(0:00 - 0:49) During the COVID narrative, mainstream media and the government, in cooperation with health authorities, fed the public a constant stream of lies. And, sadly, most people were deceived. Deceived into completely unnecessary and harmful mandates, including social distancing, which led to isolation and suicides. Masking, which was not only completely ineffective for protecting against a virus, but harmful to the health of those who wore them, and those who were in close contact with them. And allowing themselves to be injected with a bioweapon which has killed millions and destroyed the health and immune systems of countless others. Many others were coerced into cooperating with mandates under threat of losing their jobs and their ability to provide for themselves and their families. (0:50 - 1:23) While many books have now been written about the false COVID narrative, very few have been written by Canadians, and even fewer, which are anthologies of opinions from a spectrum of experts. Now, two of Canada's top scientists and doctors, Steven Pelech and Chris Shaw, have edited such a book. Down the COVID-19 Rabbit Hole is an anthology of chapters from 24 medical and scientific experts on the false science and misleading data which fed the COVID narrative. (1:23 - 1:39) The book was released on November 19th and is available on Amazon. In addition, this is the first of two books. Pelech and Shaw's second book will be an exposé of our captured courts, and will be out in the next few months. (1:45 - 4:02) Chris, Steven, welcome back to the show. Thank you. Thanks. Well, it's really great to be back with you again. And I reached out to both of you for this interview because, Steven, you were kind enough to contact me and give me an advance notice that you have a book, actually two books, coming out, both of you gentlemen. The first one is going to be published on the 19th, and it's called, sorry, I'm in low light here, gents. My eyesight is not what it used to be. Down the COVID-19 Rabbit Hole: Independent Scientists and Physicians Unmask the Pandemic. And these two books, the first one focuses on the science, the second one on the legal or the politics end of it, where violations of our rights. So let's get into discussing that, starting with the first book that's coming out on the 19th, where you're focusing on the science. And this is quite the endeavor, gentlemen. You've got 24 scientists, physicians, and other health practitioners to dissect the COVID-19 pandemic. And what did you find looking at the science? Yeah, I'll start off. Well, basically, Down the COVID-19 Rabbit Hole, as you mentioned, really explores the science of COVID-19. We investigate the various strategies that were used to try to mitigate the effects of the pandemic, such as social distancing, lockdowns, the masking, and in particular, the COVID-19 vaccines. In North America, of course, we had the genetic vaccines, although there was a Novavax vaccine that was using recombinant spike protein. But anyways, these particular vaccines, we look at how they're produced, how effective they actually are, and how safe are they. And then we further go on in the book and look at the various treatments that were available early on, and those that were developed, and evaluate their efficacy and safety. That's sort of a synopsis of the first book. Well, I mean, I think also the answer, Steve, and for you, Will, is that the first book also tries to educate people on science, what science actually is, versus people think it is when people say, you know, we believe the science, we trust the science, the science is subtle. You know, we had to deal with that because there's a lot of misinformation about what it actually is. (4:02 - 4:45) So one of the early chapters deals with that in some depth. And then, you know, we also look at a lot of things about viruses, and immunology, and disease transmission. And that's really important to consider, because we need, you know, the goal is here to educate the population with the view that they will not let this come back without their knowledge, without the information they need to assess it if it does come back. And, you know, we know there's another pandemic in the wings with WHO or CDC or whoever in our own, you know, in our own country as well. And so it's really important that we, you know, provide the basis for people to understand what it really is and what it isn't. And that's a big piece of the first book. (4:46 - 5:57) Yeah. But, you know, in terms of the book itself, we intended it to be for the lay public, but we wanted to make sure it was at a standard that would be appropriate for our colleagues, because as is well understood, it's still very controversial, many of these policies that were applied. And we have about 1,100 references from primarily peer-reviewed scientific literature, so it's really well backed up. So it's useful for scientists and useful for people in the court system where we're trying to evaluate a number of cases that have been in the courts or will be in the courts related to COVID-19 vaccines, for example, and people being fired from their jobs. But as Chris has mentioned, we have introductory chapters on immunology, on viruses, and how drugs are tested to ensure that there's faith. So there's a lot of material there, but we're hoping that it can appeal at many different levels. (5:57 - 6:24) And also, I mentioned the introductory chapters talks about chain of transmission, so people understand how infectious pathogens actually work and how they don't. So when people were talking about, for example, asymptomatic transmission, you know, we have to deal with that as one of the things