The David Knight Show - Interview: What Happened After COVID Vaccination Reached Pregnant Women?

Episode Date: October 2, 2026

Dr. Denis Rancourt — University of Ottawa physics professor, climate skeptic since 2005, and star witness at Canada's Allison Inquiry on vaccine deaths — has done the actual radiation balance calculations from first principles and shown that doubling or quadrupling atmospheric CO2 produces negligible warming because the greenhouse effect is already saturated. His broader argument is more damning: climate ideology, gender ideology, and wokeism were all introduced top-down through UN conferences immediately after the Soviet Union collapsed. Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code “KNIGHT” For high quality made in America products go to HomeSteadProducts.shop and use promo code “Knight” for 10% off your purchases Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show Or you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @[e-mail] App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

All right, joining us now is Dennis Rancourt, and I'm very anxious to talk to him. Of course, he's been in the news a lot because of the Allison inquiries that are happening in Canada and what he's had to say about the damage from the vaccines and that program. But he was a skeptic about COVID from the very beginning. And even before that, he was a skeptic about climate alarmism. And so we're going to talk to him and get his take on what is happening to science and how this is being used in geopolitics. Mr. Rankort was a professor for more than 20 years at the University of Ottawa.

He got the rank of full professorship while he was there, and he is now doing different things, and he's one of the people that has seen the academic mob turn on him. We were just talking about this off air, how there's almost this science isn't really done with a scientific method anymore, critical thinking. They don't want dissent. They want consent. And they will twist your arm to do that. And so he's had a lot of experience as well in terms of protecting civil liberties and in litigation, representing himself as well. But he's had a broad experience in all of this. And thank you for

joining us, sir. Very excited to talk to him. It's my pleasure. I'm glad to be here. And we do want to catch up as to what he's doing right now, because he has also set up another institution here to help to try to get critical thought there. But let's begin going back to around, I guess, 2009. I saw a lot of articles going back in 2009, where you're labeled a climate denier by the people who deny science and informed consent. Let's talk a little bit about that. What was, because I think this is a good place to start, because when we look at what is happening today, especially with the back and forth over the effects of these hyperscale data centers. We saw these people who've been pushing this global warming and worried about methane from

cows and all the rest of the stuff. We saw them do a very rapid 180 and just drop all this stuff like a hot potato as soon as they realized that they needed hyperscale data centers. They were no longer worried about any of this stuff. And I think it was very interesting point of inflection. What do you think? Well, I actually wrote an article about a major point of inflection regarding climate ideology that happened recently under Trump. But it's not just Trump.

It's pretty global. I think a lot of the elite have realized, even Gates made comments to this effect that they basically have to stop stressing that nonsense because it's leading them to absurd conclusions. So they've said things like, well, we should concentrate on global health instead. We don't have to be obsessed with climate. So I wrote an article about the current things that have happened legally and in the public view about dropping the climate ideology. There has been an inflection point. And the U.S. has officially dropped out of the international agreements and all of this has happened recently. So there's some big changes there.

And I think a lot of it is driven by geopolitics as well. I mean, the entire climate ideology scam, if you like, has been driven by geopolitics from the very beginning. I wrote an article about that. In 2019, I wrote geopolitical analysis of these new ideologies, gender, equality, climate, and global warming and all that kind of stuff, and how it came about, in a top-down way, starting with major conferences that were run by the United States. nations and that changed really the ideology and the morality around all these questions and gave us wokeness essentially and this happened as a direct consequence of the dissolution of the Soviet Union so immediately when the Soviet Union dissolved

the the West considered that it was time to have new strong ideologies across the Western world that would help them to be the bosses of the world moving forward and that's how these things were introduced. So I wrote what I think is a very important paper in 2019 that people can find in the geopolitical section of my website. So it's always bigger than we think. These big movements in society, usually the biggest wheels, the biggest gears are usually geopolitical.

And so I've been involved with climate for a long time. My first critical papers as a professional, against this climate ideology were in 2005. And I wrote a big essay at that time, and it got a lot of attention. There was a Senate Committee on Climate at that time, and it got a lot, it was read, it was actually read there at the Senate committee, and a lot of the media picked it up and so on. So I've been very critical of the whole thing for a long time. And what I was saying back then was that it made no sense scientifically,

and that it led to complete contradictions. on the left to go in that direction. So I've been saying that for a while. And of course, you were a professor of physics as well. Yeah, you know, you're, you know, you're, so you had, you had experience to look at that. Yeah. I went on from from that essay and those very critical comments to actually doing the

physical calculation of radiation balance on, on the planet and doing it rigorously from first principles. and I wrote a paper about that, I think it was 2015, where I showed that even if you doubled or quadrupled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it would have a negligible effect. And I explained the fundamental physical reason for that, which is that the, let's say,

the greenhouse effect from CO2 is saturated already. In other words, a lot of people mistakenly say, well, CO2 can't be important because it's a trace gas in the atmosphere, that's actually incorrect because it doesn't matter that it's a trace gas. What matters is how effective is it at resonantly capturing infrared escaping from the surface of the planet? That's what's important.

So it's the cross section. It's the radiation cross section that matters. And a small amount of CO2 very effectively does that to the point where if you add more, it makes no difference because you've saturated the effect. It's like you've painted the black already and giving it another coat of black is not going to make a difference. So I showed monetatively that that that was certainly the case with CO2 in the atmosphere. And so I I'm in other words, I'm well-rounded. I understand the basic physics, the radiation balance on the planet. I can do the calculations. I have done them. I understand the geopolitics

of the situation and so on. So I've been very critical of this climate scam. And it really is a scam. and we're still working on climate with a collaborator I am we're in the well we're preparing a large paper that demonstrates that if you look at all the the data sets of surface temperature on the ocean and on land what you see are sudden jumps in temperature average annual temperature

happening at very special places in large continental scale regions on the planet okay and these jumps are not possible it's not possible to drive them through a gradual change in the radiation balance something sudden has to be happening on the planet and so we're elucidating that and we're showing that most researchers have just been putting straight lines through those stepwise increases and calling it a positive slope and claiming global warming on that but you don't have to go very far back to see that just just a few decades back the step was in the other direction. So depending on the time window when you take that linear fit, you either get a positive or a negative slope. And so the idea that there's just this warming is from a biased view of the data. And the data itself gets manipulated through bias that's expressed by the professionals that are working on it.

That's another problem. So we're presently writing a large paper about that, where we have all the data for the entire globe and we make global maps of these steps and the anomalies. And we showed how we challenged governments, the Canadian government in particular, about these steps and what they were doing to not consider them and consider the underlying mechanism of them.

