August 22, 2025 • 62 mins
Nicolas Hulscher, MPH is the Administrator for the McCullough Foundation. Nicolas is an epidemiologists involved in multiple studies regarding mRNA, its use in vaccines, and COVID. We sit down and have an honest politically unbiased conversation about the harms imposed by mRNA, the lack of accountability for vaccine makers, and Anthony Fauci.
Support:
https://buymeacoffee.com/worldablaze
Email: worldablaze@fontesmedia.com
Web: https://www.worldablazepodcast.com/
X: https://x.com/fontesablaze
Threads:https://www.threads.net/@worldablazewithgeorgefontes
FB: https://www.facebook.com/worldablazewithgeorgefontes
Please like, follow, and share the show!!!!
Support:
https://buymeacoffee.com/worldablaze
Email: worldablaze@fontesmedia.com
Web: https://www.worldablazepodcast.com/
X: https://x.com/fontesablaze
Threads:https://www.threads.net/@worldablazewithgeorgefontes
FB: https://www.facebook.com/worldablazewithgeorgefontes
Please like, follow, and share the show!!!!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Okay, Well, firstly, thank you for your time. I know
it's been you know, a little bit of struggle trying
to get you here just because you were extremely busy. Honestly,
every time you turn around, your guests on someone else's
show or on the news, which is great showing that Pep,
we're tapping into your expertise regarding mRNA COVID, the effects thereof,
et cetera. I wanted to go and read a little
bit from your bio if you're okay, that I pulled
(00:25):
from the McCullough Foundation, since you are the administrator of
the McCullough Foundation, And for those who don't know, that
is yes, Peter McCullum, doctor Peter McCollum, which is really
cool that you are working with him and you're bringing
your expertise with you. So, Nicholas, for those who don't know,
I'm just gonna read a little bit. Nicholas Houlscher is
an epidemiologist administrator at McCullough Foundation. Born and raised in Michigan,
(00:46):
So earned a Bachelor of Science and pre health Professional
Studies from the Oakland University Honors College in twenty twenty,
graduating with institutional and departmental Honors. You went on to
receive a Master of Public Health, which, by the way,
you know, halfs off to you and you specialize in
epidemiology from the University of Michigan State of Public Health
in twenty twenty four, and that's that's when you got
(01:08):
your MPH.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
That correct, Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
And then what was really interesting to me is, you know,
you don't have a long career, but man, did you
do a lot since twenty twenty three. It says here
he did sixteen peer reviewed scientific studies, which includes systematic reviews,
original emphasis, investigations, and case reports, which you know significantly
advanced the understanding of COVID nineteen, vaccine injuries, syndromes, and
(01:32):
everything else that goes along with that. So I just
needed to say that so people know who you are,
or at least get a little bit of a background.
So that's why I'm very happy that you agreed to
be on the show, because it's like I'm talking to
someone who actually has knowledge, which is great. So therefore
I want to start here because one of my friends
who has another podcast, he's more geopolitics and stuff like that.
(01:53):
He used to be an analyst for the military, but
he has his concern was in doing this with you,
is he wanted an unbiased assessment explanation of m RNA.
Too often it has been very politically biased, and especially
from those in the medical you know, the medical profession.
So that's what I'm hoping we get here, you know,
(02:14):
my political innings in yours regardless, I hope that we
can get an unbiased explanation of what actually is mRNA.
And I would like to start there because I think
there's a lot of confusion because we only found out
about it during the pandemic, and that's when everybody we
carry him aware of what mRNA maybe, but we still
don't really know. There's a lot of assumptions. Can you
(02:34):
start with explaining that so we actually know what the
heck it is and what we're actually referring to.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Yes, yeah, So when we think of vagacines, right, that's
like everything that's been injected into our children, you know,
for the best many many decades, about one hundred years,
over one hundred years. Vavaccines. Uh, you know, when you
injected killed the antigen or killed virus or whatever, not mRNA.
(03:01):
We're not talking about that. When you inject those killed
virons or whatever combined with an edge of it, right,
which is usually aluminium. Sometimes they preserve these with thimerosol,
which is a form of mercury, or they used to.
That's normal vaccines, right, that's it. It's just basically killed
(03:24):
virus material, right, And so what happens with mRNA is
completely different. mRNA is not a vaccine, right. They might
claim it's a vaccine. It might be called a vaccine
in the news, it might be called a vaccine by
the CDC, but it does not work like a traditional vaccine.
(03:47):
It is a gene transfer technology. It actually meets the
definition of a gene therapy. Why do I say that, Well, because,
so how does it work? So let's start with how
it works. Right. So you have lipid nanoparticles, which are
little bubbles of basically fat, right, that's what you could
(04:09):
call it. So you have these lipid nanoparticles, think of
them like bubbles, and inside of them is billions of
m RNA modified mRNA messenger ribo nucleic acid. This these bubbles,
once it's injected, travel to every single organ organ system
in the body, including the heart, including the brain, including
(04:34):
the bone, marrow, and basically every organ system you can
think of that's now been confirmed. Man, sorry about this.
My cat is literally, uh that's okay, throwing my camera around.
Speaker 1 (04:50):
Hey, we're going to leave it in because you're human
and we're we're our schedules have been tight. So the
fact that you're able to sit down with me, I'm
you know, I get it, but uh, please just keep
going about RNA because you're saying that how it goes
into the body and starts spreading to is it other
organs and whatnot?
Speaker 2 (05:07):
Yes? Yes, so yeah we'll continue from there. Yes, yes,
say the cat comes in, it's like, we're it's like
very serious here, you know, I have these catastrophic harms
and then we life. Yeah, that's what happens, all right.
So yeah, So we talked about vaccines, right, this killed
virus and an adjuvant to a voke immune response. Those
(05:28):
are vaccines. Now we're on gene therapies. This mRNA technology, right,
So we talked about the bubbles. The bubbles lipping nanoparticles
go into every organ system and then once they easily
get uptaken into cells because the cells like this this
material on the outer coating of the lipping nanoparticles. So
(05:49):
they kind of trick the cells, the cells uptake them,
and then it releases modified mRNA, which in which then
the mRNA goes into what's going called ribosomes, these small
organelles in your cells. It goes into these ribosomes in
all your organ systems and instructs those cells to produce
(06:09):
a toxic, highly toxic, highly pathogenic, non human protein, the
spike protein. So then you have neurons, you have cardiomyocytes
in your heart producing expressing on the cell's surface non
human toxic protein. So what happens then, Well, then you
(06:31):
have your own bodies going to come and attack those cells.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
Right.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
It doesn't want these foreign invaders, and that that's why
we see things like myochiditis. That's why we see endofilial damage, clotting,
that's why we see all many of these issues.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
So I'm sorry to interrupt you, but is that literally
what goes on then, is the body's reaction to zamorna
is just trying to reject them as a foreign body,
like it doesn't want it.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
Is that kind of what It's Well, that's only one
of the one of the ways damage, right, So yeah,
we have the own body attacking the cells producing it.
But then you have this literally toxic protein that will
start to circulate in your body, circulate in the bloodstream,
and deposit in vital organ systems. And this protein itself
is highly damaging to tissues and the body doesn't like it.
(07:21):
It's ill literal, it's a toxic. And so you have
this circulating and then you have DNA plasmids that are
in these lipid HANNO particles from the manufacturing process that
were not cleared out properly, and so you have spikeing
coding DNA. You have SEV forty promoter enhancer which they
(07:43):
use as the factory to make this mRNA, and all
this genetic material gets deposited. We believe now we have
many points of evidence. We have many studies now and
many laboratory tests that indicate likely genomic integration of some
of this material. So, yeah, these are not vaccines. These
(08:06):
are dangerous gene transfer technologies and they're not They did
not prevent COVID nineteen, right, So.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
I'll ask one more question in defining this then, So
you said earlier it was more intended to be a
like a gene therapy or whatnot, or some kind of
you know, use for for I guess changing the genetic
is that correct?
Speaker 2 (08:32):
It does?
Speaker 1 (08:32):
Does it affect a genetic code of someone or anybody?
I guess My question is what was the actual intention
of it? If it was intended for genetic therapy, what
kind of therapy is that? And exactly what was the
intention of his invention in the first place?
Speaker 2 (08:45):
Right?
Speaker 1 (08:45):
Right?
Speaker 2 (08:46):
So they claim that instructing your body to produce these proteins,
it makes anybodies that will protect you from the virus.
So that was their purpose. That's why they call it
a vaccine because they say that antibody's that you produce
will you know, help prevent you from being infected, like
they claim the twenty twenty one they said you won't
(09:06):
get infected. Now we have eight studies that show an
increased risk of infection. Eight studies like these. These don't
protect you. They actually serve as infection promoters. So yeah,
so it's really a disaster, but it does not serve
its purpose of protecting people from anything, unfortunately. And so
(09:29):
like they claim, now they've been making this mRNA technology
for decades. Barda and twenty twelve launched the adept P
three program where they wanted to make messenger RNA therapeutics
or what they call countermeasures against respiratory viruses or pandemics.
And so they've been wanting to deploy this for a
(09:51):
long period of time and then you know, this situation
in twenty twenty gave them that chance easy.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
So it seems like they used the COVID pandemic as
an excuse to actually test it on the general public.
Am I correct saying.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
That, yes, that's correct. This was tested in animals before
it killed many of them.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
So I'm gonna ask you. I'm gonna ask you this, Nicholas,
and I'm going to be respectful. So please, if you
think I'm interrupt you just tell me to shut it
because I've I've watched one of the other interviews you're on.
It's like you almost couldn't get a word in and
I felt bad for you in that situation. I won't
say which one that was, but I want to start
going to some of these questions because you defined it
for us. Okay, so now we have a better understanding
of that, But there's there's something else is still still
(10:36):
a little fuzzy because before and this is something that
I read, So again, we only can believe what what
has been told to us to be the truth. Right,
That's why we rely on people like you. So it's
been said that before COVID that m RNA was like uh,
seen as a way to cure diseases actually and could
also you know, could be used as a way to
(10:57):
to cure maybe even all diseases. And and so the
question being is does that still have is that still
something that could be done with mRNA under the right circumstances,
and could it then also possibly use for curing cancer?
I mean, so I guess was it used in the
wrong context, you know, when it came to COVID, or
(11:19):
is there still something with mRNA that could be used
for positive and curing diseases and maybe even cancer? Is
that a truth or is that just a rumor or
a propaganda or why that was spread just to make
us accept it?
Speaker 2 (11:30):
Right? Well, I would see from the billions of doses
that were now injected a messenger RNA technology and the
catastrophe that has occurred, I would not trust this technology
to work optimally without major side effects for any disease unfortunately,
(11:51):
right we would think, okay, well cancer, Right, they're going
to be investigating it for cancer. They're going to be
investigating it for some genetic defects, you know, be investcuing
it for muscular dystrophee. But the problem is is that
the technology is so it's it's just it's not ready
for human use. It goes to every organ system, there's
(12:15):
no targeting mechanism and produces an unlimited, undefined amount of
antigen that it tells your body to make, and there's
no off switch, and so you basically just inject these
instructions for your entire body to start making foreign proteins. Now,
(12:36):
for cancer, they might instruct it to make non foreign proteins,
which maybe would have a less side of a profile.
But this technology has proven its failure for all infectious diseases. Now, yeah,
as they move on to cancer and these other things,
I don't have high hopes for it. And it's been
(12:59):
far too catastrophic in the harms we have detected now.
It has dysregulated the gene expression thousands of gene expressions.
