Hello and welcome back to Rounding the Earth.
And today I have the pleasure to introduce my friend, author, physician, engineer, Dr.
Madaba Setti, who has been with Children's Health Defense and recently started a substack
known as an insult to intuition.
And he has gone on a kind of an interesting adventure today that we'll talk about.
Welcome Dr. Setti, how are you?
Hi Matthew.
Yeah, I'm well.
Good to see you.
Always great to talk to you.
So recently you went on, you called it Into the Belly of the Beast, and I'm sure that
there are going to be a lot of people who want to know what the krill smells like.
So, tell, you know, where was this adventure that you went on?
It was the World Vaccine Congress, the 23rd meeting of them, and it was in Washington,
D.C., April 3rd through the 7th.
And my trip down there was funded by Children's Health Defense, and I went with another physician,
pediatrician, Elizabeth Mumper.
And we were sent down there just to smell around, like you said, what does the krill
smell like down there?
And it turned out to be a very, very interesting interaction because honestly, three years
into this, nobody has been able to like look face to face with one of the movers and shakers
on the inside and ask them a direct question.
That hasn't happened.
And suddenly we found ourselves in that opportunity and, you know, the responses were quite stunning.
So while you're there, do people know that you're, in a sense, I don't want to say the
opposition but not part of the inside, you know, asking these questions?
Well, sadly, no.
I don't have that kind of, you know, online personality or presence.
I mean, people didn't know who I was for sure.
And you know, that was an asset.
And probably why I was sent down instead of someone like Merrill Nass or, you know, other
physicians, physician colleagues that I know.
So it was an opportunity to, you know, I don't want to call it infiltration, but it was in
a way.
It is a great way to understand.
One of the ways I felt like I learned the most in life, and I realized this when I moved
to Manhattan and right around the time I turned 21 years old, I got into the habit of maybe
once a week, just sitting down at the bar of a restaurant to eat and just, you know,
being willing to listen to anybody's story.
You know, it's like you hear things that you would never otherwise hear.
You're not adversarial.
If you're just listening, if you're not judging.
And suddenly you find out, you know, what something really looks like that you would
have had no idea about that you may never have discovered.
So what is the people, you know, talked about as they walked around this convention?
It was, first of all, we have to understand who was there.
There weren't a lot of physicians in clinical practice at the time.
You know, there were physicians who became researchers, but mainly it was, you know,
tech people, people who worked for the vaccine industry and their offshoots.
There were all sorts of displays, exhibitions by, you know, companies who profited or earned
their money from, you know, like vaccine trials.
Like there was companies that recruited patients.
There were companies that were, you know, making new technology like needles that would
be absorbed.
So you could, you know, tell your participants it wouldn't be a whole lot of injections.
It was just like this tiny little thing and then it would dissolve.
So all sorts of industries that branch off of the vaccine and big pharma industry.
So these were tech people.
And there were a lot of scientists, you know, like basic bench scientists there.
So you know, to answer your question, what was it like, first of all, you walk in there
and you realize that these people are pretty well funded.
You know what I mean?
This conference center probably cost several hundred thousand dollars a day and people
were well-heeled.
Not unexpectedly.
This is what we were expecting, right?
And it took a while to get comfortable because we realized, like this is, you know, what's
really interesting is to be inside an area where you're pretty certain that 99% of the
people there completely disagree with one of the biggest issues that you have.
And you know, how do you open your mouth?
Like what's the first thing you say to these people, right?
Because you know where they stand.
So that's what the people were like.
But as the week progressed, I had more and more interactions with not necessarily the
presenters but people in the audience.
And you know, to just lay it out there, they are open to the idea that they could be wrong.
And every single time I ask a question, and we can talk about that later, you know, people
would come up to me afterwards and say, wow, that was a really good question.
Why didn't they answer it?
You know?
So it's hopeful.
Yeah.
Pardon.
It's good to hear that the number of people who are open-minded seems to be substantial,
especially at an event like that, right?
You wouldn't necessarily expect as much open-mindedness.
But then again, I guess I don't know who the audience is, you know, who the crowd is.
Is this is that media people in the audience?
Is it is there partially like a sales job going on with this conference?
What you know, who is there?
Well beyond the people who are running the exhibits and the scientists, there were some
media people there.
You know, I wrote this piece on my sub stack just a few days ago and it got a lot of play
and people have reached out to me saying that they tried to get in as a media person, but
they were rejected.
So there was undoubtedly media people there.
And in fact, in one of the plenary sessions, there were spokespeople from MSNBC and the
Scientific American and another, the Washington Post.
These were like reporters that were on stage and talking about how difficult it was to
get the story right.
So there were obviously media people there, but it was like walking into you've probably
been at a conference like this, a scientific meeting or a conference put on by an industry
where everybody is, you know, looking to network as opposed to, you know, tell us what the
latest trial data shows.
That's not what they were there for.
However, you know, the thing is, is that at each one of these round tables or presentations,
there was an opportunity to ask questions and I took every opportunity to steer the
discussion in a certain direction.
And the entire symposium opened on a Tuesday.
There was 3,100 people there and Gregory Poland, who maybe your viewers know is the head of
vaccine research at the Mayo Clinic, chaired the opening and closing plenary sessions.
And he's a very interesting character.
He happens to be a pastor and the tone of, and he was sermonizing, honestly.
I mean, like it was actually like walking into a place of worship retrospectively when
I look at it because he was laying down, you know, what the tenets of the philosophy are,
which were number one, millions of people have died of COVID.
No, that's actually number one.
The vaccines have saved millions and millions of lives.
I'm not, I mean, these are actual statements that he made.
The regulatory agencies like the FDA and the CDC have done a stellar job in making sure
that these products made it to the public as soon as possible.
And the biggest challenge we have now is the vaccine hesitant.
And you know, he just dropped it all there.
Like, okay.
Right.
So it's just a past all debate and just, you know, conclusion and push conclusions and
repeat them.
It feels like a tactic for mind control, essentially, like brainwashing.
I've started actually calling this governance by aggressive nonsensical guruism.
Government by nonsensical guruism.
Yeah.
Aggressive nonsensical guruism.
Yeah.
And I think that it has been shown to work effectively.
I think that it is a technique that was studied and practiced over a period of years.
I think that that is part of what, you know, all of this is and that there are probably
people who have a sense of it, but just wouldn't know that that type of planning of messaging
went on even.
I agree.
So one of the things that you mentioned is in your articles that there are calls for
public private partnership.
And I hear this messaging, right?
I haven't looked too deeply into it myself.
I've been focused on other things.
But tell us what that sounded like or what does that represent?
How do people explain public private partnership?
Well, obviously in this forum, it was considered to be an amazing breakthrough.
We're finally cooperating and this will allow us to move at a greater pace with their objectives.
And to look at it more clearly, I would have to say if this was truly a free society, like
a true democracy with a free press that held tyranny in check, that would be reasonable.
What a good idea.
But we don't have that, right?
I mean, we all know that that's not what's going on.
And so this to me is just a euphemism for fascism.
That's one way of looking at it.
When you have that sort of partnership, you have government controlling industry and you
have communism, you have industry controlling government and you have fascism.
And both are totalitarian in the end.
So they were hinting at that, but obviously people in attendance didn't see it that way
at all.
Yeah.
I guess I described fascism slightly differently.
