And many of the modern automated techniques, for example, in diffraction, where you're trying to resolve complicated crystal structures, they make a lot of errors.
They round things out and they give you bad answers, and those get published.
So when you need to do something very difficult, like, for example, when the new high-TC superconductors were discovered, that was a Nobel Prize.
Uh, one of my friends was one of the expert crystallographers who actually resolved the structure, and you couldn't use the standard packages.
You had to actually understand theoretical crystallography to do that, and so that's that.
That's my crowd.
Those are the people that I worked with, and I am just stunned by the bad science that you get these days.
Nobody's actually deducing things rigorously.
It, it's it.
It's all very political.
It's all very political.
It's about who you know and and saying the right things.
It's become just a farce to a large extent.
Um, it's very frightening.
So I feel like i'm in a bit of a nightmare in this, in this environment, because i'm i'm from a school where you actually it mattered that you were right, and it mattered that you were using rigorous logic, and it mattered that you not make mistakes, and if you did make them you you, you had to correct them and you had to learn from others who helped you correct them, and so on.
That's, that's where i'm from, and so this is, this is just a nightmare place right now.
Uh with, with all of this covet madness yeah yeah, so everything.
Well, it's not just covet.
There's a lot of things that are under that same umbrella and I I feel very, very much the same and during covet I found myself, from the moment it started going, what is going on here?
What happened what?
What is this what, what?
And we're slowly putting it together.
What did you see and what did you think was happening and what should have been happening?
You know, the first thing I did when I, when I, when I saw all the propaganda and the news flash and people dropping dead in the street in China and this kind of nonsense, the first thing I did was was to think to myself, well look, they're claiming this is a pandemic, let's go and see if people are actually dying, because that is uh uh, a data that you cannot fake.
You count deaths, you have death certificates, there are official statistics about how many people are dying, where they're dying, who's dying, how old are they, what sex are they, in which province, city and so on.
Those statistics of all cause mortality cannot be fake.
I mean, they could be, but they're not.
They're the.
The states, the modern states, have very rigorous methods of counting deaths, because it's so important to the state to know exactly if things are happening that cause death more than usual and also how the population is evolving.
So births, deaths.
Those are important things, and so the data on all cause mortality is highly reliable and that means that you're counting deaths as a function of time, for example by day, by week, by month, by year and so on and um.
So you've got it by time, but you also have it by age of the person who died.
That's very important because age is highly.
Is the control parameter?
It's the main control parameter for death.
The risk of dying in the next year goes up exponentially with age.
Not many people know this very basic fact.
That's right.
So that's what you need.
But by the way, in terms of the propaganda, that was one of the first things that was being obfuscated.
They were not allowing anyone to report the age.
You know, I remember a month in, I was doing a podcast with a partner of mine who was saying, you know, here they are in CNN.
They're reporting the names and the practices of each one of these people.
They, you know, were playing checkers and they used to enjoy chess and can't call his great-granddaughter anymore.
No age, never, no age ever.
And everybody was over the age of 85 at that stage of the game.
Right, right.
No, it's very important.
And so what we did is we looked at mortality to be able to quantify excess all-cause mortality.
And so we're looking at any anomalies compared to the historic trend.
And in order to do that, you need to know what the historic trend is with a lot of certainty.
So you need good data.
And what you notice immediately in the mid-latitude countries is that there's a seasonal trend to mortality.
There's always greater mortality in the winter, and you come down to a low in mortality at trough in the summer.
And that's a very regular pattern.
It's always there.
And that the baseline of that pattern varies relatively slowly historically.
And that is as you increase, you know, you improve living conditions, then that baseline will come down.
If there's a big economic crash or something that makes society not so good for most people who are vulnerable, then that baseline will start to come up again and so on.
So you can see things in mortality that include heat waves in the summer, major wars, major economic depressions like the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression in the U.S. are very clear.
All the major wars come out very clearly.
And you can see the evolution of the age structure of the society.
You can see all these things, but you know what you don't see?
You don't see any of the announced pandemic that the CDC has claimed have occurred in 1957-58, 1968, and 2009.
Those pandemics do not give rise to any excess all-cause mortality in any country that we've been able to study.
So you have to keep in mind that.
Let me interrupt and just say, I thought pandemic was defined by an increase above baseline in all-cause mortality.
Well, it may have at some point been defined that way.
Obviously, they changed that definition for the recent one.
But you have to realize that the people who study this will look for, will count deaths caused by the particular pathogen that they're claiming is a problem.
They don't usually look at all-cause mortality.
So when they were defining pandemic, it was deaths from the pathogen, not all-cause mortality.
But if you actually look at mortality as a whole in the entire population, irrespective of cause, you cannot detect a signal at the times when we're told that 10 or 100,000 or more people died because of this particular pandemic.
For example, a 2009 one and so on.
So there's no trace of these pandemics in actual mortality.
And I've looked at this myself.
You can't see them.
Now, 2018 is like the textbook one that they always that they've recruited to tell us that that is a viral respiratory disease pandemic, but it wasn't.
In fact, the lung tissues have been preserved of many, many people who died in that period, and they all died of bacterial pneumonia.
That is from the histopathology.
When you actually look at the tissue, this is what must have killed them.
The primary cause of death was bacterial pneumonia in absolutely horrible societal conditions just after a war in 1918, and a lot of people returning from the war in very bad health, very bad social conditions.
And what you notice about 1918, which, as I said, they recruited it to be this pandemic, it cannot be a respiratory virus pandemic because nobody under 50, sorry, nobody over 50 years of age died.
The people who died were mainly young people, children, young adults, and mostly male, more males, but nobody over 50.
So the over 50 crowd in the places where you had this very big increased mortality in 1918, they were not returning from the war.
They were not living in these newly created horrendous conditions.
They were established and they did not suffer mortality.
This was not a viral respiratory disease.
Everything we know about, we think we know, that we claim we know about viral respiratory diseases is that they kill the elderly.