Of recent study we just put out did find that
this will probably be the case with even cancer m
RNA vaccines. This will be the case when now they're
(13:21):
pushing AI generated cancer mRNA shots. It appears to just
be another fraud. You know, they like to push technology
even if it fails. They're making they make large loads
of money from it. And you know, I don't know,
maybe I'll be wrong, you know, maybe all of a sudden,
you know, they'll develop a cancer cure m RNA injection.
(13:43):
But on that one, right, yeah, you know that appears
to be a century away.
Speaker 1 (13:51):
Yeah, well, so I have what you said earlier leads
me into this. So uh, with with mRNA vaccines being pushed,
there has been evidence that the emin M or any
vaccine in relation to being used for COVID nineteen, there
is now evidence that it did lead to turbo cancers?
Is that something that is a real finding? Is that true?
Speaker 2 (14:15):
Yes, it's very real. Unlike what the media that's funded
by pharmaceutical giants likes to suggest, they suggest, they claim,
they don't suggest. They actually declare that turbo cancers are
a myth and they don't exist, right, So that's what
they say, But there's actually one hundred studies. A literature
(14:39):
review revealed this. One hundred studies show there's about seventeen
distinct mechanisms that these injections may cause or accelerate cancers.
And then a new study just came out peer reviewed.
First of all, there's palm doctor Merrick, and it defines
(15:00):
COVID nineteen mRNA injection induced turbo cancer. And so this
is what this is is. Literally, it's a cancer that
kind of accelerates uncharacteristically. It wasn't seen before the pandemic.
And then you have these cancers drastically spread at a
very high pace that is just not normal. And these
(15:23):
individuals unfortunately succumb to this cancer at a much faster
pace than a classical cancer that may have been caused,
you know, by an environmental factor, you know, long term
exposure to something. These injections usually you know, many of
these people will have a cancer, right, cancer in their body.
(15:45):
It's kind of been checked by their immune system, and
these injections go in disregulate immune function, cause immune collapse,
and then you have this this this proliferation of their
existing cancer into a full blown turbo cancer. And so
this is all biologically plausible. It's seen in the population
(16:06):
level data. We see somebody named ethical Skeptic. He does
very great analytical work with the CDC data. There's been
over one hundred thousand excess cancer deaths.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
And you can contribute that to this mRNA vaccine.
Speaker 2 (16:26):
Yes, this mRNA and spike specifically, actually the spike prototein Yeah,
spike protein that induces appears to be carcinogenic. It suppresses
tumor suppressor genes, so your body can't suppress them as well,
and it literally impairs immune function. It appears to induce
vaccine acquired immune deficiency or VADES. That's now evidenced by
(16:53):
hundreds of studies. And so, yeah, it's not good. It's
not good at all.
Speaker 1 (17:00):
And so what do you say those who were forced
to take this particular vaccine in order to keep their jobs,
and how how much more damage were they doing their bodies?
You know, in taking all these boosters, like six, seven,
eight nine boosters. You know, it isn't that evidence in
and of itself enough that this vaccine didn't even work.
Speaker 2 (17:22):
It's clear evidence it was not working. Right at first,
people claimed the first that regulatory agencies claimed you only
needed you know, one dose, I will just take one
dough are these two first doses the primary series? And
then all of a sudden they're like, oh, well, now
you're gonna need a booster. Oh, now you're gonna need
another booster. No, another one, another one, and it just
(17:44):
kept coming. And yeah, some people fell for this. They
were tricked or coerced by mandates or false public health
advice that was based on basically completely flawed data, basically
made up lies literally lies actually because they didn't know
(18:07):
that any of the true safety profile you need about
five to fifteen years for genetic products. So to those
individuals that that took many boosters, the best course of
action will be to take don't take any more boosters.
The more boosters you take, shown in a study by
Shresla and colleagues, means you have a higher risk of
(18:30):
infection per dose. Right, so if you get four doses,
you had like a three hundred percent increased risk of infection.
You know, one dose was was not nearly as hide.
So yeah, you want to refrain from booster doses for sure.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
So there were people, there were those who took these
m RNA vaccines who who feel that they well, they
felt worse, that they didn't actually feel better, and that
somehow it may have affected their insystem because you know,
all of a suddeny're getting sick. Much easier to getting
you know, like common colds and whatnot that are much
harder for them to get over. And you know, is
(19:10):
is that a side effect? Is that something that can
be confirmed to be a side effect of the mRNA?
And the other part to this question is how can
someone reverse the damage of the mRNA in the vaccine?
Like how can their body get rid of these mRNAs?
Speaker 2 (19:31):
Yeah, so let's go post vaccination syndrome or long vaccine syndrome.
It's similar to long COVID, but it's induced by the vaccine,
and so it appears to be much worse and longer
lasting than long COVID. But yeah, so it appears that
many of the symptoms from that stem from the spike protein,
(19:56):
this toxic protein circulating in the body, causing micro clotting
and so your blood not circulating properly and many other
different issues. And so if you have this high burden
of this toxic spike protein, you're gonna want to clear
that out or at least help the body clear it out,
because our body does not have any innate clearing mechanisms
(20:18):
to get it out. And so at the McCullough Foundation,
we identified three compounds. We do have a peer reviewed
study published on this three compounds nantokinase, bromolane, and curcumin,
and these have shown in the test tube experimentally and
(20:39):
in case reports to clear out the spike induced clots
and even degrade the spike protein directly. And so that's
what we have so far. That's what doctor mccalluugh recommends
to his patients who do have high levels of spike
an your bodies. Which is the way of measuring it now,
so that just let's go to that now to know
(21:02):
what your spike protein burden is is right now, we
do use antibody testing as a proxy, and so usually
you know, if you're over a thousand, then there are
some risks and you know you're likely either exposed to
COVID or you know, you got the vaccine, and usually
those with the vaccine. Another study came out, and there's
(21:26):
a lot of studies coming out. Another study that came
out that showed vaccinated individuals have seven times higher spike
antibodies compared to those who just got the infection, so
it installs much more spike and so yeah, clearing these
out is critical that mccullo protocol based spike detaxification does
(21:48):
appear to be a promising method. We do need to
undergo long term clinical trials double blind, facebo controlled to
really assess its efficacy, but we don't we don't right now.
Eighty percent of actually no not eighty percent, eighty percent
(22:09):
got the m RNA shots. Ninety nine percent of the
population has been exposed to these synthetic SARS Kobe two
spike protein, either from the infection or from the injections.
So the entire population was poisoned. And so we need
to find answers as soon as possible, and we cannot
(22:29):
wait years, you know, for these clinical trials, so you know,
we do have to scramble for these solutions. And one
other thing for those who you know, feel terrible after
their their MRRNA shot, they don't feel better. There's one
key thing that needs to happen is you have to
raise your vitamin D levels to adequate levels. Most are low.
(22:53):
There's two studies now that you when you raise those
vitamin D levels, it actually reduced or improves your symptoms
if you have post vaccination syndrome, and that was one
study and the other one found it decreases severity of myocarditis.
So what you really want to do is get sunlight
(23:13):
right to raise those levels because you get all the
other benefits of sunlight, thousands of them. Improves you know,
cellular function, improves, mitochondrial function. So you want to get
sunlight as your form of vitamin D if you can.
But that is absolutely critical, right if you're not doing anything,
you want to pick one thing that is something that
(23:36):
is highly recommended.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
Let's let's talk about the other concerns of m RNA
and specifically how it affects hers food supply. You know,
and there's a lot of questions ask to whether or
not mRNA is transferable. So you know, it's been used
in various vaccines, you know, specifically in our meat supply.
So is that m RNA transferable? Like will it transfer
(23:58):
to humans who are consuming this meat? Is that something
that has been studied? Is that something that can happen
and is it something that we should be cautious of
or look out for.
Speaker 2 (24:13):
This is completely unknown at this point because it's never
been tested. But you would think they would test it
right before they do such foolish things like this, But
they don't test it, so we don't know. But you know,
I think it would be hard for the lipana particles
and mRNA constructs to survive the cooking process. But again
(24:36):
we don't know now since if these animals were injected
with mRNA, they will be producing these toxic antigens, and
so you would be consuming these toxic antigens. And you know,
there is still a possibility though that yes, as mRNA
could reach your circulation. We just have no idea. This
has to be immediately tested. Now, what's most concerning about
(24:59):
the injection of animals is the self amplifying RNA particle
injections by merk. They are already rolled this out. It's
being given by vets all across the country to dogs
and cats for various viruses, the most prominent one including rabies.
(25:20):
Right they recommend rabies vaccinations to basically all animals. And
so now they have a self amplifying RNA one and
this one could most definitely shed onto human owners as
it self replicates in your cat or dog and they
come and lick you or you know you're exposed to
they're bodily fluids. This can probably you know, reach your
(25:44):
circulation and then the self amplifying RNA will end up
in your body and maybe even up taken into your
cells and you will you will then also be producing
rabies antigens, and so this, this is this is an
absolute catastrope fee that has to be stopped.
Speaker 1 (26:03):
Okay, so let's let's touch on the viral shedding. How
exactly can the mRNA vaccine. For example, let's say like
a kid got the mRNA vaccine and they're around other people,
So so how can that be transferred to other people
through viral shedding? Like, how does that happen?
Speaker 2 (26:27):
Yes, yes, it's a study by Sue Peters and colleagues
that found women in close unvaccinated women in close proximity
to vaccinated individuals outside of the household did experience an
increase in menstrual cycle abnormalities, heavier bleeding period delays, et cetera.
(26:48):
They experienced these increase risks when they reported they were
within six feet of these vaccinated individuals outside of the household.
So that that's all we have really for shedding studies.
They haven't really bothered to conduct anything else. But we
do know that the mRNA technology does disrupt menstrual cycles.
(27:11):
And so when we see unvaccinated women experiencing these who
are in proximity to the vaccinated. That does indicate shedding
is indeed real, and it appears to be the case biologically.
It makes sense because this so likely what shedding is
(27:31):
actually this spike protein and what's called exisomes. Right, the
body appears to encapsulate the spike protein in these hexisomes
and these can likely be exhaled in breath, you know,
in saliva during sexual intercourse. This may be able to transmit. Now,
the mRNA has been found in breast milk and so
(27:54):
you know, for babies, for moms that are breastfeeding, this
mRNA may be able to transfer for two of the
baby via breast milk, and so there's many different routes
of transmission, it appears. But again, no real study has
been conducted on this. They just continue to ignore it.
Speaker 1 (28:13):
Okay, So regarding women, there's been there's been reports. I'm
not sure if these are verified or not. But how
does m r and error. Can mRNA affect a woman's
ability to become pregnant? How does it affect their decision
making and whether or not they should consider an mr
(28:34):
an a vaccine or just not get an mr an
a vaccine if they're planning to have a child.
Speaker 2 (28:41):
Yeah, if you want a child, do not, do not,
do not take in mRNA injection. It is very bad.
We now have two new studies, recent studies that have
come out. The first one was in rats. But what
happened was they injected the rats with mRNA shots and
(29:02):
it literally wiped out sixty percent of their premrdio follicles.
So this is the egg supply woman, that's non renewable.
It's that base layer they're born with. They don't get
any more premrdio follicles. The mRNA shots wipe out sixty
percent of those. Right, So, yes, this was in rants. Okay,
but it doesn't matter. This is a living animal and
(29:25):
these injections are clearly extraordinarily toxic to the reproductive system.
So well, you might be thinking, well, as are human data. Well, yeah,
there is another recent study came out is peer reviewed
by managing colleagues. They found among one point three million
one point three million women, they found that there was
(29:48):
a thirty three percent reduction and successful conception rate, so
thirty three percent reduction and successful pregnancies in vaccinated women
compared to the unvaccinated population. So we are seeing this
in humans as well. So yeah, and then we have
so many other studies that you are risks during pregnancy.
