Ezra Levant examines a Danish study showing Pfizer’s effectiveness at -76.5% and Moderna’s at -39.3% against Omicron after 91 days, yet AFP dismisses it as misleading without retracting the data. Quebec’s vaccine passport crackdown—fines up to $1,558, mass arrests—mirrors authoritarian tactics, polarizing society while media amplifies fear. Dr. Steven Pellick warns vaccines are experimental, with 1 in 2,700 risk of myocarditis in young males versus COVID’s 1 in 100,000 hospitalization rate, and cites potential fertility damage via spike protein-induced autoimmunity. The episode reveals how unproven policies, driven by corporate and political agendas, erode trust and civil liberties, leaving long-term consequences unaddressed. [Automatically generated summary]
AFP, which is a newswire, fact-checked a tweet of mine that I tweeted two weeks ago.
And they have been taking a go.
They put a lot of work into this.
It's quite something.
I'll take you through my tweet, their response to it, and my response to them.
I think you'll come to the conclusion I have.
It's not a fact-check, it's an opinion check.
That's the show.
Before I get to it, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of the show.
Also, shows by my colleagues Sheila, David, and Andrew.
Just go to RebelNewsPlus.com and click subscribe, eight bucks a month.
What a bargain.
All right, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, I've been fact-checked by a corporate media fact-checker, but...
But were my facts wrong or just my opinions?
It's January 6th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say to the government about why I'm publishing it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
I don't know if you watched my show just before Christmas.
I think it was December 23rd when I took you through a very interesting study out of Denmark.
This is what the study looks like.
You can find it for yourself.
Here's a recap from that show.
Vaccines are not working against Omicron.
They work half the time or a third of the time.
Even if you're triple boosted, even if you keep getting boosted, it works for a bit, but then it fades away very quickly.
But actually, their charts show more than their written reports.
They don't talk about this part in their written report.
After a while, these two vaccines, Moderna and Pfizer, they give negative protection.
As in, if you get the Pfizer or Moderna shot after three months, you are more likely to get sick than if you didn't get the shot at all.
Look at this.
Let me read to you from the chart.
Estimated vaccine effectiveness for Pfizer and Moderna against infection with the Omicron and Delta variants.
Okay.
So you can see for the first 30 days, Pfizer is 55% effective and Moderna is 37% effective.
Okay, so I told you that before.
But look, a month out, right?
31 days out.
Pfizer barely works.
Do you see that?
16%.
Moderna works a bit better.
Two months out, 60 days.
You see that?
Both have fallen to single digits.
They don't work more than 90% of the time.
Seriously, what is that?
9.7% effectiveness for Pfizer, 4.2% effectiveness for Moderna.
It's useless.
You might as well be taking a placebo.
But look at the next line.
And it's weird to me that they didn't highlight this.
This should be in the headline on the front page.
I shouldn't have to dig it out in the chart.
This should be in the written report.
91 days out.
What's the effectiveness here?
Minus 76.5% for Pfizer, minus 39.3% for Moderna.
Minus.
You are literally more likely to get infected if you are vaccinated with Pfizer or Moderna than if you're not.
This is not my opinion.
This is what this chart in this national Danish study published online by a collaboration of Yale and the British Medical Journal show.
And they're sponsored, like I say, by Mark Zuckerberg.
This is not some anti-vaccine website.
What's the point?
I mean, Omicron hasn't killed anybody.
Doesn't really hospitalize anybody.
It's the opposite.
People are admitted to a hospital for another reason, and then maybe they happen to be diagnosed with Omicron too.
So it's like a cold.
It's no big deal.
But by God, we need to sell some boosters.
We need to keep the fear machine going.
But the shots aren't working.
That's not me saying it.
That's the Danish study.
I thought it was a pretty incredible story.
If you remember, I read through paragraph after paragraph, word for word, to show you that it wasn't my opinion.
This was the medical research done by seven experts in Denmark studying thousands of cases of Omicron.
And it was published in a reputable publication.
That chart was just incredible, I think.
Anyway, so I did my show about it.
I don't know if you remember.
And I tweeted about it too.
For those who wanted a 60-second version, not a 20-minute version of it.
Here's that tweet.
I said, holy moly.
This study shows that after three months, the vaccine effectiveness of Pfizer and Moderna against Omicron is actually negative.
Pfizer customers are 76.5% more likely, and Moderna customers are 39.3% more likely to be infected than unvaxed people.
And then I had that chart there.
Now, maybe it was the phrase holy moly, but that tweet went viral.
Here are the Twitter analytics on it.
4 million people saw that one tweet.
That's a lot.
Almost 50,000 people clicked on the link to read the actual study, which shows a real depth of interest, I think.
Anyways, I didn't tweet it just to get the clicks.
I tweeted because I thought it was genuinely important news in the public interest.
And scary news, the vaccines that's supposed to protect you, they really fade away in just a few months.
We sort of knew that in our bones.
You could sort of tell.
But to actually become negative vaccines, I didn't even know that was possible.
But negative effectiveness is the phrase in the study.
So I tweeted it.
And a lot of people thought it was interesting too.
I mean, look at that wording again.
Other than the holy moly part, though, it's actually just a description of the study.
There aren't any adjectives other than holy moly.
It's just the facts and a snapshot of the actual graph from the actual study.
So it's just a fact, really.
Okay, so Christmas came and went.
Here we are in the first week of 22.
But yesterday, out of the blue, I saw this story weirdly in Yahoo Sports, which I don't really understand that part.
And here's the headline, misleading posts.
Claim study shows vaccines increase Omicron infection risk.
And apparently it was a joint investigation by reporters around the world.
You can see the byline, AFP Brazil, AFP Canada.
So here's what they said in the story.
A tweet shared tens of thousands of times claims the study found that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines increase the chances of infection with the Omicron variant.
