carpenters, shoemakers, who may not have had a big, abstract, intellectual identity, but what they did know, they really knew, because they actually worked their craft.
Versus the sophists, the lawyers, those who made peace and war.
He was like, well, wait a minute, you seem smarter, but you're actually dumber in many ways.
Look, you don't have to be smart.
The working class knows that it's being harassed and assaulted and having its power and its resources removed from it.
How can you not know, right?
Everything that you worked for, everything that you thought Representative savings that you could depend on is being removed, is being taken away.
And your voice is being taken away, your influence is being taken away, you're not allowed to produce food anymore, etc.
So it's not hard to know that this totalitarian system is occupying the land and is very ferocious.
The only people who are completely oblivious to this is the professional class.
Yeah, they still have some measure of, I suppose, comfort or something in the system to go along with.
They still have large salaries, large houses.
They can send their kids to good schools in the neighborhood.
They can still do all those things.
But, you know, it's going to get harder and harder even for them, or many of them, because there is geopolitics that's going to come and have an influence here, and things are going to change.
Are you generally an optimist for the long-term destiny of humankind or are you on the cynical side of things?
I don't see any utility for being cynical or optimistic.
I just try to understand the world around me.
Get a clear view of what's going on and try to understand things.
I've always just been into, I just want to understand it.
You know, I just want to, I just want to see it.
And if I understand it, I'll be able to play a small role to push things in the direction that I think they need to go into, right?
Whatever role, well, I say a small role, but it'll be the most I can do given my talents.
And I'm going to keep doing that.
But, you know, there's going to be big changes.
The US system is definitely hoping to solve its problems with major wars and is pushing in that direction.
And you've been researching this and writing about it.
But that's There's a real risk there and it's already happening in Ukraine.
There's already a lot of military mobilization around China and so on, right?
Those of us who read know all about this.
That's what's going to happen.
Well there's definitely a fight over what the terms of the new system will be and will they be based upon a master class enslaving and doing all of those nasty things that we see right now they're doubling down on already or is it going to be a system which in some measure serves the actual objective needs of people to live in a world that can avoid war that can work towards common aims
I think that what will determine that is the particular system that you're in.
I think that Russia and China, if they understand that their domestic productivity and their domestic economic strength is what makes them strong, and they do the right things to make sure to take care of people,
And workers, and the creative people, and so on, and professionals, and so on, without allowing this extreme corruption like we have in the West, then they will have a strong economy, and it will function, and it will allow, there'll be economic freedom, and there'll be intellectual freedom, and it will sustain itself.
So, it's, will the West understand that they've gone too far?
That they've eroded the educational system to the point where they can't even produce proper engineers and scientists anymore.
That they can't, you know, they're still working on the patents that they have so far.
And even the patents that they're using and making money from, it's patents for completely ridiculous and useless things like mRNA vaccines.
I don't care that you have all the patents for that because it's a ridiculous thing that in the end is not going to make you economically strong.
It's going to make you economically weak.
It's going to, you know, so is the West going to realize that it's gone too far and it needs to reconstruct a strong domestic economic base?
And I think Trump was a movement that was in the direction where they had a glimpse of this, you know, make America great again.
is is about that is about having recognizing that the empire needs a strong domestic economy and needs a strong domestic vibrancy in order to create talent.
It can't just keep sucking talent from the rest of the world because now many other parts of the world are becoming attractive to people.
Okay, the brain drain is going to reverse, you know, people who want to work in a system that's real and where productivity matters, they're going to want to move to Russia.
And they're going to want to move to China and Eurasia and so on, you know, uh, it's all, it's already happening.
I, I personally know people who have gone in that direction.
Right.
So, um, you know, when is, when are they going to wake up?
I don't know.
They, they, they, they, they just, they just want to, they're, they're so wealthy and they have so much power that they think that they can just wreck the world like this, the Western world.
It seems to me, and this is I think a good way to wrap up this conversation, it seems to me that right now those Slightly.
Those voices within Canada, within the United States, within Europe, who tend to be the most critical thinking, critical minded regarding the direction of the Great Reset Agenda, which is obviously not moving us in a place where human dignified beings would want to live or allow their children to live, they tend to be falling into a sort of trap of
Cheering on a policy that is leading us into a war with China and or Russia or some combination and you pointed out that the Trump base inside of the United States being probably the most viable component of the US.
That needs to be clarified in their mind and hearts about what the real nature of the battle is and the policymaking representatives as well.
And I include those in Canada who represent the similar, you know, the sort of people who would have been sympathetic to the Trump trucker convoy and, uh, you know, resistant to the destruction of agriculture and not wanting to eat bugs for the next, you know, generations.
What would you say is a message to help focus the minds of these people, policymakers and blue collar workers alike going into the future as the combat is is clearly on right now.
How could they what should they have in mind?
What do you what would you like to say to them?
Well, listen, I think most people are not going to change until their conditions change, until they're forced to admit that maybe maybe they need to think about this differently or maybe they need to do something differently.
