McCairnDojo.comPast episodes & related streams

Good morning, good evening, good afternoon. Hello, everybody. Yes, that is correct. We are going to hit an interview with Anthony Leonardo right now. That's a very good call. Nice work on that one. That's a pretty sharp individual there in the chat. Whoa, I stopped that a little abruptly. My bad. Should probably leave something on there maybe. It's a little while until I get this all set up. Let me get out of this. So first of all, Substack is down which is a little strange. It could just be maintenance but if you look at the Substack status page, it's currently unavailable and we are currently investigating the issue. So I don't know what that's all about. If you missed it, Mark did a very good office hours this morning where I think he did a nice summary of some of the… Is that music too loud? Some of the stuff that he's recently found. So I just dropped that in the chat. Very decently succinct summary about, you know, what little threads that he's brought together. A second thing that I want to call your attention to is that Denis Rancourt has produced another report this time about Australia's all-cause mortality rate and its correlation here with the booster rollout. I just dropped that in the chat as well for you to check out. So this is the, this is the video that I wanted to watch with you. It is called COVID-19 Disreg... I'm going to just refresh it and see if that works better. Yep. It is called COVID-19 Disregulating Our Immune Systems and the show I believe is called The Agenda and I think this was in Canada about a month ago. Subscribe to The Agenda with Steve Polkin on YouTube. Okay, maybe not. But it has a distinct Canadian feel to it. So if somebody can just, you know, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think this is a Canadian show. And so I really want to listen to this and see what we can get out of it. Here we go. Millions of Canadians have now recovered from COVID. A surprising number have had it more than once. That's raised questions around earlier hopes that infection would bolster immunity. In fact, there's currently a pretty vigorous debate about what having COVID does to our immune system, broadly speaking. With us now on that, in Baltimore, Maryland, T cell immunologist Anthony Leonardi, who is an honorary research fellow at Kingston University in London, UK. He's also a public health student at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. In Quebec City, Don Bodish, immunologist and professor in the Department of Medicine at Hamilton's McMaster University. Here in Ontario's capital city, Dr. Alison McGeer, medical microbiologist and infectious disease specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital. Colin Fernes, infectious control and epidemiologist and assistant professor at the University of Toronto's Faculty of Information. Welcome to you all. All right. I want to know where we all stand on this and I'm going to come to Anthony first. Are COVID infections impairing our immune systems even after we recover? Well, recovery is a loose definition there. So if you actually look at certain markers in the blood, there are changes that are long lasting. So I would argue that it's not full recovery as of yet, but I'm open to hear what everyone else thinks. All right. And then Don, I'll get your take. Yeah, I think there's a lot of heterogeneity in the responses. So we can think around long COVID as being the extreme example where people have these long lasting challenges and some of those are due to changes in their immune response. But where the question I think you're actually asking is for what about the people who just had a reasonable infection? What does their future look like? And data, including some of our own, does suggest that some people do have some lasting changes to their immune response. Well, epidemiological data suggests that people who've had COVID may be seeking more medical care, maybe ending up going back to the hospital for things that seem unrelated. So I think those two pieces of data together suggest that at least in some people there are lasting changes that may contribute to this requirement for more medical care. Allison. What we know from previous pandemics is they're likely a group of people who've had COVID who will be significantly affected for at least a long period of time. The perhaps more relevant question is, you know, what about all the people who've had mild infections in Omicron? And that's very difficult to tease out. As Don has just pointed out, people who've been hospitalized may have ongoing issues. But the truth is people who've been hospitalized for any infection have ongoing issues. So the challenge here is teasing out what might be something from COVID and what might be something that's just having a viral infection, any viral infection which changes your immune system, and what clinical impact that has. What we don't have at the moment is strong evidence that for most of the people who've had mild COVID infections, not been hospitalized, that there is an ongoing impact that significantly impairs their response to other infections. Doesn't mean it's not true. It just means that we don't have evidence at the moment that it is. And our entire history of, you know, meeting pathogens and teasing out what might be something from COVID and what might be something that's just having a viral infection, any viral infection which changes your immune system, and what clinical impact that has. What we don't have at the moment is strong evidence that for most of the people who've had mild COVID infections, not been hospitalized, that there is an ongoing impact that significantly impairs their response to other infections. Doesn't mean it's not true. It just means that we don't have evidence at the moment that it is. And our entire history of, you know, meeting pathogens and dealing with them suggests, I think, that it's unlikely that there's going to be a long-term impact that is clinically significant for the majority of people. All right. And then, Colin, I'll get your take as well. Sure. I think when we try and answer these questions, we usually try and answer them for everybody. You know, is there an immune effect on everybody? And I think the better question is, and I think Dr. Bowder said it, is there a bad effect in some people? We have some data, such as children being on ventilators for RSV, way above and beyond what we'd expect, despite the fact that RSV has lower prevalence right now than we would expect. So that's a head-scratcher, and it suggests that maybe some kids are having a really bad immune suppression problem. It's tricky, but immune harm would help to explain some of these observations. Allison, I want to come to you as well, because I know there's some research out there just like what Colin was talking about in children. Can you tease that out a little bit more? What are we seeing in terms of what we're seeing in the effects in children? So I'm just going to frankly disagree with Colin, okay? I think our problem with RSV is really specific. All kids get infected with RSV in the first three years of life. So there's a 30% or 40% infection rate before year one, and another similar rate before year two, and then some more. And all of us have repeated RSV infections. So usually the first infection is the most severe, but not always. It's a bit complicated. And what happened during the pandemic was we had no RSV activity in Canada, with the exception of Quebec, okay? Okay, I'm going to stop here because I want to make a point about this first part. So if we go back through, we are at five minutes and 19 seconds now. So the first person we talked to was Tony. This is Anthony. And he says that we're not in full recovery yet because we have lymphocytopenia and other markers don't recover back to their pre-COVID levels. And then he passes the buck right away to the other people. Then that lady talks about long lasting challenges that occur, the anecdotal kind of long infection, the immunocompromised, these kinds of people. Doesn't really give us many details about it, but then does explicitly mention that there is data which suggests that these people who've been infected need to go to hospital more often. And then what about hospitalization? And she mentions that, you know, people can go to the hospital for any reason and then come out with a lasting disease, come out with a hospital born pathogen, a hospital born symptomology that is also in a phenomenon that occurred during or before the pandemic that people would go to the hospital for one thing, get sick with another thing. So she wants there to be clarity there as to whether this happened or not. And then, and so whether those are confounding the numbers, she says there's no real evidence of mild infection causing long-term impact. And then the gentleman, the last gentleman suggests that there might be some long-term impact. That's this guy, I guess. Where is he? Oh, he doesn't answer. This is the last lady, right? These two. He says maybe there's some bad side effects for some kids. So I guess what he's applying there is that the kids got COVID and then that made them more vulnerable to respiratory syncytial virus. So some kids, but he doesn't give any age groups. And none of them mentioned that the adults could be immunosuppressed by COVID and then therefore present a higher transmission rate of other viruses that normally would be under lower viral load because the adults have a stronger immune response. And so that could make the kids more vulnerable as well. And then of course, the elephant in the room is, is that although we're talking about Canada, as far as I can tell, a highly vaccinated Western country with the RNA product, and they have not mentioned the fact that the product has been rolled out once, they haven't asked whether the people in the hospital are predominantly fully vaccinated. People are recently vaccinated or this is not on the radar of possible contributing factors to their narrative, which is extraordinary. Quite frankly, it's extraordinary. Given the fact that they believe that this new technology is able to augment our immune system in a long-term meaningful fashion, then the idea that there might not be long-term meaningful side effects, ramifications of it, it's just extraordinary. I can hardly breathe when I think about it, how awful this is. Right. Before you're one and another similar rate before you're two and then some more. And all of us have repeated RSV infection. So usually the first infection is the most severe, but not always a bit complicated. There she's talking about it right now. The pandemic was, we had no RSV activity in Canada, with the exception of Quebec. Quebec is always the exception. We had some activity last year. We got to take her word