So that was not that, whereas bacterial pneumonia is a killer all the way down to children.
So I, and there have been about four or five high-quality scientific papers that showed that the deaths in 1918 were due to bacterial pneumonia.
So that was not one of their viral respiratory disease pandemics.
That's the textbook one that they like to throw at us, but I don't think it was.
So what we concluded was we looked at all-cause mortality and we found excess all-cause mortality at very specific places and at specific times.
For example, right after the pandemic was announced on March 11th, 2020, there was a huge peak that a surge in all-cause mortality, but only in hotspots, very specific places like New York City, around Madrid and Spain and northern Italy.
There were these incredible surges of mortality, but they all were exactly synchronous with the announcement of the pandemic.
And they all corresponded to very aggressive new treatments being applied in hospitals when anybody would walk in saying they had respiratory problems.
So we were able to show that these hotspots, for example, in epidemiological theory, in pandemic circumstances, you cannot have synchronous peaks like this around the world because the time between seeding of the pathogen and this surge in mortality is highly variable on the structure of the society and on the details in the particular place.
There is no way that it could be synchronous in this way.
But what was synchronous was the announcement of the pandemic and these new protocols that were being applied aggressively in hospitals.
So that first peak that we heard so much about New York and so on, I'm absolutely convinced was due to the assault of these people in hospitals.
So you're saying iatrogenesis, essentially.
An iatrogenic sort of threat.
So the pushback I would give is that having been there, the reason people were becoming aggressive is they were alarmed.
They were treating the PO2, which I would argue is the error.
But they were faced with this cytokine activation syndrome simultaneously that we didn't fully understand.
It was, you know, people argue about what even it was.
And people were going into sort of shocky states with these high inflammatory components.
that maybe they would have made it through if they hadn't been ventilated.
I get that, but it was a pretty dicey period.
I get why people were getting aggressive and people did die, let's face it.
But go ahead.
Well, yeah, the aggressiveness is clear.
In northern Italy, they developed a way to put two patients on one mechanical ventilator.
They opened the doors to major hospitals and they said, don't stay at home.
As soon as you have respiratory diseases, run in here and we'll treat you.
Well, you know, and so they were doing something bizarre there that caught my attention right away, putting very elderly people on ventilators.
That already was outlying behavior.
Very elderly people should have discussed with their caretakers if they ever want to deal with a ventilator under any circumstance.
And they were all going on ventilators.
So that caught my attention right away.
Well, many, many health care workers have now shared that the reason they were putting people on ventilators is they didn't want it to spread.
So they didn't want the aerosols from the lungs of these people.
Yeah, I heard about it.
So they isolated them by the venture.
Just so we're all clear, I didn't see it.
Maybe Kelly did.
We'll see what she says.
But I have heard that.
I've heard that.
Yeah, I've heard that.
I've heard that.
We are talking to Dr. Danny Rancour.
I have too.
I've heard it several times, but I've heard a lot of things several times that were apocryphal and free.
And I don't know what to do with a lot of things.
Some I agreed with, some I didn't agree with.
But we are going to continue this conversation.
We have to take a little break, and I want to bring Dr. Victory in here.
Danny Rancour, as I said, he's a theoretical.
And I don't know how to describe it yet.
You're a theoretical particle and intergender, interdisciplinary physicist.
Is that about right?
I would say interdisciplinary scientist.
Scientist.
If you look at all the different areas of science that I've published in, it's fair to say I'm interdisciplinary.
He has a nonprofit corporation at correlation-canada.org.
His website, Danny Rancour, D-N-I-S-R-E-N C-O-U-R T.ca and Twitter with the same name.
And he arcans from an era of science with which I'm very familiar.
And I've been lamenting for quite some time that the nature of scientific discourse has been terribly adulterated.
And more importantly, the process of the thinking process around science and what many of us were trained in, not only in terms of the scientific method itself having been adulterated in recent years, which I've noticed also.
No one ever does a null hypothesis.
No one ever does anything that we used to just do routinely.
And then the way people think about things is, in and of itself, almost automated.
And that's how we can get into real trouble.
So I appreciate the thought today that we're getting into some weeds here.
We're going to continue to do so and bring back Dr. Kelly Victory right after this.
I suspect you've seen Susan and I gushing over Paleo Valley products.
We love the taste and how well they fit into a paleo-based nutrition regimen.
They're delicious and we use them for travel all the time.
But there's more.
We are huge fans as well of Paleo Valley's grass-fed bone broth protein.
It comes in three flavors, unflavored, vanilla, and chocolate.
It's a powder you can add to really anything.
We add it to coffee literally every day.
Smoothies, baked dishes, just hot water dissolves really easily.
The bone broth protein is made with 100% grass-fed and finished bones that are free from pesticides or antibiotics and are slow simmered to extract as much collagen as possible.
As we age, collagen breaks down.
That's what wrinkles are.
And research shows that there are significant benefits to adding a collagen source in your diet.
I don't think it's too much to say it's changed our lives.
And Susan is now reporting that after drinking the bone broth for a few weeks, her hair is stronger and longer, and nails are stronger too.
Try it for yourself.
You can order at drdrew.com/slash paleovalley and use Dr. Drew at checkout to save an additional 15%.
A lot of you have been asking for more information about how to counter the adverse effects of the spike protein from COVID infections and the COVID vaccine.
The spike protein is not your friend.
Let's just say that.
So I'm glad we have the wellness company Spike Support Formula as a sponsor, especially since renowned internist and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, who's also chief scientific officer of the Wellness Company, is one of its champions.
There's some very intriguing research around natokinase, which might be a way to take on the spike protein.
Listen to this.
So start, if you would, with talking about natokinase, how you got to that, and where you see its application.
So with the viral infection or the vaccines, the spike protein stays within the body and it's found in the heart, the brain, the vital organs, and is causing problems.
The Japanese have been using this for heart and vascular disease now for 20 years.
It's safe.
It is a form of a mild blood thinner that it dissolves the spike protein nearly completely.
