All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 8, 2023 - Jim Fetzer
41:02
Dr. William Makis Details the "Tsunami" of Cancer Being Caused by the CV19 "Vaccines"
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And Dr. Mackus, welcome back as well.
We're thrilled.
It's been some months since you've been here.
Really happy to see you again.
Unfortunately, I hate what we're going to be talking about, but thrilled that you're here.
I gave you an improper introduction, or inadequate, I should say.
You are a physician based in Canada.
You're an expert in radiology, oncology and immunology and you've been someone who I've relied upon along with others with regard to evaluation specifically of the cancer rates and cancers that we're seeing on the heels of these mRNA vaccines.
Oh, and I didn't mention, by the way, you just joined the wellness company, so congrats on that.
Many of our good friends of the show are associated with the wellness company, so happy about that.
But let's start with, I had predicted, unfortunately, and I hate that I am right, I predicted before the vaccines were ever
Launched to the public that they would have a profound impact on the immune system and as a result of that alone Would likely cause increased cancer rates Just because of their immunological impact So let's start if you would just by talking a little bit about what you are seeing in the data in the numbers With regard to cancers what kinds of cancers those sorts of things and then maybe we'll get into the weeds
You and I about the perhaps some of the pathology of that why that might be some theories for why we're seeing these these numbers.
You know, Dr. Kelly, I've been tracking these turbo cancers, as they're being called, these very aggressive cancers that are showing up in young COVID-vaccinated people.
The youngest case I've reported is a 12-year-old boy who had a Moderna vaccine and came down with end-stage brain cancer that killed him in less than a year.
I'm seeing it in teenagers, in university and college students who are mandated to take COVID vaccines.
People in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s are coming down with stage 4 cancers.
These cancers are presenting at a late stage, stage 3, but usually stage 4.
These are lymphomas, leukemias.
These are breast cancers, colon cancers, lung cancers, hepatobiliary cancers, testicular cancers in young men, ovarian cancers in women.
Kidney cancers, renal cell cancers, melanomas, skin cancers, and sarcomas as well.
So these are the types of cancers that are showing up in a younger cohort than oncologists expect.
They're showing up at a late stage.
The tumors can grow very large, so some of these tumors are described as football-sized even watermelon-sized, you know, these are 10, 15 centimeter tumors.
And they're very aggressive and they really, they spread very rapidly.
So even when the surgeons are trying to get at them, trying to surgically excise them so that they could control the tumor, what they usually find after surgery is that the tumor has already spread.
It's already spread to the lymph nodes.
It's already spread to the lungs or the bones.
Very aggressive cancers and really related to the COVID-19 vaccine specifically.
and mRNA vaccines, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines?
One of the things, let me just step back for a second, because one of the things that might not be known to our audience is that all cancers are not created equal with regard to the population that they hit.
For example, we not uncommonly and tragically see certain blood cancers in children, leukemias for example.
It wouldn't be uncommon to see a brain It would be extraordinarily uncommon to see a colon cancer in somebody before the 4th or 5th decade.
Very uncommon to see a lung cancer before the 4th or 5th decade.
Those sorts of things, extremely uncommon to see.
So, some of these cancers that we are seeing, and I think you're getting at that, things like these colon cancers, We are now seeing colon cancers in people in their late teens, 20s and 30s.
And again, as you said, very aggressive colon cancers.
So it's not just that cancers per se, but it's seeing cancers in groups of people in whom they've never, I'd never seen a colon cancer in somebody under the age of 45 in my life until these COVID vaccines.
So let's, in terms of just to put some magnitude on it, Give us some sense of the magnitude versus what we would have considered to be the baseline numbers for cancer rates.
You know, it's very hard to get a sense of this because it's almost impossible to get good cancer data from the governments.
You know, Ed Dowd has talked about this, the difficulty of getting good data.
