Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 2, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

01:50:40

Interview with Steve Kirsch - The Milgram Experiment That was Covid - Viva Frei Live

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	At a moment of deep division in our nation, President Lincoln said, we are not enemies.
	He said, we are not enemies, but friends.
	We must not be enemies.
	We must not be enemies.
	I've long believed we have to look at each other, even in our most challenging times, not as enemies.
	Oh, not as enemies.
	But as fellow Americans.
	But as fellow Americans.
	Scripture tells us.
	Scripture.
	He's quoting the scripture now.
	This guy's taking notes.
	What the hell are you taking notes about, dude?
	Can you believe the balls on this guy?
	Just put it on pause.
	We're not enemies.
	But friends.
	But friends.
	Unless you're an extreme MAGA Republican, right?
	Hakeem Jeffries, right, Joe Biden?
	We must not be enemies.
	Oh, we must not be enemies.
	Quote the Bible.
	I long believe we have to look at each other, even in our most challenging times, not as enemies.
	Not as enemies.
	Unless you're extreme MAGA Republicans who are a threat to democracy, who need to be jailed for 840 years.
	As fellow Americans.
	Fellow Americans.
	Scripture tells...
	I forget it's scripture.
	This guy's going to quote the Bible.
	Never mind.
	Good afternoon, everybody.
	This is going to be amazing.
	Oh, that's what's missing.
	How dare I?
	Oh, my goodness.
	Come on.
	There we go.
	Missing the purple halo.
	Can't start a show without the purple hail on the back.
	This is going to be amazing.
	I'm not going to waste too much of a time on an intro because I've got a guest in the backdrop and someone who...
	I wanted to have him on for a little while.
	And the chat and the crowd have been asking for it.
	Steve Kirsch.
	And it's going to be amazing.
	I've been listening to podcast after podcast for the last, let's say, two days.
	And Steve, you guys see in the background, I've been reading Wikipedia too.
	So it's going to be fantastic, everybody.
	Steve, get ready.
	I'm going to bring in...
	Before I do this, let me just make sure that we're live.
	For obvious reasons, we're not going to grace YouTube with this podcast today.
	This is live on Rumble only.
	And vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Let me just make sure that we're playing here.
	We are.
	I see it on Rumble, which is good news.
	Okay, put it on pause there.
	I won't stop that.
	I'm going to skip past the ad.
	It's always good to see ads on your own video.
	Okay, good.
	Five, four, three, two.
	Good.
	We're live on Rumble, and we are, let me refresh, on vivabarneslaw.locals.com to make sure that we are live here.
	It says it's loading.
	Well, we're going to carry on anyhow, and I'll see.
	Okay, good.
	It just says it's loading.
	So are we live here?
	Are we live?
	That's two typos in three words.
	It says it's loading on my screen, so we're live there as well.
	Steve Kirsch, if you don't know him, you're going to know him.
	Everyone is loved until they're hated, and they're loved apparently until they...
	Start asking obvious questions, making obvious observations, and running somewhat askew of the narrative.
	Then they become public enemy number one.
	Steve, you ready?
	I'm going to bring you in.
	I am ready, yeah.
	Sir, how goes the battle?
	It continues.
	Apparently for longer than I thought it would.
	Well, I'm going to say it's never going to get better.
	You will never be able to live down the reputation that they've given you now for those who didn't want to like you in the first place.
	But for those who respect everything you've done, there's nothing they can do to destroy your reputation.
	But we're getting ahead of ourselves.
	Now, at this point, I think they've done pretty much everything.
	Maybe they'd have to put me in jail, charge me with some crime or something.
	I don't know.
	The crime of telling the truth.
	No, they'll fabricate other stuff.
	If a 25-year-old hallucination of a crazy lady can get an $83 million judgment out of Trump, Steve, none of us are safe.
	But back it up all the way to the beginning.
	I'm not going to spend an inordinate amount of time on your upbringing, but it is very relevant to how you had the courage and liberty to do what you did during COVID.
	For those who have no idea who you are, 30,000-foot overview.
	An engineer by training.
	I went to MIT.
	I have a couple degrees from MIT in electrical engineering and computer science.
	Started about seven high-tech companies.
	A couple of companies had billion-dollar market caps.
	Was working on a crypto startup.
	COVID hit.
	Got locked out of my office, essentially, by the health authorities.
	I looked for ways to help, started COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund, raised $6 million in funded research, ended up taking the COVID vax because I believed the safe and effective narrative, and I thought, oh, well, this is new technology, so this explains why it doesn't take 10 years, because they can genetically create these sequences.
	So I didn't really look into it at all.
	So I ended up taking two Moderna shots, and then about a month later, I started hearing from my friends about deaths and injuries in their family.
	And I had one of my vendors actually have a vax injury.
	And when that happened, I just started looking at the data, and then I realized this whole thing was a sham.
	The trials were rigged.
	There are whistleblowers on the trials.
	Saying they fabricated the data, but the DOJ will not interview any of these whistleblowers.
	I mean, that's how corrupt it is.
	I mean, it is, this is, the U.S. government is killing people, and the DOJ is told, do not investigate any fraud.
	I mean, look, if I had heard this from somebody else, I'd say you're crazy.
	Well, I don't know if you know this, but I do the weekly show with Barnes, and we have our Viva Barnes Law Locals community.
	He's representing Brooke Jackson.
	She's one of the main Pfizer whistleblowers who divulged, exposed a lot of the chicanery, to put it mildly, of the Pfizer trials.
	Yeah, and she's one of many Pfizer whistleblowers.
	DOJ won't talk to them.
	That's crazy.
	There are multiple.
	I know of four of them, personally.
	Well, we're getting, we've gotten ahead, we're going to get to this anyhow, but you build big, you build tech companies, you basically, I don't want to say you have FU money to do what you're doing, but you've established, it helps.
	I mean, that's the thing like, you know, it takes the Elons of the world who have that money.
	It takes the U's who can't be pressured in the ordinary ways.
	COVID hits and you have no interest in any of this.
	You don't even know that you're going to be getting into this.
	I mean, you mentioned it, but when do you start getting wise to what's going on?
	Because from what I can tell, you were getting wise like early April 2020.
	Yeah, I got wise because I got a Twitter DM from one of my followers asking if the vaccine is safe.
	And I'm going like, yeah, of course it's safe.
	I'm like totally parroting the narrative of safe and effective to her.
	And then I say it politely.
	I say, why are you asking such a stupid question?
	Everybody knows it's safe.
	And I'm literally asking that.
	And she said, well, three of my relatives got the shot and died a week later, and they were perfectly healthy before they got the shot.
	And I said, that's impossible.
	And she said, yeah, but they're dead.
	And so...
	Here I was parroting the narrative against an anecdote that could not exist if the vaccines are safe.
	So somebody's lying.
	Either she's lying or the government's lying.
	I won't give you my anecdotal evidence either, but suffice to say, I...
	I know many more people who were either injured or deceased contemporaneously with the jab as opposed to from the Rona.
	I mean, by a remarkable amount.
	Like order of magnitude amount?
	Like the stories I've heard of people who died from COVID within my circle were extended.
	The people that I, you know, they're like, oh, the person just dropped dead.
	Died in their sleep.
	Or the day, and no one even knew that the person had gotten the jab two days before.
	But even before you get skeptical of the jab, I mean, you start the CERF, the COVID alternative, what's it called?
	CETF, COVID Early Treatment Fund.
	Okay, so you start the COVID Early Treatment Fund, which means that you already, from the beginning, are saying, you're questioning why certain alternative treatments are not being explored.
	Absolutely.
	So how does that click?
	Oh, I just thought it was limited.
	I just thought the government corruption was limited to the NIH and that the NIH was corrupt in not doing any of this research and not paying any attention to any of the early treatments.
	I thought it was a Fauci-NIH corruption deal.
	I didn't think that the FDA and the CDC would also be corrupt.
	So I was completely naive back then.
	I mean, I was drinking the Kool-Aid, right?
	So I took the jabs.
	And then, of course, I started hearing these anecdotes.
	And the anecdotes made no sense to me.
	Mathematically, these anecdotes were impossible.
	Either the people...
	Somebody was lying.
	There's no doubt that somebody was lying.
	Either my friends are lying or...
	The government's lying.
	So when this vendor shows up at my doorstep and he's wearing a mask and I'm giving him a hard time, I'm saying, hey, Tim, it's Tim Damroff, the carpet cleaner.
	So I said, Tim, why are you wearing the mask?
	Don't you know if you get two vaccines, you don't have to wear a mask?
	I'm buying the whole narrative, masking and all.
	I'm thinking like, I'm not fond of wearing a mask, but I'm believing everything I'm told.
	And Tim says, Well, I got one shot, but I had a heart attack right after the shot, two minutes after the shot, and so I didn't get another shot, so I have to wear a mask.
	I said, really?
	Two minutes after the shot?
	He said, yeah, I had to spend the night in the hospital.
	He says, he's never been the same since that day.
	Perfect guy's perfectly healthy, gets the shot, boom, changes his life forever.
	This is a guy who shows up in my front door to clean my carpets.
	Now, there is, at this point, I knew who was lying.
	And it wasn't my friends, right?
	This is in the span of a week.
	How old was the guy?
	The carpet cleaner guy?
	He was like 40. He was in his early 40s.
	Okay.
	Maybe late 30s.
	And so I started doing the research on the VAERS system.
	And I'm going like, what?
	What the?
	We can tell you.
	Oh, you can swear.
	All right.
	What the fuck?
	I'm looking at theirs and it's like flat line and then boom!
	Vaccines roll out.
	And I'm going like, what the fuck is going on?
	Isn't anyone paying attention to this?
	The CDC has 770 safety signals that triggered after these vaccines rolled out.
	They're not even seeing a word to the public.
	I'm losing my mind.
	So I write up this 150-page article for Trial Site News.
	It gets published on May 25th.
	And then everybody tells me I'm a nutcase and says, I'm not your friend any longer.
	We want to have these conversations.
	I don't want to associate you.
	You're a bad guy.
	Anybody not pushing these vaccines is against humanity.
	You're a bad person.
	You should be ashamed of how many people you're killing with these things.
	We don't want to talk to you again.
	And then I said, was there an error in anything I wrote?
	I'm going to bring this up.
	And they said, no.
	They said, we don't want to talk about it.
	Don't talk to us ever again.
