Shaun Newman Podcast - #216 - PhD Todd Kenyon

Episode Date: November 5, 2021

He has his PhD in Marine Biology, a mechanical engineer & a financial analyst. He's a member of PANDA (Pandemic Analytics & Data) where they bring people with a diverse set of backgrounds together to look at the current world and effects of COVID.  Let me know what you think Text me 587-217-8500 Like the podcast? Support here: https://www.patreon.com/ShaunNewmanPodcast

Welcome to the podcast, folks. Happy Friday. Yeah, you heard that right? We've got a little extra coming for you this week. And with it comes a couple of new episode sponsors. First off, deer and steer butchery. Coming soon to the area, the old Norman and Kathy James family built. Butcher shop on the north side of Highway 16 and Range Road 25 is built back in 1995 and used by the local hunters around the area for custom cutting and wrapping. And so they're teaming up with Barry the butcher. They've got him coming in. He's built. He's got 20 plus years of meat cutting experience in the Lloydminster area. He came right out of high school and started in the meat cutting business. So they're going to team up. That's Range Road 25 and Highway 16. If you keep it tuned here, we'll give you more details as we go along. They're not open just yet.

If you're looking for more information, give them a call 780870-8700. That's the deer and steer butchery. It's going to be located on Highway 16 and Range Road 25, very, very. soon and we got auto clearing Jeep and RAM Center in Saskatoon you heard that right Saskatoon my first out-of-town sponsor so my hat tip to auto clearing Jeep and RAM Center they say Jeep brand has always represented freedom to go anywhere and do anything the team at the auto clearing Jeep brand Jeep and Ram Center has been helping people with all their transportation needs whether it's new

or pre-owned vehicles parts and accessories maintenance and repair or their top-tier SGI accredited paint and collision center that will get you what you need and get you back on the road so you can keep going. And as you know, they've been around since 1911. They're long lasting, steady and reliable, and they've lasted so long because they take care of you in the right way. And the only dealership that never charges dealership fees on vehicle sales, head to autocorring.com or stop in. Saskatoon. How you doing, Saskatoon? Hope everybody over there is having a grand old Friday and hopefully we get you off to the weekend in the right way.

Now, let's get on to that T-Barr-1 tale of the tape. He has his PhD in Marine Biology, a mechanical engineer, a financial analyst. I'm talking about Todd Kenyon. So buckle up. Here we go. This is Todd Kenyon. Welcome to the Sean Newman podcast. Welcome to the Sean Newman podcast today.

I'm joined by Mr. Todd Kenyon. So first off, sir, thanks for hopping on. Yeah, sure. Thanks for having me. I guess first is, can we grab it? have a little background on yourself. I've been talking to people from all over the world, and the audience probably has no idea who Todd Canyon is. And so if you wouldn't mind sharing a little bit about yourself, and we'll go from there. Yeah, so I'm a member of Panda,

which some people may be familiar with. It's a pandemics data and analysis. It's a South African-based organization. We're just a bunch of volunteers, a bunch of scientists and doctors, and and various entrepreneurial types and people with very broad backgrounds. And we're all just looking to make sense of this mess we've been in. So my background is that I'm a PhD biologist and also a mechanical engineer and also a financial analyst. So I kind of fit into the broad background category, which is the kind of people we really have in Panda. We do have a lot of medical doctors, a lot of scientists.

But, you know, we have a wide array of expertise, individuals with a wide array of expertise. And it provides an environment where we can really try to figure out what the heck is going on and try to get down to the truth. You know, I just had a guy on that runs ICOR labs. They do testing for antibodies and that type of thing. And he's a background of, geez, I want to say, if memory serves me correct, he's a mechanical engineer who switched out of the oil field into that just before COVID hit. So it wasn't, you know, kind of that timing thing. Yeah.

Anyways, we got talking about, you know, something that's similar, I feel like, to what Panda's trying to do, that when you have a problem, you get a group of smart, different people together, throw ideas on a whiteboard and see what sticks and try and come to some solutions. You know, when all this is going on, in your conversations, inside Panda, et cetera, have you guys identified some serious problems and have you come up with anything? Well, you have about 10 hours. Sure. No, but seriously, of course, of course. And, you know, you're absolutely right about what you would normally do to solve a problem. And, you know, Panda started out with just a handful of guys, Nick Hudson and Pete Castleton and a few. others in South Africa to, you know, to look at their specific situation. And since then,

and that was, you know, April 2020. And since then, uh, we have over 200 members and, you know, all volunteers pretty much. And, and it's just, it's created itself in a way. It's that, you know, people who are looking for answers and want other people to discuss things with and to try to get down to the bottom of things wind up in Panda. And that's, and there's some other organizations out there like Panda as well. And so we spend huge amounts of time bouncing things around, reading scientific papers, discussing them. You know, the, the thing about Panda or what happens within Panda that's different from what's going on out there in the so-called real world right now, although I'm not sure that's something we can agree on at the moment that it's the real world,

is that you're not afraid to be wrong and you're not afraid to challenge ideas. And it's, so that provides, you know, spirited and open debate. And that's really what we don't have going on in the real world right now. So, you know, obviously we're identifying all kinds of problems out there from both political, scientific, you know, the list is, is huge. Well, what is, I'm curious. You're a marine biologist. Yeah. You know, you got mechanical engineering, your financial analyst. What, what set you off to want to join pendant? Like what, what was the moment you went? This doesn't make sense. Or did, has it ever made sense? Well, it was, it was literally, you know, the third week,

of March. I mean, it was, if 2020, it was almost right away when this thing started to really get real, right? When they started with a two weeks to flatten the curve and all that stuff here in the U.S. And as, you know, having that type of a background and, you know, a lot of people in Panda do have similar backgrounds. We're all used to looking at data, analyzing data, and we're used to being very skeptical of everything that's presented to us. Because you don't, you know, you learn in finance and you should learn in science, although these days it doesn't seem to be the case very quickly that you never want to take anything at face value. I mean, in finance, you know, as a, as someone who's involved in investing, you get quarterly conference calls from companies. You get

presentations from startup companies. You get, and they're all pitches. They're all marketing. They're They're presenting data, but they all have spin on them and everything. So, you know, if you took everything you analyzed at face value, you'd be out of business or broke so fast. You know, it'd make your head spin. So, you know, you have a group of people like myself who have been involved in the real world in a number of pursuits that that require healthy skepticism and trying to get down to the bottom of everything and doing fair analysis. And so avoiding bias is a huge thing we try to do in Panda because it is we're all so prone to being biased. We all kind of have an idea in our head of what we think is right or what fits our priors and all that. And the first thing you should learn to do when you work in areas like finance is to avoid your biases.

And as soon as you're sure of something, you should immediately turn around and question it. And this is this is exactly what is not happening out there in the rest of the world with with the politics and the, you know, the the so-called doctors and experts out there. They, they refuse to question anything that they've said. They will not, they will not allow it to be questioned. Let's put it that way. I'm curious then, I agree with you. I know I have a bias. It's why Todd Kenyon's on, right? in your conversations, in your, in your looking into your curiosity, what's one of then the biases that you had or the beliefs that you were like, this is correct? And then the further you dug into it, you went, oh man, that was wrong. That's, that is interesting. Yeah, I can't, I can't sit here. You like to try to forget about those things. But I mean, I think we've, you know, I think we've, you know, I think we've

all been wrong about a lot. So I could think of one thing. I thought, you know, early on from the relatively early on from the research I'd done on other pandemics and whatnot, I didn't feel like this thing would last more than, say, a year or less than a year, and that there'd be multiple waves coming through. Because, because, okay, and in the, in 1918, Spanish flu, yes, there were two waves, although there was some question whether the second one was even the same, same pathogen or not. But, you know, so that that has surprised me that it has gone through in so many waves and that we're still here this far out. And we're talking about, you know, various waves happening around the world in different parts of the, of the world. So, you know, that's,

that's an example. But, okay, so, yeah, it was wrong about that. But, you know, let's try to figure out what the heck is going on. Do you think, you know, you mentioned that financial analysts and and data guys have to have a healthy skepticism because they're getting pitched all the time. Yeah. Do you think that's partially a difference between not only different countries, but different areas in a country, that maybe parts of the population always have a healthy skepticism of, well, let's be honest, the government. Yeah.

And other parts, you know, I just look at Canada. I feel like all of us are pretty easy going for the most part. we just want, you know, we just, all right, yep, sure, yeah, okay, yeah, okay, wait, that, and the longer this goes on, and I would say the more it starts to focus on young kids, the more people that are starting to stare around and go, like, this makes zero sense. When you say healthy skepticism, I wonder if that isn't what got us further down this road than, than anything, is that we didn't have enough of it. Yeah, oh, I would, I would completely agree with that. I mean, we've, that has been shocking to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to,

me, I think to many folks like me that so many people are such a large percentage of the population has seemed to be willing to just accept this and go along with it and not necessarily question it. And you can walk down the street every day and talk to your neighbors and half of them have no idea what's going on. They're just basically, I mean, I can understand that. They're just basically trying to get through life and do what they can do and they expect that this thing will blow over like most things blow over. And, you know, here we are almost two years later and nothing's blowing over. It seems to be getting worse in many ways, at least politically. And so for sure, I think that that has been a big issue. And part of what we try to do, you know, in Panda is,

we feel like there's, there's, say, 30% of the population or a quarter of the population, what have you, that are healthy, skeptical folks. So folks like you and I, who were just from the very beginning, we're like, yes, this isn't, we're not being given the truth here. This is being spun. This is not all in the up and up, you know, et cetera, et cetera. There's problems with all this. It's just not right. And there's a group, another say, 25 or 30 percent that have bought into it from the

beginning and almost in a militant sort of a way, probably for political reasons in a lot of cases. You know, unfortunately, a lot of this has gotten tied to different political groups around the world. So I think there's a certain percentage of folks like that who doesn't matter what data you present them with or what happens. It's going to be very hard to change those people's minds. And then you have the 40% or so, whatever the size of that group is, might be 50% of the population who are in the middle. And like I said, mostly they've been probably just trying to go along with things and live their lives and move forward and hope this just all blows over one day. and um but i think to varying degrees especially now many of them are finally saying you know this this i've i've done everything i've worn the masks i've put the masks on my kids i've i've taken the

vaccine i've locked myself in my house for however many weeks or months i was supposed to do and here we are where did that get me uh so this doesn't seem something isn't right here and oh and by the way the the powers that be keep changing their story and they keep adding new things on and And so they have this creeping feeling that this wasn't as presented in the beginning and it's not getting better and something isn't right. And I think when you say that when you're now talking about small kids, you know, if the masking of small kids wasn't bad enough, which it certainly was for me, now if you're talking about giving or forcing, I don't know where it's going to fall injections on small children, vaccines, the people who. were, you know, trying to just hope this blows over and sitting in the middle are going to be much less so because this is going to really start hitting people, you know, where they live and they're going to have to decide if they have the luxury to even decide whether, whether they

want their kid vaccinated with an experimental vaccine. Yeah, it's, I can speak, you know, I got the five-year-old, the four-year-old, the two-year-old. And I remember thinking a year ago, Oh, at least my kids are young and they don't understand what's fully going on. Obviously, kids are smarter than you give them credit for. They're sucking in everything. I was just on a five and six-year-old, U-7 hockey practice this morning. And I'm always amazed at what they pick up and how quickly they pick up things, right? So they're soaking everything in.

