American Thought Leaders - Dr. Ryan Cole: How DNA Contamination May Explain Post-Vaccination Rise in Cancers, Autoimmune Diseases, and Clots

Episode Date: November 29, 2023

Sponsor special: Up to $2,500 of FREE silver AND a FREE safe on qualifying orders - Call 855-862-3377 or text “AMERICAN” to 6-5-5-3-2In this episode, Dr. Ryan Cole breaks down what we know about DNA contamination in the COVID-19 genetic vaccines, why it’s significant, and how it may be related to the rise in cancers and autoimmune diseases.“My concern isn't just these COVID shots. My concern is this entire technology. A lipid nanoparticle in and of itself is an unproven product … They're trying to create them for RSV, and for flu, and for many other pathogens. It still takes those little gene sequences any and everywhere in the body,” says Dr. Ryan Cole.Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.  

That DNA can get into your cell, it can get into and co-locate next to your nucleus. There are suggestions that the smaller the fragments, the more likely it has the opportunity to intercalate into your own DNA as well. In this episode, Dr. Ryan Cole returns to American Thought Leaders. We discuss updates on DNA contamination in the COVID-19 genetic vaccines, today's alarming uptick in cancers, as well as reports of microclotting. My concern isn't just these COVID shots. My concern is this entire technology.

A lipid nanoparticle in and of itself is an unproven product. They're trying to create them for RSV and for flu and for many other pathogens. It still takes those little gene sequences any and everywhere in the body. This is American Thought Leaders, and I'm Jan Jekielek. Before we start, I'd like to take a moment to thank the sponsor of our podcast, American Hartford Gold. As you all know, inflation is getting worse. The Fed raised rates for the fifth time this year. And Fed Chairman Jerome Powell is telling Americans to brace themselves for potentially more pain

ahead. But there is one way to hedge against inflation. American Hartford Gold makes it simple and easy to diversify your savings and retirement accounts with physical gold and silver. With one short phone call, they can have physical gold and silver delivered right to your door or inside your IRA or 401k. American Hartford Gold is one of the highest rated firms in the country, with an A-plus rating with a Better Business Bureau and thousands of satisfied clients. If you call them right now, they'll give you up to $2,500 of free silver and a free safe on qualifying orders. Call 855-862-3377, that's 855-862-3377, or text AMERICAN to 65532.

Again, that's 855-862-3377, or text American to 65532. Dr. Ryan Cole, so good to have you back on American Thought Leaders. I'm grateful to be here. Thank you. We have a lot to talk about. You've been very busy. We've covered a number of issues that you, as a pathologist, have been studying over the years now. I want to update our audiences on what we know. One of the things that has been a big discussion point a few months ago, I did an interview with Kevin McKernan looking at essentially what's in the vials, this contamination that

multiple labs had already verified exists. We keep learning more about what's in there and the implications. So why don't we actually start with that, because that's something that you've been covering. Many laboratories around the world have been looking at this issue. Kevin's been a leader in this area, kind of a eureka moment accidental discovery, and I would commend that interview you've done with him. Where are we at? So when these products are made, so there were the J&J, that's an adenovirus factor,

but then there's Moderna and Pfizer. These are mRNA, synthetic engineered modified RNA. And for the trials, at least for Pfizer, there's a very synthetic PCR type process in making what makes up the mRNA sequence for these shots. That's what was given to 40,000 people, was this very deliberate, synthetic, engineered, attempt at a precision-type process. This is dubbed Process One. That's dubbed Process One. In terms of getting a lot of this made for billions of people, a second process was used which was only tested on about 252 people instead of 40,000 people and that was taking this complementary DNA

sequence that is like the reverse pattern of the spike to make your cell make the, well to make mRNA a message and then your body would make that protein in your cells. So there was a big old switcheroo. We did the trials on this very controlled synthetic process and that last minute we snuck under the radar and said, but we're going to make all the rest of them using something we've barely tested. And then that's what got rolled out into billions of people's arms. So it was kind of a bait and switch. And so those large data sets one would want to see in terms of harms, you're not going to find that in 250 patients.

Well, and just so I can jump in, right? The reason you mentioned, right? The second process was used because you need to make a lot of this stuff, right? And so you actually use E. coli, use a bacterium to grow these plasmids of DNA, which can be turned into the RNA, but they just didn't clean them up. They didn't clean them up properly. They're supposed to put an enzyme that goes in and breaks down any residual DNA. And what Kevin McKernan and I think it's 12 other laboratories at this point have shown, even up to the current vials of the fall booster, the XBB 1.5, which is technically

extinct, so we're giving an expired shot for something that's extinct, which will always happen with coronaviruses, but even up to the current vials, there's still this bacterial plasmid DNA contamination within these vials. The FDA allows up to, in gene products, 10 nanograms of DNA per dose. But that's based on old technology. That's not even looking at something that's protected by fat. When you wrap these little things in fat, we don't know what the body's going to do. So their allowable dose in certain FDA approved products of DNA has been not only exceeded

