All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 27, 2022 - RFK Jr. The Defender
01:06:00
Disappearing Flu Data with Dr Robert Malone and Others

Dr. Robert Malone, J.J. Couey, and others discuss mysterious, disappearing flu data in this episode with RFK Jr.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I wanted to bring everybody together because I've read Jonathan's thoughts about this.
He's one of the most thoughtful critics of the pandemic management from the beginning.
He was one of the co-founders of Drastic, which was the organization of independent scientists all over the world, particularly at the beginning of the pandemic, did really wonderful work in In understanding the science, in unearthing scientific studies that made a lot of this stuff comprehensible.
And he's also been instrumental in uncovering some of the involvement of the intelligence agencies and others in the management of the pandemic, and also the long history of What we call gain-of-function science.
And here's the first paragraph, which is a synopsis of the pandemic, of his latest thoughts about it.
Using a highly coordinated messaging campaign, governments around the world, led by the WHO, changed our minds about all-cause mortality The coronavirus swarm, our immune response to respiratory RNA virus, and the idea of vaccination.
The goal seems to be to accomplish a worldwide fundamental inversion for natural human rights, the government granted permissions, and ultimately the surrendering of sovereignty over our own bodies in the guise of international public health.
Well, none of that is particularly new.
But I think all of us separately have come to the conclusion that that's what's happened.
And we've all taken our own paths getting there.
Jonathan, you have some kind of unique take now that I think we all need to talk about and that the public needs to hear.
So why don't you take it away?
It's my honor and privilege to speak to you people today.
Thank you very much to take the time to listen.
My spoke commented to the FDA about the fact that principle of informed consent has been ignored.
And the way they're doing it is that they're essentially have misinformed us.
And they've started from the very beginning with misinforming us.
And that's where we are now.
The hypothesis that I want to really start with is the idea that the WHO declared a pandemic of a dangerous virus, declared dangerous by them, and this allowed them to convert a large percentage of all-cause mortality into a national security priority of vaccine-preventable deaths.
Before the pandemic, this would have been called the flu, and before the pandemic, not in the sense of this is the flu, but in the sense of the national security priority that was a vaccine-preventable deaths took the form of the flu and the flu vaccine.
And the important thing to understand is how that was calculated and how they've stopped calculating it in that way.
So if I can just summarize as briefly as possible, there's four basic things that we need everybody to understand, and that's not we in this group, but it's we as we spread the message further.
The first one is that we need everybody to understand that there is a coronavirus swarm.
So before the pandemic, there used to be hundreds of possible causes for respiratory disease.
And in general, they were lumped into a pneumonia and influenza category.
But from 2020 on, we have reformulated the counting of deaths based on hundreds of EUA products, many of which are no longer on the market.
And all of those were purported to be specific for this novel and deadly virus.
And this is, incidentally, really the only hard evidence, quote unquote, that we have of the existence of a novel and deadly virus.
Before the pandemic, there were a wide variety of causes for respiratory disease.
Some of them were coronavirus, rhinovirus, respiratory syncytial virus, the flu, etc.
And since the start of the pandemic, we've basically summarized that into one cause.
The second thing that they've changed is our idea of how we count all mortality or how we think about it.
They've led us to believe that there's a new cause of death, but the results of having a new cause of death are invisible in all-cause mortality.
They've convinced the public and governments around the world that a PCR test is evidence of this novel pathogen, and using that PCR test, they have purposefully omitted The all-cause mortality from the discussion in order to convert regular existing deaths into a new cause of death based on this PCR test.
And so again, I'm not telling you anything you don't know, but I hope I'm summarizing it in a way that will start to bring into the idea that we don't even need a particularly dangerous virus for this to occur.
The next thing they've done is they've confused everyone, including doctors, about our immune system.
They've led us to believe that seroprevalence is really important, and I think they've done this for purposes of national security.
They have also accomplished this by disingenuously emphasizing antibodies to structural proteins, and these are unproven correlates of immunity.
And finally, just to beat a dead horse, they have simplified the immune response to avoid any loss of countermeasure uptake from informed consent, non-participation.
In other words, they don't want you to understand how complicated the immune system is, otherwise you would have a reason not to participate.
And so finally, of course, you are all aware of how many different ways they've changed the way we think about vaccination.
They have done this again in order to make sure that we take the new product up.
I think it's important to point out that this disingenuous emphasizing of antibodies started many years ago.
They've lamented for many years that people just don't take the flu vaccine like we'd like them to.
And have oversimplified it again in order to kind of get us to accept this idea that now that we've transfected so many people, it's a safe methodology and it's just simply not true.
And why are they doing this?
Just to make sure I have your full attention here.
Remember, they didn't tell us anything about purity.
There's data from the EU... It says they pretty much put out a wide bouquet of purities.
Again, they're simplifying this to make it, you know, it's just an RNA. It's just a lipid nanoparticle.
And don't forget that they coerced us into believing that by taking this novel methodology, we could save our grandparents.
So all this being said, how did they accomplish this?
Well, they accomplished this by getting us to argue about whether this was a lab leak virus or a natural virus.
For at least two and a half years.
And that argument precludes the possibility that gain-of-function research may not be that dangerous.
And in fact, the only thing that we know for sure is that they've been working on immunogenic proteins and that it's very difficult for them to handle coronavirus in a laboratory.
And so as you're well aware...
