In this episode, I am speaking with Dr. Henry E’aly who is the founder of and executive community director for the Energetic Health Institute. He holds a doctorate in naturopathic medicine from SCNM, a bachelor of science in mechanical engineering from UCLA. We will talk about what a deep dive into the COVID data reveals and what it tells us about the governments charged with safe-guarding our health.
Table of Contents
In this podcast, Dr. Henry E’aly and I discuss:
- The red flags which first made Dr. E think that things were not as they seemed (such as sweeping definition changes of “pandemic” and the occurrence of Event 201, the CV rehearsal).
- The planning, implementation and consequences of radical lockdown measures.
- Projection models used to justify draconian policies and their well-established appalling levels of accuracy.
- How the real danger to most people have been massively exaggerated, especially for those who aren’t old nor have serious pre-existing conditions.
- The egregious misuse of PCR-tests to create a casedemic across the world using technology well-known to be inaccurate for diagnosis at higher cycle rates known to amplify positive results, whilst hiding breakthrough cases.
- The issue with classifying these world-wide experimental biologics as actually being vaccinations at all, since they do not inoculate against disease, can in fact transcribe into your DNA and do spread a toxic spike protein systemically through the body.
- The total non-efficiency of the vaccines to prevent infection or death, and how this reality is still obscured from most people’s understanding through the CDC’s manipulation of the data it presents.
- Vaccine adverse events and why the VAERS’ data, while damning, is still obscuring the dangers posed to millions who trusted government science by underreporting on a massive scale.
- Your real risk of dying from Covid (you’re going to be shocked by this!)
- The proven, essential dietary advice that could have stopped this virus (maybe any virus) in its tracks but was never issued. (Find out exactly what Dr. E recommends).
- The W’han lab-leak and why it’s no longer just a theory but a clear case for prosecution.
Listen or download on iTunes
Listen outside iTunes
Ari: Hey there, this is Ari, and welcome back to the Energy Blueprint Podcast. I am very excited for today’s episode. It is with Dr. Henry Ealy who is the founder of and executive community director for the Energetic Health Institute. He holds a doctorate in naturopathic medicine from SCNM, a bachelor of science in mechanical engineering from UCLA. He’s board-certified in holistic nutrition by the NANP, and a proud Jackie Robinson Scholarship alumnus. He has over 20 years of teaching and clinical experience helping people care for their amazing body by unlocking the healing potential of natural medicines.
Dr. H hosts a weekly nationwide program, Energetic Health Radio, and is a regular writer on the America Out Loud Network detailing the latest empirical evidence and research regarding the COVID crisis. He’s the lead author for the COVID research team that has published five manuscripts, including the peer-reviewed and highly acclaimed COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity and Federal Law, a Historical Retrospective, and the 444-page peer-reviewed position statement on Willful Misconduct, COVID-19 Restoring Public Trust During a Public Health Crisis.
His team is also the first to submit a formal Grand Jury petition exposing the rampant acts of alleged willful misconduct and call for a congressional investigation into the CDC’s violations of multiple federal laws. We’re going to get into a lot of that, what’s alluded to in that description, here. I’ve been enormously impressed with Dr. Ealy’s work over the course of this pandemic and he has been a real warrior for fighting for scientific truth and I think you’re going to get a sense of that. I think he’s going to show you some remarkable data that may just blow your mind here. We’re going to talk all about COVID data in this so really important understandings that I think you’re going to get from this. With no further ado, welcome to the show, Dr. Ealy. Such a pleasure to have you.
Dr. E’aly: Ari, thank you so much for having me. A big shoutout and gratitude, thank you to everyone in your audience listening in.
Why Dr. E’aly’s focus is on COVID
Ari: Okay, so who are you and how did you become focused on this topic of COVID? What led you to go down this path of really devoting the last two years obsessively to digging into COVID data and maybe this can be a next question or part of this, but also I’m curious personal motivations. What led you to believe that there were things that were not right that you needed to fight against what was going on?
Dr. E’aly: First of all, I’m just a friend of God. I’m nobody special. I’m doing what anybody could do. I think there’s so many people out there doing great things and I’m just really privileged and honored to be a part of it. Especially all the incredible people on the teams that I work on. It’s not one person that puts all of this work together, clearly. It takes a lot of people who are dedicated, doing what’s right and I’m just privileged to be among them.
As far as how we got into this, for years we’ve been getting that feeling like things aren’t right. One of the things that was really concerning for me was years ago when they removed the statistical definition of what a pandemic would be into this really amorphous subjective thing. It was like, why would you do that? That seems to me if you do that, you’re doing that for a purpose and you start talking to friends and things like that and people who do a lot of in-depth research like the “rabbit-holers”, I like to call them. There’s talks of Agenda 21 and things of that nature and you start looking at the US Cures Act. Just things don’t feel right. The gain of function moratorium that needed to be put on, it was like, “Why was that even necessary?” That should have been a hard no. Obviously, we can’t open Pandora’s box so there was a lot of things leading up to it.
One of the things that was really concerning me were these vaccine mandate bills that are coming up for kids in the States. Fought against the one in California. Ultimately, they got to put it in and we had to become refugees. We moved to another state. Not a year later, I was in another state and another bill was introduced there, and it’s like, “What’s going on?” We fought against that one and luckily we were able to work with some of the elected officials and get that one defeated but then COVID hits.
It just so happens that I, along with a really dear friend of mine in the Health Freedom Movement, Brittney Kara, put together a course on vaccine education, the first one that we’re aware of in the entire country. It’s an abomination that medical professionals are not taught about vaccines. They’re just told, “Repeat the same line. Safe and effective, safe and effective, safe and effective, safe and effective.” It’s an abomination that there’s 42 USC 300AA-11 and 300AA-22 which give civil immunity to vaccine manufacturers. If it’s a good and solid product then stand by it. If it hurts somebody give people a chance for restitution because that’s our checks and balances as a people to make sure that companies aren’t putting out products that hurt our kids especially. Right? Now, hurting us.
Event 201 and the relation to COVID
There’s a lot that’s wrong. When I see something going sideways I can’t be quiet about it. I think if we are quiet about it we are complicit to a large degree. We get the world we deserve and I want to live in a world where love, logic and light permeate in our foundations for everything we do so that’s where I come from. When we saw COVID coming on the scene, we were very concerned because Event 201 had happened in October of 2019.
Ari: Actually, just explain Event 201 because I’ve been shocked by the percentage of the population that still doesn’t even know what Event 201 is or when it took place.
Dr. E’aly: Sure. Event 201 takes place at Johns Hopkins University or at least in New York in conjunction with Johns Hopkins University and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, I believe Gavi was involved. I’m not sure if the World Economic Forum was listed as a participant in it but it was essentially a war games exercise for a pandemic.
What they were doing was testing out all of their software to make sure their software would be ready to go if a pandemic were to take place. Well, yes, it’s coincidental that that coincides with what we know now, the release either before or immediately after of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from the Wuhan laboratory, Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Ari: Just the timeline of that. Explain when Event 201 took place and when we knew about this actual pandemic. One was a pandemic simulation and then one was the actual pandemic and how apart were they?
Dr. E’aly: Yes, pandemic simulation war games exercise occurs in October of 2019. First reported case in the United States of SARS-CoV-2 is in January 21st of 2020 in Washington State but the first reported case, or the first concern and alert that goes out my understanding is November of 2019 in China but now subsequently there have been reports saying it may have been released in September of 2019. There’s a gray area there but it’s all around the same time. That’s mighty coincidental. With the amount of money that went into this and the amount of money at stake there’s no such thing as coincidence in my opinion.
We saw that coming on. I said, “Oh, goodness. I looks like they pushed the go button. This ominous thing that we were concerned may happen, looks like it’s going to happen right now.” I became even more increasingly concerned when the call was for the lockdown of healthy people because that has never happened in a pandemic response ever in history.
Ari: My understanding, it was explicitly advised against in all of the pandemic management guidelines up till 2020. The CDC, the NHS, every major public health body explicitly advised against lockdowns of the entire population. Is that accurate?
Dr. E’aly: I’m not familiar with that so I don’t know but it would not surprise me to say that they said, “Don’t do this,” and then did exactly what they said not to do. That wouldn’t surprise me. It was interesting with the marketing to the public, “It’s just two weeks to flatten the curve. We just have to make sure the hospitals don’t overflow with this.” Okay, well no. [laughs] I’m healthy and I’m nutrient-dense and I’m not afraid of even this bioweapon so no. I don’t agree to that and I didn’t get a chance to vote or say on that, and a free democratic society requires those elements of participation.
So no, I’m not okay with that and I’m not okay on the face of it either because there hasn’t been demonstrable proof that this is going to be what it is. All we were working on were projection models from the Information, Health and Metrics Evaluation Center at Washington University, which curiously was put together with $384 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, an endowment, and curiously is– While it’s on Washington University it’s not a part of Washington University, even though you have to donate through Washington University. Then they take their percentage and give the remainder to this organization.
It’s kind of like an NGO, a non-governmental organization that’s on our soil. We know this because we attempted to donate to this organization and they took us through the whole process. It’s just to me, it looks like money laundering. We were very concerned about this group. It was very concerning seeing public health officials and executive officials, governors, and even the White House use their projection models in wire transmission to the public via TV, because that is illegal for federal agencies at least to do so. Federal agencies are required to use data that their agencies publish and that have been confirmed to be valid and accurate. We’ve never used projection models to establish the nature of a pandemic before.
This is very concerning. Particularly when those projection models have been proven to be egregiously wrong over time, and they constantly course-correct them, but that’s ridiculous. You cannot have a pandemic until there is confirmed necessity to call for that level of an emergency. You can’t base a pandemic on projection models.
Why we shouldn’t trust projection models
Ari: Maybe give a few examples of why that’s the case. Why projection models can be so wrong. I know Neil Ferguson’s a great example of this. If you look at his historical track record around the modeling of previous pandemics, and what he predicted for this one.
Dr. E’aly: Neil Ferguson, for those that are not familiar with that name, was the same person that predicted mad cow disease, and said it was going to be this global thing that took everybody– Neil Ferguson has a incredible history of taking money from vaccine interests and the basically Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and being egregiously wrong with everything that he says. His track record is indisputably bad.
Ari: Despite that, he seems to have enormous influence over– His current prediction seems to have had a massive influence on the global response to this particular pandemic.
Dr. E’aly: It seems that he’s their talking head to justify that, “Hey, everybody needs to freak out,” kind of thing. And it never materializes to that extent. You have to question people like that and the easiest way to question them is follow their money, follow the endowments and the grants, and see where they’re coming from, and then you see why he’s saying what he’s saying.
When we looked at all that, it was like, “There’s a lot that’s really wrong here.” And they’re freaking the public out. What I started doing was saying, “Okay. Let’s get into the data, and let’s start looking objectively at the data.” The data that we had coming in was from the World Health Organization for China. Then we found publication of data, independent data sources from South Korea, and also from Italy, the Italian Ministry of Health.
We got that information and we started putting it together and organizing it into new cases per day, new hospitalizations per day, and new deaths per day, so that we could build what we felt were going to become bell-shaped curves, so we could see what was the rise in these three metrics and when they would fall. How long was this going to last was basically the question.
It became apparent early on that the Chinese data was fraudulent because it just was not rising at the same rates as the other countries, even though there was supposedly an epicenter in Wuhan. We felt like we couldn’t trust that data, and we stopped publishing on that data pretty quickly after realizing that, but the Italian data was excellent.
