The Highwire with Del Bigtree - MALONE, COLE, URSO: A DOCTORS ROUNDTABLE

Episode Date: May 19, 2022

Three of the most prolific doctors in the Global Covid Summit, Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Ryan Cole, and Dr. Richard Urso joined Del for an in-depth discussion on why they aligned to form the G.C.S. and their tireless mission to spread truth and restore scientific integrity.#GlobalCovidSummit #Covid19 #GCS #RestoreScienceBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Just yesterday morning, a declaration signed by over 17,000 scientists and medical doctors across the world was released. That is the Global COVID Summit. And I am joined. It's my honor to be joined right now by some of the representatives of that Global COVID Summit. Dr. Robert Malone. Thank you for joining us. Dr. Ryan Cole. Thank you.

Dr. Richard Erso. First of all, I just got to say this desk has never had so much heavy, you know, firepower added one time. It's truly an honor to have you guys joining me today. So let me start with you, Dr. Malone. What is the global COVID summit? How did it start? What's the goal here? So we started as a small group of docs that had come together that all shared a common belief system that what was happening was wrong. The data weren't consistent with what we were being told through the various public health channels. And this was a group that was really at the forefront of using existing drugs and multi-drug therapy to treat patients. So this is really one of the key

groups that launched early treatment in the United States. And we came together as a group really catalyzed through this outbreak. Many of us didn't really know each other before. But we'd found ourselves because we'd been online or in other ways speaking out against what we were seeing, objecting to what was going on, recommending that there'd be early treatment, found each other, and then built this declaration, the initial declaration, and then came together in the summit in Rome, the first international COVID summit. The declaration was read there. And then it went online and we asked for signatures from other physicians and medical scientists all over the world.

And one thing led to another. First we were a few hundred, then we're a few thousand. And now we're over 17,000 that have signed off on the various declarations. And we've just continued at it. This is the group that's been touring all over the country and speaking to church groups and rallies and doing education.

continuing medical education for physicians. We're all a little bit punch drunk and exhausted because we've just been going non-stop, but the mission is there. It's an important one. And so that's really what you have here is part of the core group that's been touring all over the United States and sharing the data and the observations. We're just grateful for the chance to talk to you and for your support and interest in our latest declaration. Well, it's absolutely it's an honor to have you here. This is a conversation that's been here at the Highwire for, you know, many years, but specifically around COVID, just to have

these great voices like yours stepping up and really putting it all on the line. And Dr. Ryan Cole, you know, this declaration, this is the fourth declaration now by this group. You keep sort of updating and, you know, sort of stating where we're at. Really now we have this sort of retrospective look at, you know, mistakes made. So this is really an assessment of the mistakes that were made and sort of thoughts about how we move forward. What, why now? What's important about this declaration in the time that we find ourselves in now? Thank you, Del.

I think the important aspect is there are large governmental groups and agencies and other interests trying to prolong something that is done. And in my medical opinion and some of my medical colleagues were at a point where, where we know COVID is with us, it's endemic, but we don't need to be going forward with draconian policies that don't make scientific sense. We have a shot that is expired that doesn't cover the variant that's here, not that it was really that effective ever

anyway against the earlier ones, but the point being, there's more harm than good being caused if we carry forward with what we've been doing here to fore. So it's really a call to action for the people, not only of the United States, but of the world to declare their indifference, independence and freedom from something that is gone. And it behooves us to come together as a people in unity at this time and history to say,

game over, no more draconian measures, no more interventions, no more restrictions of anybody's liberty anywhere in the world. It's time to let science be science, let those experts with the scientific expertise have their voice again, noncensorship, and get back to normality. Dr. Erso, when we think about letting science be science, one of the things I found really powerful about this declaration is it really calls out the pharmaceutical industry, modern, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Johnson, and Johnson for, you know, really a desire to indict them on fraud charges for misrepresenting the science. Tell me about, you know, because this has been a big thing, misrepresenting the science on round vaccines and also the science around treatments that were working. Well, the pharmaceutical industry has become so powerful, Del.

It's very, they're very much in control of medicine. Their control, it starts at the education level. It goes into hospitals, and it goes into advertising to the public itself. And so at every single level, it's controlled on that level. And then you've got the control of the regulatory agencies where they're the main funder of our agencies, the NIH, CDC, and the FDA, and they have relationships in there where they are able to partner with those people that are working there and create patentable products that they benefit from equally, and then they go and vote on. So the process itself is creating the problem. So we have to restrict

some of that. The pharmaceutical companies have basically taken control, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and we're seeing that. I have to find a way to sort of decentralize that process, separate the ability of the pharmaceutical industry to influence so strongly onto the agencies, and then take away their power at the medical school levels in education because they basically sponsor every major event. And when I was early in my practice, that wasn't true. And they have taken over medicine in every single way. There's sort of this push for almost like a ministry of truth now here in the United States of America.

You know, they're talking about disinformation and, you know, panels and boards and things to sort of decide what and what is and what is not truth. this entire COVID experience, it seems to me that the CDC and the FDA have had to change a lot of their statements. And now we've got Dr. Rochelle Walensky saying things like, well, when we were telling people, we were following the science, people thought that was black and white, but they just didn't realize it's gray. If it was gray, why weren't you being invited to the table? It was my thought. Why were, you know, why did they manhandle the sort of statements that were going out, you know, were you attempting to having a debate? Why was there no debate? Should there

be debate? What are your thoughts on where we're at when you see an administration that did not allow, you know, a free conversation around this now saying that they're going to be, you know, judging truth and what can and cannot be said, especially on social media? So I've never seen any evidence that the government and those agencies and those leaders that you're speaking of had any interest in having an open dialogue. and encouraging dissenting voices and listening to dissenting voices. I've seen no evidence of that all the way through. We do have this remarkable recent string of disclosures,

starting with the New York Times on President's Day, stating that the CDC has been withholding information. And their justification for withholding information from physicians, medical scientists, and public health officers all across the United States was that they didn't want to create vaccine hesitancy. So they basically admitted to withholding information for political purposes and also because they felt that we weren't able to handle that information. Furthermore, in the New York Times, there's multiple quotes stating, and we now have the GAO report reinforcing that, that these agencies have become politicized. The CDC is no longer the independent entity, arbiter of truth, that many of us once thought it was.

And we're now in an environment where one of the things that I think in our journey in the COVID Global COVID Summit group has been the frustration of knowing truth, of knowing the data, of sharing the data with each other and with our colleagues, and being roundly criticized for it, demeaned, attacked, had multiple attempts in many successful in pulling people's licenses, medical licenses or otherwise compromising their business for saying things that we now know we're true. Right. And for instance, just not to make it about myself, but I, you know, I started off with these attacks from people, quote fact checkers who didn't have any background in biology asserting things like spike is not a toxin and that there was no basis for the mass formation hypothesis of Matthias Desmit, et cetera.