We don't know whether this came from nature or a marketplace or a laboratory, but I can tell you two years into this commission report, The U.S. government knows more than it's telling us.
And so, you know, our host, Robert Kennedy, has interviewed Jeffrey Sachs and has talked about this with him.
He is perpetuating the same narrative.
If we look at pneumonia and influenza, this is year on year, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22.
And we look at the red line being pneumonia and the shaded areas here are influenza deaths.
And of course, this is a CDC graph.
It's designed to confuse you.
You have to use the axes on the right for the shaded area and axes on the left for the red line.
If we convert this to what they're telling us now, which is pneumonia, influenza, and coronavirus, PIC instead of PNI, now we see this great drop-off in flu and we see this great increase in coronavirus deaths.
And if we look year on year on year, the actual fraction of pneumonia deaths which are tied to flu is quite small.
And so what we are looking at here, in my humble opinion, is an attempt to convert more of the unknown pneumonia and respiratory illness to a vaccinatable target.
If they showed this graph on the PBS NewsHour with all the deaths every week, contrasted to the COVID and to the pneumonia deaths, no one would be that worried about this and the emergency would be obvious.
So the way they did that, and I'm almost done, the way they did that is they tricked us about how this swarm is composed.
We know that before the pandemic, there were many hundreds of causes for respiratory disease, and now we're using a PCR test to blame it on a few.
And I think this is really the best way I guess I can summarize This should be the end here.
Yeah, so here, what I've been talking about for the last two years on my podcast is how Fauci had these emails and the fusion inhibitor can block the fusion of many different coronaviruses and that endosomal entry is a good target for some of these therapeutics and that they hid the data about all of these molecular signatures.
But then after two years, I start to feel like maybe they didn't hide any of this.
Maybe they just very controlled released this information to keep us fighting about this lab leak or natural virus, when in reality, it's probably closer to part of an existing swarm The PCR was originally aimed at the spike protein, but it is no longer aimed there.
T-cell memory from childhood is protective specifically because we don't focus coronavirus memory on structural proteins.
And these molecular clues are probably clues to how they've tried to modify proteins to become immunogens so that they can remove the need for an adjuvant.
And at best, I think this is where gain of function has reached in terms of its limits of its technology and coronavirus, simply because coronavirus is so intractable in the laboratory.
So that's my theory.
I think the gain of function of coronavirus is an exaggeration based on a false fidelity that they claim to have.
NIAID-funded designer protein may or may not be involved in the initial biological incident, which would explain why it doesn't really move like a variant of a virus, because, in fact, it's probably a protein that contaminated the viral swarm that already exists.
And then I can answer any questions.
That would be my thesis.
One of the things that interests me about what you say is that at CHD, we've tracked the flu data for many, many years, and they had these periodic meetings, and you can see Fauci on videos, repeating the general message that was drummed in by the communications department at CDC again and again and again.
People are not frightened enough about flu.
They don't take it seriously.
We can't get them to vaccinate flu.
You also have this other problem, which is that the flu changes every year and that we can't get a vaccine out quick enough.
To treat all the new variables.
So we need two things.
We need an mRNA platform that can instantly respond, that is a plug-and-play vaccine, and we need people terrified enough to get it.
And they couldn't do that with flu.
So about, I think, about 10 or 12 years ago, because nobody was scared of a disease that was killing so few people, they conflated the pneumonia deaths With the flu deaths.
And pneumonia kills 30 to the worst years, 90,000 people.
So they started calling those flu deaths.
But in separate studies, when people studied how many people who died of pneumonia actually had a flu virus in them, I think it was fewer than 7%.
It was a lie.
So all of those years they were saying, they switched.
They said, look, the flu is killing 30,000 to 90,000 people a year.
We got to get everybody vaccinated.
And then when coronavirus came along, the flu disappeared.
Flu deaths disappeared.
And all of those pneumonia deaths were switched.
That's one of the, I think that's one of the phenomena that you Here are slideshows.
So I want to get the first response from Robert Malone.
And as most of you know, Robert Malone is the discoverer of in vitro and in vivo RNA transfusion.
I'm not going to read his whole biography here because everybody in the world now knows who Robert Malone is and how important he's been to not only to our movement, but Just to giving us a real understanding about how pharmacology works and vaccinology works and also the relationships between the military and the pharmaceutical industry.
So Robert, what is your initial reaction to this?
Couple little house-cleaning things.
Jonathan used the correct term, transfection.
I think you just kind of tripped over your tongue there.
And of course, I defer to Merrill as the master in disambiguating the nuance of the DOD and its nefarious actions over time.
I've come to personally come to some positions that overlap with Jonathan's, but I'm wary of attributing intent and purpose to Because I'm not able to verify it.
Not that it doesn't exist.
And this is a personal choice.
For instance, when I speak of the WEF, I speak of the tangible things which they have written.
You're talking about the World Economic Forum.
Yeah.
And the tangible things that I can observe and we can all observe.
And if they say, if they speak of things like depopulation agendas, well, then we can all agree that they are speaking and writing about depopulation.
But I use that as an example.
So in this case, a couple of points I'd like to raise.
I've long known that the The primary objective of the annual flu campaigns is not to prevent influenza death.
I don't know if we're all aware of that.
The primary objective is to maintain warm-based manufacturing capacity.
Meryl smiles.
So the logic here, and I think that Jonathan is touching on some underlying truths.
