Shaun Newman Podcast - Ep. #207 - Dr. Eric Payne

Episode Date: September 27, 2021

Eric is a Pediatric Neurologist at the Alberta Children's Hospital in Calgary. He penned a letter to the College of Physicians & Surgeons of Alberta council - which has since gone viral. We discuss his letter, mandating kids to have the Covid vaccine & the censorship of doctors.  Let me know what you think Text me 587-217-8500 Like the podcast? Support here: https://www.patreon.com/ShaunNewmanPodcast

This is Glenn Healing. Hi, this is Braden Holby. This is Daryl Sutterin. Hi, this is Brian Burke. This is Jordan Tutu. This is Keith Morrison. This is Kelly Rudy. Hi, this is Scott Hartnell.

Hey, everybody. My name is Steele-Fer. This is Tim McAuliffe of Sportsnet, and you're listening to the Sean Newman podcast. Welcome to the podcast, folks. Happy Monday. Hope everybody had a great weekend. Hopefully you got to spend some time with our few. I feel like fall, hopefully it lasts a long time.

But, geez, the days are getting cooler. and we had a couple of nice ones, decent ones on this weekend. So hopefully you got to enjoy them with some family, maybe some friends, and before we head into the long winter that I'm sure awaits us here. Now, before we get on to today's guests, of course, let's get to today's episode sponsors, Carly Clause and the team over at Windsor Plywood builders of the podcast studio table. If you're looking to get your own table built where you want to test it out,

you need a slab of wood. You should go take a look at some of the slabs of wood that the team over at Windsor Plywood has. I suggest taking a look at Instagram, do a little creeping, creep in, and see what they got over there because, man, there are some unique chunks of wood. And whether we're talking mantles,

decks, windows, doors, or sheds, team over at Windsor, Plywood's got you covered, all right? Give them a call, 780875-9663. Trophy Gallery, downtown Lloyd Minster is Canada supplier for Glass and Crystal Awards with the NHL about to commence, get rolling. If you're looking for some memorabilia, you know, he's got some different sign things in studio in his shop that, you know, are pretty unique.

I always, last year, I guess it might have been two years ago now. We did the Sydney Crosby. Geez, how time just seems to disappear. We did the Sydney Crosby jersey where we let people bid on it and essentially part of the money raised went to the men's shelter in town here. That's a trophy gallery doing what it does for this city. So if you're looking for any fan memorabilia or, you know, metals, trophies, etc., crystal glass wards, look no further. Head to trophy gallery.com. You can take a look online and see everything they got or stop in downtown Lloydminster and see Clint.

All right. Jen Gilbert and the team for over 45 years since 1976, the dedicated rulers of Coldwell Banker, Cityside Realty have served Lloydminster in the surrounding area. Star Power is what they provide with their clients with seven days. a week access because they know big life decisions are not made during office hours. Coldwell Banker, CitySide Realty for everything real estate, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 780875-33443. Mortgage broker Jill Fisher, her name says it all.

She probably serves the areas of Lloydminster, Bonneville, Cold Lake, and Vermillion, and she's looking forward to working with you for all your mortgage needs. And it seems like tons of people I know are either buying, selling, or renewing their house. and I know with the current rates you can get some pretty some pretty cool stuff going on right now with mortgage rates but don't listen to me

head to jfisher.ca or give her a call 780-872-2914 and see how Joe Fisher can help you today Clay Smiley and the team over at Prophet River I had a tour of the building about a week ago and let me tell you it if you

if you've been to Lloyd Minster and you remember the Buckle or the Tire Lounge Those two have been essentially got it taken apart, and now Profit River is moving in there. And let me tell you, I'm really looking forward to it. I got to sit with Clay and Ed, and they walked me through the entire layout of the facility. And they're hoping close to December maybe for a grand opening. And I tell you what, I'm going to be there with Bells on because it looks pretty freaking cool of what they've done to that building.

Now, of course, Profit River is importing firearms. They specialize in importing firearms from the United States of America. They take care of everything for you so you don't have to worry about the paperwork and all that junk that none of us care for, as we all know. So just head to Profitriver.com and check them out today. They are the major retailer of firearms, optics, and accessories serving all of Canada. If you're looking for outdoor signage, I direct you to the team over at Read and Right, maybe go hassle Mrs. Deanna Wanler.

they can get you fixed up. Just give them a call, 306, 8255-3-1. And finally, Gartner Management, sorry, a little bug in the old throat. Gartner Management is a Lloydminster-based company specializing in all types of rental properties to help meet your needs, whether you're looking for a small office

or 6,000 square foot commercial space. Give Wade Gartner a call today, 780, 808, 50, 25. And if you're heading into any of these businesses, make sure you let them know you heard about it from the podcast, right? Now let's get on to that T-Barr-1, tale of the tape. He is a pediatric neurologist at the Alberta Children's Hospital in Calgary,

an assistant professor of pediatrics and neurology at the University of Calgary. I'm talking about Dr. Eric Payne. So buckle up. Here we go. This is Dr. Eric Payne. Welcome to the Sean Newman podcast. Welcome to the Sean Newman podcast today. I'm joined by Eric Payne.

You are seeing me firsthand at 7 a.m. Good sir. Thank you for hopping on. No problem. Thanks, Sean. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you guys today. Yeah. Well, I guess first, as you've been listening to a few of my different guests, the first thing I got to get you to do is just maybe some of your credentials, you know, a little bit of your training just so the audience has an idea of who they're listening to.

Sure. Yeah, I like that maybe just start by saying that, you know, the things that I'm going to be talking about, the things that are in that letter, we're all meticulously fact checked and source. And I'm going to be sticking mainly to that data and that science. The views that are being expressed are mine. They're definitely not my current employers. And so you got to take that with great assault because clearly the recommendations may differ provincially from what I'm telling you. I am a pediatric neurologist. I focus mainly on children who have epilepsy, usually those who don't respond to treatment. I also spend time in the ICU looking after children who have critical brain injury. My background was, you know, grew up in Ottawa. I did. I did an undergrad degree at Bachelor of Physical and Health Education, a Bachelor of Science at Queens.

Then I went on to McMaster University where I did a master's of science and cell biology and metabolism. I withdrew in good standing to start medical school in Calgary. I did five years of pediatric neurology training in Calgary. And then I went and spent three years doing an epilepsy and neurocritical care fellowship at sick kids hospital. During that time, I spent my summer months at Harvard pursuing a master's of public health in clinical effectiveness. And then I took a job because the job opportunities in Alberta just unfortunately weren't there at the time. I took a job in Mayo Clinic. So I spent six years on staff as a pediatric epilepsy specialist before returning to Calgary a month before the pandemic started and everything went sideways.

I'm also a dad. I've got three small children, seven, five, and three happily married. And, you know, family really is the number one thing for us. And ultimately, you know, the views and the reasons for speaking up, you know, certainly the, the vaccine mandate that my employer is enforcing with the with the with the idea that if i'm not fully vaccinated by the end of October then i get placed on an unpaid leave so that that was part of the impetus for the letter but but frankly it's it's it's really about informing parents giving them speaking to the informed consent process of our children

and i think people need to to understand what the risk benefit is in kids before they're four to inject their child with something they don't really want to do just so that their child can go to school or play hockey. Yeah, I think, well, what you talk about resonates a lot with me. You've listened to me talk a little bit. I got three young children, five, four, two, right? Oh, man. That's why we're losing hair. Isn't that the truth?

I sit and I've been watching, you know, this has been now 18 months, 19 months, whatever the month count is. And I've always said, geez, I'm really thankful. My kids are young enough. They don't fully understand. Well, now as we get inch closer and closer to October, you know, they're mandating or not mandating. They're making the shot for five to 11 year olds, right? That's coming. And that means very soon a lot of parents.

And I know that's a concern of a lot of parents is like, and I don't want to do this. Like, why do I have to do this? And it's a real dilemma, so to speak, because here they're, you know, when it's adults, you can argue that, well, informed consent, right? People can make their choice. But when it becomes school age kids, especially all the way down to a two-year-old, you can feel the burden put on every single parent's shoulders. And so I appreciate you talking about this and willing to talk about it.

Well, in fact, the week that I was writing in the letter, Dr. Anthony Fauci in CNN, I guess this is where I saw it quoted. So I imagine it was elsewhere as well. But he said that he supported mandatory vaccine mandates in children age five and up who need to go to school. So this is not, this is clearly coming and the age is getting lower. And the trials, there are clinical trials that have looked, I know for sure at Moderna in children. And those results are going to become available and likely used to push this mandate on us. Well, for people that don't know who you are, Eric, I, the reason I stumbled across you is you've penned a letter.