But experts said the shots do not increase the risk of infection.
And the authors of the Danish study claim, said the claim misinterpreted the data, overlooking key factors including more frequent testing and more potential exposure among the vaccinated, which would account for the higher reported infection rate in that group.
All right, so you can see a question already.
Is this supposed fact check saying that the study did not actually say that vaccines increase the risk of infection?
So that's, are they saying that, that the studies didn't say it?
Or are they saying that the vaccines did increase the risk of infection in this study, but they have some explanations for why that happened?
I don't think you can really make both arguments at once.
I think you have to choose them.
I think you can make the second argument.
Okay, you don't like the facts.
You don't like what the study showed.
So you can try and explain it away.
I mean, good luck with that.
But I took you through the study in detail two weeks ago, and I showed you a clip again today from that.
The study said what it said, and I just quoted it.
But then they show my tweet, and really bizarrely, they have a red X drawn through it, like a child might do.
Sort of weird.
I really don't like this.
I'm going to scribble on it.
Then the fact check talks a bit about the Omicron variant, okay?
Then they wait a bit before getting to their rebuttal.
And so this is the part where they're going to show I got my facts wrong.
Here it is.
The study Levant sites aimed to determine the effectiveness of the Pfizer-Moderna shots against the Omicron variant up to five months after full vaccination.
It found, quote, evidence of protection against infection with the Omicron variants.
But that effectiveness is significantly lower than against Delta infection and declines rapidly over just a few months.
Okay, yeah, so that's what I said.
Where's the fact check?
What fact did I get wrong?
That's what I said.
Okay, I'll read some more.
The authors added that effectiveness, quote, is re-established upon re-vaccination and say their findings highlight the need for a massive rollout of vaccinations and booster vaccinations.
You'll recall I mentioned that in my December video.
I thought it was sort of cynical that the official conclusion after they find that vaccines don't work very well for very long is to recommend more vaccines.
But that's not denying what the study says.
It's just giving their opinion about what to do about it.
It sort of confirms that they stopped working after three months.
So where's the fact check part again?
What fact did I get wrong again?
So AFP, that stands for Agence France-Presse.
It's a French-based international news wire.
It takes major funding from political groups like Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook for its fact checks.
So they called up one of the seven original researchers in Denmark, and I think he had to be terrified because his study, in my opinion, and obviously in the opinion of 4 million other people, and obviously the opinion of AFP and their bosses at Facebook, it undermined the vaccine's reputation.
I mean, if vaccines stop working after just a couple of months or three months, what's the point, right?
So a researcher who dared to report this research from Denmark was called up by a hunter-killer reporter for Facebook AFP.
And I think he panicked.
I'll quote from their fact check.
Pale Valentiner Branth, one of the authors of the study and head of the Vaccine Preventable Diseases Group at Denmark's Stotten Serum Institute, told AFP on December 28th, quote, interpretation that our research is evidence of anything but a protective vaccine effect is misrepresentative.
Okay, so he's not denying his study, and he's not refuting my accurate quoting of his study.
He's just saying, hey, people, don't think the wrong things about my study.
Everybody, please believe that the vaccines protect you.
So he's talking about interpretations, but still, I'm still waiting.
What's the fact I got wrong?
I'll read this next part word for word.
Valentiner Branth offered three explanations for why the vaccine effectiveness estimate in the study could be negative.
The first was that in many places, including Denmark, vaccinated individuals are tested more frequently than unvaccinated individuals, causing the incidence rate to be higher.
The second was that Denmark's quick identification of Omicron cases allowed the Nordic country to detect the first infected individuals who had traveled abroad and were largely vaccinated.
Thirdly, Valentina Branth said that the study's estimation of vaccine effectiveness is based on the assumption that vaccinated and unvaccinated people are taking similar precautions against COVID-19.
In reality, he said, people in Denmark who are unvaccinated may take further precautions and engage in fewer risky activities than those who have received the shots, leading vaccine effectiveness to be underestimated.
Okay, so this one terrified researcher who was being held to account by AFP, I think he did something really odd, really unscientific in my opinion, on the spot to stop AFP and the Facebook from demonizing him.
He tried to demonize his own study.
He couldn't, in good conscience, say that the study was fake or inaccurate or flawed.
I mean, he ran the thing.
Remember, he was one of seven researchers.
They were proud enough of their work to publish it.
So he couldn't deny it.
So he just started freestyling, coming up with possible reasons why maybe his study could be the way it is.
He didn't actually say his study was flawed or wrong.
He just tried to come up with a brainstorm, really, about why people should forget he ever doubted big pharma.
More vax people were tested than unvaxed.
Maybe it was travelers who were detected, whatever that has to do with vaccine effectiveness.
I don't know.
Unvaxed people are more careful.
But those are opinions.
Those are guesses, really.
He didn't cite a study or any research.
I went back and looked at his original publication again online.
There's no addition to it.
There's no postscript.
There's no editor's note.
The study was actually a study.
This talk to AFP was just him guessing on the phone, trying to brainstorm reasons why his work shouldn't actually be taken seriously.
It's sort of sad, really, embarrassing, I think, pretty cringe.
But he knew that the AFP was trying to cancel him and cancel the study.
Just FYI, what he was doing there, was junk science.
Fake news, really?
His three excuses for why you shouldn't take his real study seriously, his three excuses are not actual studies.
Disputing Junk Science00:08:22
They're sort of punditry.
I think that's sad, but that's the state of science and medicine these days.
You better be careful.
But I come back to the so-called fact check.
What fact have I got wrong?
I accurately quoted a study that remains unchanged and unedited and unretracted, even by the guy they got on the phone.
Sure, AFP got one of the seven scientists to embarrass himself, but did I or did I not quote the study accurately to this day?
