Hi everyone, The 3-hour vaccine death debate between Denis and Tracy has now been released! Anyone can access it now here in the Substack app/website or in the Spotify/Apple links below. I hope it helps shape your perspective on this contentious topic.
If this were a play the roles would be as follows:
Denis - brilliant serious scientist who has performed sophisticated research and knows the data inside and out.
Tracey - cute giggly semi serious person with science education background seeking admiration as a cute giggly contrarian, understanding little of what Denis points out. Similar role to Daisy in the Great Gatsby.
Kevin - unpolished med student chiming in to stay relevant but not adding value.
Rav - moderator interested in entertainment value of the podcast. Cuts off Denis often just as he is about to drive a stake through the vampire’s heart.
Denis, I was immensely impressed with your first 2 hours of responses to Tracy (I still need to view the third!) , especially given the often demeaning tone and manner of her responses. Also thanks for chiming in on our new review paper in the Cureus portal. We're not engaging the trolls (Laxton, Dopler) but appreciate other r(non-AI, non-Pharma rep) readers responding. The paper is now on Pubmed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38274635/) though the open access part will be delayed. Regarding the 3-hour debate, I will be commenting in more depth very soon after viewing the final hour. Hats off to you for your comprehensive inquiries into the excess mortality situation of the past few years.
Excellent work and Congratulations on the paper- I've said the same on some of your co-authors' Substacks. It is critically important that you discussed the unfavorable mortality results in the Pfizer and Moderna gold-standard randomized clinical trials, which almost everyone else (besides Stabell-Benn et. al.) has failed to address. The clinical trials are the ONLY studies equipped to directly examine the causal effects of mRNA vaccination, and they are the ONLY truly unbiased evidence on the mortality effect of mRNA vaccination, but because the overall mortality results are not favorable we never hear about them.
COVID deaths: 2 vaccine vs. 5 placebo (-60%)
non-COVID deaths: 29 vaccine vs. 25 placebo (+16%)
cardiovascular-related deaths: 16 vaccine vs. 11 placebo (+45%)
Overall: 4 excess non-COVID deaths for every 3 less COVID deaths (in blunt terms, 4 KILLED FOR EVERY 3 SAVED, even at the height of the pandemic and at peak vaccine effectiveness)
A 16% increase in non-COVID mortality and a 45% increase in cardiovascular-related mortality (and a net effect of "4 killed for every 3 saved") absolutely do have PRACTICAL significance in the context of these vaccines given to many millions of people, regardless of the typical cop-out regarding "statistical significance". See this piece on common misuses of the flawed concept of "statistical significance" written by Dr. Sander Greenland, one of the most respected experts in statistics and epidemiology: https://www.jvsmedicscorner.com/Statistics_files/Retire%20statistical%20significance.pdf.
Thanks for this excellent comment. I think we can all agree that the "Covid deaths" outcome is extremely difficult to verify and trust in an industry-sponsored trial. All-cause and cardiac deaths are, in my humble opinion, the most reliable findings. I will certainly check out Greenland's article , being quite familiar with his work. I would be grateful if you have time to insert your comment in the Cureus portal as well, assuming you haven't done so already. It is time to call out the chicanery and distortions.
And these excess all cause mortality deaths were only after two months. Imagine how much worse it could have been had they continued to follow people for a longer period of time.
And/or, imagine how much worse the results would be if they had used the same “vaccine” in the trial that they actually deployed to the public (process 1 for the “trial” participants vs process 2, which contained DNA contamination for the general public).
Thanks Brandy. We sought to address the theoretical implications had the Pfizer trial been allowed to continue (see Appendix 1 of our paper). The Moderna trial's data were too unreliable for such projections. Given what we now know about natural immunity vis a vis SARS-CoV-2 infection, it's quite likely that those placebo cases counted as symptomatic Covid infections (the primary endpoint) would have gone on to have superior long-term outcomes, as this was a relatively healthy younger population overall. Symptoms in the unvaccinated were known to be associated with more robust immune responses, thus perhaps better protection in the long term. Ironic how those same cases in the placebo group were used to justify launching the global vaccination campaign.
If I remember correctly, had they counted the “side effects” and other symptoms in the weeks leading up to the point where someone was considered “fully vaccinated”, any supposed benefits (reduction in mild to moderate symptoms) in the vaccinated group were diminished. But, that’s my understanding of how the trial was ran. It’s been a long time since I heard discussions on the Pfizer document release. The whole trial or demonstration was seriously flawed from multiple aspects.
Were the "vaccines' safe and effective? Did they prevent the spread, stop the spread, full stop, as claimed?
No.
That's it. They - public health officials, regulators, manufacturers and media - all lied. Every last one of them. And they "othered" anyone who told the truth, disparaged them, destroyed careers and lives of those who told the truth. That's the most important thing to take away from the debate.
The numbers are only important if you subscribe to the concept of Utilitarian ethics, lies and deception, coercion and manipulation for a stated "greater good." Never mind that what constitutes a greater good was never universally shared, a product of the consensus of a bunch of collectivist authoritarians, Marxists, Fascists, Oligarchs and largely Atheists (who prefer to call themselves humanists in public settings) declared the lies were for a greater good - in a world value system that they subscribe to. That doesn't respect individual liberty and freedom, believes the masses are the product of multiple generations of imbeciles (Buck v Bell) who must be lied to and told what to do, for their own good, by their beneficent betters. Practicing their idea of "good stewardship" of their human chattel.
Two million, seventeen million, a hundred million, who's counting. As Stalin said, "one death is a tragedy, one million deaths is a statistic." This is quibbling over a "statistic." By people practicing what Stalin also said was, "breaking a few eggs to make an omelet." The sacrifice of individual lives an unfortunate, but necessary statistic for a "greater good" they all desired. They, our superior and more enlightened betters, cut from a finer cloth of man. Who nearly all are enamored with the pseudoscience of Eugenics. Themselves asserted as the best of the gene pool, of course.
They lied. All of them. And the medical field of today is led by Victor Brack's ideas of the practice of medicine. The German doctor who's favorite saying in the Third Reich was, "the needle belongs in the hands of the doctor" when the Final Solution of creating their idea of the best gene pool for humanity's future, the practice of Eugenics, was adopted as state policy.
That's who these bastards are. And whether the statistical number is a few million or a few tens of millions we must all know that the Eugenicist movement has a goal of hundreds of millions, even billions of dead - by needles in the hands of doctors - for their idea of a greater good to prevail. Ethically, of course. Utilitarian, that is, not Kantian or Virtue ethics as most readers imagine the term means. Christine Grady, aka Mrs Anthony Fauci, is NIH's Chief Bioethicist as a point of ethical reference.
It’s unfortunate that when one talks about the clearly stated goals of the eugenicists, one is often considered a nutjob. Thank you for writing this. 🙏🏾
It's not a secret. Keyword search "Epstein, eugenics." You'll find mainstream stories pre-2020 about his interest in eugenics. Not a passing hobby. His raison d'etre.
The larger media and chatter, outrage about him has focused on the "lolita" angle of him, his visitors. The salacious. The potential for blackmail, control. But they served a purpose for Epstein and his circle of associates: eugenics. He had sperm banks with his and other wealthy and powerful men who frequented his island and ranch in Arizona. The women and girls were typically beautiful models and stars or angelic children. With eggs.
