all right guys welcome to another stream today i'm joined by dr abby who is a vegan doctor who's with me today to discuss the sea vaccines and shots and just go back and forth with a lot of relevant questions that a lot of you guys have asked me and that seems really prevalent in the mainstream public and also in the vegan community as well so first question for you abby and thank you for joining us today tell us a little bit about yourself and also your stance on the corona shots sure so i'm a vegan medical doctor um i joined the plant-based movement uh several years ago and uh in terms of my stance on the coronavirus uh shots um or vaccines uh as i would call them i am overwhelmingly in favor of them i think they are i think it's one of the most amazing piece of technology that we are able to uh in the amount of time that we're able to do it uh get these get such a technology out in the face of the global pandemic and i encourage people to utilize such technology so that we can uh get back to normal in various parts of the world so yeah okay cool so the first question i guess for me is more of a vegan related one and i remember being sent a clip and i watched the interview i think it was a panel with you and other vegan doctors for the kova vaccine and i think you mentioned in the stream how in your opinion the vaccines can be considered vegan or vegans should consider taking it because um the animals tested on were less of you know less sentience i believe you made the argument for and also so just to well let me just interrupt you right there john so the argument the argument wasn't over so here was the argument it wasn't just that the animals were less sentient so it's okay the argument was that first and foremost there's no additional demand that's created by you taking the vaccine because the testing was already done whereas if you didn't take the vaccine it leaves open a pool of unvaccinated individuals that other pharmaceutical companies are going to look at and they're going to see oh there's this proportion of individuals that aren't vaccinated let's try to get our fda approval and when they do that that's guess what that actually means more testing right so a very plausible argument could make not only does it not create demand for more animal testing but if you don't get vaccinated a whole bunch of people don't get vaccinated it may actually create incentives for more animal testing paradoxically to actually occur that was point number one point number two that okay so that's the first point the second point that i made in terms of the lower sentence was that even if that point doesn't go through which it does but even if that point doesn't go through the in my the second point wasn't even the sentence point it was just the numbers even if you just consider all life to be of equal value you're talking about um testing on the amount of lives you're talking about testing on comparing the amount of blood you're talking about saving the proportions are just astronomically imbalanced and so even if point number one somehow didn't go through point number two would go through which is just the absolute numbers and then point number three is if you consider the sentience it would be even even more than that so what i'm doing is i'm making an over determination so just like someone charges someone for murder and man and uh theft and everything to get them in jail no matter what i'm the point i'm bringing here is that regardless of what argument you're going with there's another argument that's not on the way so it's funny because a lot of people just heard the sentience part and that's what they picked out of that segment and it's really weird that that like they just completely forgot everything i said before sure and so for everyone listening even if you don't consider sentience differentials to be relevant the argument is that's not even the main argument the main argument is that you could very well be causing more animal testing by not getting the vaccine then by getting it right well that's considering the idea that that animal testing phase is necessary right which i think a lot of vegans are arguing against no it's not so here's the thing even if it's not necessary it's it's necessary to get into the market it's not necessary okay with the word it could be an alternative way of getting into market so to speak well not the markets that they're trying to make profitable you're talking about the us market i can tell you right now they're not you're not going to get into it without an animal testing unfortunately and i want to repeat it's unfortunate sucks that it's like that but the prime the way pharmaceutical industries by and large work is they want to get into profitable markets that's just the name of the game um and the most profitable markets are right now usa that's where you can that's where you end up making the most bang for your buck i can tell you the fda will never approve a vaccine without or any pharmaceutical virtually any pharmaceutical for that matter without some form of animal testing and so it's is it necessary from a scientific perspective john no it's not is it necessary to get into the market for the fda to approve it yes for that market it is and that's why it's your the argument goes through because you're you could very well just incentivize another company right to see that unvaccinated population and want to reap those rewards sure and as a as a vegan you're i don't know if you consider yourself a vegan or not but um you know as a vegan i do okay for ethical reasons i'm assuming um you know you're talking a lot about numbers how um one animal sacrifice would save around seven thousand people or something like that right and this is an underestimate by the way yeah see it's even more than that sure but let's assume you know that the tables turn and and and we had a situation where you know in order to save um you know seven thousand animals a hundred and you know fifty humans had to die and be tested on how would you see that as opposed to what you're saying with um your argument yeah so at some threshold the answer would be yes i don't know if the depressed special might not exactly be the same because i do consider a sentence differential to be part of it so the numbers would have may have to scale up more but to answer your question yes i would take a consistent approach um in principle at some level at some threshold differential level i would say yes to that question as well so just a general question like in general just so i have an idea where you stand um you know in the in terms of the industry in general you know do you personally believe that there is you know corruption and industrial influence political influence that leads to conflicts of interest when it comes to these particular shots um you know in relation to organizations that are recommending and pushing the shots such as the nih fda cdc and who for example i haven't been aware of any evidence of corruption at nih cdc and those organizations if you're asking