RFK Jr. Podcast: Paul Heroux - RF/EMF Radiation Health Effects
YouTube video by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBplrhixedw). Transcript is the auto-caption track — verbatim ASR, not a certified transcript.

everybody's on their cell phone these are addictive that have to be controlled only about 20% of the radiation goes for communication the rest is diffused into your body which explains a lot of things children of course are very vulnerable to these things because their brains are developing yeah there's some cell phones that are better than others the Apple phones are the worst we need somebody like yourself to put a bit of order in the house in my opinion hey everybody my guest today Dr Paul Aro is probably the to top expert in the field of bioelectric uh physics and radio frequency radiation and the impacts of radio frequency radiation on on nature and human beings uh Dr Paulo is a scientist with experience in physics he PhD in physics and engineering and the health Sciences he started his research career at The Institute de rer of hydro Quebec and veres Quebec and the internationally reputed electr technical laboratory the biggest electric company in in uh Canada after rounding out his formation with courses in biology and Medicine he became interested in public health and was appointed associate professor of McGill University's faculty of medicine where where he is the current occupational health program director he is uh as I said an expert in toxicology and and uh um electromagnetic radiation and I uh won a lawsuit about cell phone radiation suing f f FCC the Federal Communications uh Commission in 2021 and we sued FCC because the the science that they were using to defend their lack of regulation of uh cell phone Wi-Fi radiation um the the science had overwhelmed it there was no science behind it they said their their assumption was that until that radiation began to raise the temperature of your body or your organs in other words you want you microwaving you and cooking you that there were no sub thermal effects and uh this is wrong and there are literally I was shock and polaro can tell us what it is hyperbole but there were over 10,000 studies out there over the years showing uh raising concerns about Wi-Fi radiation and showing that indeed there are some Thal in bags that your your the cells in your body act as little antennas that are regulating electric currents and energy currents and flow between all of the functions of your body and the way that you think the way that you feel the way that your your immune system works the way that you uh that you move it's all regulated by electrical impulses that you're your cells regulate and that the cell tower when near you disrupts that and uh and then does a lot of other bad stuff but in all the the so we won that lawsuit and FCC has was this was during the Trump Administration the head of the FCC at that time was a Verizon lobbyist and they um have ever since then uh blocked anything from happening so they're required essentially required they implied in this lawsuit was that and the and the decision by the federal court of appeals in Washington DC was that they need to start a new start a new rule making they need to do a real assessment what Wi-Fi radiation there are solutions to it and we're going to talk about those but that's where we are in the federal case I wanted to bring all on here because he better than anybody else that I know um can explain explain what happens to our radio frequency regulation our radiation inside the human body so Paul welcome to on my podcast it's a delight to finally meet you in person thank you so tell us what does uh what does Wi-Fi radiation or radio frequency radiation do when it when it gets into the Human by why would should we be concerned about this well the 10,000 studies that you me mentioned are not there by luck they are there because there are actually health effects of electromagnetic radiation the reason why so many governments would believe that there are no effects uh can seem to be a mystery but it's not a mystery to me because I'm a fairly old man as you can see and I was there when all of these uh I would say these strategies were being developed in other words industry desperately wanted to have very high standards and this was done in the days of the microwave ovens when this was the new Wonder application but industry realized that electromagnetic radiation had tremendous potential for commercial applications so you'll have to consult the law to determine whether this was done I would say in a uh in the underhanded way or not but what they came up with is that this radiation is not dangerous and they had three great arguments that they could present to the public and to politicians who as you know don't have too much time to deal with things like that they said well you know this radiation is nonionizing secondly they said the radiation levels that we emit are too weak and thirdly they said there are no mechanisms to explain the action of these fields on the body unfortunately all three of these arguments are completely false from the scientific point of view and the thing that I came up with relatively recently is that they should have known better and they did not and if you look at the science basically the problem is can this radiation triggers certain reactions in human bodies that could interfere or make them see and so we call this essentially the concept of energy of activation what does it take to make changes in the human body from radiation and what they use in fact are Concepts that date to 1889 it's called the arenus equation and what they said says is that you have to break a certain amount of energy in order to trigger a chemical reaction the thinking is simple you have to break something before it can come back together in a different way so they use this concept to say that it's non ionizing because indeed the radiation is nonionizing so they thought this is a really good thing to present to the public and then they said the radiation is too weak in other words it cannot ionize so consequently it can't do anything and then show us the mechanisms that allow these reactions to occur well there's something very interesting about the human body the human body has as its first characteristic that it organizes stain and this is a bit hard to digest from the second law of Thermodynamics which is universally accepted in physics if you organize things you have in a corresponding we way to generate disorganization this disorganization occurs in all living systems and it's called reactive oxygen species or unstable molecues now once you understand this that living systems have to generate free radicals then they become vulnerable to fields that are extremely weak and so what this means is that the argu argument of radiation is to weak no longer holes and then there are no mechanisms I can describe in detail at least two mechanisms that are able to alter your rate of cancer and that a are able to enter your rate of diabetes so in other words industry had no science to stand on but they fed these stories to politicians into the public you know many years ago I had a a radio show called ring of fire this was back in the um I think mid 2000s um or early 2000s but I had a guy on that time I met and i' met many times since named Dr George Carlo and Dr George Carlo was what we would call an industry bios itute he was a guy who had good credentials and but he was a mercenary scientist and he had been he would he would be hired buying industry to um to to reach certain pre-ordained results that the industry wanted to to uh have a scientific study that validated some profit taking Enterprise that they had already determined they wanted to do and they hired George Carlo to look look at cell phone radiation because as you know back in around 2013 Congress and the GAO were were putting tremendous pressure on FCC to start uh doing real science and regulating cellone radiation which they were doing in Russia and other countries uh we weren't Russia had this tremendous amount of science early science on in this area and they were are very very strict in their regulations over there and Congress was getting worried about it there were people coming in sick there were you know Americans were complaining about it and they started pressuring the industry so the industry in order to defend itself hired George Carlo and George Carla and they wanted him to do a report clearing it all and saying that it was all as safe as can be and he he was a he was a guy who was capable of doing that stuff but he started but he had a conscience and he started reading the science and the science was so overwhelming he was Finding uh studies out rat studies from Europe that you know they that um they they put a a cell phone next to a rat for even a couple of minutes and the E eegs of that rat would not turn back to normal for for days the same thing with children and that there was evidence then that it was opening up the permeability of the bloodb brain barrier in people's brains and you know they he started finding this they' given him $26 million to do this study and he gave the money back and he said I can't do it and then he went public and he shocked the industry and you know he turned out to be a very brave man and uh and he's been working I think ever since to expose it but that was my first exposure to how bad this is how over in The Spence was on it yes I think you your description is very very accurate uh the uh the fact is that when industry was confronted with this problem you're dealing essentially with the Institute of electrical and electronics Engineers they didn't really have any indigenous expertise and the people that they acquired nor naturally seemed pressure to tell the industry what it wanted to hear so essentially what happened is that in this process in the end industry avoided the problem and tried to find arguments so that the public and even their own constituency I mean you're talking about 400,000 Engineers that they would all believe that this radiation is an offensive and if you start to broadcast these ideas you know amongst Engineers with 400,000 people it's very powerful and they are the ones who hold the expertise on electromagnetism but of course their assessment of science was extremely superficial they didn't want to get into it they felt it was not their venue and uh what Carlo dealt with is all this health evidence coming from epidemiologists and so on but one thing that I know is that when epidemiologists talk to Engineers it's very difficult to find a common ground they don't understand each other and so consequently even today we are in a situation in which industry is resting on very very non-existent science really and do you want to know how the tests were conducted to uh determin that this radiation was safe well they were very short shortterm test essentially the military wanted to know if we have a pilot in an F-16 and this pilot is obviously subjected to the radiation of his radar does the radiation impair His function his ability to understand situations his ability to follow orders and so they ran very short-term tests on a series of rats and monkeys that's 40 to 60 Minutes on monkeys like five monkeys 10 rats things like that and the the Criterion that they Ed to determine the safety level was are these animals reducing their ability to feed themselves because they would have a a a pellet that they could that they could press and that would deliver a morcel of food to them so they increase the radiation until these animals reduce their intake of food and so on the basis of these very simplistic tests the industry ran away and said this is what we're going to use you have to ask yourself can a test that last 40 to 60 Minutes represent you know the span of human life of 70 years or the effect on humans over many generations so it's rather humiliating to think how all this was done and was arranged yeah and so now we also have um uh test showing that this is hurting people that you know animals that wildli that even trees are affected by it um I was you know what are what is the bad news I mean how bad is this are are you know I there's people getting you know I'm representing a lot lot of people who have who have what they call cell phone tumors who are of gleo blastomas in their brains so you know um and my uncle Ted Kennedy died of one of those tumors and and the people who were getting these tumor but my my colleague