	I'm bringing this up not to legitimize it, just to show what people have to go through.
	This is in...
	MIT Technology Review.
	This tech millionaire went from COVID trial founder to misinformation super spreader.
	And you got to see your face like pixelated, like you've become Satan incarnate.
	So when you started the CERF, the COVID early...
	CETF.
	I'm dyslexic.
	The COVID Early Treatment Fund.
	It wasn't for the purposes of debunking anything or it wasn't for the purposes of promoting hydroxychloroquine or what's the other one there?
	HCQ.
	What's the other one there?
	Ivermectin.
	Ivermectin.
	It wasn't for the purposes of promoting these controversial...
	It was strictly to help.
	Say like, okay, we're in a pandemic.
	Fund research.
	Fund research.
	Wow.
	So when I was reading this, I thought you had started that already as a skeptic, like a contrarian.
	No, I was totally drinking the Kool-Aid at the time.
	And what's the word I'm looking for?
	A philanthropist.
	Like, you want to help out and say like...
	Yeah, yeah.
	Holy...
	Well, now it makes it even a little more unfair what's been done to you.
	So, what's the article that you publish in May 2021?
	Yeah.
	It's got to be May 2021.
	It was in trial site news.
	And what's the...
	The title is, Are the Vaccines Safe and Effective?
	You know, so it leads you in, right?
	You know, are the vaccines safe?
	You know, it basically asks a question.
	Okay.
	And you didn't start off with, no, the vaccines are not safe.
	No, no, no.
	It's like, you know, hey, anyone with a brain can find out all this information.
	So it's 150 pages.
	It talks about Fauci.
	It talks about corruption at the NIH.
	It goes through the whole thing.
	I mean, you could literally, this is like three years, you know, almost three years ago.
	You could read this article and you would say, wow, this guy was spot on.
	Everything he said is spot on.
	I called it three years ago.
	Everything.
	I nailed Fauci.
	I nailed the people at the NIH.
	I nailed the corruption in the trials.
	I said, look at the biodistribution of the COVID vaccine.
	It goes into body parts they're not supposed to go into.
	I had the whole thing.
	I had the whole thing nailed back in May of 2021.
	And I just had Jessica Rose on yesterday, and she was saying how, like, as of January, like, as of the month they rolled this out, you had the signals there.
	And we were going through her latest peer-reviewed publication, which pretty much draws a definitive correlation between the COVID jab and myocarditis in particular.
	And she was saying, like, look at the spike, you know, the VAERS reports, and then a big phallus.
	And we're all told, well, that's just because they distributed more.
	But they seem to...
	Ah, bullshit.
	Okay.
	That's complete bullshit.
	Yeah, that's right.
	Just because a hero.
	She's just calling it the facts as she sees it.
	Absolutely.
	But this is a wildly steep learning curve that you go on from, I say without judgment, I took two Pfizer's, but you have an old Jewish mother, you're going to have to do it.
	In two weeks from when Tim told me his story, I went from being totally blue-pilled.
	To writing that 150-page article on Trial Site News in two weeks.
	And you had never been crazy before.
	No.
	Amazing.
	So in this two weeks, because this is amazing.
	I remember now, in retrospect, you start hearing things.
	I remember a guy named Malone talking about spike protein.
	I remember people saying it doesn't stay in the injection site.
	And I'm like, okay, well, I don't know what spike protein is.
	I assume something that goes in here is eventually going to make its way everywhere.
	I remember hearing these things in retrospect.
	Now it all makes a lot more sense.
	What does this two-week period for you look like?
	Are you cramming and reading 12 hours a day?
	Yeah.
	I'm just collecting research.
	I'm like...
	You should see the article, but I'm just collecting research from everyone.
	I'm doing the statistics.
	I'm looking at anecdotes.
	I'm looking at reports.
	I'm looking at certainly the VAERS data.
	I'm looking at papers published in the literature.
	I'm talking to doctors.
	I'm just collecting evidence in every single piece of data that's credible.
	Shows that these vaccines are killing massive numbers of people.
	I mean, there is not an exception to this.
	I'm not hearing any positive anecdotes at all.
	Right?
	I'm just hearing the negative stuff.
	But you know, the terrible thing is, the people are going to say, well, anecdotes don't mean anything.
	You've got to go by studies.
	But like, once upon a time...
	Anecdotes were the lived experience of the people on the ground.
	That was the indication to look into, not the excuse to disregard.
	But I can't find your article.
	I'm trying to find it.
	I'm wondering if it's buried in the Google search engine, but I'll find it in a sec.
	And so which doctors are you talking to at the time?
	Are they now the big ones, McCullough, Malone, everybody?
	Who are the ones at the time in May 2021 saying, holy shit, raise the flag?
	Dr. Byram Breidel.
	Okay.
	And then I talked to, after I heard from Byram, I then reached out to Robert Malone, who I had been introduced to because he was supposed to help me get funding from the government to do this research because nobody was funding it.
	I mean, the government wasn't funding any early treatment research.
	Wow, what a surprise.
	They were outlawing it.
	Yeah, no shit.
	No shit.
	I mean, I was like spending all my time trying to do like appeal to the government for funds and, you know, thinking like the government is actually interested in saving us.
	I mean, I was like totally naive back then.
	I'm like totally believing that the government is out to help us and couldn't raise a dime.
	I mean, I went out to the Gates Foundation.
	As well, I said, hey, trying to raise money for research, put together a really high-class scientific advisory board, can we have, do you have any money?
	And they said, no, no, we're out of funds.
	They're out of funds.
	I mean, they couldn't even give me a dime.
	Couldn't even give me a dime.
	Out of funds.
	That's what they said.
	That's what they said to me.
	I'm visualizing this two-week period where you go from...
	Happy, smiley.
	My go-to is always Nicolas Cage watching the movie out of 8mm, although I've never even seen that movie.
	I just saw the ad.
	I picture you falling into, actually, a deep despair.
	You write this article, 150 pages, after having met with a bunch of people, and you may not be a doctor, but you're more than capable of analyzing the data.
	You publish this.
	What's that feeling like when you hit...
	I don't know how it works.
	Do you hit send?
	Do you hit publish?
	What's the moment like when you say, holy shit, I can no longer go back now?
	Well, I published the article and I'm like, I'm expecting people, this is, I'm so naive, right?
	I'm expecting people to say, oh, wow, he's right about that.
	He's right about that.
	We made a mistake.
	We need to stop these vaccines.
	So I thought, hey, two weeks, two weeks, the whole thing will be over.
	And, man, I was like, wow, this is a surprise.
	I'm like public enemy number one now.
	What was the first indication?
	Like, what was the first blowback that you got?
	The first blowback.
	I think the first big one was that the entire advisory board for my COVID-19 early treatment fund.
	Resigned within about a week after I wrote the article.
	That was a signal that mainstream scientists were not interested in truth.
	So it wasn't just a government that's corrupt.
	It's these scientists, these medical scientists are basically, I don't think they're corrupt, but I think they're blue-pilled like I was.
	But they're blue-pilled in such a way that they have this higher hypnotic association that they would not accept for a moment that the establishment could be wrong, that the NIH could be wrong, that the FDA could be wrong, and the CDC could be wrong.
	So therefore, I had to be wrong because...
	I opposed that.
	And so I am the enemy, and they basically wanted to kill the enemy.
	So the article, I found it on Trial Site News.
	Stick it in the private chat, and I'll pull it up.
	People have to appreciate this.
	The fund, the Early Treatment Fund, which was set up as a philanthropic help with the pandemic, these MFers, after you publish this article, say, We're going to burn this philanthropic entity to the ground.
	We don't even want to do good if it means doing good with someone who is a heretic.
	And they resign.
	What happens to the fund?
	Does it dissipate?
	No.
	It's still there.
	It now lacks this...
	It doesn't have the advisory board, so I stopped giving out money.
	I mean, it's so amazing.
	It's not just that they have a vitriolic reflex to information they don't like.
	They're prepared to stop doing the good because they're so angry at the messenger.
	I mean, that's wild.
	So the advisory board all resign, send a good message to you that they will not be inviting you back to the Christmas party next year.
	And it's worse than that.
	You're public enemy number one, and we never want to speak to you again.
	I had Neil Oliver on.
	Sorry, it's don't, don't, do not contact me again.
	I'd never want to talk to you again for the rest of my life.
	I've had a couple of friends do this, but I had Neil Oliver, you know, the Scottish journalist, and he's like...
	I was removed from the Lighthouse of Scotland.
	You know, I volunteered for whatever the Lighthouses of Scotland is, and they asked me to not be associated with them anymore.
	I was like, it's wild.
	All right, so don't ever talk to me again.
	You're out.
	And at this point when you write this article, was this the one connecting all of the dots or had you not yet fully connected the dots?
	Well, you never fully connect the dots, and I don't think, you know, even today I've fully connected the dots.
	I mean, at the time, That I wrote the article, I thought just the COVID vaccines were unsafe.
	Whoa!
	When I started going down the rabbit hole, I'm talking to these people at Kennedy's organization, and I talked to one of them, and I say, by the way, I'm just learning about the COVID vaccine.
	I'm an expert on that, but what about these other vaccines?
	I haven't really had a chance to dig into it.
	Are there any safe vaccines that I should get?
	And the answer was no.
	The answer was no.
	And so I said, really?
	And so I started looking into it.
	And it's like, yeah, yeah.
	The kids who get no vaccines, zero.
	And they do a study between zero vaccine and fully vaccinated.
	There's not a study in the peer-reviewed literature that compares them that comes to a conclusion other than kids should not get vaccinated.
	Every single study that has ever been done in the peer-reviewed scientific literature comparing fully unvaxxed to fully vaxxed shows you're better off as fully unvaxxed.
	I'll play devil's advocate or steel man the argument because I'm not knowing the exact details of the cohorts or whatever.
	They'll say that the unvaccinated children who choose not to get vaccinated benefit from the aggregate vaccination of the others.
	So they don't get the diseases, but only incidentally.
	Although I say that.
	And then I know of the stats as relates to the Amish community, who are not totally unvaccinated, but certainly not vaxxed to the max.
	And who was it?
	It was on either Dr. Malik or, what was the other one?
	Had Freedom in the title, where you were talking about how you then discovered, you know, you thought it was limited to the jab, and I'm going through this sort of reflex myself.
	If this is what they did with the jab, why would they have done anything different, mutatis mutandis, for all the other stuff?