me with respect to the pharmaceutical industries themselves um look there's always going to be motivations to make profit if you're talking about um corruption i'm not sure what you mean if you mean something other than motivation to make property you're talking about um like lying and stuff like that what i can tell you is that yeah so i haven't i haven't been aware of any like evidence that there were any overt lies but what i can tell you is pharmaceutical companies are no different than any other company their goal is to make a profit that doesn't mean that the thing they're selling is a bad thing though like you like an air conditioning company's goal is to make a profit too but in the hot summer it's still a very good thing to have an air conditioning and to cool your house uh a farmer's goal is to make a profit you can buy their food it's not bad thing like just because someone's goal is to make a profit doesn't mean that they're selling something that's bad that should just be judged by the data well you know that's the overarching kind of idea that you know if there is a financial incentive if there if there are conflicts of interest the data can then be manipulated in favor of the interest right and so the data is amazing like i'm super pro science i love science but there's always some influence that is going always a motivation behind something and as as you probably have seen in the news like um even tony fauci's email leaks and uh or not it wasn't even a leak it was just um you know a release um does you know bring a lot of questions to the table when it comes to you know the the cdc and the nih and also who and these things uh regarding many things that we can discuss but um you know there are many well just just before we get to that before we get to that okay so i just want to give you an a picture of what would happen in terms of like um in terms of the randomized control trial data being suspect the degree of conspiracy that would have to happen um is astronomical and i'll tell you why because these were multi-center uh international trials with numerous different hospitals and numerous different out in both inpatient and outpatient centers collecting patients have been collecting data and the data goes to the sponsor through those different sites now for that data to be fabricated to the degree that it would change things measurably you would have to have a conspiracy involving many different sites all coordinated with each other changing the data in such a way also you would have to have all the um all the ecological data that came afterwards all the retrospective data for different uh hospitals to somehow also be in cahoots with them to match that data because guess what it's not just the randomized control trial that shows these things it's also the observations of other independent organizations that have done population studies in various different countries that have found the same thing so you would you would have to be an international multi-center uh both intra and international conspiracy and you would have to have it done for various different pharmaceutical companies all doing involve intra and international conspiracy for that to happen that's what just to just to it's not just an organization being having some corruption like you would have to have like one of the greatest conspiracy theories in the history of mankind for this work yeah for sure and you're talking specifically about uh which trials are you talking about now like the the ongoing human trials so i'm talking about so i'm talking about the pfizer phase three um phase three uh randomized controlled trial i'm talking also about the modern phase three randomized control trial i'm also talking about the non-trial data which is the observational data that's been done in various different countries as well including countries that are not part of the west right right and so which which markers and which um you know what was controlled for in the human trials that you're talking about that shows the safety efficiency of the injection sure so it's a randomized control trial so they gave the placebo to a group of individuals and then they gave the real vaccine to a group of individuals um it's the actual uh numbers so the in pfizer specifically it was 21 000 a piece um so 21 000 individuals received a placebo injection and 21 000 individuals approximately received the actual vaccine and then they were followed over time um do you know how long um they're well so the i see the data here going up to 119 days um so but the there's been longer term follow-up data after that what i can tell you is that i can like do it with my hands over that amount of time like if you look at the divergence between how many people are getting coveted out it just goes like this um to a great degree it's a point where it's like 20 times more likely for someone to get covered if they don't get the vaccine compared to getting the vaccine it's not even uh it's not even close right um and and the placebo group was was also studied for the equal length of time to the control group okay yeah so there wasn't like a unblinding process of the placebo group not during the duration that i'm talking about eventually when there was um eua when there was an emergency use authorization that placebo group um they're allowed you can't like tell people like hey listen like everyone's getting authorized to get this vaccine for emergency use you're not allowed to though then it becomes unethical because once you've demonstrated how good it is and how safe it is it's to prohibit someone from getting the vaccine at that point in time it wouldn't be ethical so most people in the placebo group ended up choosing to get it however what we do have is we have the data prior to the eua we have the data from before there was emergency use authorization and we can follow the placebo group and the con and the vaccine group over that time where the time is equal and the and we can see what happens to both of them when there is no crossover and it's very clear um and how how do these trials measure the the efficiency or efficacy what are the mechanisms yeah yeah so the the metrics of measuring efficacy is based on uh how many cases of code that uh of symptomatic over that has been uh observed in the placebo group and the control group so they do it by events so they have the end the ends of the ends are the number of people in the study those are equal in the placebo group and the vaccine group right and the events per uh group are events of symptomatic phobics now some trials break it down further in terms of severe covet like events that will lead you to hospitalization uh some break it down to like mild moderate in any case they all show the same thing um for all these different categories it's much much stronger chance that you will get hospitalized true co-good or develop symptomatic of it if you do not get the vaccine then if you get the vaccine right and that is shown through a pcr test to to show the events right that's