Original subtitles

Researchers found that vaccinated children had 4 .29 times the rate of

.03 times the rate of atopic disease, 5 .96 times the rate of autoimmune

disease, and 5 .53 times the rate of neurodevelopmental disorders.

A number of different diagnoses, including diabetes and ADHD and a number

them, in the unvaccinated group, they were zero.

In other words, all these chronic diseases that we're accepting...

The reality is maybe 99 % of them don't have to exist in children.

That's not the way God made us.

They looked at over 47 ,000 Medicaid claims between 1999 and 2011.

Those who were vaccinated versus unvaccinated.

I'd say an observation would be like 2 .81.

2 .81 to 1. So that would be 181 % increase.

Epilepsy seizures, 252%. Learning disorders.

581%. If you look at all these different diagnoses, they're all higher. For

example, I'll just give you one example.

Learning disorders in the full term is 581%. In the preterm, the ones who are

vaccinated, 884 % increase. Every single vaccine has an excipient that is

a human toxin. Human toxin.

Broadcasting live from the frozen tundra, sub -zero temperatures in the

Minneapolis -St. Paul -Twin Cities metropolitan hellscape, which is on

family businesses being completely crushed, looting and robbing and

assaulting and raping as one group of people get psyoped into going out on the

streets to face off against a federal government who hates them and wants them

dead in order to take up for and defend another group of people that hates them

and wants them dead.

So how am I staying warm? Well, you won't catch me in the streets with the

federal informant Jake Lang trying to provoke the federal government into

initiating martial law and ushering in the complete and total lockdown that is

the super surveillance state.

You'll catch me in and out of frozen hockey arenas. I'm the arena announcer.

And, of course, MLK Day, it's not a holiday that we would normally get

excited about around here at the Stu Peters Network. It wouldn't keep us out

the studio. We wouldn't give everybody the day off.

It is an observed holiday, I guess. And so as such, the hockey coaches get

really excited. They schedule a tournament. So there's me keeping the

live, making the announcements, got the music locked in and on point.

You won't catch me in a Miami nightclub.

This is a season of life that I wouldn't change for anything in the world. Being

a father with real responsibilities, it's amazing.

Nursing my young daughter back to health, she's had this fever that was

102, 103.

Staying away from Western medicine, though, you won't catch us in the

department. And I know people that work in the emergency departments, and

they're telling me, look, this is going around. I mean, influenza, COVID -19

with these PCR tests that are, you know, positive, have people freaking out.

But there's a couple things going around.

There's a stomach bug going around. I've heard that there's a bunch of kids my

son's age that are, you know, puking and it's just disgusting it's gross nobody

likes that puking vomiting is like the most violent thing that you could put

your body through i don't know why we're talking about this but but people

largely from my sources on the inside at mayo clinic in the emergency department

are saying yeah largely people just aren't coming in they don't trust

medicine anymore they don't want big pharma solutions which is great because

we're pushing other solutions here we're bringing our people

to real remedy, to real solutions so that they can keep themselves healthy

stay strong, reverse the aging process, and avoid all of the deadly toxic

poisons that these psychopaths make billions of dollars injecting into our

children.

And for the first time ever, actually, this would be a great time to talk about

this. For the first time ever, believe it or not, this is unprecedented.

There is a doctor who has scientifically analyzed and put together a

comprehensive study and a report, I guess, of his findings, you could say,

studying each and every one of the so -called vaccines that you will find on

CDC's recommended childhood schedule.

This has never been done before.

And so we had this doctor come into the studio. We sat down. We ended up making

a docuseries out of it called Vaccination, which has premiered early

supporters. You base chabs at StuPeters .tv.

and that's one of the perks, obviously, of being a supporter of the network is

you get early access to series, documentaries, the 24 -7 live chat that

involved with all the time, the off -the -record segments, all kinds of

different giveaways.

But you have seen vaccination if you are a part of Stew Crew, if you're one of

our supporters, for $9 a month. If you haven't yet done that and you would like

to, do you want to support our network?

StewPeters .tv is a place that you can do that, $9 a month, or it's just $90.

you want to pay the whole year, you actually get two months free.

But we have decided that today we're going to release that to everybody in

audience, to everybody within our reach.

So on Rumble, on X, vaccination, that is premiering today, right now.

We want you to see that.

We want you to know what these doctors, whether knowingly or because of willful

ignorance or because they really love money and they're bonused by big pharma,

And they're bonused based on the percentage of their patients that are

vaccinated per the CDC childhood recommended schedule. It should not be

That's criminal.

It isn't about what the children need. It isn't about what my kids need to keep

them safe or healthy.

In fact, it's what keeps kids coming back as lifelong subscribers to the

Western Medicine Big Pharma Industrial Poison Mill that has them.

taking pills and getting injected that keeps them sick so that they can then

introduce other pills and other injections and other so -called

big pharma, other prescriptions to either have them addicted to opiates and

painkillers or that gives them a whole new set of adverse events and unwanted

side effects.

Well, we got a pill for that. Oh, you've developed that?

Weird. It's a listed side effect on these other 10 medications that you're

taking. So let's give you another 13 of them.

So anyway, vaccination is airing right now.

Getting out of the cold, though, you will find me starting on February 15th,

February 15th to the 20th, you know where I'll be?

With you in Puerto Vallarta, because I know you're going to go.

You got to go to Anarchapulco this year.

This is where serious people get together. This is where serious

done.

We're talking about people who are bringing technology like, well, this is

example here.

And this is where I was introduced last year to the Tesla machine.

So there's this underground club that I'm a part of. And man, since I became a

member just a couple of weeks ago and I received the Tesla machine and I have

access to it.

First of all, my sister came to town with a debilitating migraine to the

where she couldn't even fall asleep. 20 minutes on a Tesla, no more headache.

She was able to go to bed, get really good rest. She was able to fall asleep.

She works here at the network and she came in for another set of interviews

we did in some business meetings.

But then.

I was doing Bulgarian split squats. I like to work out.

And I was doing Bulgarian split squats, and I did something weird. Didn't even

really notice it right away, but I tweaked my hip flexor.

And over the last few days, it's just been really getting incessantly more and

more painful, and it's been really aggravating.

And it's stiff, especially with the cold weather.

This morning, I thought, well, what am I doing? Why am I not putting the Tesla

machine on this thing? I did it for 15 minutes. The pain is completely gone.

not joking. Like, this is...

When they did my shoulder last year at Jeff Berwick's villa in Acapulco,

this is a shoulder injury that I've been living with since I was in my early

20s. And it is painful. It's like excruciating at times, especially, I

really restricts the mobility, but then especially like trying to lift. I just

enjoy lifting. I like working out and wasn't able to do it, not effectively

anyways. Well, now, since the Tesla machine was originally put on me in

last year about this time,

Completely gone. It's never returned.

And we've told some other stories. This one is really wild. One of the members

of this underground Tesla club had these things floating around in his eyes for

30 years, eye floaters, for 30 years.

And the doctors told him, well, it's just debris.

There's really nothing that we can do about it. So he tried five sessions with

the Tesla machine, plasma technology, which all this is, by the way, based on

Nikola Tesla's work that's been hidden by the establishment. It was stolen by

the... By Trump's uncle and the CIA.

He can't even make it up.

He didn't even put this machine near his eyes, just on his chest.

And one morning he woke up and after 30 years of having these floaters, they

were gone. 30 years of floaters vanished.

This is the type of result that you get from technology that Big Pharma does not

want you knowing about.

And I found out about the Tesla Club through the dollar vigilante, Jeff

at his villa in Acapulco, Mexico. But this is a private membership that you

this is a club that you do want to be a part of.

And it's an association where you can actually get your own machine. You can

check it out at tzla .club. Again, that's tesla .club, tzla .club. All

So I think we got our housekeeping stuff taken care of. I will see you at

Anarchapulco in Puerto Vallarta, February 15th at the 20th. I'm speaking

And these are, by the way, not rah -rah, throw out T -shirts, you know, and buy

a few pieces of merch from my table and the country will be saved.

It's not one of those type of events.

It's not an event where we play loud music and we all stand on the wall like

socially awkward retards and stare at each other. No, no, no. This is about

-level meetings.

This is about remedy and solution.

There are very simple solutions.

not just to big pharma, not just to Western medicine like the Tesla machine

the underground membership that you can be a part of at tzla .club, but

everything. We're talking about political remedies and solutions. We're

about remedy and solution for the occupation that we live under and this

compromised government where everybody's like, it just seems so black pilling

and so dark. I just don't feel like that there's any way that we could ever get

out of this.

Well, I have news for you. If you are at Anarchapulco, you will hear Remedy and

Solutions. Again, that is February 15th to the 20th.

And if it stays cold like this, which it's supposed to, I guess next week I'm

going to be at my dad's house. He lives in northern Wisconsin, and it's supposed

to be a high of negative 11 degrees, 27 degrees below zero overnight.

And what are we going to do?

We're Peter's boys. We're going to do some ice fishing.

This is a season of life I just wouldn't trade for anything in the world. Not to

ride in the streets with the federal informant Jake Lang, not to be in

nightclubs in Miami. I am right where I want to be.

Responsibility is like a real human being, raising children, raising young

So Eli is playing his hockey tournament today. They have won their first sets of

games, and they will be in the championship later on. I'll let you know

live chat over on Locals how they do.

Join us there. If you're not a part of this family, you've got to be a part of

the family.

We need the support, number one.

To stay on the air, to continue putting together docuseries like Vaccination,

which you're all about to see, do not move.

If you want to know what's in these shots, the shots that the CDC says, in

for your child to participate and be a part of polite society, to be able to

enroll in the club, to play in these sporting events, to go to school, public

private, you have to have these shots.

You want to know what's in them?

Do you want to know what's in them? Vaccination.

Our people have seen this because they are StuCrew supporters.

Please, we need your help.

StuPeters .tv, $9 a month.

And if you're shopping around, if you're going on like Amazon or you're going to

the big box stores to buy things, first please check SPMstore .com. We have a

lot of loyal advertisers that despite many of our advertisers saying we can't

with this guy anymore because, you know, this guy is touching the third rail.

He's talking about things that polite society.

That we were just talking about says that you're not allowed to talk about

without being completely canceled and defunded. And they've tried that with

They've tried to hit pieces.

They brought in sponsors that had millions of dollars dangled out like

We were actually doing business with a lot of these sponsors.

And when they tried to, you know, kind of nudge me at first, it was a nudge.

Hey, you know, we noticed that you're talking about some of these things. It

right after I sat down with the survivors of the USS Liberty, actually,

these conversations kind of started.

And it was, you know, yeah, I don't really think that that's something that

really want to be talking about too much. And then it kind of graduated

hey, listen, you know, we don't really necessarily want our brand or our

or our name attached to this thing that could be perceived as anti -Semitic.

So we're just going to ask that you kind of tone it back, tone it down, walk it

back, just take it easy a little bit on that narrative.

The more I kept asking questions and talking about this, the more research

I did, the more imminent I viewed the situation as being to our country,

detrimentally, of course, and all of the ills in our society and all of the

plights of the American people and all of the bureaucratic, kind of

hovering, powerful, totalitarian, dystopian.

You know, this feeling of imminent doom that a lot of people have. I just don't

have that.

I don't have that because of remedies and solutions.

So you can find the base advertisers that have nuts that said, yeah, we're

to stick around.

You can find them, a lot of them, at SPMstore .com. So before you go buy it

anywhere else, you can support this network by supporting our sponsors at

SPMstore .com.

and by going to StuPeters .tv and signing up for $9 a month. Honestly,

collectively, if we could get everybody in the rumble, if we could get everybody

on X, if we could just get everybody to, you know, agree, hey, you know what, I

think that the content, I think that the work that that network is doing is

worth $9 a month.

StuPeters .tv, and we would really appreciate it. God bless you for doing

We are just so tremendously thankful for the supporters that have been here. We

could not be here without you, quite literally.

We could not do it without you. All glory to God Almighty. We're still here,

thanks in part, of course, to you at StuPeters .tv who have contributed $9 a

month, $90 a year, however you decided to sign up.

So there's that. Okay, Anarchapulco, February 15th through the 20th. It's in

Puerto Vallarta.

Tickets are relatively inexpensive and cheap.

There are details on the website for Anarchapulco about where you can stay. I

believe that there's some recommendations on there. The speakers

I'm looking forward to seeing Max Egan again. Good friend of mine. Can't wait

see Jeff Berwick.

I know that the Ikes will be in town.

Always good hanging out with Gareth, especially though his wife Gemma.

Gareth can stay home if he wants to. Just send Gemma. That's fine.

No, I'm just kidding, of course. But, yeah, just great people.

Puerto Vallarta, February 15th through the 20th.

Vaccination coming up right now for everybody. We've decided that you all

to see this. Sorry, I'm wearing the hat because, you know, I've been in these

hockey arenas. My hair is all left up.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry. You'll get what you deserve tomorrow. I tell you what, I'll put on

the three -piece suit for you. I'll keep the tie. I don't think that you guys

actually really care, but I feel like you earned that, that you deserve that

respect at least.

So I try to throw on a tie. I try to look nice and put together here, but

are you going to do?

Seven degrees below zero, I'm in frozen hockey arenas. I'm not doing my hair.

I'm not brushing my hair.

Supporting my team, supporting my sons.

My daughter even plays hockey.

So it's just great.

Sleepovers and, you know, I think right now they're watching film on the other

team in the other room.

They're in and out of a studio.

They're in and out of the arena. It's an all -day, you know, friendship, bond.

lifelong kind of relationship -establishing time period in their

just really indescribable. For you dads, you know that. If you've raised sons,

watching them develop these friendships and relationships and being present and

being a father, we need more of that.

We need more people being present in their sons' lives and daughters as well,

equally important.

And I don't intentionally leave Reagan out. I don't know why I do that

sometimes. I just kind of skip over that. She is the apple of my eye.

I mean, she's just a ray of sunshine.

I love you, Reagan. So anyway, vaccination coming up right now.

Puerto Vallarta, Anarchapulco, February 15th through the 20th. And make sure

that you shop SPNstore .com, support us at StuPeters .tv, and get yourself to be

a part of the membership club, the underground club that you do want to be

part of.

Go to tzla .club. Again, tzla .club. All right, without further ado, tripping

over my words here.

How can you be an arena announcer when you're tripping over your words? Maybe

it's just because I've said too many words today. A lot of penalties in the

game.

So it kept me busy there.

Anyway, minor penalty assessed today.

I'm really good.

It's a whole show when I do this. All right, vaccination starts right now.

All right, guys, so obviously it's a big club and we're not in it.

I have no desire to be in that club.

I am a member of a club, though, an underground club, a private club, the

Club. And I'm going to tell you actually something that happened to a Tesla Club

member's sister.

She was diagnosed with Paget disease, cancerous cells in her breast. She had

lumps, pain, the whole nightmare.

Well, her brother is a member of my underground plasma technology group, and

convinced her to try this machine. Two sessions, 20 minutes each over two days.

On the third day she wakes up, all the lumps are gone. No BS. Pain completely

vanished. She goes back into the doctor. He looks at her. He examines her. And

he says, you know, I've never seen anything like this before.

And the lab results came back. They found nothing.

This is the type of technology that has been hidden since Tesla died. It was

stolen by Donald Trump's uncle. It's been hidden by the CIA.

Jeff Berwick introduced me to the Tesla Club. And if you're dealing with any

health issues, you need to know that this exists.

So go to Paisley Club, check it out for yourself, pzla .club. Again, pzla .club.

We will be right back.

So I started my life in Massachusetts, in suburban Massachusetts, south of

Boston, where I grew up.

And I went to college at University of Massachusetts in Amherst.

And I majored in nutritional biochemistry with a minor in chemistry.

And then I applied to medical school, got into the University of Massachusetts

Medical School.

And I was there, obviously, for four years. And then I did an internship in

general surgery at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City.

