Shaun Newman Podcast - #567 - Denis Rancourt

Episode Date: January 15, 2024

He is a PhD in physics who spent 23 years at the University of Ottawa as the lead scientist and professor of physics. He is the Co-Director of CORRELATION, a registered not-for-profit organization conducting independent scientific research on topics of public interest. Their most recent study shows 17 million people died worldwide from the vaccine.  You can support Denis here:https://correlation-canada.org/ Let me know what you think. Text me 587-217-8500 Substack:https://open.substack.com/pub/shaunnewmanpodcastE-transfer here: [e-mail] Website: https://silvergoldbull.ca/ Email: [e-mail] Phone [phone] – general sales line, ask for Grahame and be sure to let us know you’re an SNP listener.

This is Danielle Smith. This is Tammy Peterson. This is Alex Kraner. This is Curtis Stone. This is Tom Lomago. And you're listening to the Sean Newman podcast. Welcome to the podcast, folks. Happy Monday.

How's everybody doing? Oh, my goodness. Is it cold outside? Welcome back to Canada, folks. Oh, well, that's winter, isn't it? Bundle up, dress appropriately. And hopefully we get a little bit of snow. We're going to have the cold.

Heck, let's have a little bit of snow to go along with it. Please, all in one dump instead of it. of this inch here, inch there type thing. Anyways, happy Monday. How's everybody doing? Silver Gold Bull. They're North America's premier precious metals dealer with state-of-the-art distribution centers

in Calgary and Las Vegas. Ensure fastfully insured discrete shipping right to your doorstep and offer a diverse set of services including buyback, wholesale, registered savings, IRA accounts, RRSP, and TFSA as well as storage and refining. Solutions. You can trust them and elevate your precious metals investment journey with unrivaled expertise

and on parallel convenience. Your prosperity and security are top priority to making Silvergold Bowl the go-to choice for all your precious mail needs. Silvergoble.com. Down in the show notes, you can email Mr. Graham. We get our own email address, or you can call them as well if you want to talk to them. Clay Smiley, the team over at Prophet River, they specialize in importing firearms from the United States of America,

and pride themselves on making the process as easy for all their customers as humanly possible. And they do all the appropriate paperwork on both sides of the border, in order to legally get that into your hands. no matter where you're sitting. Oh, coast to coast, they get you covered. They are the major retailer of firearms, optics, and accessories serving all of Canada. Just go to Profitriver.com. Tucker Carlson, Tickets.

We've got a draw coming up Wednesday. Wednesday, Wednesday, Wednesday, Wednesday, Wednesday, Wednesday. And in order to get in on the draw, pledge on Substack. So go to Substack, and you got a really, really, really good chance of being one of the names. pulled all you got to do is pledge on substack we got uh five draws going this wednesday lower bowl seats for tucker carlson yeah you heard that right so uh head on over to substack get signed up pledge and uh get in the draw and i think it's like you know you're talking about one and one and 20 chance so hey that's pretty cool mitchco spraying michiko environmental i should say Tyson and

Tracy Mitchell. It's the new year. So they are pushing for college students, university students, looking ahead, May through August, four-month positions. You can earn 20,000 with the potential of more. It's an entry-level position. So all you've got to do is, you know, give them a call. You can acquire a bit more. You can make good money. Hopefully by the time the summer comes, one across his finger, you're not worried about having a took on your head because she's warmed up by then. But anyways, give me a call, 780214, 4004, Mischocorp.ca, if you're looking for more information. Carly-Clauss and the team over at Windsor Plywood Builders of the podcast Studio Table.

It is definitely not deck season. Holy Mac. I don't think anybody's hanging around a deck, are they? Somebody's probably got a big fire going on at the lake. That's probably the closest thing to being outside right now, and even then, I don't know. Anybody, does anybody, do any of the listeners, when it's minus 40 outside, are you doing a campfire? Do you do anything like that?

Are you like, John, that's insane? Well, I don't know. We're Canadians. We do a lot of weird stuff. Whether we're talking mantles, decks, windows, doors, sheds, podcast, studio, table, Windsor, plywood for all your character would and just wood needs. Now, let's get on that tale of the tape. He has his PhD in physics and is a former physics professor and lead scientists at the University of Ottawa for 23 years. Now, the co-director of Correlation Research and Public Interest.

It's a registered not-for-profit organization conducting independent scientific research on topics of public interest. I'm talking about Deney Rancourt. So buckle up. Here we go. Welcome to the Sean Newman podcast today. I'm joined by Deney Rancourt. I hope I got that right. He told me to pronounce Rancourt, folks, but I'm like, you know, as you, everybody knows, I love a good new name.

I'm like, you got to have the challenge. of trying to pronounce it because, you know, you see some really clever names out there. I'm like, man, how do you even pronounce that? So I'm glad you clarified that because to me, Deney saying it right is a good start. I want my name to be said the proper way. And so if I can do the, if I can return the favor, that's exactly how I want to start this thing. So thanks for hopping on. Well, you're welcome, Shaun. Yeah, you're welcome. You know, it's funny. You're not the, you're like the second person to make that joke on this show. So that, Okay, sorry.

No, it's all good. I actually had a Sean in one of my classes one time who got really upset that I wasn't, it wasn't clear how I was going to pronounce this, you know, long time ago when I was teaching. Yeah. Well, Deni, you could, you, I think a lot of people on the audience know who you are. But in saying that, you know, I always let the guest tell it in their own words. Could you give us the backstory of who you are? And anything you think is pertinent to the conversation today?

Well, I'm a scientist. Well, I got a, my PhD in physics was from the University of Toronto. And then I was a winner of an international prize to go and do postdoctoral studies in Europe. And so I did first postdoctoral candidacy in France. and then I moved on to the Netherlands. And then there was a, then I competed for a national competition to preserve young Canadian scientists. And I won that. It was very competitive.

And my, I held it at the University of Ottawa. So that's where I started my kind of academic career officially. And I eventually got, fairly quickly got the highest rank academic, rank of full professor in the Department of Physics. And as a researcher, I was also cross-appointed in Earth Sciences because I did a lot of research that was relevant to environmental science and Earth science and so on. And so I did a full career there. I was there for 23 years.

And I developed a large science laboratory that was recognized around the world. I had, I supervised master students, PhD students, and doctoral fellows and my laboratory had sophisticated equipment such as including an electron microscope nuclear spectrometers uh optical spectrometers all kinds of uh equipment to study environmental samples physics and so on but i also did theoretical physics so several of my uh published papers more than a hundred of them uh in recognized journals are theoretical physics papers and so on so I'm an interdisciplinary guy and I was very outspoken and very critical of the administration eventually got me fired and so I know what it's like to fight the institution and it took a decade

but we settled and here I am doing ever since ever since that time I've been doing independent research and trying to address problems that are important in society and so now I'm with correlation dash canada.org before we get to all that I want to go back you said and I was probably more than you wanted to know no no no I love it I love it honestly you said young scientist competition or something along those lines

and I'm like what is that? What are you trying to do? Yeah the government of Canada decided that they were going to lose scientists at one point they were worried that you know they always look at that in when they're planning for the nation and they're thinking in terms of being able to hire the top people in the universities and not lose them to other countries not have a brain drain out of the country so there was a brain drain concern back in the uh when was this this was uh in the early 80s there was a brain that there

was a brain drain coming and there was a concern about that so they put on a big national program to retain and attract young scientists that were abroad and bring them back to Canada and give them guaranteed research funding for many years and and you know treat them well and and make sure that they can spend time on their research that they don't have administrative duties and so on to get their their research careers you know to to encourage that so there was this national program it was called the National Research Fellows Program of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada. And so it was, they had several years of international competition, and the success rate was less than 20%.

So that's after the first cutoff where a university or several universities had to agree that they absolutely wanted you and they were going to provide the laboratory and the, and they were going to put you on a tenure track position and so on. After you competed with hundreds of people to find a university that would say yes to all of that, then you entered this national competition where the success rate was less than 20%. And so I won that competition and decided to take my tenure up at the University of Ottawa. And so that's where, which was a bilingual city. and I have family here and so on, and that's how I got started.

And so that's the story of how I entered academia. When you win the competition, I don't know why this fascinates me so much, maybe people are like, can we just move on? But I'm like, what did you win the competition doing? Like, what was you, did you have a project? Did you have a paper? What won it for you? Oh, well, you, you explain what you think is important in research,

what you're going to do, what research, you would do and you show what you have done up till now. So you show your your thesis and your scientific publications up to that point and you explain what role you played in doing that research and you say the kind of research that you would do at a Canadian university and what you would want to set up and what your research program would be like. And so once you you say all that and then they evaluate all these files and they pick they pick people that that make it and then since the university's already said that they would be more than happy to take you they they fund your salary at that university for 10 years so basically for 10 years you have a lot of academic freedom because

your salary is being paid from the outside so the university can't tell you can't impose too many tasks on you and can't impose too many rules and regulations and you can, you know, you're able to remind them that, hey, you know, your salary is paid. My salary is mostly paid by someone else. So this is what I want to do, you know. And what was it back when you were a young man and you're winning this award and you get 10 years of relatively fully funded autonomy? What is it that you're like, this is what I want to do. This is what I think is important. Right. Right. Right. Right. So I became a tenured, tenure track professor.

