Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 24, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:05:31

Live with Jessica Rose - PhD Computation Biologist -Talking Covid, Vaccines & MORE! Viva Frei Live

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	And always will be.
	But in order to do that, you need to know that the person sitting across the aisle from you will be fully vaccinated, and that's what we're going to make sure.
	Hold on, hold on.
	Can we just appreciate one thing?
	I'm going to interrupt this because I'm going to puke if I have to listen to this uninterrupted.
	Look at how that buffoon is wearing his face mask.
	Let's just assume that he was wearing an M95 mask, the only ones that might have some proven efficacy.
	He's wearing it like a buffoon.
	Because I can see...
	I could pick his nostrils from the corner of his face mask.
	I'm sure none of whatever infected vapors are coming out of that man's mouth.
	They're not just coming right out of the jowly wrinkle on his face.
	But it's a cloth.
	It looks like an Air Canada cloth mask.
	To make sure.
	So let me be very clear.
	Let me be clear.
	This government will never tell a woman what to do with her body.
	We have made the decision that federal public servants need to be fully vaccinated.
	So hold on, by the way.
	He must be saying that there are no women that work for the federal government.
	That's the only logical conclusion.
	Justin Trudeau does not hire women in the federal government because he doesn't tell women what to do with their bodies.
	We'll never tell a woman what to do with her body.
	That is something that we're also applying to everyone who gets on a plane or a train in the coming months.
	Justin Trudeau is a misogynist.
	He doesn't let women...
	And girls on planes.
	I mean, that's the only logical conclusion in Canada.
	That's a decision that we're making in order to keep Canadians safe, in order to put an end to this pandemic crisis in Canada.
	We are unequivocally and proudly pro-choice and always will be.
	If anyone who doesn't have a legitimate medical reason for not getting fully vaccinated chooses to not get vaccinated...
	There will be consequences.
	Consequences, women.
	This government will never tell a woman what to do with her body.
	There will be consequences.
	Okay, in case it's not abundantly clear, I do not like Justin Trudeau.
	I don't.
	I'm going to write like a Dr. Seussian book.
	Oh, the stupid tracking thing is back on.
	I will never tell a woman what to do with her body, but if they don't get that jibby jab like I told them.
	Oh!
	No job for you, woman.
	No getting on a plane for you, woman.
	Okay, I'm going to turn off the tracking in a second.
	My grandmother, I didn't show the tweet, but I'll say my tweet thought out loud.
	My grandmother always told me, if you've got nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all.
	So I won't say how much I loathe Justin Trudeau, what a disgusting, raging hypocrite Justin Trudeau is.
	I won't tell Justin Trudeau to go straight to the bowels of hell.
	I won't do that, because that would be rude.
	And my grandmother would say, David, you didn't do what I said not to do.
	All right, all that to say, enjoy your intro.
	I was going to start with Ray Epps, but that would have been totally not rationally connected to this live stream.
	Jessica Rose.
	Many of you know who Jessica Rose is, but I think I'm not going to say I'm going to be surprised that many of you might not know who she is.
	She might be one of the more unsung heroes, depending on where you go to get your information.
	The unsung heroes of providing what some would call...
	COVID information and what others might call COVID disinformation.
	Judging by the graffiti on my YouTube stream, YouTube might consider what Jessica Rose has been providing to the world to be COVID disinformation because it doesn't exactly fit with what Fauci has been flip-flopping on.
	You know, masks work, masks don't work.
	Infection is the natural immunity.
	Oh, natural infection no longer does what I said it did 20 years ago.
	We'll get into all of that when we go over to Rumble.
	For the time being, we're going to meet Jessica, who testified two weeks ago at the National Citizens' Inquiry, which is Canada's Citizens' Initiative attempt to get to the bottom of Canada's COVID response.
	Before we do that, let me just make sure that we are, in fact, live on all platforms.
	We should be live on Rumble, which we are.
	We should be...
	Ooh, I just saw my face again.
	We should be live on Locals.
	Which we are, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	All right.
	Everyone's trickling in.
	Share the link around.
	Share the rumble link.
	It's pinned in the YouTube top pin chat comment, whatever.
	All right.
	That's enough of an intro.
	Jessica is waiting in the background.
	Jessica, I'm bringing you in.
	So yeah, by the way, Jessica Rose.
	We're going to talk a lot of stuff.
	She's been breaking down the VAERS data, and she's got a brain that...
	Envious.
	You'll understand why in a bit.
	All right, Jessica.
	Three, two, one.
	Booyah.
	Hold on.
	Before we get started, I just saw Ginger Ninja, who I met Saturday night at our VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com meetup on the Chattanooga...
	Oh, I forget the name of the boat.
	Princess something.
	Your interview with Matt on Friday was probably my favorite of all, and Matt sang a lot.
	So flipping good.
	Jessica, I had Matt Taibbi on Friday afternoon, Friday evening, and it was amazing.
	But all interviews are my babies.
	And this one is going to be just as much of a proud baby as all the other ones.
	Let me see.
	I will do it like this.
	Okay, that's good.
	Jessica, while I disabled the damn tracking function on this camera, 30,000-foot overview as to who you are for those who may not know.
	And I tested the waters before.
	We're going to get into some childhood, and then we're going to get into what you're doing now.
	But who are you for those who may not know?
	I have a brain.
	I watched your testimony.
	Your brain takes like 15 minutes to introduce.
	We're going to get there.
	I also have a great sense of humor.
	So I just wanted to remind everyone to watch the video Speaking Moistly.
	And if you don't know what I'm talking about...
	Go immediately after this and go watch Justin Trudeau's hit song, Speaking Moistly.
	It's the funniest thing ever.
	So yeah, I don't know.
	I'm a Canadian.
	I started my academic life at Memorial University of Newfoundland.
	So I wasn't born in Newfoundland, but I spent 17 years there.
	So you can kind of hear it in my voice too.
	You definitely have what many might consider to be the stereotypical Canadian accent, but where were you born?
	Ottawa.
	Ottawa, all right.
	And so what part of Newfoundland did you live in?
	St. John?
	Yeah, well, you know, I started out in Paradise.
	Yeah, it's actually called Paradise for people who don't know.
	It wasn't Paradise.
	I was kind of isolated.
	And then eventually, you know, you move into the big city.
	And I, you know, the university's in the big city, so that fit.
	And then I lived out in St. Philip's for a little while, and then I moved back to St. John's, and then I moved to Spain, etc.
	Yeah, first of all, we went, I did a road trip with my wife.
	We drove from Montreal to St. John's.
	We took the ferry from...
	Sydney.
	Yeah, Sydney to Port-au-Basque, drove across, got to St. John, couldn't get the 18-hour ferry back, so we had to drive across the island to get back to Port-au-Basque.
	We went to one of the most beautiful places I've ever seen salvage.
	I don't know if you know where it is.
	It's like northeast.
	They dry meat in the wind because it has such a consistently strong wind.
	Totally beautiful.
	But what did your parents do that resulted in you moving to Newfoundland?
	Well, Dad was...
	He was born there.
	So it was between Newfoundland or Rimouski in Quebec.
	Dad had just finished his PhD at McGill's.
	We lived in Montreal.
	And so he was kind of moving on to the workforce thing, I guess.
	So he got a government job in Newfoundland, Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
	He became the chair of the Marine Institute.
	God, I'm trying to remember these names.
	It's been a long time.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So he was kind of getting back to his roots and brought us all over there.
	So, yeah.
	So your dad had a PhD, which might explain your academic pursuits.
	What did your mom do?
	And are your parents still alive?
	Oh yeah, both of them are.
	They're healthy as horses.
	Yep, they're both academics.
	Mom raised four kids and then went back to do her master's in linguistics in ancient languages.
	So mom studies ancient Hittites.
	She's like one of three, four people in the world or something who is a Hittite scholar.
	Ancient Hittites.
	Yeah, it's like the first language.
	And cuneiform and, you know, all these ancient languages, mom studies.
	And then she did her PhD in linguistics and then she wrote some books.
	And so, yeah, pretty interesting characters, those parents of mine.
	And four kids?
	Yep.
	Where do you situate in the four?
	I'm a twin and I have an older brother and a younger sister.
	You're a twin.
	Fraternal or identical?
	Identical.
	But not identical.
	Kind of like both.
	I guess by definition we're identical, but it's easy to tell us apart.
	Let's put it that way.
	And people who ask this question all the time, it must get boring answering the question, but do you think that you have, and I'm not being humorous or joking about this, a different experience of life having grown in the womb with another human being?
	Wow.
	Probably, but I don't know.
	Do you find that you have, not to say a more special, but a different connection to your twin sibling than to your other siblings in terms of being able to read each other or anything like that?
	Do you notice any lingering effects from having spent so much time in close proximity?
	I don't think so.
	I don't really have a lot of that twin stuff.
	Actually, I think...
	My little sister and I have a lot in common.
	We're 12 years apart, but we spent a lot of time together a while back and bonded quite a bit.
	We're all Scorpios.
	I don't know if you do that thing, but we're all born in November, so similar personality types.
	But yeah, I don't really have that twin I can feel stuff thing.
	That people talk about.
	Now, if you're all born in November, let me see if I can do the math here.
	November, December, January.
	Were your parents married in February?
	I should know this.
	I'm just trying to position, like, what could explain that all four of you, well, two of you being born in the same time is one thing, but all four of you born in the same month, there has to be something nine and a half months earlier that is worth celebrating.
	Results in that.
	Okay, never mind.
	I won't ask anymore.
	Maybe, maybe.
	My brother was in January, though, so he wasn't a Scorpio.
	Close enough, anyhow.
	So you spend your young life, I mean, young to adolescent, in Newfoundland.
	You go to high school in Newfoundland as well?
	Yeah, I did, I guess.
	Junior high.
	Yeah, I went to a place called McPherson.
	And then I went to a place called Bishop's College.
	Bishop's College?
	Bishop's in Newfoundland or Bishop's in Quebec?
	In Newfoundland.
	Okay.
	And then how and when do you leave Newfoundland?
	I moved to Spain.
	I was a flamenco dancer for like a long time, like more than a decade.
	It was the thing that I did before surfing.
	You can see that I've become a surfer now.
	So yeah, I took it pretty seriously.
	I saw a performance once and I was like, oh my god.
	My heart flips when I have anything to do with flamenco still to this day.
	And so it was such a weird thing.
	My adjacent neighbor...
	He was from the Netherlands, and he was the boyfriend of my neighbor's daughter.
	And he moved to Newfoundland to be with her.
	And one day, I was out in my backyard in the sunshine when the snow was melting, practicing my footwork.
	You know, you get a little piece of wood, and you put it down, and you put on your shoes, which have nails in them, and you just practice your boss with your feet.
	And all of a sudden I hear, you know, someone clapping copas in the background and I'm like, what is this, a creeper?
	And I look to my left and this guy yells out flamenco and I'm like, yeah, how do you know what it is?
	And he's like, I'm a flamenco guitar player.
	And I was like, yeah, okay, right.
	And it turns out this guy was like an ultra sick, talented.
	Flamenco guitar player from the Netherlands!
	And he moved there five days ago, and he was like, I brought my guitar as a joke, because I thought to myself, nobody's gonna know what flamenco is in Newfoundland, but what if?
	And then his neighbor is doing, it was just the weirdest thing of all, so like...