They're a sponge. So in one sense, you're happy that they're young enough that they don't fully comprehend, but they're still sucking in things that, you know, my five-year-old said me the other day, I hate COVID. Like normally, I say you're not allowed to use the word hate, but on this one, I'll let it slide, right? Yeah. And so for a long time, I was like, you know, at least they're young,

at least they're young. And then, you know, whatever it was, however many months ago, they started talking about a five to 11 vaccine. I'm going, oh, man, like this is coming quick. And, you know, I've listened to a healthy chunk of the FDA's roundtable, whatever we're calling that, Zoom call or whatever, on it. And man, I just, I struggle with that that's going to be open. But then I go, well, then just leave it as a choice.

For the love of God, just leave it as a choice to the parent. Because I know there's going to be parents out there. They're like, no, my kid's going to get it and carry on with life. And there's going to be parents that myself are like, why would I give it to them? I have zero incentive to do that. Like, I mean, I don't think they benefit anything from it. Correct. And so I don't understand why we would give children that young a vaccine.

Anyways, all I'm getting to is, I guess one of the things I was interested to talk to you about is, well, me and Nick got talking about it, and he brought up skipping steps in the emergency use authorization process, which this would fall under. And so I thought maybe it would be an interesting starting point for your brain and your thoughts on what's going on there. Yeah, well, I mean, it's really interesting because actually, you know, Nick and I were analyzing a presentation yesterday for a South African, major South African university that's for their students that were required to watch. And they're discussing whether to mandate vaccines for these college kids and whether they'd be required to be vaccinated if they were to have a normal college experience effectively, right? Otherwise, they're going to have to be tested twice a week and all this other garbage. So, you know, that presentation, which was supposed to be an information session, was basically a propaganda session. It was really interesting that the amount of, I don't know whether you want to call them lies or untruths or what have you that was being put forth by these group of scientists and university administrators and whatnot was quite unbelievable. And we went through and analyzed this and we may have a video out on it.

But you really are getting one-sided information that is just completely false. on these things. And if you want to look at the, you know, the emergency use authorization for these for these vases, we can't forget that these are still experimental vaccines. You know, that is a fact. That's not a conspiracy theory or anything like that. They're still experimental status. So if you're taking these, you're effectively an experimental subject. And it may be, you know, absolutely fine, but people need to be aware of that. One thing that we always talk about is that, you know, you should have informed consent before you accept any medical treatment. Any medical treatment potentially has risks. That includes taking aspirin. That includes basically

everything. Certainly any vaccine that's out there potentially has risks. Certainly from what we can tell from the data that we're able to look at, these vaccines appear to have, you know, relatively larger risks compared to anything else we've seen. When you look at the VERS database or any of the other worldwide databases, there's a big signal of adverse events. We can, you know, we can argue on how common they are and who they affect and all that, but they're significantly higher. So you're dealing with a experimental vaccine that is showing an adverse event signal. and it was, you know, it is not approved. It's approved for emergency use.

And that was, that was done through a relatively, Pfizer ran, if we look at Pfizer, for instance, Pfizer ran the trial themselves. And they used large groups of people, two groups of, say, 41,000 and treated one group and didn't treat the other group. And the, by treating, I mean, vaccinated. And the signal or the outcome they were looking for was after two months, they were going to see how many in each side, the vaccinated versus the placebo arm, how many of each of them became symptomatic and also got a confirming test.

So that's what they were looking for. They weren't looking for hospitalizations. They weren't looking for deaths. They didn't have any during the actual period of the two-month period. but they were looking for someone who was sick. And then also we're going to test that sick person. You know, they're coughing or what have you and see if they get a positive PCR test. So they looked at that in both groups.

And at the end, they basically, you know, their supposed results are that over those two months, what have you, the vaccinated group only showed a dozen or so people who, quote unquote, came down. with COVID according to their their criteria. And the unvaccinated group showed 120 or something like that. So it was that that's where they get this 90% efficacy number. So it was, you know, roughly nine times or 10 times the difference. But what we, what we have to remember is that we're talking about extremely small numbers here relative to the number of people who were involved in the trial. there were two groups of 41,000 people. So you're talking 82,000 people. And out of all those 82,000 people, there was barely over 100 who contracted COVID. And so when you're looking at that as a scientist or someone who analyzes data, you'd say, well, that's almost just noise relative to the size of the group. I mean, it's a very small number of people

who were affected by COVID at all. And if you ran that same, trial over again, you might get the exact opposite results. Because that's really only a handful of people on one side that got COVID according to their criteria and a smaller handful that didn't. And because of the way, you know, large numbers work, you may get the exact opposite result. But there's what when we're talking about what skipped steps or what did they kind of leave out here. One of the things that's glaring is that they did not count. If you'd receive the shot, they did not consider you vaccinated until after you'd

received the second shot. So there's a window in there between receiving the first dose and seven days, I believe, after receiving the second dose, where your results were not counted in the trial. And the problem with that is that what we see around the world is there appears to be a very strong signal that immediately after a population gets vaccinated that we see case counts going up rapidly. So there appears to be some kind of an immunosuppressive effect of getting the vaccine early on that might make you more susceptible to actually catching COVID for the first three weeks. And then you get the second dose. And then a while after the second dose, it appears that there

is some benefit as far as they define it. In contracting, quote unquote, contracting COVID. So it's, it's, you know, very disingenuous to leave those, that three-week period out, especially when we know that, that it's a period where people appear to be very prone to catching COVID. It's like saying, well, you can get this vaccine and it's going to help you. But before you can get it, you have to run through a minefield. and you know if you make it through the minefield and you get the vax you'll be fine we're not going to count the people who get blown up in the minefield on on the way over you know we're just going to leave that out effectively so it's um it's it's very odd and you know these big companies know how to run their own trials so they know how to to run them to to ensure some kind of successful result and uh so it's it's likely not any kind of a coincidence or oversight that they that they didn't count this group in in the data. But we also have to remember is that this was a two month period. And it was a very short period. It did not look at these

were healthy people. So it did not test the people who really we should be most concerned about the so-called vulnerable population. The older people, the people with comorbidities, et cetera, they weren't tested in the trial. These were healthy people. So we don't really know how well it's going to work from that trial on the people who we really should be trying to protect. So there's the trial was, and again, I'm just, I'm specifically talking about Pfizer here, because that's the one I have at the front of my mind right now. It didn't look very closely at these things. And of course, safety-wise, it can only look at that two-month period. So there's no no long-term, you know, even anything close to long-term safety measure.

You know, a normal, normal vaccine, as everybody probably heard going into this, takes years to get approved, right? We don't, well, we don't have years because, you know, COVID is so terrible, it's an emergency, which we can also talk about whether that's the case or not either. But they, versus a normal vaccine that is known to be safe and effective, these things have no long-term safety data at this point. We've only been giving the people for less than a year.

So we don't know at this point for people to come out and say, oh, it's safe and effective. You can say, well, how do you know? It's so that's, you know, there's, it's very sketchy the way this thing was rushed out. And to get in the EOA, you're supposed to not have an effective treatment. available. And so this, you know, might go down the, go down the rat hole of why won't they let anybody talk about potential treatments, you know, whether it be, you know, Ivermectin or whatever, and I'm not going to say I have an opinion either way on whether that works or one of the other

ones works. But there's, there's been, you know, censorship and blocking of any talk of treatments. Well, maybe that's, uh, because if there was a pretty good treatment, these Vax's, would not be able to get an EUA or they shouldn't get an EUA. Yeah, well, we've seen, I mean, it's odd similarities across multiple countries that, at least I know of, where early treatment is blasphemy and is censored like hard. Yes. You just got to, I mean, on this podcast alone, I've had several doctors talk about it and that they, you know, just, the pressure to not do anything with it. And then it's wild. So I just go back to it makes,

I guess if you go from like a government standpoint, it's like we have red tape across what we're trying to do, right? The goal, I hope, is to save lives. But if we use this method, we lose this method. And if we use this method, we can't have this one. Right. And so they have to weigh the pros and cons, I assume. And so the early treatment gets shot down. for whatever reason. And it gets pushed through the other one. And then they suppress the, and it's like,

I don't know, it feels like red tape and a big bureaucracy is what it is when, you know, if it was just about saving lives, they would explore all the options. And I'm hard on it. I'm not, I sit over here,

Todd, and I got to be honest. I'm just a, you know, simple lay person. I don't, I don't have a Ph.D. behind my name.

I don't, I don't work in the health care facility. And so, you know, by all means, to everyone listen. take that with the grain of salt that it is, right? And it's a pretty big grain of salt.