And then I went to Tufts University for an internship in internal medicine.

And then I did a residency in emergency medicine at Boston University.

It was an academic emergency medicine program, and since then I've been

practicing emergency medicine.

I've had various positions and leadership along the way, as well as

residency, I obtained a master's in public health from Johns Hopkins

I have a master's in health care administration from Rosalind Franklin

University, and I have a fellowship in occupational environmental medicine

from... University of Cincinnati.

In addition to emergency medicine, I've been doing a little occupational

medicine on the side. I did some geriatric medicine. I did outpatient

I had an outpatient surgery practice at one point.

I did some medical legal work. I love to learn and learn new things.

And all while practicing emergency medicine, I'm just getting, you know,

learning more and more and more.

Happens to be over the past few months, I've taken a deep dive into the vaccine.

The reality is that most doctors don't know the data on the vaccine.

I've taken out my skills that I've learned from my career and applied it to

looking into PubMed, into the database, and looked at all the studies of

vaccinated versus unvaccinated, and really the results are shocking. For

example, the study that was just brought out yesterday in the Senate hearings

with Aaron Seary, who's an attorney who basically brought this paper out,

The Henry Ford Medical Center in Detroit, Michigan, they had a study

that they researched and they wrote up. They never published it, though. This

research study showed it was really the largest in the history of the United

States of vaccinated versus unvaccinated in their medical center using the

electronic medical record of their institution.

And they found huge amounts of, like, Anywhere from 300 % to 600 % increase of

neurobehavioral problems, neurodevelopmental problems,

diabetes, ADHD, a lot of these chronic problems, they're universally all

higher in the vaccinated group versus unvaccinated.

The studies designed to examine the long -term effects of a cumulative number of

vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been

That's the Institute of Medicine's finding.

after reviewing the entire body of scientific literature.

Meaning the IOM could not find studies comparing, as you would do to study the

safety of a product, an exposed group, meaning kids that got vaccines, the

childhood schedule, with unvaccinated children, kids who got no vaccine, which

is what you would need to assess the safety of the schedule.

Lacking evidence to support safety, the best the IOM can conclude was, quote,

there is no evidence that the schedule is not safe.

This, of course, also means the IOM cannot find evidence to conclude that

schedule is safe.

Instead, what these researchers found was that vaccinated children had 4

.29 times the rate of asthma, 3 .03 times the rate of atopic disease, 5 .96

times the rate of autoimmune disease, and 5 .53 times the rate of

neurodevelopmental disorders.

which included 3 .28 times the rate of developmental delay and 4 .47 times the

rate of speech disorder.

All of these findings were statistically significant.

There was also other conditions for which there were numerous cases in the

vaccinated group, but zero in the unvaccinated group, hence the rate

calculated, including brain disease, intellectual disabilities, and tics.

A number of different diagnoses, including diabetes and ADHD and a number

them, that in the unvaccinated group, there was zero.

In other words, all these chronic diseases that we're accepting to be part

life, the reality is probably greater than maybe 99 % of them don't have to

exist in children.

And then, of course, they have chronic disease in children that follows them

into adulthood.

But all these chronic diseases that exist, that's not the way God made us.

As a doctor, I have had patients who either refused or were hesitant to

a vaccine, especially, let's say, a tetanus shot. My reaction to those

who were hesitant or refused the vaccine is I just simply offered it.

I personally did not, I didn't get upset at them. There were nurses I worked

with and there were other residents or other attendings that would make very

cynical comments, very, very dark negative comments and or pressure the

And I was just not one of those people that did that. I just felt like, you

know, they have a right to refuse it. There's like 20 cases of tetanus per

in the United States, and nobody dies of tetanus anymore.

We have supportive care.

We have intubation.

We have antibiotics.

And so nobody dies of tetanus. So when people come to the ER and they don't

to take the tetanus shot.

I've always been okay with not taking it. But you have to understand it a

bit. If you just believe in this popular narrative, like I hate to say it,

although many doctors do, that it's deadly, it's going to cause them to die,

these fear tactics, they just believe it. They don't actually look at the

It's what they're being told by these governing bodies.

or what they were taught verbally by their superior during training, then

have this belief, like a religion, that you have to take it.

But all you need to do is just open your eyes, become more open

to looking at the data yourself.

I read not very long ago an article that it said until the wonderful people like

us, introduced vaccinations to Africa,

the African children basically were autism -free.

They never heard of autism, never had a case. Are you familiar with that? Have

you ever heard that before?

I wonder if the CDC has conducted or facilitated a study comparing

vaccinated children with unvaccinated children yet. Have you done that? Most

recently in 2011.

And, you know, their conclusion, again,

It was not just looking at the work that was done at CDC, but with a total body

of evidence. It was suggesting that vaccines and their components did not

increase the risk for autism. My time is very limited here. So clearly,

definitely, unequivocally, you have studied vaccinated versus unvaccinated.

We have not studied vaccinated versus unvaccinated.

Never mind. Stop there. That was the meaning of my question. You wasted two

minutes of my time. The doctors are working as commissioned salespeople

for the pharmaceutical companies. But, again, if the administrators, they're

also colluding and or directing it, actually. Same thing with the hospital

system. And many of the practice is known by big hospital systems.

So they're being told, the doctors are being told.

that they need to do this, they need to be giving up the vaccine.

Some of these pediatricians can make up to a million dollars a year from the

incentives that are given for vaccinating.

In 1983, when I started medical school, I was taught vaccines were safe and they

were effective and give them.

But I was not taught about any of the science around their safety or any of

studies around how safety were done.

And it wasn't until 1998.

Then a mother came up to me and said, Dr. Larry, did you know that there's

mercury in vaccines?

And I said, no, I did not.

And as a medical student, I was trained to critically think.

If you see an observation, you go after it and try and figure out if there's a

question to ask.

So instead of just ignoring it, I looked further into the vaccine ingredients,

and I found that there were a number of vaccine ingredients that in animal

studies were proven to be very dangerous to animals.

And I didn't understand why these same ingredients were actually in vaccines.

I was starting to hear stories from parents, not dozens, not hundreds, but

thousands of stories from parents who took a very healthy child into their

doctor's office and then found that their child lost much of their health,

whether it was their speech.

whether it was seizures, whether it was death, whether it was asthma, allergies,

eczema, whether it was autism, whether it was learning disabilities, whether it

was inflammatory bowel disease, autoimmune diseases.

And every one of those parents were told it had nothing to do with the vaccine.

Every single one.

And this continues today.

A lot of what I'm saying, if the doctors see it, they're going to get very

angry. because it's hyperbole right now.

And that's part of why, if we show the data, we look at the data, then

anybody, whether a scientist or a doctor, they can't argue with it

And that's what's missing.

The common theme really is groupthink.

So there's this common narrative that becomes prevalent in the population of

doctors, whatever specialty it is, that this is the way it's done, and they all

believe it. Why should they go in and verify, validate what they're being

in the literature?

You know, the vast majority of doctors won't do that.

Even when you're in medical school and you're being taught in the classroom,

you're being taught by MDs or PhDs, you know, and you learn it, and it's in the

textbook, and you memorize it, and you learn it.

That's how it works.

You know, the only way you're going to go and look at the literature is if

you're a researcher.

Doctors can be researchers or PhDs or MD -PhDs. This is thimerosal,

which is labeled very toxic.

It has cumulative effects. It can cause damage to the kidneys, to the

respiratory system, skin, to the nervous system.

It specifically warns on here that it can cause reproductive and developmental

toxicity, meaning that it can cause things like autism and other

neurodevelopmental disorders.

This is immensely toxic stuff.

And this is what's in the vaccine.

It's important to realize we're talking about a whole range of products.

Vaccines are a big one because, of course, you're directly injecting it.

For example, this is tetanus vaccine.

This one expires. It's a little outdated now. In 2007, here's the thimerosal.

One to 10 ,000 is a preservative.

Perhaps the biggest one in the U .S., at least for exposure to mercury, is the

influenza vaccine.

Influenza vaccine is now recommended for all pregnant women, all infants, all

children on a yearly basis. You have last year's influenza?

Understand that thimerosal is not added at the end. It's not like, well, that

factory next year can make thimerosal free.

Thimerosal, you either have to have a thimerosal -free factory or you have to

not have one. They add thimerosal at each step because the factory is not

and not sterile. So you either have to have an expensive sterile factory where

you don't need thimerosal or you have to have one that produces thimerosal. It's

going to need thimerosal or something the whole time. It needs to be stopped.

This is the influenza vaccine from Adventist Pasteur, their flu zone.

Thimerosal, 25 microns of mercury per dose.

I'd like to point out that a lot of people didn't know, and I'm one of them.

I've given 2 ,000 Rogam shots.

I've been in vaccines for 35 years. I didn't know that Rogam had thimerosal in

it. So I think a lot of the doctors were unaware.

They were unaware that even the word thimerosal meant mercury.

In the 1990s, the mercury thimerosal ostensibly was taken out of the

but it really wasn't. What they did, they took out the last step, the higher

amount. In 1999, it was, at that point in time, it was thought by everyone that

they took out the thimerosal, but they didn't. It was a grassroots effort by

parents. complaining to their congressman that they know their kid got

from the vaccine.

When I was at Hopkins, this was taught to me that it was the only legislation

health care that came from grassroots non -scientific information. So

it was just from the parents complaining to their congressman. In a pregnant

mother, the most rich, the organ that has the highest amount of lipid or fat

the fetal brain.

So it'll go right through the placenta. It'll go into her blood, go right

through the blood brain. There's really not much of a blood brain barrier in the

fetus anyway.

It wants to go into fat, basically.

So we'll get into the fat of the developing brain of the fetus. The fetus

much more susceptible to the effects of an organic mercury, a fat -soluble

mercury, which is, again, ethylmercury or methylmercury.

And it's a developing brain. It goes right into the brain. It has a half

of like over 30 years.

As a doctor, there's only so much you can learn. There's only so much they

And the problem is that they're like everyone else.

They're susceptible to this masticosis, this brainwashing, this groupthink.

And that's how they're able to get all these pediatricians to give out these

vaccines that are harming people.

So what I have with me is the...

printout from the Centers for Disease Control.

And I know you can't see it from there, but every vaccine that is made with cell

lines from aborted babies is highlighted in yellow.

So the adenovirus vaccine, the DTaP IPV -Hib called the

Pentacel vaccine, the hepatitis A, the Havrix, the hepatitis A, Bacta, the

hepatitis A, hepatitis B called Twinrix, the MMR2, The MMRV, which

also includes the varicella virus, the rabies virus, the varicella

-varivax vaccine, and the zosters all are made with cell lines from

aborted babies. If your physicians don't know what is in the vaccine and what

the vaccine -related injuries are, I know about mercurian vaccines, aluminum

vaccines, polysorbate adian vaccines, formaldehyde vaccines.

pig and kidney cells in vaccines, okay? And so because I know that, that's part

of the informed consent discussion. What about allowing people to exercise their

religious exemption or a medical exemption so that they can avoid being

to receive vaccines that could potentially be devastating or fatal?

If I were in a social setting at the golf course or, you know, any social

setting, with a group of doctors, and I asked them if injecting metals into a

person, especially a child, is harmful, they would universally say, yeah, it's

harmful, especially if it's a toxic metal.

Aluminum is toxic to all living organisms.

They may know that, and they may agree to that, but then the question is, are

they aware that aluminum is in the vaccine?

Many of them don't even know that. After looking at the literature myself and

understanding it and looking at the mechanisms and understanding how the

of aluminum, how much aluminum is in the vaccine, in all the outcome studies,

there's no question that the aluminum is harmful.

Any justification is not valid.

Do you believe that ADHD is caused by vaccines?

Yes. I know for a fact that...

the vaccines increase the risk dramatically of ADHD.

Is it the only cause?

I can't say it's the only cause. Is it likely it's the only cause? It's very

likely, actually. It's very likely it could be the only cause. But the

is, you know, do the vaccines cause ADHD?

Absolutely. The literature is unequivocal. It's probably the ones that

aluminum adjuvant.

The majority of the ones in the vaccine schedule have aluminum adjuvant in them.

Aluminum is a neurotoxin, and ADHD is a neurologic problem.

And 30, 40, 50 years ago, we didn't have this diagnosis.

So there's definitely biologic plausibility that aluminum could be

And what's more important and more really, this really is the essence of

point here is that the outcome data shows it. A lot of these studies look at

odds ratios.

What that means is the odds of something, like say 4 to 1.

So the odds ratio is 4, like a number of studies show roughly about 3 or 4.

Some higher, actually. So if it's a 4, that means that the odds of getting

ADHD in the vaccinated is 4 to 1 compared to the unvaccinated.

So you look at these odds ratios, some of them are greater than 10.

In other words, a 10 to 1 ratio of getting a neurodevelopmental problem.

The common theme that I've been learning in my studies over the past, say,

5 years, I've come to conclude.

is that anything that God has given us is always the best. There's nothing that

man can intervene and supplant what God gave us that's better. Nothing.

Look at medicines versus natural medicine.

Everybody knows at the turn of the century, the Rockefellers that started

whole pharmaceutical industry, that took control of the AMA, the medical school

curriculums, they just basically...

through their media, made it quackery to practice naturopathic medicine, which

was keeping people healthy.

That's still the case.

Yeah, right. Still the case till today.

The science is clear.

These vaccines will protect you and those you love from this dangerous and

deadly disease.

They could save your life.

It's really important to know that the vaccines have all been through and met

the necessary safety and quality standards.

What was that, Elton?

That was me acting.

Did you say...

Free fries when you get vaccinated?

If this is appealing to you, just think of this when you think of vaccination.

Vaccination.

I'm getting a very good feeling about vaccination right this moment.

I want you to get the vaccine because I want you to be safe.

I love you. I love you too.

To break that cognitive dissonance.

You can't just tell somebody right away, oh, everything you believed to be true

is not true. Well, the cognitive dissonance is actually even greater once

been vaccinated, right? Because then now there's like, it's even, it's an

additional layer of not wanting to accept it. There are a whole number of

studies looking at outcomes of autism spectrum disorder,

other neurobehavioral problems, neurodevelopmental problems.

And so the first, I want to just sort of just go through all these studies.

And at the end of it, you know, hopefully the doctor's looking at this

watching what's going on.

I would challenge them to go into the literature and find articles that

it. Like, are there articles that look at vaccinated versus unvaccinated

that these outcomes are not there? Or there's a lower likelihood? But

you know, that there's not this safety concern.

Anybody is welcome to go into the literature, into PubMed, the scientific

database, and try to debunk it because it doesn't exist.

So let's start with the article. The first one is an article by Hooker and

Miller, 2021, in the Journal of Translational Science.

They took survey data from 1998 to 2016.

They looked at 831 kids from three different pediatric practices.

And these kids are looked at age 9 to 11 years old.

And what they did is they looked at those who were vaccinated versus

unvaccinated, okay?

And they come up with odds ratios. The patients who had allergies who were

vaccinated, the odds ratio of having an allergy, just general any allergy, is 4

.3. What that means is that the vaccinated population, the odds of them

allergies is 4 .3 to 1 compared to the unvaccinated, right?

So what you could say is a 4 .3.

times the increased risk. I'll also say it that way. So that's allergies.

Autism, five. The odds ratio is five.

They're five times more likely to have autism in this study.

ADD, 21.

An odds ratio of 21 is huge.

Chronic ear infections, 28.

2011, Gail DeLong published a study in the Journal of Toxicology and

Environmental Health. She did a regression analysis.

And she looked at the patients for each state and the whole country, actually,

this information.

looked at the percentage vaccinated by the age of two years old, and then

at that same cohort when they turned eight for the whole country.

And what she found was a dose response.

In other words, for each 1 % increase in those who are vaccinated,

there's a corresponding 680 kids who were diagnosed with autism and speech

language impairment.

