Dr. Roger Hodgkinson, a retired Cambridge-trained pathologist and biotech expert, returns to The Gunn Show to warn about rushed COVID-19 vaccines, citing myocarditis risks in young males, fertility concerns from Pfizer’s rat studies, and "contagious vaccinosis" linked to spike protein transmission via sweat. He slams the CDC for ignoring heart cell damage, vaccine passports, and suppressed menstrual data, accusing physician colleges of violating medical ethics by enforcing unproven mandates—including for children—while politicians prioritized optics over science. With trust in authorities crumbling, Hodgkinson predicts the pandemic response will be remembered as a historic betrayal, leaving lasting scars on public health and reputations like Fauci’s. [Automatically generated summary]
You're listening to a free audio only recording of my weekly Wednesday night show, The Gun Show.
However, this is the internet, so you can listen or watch whenever you feel like.
Tonight, my guest is someone who is very much requested.
It's Dr. Roger Hodgkinson.
And we're discussing the catastrophic effects of the pandemic response by the government, but also the problem with medical silencing and the complete lack of skepticism from the medical community about the vaccine rollout,
vaccine side effects, and how you can't even talk about this stuff on social media or on some of the big video platforms like YouTube.
Now, if you like listening to the show, then I promise you're going to love watching it.
But in order to watch, you need to be a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's what we call our long-form TV style shows here on Rebel News.
Subscribers get access to my show, as well as Ezra's nightly Ezra Levant show, David Menzies' super fun Friday night show, Rebel Roundup, and Andrew Chapatos' brand new show, Andrew Says.
It's only $8 a month to subscribe.
And just for my podcast listeners, you can save an extra 10% on a new Rebel News Plus subscription by using the coupon code podcast when you subscribe.
Just go to rebelnewsplus.com to become a member today.
And now please enjoy this free audio-only version of my show.
Meeting Canada's most censored doctor, I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed and you're watching The Gunn Show.
World's Most Censored Doctor00:03:57
Now back in December, the world came to know somebody that I've already known for quite some time.
The world came to know that he's a passionate and ethical man who cares about the underdog.
The world was first introduced to Dr. Roger Hodgkinson after he let the politicians at the city of Edmonton absolutely have it during a council meeting about the lockdown restrictions and the video of the whole affair went viral.
Take a look.
The bottom line is simply this.
There is utterly unfounded public hysteria driven by the media and politicians.
It's outrageous.
This is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public.
There is absolutely nothing that can be done to contain this virus other than protecting older, more vulnerable people.
It should be thought of nothing more than a bad flu season.
This is not Ebola.
It's not SARS.
It's politics playing medicine.
And that's a very dangerous game.
Since that time, Dr. Roger Hodgkinson has become a bit of an international sensation and everybody found out what I knew about him all along.
Now, Dr. Roger Hodgkinson, and I'll let you hear it from him for yourself, is a highly trained, highly credentialed doctor.
He's had a very prestigious education and a very long and successful career.
And he's an entrepreneur and a family man.
But because he spoke out about what he saw as a government overreaction to what he says is a routine upper respiratory disease, he's been attacked and he's been censored, but yet he fights on and yet he speaks out.
Today, in a very requested interview, you'll meet my friend, a contender for the most censored man on the internet these days, Dr. Roger Hodgkinson.
Take a listen.
So joining me now is Dr. Roger Hodgkinson.
Doctor, can you, and I'm sure you've done this a thousand times and you've even done it before with me, but can you give us a brief, or I don't even think it can possibly be all that brief given your background and your education and your training, but can you explain to us your background and your education and training so that people can truly understand where you're coming from?
You are not a layman with regard to disease and diagnosis at all.
Well, I'm a retired pathologist living in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
I trained at Cambridge University in Britain, did my pathology training in Vancouver at the University of British Columbia.
I subsequently became an assistant professor at the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Alberta, done a great deal of resident teaching in my career.
I've also been the chairman of a subcommittee of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons in Ottawa, setting the annual examination for pathology residents, a rather important role to make sure that your breast biopsy is being read correctly.
I've been the president of our provincial association of pathologists.
I've been the CEO of a large commercial retail laboratory.
I've practiced in the United States, in Michigan, and in California.