	And you begin to...
	Re-question in retrospect.
	But hold on, before we even get there, before we even get there.
	So you published a paper.
	You now, at this point, it was clear that Fauci lied about this having originated in China?
	Oh, let's see.
	Was that out?
	That might be a little bit early for that.
	I think that came out later where they had all the, you know, the emails that went back and forth.
	I mean, you could tell from the emails what was going on.
	And those emails were released under FOIA, at least some of the redacted version.
	But you could see that Fauci was advised, whoa, all of our guys say this thing came out of the lab.
	And then, bam, within a week, they had a paper out saying natural origin.
	It didn't even mention the possibility that it could have come out of a lab.
	Like, couldn't even consider the possibility.
	I mean, that's scientific fraud.
	You can't even, like, not even say that, well, it could also have come out from a lab.
	Like, you know, it would have been a lot more credible if it had said, eh, you know.
	There's evidence for the natural origin.
	There's evidence that came out of the web.
	But there's no fucking way that you could go from an email that says, hey, we looked at it.
	This thing was engineered.
	There's no possible way you could go and within a week say, ah, we were wrong.
	Totally came out of nature.
	Like, nah, not going to happen.
	And to write a paper that doesn't even consider the fact.
	Or consider the possibility that it could have come out of the lab.
	That's criminal.
	I mean, I don't know if it's criminal, but it's identically unethical.
	Hey, look, if a judge can say that Trump raped a woman despite the jury saying he didn't, we can say that it's criminal even if it hasn't met the threshold of criminality under the law.
	You're a lawyer, right?
	Yeah, but, you know, civil Quebec and no longer practicing.
	But I know the criteria.
	And when we say criminal, it's colloquially speaking.
	It's very immoral, unethical.
	And this was at the same time where they had that coordinated campaign against...
	I forget who the scientists were that suggested it might have come out of Wuhan, the lab, and they had this campaign to discredit them.
	Do you remember in the beginning, Steve?
	They said it came from someone eating a pangolin out of a wet market in Wuhan, and nobody talked about the Wuhan Institute of Virology, that small town, where this came out of.
	Except for Jon Stewart, right?
	Well, that was later.
	I think he came around a little later.
	Yeah, that was hilarious.
	It's unbelievable.
	All right, so this paper, I don't know if it blackpills you, but now you're full on board.
	What's your progression after this?
	So you published a paper, you're demonized virtually instantly, unfriended, you know, whatever.
	What's the next path of your trajectory?
	Oh, well, socially, we lost all our friends.
	I say 95% of our friends, you know, think I'm a whack job, nutcase.
	Bad person, whatever.
	So it's like, we don't want to associate with you anymore.
	I mean, we were disinvited to attend a wedding.
	You know, stuff like that.
	So my wife is bearing the brunt of this as well.
	So that happens.
	So I'm still kind of believing that in a year or two, we could turn people around.
	And so it's like, okay.
	I got to start fighting the fight.
	So I get on Twitter and I learn about Substack as well.
	So I start writing articles on Substack now.
	And then Twitter bans me permanently.
	Permanent ban on Twitter for spreading misinformation.
	And so somehow I get resurrected on Twitter.
	And then they permanently ban me again.
	So I was permanently banned twice.
	Two lifetime bans on Twitter.
	And then Elon Musk came in and he resurrected me, which is amazing.
	The guy, Elon Musk is like, he's better than God.
	I had two lifetime bans on Twitter and the guy is able to reverse that.
	I mean, this is like...
	Jesus Christ, you know, well, maybe, Sean, maybe I shouldn't, you know.
	Blasphemer!
	Hyperbolic.
	But so you're back on social media.
	Okay, so we're going to go through the biggest things that you've discovered, the biggest revelations.
	What is that thing called the cleavage site, the norm cleavage site?
	I was trying to Google the word just to get it.
	Fur and cleavage site.
	Fur and cleavage site.
	Are you able to explain that in layman's terms?
	I know that's the definitive evidence.
	It was modified.
	In layman's terms, there are certain genetic sequences that can exist and come out of natural processes.
	There are some things that can't.
	The fur and cleavage site is a sequence, a DNA sequence, which is basically a...
	We were human engineered, you know?
	So when you see that, you know that something...
	This is what didn't come out of nature.
	It's the smoking gun.
	And nobody can explain how that got in there.
	So...
	It's basically a sequence that cannot happen naturally.
	That's the easiest way to explain it.
	Phenomenal.
	I remember hearing that back in the day as well.
	And it's not for lack of chance.
	It's like, okay, now I'm putting it all together retrospectively.
	So you find out this is, as far as you're concerned, made in a lab in China, that the corruption goes well deep into everything.
	When do you start delving into the...
	Or is it at the same time as the article, the trials for Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson& Johnson?
	Yeah, I mean, I'm not sure.
	I don't remember what the timing was on that.
	But, you know, I started looking into the trial data pretty early and discovered a lot of discrepancies just by looking at what's published in the literature and what they said, what they didn't say, the data that they showed, what they talked about in the paper versus what's in...
	The abstract versus what's in the paper.
	So, for example, the paper clearly shows more people died after getting the vaccine than after getting the placebo.
	It doesn't mention that in the abstract.
	What a surprise!
	So you read the abstract and you think, oh, well, safe and effective.
	They forgot to mention, like there were four times as many cardiac Well, that's a little bit, you know, strange.
	You know, and I actually never did a probability calculation on that.
	I don't think it's too...
	Let me...
	I'm going to do a real-time here.
	And while you do that, let me ask you this.
	How many people were involved in these trials?
	Because from what I understand and from what I recall, it wasn't like tens of thousands.
	These were several hundred?
	No, no, no, no, no, no.
	We're talking 20,000 in each arm.
	And which trial was this?
	The Pfizer trial?
	This is the...
	Yeah, this is the Pfizer trial that I'm speaking about here.
	Now, how do they get around it?
	Not report it?
	Or do they exclude those adverse events that say something else?
	Well, that person had a pre-existing heart condition.
	They lied to us on the form.
	Exclude them, and we bring that number down.
	Well, they basically...
	And there was a lot of fraud in that trial, and they basically said that, you know, this thing – They said that the adverse events were the same in the placebo group versus the treatment group.
	That's the heart of the matter.
	And then everybody believes them because they can't lie and the FDA is supposed to be on their case to make sure there's no fraud.
	Look, when the FDA was notified of fraud, Brooke Jackson notified the FDA there was fraud.
	So what happens?
	As soon as she notifies the FDA, she gets fired.
	Whose side are these people on?
	I mean, and why is Congress not investigating how Brooke Jackson can confidentially tell the FDA that there was fraud, and then she's fired from her job within like 24 hours?
	Oh, and by the way, the chance that you're going to get four events when you're supposed to get one, assuming it's a random Poisson distribution of death, Is about 1%.
	Okay.
	So it is...
	Here.
	Whoops.
	Let me just bring it up on my screen here.
	Sorry.
	Sorry.
	It's 2%.
	It's 0.01898.
	Okay.
	So it's basically...
	There's only a 2% chance that it wouldn't happen by chance.
	That is something that people should...
	Know about to say, hey, statistically significant rise in the number of deaths from cardiac, even though the numbers are small.
	That's very statistically significant, the four versus one.
	And so, anyway, so that's on that.
	We were talking about something else before.
	No, well, no, it was the delving into the trial data.
	Yeah.
	I mean, there's no...
	Like, you see these things.
	Oh, you know, 2% chance that this happened by chance.
	I mean, the exclusions in the Pfizer trial were like crazy, statistically impossible to have happened randomly.
	Okay?
	So people were excluded when they got adverse events because of the vaccine.
	There was no investigation.
	Maddie DeGarry, she was in the kid trial.
	She got...
	She's paralyzed.
	I always forget the name of the neurological disorder that she ultimately was diagnosed with after, you know, they said it was no longer psychological or...
	Well, functional neurological disease is what they, you know, said.
	You know, meaning you're crazy, I think, is the...
	You'd interpret that.
	Yeah, that would be the informal term.
	I interviewed Maddie DeGarry's parents, and yeah, they told us exactly what happened, how they excluded her from the results instead of factoring her in.
	And they had a small sample.
	They had a small trial for, relatively speaking, not very many kids.
	Yes, a thousand.
	She was one out of a thousand.
	One out of a thousand kids got paralyzed.
	One out of a thousand kids would get the jab.
	That trial, it basically showed one of 1,000 kids who get the jab is going to end up crippled for the rest of their life.
	And I hope she recovers.
	But right now, it looks like she's going to be crippled for the rest of her life.
	So one of 1,000 kids.
	And they're giving this to kids.
	And they're saying, you have to have this vaccine.
	This is insane.
	I talked to Janet Woodcock, who was the head of the FDA at the time.
	And she said...
	I promise you, we'll look into this.
	We'll investigate this.
	Like, why wasn't this included in the trial?
	Wow, maybe there's a God.
	Nah, nah.
	She's just bullshitting me.
	She's like, she's just totally gaslighting me.
	They have no intention of ever contacting this family.
	I mean, there's never going to be any contact with this family from the FDA or the CDC.
	Guaranteed.
	Like, you know, for the rest of history.
	Like, for the rest of the time, I'm alive.
	The government is never going to investigate Maddie DeGarry.
	This is a crime.
	This 12-year-old girl is...
	She is disabled for the rest of her life because of a government intervention, and the government doesn't even want to know about it.
	The only guy who gives a shit in D.C. about it...
	It's Senator Ron Johnson.
	And he's been a hero for championing the people who are vaccine injured.
	But he holds a hearing, you know, and nobody comes because he's in the minority.
	Man, if the Republicans ever get control back of the Senate, there's going to be a new sheriff in town and there'll be investigations.
	There's nothing going on in the House.
	You know, there's a Corona committee in the House.
	Marjorie Taylor Greene is on the committee, which is good.
	But the committee is headed by a doctor who's totally blue-pilled.
	They're not going to be asking any questions in Congress, even though the Republicans control Congress, because the committee is headed by this completely blue-pilled guy who's never going to admit...
	Or even consider the possibility that there might have been fraud in the trials and that the vaccines may, in fact, be unsafe.
	So Marjorie Taylor Greene is the only person, as far as I know, on that committee, the Corona Investigation Committee, who wants to know the truth.
	That's it.
	Marjorie Taylor Greene.
	One person.