I don't know if it's necessarily the corporations have control of government, but I think public
private partnership actually really does kind of strike at fascism better than any other
phrase that I've heard.
But when you say public and private, those words like individually, they sound so good,
but it's not like chocolate and peanut butter.
It's these things that aren't supposed to mix, almost by definition, they're not supposed
to mix.
But I've worried that there's something else going on, which is that the Department of
Defense has been so intertwined with the pharmaceutical industry during the past three years.
I'm going to say three years plus, because I think that there was a lot of work going
on ahead of time.
In fact, we know there was.
But both industries, I think needed a dance partner.
There's an article that I had found, I put it in multiple of my own articles, my sub
stack over the past two years, but it showed that the rate of the return on investment
of R&D in the pharmaceutical industry was hitting zero in 2020.
That was the trajectory of ROI in the pharmaceutical industry.
And I'm not sure what all reasons go into that.
It may just be you get certain low hanging fruit.
It may be that the more things have a treatment for them, the more you have to spend large
amounts of money for illnesses that don't have many patients, perhaps.
And of course, there's all the things that have gone on in the healthcare industry that
just make it more expensive, insurance and malpractice suits and all those sorts of things.
And I would say the pressure on doctors too.
I think that medical school and residency is kind of its own mess, but jumping past
that.
The pharmaceutical industry really did look like it was in long-term trouble in a lot
of ways.
I find that astounding.
I'm interested to know more about that.
I would have never thought that that kind of industry was in, I don't want to say dire
straights, but on a trajectory to zero.
And it may be that the globalization hit certain parts of that industry also.
When 90 something percent of antibiotic production gets shifted to China, for instance, it's
hard to know exactly what effect those sorts of moves have.
I don't know exactly how the industry is organized.
So what does that do to Merck?
What does that do to Pfizer?
Don't know exactly, but there are a lot of factors involved.
Generally profit goes hand in hand with new technology.
New technology is the primary driver of localized profits on a time scale.
On top of that, you have the DOD, and we've had sort of like decades of, let's call it
domestic peace in the sense that we haven't really felt threatened.
We don't have easy borders to invade.
We have two giant oceans on our east and west and Canada to our north.
And whatever people say on the news about migrants coming from the south being an invasion,
it's not as if we fear an actual army coming over.
It's a different kind of local problem or job struggle or competition or something.
But it's not quite the same thing, but the DOD wants more and more money every year.
And so if you have these two industries that both sort of have a need to have either a
problem to solve or a villain to go after, right?
I mean, DOD would rather have something like an invisible enemy than to actually go confront
face to face Russia in a war or something like that.
Nobody wants to open up nuclear cans.
There's a lot of reasons why the DOD would be real happy with an invisible enemy.
And so you have this possibility of a dance partner.
I think people aren't stepping back and questioning that skeptically, but that's a place where
fascism could grow even if it was not intended to be that way.
You know what I mean?
Well, I agree with everything you're saying, and you're opening up another incredible conversation
to have about this.
Obviously, the best friend to a military industrial complex person would be an enemy.
The best friends to the pharmaceutical industry would be disease.
And the best friends to a central banker would be the need for debt.
I mean, let's be real here.
That's kind of what's going on, right?
I think we all should sort of understand.
If we don't know it with 100% certainty, that's what I put my money on.
And Matthew, I know that you're very, very reluctant to ever claim certainty.
But that's what's going on.
That's the way I'm living my life.
That's the way I see it completely.
And I don't know where to go from here.
We could talk about a lot of different things.
Yeah.
And just to be clear, I do live as if I believe something with certainty, even when I put
a probability on it.
And you're right.
I try not to claim certainty very often.
Well, it's smart.
It's smart not to claim certainty, honestly.
I mean, one of the big struggles we have right now is our need for certainty.
If both sides would just admit that they can't be sure, then we can actually have a conversation.
And that's part of why it was interesting to go into this particular symposium to see
how sure these people were about not only what they believed in, but about their whole
lifeline of earnings, what they did for their careers.
And they're not sure.
I mean, the people on the stages were, but everyone else in the audience, I think they
know.
And I had a very interesting conversation with someone who approached one of our people
on the ground who was handing out flyers outside of the symposium.
And this person came up to one of our chapter members in Virginia who was handing out flyers
and said, thank you for what you're doing.
And by the way, half the people in there are not vaccinated.
And I was able to track this person down and they were willing to have a conversation with
me off the record.
And I said, really?
Is that really true?
People in there didn't get the jab.
And this person said, well, I was exaggerating.
But there was a minority that was able to evade the vaccination campaign.
But she said there was a...
Is she talking about the press or the scientists and technology?
They were an MD, PhD working for the industry.
And what they said was that most of their colleagues realized that when they got the
jab that they were going to be part of an experiment.
And they were the guinea pigs, but they went along.
And this person's position on it was that they were very certain that safety has not
been demonstrated by their standards.
They didn't go into all of the damage and the number of casualties that have arisen
from this vaccine campaign.
But when it comes to safety, they knew very well that these things have not been proven
safe, which I thought was very enlightening.
At some point, I stopped keeping track.
Before my Substack really took off, when I had 800, 900 readers, I would watch each few
names every day come in.
And I would notice a lot of names with doctor at the front on their email address or this
or that.
So I just took the time every now and then to just Google who's this person, who's this
person.
So I was just curious, what sort of an audience am I getting?
And one of the things that I realized was, oh, fully half of my first 900 or so readers
were either physicians or professional scientists.
That's encouraging.
And it did feel encouraging.
In fact, a lot of the feedback that I got seemed to be confirmed.
I saw statistics at some point that showed that of each educational status, didn't finish
high school, finished high school, got a bachelor's degree, got an advanced degree, PhDs are the
most vaccine-hesitant class.
The most vaccinated, though, are just the step below them, the people with bachelor's
degrees.
That's right.
I went to college, and I can think through this problem, but wait.
The PhDs are exactly the opposite.
So what does that tell us?
And I think it tells me that those are people who are most headfirst confronting these industries.
They know how the sausage is made.
They're more likely to think things through.
And I think also they're more likely to keep their professional life and their private
choices perhaps separate enough.
They know the politics and the landscape.
I don't know, and of course, you don't have to say anything, but I've had approximately
eight conversations with people who either they or their child got a fake vaccine card.
And half of those people were PhDs.
That makes sense to me.
It could be more than just knowing how the sausage is made.
I would suggest that it has some bearing on what we just talked about with uncertainty.
I would suggest that PhDs know the difference between believing and knowing.
And the ones that don't have the higher education, I'm just generalizing, they've been believing
their whole lives.
One thing that I talk about a lot was in terms of knowing versus believing, which is I think
a very important aspect of what's happening in our planet right now, is about a decade
ago the National Science Foundation surveyed the American public.
And one of the questions they asked was, do you think the sun goes around the earth or
do you think the earth goes around the sun?
And of course, embarrassingly, one out of four people in this country got it wrong.
They think the sun goes around the earth.
And the rest of us are like, oh my gosh, how could you not know this fact that we've established
500 years ago?
But if you ask the other 75%, how do they know?
How do you know?
And I would suggest that most people don't know.
They believe.
They just happen to believe the right things.
But when it comes right down to it, it doesn't matter if it's 2023 or the year 1023, you
can't go outside and look up at the sky and know what's going on.
It is very, very difficult to tell.
But the point here is once you understand how we've come to knowing that, now you actually
know you don't believe.