I'm the chairman of an American biotechnology company in North Carolina doing cutting-edge research on DNA sequencing for the early diagnosis of cancer.
That's a reasonable summary of what I bring to the table, Sheila.
The Infertility Epidemic00:15:09
I would suggest you're probably far more qualified than the people who are making decisions with regard to the coronavirus restrictions.
However, that again is my layman's personal opinion.
Now, you started, and it was really from the very beginning, speaking out against the coronavirus restrictions.
And I guess at the time, it would have been the reaction or overreaction of government officials to the pandemic that was just then spreading out of Wuhan, China.
Yes, I don't change a single word of what I said back in November, that it was the thing that went viral.
This is nothing more than a bad flu for the vast majority of the population.
Never in medical history have we quarantined the well to protect a few who are vulnerable.
Never happened before.
What should have happened, as I said back in November, is simply to protect the vulnerable.
That was the consensus of the Great Barrington Declaration by three of the world's most esteemed epidemiologists, protecting the vulnerable.
The older people in nursing homes with comorbidities should have been exactly where it was at, and life should have gone on exactly as normal without the massive consequences of so many things that rolled out from the declaration of an emergency, which never was an emergency in the usual sense of the word.
If you take away the definition of this being an emergency, that undercuts the very reason to have an emergency authorization for a vaccine and vaccine passports and dida di-da.
You know, the whole thing was a knock-on, a series of knock-on consequences that resulted in this horrendous medical mess that will go down in history as the most grotesque example of mistakes in medicine,
of medical malpractice of the most enormous scale, because we're injecting this untested vaccine as we speak into billions of arms without going through the usual testing for no good reason whatsoever.
And that includes injecting into children with all kinds of potential complications that we may talk about later on.
You know, let's go there right away because you and I were talking yesterday on the phone about your concerns with not only the untested vaccines, but also the idea that we are now giving them to children.
And even still, as we're seeing, complications arise out of places like Israel, where they have a little bit longer history with the vaccine than we do here in North America.
They're still proceeding with this idea that kids, the least vulnerable to the coronavirus, must be vaccinated for, in our instance, for our province to be allowed to reopen.
Yes, let's discuss those one at a time, specifically myocarditis and infertility.
Myocarditis is a technical medical word for inflammation of the heart.
A large number of adult males in Israel are coming down with this problem.
It's a serious concern.
It cannot be dismissed as the CDC is dismissing it as mild.
There is no such thing as a mild myocarditis.
Allow me to explain.
We're talking here about inflammation of the heart in young men who are previously perfectly well.
Now, myocarditis means that you are killing randomly a variable number, we don't know for sure because the person's still alive.
You're killing a large number of individual heart muscle cells.
The heart is distinguished from other organs in that it does not regenerate.
The kidneys and the liver do.
Whoa, that caught me by surprise.
Are we having a thunderstorm?
It's going to come my way after it's done with you.
I saw the lightning person.
I wonder what the heck it was.
So when you kill off heart muscle cells, they do not regenerate.
And it's well known in medicine that myocarditis, when you recover from it, it can result in heart failure decades later and all kinds of other cardiac complications.
It cannot be predicted.
It's never mild.
It's very serious.
And that's the very reason the CDC is holding an emergency meeting tomorrow to look at whether or not this is sufficient to stop vaccination in young males.
And that would extend to children as well, of course.
So that is, it's very concerning.
And that's precisely the reason why clinical trials continue for the length of time they do, four or five, seven years, is not unusual.
Because you don't know what you don't know.
The whole purpose of a clinical trial is to identify unexpected complications and to quantify how many of them there are and how bad they are.
That has not been done.
All predicated on an emergency which does not exist.
The vast majority of the population are not dying of COVID.
If they get COVID, they're working well, as I call them, they might have a flu-like illness.
But the vast majority of them are not dying in greater numbers than they have done with previous flu epidemics.
And that's why I'm saying it's really no worse than a bad seasonal flu.
Allow me to elaborate, Sheila, on the statistical sleight of hand.
You might call it lying.
It's certainly pandering to fear instead of optimism.
If you were Granny in a nursing home and I'm your doc, I could walk into you one morning and say rather glumly, Granny, it's true.
You've got COVID.
You know, your risk of dying of this is about four times as much as it was with the flu last year.
