Undoctrinate Yourself - #41 - John Beaudoin

Episode Date: March 12, 2025

John Beaudoin is a systems engineer doing groundbreaking work aggregating and analyzing large datasets including information from death records and VAERS to understand the magnitude of harm the recent jabs exerted upon the US population. John's X profile: ⁠@johnbeaudoinsr⁠ www.x.com/johnbeaudoinsrJohn's website: ⁠https://therealcdc.com/⁠John's substack: ⁠TheRealCdC.Substack.com⁠⁠Amicus Brief ⁠(discussion of how the inequity in the judiciary system is leading to the breakdown of our country): https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-173/326017/20240916110703931_Amicus%20Brief-Beaudoin.pdf⁠Resource Document⁠: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1itvg6VJ_aoQVcj1VDs1Fn_Oc2jBHSxuSpE6AFhKxJqI/edit?usp=sharingFollow Alexis on Instagram (link in bio for offerings and product recommendations): ⁠⁠⁠www.instagram.com/dralexisjazmyn⁠⁠⁠Follow Alexis on X: ⁠⁠⁠https://x.com/dralexisjazmyn⁠⁠⁠Follow the podcast: ⁠⁠⁠www.instagram.com/undoctrinateyourselfpod⁠⁠⁠Support the podcast: ⁠⁠⁠www.patreon.com/undoctrinateyourselfpodcast⁠⁠Join The Incubator book club and think tank:⁠https://dralexisjazmyn.thinkific.com/courses/theincubator

Hello, everyone. Welcome back to Undoctrinate Yourself. Today, I'm joined by John Bodwin, who I found on X, formerly Twitter, and he's been doing a lot of incredible work in the COVID-truthers space, let's say. His background, he's a systems engineer who has expertise in whole systems analysis. He also has an MBA. Really excited to have him on today. He's been doing extremely interesting work looking into death records and information related to what's been going on post-Jab rollout. And so I'm really excited to chat with you today, John. Thanks for coming on. Well, thank you very much for having me. I appreciate it. I think, yeah, it was on X that we found each other. But it was really like through the Jack Cruz thing. Totally. Yeah, that was a lot of fun when that came out. It took the airwaves by a storm. Oh, yeah. And there's just been so much information spilling out over the past few months in particular with regards to a lot of the adverse events that are happening from the vaccines, specifically the MRI jabs and a lot of the work that's been done showing like the DNA plastic. plasmids issue and the turbo cancer's issue. And I'm already like syncing this episode by even saying those words, but Spotify will allow it to stay at least, but not YouTube. I actually had an episode taken down from YouTube for simply saying that lockdowns and mandates were unethical. How crazy. You know, I could do this whole interview by using code words like cucumbers instead of vaccines or stuff like that.

I mean, we should have fun with stuff like that at YouTube's expense. I agree. Maybe we actually, on that note, maybe we can say jabs instead of vaccines and then we can skirt around it and I can always do editing on the back end as well. Okay. Cool. So let's maybe start by how did you get interested in doing, you know, maybe tell people what you've been working on at a high level and how you got interested in it and we can get into some of the weeds on what you've been doing because it's very specific and very, very, like at a deep level, it's work that I hadn't seen anybody else really doing and it's all from mostly public records if I'm, if I'm not incorrect. So do you want to share a little bit about what you've been up

to? Sure. Yeah, some public, some not so public that a whistleblower had given me that probably shouldn't talk about. I do have some of those in the latest, not really a publication, but I put it out there to certain people. So it's circulated. It would be publication by the legal term, but it's, you can't, there's no ISBN number and you can't go buy it. And that's the Connecticut Memoranda series, Volume 1 and Volume 2. I have over 100 vaccine. deaths in that. I've correlated them to Medicare and Medicaid records that I'm, you know, probably not supposed to have. And the reason why that's important is to ascertain the vaccine dates and correlate those with the death records that I do have legally. So what about me?

You know, this is the tough part. We'll get through this couple of minutes here. I was sitting on a couch for a couple of years after my son died and just, you know, it wasn't a good time, right? I wasn't working. I was watching TV, doing nothing with my life. My other two sons were probably struggling because they didn't have a dad because I was just, you know, spent psychologically. And then COVID hit. And they started saying stuff. And I can remember I was in a bar. This is like how my book opens. This book right here over my shoulder is, uh, the real CDC. And that, I think it's in the, probably, I don't know if it's the introduction or the preface,

but it starts out, you know, I'm sitting in a bar on St. Patrick's Day, March 17, 2020, and I'm getting nervous because people are kind of too close to me. I don't want to breathe their air because they're talking about this big disease coming up. So, you know, I actually left beer in a glass and left the bar, which, you know, for people who know me, I don't leave beer in a glass before I leave a bar. And I was just nervous. I walked out and I'm thinking, ah, that was kind of stupid.

And my son said, Dad, this is all BS. And I was like, yeah, yeah, you got to take it seriously. And I'm thinking, yeah, he's probably right. So I looked at the CDC records. I downloaded. I was like, let me poke around. And you can download their database.

Not the whole thing. They have these chunks that you can download. And I wanted to compare 2014 through, 2018, which is in one database, to the other database, which was 2019 and 2020. And I specifically looked at the pneumonia influenza and they added a column for COVID in the 2020. But I was looking at the pneumonia influenza numbers and all cause. I'm like, something's really wrong here. Numbers aren't adding up because it's like pneumonia, influenza, pneumonia and influenza, and then all cause. And when you add them up, should they should add up right we call it parity checking or um what's the other one

now just call it a parity check in uh in engineering math it didn't work it didn't add up so i wrote to the keeper of the record at the cdc for the 2014 through 2018 database not the 2019 and 20 and i said there's an error in your math here something's wrong it sells it wrong i didn't not get a response but they took the file down for um 36 hours a day and a half i kept checking I'm like, where's the file? It's gone. The file's gone. Then the file came back. They changed the data. They didn't change the math. They changed the data. So, like, wait a minute. I'm an engineer. So how do you, some guy emails you from Massachusetts and says there's an error in your math and you change it. You just, we'll just change the data.

Oh, my God. What the hell is going on here? So I was working on the data online and I didn't have any copies of it. I can't because I was writing it in my notebook and stuff. I mean, nobody cares about the written notebook of the guy in Massachusetts. I can't prove anything. But the point in telling the story is that set me off. I'm really all about truth. And I got pissed. So I started hearing stuff like, well, you know, black people have a higher chance of dying from COVID.

All the numbers are showing, you know, they're only 13% of the population, but they're dying at a rate of 38% of the deaths from COVID. I'm like, what the hell are they doing? they're counting the United States. COVID hasn't gotten to North Dakota yet in May or South Dakota or Kansas or Montana, Wyoming. They added in the whole of the United States as the denominator. So what did I do? And I think it was May. I have a paper that I wrote in May of 2020. I looked in the Cook County, Illinois, which has Chicago in it. I looked at the five boroughs of New York, the top, the northern three counties of New Jersey and Massachusetts. And there's no difference in percentage of population versus percentage of people who died by race from COVID. The whole narrative, 13% versus 38% was a big lie by using a bigger denominator than you should have used. So it's these types of things that I started doing every time I heard something, I'm like, that's not true. And I can go prove them wrong.

You know, like, oh, we have to worry about kids. I remember the chancellor of the California State University system. So California has a system like Connecticut or others where you have the university of, right? There's that system. And then there's the state university system. And then there are the, what do you call them, the community colleges. So it wasn't the University of California system. It was the California State University system.

Like I was a Cal State Fullerton and there's a bunch of Cal States. So anyway, he closed the fall semester in May of 2020. Like, what are you doing? You know, pandemics come and go. They have seasons. Like, he already shut down the fall semester in May of 2020. He couldn't wait. Like, what is going on here?

So I started looking at all the, I did the, what was it, 18 to 23 age range or 18 to 22. I downloaded all that data from both California and the United States. I analyzed it. I showed how many males, how many females, what races they were, how many people died from with COVID under death records. And I think there was one in California or something like that. I can't remember. And they were like, I don't know, 30 across the United States.

And if you look into them, you'll find that they're like, you know, Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, not healthy people. So that's basically, that's how I got into it. It was all lies. and then I went to law school. So I went to law school at 56 years old. Excuse me. They didn't require an LSAT, so I got a sign from God in my car.

But I'll tell that real quickly. So I was writing these papers. I didn't know what to do with them. I'm not a published research author or whatever. So I just had these articles that I wrote. And there were citations in there, whether or not masks were. I did the history of masks. It was like 1894 or 96 was the first paper written about strapping a piece of gauze across your mouth if you're in surgery.

And therefore you won't spit into the patient's open wound. And then you go into like the 1940s where they said they did another paper. How many of you surgeons, they surveyed surgeons, have had bodily fluid splatter from the person you, whenever you cut into something, it sprays across your face. So they said how many people were hitting the mask? They would have been hit in their mouth and their nose. And all of them were like, yeah. And so they determined in the 1940s that it protects the doctor from the fluid from the patient. And then in the 1970s, they just started, somebody wrote something.

They assumed that the surgical mask stops whatever is airborne. No study. And they just started saying it. And there was never a study. And then, so anyway, I got that paper I did too. So I go to law school. Oh, I sued the governor over the mask mandate. In late May or early June, I filed it.

So I filed it like two or three weeks after he issued the mask mandate. Because I'm an engineer. I know they don't work. Why do you think they didn't? You never saw anybody from OSHA go in front of a camera in Washington, D.C. And say, you should wear a mask because they know they don't work. Because OSHA is the department that's in charge of devices like that for protection. you had the CDC, a couple of CDC people saying you should wear a mask.