(30:11):
Study by Thorpe ed l found, you know, so many
different safety signals looking at the various system for pregnancy,
including miscarriage, you know, malformations, you know, all sorts of
issues during pregnancy as well. And we do also know
(30:32):
another study came out of that found the mRNA does
transfer through the placenta of pregnant women, does transfer into
the baby. And so if you are pregnant you receive these,
the baby will uptake peiser maderna modified RNA, and it
will be producing these toxic proteins unfortunately, And so yeah,
(30:57):
these are not safe for reproductive health whatsoever.
Speaker 1 (31:03):
Thank you for answering those questions that my friends and
colleagues and uh if my wife had regarding mRNA and
how it may transfer or affect affect humans or affect
all of us. But now now let's get to the
questions that I that I am personally really really interested
in terms of the COVID response. So, you know, with
(31:26):
everything being said about mRNA and how it was not tested,
how it's it has not been proven, can you shed
any light on the organizations that were actually behind and
pushing this mRNA vaccine during the pandemic, even though that
it wasn't tested on humans, and they and they more
(31:47):
than likely knew that it was not going to be effective.
Can you tell us who was behind pushing this vaccine,
the mRNA vaccine during the pandemic, during the COVID pandemic,
and do you know for sure which companies were behind this?
Speaker 2 (32:06):
Yeah, so there was many organizations involved. We have identified
what's called the biopharmaceutical complex. It's a conglomerate of regulatory agencies,
pharmaceutical companies, governments, and NGOs, these large nonprofit organizations. And
it appears that this conglomerate is central to the approval
(32:29):
of this right. So the major nonprofits include, you know,
the Gates Foundation. You know, we have organizations like the
World Economic Form, we have the Rockefeller Foundation, we have
many of these foundations. We have the World Health Organization,
we have GAVY, the Global Vaccine Alliance, we have we
(32:52):
have SEPI, the Center of Epidemic Preparedness and Innovation. We
have all these organizations that have been pushing this mr
and a platform since this inception, funding their development, funding
new mRNA injections, funding their distribution doing all these key
(33:13):
critical things, and you think, well, why did they do this? Right,
why did they do this? Why did the Gates Foundation,
who literally thinks there's too many people on earth and
wants to reduce population. Why would they care about saving
people when they think we need to reduce the population.
You know, that makes zero logical sense that they would
(33:35):
want to actually, you know, save people. You know, it
literally doesn't make any sense. So why would they be
very much invested in this technology? Well, you know, it
appears and actually a large proportion of countries around the
world deploy what's called population control policies or population control
(34:00):
operations where they actually you know, employee policies to reduce
population growth because they think they have too many people.
You know, this is real, right for anybody who doesn't
believe this, you know, this is what countries do. We
have China doing it, and we have many other countries
doing it. And so this population control operations appears to
(34:27):
have made its way into a global, a global push
for with these m R and A injections. Because now
that we know what it does to fertility, now that
we know what it does to birth rates, we are
very very concerned that part of the purpose of this
rollout may have been a population control related.
Speaker 1 (34:52):
So with that being said, and you don't have the
answers because I don't put it on the spot, but
how how do you feel as an epidemiologist that the
COVID response was handled at that time? And you know,
and with that being said, also like, how how do
(35:15):
you feel about Fauci and how he handled that response,
because you know, he was largely responsible for the push
for the push to get this uh these m RNY
vaccines out there into the public, and from what I understand,
he even had a patent on his own at the
time or maybe he still does. Maybe incorrect me if
(35:36):
I'm wrong there, but you know, as an epidemiologist, what
is what is your thoughts on Fauci and how he
handled things? And you know, I don't know maybe if
there is anything that you would have done differently, but
what is what is your thoughts on Fauci?
Speaker 2 (35:52):
Fauci. Fauci has done many things that have broken the law.
And we'll just say, you know, obviously lied about gain
of function research, lied on their oath, He's facing perjury investigations,
you know, all that stuff. But we're regarding the COVID
(36:13):
pandemic response. You know, he advocated for lockdowns, for the
closure of all the schools. He told us the mRNA
injections would we're ninety nine percent effective. He told us
we wouldn't get COVID with these injections. And so what
(36:34):
appears to have happened is as the figurehead for the
pandemic response, uh, he flat out lied to the entire
population of these injections and while also pushing completely flawed
pandemic response policies such as lockdowns and masking mask mandates
(36:59):
and all the nonsense. And so he the fact that
he's still walking free from any persecution is quite shocking, right,
because you have his involvement in with the Wuhan lab
and creation of Sara's Kovie two itself, as well as
the mRNA injections. I mean this, this, this is very
(37:23):
bad stuff, right, This, This isn't something that most people
could kind of walk around free after doing. And so
what's now happened here in America is the Buyer's Law
Group has actually filed criminal referral requests in seven different
states against Anthony Fauci and many other public health officials
(37:48):
for they're accusing them of murder, terrorism, abuse, racketeering, fraud,
for for their actions and policies implemented during the pandemic,
including these hospital protocols, suppression of early treatment and all
(38:12):
these things. And so there's there's just so many things
to unpeck with the pandemic response, but many of it.
I think accountability is now. You know, people are calling
for accountability, if specifically Fauci, but I don't know. We'll
just have to wait and see.
Speaker 1 (38:31):
Right, So, how how would you I mean you as
an epidemiologist, you and your peers. How It's always easy
to look back and say I would have done it
this way, But how how should you? How should it
have been handled? How do you think we should have
handled that?
Speaker 2 (38:49):
Well? First of all, or should not have been lockdowns?
There should not have been any lockdowns. That that caused
the men's harm just by itself, right, because you people
at home isolated, right, They weren't interacting with their friends,
they weren't learning at school. They were just stuck at
(39:10):
home on a computer looking at a screen. This was
disastrous for the mental health aspect of the population as
well as the economic aspect. It decimated small businesses. It
was just it was horrible and it didn't prevent anything, right,
(39:31):
I mean it didn't. Lockdowns will not stop anything from
happening unless you keep something lockdown forever, right, and that
doesn't happen. Any pathogen will always find its way in.
You might be able to delay it with the lockdown,
but that's it, right Once, once you lift these restrictions,
it's gonna come pouring in. So they're absolutely useless, absolutely useless,
(39:55):
you know, unless there is a zombie outbreak. Okay, fine,
I get that. There's rumors of that too, though what
was that.
Speaker 1 (40:03):
I said, there's rumors of that too though?
Speaker 2 (40:05):
Oh yeah, exactly. You know, honestly, they've probably developed pathogens
and laboratories that could induce some be like behavior and people.
That would not surprise me one bit because there are
thousands of these laboratories that are manipulating pathogens and we
don't know what's in many of these labs at all.
Speaker 1 (40:27):
So I know, I know, we don't have a ton
more time as we go on, but you know what
you're saying, really it makes me ask this question here
when when when you're talking about the public health community
and we're talking about other epidemiologists. Why hasn't there been
more people coming together to stand up against this and
(40:50):
go after bad actors like Fauci for example. And I'm
only using Fauci's name because he's the most recognizable, you know,
I'm not trying to just zero in on him. But
why why aren't there more p people coming out and
speaking out against these bad actors that have these very
bad intentions and how to handle the population, and how
to handle vaccines too, which I got another question for
(41:13):
you on that, But but what do you think of that?
Why are there not more people come together and really
chastising and saying no, that's bad, This is not how
they're supposed to be and there does have to be
justice administered based on their actions. They should be held accountable.
Why are there not more people stepping up?
Speaker 2 (41:28):
Right? I think they're One of the reasons is people
have just been demoralized, right, I mean, we've been hit
with so many things down in the past five years.
We've called for the removal of these shots, we've called
for accountability, we've called for this and for that, and
you know it has led to nothing. Right, the n
R and H shots are still on the market. Right,
(41:50):
these people are still running around free. I mean, Faci's
running around free. You have to clearly, clearly lying to Congress.
I mean you only need one brains. Kindergartener could tell
you if they saw his statements here and his statements
to Congress here, a kindergartener would tell you, yeah, he
broke the law. And they don't face any accountability. So
(42:12):
people are just tired. They're like, okay, they're never going
to face it, and it's it's a sort of fatigue.
It appears that has incurred, and people just don't they
don't want to talk about it anymore. You know, they've
been demoralized and you know, and you know, to change that,
you know, I think what would would turn the tide
(42:36):
would be, you know, finally, at least one little drip
of accountability. Right if finally, yeah, just something happens, something
fau chief, just for perjury, even though he's accused of
of you know, many other crimes, at least one thing,
And I think that would ignite a spark where people
(42:57):
would finally, you know, rise up again and start to
call for true accountability. Okay, So so.
Speaker 1 (43:03):
With that i'd lie to I have two questions because
you're sparking, sparking some you know, making the hamster run
up here. So uh, let's let's talk about let's talk
about this and and with the new Trump administration, RFK
Junior at the HELM here at Health and Human Services, right,
do you think vaccine efficacy and how they're handled and
(43:27):
and standards of testing will improve or or has a
lot of this just been window dressing or theater, you know,
just to get support and likes and whatever the hell
it is that they need to to look good to
the public. Is do you see a change, uh from
from your perspective and and and through your work, have
you seen a change with this new administration and how
(43:47):
vaccines are handled and the standards.
Speaker 2 (43:52):
You know, most of what's happened so far seems to
have been hindered by you know, political games. Right. Yeah,
it does appear that most of this is you know,
not enough actions being taken, not enough research is being initiated.
(44:12):
It appears that you know, they're they're staying in the
bounds of what they think they can do politically. And
so yeah, you know, at my level, you know, we're
still researching the m RNA arms. We're uncovering crazy things
that we would never have thought we would have uncovered.
And the federal government hasn't done a thing, right, I
(44:34):
mean we're sitting here. They've been there for many, many months,
this new administration. We have not seen anything. We haven't
seen them develop a test to look for genomic integration
of spiking people. We haven't seen them develop therapeutics to
help them millions of injured. We haven't seen anything tangible.
(44:54):
We still see mRNA shots being allowed to be given
to six month old infants.
Speaker 1 (45:01):
But you know, with that being said, Nicholas, what do
you what do you think about them trying to mandate
these COVID m RNA vaccines to children attending school like
it's supposed to be now a part of the regiment.
I don't know if it passed, because like the new
second was so fast. I hear these things. I haven't
confirmed it because I've been talking to so many other
people with different issues. Is that a thing that has passed?
(45:23):
And what's your thoughts on it?
Speaker 2 (45:25):
Yeah? So there there are I believe there are some
states that were trying to pass that, and federally they
did have the m r and A shots and the
recommended vaccination schedule, but some schools actually did mandate it
for attendance. Most of that appears to have gone away,
(45:47):
you know, most schools, most places, you won't need an
m R and a injection to attend anymore. But regardless,
So actually in May, RFK did issue a directive to
stop recommending him to healthy you know, little babies and
healthy bregnant women. He did so, he did try at
(46:10):
least do something, but it appears like he can't really
do anything. Right. He did that, but you know, they're
still on the childhood schedule. All the CDC did was
put a note that says, talk to your healthcare provider.
And then many of these healthcare providers are under mass psychosis.
Still they will still be administering these gene therapies to infants. So,
(46:32):
you know, we're in such a bad situation right now.