And Granny would say to me, Well, that sounds pretty grim, doesn't it, Doc?
What are we going to do about this?
On the other hand, I could walk in and see Granny and say this, say this to you, Granny.
Granny, you know, it's true, you've got COVID.
But remember last year when you had the flu and you recovered so well, you had a 99% chance of beating that, and you did, didn't you?
Well, this time around, you've got a 96% chance of beating it.
So that doesn't sound too bad, does it?
And Granny would say, no, it sure doesn't, Doc.
Let me get out of here.
You see how you see how they constantly, constantly morph the game into something that's creating fear instead of a balanced opinion as to what's happening, just like PCR and false positives and so-called cases.
And I mean, I could go on and on and on.
The sleight of hand is just, you have to consider it to be intentional.
Now, let's talk about some of the other complications that we talked about off camera yesterday with regards to the vaccine.
That, you know, and I think it's important for us to talk about them because the mainstream media is very suppressive when it comes to talking about the other side of this story.
But you talked about the problems with infertility that could be developing because of the vaccines, but also a phrase that I had never heard before until you used it.
And I follow this very closely, so that tells you how much the information is being suppressed.
And it was called contagious vaccinosis.
Am I saying that properly?
That is correct.
Well, let's do with those one at a time.
The concern regarding fertility is not proven for the very simple reason that the trials did not continue long enough.
The last time I checked, Sheila, and you can vouch for this yourself, pregnancy takes nine months.
Well, if pregnancy takes nine months, how can you conceivably check on fertility if your clinical trial only extends for four to six months?
And furthermore, by intention, you exclude pregnant women.
Obviously impossible.
And yet this is a standard investigation for the introduction of any new medication or vaccine for obvious reasons.
Fertility is terribly important.
Now the evidence for concern is this, and it differs for males and females.
It just so happens that the submission that Pfizer made to the Japanese authorities in Japanese has just become available and translated.
The experiments they conducted were in rats in terms of the distribution of these virus particles that are in part of the vaccine, these nanoparticles made of lipid, a fatty substance.
And they showed in that bio-distribution study a most unexpected finding in rats, admittedly, in rats, that there was very heavy concentration of these virus particles in the ovaries.
Totally unexpected.
Exactly why we do trials to find out things that you cannot predict.
And so it was in rats, admittedly, but that is the kind of thing that should have prompted an enormous red flag to investigate the possibility.
And it's no more than that at this time.
I'm not trying to be a scaremonger here.
I'm saying this is based in science and reasonable concern about what the science says.
That would be a very solid reason not to vaccinate women and girls with this vaccine until it was shown not to be the case.
With boys and men, it's a different story.
The whole intent of this vaccine is to produce spike protein, which is then presented to the immune system to create an immune reaction to theoretically, I use that word advisedly, protect you from getting a real COVID infection.
In some people, an excess of spike protein is produced that travels around the body and is the reason for all these complications that we're now becoming aware of, such as myocarditis, such as blood clots in the brain, such as blood clots in the legs, etc., etc.
But there are other organs that have a very high expression of the receptor for this spike protein.
In addition to the inside of blood vessels, I'm getting ahead of myself here, we get all these thrombotic events, these blood clots events, because the receptor for the spike protein in the peripheral blood is on the inside of blood vessels.
That's why we get these thrombotic events.
But that receptor, that ACE2 receptor, ACE2 receptor, is also present in very high, it's very highly expressed in the placenta and the testis, not the ovary, but the testis and the placenta.
So you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that if there is attack on the testis and the placenta by the spike protein, that this certainly should raise concerns about the viability of pregnancies in the early stages, perhaps, and also about male infertility.
So that's the background of the infertility story.
It's not proven.
That's precisely because the clinical trials did not continue long enough.
And it's obviously very, very important.
I hope I'm wrong.
I don't want to be a scaremonger.
I spent my entire life in evidence-based medicine.
All I'm doing here is blowing the whistle and saying this needs to be investigated before any more vaccinations are performed on anybody.
That's the story on infertility.
Now, about the contagious vaccinosis, I think this is such a fascinating thing because, again, if what's happening here holds true, then unvaccinated people could potentially be at risk due to exposure to vaccinated people.
Yes.
My first reaction when I heard these stories was, this is ridiculous.
Come on, get a grip on yourselves.
