American Thought Leaders - Jessica Rose Breaks Down 1.6 Million Adverse Event Reports in VAERS, Definitive Evidence of Causality

Episode Date: March 8, 2024

Sponsor special: Up to $2,500 of FREE silver AND a FREE safe on qualifying orders - Call 855-862-3377 or text “AMERICAN” to 6-5-5-3-2“We’re up to over 1.6 million reports in VAERS in the context of these products ... The numbers keep going up,” says Jessica Rose, an immunologist and independent researcher.She recently co-wrote a paper examining the data surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine adverse events. It was the first published paper to call for a global moratorium on the COVID-19 genetic vaccines.But a few weeks later, the journal Cureus decided to retract the paper.Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

It was the very first published paper that called for a moratorium on the modified mRNA products based on the content and I imagine that's why eventually there was a call for retraction. Today I sit down with Dr. Jessica Rose, an immunologist and independent researcher. She recently co-wrote a paper examining COVID-19 vaccine adverse events and calling for a global moratorium on these products. It's the most downloaded paper on Curious ever. A month after it was published, Curious decided to retract the paper. We're up to over 1.6 million reports in VAERS in the context of these products.

The numbers keep going up. They're still going up. This is American Thought Leaders, and I'm Janja Kellek. 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. Jessica Rose, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders. Thanks for having me. It's wild to be here. Yeah, well, we talked once before, but it was a virtual conversation from a secret location.

I'm kidding. You had a really remarkable testimony today in the U.S. Senate. You were talking about VAERS data, but actually you have a number of papers that are now kind of recently published in circulation. One of them has been retracted. We're going to talk about all of that. Let's talk about this retraction first. So the paper in question is COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign, January 2024. A ton of people have read this paper. I've seen YouTube videos of people saying I was wrong as they go through this paper. It's really impactful. Yes. First of all, thanks for the compliment on the testimony today.

Yeah, this is a paper that was spearheaded by Nathaniel Mead, a bunch of serious authors on it, including myself. It was the very first published paper that called for a moratorium on the modified mRNA products based on the content. And I imagine that's why eventually there was a call for retraction because, you know, they don't really want a call or a moratorium placed on these products. We were issued a notice about nine days ago that we had seven days to respond to a list of bullet points, which were basically empty, as to why it should be retracted. And we pushed back a lot. We went to the social media world, we asked everybody to download the paper in case it was retracted and it wasn't a result of that but it helped that it's the most

downloaded paper on Curious ever and it has one of the highest ranking SIQ scores, which is a rating system of papers. It's kind of like a peer review process after it's published, of 9.3 out of 10. So I was actually optimistic that maybe they would not go ahead with the threat of retraction because it looks real good for their journal to keep it up, but they went ahead just now. Well, why don't we look at the substance of the paper first, then maybe we can think a little bit about why it might have been taken down. Right. So it's basically a reinvestigation of a lot of the data, the clinical trials with Pfizer, the Cleveland Clinic study that shows

that the more COVID shots you get, the more COVID is associated with respect to other published literature about IgG4, which is a tolerance antibody. My role, I was a contributing author, was to demonstrate the same story that we're seeing, the damages from these shots using VAERS data. a much higher fold increase in reporting of myocarditis in very young boys, 15-year-old boys following dose two, which is one of the criteria that you need to satisfy to show causality, to show cause and effect, which as you know, there's not a lot of admission that

these shots are causing not just myocarditis but the over 14,000 other reported adverse event types in bears. It was just a very nice reinvestigation of a number of points on which the regulators, the pharmaceutical companies are just saying there's no problem here but we found problems with every one of them, and we wrote them down in a paper. And I might add it was peer-reviewed, and of course under duress, because we know how little interest there is

in these kinds of findings, and it was published. Yeah, not only that, but this was the journal that we went through seven reviewers, multiple editors of peer review. But before that, there were a number of other journals that we'd gone through this process, reviewers, editors. And then at the last minute, and I think this is another tactic, Nah, we're not going to publish it. So you go through months of this process and then they say, no, we don't want to do it. And so there were multiple rounds of that. So this has not been peer reviewed once. It's been peer reviewed like a lot. And they accepted it. So it doesn't look good that they retracted after.

