What if everything we were told about COVID-19 was completely wrong?

0:00Music Mainstream media has betrayed our trust. Rather than tell us the whole story about the important issues of the day, they tell us only what they want us to hear. Your hosts, Tom Harris and Todd Royal will bring you the other side of the story. Music If there's one thing that we've learned over the past decade, it's that you simply cannot rely on or trust the government or press to tell you the truth about any issue that involves a great deal of money. Todd and I have regular discuss this on the program about how the climate scare has been blown completely out of proportion largely because of vested interest in mainstream media, the ulterior motives of political actors, and yes, the huge amount of money involved. Over five billion US dollars a day is being spent on climate finance around the

1:01world, according to the San Francisco-based climate policy initiative. By the way, I think it should be much, much more. Now it appears that COVID-19 and the government's massively expensive and restrictive response to the so-called pandemic is yet another example of gross mismanagement that actually hurt millions of people far more than the virus ever could have. Professor Ari Jaffee of the University of Alberta warned of essentially that in a paper he published back in February 2021 in which he said, quote, a cost-benefit analysis of the response to COVID-19 finds that lockdowns are far more harmful to public health, at least five to ten times more so in terms of well-being years than COVID-19 can be. Now I sent Dr. Jaffee's paper all over, but governments proceeded with extreme lockdowns anyways and told us that the new injections were the solution to the pandemic. In fact, in Canada, our political leaders at the federal level

2:03all stood in a row on television and said, get the job, which may be very suspicious right away. But what if the injections caused more problems than they solved? And even more fundamentally, what if the whole COVID-19 pandemic narrative was completely flawed in the first place? And what if the last thing we should do is lock down society and Professor Jaffee was right? I mean, cease. So in October of 2025, a report was published that was titled, did the COVID-19 vaccine save millions of lives in the USA? Quantitative Assessment of Published Claims. This work was published by two Ottawa Canada-based physicists, Dr. Denny Arancourt and Dr. Joseph Hickey. The latter being our guest today, Dr. Joseph's our guest again. Dr. Hickey is a data scientist with a PhD in physics specialized in complexity theory. After completing his doctorate in physics at the University of Calgary, he worked as a data scientist at the Bank of Canada and completed a post-doctoral

3:05fellowship at the University of Ducaybaek at Tuarivere. He's now president and associate researcher at Correlation Research in the public interest, a registered not-for-profit corporation based in Ottawa, Canada. So welcome to the show again, Joseph. It's great to have you back. Hi, Tom. So what was it that prompted you to investigate the COVID-19 injection and access mortality issue in the first place? Yes. Well, this is something we've been working on for a number of years now with our not-for-profit organization Correlation Research in the public interest. And we have spent a lot of time studying excess mortality during the COVID period because the all-cause mortality data is very robust data. It's the hardest evidence that you can have about events where many people die. And you can be very confident in the quality of that data and that you can use it. And you can compare jurisdictions from

4:08one geographical area to the next, what has happened, and how the mortality data has evolved over time, even at a high frequency, like weekly or even in some places, daily death, tabulation data. And governments have been doing this for a long time, especially in the west. And the data is very available. So it's really the first thing to look at to analyze and start to come to grips with what really happened during this period. And we discussed last time how you lost your position because you wouldn't get the injection. And by the way, I couldn't go to a number of conferences that would have paid me quite well in the United States because I didn't take it. So you and I both have a personal interest in this. And so yeah, it must have been driven partly by your own circumstance. Oh, yes. Well, certainly. And, you know, I don't think there's anyone who was not affected by the whole COVID era in very serious ways in one way or

5:13another. And our research, you know, it points to that there's no evidence that there was a spreading novel pathogen that would have caused the mortality in this period, this event, these years from 2020 to 2023 of the declared pandemic. Rather, what it is is its signature in the mortality data of excess mortality that can happen in some locations, but not in others, not neighboring locations. We discussed this a bit last time. For example, Milan in the north of Italy is a place that had enormous excess mortality in the first months of the declared pandemic in 2020, whereas Rome in the same country in Italy, same size city receives just as many if not more flights from China and East Asia had essentially zero excess mortality at that same time. And so what it comes down to is it's how people were treated in hospitals during the panicked time of COVID. And our research

6:16is pointing toward is that the lockdown measures and the public health measures, including the vaccine rollouts and everything that comes with that because there's testing regimes that go with that. And and then you isolate people and all of these these measures were severe and imposed a state of heightened biological stress on populations. And when when you do that, you're going to be affecting pockets of very vulnerable people in the society in a very severe way. And they become very vulnerable to infections that they might normally fight off. And this includes bacterial infections that take the form of pneumonia and so the respiratory. You know, after studying this in a lot of detail in many countries around the world, this this mortality data, we have come to the view that the large excess mortality in the COVID period is due to the assault that was applied to the population by the governments in imposing the public health measures via the mechanism