You know, this couldn't conceivably, this is mass hysteria, you know.
Well, let me tell you something.
Medicine is replete, and these are largely women that are making complaints.
Medicine is, history of medicine is replete with dismissing women female complaints as hysterical.
And it's a very brave doc that does that without investigation to show that it's not plausible.
Well, it turns out that there is some plausibility to it, quite apart from the number of people who are making these complaints, largely women, some of them postmenopausal, who are starting to have periods again.
In the actual Pfizer clinical trial documentation, they described the need to be alert to this possibly happening, which means they were ahead of the game.
They knew it was possible and it needed to be looked for.
But what's rather sinister is in that very same protocol, they said, do not report this to the clinical trial coordinator as an adverse reaction of the vaccine.
Concerns About Vaccine Transmission00:10:28
Simply report it to the trial coordinator separately so it would not be recorded as an adverse reaction.
Now that's rather sinister.
That's in their submission in their clinical trial protocol.
But it goes much deeper than that.
There is a report out of Wuhan, strangely enough.
Some Chinese pathologists did an autopsy on someone who died of COVID.
And they showed, this is the infection now.
They showed very clearly that the virus located in sweat glands.
And they actually pointed out in their paper that this might imply the possibility of transmission through sweat and therefore aerosolized transmission that other people breathe in.
Now remember, this is for the virus, not for the vaccine.
But they did demonstrate a high concentration of the same receptor, this ACE2 receptor, in the sweat glands for the spike protein.
So the partial, and I underline that in NEON, I'm not saying this is proven, I'm saying this is the partial hypothesis that could explain this problem of what's now being called contagious vaccinosis.
It could be that excess spike protein locates in the sweat glands, enters the sweat, is aerosolized and breathed in by bystanders.
these reports are concerning people who have not just had a trivial contact with someone who's vaccinated but some people who've been caregivers or in a family setting or whatever who've been in close contact with someone who's been vaccinated and could have been could have potentially inhaled sufficient spike protein to get inside their body by some means not yet known and produce these effects that are being described
There's a number of problems with that hypothesis, not the least of which is the likely dose that someone would inhale and also the mechanism by which the spike protein may or may not penetrate the respiratory tract.
There are no studies that I'm aware of that have studied, it's well known about the penetration of the respiratory tract by the virus, but I'm not aware of any studies regarding the transmissibility of the spike protein through the respiratory tract surface.
So that's where we are with contagious vaccinosis right now.
We have the plausibility, partial plausibility of it from a scientific perspective.
We have the recognition by Pfizer that it could happen and was to be looked for in the clinical trials.
And we have the scientific underpinning of it of knowing that there's heavy ACE2 receptor expression in sweat glands.
And on top of that, we have the large number of reports swirling around the internet of people alleging that they're having problems because of being close to someone who's been vaccinated.
Now, it's terribly important that I'm not labeled here as some scaremonger, some quack, some, you know, some loony toon.
I'm simply drawing attention to some of the science behind this.
And it should be investigated.
Now, that's one of the things I wanted to talk to you about because I think that you are probably the most censored man on the internet for your very reasonable and balanced approach to the science of the pandemic.
I know myself, if I were to post a video of you to my Facebook page, the potential is that my Facebook page could be disappeared altogether.
But I know for sure that YouTube or Facebook are going to pull that video down as misinformation.
And I know you've been labeled as an anti-vaxxer, but I've heard you say repeatedly that you are not at all an anti-vaxxer.
You've received a vaccine yourself.
That's not your concern.
Your concern is the lack of investigation of this specific slate of vaccines.
I wanted to ask you, you know, sorry, go ahead.
Yeah, please.
I just say to that, Sheila, I have lived my life, my entire career, in evidence-based medicine, mainstream, kept my nose clean, duck.
All right?
That's me.
I'm not one to exaggerate.
I'm not one to scare people.
Not at all.
I'm just standing up as a whistleblower because I believe a madness of indescribable scale is being perpetrated by these politicians, aided and abetted by their medical officers of health.
That's why I'm standing up.
I'm sorry to interject that, but I'm not an anti-vaxxer.
I take vaccines myself.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
I'm not a great resetter.
None of the above.
No, I'm simply trying to educate people about the things that are being suppressed.