Fascinating. Well, I mean, I think they probably also deserve some credit for accepting it in the first place. Indeed. Despite, yeah. That's a good point, because the person who called for the retraction doesn't have any science background or like, I don't even know who this person is. And I'm not sure of their connection to the journal, to Curious or to PubMed or whoever else they have to answer to in order to call for a retraction. So I'm not even sure it has anything to do with the journal, to be honest with you. It's crazy that this is happening. It's happening not just to me, of course, but to many people who are speaking facts and truth about what's actually

going on. Well, and the journal, it's still available, I assume, in its entirety. It's just marked redacted. We checked just before we started this episode. So let's go back to the VAERS data. This is something we were looking at. I was talking about with folks on this show, I think a couple of years back, we knew that the reporting on VAERS was off the charts for this product over all other vaccine type products from the past. And so we know you've put this together meticulously for this hearing. So tell me what you found. Yeah, that's been my meat through all of this. And just for anyone watching who doesn't know who I am, I actually have backgrounds in immunology and biochemistry, a lot of subject

matters. So let's take the opportunity to do that. Just explain your background. All right. Well, I'm basically a mathematical biologist with specialty in deadly viruses. It's not for any reason, it's just that I'm fascinated by everything nature. So I started in applied mathematics where I learned to use mathematical modeling to look at viral kinetics. I proceeded on to an immunology degree where I did some studies on HIV immunopathology and immunopathogenesis, and that was interdisciplinary, so I was working in the level three lab, which was very exciting, and also in the math department. And following that, I got an invitation to study in Israel to do my PhD in computational biology, which was more data-oriented. It was all in silico, but it gave me my first taste at

analyzing, finding patterns in data, like just big data sets. Here, find something there. So that was, that was something I'm remembering a lot when I'm looking at VAERS data. And then I did a molecular biology postdoc, looking more at bacteria than viruses. And then I did another postdoc in protein biology, which it's amazing how these things all combined. I was going to say, you know, it's like you were made for this project. Because I needed to know with everything I learned in this last postdoc about protein binding, like not just antibodies to, you know, epitopes, but how receptors work, for example, because we hear a lot about ACE2, which is the receptor, you know, that the spike protein binds. So

it all came together in this to give me the quick understanding that what we were being told very early was not true. So that's what made me go to VAERS. I was like, once they start with this one-shot deal, pardon the pun, we're gonna start seeing like pharmacovigilance databases fill up. So I chose VAERS because you can download the data easily. And yeah, it started in January, like right away, you could see a safety signal for death. January 2021, just as a reminder to everyone, right? January 30th, 2021, I showed a chart today where there's over 600 deaths, and those are just the ones that we can see. It doesn't include underreporting.

Well, so let's touch on that, actually, because, you know, this is sort of, I don't know, it's not day one, but it's a very early day, right? And so what did that, VAERS is supposed to be a place where you see a signal. It's not definitive. These things are submitted, you know, by people voluntarily or by medical professionals voluntarily. So what should that have meant in your view? It meant that, and it was primarily people who are older on in life, it meant that in very short temporal proximity to being injected, people were dying in association with the shots.

So, you know, you have to do a causality assessment following that in order to make a determination. But that's the signal. Right. And you can compare it to historical data. You can compare it to other vaccines. You can compare it to other age groups. You can do all these little sub-analyses to generate a pretty clear picture of what's going on. Like, people shouldn't be dying in large numbers or excessive numbers that would never have been accepted before the COVID era at the hands of a therapeutic that's supposed to save them from death. I mean, that was the whole story, right? Right. So what would be a good comparison? So compare it to another vaccine safety signal. Right. So if you just look at the flu vaccines, like if you take the same number of days of administration of product, say 2019, so you don't bias with the 2020 data because they say that not not very many people went to get their flu shots in 2020

so you go back to 2019 you look at the year data i can't remember exactly what the number is but i can tell you the full difference between that year of 14 influenza vaccines versus 2021 with three covid products the pfizer moderna and jensen was a hundredfold different for death and this is per million doses so it's it's not because of the number of shots this is a really important thing that people need to know because you know that that was one of the, you know, well, it's only because we gave out so many shots. So yeah, we gave out 2.3 times as many shots in that time frame. But if you normalize it per million doses, there's a huge discrepancy. And it's okay. The bottom line is the likelihood of death associated with a COVID shot, not causal, just in close proximity, was 100 times more than the flu vaccine a couple of years prior. That's right. And that's just flu.

