Truth Jihad Radio

First 25 minutes: Audio of my Press TV interview (with Brian Terrell) “Saudis ‘Normalize’ Their Betrayal of Palestine.”

Final half hour: Legendary alternative radio host Richie Allen interviews me on the Ukraine war and more.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Anti-aging scientist Josh Mitteldorf returns to Truth Jihad Radio to offer “Proof We Are Not Living in a Simulation (see Nick Bostrum’s famous essay) and discuss the amazing fact that “The Universe Seems Fine-Tuned for Life.” If we answer those cosmic questions quickly we’ll move on to questions about quantum physics and mind-brain relationships.

Josh Mitteldorf writes:

I The Universe seems fine-tuned for life

The fundamental equations of physics have constants in them that physicists take as a given. They just happen to be what they are. For example in E=mc2, the E is any measured quantity of energy and m is any measured quantity of mass, but the c is the velocity of light, and this is one of those arbitrary constants. The strength of the gravitational force is another example, along with the strength of the electric force that holds electrons in atoms, and the strong force which binds neutrons and protons together in the nucleus. All of these are arbitrary constants. There is no theory to tell us what they ought to be.

About 50 years ago, physicists started asking “what kind of universe would this be if these constants were different”. They discovered a startling fact. Our universe would be VERY different if any of these “arbitrary” constants were changed just a little bit. In every case, the universe would be much less interesting, and life would probably be impossible.

For example, if the balance between the strong force and the electric force were tipped more toward the electric force, then there would be no chemical elements except hydrogen. Nuclei would not be able to hold together, because the electric repulsion between the protons would make them fly apart. If it were tipped more toward the strong force, then neutrons and protons would clump together indefinitely, until all atoms merged into a giant neutron star. Chemistry is the basis of life. It’s the difference between gold and granite, between air and ice cream. No chemistry means a dull world indeed.

Another example, the gravitational force is just right for stars and galaxies. If it were just a little weaker, the clouds of gas that came out of the big bang would never condense to make galaxies and stars. The world would remain forever a diffuse gas. If the gravitational force were a little stronger, stars would burn much hotter, and they would burn themselves out in thousands of years instead of billions of years. Probably life could not evolve in those circumstances.

One more example: Electrons are much lighter than protons, about 1800 times smaller in mass. If electrons were a little lighter, they would be traveling too close to the speed of light for atoms as we know them to exist. If they were heavier, then …

Before 1970, scientists regarded life as an opportunistic phenomenon that could probably arise in some form with any set of arbitrary constants that Nature chose to throw out. But after these articles in the 1970s, physicists had to face the fact that the very possibility of life depended on a lot of conditions that they (physicists) had regarded as arbitrary.  

The “standard” interpretation among physicists is that there are many, many universes, but only a tiny fraction of them have life. Of course, we live in one of those improbable universes because we are here to ask the question. The religious interpretation is that God created a universe hospitable to life. A scientific/spiritual interpretation is that consciousness is “the ground of being”, closely related to fundamental physics, and that consciousness fashioned the universe and living creatures as a home for itself.

II What is the relationship between mind and brain?

In the 1990s, a philosopher named David Chalmers hammered away at challenging philosophers to address this question. He called it the “hard problem”. The world of subjective experience and awareness that each of us knows so well has no obvious relationship to matter or physics. How did the two come to be connected?

Chalmers himself narrows the question to “how does the brain generate consciousness?” assuming that consciousness is generated by the brain. But 125 years ago, William James offered a cogent argument that we only know that awareness is associated with brain activity, and not that it is caused by brain activity. He offered reasons to think that consciousness has an independent existence, apart from physics. The brain, then, is a transducer that takes sense signals from the world and connects them to the realm of consciousness, while taking willful intention from the realm of consciousness and connecting it to nerves and muscles. 

James was offering a lecture on “human immortality.” If the brain produces consciousness, then we can’t expect that there is any consciousness that survives death, when the brain no longer functions. But if the brain merely connects consciousness to the physical world, then it is plausible that our individual consciousness might survive after our bodies are dead.

Note: A lot of activities and programs tacitly assume that the brain generates consciousness. People talk about uploading a brain state to a computer. The idea of a conscious computer is closely related to Artificial General Intelligence. I would bet that you can’t achieve AGI without consciousness, and that consciousness can’t be produced by computation. The idea that “we are living in a simulation” assumes tacitly that a digital simulation would generate what we experience as consciousness.

https://dailyinspirationblog.wordpress.com/2020/05/06/does-the-brain-generate-consciousness-or-channel-consciousness/ 

III The “measurement problem” in QM

How is it that a system described by probability function becomes suddenly a system in a definite, well-defined state whenever a measurement is made?

This question arose out of the wave mechanics of Schrödinger in the 1920s. In the picture that gave to us, a physical system is described by a probability wave called the “wave function” that changes from moment to moment according to the Schrödinger equation. So long as no one is looking. But the Schrödinger equation ceases to apply the moment a “measurement” is taken. Then the system snaps suddenly into exactly one fixed state. The “probability” inherent in the wave function is realized as an actual probability that one of many possible states becomes real, and all the others become “also-rans”. 

If the Schrödinger equation describes physics, then what is a measurement? Is it outside of physics? 

Most physicists believe that a “measurement” occurs when a small quantum system interacts with a much larger classical system. They say the wave function suffers “decoherence”. They explain measurement as a purely physical process, although they tend to admit that this is mysterious and the “explanation” is too vague to be satisfactory.

A respectable minority of physicists believes that a “measurement” involves consciousness, and that consciousness is its own thing, with an existence apart from matter and space and time. There are experiments that suggest this is the right approach, although they are subject to interpretation, and unlikely to convince the staunch materialist.

IV Why classical systems can be modeled (in what we now call a “computer”), but quantum systems cannot.

Start with the idea of a “configuration” and a “configuration space”. 

Sometimes I am home and sometimes I am far away from home. Same with my wife. Sometimes I am home when my wife is out, and sometimes she is home when I am out. Sometimes we are both home and sometimes we are both out.

You can represent how far I am from home as a point on a line. At the left end, I am home. Further to the right, I am farther and farther away from home. 