Statistically significant across the country.

And in the article, she basically did some analysis looking at other

diagnoses. In other words, if you take your child to the doctor more often, is

it more likely you're going to get a diagnosis of autism and speech and

impairment? And what they found is that there's no statistical significance in

all these other diagnoses.

So in other words, by taking your child to the doctor,

more often doesn't lead to that diagnosis. That wasn't the reason. The

it's the vaccines that were associated with the outcome of autism and speech

language impairment.

They also looked at, in this study, they looked at number of pediatricians per

state because a lot of people think, well, you're just getting more of a

diagnosis if there's, again, more access to health care.

So they looked at state by state the percentages of pediatricians.

And she found that there's no correlation between the number of

patients in a state and a diagnosis of autism and speech and language

impairment. Instead, specifically, what was linked to it statistically is

vaccines up to the age of two and then autism, speech, and language impairment

at the age of eight. Another study published this past year by Mawson and

published in Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law.

They looked at over 47 ,000...

Medicaid claims between 1999 and 2011.

And they found three basic outcomes they looked at. One is vaccinated versus

unvaccinated. By the age of nine, it was 170 % increased risk of autism spectrum

disorder. For ADHD, it was 181 % in this group.

They say an odds ratio would be like 2 .81.

2 .81 to 1. So that would be 181 % increase.

It's just a way of looking at the data differently. That's all.

Epilepsy seizures, 252 % in the vaccinated group compared to the

group, right?

Learning disorders, 581%. Tick disorders, like a neurologic tick, 525%.

Now, if you look at all these different diagnoses, you look at the one preterm,

they're all higher. For example, I'll just give you one example.

Learning disorders in the full term is 581%. In the preterm, the ones who are

vaccinated, 884 % increased likelihood of.

a learning disorder if you are preterm and vaccinated versus the unvaccinated,

okay? So that was the fact. They looked at full -term. They looked at preterm.

The other thing they looked at is they looked at, because it's Medicaid data,

they looked at number of visits for the purpose of a vaccine because they can

track that data.

So this is compared to no vaccines, no visits for vaccines.

The comparison, they have one visit for a vaccine.

There is 70 % increased risk.

of getting autism spectrum disorder.

They have four visits, 90 % increased risk of autism spectrum disorder

to the unvaccinated, greater than 11 visits for the purpose of a vaccine, 340

more likely to have autism spectrum disorder.

And what really, as a scientist really, what you need to look at

also is When there's a dose response, when there's increased effect, there's

increased exposure and the effect is greater as it goes higher, higher,

That lends itself to be more of a causation versus just an association,

So we see a clear -cut dose response, really, in all these studies.

Anyone, any of them that looks dose response, we're finding it, which is...

which really lends itself to a legitimate causation. Gallagher and

found these articles recently, actually. They published an article in 2008 in

toxicological environmental chemistry.

And they looked at this data called NHANES, which stands for Nutrition

and Nutrition Examination Survey.

This is a well -known data bank to a lot of researchers. They use a lot of this

data for various types of research that's published.

It's government data.

They looked at specifically this data set from 1999 to 2000, and they looked

over 1 ,800 children, and they looked at them from 1 to 9 years old, and they

looked at those who have had the triple series for hepatitis B. So the triple

series is they get it first day of life, one month, and six months.

The one month may be a two -month one, but they get three, basically, right?

So they look at those who have had all of them.

versus none. And there was also some in between, so they had to do a regression

analysis because it could be a sort of gradation.

And they found the odds, they looked at the odds of neurodevelopmental

disability in the boys. They found in 8 .63 times more likely to have a

neurodevelopmental disability in those who are vaccinated versus unvaccinated.

Gallagher and Goodman also then published another study, a little bit

a study, in 2010, a couple years later, and published it in the Journal of

Toxicology and Environmental Health.

It was a cross -sectional study, which means kind of one point in time.

They used the data from the National Health Interview Survey, and this is the

largest and the oldest National Health Survey data in the United States. They

looked at over 79 ,000 children, did a logistic regression, and they

just looked at the one dose of hepatitis B, the neonatal one, and they

correlated it with the age of 3 to 7 years old, whether or not they got

versus the ones that didn't get that first day -of -life dose.

And they found the odds ratio was 3. So those who were vaccinated versus

unvaccinated, just that one dose, had a three times more likely diagnosis of

autism between the ages of 3 and 7 years old.

Published, peer -reviewed.

Mould and colleagues in 2018 published an article in the Journal of Trace

Elements. in medicine and biology.

They published five patients who died who had had autism spectrum disorder.

And the normal amount of, say, baseline mean in the population aluminum you'd

find in brains is less than one microgram per gram of dry weight of

tissue. That's sort of baseline.

They just looked at five people with autism spectrum disorder.

They found one brain had over four.

micrograms per gram of dry weight, and four of them had over five. Now, out of

those four, three of them had the highest levels in recorded history.

One had 17 micrograms per gram of dry weight, one had 19, one had 22

per gram of dry weight.

which has never been reported before.

Many of them have aluminum.

Some of them have mercury.

Some of them have polysorbate 80. Some of them have DNA fragments, which can

cause cancer.

Some of them have formaldehyde, which is a human toxin.

So every single vaccine has an excipient that is a human toxin.

If you're dealing with acute pain or chronic pain, nobody around you really

understands what's going on. It's miserable and downright debilitating at

You've got that kink in your neck.

You're sitting at your desk. It's promoting bad posture, whether you're at

on the couch, trying to avoid that spasm.

And then the worst part is, as people don't understand what it is that you're

dealing with, doctors are telling you, well, just take this pill. We've got a

prescription, muscle relaxers, painkillers. Yeah, because I trust Big

Or how about some surgery? Oh, yeah.

Yeah, Western medicine.

Yeah, please sign me up. Bring me in, put me out, cut me open, solder me

together, put metal parts in me. Yeah, no.

Or your friends might tell you, well, you're getting older.

It's just something that you're going to have to deal with. You had that injury,

remember? It's always going to be tight. It's never going to be the same.

Yeah, all of that is BS.

So my good friends over at Finally Pain -Free are offering free live coaching on

Thursday, February 12th. And it is here where Angie will teach you the biggest

secret in medicine, and that's to address the pain at its root.

Instead of masking the symptoms with big pharma poisons, you will learn what it

truly takes to regenerate your joints and how to apply this innovative

method to refurbish the entire anatomy. You can actually go in there and clean

out the joints. And if you have a spoon at home, just a regular kitchen spoon,

you can do this.

It's not mainstream medicine.

This is about taking control of your health by resetting the dislocated bones

and opening up the blocked joints.

So you can now finally unleash your body's ability to heal itself.

This has all been developed by a German health activist, Angie, who's trusted by

world champions and professional athletes around the world.

And the best part is this coaching is free.

Just go sign up right now. Go to finally -painfree .com slash coaching.

Finally -painfree .com slash coaching. If you're ready to stop accepting acute

and chronic pain, unlock the biggest secret. Start cleaning out the joints

This is where you begin. Finally -painfree .com slash coaching.

Finally -painfree .com slash coaching.

Is there one chronic disease that Western medicine has cured?

I can't think of one.

Chronic diseases, which may be caused by some pharmaceuticals, i .e. vaccines,

right? They create the problem, and they have the solution.

The solution is the pharmaceuticals. Now, is there any medicine that any

allopathic medical doctor learns?

Is there any medicine that actually can make people healthier?

Is there any medicine we can give somebody to say, this will reduce the

likelihood of getting cancer?

This will reduce the likelihood of getting MS, multiple sclerosis, right?

No, there isn't.

There's no medication that we can prescribe to do any of those things. It

happens to be that there's a lot of data showing exercise can decrease many,

many, in fact, every cancer they've looked at.

Exercise decreases the...

the instance of cancer. It can decrease your risk of cancer. Even if you've got

PSA levels, and men who, before they get prostate cancer, their PSA levels start

to rise, that always increases the concern.

They'd even be able to show that exercise can bring those PSA levels back

actually.

Not only that, I mean, look at coronary artery disease.

Think about this.

There's a guy, Dr. Ornish, who's a cardiologist. One of the studies he did

there were three groups of people with risk factors for heart disease, right?

And he gave, one was a control group, which we call the non -compliant group.

They didn't do anything.

And one group was a statin group, and one group was exercise and a healthy

and stress reduction, okay, with no statin.

The one that, the group that was non -compliant, that was the control group,

okay, they found, they looked at heart cath year zero and year five. They

actually looked at year one as well, but that data doesn't really matter.

After five years, they found that this group had a 46 % increase of coronary

plaque, the ones that did nothing.

The ones that did the statin group, 32 % to 33%. So it decreased the progression

of the coronary plaque in the coronary arteries, which is good, right?

But the exercise group, negative 7%. It actually decreased the coronary plaque

in the coronary arteries by exercise, whole food diet, and stress reduction.

All the doctors, all the primary care doctors should be well aware of this

study. And all the cardiologists. I think most of the cardiologists probably

know this.

So in other words, all the primary care doctors should be saying, you need to

exercise and eat a better diet.

But they don't do that.

Almost none of them. I mean, very, very few do.

The first thing they'll do is put you on a statin, which has its other problems.

Does it cause dementia?

I think it probably does, but we need to get some more.

There needs to be more data showing that, but that certainly is a lot of

biological plausibility. There's a lot of discussion regarding that topic. But

the point is that every single primary care doctor, every single cardiologist,

if somebody has risk factors and or has had coronary plaque, they should be

exercising because that can unravel or reverse the disease process.

So when you're looking at exercise, exercise should be the 100 %

should be the strong advice by every primary care doctor to make people

healthier. But it's not really being done most of the time. Most of the

time they go right to the pharmaceuticals, which may slow the

some cases, some cases not. But it's not going to reverse it. It's not going to

cure it, whereas exercise can.

Are these drugs approved based on independent research?

or pharma -funded studies?

I'll tell you what, it's fascinating because we're all taught... When the

statins first came out, I was in college, and I learned in one of my

biochemistry classes how it works, and it makes sense. It makes logical sense

how it decreases cholesterol.

And we're all taught that cholesterol is bad.

So then the statins, then they started marketing them later, and we all

believed. In fact, when I was in medical school, I was in my mid -20s.

I had high cholesterol. I put myself on a statin. I've been taking a statin from

medical school up until about a year ago, maybe a year and a half ago, when I

stopped it.

And I realized it's not a good thing. All the drugs, all the medications that

prescribe that's approved by the FDA,

nearly all of them are funded by the drug companies.

Nearly all of the studies.

So there's no question that there's a huge influence, and occasionally you

have a drug that actually really helps people that are taken off the market

were pharmaceuticals, but they actually really do help people. And because it

helps people too much, they become controversial and

are no longer being used. Like, for example, Zopanex instead of albuterol.

It's more expensive, and most pharmacies don't carry it.

The reason why it was never really well accepted is because we were

told that the drug company funded the research, right?

But that goes for every single drug just about what we use. I don't know any

drug that doesn't get funded by the drug company. Why did ivermectin become so

controversial during COVID?

Well, ivermectin worked really well. In fact, there's over 200 studies now

showing. Not only does it decrease the severity of disease, it actually saves

lives. People who are getting, injecting drugs for animals and horse. And people

telling them to.

What person?

You know, you talk about like, you know, cancel culture and who to shame.

Ivermectin? A dewormer?

Really? They are shaming themselves.

No one has to shame them. They're shaming themselves. No, they need to be

shamed. They need to be called out and shamed, brother. I am taking.

A what do they call it? Like a regular dose, you know, whatever they're trying

to build up of ivermectin.

Ivermectin was a boogeyman early on in COVID.

You couldn't talk about it. That was wrong.

We were given bad information about ivermectin. The real question is why?

Everyone's going to say Joe Rogan was right. No, Joe Rogan was saying, yeah,

was right.

But that's not what matters. What matters is the entire clinical community

that ivermectin couldn't hurt you.

They knew it, Patrick.

I know they knew it. How do I know? Because now I'm doing nothing but

these clinicians who at the time were overwhelmed by COVID and they weren't

saying anything. Not that they were hiding anything. But it's cheap. It's

owned by anybody. And it's used as an antimicrobial, antiviral in all of these

different ways and has been for a long time. So they were wrong.

To play scared on that.

Didn't know that at the time. Know it now.

Admit it now. Reporting on it now. Just look in my eyes for a second. All the

science existed in ivermectin when you were shaming people, when you were

shaming those doctors that were speaking out and you were helping the media and

helping the establishment take their licenses away.

If they tried to push ivermectin, which you now suddenly recognize works.

I want to make this clear.

At least a half a million people in America are dead because

ivermectin was taken out of the arsenal of things that they could use while you

were waiting for your miracle vaccine.

Now, you know, you can decide where you're going to be at with that, Chris.

when the reporters start not doing the work, not investigating science, not.

saying to the world that this had actually won the Nobel Prize in

on horses, but on human beings. Here it was. Ivermectin, a multi -faceted drug

of Nobel Prize -honored distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global

scourge, COVID -19.

That's what we now see. But it won the Nobel Prize.

When you were reporting, everyone should be shamed that even talks about it.

Half a million people at least are dead because there was a product that those

doctors that you say were afraid to speak, why were they afraid to speak,

Because everyone like you on the television set was shaving them and

when they were having their licenses taken away. Many drugs that we prescribe

have never been shown to reduce mortality. For example, nitroglycerin

heart attack, right?

That's one of the most well -studied drugs that's out there.

It doesn't reduce mortality or morbidity at all, but we use it.

So ivermectin, not only does it improve morbidity, like the severity of disease,

but actually saves lives, big time.

And there's two meta -analyses that show that.

So it really, really helps people with really pulling them out of the clutches

of death from COVID, and it was demonized.

I remember a couple times I got in big trouble, and the pharmacist had

threatened to call the attorney general on me because the attorney general of

Ohio put out this memo that the doctors were not allowed to prescribe ivermectin

unless there's certain conditions, like they have a parasite, for example, if

we're using it for COVID.

we were going to be prosecuted. So I called it in, and the pharmacist told me

that, that he's considering reporting me to the Attorney General's office.

Another one, I prescribed it to a patient a couple times in the ER, and I

phone calls and emails basically threatening to fire me because I

ivermectin to patients.

Doctors always can prescribe medications that's not FDA approved for whatever.

the problem. It's called off -label. We've always been able to do that. You

always prescribe the medications off -label.

Happens to be that this one drug that's off -label wasn't FDA approved for

COVID. We were not allowed to do it, and we were getting in trouble in various

ways. Have you looked into the treatment of cancer that I remember?

Yeah. There's a great article that's published that shows

Why it works, some outcomes, along with that one article I'm referring to, it

goes into the, it's basically a review article. It looks at vitamin D, high

-dose vitamin C, zinc.

I think it's either mebendazole or fenbendazole. It could be both.

But there's an article that reviews all of them, and they all together will

decrease the mechanisms that cause cancer.

And there's many anecdotes of people who claim that they have been cured of

cancer.

But, you know, there's a friend of a friend who had liver cancer. I saw him

probably about six months ago.

I spent some time with a friend. And his brother was yellow, I could tell. I

said,

does he have, and he looked emaciated. I said, does he have liver cancer?

He goes, how do you know? I said, well, you know, he's got jaundice and he looks

emaciated.

It wasn't really difficult to discern that.

And he was going through sort of a last -ditch effort. He had gone through some

chemotherapy, and then he was going through this other research drug. They

trying it on him.

And I said to him, I said, you know, there are treatments out there that can

actually cure, that many people have claimed that it cured their cancer or

family's cancer, and there's mechanisms that support that it works. It's

published.

Do you want to try?

And he said, well, I don't know. I think I'm just going to stick with... We went

to a famous cancer center they were going to.

I said, well, has anybody... Are there any claims at all that this drug has

actually saved anybody?

Even one?

No, there isn't.

