COVID-19 vaccine shedding is real, says Dr. @PierreKory, and it’s not just the unvaccinated who are at risk to adverse reactions from exposure.

"We embarked on a global vaccination campaign with a gene therapy, which is in a category of therapeutic which is known to shed."

COVID-19 vaccine shedding is real, says Dr. @PierreKory, and it’s not just the unvaccinated who are at risk to adverse reactions from exposure.

“I… pic.twitter.com/nhNHD82MDI

— Jan Jekielek (@JanJekielek) February 12, 2024

Kory was good early on, but after things got serious he seems to just be in the same business as Bret Weinstein--to corral people to a certain scary narrative that one's situation is intractable.  He's quite sloppy with his narrative.  

MyCycleStory.  

The FDA knows that shedding is a real thing.  So why don't they disclose that?  Because legally they're under no obligation to, nor is there any regulatory enforcement that might compel them to.

The vaccines are defined as "gene therapy products."  The document that Kory refers to is titled, "Design and Analysis of Shedding Studies for Virus or Bacteria-Based Gene Therapy and Oncolytic Products,"Guidance for Industry, August 2015.  Kory highlights this footnote, 

Gene therapy products are all products that mediate their effects by transcription and/or translation of transferred genetic material and/or by integrating into the host genome and that are administered as nucleic acids, viruses, or genetically engineered microorganisms.

Then he highlights the comments on shedding here.  VBGT stands for Virus or Bacteria-Based Gene Therapy. 

Shedding studies should be conducted for each VBGT or oncolytic product to provide information about the likelihood of transmission to untreated individuals because historical data alone may not be predictive of the shedding profile. 

Should be conducted?  You mean they weren't done?  How then did Pfizer know about the shedding? 

Kory states at the 6-minute mark, 

"There's no shedding studies that have been done on these gene therapies."  Lovely.  But if you look at the market of gene therapies, I have evidence of at least 4 products that are out there in the inserts of each one they note that it will shed.  So one is for an eye disease; they say it secretes in the tears or any of the drainage for up to a week.  There's another one where it's 30 days in the feces where the products of that gene therapy sheds, and another one says two weeks, so all of these other ones on the market [the fact of these vaccines shedding] it's clearly on the insert.  There was no insert on the COVID-19 therapies.  In fact, what's astonishing and scary is we've embarked on a global vaccination campaign with a gene therapy which is in a category of therapeutics that is known to shed.  All the other products on the market have shed, and yet never is there a discussion of shedding [with the COVID-19 therapies]. If you ever bring it up, if it ever shows up in a newspaper, again, fact-checked to death.  You'll see articles coming out on any claim of shedding and you'll get the usual quotes from the experts with all the letters behind their name that "shedding is impossible."  And then they do a sleight-of-hand trick, because shedding is actually . . . there are 2 definitions of shedding: The word shedding has been used in relation to vaccines for a long time.  It's usually from the deactivated vaccines, or inactivated vax, so they're live-virus vaccines, so those older class of vaccines, it's known that when you inject someone with a polio vaccine, some polio virus can then shed.  And that's something that they've studied.  But that's the virus that they're injecting and can then shed, not the product of the genetic material that then sheds.  Because the problem with this, right, this is a gene thearpy.  They told us it would stay in our arm for a few days, right, not go anywhere else, and that the anti-body spike protein production would shut off.  We're drowning in evidence that neither of those statements are true.  So now you have something that . . . you don't have an end point on the production of antibodies and so this is quite scary, and we're doing this repeatedly.  It's not like a gene therapy where you give it once, how many boosters are we up to now, how many rounds? 

Jekielek, 8:06.  Not only is it not staying in the arm, but through this incredible delivery device of the lipid nanoparticle, it goes absolutely, can go absolutely everywhere, blood-brain penetration, ovaries, testes, everything.  Now you're saying that it's actually exiting the body through . . . how, is it through the . . . ?

Kory, 8:09.  Yeah, you just brought up the second piece of the puzzle.  So the first piece is that we have to understand that gene therapies shed, that the FDA knows they shed, that they want studies to be done on shedding, but the other thing that we need to know about these vaccines is that they belong to a category of therapeutics.  So not only do they fit under the gene therapy category, but they also fit under what's called nanoparticle technology.  That's the key to your questions.  So the mRNA is delivered in lipid nanoparticles.  The lipid nanoparticles are synthetic, right, they're made in the lab but they're the natural counterpart to something in our bodies called exosomes.  Exosomes are part of how our body signals, and do cell-to-cell communication; they're almost like little hormones, and lots of communication is done with exosomes.  What happens is when you inject lipid nanoparticles, the thing about lipid nanoparticles is that they can traverse almost any physiological barrier.  

"The CDC Lied: The mRNA Wasn't Meant to Stay in the Arm," Robert Kogon, TheVaccineReaction.org, February 12, 2023.  

That's why that lie about staying in the arm, no nanoparticle's ever stayed where you put it because it naturally traverses all boundaries, so it spreads throughout the body.  We have knowledge of that from EMA documents, from FOIA documents, from studies, autopsy studies, you can see that it disseminates throughout. . . .