You can compare it to like all the vaccines combined going back 30 years. So what would normally happen in such a situation? Exactly. So that's what I talked about today. There are standard operating procedures, and causality assessments are a part of that. You can use proportional reporting ratio analyses. You can use Bayesian analyses, which are not my ballpark. Or you can use Bradford Hill criteria, which is the standard for looking into epidemiological data to see if there's a causal effect from a drug or a pharmaceutical product, biological, whatever, and a particular side effect. I'll just mention I wasn't aware of this set of criteria but now I'm very familiar, you know, of course, you know, through the over

the years, right, perhaps partially because of your work, but. Yeah, so this is the standard and they've always done that. And just to give you a specific example, in 1999, there was a signal emanating from VAERS. It was a lower signal for intussusception, which is folding over of the bowel than we saw for death in January for the COVID shots in 2021.

And they did their causality assessment using Bradford Hill, and it was determined by just satisfying six out of the ten points, or the criteria, that there was a very likely cause-effect relationship. So immediately that rotavirus product was pulled from the market. That's what normally happens. So there's something really different about the COVID-19 products. It was almost like no matter how much of a signal you see for any adverse event, there's no way these things are going to get pulled from the market. They can't. And so you presumably ran the Bradford Hill criteria on that same data set from early on, 600 cases. So how does that stack up? So there are 10, and I satisfied all 10. Fact. The Bradford Hill criteria are used to assess

causality in epidemiological data, such as the various pharmacovigilance system fact the proportional reporting ratio is used to assess whether or not a particular adverse event is more commonly reported in the context of a particular drug if the PRR is greater than one a causal effect is indicated fact the PRR calculation for death from VAERS in the context of the COVID-19 shots using current VAERS data is 3.6. Fact. The underreported number of deaths successfully filed to VAERS by January 20, 2021 was 634. Based on historical guidelines, this was sufficient as a signal not only to prompt an investigation, but to shut down the rollout of the COVID-19 shots.

Fact. In 1999, a rotavirus vaccine designed to prevent rotavirus gastroenteritis was pulled from the market due to an intussusception signal emanating from VAERS, which comprised 584 cases. Question. If 584 cases of intussusception were enough to prompt product removal, then why weren't 634 cases of death not enough to prompt COVID-19 product removal? Fact. The early death count was hidden. Fact. Currently, 1,615,998 reports of adverse events have been successfully filed to VAERS in the context of the COVID-19 injectable products, with a staggering 1,013,442 reports filed in 2021 alone, when considering both the domestic VAERS data set for all vaccines combined has been on average 39,000 in total per year and has been very slowly and steadily increasing in reporting occurred, whereby 93% of these reports were in the context of the COVID-19 products. Fact. Age is not deterministic for adverse event reporting.

Since administration of the COVID-19 products to the 0 to 4 age group commenced, the rate of adverse event reporting has been increasing faster than for any other age group. Fact. The argument that the spike in reporting is due to increased shot administration is false. Slide 2 shows the comparison of the number of adverse events per million doses in the context of influenza vaccines and the COVID-19 injectable products in 2019 and 2021, respectively. On the left are the total adverse events, on the right are the deaths. The COVID-19 injectable products are associated with a 26 and a 100-fold increase in total adverse events and deaths, respectively, when compared per million doses with influenza vaccines in the same time frame. Fact. The Bradford Hill Criterion reversibility is satisfied. When a drug is withdrawn, the side effects disappear.

A strong correlation of R equals 0.8 and a high covariance exists between shot rollout data and myocarditis reports filed according to Our World in Data, New Vaccination Data, and VAERS data, respectively. As shot demand wanes, so do the myocarditis reports. See slide 3A. Fact. The Bradford Hill Criterion's specificity is satisfied. A very specific population at a specific site and disease is reported with no other likely explanation. Dose 2 is associated with a fourfold increase in reporting of myocarditis in 15-year-old boys.