The letter is very well put, I would say. But, you know, it goes through a bunch of different things. Would you like to go through the different things or do you want to stick on children for the time being? You know, I mean, there's a few major points that I'd like to make. Sure. Part of why, I think, so just to take a step back, yeah, that letter was directed at the college of physicians of surgeon. It was written towards physicians. And it was certainly not meant to spread as widely as it has. But since that happened, I was receiving several hundred emails over the last

week. But many said initially that there were several versions of that letter that were circulating, that people looked like they had edited it. So as a result, when the Constitution Justice Society offered to put it up on their website, I thought, you know, to avoid misinformation, about what I actually said, let's have this up there in a source that's not going to get hacked down. And then the reason to, you know, to speak today is that, you know, I, I want to make sure that people understand this sort of the context of what I'm saying. I don't want to overstate things. You know, I am very much pro-vaccine. I am, you know, with exception of these new experimental shots, completely vaccinated. You know, for six years at Mayo Clinic, we had mandatory flu shots,

and I never blinked in eye. I didn't even think twice about that. My kids are all vaccinated. And so I do not think that that this narrative that anti-vaxxers are spreading, are perpetuating the pandemic and that we're in uninformed people that are being selfish. And I see that that narrative perpetuated even amongst my own colleagues sometimes, which really breaks my heart to see that. But you see that being perpetuated. So I wanted to add credence in the fact that, you know, this is science. I'm not, everything here, here is backed up. So the idea that I'm making up information or whatever is not, not true. And I hope that the sincerity in terms of my concerns come through as well. I mean, the purpose of

that letter was because of the vaccine mandate, but it was, it was really a call to them. I mean, listen, before I have to be forced out of here, if I'm missing data, if I'm missing something that will change my information, like, please share this with me. I am, I have, I will change my mind on things when I see facts. I mean, I live in a world where, you know, P's, we don't always have the data to drive things. A lot of it is the art of medicine here. But when we have data, I make sure we pointed out to the trainees and everybody else and we follow that. So I have, you know, anything I'm saying today, if there are, you know, people who've caught

information that would direct me, I'm willing to hear that. But I mean, the fundamental issue, you know, never mind that I think that the science is absolutely not there. And at a time where the Titanic is completely sinking with their, with their science, it seems that the totalitarianism, the stepping on our throats, forcing us to comply, has increased dramatically as well. And the idea that during a time like this, we need to steamroll over, you know, a founding bedrock principle of medicine. I mean, how can you not, how can you have a doctor-patient relationship if I'm not allowed to even consider medical exemptions? If I'm not

allowed to, you know, personalize that and have that discussion. I mean, I can tell you that, I can see the same patient or different patient with the same epilepsy. Okay. And there's not always one way to do it. There are a few instances. Well, absolutely. There is one thing that really makes a lot of sense here. And I'll push people towards that with the data. But a lot of times it's like, okay, you know, what's good for you, this family is not going to be right with the other family. So we prevent, we provide the evidence and we make an informed decision. But this is being taken away from people right now. And as you point out with children, this is particularly wrong. I mean, the idea that that a parent has lost the ability to decide what is and isn't going into their child.

And if, you know, and I understand the data. I understand the risks. And I understand the pros and cons to this. And I am vehemently opposed to my child being injected with these things. And if it gets to the point where my kid gets pulled out of sneezes for school in a week or two, well, she's going to go to school. That's just the way it's going to be. That's my informed decision. I'm not telling you that you need to make that decision.

I'm not saying nobody should be vaccinated. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it should be informed consent. And I do not think that a lot of people have received informed consent. I think a lot of people have been forced and coerced into taking this vaccine and they didn't want to do it. And teenagers in particular, who I think have been particularly hard hit by the pandemic because of all the restrictions they went through last year. And I see this every day in clinic. They are under enormous peer pressure to do this, to be good citizens and to completely.

apply and and and and and and and and and and and and and and it's being uh forced on them to participate in society i mean the idea that you have to have to have to have to have to have the shot to play hockey or go to school um is just not consistent with the things I learned as a physician and I I I cannot just stand here and listen to these these these things happen um parents need to know know those facts so that first point and a long winded way of saying that yeah I'm absolutely pro vaccine um but I I and I believe that there is a role for these these these these shots I mean 70 percent of the population in Canada already has it. But ultimately, I think that if we want to get through this as a society who maintains

humanity, then we need to continuously, we need to maintain that autonomy and that patient consent. And the data, as we have right now, certainly does not support that this is a time to steamroller. Well, I got a question. I'll read a part, I copied and pasted parts of your letter. And speaking to kids, you mentioned data. One of the things you pointed to is the American Academy of Pediatrics also confirmed that while Delta is infecting more children, it is not causing increased disease severity that suggests a hospitalization risk of 0.01 to 0.19 percent,

a mortality of 0.000 to 0.03 percent every 12 to 18 months. And so right there you can understand, I think, hopefully I said everything right, right, right? you could go fact track it go go take a look for yourself but i think most of us have realized if you just go to even alberta's website and take a look at the the data on kids like it just shows like they are at a very minimal risk to what is going on we're acting like they're this giant risk right now and that's the way the narrative is being turned but they're a really small um amount of risk and if you want to hop in for sure eric yeah no you're absolutely right and and those numbers um i mean they're the same globally. You know, if you look at the mortality rate for children, it's,

it's less than survival is 99.98 in terms of getting, in terms of dying from this. And then so the data that I presented was state-based data from the U.S. and there's an advantage to state-based data because you often capture the denominator, like how many people actually had a disease. And so you can figure out what percentage got sick enough to get to the hospital or died. So that's really reliable data and it confirms that that mortality rate is really, really low. And so then you get into the, you know, the severity of illness. And I'm not, I mean, kids are kids can get sick from this and they can end up in the ICU. That is, that is true. But you know, put in perspective, the average age of death in Alberta last year based on their own website is 80 years of age. Okay. And the youngest age,

thankfully, of anybody who died and we don't know if this is with or from, I think a lot of people who died during COVID pandemic last year died with COVID. Certainly there are a lot of patients who died from as well, but we don't really have that data to sort of tease that out. But we're dealing with not a single patient under the age of 20 in Alberta. I think there's something like, I know last time I checked, I think 14 or 15 children across Canada. And then, you know, so then you get into things like this multi-inflammatory system disease and can you develop neurological consequences. And the answer to those things are certainly yes. Those things are described and those are real concerns.

But if you add up the risk of serious illness from those things and you include the risk of death, and then you compare it to the risk from the shot itself, you know, I think that that's our starting point. So if we're starting to show that myocarditis in young adolescent males is at a frequency of 1 in 1,000, which a recent paper suggested is, it may be less, maybe more, because these things can also be under called, right, unless you're symptomatic, then I think, you know, families need to know that. And I mean, the reality is a lot of myocarditis, so that's inflammation of your heart or the sack around your heart, pericarditis, which is a known consequence of this. And I should point out at this point, you know, when the major trials that were done initially for these things, Pfizer-Maderna did the

initial trials in adults, they did not identify heart inflammation as a problem. It was not until this got into market that this became an issue. It was the same way with the Astor's Anika and the blood clotting. You know, so the idea that two months of a randomized control trial, done by and paid for the drug, you know, paid by the drug companies, performed by the drug companies, also, you know, with help from a different, different hospitals for sure. But the idea that if we, you know, if the data comes out in two months and it says, yeah, it's 95% effective, which is what the data showed a year ago for these things, and that there's

no concern of side effects at two months. I mean, how are you supposed to believe that, right? I mean, because as time goes by, I mean, it wasn't long ago that I, you know, received letters telling me, you got to, you know, keep pushing the AstraZeneca. They're all safe and effective. Don't worry. And now it now that's gone, right? So my point to the kids is if you're going to use them, because their risk from the virus is so low,

if you're going to argue that they need to be vaccinated in order to help deter issues on our health care system and help, you know, the elderly who are most vulnerable die, I think you need to absolutely be 100% sure that these shots are safe. And so the benefit to children themselves is actually relatively low compared because their risk for the virus is absolutely so low. And let's talk about the infection, the spreading part of it, right? So how good are kids that spreading this virus? I mean, should we be injecting them with these things so that they can't spread it?

Well, I mean, as I mentioned in that letter, and I think I only cited five or six papers, but there are and on there's a nice website you can look that summarizes this data also but there's like 10 or 12 studies all showing that kids are terrible spreaders i mean they looked at cohorts in different countries including the the the identify they identify that in and in daycares kids were not spreading it to each other if kids if a kid got sick with it they were more likely to have contracted it from family member at home so and then there's also evidence to suggest that under the age of 10 is even less likely to spread this so So, you know, we've already got evidence that they're not, and this, that they're not good spreaders, and this is different than influenza. Kids are very good at spreading influenza. And in fact, influenza causes much more harm to children than COVID does. So, you know, I do not, you know, and then take away my opinion there for a second.

Let's look at the facts. UK, recently two weeks ago, I think a lot of people saw this, but there's a, you know, same as every country. They've got an advisory committee that's overseeing, you know, the safety of these things. And they were questioned about whether or not they were going to drop the age to to inject children age 12 to 15. And they decided that the risk benefit analysis, including the benefit to children, and including whether or not there's a societal benefit by injecting children's and exposing them to some risk, that risk benefit analysis did not exist.

