SHOW 73 TRANSCRIPTS

PDF:

TEXT:

Dr. Paul  0:31  
Dr. Paul, here your host for against the wind doctors in science under fire. In today's show, I'm interviewing Dr. Merrill NASS. She had a day long hearing with the Maine Medical Board. She's not alone, folks, doctors across the country are facing medical boards that are trying to take their licenses, because they're treating patients with COVID, who have been prescribed ivermectin, or hydroxychloroquine. Or they've spoken in a way about the COVID vaccine that is not positive. The Federation of medical boards has made a call and a ruling to all state medical boards that these doctors should lose their licenses. So she's not alone. But she is a giant and a pioneer. And she's facing her medical board right there in Maine. And then Josh gets Gao covers a leak from the Israeli Ministry of Health on COVID safety data, updates us on what's going on in the world of censorship. And then he does an analysis of the Pfizer trial data, powerful stuff. Enjoy the show.

Dr. Paul, coming to you from the heart. My word for today is forgiveness. I think we've all done things at one time or another, where we kind of know we need forgiveness. I know I certainly have done plenty. And you know if there's someone I need to forgive, and I don't I keep myself in bondage. So I actually had this experience with the medical board, where I felt like I was so wrong. And I was so justified in how wrong they was that I just finally realized that I was not forgiving whatever it was that I needed to forgive so that I could be free. When it comes to forgiveness, I think the person I've had the hardest time forgiving as myself is beat yourself up sometimes that you've you could have done it better, or how could I have hurt that person in that way. But when you can forgive yourself when I can forgive myself, that's helping a lot of people also love if you want to call it God's love or light or just plain old good old love given freely in forgiveness of whatever you need to forgive. And you fill that space with love and light. It's a beautiful thing. And it's completely liberating. So I just wanted to share that and understand that. We're all on this journey together. We're on this earth, this life this experience. And we need more unity. We need more forgiveness and we need more love. Thank you. Welcome Dr. Merrill Nast two against the wind. It's so great to have you back on the show.

Dr. Meryl Nass, MD  3:35  
It's lovely to see you again. Pull. Dr. NASS

Dr. Paul  3:38  
is board certified in internal medicine. You have expertise in bioterrorism Gulf War Syndrome, vaccine safety vaccine mandates. You write amazing blogs on substack. Wow, once I found you you have a enormous wealth of information and knowledge. But I think today we're going to focus on what happened yesterday. Maybe you can give the viewers a little background into what led up to the fact that you spent a day being grilled by the Maine Medical Board yesterday.

Dr. Meryl Nass, MD  4:06  
Yes, so I had been a doctor with no complaints, no malpractice you know, I was flying high, feeling invulnerable. And then all of a sudden, in four months last year, between October and through December, January, I got four complaints from strangers to people who had never met me didn't know me and saw something I said on the internet decided it was misinformation and reported me to the board. A doctor I'd never met a midwife I'd never met who I had treated each of their patients one with hydroxychloroquine, one with ivermectin and they complained that I was using inappropriate medications. And then I had made a complaint to the board myself which they decided to turn into a complaint to get my license and that was I told them I that I had been forced to lie to a pharmacist about a diagnosis because the Medical Board and the pharmacy board had made it had frightened the pharmacists away from dispensing hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. So if you wrote a prescription for those drugs, the pharmacists had been instructed to ask you the reason. And if you said COVID, they shouldn't dispense it. But nobody had ever written that down and black and white as a rule of law and executive order anything else. It was all whispered. And so pharmacists, and doctors have been warned that these might be dangerous if given access doses. But if you write a prescription for the right dose, they're perfectly safe drugs. And that was the government fooled us and the FDA fooled us the FDA tried to make doctors and patients think that you couldn't prescribe hydroxychloroquine because they had issued and then withdrawn an emergency use authorization for it. What the FDA deliberately misconstrued was the fact that the EUA had nothing to do with any drug, traveling through drugstores, and doctors writing prescriptions and only related to some donated tablets that the federal government had put into the national strategic stockpile. And so it had no nothing whatsoever to do with doctors writing prescriptions. But doctors were made to think it did. And so they stopped writing the prescriptions and the pharmacist stopped dispensing. And patients were dying from COVID. So this was a disaster. And I did my best to bring it into the open, you know, I gave talks, wrote lots of articles about it. And about the malfeasance that was associated with this, I mean, fake fabricated articles in medical journals to try to stop the use of hydroxychloroquine. And other illegal activities were carried on to stop this and to keep the pandemic going. Anyway, as a result of this, I was at Target.

Dr. Paul  7:11  
Yeah, that whole history I lived it as well. I mean, here in Oregon, you could not write well, you could write it but most of the time, it would not be filled if you tried to write for those those drugs. And yet, you know, I grew up in Africa, and people who've practiced in Africa know that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine have been used for decades, have an incredible safety record, right. And doctors, almost a, you might know this statistic better than I but we prescribed quote off label. In other words, that drug gets, gets approved for one use, but you once it's approved, you can use it for other uses, that makes sense.

Dr. Meryl Nass, MD  7:47  
And 20 to 40% of all prescriptions are for off label uses. Well, the staff at my board apparently didn't know that. So they were first trying to get me on off label prescribing. They subsequently dropped that charge. They had me on a lot of charges for misinformation, they subsequently read the First Amendment dropped all those charges. They they were gonna get me on my speech against the vaccine. But then they found out it was all accurate. They dropped those charges. So then they were left, they still wanted to you know, they'd already taken my license. They'd already directed me that I had to go see a neuropsychologist and get testing for cognitive and mental illness. And they didn't let that go.

