Epidemiologist: "We Found Vaccine™ DNA Inside Her Tumor" | Nicolas Hulscher

Vaccinated children are far sicker across every health domain they look. >> Vaccinations. Vaccines. Vaccinated. Vaccines. Vaccinated. Vaccinated. >> There's a lot of people who will continually say there is no evidence that vaccines and autism are correlated and linked. >> Well, first of all, in these vaccines, it's the aluminum adgivants that is a neurotoxin. You get to the very concerning components of vaccines that nobody knows are in there. And this includes things like traces of formaldahhide, like neomy, a highly toxic antibiotic. They looked in MMR vaccine vials. There's literally trillions of fetal DNA fragments from a fetus that was aborted in the 1960s. this cancer industrial complex associated with pharma and big medicine as an aggregor an aggregation of energy that's [music] looking to actually increase profits no matter what >> at the population level the co shots appear to be one of the largest carcinogenic exposures in history this is real it's not just population data this isn't clinical data as well >> you know it's one thing to like think about these numbers imagine if it's your kid When you're aware of a serious safety concern and you tell all the pregnant women to take it, you simply have no care in the world for unborn children, people's children. It's just monstrous. I've heard a lot of conversations about, you know, how to help eliminate the spike proteins that may be accumulating. What can people do if they've gotten the CO vac? Nick, it's great to have you on the show, man. >> Yeah, thanks for having me. >> So, you're really in the forefront working with Dr. Peter McCulla in bringing to light all of the actual real evidence involving a lot of these very controversial issues. And right now, depending on when this podcast comes out, but it's super fresh right now. Trump actually just made a really big move and actually decreased the vaccine requirement schedule for children. So walk us through what happened there and what evidence he's looking at and then anything else that you see on this childhood vaccine schedule. Yeah. So, this is very very big and you know it's not as much as I would have liked to see but it is definitely a major major improvement to the previous CDC's hyper vaccination schedule of 72 doses by age 18. So, what this executive order does is it basically does like eight things, but the main thing is it calls for separating vaccine visits. So instead of going to get eight, six, seven, eight vaccines in one visit pumped into a little baby, um those would be separated out at at separate visits. So that substantially decreases the risk of adverse events. The other thing they called for was a basically a improvement in parental choice for, you know, do they want to give their children uh 32 vaccines by age two to go to school. And so basically he he directed the attorney general to investigate states that are bas that have ridiculous vaccine requirements at schools like specifically California like you have to get all of these vaccines just to go to school and you can't opt out even with a religious exemption in some cases. So they're going after that and they are also shrinking the recommended vaccines what are called the universally recommended vaccines from about 72 uh 72 doses down to 11 vaccine types which will be about 30 doses and so that is a major shrinkage in the universally recommended vaccines and they moved out COVID shots they moved out hepatitis B shots that's from birth um as universally recommended. So that's all very good. And then the other big one I want to mention is they are directing the separation of the MMR shot, the measles ms rebella shot. That's a threein one vaccine. They called for the separation of it into three distinct vaccines. And what Trump said yesterday, which would have been uh August 10th, Trump said that the MMR vaccine is in quotes quite lethal. And he's absolutely true. And I think he actually read our study on that that we published a few months ago. We found that the MMR vaccine has been linked. According to the CDC's own data, we looked at the vaccine adverse event reporting system. The MMR and MMR vaccines have been linked to 2600% more deaths than measles infection for the past 30 years. So that's a crazy contrast. The children died of sudden infant death syndrome, cardiac arrest and sephilitis, seizures. Most of them died within two weeks of the vaccine. And so we established a serious mortality signal with those shots. And so I think that was one of the driving forces to help them get rid of that monster shot and at least separate it up. So yeah, lots of lots of positive things there. >> So a critic might take a look at what you said and said, "Well, if we didn't have the vaccines, measles would be killing way more people." So, how do you respond to that kind of line of questioning? >> But the thing about measles is it's very mild and it should never ever ever be fatal in this modern age. You know, before the vaccines, measles vaccines in like the 60s, there was about 400 deaths. Um it was not you know and that was before we had modern treatments modern treatment protocols and management protocols in the hospital. Um now we get up to today um not not not one healthy child should ever die of measles. It's extremely mild and its case fatality rate is far lower than influenzas. And so, you know, I'm would not be concerned that all of a sudden people are going to start dying from measles. I mean, they used to have measles parties and then if people want, they can go get them the measles shot, right? They can get the >> measles parties. Is that like chickenpox parties where like you want to give it to yourself so you get natural immunity? Is that what you're talking about? >> Yeah, exactly. They would literally intentionally go in parties, you know, the kids would give measles and they would give their friends measles so they would have the immunity to it and they would be very self-resolving and they'd get over it very quickly. It was never a serious disease. And so, you know, now we've just had large amounts of pharma captured mass media apparatus fear-mongering and that has made people for some reason terrified of it. Um, and we have to remember Europe Europe has like over 20,000 30,000 measles cases this year. They have way more measles. Canada has measles outbreaks. Everybody has measles outbreaks. So what's going on the in the United States now is not that bad. >> Yeah. And I mean just in a basic risk analysis if these shots are causing deaths at a at a particular rate and measles isn't I mean really the cost benefit and that's and we're just talking deaths. We're not talking about the other adverse events like what are what are some of the other adverse events if you actually you know look at the data on these MMR shots. >> Yeah. So it's it's very it's very bad. It's very bad. That's for sure. So not only do we have the mortality risk, sudden infid syndrome, but we also have things like encphilitis and what and this is literally in the package insert and zphylitis is brain inflammation. Brain inflammation leads to seizures. So seizure disorders. This can be lifelong in some cases. These children, [snorts] you know, they won't be able to leave the house uh without having a debilitating seizure. Sometimes they can choke on their food while they're eating. Uh you do not want a seizure disorder. Every time you have a seizure, you incur more brain damage. Um but then we also have the risk of autism. And this one's very very serious. We we've just published a 52page autism study where we looked at every single paper uh basically for the past 50 years that looked at this link. We found 136 vaccine related studies assessing the link between vaccines and autism and neurodedevelopmental disorders and brain damage. And 107 of the 136 studies inferred a positive association between vaccines, including MMR and autism, neurodedevelopmental disorders, and brain damage. When they inject the mice with them, they literally lose neurons. Um, and so it's pretty unequivocal. We determined that childhood vaccination is a major modifiable risk factor for autism. That means you can change that risk by simply not giving your child, you know, six vaccines in one visit. There's a lot of people who will continually say there is no evidence that vaccines and autism are correlated and linked. And you're saying you just published a massive study of a compilation of data that is actually showing that. Do you have that? Do you have that available? Do you want to pull that up so so we can, you know, just see what it's at and you can kind of run us through this because this is this is something that's pared pretty frequently that there is there's no proven link between vaccination and autism. And then there's a whole other camp of people who are saying, "Yeah, there is. There's plenty of evidence." And it seems like you have the evidence here. >> Yeah, we have the evidence right here. And so this is the study. It's been peer- reviewviewed and published in the Journal of Independent Medicine. And you'll see what we did. We didn't just look at vaccines. That's what makes it even stronger. We looked at all of the risk factors for autism. And we compared all of it together, which gives us the best answer. And so yeah, there were other risk factors for autism like premature delivery, older parents, mitochondrial uh susceptibilities, genetic susceptibilities and genetic variance like in the MTHFR gene. Uh we found particularly environmental toxicants played a big role here. Other than vaccines, we look we found glyphosate. This one had a very very strong association uh between increased increased glyphosate exposure, the widely used weed killer uh and autism diagnosis. And also an important thing is what's called inuterero pharmacologic exposures. So that includes things like when the pregnant mom takes Tylenol or takes SSRI or takes anti-csychotic medications. These all have a pretty significant links as well. But what happens is all of these intersect and you'll see vaccine is the biggest part of the pie chart there. All of these things intersect and interact with each other. So, say for example, you know, you you satisfy two of the things on the left of that pie chart, like you have you you know, your parents were older and you have some genetic susceptibility, right? Then you get the vaccines that's going to push you overboard. Um, and so it all kind of interacts. But the key thing here is look at the vaccine part on that pie chart is the case report evidence of developmental regression after a battery of vaccines. There's been multiple case reports published on this. These children that go and get the shot. Sometimes it's MMR, sometimes it's a battery of three shots. And literally within days they get a high fever and then they start to have what's called um encphilitis like I mentioned earlier this brain inflammation because of this high fever. And then they have seizures and then what happens after the seizure? They wake up, right? they they get out of the seizure and then all of a sudden they're developmentally regressed, which in other words, they forgot words, they don't make eye contact anymore, their head banging, and it's almost as if they're a completely different child. And so, not only are those cases published in the peer-reviewed literature, and we collect them all in a giant table in this paper, uh, but there's thousands of parental anecdotal reports from parents who say the same thing. Their children get these batteries of vaccines and then they're not the same. Um, and so it's very uh, so basically we've established it can happen in those circumstances and at the population level. And then we look at that graph there on the right. I mean, autism prevalence when it shoots up 32,000%, something's going on. That's an exposure. That's not a so-called genetic epidemic. That's not even a thing. And so now we're at 1 in 31 kids. One in 12 boys in California are autistic now. One of the most highly vaccinated states. And so this has to be stopped. 