for this, right? And so we now have this cohort. Let's just outline what we're talking about here. She says that we didn't have any RSV activity in the previous couple of years. We haven't had a lot of flu either, but later on in the video, she's going to tell you that we don't know anything about what we really have because the testing has just gone all out the window. So the cognitive dissonance here is very strong. These people are Jedi masters of the dark side of the force. They are really good at holding two completely contradictory ideas in their head, but because they're applying one to the virus and another to the therapeutic that they believe in or have been paid to believe in, paid not to critique, I don't know what it is, but if it's really just to get yourself on a podcast and I just don't understand this, it's so obtuse. Children aged one to four who have not been exposed to RSV significantly and have not had infections and we're catching up. And unfortunately, when that happens, you catch up all at once. Okay. So the three times as many people in the three times as many kids in the hospital with RSV infections is exactly what we would expect epidemiologically. It's not about, you know, they've had COVID. It's not about anything except that they're being exposed to RSV when they haven't been before and a small number of them are getting really sick. And so our challenge at the moment. And so we don't have any real numbers here. Nobody's really showing any real numbers comparing to previous years. It's all just hand waving and declarative, you know, new, new data, blah, blah, blah. It's really terrible actually. But again, this is on what looks like to be a pretty sophisticated podcast show, whatever this is. Somebody watches this. They think, wow, it is like the vaccines do nothing. They didn't save anybody. They're not protecting anyone. And they didn't hurt anybody either. It's like they didn't even happen is not actually these kids are getting RSV, but that these kids are getting RSV all at once. None of this takes away from, you know, that a lot of important questions about what happens to our immunity and how things work in the long term. But I don't think that the issues we have with pediatric hospitalizations at the moment would require an immunologic explanation. There's a perfectly good epidemiologic explanation for what's going on in my view. All right. Let's let's return back to the immune system here. Donna, I want to bring you in according to the research we have now, which is clear that maybe there's not that much, but for how long after recovery can immune system impairment last? Well, we don't have very good data to first of all. And I want to make it perfectly clear. We have no pediatric data, no pediatric data. It's very difficult to do those sorts of studies in kids. People don't want to give blood from their kids and you need a significant amount of it to do those kind of measurements. So every piece of information I'm going to give you is going to be the adult or the older adult population. And this is a really important distinction because we have to be clear that just as children are small adults, their immune systems aren't necessarily interpretable in the context of what we know about adults and older adults. So with that caveat, I would say we can use things like long COVID as the extreme example where we know about one in three people who have long COVID have lasting immune impairment for quite some time. In my own studies of older adults, we can see that people who've had COVID sometimes have some of these immune changes that last over a year. But I think Alison brought up a really important point. We have to be clear that just because we can see a change doesn't mean we totally understand the long-term clinical significance of it. There are viral infections we get in everyday life. For example, there's one called CMV that most of us will have profoundly changes our immune system, but has very little impact on our long-term health. So although I am cautious, I think the data is unequivocal that we need to avoid COVID. In some people, there will certainly be long-term health problems. I also want to be forthright because I think it's important that we not overstate this until we have better data. All right, Anthony, I'm going to bring you into this. If COVID infections are wearing down our immunity, does that mean people will be sick more often? What are essentially the factors and risks here? Okay, I'm going to pause it here for a second because I want to point out I think we got a big one here. I apologize for the heater in the background. How long does the immune system impairment last is the question that he asked. And long COVID was brought up, but we just mentioned earlier that hospitalization has always resulted in things like chronic fatigue syndrome and cops and other things. Unequivocal, I know I spelled that wrong, unequivocal that we must avoid getting infections is the thing that I keyed in on. And the reason why I'm keying in on it is because I think a lot of people were told that this is the line you have to toe. You need to make sure that people understand that getting infected with this virus is more dangerous than taking an experimental mRNA shot. And I think a lot of people have been instructed to toe that line. You can say whatever you want to. Here's the fear and cleavage site. Here's the possibility that that the protein is toxic. Here's some other ideas, but you make sure that people think that the virus is more dangerous than the mRNA that we're going to roll out to save them from it. That is a line that all of these four are towing very, very well to the point where they don't even mention the fact that millions of their fellow Canadians have been fully vaccinated and that that immune augmentation is overlaid on these observations that they're making. They can't just discard this. How is it possible that they are discarding this? How is it not possible that these adults that have been possibly immunocompromised in the same way that Anthony describes it for COVID, but in a much more dramatic way, if the spike protein is translated with high fidelity, we could have a huge problem on our hands because of the way that the immune system is activated in that worst case scenario. And he hasn't mentioned it once yet. Not once that there's lymphocytopenia after the shots. It's an interesting stance for him to take. Well, that's a strong possibility. And I'd like to bring up that it's not equivocal that we need to avoid COVID. In some people, there will certainly be long-term health problems. I also want to be forthright because I think it's important that we not overstate this until we have better data. All right, Anthony, I'm going to bring you into this. If COVID infections are wearing down our immunity, does that mean people will be sick more often? What are essentially the factors and the risks here? Well, that's a strong possibility. And I'd like to bring up that there are clear, as the doctor said, a lot of these studies were in adults, so we can't unfortunately directly extrapolate to children. But there are lasting changes to the immune system. For example, in mild infection, the adults with mild infection, it's seven months out. They still have a very low level of plasma cytoid dendritic cells. And these dendritic cells are really important for viruses and releasing what's called interferon alpha. Interferon alpha is a cytokine that actually in early stages of infection, even before infection, can reduce severity of RSV or even prevent infection. So there are strong changes to the immune system that could result in easier infection occurring. Do we have any data, and I'm going to stick with you, Anthony, in terms of the various variants and how they have an impact on our immune system? Do we know the difference between Delta versus Omicron? Unfortunately, we had to acquire this data in animals. So again, about the extrapolation. But it looked like Delta was really the worst in terms of pathogenicity. So Delta really harmed the thymus of the mice. And that's an immune organ that helps develop T cells. And it was really just caused a ton of inflammation. With Omicron, it has pathogenicity. So Delta really harmed the thymus. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that if we were to look up the paper that he's talking about, they used an infectious clone of Delta. Or they used the spike protein alone. Or they used a pseudovirus with the spike protein. But they didn't infect the mice with a wild sample of Delta. They infected the mice with an infectious clone. I'll bet you anything. Somebody's talking about here is already sketchy. And then, you know, it just it blows my mind. It really blows my mind. This video blows my mind. There's a cytokine that actually in early stages of infection, even before infection, can reduce severity of RSV or even prevent infection. So there are strong changes to the immune system that could result in easier infection. And so he feels no need to give you a mechanism by which this dendritic cell immune barrier can be deactivated by the first infection. How does that work? How is the infection of COVID down regulating the dendritic cells if you don't take into account that all of these people have been transfected? I don't understand this at all. I don't understand how they can ignore the fact that their population is triple jabbed at the minimum and that this contributes to the total viral load that that population can carry. It contributes to the total amount of sickness. It is the immune tone of these people that has been altered and that augmentation is being completely ignored. It's just striking. Do we have any data? And I'm going to stick with you, Anthony, in terms of the various variants and how they have an impact. He's a T cell guy. Why are you asking him about variants? Unfortunately, we had to acquire this data in animals. So again, about the extrapolation but it looked like Delta was really the worst in terms of... So he's the guy that they decided to queue up to talk about the mouse study that says Delta is the worst? Pathogenicity. So Delta really harmed the thymuses of the mice and that's an immune organ that helps develop T cells and it was really just caused a ton of inflammation. With Omicron, it had less of those Delta-like features and a harm to the thymus but with time Omicron has re-evolved to go back to those changes that were in Delta. So it looks like Delta so far was really the worst one but Omicron is returning to a Delta-like phenotype and that means just the way it is. That means it's just the way it is? Are you kidding me? Did he run out of a script? Did one of the index cards that was on his keyboard fall down? What the hell is this? To go back to those changes that were in