Spike Support Formula is the only product on the market containing natokinase, dandelion root, and a host of other antioxidants, all showing promise in helping you protect yourself and your family.
To order this unique, specially formulated supplement, go to drdrew.com/slash TWC.
That is drdrew.com/slash TWC.
Use code DREWATCHEOT for 10% off today.
President Trump recently issued a warning from his Mar-a-Lago home: quote: Our currency is crashing and will soon no longer be the world standard, which will be our greatest defeat, frankly, in 200 years.
There are three reasons the central banks are dumping the U.S. dollar: inflation, deficit spending, and our insurmountable national debt.
The fact is, there is one asset that has withstood famine, wars, political, and economic upheaval dating back to biblical times: gold.
And you can own it in a tax shelter retirement account with the help of Birch Gold.
That's right, Birch Gold will help you convert an existing IRA or 401k, maybe from a previous employer, into an IRA in gold.
And the best part, you don't pay a penny out of pocket.
Just visit birchgold.com/slash drew for your free info kit.
They'll hold your hand through the entire process.
Think about this: when currencies fail, gold is a safe haven.
How much more time does the dollar have?
Birch Gold has an A-plus rating with Better Business Bureau and thousands of happy customers.
I do not give financial advice, and previous performance is no guarantee of future performance.
Visit birchgold.com/slash Drew to get your free info kit on gold.
That is B-I-R-C-H-D-O-L-D.com/slash D-R-E-W.
Some platforms have banned the discussion of controversial topics.
If this episode ends here, the rest of the show is available at drdrew.tv.
There's nothing in medicine that doesn't boil down to a risk-benefit calculation.
It is the mandate of public health to consider the impact of any particular mitigation scheme on the entire population.
This is uncharted territory, Drew.
Dr. Kelly Victory, I give you Dr. Denis Rancour, and he is lamenting the state of affairs that you and I have been lamenting for quite some time.
The lack of vigorous debate, to quote Kelly Victory.
Absolutely.
Dr. Rancour, thank you so much for joining us.
I've really been looking forward to the conversation.
And as I think you know, you and I share a very common, you know, in common, the belief that this was not what we were led to believe in terms of a pandemic.
One of the things I want to get on the record right off the bat, because I've laughed throughout this last three and a half years, is when I take criticism from the haters, which is relatively often, one of the things I find amusing is that people will say, well, you're not an epidemiologist, Dr. Kelly, or you're not an infectious disease expert, or you're not a virologist, so you shut up.
And I would submit to you that somebody like yourself, who is a brilliant scientist, is precisely in the position to analyze what's going on here because you not only understand deductive reasoning and have tremendous critical thinking skills, but you understand the measurement systems.
You understand data analysis and all of these things.
And that is what it takes to be able to critically and clinically assess what's been going on.
You'd needn't be a virologist or an epidemiologist to come to the conclusions that you and I have both come to, which is specifically that the damage that was done was not the result of a virus.
You know, I will say that the word pandemic doesn't include death.
It has nothing to do with the death rate.
It has to do with the infection rate.
So this did, in my estimation, my opinion, meet the definition of a pandemic, because when you have an extraordinarily contagious, highly transmissible virus, relatively mild one at that, in the form of this coronavirus, it may well have reached pandemic stage, meaning 96% of the population fundamentally probably did get exposed to it and have it.
The issue is it didn't matter because the virus itself was really quite inconsequential.
What wasn't inconsequential was our response to it.
And in that, I agree, it was 100% the response to the pandemic that resulted in the issues of not only however many deaths there were, largely, but certainly the economic devastation that happened, the decimation of our education system, and on and on.
So let's start with one simple thing.
The reporting of the cases.
And for a while, it was not really the daily reporting, it was the hourly reporting of the cases.
I was sort of festivous about it.
Talk a little bit about thoughts you might have about the case numbers and the PCR test that was driving them.
Well, my position is I don't care about the cases because they're meaningless as far as I'm concerned.
The PCR method is, as applied, was meaningless.
There was no particularly virulent pathogen.
So testing for it makes no sense.
There's no evidence in hard data, which is all cause mortality data by time and by jurisdiction and by age of the person and sex and so on.
By an analysis of that data, you can establish that there is no evidence for a particularly virulent pathogen being present coming down onto Earth or doing anything.
Okay.
So we can imagine that there is a virus that went around that spread like crazy.
And so we can imagine all kinds of things.
It doesn't matter.
It has no connection to a real consequence.
Now, I appreciate that clinicians may see things in hospitals when sick people come in and they're all coming in at the same time and they may see things and they may have interpretations about it and they may try treatments.
I appreciate that all that is happening and it always happens and there are always more people coming into hospital in the winter and so on.
And part of the reason that different people and more people would have been coming into the hospital, we cannot discount the incredible propaganda, the incredible propaganda that was present caused people to react as well.
And this is very common.
So I don't care about all those things.
I don't discuss them.
In my research, I look at mortality, period.
And the mortality that I see disproves the idea of a spreading virus.
The mortality did not cross borders.
It didn't cross state lines.
There are many states that are virtually identical, except that one had lockdowns, the other didn't.
And the one with lockdowns had enormous deaths in a certain period, the other did not.
We did a study of that with a collaborator.
There were 12 nice pairs like that in the United States that you can study.
So it didn't cross state lines.
The supposed pathogen did not cross into Canada.
Get this.
Thousands of kilometer of border, the biggest trading partners in the world, and the pathogen that caused 1.3 million deaths in the COVID period in Canada did not cause almost virtually no deaths when you compare it to the historic trend in Canada.
Didn't cross the border.
It doesn't have a passport.
This pathogen, which is supposedly a virus, according to clinical studies, is supposedly killing mostly elderly people.
Well, when you look at excess mortality by age, by state in the U.S., there is no correlation.
When you look at mortality versus median age, for example, with the 50 states in the United States, you get a shotgun pattern.
No correlation whatsoever.
The correlation that is strongest that we found is a very strong correlation to poverty.