26% of them are profoundly autistic. That means they can't re they can't do anything themselves. They're going to require lifelong assistance. And and then you look at the bottom graph. This one's very concerning. Um literally as vaccine doses increase, the recommended vaccine doses in lock step, the autism diagnosis increase literally. And you'll see you'll see the blue line and the green line there. It it basically matches perfectly. And so it it was unequivocal. We could only conclude that the vaccines are a major risk factor for autism. And then so two questions. First involves mechanism of action. Are is this a byproduct of the rejuvenation that's in these vaccines? these other, you know, carriers that excite the uh the body's immune response artificially with using aluminum or formaldahhide or whatever whatever the [ __ ] poison they put in there to inflame the immune system. Is that what what we think is causing this? >> Yeah. So, what's happening is is well, first of all, in these vaccines, you're right, it's the aluminum adgivants. This is in many of them that is a neurotoxin. It gets into the central nervous system. It's found in brain tissue in at autopsy in autistic individuals. So it gets into the brain causes again neuroinflammation and it stays there. There's no easy way to clear it out. And so that's one contributor. But then it's the also the physical act of vaccinating with these uh toxic viral antigens, right? Those are not good either for the human body that's inducing more of this neuroinflammation. And then you get to the very concerning you get to the very concerning components of vaccines that nobody knows are in there. And this includes things like traces of formaldahhide, like neomy, a highly toxic antibiotic. Um, and again, firmaldahhidees, you know, it's a carcinogen. I mean, so you're injecting for maldite, neomy, fetal DNA fragments. I mean, this is this has been established. They looked in MMR vaccine vials. There's literally trillions of fetal DNA fragments from a fetus that was aborted in the 1960s. They took its lung tissue. They have an immortal cell line. And so it's very concerning that when inject directly injecting this DNA from an aborted fetus, you know, what's that doing to kids? And a study found, they looked in the test tube, they found that that aborted fetal DNA inserts into the genome in cells. It inserts into the genome in sites associated with autism. So you can't even make this up. That was that was a 2015 study. Isn't that isn't that the reason why cannibalism is particularly dangerous? I mean, obviously this is kind of a wild thing to bring up bring about, but if you consume human DNA, like you can get very sick doing that. Is that is is that related at all? Like it's just it's just dangerous to have DNA that's so close to our own original DNA because it can start to interfere with uh with our cellular mapping. [snorts] >> Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. It's the same same sort of premise. You know, you don't you don't want to particularly through direct injection um somebody else's DNA. That's never a good thing. Particularly, especially if it's human, right? If it's >> also mad cow disease, right? Like mad cow disease was cows that were eating other cows that were grinding it up in their feed and then the cows would have serious brain issues from having cow DNA in their food. >> Right. Exactly. Exactly. And this could probably explain the increase in cancer in vaccinated children. We found that if you want to talk about that study, the landmark Henry Ford study that was never published was released had to be released in a Senate hearing because the authors were afraid to lose their jobs. Um, you want to talk about that study? >> I I definitely do. I want to So, we're going to go to that in one second. Let's just talk about this autism thing and then, you know, kind of finish that that thread. When somebody when the when the critics look at that study, what do they do with the information that you're presenting? You know, cuz people will be listening to this and they'll go tell their, you know, their aunt or somebody and they'll be like, "Ah, there's no evidence." And then they'll go look online and they'll find somebody with a nice packaged rebuttal to this to this study and this podcast and they'll say, "Ah." And they'll be able to dismiss it. But how like what what is going on there? What are the critics saying? And and how do you respond? >> So the critics say that some epidemiological studies have shown no link, right? And that's true. There have been studies looking at population data sets that have claimed no link. But what they don't do and what we lay out again in that paper is they do not have unvaccinated control groups. So what they can compare against right the pe person who gets the vaccine and then they compare it to other people who also get vaccines and so there's no truly fully unexposed comparison group. So you can't get a true risk profile when you do that. And all of them that found no link they compare it to children who still get vaccines. It's ridiculous. And then also they never interview the parents. They never so they never verify the autism diagnosis. They use a very narrow what are called ICD codes um which can be wrong and cannot capture the full spectrum of autism. um they don't verify the vaccine records at all and so they just rely on these you know electronic health record data sets and use all sorts of statistical tricks is basically what they are to bury any sort of link and but then there have been epidemiological studies the same type of population studies that find increased risks there's been a bunch of them there's been a large number we lay it all out in that study again. So, you have studies showing no link. You have a lot of studies showing a link. But what the studies, what the people that claim there's no link. What they don't say, what they never consider is that they don't consider the biological mechanism of it. And and when you consider that and you consider the real case report evidence of this happening of regressing into autism from vaccines, it becomes undeniable, right? And so it's it's it's not it's not rocket science that when you inject a a child with six batteries of vaccines that contain fetal DNA fragments foraldahhide and aluminum neurotoxins um it's not unexpected that that's going to induce neuroinflammation >> and neuroinflammation causes brain damage. This is well established. It causes the loss of neurons. And so why do these children regress after these batteries of vaccines? Because they've lost neurons unfortunately. And so that's why the parents see the child basically their life becomes destroyed after these some of these vaccines. So that's what they do. They point to these few select studies and then they ignore the whole spectrum of the other epidemiological studies, the biological studies and the case reports. They ignore all of that. And so there are studies however showing unvaccinated control group versus vaccinated. this these kind of vaxed and unvaxed studies and these are highly suppressed studies and you know high also highly contested because this is actually the last thing that vaccine manufacturers and the overlords of these vaccine manufacturers want published but a lot of them have come out. So, so what are the actual studies? Cuz because what you're what you're saying to sum up is that the critics who are saying there's no link with autism, they're not actually using an unvaccinated control group in the studies that they're pointing to, the studies that show no difference. It's still vaccinated versus vaccinated. But then when you actually look at the aggregate data of truly unvaccinated versus vaccinated, I mean the host of health complications increase on the vaccinated side is is pretty astounding. >> Yeah, it's it's very astounding. And we've only been able to locate 13 of those studies that have a real unvaccinated control group. There's been 13 of them. And every single one found the exact same pattern that vaccinated children are far sicker across every health domain. They look every single one. They have higher rates. According to all 13 of these papers, they have higher rates of autism, of other neurodedevelopmental disorders, ticks, ADHD, speech disorders. Yep. asthma, learning disabilities, autoimmune diseases, skin disorders, dermatitis, and other allergic atopic disorders. >> Published a metaanalysis of this uh vaccinated versus unvaccinated where people can see a graph of that. Could you pull that up? >> Yes. So, this is the 52page autism study, and we're going to go right to the table that has all of the vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies in it. It's in table four. And so, again, these are all vaccinated versus completely unvaccinated controls. Now this is not an easy digestible table I would say for sure. But every time you go through the key findings it's every single one the ch the vaccinated children have higher rates of any disease category. So we can even go through this one. So parents who refuse vaccination reported less asthma and allergies in the unvaccinated children. Overall results indicate that unvaccinated pediatric patients are healthier overall than the unvaccinated. Zero cases of ADHD and nonvaccinated. Uh Mosen and colleagues vaccination associated with higher odds of neurodedevelopmental disorders. Um I mean so O of 2.7 means basically an 170% increased risk. Um, no neurodedevelopmental disorders observed in the pre-term unvaccinated group. Uh, Hooker and Miller, autism, 400% higher in the vaccinated. ADHD, I mean, [laughter] 1900% higher. I mean, so I mean, we could just keep going down. Asthma 16 times higher in the vaccinated. we get to Joy Garner. Um, unvaccinated individuals had dramatically lower lifetime rates of chronic illness, disability, and death. We get to another paper. Autism reported in eight out of 300 vaccinated and zero in the unvaccinated. So, 2.6% of the vaccinated had autism. None of the unvaccinated autism. Joy Garner again unvaccinated Americans incommensurably healthier than the vaccinated counterparts. Chronic disease risk was about 5 to 6% in the unvaccinated 60% in the vaccinated. You could continue on this I'm sure and it would it would be more of the same. So you know if you pull this back off then all right I'm going to ask you the same question. What do the critics say when they're presented with this