It goes on and on and on. And you can look back in time at all of these attacks that I've experienced and Ryan's experienced, and that we've all experienced. Peter McCullough is a notable example. And as you look back at what we've said, our sin is really that we were prescient, that we were aware in speaking out about information that wasn't yet official, and yet within a few months would become so. Our sin is that we were able to basically better interpret the emerging data.

And this is something that I often mention. One of the things about Ryan and I is trained in pathology, this is what pathologists do, is we look for signals, we look for patterns, and report that, you know, usually as an early warning sign. And that's what we've been doing all the way through. and the response of the FDA and the CDC and the NIH and the press that they've controlled has been to attack us and attack Harvey Reich and attack the signers of the Great Barrington Declaration, all of whom have turned out to be right. So you ask the question, do you see any signs that they suddenly have had some kind of

come to Jesus moment where they've decided, oh, no, we did wrong, and now we need to come clean. I see absolutely no sign of that. In fact, what I see is doubling down. You mentioned this new Ministry of Truth. There is no doubt in my mind that they are going to continue to censor. If you think it through, how could the U.S. government ever admit to the sins and harms that have been caused? How could they ever admit to their obvious role in funding the Wuhan Laboratory? How could they ever do that?

The financial burden of coming to grips with what has been done here would be huge. It would shake the entire government. And that's where we're at. I think they are going to double down and continue to deny and obfuscate and attack and demean because it is their only option. It's a really interesting point. And Dr. Ersson, when we talk about a lot of things we've been talking about with the treatments,

how do they ever admit at this point? Are we ever going to hear the government say, you were right, hydroxychloroquine works, or you were right, Ipermectin works, because it seems to me, and I've said this, that if Fauci admits that, he literally may be tried for crimes against humanity because of that denial,

Because we now see a connection, were those drugs denied because that got due to emergency use authorization? We see the motivation. It's truly motivation now as some of these things. And so are we ever going to get to the point where treatments to save people's lives, our government says, yes, these were. No, we're not. And let me explain that.

If you look, first of all, we had no outpatient protocols. Now you're starting to see the NIH come out with outpatient protocols. What do you see on them? Paxlovit, Molnapirivir, Remdesivir. You're seeing the drugs that they promoted the whole time. You're not seeing even steroid. You're not seeing all the things that can treat the inflammation, the blood clodding, the things we've talked about for.

Information blood clot, blood clot, respiratory. Well, just because one of the things that find really interesting about talking to you is that we do, we've heard on this show, we've talked a lot about the, you know, off-label usages of approved and safe drugs. You talk about the approved use. Like there are drugs that we would normally use for, these very symptoms that were really not being used. Tell me a little specifically, what are you talking about with air? Exactly what I was saying. It's like blood colliding,

there is a host of drugs, aspirin, eloquist, RELFo, Lovenox. We use them already. We know this disease causes blood clotting. We use them appropriately in this case. We know that we have lots of inflammatory drugs, you know, with prednisone, of course, being at the top of that list. So we can treat every single mitigating thing that might damage the patient, the inflammation, the blood clotting. And we don't even have to win against the virus. So over and over we see, hey, those are simple things to do and they completely ignored them. There was no reason for Adele. And now we are seeing them come up with protocols, but what are they showing? They're showing the drugs they already have in the toolbox. As I said to you before, and I think I'll let you know,

the first two hours I looked at this, I looked at drugs that could work, nucleosite analogs, protease inhibitors, hydroxychloricloric, and quarkin, ivomectin, phenyl phyroidine, psychosophore, in Alcococene. A lot of these drugs, now you found that repackaged Kalitra and Topaxilovic. Monopirivir and Remdesvir, two nucleoside analogs. There's plenty of others out there, including Valtrex as one. So there are lots of options they could have used and tried, and they decide not to use them. They wanted to repackage. It's all about profit. And I think they're never going to admit that they're wrong. They're not going to ever address the early treatment protocols that we used so successfully. In our case, as you heard, Brian Tyson, over 99% successful.

So those are things that I don't think are going to change. And the thing that bugs me the most though, there's a hidden message in this whole pandemic. The messenger RNA lipid nanoparticle is the nuclear bomb, right? They have slipped that into the into the, into the, what the public's consciousness of the next vaccine platforms. So you're going to see lipid nanoparticle, message your RNA over and over and over again. They've established the legitimacy of that dangerous platform. It's going to go everywhere, brain, bone, marrow, et cetera, and they just slipped it under the radar, nobody noticed. Dr. Cole, as a pathologist, this lipid nanoparticle, he calls it a nuclear bomb. What are you looking at? What types of things, you know, are the concern when we make a statement

like that? I think Dr. Erso is right. And to Dr. Malone's point, as a pathologist, we are the red flag warning. We're the quality control of medicine. We're the first ones to see that change in pattern. That lipid nanoparticle in and of itself is inflammatory. It does go everywhere. It was originally designed to take MRNA and or chemotherapy agents to organs that are hard to get to, like the brain. If you look at the qualifications on the lipid nanoparticles, they're not for human use. They're for research use only, and yet they've broadly pushed these onto society. We see inflammation from the lipid nanoparticles alone. But we also see the

they carry that MRNA particle with them to wherever they land. We're seeing mitochondrial damage in neural tissues. Studies out of Poland showed that, Dr. Clough at all. We are seeing suppression of the immune system. This lipid nanoparticle, this MRN, making a spike protein, is getting into the immune cells, damaging DNA repair mechanisms. What does that look like under the microscope? a decrease of the kind of inflammatory cells you want eating away at a cancer.

Now we don't have enough of those cells there. To the point I brought up over a year ago, are we seeing an uptick in cancers? Yes. Why? The lipid nanoparticle, the MRI, and the spike that it makes is suppressing our immune system. And now we're seeing turbo cancers, wildfire cancers, that would otherwise be kept in check by a competent immune system.

These, to Dr. Erso's point, have been slipped under the radar of the zeitgeist and the consciousness of the people. These are dangerous platforms. You cannot control where that lipid goes, and thereby you can't control where that little nucleotide sequence it's carrying goes. It is a bad idea from here until forever until proven otherwise. I mean, the entire argument for it, I mean, there's been a lot of parents that I've interviewed years before, COVID that would say, you know, when they complained that they believe that their child's brain swelled. And the argument was always vaccines don't cross the blood brain barrier. And that I think that's always been something that we want to maintain with vaccines, whether it's true or not.