that actually gets addressed. So, I mean, again, it's a primer for a lot of people who don't have the science background to be able to evaluate the kinds of nonsense that were coming from a lot of health agencies. (6:24 - 8:05) Right. Now, before I move on, I have two questions based on what you've just said. Chris, you talked about the science, and Stephen, you were talking about what's going on in the court systems and the judgments. Now, one of the best definitions I think I've ever heard of science is it's the study of what we were wrong about. It is not whatever the media says it is. And so getting back to Stephen, your comments about the courts, this is one of the problems we've been having. So the courts have been taking the judgments of public health officers on what's called judicial notice, saying, well, we assume they know what they're talking about. And so do you have some kind of hope here that perhaps this book and other things like it might wake people up to starting to ask the question, why are our courts not looking at the science and asking, is this even a correct premise? Absolutely. I mean, I think that's really important. And we're also hoping that this book will also be used to maybe educate some people in the judicial system. They'll actually know what they're talking about when they blindly say, oh, you know, Bonnie Henry, for example, in British Columbia, the public health officer, or Theresa Tam, the federal equivalent, they're absolutely right because they say so. Well, no. And, you know, when they say there's consensus on any of these things, there's consensus only because they block people that they already agree with. And they can get consensus by simply eliminating people like me and Steve and all the other members of our scientific advisory committee and others across the board. So it's really important that we want to put this in the hands of a lot of people in the judicial system and the media and the politicians so that they recognize what actually happened and where it went wrong. (8:06 - 8:25) Yeah. In particular, it's really the second book, COVID-19 Pandemonium, a pandemic of ignorance, fear and greed, the capture of our institutions. The second book that really explores how our institutions were captured, including the legal system. (8:26 - 10:16) And this is a chapter written by Clarence Bell, a lawyer who's quite active in this area, and also Susan Anton, a former attorney general in BC. And they've written an excellent chapter that gives a synopsis of where our court system has failed. And as you pointed out, Will, the biggest problem has been that the courts have taken judicial notice, which what that means is that whatever health can this is, or the World Health Organization is gospel. And it's just as true as water is wet and the sky is blue. And this has been challenged in some courts. Unfortunately, in Ontario, where they've had this gone to their court of appeals, that has been upheld. So if Health Canada publishes something, they don't have to identify who they are, where the information came from, or provide any citations. It still stands as being true. And this is a real problem. And that's the reason why the first book is so important, because we really critically analyze the evidence. Not only do we have these 1100 citations of peer-reviewed literature, but the chapters in the book are all vetted by the authors of the book. And we're all professors and research scientists and physicians across Canada, and we're the most critical amongst ourselves. So this is a very highly peer-reviewed book. We believe the information provided is pretty accurate, and would stand up in a court of law. But it's being ignored in 19 out of 20 court cases in the past, and this has to stop. (10:17 - 11:08) I mean, the first book number, there are 24 authors, and they all had eyes on every chapter. And so, again, talk about critical peer reviews, this was it. This certainly accomplished that, because we had a lot of feedback for the whole entire period we were writing the book, and even towards the end. So when people say it's not peer-reviewed well yet, it's actually by people who are highly qualified to make those kinds of judgments. So you've created this book with these chapters from these 24 experts, and then you've taken it and you've sent it back to them so that all of them can review it and give their input on what everybody has put into it. That's correct. And then I've gone over it again with Chris to make sure it's up to date. So it covers a lot of the references from 2024. So it's pretty up to date. (11:09 - 14:34) So before we move on, gentlemen, I have to ask, how many hours of work have gone into this work? I've read this book so many times, that's why I can probably recite parts of it. It was sort of an endless process. We worked on this for a long time. Actually, we got it up very quickly, but it was an awful lot of late nights and early mornings. And Steve, he tackled the references and all kinds of horrible, horrible aspects like that. Truly horrible. And with the second book, I mean, if he wants to tell you horror stories, he can tell you about that one too. But there are, again, 1900 references in the first book. It's important because if someone wants to challenge us scientifically, they have to wade through those. It's just, they have to know that literature in order to dispute anything we say. And if they don't, then they're talking from some sort of a belief system and doesn't really know the references that we know and that we've cited. And almost all the references we cite are peer-reviewed literature. Now, Steven, the other thing too is that I've actually done