And that's something that may be reserved for the people who really do serious investigation
to things and realize that there is always uncertainty, especially with science, which
makes this whole mandated vaccine thing even more egregious because we are violating some
major, major standards of ethical medical practice when we cannot inform patients what
is in the jab.
There is no ingredient list.
How can you possibly inform someone?
So yeah, that's an interesting statistic about that.
Yeah.
In fact, that whole thing of not knowing why you know something, right, when you think
you know something and not knowing why you know it, that's a lot of the reason I named
this program and my substack, Routing the Earth, right?
Because the fact that a flat earth movement could exist, which I personally think is probably
some sort of like an intelligence study operation.
Oh, absolutely.
Right?
And my gut feeling is we've seen several versions of it during this, you know, pandemonium.
I personally think that the no virus people are something like that.
In fact, I've met a person who admitted to me that in 2020 she organized those people
in meetings to get on message together.
And I know a close friend of hers that I have pretty good reason to believe is herself an
agent.
So, you know, when I see this, I think, you know, we're constantly being studied, but
now we're being studied for massive event controls of memetic behavior.
Right?
And I'm curious like to know, you know, how much, you know, how much of that memetic behavior
and how much of that sort of belief control is actually targeted at the people at the
vaccine conference, like the people doing the technology who are involved in the science.
Right?
Like if you were to focus your, if you were to focus a lot of time and energy running
something like psychological operations, would those be the people to target just constantly
blast and making them, making them think that any question that they asked was sort of crazy?
No, 100% Matthew.
I, you know, that was my conclusion was that this, this kind of sermonizing was not meant
for the vaccine hesitant.
It was meant for the people there to make sure that they were in line and they weren't
questioning what was going on primarily because, you know, you know, Gregory Poland, which
is an interesting, let's go back to the first plenary session, for example, because Gregory
Poland, this might be a good time to flash up who he is.
He was the guy, he was the pastor and the head of vaccine research at the Mayo Clinic.
But interestingly, a year ago, he came forward as being vaccine injured.
And as he was talking about how amazingly safe and effective these vaccines were, I
was under the impression that he had recovered.
And what happened to him was after a second dose of an mRNA vaccine, he developed tinnitus
and he described it at the time as extraordinarily bothersome.
That's what he said a year ago.
And he pulled together a couple of scientists, like a researcher and I think an ENT specialist
to talk about, you know, what needs to be done and how certain they could be that this
was a causative reaction.
And to my understanding, he understood that it was absolutely from the vaccine.
Nevertheless, he decided to get a booster.
At the time it was the monovalent booster.
And what he said was for 24 hours, the tinnitus, tinnitus, by the way, is ringing in ears.
Yeah.
I've actually been suffering from it lately for the first time in my life.
So I know a little bit about this now.
So yeah, it can be, you know, barely detected in your experience or it can be, as he says,
extraordinarily bothersome.
So in any case, he got the booster and it went away for 24 hours and then it returned
at a higher pitch.
And so it became a little less bothersome, is what he said.
Anyway, at the end of the entire symposium, I approached him to, you know, see what was
going on with him, whether or not he recovered.
And he said, no, it's still it's disrupted his life, which, you know, which points to
the hypocrisy of his initial statements.
When he opened up the symposium, this is someone who is vaccine injured, telling everyone that
this is the best thing since sliced bread.
So that's where that's how it started.
And anyway, in this particular session on stage was Peter Marks, who is the head of
CBER at the FDA sits on the Verpack, a big voice in this.
And he made some really interesting statements.
And the first thing he said was that he has he's no longer interested.
I wish I could quote him directly.
I'm no longer interested in arguing with someone who believes that vaccines aren't safe.
Now, you know, what to make of this, this is someone who's supposed to be on the regulatory
board, right, to make sure they're safe.
And he doesn't want to hear an argument from someone who has an opposing opinion.
So I found that to be very disquieting, to say the least.
Moreover, and here, let's be very clear, maybe he's sort of signaling to the crowd that,
look, even I, Peter Marks, know that these things are safe.
Let's be real.
The other thing he mentioned was that he's given up on the idea of a sterilizing vaccine.
He's like, that's it may be possible in the future, but against COVID, no way.
He's not expecting that ever to happen.
And by sterilizing, I'm talking about preventing infection and transmission.
Right.
And what he's saying is that all we need is something that can prevent symptoms or mitigate
them, you know, essentially in medical therapy at this point.
And he was flanked by someone from Moderna and J&J.
And he was saying, look, what we want to do is be able to identify the strain that we
want to target in June and deploy it in September.
And this can be possible as long as manufacturing capacity is ready to go.
And sure enough, the people in the industry nodded their head.
Yeah, we're ready to go, Peter.
Just tell us what to do and we're going to make it happen.
And the point here is that 100-day turnaround leaves no room for actual testing on any scale
whatsoever.
We're basically looking to forgo all of the safety testing on human beings with the assumption
that they've already tested the mRNA platform.
It's been proven safe.
And so all we need to do now is just, you know, give us the genetic sequence and we
are going to throw them in vials and deploy them.
You know, that reminds me, I think one of the reasons why I was skeptical of the vaccines
from the start, aside from the fact that I caught on to the hydroxychloroquine story
and I don't know if it was the very end of February onward, I started following Dr. Didier
Riehl's work in France and kept track of from there, you know, all of the hydroxychloroquine
statistics that I could find, that I could see just clear shenanigans going on around
that topic.
Aside from that, there were like two, three, for two, three years before the pandemic,
I was hearing a disturbing amount of discussion about from scientists.
Like I would go to, you know, conferences, weren't even necessarily like science conferences.
I was at a cryptocurrency conference here in Dallas and I was in a discussion with a
computer scientist and just for whatever reason, he steers the conversation into, you know,
about how we need to learn how to become more competitive with China again and that, you
know, we're going to have to, I can't remember the way that he put it, but we're going to
have to like roll up our sleeves and do what they do and experiment on our own people.
And I was just like, like, like, wow, where did that come from?
Or you know, like, you know, can you say that so easily?
You know, like it, but it confused and concerned me that I heard this not once, but numerous
times in the three or four years, uh, leaving up to the pandemic.
And I thought about that and I thought, you know, is somebody putting out messaging and
giving people on message and just telling people, go around and make this part of your
shtick just, you know, cocktail conversations, just throw it out there.
You know, we're not going to be competitive with China if we don't experiment on our own
people.
Now that's a really good point, Matthew.
I think you're onto something for sure.
And these kinds of get togethers are where you would experiment with that, right?
Because you're in a group of people that are more or less aligned and you are steering
it towards that.
And that's clearly what happened here too.
I mean, over and over again, like we need public private partnerships and the stuff
is safe and we need, we need to go after the vaccine hesitant, you know, as, as, as, as
as, uh, urgently as possible.
And um, you know, nothing like what you just mentioned there at the, at the crypto conference
about experimentation, but I understand what you're saying completely.
You know, you, you make that part of the, um, of the narrative and suddenly it gets
accepted without question.
Um, if enough people believe it, you know, yeah, I also met a man, um, uh, Brian Bishop,
uh, in January at, uh, at a dinner that I held in Austin, Texas.
And he claimed to have helped fund one of the mRNA vaccines secretly, uh, using Bitcoin.
And I know that he is a wealthy individual.