This indicates specificity with regard to age and gender. See slide 3B. Fact. The Bradford Hill criterion dose response is satisfied. Greater exposure leads to greater incidence of the effect. Following dose 2, an increase in signal occurs. See slide 3b. Fact, myocarditis is not transient or mild. A new paper published by Rose et al. in the journal Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety shows that myocarditis is associated

with hospitalization in 76% of reports. There are seven more Bradford Hill criteria that are satisfiable. That's a 10 out of 10, bingo. Conclusion, standard operating procedures for analysis of safety signals emergent from VAERS when utilized reveal causal links between the COVID-19 injectable products and the adverse events investigated. Standard operating procedures are not being followed by the owners of the data,

namely CDC, HHS, and FDA, and this equates to hiding the millions of people reporting not only adverse events but injuries in the context of the COVID-19 injectable products. Thank you. It's not just the VAERS data. There's evidence from their own, the Pfizer clinical trials that satisfy some of these. And the proportional reporting ratio, it's pretty easy calculation for death. As of today, I suppose in VAERS is 3.6. And if it's anything over one, now these aren't my tests, these are their tests. If it's 3.6 and if it's anything over one, now these aren't my tests, these are their tests, if it's anything over one it indicates that there's a problem, a causal effect. So there's not just an indication from two causality assessment types but I have colleagues in the UK

who do, they're Bayesian analysis experts, and they also analyzed it. You know, they took it upon themselves because no one who owns the data was doing it. And they also found that, you know, there's a clear signal here. So the onus is on the owners of the data and the people who are really in charge of regulating the products to ensure that the public is getting something not poisonous to do all of this, but they're not doing it. So just who are the owners of the data? So it's HHS, FDA, well, CDC. I'm not sure if FDA are owners, but I think that they are. They're affiliated. They're the regulator.

Right. Okay. And so overall, right, so I mean, basically you're saying month one, first month of vaccine deployment, the signal is very clear. All 10 points of the Bradford Hill test, these things don't get pulled, like you said. What does that look like now? Because of course, there's been a lot more VAERS entries since then. Yes, it's the same story. It hasn't changed. Even this myocarditis chart where you plot the cases according to age and dose, it hasn't changed like throughout the years. It's been years now, which is hard to believe. We're up to over 1.6 million reports in VAERS in the context of these products. So yeah, the numbers keep going up. They're still

going up. And it's not just because data is being retroactively added to the front end system. Reports are still coming in. And that's concerning because it signifies a delayed effect in the the arisal of an adverse event. And when you think about autoimmune conditions and cancer, that kind of makes sense because they're not going to set in in everyone at the same time. So this is just kind of interesting. I want to touch on this a little bit. You know, presumably there's more reports now where the shot was given or a while back, and then there's some sort of event that happens now and the health professional connects the two for some reason, but that's harder to see presumably, right?

Because it's close proximity, you know, you're like, okay, it's a good chance these things are related. Let's just put it in the system. the system but what how do you have a sense at all of how that works and how why are people seeing that connection when in a situation where i guess it's like you're not encouraged to see the connection right so i would guess that i mean 70something percent of the reports filed to VAERS are filed by medical professionals. I would guess that maybe some consciences are kicking in and maybe some awareness. Like, a lot of people were... So you're suggesting that some of them are likely people who should have filed it a couple of years back and now they're like, OK, it's time. I better do this.

The pressure is on. I mean, because you I always thought there was going to be a tipping point with the ability to hide the bodies. We can just put it that way. But we're really into just in one database, millions of reports. So we're not talking about UDRA, Yellow Card, Dane. We're not talking about all these other systems that are showing the same thing. So when you think about the world and the fact that billions of people were injected with this stuff, I mean, it's not an underestimate to think in the hundreds of millions.

So if you're a doctor, you know, at one point in your life, you took the Hippocratic Oath. And even if you're indoctrinated and you had all of this pressure coming down from your hospital, from your, you know, the person who gives you your paycheck, whatever. I think that that has to take a turn at some point. You know, your ethics, your human-ness has to kick in at some point. So maybe I'm being hopeful, but I think that that is playing a role. And people also, they file reports and they're hearing, despite the suppression of information, they're hearing more about their neighbor got injured, their mom got injured. They're hearing something about it. So, well, so this is, I think, one of the arguments that I've heard made is that, well, because of that, you know, there's there might be over reporting.

Right. So here's the OK, the mathematical biologist is laughing. Why? Yeah. Okay. So if you wanted to play that game, okay, I'll take that card. It's over-reported. But hey, guess what?