research in the area myself, in COVID-19. So some of what's in the book is our own findings from our clinical studies of 4,500 people that we tested early on in the pandemic to look at their antibody levels. And I've been involved in development of drugs to inhibit the replication of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. So I'm an active researcher in the area. And aspects of that are also in the book from personal experience, not just what's in the literature. And I'm trying to put this together with the other co-authors to get a unified picture of just exactly what happened and what went wrong and how can we avoid this happening again. And that's why the second book is so important because we have to alert people into how our institutions have failed on this front and how we can prevent this from happening again. Because there's a tremendous pressures to take this technology, the RNA vaccine technology, and apply it not just to COVID, but to many other infectious diseases for which we have existing, generally safe vaccines, to replace it with this more convenient, faster vaccine that has a real problem with the technology in terms of the impacts on the health of people, increased risks that we've seen with these COVID-19 vaccines. We've never seen this before in terms of the total number of injuries in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, VAERS, or whether it's EudraVigilance in Europe or with the WHO organization. We're seeing more injuries from these COVID-19 genetic vaccines than all the other vaccines put together for the last 30 years. That's how bad it... And we know VAERS is massively reported. And all the other vaccines combined over 30 years. (14:34 - 16:15) And we're only talking with COVID-19, 21 to 23. The other ones are massively less and by ridiculous amounts. So the claim that there are no adverse effects is simply incorrect and significantly incorrect. Yeah. And so, for example, at UBC, where I'm based as a professor with Chris, we have new facilities and institutions being built to push the RNA technology to get more vaccines out, like for COVID-19, for other applications, including one large grant that was funded to nudge people, to encourage them to have confidence in these vaccines. You use sophisticated psychological techniques to regain trust because it's obvious that they've lost that trust because in the last year, probably less than 10% of people have actually bothered to get a COVID-19 vaccine because they realize, you know, after eight or nine shots, if they still have a risk, you can't really say that these vaccines are not effective. And in fact, you increase your chances of getting COVID, the more vaccinated you are. And this was well established, for example, with the Cleveland Clinic study, where they have 51,000 people that were healthcare workers across 200 hospitals in this US hospital-based system. And they followed them from September of 2022 for six months to see whether they were going to get COVID-19 again. (16:15 - 16:50) And what they found was that those that were the least, that were unvaccinated, had probably had been infected, had natural immunity, were the least likely to actually get COVID again during that period of six months. And with each shot that a participant had actually received for a COVID vaccine, their risk steadily increased. So the more that those individuals are vaccinated, the more likely you're actually going to get COVID-19, completely contrary to the expectations. (16:51 - 17:15) And many hospitals still are encouraging their staff to get COVID-19 shots. And with masks. So these shots neither stop transmission nor they stop people from getting it again and again. And then that was the Cleveland Clinic study. And this is not an anti-vaccine organization by any stretch of the imagination. And this is very clear on the graphs. (17:15 - 19:33) And one of them is in the book, in the first book. This is very, very clear data about what's happening. And if this doesn't tell the story about what COVID vaccines actually do, I can't imagine what other proof one would need to actually make that point. Really, really strongly, a lot of people who were on the fence or went out and took all the shots and maybe are dealing with the side effects and still are encouraged to take more vaccines at the same time. Yes. Now, Steven, you were actually one of the very first scientists I interviewed way back in 2021. This is, I think, our third interview that we've done now. And I recall that back then you were somewhat more circumspect in your comments. So I have to ask, because you're being extremely honest and direct at this point, how direct is this book in essentially criticizing the lack of science, the lack of respect for people's rights? Are these books? Well, I think we've been very straightforward. We're not trying to tell people what to think. What we're trying to do is to give them the information that's available in the literature that they may not have been aware of because there's the failure of the healthcare system to highlight these problems and certainly in the media. And so an example would be, for example, the risk of myocarditis in males 12 to 29 years of age. Your risk there is anything from one in 2,000 to up to around one in 6,000, depending on the study that you look at. That's still a completely unacceptable risk for healthy young individuals to have myocarditis, which can cause permanent damage to their heart and put them on a track for cardiovascular disease with basically a heart that might go into arrhythmia or increasing eventually arteriosclerosis. There's no justifiable reason for this, especially when you consider