Robert, let me just interrupt you for a second so that an audience who does not, who's not following what you're saying, is there's a military impulse, a national security impulse that we need vaccine manufacturing capacity that can instantly ramp up if the Russians attacked us with a weaponized anthrax.
That's part of it.
But in the case of influenza, there is a, let's say, a longstanding Urban fairy tale sort of legend, 1918, and what happened, and that it was all due to this horrible H1N1 influenza virus, and it disregards all of the other aspects of that public health event, including the apparent bacterial copathogen, let's say.
Is that fair, Meryl?
Yes.
Yes.
So this story has absolutely been used to justify a variety of public health investments and interventions and has absolutely, just like the biodefense story, has been used to generate an industry with all the associated bells and whistles in terms of the, let's say, biodefense military-industrial complex.
Right.
That also has, by the way, a very strong academic complex component to it.
Influenza virus has long been kind of weaponized in a...
As a tool to justify various infrastructure investments and technology.
So the logic that has been promoted, that's given rise to this whole, we could call it an influenza industry as a subset of the biopharmaceutical, biodefense industrial complex, is justified by the threat of 1918.
And you can see that in the CDC publications, literature, and the various periodic overstated crisis slash risk events that occur periodically.
And the logic has been that if we do not have sufficient, warm base is the term, manufacturing capacity, established manufacturing capacity, Then in the event that we do have this very bad thing arise,
a new recombinant influenza that is highly pathogenic, that we're highly susceptible to, then we will not have the capability to respond to it in a timely fashion.
Therefore, we must have a warm manufacturing capacity.
You can't have warm manufacturing capacity.
You basically have two options.
The dogs either have to eat the dog food, all of us in the metaphor being the vaccine recipients would be the dogs in that metaphor, or you have to throw the dog food away.
And so the logic has been explicitly in my industry, having worked on major flu projects for much of my life, And also worked in developing an advanced development manufacturing facility down in Alachua, Florida.
The logic has been that in influenza, if we do not have a market for these products on an annual basis, then even if we were to build the manufacturing plants, in biologics, it turns out you cannot mothball them.
It doesn't work as a business model and also from a regulatory standpoint.
You have to keep these facilities operating and the staff has to be there, etc.
And so the best way to do that is to spin up a chronic need.
And what underlies a lot of this is a logic of the ends justify the means.
If you look underneath much of what drives all of this is the belief system that there is a major public health threat out there on the horizon.
And it comes from two general sources, emerging infectious disease.
And this is wrapped around climate change and environmental disruption, wrapped around this same logic of the threat of emerging infectious disease coming out of the African jungle and fruit eating bats or whatever the thing is.
And the other threat horizon is the engineered pathogen threat horizon.
And those are valid.
There are threats.
Ebola is obviously an example of such a threat, which was so highly pathogenic that it would come out of the forest of God only knows where from time to time and was so pathogenic it would wipe out whole villages and it would do so so quickly that basically it would burn itself out.
And then we had the recent, relatively recent West African outbreak where it got into cities in West Africa and it continued to spread and adapt to humans.
And that's what we never wanted to have happen.
So that's the those are kind of the two big threat scenarios is engineered pathogens.
And we now live in a world in which literally it is possible with stuff that you can buy off of eBay to recreate the binary weapon, which our side of the West, the United States, engineered as part the United States, engineered as part of the most massive, quote, defense spending activity in the history of the nation, apparently.
Apparently, I'm told it dwarfed the nuclear investment that gave rise to an extremely potent bioweapon, binary bioweapon, that was field tested and was so lethal that it would kill tank commanders before they would reach the English Channel.
That was the mission.
So that can now be recreated in garages and many other even more nasty engineered pathogens can readily be created by somebody with a undergraduate degree basically in the right tools.
So those are the threats.
And the logic is that we have to have sufficient infrastructure in order to be able to respond to those threats.
And that logic, I think, absolutely bears scrutiny and challenge.
But based on that logic has been created a truly a biodefense military industrial complex, just the same as building tanks, guns and airplanes, that has become self-sustaining in all the nefarious ways that we understand how this works in D.C. that has become self-sustaining in all the nefarious ways that we understand how this works in D.C. and the U.S. government and globally now within NATO and
And notoriously was going on in the former Soviet Union.
So what I what I hear that resonates with me is that there is a long history, absolutely, of government believing based on the logic of utilitarianism, the ends justify the means and the greatest the ends justify the means and the greatest good for the greatest number, that it's OK to employ psychological operations.
let's call it, you know, we call it what it is, to manipulate populations to generate a chronic market for biologic products with the justification that it's in our best interest, because sometime at some unknown future, what is it because sometime at some unknown future, what is it
Dick Cheney used to say, Merrill will know, the 1% risk, this is the justification for vaccinating all of the first responders against smallpox and giving them myocarditis, that any 1% risk we have to mitigate, and anything is justified in pursuit of this, And I think we've seen this logic upscaled on a global basis.
And I think we've seen that logic drive much of this rollout of this technology.
And I spoke about this last weekend with Paul Merrick.
Down in Richmond.
If you trace back, it's very clear, and all of us here, I think, know it.
And I remember when the contracts, when the solicitations went out and the contracts were issued, this was technology pulled out of the trash can that Merck had sat on and basically pocket vetoed.
And after the patents expired, DARPA picked it up.
And pushed it forward in their usual way.
They want things that only have about a 1 in 5 or 1 in 10% success rate.
And they thought this is a high-risk venture.
They punched money into Moderna.