But the idea was, and the statement was always, vaccines don't cross the blood brain barrier. You're telling me that the very vehicle with which they're wrapping this technology and the mRNA technology is designed to cross the blood brain barrier. Absolutely correct. So how is it, did they ever make the statement that they believe this thing was stay localized at the space that was shot, which is exactly what they told us. It will be right here, the antibodies, everything will happen in your arm where it's delivered. It's not going to the other organs.

Certainly not your brain. Was that just a lie from the beginning? Scientific malfeasance. They knew from previous studies. Dr. Erso, in his drug development research has worked with nanoparticle before. He stated many times and we've known, look, lipid nanoparticles, they're a fat. Your cell membranes are made of fat and they have a positive charge. Your cell surface has a negative charge. They want to fuse wherever they can. They go everywhere. They're like Dr. Ursa, I'll quote them again.

They're like garlic. They go everywhere. Scientists knew they would not stay in the arm to have told the people of the world otherwise was a straight-up scientific lie. Yeah, that was a lie in the other key lie that was told to physicians, and I've heard it directly from many docs, is that the MRNA only sticks around for a couple of hours. But now we know, based on this key cell paper from last January, that the RNA doesn't just stick around for a few hours. This is not normal RNA. This is something different. To call it MRNA, it's really misrepresenting what it is a molecule. It's a novel polynucleotide, but this insertion of pseudiduridine all the way through the RNA, in order to make it so these aren't inflammatory, they don't cause abscess formation

when you inject it, which is the problem I had for years and years working with these particles. Reason why I moved away from them and moved to post-electrical fields, I could never overcome the inflammation. But Kareko and Weissman asserted that they were able to do that. by putting all of these pseudo-uridine molecules in, and the pharmaceutical companies that they worked for in part, Carico works for Biointech, asserted that the RNA would only stick around for a couple of hours, which is the normal RNA half-life.

But now we know from this cell paper that these RNAs stick around for 60 days or more. And that means that we have to recalculate everything that we thought we knew about the adverse event profile, because the assertions were, Well, the RNA only sticks around for a couple of hours. Therefore, any adverse events due to the vaccine must only happen in the first couple of weeks. But now we need to go back and look at all that data.

Now that we know that the pharmacokinetics, how long the molecule lasts, is 60 days or longer. That's not in cell culture. That's from putting fine needles into people's arms in sampling lymph nodes. So this is real. This is in humans. It sticks around. The levels of spike protein that are produced are higher than you produce if you're infected. And this is not a normal RNA. This is something different. This is a synthetic product that's immunosuppressive that is able to produce protein. We have no idea what it takes to degrade. People ask me all the time, Robert, what can I do to get rid of the RNA?

And I have to say, I have no idea what to do. It's not known. And the thing of Dell that really aggravates, I think, a lot of us, certainly me, is that there are rules about what you're supposed to do in pre-clinical development and clinical development of these kinds of products. There are rules that I've been taught, we've been taught, we've had to be reinforced in our teaching on a regular basis, just part of continual medical education, if you're going to be a clinical researcher, that say, you have to characterize where it goes. for how long it sticks around and how much protein it makes, or what the active drug product is,

none of that stuff was done very well. It wasn't done rigorously, and there was a series of misrepresentations about what the data were, and they didn't actually have the data. And the thing is, the FDA let them get away with it. They did not perform their function. They're supposed to be independent gatekeepers. And in a way, you know, having worked with pharma, one of the core axioms in pharmaceutical development is you never do a study that you don't have to do because you may not like the results. Okay.

If you get results that aren't consistent with what you're hoping for, the FDA in a normal situation is going to come back to you and say, hey, you've got to follow up on this. This is raising red flags. Now we have to be concerned. So you don't do those studies unless the FDA forces you to in the classical world, okay? And what happened here is the pharmaceutical, I'm sorry, the regulatory bodies gave the pharmaceutical industry a pass. They didn't have to do the work that we, if I did these studies and submitted a dossier

like this to the FDA, I would expect it to be kicked back right away. for some reason they gave a pass on all this stuff and furthermore they misrepresented it's the kindest word I can come up with these key parameters of how much protein where do the complexes go and how long does the RNA stick around and the basis of that average docs assumed that this was something that it wasn't they assumed that this was a relatively benign product that didn't stick around in the body all of that is false And I'm sorry, it is a crime that this was not known. Yeah, I want to tag on to what these two have said, because, I mean, it just, what you heard is that the biodistribution is everywhere.

The pharmacokinetics, now we're discovering, are very dangerous and very different from what we first thought. And the other thing we're seeing, you know, the uptick in cancers, Ryan's covered a lot. What I'm seeing clinically is a massive uptick and viral reactivation. So all these people that are finding that are saying have long COVID, a lot of them, have Epstein-Barr virus reactivation. They're seeing herpes simplex and herpesoster reactivation. I'm seeing it in my clinic two and three and four times a week. They know that I'm involved in the COVID movement and they're coming to me even in my clinic and I'm seeing a huge uptake. And these are things that we didn't know before. And so as we go down the list,

biodistribution, the pharmacokinetics, uptick and DNA damage repair mechanisms that Ryan talked about, P53, brocogen, and then the uptick in microRNA 27A, which basically creates more GI cancers. You're seeing now this uptick and viral reactivation. You're seeing bad signs all over, and they're ignoring these signs. And I don't, you know, I think Robert just summarized that really well. But we have to do it ourselves. Richard, I have to object about one thing you said. Yeah, go ahead.

They didn't know. Okay. They knew about the biodistribution button. They knew about the viral reactivation. You recall that there was a period of time when I was very actively engaged with senior personnel at the FDA in the office of the commissioner. We were talking by Zoom on a weekly or twice a week basis. We were discussing the early drugs, ivermectin, what the data were and what the risks were associated with the vaccine. This is the group that first picked out the signal of the cardio toxicity, working together with Bill Dumaschet.

And they also knew at that time, and one of them actually had the adverse event early on of shingles. They knew that the viral reactivation signal, which the CDC has never acknowledged, was one of the major known adverse events. So what I'm objecting to is you saying in good faith that you're assuming because the CDC and the FDA never said anything about viral reactivation as an adverse event, you're assuming they didn't know. What I'm sharing with you is they absolutely did know and they did not acknowledge it. It's another one of those things that is inexplicable. It's the only way, you know, many of us have been racking our brains,

as you have, to understand how this could possibly happen, why it's possibly happening. And why is our regulatory apparatus that as physicians, we had all come to assume had a function that actually did the job that we could believe and trust in. And what we find out now is the whole house of cards is, I don't know how else to say it, it's rotten to the core. It has not performed its intended function. Yeah, this is a very reluctant observation. It's not, it's easy to have your head in the sand.