Society was conditioned to believe that they needed a doctor to be healthy, rather than health being viewed as something each individual was empowered to seek for themselves.

Hundreds (or possibly thousands) of highly effective medical treatments for common diseases have been kept off the market to preserve the market for expensive but ineffective treatments that often require lifelong purchasing. For example, prior to the legislative battle to legalize acupuncture, I remember cases where Chinese immigrants were raided at gunpoint for practicing acupuncture in their own community without a license. 

If you weren't convinced before, what say you now? Liars, criminals and thieves......#ProsecuteFauci https://t.co/fr5Pip3R97

— Dr Sherri Tenpenny (@BusyDrT) August 15, 2023

Please read "How Corruption Dictates the Practice of Medicine," A Midwestern Doctor, April 16, 2022.

Society was conditioned to believe that they needed a doctor to be healthy, rather than health being viewed as something each individual was empowered to seek for themselves. This effectively created an unlimited demand for medical services, and as the above graphs show, an ever-growing need for medical spending.  Medical Nemesis by Ivan Illich was the earliest work I was able to locate detailing this change and its consequences.

Things that genuinely improve public health (and thereby reduce medical expenses) are typically not allowed to emerge, while pointless initiatives that do not improve public health (water fluoridation or annual flu shots) are continually promoted. Likewise, basic health education is not taught to most people, and instead, health behaviors developed by corporate interests constitute the majority of “health education” (industry-funded nutrition textbooks for example are very common in college courses). In short, there are dozens of simple and obvious policy changes that many have independently identified which could rapidly improve public health and save a lot of money, but despite decades of campaigning to enact them, most have never been adopted.

Hundreds (or possibly thousands) of highly effective medical treatments for common diseases have been kept off the market to preserve the market for expensive but ineffective treatments that often require lifelong purchasing. For example, prior to the legislative battle to legalize acupuncture, I remember cases where Chinese immigrants were raided at gunpoint for practicing acupuncture in their own community without a license. 

For those interested, I’ve spent decades tracking those “forgotten cures” down, and while I have found many that for one reason or another were oversold and didn’t really work, I also found many others that were highly effective.

Every medical service or product is designed to encourage the consumption of more medical services or products.

A rigid hierarchy was created to support this monopoly.

"if [Scott Atlas] is using the U.S. data to make that assumption, he has no idea of the core of the fraud and the rot. That is corrupted data and it's used to fuel a narrative."

So, it's really about how this is not being talked about.  And I don't really know when this censorship is going to change.  I don't know what's going to make it . . . if a drop in life expectancy is not a story, our media has failed.  Dr. Pierre Kory

Ep. 2209 What’s Causing All Those Excess Deaths? https://t.co/jSrazDgD8m

— Mike Walgenbach (@mwalgen44) September 28, 2022

Dr. Pierre Kory's website. 

The FLCCC's Total19CriticalCare.

His Substack page.

And Twitter page.

This makes me weep.

The fraud committed to drive propaganda giving people a narrative to think a certain way or take a specific action temporarily kills my spiritual battle, my raison de etre.   It's one thing to have a sense of the general fraud, but learning about the specific fraud committed by institutions that have traditionally been associated with helping people recover is almost too much.  Initially.  But new information helps to set new resoluteness. That is where we are at. 

This talk is about excess deaths, but the reasfarcicvau surprised me.  Yes, all roads point to the vaccines, but what paved the various roads was the censorship, and that censorship is ongoing.  The censorship helped create the narrative that vaccines weren't all bad, that, in fact, they can save lives.  They don't.  They ruin lives, and then kill you.  

WOODS:  Trying to reconcile with this problem, namely this excess deaths problem that seems to be popping up in country after country.  

KORY:  The data is screaming from so many sources and so many countries with massive amounts of death, and it's just not talked about.  And that's an extension of what I've seen in COVID, right?  If it goes against the policies, and therefore the narratives, it's suppressed.  And I could never imagine such censorship of such an important topic [excess deaths] that is so pervasive, that it's global.  You know the communication media systems, and I've read one article that said that most of all media is owned by 1 of 6 companies, so there's this huge consolidation in media, and I don't know if they send out memos throughout those corporations, but the level of censorship is astonishing.   And so on the topic you're asking me about, I mean I don't even know where to start.  

I would say one of the most shocking and first explosions of data was when the CEO of One America, which is a 200-year-old life insurance company with $100 million in assets or even more, the CEO, J. Scott Davison, went out in public and gave an interview and said that they've had an unprecedented rise in life insurance claims from the ages of 18 to 64, so working age Americans, on a year-to-year basis that a 10% rise in that age group is a 1-in-200 year event.  And he was reporting a 32 or 38% rise in life insurance claims of young working age people.  And if you look, an investigative journalist did a follow-up on that CEO and reached out to that company, they were very forthcoming, and they were very communicative, and they even provided the journalists with a mortality chart from the CDC.  From the CDC, you can see what the mortality was in 2019, 2020, and then 2021, at the end of Quarter 1, you see this sudden rise, a steep slope in mortality of 18-64 year-olds, and all you have to ask yourself is "What happened at the end of Quarter 1, 2021?"  I have seen coverage of this issue, but the articles all bring up alternative explanations.  I'm referring to the vaccination program.  There's nothing else that could match that historic rise.  It can't be deaths from alcoholism, addiction, and suicide: we've had those for years.  I don't know why it would suddenly rise at the end of Quarter 1, 2021.  I've seen people try to blame it on lockdowns.  Lockdowns were largely over in most places.  Especially in the U.S.  We weren't locking down in 2021.  So that's just life insurance. 