Dr. Paul  8:34  
Wow. Can you back up a little bit. I forgotten that they emergency took your license?

Dr. Meryl Nass, MD  8:39  
Yes, I was immediately suspended. The first time they heard about me officially, was on January 11. And they suspended me as an immediate danger to the public without a single patient complaint with no prior board actions with nothing because of misinformation.

Dr. Paul  8:57  
Wow. And so are you still without a license at this time?

Dr. Meryl Nass, MD  9:02  
Yes. And so yesterday, they had the opportunity because we filed the motion, saying well, you've dropped most of the charges against her. How about, you know, dismissing this whole case? And they said no. And we said, How about dismissing the order to have a neuro psych evaluation? They said no. And they're basing their whole case now on the fact that, you know, I didn't get assigned informed consent for writing a prescription. Do you get assigned informed consent to write a prescription? I don't think so. I've never

Dr. Paul  9:35  
heard of that. So, so it's gonna boil down to they can just at will make a charge that you're mentally impaired or a substance user with no evidence. I mean,

Dr. Meryl Nass, MD  9:50  
yes. Apparently in Maine, they think they can. And what the what the statute is in Maine is that the board does have the right to demand medical or psychological evaluation of a doctor at any time. So that is that we have a statute that says that. However, of course, it was assumed that they weren't going to be using that, right, and, you know, willy nilly. And the reason they had to order that exam was because they didn't have anything else to justify an immediate suspension. And they couldn't make an example of me, unless they did an immediate suspension. They couldn't the case had they not immediately suspended me. All of the records, the whole story would have been confidential. But they wanted it in the national news. I was in Newsweek, I was in the San Francisco Chronicle and the Miami Herald and every the hill, they all had articles about this terrible doctor who lost their license for spreading misinformation.

Dr. Paul  10:49  
Wow. Did they by chance, tell you that you had to use their person to do this? Yes. Mental health evaluation?

Dr. Meryl Nass, MD  11:00  
Well, you know, the thing about it is they pretend that this is a real, you know, that they present the case, they discuss it, and then they vote. But the nine page letter about all the terrible things I had done was already written before they had the meeting. And the appointment with the neuropsychologist had already been made. So at the end of their meeting, they voted and they handed me the appointment and and said, bring $2,100 with you when you go on, you know, and this was February 1, att, supposedly have an appointment for February 1, that they had made on John before January 11. And these are all the charges against you. So literally, you know, the board members didn't know much about my case, they had been told by the Board staff, and there's three attorneys on the board stuff who should have known better? No, so my attorneys told me no, you don't do this, because it's their person that you already know what the answer is going to be. And we had to file a lawsuit because of that main statute, giving them the right, we filed a lawsuit, and then it was arranged between the attorneys that until, you know the lawsuit was resolved, they would not demand that I go to a neuropsychologist and pay for it myself.

Dr. Paul  12:19  
That was a good strategy. So I was able to watch a little bit of your trial yesterday in between patient visits, and oh, my gosh, I mean, I've been there, I've been in that hot seat, you are so calm and collected. And, and you know, they just everything that you your attorney, and the two of you were trying to put on the table, they would try to silence you and move on to all they had was this well, mental impairment and substance use and you're able to say, I mean, your answers were amazing. I know they didn't quite finish. So where does this go from here?

Dr. Meryl Nass, MD  12:51  
Well, I have another date for an eight hour day on October 25. And then after that their next date for a hearing is the end of January, they decided to take three months. So I don't know why. I think they will roll over by then. And as far as I'm concerned, the only question is whether I'm going to get to sue them individually. For malfeasance. Obviously, these people are being paid members of the board and the board staff are paid by the state to conduct proper evaluations and they have one job and that is to keep the patients of Maine safe. And since there were no patient complaints are no allegations that I harmed anyone. This had nothing to do with what their sole mission is. And so I think it's important to challenge them individually and try to get some damn, my reputation was ruined. I had to close down my business. My patients have been without a doctor for nine months. And I think we should go after damages for that.

Dr. Paul  14:04  
We have a real problem with medical boards. What do you think is motivating medical boards to clearly target doctors like yourself who are trying to speak the truth about what's going on with the whole COVID thing? I mean, you have such expertise in bioterrorism, and and, you know, COVID and vaccines and mandates. What what's behind all this because you're not alone. There have been others in multiple states, others of us undergoing, you know, board attacks from the board that have no no patient complaints, they have no basis.