Delta. So it looks like Delta so far was really the worst one but Omicron is returning to a Delta-like phenotype and that means just the way it is. I mean if this guy hasn't completely discredited himself now already in your eyes I don't know what more you need to see. If he had a message about T cells where is his message about the vaccine or the transfection? Where is his message about the adenovirus vaccine? Where is his message about T cell memory? Where is his message about cytotoxic T cells? I don't understand. I don't understand. I do want to bring you back in. You did talk about long COVID a little bit. Is immune suppression post COVID different from having long COVID? You see that again. He did it. He did it again. That's the third time he said immune suppression after COVID. This guy he said how long does the immune impairment last and the lady said we don't have any data. Then he said if COVID wears out our immunity, Anthony, then you see they're implanting this idea throughout this broadcast. It's really it's blatant propaganda. It's extraordinary. I can't. I want to bring you back in. You did talk about long COVID a little bit. Is immune suppression post COVID different from having long COVID? Yes. They just got done telling you they don't even know yet. Long COVID is a constellation. That's a great line. That's a great line. It shows us how big the variation in what this does. It depends on how severely sick you are, probably sex plays a role, your age, what variants you got, et cetera, et cetera. Again I just am very frustrated by the fact that we're all talking about the virus without talking about the multiple transfections that were supposed to augment our immune system relative to that virus and the possible roles that that augmentation might have in the things that they're talking about here. And so when you talk about long COVID in the context of a triple vaccinated population, I think it's important. I just find this really dubious. It's really dubious. So again, we can use long COVID as the extreme of that both heterogeneity and immune effects. And for many of the older adults in our study, we don't see the very, very extreme immune effects. We see something sort of in the middle. So what's going to be important for us to tease out is how does this impact the rest of their age and trajectory, what other diseases they get, what other infections they'll get. All right. So we're seeing unprecedented capacity crisis in pediatric hospitals and emergency departments. A debate is unfolding across this province. Some experts explain the surge in viral infections as a result of immune suppression post COVID. Others say immunity debt is to blame. Allison, I'm hoping you can help clear this up. Immunity debt, I believe, is when you haven't been around and you don't go outside, then you build up immunity debt. If you don't interact with other people, you build up immunity debt. And so because the flu went away because we wore masks and socially distanced, we built up immune debt. Not sure I agree with that, but that's what he's talking about. A little bit and help explain a little here. Has the idea of immunity debt been misunderstood and can you help explain what that actually means? Well, I'm not actually sure what it means when people talk about immunity debt. It's not a term I would use. Really, a piece of this issue at least is the fact that we didn't expose children to RSV for a... It's a giant assumption. It's a gigantic assumption that their lockdown did anything, whatever their lockdown was. It's a gigantic assumption that they went to the grocery store, but that didn't do anything. That it's a gigantic assumption. And the insistence on certainty here is how you can see through it because anybody that insists this is the way it was, we didn't have any RSV the last two years because is a multiple certain statement. Certain there was no RSV, certain we didn't have it for this reason, and certain we have it now because of these two other reasons and how they add up. It's an extraordinary claim the way that these people talk. The full two winter seasons during the pandemic. So usually in temperate climates in Canada, in the winter season, you get RSV. It starts in October. It goes up to a peak in November. It's stable over the winter. So are you telling me that we didn't have any... Are you telling me that we didn't have any respiratory disease in 2020 and 2021? That RSV completely disappeared? You see where the incongruency comes in here, where this doesn't work? How is that possible? It's like something got dim here for a minute. How is that possible? They are, they are being obtuse. They are taking assumptions that the TV's told them or someone's told them and are regurgitating them in high fidelity in an almost rehearsed fashion. It's frightening because again, we are 12 minutes into this discussion about immunosuppression during the pandemic. We have not talked about the investigational vaccine products that were rolled out across Canada in millions of arms, almost to the point of coerced to doing it. Definitely misled by an extreme snake oil salesman of a premier and a few really incredible co-players in that government. Come down in March and go back in April again and it's pretty reliable. But we've had two years with no RSV activity. So there's... No RSV activity. Listen to this certainty of it. No question that we now have a cohort of susceptible children who, you know, of ages that pre-pandemic would not be susceptible. You know, it's actually been pretty quiet in ICU, pediatric ICUs, with the exception of COVID activity for the last two years. And that group of children is now getting RSV infection for the first time. And how are they counting these RSV infections? How are they counting the lack of RSV infections during the COVID pandemic? They weren't. They weren't. A co-infection would not have been found because they weren't looking. She knows that. She has to know that. And in Canada, we just don't have much spare capacity in any of our ICUs, but particularly in our pediatric ICUs. So the increase in the number of kids who require hospitalization just because of the increase in the number of kids who are being exposed to RSV for the first time is incredibly difficult for our system to deal with. This could also be theatrically organized by making sure that you had a directive from above which said you should hospitalize any child that tests positive for RSV and has mild respiratory disease. Very easy to fill up the ICU with kids when you scare parents into bringing their kids in, and then when you test them, you keep them. It's real easy. So don't take this as seriously as she'd like you to. You know, I'm hearing so much about it in our countries because other countries don't have this really, really tight number of intensive care unit beds that we have in Canada. But there's no question in my mind that the biggest impact of this excess in illness in kids and in our ICUs is related to the fact that kids just weren't exposed to RSV. And you know, in the end, all children are going to get exposed to RSV. The fact that we didn't expose them to RSV during the pandemic is a little bit neither here nor there. The problem is not so much that they're getting RSV, although I will say there's a whole bunch of new RSV vaccines that are going to be on the market for kids in about two years. And when we get those vaccines, we won't have this illness and it will be awesome. Okay. But we're not quite there yet. So in the meantime, we can't... That's a pretty extraordinary statement to make, don't you think? There are some kid RSV vaccines in the pipeline, and when we get those, we won't have this disease anymore and it'll be awesome. Kids from getting RSV. And our problem is not so much that these kids are getting RSV. It's that these kids are getting RSV all at the same time, which is incredibly difficult for their management in our pediatric ICUs. Colin, I'm going to bring you in here. Is there any validity, and I'm going to for the sake of this conversation, call it maybe immunity gap theory, opposed to the immunity debt. But is there any validity to this and to what Alison is saying? Well, I agree with Alison. And I've learned when I disagree with her, I'm usually wrong. But I'll depart on it a little bit because I think both are going on. There's no question that there's this double cohort effect. That's true. But we did have a spike in RSV in the spring and we have very low levels now. So it seems to me that if there's not much RSV yet, all this exposure, all this double exposure has yet to happen. And I still don't think it quite explains the number of kids who are seriously ill. This is a testable hypothesis. If it is a double cohort effect, this is going to fade sooner rather than later. If it's immune harm, I think it's going to get worse. And we'll see kids with multiple viral infections and fungal infections too. So I think in the coming months we'll get a better picture. And I'd love to be wrong. I think he's right about that. All right, Dawn, I'll get your take as well. I think this really highlights a problem with us getting data in a real-time manner in Canada. The perfect way to answer this question is if we had databases where we had records of which kids had COVID and which didn't. And we would expect that the severity would be increased in RSV if COVID was the cause, and we would expect no relationship if COVID was not the cause. We need a database. But we've got two problems. One, we don't have really good databases where we can get these kind of data in real-time. And two, we stopped testing. We need a database where we can fill in the testing all the time. We don't have to know which kids had COVID or not. Like genetic data. I actually think whenever... I think both things are probably true. I think we're seeing a double cohort effect and we are maybe seeing some effects of some post-COVID effects potentially. But I don't know where the balance is. It could be more of one and it could be more of the other. And I really want to make a plea for designing better health systems so we can answer these questions in real-time because it really does affect which strategy we would take. And I really want to make a plea for designing better health systems so we can answer these questions in real time because it really does affect which strategy we would take. I'm going to pause here. I'm going to lose the script, and I'm going to reflect on the recurring feeling I have of impending view. the hell is she talking about? We need better genetic and and phenotypic data from our kids in real time and we need a better healthcare system that does it. Coercing you out of your privacy, coercing you out of your medical data under the pretense of national security. I told you. I done told you.