	The flamenco thing snowballed, and I made a dance studio in my house, and I was teaching for a bit.
	So if you really want to be serious about flamenco, you have to study in Spain.
	So I moved to Seville for a while, and that's where I continued my journey onto Israel, where I did that PhD.
	And so, yeah, Spain was wicked.
	It turned into so much more than flamenco.
	I was in Seville, of course, which is like one of the most beautiful places on earth.
	And I learned Spanish, worked in a couple of restaurants there.
	Yeah, I had a whole life.
	So this is in your early 20s?
	Late 20s, I think.
	Late 20s.
	What academic path had you taken by then?
	When you're in Spain, are you studying at the same time?
	Or did you actually just go specifically for flamenco?
	No, I went for flamenco.
	I just finished my master's.
	And so my master's was in immunology, which was like the hardest thing I've ever done.
	It was amazing.
	Also did that at the Health Sciences Center, which is the medical school affiliated with Memorial.
	Yeah, so I finished all that, and so I felt kind of justified, like, hey, I can take a break now, and I sold my house and everything else, and yeah, packed up, moved.
	Okay, so you get a master's in immunology.
	What did you do your undergrad in?
	Applied mathematics.
	Okay, so applied mathematics undergrad.
	Master's in immunology.
	Master's is what, two years or four years?
	It was three.
	Okay, that was my third guess.
	So, Masters in Immunology, which is not nothing.
	After your Masters, you say, I'm going to take a break, go to Spain.
	How long did you do the flamenco for?
	And then how did you pivot that or get back into, I guess, PhD?
	And then we're going to get into the next step.
	How did that happen?
	So, like, I always...
	I seem to have these sine waves of, like, three years on, three years off brain stuff.
	So I was like...
	And I like the intermittency.
	And as I get older, I think I'm better at merging them.
	So I was doing flamenco for 10, 11 years while I was doing my master's.
	And so I took a year and a bit to do only the flamenco thing.
	And like I said, Spain turned into a lot more than flamenco for me.
	And I had this choice to make then.
	I was there, like, you know, living on the Mediterranean.
	And I got this email from this PhD guy saying, hey, where are you in the world?
	Do you want to come visit Israel to check it out to see if maybe you can live here and you want to do a PhD?
	So I was like, hmm, it's just across the sea there.
	Maybe I should do that.
	So that's what I did.
	I just went for three weeks to kind of, like, feel it out.
	It's a weird place.
	There are wars, and it's not like anywhere else, but lots of sunshine.
	I had been to Israel 30 years ago from my bar mitzvah when we went down.
	We went to Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, and it was a time when there was a lull in international conflict, 93. It's a beautiful place.
	It's hot, but it has snow.
	You can go skiing and surfing in the same day.
	It's got conflict, but it's also got the most amazing history and all that other stuff.
	How does it work?
	Someone says you want to come down and think about doing a PhD.
	What does that even look like?
	I met this dude at a conference in Cleveland, Ohio during my master's.
	I was still at Memorial Medical School doing my medical degree.
	The immunology degree was a master's in medicine, so it's not a medical degree per se.
	It's better than one.
	And so, yeah, I went to this conference, which was filled with almost every single math nerd studying pathogenic viruses in the world.
	It was the most exciting thing ever for me.
	Even better than that, the organizers of the conference got us all into a Body Worlds exhibit, and I was like, whoa!
	Do you know what that is?
	They had one in New York where I saw the bodies is when they rubify or rubberize all aspects of the body.
	Respiratory system, nervous system, lungs.
	It's shocking if you're sensitive when you appreciate that it's real rubberized human bodies.
	It's a weird feeling.
	It's like plastination where you can literally see every system that these people put on.
	Wow, it's magnificent, though.
	Like, the amount of work that goes into these beautiful, like, almost living sculptures.
	And they don't just do people.
	They do animals and pregnant women.
	It's really fascinating.
	So I got to, like, hang out with all these amazing people whose papers I was reading all the time.
	I was like a loser nobody doing my master's.
	And so, like, this guy.
	I had a poster.
	Sometimes when you go to scientific conferences and you don't present, you can make a poster.
	This guy saw my poster and I was doing something called structured treatment interruption examination in the context of HIV.
	I was doing both the math part.
	I was using mathematical modeling to try and show that That structured treatment interruption was a viable option for people taking antiretroviral medication because it's really toxic and it's really expensive.
	So to be able to allow these people periodic breaks was a goal of mine because it's like, it must suck, right?
	You have HIV and you have to take all these pills that make you want to die.
	So it's like, that was the goal of my project.
	I wasn't able to show that now, but that's another story.
	So this guy was also doing this kind of work using mathematical modeling, so it's rare.
	There are very few people in the world who are doing computational biology, whereby they're using systems of ordinary differential equations to investigate viral pathology, like viral kinetics or pathogenesis.
	He was shocked.
	He saw this poster and he's like, what is this?
	Like, and so he, you know, your email is on the poster so they can contact you.
	So he emailed me while we were still there.
	And he said, can we meet before I go and have a discussion about what you're doing?
	And I'm like, yeah, because I knew this guy.
	I read like every paper he ever wrote.
	He was the guy who was the student of the guy.
	Who discovered that HIV is not, like, during the chronic phase, it's not doing nothing.
	It's actually, like, replicating really fast and decimating your CD4 T cell population.
	So he was the guy that helped with the models that brought that to light.
	He was a really big deal.
	So I was like, yeah.
	So we ended up having a...
	Yeah, well, I was.
	I don't know what a groupie is.
	Now I have groupies.
	No, I'm kidding.
	I know that you're a science nerd because, yes, you are, in fact, sneaking out on, what is it, computer modeling of pathology.
	I got a lot of questions after this, but sorry.
	Okay, so this guy that you know, it's funny.
	My wife does these neuroscience conferences and she has her posters.
	It's like the idea that...
	Someone's like, oh yeah, I got your email at this conference here, and now let's do something together.
	It's amazing.
	It's like scientific networking.
	Okay, sorry.
	It was amazing.
	Yeah, yeah, no, it was unbelievable to me.
	We had a four-hour conversation, and at the end of it, he gave me his card, and he said, consider when you're finished coming to Israel to do a PhD in my lab.
	And I'm like, yeah, okay, because I didn't think he was serious, but he was.
	And you know how life is.
	It just kind of turned out...
	I said, you know, I was across the Mediterranean, so it seemed like Providence or something.
	So, yeah.
	The story writes itself.
	You end up in Israel, and you're going to have to explain what exactly you're doing your PhD on and how long this lasts.
	And now I'm realizing, we were talking earlier, I asked you before we started if I could ask how old you are.
	And now I'm putting together all the numbers in my head.
	And I was way off when I said, I would have said mid-30s, but I said, you have to be at least my wife's age, given your credentials.
	But now I'm thinking you have to be older than me.
	But before we get there...
	I'm older than you.
	Tabarnush.
	I'm 43, people.
	That means Jessica is older.
	I'm way older than you, bro.
	Okay, well, oh my goodness.
	This is what happens.
	You get to a point where you think older people are young and you think younger people are old.
	I mean, this is the stage of my life.
	So you go and you start doing a PhD in Israel.
	What institution and how long does this PhD last?
	And what in the heck is this PhD on?
	So it was at Bari Lan, which is the religio university in Israel, which, you know, it's no odds to me, whatever.
	It was just where the faculty of life sciences that this professor had his lab in.
	So my project was supposed to be a continuation of the HIV stuff, HIV immunopathogenesis using ODE systems modeling.
	It turned out that there wasn't enough of a project there to do, so there was a bit of a shift once I got there, which was okay with me, because I was still going to be studying dangerous viruses, and for some reason I find that really fascinating.
	So there was a huge pile of data.
	On a trial, a large international clinical trial testing a pro-drug of ganciclovir, which is an anti-CMV drug, cytomegalovirus.
	And, you know, they needed someone to look at that data and try and, I don't know, figure something out from it.
	It was literally like, here's a huge data set, do something with it.
	So that was...
	What's cytomegalovirus other than something from a cartoon?
	It's a large virus, hence the mega inside the name.
	And it can be pretty bad.
	It can mess you up if you're pregnant and it can mess up your eyes.
	About 50 to 80% of people are carriers, so it's really common.
	But it doesn't really do anything to you unless you're immunocompromised, for example.
	But if you are, or if you get an organ transplant and you have to go on immunosuppressive drugs, it can re-emerge and cause a problem.
	This is also an issue with these COVID injections, which I guess we'll talk to.
	The re-emergence of latent viruses.
	Oh, I've got...
	So many questions.
	I mean, I got more questions than I think we might have time for, but we'll see.
	But, okay, so they dump data, which means that, like, let's just say they've tracked data.
	I don't know, blood counts, all the stuff about people who have this CMV.
	And then they say, make sense of it.
	Like, go through it and see if you can find trends.
	Like, what does that mean?
	I don't understand what computer modeling, I know what I think it doesn't look like based on what Ferguson did, you know, in COVID.
	But what does it, like, what are they asking you to do when they, and what type of data are they dumping on you?
	Okay, well, I'm going to try and remember because it was a long time ago.
	So it was data for thousands.
	I think it was even tens of thousands.
	It was a huge amount of data, which sorted by genotype of the virus.
	So there were like four different types of the virus.
	And I'm trying to remember.
	I think what I had to do was compare differences in genotypes.
	And viral decay kinetics.
	So usually when you add a drug to a system that has a virus in it, like a human body, you see what we call a biphasic decay pattern.
	So the first phase of decay is really fast, and that's the effect of the drug acting directly on the virus, let's say.
	And then the second phase is slower, which is the effect on the infected cells.
	That's the idea, if I'm remembering correctly.
	So that was all good and normal.
	But what I saw when I pulled out the patterns of the data, if you want to say that, which is just like Excel crap.
	You plot two-dimensional plots of this against this.
	This isn't hard.
	I saw not a biphasic curve, I'm trying to get my finger in here, but a first phase decay and then a bump, a resurgence of virus or whatever it was, and then a continued decay, which is like, what the hell is that?
	So that became my project in the CMV world.
	I had to figure out why we were seeing an apparent resurgence of virus in half.
	It was not like a coincidence.
	It wasn't like 20% of the population in the data.
	It was half.
	So it was like a thing, a real thing.
	And I'm like thinking intracellular.
	So I'm not going to bore you with the modeling details, and I don't remember what they are anyway.
	But basically, when you build a system of ordinary differential equations that you solve, you have to do it with...
	With as much of an unbiased mind as you possibly can.
	So you learn, like, preferably before you look at any data and find any patterns, you learn as much about the system, the biology, apart from, like, exogenous things like drugs as you possibly can, so that you can build equations that would represent the state.
	In the absence of the drug, for example.
	So you have, within an equation, you have a variable, which is whatever population you want to look at, like, I don't know, some kind of cell.
	And then how that changes in time is going to be represented by terms in that equation that you just build.
	Some are going to be growth, some are going to be decay.
	And then...
	You can have a system of these equations.
	So you can have like three or four.
	I never go above four because I find the more equations you have, the more parameters you have.
	Like the parameters are the things that dictate, say, the rate of change of one of these terms.
	So the more of those that you have, the more of those that you have to estimate.
	And then the degree of, I guess, accuracy.
	And it's hard to use that word in the context of biology, but the degree of accuracy goes down with the raised number of variables and parameters.
