[Will Dove] (0:00 - 2:09) Three years ago, Dr. Geert van den Bossche famously remarked that the COVID vaccines have a million different ways to kill you. So it is even more alarming that after years of irrefutable evidence of the truth of that statement, Big Pharma is now developing something that is potentially even more dangerous. Replicon, or self-replicating mRNA injections, which are not only likely to amplify the countless adverse effects of these experimental gene therapies, but may even be designed to spread to the unvaccinated by a shedding of the vaccine molecules themselves. I have with me today a panel of four of the top experts in the world on mRNA harms. The well-known immunologist, Dr. Byram Bridle. Dr. Neil Karrow, a man with more letters after his name than the alphabet has letters. Cancer expert, Dr. William Makis. And emergency doctor and truth warrior, Dr. Mark Trozzi. In this exhaustive interview, this expert panel reveals the concerns about the soon-to-be-released replicon vaccines, and most importantly, how you can protect yourself. Gentlemen, welcome to the show. Thanks for having us, Will. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. It is a real pleasure to have this amazing panel of experts with us today to discuss these replicon vaccines, which I have to say my own meager knowledge of them terrifies me. But before we get into those, I'd like to establish a bit of a baseline by talking first about the mRNA vaccines as they stand right now, and especially in regards to the shedding, the reverse transcription, and the DNA, which we know is in the vials from the research of Kevin McKernan and has now been confirmed by many others. And I think, Neil, if you don't mind, I'd like to start with you. Sure. [Dr. Neil Karrow] (2:10 - 4:35) Well, to start with the DNA contamination, that's obviously not my area of expertise, but we're good friends with Dr. Speaker, who's been very much involved in that project. And the contamination of DNA is very concerning. It's not the platform that they got approval for. They were using PCR before, and this newer technology was what they called a bait and switch. And so we have not... I'd say we've not been prepared for what the consequences of that are. David Speaker has told us that there are a lot of samples that he's tested, Pfizer and Moderna samples that are contaminated, and there's talk about concerns about risk of cancer, but I can't really comment on any more of that than what I've said. As far as the... What was the second question? In regards to the shedding, perhaps you can talk about that. I can comment more on that. I don't think there's any research that's being done, and it would be pretty easy to do. We do know that both the mRNA and spike protein can be found on exosomes. These are tiny little vesicles that are secreted by cells within our body, and they can circulate throughout the body. There is no barrier that they cannot penetrate, and they're also shed from the body as well. We know that exosomes can be found in breast milk, and we've actually detected spike protein in breast milk. We know that it can be shed in tears, semen, saliva, and breath exudate too. And so it would be reasonable to presume that spike protein could be shed, but nobody has actually done that experiment. A simple experiment would be to collect a mask after somebody has been vaccinated and just isolate the protein or the mRNA from that mask because you're breathing through there. You can trap the particles that you exhale. Very easy experiment to do, but I'm not aware of anybody that has done it. [Will Dove] (4:36 - 4:39) Right. Byram, your thoughts. Shedding, reverse transcription, DNA. [Dr. Byram Bridle] (4:43 - 13:33) Yeah. My concerns about shedding go way back. The thing that really woke me up to the issues, well, they woke me up to the reality that we really weren't following the science when it came to COVID-19. Sorry, I should correct myself there. My clue that our public health officials were not truly following the science when it came to COVID-19 was when I got my hands on a biodistribution study that Pfizer had submitted to the Japanese regulatory agency. And it was publicly available, but very deep on their website. And the interesting thing about that, well, when I saw it, many people misinterpreted my initial take on that because it was in a nine-minute interview to a lay audience. And I didn't realize that that was going to be studied in minute detail by half the world for months afterwards and used to attack me. So many people thought that what I was surprised about when I saw that was this widespread distribution of the lipid nanoparticles, which is the foundation of those little fat bubbles that are the foundation of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID shots, right? They carry a blueprint into our cells. And basically, the study showed that these lipid nanoparticles got distributed everywhere in the body. I'm a vaccinologist. That's exactly how this technology behaved right from its inception and for the entire decade leading up to the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. So when I saw it, I was surprised to see this widespread systemic biodistribution. What surprised me well was at the time, people were very worried about these shots being able to genetically modify their own cells. And in response to that, health officials were saying, don't worry, these are like a traditional, they function exactly the same as a traditional vaccine technology. And they even took it one step further and actually told people that the injections stayed at the, you know, these doses when they're injected, they stay at the injection site. So I, as the scientist, gave people the benefit of the doubt, these organizations that I historically had always trusted. And I said to myself, you know, I hold patents, I hold patents related to viruses and vaccines. And I understand the importance of protecting intellectual property. So I assumed there must have been some kind of proprietary tweaking of the technology that's that caused it to stop behaving like it had for the previous decade. And for these lipid nanoparticles to start staying at the injection site. So that's what shocked me, right, is I saw that we were being lied to. And the reason why this is important is, right away, I saw with this biodistribution that the lipid nanoparticles were going all over the body, including the small large intestines. That means there's the potential for the vaccines, or components of them. And I also like to say the derivatives of, because the spike protein isn't an actual physical component of the vaccine, but as a derivative of the right, it's something that's manufactured by ourselves. So if you get cells lining the intestines, manufacturing spike protein, perhaps that gets into feces, right? If this is getting there, so we have to think about when it comes to shedding, well, we need to think about the vaccine as an entire entity, these messenger RNAs encapsulated in the fat bubbles, but we also have to think of the individual components, which could also potentially get outside of the body. So that would be things like the lipid nanoparticles on their own, which have a lot of bioactivity. It could be the synthetic RNA, which you now know lasts a lot longer than what we were told. And so it could be the derivative of it, which is the spike protein. But we also now have to consider potential contaminants, which is contaminating bacterial DNA, right? Genetic material from bacteria that was used in the second iteration of the manufacturing process that the public wasn't told about. Dr. Karrow already mentioned this bait and switch, that the clinical trials were done using a completely different, a very clean manufacturing method. And in short, what I can tell you from the bio-distribution, it goes to the intestines, so there's the potential for shedding in the feces. It goes to the bladder, so there's potential for shedding in urine. These lipid nanoparticles go to the lungs. And also, we know that cells throughout the body can have little fat bubbles bleb off of them. As scientists, we call those exosomes. And those can carry the modified RNA inside, potentially. They can also carry the spike protein on their surface. And these little fat bubbles can readily get into the aerosols that we exhale. So, there's potential for shedding through the aerosols that we exhale. There's distribution to the salivary glands, so there's potential for shedding in saliva. It goes to the skin, so there's potential for shedding in the sweat glands and the oil glands. And then, so there's this potential for all of this. And the thing that I'd like to emphasize well, is to definitively answer your question would not take a lot of money, and it would not take a lot of time. For example, my laboratory, for example, I could collaborate right now with Dr. Karrow. We could probably get you a quite a firm answer within a couple of weeks. If we could just have a, you know, personnel to work in the lab for two or three weeks, and we could have the money, we wouldn't need much in terms of rate. It's not expensive, so not a long period of time, and we get definitive answers. The thing is, research only gets done if people acknowledge that there are problems, because research is done to address problems. So, it's very frustrating. But the one thing I can say to you is this. Shedding does definitively happen. We now know that because there's two publications showing fragments of the modified RNA getting excreted in breast milk to breastfeeding babies. And you know, what's remarkable about that is I now have seen documentation released through Freedom of Information Request from Health Canada, in which they very specifically, way back when I expressed these concerns, so specifically this report that I saw, was I expressed my concerns right at the end of May. The report that I saw covers June and July, immediately thereafter in 2021, and they were investigating, unbeknownst to me, until just very recently, they were investigating Canada's passive monitoring system, and looking, and they had found multiple reports of infants, suckling infants, that had, in which there were, these were infants that had suckled from mothers who were vaccinated when breastfeeding, and the infant suffered some kind of harm. Now, this was reported, again, doesn't mean necessarily it's a proof of a cause and effect relationship, but they were investigating this. And even to this day, this is the amazing thing, well, that I have to share, I'll get it right off right now. We have documentation now that was obtained through two sources, a Freedom of Information Request, and also what's called an order paper question. So our members of the federal parliament have the right to know how the agencies that they're overseeing made their decisions. And Health Canada has now admitted, now, currently, let alone way back, they still admit, they have not authorized, this is remarkable, they never authorized the COVID-19 shots for pregnant or breastfeeding women. And the reason is, is still to this day, they consider that in their database, they are missing information convincing them that these shots are safe for breastfeeding women. You know, so it's a remarkable, absolutely remarkable, but they let everybody assume that Health Canada had approved it for that purpose. So in short, the shedding does happen, we know that, we know for sure, fragments of the synthetic RNA gets released in breast milk. And when we're talking about shedding, we're talking about the potential for inadvertent exposure to others, to others that have not consented to be exposed to these products. Those infants have not consented to receive those fragments of the RNA from these shots, nor is there any, nor has it been approved that these shots have not been approved for use in infants, right? Anybody under six months of age, nor is oral ingestion of the vaccines or any components thereof approved, right? So we do know this happens, but to what extent? I agree with Dr. Karrow, we'll have to wait and see on that. And when it comes to, can you remind me of the second and third question that you had? [Will Dove] (13:33 - 13:39) We were also talking about reverse transcription and the DNA that's in the vials and the damage that can come from that. [Dr. Byram Bridle] (13:40 - 16:40) Okay, so the reverse transcription, we, personally, I have not seen data that makes me 100% confident that there is reverse transcription and integration. So the key is, it's not reverse transcription in of itself, that's the concern. And so the people understand, what we're talking about here is these Pfizer and Moderna shots carry a modified RNA, which encodes with spike protein. So what we call that is, when our cells get that genetic blueprint, they translate that into the spike protein. Reverse transcription, like what you asked, Will, is going in the reverse direction, right? It's taking that RNA, and instead of converting it into the spike protein, converting into DNA, a DNA version of the gene for the spike protein, and the risk there is that it could get integrated into the chromosomes of our cells. Something that we were promised could not happen. There's definitely been publications that provide proof of principle that this is possible for it to happen. There's a paper published, my criticism of that paper was it was in cancerous liver cells. I contend that before we get overly concerned, we really need to see it in normal human cells, because cancer cells do have a lot of, they don't behave like a lot of normal cells do. But I can't say there is the potential. There is a potential, and nobody can assure us that it definitively does not occur. We have proof of principle that it might. Further, you mentioned the contamination issue. The bacterial DNA introduces yet another issue, because there you don't need reverse transcription to occur. So, for reverse transcription, you need an enzyme that's able to take the genetic blueprint from the shots and convert it into DNA that could then get incorporated into