And then money got punched by other players, kind of aping that, into BioNTech and CureVac.
And DARPA continues, ergo our intelligence community, continues to back this with In-Q-Tel funding the new manufacturing facility up in Canada.
So the logic underneath this is that we must have a rapid response capability.
And because the threat of emerging infectious disease and engineered pathogens is so great, of course, that creates an incentive to justify and validate that, in fact, that threat is as great as they say it is.
Because now you've got a multi, you know, really a trillion dollar plus industry that is all predicated on a hypothetical risk.
And I think that this is in no way apologizing or excusing the behavior.
But I think if we allow ourselves to get into the intellectual space of the people that have been driving this, and this is an intellectual space that I've contributed to, I've been part of.
I wrote a paper with Annie DeGroote about the need for rapid response platform and gene to vaccine about a decade ago.
There was two main platforms that they believed were potentially useful in this context and also for special forces.
One was a genetic product that would go gene to vaccine.
And Merck spent billions on the DNA vaccines that could never make it work.
And so that was out.
And the other one was monoclonal antibodies.
And monoclonal antibodies have just turned out to be too kludgy.
And we've seen here that they really weren't that effective.
The virus escapes fairly rapidly.
So they've kind of, the bloom is off the rose with the monoclonal antibody tech, which DOD and HHS spent bunches of money on with the advanced development manufacturing facilities funded by Obama.
And they believed that the mRNA tech was going to be their ride.
It would meet the mission space.
And it was necessary to push it into the population and get population-based acceptance of this tech using any means necessary.
And that's kind of my personal current working model for that aspect.
Now, there's all the other overlay of other parties exploiting this whole situation and potentially giving rise to it to support their own agendas, which are different from this one that we're talking about.
But in terms of this path of influenza, Warm-based manufacturing need to have some platform for rapid response, both for special forces and for population-based responses.
We now know that there was a, this is just recently published, there was a planning meeting held by Margaret Liu, who used to head up the DNA vaccine project at Merck, at the WHO, in which all the regulatory agencies were brought together from the West, in which they all agreed in which all the regulatory agencies were brought together from the any of this really happened, that the RNA tech was to be a platform.
They were going to push it, and once the core platform had been validated, so long as they kept the same basic formulation, they could change the sequence of the RNA ad libitum for whatever pathogen they wanted.
And basically deploy that in humans with essentially no non-clinical testing and minimal clinical testing.
And that was accepted as the position by the FDA. By the way, it wasn't universally accepted in that meeting back then, headed up by Margaret Liu.
But we've now seen this strategy deployed with the bivalent The White House insists it's a new vaccine.
The FDA calls it a booster, right?
A product that we're now all recommended to.
So that's my kind of core response here is my feeling and my belief system overlaps with the one that's been presented, except just to recap...
I try not to infer purpose other than for those specific things that I have direct experience with, and I can say, yes, for sure, that is a purpose.
And that purpose includes warm-based manufacturing and the need for rapid response technology platform for the perceived global threat of emerging infectious disease and engineered pathogens.
Over.
Thank you very much, Robert.
Dr.
Merrill Mass earned her B.S. in biology from MIT, her M.D. from the University of Mississippi in 1980, where her husband was a faculty member.
She is board-certified internist in Maine.
She is an expert on bioterrorism.
She's testified seven times before congressional committees on bioterrorism, on vaccines, on the anthrax letters, Gulf War syndrome.
She has consulted for the Director of National Intelligence and the World Bank on the Prevention and Mitigation of Bioterrorism.
She identified the first use of anthrax as a biological weapon, which occurred in 1978 during the Rhodesian Civil War.
So, Meryl, give us your take on this.
All right.
I want to say a lot of different things.
First, I am familiar with what Robert just talked about.
I'll add that the FDA has encouraged many different vaccine platforms.
That's why they have used dog kidney cells as a platform and monkey cells.
And why we have this worm baculovirus platform is they're experimenting.
They're trying to find The best way to do things.
And for the most part, they're using the flu vaccine to do those experiments.
So we've had as many as a dozen or more different flu shots in one year that have been approved by the FDA. Now that said, in order to push this flu shot program where over 65% of elders are getting a flu shot every year, thinking it's benefiting them, the government has to have lied to You know, incessantly for decades.
First of all, they've said that the flu shot works to prevent deaths in the elders but there is absolutely no evidence that that is the case, probably because their immune system doesn't respond as well as young people's to these shots.
They've also lied about the number of deaths.
So even though the CDC usually says 30, 40, 50,000 people are dying in a year, what Robert Kennedy was referring to is actual death certificates.
The death certificate data is usually 1 to 2,000 deaths per year, where it's actually written as the cause of death, primary cause of death.
In the year where we had the most flu deaths, which was 2017 to 18 on death certificates attributed to influenza, In that flu season.
So that's probably the number of deaths that we really have from flu.
Although there are some secondary pneumonia deaths, etc.
So they've spun up the numbers, they've told people it's going to work when it doesn't work.
And maybe they're doing that to protect the country in the future, or maybe they're doing that to protect the elites in the future.
But we have to consider that maybe they're doing it for other reasons.
Maybe they're lying to us about the reasons.
And the reasons may be that they want to acclimate us to the fact that we have to go regularly to get vaccinated, that we have to be used to the fact that we're going to be injected every so often with something.
And the less testing you do, the quicker you make this process.
And remember, it's under the guise of a potential vaccine.