7:20especially of biological stress allowing bacterial pneumonia to kill a lot of people, especially the most vulnerable people that so you have to realize that in any society, some more much more than others, there are always pockets of very vulnerable people. Yeah, so just so that we have things clear, what is excess mortality in this case? Yeah, so excess mortality is the number of deaths that's beyond what you would expect for that location in that time. So it could be for a given week or it could be over several months or over a year, you choose a time period, and then you have to have a way of estimating what the mortality should be and under normal circumstances or that place in that time period. And then you compare the number of deaths that actually occurred. You take the difference of those two things so the number of deaths that actually occurred and the number that you expect to occur, and that gives you the excess mortality. You can also have a deficit if it happens to be that there's less mortality than expected. That would be a negative excess, but

8:20during COVID, the period of COVID, there's large excess mortality in some places, and essentially no excess mortality in other places. And that's part of the story that we show in our research reports. Yeah, it's interesting Dr. J. Lair who was my co-host on this show for a long time. He actually said that in the case of Fukushima, a similar thing happened. The government overreacted and they were moving people from hospitals and emergency rooms and elderly homes, and they had a significant excess mortality, but he said that was caused because they overreacted and moved people. They didn't have to move. So you know, this is not that uncommon. Is it the government overreacts? That's very interesting that that would be something to look into more indeed, if you apply a life-changing stress to people, especially if they're in a vulnerable health state, then you can have potentially excess mortality, yes. Yeah, exactly. Now it's interesting that the question is to whether it was actually a pandemic.

9:20I mean, that's a pretty important question, isn't it? Absolutely, it's central. And actually, when you take a step back and you look at the declared influenza pandemics of the last century, they are all actually not events that have significant excess mortality. These are not remarkable events when you study the all-cause mortality. The only one that's an exception is the so-called Spanish flu at the end of World War I, so a little more than a hundred years ago now. The people who died were the younger population, whereas you would expect from an influenza pandemic, it would be the older part of the population that would be dying in excess. So that is something that just doesn't square with this idea of viral respiratory pandemic. It's more bacterial pneumonia, for a population that's under a high degree of biological stress, and the most vulnerable among them succumbing to the respiratory illness,

10:20but that's more bacterial in origin. Was it a bacterial pneumonia? I don't know the terminology. Well, that's what we think. We think that due to the biological stress imposed on people, the bacterial pathogens that are always present, people would have got sick from that, essentially. And there's even something called self-infection. It's that bacteria that are present in your own biome and in your own body, you can infect yourself with them. And you don't even need a mechanism of contagion to have a large wave of death under these circumstances. So to list the characteristics that would define something as a pandemic, one of them is that it's not likely to be the young that are most affected. Is that right? That's number one, I guess. Well, it could be the very young or the very old, but normally be what you would expect. Yeah. So what are other characteristics of the pandemic that this COVID-19 thing doesn't match? You would expect spread in space and time of infections or of deaths from infections.

11:28And so instead, what you see is jurisdictions that have a lot of excess mortality and neighboring jurisdictions that have no excess mortality. So the virus didn't cross the borders, even though there was traffic still ongoing at that time. And we demonstrated that in a recent report. And you would expect a delay in the wave of mortality as you go from an urban center out to the rural areas that are radiating out from the urban center because it takes time for the infection to spread. From a source, which would be the urban center where there's the airports or the train stations. Oh, right. And I guess you'd expect to see more of the infection around the transportation hubs. Potentially, that depends on how quickly people are moving. With modern transport, you move pretty quickly. Oh, you know, within a few kilometers of the hubs. But what you see is that the peaks of mortality in those places where there are peaks. When you look at a province where there's say a lot of excess mortality

12:31and then you look within the province at the regions. And you see the peaks of mortality rise and fall in synchrony. There's no staggering as you go from the urban center out to the rural areas as you would expect and all the models pre-COVID would predict. So there's these characteristics. When you look at the all-cause mortality data that are really at odds with the paradigm of viral spread. Yeah. So you have computer programs that were developed well before COVID-19 hit. And they basically say, OK, if this happens, then we have a pandemic. But COVID-19 didn't follow those models. No. And even the models that were still published during the COVID period make predictions that are at odds with the actual data. Yeah, even there's an important model published in nature. They're trying to go back in time and show where the infections must have occurred even though there was no testing and nearly part of the pandemic.