Even Fauci said they don't provide the perfect protection, you know, and then two weeks later, I wear two masks. Why? Somebody told him, we need you to tell them to wear masks because we get this carrot and stick psychological approach to behavior of people that we can get them to take the vaccine if they're wearing masks and they don't want to wear the mask anymore. Right? So we all know it was a behavior or modification. device. So I'll go off track a little bit here. So I suit him over the mask mandate. I'm deaf in one ear, by the way. I'm 100% deaf from my right ear. It's nerve damage. So there's no, well, go to hearing aid. I'm like, okay, what's 10 times zero? They look at me like, yeah, it's an amplifier. Hearing aid is an amplifier. So no, I can't, I have no hearing in my right ear.

I got a shot when I was four years old, which is a mixture of streptomycin and penicillin for the Hong Kong flu meant as a prophylactic. Well, I didn't have the Hong Kong flu. And what are you doing mixing two antibiotics that have never been tested in combination? Well, you know, that's how they found out it makes small kids go deaf. There's a lot of deaf kids for 1968. Whoa. Yeah. Nobody knows about this. But vaccines are safe and effective. Yeah. Yeah. Well, it's not a vaccine. It's two antibiotics and scrape the mason and penicillin mixed together. Right. And now you can talk to any doctor. They'll be like, oh, no, we can't give those. That'll make a kid go deaf. I'm like, yeah, I know. Right here. So, yeah, so my complaint was,

I'm not a lawyer either. And I didn't have money for a lawyer. So I sued him pro se. I sued the governor, the public health commissioner. And I think that might have been it. You're depriving me of receiving free speech from others by covering their mouths so I can't see their lips move. Yep. And so that's a First Amendment violation they take very seriously. So what did he do? They asked to delay my case a number of times, and I said yes, because the longer it goes on, the more people are sick of masks. except in Massachusetts where I am, which was the highest mask compliance in the entire United States.

And my county was the highest mass compliance in Massachusetts. It was over 97%. Well, I think Massachusetts outside of New Jersey, I think you guys are the number one seat of pharma, basically. Oh, yeah. Between the both of us, we have all of them. We'll get into that, definitely. Yeah, 600 pharmaceutical ecosystem companies, 47 billion in venture capital financing. 50 companies over 100 million a year, 10 companies over a billion a year,

Moderna's headquarters and development, Pfizer's divisional headquarters and development for MRNA, Rochelle Walensky from Massachusetts. My congressman is Jake Ockincloss. His father is Hugh Oakencloss. He's number two to Fauci for all those years at the NIAID. Massachusetts, Massachusetts, Massachusetts, that's all Massachusetts. Massachusetts did COVID to the world. Wow.

Now I don't have to get into it later. Yeah, there you go. So back to the law school. So I sued him over that. They delayed the case. They finished up another case about masks. And then the governor changed the order. He rescinded order 31 and issued order 55.

I hope I have the right numbers. I think I do. And in order 55 in paragraph 2B is an exception for anybody speaking to anybody hearing impaired or anybody hearing impaired. So then right after they changed the order, they issued a. the submitted a motion to dismiss my case based on standing because I have nothing to complain about. Nobody speaking to me had to wear a mask and I didn't have to wear a mask. So I got him to change the mask order for the entire state of Massachusetts. And nobody knows this, but it's all, it's specifically based on my lawsuit. And I'm nobody, just some pro se guy. So I went to law

school because I had sued him in May or June. And then I went to, I started school in August. and like, well, I might as well learn what I'm doing here. So I went to law school for a year, and they issued a mask mandate. Excuse me. They issued a vaccine mandate. And it was like, do you have an exemption? Let me, oh, give me the exemption form, whatever. They never ruled on my exemption.

They just sent me a letter eventually saying, you're unenrolled from the school. They just unenrolled me. They didn't rule on it, nothing. So I sued them in Massachusetts district court. That was dismissed based on. standing because the judge doesn't like anything to do with vaccines, which was visible by her appearance when she heard the word vaccine. And her demeanor completely changed. So I appealed to the Massachusetts Court of Appeals. I had my three-judge panel appeal last November, I think,

October, November. And by all accounts of everybody listening and everybody who's ever seen it on Rumble, everybody says I won and I'm going to be back in. I think I won the appeal. Pro se. So it's me against the in-house counsel lawyer, professor of law from the school. And if you watch it, you'll see how the judge speaks to me and how the judge speaks to him and the questions and who answers what. I'm pretty sure, 99% sure that I will win the appeal and my case will then be remanded and I'll start my case against the school. We can put a link to that in the show notes. You're also making me think I had Dr. Andrew Marino on who was a student of Robert O'Beckers back in like the 60s. and 70s, who does work in like non-native EMFs.

But anyway, he also went to law school. And the way he described it on the podcast, it really resonated with me and actually got me, I'm not saying I'm going to law school, but I could think about it because the way he said it's basically like, you want to know the rules of the game that you're playing, and like going to law school is basically learning the meta rules of the meta game. So it's like, wow, like actually that allows you to really know a ton more than the average person

because you actually know what you can and can't do, legally speaking. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, that's what a great analysis, the meta rules of the meta game. That is so spot on, perfect. I love that. I'm going to use that. You should use that. Yeah, because it's, I mean, that's kind of what you were just doing naturally. Like you felt like something was unjust. You could find a legal basis for that. And then you could defend yourself without even getting, you know, a lawyer on your case. But so for a law school for you is your ultimate goal to actually practice law or just to know for you? yourself? I didn't know. Well, I never finished the story. I mean, it was two years. I'd lost my son in a motorcycle accident in 2018, like I said. Then this 2020. So the second anniversary of my son's death in July was coming up, and that was a few weeks after I had filed the case, which, and I didn't know anything about the law. I didn't know what I was doing. I asked the soccer buddy from my over 50 soccer league is a Harvard lawyer and he argued before Kavanaugh and appeals court before Kavanaugh was Supreme Court justice and I said can you give me an example so I can copy it?

He said, yeah, sure. He gave me a winner, a case that had won. And I just took out all their stuff and I put in my stuff and I didn't know what I was doing. So I had the case and then I had written a bunch of articles and they needed a place to put them. So I wanted a website. I wanted the website to be about truth and light, L-I-G-H-T, right? So I'm like, well, I'll try Veritas Lux, Veril-L-L-L-L-L-L-L-L-E-L-H-E. So I'm like, well, I'll try Veritas-L-L-L-L-A-L-L-E-L-E-T-E. So it's like, oh, that sounds good, too. Let me try via veritas vita. That was taken. So I'm like, all right.

Well, what's the singular of truth is virum? Like via virum vita, that was taken. I'm like, oh, come on. One last thing, the plural of truth, truths, via Vera vita. So I got it. That's my website. So I put all my stuff on my website and I'm thinking, yeah, it probably means something, whatever. And my son's friends were coming over for some beer and burgers on the patio on the second anniversary of his death.

And I'm sitting at a traffic light. And I'm thinking, wow, Matthew is really, really Catholic. He's a Maronite Catholic from Lebanon. He's very religious. I'm kind of embarrassed. I have a website, and I told him to go to my website. Go look at my website over text. So he's coming over.

I'm thinking, it's probably in the Bible. And I'm kind of embarrassed. I have a website. I don't even know where it's from. So my son was, he was born on the 14th day of the six month, June, and his name is John also. So I'm at the red light, and I Google Way, Truth, Life Bible. And it comes back with John chapter 14, verse 6. My son's name and his birth month and his birthday. And I just started crying in the car.

Wow. And this all happened in five seconds. I go to put the phone down, the light turned green, and I heard the very verse on the radio, Sweet Child of Mine. Oh, my God. You know, John chapter 14, verse 6, way, truth, life, and that's my website, which I was second choice. I was steered to.

Everything just all happened in five seconds. I'm crying in the car. And I just felt this overwhelming urge to follow through with this. case. So I went to law school. That's why I went to law school. I mean, it's not a very good reason to go to law school for some people, but for me. It's kind of like the greatest reason, right? It's like a literal sign from God. Yeah. And people aren't going to believe this. So I'll skip a couple of years. I'm sitting in the gym on the fourth anniversary of my son's death. I work out pretty hard. Everybody always says, like, you know, what, did you just get out of the pool?

because I'm drenched in sweat and I look haggard. You know, I just look terrible because I work out real hard. And I'm in the locker room all pissed off. COVID, you know, this was 2022 in July. And that was a bad time for all of us, you know. I was getting hammered because I was writing stuff. I had gotten the death records and I started writing about what was happening. And we'll definitely get into that.

But I hear, I was. I was wearing a MAGA hat. My sister and brother-in-law gave me a MAGA hat. And I wore it to the, I'm in Massachusetts, right? Yeah, that's hilarious. I'm looking for conflict. So I went wearing that hat since 2020. Whenever the campaign started, he got the hat, gave me the hat. So I'm like, I wear it to the gym. People would come up and whisper. First, they'd look around. I like your hat. They'd whispered me. I like, oh, thanks. Four years later now, people are like, hey, dude, I five, like your hat. Across the gym. It's it. Yeah, what a transformation, right? It's so different. So this guy in a locker room says,

I like your hat. And I'm like, I'm putting it in the locker, the locker. And I'm thinking of myself, I'm going to get in a fight. Oh. I turn around ready for a fight. And there's a guy like 5 foot 7,

65 years old with a ponytail who weighs about 130 pounds. and I looked down and I said, do you mean that? And he said, oh, yeah, yeah, no, I meant it genuinely. I was like, oh, okay. I mean, I'm not huge. I'm six feet, 200, really. And I was then 58.