our cells. The contaminating DNA, it's already DNA, and it has the potential to have portions of that integrate directly into our chromosomes. Now, again, I haven't seen any hard evidence that this is occurring, but again, this is not a broadly, this is not broadly accepted as a problem. People who are not awake, and those who keep pushing the narrative, are continuously telling us that this is misinformation, and it absolutely is not. So, until it's acknowledged as a problem, we're going to have difficulty doing widespread research. But what I can tell you, I have seen data, again, proof of principle, where people took, in Germany, cancer cells and mixed it with these RNA shots and did find, they did with two cancer cell lines, and the one cancer cell line, they did not find evidence of integration of components of the bacterial DNA into the chromosomes of the cells, but in the other cancer cell line, they did. So, again, well, there's another way. So, we have multiple mechanisms whereby we could end up with modification, genetic modification, permanent genetic modification of human cells, which we were guaranteed could not happen. And sorry, the third one, Will? [Will Dove] (16:42 - 16:46) So, that was the reverse transcription and the DNA, and you addressed both of those, Byram, so thank you. [Dr. Byram Bridle] (16:46 - 16:47) Yeah, so there we go. [Will Dove] (16:47 - 17:20) Good, right. Dr. Makis, I'm going to pass this on to you, and in your case, I mean, we've already, Neil and Byram have already covered those sort of specific questions. So, we're talking about the harms of these original mRNA shots before we get into the replicon ones, and in your case, I would like your specific comments in regards to the turbo cancers, your area of expertise, and how these shots are causing these turbo cancers, and the chart that you showed recently in Japan, I have to say, I found it incredibly alarming that we've got this trend, just continues to go up, continues to go up. [Dr. William Makis] (17:21 - 26:55) Sure, absolutely. I think the entire mRNA platform, the mRNA vaccine platform, and we know it's not really a vaccine, is fatally flawed, and it's fatally flawed for a number of reasons. In fact, I would say every component of the vaccine is fatally flawed. You know, from the lipid nanoparticle to the pseudouridine-modified mRNA to the DNA contamination, which we know is going to remain there in future vaccines because they're not changing their manufacturing processes, you know, down to the spike protein production or just any foreign protein being produced. It might be in future an influenza vaccine, and we get a different protein that gets produced, but, you know, there's going to be problems with introducing a foreign protein in locations of the body where it's not supposed to be expressed. And then, of course, we also have the antibodies that are produced, where if you get multiple injections of these mRNA vaccines, you then get a complete shift in the production of your antibodies to IgG4, which are tolerance antibodies. They start to tolerate the spike protein, but they also start to tolerate things like cancer. So, if I may, I'd like to actually share a screen of just one of, well, maybe two slides that I shared in Japan recently to the Japanese media and the Japanese parliament while we were all there in Japan, and my colleagues, Dr. Trozzi, Dr. Karrow, and Dr. Bridle. But, if I may, maybe I'll just share. I will share that slide. We have it up now. Thank you. Excellent. So, I just wanted to show this rise in cancer that's just been absolutely dramatic. This is CDC data. This is work that comes from Ethical Skeptic, and really, we don't see a definitive signal for cancer. This is cancer mortality. We don't see a definitive signal in 2020. If COVID was causing cancers, it would have been all over the news. We would have seen some kind of a signal back in 2020 when the variants were at their worst, but we don't see it. We see sort of really no significant increase here. The cancer signal really starts with the rollout of the COVID vaccines in early 2021, and it just has been steadily increasing ever since. Another way to look at it is you can look at the spike in the money that has been spent on cancer treatment, and you can see this in various databases. You see there's been a huge spike in the money that's spent on cancer treatments. I mean, it's in the billions of dollars, about $35 billion increase over the last few years. You can also see it in certain medications that have been certain chemotherapies. You see a spike every year in the revenues for certain popular chemotherapy regimens for breast cancer, colon cancer, and so on. So, even if the governments are suppressing the increase in cancer, which I believe they are, I believe the U.S. government is suppressing the data, I believe the Canadian government is suppressing the data, they've actually not been transparent with the data. We don't have any data for cancer over the last two or three years because the governments haven't released it. But this is really what I wanted to just focus on just for a couple of minutes, if I may. And what I have presented was the different components of the vaccine and the ways in which they can be contributing to cancer. And as you can see, there's a number of ways that each of these components can contribute to cancer. Now, the lipid nanoparticle is a big one. Not only is it inflammatory, as Dr. Bridle just said, it's a very bioactive part of the vaccine. But I think one of the fatal flaws is systemic distribution. It doesn't stay in the arm. It gets into the systemic circulation. We know most of it ends up in the bloodstream and it gets delivered all over the body. It starts dumping. You get this local accumulation of the payload of the lipid nanoparticle. You get it in the bone marrow and we start to see leukemias and lymphomas. We know that it accumulates in the breasts because we end up finding mRNA in the breast milk. We know that accumulates in the testes and ovaries. And we see cancers, testicular cancers, ovarian cancers. We see hepatobiliary clearance of the nanoparticles. This is another important thing that very few talk about. These nanoparticles get cleared by the liver. They are 60 to 100 nanometers in diameter, so perfect to be cleared by the liver. But they end up in the bile ducts. They end up in the gallbladder, pancreas, and eventually in the colon. And so we see a huge spike in cancers of the pancreas, of the biliary tree, of the gallbladder, and we see colon cancers as well. So the lipid nanoparticle is a huge problem, and we know that every future mRNA vaccine is going to have these same lipid nanoparticles. Now, they may vary slightly in their composition, but that's going to be, and I believe this is one of the fatal flaws where all the vaccine injuries come back to, is the fact that the vaccine doesn't stay in the arm. It ends up going systemic and then gets delivered all over the body, crosses the blood-brain barrier into the brain, crosses the placenta into the fetus, gets into the breast milk, and of course, we've got the shedding issue as well. The other problem is the pseudo-iridine-modified mRNA. This causes all kinds of immune system dysfunction, and I believe a lot of the immune system dysfunction is manifested in things like autoimmune diseases. We see all kinds of autoimmune diseases as vaccine injuries. And then, of course, cancer being the big one. We have, you know, the pseudo-iridine causes frameshift, ribosomal frameshift, so we get production of not just the spike protein, but we get all kinds of mutated spike proteins. We get all kinds of proteins, the structure of which we have no idea what they look like. We have no idea what they do in the body. We also get fragments of these mRNA pieces that microRNAs can themselves be oncogenic, and so you have that packaged in the lipid nanoparticle. You get fragments of mRNA that themselves can increase the risk of cancer. Of course, we've got the DNA contamination issue with the SV40 promoter sequence in there. That's a whole series of problems. I'm not going to get too detailed into it, but that is a big risk of cancer. And, you know, doctors like Dr. Byram Bridle and Dr. Kevin McKernan, Dr. Philip Buchholz, you know, they're doing the important research to see if there's been integration events, because if there have been integration events and integration is proven, then, you know, we're basically one step closer to finding a causal link potentially with these turbo cancers, these extremely aggressive cancers. Spike protein is another huge problem. It interacts with tumor suppressive proteins like p53 or BRCA1. It can interfere with DNA repair. There's been papers on that. It, you know, it mimics all kinds of proteins that we have in our body, again, causing all kinds of autoimmune issues, the immune system dysfunction, and so on. And finally, the IgG4 shift, now that's the types of antibodies. Once you've had more than one injection, you start producing these antibodies that actually tolerate cancer. And what you see here is you've got a cancer cell, and you've got the various immune cells that would recognize the cancer cell, but then the IgG4 blocks the binding of, basically, it makes the cancer invisible to your immune system. And so you've got these cancers that go completely unchecked. And so, when we look at these types of cancers, these turbo cancers, they're extremely aggressive. You know, they grow very, very rapidly. It's as if there's nothing there to contain these cancers. Usually, it's the immune system that can contain these cancers, that can destroy cancer cells before they become tumors, and before they get out of control, before they metastasize. And without the protection of the immune system, without immune surveillance, and really with a lot of immune dysfunction on board, these cancers are growing like wildfire. And, well, I can tell you, I'm just absolutely overwhelmed every day with requests from people who've had one, two, or three, or sometimes five, six, seven COVID-19 vaccines. They develop these extremely aggressive cancers. And I can tell you, enough of these patients are realizing that this problem happened after they took the vaccines. And usually, they can track it back. They'll say, oh, I shouldn't have taken that booster shot. You know, that booster shot was probably what caused this thing. A few months later, I'm diagnosed with this stage four cancer out of the blue. I've been healthy my whole life. I've been eating well. I haven't been smoking, haven't been drinking. Patients are starting to put two and two together, and they're realizing that, you know, these vaccines are probably responsible for the extremely aggressive cancer that they're dealing with now. [Will Dove] (26:55 - 27:32) Right. Now, Dr. Makis, just before we move on to Dr. Trozzi, could I get you to bring back that chart, the very first one you showed of the increase in the cancer cases, as I have a specific question about it? Absolutely. Dr. Makis, the thing that just... I don't even have words for how much this chart bothers me. And the reason is, you know, you're tracking well into 2024 here, and we're just seeing the steady incline. And we know, however, that vaccine and booster uptake in the last year, two years, has been way down. But the cancers aren't slowing down. Absolutely. [Dr. William Makis] (27:33 - 30:10) And this is a concern that I really have as well. And this suggests that this is going to be a long-term problem. And it's not slowing down. I mean, we see booster uptake down to less than 10% in the last booster shot. I think the governments are telling us that up to 15% of patients have taken the ninth shot. I don't believe that's the case. It's probably significantly less than 10%. But there's absolutely no slowing down of the cancers and cancer diagnosis. And the other thing I would say is that what's very interesting is when you look at the pharmaceutical industry and the way the pharmaceutical industry is behaving, Pfizer specifically, but also the pharmaceutical giants like GSK, Sanofi, and so on, Johnson & Johnson, is they're pouring billions of dollars into cancer, into buying up smaller cancer drug companies. Pfizer invested over $43 billion buying a fairly small cancer drug company that had a few cancer drugs in their pipeline. They weren't going to make any profit from this company, maybe a few billion dollars a year, but they're overpaying. All these big pharmaceutical giants are overpaying to get themselves positioned for cancer. And Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, came out and said, look, one in three people will get cancer. Even more people will be affected. So he said, it'll impact families and so on. And he said, that's going to be our number one source of from 2025 to 2030 at least for the next five years. All these companies are positioning themselves. BioNTech came out, said the same thing. They said, look, we're not making any money on COVID vaccines anymore, but cancer is the next big thing. We're going to be revenue positive as soon as we get our cancer portfolio up and running. So Johnson & Johnson as well, secured a big acquisition with a small cancer drug company. So they're all positioning themselves and you see big cancer centers popping up all over the world really. But throughout Canada, we have a big gigantic cancer center that just opened here in Calgary and Alberta. You will see them all throughout the United States. They're either opening this year or next year. So there's obviously been maybe a longer term plan in terms of investing and people positioning themselves to profit from this absolute tsunami of cancers that we're dealing with. And unfortunately, given the trend, the upward trend that I'm seeing, I think we're going to be dealing with this for a long time. [Dr. Byram Bridle] (30:11 - 33:58) Can I make just a couple of comments, Will? Yeah, let's do it. Because I think it's important. So I do a lot of cancer research, and I've just got a couple observations. I remember some people trying to