The Italian data showed some very key things that we had about a 40-day length on this. Then we started getting reports from like Bloomberg from the Italian Ministry of Health showing very clearly the people who were most at risk. High risk was over 60 with multiple pre-existing conditions. Particularly, obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and kidney disease, and even some neurologic disease, Alzheimer’s, things like that.
The CDC on March 9th confirmed this, and this precedes the actual lockdown date for all the healthy, confirms this in a report. CNBC covers it as well, the press conference, and they’re very clear. The people who are at highest risk are over 60 and have multiple pre-existing conditions. So it makes sense to send extra caution and to dedicate our resources to protecting the highest risk, but they didn’t do that. They said, “Oh, we don’t know, so everybody’s got to be lockdown.”
“No, you do know because we have data from other countries coming in, and you’re not following the science. This data is the science. You’re just locking everybody down.” We’re tracking the data, and I started doing public– I started doing a daily public service announcement to update people on the data. We were tracking data on a daily basis all around the world, and showing folks. I ended up doing like over 100 of those.
The thing that was really important to show as data was coming in was that emergency orders had been invoked before an emergency existed. If an emergency existed at all. Ever. When you start seeing that the 53% of all deaths are over 75 years of age, you’re at normal life expectancy anyway. When you see that 73% of all deaths are at 65 or older, and that 96% of those deaths have on average 4.0 comorbidities as was predicted, this is not an emergency. This is a tragedy, but it’s not an emergency.
An emergency has to have relatively equal distribution of negative outcome, meaning death across all age demographics. That’s what makes something an emergency. Infection, getting sick is not an emergency. When they weren’t seeing the numbers of deaths in the under-49 population, especially in the under-18 population, they moved the metric from deaths, negative outcome, to cases, and started to say, “Well, we got to prevent this.”
Well, zero COVID is not attainable. That’s why we can’t have you opening Pandora’s box and unleashing a man-made bioweapon on the populace. Zero COVID is not a possible thing. Once it’s out, it’s out, and you’re going to get it. Now, what can you do to– we’ll talk about that later, to give yourself a great chance of not having a severe outcome?
The thing that was really bothersome, Ari, was they kept moving the goalposts. It was two weeks to flatten the curve, and it was, “No. We need you to stay home longer.” It was, “We’re going to be monitoring and tracking deaths. Well, we didn’t get enough deaths in certain age demographics to justify this being an emergency for everybody, so we’re going to move the goal post to cases.”
Then we saw something very interesting when we started plotting the United States’ data because the United States it was about two weeks behind the other countries. Every country had a rise and a fall. An up and a down in their new cases per day and it was very clear, it was a wave. First wave, a bell-shaped curve, and you go, “Okay. 40 days.” Every country was showing about 40 days. The United States started on their downward descent on April 6th, around April 6th.
Then on April 14 something happened. The downward descent stopped, and we saw an even larger secondary rise in new cases. Not hospitalizations or death. Only new cases. I was like, “Whoa, that’s wrong. How did that happen?” So you have to answer that question, how did that happen? We went and looked at the CDC, and a little bit closer. They had adapted a position statement from a nonprofit organization, something that’s illegal for them to do without initiating public comment or federal oversight. They adopted it on their own unilaterally. They went rogue.
In that document by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, it said two very important things. One, a single cough could be counted as a COVID case. That was the minimal amount of medical discretion needed, medical evaluation needed to constitute COVID. If I do this [coughs] once, you can call me a COVID case. That’s ridiculous.
The huge flaws in PCR testing
Ari: Along with a positive PCR test?
Dr. E’aly: No. Didn’t even need a positive PCR. It can be called a presumptive or a probable COVID case, and there are still states using this designation to this day. I’ve seen it in the state health department reports. It’s deeply concerning because it’s so subjective. There’s no proof.
The second thing it said was, in section 7B, how do we make sure we don’t count the same person multiple times? Because if you remember, people had to get a negative test to go back to work if they got a positive. What were people doing? They were hunting for a negative test, so they’d go and get seven tests in two days and it’d be positive, positive, positive because nobody told them that PCR sucks for this, is not supposed to be used diagnostically. You can probably remember Rochelle Walensky coming out in December saying, “Well, we can reduce the isolation time because we’ve just learned that PCR can test positive for several weeks after you’re no longer infectious,” right?
Dr. E’aly: Guess when they knew that? They knew that–
Ari: In the beginning.
Dr. E’aly: They knew that in February of 2020, CDC, South Korea published a great study on it showing that you could be positive for up to 12 weeks post-recovery with COVID.
Ari: Right. I remember being censored for pointing that out at the beginning because those of us who were pointing that out were, “Oh, you’re just a crazy conspiracy theorist.” Then a year and a half later now the CDC is publicly admitting what we were censored for and called conspiracy theorists over. Duh.
Dr. E’aly: Exactly. We were right. Right, you know what I mean? A little bit of vindication but also it just points to the fraud. To do that is willful misconduct. The CDC is in hot water again this week for withholding data, to knowingly do this is an act of willful misconduct on the part of an elected or appointed official. This is has been our point the whole time. This is now going into criminal act right now.
Ari: This is maybe a little bit of a digression, but you obviously know who Kary Mullis is, maybe most of the listeners do not. Kary Mullis was the Nobel Prize-winning inventor of PCR technology and was very vocal about his opposition to using PCR tests for diagnostic purposes.
He explicitly said that basically, something to the effect, maybe Dr. Ealy, you know this better than I do. It’s something to the effect of, if using PCR technology, you can find whatever you’re looking for.
Dr. E’aly: If you amplify it enough. Yes, that’s true. That’s what they’ve done here.
Ari: Right. It’s worth noting, most people probably don’t know this, that Kary Mullis died just a few months prior to the start of this pandemic. This is– obviously it’s speculative, no one knows the nature of how he died, but I did see someone post the other day, who’s a friend or maybe not a friend, but spoke to Kary Mullis, his ex-wife, and Kary Mullis, his ex-wife swears that he was murdered.
Obviously, that’s speculation, and no one can know for sure but it’s certainly a bizarre coincidence that the inventor of this PCR technology, this Nobel Prize-winning scientist happens to have died just a few months prior to the start of this grand pandemic that uses his technology in the way that he explicitly advised not to use it.
Dr. E’aly: Let’s just stay on this tangent for a quick second here with everybody. In medicine, when I run a PCR test, it says explicitly on there, on the test results not to be used or considered as a diagnosis. Every PCR no matter what you’re doing that’s what they say. For all PCR you need other confirmatory lab testing to be able to arrive at a definitive diagnosis.
For this, they said, “No, you don’t need any. We don’t need viral load testing of the blood to make sure that there’s replication component virus in the blood. We don’t need antibody testing the stage where a person is in terms of their immunological response.” These are two basic things that we do for every other infectious disease, every other infectious viral load disease, at least.
As a doctor, you’re like, “Well, wait a minute, you’re telling me to do exactly what we were taught not to do in terms of assessment of cases in an attempt to arrive at a definitive diagnosis. You’re telling me to guess.” That’s the worst thing you can do in medicine because if I guess wrong, and I initiate treatment, I could hurt this person.
What we ended up seeing with all that and when you’re looking at PCR, PCR also gives you a quantitative value, meaning a numerical value. Then when you get the test results, you’ll get a range and you’ll say, “If it’s in between this range, it’s positive. If it’s here, it’s inconclusive. If it’s here, it’s negative,” there’s typically three categories.
What they did here for COVID PCR testing was they said, “We’re going to take away that numerical, we’re not going to give anybody that number.” We have elected officials, Ari, who have put in records requests to get this cycle threshold number, the amplification number, and been denied by public health departments. You cannot get that data.
Then what they essentially established was a yes-no bar. If you’re below 40 amplifications, you’re positive. If you’re above 40, you’re negative. They don’t even publish on the test with that threshold bar is. What we’ve seen and found looking– there’s some investigative work has found labs that have the bar set at 42. We’ve seen the bar set as high as 45. For the public, this is why that matters.
A person who is symptomatic, and their amplification signal tests positive below 25 amplifications, it’s pretty safe to assume at that point that, yes, they’re sick and COVID is the cause or SARS-COV-2 is the cause. It’s pretty safe, especially if the symptom presentation matches. But when you have somebody who’s non-symptomatic, this gray area of asymptomatic transmission that Fauci put out that was complete BS the moment he said it, has never to this day been proven, never. In fact, it’s been disproven by the Wuhan study with over 10 million people in it. It was disproven.
10 million people in a single study and they could not find one case of asymptomatic transmission, not one case of asymptomatic transmission in a peer-reviewed study.
The impact of lockdowns and mask wearing on healthy people
Ari: Not to digress but just one quick comment on that. Which has massive implications for locking down an entire healthy asymptomatic population and asking healthy asymptomatic people to wear masks.
Dr. E’aly: Right. You’re not asymptomatic, you’re non-symptomatic. Why are you non-symptomatic? Because you’re not sick. Symptom presentation is the sign of illness. That’s why we test because we want to figure out what the illness is, so that we can get the appropriate treatment initiated. That’s medicine.
Ari: Exactly. I think this has pretty massive implications for society and societal health, because what they managed to do in the last two years is something that I honestly would have never dreamed in a million years would be possible. They managed to convince almost the entire global population that humans should be presumed sick, even if they have no symptoms of sickness, until proven healthy.
You got to test to prove that you’re healthy, instead of the opposite, which is what has always been the case in history, you’re healthy, unless you have symptoms of being sick, which is how it should be.
Dr. E’aly: Right. It’s akin in the legal world to being presumed guilty until proven innocent.
Dr. E’aly: It’s ridiculous. With PCR, it was clearly in the mysterious circumstances surrounding Kary Mullis’s death there’s so much smoke here, there’s fire here. They used a medical tool to do something it wasn’t designed to do. When you get above 25 cycle amplifications of a sample, you invite false positives into this. What do false positives do? They increase the number of cases so if you’ve moved the goalposts from deaths to cases, now you get what you want and that justifies, “Hey, look at this is all ages now.” Now all ages are getting sick, so now it looks like it’s an emergency because it’s affecting all ages. You see?
Dr. E’aly: That’s the importance of removing a strict statistical definition of what constitutes a pandemic, is that it used to be I want to say it was either 3% or 5% death rate was what constituted a pandemic. Now, that’s okay. It’s like, okay, if we get to 5%, yes, I think we got something going on. But when we look at the data, that 5% still should have to be distributed relatively equally across all age demographics. Forget about race and gender, that’s nonsense.
Look at age, age is going to tell you everything you need to know in terms of is this an emergency for everybody? No, it’s not emergency for kids. It’s not emergency if you’re under 50 years of age. It’s not an emergency if you’re under 64 years of age, in my opinion. It’s an emergency for people who are 65 and up? No, unless they have multiple pre-existing conditions high risk, then you could make the statement that, yes, it’s emergency.
Why should everybody’s life be adversely impacted and have to wear masks and social distance when there’s no symptom present? Why should that happen when this is really a pandemic of the unhealthy if it’s anything and really what it is, is a pandemic of lies. I mean, if you really want to get down to it, it’s a pandemic of fraud and lies and criminal activity, that’s my opinion on it.
Ultimately we saw that secondary rise in the curve, we went and looked and we traced it back to the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. They had this little section 7B in their position statement that said, “How do we make sure we don’t count the same person multiple times?” Do you know what they said, Ari? “Not applicable until more virologic data is available”. What?