And there are lots of examples across the world where, you know, those type of comments from analysis have happened. I listened to one from Dr. Byron Brittle just earlier this week where they've done a very content. I haven't been able to see it myself. But another again, it's a cost effective analysis. It does not seem to be a cost effective process to do this. And again, I mean, if there's data to the contrary, you show me that this, that we have to,

the only way to get through this is, you know, I'll consider that. Can I, I, I'm probably going to ask a really dumb question. But it's just sitting there. Why, do they understand why kids? are bad spreaders of this? Like, why can me and you spread it, but kids can't spread it? That makes, yeah. So this particular one, that's not an absolutely not a dumb question.

That's a really good question. And the best that I can tell is that, you know, part of this virus are, are, we have different soldiers in our immune system that can fight these things. And one of the things that we have are T cells. And this seems to be particularly important when fighting COVID. it and children have got very robust T-cell immunity. And as you get older, your T-cell immunity gets down, goes away. So, you know, I think that's the main reason.

They just, they are their own best friends on this. They really, they just punt that away. Now, if you look at the children who have died worldwide, including some studies that came out of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, sorry, not the Institute of Virology, but the Wuhan main hospital in Wuhan, this is pre-pandemic, you saw that a mom, you know, many patients admitted or a small number of patients admitted, there was even a smaller number that died and the actual numbers are, are quoted there. But the patients that are vulnerable among kids are under the age of one, and that's a time where your immune system really is still

building. And they're particularly vulnerable if they've got an immune system compromised, like cancer, where they're being treated, or if they've had cardiac, an underlying cardiac malformation maybe they've had surgery or they're on medications for immune suppression those are the kids that are at risk you know and so the the the the the ones older than that just just bounced it off I think it's T-cell immunity and it certainly makes sense when you look at that out why that's down and so you know I think one point that I really I do want to make because I think a lot of people know this but when you say it I think a lot of a lot of people

also don't. So let's, let's, and I don't want to be accused, again, of spreading misinformation. So let's, let's, let's listen to what the CDC director her said, said about, about our ability to transmit the Delta. I mean, July 30th, 2021, she said that the Delta infection resulted in similarly high SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated people. And then she went on to say that high viral load suggests an increased risk of transmission and concern that, unlike with other variants, vaccinated people infected with Delta can transmit the virus. So the point is, if you're double-vaxed, you can still generate viral load in your throat, you can still transmit it, and you can still become symptomatic from this, and symptomatic enough that you get into the hospital.

She went on to say on August 6th, so now we're like almost two months out from this. she said that they continue to work well for Delta with regard to severe illness and death. But what they can't do anymore is prevent transmission. So these are statements out of the CGC director about yourself. Okay. And I think one of the things that's important here is that people who are double-vaxxed are walking around thinking that they've got, you know, this shield and that they can't spread it to people. But that is not true.

And if you look at a recent study that was looked at a look at, a recent study that was looked at, that at Vietnamese healthcare workers, they looked at viral loads when they were confronted with the Delta virus, the Delta variant. Almost 100% of the patients in this study were completely vaccinated. And they measured very high loads of the Delta virus. And that's measured by the PCR tests at the back. And compared to patients who had been affected with, you know, in an original strain or the, the alpha, it was basically January and February of Vietnam at that time. Even if you have had fully vaccine, you're still walking around with with much higher viral loads than people did before. And so they concluded that your viral, your immune, your vaccination status did not impact necessarily your ability to have an increased viral load. But the important thing is like there was 20 to 3% of these healthcare workers that were asymptomatic.

And we know that there's about 3% of people that are asymptomatic. And we know that asymptomatic spread is a concern. Not so much or much, you know, kids as I point out, but among older people that asymptomatic spread because more of an issue. So now we've got a health care population that's double Vax that's able to produce high levels of viral load in the back of the throat. Two or three out of every 10 don't have any symptoms. And they're still coming to work thinking that they have protection. or at least, you know, they're led to believe that and their patients are led to believe that. And let's take the healthcare worker out of it.

I mean, how many people think that they're protected when they go see mom and dad or or a vulnerable child who does have immune system? Four or five adults right now. Right. So, you know, you, there you go. So, I mean, I think one of the messages that's really important to understand is that we are, we are not, we do not get the protection from this vaccine that, that it was initially led to believe. in fact, and this is something I just couldn't even wrap my head around when I saw this, but literally like 14 days, beginning of September when I was writing this letter, the CDC changed their definition of immunity. So immunity used to be produce immunity, but now it's provide protection.

Because, you know, as the effectiveness of this vaccine has dropped off, that is what they are saying. I mean, let me quote the Israel Health Minister on July 23rd, 2021. indicated that a complete course of Pfizer MRI vaccine was just 39% effective at preventing infections and 41% effective at preventing symptomatic illness with the Delta variant. It remained 91% effective at preventing serious illness and hospitalization. That was in July.

But by August 16th, and despite having 78% of those 12 and older were fully vaccinated, 59% of gravely ill patients in Israel were fully vaccinated. And there are a number of sources to suggest that that number is actually now much higher, like over 90%. So we've got a population, you know, and if you look at Israel, this is like why this, I think, this idea of this, you know, forcing down the vaccine mandates, you know, we need to really think about whether or not this is causing some harm to what we're doing here. There are curves out there that as you know, you provide these max vaccine pushes, you know, you end up sometimes ending up with this illness back there. And that's certainly, these are multifactorial things. all I'm suggesting is that is it possible that these things are contributing because we have a population with 85% almost 78% vaccine and yet they have a fourth curve, fourth wave, a delta wave that's crushing their third wave.

This is a population that did all the vaccines way earlier than we did. And they're getting destroyed with their fourth wave despite the vaccine status. And I should comment, just so people understand here, I think in Alberta right now, I hear a lot of things where, You know, the hospitals aren't filled up and that type of thing. I know for sure that the main hospital here in Calgary, their adult ICU is full. And they started getting full earlier than they did last year. And if what happened in Israel and, you know, in Singapore and other places are going to happen here, what we are going to see a huge, huge number of admissions to hospital.

That's just, that's just a fact. The peripheral hospitals from what I understand from different people, maybe not quite full yet, that might change. But I'm not trying to negate the seriousness. I think we are in a lot of trouble this fall. I just don't believe that the vaccine mandate is a strategy that is going to get us through that. The argument is that, okay, if we can slow how many people are coming in more steadily, then our hospital resources can take effect, can cope with this.

And so people always point to the bed sides. Like how many beds do we have? Well, it's not just beds. It's also the human resources. If you have a nurse or doctor or a patient that test positive, anybody who is interacting with that person is now on quarantine for like 10 to 14 days, right? So, you know, so you know, you're limiting your manpower by that. And so that's also it.

So I mean, I'm not negating that whatsoever. But when I speak to the possibility of harm, I mean, this specifically, the idea that vaccinating in the middle of a pandemic with a vaccine that is as, as leaky as this, meaning that if you have received the vaccine and you have generated antibodies presumably to the spike protein from the original Wuhan strain, not the strains coming around, there is cross-reactivity, but the vaccine was based on the spike protein from the original strain. As this has continued to mutate, which is expected with coronaviruses and all viruses do this, the effectiveness of that vaccine, as I point out by the epidemiology, has decreased. And that's because

our anti, the antibodies generated by the vaccine are not recognizing the virus that's currently circulating as well. So what do you think is going to happen? Well, the ones that can evade our detection, the ones that have evade our immune system, those are the ones that are going to get into our cells, I'm going to replicate, increase our viral load, and potentially spread. I mean, this is classic Darwinism. It's the mutations that drive. The vaccine is that is what drives the mutations. If a virus wants to survive your defense, it's got to get around it. You know, if I'm an unvaccinated person, I've never had SARS. I've never had SARS cove two. The virus can enter my body. It can replicate and it goes out the same way. Right. So then the idea becomes, okay, if we can vaccinate

enough people, create herd immunity, decrease the spread fast enough. we can prevent how much of this mutation is happening and we can prevent, you know, you know, some of these things from occurring. The problem is we're doing this in the, in the middle of pandemic with a, with, with a, with a, with a, with a, with a, with a, with a, with a, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, recently in the new England Journal of Medicine, viral variants of concern may emerge with dangerous resistance to the immunity generated by the current vaccines. They recommend it, avoid the use of treatments with uncertain benefit that could drive the

evolution of variants and consider targeted vaccination strategies to reduce community transmission. So, you know, I'm not the only person that advocating for this. People like who signed the Burlington Declaration, all sorts of people have been arguing for focused protections on these things from the start. And I think that that's the same thing for vaccines. But to just push a little bit further on the possibility that we are causing harm. This is not, you know, some, some conspiracy theory. The coronaviruses, we have tried making vaccines to coronaviruses in the past. This goes back several decades. And I quote some of the animal studies. And in many of these animal studies, animals did have benefit from the vaccine. But when they get challenged to the coronavirus

a second time, they end up much sicker. And they get a phenomenon on what's called antibody dependent enhancement, whereby an antibody is able to sort of bind and tag the virus. And it sort of supercharges it in your body, allows it to get into places and replicate seriously. And so because of that, because of the sort of the properties of coronavirus, we have not been able to create a successful vaccine. Now, there are animal studies where that did not happen.