But at the same time, you can still see the oddities of doctors talking about censorship, about informed consent, about how the fact that, you know, if you just go search the data off the government's own websites, how when you look at it, you can point pretty clearly how different age groups are affected by this.

And I mean, it is absolutely evident. Oh, and wait, let's not even start the, the like I didn't even know what a core morbidity meant a year ago right and now you're like all you got to do is luck and you're like oh man yeah it's true yeah I mean obviously you know going circling back to vaccinating young children the you know we obviously know and as you said any data you can look at anywhere you can pull it up that this is largely a disease of the elderly

and folks who have various other conditions and that is the the people it affects in large numbers. The median age of death is, depending on where you are in the world, is 80 plus years old. And the number of children who have sadly succumbed to COVID or succumbed with COVID, which is a whole other can of worms, is a relative handful. And it's much, it's lower than we see for common, you know, every day, every year illnesses like influenza and like RSV and those things that are floating around every year that do attack young children. Our own government, Alberta government, I sit right on the border. So half the time, you know, Alberta does a wonderful job of showing you the data.

And on its own website, it shows that kids are more likely to succumb to influenza, but even more so than that, it's like five times more from a bad fall or what have you. Browning in a swimming pool, especially for young kids. There's tons of things like that. And I'm sure they did that at the start to show that, like, listen, don't freak out about your young kids, right? Like, they're more, look at this is what the data shows us. And I'm wondering now, as they're saying, get your 5 to 11 year old vaccinated, well, all you got to do is look at your own website. And it says, like, this is why we shouldn't do that, especially when we, I mean, you just got to follow the new.

I mean, anywhere in the world. but now it's starting to happen to Canada. I mean, I feel like we're, you know, months behind everybody else. It's probably the way I'd say it. So you can kind of look into the future a little bit when you look at the UK, Israel, even the United States. All right. Is that, oh, wait, everybody's starting to get infected again with the vaccine.

Oh, wait, so you can still get it. You can still transmit it. Like, this is common knowledge now, but our government has slowly started to admit it. Well, now they can't run from it because out in Ontario, I literally just had an article said to me that talked about a a rec hockey league, a fully vaccinated rec hockey league had an outbreak and a guy die. He was 75.

He was 75. Not that 75's old or young or anything, but just to kind of give everybody the background on it. And it's like, so why are we ramming this through kids who are not at risk? And it's not like it's stopping the spread or like... Yeah, exactly.

There's no reason. There is no logical reason, especially to mandate it. for young children. There's simply no reason. It's like you said, there is no benefit. The, the risk is so small for that group. And then you, as you said, we clearly know now that it does not stop transmission. So you can't use that as a reason. Well, you know, you'll, you'll, we'll stop it. We'll get hurt immunity. Well, whatever through the vaccine. And that was some of the stuff we were hearing on this, this, this South African conference.

that we were listening to yesterday, that, you know, in one breath, they're saying, well, the only way for to stop the spread and go back to normals is if we get everybody vaccinated. But we're sitting there, but what do you mean? Because it doesn't stop transmission. So you're not stopping anything. You know, now, yes, might there be a signal, at least in the short term, that it reduces severe, severe illness and hospitalizations and possibly deaths in some populations for a relatively short period of time?

there may be a signal of that. So I'll absolutely concede that. But it does nothing as far as getting us back to normal or getting rid of this thing. I mean, let's let's, you know, let's admit it right here. If anybody out here still doesn't know this, this isn't going away, folks. This is an endemic virus like the other four coronaviruses that float around every year. It have been floating around for a long time. COVID has become endemic. Like other coronaviruses, it can use animal reservoirs. So if you lock yourself in your house and seal the windows to prevent yourself from getting it, but you come out, you know, if a whole population does that, say, it's waiting.

It's got other places to hang out while you're hiding under your bed. So it's completely nonsensical to think of things like that, you know, zero COVID, what have you. I mean, forget about it. So we're going to have to think about how we live with it. And children are at effectively zero risk from this thing. So why subject them to an experimental treatment, an experimental vaccine, that we don't know the long-term effects of? Who has the most to lose from an experimental treatment that we don't know the long-term effects of? Kids.

Yeah, exactly. And especially when you start hearing about things, you know, that it shows up in sex organs. I mean, effectively that when you look at the distribution of where these spike proteins and whatnot go, and there's only one study that was done in Japan in rats, there's a lot of receptors in those tissues in the body. And so, you know, that's just very uncomfortable to think about that this toxic compound, that it's the spike protein of the virus. We can get into how that all works, but circulates around someone's body. it winds up in areas that you would rather probably not wind up in, you know, if it's potentially toxic substance. And of course, we know it is. So, you know, Todd, I'm curious. You know, when you get

talking about the studies by Pfizer and everything else, what makes you so confident to be like, I understand this? And I can talk to this without, you know, like, overstepping where you're at. You know, like, does that make sense? Like, I guess so, yeah. I mean, every, you know, I would say that, that you have to, you know, having looked at, having been a scientist and written papers and analyzed papers and also then, you know, just data in general, you get a feel for these things over time. And you get a feel for when things are missing and when things just don't seem right.

Now, do I know everything about that? Absolutely not. I'll be the first to say that. I'm a doctor. I'm a PhD doctor, but I'm not a medical doctor. So could I be wrong about some of this stuff? Absolutely. Have I been wrong? It's about some stuff? Absolutely. And anybody in Panda would say that. And so, you know, absolutely, 100% willing to be challenged on any of this. And if someone presents me with good data and says, look, this is why you're wrong. I'll say, well, darn Tootin, you're a, Absolutely right. And I'll be happy to admit that I got that wrong. And part of the problem is that we're dealing with incomplete data and information here all the time. Because as you said, things are being censored. Things are being obscured. We're only getting parts of the data. We're not getting that from the beginning, one of the things that drove me and others nuts about this whole fiasco is that the data that was being collected and being presented was obviously. often incomplete and so full of potential confounding confounders, as we like to say, that you really can't tell much from it at all. We can go back into the testing data, all this stuff.

But just to give you, or go, go ahead, go ahead. Well, I was, I'm curious. You mentioned, you know, if somebody were to present new data, et cetera, explain essentially have a debate with you. Yeah. And this is something that's come up a lot in the last like month, I would say. Specifically, I'm talking myself, my experience, having different people on the talk, different doctors, professors, lawyers, right? Just different people.

Right. They're all looking for, just can we debate this? Like if somebody wants to say I'm wrong, I'm all for it. But let's have a debate. Let's talk about it. With all that Panda's done, and I don't know if you have the answer or not, I'm just wondering, has any debate been created by yourself or others with somebody that's an ICU doctor sitting on the front line or whoever to sit down and like reasonably discuss

some things and say, this is why you're wrong. And then what have you thought of this? And back and forth. Has any of that been done? Essentially, no. And obviously, that's one of the huge glaring problems with what's going on right now and why, you know, many scientists within Panda are just have been throwing their hands up and, you know, saying science is largely dead because science has always been about debate and challenge.

You know, you put a paper out and it gets in some great journal. You should expect that it's going to be attacked and challenged. And you should be ready for that because that's how science works. You know, there is no the science. The science is one of those phrases that has come out during this whole thing that is just completely, crap because there is science. There is no the science. Okay. The science is, is a marketing term. That is, you know, you could say the science is what's chosen to be used as propaganda, but science is a field in a pursuit where you test hypotheses and then you expect your results to

be challenged. And that's what we're not allowed to do these days. You're not allowed to challenge anything put out by the powers that be. Or if you do, you might be censored. And if, but if you're not censored, they are not willing to come and have a debate, like you said. There is, Nick was supposed to, now I'm going to try to remember what, what it exactly was. There was some conference that he was supposed to go to along with some doctors and whatnot in South Africa. And when they found out he was coming, they said either take him off, take him off the presentation, take him off the discussion, or we're not coming. So they refused to show up when he was going to be there. because they knew he was going to ask them hard questions. So it, you know, it's unbelievable that

that this can go on and the avenue of challenging things is being shut down left and right. The media is largely bought and paid for so that, you know, you don't have a media that's willing to challenge things at all, for the most part, no mainstream media. And then if you're a organization like Panda or something like that and you put some, something out on YouTube, of course, it gets taken down. Your Twitter account gets canceled. What is that? Has there ever been a time in the history of the world when censoring information has been a good idea, has led to something good? Absolutely not. Anytime censorship's been employed, it's led us to a very dark place. Typically, you know, totalitarianism or something like

that. But, you know, censorship combined with a captured press, that's a nightmare. scenario and that's kind of what we have right now so um yeah it it's it's it's rough it's it's really rough sitting here and just just you know to give you an example of the ridiculousness of the censorship we have uh within panda every week an open science meeting which is an amazing thing and and we've actually started to put a couple we i guess we only have won out right now put it out on youtube but it's it's basically a discussion and there'll be as many as 50 scientists and other types will show up for this and will typically be one presenting scientist or doctor who will present a paper or an idea or what have you and this is this happens

every week and we get amazing discussions going and uh you know it's the kind of thing you'd love to see happening in public right and that that won't well some sometime back it was probably about five or six months ago our standard procedure was to have these meetings and then we'd put them on our YouTube channel, but as a private video. So the only people who could see them were the people within Panda who had the link for it. It wasn't available to the public. So that was for the people who missed the meeting and they could catch up on it. Well, YouTube started censoring those private videos. So, I mean, we were amazed one morning to wake up and see that for in-house use, private videos that were not being shown to the public were being censored by YouTube because they

didn't like what we were talking about. It's just, it's unbelievable. The land. they'll go to. So, you know, any fair-minded person has to sit there and go, is this a good thing for society in general? I mean, for the future of humanity, when the major sources of media are shutting things down that they don't like. Yeah, it's a couple of things come to mind. You know, I was like I was literally just saying on the last episode to the guy from Iacour Labs, like wouldn't it be wonderful to uh you know they got a COVID I forget what they're calling it here in Saskatchewan COVID task force to COVID center whatever you know and I don't know I got to say I need to look into it because maybe they already are doing this but I from what I've seen from our government

thus far um it's been a little bit one-sided shall we say and so I was saying wouldn't it be beautiful to have a group of not only doctors but then exactly exactly. exactly what you're talking about, you know, a mechanical engineer, all these different people to put a whiteboard presentation up and throw up a couple problems, maybe one problem, and try and solve it. Yeah. And leave it public so the population can see what you're trying to do. That's exactly what you're talking about with Panda. I'm like, oh, geez, like it can, you know, there's no one would you're lying doing it. Wouldn't that be refreshing if that was allowed to go on? I keep saying if government really wants to build trust back with the population, I'm speaking here

specifically. If they started doing that, I think you get a ton of people watching. You start to understand the problem, understand how difficult the problem is to solve. And everybody would be like, oh, you build trust back. And right now they, you know, it's just so closed off and censored. You know, you talk about this. It is blasphemy. And you're like, I don't know. I'm not saying do anything. Heck, I keep, I keep telling people to think for themselves. I think that's what we all keep saying, right? That's the bottom line, right? Think for yourself. Like, do some things.