Of course I quoted accurately.
I actually showed a picture of the chart.
But boy, were these fact checkers determined to undermine the study.
I guess they didn't have any more luck with the six other Danish researchers that were probably wise not to answer their phones.
So AFP started looking around the world to TV doctors who had nothing to do with the study in Denmark.
Maybe they would denounce it to see their name in a story approvingly.
Maybe they just want to be celebrities.
So let me quote a little bit more from the so-called fact check.
Dan Milner, chief medical officer of the American Society for Clinical Pathology, gave similar explanations for the discrepancy in infection rates in the Danish study.
This estimate is likely highly confounded by behavior and restrictions on the groups, he explained on January 4th.
This difference in sample groups means that the actual measure of effectiveness is not correctly estimated in this data.
So this American who was not part of the study says it was likely incorrect because he's got this theory about how it could be incorrect.
Okay, so that's a theory.
Science is about taking your theory and testing it in an experiment.
So an American who doesn't like a study in Denmark, you can criticize the study if they did something wrong, or you could run the study yourself to see what the results are.
But our man Milner just said, no, no, I think it's likely that it's got to be wrong.
That's called a hypothesis.
That's an educated guess.
And then, just to prove what he means on, he told AFP, the take-home point of this is that after three months, you need a booster, Milner concluded, adding that the study also shows how much protection the vaccines provide for the first three months.
Yeah, that's right.
It sure does.
It shows just how much protection you're getting.
That's a nice way of putting it.
I mean, the vaccines against Omicron, they fall to single-digit effectiveness after just two months.
Negative effectiveness after three months.
I'm still waiting for a fact check on my reporting.
You can say you don't like the study.
You can say you still want to sell boosters no matter what the study says.
You can say you have some guesses about what might be really going on.
But that's just really a conspiracy theory until you actually test it, right?
It's a speculation.
And even if they're all right, by the way, and the study is junk, which no one has proved that it is, I reported on it accurately and the research has not been retracted.
So where's the fact that got wrong again?
Then they hop down to Brazil because why not?
I mean, look at a map, Brazil, Denmark.
Alexandra Naim, head of the infectious diseases department of the São Paulo State University in Brazil, dismissed claims that vaccines could increase chances of infection.
There is no vaccine that induces a greater risk of infection.
This is untrue.
It is a biological fallacy.
Vaccines may not be effective, but it does not mean that they increase the risk, he told AFP.
So he simply refuses to believe the study that shows otherwise.
It is a fallacy.
So you see, he has a theory he believes in very deeply.
It's a belief system.
And so when facts come forward, inconvenient facts, by the way, the study in Denmark had more than 5,000 patients in it.
When 5,000 facts come forward proving that his theory needs to be adjusted, he's just so emotionally invested in his theory that vaccines work and they always work, of course they work, that he would literally throw out a study and 5,000 examples as impossible, a fallacy, rather than change his closed mind.
That is not science, my friends.
That is a religion, maybe.
Maybe that's a cult.
Maybe it's superstition.
Maybe it's payola.
I don't know, but it is not science.
They quoted one last guy.
Boy, they put a lot of work into this, didn't they?
More work than I did.
They quoted one last guy, also with no connection to the study.
Richard Kennedy, co-director of vaccine research at Mayo Clinic, also rejected the idea of vaccines increasing likelihood of infection.
There is no rational biologic reason for the vaccine to have 55% Pfizer or 36% Moderna effectiveness at day 30, and then 60 days later increase your susceptibility to disease, he said on January 4th, referring to the earlier effectiveness rates in the study.
It is more reasonable to assume that the study has some flaw in its design, he added, pointing out that the authors of the study did admit the shortcomings.
So again, he just can't believe it.
He won't believe it.
He doesn't believe it.
So he's going to go with that feeling in his bones rather than a study.
But again, even if this astrologer, priest, or whatever he is is right and the Danish scientists were wrong, can you tell me what's inaccurate about my tweet?
Either I reported on the study accurately or I did not.
Disagreeing with a study that I accurately described is not a fact check on me.
And simply not believing something isn't really a fact check on the study itself, is it?
I love how the whole thing ends.
AFP FactCheck has debunked more than 1,200 inaccurate claims related to COVID-19 here.
They're so proud of themselves.
Now, I haven't read all thousand plus inaccurate claims, but I don't think, I'm just going to guess.
I don't think that AFP has ever corrected a single false statement by Anthony Vauci or Canada's Teresa Tam or any other public health deep state type on anything from masks to vaccine effectiveness.
People should not be walking around with masks.
Let me just state for the record that masks are not theater.
Wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better.
Masks are protective.
But it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is.
There has not been any indication that putting a mask on and wearing a mask for a considerable period of time has any deleterious effects.
There are unintended consequences.
People keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.
And can you get some schmutz sort of staying inside there?
Of course.
You do not need to wear a mask indoors if in fact you've been vaccinated.
Good that you're vaccinated, but in a situation where you have people indoors, particularly crowded, you should wear a mask.
So even if you are vaccinated, you should wear a mask.
If in fact you are vaccinated, fully vaccinated, you are protected and you do not need to wear a mask, outdoors or indoors.
When the children go out into the community, you want them to continue to wear masks.
You know, if you look at children outside, particularly when they're with the family walking down the street, playing a game or what have you, don't have to wear a mask.
The pediatric, the Academy of Pediatric, actually makes that recommendation that children should be wearing masks from two years old onward.
And you're asking now, if your child is a member of your household, can you walk outdoors with your child without a mask?
According to that chart, the answer is yes.
But the child can't, not to beat it to death.
Yes, yes.
Because now the CDC says, I mean, I think I've got this right.
One mask is better than zero masks.
Two masks is better than one mask.
But you don't have to have double masks.
Is that right?