I was still under 30. I did this fairly quickly. And I advanced through the ranks and got promotions very quickly as well. I was the, I had received the largest strategic funding grant that the Faculty of Science had anyone in our Faculty of Science had ever received while I was a researcher. I had many laboratories that I was responsible for and a large group of research students and so on. But what I said in the competition, what I said was, you know, look, I can do things that nobody else can do with nuclear spectroscopy. I can figure things out and solve problems in many different fields of science using this advanced technique that I've largely advanced that I've developed largely developed the methodology of and so I will definitely set up a

laboratory to do that and I'm also a theoretical physicist and look I've I've shown the nature of solitons in in magnetism and I'm the sole author of that paper it's not like someone was telling me what I had to do and so I will continue to be a theorist as well to solve these problems and when I I see something important, I'll apply this method to it. And that's the kind of thing that I would have said at the time. And very, very soon, one of my areas of focus became nanoparticles in nature and in the environment and also synthetic nanoparticles. So that's an area that I have a very broad expertise in and that I've written several papers about. And I've, you know, throughout all of this, I was regularly involved.

to be a keynote speaker at international conferences in many different areas of science. So when I would enter a new area of science, typically it would take me a year or two to get at the top level. And then I'd be doing research that was recognized in the field. It was recognized as either this is what we, you know, we have to, we have to now take this into account or this is very bothersome what he's doing in the field here. is recognizing one of those two ways. But I either, so they would either block me from being invited to conferences when some of the committee members would suggest it. Or they would wholeheartedly invite me to be a keynote speaker.

So I was a keynote speaker in conferences in many different areas of science. And this was my career. And the students that came to work under my supervision also worked in many different areas of physics, depending on their interests and our mutual. mutual interests and so on. And I did this for 23 years. So that's what I did. Yeah, so I fought with journals, peer-reviewed. Some of our most important work as a physicist. My most important work as a physicist had a really hard time being published because we claimed to solve a longstanding problem of physics. And we said we have proven you know, the answer to this problem. And it was a problem that dated back to when the Nobel Prize was given for even discovering the phenomenon back in, I think it was 1903 or some 1910 or something like that. It was the Nobel Prize that was given for the discovery of so-called Invar, which is a very unusual material that does not have a thermal expansion. Okay, so it was a completely new phenomenon when it was discovered.

Guillaume won the Nobel Prize for it at the time, and nobody could understand or there was fights about how could this be, what was going on, what was the microscopic mechanism of this zero thermal expansion material. And so I studied that for, you know, more than a decade and did lots of experiments and theoretical calculators. calculations and our group, my students and I, we said that we solved the problem and we said that we could prove it. And we said that we could prove that all the previous hypotheses about what was going on could be disproved, could be proven wrong by specific measurements, which we performed in our laboratory. So the people in the field invited us to their major conferences. We talked about it and made a lot of people very

angry but the the top journals would not publish our discovery so nature in particular we had a big fight with nature the journal and this really discouraged this really showed me the political the deep political nature of publishing in when you're at that top level and so i decided i'm I'm just going to drop this and go into environmental science. And so that's when I shifted to environmental science. More of my research became environmental science. The student that did his Ph.D. on this was, I would say, discouraged and didn't become an academic. He was absolutely brilliant, the top student, you know, at the university.

And he decided, I'm not going to do academia. And he went into the, he worked, he ended up working for the high tech industry and he's had a very successful career in that, in that field. But this is the nature of the thing. I used to be completely occupied by the fact that we had solved the Invar problem, a very famous problem in physics. And I would scream it to anyone who would hear me and explain it in detail. And I realized they don't care. They only care where the grants. are coming from and that they have a name for having proposed that they think they understand it. So they don't want a challenge. They don't want to think about what it's really about.

They don't care at all about it, really. So it was kind of a wake-up call that even the scientists were not interested in understanding very complex phenomena when you had a very detailed proof that what they were saying was wrong. And you had a very plausible explanation of what you had a very plausible explanation of what. the mechanism really was and you could demonstrate elements of it that were definitely acting. They didn't care. They didn't care. So I remember at one of these major conferences where both the PhD student and myself were both invited speakers at the same conference on this problem. I'll just tell you this anecdote because you got me started here. What happened was the big

leaders, the big professors who had big grants and big research groups in Germany and elsewhere, didn't want to hear us they they they would just they would basically almost literally plug their ears while we were talking and then and then make some snide remark at the end but their postdocs and their junior researchers in the teams they want to know what what this was about so one of the one of the senior junior researchers in one of these big groups came to have lunch with me and we he he asked me you know even though we had written papers about it and we explained it and everything he he he he he couldn't wrap their heads around it it was it was some subtleties involved so he really wanted to know so okay we talk we talked I was explaining it

and I was making graphs and scribbling things on a napkin during lunch okay and all of a sudden the light went on in this guy's mind and he said oh oh that's what it's about I get it and then he looked at me his eyes were like really wide and he said can I keep this? He picked up the napkin. He said, can I keep this? And then he went to try to convince his boss, and nothing really came of it. So to this day, there are articles and leading journals where people claim to have made

advances understanding the Invar problem. And they basically have not looked at our published research. So the thing that we published in nature, which was just a land. landmark study eventually got published in a specialized journal. So it's all there in the publications. It's all there for anyone to read. And it's all detailed with, you know, a decade's worth of measurements and sophisticated experiments and everything. And it never broke through.

It never, it never, you know, they're not, the textbooks don't now say the invar problem has been solved by, you know, Rancourt's team. And here's the solution. And this is how it works and nice diagrams and everything. They never did that. They never did that. But intellectually, I am absolutely convinced that all their models that we proved, a dozen or so models, we disprove each one individually. That was one of the invited papers that we wrote, disproving the past models

and then explaining our model. And I'm absolutely convinced that we're 100% right, you know, until proven otherwise, if someone wants to explain how we made a mistake or why we're wrong. But that was my main, one of my main adventures in physics that showed me that science was extremely political and that often the truth never really comes out. And that these professional scientists don't want to know the truth. They're not interested in the truth. They have careers and they have funding and they have a status and they have a reputation. and that's what they care about.

You asked, I've warned, I've warned interviewers. I said, if you ask me an open-ended question on some odd topic that you didn't foresee, I would just go on and on. Oh, don't take my pause, Denny. You guys have been warned. Don't take my pause at all for being upset. I'm, I am. Oh, no, no, no, no.

I'm very curious. The question I'm going to ask, I'm like, I have no, you know, like, to the audience member, are we going to get to the things going on today? so freaking lulli, okay? But now all I can think is, what is it invar? What is it? Because now I'm like, okay, so what is invar? Right.

Right. So it's a metallic alloy that has been used in technology extensively because it's a great base for laser systems or sophisticated electronics, anywhere where the application requires that you're not sensitive to thermal expansion. It can be since it's a, since it's a metallic alloy, you can machine it, you can cast it in various forms, and you can build things on it that will not move because of temperature variations. Okay. So it's a, it's a metallic alloy. It's an alloy of iron and nickel. And I don't want to get into the microscopic mechanism of why.

If I was walking around town or just a common person, where would you, like, where would you assume it's being used? Well, okay, it used to be in watches. Elinvar, which is a spin-off, is a material that the spring properties don't change with temperature. Okay. So it's invariant in terms of its properties that make it a spring. so that was used in watches extensively. It has been used in large container ships because if you're shipping a precious fluid such as oil

across, you know, from equatorial regions into northern regions, just thermal expansion can cause problems with the welds cracking in the container and the inside container ship, you know. So it's been used in construction on a big scale. like that. I mean, it's a known material of engineering. All the engineers learn about INVAR and where you might want to use it and how you use it and all this kind of stuff, right? It's like there's a whole metallurgy in science of steel and the different kinds of steels, you know, non-magnetic steel, particularly hard steel and all this kind of stuff.

It's an area of science. Well, Invar is like a steel. In fact, some people call it Invar steel. And it's part of the science of steel of metallic alloy material science, if you like. So it has broad application. It's funny. Everybody now knows if they didn't already. They know I don't build things because I'm like, I've just never heard of, you know, maybe Invar, I assume, you know, as you talk, Invar is very commonplace.

I'm just like Invar. I'm like, what is that? The hobbyist who builds things, you know, if they're really dedicated hobbyists and they have this curiosity. They'll know what Invar is. And if you've done engineering in material science, then you, of course, you learned about it. You know, it's in the textbooks among the steels that you learn about. But otherwise, you probably wouldn't hear about it. And it's interesting because the guy who discovered it and promoted it and got the Nobel Prize, Guillaume was his name, one of the things he did to show the properties of Invar is he drew out a long, metallic,

cable of this thing and he stretched it from the top of the Eiffel Tower down to the base and then he tied and then he attached a needle to it to register any changes in length of the Eiffel Tower. So he showed the thermal expansion of the Eiffel Tower day to night and things like that. So he he had a record of the temperature at the Eiffel Tower and then he had a record of the change in length of the Eiffel Tower which is made of steel, which does have a thermal expansion, relative to this invar cable that he had strung down. So that was one of the fun. How much does the Eiffel Tower expand?