Like, listen, read. Go work out some things. Go look at the government's data and actually see it for your own eyes and be like, oh, do a couple of simple equations and just be like, huh, that's basic math sitting right there. I'm no, once again, I'm no rocket scientist. I'm just a guy who is concerned, got young kids and go like, well, I better know. Like, you know, if I'm going to stick something in there that has no long-term data, But a healthy debate is what the entire population wants.

I keep hearing it. They'd love to have taught on with a doctor to sit there and throw up five ideas and see what they come up with. Yeah. I mean, it's a huge problem. You have to ask yourself, then why won't they do it? Or why are they limiting it? You have to ask yourself, you know, what are they afraid of? So are they afraid of being shown that actually they're, yeah, there's, there's.

there's complex problems that they don't have the answers to everything and that in fact, some of the things they may have done have been completely, or fact, we could even say most of the things have completely been bass backwards from exactly what they should have done. And it just, you know, if that doesn't raise a red flag in someone's mind, if all of this stifling of debate and fair questions and all that doesn't raise a red flag, you know, don't know what will. I mean, if you're fine with that, then, you know, I go back to probably everybody by now in the last year and a half has heard of the Milgram experiment if they haven't heard of it up until this point. But, right, that was the one where they, they, you know, told people that they were

shocking a test subject. And actually, the people who are doing that the shocking, it wasn't really shocking, was an actor who they were, they were pretending to shock. But the person felt like they were shocking a guy in the next room and they'd flip a switch and they had a guy there with the white coat next to him in the clipboard saying, okay, now raise the voltage. And the machine had a thing on there that said, you know, fatal voltage level. And the guy would be screaming in the next room. And the doctor would sit there and say, now raise the voltage. And, you know, the people might object a little bit. He'd say, no, you have to raise. You know, and a guy would be screaming. And effectively, they'd be killing the guy. And what, you know, as Robert Kennedy Jr. said in a talk the other day,

two-thirds of the people were willing to do that because a guy who they didn't know who was a doctor who had some credentials was standing there with a clipboard telling them that they should kill that guy in the next room and well not only kill him but torture him first and then kill him so that has to make you wonder if half or two-thirds of the population is just basically willing to do what authority figures tell them to do you know that's that's what that experiment basically tells you They're willing to do awful things if an authority figure tells them to do that. And by the information that an authority figure tells them what have you. But it just kind of just kind of makes you think about what we've seen. We talked about earlier about, you know, how many people have just sort of not questioned much of this for most of the time or bought into it as the case may be. You know, maybe that's the reason why. You know, you go to the the experiment in particular. I call them, you know, I think majority society is good.

Otherwise, we wouldn't, you know, we wouldn't have people following laws and we'd have mass chaos and whatever else. So people that volunteered to go in the experiment just assume there's no harm, you know, like, oh, no, I got, they're doing, they got this all figured out. It's a good little test and boom. And then so they don't, you know, and then, you know, and then, you know, And then they get stuck in this place where all of a sudden it's kind of, but they must know what they're doing, right? Yeah. And so, you know, here we run the clock. And I remember having this discussion behind closed doors with some good friends of like, I'm just a rule fall.

I just want to follow rules, right? Like I just, you know. And as soon as you start to question it and start to like me like, I'm not following that. you know, like, that's a super unnerving thing to come to in your own head, right? Is that we live in a society built, I think of it as a house of cards. And that I didn't realize how the structure of what we do is can be pretty flimsy. And right now, I think it's being like stress tested like nobody's business because they want you to follow everything. and I'm speaking here.

Like, you don't follow everything. No, we're following everything. And every time you think they're going to like, just back off a little bit, like I'm doing pretty much everything. I mean, when we come to the vaccination, there's people text me right now that they got some wild stories. But I mean, even then so, we still got, I think it's like 86% now of Alberta has at least one shot and it's like 79 or 80% have two shots.

I'm like, okay, so like at what point does the pressure need to stop? The only way we're doing is 100%. I keep saying, like, what are we going to do? there's going to be people out there never taken this. You can take away everything from them. You can, so what are we going to do? We're going to starve them.

We're going to tackle them and like jabbing in their arm. Like is that as far? We're going to go with this. Like at some point, we got to just be like, okay, guys, we've got enough and we can carry on. But like,

it doesn't feel like that. Now, you know, I don't know what your guys is, what your thoughts are on the vaccine passport is. But we got this vaccine passport being rolled out across Canada. in order to go into bars, restaurants, gyms, you know, to go to a, for us, you know,

NHL is huge up here, obviously, to go to, you know, they still provide, I think, options for a negative PCR test within 72 hours, I believe. But now, you know, they're moving to this Vax pass because that is the way we're going to get out of this. And yet we just talked about not that long ago, you know, you can still get COVID. You can still transmit it.

Oh, wait. We're seeing this. You know, the booster shots coming out because, well, it only lasts for, you know, I've seen different studies, say anywhere between two months to six months. And then, but then you're going to need another shot, right? I had the guy from I-Corps on who does the antibody test, say that 12% of people who walked in, which is a small sample number. It was only 300-some people that are double-vaxed, had zero antibodies.

and so you go, well, that's, that's not good. But I'm rambling, Todd. What are your thoughts? Yeah, I mean, it's, it's, they never, they have never, other than the, the two weeks to flatten the curve, that was the last time I think they gave us a, a supposed timeline or, or, you know, ending to when this is all going to be over or how it's going to be over. And, of course, that wasn't fall at all. So, exactly, what's, what's, when's it going to stop?

I mean, what is going to be, what's it going to take till, like you said, okay, they get 100% of the people vaccinated, which will never happen. And there's still cases. There's still people being hospitalized. The only way 100% ever happens is we got to go to some dark places and people probably need to understand that. Like that's, and even then there's going to be people who don't want to get vaccinated. But carry on. Yeah, no, you're absolutely right about that. And I mean, talking about holding people down and jazz.

them in their arms. I mean, literally that phrase was used in that presentation I watched yesterday in South Africa where a student asked, well, isn't this coercion and you're telling us we're not allowed to go to classes and do this if we or get our degrees or whatever if we don't get vaccinated? And they're like, well, no, this isn't coercion. That would be, you know, if we held you down and stuck it in your arm. We're like, really? That's, so that's where they're drawing the line. You know, anything before that, apparently. And then, you know, what prevents them from saying, well, maybe we can't hold you down and stick it in your arm. I mean, what we've seen with all of this, starting with the two weeks, is that they just keep ratcheting up.

They just keep, you know, like the Milgram experiment, they just keep turning up the voltage slowly but surely, right? And it's without any indication of, well, we're going to try this. And if this happens by this time or this doesn't happen or what have you, well, then, you know, we have to accept the fact that we just need to go forward and live with this thing and we've done all we can. You know, you don't hear anything like that ever said. Now, that I will say, however, if you look at Scandinavia, that's pretty much what they've done. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, they all within the last two months just said, okay, we're done. you know, we've done it. They have a lot of, a lot of people got faxed there. It was not mandated. It was voluntary. You know, a lot of them got faxed. And they said, yeah, well, that's, that's pretty much all we can do. And, you know, Sweden didn't lock down at all. They didn't, none of them masked kids in

school. They never did that. Most of them didn't close schools at all. Or if they did, it's for a very short time for for kids up to at least teenage age so they kept doing things during the course of this that most of the rest of the world wasn't doing and now they're just like yeah we're done and uh you know i have a family does that give does that give you hope then that maybe we can all follow there at some point just a few of us are taking longer to get there well you have to you have to take some hope from it uh you you know on the other hand when you look at how Sweden has been treated during the whole course of this thing. How have they been treated? Give my audience an idea because I actually don't know if I know how

they've been treated. Yeah. Well, they have basically been, you know, they were put out, the media talked about them for months in 2020 as being, you know, the horrible human experiment and they're killing everybody. And, you know, they refuse to do lockdown. So everybody's going to die. this and that. Well, they had a peak early on. They got hit very early in this, you know, basically in February. They got hit right at the beginning. They got hit hard. They admittedly made mistakes in their care homes. They have large care homes that are, that are, you know, fairly heavily populated. And they admitted very early on that, yeah, we screwed up and we should have done a better job there. However, after their initial,

peak, they basically have had very little. Yeah, they had a second wave in the winter like everybody does. But if you look at their excess mortality now, so that, you know, that means the amount of people who have died relative to the amount of people you would expect to die in a normal year, it's negative. So they have this year less people dying than you would expect. In 2019, before this started, they had a very anomalous year where they had far less people dying than you would expect. It was just an anomaly for whatever reason. So yeah, 2020, they had some excess, but it wasn't that horrible. Compared to the rest of the world, their deaths per million. Last I saw, they were in countries, they were ranked 55th or something like that as far as fatalities per million. So in other words,

they did not do the draconian policies and they had much better results than 50 plus other countries. in the world did. And they did not, you know, stop schooling. They didn't mask the kids in school, et cetera, et cetera. They didn't mandate vaccines. They haven't mandated vaccines. So they were basically control without them. They were one of the only countries in the entire world that, you know, again, just focusing on Sweden, that can serve as a control. And they did absolutely fine. They They did much better than most other countries did. And so it's, the media doesn't want to talk about them anymore. You haven't heard anything about Sweden anytime, you know, recently because they don't,

they don't serve the narrative anymore. The fact they go exactly against the narrative. I mean, it's, it is really interesting, you know, last 2020 during the course of this, I had a neighbor come over and say, oh my gosh, have you heard what's happening in Sweden? They're all dying over there. whatever. I'm like, what are you talking about? Oh, well, I heard on CNN or something else that, you know, this and that. And it was being spun incredibly to try to put, you know, try to paint Sweden as a horrible disaster. And then when it was just clear that that was not the case,

that was far from the case, the media just stopped talking about them. So, and now they're normal. Now they don't care anymore. It's, it's interesting to see the, Listen, on a podcast, it's, I'm sure the people see my bias as we go along, right? Like, I just, I got to keep talking about this because in our area, you know, and if you don't, it's a pretty lonely place, right? Like, I mean, it just, it is just getting, I don't know, not more difficult, but not any easier. That's for sure, right? Sure.