So the Pearson correlation coefficient is plus 0.86.
It's never been seen before.
And not only is it a strong correlation, but it goes through the origin.
So it's a proportionality.
So a state that would have had no poverty would have had no deaths.
Okay, that's how you can interpret it.
So the correlations are with the number of disabled people in the state, how many poor people there are in the state, obesity, all kinds of things like that, but not age.
You have to wrap your head around that, not age.
Despite the fact that clinical studies say that proven tested infection of this virus goes and caused deaths in the elderly, and it's very clear and it's exponential, despite that, in the actual large-scale mortality data, you don't see that correlation.
So you have all these proofs that this was not a viral respiratory disease pandemic.
The peaks in mortality that you do see are the really sharp peaks right after the announcement.
They're all in the hotspot occurs.
They're synchronous with the announcement because in synchronicity, people were applying aggressive protocols, treatment protocols.
Now, Germany didn't do that.
Germany has no excess mortality in that period.
France did in Paris and big hospitals and so on.
They have these huge peaks.
And I showed this map many times of the counties in Europe and this mortality peak.
And it's red in northern Italy, around Madrid and Paris and so on, but it's white in Germany and places like that that did not apply these aggressive protocols.
In Sweden, they did apply them initially, and Stockholm has a very sharp hotspot peak, even though they corrected themselves and didn't continue with these kinds of aggressive measures.
It's the measures, it's these measures that we know about.
And the behavior of the mortality is inconsistent.
It disproves the theory of a viral respiratory disease.
That's what we need to accept from hard data, I think.
I think.
That's what I would argue.
And so I appreciate that we're putting a lot of thought into treatment and we could have treated, for example, there's ivermectin is a very powerful treatment for bacterial lung infections.
And we know that there were a lot of bacterial lung infections that caused deaths.
If you look at the death certificates in the United States, one of the comorbidities, the most common one, is bacterial pneumonia.
So there was a huge epidemic of bacterial pneumonia in the United States that was not treated.
The prescriptions to antibiotics was dropped by 50% in the COVID period in most Western countries.
So mechanistically, I think that pneumonia was one of the big mechanistic causes of death, but the real underlying cause of death was how we treated people.
The incredible physiological and psychological stress puts you in circumstances where you're more susceptible to suffering from these infections and to dying from them.
And this is really well known.
So I would say that the cause of death was the assault, the treatment, and the effect on stress, which in turn affects the immune system.
There's a huge body of scientific knowledge about that.
So we have to stop thinking of the cause of death as being, you know, well, which pathogen did it or which two or three pathogens did it?
How was the lung infected?
Let's look at the ecology of the pathogens.
We have to stop thinking like that and admit that there are always pathogens, that we have bacteria in our mouths, that when they go down into the lungs, they can kill you under circumstances where you can't fight that infection properly.
We have to stop thinking that the pathogens are the cause and admit that the cause comes from the conditions under which we put vulnerable people.
That's the big cause of excess mortality.
So that's where I'm headed with this analysis of mortality.
Yeah, well, I agree with you.
A lot of MDs get very annoyed with me because they have seen people come into hospital.
They have tried to treat them themselves.
They have discussed treatments with their colleagues.
And so when I tell them, well, sure, and that's your job, and you do that, you try to relieve suffering and you do the best you can.
But from my perspective, when I look at all-cause mortality, there was no particularly virulent pathogen and nothing spread like they say it does.
Well, I agree with you, first of all, that there was no particularly virulent pathogen.
I also agree that we were living through a period, an unprecedented period in medicine of therapeutic nihilism where we treated nothing.
Including, frankly, people who we said had COVID.
So we weren't treating bacterial pneumonia.
We weren't treating inflammatory processes.
We weren't treating any of these things the way we normally would.
We only tested for COVID.
What happened to influenza?
The influenza cases plummeted.
Cases, documented cases of bacterial pneumonia were almost non-existent for two and a half years because we refused to actually acknowledge them.
And in the United States, there was a financial incentive to do that.
I don't know if you're aware of that, but it was to the tens of thousands of dollars hospitals were paid in addition if they had COVID as an admitting diagnosis.
And the big winner was if you had COVID on the death certificate, you got a huge windfall financially.
So that may not have been the case in Canada or elsewhere, but in the United States.
But let's talk about the public.
Let's talk about the USA a little more.
Let's talk about the USA a little more.
In the United States, not many people know this, but if you do epidemiology, you will notice this.
There are states in the United States where the prescription of antibiotics is much higher than other states.
And it's very systematic.
It's the southern states where there is a lot, large populations of poor people.
So there, the prescriptions of antibiotics are very high.
Why?
Because they routinely get more lung infections.
The lung is the organ that will most likely be infected more often because of the contact with the air and everything and its susceptibility as an organ and so on.
And so most of those extra of those extra prescriptions are fighting lung infections, bacterial pneumonia, basically.
Now, during COVID, in all the Western countries that we have data for, prescriptions for antibiotics dropped by 50%.
They were telling MDs, the establishment was telling MDs, this is not bacterial.
So don't prescribe antibiotics.
Don't treat for bacterial infections.
It's just incredible.
And the excess mortality that occurred in the U.S. is read in those very same states.
That's where the mortality mostly occurred in the United States.
That's why you have this incredible correlation to poverty and so on.
Two questions.
Well, one comment.
One comment and a question.
One is that not only was antibiotic not used, I mean, if you know, you treat viral, treat a lot of viral pneumonia in the elderly over the years, and we almost always added antibiotic because there is often superinfection by the time somebody gets to a hospital.
That's the really interesting thing about this pandemic is there is an injunction against doing anything other than the prescribed protocols and what do we call it?
The canon of allowed treatments that were being prescribed from above rather than the clinical situation.
So that to me was, that's, you know, that's the core issue in this whole thing.
But, gosh, there was another point you were saying about people dying from shoot.
Well, what I was going to say is just with regard to your observation, rightly so, of the higher incidence of antibiotic usage in the southern part of the United States, that's where I trained.