You know, I've tried to get cancer data here in Canada from Statistics Canada, from the Canadian Cancer Society, and they are not reporting any data from 2021 or 2022.
It seems they're holding this data back.
And so I'm left with anecdotal evidence.
And when Ed Dowd, you know, he'll report from US insurance data that disability rates in the working population, let's say ages 18 to 64, who abided by the COVID vaccine mandates, disability rates are 500% higher.
Compared to the working population who dropped out of the workforce and didn't want to get the vaccines.
Well, a big portion of those disabilities are these cancers, are these cancer diagnoses.
And so, you know, I'm seeing an explosion of these cancers.
I'm seeing it in doctors.
I'm seeing it in nurses.
I'm seeing it in other Vaccine mandated professions.
So all types of healthcare workers.
I'm seeing it in teachers.
I'm seeing it in police officers, firefighters, the military.
You know, you see it in flight attendants, for example, you know, you had These airlines that wanted to have 100% vaccinated workforce.
So really anywhere where there were very strict COVID vaccine mandates, that's where I'm seeing these explosions of these very aggressive cancers.
And I can tell you, this year, 2023, seems to be much worse.
There's many more cases of these turbo cancers than in 2022 or 2021.
The trend is upwards.
The numbers are on the rise.
You can see this on websites like GoFundMe.
If you go on GoFundMe and you put stage four cancer, and you can pick whatever cancer you want, you could put, you know, breast cancer, you could put lung cancer, colon cancer.
Not only are you seeing the shocking ages, young ages of these individuals who are reporting their cancers and their fundraising because, you know, they lose their jobs when they're undergoing chemotherapy, for example.
But you see just how many people are suffering, are coming down from these cancers, especially in 2023.
It's just unbelievable.
It's a tsunami of cancer diagnoses.
Before we get into the pathophysiology or some theories about why this is happening, can you classify, if I said to you, what are the top three types of cancers that you're seeing?
What would you say?
What are the top types of cancers?
The top three I can tell you that seem to come up over and over are lymphoma, brain cancer, and really the most aggressive ones, the glioblastomas, and breast cancer.
These seem to be the top.
If you want to round out, you know, the top five, top six, you got to put in colon cancer, you have to put lung cancer, testicular cancer, and the leukemias are extremely aggressive.
These leukemias, when they're being diagnosed, They are killing the individual in a matter of weeks, days, or even hours after diagnosis.
They are that aggressive.
Yeah, and speaking of aggressiveness, you know, not only what the data would show that I've seen is that it's not only new cancers, but the other thing is people who had cancers that had been deemed to be in remission, many times for over a decade, people who'd had breast cancer were considered a cure, or they'd had resected colon cancers years ago.
And all of a sudden, not only is the cancer back, but it is back, as you said, with an aggressiveness that we have never seen.
In other words, you know, they're not only growing quickly, but resistant to traditional therapies, chemotherapies, whatever.
They just aren't responding in the way that we've seen before.
So do you agree that we're seeing resurgence of previously cancers that have been previously in remission?
Absolutely.
And again, when the medical authorities try to explain this away by saying, well, you know, we missed a whole bunch of screenings and, you know, people had their, you know, their cancer appointments canceled for several months.
And And that's why we're seeing this surge of cancers.
It does not explain.
The behavior of these cancers, and that is really the key, is that these cancers are behaving completely differently.
You have recurrences of people who were in remission, and these recurrences are extremely aggressive.
You have the presentation at stage four in very young groups, which is highly unusual.
They grow very, very rapidly, they spread rapidly, and they're also resistant to conventional treatments.
So these turbo cancers seem to be highly resistant To conventional chemotherapy regimens and conventional radiation therapy regimens or even immunotherapy regimens.
You will see this in testimonials of people on their GoFundMe pages.
They will say, I found out my chemo didn't work.
I found out the radiation therapy didn't work and the cancer just kept growing throughout treatment.
So this is not explained.
By missed screenings or missed appointments.
