Will Dove 0:00 Despite years of what has been obvious to many of us for some time, that the Covid vaccines are anything but safe and effective, we are still exposed daily to the Covid narrative. New variants are hyped in state-sponsored media, pharmacies advertise Covid shots, despite the fact that advertising pharmaceuticals in Canada is illegal, and Big Pharma leverages the WHO, which has become nothing but a marketing arm for them, to convince people that we need a One Health initiative of which more and more mRNA vaccines are a central theme. And they can get away with it because the people have been duped. Truthful information is censored. Those who tell the truth are cancelled. Big Pharma spends billions to promote their products. Scientific journals, heavily funded by Big Pharma refuse to print papers that reveal the truth, and controlled governments, like ours, continue to repeat the clearly false ‘Safe and Effective’ mantra. Some studies have gotten past the censors, often published in minor journals that have little or no funding from Big Pharma, but these studies are completely ignored by mainstream media and are definitely attacked by those who have either been deceived themselves, or are being paid to suppress the truth. But now, we have a major study, co-authored by none other than Dr. Peter McCullough, which was very recently published by Cureus, the Journal of Medical Science, a well established online, open source, and heavily peer-reviewed publication. And despite fears that the paper would be retracted by Cureus within days, it has not been. I am pleased to be joined today by Nathaniel Mead, an epidemiologist who is the main author of the paper. In this paper, Nathaniel and his colleagues examine the methodology used by Pfizer to falsely claim 95% effectiveness of their product, and the methods they used to hide the extreme harms. ‘Procedural chicanery’ is the term Nathaniel uses. And it is an apt term, because what Nathaniel’s research shows is blunt and simple. Pfizer lied. In this extensive interview, you will learn the methods Pfizer used to convince scientists, doctors and governments that their product would save the people from a virus that has been shown to have a lower mortality rate than many seasonal flus. A product that has made obscene profits for them, while killing and maiming tens of millions of people. Will Dove 3:10 Nathaniel, it's a pleasure to have you on the show. Nathaniel Mead 3:13 Thank you. Will Dove 3:14 And I was very flattered that Dr. Mercola referred you to me and to your study. Very important. So I did read through it. Your findings were absolutely incredible. We're going to do those in a few minutes. But first, I wanted to ask you, you're a nutritional epidemiologist, which is a little out of the bounds of what we're analyzing here, you along with your your research companions. So why this study? Nathaniel Mead 3:41 Well, epidemiology is the foundational part of my training, in addition to nutrition, so just merging them together. But so this this study really required, this, this paper, which was a narrative review show kind of telling the story from the scientific perspective on what has happened over the last three years, required a fairly rigorous epidemiological perspective. And so we're sharing that perspective with the readers. This is different from a systematic review, where you're looking at all of the research from very careful kind of mathematical, quantitative, you know, putting together looking at averages and all of that and what the studies are showing, and coming up with a pooled estimate of risks. We decided not to do that, because this is a problem with the science over the past few years since that so much censorship has happened. And so much distortion of the evidence has happened because of the way that the pharmaceutical industry has infiltrated the scientific process. And so we decided they'd not to do a systematic review, because it wouldn't lead the public to think that, Oh, these things are actually quite okay that they do have that I can see because you can find many observational studies that suggest that but when I looked at all of those studies, very carefully, and this is what motivated me to write this paper, and to really put this together, in collaboration with so many great scientists. I saw immediately that all of these observational studies were either outright fraudulent, or just completely, deliberately done to provide a result that was was false. And so I that's what led us to do this more selective review, which is using the best available evidence to come up with a perspective that I think, is extremely important, because the public doesn't have the scientific literacy to sort out the bad studies from the good studies. At, you'll often see people countering our paper, right now they're there. In fact, I just got a message this morning that someone was referring to a Gates Bill Gates Foundation funded study, where they used a simulated population, an artificial population, to come up with conclusions that were, of course, extremely favorable for the vaccine. There have been half a dozen of those type of studies that are very big. And unless you look at the methodology, and you realize you're not even looking at a real population, you're looking at a simulator. So that's an example of, of the distortions that have happened. And quite frankly, I sympathize with many people, very intelligent, well educated people in the public who are looking at these studies of go into PubMed will do a search, and they'll find these and, and because they don't have the epidemiology training, they