Mask Recommendations00:03:03
I mean.
You know, it became clear that cloth coverings that you didn't have to buy in a store, that you could make yourself, were adequate.
And then you wanted to fit better.
So one of the ways you could do it if you would like to is put a cloth mask over, which actually here and here and here, where you could get leakage in is much better contained.
Are you a double masker, Dr. Fauci?
It looks like you are.
Yeah, I mean, it's tough to fact-check vaccines when Bill Gates alone has given more than 300 million U.S. to the media.
His own private media bailout, just like Trudeau does here in Canada.
But Gates himself actually admits the vaccines don't really vaccinate as promised.
Economic damage, the deaths, it's been completely horrific.
And I would expect that will lead the RD budgets to be focused on things we didn't have today.
You know, we didn't have vaccines that block transmission.
We got vaccines that helped you with your health, but they only slightly reduced the transmissions.
We need a new way of doing the vaccines.
Look, I'm not worried about what some anonymous writer in Brazil or wherever has to say about my tweet two weeks later on a Yahoo sports page.
I mean, who cares?
It was embarrassing journalism on their part.
It's just important to remember, though, that professional fact-checkers are really anti-journalists.
They're counter-journalists.
They're PR war rooms for big pharma and big tech.
They just know that readers will be more open to their point of view if they call themselves fact-checkers than if they tell you their agenda and tell you who paid them.
And they're all paid by someone.
AFP, like I said, is paid by Mark Zuckerberg, the Uber Democrat.
Look at this.
I mean, sometimes it's even more direct.
Here's James Smith, a Pfizer board member, oh, who just happens to be the chair of the Reuters News Foundation.
You've heard of Reuters, I presume.
It's one of the biggest and oldest news wires in the world, and they love to fact-check critics of big pharma and lockdowns.
They don't love to fact-check Fauci that much.
I'm worried only in that if this rigged fact-check, which is actually an opinion check, is given any sort of weight, for example, by Facebook, who paid for it, then it could get me or even Rebel News banned from platforms for disinformation, even though, as I've just showed you, it's the so-called fact-check that engaged in junk science and fear-mongering and even some conspiracy theory.
My facts remain untouched, unchecked.
That junk journalist, really just a corporate PR flak, doesn't even use his own name.
That could get us banned because of their lies.
Look, never believe a fact-checker.
You are your own fact-checker.
Who's Watching the Watchman?00:14:26
We all are.
You know, there's an old Latin saying, my pronunciation is wrong, quis custodiat ipsos custodis, which means who's watching the watchman?
Just because someone comes up to you in the night and says they're the night watchman, well, it could be.
But you should check.
Maybe they're actually a robber playing a trick on you.
That's a scene from Montreal where a curfew has been brought back in, a curfew that's what parents give to children.
Maybe it's done to criminals.
Maybe you could perhaps imagine to very sick people, though I don't think that fits our civil liberties.
But in fact, in Quebec, the curfew applies to adults as well as children, to innocent people, not criminals, and to anyone regardless of their health status.
Imagine those who got two jabs in a booster thinking that they would be spared from the authoritarian government.
In fact, today Quebec has announced that they're expanding their vaccine passports and changing it.
So anyone who has merely two jabs will now be considered unclean again, thrown back in with the no-jabbers, and they won't be allowed to go anywhere.
Not that anyone can go anywhere after 10.
That fascinating footage of hundreds or at least dozens in those video images, dozens of Quebecers being rounded up and arrested simply for going out on the streets.
That was filmed by our Quebec crew, Alex Lavois Guillaume, and our friend Yankee Pollock.
Alexa joins us now.
She's back in Quebec City.
Alexa, great work, incredible footage.
Tell me how it was.
You were on the street because we had a special legal form that we filled out.
We fought with the Montreal police before, but it looks like they allowed you to do your journalism without arresting you.
Is that true?
Or did the police harass you at all?
So at the beginning, they just pushed me a little bit to because they say, go to the sidewalk.
And when I was in the sidewalk, they pushed me back in the street.
So I was like, where do you want me to stand?
Just tell me, instead of pushing me.
And afterwards, they let us alone, just filming of what is going on.
I was the first time I saw the police let us doing our job, our journalist's job.
I was really surprised of this, but I was happy.
The only other interception that I had, it's when I took my footage at the end, where you saw like all the police car was in the parking lots.
So I went there to film because I was like, how many vehicles of police is there for only a bunch of people breaking a curfew?
That's completely terrible when we see that it's our tax that's pay all this.
So I went there to take a footage and the police came out and come to me and say, if you don't want another ticket, ma'am, go home because we will find you again.
I was like, I'm sorry, I'm media.
And they say to me, I'm sorry, I didn't see your leech on your neck.
And they let me alone.
Well, the reason I asked that is because I want to make sure our rebel staff are fine, but also because in the past, we have been treated very poorly by the Montreal police, including some violence against our colleagues, Efron Monsanto, Mocha Bazirgan, and Lincoln Jay.
So I'm glad that they were at least giving you a little bit of space.
Now, we're not the story, we're telling the story.
If I saw correctly, pretty much every person, man or woman, young and old, who was on the street was rounded up.
Now, were they given a ticket?
Were they taken to jail?
What happened to those people?
So, first of all, at the beginning, there were really a lot of people.
I would say maybe 50 or 60 people at the metro station on the Rue de Beaugant.
So, they started to walk just before 10 in the street in the neighborhood.
And so, the police did surround them and they were ambushed them in the end of some street.
So, the protester just turned around and tried to change the itinerary of the march for trying to avoid the police.
But at the end, when we came back to the main street, it was like the riot squad was waiting there.
I thought about a full line of riot squad ready to jump on the protester to give them some fine.
So, most of them they receive a first fine.
And what they say is that if they got a second fine, they would be bring in jail, probably.