information? >> They say, "Oh, those studies are underpowered or those studies are not good or and and they just, you know, I I don't know honestly what their reasoning is behind it. They'll just they'll, you know, find some sort of flaws in those. They'll say that, you know, oh, that study only had, you know, 5,000 people or that study only had 50,000 people, which is a lot. And then they'll point to their same sort of studies that have, you know, 100,000 sometimes. Um, and then they just forget the fact that they're they're not comparing to an a completely unvaccinated group. U but the the last the last row in that table is very important and I have a whole study reanalysis of that paper u that I think is very important to share because this is the king of all vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies. This paper first of all the Henry Ford it's called the Henry Ford birth cohort study. This was the largest vaccinated versus unvaccinated birth cohort study ever done. It was at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, Michigan. They followed vaccinated children from birth to average age 10 and they followed unvaccinated children from birth to average age 10. And this was very robust and accurate data because these children had to go to the same hospital for their doctor's visits because they were enrolled in an insurance program. And so the it's crazy. What you're looking at here though is the peer-reviewed version of it. We did what was called a peer-reviewed reanalysis of that Henry Ford study because the authors were too chicken to publish it. And again, this was revealed in a Senate hearing. This the the first paper, the first draft of the paper was revealed. Um, Senator Ron Johnson and Aaron Siri, the attorney, he presented the findings and Dell Bigree's documentary and inconvenient study did a whole documentary on this. But we just looked here. We we crunched their raw numbers. And what was most shocking was look at the graph at the bottom right. The blue are the vaccinated children. The red are the unvaccinated. What that graph shows you is that se 17% of the unvaccinated children through the 10 years developed a chronic disease. 57% of the vaccinated children developed at least one chronic disease by age 10. That's a giant difference. And this was 20,000 people in this study. And then you look at the table and this is where it gets very worrisome. This is where we crunched their raw numbers. And what we found was in all 22 of the chronic disease categories, they were all proportionally higher in the vaccinated children, including cancer. Cancer was 54% more often in the vaccinated children as well as autism again attopic disease, skin disorders, autoimmune diseases, brain dysfunction, diabetes, food allergies, and then all all of the neurodedevelopmental disorders, they were all higher. And so this is basically unequivocal. Nobody's bothered to do this type of study before because they don't want to lose their jobs. And so they finally did it and this is this is the result. And so for anybody out there that's still claiming vaccines are super safe, none of this is true. Well, why did this study find this? And why don't they do more studies like this? Why haven't they bothered to do them for half a century until now? Because they know exactly what they'll find. You know, it's it's one thing to understand the motivation for captured health agencies who are taking a lot of pharma dollars and there's the kind of rotating door between pharma companies and the FDA and and when we understand the the corruption in the governmental agencies, how that might come to be uh campaign donations, the corruption in the media, people pharmaceutical companies buy ad space on the media, they're the, you know, the number one purchaser. of ad of ad space. So there's pro pharma you know content in addition to the commercials you know I think people can understand that mechanism. The mechanism that's a little more difficult to understand and more subtle is why there are so many people who are not getting paid by pharmaceutical industries just regular people who are on the war path to try and say vaccines are healthy and they really just won't look at this data. So, you know, I have some opinions, but what are your opinions on why people, no matter how much data they're presented with, are so stubborn in wanting to believe that these vaccines are safe and effective. >> So, it all comes down to the psychological operations they've been exposed to since birth and what was propagated from the TV since the 50s. and they've heard the same repeated message. The vaccines are safe. They're good for you. They're healthy. This is taught in schools. This is taught in universities. And it was all that was coming out of the media's mouth. And that's all that people had access to. Now it's 2026 and people don't listen to mainstream media nearly as much anymore. They listen to podcasts like yours and alternative media. And so they begin to see, well, well, hold on a minute. What do these studies actually show? And so what it takes is a lot of individuals in order to accept the fact that vaccines are dangerous and can induce all of these chronic diseases, you're going to have to accept the fact that maybe there is a large conspiracy. Maybe the government doesn't actually care about you. Maybe they even want to harm you. Maybe these pharmaceutical companies want chronic disease in the population so they can sell you more drugs. You know, people will have to start grasping the fact that they've been lied to. They've been lied to about so many things. And until they grasp that, they're not going to be able to accept the fact that they've been lied to. And so it it's a whole process, I think. And some people it takes you know it took the COVID pandemic um the mRNA injections it took them it took them you know that disaster where their family members became dead or disabled by experimental gene therapies masquerading as vaccines um that woke up over half of the population according to a res mucin survey. Um, and so it's just going to unfortunately take more of that nonsense for people to wake up. >> Yeah, I I think in in my speculation, I I agree with everything you're saying. There's also the sunk cost fallacy where people have vaccinated themselves, they vaccinated their children, and to accept this new information would then require them to shoulder an onus of responsibility even though they did it with good intentions and they were ignorant of the of the results. But it's a lot of courage to say like [ __ ] like I put my kids at risk or I put myself at risk for doing this. And you know that takes a lot of courage to be able to do that. And it's a lot easier to kind of push this information away and not have to deal with the potential guilt and the responsibility for the actions that you've taken. Now again, these actions are often coerced and I think everybody can just, you know, there's a free pass. It's like if you've been if you've been convinced by this kind of propaganda machine to believe that this is that these vaccines are safe and effective and healthy and and good for you and you give them to your family. Like we understand like I don't think anybody's trying to say like how could you imagine that? Like we get it. There's billions of dollars that have been poured into trying to convince you to do this and legislation that's been designed to coers you into doing it. So it like forgive yourself. But I think that's also a big psychological factor where it's just like what did I do? >> Yeah, I agree 100%. People took, you know, they took 50 vaccines since they were a kid. They gave their kids 50 vaccines and yeah, they can't accept the fact that it was a disastrous mistake for their health. And that really comes into play with the co shots particularly. But >> yeah, people they they just can't accept what they may have done to their own bodies. Um they have to get over it. >> Yeah. Uh we prom we made a a little we have an open loop about cancer. So, I want to I want to go close that open loop and uh and follow that thread and then we'll get into uh the COVID vaccine and some of the other things that are kind of happening in this crazy time of both illumination, reckoning, confusion. It's a it's a very interesting time we're in. But let's follow the thread and kind of close the loop on uh what you found linking these regular vaccines to cancer. And then of course that might be a nice segue into well not a nice segue a a horrendous segue into what the COVID vaccine and its links to uh to turbo cancer etc. But so traditional vaccines and cancer what have you found Nick? >> Yeah. So traditional vaccines and cancer the data is very limited. No, not one study has compared vaccinated versus fully unvaccinated and looked at cancer outcomes except the study we just talked about. And again in the head study the when you look at the raw proportions the vaccinated children had 54% more cancer than the unvaccinated. So that's basically all the population data we have looking at vaccines and cancer. >> But again like we talked about earlier injecting firmaldahhide into children and fetal DNA fragments those both nonsurprisingly contribute to cancer risk. injecting a carcinogen is like, okay, yeah, of course it's going to maybe induce cancer in some individuals, particularly when you repeatedly do it. And then the fetal DNA fragments that can integrate into the into the genome and induce or through what's called insertional mutagenesis. This is basically when foreign DNA comes in, merges with yours and can induce uncontrolled cell growth and cancer. And so the biological mechanisms behind that check out. But again, we don't have much data on that. Nobody's really looking. But we do suspect that the childhood vaccines are contributing at least by some degree to some of these cancers. the COVID mRNA injections, the data is now undeniable. I mean, absolutely undeniable. There's three domains of evidence. There's the epidemiological population data, there's the biological mechanisms data, and then there's the case report data of this actually occurring right after these shots. So, we'll start with the population data. There's now four independent data sets across three countries. Every single one indicates the mRNA shots cause cancer. Every single one. Two in the United States. One is what's called the CDC wonder mortality database. This is basically the mortality records of Americans. It shows that there's been over 130,000 excess cancer deaths in the United States since 2021 since the mRNA shots ruled out. The >> inction >> excess deaths means more than the more than the usual expected amount of deaths that we should have seen or would have predicted to have seen from cancer. Right. >> Exactly. Exactly. And so that's that means 130,000 people are dying from cancer more than they should have been. So more than normal. So and the inflection point on the graph um actually let me let me pull the graph up. This is the CDC wonder mortality data. This is what it shows for excess for this is just for cancer deaths overall. So look at the green [sighs] inflection point here. What that means is that's when the vaccines were rolled out, right? And so that's the exact point when there was a