	Who essentially is powerless because she's just one member of the committee.
	But these people in Congress aren't going to ask any questions.
	They're never going to ask about Maddie Jagari.
	Just like they're never going to ask about William Thompson and autism.
	Like, Thompson is a CDC scientist.
	He found...
	They were supposed to do a research study connecting autism and the vaccines and finding whether there was a connection.
	He found the connection.
	It was a big signal.
	They ordered him to destroy the data that related vaccines and autism so that that data would be excluded from the study that they wrote up.
	This is scientific corruption.
	It's corruption at the CDC.
	And when Bill Posey tried to get a hearing in Congress, he was told there will be no hearing where William Thompson testifies.
	We will take away all your committee chairmanships if you try to force a hearing on this.
	And so he basically made a decision to say, well, look, I can't get this thing done, so I have to back down.
	So to this day, William Thompson has never been called to testify in front of Congress that he was ordered to destroy by his CDC superiors all the data that related vaccines to autism so that the paper could report that there is no link between vaccines and autism.
	There is no way you can deny any of this stuff.
	I mean, and it just makes me...
	It makes me livid.
	I mean, I'm still emotional after all this.
	But all of this is true.
	It is so, so disturbing that this stuff is happening in America.
	I mean, I thought most of the people in Congress wanted to do the right thing.
	And man, I'm like, wow, these guys are bought and paid for by the drug companies because...
	How could you not have William Thompson testify?
	That is a crime against humanity of the utmost proportions.
	I mean, this thing would blow the doors off of the vaccines don't cause autism narrative.
	And the data, of course, for autism shows that there's no question that vaccines are causing autism.
	I mean, I know of a clinic.
	They've been around for 25 years.
	They basically don't vaccinate the kids.
	They advise the parents not to.
	The parents listen to the doctors.
	Zero autism in 25 years in an area where autism is out of sight.
	What's the difference?
	They don't vaccinate the kids.
	But today, it's like vaccinating kids.
	That's the thing to do to protect your kid.
	If you're a good parent, you're going to do that.
	It's all unbelievable mind control.
	I mean, this is...
	And you can't get a debate to save your life.
	Bobby Kennedy's been trying to get a debate.
	For 20 years.
	With Peter Hotez was the most recent, but they're going to write him off.
	Nobody we have.
	Nobody will debate him because they don't want to...
	If anybody debates Bobby Kennedy, everybody's going to watch that debate.
	And everybody will then realize that they're full of shit on saying vaccines don't cause autism because even the autism experts know that vaccines cause autism.
	And one of them admitted confidentially to a friend of mine.
	He said, look, we all know vaccines cause autism, but we're just not allowed to talk about it.
	If we talked about it, our funding would go to zero.
	So we have to pretend like vaccines don't cause autism.
	We have to play by the narrative because if we buck the trend, we're dead.
	We'll get no more funding.
	And so...
	You know, we need to keep our jobs.
	So we shut the fuck up.
	And that's what, you know, basically that's what he said to this guy.
	He says, don't tell anyone though.
	I don't want to get in trouble.
	But they all know.
	They all know that vaccines are the cause of autism.
	But they're not allowed to talk about it.
	That's why I can't get a debate with any of these guys.
	That's why these people won't, these autism experts.
	Will not return my phone call.
	I mean, look, if you can get an autism expert on your phone, I would love to have a debate.
	And I'm not an expert on autism, but I know enough from the surveys that I've done personally with my followers who don't have anything against pro-op, you know, like if they're anti-vaxxers, they won't have any autism in their families, right?
	So it's the people who, you know, Vaccinate their kids and say, oh shit, you know, yeah, here's the rate of autism.
	The rates of autism are linearly, in a survey, 10,000 parents.
	The more vaccines you got, the greater the rate of autism.
	And so you got 10 vaccines versus 20 vaccines versus 30 vaccines versus 40. You know, it's like linear.
	It's a linear trend.
	And there's no possible way.
	That these parents could have said, hey, he's asking about autism.
	Let's coordinate our response to give him the answer that looks right.
	I mean, it was so statistically perfect, it almost looks like I gained the data.
	But I could tell you I didn't.
	And I didn't need to.
	I mean, I would never, first of all, I would never game the data.
	But there's like, the data was so perfect that it looks like it was gained, that it looks like I must have extracted it out.
	But it's not.
	Anybody could replicate the survey.
	Anybody can replicate the survey.
	Nobody wants to replicate the survey.
	If you don't believe me, the New York Times should do their own survey, replicate my results, and they'll get the same thing.
	I mean, there's no doubt about it.
	Absolutely no doubt about it.
	Who was the actress that took the flack?
	I mean, I was young-ish when it happened.
	I want to say it wasn't Pamela Anderson.
	It was...
	Was it not a Baywatch actress?
	Yeah.
	I'll look it up.
	I see.
	I mean, first of all, I say I'm less familiar with the...
	The autism vaccine argument because I just got wise to the jibby jab not being all that safe and effective.
	And I'll pull this up just because it's fun.
	I pulled this up a little while ago.
	You go to the fact-checkers, and they fact-check a question nobody asked.
	No evidence that Amish kids have zero cancer, diabetes, and autism.
	This is a statement that nobody could ever possibly make.
	You go down, they say, vaccine rates among the Amish are not zero.
	Okay, nobody would make that claim either.
	But then they go, "All right, similarly, autism spectrum disorder is documented in the populations, is documented in the population, in part because populations that rarely reproduce outside their own group are often studied by genetics to pinpoint the genes that contribute to the disorders." And I think they actually, I just want to see where they come to the conclusion that they don't have zero autism, but they have less autism.
	And I mean, make a straw man statement that there's nothing is ever, there's nothing, there's no zero to anything.
	Yeah, I mean, like, it's not 100% like you can still have autism from other causes other than the vaccine, but...
	It's like 95%.
	I mean, you can do the mathematical calculation depending on what kind of odds ratio you get in terms of what percentage are caused by autism.
	But it's like upwards of 90%.
	When you have a clinic that's been doing this for 25 years and no autism, then...
	You know, it's like, okay, it wasn't the environment.
	It wasn't birth defects.
	I mean, these kids are coming in from the practice as newborns.
	They're not getting autism because the mom isn't vaccinated and the kids aren't getting vaccinated and that's why there's no autism.
	So, by the way, it's Jenny McCarthy.
	Jenny McCarthy, thank you.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I say good luck reopening the autism debate because they've done a good job demonizing celebrities and experts in the context of that debate.
	But I say good luck with that when you can't get people to realize that this current COVID jab is causing problems despite the graphs that are literally in their face.
	I mean, I'd say, like, getting back to the jab aspect, I mean, one of the most shocking things, so you've discovered...
	And I don't think it's plausibly deniable anymore.
	There was fudgery afoot in the clinical trials, if not overt fraud.
	No question.
	Absolutely no question.
	That's in the trials.
	Now, it was a foregone conclusion.
	They were going to come out with a shot to quell the panic because that was...
	For a year, painted is the only way to get out of this.
	Absolutely.
	Then get into the manufacturing of this.
	Now, there were issues with manufacturing that you came across.
	Yep.
	Well, I mean, there's process one and process two.
	Basically, they did the trials on process one, and then they shipped to the public process two.
	So, you know, what's going on there?
	Well, you basically got something that's not been tested.
	You're injected with something that's not...
	So not only did they fudge the trial data, fabricate would be a better word, they fabricated the trial data and they, you know, basically any adverse events, don't get into the trial data.
	Not only did they do that, but they did the old switcheroo.
	They got it approved based on process one and then they shipped process two.
	Because it was cheaper to manufacture.
	No testing.
	I mean, maybe they tested it on, you know, 12 mice.
	And I think all of the mice died because they had to sacrifice them.
	But, you know, it's like, you know, come on.
	Really?
	You're going to put this on?
	Look, so I just had an interview last night with Denis Rancor.
	He estimated like 17 million people were killed by the vaccine.
	I don't think that's very far off.
	I would have said, if you had asked me, I would be conservative and say, that's only 13 million.
	That's only, you know, 750,000 people died in the United States.
	But it's probably worse than that.
	We just did a survey.
	I paid for an outside market research company.
	To do a survey on the American public.
	And this outside research company then used another outside research company to provide the list of random Americans.
	And they said, anybody in your household die since 2021.
	And, you know, there are like a hundred or so of the thousand families that we asked that had a death.
	And they said, do you think that the death could be related to the COVID vaccine?
	And half of them said yes.
	Half of the deaths are related to the COVID vaccine by the American public.
	Well, the argument will be in their perception.
	And then it's going to be a question.
	Of course.
	But come on!
	Come on!
	I was going to say, Steve, when the carpet cleaner comes to your house and says, yeah, I had a heart attack within two minutes of the jab, they're going to say, that's too close.
	It's a random coincidence.
	If it happens 30 days later, they're going to say it's too far.
	If it happens after the person gets COVID, which is one of the adverse events you can get, then they'll blame it on COVID.
	So once we've seen how they literally fudged the numbers, then you can't trust anything.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Yeah, but see, we've never had a vaccine in history where you get anywhere close to a 50%.
	Well, with the swine flu from the 70s, I think they pulled it after 39 people were hospitalized across the country.
	Well, it's even worse.
	Baby formula.
	Two kids, right?
	And, you know, I think it was maybe two deaths.
	And they shut down.
	Close the plant.
	Here you killed 700,000 people.
	There's no investigation.
	You cripple a girl for life in the trial.
	There is no doubt about it.
	This girl is perfectly healthy.
	Within 24 hours, less than 24 hours after the shot, she couldn't walk on her own.
	Less than 24 hours after the shot.
	I mean, and what's more is there's no investigation.
	See, they could say, oh, that was just a coincidence.
	They should have reported it in the trial that, hey, one kid's permanently disabled.
	And there should have been an investigation to her to say, oh, was this caused by the jab or not?
	There was no investigation of that.
	And by the way, the people who died in the Pfizer trial, and I'm sure in the Moderna trial as well, there's no autopsy on these people to assess whether the vaccine caused the death.
	They basically said the researchers didn't think that it was related to the jab.
	That's what you get.
	The research didn't think.
	It's not like we have the histopathology on this that says, oh, we did the histopathology and the slides show that there was no indication that it could be caused by the jabs.
	That would have been the honest thing to do.
	When you have a death in the treatment arm, you should have done the autopsy and you should have done the histopathology.