That it's also, it's not only because of poverty, but it's because of the higher incidence of obesity, diabetes, and smoking in that same population.
I didn't see smoking, but I found very strong co-correlations with obesity and diabetes.
Yes, I did.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So you're correct.
So switch gears Just a little bit here.
You know, you are someone who has published many, many, I think, studies in the hundreds in peer-reviewed journals.
I have only a handful to my name, so you have a lot more experience in that world.
One of the things that has been sort of overwhelming is the right word to me, and is my greatest existential struggle right now, is coming to grips with the fact that what I believed were storied medical journals, trustworthy, the place where I went, the Oracle.
I am now realizing in my well into my third decade practicing medicine that it's largely propaganda and that what I believed was the truth and the scientific truth is really the marketing arm for big pharma.
And I'm still struggling with what I'm going to do with that information and how I'm going to manage practicing.
But from your perspective, what did you see and how early were you aware that what was getting published or not being published was problematic?
And this may have way predated, in your case, COVID.
I don't know.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on the journals.
Well, that's another long story.
Peer review itself is a very modern invention.
The notion that scientific journals would use anonymous peer reviewers is post-World War II.
And it was specifically put into place so that scientists would self-censor and follow what the funding agencies wanted them to work on.
That's why it was put in place.
And there's a historic record of that.
So peer review itself is tainted with that history and worked very well that way.
And if you were an honest scientist and doing science, you noticed it right away.
It's very difficult to publish something that goes against the grain, that goes against the dominant narratives, because the reviewers are people who are pushing those narratives and who are building careers based on those narratives.
So that is a structural problem with the system itself.
Now, many scientists felt that with the internet, it was going to be wonderful because we would be able to circumvent this whole problem and scientists would be able to simply publish, make public their material that would be read by other scientists and so on.
And the peer review would be when the peers read it because it's easily published now.
That was the idea that many people had.
And it's been tried out in many venues.
But the problem is, what we're noticing now is we're in an era of anti-science.
We're in an era where science doesn't exist.
We're closer to a totalitarian or a fascist state where independent thinking is of no value.
And so as a result of that, what matters for your career and whether or not people will believe you is where you publish.
So which prestigious journal can you be published in?
And that's the only thing that matters.
Scientists don't actually read papers that are not peer-reviewed.
Professional scientists are self-censoring and not reading things on the internet by very competent scientists who don't want to bother to go and fight to have something peer-reviewed for two or three years and have to put up with these nonsensical political peer-review comments and so on.
And this is something I have direct experience with.
But what's shameful is that there are no independent thinking scientists around, virtually none, that will actually go and read something and dig into understand it and see what value it has for them.
the scientists, the real ones, the ones that are authentic, are going to places like Substack and having their own websites and doing what they can in that route.
But the prestigious journals are just pure propaganda garbage.
And they don't even follow the rules of science.
They don't give you access to the data, even though they pretend that they say that they do.
They don't allow you to reproduce the data.
They allow people to have incredible conflicts of interest, outright conflicts of interest to publish there repeatedly.
There's just no accountability.
The journal editors and publishers behave however they want.
They censor whoever they want.
They retract articles even after they've been published.
Just anything goes and there's no accountability.
So in these circumstances, there can be no, the scientific journals play no useful role in terms of actually developing science.
They play the opposite role.
They serve a totalitarian system, period.
That's all they do.
So this is why I've had to create my own website.
I've had to circumvent that very vicious censorship and create my own website.
I mean, we try to publish in the top journals.
We have two articles now in theoretical epidemiology that we've been fighting for for years.
We've won appeals.
We keep at it.
We get positive reviews.
Some experts really understand deeply what we're doing and they say so.
It doesn't matter.
The editors come up with garbage comments that have no relation to what we're doing.
And they just keep throwing them at you and keep throwing in the hope that you'll just go away.
Or they send you off without peer review.
Then you appeal it.
Then you win.
You come back.
I'm going to be publishing these sagas eventually.
We'll wait and see where it goes, but I'll be publishing some of these sagas.
It's just unbelievable.
This is not science.
It's just a farce.
Yeah.
And this is a conversation that Drew and I have had many times in many different iterations.
So the question is, where do we as scientists, if we put all three of us in the same boat, if you will, where do we go with this other than doing exactly what you are doing, creating a parallel system based on substacks and websites?
When I write reports and scientific articles, I write them with the same rigor as I've always done.
I back up everything.
I give access to data.
I explain exactly what my methods are.
I explain what my logic is.
I spell it out.
I'm not constrained by space like a journal would constrain me.
I can write it exactly how I want and I put it on the internet and people can do what they want with it.
And what I'm unpleasantly surprised to know that many people read them in depth, understand them, explain them to me, contact me.
But they're usually not scientists.
They're usually not professional scientists.
They're engineers that are doing this as a pastime or they're former scientists, and they have the freedom that they're not at work anymore and so on.
But there are relatively few scientists will write to me, that have a career, will write to me and say, wow, you nailed it.
I had not noticed that.
That's happened to me on the fingers of my hands.
What is going on there?
Kelly, we kind of know what goes on in medicine.
No, it's careerism, but I'd like to know a little more about that because Kelly and I kind of understand that people are now, doctors are all working for hospitals and big systems.
And these things have absolute fiat control over their decision-making, or at least what they're able to do, if not their actual decision-making.
And I have mixed feelings about the literature because I've been involved with some publications where I'm like, normally, like things that's a good study and the sort of normally published, particularly in sub-specialty journals, maybe not in the big names, the nature and the New England journals and the science and the big ones, but in the Journal of Urology.
And where there's really useful clinical information being provided to other people that work in that field.
So I'm kind of mixed feeling about the literature itself.
But who, what, where is this totalitarian state?
Is this happening to academia generally?
Is this not exclusive to science and just happening all over the place?
And there is a really profoundly disturbed culture within academia.
Is that what we're alleging here?
Yes.