1918 swine flu or, you know, a bird flu or a biological attack.
You have to make it very quickly.
That also enables you to get a lot of things through the regulatory agencies that are not going to be examined.
So you can put anything you want in the bottles.
That's what's happened now with the COVID vaccines.
We don't know what's in the bottles.
So anyway, I just say that there's no reason for us to believe that the purpose for all of this is a benign one, although it may be.
I agree for sure with Jonathan that the U.S. government tried to roll up all flu deaths and as many pneumonia deaths as possible into COVID deaths.
They wanted to get those numbers up high, and he is correct that in terms of all-cause mortality, there are many countries in which the all-cause mortality, in other words, deaths from everything, including COVID, were no higher than they were in years before COVID. But that's not true of every country.
So, I mean, I think there were COVID deaths, and I think COVID is a thing.
And I'm getting to a very curious thing where I have noticed the PhDs and the MDs really differ.
And the MDs believe that there's a COVID and that it has unique properties and that it can be extremely deadly and can be very disabling to people it doesn't kill.
The PhDs who are scrutinizing the numbers as correctly, as Jonathan has, say there's no increase in all-cause mortality, therefore it doesn't really seem like anything happened, and this may have just been flu.
The MDs who are accustomed to really looking at symptoms and signs and lab tests, rather than all cause mortality, see that the characteristics of the illness or the syndrome from SARS-CoV-2, at least in my view, are very different from Then the syndrome I called flu previously.
So I do think it's a thing, but I do also think that the numbers were juiced to scare everybody and that it wasn't as big of a thing as we were told.
I think it's very interesting what he said that the work of gain of function may have been to develop more immunogenic proteins because I think that makes a lot of sense.
Nobody wants to add Adjuvants to vaccines if they don't have to because the adjuvants are causing much of the side effects from the vaccine.
So to figure out how to add portions onto a protein that will give you the same immune kick without the adjuvant would be useful.
Again, that's making the assumption that this work is benign, but so much of it has had a military birth process.
I don't think we can necessarily assume that the work is benign.
I think for most scientists and doctors, yes, it's benign.
But when the military is developing projects, they are looking for military applications.
Always.
Always.
And there are doctors and scientists in the military who have migrated there appropriately because they want to make offensive weapons.
And we shouldn't forget that.
Thank you.
Thank you, Meryl.
Dr.
Tess Lorry, who's one of the heroes of this movement, is the director of the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy, LTD, in Bath, United Kingdom.
She has a medical degree and a doctorate in philosophy, PhD, from the University of Witzer-Witzerrand in Johannesburg, South Africa.
I doubt if I pronounce that right.
She has practiced clinical medicine in both the United Kingdom and South Africa.
This is a very understated biography because Tess Lorry has been a consultant for many years for the WHO and one of the most A respected and busy consultant that they have.
And she played a key role in really torching her career in exposing some of the fraud around ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.
And everybody who watches the show knows who she is.
Oh, Des, please give us your reaction to Jonathan's thesis.
Thanks very much.
Well, what really interests me in what you pointed out was how the data shifted between reducing respiratory disease and boosting the COVID disease.
So I thought a paper I did at the end of December that never got published was I submitted it to the BMJ. There's a table in there that might be interesting because it was a study of the Scottish official statistics.
And what's interesting about the Scottish statistics, the National Records of Scotland, the database, is that they divide the cases or deaths among care home deaths, home deaths, and hospital deaths.
And it was, you know, obviously during that first year of COVID-2020...
We were told the hospitals were overflowing and everything.
And so these data do not show that, but also they categorized the deaths according to whether they're cancer, whether they're circulatory, whether they're dementia, COVID or respiratory or other.
And so it's quite easy to see compared to the five-year average, you know, where the deaths are being counted or loaded up.
So the paper was called Hospital deaths in Scotland have gone down, not up during the COVID-19 pandemic.
And it was very simple.
Basically, I just took the data and did simple percentages comparing to the five-year average.
So it was from week 12, which was the 16th of March to the 14th of December, compared with the five-year average.
And there were At-home deaths, care home deaths, hospital deaths, and then all together I made the table.
So overall, deaths for that period were up 15%, which was not huge.
We were under the impression, you know, that the deaths were much more than 15%.
But I think what's interesting is respiratory deaths were down 22%.
Whereas, and COVID of course, so COVID was a new thing, but respiratory deaths were actually down.
So if you looked at the at-home deaths, cancer deaths were up 47% and dementia and circulatory disease, basically all deaths at home were up on average about 40%.
And the care home deaths, cancer deaths were down, respiratory disease was down.
Overall, it was up, but it looks as if the cancer deaths and the respiratory deaths were put into the COVID deaths.
And then the same with the hospital deaths.
We see people were actually, the cancer deaths and dementia deaths and circulatory deaths and respiratory disease were all down.
I mean, the hospital deaths, respiratory disease was down 33%.
And all of those seem to have been popped into COVID. And the overall hospital deaths were down 3%.
So it looks like people were dying at home and probably from cancer, circulatory disease, dementia, when they would have been in hospital.
So it's probably...
I think what this shows is that there was a fallout from the lockdowns and all of that, but also that the respiratory deaths from flu and pneumonia and all the usual things...
We're simply loaded up as COVID deaths and not pneumonia or flu.
And of course, all deaths were registered, were deaths with a positive PCR test.