13:31And so they're saying, well, according to the model, it started in China. And so there must have been as many infections in the big cities in Germany, as in Milan, as in Rome, the same thing for the United States. There must have been as many in New York City as in Los Angeles in the first weeks of the pandemic. And then what you see, though, is that there's enormous differences in mortality in those places. So New York City had an extremely large peak of excess mortality whereas Los Angeles had essentially nothing in those first weeks and months. Yeah. So what was the difference between the New York and LA? The way that the government reacted, the so-called public health measures, and the way that people were treated in large hospitals. Mechanical ventilators are well known to be very dangerous as soon as they're on one of those. The chance of dying is very elevated at any time. And there's lots of studies to show that, and those are prior to COVID,

14:31when it's being done in a completely different and much more panicked circumstance. And doing things like booking two people up to one mechanical ventilator when you're not supposed to do that. And these things are discussed in more detail in the report, but using an anesthetic machine as a ventilator when it's not really meant to be done. I think if you try to imagine in the panicked time of the first few months of the pandemic, the kind of way that people would have been treated in hospitals, it was quite severe. So why would they put somebody on a ventilator? I'm not really clear on that. Oh, well, it's a recommended treatment for a severe respiratory illness providing oxygen. And you need to be sedated to receive the intubation. And those sedatives, otherwise you just won't be able to handle it. And those sedatives themselves can be very dangerous as well. So this is all part of the picture of the mistreatment in the hospitals in the early period.

15:35Now there's also something very interesting that we found later in the COVID periods or more when the vaccines were introduced, which is that money places. There is a strong correlation in the number of doses they're administered in the population and excess mortality in the population. So this led us to study more of what was happening with the vaccines. And especially something that was very interesting was that in the southern hemisphere, you normally expect to have a trough of death. So a low period in terms of the all-cause mortality in the months of December, January, February, which is their summertime, which is what happens is that as you move away from the equator, there are more deaths in the winter and less deaths in the summer. So since the summer and winter are flipped compared to the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere, January, February would normally be the time when there would be few deaths in countries like Australia or Chile.

16:37And yet what you see is that in January, February of 2022, there's a large peak of excess mortality at exactly that time. And so because of the timing of that, and it was timed right with the booster doses. And so you can really see that this peak of excess mortality is something. It's not confounded by a large peak of winter mortality. So you can really isolate it and get a good look at it and compare it to the timing of the vaccine dosage. Yeah. So the first thing that you think is that the vaccines must potentially are directly causing this mortality. But what we have now come to conclude or our current review is that it's not so much the toxicity from the vaccine itself, but the conditions of stress that are imposed by the rollout and everything that goes with it. There are massive testing regimes that incase people institutionalized in hospitals or care homes to be treated more poorly, maybe isolated. It imposes a large degree of stress, and it leaves to these increased infections with, for example, bacterial pneumonia and respiratory deaths of that nature.

17:47And so that's where we've come to. You're saying that it wasn't really a pandemic in the first place when you compare it with the expected behavior of pandemics. That in fact, it wasn't even real when it came. It was just a respiratory illness that affected people who were vulnerable and government made them more vulnerable. Right. And it's not there's no evidence of a novel pathogen that spreads person to person. The deaths were respiratory for the most part, but they're the consequence of essentially an assault applied to the population through the measures. Yeah, that's amazing. Yeah. So what do you think of Professor Joffi? He's a epidemiologist at the University of Alberta. He wrote a paper in 2021, quite early in all this, and he said that extreme lockdowns would cause more negative health effects than the virus even could cause. Do you think he's right?

18:47I think he, it's absolutely right that the lockdowns were very, very deleterious and are ultimately the reason for the large excess mortality during the period. Yeah. If the government had not reacted at all, then there would be essentially no excess mortality. Yeah. Is there a comparison between countries that reacted a whole lot versus country? I know there is between Roman, Milan and Los Angeles and New York, but what about between countries, bigger areas who had very different rules with respect to lockdowns? Yes, certainly. And it's not, it's not necessarily lockdowns per se, but there are different, many, there's many different policies that were applied. But certainly some countries had virtually no excess mortality during the whole year of 2020. And they only began to have excess mortality when the vaccines were being rolled out. And many countries in the world, and we've shown that in several of our reports, are like that.

19:50And now some of those countries are ones that had at least some types of lockdown policies like Australia is actually kind of known from the media. And the media has the reputation of being having been quite harsh, but it is in this category of having basically no excess mortality until they started rolling out the vaccines. And if I remember correctly, even not until they rolled out the booster, and then there is a large, very striking peak of mortality that's correlated with the rollout of the vaccines. So our view on this is that there's various types of measures and those measures might or might not be affecting the most vulnerable people. But it's when the measure does hit that pocket of the most vulnerable people that that's where you are going to end up getting these peaks in excess mortality. Yeah, so I mean, if you were to design a proper government response to this, I mean you would want people to get outside and exercise and get sunlight and visit their friends and see grandma in the nursing home. I mean, that's what you'd want them to do, right?

20:52Absolutely, yes. Social connection and independence and control over your life. So that includes deciding when you go out of your home and being able to continue working is to interact with your family and your community. It's absolutely what is necessary. Yeah, and yet, you know, they say that keeping people happy with their family is especially important for old people. But they did the exact opposite. They isolated them, you know, and drove fear into them. You know, it's interesting, CFRA radio here in Ottawa. It's a major station. They would have these shows, Colin radio shows on COVID and it was all fear, fear, fear. And during the commercial breaks, they would have scary music, boom, boom, boom. And they actually had an elderly woman, woman who lived by herself in an apartment and she called in and she was crying. She was so afraid she would get COVID. And so I called in and I said, look, she lives by herself in her apartment. She's pretty healthy person.