Anthony, I'm hoping. Well, we're on these issues. Can I just interrupt for a moment? You know, I think one of the other really difficult things to interpret is that both COVID and RSV are diseases that are substantially determined by social determinants of health, so that our kids who are who live in poverty, whose parents are racialized, whose parents are new immigrants, have higher risk of both of them. So there's a really important, you know, the inequity that occurs in our society is an important driver of severe RSV and severe COVID in kids. And so it's partly about having health systems, but it's also about trying to tease out that compounding makes it really difficult to know for sure.

All right, Anthony, I want to get your take in there. Is it possible that both ideas can be true? Or are we leaning on on one or the other?

I personally think it's both. It's definitely true that the mitigations from COVID, like social distancing and mask wearing, reduce the prevalence of RSV. That's, you know, obvious. The question is, you know, could there be an additional effect of immune harm, you know, from COVID? And the evidence is there. Unfortunately, it's not well studied in children, but we see that there are long lasting up to seven months deficits in dendritic cells. And these cells are very, you know, they're very much responsible for helping with viral infections, especially in the upper airway. It's well characterized for RSV. Actually, they found that infants and children with severe RSV were more likely to have relatively lower interferon alpha levels. It was, it was a marker for potential harm.

All right, I want to pull up a tweet by Dr. Mustafa Hirji, the acting medical officer of health for Niagara region in reference to COVID induced immune dysregulation having an impact across the province. He writes, I'd like to see evidence linked to the actual situation at hand. Until then, it is just a hypothesis. But the currently favored hypothesis so called immunity debt lacks both historical and situational evidence and is inconsistent with surveillance data doesn't seem like he's any different from what we're saying here. But Allison, what's your response to that?

So I do think that so just to keep focused on Leonardo here, right, Leonardo did say that social distancing and masks were responsible for there being more RSV now that's obvious he said, the T cell expert dude. I hope everybody is seeing how dubious this is. The T cell expert dude has told us about variants has told us about a variant study in mice has told us that social distancing and masks are obviously responsible for the rise in RSV that they report there being an occurrence in Canada. And immune harm from COVID is obviously one of the main hypotheses we should be considering to explain this.

Or it could be an addition to this, right. So that's a pretty extraordinary addition to the social distancing and masks causing more disease. Now we have immune harm from COVID. So that's pretty impressive because he's a T cell guy, but I'll bet you they'll get back to it. I'm not sure that he and Colin are correct about the surveillance data. There's a couple of issues with surveillance data. First of all, our surveillance data is two weeks out of date always right. It just takes that much time to collect it and post it and get it forward. And if you look at RSV activity now RSV activity is well above seasonal norms. Okay, so it's not true that we're seeing this excess of hospitalization in the absence of RSV. The second problem is that we're having a problem with, really Colin, I promise you, I'll send you the data. The second problem is that it's really hard to interpret levels of different viruses at the moment. So pre COVID, you know, we don't test everybody who gets sick. We don't actually know what the rates are. We test kids differentially over adults. The testing is all done by physicians for who knows what reason. Okay, it's not like we don't do it. But the advantage is that it's stable over time. So you can look at influenza activity and you can say, okay, 5% of tests, that's the threshold for the season. Now we know we're into the season. And even if I don't really know why people are getting tested or who's getting tested or what's going on, because it's stable over time, it's okay. But our viral testing is not stable now, right? We've been doing, we're doing COVID testing here and other testing there. And everything in the viral testing world has been turned upside down. So wait a minute, you told me that you knew for sure that we didn't have any RSV and flu in 2020 and 2021. Now you're telling me that the testing was turned upside down, presumably because of the reallocation of components, reallocation of factories, reallocation of resources. So that doesn't arrive with what she said earlier, with certainty about whether we had respiratory disease caused by RSV underneath the COVID wave or not. How much of the percentage of that COVID wave was composed of RSV co-infections? They don't know, because the testing isn't trustworthy. So what is she talking about here? Is she contradicting herself? Yes, she is. She's holding these two very contradictory ideas in her head. And she's been doing it for three years now. She's a juggling master. Why people are getting tested or who's getting tested. Kids differentially over adults. The testing is all done by physicians for who knows what reason. Okay, it's not like we track it. But the advantage is that it's stable over time. So you can look at influenza activity and you can say, okay, 5% of tests, that's the threshold for the season. Now we know we're into the season. And even if I don't really know why people are getting tested or who's getting tested or what's going on, because it's stable over time, it's okay. But our viral testing is not stable now, right? We've been doing we're doing COVID testing here and other testing there. And and everything in the viral testing world has been turned upside down. So now interpreting what seasonal activity means for either Colin or I frankly to say, yes, there's lots of RSV activity or no, there's not as much as usual. Really, we don't know.

You just told us earlier in the interview that you know for sure. Anthony just said obviously the increase in RSV.

Either there's an increase and you know for sure or you don't.

How can you be on here for 21 minutes saying for sure there's an increase and it's obviously explainable by social distancing and masks and maybe even immune suppression due to COVID. Now saying we can't say anything at all. Let me make sure she's saying to say yes, there's lots of RSV activity or no, there's not as much as usual. Really, we don't know. You know, so so that just makes it even harder to try to parse this I know and and you hear the range of opinions I don't I don't see anything and what's going on that I think is inconsistent with it was actually not a double cohorts a triple cohort effect. But you know, you're you're hearing a range of opinions and this is what science is like right you triple cohort effect is flu RSV and COVID of course it's not the the shots and how many shots you've had or when you had them know you see different possibilities and then you need to focus on getting the work done to figure out what is true. Colin I am going to have to get you to respond to that of course because you know, Alison saying your name because I've been twitching because I've been twitching so you know, I'll believe Alison that the recent recent data shows RSV going up it should but those kids are intubated right now they were exposed weeks ago when we do have surveillance data. So if that's if RSV is going way way up now we're going to have to see is there going to be a continued increase in ICU uptake among among kids and if it if it settles down soon, then it'll be a cohort effect that came and went and if it continues to get worse because we don't know how many kids have had COVID at this point, but I think it's most anecdotally it looks like a lot of a lot of absences and a lot of COVID either it's going to get much worse or it isn't and I think that's that's going to give us a pretty I think pretty unambiguous epidemiological signal. Unfortunately, we're going to have to wait for that and that's that's what's concerning. Knowing the age distribution of those kids will also help because you know if this is a cohort effect, it's going to be kids of a particular age. If this is a COVID effect, it's going to be older kids probably predominantly and that will be helpful when we get that data. Oh, so we don't have the data to know anything below the age of two matters as well. If COVID is able to cause more harm and unvaccinated small immune immature bodies. Yeah, it's it's it's upsetting frankly to to to see this happening to see this happening and he's no data. The lady said earlier in the video, we have no data from children. You can't do these experiments. They have a different immune response in a different immune system with a different immune markers yet. Now he's saying it's very upsetting to see that kids under two who can't have the vaccine yet are getting immune damage. Are you kidding me?

This is the worst presentation of disingenuous immunomythology I've seen in quite some time. It's only a month old. I watched it primarily for Anthony and Anthony's not really doing anything but filling in blanks for these people. Holy cow. This last one minute was nuts. So a particular age. If this is a COVID effect, it's going to be older kids probably predominantly and that will be helpful when we get that data and and the fact that kids aren't vaccinated below the age of two matters as well. If COVID is able to cause more harm in unvaccinated small immune immature bodies. Yeah, it's upsetting frankly to see this happening. It's not happening. You don't have data. We're going to talk a little biology here to understand why COVID might be suppressing our immune systems. We have to understand what T cells are. Here we go. T cells are a type of white blood cells that defend the body against foreign invaders. Some T cells regulate immune response. Others bind and kill cells, in fact, to the body. So it's cells infected by viruses. T cells can protect against reinfection by providing a durable memory of past invaders and finally T cells secrete chemicals that help B cells produce antibodies among other important functions. Not only that but they actually have to physically bind and recognize an antigen that the B cell is presenting in order for naive B cells that previously weren't activated by another virus to be activated. So if you're activating previous memory composed of memory B cells from other coronaviruses, then the T cells don't necessarily need to recognize the antigen that those present because those T cells can be activated directly by the antigen. Do you see what's happening here ladies and gentlemen? It's a little bit of a bait and switch happening but they've been doing that for a while now, right? Again, naive B cells being activated by the virus infection, naive B cells being activated by the transfection. These are different cells than memory B cells from previous infections including previous infections that you had before you took the shot should you have been lured into using the product. The response to the product is not just a naive response. It is a response that is composed of memory B cells that have overlapping activation to epitopes on that spike protein, whatever they are and naive B cells that would be activated in conjunction with T cell conjugation. That's what this is. Make sure you understand that it's much more complex than that. Let's see what Anthony says. Anthony, you have studied T cells. This is your backyard here. What does COVID-19 do to our T cells to cause immune dysregulation? It stimulates them in a very strong manner. You can look at T cell phenotypes and kind of gauge where they are on the life cycle. In SARS-CoV-2 or the disease we call COVID, it strongly stimulates a lot of T cells so much so that we see lymphocytopenia in the acute setting. That means you have low white blood cells, specifically low T cells. When they are activated, they go out into the periphery, which means outside of your blood. They strongly stimulate the T cells. When you stimulate cells to grow, they will age to an extent. There is a paradox with T cells as well. One would think with age, you have less activity. Actually, the opposite is true with T cells in terms of their killing activity. T cells, they must grow up. They encounter what they are going to kill, specifically usually cells infected with a virus.