	So I built this model, and the trick was once I learned or had this intuition about maybe there's something going on with, like, intracellularly.
	Like, maybe there's a playoff between the drug and the fact that it only becomes active by the virus.
	And so, you know, it took four years.
	It really took all of the four years that it took to do this for me to very, very, very luckily, there was one of my colleagues was from Emory in the UK, and he came down for a visit to brainstorm.
	He's a virologist.
	And so we were the math people.
	He was the virologist.
	And we were like, okay, this is what we have.
	We can't figure this.
	I built like 13 different versions of the model and nothing was generating this phenomenon.
	And then he said, okay, what about this?
	Because he knew the virology, the interplay between the drugs and the virus itself.
	So he said one thing that kind of solidified this idea that it was the interplay.
	The drug would only become active in the presence of the virus.
	So it would depend on the amount of virus, blah, blah, blah.
	So it was this closed-loop circular thing.
	Once I integrated that into the model, you know, however I did that, boom, this gorgeous pattern popped out.
	And I'm like, oh, my God.
	It was actually a pretty, pretty amazing thing.
	But nobody cares about that.
	It is fascinating because it's going to segue perfectly into...
	Your ability to assess a modeling that we were, you know, that government was relying on for its COVID response.
	And while we segue into that, everybody, I'll post the link one more time here.
	That's actually to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I'm going to give the one to...
	The Rumble link is pinned up in the pin thing.
	So let's move on over there now because this is when it's going to get interesting.
	I'm going to remove the YouTube link.
	Jessica, change is nothing on our end, but we're going to be live on Rumble and vivabarneslaw.locals.com only.
	And by the way, just in advance, snip and clip in real time, people.
	I try to keep mental notes of timestamps when something is important that can be clipped for Twitter purposes.
	Look at that beautiful cat.
	That's a mountain lion.
	That cat looks bigger than most cats.
	He's really big.
	See, I only like the cats that are big because they feel more like dogs, but I don't like their judgmental eyes.
	Like, that cat's, like, analyzing me.
	I like my dogs, which are dumb.
	They look at me and say, just feed me, and that's it.
	Cats, independent creatures.
	Okay, we're moving to Rumble right now.
	Ending on YouTube.
	See you all there.
	All right, we're good.
	All right, Jessica, now let's see.
	So you are doing a PhD in something that is not...
	Tangentially related, not unrelated, but rather specifically related to what is to come.
	Lead us into the pandemic in terms of what you're looking at, what you're researching, and then what happens when the world falls off a frickin' cliff.
	Lead us into the...
	What are you studying?
	What are you studying, like, 2019?
	All right, so I did a postdoc, and then I did another postdoc.
	So my first one was in molecular biology, where I was looking at bacteria.
	I switched to bacteria for a while, but I learned all my molecular biology techniques there.
	And then I did a postdoc in biochem, protein biology, where I was looking at, like, binding efficacy and stuff like that.
	That's where I learned, like, most of my Western blot binding assay, like, protein purification stuff.
	So that ended in 2019 December.
	So what timing?
	I had planned a longboarding vacation, I suppose it was, in Noosa, in Australia.
	And I was meant to leave in February, March of 2020.
	And lo and behold, you know, they declared this stupid pandemic.
	So, you know, I study pathogenic viruses.
	So when I started hearing people say the word zoonotic pathogen, I was like, whoa!
	Because, you know, you kind of...
	What does that mean?
	It means like...
	In this case, they're calling it a virus that jumps from one species to another, which generally is a really bad thing because the new species doesn't have immunity.
	So it can decimate a new population.
	So you hear those words and it came out of a wet market in China.
	That was the story.
	And so you're like thinking, ah, geez.
	Ah, jeez, this is the thing that we've been worrying about.
	You know, it's kind of built up in your mind already.
	And, like, secretly everyone's waiting for the world to end anyway.
	So I started watching the death counts on the Johns Hopkins website.
	Like, every morning I make my coffee and I'm like, how many people died today?
	But it was, like, seriously like that for, like, about 10 days.
	And then I started noticing that things were not as they seemed.
	Basically, like, the control behaviors that were being imposed on people had zero, zero to do with safety or health.
	It was real easy to see just by observing what was going on.
	And I don't know, some people say it's because I have a background and I'm able to recognize, like, That wearing a mask outside is a ridiculous thing to even think about doing if you're trying not to get an airborne package.
	I still, to this day, believe that it's just common sense.
	Why would you wear a mask alone in your car?
	That doesn't make any sense.
	Because it had become a religious symbol, like a kippah, like a veil, like a talus, like a blankie for kids.
	And I say that without judgment, but I say that's my assessment.
	I feel stupid because all of this now makes sense in retrospect.
	Wearing a mask outdoors when you're social distancing, I don't think that made any sense to me for any extended period of time.
	And I'm certain I never did it, and I sure as hell never.
	But this immediately.
	Gets your scientific senses tingling.
	Oh, yeah.
	You know, I didn't like being chased by cops when I was trying to get exercise.
	I didn't like being told I wasn't allowed to go to the sea.
	That's just dumb.
	Like, I didn't like seeing...
	Like, there was one...
	You've probably seen this because somebody was playing it at some point.
	There's video footage of some surfers in Tel Aviv at one point in the beginning of all this.
	They're just going for a session, right?
	Like, they always do.
	Not only is it like the lifestyle, if you're a surfer to surf, it's really beneficial.
	It's great for your mind.
	It's great for your body.
	It's great for vitamin D. And there were police helicopters in the air.
	I kid you not.
	Armed police helicopters, jet skis in the water, two, like jet skis, boats, and land people, like for surfers.
	And you're looking at this, and you're like, Hmm.
	That seems a bit overkill.
	And then, and then, you see them approach these horribly dangerous, you know, asymptomatic spreaders who just came out of the water by force being approached by people who weren't doing any of the crap that they were telling us we had to do, like stay two meters apart and wear a mask.
	It's like, you guys...
	You cannot possibly think that anyone's going to believe you, that you're trying to do this for our safety and benefit.
	It's like not possible!
	It was my specific and special resentment to Israel in particular, given...
	Given the histories of peoples, that Israel, for whatever the reason, was more Catholic than the Pope, to use an apropos expression, more Catholic than the Pope in terms of the rules implementing and enforcing, and in terms of their jab rules and their green cards and all that stuff, which we're going to get to.
	But so bottom line, as a scientific person, none of this makes any sense to you from day one or from day 10?
	No.
	No, from like day 10 to 14. I don't know.
	It was somewhere in that two-week mark.
	I was, you know, I was...
	I was rationally worried like everyone in the beginning because, like I said, I know what that means.
	And if it had actually been, you know, what they were saying it was.
	They're still trying to make this out to be something that's lethal, and it's not.
	It's like everybody who has expertise in this has looked at this sideways and upside down, and the infection fatality rate is like zero.
	Especially not harmful in kids.
	It's like, if you actually look, if we had any flu data, the flu disappeared for some reason, and you compared previous years, like how many people died from the flu versus how many people they claim died from COVID, it's comparable.
	So it's like, then you have to look at it another way.
	If you're going to be playing defense here, all right, well, it's not just about death.
	What about people who are, Suffering in other ways from this virus or whatever it is.
	But again, it doesn't seem to be a really big deal unless you're in a certain subpopulation of people, like if you're infirm, obese, or elderly, for example.
	So naturally, once you come to that conclusion and you're a public policy specialist, You hone in on those people that need to be protected and cared for, and you protect and care for those people.
	You leave everyone else the hell alone, man.
	You don't quarantine healthy people.
	It's like, what?
	I guess we're starting by stage here.
	So they say two weeks to flatten the curve.
	That was about the same time everywhere.
	As a scientist, you're concerned because if this is, in fact, a virus which is particularly lethal to humans, that has leapt from animals to humans, then it is something that would be devastating within two weeks and not, I guess, I don't want to say plateauing.
	They were keeping the running death count in the bottom of every chiron on every news outlet out there.
	Let me ask the first question first.
	When do you know, when do you determine, based on analysis, that the death count may have been somewhat inaccurate, exaggerated, conflated with other comorbidities?
	Well, I didn't come to later, right?
	When we started learning the reality of the fact that they were...
	And they were just coming out and saying this.
	They were saying, if somebody comes into the hospital with something, like a broken arm, and they were testing...
	Everybody with this garbage-like PCR thing, we can talk about that too, and they come up positive, which basically just means they have DNA of any kind, then they were written down as a COVID-19 person, and if they died, they were written down as a COVID-19 death.
	So all of all, I have not done one single analysis using death data or case data, because it's all bullshit.
	It's all dependent on false filling out Of death certificates that was false, faulty, wrong, or these cases, which are based on this ludicrous PCR thing.
	I mean, literally, after a short amount of time, you know, within the first year, I realized that this was a pandemic of testing.
	That's all.
	Like, that's what conflated everything.
	That's what put the fear of God into everyone.
	Because when you even see the word case now, you're like, oh.
	Like, you shudder in fear.
	A case.
	It's like, it doesn't mean anything.
	It just means that they sampled your DNA and they amplified something.
	Well, now, so let's get into that because I don't think in all of the doctors that I've had on, we've had Christian, Dr. Francis Christian, Christian Martinson, Malone, Brett, a bunch.
	I don't think we've ever gotten into the...
	Big argument about the PCR tests, the cycle rate, the fact that it was picking up either false positives or someone who was well past any transmission stage or just picking up ordinary cold viruses.
	Explain the PCR test, explain how it worked, and whether or not that is now accepted among the medical community as having been a very, very faulty practice because of the false positives.
	So we'll go backwards.
	I think, no.
	I think it's not recognized as being...
	One of the biggest blunders, debacles, ever put out into the world.
	It's literally still out there everywhere, and I guarantee you they're going to bring that crap back.
	Now, PCR is not a test.
	Nobody should call it a PCR test.
	It is not.
	Polymerase chain reaction is just an amplification of DNA.
	That's all it is.
	You sample something, you amplify whatever that is in that something using specific primers, which are little guys that stick onto a strand and then zip it up and then more, more, more, more, more.
	So I don't need to get into the details, but it's an amplification technique.
	So it's exactly what you said.
	If you were exposed to SARS and you mounted an immune response, You're going to be carrying around little bits of that DNA for who knows how long, long time, right?
	So if you're like months past and you have robust, lifelong immunity built up, you're no threat to no one.
	You're actually the safest person around now, which is still not acknowledged.
	That PCR amplification reaction will definitely pick up that DNA.
	As per specific primers and amplify it, and they will call you PCR positive, and they will associate that with being sick, which is the other stupidest misnomer of all here.
	Carey Mullis is the inventor of the PCR technique.
	He's been blasted to have said from his own mouth, you can't use this as a diagnostic tool.
	This cannot tell you if you are sick.
	It tells you if you have some kind of DNA.
	And if you're using, I'm trying to catch all the things you asked, if you're using a cycle time, a cutoff that's too high, and I'm telling you, I have the document that was circulated in Atlantic Canada to all the Atlantic provinces.
	This document says, use a cutoff of 45 cycles, which when I saw this, I was like, no, no, no, this has to be a mistake.
	And /or nobody doing PCR reactions is going to be doing this because you look at this and you're going to be like, you know, let's just say you're doing your masters in biology and you're doing your PCR reactions to amplify some DNA and you tell your PI that you're using 45 cycles as a cutoff.