But exceeded in a way that biologically we don't know the persistence of that DNA that DNA can get into your cell It can get and get into and co-locate next to your nucleus There are suggestions that the smaller the fragments Dr. Buck holds out of South Carolina talked about this in his recent testimony, the smaller a fragment of DNA is, the more likely it has the opportunity to intercalate into your own DNA as well. Do we still have some testing, some probes that we need to develop to prove this? Yes, we do have to do that still. We're not there yet. Several of us are in some small communication groups trying to figure out the long-term

implications of this. But it does explain a lot of the really strange happenings in the human body that we're seeing in terms of clots, autoimmune disease, cancers, etc. because we're changing signals within cells. Human cells are meant to make human proteins. Human cells were not meant to make foreign proteins. When we program people's cells to make things they're not supposed to make, they can go haywire, they can mutate, they can become a target of our own immune system attacking ourselves. So there's so many tangents on which we could go on that, but my big concern is the fact

that billions of people across the earth have received a product that was overtly contaminated with something that should not have been in the product. And if I went and bought some meat at the grocery store and it was had heavy metal or pesticide toxins, they would pull those from the shelves immediately saying, you hear this in the news all the time, oh if you have this bag of lettuce with this lot number we're recalling it because it has this contamination in it. And 30 people around the country got sick. Instead, we have vials going into billions of people's arms around the world with known contamination admitted to by the Canadian regulatory agency. And I'll just plug that that was our reporting that got that disclosure to happen.

Yes, well done, well done. Okay, please continue. But the fact that they have a contaminated product that still exists within the consumer marketplace, two children die from a crib breaking and that crib is off the market. Some tire blows up and 20 people over X period of time are in crashes because of that tire, it's off the market. Yet we have contaminated, intentionally adulterated and hidden with gene sequences that weren't even disclosed to regulatory agencies, and yet these products

are still on the market. We're talking about, of course, the purpose of this whole technology was to get the cells to produce something that wasn't there in the first place. What you're basically saying here is there's other stuff as well that's being produced. Correct. And it's really unclear what the effect on the cells, perhaps those cells could become cancerous.

There's many things that can happen. And also, as I was talking with Kevin McKernan, there's also, because of this, the cleaning process was in effect, there's also endotoxin from the E. coli, from the bacteria. Correct. So those unfortunate individuals that pass very quickly after their first shot, that endotoxin can put you into a shock very quickly. And those endotoxins come from the, it's one of the products that those bacteria can produce. And so some of the cell walls of the bacteria, the endotoxins of the bacteria, those in and of themselves can induce these anaphylactic responses.

And so my concern isn't just these COVID shots. My concern is this entire technology. A lipid nanoparticle in and of itself is an unproven product. It takes whatever its package is. They're trying to create them for RSV and for flu and for many other pathogens, it still takes those little gene sequences any and everywhere in the body. Lipid nanoparticles were intended and designed to go anywhere and everywhere, especially to take chemotherapeutic agents across the blood-brain barrier into the brain.

So to use this as a carrier platform, a lipid nanoparticle plus whatever gene, cool conceptually, in all practicality, a horrific idea. If a child is born with a gene disorder, you want to get that gene into all the disordered cells and try to repair that gene. Okay, that's one in a billion or one in a couple million. Cool experimental technology. But to randomly and willy-nilly give this to everybody with no long-term safety data. I mean, for a gene-based product, the FDA usually is going to look at the safety profile for five or six or ten years before they even consider allowing it to go onto the market. So that's what we're up against

with something like this. It's a bad platform. Lipid nanoparticle plus a gene equals we don't know in the long term. Well, and there's also been some discussion. It just occurred to me how those lipid nanoparticles allow basically these products to go into the testes and the ovaries and so forth. Now there's this DNA contamination that's in there and potentially even altering the germline, which is just difficult to fathom, I guess. It's astounding, yeah. I mean, to even begin to go there, Dr. Burkhardt, the late, great Dr. Burkhardt from Germany,

mentor, great teacher, great researcher, great pathologist. He showed in some of his autopsy findings post-vaccine spike protein in the testes in several cases, spike protein in the placenta, spike protein in the uterus. I've seen some of those in the studies we were doing in my laboratory. And so you bring up the great concern, what are the long-term effects of what we've done population-wide? Is it everybody? Probably not, thankfully. But what percentage? Where are all those NIH dollars going to? Where's the research saying, okay, we brought something novel and new to the world, and we're going to make sure that what we did was the right thing.

The hubris and the megalomania of society says, we can't ever say we did anything wrong. But I think honest science says, go back to the ice pick frontal lobotomy. Everybody thought it was a great idea until it wasn't. Thalidomide, Vioxx, all the disasters in medicine that have been created over eons. One has to look back and say, okay, we made a mistake.

But you don't compound on your mistake. You go back and you correct the mistake. And I think we're at this opportunity and inflection point in science to say, let's stop. Stop now. Stop all of this. Let's be honest. Let's assess the harms. And again, I don't want to scare people. I don't think it's everybody. But we're going to find out there are certain genetic subtypes that were predisposed to these factors kicking in. And basically, I just want to go back to something you said at the beginning. You feel like this provides some explanation for some of what we're seeing.