Then they kill it. That takes a whole aging process. The paradox is that when the T cell is older, it is more likely to kill. You have young T cells that are not really killing, then you have older T cells that are killing. When COVID stimulates the T cells very strongly, the T cells, of course, are hyperactivated. Then they go out and they kill. Also, for some reason, the T cells that regulate our immunity and stop us from having autoimmunity, they change and actually license or actually say, okay, it is okay for you to be an autoimmune cell. Those are called hyperactivated T regulatory cells. COVID is causing all sorts of T cell. I think he must have made a mistake there because a hyperregulatory hyperactivated regulatory T cell would downregulate the T cells that it interfaces with because that is what regulatory T cells do. As I understand it, they down regulate T cells. Those are generally T cells that are produced through the gut pairs, patches, and they can originate there more. So like viral particles that you cough up in your mucus that are made during a respiratory infection that you swallow into your gut, get processed there, and can create the tolerance version of the antigen set and then the tolerance version of the antigen set and the antigen set that is met by dendritic cell T cell processing in the lungs meet in your body to ultimately regulate the crescendo and decrescendo of the immune response. So as I understand it, a hyperactivated regulatory T cell would down regulate, cause lymphocytopenia. He may have just made a mistake there. I'm not sure. Chaos as it were. So it's absolutely dysregulating T cells. So you sounded the earliest alarms about this hypothesis and received some pretty bad push back. And I'm curious, why do you think people were so angry with you and have they come around to this sort of hypothesis now? It's a Scooby Doo here. I sense a Scooby Doo. It's a Labley. It is much more likely. It's a Labley. I believe it is much more likely. It's a Labley. I think this is a Scooby Doo. Again, trying to say that you said this earlier and there was a lot of pushback. Why do you think there was pushback? He also said it earlier in the context of the shot. When he first came out, he came out into the context of the shot. Now he hasn't mentioned it anymore. He's talking about COVID as an entire set of 31 genes when he knows it has to be one particular one, most likely one particular toxin, one particular non-structural protein that's screwing around here. No speculation at all. No mechanism at all. No way of explaining what he says is going on is related to the virus as opposed to the transfection and why even though at some moment, I think he was a skeptic of the transfection. No mention of it 26 minutes in by anyone. They have only because you know our T cell memory did not bring about herd immunity. So unfortunately, what happened is we studied the T cells in a dish. See what's the problem here is is that the assumption being made and I know that most of my hardcore viewers see this but for the new people, the assumption being made is that the augmentation of your immune system by transfection through a product of Moderna or Pfizer plays no role in what they're observing. So listen to what he describes being observed. Only because you know our T cell memory did not bring about herd immunity. Our T cell memory did not bring about herd immunity. So there's a couple assumptions there but one of them being that T cell memory is made after infection. I think that's a pretty good assumption. The second one is is that T cell memory is not maladaptively augmented by the Pfizer and Moderna products. That's a giant assumption especially in light of what Anthony Leonardo was saying before he started to do TV broadcast and that kind of thing and kept focusing exclusively on the virus as he does here. So unfortunately what happened is we studied the T cells in a dish and said okay look the T cells are responding to viral proteins or antigens and we said therefore our T cell memory should be able to deal with SARS-CoV-2. The unfortunate thing about SARS-CoV-2 is it escapes T cells very very well. It down regulates the machinery that's involved with an infected cell presenting that it is infected to a T cell and then that is true it down regulates the expression of MHC but that's not that's not that's not that's not unique for SARS-CoV-2. There's supposed to be a compensatory mechanism of another cell type the natural killer cells but those are unfortunately dysregulated as well. So how are natural killer cells dysregulated by a virus that's in the lung? Like there's no mechanism here. Natural killer cells are likely dysregulated by the transfection if any. SARS-CoV-2 can very well escape our cellular immune memory as far as cytotoxic T cells go and well they're not memory cells the NK cells. So I knew that you know I knew because of the down regulation of that whole system that our immune memory that we were building from infections would very likely be insufficient. So he knew from one study in a dish that the immune memory would be insufficient but those I don't I don't I don't get it at all I don't I don't buy it at all I think he's a charlatan. And because of that I shouldn't say that you know I think he's mistaken I think what he's saying is dubious you know I don't agree with what he's saying a lot of people he's not a charlatan. A little bit of knowledge went into denial and started attacking me but I said there's not going to be a herd immunity to this you know the T cells aren't going to help us to this extent that you're thinking. And so what he's talking about here is exactly what Heert van den Bosch was saying but without a mechanism. Why is it that the T cells aren't going to work? What is it about this virus that you know is different such that it won't allow T cell memory to form or that previous T cell memory is not sufficient for a healthy person to overcome it? There's no data here. Not one. And whenever he does refer to data he says well we can't really know because the data is only in a dish or it's only in a mouse or we know we just looked at T cells in a dish. You can't use this for part of your argument and then not apply it to the rest of your argument. But that's what people like this do when they're on television trying to give a very specific message when they're on social media trying to give a very specific message which is designed to obfuscate the real biology. And I cannot stress enough how right now we need to sort out this very very quickly. We need to become masters of this biology so that we can see clearly when people are ignoring whole sections of the narrative whole sections of the known set of facts that in this case include millions of people being triple transfected for the viral protein and their immune systems being augmented in a way that is still poorly understood.