21:53I think you should reassure her instead of, you know, trying to make her even more scared. But no, no, they would, they just made it more and more scary and showing more and more scary statistics. So I think the media really did us a huge disservice, don't you? Absolutely. And you know what? Another one of our articles on Pro Correlation is that we took the standard models, the epidemic models. And this is like a theoretical modeling paper we put on our modeler hat to see, okay, let's take their models that they use to promote the policies of isolating people and locking down and everything. And let's see what happens in the model if we have two populations, a healthier robust population and a more frail and more vulnerable population. And then we separate the two and we can control how much we separate the two. And let's see what the outcomes are for both populations as we separate them. And what you find when you do that model is that the worst thing you can do is to separate the frail from the more robust.

22:55Wow, wow. And that's the worst outcome for the frail people is to do that. And so that was a demonstration that the government's own models show that you should not do these kind of isolation measures. And they knew that they should have known that. Professor Jaffee is a very prominent epidemiologist. And yet they completely ignored him. I sent his paper all over to the political leaders and others saying, look, you know, this is doing the wrong thing. And they were all apparently they were all driven by the media, you know, and it didn't seem to matter if you questioned or even had great evidence that they were wrong. It was all apparently driven by media, I would say, and also the profit on the part of the drug companies, wouldn't you say? Absolutely. When you think of the clinical trials or the vaccines, you have to remember that these clinical trials were conducted by the companies themselves. The Pfizer, which ended up making close to a hundred billion dollars from its vaccine, conducted its own clinical trial.

24:02So if you think that with a hundred billion dollars on the line, that you're not going to have slightly more infections in the control group than the treatment group, then you're extremely naive because there's just no way that that's possible with that kind of money on the line. There are so many ways that that data can be certain data excluded, other data included, the study designed in such a way that you're going to end up with with the result that you want to get your hundred billion dollars that those clinical studies cannot be given any shade of credibility. And there should have been done by independent groups absolutely, but no, instead they're done by the companies themselves. Wow. And so then you can get into the details and you can, there are lots of things you can criticize about the study themselves from what's been published about them, but just the overall picture of a hundred billion dollars at stake. It's, you know, it's obvious that you can't take that seriously. Yeah, for sure. I'm interviewing Dr. Joseph Hickey, a physicist who's looked into the excess mortality associated with COVID-19 and whether or not it's a so-called pandemic. So stay tuned. We'll be right back after the break.

25:12Hey, we're calling all patriots to Nashville, Tennessee July 2nd, 3rd and 4th for a powerful celebration of faith, freedom and the American spirit. America out loud, the wellness company and clear, invite you to join us for the 250 10 Nashville event. You'll experience best in class speakers, extraordinary voices from across America, bring in inspire messages you won't forget. And on July 4th, get ready for the most spectacular by work show in the country, lighten up the Nashville sky, 250 years of liberty in America and 10 years of America out loud news. Stand and strong for true justice and the nation we all love. You can save now with early bird pricing at America out loud dot news, forward slash Nashville July 2nd, 3rd and 4th. America out loud news, 250 10 Nashville.

26:12Have you been looking for a healthy snack from the go? Well, not all energy bars are soft and sugary. Bear bars are a crunchy, savory bar made from just six simple natural ingredients. Bear bars are plant-based organic gluten-free, contained six grams of protein and a low temperature dried for a unique crunch. Most energy bars are based on chocolate or fruit and are held together with serps or sweeteners. To learn more, just visit bearbar.com slash out loud. Struggling with your health, energy and constantly feeling hungry? Want to save money on the rising cost of groceries and dramatically improve your health? Go to chemicalfreebody.com, forward slash out loud today, get nature's super multivitamin, Dr. formulated green 85 juice formula, empower your immune system, cut your grocery bill and save 20% on your first order. Health insurance premiums have skyrocketed 47%. Are you optimizing your health care spending or paying for outdated sick care?

27:19The wellness company offers a better way for $100 per month. One wellness elite membership includes two free nutraceuticals, free prescriptions on 800 plus meds, free 24-7 telemedicine and 15% off supplements. America out loud listeners get an exclusive 20% discount. Go to TWC.healthslashout loud. Use the code out loud. You wouldn't go a day without brushing your teeth or washing your hands. What about washing your nose? I mean, your nose does filter the air you breathe. Air loaded with bacteria, viruses and irritants. Make nasal hygiene part of your routine with clear. No messy bottles to fill, no drowning sensation. Clear as a natural drug-free saline with the added benefit of xylitol, which blocks bacterial and viral adhesion. Available in stores and online at clear.com. That is x-al-e-a-r.com. Prepare for the next pandemic with the wellness company's contagion emergency kit designed by Dr. Peter McCullough. Get life-saving medications like Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, plus a free nebulizer and a guidebook for safe use.