No, I've known you for years, and I think you're one of the most level-headed and thoughtful people I've ever encountered in my sphere of conservatism.
Now, I wanted to talk to you about the attacks on your reputation and your credibility from other doctors who are completely buying in to the COVID pandemic narrative without any sort of skepticism at all.
What have you experienced?
I've been paying attention, but I think our viewers need to hear it from you.
Well, I've been attacked by my own college, of course, for talking, quote, outside of my scope of practice, close quote.
Well, you know, we told the college that, according to the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, of which, by the way, as I said, I was the chairman of a board that set the examination for pathologists nationally.
The college is saying I'm outside of my scope of practice.
Well, actually, general pathologists are trained in infectious disease, in bacteriology, in virology, in the relevant aspects of public health, and also are expected to stand up with advocacy of matters that are within their scope of practice.
That's in the document from the Royal College that defines the education and responsibilities of a general pathologist such as myself.
So I'm not speaking as an expert in any one of these micro, micro areas where experts that have spent their career studying one particular thing.
No, I'm not that kind of person.
What I am is a senior, well-educated, well-experienced general pathologist who reads voraciously about everything that everyone's saying internationally.
And I'm right up to the minute on that, by the way.
I'm very privileged to be part of a group of about 12 people who are the leading voices in this internationally.
People like Professor Bakdi in Germany, Mike Eden in Britain, Nick Hudson in South America, South Africa, Peter McCullough in the States, Baylor College of Medicine, Jay Bhattacharya out of Stanford.
I'm very fortunate to be in frequent, sometimes daily communication with the cream of the cream in all of this internationally.
And so I'm trying to relate to you a very balanced, up-to-date, bang-up-to-date opinion on what's going on.
The reason these doctors are publicly supporting government is very simple.
They're dependent upon government.
They're usually in academic positions where they would lose their tenure immediately if they were to speak up.
They're part of the council, they're counselors of the College of Physicians and Surgeons.
They're simply to tick off the box on their CV that, yes, tick, being on the college, you know, one of the ultimate accolades in our profession.
In my opinion, they're all brown noses.
And I would be more explicit than that.
The role of the colleges across this country of physicians and surgeons is very simply put, it's to protect you from me.
It's to make sure I'm not cutting off the wrong leg.
It's to make sure that I'm not a pedophile.
All those good things to protect you from medicine.
And they're supposed to do that independent of any influence, especially from government.
Instead of that, what they've become is the enforcement arm of government policy.
Instead of them getting their teeth into me and other physicians and threatening physicians so overtly with loss of livelihood, instead of suppressing, silencing viciously physicians to speak out, what they should be doing is exactly the opposite.
It's Orwellian in nature.
They should be demanding of the medical officers of health in each province simply this.
Medical Ethics Betrayed00:06:35
Why are you doing this?
Because it contravenes two of the most central and important medical ethics.
First, do no harm and inform consent.
There's obviously massive harm going on because of lockdowns.
Very well documented.
All kinds of things that I could elaborate on.
But there is no informed consent for this vaccine.
They're calling it safe.
Four letters, one word, safe.
No such thing.
This is a highly experimental, unsafe vaccine.
And to use that word on the billboards without qualification is the most grotesque distortion of the English language.
And it's medical malpractice on every billboard, telling you it is safe when it is not safe.
It's grotesque in its implications because they should be banging the table, as I said, and demanding an explanation of why are you doing this.
And when the Justice Center of Constitutional Freedom, of course, in court, asked the medical officer of health for exactly that information, why are you doing this?
Despite being a year into the game, they said they didn't have the information.
Well, I'll tell you why they don't have the information.
First of all, it doesn't exist for all these arbitrary measures that they're introducing.
And secondly, they didn't want to reveal that it didn't exist because it was undercut the very essence of what they're doing.
So they came up with this ridiculous excuse that we haven't had enough time to produce this information.
The most ludicrous excuse you could imagine.
If something of this scale is going on, it would be expected, in fact, demanded by a minister of his bureaucrats that you actively monitor this and tell me what's going on.
That was intentionally ignored.
They just don't want to know.
That's why they weren't studying it and reporting it.
And that's why they don't have the data because they simply did not want to be told it was not working and had no basis in medical science.
That's how outrageous this is.