There's another piece of data that is even more shocking: the life expectancy in the United States, this is census and publicly available data, it was 79-years-old in 2019.  Average life expectancy of every American was 79 in 2019.  Now, it's 76.  Even a 1/10th or 2/10th change in the average life expectancy indicates a lot of deaths.  Now, you have 3 years that have been shaved off of the pandemic.  In 2020 and 2021 were massive, and yet the other thing to consider is how do you drop the average life expectancy from 79 to 76?  It's not the dying off of the elderly.  They would not impact that average very much.   It has to be young people and very young people.  This is an unprecedented change . . . really a barometer of the health of our country:  3 years average life expectancy and no one is talking about it? And then you can go into [the data sets for] the pilots and the athletes, cardiac arrest thing, out-of-work, you know, it's a scary idea that they vaccinated a whole generation of pilots and with the instance of heart disease, I mean it's really worrisome . . . what if they have an accident in the air.  So, I think the bigger story is not about the data--you can pull data from anywhere.  Even in the UK, in their publicly available health data, you can see the all-cause mortality in the vaccinated is far higher than the un-vaxxed.  So, it's really about how this is not being talked about.  And I don't really know when this censorship is going to change.  I don't know what's going to make it . . . if a drop in life expectancy is not a story, our media has failed.  

WOODS:  As a non-expert, how am I to adjudicate when I haven't studied any of the relevant subjects, I have no credentials, and most of the people who have are telling me the opposite of what you're telling me, so why should I believe you over what they're telling me? 

KORY:  Here's my advice to that person.  I totally appreciate that situation, because as a self-described expert . . . if you want to know what the truth is, you need to look at who is speaking that supposed truth.  At this point in the pandemic, given the colossal and historic amounts of fraud, and the evidence of capture of the regulatory agencies, and the silencing of academia.  No doctor can speak out against these policies.  If they have concerns about theses vaccines, they will lose their job.  Now you have California passing legislation that's going to punish and literally take away the license of a doctor who publicly disagrees with supposed scientific consensus.  So, in that environment, I think you can only listen to those without a conflict of interest.  What does that conflict of interest look like?  If you're employed by a media organization, if you're employed by a healthcare agency, a hospital, or a university.  Those are conflicts of interest because just by the way society is now structured they cannot speak freely.  So whatever they say is going to be highly palatable to the narrative and to the policy.  So for someone to speak freely, you need to listen to  someone with no conflicts of interest, who is expert in the topic area or at least appears knowledgeable, they have to be able to debate, and to be able to share and cite data.  The person who wrote that, should think about what the agencies are doing.  The agencies are willing to share data.  The problem is that it's actually corrupt data.  And it's also on record with the New York Times, and other papers, that the CDC admits that they haven't been sharing and withholding data, and so I really do feel bad for the average citizens because you really do hear two very different conclusions, particularly on the vaccines--everything is rosy, it's "safe and effective," you can give it to pregnant people, and, yes, we think it's smart to give it to toddlers.  And then on the other side, we are calling it a humanitarian catastrophe of massive deaths directly related to the vaccine, and I have a lot data to back that up.  So, let's say you're looking for a neutral party.  Recently, I've been giving the example of Denmark.  So here in the United States we have gleefully vaccinated toddlers.  Thankfully, very few parents are brining their toddlers in for a vaccine.  I think it's something like less than [2%].  But look at Denmark.  They do not recommend vaccination for anyone under 50.  And they long ago banned Moderna for anyone over 30.  And in this country, we don't care.  Any of the vaccines are good for anybody.  Denmark is the leader in the world for pulling back from this vaccine: they still offer the vaccines, but they're not pushing them; in fact, they've outlawed them for certain sectors of their society.  We have to realize that it's a war of information.  