And we've talked about in the past, we've talked about one, these cancers, turbo cancers and others that have happened. You also talked about this clotting. So why don't we kind of recap where we are with respect to finding these cancers, for example, in very young age cohorts where typically there isn't very much. I know that there's data around that. Maybe you can give us an update. Let's start with that. Yeah. And I think this is a very important point. So these small DNA fragments wrapped in the lipid nanoparticle, now they can get into your nucleus. And this is what we're trying to prove under the microscope now. We know this, but I've demonstrated spike protein in cancers, Dr. Burkhart's groups demonstrate spike protein. Bigger concern is these smaller DNA fragments binding to or near tumor suppressor or tumor

promoter genes. And knowing that these are fragmented into billions of short, medium, long fragments, it's the short ones that we worry about. And those are known carcinogens. MicroRNA is also a known carcinogen in many toxicity studies. And I just might jump in, this SV40 promoter region, which is in the Pfizer, at least, products is also one. Yeah. And it's not just that it's a promoter, and that was put in there to rev up the production of the protein they wanted to make, but it also has a nuclear co-localization sequence

in it. That's what's concerning is it's not just that it promotes replication, but it also has the sequence that allows it to get into the nucleus of the cell and to induce these different pathways of action and mechanisms that can, again, go haywire, mutate, cause toxicity. And so this is where if the NIH, which lately I call not in the interest of health, should be focusing their interest because this is in the interest of health. You know, if you don't look, you can't find it. The theoretical science, the hypothetical science, we know what to look for now because we know the contamination's there. It's time to put those dollars towards those large laboratories that already have

the equipment in place to do this, going to the cancers in young people. Ed Dowd has done phenomenal research with his team, and if you take the 10-year deaths per 100,000 in the age 15 to 44 age group, you'll hear this argument, oh, well, is there an uptick in cancer? Gosh, everybody missed their screenings because we locked down. So that explains it all. No, it doesn't. Because the age 15 to 44 age group isn't your screening high cancer group, as in historically ever.

Then all of a sudden, you look at the data sets that Ed Dowd has put out, finance technologies with a ph.com, and you can see 10 years of data. And here's your deaths per 100,000 cancer, cancer, cancer, 21, boom, 2022, boom. And it's astounding to look at that new blip on the radar that is just way out of pattern. Why is it way out of pattern? You tell me. What new thing happened in the world in 2021 that we didn't see in 2020? And then interestingly as well, Josh Sterling went into some of the private German insurance company data sets as well and saw some pretty significant, as in 30 plus percent, upticks in pediatric cancers as well.

Our governments are sitting on, Health and Human Services here in the United States are sitting on the data sets. They know the vaccination rates and they know the cancer rates. We use in medicine the international diagnostic codes. So every cancer gets coded. Every time you go in for a cough, a sneeze, a cold sore, whatever, it always gets a code. And those go into large databases and our government compiles those. They have the top 10 common cancers. They know what the rates are, but they also know what the vaccination status is of all these individuals. And so I know Senator Johnson and others have

tried to get our agencies to release the data. Here in the U.S., we taxpayers pay for that data, it's buried. I think there's, how long can you hide what's real, I guess is the question. And I wish I had the answer. I wanted to touch on, I distracted you a little bit earlier by talking about the SV40 promoter specifically, right? But you were talking about how these small DNA fragments, which are actually, it seems like the powers that be are more ready to accept that those are there than whole plasmids that hasn't been necessarily seen. But so why are those particularly problematic potentially when it comes to cancers? It kind of goes to your computer where you have a read error or a write error, the shorter that sequence is,

we have basically little correction enzymes in our cells that we have what are called DNA mismatch repair enzymes. And if there's a break in your DNA, they'll go back and zip things together. It's like when you're driving down the interstate and you're kind of like zipping along, zipping along, and there's that car that's going to like, oh, there's a spot. It doesn't signal and it just kind of slides in front of you. So if you have these smaller spaces and these smaller fragments, it's easier to slip into those spaces and evade these stitching enzymes. If everything's tight and tight and tight, you can't slip in. So to have contamination with a larger

fragment, it's harder for that to become part of DNA. But this is used in research all the time. You try to cause breaks in whatever organism or cell culture you're working on. You cause a lot of breaks. Then you throw in the gene that you want to get in there and the different sequences. And then as everything's trying to be stitched back together, all of a sudden you get that sequence stitched in. I mean, it's a whole lot more complex than that, but that's just kind of an easy way to just try to explain how that happens. And so that's the concern with these lipid nanoparticles in these sequences is having those present, readily available, to go through this accidental process. That becomes the concern. And then depending on where they park themselves in the genome,

they can activate a gene, inactivate a gene. And we have genes that turn on cancers. We have genes that are there to keep cancers from happening, tumor suppressor genes. But if those aren't working, aren't doing their job, then these cell pathways that allow mutation go on without being stopped. So basically you're just incorporating a bunch of these strands which could activate or inactivate genes and then randomly, basically. And the effect of that is in some people might be increased cancer. It's an unfortunate roll of the celestial dice at that point. Yeah, because some people may have, you know, strong enzymatic clearing mechanisms and other people may not. And so these are things that, you know, the theoretical science is there, much of the