	He's going to be like, "Fail!" because you'll literally see everything.
	They did some standardization, and you actually only need to cycle through.
	That means amplify, amplify, amplify 18 times, and this is exponential.
	18, not 25. Is this like the Richter scale?
	18 to 19 is not 1 degree, but it's actually 10 degrees of amplification?
	Yeah, it's logistic, so it's exponential.
	And the cycle rate is basically...
	If we can...
	Summarize it in a meme.
	It's enhance, enhance, enhance.
	Get in closer.
	So that by the end of it, if you enhance something enough, I mean, it'll look like nothing or everything.
	So conceptually, I can understand that.
	And so they're looking for, I thought it was a diagnostic test that would pick up live virus, whatever, SARS, COVID, whatever we're at.
	So it's picking up the immunological response.
	Fragments of DNA.
	Just fragments of DNA.
	When you get introduced to a virus, let's say, it's this package of proteins, right?
	And, you know, it does whatever it does.
	It doesn't matter.
	But your immune system, like as part of the immune response, it'll take up this virus.
	I'm just going to use casual language here.
	And it'll chop it up into little bits.
	And it'll show it.
	In the form of these molecules called MHC complexes on the surfaces of cells as a little flag.
	And it'll say, hey, look what's at the end of my molecule.
	Something foreign.
	Come and get me.
	And so that's a message to these other cells to come that can recognize these receptors and this foreign antigen and kill that cell.
	So you have all these little bits.
	The point was you have all these little bits that are...
	That are pick-up-able, let's just say, if you've recently been exposed.
	So if you amplify that like over and over and over and over and over again, yeah, okay, sure, you can say, I found this DNA.
	But once again, it's not indicative of sickness.
	It's indicative that you maybe once were exposed to SARS.
	Maybe you were exposed to SARS.
	Maybe you're exposed to a different coronavirus.
	It depends what primers you're using.
	But it's like the whole thing is framed in BS.
	It was a story.
	It was a lie.
	And I'm not blaming anyone in particular because who freaking knows how this became such a snowball of horror.
	But it really did.
	It's like...
	Maybe it has to do with the fact that nobody knew that this wasn't what they were telling them it was.
	Maybe they really thought this was a diagnostic test.
	And if they see this little line on this little plastic thing, they're like, oh my god, I'm going to die!
	Maybe that's gone into people's heads, but it's so far from reality.
	I remember...
	Sorry, go ahead.
	No, no, I mean, you could do...
	Let me just ask everyone listening.
	Imagine every cold season, you know, in Canada, we get the flu and the cold every year, sometimes twice a year, and you walked around with some little stupid test and you were constantly testing yourself because you were freaked out you had something that was going to kill you or something.
	Imagine, you'd just be constantly in this state of perpetual, oh my god, I'm sick, I'm going to die, instead of just living like we've always lived.
	We get sickly clean.
	I think the biggest issue with the PCR test, false positives, or at least, you know, false diagnosis, is that, well, I mean, in retrospect now, it was used to inflate the numbers, not just to terrorize the population, but to terrorize them into submission of the governmental measures that were being implemented.
	But I do remember early on...
	People were complaining.
	Scientific minds were saying these are giving either false positives or the cycle rate is so excessive that the results are meaningless.
	And I remember them being shunned.
	I mean, you're in the scientific community.
	This was one question my wife wanted to make sure I ask you.
	How early on were, you know, people talking internally saying none of this makes any sense, but people are too scared to come out because the ones who came out early were getting publicly lambasted?
	I don't know.
	I wasn't in the lab at the time, and I could only guess.
	It had to have been.
	It's this, what I was alluding to, sorry, before.
	If I was in the lab, and I was a PCR tech, and I got this note, this memo, saying, when you run these samples to test for SARS, run it to 45 cycles, I would look at it, and I'd be like, what?
	And I wouldn't have, because you know, you always know, like, it's 25 to 28, 30, whatever.
	It's like you, if you go above a certain threshold, you're just gonna, it's just gonna be, like, everything.
	So I have to wonder, like, how many people who are techies, how many people doing the amplifications were just kind of like, okay, and how many were like, This is insane, but they're telling me to do it, so I better do it, because I don't want to lose my job.
	And how many people were like, this is stupid, and went to their supervisor and said, this is too high.
	Don't you think we should adjust this down?
	And then they would say, no.
	So it's like, I have no idea in reality, but I can tell you, it's probably very mirrored in the same kind of...
	Awareness that became more apparent with time within every community.
	Like, nurses, in my opinion, had to have seen the BS from the beginning.
	And they either were, like, sociopathically obeying orders.
	And I do mean sociopathically because...
	I'm not sure you've heard these first-hand accounts from some of the nurses that have kind of gone viral.
	The stories, they're very believable to me.
	Like, I don't think that they're acting, let's say.
	And the stories that they count of watching their own patients basically be murdered, being told to leave the room.
	Anyway, there are horror stories that nurses have recounted.
	And the most horrific Part of the stories that I've heard is the lack of nursiness.
	It's like doctors are really important, right?
	Or they're theoretically meant to be really important.
	But nurses, they're like the stitching between, you know, the fabric.
	They hold everything together.
	They see everything.
	It's like waitstaff.
	Like I was in the service industry for 15 years.
	You see everything when you're a waitress.
	You hear everything.
	Cab drivers, too.
	These really important core members of society.
	I think nurses are one of those.
	And so I find it really, really shocking that they got away with any of this in a hospital setting because I can't believe every single nurse didn't see this immediately and go, hell no, I'm not doing that.
	Hell no, I'm not playing with this vent and adjusting these levels to blow out this person's lungs.
	Hell no, I'm not giving this person a sedative that's probably going to be enough to kill them.
	Hell no, I'm not sending away this patient just because they don't have blue lips and asking them to come back when they're cyanotic.
	I'm not doing that.
	I'm going to be a nurse.
	So it's like...
	Okay, so step one.
	Is out of the way now.
	The PCR tests were fundamentally flawed from the beginning.
	Some people knew it.
	Some people spoke out about it.
	Got lambasted.
	Others went along with it.
	And the rest of the general population thought they were going to die when they got a positive test or a positive result.
	Was there financial incentive?
	Or did they do all this crap that they were being told they had to do?
	Was there financial incentive that you're aware of?
	I mean, we've heard about it where the hospitals in America were getting compensated for...
	COVID entries, COVID patients, and COVID deaths.
	And so the incentive might have been there to believe the PCR test, even if you knew it was fundamentally flawed, for your financial incentive.
	Was that the same that you're aware of elsewhere in the world?
	That's what I'm aware of.
	Yeah, apparently that's a fact.
	That's documented.
	Even the amounts were incentivized.
	And I guess, you know, hospitals...
	You know, they, I guess what they were thinking was, well, we have to make money too.
	And we have to make sure that we're, you know, we have enough equipment and all this stuff to like, rescue all these people.
	I don't know what they were thinking, but it's like, there are definitely financial incentives on the go.
	The PCR test is problematic, and I don't think anybody can dispute that now, although they're still using those flipping tests.
	The next question is this.
	From your data analysis perspective, in the beginning, we were told, you know, this is the next, this is the great pandemic.
	I do recall it was within relatively short order.
	It wasn't the two weeks, but it was within the two months where I remember hearing in retrospect now people saying, we have enough data to know.
	Which groups are at risk and which groups are not?
	Demographically speaking, we saw where 80% of the deaths occurred in or around.
	What data were you able to access at the time?
	How quick were you to identify this?
	What was the source?
	What was the strategy and tactic?
	And then what happened if and when you and others spoke out at the time?
	I was paying attention to Italy.
	I was paying attention to the UK.
	I was paying attention to Israel because Israel was like the first place that got all the shots.
	And so, you know, that was one of the most interesting data sets of all.
	It's a good question.
	I'm trying to think, like visualize what I was looking at in particular.
	It was just a bunch of different data sets.
	It's like, since I started doing this, which was...
	I don't know, pretty early, I guess, in 2020.
	It's just like a rolling thing.
	Like, this country did this study and this data is free now.
	This country did this and this.
	And it's still doing that.
	I mean, not only do we have more studies being done, but we have more publications getting past peer review now.
	So we're getting all these, like, peer-reviewed publications showing us what's going on with...
	Both SARS, COVID, and the injections.
	So, like, we're getting all this comparative data now.
	But I can tell you I was looking at VAERS.
	I mean, that's what I've been doing from the very beginning, which is the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.
	And even to this day, it's very, very clear who's dying.
	It's people who are older.
	It was from the beginning.
	It was apparent in January 2021.
	From the shots.
	I'm sorry, I'm talking about the shots now.
	From the shots that the older people were perishing more.
	And so nobody who's pushing the shots is ever going to admit that it might be the shots doing that.
	So you can use the argument that it's COVID because a lot of them actually have COVID listed beside their ID as a measure code.
	So it's like, okay, this still proves that only old people or mostly old people.
	The infirm demographic and the elderly demographic are the ones who are suffering the most from both of these things.
	And that's, you know, I don't know.
	I can't think of a specific data set that told me that in the beginning.
	But, I mean, it's real clear now.
	No matter where you are.
	We'll get into the VAERS actually shortly, just to segue into it.
	But the next question I had...
	Oh, jeez.
	Oh.
	Oh, tabernush.
	It was people who were dying.
	The people who were dying in the beginning...
	Oh, that's right.
	That was the question.
	What are you able to explain, clarify, by way of the disappearance of the flu during COVID?
	I've seen some doctors...
	Well, I've seen some doctors hypothesize as an explanation.
	Well, when there's two competing viruses, that which is more communicable will succeed and it will kill off...
	It'll trump that which is less able to transmit.
	Yeah, or was it that or they didn't release it that year?
	Wait, they didn't release the data or they didn't release the virus?
	Well, the virus.
	I'm not kidding.
	There's a really smart group of people in the world who are saying that right now, and I have no reason not to listen to them.
	I don't study the flu.
	I don't know the dynamics.
	I've never been interested in flu because it's boring.
	But it's like they're saying they didn't release it.
	It's like, okay, that makes sense because there's like zero data.
	So, you know, people were either...
	They either had the flu, and that's what we were calling COVID, and those PCR things were picking up the flu, and all that data that they collected for COVID was the flu, and that's why they said the flu went away.
	That's the most likely scenario.
	Or, you know, whatever.
	I don't know.
	The one theory was that the coronavirus outdid the flu because it was more contagious.
	The other theory is that...
	Yes, the PCR tests were picking up the flu and diagnosing that as COVID.
	The third one was that there were stats on flu infections, but when anyone died with flu-induced pneumonia or another complication, but also had COVID, which was highly transmissible, they marked it down as a COVID death.
	But that wouldn't answer the question as to why they weren't reporting cases of flu, because that would presuppose that they were in fact reporting cases of flu.
	But I don't know what they were reporting in terms of cases, whether or not it was...
	Admissions, fatalities, or whatever.
	Okay, interesting.
	Okay, so now...
	And when you're not in control of the data, something that everybody needs to realize is something that I've learned through all of this, which is that even the source data, even this raw source data that we're all looking at now, where'd that come from?
	Somebody is letting those numbers be posted because there are always two sets of books.
	I don't want to get all weird and freak people out here, but I'm just telling you the truth, man.
	Everything that we are all doing is a version.
	It's probably a good sample, the tip of the iceberg, of what's actually going on.