that the risk of adverse events from the actual infection with the virus and death is like three in a million. (19:34 - 19:59) And yet you have like a one in probably a 2,000 chance of getting either asymptomatic or symptomatic permanent myocarditis. Myocarditis is basically when cells of the heart are killed from an inflammatory reaction. The immune system attacks the heart muscle cells, damages and can kill them. (20:00 - 20:41) And then that's not replaced by new heart muscle cells. It's replaced by scar tissue, which is non-contractile. So the surrounding muscle cells have to get bigger. And so the heart gets bigger to do the same work. And that can increase with a bigger heart, increase chances of blood pressure. We know that people that did get myocarditis from the vaccine from a study in Korea with 800 people that had basically acquired vaccine-induced myocarditis, that about four and a half percent of them were dead in the first year from their diagnosis. (20:42 - 22:02) And on top of that, most of these people that had the myocarditis, even eight, nine months later, still had symptoms from that myocarditis that they were experiencing and required medical care. So we know that these effects are cumulative. And that's why I'm so concerned about these vaccines, the technology, because the damage from the COVID-19 vaccines, if we have more RNA vaccines, will be cumulative on top of the effects of the COVID-19 vaccines itself. So yes, I'm much more adamant about it. There's much more data available. And I'm much more confident that this is not a direction to go. And yet, apart from what was described at UBC, the government went ahead and put $200 million into building an RNA vaccine facility with Moderna in Montreal. So, you know, we're going down this route and we have to actually stop and reevaluate all of this. Well, I'll add two points. One, the myocarditis is obviously affecting a lot of people through the vaccines. But also, you know, what we've begun to see is the beginning, kind of beginning peak, not peak, it's actually hasn't reached a peak yet, which I fear it will, of neurological disease. I think that's going to be a consequence. (22:02 - 22:59) One of the things is we know that spike protein, the mRNA go everywhere. That, you know, Pfizer and Moderna should have known because I had a study, an offshoot company of Moderna called Valera that actually showed that, not with the mRNA, sorry, the mRNA fluid vaccine. And that was an experimental study. And they went everywhere. So, this is going on. And, you know, when this stuff gets into your brain, it is not going to be particularly good for your brain because the cells do not, by and large, regenerate. So, you're now going to have neurological consequences. We're starting to see that. The second point I would add, I mean, just want to follow up what Steve says, we're not trying to tell people what to do. We're showing them our best evaluation of data, the literature, and the facts. And from that, we treat people like an intelligent adult, let them make their own decisions. We're not Bonnie Henry. We're not Theresa Tam. We're not going to tell you what to do. We're simply going to show you what we believe is correct and let people be treated like a mature adult to make their own choices. (22:59 - 24:30) And choice is the essential thing here. That's good. Now, you had mentioned earlier that there's some introductory chapters when we're talking about the science here. What is it that you're hoping that the major points that readers are going to draw from those chapters? Well, I'll just comment. First, we have to be aware from the introductory chapter on other viruses that there have been other coronaviruses, like SARS-CoV-2 fits into that category, pandemics, including the SARS pandemic from about 22 years ago, where very few people actually died. I think maybe 147 in Canada, a little over 700 worldwide. That was a pandemic. And it disappeared in a year without any vaccines, without any specialized treatments for that virus. So, historically, we've been exposed to coronaviruses, and that actually accounts for why we were not that much affected as a population. Generally, those people that were under 65, it turns out that 40% plus of all adults that were infected with the virus had no symptoms. And for children, most children that were infected had no symptoms. So, the introduction to viruses gives you a little bit of information about our past history. (24:30 - 25:40) And then, the information on the immune system, the types of immune cells you have, the B-cells produce antibodies, the T-cells that specifically attack cells that have been infected with the virus. And then, these are what we call our adaptive immune system. They learn to recognize the specific virus. But we have an innate immune system with macrophages and neutrophils and many other immune cells that generally protect us, even before we've ever encountered that particular virus before. So, you have like an army, navy, and air force that coordinates together, particularly with the help of antibodies. And this is described in the book in an introductory chapter. So, it gives people a sense of, you know, we've been there before. We have this amazing immune system that protects us against novel viruses. And that we should be more confident that that immune system can prevent us from getting extremely sick and die, which is exactly what happened in most cases. (25:40 - 26:02) And then, of course, with COVID-19, the numbers are so skewed. In the United States, here's the thing. In the U.S., per capita, they had 870 times more deaths from the same virus as in China. (26:04 - 27:21) 870 times