Autogenerated Transcript Among the many concerns of Canadians, both on the right and on the left, there's no concern greater than not being able to tell what is true and what is not. With AI technology, deep fake images and videos now look so real that not even the experts can tell the difference. Added to this is the proliferation of AI search engines, which are programmed to lie to you on many subjects. However, researcher Steve Kirsch, the co -inventor of the optical mouse and a data analysis specialist recently succeeded in getting Gemini, Google's AI search engine, to tell the truth in detail about the many harms of the COVID injections. Steve has also continued his campaign to investigate all available data and find the truth of just how extensive those harms are. Steve joins me today to explain how he got Gemini to reveal the truth, as though it were a witness under oath in a courtroom, and to provide some very sobering data on the millions of people who were being killed and maimed by these injections. Steve, Steve, it's a pleasure to have you back on the show. Well, good to be here. I wish it was under better circumstances. I know that you're having some struggles with your health right now, so I really appreciate you taking the time for this interview. Recently, I follow your sub -stack, as you know, and recently you put out an article that really grabbed me because you managed to get Gemini, Google's AI, to actually tell you the truth about the harms from the COVID vaccines. I've done my own experimentation with AIs and I came to the conclusion that some of them are programmed to lie to us. Some of them are not necessarily lying directly but they're just reiterating what they're finding online and a lot of that's lies so that's what you get from them. So I'm really curious about this. I'd like to start by discussing what you asked it and the answers that you got back. Yeah, so a lot of people who asked me that question because normally, when you ask questions like these, you get the canned responses. People have been posting videos asking Alexa about whether they should vote for Donald Trump or Kamala Harris, and they're getting completely different responses when they ask for one candidate versus another, and So, you can clearly see that these AI services are programmed so that they have a bias. They're not supposed to have a bias. They should be like the press, say, "Well, on one hand, there's this, and on the other hand, there's that." And clearly, when you ask about Trump versus Harris on Alexa, the bias is crystal clear. And lots of people have replicated that. So when you ask about vaccines, these AI models are all taught that vaccines are safe and effective, and that if there is counter evidence, it's interesting, but the health authorities and all the data says otherwise. And so it's difficult and probably impossible for the average user to figure out how to get around these constraints. And so I'm working with an AI expert and we've developed techniques to essentially put these AI models under oath and have them tell us the truth rather than what they're told to tell us. But the particular mechanisms for how we do that, we keep confidential. And the reason for that is because if they were known, they would probably fix the holes and it would be harder for us to do that. So we don't disclose our methodology because then it would leak out and get back and they would close and it's like, It's like we found a loophole in the system, and if we expose the loophole, they close the loophole and we can't exploit it anymore. But there are loopholes that allow us to essentially inject truth serum into these AI models and cause them to tell the truth, and when you do that, the results are quite extraordinary and people should look at my substack where I talk about Google AI and asking Google AI about the vaccines, the COVID vaccines and vaccines in general and you should see what it wrote and then you should try to dispute what it wrote but what it wrote is really devastating. I mean, it is better than I could have written myself in, you know, taking a week or two to research this, these AI bots, you know, spit out in seconds. And I can tell you, it's devastating. If you haven't read it, it's devastating. It's over 20 reasons why you shouldn't get the COVID vaccine. Yes. And of course, you'll only see that if you ask it the right way, if you ask it honestly. And look, if you think the vaccines are safe, all you have to do is respond to all the concerns. But all the concerns are legitimate concerns because it's generated by AI. It's not going to lie to us after we basically put it under oath, and it says that we just don't know about the safety of this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and less, I mean, it's really, really, really stunning. Yes. And I read it. I read your sub -stack on it with all those responses, and you're right. I was just blown away by it because just what you said, it spit out better information than I could probably find on my own and a week of research. So I'm going to assume and I completely understand your reasons for not disclosing exactly what you did. But I have to assume it comes down to how the query is written. Well, it's not just the query, but it's also the setup to the query. I see. Okay. I'm not going to ask anything more about that because I do understand your reasons. So could you just run us through? I'm not the whole thing, of course, because it's quite extensive. But some of the really surprising things that you got, Gemini AI, to tell you about the vaccines. Yeah. You know, it was a while ago, and I don't remember the specifics, but the, I think the individual, and if you have the individual items handy, I'm happy to comment on them. But it basically says, you know, the vaccines, there's evidence that the vaccines caused this and you know there was never any testing done so we don't really know or we don't know how many people will die because of this or we don't really know whether it's safe or not and you can't have that for a vaccine you give everybody it has to be yep at we we And we went down that rabbit hole and there were multiple studies and it's safe. We went down the rabbit hole, multiple studies, it's safe. You don't see any of that, you know, for any of these items. I went through it. I didn't see a single one where it said, "Yeah, but this is not an