Johnny Cochin another attorney had what he thought he understood to be a cell phone tumor that he died from and um you're seeing people get these tumors right behind the ears where they that they favor with their cell phones and but so far we're not seeing the science come out to support it we're seeing a lot of anecdotal evidence and then you know and uh some sence on the cancer issues but on the other issues the science is pretty overwhelming isn't it yes uh for example in the case of cancer uh imagine that you have one cell that is mutated in your body is very well known that in a normal human body you have full of mutations that do not develop into cancer uh you know for years and years and years but imagine that you have an agent like electromagnetic radiation that is applied to this cell what does the radiation do it changes the level of metabolism in cells in other words when you apply it the metabolism goes down and when you release the radiation the metabolism goes back back up now if you culture cell and you you expose them to various levels of radiation you will find that from one cancer cell of one type this kind of electromagnetic treatment will increase the diversity of cells that you have some will have more chromosomes than the first original cell some will have fewer and so on and so forth by increasing the diversity of uh cancer cells within the body you increase the malignancy of the tumor itself and you can trigger its appearance and so there's plenty of evidence that an agent like electromagnetic radiation which is a mo modulator of metabolism can have these effects on cancer specifically and this evidence has been around for a long long time but as you know industry has fought the evidence and claimed that the science is good science is always complicated at the best of times but when you uh survey the whole thing some conclusions can be reached just in in the case the legal case that you mentioned and another impact was to increase the permeability of the bloodb brain barrier can you talk a little bit about that absolutely uh the brain is a special organ in the body it's responsible for so many things and by and large the perfusion of blood into the brain is highly controlled in certain regions like the hypothal and the pituitary gland it's rather permeable because you want the brain to get proper messaging from what happens in the body but in overall in the brain it's hard to get from the blood into neural tissue well plenty of evidence showed that when you subjected to even non-thermal levels of electromagnetic radiation that are perfectly fine with the FCC you increase the permeability of the bloodb brain barrier this was documented usually by penetration of albumin which is a protein that you have in large amounts in your blood but the problem with albumin is that albumin is a buffer against all the toxicant in your body basically when you have an acute exposure to high concentrations of a toxicant albumin gobbles up most of it in order to release it to your tissues progressively thereby lowering the shock when you allow albumin to penetrate into your nervous tissue all of these toxins that are accumulated by albumin have access to your brain as well so it's obvious physiologically that this stye of permeation of the blood brain barrier is a fundamental risk to the brain itself and what happens to the brain when you allow toxics into the brain well I think any toxicology uh uh specialist can tell you you know the brain is supposed to be relatively immune to these chemicals and all of a sudden you allow entry into a delicate tissue this tissue the brain is very dependent on supplies of ATP you know that if you stop breathing right now you will lose Consciousness very very rapidly because your nervous system depends on the high amount of ATP being generated continuously by the supply of oxygen into your brain so this is a highly delicate tissue and if you start allowing all sorts of toxicant and do this toxicant can be almost anything because whatever you were exposed to that the brain did not allow into neural tissue whatever your exposure now can get into uh into around neurons that uh actually are the functioning part of your brain and will that interfere with that will cause inflammation or interfere with brain function at some point these toxicants that are allowed into the brain can do that by themselves but we also know that the radiation itself is well known to increase reactive oxygen species you know in in tissues and these reactive oxygen species are essentially molecules that have been activated to be I would say hostile to uh tissue that is healthy so when you uh suppress metabolism in any cell it's a little bit like you have a garden hose and you are you're Watering your lawn and then you take the hose and you bend it so that the water can't come out anymore well behind you if there are any leaks on your hose they will quickly spurt some water you know that you know Spurs that were in there before and so those are the losses of metabolism and we know exactly where they occur in complex one in complex true tree of oxidative phosphorilation so you suppress metabolism you you are going to increase reacted oxygen species and tissues this has been repeatedly demonstrated in relation to radio frequency radiation exposure so these reactive oxygen species by their very nature are hostile when they are in excessive quantities and when they're present in the brain of course they can do damage now all of these chronic diseases can be linked to excesses R we're talking about what things like diabetes things like Alzheimer's things like Parkinson's am Tropic lateral therosis all of these chronic neurological diseases are connected with Roos and microwave radiation can produce an in an increased concentration of these things you know oh the the woman who uh brought originally initially the this lawsuit to me the federal lawsuit was a woman named DNA talk over and um she you may have met her she was uh an officer in the Israeli uh Defense Force for a long time and she was a cyber warfare expert so she was in a basically in a um a compartment uh that was filled with electronics and uh and getting radiated all the time and at some point she developed literally overnight a sensitivity to to it and after that she she had to move to the cat skill she couldn't be around it's very very hard to get away away from a radio frequency radiation nowadays because they're saturating our the globe with it there cell towers everywhere um there's now it's coming from satellites now and so she had to move to a remote area the of the aills but she can come into rooms in my house and say this room is heavily radiated and I had a meet her and well every time that she said that she was absolutely accurate I've since then met many many people who have this kind of sensitivity including a lot of children who get very very sick I'm even small exposures to cell phones or to radiation and it's very much complicated their lives um can you explain that and uh you know and talk talk about that your own experience with people who are sensitive how how many people are like that uh people believe that it's between two and 3% of people who are aware of it and take defensive measures in order to combat uh these environmental exposures now the mechanisms are probably exactly the same as the one that we discussed uh essentially when you generate reactive oxygen species your nervous system and your immunity can become uh sensitized to it and the nervous system will react now I know of cases where children who are electrosensitive would find in a classroom the one spot where the radiation was lowest and I would go in with my instrument and I would realize oh this is where he sits right and these people know spontaneously how to defend themselves against the radiation but indeed they become ostracized from society and uh some people are very sensitive not only to radio frequency radiation but also to radiation from Power Systems and even from static electricity so it can become a very very disturbing syndrome that changes your life completely and the fear that us you know Public Health people have is that as we increase the level of radiation are we going to magnify and increase correspondingly the number of people who are afflicted by this by this condition and nobody wants that to happen now the mechanisms of uh increases in reactive oxygen species is a mechanism that can I would say solicit many physiological processes and that explains why all people who are electromagnetically sensitive don't have exactly the same symptom I know a woman whose eye left eye closes each time there is radiation and very reliably for other people they will get a headache that depends on individual physiology and sometimes on the variables of the exposure because as you know our electric environment is extremely complicated it's a mixture of all sorts of ingredients and for this reason it has been very difficult to unravel the uh the science of it another aspect is that when people try to do experiments they are rarely in a position in which they can provide a completely radiation free environment as a baseline in their research this has made the whole field of bioelectromagnetics very complicated I would say the reactive oxygen species is a dominant mechanism also changes in metabolism and that is essentially happening there's also a third mechanism that I know of this is less known it's called the Rous mechanism this is a mechanism by which radiation changes the pH in the fluid even in water and so all of these things together can create extremely complicated effects and syndromes and these EHS people come with all sorts of symptoms regularly and phone me and ask for help now you've said and you know this is very very well established in the science science that the principal exposure to most people from radiation is one cell towers that are near your home or near your place of business and then also probably the worst putting a cell phone next your head um can you talk about that and can you talk about particularly children you know know that are now we've got a generation of kids that growing up uh sleeping in from their cell phones having their cell phones in bed with them at night I have to I tell my kids this you know because I'm I'm involved in these issues uh I read this science I'm alarmed but I can't convey my alarm to my kids they just don't believe it and uh you know I have to go in their rooms at night from when they were little and take the cell phone out of the beds if they they slid with them next to their Billows um what is this doing and what are here you know what are your feelings about that well what you're fighting is something very powerful people instinctively believe that if Government allowed something on the market it must be fine and they don't realize that there's intimate connections between government and Industry and so if industry is given too much leeway you are appealing C you're looking for catastrophes you probably need remember this guy Adam Smith right 1776 he's the the father of of of capitalism capitalism yeah yes but in The Wealth of Nations he warns us he says do not let the merchants take the control of the laws these people people have in the past armed populations but in the United States apparently the FCC has been labeled a captured agency and it is not the only one so we need somebody like yourself to put a bit of order in the house in my opinion and so uh in view of your experience with corporate corporations generally I think you would be a great man to do that I wish I wish you the best of luck now as I want to I want to point out that that blood for me was not prearranged it's very spontaneous I admire a lot some of the statements that you make about government we need government but government should not be a substitute for the people and in some ways this is exactly what is it is trying to do in most industrial Nations governments now control the majority of the money flow in a country that means that government changes its own ideas about itself but going back to the exposure depending on what whether you consider that high intensity exposures or chronic exposures which it over a long period of time are the most important some people would say that the cell phone is the dominant exposure because it radiates into your head at very high intensities in fact when you put a cell phone against your head only about 20% of the radiation goes for communication