higher rates of death. Now, that's just not possible. So, we know that the numbers in the U.S. were inflated. Many people died with COVID, but not from COVID. We also know that in China, not that many people died. You know, they got a 1.4 billion population. But when you actually look at it per capita, the number of deaths was extremely low. So, we explore this in part in the first chapter of the second book when we're looking at the origin of the virus. And we can begin to understand that we've been exposed to these coronaviruses continually. And that's why many of the people that we tested in the Vancouver area and in the spring of 2020, the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, we found 90% of the people we tested had antibodies that worked well to recognize multiple different proteins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and provided protection. So, in China, they're even more exposed to these viruses, and they have more natural immunity, and it turned out to be very effective. And so, this is sort of what's coming out from the information that we've uncovered. (27:22 - 30:13) One of the other things that we should mention is, you know, there are people in the freedom movement who don't believe viruses exist and don't believe viruses were the cause of COVID. We don't agree with that. People are, you know, free to have their own information or their own opinions on that. Again, we provide information to help educate people to, again, not tell them what to do, not tell them what to think, but to help them understand why we think that's not correct, and therefore, why we think there really was a pandemic, there really was a viral basis to it, and, you know, help us understand what, you know, various treatments might be and how the data were manipulated by governments and media and, you know, other entities to basically create the fear factor that really drove a lot of the policies that were so prevalent during the last four years. Yeah, in the second book, you know, this whole point is this fear has allowed the government to basically take away a lot of human rights, and they're quite prepared to do it again. That's quite evident. And they've actually have legislature in place, or are going to be in place, like Bill C-293. I mean, there is no pandemic plan in that bill. What the bill is really doing is giving further powers to government agencies to come up with a plan and implement that plan, and take that information really coming from the World Health Organization and other regulatory agencies in other countries, and immediately apply those in Canada. And in different regions of the country, we have different strategies in dealing with these things. Sometimes it's good to see what works in one place so that if it's working really well, we can implement it somewhere else in the country. But when you have a uniform strategy that's top-down driven internationally, then you don't have that opportunity to experiment and see what strategies work best in dealing with a new adversary, a new infection. The reality is that most of these infectious diseases, we're just getting variants of previous versions of those. And our immune system actually recognizes, in many cases, those previous strains that the antibodies that we produce and T-cells that are activated for those early infections sometimes work really well when you're reinfected with a slightly different version. And that's why our immune system is so good and so adaptable. (30:14 - 30:53) We got some issues. Maybe you want to touch on it as Bill 36, because I think that is very harmful for people going forward and for the various medical disciplines, but basically it puts bureaucrats in control of each discipline in medicine in British Columbia. And it's quite a dangerous bill in that sense because now you have basically bureaucrats who are answer only to the government dictating what the health professions can and can't do. So you know they're all blocked from prescribing or using hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. That's going to happen again because, again, this is a government-driven policy. I don't know, Steve, if you want to touch on that. (30:53 - 37:16) Yeah, well, this is the thing. As you point out, Chris, I mean, if you look at Bill 36, this is the Health Protection Act that we actually have instigated. And it's consolidated a lot of the separate health colleges. We had about 15 of these, consolidated them into six colleges. And the directors of those colleges, the boards, are no longer elected. They're appointed by the government on the basis of what the government thinks is competency. And so the things that we have in our book, if a physician advised their patients on these matters about the masking or about the vaccines, they would be hauled in front of a disciplinary court. And that's exactly what's happened, for example, with Dr. Charles Hoffe in BC who was concerned about the vaccines, thought that ivermectin worked well. And there's certainly over 100 studies that support that belief. He is still being disciplined as of now in a case with the College of Physicians and Surgeons in BC that this information is misinformation. And he could, in principle, the fines have increased to over $200,000 for an individual, six months prison, have your license removed. And this approach, by the way, for the health professions, isn't just unique to the health professions. They now have a similar bill that's for lawyers and the legal system. So this is really an infringement on our ability with the doctor-patient relationship and that confidentiality is being destroyed. Because if the college decides to investigate, they