So it's a paper about that. Well, that's a different angle than I've heard before because I've been covering this for a while. And a lot of times people will talk about, well, you're kind of cherry-picking. in a sense, what you're talking about, kind of cherry picking your starting point. And as some people criticized it and said, well, you're also talking about fractional measurements here that we really don't have the historical data to do that.

I mean, people were reading this stuff off of mercury thermometers. They were not getting accurate readings down to tenths of a degree, that type of thing. And when you look at the different places where they have put the weather stations to monitor this stuff, a lot of this is based on extrapolation. between two points. And they pretend they've got an intermediate point in between some of those, where they've moved them to areas that are now heat islands, you know, in an urban area or in an airport area. So there's all this other stuff that sums into it, you know, in terms of how do you measure this? Absolutely. I've been writing about the artifacts that you mentioned systematically since

2005. So I know all about that. And we've been reviewing it, we've been reviewing it in our recent papers. Okay. That's good. Because I don't think it's over yet. I mean, they've taken a pause on this, but these guys are going to come roaring back with this, I think, to use it for something, even though, as I said, you've got the people like Elon Musk and Bill Gates who have weaponized this for money purposes and for the longest time. And yet now they've got a new profit center. And this kind of stands a contradiction to that, doesn't it? Yeah. I mean, a lot of these things that they put us through that are propaganda driven for profit, as you say, and for

influence and for, and they have a geopolitical role as well in terms of aligning the Western world and whatever world they can influence along these directions so that they can profit from them and control it. A lot of it, a lot of these scams

simply get abandoned, usually because there's a major war. So real wars and real exigencies of a large regime or an empire. And I think the U.S., we have to say, is the center of an empire presently. That's just the reality. And so when empire is challenged in terms of its inability to produce weapons, its efficiency, degradation of its own structures and everything, then it has to adjust. It has to recover from that. And I think that that's partly what's

happening with abandoning the climate thing in the in the u.s military abandoning woken woken in the ukeism in the u.s military it's because you these things create inefficiency people let leaving the elite and the financiers free to just optimize profit without concern for actual manufacturing ability to make weapons and develop new systems is a mistake that needs to be corrected if you're going to have a war. So the hot wars that are that are occurring now in the Middle East and in Ukraine, which are major hot wars that the U.S. is directly involved in, they're seeing the limits of their military industrial complex. Okay. They're running out weapons. And they're they're living that now and they're going to have to adjust. And so a lot of

the adjustment means you have to stop wasting a lot of effort, creative effort, financial effort, and so on, on useless things that were essentially propaganda that is no longer working because people now understand in the world, in the developed world in Russia, in China, people understand that it was all the scam and that, yes, your propaganda penetrates into our jurisdictions and we have to, therefore, account for that, but we now understand the degree to which all of this is a scam. And so we're going to ignore it. We're going to try to negate it.

And so there's a real geopolitical battle, I think, going on right now as the world becomes multipolar. Okay. And the U.S. is doing everything it can to prevent that. And it's frightening because the U.S. is willing to use terrorism and to have wars in order to prevent development in what it sees as its opponents, which is the sovereign blocks of China and Russia. I agree. I couldn't agree more. Yeah. Oh, well. We're in a very difficult situation right now, and we really are setting on the edge of a knife,

and it seems like there is absolutely no moral or legal constraint on the American government at this point in time. They just do whatever they wish. And I'm sitting here as an American looking at this, just shaking my head. I can't believe that they're getting away with this, and yet they are. Yes. And I think the. moral limits were imposed after the Second World War on the U.S., even though it was continuing to make a lot of wars everywhere, there were moral limits that were imposed by the fact that they at least had the idea that if the whole world turned against them or a large part of it,

that it would be a problem. And we're at a state now where they don't even think that's the case. They think they can just use nuclear weapons in the Middle East, do whatever they want, and that there will not be serious repercussions that people will not be able to respond, that other people outside of that regime will not be able to respond. That's a big mistake. And I think they're desperate. I think it shows desperation.

They basically want to grab everything they can, secure the continents that they exploit as best they can, and then whatever. They're not going to be able to attack America kind of thing. You know, we're protected by oceans and we'll just do this. will we'll wreck their infrastructure. Right now these wars in the Middle East are about the main thing they're about is preventing access to that energy to China. That's all it is.

So they're willing, they don't care that Iran. I'm getting into my opinion of having studied the people who do these analyses, but they don't care that Iran is destroying energy infrastructure in the Middle East. In fact, they celebrate it not openly, but they celebrate it because that means that China will not get those resources. And it means that their resources, their domestic resources and the ones they control in Venezuela and in Canada, I have to admit, that their resources will be the source of this energy. And they will be able to control Asia through controlling that energy source once they've destroyed the energy infrastructure in the Middle East, you see. I absolutely agree with that.

And I've seen this from the people who are MAGA cheerleaders out of their time. This is 40 chess. You know, he's going to destroy everybody else's oil supplies. And we'll be the only ones left standing with oil resources. And so this is something that they're being fed. I think they really are consciously aware of this. I think it is absolute folly. But I think that you're right.

They are looking at this. And I think it's not just that we have the American Empire is not really concerned about what other countries think. I think they're not concerned about what Americans think either. Well, absolutely. They're not worried about the elections, really? Oh, no, no. Why would they be? They're completely irrelevant.

The elections are irrelevant because they control all the candidates and all the politicians, virtually all. There's exceptions that prove the rule, and that's that, you know. So why would they be worried about elections? It's a show. Yeah. And I think they've got a backup plan for it. They're already starting to work at, they've got Hegseth looking, having the Defense Department sort out to see any signs of foreign interference.

If you see some signs of foreign interference, then I guess they could just declare the election. If they don't like the results, declare it null and void and do whatever they wish. And I think we're at that kind of a point in the American government as well. Yes, I would agree with you that you can feel the desperation, and you can see that they're willing to use desperate measures. And they're also even willing to, you know, be based in Latin America, rather than the U.S.

If that's more convenient or they feel that it's better, they can move a lot of their infrastructure and their manufacturing to other places that where they have complete safety, you see. So they're looking at, yeah, and you're right, they completely disregard the American people. For them, there's two classes of regular American people. There's a people they don't care at all about,

who are the regular workers. And then there's the professional class, which they simply buy out. They control through career advancement, the salaries and bonuses and things like that. They completely control the professional class. We saw that during COVID. They controlled all the medical people,

all the hospital administrators, all, everybody that is professional capacity acting for them is controlled. There's no professional independence whatsoever. It's disallowed and it's punished fiercely by the medical associations and so on. So you can see that they have the American public that they control, who are the professionals, and the American public that they're willing to exploit to the limit that will suffer the inflation, that will, you know, and that's just the way it is.