VAERS is also severely under-reported. So I think at the very best, those things would balance out. So fine, let's throw away both and look at the absolute counts and VAERS. And it's a horror show if you don't even include the underreporting factor. What is the underreporting factor? It depends. I would guess that it probably is a little bit higher because there is more awareness because there's nobody on planet earth that doesn't know about covid stuff now but um it's going to depend on the adverse event because obviously chills is not going to be reported at the same frequency as

death like you'd think that death is reported more so it's going to vary. To give you a number, I calculated 31 as an under-reporting factor for severe adverse events, which it does include death. So that would mean that for every one instance or for every 30 instances, there would be one report. That's what you're saying. Okay. 31 is pardon 31. Or any number you hear me quote, you have to multiply by 31. So when you're talking about hospitalizations, disability, maybe death, I'm not sure. Yeah, you have to multiply by that. How did you do that calculation out of curiosity? I used the Pfizer phase three clinical trial data where they calculated the severe adverse event rate, which was 0.7%. And I balanced that against the number of reports in VAERS. And I did the calculation that way. So yeah, it could be 31.

It could be close to that. But I, you know... I've also heard the number 30. That's interesting. Is it in some of the just sort of general calculations that were done in the past, actually. I don't know if you're probably familiar with that. You're not familiar. That's curious because it's like exactly the number that I came across. They've done calculations to estimate it. And our numbers aren't that different. So it's probably a good approximation if you want to just do the math in your head

to find out how many actual people are suffering instead of reporting. And in terms of VAERS reports, how do those reports compare to the past use of the system? So VAERS has been on the go for 30 years. So go back to 1990. The average number of reports filed for all vaccines combined, and you're probably well aware that the number of vaccines has been steadily increasing over the past 30 years. So it's pretty much around 39,000 reports for all vaccines combined, with a very slight increase over the past 30 years, which is proportional.

The increase is proportional to the increase in the number of products on the market until 2021. So in 2021 alone, and we're talking about three products instead of however many there are in total vaccines, it's about a million. So you're comparing 39,000 for 30 years stretch with a million it's it's not comparable it's um i call it the bungalow skyscraper plot and what about just in terms of like a raw number of shots given over those 30 39 it? Versus that year one? Yes. I mean, we do say, right, it's 1.2 billion people. It's a lot. I just don't know what the number would have been for all those other vaccines. It's pretty high. I don't know the exact number, but I looked at flu. So if you do compare 2019 to 2021 within something like a 465 day timeframe, it's 2.3 times as many shots given out for the

COVID shots. So you would expect, you know, if you were thinking clearly that if there wasn't anything more, let's say dangerous or injurious about the COVID shots, you would anticipate based on the slope for the past 30 years that there would be a proportional increase in reporting, not a 1400% increase. Right. So the bottom line is that VAERS is supposed to be the signal, right? And then, you know, what normally happens when that signal appears? You mentioned one instance where, you instance where the product was pulled very quickly once there was a significant number. So what's the process typically?

A safety signal. They're constantly monitoring this. This is the thing. And this is another good point to make because we know that they're monitoring this data. It's their data. And I might add that the front-end downloadable VAERS data is a much smaller data set than the one that they have access to.

They have all the reports that have been filed and then they vet them and then they put them on the front-end server. And they also have more demographic data. So they know what's going on that's the thing and so they you know if they consider that a signal has arisen then they do these analyses that I mentioned before and then because you know in the interest of public health which is I, what this was all about, they would respond if there was a signal of danger associated with these products.

So what do you think is going on? I think that the platform, the Modified mRNA LNP platform, was necessary to get into as many arms as possible as a segue for what's coming next, which is what they eventually will call gene therapy. That's what I think. I think the idea is that if enough people survived are okay, or at least it looks that way, then they will use the idea, which I think is absolutely false, that the platform is plug and play. So instead of introducing the coding material for the spike protein, it'll be another disease. And they'll say, well, all we have to do is change the genetic code, and since it was so safe and effective, we can just use it

for this disease. So I think that that's probable. So, you know, that's an interesting hypothesis. But given that we know that that isn't true, is this a data set that they're going to sort of try to correct the technology? I mean, actually, you know what this brings to mind? This frame-shifting paper that in one of the Nature sub-journals that I'm remembering, and actually the, you know, a sub-stack that you wrote about it that one of the Nature subjournals that I'm remembering, and actually a substack that you wrote about it that one of our Repuck Times reporters has been talking to you about. So what I'm getting at is there's a flaw,