Dr. E’aly: You got all the PhDs. What are you talking about? You have to know that that completely contaminates your data set by doing that, the same person is going to test multiple times. That’s what had to happen for them to go back to work. Now your whole data set is compromised. At that point, the data integrity is gone. It’s fraud at this at that point.
We found that, and then we were really disturbed by this finding in the paper. The CDC sent subject matter experts over to the CSTE, The Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologist to advise them on what needed to be in the position statement, so that when they issued the position statement, the CDC could go rogue and adopt it in violation of federal law. That was where it was like, “Whoa, come on. This is so obvious”. That’s the long and short of it.
How the science of C19 has been largely politicized
Ari: Yes. I want to add one thing because this whole thing has obviously been– the science around COVID has extraordinarily politicized and just to speak very bluntly, people on the political left have basically become aligned with the government and media narratives, the government and media narratives around cases, around lockdowns, around vaccines, around masks, basically from start to finish whatever that narrative was saying is, for whatever reason, the political left aligned themselves with that and became supporters of that narrative demonizing those who did not support lockdowns, who did not support mask mandates, who did not support vaccine mandates and things of that nature.
If you didn’t go along with those narratives, you were a crazy conspiracy theorist anti-vaxxer or some kind of extreme right person. Just to speak bluntly for myself, I’m a political moderate and I’m generally apolitical, I’m not interested in the political side of things. My interest here with COVID is scientific truth and it’s clear that what’s gone on the last two years, as you’ve said, and alluded to Dr. Ealy is a pandemic of lies, as you said.
For anybody who’s skeptical of that, and generally, the people who are going to be skeptical of that as a generalization are people who are generally getting their news from political left-leaning sources. For anybody who might be listening to this and saying, “Oh Ari, what are you thinking, and Dr. Ely, this guy’s some kind of crazy conspiracy theorist,” let me just read you a quote from the British Medical Journal.
This is not exactly a conspiracy theorist journal. This is one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world, and this is a quote from the executive editor of the British Medical Journal. He said, “Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain”. Okay? Doesn’t get much clearer than that. “Science is being suppressed”. “COVID-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So, too, are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency”.
Again, for anybody skeptical who’s listening to this, this is not just some crazy conspiracy theory. This is actually happening. There is severe corruption and fraud within, as they framed it here, as the BMJ framed it within the medical-political complex. If you don’t believe Dr. Ealy or me, believe the executive editor of the British Medical Journal. Science is absolutely being suppressed for political and financial gain. That’s just the reality and believing that doesn’t make you a conspiracy theorist. It means simply that you are aware of what’s going on, and have looked at things on a deep level.
Dr. E’aly: I would even add to that. Ari. that I’m not asking anyone to believe me. That’s the worst thing we can do is place the necessity to validate what is being said into a belief model, right? In fact, science is not about belief. The problem with belief is that belief doesn’t need any proof. It’s just what you believe, right? That’s a beautiful thing when you’re talking about faith, but it’s a terrible thing when you’re talking about science.
When you’re talking about justice, especially as well, we have to be able to prove what we say. I stand by everything that I’ve published. I stand by everything my team has published. We are pursuing every avenue we can to seek investigation and justice to validate and substantiate the allegations that we are making. I will debate anyone anywhere, anytime on this, I am not bragging, but I know this topic inside and out, as well as anyone in this country and potentially in the world.
I’m not going to apologize for the work that I’ve done on this, and I’m not going to apologize or be concerned about somebody’s feelings on this. It is okay to disagree, but if you’re going to disagree, you better be able to prove where I’m wrong. If you can’t do that, then your disagreement enters into a belief model, and I have no time for that because too many people have been injured and hurt.
If you don’t care about those people, who’ve been injured and hurt being run over by this corruption, then I would ask you to take a step back and get into a better frame of mind where you can engage compassion because I’m working with kids right now that are have been run over by the pharmaceutical industry. Some of them have died, unfortunately, but they have left a trail of injured parents and injured children.
If we stop caring about that, then the very thing that makes us human is on death’s doorstep. I can’t abide by that because somebody wants to believe they’re right or believe that the propaganda that’s been pushed out of the last two years is valid. We have a very simple obligation to each other, prove it all right. I can prove what I’m saying. Can you prove what you’re saying? If you can, let’s get it on.
The actual science on C19 and misinformation
Ari: Yes. With that said, that’s a beautiful segue. Let’s get into proving it. Let’s get into talking about some of the actual data around some of the misinformation. They like to use, the CDC and many mainstream authorities like to use this word towards anybody who questions their narratives that they’ve promoted, but what about the misinformation that has come from those sources? What are examples of that, and can you share data to show that it was misinformation?
Dr. E’aly: I think the most relevant thing we have right now, Ari, and a good place for us to begin is talking about the efficacy of these experimental inoculations, the ability of these experimental inoculations to prevent infection, all right? Because that’s the whole point of. Why else would you take it if it’s not to prevent infection?
The first thing I like to educate people on is that the shots– and this is true of every vaccine, they do not confer immunity to the human body. This is the biggest misconception about. People think they get the shot and now I’m immune. That’s not how it works.
What they confer to your body is an artificial infection, which is a challenge to your immune system. It’s your immune system that confers immunity to you. Shouldn’t we always test for antibodies and test for T-cells about two weeks after you’ve gotten one of these experimental shots or gotten another FDA approved vaccine to ensure that it did what we thought it would do, which is develop, help the immune system, give it the immune system challenge the immune system could develop immunity for you to something?
That’s one of the big problems I have with all this. They’re giving people the shots and then they’re just making the assumption that immunity is now established post-inoculation, and that’s not necessarily true. We need proof. You got to prove it. Right?
First thing I’m going to do is I’m going to share an important question here. Let me bring this up right here. Just give me one second. Okay. Let’s start with this slide. Okay. Let me come back over and share the screen. Okay. So the first question– I think all critical thinking is about asking questions, so I try to frame what I do in terms of questions, and then we answer the question. Can a vaccinated person be counted as unvaccinated? This is the first thing that you should be going what? Yes. The answer is yes. A vaccinated person can be counted as unvaccinated. That right there is a fraudulent way to manipulate data. How so?
The first thing is to understand that there are criteria for what constitutes vaccine breakthrough. When you hear vaccine breakthrough you’re thinking vaccine failure, what this means is the person got the shot and they still got sick anyway. All right? It’s what the CDC previously has termed surveillance reporting. Okay?
When we look at this, the first thing that you want to know is that the only people who qualify for evaluation of breakthrough have to be fully vaccinated or considered fully vaccinated. That’s number one. I’m going to explain that in a second, but let’s say a person is considered fully vaccinated, then there’s additional rules to help keep the number of times that the shots failed down.
First of all, they will only accept submissions where the cycle threshold value is below 28. Well, that’s in a different rule for the infection. If you’re infected you have to be below 40, so [crosstalk]
Ari: Just to make sure people are following, this is a reference to what Dr Ealy was talking about a few minutes ago with the PCR test cycle threshold of most of the labs around the country being at a cutoff of 40 or 42 or 45, and now specifically in the context of testing for, “Breakthrough cases,” they change the cycle threshold cutoff to less than 28.
Dr. E’aly: Right. What this does, Ari, is it prevents false positives from coming in here, but for the other one it encourages false positives, so we need scary numbers to say this is an emergency, let’s get those numbers up. False positives. When we need numbers to show that, “Hey, this thing is working better than we think it is,” let’s get those false positives out of there. That should be a dead giveaway that there’s some problems there.
Vaccine efficacy and breakthrough cases
Additionally, guess what? Every single person that is considered fully vaccinated has to be symptomatic in order to be evaluated for breakthrough. They will not evaluate someone that is considered asymptomatic, so we have different standards and that’s a big problem when you’re talking about data analysis, you have to have the same standards at all time.
There are four distinct groups in the United States. We have fully by vaccinated and one booster. That means that they got all their experimental inoculations in the primary series, so for Pfizer, BioNTech that’s two, for Moderna and NIAID that’s two, and for Johnson & Johnson that’s one. Then they got a booster, and it was 14 days since the booster, so that’s how you get into that group.
To be considered fully vaccinated, you have to get all the shots in a series, and it has to be 40 days since the last shot in a series. Let’s say you got the second shot for Pfizer, and then it’s day 13 since that shot, and then you get sick you are considered unvaccinated. You are counted as unvaccinated.
If you only got one of the two shots, you are considered unvaccinated. If you haven’t gotten any shots, you are considered unvaccinated. But wait, it gets even worse. If your status is unknown, you are counted as unvaccinated. So what that does is it puts all these people, many of whom who’ve gotten at least one shot, in the category of the unvaccinated. That’s how you contaminate data right there. That’s how you make and create fraudulent data to tell a story instead of the truth. All right?
What we should have done is had a category for all five of these, so when a person gets infected we can know okay, this person was fully boosted, this person wasn’t boosted, this person was partial, and these people [unintelligible 00:44:25]. Then we get a real understanding of what’s going on for cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, but we didn’t get that.
I’m going to share another thing here. Let me stop sharing, and then I’m going to bring something else up, because we want to see how many times did these shots fail. All right? I’m over here and you can see my screen right now I think, right?
Dr. E’aly: Okay. On October 30th of 2021 the CDC stopped reporting all vaccine breakthrough data entirely. They moved over to a new made-up metric called vaccine efficacy which is something they’d just made up on the spot, because they knew there was a coming storm if they just showed the number of times that the shots were failing. They stopped reporting it all together.
We said at that point we need to go down to every state health department and see who’s reporting and who’s not, and get that data. In terms of breakthrough cases, there were only 26 out of 51 possible when you include Washington DC state health departments reporting data on how many times these have failed. This is basically half. States like Florida and Texas are not reporting this, so this could be way higher, but our suspicion is these numbers should be at least double what we have here.
In three months from November to February, three months, we went from 1.4 million confirmed cases, remember this is in only 26 state health departments, to over 9 million confirmed breakthrough cases. That means this is fully vaccinated people where they still got sick.
Ari: This is for people listening and not watching the video, this from November 2021 through February 2022.
Dr. Ely: Right. We’re up to where we are right now– we update this once a month, Ari, typically around the third week of the month. Is this a pandemic of the unvaccinated? Absolutely not. What we’re seeing is epic levels of vaccine failure. 9 million confirmed cases with only 26 state health departments reporting in.
When we look at hospitalizations, the number of people who were fully vaccinated, got sick and needed to be hospitalized. That rose from 56,000 in November 21 to 193,000 by February 22, 3 months later. Is this a pandemic of the unvaccinated? First of all, I don’t think it’s a pandemic period, but it’s definitely not driven by the unvaccinated, because these shots are not protecting the people who are trusting them that they’ll work.
When we go over to deaths, the number of times people who got the shots and got sick and died anyway. November, 2021 they were were 16,111 people who were fully vaccinated, got infected anyway and died anyway.
These are counted as COVID deaths. By February of 2022 just three months later it is now at 44,516. That’s an increase of almost 30,000 deaths in just three months nationwide nd keep in mind this is with roughly half of all state health departments reporting in. These numbers I know from all my work with this you can safely double all of them.
These experimental inoculations– and people will say, “Well, why do you keep calling them experimental? They’re FDA-approved,” no, they are absolutely not FDA-approved, not even [unintelligible 00:48:35] and I will prove that to you right now. Like I said, if I say something I can prove it. All right? Let’s get out of that data.