And interestingly, two of them used a live attenuated vaccine. But, you know, the idea that ADE, antibody dependent enhancement is a concern is real. You know, and we need to consider that that could be happening. We have a, you know, a professor who won the Nobel Prize in 2008 for discovering, co-discovering the HIV virus, Professor Luke Montagné. And, you know, he got maligned a year ago for suggesting that the idea that this was manipulated in the lab was ridiculous in a conspiracy theory. And that, of course, has been disproven.

It's certainly not fair to say that that's been debunked. But he has subsequently warned among a lot of other prudentialed people that we are setting ourselves up for AD. And in fact, you know, we don't have the data. I'm not saying it's happening. I'm saying we need to really be thinking about it. We need to be measuring it in ways. that we're not doing right now.

And there was a very recent paper that said that they found facilitating, facilitating meaning enhancing antibodies to a region of the Delta spike variant. Okay, so the spike variant, which is what binds our ACE2 receptors and allows it to enter our cells, whatever cells have an ACE2 receptor, they found an antibody that's bound to this particular NTD region of the Delta variant. And they concluded that in as much as neutralizing anti-12. So antibodies that are going to hit the virus and not make it able to do to infect ourselves and replicate. In as much as neutralizing antibodies, overwhelmed facilitating antibodies, ADE is not a concern.

However, the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants may tip the scales in favor of infection enhancement. Our structurally and modeling data suggests that it might be indeed the case for delta variants already. So this is a real thing. And as I say, we need more data on this. So, you know, the idea that if we get 100% of our population vaccinated, you know, if just the last 15% who are being so egregiously selfish would just do this, we can move on with life is complete nonsense. You know, it may help in the short term relieve some of the stresses on our system

because we are definitely going to see those. But it seems to me that we may be doubling and tripling down on a strategy that not only is already failed and failed another place in the world as well, but we may be causing more harm with this thing. And so that's another reason why, you know, forcing people to get this thing in a time to be able to perceive as society. When we have this type of data, it's not consistent. It doesn't seem, you know, the message that we're being told is not consistent with these facts. And I can say that, you know, over the last couple of weeks since that letter went out and I sent it, you know, to the people, as I say, with a plea to show me, but I might be missing. I have not heard any concerns about how I show the data. I have not been suggested that, you know, I'm missing huge studies.

And maybe that's coming. And I'd say, I'm willing, you know, to totally change things as this comes up. But this is the data as I have collected it. And I'm not asking you to plead me. Everything, you can click on all these references. You can click on the interviews. You can click on the CDC website to hear. Eric, where can you find the letter?

For people who've listened or listening, where can they go to find this letter? You mentioned it at the start, but mentioned it again. Right now it's on www.jccf.ca. And if you look at, I think the story is called an M RNA vaccine physician, story and it's just this 18 page letter with with 85 references. Yes, I've read it. It's fantastic. Now, man, when I get individuals such as yourself on, it is like catching information at the end of not a garden hose, but a fire hose. It just is hammering you so fast. I got to add a couple things in and then I want to talk about a

couple things specifically. One, when you talk about Israel, I think, and I could be wrong on this, but I think Israel is on the other side of the world, and people don't understand that. So when we talk about vaccine effectiveness, in the beginning, I believe everybody listening can remember 95% effective. I believe, I remember hearing that. I certainly 95% effective probably should have meant 95% effective, and we can get into the muddy areas of it, but people should have realized it wasn't 100% effective. But regardless, it was 95. Yesterday on Hinshaw, in Alberta, her own press conference, she said, now, 85%. So you can see where it's going. Like, if we just trend where this is going, we can understand

how you get to where Israel is, saying 39%. One of the things that I find extremely concerning, like extremely, is the censorship of our individuals such as yourself. When I hear you raising concerns, and I've had other doctors come on and raise concerns, those concerns aren't met with the government or other individuals taking a step back and going, hmm, maybe we should look into these things. It's met with, well, as you've mentioned different Nobel Prize winners. I mean, me and you could probably list off a handful of doctors that right now, if they speak up, like Byron Bridal is a perfect example of a guy who just raised a concern.

And if you go listen to the first interview he did, it wasn't to try and be like, hey, look at me. Look at me. He was like, I think this is very concerned. and people need to look at this. And then he got absolutely lambasted. And it's pushed down. Like, the only way out of this is get your vaccine, shut up, and carry on with life. And I think the censorship part of this is becoming extremely concerning. The censorship part of this was the, the alarm bell in my mind a year ago. You know, the censorship was happening right at the beginning of this stuff, you know, and the discrediting of worldwide experts. I mean, you know, for any of you

have not read the Barrington Declaration or looked into the three individuals who signed that, these are giants, they're giants in their field. And they've, you know, essentially in my mind, been proven right based on what they were saying last year. If you can't see the medical censorship, there's no chance of understanding this. I mean, how do you wrap your head around the data as I'm presenting it with the narrative that's being perpetuated in the media? Unless you get the sense and you realize yourself that they are censoring that stuff. Now, you know, So the Biden and Brial story is remarkable. And, you know, and let's unpack that because this is, this is directly relevant to pediatric

and everybody's informed consent. I mean, you're right. When we first came out, they told us it was 95% effective based on the original, original studies. And that has been a moving target. But they also told us that the injections stayed at the site of injection, right? I mean, how many people, I mean, probably people still think that, that if you get the injection in your arm, it stays in your arm and that, you know, at least the majority of it does. And so, you know, we do not have.

So the idea of when you inject something like this vaccine or if you take a new drug, you know, where this goes in your body is described as the biodistribution. Where does it go? Where does it distribute in your body? Right. And there's not a drug out there that we don't have that data readily available for clinically. You can look it up and see, yeah, that goes there. That goes there.

We need to look for this issue and look to look for that issue. Well, what Byron Bridal pointed out, and this is a guy whose career has spent developing vaccines. Okay. He's a science at the PhD at the University of Well, and his job is to discover vaccines. And he only threw an access to information act with other scientists to the Japan, to the Japanese government, were they able to get Pfizer documents looking at the bioavailability, biodistribution in rats? And not only was it pretty pathetic what came out, we got like two pages of distribution, the majority of this does stay in your arm, but it also distributes everywhere in your body.

They saw it in other organs, reproductive organs, for instance. And that was what Dr. Bridal was blowing the whistle on or trying to bring to people's attention at that time. Because we've got a, we've got a vaccine. You've got to understand the mechanism of this. The vaccine produces a spike protein. The spike protein is then able to, the vaccine enters our body. Our cells produce a spike protein. Um, sorry, I just kind of lost my train of thought there.

So that we produce a spike protein. Um, and, and the idea is it, it binds the ACE two receptor. So an ACE2 receptor is just something on our cells that allow it in. Well, it turns out we have these ACE2 receptors everywhere. Okay. We have them in our brain. We have them on our, on our blood vessels. We have them in our reproductive organs. We have them in our kidneys. And so if this thing is getting into the blood and it is traveling around, then this thing has the ability to get into our cells. Now you're saying, well, it doesn't have the virus attached. It can't do harm. Well, you know, that's a second, that's a second step.

Let's just keep with the idea that, you know, this thing gets into our, into our blood. And we have shown there's a Harvard study that that's available online that looked at healthy 24, looked at 24 healthy participants. These are people with, you know, presumably good, robust T-cell immunity. And they followed these patients as they went through the vaccine process with MRI shots. Okay. So for the two and a half months that it took to get fully valid. vaccinated. They went through with regular blood samples and they looked at not just the protein

being produced by the vaccine, by our cells produced because of the vaccine, they also looked at the antibodies generated. And what they showed clearly was that this S protein gets into our plasma. It is in our blood. It is, it is, it is circulating. And they have, they have, they were you know this has not been been described and then just the final point and then then i'll move on for the but this is the censorship part of it that you asked there is studies in animals where um if you inject the SARS cove 2s protein this spike protein that the vaccine helps us produce um that goes everywhere including all throughout the brain so there's there is evidence to say that this goes everywhere, including our brain. Now, you know, if if this is not

the case, then then show me the data a year and a half out that shows that this doesn't go there, especially if you're going to start telling me that my five-year-old needs to be pulled out to school to get this thing. Well, can we at least see where this thing goes? Because, yeah, we talked a little bit of the myocarditis. We haven't, you know, but there are long-term things that we don't even know about. We don't have a crystal ball on this stuff. Who knows if this thing is going to have an issue on reproductive down the line? We can't say that now. Any conjecture to the contrary, oh, this absolutely doesn't do it. It's just you don't have that data. How can you say that? And now we know that this thing has a predilection for reproductive organs. So it is something we should