We are dealing with a new phenomenon and a phenomenon where these cancers are behaving completely differently, unlike anything we've seen, unlike anything I've seen in my career.
And I've diagnosed tens of thousands of cancer patients in my career.
And I have simply not seen this kind of behavior before.
So this is not something we can just explain away by some missed screenings and missed appointments.
First of all, I 100% agree with you.
This is a direct result of the vaccines.
I find it ironic, however, that the authorities are saying, no, it's not because of the vaccines.
It's because of one of the other things we did to screw people up, the lockdown.
In other words, they're willing to say, no, it's not the vaccines.
It's because everybody missed their screening appointments because of the other really stupid thing we did called a lockdown.
And causing people to not get their routine screenings for breast cancer and colon cancer and skin cancer.
It's just ironic that they don't see any way you cut it.
It's the responsibility of this grossly failed pandemic response.
But let's talk a little bit about, I have three kind of buckets that I would put, say that here are the three things that I think could be or likely are contributing to the cancer thing.
For me, it's number one, the impact on the immune system overall.
And we could talk about the specifics of that, just the suppression of the immune system, which is critical to fighting cancer.
Secondly, the toxicity of perhaps the spike proteins themselves.
And thirdly would be more the wildcard, the issue of the lipid nanoparticles, them being carcinogenic or teratogenic by themselves.
So let's talk about each of those.
And you start whichever one of those three, the immune system overall, lipid nanoparticles and spike proteins.
And what component do you think might really be causing this?
Dr.
I would actually sneak in a fourth category and this fourth category would be DNA contamination of the Pfizer and Moderna vials.
That's actually not supposed to be a component of the vaccine.
This is a contaminant left over from the manufacturing process.
So I would put that as another category potentially contributing to this surge of turbo cancers.
Well, we can start with the damage to the immune system.
You know, I've seen this damage to the immune system back in 2021, when we had the first publications on negative vaccine efficacy.
And you started seeing the double vaccinated after a number of months, let's say six months.
They were getting infected with COVID-19 at higher rates, sometimes double, sometimes triple the rate of an unvaccinated person.
And they started filling the hospitals and they started filling the intensive care units and dying.
And you could tell that from the data, from the government data, that there was severe immune system damage being inflicted on the double vaccinated.
And then the triple vaccinated took over and they started filling up the hospitals.
And then in Australia, the quadruple vaccinated were filling up the hospitals and were dying at record rates.
And the Canadian and Australian governments responded By deleting all vaccine status data of people in the hospitals.
So we didn't know at some point who was dying, but it was it was the vaccinated who were making up 90% of the hospitalizations and deaths.
So we already had evidence that the immune systems were being damaged in thousands of vaccinated people.
And from the Cleveland Kleenex study, we know that the more vaccine doses you take, The more damage your immune system takes on and so the more likely you are to get infected but the problem with having a damaged immune system and you know we can get into the sort of the complicated details of that but when you have a damaged immune system You have damaged cancer surveillance.
That's sort of the bottom line, is that your T-cells and your immune cells are constantly surveying your body for cancerous cells and mutated cells and destroying them, getting rid of them.
If you have severe immune system damage that these mRNA vaccines seem to be causing, you lose that protection, you lose your immune system surveillance.
And in some people this seems to really be a very severe problem and it makes them predisposed to getting these very aggressive cancers.
One of the things that I thought was very compelling was some studies that showed that there was a shift, a specific shift in the vaccinated to one of the immunoglobulins IgG4 and IgG4 is supposed to be represented in relatively small amounts.
It's the immunoglobulin that in layman's terms Tells you to ignore something that is foreign.
It's not in our best interest to constantly react to every foreign thing we come in contact with because otherwise we'd be sneezing, sniffling, weepy messes every time we came across pollen or dust or whatever it is.
So IGG4's job is to say, Just ignore that.
It's not self, it's a foreign entity, but ignore it because it's not important.