can't sort out the baby from the dirty bathwater. And that's a big problem. Will Dove 7:10 So when you said earlier systemic study, my understanding of that would be to basically collate data from a whole bunch of previous studies. But that would have been very biased. So where did you pull your data from? Nathaniel Mead 7:23 Yeah, so yeah, as opposed to a systematic review, the narrative review, we'll look at data that is based mostly reenact re analyzing the clinical trials to start with, then looking at adverse events, data and and reports, because that's really what I think the public needs to understand, because so much of the focus has been on, quote, efficacy, and or the effectiveness as purportedly demonstrated by the clinical trials. So there's two aspects to our review. One is that what did the clinical trials show? And was the data reliable? We know it was not it was under recorded underestimated there were many problems. And then what happened after the rushed authorization process in terms of what was revealed through the reanalyses of those trials, and other studies that came out that were focused on adverse events. So that's really what we're looking at. And I will also say that as a general rule for your listeners, if somebody is scientifically oriented, be careful about looking at any studies comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated people, because that's where most of the distortion of the understanding has come from, is those comparisons because it's very easy to use all kinds of statistical tricks and methodological chicanery, for want of a better word, you know, to to mislead people. And those studies are, we tended to not look at those studies, but we do have a section on our paper where we summarize why those studies are problematic. Will Dove 9:23 Now, and we're gonna get into those comparisons of vaccinated versus unvaccinated because as I said, I read your study and the question I want to ask before we get into the actual details, obviously as a scientist you would have a hypothesis going into this. You suspected that the data from Pfizer, the conclusions were not correct. But having read the study, I'm going to make this statement. The, Pfizer's conclusions bear no resemblance whatsoever to reality. They must have taken, as you said, a great deal of methodological chicanery to come up with. Did you find what you expected? Was it even worse? Nathaniel Mead 9:59 Okay, so, first of all, I knew from the very beginning that that something was wrong because I heard Fauci and other people saying safe and effective. Now, the safe part, I knew was false, because by definition, you can't prove that a vaccine is safe within two to three months, there's no way to do that. Both trials were in that timeframe. So it was impossible from the beginning to say that they were safe. The fact that I kept hearing that over and over again, actually made me quite angry, because I thought this is this is very blatant deception going on here. So we were interested in in, okay, what is the timeframe that you would expect to see for a safe vaccine and, and that would be 10 to 15 years is the is the typical timeframe. And the reason for that is because vaccines have been, as you know, linked with autoimmune diseases and cancers. And, and so we wanted to make sure that, throughout history, the reason that they've been studied in a 10 to 15 year timeframe has been to make sure that people don't develop autoimmune diseases and cancers. But those things tend to take more time. What's interesting about the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, so called vaccine, because they're really not that and we'll get to that in a second is that we're seeing autoimmune diseases and cancers happening very fast. I mean, much faster than you would expect. And I think it's because they are really gene therapy products. They're not, they're not the conventional vaccines that rely on an antigen to stimulate the immune system. So we're, I'm getting ahead of myself here by mentioning that, but but that, I think, is the reason that you see, for example, I have a neighbor here in Virginia, who developed three auto immune diseases after her first booster. Now, her doctor said, that's just has to be the vaccine, the How could you possibly have three autoimmune diseases happening so quickly? I have personally No, because my specialty is really cancer. I personally known a number of people who have developed very rapid cancers. They're called hyper progressing, and the lay term is turbo cancers. But these are cancers that progress very fast. And fact that I lost one of my closest friends to one of these cancers. And that was also a major motivator for writing this paper. Will Dove 12:48 Yes, and I had done other interviews on those, as you say, Turbo cancers. And the primary cause seems to be suppression to the CDA cells, although I know and being very, very high level with that, it's there's other factors as well. But the CDA cells are the body's primary defense against cancer. And so of course, if you're going to suppress those, obviously, you're going to get cancer more likely to be cancer developing, and it's going to develop much more rapidly. Nathaniel Mead 13:12 Well, there is that and there is the basic fact that when these spike proteins are generated, ongoing for up to six months, at least, and it's probably much longer than that, you have a chronic inflammatory situation, which is going to drive a latent cancer into a more potentially aggressive cancer. And so that just as the basic aspect of cancer, all cancers are fed by chronic inflammation. And