It's very difficult to come out and reluctantly tell the world. that the agencies you so trusted and I believed in. I came up through the system. I'm not outside the box person. Came up through the system and found that this has happened. It's very, I have to see here and reluctantly agree with it. I mean, I have to say, you know, because the high wire has been covering this and we've been on this issue, sometimes I have to stop myself and remind myself that, you know, your average person out there must think I'm crazy. When I talk to people, you know, when I think of the message that we're trying to get across is, you know, they want to

say you're telling me that the world-renowned scientists at the NIH, like the greatest, you know, investigative medical body in the world and the CDC and the FDA or the WHO for that matter, that they are all lying to me, that they've got it wrong and, you know, and you del Vagree or in this case, Ryan Cole or Dr. Romney. So I'm supposed to listen to you and not the authorities that literally are supposed to be writing legislation around. the use of medical products, regulatory agencies are supposed to be protecting us. I mean, how do you come to terms with someone that's questioning you on that level? I come to it saying, you can question me all you want at any time,

as long as you bring better data than I have. I am open to the dialogue and conversation. This is what's been missing in science and medicine for this last couple of years and probably preceding that for many years. to have dialogue and conversation with honest, open, complete data, then let the truth win, whatever the science may be. I'm always willing to be wrong. I did trust these agencies at a younger period in my career. The more we see and the more we've learned, the more open-minded we are to the unfortunate aspect of how corrupt the system is. As a physician, I always reserve the right

to be wrong. And if I am on behalf of humanity and a patient, let me learn so I can do better. I wish the rest of our profession were still in that state of being. Yeah, I'm going to answer it this way. A couple things. One, Cox 2 inhibitors in the 80s. It was very clear that there was a pathway to clotting. Very clear. It was obvious. The pathway was right there. Most of the people who spoke up about it said, well, it's not showing up in clinical trials, which is not true. Later on, most of those Cox 2 inhibitors got taken off the market. They went through those clinical trials, likely in the same way that they went through this process, hit a lot of data, and they got through. Then you look at the cholesterol data.

Women with higher cholesterol, outlive women with lower cholesterol. Women with higher cholesterol out with women with lower cholesterol. What that means is all the cholesterol drugs, when you look at all-cause mortality, most of the time, there's no signal of benefit. So this is not the first time that these things have happened. There's other thylermide, of course, people know about. So historically speaking, I always look with a critical eye. And what are we seeing them come out with? We're seeing them come out with well-packaged another new nucleoside analog, another new package packaged up Paxlovic protease inhibitor. They are not putting out genius drugs. The ingenuity is gone. It's all about profit. They put out more and more drugs

of the same type over and over again. So I hate to say, but there's more H-2 inhibitors, there's angiotensory receptor blockers and beta blockers everybody puts out one in the same they go from twice a day to once a day everything's repackaged 90% of the drugs are of that ilk when we look beyond the drugs when look at this vaccine what i find shocking is you know it wasn't one shot it's not two shots and you know within the same year three shots even four shots i believe israel's moving towards a fifth shot there's discussions of the immune suppressed moving into their fifth shot here in United States of America. So my question is when you look at this vaccine now and, you know, especially people that are just going to keep injecting this into their body, what is your

greatest concern? I want to each from each one of you actually. So let me start, you know, with you, Dr. Cole. What is what you're seeing? What is your biggest concern with this vaccine right now if you're going to pick one? That it's going to lead to severe crime. chronic disease of the immune suppressed type, obviously in a set percentage of the cancers, but I'm highly concerned that we are greatly altering detrimentally permanently the immune system of individuals that keep getting these shots. And it doesn't cover the virus, Omicron, it doesn't cover it. It makes your risk of disease worse, as you know, makes your outcomes worse.

and to give a chronic lipid nanoparticle and a chronic spike-making factory in your body, in your cells, and we know that spike is toxic, we are messing up permanently the immune systems of people, and who knows what disease they're going to die from them from that secondarily. Dr. Russell, what's your biggest concern? I would tag on to what he said. The immune suppression is a big problem. I also think the immune dysregulation, and in some sense it's not really a dysregulation. You think of the immune system, I think of like first gear, second gear, third gear, fourth gear.

So what we're seeing is, you know, the innate system, maybe first gear, second gear, the antibody response. And what I would say is once you get that second shot and then you get basically another injection, on that third shot, the immune system starts to say, you know, we're not doing a good job with antibody neutralization. This product keeps showing up. Keep showing up. So why don't we step it up? Let's go to third gear. bring in cytotoxic T lymphocytes.

Why don't we go to fourth gear and bring in, you know, the complement system? Why don't we get... So this is our immune system is what's doing this? It's sort of just rings up. It's because it's like, I'm still under attack. Whatever I've done before clearly didn't work. Let me try something else, basically. No idea that the body's being injected purposefully,

even though the body's attempted to fight or create it in bodies and do what it thought it was supposed to do. Yep. So immune suppression, immune dysregulation. Okay, Dr. Malone. The two things that we haven't touched on that I have in Dr. McCullough shares in particular, Peter, the cardiotoxicity risk concerns. So it's now clear not only that these shots are clearly associated with cardiotoxicity,

myocarditis and pericarditis. there has been an attempt to minimize the nature and duration of that damage, but it's becoming more and more clear as the data are rolling in. Remember, we're still just about a year and a half have to roll out of these vaccines. Okay. Normally, it's, you know, three years after finishing the phase three before we go to licensure. We've rushed all this stuff out, and the data are coming in stronger and stronger that these are causing subclinical myocarditis may be occurring in the majority of vaccine recipients

if you test the right enzymes okay that's a big one yeah um clinical myocarditis in boys in the hong Kong study is a huge number. It's something like one in two thousand, one and three thousand boys have to go to the hospital after, typically their second dose. Then we have these data coming in that the myocarditis signal is cumulative. So if you take one dose, you have a lower risk, two doses it's higher, three doses it's still higher. So you have cumulative cardiotoxic. Dose dependency tends to be, isn't it one of the major... Hallmarks of pharmacology and toxicology? Like if there's a red flag, it's the fact that it's dose dependence should be firing that off.

It's usually considered to be proof. If you see a dose dependent relationship of a toxic event, it's usually considered to be, you know... For people to understand, it means it's not random anymore. It's not just like a random. It was just a coincidence that happened. It's not coincidental. If you add a little bit more, it gets worse, and a little bit. bit more it gets worse, clearly it's having an effect.