It's the order of centimeters, you know. That's wild. I guess I never, you know, me sitting here, I go, I never, whatever I ever thought. I've been on the Eiffel Tower. Like I've been there. Yeah. So you want to go, you want to go on a summer day when it's really hot

because then you can say you've been, up as high as you can in the Eiffel Tower. You want it to be thermally expanded as much as possible, right? I'm making a joke. I'll tell you when you have to. Now, for the listener, we just took a quick pause. I was just doing a couple things on the audio. They probably don't even hear.

They're like, what? And I'm like, well, we just took a quick pause. So I just want to make sure as if we jump subjects, everyone's like, what? Why would it go from that to this? but regardless uh dene we were talking about uh you know your early career and and this this in var and longstanding problem and essentially uh um essentially how nobody would acknowledge

your work which is interesting to me because this is obviously a longstanding problem that lends into what's going on with covid almost like you know here's an example and it just translates over to what's been going on the last little bit but before we before we even jump to that. I think you said that you, you know, it's been a decade and you finally settled out with the University of Ottawa, I believe, correct? Which would mean that it was long before COVID that you were outspoken or at least just standing up for what you believed in. What was the final straw that broke the back for you? You mean, you mean in their minds, when did they decide or under which circumstances that they decide?

Okay, we're firing this guy. Yes. Yeah. What did they decide? You know, like this guy is a... So you have to understand that they never tell you that. Really? They always invent a pretext that will fly in their eyes and where they won't look bad.

Okay. So they come up with a pretext. So one answer to that question is what pretext did they use? And then the other real question is why did they really so intently want? to fire me okay what were the events that led to that what really irked them those are two separate things the pretext was almost ridiculous the pretext was that they claimed that i had given grades arbitrarily in one advanced physics course okay that uh that the that the students didn't deserve the grade that they got uh but they never in arbitration they never

proved any one student getting a grade that they didn't deserve all they did was say that because i had been critical of the grading system and i said that you know and so on and so on and they quoted me from my public talks and things i was quoted saying in the media and i was very critical of the grading system and so on they said therefore he must be just grading you know out of out of uh as a protest you know and these grades are just unrelated to to reality and and they fired me for that reason okay so that that was the pretext they used was grading so it was an academic freedom or professional dependence kind of battle a professor is a professor allowed to decide how they're going to grade the student you know isn't that your job giving yeah

Yes. And the collective agreement, the contract says that's my job and that's my responsibility. So it was insane. But I was outspoken in many venues on YouTube and elsewhere. And you could be very critical of me if you were an establishment person. Okay. I mean, I said a lot of things. And so they basically the whole arbitration was about trying to convince the arbitrator that I was a horrible person and that I was saying all these horrendous things that no one should ever utter and so on and so on. What year is it? Yeah, yeah, that was uh, so I was finally dismissed in 2009.

Okay. Okay. And it took 10 or 12 years to settle. So my union defended me. We went to arbitration. Then we appealed the arbitration result. And, And during that appeal, there were some decisions that, preliminary decisions, interlocutory decisions during the appeal in judicial review that we felt were completely illegal. So we went to the highest Court of Appeal of Ontario to appeal partial decisions. And then my union tried to go to the Supreme Court of Canada to say, look, this is crazy. And, you know, it was a long legal process. Like the arbitration award itself, the decision on arbitration,

had fatal legal flaws in it. It was a really bad, badly put together decision. And so my union for that reason felt obligated and wanted to appeal it. And so they put a lot of resources into fighting this thing because they saw it as a political firing. And so during that lengthy appeal process, we settled. You know, I don't know how many times I'm going to talk to somebody on here. You know, you're going to be episode 567.

So I've talked to 566 people because one of them, in all of those, I did one solo episode after going to Ottawa for the Freedom Convoy. And every time I think I'm starting to understand something, I get somebody like De Neon folks. And you tell me a story and I go, oh, man, this has been going on a lot longer than, you know, and I keep hearing these stories where you know, you know, Sean, I have to tell you the inability

or the aggressive desire not to hear my discovery about Invar is entirely related to professional ego pettiness. Okay. It's not related to the government wanting to inject everybody, with a substance into their bodies. It was like professional ego pettiness and how the professional mind works and how you get status and recognition

is a world that is explained actually brilliantly by the social theorist Jeff Schmidt, who is also a physicist who wrote a book called Discipline Minds. Now I highly recommend that. book because it really explains in a very intricate way how the professional is indoctrinated what is the process for indoctrinating professionals so that they will never speak out against what's the author's name again sorry Jeff Schmitt and that's discipline minds okay thank you for that I'm gonna have a

bunch of people trying to scramble while they're driving to be like what was the book again so they're disciplined Jeff yeah yeah this is this book actually changed my life in terms of how I see the world and society in terms of professional salaried professionals it changed my vision of things and it's a it's an extraordinary book that's been translated into a dozen languages and published all over the world and that you know that's been talked about in all the mainstream media and it came out many years ago I read it when I was a professor at the University of Ottawa and I actually

invited Jeff Schmidt to come and tell physicists how they were being indoctrinated. And some of my colleagues did not appreciate that, but he gave some beautiful talks at the University of Ottawa. And he was fired from his physics position for having written that book. Is he, forgive me, is he still alive? And where is he from? He's a good friend of mine. He's living in Washington, D.C. I'll talk to you. I'll talk to you after it's done, but that sounds fascinating. Like one, I'm like, I got to pick up this book, folks. And to him, like, I bet he'd be a fantastic person to have on to talk about it.

Yeah, well, he doesn't accept all the interviews. He's very, very picky. He's very, very picky, you know. And also, I'll have to tell you, he's tired of telling the story of his book. You know, because he feels like he's just repeating himself over and over again, you know. That's fair, but I'm not going to say that he would probably accept. not going to say that, but I'd be happy to give you. Yeah, I don't mean to put you on the spot, Denise.

That's not what I was trying to do. All I was meaning was if it has rocked your world, right, to make sense of things. That's somebody that I think there's a whole new audience that's walked through COVID that needs to hear from. Absolutely. And one of the things that you probably started to understand with gaining some fame, if I might put it that way, by having some videos go all over the place and some of your research starting to hit different things is you probably are repeating yourself a lot.

But the thing about that is, is there's so many ears that need to hear it. And there's so many people, especially here in Canada, like, oh, my goodness, that just are craving it. They need to hear from the person to hear what is going on so they can better inform themselves. Because now we know, you know, for certain, if we didn't, you know, three years ago, that, like, mainstream ain't going to talk to Denise. I mean, it's, and you're not getting the full truth from. No, but they will talk about me. They're now the state media, which is CBC and Canada. The French arm of that in Quebec is called the Radio Canada.

And they recently did a very long, supposedly a journalistic piece, but it's a hack job, a fact-checking hack job where they interview these show. and they go on and on about, you know, 17 million people did not die, and this man is a horrible person and so on and so on, right? It is just a defamatory hack job. Unbelievable. And that just came out. So they do talk about me, but they will not.

And then and then air what you said. And they will not address my scientific arguments. They will never address my. Well, and that's why you have to continue. continue and I, you know, and I go back to, uh, Jeff Schmidt, whether or not he wants to come on or not. That's completely up to him, obviously. But like, um, yeah, I can, I can get the repeating and everything else. But the thing is, is there is this brand new audience. I'm case in point. And everybody who listens to this show is another case in point of like, there's people's eyes

being open every single day right now to like, they see the, I see the hack drop. And I've seen that people attacking you. And I'm like, oh, that's funny. Right. Like, are they even talking to this guy are they going to what he's actually saying they're not even reading the papers they're not even acknowledging the the rigorous scientific arguments and the and and the impeccable data that we've analyzed they're not acknowledging any of that they're shills it's incredible but it doesn't okay but the other thing is to uh you know you you you you talked about repeating and so on it's a lot of work to come on these interviews i mean i have to book time and i have to you know be be be open to these kinds of conversations and so on.

Whereas really I'm a scientist and really we do research. Like Sean, you have to understand my research group and I, we're doing the heavy lifting. We're actually getting in and getting the best possible data, making sure it is not manipulated data, verifying it in every possible way with statistical means and questions to the government sources and everything, and then analyzing it with sophisticated statistics. statistical analysis techniques, some of which we have to develop that are exactly optimized to this kind of data. And so we have been leaders in developing the methodology as well. So we're doing the heavy lifting.

And then we're writing this out in detail in large reports. You know, the 17 million calculation is in a report that is 180 pages long that has graphs and figures and tables and everything. So we, this is our, this is our, this is how we see how we can be most useful is to do hard science. And we put an enormous amount of energy into that. And you have to focus. You cannot be doing interviews. So what I do is I go from, I say, okay, we just put out an important piece of work. People need to hear about it.

I will accept to go to this conference. Not these other three that I've been invited to, but this one I can go, because I think it'll have impact and, you know, I respect the organizers and so on. Same with people. I get so many requests for interviews. I have to pick and choose. I have to look for people who appear to me to be authentic, that, you know, they really want to know things. They're not, they don't just want to have me on their show because people have been

talking about me in social media and they wanted to be a plus to their show, right? I want authentic people who are thinking and so on. That's what I look for. And that's more important to me than whether. the mainstream or not even okay but it is a complete um take out it it carves out my time i cannot be doing the the high level research that we normally do when i'm in a period of doing uh one or two interviews a day like this you see i but i will do that i will carve that out and i will say okay i'll do it i'll get it out and then we've got to get back into the research because what you

have to know sean is the two big scientific projects that are in the works right now at our at our corporation our non-profit corporation it's it's it's mega important and we're just killing ourselves trying to get it down and get it out and get it published you know and that's really really important because every one of these articles i believe that we put out has been a landmark you know we were the first to show that the that the very initial hotspot COVID peak right after the pandemic was announced occurred, was synchronous around the world and could not be due to a spreading pathogen. Okay, we were the first to show that.