many cancers are actually really triggered by autoimmune related processes. So there's an intersection between autoimmune and cancer that has to do with the immune system being skewed in a certain direction. But you're right, I think the CDA is very important. T cell exhaustion, which is very common with these vaccines, especially in older people, and we don't really talk much about older people in our paper. The reason for that is that we were trying to emphasize the risk so called risk benefit analysis, and I've already been chastised by the, by our camp, so to speak, because of saying there's any benefit, but it's just because of the way the calculation is done. you balance the risks and the benefits. So the when you look at this from the standpoint of a younger person, the infection fatality rate is so incredibly low. Will Dove 14:53 Yes, Nathaniel Mead 14:53 and yet, Will Dove 14:55 let me see if I can jump in because I've got a short paragraph from your study. Nathaniel Mead 14:59 Yeah Will Dove 14:59 That I think summed this up better than anything I've read so far. I mean, everybody watching this knows that COVID-19 was not a dangerous disease to anybody who doesn't have a long list of comorbidities. You know, it was said by Dr. Ioannidis back in 2021, when he called it a minor flu. Strangely enough, you hardly ever saw Dr. Ioannidis on mainstream television after he said that, Well, I loved how you summed this up, he said, stratify stratifying by age, the infection fatality rate in 2021, showed an age gradient with approximately a three to four fold increase for each decade. Yes, starting as low as .0003%, among children and adolescents, increasing to 0.5%, in those aged 60 to 69. That this is that I don't have the statistics in front of me. But if I recall, that this is at, at worst, on level with seasonal flu, and certainly not as bad as H1N1. Nathaniel Mead 15:57 Yes, you're exactly right. And that, you know, even that statement that you just made, that it's on par with the flu, which was made many times by esteemed epidemiologists, early on, they were ridiculed and ostracized for making that statement. But that's what the math was showing early on. And for people generally under age 40, there has never been even a remotely rational argument for them getting vaccinated, or they're getting vaccinated. It's it's, it's quite, quite stunning. Now, the argument has always been well, we need to protect the high risk groups and the way that they were able to justify doing the younger population is through the claim that they were reducing transmission and infection, we now know that that was a myth as well, too. And that that was demonstrated early on. I think, and I haven't said this before, but I believe that the, the way that people were convinced about this over time, was a process of basically getting people to obey first with the masks, then with the physical distancing. And then everybody's on board. They're feeling good, like they're helping the older, more vulnerable by doing that, right, because they're protecting those people. And then the segue was, okay, now the vaccines will also help you protect those more vulnerable people. And they were using that argument in scientific papers to justify vaccinating children, because they were saying if you vaccinate children, it will protect the older population. But that was... Will Dove 17:49 At the same time that governments were already admitting, Pfizer was already admitting it doesn't prevent transmission. It doesn't prevent infection. And then they're trying to push this on children with the as you just said, With the excuse is going to protect the older population. But we know from multiple studies that children seldom infect adults, it's the other way around. Nathaniel Mead 18:10 Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. That and there was no reason to wear masks in the beginning, you know, unless you are symptomatic. It was it was all part of one big mind experiment, you know. And it was an it was an uncontrolled, global experiment that we now know, failed miserably. And the fact that it's still going on is quite stunning. Will Dove 18:40 Yes. Now, before we get into the harms, I just want to talk a little bit more about supposed efficacy and what you found in your study. Oh, yeah. And I'm gonna let you do this. I'm not going to try to summarize it because you do it much better in the study, talking about first of all, the way that Pfizer rigged it in terms of infections, or, you know, vaccinated versus unvaccinated group. And we discussed this earlier, that people should be very cautious of comparing those two things. So Nathaniel, please explain what you found. Will Dove 19:15 Okay, so, you know, a randomized trial is a good way to, in general, it's a good way to understand whether something is safe and effective. And so if you design a randomized trial, well, and you conduct it, well, you get good results that are quite reliable. These registrational trials or founding trials of Pfizer and Maderna were not conducted. Well, they were. There were there were many, many problems that we laid out. And so what could have been a gold standard couple of studies to direct people in the right direction, turned out to be very unfortunately, the the opposite. As I said, the trials were too short. That was the main problem, right from the get go. But then you also had the problem of under reporting of adverse events, this was probably, I would say, the most fundamental problem with both with both trials. By the way, the Moderna trial was probably much worse than the Pfizer trial. And