the rest is diffused into your body which explains a lot of things so intense exposures from cell phones but cell phone towers are active all the time so they contribute smaller levels but if you multiply them by the time of exposure for most people unless you use a cell phone professionally they would be the strongest source of exposure so all of these things together will get worse over time as Engineers who have no limits in their imagination uh think of things like The Internet of Things the internet of bodies they would like everything to communicate with everything else but this is in my opinion a philosophy that is wrongheaded we don't need every grain of sand to to to you know communicate with every other grain of sand and we need privacy we need uh a decent environment to live in that is uh protected from the invasions of the engineers who feel that whatever they can do is appropriate what would you tell a parent um about you know who's who've got kids sleeping with their cell phones and putting them next to their head what advice would you give them you know what's the best way to minimize that and what would you do to scare just to frighten them about well you know appropriately well I would tell them please protect their sleeping environment because you may not have control over what happens in schools and elsewhere but you can at least control their bedrooms you have to make sure that in their bedrooms boat low frequency magnetic fields from baseboard heaters are low as well as the radio frequencies from the routers or something like that these should be extinguished at night and how do I scare them well uh you know dying from cancer or from any chronic disease in you know at a very very low age is a very dramatic thing and being impaired in your learning because after all these uh this radiation is known to have impacts on the brain it Alters memory in some ways ways that are subtle but that are nonetheless there experiments of animals conf confirm this extensively so if you want to protect the future of your child and remember that they will be exposed to this radiation a lot longer than us adults were because for us it's relatively recent invention for them it will be lifelong exposure and the danger is that we will get use to new rates of cancer new rates of diabetes new rates of Alzheimer's new rates of Parkinson's that will become entirely normal because practically the whole population is being exposed in other words there are no controls left so wire your house or Internet uh uh wiring and reduce your your use of Wireless I don't think we'll get use of Wireless completely it will still be around but it simply has to be managed in such a way that we reduced uh risks in particular to Chronic uh diseases yeah I mean I I want I want to get to that man the solution because you actually have it pretty elegant and um and workable solution which is a future and fiber optic cable um which is better for our privacy and it uh it's better for ending the surveillance state it will protect nature protect our bodies protect our children's health it will protect us against chronic disease all of that I want to get into that in a minute but tell me first tell us what are other countries doing you know how do you see us compared to European countries uh to I know in some of the European countries they're restricting the cell phones for kids and schools um and and what Russia is doing Russia knows a lot about this because they Tred to develop it as a weapon originally MH and um uh Radio use radio frequency radiation and it appears that people are using it as a weapon you know we're seeing the Havana syndrome and there's a lot of speculation about whether that's radio frequency on Weaponry but but talk about that what's happening in other countries and also if you get about the use of the of of it as a weapon uh as far as other countries in France uh they discourage the use of Wireless in uh in kindergarten and in in schools they ask the children to leave their cell phones at the door and it's that simple and I think they're doing this because they apprehend the risk of the radiation but but also because they believe that it's not conducive to proper learning I mean I've always wondered I'm a professor in a university and I am in front of class and all of these students in front of me have their laptops open with Wi-Fi provided by the university are they doing some homework you know from the previous class what are they doing exactly I do want them to to look up information that would be relevant to the discussion in in class but what it means is that essentially you are curtailing diminishing you know attenuating any discussion that could happen in in class normally because essentially everybody can go their own way and socially this is a catastrophe you see it even in very simple countries where people used to uh meet in the public place face on Sundays and talk and after the Advent of cell phones everybody's on their cell phone these are addictive devices that have to be controlled because you have a science that's being developed to capture attention and this attention is subtracted from family life and for from intellectual life so I never understood personally while in a class you don't want all the students to be attentive to what's happening and we encourage people on the basis of what I have no idea on the basis of L that a Salesman told you that this will be a boon to education and Children Of course are very vulnerable to these things because their brains are developing and so any uh signs and there are many that the brain does not all develop in the same way when this it's subjected to this radiation are quite alarming all right let's talk about Solutions what is the solution you know one of the things that you talked a lot about is fiber optic cables and what is you know how would that solve the problem uh Clinton promised the uh US population that they would get uh up uh fiber to the home didn't he and what happened instead is that the industry took in the money and developed Wireless so the promise that President Clinton had made perfect technical sense you want to provide people with speed and with access to the world through the internet and uh essentially uh when industry took that contract up they perverted it to a wireless yeah I would say deployment simply because they thought that they could make more money that way and so I believe myself that businesses and private household should have wired optical fiber which has a potential for Speed that is enormously higher than what it Wireless has and secondly it is energy very very efficient we have to think in terms of the energy that we need to spend per B bit or bite of data that we're transmitting because apparently the appetite of people for data is very very large so we have to be thoughtful of how we transmit information lest you know a large proportion of us electrical power is completely absorbed by uh you know telecommunications devices so this is very very important so fiber to businesses and to the home is one thing the second thing that is coming up that may become very important is lifi we believe that the frequencies of radiation that are visible or very near to the infrared might be less physiologically hazardous because living systems have had a very long time to adapt to this radiation whereas the microwave and radio frequency radiations are entirely new to the environment in other words there was none of this be before the development of radio frequency techniques so by using uh infrared and lifi we could potentially restore our ability to have wireless at much much much reduced risks so I'm not saying that WiFi will not be found one day to have some risk but we have been using Wi-Fi uh WiFi for some applications for some sometime we've used the headsets that are uh using infrared for example and I don't believe that there are reports that this has been found to be dearly serious we have had remote controls for television for a long time that were also infrared so there is this belief that infrared radiation will be much less dangerous than radio frequencies simply because we have had about three billion years to get used to this of radiation in terms of personal use um you know my practice is that I I never put the cell phone next to my head I keep it on the speaker all the time and I hold it away from my my body um do headsets work or earphones well if you're using an air tube it is a very good insallation of course now if you're using a uh normal uh ear uh ear set well this has a wire that fleeing into your ear so it's not quite as good insulation as an air tube which is entirely non-electrical but there's many alterations that could be made you could have a a cell phone that emits uh infared radiation and you could have something on your head that receives this infared radiation and that would be a big gain because in a Cell tone you indeed have a lot of radio frequency radiation uh that is peled right into your head how about earpods yeah well the problem with those is that they're not very very powerful but you stick them right into your ear so the the the dose that you get from such devices is very hard to measure for a couple of reasons since they are low power they get an ex Redemption when they're approved so you're not obligated to investigate how uh they irradiate your tissues and making measurements inside your ear while you're using an air pod is even more this difficult than assessing the radiation from a cell phone for a cell phone you know how they do it generally they use a mixture of water salt and sugar that they sort of stir together and they put the cell phone Above This solution and they determine how much it heats up the solution this is very very crude and simple at least it's something in the case of an ear pod it's very hard to know there's no requirement to specify it so we're being more and more inundated with these devices that are assumed on the basis of a bunch of monkeys and rats for 40 to 60 Minutes to have no effect on you for your lifetime how nice is that okay uh apps I remember just reading one one I what I Was preparing for the the uh the case for the argument and the court of appeals case reading some studies that show that the more apps you have on the phone the more radiation that's that's coming out but are there and in in the same question are there some cell phones that are better than others yeah the Apple phones are the worst that's very very clear yeah the Apple phones are the worst yes and you notice all these electrical devices have something in common the computer initially you know they used an operating system called dos dos answered the commands of the user and then some more sophisticated operating systems came into being like Windows for example and what you notice of them is that the operating system could a took lot of initiatives on its own it did things and over time progressively we have lost control of computers in other words you feel that they're owned by the people who sold them to you they have these updates and these inevitable I would say uh uh appendages to the software that provide you with publicity and exactly the same thing is happening to cell phones you place them on uh airplane mode yet they will still emit radiation because the owner is actually the company who programs them and who updates the self the the software in it automatically so it is an invasion because with electronics and programming it is possible to do that um and the more apps that you have on your cell phone the more radiation you're getting they're all little individuals that have their own desires to communicate with the outside so if it's a Weather Service how often do you want the weather I think in my opinion cell phones should still be yours they should respond to your desires and your commands and not push information to you and not suggest things to you about your behavior or wake you up at one moment or another unless you want to so you're being relieved of control by artificial intelligence devices that on are under the control and the interests of others okay uh weaponization the syndrome is that coming from Wi-Fi weapons well you all know about uh this application that is very very uh open about using say 100 GHz radiation to heat up the skin of protesters so that they flee away from a location this is a very very simple application based on heat only but for this kind of application you need uh you need essentially uh I would