So he, I said, I forget what I, oh, he said, oh, he said, He said, you know, God loves you. And I'm just in that mood, you know, thinking about my son. And I'm still about to cry right now. So he just, he said, you know, I said, why did you say that? He said, you look like he need it. He said, God loves you. I said, can I tell you a story?

And he said, yeah. So I start telling him the story. I'm like, yeah, so I'm in the car and I get these papers. and, you know, I get some website and John chapter 14 verse 6, and I put the phone down and I hear on the radio. And right when I said to him, and I hear on the radio, I froze and I started crying again. I'm looking at him and he's smiling at me. You know why I froze? In that instant, the song came on the radio in the locker room.

What? Yeah, the guitar riff from Sweet Child of Mine. It came on. I mean, I was telling that story for like, it takes a minute or two to tell a story. The instant that I got to that point. Wow. The instant that I got to the point. And a song came on the radio and it was, and then, you know, the guitar riff that starts

out, sweet child of mine, I was just, I looked at him and he's smirking at me. Like he made it happen. Yeah, I think I met Jesus Christ in the locker room. Yes, you literally had an angel with a ponytail, 130,000. I did. I never saw him before that six years in that gym. I didn't see him after until about three or four months ago. And I said, are you that guy?

And he said, yeah. And we started talking again, man, what a nice guy he is. He was in Vietnam. Wow. Yeah, it totally freaked me out. So that's the whole beginning story. Oh, I got kicked out of school. I told you.

I didn't have anything to do after I got kicked out of school for not getting the vaccine. So I started doing more data mining like I had done. If somebody else is doing something, I'm not going to do it. And they're probably better at it. You know, I'm a hack when it comes. People say, oh, polymath are really good at math. Yeah, if I want to. Like statistics.

That's your world. I hate statistics. I hate statistics. I got 98% of my final at 51 years old that is a senior level of college class. And somebody in the back of the room said, why is there a three in the denominator for that equation for standard deviation? It seems kind of arbitrary. And I said, it's not arbitrary at all.

It's just an integral of a square function. Obviously, if you take the area under the curve of the probability distribution function, and I looked around in all these business majors for the MBA program are all looking at me, and I just stopped and I said, never mind. It seems arbitrary. Then I did the calculus proof as to why the three is in the denominator because it's for a uniform distribution function. So it's basically a rectangle.

And if you take area and then take the integral of that, you get the three in the denominator, right? You have one third, right? So I gave it to the professor. And next class she said, can I talk to you? I'm like, yeah, sure. said you get in an MPA? Yeah. She said, you know, what do you think about getting a PhD in statistics? And I laughed. And I felt so bad because my initial reaction, I laughed out loud. And she was serious.

And I said, oh, I'm so sorry. I'm not, no, I didn't mean it like that. I just hate statistics. I don't believe in them. It's a false religion. There's too many confounding variables and everybody looks at a normal distribution. Again, we could talk about that later. I mean, I used to, in my PhD at Princeton, we used to do statistical testing to remove outliers from data sets. And it's like, the outliers are the most interesting points. That's, I mean, there's lots of tips and techniques to pull a distribution into conformity of what you want it to be. Yeah, exactly. And all those biases kind of seep into people's works.

Now, there are legitimate outliers, but we don't want to do a lesson on statistics here right now. Yeah, I was bored. I didn't do stuff other people did as soon as the vaccine was out, right? So that was 2021. I started looking at, well, where are the COVID deaths versus the vaccines? And somebody told me to get on this call. So I got on this call. And it was Steve Kirsch call.

I didn't know who he was. Who is he? He's got a half a billion dollars. We'll start there. He invented the optical mouse. He's a Silicon Valley entrepreneur. He's an MSW from electrical engineering, Masters and Electrical Engineering from MIT.

Got it. He's a friend now. I mean, we talk. But I didn't know. And I don't know if you ever heard of Jessica Rose. Yes, I love her. Stephanie Seneff. Yes.

Love them both. Byron Bridle. I don't know him. He's a virologist out of University of Toronto, Guelph, or University of Guelph and Toronto. Sorry, University of Guelph, Toronto. They went after him big time. He kind of dropped out of the public appearance talking and stuff because they were really

going after him. And he had a criminal legal thing where he was not the defendant. It was what was done to him on campus. Wow. Yeah. So he had to stay quiet for a little bit. Mark Jirodo, Matthew Crawford, Matthew's a statistical guy. Mark is all about the ballast theory,

accidentally getting too much around a vein or an artery, and then having it travel as a ballast and transfecting too much, too many endothelial cells in one place so that it would, like, eat its way through, you know, you have some type of embolism or rupture. You know, there's a lot of aortic dissections happening. It's a lot of carpet, like carpet bombing your, capillaries in your brain. You know, so yeah, you know, I call it turbo dementia.

And that was the idea of like you're supposed to aspirate, like pull back on the needle to make sure you're objecting into a vein. Yeah, exactly. You know, interesting thing about aspiration. Now, tell me, Alexis, if I go off on, I can go off on tangents all day, but there's something called the pink book that's put out by the CDC. It was written by two nurses. One of them has like a master's in some management thing or something like that, but they're both nurses.

And they wrote for the COVID vaccines and other injections now, do not aspirate because needlewiggle might cause a moment of discomfort for the patient. I think I remember hearing this. Right. And the other thing is inject very fast because the more time you're in there, the longer the pain of the injection will take. And they don't want vaccine hesitancy, right? So they're saying do two things, both of which can kill you. You know, if you hit a vein, right? And if you inject a ton all at once instead of a slow draw so that you dissipate whatever the substances that you're injecting through the fluid as your blood is flown, right?

So the next paragraph, we have no scientific basis for this. We just feel it'll be more comfortable for the patient. That is what was used to tell everybody in the world not to aspirate. And everybody stopped aspirating based on the pink book by these two nurses out of the CDC. Oh, everybody listened to the CDC. They're an authority. That's how bad that is. So that's Mark, Mark, Giridot, G-I-R-A-R-D-O-T.

I think I get that, right? Yeah, he has, the Needle's Secret is his book. So we were on a group call. Where was I? Oh, yeah, getting back to COVID and looking at data and injections and stuff. So I had determined that Trinidad and Tobago, right, Give me some islands, right? Kind of isolated and stuff during COVID,

and people stopped really flying to vacations and things. Trinidad and Tobago, like four, maybe five COVID deaths for a year up until they started vaccinating. As soon as they started vaccinating, two weeks later, their COVID deaths shot up. They were attributing all the vaccine deaths to COVID. And then I looked at another place and another place. I think I looked at, it was one of the, one of the eastern news. European countries. I forget. It was a Bulgaria, Czech Republic, one of those. And what else did I do? India. I looked at India too. Same thing. As soon as soon as I started vaccinating, they started dying

at COVID. They didn't have COVID deaths before that. So then we're on the, we're on the call. And we talked, oh, by the way, I brought Kevin McCurnin in and Jonathan Cooey. And that was a mistake. But it was like the last six months had Kui and McCurn and we all talked. And there was one call. We talked about current events of the week because we talked two hours every week on a Thursday. And somebody said, oh man, yeah, Taiwan's getting killed with COVID now. I'm like, it's like a year and a half. How did it all of a sudden appear in Taiwan?

And by the way, Taiwan is a warm weather climate, even in the winter. So there's no way it's going to happen there because I've mapped COVID deaths versus climate. And it can't happen in Taiwan. Oh, no, John, you got to look. And I look. I'm like, oh, you're right. It's burning. And I said, yeah, let me also look for something else.

And I typed in the search bar. COVID test kits, Taiwan. An article came up. Two weeks before all their COVID deaths started happening, 8 million test kits were just delivered to Taiwan. Yep. They started testing the dead bodies, which came up with COVID. So they said they started attributing the debts to COVID.

Was there excess? No, there were no excess debts. Oh my gosh. Yeah, they were just dying with COVID. Yeah, they started calling all the debts, COVID. There are simple answers to a lot of these things. I've found a lot of complicated answers in these books. But there are many simple answers to a lot of.

of things that I look at the whole field of science and I wonder, why didn't you think of that? You know, I mean, this is all policy related. This is all, uh, that's behavior modifications using law and policy to get medical examiners to write things on death records so that family can get paid. Get an extra $9,000 for funeral expenses. All you got to do is write C-O-V-I-D on the death record. Yep. And that's why Jack always says like incentives dictate outcomes. And I know that during the thick of things here, I believe hospitals were getting a ton more money relative to the amount of COVID deaths or cases they had as well as like ventilators and things. I don't know if you know anything about that. Like the use of ventilators actually killing people, but they were getting,

they were basically incentivized to use them. I have a lot about that. In fact, I have, in this book, I have multiple people who died that way. They were murdered. Wow. The hospital murdered people for money. But you can't pin the murder on people in the hospital because they believe. believed in what they were doing, they were doing it based on the NIAID protocols, which is an institute under NIH, which is National Institutes, plural. I know you know this. I'm saying this for your viewers. Is this viewers or listeners, by the way? Both. Both. Oh, okay. So I'll move my hands around more because it's video. It's more, I don't want to sit here like stone. Engaging. Yeah, it's hard to explain all this, but I mean, it's not hard. It just takes along.