preemptively warn us that we might see an increase after 2020, because of all the lockdowns, an increase in the cancers. But like you, I look at a graph like this that Dr. Makis has shown us, and this rules this argument out, which is that we lock people down, we delay diagnoses, we reduce treatments, people were able to get treatments in a timely fashion, and therefore you expect to see a blip once people get back and once people can return to their chemo treatments and once the diagnostic imaging can be resumed again, right at full speed ahead. But if that were the case, you would expect to see that initial hump, like what you see on the graph here, right? And then it would go down flatline again. And the thing is, right, I just want to point that out for people who are making that argument a couple years ago, that is not how it's played out. That does not explain this continuous trend. We've caught up. We caught up a long time ago with the missed appointments, right? So that does not explain it, which I think is very important. And the other thing I was going to point out, Will, is we do, you know, we highlight these turbo cancers. But I always like to say that the events that trigger cancers, they can have occurred in the body, and they can sit there like a smoldering fire, right? And it can smolder for a long time before the flames become apparent. So this can also be explaining this, right? So it may not necessitate four, five, six, seven, eight doses. It might be that two or three were sufficient, right? And the concern that I have is how many smoldering fires do we have out there? And this is the thing I can tell you, so many self-proclaimed experts that like to make this claim that the only side effects that could possibly arise from these shots would unveil themselves within two to three weeks. And there's no possible side effects that could appear beyond that. Well, what we're just talking about, this is one of them, right? So even as the rollout of the shot slows and the uptake slows, who knows where this curve is going to go, right? For that reason, because we may have a whole pile of smoldering fires out there where the flames have yet to reveal themselves, right? And that's to these data. And I just wanted to point out really quickly to Dr. Makis, I found it very interesting that the slide he had after that with the money, because the money doesn't really lie. And I think it's important for us to recognize that with that dramatic increase in spending on cancers, right? That coincides with the complete and utter destruction of our economies due to our overreaction to COVID-19. In Canada, a lot of people don't realize for almost a year and a half consecutively, throughout all those lockdowns, we were averaging almost half a billion dollars a day spent on those COVID policies, on the lockdowns and the masking policies, et cetera, and paying businesses to send their employees home, et cetera. And so you know, when you see that dramatic increase in money, this is dramatic confirmation for me of the previous slide, because they don't want to be spending this money on cancers, right? This is just out of necessity. I think we need to keep that in mind, right? Our governments don't have the money to spend to have this kind of massive increase. So this is unwanted spending, right? So I agree with Dr. Makis. This graph is also very compelling. They're spending that amount of money, despite our economies being destroyed. [Will Dove] (33:59 - 34:11) Right. Yeah. Dr. Trozzi, you've been extremely patient. I'm going to ask you to be patient for just one or two more minutes, because Dr. Karrow, I wanted to ask if you had any additional comments before we ask Mark to summarize things for us. I do. [Dr. Neil Karrow] (34:11 - 35:04) I have one comment. So first of all, that table of Dr. Makis is very, very helpful. One thing that kind of triggered me was the immune dysregulation. So what a lot of people don't realize is that when you tell your body to make this foreign protein all throughout your body, what happens to those cells that are producing that foreign protein? They get targeted by the immune system and destroyed. So then your immune system is also responsible for cleaning up those cells that are destroyed. So when your immune system is distracted by all of that, and that continues to happen over time, we don't know how long we produce spike protein. For some people, it's several hundreds of days after getting immunized. And if they're going to get boosted again, you're going to keep producing it. So all of that is a distraction for the immune system. It can't do what it needs to do, which is recognize tumor cells and destroy them. Great table. [Will Dove] (35:05 - 35:28) Thank you. All right, Mark, thank you so much for your patience. Last but certainly not least, as we discussed prior to the interview, I've asked you to act as something of an anchor because you have a talent for explaining all of this very technical stuff in plain English that people can understand. So I'm going to ask you now to summarize what the other gentlemen have said, and especially in regards to the harms of these mRNA vaccines that we are aware of. [Dr. Mark Trozzi] (35:29 - 41:23) Actually, I just wrote an article last week, Mechanisms of Injury, where I tried to map out a lot of this in terms that everybody with a decent grasp on basic science could understand, and the mechanisms are vast. If you go back to the beginning of this thing, so you generally don't vaccinate your way out of a pandemic because you just drive the evolution of the virus. So vaccinating out of a pandemic, whether it was fake or not, there was definitely an infection spreading. So that was a mistake. If you were going to vaccinate your way out of a pandemic, a coronavirus would not be a good one to do it with because there's a long history of actually enhancing disease. So even if you wanted to create a vaccine, coronaviruses present some great challenges where things can backfire and you can help the virus infect the person rather than protect the person. If you were still crazy enough to go ahead and create a vaccine against coronaviruses, you wouldn't target the spike protein because the spike protein is really good at evolving and evading the antibodies you create. But again, this is what's happened. Now, even if you were going to do that, let's say you said, no, we're going to just ignore all the reasons not to do this. Let's vaccinate people with the spike protein, but let's make it even more interesting. Let's vaccinate them. Let's give them genetic injections that penetrate, as my colleagues pointed out, every tissue in the body and deliver the genetic code so that their body will produce the spike protein. So though the vaccine won't work for coronavirus infections, and it'll make you more likely to get sick or die of coronaviruses as we've seen, it will drive the evolution of coronaviruses. It will also, as Neil just pointed out, target cells throughout your body as foreign to be attacked by the immune system, which is what we've seen. And that's what you see in the autopsies of the young people's hearts and the placentas from the aborted babies, et cetera. So right off the bat, there's kind of just the mainstream of how toxic these things are. Ignoring things like it's five times as likely to cause anaphylaxis immediately as a normal vaccine. But then you get into the issue that another issue that Dr. Makis mentioned is they didn't just put RNA, and people need to remember your chromosomes are DNA. From your DNA, your body makes bits of RNA that it uses to manufacture proteins. They injected people with RNA to make coronavirus spike proteins, but they used this highly modified RNA. So instead of it lasting a couple of hours and making protein for a couple of hours, this thing lasts, we don't know, we have studies at least 186 days. But because of this modification that Dr. Makis mentioned, where they changed uridine for N1 methyl pseudouridine, that introduced a lot of errors in the ribosome trying to read the RNA sequence. So it makes a lot of mistakes. So in addition to the body making a whole bunch of this toxic spike protein that nobody should want in their body, it also makes a whole bunch of random proteins. Now every one of those random little bits of proteins has the potential to trigger the immune system to cause another autoimmune disease to different parts of their body, because proteins can look like other proteins, and there's at least 20 that have been identified. So that's where you're getting this next wave that's happening of all kinds of autoimmune diseases being diagnosed at accelerated rates. In terms of causing cancer, there's multiple mechanisms, and that's the suppression of the immune system, the IG4 antibodies Dr. Matkus mentions that basically conceal the cancers from the body, and you have suppression of certain T killer cells, which are really important for keeping cancer at bay or keeping it away. And then you also have some direct effects of the spike protein being harmful to our chromosomes, which of course when you mess with your chromosomes, you create risk of cancer. So all that's bad enough, but then you have to realize it does get worse, because they didn't just put modified RNA for spike protein, they put about 30% DNA in there, and they've got their excuses as to why, and I would say those are more excuses. And so now you worry about reverse transcription, this idea that, hey, you put RNA into people, and that RNA can be transcribed in the reverse direction into DNA. Yes, but you don't need to with these injections, because they put the DNA in there anyways, and they included in there some very special genetic sequences that have a known history of them helping get other DNA into the nucleus and incorporate it into the person's chromosomes. So there's another whole level of risk. There's absolutely never been any reason to expect any benefit from these injections whatsoever. Everything we pointed out by the end of 2020, because I was very early to say, my God, at any risk, don't take these injections. All that stuff's coming true, and it's coming true in stages, and we haven't seen the end of it, you know, especially when you consider people have been genetically hacked or modified, whether by the presence of a hyper-persistent RNA, or the fact that they put DNA in promoter sequences to help get that DNA into people. There's just nothing but harm to come from these injections, and it's setting records in terms of medical atrocities in our history. [Will Dove] (41:24 - 41:44) Dr. Trozzi, thank you so much for that summary. Before we move on, or at this point in time, I want to move on to the replicon, the self-replicating vaccines, and I'm going to switch things around because there's so many people who aren't even aware of these, don't know what they are. Dr. Trozzi, I'm going to ask you to start off by giving us a very simple definition of what these replicon or self-replicating vaccines are. [Dr. Mark Trozzi] (41:46 - 45:58) Sure. So, well, then we'll compare them to the other ones. So, once again, this is a genetic injection to trigger people's bodies to manufacture the toxic spike protein in the coronavirus. So, just on that basis alone, as I mentioned earlier, completely crazy idea to do. It's hard to believe, after all the death, that we're still sitting here thinking of new ways to genetically modify people to get them to produce spike protein, but this is still what's happening. So, let's, for a moment, ignore the fraud and the adulteration with DNA in the last injections. We don't want to ignore that, but let's, for a moment, look at what they claimed they were giving people, which is part of what they gave people, which was this long-lasting, abnormal, unnatural RNA molecule delivered with pegylated nanoparticles into every cell and every tissue. So, those cells and tissues would sit there manufacturing spike protein until, hopefully, someday that unusual RNA would wear off, be disposed of, and perhaps a person would stop poisoning themselves while they're still alive. Now, with these self-replicating RNA, what they've done, and at least two of my colleagues have greater depth on this for sure, but they've taken some technology derived from a different class of viruses, alpha viruses, and what this does is now they're just putting in normal RNA in terms of it doesn't have the un-1-methyl-pseudo-uridine, it's just normal RNA in that sense. But this genetic sequence, this RNA that comes in, the first thing it does is it codes for a protein called a replicase, and that protein's job is to reproduce the whole thing. So, now you put in this RNA, the RNA makes a protein that reproduces the RNA, so now you're snowballing the RNA. You're not just having RNA make protein, you're having RNA make more RNA and make more RNA, and then all of that RNA is able to engage ribosomes and make spike protein. So, it's like sort of another level of cascading. And one thing that concerns us with this, we talked earlier about shedding and about the fact that our cells can show off little bits of cell membrane with a little bit of what's in the cell, and you're going to get some of what's on the cell surface, like spike protein, and you're going to get a little bit of the genetic material, like for instance the DNA contamination or the RNA. But here's the thing, with this self-replicating RNA, and I'd be very grateful and we're totally open to one of my colleagues correcting me on this, but I recall the scientific team that we met with in Japan, one of them pointed out, you only need three molecules of that RNA in a cell for that RNA to begin replicating itself and create an unknown amount. I mean, it can just keep going. I mean, this is a snowball effect. And three is a very small number. In biology, three is kind of like zero. You never think about three water molecules or three hydrogen atoms. I mean, three is infinitesimally small. So if it is possible that just three of those molecules is all it needs, then I think if you had, let's say, an injection victim of this replicon