benchtop science has been shown and then there's still things we have to prove. But what you can't hide at this point are the data points and the hockey stick inflections in every age group. The pattern is a big screaming red flag right now. And now we have to go look at the whole forest, but now we have to go down to look at the individual tree. So just the CDC releasing the existing data would be a huge step forward? It would be a gross admission of negligence and error. I wish they would, and they should, because there has to be some accountability for experimenting on a world population and the American population

without knowing the long-term effects. But it would also be helpful. It would be useful for those who are afraid or those who have, you know, I'm not here to judge anyone if they got a shot or not. I'm just saying don't ever get another lipid nanoparticle gene shot. Am I saying that? Absolutely I'm saying that, definitively. But those who went ahead doing the right thing in their mind at the right time for what they were afraid of, fine. But this is why our agencies need to be honest enough to say,

okay, if we did harm, let's rectify what we can or prevent what may be coming. And just very briefly, you know, turbo cancers sounds scary. Turbo cancer, you know, it's a term Dr. Uta Kruger out of Sweden, she was the one that coined the term. She's a breast pathologist and she was looking at the damage of these shots. What she was looking at in her practice as a breast pathologist, she was noticing increases in cancer, just like I was. I had commented on it. And then a couple months later, a couple other pathologists in the world started commenting. And she noticed an uptick, not only the size of the cancers,

but the stage of the cancers. Instead of just getting a lesion taken out, one was finding lymph nodes and spread to the, and spread to the liver, and spread to the bone marrow, and spread to the brain. She was seeing these cancers behave in a manner that she hadn't before, which as I've traveled the world and spoken with many oncologists, physicians around the world, everywhere I go I hear the story. I was here last week, where we are now in Texas. One of the very prominent oncologists here in Texas that I've stayed in communication

with, he stayed kind of quiet behind the scenes, which is good, doing his job. He said, at first I saw the clots, then I saw the blood cancers, the leukemias, the lymphomas. Now I'm seeing the solid tissue cancers at rates I've never seen. Patients that were stable or cancer-free, 1, 2, 5, 10 years, their cancer is back. It's back with a vengeance. And it's not responding to the traditional therapies. And there's an easy explanation as to why that's happening.

It's not necessarily that the gene sequence is causing cancer. It can. It can cause some of the mutations that lead to cancers. But what it's also doing, it's suppressing the immune system. And your immune system is what kills cancer. And if your immune system is asleep, your killer cells can't be activated. It doesn't matter what poison and chemotherapy one throws at a tumor if the immune system isn't going to come in and play its puzzle piece mopping up game that it's supposed to play to help kill those cells and then clean them out.

And I think this is what the oncologists are seeing that I've talked to. And that's my big concern on top of the other concerns is, okay, not only do we have these subtle inflections happening as predicted, but we have the immune suppression, and then we have traditional therapies that are gone because there's not the response one would expect. In fact, before we came up here to do this interview, I was chatting with a lovely gal who has breast cancer that's back, and we were going through this very same question, and this is real on a one-to-one,

human-to-human-to-human level. My dad got the shots, he was a veteran, and his doctor said, and he was a good soldier, and he did, and his prostate cancer that was suppressed for 10 years, he died from it. Things like that, and that turbo, it's a colloquial term, and other doctors, there's no such thing, of course there's no such thing as turbo cancer, it's a colloquial term and other doctors. There's no such thing. Of course. There's no such thing as turbo cancer

It's a colloquial term, but it describes the pattern that physicians are seeing So it puts it into a layman's understanding that yeah, there's cancer But it's behaving in a way that it shouldn't and and is behaving in a way where the symptoms come faster Yes, and this is where again. I don't want to scare people And is behaving in a way where the symptoms come faster. Yes. And this is where, again, I don't want to scare people, but I want to say, look, most people got a shot. My colleague, Dr. Angus de Galiche in the United Kingdom, he is one of the leading cancer researchers in the UK. He noticed after the third shot, after the booster, that's when he called for an international moratorium. If you have a new symptom, if

you had several, this is where as much as the medical system is broken, don't ignore your symptom. That's what I would like to emphasize. You know, certainly vitamin D plays a huge role in keeping cancers in check, and we could go down that hole. We've done lectures on that before. There's so many things that our public health system isn't teaching, basic things that people should know. Do we have a horrible diet? Do we have a lot of toxins in our environment? Are we vitamin D deficient? Absolutely. But in addition, we have a lot of people that received a contaminated, adulterated gene-based product, and we don't know the long-term outcomes. So I'm not your doctor, but just make sure you're watching your health. Well, yeah. Since we're doing this, give me the vitamin D plug, right? Because I'm convinced, I've been for some time now,

that this one thing increases outcomes in all sorts of ways for everybody without any real threat. Yeah, vitamin D, we synthesize normally through our skin. It's a pro hormone. It's the pre form of a hormone and so it directly and indirectly affects about 2,000 genes in our body in terms of activity of your 30,000 genes about 2,000 Are dependent on vitamin D being active. It's the master conductor of your immune system. And so if you have normal levels, which we get in the summertime if you go out and get

