i became aware of you uh after reading
your article on trial site news in which
this is actually kind of a living
article in which you've been updating it
as
information has come to light and i must
say this article
uh i'm always troubled by the loss
of the useful term red pill
by people who have borrowed it for
various purposes that i don't think are
legitimate but this
this article functions as a red pill you
read this
and either something's wrong with you
steve and you've completely misportrayed
the data and
there's no problem and something's up
with you or if the data is
anything like what you present then the
interpretation is
quite clear and absolutely startling
so i will just say i believe that what
you've
what you've pointed to is accurate and
alarming is an understatement i would
invite people to look at it for
themselves
i would invite people to show it to
others and
most importantly i would invite them to
pay very close attention to what is said
in response
you will get a lot of pushback when you
show this article to people but that
pushback is not
substantive in my experience it's
emotional
crickets well you either get crickets or
you get some kind of
squid ink phenomenon where a bunch of
ink shows up and suddenly the person
you're talking to is nowhere to be i
think
i think the term for a lot of the
blowback is gaslighting
well that hasn't happened yet i think i
think it's
i mean the feedback that i've gotten is
they'll they'll look at it for about 30
seconds
and say i don't believe this and it's
the cognitive dissonance
you know it's the people who took the
blue pill right
and are living in the matrix and
everything is good and this is
this this can't possibly be true and
they immediately write it off
but they can't cite anything that is
wrong
with it they can't argue any of the
points and they'll delve into
ad hominem attacks and say oh well this
was written by an engineer he doesn't
know anything
right so and and to me that's a victory
because it says that
everything i've written they can't argue
with so the only thing left
to attack is to try to attack the person
when you can't attack the arguments and
that's what people do and i would just
say that
you know looking at a complex puzzle
like this
one needs some kind of tools i mean
undoubtedly in
what you've written there are things
that aren't going to turn out to be
right undoubtedly you've just written so
broadly that
you know with this being such a large uh
live issue
undoubtedly there are errors but the
point is even if you read this thing and
you say
what if what he's saying is 50 right
right it's still so alarming that
effectively the response would have to
be the same
something has gone wrong we are in
danger and we are not
we are not behaving rationally and you
can detect where we are not behaving
rationally
in numerous places that i hope we will
get to but do you want to outline
the basics like the bullet point you
know the top 10 bullet points that
people ought to be aware of
that you're calling attention to in your
article um
it's it's so hard because it's it's it's
just this unbelievable story
right and and let me just tell you how
it works
how okay sure so it got started um
when my carpet cleaner came and and uh
he was wearing a mask and i said hey
we're all
vaccinating you to take it off and um he
said you know i just got
um i i i got the pfizer vaccine
and i had a heart attack two minutes
later and so he spent the night in the
hospital
and he says you know he's kind of
recovering from it and i said how are
you how are you doing now and he said
you know still
you know feeling bad about it and uh he
mentioned also that his wife
also her hand she'd you know hold the
glass like this
and her hand would be shaking like this
and the water would be coming out and
she was perfect before so i have
two people we have very few people in my
house
uh because of covet um so the fish guy
the carpet cleaner and the house cleaner
right
and so to have not just one person but
him and his wife i mean that's like that
is like lightning striking
twice in the same place so and so if it
was really a safe vaccine
then what i just saw was impossible so
that's kind of what
triggered me off on this and then i had
been on this canadian
physicians call with dr byram
brittle and he showed this
chart and he said normally when you
vaccinate someone the vaccine
goes in the shoulder and it stays in the
shoulder in
in the shoulder area and what happens is
the antibodies are
generated and they attack the um this
antigen in the shoulder
and it wipes it out and and we're good
but what what
what um byron brittle did is he did a
foia request to the japanese government
to look at the biodistribution data
and what he discovered is that it
doesn't stay in the shoulder
where we all thought it should stay it
goes throughout your entire body
it goes to your brain to your heart so
that's two problems
one problem is it isn't where it's
supposed to be
ideally where we thought it was where we
thought it was for all the
all the and the other previous vaccines
the other problem and this is your area
of expertise
is that what the what these vaccines do
is they encode spike protein alone
so that the immune system will learn to
recognize spike protein and will catch
it quickly
when one is confronted with covet but
the spike protein
itself we now know is very dangerous
it's cytotoxic
is that a fair description more than
fair and i alerted the fda about this
risk um months and months and months ago
so we had a discussion about it and to
be fair the fda did not
think that um the s1
subunit and the spike protein was toxic
and so
they knew the fda knew about the
biodistribution
and and one of the scary things is that
the biodistribution like peaks in your
ovaries
and so so just to to nail the point home
um they did know they did i did send
them the manuscripts
so and and their determination was
it's a harmless swipe routine that they
didn't think that that was
sufficient documentation of the risk
that spike was biologically active right
okay they did not believe the spike was
biologically active so that was the
biggest thing we now know the spike
protein
is very dangerous varied we also know so
if it was very dangerous
but it did what the brochure on these
vaccines says it should do which is
lodge
in the membrane of the cells that are
doing the transcribing it would be a lot
less destructive right um
i think that's fair and you're right
it's not just the liter
that that the documentation about the
vaccine
it's the prior literature that was put
out by the people that developed it
um that developed these clones so they
were
they were aware that there was a risk of
a spike being biologically active and
having adverse events
if it did not stay stuck to the cells
that were transfected that got the rna
and made it
okay and and they used a genetic
engineering method
of putting a transmembrane domain on it
to ensure that it stayed anchored and
stayed put
and there they did limited non-clinical
studies