This data I haven’t updated on this slide, so if you are watching it these were the preliminary numbers from last week. We since updated some stuff. California was behind in their reporting, so we updated California on the breakthrough. Give me one second here. I want to get to– Oh, you can see I nerd out on this. You can see with all this. This is ridiculous. God. Yes, here we go.
Are the experimental biologics still in clinical trial? One, I refuse to really identify these as vaccines, they’re not vaccines particularly with what we are seeing. They have now confirmed reverse transcriptase component to them which means the mRNA platforms actually can upload into your nucleus and [crosstalk]
Ari: Which is yet another thing that was labeled misinformation, and the apparent authorities said was absolutely false. That it can’t be transcribed into your DNA or incorporated into your DNA, and people were censored for misinformation for saying that, and now the study just came out showing that it can, in fact, be incorporated into your DNA which you were just alluding to.
Dr. E’aly: And within six hours. That’s how quickly it can upload into your DNA. This is ridiculous. To me, that is an unconscionable lie right there for them to say that one. When we look at Pfizer-BioNTech, the main clinical trial for it doesn’t end until May 15, 2023. When you look at Moderna NIAID, and this is from clinicaltrials.gov, their clinical trials don’t end till October 27, 2022, so later this year. Johnson & Johnson doesn’t end until January 2, 2023. These cannot be fully FDA-approved until completion of the primary clinical trial. So these are still definitively in experimental phase.
Then people will say, “[unintelligible 00:50:52] is formally approved.” First of all, it’s not. Secondly, it’s not in production in the United States. We haven’t seen one confirmation of anywhere that it is in production. In fact, we got word from a representative from the Oregon Health Authority that it is not in production, but it is identical to the Pfizer one. Therefore, they consider it fully FDA-approved. First of all, the FDA approval is conditional. The FDA approval that was given on August 23, 2021, when you read it was conditional. Number two, the last study in the sequence,. Study C-4591036 does not end until May 31, 2027. So it cannot be fully approved until at least after that date.
When people say these are fully approved, a lie repeated a thousand times it’s still a lie. This is where we have to be in pursuit of truth. Ari, there you go. Oh, you’re on mute brother.
Ari: Yes. It’s worth mentioning also that basically, the implications of this are that the people who have received this injection are participants in a clinical trial.
Dr. E’aly: It can be construed as that they’re going to say no, and so it doesn’t they don’t fall under CFR 45, CFR 46 because they signed a document saying that they have been informed. See, this is the amorphous thing about informed consent. The tenets of informed consent are achieved the moment you give consent. All right? It’s as soon as you say okay to something, it is assumed that you have been for yourself sufficiently informed and you’re agreeing to it.
However, Tom Rence brings this point up, and I think he’s spot on with this, “No one in this country has been given informed consent. Why? Because of the amount of fraud in the data, because the amount of fraud in the clinical trials, and because of the amount of lies that have gone on to coerce people into getting the experimental inoculations in the first place.” All of those basic tenets were never satisfied so that people could not give an informed consent. There was no opportunity anywhere for anyone to give an informed consent because they were never informed.
Ari: Yes, well said. Whether officially FDA-approved or not, what is clear– or whether the clinical trial is completed or not, what is clear is that we are still learning a lot about what these vaccines do, these biologics do, or don’t do.
To give a few examples of how much has changed in just the year that these things have been available, they were initially approved or given emergency use authorization based explicitly on the claim they’re 95% effective in preventing infection. We now know, a year later that they have nothing of the sort as far as efficacy and most of the estimates I’ve seen are close to 0% efficacy as far as preventing infection. Do you know the data better than that?
Dr. E’aly: Yes, there have been some folks that are putting out analysis that show its negative efficacy at this point [crosstalk].
Ari: Which explains why some of the most highly vaccinated countries in the world have set case records for the most cases in the world.
Dr. E’aly: Including this one. We shot way past our highest point over December and January. How is that possible if 65% of the population according to the CDC is fully vaccinated and the shots work? [chuckles]
How spike protein behaves in the boy of a vaccinated person
Ari: And fourth shot Israel also, who arguably the most vaccinated country in the world depending on how you count the percentages and how you count the number of injections given per person, but they recently set the world record for the most cases per capita, despite being the only country in the world to have four shots for a big chunk of their population. That’s one thing we’ve seen from 95% efficacy to 0% efficacy.
Another thing was the claim that the injection that the spike proteins that are produced are produced locally and don’t go systemic in the bloodstream, or go away within a matter of a few days at the most. We now know that neither of those two things are true. That the spike proteins do go systemic, they do go into the heart, they do go into the brain and other organs of the body. They are toxic, and they stick around for way, way longer than originally was thought.
Just to name a couple of what– There was one other thing I wanted to mention that we had already talked about, but I’m spacing on it now. Just to name a couple of the things that we are– Oh, and the DNA thing. The fact that it can be incorporated into DNA. These are all things that were claimed to be totally false and not possible, and we know that that’s not true. Now a year later, all of these things have changed dramatically.
Dr. E’aly: It’s staggering the revelations of just the last two weeks in the studies that have been published. One study showed that the mRNA sequence upon injection is still present in the lymph nodes in the germinal center of the lymph nodes, eight weeks after the inoculation, and that the study only went as far as a week eight weeks so it could be much longer than that. So there’s a very real potential that the mRNA sequence is going to be damaging and infecting cells with that artificial infection so that cells produce the injurious spike protein for a long time, but then you have the additional component of the reverse transcriptase mechanism of action, which allows it to upload itself in the mRNA sequence into the DNA. Then once it becomes a part of you, that means you could be producing spike protein for the remainder of your life. Alright?
We say these are bioweapons. This is what bioweapons look like. We’ve never seen anything like this before so it’s hard for people to wrap their head around it. This is exactly what a bioweapon looks like, alright? Something that gets into your body and takes over normal cell function to produce something that we know hurts the body. Now, imagine having to put up with that for the rest of your life. At a certain point, your body will succumb to that.
This is our big concern right now. I know Dr. Zelenko has talked about it at length, I’ve talked about it at length. This is Dr. Peter McCullough’s talking about it now. This is our big concern long-term and why you never unleash a medical product on an entire mass population before the conclusion of clinical trials because there is so much that you don’t know about this yet in terms of long term impact.
Now we’re on the precipice of– we’re on the precipice, sad to say, of a mass extinction of people who should have been able to trust. The gravity of that is sad for us.
Ari: I’ll just mention one data point on this topic of what you just said, as far as why you never unleash a novel medical intervention on an entire population, particularly of healthy disease-free people until you have, ideally, several years of safety and efficacy data. I’ll mention a couple of things.
One is a personal story. When I was in college, I thought I wanted to be an orthopedic surgeon. I was shadowing an orthopedic surgeon during that time. This was in the early 2000s. I saw him write a prescription for one of his patients for a drug I had never seen before. It was called Vioxx. I asked him what it was because I had never heard of it. He said, “Oh, it’s the new generation of NSAIDs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. It’s more effective and much safer than the previous generation. Things like aspirin and so on.”
I said– I didn’t think really anything of it. Just thanks for explaining that and several months later, Vioxx is all over the news and all over TV, because it turns out that it’s not much safer than previous generations and in fact is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths via cardiovascular incidents. It also turns out that the drug company, I think, it was Merck, if I remember correctly, I might be wrong about that, was actually aware in their preliminary data of a 400% increase in cardiovascular incidents, and hid that data to get their drug FDA-approved and allow it to enter the market for several years before it was discovered that it was extraordinarily dangerous and was killing lots of people. That’s one little story I’ll share that I had some personal insight into.
Dr. E’aly: Ari, can I ask you a question on that?
Dr. E’aly: How many times has CoQ10, hawthorn berry and omega-3 fatty acids been implicated in killing anyone?
Ari: Not very man.
Dr. E’aly: Interesting.
Ari: Unless you maybe take a gallon of fish oil or something.
Dr. E’aly: Yes, interesting.
Ari: The other thing I’ll mention is, there was a paper I can link to in the notes for this episode on the podcast page, where they analyzed all the drugs. It was 221 drugs that were approved in the first decade from 2000 to 2010. They found that a full one out of three of those drugs, so it was like 70 out of 220 drugs, later was found to have such significant risks that it was either given a black box warning or removed from the market entirely, one out of three drugs.
Importantly, that’s after, as to your point Dr. Ealy, that’s after all of those drugs had gone through all of the several years of clinical trial data. They completed those clinical trials and then were approved. Then they said it took an average of 4.1 years after that point. So we’re looking at a total of something like 7 to 10 years range like that, it was 4.1 years before they discovered those other additional risks that led to either a black box warning or removal from the market.
The point is, from this data with novel medical interventions, in order to get actually a full picture of what the actual risks are, and side effects are of that compound, you’re looking at realistically somewhere in the neighborhood of 7 to 10 years, before the full picture emerges. Anyway, that’s just some data that I know but you probably have some commentary on that.
Dr. E’aly: I think when you look at side effect profiles and you look at terminal elimination half-lives and you look at black box warnings and everything you go read, RX-list or drugs.com because that’s what we have to do. You get a case and people are on a whole bunch of medication, you got to go look them up. It never ceases to amaze me how good these people are at marketing, at propaganda because they’ve convinced–
We’ve all watched the commercials, “Take this and your eyeball may fall out.” While you’re looking at two people, happy, running around in a sun-filled park. It’s like they figured out that if we give a lot of good imagery, and we tell everybody– the truth is hiding in plain sight, they’re telling you that this is going to jack you up but people still go and ask their doctor about it. Of course, they go to the doctor and the doctor is now the used car salesman that reassures them that all this is safe like the doctor you alluded to, “Oh, this is going to be safer and more effective, safer and more effective.” They keep repeating the same three-word phrase but where did the idea of three-word phrasing originate from?
It originates from Joseph Goebbels, the head of propaganda for the Nazi Party. You have to get beyond the marketing, the commercial. You have to get beyond the three-word phrase and you have to get into the actual data. Like you were alluding to, Ari, it takes 7 to 10 years to get that data. If something hasn’t lasted like aspirin, there’s a reason aspirin is still on the market because it has proven itself. It’s safe. You can’t deny it’s safe and effective but if it hasn’t been 7 to 10 years that something has been in existence, you really have no business making such an egregious and irresponsible statement of safety and effectiveness and efficacy. It hasn’t been proven.
When you were saying that I was– What you were saying, I was thinking of God, hawthorn berries been used in the herbal literature for over 2000 years that we know of. Cannabis is recorded for 5000 years in Traditional Chinese Medicine. There’s a reason these things have been around for thousands of years because they’ve proven themselves to be truly safe and effective. The further we get from nature and the more we get into the lab with these things, I think the greater risk we’re taking, particularly when profitability is at stake and particularly when we see this scenario.
You have to wrap your head around this. Supposedly, they went from the entry of the Wuhan virus, the SARS-coV-2 virus in the international GenBank to clinical trial production in under two months. Now if you believe that, I cannot help you. There is no way that you can go from, “Hey, none of us knew any of this was happening,” to a full-blown clinical trial for an entire experimental technology platform in two months. Give me a break. That’s not how it works, all right folks? To then go from that to mass production within an additional about eight months, that’s unconscionable. Where are the breaks? I keep coming back to, Ari, the Jeff Goldblum’s character in Jurassic Park. “We spent so much time wondering if we could, that we never stopped for a second to ask if we should.”