And I must have, I must be too naive or something, Todd. Because I just hear the stories about Sweden and I go, at some point, our government has to look at that and go, gee, that's the way out of this. Right. Like, why wouldn't we, you know, I had a doctor on who talked about, you know, if our government had been just a little more trusting of the people that they could handle some of the details. people would have probably got vaccinated on their own. And I'm like, I agree with you. Like 110%. I think the lack of trust, now tons of people won't get vaccinated ever because they don't

trust anything. I don't trust anything you're telling me. And that's what's happening a lot here in Canada, of the percentages left. There's a ton of people that don't trust nothing. I mean, they could be offering them a life-saving pill at this point. And I don't think they'd take it because that's the damage that's been inflicted just on the government and its population. And I'm not so sure at times that our government even cares, which is even more wild. Yeah, you're exactly right. That's a very important point,

that so much trust has been lost among thinking people by the way this has been handled by governments and public health officials all along. Because they, unlike Sweden, where Anders Tagnell and his group were willing to treat their population like a adults and let them make up their own, just give them information, let them make their own decisions, what's best for them. Most of the rest of the world has treated their population like bad children and they have lost huge amounts of trust. It's going to, you know, it's really going to damage public health for a long time going forward. As you said, now there are certain amount of people who won't take anything, you know, won't believe a darn thing the government

says or tells them to do. And, you know, that's unfortunate. They've dug themselves into this hole. And I think that's where a lot of this comes from. Why can't they look at what's happened in Sweden and say, yeah, well, maybe we should follow what they did. And, you know, what Sweden did was to follow the pandemic guidelines that were in existence before this whole thing started. You know, there were there were guidelines which said don't lock people down, don't mask people, it doesn't work. It's, you know, study, study after study, you know, and they were completely reasonable. And Sweden was one of the only ones who actually followed those existing guidelines. And the rest of the world went crazy, and decided that following China would be a good idea, which, you know, all through all through history,

you've got to wonder, when has following China been a good idea, you know, and also believing what they're what they're presenting. So, you know, that's a, it's a question, question right there. But there's been a huge amount of trust loss. And everything just builds on that, the censorship, the refusal to address fair questions, the doubling down on things that clearly have in work, the doubling, tripling, quadrupling down. They've gotten themselves dug in so deeply right now that, think they feel like they can't backtrack. You know, if you're, if you're wondering why they can't entertain the Swedish approach. They're too far down the rat hole. So, you know, I don't know, it's going to take the population standing up and saying, look, and it is happening around

the world, which, by the way, the media largely doesn't report on. Which is also a while. Yeah. You know, like it just, like, I know, it makes your head explode, right? It would be the in normal times it'd be the kind of thing that the media would love to cover. It's easy to cover big protests. You go out there, you take some footage, you use a drone, you say, look at all these people, you know, running around and protesting. Or just, or just saying like, sure, are there some bad protests out there? Absolutely.

Like, but are there some like peaceful protests like right now? You know, like I've seen the videos of medical and emergency like first responders and things like that that are just having this like peaceful protest both mandates, right? Vaccine and unvaccinated people standing together. And like, you think that would be a dream of a media outlet

to be like, oh man, we need to get in front of this and like, like this is awesome. Try and like take the animal, because the animosity is reaching like peak level right now, which is, and listen, I'm not sure half these conversations help it.

I have no idea. I see from where I'm standing more and more people, we've got to find a way to come together. But the mainstream isn't doing that. Because like, I don't know. It's been the opposite. It has been the opposite. Like I just, I find, and what does that do?

I'll tell you what that does, taught. It fuels the conspiracy theorist to get even more like, this is where we're having, they got this planned and this is where we're going. And instead of them like, you know, just putting some water on that, fire. It's like they want to fuel it more and more. And you're like, well, why? Why would you do that? Yeah. It makes you wonder. It makes you wonder. They're actively trying to divide society, it seems like. You can say who they are. We can get it. There's a whole big discussion that we often talk about and panned about the trend towards globalization and these these organizations like the

UN and the WHO and the World Economic Foundation and that, you know, want a centralized control of the want to globalize control of everything. And this, this COVID situation was just a dream situation for those organizations. You can throw in Bill and Lim the Gates Foundation, you know, all of that. There's plenty of conspiracies going around about all those things. But the thing that is not a conspiracy is you can look at what has been written about the great reset by the, by the W.EF and some of the things the WHO have put out there and the United Nations, everything else. it's right there in front of you. I've read close Schwab's book on The Great Reset, right?

Like, it's out there for anyone to go grasp. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong on this. You know, once again, maybe I'm just naive. I look at it and I go, I think everybody was surprised at the response to COVID. I really do. I think social media has played such a giant role in the ability to affect a person's, you know, like a year ago I had like four or five social media apps that would ding and I guess I just didn't pay attention to it. You fast forward now. I've turned everything off. I don't like it because it's like

they're trying to influence the way my brain thinks by different things. And so maybe on that side you could argue that they knew exactly how this play out. But I mean, can you imagine they're sitting to me the thing I have a hard time grasping is, you know, I read close Schwab's book. and parts of it makes sense, parts of it, I go, you're a little bit far out there. But overall, okay, like it's not like this grand scheme of we're going to, we're going to do this and then we're going to use social media to do this and do this and do this, whatever. But like, how far we've come from February, March last year to now is night and day, and I have a very hard time believing there was a set plan by the entire world's top 10 people

of this is how it's going to go. And maybe I'm wrong on that talk. I don't know. I agree with you. I agree with you. I agree with you. I think, you know, when you talk about these things, most people picture a James Bond scene, you know, with Blowfeld standing there and guys smoke and cigarettes and, you know, scheming about how they're going to take over or blow the world up or whatever the heck it may be. And that's not it.

It's highly unlikely, obviously, as you say, that that that could be achieved without knowing about it. it without knowing that this was going on, right? But there's a lot of shared incentives and there's a lot of shared beliefs. And so, you know, these groups have sort of come together to act in their various ways and, you know, to move us towards the vision that they believe is right for society and right for the world. And to believe that, that, you know, something as complex as the globe effectively could be, you know, controlled centrally is unbelievably ridiculous. And, you know, we're, I think COVID was an opportunity for, for these guys to, you know, work, work their magic and try to promote this.

Because, you know, it's always, centralization is always driven by some, some disaster. You know, some disaster that the, the, the big guys up top have to save us all for. from, you know, and because they're, they're smarter and they know what to do and us, us poor peons, you know, here, we're in grave danger and, and those guys up there are going to save us with their, with their new normal or their great reset or whatever the heck you want to talk about. So I think it's something, you know, more along those lines rather than the smoke felt room with blowfeld in it. But, you know, I guess that's possible, but no, it feels like more like animal farm to me or something along those lines, where it's just,

like you say, a giant opportunity. And I mean, nobody wants, you know, not, I don't want to believe that this is a giant opportunity. You just, you understand they even say it, right? Like it's an opportunity to put the world right or to. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Right. And so you go, they were, whether it's been percolating for 20 years or 50 years to get to an opportunity like this, or if that's just the way politics is, you're just looking for the next opportunity to sway the public to where you think.

they need to go. I mean, that's a lot of it. It's just, it's like, it feels like the, the perfect storm almost of a lot of things just being at the right spot at the right time. Uh, and now we're, while we're, we're, we're where we are. And I feel like there's a group, a, a huge network, pandas tied into it. But I mean, with the podcast, I've seen it. Um, just that there's a huge network of people, such as yourself and Nick.

and others that think completely opposite of it, that were never put together before this. And now this pressure is pushing it together. And you wonder where that takes the world in the years to come as well as maybe there's a way to get that voice, a seat at the table, so to speak, and influence some things and get some people thinking, oh, yeah, like that is a good point. But I don't know. Yeah.

Well, hopefully that's the case, right? I mean, that's partially why we're all doing what we're doing. because I mean, you know, on the one hand, we all feel like we had to do something. And I'm sure that's one of the reasons you're doing your podcasts here. And you just can't sit there and do nothing. You're not that kind of person, right? So you do something that you can do. And if that's, whether that's joining an organization and analyze data, whether that's doing podcasts,

writing papers, who knows? You feel like you have to do something. A certain percentage of us do. And that's fine. And hopefully, you know, those type of, voices that, as you say, do get a voice at the table going forward. And that's definitely something that, you know, Panda is concerned about and interested in. This, this regime of censorship and no debate can't continue. You know, one way or another, it either turns into complete totalitarianism,

and then we've got a, you know, a real big problem, all of us. Or it's going to have to open up somehow. And hopefully that's not, you know, via something extreme, you know, but via, you know, people reaching that boiling point, like you said, and, you know, it really starting to get ugly. But there's always going to be a group of people and it grows every day who are like, this, this has got to stop. You know, we need it. We need to change.