issue because we know it's safe." Right. You know, yeah. So, And sitting here in my studio, I don't have the ability to ring it up either, but folks what I'll do is we'll put a link directly beneath this interview to that sub -stack article of Steve's where you can read all the responses for yourself. Now for people who don't know your background, Steve, you're very deeply involved in computers, you were a co -inventor of the optical mouse, but you yourself, for all of your intelligence and knowledge you were deceived, you took two of these shots, Is it affecting your health at this point? I think so because my diabetes went out of control after I got the shots. So I'll just leave it at that that I think I was affected. But you know, it's hard to know whether it was the vaccine or it was just a random chance. And so it's important for people to report these adverse events in the VAERS system. And I can tell you that I just haven't had the time to report it. So, I think I'm like most people, which is why VAERS is underreported by a factor, probably a factor of 50 to 100. Okay. Now, you right now are, and we discussed this prior to the interview that you're okay with talking about your own health issues. Right now, you're in day 10 of a fast, a water -only fast. What's your reason for that and what effect are you getting from it? I'm sorry, what was my reason for that? What's your reason for doing the fast in the first place and what benefits are you getting from doing it? Well, nurse Angela on the VSRF staff has been urging me for over a year now to go and do this. And after I had the incident where I lost vision in my eye, I said, "Well, better late than never. At least it wasn't a hemorrhagic stroke or an ischemic stroke, and at least I didn't lose my ability to think or move." So I lost a very important organ in my body, which is my right eye. And so I'm not interested in losing any more organs. And so I decided to take, I decided albeit late, but the old saying is better late than never, that I should have listened to her advice earlier on. And have I done that? I probably wouldn't be in this predicament. So is that because of the autophagy that's produced by fasting that clears out all the junk in your cells? Is that the reason for it? Well, the fasting can help to restore your insulin sensitivity. And so, diabetes played a role, I think, in the problems with my eye, what happened to my eye. And high blood pressure could also be a factor as well in what happened to my eyes. So both of those things could have mitigated what happened. And so it's kind of like, well, you don't want this to happen to the other eye, right? Or some other organ in your body. So and I have a lot of visceral fat. I have about four pounds of visceral fat. And so I can see that I'm 10 days into the fast. I haven't eaten anything in 10 days and I'm doing just fine and I never had any problem whatsoever throughout the entire fast. My feeling was that you feel about mid, in my case, I felt, I feel about midway in between. I just had a meal and I'm waiting for my next meal. So, you know, within an eight -hour feeding window. And so, that's how you feel during the fest. And that's how I feel. Now, other people will feel differently. But that's how I feel. And I'll be writing about some of the tricks that I learned from others and not from the people here about how to survive a fast and do it, have a nice time with it. Because if you follow their instructions, you're missing these key tips. And also I'll be writing about those things on my sub -static, how to survive a 10 -day fast and not have any problems. Well, I'll look forward to reading that. As you know, I practice, and many of my viewers know, I practice intermittent fasting myself pretty much daily. I usually don't eat until mid -afternoon. How is your mental clarity? Because that's my primary reason for doing the fasting. Is it really increases mental clarity? Yeah, I'm not sure I have a good way to measure that. I'm a data guy and so it's very difficult to measure something that's that subjective. I can tell you that I'm not at any brain fog or feel like I can't recall facts or names or anything. Even if I was fully fed, I wouldn't be able to recall the 21 Google responses either. I don't think I'm at any disadvantage at all. All right. Now, Steve, because it is my mission to bring people the truth, even with sometimes we have to discuss things that are uncomfortable, I'd appreciate it very much if you would tell the viewers what happened to your eye. Why you lost the vision in it? I lost the vision in my eye because I was following the recommendations of one of our doctors to take some supplements and the supplements in combination act as a potent blood thinner. And I was not worried about that. And I didn't bring it up to my retinal doctor because the doctor always asks, "Well, what medications are you on?" They don't ask what supplements you're on. So it turns out that supplements can be in combination or sometimes individually. They can have stronger effects than prescription drugs. And so The moral of the story is that anytime you take a supplement, be aware of the benefits and the risks. And so I actually didn't need to take any of these supplements. I took them on a pure precautionary basis, didn't need to take any. And had I known, had I done the research on these supplements I've done a thorough job, I would have discovered that these supplements in my blood more than prescription blood thinner. And so, when I went into the retinal surgeon after I had the bleed in my eye, the first question the surgeon asked was, "What blood thinner "Are you on?" He didn't ask if I was on a blood thinner. He said, "Which one are you on?" And so that was the thing that did me in. So again, anything you put into your body, whether it is a supplement, a prescription drug, or a vaccine, you should thoroughly Research the benefits and the risk and make sure that you see the data behind it. Because that can cause you enormous harm if you fail to do that. Lots of people learn this lesson the hard way. I learned the lesson the hard way at 67. Hopefully other people can learn from my mistake. Are you comfortable with us telling the viewers what supplement that was? It's your problem. It's your eye. I don't want to say it without your permission. Yeah I'll be revealing that on my sub stack. I'm writing a sub stack