He helped, um, uh, he co-founded a bank and, uh, uh, he was one of the, on the board of
ledger X when it was sold to FTX, I believe or call correctly.
So, you know, obviously a very wealthy individual had been around Bitcoin for, you know, sounded
like a decade.
Um, but, you know, he, he was himself like a DIY, you know, genetic experimentalist.
He was, uh, he, he was giving pitches a few years ago on developing designer babies.
And you know, like literally doing this from like, like he built a home lab.
He was also funding, he was literally funding a Ukrainian bio lab to do his, his work.
It was, it was very, very, you know, interesting conversation that I, you know, unfortunately
it was only six minutes because I would have, you know, I had, uh, many other guests to
talk to and it would have been interesting to hear.
Um, but yeah, there's so much that is weird about all of this.
Um, you know, it, it, it, it's hard to know, you know, how long the planning took place,
but, um, since you brought it up, just because you mentioned Peter Marks and talking about,
you know, whether or not sterile immunity is something that they're going to work toward.
I feel almost obliged to pull up this graph.
Uh, when I was working on the military health database, I took the, um, hospitalizations,
uh, each, each query has hospitalizations and it has ambulatory reports.
And so I divided one by the other to get hospitalizations per case.
And they were going up through the, the mandates in August.
That's when the military mandates were.
And so the cases were getting more severe as they vaccinated, not less severe.
Um, you know, this, this, uh, this, uh, jives well with, uh, some of the work that, um,
you know, a guy down the street here, John Baudewin, have you looked at his work with
the Massachusetts?
Oh yeah, I know, I know John pretty well.
Yeah.
Oh, has he?
Oh, good.
Yeah.
Oh, that's right.
Yes.
That's right.
Um, I'm sorry.
Yeah.
You know, I mean, look, uh, you know, the evidence is pretty clear what's really going on here.
Um, but let me tell you about this, the next anecdote, which is very interesting because,
um, I sat in, in a, in a round table discussion and the topic was, um, how do we, uh, how do
we deal with vaccine hesitancy?
And like immediately I saw exactly, you know, what the mission was for the next three days,
because they're making that a priority, um, to dealing with that.
And um, before the discussion actually started, a woman sat next to me and I find out that,
uh, she is, um, Jennifer Margaret Harry's and Harry's is the, um, the chief executive
of the UK HSA.
It's the United Kingdom health security agency.
And um, as your audience probably knows, they put out a lot of data and I said, oh my gosh,
you're with the UK HSA.
That's awesome.
I, I've been following your, your data for two years because we have crap data in this
country and you're one of the few sources of like legitimate data out there.
And thank you very much for your work.
And she was, you know, she smiled and was very happy.
Your energy was really good.
And then I said, um, you know, I was very pleased that you reported on the, um, the
increased incidents of COVID-19 in the vaccinated population in September, 2021 and you had
age stratified it.
And um, you know, it wasn't an aberration in data because those numbers continue to
grow.
There's negative efficacy, um, in all age groups within three or four months.
And um, then you stopped reporting.
Why?
And she looked at me and you know, her whole like, everything changed.
I'm not aware of that.
I'm like, what?
How could you not be aware of that?
You took over the entire agency in I think April of 2021.
This report came out in September.
I mean, clearly you had something to do with, you know, stopping that right there.
And you know, I don't know if you've looked at, at those reports, but they tried to, um,
explain a way why this was happening with just, just bullshit arguments.
Anyway, um, she clearly didn't want to talk about that anymore.
And so then I asked her, um, about, oh my gosh, where did it go next?
Oh, I said, um, uh, so what about, um, uh, test Lori?
Um, you know, and, and, you know, she seemed like a very reasonable, um, doctor and researcher,
you know, she's the head of the evidence-based, uh, uh, medicine consultancy in England.
And she wrote this open letter to the UK, um, uh, MHRA, uh, which is the equivalent
of the FDA in England in an open letter saying, look, we gotta, we gotta stop the vaccines
in the United Kingdom because the yellow card, the yellow card being the, uh, vaccine adverse
event reporting system of the UK was clearly showing a danger signal.
Right.
Um, and then she looked at me and she was like, you know, um, there are a lot of physicians
in my country, uh, that are gaining a lot of fame for their extreme positions.
In fact, right now there's, there's a cardiologist that's doing the same thing.
And I said, you mean, uh, Dr. Malhotra, is that who you're talking about?
And she said, Oh, you know who that is?
I'm like, yeah.
I mean, wasn't he famous before COVID?
One of the more famous cardiologists in the world.
Yeah.
I mean, like he's gaining fame from, from this.
I mean, he was pretty, he was pretty well known before, right?
Anyway, so, um, I had another interaction with her later on, but that's when the thing
started.
It's like, okay, who has any suggestions?
And no one was saying anything.
So I'm like, okay, I'll go first.
And um, you know, I said, look, you guys, let's be real.
Like, here's the thing, right?
It's, it's, I'm not going there as a protester and trying to put it in their face, engage
the con the conversation so that people can see the hypocrisy and the uncertainty in what
they're doing.
So I said, um, look, the, you know, you've already talked to people who you wanted to
talk into getting it with, um, you know, uh, gift cards to target and, uh, limiting their
travel restrictions, right?
The people who are resistant right now, they don't give a shit about that.
You know, they're listening to people who are qualified to speak on this topic, who
have very, very good points.
Why don't we bring in their spokespeople?
Oh, and by the way, in the last session, you know, who, who they believe is the, the, the
biggest, um, heretic, it's not Peter McCullough or Robert Malone.
They kept citing, um, Wakefield as, you know, he's the one that's pushing this.
It's like, dude, that guy is, you know, I mean, he's done amazing work, you know, I
hope we've all seen the movie vaxed.
Um, and that whole issue, I'm not coming down one side or the other.
I'm just saying that that's been out there for like years.
We're talking about a whole new like birth of, of resistant people who know what they're
talking about.
Anyway, um, yeah.
So I said, why don't we bring on some, you know, some of their spokespeople and dismantle
their arguments in a public forum, right?
Um, and immediately, uh, another person got up and said, no, that would be, um, that's
a terrible idea.
And my research, if you give them equal footing, the public will think that, uh, they have
a point.
So we should never ever let them speak.
And that woman, um, who I encountered several times over the next few days, her name is
Katie Atwell and she is a behavioral scientist from the university of, uh, Western Australia.
And I didn't know who she was at the time, but I got to know more about her, uh, as the
week progressed because every time that I would somehow we would always end up in the
same panel discussions.
And every time I'd, I'd suggest this, she would immediately jump in and say, no, that's
a bad idea.
Um, but what ha here's, what's interesting is that what afterwards people would come
up to me and say, God, that was a really good idea.
Why don't we do that?
And I said, I know.
And, you know, we should do that.
Let's see what happens.
Right.
And, um, in query is the basis of science.
Yes.
Too bad.
We're not doing any science.
Um, there was another person there and this is a, another person that you may want to
bring up her whose name is Christopher Graves.
This guy, um, is, uh, you know, sided with at well, and he claims to have done this amazing
research that goes into how do you, uh, target messaging based on a person's, um, biases
and predilections.
And, you know, these, uh, you know, he basically categorizes people in, in, um, I think 16
different ways based, you know, hyper religiosity, uh, anti authoritarianism, you know, these
kinds of classifications.
And then, uh, they also, it was a study of 3000 vaccine hesitant people.