say large emitters you need antennas that are fairly cumbersome to carry around so when you see these things appearing at the sight of your manifestation you you will not miss them now the more subtle effects uh of mind control with the radiation in my opinion mind control as is very happens happens in science this is a bit of an exaggeration I I think they can probably disrupt your mind with it but do view that the government takes control of your mind in this way I I think is is a little bit uh fantasy but uh if you're really uh willing to do it you can probably make people sicker by simply exposing them to radiation uh in excessive levels I mean that's totally in the realm of possibilities I don't think that be targeted to like a single apartment or a single person so that you could remotely you know have a weapon that would direct like array towards one apartment or any individual if you wanted to harm that person rather than you know uh the general public there are probably some frequencies that are more appropriate for this you've all probably heard that with 5G for example you have what we call beam forming what this means is that instead of having an antenna that broadcasts in a very very general way see in a third of the space around it it forms a beam that is really focused and this beam of course can also be very intense because it's a result of an antenna that has many many small elements that are coordinated in order to achieve such an effect once you try to beam it into an apartment you have to consider does this radiation go through the apartment the walls of the apartment the windows of the apartment once it gets in there is the Target in direct line of sight or is it going to have to bounce around and if it does Bounce Around does it represent a little bit of a microwave oven like uh you know situation or is it going to be quickly attenuated so it requires a certain level of skill to be able to I would say pinpoint and Target somebody but just to cause damage the requirements are much much much lower in terms of knowledge okay uh driverless cars do we need 5G for driverless cars you can't do that with uh with fiber optics I never thought for the life of me that there was need in any way for driverless scars to have wireless I think driverless SCS can be built with cameras that are very fast and look around them the same way that the driver does I think it's simply a habit or a mannerism of the industry to want to implant uh radiation and networking in everything basically the dealer wants to know ahead of the car driving into the garage you know who he is and what his scheduled maintenance is very very nice but I think that to drive on a highway you need to see the highway and I think that the image analysis that is necessary for this is not quite within our reach you would have to have roads that are specially designed and if you have a big system of autro probably it's possible to do this but it could be entirely done with vision as opposed to being done with wireless and creating a huge Network which makes your car a spy wherever you need leave it on the street because after all once it's wired and you know in communication you know you you have a uh a flee of vehicles that can probably hear things and probably see things do you have uh I mean what's your hope what's your hope for the future I mean I you know you're you are you're not a pessimistic man you're a you're a happy man and very idealistic and what do you see as a as the uh as the good future for us may I be honest yeah I think you are the hope for the future because you are one of these few politicians that doesn't seem tied to all sorts of interests and I think you see the the government process and the processes of society more clearly than certainly all the other candidates in the United States and possibly better than all the politicians of the world I really respect the work that you are doing and I have high hopes for your future all right well I want to tell everybody I was not fishing for that but thank you very much uh and and then tell us where people can reach you Dr Bolero where they reach you oh by the way is h e r o uux that's right and uh they can reach me and by email at pa. h r o ux at miguel. CA Migel is the University where I teach in Montreal yeah well we all know Mill University thank you very much Dr R it's been a pleasure talking to you thank you Robert the best of luck to you thank you

Summary: everybody's on their cell phone these are addictive that have to be controlled only about 20% of the radiation goes for communication the rest is diffused into your body which explains a lot of things children of course are very vulnerable to these things because their brains are developing yeah there's some cell phones that are better than others the Apple phones are the worst we need somebody like yourself to put a bit of order in the house in my opinion…


Is COVID Vaccine Dangerous? Dr Robert Malone on Joe Rogan
YouTube video by Dr. Robert Malone (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZFt3uGrJF4). Transcript is the auto-caption track — verbatim ASR, not a certified transcript.

okay so in this video i wanted to discuss a little bit of the science that was uh that was talked about on this joe rogan experience podcast with dr robert malone and so this is concerning the the coronavirus vaccines in particular the mrna vaccines which dr robert malone was involved in well he wasn't involved in coming up specifically with the covet 19 mrna vaccines but he was uh instrumental in the development of mrna vaccines in general and so this is a fraught topic to i guess put it mildly so i wanted to start with a little bit of a preamble before actually getting into the science uh and i guess to start that preamble i say specifically i'm going to get into the science of it and i'm not going to try and get into the sort of political debates or anything like that i just want to strictly look at the science uh that was discussed uh on this joe rogan experience podcast and so as a preamble to this because it's a fraught topic i wanted to point out a couple of things and so people when they are engaged in discussions on this topic are prone to two well a lot of different biases but two in particular that i'm interested in here in this little preamble is what's called motivated reasoning and the second one i wanted to discuss was called my side bias and so motivated reasoning is uh is the human propensity to to reason like a lawyer so a lawyer instead in stead of a scientist and so what this means is a lawyer is somebody who has a conclusion already so if they're a defendant then it's their conclusion is you know my client is innocent and if they're a prosecutor then their conclusion is you know is is the defendant and i was putting deep here the defendant is guilty so they they start with these conclusions uh guilty rewrite them a little bit so they start with these conclusions and then they try to argue for that case so they start with a conclusion then they go looking for arguments and evidence that proves their case where a scientist and i'll even put here an ideal scientist is somebody who gathers data first and then comes to a conclusion comes to conclusion and so the scientific method is you know humanity's best attempt to sort of mitigate this this uh motivated reasoning that everybody everybody does i do it you do it if you think you don't do it then you're probably worse than the people who know that they do it but everybody does this everybody has beliefs and then they go looking for evidence and arguments to support those beliefs everybody reasons like a lawyer so the scientific method ideally is supposed to mitigate this because we're in science the sort of you know ideal science is that you are looking to falsify your hypothesis and only you know after you've gathered data can you say well does the data uh say that the the hypothesis is wrong or right and so that is what the science the scientific method is at least supposed to be obviously scientists are people who are like everybody else engaged in motivated reasoning uh so the other one which is very related is my side bias and this uh is sort of observed in that uh that people are are good at at uh at refuting they with uh bad at refuting ideas they agree with so people are quick to refute ideas that they disagree with i put bat here that should be bad bad at refuting ideas they agree with so people are very credulous when they are presented with an argument or with evidence that you know goes that supports what they already believe in or they're likely to see it go oh yeah that that makes sense that's you know that a course of what i already believe with and so that must be true whereas when they are presented with something that goes against what they believe and they're going to be very good at picking out little inconsistencies and poking holes and things like that and so uh so with fraught issues like this with the covet 19 these two things this motivated reasoning we reason like a lawyer we start with a conclusion and then with this my side bias we can if we're presented with something that goes against what we already believe and then we're we're good at nitpicking and finding all the little possible holes but when we are presented with things that we do agree with then we are bad at looking for those holes and logical inconsistencies and things like that and we're going to be very credulous and uh sort of just continue buying into it even if it's a flawed argument or a fallacious argument but yeah anyway i just wanted to point this out because i think just in general this is important to uh remember uh you know when you're doing your own research and you're especially looking at places like news sites and things like that where people are you know trying to push an agenda most of the time they're going to run into this and so uh this is kind of uh this gets into why i want to essentially just look at the science here just look at what the science says about what uh what dr robert malone said and this video is not supposed to be a debunking i'm not trying to debunk dr malone i'm not trying to support him uh i actually hadn't heard of him before until he was on the joe rogan podcast so i don't have any sort of prior acts to grind with him or anything i just want to look at the science and see what that says uh and so like i said this is not a debunking video but this is also not you know a you know pro robert malone you know i'm on his side and this is why he's right kind of video this uh i'm trying to as best as possible uh not engage in motivated reasoning or my side bias i just want to sort of look at the science to read to you what the actual scientific papers say uh and you know then you can i guess come to your own conclusion uh using your own motivated reasoning and buy side biases i i suppose since uh those things are pretty much inescapable uh and so i guess to kind of play my biases out on the table before getting into this science here uh so i am vaccinated so i am vaccinated uh i have i have two pfizer i got my first two were the pfizer then i have my my booster which is the uh the moderna so both of them are the the mrna vaccines so i'm 36 years old as i'm making this video so you know take what you want from that what you know whatever cohort i'm in uh i'm also over weight uh and i i don't i don't exercise but i did not experience any side effects so i did not experience any side effects from getting vaccinated uh so i guess to lay my sort of political biases uh i am against against uh that should have i misspelled that against against uh the the uh the mandates so i do not think there should be mandates i'm against coven mandates i don't think the government should be mandating them i think a private business can say uh you know if you want to enter my private business then you have to be vaccinated or you have to wear a mask or whatever but i don't think the government should mandate uh mass i don't think the government should mandate vaccines so that's sort of my uh political stance on this i'm for getting vaccinated but i'm against mandates i guess is sort of to sum it up all right now to actually get into uh some of the meat of this here so i first wanted to point out this uh this here which is called the tangled history of mrna vaccines which came out in september of this year in nature and has this nice little timeline here of the history of mrna vaccines so showing you know back here