And there's this bizarre attempt in, I don't know how else to label it, it's the combination of censorship and propaganda to somehow convince the public that clinical myocarditis, it can be mild and that this is something that children recover from. What I'm hearing from frontline cardiologists, and for the announcement that we made yesterday, for instance you saw Kirk Milhound who's an MD PhD pediatric cardiologist with a PhD in cardiac and vascular inflammation okay so incredibly knowledgeable Peter McCullough is talking about this all the time now we're we're seeing that the the event horizon of death and damage from this is not going away. It's behaving more like the classic profile of myocarditis, which has a five-year mortality

of what, something like 15 to 20 percent, okay? I mean, I don't want to really get people wound up about this. My intent is not to scare people, but we got to be realistic about what the data are showing and the data are indicating that this myocarditis that's being observed, the clinical myocarditis persists, we're seeing all kinds of evidence of sudden death in high-performance athletes. We're seeing, I'm told this is anecdotal, that the bodybuilder community and a lot of the high-performance athlete community that have very high levels of testosterone are having very unusual levels of mortality from cardiac events associated with the vaccination. So the myocarditis and the cardiotoxicity and the cumulative

cardiotoxicity is one of the big ones. Now there's another one, Dell, that's sitting out there and the reports are starting to come in again and again and what I hear that really bothers me from nurses and primary care obstetricians is that

there are strong disincentives for them to report what's being observed in the pregnancy suite, in the delivery suite. But what I'm hearing is anecdotal data that has to be followed up, but is something that we've been concerned about from the get-go because we knew about the biodistribution, particularly homing into the ovaries. We knew that women were reporting dysmenorrhea, irregular menstrual cycles, skips in their menstrual cycle, elderly women that are suddenly having mencies. All of these are, the menstruation

is driven by the ovaries. And we know these lipid nanoparticles. go to the ovaries from the data from Pfizer. And we're seeing these data. At first it was discounted that these were hysterical women that were having these problems with their mencies, which is so mid-century and so offensive to most women. And now we're hearing reports from obstetricians again and again of spontaneous abortions, earth effects,

sudden infant death shortly after Earth, all kinds of irregularities and there is this again the same pattern of denial rather than the normal situation would be that the pharmacovigilance network associated with these drugs and these pharmaceutical companies and the regulatory bodies would be kicking into high gear right now they would be saying okay this is sounding like it's a problem it's a reproductive problem I mean that's not a trivial thing You know, when I first learned about the FDA, and I was first taught about it in a detailed way when I was working for a Dynport vaccine company right after the anthrax attacks, we had people come in and lecture us about the history of the FDA. And what they tell is the history of thalidomide and how that totally transformed the FDA, that the sensitivity.

So the people that don't know thalidomide, a morning sickness drug that ultimately created babies that were missing limbs. Earth effects, right? And it was only because an intrepid FDA officer really went to the mat to say that this wasn't right and something had to be done about it. And she's considered a hero in the legacy of the FDA and really the whole federal government and HHS bureaucracy. And yet now we're in this situation in which there's so many disincentives for federal bureaucrats working in these agencies to say anything. that might compromise their employment opportunities after they leave with the pharmaceutical industry, that they do nothing. And here we have a growing signal of reproductive compromise. And again, you know, we're talking about all the way through pregnancy, they're being encouraged, women are being encouraged to take the shot without substantial data about safety. This is in the case all the way through.

It's nonsensical. And so you ask me, what are the things that I'm worried about? Absolutely, cancer, viral reactivation, immunosuppression, cardiotoxicity, all kinds of blood clotting problems. You know, blood clots in the brain cause a little problem. Right. The brain, just like the heart does not heal. Okay, it's scars. And then, as if that isn't bad enough, we have these reproductive toxicology problems.

And it goes right back to the original dossier because the FDA does, treated this as if it was a normal vaccine, quote, whatever normal vaccine happens to be, and not like a gene therapy product, which is what it was, and they didn't do reproductive toxicology rigorously, they didn't do genotoxicity, they didn't do biodistribution, they didn't do pharmacokinetics, it goes on and on. Why didn't they do their job? And, you know, there's this is something that the public ought to be pretty darn mad. There's a lot of what the declaration is, right, to sort of bring attention to what should have been a part of the discussion where the focus should have been what regulatory agencies, you know,

should have done what doctors in hospitals should have done. You know, we're talking though right now about, you know, adverse events, whether, you know, most of these are now, I think we would put them in the category of long term, although the heart issues and some of the blood clotting into children and the loss for pregnancy is fairly immediate, but cancers and things like that, long-term adverse events, which you were never going to see in safety trials that lasted merely a few weeks in phase three

after the second dose was delivered. I want to change the gears, though, a little bit, and get into something, you know, maybe in the realm that we talked about, one of the biggest concerns the high-wire had antibody-dependent enhancement, or this idea that somehow you would affect the interaction with the virus. I just recently last week, actually, at the same time where Tony Fauci's, you know, sort of signaling we maybe at the end of this pandemic or certainly in a pandemic phase here in America, I sat down with Gert Van Den Bosch last week in an interview that was horrifying and terrified.

Let me just show you a quick clip of just one of the things that he said. So we are hearing this term learning to live with it, which is a little different than having eradicated a disease, which is what we're proxie. with this vaccine will this the only way to eradicate it. In fact, I'm hearing something I've never heard before. This virus isn't going away. In some ways, what I'm hearing is we are unable to reach herd immunity. We are unable to neutralize this virus. We are going to be infected with it.

We're just going to have to learn to live and manage those infections. But he talks about control. And so I bring it to you. Last week, Tony Fauci, went as far as to say the pandemic, is essentially over here in America. There seems to be some infection around the world. He's vacillating on whether he really meant the pandemic is over. So let me just ask you very clearly, is the pandemic over?

Are we in control of this SARS-CoV-2 virus currently being called the variant Omicron? What is your belief? Are we in the clear? Well, Del, unfortunately, the pandemic is anything, anything but over. And if you hear Tony Fauci telling these stories, I can only conclude that, really, with all respect, but he has no clue. He has no understanding of the immunology. The rules, Dell, have not changed, and the rules are very, very easy. you can only control a pandemic if you generate herd immunity.