The other side has mass powers of censorship.  And really what's worse is propaganda.  The ultimate source of all the propaganda and censorship, and I think it begins at the medical journal level.  And I have a lot of evidence to show, particularly on the topic of Ivermectin, but you can apply it to the vaccines.  In fact, vaccines are the converse of Ivermectin.  So, these journals have suppressed the evidence of efficacy of Ivermectin, and Hydroxychloroquine, and at the same time they've suppressed the evidence of the toxicity of the vaccines.  I think if it wasn't for the collusion of the medical journals rejecting positive studies of Ivermectin, retracting published studies of Ivermectin, so that the only thing that appears in the high-impact journals are trials where Ivermectin is tested with no significantly statistical benefits that are shown even though there are benefits.  So the headlines race around the world that Ivermectin doesn't work, yet we know that there are 92 controlled trials with 125,000 patients in them and it shows repeatedly reduced death, hospitalization, time 'til recovery, time 'til virus clearance, yet if you just look at those high-impact journals, you would never know that.  So, I'm calling that the fraud begins at the medical journal level because if you don't have that curated science, that really manipulated science that shows up in the journals, you can't launch these narratives.  You can't launch a narrative that Ivermectin doesn't work because if they were really freely and openly publishing submissions of good quality that show benefits to any medicine, not just pharmaceutical products, you would have a much more balanced view of what's therapeutic here, but they don't do that.  There are frightening papers, all on preprint servers, showing the massive toxicity of these vaccines.  And you can just see it in VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System.  You don't even need a newspaper then.  But I would also recommend that your friend, or the newspaper, ask themselves, why our health agencies, our government is not talking about VAERS?  It was built to look for toxicity signals.  They started skyrocketing within weeks of the rollout and they're at unprecedented levels.  And we know that the only thing wrong with VAERS is its under-reporting factor.  We've had almost 2 million adverse events, 40,000 deaths reported in the U.S., and that under-reporting factor is probably on a scale of 30x to 40x.  I think it's pretty easy to tell who's lying and who's actively suppressing really important information, and I will tell you, it's all to one goal: it was to support the vaccine campaign.  And when that started, that censorship, that ignoring, that curating, literature that gets published that only shows that they're "safe and effective," that was done with the noble lie, where they withhold information from you for your own good, so that it will prompt you to get vaccinated because they're afraid that if they show all the data, it would increase vaccine hesitancy.  And vaccine hesitancy was known as probably one of the main barriers to the planned pandemic response in the simulation exercises that were done in the years leading up to the pandemic.  You can look at the records, you can look at the documents.  Vaccine hesitancy appears multiple times.  They always had a plan to create a pandemic and to vaccinate the world, and their one worry was vaccine hesitancy.  And in my experience, from where I sit, the two main things that would absolutely crush vaccine hesitancy is information about the efficacy of generic repurposed drugs, because if you know there's a safe, available alternative you will turn to that rather than the experimental vaccine.  And the other thing that has been censored is any mention of the toxicity, and now it's farcical, like that spoof headline.  I think it's somewhat funny but what I find terrifying are the real headlines where they literally try to explain these incredible amounts of sudden cardiac arrests, athletes on the field, the pilot issues, and all of the data screaming about all cause mortality, and then you see headlines about climate change being the cause of it.  I've seen ridiculous ones that you would think are spoofs but they're real [headlines].   

WOODS:  Or you're sleeping on the wrong side.

KORY:  Interesting connection is that you do see articles about this condition called, SADS, right, Sudden Adult Death Syndrome.  I happen to be somewhat of an expert in cardiac arrest as an ICU doctor for years I trained teams on how to respond to cardiac arrest and I've given lectures about the history of CPR, you know, the incidents of cardiac arrest in the community and they're nowhere near the numbers now.  And so a really disturbing analogy is that with this vaccine campaign, suddenly we're seeing unprecedented numbers of people dropping dead--athletes, broadcasters, many of them are on television!  Totally healthy people, they're at a podium, they collapse.  They're at a broadcast desk, they collapse.  They're at a wedding, they collapse.  Even in the stands at football stadiums.  I remember there was one game where I watched.  There was one Saturday where they're all playing, there were 4 cardiac arrests: 2 on the field, 2 in the stands.  And some of the coaches actually spoke out, and in their decades, they had never seen 2 cardiac arrests in a game on the same day, and then 2 others in the field.  A number of games were stopped because people were arresting, and that's not a story?  And so the thing about the SADS story is that there had been people for years . . . .  Remember SIDS, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome?  Well, that kind of started in the 80s and it tracks very well with the explosion of vaccines.  So if you look at this weird syndrome called SIDS, which has happened to so many babies, and the system and the public Iiterature officially does not have a cause, I would argue that vaccines look like the cause of SIDS and I  definitely know that the vaccines are the cause of SADS.  

WOODS: I got to ask you that so many people want an answered and you hinted at it when you said it must be difficult to be a layman when on the one hand you've got propaganda 24 hours a day, "these things are safe and effective." And you have just the exact opposite coming at by people who are just as qualified and who seem just as passionate saying something really, really terrible is happening because of these very things that somebody just told you were safe and effective.  And so what I want to know is somebody like Scott Atlas . . . I feel like Scott Atlas is a good guy.  I had him on my show.  I think he did a lot of good things and he stood up to a lot of idiots and took a huge amount of abuse, but he came on this show and said "that the data show that the vaccines do have an effect on lowering severe illness and death."  He said "that's what the data shows." 

KORY:  He's wrong.  He is wrong.  He needs to share that data on which he's sharing that opinion.  If you look at the granular public health data from any country that is transparently sharing--UK comes to mind, Israel comes to mind--for a long time per 100,000 more patients who were in the hospital were vaccinated than unvaccinated.  So that's one data source that can very quickly refute what he said.  