And that's not to mention the actual more about 12% on average of the U.S. population that lives in serious poverty, not to mention them, right? Because they're there as well. And you don't have those high percentages in other countries, in other successful countries. Like it doesn't exist in China. It doesn't exist in Russia. Not those levels.

Not that degree. So there's a problem with the U.S. empire. It's rotting at its domestic base. I agree. You cannot have a successful empire if you don't have, have a well-stratified hierarchy where everybody contributes and everybody feels that they're being treated fairly. If you destroy that, you destroy the strength of the empire. And don't you see the AI proposals that they're putting out there? Don't you see that as really exacerbating that,

taking it to an entire new level? I mean, they're talking about, don't worry we're going to put you on universal basic income. We've got now Republican congressmen who are going around saying, Yeah, we'll fix all the infrastructure. We'll do all the roads. We'll give you all free education. You want to pay any property taxes on and on and on. So it's not just universal basic income. It's universal basic infrastructure. It's all going to be somehow magically paid for by these people who have accumulated unbelievable astronomical amounts of wealth and hoarded it. But they're all going to be philanthropists now. Oh, yes. Yeah. It's incredible. It's absolutely incredible. There is no reason given historical reality that you would believe that scenario. There's absolutely, you have to believe the opposite. Yeah. It's crazy that you just look at the tendency.

You look at historically what is going on here. This is a crumbling and failing empire. Now, it's not going to happen tomorrow. It takes, you know, these things, it runs on the geopolitical time scale. So it takes decades and it's gradual. but they're there if they don't start making corrections and if they don't start learning from the jurisdictions that have learned certain things that that secure themselves and that become if they don't start learning and correcting and applying new methods they're just going to create

incredible suffering domestically elsewhere yeah i agree and and like hemingway said you know goes uh goes gradually then it may happen suddenly at some point and I think that's going to be, it's going to be a very difficult thing. As we see the petro dollar that's been weaponized, they're now losing that. People are setting up their own currency systems and competition and independence from that. And yet, and that has been the basis for what you were talking about in terms of taking the professional class and controlling them financially, bribing and blackmailing people to do exactly what they want. But as that leaves, that's going to make it very difficult for Americans who are used to having a, we're not.

all of our credit cards to get cut up, it's going to be really tough. Right. Right. Cold turkey. That's kind of related to AI because I think they understand that they're going to control a petrol dollar as long as they can and in the Western world for sure. But they also understand that they can always switch the basis of the currency in terms of the real world to actually tying to every individual person that they control, which is where

the surveillance and control of your bank account and control of everything you own, that means that your productivity as an individual is directly tied to the value of, say, the U.S. dollar. Okay. So you don't need to have people wanting to use the U.S. dollar, needing the U.S. dollar in order to buy energy. You simply have that everybody cannot escape it. You're caught with it. You can only advance even down to the individual level by using this currency.

So it's locked in. So I think that there's another component, which is the backup plan for the petrodollar, which involves complete control of individual, what used to be freedom. Would you explain it as maybe something like, you know, we look at the Internet of Things where they can track individual things. And they're talking about the internet of bodies. We look at them talking about the tokenization of assets. And, of course, the very beginning of the Trump administration,

we had Doug Bergam, the Interior Secretary, Scott Bessent, Treasury Secretary and Commerce Secretary Lutnik. And they were all talking about, yeah, it's not really a problem of $40 trillion or whatever. That's not a big deal. I mean, look, we got a couple hundred trillion dollars worth of land that we control in national parks and resources and things like that. And we could tokenize that. You know, you think they'll do something like that.

I think they're already doing it and Canada has announced that it's doing it and that this is the best strategy moving forward. Carney is all about that, all about using a pension funds, Canadian pension funds to invest into the war. Canada is joining Europe and Europe and Canada together are the U.S. leads in the Ukrainian war to attack Russia. So they are tied to the U.S. Empire. They must do what the U.S. Empire says. And the U.S. Empire says, well, we're going to share the task. Europe and Canada, you move in. It's wartime.

And I think that's what Carney is all about. So how do you fund these wars initially, presently, is you use those financial resources of the states. In other words, you've got Europe and Canada. in order to have the funds to buy what you need. The problem with that strategy is you can't buy what you need. You have to manufacture it. You can't just say to China,

well, now we're going to ask you to build the weapons to attack you, okay? You actually have to have industry. You can't gut, Germany cannot gut its industry and then buy what it needs to make a war somewhere. else. And we see that, you know, they seem to plan things out for very long time, like with the COVID stuff and everything else and many of these other aspects. And yet in other areas, they seem amazingly short-sighted. And we're talking about being able to buy this stuff from China. The fact that China, over a long period of time, first acquired the technology for these rare earth magnets and

other things like that. They're necessary for defense weapons as well as for consumer goods. they got the technology to do the refinement and gradually got control of nearly all of it. And then Trump gets into a trade war with them and they cut it all off. And so it's kind of interesting to see how short-sighted they can be in addition to their long-term plans. But I think part of it may be just, I don't know, ego politics is what I call geopolitics now under Trump. It really is kind of what he wants it to be. and he doesn't really think about the secondary tertiary effects of any of this kind of stuff. It's just straight-ed like a bull in the china shop.

Well, I don't know. I think that when you are playing, well, when you are fighting a geopolitical battle and you try different things, you learn as you go. You're necessarily going to make mistakes, necessarily, because it's very complex, and the other side is responding, so you have to adjust. And I think it's, I don't think it's all about the stupidity of Trump. I think Trump is just an instrument, and the empire is run by influential financiers and high-level elites and the CIA and the military. Together, you know, all these arms, it's run by that, and they have decided this is what they're doing.

Trump is just going to implement it, and in doing that, they're going to make mistakes and they're going to adjust. And the thing is, what we see as mistakes are not necessarily mistakes in the sense that. it could have gone the other way. You know, China could have not dared to use rare earths. And, you know, then they would have had pretty much a great victory there and lots of more leverage and so on. So it's a way of testing your opponent as well. So it's not necessarily a mistake that the opponent dares to fight back.