And this was back on the 2nd of June 2020. And every time we've put out an article, there were landmark discoveries in it because we don't like repeating ourselves. So we were the first to show with regards to the vaccines that vaccine, toxicity increases exponentially with age and doubles your chance of dying per injection doubles every four or five years in your age we were the first to show that repeatedly with good data so there are I could I could list 12 things in in COVID science that we were the first to show you know about a dozen things I could just go down the list like that so this is this is what

we're trying to do. We're trying to give everybody, including the scientists that are explaining this to the public, we're trying to give them the best possible tools to be able to say these things and to say what the basis of it is. And it takes a long time for even those scientists to really understand and appreciate what we've done, or to even bother reading these long reports, right? So for the longest time initially, even the scientists and MDs, we're not actually reading our papers. I was I was just so angry with them. I would go on these Zoom calls and I would say read our darn paper. It's like please you know we killed ourselves producing this. It answers more than the questions that you have. Please just read it so we can have a discussion.

Well, I want to say but now we're at a stage now that now it's flipped and now the scientists are actually reading it and explaining it and recognizing it more and more. So there has been a change, but we had to break through in the social media before the scientists would be encouraged to look at it, you know? Well, I just want to say, A, I appreciate one, you coming on here. And I appreciate your thought process and trying to find genuine people to talk with, because I take that as a very high compliment. And the reason for, and I'll explain this to the audience as well,

because maybe they don't know my mindset when I have a new guest come on. The reason I drag out getting to COVID, and I want to learn more about Deney, is because I'm looking for the same thing in guests. So I bring you on for a multitude of reasons. But then I want to know who you are before, because I want to understand what motivated you to get to this point. Because I've ran into, you know, in 500,

plus interviews. I've ran into some people that I'm just like, I just don't need to have them back on. And I want to find out what makes a person tick before we get into. Well, I'll tell you what made me tick. I'll tell you, I'll be very honest and I'll reveal it. You know, when I was a very young person, I decided, you know, in, you know, just even before I went into high school, I decided I needed to understand the universe, the world. I needed to answer very basic fundamental questions. And as I went down that road using logic and trying to learn things and asking people questions, I discovered that the area of science that was most likely going to give me the kinds of answers I wanted was physics.

And so I decided early on that I would be, I would learn everything there was to learn about physics. And this is what drove me. And fundamentally, it was about figuring out my relationship to the universe and whether or not that involved God or something else. But I wanted to answer it on the basis of logic and firm observation and things that I could determine that I could decide were true, that were building blocks to my logic. I wanted to do that and I was not going to compromise it ever.

And then as I did a PhD, I discovered that I needed to make compromises. So I started making this trade with the devil, which is explained in Jeff Schmidt's book, Disciplined Minds, that trade with the devil. Okay, so the trade is, all right, I'll jump through the who. I will learn quantum mechanics the way you want me to learn it. I will learn general relativity, the way you're teaching it, and the way you want me to learn it, and I will learn it to pass the exam and to do well so that then I can get scholarships

so that I can continue to graduate school, and then I'll have more freedom because I'll be able to pick what my thesis is about. And then you get to graduate school and you discover that your professor has to fund his lab, even though you have a school, scholarship, he has to fund his lab. So you have to compromise to collaborate with your professor, your supervisor. So you're saying, okay, well, soon I'll be a professor. So I'll compromise now.

I'll do, I'll write papers. I'll write my thesis according to the university rules. But eventually I will have academic freedom as a professor. Then I'll be able to get back to my mission, you see. And every step of the way, you're compromising yourself. And by the end of it, You've spent decades doing this and you find yourself, you're angry at yourself for having compromised all of that, you know. So taking that route, the academic route and the educational route is necessarily a compromise. And it is devastating to do that to yourself. And the book, Jeff Schmidt, explains that entire phenomenon and how they do that to you. And so when I read it, when I read the book, I was devastated because it put me face to face with the incredible indoctrination and the incredible assault that I had been subjected to as a person.

It put me face to face with that as I was reading the book. And I thought, God, this is incredible. And from that point on, I decided to teach differently at the university. and I decided to interact differently with my students, and I decided to give them more academic freedom so that they could use their creativity and their motivation, their intrinsic motivation more. And that's when I experimented with different grading systems and so on.

And that's what eventually was related to the pretext as to why they fired me. So that I just gave you a pretty good idea. you said what motivates you what motivated me was to find out the truth about the most important things that's um thank you for that uh you know i'm going to give a shout out to bairn christopher a former well he's still a journalist i shouldn't say that he's an older man and uh sorry byron you're just older than me but he uh he was a man i interviewed uh at emminton oh man this is like three years ago i want to say denny and um At that time, I just said, you know, something similar to your younger self.

I just want to understand how the world works. It's a dangerous question to ask because then you're going to go down this road and you get forced to face a lot of truths where you're like, and you talk about these little compromises and how you slowly start to like, if I make this compromise, I'm going against myself. Jordan Peterson talks a lot about this. And you just laid it out beautifully in a way that, you know, a lot of people probably really understand.

little compromises, they seem little tiny things. And over time, they add up to a really big thing. And, you know, and when you enter a society that has become more totalitarian, one of the things that happens is that more and more young people and students and individuals are not asking those questions. They are entirely empty shells that just want to have their place with that totalitarian system and that want to obey. So that is a sign that you're moving towards a totalitarian system. So in the decades that I taught, I actually saw the transformation. The first years that I taught in the early 1980s at the university level,

the students had many, many of the students had this questioning, had this intrinsic desire, had this drive to learn and to understand things. And they so loved my courses because my courses were based on understanding the concepts, okay, as opposed to just regurgitating things and doing calculations automatically. So they loved my courses and several students went into physics because they were exposed to me in their first year. But the thing is, that was the beginning. And then the institutions transformed education in Ontario and in Canada to the point where

in some of the later. on about a decade or a decade and a half later, the students were not like that. They became automaton's and they were obedient and they were silent and they weren't challenging the professor whatsoever and they would come to me after class after wanting to take everything down in their notes and not thinking about it. They would come to me after class and they would ask me, can we record this so we're not missing a single word? And they would ask me after class, could you assign me extra homework in addition to all the homework you've assigned so I can practice this more and be even better? So I can just do more of this automatic stuff because I think that's what you want, right?

And can we learn this more to be able to regurgitate it more efficiently? And also can I can you help me find a volunteer position where I'm serving essentially someone for free in doing this kind of, you know, know, mindless work. And because I want to, I want to get a career. I want to get a job. And that's all I care about. So I saw that transformation in the students. They weren't, they weren't having discussions and fights with me anymore. They would, they just couldn't. And they became this mass of automaton's. They, you could, they were still, many of them were still extremely bright, had extraordinary memories, ability to think, lots of, you know, analytic skills and everything, but they had lost this creative thrust to understand the world. Okay. And so that to me is one measure of that we're

entering a totalitarian system. And I actually wrote a paper about it back then. And the title was something like, you know, the educational system is bringing us into a fascist epic you know or something like that and it was published in a in a in a social science journal it was actually published uh so it had the word fascism in the title and how education was bringing us there so i observed that during my career and then i wrote in 2019 i wrote a big report about geopolitics and i explained how that was a dream and really accelerated at the at the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, late 80s, and how there were, how the Western Empire, if you like, imposed new doctrines on the Western domestic populations

through schools and education that were fabricated entirely right after. the dissolution of the Soviet Union, there were large international conferences that set the tone for where they were going to go ideologically. And I explained this in my paper. So there were three areas. There was environments so that the Rio summit basically was in that period. And it led eventually to the whole global warming incredible crap about CO2 as opposed to actually being concerned about the environments that people live in and so on. So that was going to become part of the the new religion, the new doctrine was environmentalism and global warming. And there was a second huge international conference where all the influential players

from all the Western nations would participate. And it was about a gender equity. And so they transformed what was traditionally human rights and the rights of the children not be exploited in the world and made it into, if we wanted a better world, we had to have as many vicious CEOs of big corporations that are women as men and as many bought out politicians in the governments that are women as men and so if you could get that balance then that would make the world a better place so the gender equity gave rise to it became in the institutions once that was directly downloaded into all our our systems it

eventually allowed the critical race theory to become a thing even though it's a complete nonsensical garbage pseudo-academic area it this is what allowed it to flourish because it served that agenda and and it reinforced that that part of the new religion that that was going to be the doctrine of this empire And the third area where they had a big international conference that set the tone for education was so there was anti-racism of language. Okay. So in other words, we have to, if we can root out, if we can infer the deep inner racism of a person from the words that they utter. and we can correct them and force them never to utter such words and punish them for our inference of how racist they are,

then that will make the world a better place. And there was actual conference on that in the early 1990s and how vital this was and how this was going to eliminate racism in the world. So they went from actual structural racism, complete crushing and keeping Africa down structurally by design actual racism and actual racism of exploitation they they moved from from the UN pretending to fight against that to the UN saying the way to fight racism is about purifying our language okay so that became the new anti-racism and that became the new religion and the new doctrine that was literally

downloaded into all the institutions and government briefing notes and everything. And so this was a direct consequence of the dissolution of the Soviet Union. You see, at the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the U.S. empire, the U.S. system with all of its servicing corporations and finance entities and everything, decided, well, now we own the world. There is absolutely no balancing pushback whatsoever. We can exploit every continent. We own everything now.