Dr. Meryl Nass, MD  14:45  
Okay, so you're asking me a really large question, which is basically what's going on in the world right now. And one of the many mechanics through which it can happen is the suppression of doctors, right? If you're going to try to basically take over the World using pandemics as a guise to do so, because we have emergency laws that can be pulled into play. And they can supersede our normal law and order. If you can designate a medical emergency, you know that medical emergencies are therefore the ideal means for people who want more power, control money, etc. More surveillance. Okay, so, in order to do that you need to gain control of the entire medical establishment. Now, you know, what we already know is that the kinds of personalities who go into these organizations, these nonprofit organizations like the American Board of Internal Medicine, the AMA, the Federation of State medical boards, if you get to the top of that organization, you earn about a million dollars a year, if you get to the top of the AMA, you're getting about $3 million a year, most doctors don't get the kind of money. So and how do they get it? They get it by essentially offering their services to pharmaceutical companies or other companies or foundations for services. And so, the Federation of State medical boards is a nonprofit, it can be sued. And the chairman of my medical board who slept through half the meeting yesterday, half the hearing, she ran for and what and one ad to become a member of the Board of Trustees of the Federation of State medical boards. Interesting, okay. And they presumably have a contract to push out this business about misinformation and speaking negatively about vaccines in public. So they since last summer, summer, a year ago, they have been telling their members of boards that it's their responsibility to go after doctors who use ivermectin hydroxychloroquine. You know, say anything negative about vaccines, spread misinformation and and to nonprofit organizations have sprung up. The question is who paid for this? One of them is called no license for disinformation. And its sole purpose is to take away the licenses of doctors like you and me who are trying to tell the truth and treat patients for COVID. Wow. Look, there's been a lot of money, a lot of thought a lot of time put into this. I think it cost many billions of dollars to put all the right chess pieces in place. The person who was the head of the AMA last year, making it making his money, as President, it was is a GP from South Carolina named Harmon, he was involved in pushing the anthrax vaccine mandates 20 years ago. So you see, we know who he is, we know that he made general in the National Guard as a flight surgeon, not as a pilot, you know, he made general because he got, you know, managed to punish so many people for refusing to take anthrax vaccine. So they got him in the AMA, you know, and they've got, you know, they've got these shills and these other organizations. And most of these organizations have foundations, and they can hide money coming in through the foundations. So anyway, that's the medical establishment now, in government. I think a lot of people were fooled, they were told initially, you know, they were told this is the science, you know, these drugs don't work, blah, blah, blah. Now, you can only do that if you control the major medical journals, and the major media, mainstream media. Well, the people who want more power and control gained control of all of those things they had to have at first. And so the message, you know, you It's only if you go to alternative media that you can find out about these drugs, even though there are over 300 studies on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for COVID. There's about 100 studies on ivermectin. So the information is there, but it's you have to know where to look. You're not going to find it. Any of the usual places. Yeah.

Anyway, this is this is what happened. And I think people were told initially that these drugs were harmful and they believed it. And the NIH took over guidelines. NIH is not a guidelines agency. CDC is supposed to issue guidelines, not NIH. But I guess Fauci didn't trust anyone else to do it right. So that the NIH under Fauci his deputies took over they appointed a completely conflicted financially conflicted group of experts who would rubber stamp the guidelines? No ivermectin, no hydroxychloroquine remdesivir. vaccines. That's it. Anyway, that's those are the mechanisms by which it was done now who's doing it who put the money in? How is it all happening? The United States government admits on its own us gov.gov website, that it's already spent $3.95 trillion on the COVID. Response. Wow. 3.9 5 trillion. So if you want to know, where did the money come from? Unfortunately, it came from us.

Dr. Paul  20:35  
Wow. It's, it's highway robbery here. Wow. Well, I want to wish you the best in your ongoing battle and fight with the board, you should prevail. And that will be a message across the bow of medical boards to quit making things up and taking anonymous complaints that aren't patient complaints. Or getting good. We have a job on our hands to expose the truth. It feels like, you know, people like you who are writing really good content on substack. Is there. Is there other other sources you would recommend people go to for the truth? I mean, for the real information, the real science?

Dr. Meryl Nass, MD  21:20  
Sure, um, so if you go to my substack, which is Merrill nast.substack.com, there are probably 20 or 30. Other sub stacks that I recommend. There are many websites, I mean, Mercola, he was knocked offline recently, but he's back, but you have to look for him. There are many others, you know, children's health defense, of course, is trying to produce as much honest, this they fact check everything very carefully. So there are, you know, many sites, and we don't all conspire with each other. You know, I don't talk to Bobby Kennedy and Joe Mercola. So we get our story straight the way the government is doing with other governments and with state governments, but you'll often find we draw the same conclusions. Yeah. And I would say just, you know, read broadly, it's, um, you know, I just happen to be lucky, I lucked out that I had the right background to understand, you know, where the COVID came from, how it might have been developed. You know, I knew about bioterrorism I already thought the anthrax vaccine mandates, so I had a lot of experience with medical law. And I knew what the FDA had to do what they didn't do with these vaccines that they were required to do. You know, I understood what was illegal because I'd already been through it before. And I don't know, I was just put on the planet at this time to be able to pick through a lot of this stuff. And I'm, I'm grateful for everybody's support, and, and my readership, and I'm grateful for you and children's health defense for helping to spread the word as to what's going on. We can fix this. I mean, this is a small number of people trying to gain enormous power over us. But there's 8 billion people who don't want it. We don't want to be slaves. We like our Constitution, our Bill of Rights. We want to keep them I mean, we'd like to start using them again. Yeah. And

Dr. Paul  23:20  
so with that thought in mind, it may be your closing thoughts on how do we resist the inevitable next pandemic?