28:24Order now by going to TWC.health forward slash out loud and use code out loud for $65 off your first order plus free shipping. I'm back with Dr. Joseph Hicky, my guest. He's a physicist with a PhD in complexity science. So that's perfect for looking at this whole thing. So Joseph, we were going to talk about the millions of lives saved because of the miracle COVID-19 vaccine. Do you think that millions of lives were saved by COVID-19 vaccine? Of course, absolutely not, and we have published two papers on this topic. The first one in 2023, we asked, did the Nobel Prize winning COVID vaccines actually save millions of lives? And then another one in 2025 where we focused on the United States, same kind of claims of millions of lives saved, that have been made in very prominent venues like Congress of the United States by the epidemiologist who promote vaccines. And so what has been done is that scientists have used models to predict or to calculate how many deaths they think would have happened without vaccines.

29:34So they have their modeled number of deaths per time, like it can be per week, for example, in a country, and then they look at the actual number of deaths that occurred. And then they take the difference of those two things and they say that, well, the vaccines must have saved all these lives because without vaccines, it would have been a huge number of deaths. But big problem with that in these articles, which are then used to claim that the vaccines have saved millions of lives, is that the scientists never show what their so-called counterfactual, what their imaginary world looks like, where there's no vaccines. They don't show what the number of deaths per week would look like in that imaginary world that they're modeling. So we took their data, their results, and we reverse engineered it, and we made those graphs that they should have shown. And we show, okay, over time, for a certain country, here's the actual number of deaths per week. And then here is the number of deaths per week that the modelers are claiming, but they're not showing you. And when you do that, it looks, it's ludicrous.

30:37It's like there will be an enormous peak of deaths that can be 10 times what actually happened, that only emerges when the vaccines are rolled out. So it can be, for some countries, since there's basically no excess mortality in 2020, you have a flat line of excess mortality up until 2021. And then in the imaginary world of the modelers, there's an enormous increase in mortality that would have happened, and the actual data stays the same, it's still flat. So you have to believe that the virus would have suddenly become more virulent at exactly the time that the vaccines were administered. And that the vaccines brought the actual mortality back down to where it was, and not somewhere in between. And so when you see the illustration of what the modelers imaginary world actually looks like, you can see that it's, it's, it's, it's barcicle. And so this, presumably, this is why they don't show these graphs because it really calls them to question these, these claims of.

31:37So for the world, they have predicted somewhere between 15 to 20 million lives saved. And then that's a paper by Watson at all in the Lancet from a couple years ago. And then for the United States, they typically claim around 3 million lives saved. And in the United States, it's a similar picture. It's just that there is excess mortality in the United States in 2020, as well as 2021 and 2022. In that case, rather than the vaccines bringing the number of supposed number of deaths down to zero access that brings it down to the same excess that occurred in 2020. So that's the same kind of idea, but you have to believe that there would have suddenly been a really huge increase in mortality at exactly the time that the vaccines were administered. And even to a point of like during the few month windows where the boosters were administered. I know that there's quite a lot of people who say that the vaccines themselves not only did not stop people from dying, but it caused them to die that the nanoparticles and other things in them were that bad that they actually caused a huge increase in turbo cancer and all sorts of things.

32:54Did you look into that at all? Yes, this is something that has been preoccupation for us. You know, our focus for us. And from the point of view of all cause mortality, not from the point of view of individual case studies or molecular biology, but from the big picture view of mortality data at the like the national statistical level and going into the sub regions and so on. But what we think is that the vaccines, there is some toxicity associated with the vaccines, but it's very small compared to actual excess mortality. And so it's definitely and certainly for certain age groups and sex groups, depending on what it is, like the younger males are at a clearly elevated risk of heart inflammation from the vaccines. There are some adverse events that are really well established in the scientific literature, but overall, we don't think that vaccine toxicity is causing a very significant contribution to the excess mortality.

33:56It's rather the assault on the population that comes from the measures that are associated with the vaccine rollout. That's why the deaths are happening at the same time that the vaccines are being rolled out. Because when you're rolling out the vaccines, that is accompanied by a huge frenzy to promote the vaccines and have them accepted. And so there's a testing regime and the testing has pretty severe consequences for people who have to be isolated if they're in a hospital or a care home and separated from their social networks and treated in a more hostile way by staff and those institutions. And so it's more the measures as a whole and the stress that applies at the time that the vaccines are being rolled out that is responsible for the increase in excess mortality at those times. That's what we as our view on it is not directly from toxicity from the injection itself. Okay, so you're not saying there are tens of millions of people killed by the vaccine itself.

34:57That's not our view. We argued that that could be happening in one paper, but we don't, that's not our view now after more analysis. We think that the toxicity itself is a much, much smaller factor than the stress from the measures. Yeah, it's interesting. I noticed, yeah, I guess in 2021 that the official government data for Ontario, which they first had on the website that showed the per capita infection of COVID in vaccinated partially vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. And they showed that the vaccinated were getting COVID much more than the unvaccinated. Now, I actually tried to put that up on the CBC website and they immediately canceled it, of course, and you'd laugh because I figured that the algorithm was seeing that I was doubtful. So it was deleting the automatically. So I took a screen capture, I took a screen capture of the actual graph and I put it on the CBC comments section.