WOODS:  It's just that we heard for so long that the unvaccinated are killing themselves in the hospital.

KORY:  Thomas, let me finish because here's something that I can guarantee you he doesn't know and only a few people do, and I am one of them.  Why am I one of them?  I am an ICU doctor.  Particularly in 2021, I was working in an ICU up until November 2021.  And what I noticed, and I found very curious, was that nobody in the ICU was vaccinated.  And you'd open up their chart and look at their medical record and right there under demographic--name, location, age--you saw their vaccination status, and there were two categories: one was VACCINATED, and the other was UNKNOWN.  Everybody was UNKNOWN.  So I'm sitting there with these two realities: seeing the data from other countries where the vaccinated are filling the hospital ICUs, and I am looking at the US and nobody in the ICUs was vaccinated.  And I discovered what it was.  The way they documented the vaccination status on the admission to the hospital was completely unprecedented.  In the past, if you brought in a vaccine card, right, for your childhood vaccinations or you just got a vaccine and had a card, it was immediately entered into your record, and there would be a record there and anyone could look up your record and anyone could see the vaccine. During COVID in most of the major health systems, and I validated this with colleagues and other people I talked to in other large health systems is what happened with COVID when a patient arrived the hospital, they did take a history, they did ask if you were vaccinated.  However, if you were vaccinated anywhere but in a system physician's clinic, guess where that information went?  It went into the Nursing Admission note and that's where it stayed.  It did not dhow up.  It did not trigger a vaccination status and that is demonstrably now.  I've talked to a number of nurses who've told me that in their systems the same thing was true.  The vaccination status showed up in a Nursing Admission note and then on that first screen . . . it did not register vaccine.  The only way to be vaccinated was if you got your shots in a clinic within that health system.  In the entire year of working ICU in 2021, only one patient ever was admitted to my ICU with fully vaccinated status.  Every single other one was UNKNOWN. if you look into their records, dig deep into the Nursing Admission note, you will find that they're vaccinated.  So what I would tell Scott Atlas is that if he's using the U.S. data to make that assumption, he has no idea of the core of the fraud and the rot.  That is corrupted data and it's used to fuel a narrative.  Wouldn't you think, Thomas, if you're trying to propel a vaccine campaign, don't you think that it would be in your interest to not have the vaccinated show up in hospitals so that you could falsely present the vaccines as protective against outcomes and death?  And I'm sorry.  He's not aware of the depth of the fraud on that data.

WOODS:  I'm just flabbergasted at the whole thing, and I'm somebody who's not exactly been naïve, you know, in the past about the way the world works.  But I think anybody, no matter how cynical, has to be left aghast at what may, in fact, be happening here.  There had to be some people who innocently believed what they were told within the medical establishment, and they were told that the experts say, "You got to give this thing to people, and it's going to save their lives and put an end to this thing."  There had to be a lot of innocent people who didn't know any better.  But on the other hand, innocent is a funny word.  It was kind of their obligation to look into the information and not just take people's word for it.  

KORY:  I want to say I identify with you.  I have to say that when the pandemic started, I had no knowledge of how controlled and corrupted the high-impact journal was.  I always looked them throughout my career as an example of what the best science is and had always assumed that they would evaluate the merits of trials and only put the best quality and important trials.  I didn't know that it's a completely censored environment.  I didn't know that it's controlled by the pharmaceutical industry, and the depth of that control is absolutely terrifying.  I did not know that 2 years ago.  I will tell you where I started, Thomas.  Up until the pandemic, I read the New York Times everyday, believed every word . . . I thought that the New York Times was the paper of record, literally the pinnacle of journalism, and if I wanted to get the straight dope, an accurate assessment of a situation, the New York Times would provide that for me.  Just like what I now know about the journals, I had to learn that the New York Times writes narratives, and those narratives are in service of very powerful forces.  I cannot read the New York Times.  And how did I find that out, Thomas?  I found that out because I became an expert on Ivermectin.  And I had to watch lies, clear lies being written all over newspapers coming out of mouths of broadcasters, they were fed lies, mistruths, half-truths, and distortions.  And what I saw was that there's no such thing any more as a science reporter.  There's no such thing.  They will present whatever science, however they want as long as it furthers a narrative, and once I started seeing that happening in the New York Times, I was terrified that the population believes this narrative that's just spewing from everywhere.  That was my first awakening, Thomas, was that they lie.  And then the next lie I had to witness was with the vaccines.  And I just saw repeated lies, "safe and effective," "safe and effective."  I saw newspaper articles well into 2021, which literally had this statement, "There's not been one proven death as a result of the vaccine."  I would literally read that in the newspaper, knowing then at that times that many tens, if not, hundreds of thousands had died at that time.  

Shot #1: immune system depleted 30%; Shot #2: immunity depleted 50% to 60%; after booster, 80% of immunity lost.

This is Greg Hunter, USA Watchdog, interview with Dr. Elizabeth Eads, a must-listen, though that headline loses its meaning these days when everything important related to vaccines and COVID and SARS-CoV-2 is more nightmarish than the previous article you read or the last interview you watched.  