on that So as people want to know that then just follow Steve's sub stack and once again, there'll be a link to it So you'll know where it is. Yeah, I don't mind my time people, but yeah I will let you do that on your own platform. Yeah, all right now Steve I wanted to get into some of the research that you've been doing it as you are, have been for several years now on the harms from these COVID shots. And you've recently, just in the last couple of months, published a number of very important articles, the ASMR from New Zealand. That's an important one. Data from Denmark, Finland, Norway, Czech Republic. Here was a big one that got me. NHS in England, the National Health Service, 80 % of the Neanderthal we're free fusing at this point and trying to take a booster, the evidence just keeps mounting up. So let's let's talk about that a little bit. I'd like to talk about very briefly about that age standardized mortality rate from New Zealand. We'll put up a slide of this, but please explain what it means. Yeah. So I hate SMR is age standardized mortality rate. And, but I think that the more devastating data, because each standardized mortality rate can hide things, and each standardized mortality rate is basically saying, have a standard population and then see how that standard population dies over time. And that way, if there's a change in population, like your population goes up by 20%, you have more mortality, what's called the crude mortality rate, which is the number of deaths versus population, can change. So if you have more population, then the crude mortality can go down if there is more population because the denominator is higher. So at age standardized, mortality rate tells you whether your population effectively is getting better over time as the mortality is lowering or it's going up. And so what I did in the New Zealand data and what others have done for the Czech Republic data basically shows that the vaccines are killing people and the New Zealand data is pretty clear. If you do, The problem is these effects can be quite small, you know, on the order of 10%. And so trying to get the signal out of the noise is hard. And the easiest way to do that is with what's called a time series cobalt analysis. And that basically says everybody got the shot at T0 and let's follow the people after they got the shot and let's see how they do over on. And there are all sorts of interesting effects that you have to account for, such as the healthy vaccine effect, because people who opt for a vaccine typically don't do that if they're going to die in a week. And so there's this much lower mortality within the first three weeks. But after that, then the mortality rate should be, if the shots are given over a large period of time like a year, then the mortality rate should be relatively flat, probably sloping down or up depending on the age of the cohort. What I found in New Zealand is that these mortality curves went up when the underlying mortality due to seasonality was going down and it went up when the underlying mortality was going up. So no matter what time of year you got the shots, after you got the shots, your mortality rate was higher. Now, there's no way to explain that if the shots are safe. And so these people who are my critics say, "Oh, well, it must be due to a confounder." But they can never produce the confounder. And so they claim that, oh, well, it's the healthy vaccine effect, the long -term healthy vaccine effect, which has never been established. So there's a mythical healthy vaccine effect, which is causing this to happen. And it's mythical because it only happens with the COVID vaccine and it doesn't happen with other vaccines. Now, most of the vaccines are not safe, so it's difficult to have a comparison group. And, you know, for example, the flu vaccine, you know, I've talked to people who nearly died after getting the flu vaccine, and in fact, the flu vaccine kills people on day zero. And for the people that doesn't kill, it can end up harming them for the rest of their life. So what was interesting about the Czech Republic data is that I had all the record level data for the entire country, which I didn't have for New Zealand. Now I had about a third of the records for New Zealand. And the New Zealand records were just one ramp, primarily Pfizer. And the Czech data has multiple brands and So what I did is I said, well, I really can't compare the vaccinated with the unvaccinated because there's too many confounders But what I can do is I can compare the Moderna brand with the Pfizer brand and My reasoning is that Moderna is three times the dose of Pfizer So I expected to find more deaths in Pfizer, or sorry, more deaths in Moderna than in Pfizer. And in fact, that's what we saw when we ran the mortality analysis. So we looked at the non -COVID mortality by excluding months of death where there was high COVID. And then we looked at the COVID mortality. And we just looked at months where there was high COVID. And in both cases, we thought we found the same ratio. Now, this means pretty much... Well, and then from another paper, I showed that the vaccines don't prevent death. So, if you have the same ratio, it means that, at best, the Pfizer vaccine is equivalent to a placebo, which we know is not the case, but in the best case, where the Pfizer vaccine is a placebo, Moderna increases all cost mortality by 10 % or more for all age groups. Now, a 10 % increase, and this is over a one -year period from the time of the shot, so all bets show off in terms of what happens after that, but in a one year period after the other shot was given, Moderna had clearly over a 10 % mortality increase. Now, increasing someone's all -cause mortality with a vaccine is unacceptable. Vaccines are supposed to reduce all -cause mortality if you get one. That's the whole point of getting a vaccine. It's not to make you more likely to die, diets to make you less likely to die. So any bad thing which has a higher than zero law cause mortality increase should be immediately stopped. So the health authorities are ignoring their own data. They're not explaining the data, they're doing nothing. And the press in the Czech Republic is also ignoring the story and doing nothing. So if you wanted proof to whether or not the health authorities are on your side or not, all you have to do is look at the Czech Republic data. Now, Senator Ron