If you have a huge uptick, which is what we seem to be seeing in IgG4 levels in the multiply vaccinated individuals, What they're telling their immune system, telling the body, ignore something that you shouldn't ignore, like an abnormal colon cell or an abnormal skin cell or, you know, a cancerous cell.
So I fear that they are getting the message to ignore things that are actually very dangerous.
And I think that in addition to all the T-cells, as you said, we know that people who've gotten gobs of these vaccines are at much higher risk for COVID, but it appears that they are much higher risk for other things that their immune system should be fighting off, like cancers.
So I think that the IG shift, if you will, may be a contributor to that as well.
So keep going from there.
Yeah, we actually published on this, this IgG4 shift is what it's called.
And what's fascinating about this is this was discovered a few months ago, so it's been less than a year that this was discovered.
And what's interesting is you start to see the body producing this IgG4 antibody after you've had two shots, and it's specific to the mRNA vaccines.
I want to stress that it's the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines where you see this IgG4 shift.
You're not seeing it with the AstraZeneca or the J&J.
And so, once you've had two shots, the body starts to produce this tolerant antibody to the spike protein.
But if you've had your third shot, your booster shot, those levels go up 500 times.
So you get a 500-fold increase just between COVID vaccine number two to COVID vaccine number three.
And then you start producing large amounts of this, this tolerant antibody to the spike protein.
And it really, this antibody, this IgG4 antibody seems to completely mess up cancer surveillance.
In that it interferes with the other antibodies that are involved in cancer surveillance like IgG1 and 3, and it seems to almost hide the cancer cells from the immune system by saying, look, like you said, this is not a problem, don't worry about it, because it's trying to create a tolerance for the spike protein, but now you've created tolerance to cancer cells as well.
As an unintended consequence.
And so this is a big area of research right now.
And it seems that the more COVID vaccines you take, the more you increase your levels of IgG4 and the more you damage your cancer surveillance.
So this is a very serious issue in terms of damaging the immune system.
Has there been enough study, William, to tell whether that starts to tail off after a while?
Are you seeing, there's an uptick, but are you seeing any decrease or does it just seem to be going on in perpetuity?
Well, you know, I can tell you from data that I've seen in the double vaccinated and when we were still getting data from the Canadian government and the Australian government, when the quadruple vaccinated were filling the hospitals and then the triple vaccinated, the double vaccinated were doing much better.
And the double vaccinated had stopped taking the COVID vaccines and they were at least a year, year and a half from their last dose and they seem to be having immune system recovery.
So they were getting infected at a much lower rate than the triple and quadruple vaccinated.
It wasn't back to baseline.
It wasn't as good as the unvaccinated, but they did have recovery.
And this is what I've been trying to stress is that people have to stop taking these shots.
They have to stop taking these mRNA shots and you have to give your body a chance To recover, but it's a slow process.
So you need at least a year, year and a half for your body to start, your immune system to start recovering from this damage.
And for that, you have to stop taking the shots because the moment you take another shot, you've exposed your body to the antigen all over again and you're back to square one in terms of the immune damage.
So then take the next, you know, that's a very brief, you know, touching on the immune component that may be contributing to these cancers.
And it seems very clear to me, not difficult even for a layperson, I think, to understand that.
So you brought up a very important fourth bucket that I had not included in there.
I think you're right, this DNA contamination.
We talked with Joshua Getzko and About that, about the kind of what we called bait and switch and the fact that the process, if you will, that they ended up using and launching to the public to create these vaccines, ended up putting a lot of DNA or leaving DNA contamination in there.
Talk about that and how that might be contributing to the cancer increase.
You know, it all links together.
When you had your guests talk about how the vaccines that were made for the clinical trials for Pfizer and Moderna were different from the vaccines that were released to the public, which were mass produced.
And this mass production, which is done through DNA plasmids, these rings of DNA that they put into E. coli and then they grow E. coli into very large numbers and they extract these DNA plasmids.