shown through either um so pc it could be pcr um i'm not sure if all of them are pcr some may be rapid antigen chests but i believe at this time frame rapid chest warrant is popular so i believe this would be pcr okay in the majority of cases yeah okay and hopefully they they use the same cycle threshold for for everyone across the board sure of uh yes but even if they also even if they don't here's the thing even if there was variability of cycle threshold the degree of difference that you would have to have in order to make these results different you would again you would have to have a systematic bias that would be so great that it would basically um require a inter and international conspiracy right i can't i can't stress enough how okay so remember like we talk about relative risks john we talk about relative risks of like 1.3 1.6 two point something you know some people like to say well you need a relative risk of two or over for it to be meaningful you know all those means yeah this relative risk came out to be 20 something right 20 something higher fold increase risk of beating covid if you don't get the vaccine now in order for that magnitude in order for that to be affected by a cycle threshold difference you would basically have to have a mass conspiracy like there would have to be something so i can't stress enough like we don't see um and we only by the way we only see these kind of efficacies really so far through this new technology if you look at the other vaccines that just use antigen adjuvant technologies they get efficacy of 70 80 not 95 not 1995. so this new technology it's actually really amazing in terms of how well it works to be able to take that how that magnitude of treatment effect or prophylactic effect and to have it and to argue that there was some systematic bias you would have to have such a great degree of an imbalance there and again that's why we randomize patients the patients need to be that's why we're randomizing the site so even if one side does a different cycle threshold they have different cycle thresholds for both the control group and the vaccine group in the same in the same site so that those biases are going to balance out that's why we randomize people right right and and as you mentioned um the the injection was um made like very hastily not that that impacts the quality or anything like that but it was um you know emergency authorized not approved right in your opinion we don't need the long longer term data to prove its efficacy or safety um of these particular um drugs right at this at this point i don't think so but there will be anyway there will be so they are still going to follow and they still are following people who have the vaccine various vaccines and they are monitoring um adverse events but it's always here's the thing john it's always a risk reward um analysis right so you always have to ask what the okay so there's always going to be risk of a certain pharmaceutical you always have to match that up against the risk of covet right and so based on everything we know um and we can get into the risks of covered for healthy individuals healthy men men such as you and i john we can get into because i don't think it's just uh just this oh you get coveted and that's it there may be some long-term consequences of getting covered uh that are quite substantial and we can get into that as well but based on the risk reward i think the the benefits vastly outweigh the risks not even a question sure sure and and obviously like as you've probably seen uh these drugs are also projected to be the most profitable injections um to date as well um and in the previous coronaviruses you know animal tests and trials they haven't really succeeded they hadn't really gotten the results they were looking after and so why would it be different this time around when all the other animal trials for uh it wasn't you know stars kobe 2 but other coronaviruses have failed in terms of developing a vaccine for it well one thing is that um cov1 is so as you said it's a different virus the other thing is there's not as there wasn't as much incentive to make a medicine that works this way because the because sarco v1 just burned out it didn't create a pandemic of this nature and because it didn't create a pandemic of this nature you didn't have as much incentive to make a technology that would fight this pandemic whenever look here's the thing john whenever you have a need for something whenever there's a need that can be profitable you're more scientists are going to be put to work on it more technology is going to be put to work on it and the probability that it's going to succeed is just going to be higher and so when you mention it's it's the you answer the question and your own question you met you said it's the most profitable uh one of the most profitable pharmaceuticals now if that's true it makes perfect sense why it would why um it would be efficacious because so much so much work has been put into this thing to make it so profitable and i'm by the way good i'm glad that it's profitable i'm glad that a pandemic fighter happens to be profitable it wasn't the reason it's here john is because it's profitable if it wasn't profitable you wouldn't have it we haven't studied stars kobe 2 for that long right and so how can we be sure of the long-term concerns especially when we take into consideration all the anecdotal evidence which is not the greater form of evidence and a lot of people dismiss that such as the vares database and that kind of stuff people are reporting a lot of issues and so people are concerned because of that um due to the fact that the long-term data is lacking as well and also you know what what you know what kind of markers are being tested for um potential side effects right like what is being tested pre-injection post-injection to see if there is any you know a potential inflammation in your cardiovascular system etc um you know what are what is being done to be to to track this thing so in terms of inflammation we know there's going to be inflammation the purpose one of the the the entire premise of the vaccine is going to cause some sort of inflammation there's going to be some uh interplay between the antigen and the immune cells that's going to release some cytokines so if you're asking well are we checking to see if there's inflammation of course not then we know there's going to be inflammation the entire purpose is to have some inflammation that's part of the therapy that's part of the the the prophylactic mechanism um in turn but what we do look at is um what has been looked at as symptoms pre and post um and uh the data if i again uh screen sharing doesn't seem to be available but um the safety base of the safety data um that has been looked at there were two uh vaccine recipients out of uh out of the total of uh 21 669 uh that passed away during the uh the period of the study one from atherosclerosis and one for cardiac arrest four people in the placebo group died two from unknown causes one from