It was dying with COVID, not from COVID. Let me ask you, let me interrupt you for a second, Tess, because those are not raw numbers.
Those are percentages.
So when they say 100% rise in COVID deaths, Since there were zero COVID deaths the year before, 100% rise could be one COVID death.
No, I was just highlighting the percentages, but you can see here, so COVID deaths, all together they've got is 5,700.
But there were 1,000 reduced, 1,000 lower in the respiratory disease.
So there were fewer respiratory cases and 5,717.
But as I say, you have to remember that these are Are people who were dying with COVID, not from COVID. So it was where COVID was mentioned on the death certificate.
So were they double counting people here, or were they...
So it's a total death, so they weren't double counting people.
They're not double counted.
No, it's basically the cause of death.
So if it mentioned COVID on the death certificate, Then it would be counted as a COVID death.
So there were, in Scotland during that period, there were 5,717 deaths with COVID on the death certificate.
But there were 1,000 fewer that died of flu and pneumonia, and that accounted for it.
But it's arguable whether cancer deaths and circulatory disease and all these other Causes were also contributed with COVID rather than for whatever other cause.
I think what's really remarkable is that we've been told the hospitals were overflowing.
Well, it showed here that there were actually fewer deaths in the hospital and that really many people died at home and probably because they couldn't access proper care as well.
And they had all the appointments postponed and delayed, partly, and And stress and so on.
But I think the other remarkable thing is that respiratory disease went down rather than up and everything became COVID. So I think that was really what I wanted to highlight there.
Thank you, Tess.
Now Jessica Rose, Dr.
Jessica Rose, a Canadian researcher with a bachelor's degree in applied mathematics and a master's degree in immunology at Memorial University of Newfoundland.
She also holds a PhD in Computational Biology from Bar-Ilan University and two post-doctoral degrees, one in Molecular Biology from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and one in Biochemistry from Technon Institute of Technology.
She was also accepted for her two-month program as a senior researcher at the Weizmann Institute prior to completion of her latest postdoctoral degree in Technicon.
So Jessica, of course, people know her, has done these extraordinarily revealing and consequential distillations of the VAERS data and the other death and injury data from COVID that have been really transformational.
Jessica, give us your reaction to Jonathan's thesis.
Thanks for that, and thanks for inviting me.
And everyone covered so much good information, so I just want to throw out two things, points of interest first, and then I'll give a wrap-up.
The pneumonias that you mentioned, JJ, I'm curious about What types of pneumonias those were, but you can answer later.
Could they have been fungal, for example?
I'm just curious about that.
I agree with what Meryl said about COVID-19 being a real thing, and I'm more on the PhD side.
That's based on personal experience more than anything else.
But a lot of times on the subject of inferring purpose behind all this, I get asked a lot during interviews, like, why do I think that they're doing this?
I'm just like Robert on this.
I don't want to assign myself to a position where I'm thinking along the lines that anyone is doing anything on purpose right now.
Not for any particular reason other than to keep on a path whereby I think we don't need to infer a purpose.
This could all potentially have evolved based on the fact that the business model of pharmaceutical companies has been applied to so many other things, so many new things, the profit model, I mean, to medicine.
So if we lose the regulatory body interference between the humans and a bad product, a bad biological product, for example, what would we get?
We'd get something like what we're seeing now.
And also good laboratory practices and good clinical trial practices.
We all know both of these things are out the window, apparently.
We know this.
It's shocking.
Most people don't Aren't ready to admit that, but we have clear and present data to show this.
And yeah, those three things combined really kind of lend itself to, well, it convinces me that I don't need to infer nefariousness into the equation.
I'm not saying there isn't.
I'm really not.
I know that there are bad players.
I'm well aware of that and becoming more aware the more I look into things.
But yeah, that's basically all I really wanted to say.
I also, if I may, I wanted to ask Robert...
This warm-based manufacturing.
Am I saying that right?
Warm?
W-A-R-M? Correct.
Warm base.
Warm B-A-S-E. A warm base.
Okay.
So these...
I'm curious about these bivalent products because I've been calling them complete nonsense.
Because...
Basically because the Wuhan strain is extinct, etc.
Is this another...
If you want to answer, are we doing questions?
Is this the right time for me?
Go ahead.
All right.
So is this another, I don't know what it would be.
Is this based on this warm base manufacturing?
Is this, what is this in your opinion?
Runaway pharmaceutical capture of the executive branch, the administrative state and all of HHS. I noticed something that I found surprising.
They're anticipating rollout of mRNA vaccines for COVID for basically all of our livestock industry now.
And that sure sounds to me like justification of manufacturing capacity.
Please do not underestimate the power of the logic that it is absolutely...
I'm speaking of a belief system, okay?
I'm not endorsing that belief system.
But the power of the logic within this monster that we've created, this biopharmaceutical military industrial complex...
The power of anything that can be used to justify chronic expenses.
Basically, this is rent-seeking behavior, like we've seen with everything.
It's swept through industry.
They want a well-established chronic...
never cash cow.
I mean, that's, that's for instance, that's what the anthrax vaccines are, the cash cow to end all cash cows.
You know, the, we don't really need the vaccine.
It sunsets out.
What is it, Meryl, every three years?
Three years now.
Yeah.
Three years.
Like, So every three years, if you're emergent biosystems and you've aggressively prevented any other market entries.
And by the way, that's another beautiful thing.
I'm being slightly facetious about the vaccines market.