His little black book and visitor and flight logs were filled with the leading genetic scientists, newgenics researchers and funders, gene and viral evolution design researchers, many related and specialized similar fields, relationships with leading global research universities. Those involved with biotechnological innovations, human-computer interface tech designed for internal application. Wealthy industrialists and bankers, politicians, Big Pharma, Big Health, Big Tech executives, intelligence specialists, psychologists and behaviorists - those useful for sophisticated manipulation and propaganda campaigns. A laundry list of the same types of professions, status and family names as those who were leading the eugenics movement over a century ago.
Which was huge in the US. The father of the modern medicine that Jay, Denis and Tracey practice, John D Rockefeller was a leading organizer and activist in the eugenics movement, politically connected. And it was global - especially in the UK and Germany. Where eugenics practiced by euthanasia and sterilization became master race level stuff.
Nuremberg defendants cited Buck v Bell in their defense, "you Americans do it, what's the big deal." They were right. A case that's never been overturned, "three generations of imbeciles is enough" sterilizations. Cited along with Jacobsen to uphold mask and vax mandates. And "gender-affirming care" is Madison Avenue's rebranding of sterilization, it's genital mutilation. Canada's MAID euthanasia of the depressed young, eugenics.
Eugenics has evolved with the application of psychological manipulation and coercion to make undesirable people want, demand to end their line in the gene pool. Epstein taught psychology at Harvard - without a degree in it - because he studied and became proficient at understanding and manipulating the human mind to get others to do what he wanted, even children to have sex (be raped) with older, powerful men.
It's all related, connected very closely with the practice of medicine. Search Victor Brack's legacy online, you'll find Joseph Mengele wasn't a lone medical butcher and murderer. Brack even said his trademark saying, "the needle belongs in the hands of a doctor" after witnessing the first trials of gassing mentally ill patients (and political dissidents) in a hospital. It proved so efficient they built gas chambers (showers) in concentration camps. The gas valve operated by a doctor - like is done at death row executions, the needle in the hand of the doctor.
The technologies evolve but the people and ideas remain the same. And it's all there to see for those who seek to learn, who don't turn away from seeing something they don't want to see. The difficulty of the efficient gas deaths was body disposal. Better to have death appear outside the control of hospital or prison institutions. And death at home shifts the burial cost to surviving family without arousing suspicions. The needle in the hand of a doctor needn't act immediately to be effective.
It's all there, no conspiracy theory, conspiracy fact. It doesn't require all Big Health, Big Pharma or Big Media be in on it. Just the leading eugenicists controlling the fields. It's better to have the doctors, drug manufacturers and media believe they are helping than believe they are harming. Many of them are the primary targets of the psychological manipulation, betrayal of trust they have in their leading medical journals - the censorship of the Jay's, Tracey's and Denis's as evidence.
It's real. Call us nutjobs all they want, won't change the God-awful truth of it. And therein lies the origination of eugenics - the rejection of God. Man as god self worship. They can improve on God's greatest creation, "fix" his mistakes (as is told to children seeking "gender-affirming" care) and remake the world in their own image. They consider themselves "humanists" as though they care more about humans than the rest, their nonprofit foundations doing altruistic work. But they are mostly atheists, even those leading religious foundations and institutions. And as such they adopt eugenics as desirable public policy, "for a greater good" like "saving mother earth" from the ravages of man, and other cruelties man is capable. Themselves engaged in cruelties, but for their own idea of better intentions.
They are clearly stated goals. We ignore and dismiss them at our peril. They are the nutjobs. But by appearances in a mad, mad world they assume they are sane and slander those of us who see and say what we see. They've created massive Behavioral Health enterprises in every community in every state. And given them purview to determine who's "lost touch with evidence-based reality" (Aspen Institute Commission on Information Disorder) and have the legal authority to capture and detain them. Just as was done in the Third Reich. As several of the "mentally ill" in Victor Brack's hospital gas chamber experiment were.
We'd better wake up more of those we interact with to the unpleasant truth of the world being built around us "better." Without concern or regard for being called a nut job. Truth wins. Live not by lies.
I’m not trying to be snarky here. But, who takes a novel gene therapy, developed under a program entitled “Operation Warp Speed”, created by the most criminal industry in the world (pharmaceutical industrial complex), that was only tested for two months (to see if it would reduce mild to moderate symptoms), to combat a virus with an IFR of roughly the flu (most likely made worse by hospital protocols and public health authority recommendations)?
I could go on and on about the absolute absurdity of the entire situation.
Before the pandemic, I would have defended the average person rigorously from the predatory actions of the eugenenisists. But we watched the most idiotic scenario that I could ever imagine play out in real time. I had people arguing with me on why I was wrong… I gave up trying to reason with people. It was futile.
I’m not saying what has occurred was a good thing, but, just saying that it wasn’t that difficult for them to pull something this ridiculous off. So, they (the eugenists) do have a somewhat valid point. Again, I’m not trying to be snarky. Just being honest after evaluating the situation without the emotional element.
When you watch people spraying down their children and groceries with Lysol, or people driving around with masks who order fast food during a pandemic that predominantly effects people with comorbitities, it’s difficult not to see that there are widespread problems with humanity.
We have a friend who is obese who sent us photos of getting his free donut by showing his vaccination card.
Eugenics is not the answer but people need to advocate for themselves in more logical ways or they will continue to be easy victims.
I completely agree. But, all people had to do to defeat the fear was to turn off their propaganda boxes (tv). There were many alternative news sources from independent media (meaning media not controlled by pharmaceutical companies pumping massive amounts of revenue into it) that were telling the truth. The IFR was known to be .24 or lower just a few weeks into it. Turns out it was even much lower than that. Even if it was a very dangerous virus, shutting down the entire world still didn’t make sense. There were so many opportunities for people to overcome their fears and be logical.
Why aren’t people afraid of processed food and sedentary lifestyles, which causes most chronic diseases? Because they choose not to be. We have choices. The general population is not choosing to be afraid of the appropriate dangers to their health.
Not one idea here is new or eye-opening to me. BUT, your writing here grabs my attention, in a good way....you have made me THINK....THANK-YOU! KUTGW!....
Disappointed in the dynamics, grateful for the debate. Freedom Fox is 🎯. The consistent bottom line: these injections are the most dangerous in world history. When was it normal to watch people collapsing on stage, sports fields, while doing a newscast? The mrna’s should have been recalled in 2021. Among my family, friends & colleagues, all know someone who died suddenly.
The vaccines should never been injected into a single person. You NEVER agree to an injection about which nothing is known of the long term side effects. NEVER! I told my followers this before the rollout. Boy, are they grateful now.
Specifically, what facet of the “sports world” & what data? Link please. Cause of death? In US, a # of people are looking at ambulance data that is far from normal. High school sports deaths, if reported, are categorized as “died suddenly” or “medical emergency.”
Nah, I'm not here to do your homework for you. If I was able to read them on the internet, and you didn't, that's just because you live in your bubble and CHOSE to not look outside your bubble.
Sporting "drop deads" have always happened, they just didn't get as much coverage.