20, 30 minutes of sunshine, expose as much skin as possible. The darker your skin, the more time you need to spend in the sun because melanin is a natural sunscreen, vitamin D controls immune pathways, it controls cancer pathways, it controls signaling pathways, it controls clotting pathways. There are so many different pathways that this vitamin pro-hormone controls in our body. If you're deficient, then instead of having a fine conductor of the immune system, your immune system is more like the mosh pit at a punk rock concert. And so there's a very esteemed researcher in the UK who basically did a large study and said,

if we did a vitamin D repletion campaign, spent about 20 billion dollars worldwide, we could save about 300 billion dollars of health costs. Because most of the world spends their time indoors, we aren't outdoors like we used to be. Here in the Northern Hemisphere, we are going into winter. Most of us are vitamin D deficient at this point and will be until the sunshine shifts in the angle of the Earth and the sunshine is back again. So it's so important that there are 17 known cancers that vitamin D levels correlate with. If you're low, higher risk for those cancers.

The further north you go in the world, prostate cancer, breast cancer, colon cancers, the rates go up the further north you live. And it's fascinating just to realize how important this thing is. I would be remiss if I didn't mention vitamin K2, because as you get your vitamin D levels up, you need to make sure that your vitamin K2 levels follow that. So there's your little side note on vitamin D,

but it's important cancer fighting pathways as well. Right. Well, and also, you mentioned this oncologist, you said first he noticed clotting. I remember that. Then it went to the blood cancer. Does the clotting have a role in cancer? It can to a degree in the sense that oxygenation of tissues is critically important for function

of the energy producers inside your cell, your mitochondria. And a lot of cancer pathways are related to mitochondrial dysfunction. And we inherit most of our mitochondrial DNA from our mother, which is how we do a lot of these ancestral mappings, etc. The mitochondria are an ancient form of DNA within our cells. They're the energy producers. Lack of oxygenation can lead to mutation, which can lead to dysfunction, which can lead to cancer. So yes, clotting can be one of the many pathways that lead to an unfortunate triggering in some of those directions. The way that the clots are forming is highly concerning because... Related to the vaccines.

Related to the shots, yes. Related to the spike protein in particular, but not just the spike protein. And this was a message I got flying in yesterday from a colleague. Hey, we need to look at this particular sequence within the DNA contamination because it also codes for a very sticky protein. So another area to go down. Again, things I wish the NIH were throwing money at left and right, which they may be, but they may be. Who knows what they're up to? I wish I knew. But the clots are an unusual type of clot.

It's an amyloid-type protein, not a traditional amyloid. I want to give all the credit to Dr. Pretorius in South Africa, Rayse Pretorius, Dr. Kell in the U.K. and their working group, And then there's a physician in Alabama, Dr. Jordan Vaughn, who's been doing a lot of work on the clotting and has had some success in his clinic with some anti-clotting therapies. He was with Dr. McCullough recently at a conference in Alaska and then in Texas last weekend as well. He's seeing patients one and two years later that are still clotting after having had the shots with no previous family history or personal history of clotting.

This goes back to the permanence of some of these fragments in some individuals. And again, scientifically, am I still hypothesizing? I am. But the clinical patterns are suggesting that some of these individuals are still making considerable amounts of spike protein. Dr. Brogna et al. out of Europe just put a paper out in September that showed vaccinal spike protein circulating six months after the last injection. We know that spike protein can induce clotting pathways. It can induce unusual clumps of proteins and sugars and proteins and sugars, almost silk-like patterns of interlaced, intertwining blood agents that you and I have circulating right now.

They need to be there. They all have a role and a function, but when there's a pileup on the interstate, they all get blocked up behind that pileup. That's what we're seeing with these clots, these unusual amyloids, fibrin that's hard to break down, and finding these a long period of time after they should have been broken down. We have natural processes that form clots and break clots down. And those enzymes, those processes are being blocked and inhibited because of these unusual sequences that have been injected

into a lot of people. Is it happening in everybody? Good news? No. Bad news? There is a subset that's suffering, and we can't ignore them. We actually did an in-depth study. I think there was a researcher that had called up all these different morticians and found that quite a few people were finding in the cadavers these weird clots. It all sounds very fantastical. We went and we called all those people again. It was kind of a mix, the response. So there were people that said, yes, this is very real. This is happening. And then there are a whole bunch of people that don't

ever call this number. That kind of a response, right? And it's unclear what the relationship necessarily is between finding these things in cadavers and actual people. Because some of these clots, we've seen them, they're really morbid, I guess it's obvious, but they look terrible and scary. And that doesn't necessarily mean that that's what's happening in the body, or does it? Well, post-mortem clots, if a patient unfortunately passes and one looks at the blood in that individual within a vessel, you can see almost a layering pattern and can tell that the clotting happened as the body was cooling and all those proteins were congealing. So it's almost looking like rings of a tree where you can look and say okay I can count the pattern of the weather in this this year that year that year that year. You can look at those tree rings and tell a story. Same

thing in a post-mortem clot versus something that happened while the patient was still alive and the clot formed. You'll see a different pattern within that clot in terms of how the different proteins lay down and the patterns you see. So one can analyze and distinguish that difference. So as many of the critics say, oh those aren't real, that you know that's... they're real. They're real. They don't have that post-mortem pattern. They were in the patient pre-mortem and these patients died with these clots in them, is the human body amazing and can you bypass blockages just like that pile up on the interstate? Sure, that's why we have microcirculation.