statistically significant change in trajectory of cancer deaths. So it happened right after the vaccines rolled out. And look at the look at that chart. It's not going down. It just continues to go up and up and up. even six five six years later. And so this is unfortunately what happens when an entire population is exposed to a carcinogenic gene therapy. And this unfortunately this graph I don't think it's going to come down anytime soon. It could last for decades. That's what happened previously for previous carcinogenic exposures. And so this equates to 150,000 now more cancer excess cancer death more cancer deaths than normal. Okay. So that's that data. >> So then just a real quick question here. Why why does this graph look like a sine wave where it has the peaks and troughs that come in? Is that seasonal? >> Yeah, that's seasonal. And that's that's always what's occurring basically. So basically you get to the summer months and there's less cancers. as you get to the winter, um, there's more cancers. And so, >> is that is that related to vitamin D exposure because of the sun in the summer? >> Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. Because we know sunlight drastically decreases your risk of internal cancers. And so people who get sunlight, who get the adequate vitamin D, they have a far lower cancer risk. And then you go burrow in the winter and you're, you know, dowsted in artificial LED lights. Um, yeah, there's going to be more cancer cases >> and and this is a this is a side note and I want you to continue on this thread of the of the co vaccines and cancer, but there was also a recent study that showed that sunscreen actually increases your risk of skin cancer, right? I mean, weren't you involved in uh in sharing that information? >> Yes. Here, let me pull up that one moment. So this is the study and this has triggered factchecking organizations to shoot a nuclear bomb. Um on to basically me. Um I've seen snopes. I've seen AFP fact check. I've seen some French newspapers. Um I've seen Yahoo News. They all put out a coordinated hit piece um on me and then me and then claiming that this study's false. So, here's what's happened and this is important. And there's a bunch of other figures, but we'll just show this one. So, before this study, you know what? I I got to pull up the figure. Hold on. So for sunscreen and skin cancer, it's important to understand what how this all began. So there was a metaanalysis of looking at every single study that looked at the link between sunscreen use and skin cancer. It was 30 studies across 40 years. When they combined all of these studies together, the odds ratio of getting skin cancer, of getting melanoma, when using sunscreen was over one. So, what that means is the risk profile favored an increased risk of skin cancer when using sunscreen based on all 30 of the studies combined. Okay? Now this was before and so now it's very important of what the new study just found. So the new study that just came out was larger than every single study before it combined. So those 30 studies we just looked at, this study was bigger. This had 470,000 people in it. The 30 studies combined had less than that. Okay, this study compared sunscreen users to non- sunscreen users. The sunscreen users faced increased risks of all of the major skin cancers including invasive melanoma, squamus cell carcinoma and basilc cell carcinoma. The invasive melanoma which is the most serious form of skin cancer. This can spread to distant organs. um this risk was increased by like 300% in the sunscreen users. Okay. So so when we look at the population data it's very clear that there is this association of a large increased risk of skin cancer when using sunscreens. >> Yeah. So, if if I was going to, you know, challenge this and say, okay, well, maybe the people using sunscreen, they're in the sun more than the people not using sunscreen or they have a particular type of skin that burns more easily. So, there's a selection bias in the people who are using the sunscreen or not. Does the study address any of that or is that at play in this data? >> So, this study actually does address that and that's what none of the fact checkers like to mention. So in their model they use to estimate risk they account for what's called confounding variables. So these are things. So what so basically they addressed and they accounted for when when finding these increased risks of skin cancer. They accounted for skin type, skin color, right? So that was, you know, move that off to the wayside. They accounted for time spent outdoors, right? So that accounts for, well, were they just going in the sun more? Um, so they accounted for that. They accounted for all the other skin cancer risk factors. They accounted for sunburn history, for age, for sex, so for gender, they accounted for all of this stuff and they still and after accounting for all of it, these are the risk profiles for skin cancer. So basically the fact checkers they call it or fact checkers in quotes they say this is due to the sunscreen paradox of people's again spending just people who use sunscreen spend more time outdoors. Okay. But this particular study accounted for that. >> Yeah. They controlled for that. And this is the most important point. None of them. Anytime they say this is a false claim or this has been debunked or this is misinformation, they never mention that a recent large battery of lab tests looked at hundreds of skin care products. Over 20% of them contain benzene, a known human carcinogen. Okay? So when you have one in four skin sunscreen products containing a carcinogen, it is no wonder that slathering it all over your body will increase skin cancer risk. But they never mention that. And that's the most obvious mechanism behind this. Aside from the fact that you're blocking vitamin D production, which is critical for cancer defense, you're disrupting your hormones with hormone disrupting chemicals oxyenzone and avoenzone. And so, yeah, I think I think it's quite undeniable. And you know, the sunscreen paradox does not explain away benzene. >> Yep. I mean if if you wanted to hypothesize that this cancer industrial complex associated with pharma and big medicine is is a is a an aggregor an aggregation of energy that's looking to actually increase profits no matter what at whatever cost is necessary. I mean, the sunscreen is kind of like the recruiting office. Like, that's the that's the first layer of actually getting getting the system kind of primed, at least one vector of it. And, you know, cuz all of these things I don't think there's I think a lot of times people think there's a bunch of people sitting around a room and there's somebody who represents sunscreen and somebody who represents these drugs and somebody who represents hospitals and they're all like twiddling their fingers and like mwaha, we have a plan. It's not that. There's all there's just these kind of tacit, you know, motivations that are that are kind of almost subconscious self-s serving biases and this kind of energy that's actually allowing them to collude without ever having to be overt about it. You know, it's like the whole system works together without even having this kind of Illuminati style dark room where people are plotting our demise. I mean, maybe that exists, but it doesn't need to exist for all of this to be kind of working together and against life and against human health. And I think that's something that I think people also can make a miss. They think that this has to have like a secret meeting at Davos where everybody's planning it out. But it doesn't. Just has to have a bunch of self-interested corporations that all actually benefit each other and they can be working together without ever even talking to each other. >> Exactly. Exactly. And all of the major industries, the the sunscreen industry, you know, the chemotherapy industry, they're all so powerful um that they have managed to capture the regulators and research institutions. And most of these major large corporations will resort to criminal behavior. They don't care um if what they're doing is going to say increase skin cancer risk. They don't care. They, you know, they're going to do whatever is necessary to keep their businesses afloat because if that if they all of a sudden start telling the truth and saying, "Oh, maybe there is a link." Their whole business model is going to collapse and they're going to go out of business. And so they will do whatever is necessary. You're right. doesn't need um evil villains sitting in a room even though I think there are evil villains uh sitting in rooms plotting other sorts of activities. But yeah, for all of these >> we'll get to we'll get to Bill Gates and his 16 new viruses later [laughter] if you want to try to explore the evil villain hypothesis. Um all right, but let's continue. So we opened up a thread. Thanks for the uh you know indulging me in that bracket talking about um vitamin D and sunscreen because vitamin D is it's involved in hundreds of different minute biochemical reactions in the body that are super beneficial to from the common cold to cancer. I mean this is one of the true miracle drugs that exists and it comes naturally for free if we take off our shirt and step out into the sun. I mean it's it's amazing. I mean it's like thank God literally for the sunlight and and the healing that it provides. So that being said, and then that accounting again how we got here was the the natural sine waves where there's less cancer in the summer, more cancer in the winter, potentially a link to vitamin D and the and the summer months and other kind of colds that come also potentially related to vitamin D. Also maybe attitude and and your kind of mental state which can contribute. There's a variety of different factors. So I don't want to pin it on any one thing and say vitamin D accounts for all of it but the seasonal seasonal moves but nonetheless as we saw on that graph if we can recall back to that the sine wave was moving from the bottom left to the top right of the chart which is accounting for that uh I think the revised number was 150,000 excess cancer deaths and I think you were going to show some more uh evidence showing that the COVID vaccine mrna vaccine which is different it's different it's not the tradition traditional rejuvenated aluminum formaldahhide, DNA fragments vaccination and uh and antigens vaccination. It's a different kind of technology that's now now they're trying to do it for influenza and a variety of different things. They're trying to do it for everything. Uh they found a new cash cow that they can kind of milk. Um and I think it's going to unfortunately come at great cost until we can put a halt to it. But nonetheless, mRNA vaccines in cancer and uh so were there some more uh charts or data that you wanted to show on that? >> Yes. Yes. So we went through the excess cancer chart. That one was very worrisome for United States uh cancer deaths. So now we get to the gold standard cancer surveillance system in the United States. There's not a better one. Okay, so this is called the SEIR data set, the surveillance epidemiology and end results program. They look at cancer incidence rates per year, new cancer cases diagnosed per year. And they're very slow. They