But Dr. Elizabeth Eads [Twitter feed, CBJ interview on microchips and 5G, 6G, & 7G, SGT Report], does an excellent job of laying out the politics behind COVID, the politics behind hospitalized treatments for patients with "COVID," the biological science of what and how the unvaccinated are getting infected, and they are getting infected.  So let's begin.  

We’re seeing from the jab all kinds of underreported side-effects.  We’re seeing infertility in women, we’re seeing miscarriages in women, we’re myocarditis, pericarditis, MI, pulmonary embolism, blood clots anywhere in the body.  We’re seeing swollen lymph nodes, swollen testicles.  Dr. Cole from the Mayo Clinic is seeing an increase in reported cancers.  We’re seeing that as well in the hospitals—blood clots, strokes, hemorrhagic strokes, dementias, new-onset strokes in young people, blood clots in young people, and that reference to the military where 4 soldiers had chest pains or blood clots, pulmonary embolism.

They must realize they’ve committed crimes against humanity in some of these hospitals and doctors—not you—but some of these must know that they’re part of a cover-up.  These hospital administrators and doctors must realize that they've committed some real crimes against humanity. 

Eads, 3:09  Oh, my God, it is just striking, Greg.  The problem with doctors in America is that 60% to 70% of doctors across America are owned by the hospitals or they’re employed by the hospital or their practices are owned by the hospital.  And they were told that they had to follow these CDC protocols, no "ifs," "ands," or "buts" or they were to lose their jobs.  Also, they are not reporting to the VAERS system.  Less than 1% or 2% are actually being reported to nurses and doctors in the hospital because of threats.  This is medical tyranny.  

Hunter, 3:45  This can't be getting any better.  What I'm hearing from a variety of sources is that this is just the beginning.  You're saying that this is just COVID deaths, that this is "all of these other increased things" [wow, that was awkward] which are side-effects of the vaccines.  Is that what you're saying?  

Eads, 4:10  Right now across America, approximately 70% of hospitals are full of those that have had the jab or had side-effects or those that have a life-threatening infection from antibody-dependent enhancement from getting one, two, or three jabs.  It has destroyed the immune system.  After the first shot, your immune system is depleted by 30%, after the second shot between 50% and 60%, and they're guessing that it's 80% after the booster, after the third and fourth.  

Hunter, 4:55  I know you're not in the room, you're in the hospital, so I know that you're not privy to what they're doing, but could you make a speculative guess as to why they're doing this?  Because with all of the data, these shots don't seem like anything that is really helping any population.  What is the motivation for them to do this to people? 

Eads, 5:20  Well, I can tell you that there are some pretty evil people all the way back to the New World Order, Agenda 2030, people like Gates, Fauci, Soros, and Klaus Schwab are all about depopulation.  This is Satanic, and you have to understand that Fauci's budget at NIAID is $6 billion.  He funds all of the research across all of the hospitals and [medical] colleges across America.  And if you didn't buy into these jabs and this CDC protocol treatment, whether you are a doctor, a nurse, an administrator, a CFO, a CEO, your FUNDING is in jeopardy of being pulled.  And these doctors are being threatened with their jobs by not following and using these killer CDC protocols, which includes Remdesivir, Decadron, Vancomycin, Daptomycin, DMARDS, which stands for Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and, of course, the killer, ventilation when we know that Ivermectin is on the NIH protocol; it's on the NIH site and it's numbered Table 2E as approved for it to be used in the hospital and it's not being used.  This is medical tyranny.  [I wished people would stop using that phrase; rather, get on with a plan, a strategy to bring this hell to a halt.]  Remdesivir failed.  It had a 53% mortality rate in the African Ebola study.  In a Gilead study, it was stopped after 4 days because 23% of those in the study developed renal failure, liver failure, life-threatening liver failure, renal failure, yet Fauci still chose that.  So you have to think about a nefarious reason why Fauci chose Remdesivir over Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine.  This is nefarious.  This is a crime against humanity.  These protocols are killing patients.  The Remdesivir people are going into renal failure; they're going into liver failure; they're going into pulmonary edema, and then they require ventilation.  It is just disgusting. 

Hunter, 7:55  It seems like . . . I had Dr. Pierre Kory on [whose affiliate site is FLCCC], who is one of the top pulmonary, ICU doctors in the country, if not the world and would not believe this had he not said it, but he's trying to get people to stay out of the hospital because of their anemic protocols for treating COVID.  And this is another quote, that "it helps the few, and fails the many." The hospitals that you're involved with, are they using this anemic protocol that looks like they're not really saving people but that they want people to die? 

Eads, 8:35  Well, the hospitals in northeast Florida where I am at are absolutely using the CDC protocol.  There are some doctors who have stepped out of the protocols recently and started using Hydrochloroquine and Ivermectin.  But by and large, across Florida and across the country, they're sticking with these CDC protocols, and the doctors are refusing to look at the patents, to look at the studies, to look at the Remdesivir studies, and to do the research.  It is stunning.  