And so I have nothing to say to to people that I.
I have no hope that whatever I could say might help people realize things and change their behavior.
That's just not going to happen.
It's going to be forced upon us by the reality of the world.
And, and that's, and we have to be ready for that.
And we have to see it and try to guide it and nudge it in the right direction to the best of our ability.
And, and avoid the biggest disasters if we can.
And war is certainly one of them and a potential for an increased war.
I mean, Russia is in the present state, not gonna let NATO come in.
Okay.
And if that means, uh, cranking up the volume on, on the violent war, then that's what's going to happen.
And then, and then if the U S overreacts or reacts in a way that is unacceptable to, to the other side, then it will respond again and so on.
And, you know, this could be disastrous for Europe, but I, you know, I look at Canada, Canada has zero sovereignty right now and none of the major political parties want sovereignty.
You can't have democracy if you don't have sovereignty.
It just doesn't exist.
How can you understand that Canada doesn't want to develop and sell its energy?
That, that's an order from above.
That's just crazy.
That's just crazy.
Okay.
Let's destroy that whole sector.
Let's to hell with the people in Alberta and so on.
Like, like it makes no sense whatsoever.
And, uh, let's destroy agriculture.
Sure.
Let's destroy that.
Let's keep only a high-tech military industry and only a few things like that.
And to heck with everything else, because that's what we're being told.
That's all that matters.
Okay.
I mean, that is going to crash.
Look, I've seen the World Bank's democracy indices and Canada is right up there in the top five there.
I mean, it says so right there.
Top five democracy.
That's Canada.
I don't know what you're talking about.
Exactly.
Exactly.
So the propaganda is really putting us in a bad place where it's even hard to talk about these things or admit it, you know.
But you have no sovereignty.
You have a completely idiotic class, political class, that is run by lobbyists who are funded by finance and corporations.
And they're passing laws that are like overtly against the interests of people, one after the other, and laws that destabilize the whole system.
Censorship destabilizes a democracy.
It is a march towards totalitarianism.
History is clear on this, you know, and the mechanisms are understood.
Why would you not?
How come nobody Nobody in that group is even thinking or caring.
Nobody cares because they all have high salaries and they're getting wealthier.
That's the obscenity here.
I don't think anything I can say is going to change these.
I cannot wake up The people that I know who are in the professional class, I cannot do anything for them.
They get insulted if I even suggest things, you know?
So I'm not even talking to them.
I'm talking to you and I'm talking to the people who want to understand because they believe that understanding will help them make good decisions.
Yeah.
Well, I think for me as well, that was early on one of the points of empowerment that I realized.
I had heard of associates, friends of mine, speaking about matters of Conspiratorial matters of history, and I didn't accept it because they weren't communicating it in a way that involved utilizing rigor, a discipline of mind, a focus of thinking it was sloppy, and so I rejected it for years.
And then finally, I encountered some competent arguments of people who had really done their research well, could wield their facts with responsibility, And it made it intelligible, certain things in my mind, so I could make a discovery on my own.
And when I realized that these are matters that are not just for shadowy hypothesizing, but rather are intelligible, that gave me a sense that, okay, if I can know this, that means other people, I'm not, I'm not more special than other people.
Other people have minds too, and they can know it if I am thus responsible.
Well, you're right that they can know it.
But you're wrong to think that everyone is similar to you and that they have that curiosity and they have a desire to know it.
Well that I discovered early on when you started talking about it.
But so the question then is always how, and I'm not necessarily saying we should talk about this now, but it's for the audience here to think like how knowing that that facts are not what creates the thirst for truth for people.
How is it that we can awaken the hunger in those that we encounter to want to light their own fire and keep that fire going?
I don't think that you can awaken hunger if the person is not in distress, is not perturbed by the fact that they just lost their job and so on, right?
I don't think you can awaken anything just intellectually.
But at that superficial level, I think one thing that does work is to perturb people, to provoke them, to suggest that they're thinking about things wrong or that they have the wrong image and that they themselves are the problem.
I think To put it bluntly, insult goes a long way.
If you can get under people's skin in your comments or your criticism or getting a small group to see it your way that they're just complete idiots, then that can perturb them enough that they will react.
Sometimes they'll react, they'll attack you and so on.
But if that attack is not successful, they are perturbed, they're starting to open up a bit.
Okay, so I think cognitive dissonance is a powerful tool, and we have to become more impolite, I think, and more aggressive in our critiques.
The last paper I wrote, I just wrote a paper entitled, The Court of Appeal for Ontario Decision in so-and-so against so-and-so brings the province's appellate judiciary into disrepute.
And I just, that's an okay title.
It's not a crazy title, but I argue that the highest court in the land in Ontario here is just completely out to lunch, not following the law, doing whatever they want.
These recent appointees by the Liberal government are just off the deep end.
They don't even care about rules of evidence.
They don't care about anything anymore.
That when it comes to, uh, this COVID decision related to vaccines.