It appears that whoever, honestly, whoever was HHS secretary really
couldn't have couldn't really do anything. We know RFK though,
based on his you know, decades of what he'd spoken about,
we know he knows these are bad and dangerous and deadly.
Even even many of the childhood vaccines are dangerous. We
(46:56):
know he knows that, but you know, he can only
it appears he can only do so much as Ajh's secretary,
and within an administration that still does like MRINA technology,
he cannot act like a king. It appears as we
wanted him to. Right.
Speaker 1 (47:17):
So, but you know, what you're saying is what's what's
sad when people feared is still politics before people. You know,
it's it's back to our relationships before the public. And
that's what we don't want to hear. That's not what
we're expecting. And I'm not trying to make this political.
But you know, with the change of the guard, with
a new administration who ran on, hey, we're going to
take care of this. We're going to look into what
happened during COVID. We know that there's issues with these vaccines,
(47:39):
and we're going to get right on top of it.
RFK Junior. That is exactly what he said the whole time,
for many years, even before he came over to Trump's side.
And it's not it's it's not a partisan because he's
still a Democrat. So we can't we can't pin this
on Republican for Zimprant. There's something else going on that's
stopping them from making them move and changing things. So
it's good to hear what you saying, because from your
(48:00):
perspective and working on the other side of things, you know,
you're doing these studies and you're like, yeah, but based
on this, why are we still doing this? Like this
doesn't make any sense. You know, you actually have studies
that show there is harm, and yet there's nothing being
done for the betterment of society outside of maybe implementing
the policies and plans that you said earlier, which maybe
(48:21):
this is just about population control. I don't know one
more question for it. And this has to do with newborns.
And this is something that I've always wondered. Does a
newborn really need the plethora of vaccines that is administered
as soon as they're born?
Speaker 2 (48:37):
Short answer, no, No. A human baby that is just
you know, been born, enters this world, does not need
merk and a phizer and and does not need pharmaceutical
injections in their bloodstream when they're born. They just don't.
(49:00):
It's dangerous. Actually, now they've they're the CDC's being sued
for pushing an illegal and unconstitutional seventy two dose hyper
vaccination schedule.
Speaker 1 (49:13):
Seventy two doses.
Speaker 2 (49:14):
Yep, it's about seventy two doses from birth to eighteen.
And so, yeah, none of this was tested in combination.
Nobody knows the safety profile when you give them together.
It's it's completely unknown. And so so.
Speaker 1 (49:32):
Aside from just seventy two, they didn't even do any
studies to see how they would interact with each other, these.
Speaker 2 (49:36):
Vaccines, No, none, what, Yeah, they just assume. Yeah, they've
gotten away with it for some time. Nobody's questioned it,
and they've just got gotten away and it's been fine.
And so now that people are aware that this is
the case, they're in a lot of they're going to
face a lot of public backs.
Speaker 1 (49:56):
And these pharmaceutical companies due to all these deals, like
you can't them accountable and you know what clause? Do
you know what why that is? Like what clause there is?
And the justification for that, like why can't we hold
them accountable? They nineteen put together you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 2 (50:13):
Yeah, Yeah, the nineteen eighty six National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Act that once that was implemented, that gave pharma companies
liability protection, complete liability protection from vaccine injury from their products.
So that's why you see before nineteen eighty six there
(50:34):
is only about seven vaccines given to kids, right, you
didn't see that many autistic kids, and you didn't see
many profound just autism cases where they needed you know,
toilet assistance, et cetera. And then after nineteen eighty six,
when they got these shields from liability, you see the
(50:55):
dose number skyrocket, you know, into space, and they start
deploying so many different types of vaccines where every virus
they can think of, and they don't face any accountability
due to this act. Now, Representative Representative ghosts Are has
introduced legislation to try and repeal this and finally allow
(51:20):
people to sue vaccine companies when they're injured. And so
there are legislative efforts underway, thankfully to reverse this.
Speaker 1 (51:30):
I know that's been happening in Europe. There have been
cases they've been going after these vaccine or pharmaceutical companies
for harm, and really we really haven't been doing it
in the USA quite yet. So yeah, it's a really
sad thing. The vaccines in general. You know, like I said,
we don't need so many seventy seventy two vaccine schedule
(51:51):
you know, from birth through through eighteen is insane. I
don't understand. I don't understand that. And they're not even
testing how they interact with each other either, Like and
that's the one thing, you know, watching the clockier. So
you just you just had you just you know, initiated
another another very important question, because this is something that's
(52:11):
come up in the past, autism. So is there verifiable
studies that links vaccines or the amount of vaccines and
their interactions to autism? And if so, why are we
not hearing about these?
Speaker 2 (52:26):
Yeah, there's, uh, there's over ten studies that do find
an association between vaccines and autism. The most recent ones
by Mossen and colleagues. It was over you know, forty
thousand Medicaid recipients and they found, you know, they found
pretty large increases in risk and those that received childhood
(52:51):
vaccines compared to the unvaccinated children for many different neurodevelopmental disorders,
not just autism, but ticks to as well as ADHD. Right,
And so we do have evidence of it, and you know,
HHS says there's gonna be a report coming out, you know,
in September or October where they're gonna see where they're
(53:15):
gonna tell us if they found an association. I don't know,
you know what what they're gonna come out with. But
here the McCollough Foundation, we are actually doing our own
comprehensive study on this link between vaccination and autism and
hopefully that'll be completed within the next few months here
as well. And so, yeah, there's been many studies documenting
(53:37):
and association. I mean you can find all of them
on our substick Thefocalpoints dot com. We do report on them.
And yeah, this cannot be ruled out.
Speaker 1 (53:48):
It's always it verifiable yet though, as you know, like
there's been studies, but has has has been verified that
it is an actual link between autism and these vaccines.
Speaker 2 (53:58):
An actual causal link has yet to be defined. Now
in the attacking you know, now it appears that it's
definitely you know, it can indeed induce autism and people,
but I guess as an epidemiologist, we can't say based
on the studies there that there's a causal link yet.
(54:19):
But yeah, I mean, you have these parents they go
and get you know, they go and get their child
MMR and then they bring them home and then they
have seizures and then they're never the same sense. You know,
we have so many cases of this, and so yeah,
when you inject toxins, large numbers of toxins, neurotaxins, aluminum,
(54:40):
and you hyperactivate the immused system and you cause seizures,
feberal seizures, and brain damage, it's not unexpected that you'll
see these neurodevelopmental disorders.
Speaker 1 (54:51):
So, with all this being said, how can the public
once again trust vaccines? Because there are good vaccines, They're
vaccines that are proven to have work. Or do you,
in your opinion, are there any vaccines like are all
vaccines kind of bad in their own way? Do they all?
Do they all have a side effect? Or are there
really like, hey, no, there was good ones and we
should use those and have them administered. So if that's
(55:15):
the case, then how do we get the public to
trust these type of vaccines that have been proven and
trust vaccination in general?
Speaker 2 (55:24):
Right? Well, yeah, some vaccines you know, could have contributed
to the reduction in some infectious diseases, but actually many
of the reductions and infectious disease over the past one
hundred years we're due to improvements and sanitation and care
and you know, some of it is contributed to some
(55:46):
of these vaccinations. But the thing I want to say
is none of the current child vaccines were actually properly
safety tested, is the thing? Right, So none of them
undergone long term placebo controlled trials. You know, the follow
up time is ranges from about two days for a
(56:08):
lot of these vaccines in these studies to a few months.
But yeah, none of them have followed these children long
term after administration. And again none of them have been
tested in combination, so we actually do not know the
full true safety profile of these vaccines.
Speaker 1 (56:27):
And so you know, or how for how long Nicholas,
should these vaccines be tested? Like what's the length of
time that they should be doing this study to determine
the long term effects of the vaccines when they're about
to put out a new one or test?
Speaker 2 (56:42):
Yeah, they should be following these children in these studies
for years, right, they can.
Speaker 1 (56:46):
Write like three years, five years, Like what do you recommend?
Speaker 2 (56:50):
The longer the better? Right, they should keep record of
these children in these studies and then you know, follow
keep them on record for about ten years, that would
be very and then they can publish another study in
about ten years documenting, documenting what happened to these children,
but they don't. They just kind of lose track of them.
All right, two days, you know, we don't care what
(57:11):
happens to them after that. That's what's happened. And so
we just don't know what's happening to these children.
Speaker 1 (57:18):
And for how long has that been going on?
Speaker 2 (57:21):
Forever?
Speaker 1 (57:23):
Really since the beginning of time?
Speaker 2 (57:25):
Yeah? Yeah, I mean they first, the first vaccines were
just injecting, like taking some somebody's smallpox lesion and taking
material out of that and then injecting that lesion material
into somebody else. So that's what they were used to
be doing. And yeah, now obviously that's changed.
Speaker 1 (57:44):
But right, I guess my question is like, for how
long has this been going on where they weren't doing
long term studies on these vaccinations?
Speaker 2 (57:53):
Yeah, well, for all the vaccines now on the market,
none of them, none of them.
Speaker 1 (57:59):
There's not any how can we give a defined date
like since nineteen eighty eight ninety or is there a
certain lists of vaccines, like certain vaccines themselves that are
kind of fall into that category of not being properly tested.
Speaker 2 (58:17):
I'm telling you there's a list.
Speaker 1 (58:19):
I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I'm
just wondering if it's if there's something we could reference
so that anybody who's watching, like if they did want
to do this research, they can go, oh, okay, there's
there's this list that I can look at. And you know,
these certain vaccines, for example, they haven't been tested long enough.
We've been out there long enough to really determine whether
they're effective or what side effects they have. So that's
that's what I'm trying to get out of you. I'm
(58:39):
not trying to, you know, put you in a corner here.
Speaker 2 (58:42):
Yeah, no, No, The list is on the Informed Consent
Action Network. They go to their website. They have a
list of all the vaccines and it shows you how
long did they follow them up for was there a
placebo group? And you'll see the list. It's all red
red boxes, which means they weren't adequate. And so that's
what's happened with all of these now again in the past.
(59:05):
You know, it's like I guess in the sixties, seventies,
you know, I don't know, honestly, I don't know if
those were long term or not. But you know that
doesn't matter at this point because the current ones being
administered to everybody are not right, and so we just yeah,
we just have to.
Speaker 1 (59:23):
Name that website again. Nick was the name of that again.
Speaker 2 (59:25):
Nicolas informed Consent Action Network. I can if you look
at ic A N, it should show up. And they
do have a chart on their website that shows you
know what's happened. I believe they actually they sued the
FDA for some stuff. You know, they're they're a pretty
pretty good decent organization. Huh.
Speaker 1 (59:46):
Interesting, Well, I think we're getting to the end of
your time with me, So won't you tell everybody about
the foundation where they can find more information about you,
the studies, et cetera.
Speaker 2 (59:59):
Yes, yes, you can follow me on x AT and
I see houlture. I will be posting basically every day.
That's where all that you'll find all the breaking stuff,
but in detail. If you want to see all these
studies in detail and a full breakdown of them, you
have to go to our substack vfocalpoints dot com and
(01:00:19):
you will find it all there. You'll see doctor mccollough's posts,
author John Leak's posts. That's the place to go as well,
and for all one more thing V McCullough Foundation mccaullaugh
fn D dot com.
Speaker 1 (01:00:34):
You got your cat there again.
Speaker 2 (01:00:36):
Yeah, McCall sorry, mccallaugh FND dot org. That's how you
can visit the McCullough Foundation. You'll see our operations what
we kind of do on a daily basis, and we
do need support, right, We do operate on donations and contributions,
so you know, if you want to support our research,
(01:00:57):
We've published over twenty scientific studies in the past years
exposing the harms of these shots where the government failed
to do so, we're doing research on treatment protocols, We're
doing all this stuff. So yeah, if you want to,
you know, consider supporting our work, please visit the website
McCalla F and D dot org.