The media suppressing facts, the censorship. You know, I always say, you know, listen, look at who they're censoring and listen to what they're saying because there there is a reason now of course on the far outskirts there are some wackos who are talking about wacko things and that should be pretty obvious but if you're talking about you know somebody like dr mcculler or somebody like that you know why is he being censored you know he has follow the incentives he has a negative incentive to do what he does he is a huge negative incentive he's being you know his credentials are being stripped away he's he's losing appointments he's whatever the case, he probably can't get published anywhere anymore for all I know.

So he's a huge disincentive to do what he's doing. And those are the people you actually need to listen to because why the heck else are those people doing it? They're not doing it because they're getting paid like the people that Pfizer are or the people in the media that, you know, the politicians, what have you. They're doing it because they have a strong belief in something. And those those are the people to listen to, the people who have a negative incentive, whereas all the mainstream stuff, they all have a huge incentive to continue doing exactly what they have been doing. Yeah, Alex Berenson is another name that comes to my, I mean, we can name any doctor who pokes

his head up right now to say anything other than what, you know, go get vaccinated, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Anyone who sticks up and says anything but that has zero incentive right now because they're getting picked off one by one. It's far less than zero. It's a huge negative incentive. Yeah, right. Because they're going to lose a lot.

Well, they're getting their medical license, stripped from them, everything. Like their entire livelihood, what they've built their life around is, you know, Eric Payne was a guest on the podcast. Not that you would know that name. He's a Canadian doctor who works at the Alberta Children's Hospital, a neurologist.

Like he is, he's in, I believe, what he would say, a dream job, right? He's worked to get there. He's a young guy, 40-some young kids. And he pens a letter. And then comes on the podcast. And you can just imagine the turmoil that he's going through to do things like that. And I mean, Alex Berenson's a reporter. That's his whole job is to dig on things.

And it's like, no, no, no, don't dig on this. Yeah. Don't dig on this. Listen to those people. Those who you should be, you know, you should not be listening to the mainstream garbage. It should be listening to the people who have the negative incentive. And it's really important. It doesn't mean you have to agree with them.

But you should listen to them because they, They have a, you know, a very strong belief and a reason that they are putting themselves through this potential, you know, loss of livelihood and whatnot. We hear all the time behind the scenes that there are so many doctors who would love to speak out. They're just not willing to do it. They just feel like they're unable to do it because they will lose their job and they just feel like they can't do it. So it takes a huge amount of courage for some of these people to do what they have been doing. But, you know, people should know that there are others. There are a lot of other folks who think along the same lines.

And, you know, at this point are just not willing to make the sacrifice. And, you know, I can understand that. That's a, you know, as a doctor who that, you know, you've trained, you have to train so much for that. And if you lose your ability to be a doctor, you're starting over at zero pretty much at that point. I mean, it's obviously a hugely difficult thing. So terrible disincentives to speak out. And, you know, why? Why?

Why can't, you know, doctors who are supposed to trust who are so heavily educated, why can't they give their opinion? It's you just got to think, ask yourself, you know, why is that? Yeah, I'm hoping as time goes on here, more people start to see that and go. Something just, something seems a little. bit odd, right? That's what we're looking for. We're looking for that moment in that, that group in the middle I talked about a while ago, the 40, 50% of folks, we need them to have that, hmm, moment. Like, yeah, this is just, you know, not, you know, they need to cross that line. And, you know,

the best, one of the best ways to do that is just talk to your friends, you know, and I, I'm amazed that when I talk to some of my, my acquaintances, what they don't know. And, you know, most people, they don't have the proclivity to look at the data like you said or look for other source of information. They're mostly oftentimes too busy with their own life. Right. So, you know, I just talked to somebody, they had no idea what was going on in Australia, had never heard of it. They'd never heard of the, you know, people being locked down there and the protests and the police and all the stuff that's going on in Australia had no idea. Because, of course, the media over here won't show that. They won't show the protests anywhere in Europe. They won't show any of that. So people wonder

around having no idea what's going on in the rest of the world because the media won't show it to them and they don't have the time or the inclination to dig on it themselves. So we need to help those people have that, hmm, moment, you know, for themselves. Well, and I wonder, you know, like, I was talking to a buddy of mine earlier today. He was, he was listening to one of the podcast from States. I'm drawn a blank right now, but they were talking about testing. You know, and like if we are extremely concerned about people leaving their house and having COVID and, you know, and spreading it, then the most obvious solution is to provide somebody a cost-effective way to do a quick rapid test in the morning before they walk out the door so that they just,

you know, peace of mind, right? That's what it becomes, right? And a government's probably going to say, well, not everybody to do that. And I laugh. I go, well, they probably would. I mean, like, look at what they're willing to do right now. And that would bring a solution to everyone, especially, uh, you know, the mass population here, knowing that everyone can carry this right now is like, maybe there's a way to create some solutions that makes sense that the public not only would be like, wake up and goes, man, some things are odd here, but be like, well, why don't we push for something that does make sense? If we're extremely concerned about this, what, what do you think about that thought? Well, it's a good thought. And it's something that has been specifically with the rapid tests.

You know, in the U.S. now, you can go down to the drugstore and buy a two pack of a rapid test for, I don't know, 30 bucks or something like that. So, you know, it is somewhat available. The government's not generally rolling them out. And there have been some fairly prominent scientists who have been pushing that idea. You know, Michael Mina from Harvard is one who's well known for pushing the rapid test. And, you know, if you make, you know, if you accept the idea that giving people that ability, if we're worried about, you know, someone having it and not knowing it and going out and spreading it is a problem. If we accept that, then, yes, that would be the rational solution to it to, you know, make these easily available. But you don't accept that thought process then?

Well, the very, the easier way to deal with it is if you don't feel well, don't go work. We had that a long time ago, I remember that, you know, and certainly not everybody followed it. We all, you know, we've all gone to work sick and all that kind of thing. But, okay, if COVID's prevalent, it's floating around, you know, people might have gotten a little religion on that. And maybe they're like, yeah, I've, I'm feeling kind of crappy today. So, you know, I won't go to work. I won't go to the football game, whatever the case may be. But, you know, a lot of this asymptomatic spread thing that that's been floating around has, you know, brought on this fear that, hey, I feel great, you know, and I'm going to go around and infect everybody while I feel great.

Well, that's, you know, there are plenty of studies that indicate that that's really not the case. If it's possible at all, it tends to be when you're just pre-symptomatic right before the symptoms hit, it's a small. time window. So you have to start thinking about probabilities there. And what's the probability that you're in that small time window and then you, you know, are in contact with somebody in the right way to spread it to them in all that. So, you know, even Fauci said, we've heard it again and again, asymptomatic spread has never driven a pandemic in the history of man. And it's, it's the case here. So it's much easier to just say, hey, you know, I don't feel well. Okay, if you don't feel well, and you want to know if you have COVID, and that's why you don't feel.

Well, sure, take out your rapid test and take the test if you want to know, right? You know, I don't have any problems with that at all. The rapid tests in a, they have their own set of problems, but honestly, they're better, really, than the PCR test that's widely used. I mean, for many, many reasons, you know, you've probably gone into the problems with a PCR test. Actually, I've listened, I've listened to problems with PCR tests, but I can't sit here and say that I've had anyone on the podcast to talk about the problems with PCR. So if you want to enlighten us, by all means. Yeah, well, it's, you know, I could go into huge amounts of detail, but I won't. But the thing about the PCR test is, you know, and as even the inventor who got the Nobel Prize for creating it said, it doesn't diagnose a disease.

It doesn't tell you you have a disease. It finds a genetic material that's associated with the disease. So it's looking for a small amount of RNA in your body. That's virus RNA. So it just means that genetic material is present. And it, you know, the test, as part of the test, the genetic material is amplified just, well, up to a billion times. I mean, it's depending on how many cycles they run on the darn thing. It's just amplified and amplified and amplified until they can finally find this tiny little piece of genetic material.

Well, the problem with that is that that you could. have had it up to three months ago, at least as far as we know from studies, you know, and be far from being sicker or able to transmit the disease. And you'll get a positive test because the test is so overly sensitive that it'll find a little bit of RNA debris. I mean, basically, as the inventor said, if you crank up, crank the thing up enough, if you run enough cycles, you can find anything you're looking for. I mean, it'll flash positive on a sample of distilled water if you run it enough cycles, basically. So the problem, has been that, and I got into this and I have a pre-print paper that I did with my friend Dr.

Boston on this, that they were not telling us how many cycles they were running this test for. And they weren't telling you, if you got a positive PCR result, how many cycles you were, your sample flashed positive that. So studies have shown us that it takes about, after about 25 to 32 cycles, and the tests aren't all exactly the same, and so you can't say a particular number, but after about 25 to 32, if you get a positive, you're just, you just don't have enough virus to be infectious anymore. Because once you hit that area, it's been amplified so many times that can you can you clarify this for me? Yeah. What is a cycle? Like when you're talking, sure. And that, it's a great question. And, you know, you talk.