But so far, what I saw, nobody had been bringing in jail, probably just one guy who tried to run away from the police.
And the police grab him on the ground.
I don't know for him.
I didn't see the end of the interaction, but most of them receive, now it's an inflation of $8.
Now the fine is $1,558.
$1,558.
Well, I know that in the past we had a project in English called fightthefines.com.
En français, we called it Conteste les Contravention Point Comm.
And forgive my accent.
I mean, perhaps.
That's perfect.
I think maybe we should rev that up again.
We had shut that down because most of the lockdowns ended a few months ago, and so we had shifted our work to the vaccinations.
But it sounds like we're going to need to get a law firm up and running in Quebec again on this because I think that they're trying to scare people and demoralize them.
I want to tell you that my reaction when I saw the footage is: first of all, I was very glad that we have a Quebec team now because when we started covering Quebec over a year ago, we didn't really have reporters.
Our friend Yankee was in Montreal, but he wasn't really an on-camera guy.
So my first thought was, boy, I'm glad that Alexei and Guillaume and Yankee was back.
I felt very good that we have you there, and especially since you know French so well.
Well, my second thought was an entire province of over 8 million people, about 8.5 million people, was just essentially put under house arrest.
And for a while there, you weren't even allowed to walk your dog between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m.
Theoretically, you would have to go to the bathroom in your own house.
How is that a public health measure?
And if all that can happen in a province of eight and a half million people is fewer than 100 people protest, that's very sad to me.
Now, were there other protests, larger protests elsewhere?
Seriously, I know that it will have a lot of protests.
I know that curfew is existing too in Iraq, so people are protesting against it.
But I hope that people will, it's sure with the announcement of today, with the measure they want to put in place like more in Quebec, the fact that double vaccs are not considered fully immune, and the fact that they want to extend the vax passport to all unessential businesses.
So that means that only grocery store will be allowed to us, like to us, to the unvaccinated and for the double vaccinated, because the people that doesn't want to have their booster, they will lose their privilege.
I think the protest will increase so much.
I don't know what will happen with Quebec anymore.
Well, I hope the protests increase because I believe Newton's law, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
And I think that these politicians and health bureaucrats keep testing how far can I go?
How far can I go?
And so far, the answer is there's no limit.
And that's what's so interesting.
Bring the curfew back.
And, you know, less than 1% of 1% of Quebecers seem to be upset enough to do anything about it.
And if they're now going to turn everyone who's double vaxed into an unclean person again, who, I mean, I want to know, will Quebecers accept this?
Because I think Quebec has a real civil liberties tradition, but it also, there's an authoritarian side to French history.
You know, Napoleon and there's some strong leaders with a strong fist.
And I hope that the civil libertarian instincts of that province rise up.
And right now, I'm feeling a little bit despondent.
I know you're doing great work and Guillaume and Yankee, but I think most of the other media love this lockdown, for example, the media.
Am I right?
I think they gain visibility from this lockdown.
They just encourage the fear, I would say.
Some of them just started to talk about the inconsistency of our director of health that we have right now.
All the fact that he says something, but it changed as the curfew.
He was saying we will never put in place because it's a ward measure.
And a couple of months after he put it in place without science article or proof that it's working.
So right now they are talking a little bit more about it, but still they keep like saying punish the unvax and write some really crazy article about it.
That incident people to hate each other.
And I think they love that.
I don't understand.
And it's troubling because of course, of course, Justin Trudeau is a Quebec politician from Papineau riding in the Montreal area.
And he, I mean, you know, not all Quebecers follow him, but, you know, he himself has demonized unvaccinated people.
He said they're misogynist, even though a typical vaccine skeptic is a woman, is a mum.
And he's called them racist, even though the groups with the lowest vaccination rates are actually minorities.
But he doesn't care.
He's trying to demonize people who, like, it's that demonization.
Should we tolerate them?
He says, which implies that the answer might be no.
And I really haven't seen this in Canada.
In ages and it's like all this hate that was tamped down by the official woke people.
You can't be racist, you can't be sexist, you can't be transphobic, you can't discriminate based on all these hundred things, but this is the one group you can get all your hate out.
It's like the book 1984, when they had two minutes of hate.
You were allowed to hate the official enemy for two minutes.
Get out of your system and then go back to being docile I.
It really is a classic totalitarian move to have an official enemy group and to direct hate at them.
It's, it's really Un-Canadian yeah, and when we see like the OH Family, it's splitting up all many friendship is splitting up.
Now we live like in a society where everybody is polarized divided, and the hate and the crime is rising.
You know it is terrible and you're right.
People are divided against each other and I I sensed that very early when storekeepers were turned against customers.
You know, I've I mean, there was a local bakery I would go to almost every morning and then I felt like, and this was, this was in 2020, before mask mandates and and just they.
I was friends with them and they thought they either had to do it or they were scared and they turned against me and I, you know I'm not going to fight with them, but I was.
You know your neighborhood, you talk to him, you meet with her and you try and find common ground.
It's the opposite now.
Now they ask invasive questions, are you where's your mask?
Are you vaccinated?
Are you triple vacc?
Where's your past?
Alexa Lavoie's Rebbe Award00:03:44
Prove it.
I'm sorry I have to kick you out of my restaurant.
I don't want to, but I'll get in trouble if I don't.
It really feels East German that we're all spying on each other all the time.
I'm very upset with things and I'm sorry that Quebec is leading the way in the wrong direction.
Alexa yeah, and I'm just so sad to see that.
No, not much.
People are standing out by fear to lose their job, by fear to not be able to afford their rent, to feed their child.
It's all fear.
They live by the fear instead to live by what they think that is correct or not, and and probably the fact that the third booster now is something that they need to have.
Probably a lot of people will uh, will stand up, because I I know a lot of people who doesn't want it and they don't want it because they know That is not working.