So I'm, I, I would hope that some of these judges would be really perturbed by my arguments and by my saying that they are putting the whole system in disrepute, you know?
And, um, so you, you do what you can, but we, we, we have to point out, Yeah, you do what you can.
Everyone had thought that they were, in Canada at least, that they were these isolated islands of sanity who might have understood that everything else is going crazy, and they kind of have an idea of what's going on, but all of their friends, everybody that they interact with at the grocery store, on the bus, they're all brainwashed.
And then all of a sudden, You know, the trucker convoy was sort of this explosion where everyone realized, no, a lot of people around me were thinking and feeling the exact same way.
Sure.
Being told that they were these fanatical, fringe, conspiracy theorists.
Sure.
But it turns out millions and millions of others actually felt and thought the exact same way.
That's why... That's why you...
That's why you cannot allow them to easily communicate with each other by social media.
You cannot allow them to travel.
You cannot allow them to intermingle and to discuss and to consider how it would be better.
You have to isolate them on their computers or however you can.
And if they have community power because they can produce food and all that, you have to take that away from them, and you have to pass laws that you can't even slaughter your own animals, and you have to do all these things to make sure that people do not get a sense that the politicians are not working for them, and that they should do something about it.
Yeah, well, the battlefield is really in the mind.
And as Martin Luther King had said, you know, it's only when I mean, the battlefield is in the world, too.
But but it really the key zone, I believe, is in the mind.
And I think you've done a very good job at helping people navigate through that minefield and be empowered, at least if they do the work and actually come to really know that you're just I don't I don't completely agree with what you're saying, because you're really describing A plan to enlighten, I would say, intellectual people or people who are in a class where they have this privilege of thinking things through and deciding what would be better.
But really, the working class, the people who know they're being assaulted, they don't need any of this, really.
I think they do.
I think they do.
I think they do only because I've seen how people can be weaponized when they get into groupthink.
And become servants or weapons that work against their own nation and their own benefit when intelligence agencies and operatives get into their into them right right start getting some Rob's pure demagoguery to move the the herd the mob into a place that results in I hear you.
What we're doing now, we're really at the heart of the topic right now because we're opposing our views of how to produce change.
We're really talking about tactics and that's where all the really big arguments are.
You what you believe about what you should do that you think is most effective.
That's where the it's so insulting that someone else has a different view about that, because it means that you might be wasting your time, right?
And so that that's those are really intense discussions.
The biggest fights among movers and shakers in society that I've seen were always about tactics.
You know, how do we do this?
What's the best way?
How can you not agree?
And, um, I guess political parties want to align themselves to have one message and one tactic, and they're really good at doing that.
But that's where all the big fights are that I've seen.
Independent thinking people have a really hard time agreeing on how best to get out of this mess.
I noticed that too.
I noticed that too.
But like you said, I mean, the reality is reality.
It's slapping down whether we like it or not.
Outside of the desires of people, there is a reality.
And sometimes you do need to be underwater a little bit longer than other times to appreciate oxygen that you've been taking for granted.
You know, we've been holding our breath for some time, so hopefully the human instincts can kick in faster, sooner than later.
Now, I'd like to make a few concluding remarks about COVID.
All-cause mortality, counting deaths, is the hardest, most robust data you can have.
You can't fudge it.
Most countries do not fake their death numbers.
They're real numbers.
And if you look at that as a function of time by jurisdiction by age and by sex, you can prove unambiguously scientifically that there was no pandemic in the sense that there was not a particularly virulent or special pathogen that did anything different than what pathogens do all the time.
And that the places where there were deaths and all the deaths were a result of the assaults against people.
And there were many pronged and they killed many different people.
And the people who mostly died are the people who were most vulnerable and most fragile.
So the elderly people, the people whose lives had been completely changed and so on, they're the people who died.
And then when they brought in the vaccine, They are not recognizing or they initially did not recognize that it actually does cause death.
It is a dangerous toxic substance that has a definite risk associated with it and you're going to kill approximately 1% of the most frail and elderly people when you inject them with this thing per injection.
No, 1% meaning the ratio on a per injection basis.
COVID, that's COVID.
That's what COVID was.
And we didn't talk about, but then why did they do it?
Well, we didn't talk about that, but that would be another topic.
Yeah, I wasn't sure if you wanted to go there, but yeah, let's maybe do a follow-up.
Save that for another one, yeah.
As a teaser, yeah.
Okay.
Well, for people who want to dig into your research and work, correlation-canada.org and denisrencourt.ca are the two places that you'd advise?
Okay.
Canada.org and Dennyrancourt.ca are the two places that you'd advise.
Okay.
Yeah, absolutely.
Professorrancourt, Denny, thank you so much for giving me your time, giving everyone your time.
And as we go forward, let's take these words of wisdom and these insights to heart and think very seriously about the future in a serious way.
So, thank you very much.
It was my pleasure.
Bye-bye.
▲
Export Selection