just released a few months ago the 2023 data. Okay? And so now, now that we at least have the 2023 data, we see from 2021, where that line is, that big red line, to 2023, new cancer cases skyrocketed up 6.4% overall in young Americans under 50. Okay. But when we look at the specific cancer types, a bunch of them shot up. The most shocking ones, most worrisome ones were brain tumors. Brain tumors were up and central nervous system tumors up 19% in Americans under 50 since the mRNA shots rolled out. And colon cancers up 19% again since 2021. And then not shown on this graph, well still some shown on this graph, ovarian cancer, but not shown on this graph that had smaller increases were breast cancer um as well as other reproductive cancers and I believe even lung cancer. And so based on these massive surveillance systems in the United States, it's very clear that there is that population effect. Okay. Now, there's two very important studies out of the two other countries and I will quickly pull those up first. So, now we get to the vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies. There's only been two of them looking at cancer outcomes for the COVID shots. The first one was out of Italy. They followed Italians for 30 months. >> [snorts] >> Compared vaccinated to unvaccinated, there was about 300,000 people. And the vaccinated Italians, COVID vaccinated Italians suffered a 23% increased risk in overall cancer hospitalizations, and then a 54% increased risk in breast cancer, 62% increased risk in bladder cancer, and 35% increased risk of colon cancer. Okay, so this was this Italian study and this was very shocking because this was the first one that came out that demonstrated the vaccinated we're getting more cancers, but it's not the strongest. There's a stronger one and this is perhaps the one that really just confirmed everything. This one was out of South Korea. This one followed 8.4 4 million South Koreans and again compared vaccinated to unvaccinated populations. The vaccinated suffered increased risks of six major cancers including overall cancer was up 27% and then they suffered significant increased risks of lung, prostate, thyroid, gastric, colarctyl and breast cancer. And it wasn't only the mRNA ones that were carcinogenic. It was also the viral vector ones, Johnson and Johnson and Astroenica. And so when we now combine those four giant data sets, we see the clear picture. At the population level, the CO shots appear to be one of the largest carcinogenic exposures in history. And then so this was this evidence, right? Then we get to the case report evidence which is very important. I'm going to pull that up right now. All right. So now this this paper looked at actual people with documented new onset cancer turbo cancers after these shots. This study was a systematic review looking at all of them in the peer-reviewed literature. There was 300 turbo cancer cases documented in peer-reviewed journals across 27 countries and it spanned all sorts of cancers. Some very serious, some very fatal and some rapidly progressing. Sometimes they would get the shot and they would get a giant tumor right next to the injection site a week later. Um, so we have all these cases documented, but what's important about this is this journal was hit with a cyber attack the same time they went to publish the paper and they contacted the FBI. They suspected it was from um some sort of criminal actors that did not want this study published. And so the journal was down for like a week and then they finally were able to ameliorate that attack. But uh yeah, so like this this is what it's doing to people. This is real. It's not just population data. This isn't clinical data as well. And then lastly, we have >> So what is this what is this showing actually here? What is the is it going into mechanism of action? how this is causing it or what is the what is this specific study showing? >> This one does go into the mechanisms, but I wanted to show a different figure that illustrates them. But what this shows here is these are just all the tumors in the imaging. Like you'll see here, look at this giant tumor. Looks like it's on his leg. Um, and each of these usually they're pointed out with an arrow. There'll be some sort of tumor. So this looks like a form of melanoma. um glyobblastoomas. Um so that's that debilitating brain tumor, very one of the most lethal cancers in existence. Um and very there's so many different cancer types in here. Um that you know that would take hours just to go through all those cases. But I want to share the mechanisms that have been now summarized across literally 100 studies. So, let me pull that up. So, these are all the mechanisms literally based on like a 100 laboratory studies that can promote, induce, or accelerate cancers with these mRNA shots. So, we have genome instability. We've demonstrated this in our own peer-reviewed papers where people get these shots, they get injured, and then we looked at what's called their gene expression profiles and thousands of critical genes become disregulated. Right? So basically at that fundamental genetic transcripttoic level um that becomes chaos and things start to not function properly anymore. that can increase cancer risk immune escape. So basically the immune system has become severely dis disregulated and it cannot detect cancers as well. Impaired DNA repair mechanism. Okay, that's basically when the genes p-53 and bracka become turned off. These are tumor surveillance genes and we've demonstrated that in mRNA injured individuals the the cancer surveillance genes literally become shut down and again we could just keep through going through all these lists this whole list but the big other one is hyperinflammation. So basically when you inject the body with synthetic messenger RNA, your vital organ systems will uptake that and they will begin to produce toxic nonhuman proteins. That's going to cause autoimmune attack on those organs and cause hyperinflammation. Hyperinflammation primes the body for cancerous growth. Um suppression of tea cells. This is goes into immune dysregulation. When you shut down your teac cells, you're going to be defenseless against cancer. And these shots severely exhaust the tea cells as they try and battle against the spike protein your whole body is producing. And so that's >> because that's one thing I think people don't recognize is the body is producing, as far as I understand it, cancerous cells pretty regularly, but our immune system is able to clear them. So, it's like we have we have the our T- cells and our dendritic cells that are always on the lookout picking off these, you know, individual kind of scouts that are looking to set up camp. It's kind of like when you see that one ant in your kitchen that's going into your pantry, you know, like blessings to ant, I'm going to send you back to Awa because if I don't, you're going to go back and get the whole colony and all of a sudden there's going to be a swarm of ants. And and that's kind of like these cancer cells. They're exploring and and being created from whatever kind of abnormalities naturally occur. So our immune system is very important in the prevention of cancer. >> Yes, 100%. And so these shots shut them down. They cause immune collapse. Um they cause in fact evades vaccine acquired immuno deficiency syndrome. Um, and so, and this is all documented now. And then we have DNA fragments, plasmid DNA fragments, including the SV40 promoter inside of the vials. They're they use that at the manufacturing process to make the mRNA, but they don't clean it. Uh, they they claim they do, but they don't. Over 10 studies now have found dangerous levels above regulatory limits of these cancerpromoting DNA segments in these uh covid vaccine vials and so that can integrate into the genome and so I think the last important mechanism I'd want to mention is genomic integration and we have demonstrated this in a peer-reviewed paper. I'm going to go ahead and share that. So, we have published the first documented instance of genomic integration of mRNA vaccine genetic material. So, we found a woman, she had got stage 4 bladder cancer after three mRNA shots. She was only 31 years old. So, this is an extraordinarily rare cancer. We looked in what's called her circulating tumor DNA and we looked was there anything anomalous there. Was there something that shouldn't belong? And lo and behold, we found a 20 base pair segment of the Fizer DNA plasmid reference sequence in merged in her chromosome 19 in her circulating tumor DNA. So basically what this means is there's a piece of Fizer's genetic material um or Madna's actually she actually received Madna's genetic material but the match the blast match it's called um when looking at certain genetic codes um went to Fizer's sequence. So but they do share sequences of their DNA plasmids. So regardless, there was a segment of mRNA injection DNA in her circulating tumor DNA, which means it was in this tumor. And >> I mean, that's equivalent to the that's equivalent to the smoking gun, right? Because I mean a lot of people I've seen the critics say, well, when you're looking at these, you know, uh, population level studies that are showing these these rise and increase in cancer since 2021. Well, that's not accounting for how many people actually just got sick with COVID. And that was a conflating variable. And obviously, it is important to look at these conflating variables. Was there a new um pesticide that was you know that was started to be put on crops or some some other factor that could have increased this? Obviously we know the vaccines was one major factor but it wasn't the only factor but there wasn't anything quite so significant but they do point to then well COVID which didn't exist now existed and so maybe people just got sick and then people being sick with COVID actually that's what's causing the cancer. Then the last two studies you showed were comparing vaccinated versus unvaccinated which refutes that claim. And then this one is is the literal smoking gun saying no no actually we went into the tumor and the DNA in the in the floating cells around that tumor and we found the actual trademark patented gene sequence that was inserted through that mRNA vaccine. >> Yep. 100%. And you nailed the you nailed it right on the head there. And so you know human beings should not have segments of fizer or madna uh in their tumors. And so this was actually we calculated it. It was a one in a trillion chance of a coincidence that we found a 20 base pair perfect 20 base pair match in this DNA. So it's quite unequivocal. Now the problem is is we don't know how many people this genomic integration occurs in. Nobody's bothered to look. Nobody's looking at all really except our very small lab that we were working with Neo7 Bioscience. Um the government doesn't doesn't give a damn. Um and so yeah, we don't know how many people this is happening in. We know it can happen. Um, it could be thousands, it could be tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, it could be millions for all we know, but we don't. And so, this is a question that needs to be answered. You know, one of the things that's been in the news, you know, pretty aggressively recently is, you know, Fouchy gets called up