Okay.
This is what totalitarianism.
That's a simple answer.
Yes.
Yeah.
It's what?
Yeah, but you're saying totalitarianism.
That's a system of government.
This feels like a system of culture is not quite the right word.
It's an institutional structures that mimic or mimicking a government.
It's not a system of government.
It's not just that.
It is, if you want to know if you're in a totalitarian system, you look at how individuals are behaving.
You look at whether or not they dare to have independent thinking, whether or not they dare to express themselves, what professionals, how professionals behave, are they using their professional independence or not.
But let me keep pushing back and say this happens in organizations of humans all the time, right?
People who get along to get along, you know, go along to get along.
And this is a common thing.
But this now has become, this has become something more where there is an actual indoctrination and an ideology and a sort of almost a set of principles that people are operating from that don't include the principles that they're supposed to be operating from.
I've written about this and I'm in contact with theorists who work on this question of the stability of democracies and the march towards totalitarianism from theoretical point of view.
When you have an elite, if you start, let's say, in a state of approximate democracy and you have institutions and safeguards and counterbalancing forces and all of these things in place so that nobody takes over and nobody can take charge and so that there's kind of a distributed fairness to small business people and to individuals and so on.
If you start in a state like that and then you have some people with a little bit more power, a little bit more money who start to exercise their influence, and if there's no balancing forces against that influence and they get laws passed that are slightly to their advantage or even a lot to their advantage, and there's more and more of these laws that are being passed and there's more and more money flowing to government people who pass these laws as you advance this system, this is a simple word for it is corruption.
And that corruption has a life of its own and it marches you and your institutions and your governments and individual behavior and behaviors of politicians and lawyers and judges.
It marches everything towards what can be called a totalitarian system, which means that the opposite of democracy.
And so this is happening all the time.
There's always a struggle of elite forces to shape the system to their advantage.
And they want to go in that direction.
And the counterbalance to that is institutional structures, laws, professional independence, whistleblowers, and individuals who resist, who are independent thinking.
And if you censor people, prevent professionals from having independence, do all these things to protect the advantage of the elite who transform the system in this way to their advantage, then you can't get out of it.
There's no correction mechanism.
And this is where we're at now.
We've come so far, especially in the United States, in a system that is basically a kind of organized crime system where you pay off the people to do services for you, including politicians.
And that's what it's all about.
And you always go where the money is, and that includes even making wars to feed the military-industrial complex and having wars for the sake of wars in order to generate a lot of payback money to a lot of people.
It even goes that far.
We're even talking about war now.
So that's where we're at.
Let's capture its corruption.
I think those are words that I think those are words that people are becoming very familiar with these days.
It never crossed my lips for the entirety of my life, but I'm becoming very familiar with those words all of a sudden.
But you're Canadian.
You're not American.
How do you come to these conclusions about this country?
It's well, your country is easy to stand up.
And by the way, isn't Canada all the way there?
Canada's all the way there.
Maybe you're looking at us from most being stuck in something far worse and saying this is on for you.
In the United States, there are many aspects of the United States that are wonderful.
Freedom of expression has traditionally been extremely strong in the United States, much stronger than in Canada.
But you're losing it at an incredible rate.
I mean, people are suing others for defamation now in the United States.
That never used to happen.
The defamation lawsuits, the legal establishment is okay with defamation lawsuits in the United States, which never used to happen.
It's just incredible.
And so you are losing it very, very quickly.
And allowing social media to censor us the way they do, allowing this public resource, these are not private companies.
They're using the internet.
The internet was constructed with public money for military applications.
It's completely public money.
There is no reason that they should have free reign to censor people.
You have to have some eye to the public good.
You have to allow people to express themselves on these public venues, I think.
And so there needs to be laws to protect freedom of expression.
We thought that the Constitution would do it.
It's not enough.
We need explicit laws now, more and more.
We need to push back.
So that's how I see the corruption.
And this is well documented.
Many people have studied this in detail.
There are a lot of influential people who are on the boards of everything and who decide that there's going to be less democracy and that things are going too far and that this is the kind of controls that we're going to put into place and that these people can make money and these people cannot make money and so on.
There's a class war right now in the United States.
It's incredible.
Small business people are being decimated and the working class were taking all of its power and resources away.
It's just incredible.
Only the professional classes that serve the U.S. global system are allowed to have a good life.
And that's why I think there is so much social turmoil is because of this class war, which is not just in the U.S.
It's happening in Canada as well.
You can see it with Brexit in the UK.
You can see it with the yellow vests in France.
You can see it with the, I would argue that Trump is a the Trump movement is a consequence of that class war and is a representation of that class war.
So people are, I think people don't want war.
They want a good life.
And the war machine is pushing ahead.
And only the professionals are given a place in the sun in this project.
So these are all the things I see.
Now, you're asking me questions way beyond the research on all-cause mortality that I've done, but those are the observations I make.
Well, I want to, first of all, I don't think that you overestimate the rate at which we are losing our civil liberties here in the United States.
I think it's absolutely devastating.
We are in the midst of a cultural revolution, no different from what we saw by the Chinese Communist Party and scientists, artists, teachers, whoever you are, you are being silenced.
We are being silenced.
I myself.
We don't need China to teach us how to do this.
The U.S. and the Western world has been doing it very well for a long time.
It's been devastating ever since the 70s.
It's been systematic and devastating.
So here we are.
This is the result.
Circle back just for the, I'm watching the clockwind down here, and I want to ask you one other issue related to the pandemic.
You were talking about the virus itself and the legitimacy of the virus as causing deaths or not.
Talk about everything else that happened.
Lockdowns, mask wearing, the insanity of, quote, social distancing, the psychological warfare.
Have you put much thought into how those very things contributed to death and certainly to people's unhappiness, but to actual death and disability and disease?
You know, it's very hard to answer these questions.
And the reason is no research is being done.
We've just been through an event, a period of massive excess all-cause mortality.