that's why we've tended to look at the Pfizer trial much more, because it's, even though it's poorly done, it was better than Maderna. When you look back in history at clinical trials of vaccine trials, they've only reported about 5%, on average 5% of the adverse events that were happening in the trial. So you're getting an incredibly distorted perspective on risk benefit right there, because they're only focusing on how many cases can we reduce. So that was the outcome that they were looking at was symptomatic cases of COVID based on a cough or sneeze. Of course, if somebody had a fever, that was that was an outcome. But you could be counted as a case, if you were PCR positive and had a cough, you were counted as a case if you're a PCR positive and had sneezed. So it was, interestingly, they would see that more in the placebo group, apparently, again, we have to trust that this bad outcome is valid. But even if that outcome was valid, and say the vaccine reduced symptoms in the in the intervention group, the vaccine group, you still are not really justifying the use of these vaccines, because they're not looking at severe disease. And they're not looking at hospitalization. So this was never designed, the trial was never designed to look at those. And when you think about this, from the standpoint of the immune system, those people under placebo group could very well have gone on to live perfectly healthy, happy lives and not developed them problems because symptoms were associated with a more robust immune response. So there, they could have actually had great outcomes over there over the next, you know, four or five months. And I would bet that the trial coordinators knew that. And that was possibly one of the reasons they cut the trial short, but I think the main reason was that they didn't want to have the adverse events start cropping up, they didn't want people to start reporting those in large amounts. And they were seeing them already. They were seeing heart problems. They were seeing, you know, heart pains, which were suggestive of myocarditis. They were seeing heart attacks. And that was the main thing that that was underreported, was the number of heart problems, cardiac problems. So we're looking at mostly serious adverse events and serious adverse events, includes things that are life threatening, and also things that would impair one's functioning for the rest of their life, you know, the crippling disease, neurological problems and so forth. But what was very striking is the reanalyses, the two major reanalyses that were done, one by Joseph Fraiman and colleagues, which is widely published now and shared with the public, and then one by Corrine Nichols, who did a fantastic job looking at the underreporting, and why, how the public and the FDA got misled. Although, I have to think that the FDA was complicit in this to some extent, because I think they, they didn't ask enough questions, and they rushed it, they rushed the whole process. But again, we're looking at adverse events and serious adverse events, the analyses of serious adverse events. When you look at these trials, you see that the trial coordinators, had a very haphazard approach to doing these, to measuring these things, they were looking at, solicited adverse events for a short period of time and then they were looking at unsolicited events for a little bit longer time, but still not long enough to see problems, only 30 to 60 days and that was it. So, you know, it's really quite, quite stunning to think that something could be called safe when you have such an incredibly small timeframe, and you're relying on these very vague ways of of measuring these things and tracking them. I think they deliberately did not track them in an in a rigorous way. Will Dove 25:26 Yes. And I wanted to go more into the harms in a few minutes. But I'd like to hammer a couple more nails in the coffin of effective before we move on, because as you said, there's fair bit of chicanery going on here. Pfizer claimed a 95% efficacy rate in preventing infection transmission, which of course we know wasn't true. You mentioned the Fraiman study, which I believe they found it was more like 30 some odd percent, I can't remember the exact number. But they did a couple of things here that even to a non scientists, like me, are glaring errors in their methodology. One, they're analyzing these by PCR trials, tests, which we know are highly unreliable. And second, of the 44,000 participants in this study, which they supposedly split into two groups of 22,000, one to receive a placebo, one to receive the vaccine. None of those people had comorbidities, they chose healthy people. And then out of that, they said, well, they had 162 cases in the placebo group out of 22,000. And only eight in the vaccine group. Of course, we have to question that data. But there's also the fact that even they stated no one in the placebo group, of those supposed 162 COVID cases died. Nathaniel Mead 26:47 Right. Will Dove 26:48 No one. Nathaniel Mead 26:50 Yeah, I mean, there's a lot to unpack in what you just said, because, and I'll just, you know, say briefly that it was overall a relatively healthy population, to argue that these vaccines should be used to protect the old and people with multiple comorbidities when when the trials are actually excluding those with comorbidities is, obviously, there's a disconnect there, and you have to have some lack of critical thinking to overlook that disconnect. It's a very clear problem, because what they're looking at is mild symptoms, as an outcome. And and you're also, as you said, using a PCR test, which