about these things and you forget some of the basics. It's just a doubling. So what they do is they just take the sample and through adding chemicals to the sample, they double the amount of genetic material each cycle. So each cycle they run. So it's powers of two. So you can figure out how many times it's amplified. If it's 40 cycles, it's two to the power of 40, whatever number that is. I don't remember it off that, but it's a huge number. So each cycle, so the first cycle, they double the amount of genetic material. And it's done through these chemicals that basically split up, take the genetic material and create a duplicate of it, let's say. And so where there was one after one cycle, now there's two strands, and then there's four strands, and then there's eight strands,

and there's 16 strands, each cycle they run, to a point where, you know, they get enough for the machine to detect, hey, there is some viral genetic material in there. So if you're, go ahead. does a regular, you said the guy won the Nobel Peace Prize. Yeah. What is a regular PCR test cycle? Like, what is it like, is it 10? Okay. So yeah. So that, good, good question. It depends on, on, on what it's being used to test. Okay. So what we know from studies, there have been studies that have been done with, with SARS Cove 2 that show that if they have to run 25 cycles or more to detect it. And some say 27 cycles, some say 30, but once you get up to that many cycles, if you have to run that many to detect the viral material, that that sample is not actually viable virus. In other words, if they take that sample and then try to culture the virus, they can't culture it. There's so, such a tiny amount present in the sample. So what that's trying to tell us is that that if you have to run more than 25 or 27 or 32, whatever it is,

cycles to detect the material, it's not someone who's actually infected by the virus. If you're infected, you're going to flash positive after 15 cycles or 20 cycles or 22 cycles, depending on just how infected you are. So the point was they were cranking this thing up so high that it would detect somebody who was not sick who was not infectious, but it would flash you positive. And they wouldn't tell you. So we went through a freedom of information. request to get this date and we actually got it from our state. We got the data that showed how many cycles did they run for each positive sample they got for the first three months of this thing. And what we found is that early on in the pandemic, they didn't have to run very many

cycles to get a positive test because people were infected. And so they had a lot of virus in them and therefore you don't have to amplify the sample very much to get a positive. To find it. Yeah, to find it. But as the pandemic, the first wave went on, as if we got into June here, We were seeing that almost all the samples were requiring 30, 32, 34 cycles before they flash positive. And we also found that it happened to correlate with the mortality curve in the state. But point being, if they were going to be on the up and up, they'd say, well, yeah, you tested positive, but it took 34 cycles for you to test positive. So you're really not, it's highly unlikely you're infectious. And, you know, if by chance we caught you at the point where you're just getting.

started and the virus is just getting cranked up. If by the small probability we do that, well, we should just give you another test and then you'd have, you'd flash positive at a lower cycle threshold tomorrow. You'd flash positive at 25 or 17 because the virus was multiplying rapidly. So the, one of the arguments against like saying, well, you're 34, so you don't have to worry about being infectious. It's, well, tomorrow he could be down there at 15. He could have, you know, the virus could have just been ramping up when we caught him. That's, that's low probability. ability. The problem was that a lot of these labs, and we did get data from the labs at, what their machine was set at. So most of them would say to us, well, we don't even look at what cycle threshold

that sample flash positive at. We just run the machine to the maximum amount. And so if we get a positive signal any time before it gets to the maximum, which was typically 40 cycles, so that's way above what studies have shown us as it is an infectious amount of virus, if it flashes any time up to 40 cycles positive, we give you a positive. We don't know if it was at 18 or 24 or 37. It just flashed positive somewhere before we stopped running the machine at 40 cycles. So this just drives us, you know, a scientific person nuts because they're leaving out a huge part of the data. They're not tracking, you know, the, how many cycles it actually takes for various people to test positive. And if you're getting a positive signal with 38 cycles, you're not sick.

I mean, you might have, you know, it's either a complete error or you had it three months ago. So you're not going to be infecting anybody when you have that tiny little bit of virus in you. So it was a big problem. We found that in the two sets of data we were able to get. And by the way, nobody would provide this data. I mean, we only got it through a guy in our state who did a freedom of information request to the state lab. And they finally gave it to him. And they had actually been tracking the values.

We found that 42% in the three-month sample we got of the positive tests were over 32 cycles. So effectively not infectious. So, you know, 40% of the people were getting, receiving a positive test and then quarantining and whatever the case may be. And they weren't infectious. But this information was never provided. Try to get this information anywhere in the world. They won't give it to you. It's so it's just it's just one of those things.

Now the rapid antigen test, to circle back real quickly to the one you're talking about, which is a completely different kind of test that that's cheap and that you can do in your own home and takes 15 minutes wherever the case may be, that's not subject to any of these problems because it just looks for a specific antigen in the virus. And so that won't flash positive if you're not sick. So you really have to be infected with that thing to actually get to get a positive result.

Okay, I got a thought here and I got to get it out of my brain so that you can either tell me I'm wrong or right or you can... So if that's true, what you just said, that means the case numbers that skyrocketed. It's because they were doing so many cycles that you're basically going to test a lot of positive, right? Right. But in that same sense, then, the data that shows deaths compared to cases would actually be, way lower, which would mean the death rate would actually be way higher. Or am I? No, so the case fatality rate basically you're saying would be if there were really fewer

cases because they're testing too many. So now we get into this whole thing about infection fatality rate and case fatality rate. But one of the problems with what you just said is that the testing runs through this whole thing. Okay. So the person who died of COVID, well, how did we decide that they died of COVID? And I have a paper on that on Pandata.org's website on death attribution. It's been a big problem, the whole with or from COVID situation.

And a lot of times, the reason they were flagged on their death certificate as having died of COVID was that they had had a positive PCR test within, depending on what jurisdiction it is, a month or two months or early on in in in parts of the in the UK at least ever if they had ever had a positive test and they died they were counted as a COVID death so the the PCR testing problem runs through hospitalizations it runs through deaths because attributing death is not a straightforward and I encourage people to look at that that paper on on Pandas website it's a very I can now what I'll do it. I can put it in the show notes. So sometimes I forget folks. And if I do,

just remind me because I have the link. I read your paper on it. And it is interesting. Yeah. Even in normal times with no pandemic going on, when they've gone back and compared that certificate cause of deaths to true cause of death, they're often wrong 20 or 60% of the time, basically. It's not a straightforward process. A lot of times you're dealing with frail, very old people. You don't really know exactly what they died from and they don't do autopsies to find out most of the time. Only like four or five percent of the time say is an autopsy ever done. So the person was was old and frail and they were, you know, they had, they were known to have heart disease, whatever, so they'll put heart disease on the death certificate. And everybody's fine with that,

you know. But when you have a situation like this where they're trying to track something, thing and create measures based on the fatality rate of this thing, it just opens up a whole huge can of worms because the data is awful. That's the thing that drives us people, just data people crazy, is that the data is terrible. And there's no standards worldwide. There's no really set way to determine whether the person actually died of COVID or where they just had a positive test.

And, you know, there's, then we can talk about the hospitalizations where, you know, up to half the people hospitalized for COVID weren't in there because of COVID. You know, they're kind of as a COVID hospitalization. They went there for something else and they got a positive test after they were in the hospital at some point. And so that's counted as a COVID hospitalization. So they weren't hospitalized because they were sick with COVID. They were in the hospital and they got a positive COVID test.

So is this why you guys? guys look so much at like the death rate or I forget what it's called excess mortality thank you and things like that across countries and by years because you kind of get a good feel for if there's a spike and it just cuts out whether or not it's COVID and let's just get away from the Tesla let's see what people are dying from and let's just let's just see yeah it just shows you that there's there's more people dying in a particular year in a particular area than you would expect and what did that data show you that well you you you have you absolutely have excess mortality in in plenty of places uh but then the problem is okay so say in 2020 um Sweden did for instance let's look at Sweden

I mean you can look at the US with huge excess mortality in in places so absolutely people were dying from COVID now was all that excess due to COVID well you can't say that because we know that the measures that have been employed have their own consequences. And by that meaning that you have you have increasing drug use and alcohol use, you know, and people not going to the hospital because they're scared. And so they have a heart attack or they're having heart attack symptoms and they don't want to go to the hospital because, you know, this was a big problem early on in various areas. And then you have the, you know, the deaths of despair and and things like that. You know, in the paper I mentioned that that one of the big causes of death

that went up was in 2020 was dementia. And so, you know, that's not COVID. That's probably folks who were neglected because of the COVID measures. They weren't allowed to have visits. The health care workers don't pay nearly as much attention to them probably because of all these various restrictions that are in place and whatnot. And the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, poor old, you know, folks died. And, yeah, they had dementia. But, you know, so the, yes, there's excess. But then you have to sit there and dissect, well, how much of it was actually COVID

and how much of it was the result of the various measures that were put into place. Yeah, I've talked about that a lot, right? The one track focus. Because, you know, once again, I have young kids. And so that immediately puts you in a different circumstance and a person with notice. kids or a person whose kids are older or right like you just get to see how they're affected and I'm sure your kids are affected differently and other people all have their their different scenarios but uh the fact that you know the fact that myself you know just in my small area I've heard of

suicides that you know there there was always suicides I don't mean to make light of that but it feels like they're a little more prevalent right now and Yeah, I've had multiple guys on talk about the impacts of depression, just let alone anything else. The isolation and depression of what's going on in the gravity, the weight of being in something that cannot be escaped and not to mention everybody's looked at like they could be asymptomatic and carry this thing is heavy on a population. And we didn't and still don't. I mean, Alberta talked about it a little while ago about, you know, and I think they're doing a better job, actually. actually. I know nobody wants to give the Alberta government any credit, but I do believe they've acknowledged like, you know what, kids need to have some activities. People need to be able to do

some things, et cetera, et cetera. Because we all- Amazing revelation, right? It is. I mean, it's funny. The thing right now, Todd, that I hear an awful lot about is, you know, you can go to a bar if you want it's your choice that you're not right because you're not vaccinated and I'm like well that isn't you know like that's not really a choice right like uh you can say that's a choice and for maybe a short period of time let's let's call it it it is a choice we're going to do this for the next two months because we have data showing blah blah blah blah blah not that they have the data but let's just assume they do but then there's no end in sight for it and people are just like well it's your choice okay fair all right whatever well now they're taking away everybody's

livelihood, right? Companies are mandating it down. Well, so we're going to just take everything away from, but since it's their choice that everything's taken away from, they still have a choice and that makes it okay. I don't know about that. Yeah, right. That's, that's, that's, that's really, really false, obviously. I don't know. There's a lot of people right now that don't agree with us when we say that. It's totally your choice. You don't want to get it. That's on you. Yeah. Yeah. plenty of people agree with it absolutely but you know i go back to well if if the um if the vaccine works then why do you care and if the vaccine doesn't work why do you care either i mean the point is there's no reason for a mandate either way because if you want to be protected by the vaccine

feel free go ahead you know and then you don't have to worry about the guy who doesn't have the vax and if it doesn't protect you well then it's not protecting anybody so yeah well we'll What the, the big push here is that the healthcare systems are being overran by unvaccinated people. And that it's essentially, what's the word I'm looking for? Irresponsible if you're not vaccinated right now. People are, you know, I had this, I've had this said to me a couple times. And people, I got to clearly point this out, people love to come talk to me in my area because obviously I'm open. into talking about this.