The CARES Act, and then in conjunction with CMS.gov, that's the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. That's all the money kind of flows. We heard all about that from RFK's hearings, the Senate hearings. They kept bringing up CMS and Medicaid, Medicare, blah, blah, blah. Yeah. So, I mean, it's all in my book. Look, if you, you know, I mentioned before we got on the air, I mentioned the acute renal failure to you, a sudden kidney failure. That's the biggest signal by far that everybody's missing.

If anybody goes to my substack, you can, you can read it. I've been talking about this for two and a half years. I don't even know how to say it. It's 150 times more than myocarditis, 150 times. More than 211,000 excess, more than normal. That's excess. Acute renal failure deaths in the last four years. 211,000.

And considering how young they were, goes down into the teens. They're killing people left and right. Half of it is from hospital homicides. The other half is from the vaccine. There are two separate signals. One is seasonal. The other is linearly increasing and then saturates at a high point and becomes steady state above normal. Again, you know, I don't want to get too esoteric for your audience.

But being an engineer and looking at waveforms, I was able to disambigibility. separate two separate and distinct signals caused by two completely different things, had to be. And one of them is coincident with just after November 2nd, 2020. So it started before the vaccine in late November, early December. That's acute renal failure. So why would that be? Well, if you go to CMS.gov, you can just type into the search bar, CMS space N-C-T-A-P. That's new COVID treatment, add-on payment plan.

That's what that is. And if you scroll down to the bottom, you look for a November 2nd date. November 2nd, 2020 is not when remdesivir was approved. It's when it was incentivized with a 20% adder to the entire hospital bill. Wow. So if you go in there and you test positive for COVID,

even if you got 95% oxygen with 15 breaths per minute, completely normal, they'll try to throw you on remdesivir. Why? Because every bit of that hospital bill goes up by 20% just for running remdesivir through your veins whether you need it or not. And if they can get you into the ICU

and they can get you on a ventilator and that hospital bill gets jacked to a million dollars for a month's stay. Now they're getting an extra $200,000 because on admission they put you on remdesivir. Now the behavior, the pay plan defines the behavior. I was in sales of very large contracts and semiconductor research for many years. And that's what we used to say because the company would come out with a pay plan and be like,

okay, I found a way around that to get paid. I would get paid on all kinds of stuff that, you know, if they put the plan together, the pay plan defines the behavior. And when they came up with the CMS.gov, NCTAP pay plan, the behavior changed in hospitals to make sure that they got as much money as they could, whether they killed a patient or not. Now, the individuals who did so may not have known what they were doing,

and therefore it's not a crime. They don't have the mens rea. They don't have the criminal mind of which there's purposeful, knowing, reckless, and negligent for different levels of a mental state for crime and for tort lawsuits. So the people who put the plan together,

damn well knew what they were doing. That's the NIAID under Fauci. A lot of people haven't traced that back, and nobody talks about the biggest, I don't say nobody, because I guess I'm somebody, I hope I'm somebody. I talk about acute renal failure. The biggest one, it's 150 times more than myocarditis. Wow. 150 times, 211,000 people. In Florida alone, more than 15,000 excess deaths. And it's across all age groups. Yeah. Obviously, it's mostly older people. It's stratified, you know, fewer younger people. But if you, like this one guy, a couple towns away, I would love to get his hospital records,

28 years old, goes in, got COVID, not vaccinated. Oh, they really treated the not vaccinated with the full treatment. They gave them the full treatment. Oh, you should have gotten vaccinated because now you're going to get the full treatment. You're going to get the ventilator, but we've got to prep you for that. So first of all, you're going to get remdesivir when you get in there. Then you're going to get medazolam, lorazepam, lex, metatomitominy, propitominy, fall in fentanyl, then we'll put you on the ventilator, which will give you a bacterial

infection in your lung, and it'll go septic. Then we've got to put you on vancomycin, and then your kidneys fail. So was it the vancomycin or the rindexevere that killed your kidneys? And that's, obviously, after you were septic. You know, so that's how they killed a lot of people that are in my books. Yeah, returning to, I started doing these data studies. Oh, Taiwan, I told you about that. Oh, January, 2022, as far as the timeline goes. So I get to January 2020. I'm on these calls with Steve and stuff. And I'm thinking a lot about the COVID stuff.

I'm driving in the gym and I hear a 7-year-old girl died from COVID on the radio. And that didn't happen. There's no way a healthy 7-year-old kid died from COVID. I've been looking at this for two years. No way that happened. And so I did eight different state FOIAs. I spread them around to eight different people. And they denied me access to her vaccination records, denied me access to her death record,

her individual death record. The one thing that came through on the state FOIA, they gave me all the death records for everybody in Massachusetts from 2015 through that point in time, 2022. No readactions. Wow. They wouldn't give me your individual record, but they gave me, it was 60,000 deaths per year for seven years or eight years. Wow.

I had hundreds of thousands of death records. I think it was 420,000. How do they deliver those to you? I got that through email link to a database. So it's just download it from an email. Do you have like a huge hard drive on your computer? No, no. It's not, I mean.

It's stored in the cloud. It's big in dealing with, um, I use numbers from Apple, so it's not Excel. Even, you know, there are much, much bigger databases than that. Okay. It's, it was a lot for my computer because the system that I put together, by the time I started doing all this analysis and all these links and writing code within the spreadsheets, I ended up with 30 spreadsheets and they're all calling each other,

doing the math. And so if I typed in N17, which means acute renal failure, I could walk away from my computer for 20 minutes. It wouldn't finish. I come back when it was done, all the graphs would appear, all the data would appear. Now I have a friend wrote some SQL, software query language. He took the 20 minutes down to two seconds. Wow.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, because at Princeton we did some coding in Python and like basically able to distill whatever you want and like can call from all the different sheets. and it's very efficient, especially if you're working on cloud data or even if it's on your computer. It's just like the amount of data you can process in a short period of time is pretty crazy with some of these languages. Yeah. No, it worked out real well. Now I can in combinations. I mean, you can ask me some questions after I finish up with a summary. So in the books, there's two things I do. One is I do. the whole data thing and there's a lot of tricks that I do with regard to epidemiology that epidemiologists have never done and they should probably take a look at what I've done and I've

talked to many and they're like holy shit there are hidden signals that you can't find with normal statistical methods that they use and I show that and I've written articles about that like time window shifting there's all kinds of data paradoxes you know even like time window shifting. If you were to do a fiscal year versus a calendar year, everything changes. It's like, it's not going down. It's going up. It's like, that doesn't even make any sense. But if you see what I've done, you'll see it. The other thing, the major thing I did was just divide by all cause deaths. What is the prevalence of cause? So if you have a glut of excess deaths and there's like, say, cardiac arrest, there's a certain percentage of cardiac arrest in the baseline deaths that you

expect, then you have a bunch of extra. Is the pretext? Is the pretext? Is the percentage of cardiac arrest in the extra deaths the same as the baseline. If so, well, do you really have a signal or is cardiac arrest just the prevalence of that cause among death certificates is the same? If whatever externality came into society that caused those excess deaths, okay, if it's associated with a cause like, say, thromacitopenia. Thromocytapenia, if it's associated with, say, COVID, right, then it should have gone up when COVID went up because you had all these excess deaths, but among those excess deaths, some had pharmacotipenia. So, oh, it's up more than normal, but is it up as a percentage of all-caused deaths? If it isn't, then it's not really a signal.

Because if it was associated with COVID specifically and COVID caused the excess deaths, then it would be a greater percentage of the excess than normal. And therefore, the whole would be, greater. And so as a prevalence of cause, I show it in the articles, you're going along with raw data. It's like da-da-da-da-da-thromicidopinia. Bump, bum, bum, boom. Oh, 2020 is up. So COVID must cause that. And then, oh, it's even higher in 21 and 22. Divide by all-cause deaths, 2015, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. It's like, it didn't go up as a percentage of cause. Oh, well, you know, you could say that about everything. Oh, no, but it's way up in 21. That's when you started vaccinating. So thromacidopinia didn't go up when when COVID came in, not really. It didn't go up

as a percentage of all-cause deaths, but it did in 21 and 22 and 23. So just that simple trick alone, most epidemiologists missed that. And that, I show that in my book. So that's all the data stuff. And I have a, I have a, I have a new friend. He's a PhD candidate at MIT in AI and advanced mathematics, he's using, you know, I'm an electrical engineer. So we do discrete foyer transforms, discrete cosine transforms. So I have them doing a discrete foyer transform on data streams looking at the signal to noise ratio. And if it's a high signal to noise ratio, it's cyclical, meaning more people die in the winter than the summer. And what we're finding is, I already knew this, but this is why we're doing this. Older people, really old people, like over 80, die more in the winter

than the summer in northern climates. People die from pneumonia more in the winter than the summer. So pneumonia is going to have a high signal to noise ratio and old people are going to have a high signal to noise ratio. There's a high signal. It's happening more cyclically. Heart attacks. It's all noise. It's like some more in the summer this year and more in the winter that year. and there's no rhyme or reason to it, there's no signal. So the signal to noise ratio is very low. And by doing this, you can learn to separate signals like I did by looking at it before. So that's the analysis side.

What's far more important than that is I was able to correlate bears records, which are anonymous, to the death records I have, which have names. and that seven-year-old girl. The chapter one of my book is Cassidy. Her name is Cassidy Baraka. She was seven years old. So the Vares record. There's nobody else that could be a Cassidy

because I have all the death records in Massachusetts. Seven-year-old female Massachusetts look in VERS. Seven-year-old female Massachusetts look in the death records. I went through all the other seven-year-old girls. None of them matched in timing. Now, here's the record in bears. First injection. Started vomiting in five minutes,

vomiting for eight to ten hours. So they give her a second injection a couple weeks later. Severe abdominal pain, 103 degree fever, didn't have a bowel movement for three days. And the report ends because the report was submitted on January 15.