Johnson just drafted a letter to the CDC asking them whether they've looked at the Czech Republic data And whether they find it troubling or not. And then he asked them the most important question is, "So, what are the numbers for Pfizer versus Moderna in the United States with respect to mortality and efficacy?" Those numbers have never been published by anyone anywhere, not just in the United States. They haven't been published by anyone in the world. How do they say it's safe and effective if they haven't looked at the data? Because if they looked at the data, the numbers published in every single country would be identical for Pfizer versus Moderna. Nobody's publishing. Nobody's even looking at the brand difference between the vaccine brands. Now, why would they not want to know that, Will? Well, I was going to ask you. I was going to ask you because we know that most of the medical publications are heavily financed and controlled by big pharma. So that's one reason why it's not being published. But what do you think are the other reasons? Because I think there's more to it than that. Well, I think it's incompetence. I think the number one reason is simply incompetent. They are incompetent. This is obvious to go and do these comparisons and yet they don't. Now, it's also willful blindness because I reached out to one of the epidemiologists in my own county and I said, "How do you explain this data that you've collected which shows that if you got the vaccine you're more likely to be infected because the state has been replicated in other places and it's in the peer reviewed literature. So it's not like this is a fluke. The more vaccines you get, the more likely you are to get COVID. In fact, you're more likely to get COVID right after the vaccine. So the epidemiologist said, well, that's not her area of expertise, but she'd have someone get back to me. Nobody never got back to me. So then I said to her text, I said, Hey, I've been, I don't want to spread misinformation. You know, I don't want to spread truth. And if I'm wrong, you know, please tell me. And I said, nobody ever got back to me. She blocked me. And I wanted to ask this though. I can't really speak to the American government, certainly here in Canada. We have had elements within our government that are complicit in this, who knew from day one that these vaccines were harmful and pushed them on the public anyway. But we also have, I think we have to give benefit to the doubt, a lot of politicians who were simply deceived. They thought it was the right thing, they went along with it, and now they're finding out no, it's killing people, it's maiming people, it's sterilizing people. How much CYA, cover your ass. Do you think it's behind the fact that this data isn't being published? Well, I think it's the primary reason that they don't want to publish the data because it would show that they killed people. So, yeah. So, there's incompetence as one of the factors, like they're not even looking looking at the data. The second thing is, if they found the data, they'd hide it. In the Netherlands, they keep two sets of books. They keep the full records in the vaccine database, and then to the researchers, they extract out people who had the vaccine and died. Then they give that data to the researchers and say, "This is the data." That's I mean, that's not what you do. If you want to take out those people who got the vaccine and died, put them in effect for data set if you don't want to pollute the vaccination database or flag it. You don't delete records from the data. What these people do is reporting numbers, you know, so that there was one country in Europe that was reporting numbers of daily deaths, and then they stopped and did it quarterly. And then there are others that stopped reporting the data. They said due to budget cuts. Right. Jessica Rose and finding that from the Bayer system, they removed a huge amount of data. You've revealed on your own sub -stack a number of other countries that have removed data. And I think this is an important point for people to understand. What we've just been discussing is that, yes, there was incompetence, there was people who were complicit, but there were also the people who were deceived. And all of these people now have a vested interest in the facts not coming out. So it's not just that it's not being published. It's that people like you and I are being censored because they don't want people to know how badly they screwed up. That's correct. Yes. Nobody likes to admit that they were wrong and the CDC knows they were wrong and they don't like to admit it. So they're covering it up. It's just like what they did with vaccines and autism. So they did a study back in 2000 where they studied vaccines and autism in the United States and they found that there was a connection. So the CDC officials ordered the scientist in charge of the study to destroy the data. And nobody knew 10 because everybody shut up about it. Ten years later, William Thompson, who was the scientist in charge of the study at the CDC, admitted in a phone call which was taped. And Thompson didn't realize it was taped because that caused him enormous harm. He admitted to Hooker that he was ordered to destroy only the data that showed the connection between vaccines and autism. Well the rest of the data was fine but just remove all data that showed the connection so we can write a study showing that there's no connection. And That's why multiple studies can show that there's no connection between vaccines and autism because they simply remove the data that they don't like. So CDC scientist William Thompson, it missed this 10 years after the fact that Brian Hart run a tape recording. So congressman Bill Posey finds out about this and wants to bring Thompson in front of Congress where he has to testify under oath as to what happened. Posey's not allowed to do that because he's told that if he does that he'll lose all of his chairmanship and they'll shut down the committee. So there's no point in him trying. So, there's no hearing in front of Congress. This is the way the game is played. Now, had I known all this before, I never would have taken the COVID shots. The CDC and the FDA are corrupt beyond belief. In fact, I still hear stories that it's like, wow, I can't believe it's this bad. And I have reached out multiple times to Peter Marx saying, look, you