If you simultaneously want to know how far my wife is from home, you can use another line, a vertical line this time. If she is at home, the point is at the bottom, and if she is far away, the point is high above the bottom. 

In this way you can encode information about both of us on an XY plot. A point in the XY plane tells you both how far I am from home and how far my wife is from home. During the day, as we both move about, this point moves around the plane.

Suppose you wanted to know exactly where I was, not just how far from home. You would have to plot my position in 3-dimensional space (assuming I might be on a mountain top or up in a plane). If you wanted to know at the same time where my wife was, she would need 3 more dimensions. 

For us mortal humans, 6 dimensions is unimaginable. But for a mathematician, there is no problem with a 6-dimensional space. It’s perfectly well-defined and you can compute with it just as with a 2 or 3-dimensional space. The only thing we can’t do is to envision it.

Where I am at any given time can be combined with where my wife is and all that information is specified by a point in 6-dimensional space. If there were three of us, you could represent each of our positions in a separate 3D plot, using XYZ coordinates. Or you could combine all three of our coordinates and plot a single point in 9-dimensional space. A point in 9-dimensional space tells you information about all three of us. 

Let’s come back now to how you make computational models in classical mechanics and in quantum mechanics.

Let’s say you are making a model of N atoms or N stars or N particles. In classical mechanics, you have one 3D space, and each particle occupies a position in that space. You make a model that tracks how each of those particles moves over time. Every time the computer clock ticks, you update the positions and velocities of N particles. 

In quantum mechanics, you would want to have a wave function for each of the N particles, and then you could track each of the N wave functions. You could update each of the N wave functions each time the clock ticks.

You could, if that was how QM worked. But in QM you don’t have two wave functions for two particles and three wave functions for three particles. You always have a single wave function, but the wave function describes probability of a configuration, rather than separate probabilities for each particle. In other words, the probabilities for each particle are inextricably tied to the probabilities for all other particles. You can’t assign individual particle probabilities. You have to specify the entire configuration, and assign a probability to the configuration as a whole.

This takes enormously more computer power for quantum calculations compared to classical. In classical mechanics it takes twice as long to computer two particles, three times as long to compute three particles, N times as long to computer N particles. But in QM, you have to plot a 3-dimensional space for one particle, a 6-dimensional space for two particles, a 3N-dimensional space for N particles. We say that in classical mechanics the computational demand rises linearly with the number of particles; but in QM, the computational complexity rises exponentially with the number of particles.

You’ve probably heard that quantum mechanics is the world’s most successful theory, and that it is validated to 15 decimal places in the best case. What they don’t say is that all of these fancy calculations in QM are based on two particles at a time. For example, the hydrogen atom — one proton and one electron. For example, a particle accelerator where protons and antiprotons are slammed into each other at high energies. We can do the calculations for 2 particles at a time, but 3 particles is a huge challenge. And no one has ever attempted an exact 4-particle calculation in QM.

Coming back to the question whether we live in a simulation. A lot of smart people who should know better are taking this question seriously, and even producing computations that say there is a high probability that we live in a simulation. Of course, the question cannot even arise if you take William James’s view that the brain channels consciousness but does not create it. In that case, you would say that we know for sure that we are in a real world, not a simulated world, by the fact that we are conscious.

But even for those who believe that brains generate consciousness through a process of computation, the quantum complexity issue is an insurmountable barrier to simulating a universe. In fact, with a computer the size of the universe, you can’t even simulate a single water molecule, which consists of 13 particles. 

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

William Willers, a retired University of Wisconsin biology professor who supported my 9/11 truth academic freedom struggle, returns to Truth Jihad Radio to discuss a new article that he’s having trouble getting published in Wisconsin MSM. It begins:

“Who Is Ryan Westergaard?

“The short answer is that Dr. Westergaard, a public official, is Wisconsin’s Chief Medical Officer and State Epidemiologist. As such, he is in a position to advise the Governor on matters of public policy relating to health. From this position of influence, he has made it clear in multiple appearances that he represents ’science’ relating to the Covid-19 Pandemic.

“On July 3, 2020, in a televised interview by journalist Frederica Freyberg, Dr. Westergaard stated ‘Now the science is in. [Because of] recent studies with large numbers of patients in large numbers of countries ….  we have hard evidence that risk of transmission goes down dramatically when people wear masks.’ This came as a great surprise given that all of the available scientific literature indicated the precise opposite. Consider just these three:

“Item: A May, 2020 article in the The New England Journal of Medicine reported ‘We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection.’ 

“Item: A Policy review of the CDC, May, 2020 regarding the effectiveness of face masks concluded that ‘… evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.’ Both of these are notable in that they were published just two months before Westergaard’s claim of mask effectiveness.

“Item: In 2016, an extensive review of the literature encompassing 36 earlier studies was titled ‘Why Face Masks Don’t Work: A Revealing Review’. The subtitle: ‘Yesterday’s Scientific Dogma is Today’s Discarded Fable’. Fable!  But in Spring of 2020, the article was removed and replaced with a notice that the article is ‘no longer relevant in our current climate.’ Understand that ‘climate, as used, had nothing to do with the weather.”

Halfway through the hour we are joined by Dr. David King, a candidate for Wisconsin Lt. Governor who has attracted considerable support from the COVID freedom movement.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Watch the video version on Rumble

Economist and geopolitical analyst Peter Koenig discusses his recent articles “Ukraine-Russia: Towards a “Hot War”? Advancing the Agenda of the Great Reset?”, “The World Health Tyranny: Towards the WEF “Great Reset of Misery”, and “The Shanghai Lockdown. Seen from Another Angle.”

Peter Koenig writes:

“Russia intervened in Ukraine on 24 February 2022. Since then, all eyes are on Russia and Ukraine. Almost to the day covid disappears from the world arena, at least officially. Covid is gone from the headlines, everywhere. This is no coincidence. Geopolitics do not know coincidences – only plans and strategies.

“The ever-stronger and more relentless provocation to pull Russia into a war with Ukraine – may it have been planned by the WEF and the WEF’s handlers? – Because the WEF’s full and final agenda is much stronger and wider and larger and deeper – than Covid and the War combined. But Covid and the War are perfect instruments to further the (UN) Agenda 2030, alias the Agenda of The Great Reset.”