And so we can project our military power more than ever before. We can do whatever the heck we want. And if you look at our paper, our 2019 paper on geopolitics, a massive report. We show all the graphs. So all the indicators of exploitation globalism, they fire up. They fire up. all the takeovers of European corporations by U.S. corporations, all the indicators of all these kinds of things that we call globalization,

fire up starting in 1990, 91, 92. There's a big kink in the curve and it just shoots up. And so globalization, there was a tectonic shift when the Soviet Union dissolved. And it accelerated globalization and allowed the creation of these new doctrines in the West. and really accelerated our march towards fascism. So what I try to explain to people repeatedly is the biggest gears that run the world is geopolitics. Geopolitics did not stop being a thing. Geopolitics is real.

Geopolitics is the thing that determines more than anything else what our lives are going to be like. In the West, in the East, everywhere. And so I when people tell me where are we going with this COVID thing is are things going to get better? Are we going to, you know, my answer has been from the beginning. You will see a change and it will be on the scale of decades because it is driven by geopolitics. And the thing that can save us the most is if Eurasia continues to develop because it is a sovereign, independent block and it has real economic development. and it there which relies on human expertise and creativity and it's built on that in russia and china and that is going to save us because that'll be an example of competition that the empire needs

to understand so that it smartens up and tries to compete in a real with a real economy and real creativity and real education they will have to try to compete if they want to survive in this world because what they have now is a shell. A shell. You cannot have an empire if you don't have a strong domestic system. You cannot have an empire if you don't have a managerial class that is trained at the highest levels and that understands what you need to keep the democracy a stable system.

Because the democracy, meaning a stratified society, where you have many layers in the society, not just the elite and then the serfs at the bottom, bottom, that is the strongest kind of dominance hierarchy in a society of this size. And it's hard to preserve that because there's always a tendency to go towards a totalitarian system. And the elites are always pushing you in that direction because it's to their advantage. So I've written a lot about this.

So the U.S. is going to have to understand that the answer is not what they're doing now. Right now, they see the working class as a domestic threat. and they want to crush it and remove its resources and its political influence and everything. They want to crush it. Well, in crushing that entire social class, you are weakening America to a great degree. And the America that is the heart of the empire that presently exists. So if they can just come to understand that through the force of interaction and real competition with a sovereign bloc, then we have a chance that our lives will be changed.

So that is my coarse grain answer as to where are we going and what's going to happen. So that is why I am pleased. I mean, I hate war and death and mass killings and everything, but I am pleased to see that Russia was not destroyed by using Ukraine as a vector to try to destroy Russia. That they have succeeded in strengthening their economy. military complex, their societal cohesion, and that they are completely winning in Ukraine. Without a doubt, I mean, it's a very, the empire has been exposed as not being as powerful as many countries believed it was. Okay. Happy to see it. Happy to see it because it will help us in the

West. It'll help make our system realized through the force of things that it needs to be more rational and it needs to have a fairer society than the totalitarian place that they brought us to now. So I'm happy I'm happy to see that development in Ukraine. Of course, I'm very saddened that Ukraine has to be destroyed, but it was destroyed by NATO more than anyone. It was existential that the USSR had to react this way, absolutely existential for that nation, for that country. So, That's the real thing as geopolitics is driving this. Now, I'm giving you a theorist's, you know, high altitude perspective on things with a look. Of course, there's many battles, and there is a resistance movement, and there are people doing wonderful things, and we want to, and that's really, really important.

and I think that our work as scientist fits into that. But also, I can't help myself but try to understand what's really going on and tell people about it when I do discover something. So I'm essentially driven by my psychology. I'm not, you know, if I was in a sense, and this has happened many times in the past, if I was really interested in making the world better as soon as possible, I might move to Russia or to the Eastern European country or something

and help to strengthen that block and make sure it survives, you know. Like in the same way that resistance fighters would join the fight in Spain against the fascists, you know. The biggest threat in the world right now and the biggest purveyor of, violence and including genocide is the US empire. There's no doubt about that. And it has been that way for a long time. If you look at Africa and Latin America, it's just devastating. So it needs to be balanced out.

It needs to be, limits need to be set because they're going to drag us down. Because at the same time that they are this empire exploiting entire continents, they're also destroying the domestic population and the class structure and the institutions that would normally protect us and so on. They're just they're just they're just being reckless destroying that by giving too much too much of a role to the corporations and to the financiers. They give them too important a role in this in this project of empire. And so, and these people, the way that they get benefit is through corruption. So it's a nasty system that eats itself. You know, it's when you talk about the gears that move the world being, you know, the global, global politics, right?

Like geopolitics. You know, that's been a learning lesson on this side. You know, like I didn't realize how much info. I don't think, maybe I'm wrong on this, but there's. been a huge chunk of the population, start to realize, you know, like the World Economic Forum in particular, UN, the who on and on and on and on it goes, of how much that comes from signing on to these things really influences our lives down to the local level. You know, Leslyn Lewis in particular has a petition going here to, being in February,

I believe, I'm spacing on the exact date, Denny. but regardless, that's something that you go, well, maybe there's a sign. Do we believe at any point the government? Lesson Lewis is one of the most important and principled politicians in Canada. She is absolutely fantastic, I have to say. And so she's not only principled and like really a moral person and with lots of great ideas and great insight, but she also is still a member of parliament and is influential. So you've got that perfect combination.

So politicians like that represent the possibility that we might get out of this, you know. So she's great. But, you know, a lot of people who are realizing the importance of the World Economic Forum and so on, they still don't understand what geopolitics is. and they still don't understand that these instruments have been captured by the Western Empire. Because they get all muddled about the role of China and the fact that China, you know, funds a large part of the World Health Organization, all these things, they get all mixed up. You know, there's a difference between, like China and Russia have to and want to cooperate in international projects.

It doesn't mean they don't have sovereignty. It doesn't mean that they don't have a strong, independent, political, and class structure and everything. It just means that there are these instruments that are international, organizational, and negotiation instruments that they have to be a part of. And these instruments have been corrupted and captured predominantly by the West, and that's the problem. So the UN is it has a lot of good things associated with it. Like the actual international law of rules between nations is very important. And you can't just throw the baby out with the bathwater. You can't say, well, we have to get rid of it all.

You know, that's crazy. And that is also what the U.S. would like to do. They would like a new rules-based order. And what they mean by that is they want to. destroy the parts of the UN structure that they don't like that limits them or that makes them look bad that's what they mean and whereas Russia and China want to maintain that you know they want to make it more effective to build it and to use it they want international law to be respected basically and they want that to be a limit on the excesses of the empire so you have to kind of you

have to kind of balance things. The World Health Organization is definitely something that needs to be removed. It is corrupt. It is used as a pretext by the empire to do whatever it wants. And, yeah, that's just, that's just a disgusting apparatus right now. But that doesn't mean we should get rid of the entire UN. When you bring up, you know, WHO and everything, I guess, Denise, where I would, you know, it's taken me, some people must laugh at me when I have a person on for the first time. Sometimes it's two minutes and we're right into the real, you know, the topic everybody's interested in. But for me, I guess a good podcast, you know, I search out the guest and follow along with where they're going. This has been, you know, honestly, I'm like, man,

I could sit on this topic for the next five hours with you because I find your, like, I find your mind very interesting. Like, what you're talking about has me ridiculously, like just falling along. I'm like, oh, I could go down this and I would love to. But I know you mentioned somewhere down earlier on, you know, the 17 million, the research and everything. And I would hate to miss the opportunity to talk a little bit about. Sure. Sure. We'll get to it.

We'll get to it. I just one more quick comment before we leave the topic of geopolitics. Fat Emperor, you know who that is on Twitter. I don't know if I do, actually. Oh, well, he's been very influential in social media. And he's been big and he's done a lot of things and made some wonderful videos and so on. And has a fair following. And he's just been very bright in his outlook and very careful and everything.

Anyway, he just recently, after this many years, discovered how important our 2019 paper on geopolitics is, which is a very massive paper. And he just tweeted about it. Oh my God. Wow. This explains the needed context for COVID. Please people, look at this, you know. So I'm happy to see that it's finally getting through to some people.

That it's worth spending some time on a paper like that to learn some really fundamental things about how we got here and what geopolitics said. You know, just a quick, I jumped on Twitter because I'm like, how is it that Denise's, he's saying these things. I'm like, I feel like I should be, and I'm following them. Of course I'm following him. So yes, I, he doesn't, it's his handle fat emperor, but the name is Iver Cummins, right? Correct? Yes. Yeah. And so I, in case anyone is wondering, that's regardless. Yeah. So Iver has just discovered or at least decided to read the paper enough to highly recommend it. So I was very pleased about that. because more people see it's not something they teach and it's not something we generally learn about

they like to they like to just use propaganda and and tell us that the enemy is china and things like that but you never actually learn basic uh geopolitics that's based on real data that's based on real observations and so yeah please consider reading that paper 2007 And I assume they just search you out today on your substack or your social media. That would be the easiest way? Yeah. So this paper, so it was before COVID. So all of my research, well, a lot of my research, no far from all of it, but is on my personal website, which is done itancourt.com.