	So if we're reporting something that like...
	You know, like what I'm doing in VAERS, like if I see a myocarditis signal, that is the tip of the freaking iceberg, let me tell you.
	Not to ratify what some might, or reaffirm what some might accuse as being conspiracy theory, just you back it up to Pfizer's clinical data, where that's the data from which people are now reassessing and reexamining, but when you know that that data itself excluded cases like...
	Maddie DeGarry from the base.
	So there's your data, but we know that that data is wildly, potentially wildly inaccurate, just so that people appreciate exactly what you're saying.
	We knew early on, I remember it, we were saying it's nursing homes deaths, which is typically where the flu goes.
	There had been very bad previous years about flu deaths, which didn't result in global lockdowns.
	This year, we knew.
	From anecdotal evidence that, you know, a Florida motorcycle man death was attributed to COVID.
	When it was found out, they corrected it.
	But if it happens once, it's happened many more times.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Let's get into this.
	So a lot of people knew the data, and I heard them saying it back in the time, but didn't appreciate what they were saying until about a year later.
	We knew the nursing home deaths, all this stuff.
	And then the response.
	And now you talked about the government response and how little sense it made.
	You know, they're pulling out surfers from the ocean in Israel.
	The development of a vaccine, Jessica, for a...
	The development of a vaccine for a coronavirus within nine months went throughout the decades of modern medical history.
	It's been impossible to do.
	Looking at it now, I, as a lay idiot lawyer, think it's laughable.
	As a scientist at the time...
	What are you thinking when they say, whoa, Operation Warp Speed, within nine months we found a vaccine to a coronavirus despite years and decades of having failed to come up with one because of the rapidity of the evolution of the virus.
	What were you thinking at the time that this was going on?
	So I had a slow evolution to this because I'm very cautious.
	I actually made some videos, a seven-part series.
	Everyone should go watch those if they're still on YouTube.
	I have a channel.
	I don't remember what it's called.
	Jessica Rose something.
	But I did a seven-part series, and within that, I think it was video seven was about vaccines.
	And I did this really big deep dive into the history of vaccines.
	Why did they come about?
	How did they come about?
	How long does it take to get from concept to arm?
	What's the process?
	How many phases?
	You know, how long does it take to get approval?
	What are the, like, how strict are the testing procedures once you get this thing approved, like in phase four trials?
	All this stuff.
	So I like to know my stuff, and I'm not a vaccinologist, so I was like, okay, I need to learn.
	How long?
	These conventional vaccines take to get to market.
	So that's very important, what I just said.
	Conventional vaccines are like full-sized viruses, like with all the proteins intact, let's say, or versions of a virus that are delivered in some vector with some kind of immune stimulant called an adjuvant, blah, blah, blah.
	So it's always a bunch.
	of different proteins that are introduced to the human body and the body recognizes that as foreign and so it mounts this immune response against all of those different proteins.
	It's actually a beautiful idea and I want to say something really important right here.
	This idea of vaccination or inoculation is based on a system that works really well as a balancing act.
	Between this thing and all the microbes that we live with all the time.
	Some of them we don't respond too well to.
	Some of them we respond so well we don't even know we're with them.
	Some of these things we live mutualistically.
	I mean, we wouldn't have a gut.
	We wouldn't have a microbiota.
	Hence the word microbiota.
	If we didn't have all these bacteria and fungi and viruses with us all the time, they're not our enemies.
	Some of them are bad for us, but that's what our immune system's for.
	It's fully functioning in most people, unless you're on immunosuppressive drugs, you got an organ transplant or something, or maybe you have HIV.
	So that's really important for me to, like, project out there.
	Natural immunity is superior to vaccination.
	Hands down.
	Anybody who tells you otherwise does not know what they're talking about.
	So vaccination can be good because if you find the right way to do it, you can just like tickle the immune system, get minimal symptoms on the go against a pathogen that you might be re-challenged with or challenged with in the future that your immune system can now mount an effective, very fast response to and you won't get really sick from it.
	So it provides you with this preemptive army against these things that could maybe make you really sick in the future.
	So it's a very beautiful idea.
	But here's the thing.
	Those conventional vaccines take between 5 and 15 years to get from concept to arm.
	It takes that long because you don't want to mess this up.
	You don't want to end up giving someone something that's going to make them worse.
	Or make them get an autoimmune condition where their body starts attacking itself.
	You don't want to do that.
	That's dangerous stuff right there.
	You might as well just leave yourself alone, get the pathogen, get sick, or not.
	You don't want to get an autoimmune condition induced by, you know, blah, blah, blah.
	So the difference between those and these new mRNA things...
	This technology, and it is technology, there are two technologies that are brand new that were rushed via Operation Warp Speed.
	These took like nine months, like you said, under a year to get from like basically concept to ARM.
	They've been trying to solve the toxicity problem of LNPs, the lipid nanoparticles, which are these fat bubble carriers of this modified RNA for decades.
	And then magically...
	Explain that.
	So they've been trying to solve the toxicity problems of the lipid nanoparticle, which carries the messenger rhinonuclease something acid.
	I'm just trying to show off that I actually remember the words now.
	Okay, the toxicity.
	Explain what that means, the toxicity of the lipid nanoparticle.
	Okay, I'll tell you what I know, but I don't make these things.
	And I'm not a lipid nanoparticle expert, but I'll tell you what I know doing a lot of research on this.
	So these lipid nanoparticles are literally fat spheres made of four different types of fats or lipids.
	Lipids and fats are the same thing.
	Moderna and Pfizer both have their own recipes.
	They're both using two of the same things.
	They're both using PEG, which is polyethylene glycol, as a coating on the outside, which makes it slippery and slidey, and it optimizes delivery of the package.
	And they also have something called cationic lipids.
	Which are really important for kind of holding the modified mRNA, and I'll tell you what that is in a second, in place within this package.
	The secret to their success, which is very weird to me because they both, Moderna and Pfizer did this at the same time, apparently, was that they discovered this...
	property of cationic lipids called ionizable cationic lipids, which basically just means that they only become active at certain pHs.
	So never mind what that means.
	It literally just means that they tweaked it.
	Oh, hold on, actually, even before you get there, I guess, no, just work it in, but the history of the toxicity, that's what I just don't want to forget about, but sorry.
	Go on.
	Right.
	So it's well documented.
	I've done a number of presentations.
	All you have to do is look up cationic lipids on PubMed.
	You'll find endless numbers of publications that reveal.
	These things have a known toxicity profile.
	Also PEG has a known allergenic profile.
	These aren't secrets.
	We know about this.
	One more thing I want to say about lipid nanoparticles and what we knew before.
	Is that these particular ones, we were told explicitly that when they were injected, you know, they're supposed to inject into your muscle here, that they would stay, Jesus, that they would stay at the injection site and not travel throughout the body.
	So that the payload, which is the modified mRNA, and I'll get to that, would stay here.
	And so you'd mount this very local immune response.
	It would be a localized inflammation, blah, blah, blah.
	But what we were not told is by FOIA request, we found out that Pfizer had done these studies to check out the PEG and the cationic lipid of the Pfizer products and where and if they traffic to places in Wistar rats and mice.
	These are the animal models.
	They do experiments using animals because their physiology is basically the same as ours.
	So if you see something happening in them, you can say, oh, we might see it in us too because we're both mammals and stuff.
	And so what they found was that these things, these lipid nanoparticles, actually traffic very readily and accumulate in all sorts of places, everywhere you can think of.
	The spleen, the liver, the adrenals, the brain, the heart, the ovaries, the testes.
	Like the ovaries was one of the places where they accumulated to the highest levels.
	And the problem was in that particular study that we had to force, you know, view, by the way, that's what freedom of information thing means, was that they stopped measuring.
	The levels, the concentration of these lipids at hour 48. They terminated the animals.
	And it was on an upward trajectory.
	It was still going up, man.
	There's no sign of dissent.
	It might have started to go down at hour 50, but we don't know.
	So we don't know to what levels and how long those things would have accumulated.
	That seems kind of important to reveal to the public, you know?
	And not only that, there's a paper.
	That was published 11 years ago.
	Same animals, Wistar rats, same organs, ovaries, same nanoparticles type technology, traffic to the ovaries, traffic to the liver.
	We knew it.
	There's no way that the people who developed this stuff and were in this, you know, lipid nanoparticle world did not know this stuff.
	So that's really suspicious and annoying.
	And pervasive in every other word.
	So here's the problem with that.
	The lipid nanoparticles themselves are potentially destructive.
	So we don't know what an accumulation of lipid nanoparticles in the ovaries is going to do to the ovaries.
	We don't know.
	But this is even the worst thing.
	By mechanical design, these things are just the delivery cars.
	So they get to where they're going.
	They dump their payload, which is this modified mRNA, messenger ribonucleic acid RNA, which is basically the coding template, the recipe book, to make the spike protein.
	And this is the spike protein that is in the image of the spike protein from the original Wuhan strain.
	So this is very antigenic.
	It's going to stimulate an immune response when it's translated into this protein.
	And so massive amounts of this protein are produced because there's a lot of messenger RNA there.
	And all you basically need is this machine in the cell called ribosome.
	And you run that through and it translates and creates these proteins.
	So you're going to get massive amounts of these.
	You're going to get some eaten up, like I described, and represented on MHC molecules.
	And this is a big problem, because remember what I said?
	That's a flag to the immune mediators, the T cells, for example, to come and recognize that, hey, I'm showing you this flag, meaning that I'm infected.
	That's what it means to the immune system, and you need to kill me.
	So all of those cells, in theory, I mean, this is supposed to be how it works, that are, you know, tagging up this crap, are producing this foreign protein for who knows how long.
	This is another thing that I'll get to.
	And tagged for destruction.
	So it's like, hmm.
	No wonder there's so many blood vessels getting destroyed.
	No wonder there's so much clotting and bleeding at the same time.
	I mean, there's all sorts of other stuff going on here, but, like, there are published papers out now that confirm that these, both the mRNA, which is very stable, that's why I use the word modified, it's modified to be stable and durable.
	Both the mRNA and spike have been found in the germinal centers of the lymph nodes 60 days after injection.
	That's two months!
	What's it still doing there?
	That's to say it's two months of an artificially induced immunological response to a foreign body in order to replicate what the body would have done had it been exposed to and infected with the virus itself.
	No.
	This is completely different from the normal immunological response to a bunch of proteins.
	This is the body being given the instructions to make the proteins itself, within its cells, the machinery of the cells, are making the protein from within.
	So it's basically making all of this foreign protein that the body is going to respond aggressively to for as long as it's being produced.
	That's the problem.
	And the fact that they found the messenger RNA and spike so long after, it begs the question, when does it stop being produced?
	How long does this mRNA stick around?
	Is this going to be translatable in a year?
	Are there reservoirs?
	The whole thing turns into this nightmare of...
	How long are people going to be making spike?
	And nobody knows the answer to that question yet, but it seems like from what the studies are revealing, as I told you, they're coming out, coming out.
	It's a long time in some people.
	And if you have long-term exposure, repeated exposure to a foreign antigen, there's also something that might start happening, which is called tolerance.
	Your body might start becoming, like there might be some kind of immunological shift from inflammatory to tolerizing, which means that instead of your body seeing this antigen, this foreign protein, as the enemy, it'll start saying, meh, that's not the enemy.
	But meanwhile, this is still doing things physiologically.