Normally, you would investigate this and you would try to figure out why in these states there was a peak in excess mortality in mid-summer, for God's sakes, and repeatedly two summers in a row.
How could this happen?
What was going on?
And you would send out teams of researchers, including social workers and psychologists and MDs and a whole interdisciplinary team, and with an eye to a criminal investigation, to look at this in terms of cause and what really happened, who died, how did they die, under what circumstances.
And let's do enough of this study, field work basically, to figure out what's going on here.
And none of that kind of research is being done whatsoever.
It will not be funded.
Nobody wants, the establishment will not fund that research.
And so this is what you need.
You need actual criminal-like investigations to go in and look at these things on the large scale.
And so I can only basically guess and look at relationships and associations.
So I see when we did that study comparing 12 pairs of states in the United States that were identical, except that one had lockdowns, the other didn't.
And we saw this vast statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality, excess all-cause mortality.
I say, well, okay, there's definitely a relationship here.
Now, who were these additional people who died?
Because remember, this is excess mortality.
People are dying all the time of all the usual causes, but now this is an excess.
Okay.
When you see a death, you can't say, okay, that's an excess death.
You don't know.
So you have to actually study this in some detail and say, well, there are three times more respiratory deaths than before.
There was this, these protocols were being applied that were not being applied before.
There were people in lockdown.
That meant that they were prevented from going into air-conditioned places in mid-summer.
That meant that they couldn't access the public pools.
That meant that they couldn't sit in the shade where they normally do and talk with their friends.
They were isolated.
That meant, and you can infer all of the consequences of these assaults against populations.
And you can infer that that must have been a huge cause of stress.
You know, I have to tell you something.
There's a very incredible American scientist by the name of Sheldon Cohen, who spent his career trying to figure out why people get respiratory diseases and why do they get very sick from it.
And you know what he found after decades of work?
He found he was allowed to try to infect university students to figure out which ones will get sick and so on, right?
And what he found was that the absolute first factor that controls whether or not you get a respiratory disease is the psychological stress that you're experiencing in your life.
Absolute number one factor.
The number two factor he found was the degree to which you were socially isolated.
Now, these were college students.
Now, stress is known now since that time to have a much greater effect on the health of elderly people, much greater.
So you have to look at the massive amount of research that links experienced psychological stress to immune dysfunction.
Very clear, understood now in many regards at the molecular level, okay?
Clear as day.
And you have to understand that that is all the more important exponentially as you age.
And now you think of these elderly people in homes and in facilities that are considered potentially, if they get infected, will die, or potentially if they are infected, they're dangerous.
And you isolate them, extremely isolate them.
And the only people they see are wearing rubber gloves, masks, and shields.
And they're told that they can't share the same washrooms and that they, you know, all these things.
And they're putting actual shields around their beds in shared rooms.
They're doing all these horrible things.
I've talked to several of these people.
And I had people say if they hadn't escaped those conditions in hospital, they would have died.
I had people, I met a man who wasn't particularly elderly, but who went in to be treated for cancer.
And all of a sudden, COVID was declared and he was put under these extreme conditions that I just described.
And he said it's the worst thing he's ever experienced in his life.
And he would have died if he'd stayed there.
And so, you know, I think we're underestimating the tremendous impact of psychological stress and social isolation.
And especially among you have to understand that in the United States, there are 13 million young adults and adolescents who are certified disabled because of a severe mental disorder.
And these people are heavily drugged.
They're a cash cow for the pharmaceutical industry.
And if you isolate these people and take away their caregivers and take away their support systems, many will die.
And there is a strong correlation between the number of disabled people in a state and excess mortality.
So these are the things that we need to discover and understand.
It's not about the people who are healthy enough to go into your office to be listened to and treated individually.
These are not generally the people who died.
The people who died were poor and disabled in the United States.
Let's put it that way, plain and simple.
So let's go and find out how they were treated and how they died.
Right.
And those are the ones we were supposed to be trying to protect.
And of course, those are the ones we gave the worst outcomes to.
But I'm going to push back on this issue of the 13 million disabled with mental illness.
Most of those, because they're chronically disabled, are on the public system.
And in that system of healthcare, you're not allowed to use medication other than generic, particularly on the psychiatric side.
So pharmaceutical companies are not making money, specifically not making money.
They are medicated, but they are medicated on medication that you cannot administer because they're in the public system.
Okay, thank you.
I was going to say that the other thing that I think that we are, people have failed to recognize is the health care that didn't happen, the preventive care that didn't occur during the three years, peak years of this quote, pandemic.
Almost nobody got a screening colonoscopy, a mammogram, follow-ups for their diabetes.
They didn't get their stress tests.
The kids didn't get eye and ear exams.
We didn't do mental health screenings.
Yeah, I would.
I would push back on that because many jurisdictions, including in the Western world, had no excess mortality whatsoever until they rolled out the vaccines.
Oh, they were not doing those extra.
They were not treating them in that way.
They were not, you know, they were still barred from hospitals and everything, but they didn't die more.
No, but what I'm saying, but what it really is.
As I say, I guess the question is, how many people are going to, when they finally have these things, how far have we delayed so that when you get your screening mammogram that's been put off for two and a half years and you now have a one centimeter mass versus a micro calcification, where are we going to catch people?
I guess I think there was an awful lot of people.
My sense is I won't be able to see that in all cause mortality.
But if you did a field study, you might discover it.
But it's not something I'll be able to detect.
I don't think it's important to detect.
But there's another important thing here.
And Drew made a comment about these are the people we're supposed to protect.
One of the things we discovered is that the risk of dying per injection of the vaccine rises exponentially with age.
And the doubling time is five years in age.
So it dramatically rises exponentially with age.
So the risk from the injection itself is dramatically higher for elderly people.
And these are precisely the people that were prioritized to be injected.
So we quantified that risk and we found that for all ages across the board, it was one in every 2,000 injections on average that caused death in the Western world.
But when you were elderly, like 90 plus, it goes up by orders of magnitude.
So it could be as high as 1%.