I don't live in any bubble. I chose to NOT get vxd. But I read all data, not just the data on one side.
Anti-vx-ers are no better than pro-vaxers.
The vx question is downstream.
People need to stand their ground on PRINCIPLE: MY BODY MY CHOICE
Yes, that IS how conversation works. You give reasons why what you're saying holds water and makes sense. I don't care who you are, I'm not going to just take your word for it.
And it's definitely how science works. Why do think a scientific paper has references?
YOU may do it differently. Good luck with that. If I'm trying to sell you on an idea, I give you all the back-up I can to support what I'm telling you.
What, you think I'm going to say, go find it yourself? No way.
And FYI, my degree IS a science degree- Bachelor of SCIENCE in Mechanical Engineering.
My first reply was written BEFORE I read this reply. You have dug yourself deeper into not credible....but at lease you avoid the COVID1984 jabberwocky.....too bed the frumious bandersnatch caught you....
She says the following in an article (see below) while here in the comments she says "my body my choice" in all caps.
"My interpretation of the data is vaccines continue to be the best tool we have to prevent severe disease. When health care workers could get vaccinated, I got mine the first day I could. That being said, I had wished my parents and older patients could have gotten theirs before me. I begged unsuccessfully to extend my time between the first and second dose because of cardiac side effects I had had from the first dose (which came on quite severely while running). I continue to strongly recommend vaccines to my patients (and now boosters for all over 40-50 or with specific risk factors) and help facilitate vaccination appointments for them and talk them through the data."
Hi Yulia, how are you? Could you point out to me where I said I was not vaccinated? I think perhaps you are getting me confused with another person leaving comments named Tracy? You wrote this: "Because higher up in the comments she said she is unvaxed and "My body my choice" but I did not write that and saying that I did is libel.
You wrote 'My BOBY my choice', is that slang or did you misspell body?
There, see what it's like to read a commenter who knows what they wrote's wrong but keeps writing anyway cuz they want so bad to be right?
Downstream is the word that gave you away. Only thing missing is the "lalalalala can't hear you lalalala!" My previously defiant friends are now also pretending it's downstream but now (to a one) admit to recent beads of sweat.
What is "ASCRiBES VX"?.....Why the lower case "i"? How many OTHER typos in your comment? That's not grammatically correct. Looks to me that you're getting ratio'd.....
I don't believe your statement to be factual and true. It reads more like mis- and dis-information & propaganda. First, who the hell is "they"? Please, NO rsvp....jus sayin....
Not a cordial debate. And poorly moderated which was disappointing because both Denis and Tracy are exceptional scientists. Watching the med student picking at his skin didn’t help either.
Denis was too controlling, but better informed. Her arguments were weak, and she didn't understand his points which were thoroughly explained. He was far more knowledgeable on the subject, and I felt she was trying to trip him up without providing good data to support her positions. She was not concerned enough as he said that his information may be true. She misrepresented his logic through the whole debate, she did not come off as a great scientist, more of an amateur in this debate. They both annoyed me in different ways. She said she has a different style of presenting the data and she expresses more uncertainty, BS, she didn't read his paper properly if at all. She said you have to rule out that there are other causes, please, as he said it is glaringly obvious that mortality went up in India after the roll out, and more than half of the 17 countries had excess mortality after the roll out. He addressed alternative interpretations people would use to explain excess mortality, but the fact is there was a rollout. Correlation of rollout does not equal mortality causation is her point, and he is saying that the consistency of the phenomenon means in this case you can correlate the rollout of the shots to increased mortality overall. It must have been very frustrating for him to not have his information land on an understanding terrain. Kevin do you really not realize that most took the shots? The studies she mentions all lean toward safe and effective for the shot. Pity.
Completely agree. She wanted him to prove up a number. His whole point was the only thing we have to assess the impact is what happened to people worldwide after the vaccine shots. He is just giving the data they found. Highly variable but you simply cannot ignore the excess deaths after roll out of vaccines and say “ no correlation “. He is saying something happened so let’s examine what. How is that unscientific. I dont know how epidemiologists analyze but logic tells me if the data at that order of magnitude sees high death rates after vaccine you CANNOT ignore it and cry foul on the messenger.
She said in another interview with Vinay Prasad last year "My interpretation of the data is vaccines continue to be the best tool we have to prevent severe disease. When health care workers could get vaccinated, I got mine the first day I could. That being said, I had wished my parents and older patients could have gotten theirs before me. I begged unsuccessfully to extend my time between the first and second dose because of cardiac side effects I had had from the first dose (which came on quite severely while running). I continue to strongly recommend vaccines to my patients (and now boosters for all over 40-50 or with specific risk factors) and help facilitate vaccination appointments for them and talk them through the data." That tells me enough, she should take Dr. Peter McCullough seriously, who explains the great percentage of people with lesions on their hearts from the clot shots and are unaware. She should read the facts on vaccines in Turtles All the Way Down, which details the lack of investigation into the harm's vaccines cause. Also, the reckless use of aluminum in the shots that cross the BBB in children very quickly after administration. Whatever concerns she mentions are underwhelming, that is so dangerous for someone in her position of influence. Did she push for relatively safe anti-virals instead of dangerous shots, NO, that tells me everything I need to know about her.
truth won. Nothwitstanding the disagreement in numbers, fact is, globalist injected 6 billion people with experimental mRNA, graphene oxide, P.E.G., and sv-40 promoter DNA as well as bits and pieces.
Thank you Denis Rancourt, for standing firm. Truth hurts.
As a frequent listener, this episode was disappointedly unorganized and biased. Unorganized because the moderator had not laid out how point, counterpoint and discussion would proceed. Biased because the moderator jumped in to the rescue of Ms. Beth by interrupting Mr. Rancourt and by asking questions of him, while not doing the converse. The best that can be said is forewarned is forearmed since at the onset the moderator detailed his admiration of and long-term collaboration with Ms. Beth. Too bad because this important topics remains a policy and personal health issue, among others.
Many thanks to Denis Rancourt and his co-authors for the rigorous and well-informed study. It reveals a credible and significant signal that, as was said, should compel doctors to seriously consider that the danger of the pharmaceutical is unacceptably high. There are real people behind these excess deaths , some of whom were coerced and shamed into receiving an intervention that was not effective.
I would hope that the doctors on this panel are equally critical of the controls that pharmaceutical companies do or do not incorporate into their clinical trials. During these trials, there were many public debates about the reliability of different testing protocols, the usefulness of mask-wearing, distancing, imposing gathering limits, and whether there was asymptomatic spread. From what I could see, none of these were properly accounted for in the trial locations (that's not to say I believe any of those measures improved outcomes but authorities told people they were critical in stopping the spread). Testing and diagnosis were only when symptoms presented and at the discretion of a doctor. Without regular, independent testing for the virus in all subjects, prevention of transmission was not being tested, which seemed clear from the first approval. There was a lot of geographic variation also, so seasonality was not controlled. Some countries would be at low periods for respiratory viruses. And were there controls for other respiratory vaccines/shots - pneumonia, influenza? Were doctors looking at the information provided for the trials and questioning whether the trial was well-designed and implemented?