And that's the thing. There aren't very many people that said, you know,

chemotherapy saved my life. It does happen. People do bounce out of a

cancer. It does happen.

But first of all, it's with a lot of pain and suffering.

And secondly...

some of these other modalities that are now being exposed to be valid.

A lot of these scenarios are like, you know, they had metastatic cancer and

there's nothing more anybody can do, and they were just basically given a death

sentence by the doctor, and that was it. And then they took, what was it,

ivermectin, fenbendazole, mebendazole, and, you know, and then they got cured.

There's many people on social media talking about that. I found something

shocking. Old antiparasitic drugs like ivermectin and menbendazole have

anti -cancer properties.

Here's what they do. Ivermectin blocks tumor cells from generating energy

through oxidative phosphorylation. It inhibits cancer stem cells. It also

disrupts glucose uptake, starving tumors at the source.

I have three friends.

All three of them had stage four cancer.

All three of them don't have cancer right now at all.

And they had some serious stuff going on.

And what did they take?

Jesus.

They took some what you've heard they'd taken.

Ivermectin.

Fenabendazole. Fenabendazole, yeah.

Yeah, I'm hearing that a lot. Yeah. This stuff works, man. I am putting out the

all -call alert.

All of the Ivermectin people who've ever said take Ivermectin for cancer.

My father just greenlit the decision to do ivermectin for cancer.

Get ivermectin so we can nuke this stupid cancer.

I mean, if you look at the mechanisms of how cancer works, there is a biological

plausibility. Most doctors will say, well, first of all, they're cynical

how it can even work against the virus.

What are you talking about? It's an antiparasitic. Why would that work on a

virus? Well, there's a published paper showing it decreases the viral entry

the cell in seven different ways.

But when I point that out, they don't even want to look at the article.

Cognitive dissonance is so steep.

And it's the same thing with cancer also. You know, the reality is that the

cancer cells use a different energy.

They need to be rapidly growing, so they use glucose.

as a mechanism to derive energy, versus regular cells use the oxidative

phosphorylation pathway in the mitochondria, which you can't use that

a cancer cell because it doesn't provide energy fast enough, right? So if you

have the malignant cancer cells, depending on the other energy system,

things that you can do to disrupt that, by the way, including fasting. A lot of

people... Anecdotes, there's a lot of people saying that fasting helps reduce

cancer. It makes sense.

But the oncologists don't seem to be using this mechanism, this different

derived, this different way of deriving energy.

They're not looking at that as something to intervene to stop the cancer.

Instead, like you said, they're just giving poison.

There are also immune -modulating...

therapies that are coming out that stimulate the immune system.

And so those are also being promoted.

Big Pharma is making a lot of money from them.

There's not a lot of success from them, but there are other things we can do

that promote, that enhance your immune system.

There was a big, famous study. All the doctors knew about it way back when. I

think it was around somewhere before in 2010. I can't remember exactly when it

was. It was this big splash where everybody heard this study. It was all

the news where high -dose vitamin C in this ICU group cured cancer.

In this study, they took cancer.

and those are actually cancer stem cells, and they exposed those stem cells

different drugs, some different cancer chemotherapeutic agents, experimental

ones. Those are some natural drugs. And they found out that all of these had

some impact on the growth and propagation of the cancer stem cells.

And vitamin C, believe it or not, had more of an impact than any of the

You know, and it's interesting to note that I read an article in one of the

medical journals the other day day that a lot of people are being excluded from

cancer care because they can't afford the medications but when you talk about

Vitamin C, it's inexpensive, it's natural, it's widely available. This

a significant step. A way to slow cancer, even stop its growth.

The news comes from the prestigious National Institutes of Health. And

back to talk more about that. This is fascinating. Yeah, huge news on the

front, Tracy. High -dose injections of vitamin C reduce tumor growth by half,

according to the new research.

And what's more, the treatment does not harm healthy cells, meaning there are

fewer difficult side effects, often experienced with traditional cancer

treatments like chemotherapy.

and radiation.

The work was done on mice, but one local doctor said he successfully used

vitamin C treatment on patients for quite some time.

Today, Arlindo is cancer -free.

And my pulmonary doctor told me, whatever you're doing, keep on doing it.

Arlindo believes his cancer is gone because of vitamin C treatment.

First of all, I thought it was quackery, right?

First of all, you got to look into the mechanism of how vitamin C works, first

of all.

And you can see there's some biologic plausibility there.

But they were using very high doses of IV, very high doses.

So because there was some cynicism in the establishment, let's just say, there

were a number of studies after that that looked at it to debunk it.

Well, all the studies that looked at it afterwards were using a lower dose oral

vitamin C. When you take something orally, the ability to be absorbed from

your gut into your blood, is there's a certain percentage that gets absorbed.

When you give it IV, 100 % of it's going into your bloodstream.

So if you give 100 milligrams orally and you give it 1 ,000 milligrams IV, well,

first of all, the IV is going to be much higher anyway, maybe 1 out of 100.

For example, aluminum is actually a great example. You take aluminum orally

versus IV, it's 1 to 1 ,000 ratios.

In other words, you take 1 ,000 milligrams of aluminum orally, 1

going to get absorbed into your bloodstream. You take it IV, 1 ,000

is getting into your bloodstream because you're injecting it directly.

So they looked at lower milligram dosages of vitamin C orally compared to

high -dose IV, and that's why they weren't able to validate the study

and to this day to my knowledge they haven't looked at the they haven't

looked at this again does high dose vitamin c work you know it appears as

it does have a significant effect because there's biologic plausibility

have that study that famous study that showed those outcomes what made you like

interested in all of it aside from the covet vaccine well the autism rates

skyrocketing, right? In 1970, it was like 1 in 10 ,000.

And then in 1988, it started to go up to 1 in 1 ,000. And then from there, it

increased to 2022, it was 1 in 31.

So something caused that to happen.

Now, do I see an acute change in the emergency department? No, because...

I'm not watching people over time, but there's no question there's a lot of

chronic disease, there's a lot of acute infections, there's a lot of

neurobehavioral problems that I'm seeing now that we saw a lot less of, say, 20

years ago. There's nothing actually you can see by seeing when you're taking

care of patients. And maybe that's why this...

corruption has been able to take place. Also, what's his name? Robert Malone. He

was actually pushing the vaccine.

I remember he got into an argument with somebody early, early on when he first

started becoming in the public view.

He got into a really pretty, pretty harsh argument with another person who

arguing against the vaccine, the COVID vaccine.

and he was promoting it, but you saw his opinion change over time.

He's in the 100 % on, honestly, there's a lot of things that, again, a lot of

the data that I would present is really much more, like these people haven't

quite made it yet, a lot of them. They haven't quite made it to really seeing

the absolute truth.

And I don't know if it's intentional or not intentional. Maybe they're just

ignorant, and maybe they're just, they'll eventually see the light. But I

I actually have a very optimistic view that, I think things are going in the

right direction, and I think where we're going to get to is where we all right

now feel it needs to be. We want it to be there now. I for sure want this to

I would like this truth to be out like that, you know, but it's just taken a

while. There's definitely a reason to be suspicious.

There's definitely a reason to not wholeheartedly, universally

in every situation, in every doctor, to trust them. No.

Because we have seen that there are problems.

But I think that the question really is more like, are you asking questions?

When it comes to pharmaceuticals, medications, I agree with you 100%.

other things as well.

Fractures, other injuries. I mean, where there is a role for medicine, the

allopathic doctor or osteopathic doctor, there is a role.

occasionally people do need an antibiotic for a bacterial infection.

At this point in time, I'm not really thinking that cranberry juice is going

solve it. They need antibiotics.

Would cranberry juice prevent it? Maybe.

Maybe a mild UTI?

Maybe. Here's the example. Number one, if there's any kind of adverse outcome

the patient,

either the chart's going to get, not either, it's going to get reviewed in

hospital by a committee. Wait, wait, wait.

The standard of care automatically includes pharmaceuticals? Yeah,

But you'll be penalized for not giving a tetanus shot to somebody that doesn't

need it.

Well, if they meet the CDC indication for it, then I would be expected that I

would offer it.

Knowing what I know now about the tetanus shots, I'm not pushing them.

Now, say a year ago.

I would offer it for sure, and I wouldn't pressure them because I just

that. I would feel like I'm doing something possibly good, right? So I

them that this is the protocol, and they have a choice. I phrase it differently

now because I'm not going to push it on them.

Here's the problem. The problem is this.

There are still cases of tetanus, right?

Now, the real world is that if they have tetanus, they'll come back to the ER.

They'll get treated, whether they get treated with antibiotics or even

intubation or just supportive care, whatever the case is.

Then at that point in time, if it looks like standard of care wasn't delivered,

that's when the penalizations come into play. The tennis vaccine needs to be

eliminated. I agree with you.

But the outcomes of the standard practice has to also change.

That's the only way you're going to get all done.

I see that all vaccines should be eliminated.

You've just done months and months worth of studies. Yeah.

Do you see where I'm wrong when I say that? No, no.

And that's basically why I am changing my

practice into integrative medicine. That's why I'm doing that, because in

practice, it won't be in the matrix that forces me to do things like that.

So I'm making changes. I have a friend.

who was an ER doctor, he got fired from his job as an ER doctor because he was

doing some Ayurvedic medicine in the emergency department.

Because, you know, it's not harming anybody.

You know, it's not that he was, he wasn't replacing it with the standard of

care. He was just, he was doing it as an adjunct. Saying, hey, here's how you

can stay, be healthier.

You keep saying standard of care.

define that by the book, like the by the book, what you know as its official

definition, and then tell me what standard of care really means.

Standard of care basically is really adhering to guidelines, really. That's

really what it comes down to.

And the guidelines are based on published data, generally.

It may not even exist at all, published data. But what happens is they get an

expert panel, and they have a consensus.

They meet and have a consensus of what they think the best practice is.

For example, giving blood pressure medicine in cranial bleed, stroke,

thoracic dissections, all these different high, these

diagnoses with high mortality, acute problems, where they're all

consensus because there's no data showing actually bringing the blood

down acutely helps anybody.

So they get an expert panel, and they decide.

what they think the best thing to do is.

And that's why these recommendations are changing all the time. Because you may

get a different group of doctors a couple years later, five years later, or

years later, that will decide something else.

In fact, when I took my oral boards, one of the...

One of the scenarios I failed on is a thoracic dissection because I didn't

the blood pressure medicine. I knew that blood pressure medicine didn't change

the outcome. I knew that.

They need to go for surgery to get their thoracic aorta replaced.

That's what they need to do.

And the person who's the examiner kept asking me, well, the blood pressure's

going up. What are you going to do? I'm like, let's give the patient more

morphine, call the thoracic surgeon.

And then it went on and on and on for like...

10, 15 minutes about the blood pressure, and I'm like, I'm not giving blood

pressure medicine.

As it turns out, when I got my report later, that that was the problem. I was

supposed to give him IV blood pressure medicine, and that is standard of care.

If you currently have money in the bank, a 401k, or even precious metals in the

IRA, you may want to listen up. You're going to want to have a place where you

have a guarantee on your funds. As we go into a lower interest rate environment,

banks will be stressed out when the commercial real estate crisis happens.

now, you can get a guarantee, yes, a guarantee on your principal and get a 29

bonus. If you're younger than 65 years of age, we can utilize an insurance

-based contract.

that has been around for over 100 years.

And guess what? You get a guarantee on your funds. You get a guarantee on your

principal. We want to help you find a guarantee on your funds that are

outside of banking laws, outside of securities laws. Right now, as interest

rates are getting lowered, we only have this festival running to November 1st.

Go to greenmoneysolutions .com, fill out your information, and let's just see if

you qualify.

You have ER doctors and hospitalists giving IV blood pressure medicine to

people, okay, for elevated blood pressure where they have problems,

I can tell you all the research shows when you give an IV blood pressure

medicine, okay, you increase ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, and death.

When you bring someone's blood pressure down acutely, you don't actually help

them.

And what you have to look at, you have to look at the pressure.

The pressure in the systemic body is different than the pressure in the

The brain has something called autoregulation. It autoregulates its own

up to a certain point. So up to that point, when they're given blood pressure

medicine, they disrupt the autoregulation and cause strokes and

right? There is not a single study under the sun that exists.

that improves outcome by acutely lowering the blood pressure. So what

make everybody happy, to make the patient happy, to make the inpatient

happy, to make the lawyers happy, I'll give a PO dose. I'll give an oral dose

the blood pressure medicine. It's kind of a game I play because I'm addressing

the problem because everybody's brainwashed into thinking that actually

to do it, but the oral medicine has not been shown to cause harm. Say 15 years

ago when I wasn't doing it, I would get a lot of pushback. In fact, I got called

in the office. I was basically fired from a job.

Related to.

Not doing this. That was one of the things. I actually left. I wasn't really

fired. I was being threatened, basically, because I didn't treat the

pressure. And I said, there's no evidence.

The evidence -based medicine tells us that there's no benefit. There's only

harm. So back then, there was a lot of pushback. Nowadays, at least it's known

well enough where it's accepted.

And what I do actually now is I actually put some research articles in my note.

and some references showing that if I treat the blood pressure, again, the

arterial has to be under, say, 140 for a nonhypertensive or under 160 for a

hypertensive person. As long as they meet that criteria, which 95, 98 % of

patients are below those numbers when they're elevated blood pressure.

Then I put the references in my note showing that this is why I'm not

the blood pressure, because I'm not going to cause harm.

So since they started doing that, and now that... Inpatient is starting to

out a little bit more. I don't get any pushback. Again, the primary care

doctors, they send out, or the hospitalists, or whatever doctors are

I'm doing.

Because in ER, you're in a fishbowl. Everybody's looking to see what we're

doing. And so I don't have any problems anymore.

I can still practice medicine in a safe manner.

and not cause harm and not get pushed back. But that's a big one.

This is one that all the doctors need to be looking at. It's like the vaccine.

This is basically a scam of treating blood pressures in the ER, in the

acutely. How many times do I get a patient being sent to me by an ENT

an ophthalmologist, a primary care doctor, a dentist?

I can go on and on. The blood pressure is so high, they send them to the ER. No

symptoms, right?

Why is the pressure high?

Because their adrenaline is released, whether they're in pain, they're

they're nervous, whatever the case is. This is the way God made our bodies.

Everybody's blood pressure goes up and down. Now that I'm talking about this,

because I've talked hundreds and hundreds of times to patients, my blood

pressure is probably higher than yours right now.

So we're not going to treat it acutely because we're going to cause harm.

Sometimes I pull up on the screen, I show them the research, because they're

sent in by their primary care doctor because they think it's an emergency.

for the blood pressure, right?

And so, and I'm not going to, because the only different thing I can do

to what they can do is I can give an IV medicine, and they can't in the office.

So I can bring, I said I can bring a ton like that if I wanted to, but I'm not

going to do that because that can cause a stroke.

Are other doctors like you secretly coming up with workarounds to avoid

sanctioned or penalized or fired for going outside of the quote -unquote

standard of care to actually treat or save patients?

It seems like to me, I don't know anybody who's come up with this

fact, I've even presented this when I was in faculty at a medical school

teaching residents.

I've actually talked about this in an amphitheater of over 100 people and

to give people tips of how to deal with this problem because we've talked about

this.

Most ER doctors know this.

Most. Most well -trained ER doctors know what I'm saying, and they won't treat

the blood pressure with IV medicine.

Most internists in the hospital don't know it, and they'll give it the hard

time. Why aren't we treating it?

I don't know anybody who has a workaround. I've developed this myself,

shared it with people.

I think it's a great way to do it because that way I can accomplish not

the patient.

You mentioned earlier something about not being able to get a code when you

entering a diagnosis.

Yeah. Was that code called again?