can come in unannounced at any time and view patient-doctor records, which traditionally have been confidential, and reproduce those records. And if a physician is accused of malpractice in this way, it's immediately announced. It's not that they're proven to be guilty. It is announced. And what happens is the reputation of those doctors can be tarnished. And even though they may, at the end of the day, be innocent. So there's a number of other factors. But the problem is, for example, in the last BC election, the NDP government that introduced this bill and got it passed because they had a majority government with only about 253 of over 500 lines of the document where there was issues contention, it was passed. And then part of the platform with the conservative party, which only lost by one seat in terms of being in control of the government, and that one seat, the difference between how many people voted was 22 votes. Well, that made the difference on whether that whole act was going to be repealed. That act will continue in BC, and it set up a model for other provinces across Canada to adopt the same measures. And that's extremely dangerous when you couple that kind of provincial legislation with the legislation we're seeing federally with Bill C-293 and also Bill C-63, the online arms bill, where if someone is talking about this subject like we're talking about now, this could be a matter where, in fact, you could have this being seen as misinformation and causing harm and someone could actually put in a claim with that bill if it's approved. So we've got a lot of problems, and that's why it's so important to illustrate with the COVID-19, as Chris likes to say, an after-action report, you know, five years now, we can look back retrospectively and see where did we go wrong and how badly did we go wrong and how do we prevent this from happening. And we can see that the wheels are in motion to take us to the next level where we'll have less rights when a government, bear in mind that this is a pandemic preparedness bill. This is not a bill that's dealing with an actual pandemic that necessarily has happened. This is how we're going to prevent a pandemic from happening. And again, we're not actually coming with a plan. We're empowering government to have more control of this and implement these policies that they come up with on the fly faster. Yes. Chris, your thoughts? I'm just trying to keep the noise down. One thing to note is also with 36 and also 293, the complaints can be anonymous. You may never know who actually made the complaint that led to your being deregulated or delisted and punished. And they will proceed based on anonymous complaints. That's a weird place to be in the judicial system. And these entities are now operating outside of traditional legal systems. They have powers that have never really been granted to disciplinary bodies. And again, they are not necessarily staffed by people who actually work in those professions. So they may be, but it could also be bureaucrats. This is bringing us back to kind of Soviet-style medicine from back in the day, where basically, bureaucrats control all aspects of health and all aspects of life. And I think that's the danger as we're heading down that path with these sorts of pieces of legislation. Yeah, with Bill 63, I mean, it's amazing. (37:17 - 37:47) Like, there's two aspects to it. One is the online pornography, especially of abusive children. And I think most people agree that that's a good aspect of the bill. But it also ties into whether a person feels that they're being offended by the information that's being provided. So it's meant to be more racially, you know, dealing with minorities. That's sort of the implication. (37:47 - 38:35) But it's so broad that in principle, a person could file a complaint about something that they think someone else could be offended by. They don't have to be personally offended, but they think somebody else might be offended. They put in the complaint anonymously. And then the complainant, you know, if the defendant is judged guilty, they could pay up to a $70,000 fine. Now, $20,000 of that goes to the person who filed a complaint. So this is actually gonna trick our court system, and it's gonna be a cottage industry for keeping our lawyers busy and judges. (38:35 - 39:40) Yes, but I have to interrupt you. I have to clarify something and tie together a couple of different things you said, because earlier you mentioned that these complaints can be made anonymously. Now we've got a system where people can anonymously complain about a physician, a healthcare worker, whatever. And not only are their identity gonna be protected, but they're gonna receive a $20,000 reward for doing that. Right, but Bill 63. The other thing to remember about 63 is they can go back in time, find something you said five years ago. And that can be part of a complaint. You said something that might offend somebody, let's say, about vaccines, about transgender issues, about anything. And that now applies to this. So we've transitioned from talking about the science in the first book, the suppression of the science, the judicial notice in our courts, to talking about the politics. And we've just outlined some of the incredibly, almost unbelievably nefarious things that are being done in BC under Bill 63. And actually, I have to ask this question. (39:42 - 39:47) Sorry, Bill 36. Yes, I'm sorry. There's so many bills running around these days, I get them confused. (39:48 - 46:36) But talking about the second book and the politics, because there are many people, and I'm gonna come right out and say I'm one of them, who has drawn the conclusion that