And then once he's done that, then they ask specific questions like, what is your issue
with the vaccine exactly?
Is it because, um, you think that you don't know what's in them, you don't trust the government,
you know, like all of these questions.
And then they come up with a, uh, targeted messaging, like for this kind of person who
believes that this is the kind of message you want to give to them.
And the point here is, uh, so Matthew, can you bring up that, that, um, PDF file?
Can you do that?
Cause it's really, really interesting.
Um, this study, uh, was funded by Merck of all people, obviously.
And the reality here is, is that they are pathologizing the vaccine hesitant, you know,
like it must be some sort of cognitive, yeah, that's Sam Christopher Graves, you know, and
here it is.
Um, of course he's WEF, but more importantly, he, I think it says he's had a long, a life
member of, uh, the CFR.
So this is someone who's been involved in all of this stuff for decades and he, um,
was very affable.
And we spoke for about 30 minutes after this particular presentation and, um, he was telling
me about the research and, um, he sent me this PDF file.
I don't know if you can put it up of a large poster that, um, summarizes the research
he was paid to do by Merck.
I guess I don't know where that PDF is.
Um, if it was in your email to me, I guess I missed it.
Okay.
It was an attachment because it was a PDF, so it doesn't really matter.
The point is, is that it was, it was a very, very, um, uh, uh, I would say sophisticated
analysis.
And the point number one here is that we have to understand that they're approaching us
with very sophisticated messaging.
You know, that's how they're, you know, they are saying like, this is, this is the problem.
We have to be very targeted with how we approach and, and engage with the vaccine hesitant.
And we need to take a lesson from that, you know, which is like, we have to like consolidate
around, uh, you know, a clear message.
And, and as you pointed out before the, the, the no virus, um, group, look, I, you know,
far for me to say, for sure, I know what's going on, but you know, for someone to say,
uh, there is no virus that defeats the purpose or at least my purpose, which is to keep this
technology away from children and to, you know, and everybody else and restore, um,
health freedom.
And so it's a, it's a detractor.
Um, but the point here is that these guys have a tremendous amount of resources and
this is what they're doing.
They're pathologizing our position and they want to make this, um, a, uh, a disease, you
know, disease of the mind of psychology of cognition and, um, and treat it that way.
Yes, there it is.
I mean, it's, it's a, it's a really, really interesting look, 51.9% of the people he's
surveyed, um, believe have lost confidence in, um, in vaccines throughout the pandemic.
Um, and if you look at the numbers there, it's hard to see, but there are a lot of people
independent of their ethnicity that feel like their confidence in the industry, um,
is down a lot.
Right.
I, I think that they over gambled on, um, using ash conformity to, to create conformity
because the way that that study worked, and this is how, why I think that you can bring
in somebody like Christopher graves, who goes through like psych profiling to figure out
how it is to apply this to people.
Um, there were a number of versions of the ash conformity experiment, but after the original
experiment, uh, you know, uh, ash had his, um, you know, researchers survey every single
person to find out why did you go with the wrong answer?
Right.
And, and there were different answers given, right?
Some people said, uh, they were going along to avoid social punishment in so many words.
Some people were going along to accrue social acceptance.
So, you know, positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement.
And then there was a third crowd and this is, you know, interesting concerning.
Um, but there was a third crowd.
It was not a majority or anything, you know, as a minority crowd, but, um, there was actual,
uh, distortion of perception, right?
Other people saying this line is longer than that line or, or, or this line matches, uh,
you know, the one that they were supposed to match it to, um, other people literally,
you know, whatever it was, they were disoriented by the actions of these other people.
I didn't know that now versions of the ash conformity experiment have involved, uh, confidants
who were, you know, you put a confidant in a white coat and suddenly conformity goes
up.
Yeah.
It goes up substantially.
Right.
And, and my bet is that, uh, the types of people who play these games have studied further
versions of these conformity studies and they know what to do.
But, uh, I think that they, that they, and this is something I actually, I told my wife
this back in 2020, when I first started thinking that this was all an ash conformity experiment,
I said, what's going to happen is people are going to lose trust in the icon that you were
using.
Right.
Because that's the only thing that they can do is blame it on the confidant.
So what's happening is these are parasocial relationships that are being used.
Right.
You put up a Trump, you put up a Fauci and you know how it is that people relate to these
two figures.
Right.
Um, you know, instead of, um, I think of them as like Dunbar slots, you know, you have your
Dunbar number, your 150 people that you, that you know, or do you know this concept?
No.
Um, you know, Robin Dunbar, uh, I guess he was a anthropologist or sociologist.
He said, um, you know, it seems to be the large of the primate brain.
The larger the group that they hang out in, you know, um, eight cotton monkeys, 60 baboons,
you know, 150 to 300 humans, 150 became known as Dunbar's number.
And I think that it was not just the number, like in terms of our brains can hold, uh,
capacity for 150 social relationships where you truly know people, you know, their, their
movements you, you would, you couldn't really be deceived by them very easily, very often.
Um, at least the vast majority of those relationships, right.
And there wouldn't be much attempt to, because you're all in it together.
You really are.
You're a tribe.
Right.
I think that, um, that a lot of modern, uh, propaganda has focused around taking over
not just a member of the tribe, but like a specific slot, right.
TV comes in and people see Biden, Trump, Reagan, whoever, and you know, Clinton, and they think
chief or they might even think chief of the other tribe, right.
Like those are the people that we have to watch for, you know, if they come in our territory,
we make war, right.
So, uh, and I think that probably there is sort of, um, there's probably a handful of
slots that are designated.
They have a specific utility in your brain.
Family member might be one, but you know, medicine man, you know, um, the scientist,
uh, you know, that, that person in the group that, that sort of has the most curiosity
and figures things out or something, you know, the engineer, if you showed, if you show people
images on TV of that, and they don't have that relationship close to them enough that,
you know, that it can't be replaced easily, you know, Neil deGrasse Tyson, you know, Anthony
Fauci these become in people's heads, archetypes.
Yes.
And suddenly these archetypes get used as the confidants and the, it is Ash conformity
experiments.
And the only thing, the only possible way people can, can, uh, you know, rationalize
is to give up the archetype, either give up the archetype entirely or give up the person
as a representation of, you know, and, and who knows, like we, we may not know which
of those things is going to happen.
And that's actually its own sort of concerning facet of the whole experience, right.
Are people going to reject science?
Will we see a mass rejection of science?
You know, are, are people going to be discerning enough?
I think the answer is no, but I, are people going to be discerning enough to distinguish
between science and the institutions that have been created to make science into an
industry?
Yeah, that's a really, yeah.
So Matthew, do you think that, um, that these archetypes, uh, have been created?
In other words, um, do you think that someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson, um, has been a project
of, you know, Mr.
I've actually wondered, uh, you know, almost a decade ago, I actually said something like
this on my Facebook and, uh, you know, I had some people snap back at me over it, but,
um, you know, I said, like, this guy almost looks like a cartoon, like he's a caricature
of what he is, you know, it, it almost feels like this is like yet another type of, uh,
intelligence operation.
Yeah.
I think the odds are pretty high.
And when I say high, I mean, you know, in my mind, I'd put, you know, wide interval
20 to 90%, but I'd call that high.
You know, anything above one is probably high.
Right.
Yeah.
I, I would agree with you.
I, you know, anything is possible.