a hemorrhagic stroke and one from a myocardial infarction and no deaths would be were related to the vaccine placebo so it's important to know here so so number one the the you had two people die in the vaccine group and four people die in the in the control group um so is it is anything related to anything probably not but if anything um there were more deaths it is worth pointing out there were more deaths in the placebo group than the control group right um double the deaths now does that make is that anything statistically significant probably not because i'm looking at two and four the risk the numbers are so small but if you want to get technical about it the point estimate is actually going to be on the side favoring the vaccine for safety in from the period of the randomized control trial in terms of long-term safety follow-up again that question is going to apply to both the coronavirus and in terms of the vaccine itself based on our follow-up data so far we're not seeing anything that seems to be very con uh seems to be very concerning for long-term follow-up from for neither pfizer nor loderna um especially in compared to the coronavirus itself coronavirus itself we're see that's that's something where we actually are seeing emerging long-term uh consequences coming up that actually are not just anecdotes that have been uh shown in uh coat in uh cohort data as well as have having mechanistic support and we can get into that as well but that but that's actually something where we are seeing where we are seeing long-term safety issues we are seeing it with getting coded right well it's been a year right so it's not that long term yet right so it's been a little more it's been a little more in the year but yeah um it's been uh since like well february last last year so we're almost at a we're almost done a year and a half sure but that's that's enough that's enough time to see that's enough time to see that's why we're seeing more and more things but i'm just saying the things that we're seeing pop up are not on the vaccine side the things that we are seeing pop up in terms of the longer term consequences we're seeing them on the covet side how do you think doctors can treat patients with covid in the hospital or even you know when testing positive if they have not had the vaccine so sir a lot of drugs have been proposed um a lot of them have shown not to really work um so i'll tell you what what has been shown to be somewhat promising and what has not been shown to be promising um medications that have not been shown to be promising include ivermectin hydroxychloroquine those medications have not been shown to be promising um in what way that in what way in in the sense uh both in terms of um both in terms of mortality and in terms of morbidity in terms of being able to get out of the hospital quicker in terms of death um you know what the data is um let's let's just take i draft the clark and as an example what data are you yeah right now there's i'm referring to multiple different randomized controlled trials that have been published both using it as a prophylactant and in terms of the treatment in the hospital so the best data because something people with hydroxyl clerk when they say well it's not early enough there's a randomized control trial that actually gave them uh at the earliest sign in fact even potentially before uh they gave them hydroxychloroquine no difference in terms of hospitalization no difference in terms of the uh the rate of getting covered no difference in terms of getting out of the hospital um trial this has been put to death this has been like the nails in the coffin of these medications have been just already nailed quite a while ago what has been shown to be more effective is there are certain um monoclonal antibodies that have been developed um like bandlam visumab or whatnot and they have there's some data uh indicating that they may be somewhat helpful um but it's tough i mean you need there still needs to be um follow-up and oh sorry another thing that hasn't really been shown that was promising was um convalescent plasma so we had some high hopes for convalescent plasma and that's the idea that while people who had kova can donate their plasma and they have antibodies there but it turns out that wasn't really very helpful it didn't really show it didn't really pan out and it didn't really help people who had governed 19.
so unfortunately a lot of promising therapies that we that we hyped up and thought that they were good it turns out they didn't really work which is all the more reason to not get this virus in the first place sure right if treatment after treatment has been not effective then there may be some like handful of treatments that have shown some promise in trials but are very expensive and whatnot and they're systemic just don't get the virus right well let's you know for example let's talk about hydroxide chloric and it's um it's something that a lot of people where you know patient or um uh doctors frontline doctors were using early on right in a lot of places in the u.s many places around the world um even in combination with i don't know a ton of different uh throws it's different they used the combination with the thermising yeah avermectin you know yeah oxycycline antimatter malarial steroids all kinds of stuff right um yeah and yep because it was like there was no guidance there was no uh consensus on how to deal with this a lot of these doctors were you know just trying whatever they could right to save lives and a lot of doctors and clinics actually saw a lot of promising results with let's use um you know hydroxychloroquine right which you're saying is disproven by you know a randomized controlled trend maybe you're talking about um multiple multiple randomized control trials right yeah or the solidarity trials for example right there there's been more than that but the not only has it been disproven done if anything they were actually harming patients so if you so one thing that they were doing is they were giving hydroxychloroquine with um with azithromycin and if you look at the results for that for those trials for that arm um they actually had a higher risk of dying right uh than hospitalized patients right yeah yeah they had a higher risk of higher risk you had a higher and they were look at these doctors and by the way these are these are often the same doctors that will tell you how promising their results are and this is why it's important to do a trial and not just not just listen to doctors saying they had seen these promising results because in reality they were killing people right in reality they were they had good intentions they're not bad people they had great intentions and they were just focusing on the patients that got better right but in reality they were just making it more likely for them to die right well in the trials from what i've read um as well let's use the solidarity and um the recovery trials which were the main ones that got the fda to retract the emergency approval