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Watch the video version on Rumble

Economist and geopolitical analyst Peter Koenig discusses his recent articles “Ukraine-Russia: Towards a “Hot War”? Advancing the Agenda of the Great Reset?”, “The World Health Tyranny: Towards the WEF “Great Reset of Misery”, and “The Shanghai Lockdown. Seen from Another Angle.”

Peter Koenig writes:

“Russia intervened in Ukraine on 24 February 2022. Since then, all eyes are on Russia and Ukraine. Almost to the day covid disappears from the world arena, at least officially. Covid is gone from the headlines, everywhere. This is no coincidence. Geopolitics do not know coincidences – only plans and strategies.

“The ever-stronger and more relentless provocation to pull Russia into a war with Ukraine – may it have been planned by the WEF and the WEF’s handlers? – Because the WEF’s full and final agenda is much stronger and wider and larger and deeper – than Covid and the War combined. But Covid and the War are perfect instruments to further the (UN) Agenda 2030, alias the Agenda of The Great Reset.”

This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com/subscribe

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Charlotte Dennett, author of Follow the Pipelines, explains “Why Ukraine Could Be the Mother of All Energy Wars.”

Unsophisticated people think wars are about good guys vs. bad guys. Slightly savvier folks think wars are primarily driven by ideological and religious disputes. Charlotte Dennett begs to differ. She says that if you scratch beneath the surface of a modern war, you’re likely to discover that it’s really mostly about gas and oil. Indeed, all of the recent Middle East wars, as well as the current Ukraine wars, are about oil and gas in general, and pipeline politics in particular.

Charlotte Dennett’s father, Daniel Dennett, America’s leading Middle Eastern master spy, was pushing a pipeline project that would have benefitted the US relative to other players when he was killed in a mysterious plane crash in 1947. Charlotte’s quest to solve the mystery of her father’s death led her to discover the often-hidden key role that competition for hydrocarbons plays in modern geopolitics and warfare.

Charlotte Dennett is the author of Follow the Pipelines: Uncovering the Mystery of a Lost Spy and the Deadly Politics of the Great Game for Oil.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Tom Luongo of Gold Goats n’ Guns opens his new article: “This day has been a long time coming. From the moment, more than a decade ago, when it was finally admitted that Europe was destined to be an energy importer, we were going to see the climax of the showdown between the West and Russia.

“Europe as energy importer always meant that time was on Russia’s side. All it had to do was draw the conflict out long enough, survive long enough, to force Europe into submission. Russia has the energy Europe needs, no one else can supply it, therefore the final decision will be to accept this fate.”

Tom says Russian energy and gold will ultimately defeat the Western banksters’ fiat debt currency.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Dr. Peter McCullough is a practicing internist and cardiologist in Dallas, Texas. Dr. Jessica Rose holds degrees in applied mathematics, immunology, computational biology, molecular biology and biochemistry. (Check out her Substack.) Both are leading figures in the popular resistance movement pushing back against bad COVID policies. Below is a rough transcript of our interview.

_

Kevin Barrett: Welcome to Truth Jihad Radio. I'm Kevin Barrett talking with the folks who have the most to say from way outside the box of mainstream idiocy. And today I've got two of my heroes I've been following for quite some time, Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Jessica Rose. I finally got them on the show. They're both people with a very strong medical credentials who've questioned the COVID party line and gotten some pushback for their pains. Dr. Peter McCullough is a cardiologist with a strong public health background, a master's in public health from the University of Michigan. Jessica is a Canadian researcher who's got a bachelor's in applied math, a master's in immunology, a PhD in computational biology, and on and on and on, even more than that. But we'll just get going here. So, hey, welcome. Peter and Jessica. How are you?

Jessica Rose: Great. Good, thanks.

Kevin Barrett: Well, it's an honor to have you. We'll start with Peter, because although both guests are having some Internet issues. Peter's are worse. So, Peter, we're going to start here first. Maybe you could quickly introduce yourself and let us know how you ended up being somebody who's being both cheered and smeared for saying sensible things about COVID and the experimental injections.

Peter McCullough: I'm a practicing internist and cardiologist in Dallas, Texas. Academic practice. I spend about half my time seeing patients like yesterday and half my time in academic mode. As an author and former editor and contributor, I'm a frequent news commentator now. Never thought I would be in the limelight, but I was very much prepared for it in terms of my training and background in analyzing data, both as a clinical trialist and an epidemiologist. I have been cheered, there's no doubt about it. I've testified in the US Senate and been well received across multiple news platforms. I've only been jeered, I think—in fact, I know—by people with no credentials and no credibility. And I think that jeers are about 1% and I think the cheers are 99%. But if you can find somebody who's credible, who's ever said a discrediting statement, I'd be happy to see it.

Kevin Barrett: Well, here's here's a kind of humorous discrediting statement. According to Wikipedia, you're spreading misinformation about COVID because you are not sure that people under 30 should be getting the experimental injections. Now, I don't quite understand that.

Peter McCullough: But let me just say, Wikipedia has contributors who are anonymous. The most frequent contributor to my Wikipedia page is not me. I should actually be writing my own Wikipedia page. In fact, Wikipedia has locked me out. It's someone in Illinois named the Altman, so it's an anonymous, uncredentialed person who's putting incorrect information on my Wikipedia page. So Wikipedia, in my view, since it's not a biographical or autobiographical page that's credentialed or allows the individual to actually put correct information, Wikipedia should be removed from the Internet and clearly not viewed by anybody who's interested in the truth.

Kevin Barrett: I agree completely. I had a five year battle with Wikipedia myself and it was maddening. They had libelous information up for five years that couldn't be taken down, sourced to an anonymous obscure blog lying about me. So yeah, it's completely insane. And the idea that questioning whether people under 30 should be getting these COVID injections (is bad) is also completely insane, isn't it? Where do they come up with it?