So we'll see if we will be a patriot and people will say no, no anymore.
Well, I sure hope so.
And I tell you, you're doing a great job.
I want to tell our viewers, because I'm not sure if we've had you on since our Christmas get together where we had the Rebbe Awards.
And the Rebbe Awards are our own in-house awards.
We have the Viewers' Choice Award and other awards.
And I want to tell our viewers that you, Alexa, won our Ambassadris Award, which, if I'm pronouncing it right, is the French way of saying an ambassador.
And you have been a great ambassador for Rebel News and our values of freedom and personal autonomy in the province of Quebec.
And not only have you told the Quebec story to the English-speaking world, you've told the Quebec story to Quebecers.
And that's why you won that Rebbe Award.
So congratulations.
Great to see you, my friend.
And I know you're going to be on this file.
You're going to be covering this story as long as it goes on.
Yeah, I will.
I will cover everything that will be going on for the next few months and years, probably.
But I need to show the rest of Canada that, because Quebec always being the precursor of what is going on afterwards in Canada.
So people need to know what is going on.
Right.
Well, keep up the great work, my friend, and thank you for taking the time with us today.
Thank you.
Have a great day.
Well, I sure will.
Isn't she great?
That's Alexa Lavoie, our Quebec journalist, chief journalist out there.
She leads a team, and of course, the Rebbe Award winner.
Stay with us.
We're ahead.
Hey, welcome back.
Your viewer feedback.
David Hines says this interview should be available to the general public so we can share it widely.
Great job, great interview.
You're talking about Brian Peford, the former premier of Newfoundland.
And, you know, it was incredible.
My favorite moment of that whole interview.
And by the way, thank you.
I agree with you.
And we're going to put the whole thing online and we're going to put little parts of it online too.
Because it was a very long interview, but there were so many little nuggets in there.
My favorite part when he talked about how, remember in the preamble that had a colon, not a period or a semicolon, he was explaining to me.
And I just thought, yes, this guy literally knows every dot, every jot of the charter because he helped write it.
He debated and negotiated every word and every letter.
Wow, what an expert he is.
Wizard 2003 says this has nothing to do with health.
Low Risk, Serious Concerns00:15:40
It's all about policies laid out by the World Economic Forum.
I've noticed that Trudeau, Macron, and Ardern were all part of Klaus Schwab's Young World Leaders Plan.
They're not even hiding it anymore.
You know, the most incredible thing to me is that while she sits as finance minister, and I think she's still deputy prime minister, Christy Freeland is actually on the board of governors, board of trustees of the World Economic Forum.
How do you do that?
I mean, first of all, it's an obvious conflict of interest.
How do you sit on any board, especially a billionaire's corporate board like that, while you're also the prime minister of a country?
I mean, it's just so absurd, deputy prime minister.
It's absurd.
But that's outside the scope of interest and curiosity for the media party.
Energy Mind 89 says, I wonder if citizens were forced to vote, such as was the case in ancient Greece.
Back then, if citizens didn't vote, he was fined heavily.
Perhaps then Canadians would pay attention to those in power and be more inclined to hold them accountable.
Low voter turnout in last year's federal election.
And the municipal elections, Calvary, shows that 50 plus percent of the citizenship can't be bothered to participate in the democratic process.
I hear you, but I'm not sure if forcing people to vote will get a better result.
I mean, some people simply don't know anything about the different candidates, or they don't like any of the candidates.
And forcing them to vote with a low information or no information vote, it might be worse than not having them vote at all.
That's the show for today.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, to you at home, good night and keep fighting for freedom.
And let me leave you with our video of the day from Drea talking to a doctor explaining why thousands want Canada to stop COVID-19 shots for pregnant women and children.
I'll leave you with that.
Goodbye.
See, the big difference I think your audience has to understand is when you have a real clinical trial, you are monitoring all injury and on a regular basis.
Normally in a trial, for example, in the Pfizer trial, you're supposed to tell whether or not a person actually developed COVID.
As it turns out, there were more deaths in the groups that were vaccinated in the trial than were unvaccinated in the trial.
And determining whether or not a person actually had COVID-19 was at the discretion of the doctor.
Instead of testing everybody in both the vaccinated group and the unvaccinated group, the doctor decided who they were going to test.
So it was an incredible bias that was there.
But at the end of the day, when you run the numbers, Pfizer claims with relative risk reduction is about 91% efficacy, but that's relative numbers.
The actual numbers are so few people actually got COVID in the trial that when you calculate what's called the absolute risk reduction, I did it myself.
I calculated.
Depending upon the data that you're choosing, we're going with the number of 0.8% absolute risk reduction.
That means if you vaccinated everybody in the country and everything worked well, you might expect to reduce the case numbers of COVID-19 in the country by 0.8%.
I'm here with Dr. Steven Pellick and a beautiful art collection, but that's not what this report is about.
It's about something very important that the public should hear about.
You've initiated a petition that I think is a matter of public interest.
And we're going to link that, but we're also going to get your credentials so people know who you are and how it pertains to what we're about to talk about.
Sure.
No, I'm a professor in the Department of Medicine at the University of British Columbia.
I've been on faculty for about 33 years.
I'm also the president and founder of Connexus Bioinformatics Corporation in Vancouver.
We've been actually specializing on doing research for about 2,000 labs around the world, 35 countries, looking at development of markers for cancer, neurological disorders, and diabetes.
But more recently, we've been working also on the COVID-19 problem with development of tests to determine whether or not a person has actually been infected with SARS-CoV-2.
And we've been testing drugs for their ability to inhibit the replication of the virus.
And finally, I'm also involved in the Canadian COVID Care Alliance as the chair of the Scientific and Medical Advisory Committee.