um you know to use that as a treatment for covid um you know they were using it in hospitalized patients which was not supposed to happen as as it's a outpatient like an early treatment right um you know what they've been doing and seeing success with um in clinics it was for early treatment not for hospitalized patients or on their deathbed and also they're giving doses that were completely you know off the charts in terms of um what they would normally use for other purposes um that are shown to be effective in the last whatever 50 60 years of there's there's been trials yeah there's been trials that looked at it early on there's been trials that looked at early cove there's been trials to look at it's a prophylactic the point being it's the early as possible um right i don't remember the doses being off the chart and they found the same thing they found that it doesn't do anything right yeah apparently the doses were like three to four times higher than um you know what they're supposed to be so um and i don't know i'm not aware of that being the case okay i'm not aware of being the case in the outpatient but but either way like here's the thing john like you you do the trial and there are there's always something they'll be like oh well you did this okay well no it's not supposed to be in late stage supposed to be an early copy oh okay well we'll do the trial of the early code oh well the dosage is a little bit tight okay wait which which from which from which trial are you talking about uh the recovery the new england german no no i'm talking about new the new england journal of medicine paper uh from from the hydroxy quark and prophylactic oh the the combination treatments yeah i haven't seen that one standard dose is around like it could be around 400 to 600 milligrams of a single dose they're in two divided doses per day then it's 200 milligrams a day or 400 these are standard doses for like uh general indications of plaque or hydroxychloroquine but that's that's what was done in a randomized controlled trial as pre-exposure uh post-exposure prophylaxis so what they did was they had individuals that um they had individuals that were um uh exposed to covenant and when they were exposed to cova they gave them um they gave them either proceed hydroxychloroquine they gave them 800 milligrams once followed by 668 hours than 600 uh daily for additional four days which is not that high of a dose it's slightly higher but it's not that crazy it's not like off charts um and it did it did absolutely nothing someone looks at the data and they look at the results they look at the methodology they look at everything all the steps of the way and you decide to you know use that as truth as fact as you know you know the answers because of that so that is you know okay so typically all right so let me let me just be clear what i'm saying and here's what you don't have to have faith what i'm saying is that you don't have to have faith to believe that the extent of what the data is to the extent that it is uh is such that the results the conclusion that you're going to draw is going to be the same so for example yes the data might be you know there might be an error in some site that they reported one event in another group rather than the first group there might be some error in another site that balanced that out or so why not it might not be exactly the same but the degree of how off it would have to be to make a huge difference like that that you don't have to have faith because you would have to believe in something absolutely astronomically improbable in order for it to be that way so you don't have to believe that data is exactly the way it is in order to draw this conclusion there's a whole range of possibilities of how the data can be and the probability of it being something that would change your conclusion on that data is so is so low that you would actually have to have faith to not accept the results of the data actually right well you know the main idea here is just to be open-minded right to to be critical of the data that is showing especially when it's funneled so um um you know selectively through you know a handful of organizations especially when you're just considering the modern advisor trials and on top of that considering that you know the the side effects that are coming up although they're anecdotal and and a lot of people want to throw it out as garbage we're still seeing a lot of people you know a lot of people who know people who have taken the shot who've had um you know severe consequences although it's rare for sure but it's not being shown in those randomized controlled trials so there is like a contrast there um even in bears which is not accurate um reporting system whatsoever i believe um it's still got you know in the last whatever a couple months it's gotten more death reports than all the other injections of the traditional vaccines combined for the last 20 years right so um it's still a huge spike in cases and reports and yeah but but john here's here's the thing like yes you should always have an open mind but these are hypothesis generating things that should be put to the test in just like that randomized controlled trials if you have those things those anecdotes and you do randomize controlled trial and none of that stands out then that supersedes the anecdotes right right this is true in any context we don't change our epistemic our epistemic rules just because it's a vaccine and people are you know spamming the bears report system with anything that they're putting together and what they think happens um so yes we'd be open we should be open-minded but of course not to the point where our brains are on the floor right don't you think we should consider you know the possibility that there is more happening when all the sudden you know this this reporting is exploded through the roof compared to any other time in history of course and that's why we should that's why we should engage in randomized controlled trials and or rigorous studies to see it and every time we do that it doesn't pan out and it shows that actually these things either were not either coincidental or they were actually from covid and you were attributing to the vaccine or something or that or they were from something else or they would or by the way made up that's another thing people do with bears by the way they literally are political individuals who are who make spam accounts bring the bears and they make up not joking right yeah um you know that that's a possibility for sure um but the issue is then you know when there are conflicts of interest if the randomized control trials and most um well studied trials and well developed trials are from the companies themselves and are not independent with a you know a very large variety of experts from you know all sorts of backgrounds countries etc you know a lot of people end up asking questions if everyone um is basing their opinion their their recommendations based on the moderna or the pfizer trials that will