All language subtitles for VAX A NATION

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.