to say looks like it stays stuck right
we engineered it to stay stuck
they did and and uh they published that
here's the thing especially engineered
okay is that um that's
generally not good enough in a
non-clinical data package
so before we get a product released to
use in humans
in the normal situation where we're not
in a rush
we have some really rigorous tests that
have to be done in animals
and um revealing that spike
gets cleaved off of express cells
and becomes free is something that
absolutely should have been
known and understood well before this
ever gotten put into humans so i'll just
leave it at that
all right well that's so what's that
that's the smoking gun let me
uh just make one thing clear you said it
very clearly but lots of people who
aren't familiar with this aren't going
to get it okay so the rna
gets into the cell it is translated by
the ribosome
into a protein in this case it's the
spike protein which is the best target
on the coronavirus we could debate that
would go ahead but it's at least a very
good one
good target and nobody argues if the
antibodies uh
grab onto it the most likely thing to
happen is that they will block it from
doing what it does that facilitates the
entry into the cell
so if everything works the way the
brochure says it's a good target after
about five days though the antibodies so
the whole reason to use an adenoviral
vector or an mrna
is not just to generate antibodies and a
lot of the data and a lot of us that are
deep in this data
think that the way that they're really
providing the protection
is by cellular cytotoxicity so you're
getting ctls against it and that's the
reason to use this
gene therapy-based technology is not
just to generate neutralizing antibodies
but to generate cytotoxicity lymphocytes
okay you and i are about to go down the
rabbit hole because this is biologically
fascinating which i want to avoid doing
but
you just said the reason to use the
adenovirus vector
which is with the dna vaccine is not the
rna vaccines which is what we were
talking about i would i would call it
it's not a dna vaccine it's an ad vector
vaccine
right it's a it's a not it is the use of
the a recombinant virus which happens to
be a dna virus
yeah but it's the same basic idea it's
gene therapy technology applied to
vaccines
okay it's the same technology and
everything downstream of the translation
of the spike protein is the same by
protein
is the same and and by the way we have
no problems at all
with mrna vaccines right it's just this
particular vaccine because of the spike
protein and because
it breaks it cleaves off the cell and it
goes throughout your body and
your brain your heart anywhere
that you can have these symptoms that
are so varied
whether it's a 16 year old who can't
talk or see 48 hours after injection
or someone who's you know handshakes or
someone who's
you know my carpet cleaner tim
he's like disabled now he's lost 30 000
dollars in terms of his costs and he's
going in for an epidural because he's in
such pain
and so these and these side effects the
the victims
of this of this vaccine they're not
being able to tell their story
at the press because you know tim says i
try to tell my story
and the press ignores him and we have
these um
these groups that aren't able to get
attention aren't able to get attention a
large group of people who
uh believe that they have suffered
negative consequences was removed from
facebook so there's very clearly an
effort to 200
000 users just wiped off the planet
right
so the centering has been going on for
well over a year
it's well documented it's unequivocal
and
my argument is that um
by implementing censoring
what we're doing is making it so that
signals can't be detected yeah people's
voices can't be heard
and i i'm i'm of the opinion that we
have to have
free and open discussion and we have to
have full disclosure of risks
and when you censor that you cannot have
that it changes yeah it changes
everybody's mindset into believing
it's safe and effect and effective and
when you have that you don't report
these
adverse events as being associated so
that's because you're right
you don't want to be the fly in the
ointment no you don't think it's
possible right so when a doctor
sees uh a miscarriage and says i've
never seen a baby like this
in my entire career where it's so bloody
and the brain is split in half and so
forth
she's never seen anything like it and
she and and
the woman was vaccinated a month ago and
she's 25 weeks pregnant
when you have that sort of thing the
doctor says well it can't be
the vaccine because the vaccine is safe
and so they say well it must be a
genetic defect
and they report it as a genetic defect
and they don't even report it into the
vera system
so we never see any of these safety
signals because everybody is
trained to think that it's safe it
couldn't have been the next thing so
that's that's this group thing problem
so i think we it is a real problem
here's what they're going to say
so and and i want to work out how this
functions right
i can take your story hey i steve
talked to a couple people who came
through my house in various capacities
and
heard an alarmingly large number of
stories that were very frightening
now everybody at this table will agree
that could be
anecdotal it's totally and it's not even
anecdotal it could be the result of
sampling error it might
absolutely and so the point is
absolutely how do you detect
if something like that isn't sampling
error you find out what other people are
saying yes you look you can look for
confirmation and at the same time that
you were having your experience i was
having a slightly different experience
i was talking to every single person
that i interact with which is definitely
not a random sample of people on the
other hand
we're talking about the woman who cuts
my hair my doctor
right i was talking to everybody i
encountered and i was
asking at my dentist i asked them what
was your experience did you get
vaccinated yes
what was your experience and the number
of people who had a
frightening story was alarmingly large
in fact i believe it is the case that
the only people who didn't have some
anomalous reaction were my parents and
heather's mom
which may be because older people have
these things less that may be sampling
air
i don't know but the point is there were
stories that didn't sound like any
vaccine i've ever heard of people who
had
weeks of fire like pain in
their arm headaches that would not go
away fevers
so i i so i i'm a
regulatory professional and and i do
talk to the fda
um and i have good friends there in in
senior positions
um they were aware
back when we were doing randomized
clinical trials
that um these adverse events were
occurring
many of them were oddly delayed
and atypical for
a vaccine trial um this is
totally new technology and that kind of
gets at the core
is i think one of our problems here
is the assumption that this is like
every other vaccine we've ever seen
and it's not it's very different
technology right and so these
these weird symptoms
you