a lot of this suppression of the science and the capture of our courts and our governance is entirely intentional. As you mentioned earlier, Stephen, they're working on mRNA vaccines for everything under the sun, and it's only gonna get worse as people get injected with more and more of these things. So are there conclusions in the second book, talking about the politics, that this whole agenda is potentially intentional? Well, I think Chris actually puts it in one of the chapters that he wrote, or that take advantages of a pandemic is a great opportunity to push other agendas. And so there has always been this left-leaning to have more and more government controls on the population for the good of the population broadly. But the reality is it actually endangers freedoms and human rights. So we look at the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, we show how government spending was actually quite inefficient. I mean, if you look at the last year in 2023, how many COVID-19 vaccines were actually destroyed because people didn't utilize them, the demand wasn't there. And in the year before, between those two years, we destroyed about $2 billion worth of vaccine that we paid for. And that's out of probably about $8 to $9 billion in vaccines that we purchased in the first place. And when you look at how the government worked on this, I mean, it's very interesting. In the summer of 2020, the government of Canada negotiated to buy enough vaccines from four, sorry, from seven manufacturers at that time were offering vaccines, enough that would have been enough to vaccinate each person in Canada four times. Ultimately, when the agreements came, the full agreements, we had ordered enough vaccines to do eight shots per person in Canada. And so what has happened is those vaccine orders were placed, but the approvals by Health Canada for those vaccines didn't actually happen until December of 2020. So the government already committed to buying these vaccines before the health agencies even evaluated those vaccines. When they evaluated those vaccines, they had two months of clinical study data in humans with these vaccines to prove that they're safe and efficacious. Now, as it turns out, there was problems with those clinical studies. We outlined in our book, but I think the key thing here is that this was done under interim order in Canada. That's the equivalent to the United States was the, geez, now my mind's slipping, the emergency use authorization. And so in interim order in Canada, what most people do not realize is that with this order, you do not have to demonstrate that the vaccine is safe and you do not have to demonstrate that it's effective. You have to do a measure of the benefit of the vaccine versus the threat of the virus that you're trying to stop with the vaccine. And if we don't have a proper analysis of what the threat is, then you can't really do that kind of equation. But that's how we got these vaccines approved in Canada, was not really on the basis of their testing, but on the basis of the fear of what the threat would be from the virus itself. And that was minute play. The Stanford epidemiologist and statistician, John Ioannidis, said a lot of this back in 2021 when the vaccines first really got, he tried to do the harms benefit analysis and putting COVID-19 into perspective as a disease in terms of how lethal it was, how infectious it was. And his conclusions, I think at the time, were quite valid. It is basically like, it's less than the annual flu, which if you remember also, the flu vanished in 2021. And so those kinds of things, and Ioannidis' evaluation make it very clear that this was not a particularly lethal disease except for some populations that were more vulnerable because of comorbidities, because of where they were living, because of the circumstances where they were housed, such as the elderly. And they whooped it into this major, this was going to be the 1919 flu pandemic. It was going to be the various plagues of the past centuries. And it was nothing of the sort. So when you look at the data that shows how many adverse effects happened, many of them very serious, and remember, under-evaluated, the risk-benefit ratio does not equate at all. It's largely illusory on the parts of the various governments, Canadian and American, that pushed these things and nudged people and forced people and took people out of their jobs and punished them for not taking these things that the risk-benefit ratio would not have, in a normal circumstance, would not have allowed them. Yeah. I mean, early on in the pandemic, we had modelers, David Fisman in Canada and in the United Kingdom, they had modelers that were, worst case scenario, using basically parameters such that you had a lethality rate that was closer to 3% or 1% even, which was still about 10-fold higher than the actual lethality rate. They basically used this modeling to predict millions of deaths that were going to be happening in the United Kingdom. And that's what compelled government to go ahead and institute these policies using this kind of misinformation, frankly, about what the risks were from the virus. (46:36 - 48:56) But what's really interesting is when, that's one thing when you don't know what's going on, but the government of Canada, Theresa Tam is actually a co-author. You know, she's the Canada's top doctor and she's with the Public Health Agency of Canada. She co-authored a publication that was published in the Canadian Medical Journal that they did a retrospective analysis of what would have happened had they not introduced all of these restrictive policies, the lockdowns, the vaccines. And so their prediction was