Scientists like Denis Rancourt are thoughtfully analyzing the data to address legitimate concerns about excess deaths. Public officials and pharmaceutical companies are, for the most part, failing to do this. Excess deaths are based on predictions so will only ever be indicative, not definitive, but anyone paying attention knows there are unexplained deaths and thankfully there are good people looking for and providing very plausible answers.
One consideration in regards to Sweden: A major criticism of their initial response was that they had a much higher rate of nursing home deaths as compared to other Scandinavian counties. This could have contributed to significant cohort depletion of high risk groups, and subsequently fewer vaccine deaths once those therapies were made available.
Good point. And with the very serious issues discussed in articles below, I do not necessarily trust the "beautiful data" from Sweden as being entirely valid to begin with.
ANY meeting should have an agenda- a body of items to be dealt with.
This "debate" would have benefitted greatly from an agenda. Ideally the agenda would have been prepared and controlled by a non-participant (i.e. the moderator), but with input and endorsement by both participants.
I explain in another comment here, one of the participants wanted to have a structured, point-by-point defense of the objections raised, and the other wanted to have an unstructured, free-form discussion. The result was chaos.
Denis is following the proper Experimental Medicine requirement for PRECAUTIONARY roll-out procedure, including detailed person-by-person shot correlated record-keeping, after Informed-Consent, only if all interdisciplinary PhD, MD & other professionals are able to present their results on Adverse Events & Deaths, without being fired, laid-off, delicensed, sued & facing other consequences for honestly reporting their findings. Denis is talking about Data Signals to which professionals, powers-that-be, governments, medical authorities, should be paying attention.
Beth not following the rules of formal Scientific Debate.
'DEBATE' (French 'de' = 'undo' + 'bate' = 'the fight') is best when Both-Sides are given Equal-time. Typically in Socratic 'Dialogues' aka 'Dialectics', the Athens Garden of Academus, water-clocks kept accurate record of the speaking time of each person. On Turtle-Island (N. America) The holder of the Eagle-Feather & time-keeping accords the speaker, uninterruptable speech. Contrary to popular belief, its not a matter of identifying some kind of imaginary absolute 'Truth'. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/d-participatory-structure/1-both-sides-now-equal-time-recorded-dialogues
However Scientific Debate requires responding to specific & cumulative points in pre-debate shared papers. One can't bring up new unshared data in a debate. The complexity of analysis requires the ability to make complex calculations ahead of time.
One dimension of the HOLISTIC science of the study of reality or 'real factors', is its place on infinite macrocosm & microcosm scales or whether results can be replicated across multiple 'Fractal' ('Fraction, multiplier, building-block, where-the-part-contains-the-whole') scales. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/d-participatory-structure/6-holistic-science
Denis in correct in addressing "The serious nature of 'this accusation' (eg. Cherry Picking)". Tracy was remiss in not providing many of her critiques in writing ahead of time in the same way as Denis has provided all his focused data. Epidemiology has many 10s of 1000s of simultaneous complex calculations, which require the proper time to process. Tracy as a professional in Science & epidemiology had to honour proper Debate rules in order to have been provided the the time to speak her data, logics & consequential beliefs. One can't raise totally new data without pre-sharing before hand. Tracy's role as spokesperson & particularly her voice as the challenger can then be given equal-time to Denis.
Denis' logics & data are wonderfully complex & comprehensive, but he absolutely needs a well prepared researcher fo correspond with. So far mainstream Pharma captured Medicine professionals have not responded to calls for debate & to undo our miserable state of False-Science. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/a-home/9-undoing-false-science
I am not a scientist, but I am an intelligent thinker and listener. Denis has made a great case, and Tracy seems to be beholdin to some need to discount even the possibility of the high numbers of Covid Shot deaths, in spite of what is being revealed about the MRNa shots. I wonder if she has a conflict of interest. It is sad that the anti- Covid shot science professionals who are doing their best to get the truth out, are being gaslighted by such people. If I could see Denis's point and why the high numbers are likely, she could too unless she has a hidden motive. The fact that all of the makers of those shots and the governments who paid for them REFUSED TO KEEP TRACK OF THE PEOPLE they forced to take the shots should cause all kinds of red lights to go off in the minds of honest people. The fact that the data of the trials was kept from the public and had to be forced out be court order is also telling, and what they showed is that those shots were dangerous. YET WE WERE TOLD THEY WERE SAVE AND EFFECTIVE, AND WOULD PROTECT FROM AND CURE COVID. I wonder what side of that deception Tracy was on. How you host could be "confused" after all Denis explained, and the weakness of Tracy's objections is baffling to me. THE BLOOD-CLOTTING EVIDENCE AND ATHLETES DROPPING ON THE COURTS AND FIELDS, AND SUDDEN HIGH DEATH RATES are all nothing to you? Sad. I appreciate you providing this debate. It was yet another eyeopener.
Hi. From Sweden. A nurse within elderlycare told me spring 2023 that she and collegues had seen an increase in mortality every time there was period of vaccination with covid19injections... no proof whatever but a clear signal of something...call it a True correlation link. Btw I am anti -vaxer because I have not taken any of those cvd19injektions. Im tired of the commonly used frase "im not anti-vax but..." Best regards Jonas
There have been many nurses from all around the world who have made similar observations since 2021. Had they not been so heavily censored (and had nurses been allowed to speak of their experiences without risking their jobs) nobody would have taken the vax after the first week or two of its deployment.
In other words, the vax rollout was utterly dependent on silencing the voices of those who witnessed the aftermath. The strategy for silencing nurses and other medical staff was openly laid out at the 'Event 201' simulation event (sponsored by Gates, CDC, WEF, WHO, World Bank etc) which took place in October 2019, six weeks before the WHO officially announced the 'pandemic'. Control of the narrative was one of their main concerns.
Denis supported his position eloquently. Tracy basically said "it's this way because I said it is". It was a pleasure listening to Denis. I would have appreciated Tracy explaining her opinion in more depth. Maybe there was no more depth, though.
My written response to the original critique is here:
https://denisrancourt.substack.com/p/my-response-to-tracy-beth-hoegs-criticisms
If this were a play the roles would be as follows:
Denis - brilliant serious scientist who has performed sophisticated research and knows the data inside and out.
Tracey - cute giggly semi serious person with science education background seeking admiration as a cute giggly contrarian, understanding little of what Denis points out. Similar role to Daisy in the Great Gatsby.
Kevin - unpolished med student chiming in to stay relevant but not adding value.
Rav - moderator interested in entertainment value of the podcast. Cuts off Denis often just as he is about to drive a stake through the vampire’s heart.
I honestly just love this hilarious assessment.
LMAO I'm sure Tracy would appreciate the compliments
So true......kind of amateur to boot.
t.co/AeadUbId3e
Denis, I was immensely impressed with your first 2 hours of responses to Tracy (I still need to view the third!) , especially given the often demeaning tone and manner of her responses. Also thanks for chiming in on our new review paper in the Cureus portal. We're not engaging the trolls (Laxton, Dopler) but appreciate other r(non-AI, non-Pharma rep) readers responding. The paper is now on Pubmed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38274635/) though the open access part will be delayed. Regarding the 3-hour debate, I will be commenting in more depth very soon after viewing the final hour. Hats off to you for your comprehensive inquiries into the excess mortality situation of the past few years.