And given what was, you know, divulged in just this, these few days in terms of like
how, how, how much money they're willing to spend in looking at this more closely, I wouldn't
be surprised at all, um, that this is all been engineered.
And, and there was another, there was another, um, small group session, um, where this guy
from Hopkins, uh, whose name is something Solomon Salmon, he presented the stuff that
they're doing and, um, he created a website and a whole platform called let's talk shots.
And, um, like you pointed out there, uh, some people need to hear the message from their
pastor.
Some people need to hear it from the doctor.
Some people need to hear it, uh, from a doctor who is of the same cultural background.
Um, and that's what they're doing.
You know, they're, they're not, you know, they're not, um, compromising on, uh, or,
or cutting any corners.
They're after everybody.
And you know, even when I said, look, they admit that there's a problem because, you
know, what is it?
79% of people have gotten one shot in this country and 60 have got the primary series,
but only 15% have taken the biovalent booster.
And um, and all they say is like, oh, you know, the reason why is that the perceived
threat is much lower and that's why they're not waiting in line and the right, right.
I mean, I hope we all understand that the pathogenicity of this, whatever strains are
out there right now is much different than it was three years ago, but nowhere did they
ever acknowledge the fact that, um, people don't trust anyone anymore.
Um, it, and that there are injuries in any case.
So going back to graves here, this is what I wanted to say is that I'm talking to him
outside of the, um, outside the hall about his research and he's telling me all of these
things about what they're doing.
And I said, so how would you, um, how would you talk to a position who went back to the
trial data and saw that there were more mortality in the, in the, in the therapy groups in the
placebo group, right?
What's the proper messaging for that person?
And he's like, oh, those are the, uh, like the cognitive fixated people.
Those are the ones that have a problem with uncertainty.
You know, they won't move.
Okay.
I'm like, okay, that's the problem.
I see.
Um, so, you know, and I said, have you, have you looked at the data?
And he said, no, no, I haven't looked at the data.
You know, it was almost like, who cares about the data?
You know, that's not my problem, right?
He's looking to pathologize without even understanding whether or not those people are making accurate
observations.
Yes.
That's amazing.
That, that's really amazing.
That's where you know, it's somebody's job.
They're told to hunt for a pathology.
Yep.
Yes.
That's, that's what they're doing.
Um, and the same thing, the same thing occurred in the next.
So I don't really expect someone like Christopher Graves to have looked at the data, but I had
nearly the same conversation with an epidemiologist from, um, oh boy, she was also from Hopkins.
And again, it was another session with this woman, Katie Atwell, who, you know, shot down
my, my idea immediately.
Um, but then this other person came up to me afterwards and once again, I was encouraged
because she was like, you know, Dr. Setti, I think your questions were really good and,
um, we need to work more on education of our physicians so that they understand, um, what's
really going on, right?
Um, that's the way through.
We need education, education, education.
You know, something that you're into.
And um, yeah, that's Katie Atwell at the, so this other person whose name escapes me
right now, but she had an extensive background in Africa.
Anyway, she comes up to me and says, yeah, we need to, um, we need to look at, uh, educating
our, our, uh, uh, our, uh, primary care physicians.
And so I said, um, look, the, um, the, the, the people in my community, um, they come
to me and I, and I quoted the same thing.
It's like all cause mortality, six month interim results from Pfizer, a grader in the therapy
group.
They come to me and I don't know what to say to that.
What do you think?
And she looks at me and she goes, is that, is that a new study that just came out?
And I said, this is your original trial results.
Like you don't know that.
How is that even possible that you don't even understand that?
And, and, and to her credit, she was like, well, I didn't know I'm, I'll look into it.
So the point here is that there are clearly people at the very, very top that, that know
what they're pushing is not good.
But then you have all of these, you know, middle people, you know, these academics who
just, you know, are stuck in herd mentality and group think who just listened to it and
assume that they've got it right.
And I could understand how that was happening because, you know, one of the, one of the,
the big things that I observed was people there are unwilling to second guess their
position because they've got all the trophies, they've got all the toys, they've got all
the money.
Like why would the world be rewarding them, you know, so bountifully if they had it wrong?
Right.
So their education was more about being mimetic than about, you know, learning how to find
all the answers themselves, because there's so much information, you know, whether you're
a physician or a scientist, the amount, the, the information pool, I guess people say things
like information doubles every year and a half or I don't know, it's probably like 17
days at this point, right.
It's something it's all insane, right.
I mean, you know, when I went to school, it, college classes were already looking tedious
to me just on the level of, you know, gosh, I have to go through this much information
and I have no idea what I'm even going to learn in terms of processes or procedures.
And because of that, I didn't like a lot of the college classes, but I, you know, I could,
I could see the, the pre-med students, you know, working, you know, 80 hours a week and,
you know, memorizing stuff on note cards.
I just thought, I just thought, you know, like this is like, it just feels like the
wrong thing, but I assumed that medical school and beyond that it got better from there.
And then of course I've had so many friends go to medical school that I know that's not,
that's not true, that it's just, it's constant pressure and that, you know, people release
that pressure by beginning to look around and behaving like the flock around them.
Because they assume that there are at least some members of the flock who are putting
in all of the work to figure out how it all works.
Correct.
And they don't know that they could all be led along, you know, you see it a few people
with, I don't know, an ash conformity experiment or, you know, a little bit of pressure and
control and suddenly you have the flock moving in one direction together.
Or it could be entirely natural or natural process of incentives.
You know, the incentives are all wrong and they've all been poisoned for so many years
intentionally or otherwise.
And you know, I do think that there is a certain amount of intent to it because when you have
industries that, well, we know Rockefeller's history.
I mean, he, you know, he was very clearly poisoning, you know, putting money in all
the medical schools saying no strings attached and then coming back later and saying, oh,
but we'd like a board member just to make sure that it's spent well, right?
Come back a second time and up the stakes a little bit each time knowing that they may
have, you know, these people who didn't have nice salaries probably misspent a little of
that money.
So it, you know, the momentary behavior and not, not letting people relax and think creatively
while climbing up this ladder where they may even be building debt to get there.
It's a trap.
It's a terrible trap.
It is.
Absolutely.
And, yeah, you said it really well and explained it.
You know, my personal experience in medical school was much different than most of my
colleagues.
You know, I had a background outside of medicine first and, and it became very clear to me
that there was a lot of what you just described there happening right there in medical education.
And you know, most of my classmates were six or seven years younger than I was, and they
had never been out there, you know, doing like real, you know, computational stuff.
And the idea that they could actually critique the methodology of a study was preposterous.
They can't.
And look, I'm not trying to just slam all physicians of being, you know, victims of
groupthink.
Doctors are much better at challenging ideas coming from their own specialty, reading literature
that has to do with their own field and pushing back when they feel like, you know, my own
experience is different.
So I don't really believe the study.
But when it comes to like the pandemic, for example, like, you know, as an anesthesiologist,
I never listened to the CDC.
I didn't even know, you know, really what the CDC was, to be honest with you, until
this happened.
And suddenly, you know, a huge swath of physicians, the vast majority who don't deal with infectious
diseases and epidemiology, what are they going to do when the CDC says that this is what
the science is?
They're not going to be able to push back on it.
And I'm not trying to make excuses for physicians.
I know there's a lot of anger on our side, you know, that want to criminalize every single
physician or the entire field.
But I think it's more important to understand that these people are just misinformed.