So, Dennis, it's one end, rancourt.com. And in there, there's a research section. And in that research section, there's like 12 topics. and one of them is geopolitics. When you click on that, you can see my geopolitical writings, including how it relates to COVID. And the top one is that large paper from 2019. There you go, folks.

So I'm going to say it without, you know, denie rankour, but dennis rankort. dot CA, that's where you can go. If you search that name, you're going to find everything you're looking for. And if you haven't been on his website, I suggest you do. And there's a lot of reading there and a lot of different research. And if you have, if you're someone who has a bit of extra money,

we do independent research and we can only fund it with personal donations. And so we say go to the correlation dash canada.org and, you know, become a donor of that, of that nonprofit organization because this is how we'll be able to continue this high level research. And we really need it. Like we're struggling. So we're looking for benefactors and we're looking for people who feel that they want to go for that, Denise. So they go to correlation dash canada.org. Sorry, I'm typing this up because what I'm going to do is I'm going to put it in the show notes for everybody. That way, because I look at what you're doing and I go, oh, we need to, we need to support this.

I need to support this, right? Because, you know, if we don't have you doing the work, well, Sean can't go do the work, right? I'm not going to all of a sudden start up. But like, I look at your background. I go, this is a wonderful. Well, honestly, we're struggling to keep this afloat. And we have given ourselves a couple of years to see if we're able to get funding. Because, you know, we won't be able to function past a couple of years.

we don't start securing some funding. So a lot of my savings are going into this. Let's put it that way. So yeah, so people can, if there's people out there with a bit of extra cash or they know a benefactor and who is a thinking person who is very sensitive to these problems and is able to recognize that we're doing absolutely top level work, then please, you know, find some way to get us. some money. Sure. Well, I can't speak for the audience. The audience was going to do what it's going to do.

But I mean, like, having you on and here, and I'm always, I'm always pro Canadian. It doesn't mean that I am not pro other countries for sure. But the longer this podcast goes on, the more Canadians I find that just are brilliant. I'm like, where have you been hiding on me? Probably haven't been hiding. You know, I just think of like the social media censorship and media censorship in general with our, with our media. It's like, it's pretty hard to find. And, you know, I'm a relative newcomer of understanding that if so if the media is going after somebody i should probably just go talk to that somebody you know like before that i was like oh this must be a bad human being now i'm like nope that should be a guest on the podcast because they they probably got something to say

so um what we'll do is we'll put the folks if you go in the show notes uh what we'll do is we'll put the the correlation dashcanda dot org in the show notes you can click on it and if you know of somebody that you think uh dene should be put in touch with or anything like that um when it comes to funding or or backing you know um i just trust the audience you know um we will find a way we always do the audience is fantastic canada is fantastic we find we find a way um which leads me to uh covid you know like honestly yeah uh those were those were dark days you know um and from uh you know i still hear about it almost daily uh with the with the audience um just like you know know, having different people on to talk and share stories and see what they're seeing and

doctors and lawyers and professors and just everyday regular people, which leads into COVID and it leads into your research. And, you know, I think it was Regina Wattiel, if memory serves me correct, the statistician. When she came on, you know, I finally had to put it out of my brain that people didn't see this for what it was very, very, very, very, very. early in 2020. And I don't know why sitting here, and I'll be honest with the audience and with you, why that was such a hard thing for me? I don't know. Did everybody see, did they really see it? Like the fear stuff was pretty crazy. Except after Regina, Regina came on, I was like, all right, I got to put that thought out of my brain. Because like, here's a lady going, listen, we did the

stats on it. This is, I tried sounding alarm. Nobody would listen to me. And on and on. And Deneen, now, you know, you've got your your research out and i i want you to share with you yeah well there's there's a yeah there's a lot of uh scientists who became high profile who said so right away at the beginning i like to count myself in that group uh i was putting out my own individual youtube videos at the beginning they've mostly been taken down by youtube but i was i was explaining the scientific the scientific concepts that were relevant. And I was saying, this is, this can't be. This can't, this has to be untrue.

This is crazy what they're telling us. And so I was going on and on as much as I could on YouTube. So I like to count myself among that group. You know, Mike Eden really stands out. And there's like, there's like a dozen of these really that we know about that really stand out who had, who had the profile to be able to say it and it was heard. And Off Guardian did some wonderful articles covering these individuals. individuals at the time. So if you can go and look at their archives, they actually talked about these important individuals who were sounding the alarm right off the bat. And they were, they, they convinced me that we had to fight this thing, you know, they helped to convince me. And but also, there were a whole bunch of just regular people who didn't necessarily have a channel or couldn't be heard.

on social media as prominently who in their hearts knew that this was all a lie. You know, they sensed it right away that this is insane, that there's no way they should be forced to wear a mask, that that made no sense whatsoever and so on. So there is a bunch of people like that who felt it right from the beginning. And then, of course, there's those people who were taken in and were frightened and wore masks and got injected and then later realized, oh, my God. and were able to get out of that and admit they had been wrong and they're angry that this has happened to them, you see.

And then there are people who were actually injured by all of this, seriously injured or had close family members who died, and they're still in denial. So you've got all of that happening, I think. 100%. You know, we have a group here in town for the kids' sake, and it started meeting. and the first time we ever met was in a bull barn in December of 2020.

And I remember going in there and we parked cars and we hid and, you know, it was just wild. I was just like, I can't believe we're hiding from like acting like we're going to be arrested. But I remember driving in there thinking, like, are we, you know, it's a very good chance. The cops show up tonight. What am I going to say? You know, you're meeting and secret and, you know, like just wild, wild times. And I've shared this story a lot, but I was working full time at that point in time. And we had a Western Canada-wide call to update everybody on, you know, like return to the offices, that type of thing.

And they said in June of 2020 that we would not be returning fully back to work until a vaccine. And I were thinking, and there was a person asked, and that was June of 2020. And you're going, a vaccine. Like, where the heck did that come from? So, you know, when I start to piece the puzzle, you know, together sitting here, I just intrinsically knew something was wrong. And I was one of the first guys at work to be like, I'm going home. If this is as dangerous as they say, I'll be the guy who jumped on that grenade. I was, I was like, this is, this is insane.

This isn't good. You know, and it was within a couple of months, I was the opposite way. I was like going, this doesn't make any sense. And the more it didn't make sense, the more, you know, having this ability to talk to different people, it took a long time to start bringing those people on the show. But I started to just like, this doesn't make sense. Why would you do that? Why would you do that?

And you started to question. The more I questioned, the less it made sense. It didn't add up. And so I was, it took until August 2021, didn't he, to finally invite. It was Roger Hopkins. I believe, no, that's a lie. Roger Hawkinson was the second doctor. It was, oh, now I'm forgetting his name.

That's terrible. We had another doctor. I can see him in my head. Anyways, come on and just talk about medical ethics. That was it. And he was shaking his boots talking on the air. I was like, this is, this is, this is, I can't believe this is happening.

And then we started to really ramp up bringing people into the community to talk about it. Because it just nothing made sense. It was a mass assault against society and against people and against individuals. And it caused enormous harm, a lot of medical problems and many deaths. and especially among vulnerable people and elderly people. That's where the great majority of the deaths occurred, even though there are many serious adverse effects among young people. Still, quantitatively, from my perspective, looking at mortality,

it's really the disabled people and the elderly people and the people with comorbidities, they were the ones who really took the brunt of it. You know, in terms of the most violent assault, being isolated in hospitals and being treated like they were incredibly poisonous or whatever. Yeah, it was just horrible, horrible. It's a crime. It's a crime against humanity what they did.

Yeah. So where do you want to end this thing? I want to talk about all cause mortality because one of the slides that, and I wonder if I can, This just stuck out to me because I just literally had a guy talking about 1918 and the data from 1918 and everything. And I was like, oh, okay, you know, but how the heck do I know anything? And then I'm just going to share the screenshot. I'd take, oh, and it won't allow me to do that. Okay, of course it won't.

But you had a slide in one of your presentations. It was all-caused mortality in the last hundred years of international mortality surveillance. And you were talking about seasonal variations, war, economic collapse, summer heat, waves, earthquakes, and not the post-World War II. CDC declared pandemics of 57-58, N2, N2, 68, 2009, etc. And I thought, I thought maybe we could talk about that, Denny, because I found that very interesting. Sure.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I mean, I've given this lecture so many times, and there's a lot of really good videos of me explaining this in some detail, including my presentation at the National Citizens Inquiry, but also in Romania, recently at the conference. So if we don't have time to get into all the details, I want your readers to know that there's some excellent video material of my explanations of those phenomena out there, right?

Easy to find. And a lot of these video interviews and presentations are also on my website. If you go to videos at denourencourt.cago.cago. to videos are all there in chronological order so you can find them and so basically if you want to know if people are dying you have to have good statistics about deaths and those statistics are called mortality and basically all nations count they they know when someone dies just like they know when someone is born it has to be registered so the modern nation the only places that don't do this is

Equatorial Africa because nothing works none of these things work so they they don't have data they don't even know how many people are dying and how many people are being born but otherwise pretty much everywhere else in the world you know when people are born and when people die and when they die you know how old they were and you know where they died and you know the data which they died all right so that's basic basic data it's called all cause mortality data and so you can produce this data as a function of time. You can say, you know, by day, this is how many people died each day in this country, for example. And then you can do it by age group. You can say, by day, this is how many people over 80 who died over the last 10 years or whatever, you see?