Is that once you have an established product, it is wickedly expensive and challenging to bring any competing market into that niche because you have to do a massive non-inferiority study and either win on one of two points.
It has to be safer or it has to be more effective or both.
And if you don't meet those criteria, you're not going to get market entry.
And that is a huge risk.
By the way, that is the brilliance, again, in a twisted, wicked way, the logic that the FDA has promoted now, that if you're one of those two companies that has that established preclinical package, which they're now grandfathering that if you're one of those two companies that has that established preclinical package, which they're now grandfathering for And we wondered back then, why were they using luciferase protein instead of spike protein for their nonclinical studies?
Well, what that does is allow them to bridge to any potential product.
And the logic is, if you have that formulation, you don't change that formulation and manufacturing process.
And as Merrill will tell you, the product is the vector sum of everything.
The documentation, the labeling, the fill-finish, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
One of the two that got the golden egg, the goose that lays the golden eggs, you're locked out of that market space because you're going to have to recreate that whole data package in a new competitive environment where those things are already established.
From the standpoint of pharma, this is an absolutely brilliant business model that now the FDA has basically said, I don't know, Meryl, if you saw our Substack, there's 100 trials now initiated or in progress, 50 are currently enrolling, for new mRNA vaccines of a variety of different types, all grandfathered in without having to have a new preclinical package, as Jessica was saying.
The rules are right out the window.
And over 200 new mRNA-based medical products that employ the same logic.
Basically, if you're Moderna, BioNTech, and to a lesser extent CureVac, you've got the cash cow to end all cash cows.
The other thing I wanted to say while I've got the floor that speaks to Jonathan's point and expands it a little bit, It's really important in addressing Jessica's point of what the heck with this bivalent product.
The problem that has been long known, but absolutely the third rail.
I've lost, I think, three different jobs or clients by speaking about immune imprinting with influenza vaccines.
That is a forbidden topic.
Because if you come to grips with the truth of immune imprinting in influenza, you realize that the logic of an annual influenza vaccine is driving our patients to an immunologic place in which the vaccines will become less and less and less effective over time.
And in fact, that's what we see.
We see effectiveness for influenza vaccine now running in the 20 to 30% range routinely.
And we are all accepting that.
When I started at influenza, that would have been shocking.
We were up in the, you know, 60-70% range.
Now it's routinely 20 to 30, and we all accept it as if it's the sun rising in the morning.
And by the way, that is precisely what is happening with these multiple jabs.
It's clearly documented now.
multiple papers from the top labs in the world with, you know, 20 to 30 authors on them, showing immune imprinting with these multiple jabs.
And as Jessica said, with this new bivalent product, it is, as I said from the outset, I couldn't design a better product to elicit the adverse events in outcomes associated with immune I couldn't design a better product to elicit the adverse events in outcomes associated with immune printing if I had sat down
It is the ideal product for driving immune imprinting, which has been the chronic problem with influenza vaccine, and the government doesn't care.
They just do the, I can't hear you, I can't see you, I can't say it, about immune imprinting, and the press continues to do it.
I think there's been one article out about immune imprinting in the late press, as opposed to the, I don't know, eight, peer-reviewed from major studies in the scientific press.
Over.
Can I jump in?
I want to use a different terminology for immune imprinting.
The result of that is that...
Can you explain what immune imprinting is for people who don't know?
Go ahead, Robert.
Immune imprinting, otherwise known as original antigenic sin, that's a much sexier term, easier to remember, has to do with the fact that I like to say our immune systems, like all of us, are biased by the last thing that happened to us, by our prior experiences.
I like to use in talking about this, the military metaphor.
Our military is always best prepared to fight the last war.
And the same thing happens in your immune system.
When it encounters a virus, it basically builds a memory armamentarium, let's say, trying to keep with the metaphor.
That is cells which have been educated based on that initial exposure.
And because of the wonderful nuances of how the immune system evolves, your response will forever be biased by those initial things that you've encountered that are related to the new thing that you encounter.
Basically, your immune system says, oh, I've seen that before.
I'm going to react the way that I did before, that I learned to react before.
And the consequence of this is that if a virus or other pathogens are able to evolve in ways that they are not being controlled by the thing that controlled their grandparents, metaphorically speaking, then you're stuck with an army that believes that it's fighting World War I Germans in the time of the Luftwaffe and the Blitzkrieg.
I hope that metaphor helped.
Let me say it another way.
So a Canadian scientist named Danika Skoransky found after the 2009 swine flu business that those people who had gotten a flu shot the year before were more susceptible to the swine flu.
Their swine flu shot did not protect them as well and found they were about two and a half times more likely to get the flu if they'd gotten the shots.
And so it turned out and so she then checked that first in her province of Canada, then in the other provinces of Canada.
And then a number of countries found the same thing.
And the CDC tried to shut it up, tried to publish data that made it seem like it wasn't true, but it is true.
And they've basically suppressed this concept.
But what seems to be true, given the vaccines we have now, is if you've never had a vaccine for flu or for something else, if you first get it.
And when you're faced with the very serious disease, a deadly virus, it's going to give you a much better immune effect than if you've been having them year after year.
When you see that final deadly virus coming those shots are not going to work so well for you.
And so that's another way of looking at this whole thing.
Jonathan, any final comments?
A couple things, just quick.
One of the reasons why I think an immunogen is such an interesting prospect for gain-of-function focus is because of something that I heard Robert Malone say a couple years ago on a podcast that he was on, is that the viral particles that are produced during a viral infection, many of them are replication incompetent.