one of the ironies of the PCR test, I think, that many people don't realize is that the PCR a positive PCR was often indicating that your immune system had already gotten rid of it. In the nose. It was it was, you stick the thing up there, and, and you do that they get your, your your swab. And what you're offering showing is, is the remnants of the immune system's destruction of the virus in the nose, because most of these infections were stopped in the upper respiratory system, and they were they were eliminated before they were a threat. So, you know, in a relatively healthy population, you're not really showing anything with these vaccines when you when you show symptom reduction like that. Now, as for the 162, you know, versus eight, that that's also a very interesting, you do have to wonder how much that was skewed by, you know, lost to follow up, you know, were people really reporting fully, and what were the trial coordinators really doing when they when they measured these things, but the main thing is that you can't possibly determine whether something is going to protect people against severe disease and death with these trials. And that's, that's the bottom line. They couldn't show that. The fact that they then underreported the deaths was also a problem. And so I think that that's, that's more egregious problem with these trials, and the Nichols analysis, which was reported in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research, it's one of the few journals that has not been captured by the pharmaceutical industry, that journal, and that paper was really an incredible contribution, because it showed that even the deaths that they reported were greatly underreported. It was 17% of what would be expected if it was reflected, reflective of the US population. So that's just, you know, again, showing how underreported these things were. Will Dove 30:18 Now, Nathaniel, I want to back up just a minute and have you expand on something you said just a minute ago. Because of course, you are an epidemiologist, this is your area of expertise is looking at studies like this. And you said, with this kind of study, you can't possibly show that it prevented death and disease. Can you explain what you meant by that? Nathaniel Mead 30:40 Yeah, I mean, whenever you have a population that's relatively healthy, you need a much longer time frame, to to be able to see death and disease crop up in that population. As you said earlier, the infection fatality rate is so low, that you can't expect to see very serious issues with a relatively healthy population. This is, you know, just you would need at least three years is what we determined in order to see significant impact on mortality. But even in the short timeframe that they had, they're able to show based on the frame and reanalysis, that there was a 36% statistically significant increase in the serious adverse events, which included you know, thrombotic disease, you know, cerebrovascular disease, strokes, heart attacks, these are major events that often kill people in the short term. And that the fact that they're able to see a statistically significant increase in those events in the vaccinated group versus placebo, that should have caused the FDA to say, Okay, we're not allowing this on the market, because they reported that to the FDA, Fraiman and his colleagues after the authorization, and they should have then put a halt on the distribution, but they did not. Will Dove 32:19 And that study, I believe, was released in September 2022. Correct? Nathaniel Mead 32:24 Yes. Will Dove 32:24 So at that point in time, the FDA knew that there was a 36, and when you say 36 increase in these severe adverse events, I assume you mean increase over the unvaccinated population. Nathaniel Mead 32:36 Right. And they knew they knew this way before that, because it takes time to get a paper like that published, you know, to go through peer reviews is an exhaustive process, as I learned, this is the most exhaustive process I've ever been through with a paper and I've had plenty of papers published. But you know, the same study found a four fold increase in serious, what they called serious adverse events of special interest, and so that they were looking at some things that were determined by something called a Brighton criteria, and basically, you know, things that you want to watch out for with vaccines. And so they were looking at those very carefully, they found a four fold increase in those in the in the Pfizer trial, and a two fold increase in the Maderna trial, that too should have stopped everything. Typically, in a in a vaccine trial, if you see a serious adverse event rate of one or two out of a million, that's enough to block it from the market to keep it from being released to the public. The Fraiman estimate came out to one in 800. Okay, so that's, Will Dove 33:50 I believe your data showed 162 severe adverse reactions for every 100,000 injections. Is that correct? Which works out to one in 800. Nathaniel Mead 34:00 Right. Well, as it was, yeah. 1250 per million. Right, which, which comes out to Yeah, one out of 800. So it's, it was a it was a 600 fold, greater amount than you would have seen based on previous standards for rejecting the vaccines from the market. And there were other analyses that were done. Besides Fraiman's, there was a analysis done by Morel, Germany would show 25 times more serious adverse events than the number of severe cases that are prevented if you were to look at the data. We actually tapped in in the paper shares a number of studies, looking at the mRNA products with regard to the