in 1961 mrna was first discovered uh so you can go through here and you get up to 1989 and 1990 so this is the synthetic rna cationic liposomes so this is the stuff that uh dr robert malone actually did right here uh so this is just showing uh a timeline of uh sort of the big events in the development of mrna vaccines so we can see back here in what is it 2013 uh was the first clinical trial of an mrna vaccine against rabies and then we can kind of zoom up to here uh so mrna based copy 19 vaccines win emergency authorization in 2020 uh but anyway this will be the link the first link in the description down below and as usual everything i'll be talking about here will be linked to in the description down below uh but if you're interested in sort of the story of how mrna vaccines came to be then this will be the first link in the description down below all right and so this is a art an article that dr robert malone actually sort of cited specifically in the joe rogan experience uh video and so this was looking at uh at uh sort of well what he used it for was saying that the spike protein after taking the mrna vaccine ends up in the blood and i think he specifically said that's in the blood for weeks after getting the mrna vaccine so this is looking at so this mrna 1273 is the moderna version and so in this study there were 13 nurses so it's a pretty small sample size of 13 nurses who received the vaccine and they wanted to look at how much the the at the spike protein actually reduced in the bloodstream over time and so i've kind of fast forwarded here to sort of the the punch line of this uh you can read through the whole thing if you want like i said it'll be linked to in the description down below but uh so after the first 100 microgram dose the uh the moderna vaccine produced detectable levels of s1 antigen so that's the s1 uh subunit of the spike protein so the spike protein has an s1 and s2 which are cleaved from each other during the the viral infection uh process and so the s1 kind of gets cleaved off and that's what ends up in the blood if you get a coven 19 infection so this is looking at s1 antigen in the plasma of these nurses and so in the plasma of 11 participants spike antigen was detected in three of 13 participants uh so the nucleocastic antigen which uh is another protein in the cova 19 virus which is not present in the um in the vaccine so that's why they use it as a negative control so they look for the nucleocastid to see that all of the the spike protein that that they are detecting actually comes from the vaccine and not from you know getting infected you know sometime after getting the vaccine so nucleocastman antigen was undetectable or at background levels and all participants as expected all right so the s1 antigen was detected as early as day one post-vaccination and peak levels were detected on average five days after the first injection uh the mean s1 peak level was 68 picograms per milliliter plus plus or minus 21 picograms per milliliter s1 and all participants declined became undetectable by day 14. no antigen was detected at day 0 for 12 of 13 participants as expected however one individual will present a detectable s1 on day zero possibly due to assay cross reactivity with other human coronaviruses or asymptomatic infection at the time of vaccination spike protein was detectable in three of the 13 participants average or 15 days after the first injection the mean spike peak level was 62 grams per milliliter after the second vaccine dose no s1 her spike was detectable and by the way the the they were getting the second dose 28 days after the first dose that uh was listed uh somewhere up here uh yeah somewhere in here or it's in the um i think it might have been in this which is the supplemental material uh but anyway the so what this is saying though is uh that the s1 spike protein or the antigen which is you know the s1 spike protein was not detectable for weeks it was uh only detectable in in uh for up to five days after the first injection uh then down here after the second vaccine dose no s1 or spike was detectable and both antigens remain undetectable through day 56 for one individual spike was detected at day 29 one day after the second injection and was undetectable two days later uh we can actually look at this in their uh their um their supplementary material here so this is for each participant so this top graph here is the antigen uh days on the bottom uh in concentration so this is the one participant where they found uh the the spike protein antigen uh here on day 29 and then it went down to zero and so you can see on all these other ones that that spike protein antigen uh was staying low uh well pretty much you know after after just a few days after their first injection uh and so you know the the so once again these are for each participant looking at these top graphs on here looking at the antigen these bottom graphs are looking at the different immunoglobulins present but so the idea here is you know these spike proteins are not found uh for very long after injection of the uh of the the vaccine and so it's kind of a a stretch to to interpret this data as saying that that spike protein stays in the bloodstream for weeks after it's after the vaccine is administered and in fact there was only that one out of 13 participants that actually had it around uh for much longer than just a few days after after the injection and all of them had none of it after the second in in injection and so what that's saying is that uh the the these uh igg and iga and ign these these antibodies are actually neutralizing the spike protein and so uh after a second dose of the vaccine we're not they're not seeing any of these uh spike antigens in the bloodstream so that that's kind of important to remember when you are uh interpreting this data so it's showing that like i said uh that the that this spike protein is not staying in the bloodstream for uh for days after or for weeks after the injection as uh dr robert malone uh intimated in the in the uh joe rogan podcast interview all right so one of the other things he talked about was uh was cyrus covey to entering the blood brain barrier and so i have a couple of articles here talking about that i've highlighted a few things so this is just giving so the impact of saris cov2 and the blood brain barrier structure and function so these are sort of uh mechanisms that could possibly be be responsible for allowing the virus to enter the the brain so the blood-brain barrier so what it is showing in the top up here the top left the blood-brain barrier is not you know like this sort of wall in front of the brain that you know like this a wall around the brain it's more that these asterocytes which control sort of blood flow to to and from neurons are able to sort of filter out certain things from the blood before it actually gets into the neurons so there were a few things i had highlighted on here i wanted to show so a recent study using primary human in vitro blood brain barrier models has shown that components of these sars cova2 spike protein including s1 and s2 and the receptor binding domain can all cause blood brain barrier leakage in the absence of toxicity induction of blood-brain barrier leakage occur in response to glycosylated and non-glycosylated forms of s1 and s2 infection of primary human endothelial cells and over expressed ace ii uh with cyrus cov2 induced the over expression of clotting factors adhesion molecules and plo pro-inflammatory cytokines as well as formation of multinucleate synchitia and endothelial cell lysis together these data suggest that saris cov2 infection in contact with viral proteins could contribute to brain endothelial dysfunction and damage uh so this is talking about sars kovi to infection so this is uh this is uh not talking about the um the vaccine in particular all right so some coronaviruses for example mirrors cov2 and cytoscopy one can infect immune cells which has led to speculation that startus cov2 may enter the brain via infected immune cells uh so yeah i think this was the part i really wanted to focus on so ace ii sought to play a dominant role in uptake of stars cov2 by all tissues including the brain barriers and central nervous system tissue however several studies have presented various types of results indicating that s1 could use other glycoproteins as receptors or co-receptors including some of these different proteins here in the s1 study and i'll look at this study itself here in in a minute evidence suggests the role for s1 uptake into brain but was also suggestive that other binding sites may also play a role in contrast ace 2 played a much larger role for uptake by the lung but little or no role for uptake by other tissues suggesting other binding sites could be more important for their uptake at present our interpretation is that ace 2 is important in brain uptake but may not be the only binding site involved as a corollary of the s1 study ace2 is likely much more involved in lung uptake but other binding sites may play may be key and viral uptake by other tissues given the experimental design in the s1 study the vascular blood brain barrier is likely a site of entry into brain ace2 is expressed on the epithelial cells which comprise the choroid plexus of the sars coat and sars cov2 can infect those cells in vitro this suggests that the virus likely enters brain at both vascular blood brain barrier and choroid plexus and so this uh the study they're talking about which is their uh reference 162 is this one right here so the s1 protein of stars cov2 crosses blood brain barrier in mice and so down here so we obtain s1 proteins from two commercial sources we determined whether intravenously injected is1 could cross the blood brain barrier in mice by measuring its blood to brain influx constant so this is important to remember here uh is that they are injecting these this uh s1 uh subunit of these fight protein intravenously in this study uh as opposed to intramuscularly uh like what you get when you uh get the uh the vaccine and so here is uh their data for this so this ki is essentially uh the ability of of the spike to enter through the blood brain barrier and so uh they can we can see that this is higher than these um than these uh these controls here so the 0.295.304 is you know several orders of magnitude higher than these controls which is indicating that this is entering the blood brain barrier you can read through this whole article if you want it's you know it's interesting but also quite technical but as far as the blood brain barrier issue so like i said the one thing to keep in mind is that this is looking at intravenous uh intravenous injection rather than intramuscular and it's looking at intravenous injection of s1 protein rather than intramuscular injection of mrna so i also found these nice articles here on medium these will be linked to in the description down below so they're all by this guy xinji and uh he talks about so so dr malone talked a bit about this on this japanese biodistribution study in the um in the interview and so uh these articles talk a bit about this study so the japanese bio distribution study and i'll have that study linked even though it's uh it's in japanese and i can't read japanese which is why i had to uh find um find sort of a blogger i guess who uh was able to interpret the data because i can't read japanese so the japanese bio distribution study of fires mrna vaccine has also found that 0.02 percent and 0.009 percent of the vaccine administered dose ended up in the brain at 2 hours and 48 hours respectively and then he says down here this japanese study has also been widely misused to push the notes that mrna vaccine could concentrate in the ovaries these bio distribution data are discussed more in depth here and so that's actually this article right here uh and so i'll read through this so basically the numbers highlighted in yellow he's talking about in this image which is a figure in this uh japanese bio distribution study the numbers highlighted in yellow refer to total lipid content including both the rna vaccines lipid nanoparticles and lipid tracer thus the more appropriate numbers to look at would be the percent of administered dose highlighted in cyan over here now the numbers are no longer nerve-racking only only less than one percent of the injected mrna vaccine got into the ovaries adrenal glands heart brain and other tissues at 48 hours most of the vaccine remained in the injection