Now these DNA plasmids have the spike protein sequence in them and then they use these DNA plasmids to create the mRNA and of course they modify the mRNA with the pseudouridine which Again, is involved in immune suppression through toll-like receptors.
But what they were supposed to get rid of this DNA, these DNA plasmids, this contaminants, and they didn't.
And so Kevin McKernan, U.S.
geneticist, has found large concentrations of DNA contamination in both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
Now, he has found not just the DNA rings, but he has found fragments of DNA from these rings All different kinds of sizes.
The danger with this type of contamination and it's a large amount of contamination up to up to 30% of the genetic code in a vaccine vial can be this DNA contamination.
The problem with that is that it is very easy for foreign DNA.
To integrate into our genome.
And if it's integrating into the wrong place, let's say it integrates into a tumor suppressor gene area.
Now you've knocked off a very important tumor suppressor gene that protects you from cancer.
Now you've astronomically increased your risk of getting cancer.
And so this is a very serious concern.
It's been confirmed in labs around the world.
It's been confirmed in Germany.
It's been confirmed in Japan.
Professor Philip Buckholtz just testified in the South Carolina Senate hearings about this.
He's a cancer geneticist with a big lab.
He's confirmed this finding in all the vials of Pfizer and Moderna.
So this contamination It's a very serious problem on its own.
It increases cancer risk theoretically.
And so we would need more studies to find out, you know, if there's been integration events in people who've taken these vaccines, and then if those integration events are causing cancer.
Now there's an additional complication, as if that wasn't bad enough.
The additional complication is that Kevin McKernan discovered a sequence of the simian virus 40, SV40 promoter.
He discovered this sequence in the Pfizer vials, in these DNA plasmids, just in front of the spike protein sequence.
Now SV40, the simian virus 40, is an oncogenic virus that causes cancer in humans, and specifically it causes lymphomas and brain cancers.
Which are two of the top three cancers that I mentioned earlier, the turbo cancers that I'm seeing in COVID vaccinated patients.
And there's been no explanation from Pfizer.
Pfizer hasn't addressed why there is a sequence of this oncogenic virus, SV40 virus, why it's present in these DNA plasmids in their product, in their vaccine vials.
This is terrifying.
I feel like I'm living a sci-fi horror film, except that it's not fiction.
Joshua Getzko, who we spoke with about this DNA plasmid contamination, is going to be back tomorrow with Naomi Wolf to talk more about it.
But the idea that I'm even using the word contamination Within a product that was mass mandated on the, you know, the entirety of the globe is really horrific.
I mean, it's bad enough that anybody would choose to take something of their own, you know, volition and end up getting a contaminated thing.
But the idea that we mandated something that is this either it's one of two things.
Either there was absolute, complete disregard for good manufacturing processes and quality control, or it's something more nefarious, and they purposefully contaminated these things.
Either way, you cut it, it's horrific.
So the DNA piece, absolutely, as you've just laid out very clearly, could be contributing to specifically to these cancers, and as you said, the lymphomas and the brain cancers.
So the two other things that I had thrown out there, the toxicity of the lipid nanoparticles and the toxicity of the spike proteins themselves, do you think, in your experience, that those could be contributing factors to the cancer rates? - Yes.
There is a risk and I just want to tie up the last point on this DNA contamination.
I want to stress that this manufacturing process, Pfizer and Moderna have stated very clearly that they're going to continue using this manufacturing process for all COVID boosters and all future mRNA vaccines.
And so now we've recently had, two weeks ago, we've had recommendations by FDA and Health Canada To for these new COVID booster shots to be rolled out in children as young as six months old, in pregnant women at any stage of pregnancy, in young people, young adults of all ages.
And these recommendations were pushed out just a few weeks ago.
And so this is a very serious problem.
I mean, these products should be immediately taken off the market.