one of the flaws of the technology. There's multiple flaws in the technology. One of them is that there's these unknown proteins that are being created because of this introduction of the pseudo-uridine base. Flesh that out for me and tell me a little bit about the sub-stack you wrote. Right. That's an important thing to talk about. This is really new. Health Canada, just for some background, is aware of a multitude of things because of people independently studying and publishing, such as DNA

contamination in the modified mRNA products, which isn't supposed to be there. So there was a paper published in Nature, which is the highest ranking journal there is, about something called frame shifting. And you don't really need to know what that is, but the byproduct is that the on-target proteins, which is supposed to be the spike protein manufactured by your cells, are not the only proteins being produced because of this shift in the frame of the translation.

So what we're getting about 8% of the time are off-target proteins. And nobody knows what they are. Nobody knows what they do. But if you know a little bit about the process of translation in mRNA, something that can go wrong is misfolding of proteins when they exit this ribosome, which is the machine that performs the translation.

And misfolded proteins are a very bad thing because they can behave erroneously. You hear a lot about prion diseases. So this is the association there. And we do see reports, quite a few, of prion-like diseases. And so it's possible that this is the mechanism of action. Maybe in some people's cells, off-target proteins are being produced too much of the time. And protein misfolding is occurring, and we're getting these prion-like illnesses.

It's just a possibility. But yeah, Health Canada kind of had someone send them an email about this article that I wrote, which basically just explained what the Nature paper described. And they said, what are we going to do about this? This problem? We have to respond to this because people are going to read that and they said what are we gonna do about this this problem we have to respond to this because people are gonna read that and they're gonna get freaked out which was quite strange to see my name on these foyer requested emails but the bottom line is even though there was concern that we were able to read from some of the people, it was, we ultimately voted on,

I guess, as not being a safety issue, which is nonsense. You can't state that unless you have data to back up that it is safe or that it is not unsafe. And since we don't know, we don't know anything about it. We don't know whose cells are being corrupted to produce aberrant proteins. We don't know what percentage of the time. We don't know the impact. We don't know what the proteins are. It's ludicrous for anybody who knows anything about this to state that there's no potential danger. And this is weird because this is their job so this

eight percent of the time is is just in this particular study we you haven't actually seen what's happening in actual people's yeah no right no um yeah i mean we we need to just talk more and more about this and and ignore the fact that somebody's um product isn't going to be profitable because we're literally talking about the well-being of our species here. I know that sounds dramatic, but considering billions of people were injected with these things that have a plethora of problems right now. I mean, maybe that's why we're only seeing adverse events in a percentage of people right now, because maybe some of them are having this problem and others are having this problem. Do you know what I mean? DNA contamination, maybe somebody had a defective BRCA gene or something already. You know, this is an interesting thing because there's multiple areas which are problematic. And, you know, this was actually discussed in this hearing today.

You know, people who brought up the lipid nanoparticle itself has a toxicity, right? That this hasn't been, we don't know, and we don't know which one exactly was used or whether that's been the toxicity of this specific one, if it's been characterized. There's just so many things that are not known, right? That's just one example. And another one is what we were just talking about here, because this was essentially the conclusion of this paper, your paper that got retracted was that, you know, we shouldn't be using these products. Yeah. Yeah. And I'm really glad you brought that

up because on this lipid nanoparticle based technology called Onpatro has been on the market and it's basically the same composition lipid nanoparticle as used in the Pfizer Moderna products. And the thing about that is that it had a molecule embedded on its surface, I won't give you the names because it doesn't matter, that allows it to be targeted to hepatocytes in the liver so When like this this is all it's out there. It's a we know about it

So when they claim that injecting the same lipid nanoparticle into the arm That it's going to stay there. That's nonsense. It never could have been that way. So this is an example, a specific example of a product that was designed using lipid nanoparticle technology to go directly to the liver. So like he said, we don't know because they won't disclose, you know, exactly what these lipid nanoparticles might have been coated with if they were specifically targeted somewhere. Maybe they were specifically targeted to the heart. I'm not saying that I believe that, but it's important as a researcher and a scientist to ask these questions.