site and went into the liver suggesting these lipid nanoparticles may be eliminated mostly via hepatic or you know i.e liver clearance route so you can see if we zoom in here the small percentages here of of this in these different tissues uh at at different times here uh even the dose the japanese study uses very high when controlled for weight that is 18 to 35 times higher than what is injected into humans uh as david h gorski a professor of surgery and blogger explained the human vaccine contains .46 milligrams lipids or 460 micrograms that's just let's just round up to 500 micrograms that's approximately 10 times the dose given to the rats however for the typical 70 kilogram male 1.5 milligrams represents a per weight dose of 0.0071 milligrams per kilogram let's compare that with the rats which generally weigh around 200 grams that would translate to a per weight dose of 250 micrograms per kilogram uh compared to the 7.1 micrograms per kilograms in humans that would translate to a so even if you used much older rats who can weigh as much as twice as much that would still translate to a dose of 125 micrograms per kilogram so we're looking at a lipid nanoparticle dose 18 and 35 times higher heavy as a rough estimate than the typical adult human dose the japanese biodistribution study results were consistent with pfizers that was submitted to the european medicines agency in february of 2021 pfizer also found that lipid nanoparticle encapsulated mrna vaccine was mainly metabolized in the liver and did not enter other tissues easily they also noted no effects on fertility or ovarian functions so the take home message here uh essentially being that the the rats uh that the that were injected in this this uh this japanese uh this japanese study they were injected with a huge amount compared to their weight and that yet they found only a small amount of it uh actually in peripheral tissues or tissues outside of of where the injection was placed so in places like the the liver and brain and so forth and so it doesn't seem like this uh this uh japanese uh study here this japanese biodistribution study really supports this idea that there is this you know huge issue uh of the of it going into the brain though i did find this study here which uh looked at two different patients uh who did end up getting neurological cases uh after they were vaccinated and so i put this i highlighted this because this is from uh june of 2021 uh and so uh so the these two people these two so they have case one case two they they looked at two people who did end up with neurological effects uh and we hypothesized that a post-vaccine inflammatory response resulted in the hyper-acute presentation of these lesions these cases further emphasize the need to cautiously consider and evaluate new neurologic symptoms following coveted 19 vaccinations so you can look at the actual cases if you want i'll sort of uh jump to the punch line here so we we report two cases of new onset neurological symptoms after covenanting vaccination in both cases for their diagnostic testing revealed neuro oncologic so that's uh cancer you know oncologist is a cancer doctor neuro-oncologic process that required neurosurgical intervention administration of these vaccines was unrelated to the oncologic diagnoses themselves however these two independent processes both came to the clinical forefront following vaccination we hypothesized that the inflammatory response to the covid vaccine may have played a role in increasing clinical symptoms in these patients potentially in relation to the covet 19 spike protein i'm going to kind of skip down to here although the precise mechanism of post vaccination inflammation is unknown it is known that spike proteins can initiate inflammatory cascades and cross the blood-brain barrier in covenanting infections it is possible that encoded spike proteins post-vaccination therefore across the blood-brain barrier and enhanced inflammatory responses to nascent pathology uh so it's essentially saying that there was already a pathology there uh and that this uh the vaccine sort of uh sort of made it uh worse i guess bob made it so it was no longer nascent so made it so that it was present so the blood brain bearing enhanced inflammatory response to nascent pathology within the brain following vaccine administration we believe that an augmented inflammatory response following vaccination called attention to these neural oncologic diseases by exacerbating paratumoral edema and worsening clinical symptoms and so there is this study here like i said it's looking at two cases where it seems that uh it's possible that that the the vaccine caused um caused nascent issues to actually sort of uh start presenting and so like i said so the take-home message on the blood-brain barrier thing is that it does seem that the spike protein can cross the blood-brain barrier that's what this study here was showing so when the spike protein itself is injected intravenously then it does cross the blood-brain barrier uh but if we look at this uh this japanese uh bio-distribution study uh where they inject between 18 and 35 times as much of the vaccine into mice they do get small amounts of it actually going to different organs such as the brain and the liver and places like that all right so one of the other things that was talked about in the video was uh the mrna covet vaccines causing myocarditis in and in particular in adolescence so i don't think this article so this article was essentially just saying that uh even though this uh this hong kong article which i think was referenced in the video specifically uh even though it found some cases of myocarditis uh they are still uh telling people to get the covet vaccine but if we look at some of these actual studies here uh so i'll go down here so in this population based cohort study of of a little under 2.4 million individuals who received at least one dose of coven 19 mrna vaccines acute myocarditis was rare at an incidence of 5.8 cases per 1 million individuals after the second dose and one case in 172 414 fully vaccinated individuals the signal of increased myocarditis and young men warrants further investigation then they kind of go into some of the the the limitations of their study so here cyrus kovi to vaccination myocarditis or myopericarditis population based cohort study so i will scroll down to the punch line here so among cohort members a little over 4 million were vaccinated with a saris cov2 vaccine during follow-up uh with about three and a half million individuals vaccinated with the bnt so that's the uh pfizer yeah the pfizer and then 498 000 individuals vaccinated with the moderna while the remaining vaccinated individuals were vaccinated with the johnson and johnson on the vaccinated cohort 3.4 million individuals vaccinated with pfizer and 483 000 vaccinated with the the moderna had received both vaccines all right so during follow-up 269 individuals had myocarditis or mild pericarditis of whom 108 or 40 percent were in the 12 to 39 years old and 196 were male so 73 percent of them were male so males seem to be uh more highly represented uh in people who get the myocarditis among individuals vaccinated with the pfizer and moderna 48 and 28 individuals had myocarditis or myopair pericarditis within 28 days of vaccination respectively overall individuals vaccinated with pfizer had a non-significantly increased rate of myocarditis or myopericarditis in the 28 days after vaccination compared to unvaccinated follow-up adjusted hazard ratio of 1.34 so the adjusted hazard ratio is essentially the uh number of or the percentage of people who got the vaccine and got myocarditis uh of people yeah of people who got myocarditis after getting the vaccine divided by the number of people who got myocarditis who did not get the vaccine so so and i think uh where was that yeah so this so you can we we can see here uh this is the hazard ratio so unvaccinated divided by unvaccinated is obviously going to be equal to one uh and so if we do the uh pfizer divided by the unvaccinated uh we get this 1.37 to 2.64 uh and then adjusted uh so the adjusted hazard ratio so adjusting for uh for things like age sex and priority group season and clinical comorbidities uh then it goes down to 1.34 uh and they they say that it's not significant because it's still within this uh confidence interval which is between point nine and two so if it's within the confidence interval then uh it is not statistically significant but it was saying up here uh yeah so 1.3 so yeah that's the confidence interval the point nine to two after adjustment for age sex vaccine priority and so on among individuals 12 to 39 years old we also found a non-significantly increased rate in the 28 days after vaccination individuals vaccinated with the moderna had a significantly increase so uh in you know usual parlance you think significant well that must mean big but what that is talking about is statistically significant uh so uh the it's uh the confidence interval is out or the one is outside the confidence interval so one being sort of the null hypothesis that uh that there is no change is outside the confidence interval for the moderna vaccine so that's telling us that there is that there does seem to be at least some small uptick in the amount of uh of myocarditis and myopericarditis compared with the unvaccinated population and so that's what this is saying up here but then they also tested for cardiac arrest or death they actually found that the vaccinated populations had lower rates of cardiac arrest or death compared to the unvaccinated so over here the overall absolute rate of myocarditis or myoperocarditis within 28 days of sardis cov2 mrna vaccination was 1.7 uh 95 confidence interval 1.3 to 2.2 per 100 000 vaccinated individuals the rates of the of the uh pfizer and the moderna vaccinations separately were 1.4 and 4.2 per 100 000 individuals within 28 days of vaccination respectively so yeah that is uh so that is telling us that at least with the moderna vaccine there does seem to be some uh statistically significant uptick in the number of cases of of myocarditis and myopericarditis where the pfizer in this study which as i said had uh had several million people in the um yeah so among cohort members so a little over four million uh people in the sample size so that's a pretty robust data set for that yeah these um these other these other articles that i have open up here i'm not going to go through the well i think i have some things highlighted here but i'm not going to go through these uh individually because each one of these articles could uh be you know an entire video unto themselves but these are definitely interesting to look at they're looking at how how the vaccines and the virus affect the um affect your immune system and it does seem to have some you know sort of weird effects uh you know with how it affects the t cells and stuff so this is what i found while looking into because uh because uh in the interview uh in the interview he talks about how there's this sort of you know this t cell this t cell suppression going on and then it can increase infection rates of other things like the cytomegalovirus and things like that and there does seem to be some weird things going on with uh the immune system how it uh it reprograms both the adaptive uh and the innate immune response so adaptive is the one that we are sort of trying to reprogram with a vaccine we want to have an adaptive immune response against the virus that's what the vaccine is trying to do but in this one for instance it also found innate immune responses which is sort of your just general frontline immune response and uh it found you know some some genes have been sort of uh down regulated while other ones are up regulated and there seems to be different responses to other viruses it you know it's still not clear like uh how big of a a change this is but uh you know it does there does seem to be some changes to it uh when you get these uh these mrna vaccines um but yeah uh i like i said these will all be left in the description down below uh if you want to look in them into them yourself uh maybe in the future i will go over each of these papers individually in their own separate videos uh but these these papers are really long they're very technical uh so it will take me a bit more time to sort of digest them and come up with a way of actually uh sort of presenting them but yeah if you want to look into them then i would