But, of course, there's the straight-of-h-moos. I don't know. What do you think about that? a blunderer i think that's kind of a major blind spot they had uh no i don't think so um i think it ties to what we were saying earlier which is uh the empire is happy to destroy all the well that's true yes structured in the middle east and is happy to close off these these routes for transportation to china among other things so it's it's it's perfectly happy to have a close now what what the u.s is concerned right now is that iran could let through a lot of

of the cargo. If they control it and they let through people want to keep using it, and that's of concern to them. They want to close it down. They're playing this game, which I think is a lie, to say, well, yeah, there's going to be inflation, and that's a horrible thing. So we have to do everything we can to keep the petrol going. You know, Trump has said the lie that he wants, he doesn't want Ukraine to attack Russia's diesel manufacturing capabilities and things like that. Just complete nonsense. I mean, it's a lie. Of course, the U.S. is telling Ukraine to do exactly those things, providing all the weapons and so on. So he's trying to convince the public because they need to be somewhat worried about the public

because huge sudden inflation can really turn people against you in a serious way. And can create a lot of, I mean, it can go all the way up to a civil warlike situation, right? So they have to have, they have to be somewhat concerned. And they have to convince you that it's because the bad guys on the other side did this. It's not because we wanted this. We didn't engineer this, you know. So you see that as kind of a briar rabbit saying, don't throw me in that briar patch. Don't blow up the diesel stuff.

He really would like for that to happen. I agree with you. I think that's a smart way of looking at this. And let's talk a little bit. I want to talk a little bit about what happened with COVID. And what was the early warning signal to you? on that because I think is important for people. They're going to keep throwing things at us. We need to learn skills of critical thinking, and you certainly have excellent skills in that area.

Let's talk a little bit about that. But before we do, let's talk about this recent Allison Inquiry. Tell us a little bit about that. What is happening with that in China and Canada and what you were telling people. It's all the same everywhere. Well, the Allison Inquiry was put together, it was funded by a non-profit organization that is the same organization that organized what was called the National Citizens Inquiry in Canada, which was a very successful way of getting experts to be heard on the question of COVID. So then they decided to acknowledge and give the venue. to victims of these vaccines.

And so they are working with a member of parliament, who is this a member of parliament, Allison, and they put this together. It was a four-day affair in which you had mostly victims and also the family of people who died directly after being vaccinated, but also some experts. So I was one of those experts. And they had Senator Ron Johnson up there who opened it as well.

It was a very, successful event that unfortunately the main the bought out state media uh in canada did not cover but it was covered very well it did break through in one mainstream newspaper in the the Toronto sun I believe and the main the independent media covered it very very well with in-depth interviews and quality videos of all kinds and so on so it's it's it's on the internet everything that happened there and it's well documented It was well run. And I had a chance to show our latest data, mortality data.

So I was able to demonstrate rigorously that when the CDC forced that all pregnant women would be vaccinated in any trimester of their pregnancy, as soon as that date was turned on, the death of women during childbirth went up threefold. Wow. And I showed that graph. It's a very stunning graph. It's slide 20 of my presentation, which is available online there. So it was not a coincidence. It was like a knife edge.

It just went straight up on that date. You can look at the mortality by week, and it's just boom. It's like an explosion. So I showed that data, and it's the first time that that graph has been shown and that the data has been shown. And it's official data of the CDC, but that no one has yet dug into. and showed that this was in the data. So we showed that, and then we said, okay, if that's the case, what happens nine months later? You start vaccinating pregnant women, you impose it.

What happens nine months later when the ones that are not killed, the ones that don't die, most don't die, they get birth? What about the survival of those infants? And guess what? We show the data again. This is the key slide in the Allison inquiry, where the mortality of the children. of infants, male and female, steps up, straight up, nine months after they started vaccinating the pregnant women. Wow.

Okay, so it's very conclusive. So now it's a little bit before nine months because when they started back. Let me back up here a second and say, what was the cause of death for the infants? How did they do? Oh, well, you can do it many different ways. one is to simply look at all cause mortality of infants. If you're less than one year old and you died in the year, say, let's record your death. That's one way to do it.

And so when you do it that way, it avoids the problem of whether or not the diagnosis is correct, is proper, right? Because it's obviously someone who was born not long ago who died in that year. So the safety signal from that exactly maps on to, the safety signals from specific ICD10 codes of cause of death of infants near the time of birth. Okay. So we showed them both and we showed that they map exactly the same way. And so when you look at, you see that in 2020, infants were not dying. Despite the fact that there were peaks of mortality in the general population and everyone was screaming about COVID, infants did not die.

there was no excess mortality of infants in 2020. In 2021, when they started vaccinating the general population, again, there was no excess mortality of infants. Only in 2022 did you see a sudden rise in that mortality, and that is the year that corresponds to nine months after they insisted on vaccinating pregnant women. So all of these dates and graphs and analyses are shown in my slides at the Allison Inquiry. So it's a very stunning. Now, when I said that nine months later, you can also look at the data on a by month or by week basis.

Okay, so that's how I'm able to say, well, here we are nine months later. This is happening now, you see. So there are many ways of looking at the data, and there's ICD 10 codes for specific diagnoses, and then there's always all-cause mortality, which is the fallback position. So I showed death of women during. during childbirth. I showed that their infants, if you were vaccinated,

died more. Mind you, in all of these studies, we don't actually know the vaccination status because the government won't tell you. Really?

What the vaccination, yeah, they won't tell you what the vaccination status of associated with the dead, dead persons was. They made sure. And yet, we know if these women,

because they changed, the rules used to be they were very cautious about vaccinating pregnant women. But after they change that, you know that if you go into a hospital setting, they're going to be putting a lot of pressure on you as well. Oh, yeah. It's violent the pressure they put on pregnant women.

It in itself causes trauma, extreme stress. They're very, very militaristic about that. And that's well documented. The policies are clear. The direction to clinicians and physicians is, you make sure they're vaccinated. If they really refuse, you note it in their medical records,

and then the next time you see you or anyone sees them, you try to get them to vaccinate again, and you just keep doing that every time you see them. So it's very systematic and it's very aggressive, for sure, for sure. So the other thing... Yeah, go ahead, go ahead. I was going to say the other thing we demonstrated was that, you know, vaccines were approved for toddlers

and six-month-plus-year-olds fairly late in the game. So not at the same time that it was approved for the general population. And there's a specific date for that for six-month-to-four-year-olds, okay, and in the U.S. And what we've showed is that in the year of that approval, the death, the excess death of one to four-year-old shoots up. Wow. And we go to the graph. So it's a clear, a clear safety signal, unambiguous.