36:01And it took about a day to notice it and then they took it off and they banned me for life from ever posting on their sites again. So I called the audience relations that I said, look, this official government data and you can interpret it in different ways, but that is not something I made up. It's a real data and at this, but this graph shows that at least based on the testing they did that COVID was more virulent, so to speak, for people who actually had the vaccine. And they said, no, we're not going to discuss it. You're banned for life. So it's interesting. I asked Copilot a bit later. I said, why is that? I mean, was it that the vaccine was actually increasing infection rates? And it said, oh, no, that's not what caused it. They said, what happened is that they were testing people who had the vaccine much, much more than people who hadn't because they were testing vulnerable populations. And actually that makes sense. I mean, I never had the vaccine. I never was tested the same with my daughters. And so we wouldn't even be in the database.

37:04So I think that that explanation at least makes sense that if you're preferentially testing people who are vulnerable, who've been vaccinated, it's going to appear that they have COVID at a higher rate than people that are unvaccinated because you're not even testing them. So do you think Copilot's explanation makes some sense? Yeah, it does. You have to look at the number of people that you're testing and think in terms of rates, right, the positivity rates and so on. But when you, what we're finding in our research is when we look at mortality, we find no difference in the rate of access for vaccinated and unvaccinated. So it's not that the vaccinated were saved and it's not that the unvaccinated were saved by not being vaccinated either. It seems that it's something that applies your respective vaccination. Right. So that's good to hear because I have friends and family who were vaccinated and it's sad to think that they're all on the verge of getting turbo cancer.

38:05But you don't think that's the case. You think that assuming they did not engage in a lot of these activities that cut off their contact that the vaccine itself wouldn't cause them to die. No, well, the risk is much lower than would be needed to explain the large access mortality. Yeah, there's some risk of toxicity that's been really conclusive demonstrated, but it's not on the order of one per 10,000 even. It's less than that. Yeah, well, that's good to hear. So I heard that there's some soccer coaches in Europe who now don't want to have vaccinated players on their team that they're preferentially taking unvaccinated players. These are young, healthy, super healthy men and yeah, you're saying they are at risk more so than the average population to the injection. So the younger males, that's one age and sex group where it's really been conclusively shown that they're at an elevated risk of heart inflammation.

39:05And that heart inflammation can cause death, can cause permanent disability. There's autopsies where, you know, a young fit male in the army. For example, the one I'm taking of was in Korea when I received the Pfizer injection and died of a heart failure within a day or two. And it was an autopsy that concluded it was the vaccine. So there's more, there's autopsies, other autopsies like that as well. And then there's a much larger studies where they quantify the increase of the risk to that age group and they compare it with other age groups. So that's that one's that's one that's really been demonstrated in the top journals, top journals, anything. Yeah, it sort of makes sense too if you think about it because if you have your heart degraded by 25% and you're not pushing yourself right to your limit, you may never notice it. I mean, my dad had heart failure late in his life and he'd apparently lost half of his heart function and the doctor said, well, yeah, but if you never run marathons, it won't hurt you.

40:05And he lived in 95, you know, so, so I guess if you're pushing yourself right to your limit as many of these young men do these athletes, then a 10, 15, 20% reduction in heart capability, it would start to play a role. Yeah, that's right, placing a large demand on the cardiovascular system. Yeah, for sure. Now, I heard about I have an in law who's actually from India originally through through the Caribbean. And he did some research and found that there was a state in India that had very limited, a huge state, I think it had 80 million people had very limited access to COVID-19 injections, but they used Ivermectin instead and had very few deaths. So what do you think of that? Yeah, India is is a country that had very little excess mortality in 2020. But in 2021, when the vaccines were rolled out, had an enormous enormous excess mortality. Now that's for the country as a whole. And then now if there's a state within India, where the vaccines were not being administered with the same, let's say, bigger or the same.

41:17Zeal, yeah, yeah, that's a good word for now. And now this is, yes, exactly. That's what I was looking for. Then you might not have the measures and the the assault essentially that comes with that and that creates the conditions of the biological stress, leading to increased bacterial respiratory infections, which is what we think is responsible for the big excess mortality peaks. So it could, you know, if there's a case like that in India, it could be due to that, just not as much as zeal, not as severe measures associated with the rollout of the vaccines compared to another state in India, for example. That could be enough to explain it. And then it's interesting to think about Ivermectin because it can be used as an antibacterial agent. And so it could be actually contributing to less severe outcomes from respiratory infections that are due to bacteria. So there's at least a possibility of that.