uh highly recommend looking into those uh if you are interested but anyway i hope you found this video uh at least somewhat illuminating uh whether you've you know watched this interview or not and if you haven't i would recommend going and watching it and uh i would recommend you know looking into all the claims that he makes for yourself uh you know that it's a three-hour interview and there's a lot of things covered in it uh including you know more speculative things about you know why uh why people might want to lie about possible you know negative uh detrimental side effects of the vaccines and things like that so things that are sort of outside the science uh which is sort of what i wanted to focus on here uh sort of you know specifically i didn't want to get too much into sort of the the politics and the speculation of who's lying and you know why they're lying and and things like that i do definitely agree with dr malone that that there it there does seem to be sort of a i don't know this weird chilling effect where uh where the the free uh discussion of this issue is sort of not allowed and you know that is quite worrying so you know i will sort of uh proffer that as my opinion on sort of the political side of this so i think some of the the scientific claims that he makes are not really all that well supported but you know some of them are supported and you know there there were a lot of points in the interview where he says you know this thing or that thing is happening but there are there isn't science on it because you know the powers that be won't let there be science on it then you know that always kind of begs the question so how do you know that these things are happening if there isn't science on it yet uh but you know but i i agree with him in that if if these things do seem to be popping up if there's even anecdotal evidence of it then it does seem like it would be incumbent on the scientific community to look into those things and find out if there is any veracity to them uh but anyway i don't want to go too far down this rabbit hole this is something i mean this is like i said a three hour interview if you want to you know go down that rabbit hole even further but this video is already getting long enough uh i hope you found this uh at least somewhat illuminating in your journey to better understand this complex and fraught issue you

Summary: okay so in this video i wanted to discuss a little bit of the science that was uh that was talked about on this joe rogan experience podcast with dr robert malone and so this is concerning the the coronavirus vaccines in particular the mrna vaccines which dr robert malone was involved in well he wasn't involved in coming up specifically with the covet 19 mrna vaccines but he was uh instrumental in the development of mrna vaccines in general and so this is…


RFK Jr. WiFi Cancer Claims (from the Rogan interview)
YouTube video by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TDeTI5kAb8). Transcript is the auto-caption track — verbatim ASR, not a certified transcript.

I don't know how many billions of people have Wi-Fi in the world. Um maybe it's just a billion. Maybe maybe it's a little bit more. Um certainly there are billions who have cell phones. And um I don't know that uh Wi-Fi is healthy for you per se. There was a time in the I think it was in the '80s where there was a scare about power lines. Where people were afraid that if you were near power lines that the uh sort of like electrical energy and radiation that would come off power lines would give you cancer. I think there was a big piece and maybe it was the New Yorker by I think it was the author was a guy named Boudreau. Uh it subsequently was debunked. Um but here is um Bobby Kennedy going into uh talking about Wi-Fi. Um but with apparently limited expertise and then we'll play a clip of Joe Rogan just leaping at this as if he was a it's like a starving dog getting fed for the Wi-Fi radiation is uh does all kinds of bad things including causing cancer. Wi-Fi radiation so sorry because we just have to fact check this crap in real time. Um cell phones emit levels of non-ionizing radiation. The ionizing radiation is the more extreme kind of radiation that causes cancer. It it emits very very low levels of non-ionizing radiation. So let's just be clear about that before we hear, you know, the rest of this complete nonsense. Wi-Fi radiation is uh does all kinds of bad things including causing cancer. Wi-Fi radiation causes cancer? your cell phone. I mean, there's cell phone tumors, you know, that I mean, I'm representing hundreds of people who have cell phone tumors behind the ear. It's always on the ear that you favor with your cell phone. Oh, um and you know, we have the science. So, if anybody lets us in front of a jury, they it will be over. You know, we What is the What is the number? Cuz a lot of people use cell phones. There's a lot of people with it. They're glioblastomas. That's the kind of cancers they get. But cancer's not the worst thing. They also, you know, it opens up Wi-Fi radiation opens up your Well. Oh, I guess this that wasn't the He does talk about cell phones maybe in one of the other clips I saw. This is the cell phone one? Okay. Yeah, like you keep keep it keep it going a little more. Okay. So, what do you think Wi-Fi is doing to us since it's everywhere and since everyone's experiencing including you? What do you think it's doing to us? I think it degrades your mitochondria. It and it, you know, opens your Do you Do you see anything online how it could open up your blood-brain barrier? I don't know about how, but I But it does? I mean, I don't I found an article I was trying to find the validity of it. But it has a statement on here. Damage the blood-brain barrier. purposes only, radio frequency radiation exposure has been shown to affect the permeability of the blood-brain barrier as well as altering the expression of microRNA within the brain. Which researchers state could lead to adverse effects such as neurodegenerative disease. Whoa. How come we don't know that? There was a doctor that did a study and said that it's been expanded on researches in China and there's a published article here, but I was looking around at the page and It's published? They call it leaky brain. The far findings were followed by suppression, misinformation, and a shutdown of government-funded research in the United States. It's the same. It's the same play. Oh, we got to get rid of Wi-Fi. What the Jamie? I wonder if they'd do that. Yeah. Hey, we missed the part where he says I don't have the expertise. We lost part of the clip at the end of the first one. All right. Yeah. He's asked like, "What does that mean?" He goes, "Well, I don't have expertise in that." Yeah. even know what degradation of the mitochondria means. I learned about the mitochondria in biology in ninth grade, but This is all just sort of like I mean The idea I mean Google right now, Bradley. Google and put it up on like like the Earth is flat. Let's see if we can find an article that says the Earth is flat. Because I am sure that there is an article out there that has been published on the web. Maybe in China, but they're suppressing it here in the United States. Um For soda health benefits, also there's some interesting stuff said actually drinking uh soda Can we put up Can we put up uh skeptic.com. That sounds official. Well, that is good, actually. Oh. Wait, but that that'd be good information, but yeah. Let's see. Uh Wait, but this that uh first one said it's not nonsense. Here we go. Oh, it is non It's Yeah, I mean that that'd be good one. Never mind. I don't know if our bit's working here. We got to find a little bit more. There has to be one. Well, it's I mean Google might have uh deprioritized it cuz of big tech censoriousness. Yeah. But this is I mean this is just I The idea that uh that you know, there going to be people and and frankly if people turn off their Wi-Fi and decide not to have Wi-Fi and not to go on their computers, um I I don't think that's a bad thing if Rogan's audience does that frankly, uh doesn't use their cell phones and doesn't get on Wi-Fi. Doesn't have the same implications as you know, um uh saying that that vaccines are going to kill you or give you um I don't know why they don't bring up myo carditis anymore. Um maybe because they it finally got through to them. Um but I I I mean and I don't care if somebody goes on and says, you know, I'm running for president and I happen to believe that the earth is flat. I'm not leading with that. Uh but um you know, that's just one of the things that I believe. Um that's okay, too, because I don't think there's a lot of people who are going to die. But when you're going to ostensibly be in charge of public health and um you're on this sort of relentless campaign to not believe any of this stuff. But but even worse, like we said yesterday, if the problem is corruption driven by a say that you're going to address this without saying we're going to remove the profit motive from this class or this sort of like sector of our society. I mean, it's one thing, you know, you can regulate uh if if if if you believe this, you can regulate how, you know, the safety of cars on some level cuz it's a lot more measurable. But if you believe that they're secretly putting thimerosal back into the um uh vaccines and that it's secretly um uh you know, uh killing people then and it's because of a rapacious pursuit of profits, which I definitely believe you know, exists. Yeah. Um then how do you not come out with a proposal that the US government is going to develop these things? How do you attack a guy like Hotez who is literally producing a vaccine that undercuts the for-profit making uh vaccine people? Because it's not actually that it's not a critique of for-profit pharma, it's a critique of government dressed up as a critique of pharma. Like the critique of pharma is that Fauci and the government made them do something nefarious that like killed people and covered it up. It's not that it's that we can't actually trust any of these people. So like and and it and and and it's it reminds me of that um March for Medicare for All thing where they had a speaker saying, "Oh, I don't know if we can trust the government to do single payer." And it's like this is these are libertarians that are um basically exploiting anti-pharma stuff. And so it like that's why that's why Bobby Kennedy can't offer like the government cuz they don't trust the government. They think the government tried to poison us and cover it up. Well, it's it's anti it's anti community and it's anti public health because everything that they are speaking about here like I guarantee you there will be some right-wing or like anti-vax libertarian website that sells you uh cell phone that doesn't give you cancer at some point and then they can make some profit off of it. Just like Joe Rogan used to sell supplements where you can make yourself really strong um I by through consumption, through consuming the products that make me rich. And like that is what every right-wing critique of systemic issues boils down to. It's not a systemic issue, it's a case-by-case conspiracy or there's something wrong with the CEO of Twitter, let's put our guy in um and it's not about big tech overall, it's about just not having our people in charge of this as opposed to like we need more robust public health in this country writ large um, as opposed to yeah, like these very small instances where people feel empowered {slash} paranoid um, and that that it undercuts communal efforts for for public health. Kick uh, turbo back. I went on a date recently and was introduced to birdsarentreal.com which seems to be a legit conspiracy that all birds have been replaced with government surveillance devices. That's the level of discourse happening uh, on this Wi-Fi stuff from RFK. Bradley, when did we have the big debate between me and the guy from birds aren't real. There was a I got May of March of last year. I got highly criticized for platforming uh, that uh, conspiracy theory at the time. Yeah. Uh, I should tell you March of 2022 uh, we had Peter Mackindoe the birds aren't real uh, s- proprietor. Right. Yeah, we should be clear that that um, probably probably is not as uh, as sincere as you might think it is. No. And if you think it is It's the idea that we have to say that now. It's just uh, You do though. These conspiracy theory people have really ruined it. It's not even fun anymore.