Now, a pack of lies from beginning to end.
A pack of lies.
I know why the doctors are doing it, but you've told me you're not a great resetter.
So why do you think the politicians are doing this, being supported by the doctors?
The politicians are getting what they demand.
Evidence that, quote, we are doing something.
Well, I've got to tell politicians, anyone that's listening today, in 2021, medicine is totally impotent at controlling an upper respiratory tract viral pandemic.
It cannot be done by any means known to medical science.
If we knew that masks worked, don't you think we would have done that in all the previous flu epidemics?
Of course we would.
But the reason we didn't was very simple.
They were known in the medical literature not to work.
Politicians are just trying to show the public that they were doing something, that we can protect you from this Armageddon that's being described.
Well, it was never Armageddon in the first place, and none of the measures have any basis in medical science.
But they demanded that something be done that was visible.
And you can't think of anything more visible than demanding that people walk around with diapers on their faces all the time.
Now, you've also spoken out about the social effects of the lockdown.
And you've described yourself, I've heard you repeatedly describe yourself as agnostic.
I know your lovely wife is Catholic like me.
But you have attended the pro-church protests to speak out against the restrictions being placed on places of worship.
Just yesterday, we had Tim Stevens arrested in front of his crying, screaming, pleading children.
How do you think our trust in government and in this case, the police, do you think it will ever recover from what's been done these last 15 or 16 months?
I think most people are still drinking the Kool-Aid that government's dishing out, simply because it's unopposed.
All the usual sources of information, whether it's journalism, politicians, or physicians, all are being brutally suppressed, not by the colleges, in the case of physicians, by the likes of YouTube and Facebook, social media, by our prime minister pouring money down the throats of mainstream media.
And of course, you don't bite the hand that feeds you, do you?
So the general public, I think, are still buying into this simply because they've had no source of any counter information.
So it will probably run its course.
The sun will come up.
We'll all start making vitamin D again.
What used to be called the season of coughs and colds is now being better defined as the season of vitamin D deficiency because it needs a certain height of the sun in the sky to get the ultraviolet rays to make us make vitamin D in our skin.
And of course, the politicians will say when the cases start disappearing over the summer, they'll beat their chests and say, see, see, we beat it to the ground for you, didn't we?
Well, they might as well say they were the ones that made the sun come up in the sky.
I mean, it's that ridiculous.
You know, nothing could have been done to stop this pandemic.
And everything that has been done has merely made life so miserable and painful and caused so many deaths and created so much debt that our children will have to repay.
Scandalous Pandemic Response00:02:24
The whole thing has been scandalous.
There must be investigative journalists right now, Sheila, writing the history of this madness.
Because the truth will out and it will be seen to be the most scandalous episode in human history.
Heads will roll and as I said, there'll be blood in the gutter when those reputations are destroyed.
Not the least of which is Fauci, you know, flip-flop Fauci.
His fingerprints are all over this from beginning to end.
But he's not the only person that will suffer.
Politicians will suffer.
I hope that colleges suffer because they've been asleep at the switch on their fundamental duty to protect the public from bad medicine.
Well, hopefully that we can have you back on the show very soon.
There's so much more I want to talk to you about.
And I had a lot of things on my list, but I think 45 minutes might be long enough.
And we'll have you back on very, very soon.
And I know that my colleague Drea Humphrey is very interested in talking with you about her stopmedical silencing.com campaign because you have been a target of that campaign and you have somehow survived and come out the other side.
Dr. Roger, thank you so much for coming on the show and we'll have you back on again very, very soon.
Thank you very much for that.
It's been a real pleasure.
Thank you.
you.
Now, Roger tells me that the amount of support he's received for speaking out has been overwhelming.
And I know he feels a great responsibility to respond to all the messages he gets and to tell the truth about what he sees unfolding before him.
What Dr. Roger Hodgkinson is doing in the interest of medical independence and proper oversight and transparency has and will continue to take a great personal toll on him and his family.
So please keep them in your thoughts.
Dr. Roger Hodgkinson is up against some of the most powerful people and corporations in the world right now.
Well, everybody, that's the show for tonight.
Thank you so much for tuning in.
I'll see everybody back here in the same time, in the same place next week, or maybe not.
I might not be in my backyard as I am right now, but I'll be somewhere next week.