that we would have had 800,000 deaths in Canada, which to put into perspective is more deaths of Canadians than in the 1918 influenza pandemic, World War I and World War II together. So, you know, and adjusted for population being much smaller at that time. So when you have the government years later putting this information out about what a great job they did, even though the data clearly shows otherwise, you know, this is almost like a coverup. And so, you know, our book really exposes really the flaws and the logic and the misinformation that was being spread and misinformation about complaining to people like myself and Byram Bridle and others that we know were spreaders of the misinformation. They're doing misinformation about misinformation and interesting. Yeah. And the cancellation of the knowledgeable voices is, it's off the scale. Dr. Shaw, you mentioned Dr. Ioannidis and I can remember him in 2021 being interviewed by mainstream media. And he came right out and he called COVID-19 a weak flu. And you never saw him on mainstream media after that. He just vanished. And this is the world's top expert in evidence-based medicine. (48:56 - 53:42) And suddenly they're ignoring him. So your first book comes out on the 19th, where will it be available? People get it on Amazon or they have to order it from your site? It's on Amazon and Indiegogo. Yeah. And in fact, if you order it before the 19th, I think there is a 20% discount on that book. Then I'll be placing my order as soon as we're done the interview. Although you were kind enough to send me a PDF copy. And do we have a publication date for the second book? We don't, but we're thinking end of December or early January. Some of the books have already been printed. So we're taking some to some conferences that we're going to do to promote the book. And the publisher is a guy named Richard Olson. He's a publisher of Ekstasis Press. There you go. And there's some early copies coming out and certainly we can get you one if you'd like. And that will be out as soon as he can get it through the printers. So the printers are a little backlogged, but he's hoping for this. Okay. Very good. Now I have a final question for you because you've put together an enormous amount of work, an enormous amount of information in these two volumes. What actions are you hoping that Canadians will take after reading this information? Well, you know, one thing we know that, you know, the audience that we have here is pretty awake. You know, they've gone through this. They've, many of them have read all these things. They, they know much of this information, but it's all in a well packaged and organized in the book. And, and like I say, well supported by the references. We think this book is really for those people that were not awake, that may have gone ahead and gotten vaccinated or that have supported these policies in the past based on the information that they had. And so many, you know, there's two victims here, you know, there's the people who didn't get vaccinated and then were subjected to human rights abuses and fired from their jobs and restricted from, from going places. And then you have the other victims, which are the people who are vaccinated and many of them will have had injury. The good news is that most people will fully recover from the vaccines. Their body has a natural healing process. Your immune system is part of that to weed out any cells that are producing the spike protein from the vaccine, for example. So, but there will be a small percentage of the population, maybe one in 300 or 400, that will have permanent injuries from these vaccines. For those people, it's, it's important to have this kind of information, but also it's a way of, of taking the people that have been abused, their opportunity to get the book and give it to their family members and friends that, you know, they've either lost or have been strained in that relationship to let them understand why, you know, they decided to go the direction that they did. Based not on ignorance, which is sort of the message that, that still exists from government health regulatory agencies, their idea is the reason why vaccine hesitancy exists is because these people are ignorant and they need to be better informed about the benefits of these vaccines and how safe they are. On the other hand, you know, we're basically showing the opposite. We think the people that didn't do this were, were better informed and more critical thinkers. So this is sort of a way of arming those individuals to... You mentioned also, Will, that one of the chapters deals with therapeutics and various options that have come up for dealing with the people who have been damaged by the vaccines and may want to find ways to detoxify the spike. Gentlemen, thank you so much for your time today. Thank you for the, I can't imagine the immense amount of work that you put into these two volumes. And I genuinely hope that it does serve, as you said, Stephen, to wake up a lot of the people who have been buying the false narrative and hopefully with, and I'm very concerned that we've got the replicon vaccines coming out now, the second generation mRNA, we've got these pharmaceutical companies working on mRNA, quote unquote, vaccines for everything under the sun. And we've got to get the word out there for people to understand just how dangerous these injections are. (53:43 - 54:04) Well, thanks for the opportunity, Will. It's a pleasure talking with you and we really enjoy being able to provide this information to the general public. And you've been a great venue conduit for this information getting out there. So thank you very much. Thank you so much.