The ICD -10 code, that is the diagnostic code that's the database of all

diagnoses around the world, actually. That is there so that they can track

diagnoses and also for billing. It used to be we could make our own diagnosis

up. And I think the problem there is that the billing companies didn't have

on their list. So now they have implemented this system where we can

from a list of diagnoses.

And those lists ultimately end up?

making some pretty big bank don't they right yeah yeah i mean you know

healthcare is a business a big business a big business yeah for sure no question

about that and that's how that's how they were able to implement the the

right it's it's if they're incentivizing the doctors it's all about money and

and again again most of the doctors are just brainwashed okay they're

incentivized by money too are there doctors out there knowing what i know

still giving it and getting paid for it, I don't know. I don't know any like

that. Most doctors haven't looked at the research anyway, but I think that the

doctors that I know, like, for example, with COVID or awake for COVID, they

wouldn't play in the sandbox.

I have a friend who's an ER doctor, very, very high moral guy.

He's a partner in the group.

He basically never wore a mask.

Didn't get injected with that kill shot.

And he was getting in trouble all the time, but he didn't care.

And he made it through. It's surprising he made it through without getting

fired, actually.

Partly because he was a partner in the group, but why didn't the hospital

to get fired? I don't know.

He was probably very close to that.

We should start getting into the data.

Okay. Tom Linovic in Shaw in 2011.

They published a study in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry.

And what they did is they looked at the vaccine schedule and the aluminum

content in the United States, and they correlated that with the outcomes of

autism spectrum disorder.

They also looked at six Western countries that also vaccinate.

So the U .S. data is from...

Prior to the age of six, in other words, those who were vaccinated, they got

that from the CDC data.

So six to 21 years old, to look at the outcome of autism, they took that data

from the U .S. Department of Education annual reports to Congress in 1991 to

2008. So they were able to get this data, right?

And then they also looked at the six countries they looked at, U .K.,

Canada, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland, okay?

At the beginning of the paper, before they show you the data that they got,

go into the description of something called ASIA. What ASIA is, it's well

-known, not controversial, chronic diseases caused by the aluminum in the

adjuvant, the adjuvant aluminum in the vaccine, right? So it's called

inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvant. The adjuvant is aluminum.

As we talked about before, aluminum is put in there to make it last longer.

called the depot effect.

If the vaccine lasts longer, theoretically it will be more

will work better, theoretically.

So they say, well, and they comment in the article, if this Asia is accepted in

adults, why is it not accepted in kids?

Because as we talked about before,

Babies have, you know, we talked about blood -brain barrier and the development

of the brain, and then also the doses are higher. So it's certainly plausible

that this could be causing autism. They sort of just spell it out, and then they

go into the research and show you the data. What they showed is the dose

response between the micrograms of aluminum, cumulative exposure in these

in the U .S. data compared to autism at 6 to 12 years old. So they definitely

have a correlation of the more aluminum in micrograms, the

more likely they have autism spectrum disorder.

They also looked at number of vaccines.

They just looked at how many vaccines did they get. They also showed the more

vaccines, the more likelihood they have autism spectrum disorder.

Again, this article is showing the same outcome as many other articles.

This is not conspiracy.

All these researchers are showing the same thing, right?

And then they looked at the six Western countries.

And what they looked at there is they looked at which ones introduced the

vaccine earlier in life.

In other words, how many countries introduced it the first day of life or

three months? How many of them started, like, say, at four months or six months

or whatever?

And they found the correlations that the countries that introduced the vaccine

earlier have a higher likelihood of autism spectrum disorder in that

and the prevalence in the country.

So a clear cut, you know, by country, you know, each country, you know, they

introduced it earlier on, more of an effect. Albert Beretti, 2021, published

article in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology.

And he looked at, he kind of looked at a lot of different information that's out

there in the literature. This is more of a review article rather than an

experiment. And what he looked at, he looked at The published data that's out

there showing more aluminum in vaccines correlates with more autism spectrum

disorder. Some of the articles we've already shown you, we've already

He looked at all the mechanisms of how aluminum works in the body, all

the published data on that, and is able to prove in the article that Aluminum is

a neurotoxin, right? And he also looked at, he reported on this, the study I

talked about with other countries that are vaccinating more, and some other

data, and he showed that the countries that vaccinate, have higher vaccination

rates, have higher cases of autism spectrum disorder.

And he also looked at, like, the safe amounts, which I'll talk about a little

bit later, but he said the safe amounts are based on diets in mice.

Okay, which if you say basically it's inadequate.

Inadequate safety amounts.

So, you know, if you think about it, you know, if somebody's exposed to

aluminum, very often you're going to have some damage to the brain, but

not going to have an acute change in behavior, right?

Unless you have a really, really high dose.

So they're looking at mice, first of all. Is mice a human? No. And the other

thing is they're looking at how they...

how well do they eat their diet?

You know, they are able to consume the same amount of food. So they give them

much aluminum, you know, micrograms per kilogram of body weight, when they alter

their diet, that's considered the concentration that would be safe for a

being. And by the way, I also want to point out there's two concepts in

toxicology. One is called stochastic, one is non -stochastic. In other

One is probability, and one is not probability.

There's an effect.

Like, for example, probability is like radiation causing cancer, right?

So there's an increased probability if you're exposed to more radiation, more

likely to get cancer. That's just a probability.

A person may be exposed for a long time and not get cancer, for example, right?

But it's a statistic.

There's other things that are toxins that are not considered statistics.

They're not probability.

like mercury and aluminum.

In other words, they are not compatible with human life.

So even a little bit is not healthy. But we are given these guidelines of what

is acceptable to be safe.

But it's not up to probability.

There is no safe amount.

In fact, aluminum is a toxin to every living organism on Earth.

So there's really no safe amount.

So why is it allowed to exist?

It's a good question. And there's an article I'm going to show you regarding

It's fascinating that it's put in...

feeding for neonates in the neonatal ICU.

It's put in the, it's called TPN, which is, well, we'll talk about that in a

minute. So it's actually very interesting because why do they put

TPN? Interestingly, the point on the article is that when in mercury that was

the vaccines in the 1990s that supposedly was taken out but really

out, it was just reduced as they were increasing the vaccine schedule.

By the way, just as an aside, when the parents were complaining to their

congressman that the kid got autism from the vaccine way back when, which

caused them to alter the amount of mercury, they were noticing

a sudden change because there was a lot of mercury in the vaccines, right? So

what they did instead is they increased the number of vaccines and put a smaller

amount of the mercury. So guess what?

You're not going to notice it. You get the same effect, right? You're going to

have a neural, it's a neurotoxin, but it's much more of a gradual change

they have increased number of vaccines, smaller amount. So the total amount of

mercury, I don't know how it compares exactly, but it's probably very similar.

When you have more vaccines and smaller amount, you just don't notice the sudden

change. So think about that. When they introduce these vaccines just so that

they can introduce this mercury,

If you look at the history of smallpox, which really did not eradicate smallpox,

it wasn't the vaccine that did it. It was not the vaccine that did it.

It was not the smallpox vaccine.

When you look at the corruption that occurred in the 1700s and 1800s of the

vaccine industry then, it's quite clear that the vaccines are really intended to

harm the population.

Yeah. Yeah, because when you're telling me that...

Parents were, quote -unquote, complaining about their kids developing

And then as a result, what they do is they reduce the amount of harmful

neurotoxins, and then just give more for different vaccines that they're just

arbitrarily introducing.

That tells me that they're...

insistent that every child gets a certain amount of these neurotoxins in

body. So what this article points out, okay, is that when they decrease the

mercury amount per vaccine, you know what they did? They increased the

concentration in the vaccines, too. So think about that. They're given for two

different reasons.

The mercury is put in as a preservative. The aluminum is put in there as an

adjuvant. Completely different reasons.

Why would they need to increase? This was the article saying.

Why would they need to increase the aluminum because they're decreasing the

mercury? Think about that.

And that's why we're seeing the autism rates go skyrocket, basically, over the

past couple of decades.

Is there a scientific justification for this?

Is there a medical justification?

No. There's no medical justification.

Again, the adjuvant theory, which we can talk about, it's just a theory.

It's not really been proven.

I've reviewed the literature, and I guarantee you that the vast majority of

doctors who are giving out vaccines have not reviewed the literature on aluminum

as an adjuvant. They've just really been given that reason and accepted it.

There is no data showing improved outcomes.

That antigen is more and more immunogenic, and the vaccine is going to

better because you put aluminum in it. But that's the theory.

That's the theory.

And then in mercury, all they have to do is make single -dose vials and make it

sterile, which they do to many, many drugs. You don't have to put mercury.

Mercury is a preservative.

If you have a multi -dose vial, fine, you need a preservative of some sort,

right? Because they're going to be introducing potentially bacteria when

put the needle back in there if it's not done correctly.

But if they're single -dose vials, you don't need any preservative anyway.

So there was no reason to put mercury in the vaccines to begin with.

So if you were to ask a pharmaceutical rep or CEO, somebody that works or has

interest in big pharma, what would be their justification? What would be their

reason if you said, why is there mercury in these shots?

Well, they'll tell you because it's a preservative. That's why they say it.

That's why they'll say it.

But you know that it's harmful.

Well, they may convince themselves into thinking that, oh, it's just a small

amount. Doesn't really matter.

That would be the only explanation for it.

But the explanation doesn't match the data.

Right. And that's the point. The point is that there's a lot of data already

out. There's going to be more coming out, I think, very soon.

But there's already a lot of data out showing harm, for real. There's no data

showing safety.

Any of the safety, there's a guy from Stanford who published a, he started an

Excel spreadsheet.

that he enabled other researchers to, this happened last April, he put it out

and he had other researchers to basically put in all these articles

safety in vaccines.

So actually, I have a copy of it. I was able to get this Excel spreadsheet.

You can no longer add to it.

There were 270 articles showing safety.

First of all, half of the articles aren't even on the vaccine schedule.

So it's like a vaccine for chlamydia, a vaccine for cholera, a vaccine for

anthrax. They're not even on the vaccine schedule. So I didn't even look at the

results. The ones that are actually on the vaccine schedule, they're looking at

acute reactions. They're not looking at ADD, autism spectrum disorder.

They're not looking at any of these outcomes, none of them.

And it's stunning. It's amazing to me that they've all convinced themselves

these are the safety studies.

Well, the safety studies, you need to look at vaccinated versus unvaccinated,

and you need to look at the outcome that matters, something that could

be a permanent disability.

Any of the articles that show, they'll look at that, they all show harm.

not a single one out there.

And we talked about the Gardasil. That's the only one that they point to, that

they say the safety, and I looked into it and we discussed it already, right?

The Gardasil vaccine, that's not a safety study.

does not show safety. That's the only one that really exists that looks at

significant outcomes.

And in this case, the outcome would be major adverse reactions, which would

result in hospitalization, something life -threatening, or death.

And they say for this Gardasil that there was a safety study.

Yeah. Was there, in fact, a safety study? Well, it was done by the drug

with no external review.

And the funny thing is actually the reporting, actually, that it's not safe.

you look at it, at least at some level of honesty, in other words, they didn't

make up data.

They did report their findings, but the way they present the findings is

deceptive.

And there's no published data in PubMed on the safety of Gardasil.

So Mawson and colleagues in 2017...

published an article in the Journal of Translational Science, and this is a

cross -sectional study.

And what they did is they looked at surveys from parents of homeschooled

from four different states, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, and Oregon. And

looked at these kids, 6 to 12 years old, asking the parents, have they had any

of these diseases?

They looked at about 666 kids.

And the parents didn't know why they were being asked. And the survey was

did they get a vaccine or no vaccine, right?

And so they just answered the questions. And what they came up with, odds ratios

again, okay?

So allergic rhinitis, 30.

A 30 to 1 odds of getting allergic rhinitis was basically an allergic, you

nasal congestion, cough, whatever, that kind of stuff.

30 times more likely those who were vaccinated versus unvaccinated.

Generalities, 3 .9.

ADHD, 4 .2.

Vaccinated versus unvaccinated.

It's 4 .2 to 1. The odds are 4 .2 to 1 to get ADHD compared to the

Learning disabilities, 5 .2.

Any chronic condition, 2 .4. Obstetrics and media, which is a middle ear

infection, can be treated with antibiotics, 3 .8.

Pneumonia, 5 .9.

And neurodevelopmental disorders increased by 560 % in preterm.

vacced patients.

In this study, you find, you know, chronic disease, right?

Like allergies, that kind of thing, right?

Eczema. You find neurodevelopmental problems. We find acute infections,

increased acute infections also in those who are vaccinated versus unvaccinated.

Now, what they also did is there's an internal control to stay, which is nice,

okay? The likelihood of them getting chickenpox, whooping cough, which is

pertussis, which can be treated with an antibiotic.

And rubella, okay, they have a lower likelihood in those who are vaccinated

versus unvaccinated.

Great. That's what we're after. We're after that lower likelihood of getting

those, and we're willing to allow these other problems to happen. If you get

rubella or whooping cough or chicken pox, right, it's a self -limited problem

you get, and then you get over it, and then you go on with your life.

Allergic rhinitis or allergies, that may be a lifelong problem. Or ADHD or

autism. Yeah, absolutely.

Those are bigger problems. Right. Of course.

Yeah. And, you know, severe autism spectrum disorder can be quite

I mean, they're just taking all types.

There are ones that, you know, these kids like 24 -70, 24 -7 care.

They can't talk. They can't eat. Every single American needs this. Hey, the

tradeoff is your kid may get chicken pox or rubella.

But there's a really good chance that your child will have autism or ADHD.

Yeah. If 100 % of Americans knew that, how many of them do you think would

subject their kids to one abuse shot? Zero.

And I think that, I don't think, I'm very confident.

It's going to take some time, but I'm very confident we're going to get there.

I'm very confident we're going to get there.

I think this is getting exposed.

And that's what we're doing right now. So Hooker and Miller published a paper

2020 in the journal Sage, and this was a retrospective cohort

from 2005 to 2015.

They looked at data from three pediatric practices, and they looked at over 1

,500 records.

And they calculated odds ratios of vaccinated versus unvaccinated in these

outcomes, and they defined vaccination up to the age of one.

and the outcomes were over three years of age, three years, five years.

And they found the odds ratio of developmental delay greater than two.

In other words, a two -to -one ratio of vaccine versus unvaccinated having a

diagnosis of developmental delay.

Asthma, 4 .5.

More likely in the vaccinated.

Ear infections, 2 to 2 .5. I keep the range because I looked at three years

five years.

And they did a control. They did head injury control.

And they found no association of head injury with vaccines.

In other words, it's not just coming to the doctor and getting the diagnosis

necessarily.

There's no association with head injury and vaccines.

But there is an association of vaccines with these other outcomes.

And they also looked at up to a certain age.

of getting vaccinated. So in other words, they looked at developmental

vaccinated up to the age of six months, 12 months, 18 months, and 24 months. So

if they've been vaccinated up to that point, then they look at these outcomes

later at the age of over three years of age.

And if they were vaccinated up to six months, they get 95 % chance of, I'm

sorry, increased developmental delay by 95%. If they were vaccinated up to 12

months, they found 118 % increased risk of developmental delay. If they were

vaccinated up to the age of 18 months, 192 % increased risk of developmental

delay. And if they've been vaccinated up to 24 months, 251 % likelihood of

developmental delay diagnosis in the vaccinated.

So that's another.

You know, you mentioned a lot of things. You've mentioned ADHD.

You've mentioned eczema. You've mentioned chronic allergies.

Is it safe to say that all of these conditions are actually vaccine

There's no question that the increased risk of these diseases is caused by the

vaccine. Is it the only thing? You know, there's poisons in the food.

There may be other toxins out there that may be exposed to, may be contributing.

But if I were to, an educated guess based on my look at the literature, I

that the vaccines are probably the biggest contributor.

That's what I think.

What else could cause eczema or chronic allergies or peanut allergies or

ADHD or autism in a 6 -year -old or an 8 -year -old? Well, all the

poisons in the foods. You know what natural flavors is in the food? The FDA

not have any responsibility to check what natural flavors is.