	They did none of that.
	And when I asked them for it, when I asked Pfizer for it, it's like I didn't get a reply.
	The last I spoke with Matty DeGarry's parents, they still hadn't heard from Pfizer.
	I'll pull up the open VAERS just because I can't figure out how to get the stuff out of the VAERS system.
	But the question I've always had is, let's just say you had 50,000, get rounded up.
	50,000 deaths reported inverse.
	Deaths.
	Now, most people say it's underrepresented by a factor of anywhere between 10 to 100.
	And then the CDC comes out and says, none of those cases have been confirmed to be correlated or caused by the jab.
	How the hell did they investigate 50,000 reports of death?
	I asked the question because I don't even know what their investigation process is.
	They don't.
	They don't.
	Look.
	You know, they have too many deaths to investigate.
	They don't have enough people to do the investigation.
	And they've never asked any doctors ever, hey, if you think the death was vaccine-related, please do the autopsy using this proper procedure, which will test for whether the vaccine could have caused the death.
	And there are these stains that are not part of the normal autopsy procedure that have to be done in order to make an assessment.
	Nobody in the country is looking for it.
	If you die and you get an autopsy, I guarantee you that they're not going to be looking to implicate the vaccine.
	The guy doing the autopsy probably doesn't even know what the proper tests are to assess whether the vaccine caused the death.
	I interviewed, and I've become friends with him, Sean Hartman's father, Dan Hartman out of Canada.
	His kid died 33 days after the jab, was hospitalized, unknown to the father, a few days after the jab, sent home, no troponin test, no, I forget what the other test is, dies 33 days later, and is rejected from the Vaccine Injury Support Program in Canada.
	The authorities deem it not to be related to the jab.
	I mean, this kid's 17 years old, Pfizer jab.
	It's like a year and a half later, he finally gets his own expert to confirm it was caused by, definitively or significantly, and there's 50,000 of those claims in the States, and they're going to tell me they've investigated all of them and determined none are related, or seven are?
	I mean, some people have done the investigation.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I think the FOIA request for those investigations ended up not returning any documents.
	What does that tell you?
	This is from memory about the FOIA request, but I know there was a FOIA request on these investigations, and either it was stonewalled or it didn't return any documents.
	Yeah, I'll see if I can pull that up in real time.
	So nobody accuses you of disinformation?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I'll see if I can find that.
	Aaron Siri, I think, was the one who asked for the autopsies.
	It could be wrong.
	Could be somebody else.
	I mean, at the risk of asking the obvious questions, what are the most shocking things that you've discovered in the last two, three years as relates to not just limited to the COVID and the response, to the jab itself?
	I mean, what are the latest issues that experts don't want to talk about?
	You know, it's all the elevated, these cases, these turbo cancers, these people with weird symptoms, these people with...
	Prion diseases.
	You know, there's just a whole host of stuff that can go wrong.
	It's almost like injecting yourself with the COVID vaccine is like injecting a pathogen into your body that can leak random damage to any part of your body, whether it's your eyes.
	Whether it's your ability to talk, whether it's your brain, whether it's your heart, whether it's your lungs, whether it's your blood.
	I mean, this thing just goes and it's almost like, hey, what part of the body should we attack today?
	And the symptoms are so varied, right?
	Because if everybody died from a heart attack after getting the jab, you know, we'd see a blood.
	But it doesn't.
	It's basically, it's a roll the dice.
	It's playing Russian roulette.
	You're playing Russian roulette to see which part of your body should we attack today.
	And that's how it escapes detection.
	It kills you in different ways.
	And people are used to, oh, if you got the MMR shot, it causes autism.
	Or if you got the this shot, it causes that.
	If you got the this shot, it causes that.
	That's what they're used to.
	They're not used to, If you get this shot, you could, like, die and cause unknown, you know.
	And so, you know, Ed Dowd has this book, Cause Unknown.
	And he's got, like, 500 people he writes about in the book who died, cause unknown.
	And one of them was found not to have been vaccinated by the COVID vaccine.
	But, you know, when Ed put together the list of 500 people, He just looked for 500 people who died cause unknown.
	He didn't research whether they were vaccinated with the COVID vaccine or not.
	It is statistically impossible for him not to...
	With 500 cases and 80%, 75%, it's like 75% of the American public is not...
	Is vaccinated, so 25% is unvaccinated.
	So it's like drawing from a random pool and always getting from the 75% who are vaccinated.
	Statistically impossible for him to only get one unvaccinated person if the vaccines were not causing the unexpected deaths.
	I mean, like the math...
	Just doesn't work out for them.
	There's no way they can explain that.
	It should have been completely, it should have been 75% were vaccinated, 25% are unvaccinated in Ed's list.
	They only found one unvaccinated person who died 2021 or after, died unexpectedly 2021 after, out of the 500.
	That is...
	I mean, I did the math on it.
	It was like, it was absurdly low.
	I mean, I could do the calculation right now.
	Well, I wanted to bring up one thing just to highlight something of a joke, but it's not really a, it's not funny, it's just funny.
	When I knew this term was going to come up, you know, I don't know if you've seen, turbo cancer is an anti-vaccine myth.
	But, how do I get out of here?
	But, aggressive cancer is a scientific fact.
	And it's an amazing thing where, I mean, it's the...
	Play on words, where people are basically saying turbo cancer, as far as I ever understood the term, is nothing more than unexplained aggressive cancer that people are anecdotally or statistically noticing now.
	But give it a name to write it off.
	Turbo cancer is a conspiracy theory, an anti-vaxxer conspiracy theory term.
	But aggressive cancers, for whatever the reason, you can look up the stats and look up the articles, seem to be more common now among younger.
	Let me actually pull that one up right now.
	What was the...
	I was listening to you, and I think it was the Freedom Podcast.
	SV, a virus that they've...
	SV80.
	The monkey virus, which people have found apparently in the jab, and I'm looking it up, and then I go to the fact checks, and the fact check says, no, the monkey virus is not in the jabs, and apparently there has been some news about discovery of this SV80 in the jab?
	Yeah, and it's only in the...
	There's a...
	Is it SV80 or SV70?
	Let me see.
	I DM'd you before with the fact check because I thought it was funny.
	I think.
	Okay, let's see here.
	The article says, no monkey virus DNA was not found in the COVID vaccines and SV...
	SV40.
	SV40, yeah, sorry, in the Pfizer virus.
	Yes, okay.
	And the claim is this.
	Actually, let me bring up the claim just so people can see how they strawman the claim so they can then disregard the...
	Is it this one here?
	No, yeah, here we go.
	Here, let's see.
	The claim is...
	No monkey virus DNA was not found in COVID vaccines.
	Claim vaccines developed for COVID-19 cancer contain a cancer-causing virus DNA found in the monkey.
	So there's a compound statement here.
	I just want to know if it contains the SV40.
	We can discuss whether or not there's risks afterwards.
	Then we go down.
	Found, okay, there's no evidence to support the claim that the COVID-19 vaccines contain monkey DNA, nor the virus known as SV40, according to public health officials and the lead researcher of a recent study cited in some of the social media posts.
	Let me see here.
	There is no evidence to indicate SV40, a virus found in monkey kidneys that can potentially cause cancer in human, is in the formulation of the COVID-19 vaccines.
	I think that's an interesting way of phrasing it.
	Obviously, it shouldn't be in the formulation.
	The question is whether or not it's found in it.
	Let's see what we've got here.
	He says, research involved in the study, which is a preprint that has not been published in a peer-reviewed academic, discovered SV40 promoter in the Pfizer vaccine.
	Promoter sequence, yeah.
	So dumb that down for me.
	Well, there's a virus is going to be a complete...
	Virus that can replicate and so forth.
	The point is that a subpart of the DNA sequence, known as the SV40 promoter sequence, which is a subclass, a string of DNA, basically that sequence is found in the Pfizer vaccine.
	And the drug companies actually knew that it was in there, but they...
	When they reported to the FDA, they basically erased that.
	So they basically told the FDA, well, you know, here's what you should know about.
	And by the way, we erased the fact that the SV40 promoter sequence is in there, so you don't have to look at that.
	The FDA should have been pissed that they were lied to.
	FDA did nothing.
	So, by the way, I did the stats for Ed's book.
	It's 6.1 times e to the minus 10. I don't know how that means, Steve.
	What that means is there's less than one in a billion chance that this thing happened by pure luck, that he drew.
	Think of a container of balls where there are a million balls in the container.
	25% of them are red balls.
	75% are green balls, and you randomly draw 500, okay?
	The chance that you're going to get a draw with just one of the, we'll call it the unvaccinated balls, is one in a billion.
	You know, it's less than one in a billion.
	In other words, either Ed is the unluckiest guy in the world, or the vaccines are causing sudden deaths, okay?
	The math never lies.
	That's the thing.
	People lie.
	Scientific studies lie.
	But the math never lies.
	You cannot mess with the Poisson probability distribution function.
	Not going to happen.
	Let me bring back up this fact check because it actually just gets great here.
	The fear about SV40 sequences is total nonsense, he wrote.
	The vaccine is not going to cause cancer.
	There is no cancer-causing gene in the vaccine.
	The false claims play on decades-old fears of SV40 and increased risk of developing cancer as a molecular biologist.
	But subsequent studies found no causal association between SV40-contaminated polio vaccines.
	And so they say there's no monkey virus in it.
	There's no SV40, but there might be the SV40 promoter in it, but don't worry about it.
	Nobody disagrees on that.
	Nobody disagrees that the SV40 promoter sequence is in the vaccine.
	And I don't think there's anybody who disagrees that the FDA was misled.
	There's no possible way.
	There's no possible way that the drug companies could not have known that.
	These drug companies are not incompetent.
	They knew that the promoter sequence was there.
	They deliberately erased that from the sequences that they showed, from the breakdown of the sequences, the interpretation of the sequences.
	In other words, you have a genetic sequence, you go and you run through this tool, and it will tell you what's identified.
	You know, the fingerprints that are on the DNA sequence.
	And so they knew that the SV40 was there.
	They erased it.
	You know, they deleted it.
	They like whited it out before they sent it to the FDA.
	So the FDA didn't know.
	And the FDA never ran the sequence themselves because they trusted the drug companies.
	Well, it's very interesting, actually, because when they say in the end of the article...
	When they talk about the polio vaccine that was contaminated with SV40, obviously one does not want it to be in there, whereas if it's in there, then it becomes a source of contamination.