vaccine, their cells could be producing lots of this RNA that's able to reproduce more RNA and make spike protein, and it doesn't take very much of that. Theoretically, even just breathed out in an exosome that could get into someone, we're not saying it will, but this sort of stuff, this is a big gamble to take on the human population. But that could go into another person, and if they get three molecules, that you could begin the process all over again. I mean, this does have the potential. We're not saying it does, but it hasn't been proven otherwise. This has the potential to be the dream that we've heard of from people I would consider psychopaths in the vaccine industry of the contagious vaccine. There's something we can give it to somebody, and everybody gets it whether they wanted it or not. That's a real risk that hasn't been excluded. [Will Dove] (45:59 - 46:20) Dr. Bridle, I'm going to ask you to go next on this one. And I have to be so honest about how, what Dr. Trozzi just said, my own research on this, which obviously I don't understand this in any way near the level you gentlemen do, but the possibility that these replicons, these self-replicating vaccines are designed to spread to other people. [Dr. Byram Bridle] (46:21 - 54:00) Yeah, this comes back to the question of biodistribution. These vaccines, so again, we already talked about that, and we know that shedding does happen. And we know that there's a lot of research that these are legitimate concerns, and that the research is very easy to do and absolutely should be done. And until it's done, there should be a worldwide moratorium. There should be, I like to put it this way, Will, in short, there are so many outstanding questions, right? And we already have summarized so many of them here. So many questions with the first generation of this technology, that the first generation of the technology should have a moratorium placed on it until the science can catch up. And I'm quite convinced that once the science catches up, it'll be patently obvious that we should not resume using this technology. That's with the first generation. The second generation technology just adds more questions. It's even more complicated. You're absolutely right. So all the concerns about biodistribution and potential shedding get amplified with this. I mean, think of it this way. Never in our history have we given administered vaccines where we have no clue what the dose is. Absolutely no clue. And it gets worse, far worse, with the replicon vaccine technology. Because, you know, with the first generation technology, there's a predefined, and there's quite a lot of variability, actually, in the amount of the modified RNA that actually gets injected into people from batch to batch. A lot of people don't realize that the dose is sort of the average across batches. So there's even variability at that level. But then if you inject a dose from the same vial into two different people, you have no way of predicting how many cells will have those lipid nanoparticles, those little fat bubbles, fused with them. So somebody might have a lot of cells yet, you know, have this genetic blueprint introduced. Another person might have relatively few cells that receive the genetic blueprint. So there's another step where you have no control over the dosing. And then once it gets into a cell, there's nothing that compels a cell to only make one spike protein from the genetic blueprint. It's just like a home builder. A home builder is not compelled to build one home from a blueprint. If they so wish, they could build 20 homes from the same blueprint. And so then it depends what cells it gets into. So for example, on average in children, their cells are far more metabolically active than say an elderly person. And even within an individual, we have cells that are quite metabolically inactive. That means they're not producing, manufacturing many proteins. So if you put the genetic blueprint in those cells, you're not going to get a lot of spike protein. But then it might go to other cells in our body that are very metabolically active, right? And so they're producing lots of proteins. So you get lots of spike protein manufactured. So never before have we administered anything in medicine, a vaccine, certainly, or a drug, where we have no control over the dose. And then it goes all throughout the body and we know escapes to at least some degree from the body. Either the vaccine, again, or components thereof, or the spike protein or contaminants. And so I just want to highlight because then you add to this the idea. So what they're saying is they're trying to alleviate people's concerns by saying, you know what? With a self-amplifying RNA, we can give you lower doses. They have no control. We see no obvious off switch for the self-amplifying RNA. So all they're saying is we're going to inject less total RNA on average. But you could still have in an individual, lots of cells that take up that RNA or others where there's relatively little, right? And we still have the same variability. So the starting dose of the certain amount of RNA is less. Yes. But what they've added on the other end is a step. I would rather take, in theory, a better defined dose of RNA and not have it self-amplify. Because when you self-amplify, you got no control over how much RNA you end up with. So Dr. Trozzi was correct. The data seemed to suggest that if a cell gets as little as three of these RNA molecules, that's enough to, quotes, take in the cell, right? And you get the self-amplification process. So that's, people have to self-amplify. When have we ever given self-amplifying drugs to people where you inject what you think is a defined dose of something, but you end up, you have no clue where the person ends up. And different people end up in completely different places with completely different doses. The way I'd like your listeners to think of this, Will, is as a, like a, think of it as a pro-drug. Because remember the vaccine, nothing in the vaccine in and of itself is the goal or is the target, right? The target is manufactured by a blueprint encoded by these. So the actual thing that we want, when these injections are given, we don't want the lipid nanoparticles. We don't need the lipid nanoparticles on their own, right, per se. We don't want or need the RNA. That's not the target. Certainly we don't want contamination and contaminating DNA to be a target. The target for the immune system that we're trying to get into the body is a spike protein, ultimately. So you can think of these like pro-drugs. So a pro-drug is something where you administer it, and then it has to be altered inside the body, right, to get what we call the bioactive form, right, or the drug that then mediates its activity. So you don't inject self-amplifying pro-drugs, right, and then have no clue what the ultimate bioactive molecule is, what that dose is. So you can see, well, I think I've, you know, so I'll leave it there because I think first-generation technology is already a complete and utter mess in terms of trying to predict what the ultimate dose of the spike protein is. When you add to the tail end of that a self-amplifying RNA, so now we have no control over how much RNA ends up inside of a cell after all the self-amplification occurs, we've really messed up the dose. And the self-amplifying RNAs, you're right, well, if those get transferred inadvertently to others, there is the potential. Now it wouldn't take much of a dose of that, you know, a very large dose at all, necessarily, to self-amplifying, right, to basically seed a new organism, let's say, right, that receives it. And then if you get that self-amplification process triggered, right, now it's building up inside that organism. And there's two things I'm concerned about. There's the, what most people have been concerned about with the shedding, and sort of person-to-person transmission, and this is the big question. I'm not saying it does happen. I'm saying it is a legitimate question to ask, could the self-amplifying RNA get transferred to other individuals? But the other thing we have to think about the environment, well, the potential for this to be shed into the environment, and with self-amplifying RNA and this technology, could we end up with some kind of contamination of the genomes, right, the genetic material of other viruses that are already in our environment, right? This hasn't even been properly investigated. So there's the potential person-to-person transfer, and there's the potential contamination of the environment from that perspective that I'm concerned about. [Will Dove] (54:00 - 54:05) All right. Dr. Makis, your concerns about these Replicon vaccines, please. [Dr. William Makis] (54:06 - 1:00:35) Absolutely. Looking at the replicon vaccine, I mean, from the perspective of cancer, and we know that cancer is a big problem with the original Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, I think the replicon vaccine will only amplify the problem, or it'll at least be at least as bad as the initial first generation vaccines. And we have the additional risk of the shedding and effectively vaccinating someone else through shedding who doesn't want to be vaccinated, who has not given their consent. They may not even know that they're being exposed to individuals who are pumping this self-amplifying mRNA technology. They've got it going through their bodies. They're exhaling it. They're releasing it through their bodily fluids. And so, again, I want to come back to one of my slides, if I may. Please do. And so, just to take it back a little bit, so this was the components of the original Pfizer and Moderna vaccines that were causing problems that we've talked about, the lipid nanoparticle going all over the body, the pseudouridine-modified mRNA and its impact on the immune system, of course, the DNA contamination, spike protein being an extremely inflammatory protein, very damaging to whatever tissue it's expressed in, again, interacting with DNA mechanisms, tumor suppressor genes, and so on. And then, of course, the IgG4 antibodies, which are shielding cancer cells from the immune system. Now, let's look what that looks like with these self-amplifying mRNA vaccines. And so, what we end up with, we still have a lipid nanoparticle. It may be a slightly different lipid nanoparticle, but the problem persists is this stuff is going to end up in the bloodstream, and it's going to get delivered all over the body. We know that from the structure of the lipid nanoparticle, this problem is going to remain. All this accumulation in bone marrow, in the breast, testes, ovaries, this hepatobiliary clearance, crossing the blood-brain barrier, crossing the placenta barrier, that problem remains. Now, we've got this amplified mRNA. Now, we don't have the pseudouridine, so we lose some of the effects on the immune system, like the toll-like receptors on immune cells. Maybe we don't have the problem with the frameshifting, but we have an unknown quantity of amplified mRNA. And this is what Dr. Bridle was talking about, is that there's no off-switch to this thing. And so, we have a completely unknown amount of mRNA that's going to be produced with the problems that come with mRNA being introduced into the body. We will still probably have the problem of DNA contamination, but now we come to the spike protein, and look at what happens with the self-amplifying mRNA. When you have the Pfizer and Moderna, you at least have a finite amount of the mRNA. It persists in the body much longer. It causes all kinds of problems. It makes spike protein. Eventually, the hope is that the synthetic mRNA is degraded, and you get the antibodies produced, and you eventually get the IgG4 shift. Look at what happens with the self-amplifying mRNA. Now, you have a lot more mRNA that's being produced. You have a lot more spike protein that's being produced. So, you have all of this amplified. You have the amplified impact on tumor suppressor proteins, on interfering with DNA repair, on molecular mimicry, which is a big problem where the spike protein mimics other proteins in the body. You're going to have probably worse autoimmune diseases. You probably will have a higher risk of cancer, at least theoretical risk of cancer. So, you've got a lot more spike protein to deal with now, so potentially a lot more damage. And of course, you've got a lot more of these antibodies that are being produced with the spike protein and this whole IgG4 shift, which increases risk of cancer. So, we have an unknown quantity of RNA produced and an unknown quantity of spike protein where this promises to be greater than the original Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in terms of the quantity of spike protein being produced. So, it's going to be like Pfizer and Moderna vaccines on steroids. I mean, this is a whole other level to this thing where you've got these two unlimited components. Initially, Pfizer and Moderna, you've got unlimited spike protein, but we at least know the quantity of mRNA, or we think we know, right? So, there's some limit to it. Whereas now, with the self-amplifying mRNA, we have unlimited mRNA, unlimited spike protein. And so, that makes the shedding question a much more pertinent and dangerous. Because think about it, if you shed a few Pfizer molecules, like with a lipid nanoparticle and dmRNA inside, you might have a bad reaction. You might have an immune reaction, some rashes. People feel sick when they're exposed through shedding from someone who's been recently vaccinated. Women have complained of bleeding, increased bleeding. I've even heard of anecdotal reports of women losing their baby, like a spontaneous abortion. I don't think there is a cancer risk from the original shedding of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. That simply hasn't been proven. But there's some bad enough effects. But now, imagine you're exposed via shedding to this self-amplifying, and let's say you get those three or four or five or 10 molecules that you're exposed to. Now, your body has the ability to start the whole