serious adverse events we'd looked at. You know, some examples are, I mentioned a heart attack, which is myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, which is a an array of things affecting the heart, ischemic stroke, which is the most common stroke that is associated with a vaccine. It's also the most common stroke in general, the FDA, or I think it was the CDC, in 2022, pretty sure about this declared it a signal that so they acknowledged that there was a signal for ischemic stroke, brain hemorrhage, which is, you know, very common as well, but not as common as an ischemic ischemic stroke. So these are some of the things that we're seeing consistently in other studies. And that led us to do a risk benefit analysis. Will Dove 35:43 And of, and of course, even all that aside, we knew from the Pfizer documents from the phase three trials from Pfizer that they were forced to release in 2021, despite trying to keep them buried for 75 years, they showed over 40,000 adverse reactions, including 1223 deaths. Now, the only thing I've never been able to determine about that study was I don't believe it tells us how many people were injected. So we don't know the percentages. But that right, the 1223 deaths. Yeah, as I understand it, in both US and Canada, the upper limit is supposed to be 50. If a vaccine can be shown to have killed 50 people, it's withdrawn from the market. Nathaniel Mead 36:28 Yeah, and just to I want to make sure I heard you correctly here. Yeah, my understanding was that that number, what was what Pfizer reported? Not from the trial, but from reports that were documented? Will Dove 36:44 Yes, you are correct. Thank you for correcting me. It was yeah, that they got these reports back from clinicians, whatever, that were injecting people. So right there, we had black and white. Over 1200 deaths. Nathaniel Mead 36:59 Right. Right. Will Dove 37:01 And 40,000 plus adverse events. Nathaniel Mead 37:03 Yeah, yeah. I mean, it's, it. It's, it's shocking, you know, even to hear you say it to me still, to this day, I, I'm still in awe that, that we're facing this situation, I would have expected that in a country like China. But I wouldn't have expected it in the United States, where you we have supposedly, you know, the best scientific minds in the world, you know, that I think they it's overrated, but But you know, we do have a lot of sophisticated minds in this country and the freedom to debate each other until this so called pandemic, prior to the, to this, to 2020 there was a fairly open channel for debating each other as scientists, you know, we could do it and not get reprimanded. We could do it without losing jobs or being threatened with, you know, deplatforming. And, and all of that actually, I don't know if deplatforming was a thing before this. But, you know, it's just it's kind of surprising to me that most of the general public doesn't realize the extent of that censorship and how much it skewed the perspective, because the censorship existed not only within the social media and and out in the public, but it existed at the level of the scientific journals. And so there was a very high level of information, informational programming going on, that affected the medical community as well. Many doctors didn't even realize what was going on. They just, they thought that they were seeing reliable information. Will Dove 39:07 And a lot of cases when digging was done, we discover that the scientific journals are often heavily funded by big pharma. Nathaniel Mead 39:15 Yeah. Will Dove 39:15 Yeah. Nathaniel Mead 39:16 Yeah. And the other part of that is, if you're if you're looking at information that is being filtered through the pharma process of, of subterfuge and obfuscation and distortion and all of that, all of the things that they do to the data to make the outcomes fit what they want, so that more medical doctors will recommend these things to their patients. In addition to that, when you have federal agencies that used to be trusted, like the CDC, and I can tell you that every single doctor I know many, many doctors and they all say the same thing that I felt which was I always trusted the CDC up until this time, you know, and the CDC has unfortunately, been captured as well. And that's very, very clear by all of their communications, and how, if you especially if you look at CDC funded studies, and CDC published studies, which come out in the mobility and mortality reports that they put out, which are really basically propaganda at this point, it's it's shocking, because those same reports used to be very respected. And now we look at them and nobody trusts them. If you're if you understand what's been going on, and you know, how to look at the data, and to realize that all of the studies is there, for example, they're using a CDC guideline, which I'm sure you've heard about, which is that you're not considered vaccinated until 14 days after the second shot. So anything that happens before that time, even before the shot with the first shot between the first and second shot, but especially between, you know, because the second shot is more likely to create problems, that 14 day period, if anybody dies during that period, you're counted as unvaccinated. Will Dove 41:15 Yes. Nathaniel Mead 41:16 That's one of the more dramatic examples. Will Dove 41:18 If you contract COVID, according to their PCR tests, or whatever you're unvaccinated, which is how they fudge so many of the hospitalization numbers. Nathaniel Mead 41:28 Right. But even if you're not looking at COVID, and that's a very good point that you just made, because a lot of those