And what we see instead, we see the Nobel Prize awarded to, you know, the two scientists who came up with some of these modifications that may be causing the immune system damage like the pseudouridine.
Modifications which were invented by Dr. Carrico and Dr. Wiseman that they've modified, artificially modified the mRNA to put these euros, you know, pseudo-uridine sequences in that are, you know, causing potentially damage to the immune system.
So I just wanted to mention that that this manufacturing Pfizer and Moderna have not addressed this issue.
They're going to continue the same manufacturing process with all the boosters and future vaccines.
Now the spike protein has on its own has toxicity.
It interacts with tumor suppressor proteins like P53, like BRCA1, BRCA1, which is implicated in breast cancer and ovarian cancer.
P53 is implicated in many cancers like colon cancer, lung cancer, hepatobiliary cancers.
It seems to interact with these tumor suppressor proteins and it seems to negatively impact them.
So the spike protein itself causes problems wherever it is expressed in the body.
It also seems to interfere with DNA repair.
There was a paper that had come out showing that it interferes with DNA repair mechanisms.
And again, if you mess with DNA repair, You increase your risk of cancer.
So spike protein is very problematic.
Now, the lipid nanoparticles themselves are problematic as well.
So, you know, I'm of the opinion that one day they'll try to rehabilitate this entire lipid nanoparticle mRNA platform and try to blame the spike protein for everything.
And I don't believe that the spike protein is the cause of all the COVID vaccine injuries and deaths.
It's the entire platform that's faulty.
And the problem with the lipid nanoparticles is that they don't stay in the arm.
They are immediately end up in the bloodstream and they get delivered to the bone marrow.
When they get delivered to the bone marrow, they're transfecting stem cells.
They get delivered to various organs.
They are processed in the liver.
They're filtered through the hepatobiliary system.
So now we're seeing aggressive cancers of the liver, of the gallbladder, of the pancreas and the colon cancers.
They get processed in the kidneys.
You end up with aggressive kidney cancers.
You know, they end up in the heart.
They end up in in the brain.
And you know, the lipid nanoparticles, they cross the placenta, so they end up in the fetus.
Right.
These are extremely dangerous products for pregnant women at all stages of pregnancy.
You know, in the first trimester, we see congenital malformations in babies and COVID vaccinated women.
Malformations of the brain, heart, limbs.
We see miscarriages.
We see stillbirths.
We see skyrocketing deaths of babies.
When women get vaccinated in the second and third trimester, the fetus stops growing.
The woman can go into premature labor.
We see increased deaths during delivery.
We see postpartum deaths, young mothers collapsing, dying after delivery.
So, the entire lipid nanoparticle platform is problematic.
The lipid nanoparticles themselves are inflammatory and cause immune system issues.
We don't know the extent of those issues yet.
But just by the very fact that the lipid nanoparticles go systemic and whatever protein you put in there, whatever mRNA you're putting in there, you are systemically delivering a foreign protein to the bone marrow, to the various organs where you get expression of this foreign protein where you shouldn't get expression and it causes all kinds of catastrophic complications.
So I truly want to stress, That it is the lipid nanoparticle mRNA platform that is highly problematic and should be halted, should be taken off the market, should be suspended until we get independent investigations of this platform.
I agree with you.
I think while the spike proteins clearly are problematic, I think that not enough has been talked about with the lipid nanoparticles themselves.
Drew and I did an entire show on lipid nanoparticles probably a year ago now.
We have known for decades that they can cause great harm.
People love the platform because there are lots of things that you can hide or transport within a little globule called a lipid nanoparticle.
And people have been working for decades and how can we get different drugs to certain parts of the body by encapsulating them in this little fat globule.
But we've also known of their high toxicity, particularly to the reproductive organs, as you said, to the bone marrow, lots of problems.
And, you know, the idea that this stuff did not stay in your deltoid muscle in your arm was well known.
That was one of the great lies people were told is that you're going to get injected in the arm and that this stuff is going to stay there.