42:20But that might not be necessary to explain the difference in mortality from one state to another. And it's dirt cheap, you know, and it's interesting. It sort of makes you wonder once again, is this driven largely by money because they tried to discredit people who boosted Ivermectin is, oh, you're pushing a horse medicine. Yes. And so I mean, the cost of Ivermectin was what 100th of the cost of the COVID vaccine? Yes. And when you look at articles about Ivermectin from before COVID, the COVID period, it's touted as a wonder drug that can, this is going to be revolutionary and it's going to, it's not just antiparasitic, but it could also be used, can be used as an antibacterial agent and even promoted as something to be used as an antiviral agent. As well. So it's definitely very biased how the media ganged up on this particular product during the COVID period. Yeah, exactly. The media, you know, with their constant publishing of death statistics over and over be scrolling on your screen, it was like a constant fear machine.

43:26And of course, they would censor out anybody who was saying the kinds of things that you're saying is, no, don't, don't lock grandma down, go visit her, you don't keep her happy. You know, take her out in the back, in the backyard, let it get sunlight and fresh air. The censorship was incredible at that time. I volunteered with the Ontario Civil Liberties Association. We were taking a lot of positions against a lot of the measures, including face masks and so forth. And mandatory vaccination and we had a Facebook group with 10,000 members and it suddenly was removed overnight, no explanation, no chance of appeal. It was disappeared. And so that was, you know, that kind of thing was happening all the time to do that. So what do you, what do you think the incentive was for the high tech companies to do that? You know, is it just political correctness? They want to be on the right side of history. Well, I think that overall it's, COVID is not a spreading, the COVID period, you know, it's not something that's due to a novel spreading pathogen.

44:30The whole paradigm is wrong false. And it's an assault on the population and you have to understand why you have to look at geopolitics. This is a very important geopolitical time and some, some very big wars are happening. And the social media companies are part of the, the empire's structure, you know, and so they're playing their role in that. And you know, a lot of companies, I think, wanted to be able to say to the government, especially companies that were trying to get contracts from the government, all of our staff members are vaccinated. So I have family members who lost jobs, even though they worked from home, you know, and that's what happened in your case, right? Yeah. So I mean, there's no rational position that supports vaccinated people who work remotely, is there? No, that didn't matter for people in a position like mine where I was working entirely from home ever since they declared the pandemic in March 2020.

45:39And then in November of 2021, when the federal government decided to apply the vaccination mandate, it didn't matter that people have been working from home, completely isolated from one another that wasn't part of the thinking at all. Don't confuse me with the facts. You might remember that in the European Parliament, they had a Pfizer executive appear and they admitted that they never tested their COVID-19 vaccine for transmission. Yet opinion leaders were constantly saying it was a social responsibility to get the vaccine to protect others. So I mean, do you think the company should have taken a much more major role in explaining to the public what they really tested? And is that influence perhaps by the fact that they were making billions on the side? Yeah. Now the whole thing is a sham, as I was saying, the clinical studies cannot be taken seriously at all. And when you look at the all-cause mortality, there's just there's no sign that there even ever was a novel spreading pathogen.

46:40And so the pharmaceutical companies will do the minimum that they can to get away with creating the product and having it on the market. And having the public funds being used in enormous amounts, an astronomical amounts to go into their revenue. Yeah. And they didn't have to do much in the way of advertising because the government did it for them. So, you know, I was again talking to co-pilot about this and co-pilot is very politically correct. It says, well, in the early early days, the vaccine companies were not required to actually test for transmission. They were just testing to see if it actually reduced symptoms once you had COVID. And do you think it did? Did the vaccine actually reduce symptoms generally speaking when people already had COVID? No, no, I don't think so. So the only thing that the vaccine does is cause you some reaction immediately after you receive it.

47:40And then there's some rare adverse events that can be more serious. And not all that rare actually considering, I guess, yeah, I mean some of some that are not that rare and that should be avoided as well, you know, depending on your profile. And so you shouldn't take it and there's no benefit from it and there's no need for it and it's a big scam. Yeah, get outside, go for a run. Yeah, for sure. It strikes me that even more at fault was the government. I mean, the drug companies did, as you say, the minimum they had to and they were not required to actually test for transmission in the early days. So in that sense, maybe you don't blame them, but the government, I think they were the real driver of all this. And in particular, I think the government were wrong to give the drug companies total immunity where they couldn't be sued afterwards when they were bad side effects.

48:43So I mean, and they shouldn't have yielded to the media. The media were sensationalist as they always are like in the climate change issue. They want to sell press and they know bad news sells media. I mean, the government should have had a backbone and actually listened to people like Professor Joffy and you folks and actually not done what they were being pushed into by the media. Don't you think part of, I mean, I think the main blame is government, don't you? Well, yes. Yeah, I mean, I think you have to see it as a kind of campaign. I mean, and then how do you explain it? I mean, it may have started as a way to weaken China. Essentially, the focus of the COVID narrative was that it's emerging from China and China is irresponsible and it needs to be excluded and ostracized in the world. And then it morphed into something much bigger. And I think that the governments were developing this campaign as it went along and flying by the seat of their pants.