	Like, there's a paper that came out called Spike a Deadly Embrace, and it's about hemagglutination.
	So hemagglutination...
	Yeah, what is hemagglutination?
	So heme is like this thing in blood.
	Hemagglutination.
	Glutination is when things come together and heme refers to the blood.
	So it's when red blood cells, which are these anucleated cells that are...
	Really prolific.
	They make up your blood.
	It's why your blood is red.
	They don't stick together normally because they have this negative force that allows them to stay away from each other.
	It's called the zeta potential.
	They literally have these little...
	Sugars that hang off their membranes that are negatively charged because of these things called sialic acids, and so they don't get too close to each other.
	So this paper shows that the spike protein on the SARS virus, but the spike protein itself, does something to the zeta potential, and it causes a disruption of this negative repulsion.
	And the red blood cells stick together.
	So you might have seen these pictures of these stacks of red blood cells called Rouleau formation in certain people's microscopy images.
	And that's exactly what these guys were showing as well.
	So it turns out that the spike has some kind of interfering potential with the zeta potential of red blood cells, which is causing them to stick together.
	And that's not really good when you already have a system where the clotting factors are impaired, which is another thing that seems to be associated with both SARS and the injection spike.
	Like, so many things are going wrong with this.
	VAERS is literally like, it's got the most comprehensive list of potential problems going wrong in the human body.
	Like anything, any system you can think of in the body, something's going wrong in the context of these shots.
	It's wild.
	And I know that because I'm looking back in time at the last 30 years of data and comparing it to all the vaccines combined.
	And instead of like 5,000 different types of adverse events being reported We're seeing over 14,000.
	For just three products.
	It's like there are 14,000 different ways to describe things going wrong.
	And it's like almost the number of metric codes that there are.
	There are these terms called metric codes that are used to describe the diagnosis or the adverse event that the person is reporting.
	So of a possible 25,000, we're using over 14,000 in these COVID.
	And I'm like...
	How is this being ignored?
	It's not just the absolute numbers that are out the yin-yang.
	It's the diversity of the problems and the systemic nature of the problems.
	It's like, listen, this is pointing to the fact that this isn't age-related.
	This isn't only happening in old people.
	More older people are dying, but kids!
	Are the seeming targets of myocarditis.
	They're specifically suffering in the context of these shots.
	We're going to get to that myocarditis and the kid profile in a second.
	I just want to maybe think if I've understood the broader picture for once.
	Back in the early days of polio, everybody says, you know, like, oh, do you have a problem with the polio vaccine?
	Was it polio where in the early days it was actually giving children polio, so they had a lot of problems in the early stages of the development?
	I think it was that.
	I'm not a polio expert, though.
	No, but I'm just trying to, like, analogize this, because what you're describing, to me, sounds like not that the vaccine is causing COVID, but causing the same risks for other complications that COVID itself caused, but also in the demographic that would never have really been at meaningful risk to that exposure in the first place.
	Exactly.
	So the known toxicity profile of mRNA up until December 2020 had been known and an unsolved riddle, which is why mRNA was interesting in studies but hadn't been implemented in humans yet.
	Well, it was the lipid nanoparticles that were the problem.
	We never had a problem with mRNA.
	It's the packaging.
	And I want to be really, really clear about this.
	There is no modified mRNA technology without the lipid nanoparticles.
	Period.
	They're really important.
	It's a two-part deal.
	You can't get this...
	Well, you know what?
	Maybe I'm not right.
	I just thought about it.
	I'm like, maybe there is a way to deliver this modified mRNA because it's so bloody stable.
	Jeez, maybe I'm totally wrong.
	Maybe it's like...
	Anything's possible!
	But the lipid nanoparticles are an essential delivery vehicle in this technology.
	That's the point I want to make.
	It's like it was necessary for the implementation.
	All right, now let's...
	There was something else we'll get to in a second, but analyzing the VAERS data.
	And this is where I think people have questions.
	Like they're going to say...
	A, VAERS data, it's an imperfect system because anybody can file a report.
	Robert Barnes, the lawyer that I do the weekly stuff with, we've talked about this endlessly.
	It's perjury to file a false report.
	Sure, some false reports get in, which is why the infamous tweet of someone becoming the Hulk from a jab that was registered on the VAERS system is from 2012.
	And you don't get...
	You don't get an infiltration of fake VAERS reports.
	The VAERS report, explain, you talked about it during your testimony before the NCI, the history and raison d 'etre of the VAERS report.
	Explain that briefly before we get into what you're analyzing, how you're analyzing it, and what it's showing.
	Okay, so VAERS is 30 years old, and for all intents and purposes, it's like the trade-off.
	This is what I'm calling it.
	It's the trade-off for liability.
	It's a reporting system which is meant to be used as a pharmacovigilance tool, which means that as the data comes in, the people who own and monitor the data are doing special assessments and determinations and measurements of these reports by demographic,
	by sex, by whatever, and they're making Calls on whether or not certain signals that come out of this pharmacovigilance database represent a signal of harm in the specific context of, say, a vaccine.
	It's really, it works.
	It's completely imperfect and antiquated, and I'll get into that, but it works.
	In 1999, there was...
	A handful, just a handful of intussusception, which is when the bowel folds over on itself, really painful cases in kids, in VAERS, just a small cluster.
	And they're like, ooh, that's weird.
	And they noticed it was in the context of the rotavirus vaccine.
	So they did their thing, a causality assessment, and they came back with a determination of very likely as the causative effect of the intussusception.
	So they pulled the product.
	That's a functioning pharmacovigilance database.
	That's what it's for.
	And, I mean, for the fact that we don't ever get to have any recourse if our kid gets damaged by, you know, say an administrator gives them two MMR shots in a row instead of one by accident, there's nothing you can do about that.
	You don't get any compensation.
	Well, not easily, anyway.
	So what you get is VAERS.
	So you get to report your thing and maybe help someone in the future.
	That's basically what it is.
	So something happened in 2021.
	And no, VAERS is not overreported.
	Not everyone knows about VAERS.
	I'm still like rattling the cage to try and get everyone to just know that this thing exists.
	Not everyone is reporting.
	It's severely underreported.
	But something happened in terms of the owners of the data in 2021.
	They're not doing these PR assessments, base analysis, and causality assessments that they always have been doing.
	And I know this because in January 2021, which was just like the end of January, just six short weeks after they started putting this stuff into people in the U.S., we had like almost 700 reports of death.
	Now, I'm focusing on death here, because most people, like, think that's the worst thing that can happen if you get a shot.
	That's probably why they aimed to get the shot, so that the pathogen didn't kill them.
	Ironic, is it not?
	So, as far as I understand, the last time a medicinal product, as a prophylactic, it was either a drug or a vaccine, killed any number of people under 50, That was immediately pulled from the market.
	So if you see any sign of harm, disability, neurological conditions, death, and anything over 50 people, just using common sense here, you would have to go to the source and try and figure out if that product was related to this or if there was something atypical.
	If you look back at the last 30 years of data, Absolute number-wise, proportion per number of people injected-wise, proportion per number of adverse events from the past.
	Any way you want to look at it, you have to look at it.
	And 700 people is a lot of people to die at the hands of a therapeutic.
	I'll play devil's advocate because I literally think I'm defending the devil right now.
	The argument is going to be the spike in deaths was only because everybody was vaccinated.
	I don't know, whatever, two-thirds of America.
	Now, there is actually, as of now, some doubt as to the over-reporting of those who were vaccinated.
	That's now a news item that's to be determined.
	But the argument, this is where I think people need to understand this.
	Absolute number or proportionate reports?
	Because 700 deaths, well, if you vaccinated 300 million people versus annually, I don't know how many people get vaccinated annually with...
	All vaccines.
	You're vaccinating more people so you're going to have more deaths.
	The numbers that you were dealing with, were they absolute or proportionately excessive given number of vaccinations?
	Both.
	So I look at this from all ways that I can.
	Like, I compare it to the number of deaths to the number of total reports.
	You know, for a specific product.
	I'll go back 30 years and compare to all vaccines combined.
	I'll compare to how many shots were doled out in the U.S. by Pfizer.
	All of the shots.
	Blah, blah, blah.
	Whatever you look at.
	I looked at this every way that you can.
	And one of the arguments that you will hear a lot is that, well, it's only because there are so many people injected, like you said.
	And it's like, no, no, no, no.
	Simple napkin math proves that that's not true.
	If it's not obvious already by looking at the absolute numbers.
	And I think it's also, I just want to point out, I think it's really important that we do that as data scientists because these aren't data points, they're people.
	Like every single one of those VAERS entries is a person who's suffering at the hands of a product.
	It's not supposed to happen.
	There's only ever supposed to be a minimal.
	Number of adverse events.
	And it has to be weighed against danger.
	And there's no danger here.
	So the whole thing is stupid.
	But I just simply compared the COVID, three of the COVID products, the number of shots that were doled out within like a 415 day timeframe or something, to the number of flu shots only.
	I didn't take all of the vaccines.
	I just, I was like, yeah, let's just compare it to the flu.
	And there were about, in that time frame, that 415 days or whatever it was I looked at, I wrote this up in a substack, there were about twice as many COVID shots doled out to the American public as flu shots.
	So I'm like, okay, so if they're no more dangerous than the flu shots, if they're comparable by harm or lack thereof, we should see about twice as many reports, twice as many types of reports.
	And it's, there's...
	No comparison.
	There's 117 times more reports, like types of reports reported.
	And there's, I don't remember how many.
	Anyway, there was no comparison.
	So if you want to use the argument, it's just because so many people got injected.
	Nah, not true at all.
	Let me use devil's argument number two.
	It's actually people reporting adverse reactions from COVID infection itself.
	Indistinguishable from.
	Because what VAERS is going to say, Is, well, we've investigated because if you ask VAERS of their, I forget what the number's up to now, tens of thousands of deaths reported subsequent to, they say, we've only found causality in three, so the rest can be disregarded.
	So VAERS says, well, they can report whatever they want, but we've determined it's not related to the jab.
	Others are going to say, oh, no, everything they're reporting is actually long COVID related to COVID and not the jab.
	What's your response to that, Jessica?
	I have so much to say.
	First of all, there's like 40,000 reports of death, and that's like more deaths in VAERS, like exceedingly more deaths in VAERS than the last 30 years of data.
	First of all, you have to look at that and go, hmm, they're not doing causality assessments.
	I know that for a fact.
	We FOIA requested, you know, like, are you doing PRR?
	Are you doing causality?
	Are you doing Bayesian?
	They're not doing anything.
	So they're not looking.
	So there's no, they cannot say one way or the other that they're caused or not.
	But interestingly, the number one reported adverse event in VAERS now, and for like months, is COVID-19.
	So it's really ironic.
	So I don't know how to process that.
	But I know what I think it is.
	And I think the people who are getting the shots, because you hear this every day, right?
	The people who've gotten the shots, as opposed to the people who didn't, are getting COVID way more.
	They're getting it repeatedly.
	And I don't know how to really process that definitively, because how are they diagnosing?
	Are they using the same flawed PCR test?
	So, here's the thing.
	You'd have to individually go through everyone and ask them, and people will argue with me on this, they are, but it seems like a defining characteristic of the SARS exposure or the spike protein exposure to lose your sense of smell and taste.
	It's like, I don't know if you had, did you have COVID?
	I was told I had it twice from the tests.