So this is the kind of data that is not compromised and is not dependent on trying to interpret in a biased way, what was the cause of death? The whole cause of death thing is just pure politics. It's just garbage. Even scientifically, it's a very difficult problem, except in the most obvious cases when someone's decapitated or something like that. But otherwise, it's very hard to establish a primary cause of death. And scientifically, you could argue it doesn't even have a meaning. Okay, but so there's big problems with cause of death determinations. And so you just you just do away with that and how biased it can be and how political it can be. You just do away with that and you look at just the pure mortality statistics. And that will tell you if there's a lot of people dying in that nation or that state or that province or whatever and when they're dying. And when you do that, you can see a war. You can see that it's men that are dying during that war, not. because you can do it by sex, right? You can see a major economic change like the Great Depression or the Dust Bowl in the United States. They're very apparent. You can quantify the excess deaths

that would have occurred due to those huge changes in society. You can see the Vietnam War. You can see a huge peak of deaths in 1918, which was related to horrendous. this post-war conditions of the poor and working class who lived in squalor. This is before antibiotics were developed. And there are many scientific papers that demonstrate that people were dying of bacterial pneumonia because a lot of the lung tissue has been preserved. And you can analyze it and see that definitely bacterial pneumonia was the primary cause of death.

for sure this is what people died up and so you can see it since you can study it by age we know that in 1918 during that horrendous peak in excess mortality that was very spotty it was very granular it wasn't the same everywhere it was only in certain hot spots that this was happening but anyway like really big urban centers and so on but anyway you can see looking at the data that no one get you have to wrap your head around this no one over 50 years of age died. There was no excess mortality for the over 50 year of age groups, none whatsoever. Now that's unheard of for a what is said to be a viral respiratory disease, okay, unheard of. And how is it possible that only young people were dying and what, and they were dying of pneumonia?

And so what is actually going on here? So you can start to analyze that and try to figure out what's going on. Now I won't give you the details and I won't give you the analysis, but I'll tell you that it was not Spanish flu, it was not a flu, and it was not a viral respiratory disease. Okay. And then you can go and look at all the viral respiratory disease pandemics that have been declared by the CDC since that time. So, 1957, 58, and so on, all the way to 2009. And then more recently with COVID. And you can demonstrate that the ones, the three main ones that, the three main ones that

were declared and said in scientific articles to have caused tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths, you cannot detect excess mortality that would be due to those pandemics in any jurisdiction anywhere. It does not give even a blip of all-cause mortality excess. Okay? So you have to ask yourself these horrible pandemics that they were screaming about and wanted to vaccinate us and and we're going on and on about it's a pandemic. What was it? It wasn't causing anyone to die. So that should give you a clue that maybe this is a viral respiratory pandemic industry

that likes to do this and that is make, you know, funds and makes the CDC operate and funds and makes flu vaccine industry, which is a huge industry. which is a huge industry and so on. So then when we study COVID, what we have shown in our detailed work, you know, I've written more than 30 big reports about COVID-related things, is that all of the peaks in excess,

all-cause mortality, can all be understood in terms of the assaults against people. It's what you were doing or not doing. They did not treat, bacterial pneumonia, even though there was a huge epidemic of bacterial pneumonia at that time in the United States, in the states where you had the most poverty, that was happening. And they were they were assigning it as COVID deaths, but they were bacterial pneumonia deaths as as admitted on the birth certificates. Okay. And it's documented. And they stopped prescribing antibiotics. Antibiotic prescriptions were taken down by 50% in the entire Western. world. It's absolutely insane. So the mechanism of these deaths was mostly bacterial pneumonia. I'm talking about before the vaccines. And the cause is that your immune system was destroyed by the psychological stress and the isolation that people were being subjected to like never before. And so that will make

you vulnerable to infection. And then you don't treat it. So the peaks in mortality and the huge excesses in the US is undoubtedly due to all to this and we've been writing about it extensively. So we don't see what we see in the all-cause mortality is that we can prove that there was no spreading new pathogen that was causing the deaths, the excess deaths. That is disproved by the fact that standard epidemiological theory about how these things are supposed to spread is disproved. It didn't spread. There is no spread. The virus had a passport. It did not cross jurisdictional boundaries, period. Even if there were big people and economic exchanges between countries, it didn't cross borders. You had hotspots of death and right beside, there'd be no excess mortality whatsoever.

So in one of my presentations, I showed a map of Europe at a time when there was huge excess mortality after the pandemic was announced. And on that map, there are entire countries that have zero excess mortality. It's a white on the map where other places right beside them are red, and the red stops at the border. So Germany is an example of that at the beginning of the pandemic. When France and Stockholm and New York and northern Italy were putting people on mechanical respirators and giving them all kinds of drug cocktails

because they wanted to find a solution to this horrible bug that supposedly had come onto the planet all of a sudden just after the pandemic was announced. In Germany, they didn't do those things. They did business as usual. They used clinical judgment about how to treat people, and they had no excess mortality whatsoever in that time. Okay? And so there were only hotspots of excess mortality. And those hotspots initially were synchronous around the world, which is absolutely impossible if you believe epidemiological theory of spread. impossible. And I've explained this and argued it in detail. So we have disproved that this, that there was excess deaths caused by a spreading pathogen, period. Okay. You know, once you do, once you have the

measurements and once you show it, it's a hard fact. Now, they may not be admitting it. They may be waving their hands, saying all kinds of stuff, but it is a proven fact now. So, The whole paradigm that societies are threatened by the spread of vicious pathogens is incorrect. Now, let me explain this. I don't mean that there are not pathogens. I don't mean that bacteria cannot invade your lungs and kill you. That's not what I mean. What I mean is every time these, even the black plague, every time there were, and this is now the history of this is being

I'm in contact with scientists in Germany that are writing entire books about ancient pandemics and how it was not what they said. And so every time you have these these pandemics, it is following a tectonic destruction of the society, if you like, that put people into horrendous living conditions, families and entire villages and so on. Okay. So every time you do that as a result of a war or a change of leadership of a territory or anything like that, you are subjecting the most vulnerable people, which is the surf class, to horrendous living conditions. And their immune system is depreciated. They're not getting good nutrition. And they're infected by whatever's around and they die in large numbers. and this happened in the in the UK in 1918 it happened you know all over the world you and so you so what is killing people is not the mechanistic fact that they were infected by something that and that a microorganism populated their lungs but it is the conditions that they were subjected to that made

them vulnerable to that that killed them that's what I'm saying okay and the same thing is true during COVID. What do you like all the talk of gain of function research of mixing, matching and all that? Where do you come out on that, Denny? Well, and I've, look, my, the best summary of my position on all these questions is a very short and pithy essay that I wrote called the title is, there was no pandemic. So I'd encourage your listeners to find that essay. It's on my website. It's on the internet. And read it. It's only. 10 or 12 pages and it really nails down my position on all of these things.

So here's here's here's here's the thing. There are always going to be patents for genetic innovations and technologies to deliver drugs. Hundreds and thousands of patents. There's the the the scam, the racket of pharma is to own technology through patents in order to be able to sell you this. miracle drug that you convinced the governments to buy into by propaganda and by bribing them. Okay, that's the racket. And so the racket is, legally speaking, built on the notion of patents, intellectual property. It's an intrinsic part of it.

So there's always going to be patents, and they're always going to claim all kinds of things in these patents about how the technology works and so on, even if at the macroscopic and cellular level, they haven't really proven it okay but that that is the nature of patents and um so just because there's a whole bunch of patents for things like gain of function related stuff and so on doesn't mean that it's an actual working technology it doesn't mean that it's a benefit or even to the military and so it doesn't mean that it just means this is what they do it's a patent generating machine is part of the racket so so so so so What we have shown is that since there,

it's disproved that there was a particularly virulent pathogen, then it doesn't matter that you're going on and on about gain and function research, escape of a pathogen from a laboratory. No matter what it was, if it was anything, and we're saying it was nothing, it was not lethal that would cause excess mortality. Okay. So it's not relevant to talk about it.

It is not relevant. Okay? Same thing with do we have to prove or not, and some people get really all excited about this, is the question that, you know, do viruses exist? Is it, do, does transmission of disease through viruses? Is that a thing? Again, my answer is it's not relevant to even answer that question

because we have proven that there was no spreading pathogen that caused the excess mortality. Okay? So you don't have to answer the question. question. The data shows you that there was no such spread. So you can go off on your on your on your theory that if we could only convince everyone that viruses don't exist that the whole thing would collapse and we'd save humanity. You can go off there all you want. You know, I'm saying it's not relevant. And and one of the reasons strategically that you want to argue that it's

not relevant is that it's it's very technically very difficult to prove you can say i can prove that there was no isolation and i'll agree with you i can prove that there was no demonstration that an isolated purified uh pathogen called the virus that when you transfer it to a person it infects them i'd agree with you but they can come back and say but we can do genomic sequencing and this genomic sequence is not from the animal or the entity being infected. It's from something else. And we're seeing it whenever the person has symptoms. And therefore, we're saying that the viruses are real.