But once a big vessel is blocked, then the whole city is backed up and then eventually collapses, et cetera, to carry the metaphor. But yeah, that's a good critique. I understand the critique, but from a pathology point of view there is a way to tell that these were forming while the patient was still alive. My biggest concern is the fact that some individuals are still continuing to form these. An even bigger concern is the big scary ones is what are talked about, but there are microcloths, microthrombi that one can see. There's a little fluorescent test one can do called a thioflavin T test. You stain the blood and if these micro amyloid

fragments are there you can see them and then you realize that these patients are forming the tiny tiny clots that are affecting vessels in the eye we're hearing about occlusions of the retina we're hearing about little mini strokes wherever wherever you have a tiny, some of those individuals are having those problems long term. This is what, of course, Dr. Vaughn has been working on directly, if I recall correctly. He has. He's been a leader in that area.

This is an important point I want to add in. In the United States, the Attorney General in each state is responsible for consumer product safety. If you look at what is allowable for a claim for an emergency use authorized product, you are allowed to say may be effective. You cannot say safe and effective. That's false advertising. The Attorney General in each state is required to ensure consumer product safety for all the products distributed in their individual state. So how do we attack this? We're all waiting for some knight on the white horse to come riding in and save us all from this insanity and stupidity. It's not going to happen. You have to think globally but act locally.

So engaging your Attorney General, engaging at your local health board level, which they'll probably ignore you. My health board won't, but others will. But working your way upward, getting to the attorney general's office and saying, are you allowing contaminated, adulterated products to be put into the arms of the citizens within the state in which I live, yes or no? That's a great question to ask. That's how you change things.

I'm very concerned that there's this doubling down on these products. The regulatory agencies are captured. There is absolute corruption. There is zero science at this point. It is all risk, zero benefit to get these shots. All risk, zero benefit. And I have no problem stating that. Is it hyperbolic? No.

Because that very end of the virus is gone now. And to have our agencies pushing something for something that has evolved away from what they designed, the only answer behind that is corruption at the CDC, at the FDA, at the NIH. I go to meetings like this all the time. Many colleagues come to these meetings and approach and say, thank you so much for speaking out. I wish I could.

And I just look at them and say, you can. If you would speak out, we wouldn't be here where we are now. We wouldn't have this problem because people would have woken up sooner, less people would have been harmed, and we could have gotten ourselves out of this mess sooner. But these regulatory agencies being paid off by pharma, being captured by who knows who the puppeteers are. I don't care.

The fact of the matter that we have people that are in a mindset and a mantra and a repetition of something that's harmful to humanity means that we need to clean house at these agencies

and or get rid of these agencies. I call the CDC the Centers for Deception and Confusion. I call the FDA now the Fraudulent Drug Administration. I call the NIH not in the interest of health. Because if one follows the pattern of real science and not funded propagandistic science, then one would look at what's happening. one would look at the actual data sets and say, this is not good for humanity. Let's stop this. So more and more people are basically saying, stop calling this a vaccine. I still call it a vaccine. It's officially called that. Going back to definitions some years back, it would be called

a gene therapy. Where do you stand on this? Oh, absolutely. Yeah, it was usurpation of language and CDC changing definitions to make it more palatable for the public to think, okay, it's a vaccine. If one had used the verbiage of what Pfizer admits. It's interesting to look at Senator Renick down in Australia last week confronting their gene regulators. Gene therapies are a delicate and intentional process encapsulating the desired gene. Manufacturing gene therapies is challenging and it requires certain steps including transfection. That is on Pfizer's own website.

Well, in the Pfizer documents, it actually says this is a gene therapy. And if you go to Moderna's original page, well, this is a gene therapy. They admit it. Yet the push for a program or a narrative or this mass international experimentation upon humanity, they had to call it a vaccine. I am 100% in the camp that this was a gene therapy. Some will argue, what about Novavax? And I'll just say, well, Novavax is a protein therapy, but it's not even traditional because of the way that one's made in terms of moth cells and other

things. And it still imprints your immune system on the original wrong virus, and there's problems because of the way that one's made in terms of moth cells and other things, and it still imprints your immune system on the original wrong virus, and there's problems with that as well. The J&J, AstraZeneca, they were genetic-based, DNA-based instead of RNA-based, but they're all genetic therapies, technically. And the long-term effects are still unknown. I can't help but think to myself that when you hear gene therapy, you think, I mean, let's say traditionally,

we go back before these three years for almost everybody, you hear gene therapy and you think, wow, that sounds like something that's unknown, something that I might be a little skeptical of, something I might not want to do. On the other hand, when you hear vaccines, you think safe and effective. You think something that has saved millions of lives over the years and all that kind of stuff. I can't help but... It's curious to me that that terminology was used for this product, given how you might

perceive these two different types of products. And I think this is the challenge societally with most things, is we're in a war of words and a twisting of language and this Orwell was a warning not an instruction manual and so when I think of things like this and using the term vaccine for what is a gene therapy I find it insulting as a scientist I find it frustrating as a scientist. I find it frustrating as a caring physician. And I find it deceiving as a citizen. It's no different than historical patterns in other cultures and other revolutionary changes and whatnot. To usurp the language to manipulate behavior

is what we're observing. And in science, it's frustrating to watch that happen, because it shouldn't happen. Does it prevent the disease? No. Does it prevent transmission? No. Does it prevent you from getting sick?