Peter McCullough: You know, I'm a doctor, so I decide not Wikipedia. I decide. I have the medical authority to decide and help patients judge the risks and the benefits. The risks of the vaccines in people under 30 far outweigh any benefits that could be had, even from the very beginning against the wildtype strain which the vaccines were designed to block. Now, with the Omicron strain across the age spectrum, the risks which are still there outweigh any theoretical benefits. And again, I'm the doctor. I have the authority to decide and make that judgment, not anonymous Wikipedia people.

Kevin Barrett: Well, I'm not a doctor, but that's sure how it looks to me too. I just can't imagine why anybody would be telling young people to (get vaccinated) even back in the bad old days of Delta. Even then, the numbers didn't make any sense to me either. So, Peter, where did this COVID thing come from? It looks like a bioweapon, and there are various theories about that. To my mind, even just the presumption that that's a possibility means we need to shut down biological weapons research. Maybe you can tell us your thoughts about biological weaponry and the possible link with COVID.

Peter McCullough: That's beyond my range as a medical doctor. I've been treating patients who are falling sick with the virus or after receiving the vaccine. But I would refer you and the listeners to Peter Breggin's COVID 19 and The Global Predators: We Are the Prey. It's got about 1000 references in it. I wrote one of the introductions. It's probably the best synthesis of where the virus came from. Who are the collaborators and what are the potential motivations?

Kevin Barrett: Thank you for that reference. I will check that out. So regarding the vaccines, it seems that there's a huge accumulation of danger signals suggesting that they are not very effective in terms of promoting herd immunity. But we also are learning that there are a lot of reasons to think that they're unsafe. What are the most important ones in your view?

Peter McCullough: We always consider safety first before efficacy. So even if the vaccines were perfect against COVID, if they were unsafe, we still wouldn't use them. So we always would never have somebody take an injection and be harmed. That's completely unacceptable. We know now from the released court ordered Pfizer documents that Pfizer had 1223 deaths reported to them within 90 days of release of their product. That is completely unacceptable. They should have pulled the product off the market at 50 deaths or before. And by continuing to have the product on the market, Pfizer basically defrauded the government as providing a safe and effective product. And chances are, if we get the Moderna and Johnson and Johnson documents, we'll find the same thing. Dr. Rose is with us and she's an expert on the vaccine adverse event reporting system that shows alarming signals, as does the yellow card and the EU system. There's also the V safe and safe systems. All of them show alarming, unacceptable, catastrophic deaths that occurred a few days after receiving the vaccine, and then an array of non-fatal syndromes, some of them causing permanent injury—neurologic, cardiovascular, immunologic and hematologic.

Kevin Barrett: And Dr. Rose, what what do you think are the worst of these signals?

Jessica Rose: Oh, well, that depends on your point of view. But most people would think that death is the worst. We're at over 30,000 deaths in the domestic data set. And as Peter said, this is mirrored in all of the adverse event data collection systems that are somewhat functioning right now around the world. I would say that personally, the neurological adverse event reports are one of the worst because these can be debilitating. There's actually a category in VAERS called disability. And the numbers of people reporting disabilities in the context of these injections—and now we're only talking about the the Pfizer and Moderna and the Johnson and Johnson products in the United States, so this is just three products—it's just off the charts. It's not even comparable to anything we've seen historically. And again, as Peter said, at 50 deaths, the product should have been pulled. It should have been pulled in January last year. It's not rational. It's not logical. It doesn't make any sense why this is continuing to this day. And not only not continuing, but being pushed and promoted: more shots, more more versions of shots, against more versions of this virus. It's insanity. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Kevin Barrett: Well, Dr. Peter McCullough, the data has been questioned. Matthew Crawford said when he was on the show a few weeks ago that theoretically every death that occurs within X time of vaccination ought to be reported to VAERS, which would be a very, very large number, even if the vaccine weren't killing anybody. So how do you think we should be interpreting the various data?

Peter McCullough: We should interpret it as being valid for what's there, but being a grossly underreported set of data. So initially events are reported. They get a temporary VAERS number, then the CDC vets it, and then when it's found to be valid, it gets a permanent VAERS number. The data Dr. Rose gave you are the permanent VAERS number. I've done numerous VAERS submissions and I can tell you there are queries and calls from the CDC if the lot number isn't correct. Or if they want to know the MRI or the blood test, the CDC verifies it. So these numbers up in the database are legitimate and real. The concern is that there is gross under-reporting. A paper by Pantazatos and Seligman in the ResearchGate preprint server system uses census data and vaccine administration data as an ecological analysis. So just the upper bound of the confidence interval for the number of lives lost after the vaccine roll-out through December of 2021 could be as high as 187,000 Americans. It's catastrophic, but it's cohesive with what we're hearing from the life insurance systems where all the life insurance systems are reporting in now record numbers of deaths in people of working age.

Kevin Barrett: That's right. And Dr. Jessica Ross, you recently wrote a post about the deaths among millennials. What's what does the data show about that?

Jessica Rose: So, yeah, there's this surge of of deaths in millennials, which are 25 to 44 year olds. These are young people. There's an 84% surplus of deaths in the fall of 2021, which is completely unexplained. Nobody knows why. According to what I've found, it's not due to drug overdoses and suicides and all of these other ways of dying. Yes, they're growing, but they only comprise a certain percentage of these excess deaths. So something caused this surplus of death in young people. It's outrageous that this isn't headline news and "extra, extra read all about it." It's not right that nobody is giving a clear answer as to what killed these people. It's factual. It's confirmed in many different ways. And again, it's inexplicable. There are so many answers that we need and that we're not getting.

Kevin Barrett: And Dr. McCullough, what about the reports of athletes dropping from cardiac problems, sometimes dead and sometimes not? Are those also concerning? Have you looked at the statistical analysis of those?

Peter McCullough: Roughly 700 athletes, mainly European, mainly soccer and rugby in other forms of football, 700 have had cardiac arrest during competition or practice. About half of them have been successfully resuscitated. Half, sadly, have died. These are record numbers. In not a single case has there been a reporting that they took the vaccine, had myocarditis and died, not a single case. In fact, there's little or nothing said about each of these deaths. It's almost like a mystery. We do know globally these leagues have enforced...

Kevin Barrett: It looks like we may have lost Dr. Peter McCullough as he predicted (due to poor bandwidth). Dr. Jessica Rose, are you still there?