	And if it was contaminated with this and then they lied to the FDA, there's obviously something that they don't want that in there and they're taking as their evidence that don't worry, when polio was contaminated with SV40, it didn't cause any problems.
	And who confirmed that it's definitively in there setting aside whether or not there's any risk of cancer causing as a result?
	Everybody's confirmed that.
	That's not subject to doubt.
	There's no question that the SV40 promoter sequence is there.
	Everybody, even Health Canada admits that.
	What they don't admit is that there is a problem with that.
	They say basically, well, there's no evidence that that causes any kind of harm, but that's because there are no studies to actually look into the question.
	There's no evidence because...
	We didn't do the studies.
	Joe Latipo in Florida, I mean, he basically said, hey, you don't have the studies to prove this is safe.
	I'm going to declare this as unsafe in Florida.
	I mean, this is not right.
	What you guys are doing is not right.
	You've presented to me no evidence that shows that you did the work to say that this thing doesn't cause harm.
	So he's pissed off.
	I'm glad that there's one guy in the U.S. who's paying attention.
	He's like the only honest health authority in the country.
	Here we go.
	This is from, I don't know, Clean Industry, so take it for what it's worth.
	But Exclusive Health Canada confirms undisclosed presence of DNA sequence in Pfizer shot.
	And I do believe here.
	Health Canada has confirmed the presence of a Simeon Virus 40, SV40 DNA sequence in the COVID vaccine, which the manufacturer had not previously disclosed.
	And then we can get into the debate.
	So bottom line, safe and effective.
	Oh yeah, there's something in there that was not supposed to be in there that was not disclosed to us.
	But don't worry, it's still good.
	Okay, it's a bit of a problem, but don't worry, it won't get you.
	Yeah, it's like myocarditis, don't worry.
	It's really rare.
	I mean, I've had places, I've talked to schools where there are four cases of myocarditis in a population of maybe a few hundred boys.
	It's definitely greater than 1%.
	Who wants to give your kid heart damage for the rest of your life?
	Steve, it's mild.
	It's mild and transient, much like inflation.
	It's insane.
	So that's the latest.
	And was that part of the scandal about the DNA found in the vaccines, or was that something else?
	So I remember Jess Rose was on about that as well.
	And then the issue was, okay, well...
	Nobody's making any claims about the consequences, but we agree on the fact it shouldn't be there.
	The only question now is, are there going to be consequences?
	Yes.
	And we won't know because nobody's funding the research.
	I think we need to raise $100,000.
	I tried to reach out to my network to raise funds for that.
	Nobody wants to spend the money to fund that.
	There is no...
	There's no donor on the other side of this with $100,000 who wants to spend the $100,000 to find out whether or not we have an unsafe vaccine or not.
	I mean, that person may be super unpopular, right?
	If they found it, all these people were being damaged, that guy's life would be destroyed if he funded it.
	Someone in our chat, USA Now, says, of course his paper is buried because you use Gulag as the Google.
	I'm going to see if there's any questions in here that I...
	We got USA Now says scientists are corrupt.
	I mean, it's going to be a very open, easy question.
	What has been the most shocking element of corruption that you've discovered in your wild, red-pilling transition?
	They don't want to talk about it.
	People don't want to talk about it.
	I mean, I was surprised that doctors...
	I mean, I talk to doctors who talk to doctors, right?
	I'm talking to doctors who...
	Happily talk to me, tell me, look, they've tried to bring this up with their peers, and they get shut down.
	So they stop doing it.
	And the people that realize that the vaccines are harmful don't want to speak out because they don't want to lose their jobs.
	So it's like this game.
	It's this game with the medical community.
	They're trained.
	To trust the peer-reviewed literature, they're trained to trust the authorities.
	And when you say something that is counter to that, then they say, I don't have time to look into that.
	I think you're a nutcase.
	I mean, I got into discussion with one of my high-tech peers about it.
	And I totally remember this conversation and who he is.
	But, you know, we'll keep his name out of it.
	But I've known this guy for a while.
	And I said, you know, I'm spending my time on vaccine safety.
	Do you want to hear what I've discovered?
	He said, no.
	And I said, that's interesting.
	Why not?
	He said, well, it'd be like if you came to me and said that the moon was made of Swiss cheese and you had evidence that it was made of Swiss cheese, I would take you just as seriously.
	You know, I just wouldn't even spend my time.
	It's such a ridiculous assertion.
	That the vaccines are dangerous.
	That I don't even want to spend the time to listen to what is clearly a bogus argument.
	It would be like me going to him and saying, hey, I think the earth is flat.
	Right?
	If I say to this guy, the vaccines are not safe, this is the equivalent of saying, hey, I have evidence that the moon is made of Swiss cheese.
	That is how these people consider you.
	And that's why they won't even engage in listening to you because your assertion is on the face so ridiculous that they don't want to even engage further because everything you're saying from that point on, you've completely discredited yourself by saying the vaccines are not safe.
	You have to, if you wanted to get into a Discussion with someone about this.
	You have to start really gently.
	Like, is there any possibility that...
	Or, hey, I saw Ed Dowd's book.
	It's interesting.
	500 died...
	Or you can say, hey, sports...
	What do you think the cause might be?
	And you get into a conversation that way, because that way they don't shut down.
	Whereas if you say the vaccines aren't safe, you're immediately categorized as a flat earther.
	Well, no, it is amazing.
	It reminds me of my experience with that Twitter space where, you know, I won't even make any hypotheses.
	I'll operate on the basis of their, you know, of their peer-reviewed studies.
	It's like, what is the number of myocarditis?
	And they'll say, one in 10,000.
	And I'll say, that's atrocious.
	That's borderline criminal.
	I agree with your number for the sake of argument.
	It's atrocious.
	And then it's like, okay, well, then they admit it, but then they've got to rationalize it.
	Well, one in 10,000 mild cases, you know, I also want to know, and I got a DM from John Beaudoin yesterday answering one of the questions.
	I have to read it more thoroughly.
	You know, what is the statistical analysis of the prognosis for those diagnosed with myocarditis, let alone those who had subclinical and didn't know they had it?
	I want to know what that is.
	If it's one in 10,000, we're talking math that gets into the millions real quick, given that they've...
	Jibby jabbed, I don't know how many billions of people.
	Yeah.
	It's about one in a thousand, you know, your risk if you got jabbed, one in a thousand people they jabbed will die because of the jab.
	That's the order of magnitude, right?
	So if you jab 750 million like we did in the US, we expect somewhere in the order of 750,000 deaths.
	And anyone can verify this themselves, right?
	You just do a little Twitter survey.
	You say, hey, how many people do you know died from...
	Or you say, do you know more people who died from COVID or from the vaccine?
	Well, no, because that question presupposes causality.
	I would just say, do you know people who have died unexpectedly?
	Yes.
	Was it within a certain proximity of a jab?
	And the answer will be, I can, in my immediate...
	No, no, it's even easier.
	It's even easier.
	Do you know anyone who died unexpectedly?
	And then the second question is, were they vaccinated?
	Yeah, but then the third question would have to be, did they get COVID?
	And if the answer to that is yes, well, it was COVID-related.
	It was long COVID.
	It was myocarditis from the infection.
	Look, I got a friend, Jay Bonner.
	Jay has 15 friends die unexpectedly since the vaccines rolled out.
	15 friends died unexpectedly.
	He had, I think it's like one friend die unexpectedly.
	Prior to that, in his entire life, he lost one friend unexpectedly.
	Here, he lost 15. They all got COVID.
	No, no, no.
	Four of them died within 24 hours of their COVID shot.
	Four of the 14. You know, you can deal with the math on this all day long.
	No, but the argument is going to be it's anecdotal and therefore let's disregard it.
	No, no, no.
	No, no.
	It's not anecdotal.
	Everything about that can be verified.
	It actually happened and he actually observed it happening.
	The chance of that happening to Jay is...
	It's astronomical.
	Jay doesn't exist.
	No, but then you get into the arguments where the people will say excess deaths are not up.
	And then you'll pull up a study from Canada showing excess deaths are up.
	But then they'll take another country that's highly vaccinated and say excess deaths are not up there.
	But then the sub-argument might be maybe not on the aggregate because the old and weak are already dead, but they might be up among demographics that are not supposed to be dying.
	And that's what Ed Dowd has showed.
	But everyone's arguing from their own conclusions.
	And I just wanted to bring up one thing because it's hilarious.
	I don't know how often you read your Wikipedia page, but you should check it out from time to time.
	Here, in May 2021, Kirsch posted an article online claiming that COVID-19 vaccines affect fertility, while also underplaying the vaccine's ability to prevent illness, I think we all agree on that now, and death.
	Both statements criticized by fact-checkers.
	What is it?
	As being inaccurate or misleading.
	What is the latest, Steve, on...
	Let's not say fertility, because this is where they play games.
	They said it didn't affect a woman's menstrual cycle.
	I was alive when they said that.
	It's, no, don't worry about it.
	It won't affect your menstrual cycle.
	Oh, okay, it might.
	It'll be minor.
	Oh, okay, it can cause heavy bleeding.
	Oh, it can mess up your menstrual cycle.
	But that's not fertility, they'll say.
	What is the latest?
	I mean, have you been looking into that recently, the latest disclosures, developments?
	Well, the latest thing is I talked to a nurse.
	Her name is Michelle.
	She works at a hospital in California.
	And she's on video.
	And she said, you know, before the vaccines rolled out, we'd have four fetal demises in a year.
	After the vaccines rolled out, we'd have 20 to 30 a month.
	Fetal demises is still...
	Fetal demises is 20 weeks or a pregnancy where the child is alive at 20 weeks, and then the fetus is alive at 20 weeks, and the fetus never makes it out alive.
	That's a fetal demise.
	The stats are nationally, it's like six...
	It's about five point...
	5.8 per 1,000.
	This hospital delivers 9,000 babies in a year, and they have a very low rate of fetal demise, four fetal demises a year out of 9,000, which is an order of magnitude lower than most places.
	So they went from that to a 66 to 90-fold increase.
	In the rate of fetal demises.
	66 to 90 times more fetal demises in their community after the vaccines rolled out.
	And nobody is talking about it.
	Except for this one nurse.
	So...
	Well, Steve, I can steel man it or play devil's advocate, whichever we want to say.
	They're going to say COVID.
	COVID infections.