be following, especially as we start vaccinating kids whose risk for the virus is so low. So why is it that he got crushed for just stating something that he had to get an access to. And Information Act to prove, right? So this is where we're at with all sorts of topics along these lines. You know, I've been, I'm trying to get Byron Bridal to come on, working on it with a bunch of different people to try and pull that off because as a parent with young kids, I want to hear, I want my audience to hear exactly what you're talking about firsthand. It's why getting you on is so important. Here's, I don't know, I just feel like such a lame at, I just feel like such a guy sitting on the sidelines. I don't have any degrees behind my

back that lend i haven't been working with children etc etc do you understand can you break down or do you maybe you don't know but how is this different than any other like when i get the flu shot in my shoulder doesn't it go everywhere in the body like doesn't like how is that different than this one i assume that when you get a vaccine it just goes everywhere in your body or is that just is that's not that case so you know that the main difference and there are different different, you know, it traditionally, and I think I listened to Peter McCullough on one of your podcast, go try to explain this as well recently. But, you know, one of the, what we generally do with the vaccine is, is we give you the virus, but we've knocked the virus down so that it

can't affect it. We call this like a live attenuated. We've attenuated the ability for the vaccine to cause infection. And so, you know, the ability for that thing to enter your cells and infect has been removed. So yes, you know, if you get that injection, some of that might go into your blood system and then your immune system, you know, does what it does. The difference with these, and it's not always live attenuate viruses,

there's evidence sometimes where they just use a protein or whatever, but it's the same idea. This thing gets in, you know, you recognize you form an immune system. The M RNA vaccines and, you know, the DNA viral vector vaccine, so like the AstraZeneca, J&J. Those are, you know, so let's just talk about that. Because I've had a lot of questions on both of these vaccines.

The mRNA vaccines, Pfizer and Moderna, they are a little fat molecule, a lipid nanoparticle is what they call it. And inside of that contains the genetic instruction, the mRNA, that once it gets in to our cells, will it's supposed to be then presented and then our immune system can attack it okay so what it's doing is it's it's any cell that has an ACE2 receptor this thing the S protein can presumably get in and then it'll generate a presentation for the the protein in whatever cells that's you know including including the heart okay so the importance of of these this M RNA getting everywhere is that as opposed to a live attenuated vaccine, that can't get into all your cells. We've knocked that down, generally speaking. But this MRNA vaccine was specifically

designed to get in to ourselves. And if it was staying at the local site and just being presented, you know, that's one thing. But if this is getting elsewhere, then it gets into other other concerns. And the viral vector vaccines, you know, one of them, they're both based on this thing called an adenol virus and they're different slightly in their designs. But they're doing, the same thing. They use a virus and they take out things in the virus that will allow it to sort of replicate and do certain things and they insert that genetic material into the virus instead of that fat bubble. Okay. And we know, you know, if you look up that that, that adenoviral vector mechanism, that does get it. That infects all of ourselves. We know that that gets places.

So that we're talking about totally different, totally different mechanisms. You know, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this remains experimental. I mean, it's still ongoing phase four trials here in Canada as far as I know. And we do not. I mean, and I highlight this in like bold and neon. We don't have any long term data. We don't have one year data in adults. So, I mean, the idea that, you know, from what I understand, it typically takes somewhere like 10 to 14 years for like a vaccine to actually get to market. And we've done this like in 18 months. And without information to tell me convincingly that this is not distributing in all sorts of places that may not be causing harmony it could be you know with years down the line we find out that yeah we really shouldn't have been vaccinating children because

their risk of these things was higher than than not so so so what why are we going down going down this this this this road is it does not it does not seem supported by by these facts well in talking with different uh health care professionals the one thing that vaccinating kids has been presented to me has been that we need to eliminate every single pocket of available receptors, people, whatever, of carrying this virus. But as you stated very early on, even if you're vaccinated, you're carrying this virus. So the chance of getting 100% is pretty much a fool's errand because it's already being carried by everybody anyways.

So, you know, the data in Calgary, for instance, and this is based on their data from last last week or maybe Alberta in general. So it's right now, if you look at the absolute who's getting hospitalized based on their own data. And if this is wrong, please send me the data to correct this. 70% of those admitted to hospital are unvaccinated. And unvaccinated means that it doesn't just mean that you've had a shot or two shots. It means that you're two weeks post your second shot.

No. So I'll correct you. They've corrected that, not that number, that phrase. they're not fully protected now. Okay. It's not unvaccinated. They're changing the wording as we go along, as we've seen all along with this. So carry on, sorry.

They're already starting to say, yeah. So, I mean, that goes to the idea of why they had to change the definition. I mean, why are we changed the definition of immunity protection? Well, maybe it's because this vaccine doesn't provide immunity. The, sorry, can you remind me just sort of what you were just saying there, a second ago? Well, we were just talking about the Alberta data. Yeah, sorry. So the Alberta data is, so 70% of hospitalizations right now are the vaccinated. 30% are fully vaccinated. So, you know, about a third of patients right now last week, we're fully, fully protected, fully. And and that number has changed. Right. I mean, if you ask people around here, everybody thinks that it's like 95, 99, everybody in the ICU is unvaxed. I mean, how could you, but, but that's not where that's going. And that's a moving target. So, you know, part of the argument that I'm making in that letter is that if you look to, you look at, other places every week, every two weeks, this is getting worse. I mean, just yesterday,

Singapore, which has got like over 85% vaccine rate, you know, in the last two days, you can look this up on MSNBC, you know, they've had more cases of SARS COVID too in the last two days than they've had all pandemic in a context of 85% vaccine compliance. Now, you know, these are mild disease and somehow Singapore's only had 60 deaths from all of this. I wonder what they're doing to help with that. But, you know, the idea that that is not there. If you look at the Alberta data and you actually break it down even further, the people who are, there are more people in Alberta getting infected who are unvaccinated based

on their numbers and the way that they're collecting the data. And it's dramatically higher. But even then, those being admitted to hospital are, are. there are still 3% double vax. If you if you do the the relative rate, so how many people unvaccinated have tested positive for COVID as your denominator and you divide how many people are actually in hospital. So you divide how many in hospital by the total number of unvaxed in society in Alberta. And then you compare that to the total number of of of vaxed, fully vaxed, who are PCR positive, test positive, and you divide that and admit it to hospital,

you divide that by the total number, that ratio is the same. It's 4% based on their numbers two weeks ago. So, you know, across the board, if you get SARS-Col to, and it seems that, yeah, you may have less chance of getting it potentially if you haven't, if you have been vaccinated. But if you do contract it, your risk of ending up in the hospital is very, very, it's the same. It's 4%. And you've got to remember that that denominator is, it's not like everybody, it's like 4% of everybody who gets the vaccine, who gets the virus is going to end up in hospital. That denominator is way less than 4% because we know 3% or 4% of people are asymptomatic. So, you know, there's a good chance that they haven't gone to get tested because they don't have any symptoms yet. So the denominator is actually, so that, you know, what's your chance of actually ended up in hospital, Alberta right now, whether you're vaxed or unvaxed?

It's somewhere probably between 2, 1 and 2%, 3% or something. it's definitely less than four. It's no higher than four bites on their own data. And that's going to be an interesting ratio to follow. I mean, you know, if antibody dependent enhancement, for instance, is occurring, you would expect that ratio maybe to start transitioning, meaning that the people who have been vaccinated, you know, if they get infected, they're going to have a higher risk. Now, that's not the case, but we're going to have to sort of see where that goes. But those are their numbers, you know, as of a couple of weeks ago. So and then, you know, this is a perfect example of where the narrative in the media right now, is totally the opposite side. I'm going to say this about the media bubble. It wasn't until I moved to the states and that I realized in Canada how much of a media bubble we live in. So, you know, even when you think

that you're getting information from really good sources, you're getting part of it. And it took, you know, being in the U.S. to sort of really, really see that. You know, so why is it that that push has been on on the unvax and you know this i i know we're going to be heading towards wrapping this up but i do have you know a plea this is a plea to everybody including my my fellow colleagues um you know right

now uh what has happened to the to the world is is just heartbreaking right the humanity has been lost um you know i've got so many examples of this including my own grandfather who decided in home at 101 to stop eating last year because he wasn't allowed to see visitors. And that's how he died in COVID. Right. So the end of his life, that's, you know, that humanity's gone. The idea that the unvaxed are being selfish and they're uninformed and they're just not being good partners is, is an outright lie.

The Vax, the people who have chosen to be unvaxed are, they know this data. They're some of the most knowledgeable people on these things. and they've made an informed decision to stay away from it. So when I hear colleagues state things like, yeah, and you know, you saw this in the trauma start a couple weeks ago, but I know, I've heard these comments. I know these comments are being made all over the place. Physicians who believe that the unvaxed deserve to die,

that they unvaxed deserve to not be treated. That is nonsense. When do you not help somebody who's in need when you're a doctor? you're going to do that because of the fact that you're unvaxed with this data. Like, it's insane that the division and hatred they've been able to create. They've got us fighting ourselves. We should be thinking about who's been leading the charger for the last two years. We've done everything that they've suggested.