So it's a blank check. And if you go to the supermarket and you go to all these

packaged foods, you'll find natural flavors in nearly everything.

I haven't found a single sports bar without natural flavors.

Or seed oils.

Seed oils also is the problem.

Seed oils is derived from petroleum, from crude oil.

There's a website you can go to if you want to open up a company to make

you know, whether it's soybean oil, palm oil.

You know, canola oil, vegetable oil. You pick your oil, and you pick your

country where you want to open up the company, where you want to set it up.

go to the website, and you click what you want to do, and you pay the money.

And you can have a whole process of these seed oils. And every single one of

them, if you look back with the processing, the entire process, it

crude oil.

We were not designed to be eating crude oil.

And they just refine it and refine it and refine it for human consumption.

But that's another problem.

So, I mean, there's a lot we can talk about regarding foods, but I think that

the vaccines is the biggest problem.

As I said, regarding the aluminum, aluminum being invited, aluminum in

food. There's aluminum in baby formula.

I guess what I'm asking is, is it possible that a child is just born with

or a peanut allergy or ADHD?

Henry Ford study, okay, in Michigan, that's really what it's telling

us, that many of these diseases don't exist.

I'm not saying that it never exists, but it's so unlikely for a child to develop

these chronic problems if there's no toxins going into the child.

It's extremely, I never say never.

Is it never?

Probably not. There's probably cases that are genetic, but we assume that

they're all a genetic -related problem, inevitable.

There's nothing we can do. We don't know what the reason is.

Anxiety? Feeling out of alignment?

You don't have to live this way.

At Ezra Healing, we guide you back into balance with our new health paradigm.

Personalized options and soul -centered practices.

It's not about quick fixes.

It's about true transformation.

Our philosophy is do no harm model of care.

And we are really focusing on people with vaccine injuries. Our mission is to

help people understand what cancers are and bring solutions and relieve pain and

suffering.

No waiting rooms.

No gaslighting.

The ivermectin is a moment in time in your life to get rid of parasites. And

you're struggling with cancer, we get rid of cancer. If we have a vaccine

injury, we're going to alleviate that.

But the goal is to eliminate anything foreign in your body. So we use these

supplements, these medications for a point in time in our life, eliminating

anything that lowers your vibe.

In genetics, this concept, the abnormal genome of populations, it's a formula.

The formula is the square root of mu over S. What does that mean? The square

root of mu is the mutation rate, and the S is the selection of the population.

So in other words, if the numerator, the top number is going up by the mutation

rate from chemical toxins that can change your DNA, it can increase

rate, and say 200 years ago, the person would have died without modern medicine,

without, you know, whatever, you know, would have potentially been selected out

of the population and died from whatever the problem is.

But instead, today, we're now keeping them into the population, right?

So the selection rate out is going down.

So now the numerator is going up, the denominator is going down, so the

genes in the population is just increasing.

There's a couple of these infant studies that really are powerful in my mind.

This one...

It's powerful. I'll show you why. This was published in 1997.

Bishop and colleagues published it in the New England Journal of Medicine,

de la Creme Journal.

What they did is they looked at premature infants born in less than 34

the neonatal ICU.

And these are babies sick enough to be in the ICU, and also the babies couldn't

feed, you couldn't give them oral feeding.

In fact, they had to get IV feeding called TPN, which stands for total

parenteral depression.

They looked at 227 babies from 1988 to 1991.

And what they found is the babies had TPN, total parental nutrition by IV,

like protein, carbohydrate, and fat through the IV, who had the standard TPN

versus a lower concentration of aluminum TPN.

So the standard TPN has 45 micrograms per kilogram per day of aluminum.

is a human toxin, and it's actually toxic for every living organism on

There's nothing that's okay with aluminum, basically.

Before I came here today, I tried to Google it, figured maybe there's some

reasons that I don't know about, and what I got was I just got literature

describing... from outcomes of aluminum in TPN, like in scientific journals.

There was no explanation, actually. There was no reason to put aluminum in

for these premature neonates in the neonatal ICU.

So they looked at standard aluminum, which was 45 micrograms per kilogram per

day, compared to a lower amount that they had to make special, which was 4 to

micrograms per kilogram per day. So a one -tenth amount of aluminum.

So the babies that had this TPN for 10 days or more had a significant

correlation. When these babies turned 18 months of age, they did this test

called the Bailey Mental Development Index.

And what they found is...

The ones who had the TPN with the higher amount had a 10 -point lower score.

And the average,

the mean score in the population is about 100. The ones that had a really

score, which is like the bottom 17th percentile, where they had 85 points or

lower, really low scores, it was 35 % in the ones with standard TPN versus 17 %

in those who had the lower TPN.

they were able to show that aluminum in the TPN was associated with these bad,

decreased neurologic outcomes.

And the authors often in the article point out that this mental development

at the age of 18 months has been, in other articles, has been associated with

lower IQ when they grow up.

And we know that it's well known that neurodevelopmental delay

increases the risk of educational problems in later years. A researcher

Joy Garner, in 2022, she published a study in the International Journal of

Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research.

And she looked at survey data from 2019 to 2020, and 1 ,800

vaccinated children in 46 states, and compared to the CDC data for the

population that's been vaccinated,

74%. So that's the vaccinated group. The unvaccinated group is the 1 ,800

unvaccinated. And she looked at children, and she looked at when these

became adults.

And they looked at chronic diseases. So the chronic diseases in children,

diabetes, gastrointestinal problems, allergies, neurodevelopmental delays,

defects, epilepsy, and cancer, kids.

And the vaccinated, 27%, okay?

And the unvaccinated, who got vitamin K and the mother got a vaccine

during pregnancy, 13%. So they're unvaccinated, but the mother got

and they got vitamin K, 13%. Now, you take the same unvaccinated kids, no

vitamin K shot, no maternal vaccine during pregnancy, 2 .25%. So that's your

number that should exist, at least.

in the population in terms of chronic, hemichronic diseases.

Instead, we've got now the vaccinated group, 27%. And they looked at an adult

chronic diseases. Now, the chronic disease, they looked at an adult,

artery disease, diabetes, gastrointestinal problems, allergies,

epilepsy, cancer.

60 % in adults have one of these problems if they've been vaccinated when

were kids.

And then those who, if you look back, were they unvaccinated with vitamin K

and the maternal vaccines during pregnancy?

12%. And unvaccinated, no vitamin K shot, no maternal vaccine, 4 .5%. So

clearly, just yet another article showing harm in all these

we're injecting into these people. All of our information that doctors derived

from

It derives from all the information that's been published, right?

That's how we treat diseases. We take the scientific articles.

We talked about before that there can be consensus also, whether that's biased

or not, it's a separate issue, but generally we try to get evidence -based

treatments, and we call it evidence -based medicine. We try to practice

-based medicine.

This is the evidence.

This is the evidence. This is evidence -based medicine.

There is no evidence showing the opposite.

It doesn't exist.

Six months ago, I didn't know this stuff either, right? I had to take a deep

dive into it. And the only reason why I took a deep dive is because I learned

what happened with the COVID vaccine.

And I figured that one out very early on. And I'm like, well, what are the

corruptions out there?

And we looked into all the other vaccines.

And this is what I found.

Do you know of anybody else that's done this? No.

And not only that, I've taken not only...

Again, I've taken, I think this is a very exhaustive list because, you know,

even R .K. Jr. has said there's no studies that vaccinate versus

unvaccinate before they're licensed.

Virtually every American would agree with my stance on vaccines, which is

vaccines should be tested like other medicines.

They should be safety tested.

And unfortunately, vaccines are not safety tested. They're not.

Of the 72 vaccine doses now mandated, essentially mandated, they were

recommended, but they're really mandated, American children, none of

one, has ever been subject to a pre -licensing placebo -controlled trial.

Yes, they have. No. Yes, they have.

Okay, let me just say something.

Dr. Fauci and many other people for many years said this, that Bobby Kennedy,

when he says that, is wrong.

So I met with Dr. Fauci in 2016, you know, and I agreed to go on Trump's

Safety Commission. And I was with Aaron Seary and Lynn Redwood and a number of

other people. And we said to him, can you show us one test from any vaccine,

-licensing safety test?

And he said, I'll send it to you. I can't find one now.

He never did. So we sued him.

We sued Aaron Seary and I sued HHS.

And after a year of litigation and stonewalling, they said that they could

provide a single safety study for any vaccine that is on the childhood

pre -licensing safety study. There are no studies showing safety.

Okay, but there are studies showing that they're unsafe.

There's no safety studies. You're right. There are none.

Still today.

But there are safety studies showing that there's a lack of safety. They're

unsafe. They do exist.

Not that many, just like, you know, say 15, 20 studies that I have, depending on

what we're looking at.

But this is all that's out there, and every single one of them shows harm.

Why until today has nobody done what you've done?

I have no idea.

You know, you take the strong interest, I guess, to do this. I'm not sure why. I

have no idea. I can't ask that question.

I can't.

And again, I'm giving the author, the year it was published, and

the journal. So anybody can go and look this up and verify it. They can

validate. They can debunk. I'm happy to get people to say what you're saying is

not true. It is true.

I've looked at all the studies, and I'm just reporting on the results.

And you find me a study that shows that the vaccines...

Vaccinated versus unvaccinated does not cause autism spectrum disorder or

ADD or any of these things. Like, I know about SIDS because I'm an ear doctor,

right? So when they bring a patient who stops breathing at home, like a six

-month -old child or one -month -old, whatever it is, they turn blue, they

breathing, they bring them in, as long as they're still alive.

Obviously, they can die at home, but the idea is that we believe SIDS...

It's multifactorial. That's what the current thinking is.

Primarily neurologic. You know, why the brain's not, because the center of the

base of the brain regulates breathing.

And if the base of the brain's not working, then the child will stop

And there's a lot of people who have written about this and spoken out about

this saying that there's no way it could be the vaccine because that's an

immunologic problem.

So how can something using the immune system, how is that going to cause them

stop breathing? It doesn't make any biologic sense, right?

But it's the excipients.

It's the excipients.

And that's what they're missing.

It's not about the antigen of the polio antigen.

That's not the problem.

The problem is all the additives they put in it that are toxic.

So let's talk about this article.

published by Neil Miller, 2021 in Toxicology Reports.

He looked at the VAERS data, okay?

Now, I know that people have a problem with the VAERS data because it only

represents 1 % of all data, and the other thing is that you can be a non

to report to it.

So, by the way, before COVID, nobody questioned the VAERS data.

Nobody questioned it.

But some people kind of questioned it now. But the way this study was done,

I don't think you can even question the data at all. So I'll tell you how it was

done.

They looked at data between 1990 and 2019, and they looked at cases of these

children who died under the age of one, okay, and the ones who

died after getting a vaccine. So they looked at, they got the vaccine within

days, you know, if they died within those 60 days, they looked at that,

kids, right?

And the number of, SIDS cases they looked at is 1 ,048.

Total number of kids, 2 ,605. In other words, about 1 ,500 were non -SIDS

deaths.

So there's the SIDS and the non -SIDS deaths.

So they got the vaccine. Within 60 days, they died.

Now, if it had nothing to do with the vaccine, there should be an even

distribution of the death throughout that 60 days, okay?

But what they found was 75 % died within seven days, right?

50 % of them died within three days of the vaccine.

So to get the vaccine, seven days later, 75 % have died. That means the

remaining 25 % died between day seven and 60.

That means there was something that happened at the time they were given the

injection.

And what's fascinating, this article that was published, they actually list.

seven other articles looking at the same thing in the past, including 1980, the

CDC itself presented a study showing similar results. The overall average is

about 71 % died within seven days, and all these other seven studies have been

published showing the same thing.

Two of those studies, they died within, 90 % died within seven days. Now we've

got to think about biologic plausibility, and that's where this

in.

You know, how do vaccines cost us? We talked about the You know, it's a

neurologic problem, okay? And we talked about the fact that there's aluminum in

the vaccine, which is a neurotoxin. There's American, there's a neurotoxin.

So what they did, Greenberg and colleagues, 2025, this year, published

JAMA Pediatrics.

Okay, JAMA is a creme de la creme journal, okay?

And it was a randomized trial from 2018 to 2021. They looked at 223 infants in

three U .S.

neonatal ICUs, okay?

And they looked at, they were premature infants born less than 33 weeks, and

they were all about 6 to 12 weeks of age, randomized.

They received, some received the two -month vaccine, they caught up to the

-month vaccine, and some received no vaccine.

Okay? And what they were looking for, they admitted them to the hospital, and

they were watching, they got the two -month vaccine in the hospital.

And they watched them in the hospital. And what they were looking for is apnea.

Apnea means they stopped breathing.

So there were two different categories of the apnea. One is a breathing pause

for 20 seconds. In other words, the child stopped breathing for 20 seconds.

Or a pause of 15 seconds and the heart rate going below 80.

Usually in babies, the heart rate's much faster. So below 80 is very low for a

baby.

So either one of those is the outcome they're looking for. And they compared

vaccinated versus unvaccinated.

And what they found is the vaccinated

24 % of them had apnea, and the unvaccinated, 10%. So they did show a

statistically significant difference in apnea.

So there's a study showing us that the vaccine increased the risk of apnea.

Apnea is what we believe causes SIDS, and there you have it. There's a good

explanation there.

So are you saying that it's your opinion that SIDS is, Caused by vaccine?

It's my opinion that it has definitely caused many cases. Is it all cases?

I don't know. But I can tell you that if a child has SIDS, God forbid, it's

highly likely it's caused by the vaccine. That's what I think.

Highly likely. And the data shows that?

The data shows that. And what's really important, and what a lot of doctors are

missing, there's biologic plausibility. Because we keep going back to, it's the

excipients.

Aluminum, mercury, those are neurotoxins.

Daly and colleagues in 2023 published an article in the Journal of Academic

Pediatrics. They looked at data from the CDC vaccine safety data link.

They looked at over 326 records.

And what they looked at, they looked at the cumulative aluminum by vaccines.

In other words, they took the amount of vaccines, calculated the amount of

aluminum,

by 24 months and correlated that with asthma when they became 2 to 5 years of

age. So up to the age of 24 months, they calculated how much aluminum

from the vaccine, correlated that with how many kids are getting asthma between

the age of 2 and 5 years of age.

And they found that there was a dose -response. For each 1 milligram increase

aluminum, a corresponding 19 to 26 percent increased risk of asthma.

They looked at asthma with and without eczema. So either way, 19 % to 26 %

asthma with and without eczema because eczema is also a chronic inflammatory

problem. Like asthma is an inflammatory problem in the lung. Eczema is an

inflammatory problem in the skin.

There's a very similar pathophysiology to just different parts of the body.

Historically, if somebody comes to you and, I mean, you're an emergency

department doc, and somebody is...

coming into the ED because they can't breathe and ultimately they're diagnosed

with asthma.

Historically, before you did these studies, before you knew this, what did

attribute the asthma diagnosis to?

Like every other doctor, we don't know, idiopathic.

And we say it's for idiots and we don't know the reason.

There's a lot of that, isn't there? I mean, idiopathic, a lot of things.

Yeah, right,

right. But there's an elephant in the room.

We need to look at it.

It's not so idiopathic anymore, is it? Not really, not in my mind. So there's

something that's published that I want to share that was very interesting.

Basically,

it's an educational piece based on the evidence.

It was updated in 2024.

It's the Physicians for Informed Consent is the one that produces it, and it's

an evidence -based review for physicians.

And what they reported on, just based on...

literature that's out there, okay, information.

22 doses of the nine different vaccines containing aluminum from birth to age of

18 years of age include hepatitis B, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus,

influenza B, pneumococcal, hepatitis A, human papillomavirus vaccine,

and meningococcal vaccine. So all these vaccines have aluminum, okay?