amplification process and get this amplification going. That didn't exist with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. This is a whole new level of danger we have never seen. And this is where we're talking about the risk of this literally spreading through the population. And Dr. Trozzi actually described it beautifully when he said that this is really a potential to be a contagious vaccine, a vaccine that can spread through the population to unwilling participants. It can spread through the environment. I mean, this is on a level really we haven't seen before, the danger. [Will Dove] (1:00:37 - 1:01:15) Yes, thank you. Dr. Karrow, I'd like to come to you now. And for my guests, by the way, who may not know Dr. Neil Karrow, because I've interviewed Mark and William before, everybody knows Dr. Byram Bridle. There was a joke made by Dr. Trozzi just before we started recording that when you gentlemen were entering your names and descriptions, Zoom might not have enough room for all the letters that you could put after your name, Dr. Karrow. So I'm going to ask you to be the last person just before Mark summarizes to comment on your concerns about these replicon vaccines as in regards comparison to the sort of first phase mRNA vaccines that we're already well aware of the harms of. Okay, thanks. [Dr. Neil Karrow] (1:01:15 - 1:02:33) So a couple of things come to mind. First of all, the narrative has changed in the scientific literature. I think this replicon vaccine is an admission that there was a problem with the first generation. And the phosphouridine would be one problem. The other one was the dose of the mRNA. So they make a case that we can use less mRNA here. We still have the lipid nanoparticles. So I completely agree with Dr. Makis that that's not going to change. And we have no off switch, as Dr. Bridle said. So the other thing that wasn't mentioned is this replicase is also foreign. So we will also mount an immune response to the replicase. And another question that I would have is, can the replicase also amplify other messenger RNA? And I'm not aware of that. I don't know. So I like to use the analogy of, let's say we're going to start up an online baking company. We send a recipe out to all of us to make chocolate chip cookies. We didn't realize Dr. Trozzi was a prepper. So he's got lots of flour and eggs and he makes a whole lot more cookies than we do. That's the old technology. The new technology is we're going to send you the baker along with the recipe to do the cookie baking. [Will Dove] (1:02:36 - 1:04:04) Yes. Dr. Trozzi, I'm going to ask you once again to be the one to kind of summarize the comments, but I also want to ask you a specific question because you and I did an interview a while back where we talked about certain things like you made reference earlier to the frame shifting. But in that interview, we talked about the various forms of these mRNA vaccines. And I personally, and I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth here, but I personally came to a conclusion as we were discussing, there was no possible way that the people who developed these shots could not know they were making a bioweapon. And the reason is while I have nowhere near the level of knowledge you gentlemen have, I was a paramedic when I was younger. I do have some knowledge of anatomy and physiology. And we know that these spike proteins will create a condition of chronic inflammation in the body. And if you create chronic inflammation, I knew this even as a paramedic, you're going to cause tissue damage. You're going to cause cell damage. That's going to lead to organ damage, which is going to lead to disease. It is inevitable result of that chronic inflammation. And now we've got these replicon vaccines as our adult panel experts have said, with this first generation mRNA, okay. And I'm going to use a very, very simple allegory here, which probably isn't quite scientifically accurate, but I think it will demonstrate it. With the original mRNA, we have kind of this arithmetic progression of the spike proteins in the body. But what we're talking about with these replicon, if I understand it correctly, is now we're going to see more like an exponential or logarithmic progression. God knows where it ends. What are your concerns, Dr. Trozzi? [Dr. Mark Trozzi] (1:04:05 - 1:05:53) Well, the concerns are massive. I mean, I think one of the biggest things is that we're running an experiment on the population. I mean, this isn't a bunch of mice in a laboratory. These are human beings, right? And I mean, there's even animal rights activists who would be offended at doing this with mice. If you were going to vaccinate against the coronavirus, like actually a vaccine, not a genetic injection, none of these are vaccines, I've never accepted that. And you injected a couple thousand pieces of spike protein, it would be a mistake, it wouldn't work, but it wouldn't cause the harms that these things have caused because you don't have human cells producing foreign protein and marking themselves as foreign for attack by the immune system. So when we come to this self-replicating, I mean, I think the biggest thing is, first of all, the first injection campaign was a grotesque error. At the very minimum, scientists or doctors that supported it were negligent. That's the minimum. The best you could be is negligent, causing bodily harm and death. I mean, it's still a very serious crime. But now that that's been done, now that we've seen the effects from the autopsies, from the data, from anecdotal experiences, everybody knows people now. And then to say, hey, we want to run another experiment. It's going to be another genetic experiment to have people manufacture the toxic protein that just killed 17 million as of March 2023, and now must be 25 to 35, nevermind hundreds of millions injured. I mean, this is recklessness and vandalism. This is not science and this is not medicine. [Will Dove] (1:05:55 - 1:06:43) Thank you. Now, gentlemen, I always like to, whenever possible, end these sorts of interviews on a note of hope, because there are experts such as yourselves around the world, working on treatments, on therapies, on ways that we might be able to protect people. Now, all of us are going to hope that anybody who watches this interview, when these replicon vaccines are offered to the public, they're simply going to say, no, no way, I'm not taking them. But we've got these serious concerns that these vaccines, replicon especially, could be shed from one person to the next. So, Dr. Karrow, one of your many areas of expertise is in immunoceuticals. So, I'm going to ask you to start off with this question, what can people do to protect themselves, whether they're injected already, whether they're possibly going to be exposed to people who are injected who might be shedding that vaccine, how could people protect themselves? [Dr. Neil Karrow] (1:06:45 - 1:09:26) Well, staying healthy is obviously a key thing. I would say that there's probably two approaches we could take. One would be a pharmaceutical approach and one would be a nutraceutical approach. I'm more inclined to the nutraceutical part. Throughout the pandemic, there have been groups that have been exploring using repurposed drugs to treat COVID, long COVID, and now vaccine injury. And so, there's a lot of overlap in some of these symptoms. You have to deal with spike protein. If you continue to produce it, how do we shut down spike protein production? We're obviously causing inflammation. So, if we can mitigate the inflammation, there's all sorts of different treatments for that. And we also want to support the immune system to make sure that it can function so well because we talked about immune dysregulation. So, things like having enough omega-3 in our diet and vitamin D and selenium, those are all really important nutrients that we should be having. And we can get those if we have a balanced diet, but that's not always an option for us. So, we might need to supplement. So, two groups that I can think about right now would be Dr. Peter McCullough. He has a protocol out now. It's called the McCullough Protocol, and it's for dealing with spike protein. And again, he was looking at how do we prevent blood clotting because blood clots are an issue as well with both long COVID and vaccine injury. How do we break down spike protein? How do we deal with inflammation? And so, natural products like bromelain, for example, natokinase, which is an enzyme found in a fermented soybean product, both of those can break down the spike protein and help to promote autophagy. So, there's all sorts of different treatments. That's the McCullough Protocol. There's another one. The FLCCC has put together several protocols. One of them is dealing with vaccine injury, but I think if we think about replicase, we also need to think about how do we shut down replicase enzyme? That would be another one I would wonder about because it's foreign. We also don't know how well it's going to work because it's foreign. We're going to mount an immune response to the replicase. So, if that happens, it might theoretically not be able to replicate for a long period of time, but we really have no idea, and that'll depend from person to person as well. So, I think that there are treatments, and some of those would be also in terms of prevention, but those are two sources that I would pursue if you were wanting to learn some more. [Will Dove] (1:09:27 - 1:09:43) And could you briefly explain for our viewers what autophagy is? This is something I know about. I'm very much into intermittent fasting, so I'm familiar with it, but a lot of viewers are not, and this is, as I understand it from one of my own discussions with Dr. McCullough, an extremely effective way to purge a lot of the stuff from your body. [Dr. Neil Karrow] (1:09:43 - 1:10:52) Yes. Well, it's a natural process that happens in your body. It uses the same machinery that chops up foreign proteins. So, if you have a virus and it's producing a protein, it gets chopped up, and most of that viral protein gets recycled. Some of it gets presented on the cell surface to mount an immune response, but it's the same process that we have for dealing with all proteins in our body. Some of them become receptors on the surface of a cell. Some of them act as transcription factors, but one way to regulate those is to make sure that they don't stick around for a long time. So, this autophagy is a recycling process, breaks down the protein, mobilizes those amino acids so that we can use them to make more proteins again. So, it's a process of getting rid of proteins that might be bioactive in our cell. And you're right, in terms of fasting, we put our body into starvation mode. It needs to continue to produce essential amino acids or proteins for survival. So, it recycles those other proteins that aren't necessary. And so, that seems to be one mechanism to help get rid of spike protein related injury. [Will Dove] (1:10:53 - 1:11:03) Now, Dr. Bridle, you also have a fair bit of knowledge about immunoceuticals. I know that you work with Dr. Bonnie Mallard with Immunoceutica. So, your thoughts on how people can protect themselves? [Dr. Byram Bridle] (1:11:04 - 1:17:59) Yeah. So, yeah, Dr. Bonnie Mallard, myself and Dr. Neil Karrow, who's with us here, all decided to start up a company to try and offer, you know, some natural health-based solutions. So, it's called Immunoceutica. So, actually, Dr. Karrow, he's our Spock, the equivalent of Spock for our company, right from Star Trek. He's our chief science officer, or as what we more commonly know, the chief scientific officer. I'm a chief operating officer. We try and focus on immunoceuticals. And well, all that is, is those are nutraceuticals that have a known mechanism of action that works through the immune system. So, immunoceuticals are nutraceuticals. And I would mention two things. I'd like to focus on one, but just briefly, both of you mentioned the autophagy. And yeah, I can't emphasize that enough. It is very good. And also, just to, I just want to explain for your listener, when you do this fasting, a bunch of proteins in your body get not specifically broken down, right? This is how it works. It's beneficial because if you have some kind of external proteins that are acting as toxins in the body, what happens is your body will not specifically break down proteins that you want in the body, plus the proteins you don't want in the body. The difference is once you resume your eating, your body replenishes all the proteins that it needs and wants in the body, right? And the idea is you don't replenish the external toxic proteins. So, that's how it works. So, it's a great idea that people should practice. Regular intermittent fasting is very healthy. But this is the other thing. I know the other doctors here have a great list of all, you know, an array of things that can be done. So, I'm just going to focus on one. And I'm going to emphasize one thing that Dr. Karrow said, vitamin D. And that's because if I, as an immunologist, could convince people to do one thing, if people ask you what's one simple thing that I could do, I can't emphasize enough how essential, especially where we are in Canada, the vast majority of Canadians are to have insufficient concentrations of vitamin D in circulation. Well, and by that, I mean, as per research, the requirements for optimal bone health are much lower, much lower than the amount of vitamin D that you need in the body to have an optimally functioning immune system. It's like the homes that we're in right now. You don't worry about what paint you're going to put on the wall or what decorations you're going to hang on the wall if the foundation is garbage and our body is no different. So, if you have a limited amount of vitamin D, it's going to be preferentially diverted towards our skeletal system. That's the foundation for our body. I mean, otherwise, we're going to turn to jello, right? We need a strong skeleton. So, it preferentially gets limited amounts of vitamin D. Further, the metabolic requirements of