(0:00 - 1:23) Okay, greetings, friends of the Iron Wire Daily. I'm Nathaniel Mead with the McCullough Foundation, and I'm here to help spread awareness and deepen understanding of some crucial issues in a time of so much confusion, disinformation, and polarisation. I said yes to Will Dove's invitation to contribute to his wonderful show, aptly named Truth Rx, because I respect Will as an independent journalist who's able to think critically about complex issues and who doesn't hold back from exploring dissenting themes and diverse lines of enquiry.   To be a scientifically literate dissident after what we've gone through over the past five years is in many ways our moral imperative, especially for those of us with high-level scientific training, because we've seen so much distortion of what constitutes truth since 2020. So that's the main reason I'm stepping up on behalf of Truth Rx and why I look forward to offering new findings, perspectives, and insights in the months ahead. My brief biosketch is that I've been working as a research scientist, health educator, and lead author of several epic peer-reviewed papers that started coming out in early 2024.   (1:24 - 5:00) Over the past two years, I've worked closely with the eminent cardiologist Peter McCullough and his wonderful foundation, as well as dozens of high-calibre scientists focussing mainly on the many serious harms that have been linked with the modified mRNA injections that got reclassified as COVID-19 vaccines back in 2020. Prior to that time, these synthetic mRNA injectables were referred to as either gene therapy or gene transfer products. Webster's Dictionary updated the word vaccine from a preparation of killed microorganisms to produce immunity to a far more general definition, which was a preparation to stimulate the body's immune response.   So someone, most likely government officials and the pharmaceutical industry, induced Webster's Dictionary in 2021 to broaden the definition of vaccine in order to encompass the synthetic mRNA products, which are now widely accepted as genetic vaccines. For many of us, it seems inconceivable that so many well-educated people still believe that various pandemic policies like masking and the vaccine mandates were justified, that the COVID shots were safe and effective, and that these mRNA products actually saved millions of lives. At the same time, these well-educated individuals dismiss claims that the mRNA shots have been causing and accelerating autoimmune diseases, sudden cardiac deaths, highly aggressive cancers, and neurological disorders like Alzheimer's, not to mention thousands of other disabilities and disorders like depression, suicide, and psychosis.   Many people also believe that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were useless as early treatments, and that the science overwhelmingly supports all of these beliefs and others aligned with the mainstream COVID narratives. So why do so many people still espouse these narratives? How is it possible that such views continue to be held as gospel despite the fact that direct observation and hundreds of careful analyses and peer-reviewed studies say otherwise? Well, the quick and easy answer is that it's a consensus-based reality. In other words, the powers that be said so.   Federal health agencies, top health officials, legacy media, AI, and even many published papers and editorials on PubMed told them so. And how could all of these high-level sources arrive at these conclusions yet also be incorrect? As we will see, the answer to this question is very complex but rooted in multiple aspects of our world that can be harnessed to mislead entire populations into believing various narratives. As I see it, exposing the falsehoods underlying these narratives is the penultimate task of TruthRx and its contributors.   (5:02 - 5:47) Before 2020, I was working full-time as a research consultant to integrated medicine clinics in North Carolina while writing articles and books on cancer, AIDS, autism, integrative therapies, environmental health, and many other topics. In the course of participating in a major autism project and ghostwriting a book titled Conquering Autism, I met parents whose child had gone from speaking in complete sentences to becoming mute overnight. Many of these kids were also unable to recognise their parents' faces, and yet all of these dramatic changes took place overnight, within 24 hours of having received multiple vaccines.   (5:49 - 6:47) It was, for me, a shocking wake-up call. Prior to that time, the claims that vaccines cause autism were nothing more than an abstraction, an intellectual curiosity at best. In retrospect, I realised that this was due to decades of programming on the part of the pharmaceutical industry, constant messaging that not only led the public to believe that vaccines were profoundly helpful, but they were also a social responsibility, because having your kids get the vaccines meant they were helping others stay healthy by minimising the spread of pathogens in the population.   So, needless to say, I did not believe the claims made by the so-called anti-vaxxers at the time. Surely, they had to be wrong. They were ignorant, because it was so obvious that the science favoured the vaccines.   (6:48 - 7:27) The dramatic turning point for me was meeting two parents, both UNC professors, whose child had become mute and autistic the day after multiple vaccines. Like me, these very intelligent, very well-educated parents had bought the line that the vaccines were safe and that the injections were helping rather than harming society. Sometimes, the truth has to stare you straight in the face before you realise you've been wrong, and that your beliefs were unfounded and based on incorrect assumptions and flawed information.   (7:28 - 13:09) Around the same time I was meeting these parents, I was involved in research with the late Stephen B. Edelson, M.D., who practised family medicine and then environmental medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. We conducted an extensive analysis of genomic and metabolic factors in children with autism and found that the vast majority of these kids suffered from gastrointestinal disorders and also had severe detoxification challenges. Upon analysing consecutive cases of classical autism, we discovered that 98% of these kids had genomic defects in their liver metabolism that had made them extremely susceptible to the neurotoxic effects of everyday chemicals and pollutants.   These kids were like the proverbial canaries in the coal mine, far more vulnerable than other children to these toxic factors. Of course, when you then add the immune toxicity posed by multiple vaccinations, especially when the shots are given all at once, it's not hard to see why we're now seeing so many children with autism and why the numbers have been climbing rapidly since the 1980s. The average child in the USA today will receive around 70 doses of vaccines.   This is compared to fewer than a dozen doses prior to 1986, the year the U.S. passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, creating a no-fault compensation programme for vaccine injuries and shielding manufacturers from most liability lawsuits. After that, the vaccine industry went bonkers with vaccine-selling propaganda in order to programme the public to believe that vaccines were a public health miracle and that the more vaccines you took, the better your protection against all those nasty microbes out there. Propaganda works by persuading people that something that runs counter to their own interests, even when unsupported by sound reasoning, is actually good for them.   It relies on emotion rather than logic, often dressing emotional appeals in the appearance of rational arguments or so-called evidence-based claims, which then fall apart under closer scrutiny. I recently co-authored an important review of the evidence regarding vaccine-autism connection, a paper spearheaded by my friend and colleague Nicholas Hulsher of the McCullough Foundation. This review was not systematic, but it was comprehensive and sought to address many factors that have been linked with autism.   We found that 29 studies dismissing the vaccine-autism link were in fact flawed without unvaccinated control groups and with no interviews of parents, confirmation of vaccine records, or examination of the children. Within three weeks, the Centres for Disease Control changed its decades-old position that vaccines don't cause autism to the view that vaccines may in fact cause autism or act as a cofactor in the genesis of this condition. Of course, the mainstream media went off the deep end with all kinds of accusations of anti-science and so forth.   This was partly orchestrated by the pharmaceutical industry, which has captured all of the major news corporations thanks to the industry's monopoly on advertising. But there was another element at play here, that of belief. Most people on the right are devout believers in vaccines.   They are in fact vaccine zealots, and they use patronising slogans like, science is real and science is not a liberal conspiracy to indicate that the other side, which is to say the vaccine sceptics, are the ones who are on the wrong side in this matter. These vaccine zealots don't care that there were no actual placebos used in the controlled clinical trials used to test these products, or that many of the early trials cited as, quote, evidence, were never even conducted. Indeed, no matter how much evidence you put forward, you can't reach these folks.   It's like speaking to a brick wall. And this brings us to the concept of vaccine ideology, as so brilliantly articulated by John Leake and Peter McCullough in their new book, Vaccines, Mythology, Ideology, and Reality. The authors basically reframe the purported vaccine science as a dogmatic belief system that has permeated medicine since the late 1700s, starting with Edward Jenner's smallpox inoculation, which was hailed as a triumph despite the very crude methods he used to supposedly test the usefulness of the vaccine.   (13:10 - 13:38) This pattern was then repeated with other vaccines. Wild experimentation was often done on vulnerable populations and then retrofitted into a narrative of infallible progress. The ideology was further advanced by Louis Pasteur and other high-profile individuals who blended innovation with religious zeal and often placed profit motives over empirical rigour.   (13:39 - 15:02) Claims of success were often made despite catastrophic failures like contaminated batches of vaccines that actually caused deadly outbreaks. And it didn't matter that so many people died in these population experiments. It also didn't matter that so many vaccines were rolled out after public sanitation and hygiene measures had already eliminated the infectious threats.   Even in the 20th century, sanitation and nutrition drove most of the public health gains that were then attributed to vaccines. This blind faith in immunisation has continued to the present day, becoming so extreme during the COVID era that natural immunity itself was often under attack and anyone who asserted that they could rely on their own body's natural immune defences was still living in the dark ages. Such an entrenched worldview compromises scientific discourse by enforcing a cult-like orthodoxy.   And those who question the narratives are vilified. They're ostracised for pointing out adverse events and data showing negative efficacy, which means results that are the opposite of the claimed benefits. Those negative efficacy data are dismissed as statistical anomalies.   (15:04 - 15:46) Safety trials are rushed and underpowered and therefore evade scrutiny, inflating claims of efficacy, such as COVID shots overstated role in curbing severe COVID disease and hospitalisations. According to Leek and McCullough, this vaccine ideology took centuries to develop as a powerful force in the medical profession and what the vaccine proponents refer to as, quote, vaccine hesitancy has now been positioned as a kind of mental disease instead of healthy scientific scepticism. Public policy bears the brunt of this deeply entrenched ideology.   (15:47 - 20:43) We saw this happen during the COVID era with coercive mandates, school exclusions, and the absence of informed consent, together with liability shields for manufacturers, often without any transparent risk benefit analysis. This in turn fostered excessive vaccination and led to a great deal of public distress, as seen in the huge drop-off in people consenting to get any additional COVID-19 shots. Ultimately, vaccine ideology is antithetical to any real scientific advancement and true public health service.   Here are five questions for the vaccine zealots to ponder. First, why would the U.S. federal health agencies endorse the population-wide use of a product that was previously classified as a gene therapy product or gene transfer product, never before administered to a large group of people? Second, why would the U.S. federal health agencies authorise global distribution of a product that had only been tested for safety in two clinical trials lasting 2-3 months after the previous benchmark for testing a vaccine's safety was 10-15 years? Third, why would the U.S. federal health agencies support the public's use of genetic vaccines, the synthetic modified mRNA products that now have at least a dozen studies showing that the more injections you get, the more COVID-19 you get? Four, why would the U.S. federal health agencies continue to allow the public's use of these synthetic modified mRNA products when published research has shown literally hundreds of thousands of serious adverse events, including sudden cardiac death, strokes, and a myriad of deadly and debilitating diseases? And finally, why did the former FDA try to block the release of Pfizer's licencing documents until 2096? And just a bit of context here. In January 2022, U.S. District Court Mark Pitman overruled the FDA's request to have 75 years to release all the documents related to the licencing of Pfizer's Comirti COVID vaccine.   The agency was instead given 8 months to release the redacted documents. The documents in question relate to a Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, request filed in August 2021 by Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, a group of more than 30 medical and public health professionals and scientists from institutions such as Harvard, Yale, and UCLA. And now, before bringing this discussion to a close, I'd like to offer a few big-picture comments.   As I understand it, TruthRx offers a platform for truth-seekers, people who are interested in an ongoing commitment to question, learn, debate, refine, and see more clearly. Truth invites curiosity, humility, and the courage to revise our assumptions. Our task here is not to cling to our beliefs, but instead to follow the evidence wherever it leads, however it evolves.   I see truth-seeking as a kind of disciplined openness mixed with perpetual enquiry, a willingness to look beyond one's personal biases to challenge the prevailing narratives and to pursue what is real, what often resonates on a deep, intuitive level, rather than simply catering to what is popular or convenient. When we seek truth, we're aiming to honour facts or reality above personal preferences, enquiry above certainty, and understanding above ego. Of course, whenever we say truth or reality, we're talking about something that's highly subjective.   Each of us sees reality through our own lenses of language, culture, and personal experience. We all have our biases, and no one gets a perfectly neutral view or perfectly objective view of things. When people chose to get injected with the mRNA products that were labelled as COVID vaccines, they immediately began to come from what I call user's bias.   (20:44 - 21:19) In other words, they became biassed toward overestimating the mRNA products' benefits while downplaying their risks. Similarly, people who invested in the Pfizer-Moderna products became biassed by financially identifying with its success, leading them to believe in favourable outcomes and discount evidence of risks or limitations. Even when friends and family became injured by these products, the bias often eclipsed the ability to think more critically about the potential downside.   (21:21 - 23:46) As the great philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn pointed out in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which was published one year after my birth, even science itself works inside shifting paradigms that decide what counts as evidence, and ultimately what we call truth. A paradigm may be defined as a framework of ideas, assumptions, and practises that shapes how an entire group or community groks reality. It's very much like a lens on reality, and what we think of as objective truth is very much shaped by human choices.   Each of us chooses, either consciously or unconsciously, what counts as valid evidence, along with what counts as meaningful questions and reliable methods of enquiry. This is why truth is always subjective and subject to debate. It's also why scientists who embrace different paradigms will literally see different facts and derive different conclusions from the same data.   Humans are constantly trying to make sense of things, and in doing so we often seem to rearrange reality or truth in order to conform to our beliefs or worldview, our fundamental notions about what's true and what's not true. And the choices we make in shaping our perceptions of truth are strongly shaped by the prevailing beliefs and community consensus. What we call consensus-based science refers to the collective judgement of the scientific community in a particular field, and it's based on a convergence of evidence from numerous independent studies.   So all of that sounds quite good, but when scientific enquiry itself is constrained by a long-standing collective agreement rather than on a clear assessment of new facts, discoveries, and insights as they arise, then the consensus risks not keeping up with reality, so to speak. In other words, the choices scientists make in terms of one paradigm versus another are not dictated by reality per se. And I'm going to end on that note for today.   Thank you.