No. Does it prevent hospitalization and death? No. Does it prevent you from getting sick? No. Does it prevent hospitalization and death? No. Is it a vaccine then? No. Pretty simple. But if you slap a label on something and call it what it is, it's putting lipstick on a pig. It's really just not what they want it to be. But to your point, you're exactly right.

It induced an acceptance in the mind, and then it induced a groupthink that you're a lesser-than person if you don't get this vaccine, which isn't a vaccine. I can't help but notice that you're wearing a paperclip beneath your microphone there. I was inspired. I was at a meeting in Copenhagen a couple of weeks back with a great group of physicians and philosophers and thinkers and freedom fighters. And Andrew Bridgen, who's been going through some—he's been one of the few brave people in the UK Parliament speaking out as he's learned the science and evolved and stood up for his constituents. He told the story of the freedom fighters in Scandinavia up

in Norway during World War II and the original patent for the paperclip I think came out of Norway and was modified in another country. And then during the resistance, the sign that you were awake and knew what was happening and were together, fighting the fight together, was to wear a paperclip. And so I noticed at that meeting in Copenhagen, hey, you're wearing a paperclip. What does that mean? And he told the story. And so I always try to keep it on my lapel just to remind people, we're in this, this is bigger than just a virus,

this is bigger than just some corruption. This is a movement for individual freedom, self-sovereignty and autonomy. And so wearing the paperclip, I think it would be fun for people to put a little paperclip on and say, look, we're with you, and then let's have a comfortable conversation. And maybe the more paperclips we see,

then you don't have to be that one that's afraid to speak out. You don't have to say, gosh, I wish I could say what you're saying. Just wear the paperclip. And then when everybody sees everyone else wearing a paperclip, I think all of a sudden we'll hit that tipping point societally. And this, hopefully much of this chaos will implode. It's very interesting because the paperclip is sort of innocuous enough that you're just like, I don't know, they're just, I don't know what they're doing. It's not like a ribbon. Right, it's not a certain colored ribbon. It's not like it could not be noticed.

Right. Right. Yeah, a little subtle. Very interesting. But at the same time, for the people in the know... It has a fun historical construct, yes. Not fun, I don't want to say fun. But it has an important historical construct and connection.

Well, the cost of wearing the metaphorical paperclip to many has been quite high. I understand that you've actually lost your lab in the process. Since we've had our first interview, you were doing the pathology around these things. At the moment, you don't have a lab to do your work in anymore. I have gone from 80 employees and millions of dollars of equipment down to my wife and I, a little office and a microscope. I still have my entity open. Trying to contract with another lab now. I had to sell off what I had to just basically save enough to maintain the family, not for the lack of desire to want to continue to.

I get countless requests. Can you look at this autopsy? Can you do that? I want to help. I'm just hamstrung at the moment and trying to retool. It wasn't the boards of medicine that defeated me. It was a local insurance company. There was one man, Dr. David Pate, CEO of the biggest health system in Idaho. I found out in my hearings with the Washington State Medical Commission for my misdismal information, going back to the Orwellian thing,

that he was the one that attacked me. Meanwhile, I went millions into debt to serve my community, then lost my lab. I'm not saying, oh, woe is me. I'm just trying to say, look, fighting for freedom has price. And those of us who have had just about everything taken away from us would do it all over again because we didn't go into medicine because we care about ego, we care about a patient.

And so many of these people are corporatized and have weaponized insurance companies. The insurance company canceled my contract, not the Board of Medicine, which was the beginning of the end of Medicine, which was the beginning of the end of my business. It was the insurance company saying, we don't like what you're saying, which was technically his health systems insurance company. So that was the beginning of the end of what I was doing at that time.

So am I still speaking out about health freedom, science? Absolutely. Am I still a hardcore scientist? Absolutely. Am I trying to tool back up to just do a small consultation type practice? I am. But at the same time, to watch boards of medicine and insurance companies attack some of the most published doctors in the world that you've interviewed and the most experienced doctors in the world, there's something bigger than us behind all of this.

I never went into medicine for the money. Most people that went into medicine for the money, whatever, those that go into medicine to take care of the patients always do fine enough. I had a comfortable life. I love what I do. And to have that taken from one is exceedingly frustrating when one knows the science. And so the game isn't over yet. The best defense is a good offense. And I was speaking to a colleague, as we discussed earlier last night, we're going to flip the tables on them. It's our turn now to take them to court for

trying to destroy reputations. The science is on our side. The data sets are on our side. We were a voice of warning from the beginning. Things have panned out. People are waking up. We're at that tipping point. Now it's our turn to win. So what about the Washington Board of Medicine then? Most other states looked at these complaints and said, this is free speech. There's no patient complaint here. There's no patient harm here. And Washington being Washington said, oh, well, we have a misdismal information policy.