Or maybe they try to not have them coated, or maybe we just don't know. And that's a huge problem. But someone does, right? You'd think so. I mean, they have research and developers and they're brilliant. They must be, right? Because they're doing incredible things. I mean, you know, for as evil and horrible as it is, to me, it's still kind of incredible. It's just nobody should have been injected with these things, as incredible as the technology might be or the concept, the, the, the damage that might

ensue is so severe. It's interesting that you mentioned, you know, targeting to the heart or something like that, because you have this other paper that's also recent that focuses on the determinants of myocarditis, right? So, I mean, roughly, if you can tell me what you found. Yeah. So you've heard the story that, you know, the narrative holders are committed to that myocarditis, although it's a problem in a small number of people, it's mild and transient. And no cardiologist would ever stand behind that if they had any ethics. It's not. Scarring of your myocardium, which is the elasticy part of your heart that allows it to beat, is not a good thing because scar tissue isn't flexible. So especially if you're a young person and your heart's still growing. So in 76% of the reports of myocarditis in VAERSERS regardless of age, hospitalization was co-associated. That doesn't sound mild to me. And transient, no, I don't buy that

either because I mean it's definitely going to depend on the degree of inflammation and residual or subsequent scar tissue. And I'm not a cardiologist, so I can't really say a lot about it, but I have a good imagination. And if you even sustain a small amount of scar tissue on your heart as a 15-year-old boy, for example, that's not going to bode well for you when you're talking about the number of years you have left in health. And traditionally, I mean, this is the other part. I did a little bit of research on this in the past that myocarditis is never characterized as something that's, you know, that completely goes away. Like you're kind of have to be careful for the rest of your

life. That's what you would, doctors would have told you. Yeah. And the other thing about that, Peter McCullough talks about this a lot, is the adrenaline surge that we all have at night. You know, when we're sleeping, this is why I think a lot of people are dying in their sleep from cardiac issues, because I think they've sustained damage to their heart, probably myocardial damage, and they have that adrenaline surge, and that's the worst thing that can happen for you if you have heart damage. Athletes, you know, dying, it explains it really well because when you're pumping your

heart really hard, that's also an adrenaline surge. And yeah, so again, I'm not a cardiologist, but I know that the recommendation, if you sustain an injury like myocarditis, you are told not to exert yourself for a certain amount of time just to kind of prevent that combination of damage and adrenaline surge from killing you, basically. So where are we at now as we finish up? Not much further along in terms of doing proper assessments and following standard operating procedures. following standard operating procedures but I mean even on the subject matter of

getting a paper that's been very well received and peer-reviewed and published getting retracted to me that's that's some kind of badge of honor now I mean it goes hand in hand with the fact that more and more people they know that something is wrong I think that even if you people they know that something is wrong. I think that even if you know they were most people were coerced into getting the shots you know they were they had their jobs threatened etc so they knew somewhere in their heart or their mind that there was something wrong so now it's definitive and I really think that there's enough wisdom in the human species now to have the power to say no the next time something comes up.

And you know all about disease X on the horizon, right? So, yeah, we have to brace for impact but i think i i'm optimistic um that we're ready which is not to say we don't have a hellish battle ahead of us because they're very powerful but i wonder i just want to touch on that as we really finish but the concern is what if there really is a huge problem and i i actually think you know like an actually dangerous disease? Correct. Right. That's a good point. So that's a really hard thing to answer. It's kind of a crying wolf thing now. Yeah. It's a really good thing for everyone to think about because I'm going to say what I would do again, and that's use common sense.

If you think that there's a pending threat from, say, a hemorrhagic fever, because, you know, no one wants to get a hemorrhagic fever, use common sense. Lay low for a bit. Don't go out in malls and sneeze on people and get sneezed on. Just the same things your parents used to tell you about not being exposed to any kind of pathogen. Yeah, vitamin D, nobody ever talks about that. But if your immune system is intact, even if you're faced with something that might be considered, you know, a hearty fight

for your immune system, if your immune system is optimized, and it can't be without having a sufficient level of vitamin D, you're probably going to do okay. So our bodies are pretty amazing, and these immune systems work real well. We don't actually need vaccinations or inoculations to maintain health. You can live fine without them. So I would encourage people to be calm, use common sense, and take really good care of your body, like just every day. That's an everyday thing. Good water, good food, exercise, sunshine if you can get it, supplement if you can't. Yeah. Well, Jessica Rose, it's such a pleasure to have had you on the show. My honor. I mean, I still can't believe I'm here. It's been really great. Thank you all for joining Jessica Rose and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders.

I'm your host, Janja Kelek.