um for a Senate hearing and, you know, in 2022, I believe he said, you know, if I get called before Congress or the Senate, you know, I'll just I have nothing to hide. I'll I'll share all my information. Then he pleads the fifth 111 times. And that kind of caused a lot of people, including Stephen A. Smith to go like, "Hey, this doesn't look like an innocent man." And we also have his his emails which are kind of excoriating and and really paint a very clear picture of the of the kind of man who Fouchy was on the inside. And now his text messages as well. And the text messages were the most recent drop. And it also points to, and I think a lot of people are identifying, that he was potentially aware of some of the risks to giving the COVID vaccine to pregnant women and then spun a very different story publicly as they rolled that shot out and said that it was perfectly safe for pregnant women, which I think the evidence is pointing to, uh, hell no, it wasn't. Um, and that Fouchi may have known about this. So, uh, just kind of opening this up for you to comment generally about this whole kind of public, uh, public humiliation of Fouchy that's going on. Obviously, he has this preemptive pardon. So, he's not going to face any, um, you know, real repercussions in terms of jail time other than maybe contempt of contempt of court or hearing or whatever that they're trying to try him on some kind of small charge. But what are you what are you seeing when you're looking at this? Cuz for a lot of us, you know, it's been a kind of a moment of indication like, hey, is this still your guy? Is this St. Fouchy? Like, do you still And there are a lot of people who are still kind of sticking by it. But I think as each new layer kind of uh gets exposed, including these these text messages, which are the most recent, if you're willing to look, you're going to start to see a very different picture. or a picture that's actually exactly akin to what RFK Jr. was writing about in his book, The Real Anthony Fouchy. >> Yes. Yes. So basically I think the biggest most positive impact of Fouchi's humiliation ritual is the exposure and disclosure process of just how much people were lied to. I think this is going to wake up a lot of people that were still buying the main narrative and so this this is going to collapse their worldview quite significantly. You know the jail time is one aspect and honestly you know obviously he should have uh be you know charged with all sorts of horrible things you know crimes against humanity at the very least mass negligent homicide. Um, I mean, there's already been criminal referral uh requests filed in 50 states against him for things such as then they cite the crimes in these referrals um as terrorism, racketeering, fraud, battery abuse, uh, murder through lethal hospital protocols, and forced and coerced mRNA gene therapies. Um, but that's just a side thing and they're gonna just, unfortunately, it appears they're just going to use him as a scapegoat. And so, you know, they may put him in prison for a month or two for contempt of Congress and then say, "Oh, that's it. We did all of our work. The FDA officials that we now know buried sudden cardiac death signals with the shots. Uh, we're not going to look into them because we got Fouchi. So, we have to hope that that doesn't happen. >> But regardless, it's very concerning and very shocking the revelations recently with that text message that he was discussing miscarriage risks with the then CDC director Rochelle Winski. And then both of them went on TV and said, "All pregnant women should take it. If you're planning, if you're pregnant, if you just had a baby, take these gene transfer shots." while they were discussing theoretical miscarriage risks. And now we have studies of CDC data finding the CO shots increase the risk of of miscarriage compared to flu vaccination 100 times more. Okay? And so that's diabolical, right? When there when you're aware of a serious safety concern and you tell all the pregnant women to take it, you are you simply have no care in the world for unborn children, people's children, uh, innocent civilians. It's just monstrous. >> Yeah. I mean, it's [clears throat] and it's it's really just remarkable that with all the receipts that are that are coming in, it's still not compelling enough evidence for there to be this kind of full moment of truth and reckoning. And and I think it's partly because this politicized environment where, you know, I mean, Trump and RFK come out and they caution about the the risks of Tylenol and then you have a bunch of people on TikTok, mom, pregnant moms just guzzling child Tylenol like we're in protest of this disinformation and it's just this kind of crazy environment where we're actually getting the truth out now, but now because the the kind of the the well has been poisoned for anything that these two individuals say or anybody from this particular political associated persuasion, it must be false. And and it's a really kind of it's a it's a very disturbing environment that we're in that that these receipts keep pouring in and nonetheless people are just not willing to accept it. >> Yep. Exactly. They they've become trapped in tribalism and you know human instinct from like the the uh you know when there were cavemen and there they're trapped in that that primordial instinct. And so you're right, whenever something's mentioned that's against their side, their team, um they can't accept it and they'll just say, "Oh, it's not true or or no, my side says it's false and I'm not going to support the other side." And so people, you know, have to get away from this tribalism and just be independent and look for what you think is true and try and reach that conclusion yourself. You don't have to rely on a on a political party to do that. It's not necessary. >> Yeah. And and also like I just feel like if they really got to be face to face with, you know, a mother who lost their child and, you know, it was labeled I've always had a I've always taken issue with this idea that there's something called sudden infant death syndrome. Like sudden infant death syndrome. It has a name or sudden adult death syndrome. That was something that came out during co like yeah sometimes people just die suddenly like what like life is such a strong force you know like it's like it this is something that it takes a lot to actually knock you off the course of life like life has been perfecting itself for billions of years and now we just give it a name and it's like yeah sometimes just you know people blink out of existence and there's something very very fishy about that and uh and actually You know, I wanted to get your opinion on this because, you know, right now, I'm sure you're aware, uh, Andrea Shaw, um, in Payet, Idaho, she had her twin 18-month-old boys who were found dead in a shared, uh, shared cribs. And she's been talking about that they were perfectly healthy and then they got three different vaccines and they died eight days later. and she's like, "The vaccines did this, but the prosecutors are so convinced that vaccines couldn't have done this that they're actually charging her with manslaughter." Are you following this case? >> Yes, I've seen that. I've seen that. It's absolutely ridiculous, you know. Now, obviously, I don't know, you know, the full case details, but um we know for sure that vaccines could induce sudden infant death syndrome. I mean there's now four papers four papers supporting this quite significantly. You know we have hundreds and hundreds of or thou over a thousand now sudden infant death syndrome cases and the vaccine adverse event reporting system. Um we see most of those deaths occur within just two weeks of the vaccine or a week of the vaccine. The children are found dead in their crib after these large battery of shots. We have another paper looking at the mechanism behind this. It actually appears that injecting these children with the aluminum and with the other toxins um into small infants who have underdeveloped what are called CYP detoxific cytochrome P450 u detoxification systems. those are not grown yet in those small infants. And so you overwhelm those detoxification enzyme pathways with the large battery of vaccines. And then with those defenses down, those toxic vaccine materials reach the central nervous system because there's no defense. gets right into the brain and then through the neuroinflammatory action. It appears and these authors proposed it in this study that it actually interferes with brain stem function. It induces brain stem failure and the failure of the body to know when to breathe during sleep. And so these babies, they'll go to sleep, they got the massive battery of vaccines, their brain stems not telling them how to breathe properly, and then they suffocate and die. And so that's the pathway that's been proposed for how this happens. >> And yeah, those investigators probably have no clue that that exists. I mean, this is it's just unbelievably tragic, you know? Like, I have a little baby girl and she's like uh 11 weeks old now, you know, and [clears throat] I can just like imagine like being a father and you know, my little brighteyed baby girl and and I don't know any better. And I go and I take little Huxley in to get to get her vaccines because she's going to be a healthy little girl and then she's just dead. like these, you know, it's one thing to like think about these numbers and and that's like what I think is it's hard for me when people are just not willing to look at this is like imagine if it's your kid, [clears throat] you know, like then you feel something different, you know, it's not this is not a number. This isn't just a plot on a graph. Like this could be little baby Huxley like wiped out. Her entire future wiped out and the devastation to her family and and all the impact like that whole thing. And it's just it's like it's it so much that it's almost like as we go through all of this, you know, and I and I do it too. Like I go through all the numbers and I'm we're talking about numbers and excess deaths 150,000 and and then you just get personal one time and think about it one time and it's just you can't even hold it. >> Yeah. Yeah. When it when it becomes personal that's when that's when things change. And I think that's when most people end up waking up like so say somebody you know they've pushed vaccines their whole life and then finally one day you know they get their seventh COVID booster and you know they get a heart attack and then that's that trigger that sometimes leads to okay this is occurring and and so uh you know I receive receive, you know, so many messages every day of people who who received, you know, five, six, seven boosters and they're begging for help. They want to know what can I what can we do now? What can we do? My grandma, she just she just died. She just got, you know, six boosters. She's dead now of she died from encphilitis. for my child, you know, he he we took him in for the MMR shot and now he's severely autistic. What do we do to detox him? Nobody's helping us. No doctors are helping us. And so, you know, PE Yeah, people need to realize this is real. These are real families. These are real children, real fathers, real mothers. uh millions of which lives were