That's two days of, so she didn't have a bowel movement, from the day before, and she was supposed to have one on the 13th when she got injected. So the injection date is the 13th. And the report date in the hospital of this little girl who seems to be dying is the 15th. Cassidy Baraka's death record is the 18th of January 2022. Five days after injection, three days after the report ends. It's the same girl.

I have a lawsuit against the governor, the public health commissioner, the chief medical examiner, and four individual medical examiners in Massachusetts. for massive amounts of fraud and lies that occurred on all the death records. So, yeah, that's a sad one. They, I don't know if you can hear my dog. I have my door shut, but he's still clear. He's making a cameo. Hi, Cooper.

That's crazy. I was actually, it's really great that you're doing these lawsuits because I was just talking about this actually with my partner because his dad is dealing with some issues with the medical system right now. basically his girlfriend was put on a medication that was completely contraindicated for her condition, and they basically almost killed her. And I was talking to him about this because really the only way to keep these doctors in line is actually to sue them or they're not going to learn. Like, that's the only way in our current system to really give them a wake-up call. And that's exactly

what you're doing too. It's like, no, actually, you can't get away with this and what you're doing is wrong and somebody needs to call you out or you're going to keep doing it. Oh, you're absolutely right. Yeah, absolutely right. There's no, the medical board is all for pharma. They're basically a RICO crime organization. And there's different medical boards, you know, for your audience, people get confused. So there are state licensing boards that have to do with your medical license to practice. But that's not all you need. In order to perform surgery in a hospital, you need to be board certified. Well, isn't that the licensing board? No, it's not. There are NGO boards called like the American Board of Internal Medicine,

the American Board of Family Medicine, the American Board of Pediatrics, and so forth. And those boards, they came up with something a while back where you have to get certified every 10 years. And it costs about $3,000 every 10 years. So now they have, basically, I call it an annuity business where they're collecting $3,000 from every doctor, every 10 years. And if you add up the hundreds of thousands of doctors we have, you know, that's a lot of money. And so the American Board of Internal Medicine also has the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation. That is completely woke. It's all about DEI ideology. And they're using the money from ABIM that they collect from doctors to have their board certifications, which they have to have, otherwise they don't have privileges to use a hospital. So it's this huge RICO scam. And I call it RICO because they're on the hook for murder.

They stated, in fact, there's a letter out on the web right now. If you spread vaccine misinformation, your license will be, your certification will be suspended or revoked. That's a career death sentence for doctors. They know that they cannot talk about vaccines. They can't even look into it. Otherwise, the board will destroy them. That's from the three presidents of the family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics. You can type that in, ABIM joint statement with family medicine.

It'll come up. You can read it. Still out there. And that's a crime. They're threatening and coercing an entire field, every doctor in the United States. So, yeah, there's a lot going on with medical ethics and why they're doing these things. And each individual, I've talked to doctors, they really believe the vaccine saved people. There's no crime there.

They're just stupid. Yep. They're an occult. Willful, willful ignorance. And actually, as it relates to medical ethics and like theirs, VERS is highly underreported. Is that right? Oh, yeah.

But it depends on where you go. I mean, here's another thing that when I say it to you, it'll appear obvious. But when everybody started saying they're sending the bad batches to the red states, they're killing the Republicans. I don't know if you remember that. I did hear that. Yeah, yeah. Think about it. Who is more likely to be honest and fill out a bears form, right?

The red state nurses and doctors are filling out bears. In Massachusetts, if any doctor or nurses found to have filled out a bears report, their career is over. Wow. They'll be fired for something. It won't be that because they can't write that. They'll destroy you for even mention. mentioning the vaccine. Wait, so do you know who filed that VERS report for the little girl? No, I don't. It's anonymous, yeah. So maybe they got fired. That could be, actually. If they did, I hope they can't see this and contact me.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I mean, chapter two of my book is three strokes, three months. Diane Dubois was 62. She died in March. Brianna McCarthy was 30. she died in April. And then in the, in early, that was late April, but if you go to early June, so I said three months, but really Eden McDonald was 17, she died in early June. And they all died from stroke.

Now, Diane Dubois actually says she died from the vaccine on her death record. Acute intracranial hemorrhage in the setting of thrombocytopinia in a person recently vaccinated. So the vaccine gave her thromacetipenia, which was causal in the stroke, along with the clots. Brianna had a headache after the vaccine. Her Moderna shot went to the ER. They said, we're treating COVID patients. You need to leave. You have a headache.

Her headache was so bad. She went back again. Here's some Tylenol. You really shouldn't be here. Go home. This is for COVID patients. She didn't recognize her. sister. So they brought her in. Family, family brought her in. She was having a full blown stroke.

They did a craniotomy, cut a hole in her head to relieve the pressure. You can't relieve pressure when the clots are all through her head. She died. She was, you know, brain dead, basically. And then a few weeks later, they pulled the plug, ended life support. She had tested positive in November four months earlier for COVID with no symptoms. What do you think they wrote on her death certificate. They wrote COVID. Yeah. Oh my gosh. It took the family three years. I had a beer with her dad. He's a good guy. And they're distraught, you know. I had two girls. They get her up to be 30 years old and then the vaccine kills her. Then they're left with one. You know, it's just, it's devastating. Six doctors from Beth Israel Dickinus Medical Center,

Harvard Medical College wrote a report about her condition and her death. You could look this up. Fatal post-COVID MRNA vaccine associated cerebral ischemia. That's the title in the Neurohospitalist Journal. It's about her. It doesn't say it's about her, but I'm telling you it's about her. I know. I know who filled out the VERS report.

I've talked to her. I've talked to the dad. I've talked to the cousin. I've talked to it's all true. In that report, they state a number of vaccines cause CVS she died from a CVST Cerebral Venus sinus thrombosis

I'm sorry she did not die from that she died from an ischemic stroke it says in the in the report here's the difference it says in the report while this case is not a CVST CVSTs are known to happen from several COVID vaccines

so they not CVST is a hemorrhagic stroke Brianna McCarthy, I'm talking about the 30-year-old. She died from an ischemic stroke. Clots. They didn't get to the point of the hemorrhage. She died before that. So, but the report,

the brief report that I'm talking about, it states that CVSTs are known to occur from these vaccines. And it says a number of vaccines. Then it says several reports of, several reports of I think clotting thromboses. And there's another one. Oh, CBSTs occur where thrombocytopinia is frequent. So you got the words frequent, several reports, and a number of reports throughout the paragraphs of that of that brief report. And in the last conclusion, which is all that the editors read,

or the peer reviewers or whatever. It's extremely rare. A number of several and frequent in the preceding paragraphs when you get to the end, it's extremely rare. And the vaccine was not mentioned under death record at first. And COVID was the root cause of death, the underlying cause of death, the thing that started the causal chain that caused death. It's the last thing written in part one of the death record.

COVID. So COVID caused the stroke that caused. their death. Well, the family complained three years later, three years in the middle of 24, they finally added the vaccine to the death record. Wow. But they added it after COVID. So COVID caused the vaccine that caused the stroke. That's how it reads now. It says COVID caused the vaccine that caused the stroke. They have to have their fake COVID deaths. And I've got, I don't know how many. I've got a lot of blunt force trauma to the head, blunt force trauma to the torso, acute fentanyl overdose, COVID, COVID, COVID, COVID. They slapped COVID on everybody

to raise fear in society and lie to the entire world about how many people were dying from COVID. I caught them. That's also the problem with asymptomatic testing because it's completely unprecedented within society. We only ever test when there's symptoms because as it turns out, if you're using something like PCR, you can jack up the cycle threshold and you can basically show a virus in anyone at any time. Yeah. Any little fragment laying around from, I don't know, four months ago totally. It's going to show up at 45 cycles. Totally. Yeah. So it's just, it's crazy that we actually lived through it and then somehow we're just being told to move on and like not talk about this, even though it's going to happen again if we don't talk about it. That's for sure. That's right.

So I've got, you know, I got them dead to rights on massive amounts of federal fraud, 18 U.S.C. 241, conspiracy against rights, 242, deprivation of rights under color of law, 1343, fraud by wire, multiple federal felonies on hundreds of thousands of death records. Wow. And the CDC was, they were told Aaron Hertzberg in New York. We used to talk a lot. We don't talk as much, but not for any other reason. He's got all the records too. We share them. I got Massachusetts.

He got Vermont. Somebody gave us Minnesota. And then last year in 24, like right around a year ago from now, I got the Connecticut records because I submitted an application to receive the data because I'm going to do, and I told you about the guy doing that DFT analysis at MIT. And so this is true. It's not fraud in my application. I applied to do a study of climate change versus heart disease.

So they approved it and gave me all the records. That's so good. So, yeah. I wrote regional temperature and humidity versus heart disease. And then in parentheses, climate change. There you go. I mean, that's how you get funding these days, right? That's like data.

That's how you get funds. Got to do what you got to do. 16-year-old Micah Williamson died from the vaccine. Connecticut, you know, on a 32-year-old, I forget her name, or 36, I think she's 36-year-old. I now have, there's 14 people who died on the day of vaccination, 36 died two days after, 51 died, excuse me, 36 died the day after, 51 died two days after. There's 101 who died within two days from the vaccine. That's after I removed all the accidental deaths where there were car accidents or whatever.