Nothing happens before. The year before is also in the U.S., the year where financial aid to families and workers was dramatically cut. So in the U.S., there was a federal program that gave over a trillion dollars in aid because they were closing the economy down, and the workers couldn't go to work and so on. And then half the states decided to cut that fund, that federal program. So that created an immediate intense problem for those people. And you can see a mortality spike at that time. Precisely in June of 2022 when that happened. Okay.

But then beyond that, when they approve the vaccines for these ages, you get a much higher peak again. Okay. Now, in Canada, they didn't cut the funding that they'd given. suddenly they had four different programs and they were cutting them gradually over a year and a half or so. So there's no excess mortality in Canada in relation to that only in relation to when they approve the vaccine for the toddlers.

So in Canada it's clear. It's just straight, no excess mortality and then boom, it goes right up when they approve the vaccine's there. And what is so insidious and evil about that is that part of the push for them approving these things for young children was to make sure in the United States that they got their legal immunity according to the 1986 Childhood Vaccination Act. And, you know, that was, they wanted to get it on the schedule for children, which they now had on the schedule for children, because that gives them another piece of legal immunity because if they were to pull off this Prep Act immunity,

they had given themselves so many different covers, they've got to have multiple ones out there. And so they're willing to sacrifice these children, willing to kill pregnant minds, mothers and babies for their money, for their legal immunity and all the rest of stuff. It's just unconscionably evil. Yes, to sustain what is essentially a military program, to have the capacity to inject everyone with what you want, when you want, under the cover of really strong propaganda and collaboration by all the professionals. That's the goal.

You want to have that military program in place and you want to be able to activate it when you want. And that's why the flu shots are a permanent part of our landscape, even though every scientific study has said these flu shots don't work. There is no benefit from the flu shots. Every serious comparative study, it's unambiguous scientifically. It's unambiguous. But there is this industry of flu shots.

And it's because you want to be able to do that. The motivation for it is explicit when they ask for funds to call. Congress, it's about bioweapon preparedness. That's the pretext that they use, okay, for the, for having the ability to inject everyone like that when they want. So this is, this is what's going on. It again, again, ties back to geopolitics, you see. Yeah, I got to say, you know, I could always see the effects of mass propaganda and

advertising in the population. I got to say that it really, really concerned. me, it was beyond the scale of anything that I thought would be possible. I thought when we started seeing things happening in 2020, that it was going to be a bridge too far. That maybe they're going, wake people. I had the same, I had the same reaction as you. I thought, boy, if they want to impose vaccination on everyone for this, it's just going to fall apart. Man, they don't know what they're doing. But it didn't. There's no way that to work. We overstimated the public and we underestimated the power of relentless propaganda and pressure.

And I guess that is really the issue. And still you have people who have not come out of that government-induced coma, I guess, is what you should call it. Yeah. Well, they've now bought into it. They have invested in it. They have put their families at risk. They put their own lives at risk. They have seen the consequences in many people around them.

And they have put their heads in the sand about how there could be a link to the vaccination. I mean, myocarditis is a huge deal. And that safety signal was evident from the very start. So heart conditions, yeah, heart conditions are huge, our huge problem. Yeah, now we have to have kids who are going to participate in sports, have to have electrocardiograms. And that's supposed to be normal. That's the new normal. Nothing to worry about.

You know, they just put it out there as like a PSA. Oh, by the way, we're going to be doing this now. And nobody asks why. And if they do ask why, they simply hire some scientists to say that, oh, it's because of COVID. Mm-hmm. The virus made us susceptible in this way. Mm-hmm.

They write these garbage papers along those lines whenever they're asked to do it, whenever they're funded to do it. Yes. Now, you never bought into this. You were speaking out against this whole idea of a pandemic back in 2020. And I was as well. But tell us what your reasoning was. What was the tell when you were looking at this stuff?

Well, I did two things very, well, three things. very early on. The first thing I did, I was working with a group called the Ontario Civil Liberties Association. And the first thing we did when we saw all this propaganda and recognized what nonsense it was and did some background reading and so on is we wrote directly to the World Health Organization as an association. And we said, what the heck are you doing? This is contrary to what is known scientifically. One never does these things. What are you doing? Abandon your plan immediately. do not suggest that general masking of the population, for example, is a good idea. It's not.

And research is clear on this. So we wrote to them. And of course, we didn't expect an answer, but we wanted to put on the record that we were doing this. Okay. So if you go to the Ontario Civil Liberties Association website, you can see all the documents. You can see everything we were trying to do. That's one of the very first things I did. And then the second thing I did is I went in and reviewed all the scientific literature

that was available at the time on whether or not masks actually provided a benefit in a respiratory circumstances. Okay. So I looked at only high quality studies that were comparative clinical studies where you actually did randomized control trials or you couldn't completely randomize because you know when you're wearing a mask or not, but still within the limits of what was possible identified the best studies and there was about 10 or so studies that were of really high quality and all of these studies without exception said we cannot detect a benefit a benefit from wearing these masks in terms of preventing infection we don't detect it that means that science is if there is a benefit it's so small that it cannot be detected by the by the best methods that you have in science okay

So I wrote a review paper about that immediately. And it went viral. I put it on ResearchGate and there were hundreds of thousands of downloads and then Research Gate took it down. So I wrote to the editors of ResearchGate and I said, what are you doing? Why did you take this down? It's a review of scientific papers. What are you doing?

What are you doing? And you know what the answer was? The editors replied and they said, well, there are. too many websites that we don't like that are linking to this paper. Wow. Wow. It's getting too. Basically, they were saying it's getting too much attention from in, in, in environments that we don't want to respond this way.

Okay. So we're just taking it down. And think about how their power to do that kind of stuff to ferret that out is going to be accelerated and extended under artificial intelligence. I mean, that's the key thing when I look at it. Their ability to audit and to monitor everything that we're doing to collate all this stuff to look through the haystack for the needle. It's going to get very precise and it's also going to be very, very broad, the net that they cast on people, isn't it? David, I want to add one thing, though, about what I did in 2020.

Second of June 2020, I published a paper in which I said there's no pandemic and there's clear evidence for institutional assaults that caused death. Okay. So what I did back then as I reviewed, I accessed all the mortality data as a function of time, all cause mortality for Europe, the U.S. and Canada. And I showed that there were hotspots, that there were peaks that fired up immediately when the pandemic was announced, not before, never before. There's never been excess mortality anywhere in the world until they announced the pandemic. So somehow this magical virus was waiting for the announcement. It is to cause death exactly at that time, okay, which is contrary to all the accepted models and theories about spreading of viral diseases. It's contrary to it. So I said, this is impossible. These peaks are synchronous around the world, and they only happen in hotspots, nowhere else, and nothing happens before. And they happen in hotspots where there are large hospitals and where they're applying these incredibly dangerous new protocols. So I said, this is directly due to what you're doing in care homes and hospitals.