And the truth, you know, continues to be moved ahead like a carrot every couple of weeks. You know, flatten the curve for a couple of weeks. You get double-vaxed. You're totally protected. well now you're less protected well now you're gonna need a booster well now you can still get symptomatic and transmit it well you know we really need to do this because um we need to you know make sure our healthcare system doesn't get overwhelmed um because it still protects protects against serious illness well that is the case right now but if you look across rural that things changing so my plea is like

you know we we got to get back to the humanity of this thing we can't be divided here we we've got we've got to find a way to discuss these things and and really that was the that was the the goal and the of this letter was to was to generate that discussion. But, you know, the fear and the, the, the, the mistruths have fed into that narrative. And, and it's really, really sad because those of us who've made that informed choice to abstain from this thing, you know, we, we were obviously getting, and we were getting crucified in the media. And I know probably a lot of my colleagues who haven't haven't said anything personally to me feel that, you know, I'm being reckless or whatever. But if they do that, you know, come talk to me about this. I'm willing to chat about, you know,

we really have to get back to focusing on these things. And I would suggest that that anger and that, that frustration be geared at, you know, why is this, this narrative not consistent with the data? Why are you trying to get us to fight each other on this thing? And my hope is that as this, as this comes out, and this is discussed, that people, you know, consider that. It is not the unvaccinated. This is not a pandemic of the unvaccinated. This is humanity trying to deal with the virus. And we need to, we need to get back on that. And the vaccines are a tool. They're not, they're not the panacea that we, you know, we're hoping for it to be. And that's just, that's just a fact. And so, you know, I also hope that as, as this starts to get mandated to younger and younger children, that we get, and I'm not, you know, again, formed consent.

If you guys decide that for your child or whatever, your own anxiety, you want to go there, you know, go there. But if you decide you don't want this thing in your child, you should be able to, you should be able to say that. And I, and I really hope that parents who are feeling that their power has been removed here, that they're feeling scared, that they stand up. We need a bunch of angry mama bears to keep this out of our five-year-olds. Eric, I got to know.

Do I have you for a few more minutes, or do you have to run? I'm with you. Okay. Well, then I got a couple more questions that I would like to go with, sticking with kids specifically, just in different conversations

I've had behind closed doors. and you being in the area you're in, I think you're a guy well suited to answer these. Now, one of them is this odd one right now because, you know, our own government, if you're turning 12 this year, so it's not just 12. You can be 11 right now and being pressured into getting the vaccine. as a doctor who sees kids in the history of medicine that you've been in do you deal with consent from a 11, 12, 13, 14, 15?

Like, is that something that was there before? I'm just asking as a dumb parent than going, like, I feel like that seems bad shit crazy to use a nice part in the French mom because I'm sure you're listening term like, I don't know, but maybe I'm not a doctor. So maybe this has happened to more than I give it credit. Well, your recent guess, Julie Pinesse, the biomedical ethics person could certainly speak to this.

But, you know, this is, it's not a black and white situation here. There's a gray zone, you know, and how young we allow the decision making process to come on. You know, part of that is convincing ourselves that the child, the teenager is making an informed decision. And there are instances, you know, where we'll end up getting an ethics consult in the hospital to sort of work through that stuff. Because ultimately, you know, a 14, 15, 16 year old, if their ability to think is there, there's no reason to think that they're not able to think clearly, then we do listen to what they say. And we should be listened to what they say. And so we cannot force parents, you know, to do things to a 17 year old.

If they, if the 17 year old stands up and says, says no, it's not an age-based criteria. I mean, one of the most heartbreaking stories I think I've ever, ever read just to show you how young this, this can go down. But one of the, one of the things, one of the diseases that we see in children, it happens in adults as well, but it's called, it's called spinal muscular atrophy. And the motor neurons in your, in your, in your, uh, antirene cells in your spinal cord. So you want to move your arm, there's got to be, you know, we've got a pathway up your brain to allow that to happen.

Well, the relay center in your spinal cord, the motor neurons are gone. And so what happens is you get someone who's bright, knows what's going on, but can't move progressively. And it's similar to ALS. So Lou Gehrig's disease, similar idea. It's attacking the motor neurons. And so these are people that end up weak and they end up problems with secretions and they end up with problems in the lungs, recurrent infections. And they often die suffocating, right? Well, you can look this up.

There was a, and this made it a lower place, but a year or two ago, there's a four-year-old or five-year-old in the States. And her mother was a pediatrician. I think this was in California. Her father was a U.S. Air Force pilot. And this was a child with spinal muscle atrophy who was continuously going in and out of the hospital because of these recurrent infections. So this was someone less than the age of 10.

And she told her parents that he, you know, when she was getting sick again, that she didn't want to go back to the hospital. And so you can imagine for her parent hearing that, that's tough, right? And so they had to like, you know, you're not sure and have these conversations. Is it, do I respect her wishes? She was able to very eloquently explain why, right? And so we do take those things into considerations. But the problem with what's happening right now is that we're not giving, we're not providing informed consent.

child made an informed decision. She knew what was happening. Did she really understand? Well, she knew she wasn't going to live a full life at that point, right? But our teenagers are getting so much pressure right now. You know, when that news broke in the UK a couple of weeks ago that the advisory committee that was overlooking the decision to drop the age from 12 to 15, when they decided that the risk benefit was not there, you can Google or whatever what the government in the UK said. And they, they, they are quoted as saying that, you know, children can go ahead and do whatever they want anyways, which is true to some extent. And that, as I just said, and then the government said that they might overrule that advisory committee either anyways, right? I mean, so the peer pressure

that they're under. And I, you know, the thing that's been really the most heartbreaking to me over the last year has been, has been seeing, you know, the effect on teenagers. Because a lot of the younger kids were able to still go to school and they don't, you know, totally understand this, with the exception of, you know, being told you're going to kill grandma, which I'm sure is going to have lifelong concerns. And with the data that we had, it was really unfortunate that those type of comments were made. But, but ultimately, you know, teenagers are, are getting extraordinary pressure to do this. And, and, and that's coercion, right? And so, you know, how many teenagers have heard the data as I've discussed them today. Right. How many parents? How many parents, right?

It's, it's, here's, here's the thing. How many parents have heard what you're talking about? You know, when you mentioned the UK, I'll read off exactly what you had put. Recently, the UK's vaccine advisory board refused to approve mRNA vaccines for healthy 12 to 15 year olds. Despite this, the government may overrule and is already telling teenagers they can circumvent their parents. Right? Like, right there. like that's the whole point of doing like what's the point of doing all the research if we're not going to listen to it i i resent extremely the idea that the government knows what's best for my child um so you know this this is but anyways let's let's let's switch not just the UK right let's talk for a second about what the FDA just decided last

week and and these are these are open hearings and you can find the video of uh and so the FDA allowed open hearings. And so scientists were able to present data and argue. The question was, should we mandate booster shots, the third shot? And what they decided in under the age 65, and it was something like a 16 to 2 vote against, that we were not going to say yes to boosters in patients who are 65 and under, or 64 and under. 65 and plus, they did, they did approve the vaccines. But that data that was presented, I mean, you know, you can find these videos. It's an eight, it's an eight hour long session. It's an eight hour long session, but you can find clips of, and I'm obviously, these are, these are, you know, potentially biased clips because the eight, I've seen 10 minute clips where

they just show the hard points against the FDA. And the main ones were in the pediatric population. That were, that were some of the strongest points being, being made. So, you know, the idea that everybody is, is doubling down, tripling down on these things worldwide, is just not, not the case. And in the FDA, you know, the two individuals, and I put this in the letter as well, because there are two individuals that were leading the vaccine aspect for the FDA, which is the oversight committee to make sure these things are all safe, they resigned after 30 to 40 years in the middle of everything that they've been doing. And the reason they did was because the U.S. government was trying to bully these boosters on people. And they resigned and forced these sort of open hearings to happen.

And people were able to hear the data and make informed decisions. So that is starting to creep out been starting to happen. And I was, I was reassured by that. And so, you know, I hope that that type of discussion continues. Well, I keep hoping that too, right? Like, I keep hoping individuals such as yourself speaking that not only myself and my listeners, because, listen, I, uh, I got a, a cool listener base. They're smart people. Like, they don't agree with everything that you're going to say. They don't agree with everything Peter McCuller or Dr. Governor or all these different people. The truth the matter is, I'm hopefully helping them become more informed and go search out some things and then use critical thinking. Like I got tons of people right now, Eric, texting me going like, I have underlying health conditions, right?

Like I have history of heart problems in my family. I don't want to take this because of those. And instead, they're not being hurt. They're not at all being hurt. And they're being forced by employers and everyone else, society in general, just to shut up. and take it. Well, every person is different. That's what informed consent is. It's like, okay, this is what it is. All right. What do I feel? And that's just being kind of stripped away, and it's a one way approach. And that's it. Go down this lane, no matter the consequences.