Speaker 1 (01:01:17):
Awesome. Thank you for your time and the information, and
you know, hopefully we can stay in touch. I do
want to possibly have you on again down the road
as things develop, but again, thanks for timing. You're super
busy and I really appreciate everything that you've had said.
Thanks for having me, Yes, sir, thank you. Nicholas do
Okay, Well, firstly, thank you for your time. I know
it's been you know, a little bit of struggle trying
to get you here just because you were extremely busy. Honestly,
every time you turn around, your guests on someone else's
show or on the news, which is great showing that Pep,
we're tapping into your expertise regarding mRNA COVID, the effects thereof,
et cetera. I wanted to go and read a little
bit from your bio if you're okay, that I pulled
(00:25):
from the McCullough Foundation, since you are the administrator of
the McCullough Foundation, And for those who don't know, that
is yes, Peter McCullum, doctor Peter McCollum, which is really
cool that you are working with him and you're bringing
your expertise with you. So, Nicholas, for those who don't know,
I'm just gonna read a little bit. Nicholas Houlscher is
an epidemiologist administrator at McCullough Foundation. Born and raised in Michigan,
(00:46):
So earned a Bachelor of Science and pre health Professional
Studies from the Oakland University Honors College in twenty twenty,
graduating with institutional and departmental Honors. You went on to
receive a Master of Public Health, which, by the way,
you know, halfs off to you and you specialize in
epidemiology from the University of Michigan State of Public Health
in twenty twenty four, and that's that's when you got
(01:08):
your MPH.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
That correct, Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
And then what was really interesting to me is, you know,
you don't have a long career, but man, did you
do a lot since twenty twenty three. It says here
he did sixteen peer reviewed scientific studies, which includes systematic reviews,
original emphasis, investigations, and case reports, which you know significantly
advanced the understanding of COVID nineteen, vaccine injuries, syndromes, and
(01:32):
everything else that goes along with that. So I just
needed to say that so people know who you are,
or at least get a little bit of a background.
So that's why I'm very happy that you agreed to
be on the show, because it's like I'm talking to
someone who actually has knowledge, which is great. So therefore
I want to start here because one of my friends
who has another podcast, he's more geopolitics and stuff like that.
(01:53):
He used to be an analyst for the military, but
he has his concern was in doing this with you,
is he wanted an unbiased assessment explanation of m RNA.
Too often it has been very politically biased, and especially
from those in the medical you know, the medical profession.
So that's what I'm hoping we get here, you know,
(02:14):
my political innings in yours regardless, I hope that we
can get an unbiased explanation of what actually is mRNA.
And I would like to start there because I think
there's a lot of confusion because we only found out
about it during the pandemic, and that's when everybody we
carry him aware of what mRNA maybe, but we still
don't really know. There's a lot of assumptions. Can you
(02:34):
start with explaining that so we actually know what the
heck it is and what we're actually referring to.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Yes, yeah, So when we think of vagacines, right, that's
like everything that's been injected into our children, you know,
for the best many many decades, about one hundred years,
over one hundred years. Vavaccines. Uh, you know, when you
injected killed the antigen or killed virus or whatever, not mRNA.
(03:01):
We're not talking about that. When you inject those killed
virons or whatever combined with an edge of it, right,
which is usually aluminium. Sometimes they preserve these with thimerosol,
which is a form of mercury, or they used to.
That's normal vaccines, right, that's it. It's just basically killed
(03:24):
virus material, right, And so what happens with mRNA is
completely different. mRNA is not a vaccine, right. They might
claim it's a vaccine. It might be called a vaccine
in the news, it might be called a vaccine by
the CDC, but it does not work like a traditional vaccine.
(03:47):
It is a gene transfer technology. It actually meets the
definition of a gene therapy. Why do I say that, Well, because,
so how does it work? So let's start with how
it works. Right. So you have lipid nanoparticles, which are
little bubbles of basically fat, right, that's what you could
(04:09):
call it. So you have these lipid nanoparticles, think of
them like bubbles, and inside of them is billions of
m RNA modified mRNA messenger ribo nucleic acid. This these bubbles,
once it's injected, travel to every single organ organ system
in the body, including the heart, including the brain, including
(04:34):
the bone, marrow, and basically every organ system you can
think of that's now been confirmed. Man, sorry about this.
My cat is literally, uh that's okay, throwing my camera around.
Speaker 1 (04:50):
Hey, we're going to leave it in because you're human
and we're we're our schedules have been tight. So the
fact that you're able to sit down with me, I'm
you know, I get it, but uh, please just keep
going about RNA because you're saying that how it goes
into the body and starts spreading to is it other
organs and whatnot?
Speaker 2 (05:07):
Yes? Yes, so yeah we'll continue from there. Yes, yes,
say the cat comes in, it's like, we're it's like
very serious here, you know, I have these catastrophic harms
and then we life. Yeah, that's what happens, all right.
So yeah, So we talked about vaccines, right, this killed
virus and an adjuvant to a voke immune response. Those
(05:28):
are vaccines. Now we're on gene therapies. This mRNA technology, right,
So we talked about the bubbles. The bubbles lipping nanoparticles
go into every organ system and then once they easily
get uptaken into cells because the cells like this this
material on the outer coating of the lipping nanoparticles. So
(05:49):
they kind of trick the cells, the cells uptake them,
and then it releases modified mRNA, which in which then
the mRNA goes into what's going called ribosomes, these small
organelles in your cells. It goes into these ribosomes in
all your organ systems and instructs those cells to produce
(06:09):
a toxic, highly toxic, highly pathogenic, non human protein, the
spike protein. So then you have neurons, you have cardiomyocytes
in your heart producing expressing on the cell's surface non
human toxic protein. So what happens then, Well, then you
(06:31):
have your own bodies going to come and attack those cells.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
Right.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
It doesn't want these foreign invaders, and that that's why
we see things like myochiditis. That's why we see endofilial damage, clotting,
that's why we see all many of these issues.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
So I'm sorry to interrupt you, but is that literally
what goes on then, is the body's reaction to zamorna
is just trying to reject them as a foreign body,
like it doesn't want it.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
Is that kind of what It's Well, that's only one
of the one of the ways damage, right, So yeah,
we have the own body attacking the cells producing it.
But then you have this literally toxic protein that will
start to circulate in your body, circulate in the bloodstream,
and deposit in vital organ systems. And this protein itself
is highly damaging to tissues and the body doesn't like it.
(07:21):
It's ill literal, it's a toxic. And so you have
this circulating and then you have DNA plasmids that are
in these lipid HANNO particles from the manufacturing process that
were not cleared out properly, and so you have spikeing
coding DNA. You have SEV forty promoter enhancer which they
(07:43):
use as the factory to make this mRNA, and all
this genetic material gets deposited. We believe now we have
many points of evidence. We have many studies now and
many laboratory tests that indicate likely genomic integration of some
of this material. So, yeah, these are not vaccines. These
(08:06):
are dangerous gene transfer technologies and they're not They did
not prevent COVID nineteen, right, So.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
I'll ask one more question in defining this then, So
you said earlier it was more intended to be a
like a gene therapy or whatnot, or some kind of
you know, use for for I guess changing the genetic
is that correct?
Speaker 2 (08:32):
It does?
Speaker 1 (08:32):
Does it affect a genetic code of someone or anybody?
I guess My question is what was the actual intention
of it? If it was intended for genetic therapy, what
kind of therapy is that? And exactly what was the
intention of his invention in the first place?
Speaker 2 (08:45):
Right?
Speaker 1 (08:45):
Right?
Speaker 2 (08:46):
So they claim that instructing your body to produce these proteins,
it makes anybodies that will protect you from the virus.
So that was their purpose. That's why they call it
a vaccine because they say that antibody's that you produce
will you know, help prevent you from being infected, like
they claim the twenty twenty one they said you won't
(09:06):
get infected. Now we have eight studies that show an
increased risk of infection. Eight studies like these. These don't
protect you. They actually serve as infection promoters. So yeah,
so it's really a disaster, but it does not serve
its purpose of protecting people from anything, unfortunately. And so
(09:29):
like they claim, now they've been making this mRNA technology
for decades. Barda and twenty twelve launched the adept P
three program where they wanted to make messenger RNA therapeutics
or what they call countermeasures against respiratory viruses or pandemics.
And so they've been wanting to deploy this for a
(09:51):
long period of time and then you know, this situation
in twenty twenty gave them that chance easy.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
So it seems like they used the COVID pandemic as
an excuse to actually test it on the general public.
Am I correct saying.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
That, yes, that's correct. This was tested in animals before
it killed many of them.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
So I'm gonna ask you. I'm gonna ask you this, Nicholas,
and I'm going to be respectful. So please, if you
think I'm interrupt you just tell me to shut it
because I've I've watched one of the other interviews you're on.
It's like you almost couldn't get a word in and
I felt bad for you in that situation. I won't
say which one that was, but I want to start
going to some of these questions because you defined it
for us. Okay, so now we have a better understanding
of that, But there's there's something else is still still
(10:36):
a little fuzzy because before and this is something that
I read, So again, we only can believe what what
has been told to us to be the truth. Right,
That's why we rely on people like you. So it's
been said that before COVID that m RNA was like uh,
seen as a way to cure diseases actually and could
also you know, could be used as a way to
(10:57):
to cure maybe even all diseases. And and so the
question being is does that still have is that still
something that could be done with mRNA under the right circumstances,
and could it then also possibly use for curing cancer?
I mean, so I guess was it used in the
wrong context, you know, when it came to COVID, or
(11:19):
is there still something with mRNA that could be used
for positive and curing diseases and maybe even cancer? Is
that a truth or is that just a rumor or
a propaganda or why that was spread just to make
us accept it?
Speaker 2 (11:30):
Right? Well, I would see from the billions of doses
that were now injected a messenger RNA technology and the
catastrophe that has occurred, I would not trust this technology
to work optimally without major side effects for any disease unfortunately,
(11:51):
right we would think, okay, well cancer, Right, they're going
to be investigating it for cancer. They're going to be
investigating it for some genetic defects, you know, be investcuing
it for muscular dystrophee. But the problem is is that
the technology is so it's it's just it's not ready
for human use. It goes to every organ system, there's
(12:15):
no targeting mechanism and produces an unlimited, undefined amount of
antigen that it tells your body to make, and there's
no off switch, and so you basically just inject these
instructions for your entire body to start making foreign proteins. Now,
(12:36):
for cancer, they might instruct it to make non foreign proteins,
which maybe would have a less side of a profile.
But this technology has proven its failure for all infectious diseases. Now, yeah,
as they move on to cancer and these other things,
I don't have high hopes for it. And it's been
(12:59):
far too catastrophic in the harms we have detected now.
It has dysregulated the gene expression thousands of gene expressions.
Of recent study we just put out did find that
this will probably be the case with even cancer m
RNA vaccines. This will be the case when now they're
(13:21):
pushing AI generated cancer mRNA shots. It appears to just
be another fraud. You know, they like to push technology
even if it fails. They're making they make large loads
of money from it. And you know, I don't know,
maybe I'll be wrong, you know, maybe all of a sudden,
you know, they'll develop a cancer cure m RNA injection.
(13:43):
But on that one, right, yeah, you know that appears
to be a century away.