	So you lose your sense of smell and taste?
	First of all, I lose my sense of smell and taste every time I get an ordinary flu, every time I get a sinus infection.
	That's what you're telling me.
	I've never, ever, I've had the flu, like, so many times, I don't even count.
	Like, I mean, almost hospital flu in Canada.
	That thing knocked me out.
	And I never lost my sense of smell and taste.
	Growing up with my family, like, we would all joke when we get a cold and you can't taste anymore, we'd say, well, what's the point of eating?
	You can't enjoy the flavor.
	Nothing, bro.
	Like, nothing.
	And your coffee tastes like gasoline.
	It was really weird.
	No, but that's, like, I would get it, and coffee would taste like nothing, so I would not be inclined to drink coffee.
	I wouldn't want to eat a steak, but for the salt, you could still taste salt.
	No flavor whatsoever, which is why everyone's freaking out about COVID.
	I lost my sense of smell.
	I thought I was unique in that, but I thought everybody lost their sense of smell when they got a cold back pre-COVID.
	But, okay, sorry.
	And just, I want everyone to appreciate also the way the mind of a scientist...
	And, you know, a critical thinking lawyer work.
	Jessica is not blind to the flaws in potential reasoning.
	Yeah, the number one reported side effect of the jab is COVID.
	We've addressed the potential problem in over-diagnosis of COVID in the first place.
	So Jessica is aware of it, and how do you factor it in?
	But, sorry, so carry on with that explanation as to the number one reported adverse reaction is COVID itself.
	I would just say everyone's going to still get COVID.
	Everyone's still going to get a cold, so I would have trouble correlating that to the jab, but maybe that's the issue.
	What time frame, how would you ever correlate COVID infection to the jab?
	Well, the only thing, like, I'm looking at this from all spectra, and I'm lazed off a bit, but I'm trying to keep my eye on the literature.
	So there are these papers being published about this tolerization thing, which is when Like, repeated antigen exposure can tolerate you to the antigen.
	That's why, like, when you get allergies, you're, you know, anyway.
	It's not the same thing, but it's kind of the same process.
	So, I mean, it is really hard to address because what defines COVID?
	I mean, whenever I hear, like, okay, I think I had what they're calling...
	COVID, although COVID is just a word to describe a symptomatic state from being exposed to the SARS thing, SARS-2, because it was different.
	It was different from any flu or cold that I've had.
	I did completely lose my sense of smell and taste.
	I literally destroyed every pot in my house because I burned them because I couldn't smell the smoke.
	And just for kicks, just for fun, because there was one of these little plastic things in my house, I did the thing, and the stripe came up, and I'm like, yeah, but what the hell does this mean?
	So, like, it's always going to be a guessing game.
	Is there something, like, called SARS-CoV-2?
	You know, was it...
	Where the hell did it come from?
	Like, we don't even know the answers to these basic questions.
	We do know that these PCR reactions, it's just a bogus way to try to assess anything in my eyes.
	If, if they had actually wanted to do something real and potentially beneficial for the human population, they would have pushed, uh, antibody testing because then you would have been able to definitively show that you had antibodies against certain antigens, which proved that you'd been exposed, which proves that you have robust long lasting immunity and you're not a threat that, that would have been useful.
	Right.
	So for now, VAERS is full of COVID.
	It's not just COVID-19.
	It's SARS.
	There's COVID-2 positive tests, that's what they call it.
	There's failed vaccination.
	There's, what's the other one?
	There's one more way to say that the shot didn't work and therefore COVID ensued.
	Okay, interesting.
	I would never care about getting COVID, even if it were a result of the shot as an adverse reaction.
	I care more about the...
	Long-term debilitating ones, you know, Bell's Palsy, GBS, but most importantly...
	Go for it.
	No, I'm just interrupting you.
	Sorry, I shouldn't...
	No, no, no.
	That's the thing.
	It's like, not only does it not work, the peer-reviewed literature is coming out and it seems as though most of the people who are ending up in the hospital and dying are the ones with the shots and they're saying that it might be from COVID, blah, blah, blah.
	We don't know.
	It's...
	Probably from some kind of side effect of the shot.
	But it's like, it doesn't work.
	And it might hurt you.
	So it's like, why are we even talking about this anymore?
	Well, can you explain?
	I mean, the one thing I think everybody either understands from the data or understands from real life.
	I had never heard of myocarditis before this.
	I had never heard of kids having strokes.
	But for the fact that occasionally it would happen, it would be like heat stroke, someone training in the dead of summer, and there'd be lawsuits after it happened.
	I think nobody can deny the myocarditis, and they're admitting it now.
	The only question is, to what extent?
	They start off by saying it's a conspiracy theory.
	If you say it, you get censored off internet.
	Then they say, okay, it's 1 in 50,000.
	Oh, then they come back and say it's 1 in 5,000.
	Oh, then they come back and say it's 1 in 5,000 per dose, but it's mild and all.
	What the...
	Fuck, Rachel.
	Jessica, what the F?
	I might have been telling you.
	I'm thinking of the media that's been pushing these lies, but what the F?
	Can you explain?
	I think we've talked about it a lot, but how does it result in myocarditis?
	Why?
	And what VAERS is showing about that?
	Well, myocarditis is, to me, it's a generic term to describe inflammation of the myocardium.
	So anytime you see the suffix itis, it just means inflammation, which is the inflammatory, the fiery response from the immune system upon introduction to something, some kind of antigen or immunogen.
	The myocardium is the middle layer of the heart that's muscly, and basically it's like that's why your heart can beat, because it has these myocytes.
	And so when you have inflammation of that middle layer of the heart, clearly that's not a good thing.
	That signifies that your immune system itself is descending upon the heart for some reason.
	What most people believe now is that the spike protein is actually there, perhaps embedded in some of the cells of the myocardium, the pericardium, and the immune system is attacking it, and there you go, myocarditis.
	So the weird thing is that in VAERS, if you plot the...
	A number of reports of myocarditis against all the ages, like X, Y axis.
	This is the number of myocarditis reports on the Y and the age on the X. And then you layer the dose data, like dose one, dose two, dose three.
	What you're going to see in the young people, like 15 years old, sorry, is like a five times higher reporting rate following dose two.
	So something is happening there, and I've talked about this at length, like why we're seeing this real phenomenon.
	Something is happening there following dose two in these young males.
	It's primarily males.
	So I'm wondering if it has to do with androgens, puberty.
	I don't know enough about that yet, but there's something there, and it's definitive.
	It's definitive.
	We knew real early.
	And I wrote a paper about this with Peter McCullough, and it was censored.
	It was over a year ago.
	And it's a thorn in my side because it's like, man, if that paper hadn't have been censored, I wonder how many medical professionals and parents would have been able to read it and how many kids would have been prevented from getting these shots just because COVID wasn't a threat to these young people.
	We knew that early.
	The infection fatality rate's like nil.
	And the shot might actually damage their little hearts.
	And that ain't something that's mild and transient.
	That's what they were trying to sell.
	Mild and transient, my ass.
	You know what I mean?
	The fatality was so nil, they had to manufacture the fatalities to justify the terror.
	I just want to make sure I understand the graph.
	So you notice the reports of myocarditis after the second You have so much data in VAERS.
	This is another reason why I really enjoy it.
	There are like 52 variables.
	It's really good.
	In many cases, you have...
	The dose, you have the injection site, you have the injectioner, like who gave it to you, you have your VaxLot in some cases, you have your manufacturer, you have your age, you have your state, you have your symptom text, which is like this really long paragraph describing in people words what the hell happened.
	So you have a lot of information in these reports.
	And if you're...
	If you're one of the people who's vetting this data and you're reading the symptom text, the free text, you can do a pretty good assessment of what's going on there because oftentimes they'll just write it down.
	They'll say, doctor thinks it was caused by the shot.
	But they don't tell you that.
	I'm actually just looking up a form now to see if...
	Yeah, let me see.
	I'll pull up a form afterwards just to show everybody.
	I think this is what the actual formal form looks like.
	It's a detailed document.
	So you're able to track the rates of myocarditis in proximity to which of the jabs, and it seems to be in relation to the second and not the third, which is very interesting, is that maybe because by the time they reported after the second and then don't get a third, and so there might be lesser...
	I don't know if that would be a plausible explanation.
	Oh, that's a phenomenon.
	There are almost no reports for dose three, which is obvious to me why.
	It's because nobody's getting a third dose.
	But, I mean, you know...
	And these are proportionally anomalous.
	This is not just because more kids are getting shots.
	What had been the history of myocarditis reports from a flu vaccine?
	Kids don't get the flu vaccine typically, but...
	That's another way to look at it, and there's no comparison.
	There's no comparison no matter what adverse event you pull out.
	When you look at it, you only have to go back 10 years.
	You can go back 30 if you want, but you only have to go back 10 years to see that there's no comparison.
	And like I said, you can normalize using the number of adverse events reported per year.
	You can normalize against the total number of shots.
	You can normalize it any way you want.
	You can look at absolute numbers as well.
	Anything you pick, there's something different about these COVID shots that's apparently causing a staggeringly high number of people to file reports.
	And there's...
	We have over 1.5 million reports of adverse events in VAERS right now for four products compared to the average number of reports.
	For all the vaccines combined over the past 30 years, which was 39,000, okay?
	39,000 is the mean number of reports for all the vaccines combined for the last 30 years, okay?
	1.5 million is a very different number from 39,000.
	So, like I said, that's just one thing that's weird.
	The other thing is the range of adverse events that are being reported.
	These atypical things like myocarditis in kids, Kurzfeld-Jakob disease cases going up.
	Like, what the hell is with that?
	What's with all the clotting?
	What's with the thrombotic issues?
	This has also been reported by the CDC.
	You know, it's like, there's something wrong, Houston, and nobody's like...
	They're not doing anything about it.
	Wait a minute, hold on.
	Why did I just go in?
	Oh, we had been like this the entire time.
	Jessica, hold on.
	I had one question.
	Oh, yes, I'm sorry.
	The censorship of your article from a year ago.
	You got to explain that.
	So you write a study or you do a study with Peter McCullough.
	Had it been peer-reviewed for whatever that's worth these days?
	Because I think a lot of people don't trust peer-reviewed.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Yeah.
	What was the study?
	What was the peer-review process?
	And then what happened to prohibit publication?
	It was a descriptive analysis of myocarditis cases in VAERS.
	I just pulled out all of the myocarditis reports in VAERS up until that point, which was October 2021, I think.
	Is that right?
	We're 2023 now.
	Jeez Louise.
	Oh my god, it was 2012.
	No.
	Anyway, it was a long time ago.
	And so yeah, it was just like, here's what I found.
	I compared the number of myocarditis reports in VAERS without using any underreporting factor to the background rate for that age group, like for 12 to 15 year olds.
	And it was 19 times higher at that point.
	And also I noticed this...
	Clustering of reports for young people after those two.
	So I just basically, you do what you do, right?
	You write down what you found.
	You make pretty pictures.
	You pick a journal.
	And I asked Peter McCullough to be a co-author because he's a cardiologist.
	So what the hell do I know about myocarditis?
	So, you know, it's good to have an expert.
	And we got it through...
	The peer review process, and it was accepted, and it was on PubMed, and it was published.
	It was good to go.
	We were in the final proofing stage, which is basically just them sending back the final proofs with the color images and all that stuff, and say, okay, you have one more chance to make final corrections.