our immune system is much higher. And especially if you're talking about the types of diseases that we've been talking about here, cancers, that is an example where you put an extreme stress on the body in terms of amount of metabolic activity going on, right? Cancers are extremely metabolically active and they have all kinds of mechanisms that will preferentially also steal vitamin D from the immune system. So, the worst case scenario is in the context of cancers. That's where our immune system gets stressed to its limit. And so, if you want an optimally functioning immune system, we've looked at a whole array of literature. And the gold standard really is in the context of cancers, right? To have optimal protection against cancers, you want your vitamin D concentrations in your body to be at least 60 nanograms per mil. And so, again, cancers push it, push our immune system even further. When it came to COVID-19, well, there was a report showing that if your vitamin D concentrations were at or above 50, you had a statistically zero percent risk of getting severe COVID-19. So, when our former federal minister of health, Patti Hadjou, who is not an immunologist, not an expert in any of this, told all of Canada that vitamin D is fake science in the context of infectious diseases. I don't know how many Canadian lives she cost and how many hospitalizations, you know, that could have been avoided had our government promoted it. So, in short, I want to leave it this. The vast majority of Canadians, as shown by research, are well below where they need to be if they want optimally functioning immune systems. And we keep hearing toxicity, toxicity, toxicity. Vitamin D toxicity is relatively rare. And we need much higher concentrations and usually much higher intake on average. But I can't tell you exactly how much per person because it's very personal. You well might readily absorb vitamin D. I have to take personally, I have to take in the winter time, I have to take 15,000 international units a day of vitamin D to stay above 60 nanograms per mil, just to put it in context. Now, when you're taking vitamin D, I always recommend take some vitamin K as well, because most toxicities related to excessive doses of vitamin D, and they're only excessive if they're taking you way above 60 nanograms per mil, way above that. And the primary concern is hypercalcemia. And that's when you don't get proper distribution of the calcium and bio distribution into the bones and so on. Vitamin K helps very much with that. So it can alleviate a lot of that. So you don't have to go way above 60 nanograms per mil, because once your immune system is functioning optimally, you can do no better, you can do no better. So there's no use going way above it, you're just wasting vitamin D. And if you go way, way above it, you might risk toxicity. So that's my recommendation. Now people say, okay, so how do I know how to get to 60? How much? How much do I have to take? I can't tell you, because it's very individual, you have to test for it. So in many places in Canada, people should be able to go to their physicians, they need to educate their physicians as to why it's important that they be allowed to get their vitamin D tested. And then go through this iterative process. That's what I did. I'm an immunologist, I was taught for years the importance that I didn't know well, I knew I was taking way more than what was recommended for optimal bone health. I was taking 2000 international units a day. And when I got tested, remember, I said you want to be above 60? I was way down in the 20s, way, way down. No wonder I was getting sick all the time, every winter, I knew as an immunologist, but I wasn't actually getting the testing. So I had to go and get tested, increase my dose, went back and get tested. I went up a bit more, I went back at it about three times. And by the end, I got my I now know where I need to be in the summer and the winter to be above 60. And that's how people are going to have optimally one of the key ways people are going to be able to have optimally functioning immune systems, which is going to protect them from all kinds of diseases, not just COVID, but other infectious diseases, autoimmune diseases, allergies, and asthma, and all kinds of cancers. [Will Dove] (1:18:00 - 1:18:27) Thank you. Now, Dr. Trozzi and Makis, I want to get a couple comments from you. But Dr. Karrow, I know you have another appointment in a couple of minutes. So if you need to drop out, I'm sure our viewers will understand. Thank you so much for your time today. Okay, thanks so much. Nice to see you all. Likewise, Dr. Karrow. Take care. Dr. Makis, when you gave your talk in Japan recently, you talked specifically about ivermectin and the cancers. Would you please give us a summary of that? [Dr. William Makis] (1:18:28 - 1:26:28) Sure, absolutely. When looking at dealing with cancers, especially in people who've taken the COVID-19 vaccines and may have suffered severe immune system injury, may have had damage to their p53 tumor suppressive protein, may have had integration events, and so on, I've been doing a deep dive into repurposed drugs and looking at repurposed drugs in treating extremely aggressive cancers. Ivermectin kept coming up in my research. It's fascinating. There is a massive amount of body, preclinical research, about ivermectin in cancer. It's very effective in cancer. It has over a dozen mechanisms of action, some very interesting mechanisms, a lot of anti-proliferative mechanisms, a lot of sort of anti-angiogenesis that blocks the formation of new blood vessels that the tumors need to grow. It prevents cancer cells from being able to metastasize, so it actually inhibits some of the metalloproteinases that allow the cancer cells to escape into the bloodstream and then go into other organs like the liver and the bones and create metastases. But a fascinating impact that ivermectin has that actually surpasses chemotherapy in many cases is it inhibits cancer stem cells. Cancer stem cells are cancer cells that are often resistant to chemotherapy, and they are responsible for creating recurrence of cancers and also contributing to metastases of cancers. And so ivermectin has been shown to block these cancer stem cells. It's been shown in breast cancer. It's been shown in other cancers. And so all of this body of preclinical research, and there are dozens and dozens of papers peer-reviewed, published, has really been unknown. There was no sort of light shown on this until the COVID-19 pandemic hit, and we actually had ivermectin suppressed by the regulatory authorities, whether it was the FDA telling us that you're not a horse, you're not a cow, don't take ivermectin, whether it was the Canadian health authorities like Alberta Health Services who said, don't take ivermectin, it doesn't work for COVID-19. That actually forced researchers like myself and others to actually take a deeper dive into ivermectin and see the body of research that is there. Now, ivermectin is off patent. It went off patent. Merck had it on patent until 1996. It's gone off patent. It's cheap. It's widely available. No one's going to make any money on it. And Big Pharma has effectively abandoned ivermectin as a potential anti-cancer agent. So, I have started doing cancer consultations a few months ago. I now have hundreds of cancer patients who are using high doses of ivermectin successfully to treat cancers that are resistant to chemotherapy. Now, ivermectin also can actually reverse multi-drug resistance of cancers, certain cancers, cancers that have become resistant to immunotherapy. It can actually reverse that process and make cancer cells sensitive to chemotherapy again, make cancer cells sensitive to radiation therapy again. So, this is one of the new tools in the toolbox that people have. And I just wanted to go back to what Dr. Bridle was talking about in terms of what can you do to help yourself in terms of protect yourself from infections of these gate of function viruses or to protect yourself from vaccine injuries, from shedding and all of this. Vitamin D is extremely crucial, and I wholeheartedly support everything that Dr. Byram Bridle said about vitamin D, extremely crucial for the immune system and even to give you protection against certain types of cancers. People have a much lower risk of getting certain cancers when their vitamin D levels are sufficient. When we talked about fasting, and fasting is fantastic, and I want to put a little bit of focus on prolonged fasting. This is 72-hour, three-day, five-day or seven-day water fast. Now, this is a little bit different from intermittent fasting. Intermittent fasting is fantastic for the body. It brings down inflammation. It can actually clear a lot of chronic autoimmune conditions. It improves your lipid profile. It increases your blood glucose profile, improves it. But in terms of cancer, you really want to start going towards the prolonged fasting. 72 hours is when the body's process of autophagy kicks in and starts clearing those precancerous cells, cancer cells, cells that have been damaged by the spike protein or are expressing the spike protein. The body will start clearing those cells, getting rid of those cells as well. So, this is another important tool in the toolbox. Prolonged water fasting, three, five and seven days. You can take black coffee or plain tea with it to stimulate this process of autophagy, this body's way of recycling damaged precancerous or cancerous cells. I actually had a prostate cancer patient who did a seven-day water fast and dropped his PSA by more than 100 points. I mean, that is basically evidence that cancer cells are being killed off by the body in this process, in this healing process. And so, that's an extremely important tool. Fasting is an extremely important tool for people going forward. I always say look at repurposed drugs like ivermectin, mebendazole or fenbendazole. These are antiparasitics that work on cancer and are being repurposed for use against cancer, of course, to protect yourself against viral infections. Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and quercetin and zinc, these are excellent tools to have in your toolbox for any kind of viral infection that we may be dealing with in the future. Look at medicinal mushrooms like chaga mushrooms, turkey tail mushroom. Turkey tail mushroom is an immunomodulator. It stimulates the immune system to produce more cytotoxic cells to attack cancer cells, for example. Reishi mushrooms, lion's mane, cordyceps, shiitake, these are medicinal mushrooms that have powerful property. Each has hundreds of bioactive compounds that are anti-inflammatory, antioxidant and anti-cancer. Look at bioactive compounds that are found in plants and fruits and vegetables like quercetin, curcumin, resveratrol, berberine. I believe it was Dr. Karrow mentioned bromelain, that's from pineapple. You've got the natokinase. All of these are strong compounds that can help you deal with whether it's chronic inflammatory conditions or with cancer. It's important to have some of these tools in your toolbox. Add some bioactive compounds into your diet like garlic, ginger, soursop, apricot seeds, oregano oil. These are things you can just add into your diet to give yourself that boost of bioactive compounds. Don't rely on mainstream medicine really for any type of vaccine injury and any chronic autoimmune condition and neurological condition and cancer. Don't rely on mainstream medicine. Mainstream medicine has shown us their hand. They showed us that they don't believe in ethics. Doctors don't believe in the Hippocratic Oath anymore. Doctors have abandoned their principles. They've abandoned their patients. Everyone really has to take control of their own health. Be proactive. I'm sure Dr. Trozzi can add a lot more to this. I think it's extremely important going forward is that you're very proactive with your health. [Will Dove] (1:26:29 - 1:26:42) Now, Dr. Makis, you talked about ivermectin as a treatment for cancer. Does it also have preventative wild qualities for possibly people who've been injected? Would you recommend they take ivermectin in the hopes that they won't develop cancer? [Dr. William Makis] (1:26:43 - 1:29:13) That's very interesting. I get asked this question a lot. The true answer is we don't know yet. We don't know because the research hasn't been done. Ivermectin is being very actively suppressed. It's very difficult to get in Canada. I actually had a shipment confiscated from India by Canadian Border Services agents. They didn't even contact me. This was a few weeks ago. They basically put in tracking that we're rejecting the shipment and they sent it right back to India. So we have Canadian Border Services agents that are more active in suppressing ivermectin than they are in looking for drugs or looking for actual criminals who are trying to smuggle things into Canada. It's suppressed. I have European patients who say they cannot get their hands on ivermectin at all. I have Australian and New Zealand patients that are telling me that ivermectin is now being banned from animal use because they know that people are resorting to veterinary forms of ivermectin to try to heal themselves. The authorities are coming after veterinary sources of ivermectin. So there's tremendous suppression. We don't have the studies that we need. You can certainly take it as prevention, but it's really experimental at that point. We just don't have the body of research yet. But I'll tell you something fascinating. In addition to treating extremely aggressive cancers that have become resistant to chemotherapy, and I actually get patients to me often coming after they've failed multiple lines of chemotherapy, I am finding success with ivermectin. I am treating multiple sclerosis patients. I am treating patients with ALS. I'm treating patients with Parkinson's disease. I am treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis, with Lyme disease. These patients are having success. They're seeing improvement in symptoms and all kinds of things. And it's the anti-inflammatory components