And so in a typical coronavirus infection, the body needs to ignore those particles and not overreact to them.
If you engineered a coronavirus with an immunogen on the outside that the body couldn't ignore, the normally non-infectious and also non-immunogenic particles would now become immunogenic to your body and create what might be called an incapacitating agent in the form of what appears to be and can be called a virus, but really it's just a novel protein.
But I can't thank everybody enough for listening and tolerating my slides.
Thank you very much.
Robert, go ahead.
Well, since I got cited, I have to respond.
Forgive me, Jonathan.
What you were essentially addressing is known as defective interfering particles.
It's one term.
And it's absolutely true that viral replication, we all think of it as very conservative and this amazing machine that just spits out billions and billions of particles.
But you're absolutely right.
A very large fraction of those are defective in a number of different ways.
And the ones that aren't defective are often containing, on average, one or more point mutations, particularly with an RNA virus.
Which is part of what drives the evolution.
But let's just for the sake of argument call them defective interfering particles.
It's not that they aren't immunogenic.
It's that they interfere with a lot of functional activities that might otherwise be able to control virus because they're busy.
It's as if the defective interfering particles are a sponge sucking up things that might otherwise be useful like that cat is a sponge for Jessica's attention.
They will, for example, still clean up antibodies and still occupy antibodies, for example.
Absolutely.
They will functionally reduce titer.
But the ability to produce antibodies in any mammal is so profound that it's able to overwhelm them.
Now, one of the things that we haven't touched on that is important is this cell paper from January of this year that demonstrated in humans, not cell culture, mice, that the levels of spike protein produced from these that the levels of spike protein produced from these genetic products in the plasma is significantly higher than the levels that are obtained after the natural infection in which you have
this dynamic interchange between an expanding immune response and a growing virus that's trying to dig its foothold into as many cells as it can get.
And so people, I just wanted to throw that in since we're kind of touching on this.
People often raise the question, well, why would you see more adverse events with the vaccine products than one often observes with the natural disease?
And one explanation for that is that spike is, in fact, a toxin in so many different weird and wonderful ways, not the least of which is elicitation of autoimmune responses.
That's part of the delayed deaths.
And that you just have...
As opposed to the natural infection, I think Gert talks about this, you gradually see an increase in spike protein in tissues and in plasma, whereas in this case, what you see is this huge surge of We have very different pharmacokinetics,
very different toxicology profiles.
And the other factor in this is that in the natural course, as Merrill knows and Tesla knows and all of you know, We often see a cellular response dominating earlier in the infection and then an antibody response coming up really strongly later, which kind of clears out a lot of the residual debris after you've killed off the cells that are infected.
So the last point, and I think Meryl may have touched on this, I know that Jonathan did.
The early data was explicitly clear, coming out of groups like Emory, some of the top B-cell labs in the world, that we were seeing very rapid immune responses at two weeks or less after infection with this, quote, novel coronavirus virus.
That we're being detected as, quote, neutralizing antibodies.
And you're absolutely right.
There is no proven correlate of protection.
And they have made multiple attempts to assert otherwise.
But they're false.
They're fraudulent, just as you say.
But it was clear within a month and a half that we were seeing recall immune responses, not primary immune responses.
And so since we were kind of on that, I wanted to just kind of shovel those attaboys at you.
Can you explain those terms so that the general public can understand what recall and response is?
Okay, so we were talking a moment ago with the metaphor of your immune system as an army.
That develops a memory based on its prior capabilities.
So immune response being an army and memory cells being stockpiled tanks and soldiers.
In a primary response, which is to say the first time that you've seen something that looks like this bad thing, this different thing, it takes a while for there's a whole series of immune maturation processes that have to happen before you're generating a good, robust antibody and T-effector response.
And this whole cascade involving class switching, all kinds of cool immunology stuff, generally means that it takes about three to four weeks before you get a good titer up and rolling.
Antibody titer.
And in the case of you've seen it before, and now the memory cells just have to kick in.
They've already been educated.
They already know what they're supposed to do.
And the switch needs to be turned on and they need to start doing their business.
You typically see those antibody responses and cellular immune responses happening.
Within, certainly within two weeks, within about 14 days.
And so you can really tell, this is a key thing in vaccinology.
When you're designing a clinical trial, you must do a two-week bleed.
In addition, typical endpoint of three to four weeks, because you could be fooling yourself in thinking you're getting a nice, robust primary response when all you're getting is just another, a recall response.
And that's why I've always objected to this statement That these vaccine responses represent a true prime boost.
There is no priming here.
Every one of us were already primed, just as Jonathan's saying.
Every one of us had already been infected with the circulating cold coronavirus with significant cross-reactivity, which is why these vaccines, quote-unquote, We're not ever eliciting a primary immune response.
They were eliciting a boost and then a subsequent boost with the two-shot protocol and then boosting and boosting and boosting and boosting.
Was that clear, Bobby?
Yes.
Thank you.
Any final comments by anybody?
I can go on all night, so no.
All right.
Well, thank you all very much, Taz.
I know you're tuning in from the UK, so thank you for staying up late.
Jessica, Meryl, Robert, thank you so much.
And JJ, thanks for all this work.
Everybody, thank you very much.
It was wonderful.
It was wonderful.
Thank you all, everybody.
Have a good day.
Thank you.
▲
Export Selection