Jessica Rose: Yes.

Kevin Barrett: Okay. It looks like we may have lost Peter. Maybe you can pick it up from there about the mysterious deaths of athletes.

Jessica Rose: Yeah, sure. And I'll segue into the the conversation about causation, because there's a huge pushback from from all sides as to the debate about whether these injections causing all of these adverse events. Without a reasonable doubt, to me, they are. And there's a way to to verify this, using something called the Bradford Hill criteria, which is a long-used set of criteria that you can use to assess a causal effect in epidemiological or biological data. And one of the ways that you can do that, one one of the criteria, is called specificity. So that applies to our healthy young athletes and also our young children who are suffering these massively rare cardiac events and myocarditis, for example. If you take a young person and you ask yourself the question, is it common for a young person to have a heart attack? Is it common for a 15 year old boy, for example, to have myocarditis? Is it common for a healthy young athlete at the peak of their their career to just drop dead from a cardiac event? So you look in specific populations where you would never expect just logically or statistically for these things to occur. And we're finding these things at much higher rates than background in both of these specific populations. And once again, we have not seen this before with a product that's being peddled to such a large proportion of the human population. There's just no explaining this. It's exactly what Peter said. Even if these products are 100% efficacious, which they're not, they're negatively efficacious right now, which means that they're causing harm to your immune system. As a matter of fact, (efficacy) doesn't matter if the product isn't safe. If it's even killing 50 people, it needs to be removed from use. This is the job of our regulatory bodies like the FDA.

Kevin Barrett: The media is telling us that whatever problems there might be with the vaccines, they're actually doing a lot more good than harm, they're saving you from the evils of COVID, etc., etc.. So what you and Dr. McCullough say is that basically we have to have a do-no-harm kind of approach.

Jessica Rose: Precisely.

Kevin Barrett: Right. But the other side are people with the military approach to things. Military people are very much acculturated to sacrificing a certain number of their troops in order to gain a strategic advantage, win the war, and save more of their troops. And it does make you wonder whether somebody high up in these agencies might be thinking along those lines. That's the implication of the way the media talks about it. The implication would be that, well, if we kill 100 people or even 100,000, and we save half a million or a million, then we've done a net good. So there's a philosophical issue there, and maybe you could concisely explain the do-no-harm position.

Jessica Rose: Well, I'm not a medical doctor, but if I was, I would abide by my oath to do no harm, which you have to take if you become a medical doctor. One of the parts of doing no harm, if you're a medical doctor and you treat patients, is to ensure that not only you are up to date on what's going on in in the pharmaceutical world, in the vaccine world, in the peer reviewed literature world, in all the studies that you probably should be reading world. You have to convey that information to your patient as part of informed consent. Especially when you're talking about a brand new experimental product that's being mandated in many cases, in many places in the world. So this duty of medical doctors to do no harm is seemingly being waived by many people. And I'm not sure why that is. Maybe they don't think there is harm because they're simply not up to date on the data. I would dare say that's the reason. But I don't think that's an excuse. I think it's absolutely your duty as a physician with patients to be up to date.

Jessica Rose: And the data is very clear on both the efficacy and the safety of these products. It's really, really clear. The pharmacovigilance tools that we use to assess safety signals like VAERS are screaming red flags in just about every adverse event type you can imagine. There are over 10,000 types of adverse events reported to VAERS right now in the context of these products. So it's not just the the absolute numbers of the reports which, like Peter said, are severely underreported. It's the number of types. If you pick any system, any tissue system, any cell type in the human body, somehow these products are affecting them in some populations of people. And that's one of the points I've been pushing. This is this is happening. They can deny it all they want, but it is happening. And the annoying part for me as a scientist is that the work that needs to be done now is to figure out who this is happening to and why precisely. Because they're denying the existence of the problem itself. Those studies aren't being done.

Kevin Barrett: Well, I've had Meryl Nass on this show, and she points out that the the various data, of course, are extremely concerning, but it's hard to know what to make of it, given that, as Matthew Crawford said, that theoretically everybody who has any problem after a vaccine up to who knows, two weeks or a month—there's no official time frame—so any medical problem of any kind whatsoever after getting a vaccine, such as, theoretically, you could die from old age 50 years after the vaccine, and theoretically, there's no reason not to report that to VAERS. So given that there are such loose reporting criteria, it's easy for the establishment to tell us that, "oh, it's all coincidence. All of these different kinds of problems are just problems that people would have had anyway. And it's just a coincidence that they happened to have them within X time frame, whatever that time frame may be, from the vaccine." So anyway, Meryl Nass thinks that actually the VAERS data is probably underreported, but we can't prove that. But she says that the government is holding really good data, that they've paid a lot of taxpayers' money for that really good data, and they've kept it under lock and key, which is both outrageous in terms of swindling the taxpayers who paid for all that data, but also very suspicious. What's your take on all of that data that's not being released?

Jessica Rose: Yeah, it's truthful because it does exist. So they have more data, like demographic data, than we know about. We don't know what it's telling us or what it would if we had access. And this is the same story that we're being peddled from the manufacturers. As you're probably well aware, Pfizer wanted to hide their their safety and efficacy data for 75 years. And they've been ordered by the court now, thanks to some brave lawyers, to release this data over the next—I guess we have seven months left now, tens of thousands of pages of data per month. And they were fighting and fighting and saying, well, we'll do this, but we'll redact some of it and and blah, blah, blah. And it's like, no, no, no, no. The public has a right to know what your studies showed in the clinical trials. They've already been injected with it. So that's an important thing for us to know. It's just appalling. I mean, you have to ask yourself, what would be the motivation of anybody to hide safety data? And like I've said before, the only reason you would ever want to hide safety data is if you really don't want people to know that it's revealing that your product isn't safe. That would be the only reason to hide it. And then you have to start getting appalled and realize that these agencies and these organizations and establishments are not peddling products that are safe for human consumption. They're not. This whole story has been one big lie, in my opinion. None of it adds up. None of it makes sense. None of it is in the interests of public health, obviously. And, yeah, it's not over. That's that's one of the most disturbing things to me.