And the

They also reported that the Health and Human Services officially recognizes

aluminum as a neurotoxin.

Okay?

And the Federal Register, published in June 2003, warns that aluminum is a

risk in infants because the reasons they give is limited kidney function.

It's also a risk because it's a neurotoxin. But, you know, they can't

it so fast.

That's one of the features that I guess people don't really think about is

decreased kidney function compared to an adult.

So now we are basing the maximum amount of aluminum in the vaccines based on a

1968 Federal Register, Volume 33, Number 6, which limits the aluminum to 850

micrograms per dose from 1968.

For whatever reason, they decided in 1968...

The maximum amount you can give anyone, including a child, is 850 milligrams a

dose, adult or child.

Happens to be that any vaccine that's given, single vaccine, the maximum

is 850 micrograms.

That's the maximum.

Some of them have that, some of them have less. They went from 125 to 850.

But don't forget, sometimes when the children have to catch up on the

They get multiple doses the same day.

So they're exceeding this 1968, which is kind of old, and maybe it should be

updated, although the real number should be zero.

But we're going based on 1968 standard, and they're getting multiple doses.

They're already exceeding this old limit by the children who were getting

injected with multiple doses.

What's interesting, this is fascinating, there's another government agency

called the ATSDR, which stands for Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease

Registry. Well, you know what they say, another government agency?

They say that the maximum amount of aluminum for a newborn is 3 .3

per day.

Meanwhile, some of these vaccines have 850 micrograms.

Think about that.

So they give a gradation based on the age from newborns to 12 months.

Even at 12 months old, they say that the ATSDR, they say that the maximum safe

dose of aluminum is 9 .3 micrograms per day. 9 .3.

But some of the vaccines have to have up to 850 micrograms based on what's in

the Federal Register.

So, you know, the government, our own government, is giving us two different

safety limits.

One's way lower than the other one.

So think about that. I mean, that's fascinating.

And so a visit of a less than six -month -old baby may get

pneumococcal, haemophilus influenzae, hepatitis B, and a DTaP, which means

diphtheria technis pertussis.

And that could be 1 ,225 micrograms of aluminum.

That's a very plausible scenario that might happen, that has happened, sure,

many, many times.

Regularly. Yeah, there's something called a depot effect that was coined by

researcher. His name is Alexander Glennie.

And this is from an article in the literature published in 2009 by Marek

colleagues in a journal called Nature Reviews Immunology.

So the whole history of all the data up until 2009 looking at aluminum as an

adjuvant and this depot effect. So it was first described by Alexander

He first published the findings in guinea pigs in 1926.

Then he did it in humans in 1932. What he found was the antibodies are against

whatever the antigen is. If you put aluminum in it, it lasts a little bit

longer. You get antibodies longer, farther out.

That's the whole idea behind it. Why? Because we can't metabolize aluminum

because it's a human toxin. Our body doesn't know what to do with it.

So as a result, you either link it up or mix it with the vaccine.

Ostensibly, the vaccine will last longer because the aluminum lasts longer.

That's the idea behind it. That's what an adjuvant is.

And therefore, you're going to get a better immune reaction.

So it happened to be in 1950, 1955, two papers showed actually that doesn't

happen. And I don't think anybody's even looked at it since.

At least in this article of 2009.

In other words, they haven't looked at antibody levels. The other thing is

that... There's also cellular immunity as well.

But there's been a lot of papers looking at mechanisms, like inflammatory

cytokines. There have been a number of papers looking at that, but that doesn't

tell us anything.

They're just looking at how these cells interact with each other.

Basically, it creates more inflammation is what happens. All these different

inflammatory things are happening when you add aluminum.

But then the question is, yeah, what does the aluminum do to the human

which is a toxin?

And the other thing is, does it really make this vaccine work better?

Never been proven.

There are no studies saying, you know, this vaccine with aluminum makes a more

effective polio vaccine or measles vaccine.

In other words, it doesn't decrease polio or measles in the population more

effectively with aluminum versus without aluminum.

Nobody's done that study. It doesn't exist.

I have something on polio I want to share afterwards. You ever had a polio

in the ER?

No, but there's a new diagnosis called transverse myelitis, which is really

similar to polio.

And what's happening, though, is because of the COVID vaccine is that it's

destroying people's immune systems. When you destroy people's immune systems,

you get all these other problems coming up. And so the transverse myelitis is

happening because of...

of the COVID vaccine.

And in some scenarios, like in the Texas outbreak, first of all, the reality is

even if it was just, even if there's a difference between transverse myelitis

and polio, it may not be a difference. It may be the same thing.

In other words, there may be polio cases happening, but we haven't detected

polio in the water.

So how's that happening? But the whole concept of immunology called viral

escape.

So you're basically depressing the immune system of the population,

viruses to go rampant more likely.

And this concept, I've never heard of the concept before I looked it up,

COVID. Any doctor I work with, okay, friends, colleagues, never heard of the

whole concept at all.

Never heard of it because it's a vaccinologist, immunologist concept.

So we are at a level of immunology and vaccinology in medicine, very

rudimentary.

Right? So people,

they just automatically assume when we tell them the news that these measles

cases are happening because they're not getting vaccinated against measles.

Lots of children are not vaccinated, and then when they go abroad, they're

exposed to measles, bring it home, and then it spreads among like -minded

after they return to the United States.

As you say, the whole age spectrum can be affected, all the way from infants to

some adults.

So this is a new problem, and the answer is we've got to vaccinate our children.

And if you go abroad...

Check with your doctor first to make sure that your measles protection is up

date. Now, doctor, the decision to vaccinate or not has been one of quite a

of debate over the years for parents of young children. And parents fall on both

sides of this issue very squarely. But from your perspective, when you look at

kind of the public risk, not just for one child, but the public risk of

is there any valid medical reason to not be vaccinated?

There is no reason not to vaccinate your child.

It's important for that child safety.

It's important for the whole community. The vaccines are safe.

They are effective.

Talk to your family doctor. Talk to your pediatrician. And get your child

vaccinated so that measles will not be reintroduced into the United States and

spread. It's a serious disease.

Fifteen percent of these people who've had measles have been hospitalized.

it's much more likely that it's the depressed immune system allowing these

things happening to people in addition to causing the toxicities from the

vaccines as well. Another article published in 2025 by Goldman and Cheng

journal called International Journal of Medical Sciences.

And what they did is they go through all the different articles in the

literature looking at basically how aluminum affects babies, right?

They show all these studies from the literature looking at this enzyme called

the cytochrome P450.

That's the enzyme that metabolizes a lot of these excipients and all the toxins

in our body. What they show in the article is that immature infants have a

reduced cytochrome P450 enzyme in their liver compared to full -term infants.

In fact, they can have like one -third to two -thirds.

the amount in full -term infants compared to adults.

In other words, we looked at the literature published on the liver

infants. The liver metabolizes all the toxins in our body, right?

So what's metabolizing the excipients? What's metabolizing the aluminum?

Well, the cytochrome P450 is involved in metabolizing, getting rid of it.

So, again, it's a neurotoxin.

It's used as an adjuvant.

But you eventually want to get rid of it because you don't want to hang around

with the body too long, right?

So you need to metabolize it.

Now, the babies have a more difficult time metabolizing it compared to adults.

And premature infants have an even more difficult time.

And the other thing is that even if you have a normal full -term baby, there's

different polymorphisms. In other words, there may be a baby that's not

premature that just happens to not have, of the cytochrome P450 enzymes that

is normal.

Occasionally you have that. You have a lot of cases like that.

So there's certain subgroups that work and some subgroups don't work. The ones

that do a really good job at metabolizing, there's some instances

don't have them.

Because everybody's different.

The question is this, do pediatricians decide which baby to give it to?

Let's just say it's safe, hypothetically.

Say hypothetically it works as an adjuvant.

Which it doesn't. But let's just say hypothetics. Why aren't they looking at,

oh, let's check the cytochrome P50 enzymes, see which one's able to

it. We'll give that one a dose, maybe the other one, let's monitor it and make

sure the cytochrome P450 can handle it, then we'll give them a dose. No, they

don't do that. How about the premature ones?

Same doses for the premature ones.

Okay?

I mean, think about that. It's crazy.

There's variability in these babies' ability to metabolize.

The excipients, right?

And the other thing is this. The excipients, including aluminum, also

the cytochrome P450 itself.

They've been able to show that in the literature.

So when they get one dose, say at the age of one day old, and they get their

second dose, they're going to now have a compromised ability to metabolize it

the next time around.

Don't let the IRS rob you. Where is your money going?

Over 4 million government credit cards by federal employees were used to make

million transactions with no accountability.

Doge has found $4 .7 trillion in federal spending that is untraceable or

fraudulent. You work hard to pay your bills. And a significant portion of your

money is funneled to thieves and fraudsters through the taxes you pay to

IRS. The IRS wants you to feel powerless.

Be a slave that shuts up and give them your hard -earned money. But there is a

way out of this slavery.

Freedom Law School has been teaching Americans for over 30 years that no law

requires 99 % of Americans to file and pay income tax.

None of their students who have stopped paying have gone to prison or had their

bank account or property stolen by the IRS.

Go to freedomlawschool .org today to take seven steps to freedom from IRS

deception, robbery, and slavery for freedom.

Go to freedomlawschool .org today.

How can somebody spend a decade studying medicine and be convinced that a

newborn baby is going to be born and go sleep with a hooker or shoot up heroin?

Why would they need a B -shot, and why would this cognitive dissonance or the

refusal to see this by doctors be so widespread? How does this happen? It's

about trusting the popular narrative.

And when you go through medical school and college, you're trusting your

professors to give you information that's accurate. You have such trust in

system. The system...

in the practice of medicine is very much controlled by the big pharma.

So this narrative, I mean, we learn all these mechanisms, which are great. We

learn pathophysiology and physiology.

This is all important stuff to know.

And we are given this narrative that the only solution is the man -made

engineered chemicals, i .e.

pharmaceuticals, in a lab is the solution.

And you can see the mechanisms and how that works, and that's how you convince.

It convinces people. But the reality is there are natural things that actually

can make people healthy that we're ignoring. That's in the literature. For

example, like raw garlic or ginger.

These things actually improve outcomes.

trained to believe in fact i remember i used to get offended when people would

say oh they don't learn enough nutrition and medical school i've been hearing

this for decades you know we don't learn enough nutrition and and and we just

treat disease and i didn't understand really what that meant now i understand

because the reality is there's nothing we can give to to to improve some of

these immune systems if they fight a viral infection now if we have an

tissue like they a herpes lesion we have an antiviral for that but most of these

respiratory viruses um not nearly all of them basically we don't have any

antivirals to treat it there's no there's no pharmaceutical so what do we

give them tell them tylenol get some rest you know go home get you drink a

of fluid you'll be fine but what we could be doing But we could be actually

telling them that if you eat raw garlic, you'll actually stimulate your immune

system, and you will cure that viral infection much faster. And not only

if you take garlic every other day, fresh garlic, and chew it, then you can

actually strengthen your immune system so you won't get sick.

Like, we're not telling patients that, and guess what? It's evidence -based

medicine in PubMed.

I actually brought this into medical school, and I gave a couple lectures on

I know a lot of the faculty were, I think, very interested at the same time

being a little cynical.

Nobody told me I couldn't do it, and nobody criticized me for it. It became

of... Big news in medical school.

And when I gave the science -based lecture on garlic, it really blew people

away, actually, because it was actually real science showing it improves

glutathione, interferon alpha, interferon beta, nitric oxide.

All these things happen.

Interferon alpha is like, we give it as a drug. We give it as a drug to treat.

People fail chemotherapy.

When they're taking chemotherapy and it's failing, we can show that

can improve outcomes.

So an interferon alpha is $11 ,000 a treatment.

Interferon beta is $22 ,000 a treatment. It's also used for multiple sclerosis.

It's used to cure hepatitis B and hepatitis C, actually.

Interferon is a pretty powerful drug. It's not an antiviral, though.

It's a part of your own immune system.

So we're giving something that improves their immune system, stimulating their

immune system with this drug, pharmaceutical, and we're getting better

Now, they haven't looked at it to see if it would cure cancer.

Theoretically, it may have some curative ability.

But what's not being recognized, not being taught, and almost being, to

some degree, there's a cynicism that exists where, like, Oh, we can take raw

garlic, and you can improve your own natural interferon. In fact, in one

you can increase your interferon alpha by five times by just taking two to

grams of garlic per day. There is no one that I knew in medical school or in

residency or even since then that have questioned the vaccines.

Any of them?

Nope.

Not that I knew.

I mean, I'm sure they are out there, but very, very few. I haven't encountered

any.

So nobody once said, why are we vaccinating this child?

Well, it really came up during, again, I can't remember where I was in my

career, but it came up with the chickenpox.

But that was it. That's the only time people really questioned, do we really

need it? But not hepatitis B.

You know, it's funny that hepatitis B seemed to be accepted. I have asked

pediatricians myself.

why we're giving a one -day -old hepatitis B when, you know, we know it's

transmitted by sexual contact, IV drug abuse, and blood transfusions, right?

actually, Peter McCullough also has said that the likelihood of a baby, a

newborn being exposed to hepatitis B is one in seven million. So even if it

did work, which it doesn't work at that age, even if it did work, you'd have to

treat seven million babies to get one.

good outcome, basically, to benefit one child.

And it has aluminum in it. It has a lot of aluminum in it. So I've asked

pediatricians, why do we need to give hepatitis B? You know the answer? The

answer? To get the parents used to vaccines.

That's it.

The babies don't have a competent immune system yet.

They can't amount to appropriate immune reaction.

And the other thing is this. Even when you're vaccinating people, it takes

to get a response.

So if you're thinking maybe it's what we call vertical transmission, in other

words, mother to baby, if that's the argument, okay, it's not going to work

because you give the vaccine, it doesn't work immediately.

It takes a few weeks to get the IgG antibody that you need, maybe a week for

and then IgG after that.

and the other cellular immunity you need. So it's not going to do anything

vertical transmission for sure, even if they had a competent immune system,

which they don't. And the other thing is that the amount of aluminum that's in

the hepatitis B vaccine for a newborn is about 73 micrograms per kilogram.

What does that mean? If you look at the micrograms per kilogram in an adult

hepatitis B vaccine, it's 7.

7 micrograms per kilogram.

There's 10 times more aluminum for a newborn baby exposure

than an adult.

And the thing is this, is that when you're a newborn baby, your blood -brain

barrier is not fully developed yet. So you have permeability of your blood

-brain barrier. So that aluminum that needs an opening to get your brain is

likely in a newborn baby to get into the brain. We know aluminum is a

neurotoxin. They have a developing brain, which means it's much more

to the damage of the aluminum versus an adult, right?

So, like, there's so many reasons not to give it to a baby, and we're giving

higher doses.

And actually, the two -month shot is even higher. It's about 24 times the

of aluminum in the two -month dose, zero, three months, six months, I

with the three hepatitis B vaccines. The second one has...

About 172 micrograms per kilogram.

During your career as a doctor, did you have any patients that were vaccine

-hesitant or refused vaccine?

Yes or no?

Yes. My reaction to those people who were hesitant or refused the vaccine is

just simply offered it.

I personally did not, I didn't get upset at them. There were nurses I worked

with and there were other residents and other attendings that would make very

cynical comments.

very, very dark negative comments and or pressured the patient.

And I was just not one of those people that did that. I just felt like, you

know, they have a right to refuse it. And the other things, look, we're

with herd immunity.

So we're not necessarily, for most vaccines, not the tetanus vaccine, but

most vaccines we're dealing with herd immunity, which means that if...

If they didn't want to take it, they're not harming anyone else.

The people who are taking the vaccine are protected.

If they don't want to protect themselves, theoretically speaking, I

any reason why I needed to push it on them.

Now, as far as the tetanus, look, I mean, I know that there's like 20 cases

tetanus per year in the United States, and nobody dies of tetanus anymore.