We’re looking at that right now in real-time and I can tell you, in starting to work with these families who are reeling from these experimental inoculations and getting no airtime, none, they’re getting completely ignored. Not only that, they’re not getting any compensation. They haven’t gotten a penny out of the government.. They had to have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars out of their own pockets, just to try and get some help.
We cannot allow this to become normal. We cannot allow this to become how acceptable in terms of how we interact with each other because all we’re doing is saying that compassion and love and common decency don’t matter, aren’t aspects of humanity anymore and I will not participate in that.
Folks, I don’t care where you stand. I don’t care if you got the shot or not, I don’t. I care that you’re okay. I care that it worked and I hope it did work for you but we have to get into a strong sense of care and compassion for one another because there are powers out there that do not care about us and are doing everything they can to profit off of our own suffering, and ultimately our own demise. If you can’t see that, again, I can’t help you.
The EUA on vaccines
Ari: Let’s shift back into the data. I want to wrap up the vaccine topic or the biologic injection topic, with some more data on vaccine efficacy and vaccine safety signals. Can you show some more on what– There will be some people who say– I’ve seen people actually make this argument, seriously, “Oh, the vaccines were never supposed to prevent infection. It’s really only their ability to prevent hospitalization and death that matters.”
This is obviously not true. Again, the vaccines were given EUA explicitly under the basis that they were 95% effective in preventing infection. Fauci and Rochelle Walensky and President Biden, they all came out publicly, not to mention many news sources, CNN, MSNBC and so on, Rachel Maddow, everybody’s coming out and saying, “If you get these injections, you become a dead-end for the virus. You can’t spread it,” and the idea was, we will stop infection transmission, get herd immunity and get back to normal. As that whole thing has exploded and the fallacy of it, the ridiculousness of it has exploded as many of the most vaccinated countries in the world have the highest cases in the world and are certainly looking nothing like herd immunity, suppressing the virus, and getting us back to normal, now they’ve shifted the narrative to say it’s all about hospitalization and death, and the vaccines still are incredibly effective for that.
Talk to me about that data and then I want to talk about the safety data as well. You can treat either one of those first, whatever you think.
Dr. E’aly: We’re looking at the safety data. The only thing that we have access to is the Vaccine Adverse Effect Reporting System. It’s important to note that healthcare providers under EUA law are required to report to VAERS. So that well over 80% of all reports into VAERS for the Covid inoculations come from healthcare providers. It’s a far cry from what Fauci was saying about, “Oh, it’s mostly made up of people who been in car accidents.” Some people you just wish would just shut up. He’s definitely one of them.
When you look at this– they start talking about safety signals, the first thing to keep in mind is that the only precedent– well, not the only, but one of the major precedents we have is for the swine flu vaccine from the 70s. That program was terminated after 56 confirmed deaths. You have to keep that in your head, that we do have precedent on this.
The question should be why don’t we have strict statistics were it’s like if this marker is hit or this marker is hit, the whole program has to be terminated? 100 deaths, it’s terminated. A thousand permanent injuries, the program’s terminated, because it’s not ready yet, we have to put it back into clinical trial and figure out what’s going on. If you care about people that’s what you do in a situation like this. But if you really care about people, you educate them on vitamin D, and have them take care of themselves out the gate. I’m still blown away two years later we don’t have guidance nationwide on nutrition.
Looking at the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, I want to let everybody know this is one or two weeks behind. I’ve been doing a lot of work on the Grand Jury stuff. I’m going to get this updated this week, probably later today. We have seen that the numbers have been slowing down because less people are getting the shots now. People that really wanted it got it. People that didn’t want it are not getting it.
And the booster uptake is a perfect example of that. That there’s so many people that got both shots or got the Johnson & Johnson, and then said “No, I’m not getting the booster. There’s no thing you can do to get me the booster.” It’s very clear. And that’s where CDC is perplexed as to why people aren’t getting the booster. Well, because it doesn’t work and there’s incredible risk. People aren’t stupid, right?
When we look at this. This is broken down, again, by age, which is how we should be looking at things in my opinion. There’s been over 1.1 million reported injuries. If that’s not a safety signal I don’t know what is. Over a million injuries in a single year? I keep going to people, “If Lucky Charms had been implicated in hurting over a million people in a single year, what would happen to Lucky Charms? It’d be off the shelf.”
Ari: I think if Lucky Charms was implicated in 10 deaths of children it would be off the shelves.
Dr. E’aly: You’re pulled, pal. You’re done. You’re not magically delicious anymore. That’s number one. Excuse me, I’m getting a little froggy here, I’m going to mute.
Okay, so then we go to the next big one which is myocarditis, pericarditis, right? Heart inflammation. 34,000 times this has been reported. Now, the thing you want to keep in mind about VAERS is, we know based upon whistleblowers, that this is underreported. The question is by how much. VAERS has never overreported, it’s always underreported. So by what? By how much?
If you read the whistleblowers that Tom Renz has talked to it’s at least five times. If you read the Columbia University study, it’s 20 times. And if you read some of the work of Dr. Jessica Rose it’s 41 times underreported. I choose to err on the side of caution. Say you can safely multiply all of these numbers by at least five and get an idea. So that would mean there’s five million injuries. That there’s 150 thousand myocarditis, pericarditis cases.
Where it’s important to look for myocarditis, pericarditis is particularly in this age range here. Six to seventeen. 1381. People go, “That doesn’t sound like a lot.” It’s enormous because that number is supposed to be zero. You have to put data into context to understand it or else it just becomes numbers. That number is supposed to be zero, so that’s a safety signal right there. That’s a huge safety signal. You go to the 18-29 age range. That number should be about zero, maybe one. Like a zebra somewhere.
Ari And it’s what? Just for people listening who are not watching.
Dr. E’aly: 3813. Remember that’s underreported. You multiply it by five, that’s over 15,000 okay? Hospitalizations, these are people that got the shot and then had to be hospitalized. This isn’t emergency rooms. This is had to be hospitalized. 130774 post-inoculation.
27305 people had life-threatening experiences post-inoculation. Here’s the one that gets me, Ari. 43476 people are permanently injured– were considered permanently injured post-inoculation. That’s a safety signal, that’s a major one.
There have been– I know, because I looked up there are now over 24,000 but as of February 11th there were 23990 confirmed deaths post-inoculation. And then you get people say, “Well, correlation doesn’t equal causation.” I say “all right, I agree with you. Correlation doesn’t equal causation,” but what does equal causation. Because we don’t have that defined, what causation is, isn’t that convenient? There’s no autopsies being performed, right? Unless the family pays for it, isn’t that convenient?
So I say let’s look at how many of these deaths occurred within 48 hours because it’s pretty hard to argue that a person was okay on Tuesday and dead by Thursday. Over 7,000 deaths within 48 hours post-inoculation. Now, Anthony Fauci, are those all car accidents? Walensky, are those all car accidents? Because that’s what you want the public to believe. And then when you get back into that belief model. Believe, right?
I don’t need to believe anything that I can prove. Let’s get into proof. For me, when I look at this I’m like the swine flu program was shut down with 56 deaths. Ultimately it topped out at a couple of hundred. That’s why they shut the program down because they were like “this is going in the wrong direction.” But you’re at 20– you’re over 24 thousand deaths now at minimum. If you multiply it by a factor of five, we’re over 100,000. At least a quarter of those, or a little over a quarter of those occurred within 48 hours.
Now you tell me how that’s not causation.
And if we have compassion in our hearts for each other, tell me why you shouldn’t care about that. Why that’s okay. Because if you say that’s okay, what you’re doing is you’re saying that we can integrate concepts of war with medicine. Medicine philosophically is “Do no harm.” Only war accepts the notion of acceptable casualties. And what you’re doing is you’re allowing war to permeate medicine, and we cannot allow that philosophically to happen, all right? Especially when it comes to our children. We cannot allow that to happen.
The risk/benefit analysis why it is critical for your health
Ari: Speaking of children, talk a bit about risk/benefit analyses. Because I think that there’s a lot of people who are just operating with very overly simplistic belief systems where it’s almost as simple as Covid is bad, you don’t want Covid. The vaccine works to prevent you from getting Covid, or prevent you from having a severe outcome. A shocking number of people still believe that it actually prevents you from getting Covid. That hasn’t been the case for a long time but many, many people still believe that.
So it’s like “Virus bad, vaccine good. Obviously I should give my kid– if I care about my kid I should give them the vaccine to prevent them from getting this bad thing, the virus.” What’s wrong with that, and talk about risk/benefit analysis. How risk/benefit analysis works.
Dr. E’aly: I’m going to say first and foremost, I’m never going to tell someone to take or not take this. I am a staunch believer in health freedom and parental rights. I won’t be taking this ever, my children won’t be getting this ever, and I will not apologize for doing that or enter into somebody’s blame and shame game. You can take that and shove it. I know what this is. Now, if you don’t, that’s your business. What I do is my business. We have to respect those boundaries among each other.
Dr. E’aly: When we look at CDC data through February 13th of 2022, we see that if you’re under 18, your recovery rate is actually greater higher than 99.99%. Now, you tell me what’s the need there? This is better than flu outcomes. Who’s scared of the flu? Nobody. Not for that age range. You get it between 18 and 49 and the recovery rate according to the CDC is 99.84%. It’s phenomenal. There’s nothing to be afraid of. Shouldn’t we be screaming that from the rooftops? Like, “Hey, you don’t have to worry. You’re under 50, you’re good. You’re good. Go on about your business.”
This is why you don’t lock down healthy people. This is why you don’t put incredible parameters around their freedoms because what you end up with is despair. You start seeing things like the CDC showing that overdose deaths increased by over 30% during the lockdown period. Why? Because people were in despair and they had no hope. What did they do? Maybe it’s not suicide. It sure seems like a suicide to me.
When we’re getting above 49 years of age, then you have to start making some judgment calls. 50 to 64, according to the CDC, the recovery rate is 98.75%. Still very good but I could see somebody going, “That’s a 1.25% death rate. It’s a little high.” I could see somebody saying that and wanting to be overly cautious. It’s not until you get above 65 where you start seeing a drop-off in recovery rate. 65. Don’t you like the way that phrasing, Ari, recovery rate instead of death rate?
Ari: I do. I do like that.
Dr. E’aly: It’s better, right?
Dr. E’aly: It’s like, “Yes, let’s talk about hope here.” The recovery rate for 65 to 74 is 95.67% as of February 13th according to CDC. These don’t change very much, folks. This data is so grand now at this point. These percentages don’t change very much. If anything I’ve seen over the last several weeks, Ari, of doing this is that they’ve been improving, improving, improving [crosstalk]
Ari: Oh, yes. Omicron is quite a bit less deadly.
Dr. E’aly: Right.
Ari: If anything, these percentages are actually higher for the recovery rate.
Dr. E’aly: Right. I update this. Based upon data this week, they’ll go up. It’ll be even better. 75 to 84 age range, the recovery rate is 89.62%. I’m going to tell you, that’s a great recovery rate for that age range because that’s the age range of normal life expectancy anyway. That’s when people die anyway. That’s still a great recovery rate. If it was in the 50%, toss a coin, we got a problem. But this is 89.62%. It means that 89% of people 75 to 84 got sick and got better. That’s good news because that’s the age you have to worry about.