Excellent work and Congratulations on the paper- I've said the same on some of your co-authors' Substacks. It is critically important that you discussed the unfavorable mortality results in the Pfizer and Moderna gold-standard randomized clinical trials, which almost everyone else (besides Stabell-Benn et. al.) has failed to address. The clinical trials are the ONLY studies equipped to directly examine the causal effects of mRNA vaccination, and they are the ONLY truly unbiased evidence on the mortality effect of mRNA vaccination, but because the overall mortality results are not favorable we never hear about them.
COVID deaths: 2 vaccine vs. 5 placebo (-60%)
non-COVID deaths: 29 vaccine vs. 25 placebo (+16%)
cardiovascular-related deaths: 16 vaccine vs. 11 placebo (+45%)
Overall: 4 excess non-COVID deaths for every 3 less COVID deaths (in blunt terms, 4 KILLED FOR EVERY 3 SAVED, even at the height of the pandemic and at peak vaccine effectiveness)
A 16% increase in non-COVID mortality and a 45% increase in cardiovascular-related mortality (and a net effect of "4 killed for every 3 saved") absolutely do have PRACTICAL significance in the context of these vaccines given to many millions of people, regardless of the typical cop-out regarding "statistical significance". See this piece on common misuses of the flawed concept of "statistical significance" written by Dr. Sander Greenland, one of the most respected experts in statistics and epidemiology: https://www.jvsmedicscorner.com/Statistics_files/Retire%20statistical%20significance.pdf.
Thanks for this excellent comment. I think we can all agree that the "Covid deaths" outcome is extremely difficult to verify and trust in an industry-sponsored trial. All-cause and cardiac deaths are, in my humble opinion, the most reliable findings. I will certainly check out Greenland's article , being quite familiar with his work. I would be grateful if you have time to insert your comment in the Cureus portal as well, assuming you haven't done so already. It is time to call out the chicanery and distortions.
And these excess all cause mortality deaths were only after two months. Imagine how much worse it could have been had they continued to follow people for a longer period of time.
And/or, imagine how much worse the results would be if they had used the same “vaccine” in the trial that they actually deployed to the public (process 1 for the “trial” participants vs process 2, which contained DNA contamination for the general public).
Thanks Brandy. We sought to address the theoretical implications had the Pfizer trial been allowed to continue (see Appendix 1 of our paper). The Moderna trial's data were too unreliable for such projections. Given what we now know about natural immunity vis a vis SARS-CoV-2 infection, it's quite likely that those placebo cases counted as symptomatic Covid infections (the primary endpoint) would have gone on to have superior long-term outcomes, as this was a relatively healthy younger population overall. Symptoms in the unvaccinated were known to be associated with more robust immune responses, thus perhaps better protection in the long term. Ironic how those same cases in the placebo group were used to justify launching the global vaccination campaign.
All god points.
If I remember correctly, had they counted the “side effects” and other symptoms in the weeks leading up to the point where someone was considered “fully vaccinated”, any supposed benefits (reduction in mild to moderate symptoms) in the vaccinated group were diminished. But, that’s my understanding of how the trial was ran. It’s been a long time since I heard discussions on the Pfizer document release. The whole trial or demonstration was seriously flawed from multiple aspects.
What a waste of your time. She's thick and the boys are not brighter either!
Were the "vaccines' safe and effective? Did they prevent the spread, stop the spread, full stop, as claimed?
No.
That's it. They - public health officials, regulators, manufacturers and media - all lied. Every last one of them. And they "othered" anyone who told the truth, disparaged them, destroyed careers and lives of those who told the truth. That's the most important thing to take away from the debate.
The numbers are only important if you subscribe to the concept of Utilitarian ethics, lies and deception, coercion and manipulation for a stated "greater good." Never mind that what constitutes a greater good was never universally shared, a product of the consensus of a bunch of collectivist authoritarians, Marxists, Fascists, Oligarchs and largely Atheists (who prefer to call themselves humanists in public settings) declared the lies were for a greater good - in a world value system that they subscribe to. That doesn't respect individual liberty and freedom, believes the masses are the product of multiple generations of imbeciles (Buck v Bell) who must be lied to and told what to do, for their own good, by their beneficent betters. Practicing their idea of "good stewardship" of their human chattel.
Two million, seventeen million, a hundred million, who's counting. As Stalin said, "one death is a tragedy, one million deaths is a statistic." This is quibbling over a "statistic." By people practicing what Stalin also said was, "breaking a few eggs to make an omelet." The sacrifice of individual lives an unfortunate, but necessary statistic for a "greater good" they all desired. They, our superior and more enlightened betters, cut from a finer cloth of man. Who nearly all are enamored with the pseudoscience of Eugenics. Themselves asserted as the best of the gene pool, of course.
They lied. All of them. And the medical field of today is led by Victor Brack's ideas of the practice of medicine. The German doctor who's favorite saying in the Third Reich was, "the needle belongs in the hands of the doctor" when the Final Solution of creating their idea of the best gene pool for humanity's future, the practice of Eugenics, was adopted as state policy.
That's who these bastards are. And whether the statistical number is a few million or a few tens of millions we must all know that the Eugenicist movement has a goal of hundreds of millions, even billions of dead - by needles in the hands of doctors - for their idea of a greater good to prevail. Ethically, of course. Utilitarian, that is, not Kantian or Virtue ethics as most readers imagine the term means. Christine Grady, aka Mrs Anthony Fauci, is NIH's Chief Bioethicist as a point of ethical reference.
It’s unfortunate that when one talks about the clearly stated goals of the eugenicists, one is often considered a nutjob. Thank you for writing this. 🙏🏾
It's not a secret. Keyword search "Epstein, eugenics." You'll find mainstream stories pre-2020 about his interest in eugenics. Not a passing hobby. His raison d'etre.
The larger media and chatter, outrage about him has focused on the "lolita" angle of him, his visitors. The salacious. The potential for blackmail, control. But they served a purpose for Epstein and his circle of associates: eugenics. He had sperm banks with his and other wealthy and powerful men who frequented his island and ranch in Arizona. The women and girls were typically beautiful models and stars or angelic children. With eggs.
His little black book and visitor and flight logs were filled with the leading genetic scientists, newgenics researchers and funders, gene and viral evolution design researchers, many related and specialized similar fields, relationships with leading global research universities. Those involved with biotechnological innovations, human-computer interface tech designed for internal application. Wealthy industrialists and bankers, politicians, Big Pharma, Big Health, Big Tech executives, intelligence specialists, psychologists and behaviorists - those useful for sophisticated manipulation and propaganda campaigns. A laundry list of the same types of professions, status and family names as those who were leading the eugenics movement over a century ago.
Which was huge in the US. The father of the modern medicine that Jay, Denis and Tracey practice, John D Rockefeller was a leading organizer and activist in the eugenics movement, politically connected. And it was global - especially in the UK and Germany. Where eugenics practiced by euthanasia and sterilization became master race level stuff.