Dr. Meryl Nass, MD  23:30  
So, okay, so we've had, there are at least three that I think we're made in labs, so sorry, SARS, to the first COVID. I think Omicron, which didn't derive from any of the earlier variants also came from a lab. It might have been for good or bad, we don't know. And the monkey pox looks like it also was derived from a lab. So we've had three and right now basically, we're over all of them. They're not, they're killing very, very few people, very few people are getting very sick. And the reason for that is the biological warfare specialists don't know how anything any of these things are going to do in the real world, unless they test them in large populations, find out how they spread and find out how they mutate in a lab, you don't know what's going to be deadly or not. And so they've had really three duds the first one wasn't a complete dud, it killed a lot of people made a lot of people sick, but you know, now it's basically nothing, it's a flow and the other two were duds. I, the next one or the next to the next three are probably you know, likely to be duds again, plus, the other side is going to be very nervous about pushing out more lab grown organisms, because now we know what to look for. You know, if if they were grown up in a humanized mouse we're gonna that's the first thing we're looking for. Right if they have the human ace two receptor or if they have a fear and cleavage site If that, you know, that's so their options are limited. I think they're gonna go more for for this food, controlling food and trying to starve people out controlling oil and energy. I think that's the next thing. And I believe that they've caused a lot of people to be on their side using a fake narrative about climate change and the destruction of the natural world. So and the reason I believe that is because Fauci and Peter days, both use that narrative in their writings and in their speeches. So the way they've tried to frame this is the reason we're having pandemics is because people are living too close to nature, and people are caught and climate change is causing us to be closer to nature for some reason. And so it's all our fault. It's the fault of humans that we have pandemics. And if we had less humans, then the natural world could prosper. And so with the humans that are left now, where that's going, I don't know. But we've already had Ezekiel Emanuel, who the brother of Rahm Emanuel, who was the Chief of Staff of Obama. Rahm was, I think Mayor of Chicago, he ran he had been a congressman Zeke started out as a cancer doctor, but he became an ethical doctor, an ethicist. He pushed the mandates on colleges and on private healthcare businesses last year. That's been admitted. That's in my substack. Yesterday, there's two Washington Post articles about that. He is proud of having forced almost all the college students in America to have to get this dangerous vaccine. Anyway, Zeke published a paper saying that everybody should die, they should go for euthanasia at age 75. And not be a burden on the rest of the population. It's a very famous article. He wrote it about 10 years ago. Unfortunately, these people are you Genesis and self admitted. And we have to realize that the solutions they're providing us are not really solutions. It's just some crazy idea that they have, and they're trying to push it on the rest of the world. They got some very wealthy people backing them. Yeah.

Dr. Paul  27:25  
Well, I've been saying for a long time, people, we got to turn off the television, the mainstream media, because it's all complete, almost all propaganda, it and you've got to start looking for good sources of information. And if you're new to this, if you're watching going, what, then that's just listen to your heart and your gut. It's a signal, you need to get more information, and you have to go to good good sources. Dr. Merrill Nast, you are such a blessing to the planet to be here at this time, for such a time as this, stay strong. Folks, go read her substack. And I'll let you have the last word for our viewers.

Dr. Meryl Nass, MD  28:06  
You know, with everything falling apart, we can actually not using their terminology of build back better, but  we can build something that works for people, and not for corporations, not for the oligarchs, you know that this, unfortunately, the people who are doing this to us now have downgraded the education systems, downgraded our legal systems, our judiciary, our police, you know, downgraded the culture of business and how you take care of your employees, which is why nobody wants to go back to work anymore. All of us and our food supply, they filled it with chemicals, and, and our air and water. Well, we can now the I mean, it's a time of turmoil, but we can make the changes that we need. We weren't living and we haven't been living in a good situation. And this is going to be it. It's time to start. You don't comply with these mandates. You don't go along, you start learning how to garden, you start learning how to treat people, as equals with great respect. And, you know, what do our kids need to learn? Let's teach them that. You know, we know how to do this better. They've been trying to drag us down. Let's build ourselves up. And it turns out to be an opportunity in the end, although a painful one as we go through it.

Dr. Paul  29:34  
Oh, so well put. Thank you for that, folks. We have an incredible natural immune system, and you boost it by doing exactly what Dr. Nasser was talking about. It's clean, filtered water, it's healthy organic food, you know, and it's avoiding toxins that are around us everywhere, and really taking back control of our lives on a small scale, but then as smaller communities develop. We don't We have to be a part of this massive entity that's destroying our health.

Dr. Meryl Nass, MD  30:05  
That's right. A little exercise and happy thoughts, good thoughts. Don't let the fear get you down. That's what they're trying to do. They're trying to make you fearful. And that's what the whole media thing is about. And just face it, you know, face it, there are people who are trying to basically take over all the important structures of the world, but they're not going to succeed. And you know, unless we hand it to them, and we don't have to. Yeah. So you face that you face How bad can get? And then you get over it. You realize, okay, this is what I have to do. I got to fight them. Yeah, I got to build a better world and a better life. Thank you.

Dr. Paul  30:46  
Yeah. Thank you so much, Dr. NASS, viewers, please start looking for the best information out there. And you can start with Dr. Merrill nases substack It was a pleasure to have you on we're gonna have to do this again, you threw a lot at our viewers today. So we're gonna have to come back and revisit some in the future, all the best.

Dr. Meryl Nass, MD  31:05  
Great, thank you. Bye, bye. Bye bye.

Dr. Paul  31:14  
Welcome back to against the wind. Josh gets Gao it's such a privilege and honor to have you back. Thank you, thank you. Some of our viewers may not know but you have a PhD, you have training in both sociology and criminology, you're teaching right now, at the Hebrew University. They're in Israel actually coming to us from Israel, folks. We're going to cover the Israeli leak, what it means the CDC and the analysis or lack of analysis of bears, and then you're ready to present a deep dive into the Pfizer data, you are also a prolific researcher and writer. So I'm really looking forward to this interview?

Joshua Gertzkow  31:51  
Well, you know, it's been a while since we talked, the first time that I ever came on to talk with you was about this analysis that I had done that eventually was published in late September of 2021. This was basically my analysis of the various data using the CDC is own methodology that they use in order to detect safety signals. Okay. And one of the key things that they use the is called the P R R, okay. It's a proportional reporting ratio.