49:52And of course, a lot of people go along with it because when the World Health Organization says that there's a pandemic, then you accept that. Doug Ford said, I think he said it would be political suicide, not to apply these measures. And so that gives you a view into how the politicians would have been thinking about it. And isn't the World Health Organization now getting even more power for future pandemics? Yeah. Yeah, that's not so good. So what should be done to avoid these huge mistakes on the part of government in the future? Like what can we do? I mean, raise awareness, I guess, of your reports is one step. Call into talk radio. Tell them about it. Yeah, no, absolutely. Resisting on an individual level is the main thing that we can do. We have to try and evaluate for ourselves whether there is a risk when the government is saying that there's an imminent risk to our health. Yeah. We can see outside our windows, we can go for a walk outside and see for ourselves what is really happening.

50:55Are people dropping like flies on the sidewalk around us? Or not? And then, you know, and it's so difficult with this pandemic episode because the government had a great pretext to prevent people from even just seeing each other in groups of small groups. So it's like, unfortunately, we have this telecommunication technology now where we can be at home and still communicate and do show up to work and in a lot of jobs. And that means is much more easy to isolate us, unfortunately, unfortunately. Yeah, for sure. So maybe we need to destroy the internet to protect ourselves from the next so called pandemic. Yeah, that's an amazing idea. So a lot of these papers are actually done under the correlation research in the public interest banner, right? That's right. Yep. And that's on our website, correlation-Canada.org.

51:55And we have a page on that site that's called research and it's got all our reports. So a few dozen of them now. And we also have a sub-stack account and that's how we do our newsletter. So it's a free newsletter. We send it out to our list when we have a new report or some new piece of news that we want to share. And so if you feel like supporting our work, you can do a paid subscription on a sub-stack if you want. Or you can go to the donate page on our website and there's a way to contribute there. Yeah, I've subscribed to your thing and I get very interesting emails from you. So Joseph, do you think society as a whole has yet learned the lessons of COVID? Or are we likely to see this again? Or are people just now going to be much more impatient with it if this sort of thing happens again? Well, I think there's in Canada at least there's a large portion of the population that essentially receives the truth if you like. What they think is the truth from the CBC.

52:56And that's a large portion. And so that portion of the population is going to go along with whatever the government presents unfortunately. That's what I think. And then there's a small portion of minority that is very opposed to what happened during COVID. And you know, hopefully those people can find ways to be vocal. And I think that we are in a period of large global change that we haven't seen such a period since the last World War. And that that is what is driving everything that's being done to us. And so these are very big forces that are at play. And right up to the threat of imminent nuclear war unfortunately. So this is a very grave times. And that severity of what was done to populations during the COVID period is an example of that.

53:58Unfortunately, I don't think that that was the worst of it. I hope I hope that that I'm wrong, but I don't think that that's like it's just the beginning. So in the meantime, people should support your group correlation research in the public interest. What's that URL again? Correlation-Canada.org. Okay, and there's a donate button there. There is if you go on the web page, there's a donate section at the top there. Yeah. And I guess they just what should support other independent media, like epoch times and rebel news and groups like that who are not afraid to question the narrative. You know, one of the things that really turned me off and made me suspicious right at the beginning was when all of the politicians, all of the leaders of our Canadian federal parties, all stood in the line and said, take the job. You know, being a climate realist myself and not believing them, not believing them on that. I thought, oh, man, this is like 1984. This is crazy. And I had no knowledge of it. I just thought this kind of unanimity on something that's so new is ridiculous.

55:00I mean, nobody can have that kind of confidence that early in the pen in the not pandemic. What do you think of the idea that they caught? You know, some people call it a pandemic that it was actually planned for nefarious motives. Do you subscribe to that idea or do you think that's a little too conspiratorial? No, no, I think I think that like when because of all the analysis we've done and it's based on this really robust data, which is the all cause mortality. And it's just what really happened just in terms of mortality just does not fit this picture of a spreading pathogen. And that was clear from the start. And I think that any epidemiologist who takes a step back and looks at the data, the way that they should with the big picture, we'll see that. And so I have to conclude that it's is not authentic when they say that there's a pandemic. And so there's some political motivation behind it.

56:00And yeah, no, I agree with that scam, Demick, planned, Demick. More or less, you know, this is it's ultimately geopolitics this driving. Yeah. And if you say that, you'll be banned from Facebook for the rest of your life and banned from the CBC. Yeah, the censorship is incredible. Yeah. Joseph, this has been a very interesting interview. My guest today has been Joseph Hickey, who's a PhD in physics with a focus on complexity science. Looking into the research done by his group, correlation research and the public interest about a, is this a pandemic or not? Well, it isn't B. Does a COVID vaccine actually solve anything? No, it didn't was the lockdown necessary. No, it wasn't. So it's crazy. They have virtually everything wrong. Absolutely. That's right. It's the world has turned upside down. Yeah. Well, thanks so much for being my guest, Joseph. I'm going to send this interview all over. So this is Tom Harris and my guest, Dr. Joseph Hickey, signing out from the other side of the story.