Nuremberg defendants cited Buck v Bell in their defense, "you Americans do it, what's the big deal." They were right. A case that's never been overturned, "three generations of imbeciles is enough" sterilizations. Cited along with Jacobsen to uphold mask and vax mandates. And "gender-affirming care" is Madison Avenue's rebranding of sterilization, it's genital mutilation. Canada's MAID euthanasia of the depressed young, eugenics.
Eugenics has evolved with the application of psychological manipulation and coercion to make undesirable people want, demand to end their line in the gene pool. Epstein taught psychology at Harvard - without a degree in it - because he studied and became proficient at understanding and manipulating the human mind to get others to do what he wanted, even children to have sex (be raped) with older, powerful men.
It's all related, connected very closely with the practice of medicine. Search Victor Brack's legacy online, you'll find Joseph Mengele wasn't a lone medical butcher and murderer. Brack even said his trademark saying, "the needle belongs in the hands of a doctor" after witnessing the first trials of gassing mentally ill patients (and political dissidents) in a hospital. It proved so efficient they built gas chambers (showers) in concentration camps. The gas valve operated by a doctor - like is done at death row executions, the needle in the hand of the doctor.
The technologies evolve but the people and ideas remain the same. And it's all there to see for those who seek to learn, who don't turn away from seeing something they don't want to see. The difficulty of the efficient gas deaths was body disposal. Better to have death appear outside the control of hospital or prison institutions. And death at home shifts the burial cost to surviving family without arousing suspicions. The needle in the hand of a doctor needn't act immediately to be effective.
It's all there, no conspiracy theory, conspiracy fact. It doesn't require all Big Health, Big Pharma or Big Media be in on it. Just the leading eugenicists controlling the fields. It's better to have the doctors, drug manufacturers and media believe they are helping than believe they are harming. Many of them are the primary targets of the psychological manipulation, betrayal of trust they have in their leading medical journals - the censorship of the Jay's, Tracey's and Denis's as evidence.
It's real. Call us nutjobs all they want, won't change the God-awful truth of it. And therein lies the origination of eugenics - the rejection of God. Man as god self worship. They can improve on God's greatest creation, "fix" his mistakes (as is told to children seeking "gender-affirming" care) and remake the world in their own image. They consider themselves "humanists" as though they care more about humans than the rest, their nonprofit foundations doing altruistic work. But they are mostly atheists, even those leading religious foundations and institutions. And as such they adopt eugenics as desirable public policy, "for a greater good" like "saving mother earth" from the ravages of man, and other cruelties man is capable. Themselves engaged in cruelties, but for their own idea of better intentions.
They are clearly stated goals. We ignore and dismiss them at our peril. They are the nutjobs. But by appearances in a mad, mad world they assume they are sane and slander those of us who see and say what we see. They've created massive Behavioral Health enterprises in every community in every state. And given them purview to determine who's "lost touch with evidence-based reality" (Aspen Institute Commission on Information Disorder) and have the legal authority to capture and detain them. Just as was done in the Third Reich. As several of the "mentally ill" in Victor Brack's hospital gas chamber experiment were.
We'd better wake up more of those we interact with to the unpleasant truth of the world being built around us "better." Without concern or regard for being called a nut job. Truth wins. Live not by lies.
I’m not trying to be snarky here. But, who takes a novel gene therapy, developed under a program entitled “Operation Warp Speed”, created by the most criminal industry in the world (pharmaceutical industrial complex), that was only tested for two months (to see if it would reduce mild to moderate symptoms), to combat a virus with an IFR of roughly the flu (most likely made worse by hospital protocols and public health authority recommendations)?
I could go on and on about the absolute absurdity of the entire situation.
Before the pandemic, I would have defended the average person rigorously from the predatory actions of the eugenenisists. But we watched the most idiotic scenario that I could ever imagine play out in real time. I had people arguing with me on why I was wrong… I gave up trying to reason with people. It was futile.
I’m not saying what has occurred was a good thing, but, just saying that it wasn’t that difficult for them to pull something this ridiculous off. So, they (the eugenists) do have a somewhat valid point. Again, I’m not trying to be snarky. Just being honest after evaluating the situation without the emotional element.
When you watch people spraying down their children and groceries with Lysol, or people driving around with masks who order fast food during a pandemic that predominantly effects people with comorbitities, it’s difficult not to see that there are widespread problems with humanity.
We have a friend who is obese who sent us photos of getting his free donut by showing his vaccination card.
Eugenics is not the answer but people need to advocate for themselves in more logical ways or they will continue to be easy victims.
It was driven by fear
I completely agree. But, all people had to do to defeat the fear was to turn off their propaganda boxes (tv). There were many alternative news sources from independent media (meaning media not controlled by pharmaceutical companies pumping massive amounts of revenue into it) that were telling the truth. The IFR was known to be .24 or lower just a few weeks into it. Turns out it was even much lower than that. Even if it was a very dangerous virus, shutting down the entire world still didn’t make sense. There were so many opportunities for people to overcome their fears and be logical.
Why aren’t people afraid of processed food and sedentary lifestyles, which causes most chronic diseases? Because they choose not to be. We have choices. The general population is not choosing to be afraid of the appropriate dangers to their health.
Not one idea here is new or eye-opening to me. BUT, your writing here grabs my attention, in a good way....you have made me THINK....THANK-YOU! KUTGW!....
The spread of what??
A virus. 99.7% mind variety, .3% chemical/biological/technological variety.
Disappointed in the dynamics, grateful for the debate. Freedom Fox is 🎯. The consistent bottom line: these injections are the most dangerous in world history. When was it normal to watch people collapsing on stage, sports fields, while doing a newscast? The mrna’s should have been recalled in 2021. Among my family, friends & colleagues, all know someone who died suddenly.
The vaccines should never been injected into a single person. You NEVER agree to an injection about which nothing is known of the long term side effects. NEVER! I told my followers this before the rollout. Boy, are they grateful now.
They've done the stats in the sports world, there's no increase. The difference is media coverage.
Specifically, what facet of the “sports world” & what data? Link please. Cause of death? In US, a # of people are looking at ambulance data that is far from normal. High school sports deaths, if reported, are categorized as “died suddenly” or “medical emergency.”
Nah, I'm not here to do your homework for you. If I was able to read them on the internet, and you didn't, that's just because you live in your bubble and CHOSE to not look outside your bubble.
Sporting "drop deads" have always happened, they just didn't get as much coverage.
I don't live in any bubble. I chose to NOT get vxd. But I read all data, not just the data on one side.
Anti-vx-ers are no better than pro-vaxers.
The vx question is downstream.
People need to stand their ground on PRINCIPLE: MY BODY MY CHOICE
Live in a bubble? Sad to say you revealed something unpleasant about yourself — unbecomingly judgmental. I wish you well
"I'm not here to do your homework for you"
Lame answer, tracy. You made an assertion. Now back up what you're saying.
Dude, that's not how conversations workl
Dude, that's not how science works.
No single paper EVER make a solid argument.
Please get a science degree before asking idiotic questions.
"I'm not vxd"
MY BODY MY CHOICE.
You're full of shit.
Yes, that IS how conversation works. You give reasons why what you're saying holds water and makes sense. I don't care who you are, I'm not going to just take your word for it.
And it's definitely how science works. Why do think a scientific paper has references?