of ivermectin, which are tremendous. We know about the antiviral properties of ivermectin for COVID influenza and other viruses. Ivermectin seems to even have an ability to regenerate and repair nerve damage. I'm seeing this in patients with multiple sclerosis and peripheral neuropathy. So it really is a wonder drug, and I don't say that lightly. I'm not the kind of person that worships a particular drug the way doctors have been worshiping Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. But it really seems to be a wonder drug for many conditions. I would highly recommend people to look into it. [Will Dove] (1:29:13 - 1:29:40) All right. And one more quick question about ivermectin. As you made reference to, our government is working very hard to suppress the availability of it. However, a couple of months ago, veterinary ivermectin showed up on Amazon.ca again. Last time I checked a couple of weeks ago, it was still there. Now, my understanding is it's exactly the same drug. It's a little different delivery because of the form of paste. Assuming that people would still get it, if they have cancer or any of these other conditions that you've talked about, what would be the recommended dosage? [Dr. William Makis] (1:29:41 - 1:31:35) So, you know, we've put out a paper recently, myself and Dr. Paul Marik and other co-authors, Dr. Paul Marik from FLCCC, who had actually laid a lot of groundwork for using repurposed drugs in cancer. I mean, he's put out a book on repurposed drugs in cancer called Cancer Care, which was actually recently banned by Amazon. So you can see the suppression continues. But, you know, we worked on a paper, and we managed to get it peer-reviewed and published about a week ago or so. And the ivermectin protocol, I always tell people, when you're looking at cancer, start at one milligram per kilogram per day. Now, that's per kilogram of body weight. So a 60-kilogram person, that's 60 milligrams of ivermectin. You might have a few temporary visual side effects if you've never taken ivermectin before, but that tends to go away very quickly. One milligram per kilogram a day, that is kind of a key dose. A lot of cancer patients have been put into remission with just that dose. Now, I combine ivermectin with things like fenbendazole and labendazole. This is a different type of antiparasitic, which has also tremendous anti-cancer action. And the other thing I would mention in terms of ivermectin for anti-inflammatory uses, like rheumatoid arthritis, Lyme disease, and so on, I would cut that dose in half, half a milligram per kilogram per day. So for a 60-kilogram person, that would be 30 milligrams of ivermectin. Try that for all kinds of anti-inflammatory conditions, autoimmune conditions. Give it a try. Try it for a couple of weeks. There's really minimal risk of any kinds of side effects. And that would be also similar to those for sort of the antiparasitic use as well. And it's at the higher end of the antiviral dose. Patients were using anywhere from 0.2 to 0.5 milligrams per kilogram for COVID and influenza and so on. [Will Dove] (1:31:36 - 1:31:52) All right. And William, if you will email me the link to that paper, we will put that link directly beneath this interview, folks. Dr. Trozzi, just before I ask you to summarize everything we've discussed today, I'd like to get back one last time to Dr. Bridle. Byram, do you have any final thoughts on everything we've discussed today for our viewers? [Dr. Byram Bridle] (1:31:53 - 1:32:26) I don't think, yeah, we've discussed so much. I mean, there is so much more we could talk about, but you know, we've had, I think today's discussions are fabulous. And it's been a great summary of a lot of the key current issues. So thank you for this opportunity to discuss that. I guess two things I would just say. I appreciate Dr. Makis when he was talking about the autophagy and the fasting, mentioning that doesn't apply so much to the intermittent fasting, but the longer term fasting. I think I use the term intermittent fasting. So thanks for correcting that, Dr. Makis. [Will Dove] (1:32:26 - 1:32:32) Actually, I think it was me who originally used the term. So I might have misled you. Oh, it was. [Dr. Byram Bridle] (1:32:32 - 1:34:26) So I just wanted to confirm. It does usually take a longer period of time for the autophagy to kick in. And then you get that biology that I was talking about, the nonspecific breakdown of all kinds of proteins. And then the idea is that when you replenish your intake, your caloric intake, then your body's proteins get replenished and the external ones don't. And the other thing I just wanted to add, because I'm a cancer researcher, especially I focus on the preclinical and translational cancer research. And so, you know, prior to three and a half years ago, four years ago, ivermectin was not on my radar at all, ever. I had nothing to do with it. As a cancer researcher, I also, I started looking into it because as a vaccinologist, I wanted to track these drugs. And that was one of the things also that I saw where we were going off the rails with the science, because I knew the vaccines in Canada, all these COVID shots, because I agree with Dr. Trozzi, they don't really serve the function of a true vaccine. I knew we couldn't have, they couldn't be authorized by interim order unless there was an absence of these treatments. And I was looking at this and thinking, but a lot of these reports that I'm seeing look pretty good. And the things that seem to be trashing ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, these studies almost seem like they're designed to trash them and so on. And so, it got on my radar for that reason, because I was interested in the vaccines, right? And as a vaccinologist, I thought vaccines would be the solution, but I started seeing, but there do seem to be other solutions. And then like Dr. Makis, I started looking into it deeper. And so, as a cancer researcher, I've gotten extensively through the literature. So, I just want to back up what he said. It's remarkable how much good quality, peer reviewed, published scientific literature there is out there on ivermectin in the context of cancers. So, I just wanted to add a little more strength to that, that he's nailed it. Thank you for the opportunity, Will. [Will Dove] (1:34:28 - 1:34:44) Mark, thank you so much once again for your patience. I'm going to ask you to be our last comments today to sum up for our viewers in plain English what we've discussed, and especially with the focus on the messages of hope, the treatments and therapies that people may be able to resort to if they are suffering from any of these side effects. [Dr. Mark Trozzi] (1:34:45 - 1:42:48) Sure. So, in a couple of phases. So, I mean, the first thing is everybody be healthy, take care of your health. Whether you've been injected with this stuff or not, the foundations are health and a strong immune system, which involves nutrition, it involves exercise, it involves hydration, it involves sunshine. And as Dr. Bridle said, optimizing your vitamin D level to be above 60 nanograms per mil. It involves avoiding bad habits like smoking and drinking and abusing drugs. I mean, you want to avoid or be very moderate in most sense. Fresh air is a huge generator of health, rest, sleep, and your spiritual health. I mean, there's a quick blanket of what everybody should do as a baseline. Clearly, no one should take any of these injections. No one should promote these injections, not the new self-replicating ones or the old ones. And I think that in the interest because part of health is self-defense. And when you start to realize how nefarious this whole program has been, especially now where the evidence is overwhelming, you will need to realize that there are people trying to hurt us, trying to hurt your family and your children because they're still pushing this stuff. And I think this is where we come to the fact that we all have a role to play in restoring society and restoring justice. And that there are people in high offices and governments and Health Canada, College of Physicians, Surgeons, etc. Some of which have been the real ringleaders of this. And these people need to face justice and they also need to be forced to compensate the victims who are many. What about people who've taken these injections? So, we do know that there's been variation in penetration. In other words, not everybody that took the shot got hurt. Maybe a third of people seem to be fine. Five or 6% seem to really got hurt bad, whether they're dead or sick. And then there's that two-third which had some initial problems, seem to be better, but we don't know what the long-term consequences are because again, this is a big experiment on mankind. So, in terms of, I mean, my colleagues really nailed the stuff we know to do. We don't have a solution to everything in the shots. The best thing is don't take the shots. But for people who have been coerced, keep the records. You should be suing somebody at some point because nobody told you you were getting genetically invaded when they told you you're getting a safe and effective vaccine, not made it a medical crime. But the one thing, and we kind of went into the various mechanisms of harm, right? And it doesn't just involve the spike protein. The spike protein isn't the only thing hurting people, but it is causing the lion's share of the mechanisms of injury. So, if you deal with the spike protein, that puts you ahead of the game. So, autophagy, which my colleagues have spoken about, is huge in fasting. There are things like spermidine, like certain nutrients, even certain repurposed drugs that can help accelerate autophagy. But I think fasting is really the foundation. And then doing things that can also additionally help break down the spike protein that is in the body or that is being produced. And that's where you look at some of these enzymes like natokinase, bromelain, lumbrokinase. Then as well, doing things to stop the spike protein that's there that hasn't been broken down from interacting with your cells and causing harm. So, there's things that can help block the spike protein's surface so it can't do things. That does include ivermectin. That does include bristol. It involves a variety of things. And as well, blocking the receptors of your cells that spike protein binds to and causes harm. And that introduces another level. And then in general, you're dealing with a hyper-inflammatory state from the spike protein. So, you want to do things to reduce inflammation like NAC, like curcumin, etc. I've put out a little video series. It's actually a little old now. It's more than a year old. But if people go to drtrozey.news, they can type in detox and they can watch a couple of short videos where I explain a lot of this stuff. They can jump. There's an article linked in there where we look at like a hundred different possible things and the theories of how they may or may not help. So, people can do a very deep dive. And then one other, I think we also like solving 80% of the problem isn't good enough, right? We'd like to solve 100% of the problem. But therein lies some of the questions, which is, what about this self-replicating genetic injection? Which Dr. Karrow pointed out a few moments ago that it involves a replicase enzyme. Is there anything we can do to interfere with that replicase enzyme? I think that I hadn't even thought of that until this conversation. That's why these conversations are so important. But thinking back in 2020 when all we had was the man-made virus before we got to the super dangers of the injections, one of the things we're looking at is how do you treat coronavirus infections? How do you help the body beat coronavirus infections? And one way was by getting lots of zinc into the cells. And a way to do that, you can eat all kinds of zinc, but it won't get into the cells in large amounts unless you have an ionophore molecule, which of course, hydroxychloroquine is probably the best. And one of the mechanisms by which hydroxychloroquine and zinc was thought to interfere with coronavirus infections was by suppressing the activity of the replicase enzyme of the coronavirus. So will that work for the replicase enzyme involved in the self-replicating injections? Maybe. That's definitely an area for us to look at in terms of more research. Another area that I think, and this one's had, I think, all of us scratching our heads, which is, geez, what if this SV40 promoter and the DNA, and we do have evidence in laboratory studies that it can indeed genetically modify human cells, what can we do about that? I think that's a very tricky one. And I was actually talking with Dr. Speaker maybe a month or so ago, and I asked him, are there mechanisms that the body has that self-correct genetic aberrances? And if so, are there things we can do to enhance that? And that's a maybe. So I think we know a lot of what we can be able to do. I mean, the number one thing is, don't take these shots. Do everything you can to help the people promoting these be prosecuted and stop the absolute madness of murdering the population like this. And live a healthy lifestyle. And then if you have been injected, or even if you're exposed to it, with shedding being the issue we discussed, then there's that variety of approaches you can take to deal with the spike protein and help support those of us who are doing the hard work. Because as you know, we're strangely still, the level of criminality in our country with this operation is still so high that Dr. Bridle's locked out of his lab. Dr. Makis and I have had our licenses revoked, so we're locked out of the hospital and the universities. So we're still doing great work on a shoestring, but supporting us in that work and taking an active role, getting on the honker or the phone. I'm talking country talk for Ontario, but getting on the phone and getting in touch with your member of parliament and letting them know, we want this nonsense ended. People need to take an active role of restoring this country to a place where the rule of law applies and where medical