And unfortunately it's played out that way. Colin I'm going to get your take in there. In the last couple of months support for the idea of that COVID is creating immune dysregulation has become more popular. It seems I understand with COVID everything is changing. It is fast. It is moving. As we talked about the data is delayed. There's not enough. It does seem like there's a bit of this conversation similar to you know is COVID being transferred through droplets versus air transmission and there was this debate happening and there's a number of debates that are still happening here and I'm curious why do you think that's the case in terms of the the flak that Anthony was getting about about t-cells and sort of their impact and not necessarily giving that enough attention? Medical science moves slowly. It's very powerful in knowledge discovery. It gets it wrong sometimes but it is it moves slowly and as you pointed out COVID is not moving slowly it's moving very very rapidly and that difference in speed creates a lot of tension between those who would latch on to new observations. It's really disingenuous to say that medicine moves slowly and then to say that it's because medicine moves slowly. Medicine moves slowly because we've learned a lot in the last hundred years. Medicine moves slowly because the cutting edge is ragged. Medicine moves slowly because it's prudent and this is all a false sense. It's a false I don't know what you call it. It's a straw man argument or something. He's pretending that there's some inertia in the system when the inertia can only exist if you reset all knowledge in 2020 and say we know nothing about this virus. We know nothing about our immune response. We can't trust our immune response for this and instead we're going to put all of our trust into a transfection product from Moderna, Pfizer and the NIH and the American FDA. It's a very irrational set of choices that these people have made. A very irrational amount of doubling down on the choices that they've made while ignoring the potential consequences of those choices being that the transfection was dangerous interacting with previous infection and with future infections in a way that Pfizer, Moderna, the NIH and the U.S. FDA don't care, didn't check, don't want to worry about, don't want you to think about and it seems that these four people don't want you to think about it either. That's really dubious to who remain really yoke to conventional wisdom. That creates also a lot of conflict. It's hard for some people to unlearn. I think some of the most vigorous opponents to the idea that COVID spreads through the air are those whose careers are most invested in maintaining that its profits spread and that's difficult and this has played itself over and over again in history but there's one logical thing to point out here. A virus has two strategies broadly speaking in terms of being successful and I think we can agree that COVID is a pretty successful virus. It can mutate to change its appearance to avoid the immune system and COVID does that so this flu, every successful virus seems to be able to do that or most but it can also attack the immune system. That's another legitimate strategy. So to say that COVID is not causing immune harm is to say that somehow it's become this amazingly effective virus by only really using one of the two strategies available. There's sort of a Darwin approach to this would say well you know survival of the best fit and so if a virus is able to evolve to harm the immune system and I think that's what's happening in real time with Omicron. I'm not an immunologist but that's that's it looks plausible to me. It's I think it's harder to argue that no it couldn't be or shouldn't be or wouldn't be because this is this is how evolution works. Wow. If COVID wears down T cells and the lady in the bottom row and nodding in agreement evolution works to make the virus get meaner damage the immune system. Not talking at all about the RNA copying mechanisms the minimum replicant competent fraction of the infection not talking about anything other than the tv narrative of how viruses work and then adding on top of it that they get more dangerous. I mean if they could figure out a way to damage your immune system that makes perfect sense to me but I'm not an immunologist or a virologist. And does so increasingly with each re-infection where does that leave us in our fight against the virus? He said it again that's like the fifth time he's talking about it. Frankly I think you know although we wears down T cells and does so increasingly with each re-infection where does that leave us in our fight against the virus? It makes vaccination all the more important frankly. I'm going to pause here I'm going to lose the script and I'm going to reflect on the recurring feeling I have of impending doom. I think you know although we may disagree on some of the degree of these various different things we may disagree on all the more important than our fight against the virus. It makes vaccination all the more important frankly. I think you know although we may disagree on some of the degree of these various different things what it does tell us is you need a strong base of vaccination before you get that infection. And the stronger the more recent your infection is the more proximal it is to when you just got your last vaccination the better it is. And so one of the challenges that I think we're also experiencing is the fact that our childhood vaccinations for influenza are terrible. Our childhood uptake for COVID vaccination is terrible. And you need to give your immune system the tools to fight this virus in a way that minimizes the chance that it's going to use those evasive tools and turn your immune system on yourself. And vaccination is our best tool. Masking is our next best tool because as much as we would like those vaccines for RSV to be in the arms of our kids today they are not. And so the best thing to do is not get infected. And you can increase the chance of that not happening by wearing a mask. The second best thing is to give your immune system the tools it needs and that's to have a recent vaccination. That is spectacular. That is the most spectacular inversion of reality as I see it that I've heard in recent memory. Masking and vaccination is the way to go. We need a firm base of fully vaccinated individuals that are also willing to take those extra steps to make sure that viral spread is reduced to a minimum and that includes social distancing, masking when appropriate. Can you have some concern for your fellow man? We're all in this together. Vaccines and masks. I don't know who these people are but they're not on our side because not one time in this whole video have we talked about anything remotely related to reality on the ground. Before you get infected she's speaking to people in 2022 at the end of the third year of the pandemic where we have kind of come to agree that the pandemic started in 2019 somewhere. We're close to starting our fourth year of the pandemic and she says that it's important for you to be fully vaccinated before you get infection even though she knows we weren't testing anybody for infection in 2020 meaningfully.

And so the assumption is really good for Pfizer and that is that you haven't had an infection before and everything that we can measure after we transfect people must be due to new memories that the transfection is creating as opposed to old memories that the transfection is over activating. What? That's exactly the narrative she's laying down here with you should be fully vaccinated and a strong base of vaccination before you get infected that we should all agree that we all agree that we should avoid COVID infection and the way to do that is with vaccines. Shocking. Anthony I'm giving you the last word here. Will COVID become the quote-unquote forever virus? I think it is for now until we get better technology. We don't have the surveillance systems or capacity right now barring what China does to deal with it so we're going to need a leap of technology to deal with COVID. It is yeah pretty much the forever plague. Colin, Don, Alice and Anthony I want to thank you so much for taking your time. Of course you guys are always doing important work so thank you so much for taking the time and joining us on the program tonight. Thanks. Good night. Thank you.

The agenda. So the agenda. Interesting. It ain't over till it's over according to Tony Fauci. It ain't over till it's over but it's never over according to Tony Fauci. December 1st perspective in the New England Journal of Medicine after for 54 years a physician scientist and uh it ain't over because it's never over.

Just never over. It's never it's never gonna be over. That's not the point. So let me see. That was that one. Let's let's watch this for this is the this is the version the tv version of the narrative in America. The moment schools were closed teachers unions started to hold children's education hostage. We were doing what we thought was right. The damage we did to these children psychologically and in terms of their schooling will cost them life years. 5.53 million years of life loss for this generation. Of primary school kids. Correct. There are things that can be done about this. Okay now you may be wondering why are we still talking about the pandemic. I mean it's over right. I mean we're back in school. We're back going but I've got some questions for you before we even start and if you're at home thinking why are we talking about this again. I don't want to talk about it. Yeah you do. You need to really listen to what's going on now because it affects you. It affects your family. It affects a lot of what's going on from now forward that I think is really significant and I'm curious how many of you think the pandemic was handled really well. Raise your hand. God you're so judgmental. Okay how many of you think no not so much. I don't think it was handled really well. Okay so a lot of people don't. Okay so what is happening here. They're they are starting at a basis where they're putting everybody in the room on the same footing trying to make them feel comfortable with saying that they don't agree that the pandemic was handled correctly. Nowhere here in America are they ever going to question the existence of a pandemic virus. Nowhere here are they ever going to question the efficacy of a transfection. Nowhere here are they going to question anything about the TV narrative except for whether it was done well or not which is actually part of the TV narrative. It wasn't done well because Trump Trump screwed it up. Let me start with you. What's your name? My name is Jeff. Jeff you think it wasn't handled really well. That's correct. Why? I just think there were so many unknowns that maybe we could have taken a different approach and got to the bottom of more things. Granted it was an unprecedented event so there were so many variables but maybe we could have done things differently. Yeah do you think the messaging was good. The information that was coming out do you think that was handled well. I think it was there was so much combat about the information. There was such a black and white with a lot of. What is he going to say here? Don't forget he's saying so many unknowns. Granted it was an unprecedented event. A sort of black swan event right. Granted so they're planting assumptions in your head just like that last video where five or six times in a row he said so if COVID is suppressing your immune system so COVID suppression of the immune system so when people have immune system suppression after COVID so infection of COVID and suppresses your immune system what does that mean for we're doing the same thing here now right. He's about to say that they weren't really straightforward with things they didn't investigate the things they should have. Maybe this is a lab leak. So much combat about the information there is such a black and white with a lot of distrust so that maybe could have been handled differently. Was it politicized? It was definitely politicized yeah. How many of you agree with him that it was politicized? Okay now I'm really curious how you feel about that. We're talking about a virus. How the hell does a virus get politicized okay. It's politicized because there was money coming down the pipe. No money in politics. Money in politics. You're making that up. I am making it up right. Of course money and politics go together right. Who else? I go back to like thinking about the mask. If you chose to wear a mask or if you didn't choose to wear a mask it really told you where you stood politically. Yeah. How many of you still have questions about like what the hell happened? How come we've gone. If you chose to wear a mask or if you didn't. No a virus. How the hell does a virus get politicized okay. It's politicized because there was money coming down the pipe. No money in politics. Money in politics. You're making that up. All right let's go to the board. Survey said money in politics. Oh there it is. Nice work. All right. That's perfect. You guys are really smart audience. Yeah of course. Wow. Money and politics go together right. Who else? I go back to like thinking about the mask. If you chose to wear a mask or if you didn't choose to wear a mask it really told you where you stood politically. Oh masks were all political. Let's go to the board and see. Were masks all political? Oh wow you guys are so smart. It's like after three years you've figured it all out. Yeah. How many of you still have questions about like what the hell happened? How come we've gone generations without one and now boom here it is. Is it over? Is it coming back? When's the next one gonna be? I mean are those still questions you have in your head? How many of you think that this was no natural phenomenon like the flu or shingles or scurvy like a pirate would? Or is it would get? How many of you think this was not natural phenomenon? Somebody had to do something not intentionally otherwise. Here we go. Somebody had to do something for this to happen. Raise your hand if you think that. Oh he doesn't want to do it. Raise your hand if you think. Look he didn't want to do it. Watch. Watch the little psych here. Watch. Raise your hand if you think that. Oh no oh no I don't want to do it. Raise your hand if you think. Oh no look look. Oh it's terrible. Raise your hand if you think that. Oh I don't want to do it. I don't want to put my hand up. Raise your hand if you think this is to happen. Raise your hand. Right there right there. Okay raise your hand if you think no this is just kind of the natural order of things. People got sick. Okay so no conspiracy theorists among you. So no conspiracy theorists among you. Why everybody that didn't raise their hand for the second one is a conspiracy theorist then right. Very funny TV stuff here. Okay well we're going to try and answer all these questions and a whole lot more today so you can come away with some understanding. You say one big mistake happened the moment schools were closed. What was that? Yeah so you know the decision to close schools was made quickly and summarily across the country and when that decision was made you know in February around there I felt like it was a reasonable decision to make because the truth is that schools are normally a prime vector for spreading viruses. You all know that you have your kids in school they get sick and if someone's sick all the kids get sick and we also didn't so there was reason to believe that kids would get it in schools. That's not what happens when one kid gets sick they all get sick otherwise we would have like empty schools all the time right and whole classrooms would be empty that's just dumb. No way of knowing how sick kids were getting. Normally a prime vector for spreading viruses you all know that you have your kids in school they get sick and if someone's sick all the kids get sick and we also didn't so there was reasonably the kids would get it in schools and we had no way of knowing how sick kids were getting yet so arguably the decision to close schools was about keeping kids safe too because we thought they could get very sick from this virus but what I said no it was to keep hospitals from being overloaded. Time was it's okay to close schools but we need to make reopening schools our number one priority that school should be the last thing to close and the first thing to open and that's where I think things from my perspective got off the rails. But the minute they closed the schools they should have been planning how they're gonna get them reopened. Safely absolutely. And that didn't happen. That did not happen and even when we got enough information to know that transmission in schools wasn't as bad as we thought that there were ways to make schools safe even when vaccines came along for teachers to get vaccinated many many school districts didn't open and and I think that the unfortunate reality is that children historically have not been a priority. Children don't vote they don't make political contributions people were talking about politics and money and and and as a result we were seeing many communities having bars and restaurants and tattoo parlors open and schools closed and for me that was shameful. What what was incorrect early on? Well I think the first real hey Robert Redfield was the assumption that this was SARS like and it was immediately classified as being a SARS like pathogen and then that then defined the public health response because we had developed public health responses for both SARS and for a sister virus that we call MERS but it never learned how to go human to human so at the end of that original SARS outbreak there was less than a thousand people infected. This virus immediately was in my view and I'm a virologist by training it was the second most infectious virus that I know of. It was identified by 14 people in January and early February that had