YOU may do it differently. Good luck with that. If I'm trying to sell you on an idea, I give you all the back-up I can to support what I'm telling you.
What, you think I'm going to say, go find it yourself? No way.
And FYI, my degree IS a science degree- Bachelor of SCIENCE in Mechanical Engineering.
My first reply was written BEFORE I read this reply. You have dug yourself deeper into not credible....but at lease you avoid the COVID1984 jabberwocky.....too bed the frumious bandersnatch caught you....
Well she advocated for the vax but not for herself
https://www.drvinayprasad.com/p/tracy-beth-hoeg-md-phd-the-interview
She says the following in an article (see below) while here in the comments she says "my body my choice" in all caps.
"My interpretation of the data is vaccines continue to be the best tool we have to prevent severe disease. When health care workers could get vaccinated, I got mine the first day I could. That being said, I had wished my parents and older patients could have gotten theirs before me. I begged unsuccessfully to extend my time between the first and second dose because of cardiac side effects I had had from the first dose (which came on quite severely while running). I continue to strongly recommend vaccines to my patients (and now boosters for all over 40-50 or with specific risk factors) and help facilitate vaccination appointments for them and talk them through the data."
Hi Yulia, how are you? Could you point out to me where I said I was not vaccinated? I think perhaps you are getting me confused with another person leaving comments named Tracy? You wrote this: "Because higher up in the comments she said she is unvaxed and "My body my choice" but I did not write that and saying that I did is libel.
You wrote 'My BOBY my choice', is that slang or did you misspell body?
There, see what it's like to read a commenter who knows what they wrote's wrong but keeps writing anyway cuz they want so bad to be right?
Downstream is the word that gave you away. Only thing missing is the "lalalalala can't hear you lalalala!" My previously defiant friends are now also pretending it's downstream but now (to a one) admit to recent beads of sweat.
The stats are in the portion of the sports world that was studied. How about in the age group with the highest incidences of myocarditis? 13 - 24.
Why should we trust THEIR "stats" any more than these? How do we know what's true?
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/athletes-collapsed-during-competition-cola/
Rancourt has no stats, he's presenting the same raw data we've all already seen, then he looks at the trends as ASCRiBES VX to those trends.
That's not statistics.
What is "ASCRiBES VX"?.....Why the lower case "i"? How many OTHER typos in your comment? That's not grammatically correct. Looks to me that you're getting ratio'd.....
You're fairly fluent in English, what's your native language?....
I don't believe your statement to be factual and true. It reads more like mis- and dis-information & propaganda. First, who the hell is "they"? Please, NO rsvp....jus sayin....
Not a cordial debate. And poorly moderated which was disappointing because both Denis and Tracy are exceptional scientists. Watching the med student picking at his skin didn’t help either.
Agree
Nerves, the debate was beyond his abilities.
Denis was too controlling, but better informed. Her arguments were weak, and she didn't understand his points which were thoroughly explained. He was far more knowledgeable on the subject, and I felt she was trying to trip him up without providing good data to support her positions. She was not concerned enough as he said that his information may be true. She misrepresented his logic through the whole debate, she did not come off as a great scientist, more of an amateur in this debate. They both annoyed me in different ways. She said she has a different style of presenting the data and she expresses more uncertainty, BS, she didn't read his paper properly if at all. She said you have to rule out that there are other causes, please, as he said it is glaringly obvious that mortality went up in India after the roll out, and more than half of the 17 countries had excess mortality after the roll out. He addressed alternative interpretations people would use to explain excess mortality, but the fact is there was a rollout. Correlation of rollout does not equal mortality causation is her point, and he is saying that the consistency of the phenomenon means in this case you can correlate the rollout of the shots to increased mortality overall. It must have been very frustrating for him to not have his information land on an understanding terrain. Kevin do you really not realize that most took the shots? The studies she mentions all lean toward safe and effective for the shot. Pity.
Completely agree. She wanted him to prove up a number. His whole point was the only thing we have to assess the impact is what happened to people worldwide after the vaccine shots. He is just giving the data they found. Highly variable but you simply cannot ignore the excess deaths after roll out of vaccines and say “ no correlation “. He is saying something happened so let’s examine what. How is that unscientific. I dont know how epidemiologists analyze but logic tells me if the data at that order of magnitude sees high death rates after vaccine you CANNOT ignore it and cry foul on the messenger.
She said in another interview with Vinay Prasad last year "My interpretation of the data is vaccines continue to be the best tool we have to prevent severe disease. When health care workers could get vaccinated, I got mine the first day I could. That being said, I had wished my parents and older patients could have gotten theirs before me. I begged unsuccessfully to extend my time between the first and second dose because of cardiac side effects I had had from the first dose (which came on quite severely while running). I continue to strongly recommend vaccines to my patients (and now boosters for all over 40-50 or with specific risk factors) and help facilitate vaccination appointments for them and talk them through the data." That tells me enough, she should take Dr. Peter McCullough seriously, who explains the great percentage of people with lesions on their hearts from the clot shots and are unaware. She should read the facts on vaccines in Turtles All the Way Down, which details the lack of investigation into the harm's vaccines cause. Also, the reckless use of aluminum in the shots that cross the BBB in children very quickly after administration. Whatever concerns she mentions are underwhelming, that is so dangerous for someone in her position of influence. Did she push for relatively safe anti-virals instead of dangerous shots, NO, that tells me everything I need to know about her.
truth won. Nothwitstanding the disagreement in numbers, fact is, globalist injected 6 billion people with experimental mRNA, graphene oxide, P.E.G., and sv-40 promoter DNA as well as bits and pieces.
Thank you Denis Rancourt, for standing firm. Truth hurts.
As a frequent listener, this episode was disappointedly unorganized and biased. Unorganized because the moderator had not laid out how point, counterpoint and discussion would proceed. Biased because the moderator jumped in to the rescue of Ms. Beth by interrupting Mr. Rancourt and by asking questions of him, while not doing the converse. The best that can be said is forewarned is forearmed since at the onset the moderator detailed his admiration of and long-term collaboration with Ms. Beth. Too bad because this important topics remains a policy and personal health issue, among others.
Totally agree!
Many thanks to Denis Rancourt and his co-authors for the rigorous and well-informed study. It reveals a credible and significant signal that, as was said, should compel doctors to seriously consider that the danger of the pharmaceutical is unacceptably high. There are real people behind these excess deaths , some of whom were coerced and shamed into receiving an intervention that was not effective.
I would hope that the doctors on this panel are equally critical of the controls that pharmaceutical companies do or do not incorporate into their clinical trials. During these trials, there were many public debates about the reliability of different testing protocols, the usefulness of mask-wearing, distancing, imposing gathering limits, and whether there was asymptomatic spread. From what I could see, none of these were properly accounted for in the trial locations (that's not to say I believe any of those measures improved outcomes but authorities told people they were critical in stopping the spread). Testing and diagnosis were only when symptoms presented and at the discretion of a doctor. Without regular, independent testing for the virus in all subjects, prevention of transmission was not being tested, which seemed clear from the first approval. There was a lot of geographic variation also, so seasonality was not controlled. Some countries would be at low periods for respiratory viruses. And were there controls for other respiratory vaccines/shots - pneumonia, influenza? Were doctors looking at the information provided for the trials and questioning whether the trial was well-designed and implemented?