	Women get COVID infections when they're pregnant.
	It causes still, you know, fetal demise.
	More women get jabbed while pregnant.
	You know, it's funny because it didn't happen when COVID happened.
	It happened after the jabs rolled out, and in every single case, the woman was vaccinated with the COVID vaccine.
	In every single case, the woman was vaccinated with the COVID vaccine.
	What does that tell you?
	I know my anecdotes, and I know my very small circle of friends and family, and I know what I know there.
	Well, like, you know, I know someone, like we had a friend who lost their baby.
	She was vaccinated.
	And she said, no, no, they told me it was a genetic problem.
	You know, it's like, yeah, yeah, you're going to believe.
	And this baby was so deformed that her doctor had never seen anything like it in...
	The gynecologist had never seen anything like it in her career.
	And then they said, oh, well, it must be a genetic problem.
	So they gaslighted people.
	And people believe it because they're hearing it from the doctors.
	And when I broached the subject that...
	Hey, you ever looked into the possibility it might be due to the vaccine?
	It's like, we never want to talk to you again.
	You're an evil person.
	Just for bringing up the possibility?
	No, no.
	I also think there's a large part of it now, especially for parents who have jabbed their kids, who cannot live with the potential reality that they might have exposed their kids unnecessarily given...
	Yeah, it's like the congressman who lost his daughter.
	He's like this big promoter of the vaccine.
	Right?
	And he lost his daughter and he said, well, there's a lesson here.
	The lesson is that your kids could die at any time.
	Make the most of the time that you spend with them and make every day count.
	That was the lesson.
	The lesson was never, do not trust the government about the safety of the vaccines.
	Unfortunately, he got the wrong lesson.
	Let me bring it up because some people aren't going to remember this.
	And I always feel terrible even...
	It's not a case of schadenfreude.
	Congresswoman Sean Caston's teenage daughter, Gwen, died of sudden cardiac arrhythmia.
	October 7, 2022.
	I remember this.
	Let me just say it.
	And I think they're going to blame.
	She was fully vaccinated and quarantined after occasional positive asymptomatic tests during the Omicron wave.
	She had just come home from an evening with friends, went to bed, and didn't wake up.
	No, blame it on...
	Young kids never die.
	In their sleep.
	That is ridiculous.
	She was killed by the vaccine.
	And by saying never, I mean, it's like, it does occur.
	No, but you say never, and I was going to say...
	It's like really, really rare.
	But also, you do autopsies, and you look into it because that's not the type of thing that goes...
	And I remember when I was a kid, we had a friend who died without gendering them in their sleep.
	And now I remember, in retrospect...
	We all know what happened as we got older, but the lie was that they died in their sleep.
	It was not a natural death, it wasn't a jab death, but it was something that we're like, nobody can know, so it's just the lie we're all going to live with.
	There was a question here, Ali Michael in our Locals community says, "Does the mRNA affect microbiome?
	Do you know anything about the Johnson& Johnson vax, and have you seen Tucker's interview with Brett Weinstein episode 71?" Steve.
	I'm not sure, but the right person to ask would be Sabine Hazan on the microbiome question.
	So I don't know the answer to that, so I'm going to just pass on that question.
	First of all, what I've noticed is that I like it from all of your interviews.
	When you don't know something, you don't hypothesize.
	And Sabine is...
	She might be the right person and maybe the wrong person because she is microbiome-centered.
	I remember listening to her and I was like...
	But...
	Dude, I'm like, get out of here.
	Get up.
	Close the door, please.
	Jeanette Victoria says, how can I convince my niece not to vax her three-month-old son and Lynx?
	Well, first of all, they can't vax until they're six months old.
	So, Jeanette, but how can you convince someone?
	Sorry.
	Okay, well, there was a question before that.
	What was the...
	I didn't...
	There was a two-part question.
	Yeah, it was...
	No, how can I convince my niece not to vaccinate her?
	No, no.
	Oh, sorry, the first one.
	Does it affect the microbiome?
	What do you know about the J&J?
	They pulled that one pretty much everywhere, right?
	The J&J?
	Yeah.
	Okay, they pulled that in Quebec after a woman died of blood clots.
	46-year-old woman.
	But that was after they said it was safe and effective.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	The UK said, totally safe, very safe, very effective.
	And then they dropped the vaccine and they didn't say anything about, oh, we fucked up.
	Yeah, let me pull this up.
	This is like, you live through this.
	Quebec pulls J. And I think the UK pulled it too.
	Johnson& Johnson.
	No, that's baby powder.
	Let me see here.
	I'll find the article because I know they pulled it in UK COVID.
	Let me see if I can find the article.
	J&J pulls COVID vaccine sales.
	Oh, that's okay.
	I'll get it afterwards.
	Anyway, they silently pulled it in the UK and said nothing.
	They didn't say, oh, hey, sorry.
	We told you safe and effective.
	We were wrong.
	We pulled it.
	They didn't do that because they would have to admit that they represented that the vaccine was safe and effective and that they lied to people.
	They didn't admit they lied.
	They just took it off the market.
	Okay, what was the next question?
	How do I convince?
	Look, there's a book by Brian Hooker that everybody should get called Vaxxed, Unvaxed.
	It's on Amazon.
	Just look for Hooker vaccine or Vaxxed.
	That shows you that all of the studies that have compared the two show that the kids who are unvaccinated are way healthier.
	You could also go to my substack, and you could look at the data from the 10,000 parents I surveyed, and that's all publicly available.
	Look at the stats.
	The stats show that all of these things are proportional to the number of vaccines your kid gets.
	Autoimmune diseases.
	25 times increase in autoimmune disease if you fully vaccinate your kids.
	Like, who wants to give your kid a peanut allergy for the rest of their life?
	Who wants to have them have autoimmune diseases for the rest of their life?
	I mean, it is criminal what we're doing here to our kids.
	And Brian Hooker's book points out, oh, all of the papers in the peer-reviewed literature say unvaccinated kids do better.
	No exceptions.
	And he just goes through it in his book.
	Why would you want to vaccinate your kids if there is no scientific peer-reviewed study showing that vaccinated kids are better off?
	You say this and I know that I'm in the realm of when I cut my finger on a rusty piece of metal when I was metal detecting, I went right to get tetanus shots and MMR.
	There are certain things that even I don't question.
	I heard one of your interviews and I heard RFK and I understand the arguments now.
	And now that I understand, I lived through them doing to all of the anti-vaxxers for autism exactly what they did to the people who were complaining about the jab now.
	And I can only assume the motivation was the same.
	I want to bring this up.
	This is just amazing.
	But the motivation is that they truly believe it.
	They truly believe the bullshit, just like these doctors truly believe that the COVID vaccines are safe and effective because they refuse to look at the data.
	Listen to this.
	FDA revokes authorization of Johnson& Johnson's COVID vaccine as demand wanes.
	That's why they're doing it.
	This is June 5th, 2023.
	So they're pulling the emergency use and it says, FDA has determined that it is appropriate to protect the public health or safety to revoke this authorization.
	According to the statement, the company does not intend to update the strain composition of the vaccine to address emerging variants.
	J&J's single dose faced problems early on following manufacturing hiccups and cases of rare and potentially deadly clotting disorder slowed its rollout.
	In early 2021, demand has since remained subdued compared with the more popular shots.
	Yeah, well, something tells me those shots are becoming increasingly less popular as well.
	Let me see if there was another question here.
	Mighty Pess says, I have a patient who I prescribed a very low dose blood pressure medication for many years.
	Status has been stable.
	They went on and got three vaccines.
	developed drug-induced lupus, and the Rheumatology Consult thinks it could be related to the blood pressure meds versus the three recent vaccines, which were symptoms started after getting them.
	So many bad stories, and nobody will discuss the possibility of the vax causing so many issues.
	It's maddening.
	Russell 44 says, What was the billboard that you did?
	It was a while ago.
	It's like, how many kids have to die before you, you know, stop the shots or something like that?
	You know, it was in their face.
	And we got a recorder that says, your opinion doesn't count because you aren't in the field thing is new.
	Used to be you'd invite people from other fields of study to look at the data to check for errors.
	No longer science.
	And then we get mighty pisses.
	Have you ever seen my first chat, Steve?
	Any other resources to help healthcare providers when interacting with other providers in denial as mutual patients are injured?
	Well, there's a pinned article on my Substack.
	You go to kershsubstack.com.
	There's a pinned article.
	It has like 50 things.
	These are like, I don't know, conversation starters.
	And pick one and start a conversation on them.
	Yeah, you can click no thanks.
	Okay, I go like this.
	Okay, and then it's that.
	A summary of the evidence against the COVID vaccines.
	I'm going to give everybody the link in Rumble.
	I think everybody already knows exactly who you are, but there's the link to Kirsch's substack.
	Oh, and we got up here in Rumble, there's a chat, and it says 44-year-old OBGYN and maternal fetal medicine.
	His ex has tons of information.
	Oh, it's at J-A-T-H-O-R-P-M-F-M.
	So that's at Jathorpe MFM.
	He's got, okay.
	Yeah, yeah.
	We're good friends.
	He knows about Michelle too.
	Steve, I don't want to be abusive with your time.
	I think I could talk to you forever.
	What's going on in your life now?
	I say you've brought up the FU money not to be crass.
	It's because it does take people who can financially protect themselves.
	To stand up to the regime, the machine.
	Have there been any more sinister reprisals against you above and beyond the overt character slander?
	Not yet.
	Let me touch some wood there.
	What do you have planned going forward?
	Oh, you know, there are various people who claim I'm paid by the government to do this.
	First of all, there's nothing you can get.
	I get called controlled opposition.
	I get called Mossad and I get called an anti-Semite and a Nazi.
	So it's like, you know, it all depends.
	When you reach millions of people, there's going to be people with theories.
	What do you have coming up in the near to not so near future?
	Coming up...
	Well, you know, I've been spending a lot of time looking at the data from the...
	Barry Young in New Zealand leaked data to me.
	It's record-level data.
	Record-level data is ground truth.
	Sorry, the word you just said was regular-level data?
	No, record-level data.
	In other words, I have the record when somebody got a shot, I know when they got the shot.
	When somebody died, I know when they died.
	I know what their date of birth is.
	I know when they got each of their shots.
	And I know when they died.
	Now, the unfortunate thing is that he doesn't have all the records.
	He has like 4 million records in New Zealand.