just wiped out by these shots. Millions millions of families destroyed. Okay. And you know, it's literally catastrophic. And so that's why we can't brush any of this under the rug. >> Yeah. Yeah. Amen. Amen to that. All right. So, talking about what what people can do. And so there are I've heard a lot of conversations about, you know, how to help eliminate the spike proteins that may be accumulating. There's some like nattokynise, some digestive enzyme type of treatments. Um, you know, I not for this reason. I didn't get I didn't get the uh didn't get the jab, but I I went and did plasma feresis. I don't know if that's helpful. It's like, you know, cleaning the cleaning the blood plasma. I just did that for general microplastics and other [ __ ] I might have in my blood. Um, didn't see a dramatic effect, but I'm was healthy to begin with. So, uh, but ultimately like what, so what can people what can people do if they've gotten the COVID vac, you know, I also want to talk about the kind of, um, preventative and prophylactic use of Ivormectin and also Ivormectin for cancer because that's an interesting one that I think uh, you know, you're you've had a a particular focus on and I'm I'm particularly interested in as well. But let's just talk about it generally. if you particularly if you took the covid vac. I mean most of us you know we got all the vaccines. I remember you know me personally I I had all the childhood vaccines but then I was going to do like a mission trip to Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania and I was in my early 20s and they recommended you know I couldn't find my vax cards or whatever because what [ __ ] adult has their childhood vax cards? So like well we got to vaccinate you with all this [ __ ] I was like yeah whatever. And so they just hit me with like 11 of them at the same time. I got incredibly sick. And for the next 5 years, it was like the worst health of my life. Just strep throat after this cold after I couldn't get on a plane without getting sick. My allergies got insane. And I'm still I still struggle particularly with cedar allergies, which I think I was exposed environmentally during the time that my immune system was compromised. And so I built a lot of, you know, antibodies to the cedar and this whole [ __ ] [ __ ] show because I didn't know any better. And but obviously it was, you know, pretty wide awake by the time the the COVID vacc. But, you know, a lot of this, you know, yes, we have to detox our heavy metals in general. That could come from eating too much [ __ ] tuna or it could come from vaccines or there's a lot of processes to do for the kind of legacy vaccines that we've taken. Um but this COVID one in particular is it's recent and it has a a kind of a novel impact. So again like I I mean and if you have something else for the legacy vaccines I'm sure like chelation therapies and deto opening your detox pathways and there's a lot of like things you do but that's more for it seems to me like just general health practices that you need to do for the legacy vaccines like like I like I took and so open to anything you want to add to that kind of just general health for the legacy vaccines and the kind of toxic load that we have even the pesticides that that exist. And then but particularly for people who've taken uh the COVID vaccine like what they can do specifically. >> Yeah. Yeah. So yeah, with those conventional vaccines, you're right. It's like there's really nothing necessarily targeted other than the heavy metal collation therapies because that's, you know, the main component of those that you can try and target and clear out, particularly getting rid of the aluminum. And I know there's all sorts of killation agents that can be used that vary widely. Um, I'm not a big expert in those, so I don't want to recommend what I think would be the best one. >> Yeah, do your research. I even think cilantro is a is a pretty strong chading agent, but do your research. You're also going to want to have a binder in there just from my cursory knowledge. Again, I'm not a doctor, so I'm not giving you medical advice here, and neither is Nick, but do your research. You know, there's things that will help unlock the the metals from your tissues. You're going to want to make sure that you're passing them through your system. So, you're going to want to bind them with clays or charcoals or whatever you want to do, and you're going to want to eliminate them from your body. So, have something that's causing you to go to the bathroom regularly, maybe sweat, you know, figure that out. But I think that's just the general idea with these legacy vaccines and and uh and other toxic exposures. You know, just do your research. There's a lot of information out there. But I'm really particularly for people who've taken the the co vac like like what are you and Dr. McCulla you know really looking at for that? So the genomic integration is if that occurs as of this as of this time point in time is unfortunately that will be irreversible. But what we can do is we can target the spike protein. The spike protein is the pathogenic part. Um that's the part of these injections that persists in the body for years. Literally the body can't clear it. And so we need compounds that can help the body clear that in the best attempt to rid the body of this garbage. And so there's three things and we published this in the journal Curious. There's three key enzymes or two enzymes. one one pigment. Um, so it's nattokyase. That's the uh that's the proteolytic enzyme. It's derived from fermented soybeans and other other it doesn't have to be soybeans, but certain basillus bacterium basically spits that out as it digests certain compounds. It's very safe. The Japanese have consumed it for like hundreds of years. And this nanocchinise has been shown to directly degrade the spike protein in the test tube. Right? So when spike is exposed to nattokynise, spike goes away. Okay? So that's the best evidence we have of a directly degrading spike. But we do know that nattokynise directly enters circulation. And so if it enters circulation, we suspect that it will interact with circulating spike in the bloodstream and help clear that out. >> It's safe to say that the the reason that there's this increase in blood clots is because of the spike protein. I'm not perfectly clear on the mechanism of action for that, but these spike proteins accumulate and they clump up and that's creating the blood clots which creating the strokes that we see associated with the shot. >> Correct. Correct. The spike protein is very thrombogenic. It uh literally I mean when they expose blood blood cells to spike it just literally just induces these clots. Um it it's it literally deforms fibbrin. Fibbrin is like the molecu is is the compound that kind of makes up blood clots and and hold it's that structure that holds that that together and forms the these clots. Um the spike protein misfolds fibbrin and it causes it to become amaloidenic. So these misfolded fibbrin proteins then begin to circulate, begin to bunch up and that's why we see these large white fibrous clots pulled out of corpses that imbalmers are seeing. 75% of imbalmer now are pulling the white fibrous clots out of corpses and this is likely a direct result of spike protein exposure uh causing protein misfolding. Okay. So, it's it's not just inducing normal clots, it's inducing these monster uh misfolded pryon like clots. And so, that's why we want to get rid of it. >> Uh we really want to get rid of the spike. And so, >> yeah, you got ninus, you have bromelain and another proteolytic enzyme from pineapples that also potently degrades the spike protein in the laboratory. And then you have curcumin which is the main bioactive pigment in turmeric that blocks the ability of spike protein to bind to human A2 receptors. So and that's been demonstrated and so that's and it's also it is a it is a potent anti-inflammatory. So when people have this hyperinflammation from the spike that can help bring it down. So those three are the protocol to help the body rid of spike. But then you need to do physical excretions and that is heavy sweating. You can use an infrared sauna. Um you know if you have heart damage from the shots you would preferably want to do that. You would want to avoid heavy exercise if your heart's fine. Heavy exercise and sweat. We believe this the spike protein is found in sweat. And so that physical excretion will also help clear out this garbage. Again, that's a very common sense one. And then we have sunlight and vitamin D. There's two studies on this. One of them looked in long vaccine patients, right? So it's not long co, they had long vaccine. They were injured and they had persistent symptoms. They went to get sunlight. They followed the sunlight guidance by the researchers and so they got their adequate vitamin D and the thousands of other benefits from sunlight. Over 80% of the long vaccine patients went into remission of their long vaccine syndrome when they got sunlight. And so that's extraordinarily critical. Extraordinarily critical. So you got to get outside. You got to you got to have that that sunlight on your skin. You know, we know it goes through the human body now and dramatically improves all sorts of bodily functions. And then another paper found that those who got who raised their vitamin D levels from inadequate to adequate had less vaccine heart damage, their myocarditis was less severe and they had to go to the hospital less. So those key things and then obviously you know common sense thing like eating a nice whole food wholesome diet filled with vital nutrients you know not eating hyperrocessed garbage uh movement walking you know at least uh you know over 10,000 steps a day because if you don't walk you face increased risks of death and cancer death and everything and so it's those basic lifestyle measures and these targeted interventions to help get rid of spike and that's the best we have at the moment. And you mentioned uh plasma feresis. Um that's very promising as well for getting rid of spike in some of these clots. >> Um they're doing that in Japan with particularly these vaccine injured individuals from the COVID shot. And I've seen the records so far. Um there's been severely disabled and injured COVID shot from the CO shots. And um I've there all of a sudden, you know, they're running again. They feel way better in the bag. They show the bag of all the disgusting garbage that was in their blood. And so that's another method. But yeah, th those would be the main ones. Yeah, you mentioned the long vaccine and long COVID and um this is something that I've really been curious about because you know you hear people who say, "Oh, I have long COVID." And then, you know, I've had even people who have told me that and I'm like, "Well, did you get vaccinated?" And they're like, "Yeah, I got vaccinated." And so, I've been really curious like is long COVID a is it is it a thing? I imagine that it might be for some people that it is a thing, but I also think it's probably conflated with like like these vaccine induced symptoms and I haven't been able to sufficiently disambiguate in my own mind what is actually long CO versus COVID plus the vaccine creating this extended immune system