Scientists like Denis Rancourt are thoughtfully analyzing the data to address legitimate concerns about excess deaths. Public officials and pharmaceutical companies are, for the most part, failing to do this. Excess deaths are based on predictions so will only ever be indicative, not definitive, but anyone paying attention knows there are unexplained deaths and thankfully there are good people looking for and providing very plausible answers.
Very poorly moderated. The first hour is totally unproductive.
They needed a "talking stick".
or rather a chess timer!
Maybe you need a longer attention span? Or to learn Vipassana?.....
One consideration in regards to Sweden: A major criticism of their initial response was that they had a much higher rate of nursing home deaths as compared to other Scandinavian counties. This could have contributed to significant cohort depletion of high risk groups, and subsequently fewer vaccine deaths once those therapies were made available.
https://thehill.com/policy/international/europe/534395-norway-warns-patients-over-80-of-vaccine-risks-after-deaths/
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/18/health/covid-vaccine-pfizer-deaths-norway-intl/index.html
Good point. And with the very serious issues discussed in articles below, I do not necessarily trust the "beautiful data" from Sweden as being entirely valid to begin with.
"Authorities blocked a 1.7 million-sized vaccine safety & efficacy study; they worried it could endanger vaccine uptake." https://alternative-hypothesis.com/sweden-blocks-safety-study
"Many elderly people were administered morphine instead of oxygen despite available supplies, effectively ending their lives." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01097-5
"Patients given palliative care instead of treatment." https://bioedge.org/uncategorized/questions-raised-about-swedens-covid-19-policy-on-nursing-homes/
Sweden or Norway?
I am skeptical of the NCAA numbers the DR Hoeg mentioned.
We should tax the NCAA as a private, for-profit company, and Congress should subpeona their data for full, PUBLIC disclosure & examination.....
Hoeg keeps interrupting in the first hour. And, they should have gotten together first to iron out the tech issues.
ANY meeting should have an agenda- a body of items to be dealt with.
This "debate" would have benefitted greatly from an agenda. Ideally the agenda would have been prepared and controlled by a non-participant (i.e. the moderator), but with input and endorsement by both participants.
I explain in another comment here, one of the participants wanted to have a structured, point-by-point defense of the objections raised, and the other wanted to have an unstructured, free-form discussion. The result was chaos.
Denis is following the proper Experimental Medicine requirement for PRECAUTIONARY roll-out procedure, including detailed person-by-person shot correlated record-keeping, after Informed-Consent, only if all interdisciplinary PhD, MD & other professionals are able to present their results on Adverse Events & Deaths, without being fired, laid-off, delicensed, sued & facing other consequences for honestly reporting their findings. Denis is talking about Data Signals to which professionals, powers-that-be, governments, medical authorities, should be paying attention.
Beth not following the rules of formal Scientific Debate.
'DEBATE' (French 'de' = 'undo' + 'bate' = 'the fight') is best when Both-Sides are given Equal-time. Typically in Socratic 'Dialogues' aka 'Dialectics', the Athens Garden of Academus, water-clocks kept accurate record of the speaking time of each person. On Turtle-Island (N. America) The holder of the Eagle-Feather & time-keeping accords the speaker, uninterruptable speech. Contrary to popular belief, its not a matter of identifying some kind of imaginary absolute 'Truth'. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/d-participatory-structure/1-both-sides-now-equal-time-recorded-dialogues
However Scientific Debate requires responding to specific & cumulative points in pre-debate shared papers. One can't bring up new unshared data in a debate. The complexity of analysis requires the ability to make complex calculations ahead of time.
One dimension of the HOLISTIC science of the study of reality or 'real factors', is its place on infinite macrocosm & microcosm scales or whether results can be replicated across multiple 'Fractal' ('Fraction, multiplier, building-block, where-the-part-contains-the-whole') scales. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/d-participatory-structure/6-holistic-science
Denis in correct in addressing "The serious nature of 'this accusation' (eg. Cherry Picking)". Tracy was remiss in not providing many of her critiques in writing ahead of time in the same way as Denis has provided all his focused data. Epidemiology has many 10s of 1000s of simultaneous complex calculations, which require the proper time to process. Tracy as a professional in Science & epidemiology had to honour proper Debate rules in order to have been provided the the time to speak her data, logics & consequential beliefs. One can't raise totally new data without pre-sharing before hand. Tracy's role as spokesperson & particularly her voice as the challenger can then be given equal-time to Denis.
Denis' logics & data are wonderfully complex & comprehensive, but he absolutely needs a well prepared researcher fo correspond with. So far mainstream Pharma captured Medicine professionals have not responded to calls for debate & to undo our miserable state of False-Science. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/a-home/9-undoing-false-science
I am not a scientist, but I am an intelligent thinker and listener. Denis has made a great case, and Tracy seems to be beholdin to some need to discount even the possibility of the high numbers of Covid Shot deaths, in spite of what is being revealed about the MRNa shots. I wonder if she has a conflict of interest. It is sad that the anti- Covid shot science professionals who are doing their best to get the truth out, are being gaslighted by such people. If I could see Denis's point and why the high numbers are likely, she could too unless she has a hidden motive. The fact that all of the makers of those shots and the governments who paid for them REFUSED TO KEEP TRACK OF THE PEOPLE they forced to take the shots should cause all kinds of red lights to go off in the minds of honest people. The fact that the data of the trials was kept from the public and had to be forced out be court order is also telling, and what they showed is that those shots were dangerous. YET WE WERE TOLD THEY WERE SAVE AND EFFECTIVE, AND WOULD PROTECT FROM AND CURE COVID. I wonder what side of that deception Tracy was on. How you host could be "confused" after all Denis explained, and the weakness of Tracy's objections is baffling to me. THE BLOOD-CLOTTING EVIDENCE AND ATHLETES DROPPING ON THE COURTS AND FIELDS, AND SUDDEN HIGH DEATH RATES are all nothing to you? Sad. I appreciate you providing this debate. It was yet another eyeopener.
Hi. From Sweden. A nurse within elderlycare told me spring 2023 that she and collegues had seen an increase in mortality every time there was period of vaccination with covid19injections... no proof whatever but a clear signal of something...call it a True correlation link. Btw I am anti -vaxer because I have not taken any of those cvd19injektions. Im tired of the commonly used frase "im not anti-vax but..." Best regards Jonas
There have been many nurses from all around the world who have made similar observations since 2021. Had they not been so heavily censored (and had nurses been allowed to speak of their experiences without risking their jobs) nobody would have taken the vax after the first week or two of its deployment.
In other words, the vax rollout was utterly dependent on silencing the voices of those who witnessed the aftermath. The strategy for silencing nurses and other medical staff was openly laid out at the 'Event 201' simulation event (sponsored by Gates, CDC, WEF, WHO, World Bank etc) which took place in October 2019, six weeks before the WHO officially announced the 'pandemic'. Control of the narrative was one of their main concerns.
Denis supported his position eloquently. Tracy basically said "it's this way because I said it is". It was a pleasure listening to Denis. I would have appreciated Tracy explaining her opinion in more depth. Maybe there was no more depth, though.