assault, rather than being mandated, is once again not allowed. [Will Dove] (1:42:49 - 1:43:08) And Mark, just one last very quick question. Both you and Dr. Bridle have made reference to vitamin D, 60 nanograms per milliliter being required to really activate the immune responses that we've talked about. Is that something that would have to be done by a blood test at a med clinic or a doctor's office, or is there any kind of home test that a person can do to find out what their levels are? [Dr. Mark Trozzi] (1:43:10 - 1:43:50) I think you have to get a test. I know I talked to a lot of people who go to their doctor and they have to almost wrestle with the doctor to get them to do that, which considering how much useless PCR testing was done in 2020 when everybody could have just had their vitamin D level tested and optimized and got on with their life, it's sad. It's sad to see so many educated doctors behaving in this way. But I think a lot of times the doctors will kind of give way and then the patient has to pay for the test. But as far as I know, that's the only way. I wouldn't be surprised if Dr. Bridle's company doesn't come up with something to make it easier. Are you aware of anything, Byram? [Dr. Byram Bridle] (1:43:51 - 1:49:32) Yeah, I was going to say, you know, to avoid conflict of interest, I don't want to promote the company that I have, you know, initially. So I'd like to say first, you know, LifeLabs does offer a vitamin D test. And like Dr. Trozzi said, depending where you are in Canada, you've got to get your physician to basically write a prescription or order it, just like any lab test would be done. And it is amazing. It has been reported that a lot of physicians seem to have, you know, I now see there's a narrative. It's incredible how when I went from, you know, my focus on vaccines to starting to look at things like immunoceuticals and see the narrative spill over there and the baseless attacks on vitamin D and the very misleading messaging about vitamin D. So it's amazing. A lot of physicians have bought into that narrative and actually discouraged vitamin D testing, which is utterly ridiculous, especially when you see how the vast majority of Canadians, and not even in the winters, this is the thing, well, in order to achieve the high concentration, I remember Dr. Trozzi, I've heard him talk about this. He does a great job of explaining why naturally even, especially in Canada, where we're in a northern, you know, climate. And so we're getting, we don't get as much direct sunlight as people do in the tropics. Even in the summertime, most Canadians are well below that 60 nanograms per mil, and it's related to many things, including the fact that the quality of our diets has gone way down, right, with all of these highly refined foods and everything. We just simply, as Canadians, most of us can't get enough, even in the middle of the summer. So yes, LifeLabs does the testing. Go to your physician, ask them to authorize you to get the test. In many places, you have to pay for the out-of-pocket, for the vitamin D test from LifeLabs. And a lot of places in Canada, you also have to pay for the blood draw, they have to take a blood sample to do it. The crazy thing is, I don't know if things have changed now, but my understanding a year ago, because my understanding, Will, is that you're in Alberta. My understanding in Alberta is that you can only get this testing done if, for vitamin D deficiency, like if, that healthcare professionals have been told it's if there's suspected vitamin D deficiency. And not defined as the research would say, right, that I would refer to as insufficiency below 60 nanograms per mil. That's not official. Remember, this is based on Health Canada's official recommendations, which is based very heavily on bone health, not optimal immunological health. So they're talking from that perspective, deficiency. So in some places in Canada, I know it's difficult. I know in some places in Canada, provincial and or territorial authorities are trying to take away the rights of non-traditional physicians. Right, so that would be things like naturopathic doctors, for example, right, and other healthcare practitioners taking away their right to be able to prescribe these tests for people. So it's crazy. So now we'll get to, yeah, so what ImmunoCeutica has done to try and make us readily accessible is we currently do have a test. If you do go to immunoceutica.ca, you can order a test that can be shipped to your home. We have instructions, a link to a video. You just need to get a finger prick and put a few drops of blood on a card, let it dry for half an hour, package it, put a self-addressed stamped envelope and mail it back and we will, after the testing is done in our lab, we will issue it. And I have to also say, well, so that's what we currently have available and we're actually very excited because we're in the process of trying to develop a pocket test. We call that, it's literally going to be a little, um, much like the tests that were done, you know, for, for COVID-19, those rapid antigen tests that we are, you know, we all are sort of emotionally triggered by now. Um, we have a test that can literally be able to fit in your pocket and we're developing that. We hope maybe within about a year's time to be able to get that out where people will actually be able to use this to do their own vitamin D testing, whatever they need to in their own home and get results within 10 to 15 minutes. But for now we have a kit we can mail right to your home so you can bypass a physician or if you're anywhere in Canada where you can't get ready access to the life lapse test, you know, that, uh, we can offer that to people. And like I said, that's the only way, because be careful if somebody gives just, you know, generic advice on a dose, like I said, you really don't know. It's so individual. And some people have the, the, the, the vitamin D pathway and how vitamin D is used in the body is quite complex. And some people have defects in certain areas of that pathway, right? So again, so, so some people will get a lot of vitamin D in their system after exposure, like with intake of very small quantities, others can take massive quantities and we'll never get the proper bioavailability. And they might require additional testing to figure out what anomalies they have in their vitamin D pathway. Right? So that's why I don't recommend at all any that anybody just guess. That's why I do say, I really emphasize it's really personal. You have to test and then adjust your dose and then go back and retest. And I recommend that people do this such that, you know, it might take, so for me, it took almost a year to figure it, figure it out. But now I know, so I know in the summertime, I've had, or sorry, the winter time, well, I take 15,000 international units a day. That keeps me above 60 and the summertime, I can drop that down to 10,000 international units a day, but I still have to take 10,000 international units a day in the middle of the summer for me to be, to stay above 60. But now I know that, right? Now that I know that, I'll probably just check every once in a blue moon now to make sure I'm staying at that. [Will Dove] (1:49:33 - 1:49:35) All right. Thank you. Mark, you wanted to make one more comment, I believe. [Dr. Mark Trozzi] (1:49:36 - 1:51:43) Yeah. I just wanted to, for people to be aware that this isn't really news to health Canada. And, um, I, I, I interviewed Dr. James Lunney, L-U-N-N-E-Y. People look at Dr. Trosey down there. That's an interview worth having. There's a lot of vitamin D material. There's a free book at Dr. Trosey on vitamin D from Dr. Grimes. But decades ago, James Lunney, while being a member of parliament and a doctor of chiropractic, and he held some very high level science gatherings, invited ministers of health. And they saw that high vitamin D levels dramatically reduce your risk of everything, including cancer. And he was within the government trying to lobby the government to just increase the recommended daily allowance, because according to the, according to health Canada, the recommended daily allowance is 400 IUs. And like Dr. Bridle said, that's enough to prevent you from getting rickets. That's enough to stop your bones from getting soft. Because one, one of the functions of vitamin D, which is really a communication molecule is for communication about your calcium levels and for your kidney and your parathyroid gland to communicate. It's a very simple one, but it's a communication molecule throughout your immune system for so many things. So folks need to know, sadly, you know, this vitamin D is a huge threat to a gluttonous and evil pharmaceutical industry, because when humans have enough vitamin D, and it's hard for humans to have enough vitamin D, when humans have enough vitamin D, they don't need a lot of drugs. They're not slowly dying and being treated with one disease causing symptom suppressant after another. Vitamin D is a real threat to that industry, and it's a real friend to mankind. So I really encourage people to have a very serious look at that. [Will Dove] (1:51:44 - 1:51:50) All right. And Dr. Trozzi, if you'll send me the link to that interview, you mentioned, we'll place that beneath this interview as well. [Dr. Byram Bridle] (1:51:50 - 1:51:51) Well, can I just make one quick comment? [Will Dove] (1:51:52 - 1:51:53) Absolutely. Please go ahead. [Dr. Byram Bridle] (1:51:54 - 1:53:32) Since you brought up this emphasis on vitamin D, your viewers might be interested. Like Dr. Trozzi just said, James Lunney, he's actually going to be speaking at a conference. So he actually was involved in hosting Canada's last national conference on vitamin D. And remarkably, it was 14 years ago. So it's been 14 years. There's been such a massive, I mean, thousands and thousands of papers published in the scientific literature on vitamin D covering so many topics, including now COVID-19 and all the stuff we understand about cancer. So there's actually a vitamin D symposium happening November 1st and November 2nd. And Dr. Trozzi and or I can send you that information if you're interested in, because I got the privilege of talking alongside James Lunney, that Dr. Trozzi just mentioned, as well as Dr. Trozzi. Dr. Trozzi will be talking there. So November 1st, people can attend in person in Toronto at the Monte Cassino Event Centre in Toronto. And again, we can send you that information. And also on the second, that's where will you be for that, Mark? That's in Chatham on November 2nd. So these two venues, people have the option of attending in person. And hey, Dr. Trozzi and I and all the others who will be presenting would love to see your listeners in person at these events. But there is also an online option, including for those who are in other countries or too far away from either Chatham, Ontario or Toronto, Ontario to attend in person. There's an online attendance option. [Will Dove] (1:53:33 - 1:53:53) All right. And yes, once again, gentlemen, if you send me any of that information, we will announce that through our Freedom Organization, Stronger Free Canada, where we have some 30,000 subscribers. Now, we've gone about a half an hour over what I thought we were going to do. And at this point in time, Dr. Makis, you've been sitting there so patiently, I really feel like I should give you the opportunity for a final comment before we close this out. [Dr. William Makis] (1:53:54 - 1:56:15) I just wanted to mention one last thing, because I get this question a lot. And I think it's a question that probably circulates in people's minds. We've talked a lot about vitamin D. We've also talked a lot about ivermectin as well, and cancer and various uses and antiviral and anti-inflammatory and so on. And patients ask, they'll say, well, my doctor will not prescribe ivermectin. My doctor says it doesn't work, it's useless. How do I find a doctor who will prescribe ivermectin? How do I get access to ivermectin? And I think people need to get out of this mindset that you need permission to get access to life-saving nutraceuticals, to life-saving supplements, to life-saving repurposed drugs. You don't need permission from the mainstream medical establishment that is there to basically just pad the pockets of big corporations and to really serve a COVID narrative. I mean, this is not what medicine was about. Medicine wasn't there to serve the pharmaceutical industry. Doctors were there to serve the people. But I mean, unfortunately, that's the way mainstream medicine has gone. And I hope a lot of people, if one of the things that they can get out of this amazing conversation that we had tonight is, in addition to taking matters into your own health, don't seek permission. Don't seek permission from your doctors. Don't seek permission to get drugs, supplements, things that you need to make your life better, to improve your life. I have many patients who were denied prescriptions for ivermectin, were sent home to die. And they said, no, I'm not going to give up. I'm not going to give in. I'm going to take matters to my own health. They had stage four cancers that they were dealing with. They were sent on hospice, and they're still alive today. Some of them are cancer-free. Some of them have managed to put their cancer completely into remission. So if people can just get out of this sort of mindset that you need permission, you need permission from the government, you don't, that you need permission from the doctor that's corrupt or incompetent or has abandoned their Hippocratic oath, you don't. You have the power fully to take complete control of your health. [Will Dove] (1:56:16 - 1:56:40) And I will absolutely second that. I'm 60 years old. I'm in perfect health. A lot of that, I contribute to the fact that throughout my life, I have done my own homework on nutrition, on supplements. I haven't been to a doctor in over five years, folks, and there's not a damn thing wrong with me. Gentlemen, thank you so much for your time today, for this absolutely excellent interview. Thank you for having us. Thank you very much.