response that is then attributed to long CO. >> Yeah. So what the vaccine cartel has done and their publication, the journal cartel apparatus is they have basically called everything that's from the vaccine is long co. Okay, long co is real and it can affect some people who have not been vaccinated. Okay. But uh now that 80% of the population is vaccinated, we can't, you know, if you've been vaccinated, you can't say for sure you have long co, but you can probably say for sure you have long vaccine. And so this has just become one of those issues that's very difficult to differentiate. But it is possible to differentiate if you have advanced laboratory tools that can look and see which spike protein is in your body. They would have to look at the the proline proline substitutions on the spike protein to see if it was from the vaccine if it had those modifications or if it was from the laboratory synthesized Wuhan virus. And so, you know, I would just say if if you've been vaccinated, uh, and you have these long-term persisting symptoms, it's probably from the vaccine. Yeah. I mean, that's that's tended to be the way I was thinking about it. But, uh, but yes, there is such a thing as as long co, which makes it confusing. And I think it's a it's a nice magic trick to conflate everything that could be long vaccine and just call it long COVID and then they have a name for it and then people can dismiss it. Oh, I just have long COVID. And so I I think this is just helpful for people to understand if you're talking to family members, if you're experiencing it, just understand unless you haven't been vaccinated, it's very difficult to say that you have long COVID. and and the long COVID treatments you mentioned same same as how you would clear the spike from you know vaccine injuries uh or risk is just sunlight maybe plasma feresis nattokynise bromelain things of that nature um speaking of lab created uh Bobby was just recently on he's been kind of on a rampage lately I've been cheering him on like go Bobby you're out there getting it done on Fox in a in a variety of different places, but he was just recently somewhere where he is making a very concerted effort to shut down gain of function work from being done. And he was saying that he believes that Lyme disease and RSV were gain of function caused diseases. And these are I mean particularly Lyme I mean nasty nasty epidemic. >> Yeah. Yeah. It it it's like all of these outbreaks uh seem to come from bolabs now, particularly vaccine biolabs that are doing gain of function for so-called vaccine purposes. But yeah, when you mention Lyme disease that most definitively like RFK said came out of a military bioweapons facility. You know, the first recognized modern instance of Lyme disease was in Old Lime, Connecticut at less than 10 miles away from the Plum Island military boweapons facility that was working with weaponized ticks. Um, and so you can't even make this up. And so now we have 500,000 Americans per year being diagnosed with Lyme disease. And you know, so that's a disaster debacle. Man-made most likely. Um, now did that bacteria exist before? Yeah. But that doesn't mean that, you know, these military experiments didn't reintroduce it into the human population perhaps at a modified level. Um and so we have that you know RSV may have came from a vaccine research lab. Um COVID again labor for sure laboratory they've been working on splicing together making chimeic corona viruses for decades now um trying to infect human receptors. Bird flu we even published a paper on that. We think that that bird flu outbreak that began in 2021 H5N1 was from serial passage gain of function research at the USDA Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory. They were literally serial passaging, so forcing bird flu through uh ducks over and over and over again until it would mutate and expand its host range or become more deadly. And so >> so that means serial passages you just infect you infect a population of in this case ducks enough times that the virus mutates. >> Yes. Yes. Exactly. It's like an accelerated evolution. >> And literally just miles away from that lab was where what was called genotype B12 was detected. Um, genotype B12 was the first strain to be found in a dolphin off the coast of Florida. Um, just a few months after this research started. Uh, bird flu, it's never infected sea life before. Uh, that's not supposed to happen. But this strain that was first detected in Georgia by the lab that was doing gain of function appeared in a dolphin. Then it appeared in cows in Texas and then it infected 50 ml species. And so that never became a human pandemic. They were really hyping it up as it as if it would be. But that only reached 60 human cases. It basically died out and now it's just screwing up the animals. So, back to the lab and let's try to make something else that will infect. I mean, this is it's so insane. And I just saw there was people cheering that, you know, a Gates Foundation research project just created 16 new viruses with the new AI technology. They were able to come up with brand new viruses. Hooray. Like, what the [ __ ] are they thinking? Yeah, it's it's it's it's crazy. I mean, I couldn't believe it. I couldn't believe when I saw Gates Foundation was a fun of this paper. Like, I nobody even reported that either. I wasn't even expecting to find that. But yeah, basically that's for the first time in history, these mad scientists created synthetic viruses. viruses that do not create exist in nature and they used an artificial intelligence language model which is not JGBT but it's a language model for nucleotide DNA sequences and so what they can do with this tool is they can basically make whatever virus they want and in this circumstance they made 16 bacteria phages that were replication competent so they were literally functional They so they designed it with the AI, manufactured it following the instructions and they were literally infecting and killing the bacteria. And so now the line has been crossed. Now they're going to move on to um other types of viruses, not bacterial phasages that only infect bacteria. And they're going to move on to all sorts of biological agents. And so, and then imagine if a bioteterrorist gets their hands on these tools. They're going to make all sorts of monsters. And so, we've reached a dangerous time now. And I think any tool that is giving that capability should be banned outright. I I don't think these, you know, these these research institutions, universities, they shouldn't even have access to it. There's no reason to generate synthetic pathogens that do not exist in nature. But they claim there is a reason. They claim it's for positive beneficial purposes. They say, "Oh, we're going to cure cancer with synthetic bacterial phages." Um, well, why didn't they do that? Um, so, you know, it's [snorts] it's a it's a dangerous path. >> Yeah. I mean, this is the plot of V for Vendetta, right? I mean, the the empire goes and creates a bunch of different diseases and then infects the population and then seizes a totalizing control. And you know, unfortunately, this all sounds like science fiction until you start to see some of the preliminary steps and the groundwork being laid for this move, empires move to totalize control, create fear and chaos, and then clamp down a surveillance state. And you know, we're really God, you know, God willing, we'll never actually have to encounter that. But that's really up to us. It seems like that energy exists. You know, it's it's written about in these stories as a warning. You know, this was downloaded in somebody's consciousness to put out in these stories. And we've seen it in other different cultures of course you know in these different despotic tyrannical authoritarian cultures that have come in and wiped out you know millions of people or Stalin and Mao and and variety of these polepot these different situations. So it has happened with with the human in human history and it will happen again if we allow it to. And I think that's why becoming aware of this and not pretending like ah nah that's just a story. It's V for Vendetta. It's science fiction. Well, it's science fiction or it's Star Wars until it's not. And I think we're at a time now where, you know, if we stay strong and stay aware and stay loving to our brothers and sisters and but stay fierce, I think uh you know, we can create the best future for our children and our grandchildren. you know, I like I want the world that Huxley inherits, my daughter to be a beautiful world and then then her kids inherit. And uh and that's, you know, one of the reasons why, you know, I'm doing this show with you and I know it's one of the reasons why you're doing your work. So, you know, I'm just grateful for for uh all of your all of your effort. And I know it doesn't come without a cost as you as you mentioned. you know, you have people, you're on the radar, you're in the sights of um of Empire's crosshairs here. And you know, fortunately, we're in a time where it seems you have to reach a pretty extreme level of danger before kinetic violence is is on the table. It's not not on the table. It it exists in certain circumstances, unfortunately. But, um they will try to assassinate your name, you I mean, that's the that's the first step, and I'm sure you've had to endure quite a bit of that. So, you know, thank you for your resilience and fortitude. >> Oh, yeah. Lots of attacks, that's for sure. Um the attacks were non-stop, but you know thankfully um you know they they simply they don't matter. You know they don't matter whatsoever because like people have have woken up to to all the BS. And so, you know, they can say whatever they want these, you know, news outlets or whatever and it just it just doesn't matter because people they don't trust them anymore. And, you know, yeah, have I I've received indications that um I should increase my security. Yes. Uh but um you know, I don't I'm going to keep telling the truth no matter what. I don't I don't want to die a liar um like all these criminals that resulted in millions of innocent civilians dying. Um you know that's that's not how I want to live. But you know it's I think I think we can we can stop all this madness. You know I think we can stop all this madness >> if enough people wake up. And that's that's what it's going to take because you know the few can only control the entire population if they're all asleep. But if people wake up, you know, we can stop it. Amen to that. It's time. Let's go. Hoka. Let's go. Thank you so much, Nick. Um, obviously follow you on Instagram and that'll point to a lot of other places. any other places you recommend uh people follow your work? >> Yeah, you can follow me. Yeah, of course on X. I'm on Instagram, Facebook. Um I'm on LinkedIn. You can follow me on there. That's where all the trolls are that mass report me, get my posts taken down. Um as well as Substack, the focalpoints.com. That's where I'll post all the in-depth kind of articles on all the latest breaking studies. And I have a personal website, nicholasholster.com, and that's where you'll see all of the studies we published and some interviews and a contact form. >> Amazing. Well, thank you so much, Nick. I appreciate it. >> Thank you.