Speaker 1 (13:51):
Yeah, well, so I have what you said earlier leads
me into this. So uh, with with mRNA vaccines being pushed,
there has been evidence that the emin M or any
vaccine in relation to being used for COVID nineteen, there
is now evidence that it did lead to turbo cancers?
Is that something that is a real finding? Is that true?
Speaker 2 (14:15):
Yes, it's very real. Unlike what the media that's funded
by pharmaceutical giants likes to suggest, they suggest, they claim,
they don't suggest. They actually declare that turbo cancers are
a myth and they don't exist, right, So that's what
they say, But there's actually one hundred studies. A literature
(14:39):
review revealed this. One hundred studies show there's about seventeen
distinct mechanisms that these injections may cause or accelerate cancers.
And then a new study just came out peer reviewed.
First of all, there's palm doctor Merrick, and it defines
(15:00):
COVID nineteen mRNA injection induced turbo cancer. And so this
is what this is is. Literally, it's a cancer that
kind of accelerates uncharacteristically. It wasn't seen before the pandemic.
And then you have these cancers drastically spread at a
very high pace that is just not normal. And these
(15:23):
individuals unfortunately succumb to this cancer at a much faster
pace than a classical cancer that may have been caused,
you know, by an environmental factor, you know, long term
exposure to something. These injections usually you know, many of
these people will have a cancer, right, cancer in their body.
(15:45):
It's kind of been checked by their immune system, and
these injections go in disregulate immune function, cause immune collapse,
and then you have this this this proliferation of their
existing cancer into a full blown turbo cancer. And so
this is all biologically plausible. It's seen in the population
(16:06):
level data. We see somebody named ethical Skeptic. He does
very great analytical work with the CDC data. There's been
over one hundred thousand excess cancer deaths.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
And you can contribute that to this mRNA vaccine.
Speaker 2 (16:26):
Yes, this mRNA and spike specifically, actually the spike prototein Yeah,
spike protein that induces appears to be carcinogenic. It suppresses
tumor suppressor genes, so your body can't suppress them as well,
and it literally impairs immune function. It appears to induce
vaccine acquired immune deficiency or VADES. That's now evidenced by
(16:53):
hundreds of studies. And so, yeah, it's not good. It's
not good at all.
Speaker 1 (17:00):
And so what do you say those who were forced
to take this particular vaccine in order to keep their jobs,
and how how much more damage were they doing their bodies?
You know, in taking all these boosters, like six, seven,
eight nine boosters. You know, it isn't that evidence in
and of itself enough that this vaccine didn't even work.
Speaker 2 (17:22):
It's clear evidence it was not working. Right at first,
people claimed the first that regulatory agencies claimed you only
needed you know, one dose, I will just take one
dough are these two first doses the primary series? And
then all of a sudden they're like, oh, well, now
you're gonna need a booster. Oh, now you're gonna need
another booster. No, another one, another one, and it just
(17:44):
kept coming. And yeah, some people fell for this. They
were tricked or coerced by mandates or false public health
advice that was based on basically completely flawed data, basically
made up lies literally lies actually because they didn't know
(18:07):
that any of the true safety profile you need about
five to fifteen years for genetic products. So to those
individuals that that took many boosters, the best course of
action will be to take don't take any more boosters.
The more boosters you take, shown in a study by
Shresla and colleagues, means you have a higher risk of
(18:30):
infection per dose. Right, so if you get four doses,
you had like a three hundred percent increased risk of infection.
You know, one dose was was not nearly as hide.
So yeah, you want to refrain from booster doses for sure.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
So there were people, there were those who took these
m RNA vaccines who who feel that they well, they
felt worse, that they didn't actually feel better, and that
somehow it may have affected their insystem because you know,
all of a suddeny're getting sick. Much easier to getting
you know, like common colds and whatnot that are much
harder for them to get over. And you know, is
(19:10):
is that a side effect? Is that something that can
be confirmed to be a side effect of the mRNA?
And the other part to this question is how can
someone reverse the damage of the mRNA in the vaccine?
Like how can their body get rid of these mRNAs?
Speaker 2 (19:31):
Yeah, so let's go post vaccination syndrome or long vaccine syndrome.
It's similar to long COVID, but it's induced by the vaccine,
and so it appears to be much worse and longer
lasting than long COVID. But yeah, so it appears that
many of the symptoms from that stem from the spike protein,
(19:56):
this toxic protein circulating in the body, causing micro clotting
and so your blood not circulating properly and many other
different issues. And so if you have this high burden
of this toxic spike protein, you're gonna want to clear
that out or at least help the body clear it out,
because our body does not have any innate clearing mechanisms
(20:18):
to get it out. And so at the McCullough Foundation,
we identified three compounds. We do have a peer reviewed
study published on this three compounds nantokinase, bromolane, and curcumin,
and these have shown in the test tube experimentally and
(20:39):
in case reports to clear out the spike induced clots
and even degrade the spike protein directly. And so that's
what we have so far. That's what doctor mccalluugh recommends
to his patients who do have high levels of spike
an your bodies. Which is the way of measuring it now,
so that just let's go to that now to know
(21:02):
what your spike protein burden is is right now, we
do use antibody testing as a proxy, and so usually
you know, if you're over a thousand, then there are
some risks and you know you're likely either exposed to
COVID or you know, you got the vaccine, and usually
those with the vaccine. Another study came out, and there's
(21:26):
a lot of studies coming out. Another study that came
out that showed vaccinated individuals have seven times higher spike
antibodies compared to those who just got the infection, so
it installs much more spike and so yeah, clearing these
out is critical that mccullo protocol based spike detaxification does
(21:48):
appear to be a promising method. We do need to
undergo long term clinical trials double blind, facebo controlled to
really assess its efficacy, but we don't we don't right now.
Eighty percent of actually no not eighty percent, eighty percent
(22:09):
got the m RNA shots. Ninety nine percent of the
population has been exposed to these synthetic SARS Kobe two
spike protein, either from the infection or from the injections.
So the entire population was poisoned. And so we need
to find answers as soon as possible, and we cannot
(22:29):
wait years, you know, for these clinical trials, so you know,
we do have to scramble for these solutions. And one
other thing for those who you know, feel terrible after
their their MRRNA shot, they don't feel better. There's one
key thing that needs to happen is you have to
raise your vitamin D levels to adequate levels. Most are low.
(22:53):
There's two studies now that you when you raise those
vitamin D levels, it actually reduced or improves your symptoms
if you have post vaccination syndrome, and that was one
study and the other one found it decreases severity of myocarditis.
So what you really want to do is get sunlight
(23:13):
right to raise those levels because you get all the
other benefits of sunlight, thousands of them. Improves you know,
cellular function, improves, mitochondrial function. So you want to get
sunlight as your form of vitamin D if you can.
But that is absolutely critical, right if you're not doing anything,
you want to pick one thing that is something that
(23:36):
is highly recommended.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
Let's let's talk about the other concerns of m RNA
and specifically how it affects hers food supply. You know,
and there's a lot of questions ask to whether or
not mRNA is transferable. So you know, it's been used
in various vaccines, you know, specifically in our meat supply.
So is that m RNA transferable? Like will it transfer
(23:58):
to humans who are consuming this meat? Is that something
that has been studied? Is that something that can happen
and is it something that we should be cautious of
or look out for.
Speaker 2 (24:13):
This is completely unknown at this point because it's never
been tested. But you would think they would test it
right before they do such foolish things like this, But
they don't test it, so we don't know. But you know,
I think it would be hard for the lipana particles
and mRNA constructs to survive the cooking process. But again
(24:36):
we don't know now since if these animals were injected
with mRNA, they will be producing these toxic antigens, and
so you would be consuming these toxic antigens. And you know,
there is still a possibility though that yes, as mRNA
could reach your circulation. We just have no idea. This
has to be immediately tested. Now, what's most concerning about
(24:59):
the injection of animals is the self amplifying RNA particle
injections by merk. They are already rolled this out. It's
being given by vets all across the country to dogs
and cats for various viruses, the most prominent one including rabies.
(25:20):
Right they recommend rabies vaccinations to basically all animals. And
so now they have a self amplifying RNA one and
this one could most definitely shed onto human owners as
it self replicates in your cat or dog and they
come and lick you or you know you're exposed to
they're bodily fluids. This can probably you know, reach your
(25:44):
circulation and then the self amplifying RNA will end up
in your body and maybe even up taken into your
cells and you will you will then also be producing
rabies antigens, and so this, this is this is an
absolute catastrope fee that has to be stopped.
Speaker 1 (26:03):
Okay, so let's let's touch on the viral shedding. How
exactly can the mRNA vaccine. For example, let's say like
a kid got the mRNA vaccine and they're around other people,
So so how can that be transferred to other people
through viral shedding? Like, how does that happen?
Speaker 2 (26:27):
Yes, yes, it's a study by Sue Peters and colleagues
that found women in close unvaccinated women in close proximity
to vaccinated individuals outside of the household did experience an
increase in menstrual cycle abnormalities, heavier bleeding period delays, et cetera.
(26:48):
They experienced these increase risks when they reported they were
within six feet of these vaccinated individuals outside of the household.
So that that's all we have really for shedding studies.
They haven't really bothered to conduct anything else. But we
do know that the mRNA technology does disrupt menstrual cycles.
(27:11):
And so when we see unvaccinated women experiencing these who
are in proximity to the vaccinated. That does indicate shedding
is indeed real, and it appears to be the case biologically.
It makes sense because this so likely what shedding is
(27:31):
actually this spike protein and what's called exisomes. Right, the
body appears to encapsulate the spike protein in these hexisomes
and these can likely be exhaled in breath, you know,
in saliva during sexual intercourse. This may be able to transmit. Now,
the mRNA has been found in breast milk and so
(27:54):
you know, for babies, for moms that are breastfeeding, this
mRNA may be able to transfer for two of the
baby via breast milk, and so there's many different routes
of transmission, it appears. But again, no real study has
been conducted on this. They just continue to ignore it.
Speaker 1 (28:13):
Okay, So regarding women, there's been there's been reports. I'm
not sure if these are verified or not. But how
does m r and error. Can mRNA affect a woman's
ability to become pregnant? How does it affect their decision
making and whether or not they should consider an mr
(28:34):
an a vaccine or just not get an mr an
a vaccine if they're planning to have a child.
Speaker 2 (28:41):
Yeah, if you want a child, do not, do not,
do not take in mRNA injection. It is very bad.
We now have two new studies, recent studies that have
come out. The first one was in rats. But what
happened was they injected the rats with mRNA shots and
(29:02):
it literally wiped out sixty percent of their premrdio follicles.
So this is the egg supply woman, that's non renewable.
It's that base layer they're born with. They don't get
any more premrdio follicles. The mRNA shots wipe out sixty
percent of those. Right, So, yes, this was in rants. Okay,
but it doesn't matter. This is a living animal and
(29:25):
these injections are clearly extraordinarily toxic to the reproductive system.
So well, you might be thinking, well, as are human data. Well, yeah,
there is another recent study came out is peer reviewed
by managing colleagues. They found among one point three million
one point three million women, they found that there was
(29:48):
a thirty three percent reduction and successful conception rate, so
thirty three percent reduction and successful pregnancies in vaccinated women
compared to the unvaccinated population. So we are seeing this
in humans as well. So yeah, and then we have
so many other studies that you are risks during pregnancy.
(30:11):
Study by Thorpe ed l found, you know, so many
different safety signals looking at the various system for pregnancy,
including miscarriage, you know, malformations, you know, all sorts of
issues during pregnancy as well. And we do also know
(30:32):
another study came out of that found the mRNA does
transfer through the placenta of pregnant women, does transfer into
the baby. And so if you are pregnant you receive these,
the baby will uptake peiser maderna modified RNA, and it
will be producing these toxic proteins unfortunately, And so yeah,
(30:57):
these are not safe for reproductive health whatsoever.