This is evidence of assaults. And I wrote that paper and it got a lot of attention. And it was the first paper in a large series. We've now written 30 large scientific reports that are all available. I mean, the heavy lifting that we do scientifically is all on our website, correlation dash Canada.org. you can find all these big reports. But that was the first thing that I did.

And I did it on my own. And I was adding arrows with a pencil on the graphs and things like that. And then people saw that and they said, hey, this guy's doing, you know, young researchers actually approached me to work with me. And so since then, we've developed, you know, some collaborations and we've refined our methods. And there's a lot more brain power and manpower to. to analyze these things. And you're 100% right.

Because over this last week, you mentioned Ron Johnson being a part of the Allison inquiry of it. This last week I covered an inquiry that he did where they were talking to people who had family members who were victims of the hospital protocols and just horrific stories of what happened to people, getting poor care or no care. And then they would set upon them with these ventilators

and M-Desivir and all the rest of this stuff. you know, we now have the testimony, the firsthand testimony of so many people who suffered from these protocols that were really weaponized. What I remember from it, I'll never forget. It was August of 2020 and the American Hospital Association, the AHA, and it was really an aha moment for me. They came out and they said, what do you mean you're not going to pay us a 20% bonus? I was like, what 20% bonus?

CMS, the Medicare Medicaid bureaucracy that's here in the United States, was giving them incentives. I knew about the incentives for giving somebody a COVID diagnosis and putting them on a ventilator. They'd give them $9,000 to say they had COVID. They would give them $39,000 if they put them on a ventilator. But then they also gave them 20% bonus on everything they did if they were a COVID patient. And they came to them and they said, well, we need to have some validation of this. We've got to have the PCR test, which I've talked about that endlessly. But we've got to have a PCR test. You told us at the beginning. They said that you didn't have enough of those and that they didn't work. You need to hold up your end of the bargain. So there was

this little public spat that was there and didn't get a whole lot of attention. But when I saw that, I thought, man, look at how they have just thrown money at this situation and thrown it at these corporate hospitals that are under private equity ownership. And I mean, it's just all money, money, money. And they knew exactly how to do that. They bought everyone out. All the hospital administrations, all the medical associations. They bought everyone out with a large amounts of money and they made sure that they were obedient and so on and they made them sign contracts to that effect and that that story is really well told in a recent book i want to show this this is called sacrifice by thorpe and farber and they go through all of this for the case of pregnant

women and their infant and they they they they outline all of this coordinated buying out of basically everyone all all the people who work in that area of medicine. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. It was all about Maria. I want to plug this book because I'm very impressed by it. Good.

See if I can get them on and talk about it. That's great. And, of course, when you're talking about the fact that none of this stuff happened before they made their decorations and so forth, that made me immediately think of the meme I've seen over and over again. And it's like the Amish, and they said, how come nobody in your community is getting COVID? And so, well, we don't have television.

Exactly. I remember that meme. That's a good one. Yeah. Well, you know, one of the things we've done also, and I talked about it at the Allison Inquiry, is since that early time, we've really grown our collaboration. We're able to analyze much larger data sets in a much more sophisticated way. So we were able to ask the question, is there any evidence that something was spreading in the world?

Okay. That caused death. And what we found, so we were able to analyze all the data. the U.S. down to the county level, very high spatial resolution. Wow. And by week, so very high temporal resolution as well. And we did the same thing in Europe, down to the same small degree of level. So we've got two continents, basically, where we're doing this detailed analysis, and we proved, as far as you can prove, well, we invalidated the hypothesis of spread. We proved that that was not happening. So we've, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we

see that the patterns are geostatic versus geothermal, which they should be, if you believe their theories, okay? So we show that the virus refused to cross national borders, for example. We showed that, you know, in cases where the law can change, we showed that in some major airports that were receiving many, many flights from China and Asia and so on, nothing happened. Whereas in other, there were these hotspot peaks, but the point, places where there were the hotspot peaks is where the hospitals said as soon as you get symptoms

come into the hospital and we'll put you on a ventilator we'll treat you don't worry and so they did that in the land and they killed people it was a it was a huge hotspot they did not do that in in rome same population type same big airports all the same kind of flights nothing in rome no excess mortality okay and when we're talking about that geosel In other words, if we're going to look at, we always see the movies about contagion and things like that. And so, you know, they show it starts with this person. They get on a plane and it hits somebody else. Yes.

And you can see this thing start to spread out over time, over area. It's like ripples in the water. And yet that's not what you saw. You saw these isolated things based on government policy, right? Exactly. And it's important to know that these, they actually have theoretical models, which I've written papers about myself, for peer-reviewed papers with Joseph Hickey, who's the main author, they actually have a way of calculating how that spread is supposed to occur.

And so they include everything, personal to person contact, commuter transport in a city, airport transport, they include everything and they calculate what should the map of death and disease should have looked like for COVID. And these maps look nothing like. the mortality maps that we have. They're contrary to it. They're contrary to it. And so they actually go in and do these calculations.

And if you compare it with empirical results, it disproves the theory, if you like. Now, you put out a paper, we've got time. I want to go over this before we end. The COVID-19 illusion, biological stress-induced bacterial pneumonia. Talk a little bit about that because it seems to me, like if you're wearing a mask, that would kind of exacerbate that condition, wouldn't it? Stress as well as bacteria? Yes, yes.

Well, you don't, you don't, I wrote a paper and the title has the word transmissionless pneumonia in it. You can find it on the correlation website. I think it's an important paper because it does all of the scientific background about how do you get a respiratory condition. Okay? And from the science, it's clear. For example, Sheldon Cohen, who is a professor in the United States, spent his career demonstrating trying to find what determines when a college student will get a respiratory condition and how sick they will be when they get it. He did this for years. He was actually infecting college students with fluids from sick people and trying to get them to be sick to see when they would.

be sick and when they wouldn't be sick and how sick they would be. Okay. So he had hundreds of volunteers. He was doing this for many years. And he wrote some seminal papers in which he clearly showed unambiguously that the very first factor that determines when a healthy young person like a college student will be sick is how much stress are they experiencing in their life. That's the factor that controls it unambiguously.