Kevin Barrett: Well, Dr. Peter McCullough said that according to one estimate—I forget what the precise number was—I think he said it was 160,000 possible vaccine deaths in the US alone. Steve Kirsch has come up with estimates in that ballpark or possibly even higher. Have you tried to crunch numbers and examine the various approaches? A number of people have used different signals to argue for different numbers of deaths. A lot of people have put the number of US deaths in the low six figures. Have you crunched those numbers or looked at some of those estimates?

Jessica Rose: Yeah, I actually have a publication, the second publication I did on VAERS data. It's an assessment of the pharmacovigilance of VAERS. And in this paper, I do estimate the underreporting factor using Pfizer's phase three clinical trial data that had been released at the time.

Kevin Barrett: I remember seeing that.

Jessica Rose: My underreporting factor was a conservative estimate at 31, which means that you would need to multiply most of the adverse events by a factor of 31—though probably not death, even though this was calculated using severe adverse event data which includes deaths. I would say that the underreporting factor for death is lower because death is more often reported, I would say. But in the domestic data set in the context of the COVID 19 products alone, we have over 30,000 deaths reported. So if we use a an underreporting factor of say, let's go half, let's just go 15, which is half of the lowest estimate that's been calculated, we're at about half a million deaths. But we don't even need to account for the underreporting factor here when talking about the appalling mess of what we're seeing, the numbers in VAERS right now, just the absolute numbers without calculating in the underreporting factor, are off the charts when you compare them to the last 30 years of data.

Jessica Rose: There's no comparison here. It's like when I describe what the bar graph looks like if you tally up all of the adverse event reports for all the vaccines combined for the last 30 years, because VAERS has been operating for 30 years, you get about 39,000 reports per year. This is for all the vaccines combined. I think there are almost 100 different kinds now. So if you compare that to just the adverse event reports in the context of COVID 19 for 2021, we're over a million. It's just insane that anyone would think that nothing is going on here and that it's just a coincidence and that it looks like a bunch of bungalows over the last 30 years compared to this massive skyscraper. That's what the bar graph looks like. And it's the same story for any stand-alone adverse event that you pick. You can pick anything. You can pick death, you can pick myocarditis, disability, anything you want, and it looks like that.

Kevin Barrett: Have there been any remotely credible or thoughtful attempts to argue back from the other side? I've been looking for them.

Jessica Rose: No, no, no, no. Steve Kirsch is very good at getting people's attention. And he's a doer. He is very active. And he's been trying for...I'd say it's going on a year now, sending emails to the top, like Walensky and Woodcock and all these people, and saying, "Hey, how about letting us know what the underreporting factor is if you're saying that ours is wrong? How about letting us know? How come there's no causality assessment being done here? How about letting us know any of the answers to our questions? What's the cutoff number for the number of deaths to deem the product unsafe? How many deaths are reported to VAERS right now?" They can't even answer that, my friend. There's a video of Walensky and Fauci not being able to answer the simplest questions. She's the director of the CDC. This is the organization that owns this data set. She could not answer a simple question. How many reports of death are in VAERS right now?

Kevin Barrett: That's crazy. I know Dr. McCullough has compared the apparent inefficacy and danger of the vaccines to the apparent efficacy of treatments. Have you done work on the treatment issue?

Jessica Rose: You mean like ivermectin?

Kevin Barrett: Yeah. Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, I guess, are the two big ones.

Jessica Rose: Yeah, I've talked about them in my presentations to various people, just in the context of, "Hey, there's another solution." I piggyback off of the FLCCC and Pierre Curie. I'm not really analyzing data per se with regard to the early treatment. So I know that there are many, many studies showing efficacy of these products. And I also know that ivermectin is an anti-parasitic drug that's super, super cheap, that's been on the go for decades, has been used without any bad effects, even in pregnant women, and has in fact been associated with a Nobel Prize. It's an FDA approved drug that's been on the go forever. You know, repurposed drugs are used all the time. We use them in an off-label way, which means that you use it for a different ailment or disease. This is not a new thing. But all of a sudden, very, very strangely—Pierre Kory is the one to talk about this—these poor drugs are being demonized. I mean, it's just bizarro world. If people understood how strange that was, I think that they would ask a lot more questions. It's very strange to us, how nonsensical it all is.

Kevin Barrett: Well, I've had this argument with my brother who's an MD-PhD who has run lots of studies, usually randomized controlled trials. And so first he said, Oh, there's no evidence that Ivermectin works, there is no good evidence. And so I sent him to that website (https://c19ivermectin.com) that has a huge list of studies, the vast majority of which do show efficacy. And he said, Oh, wow, I never saw that. So, well, there is some evidence, he said, however, the good randomized controlled trials don't show efficacy. So still he's not convinced. So how do you respond to that?

Jessica Rose: I respond to that like this. I trust the doctors on the ground who are having success treating COVID patients. Paul Marik and and Pierre Korey and Fareed and Tyson have treated tens of thousands of patients with these things. Do you know what the context was? We had an emergency situation. We had this potentially deadly virus. And so if you were an emergency room doctor, if you're an ICU doctor...people need to try and get into the head of the people who are on the frontline, as we've been calling it. They had to come up with a way to prevent their patients from dying or going to the hospital. And so I imagine there was a lot of trial and error. There was a lot of critical thinking. There was a lot of "I'm going to draw upon my decades of experience as a physician," a lot of amazing independent assessment. And they came up with these protocols from going through these processes. So that's what I would trust if I had to make a decision for myself or someone that I love who is struggling to breathe. Take them to those people and let them do what they're going to do because I trust them. They've been on the ground, boots to the ground, treated the patients. Nobody's being hospitalized if they go to these people. And the other side of that is it ain't going to hurt them. It's a completely harmless drug, this ivermectin. It has an incredibly impressive safety profile. So there's no harm. That's the other point. I don't get why it's being demonized. So that's what I would say.