know, one of us is spreading misinformation and it's harming the American people. How about we have a debate to settle it? I'll bring all the information spreaders on my side and you can bring as many staff of the FDA and CDC as you want. Let's have a public debate about it. Let's have a public discussion. I don't even get a courtesy of a response saying, "No, we decline." You can't decline an invitation like that because Peter Marx also said misinformation kills. And if you want to stop the misinformation, the way to do that is with more information. You inform people of the truth. You show people that you're not afraid to challenge these people or spreading falsehoods. Now, we're not afraid to challenge the CDC and the FDA because they're spreading falsehoods. But the CDC and the FDA are afraid of us. And the reason they're afraid of us is because we have too much data. US government data that shows that the vaccines don't work and that they've been lying to us. And even the former director of the CDC said that he's not proud of the fact that the CDC underplayed the harms which means they lied to people. These side effects were happening the safety signals were triggering and nobody said anything we know for a fact that the CDC knew about 770 safety signals from the covid vaccines. We know that because we did a freedom of information act request and got the original documents from the CDC that showed up So why didn't the CDC say anything to the American public like Whoa looks like we made a mistake. We have a disaster here You might want to hold up on those COVID shots unless you have to have to take them They said nothing They said nothing And of course it's like smoke going off it, you know And you say nothing like there's a fire going on in your building and you're saying nothing And this isn't new Steve and you know this it's not just that they're burying the data They're continuing to persecute people who are trying to tell the truth and we can go all the way back to what you were talking about with vaccines and autism, where while the CDC and FDA are hiding this data, they're continuing to persecute Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who was the first one to find the link and to destroy his career. And of course, they've done that again here with COVID, with all the doctors who were ethical, who told people the truth, and they went after them, took away their licenses, discredited them, if you go and you look at any of them, and you go and you look at them on Wikipedia. It won't say right at the top no one for misinformation on COVID. That's the first thing that comes up every time I'm sure you have a similar Wikipedia article on you about absolutely. Yeah, you're a misinformation artist, right? So it's it's it's it's incredible the extent that they're going to and I think once again I want to just circle back very briefly to that point that it's not just those who were complicit not just those who knew Now it's the ones who were duped into went along with it and their careers are going to crash and burn if people find out how badly they screwed up. So now we've got this huge machinery in our governments that are trying very hard to hide this data and they're going to continue to try to hide it until we can get those people out of office. Yeah, so if Trump gets elected, it'll be a whole new era. I mean, it will be transformative. You know, the first rule of holes is when you find yourself in one, stop digging. You would be amazed how many conservative Canadians are rooting for Trump. We can't vote, but we sure are hoping he gets in. Now, I want to circle back, Steve, very briefly. You were talking earlier about the flu vaccines and the harms that they cause. Of course, we know this about the COVID vaccines that they are horribly harmful and that Not only that, they don't do a damn thing to protect people against the disease. But I was interested in the article that you posted, I think it was a few months ago, but it was showing that the flu vaccines don't reduce hospitalization either. Correct. Yeah, the flu vaccines or the COVID vaccines are total scams. Here's the thing. If you get the flu, then you should be immune to getting the flu again. But as we all know, if you get the flu, you can still get the flu again. So what do you think the difference is between so and a vaccine is never better than getting the real thing? So if the flu virus itself doesn't create immunity to future flu infections, what makes you think that the flu vaccine will do that? The answer is nothing if you are a critical thinker. If you're a critical thinker, you will realize that the flu vaccine is a complete hoax. Now, I was able to prove that in data from this article that was published by a VA epidemiologist, just quite famous and quite well respected, and it was published in JAMA, which is the top, well, one of the top journals, certainly well in that area, and the paper showed that if you're hospitalized for the flu versus if you're hospitalized for COVID, the makeup of the people including their vaccination status, the percentage who were vaccinated for the flu and percentage vaccinated for COVID was nearly exactly the same in both groups and both groups have the same age. So you can't say it was age confounded. So what that means is that neither... There's only one way to explain that result, which is neither vaccine worked at all. Because if the vaccine worked, then there should be a reduction in the hospitalizations for the associated virus in that group. So, if you took the COVID vaccine, it should be mostly people who are unvaccinating from COVID, And you took the flu vaccine, most of the people were vaccinated for the flu. And it was the case, they were identical. And then I did the research and I found out that there was a study published several years before showing the flu vaccines do nothing. What a surprise. It's in the peer -reviewed literature. vaccine that the flu vaccine is doing nothing. And they did a clever technique to prove that point. They did something that nobody else did, which is they realized that there is a huge disconnect. There's a huge difference between people who are 64 years old and who got the flu shot versus 65 because when you're 65, you're covered under a different plan and the doctors all like to have you get the flu shot. And so, there's this discontinuity at age 65 for people who've got