And herd immunity means that you have to dramatically diminish the level of transmission. We know that these vaccines are not doing this. On the contrary, I mean, now we have, as well in the vaccinated as in the unvaccinated, many cases of mild disease or moderate disease where people don't even, go to the hospital, don't even go to the doctor, etc. So the number of cases that we are seeing right now is tremendously, tremendously underestimated. And as you can see from the curves in the highly vaccinated countries, we see one wave after the other. We never see that these lines join the baseline. So the infectious pressure is higher than ever before. So, we

So I cannot understand that within that context, you dare to say, you dare to say that the pandemic is over. Nevertheless, we are pretending that these vaccines are a blessing because they are preventing severe disease. I ask you, and I ask Fauci, and I ask every single expert, have you ever heard about a vaccine that does not protect against mild or moderate disease? but that does protect against severe disease, have you ever heard about a vaccine that enhances,

for God's sake, that enhances the susceptibility of the vaccinees to infection, but decreases the shedding? So I'm just telling you this to make you and many others suspicious of what's going on. This is not a normal situation. Nobody understands, you know, this omicron is not causing severe disease. It's predominantly causing mild disease. Okay, so you're all aware of Gerben and Bosch. I believe you've all spoken and been on panels and things. So I want to really sort of drill down here a little bit. Just to sort of flesh it out

from a lay position, what he shared with us is that because, you know, normally we know that we're coming to an end of a pandemic because we see, you know, we get back to a baseline. And as we look around the world, we are seeing the way of sort of staying up at a relatively moderate to high infectious rate, infection rate. And to his point, you can't learn to live with that. That virus is still seeking that there's a nature is going to seek equilibrium there. And therefore, that this virus still may be on the verge of mutating again. And the idea being that it is broken free of neutralizing antibodies that the vaccine first established, now only non-neutralizing antibodies are binding. They're not binding the receptor binding domain, which is leaving that open to connect,

and therefore the vaccines actually, as we've all agreed, is increasing infection rates compared to those that are unvaccinated. But he's been talking about the fact that these non-neutralizing antibodies in the upper respiratory area that are increasing infection are actually getting in the way in the lower respiratory area where trans infection would have to happen. That gives us the severe disease and all of those. He believes it's just a matter of time. In fact, within the next month or two that this virus will find a mutation, maybe using glycans like the sugars on the outside,

to become more virulent, and then therefore more severe disease and death like we may have never seen it. I know you know his vision is fairly stark. Dr. Malone, what are your initial thoughts on this perspective, which he's had from the beginning, but it's getting more detailed as we go along. So I spent a week with Gert in Indelousia, Spain, shooting a documentary and talking about these things and talking about his theories. In my mind, Gert is trying to alert the world about a valid risk.

and that risk may or may not manifest, but that doesn't mean we should not take his warning seriously, and we should not prepare and try to mitigate against that risk. One of his key points all the way through is that vaccinating with a mismatched vaccine that is not eliciting a robustly protective immune response is that you will naturally select for escape mutants. It is like the perfect storm. If you couldn't design an experiment in virology, more perfect to elicit an escape mutant,

a more highly infectious pathogen that would be able to evade, even in many cases, pre-existing immune responses, then by doing this strategy of trying to implement universal vaccination, you'll remember that what he said for many months now is we absolutely should not be vaccinating the children. And it's a complex argument.

It's hard for people to wrap their heads around it. But basically the children have very active, robust immune systems. They're very good at clearing viruses and viral infections. And they elicit an immune response against all of the proteins in the virus. What this means is that it makes it much hard. for the virus to drift, to evolve to escape the specific antibodies that are being generated against the spike protein by all of these different vaccines, because they're only against the spike almost universally. A couple of minor...

One of the proteins on the surface of this virus versus the entire virus itself, which is what the natural immune system is fighting. The key protein that sticks up like a knob or a fist, or I like to say a treble fish hook, off the surface of the virus that hooks on to cells. That's what it does. And it kind of sticks out there. And it's like a red flag for the immune system. And hey, attack here, which is why they get coated with sugars, for example, and that's a classic way that viruses use to evade immune responses against those key binding proteins. That's what spike is. And this strategy of only using a spike-based vaccine, again, is perfectly designed to elicit the type of thing that Gert has been warning us about for at least a year now.

So the way I see it is that I hope that Gert's dark vision does not come to pass. He is absolutely a high-quality seasoned biologist and vaccinologists with the deep understanding of immunology, particularly B-cell immunology, particularly these antibody interactions, and to discount his insights and warnings to us, and not at a minimum, we ought to be taking them seriously, we ought to be actively investigating, we ought to be doing follow-up research to detect whether or not these trends he's warning us about are occurring. So that falls into risk mitigation. So the way I see GERC, and his hypotheses is as somebody who's very seasoned, very nuanced in their interpretation of risk

that has been warning us about a risk now for almost a year has been completely ignored except by the top tier in virology and vaccinology and basically none of them want to speak up and say anything about it.

And now he's frustrated and really strongly warning us about the potential consequences. If we carry on with this really mindless, I don't know how to describe it, insistence on vaccinating the world with a mismatched vaccine that has all these toxicities. And whether or not his concerns come to pass, it doesn't negate the understanding the underlying logic that giving these vaccines, which are not protective, are toxic, and trying to deploy them across the world, which is what the White House is meeting that they're calling the global COVID summit. They've taken our name. Okay. And now they're having their second global COVID summit. And one of their key objectives is how to get a shot in every arm with these ineffective vaccines.

And that's what flies right in the face of Gert's warnings, is that that is precisely the wrong thing to be doing. What we need is for healthy people to be allowed to generate a robust, diverse immune response. And his concern is that we've set up a situation now where we have, as he put it, such high viral pressure, that we may be seeing things happen, that we're in a, in a, in a, domain here, an intellectual landscape that we've never been in before. And who knows what's going to happen? So just to sort of summarizing,

to be clear, you're not saying that what, you know, he's predicting is impossible. You're saying that it has a probability. You might just, I mean, he's saying there's no doubt it's going to happen. He's said things like,

throw me in jail if I'm wrong. I would say you'd say that's a little aggressive. that there are other possible outcomes. I hope nobody puts Gert in jail. He's a great guy. He's a great scientist. And he is really alarmed at the risk. And as we all should be.

And I think we discount that and overlook it at our risk. Okay. How about for you, Dr. Cole? Well, I think the chief immunologist of Israel, Cyril Cohen, who helped on their vaccine program was correct several months ago when he said, we made mistakes, it's time to stop, no more boosters, no more passports, and then he went silent. To Gert's point, this is not a virus that can be eradicated. There are intermediate hosts.

So to see China locking down all of Shanghai, you can't stop the spread of this virus. Cats. What's in your intermediate? Animals, cats, bats, dogs, white-tailed deer, etc. It will always go back and forth between species. So the virus is here with us forever. Now, hopefully it mutates into even a milder form. Is it spreading quickly now?

Absolutely. Have we messed up the immune system of a good deal of the world's population with these shots? Yes. To his point, where does it go down to baseline? Look at the countries with the lowest vaccination rate. That's where it's going back down to baseline because they let the children get it. And they used early treatments. And people have broad natural immunity.