At least that's been my experience.
And this should be hopeful to us, right?
Because you're not going to talk a psychopath into doing the right thing, but you can teach
someone who is misinformed.
And you know, ultimately, the collision of truth and this fake narrative, I think is
going to occur in physicians' offices, you know.
And we have to be smarter about how we use those five or six minutes when you have a
doctor who is trained to listen to you, you know, answer your questions.
We have to ask the right questions, you know.
We don't want to lecture to your doctors, say, oh, you don't know what you're doing
and I would never get that shot and all this stuff.
But like ask them, like, have you read the study or, you know, please tell me, you know,
why if they're so safe, why can't I sue the vaccine manufacturer?
Like what's a good reason for that?
I mean, these are basic questions.
And we have to understand that you're not going to convert a physician in one conversation,
right?
You just want to push the door open a little bit so it remains cracked so that the next
person that comes in who asks the next question will push it open a little more.
This is going to, you know, sadly, you know.
And are there bridges that can be unburned, right?
Like people say you can't unburn a bridge, but sometimes the burning is an illusion,
right?
If there is a lot of, you know, controlled, you know, Christopher Graves psychological,
you know, experimentation types of nudge units, all of that, maybe there are bridges that
aren't truly burned.
And maybe what you can do is invite, you know, have an amnesty party, you know, call it patient
physician jubilee or something like that.
And you know, oh, goodness, I'm forgetting the doctor's name, but the one who made the
apology.
Oh, in the Atlantic?
No, no, no, no, no, no.
That was Emily Oster.
That was an economist.
I'm thinking there was a doctor and I've written about both these stories and I've compared
the apologies, right?
Like to me, to me, that's important, right?
If somebody says I'm sorry, like that's not nearly as meaningful to me as what I see in
their demeanor, character actions, right?
Like those are the things that make the apology worth something, right?
But there was a doctor, he's an RTE reader, you know, there was something going on in
Florida, I think, and there were panels that were up.
Maybe Lapidot was there.
I think Dr. Malone was there.
My friend David Weissman was on one of the TVs in the background, was one of those with
all the TVs going, all kinds of people, but they showed the doctor and the doctor said,
look, I'm sorry.
I just want to say that because a lot of the things that I thought were true, I've determined
now are wrong.
And I can't remember exactly what he was referring to, whether it was public health measures,
like masking and quarantining and all this stuff, or if it was more specific to the medicines.
But one way or another, I felt like, oh, that's great.
That was awesome.
So it felt like this is somebody who crossed lines in a sense, and I don't even want to
think of it as lines, just said, you know what, I'm questioning things and I'm sorry
that I wasn't before, but my conclusions have steered since I started questioning.
To have something like, could we do something like a date, like July 31st, 2023, physician-patient
jubilee or something like that, and invite physicians to question anything between now
and then, and then to sit down with their patients, almost like a town hall meeting,
because this is that serious, right?
This is that serious because people are talking about loss of trust of the public health system,
of their doctors, things like that.
I personally changed doctors myself, to a lot of people who did.
Where do we go from here?
Like you said, there are more and more people.
It's not just lower perceived threat.
Absolutely.
You're right.
I hear discussions all the time.
Well, look, let's talk about all the positive things that are happening right now.
First of all, we have to understand that they're going to lose by attrition.
It's inevitable.
There's like how many people are out there saying, well, I resisted the vaccine for three
years, but now you've converted me.
I'm going to go get jabbed.
That's not going to happen.
Everyone's going to come over to our side eventually.
We have to be able to hasten it in a way so that we can still remain friends, honestly.
That's really an important part of this.
We talked about forums and get togethers.
A lot of this is going to happen, hopefully.
We have Bobby Kennedy running for president.
This is going to put this issue right up there.
Obviously lots of media is not going to cover it, but there are going to be town halls about
this.
Those things are going to happen.
Obviously he can't do it all himself.
All of us have to be representatives of that position that are willing to speak up in those
kinds of formats.
Just the other day-
And it refers to our own positions.
They don't have to all be the same, but just so long as we're getting back to questioning
medicine and science and thinking and not just following the flock.
Just the other day I was in one of the facilities I work at and they had just removed the requirement
for people to be COVID-19 tested before coming in for an elective procedure.
I asked a group of three nurses that didn't have anything to do and I said, what do you
think about this?
Do you feel safe that we're not testing anymore?
They're like, no, I think we're done.
I don't really believe in the testing.
We're still wearing masks.
You walk around the hospital, it doesn't matter if they're with patients or not, you have
to wear a mask.
And I said, so what do you think about this mask thing?
Do you think we can take off our masks now?
Do you guys feel safe?
And they said, yeah, I wish we would drop the masks.
And then I said, so what do you think about getting a booster?
Are you still behind that?
And they're like, I don't really know about that because I've heard that one of my friends
had a really bad reaction and I didn't feel good afterwards.
And then I said, do you understand that there's probably, I don't know, what is it now, 1.5
million reports and VAERS and 37,000 deaths?
And the three of them just looked up and said, what's VAERS?
And I said, well, it's the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.
And immediately, without even prompting, one of them goes up to a computer and looks it
up and they start looking at the reports and they're like, oh my God, you guys, come here,
look at this.
And as soon as they saw it, like on the internet, which means it's true, suddenly it just confirmed
all of these suspicions that they had had.
It's like, oh my God, that person was actually, it was a vaccine injury.
I can't believe this is what's going on.
So I'm just saying that the tide is turning.
And my experience at this Congress confirmed that.
People were coming up to me and saying, yeah, that's a good point.
And we don't know enough about this.
And the very, very last question of the symposium is with Gregory Poland moderating.
They were talking about, oh, markers for vaccine durability.
They have identified the problem is like people don't want to get another shot every three
months.
How can we make these vaccines?
Or at least how do we have a marker for whether or not it's going to last for more than a
few months?
And there's some basic science that was being thrown around and ideas.
And then one of the presenters said, we found something very interesting in the early days
of the pandemic in 2020 before the vaccine.
Young infants who got COVID, we followed them for two or three years.
They still have remarkably robust immunity.
Infants, maybe there's a clue.
Maybe there's a clue in there that could help us figure out a marker for this.
And my colleague, Elizabeth Mumper, saw the opportunity and said, OK, look.
And she asked the very last question of the entire week.
And she said, can you please explain to me why I should be advocating a six-month-old
getting the vaccine?
If you are now telling me that if they get COVID, they're going to be protected, your
vaccines don't work.
We have no idea what the long-term effects of lipid nanoparticles are in these babies.
And the survivability is 99.9997%.
Convince me.
I mean, that's exactly what she said.
And then the presenter said, I don't know.
I don't have an answer to that.
And then she said, anybody else up there want to tackle the question?
And then someone said, oh, well, you know, so, doctor, look, you've got this misconception
that it's better to get COVID than the vaccine.
And you don't know what the long-term side effects of COVID are.
And then Poland ended the conversation right there.
And it's like, holy cow, you missed the whole point.
We know that natural immunity is good.
The vaccine wanes.
The survivability is excellent.
And we have no idea about the long-term effects of the vaccine.
Yet your counterargument is, well, we don't know what the long-term effects of COVID are
either.
How does that justify inoculating babies?
And once again, people came up to her and said, wow, that's a really good question.
I don't think he answered the question.
And we're like, yeah, he didn't.