the shots now and There's no bias at all in that. It's just this like suddenly everybody who's turned 65 gets the shot. So you would think that there would be, if you looked at the number of flu cases by age that you would think that there would then be a discontinuity at 65 that it would drop because more people got the shots. There was no discontinuity. Yeah, not surprising. The flu vaccines are a complete joke. Yes. They are nothing but injury and death and nobody should be getting the flu shots. Steve, do you think there's any such thing as a vaccine that has more potential good than harm. There isn't one so far, but it's possible that there could be one in the future. But there isn't one that we know of so far. And there are people who believe that maybe one or two of the vaccines has a risk benefit that's positive, but where's the data? They hide the data, Will. They hide the data on every single one of these shots. None of the shots have publicly available data for independent researchers to look ask your team whether the benefits outweigh the risk. And so, you know, I send text messages because I get the question all the time, "Hey, should I get a tetanus shot of tetanus? And so, I talk to these guys who write the books on all the vaccines and spend their life studying every single vaccine. And the answer is really easy to remember. It's a blank slide for the vaccines that you should be taking. Zero. He said he would take zero that doesn't know of any vaccine where the benefits outweigh the risks. Right. Now, I want to get back to the COVID vaccines in your own research. and you made a really good comment earlier in the interview where you talked about, it's really difficult to ascertain real numbers because it is a small percentage at this point in time. Joseph Hickey, Denis Rancourt over a year ago published a study where they showed that 17 million people worldwide at that point in time had died from the COVID vaccines. Now, 17 million is a horrific number, but out of 8 billion, it's a drop. It's next to nothing. It's very difficult to detect. And that data is now over a year old, based upon your own research. Could you make a guess at where we're at now and just how bad it's going to get? And the reason why I asked that is, it was about three years ago that, once again, the doctor's name was escaping me. It should come to me. But he predicted we were going to see 700 million people dead before the end of this decade. I don't think we seem to be on track to that, but I'm curious as to your own research, where do you think we're at right now? How bad do you think it's going to get? So, we have some pretty good numbers as far as the side effect rate. So, there's, So, there's 5 .5 billion people who got the shots, so if you had 10 % of them injured, you're looking at 550 million people injured, or the 550 million people injured, maybe 10 % of them are injured so severely that they die, maybe it's only 1 % or 2%. So, but it's definitely more than 1 % of the people who are injured will die because dying is just an injury. It's on the tail end of the injury curve. It's the most severe injury because death is an injury that most people don't recover from death. There are a few who have recovered from death, but it's... I'm actually serious. People have been dead, pronounced dead, and using hyperbaric air therapy have been brought back to life. And there are a few documented cases of that. So that's exceptional. But generally, when you die, they're not able to recover you from the grave. You can use those stats, the 500 million injured and at least 5 million died. That's a lower bound. The number that I get from talking to multiple doctors very consistently will get somewhere ranging from two to five per thousand vaccinated. So if we take the lower end of that scale, and so these are doctors who have stable patient bases, and so they know their patient base and they know the circumstances behind their death. And so they can judge a vaccine death versus was this not a vaccine death. Now, you cannot do that in any of the large databases. It's very difficult to do. The best you can do, the most accurate you can do is that comparison by brand, and you look at the one year out of mortality from the time of the shot, and you compare groups that got vaccinated at the same time in the same place with the same age. And if the vaccines are safe, there's no mortality difference. So that's the way you do it for large numbers. But for these medical practices, they know the patients. So two to five, so per thousand. So that means there are 270 million or so people who got vaccinated in the United States. And so if you use that metric, you're looking at 540 ,000 Americans who died as a result of the shot. 540 at minimum. That's at the low end. It could be double that, so it could be a million, but I don't think it's that hot. I think it's on the order of 500 ,000 Americans. It's comparable to the number of Americans who may have died from the COVID virus. In some surveys, I've done the number died from the vaccine is twice as large as the number who died from COVID. And this is using an outside polling company where they ask the question, how many in your household died from COVID versus how many died from the vaccine? And we get, depending on the survey, we've gotten the upwards of twice as many people dying from the vaccine as from COVID, which means that the cure was worse than the disease, and there's no question about it. There's a study that was done by UCSF researchers. It's not published yet in the peer -reviewed literature. They're trying to get it published, but it clearly showed that the side effects from the COVID vaccine are much, much greater and more severe than the side effects from COVID. So if you have a choice, why would you get the COVID vaccine? The government should offer you the COVID virus instead. That's the better alternative. Now, how many people would sign up for the, If the US government said, "Hey, we're going to give you shots that will give you COVID." And it'll be exactly the same as you got as natural infection. How many people would sign up for that? The answer is a lot of people would if they were told by the CDC to sign up for it. But for any person who is a critical thinker, they would say, "Absolutely not." If I get it, Why would I voluntarily subject myself to getting COVID when I could avoid it? So