Dr. Paul  32:27  
Okay. Is that what you

Joshua Gertzkow  32:29  
see on the screen here, what you see on the screen here is something it's kind of similar, but it's basically is similar idea, the PRR is, you have a new vaccine, and you want to know is there you get all these reports to various but how do you know, you know, Okay, anybody can report anything? So how do you know? Well, you look, you say, Okay, well, what proportion of the reports are for myocarditis compared to another vaccine that we believe to be safe, like flu vaccine, for example? Okay. And if you see that there's a larger proportion reported for this symptom than in other vaccines, then it's a safety signal, and then you it should prompt investigation. Okay, if nothing else, you need to look at it, right. And so this is called a safety signal. And this is standard pharmacovigilance. It's like, you know, it's like the most basic thing. Go ahead. What were you saying?

Dr. Paul  33:27  
This looks like a powerful signal. And this was back in September 2021. Those numbers in red are? How many times more frequent, right? Like if it was two times that would be 200%.

Joshua Gertzkow  33:41  
II? Well, yeah, actually, that's right. And here, it's the method I'm using. And this, this table is a little bit different. But basically, because in the with the other method, you don't control for the number of vaccine doses. But since we know pretty much how much vaccine doses are given out, we can normalize by vaccine dose and get a more precise

Dr. Paul  34:02  
signal. Yeah. Okay. I see what you mean. It does depend on how many are given. But I've seen something recently where the total number of vaccines given COVID vaccines in the world now matches the total number of all other vaccines given or was it just the flu given?

Joshua Gertzkow  34:22  
I don't know. I didn't, I didn't hear that. I'd be very surprised by that. Just because maybe in the in the in one year or two years, but if you I mean, I don't know how far back that statement is, is for. But it may be it may be equal to every other vaccine that's given in the same year. It might very well be that I would believe. Okay. Anyway. So I so so so I said this to children's health defense, I said, Why aren't they why I could not make this go away. Right? You can't if the data is shouting from the data. So I said, Let's, hey, let's do a Freedom of Information Act request. Because because they had published in January of 2021. They have published a via sorry, by the way, my analysis was confirmed by a paper that was published totally independently and frontiers in public health in February of 2022. Where if you looked at both FERS and the European system and found basically the same thing, just these huge safety signals, he doesn't use that term here. But they're, they're there. They're all over what he's showing. So to get back to this January 2021, the date the CDC has this document where they say exactly what they're going to do and or not exactly, but basically spell out what they're going to do to analyze or monitor sorry, monitor bears for safety signals. Okay, they lay this out. And so we said, Well, okay, let's see this. You guys said, every week, you're going to be producing tables for based on fares. Let's see what you got. One thing, it took us a while, but eventually we got the answer from them. And what was the answer? Oh, no, sorry. We're not doing this. Okay. And I wrote a series of articles about this on my substack. Okay. This blog that I have, where basically the CC comes back and says, we don't we didn't do this. Talk to the FDA. And then Senator Johnson wrote a letter to the CDC saying, Hey, you got some splaining. To do, right? What what, how is it that you said you were going to do this data monitoring and you never did it? And then they came back? And they said, well, first they said, well, actually, we have been doing it. We did do that. And that came from John Sue, right? He's the head of the affairs team at the CDC. He said we weren't doing it. And then they came back a few weeks later, this was all through a reporter at at Epoch Times, who was kind of got them into a kind of dialogue about this. And then later they reported saying, no, actually, we didn't do it. But we started doing it. On March 23. Okay, that was the first time that they said they get from late March until until late July. They did some so many prs? Yes. 20. No, 2022 this year?

Dr. Paul  37:31  
Yeah. Oh, they're finally getting around to it

Joshua Gertzkow  37:33  
this year, finally getting around to it, which by the way, it turns out that and I'm going to this is going to be okay. That was March 23. was the day after the legal person at the legal team at sea. Children's Health defense are amazing. Okay. And they nudge them. They wrote, Hey, what's up with our FOIA requests on March 22, she sent that email to them and it just lo and behold, they started their their safety monitoring the day after, and there was another email right around that same time, maybe even the same day from another researcher about this. So anyway. So

Dr. Paul  38:15  
have you I think we should pivot to what the data actually show him, you've actually done a deep dive into this, and this is good stuff.

Joshua Gertzkow  38:22  
Are we talking about the Pfizer or

Dr. Paul  38:24  
the the Pfizer data?

Joshua Gertzkow  38:25  
Let me just take two more words about this. Okay. Yeah. Okay. One is the Turks. So they said talk to this. Talk to the FDA. By the way, they're not they said, we were doing some analysis from March to July of this year. They didn't do it. Or no, I'm sorry. They didn't tell they haven't sent it to us. We don't know we've asked for it. And they're not sharing it. They promised that they would give it also to the epic times. So the epic Times did a series of articles about this, but I want to show you something. Okay. So they said they were doing safety analysis from end of March to end of July 2022. Now, Albert venovenous has been tracking the deletions, the extent to which there are reports to veirs that are being deleted, okay, on a weekly basis. And lo and behold, what did he find? There's this huge uptick in deletions of various reports, right at the time when they said they were started their safety signal monitoring analysis. Right now, it could be a coincidence. Right? It could be a coincidence, but it's quite a coincidence. All right. Yeah, so yeah, you want to talk about the Pfizer stuff.