There's where Rixey gets that from. It was the second most infectious virus that I know of. That is based on PCR mythology and conjecture beyond imagination it is pure narrative nonsense to say that this is the most infectious virus ever given what that's based on almost four or five months in the beginning with no data at all almost no testing at all and then a ramp up of testing to an extraordinarily high level unmonitored product qualities unmonitored product fidelity for two and a half years calling everybody COVID and then to say this is the most infectious virus ever it's just absurd it's a much more plausible explanation that a virus like this one was in the background and part of the swarm before the pandemic started either for a year or longer. We identified 14 people in January and early February that had this new virus called COVID and we evaluated 800 about a little over 800 contacts and we found that only two of those contacts actually had COVID so that would allow you to conclude this virus isn't very infectious like the Chinese were saying but the way that we evaluated those patients we evaluated them for symptoms we didn't evaluate them for infection we rapidly learned that this virus was nothing like SARS it was largely transmitted human to human very efficiently and largely asymptomatically so and so that asymptomatic transmission of the virus is part of the the essential an essential part of this narrative and the only way that they can justify that is to say that when we started testing and rolled out testing we kept finding virus and it was spreading as we tested because there's no pre-pandemic testing to show you that there was no SARS like virus there's no pre-pandemic testing for flu and other viruses that that is used consistently enough for us to know that there were no SARS viruses in the background worse yet worse yet is the fact that the PCR tests that were rolled out were likely rolled out with with conserved regions of the RNA dependent RNA polymerase and conserved regions of the end protein that would have significant overlap with other coronaviruses and at least with other SARS like viruses and these PCR primers used in those tests would produce mass quantities of false positives on the background of mild infection of other coronaviruses and if you weren't strict enough to do all three amplicons and then sequence afterward you would get a number of false positives especially if you didn't require the spike protein which is a lot of times what they didn't and again we can't go back and look at this because those tests are all gone those EU EUA products are all gone our whole public health response was triggered by that premature classification of this virus being SARS like okay shouldn't have jumped to that conclusion should the schools have been shut down I didn't believe at all I thought that what we should have done in general and you could go beyond schools the economy we should take a pause and as I heard some of your guests say already step back and say how do we continue this in a safe and responsible way I tried to argue that I thought more public health damage was going to be done to kids gates were 12 by closing the schools. Dr. Stokas let's quantify. I think Redfield's taken an easy way out there I think he's just running the narrative declaring it a SARS like virus was a mistake is kind of him giving a hat nod to the idea that we had this really well set up domino thing ready to go and when we said SARS viruses there went the dominoes and away we went and it we had too much momentum because we declared it a SARS like virus I think that's baloney it's a funny thing to say but I think that's that has nothing to do with it they they declared a pandemic with a big P and the who and CDC and the FDA and all of these forces internationally went to work. The impact of this how many years of life lost do you believe are in play here because of these primary school closures? Well so the study we did assume that we make no changes to rectify the damage we've done to kids right we lost a lot of people to COVID as everyone knows in the United States most of them were elderly and in fact on average what was lost per child per adult who died with COVID was about ten years of life because if you're 70 or 80 about ten years left we lost very few children to COVID in terms of them dying so most people thought if you looked at it in terms of lives right these kids are fine they're alive we only lost a few hundred of them and we lost millions of adults and millions of life years but the problem is and Dr. Redfield alluded to it that the damage we did to these children psychologically and in terms of their schooling will cost them life years later in life so for example what we did in the study was use third year third grade reading levels well it's the single best predictor of high school graduation so if a child doesn't read a grade level at third grade that 25 percent of them will not graduate a low-income child not reading in grade a grade level at third grade only one-third of them will not graduate why is that it's because our educational system up until third grade teaches kids to read and then from third grade on we expect them to read to be taught but what's gonna happen is that these early these children are not learning to read and high school dropout rates are gonna go up they already are going up I wonder if it has anything to do with the screen time I wonder if it has anything to do with being at home at the lockdown so again he's not saying anything that we don't disagree with here but he has it in the context of a fumbled response to a virus which is likely to be unnatural and a fumbled response of the rollout of the vaccine and other things which which led to the problems we're having now it's nobody's fault this is the TV narrative right now this is the status of the people that we're gonna see for Christmas that we're gonna see at New Year's we need to be in tune with these people so over the next few days we're just gonna keep trying to get in tune with them to understand where they are in Canada I do not envy you that first video that we watched is frightening this one in America you know the hints are there that people don't really believe it blah blah blah blah but Americans are lost is that they're watching TV and they're believing dr. Phil then they're lost and we're not gonna be able to get them away from that that's those aren't the people we're trying to save a junior college admissions are gonna go but it's nice to see and these children will have lower paying jobs and shorter lifespans and we tested that we did these two models I know I'm giving a lot of details here but the bottom line is what we estimated was that there's a 99% chance that more life years were lost by closing schools and by keeping them open these are life years not today but life years of the children today are gonna have shorter life expectancy and you quantify that to be how many years of life lost it's a model and there are ranges but um millions of years of life lost versus hundreds of thousands years of life loss that we lost let me start with you in the back ma'am I'm Collette Dryden from South Carolina uh-huh and I'm a retired teacher and I retired shortly before the pandemic not knowing it was coming and I can assure you that the teachers it's harder for them to teach remotely than it is I had many phone calls from my former colleagues during this time asking for help in teaching remotely they were trying very hard to keep their kids up-to-date they were not trying to get federal dollars they were not trying to and we're not politicians we're teachers you know I am a teacher advocate the teachers might not have been trying to get federal dollars but the school districts were trying to get federal dollars the school districts were offered millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of dollars and they definitely took it they took it and they bought Chromebooks they put up barriers they changed the way that the door entrances were they did all kinds of things make no mistake about it these all of these schools took money and they had to take money and when they took the money it had strings they needed to put forth a COVID plan that included masking and social distancing and lines and then that had plan had to be approved before they were gonna get those funds she's purposefully saying how we weren't trying to get the teachers may have very well not have gotten any of the money so no the teachers weren't trying to get federal funds but the school districts definitely were get to buy materials for their schools and I just fear that they're ever going to do the math and figure out what you're making an hour for the time you put in in the classroom so God bless you for the things you do in the classroom she's retired we're not talking about the rank-and-file we're talking about the politics that go above it what do you want to add well yeah I mean I want to say you know speaking as a physician I think teaching is the most noble profession at all of all I mean I want to make be clear about that I mean they they do God's work they they do it for way less money and we need them and we don't we don't value them enough so I I want to be very clear about that I also think they're essential workers and I think we have to recognize that I mean I was called an essential workers a