And people should stop and think also, wait a minute.
One of these forms of immunity lasts for one, two decades.
We know that the people who had the original SARS had immunity like 17 years later.
Right?
They probably still do.
Right?
It's probably 20 years on.
Why is it that a vaccination seems to wane after four months?
When people start asking that question, I think that's when they're going to understand
the whole 14 days miscategorization.
Then they're going to realize that there was never any efficacy.
Right.
That's my opinion.
That's my strong belief.
I think that it's right there in the numbers that if you flip those people to the vaccinated
pool, then suddenly you have zero or probably negative efficacy from the start.
It's not waning efficacy.
It's waning bias.
It's waning miscategorization.
I think you're right, Matthew.
Absolutely.
I've read a lot of your stack articles on that.
I see exactly what you're saying.
But again, you have to start someplace with these people.
You start off saying that there is no efficacy, healthy user bias and all this stuff.
They're not going to hear it.
Start someplace where they feel confident and you lead them another place with those
kinds of things.
Here's something interesting.
I know we've got to wind down soon, but I went to another presentation by a researcher
who was talking about lipid nanoparticles and delivery systems of these medicines.
She was saying that what they found was the design of the LNP is very important because
you can make it... What's the word she used?
You can make it so that it acts as an adjuvant.
It incites an inflammatory response.
The point here is that that's the kind of LNP you want when you're delivering a vaccine.
That is not what you want when you're delivering a chemotherapeutic agent because you don't
want the inflammation.
You just want the drug to get there.
Anyway, here's the thing.
She gives a presentation and I talked to her.
I said, look, do you have any information about how you can modulate the LNP so that
you can direct where it ends up in the body?
She said, oh, it always gets taken up by your lymphatic tissues through the spleen and liver.
That's where it goes.
I said, well, what about the brain?
Does it go there?
She said, yes, that's true.
It does go there.
I said, can you make sure that doesn't happen?
What do you know about that?
She said, well, we have no idea, but that's a really important topic of our research.
That's put it all together for me.
You know, clearly the LNPs that were used in these formulations were immunogenic or
inflammatory.
Of course, they did that.
That's how they get the response.
We know that it goes to the brain and we've got scores, if not thousands of neurologic
... She wasn't going to say it if you didn't
bring it up.
No, she didn't say that at all.
Yeah, I had to bring it up.
It was one of those presentations where she... 20 minutes long, 30 slides full of data.
I don't even know what she's saying, but when she talked about that, I was like, okay, that's
my question.
Here we have it.
You have the mechanism of inflammation.
You know that it goes across the blood brain barrier.
You have the chairman of the entire symposium with some sort of neurologic issue with the
acoustic nerve or whatever is causing the stuff.
How much more do you need, honestly?
You have to ask the probing questions, but this was just a big show, honestly.
It was like, you know, it was a mind game, but most of the people there didn't know about
all of these things, but they're open to hearing it.
Interesting.
I'm going to think on this a little bit because I'm so glad to hear your report on all of
this because it's an update for me as to how it is we might move forward, possibly how
I might be able to make my time more valuable also.
But gosh, when I hear this, I think this is something that should go on with every event,
perhaps.
I mean, and you had mentioned an idea to me, and maybe we'll talk about it after the show.
Maybe revisit or discuss that idea.
I think I have a better sense of your intention with that.
I have a better sense of what you brought up.
But any other thoughts?
Gosh, you know, where does this leave us?
Actually, you know, maybe I want to do this.
When I brought up the idea of something like a doctor-patient jubilee, I do want to say
this.
I think that there are different degrees of probably criminal activity that have taken
place.
But I think that we have to be as discerning as possible as to where we place the blame,
especially if the amount of pressure that was put on physicians, you know, there were
some who seemed almost gleeful about the entire process and procedure, but some who probably
just went along to get along, right?
I think that we're going to have to be discerning in our judgment.
But there are times when I think the game theory suggests that you find a way to walk
away from the situation by, I don't know, separating the way that you deal with one
group of people from the other.
There are certain people that should probably be held to account, if possible, under all
circumstances.
But there are people who just want to be Americans, you know, who just want to participate in
their noble profession.
And, you know, there was a substack this morning.
I can't remember who wrote it, but who said, look, the doctors are traumatized.
That was mine.
I think it was.
Oh, that was you.
Okay.
And I maybe I was catching up on your articles.
But yeah, I think, yeah, really good subsexties, by the way.
Yeah, I think that you hit the nail on the head, though, with that observation.
You know, we have to consider that this is something that is so unique, that was done
to all of us at once.
And find a way to let those who, you know, those people who want to untangle, like I
said, if we pick the date, like July 31st, and said, who's willing to come to the room
and have a conversation, if not tell us you're on our side?
Right?
Like, either one of those is a step of good faith.
Yes, the very least.
Right?
Those are the people that I think, you know, you can embrace again.
Yeah.
Wow.
Yeah, I I'm encouraged.
I like what you're saying here.
So you're suggesting that we spread the spread the word and about and I'm throwing it out
there.
You know, it was just an idea that sprang into my head because we were talking, you know?
Yeah, I think none of us none of us know what to think.
Right.
I mean, it's been so crazy.
Well, look, you brought up two really good points.
The first is those guys who are managing the narrative, you know, the pro vaccine narrative,
they don't want dialogue.
So the idea of dialogue is automatically good.
Right.
We have to assume that that's that's probably going to work and they know it's going to
work.
That's why they don't want that.
And the other point you made that I want to chime in on slips my mind now.
Well, I should have went with that one first.
Oh, well, what did you just say?
Well, we can we can pick it back up.
Right.
We're talking.
So so all good.
Well, thanks for coming and sharing this experience with us.
I think that's this is so uniquely valuable and probably go ahead.
I think that when we our prize is to punish the wrongdoers, we lose a lot of momentum
and ability to actually change things because, you know, eventually, hopefully people will
be brought to task, the ones who deserve to be punished.
But we have to stop this.
And you know, that's the first goal is to like stop doing this as opposed to we need
to punish the people who are doing this.
We have to stop it first.
And that should be our priority.
Once we stop it and and cease the damage, then we can start picking up the pieces and
find out, you know, who who are really the malevolent ones behind this.
And you know, look, I'm not into punishing people.
I that's somewhat somebody else can do that.
I'm not saying that they don't deserve some sort of retribution.
But you know, that's not my interest.
My interest is to stop this.
First Yeah, first and foremost.
Yeah.
And and, you know, to a large extent, the system is is the people in many ways.
And if you know, if we make the system better, we make people better.
You know, not not exactly, but in a sense, you know, the incentives determine it at least
the flow of the outcome precisely.
So well, thanks so much for joining us, Madaba.
And it's always a pleasure to speak with you and learn something every time I'm looking
at any questions from the audience before we cut down.
We still got we've got a few dozen watchers here.
We have a few dozen in the different channels.
What's that?
Is it a few dozen?
That's good.
Well, we'll go ahead and cut here.
Thanks so much for joining us.
And everybody go check out Madaba's substack is fairly new.
And it's called an insult to intuition.
Go check that out.
You've got to look through this from the belly of the beast article.
I mean, this is we've talked about a lot of it here, but he's got a lot of more information
there.
So thanks, everybody.
And we will see you again soon.
We'll see you tomorrow.
Liam and I are going to be hosting JJ Cooey, and we hope you join us in.
Bye.