Dr. Paul  39:42  
Vaccine Injury is the biggest coincidence in the world. Yes, let's look at you've done a deep dive into the Pfizer data and I think it's worthy of going through and showing what you found because this is data that they obviously had there. Hands On since

Joshua Gertzkow  40:00  
the beginning. Right since the beginning, and okay, so just to make sure we're all on the same page here, um, the Pfizer data that you speak of is all of the clinical trial data and the documents that were submitted by Pfizer to the FDA, over the course of the regulatory process for eventually getting their vaccine approved. So it includes a period includes phase one, phase two, three, it will

Dr. Paul  40:41  
take us up to about the end of 2021. How far out does this data go? Do you think?

Joshua Gertzkow  40:47  
March, it goes out to march 13 2021. And then the reason that it goes out to march 13, is because that was the cutoff date, where they said, Okay, now we're going to submit our final materials and analyses to the FDA to get this thing finally approved, actually approved not just as a emergency youth authorization. Okay. So after some point and run your analysis, but it didn't matter, because the the the, the experiment ended long before that. Okay, that's what I'm going to show you first. All right, so we here we've heard that the placebo subjects, right, the people who didn't get the vaccine eventually got the actual vaccine, right? Because they said, well, it's not ethical, we see that it's working after the emergency use authorization. So it's not ethical, that withhold it from them. And so we're going to offer it to, okay, so that began on December 14, about three days after the emergency youth authorization. Okay. So basically what that means is that once once somebody is unblinded from the trial, they're no longer really a participant in the trial.

Dr. Paul  42:06  
Anything. So you're saying that happened started happening in December of 2020? Yes, December 2020. So folks, remember that you're nine months into this COVID epidemic, pandemic, whatever you will, and they're already starting to destroy the control group carry on.

Joshua Gertzkow  42:22  
Yeah, exactly. There was a NH they started on they enrolled the first subjects and gave them the first dose on July 27. Those were the first subject but you know, there's on there's a rolling enrollment, so people were being enrolled at different times all through the party. So now we can, we can look at sort of just get a sense of how quickly did this happen? This unblinding. Okay, and you can see you compare the vaccine group and the treatment group now. So if we just look at, well, what how, what was the average number of days that people were in the we're in this study before they were unblinded, what we see is that they, on average, they were there for 137 days on average, okay, which about four and a half months, but but we actually need to go back to December 14. And the reason we need to go back to December 14 is not just how long was it before you got unblinded. But on December 14, you know, what the one of the key things that study like this requires is randomization, you need to have random people randomly assigned to placebo and treatment group. But if you look at the age breakdown of the people that were being unblinded, okay. You okay, you see these two different age groups here, right, that 16 to 55 and 55 plus, so you can see that they pretty quickly started on blinding the older group. You know, they weren't on blinding them equally. Okay. So there was no random, they broke the randomization on the day that they started on blind. That's the key point, right. And once you break the randomization, all of your you can't make any comparisons because everybody that's hasn't been on blinded yet and presumably, is still in the study. You can't compare them because now you're suddenly comparing apples and oranges. Okay.

Dr. Paul  44:19  
So Josh, I got a question for you. You've you've looked at this data in detail, just based on this graph, keep the graph up just for a moment longer. The lines cross right around before January 4, which if this started December 14, that's six, eight weeks around that time. That would be would that not be when people were getting their second shot? And most of the side effects we knew started happening around that time. Or am I looking at that wrong? Maybe.

Joshua Gertzkow  44:50  
You're you're kind of right. I mean,

Dr. Paul  44:53  
like if I'm an adult, I'm an older person, and I get my second shot and they start to have problems and I'm convinced that I don't want to be a placebo anymore. Just give me the shot. You know, I'm getting worse. Just give me the shot.

Joshua Gertzkow  45:07  
No, no, no, they were so they were these people were in the in the, in the trial before that and then on then then beginning on December 14, they would get a phone call and saying you are in X group, and they were doing it for both the placebo and the treatment group. Okay, the unblinding

Dr. Paul  45:24  
wasn't patient initiated? No.

Joshua Gertzkow  45:27  
I mean, I think they had a choice. I think they were called up and then they were, they were probably given a choice, but it wasn't patient initiated. It was initiated by bio Entech. Or Pfizer, as part of this, they because they so you know, they want to get shots into people's arms. Right? They like he said, they want to erase the placebo group, right? Yeah. It looks like they accomplished it charitable, they want them to be protected. Let's say they want them to be protected, whatever the motivations are, I can't speak to the motivation. But when they start to unblind, and then once you've been unblinded, you get your first dose, usually within a week, okay. So if we look at this December 4 date, and we look at, you know, how long were people on average in the in this study until that it's, it's 97 days. Okay, so just over three months, so we can say that on average, like basically, this trial lasted for three months. Okay. That's basically what we can say. All right. Yeah. Which is, which is which is absurd?

Dr. Paul  46:32  
Yeah, this is the age old trick they've done for most vaccines, the follow up is minimal. Weeks, to months, sometimes days in the case of the hep B. And the other piece of it is they don't look at all health outcomes. They just look at a few narrow things. Anyway, carry on. This is fascinating.