You bring up an extremely important point. I'm really glad it is because out of the hundreds of emails that I've gone, a lot of them are about medical exemptions. And so I think this speaks again to the to to the decision making process here. There are no medical exemptions except if you've had a near-death experience with the first MRI shot, including developing inflammation. So if you had an allergic response to the first MRI shot or you develop inflammation after the first MRI MRI, then you can get a medical exemption. There are no other medical exemptions. And I mean, I'm sure you guys have read. I mean, well, I've not heard a response from the CPSA to my letter directly. I have seen, I, I have seen,

the, the, the, the comments that they've made through CBC news, um, uh, threatening the small number of physicians. I mean, they hold my, they can pull my license and I will not be able to practice medicine. And it will be hard to change jurisdictions because they ultimately have to release my, my, this is why doctors are not speaking up. Because they, they literally have our livelihoods, um, in, in the crosshairs. By the nuts, right? So, so, but the, so the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, is just mind bottling. I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean,

There are so many, in my opinion, situations right now where that makes sense. You know, if you're dealing with the child, like think about it from this. You know, I deal with epilepsy surgery patients. We help evaluate patients whose medicines don't work. So we have to figure out where we may be able to help surgically. I don't do the cutting, but I do the evaluation part of that. And so this involves admissions to hospital. It means electrodes and brains.

Some of the epilepsy patients I have, it's inflammation driven. That's one of my research. areas in neuroinflammation. That's being driven by that. So you're going to tell me that a six-year-old or an eight-year-old whose epilepsy is being driven by inflammation, who previous vaccines and infections goes into status, whose benefit from this vaccine is zero relative to their risk overall from the virus. That person still needs to do that while they're going through everything they are. I mean, I don't want to get into personal things here, but I, you know, my, I'm going to say this. My brother has Crohn's and he's had it for 18 years. And in first year medical school

with me here in Calgary, he had to have surgery on it. And he remains on Remicade, which is a medicine that it's an immunomodular medicine that keeps inflammation down. And he's a urologist in Ontario. And one of the hospitals that he's working with mandated this. And so now he can't work in that hospital. But he's made the informed decision that he's not going to take this shot because he's 40. And every time he's tried to come off Remikade, he ends up, it was a six months of steroids and very, very sick. So your ability to mount an immune response when you're on medicines like Remikade is very low to begin with, which is why recommendations from Alberta in some instances are to come off your chronic suppression medicines of keeping your

disease at base that you can mount an immune response to the vaccine and then you're protected. But during those three months while you're doing it, your chronic disease is out of whack. I mean, there are hundreds of these things. And so, you know, my heart goes out to every single person who is scared. I mean, they're desperate, just the terrified about this in some of their kids. And I would say that, like, vast majority of the ones that I've seen come across, I mean, I would love to write you something. But the college, as documented in the CBC interviews, they are slapping doctors with sanctions if we write those medical exemption letters. I have always been able to write medical exemption letters for my epilepsy patients, you know, especially the instances where some

of these kids have had their epilepsy or their autism kick in after a vaccine. I mean, I can't tell you how many families I've sat across, explained to them how it wasn't the vaccine that led to the seizures and the autism. It unleashed a tendency toward seizures and it was the timing and I've sat through those conversations and nauseam. But if that patient then comes to me two years later when they need their next shot and the family is still traumatized on what they saw the first time, I will write them a medical exemption for their MMR shot, right? I'm not going to force them to do something that caused that kind of trauma. I'm not allowed to do that right now. That has been taken away from us. It's essentially, if you've got a pulse and you're over 12, then you should have a shot. That's

that's what they're saying. Another thing that's been brought up behind closed doors is that kids right around the age of 12 are done developing and this shot won't hurt them near as much. that, you know, at some point you're done developing and this shot isn't going to, I don't know. Just the, I bring it up because I'm going through my list of things that I've heard in the back doors when it gets talked about giving children this shot. People are trying to rationalize why they should give their kids a shot. 12, they're done, you know, puberty they hit,

and then, you know, they don't have to worry about some of the repercussions that maybe bridal is talking about. Maybe yourself is raising concerns on. Is there any truth, not truth? What are your thoughts on kids developing as just in general? Well, I mean, one of the things I say to parents all the time, and in epilepsy, it's so frustrating because, you know, that you take away your predictability in life, right? So you just happen at any time.

So you lose a lot of, a lot of patient atami on that as well. But pediatric epilepsy is a moving target. And it's a moving target because the brain is developing over time. And, you know, for instance, we know, that laying down white matter tracks, you know, the sort of the insulation on your wiring, continues to go in to your early 20s.

And differences in terms of men and women and how quickly they myelinate, to some extent explains the differences in teenagers, female and male teenagers. Males do not fully myelinate their frontal lobes, and those are kind of the brakes on doing dumb things until they get into the early 20s. So there is ongoing neurological brain development

for sure going into your 20s. And in terms of other organs, I mean, that's much less of an issue. But brain development continues to go on at least until your early 20s and most people. So the idea that they're done and they are what they are and that's not going to change, that's not accurate. Can we talk about VERS? I've had this discussion and I know different countries have their own different reporting systems. I thought VERS is an interesting one because it's, well, it's the one that's talked about the most.

You have doctors who say it's complete nut or rubbish. You have doctors that say like, holy crap, it's an early warning system. The whole point of it is to warn us when things are happening. And I'm going to read off just kind of, I've never done this on here. VERS has come up a lot, but I've never actually, for people who haven't gone out and looked up, VERS, here's what it says. Established in 1990, the vaccine adverse event reporting system. VERS, is a national early warning system to detect possible safety problems in U.S. licensed

vaccines. VERS is co-managed by the Centers for the Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA. VERS accepts and analyze reports and adverse events, possible side effects after a person has received vaccination. Anyone can report adverse events to VERS. Healthcare professionals are required to report certain adverse events, and vaccine manufactured are required to report all adverse events that come to their attention. It's a passive reporting system, meaning it relies on individuals to send in reports of their experiences to the CDC and FDA. It is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused a health problem, but is especially useful for detecting unusual, unexpected patterns of adverse

reporting that might indicate a possible safety problem with a vaccine. This way, VERS can provide CDC and FDA with valuable information and additional work and evaluation. is necessary to further assess and possible safety concern. Now, after saying all that, here are the numbers as of today, okay? Because I just read off, okay, it's an early warning system. Deaths in the U.S. This is U.S. 14,900. Now, could some of those be false?

Could some of those be whatever? Sure. And have they been administered to a giant population? Yes. in total there's been 700,000, 700,000 reports through September 10th, 2021. So 14,000, almost 15,000, 75 people short of 15,000 deaths, over 700,000 reports of adverse effects. Now, I'm just going to extend what I'm saying here to what you put in the letter. It says during, I'll read what you wrote just to give some more context to the listener.

your thoughts on this because once again I go doctors are arguing this and I go if it's an early warning system why aren't they seeing the warnings during 1997 to 2013 bears received 210049 death reports and no concerning pattern was observed but as senator john ron johnson wrote august 22nd 2021 the 12,791 deaths related to COVID vaccines report on bears over the period of eight months compared to 8 800 deaths related to all other vaccines. to report on bears since the inception of VERS, a period of 31 years. Why then given these clear unusually high numbers, did the CDC continue to refuse and allow an independent safety panel investigation of outside experts?

And I guess I talk about this. I just want people to hear everything, right? Yeah. It's an important topic. And you can get lost and lose arguments and when you start arguing the minutia on some of these things. But let's be clear. So the veras, as you very nicely point out, it's an early warning detection sign. So, you know, it's designed to pick up things like the myocarditis or the clotting things,

things that happen aftermarket that were not detected during the trials. And so we have used that and doctors in the U.S. have used that until this pandemic, they have used this system to say, look how safe our vaccines are. You know, in 31 years, we've only had 21,000, 20, 1,249 deaths. But, you know, back in August, we were having already six times. So we had more deaths in the first eight months of this pandemic occurred. Then we have had when you combine all vaccines that we have given over a 31 period, 31 year period. Okay.

And this importantly does not prove causality. So you can't say that just because it's there that the vaccine did this, that is not the situation. You can only say that there is a concerning signal there, and we need to address this before. So contrast that with what the CDC did on July 16, 1999. They recommended that the health care providers suspend the use of a licensed Rota Shield, which is a rhodovirus vaccine. It's a virus that tends to hit our GI systems to get diarrhea. They suspended it after 15, 1, 5 cases of interception, which is basically when your small intestine sort of folds in on itself and blocks it.

And that can be life-threading. 15 cases of interception. They suspended. They pulled this vaccine off. And now we've got these type of numbers, right? And when we've got... Well, you just go back to even if 15,000 deaths, 14925 as of right now as I'm looking at the screen, even if only a fraction of that is true.

Even if only for action, that's not 15. That's multiples of 15. Yeah. And I mean, it's important to point out. I mean, clearly you would expect that, you know, in a pandemic and with these new shots, that the reporting might be increased just by the nature of it, right? But the reality is the VAR system only picks up one to 10% based on some good, some good studies in the past. So only 1 to 10% of all vaccine adverse events are actually reported in VERS.