Hunter, 9:14  Are they doing this just to keep a job?  Let me get this straight: so they're being threatened with their job . . . so in order to keep their job, they'll just kill people?  This is kind of like Nazi prison guard stuff.  

Eads, 9:25  This is worse than the Nazi camps and Dr. Mengele and his experimentation.  MIT came out last week with an estimate of 500,000 deaths.  They looked at all of the reporting agencies.  They looked at CMS; they looked at Medicaid; they looked at VAERS; they looked at all of the reporting agencies (supposedly, there are eleven of them), and their numbers are close to 500,000 deaths already.  And we know that VAERS only reports 1%.  CMS and Medicaid for those over 65; those numbers were pulled by Thomas Renz, a whistleblower, and they were 45,000 to 50,000.  But we're looking at 500,000 and we're headed into flu season now.  And these people who received the jab have no immune system left; there are going to be mass deaths this winter.  And I bet we are going to reach numbers in the millions.

Hunter, 10:30  That's what I'm hearing.  You're saying that this is like having HIV where you don't have an immune system anymore.  

Eads, 10:45  Well, it's interesting that you bring that up because what was found in the vaccine and in the parasite, called Hydra Vulgaris, which was spliced and translated into there was HIV sequence I through III, and AIDS SV, ah, AIDS was sequenced right into there.  And we know that 5% of these vials circulating throughout the country in 13 states are causing the majority of the deaths.  And we have proof from Dr. Cole and various epidemiologists, virologists, and hematologists across the country that CD8 and CD4 cell counts drop drastically after the first, second, and third shots, which is consistent with immune deficiency, which is consistent with AIDS.

Hunter, 11:50  You're telling me that, in effect, that 5% of these vials gave people AIDS, AIDS-like symptoms, or AIDS-like reactions? 

Eads, 12:07  Absolutely.   Now, the vials, the lot number for the vials, this is breaking news, they went out to 13 states; they represent 5% of all of the vials in America.  Pfizer EK9231 has represented 3,500 deaths so far.  Moderna 039K20A: 4,000 deaths so far.  And the Moderna 041L20A was actually pulled off the market in California because of too many acute anaphylactic reactions but this wasn't pulled from the rest of America.  And, Greg, I got to ask you, what 13 states did these bad lots go to?  I'm going to hypothesize that they were red states.  There's no FDA oversight; there's no DOJ oversight.  There's no review board.  This is pre-meditated murder. 

Hunter, 13:24  They're forcing all of this on the military.  FDA or CDC came out saying that natural immunity is not as good as our shot that the shots are better than natural immunity.  Is that true? 

Eads, 13:58  Absolutely false.  Look, we know from 20 years ago that SARS-CoV-1 that 70% of the world still has long-lasting immunity against SARS-CoV-1 because we did the studies, 7 years in, 10 years in, 17 years in, and we checked T-cells.  And those who recovered from SARS-CoV-1 is 70% in the world have long-lasting antibodies, still have antibodies.  So this is just not true. Also, when you get the jab, you are injecting the mRNA envelope or spike protein, depending on whether it's J&J, AstraZeneca, Moderna, or Pfizer, and those antibodies are only synthetic antibodies; they only recognize SARS-CoV-2 sequences.  They do not recognize other viruses.  So if you're exposed to the flu or respiratory syncytial virus or rotavirus or any kind of bacterial infection, those antibodies are not going to respond and react and your immune system is going to be suppressed and it's not going to respond and react.  And those patients are going to land in the hospital and they're going to be critically ill on a ventilator, and this winter it's going to be Hell.  

Hunter, 15:25  What can people do?  Dr. Pierre Kory suggested taking Ivermectin a couple of times a week, you should be taking zinc, you should be taking vitamin Z? [I think he means vitamin D; see Kory's protocol FLCCC].  He says that we have a calamity of non-treatment on the way in, and then anemic treatment in hospitals after you get it.  What should people do?  

Eads, 15:52  First, seek early treatment.  Get on the Ivermectin with the Zithromax, or the Doxycycline, with the Ivermectin or the Hydroxychloroquine with the Zithromax.  Seek early treatment.  Get a nebulizer.  Get the medications for the nebulizer at home if you have COPD, asthma, pulmonary disorders.  If you have COPD asthma, get the oxygen.  Get ready for the fall.  Have the vitamin C, zinc, vitamin D, Quercetin, the NAC, there is a product called Singulair [a prescription for inflammation in the lung lining], aspirin, Eliquis [a prescription anticoagulant], Xarelto  [prescription to prevent blood clots; Nattokinase is a naturally occurring enzyme that inhibits both platelet and fibrin clots], good nutrition with oxygenating foods, and, um, again, have something on hand to protect from the spike protein because we do know [16:54] that those with the spike protein are transmitting.  And by the way, the spike protein is the Lentivirus [the Lentivirus, a genus of retroviruses that cause chronic and deadly diseases characterized by long incubation periods, in humans and other mammalian species.^[1] The genus includes the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which causes AIDS.]  The people who took the jabs are the ones having these fake variants.  Mutations occur.  Spike proteins do contain the Lentivirus, so they are passing viruses to unvaccinated people, that is true: transmission is true.    