I'm actually the vice president and one of the founders of the Canadian COVID Care Alliance.
So I'm pretty well in tune to what's happening in the COVID-19 space.
And so today in this report, you're going to want to watch it in full because we're going to discuss some concerns that you have and have brought forward about pregnant women and childbearing aged women getting the vaccine as well as children.
So, you're going to want to watch this in full for informed consent.
I'd like to start the interview off with a very basic question, but one that I think is very important for the public to hear your answer to.
And is that, do you think these vaccines are experimental?
And if so, why or why not?
Yes, the vaccines are still clearly experimental.
They're expected to go and complete their phase three trials really at the end of 2022.
In fact, into 2023.
So, phase three trials normally last about four to five years.
What we've done is after almost two months into the phase three trials, they were already starting to be released for general public use through the emergency use authorization.
I guess about the three-month clinical trials were done and then it was available.
So, we don't have any long-term efficacy data or safety data.
The best we have right now is about a year and a half of data.
And so far, that data is now starting to reveal a lot of problems with the efficacy of these vaccines.
It's quite evident that now we're going into our third shot and even fourth shot booster shots because the vaccines are not lasting in terms of their efficacy.
And now, we're learning as time goes on that there's a lot more cases of vaccine injury.
And this is becoming well documented.
Now, that's through the VERIS system, for example, with this reporting in the United States.
But you can even go back to the six-month studies now with the Pfizer trials.
And what we're finding there is that the degree of injury that's reported, at least 5% of it, is serious injury, and up to about 70%, 80% is injury of some kind.
So, what's interesting is that when we look in the general public in the reporting systems, we have what we call passive reporting.
What we're seeing is less than 1% injury reports.
It's as though we're not hearing about significant serious injury, and yet we would have predicted that from the phase three trials that have been done up to the six-month point.
So, yes, I think we're seeing that the vaccines are failing in terms of efficacy.
Our Omnicron cases now, which is the dominant cases at this time, have skyrocketed.
So, we have a lot more cases of people getting sick.
Mild sickness is the good news.
Fortunately, it's not translating into increased hospitalizations or increased IC units or increased deaths.
So, that seems as though the virus itself is migrating into a form or evolving into a form, I should say, which is in fact more probably infectious, but much more mild.
And those are characteristics we would expect that a strain that's going to dominate over the other strains will have.
So, that's sort of where we're going with that.
I just want to backpedal just a minute.
We're going to talk in this about concerns specific to children taking these vaccinations as well as pregnant women or childbearing aged women.
Now, before I do that, you mentioned VARES and the adverse reactions, which last I checked was, I want to say 800,000 or something.
Yes, yes.
I mean, the serious things was in terms of number of deaths.
And some people are confused because the VERIS system, you can have international reports as well as reports just from the United States.
So we know within the United States, it's around 9,000 deaths that have been linked in the VERI system with COVID injections.
Right.
And I guess my question about that specifically was, what do you say to the people who say, oh, well, you know, it's not a secure system to track these things.
Like anybody can just go on and make up things there.
That's true.
It is.
There's a certain degree of self-reporting.
However, the system goes back over 30 years.
And so what we see is that with more than 70 other vaccines that have been covered during that 30-year period, in the last year, where we have the three vaccines that are in the U.S., they don't have the AstraZeneca.
It was never approved in the U.S., nor was it approved in about 12 European countries, but we have it in Canada.
So just based on those three vaccines, we've had more serious deaths, well, more deaths and more serious injury from just those three vaccines in the last year than all the other vaccines put together for the last 30 years.
So, you know, this idea of the self-reporting and that, you know, maybe it's anti-vaxxers that are populating these sites, and there are safeguards within the various system itself to reduce that kind of abuse.
It's evident just looking at the history of the various system.
And a Harvard study indicated that only about 1 to 2% of the total number of cases that are in the various system is representative of what they think is actually happening.
So most people take those numbers in the various system and they multiply by about 30.
So if you have about 9,000 deaths, you can multiply 30.
We're talking about hundreds of thousands of deaths that are likely attributed to the vaccine in the United States alone.
In a recent stat, I mean, we're in British Columbia, but our country, Canada, is highly vaccinated.
British Columbia recently said that around 82% of people five years old and up have been fully vaccinated.
What is your biggest concern with these vaccines when it comes to children?
First, you have to look at the risk and the benefit.
The risk is that if you're a child or an adolescent under 18 years of age, it's about 1 in 100,000 that you will end up in hospital.
So the risk is extremely low.
The risk of dying is about 1 in a million.
Now that's based on the Delta and the alpha strains and the Wuhan strains.
We know with Omicron, that's even more milder, so even less of a chance of being hospitalized and seriously ill.
So the risks are very, very low for children.
We also know that from studies done here in BC with the BC Women's and Children's Hospital, where they went out and they tested, I think it was about 107 schools in the lower mainland.
They found that three-quarters of them had like no cases that they could document of COVID.
There are some hot spots, but overall, the results of the study is that if you're very young, the chances of you acquiring COVID from another child was extremely low.
The transmissions from a child to an adult was extremely low, like a teacher.
In the cases where we had COVID, it was really from other family members that then passed it on to the child.
So we know that the children not only at very low risk, but they're least likely to be transmitting actually COVID-19 to others and especially elderly.
So this idea that you have to protect grandma from your child, that's just not borne out by the data.
Never has been.
And yet, here we are delaying school or public school yet again for children after the winter.
I would comment that that's one thing that I think the public health office in BC did right.
They left our schools open for as long as possible.
Of course, it was under conditions of mask wearing and probably huge psychological damage to the children, but at least they were able to go to school.
And that wasn't true across the country.
So I think this is one thing that was done right, but it was based on actual scientific data.
Your other question was what's the risk to children?
Yeah.
Right.