the COVID vaccines, which are worse, are completely nonsensical. And I'm laughing as you're telling that, Steve, because my wife doesn't do this anymore in what we've learned in the last few years, but she used to be one of those who would go and take the flu vaccine, and she would be sick for two to three days afterwards. And I would look at her and say, "Why in the world would I go and take an injection that's going to make me sick so that I can possibly avoid getting sick?" That makes no sense at all. Well, the theory behind the flu vaccines is that you get the flu vaccine, you have a less chance of dying. The data behind that is non -existent, right? But Doctors will tell you that anyway, you have to ask where is the data and the data is missing. Right. There isn't any. So, Steve, as a final question, I want to cycle back to AI because we started out talking about it. And you recently did an interview with Google whistleblower Zach Voorhees on how AI is going to be used in healthcare. What came under that interview that if they think the viewer shouldn't know about. Wow. Okay. So, that was a while ago. And I don't recall the specific details of that interview, but the general point is that these companies are not being objective and fair about anything when it comes to going against any kind of government narratives. - Right. - Yeah. - And that's the bottom line. Don't think that you can't trust the health authorities. You can't trust Google AI. You can't trust Google. And You need to do your own research on this stuff because it's just really, really troubling and, you know, I'd say that these companies are acting the way that they're doing, not because they're evil, but because they're executives believe that the health authorities are telling the truth, and the health authorities are the good guys, and people like me are the bad guys. And so that's their opinion. And when you try to challenge them on their beliefs, you're not allowed to do that because any attempts at any communication are ignored. And we see this over and over. We see this with Google executives. We see this with local health departments. We see this with local government. We see this with the Board of Supervisors. They simply don't want to know and their staff don't want to know either. They won't engage with you and have a civil discussion about any of this. None of them will. It's insane. I cannot find a single public health official other than Joe Letipo. Joe Letipo, the only Why? In the entire world that you can have a discussion about this data with. Yes. That pretty much tells you everything you need to know. Try to get a discussion with a member of Congress. Your typical member of Congress on this. Like I used to be a supporter of John Garamendi, Democrat, Congress and, you know, lives near me, good guy, I try to send him a text message and he blocked me. They don't want to hear anything that goes against the authorities because their reaction is, "Well, I'm not a health expert, but I know you can trust the CDC and the FDA." And so this guy is basically lying to me, and he's a coop, and I'm not going to waste my time talking to kooks. And that's what goes through their head. And it took me a while to figure this out. I had a friend who, who I said, "Hey, you know, the data is really troubling. Do you want to see it?" And he said, "Well, do you believe in global warming?" I said, "Yeah, I still think global warming is a problem." He said, "Well, that shows me you're not totally off the rails, but you're basically in that case, so I don't want to talk to you." Let me relate a short story, and I like your comment on it, because it gets back to what talking about with AI in health care. Not long ago, I interviewed Glenn and Eric Meter, who were the founders of the Privacy Academy there in the US. And we were talking about an incident that happened to Eric when he was about 20, he's now about 25. He was going through a very bad time in his life. And a meme showed up on his phone that was very much targeted pushing him to suicide. Now, fortunately, he was not so far gone that he wasn't able to recognize what it was. But the theory that Glenn and Eric have come up with is that that was an AI that produced that meme specifically for him. It addressed him by name, it said Eric on it. So we know that AI can be done, used to do this. Well, for example, we talked about advertising back in the old days before computers came along, it was television, it was radio. Advertising was on the thing and just threw an ad out there and hoped it would hit the majority of people. And then as we go to the computers and things like advertising on social media, well, now we can do that very targeted. We can choose a demographic to go after. But with AIs, which can watch your activity, your personal activity, and create a profile on you and figure out what to target you with specifically, that leads now to my concern about AI and healthcare where You've got an AI that's not just tracking your interactions with the medical community, what kind of shots you've had, how many doctors visits you've had, what you've been in for. But also, it's not just going to send you then a message saying, "Well, it's time for your booster shot." It's going to tailor that message to press your buttons to get you to go and do that. Do you think that's a realistic scenario? Yeah, I do because AI is a tool that can be used for good and can be used for evil and so people are going to leverage AI in order to convince you to take the shot and could do that, right? But generally, your interactions with these AI tools are supposed to be confidential and not leaked out. So, the ability for someone to leverage what you talk to, talk with an AI model about, should be limited. And if it's not limited, then that will get out and people will stop using the tool. So I suspect that information like that will not get leaked out. Now what the, the, who's ever sending you these notices to get vaccinated, they couldn't use information that they have about you that's not from your interactions and it's not from files on your computer. That's legitimate. It's marketing. They could have done the same thing with human beings, except the AI is a little more efficient and probably more accurate, But it's like a company that wants to sell you, say, razor blades can go and get lots of data, put it into a computer and