We're happy to go after him. Which now I have some counter constitutional lawsuits against them, which after the kangaroo court hearing finishes, then I get to turn around and play the legal game back against them. For the which if we have a nation left and a constitution left, I'm confident we will win. But it's frustrating to see an egregious violation of the rights of an individual citizen to speak what they know. When I received my degree, I didn't say I will now check my constitutional rights at the door. There are doctors in this country, all around this country, who have been attacked with Facebook complaints against doctors third fourth party fifth hand in the

media they we heard this doctor said this we're complaining and we want this doctor's license taken away no direct patient care complaints so what has to happen in many states around the country is in order to file a complaint you either need to have participated in the care on the care team where if someone harmed, be the patient, or be a family member of the patient. What we're seeing is the weaponization of the regulatory deep administrative state processes. Some of my complaints that keep coming in are because this newspaper author, Audrey Dutton, keeps attacking me. And then they file it as a board complaint and say, well, see, it's printed. And then they use

that as an attack. It's a harassment campaign. Washington State, for whatever reasons, being a little more left-leaning, I don't know how you want to characterize them, doesn't believe in free speech. And instead of showing me where I was wrong on data and COVID, which I invite anytime, anywhere, look, if I'm wrong on all this stuff, show me. Bring better data than I have. I'm only doing this to honor the oath I took to the patient. And let's have a discussion. Let's have dialogue.

Let's have conversation that's patient focused, not based on propaganda. If you can question it, it's science. If you can't question it, it's propaganda. Plain and simple. So to have this state come after me honoring these soliloquies, and we'll get the court transcripts, they'll be available, so you can check all of these. It was a kangaroo court. They had an expert who had a financial interest against me in the community. Their other expert was an addiction psychiatrist

trying to teach me about virology. And this is similar to Jordan Peterson's attacks in Canada. They want to re-educate me, according to their final statements. And then their other expert was a family dog that only did one year of training beyond their medical school. And I'm like, those are virology experts? I don't think so. And yet they tried to limit what I could bring in as presentation into these hearings, attacked me personally, tried to cut off my fellow expert, and it was just a kangaroo court. Their decision was made before I went into the hearing. Now some of the panel members that will be making

the decision, they seem to soften up by the end of the hearing realizing, gosh, there are a lot of things they haven't heard. That was encouraging in the sense that I was able to at least get enough science into their mind that they realized that the narrative that's been drum-beaten into them over the last several years, there is another story. The lesson learned here is it's a waste of my time, a huge waste of money. I have six daughters, three in college, blah, blah, blah, making a good living, all of a sudden no living. Some colleagues raised a nice legal fund for me through a nonprofit, which is great. We'll use this to take this constitutionally as high as we need to in the land. It's not about me. It's about

the opportunity for scientists to speak freely, be they right or be they wrong. They need the opportunity to at least put ideas out there or science will never advance. Well, it's actually kind of core to the concept, isn't it? I mean, I have to say, it's kind of like preposterous. Because there's no, I mean, is this settled science even makes sense? Is there such a thing? The construct or the term settled science is antithetical to the construct of science.

There's things that we observe that we'll all agree with, like the sun rises and sets. We see that, we observe it, that's a fact. Right, But science... Is the Earth going to spin a few milliseconds less this year and then 10 years later spin a few milliseconds more on its axis? Yes. So even the spin of the Earth isn't settled in terms of our clocks.

There's so many things that are unsettled. The basic patterns one can observe, certainly, but then that observation... Science happens through observations and eureka moments and discovery, but if we don't allow the dialogue to discuss it, then science is dead. Well, and certainly in medicine.

I mean, it's never black and white. We're not leeching people and bleeding people anymore, are we? Well, I guess we use leeches in plastic surgery, but some of the things that giving mercury for syphilis, of course we're not giving mercury for syphilis anymore. There's so many things in medicine we don't do now because our knowledge base evolved, because observations were made, experiments were done.

So to attack someone to say, for example, these boards of medicine honoring non-scientists' complaints and no patient complaint. In fact, they tried to extort and induce the patients in Washington to complain against me that I treated by telemedicine early in the pandemic. And those patients said, no, we did well. Why would we complain against the doctor that helped us when no one else would help us? And so it's just very frustrating to watch because they're overstepping their legal bounds to punish someone publicly to scare others so other people won't speak up. And if people stay silent, then others continue to be harmed and science doesn't advance. So Ryan, any final thoughts as we finish? Life is still good.

We're heading in good directions as a society, if we continue to work together, if we allow conflicts to be resolved by coming to the table, having face-to-face conversation, the world will be a better place. Science is still optimistic. Medicine is still a noble profession with a lot of good people within it. I think maintaining your individual rights to

speak freely, to think freely, to opt for what you do or don't want for yourself is more important than anything. But don't forget to be a friend to those in your community. Don't forget to help others in need. Be a part of what we're trying to do, all of us together. This never was about any individual. This is about making sure that we are healthy on the individual level, community level, the world level. Stay positive. Stay optimistic. Life is still good to be lived. Well, Dr. Ryan Cole, it's so good to have you on again. Always a pleasure. Thank you. Thank you all for joining Dr. Ryan Cole and me on this

episode of American Thought Leaders. I'm your host, Jan Jekielek.