benefit them if they have a positive result right john this isn't just just isn't this idea that all the studies have just been filtered through our cities the pharmaceutical company yeah the rcts but again like that's the case with every pharmaceutical like why do you have like this degree of skepticism when it comes to a vaccine and not with any other medication on the planet like the the pro so yeah like you under again like the degree to which there's a lot of medications you'd have to agree that a lot of medicines you know are shown to have provincial results in randomized controlled trials and then you know something horrible happens and they had to pull it off the market actually there's not actually if you look at proportionally it's a drop in the ocean i i have there's a list of drugs that happens are like that no no yes it does happen but the probability that it happens is very very even in those cases a lot of times it uh the concerns turn out to not be not be reality so yes it is possible it's always possible any any any medication but the degree to which the results would have to be off here are ins are astronomical you would have this even if regardless of the rct and by the way with the non-rct studies the observational studies there are studies that look at these individuals that are not from the trials they're not from the they're not from pfizer they're not from modern they find the same thing it's the same thing meaning they're meaning that they're very efficacious um sometimes even more efficacious than they found in the trials by play um and and and they drastically improve um morbidity mortality right so like at this point you'd have to look i mean we're always am i going to be open-minded if something new coza of course of course like there's something some if something if new data comes on that is as reliable absolutely at this point based on the data available these things these things are just relegated to the fairy tales and maybe that'll change in the future but right now it's fairy tale level yeah well you know a lot of people have unfortunately been censored or silenced from doctors virologists epidemiologists um political figures um you know people in china to do with the lab um origin that kind of stuff right there's a lot of a lot of silencing going on which again enforces and encourages more of these uh theories and um more doubts uh which is understandable right but you know there's a reason why i agree with you there this is where we agree yeah this is where we agree because i think i think that so just to be clear i think that yes it is happening where people are being silenced and i understand why they're being silenced because that's such a health um hazard um to uh to stop people from getting this vaccine however i think the best approach yeah i think the best i think the best approach well that well it is a well it's it's objective that it is a health hazard just optimally expecting that's not subjective but the the my view my subjective view is that i think it's probably going to be better to not censor them and instead of censoring them what we really need is we need people who actually are familiar with the research and how research is done yeah and we need them to debate these people we need to and that's what i do i debate and debate a few backstories and i stomp them right i mean i'm not just trying to be like a yeah like i mean here's like and by the way for any of your viewers if anyone wants to debate me on on this topic have at it yeah preferably a doctor or someone qualified yeah no bring bring him on um i i'll i'll debate any doctor you want i'll debate whoever whoever wants to step up to the plate happy to debate i'm happy to stop them because that's what we need rather than a sense of them what we need is people who are informed about this to debate them in a public format so that they can look like a clown when they bring their anti-vaxx nonsense to someone who actually is familiar with their arguments and knows why they're nonsense okay okay that's very confident yeah what look i mean it's not it's not hard to be confident when you have so much of the reality on your side and the other side is at the level of the conspiracy theory yeah i mean you know when it comes down to conspiracy theories like there is always going to be a lot of them however there's always conspiracy theories that are going to be proven to be true in the end like for example i personally believe that it will be proven if you know it's allowed to that you know the the virus leaked from a lab like i believe that that will happen for sure um eventually but that's been you know something that's been censored and banned it's been you know people been deleted from social media for saying that for raising questions for having people who worked in these facilities who are from china um and have you know a lot of good ideas when i say when i say conspiracy theory i'm not just talking about i'm not i'm talking about the type of conspiracy theory that a person with a tinfoil had would say right i'm talking about i'm talking about the person with the temple has said they saw the ufos last night right now i'm not talking about you know like some kind what if the pentagon what if my they have to provide evidence same same same standard as i hold everyone if you want to say something provide evidence doesn't matter what the organization is sure so that's the kind of conspiracy theory i'm talking about i'm not talking about like some kind of communist regime or trying to be convinced by the evidence yeah yeah of course i have to be convinced by the evidence just like anything else yeah but it doesn't mean that it's actually true even if you're convinced of the evidence they provide it doesn't necessarily mean that it's actual no it doesn't no nothing's part nothing's perfect but that's the logic and reason and empirical evidence is the best tools that we have to go by what is your thoughts on mandatory vaccines mandatory vaccination for covert my thoughts on that okay so that's a complicated ethical topic so so i it it depends like if there is look at some point it depends on what the facts of the situation are so let's just say hypothetically um you know there's you know there's a certain amount of extra individuals that are going to die if you mandate vaccines compared to non-mandated vaccines at some threshold i'm gonna say yes you should mandate vaccines if like you scale up the amount of deaths on the other side um if these skeletally amounted deaths who are if these individuals would die if you uh did not mandate vaccines compared to if you did mandate vaccines at some thresholds of death i'm going to say yes you should mandate vaccines of course not to those who are allergic or et cetera or we'll have some type of we believe we'll have a reaction but i mean to the point i'm gonna say to our current numbers to the current to our current numbers um let's say it's uh yeah i don't know 0.3 mortality rate or something like that or one percent well