They knew darn well that wasn't the case and it ends up in every major organ system in a matter of hours.
I think that the lipid nanoparticles are undoubtedly a big contributor to all of the various adverse events and certainly the cancers.
I'm watching the clock wind down here.
Tell me a little bit about what you're seeing in Canada.
We were talking before we came on air, you and I, about what's happening.
You would think in light of this tsunami of evidence, and that's what it is, that you would have to be living under a rock to not know that there are problems out there.
You would think that they would be backing off.
What are you seeing actually happening in Canada with regard to mandates and where they're going with all of this?
When you look at what Health Canada and the public health officials like Dr. Theresa Tam are recommending, they are behaving as if there have been no injuries and no deaths from the COVID vaccines in the last almost three years now.
They're putting out the recommendations In babies as young as six months old and they're targeting the kids.
And I can tell you the age group, six months to four years old, they're saying that they need to take two vaccines.
They need to take two Moderna vaccines.
And I believe for the Pfizer, it's three vaccines to be considered up to date on their vaccines.
These are horrific recommendations.
Again, blanket recommendation for pregnant women at any stage of pregnancy.
No safety studies done on children or pregnant women, by the way, to back up those recommendations.
But they're aggressively pushing forward.
And one thing I want to mention is that they're changing the language.
They're going away from the language of booster shot, and they're now renaming them to annual updated vaccines that, you know, like a flu shot that you would get from your family doctor.
And so they don't want the word booster because booster implies that the vaccine had failed or that you need to continue boosting a product.
Why do you need to continue boosting these vaccines if they were working, right?
So they want to move towards an annual model where you're just going to get your annual shot from your doctor.
And I'm worried.
I've read in the vaccine hesitancy literature Where they really want to bring back vaccine mandates, but they want to do it through the family doctors.
They want to make it so that you will not be able to visit your family doctor unless you have your updated COVID vaccines.
And they'll make it mandatory for you to be able to even see your doctor.
This is the way they're looking at bringing back quietly a type of vaccine mandate.
So we have to be very careful about this.
I again, I'm pushing, you know, I testified at the National Citizens Inquiry about the damages of the vaccine, the injuries, the deaths of Canadian doctors, which the Canadian Medical Association is covering up.
We're almost at 200 sudden deaths of fully vaccinated Canadian doctors since the vaccine is rolled out.
The health authorities are covering this up.
They don't want any talk about injuries.
You know, we have a broken vaccine adverts event reporting system in Canada.
So VAERS is much better in the United States than the system we have in Canada where doctors are not allowed to report vaccine injuries and deaths because they will lose their medical license.
They will lose their job.
There's been tremendous persecution of Canadian doctors who've been speaking out about the dangers of the vaccines.
They're being silenced.
They're losing their licenses.
So just terrible corruption, you know, when it comes to these products.
But they are pushing ahead.
They're pushing ahead as if nothing has happened in the last three years.
Well, that is unfortunately what we are seeing here in the United States as well.
The CDC has no regulatory authority.
But that said, they have tremendous power.
The current recommendations here in the U.S.
from the CDC is that children six months and older get the original two-shot series and then rather than the original booster, the bivalent booster, as you said, they now are calling it an updated vaccine and is now the monovalent one, but still a child would need three of these shots to be considered fully vaccinated.
And although the CDC doesn't make the rules about schools or travel or anything else, the reality is that schools and other municipalities use those guidelines.
And they certainly now that it is on the childhood vaccine schedule, schools and daycare centers will likely look at that and make a requirement that people have.
So the CDC isn't doing it, but the reality is they end up having that Ability to sway the public or sway regulation because schools and other places will end up following what's on the back of the childhood vaccine schedule.
So anyway, we have wound down the clock.
This is fascinating, terrifying and fascinating.
Dr. Makas, I appreciate you continuing to bring it to us to look at the data.
I don't see this ending anytime soon.