And one of the things I've heard said an awful lot is, you know, I was a cancer survivor. And right now they're, they're not allowing that to happen because the hospitals overran and everything. One of the things I always respond back with, because I saw this early on, we did a live stream, raised money for the hospital last year. And at that time, they had canceled all the pre-screens for like breast cancer and things like that. Well, what did that do? And nobody was upset about that back then, or at least not enough people were upset about it. Right. Now the only thing that's changed is the narrative on it.

And now they're, they're selecting out a population to target and say, this is why we can't have the pre-screens or the elective surgeries or anything. It's because of these people. Yeah. Well, last year, it was still going on, but nobody was talking about it on a mainstream narrative side, like to point it out. And so nobody was visibly upset about it. Now people are visibly upset about it. Right? That my kid gets in a car accident. They won't be in the hospital. It's like, well, honestly, last year might have been the same thing. At least they just didn't focus it that way because nobody would have agreed with it back then because there was no option. Now because there's an option. Do you get what I'm saying? Quote, an option. Absolutely.

Absolutely. Are you able to, do you have access to data there that shows whether the hospitals are really overrun or not? And whether it's because of COVID patients. Because that narrative has been used again and again in the U.S. And whenever someone gets a hold of the actual admissions data for the hospital, it's not the case. So I had a listener send me some data from the hospitals in Saskatchewan. and it showed that it was down year over from previous years. He didn't, me and him both couldn't figure out if it was legit. So he sent it off. He knew people in higher ups in the Saskatchewan government. And that was well over a week ago. And the only thing he got back was we'll look into it.

So I don't know. Like as far as admissions data goes and everything else, I think one of the glaring things they've pointed out about the Alberta government is they said they were going to increase ICU beds to, you know, it was like 900 and change. And then they had less than at one point, like less than 300. And this was year later. Yeah, right? Yeah. I mean, that's the, you know, what people need to realize is that, you know, ICUs are typically managed to run at about, you know, 85, 90 percent capacity because that keeps them in business.

You know, let's face it, there's a ton of expensive equipment and whatnot and staffing and everything else that has to happen in an ICU. So you can't sit there with a two-thirds empty ICU. So, you know, the capacity is carefully managed in these things. So, you know, there were stories going around in the in the U.S. again and again for propaganda reasons, pushed by, you know, mainstream media about hospitals being overrun because the ICUs were at 90 percent and whatever. And then people pulled up the data. And, you know, it's that way every year. They keep it that way all the time. It's normal, you know.

And it was not not because of COVID necessarily, you know. And so there's a lot of misrepresentation that goes on with that. It is frequently been pushed by folks trying to push an agenda as a reason that, you know, that the unvaxed are causing problems, let's say. Yeah, it's interesting. I don't mean to make light of COVID and everything. else, you know, like, uh, I just, there's so many things in the entire thing that when you, when you start to think about, just, you, it's odd, right? And you, and you can't find really, really good answers on it. And, you know, I go all the way back to when we first started

this conversation about what, is there a debate out there? Like, because maybe I've missed, you know, a debate or two that you can go watch and you go, oh, they make really good points, actually. That makes a lot of sense. But I, I don't see it anywhere. And I find more and more people. craving a debate. And so I wonder if that's going to happen. But if you haven't seen it, maybe it won't happen. Well, it hasn't really happened to any great extent. Certainly not any of the, you know, the big folks involved in all of this or refuse to entertain any kind of debate, you know,

whether that be in our country, Fauci or Wollenski. And yet, and yet Sanjay Gupta went on Rogan. And if you listen to that, and if you're listening right now, now, I really, really suggest you go listen to Sanjay Gupta, who's the CNN medical guy, talking to Joe Rogan. And obviously, you know, I assume all my listeners know the backstory, Joe Rogan, them saying he took horse dune warmer and him like blasted. And like, that is, that's the only one I know of for sure that has happened where I'm like,

this needs to happen more often. Yeah, for sure. And he's just a news guy, basically. I mean, he's just, he's there, you know, CNN. medical guy or whatever his title is. So, you know, he's relatively small potatoes compared to some of the people we'd like to get into an open debate. But, you know, so far, it'll be highly uncomfortable for them. I mean, you can, you can look at the example of, you know, Fauci when, when Rand, Paul started hitting on him about the Wuhan funding and all that. And he didn't handle that well at all,

because he's he's been used to being treated with kid gloves wherever he appears, you know, and he appears a lot and he never gets any difficult questions. And, you know, he got hit, hit by Rand Paul. And, you know, what Rand Paul said is proven to be true for the most part. I don't, you know, if everything was, but he, you know, he asked him some uncomfortable questions. And Fauci did not handle it well. And that's just one example. they're they're not interested you know in this and and i think you know that that everybody has to scratch their head and understand that that the reason for that is is uh you know probably not a good reason at all that that that they know that they are going to be challenged in a very uncomfortable way if they open themselves up and won't be able to defend it well i i appreciate

you doing this with me i've kept you long enough i i got to slide into the the cruise Master final question, just a little segment we do here towards the end. A couple of light ones or I don't know, everybody always goes, oh man, that's a tough question. I'm always, I'm always curious, Todd, if you could sit in my chair, so to speak, and interview anyone you, you know, to sit across and pick their brain. Who would you take right now? Wow. I'm going to try not to say, wow, that's a tough question. And they just said, that's what everybody says. Well, I think it's, I should probably warn people before I ask it, because I'm just like,

I think about it all the time. Like, who would I love to try and pick the brain of, right? And so, but in saying that, I'm always curious what would somebody else would find intriguing to sit across and talk to somebody about it. Well, I think a lot of us would say somebody like Fauci or Wollenski or some of the big figureheads involved in this whole thing, but you don't feel like you can. necessarily get an honest debate and obviously they would they would never do it. I think Anders Tagnell, you know, who ran Sweden's response would be an interesting guy to talk to. I've seen

some, you know, interviews with him recently. He's been on heard a few times and whatnot. And I feel like he's been very measured in his response being somewhat politically correct and some of the things he's been saying. You know, so it would be interesting to get, get him on more of a, you know, one-on-one basis and and well it wouldn't be on something like this i'd like to you know sit at a bar with him and have a beer and uh you know pick his brain that way so he so he didn't have to necessarily you know be measured with his responses yeah i've listened to him talk a few times and uh he's an interesting guy very interesting guy um one final one for you as we uh finish up here wrap up. What's something you're paying attention closely to over the next, I don't know,

what are we at? We're closing in on November. It's Halloween. So what do you, what do you paying attention to over the next month? Maybe two. We're going to be, you know, closely watching what happens with, you know, these numbers worldwide relative to vaccinations and, you know, how case rates and in all those things and, you know, apparent adverse events and all that. Because we're, you know, the more time we get with these things, the better idea we may be able to get on, you know, are, is there some real, is there some true efficacy? Are they really, you know, working to some extent helping certain percentage of the population, or are they really not doing very much and actually potentially making things worse? Obviously, we, you know,

would hope that we don't see an increase in adverse events from these things. But there's just so much that we don't know about that, about that whole platform that they're using, this M, this messenger RNA platform that's never been rolled out in humans before, you know, for, in any kind of mass way. And so, you know, it just, there's so many theories going around about, about what, what it may or may not be doing. And, you know, we just, we just want to keep a close eye on that because, you know, we get accused of being anti-vax at times and whatnot. Of course, everybody, everybody in Panda has that it had every vaccine that they were supposed to have as a standard thing, right? Those are vaccines that have high efficacy against very serious conditions that have been well tested.

This vaccine does not fit those, that statement that I just said. It is, it is not well tested. Many of us feel that we're not at great danger from this illness. and it's experimental right now. It's a type of vaccine that has never been used in humans. It has a terrible record in animals. So when they've tested in animals, it's resulted in some very bad things. So it should make one reticent or should make one interested to look into, you know,

what is going to happen with this thing. I wish they hadn't rolled out as fast as they did. And I hope that, you know, we don't see an increase in adverse events or a long, a long term, some long term effects starting to show up from it. I mean, I've got plenty of family members who've been vaccinated and everything. And it's, it's, you know, it's everybody's choice, but everybody should be able to make an informed choice. And so we, we want to watch this very closely. Yeah, for fair, for sure. All of us now have tons of family, friends. I mean, geez, here, it's, it's 85, 86 percent of the population. Like, it's not like it's this,

small little number. I keep doing and the reason I just keep going down this road is, you know, I got young kids and it's coming and I got, I got to figure, you know, I continually got to figure out either somebody's going to convince me or, you know, I just stick to my guns. And, you know, for me, everything that I've saw, researched, talk to people, it just doesn't make sense why we do that. But that's for everybody to figure out for themselves because that's what the greatest thing about the audience I have is by bringing on guests like yourself, they're all critical thinkers. They've already made up their mind on a bunch of things we've talked about today. And that's what I love about them is they are critical thinkers. They do think for themselves.

They do do their own research. And by all means, that's what we're hoping more and more of the population will continue to do. And really the important thing, and one of the things we feel like our duty is to provide the population with fair information, that they're not necessarily receiving from, you know, mainstream sources right now, as we've discussed, you know, through, throughout this whole thing. If we observe something, we want to provide fair information that, you know, does not agree necessarily with the mainstream narrative. So that people can make up their own minds and, you know, they're able to weigh costs and benefits fairly rather than having to follow a narrative. Yeah, for sure. Well, Todd, I appreciate you hopping on and doing this with me.

I won't hold you up any longer. Enjoyed it, Sean. Yeah, I really enjoyed meeting you in this discussion and everything else. Yeah, so take care. Thank you. Have a good one. Hey, folks, thanks for joining us today. If you just stumbled on the show, please click subscribe.

Then scroll to the bottom and rate and leave a review. I promise it helps. Remember, every Monday and Wednesday, we will have a new guest sitting down to share their story. The Sean Newman podcast available for free on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, and wherever else you get your podcast fix. Until next time.