Speaker 1 (31:03):
Thank you for answering those questions that my friends and
colleagues and uh if my wife had regarding mRNA and
how it may transfer or affect affect humans or affect
all of us. But now now let's get to the
questions that I that I am personally really really interested
in terms of the COVID response. So, you know, with
(31:26):
everything being said about mRNA and how it was not tested,
how it's it has not been proven, can you shed
any light on the organizations that were actually behind and
pushing this mRNA vaccine during the pandemic, even though that
it wasn't tested on humans, and they and they more
(31:47):
than likely knew that it was not going to be effective.
Can you tell us who was behind pushing this vaccine,
the mRNA vaccine during the pandemic, during the COVID pandemic,
and do you know for sure which companies were behind this?
Speaker 2 (32:06):
Yeah, so there was many organizations involved. We have identified
what's called the biopharmaceutical complex. It's a conglomerate of regulatory agencies,
pharmaceutical companies, governments, and NGOs, these large nonprofit organizations. And
it appears that this conglomerate is central to the approval
(32:29):
of this right. So the major nonprofits include, you know,
the Gates Foundation. You know, we have organizations like the
World Economic Form, we have the Rockefeller Foundation, we have
many of these foundations. We have the World Health Organization,
we have GAVY, the Global Vaccine Alliance, we have we
(32:52):
have SEPI, the Center of Epidemic Preparedness and Innovation. We
have all these organizations that have been pushing this mr
and a platform since this inception, funding their development, funding
new mRNA injections, funding their distribution doing all these key
(33:13):
critical things, and you think, well, why did they do this? Right,
why did they do this? Why did the Gates Foundation,
who literally thinks there's too many people on earth and
wants to reduce population. Why would they care about saving
people when they think we need to reduce the population.
You know, that makes zero logical sense that they would
(33:35):
want to actually, you know, save people. You know, it
literally doesn't make any sense. So why would they be
very much invested in this technology? Well, you know, it
appears and actually a large proportion of countries around the
world deploy what's called population control policies or population control
(34:00):
operations where they actually you know, employee policies to reduce
population growth because they think they have too many people.
You know, this is real, right for anybody who doesn't
believe this, you know, this is what countries do. We
have China doing it, and we have many other countries
doing it. And so this population control operations appears to
(34:27):
have made its way into a global, a global push
for with these m R and A injections. Because now
that we know what it does to fertility, now that
we know what it does to birth rates, we are
very very concerned that part of the purpose of this
rollout may have been a population control related.
Speaker 1 (34:52):
So with that being said, and you don't have the
answers because I don't put it on the spot, but
how how do you feel as an epidemiologist that the
COVID response was handled at that time? And you know,
and with that being said, also like, how how do
(35:15):
you feel about Fauci and how he handled that response,
because you know, he was largely responsible for the push
for the push to get this uh these m RNY
vaccines out there into the public, and from what I understand,
he even had a patent on his own at the
time or maybe he still does. Maybe incorrect me if
(35:36):
I'm wrong there, but you know, as an epidemiologist, what
is what is your thoughts on Fauci and how he
handled things? And you know, I don't know maybe if
there is anything that you would have done differently, but
what is what is your thoughts on Fauci?
Speaker 2 (35:52):
Fauci. Fauci has done many things that have broken the law.
And we'll just say, you know, obviously lied about gain
of function research, lied on their oath, He's facing perjury investigations,
you know, all that stuff. But we're regarding the COVID
(36:13):
pandemic response. You know, he advocated for lockdowns, for the
closure of all the schools. He told us the mRNA
injections would we're ninety nine percent effective. He told us
we wouldn't get COVID with these injections. And so what
(36:34):
appears to have happened is as the figurehead for the
pandemic response, uh, he flat out lied to the entire
population of these injections and while also pushing completely flawed
pandemic response policies such as lockdowns and masking mask mandates
(36:59):
and all the nonsense. And so he the fact that
he's still walking free from any persecution is quite shocking, right,
because you have his involvement in with the Wuhan lab
and creation of Sara's Kovie two itself, as well as
the mRNA injections. I mean this, this, this is very
(37:23):
bad stuff, right, This, This isn't something that most people
could kind of walk around free after doing. And so
what's now happened here in America is the Buyer's Law
Group has actually filed criminal referral requests in seven different
states against Anthony Fauci and many other public health officials
(37:48):
for they're accusing them of murder, terrorism, abuse, racketeering, fraud,
for for their actions and policies implemented during the pandemic,
including these hospital protocols, suppression of early treatment and all
(38:12):
these things. And so there's there's just so many things
to unpeck with the pandemic response, but many of it.
I think accountability is now. You know, people are calling
for accountability, if specifically Fauci, but I don't know. We'll
just have to wait and see.
Speaker 1 (38:31):
Right, So, how how would you I mean you as
an epidemiologist, you and your peers. How It's always easy
to look back and say I would have done it
this way, But how how should you? How should it
have been handled? How do you think we should have
handled that?
Speaker 2 (38:49):
Well? First of all, or should not have been lockdowns?
There should not have been any lockdowns. That that caused
the men's harm just by itself, right, because you people
at home isolated, right, They weren't interacting with their friends,
they weren't learning at school. They were just stuck at
(39:10):
home on a computer looking at a screen. This was
disastrous for the mental health aspect of the population as
well as the economic aspect. It decimated small businesses. It
was just it was horrible and it didn't prevent anything, right,
(39:31):
I mean it didn't. Lockdowns will not stop anything from
happening unless you keep something lockdown forever, right, and that
doesn't happen. Any pathogen will always find its way in.
You might be able to delay it with the lockdown,
but that's it, right Once, once you lift these restrictions,
it's gonna come pouring in. So they're absolutely useless, absolutely useless,
(39:55):
you know, unless there is a zombie outbreak. Okay, fine,
I get that. There's rumors of that too, though what
was that.
Speaker 1 (40:03):
I said, there's rumors of that too though?
Speaker 2 (40:05):
Oh yeah, exactly. You know, honestly, they've probably developed pathogens
and laboratories that could induce some be like behavior and people.
That would not surprise me one bit because there are
thousands of these laboratories that are manipulating pathogens and we
don't know what's in many of these labs at all.
Speaker 1 (40:27):
So I know, I know, we don't have a ton
more time as we go on, but you know what
you're saying, really it makes me ask this question here
when when when you're talking about the public health community
and we're talking about other epidemiologists. Why hasn't there been
more people coming together to stand up against this and
(40:50):
go after bad actors like Fauci for example. And I'm
only using Fauci's name because he's the most recognizable, you know,
I'm not trying to just zero in on him. But
why why aren't there more p people coming out and
speaking out against these bad actors that have these very
bad intentions and how to handle the population, and how
to handle vaccines too, which I got another question for
(41:13):
you on that, But but what do you think of that?
Why are there not more people come together and really
chastising and saying no, that's bad, This is not how
they're supposed to be and there does have to be
justice administered based on their actions. They should be held accountable.
Why are there not more people stepping up?
Speaker 2 (41:28):
Right? I think they're One of the reasons is people
have just been demoralized, right, I mean, we've been hit
with so many things down in the past five years.
We've called for the removal of these shots, we've called
for accountability, we've called for this and for that, and
you know it has led to nothing. Right, the n
R and H shots are still on the market. Right,
(41:50):
these people are still running around free. I mean, Faci's
running around free. You have to clearly, clearly lying to Congress.
I mean you only need one brains. Kindergartener could tell
you if they saw his statements here and his statements
to Congress here, a kindergartener would tell you, yeah, he
broke the law. And they don't face any accountability. So
(42:12):
people are just tired. They're like, okay, they're never going
to face it, and it's it's a sort of fatigue.
It appears that has incurred, and people just don't they
don't want to talk about it anymore. You know, they've
been demoralized and you know, and you know, to change that,
you know, I think what would would turn the tide
(42:36):
would be, you know, finally, at least one little drip
of accountability. Right if finally, yeah, just something happens, something
fau chief, just for perjury, even though he's accused of
of you know, many other crimes, at least one thing,
And I think that would ignite a spark where people
(42:57):
would finally, you know, rise up again and start to
call for true accountability. Okay, So so.
Speaker 1 (43:03):
With that i'd lie to I have two questions because
you're sparking, sparking some you know, making the hamster run
up here. So uh, let's let's talk about let's talk
about this and and with the new Trump administration, RFK
Junior at the HELM here at Health and Human Services, right,
do you think vaccine efficacy and how they're handled and
(43:27):
and standards of testing will improve or or has a
lot of this just been window dressing or theater, you know,
just to get support and likes and whatever the hell
it is that they need to to look good to
the public. Is do you see a change, uh from
from your perspective and and and through your work, have
you seen a change with this new administration and how
(43:47):
vaccines are handled and the standards.
Speaker 2 (43:52):
You know, most of what's happened so far seems to
have been hindered by you know, political games. Right. Yeah,
it does appear that most of this is you know,
not enough actions being taken, not enough research is being initiated.
(44:12):
It appears that you know, they're they're staying in the
bounds of what they think they can do politically. And
so yeah, you know, at my level, you know, we're
still researching the m RNA arms. We're uncovering crazy things
that we would never have thought we would have uncovered.
And the federal government hasn't done a thing, right, I
(44:34):
mean we're sitting here. They've been there for many, many months,
this new administration. We have not seen anything. We haven't
seen them develop a test to look for genomic integration
of spiking people. We haven't seen them develop therapeutics to
help them millions of injured. We haven't seen anything tangible.
(44:54):
We still see mRNA shots being allowed to be given
to six month old infants.
Speaker 1 (45:01):
But you know, with that being said, Nicholas, what do
you what do you think about them trying to mandate
these COVID m RNA vaccines to children attending school like
it's supposed to be now a part of the regiment.
I don't know if it passed, because like the new
second was so fast. I hear these things. I haven't
confirmed it because I've been talking to so many other
people with different issues. Is that a thing that has passed?
(45:23):
And what's your thoughts on it?
Speaker 2 (45:25):
Yeah? So there there are I believe there are some
states that were trying to pass that, and federally they
did have the m r and A shots and the
recommended vaccination schedule, but some schools actually did mandate it
for attendance. Most of that appears to have gone away,
(45:47):
you know, most schools, most places, you won't need an
m R and a injection to attend anymore. But regardless,
So actually in May, RFK did issue a directive to
stop recommending him to healthy you know, little babies and
healthy bregnant women. He did so, he did try at
(46:10):
least do something, but it appears like he can't really
do anything. Right. He did that, but you know, they're
still on the childhood schedule. All the CDC did was
put a note that says, talk to your healthcare provider.
And then many of these healthcare providers are under mass psychosis.
Still they will still be administering these gene therapies to infants. So,
(46:32):
you know, we're in such a bad situation right now.
It appears that whoever, honestly, whoever was HHS secretary really
couldn't have couldn't really do anything. We know RFK though,
based on his you know, decades of what he'd spoken about,
we know he knows these are bad and dangerous and deadly.
Even even many of the childhood vaccines are dangerous. We
(46:56):
know he knows that, but you know, he can only
it appears he can only do so much as Ajh's secretary,
and within an administration that still does like MRINA technology,
he cannot act like a king. It appears as we
wanted him to. Right.
Speaker 1 (47:17):
So, but you know, what you're saying is what's what's
sad when people feared is still politics before people. You know,
it's it's back to our relationships before the public. And
that's what we don't want to hear. That's not what
we're expecting. And I'm not trying to make this political.