	There are 12 million vaccine doses that were delivered.
	He's got a third of the records.
	So we're missing some stuff.
	But it doesn't matter.
	You got enough to draw some trends.
	Yeah, because I know who got dose one.
	And I know when they died.
	And I can tell you for a fact that...
	Here, let me just bring up the Excel spreadsheet here.
	I don't want to get you into trouble.
	You're sure that this is anonymized and safe to say?
	Oh, yeah.
	Oh, yeah.
	I'm just looking up to see what happened to the New Zealand leaker.
	I thought he got arrested.
	Let me see here.
	Yeah, he did.
	Yeah, he appears in court for allegedly leaking the data.
	Yeah, here.
	Let me show you this.
	Nobody's seen this before.
	This is a breaking news kind of thing, okay?
	So I can present here?
	Share it.
	Oh, yeah.
	Here, hold on.
	Share screen and I'll bring it up.
	Okay.
	It says presented.
	Yeah, just click on that, and then I'll see you.
	So, let me find the...
	See, I'm nervous, Steve.
	There's all sorts of interesting things I could share with you here, but I'm trying to find the...
	Oh my gosh.
	Sorry, I was looking at Chrome Tab.
	Okay, so Window.
	Here we go.
	Here we go.
	I'm adding to stage, Steve.
	This is good?
	Yeah, sure.
	Hold on, hold on.
	I'm absolutely neurotic.
	You've got nothing in your back tabs that can be compromising.
	No, nothing.
	Okay, here we go.
	This is shot number one.
	And I'm comparing the mortality rate of people who got shot number one to the baseline mortality in New Zealand for that age group.
	So I'm doing it by age group, so there's no Simpsons paradox here.
	So if it's in red...
	Actually, just a Simpsons paradox?
	Yeah, Simpsons paradox is when the composition of a cohort changes from the baseline versus the...
	The observation.
	So, example, if you said, oh, look, everybody's dying, like, you know, twice the rate.
	You could have your baseline composition being the United States as a whole, but your cohort could be just 80-year-olds or 90-year-olds.
	So, if you switch around the composition of your cohort, as they go, like, a different composition got dose one versus dose two, dose three, dose four.
	So Simpson's paradox can be that, oh, look, people died more after dose four, but that's because the population mix changed, and so it's more older people, so that's why they died more.
	Okay?
	Okay.
	I looked up on Google, and they give an example of a baseball player can have a higher batting average than another on each of two years, but lower than the other when the two are combined.
	And that, I think, requires some requisite baseball knowledge.
	But I think I've grasped it.
	Right, right, right, right.
	But it has to do with the composition of the cohort that you're comparing it to.
	So anyway, I do it by age group.
	And what we see here is that the...
	Particularly for the 65 to 69, a 35% increase in all-cause mortality for 65 to 69, a 23% increase of 60 to 64, a 12% increase from 50 to 59. And so you're seeing these increases.
	Now, it's interesting, the 15 to 19-year-olds and 10 to 14-year-olds got a 16% increase.
	All of these are complete fire drill disasters.
	This is in the record level data for anybody who cared to analyze it.
	And no epidemiologist who is pro-vaccine will look at this data.
	Steve, if I may ask you, first of all, what are the numbers of entries that we're looking at?
	Oh, this is...
	Are we looking at 85,000 people up on the top?
	Yeah, these are basically, in the 10 to 14 range, there are 85,790 people.
	These are not small numbers.
	These are people who got the vax in that age range at the time that they got the vax, so we're 10 to 14. And this is the number of people who died in that age range for each of the doses.
	And so I looked at dose one here and compared that to the official New Zealand mortality rates for each of these age groups.
	And it's a freaking disaster.
	Why is the 25 to 29 showing, I guess, a decrease in death?
	Or is it?
	Maybe they got...
	Well, if you look at the numbers, the numbers here are...
	The number, let's see, sorry, for this, for the younger groups, it's pretty small.
	So there can easily be a 10, like for 39, if you have 39 counts, then the square root of 39 would be somewhere around 6. So it's a Poisson distribution.
	So you're looking at one standard deviation being 6. So 6, if you...
	Multiply that by 2 is 12, and 12 in relation to 39, you can easily have a, for the younger groups, you could easily have a 10% variation as just a statistical noise.
	So it's statistics.
	You have small numbers, you can have a 10% variation here.
	So that's not meaningful.
	So these numbers aren't too meaningful, but it's all about the number of deaths here.
	A 16% rise, not meaningful.
	We just don't have enough data.
	And I've asked the New Zealand Ministry of Health, hey, just release the whole data because that way we'll have higher numbers and we can have more confidence.
	So we can't really have confidence in the numbers somewhere 30 and lower.
	Like these numbers, you can't have a lot of confidence in.
	But it's numbers where you're starting to get in the hundreds here.
	60, 65, 458 people died.
	I mean, that's a lot of people.
	And the red number on the bottom.
	And the red, 35%, that's a crazy, insane increase from all-cause mortality numbers.
	And you can see that we got the all-cause mortality numbers because they're the official New Zealand mortality rate for all-cause mortality.
	And look, they pretty much match.
	We're pretty on par here.
	But some of these things are like off the charts.
	If you're in a specific age range, you're in the sweet spot of killing for the vaccine.
	That's what it shows.
	This is year one.
	Let's look at year two.
	So remember, 35% for 65 to 69. Let's look at year two.
	Completely different set of numbers here.
	And look, 34%.
	This is just looking at the death rate in year two.
	34% 27 versus 35 and 23. I mean, this is very consistent between the numbers here.
	And the argument is going to be that the numbers on the higher end become more reliable just because you're dealing with a larger sample field.
	Yeah.
	Yep.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	And so it's unreliable when the death counts here, which is this row, are smaller.
	And I should...
	And this is only death.
	We don't...
	I almost scrolled out of the screen here.
	This is only death and these are not...
	I don't know if there's been a leak about adverse events being reported in New Zealand.
	Yeah, so I don't have data on that.
	These are just div zero errors.
	I was wondering why the numbers didn't show up.
	So the other thing you can look at is in New Zealand, the deaths go up and down over time with seasonality.
	Because seasonality affects the older people.
	Like younger people tend not to die.
	They die at a very steady rate.
	And seasonality is not an issue for younger people.
	And the reason is younger people die from accidents.
	Or they die from cancer or whatever.
	And so it's not seasonal.
	Older people die from they get an infection and they die.
	So older people are more affected by seasonality.
	So what happens in a normal thing is that the number of people who die goes up.
	And then goes down, and then goes up again, and it's a cycle.
	It's a yearly cycle.
	Here you see that these are the deaths per month of people who got the jab after year one.
	And you can see they go up monotonically.
	You know, there's this little thing here.
	Because these jabs were given when the seasonality was going down.
	So this part should have been down.
	These bars should have gone this way, and then they should have gone up.
	Okay?
	But they're going up continuously over the entire period if they're jabbed.
	That is really unusual.
	This is month two.
	Or sorry, this is year two.
	This is a year after they got the shot.
	And you can see there's this downward trend and then it goes upwards.
	So it's much more seasonal.
	Whereas this is like, you got the shot, man.
	We're increasing.
	This thing should have been going down.
	And it's not.
	It's basically, it's going up, up, up, up, up.
	And so that's another, and this is the underlying data.
	And the caveat is you have to make sure that you only include rows so that you have time to die.
	So when we looked at, we looked at shot number one because it gave you two years to die so I could look at what happened.
	And you can see.
	There's a difference here.
	There should not be a difference here.
	Both of these curves, in terms of death per month, should be the same.
	It should reflect seasonality.
	And it's not.
	And, of course, there's these troubling consistency here in terms of the mortalities for, you know, look at this, 65 to 69-year-old dying at a 34% higher rate, 70 to 74%.
	Ages 70 to 74, dying at a 37% higher rate.
	And here it was only 24%.
	So these numbers are crazy, insane.
	They're horrible.
	And nobody wants to talk about it.
	Like, look, if there's an explanation for this.
	As to why these mortality rates are higher, because the people who opt for vaccination are generally healthier.
	They have a lower mortality rate than the population as a whole.
	And in fact, we could show that as people got each shot, it was the healthiest people who opted for shot two.
	The healthiest people opted for shot three.
	A healthier group of these people opted for shot four.
	Healthier people will opt for shot one.
	It's an effect known as the healthy vaccine effect, and it gets more extreme as the shot numbers go.
	Because if you're injured by an earlier shot, you're not going to get the next shot, or most people won't get the next shot.
	I mean, there are some people who will get the shot regardless.
	So I can't get an epidemiologist.
	Who believes that the vaccines are safe to go over the data with me and explain to me how we could possibly get those numbers.
	Nobody wants to go on camera with me.
	Like, if you can find an epidemiologist, it's called an honest epidemiologist.
	It's almost an oxymoron.
	It's like postal service.
	I'll see who I know.
	The classic oxymoron is postal service.
	They're not talking to me much either, Steve.
	All right.
	That's fascinating.
	So everyone, you can snip and clip that last exclusive part and the aggregate interwebs can process that data as well.
	Steve, where can people find you?
	And I'll put the links up after.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I'm on Twitter.
	STKirsch on Twitter.
	And I'm on Substack.
	It's kirschsubstack.com.
	All right, and I'll put all those links in the pinned comment afterwards.
	Locals Rumble, I'm going to end this now, and Steve and I are going to talk for a few more minutes.
	Thank you all for being here.
	I'm going to see Andrew Dice Clay tonight, Steve.
	I haven't been to a comedy gig in a long time, and I'm seeing Andrew Dice Clay.
	It's going to be fantastic.
	That's in a few hours.
	Steve, thank you very much.
	Sincerely, it's been amazing, and we will keep in touch.
	Everyone out there, how do I end this?
	Hold on one second.
	I can't see how to...
	Hold on.
	How do I end the stream?
	Oh, I've got to go to...
	No.
	I should be able to end it on Rumble.
	How do I do this?
	Oh, my goodness.
	Okay, hold on.
	I'm going to have to go to Rumble.
	There's something very weird.
	I'm going to end it on Rumble.
	I'm going to end it on Locals.
	Live streaming.
	Sorry, Steve.
	I seem to be missing a button now in Locals.
	Not in Locals, in StreamYard.
	End.
	And now, Locals, I'm going to end it.
	Enjoy the day, and I'll see you all later.
	Peace out, peeps.

▲