average average total is going to be around 0.5 but but yeah um i think so i i have to think about it a little more but i i lean towards mandatory yeah the way i see it is that i believe that these shots are potentially going to be you know more um not dangerous but they're going to have more likelihood of some sort of side effect potentially long term that we have no idea about um so you know and just because of that just because of the reasoning behind not having the long-term data not understanding um you know the the effects of the the shot long term and the complications that is you know for me personally enough reason not to mandate or force people to take something that they're personally unsure of and even if their doctors or the health organizations say it is safe if the day is missing you know it's you know likely you know it's it's in in your right to decide in my opinion whether or not you want to take that you know risk if you believe it is a risk now even if you again why is the why is that concerned why is the long-term concern there for the vaccine but not there for coke well you know people prefer to you know a lot of people i think vegans as well prefer to you know rely on their immune system and that kind of stuff right you've heard that a lot throughout the pandemic people want to you know be on this planet have enough vitamin d um you know boost their immune systems and naturally to nutrition lifestyle methods and they want to take that risk with covet but they don't want to take that risk with a pharmaceutical because they're against maybe the ethical methods of the pharmaceutical industries maybe they've seen uh what these pharmaceutical industries have done in the past what kind of uh i just want to see if there's a good argument i just want to see if there's a good argument to be concerned about long-term effects of the vaccine but not long-term effects to covet especially since we're having all these if all these longer-term effects come up with coping but not with them not not nearly as much with that a more developed um you know uh immunity to the the strain or the virus as well is a reason why a lot of people so so i i'm actually not convinced of that um i'm actually i think it might be the it may be the opposite um i think so now i i know that's not antibodies is not just the end-all be-all but i can tell you that people who get the vaccine have way higher on because i i'm actually involved in a research project that looks at this people who get vaccines are have generally higher antibody levels against uh coppic than those who have gotten coping they tend to have the antibodies on the lower side now i know it's not all about antibodies it's about t-cell immediate function but t-cell mediated function is enhanced by the vaccine as well so i'm not sure it's the case that you have better immunity echo but actually if i had to gun to the head if i had to pick one i think you actually have worse immunity getting it natural then with the vaccine but they're not mutually exclusive me personally i had covered i had covered and i also got the vaccine and my antibodies for against covet are off the charts now you had covered naturally and then you got the vaccine on top of it yep i i had copic naturally and i got the vaccine on top of it just to increase your antibody count and uh yeah well i well and because you're done it's like it's effectively a dog yeah but the but to but my antibody counts when after i got covered was actually on the lower side the antibodies again and and i was i had a real case of it i was out for 10 days um it was not fun we got to get you out in the sun but yeah that was the yeah the site if you just have the sunlight then you i don't know why yeah i mean i know you're meaning but the point being is that after so after i got the vaccine my antibody levels just shut up like there may be this synergistic effect i see that too a lot of people get to get the vaccine they really have very high antibody levels against against tobin um but yeah i'm not i'm not convinced that basically i've seen about the cases where people get reinfected after vaccination for example there are cases like there are also cases who people get reinfected after capture coping um there are breakthrough cases on both based on pcr tests right they're very rare yeah based on pcr tests they're very they're rare very rare but they happen they happen in both cases um so again i'm not convinced that a breakthrough case is more likely if you get natural immunity versus if you get the pedigree yeah i mean like for me i i do understand i do um support people's skepticism uh when it comes down to all these you know political affiliations and and you know industrial uh motivations and that kind of stuff i completely understand just like you know and being community people are very skeptical towards the dairy industry the meat industry um funding nutrition science and that kind of stuff right um so i understand the problem is not the skepticism that's not my problem the problem is not i don't have a problem with people being skeptical i have a problem with people applying their skepticism inconsistently and that's what i see and that's what i see in a lot of times happening they have a standard of skepticism that are they're applying to the vaccine that is incredibly high and then when it comes to everything else their standard of skepticism is just lower and i want to know what justifies the higher level of skepticism from an epistemic standpoint in the vaccine but not from every other thing that's the issue the issue i'm happy with people being skeptical what i what i think is really weird and cringy is when people max out the skepticism to a ridiculous level just in one area specifically that tells me people are just acting like ideologues right yeah i can fully get that but since you support skepticism or you think it's a natural thing and you know something that people you know we have wouldn't you be in favor of people making their own minds up in terms of who um if they want to get a vaccine or not in order to you know that depends okay yeah that depends on what the that depends on what's gonna happen if if all all things being equal i would love that all things being equal i want people to be able to make their own choices now when it happens where there's enough bodies on the other end of the under other ends of the coin when you let people make their own decision at some point i'm going to say no you know what i don't care about your own decision right these these amount of bodies are going to be more worth more than your decision um now that's going to be true for driving that's going to be true for everything now i don't think driving reaches that level i don't think smoking reaches that level but if it did if it did reach that level if smoking for example if smoke was able to replicate in other people's lungs and then pass through one lung to another in an exponential fashion and then all these people were dying because some idiot just decided