Summary: I don't know how many billions of people have Wi-Fi in the world. Um maybe it's just a billion. Maybe maybe it's a little bit more. Um certainly there are billions who have cell phones. And um I don't know that uh Wi-Fi is healthy for you per se. There was a time in the I think it was in the '80s where there was a scare about power lines. Where people were afraid that if you were near power lines that the uh sort of like electrical energy and radiation tha…


Dr. Robert Malone: Pfizer Data Dumps 'Highly Problematic' (Epoch Times)
YouTube video by Dr. Robert Malone (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTzHJfXMx3Q). Transcript is the auto-caption track — verbatim ASR, not a certified transcript.

let's talk about this is something I haven't had a chance to discuss yet with anyone um on the show so you've looked a bit at some of these data dumps from fizer right and you're saying that you're seeing things there that are highly problematic um what have you seen in there that you feel is you know the most egregious well the uh table with the 11 I think it's 9 or 11 pages of Adverse Events single line listing concatenated separated by uh semicolons so these aren't separate points line by line they are concatenated so there are multiple Adverse Events on each line in and of itself is shocking that this was known that this is the work product of the pharmaco vigilance globally of the fizer bio inch pharmacovigilance team which just uh I know pharmac vigilance is another one of these long technical terms what what the if I can break it down what it means is that after a product medical product is licensed the international standards say that the marketing company the comp the sponsor that's that's manufacturing and marketing that product has an obligation to set up a separate department so it's it's one of these kind of quality control things where a separate Silo is set up for monitor moning reports coming from patients and Physicians saying that these things have occurred after we have received this product and they have an obligation Global standards to follow each one of those reports up which is akin to the cdc's obligation with vs but the CDC doesn't take it as seriously as the pharmaceutical industry has to take it and so this is the work product from their farbo vigilance shop at fiser bio inch and clearly they did not want to disclose this information because they fought hard as did the FDA to withhold this information most of this information in these disclosure documents were available to the FDA when they made their decision that these were safe and effective vaccine products and they should be fully licensed so that the table that lists these Adverse Events in and of itself is stunning these are Adverse Events of special interest they've redacted the information about their frequency um uh there is some overall tabularize by organ category which is the like grossest highest level summary um they're not giving us the data about their event rate um uh for each specific uh category or or diagnostic code which is essentially what all these are is separate diagnostic codes um then that's that's one that's shocking you may or may not recall I think it goes all the way back to our first interview when I was talking about this Japanese common technical document dossier that Byron Bridal had obtained and and I spoke about that and and we both got plenty of uh push back from the fact Checkers back then I think none of us really recognized that whole ecosystem of what the fact Checkers were and what they have become uh but back then we all took it seriously and it seemed so unfair and they were attacking based on things that I had said and Byron Bridle had said when he' evaluated we both independently evaluated this Japanese common technical dossier what we find now with the fiser releases is that all that was true and more um so the suspicions that we had that we had inferred because we couldn't read the whole document neither of us are fluent in in Japanese um we could look at the tables and listings that were in English and draw conclusions based on that and the and the um Footers that were describing those tables but we didn't have the whole body of the document let alone have the body of the parallel document that had been submitted to the FDA we live in an era of censorship and disinformation and it can be really hard to know what's true and what's false in this information climate to get honest information and insights you can trust join us on Epoch TV you can sign up for your 14-day free trial at ep. msre trialon that's ep. msf freet trialj and just to reel back again in time I specifically called Peter marks Center Center for biologic evaluation and research and had a conference call with him this is before the vaccine license or anything else and said I was really concerned about these various things that I was seeing um and my concern was that the agency may not have had a full appreciation of some of the subtleties and nuances that I had as somebody who' been involved in creation of the original technology and he assured me that um we now they we I'm he's speaking on behalf of the agency and the government now have a much more complete uh document set from fizer and there's nothing in this is his statement there was nothing in that that worried him now I get to see we get to see what he was actually talking about and in fact everything that Byam and I had observed and more turns out to be true these were not rigorously uh characterized in terms of uh pharmacokinetics that's another big long word how long does the drug stay in your body uh pharmaco distribution where does it go in your body genotoxicity does it impact on your DNA um reproductive toxicology is it a risk for Reproductive Health in animal models and subsequently in humans now we see from these documents that that fizer knew that it was grossly overstating the efficacy they knew knew that the all cause mortality was higher in the treated groups than the untreated groups they knew that that all cause mortality was associated with cardiotoxicity they knew that many of the things that have subsequently come out had to trickle out we've had to it's like pulling teeth out of the CDC to get this information as you know because they've been so aggressively withholding things and we've had to go to Israel and Great Britain and swed Sweden and Germany and UK and Scotland to pull this information and coate it and try to make sense out of it visor knew all that um so a lot of I think there are many in the legal profession that are looking at this and um raising questions about whether in fact this does meet the criteria of fraud in terms of withholding information and whether or not it would break the legal Veil that is protecting the pharmaceutical industry from any liability because it appears that they knew of many of these risks and Adverse Events clearly they did and yet never formally doc disclosed them to patients which gets to my core as you'll recall my original original P you know under the mattress the thing that really aggravated me at the start was the breach of fundamental medical ethics having to do within informed consent and the importance of disclosing to patients fully and completely what the potential risks are and we now have clear documentation that those risks were known they were extensive and information about those risks were withheld and we have that in we have that knowledge through the fiser document dossier and the documents that are being disclosed um as well as through um the GAO report the New York Times report on President's Day Etc it's becoming more and more clear and yet the government continues to deny it the first point in this new declaration is that the you know Universal vaccination should end you praise it differently but I I understand that's what that's what the point is um so presumably that's because of your understanding of the science among the doctors in your organization can you give me an overview of how you reached this conclusion this is not something we've said trivially or lightly in any way shape or form we recognize that this is going to subject us to all kinds of derision pressure censorship attacks Etc and you know from my our prior interviews that I have always been very reluctant to come to a position where I say these vaccines are not indicated for any cohort over time as we've learned more and more about the risks the Adverse Events the all cause mortality now

Summary: let's talk about this is something I haven't had a chance to discuss yet with anyone um on the show so you've looked a bit at some of these data dumps from fizer right and you're saying that you're seeing things there that are highly problematic um what have you seen in there that you feel is you know the most egregious well the uh table with the 11 I think it's 9 or 11 pages of Adverse Events single line listing concatenated separated by uh semicolons so…