Yeah, it's interesting. Let me interject here because I interviewed the Bayleys from the, New Zealand. And they talk about something I've been meaning to go back and do more research on the cold house in the UK that for 45 years, they were trying to do the same thing as this gentleman you were just talking about. And they couldn't find a mode of transmission. They're exchanging saliva with people who are sick and people are not sick for 45 years and finally just shut it down without an answer. That's right. That's right. There's never been a scientific demonstration of transmission. It's that simple. There has never been one. And there's been hundreds of of studies. So he found that the second thing was social isolation. If you were isolated, you were going to get very sick, which is the opposite what you would think in terms of contagion, right? So those are just some of the beginning historical science background. I wrote a large paper about reviewing all the science. So it turns out that you have microbiomes in and on your

body. You have a microbiome in your respiratory tract. You have another one in your gut. You have one on your skin full of microorganisms of all types. There is everything in your body to make you sick if it goes out of balance or if one population of one species of micro takes over and does horrible things. You can get sick and die very quickly. Okay. So what are the things that can cause imbalance in your microbiome, the respiratory one in particular? Well, it's this. stress. And one of the really well acknowledged scientifically modes of pneumonia is called aspiration pneumonia. So elderly people have trouble swallowing in their sleep. They might swallow their own saliva. So some of the microbes from the gut go into the lungs and then they get pneumonia and

die. Okay. That's an example of a scientifically recognized transmissionless pneumonia. It's from your own body, basically, given your circumstances of stressful living and your old age and so on. Well, it turns out that most of scientists are now recognizing that most of respiratory conditions are from your own body. It's not about transmission. So this ties in with the idea that they've never been able to find transmission, you see. And so this may well have been an epidemic of transmissionless pneumonia or respiratory conditions, okay? that was induced by all of the stressors and assaults that you were putting on to people, including the fear, propaganda, and everything.

Yeah. So depending on your... Oh, the stress was horrible, wasn't it? Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. So that's what I argue is that this was about... And the CDC itself recognizes that more than half of the cases where it analyzed it,

there was bacterial pneumonia that coexisted with their COVID. okay so that means there was a large epidemic of bacterial pneumonia which they refused to treat because they put out

memos saying do not give antibiotics you were considered an improper medical person if you were prescribing antibiotics during the COVID epidemic

so antibiotics prescriptions dropped dramatically throughout the Western world at the same time that there was this epidemic of bacterial pneumonia which is

the kind of respiratory condition that's normally believed to kill people, not viral. Okay. So that is why ivermectin works so well. Ivermectin is a very powerful antibiotic, and it works really well on respiratory conditions, including tuberculosis and so on. So I believe that MDs were not killing viruses. They were treating bacterial pneumonia with ivermetic.

And that's how they saved the lives. of people that were lucky enough to be treated either with antibiotics or ivermectin. That's fascinating. And when I stop and think about it, you know, you look at the mask, and that was a whole other level of stress and also very, very dirty. I mean, you could see people who are wearing masks all the time, their face would break out even. So we look at that, it's going to increase the bacterial aspects of it, increase the stress.

Well, I wouldn't go too far in that direction because you know, dirtiness doesn't make you sick. Like in the sense that, in the sense that I think that's over-emphasized. Like if you look at Sheldon Cohen's work, he was actually putting as dirty as you could be right into the throats of young people. And the only ones that got sick are the ones that were stressed, okay? The others didn't get sick and that were socially isolated. So I think that...

What about increasing the bacterial load or whatever of the biome, you know, in terms of holding it there like that, you know. Exactly. You have to do something that's significant enough that it gives a burst to your microbiome that will throw you off balance for a time and that potentially could run off and kill you. Okay, you have to do that. And so I'm not saying that it's impossible to transmit a bacterial infection from one infected person to another. There is only a few papers that have demonstrated that for the case of tuberculosis.

Okay. In the case of tuberculosis, there's a classic paper where they managed to give it to hamsters. So what they did was they, what they did was they had tuberculosis rooms in hospitals, and they vented the air from those rooms into a room somewhere else where they had hamsters in cages, and the hamsters got tuberculosis. Okay. So that is considered a proof of transmission by the authors, not a proof, but evidence for. And even that study has been severely criticized because the hamsters were stressed.

They were in cages. They were kept in conditions that were not ideal. And they were subjected to a draft and so on. So yes, there was a bunch of bacteria in the air that could do this, but the hamsters were stressed as well. They may not have caught it. So there's a few studies that suggest transistors. transmission in bacterial cases. So I'm not against the idea that, for example, in a household where you're really living intimately with your children that went to daycare and that got sick and so on,

that you won't also catch a respiratory condition. I'm not saying that that's impossible. Of course, there be some stress involved in that as well. Exactly. Exactly. I'm saying that in the general population, if you're trying to understand epidemiologically what happened, it's not really important. Yeah, it is, it is amazing. What, would you like the masks? I mean, you know, you talk about aspiration and something like that, causing somebody to have bacterial pneumonia. Seems to me like, you know, that might help to facilitate that type of thing.

You know, you might, to some degree, I don't know. But it was when they started telling everybody to wear two and three masks and they kept changing their story on it, to me, that was a big red flag from the very beginning. The fact that even if you go back to their simulation, I remember the, simulation that came from the Imperial College of London. That was pretty much debunked by the Edinburgh College. First of all, you don't have the famous curve that Foucho was talking about. Said you got a straight line.

Everybody that gets it's going to give it to two points, some odd number of people forever, right? And so they said, first of all, your model is not like that. And secondly, they said you've got a poorly written computer simulation that gives us a different answer every time we give it the same input and run it through, we get a different answer. No, there's just so many layers of wrong in these scientific papers. It's unbelievable. I mean, I routinely pick up a scientific paper that is having an influence that's being talked about in the media and so on, that's having a policy influence, and I, you know, pull it apart and show all the errors in it, you know. So there's a class of scientific studies that are called counterfactual studies. I'm not sure if

you interviewed anyone about that, but what they do is they claim that the vaccine saved millions of lives. And the way that they do it is they say, well, if you hadn't given it, all these other people would have died. We didn't see that because we gave it. But if you had, they would, you know, millions of people would have died. So I picked up each of the most influential counterfactual studies like that and showed, this is interesting, we showed that for to believe them, if you use their own methods, what you have to conclude is that there were peaks of huge, never seen before peaks of excess mortality, exactly when you were rolling out the vaccines. So the mortality would have had to happen exactly when you save these people's lives, you know, given the two-week

lag for immunity and all that. That's what you had to do to produce their counterfactual result. I mean, it's ridiculous. It is. It is. Yeah. Yeah. I remember at one point in time during the Obama administration, he came out with an unemployment stats that were not very favorable. So they talked about jobs created or saved. And it's like, oh, how do you determine that you saved somebody's job? They had the job before, they got a job afterwards. And so then we saw the same thing happening with all the COVID stuff. Oh, these are people that didn't die. So we're going to claim that we saved their lives. They weren't even sick. Yes. Yes. And, you know, one of the things we've shown in our men,

reports is that there's many jurisdictions where there's a very strong correlation between when you roll out the vaccine and when you get a peak of excess mortality. Okay. And on the basis of that correlation, we had extrapolated that the vaccines would have been associated with 17 million deaths worldwide. Wow. When we wrote our papers. Okay.