Now, I'm not saying they're right. But what I'm saying is if you want to disprove that, it's easy to disprove that what they're seeing in the electron microscope is not, is very likely not what they're saying it is. And they're not demonstrating that the packet of, genetic information is in the particle they're actually seeing. They're not doing that. It's easy to say all those things as a scientist, but it's harder to argue against statistical arguments based on genetic characterizations. You can do it, but it takes more time,

and I don't think it's been done yet. The person, the scientists that I know who's come closest to actually demonstrating that this is garbage is Jay Cooey, brilliant scientists. And but unfortunately Jay is not writing papers. He's talking about it in videos and giving talks and making slides. I wish he would rigorously write a paper using the scientific standards of you explain your methodology, you explain your arguments, you reference the sources,

you draw a diagram of what your argument is, and you let people critique it on the basis of something written as opposed to interpreting everything you say on the fly in many, many videos. That makes it really difficult for people to acknowledge his work. Scientists, I mean. So that's a criticism I would make of Jay. If he could put it down on paper, that would be fantastic. But I've seen several of his presentations,

and they're very compelling ideas about how the very notion of, a virus causing infection is disproved by experiments on genetics already. And he explains how and why that is. So, but the point is the whole question of viruses, and it's a big question scientifically, doesn't need to be solved for us to figure out that this was a scam, that it was an assault against people and it was run and organized by the military, and then we're going to do it no matter what and that it is it is not a spreading pathogen that caused the mortality okay you can you can prove you can demonstrate all that you can it's in science you can disprove a hypothesis but you can't prove something

so so so so for example regarding uh viral existence you can um show that they haven't proven it but you can't prove the viruses don't exist You see what I'm saying? So why are you giving yourself that task if it's impossible? You know? And that's a side question. So I don't know if any of this helps. But, you know, so I respond to a lot of these arms and legs in the discussion in this way. I say, look, I'm going on hard facts.

I can prove that this theory of spread is not happening. I can prove that every time there's a peak in excess in mortality, which corresponds to real excess compared to the historic trend, is because you did something. You were definitely doing something. You know, like in Peru, they called in 10,000 military reservists to go and get everybody they could to test them for COVID. And if you had a positive test, they pulled you out of your family, your community, they isolated you and treated you. And they caused a huge peak of excess mortality. unlike anything seen in most other countries ever at the time that they were applying that those methods and then when they stopped because it was an election the mortality went down and then when they started again after the election it went back up

and so and this was huge huge massive massive deaths like unheard of so and then and then we could we haven't even started talking about the temporal correlation between vaccine rollouts and deaths which we have demonstrated over and and over again, you know. I'll just give you the most striking example that I wrote about an entire paper on this, the case of India. Well, if there's one place where you would think that a spreading disease would spread, it's India, right? That's the image that we have, right?

If there's one place that it would spread, it's there. Well, guess what? In India, you declare the pandemic and there is zero excess mortality for more than a year until they roll out the vaccine. This is a hard fact based on many scientific papers. So there is zero excess mortality during COVID in India until they roll out the vaccine.

And they're rolling it out three months later than everywhere else. And only then does excess mortality fire up like you've never seen before historically in India and causes 3.7 million deaths in India. That's the excess mortality associated with the vaccine rollouts in India. Okay, I wrote a paper about that. I explained it. I explained how the nonsense that this was due to a new variant of concern was complete garbage, that it was fabricated. I put all that in our paper. So you can, we've studied now more than 100 countries. So these are the kinds of things that are causing mortality. The assaults that include going in to vaccinate people against. their will there's there's maybe hundreds of videos of in India where they're

running after people tackling them to the ground these these elderly people and force vaccinating them while they scream you know they they were vicious and the the Prime Minister of India called at the vaccine festival and asked everyone to participate in this in this horrendous practice and they were going to save they were going to save people in India this way you know so it was we're talking assaults in the US it was called vaccine equity when they when they were really aggressive this way and they just hired thousands of extra people to go and vaccinate everyone well guess what the vaccine equity period in the

US corresponds to a peak of excess mortality in midsummer which is normally never seen before okay and in and you're killing people predominantly in the poor states So this is my story. And it is documented in more than 30 detailed reports with graphs and explanations and re-explanations. This is what I'm trying to tell people. And more and more people are taking the time to read, to understand it, to appreciate it, and to say, yeah, yeah, he really, he's got the receipts. He proved it, you know. That's the heavy lifting that we do and we hope to continue.

One final thought from you on injections because I wrote this down and I don't know if I wrote it down correct. So I'll let you, Deni, just explain it better than I can as I've written it. But you had said along the lines of your risk of dying per injections doubles every four or five years of age. The older you are, the worse off you get. Yes. And that's specifically from the toxicity and everything that's in the injection. So the older you are, if you're getting, or no. Well, okay, you know, this is based on looking at very sharp peaks in excess mortality

that occur immediately after a very sharp rollout of a booster. Okay. and that you know you're doing it to a particular age group. So every time you have the data that allows you to do this, you roll out the injection, you immediately get a peak. You can quantify how many deaths are in that peak. You know how many injections were delivered to that age group. You use that data and you say, look, there's nothing else happening here.

People are waving their hands about, you know, oh, no, at the same time, You see, this is the argument is that that sharp peak for that age group is due to all of a sudden a variant of concern. A deadly new variant came into being. Okay. That's the argument. That's one of the arguments they like to use. And my answer to that is, isn't it an incredible coincidence that every time you roll out a booster or an injection, there's a new variant that pops up and causes death at that time in that age group everywhere around the world whenever we see this?

you know even though it yeah it's an impossibility and and and and and you know not to mention the fact that the predominance the science so-called science of the predominance of new variance is garbage science it's completely we've never done this before and it has not been demonstrated to be valid science in peer-reviewed articles there it's never been critiqued scientifically It's just based on government-funded and industry-funded websites that like to gather piecemeal information about genetic characterizations done by different labs and that decide that some of these are of concern, all the others we can forget about.

And then the plot that extrapolate from these few and biased readings of genetics in the whole population, what is the predominance of the variant. I mean, the whole thing is complete nonsense. It's just so unbelievable. And yet this is their argument. Okay. So I'm saying, and I've said this repeatedly, if the person wasn't elderly,

if they didn't also have a high likelihood of all these comorbidities, they wouldn't have died immediately after the vaccination. They would have died later. But the point is, the fact that you vaccinated accelerated their death. It doesn't matter that they were also had, that they were frail and had these other conditions. We're demonstrating by this analysis that these additional deaths occurred immediately after the rollout. So you have accelerated the deaths of those people. And we explain what the scientific test for causality is, and we apply it to this circumstances in detail in our papers,

and we show that as a scientist, you have to conclude that there is a causal relationship here. Even if you don't spell out exactly the molecular mechanism, the usual test that's used in science is satisfied. So there's a causal relationship. Now, so that's our argument. Now, you have to keep in mind that they normally would not vaccinate these frail elderly people. Normally there's a clinical judgment as to whether you're going to challenge the body of that frail person with an injection, whether it's a flu shot or anything else. And the barrier of that clinical judgment has been decreased a lot. So they're injecting more frail people than they normally would.

So that's happening at the same time. And you have to keep in mind also that just the fact that they're doing this and that they're going to go ahead and inject a very frail person, there's resistance to it. So there's resistance from the family members. There's resistance from the person themselves. And therefore, you're in a, you're in circumstance. of high stress and high stress has a very dramatic effect on your health okay so so

all of this is happening simultaneously so I'm not going to say that under controlled conditions where you don't have comorbidities and you don't have this this incredible stress of the of the societal assault to come and vaccinate all these people quickly I'm not going to say that we get the same result. I don't know. I'm not going to say that it would be exponential in age with that doubling time. I think it would be exponential in age, but the magnitude would be less.

Death itself is exponential in age, all right? So I think you see what I'm saying. We're using a causality test that's established in science to argue that these rapid rollouts are associated and are causally related using that test to these rapid increases in mortality. It doesn't mean that it's a pure, a pure experiment of testing toxicity in the same way you would do it in a lab with a lab rat, okay, where they do find toxicity increasing with age, by the way, in those toxicity studies. And they do find proximity in time. And they do find all these things. But this is not a controlled condition. This is what we can infer using established tests of

causality in science, analyzing this kind of data. That's what our studies are about. And I appreciate you giving me all the time this morning. I, you know, to the audience member, we were supposed to go an hour and we've been well over that. And I just can't thank Dini enough for doing this. And I could probably ask 50 more questions and sit here, you know, but I, I, everybody knows my, my, how much I respect time. And I do appreciate you giving me so much time this morning and your thoughts. And, uh, well, you know, the longer we go, what we're doing is we're, we're holding my wife in a you can't use the bandwidth prison is what we're doing. Well, you think, you thank, you thank your wife for us,

Denise, because I truly do appreciate you giving us time this morning. And, man, I hope we can have you on again because I've really, really enjoyed sitting there.

I'd love to come on again, Sean. I'd love to. Yeah, no, I really appreciate your approach and your motivation and the way you're,

you know, taking this problem on. I really appreciate it. Well, thank you again, sir, and we'll let you out of here. Thanks again, Denise. Okay, it was my pleasure.

Bye now.