	And right before that happened, that's the most exciting step.
	They wrote an email.
	No, I'm sorry.
	No email.
	Both of us were independently informed by, you know, people who were tracking the paper status that there was temporarily withdrawn, written by the title.
	And I was like, what?
	So I refreshed my browser and I was like, what the hell does that mean?
	How come I didn't get an email?
	What the hell is this?
	So I emailed everyone I know.
	In the world, in the academic world.
	And I was like, anyone know what this means?
	Because I'm a young scientist and I don't have a lot of publications.
	And so I was like, is this normal?
	Is this part of the process?
	And they're like, no, Jess, that's not normal.
	Houston, we have a problem.
	Temporarily withdrawn after having been approved after peer review.
	Yeah, so I wrote to them and I was like, okay.
	What's going on here and how come, you know, neither Peter nor I were informed that something was going on.
	And like a day and a half later, I guess, they wrote back and they said, we're reconsidering publishing.
	And Peter was like, he took the reins then and he's had them since.
	And he said, reinstate the paper.
	We're going to sue because, you know, we signed a contract and we paid our fees and all that crap.
	And then, you know, they didn't say anything for about a week, and then they wrote another email, and they said, yeah, we're not publishing it.
	You get back all the rights, you know.
	I don't know if the money must have come back, but, like, that wasn't the point.
	It was like, for what reason?
	Is there something wrong with the science?
	Is it somebody complain?
	Did one of the reviewers, you know, like, change their minds?
	What happened?
	And their answer was that it was their prerogative to change their mind.
	Because at any point during the publication process, even if it's the last step, they can just decide not to.
	And it's still in limbo.
	And weirdly enough, this happened five days before I was going up to this VRBPAC committee.
	You know that thing with the ACIP and the VRBPAC, and you provide evidence to the FDA members as to...
	Why they should do this or not do this.
	So I was going to be speaking as a public person.
	You can, if you were slotted in by them, you can present three minutes worth of data.
	You can show slides or you can just talk to the members of the judging panel and try and convince them not to do what they wanted to do, which was to put these stupid things in 5 to 11-year-olds.
	So this meeting was really important, really pivotal.
	And so I presented the paper findings.
	What else was I going to do?
	And they voted 16 to 0, not to give a shit.
	It's not funny.
	I was going to say, you know, Steve Bannon, there are no coincidences, but there are no...
	I forget what the other half is.
	Yeah, that might be a coincidence.
	Probably not.
	But so, I mean, publish your own...
	I guess the benefit to it being published in a journal is it gets credibility, but too effing late, if it's already been peer-reviewed, the peer-review process is when you submit it...
	Other people review it.
	They say, well, I have questions here.
	Make these changes, and then you do that, and then they say, okay, good to go.
	I'm satisfied.
	After that, fuck them up.
	Do you even need them?
	Publish it yourself.
	It's been peer-reviewed.
	I mean, you can say it without misrepresenting it, and I presume you'd have more reach through your Substack and through media than the publication would have through its own publication.
	Yeah, but it's like, you know, that's not the destiny of this paper.
	Like I said, it's in Peter's hands now, and, you know, he's got the reins.
	And so my hope was that this was going to become the example of what to do in the case when you get censored.
	Or, like, most of the people that I know now who are trying to get work published are stuck in the peer review phase.
	So that's a really great tactic.
	And it doesn't even need to be a tactic because it's such a sucky system, this peer review thing.
	You can have a paper being peer reviewed for a year and a half.
	Like one of the papers I published once, I think it was a year and a half that it was being reviewed.
	And it went through five, five people.
	Two editors, unheard of.
	This is before all the COVID crap, so I'm just telling you, like, this is a stupid system in the first place.
	Two editors and five reviewers!
	Which is like, never!
	That never happens.
	You have like three reviewers, usually one editor.
	But it's like, man, and what I heard was that this was a long time ago, but what I heard was that there's a lot of social politics.
	For sure.
	And if you're not scratching the right person's back, then they're not going to scratch yours.
	And it ain't about science, and it ain't about truth, and it ain't about, you know, doing things well, and it ain't about all the good stuff.
	It's really not.
	I'm sorry to sound so cynical, but, you know, it's theory.
	It's a question of getting grants, getting funding.
	You say the wrong thing to the wrong people and then you lose a $10 million grant or you lose private interest in certain research.
	It's the weaponization of science itself or the capture of science.
	RFK described it in The Real Anthony Fauci.
	The more things change, the more they stay the same.
	Jessica, okay.
	First of all, have I forgotten anything?
	Or is there anything that I should have asked you that I didn't in terms of subject matter?
	And can I take some questions that I see in the Rumble Rants and the chat?
	Oh, take questions.
	Let's talk about AI.
	No.
	No.
	Let me bring this up here.
	There's a few in here.
	Thank you, Jess, for giving us so much of your time, knowledge, humor, and experience.
	Your testimony at NCI was awesome, and your cat is cute, too.
	Kenzie67.
	Viva, I know you are a hypochondriac.
	It will help you know about viruses, isolation.
	How is it done?
	Are you a hypochondriac?
	I, once upon a time...
	I'm neurotic.
	I may or may not have what they call OCD with generalized anxiety.
	It doesn't matter.
	A cluster of behavior.
	It's a blessing and it's a curse.
	But no, before, look, in the first two weeks, I was crazy.
	In the first two weeks, I made my kid leave a book outside for two days that her friend gave her.
	Are you washing your bags of chips?
	In the beginning, in the first two weeks, we were washing fruits and vegetables.
	But I do that anyhow only because my father-in-law, my late father-in-law said it.
	I said it's always been a joke.
	I'm going to rinse off.
	Pesticides with tap water.
	He said just do it.
	It does work.
	He also talked me out of coal cut meat from gas stations because of listeria.
	I'm neurotic, but I'm realistic.
	And now when we had our meet and greet, people were like, are you going to shake my hand?
	Now I shake the hands out of defiance.
	But what was the question to this one?
	Hold on.
	I can't read it.
	How are viruses isolated?
	People were saying once upon a time the virus has never been isolated.
	They haven't proven that COVID exists.
	Are you able to shed light on that?
	No.
	Okay.
	I know what I think and I know what people said about it, but okay.
	And we'll leave that one where it's at.
	The next question.
	Listen, I can tell you with my own personal certainty, and it's just my personal certainty, that the thing was created.
	Why it was created, I don't know.
	Maybe they were trying to develop a vaccine against it.
	Maybe it's a bioweapon.
	Some people believe that.
	I don't know.
	I don't care, actually.
	It's not really important to me right now.
	What I really care about is, like, finding solutions, not just for the people who are injured from these things, but from all the things and this stupid, toxic environment that we live in.
	Like, man, there's so much toxic shit in everything, and everything's an endocrine disruptor.
	I mean, that's a huge problem.
	Like, yeah.
	I think it's no longer controversial to say it was made in a lab in China.
	We know that it was because it has certain fingerprints, we can call them, that you...
	They're not explainable by nature, if you know what I mean.
	Yeah, I think Brett explained the...
	I forget the first part, the cleavage site, the...
	The furin cleavage site is one of the signs.
	Yeah, there are cutting sites around that, which indicate that it was actually inserted.
	And I mean, the likelihood of having those four amino acids, which is 12 nucleotides, in that way, in that pattern, in that order, it's astronomically high.
	Let's put it that way.
	And it's also kind of suspicious that the fur and cleavage site has function in the terms of the human being and these things.
	So it's like, hmm.
	Yeah, you gotta wonder.
	There are a lot of people who think that this is a weapon.
	And I'm the kind of person that doesn't say no to much.
	You have to have...
	You know, evidence is either way, of course.
	But again, it's more about finding solutions and if they lead to benefit.
	Weapon or not, it's been weaponized.
	In your opinion, why is it even now that they won't change their tune?
	I feel as though it can only be ego and or malice if they continue to act as they do.
	Am I off my rock or ginger ninja?
	I think it's because...
	They can't admit it now because the repercussions would be too great.
	Jessica, when are they going to acknowledge?
	In 10 years from now, are they going to look back at this rollout and say it was as much of a debacle as the swine flu in the 70s, the polio back in the 50s, whenever the rotavirus was in the 90s?
	Will history look back on this and get the answer right?
	I'd like to think so, but it's really important that we all individually Break down this word, they.
	Because, like, we have to see the members of our species as individuals.
	There are some really shitty people, but most people are good, even the people who don't see.
	It doesn't mean that they're not good people and that they can't make better decisions in the future.
	So it's like, in terms of, I don't remember the question, I got lost in my...
	Why people cannot just admit that they made a mistake instead of...
	Yeah, right.
	So I think that was what I was trying to get to.
	I think a large number of people are starting to actually admit that they made a mistake themselves.
	But go easy on everyone, people, because every single human being...
	Is fighting their own cognitive dissonance right now.
	Because I think really, really wholeheartedly that 95% of the people, no matter what they did, knew in here, in their heart, that something was wrong.
	But that makes it even worse, Jessica.
	I'll say one.
	Was it Rogan?
	There's a bunch of people who have the similar theory.
	Forgive them.
	But they never get to make another decision of importance again because of how prone they are to panic under pressure.
	But again, this they needs to be deconstructed because it's like, I think you have to step outside and really understand the largeness of the evil that I think is creating this situation.
	We are going to need each other.
	We are going to need each and every possible person that we can gather to fight this.
	And I'm not being...
	I am being dramatic, but I really believe this.
	I think that these people are very, very rich and powerful.
	And unfortunately, us human beings have seemingly tended toward putting a lot of value on the valueless, which is...
	Power and wealth.
	Neither of these things have any meaning in reality, in life.
	So we're, you know, it's really, I know that it's hard not to blame and to say everyone needs to be held accountable, but it's not true.
	There are a few people who definitely need to go to jail and need to be held accountable.
	We don't actually know the worst of the worst of those people, though.
	We don't even know who they are.
	The ones who are engineering the Fauci's and the Schwab's.
	We don't know who's controlling them, do we?
	But they're there.
	I mean, some of us know who they are.
	But the people, the ones who have been preyed upon, forgive them, they're weak.
	It's like we have to embrace forgiveness.
	In ways that maybe we might not have in the past.
	I really believe that.
	That would be a good place to leave this here.
	Jessica, I want to ask, do you have 10 minutes in locals to answer some of the questions there?
	I want to be respectful of your time.
	I like pushing the limits.
	I like it because it is the ultimate flattery when someone...
	When they stay on for long because it means it's a good discussion.
	Everybody on Rumble, we're going to go over to locals exclusively because there's some questions that I want to get to.
	I don't know what any of this means, by the way.
	I have never been sold on Substack, although I understand Substack is very good for written form.
	I've always been more video, photo oriented.
	So locals is like Substack for video and photographic content.
	I'm just kidding.
	I know what it is.
	So we're going to go there exclusively to get some questions from the community.
	So I'm going to end this on Rumble right now.
	Thank you all.
	And I'm going to play that speaking moistly over at Locals.
	They've already seen it.
	They've already seen it more than they want to see it, I think.
	All right.
	Ending on Rumble.
	Thank you all for being here.
	And we're going to go to Locals.
	Okay, Jessica.
	Now, can I share?
	Oh, my God.
	We're seeing a cat again.
	I want everyone to know I've had to pee since 15 minutes into this and I've been sitting here holding it.

▲