Kevin Barrett: All right. Also, I'm skeptical about these randomized controlled trials, given that with the most celebrated one that supposedly proved that ivermectin didn't work, it turns out that if you actually look at their numbers, as Meryl Nass pointed out on my show a couple of weeks ago...it was conducted in Brazil among poor people who probably signed up because it was a free source of ivermectin, which they take anyway prophylactically. They were divided into two groups, supposedly double blinded. However, it so happened that a huge number,like 60%, of the people in the control group that were getting the placebo didn't comply with the protocols of the trial, while hardly any of the ivermectin group didn't comply. So how can that be double blinded? Somebody knew which which group was which. And Meryl thinks probably the poor people who signed up for free ivermectin tasted their sugar pill (and said) "Oh, it's sugar. It's not ivermectin." And they went out and bought ivermectin anyway. And yet this has been touted as the best RCT proving ivermectin doesn't work. If that's the best, I would hate to see the worst.

Jessica Rose: Yeah. No, real world experience is the best, thank you very much. They can have their randomised controlled trials. It's not that I'm saying that they're not great when we have time and when they're done properly. But you know, boots to the ground, real life is more valuable. And it's especially valuable when you're considering the fact that these people are still telling us that we're in an emergency situation, which we are not. But assuming that we had been in the past in the last year or so, the best solution is "All hands on deck, man. Let's try everything and see what works." They didn't take their time rolling these injections into people's arms, did they? They skipped all the safety trials. They did the shoddiest clinical trials in the world. These vaccines are supposed to take 5 to 15 years to go from conception to arms. They have to take that long in order to ensure that the products are safe and effective. And I mean, we raced through this in a year and a half, two years, the whole thing, the whole shooting match. And these are not conventional vaccines, which makes what I just said very frightening. Most people don't realize that this is a new platform. It's a new delivery system, the lipid nanoparticle tech, and it's a new concept. This is modified RNA, which is injected into your body, and it provides the template for your host cell cells to develop or to translate these modified RNAs into protein. And these are very stable, modified MRNAs as we're seeing in peer reviewed literature right now, up to 60 days, we found this crop in the germinal centers of lymph nodes.

Kevin Barrett: What about the evidence that there is uptake into the DNA, that it actually is altering DNA? For a long time that was being debunked by the so called fact-checkers. But then apparently some studies came in showing that, well, actually, it looks like there is some uptake. What do we make of that?

Jessica Rose: Yeah. So there's a new study which is not in the preprint servers, it's peer reviewed, it is published, that shows definitively...I've been up and down this paper a few times and they did really good work, really good controls. And it shows definitively that reverse transcription occurs, which wasn't meant to happen. It wasn't meant to be possible for this RNA to go back to DNA. And the problem with that is we don't know for sure yet. We have strong evidence that it can happen with SARS, that this DNA can be incorporated into our genome. But that's precisely the problem. We were actually told that this was an impossibility that it could reverse transcribe. We were told there is zero possibility. We were mocked for even raising concerns that that might be a possibility, that integration may occur. We have yet to prove that, but I daresay that paper is being written right now. We were also told that the product, whatever is in the needle, was going to remain at the injection site and the the local draining lymph node close to the injection site. And it's very, very clear from the recent Pfizer dump that it absolutely doesn't stay at the injection site. It bio-distributes into places where it should never go because we have no idea what the physiological effects are going to be. The ovaries, the testes, the brain, the adrenal glands, the liver, the spleen. I mean, it's everywhere. And so we're talking about the lipid nanoparticles right now. So these guys are comprised of four different fats, four different lipids, one of which is called a cationic lipid, which is highly toxic to cells by nature. And so is the polyethylene glycol, the peg, which is on the surface of the the lipid nanoparticle. So these guys are heavily bio-distributed. They go everywhere, they slip into cells and they deliver their payload, which is this modified RNA. So we have to assume that the host cells are going to start producing the proteins that are the byproduct of this modified RNA, MRNA, whatever it is. And so we're going to get massive amounts of these foreign proteins being produced in locations where it should never occur. And we have no idea what the effect of that would be. All we know is that we see a lot of leaves rustling in the wind in the world of adverse event reports. Everybody's heard their mother, their sister or their daughter or their friend, somebody they know, has had some kind of menstrual irregularity if they've either had the injections or, interestingly enough, been in proximity to someone who has.

Jessica Rose: We're seeing fertility issues in the form of miscarriages, spontaneous abortions, stillbirths. We're seeing enormous effects in terms of the adverse event reports. Now, when you compare them to historic levels, like the past 30 years, it's just not the same story at all. Something is going on here. So maybe they're not related, but we have to find out if they aren't or if they are. And the onus is on these people pushing this crap into us to prove that they're safe. It's not up to us to prove that they're not. We're doing this because we care. But it's not our duty. It's their duty to prove that they're safe. And if they're not even willing to acknowledge that this happened, even though you said it wouldn't, and we're seeing this effect, shouldn't you acknowledge that first and investigate the possibility that maybe we're seeing an increase in stillbirths because there's massive amounts of spike protein being produced in the ovaries? Shouldn't we find out?

Kevin Barrett: It does make you wonder. And of course, I don't think you have to be a professional conspiracy theorist like me to wonder whether the fact that we're seeing all of these signals relating to the reproductive system might possibly be related to the fact that we have Malthusians in high places. Bill Gates is one of the many wealthy oligarchs out there. And the whole Rockefeller family and their friends, of course, have been (Malthusians) for a long time. But it's not just these oligarchs who might think that the human population of Earth is way too high, it's unsustainable, it has to go down. What would be a kind of gentle way to do this? Well, if we could either release a disease or put out mandatory injections, either one of which or perhaps both tended to reduce fertility, then that might contribute towards helping solve the Malthusian problem. And to me, that's not a stupid conspiracy theory. These oligarchs actually have a good reason to worry about the size of the population. One can project oneself into their shoes. Imagine that one is a somewhat sociopathic oligarch and used to solving problems in a pretty brute force way. I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder whether that could conceivably be related to this bizarre phenomenon of putting out this experimental gene therapy that is neither safe nor effective but seems to do something to reproductive systems. Call me crazy if you want, but I'm scratching my head about it. How about you?

Jessica Rose: Yeah. I don't know if they're trying to do that. Could very well be. I mean, there's not much that surprises me anymore.

Kevin Barrett: Yeah, me too.