I think you've pointed out and if people didn't hear it, that the cancer rates are worse in 2023 than they were in 2022.
And that is the nature of cancer.
When you see cellular changes and in the suppression of the immune system and the inability to recognize foreign cells or to fight them off, I think I fear we are likely going to see in rates even higher in 2024.
So again, I'd really like to bring it back in in some some weeks or months with an update.
So keep us in keep us in the loop.
And again, congratulations on your new your new stint at the Wellness Company.
They're great friends.
Thank you, Dr. Kelly.
I appreciate you having me on.
We'll have you back soon.
Thanks.
Caleb, if you want to show, we'll take a quick look at the upcoming shows here.
And I just want to call, we're sort of in the swamp.
We're bringing, I'm happy that we have Joshua Getzko and Naomi Wolf coming back tomorrow.
We'll be talking, obviously, Naomi has been proven right once again.
You know, the naysayers be damned.
She continues to be on the right side of history.
Dr. J is going to be with Drew on his own on the 5th, and then Rob Schneider, and then we've got our good friend Dr. Peter McCullough coming back on the 11th with updates on everything from cancers to just what he's seeing in general.
He is, as everybody knows, been really a stellar A spokesperson for this entire debacle from the beginning.
And then my friend, Michael Turner on the 18th, who's got a great story.
He is a Washington State based physician who was attacked mercilessly by the board of medicine there.
And he went to great lengths to continue to treat people.
Early COVID treatment.
He's a great patriot.
And somebody's got a good story to tell.
I think you'll really enjoy listening to him on the 18th.
So with that, I will let you all go.
And thanks for listening.
I will see you, or Drew will see you with me tomorrow with Joshua Getzko and Naomi Wolf.
Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Caleb Nation and Susan Pinsky.
As a reminder, the discussions here are not a substitute for medical care, diagnosis, or treatment.
This show is intended for educational and informational purposes only.
I am a licensed physician, but I am not a replacement for your personal doctor, and I am not practicing medicine here.
Always remember that our understanding of medicine and science is constantly evolving.
Though my opinion is based on the information that is available to me today, some of the contents of this show could be outdated in the future.
Be sure to check with trusted resources in case any of the information has been updated since this was published.
If you or someone you know is in immediate danger, don't call me.
Call 9-1-1.
If you're feeling hopeless or suicidal, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-8255.
You can find more of my recommended organizations and helpful resources at drdrew.com slash help.
I have a question about this Drew.
Yeah.
So how much do you think that they are trying to advance medicine in terms of like pharmacy options, like in terms of medication you can take?
Or how much are they just trying to like, well we have Lexapro now so let's push that and just deal with the side effects?
Are they trying to develop things without these side effects?
From the moment, this is how pharmaceutical research works, from the moment you pull a molecule off the shelf and identify it, You have ten years to bring it to market and profit, and then you lose the patent.
Ten years from the moment it comes off the shelf.
On average, it takes five years and over a billion dollars to bring a new drug to market.
So they're left with five years to make their profit.
Then it goes generic, and then it's pennies.
So they only have five years with these drugs, so that's the only time they push them is during those years when they can make profit.
And when there are new things that seem to have new benefits and seem to be better than previous things, doctors use them, even though they get a little more costly.
But they have to recoup somewhere between $800 million and $1.5 billion, depending on the drug.
That's why the pharmaceutical industry is such a mess, because it costs so much money to do the phase three trials and get things through the FDA.
Now, the easiest thing to do is to take a drug you already have and change it a little bit and retest it for, you could do that in a couple of years, you know, you can get it through the FDA very quickly, and that's why there's a million different Pepsids, Xanax, Tagamet's, that's why there's a million different Protonix, Prilosexol, Nexium, because they're called Me Too drugs.
That's the most profitable way, because then you have eight or nine, seven or eight years to make your profits back.
And usually doesn't cost as much to get it to market.
▲
Export Selection