And one point that he's brought up in earlier lectures, and many of my colleagues in immunology have done the same, and I did PhD research in immunology. You have a broad immune natural response that's nonspecific. And we have put blinders on the horse to where now the horse can only recognize spike protein to the detriment of your broad natural non-specific immune response. And this is a bad thing. And this is where I think Gert is right. we have messed up our ability to broadly respond to things in our environment,

be it not only the coronavirus, but other coronaviruses that may come along, but a lot of other pathogens that may come along. We have altered our immune system. I hope he's wrong in terms of how bad this could get, but I think his scientific theory is very sound. I hope it's not as drastic, but it's on sound immunologic principle. I'm concerned.

Dr. Hursa, what is your perspective? I think we both covered it really well. We've got an ineffective vaccine that's being given to multiple people that are ill with the disease. That's created, you know, so many things that we now know. Disease is not effective to stop being the disease nor effective stopping the transmission. We are now seeing the vaccinated diet higher rates. Why? Because not only they're getting disease at higher rates, but they actually have immune suppression,

an immune dysregulation. So I think at the end of the day, what we're doing is, I think what he says has a very potential true could happen because the best countries are actually doing what Dr. Cole said. They're actually allowing natural immunity happen. They have a more broad response. And we are basically, I'd sometimes say it as you are creating a kind of a left-handed response to the immune system. You're using the weaker side of the immune system to fight this pathogen.

And in a sense, your natural right-handed side of the immune system, the T-cells and other things that actually help you kill things are sort of being weakened in some way. And this regulation itself overall is creating, like we saw in England and Scotland, 90% of the deaths are in the triple vaccinate. So I think they both summarize it really well. I don't think I can do better than that, but I will have one little caveat. I think the host makes a difference, not just about the path, it's about the host too. And I think that's one reason why I would recommend not to get more shots because you are setting, you are setting your immune system up to fail. It's mismatched, as you just heard.

Get your vitamin D levels up to really high levels. We've seen the effectiveness of that. You know, if you have diabetes, get everything in your metabolic system under control. You can have a better response. We know that the disease does not affect everyone equally. So I think at the end of the day, the light at the end of tunnel is we can do something to avoid the consequences that Geert has mentioned. And to be, you know, clearly, I think you've all stated it very clearly. One of the things, Gere Van Bosh has been saying from the beginning is stop this mass vaccination campaign immediately.

It happens to be one of the 10 statements you make in your declaration, which is stop this COVID vaccination immediately. So let me read through the 10 very quickly for people out. there that maybe missed the release of it all they have to do is go to a global COVID summit.org to download the document see the videos all you know the work that you've been doing but I just want to go through this very quickly number one we declare and the data confirm that the COVID-19 experimental genetic therapy injections must end it's the number one statement you've made just as we've just said number two we declare doctors should not be

blocked from providing life-saving medical treatment all of the proven remedies that are on label and off label are all discussed there. Number three, we declare the state of national emergency, which facilitates corruption and extends the pandemic, should be immediately terminated. Number four, medical privacy should never again be violated. All travel and social restrictions must cease. Number five, we declare that masks are not and have never been effective protection against an airborne respiratory virus in the community setting. Number six, we declare that funding and research must be established for the vaccination damage, death, and suffering. Number seven, we declare no opportunities should be denied, including education, military

service, or medical careers, including treatment over unwillingness to take any injection. Number eight, we declare that the First Amendment violations in medical censorship by government, technology, and media companies should cease and the Bill of Rights be restored. Number nine, we declare that Pfizer, Moderna, Biont, Janssen, AstraZeneca, and their initial, Enablers withheld and willfully omitted safety and effectiveness information from patients and physicians and should be immediately indicted for fraud. And number 10, we declare government and medical agencies must be held accountable. Those are powerful statements. There is going to be huge pushback.

Our government, as you said, is trying to copy a global summit to get out an almost reverse message. pointing to the World Economic Forum, the Great Reset. I think they've even stated, we've got to try to end this pandemic, build back better. Are you ready for the pushback that you're about to get from this incredible work that you've done? One of the things, having been in the crucible with these folks, men and women, brave men and women, is that I'm sure there's more they can do to hurt us and damage us. but we've kind of become a little bit immune ourselves to the various tactics that the press uses to defame us, that the government uses to shut us down, that social media uses to control any of the information that we try to put out.

We've been subjected to this for a long time now. And I think you get to the point where you stop self-censoring, at least I have, and I think many of us, us have where you pass through this window where you're saying to yourself all the time, well, I really shouldn't say that, I shouldn't go that far because they're going to hurt me in some way, and you just say, you know what, they're going to be nasty no matter what. And you might as well just get over it and speak the truth. And I have to have faith that I have to have faith that I have to have faith that you have to that we will get back to a world where integrity matters,

where people's dignity is respected, including ours, and where we have a community of people that emerges from all of this that can see through. And we think about it, Del, what's happened over the last nine months in particular is that a large fraction of the population can now see through all of these manipulations and censorship. whereas before they were fairly clueless. I mean, many of us were.

Many of us, you know, Paul Merrick talks about, I used to sit down and read the New York Times every day and I was perfectly happy. We had a subscription to the New York Times and the Washington Post. I cannot remember the last time I looked at either the New York Times of the Washington Post. My faith in the legacy media has been completely destroyed. And I see that in a lot of people, not all.

Maybe it's only 10%. Maybe it's 30%. But for us, we're kind of past that threshold where we kind of don't care anymore about what they say. And we're in, like I know you've been through that journey too, and so many of us have, of coming to grips with the censorship, defamation, information control, you know, attempts at thought control, the mass formation process. the mass formation psychosis, we've seen it so clearly now, you can't unsee it. And once you're in that space, and if you have integrity,

which I think that is one of the things that this global COVID summit group really has brought to four, is what I hear again and again is people saying, how could the medical community betray us so profoundly? how come all doctors are corrupt? And I say to them, they aren't. Here we are. We're willing to take the shots. We're taking the arrows.

We're saying the truth as we've seen. And to be honest, it's not just the three of you sitting up here. I mean, you know, when I got into this conversation on vaccines, looking at the risks that were already out there prior to COVID, you know, one of the dangers is one doctor would come up at a time and just it would take them out. You're now not only standing as the, you know, the group that was reporting yesterday on, you know, your COVID summit, but you're representing 17,000 other physicians and none of whom are being funded by pharma or funded by the government. These are the people that are actually on the ground doing the work, doing the investigations, doing the studies. And that's probably not even the entire group that are on your side, right?