Then they have this whole other age range over here, over 85. You’d think if you’re over 85, you get this you’re going to die. 78% of the people over 85 who got this, recovered. It’s still great news. What it allowed us to do is put together the odds of dying. If you’re under 18, the odds of dying are one in 8,143. You’re more likely to die in a car accident than you are from this. 18 to 49, one in 167.
Dr. E’aly: 617, excuse me. One in 617, that’s your odds of dying. You’re not at risk of dying. Over 50 it becomes one in 25. Now, why is that? Because that data is being heavily driven by people who are at normal life expectancy age anyway.
Particularly, when you get from the CDC that 96% of all death certificates had on average 4.0 comorbidities, the people who were dying were already in a poor state of health. That’s sad but what’s really sad is we didn’t do anything to help improve their health. That was our obligation. Then we take this data and we compare it–
Ari: What was that percentage one more time, the percentage of people who died who had–
Dr. E’aly: 96% had-
Dr. E’aly: -on average 4.0 comorbidities.
Dr. E’aly: They didn’t die of COVID. COVID may have initiated the process, but they died because their body could not withstand the infection. They died because they were already in a poor state of health. They were already highly susceptible to anything. It could have been COVID, it could have been H1N1, it could have been anything.
Ari: To summarize, if you’re over 65 and you have heart failure, and diabetes, and obesity, and some other disease, you are at very high risk of dying from this?
Dr. E’aly: Right.
Ari: If you’re under 65, let’s say, or even above 65 without multiple pre-existing conditions, if you’re over 65 and healthy, or if you’re under 65 with minimal to no preexisting conditions, the risk of dying is very, very low. Is that a fair-
Dr. E’aly: Correct.
Ari: -quick summary of this?
Dr. E’aly: Yes. I can even do you one better. If your vitamin D levels are 50 nanograms per milliliter or higher, your recovery rate is 99.99% regardless of age-
Dr. E’aly: -and regardless of pre-existing conditions according to multiple studies. Only 2.7% of the people who are above 50 nanograms per milliliter have ever required hospitalization.
Dr. E’aly: If there is one metric that we should have been screaming from the rooftops from day one, it is “Take your vitamin D. Don’t stay inside. Get out and get that sunlight all over your beautiful body.” We did just the opposite by design. By design. When we compared this kind of information, and this data is– This comparison is from January 18 so it’s a little bit earlier, when we compared this information against the shots against the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System data, it allows us to understand and get a sense of risk versus benefit.
If you’re under 40 years of age, you have a greater risk than benefit getting the shots. From 5 to 17, you have a 13 times greater risk of injury than you do benefit. If you’re 18 to 39, you have a 3.3 times greater risk than benefit. These groups shouldn’t be authorized to get this EUA-approved thing in the first place based upon just the data we have available.
You don’t get into balance of risk-benefit until age 40 to 49, and you don’t get into a potential for greater benefit than risk until you get over 50. Especially over 80 years of age, it really doesn’t take off until you get over 80 years of age. You have to ask yourself at 80 years of age, do you really want an experimental shot going into your body? You’ve lived this long without it, why do you need it? When we get to this. Go ahead, Ari.
Ari: I think it’s important to mention here, just be explicit, you are not in some category of what people might imagine a “anti-vaxxer” is in, meaning you’re not explicitly saying, “Nobody should take these things. These things are poison. They don’t work. Everything’s fraudulent. None of them have any benefit or potential for benefit,” you’re acknowledging or at least for the sake of showing this data, you are being generous and saying, “Well, let’s use their data to show– Let’s be generous in saying these vaccines do have a benefit for reducing risk of hospitalization and death. Let’s weigh that against the potential for harms?” Is that accurate to say? How would you phrase your view over–
Dr. E’aly: I know what you’re getting at. I would say it a bit differently, though. We don’t have data in to confirm the statement, “These reduce hospitalizations and these reduce symptom severity.” We don’t have that data available because, as I said earlier, you can be vaccinated and still counted as unvaccinated.
That entire data set is fraudulent. Any claim that these are instrumental in reducing symptom severity and improving outcome if you do get infected even though you got the shot, is preposterous for people to say. There’s no way that we can confirm a statement like that right now based upon the data.
What I do in analyzing data is I ask questions and I let the data answer. What I did with the risk versus benefit analysis, was I said simply, what’s the likelihood of recovery versus what’s the likelihood of injury at different age ranges? You ask a simple question. When people start making data analysis overly complex it’s because they’re trying to create a- they’re trying to tell a story to support their narrative. They’re not just giving you the simplicity.
I’m still appalled that we don’t have a published number on how many people have recovered. You saw in my stuff that I put together and all of it’s based upon CDC data and what’s published out there. I’m not making any of this stuff up. When you look at the CDC data, based upon their formulas, there’s over 57 as of February 13th, over 57 million Americans. If you believe the data, over 57 million Americans have recovered, right?
Versus, if you believe the data at that at that time, February 13th, 770,000 Americans had died. If you believe the data. Well, that’s awesome to me. 57 million people recovered versus 770,000 deaths for a bio weapon? We’re doing pretty good right now. That’s not to say all those deaths aren’t tragedies. Especially because of the impact upon the families but when we look at risk versus benefit, you keep it super simple. Is there a need there? You can’t tell me that there’s a need when there’s a 99.99% recovery rate. There’s no need there. Those are situations that are all risk, no benefit because what is the benefit?
Ari: No potential for benefit.
Dr. E’aly: Right. Well because the benefit is recovery. See the benefit– you have to understand what people mean when they say benefit for getting these. The benefit is prevention of infection. Well, we’ve already established that 9 million people– and keep in mind this data often doesn’t include kids under 12 years of age, either, that’s another little caveat of it, we’ve already confirmed that 9 million fully-vaccinated adults got sick anyway.
You can’t tell me that these are preventing infective spread. We’ve already confirmed that almost 200,000 had to go to the hospital. You can’t tell me that that’s preventing hospitalization and we’ve already confirmed that over 44,000 have died, fully-vaccinated, got the shots, got sick died, anyway. You can’t tell me that it prevents death and we know that in that data, that’s roughly only half of all the states reporting in. We know that data is underreported.
These statements that are being made are unsubstantiated by the data. When we look at risk versus benefit, I ask a question and then I let the data answer it. The data shows that there is a statistical argument for making these experimental inoculations available to people 50 years and older but there isn’t a statistical argument for making them available to people 39 years of age and younger.
You let the data guide you on these. You don’t bring your own opinions about it. I’m not bringing my– that’s just what the data says. But then when you augment that understanding of data analysis with the safety signals, you go wait a minute. I don’t know that these should be available to anyone and if you really want to pin me down, I’ve been calling for the termination of this program since January of 2021.
I was one of the first people to do it. You start looking at data and you’re like, “Hey, we’ve already exceeded the swine flu limits. We got to shut this program down.” You got to go back to the drawing board and solve some of this stuff. You’re this isn’t ready yet. That’s what you’re saying. This isn’t ready. I don’t know if it’ll ever be ready but this version of it is not ready and you can make those statements.
What it does is people like, “Well, you’re just an anti-vaxxer.” You can call me any stupid name you want. I care about people. I care about my country and I care that we use data to drive our decision-making, which means that the data has to be accurate and have integrity. If you don’t care about that, then shame on you but don’t get in my face because I give a damn about my country and the people in it. Don’t get in my face because I care about justice and accuracy. Don’t get in my face because I care about telling the truth.
Now, if you want to label me, you go right ahead and waste your time and energy because I’m not going to stop what I’m doing because what I’m doing is in the right and if we would all have a little bit more courage and ask a little bit more challenging, uncomfortable questions, we might not be in this mess because what we did was we went along to get along and we saw where that’s gotten us to this point.
We’ve gotten ourselves into an all-out fight for our lives, with people who are trying to profit off of our own demise. Now, if you don’t want to start calling things, what they are, that’s your business. My business is calling things what they are and I can back it up and if you can’t back it up then you need to do something very important. Shut up because I’ve had enough of this a over the last two years of people acting like they know what they’re talking about when they don’t and they can be easily disproven.
Do not bring lies to my table and tell me they are truths when I know better and if you do, I’m going to call you out and if you have some courage and integrity, you’ll dance with me in a debate but if you don’t have that courage and that integrity, then shut up. I’ve had enough. Kids are dying and I’m not going to act like I don’t know that that’s happening.
Ari: Yes. To be clear on that note for anybody listening who does feel they are an expert in this field, who does want to debate, I’m happy to host that. A final word on these biologics, do you have any thoughts on– I’ve spent a lot of time looking at the all-cause mortality data from various countries which doesn’t show any– overwhelmingly in the vast majority of countries, including the us, doesn’t show any decline in all-cause mortality since most of the population has been vaccinated, this also holds true in most of Europe and it especially holds true in younger age categories where there’s a actually been large elevations in all cause mortality since the vaccine rollout. I don’t know if you’ve spent– that’s something I’ve spent a lot of time on.
I’m curious if you have and if you have any other thoughts on these ideas around pandemic of the unvaccinated and if you can share any data on what are the percentages of people who are dying, who are either vaccinated or unvaccinated? There are some memes that people have shared over the last year where they’ll say, “Here’s a picture from so and so hospital of the people in the ICU ward or people who are on ventilators or people who have died and 80% of the people are unvaccinated.” This is used to say how effective the vaccines are. Do you have any thoughts on that or any data to share?
Dr. E’aly: Yes. I think it’s the same thing. You have to understand what constitutes an unvaccinated person. If they don’t know your vaccination status or don’t want to know your vaccination status, then you’re unvaccinated. If you have never gotten a shot, you’re unvaccinated and you should be. I’m vaccine free. I’m proud of it, will be the rest of my life. If you’ve gotten just one of the two shots, you’re unvaccinated. If you’ve gotten both shots but it hasn’t been 14 days and you got sick, you’re unvaccinated. If they want to, they can take it up to the next step like Israel did. If you didn’t get the booster, now you’re unvaccinated.
You see, that’s manipulation of categorization of data and when you do that, you compromise all the integrity of your data. It’s now a contaminated data set so when you come out and say 80% of the people that are hospitalized are unvaccinated, you have no proof to substantiate that, you might as well grab a dry eraser for it and written any number you wanted on there because that’s essentially what you’ve done. You’ve compromised the integrity of the data. That is by definition fraud.
Ari: In Israel, they were the initially the most vaccinated country in the world and they had vaccinated something like 90% of the adult populations.
Dr. Ely: 95.2%.
Ari: Then six months later, all of a sudden, when you look at Our World in Data or any of these other data-tracking websites, the percentage of the population displayed as being fully vaccinated in Israel, all of a sudden was 65%,right?
Dr. E’aly: Right because they made that change to the capitalization and you can’t trust Our World in Data or Johns Hopkins University dashboard because when you go behind the scenes and you get how they’re aggregating their data, though, they are combination programs, meaning because they try to, they say they’re real time. You can never be real time on this.
What they do is their combination of data with projections and they put both of them together and then publish it it as if it’s real time, it’s not. Do you want to talk about misleading? That’s misleading right there. Whenever somebody tries to argue– I had a dude try to argue with me with data from Our World in Data or something like that and I was like, “Stop, let’s go behind the scenes and let me show you exactly why this is projection model crap.”
Now, once he saw that, I was like, “Do you still want to argue with me about this?” Because anybody can throw numbers around, but you got to understand where those numbers come from. If you don’t, then all you’re doing is being an unpaid representative of Pfizer and Moderna, NIAID, and these bastards who’ve done all this.