figure out, oh, gee, the marketing slogan for selling more razor blades that works the best is this. And we'll We'll test market that and so forth. So, you know, AI is just another tool for A /B testing, although it wouldn't necessarily be A /B testing, but clearly you'd want to A /B test anything that you got from AI to see how it worked. So, I think it can be used for that. I don't have a problem with that. It's, you know, over time, marketing is more targeted and more efficient. And if it's beneficial, so let's say, well, we had vaccines that worked, then you would welcome AI because it would then be helping people and convincing them that they should get this thing. And it's a beneficial vaccine. So, the concept of having AI essentially manipulate you or better convince you to do something that you wouldn't otherwise do, can be both a good thing and a bad thing. And I think the most important thing is that I think that government, when government steps in and regulates stuff, I think that is a, in general, that's usually a bad thing because they end up messing it up. When governments step in and say they want to look at Brazil, for example, Brazil wanted X to censor or remove the accounts of people that the Brazil government didn't like. Elon Musk refused to do that. So what did the Brazil government do? They basically said your band from Brazil and Anybody who logs into their account from Brazil will be fined $8 ,000 a day $8 ,000 a day. Wow, you know, is this a government that you think is protecting the public? - Well, I mean, and now we've got the founder of Telegram had being arrested in France, and he's out on $5 .4 million in bail. Why? Because he refused to censor. Yeah. Steve, I really want to thank you for, as I said, I know you're having some health problems, but you've given me your time for this interview. The second time you've been on my It's, it's kind of difficult to leave you alone because you produce so much good research, good data and data analysis of your own. Do you have any final thoughts for our viewers, just on anything that you have, have found the last little while that you feel people should know about? Yeah. Um, you know, the, the, the top, top most important messages are, uh, don't trust the people that you thought you could trust. don't trust me, don't trust the CDC, don't trust the FDA, do your own research. And I hate to tell you that, but you know, it's especially important for anything that's health related. Anything that's health related, make sure to do your own research and see who's telling the truth. And when you find someone who's a true teller, you can follow them and take their advice generally. But so that's one thing. And I will never trust the CDC and the FDA and the HHS again for the rest of my life. And the other thing, of course, is do not take any vaccines, any vaccines, not just the COVID vaccines, any vaccines, do not vaccinate your kids. Do not vaccinate your pets. Always ask for the data and always ask, "Can't this thing work so well? Why is there no data transparency? Why can't we see the underlying record level data where it's a record for each person who gets the shot? You just put the year of birth of the person and so that there's no privacy concerns. Why can't we see the data? Why can't we see the data? Ask, always ask your doctor who wants to prescribe this. Can I see the underlying data? Especially for vaccines. I mean, it's so bad and the corruption is just unbelievable. You know, these EUA's that just got announced for the COVID vaccine, the latest COVID boosters. EUA and the CDC says you're six months or older and it's been six months since your last shot, you should get the shot. Great. Show us the data on that one and also, wait a minute, there. The last I checked, there's no emergency in the United States for COVID, the emergency ended, Biden ended the emergency. So you have to ask yourself, why are these being approved under an EUA, which is emergency use authorization when there's no emergency? Hmm, isn't that weird? So, you know, It's just, it is unbelievable that these people operate this way. And the final thing is, if you want to know who's telling the truth, it's easy. You don't have to be an expert. The people who are calling for a debate against people who they disagree with are the ones telling the truth, and the people who wield the censorship club are the ones who are lying to you. Well said. And folks, I have to, I have to second what Steve said, and I say this as the person who in 2016, I was a national person for the Canadian Cancer Society. I went on national television and I told people to get their kids vaccinated against HPV. I desperately wish I had not done that, because if I had known then what I know now, I never would have. Do not take a vaccine, any of them. Do not let your kids take them, tell their pets to take them. There isn't a single one out there, as Steve has pointed out, where the data shows that in any way it can demonstrate it, that the if it's outweigh the probable harms. Steve, thank you so much for your time today. - Yeah, thanks Will, and by the way, I just want to add one more thing, which is there's a clinic in California. They can't be named because they would be shut down by the health authorities. They have the healthiest kids, it's a pediatric clinic, they have the healthiest kids in the state. They tell the parents, "Share the pros and cons of vaccination, make your own decision." All the parents decide not to vaccinate. Those kids are far healthier than all their peers. So this is not a philosophical thing or a hypothetical about do not vaccine. There are no autism cases or any of their kids in 25 years that are refused vaccines, no autism cases. Now, the rate of autism is like 1 in 24 or so in California. And so, this is just an example. So, you don't have the autoimmune diseases, you don't have the peanut allergies, You don't have the ADHD problems, you don't have the diabetes problems. I mean, it's just a long list of problems that you avoid if you don't vaccinate your kids. And this is proven in the data. And we've been trying to get this thing written up as a paper to submit to the medical journals, but it's dragging on for And then it should but that that data will be out there now and you can battle be watching your sub stack for when it does get published Yep. All right. Thank you Steve. Thank you. Will