Those are just the people who are braving them. I mean, when I think about this, when I think about now, when I look back at the Declaration of Independence, And I think, you know, these guys signed their names and said, you know where to find me. I mean, I didn't really realize that until I got in the middle of this, how bold that was. You know, in the time where you're being attacked, you know, the pressure's on. You have 17,000 physicians across the world saying, yes, here's my name. And I believe so strongly I'm willing to stand in front of the slings and arrows of this, you know, outrageous fortune of the moment. like those founding fathers said,

our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor, and that's what they pledged. And to Dr. Malone's point, integrity is the distance between your lips and your actions. These are men, and in our group, men and women of integrity. We stand on scientific principle. We have nothing to gain by doing this other than the benefit of our fellow human beings.

Let the arrows fly. We're used to it. Let the mudslinging come. we're used to it. But I will put my head on my pillow at night, and my grandchildren's grandchildren will say, he did the right thing. And that's why we do this as a team. We know the science. We are here because we care about our fellow human being and still take that oath between the doctor and the patient as sacred. Well, the other thing, now we have benefited time. and we made a lot of statements over time.

You'd reflect on that. And as I look back, we called a lot of stuff right. And that gives a certain amount of courage to say, to stick your neckouts. You want to bet on the winners? You want to bet on the losers? Because we watched a lot of losers that have had to keep changing this statement, changing what this vaccine would do, changing what's happening with the pandemic,

changing where we're at. You know, what is the power of this group coming together, the global COVID summit. You know, the power, Dell, is that, you know, originally we were loners and we were lone rangers, and we were having to face all those things and arrows and everything by ourselves. And so one of the reasons to form the group

was to create a way to move forward in the pandemic that could challenge the powers that be in a way that they wouldn't be able to deny. We have more docs than the NIH, CDC, and the FDA, that more of those doctors and scientists than they do. They're all many illustrious academicians and scientists. So the purpose of the group, the original purpose of the group, was that we were getting hit and taking hits to the point where it was very difficult

to sort of stand on your own two feet and challenge anyone. So that's what brought us together. And you heard that we all kind of knew the system was broken. And I, at my moment of, in March of 2020, when I was getting attacked pretty viciously, I just turned to my wife and I said, you know, I need to speak up. I go, many people don't know these things that I know. I did 11 years in the lab. They're not willing to come forward.

I don't know why. But somebody's got to do it. And I said, if I hide, I might as well go fishing. What kind of person am I? How can I hope to get to heaven and be able to sit there and say, I was afraid of man? and I'm here and I'm sorry I didn't say anything but can you please let me in and I literally had come to Jesus moment where I felt like I needed to speak up and I think what ended up happening what was very interesting to me is as I met people along the way there was of people of integrity over

and over again many of whom said to me at the end stuff like God bless you thank you for helping I heard it over and over and I felt to this group here a special connection we gathered as he said in Puerto Rico, and there was a bond right away, and you could feel the integrity of the group. And I think at the end of the day, that's what drove us forward, that we had people that willing to speak truth,

that were incredibly talented, and together we were able to challenge the powers of that, because it has to happen, and it's not going to end. I'd like to say two things in reaction to that. One of the things that's been a huge pleasure is walking alongside Dr. Richarderson. He's very modest.

He's very low-key. He's always trying to get, you know, smooth things over and help us all get along because there's some rough spots. There's a lot of conflict from time to time. We've been put under a lot of pressure. In the opening statement, you asked me about what is this group, and I talked about how it had coalesced.

The part that I should have said, and I didn't, was what kicked it off was Richard Erso. Richard Erso was the kernel that caused this thing to grow. The other thing I wanted to say was, as we've gone along this journey of traveling all over the world, literally, giving these talks, you know, most recently it was in Paris, but also in Houston and in L.A. And we just go and go and go. We have docs come out of the woodwork saying, the thing that touches my mind, heart the most is they say I felt alone until I heard you speak and then I knew I wasn't alone and I wasn't crazy and I think that's perhaps the biggest thing that we've done

is we've given hope for a big cadre of their primarily frontline doctors who are out there dealing with patients seeing things that didn't make sense to them and in our speaking out, and Richard played a key role in his courage in making that decision, our speaking out has really created a snowball effect where a lot of docs that have debt or for whatever reason can't come out and be as vocal as we are. If you notice a lot of the group, they're the old gray hairs. We don't have a bunch of student loans. But that I think for me is one of the most touching things is that there are good docs out there that are trying to take care of their patients who still believe in Hippocratic Ove and they come to us when we do our meetings

and teachings and say thank you for doing this. Thank you for having the courage to stand up. And when I heard you, I realized I wasn't alone. That's deep, profound stuff. It really is. And I mean, just, you know, you guys are heroes. And again, I just want to thank you for taking the time to join us here at the highway. I want to thank you for the time outside of here. You have been on, of all of you, hitting every podcast. You never sleep.

I mean, your dedication to getting the truth out there has been phenomenal. So I have to say that as I shake your hand, I know I'm shaking the hands of those 17,000 people you represent and those voices that still maybe are afraid to speak out, but are standing in your wake and the power of what you're doing. It's the global COVID summit.org. That is the website.

Definitely. Here's what we have to do. You know, these doctors are putting it all the line. They are coming together. But we've got to get this to everyone we know. We have to make sure that this is the document and the declaration, not just of the United States of America, but of the world. Because as we know, the powers are great. They're going to try and say that there's consensus over the lockdowns that didn't work, the mass that didn't work.

You've got to get your fifth and sixth booster. And then we may lose everything. It is time to get back to the national immunity. those that can achieve it. It's time to get our heads screwed back on. This is such an important and powerful document. We need to do our job now and share it with everyone that we know. And so you know what to do. This is what is so awesome about this audience. Let's get out there. Let's make sure that these voices don't go unheard, but become the dynamic and powerful, you know, voices of the majority in this world as we pull ourselves out of this insane.

For those of you out there, you've heard a lot about this vaccine just right here at this table, whether it's the adverse events, all the things that can take place. And so if you're trying to understand how to deal with your own injury, maybe it's the legal issues or needing some guidance on where to go medically, we've built a website to do just that. Take a look at this. If you or a loved one has been injured after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, including if you are a participant in a clinical trial, go to injured by COVID vaccine. Submissions are confidential. We are here to help provide support, including connecting with

medical specialists and potentially securing legal representation. To assure the safety of COVID-19 vaccines for everyone, it is imperative that every person injured by this product report their injury. We can provide assistance completing a report to the CDC's vaccine adverse events reporting system. So if you or a loved one has suffered an injury from a COVID-19 vaccine, go to injured by COVID-vaccine.com now.