Hunter, 17:25  You say you haven't put down COVID as a reason for death.  Why is that?  

Eads, 17:34  Because COVID does not exist.  It was a computer-generated genomic sequence.  I pulled all of the patents: there were 4,000 patents.  I pulled and looked at patents with Karen Kingston, who was on a 2-hour show recently with John Di Lemme at Conservative Business Journal.  She went through all of the patents regarding all of the AI delivery devices and I have studied . . . I looked at the slides, I've studied the virus under the microscope.  I've looked at what is in these vaccines, and SARS-CoV-2 does not exist.  What does exist is a bioweapon: the Hydra Vulgaris and the spike protein are the bioweapons. 

Hunter, 18:25  Karen Kingston is one tough . . . she's not one to . . . she's been frozen out of Big Pharma, and I am sure that you're going to take a lot of grief for coming on and talking about this.  Karl Deninger, who is a brilliant guy who put a lot of money into the tech world, owned his company, brilliant guy, writer, data analyst, you name it, he says that we have certain lots that have 7-10 times deaths and injuries than other vaccine lots.  This should be evenly spread.  If the whole thing is done correctly, but no, the distribution is way out of whack.  You mean to tell me that the CDC and the FDA and the NIH don't know that certain lots are way more dangerous than other lots?  

Eads, 19:13  Oh, they absolutely realize this.  Listen, this was supposed to be at Phase I, II, and III at the same time with control groups.  There are no control groups, Greg.  This is completely out of control. There's no oversight.  There's absolutely no FDA, no CDC, no DOJ, no Review Board oversight, nobody is following up on those that were in the study, following up on their progress, their adverse reactions, or their antibody levels.  And by the way, antibody levels weren't even followed in the early studies.  

Hunter, 19:55  They're talking about vaxxing kids. 

Eads, 20:30   Right.  They've lost their protection.  In fact, Greg, they were supposed to release their list of ingredients 14 days after Pfizer's announcement of Comirnaty, and they didn't.  They basically defaulted from being free from lawsuits despite the 1986 law giving them immunity to all vaccines.  

Hunter, 20:55  This is why you're saying that this is completely out of control.  

Eads, 21:05  I have a local pharmacist that I work with, and I called him every week and asked him to print me off a package insert.  And you have to understand that when this vaccine was rolled out, end of January, beginning of February, the boxes came with a completely blank package insert.  Completely blank.  That is against all prescribing rules.  And even as of this week, the package insert for ingredients is blank.  Everything else is listed there, but the ingredients list is blank.  Completely out of control and completely dangerous.  There is no informed consent being given.  Greg, how can you give informed consent to a patient when you don't know what is in the vaccines?  And you can't say because we haven't had any study results on what the adverse effects are.  

Hunter, 22:20  Are they just going to go for killing as many people as they can?  Are they not worried about being prosecuted in the mother of all Nuremberg Trials?  

Eads, 22:30  Yes, now listen.  These people--they don't care.  You know this is about Big Pharma, Big Money, the hospitals are making a full $3,128 for a full 7-day Remdesivir IV.  They're making $39,000 if a patient with COVID goes to ICU and is ventilated.  And they're making much more money on top of that.  You can actually go to the CMS site and you can see all of the reimbursement codes and what is paid out to all of the doctors related to COVID.  And let me tell you what's happening.  People are being tested at the door of the Emergency Room, whether they're there for COVID symptoms or not.  They might be there for an accident.  They might be there for a trauma.  They might be there for simple bronchitis.  Everybody is tested.  And then once you test positive, and by the way, 97% of all the PCR Tests are false positives.  It was never intended to be used for infectious diseases.  Once you test positive, you are immediately sent to a COVID unit, which reimburses the hospital quite a lot of money.  And if you have pneumonia and you require oxygen, you're then sent to the Intensive Care Unit, which then gives the hospital a higher reimbursement level.  This is about money, and just following orders--nurses, doctors, pharmacists--will not get you off in Nuremberg 2.0 which has already started in Europe. 

Hunter, 24:13  Let me see if I can't get this right.  One doctor told me that if you incentivize murder and wrong-doing, you get more of it.  

Eads, 24:23  Absolutely.  

Hunter, 24:25  If they get someone sent to the ICU and kill them off, the hospital gets $39,000. 

Eads, 24:33   Ah, plus.  If they give Remdesiver, it's $39,000 plus another $3,000 for the Remdesivir.  There are Extended Services Codes.  The reimbursement is high to the hospitals.  And you know the ICU level care gives them Remdesivir with 53% mortality.  Give them Decadron with another 4% mortality.  Give them Decadron for with Vancomycin secondary pneumonia and that puts them into renal failure, which then ventilates them, which then puts them into pulmonary edema, and then they need to undergo dialysis for the renal failure.  It's big bucks.  

Hunter, 25:13  This sounds like a protocol of death.  

Eads, 25:15  It is a protocol of death.  If you had a 60% of dying by going into the hospital,