studies are looking at COVID and COVID deaths. But other studies are also looking at all cause mortality. And this is where it gets really, you would think that all cause mortality would be a very good measure of what's happening when people get vaccinated. But if you're using that two week that that 14 day rule, you will see a complete flip flop of what's happening, and the unvaccinated will always look like they're dying in much larger numbers. Because of that 14 day rule, because most of the deaths related to the vaccine, especially in older populations are happening within the first 14 days. Okay. Will Dove 41:57 Yes. Nathaniel Mead 41:57 Now there is a period later on where there's more deaths too, several months down the road, that those are harder to monitor and hard to track. Will Dove 42:28 Right. Nathaniel Mead 42:29 So yeah, Will Dove 42:30 So we've we've determined a number of very important things from your study. And from our conversation, one, there was no need for the vaccines, because COVID simply was not that dangerous of a disease. Two, they were not effective. And as you stated, given the methodology they used, there was no possible way to prove that they were effective. And so now, this, I think, brings us to the harms. And those are many and varied from the spike protein toxicity to the DNA that was found in the vials by Dr. McKernan, to ribosomal frameshifting, to the snippets of the Simian 40 virus. If you could please comment on what your study found with all of that. Nathaniel Mead 43:17 Well, you know, I know you've talked to Dr. McCullough, our senior author, and he's a brilliant cardiologist and I invited him to be on this paper because of his heroic stance throughout the last few years. And because he is brilliant, in terms of understanding the heart related issues, so I'll just briefly comment, prospective studies, which are looking forward in time, those are the best studies, and you want to monitor the heart condition and see what happens after people get exposed to the vaccine. Those studies clearly show somewhere between 2% and 3% myocarditis risk, increased myocarditis risk in younger men in particular, although there's also some indication it's happening in young women as well. This is many times higher for all younger people, really all younger people under age 40. It's many times higher among the vaccinated the COVID-19 vaccinated people than among those who are exposed to SARS-CoV-2, and yet, if you go in the literature, you'll see them repeatedly saying, Oh, no, no, it's infection is associated with far more that's absolutely false. Those that these, that claim that are looking at populations in a way that leads to a very distorted picture, and you should only look at perspective studies that are measuring what's happening to the heart. And then you see that, for example, adolescent teens, this is amazing. 37 times more 30 seven times more myocarditis in adolescent teens who are exposed to the injections, the mRNA injections, than infection with SARS-CoV-2, that's just stunning, you know, and when when we realized that we just said, again, how could you, you know, possibly say that? How could you possibly allow these injections in young people just on based on that alone. The other thing that I'll say that is happening, which is not often commented on, and we allude to it in the paper, is that many of these problems in both young and old people are related to diseases that are considered latent or indolent, meaning that they're moving very slowly along and they may never manifest during a person's lifespan, you know, an example in people of all ages is cancers that are just kind of percolating along but the immune system keeps them in check. And then you get the vaccine and suddenly, you know, the immune system as you said, with the CDA, or, you know, the combination of the CDA inflammation and various other factors all bring about the the cancers' emergence very quickly. So, this is happening also with a lot of neurological diseases, Parkinson's, and ALS and others where you have a propensity for the person to develop those diseases. But they, they may not have ever developed them without having taken the shots. We also saw that multiple shots was clearly associated with the more adverse events. Will Dove 46:47 Yes, one of the most alarming statistics that's come across my desk in the last six months, Josh Stirling, the number one insurance analyst in the US, and this is, once again, pure data, folks, well calculated, that if you're 30 years old, and you've had four or five shots, your life expectancy is now 55. That's, that's, it's sickening. It's just sickening just to think that they're cutting, you know, 25, 30 years off of an otherwise healthy person's life. Nathaniel Mead 47:17 Yeah, I wanted to, I know, you've commented on the show before about the DNA contamination, contamination issue. I'll just say a few things from my perspective that I think are really important for people to understand. The clinical trials, we're only using process one, which is a different process than was used when the product was released to the public, when it was released to the public, they used process 2 and that introduced DNA, bacterial DNA, that was from this plasmid process for mass production. So in order to produce, to take what was done in the clinical trial, and then share it with the public, they used a different process that ended up basically using a whole different product, because you can't compare something that was not contaminated to one that is and all of the samples that have been analyzed to date, were shown, which