I'd be willing to bet that the person got the injection was driving down the road, passed out, died in a car accident, nobody will ever know. Totally. I didn't even count those. Totally. I'm actually, I have a vague memory of somebody mentioning something about coroners or, like, you know, in funeral homes, they're embalming bodies and they're seeing clots just like crazy throughout people's bodies that are coming in, which, I mean, sounds like it's related. I don't know if you've heard about that at all. Well, that's, so there are two big names, John O'Lunie in England, who first came out with that. But in the United States, the guy who is really come out with that as Richard Hirschman down in Louisiana.

And it's specifically the white clots because they're not your standard erythrocytes being caught up in all that, the fibrin fibrenogen complex that makes the net that catches the red blood cells. It's not those dark red clots. These are these are weird, you know, like protein-based white clots. I don't know if it's all fibrin fibrogen. I always get the two confused. One creates the other. But I'm not a biologist or a doctor, so I don't pretend to be one.

But yeah, Richard Hirschman found most of those. When you die, your blood stops because your heart stops and everything's sitting stationary and clots form. I mean, that's just clots will form in your body after you die. But not like this, not like these white clots, not these weird things. They have happened in the past, but not to the extent they're happening now. I don't talk about it too much because anything that is regulated by the state is licensed by the state, those people are messed with. So doctors are not coming forward.

Nurses not coming forward. Funeral directors are licensed by the state, not coming forward. Chiropractors and so forth. You know, having a central government that controls. the lives of people will make people fall in line. They won't be able to feed themselves. They put 40 years into a career. They have no other source of income. The fear and coercion put into these people makes them just be quiet. And as they become quiet, more people die. And they are you know, morally guilty. They are. I'm sorry to say it. If they know. Some, like you said,

willful ignorance. But some know and say nothing. And knowledge is a second degree kind of murder thing. Some are reckless. Reckless can be divided into both manslaughter and murder, depending on how gross reckless it was. Just reckless versus gross reckless. And these are all legal terms that have meanings.

What's the federal one is deliberate indifference to life. So deliberate indifference. kind of mean the same thing. It's all recklessness. Yeah, I don't, did you watch the episode of the Danny Jones podcast with Kelly Means and Jack and Mary Talley Bowden?

Yeah, except I say Bowden because she's my sister. Oh, there you go. Well, she would be a lovely sister to have. I absolutely love her. I'm just thinking, it seems like we just have an overwhelming amount of data to say, like, these things need to be pulled from the market

right now. And yet we have people who are in positions of influence saying we need to wait it out and see and, you know, I don't know exactly what the goal is. I think, I mean, I think in your perspective, you can share if I'm wrong. We have plenty of data to show actually know, like this immediately, we need to stop these off the market, especially get them off the childhood schedule and really seriously evaluate what's happened. Yeah. So when it comes to evidence, um, One of the biggest problems. I know you're a scientist, so don't take this personally. The scientists saw their moment to shine. Here's COVID. We've been dealing with this for five years.

And look at this research paper. And look at this. Look at this P values and confidence intervals here and there. And I'm like, no, look at the kid, two doors down from you who died in the clinic. We got the shot. There's plenty of them. I mean, so conclusive evidence is what I bring. I don't need a doctor, I don't need a biologist, I don't need a scientist. I bring conclusive evidence. It says in the death record that they died. The death record went to the CDC to go through their software to read the words and apply the codes. The codes are what everybody gets data on.

Everybody gets what's the code. So Y-59.0 means viral vaccines as an international classification of disease, ICD-10 code. The CDC has been deleting them. and hiding them from the American people? They have. In fact, when Aaron, oh, I brought up Aaron because when Aaron wrote an article in Brownstone, millions of people saw it, said, you know, and this is on the Minnesota data, said, CDC is hiding vaccine deaths by not coding them with Wi-5-9-0.

Greg Piper from Just the News sent a link to the CDC and said, do you have a comment on this article? Kristen Nordland, this is all in this book, by the way. paragraphs 4950 and 51. The CDC memorandum for people who are just listening. So Greg Piper for Just the News. So Kristen Nordland from the CDC response. The article is wrong.

The records in question say vaccination, not vaccine. And a vaccination is not a vaccine or cause of death. So we didn't code for it. I'm looking at your face. You're like, what? Exactly. Exactly. What? Yeah. So she basically said, we don't care what you say. We're not going to code for it. And we're going to keep hiding these deaths from the American people. Now, what she didn't know is that also have the Massachusetts records. And Solomon Kizaptoe died on January 16, 2021. I have his record. He was either 60 or 62. I think he was 60. And acute bronchone pneumonia in the setting of rhombocytopinia again.

in a person vaccinated 11 days prior. It says on his death record, and it said vaccination. It didn't say vaccine. And it was coded with Y59.0. But the next 10 in Massachusetts that mentioned vaccine or vaccination, especially when it says, you know,

reacted in five minutes and died in the clinic before he left from a heart attack, doesn't say Y59.0. Somebody who two hours later had a heart attack, doesn't say Y-59.0. So these records went to the CDC. The CDC applied the codes for the heart event and all the other stuff. Y-59.0 is missing from the death records. Now, the one, like I said, Solomon Kizzo says, vaccination, not vaccine. And it is coded, which means her reply to Greg Piper is another lie. And in the specific instance we're talking about, it's fraud. And it caused the

death of another. It can be linked to a homicide, which could be manslaughter or depraved heart murder or something like that. These are evil people. By the way, Connecticut, the first one was coded, the next three were not. In Minnesota, it was three were coded, six were not. You're hiding them from the American people. You can go to Vares. You can type in Y59.0 and CDC Wonder. I have this analysis. I've done so many presentations. I can't. can't remember which one it is, but I did it, Steve Kirsch. I did it on Kirsch's VSRF Vaccine Safety Research Foundation podcast, which should be on tonight with, I love these two, Dr. Kat Lindley and Dr. Lynn Finn are going to be on VSRF tonight.

Cool. And they're two of my favorite people. They don't know me. I really don't know them, but I just think. Where do we listen to that? Rumble, vaccine safety research foundation. Also, they have their own website, vacsafety.org, I think. Vax safety or vaccine safety, something like that.

Yeah, so they'll be on tonight. Again, they're really cool people. I like both of them a lot. Are they doing work in the space? What's that? Are they doing work in this space? I mean, I don't know what, like, work they do. I mean, one's a DO, the other is an MD, and I think Lynn Finn does a lot on the research side in terms of keeping up with all the papers and everything.

They're just, they've got it down. They stay in touch with the real papers, not all the fake papers from Pfizer and so forth. I don't know how I got up on a tangent of them, but yeah, you asked me about, oh, I forget, where are we at? Well, we were talking about, I forgot. All right. We've just been chugging along. But anyway, it doesn't matter. So is there.

So hard evidence, real hard evidence is what I bring. You know, the Connecticut Memoranda Series Volume 2, it's 250 pages, but it's really, it's really 125 because the other 125 are snapshots of death records and the Bears records. I kind of put them in a format people can read. the written paragraphs, maybe 170 paragraphs or something, is in the first 125 pages. And that's where I have people's names, death record numbers, VERS record numbers. I have Medicare, Medicaid data, and I show over 100 vaccine deaths in Connecticut alone. That's enough to shut it down worldwide, shut down the whole program that's far more than necessary to shut it down.

And that's official records. It's not an anonymous VERS record where the CDC doesn't even look at it. You know, the CDC is committing the crime of omission every day. By crime of omission, I mean, if you hire a lifeguard, right, they have a legal duty. If the kid is drowning in front of them and they see them and they look at it and they say, you know what, I don't feel like getting wet right now. And the kid dies. That's not negligence. That's murder.

because we could have hired somebody else to sit in that lifeguard chair and they would have saved that kid. That kid is dead because of your purposeful omission of a required legal duty. You know, a police officer, a medic, an EMT, a doctor, they have certain legal duties, even if they're off duty. Because they've had specialized training to save people. if you or I, and I don't know if you were trained as a lifeguard, but let's say we've never been trained as a lifeguard, we see a kid drowning and he's like, before he goes under, he says, throw me the life preserver at your feet. And you look down, you're like, I don't feel like it. It's more entertaining watching you drown. The kid drowns. No charges against you. You don't have a legal duty to act unless you're a close family member.

The cousins don't count unless you live with the cousin. And it's close. family member, right? Or if you've had specialized training, or if you're like an officer or something, and you have that legal duty. Now, the people in the CDC have a legal duty. They'll look at the information that's there. The VAERS records with over 35,000 deaths from the COVID jabs now, they're just saying, we don't know, didn't look at it. That's murder. That's murder. Everybody on high within that organization, Responding at Superior has a responsibility to look at that and to go investigate. And I guess I'll say lastly with regard to investigation,

if any state in the country allows me to look at their immunization information system and correlate it with their vital records database and their Medicare, Medicaid database, I can end the entire vaccine debate in one week. That's all it takes. That's how easy it is. say, oh, John, they've been arguing this for 30 years. You can't be right. Really?

In one week, I can correlate a clause of death, given the amount of information that the governments of every state have and the federal government has on their data servers, you can find out in one week. Not only the COVID vaccine, you'll find out about the vitamin K shot. You'll find out about all the vaccines. You'll find about remdesivir, baracetanib, vancomycin. You can determine the cause of death, building a timeline, doing a forensic analysis on a stratified random sample of individual cases. And where do you find those?