But you know, with the change of the guard, with
a new administration who ran on, hey, we're going to
take care of this. We're going to look into what
happened during COVID. We know that there's issues with these vaccines,
(47:39):
and we're going to get right on top of it.
RFK Junior. That is exactly what he said the whole time,
for many years, even before he came over to Trump's side.
And it's not it's it's not a partisan because he's
still a Democrat. So we can't we can't pin this
on Republican for Zimprant. There's something else going on that's
stopping them from making them move and changing things. So
it's good to hear what you saying, because from your
(48:00):
perspective and working on the other side of things, you know,
you're doing these studies and you're like, yeah, but based
on this, why are we still doing this? Like this
doesn't make any sense. You know, you actually have studies
that show there is harm, and yet there's nothing being
done for the betterment of society outside of maybe implementing
the policies and plans that you said earlier, which maybe
(48:21):
this is just about population control. I don't know one
more question for it. And this has to do with newborns.
And this is something that I've always wondered. Does a
newborn really need the plethora of vaccines that is administered
as soon as they're born?
Speaker 2 (48:37):
Short answer, no, No. A human baby that is just
you know, been born, enters this world, does not need
merk and a phizer and and does not need pharmaceutical
injections in their bloodstream when they're born. They just don't.
(49:00):
It's dangerous. Actually, now they've they're the CDC's being sued
for pushing an illegal and unconstitutional seventy two dose hyper
vaccination schedule.
Speaker 1 (49:13):
Seventy two doses.
Speaker 2 (49:14):
Yep, it's about seventy two doses from birth to eighteen.
And so, yeah, none of this was tested in combination.
Nobody knows the safety profile when you give them together.
It's it's completely unknown. And so so.
Speaker 1 (49:32):
Aside from just seventy two, they didn't even do any
studies to see how they would interact with each other, these.
Speaker 2 (49:36):
Vaccines, No, none, what, Yeah, they just assume. Yeah, they've
gotten away with it for some time. Nobody's questioned it,
and they've just got gotten away and it's been fine.
And so now that people are aware that this is
the case, they're in a lot of they're going to
face a lot of public backs.
Speaker 1 (49:56):
And these pharmaceutical companies due to all these deals, like
you can't them accountable and you know what clause? Do
you know what why that is? Like what clause there is?
And the justification for that, like why can't we hold
them accountable? They nineteen put together you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 2 (50:13):
Yeah, Yeah, the nineteen eighty six National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Act that once that was implemented, that gave pharma companies
liability protection, complete liability protection from vaccine injury from their products.
So that's why you see before nineteen eighty six there
(50:34):
is only about seven vaccines given to kids, right, you
didn't see that many autistic kids, and you didn't see
many profound just autism cases where they needed you know,
toilet assistance, et cetera. And then after nineteen eighty six,
when they got these shields from liability, you see the
(50:55):
dose number skyrocket, you know, into space, and they start
deploying so many different types of vaccines where every virus
they can think of, and they don't face any accountability
due to this act. Now, Representative Representative ghosts Are has
introduced legislation to try and repeal this and finally allow
(51:20):
people to sue vaccine companies when they're injured. And so
there are legislative efforts underway, thankfully to reverse this.
Speaker 1 (51:30):
I know that's been happening in Europe. There have been
cases they've been going after these vaccine or pharmaceutical companies
for harm, and really we really haven't been doing it
in the USA quite yet. So yeah, it's a really
sad thing. The vaccines in general. You know, like I said,
we don't need so many seventy seventy two vaccine schedule
(51:51):
you know, from birth through through eighteen is insane. I
don't understand. I don't understand that. And they're not even
testing how they interact with each other either, Like and
that's the one thing, you know, watching the clockier. So
you just you just had you just you know, initiated
another another very important question, because this is something that's
(52:11):
come up in the past, autism. So is there verifiable
studies that links vaccines or the amount of vaccines and
their interactions to autism? And if so, why are we
not hearing about these?
Speaker 2 (52:26):
Yeah, there's, uh, there's over ten studies that do find
an association between vaccines and autism. The most recent ones
by Mossen and colleagues. It was over you know, forty
thousand Medicaid recipients and they found, you know, they found
pretty large increases in risk and those that received childhood
(52:51):
vaccines compared to the unvaccinated children for many different neurodevelopmental disorders,
not just autism, but ticks to as well as ADHD. Right,
And so we do have evidence of it, and you know,
HHS says there's gonna be a report coming out, you know,
in September or October where they're gonna see where they're
(53:15):
gonna tell us if they found an association. I don't know,
you know what what they're gonna come out with. But
here the McCollough Foundation, we are actually doing our own
comprehensive study on this link between vaccination and autism and
hopefully that'll be completed within the next few months here
as well. And so, yeah, there's been many studies documenting
(53:37):
and association. I mean you can find all of them
on our substick Thefocalpoints dot com. We do report on them.
And yeah, this cannot be ruled out.
Speaker 1 (53:48):
It's always it verifiable yet though, as you know, like
there's been studies, but has has has been verified that
it is an actual link between autism and these vaccines.
Speaker 2 (53:58):
An actual causal link has yet to be defined. Now
in the attacking you know, now it appears that it's
definitely you know, it can indeed induce autism and people,
but I guess as an epidemiologist, we can't say based
on the studies there that there's a causal link yet.
(54:19):
But yeah, I mean, you have these parents they go
and get you know, they go and get their child
MMR and then they bring them home and then they
have seizures and then they're never the same sense. You know,
we have so many cases of this, and so yeah,
when you inject toxins, large numbers of toxins, neurotaxins, aluminum,
(54:40):
and you hyperactivate the immused system and you cause seizures,
feberal seizures, and brain damage, it's not unexpected that you'll
see these neurodevelopmental disorders.
Speaker 1 (54:51):
So, with all this being said, how can the public
once again trust vaccines? Because there are good vaccines, They're
vaccines that are proven to have work. Or do you,
in your opinion, are there any vaccines like are all
vaccines kind of bad in their own way? Do they all?
Do they all have a side effect? Or are there
really like, hey, no, there was good ones and we
should use those and have them administered. So if that's
(55:15):
the case, then how do we get the public to
trust these type of vaccines that have been proven and
trust vaccination in general?
Speaker 2 (55:24):
Right? Well, yeah, some vaccines you know, could have contributed
to the reduction in some infectious diseases, but actually many
of the reductions and infectious disease over the past one
hundred years we're due to improvements and sanitation and care
and you know, some of it is contributed to some
(55:46):
of these vaccinations. But the thing I want to say
is none of the current child vaccines were actually properly
safety tested, is the thing? Right, So none of them
undergone long term placebo controlled trials. You know, the follow
up time is ranges from about two days for a
(56:08):
lot of these vaccines in these studies to a few months.
But yeah, none of them have followed these children long
term after administration. And again none of them have been
tested in combination, so we actually do not know the
full true safety profile of these vaccines.
Speaker 1 (56:27):
And so you know, or how for how long Nicholas,
should these vaccines be tested? Like what's the length of
time that they should be doing this study to determine
the long term effects of the vaccines when they're about
to put out a new one or test?
Speaker 2 (56:42):
Yeah, they should be following these children in these studies
for years, right, they can.
Speaker 1 (56:46):
Write like three years, five years, Like what do you recommend?
Speaker 2 (56:50):
The longer the better? Right, they should keep record of
these children in these studies and then you know, follow
keep them on record for about ten years, that would
be very and then they can publish another study in
about ten years documenting, documenting what happened to these children,
but they don't. They just kind of lose track of them.
All right, two days, you know, we don't care what
(57:11):
happens to them after that. That's what's happened. And so
we just don't know what's happening to these children.
Speaker 1 (57:18):
And for how long has that been going on?
Speaker 2 (57:21):
Forever?
Speaker 1 (57:23):
Really since the beginning of time?
Speaker 2 (57:25):
Yeah? Yeah, I mean they first, the first vaccines were
just injecting, like taking some somebody's smallpox lesion and taking
material out of that and then injecting that lesion material
into somebody else. So that's what they were used to
be doing. And yeah, now obviously that's changed.
Speaker 1 (57:44):
But right, I guess my question is like, for how
long has this been going on where they weren't doing
long term studies on these vaccinations?
Speaker 2 (57:53):
Yeah, well, for all the vaccines now on the market,
none of them, none of them.
Speaker 1 (57:59):
There's not any how can we give a defined date
like since nineteen eighty eight ninety or is there a
certain lists of vaccines, like certain vaccines themselves that are
kind of fall into that category of not being properly tested.
Speaker 2 (58:17):
I'm telling you there's a list.
Speaker 1 (58:19):
I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I'm
just wondering if it's if there's something we could reference
so that anybody who's watching, like if they did want
to do this research, they can go, oh, okay, there's
there's this list that I can look at. And you know,
these certain vaccines, for example, they haven't been tested long enough.
We've been out there long enough to really determine whether
they're effective or what side effects they have. So that's
that's what I'm trying to get out of you. I'm
(58:39):
not trying to, you know, put you in a corner here.
Speaker 2 (58:42):
Yeah, no, No, The list is on the Informed Consent
Action Network. They go to their website. They have a
list of all the vaccines and it shows you how
long did they follow them up for was there a
placebo group? And you'll see the list. It's all red
red boxes, which means they weren't adequate. And so that's
what's happened with all of these now again in the past.
(59:05):
You know, it's like I guess in the sixties, seventies,
you know, I don't know, honestly, I don't know if
those were long term or not. But you know that
doesn't matter at this point because the current ones being
administered to everybody are not right, and so we just yeah,
we just have to.
Speaker 1 (59:23):
Name that website again. Nick was the name of that again.
Speaker 2 (59:25):
Nicolas informed Consent Action Network. I can if you look
at ic A N, it should show up. And they
do have a chart on their website that shows you
know what's happened. I believe they actually they sued the
FDA for some stuff. You know, they're they're a pretty
pretty good decent organization. Huh.
Speaker 1 (59:46):
Interesting, Well, I think we're getting to the end of
your time with me, So won't you tell everybody about
the foundation where they can find more information about you,
the studies, et cetera.
Speaker 2 (59:59):
Yes, yes, you can follow me on x AT and
I see houlture. I will be posting basically every day.
That's where all that you'll find all the breaking stuff,
but in detail. If you want to see all these
studies in detail and a full breakdown of them, you
have to go to our substack vfocalpoints dot com and
(01:00:19):
you will find it all there. You'll see doctor mccollough's posts,
author John Leak's posts. That's the place to go as well,
and for all one more thing V McCullough Foundation mccaullaugh
fn D dot com.
Speaker 1 (01:00:34):
You got your cat there again.
Speaker 2 (01:00:36):
Yeah, McCall sorry, mccallaugh FND dot org. That's how you
can visit the McCullough Foundation. You'll see our operations what
we kind of do on a daily basis, and we
do need support, right, We do operate on donations and contributions,
so you know, if you want to support our research,
(01:00:57):
We've published over twenty scientific studies in the past years
exposing the harms of these shots where the government failed
to do so, we're doing research on treatment protocols, We're
doing all this stuff. So yeah, if you want to,
you know, consider supporting our work, please visit the website
McCalla F and D dot org.
Speaker 1 (01:01:17):
Awesome. Thank you for your time and the information, and
you know, hopefully we can stay in touch. I do
want to possibly have you on again down the road
as things develop, but again, thanks for timing. You're super
busy and I really appreciate everything that you've had said.
Thanks for having me, Yes, sir, thank you. Nicholas do
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.