that it was their personal choice and freedom to smoke i would tell them i don't care you know what i don't care you want your choice guess what it's not worth the rest of the people dying for it right but at this point right now with let's say a 0.5 percent more quality rate what is your stance on mandatory vaccination yeah i think that's higher i think that's higher than um if it's higher than car crashes it's higher than smoking it's higher than all these other things um yeah now in the short term but not in the long term right people are going to be driving their cars we don't know in the long term maybe in the long term when it goes down we can we can make the choice again maybe in the long term if it go look you could always change the policy right it's too late if you've already had the vaccine right well no you could always no i'm saying you could change it for like future children and whatnot like it's not too late there are going to be individuals who are not going to get it but the point is that even yeah in the short term um well we don't know what's going to happen long term it could be worse in the long term who knows there could be another variant that comes out i don't know neither do you neither does anyone but the point is like the principle is the same the principle is just that at a certain point then that point is different for different people but at a certain point your freedoms are not worth other people's grades okay other people doing for the grave they're just not i'm sorry um and i would tell them to like okay i hear you too bad um sorry no yeah no i uh you know i i i would agree with you 100 if the death if the mortality rate was a lot higher if this was something that was going to be around forever the data was there yeah for sure have you seen the um any information or studies um where the injection the the spike protein ends up being created in many other places rather than only in the area of the injection the muscle tissue and the shoulder for example for like in terms of for for like months follow-up no i have never seen anything like that are you having yeah i haven't seen that i haven't seen for like months after no okay and even if it's you know a couple days weeks or something like that do you think there is no oh i'm sure it's there in a day i'm sure it's there in a couple of days that's the whole point right and the whole point like it's boulder but you know if it ends up in the brain or you know your your bone marrow overall oh no no no i haven't seen no no but no i haven't seen anything like that okay yeah i haven't seen it in the brain or the bone marrow by the way i just happen to mention again yeah yeah look having but but what i have seen even if look even if there are you know you do find that some some spike proteins in these different tissues with covid you have the whole virus there you have the whole viron that's not just the spike protein you have the whole virus so like whatever amount of concern and you have it not not only do you have it you have the whole virus there seven months plus after you got it right we're not just talking about a couple days right so like whatever concern we may have and i'd be interested in seeing the the programs whatever conservative may have i have what i haven't seen is i haven't seen a the spike proteins there months after and b i haven't seen a whole virus thereafter but i guess what you see that with coke right which you can still get after the injection potentially incredibly okay done that's like so okay you know the odds of breakthrough cases like that yeah well you're talking about less than like a tenth of one percent it's just yeah well you know it was incredible it wasn't a news somewhere um that was a a town or uh or a city in the uk where uh most of the debts and cases were from people who were vaccinated and that's not scientific data but it's something to to look into as well i i i would i would love to take a look at that because a lot of times when they look every time i look at one of these things it turns out to be nonsense but i i'm happy to take a look at it my final question when it comes to diagnosing coping do you think there is any chance um that the pcr test uh may be unaffected it depends what you mean by ineffective so intestinal in terms of figuring out it's not finding you know the viral matter in itself but uh determining whether or not a person is uh infectious so that also depends in terms of what you mean by it by uh uh effective so it would and every time there's something called uh right yeah no i understand but determining whether you're infectious is always infectious is not like a binary thing like it's a it's a probability scale of transmission so it's a function of your the viral load so if you have a higher viral load uh particularly in the nasal area then you're going to have a higher rate of transmitting code to other people by the way new data has come out showing that the vaccines actually reduce transmission rates by over by 50 or more because even when you do get uh acquire the virus even if you don't get coveted and have it you have less viral load so whether you're transmissible or not whether you're whether you're infectious or not isn't yes or a yes or no answer it's a percentage it's what percentage are you likely to transmit fire to someone else it's the scale now that's just the point in terms of pcr testing it's just going to look at um you're going to have to have some type of test that looks at a viral load to do that that's going to be a much more expensive test i'm not sure if we have anything like that um rather than some just wrestled saying you have it or you don't have it i don't know if we have a test that looks at infectivity but what we can do is there's been studies looking at rates of the transmission and they find that they're lower by sometimes over 50 percent right when you do get the vaccine compared to when you don't yeah well i i've seen uh i think it was a study comparing the um um uh the ct or the yeah the the cycles to the infectious treatment so you know the the the lower the cycles um the more infectious you're gonna be the higher the cycles used the less infectious you'll be because you know you have a very small amount of it in your system um but every everyone's being tested at you know 30 or 35 cycles so um the data is kind of hard to to sort out there maybe you know to be sitting on the stage always a balance yeah yeah it's always a balance between something called sensitivity and specificity so the test so that's that's the topic for a different time but right the point is that any time you're designing a test you have to balance out the um your uh your your fault you're going to have some false positives and false negatives you're going to have to balance them out um and ultimately it's going to come down into sensitivity and specificity that's a whole different complicated discussion but the point is at the end of the day getting the vaccine mess makes you less infectious [Music] you
2021-06-20