So the physicians may be told they have to do it, but it still takes 30 minutes to sometimes put in run through these reports. it's not always obvious that it was related. It doesn't always have to be a position that puts it in either. But that's where we're at. So, you know, and then, you know, there's evidence to suggest that they're, you know, they're, it's tough to get these things in. The numbers are, they're not going back to necessarily look in an expeditious fashion to speak to these things to figure out what's going on. I mean, have they done an in-depth look at like, I think in the U.S., it's about 300, 50 children who died with or from COVID.

I don't know. I'm not aware the CDC has done an in-depth dive into those deaths either. So it gets back to this, this censorship. And, you know, so you, you can easily take extremes on the Vairs. And I'm trying to take a middle path here because that's,

that's really what this is, right? It's a warning system. And I should that I hate to bring in the numbers because this is where people will destroy arguments. The numbers were 12,791 deaths over, the course of all of theirs. No, 12,791 deaths related to COVID-19 vaccines over the eight months.

Oh, correct. So just under 13,000 deaths in the first eight months, that compares to just under 9,000. So 3,000 more deaths reported because of the COVID vaccine in eight months compared to 31 years with every vaccine put together. This is why I stick to just asking the experts questions, right? Because the number, it's stats versus motion, right? Like I just, the stats are sitting there and I'm trying really hard to take a step back and understand why that wouldn't be concerning to two of the biggest, you know, we talk a lot about the CDC and the FDA. Why aren't those concerning? I don't know.

As a doctor, I would assume they're concerned. Well, I mean, and if you want to put to rest conspiracy theories and you want to put these concerns to rest, then. then then then then put them to rest with with with with analyzing the signal saying that there's nothing to see here. I mean, I think I think that the CDC did in fact have an internal review after the first 1,300 deaths in verres and they opine very quickly that none of them are related. But when you start seeing, this is why I say at the beginning that the, the science and narrative is is falling apart on on the Titanic because I mean, you know, just have to look

at some of the, the recent reports showing, you know, where people are not putting these varis in. So there is no doubt in my mind that we are under representing the acute, the short-term effects from the vaccine. I think that these are generally underreported. And I can say that with firsthand experience. Seeing that, physicians are not thinking, is this the vaccine that did it? They just aren't. Everybody who comes through gets a COVID test, but literally, you know, that relationship, because it's ultimately can be tough to prove that. But consider, you know, you know, and anyways, we'll just leave it at that. But I, I know, I've got many, many, many examples where acute adverse events are not

being reported, even here in Canada. And so, you know, let's, you know, anyways, go ahead. Here, here, I think, I already know the answer. I'm pretty sure everybody listening this far already knows this answer. But why speak up? you've already given off a list of things. I think what a lot of people say that are listening to you, they go, like, just listen to this guy.

He has everything to lose, nothing to gain. But maybe you can put that more in a sense. Like, what do you stand the game from talking about this? You know, I guess that is something that I've struggled with, for sure, over the last couple months. It's something my wife and I have talked about. You know, I'm 43 and as a result of all the schooling, you still carry a lot of debt. And so the idea that I'm going to have to be forced to start of this job, which I love, here at the children's, it's for the stat.

And if I have to practice in the community, there are some of my expertise that I have, I'm not going to be able to use it. I mean, I'm not going to be doing neural critical care in the community. Right. And ultimately, if the CPSA determines that I'm spreading misinformation or they don't ultimately like what the message I'm saying, I would encourage them first to please point out what I am saying that's wrong. And I will correct that. But if they determine that that's the case, then they can tie my license to it. And so now I can't act as a physician. So, you know, there is, you're right that that part of that has been a tough one to struggle with.

but I came to the conclusion a couple weeks ago that if you don't say anything now, what we are looking at losing is worse, that we are going to start mass injecting children with this thing, literally scares the crap out of me. And if you don't speak up now, what are you going to say in a couple months or one month when they're coming and forcing our children to have this there. I mean, so who else is talking about this, right?

In Canada, there are a lot, there are people, they're heavily censored. But I generally am at the point that if this is the state of medicine right now and I'm forced out of it in order to stand up and really try to advocate for kids, my kids, your kids, that's the reason to do it now. That's the only reason to do it now. Well, that's where we're going to leave it, Eric. I don't think, I commend you for what you're doing. You have a position that is looked upon, especially at this time, with a lens of like, this guy should know what he's talking about. Simply put, right? I'm just, I keep calling myself a simple man sitting here standing for my values and trying to certainly get your voice heard by more people because I have friends, family, co-workers.

workers, etc. That are staring down the barrel of get your kid vaccinated or. And, you know, in a country that loves its hockey, that has become pretty evident across all of Canada. We don't have to look any further than our own country. And the fact that we don't know long-term effects, the facts that you're speaking up, the fact that so many others are speaking up should ring alarm bells everywhere. And I just appreciate you standing.

up and talking because I think people need to understand your livelihood is at stake here. I don't think you stand to make millions of dollars by saying this. I think it's quite the opposite that by standing up and talking, quite the opposite is very true. Yeah. I imagine that there's going to be people there. It's really, really unfortunate right now. I mean, of course, it's going to affect even my ability to keep working around this place. I mean, I'm not, I am, I'm not trying to fracture relationships with any of my colleagues here. I love my colleagues. It's a very special place to work.

These are people that have dedicated their lives to kids, right? So there's not a malicious intent for many of the people around here doing the things they're doing. I mean, the investigators that are helping to run these trials. I mean, they genuinely believe they're helping. And I believe that they believe that they're helping. And I really do hope that, you know, if that that, that discussion, you know, around the science of data that, because I really do believe if you're going to put dynamite under like the bedrock principle of the doctor-patient relationship, you know, you better have the evidence behind you when you do that. Because the long-term consequences that we're going to see from this are going to last decades. and frankly, every week that the narrative that this is what needs to happen is dissipating.

Well, and just to add on to that, like, you mentioned early on the humanity. And I feel like that is exactly what we're losing right now. We're losing our humanity to just stare at one part of the population and blame them for everything of where we are is you just got to take a step back and go, this is, this is unbelievable. And then, you know, when you talk about bedrocks of, of medicine, of everything else, I always bring up the Nuremberg code because you don't have to look very far into it to see one of the guiding principles they came out of the Nuremberg code and just go look up the Nuremberg code to anyone listening. It came from one of the darkest parts of human history.

In recent memory, right? There's certainly, if you go further back, you can, you can find probably darker or whatever you want to go with. But the first thing it says is the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent, should be situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior. form of constraint or coercion? Yeah. And I mean, you know, you want to listen to one of the most balanced and calm perspectives on on vaccination. I would suggest listening to Martin, Dr. Martin Koldorf, who's a professor of public health and epidemiology at Harvard. And he spent, I think, over 20 years involved with adverse events and vaccines. And he's one of the three that signed

the Barrington Declaration speaking to focus protections. I included in that letter a link to an interview that he did on Epic Times. And he made this point. And I have to believe he's right on this thing. But if you consider all the years, decades that have led up to this, you know, the anti-vax movement that exists, how successful has that anti-vax movement? How successful has that anti-vax? VATES movement been on penetrating society's desire to get vaccines for their children. Very, very small, right? There is for sure a pocket, but generally speaking, they have not been very successful. What is happening right now with this anti-vax movement is a complete opposite.

They're creating more harm to the vaccine movement, according to Dr. Koldorf, than all the anti-vaxers over the last few decades put together. We are really, really hurting that relationship between physicians and patients right now. And those who are standing strong, even when they don't know how to fight this, but remain standing strong despite all the hatred in society that they're receiving, you know, are doing that in form and despite all of this. And so if you force them to to get this, 20%, 30% of Canadians, right, that aren't fully backed, that are eligible, what do you think that's going to do to their trust of the medical system? And to their trust of getting vaccines that do work and are extremely important for children,

right? So you risk totally blowing that relationship up itself. And I think that that is, that is unfortunately for sure what's going to happen among those group, those people who have abstained. I agree. Well, I appreciate you doing this with me and sitting and giving me your brain for close to a couple hours. And I mean, it's just, once again, I appreciate what you're doing.

I appreciate you standing up and talking about the things that are concerning you against all odds where you sit in your profession. I think people just need to sit down and listen to what you're talking about and do some thinking for themselves, but I appreciate you giving me some of your time, Eric. I really appreciate your time as well, Sean. Thanks for speaking up against this yourself. You've had some excellent people, and I'd recommend that they go and listen to these experts before they listen to my one first.

But again, thank you very much for your time. Hey, folks, thanks for joining us today. If you just stumbled on the show, please click subscribe. Then scroll to the bottom and rate and leave a review. I promise it helps. Remember, every Monday and Wednesday, we will have a new guest. sitting down to share their story. The Sean Newman podcast is available for free on Apple, Spotify, YouTube,

and wherever else you get your podcast fix. Until next time.