Joshua Gertzkow  46:54  
Okay, so that this is just getting warmed up. Okay, this is getting warmed up, folks. This is getting warmed up. Okay. It's gonna get Okay. So let's take, okay, so a lot of people focus on adverse events, right, when they're looking at these data, you hear a lot about adverse events. I haven't done as much with that. But I want to bring your attention and I'll show I'll tell you why this is relevant in a minute. Okay. So so this guy, Gustavo, Rue, he was in the trial site in Argentina. Okay. Now, the the Argentina trial site was the largest trial site by far, they had about 20% of all of the trial subjects. We, you know, in the noggin numbering in the 1000s of subjects, okay, so they single handedly had the power to make or break this trial. Okay. And, and it's important to realize that these trials are outsourced it isn't Pfizer or bio Entech. That's running the trial. They, they hire a company that hires other companies to run the trials locally. Like Brooke Jackson worked for Vin Tavita. Right, the whistleblower that blew the whistle on all of the problems that those three sites that have been Tabia was managing. And it's important to realize that because these people that run the trials at this level, have a strong incentive to make sure that the outcomes turn out, okay? Because imagine you're running a business that is trying to make money running clinical trials, and you're the one throwing a monkey wrench in these drugs or devices or whatever, getting, you know, approved, that'd be the US really bad for business. And this guy who ran this trial site, the Argentina trial had as a company, he's the director of the company I trials. They'd have, you know, they make a lot of money on this stuff. Okay. So this guy, a Gousto guru. I've talked with him, he's amazing. So he was in that he was a trial subject and about right after he got a second dose. He was on the way home and attacks he feeling terrible, yada, yada, yada. He ended up in the hospital two days later, and he was diagnosed basically with pericarditis, right? Inflammation of the tissue surrounding the heart. He called up the trial site from the hospital. They by the way, they did a PCR test when he came to the hospital and he was negative. And nobody at the hospital said he had COVID. So they called him up. And they said that he called up the trials. I told them what happened and he has all of the records from all of this, okay? He's a lawyer, and he's subpoenaed all of this. And he can see that in their in his record, they write it down as like pneumonia. Basically, they had pneumonia. He never told them he had pneumonia. He told them what he had. They wrote down pneumonia. But now here's the here's the real trick. A couple of weeks later, it's written that the trial sponsor which was bioenergetic called the site and asked them to change his diagnosis from pneumonia to suspected COVID 19 suspected COVID-19 Even though his PCR test was negative, why would they do that? Okay, I'm going to tell you why they would do. Because that, okay, that's not the right. Because there was a in the in the trial protocol, if you were counted if your adverse event or whatever happened to you was counted as being something similar to the efficacy endpoint, meaning if it was considered to be some COVID-19, or suspected COVID-19. You were not to be counted as an adverse event. So by we kept re categorizing people as suspected COVID-19, they could just completely sweep their adverse event under the carpet.

Dr. Paul  51:03  
That could probably also be counted as a Unvanquished, because you had to be 14 days post second dose, yes, to be fully vaccinated. I

Joshua Gertzkow  51:14  
mean, if he had gotten it, they probably would have you know, so this will, they do? Okay, in the final, they do have sub analysis in their reports and in their publications of any COVID-19 from dose one from the day of dose one. However, they also have another thing in their protocol saying, if the if the adverse event within the first week of each dose, if the adverse event is considered to be related to reactogenicity from the vaccine, okay, then you didn't have to follow the protocol of having the person get a COVID test. So if you got COVID, right, after you got the first dose, and you call them up, they can say, Oh, don't worry, take it and take some aspirin, you'll feel better or take some Tylenol, and they wouldn't have to follow the other part of the protocol saying if somebody calls up with some symptoms, they have a list of symptoms, you need to make sure they get a tab. Okay, so there's always there's all kinds of loopholes here for them to be extremely sneaky, right? And now, but he couldn't pop but but we would have to assume if they're if they're trying to tweak the results in favor of the vaccine, they would need to know who was vaccinated and who wasn't, or at least to have some indication. Okay. And so the question is, what was the trial? double blind? And the answer is no, the Pfizer trial was not double, but it was never billed as being double blind. It was billed as being what's called observer blinded, and you can go through the protocols and other things to kind of glean what this looked like. But here's a summary slide, saying kind of lists who was blinded and who was unblinded in the study. And they basically have two excuses for unblinding people who would normally be blind. One is, if you were in charge of administering the vaccine, you knew who was getting the who was getting the real vaccine and who wasn't? Because the real vaccine was this ultra cold, you know, special new technology, they required all this special preparation. So you would know, presumably, you wouldn't share that information with the person being given the vaccinate vaccine, but Oh, well. And the second excuse they have is, well, we we needed to do the analysis while we were running this study, so we had to have some people at the you know, at the upper levels, who knew who was getting vaccinated and who wasn't. So they could do those those efficacy analysis?

Dr. Paul  53:50  
Yeah. It doesn't look like it's just upper level, you've got Study Manager and clinical research associate clinicians reviewing. I mean, that's everybody.

Joshua Gertzkow  54:00  
They have the hearing, they have their excuse, and then they have what this you know, I call this the Qi, the Swiss cheese method of blinding, right? It's so totally porous. It's like what how do you distinguish between a study coordinator and his study manager like, what is that he does the title? Yep, the most, one of the most important, unblinded personnel here is the study level, the medical monitor for adverse events, they had somebody monitoring adverse event reports who was not blinded. Okay, and that justification that they gave for this was we're worried about vaccine dependent enhancement, right, where you get the vaccine and makes the disease worse if you actually catch So presumably, this person was supposed to be scouring through the adverse events reports to see possible cases of this ad E. Right. And, or, you know, antibody dependent enhancement or whatever you want to call it. Yeah. You know, first For safety, right?

Dr. Paul  55:01  
So despite all of this unblinding that therefore meant that Pfizer had total ability to basically manipulate this however they wanted.