Well, you can easily look at the hole and say, look at healthy people are usually, let's just say 18 to 44. Let's narrow it down to 18 to 44 year olds. So now we've taken half of the population of the data out. Now within the 18 to 44 year olds, show me anomalies by cause. What was anomalous and when? Oh, well, the first two weeks of October and the first two weeks of September in 2021, pulmonary embolisms were high, or embelly were high. Okay, so now I've got pulmonary emboli, first week, first two weeks of October,

first two weeks of September in 18 to 44 year olds. Now I'm looking at 600 records instead of 500,000. records. I can look through a few hundred records. And of those few hundred, I can take a sample of 50, get their medical files of 10,000 pages each, and tell doctors, spend your next two weeks doing searches, build a timeline, tell me how this person died. And they'll be able to do it. That's how to do it. And I have that methodology. I call it top-down investigation. You're going from aggregated data, high-level all-cause, looking for anomalies by gender. by cause of death, by age group, down into the medical files, which is the lowest level of

abstraction of data, but it's the most data per person. So it's top-down investigation, determine causality. Once you've made the causal attribution of, say, thromacitopenia or acute post-thumorogic anemia or B-cell lymphocytic leukemia, when you've made that attribution to, say, the vaccine, then you can quantify. So top-down investigation, bottom-up quantification. I go back up to the data. How many excess B-cell emphystitin of leukemia deaths have their bed? Oh, those are from the vaccine. They all started when the vaccine started, and I've made the causal link.

Now I've got the conclusive proof, and I've quantified it. That's how you do this. It's almost like they don't want to know the truth because... They don't want to know. Yeah, what you're saying makes perfect sense. Like, this shouldn't be something that we're not doing. This is the logic approach. Exactly.

And I have, I don't know how much I can say right now, but the methodology I put together, it's not rocket science, but it's solid. And it's better than anything they have. And it's something they should have been doing for the last 50 years. If they don't do it, then they continue to be enemies of the people. Because by omitting this simple act, and one or two salaries a year could do every, I'm talking about. I'm one guy. I did it as much as I could without having access to the immunization database. And I found hundreds of vaccine deaths. I have their names. I have everything.

I have more evidence in my documents than any, you'll find anywhere in the world. And there's no research paper that can hold up to conclusive evidence that I have. The confidence intervals, P values, you're always going to have an expert from the other side saying, well, let me tell you why there are confounding variables. It's like, no, this guy got the shot. and died. You want to see the videotape in CVS? You know? I mean... Yeah, right. What will it take? What would it take? I have conclusive evidence. So, yeah. And also on that note, before we started recording, we were briefly talking about myocarditis and how it's not a major cause of death post, like a post-acute vaccine, but that we could be setting up people to have, you know, 10, 20 years

knocked off the end of their life and we don't know that. So I'm thinking about not only all the people who have died acutely from the jab, but also all the people who are going to have compromised health spans and lifespans as a result of it as well. Yeah, that's actually huge. And it's just starting to come to fruition. You've got the cancers you know about Kevin McCurnan's work. The say, it's really difficult to find cancer signals. And people don't know why. Like ethical skeptic has shown and Ed Dowd has shown that they are up. But they would be up a lot more if we hadn't killed the susceptible by other means over the last four years. The vaccines killed about a half a million people already. Of those half a million, if they had survived the acute problem that they had

with thrombosis, would they be dying now from cancer? This is probably a good chance, you know, but if you wipe out the susceptible by another means, then your pool of people who would be highly likely to die from the cancers from the vaccines, that pool has been greatly diminished. And by doing so, you've changed the denominator. And the signal is difficult to find. And these are the simple things that just kind of bump in my head that I don't understand why the data people, the statistical scientists, can't just step back and say,

wait a minute. We have a problem. A lot of people are dying from, say, acute renal failure, 211,000 excess in the past four years. This is what we were talking about before. Let me just put that in context. When you look at the ages of them versus the ages of COVID, right, deaths, excess deaths from COVID, say, versus involving acute renal failure. A Q renal failure blows away COVID. It just absolutely blows it away and life years lost because if you die at 20, the average age of death is 75, you lost 55 years for that one person. A COVID death, somebody's dying at 84 with the average age of death of 75. It's like, would they lose a year?

I mean, at most. So you get to assign one year to that guy and 55 years to the kid who died. And when you do all that analysis and multiply by, say, average age of death, right? You take the difference and then you add them all up. It's far, far more than COVID. It's more than the Hong Kong flu, smallpox, polio. The only thing that killed more people, more life years, I should say. The only thing that killed more life years than acute renal failure in the last four years was World War II.

Wow. That's it. In the last 100 years. And the reason I say 100 years is because the numbers from the Spanish flu were all fudged. You know, it was bad. It killed a lot of people. It really was a disease. It wasn't, oh, they took too much aspirin.

Everybody's got an excuse. And whatever dogma they have is whatever they read last. Nobody knows, right? But it was a real. My grandmother, by the way, died in the Spanish flu in 1918. Wow. Are you wondering how that happened? Because I look so young, right?

Yeah. Tell us. What's your story? secret? I'm 60. My father was 46 when I was born. Wow. That's 106 years ago. He would be 107 this year. He was six months old when his mother died from the Spanish flu in 1918. Wow. Yeah. Yeah. My grandmother died in 1918. Not too many people can say that. Now, very, very few living people can say that right now because it was very rare that somebody have a child at 46 and my dad was 46 and I was born.

Was that in the States? Your grandma? Yeah. Yeah. Is your whole family from Massachusetts? Both my parents are from Haverill. I'll call my cousins in Haveral. I'd have to translate some of this for them. Excuse me, fa them. Classic. Yeah. I've only got up to ball. Austin a couple times, but it's an interesting place up there.

I grew up in Connecticut, and I was the Connecticut cousin. He's a Connecticut cousin. Hey, John Paul, come over here. I'm going to smack you. What does that mean? Smack me. You'll find out. Accents are very weird.

I was 20th of 23 grandchildren. Whoa. So most of my cousins are older. But on the others, the Paquettes are second cousins. I don't know. What do they have? 40 or something. They have more than 23. Probably have probably close to 30 of their cousins.

Have you recruited any family members to help you out with your work? No. Are they interested? No. No. I don't think so. You know, I have a lot of scientists and other people offering help. Like, I just don't think like other people think, you know.

I would like to work with some people. but I don't know if you know how it is. I'm not, I'm a hard worker when I, something interests me. Like, I'll go and do like four hours sleep a night for a few days to try to get something done, something I really want to find out. And then I'll be watching TV for a few days doing nothing. My brain is just resting. I went through all of the riflemen, all of Bonanza, all of Raw Hyde, the Texan.

And then I switched over to World War II. I did all of 12 o'clock high. Now I'm going through combat. Wow. Well, you've definitely earned your relaxation time because the amount of work you put into this is insane. It's incredible that you were able to accomplish as much as you have just by yourself with the initiative and the interest to do so. Well, I mean, I get help. You know, have you ever heard of the color college?

I was looking for a college shirt. She said, wear a college shirt. Michelle. I'm like, I don't have any shirts that are that have that color. So now I'm wearing a college shirt for Michelle. She's going to, she's going to yell at me now. I'm making fun of her Boston accent. For everybody else that she meant collared, it has a collar with an arm. Uh-huh. Oh my goodness. Wow. This has been like a wealth of information. I feel like I need to sit and absorb it for a while. Is there anything else that you want to share before, I mean, we're going to share of course where people can find you and let me know whatever links and like products you

want me to share in the show notes I can do that as well but any last thoughts before we sign off for now um yeah I mean we didn't we didn't get into law morality and philosophy um I probably shouldn't go too long on that but I'll just say I did a I did an amicus brief uh in Johnson v. Cotech in the Supreme court September so a lawyer that I knew asked me to do an amicus brief and has to be submitted by a lawyer. I'm not a lawyer, so a lawyer graciously offered his time. He changed one sentence in the whole thing. He kept everything else that I wrote. And in that, I do both micro and macroeconomic analyses of what's called standing doctrine. Standing is why the United States is going down. The access to the courts for any

person has been denied through standing doctrine or even not just regular people. To give me an example, so I have three cases. I had the mask mandate dismissed on standing and I really didn't have any at that point so because they they changed the order for the whole state. But then my, the one against the law school for a contract violation for throwing me out and the one against the governor for the vaccine mandate for all the fraud. Those were also dismissed on standing. They cited Ashcroc versus Zickball and Bell Atlantic versus Twombly, two cases from 2007, 2009. None of that matters except, I'm going to give you the numbers in a minute. Now let's go to the highest level of issue in the land in 2020.

So I'm going from little old me, pro se, three cases. They're citing those cases. When the election issues came up, they're like 60 cases brought for elections in 2020, for election fraud and interference. the biggest case was the two attorneys general from Missouri and Texas brought a case against Pennsylvania, which automatically goes to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the case and said, you don't have standing, and they cited Ashcropper's Zickball, the same case. So, you know, imagine all the cases in between me and these three attorneys generals suing each other.

That's the Supreme Court, right? here are the rates the seminal case for standing doctrine was Luhan versus Defenders of Wildlife 1992 which had 41,000 citations. Wow. All right, that's huge. That's huge. In American jurisprudence,

one of the biggest cases, Roe v. Wade had around the same number. Buck v. Bell, actually was a lot less than that. What am I thinking of? Griswold versus Connecticut. And then there's all kinds of cases. The Chevron doctrine, people hear about all the cases that you've heard of. Marbury v. Madison. Marbury versus Madison.