One in every 100 injections for the most elderly was causing death.
In India, because they were going after and injecting specifically the people with comorbidities, they had a list of comorbidities of people they wanted to inject.
I mean, it was just insane.
And they went after the elderly.
And in India, they killed 3.7 million people, a rise in death exactly coincident with the rollout in the vaccines in India.
And so the systematically see, sorry?
The covaxin was a superior product.
And I'm wondering, and that shouldn't have been doing that.
Was it the covaxin?
The vaccine that they had more than one type, and they insisted on manufacturing in India.
But the rollouts exactly coincide with this huge surge in mortality that is unprecedented for India.
Nothing like that anywhere else in the world.
Whereas they had absolutely no excess mortality until they did that.
Okay.
So India is, I wrote an article just on India, and it's one of the most striking cases.
But there are many, many cases where you see the rollout of a booster and a peak in all-cause mortality exactly at the same time.
This is over and over again.
And or the initial rollout, especially when they prioritize the elderly, you see a surge in mortality, excess mortality.
So I am convinced that there's a definite link between the injections and induced mortality, whatever the mechanism may be, because these cannot be coincidences.
And when we quantify them, we always get the same numbers.
I have what we call the vaccine dose fatality rate, all ages, that is quantified for different countries.
And we always get about the same number, whether it's the U.S., Canada, Australia, Israel, always get the same number.
It's one in 2,000.
Every one in 2,000 injections causes a death.
All ages.
So there is no doubt in my mind from the statistical analysis of all-cause mortality that the vaccines do cause death.
Now, you can say most of the time they don't.
Well, that's true.
But are you okay with one out of every 100 injections for the most elderly causing them to die?
Are you okay with that?
Is that acceptable?
But you opened, though, with the data about rolling death rates in people over the age of 90 being so high already.
Yes.
Right.
And so how did you account for that number?
Yeah.
Well, precisely, I'm talking about excess mortality.
I'm talking about excess.
And I would say that this data, this data has been replicated.
I would say, Dr. Rancourt, your data, from my understanding, has been well replicated or has been replicated by people like Ed Dowd.
This is exactly the recent reanalysis by Dr. Joseph Freeman's, you know, found one in 800 injections causes severe adverse event.
The death rate of one in 2,000 is in the same ballpark.
And Ed Dowd's analysis, Drew, Ed Dowder is a good friend of this show and is certain, you know, again, comes as a non-coming back to bring that data, right?
He's going to bring that down first.
And we're going to have to be done next week to actually looking at specific disease processes.
I think the correlation with the, and granted, it is a correlation at this point.
And everybody knows correlation doesn't prove causation, but the reality is somebody has some splaining to do.
And if you don't think it's the vaccine, I'm all ears to hear what's your explanation, what your theory is for those people who don't think it was the vaccine.
For me, like you, Dr. Rancour, I think it's quite clear that these two things are associated.
Go ahead.
Yeah, well, we didn't only look at all-cause mortality.
We also studied the VARS data, which reports death following vaccines.
And so we do see a very definite peak of deaths associated with the vaccine that occurs in the first three, four, five days immediately following the vaccination, a very sharp peak in mortality.
And then what we found, and no one else has reported, is that following that, the deaths fall off exponentially from that peak, okay?
And that exponential decay is about two weeks.
Two weeks is the half-life.
And so it lasts for about two months.
And because you have that very regular exponential behavior, we believe there's a causal relationship between those deaths that occur following the vaccine within that smooth function and in relation to the injection.
So we've analyzed that as well.
And we've also looked at the dependence on which dose you're getting.
We analyze the VARS data.
And what we found in the VARS data is that the death that are associated with the vaccine in this way also, again, go exponentially with age.
So you can do plots of median age versus excess deaths from the VARS data.
And we see an exponential increase with the same doubling time as we see in all-cause mortality.
And we also see, which is really interesting, that the variation, the variability of whether or not you're going to die, the magnitude of that variability also increases exponentially with age, as you would expect.
So as people age, they get more vulnerable, but they also have more variation from person to person of that age, right?
And that also goes exponentially.
So we showed that in a paper on the VARS data.
So we look at all this together, and I would be willing to bet my scientific credentials that the vaccines are causing these kinds of deaths.
And it's also supported by a paper that was peer-reviewed and appeared that was based on a survey in the United States.
Mark, I'm forgetting the name of the first author now, but what they did is they asked people, do you know anyone close who you believe died following the vaccine?
And based on a very rigorous analysis of that data, they concluded that 300,000 people died from the vaccine in the United States.
And that's the same number that we got from all-cause mortality.
So our numbers from all cause mortality are 1.3 million overall excess and about 330,000 directly associated with the vaccination.
And they number.
Now, I'm not saying that doesn't make both them and us right, but it does give two very different estimations of that number that come up to about the same value.
Yeah.
Interesting.
We're going to have to leave it right there.
It is all very interesting.
And Denny, I really appreciate you coming here and sharing your data and your thoughts, your expertise, your experience, all valuable.
People can agree or disagree and look at your data and decide what they will.
But that should be the process here.
That's what Kelly and I are begging for regularly, is that everybody have a look at things, look under the hood and start to move towards something we consider an approximation of the truth would be nice to have.
And we are finding lots of smoke, you and I, Kelly.
Lots of interesting smoke that I know you see the fire.
I don't quite see the fire myself yet, but I certainly see the smoke and the concerns and that kind of thing.
Denny, I hope we'll have you back sometime soon.
We got into the vaccine conversation.
I feel like we should get deeper into that maybe after Ed provides his data, something like that.
Sure.
Yeah, thank you again.
Thank you.
Yeah, which would be great as well.
I think you've got some fascinating data.
I appreciate just your thoughts really across the board, including your waxing philosophical about some of these issues, which I think It's important, but as Drew said, robust, vigorous debate has been a cornerstone in medicine throughout my career, and I will be damned if I'm going to let it go because the powers that be think that we shouldn't engage in it.