We have supportive care.

We have intubation.

We have...

antibiotics.

So nobody dies of tetanus. So when people come to the ER and they don't

take the tetanus shot, I've always been okay with not taking it. But you have to

understand it a little bit.

If you just believe in this popular narrative, like I hate to say it,

many doctors do, that it's deadly, it's going to cause them to die, and these

scare tactics, they just believe it. They don't actually look at the data.

It's what they're being told by these governing bodies, or what they were

verbally by their superior during training.

Then they have this belief, like a religion, that you have to take it.

Talk about how doctors are motivated by money. Right.

Particularly straight from the big pharmaceutical corporations that are

manufacturing these poisons.

Right. There's no question that the pediatricians' offices and the

are being paid to have a certain percentage of vaccinated patients.

In fact, actually, during COVID in the ER, we were told we had to offer the

COVID vaccine to the Emergency Department of Patients.

And that's where I drew the line there. I'm like, because a lot of these decrees

come from the administrators, you know, from the bean counters.

I know people want to blame the doctors, and I'm not saying the doctors are

totally innocent, because they're basically like, you know, in a sense

pimp, basically.

They're carrying out this mission based on money.

But it's the... No, no, I'm not saying... It is bad. It is bad.

However... There's also the people above them who employ them, who pressure them

because they want to make money.

And maybe they'll bonus the doctors to incentivize them as well. They all work

together, basically.

It's a whole consortium of various levels of the system.

And then, of course, they brainwash the nurses.

The nurses aren't making any more money, but they brainwash them, so they push

it as well. It's a matter of brainwashing, and it's driven by money,

question.

Doctors and pediatricians and all doctors are essentially working as

-based salespeople for pharmaceutical companies.

Yeah. The doctors are working as commission salespeople really for the

pharmaceutical companies. But, again, if the administrators are also colluding

and or directing it, actually, right? I mean, every medical practice has

individuals who are managing the practice.

watching the money, and the same thing with the hospital system. And many of

practice is known by big hospital systems.

So they're being told, doctors are being told that they need to do this, they

need to be giving up the vaccine.

And a lot of the doctors, and there's many cases like this, I've heard even as

recent as yesterday, that people have come to me and told me that when they

didn't want, they refused the vaccine, they were kicked out of the practice.

because they needed to meet their quota.

Some of these pediatricians can make up to a million dollars a year from the

incentives that are given for vaccinating.

Pediatricians are earning a living based on these commissions that's greater

than what their salary is from the health care system that they work in.

Right. Is it true?

You said they can earn up to a million dollars. I know that Mayo is not paying

pediatrician a million dollars.

No, that's exactly right. They make a big part of their money.

The lion's share of their salary these days is from the vaccines.

Yeah.

And they don't question that.

It somehow becomes normal in their world, and I don't understand it either,

actually. Look, I'm not paid that way.

I don't know. I can't explain the psychology of it, really.

But that's the world we're living in today.

A lot of these things are really your own personal philosophy. So there are

nurses who they themselves question.

The independent thinkers who are more into naturopathic treatments and

things like that, a lot of people are into their own health, actually.

These are the individuals that may question things.

But I would say that's a small percentage.

The majority of nurses also, they just buy into this popular narrative, and

believe it to be true.

They believe that, A, vaccines are good, and, B, it's the right thing to do.

It's morally the right thing to do in society.

And, yeah,

they believe they should be, like, to be a good nurse, to be a good person, a

good vital member, they put the vaccines.

This article, published by Geir and colleagues, G -E -I -E -R, published in

2015 in Clinica Chimica Acta Journal, they looked at basically all

the literature that's published. They looked at 81 references in the

regarding thimerosal, which is ethylmercury.

And it's been used as a preservative in vaccines since 1927, and it's a well

-known human toxin.

They looked at human clinical data, epidemiologic data, biochemical data,

all causes human harm.

There's toxicity in the literature, causing death, birth defects,

neurodevelopmental defects and disorders.

So they're telling you that mercury causes these problems.

And then we put it in the vaccine.

So now the authors quote the WHO.

This is what they say.

The WHO says, it's important to note that concerns about the toxicity of

cimeracel are theoretical and that there is no compelling scientific evidence of

a safety problem related to its use in vaccines.

That's what the WHO says.

So this article, like, they're giving you 81 references showing that that

statement is false.

So what they conclude, this article, and the authors conclude in this article,

this is what they say, quote, unquote.

The culmination of the research that examines the effect of thimerosal in

indicates that it is a poison at minute levels with a plethora of deleterious

consequences and is their clear cause for concern.

That's what they say.

That's in the peer -reviewed literature.

A couple of articles on influenza.

One is this past season. It was published in, I believe it was in April,

published this year, April 2025.

The author is now Shrestha.

Shrestha and colleagues, there's a paper on the Cleveland Clinic

employees from the 2024 to 2025 influenza season, this past season.

They looked at over 53 ,000 Cleveland Clinic employees, and they found that

those who were vaccinated against influenza were 27 % more likely to

influenza. In other words, the vaccine didn't work. It did the opposite.

That's published data. I'm so confused about how this information can be out

there. It can be peer -reviewed. It can be published data in a reputable

journal.

And you're the only guy that knows or cares about this?

I don't know. I can't explain. I'm not making this stuff up. I got it from

PubMed, and I'm just reporting on it. But as long as the vaccine...

Skepticism has become this huge controversial talking point and, you

polarizing conspiracy theory.

Why hasn't this been just very simplified by saying, well, the evidence

here. There's nothing really to argue about.

Well, to be fair,

I've been told there are many articles out there showing influenza vaccine has

worked in the past. I haven't looked at them, actually.

Just like every other doctor. I don't look at the journals. I just accept

maybe they exist.

But I think the point of the making is that this past season, there was an

institution that was able to show it didn't work and actually caused more

of influenza.

And so in other words,

it's not 100, even if there are articles showing it worked in the past, giving

the people who taught me this, who told me this, what I accepted to be true all

along,

given them the benefit of the doubt, well, this past year, it showed the

opposite results.

So I think that it should at least wake up people saying, maybe it's not 100

% every season.

Maybe this is not 100 % true.

What are the common influenza outcomes for an unvaccinated person that

influenza? What are the common outcomes for that person?

Most of the people don't have any problem with it. In other words, they

cough, congestion, and they get, I mean, look, I see influenza all the time in

the ER, okay?

And when I get this influenza positive out the door, if they want Tamiflu, I

don't actually offer it anymore because that's also, actually that one drug was

at least looked at by the faculty and medical school I was at, by the entire

department of emergency physicians.

a lot of smart people.

In fact, the toxicologist of the group is the one that presented this data that

he was pro -vax for COVID. He buys into everything, but he was able to show from

the literature that Tamiflu doesn't actually help anybody.

We were taught that Tamiflu decreases the severity of the illness and it

decreases the duration of the symptoms by one day.

That's the common teaching for Tamiflu.

It doesn't save lives.

It doesn't decrease hospitalizations.

It doesn't decrease the likelihood of getting, you know, bacterial pneumonia,

which is the problem. It doesn't decrease the likelihood of getting

whatever. But it just decreases the severity and the duration a little bit.

that is even false.

That's what we learned. When we went through that data, that's even a false

claim. So that was mainstream doctors who figured that out in the department I

was in.

Okay?

That's just Tamiflu. So I don't...

it caused harm so i don't i don't prescribe tamiflu unless people someone

wants it and i i tell them openly i wouldn't take it but let me prescribe it

before we go on the next thing so you treat influenza you see it all the time

mostly not problematic people feel ill they get better life goes on

these are the people who were not vaccinated for influenza those that are

vaccinated

that go get the flu shot, what potential negative side effects could they

experience from the flu shot?

Well, that's the question. I haven't seen any public data showing safety for

influenza shot.

But is there published data showing that they're unsafe?

There isn't any. There's no data that I know of. I haven't found any

specifically influenza looking at outcomes.

So yeah, we don't know either way.

But I can say that when people die of influenza, greater than 90 %

of them die of bacterial pneumonia.

So what happens is you get, it's called an opportunistic infection.

In other words, your body's overwhelmed fighting this virus, the influenza

virus. So it leaves itself open for an opportunity for something else to come

in, which is the bacterial pneumonia.

The most common is staph aureus, which is a rapidly growing bacterial

but that can be true with antibiotics.

So a lot of people, when they come to the ER and they're positive for

if the oxygen saturation is low or if they have significant morbidities or if

the heart rate is really fast or they have a significant fever, I'll get a

x -ray.

I'm looking for bacterial pneumonia.

If I have that, then I can treat it with an antibiotic and everything's good,

right? So even the cause of death, people generally don't die of influenza

itself. It's the opportunistic infection, which is treatable.

But that's pretty rare.

I mean, very rare.

So why wouldn't you get the flu shot, I guess is what I'm asking.

Why wouldn't I get it?

Well, looking at all these other vaccines.

I can look up what the excipients are in influenza, but I can tell you

that, well, first of all, there are smaller doses of thimerosal in it, for

The ones that are in the multi -dose vial, they have thimerosal straight up.

Please rise, please form.

Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so be God?

I do.

Has thimerosal ever been tested by our health agencies?

It's been only in those early tests that you know of that were done by Lilly.

And when was that test done? That was done in 1929.

Okay, well, let's follow up on that. In 1929, they tested this on 27 people that

were dying of meningitis. All of those people died of meningitis, and so they

said there was no correlation between their death and the mercury in the

vaccines. That is the only test that's ever been done on somersault.

that I know of. Can you think of any other?

No, in people, no, except for accidental exposures. Okay, so we have mercury

that's being put into people's bodies in the form of this preservative and has

been since the 30s, and it's never been tested by our health agencies.

And yet you folks come here and you testify that there's no conclusive

conclusive evidence and and the iom says they favor get this they don't say

they're sure they say they favor rejection of a causal relationship

mercury and autism and other neurological disorders mr egan can you

me right now that that amount of mercury being injected into a baby will not

hurt it it's you know it's it's it's impossible to make those categorical

statements of 100%. That's right. So it is possible that the amount of mercury

that's being injected, even in trace amounts, could damage a child

neurologically, right?

I don't think it has that capacity.

I mean, we can argue.

I know, but you don't think it is. But you can't say categorically, can you? Do

I have evidence for every single child for every possible dose? The answer is

no. There you go. Another article published in 2012 by Cowling and

the Clinical Infectious Disease Journal, they looked at 115 children who were

randomized to get influenza vaccine versus placebo, right?

After nine months, you know what they found?

They found that those who had the flu vaccine had a 4 .4 increased risk of

getting non -influenza viruses like rhinovirus, coxsackievirus, and

So you get other viruses going up.

So let's talk about polio because that's an interesting one because, first of

all, if you Google when the polio vaccine was introduced

and what the cases were in the 1950s, you'll see that it looks like it worked

beautifully, right?

But then I found two graphs in the Bureau of Statistics that show that

when the polio vaccine was given, okay,

it was given at the end of the epidemic of polio.

Then what they did is they redefined what polio is, so the two graphs in the

Bureau of Statistics.

The second graph, what they did is they added additional

viruses as the definition of polio.

So in other words, they added Coxsackievirus, they added diphtheria,

they were positive for those, they considered those So the second graph

like they gave the vaccine, and then the cases came down.

That's what happened. So they extended out that graph to make it look like the

polio vaccine was the cause.

But I do want to point out also that in 1952, okay, one year before the rollout

of the polio vaccine, which was the worst year, there were 3 ,145 deaths

polio that year. That's the worst we've ever had, okay?

3 ,000 cases.

Now, I looked at the U .S. Census.

I wanted to see what the population was at the time. The closest I could find

was 1950.

The U .S. Census, 1950, the population was 151 million. So I did the math.

The mortality rate from polio is 200 ,000.

Okay?

But the entire population was scared they were going to get polio. That's how

they get them to take the vaccine.

200 ,000 is a very low likelihood, right?

Now, when a person gets polio, 70 % to 75 % are asymptomatic, zero symptoms at

all, right?

In 1952, which is the worst year,

they had 58 ,000 symptomatic cases.

37 ,000 of them were mild viral cases.

21 ,000 had mild to disabling paralysis.

So 21 ,000 mild to disabling paralysis.

Autism in 2022, where 1 .1 million children had autism,

spectrum disorder, and 275 ,000 of those had profound autism. That means

lifelong, 24 -7 care. That means they don't speak, they can't feed themselves.

275 ,000 cases of profound autism in 2022 compared to 21 ,000

in the worst year ever of...

disabling paralysis.

I'm sorry, mild to disabling. The ASD prevalence rate in 8 -year -olds is now

in 31.

Shocking.

There's an extreme risk for boys.

Overall, the risk for boys of getting an autism diagnosis in this country is now

1 in 20.

And it's high in California, which has the best data collection.

So it probably also reflects the national trend, 1 in 12 .5 boys. This is

of an unrelenting upward trend.

The prevalence two years ago was 1 in 36.

Since the first ADDM report in 1990, which was 1992 births, autism

has increased by a factor of 4 .8. That's 480%, I believe. The first

ADDM survey was 22 years ago. One prevalence was 1 in 150 children.

And all the cores date the...

The trend is consistently upward.

Most cases now are severe.

25 % of the kids who are diagnosed with autism are nonverbal, non -toilet

trained, and have other stereotypical features.

If you're in a wheelchair, it's a lot different than the severe cases of

A severe autism case is a much worse problem.

But you have 21 ,000 versus 275 ,000.

Think about that.

And if the vaccines are the primary cause, which I suspect they are,

It's pretty crazy.

My professional conclusion, based on the scientific evidence, the harm of these

vaccines outweigh any benefit.

We need to stop all the vaccine mandates, and we need to stop the

the vaccine religion.

That's what it is. It's a religion.

Porto Vallarta, here we come.

Follow me. Palm trees whisper, freedom in the breeze.

Ocean's hymn, no chains, no pleas, no rulers, no kings, no scripts to recite.

Burn the old books, let the phoenix ignite.

Rebirth on the sand, where the rebels convene. A genesis theme, mind sharp and

keen. Dollars to dust, trust in the soul.

Anacapulco, where we break the mold.

Anacapulco, where the spirits fly. New dawn, breaking under open sky.

No masters, no limits, no chains, so this is freedom's fire, and that's a

so pull!

And that's a poker where the spirit flies, new dawns breaking under open

No masters, no limits, no chains, so this is freedom's fire, and that's a

so pull!

Beats bonfire, thoughts spark like flint. Ideas ricochet, no permission, no

stint. Borders dissolve, minds expand.

Every soul sovereign, every mind grand. No contract signed, just a handshake

truth. Ancient wisdom reborn in the fountain of youth. Rules crumble like

tassels at high tide.

Revolution lives where the dreamers reside.

Golden horizon, the birth of the free.

Echoes of laughter, the waves decree.

Freedom is anthem, a beat in the chest.

Anacapulco, where the reckless rest.

Anacapulco, where the spirit flies.

Breaking into open skies. No masters, no limits, no change to show. This is

freedom's fight.

Anacapulco, it's war.

Anacapulco, where the spirit flies.

With performing artist, Aya May.

Anarchapulco opening party on February 15th.

Anarchapulco Genesis, February 16th to 20th. The Dollar Vigilante TDV Summit,

February 21st. The Crypto Vigilante TCV Summit, February 22nd.

Agoraforco, Retreat, and other excursions, February 21st to 27th.

Bufo and other plant medicines with Bareheart throughout the event.

A special Iboga ceremony with Christoph Melchizedek from February 23rd. Two

Tesla plasma healing devices will be running throughout the event.

Thanks to the Tesla Club. Bring the whole family. The Anacapulco family camp

runs throughout the event with activities for non -lethally injected,

-range, unschooled pure souls.

Anacapulco, 2026.

Genesis. Porto Vallarta.