Joshua Gertzkow  55:11  
Yes. And I have to wonder, I have to wonder if this medical monitor was the person that called the Argentina site and ask them to change a Gousto ruse Adverse Event Report, from pneumonia to suspected COVID-19. If you had one of nine different symptoms, okay, you called up the site, they said, if you're not feeling well call up the site. And if you reported one of nine, what they refer to as COVID related symptoms, they would tell you go have a PCR test, or even if you had another symptom, they might tell you go have a PCR test. Okay. And if you had a positive PCR and reported one of those nine symptoms, then you would be considered you should have been considered a COVID. Case. Okay, here's a list of those symptoms, fever, cough, shortness of breath.

Dr. Paul  56:05  
I would think the problem you've seen here, let me I would think a problem with that is that those who got the vaccine are going to have symptoms.

Joshua Gertzkow  56:14  
Well, they might have symptoms, and also if they called up in the first week after they got the dose and said, I have one of these symptoms, that the investigator could say, oh, don't worry about it. It's just from the vaccine, they didn't have to go make them go and get a PCR test. But also, this is a limited list of symptoms, we know that COVID can present in other ways, right? We have all of these PCR test results, and we know who was counted as a case and who wasn't counted as a case. And we can look across the placebo arm and the vaccine arm, and we can look at positive tests and when they occurred, okay, and what percentage of them were counted as a COVID case and what percentage weren't. And what you can see if you look at the policy, I know there's a lot of data, let me just focus your mind you're on the placebo side, you say what percentage were not counted as cases, these are positive PCR tests, okay, that are driven by symptoms, I call them with a symptom except for the dose to visit where everybody got tested it those two. So if I call them with a center beef between doses wanting to only 24% of the people in the placebo group were not counted as a COVID. Case, then I go over to the vaccine side and say that 43% of the vaccine, people who did the same thing, were not counted as a COVID. Case, oh, my go down it every step of the way. Every step of the way, the only difference. And you see the every point, you're significantly less likely to be counted as a COVID case, if you were in the vaccine group, I mean,

Dr. Paul  57:57  
right to the one to six days after the second dose for the treatment group. percent not counted as cases 100% compared to zero, you're working up at this high level of digging into data that's dripping out one month at a time, right? This is sort of yeah, this is a huge project of basically unraveling, you've got enough to know that something is very wrong.

Joshua Gertzkow  58:22  
I've got enough to say that something looks very, very fishy.

Dr. Paul  58:26  
What's the take home for for now, I know that it can change because you're going to get more information, more data,

Joshua Gertzkow  58:32  
the take home for now is that there is a very suspicious anomaly. Okay. And then anomaly is that there are a bunch of people in the trial, that should have been counted as a COVID case, where they were trying to decide what the efficacy or calculate the efficacy of this vaccine, they should have been counted in that analysis. And they weren't. That's number one. Number two, you were much, you're much less likely to be counted in the analysis when you should have been if you were in the group that got the vaccine, and not the placebo, okay. So it basically means that they're tilting the results, or it looks like they're tilting the results of the trial in favor of higher efficacy for the vaccine. Because if they if they had more of the people in the treatment group, who would have ended up as quote counted as COVID cases that would drive down the efficacy calculation of the vaccine. So I had a lot of indications that there was unblinding that many people were known who if they were in the placebo group or not. So it opens up enormous opportunities for fiddling with the data and and they have a lot of motivation to

Dr. Paul  59:55  
do so. Yep. Perfect. I think I think you nailed it. That's what I got from it as well, but I couldn't articulate it quite that clearly. I'm gonna let you have the final word, we're gonna have to wrap it up. What's your final message to people that this time? What should people be aware of?

Joshua Gertzkow  1:00:14  
What should people be aware of? I think people need to be aware of their own power. It can be it can feel very powerless to be in a situation like this. And people say, Well, what can I do? I don't know how to analyze this data. I don't know how to do this, but everybody has. But you know, we're a team. And in a team, it's a team effort and a team, everybody does something different. We're not all you know, quarterbacks or whatever, everybody plays their role. So you need to find your strength. Think about what you're good at. And and just do something, do something. And don't just let them take your power away from

Dr. Paul  1:00:51  
Wow, thank you for that message. Because you're so right. I can't do what you do. I don't have that. I don't know technical analysis skill. I'm not that organized. A lot of people can't do what we're doing, which is talking out loud, and just being bold in that way. But you know, I wasn't the first one to walk through stores without a mask. Because here in Oregon, you boy, you couldn't go into a store, basically. But some people were they were bold. And yeah, if you can do that, you can be bold enough to talk to your neighbor or your loved one. And yes, yeah,

Joshua Gertzkow  1:01:26  
I'm terrible at that. I'm terrible at confrontation. Right? Yeah. You know, but there are people who are really good at it. So my feeling is, well, I'm going to get getting the information and analyzing stuff. So I maybe I can give, you know, if I can give people information that they can share with others, then, you know, you know, we're working as a team.

Dr. Paul  1:01:45  
You are good at it. Thank you so much for coming back on the show. Thank you for having me. We'll get you back when you have your next level of analysis. Thank you

Dr. Paul, thanks for watching the show. Please visit doctors and science.com There you can access our members only section. This show is member supported. We don't have to take sponsors. We don't have to have anybody controlling the content of our show. This is a huge perk. Most people aren't aware of your membership gives you access to my eBooks, transcripts of every show PowerPoints from talks I'm giving around the country and live bonus peeks at behind the scenes work. We're doing my off the cuff thoughts and reviews on current events. Your support makes all this possible. Thank you. Help me spread the truth and share this on social media and with your friends at doctors in science.com. I look forward to running with you against the wind. Go to our website doctors and science.com Sign up. Donate if you can. And let's make this the weekly show the nation has been waiting for. I'm Dr. Paul

Transcribed by https://otter.ai