physician we were given PPE teachers should have absolutely been given PPE they could have been in the classroom safe and no one certainly not I am saying they should have gone into an unsafe situation we should have made it safe for them as soon as possible then I want to respond to the big mama problem as you called it because that that's a real thing and I don't think we should take that lightly we need to protect big mama and we need to help her child or grandchild get an education we have to be able to try to do both if we sat down with parents and said you know your children's schooling is something because I know big mama wants her a grandchild or a child to get a good education I know she wants that and she does and if you don't mind just a quick response I think you hit the nail right on the head and the fact that we were not prepared to open schools up because it's almost like you're asking teachers to go into an unsafe environment a little mini super spreader right right where these kids see the the the whole narrative here is that there was a virus there was a danger and then we didn't know what to do about it people didn't communicate correctly so this is just there was a virus there was a virus and people made a mistake let's listen to what Russell Brand is gonna tell us about transhumanism microplastics falling down from the sky like Christmas snow making us all nice and impotent and reducing our testosterone and turning us into limp neutered men the good news is though you'll soon be able to buy babies from factories welcome to planet Earth everyone I'm trying to figure out what hello there you six million trying to figure out what Russell Brand's up to I'm trying to find out what he does and why he's doing it what these symbols are all about what his symbolism is with his pink hats and his very effeminate clothes that he wears half the time what is he pushing here I think I figured it out I think that Russell Brand's job is to push the idea that transhumanism is coming and we don't want it he's not ever going to question whether or not transhumanism is possible he's not going to question whether or not they're exaggerating their possibilities of AI and machine learning and genetic manipulation and gain-of-function viruses instead he's perpetuating that narrative making sure that people see see his skepticism as evidence that obviously these people are planning to do it and I agree with Russell I think that's crazy when Russell should be saying that none of this is even possible and these people are grossly overstating their hand because they want you to fall into a state of helplessness now I've got some truth for you microplastics are everywhere and they're ruining your ability to procreate Merry Christmas researchers in Auckland have used advanced chemical analysis to calculate the amount of micro plastic particles falling from the sky over the city equating it to three million plastic bottles each year while plastic waste is generally understood to be widespread across the land and seas scientists have recently started to drill into the ways it can get swept up into the air to travel far and wide stories just keep getting worse and worse don't they well at least it doesn't lower your testosterone and turn you into a eunuch oh it does that as well a 2021 study shows that chemicals known as phallates a chemical element of micro plastics have been linked to health problems that have been detected in food from popular chains McDonald's Burger King Pizza Hut Domino's Taco Bell and Chipotle I wonder if these plastics are in any way connected to this Shanna Swan professor of environmental medicine and public health at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City documented how average sperm counts among Western men have more than halved in the past years do you ever feel there's a broad globalist project to neuter and neutralize people and their reproductivity to make males into kind of eunuchs and create a world where people can't fight back and resist let me know in the chat let me know in the comments to turn everything into a commodity to grow meat in laboratories to get people to eat insects and surely they would never get people to buy babies from a factory her research reveals that phallates lower testosterone and so have the strongest influences on the male side for example diminishing sperm count there's an onslaught on nature almost our psychic nature and our biological nature is being attacked by a system that sees us primarily as customers and doesn't want us to have any vitality a lot of what he says is truth remember that's why this is this is very very impressive stuff but the part about transhumanism that he's gonna tell us in a few minutes is all imaginary it's all nonsense yes we could do it but nobody's gonna do it it's not gonna happen it's not gonna be the solution for the problem that he's presenting here at the beginning of the video but what he wants you to do is draw that conclusion he wants you to draw the conclusion that the people that are in control of the world have this all-powerful nature are way ahead of us haven't even revealed all the technologies that they have and we are basically gonna be forced to adopt this stuff because that's what they're doing he just wants to say no no and he's a very good actor in this way presenting you this it's not a possibility these are not possibilities these are gross over exaggerations of the potential for human technology to take over life artificial life is possible it will always be garbage artificial viruses are possible but they're always going to be garbage these things are poor approximations of nature's best-sought solutions and our biotechnology as it stands right now is at best trying to mimic phenomenon that we see in nature and then use them for our own benefit but the idea that we're going to completely be able to work as a carpenter with the human genome in the future is absurd from this perspective but it is something that I believe that the people who promote Russell Brandt want you to believe that transhumanism is real it's possible and it's coming faster than you would ever dream liberty or ability to fight back if you follow the curve from 2017 sperm decline meta analysis it predicts that by 2045 we will have a median sperm count of zero that's the median so some people might have one sperm it's specular and it also predicts that we'll have a huge plethora of autism then it'll also predict that we have a huge plethora of of autoimmune disease and it predicts all kinds of things if to extrapolate but there is also no evidence that is tapering off this means that most couples may have to use assisted reproduction of course it could be argued that assisted reproduction creates yet another industry in terms another natural resource and process into something that can be profitable in 2017 scientists created a bio bag that functioned as an artificial womb our way back in the bio bag we earlier in this decade we created a technology that could take a single drop of blood and diagnose all of the possible genetic side effects genetic diseases and possible future diseases that you would have out of one drop of blood it was called the ranos I think Russell Brandt's main job is to make you believe that transhumanism is possible and that he's resisting it when in reality most of what transhumanism is is a mythology designed to make you feel helpless designed to make you question the sacredness of your own body question your own stewardship over your body and that of your children that's what this is all about ladies and gentlemen that's what this is all about there was a there was a discussion with what with Tim truth and debunk the funk I think we're gonna have to do a separate video on that one unfortunately for my friend Tim he dropped the ball a couple times pretty severely and that's gonna be something that that debunked the funk is gonna be able to use for a while with clips and stuff but we'll go through it and and try to illustrate the mistakes that he made and and again I can't stress enough what I said in the Christine Massey video we are going to need to understand this biology backwards and forwards better than they do in order for us to win and win means that we dispel this mythology that there was a severe corona virus infection which traveled the world in an infectious form second only to measles and is still with us today we need to reevaluate where we are we need to try and wake up one person at a time and we need to learn this biology backwards and forwards so that we can discuss it efficiently as we move into 2023 the fourth year of this debacle the fourth year where we have inverted our rights and we have now to request privileges to come this is a very very bad situation that we're in and so I can't stress enough it ain't over till it's over ladies and gentlemen it ain't over until it's over this has just been an office hours you know office hours aren't really special but they're fun because I get to see you I get to read that chat and I have been reading it we'll do we'll do another one tomorrow I'll see you guys tomorrow as well and we're gonna have a fire outside over the weekend for the holiday and the fire hopefully we'll have some people that will come randomly visit us you're very welcome for the stream Harold thanks very much guys for joining me and I will see you again soon you