The best things you can do to prevent future infections
Ari: The last thing I want to cover is practical recommendations. I know we have a very limited amount of time left after deep dives on all those vaccine-related topics. Practical recommendations, you’ve mentioned vitamin D already. There’s absolutely stunning research around that. You can talk a little bit more about that one if you’d like. Maybe show some images from some of your slides and any other recommendations as far as the relevance of nutrition and nutritional status as far as how that relates to risk.
Dr. E’aly: Sure. The big pushback we’ve gotten when we’ve tried to work with public health departments, because I’ve been pushing public health departments since June 30th of 2020 to issue guidance statewide. Be leaders in saying, “If you can issue guidance on staying six feet apart, there wasn’t one study to support that. If you can issue guidance on masking, there isn’t one randomized controlled clinical trial to support that, is preventing vector spread. If you can put that out there, then you can put out guidance for people on how to put some basic nutrients into their body.”
We first have to understand which nutrients are key for an optimized immunological response. That’s going to be vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin D, vitamin E, and zinc. Then we have a few others that are really, in my opinion, essential, the iron, selenium, omega-3, fatty acids. Especially B complex vitamins to help drive energy production.
Let’s stay just focused on the first five, vitamin A through zinc. The CDC publishes something periodically called NHANES studies, and they’re National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys. Components of them are also serologic surveys, where they actually measure the blood. They want to know, do Americans have enough?
What they’re looking at is they’re looking at intake of nutrients based upon the bare minimum that’s needed. That’s the recommended dietary allowance. There’s the bare minimum. Not the therapeutic amount. Not the optimal, but the minimum that people were taking. We looked at some of the NHANES studies. Me and a colleague of mine, we looked at some of the NHANES studies and he really brought this to my attention.
This was jaw-dropping when he first brought it to my attention. I said, “This is a major piece.” We find that the CDC in 2016 knew that 35% to 45% of Americans were deficient in vitamin A. 11% to 15% of Americans were deficient in zinc. 37% to 46% of Americans were deficient in vitamin C. 65% to 95% of Americans already were deficient in vitamin D and 60 to 84% of Americans were deficient in vitamin E.
Remember, what is that? What’s the bar for deficiency, bare minimum amounts? That these people didn’t even have the bare minimum amounts. Now, you go a little bit further and you start looking through the peer reviewed literature on vitamin D and you start seeing vitamin D keep saying the same thing. If you get over 50 nanograms per milliliter, you’re fine. Keep saying that, in this study, 191,000 people were in this study, shows that the SARS-CoV positivity rate was higher in the patients with deficient vitamin D levels. People who are under 20 nanograms per milliliter.
If you want to catch this, your vitamin D levels are low, you’re going to get it. If your vitamin D levels in this case were above 55 nanograms per milliliter that essentially you’re half as likely, 50% less likely to contract SARS-CoV-2. It didn’t matter what your age range or your sex, your ethnicity was. It didn’t matter that this is just a great general marker.
You can see that regression in this study shows that there’s a theoretical point of zero mortality at approximately 50 nanograms per milliliter. That if you have 50 nanograms per milliliter, you’re not going to die from contracting SARS-CoV-2 from the bio weapon. Just it’s study after study after study. Ultimately, I’m going to bring this down a little bit. Let me see if I put a picture in here for it. Oh, I must have taken that out.
Ultimately, what it does. Ari, is it tells us that the key to this is that we are by and large nutrient deficient. When you’re nutrient deficient, that makes you susceptible for infections, susceptible for severe outcomes, susceptible for hospitalization, susceptible for death. The key becomes the root treatment, the root prevention. Preventative strategy becomes getting nutrients into the body.
What we’ve done is we put together what we feel is a good general guidance. This is all a matter of public record. This is what we’ve been imploring public health departments to issue guidance on for two years. We break it down by age, seniors, adults, teens, that vitamin A in beta-carotene form, which is an incredibly safe form, 5,000 IUs, vitamin C, 3,000, 5,000 milligrams a day. Vitamin D3, you do a loading dose strategy of 10,000 IUs for 14 days followed by 5,000 IUs a day. Vitamin E, 200 to 600 IUs and zinc 25 to 40 milligrams. Of course, if you’re talking about zinc, you also have to talk about quercetin. Quercetin will help get zinc into the cells and zinc then activates the enzymes that help to become antiviral.
When we look at this, it’s a strategy for priming your immune system so that would you become infected, symptom severity will be minimalized. You won’t need hospitalization in all likelihood and you will recover quickly, which should be our therapeutic goals. We have this for children 5 to 12. We also put it together for children age 1 to 4 for moms and dads that are concerned and want to do everything you can to help your kid.
The best thing that we can do, in my opinion, is make sure that our children are very nutrient-dense, that our bodies are nutrient-dense, and that we’re using nutrition to empower our immune systems. Remember, the shots do not confer immunity. They’re just artificial infections that, in case of the mRNA platforms, coopt normal cell function to produce something that we know to be injurious, the spiked protein.
It doesn’t make logical sense to think that you get the shot and you’re going to be immune. Even if you get the shot, and that’s your choice, that’s fine, still treat it as an infection. Still put these nutrients into your body. Give yourself a chance to cut down on the possibility of adverse events. If you get sick, this is something we’ve seen to be very effective. This comes from Rutgers University, that oral mouthwashes, they talk about chlorhexidine. I prefer hydrogen peroxide, and probably talk about povidone-iodine as well. I think hydrogen peroxide’s been working just fine and also salt water has been working just fine. You do saltwater gargles and saltwater wrenches. We just do the stuff that we’ve always done when we got sick.
When you’re sick, what do you always do? Stay home. Prop yourself up. Put some nutrients in you. Maybe a little bit of chicken noodle soup. How about a little garlic? I don’t know. Put some stuff in you that’s going to make you feel better. If you’re not hungry, don’t eat because that’s a part of your body’s wisdom trying to deal with the infection. It’s called an autophagosomic response. It’s actually a part of your cellular immunity, which is pretty dope. You stay home and you stay clean. You clean, you wash clothes and stuff like that, and you get better and you go out.
This nonsense that they’ve made this thing so much bigger than what it really is. It’s a mild bio weapon. I want to make sure that we get justice served because I don’t want to see what a moderate or severe bio weapon looks like. You know what I mean?
Why the covid virus may be a bioweapon
Ari: I do. Let me ask you on that point. There might be some people who are thrown off on why you’re calling it a bio weapon. This could be a long discussion, but basically, the quick summary version of it is that you do believe that it was a lab leak from gain-of-function research in the Wuhan lab.
Dr. E’aly: No, I don’t believe it was a lab leak. I know it was a lab leak. I know it was manmade because I’ve followed all the science that has come off. We just had another study come out showing, without any doubt, that the possibility that the mutation on the furin cleavage site was natural and rapidly occurring, was one in several trillion chance probability, and that it matches. This just came out last week. Then it gets all these studies that come out that are incredible.
Steven– if you want to read something to assess this, let’s say, you’re a person says, “No, it was definitely wet market.” First of all, no, it was not. Let’s say you believe that. I would encourage you to go and read Steven Quay’s work, his Bayesian analysis that shows it’s a 99.8% probability of lab origin. He does, in my opinion, the best job of anyone I’ve read, calling all the data, all the information and the historical timeline to show that it’s not and if you haven’t researched the RaTG13, R-A-T G-1-3, entry into GenBank, you need to because there is a lot of mess around that one. Not the least of which is that it was a sample that was entered as a bad sample, a bat poop sample, even though there was no bacteria in that sample. That is impossible. He lays it out in his Bayesian analysis.
It’s there for free download. It’s Dr. Steven Quay, Q-U-A-Y, he crushed it and he published this in February of 2021. I thought when he published this, this is going to put it down. Everything we’re now going to see some congressional investigation, some stuff is going to move Now, this dude crushed it, and crickets. Crickets came up because how dare you go against the narrative? All the stuff that’s come out subsequently about Francis Cullen and Jeremy Farrar. You can go to The Epoch Times and read their investigative journalism on this topic, which is fantastic, by the way. I don’t care what you think about them, their job, the work they’re doing is fantastic on this.
You go and you look at all this, Ari, and it’s clear, there is no way that this was rapid evolution in a wet market. There’s no possible way that this occurred. That this was– you go through the Newsweek article showing that gain of function moved from here to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. You can believe whatever you want to believe. That’s the beauty of being a free person, you can believe whatever you want to believe, but that doesn’t make it the truth.
If you want the truth, you got to go dig in. You go digging, you’re going to see some stuff that doesn’t make you very happy. You’re going to see some work by Ralph Baric. You’re going to see the work by Peter Daszak. You’re going to see Fauci’s involvement. This person that everybody, for some reason, trusts, even though he has such an incredibly ugly past with HIV and the AIDS community. When you go digging, you find there’s a three-headed monster on this, and it’s Baric, Daszak, and Fauci.
Then you see that there are other players involved in this and it’s important for us to start talking about this openly. Why are we so afraid of talking about people who have done crime? What are they going to do to us? Honestly, what are they going to do to us? I’m going in pursuit of the truth. The most important question that we could ever ask about this, “How did it begin?” there still hasn’t been– it still hasn’t been answered. Why hasn’t it been answered? Because people don’t want to answer it. They convened two commissions on this. One in Britain and one of the World Health Organization to assess whether or not this was natural or lab-generated.
In both of those commissions, there was one person who was on both commissions. Guess who it was. Peter Daszak. Right. EcoHealth Alliance. Do you want to talk about conflict of interest? You got it right there. Peter Daszak. Guess what they found in their conclusions. That it was natural origin. Guess who bought that all throughout the world? Nobody. That’s why they decided, well, we can’t do a real investigation into this. Not yet at least. They’ll try to do some dog and pony show if we let them. If we don’t hold their feet to the fire, they’ll try to do some dog and pony show and come out later and go yes, I guess it was lab. I guess the United States did have something to do with it, but it was well-intended. We were studying how to prevent this and then it just got out and whoops.
Please, give me a break. You can’t go from entering this in GenBank and why did the Chinese destroy all the samples and all the data around it? Why did they gut that segment of the Wuhan Institute of Neurology? How do you go from entry of the sample in GenBank to full-scale clinical trial within two months?
People, stop making excuses for these folks. Stop. The thing that– Ari, we’ve talked about this ad nauseum because we go why would somebody continue to defend these people with everything that’s known? There’s a psychology to it. The psychology to it is people defend these folks because they identify themselves as smart and they are. They’re smart. They go, I couldn’t possibly be been fooled this badly to this level. Therefore, these people must be telling the truth and people that are saying otherwise must be conspiracy theorists because I’m smart.
Well, I got news for you. The greatest liars that have ever lived are alive today, give them their due. This is the most horrifically historic lie that has ever been told in human history. It was backed by untold amounts of money, untold coordination, and complicity in the media, and governments, in financial institutions, in medical institutions.
If you don’t give them their due, what you’re saying is you should have been smart enough to figure this out with no information in front of you. You’re not being fair to yourself. The fact of the matter is, you were lied to, in the greatest lie that’s so big that it’s hard to believe, let alone wrap your head around. I still have trouble wrapping my head around it. But a lie told a thousand times is still a lie and that’s what we’re dealing with here. We have to give ourselves the grace to go, yes, they got one over on me for a while, but they didn’t get one over on me forever. That’s what we need. All of you who are on this beliefs fence have to come to is an understanding. Do your homework, do your research, but come to an understanding that, yes, they may have fooled you for a little bit. They might even got you fooled to the point where you got the needle in your arm. That’s not your fault.