And your concern about the vaccines for them.
Right.
So, I mean, the thing with the risk is very low, as I've tried to explain.
And the risk of the COVID is low.
So what's the risk of the vaccines?
So the problem with the vaccines is they are experimental, as we've discussed.
There isn't no long-term data.
We're now seeing when we look at the Pfizer trials, there's serious concerns about how those trials were actually performed.
And the Canadian COVID Care Alliance, with which I'm associated with, put together a little video on this.
It's available at the Canadian COVIDCare.org website.
It's called the Pfizer Inoculations, More Harm Than Good.
And that video is now viral, and it's been highlighted on other programs in the United States in particular.
But basically, what we're seeing is with children, the actual risks of myocarditis has been really highlighted.
It looks like with the Moderna vaccine, it's about a 1 in 2,700 chance if you're male and you're under 18 or under 24 actually, that you can develop myocarditis.
And it happens in females as well as males, just not as high a frequency.
And so we're giving the Pfizer vaccine.
Originally, the estimates were maybe 1 in 20,000 children that would be vaccinated would get myocarditis.
That number from Israel studies is now looking closer to 1 in 5,000.
So it's actually still a very, very high risk.
So I think this is just, if you're looking at 1 in 100,000 chance of going to hospital from the COVID-19 and maybe 1 in a 5,000 chance of going to the hospital, because 99% of people who get myocarditis go to the hospital, you're about 20 times higher risk of being hospitalized from the vaccine than from the actual virus.
Viral Spike and Immune Response00:05:11
Your risk of the virus causing myocarditis, if you're a child, is about 2 in a billion.
So, you know, you figure one in 100,000, and then they figure if you get COVID-19 and you're in the hospital, it's one in 750.
So you can run the numbers and you can get that two in a billion.
So really, there's no real upside to the children.
They have very strong innate immune systems that allows them to take on this virus very effectively.
Most people that are infected, especially when they're young, they don't even have symptoms.
So one could expect this to be actually spread quite easily, especially now that we have the Omicron, that spreads even easier.
And the masks don't really make a difference in the schools.
The size of the pores and the masks and the size of the virus when it's in an aerosol form, it's just like a mosquito going through a chain-length fence.
It's just not a barrier.
So the virus does spread and it will do so easier.
But that's just the short-term risks, the myocarditis alone.
My biggest concern is the nature of how these experimental vaccines actually work.
They're either RNA vaccines where you're delivering the RNA, the genetic instructions to make the spike protein, the most pathogenic part of the virus.
It has like 28 proteins, but the one, the big one that's on the surface that sticks out because it's as a spike protein, gives it a crown-like appearance.
This is the protein that allows the virus to attach to cells to get inside to allow the virus to replicate.
So, what ends up happening is that this RNA is translated into making the protein inside your own body cells, and then it migrates to the surface of your own body cells to be presented and stays attached.
So, now, in order to elicit an immune response, your white blood cells, neutrophils, macrophages, they have to attack your own cells and actually destroy them and take the pieces of the parts of the virus that are digested partly and present them to what we call B cells and T cells that are lymphocytes that are in your lymph nodes.
And in those locations, the B cells produce the antibodies.
So, in order to get an antibody response, you have to actually kill your own cells.
And the problem is that this tissue destruction that occurs in that inflammatory response, the first time that you've been vaccinated, the effects will be fairly mild.
But the second time that you get vaccinated, you now have T cells that are alert to the spike protein, and you have antibodies that recognize the spike protein.
And so, they're all there in that next inflammatory attack.
And the problem is, with repeated inflammatory attacks, you end up breaking what we call tolerance, and you start to have basically antibodies and T cells that are educated to attack your own body cells.
And that kind of continuous, every time you get a booster shot, not even necessarily with the spike protein, but with this technology.
You know, people are talking about using it for influenza vaccines and other opportunities.
It'll be successive.
So, your first influenza shot may, in fact, be your fourth shot because you've had three, you know, let's say COVID-19 shots.
So, this breakage of tolerance is not just the site that you've injected, your deltoid muscles.
This virus spreads.
You know, it goes to the liver, it goes to the spleen, it goes to the adrenals, and it goes to the ovaries.
And this is where my biggest concern is.
The virus spreads, or you mean the spike protein.
Sorry, the vaccine can spread from where the site of the injection is through your bloodstream.
It's very hard to prevent it from actually getting into your blood.
And from your bloodstream, it can travel throughout your body.
And where we see it accumulates is primarily in, like, say, the liver, the spleen, the adrenal glands, which controls hormonal control, and your ovaries, which also has hormonal control.
And if you get an inflammatory response, let's say in your ovaries, well, this is extremely disconcerting.
We don't know what the long-term ramifications of this are.
We do know, based on people who have been vaccinated, and you look at what the symptoms are, they include changes in menstrual cycles, heavy bleeding.
We hear of people that are menopause that are now starting to basically have periods again.
This change is hormonally induced.
It's regulated largely from the ovaries.
So, it tells us that there's something going on in the ovaries of these people.
Ovarian Inflammation Concerns00:01:04
And when you're born, you have all the oocytes that you're going to have for the rest of your life, maybe about 10,000.
And one of them will be prepared to convert into a fertilizable egg with each period.
And then, as you get older, you run out of your oocytes.
When you run out of all your oocytes, you're into menopause.
So, if you have tissue destruction early on that you're damaging those oocytes, there's fewer of them, which means that you may be less fertile, or at least your infertility will start earlier in your life.
And as many people are putting off having their children, this is of great concern too.
So, there's too many unknowns.
Now, these trials were not done on children originally.
And when they were done, it was very few children.
We're talking about maybe 1,500 now from say the 5 to 11-year-olds around the world.
1,500 children that were actually tested in basically under three months to then decide that we should be vaccinating all the children.