Jessica Rose: But I would say that they're not smart enough to have anticipated this effect. I think that this is just about being careless, and it might just be a byproduct of that carelessness.

Kevin Barrett: Mm hmm. Yeah, that's that's what Ron Unz thinks, too, about his evidence that seems to point to COVID emerging out of a US bio-strike on Wuhan in October 2019. That and the fact that it next emerged in Iran seemingly specifically targeting high-up people in Iran also adds to that thesis. But he argues that it likely would have been blowback. That is these people aren't smart enough not to figure out that you shouldn't be hitting adversary economies with biological weapons because it might blow back and hurt your own economy even worse. So there's the conspiracy theory, and then there's the theory that it's all a combination of coincidence and incompetence. And who knows? Maybe we'll never know for sure. Have you have you looked at this, the research about the possible biowar origins of COVID?

Jessica Rose: No.

Kevin Barrett: Well, I urge you to.

Jessica Rose: Yeah, no, I don't really have free time, but I try and separate the the things that I'm doing related to this COVID nightmare from all the other stuff. I know it's very difficult to do that and I do have opinions. But I think the bottom line is I want to save my energy and my bandwidth for the really important stuff, which is, first of all, stopping things like this nightmare, idiotic (WHO Pandemic) treaty...

Kevin Barrett: Yeah. Talk about that.

Jessica Rose: I don't know if people know about this, but this is happening today. And we had five days notice. The only reason I know about that is because of our groups getting the information from the inside. They're just planning on passing this insane treaty, which basically means that all the countries that sign up, it's like 100 and something, will give up their sovereignty. And no matter what the hell they (WHO etc.) decide to do, you will have to obey, you will have to believe them that there's some kind of new emergency. They'll have these new measures. They'll lock you up, they'll inject you, they'll do whatever the hell they want to you. And there's nothing we're going to be able to do about it, because we won't have personal sovereignty, we won't have national sovereignty, we won't have anything if this goes ahead. So it's like these are the kinds of things—I know they're all related, I really do. But focusing on the real ways that we can try and stop that kind of nonsense from happening, which is finding out about it, first of all, and using the methods that we've always used, which is the voices and the power of the people. So one of the things that I did—it's stupid and it's small, but it's something—I used my, my substack platform to just say, hey, guys, you need to send a message to these people. Here's the website. Go to the site, write your message, send it to them. Because we need to let them know that this is not okay with us as a global population. We don't want this s**t. We don't want you to take over our sovereignty. We don't need you. We don't need Big Brother. So, yeah, I went on a little rant there, but it's just—what a nightmare we have coming toward us. And most people have no idea. It's completely hidden.

Kevin Barrett: Yeah. It's hidden under the propaganda. I have been studying this kind of hysterical mode of fear propaganda since a little bit after 9/11, and noticed that a similar approach was taken with COVID: just hitting the whole population with wall to wall fear propaganda, and then manipulating the population to do completely insane things en masse. And now it's odd that just as the pushback was starting to peak with Canadian truckers and then American truckers following Canadian truckers, and larger rallies, and more and more awareness—and the vaccines seem to hit a brick wall—and then suddenly overnight, the pandemic is forgotten, taking wind out of the sails of the pushback movement. And suddenly we're all supposed to fear and hate Russia. And once again, the population seems to actually have been herded so that now about three-fourths of the people do fear and hate Russia just as three-quarters of the people feared COVID and reacted to 9/11 in the way that the controlled demolition people wanted them to. So it sure seems that the public relations mind control machinery is trying to stay one step ahead of us. Do you have any ideas how we can try to get a step ahead of them?

Jessica Rose: Yeah, I've stopped listening to their garbage. And I don't know how to how to do that because—I can't even get my family members, not that I've seen them for like a decade, but I couldn't even get them to turn off the TV. "No, no, it's a part of our daily schedule." And it gives people a feeling of weird safety and warmth. But it's like, dudes, you've got to find another way to get safe and warm because that ain't it.

Kevin Barrett: Safety and stupidity in numbers.

Jessica Rose: It's inexplicable to me. It's like, no, no, no, no. You you have to turn off the television. You have to get rid of your stupid phone. Maybe that's a little bit too much to ask for most people. But these are the ways out of this. We have to detach from these things that don't matter, that have no meaning, and reconnect with the things that do, which is each other on the earth. It's just that simple: turn off the goddamn TV and go outside.

Kevin Barrett: All right. Well, that's a good place to leave it. Thank you so much, Dr. Jessica Rose. You're quite impressive and inspiring, both with your numbers-crunching scientific work and also your inspirational rants. I hope I can get you back on the show for more rants and more scientific parsing in the future. So thank you. God bless. And keep up the good work.

Jessica Rose: Yeah, I'd love to come back. Thank you.

Kevin Barrett: Okay. Take care. Right.

Jessica Rose: Bye.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Steve Kirsch is a self-described “retired high-tech serial entrepreneur” with engineering and computer science degrees from MIT. He is also a leading critic of the COVID vaccines. He writes:

“I used to believe that the FDA, NIH, and CDC were honest organizations. I trusted them. I’m doubly-vaxed with Moderna as of March 29, 2021.

“A month later, I started hearing stories from my friends who reported relatives who died or they themselves became permanently disabled. So I looked into it and the more I looked, the more appalled I became…”

Steve Kirsch has challenged vaccine advocates to debate him, offering various people and institutions sums up to a million dollars, but thus far has not had much luck. He writes:

“If you are an infectious disease professor, county public health officer, COVID fact checker for a mainstream social media company, or a vaccine expert at the CDC, FDA, NIH, Pfizer, or Moderna, and you are interested in making a lot of money just for answering some questions we had, please fill out the form and name your price for a 3 hour session where we get to ask questions.”

Are the experts afraid to debate Steve Kirsch because they know they’ll lose? (Like the University of Wisconsin teachers I challenged to debate me on 9/11?)

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Bestselling author and New World Order expert James Perloff dicusses his article “Ukraine: Behind the Wall of Propaganda.”  He sums it up: “So we are fighting for freedom and to ‘protect our national security’ when we invade and bomb countries thousands of miles and oceans away, yet Russia is ‘the bad guy’ when they intervene in a country on their border.”

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com