They’re really good at this. Really, really good at this, but the truth always comes out. Even Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propagandist had to admit that by the end, and that’s what’s happening right now. The truth is coming out. Which side of history are you going to be on? The side that aligns with truth and justice or the side that aligns with lies and narratives?
Ari: Yes, there’s, I think his name is Dr. Piers Robinson, who is the head of I think it’s the World Institute of Propaganda Studies. He has– I’ve listened to a couple of interviews of his. I highly recommend people do the same. Very, very brilliant guy, very level-headed guy. His analysis of this situation, there’s no political agenda, there’s nothing like that. This is a propaganda studies expert. He says, we’re in the middle of the biggest propaganda campaign in human history.
I read a quote the other day, “One of the things that makes propaganda so effective is that people don’t know that they’re being indoctrinated by it. They just see it as information, not propaganda.”
It also has a remarkable ability to convince even highly intelligent people. Even the most intelligent among us can be indoctrinated into propaganda without us knowing it. It is– and especially as of circa 2020-’22 the level of what they’re doing is very sophisticated now.
I think there’s another element here, which is just a worldview element. I remember as a kid growing up, science has been my passion since I was a young kid. This whole thing, the last two years has been really jarring, shocking to me, in a really deeply painful way to realize how corrupt our institutions of science actually are. I remember– and I always knew Pharma had some influence, but it’s really, it’s thousand-fold worse than I could have ever imagined.
I think that there’s a worldview issue, just a cognitive bias, orientation to the world, where we imagine science and governments and the media and these big public health bodies, the CDC, the FDA, the World Health Organization, the NHS on and on and on, to be filled with just these brilliant scientists who are honest, who are all trying to save us from all this bad stuff in the world. Of course, there are actually brilliant people in those institutes and there are well-meaning people there. But it’s also the case that these institutions have been corrupted to an enormous degree and Covid has exposed that, but because of this worldview, I think there are so many people who cannot process the notion that these institutions have been corrupted by financial interests and who just refuse to acknowledge that governments or the CDC or media or public health figures appearing on TV could possibly be anything other than just well-meaning altruists. Do you know what I mean?
Dr. E’aly: Here’s the thing. A lot of us spend so much energy attempting to educate and really enlighten people from the indoctrination of the propaganda. How do you go about doing it? It’s so much harder, requires so much patience because people are going to wake up in their own time. The only person who can change someone’s mind is a person who owns that mind.
It’s something that Bob said very well you know, “Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our minds.” When we understand that, it becomes a function of– It’s natural for us to struggle with this and go, “How come people can’t see this? How come they can’t see this? How can’t they get that?” I’ve literally written thousands of pages on this and I’ve done hundreds of interviews now at this point on this topic and educating, getting people out, and it’s like all of it helps a little bit. It moves the needle a little bit, but why haven’t we had this huge just “enough” moment yet?
I go, “We spent so much energy on the people who will never ever accept anything other than the lies that they’re told.” Let’s play around theoretically here for a second. Let’s say that every single person that is in that camp magically shifts in one single day to go, “You know what? You guys were right. I apologize. You guys were right.” We still have to put the people who did this in jail.
For me, I had to switch gears, Ari, and go, “You know what? I am going to work with the willing.” That number grows greatly every day and I’m really grateful for that, but I can’t spend a moment of my lifeforce on the people who refuse to be a part of their own rescue. I can’t. Because that’s what we all have to do right now. Become a part of our own rescue for our children’s sake and for future generations’ sake. We have to be willing to do that.
How many did it take to change the world (and end slavery?)
I have to focus the full thrust of my energy on helping the people that are hurt and on making sure I’ve done everything I can do to see that justice became our reality again. That we live in a nation of laws that we abide by. If I’m doing that, and I know you’re doing that, and so many people are doing that, we will have enough because of this fact. What percentage of Americans do you think it took to end slavery?
Ari: I don’t know. That’s a really good question. I’ll guess, at least 40%, 50%.
Dr. E’aly: What percentage of Americans were abolitionists, identified as abolitionists during that time in the build-up to the Civil War?
Ari: I’ve no idea.
Dr. E’aly: Less than 1%.
Dr. E’aly: Less than 1%. What that tells us is it doesn’t take numbers. It takes passion. It takes dedication and commitment to something you know in your heart that’s right. We continually assess the ability to shift consciousness based upon numerical evaluations, and it has really nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with people who believe strongly in what they are doing and dedicating their life, risking their life to do what they know in their hearts they have been born to do, to do what they know in their hearts is right because they’re acting with complete selflessness in every endeavor on a topic.
That’s where you can see a 1% of population shift an entire nation into an attempt at a better expression of itself. That’s all it takes, is people of passion having the courage to speak out and fight in little, in big ways and say, “I’m not fighting against anything.” Abolitionists didn’t fight against slavery. They fought for freedom for all.
When you fight for something, what I found over the last two years, is you never get tired but when I fight against I get depressed and into despair. It’s little things like that, that matter and little things like that that I think give us hope.
I know the talk that I gave today sucked. I can’t stand talking about this anymore and I get upset about it, and it’s okay to be upset. If you can’t get upset about this, then what in the world can you possibly be upset about? It’s important for us to end in a good way, with positivity, and that’s what I– Because I know some people are meeting me for the first time here and I want to respect that.
I can be a flying killer whale full of porcupine quills and breathing fire when I want to be. It’s not who I like being but sometimes you need to be that dude. I’m that dude because I like defending the people who can’t defend themselves. The people who’ve been taken advantage of and lied to and trusted and then got abandoned. The kids that have been hurt. You hear these stories, you talk to them. I just met Stephanie DeGary and Maddie DeGary and Amanda Damien and her son Maxwell. They just welcomed me and a bunch of doctors into their community because we’re going to work for them on a volunteer basis and do everything we can to help them.
I’m not saying that for my own self-promotion. This is not about me. All glory goes up to God, only the mistakes are mine. I want no credit for this. I take no money for what I do. I actually spend thousands of dollars to participate in this fight.
What I want everyone listening to know is that you have this same ability within you. If there’s ever a time in human history to tap into that ability, that belief in something greater than yourself and to act in selfless ways and fight for what it’s right, it’s right now. We need everyone regardless if you’ve gotten the shot or not. Belief isn’t a matter.
The one thing we can all believe in is freedom and justice for all. That’s what we’re fighting for. If you want to label me, go ahead. I don’t care. If you want to vilify me, label me, go ahead. I’m moving on. I hope that over time you will see the integrity of what I and people like me are doing. That we were fighting and have been fighting for something very precious and very special.
We are fighting to honor the memories of every person who sacrificed their lives that we might be free. We’re fighting to protect future generations from slavery by a different name. We’re fighting so that little girls and boys can play outside and blow bubbles and do so safely carefree and explore the dreams that they will have and make sure that those dreams aren’t tainted by the nightmares of the few that think they have the right to tell everyone what to do with their lives and their bodies and to profit off of that process. What we’re doing here is noble. What we’re doing here is right. We are the shields that guard the realms for future generation. I take that very seriously. This is my call to service.
I think that it’s so important for us to have a quiet moment with ourselves and get into tune with what’s at stake right here right now and ask ourselves in the mirror, “What are we going to do about this?” Because so many people already feel like there’s nothing they can do. It’s just too big for them. That’s not true. Our energy is far greater. The love that we have is far greater than any evil that’s out there. Any that’s out there. All it takes is for us to engage it every single day in big and small ways. It doesn’t matter. Engage it.
What you’re going to find is that God, your Creator, by whatever name that may be, our ancestors and so many people that are alive right now, in this moment, we were born to be here right now in this time. If you have goodness in your heart you chose to be here. “The two most important days in person’s life is the day they’re born and the day they find out why.” That’s from Mark Twain.
We are finding out right now why we were born. We were born to hold this line right now, and we can do it. I know we will do it, but it sure is easier when many people agree to ﬁght for what’s right, freedom, and justice for all. I’ll end right there.
Ari: Dr. Ealy, thank you so much for your time. Thank you so much for all the extra time going over two hours with me. I really, really appreciate it, and I hope everyone listening does as well. Can you tell people where they can follow your work, follow you, learn more from you as all of the data evolves?
Dr. E’aly: Absolutely. Thank you for the opportunity to do so. You can find me– I do a weekly radio show, Energetic Health Radio, on the America Out Loud platform. Go to americaoutloud.com. We also publish a weekly article on Covid to keep everybody in the know on the data and what’s going on.
I haven’t published one in two weeks because we focused so much on the Grand Jury work so I’m about to publish another one this week. You can stay up to date right there really well. To learn how to support and get involved, I would go to covidcon21.com. That’s covidcon21.com. I would go to the Grand Jury page because we’re about to start updating that. There are opportunities there for you to donate in.
Every dollar in donation goes to fund the ﬁght for freedom and justice for all, every dollar. I don’t take a penny on it. I won’t take a penny on it. I’m not taking any of this blood money. l want nothing to do with it, but I do want to make sure the money goes to people, fund our attorneys out there who are ﬁghting, to fund researchers who are ﬁghting, and especially to fund these Grand Jury petitions because I believe in my heart this is the solution.
We got to ﬁgure out how to get this going. We think we’re on the precipice of ﬁnally doing it so any donations are greatly appreciated. We are going to make sure that donations also start going– We’re going to put together a big campaign for the families that have been injured by the shots that are getting no help from the government so we can support that community as well in a big way.
You know, this is our greatest opportunity to show who we really are. That we are loving beings, that we care about each other and are not afraid to express. l never thought we were going to get an opportunity like this. Never in my lifetime thought we would, but it’s here so we have to seize it. I see people seizing. I’m so proud of all the momma bears out there that have fought and held the line for so long.
I’m so grateful to the convoy and those brave folks that are doing what they’re doing. I’m so grateful to the scientists and doctors that are speaking out and all the folks like you, Ari, who are giving us a chance to have a voice in this incredible age of censorship and saying, “Hey, we have to get this message out. We have to get these calls to action out.” Covidcon21.com, go to the Grand Jury page.
There’s also free resources on there, especially on nutrition and things like that. One of the things we’ve been teaching people recently is that sickness is slavery. The fastest way to be enslaved is to be sick. The best way to avoid slavery is to take full control of your health, and if you want to do that, please go to energetichealthinstitute.org. That‘s my school that I’m the founder of. We do an incredible job of bringing in true diversity. We’re so diverse we don’t even think about it anymore. It’s not even really a topic.
We’re just good people with good hearts from all walks of life. We teach people how to take control their health, how to heal their bodies, and how to help other people do the same. Those are three points of entry if you want to follow my work, America Out Loud, covidcon21.com, and of course, the energetichealthinstitute.org. It would be an honor and privilege to meet you, an honor and privilege to serve you as we’ve been doing.
Ari: Beautiful. Right after we get off this call, I’m going to be sending a donation your way, a nice healthy hefty donation. Dr. Ealy, thank you so much for your work. I really appreciate everything you’re doing.
Dr. E’aly: It’s an honor to serve everyone. I mean that this is one of the greatest experiences of my life because of all of the good people we have met along the way like yourself. We are building a world community that doesn’t need a world governance. Rebuilding a world community of people who are saying I choose love above all, and I’m just privileged to be a part of it.
Ari: Thank you, my friend, for everything you’re doing.
Dr. E’aly: All right. Thank you, Ari.