Now, people went after us, including some serious scientists, who said, that's crazy. This cannot be about vaccine toxicity. the toxicity is not that high. It's orders of magnitude smaller than that. And, you know, that criticism is correct. We went a little far when we were talking to the media about that it was directly causal. But in the paper itself, we were more careful. But the point is the reason you have this correlation is because when you roll out the vaccines,

that is very disruptive in hospitals and care homes. It's an immense source of stress. because you're not only rolling out the vaccine in a military style, you're also rolling out a campaign of testing at the same time. And when you test positive, and given these fallacious tests, you often test positive. Oh, yes.

Not, okay? When you test positive, there are huge consequences for you personally. You get isolated. It disrupts your care schedule is completely overturned. Your family can't see you and so on and so on, right? So these campaigns, these rollouts of,

testing slash vaccination are often directly associated with peaks in mortality and we think that's the main mechanism for it is the disruption and the stress that it carries with it now in addition to that the vaccines are technically toxic yes and they do kill people there is no doubt about that but not in the huge amounts that the stress from rolling them out does you see what I mean mm-hmm yeah yeah wow it truly is when you go back and look at the beggar's belief that they could be this ruthless, doesn't it? And the amount of damage that was done. But hopefully with your research and people who are doing this along with you, maybe we can start to educate people. People need to be skeptical about this. And I think the only positive thing about this, Dennis, is I think that

once somebody sees the truth about something like this that they were hoodwinked about for some time, it brings a whole new level of skepticism that they can't get over. And we need to find that crack, you know, to get that in there with people. I don't see it quite the same way. I don't have a lot of confidence that we can get people to have cognitive dissonance and realize and start to have a wave of awareness and all of a sudden people that want their freedom and that think for themselves. I don't think that can happen.

But the reason I do think this work, what you and I are doing is valid, is because it strengthens the people who already have that awareness or that tendency to want freedom or the common sense to recognize that this is crazy. It gives them tools. It gives them weapons. It gives them a rational understanding of it kind of supports their belief, their initial gut feeling, you know. And I think that that is very important because those are the people that are going to cause some change. the angry victims that come to understand what was done to them and how cruel it was and everything

and where scientists are saying scientists and MDs are saying yeah indeed you're right you know they become the the people who drive change I think that's a good way to look at it I agree yeah I don't have much trust in in education or being able to get the message out to the larger population I just don't think I think you can fool a lot of the people all the time but the people who see that they were fooled, it's going to be difficult to get them the next time. And that's go, we've got to start to increase the ranks of people who thought something was fishy about this. So many of them, part of the gas lighting, was to make everybody think, well, you're the

only one who sees this. You're the only one who's saying this. Yes. You see, we shut down everybody else who was saying this. And so nobody else is complaining about this. You must be wrong. And I think that, as you're pointing out, the people who are already a bit skeptical and think things really aren't adding up. Once they look at that, it's like, yeah, I remember when they did that

last time. We have seen, as a matter of fact, you know, not everybody has quit going to the schools that they saw how they were operating when they saw them via, you know, a televised classroom. So we had a lot of people who started to wake up to some of the things they saw happening in schools, how they were using the kids in the ways that they were with, they talk about stress and what they did of very young kids. You had a lot of people who woke up about vaccines who were already kind of wondering about it. And so, but it hasn't, as you pointed out,

you know, it's not 100% people, still the vast majority of people, still going to do whatever the government tells them to do and take all the vaccines they tell them to do. But other people who have seen this, once they see it, they can't go back to that system. That's right. And I find that the people who are most going along with this

are the professional class. Because they've bought into it. They get large benefit from buying into what the establishment wants. And they just rationalize it. They're really good at rationalizing. They're highly educated. And they rationalize away whatever they see that might be a problem. And they rationalize their own behavior and going out and getting a boost every time it's announced.

So I find that the professional class is far gone. I agree. And I remember seeing a chart that was, they tracked, and I forget what this thing was, but it was basically going along with whatever this was, the mask or this or that. And the people were opting out of it, they correlate it according to educational level. And so, you know, if you had a high school educational level or below, you were down here, you really didn't buy into that stuff. And then it went up as you got more and more educated until it peaked at master's degrees. And then when you got to PhDs, it dropped. a little bit down. And so I thought that was kind of interesting. At that point, people are starting

to think a little bit differently, right? They've been trained maybe to think a little bit more critically. But up to that point, you succeed by basically fitting in with the system and the institution. That's what you've been taught. Well, a lot of people are highly educated, but they're not encased in the establishment. They didn't get the job that they wanted, basically. So those people will have been trained to read the literature and so on, and they can be more critical. But the ones that are actually locked in, there is nothing you can do there. And we have seen that with climate. We have seen it with COVID and all the rest of the stuff. It was so great to talk to you. Really enjoy that. And tell people

where they can find you now and get, you've got a substack as well as a website where you're doing research. Tell people where they can find those things. Okay. Well, I guess the main, well, Okay, easily accessible and easier to read and kind of more fun would be the substack. So, Denise or Denise substack, I'm sure one can find the substack. And the main heavy lifting science is at correlation dash canada.org. So that's the main website for that nonprofit organization. And my website that has everything I can put on it and all the different themes of research and everything is denier-on-coron-court. So Dennis with one end, rancourt, all one word.

And we've got that under your picture there in the lower thirds. Oh, okay. Thank you so much, Dennis. It's a pleasure talking to you and thank you for the hard work that you've done and the truth that you've shed on all of this fraud and lies that have been out there. So dangerous, it is very important to have people like you who think independently and who use your analytical skills to uncover what is really true. And I know you've taken a lot of heat for that type of thing as well. We all do. We tell the truth. They come out to you. But thank you so much. It was real pleasure talking to you. Yeah, the pleasure was mine. Thank you. Thank you.

The common man. They created common core to dumb down our children. They created common past to track and control us. Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing and the communist future. They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary. But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God. That is what we have in common. That is what they want to take away. Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.

It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide. Please share the information and links you'll find at the... The David Knight Show.com. Thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. The Davidnightshow.com.