I mean, all these cases, none of them are more than 40,000. Even the qualified immunity cases around 25,000. You were ready for Bell Atlantic Twombly and Ashcropper's Zickball? What is it? 285,000 in the last 15 years. What? 285,000, 30 times more than any other case and every one of them is used in a motion to dismiss to kick somebody out of court and deny them their day in court.

What are these, what are these cases? I'm curious. It doesn't matter. It's everything. They're saying you don't have standing. What? It's not a plausible claim on its face. What that means is they're denying you your most foundational right of the right to

petition the government for redress of grievances. That's the last line of the First Amendment. It's the most foundational right. you can't uphold your other rights without that. Otherwise, if you don't get justice in the courts, you get it in the streets. So if you have a problem with freedom of speech, that's upheld by your ability to go to court and enforce your freedom of speech, your freedom of religion, assembly, and everything else. The only one after that's the Second Amendment, right, to uphold your rights.

We don't want to talk about the Second Amendment in that context, right? But the right petition to the government for redress of grievances, is okay, that's the most foundational right. On balance with that is the judge's wife who doesn't like the subject matter who says, you should dismiss them. And the judge says, on the subjective whim of any judge, any time, can say Ashcroft versus Iqbal, it's not a plausible claim on his face. You're dismissed on standing. And that's what's happened to America in the last 20 years since John Roberts took over the Supreme Court. Since John Roberts took over in 2005, you have Bell Atlantic Twombly in 2007, Ashcroft-Iq-Ball in 2009, and you have 285,000 citations since then, and there goes the court system.

It's not accessible to the people. The people have lost the greatest branch they have access to. You should be able to file a case for $250 or $400 anytime you want to federal court, as long as it's not frivolous. It went from frivolous being a standard to plausible claim on its face, which puts the power of any judge over. any case and any person. So my case was dismissed against the law school because the judge didn't like vaccines. It was visible. It was visible on her face and in the tone of her voice. You can listen to.

She was very nice and genial to the person before me. When she heard vaccines, she spoke down to, I then had a lawyer at that time. But since then, for the three-judge panel in Massachusetts Court of Appeals, I did that one myself. And I'm pretty sure I won't. because they were reasonable. They adjudicated based on law, not on, oh, I don't like this case, so I'm going to dismiss it. And I'll probably have to go back to her and have her hear the case, and she's going to be against me the entire time. Oh, you can't admit that evidence. Oh, you can't admit that of evidence.

Imagine trying to win a case when the judge is just saying you can't do this and you can't do that. So America is on a bad path of procedural issues where it used to be that the same. substance of a case was 80% of the case. And now the procedure, civil procedure, dismissals, you know, motion to dismiss, opposition memorandum, all this stuff about standing, mootness, ripeness, latches, qualified immunity, sovereign immunity, all these dismissal doctrines are now 80% of your case because you don't even get to discovery now. It's all, everything's on its head. So I guess that, I'll end with that. I'll end with that. I'll, I've got a few articles and stuff out there.

Like I said, at the intersection of law and economics, you have the downfall of the United States due to the loss of the branch of government that should be most accessible to them. And it's just based off of subjectivity or is there some underlying, like, rationale for this to be the case? Like, who did you say was behind this in 2005? So John Roberts took over the court. What if you do? I don't know if he did this on purpose.

If you want to get into psychology, what happens when you create a rule, the rules of civil procedure. So the rules of civil procedure were enabled by the Rules Enabling Act that came out of Congress. So Congress said, hey, judiciary, you can make up the rules of your courts. So they made up the rules, the federal rules of civil procedure and the federal rules of criminal procedure. And within these federal rules of civil procedure, you have things like 12B1, which is subject matter jurisdiction. So somebody will submit a motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter where the court doesn't have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. Personal jurisdiction. Well, that guy lives in Turkey and he's never been to the United States.

So I can't bring them in front of my court. So your case is dismissed because I have no personal jurisdiction. I, the judge, I have no personal jurisdiction over that guy in Turkey that you're trying to sue in a Massachusetts court. So personal jurisdiction, you're out. That's 12B2. 12B3 is venue where it happened. 12B6 is fit. This is the big one.

Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. They look at it like failure to stay a claim upon which relief. Oh, I can't. So even if I. I go through the whole process of a case and listen to it, I can't, as a judge, provide any relief. So why hear the case? Yeah, it seems very vague. It is vague.

It's like they use it too much, 12B6. And that's where they, 12B1 and 12B6, those are kind of combined into that standing doctrine that I told you about. Yeah. But more importantly, what happened is when these cases came out, the lawyers took phrases from the cases. this is case law. The phrase that they took was plausible on its face. That's very subjective, whether or not something is plausible on its face, right? Yeah. And so the judges started dismissing cases based on that, especially any case against the government entity, whether it's the CDC, your town, your planning board, your health board of health in your city, whatever. Don't go up against government.

The judge's paycheck comes from a guy. It's signed by a guy in the government, so they're less inclined to go against the government. So psychologically, the Pareto-efficient behavior that would flow from the written words of plausible on its face, the lawyers found out the judges would easily dismiss it. So more lawyers used it, the more the lawyers use it, the more the judges dismissed it. And you have a 15-year cascade of using standing doctrine, and nobody's challenged. it in the manner in which I think it should be challenged, which is on balance. You do a balance of harms analysis. The judge is supposed to do that because this is an equitable decision, not a decision at law, meaning it goes beyond the law for the judge to determine, like,

should it be dismissed? It's really equitable. He's doing it in fairness. Otherwise, it would be a fact that should be determined by a jury, not a judge. Right. Because I was thinking, like, for, like, if you made the claim acute renal failure is you know has killed 211,000 people that could be like waved off as oh this isn't plausible but you have the data to back it up but when at what point can you provide that here's the problem with that i don't know anybody who died from acute renal failure so it's not an injury in fact to me you i can't sue on behalf of the greater greater amount of people who have been injured right you have to sue for a personalized injury in fact it has to be actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.

And I missed one. Actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. I'll remember it later. So basically you would need, if you were a lawyer, let's say, you would need one of the, like one or more of the families to come to you and be like, we want to be heard on this. That's right. Yeah.

And that's been a problem, you know, all across the United States, especially when it comes to death. When my son died, I had to decide whether or not I sue Yamaha. And when that third year came around and I was, you know, when the date passed, I was relieved. I didn't, I don't want to have anything to do with it. Screw them. And I'm probably not going to win anyway. I just wanted to raise awareness.

They're marketing their little Yamaha rocket motorcycles to all these young kids who die. And a lot of them do die. And they don't care because they're making money off the motorcycles. But if I raise the awareness, maybe I'd save some kids. I was just too damn depressed. And so with these COVID shots, people have lost somebody. Some are fighters. They want to fight from day one.

Other people, just leave me alone. You know, I lost my kid. You know, I mean, Dan Hartman up in Canada, lost his son, Sean. Ernesto Ramirez lost his son, Ernesto Jr. Yeah, the Trista Martin, Auburn, and then Matt, Maddie's in a wheelchair. The kids, I told you, Cassidy was seven years old in Massachusetts. I didn't tell you, Ian Shoemaker was 11 years old in Massachusetts, got his booster in November of 22, I think, or maybe it was 23. Now I can't remember the years.

anyway, he died on December 3rd, and they donated his heart. When they pulled it out of his chest, they couldn't use it because it was full of clots. Wow. And it doesn't say anything about a vaccine on his death record. In fact, I think it says idiopathic, something or other, meaning we don't know where it came from. They know damn well what's going on, a lot of them. They just lie in everybody. I got so many dead kids, I have records up, tons of adults.

And then you go to the other end. I got a 98-year-old woman in Vermont. I correlated her to a, it's only, it's only one 98-year-old who died on the same day, female, 98-year-old, Vermont. I got her Bears record. What does it say? Woke up the next morning from the vaccine with 145 beat per minute tachycardiac heart rate. Oh, no. And she died of a heart attack in two days.

So they inject her, her heart rate goes to 145 beats per minute at 98 years old, and she's dead in two days. No mention of the vaccine on her death record. They killed so many people, probably half a million people from the vaccine, half a million people from hospital homicides. A million Americans were murdered by recommendations from the NIAID under Fauci and everybody says his name. There's plenty of other names to go around. And he just got pardoned back to 2014, I saw, which was apparently when the funds were dispersed to Wuhan to do the gain of function research. Yeah. I mean, they're unrepentant murderers. They don't care. He doesn't. He knows. He knows what he did. So I'll let you end it now. I know it's been a while. No, it's been, we could keep going. Maybe we should do it again. I mean, I'm sure you're going to keep working on stuff. So please keep me in the loop. And if you ever want to come back on and share again, I would love that. I think your work is just so valuable. I'll provide links to where people can find you on X and your books and.

any other resources you think are helpful. I'd be happy to include those as well. And just want to thank you so much for your time. You're so generous with your time. We had nice chats before this as well. And I'm really, really just super supportive of your work. Please let me know if there's any way I can help or if you need any connections that I may know, I would be happy to facilitate those as well. Much appreciated, Alexis, really. Thanks for having me. And you probably have a younger crowd than I normally talk to. So hi to all the young people. And the last thing, I'm a boomer. We love our boomers.

We love our awake boomers. So is Uncle Jack. I'm the youngest boomer. We love it. Well, that's great. I know a lot of boomers checked out a while ago, but I love to see a good awake and lively boomer. It was a nice chat.

I really appreciate it. Thank you, Alexis. Yeah, thank you so much. Probably going to post this later today. on Spotify, so it'll be up and I'll share the links with you. And yeah, thank you so much. And we'll talk again soon. Very good.

All right. Bye. Bye-bye.