again, done through proc Process Two, were shown to be contaminated to varying degrees of contamination. And you may actually SV40 sequences, which are definitely associated with cancer, you'll hear you'll see if you go Google this, of course, all kinds of denial and fact checks, so called back checks, you know, which are pharma fact checks, all saying no, no, no, don't don't look at this. But I think the most interesting thing about this is that this really helps explain the Russian Roulette situation. Because the batch variability that we see with this, what Dr. McCullough calls process or process related impurities, is that you see different amounts of this contamination, because this is a very unstable technology. And so you're seeing different amounts of material that would then elicit symptoms in different ways. So apparently, based on the best available published data, we have 30% of batches won't produce any symptoms at all, but somewhere between four and 8% are considered lethal or extremely dangerous. So you don't know if you're going to be getting that batch and, and this also feeds into the illusion of safety. Because so many people know others who have my grandmother took the shots and she's fine, you know, and so they hear things about older people being more vulnerable, but we see old... My own mother had two shots. I'm glad she didn't get beyond that. But she's fine, thankfully. And, and yet I know many other older people who are less fortunate and to have who developed serious problems, dizziness and vertigo being the most common, disabling vertigo. And I will say one thing about this is that, you know, this, this should have been, again, a reason to immediately take this off the market. I mean, just finding something like this. And knowing and admitting that Oh, Process One was, was used in the trials, and Process Two was not so we're actually getting a product that was never tested in trials. Will Dove 47:53 Yes Nathaniel Mead 49:52 No, that's just wrong. That is seriously wrong. And it's it's criminal. We're living. This is a time of, we're looking at blatant corruption. And it should have been stopped. Will Dove 51:07 Nathaniel, I want to finish with this question. Because you were just saying a few minutes ago, somewhere between four and 8% of the vials were possibly lethal, at least very risky, highly toxic, which you know, to do some very basic math means you get about one in 20 chance that you're going to get one of those shots, we've had over 5 billion people injected worldwide, at least according to the official numbers. We know from the studies of a number of people have been tracking the sorts of things our own doctor, we have Makis here in Canada, that despite vaccine uptake being weighed down, we're actually seeing an acceleration in these adverse events to get even worse, the cumulative effect of all these toxic effects upon the body. You're an epidemiologist, where do you see this going in the next 10 years? Nathaniel Mead 51:55 I just really I have to tell you that writing this paper was very emotionally exhausting. Because I kept contemplating this question. And I kept thinking about all the people that I love, who have had the shots. You know, the long term implications, nobody knows you're causing immune dysfunction at a level that is unprecedented, on a population wide basis, we don't really know what's gonna happen. In the short term, I think we'll continue to see unfortunately, many young, athletic people falling down on the field, if they keep getting the shots, which is so tragic. And the people the fact that people are in denial about it happening, even though it's 10 times more than happened before 2020 on the field, 10 times higher rate of sudden death happening among athletes. And that could even be conservative estimate. But that's the best estimate that I've seen in a paper that Peter McCullough published. I think for the long term, my biggest concern is going to be cancer and autoimmune diseases continuing to, to develop, I think that it's, there's a two two year window, generally per per person. So if you had to shots, the last shot that you had, you look two years out from that with a normal vaccine, classical vaccine, with these products, any gene therapy product, which again, I think this is more appropriately categorized as a gene therapy product. It's five years. So that's the window, generally, where maybe after five years, if you haven't seen anything serious crop up, you're you're going to be okay for the long term. But we really don't know we're in uncharted territory. And I wish I had a crystal ball, but I'm kind of glad that I don't because it's it's scary to contemplate and to to even have that kind of even some kind of estimate of what could happen. It's it's, it's a dangerous estimate, because there's too much uncertainty involved. I just hope that the general public starts to wake up and that was a big reason that I wanted to get this paper out. And it was a labor of love. Will Dove 54:52 I can only imagine. I can only imagine the the countless hours of research that you and your partners wants to put into this. So, Nathaniel, I want to thank you, not just for your time for this interview. But yes, for this very important study that you've brought out, we will be be providing folks a link to that study directly beneath this interview, and go read it for yourself. There's also a link to an excellent article in The Guardian that summarizes it. Do take a look at it. It's It is shocking data. Nathaniel, thank you again. Nathaniel Mead 55:22 Thank you very much for having me on the show. I appreciate it.