Latest / Radically Genuine / 158. The Disturbing Truth Behind The COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Trials w/ Amy Kelly

Transcript

158. The Disturbing Truth Behind The COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Trials w/ Amy Kelly · Radically Genuine

• Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (00:01.532) Welcome to the Radically Genuine Podcast. I am Dr. Roger McFillin. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccination was pushed on the American people as a way out of the pandemic. A way for all of us to get back our lives and freedom to save our grandparents from contracting the disease and reducing the spread and severity of the illness. It was touted as safe and effective. Despite mRNA technology being a novel gene therapy, approximately 81 % of the American public got at least one dose as it was pushed as a vaccination. The Biden administration spent almost a billion dollars and hired the PR firm, the Fors Marsh Group, to create narratives that would decrease vaccine hesitancy. It was recommended to pregnant women, young mothers who were nursing, children, teens. Many places of employment mandate its use for you to keep your job. Kids in college required it to remain enrolled. Initially, the FDA asked for 75 years before they had to produce the Pfizer clinical trial data. We were told to blindly trust the government as the propaganda machine demonized those who questioned the safety and efficacy of this novel so-called vaccination. Why get a shot if I already had recovered from the disease? Reasonable people would ask. COVID continues to mutate and evolve. What's the value of being vaccinated now? Why would we take the risk for an adverse event when our children are young and healthy? They call these people anti-vax for openly questioning why Pfizer needed to hide their clinical trial data until the year 2096. Because nothing screams trust the science quite like you can't see the data until everyone involved is dead. Community-based doctors would rarely question the CDC recommendations, and we heard over and over again that if it had FDA approval, they must be thoroughly evaluated, safe, effective. It became very contentious. Social media profiles would include shots and masks. People became part of a team, virtue signaling their commitment to the greater good. It divided our country. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (02:31.666) What were all these claims based off of? What does the data from the clinical trials demonstrate? Since even today, the CDC continues to recommend the COVID shot for six month old babies. Well, a group of scientists and medical researchers represented by Aaron Seary sued the FDA under the Freedom of Information Act to force the release of hundreds of thousands of documents related to licensing of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination. Today's guest is probably one of the most important people in the world right now that you don't know. I know there's a lot of COVID va- Fatigue out there, many people just wanna get on with their lives. But what we're going to learn today is quite disorienting and threatening to many people's worldview. I can understand why you don't even wanna think about it. But it's necessary we understand this. Today's episode is one of the most consequential episodes I've recorded because this information absolutely needs to be shared. I consider today's guest a hero. The 450,000 pages of clinical trial data needed to be organized and broken down and issued in reports. In order it for it to be understood, required scientists and experts from around the globe to understand this, to organize it and be able to communicate it to the public. So what did it reveal? That is today's episode. I am very, very honored and proud. welcome Amy Kelly to the Radically Genuine podcast. She is Daily Cloud's Chief Operations Officer, as well as the Program Director for the War Room Daily Cloud, Pfizer and Moderna Documents Analysis Project. She oversees the thousands of volunteers who are reviewing, analyzing and reporting on the court ordered FDA released Pfizer and Moderna documents. She along with Naomi Wolf recently released a book which compiles this information named the Pfizer Papers. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (04:43.336) Pfizer's crime against humanity. And from what I just found out, it is the second in a volume of reported papers. Ms. Kelly has over 20 years of experience as a project manager. Additionally, she is a certified Six Sigma Black Belt, certified in change management methodology, and has experience as a business analyst, product manager, and strategist. Prior to working at Daily Cloud, she worked primarily in the telecommunications, transportation and medical device industries. She earned a bachelor of arts degree, graduating summa cum laude as a member of Phi Beta Kappa from a liberal arts college in the Southeast. She was uniquely skilled to be able to take on this huge project. Amy Kelly, I to welcome you to the radically genuine podcast. Amy Kelly (05:33.218) Thank you so much. I'm really glad to be here. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (05:36.104) Well, let's first start with your, background. I'm curious to know how you got involved in the project in the first place before we really get into everything. Amy Kelly (05:44.792) Sure. Well, as soon as the pandemic started happening and especially once the vaccine was being worked on and started to roll out, I was just very skeptical about what was going on. I've always been a researcher. I read a lot. And what I read in the data I saw, you know, I have a background in data analytics as well. just was not making sense, the fear mongering around something with such a low case fatality rate. So there was that interest. And then I was also a fan of Anne Stilam of Steve Bannon's War Room and watched that a lot. And then I started seeing Dr. Wolf be on there. And I remember Dr. Wolf from back in the 90s when The beauty myth came out and I was like, this is so interesting. They're from very different perspectives yet here they are together and I heard them put out the call. I think Steve really initiated it that these documents were coming out and they needed people to volunteer and go through it and at the time I had the availability to do that and so I signed up to volunteer. And the day after I submitted my volunteer application with my background information, which did not fit into the slots of doctor, nurse, medical researcher, all of that. But I put in the things you just read about me. They reached out to me and said, what would you think about overseeing this project? Because we really need someone to manage it. And I just wasn't expecting that at all. But I took a look. little bit of time to think about it and then said, yes, I definitely want to do this. I felt like this was almost providential and one of the most important opportunities I could have to really make a difference in the medical freedom fight. so that's how I initially got involved. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (07:55.826) So how many volunteers were initially part of this project? How many did you oversee? Amy Kelly (08:03.574) Well, the applications to volunteer were pouring in. And so very quickly it added up into the thousands. And when I came on board, that's what I was starting to oversee. And additional people joined after that. We had it divided up into six large groups. Those are the people who were mostly individually researching and going through and submitting their findings into a database we had set up. And then we had six smaller groups that are, I would say, bit more specialized. And those are the ones that tend to write the reports. So if in the larger group, they find something that really needs to be highlighted, they could pass that along to me. or to people in the smaller groups and say, think we should dig into this more. And those are where the research topics have come from. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (09:05.692) What type of experts were part of this group? Amy Kelly (09:09.726) It is everything you can think of all types of different doctors, medical researchers, medical investigators, lots of nurses, all different types of nurses, many data analysts, people from every walk of life. There's veterinarians that have gotten involved. I've just been very surprised and impressed. by the diversity of people who wanted to give of their time and talents to make a difference with us. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (09:47.602) that you mentioned something really important because I felt the same way with all the propaganda that was pushed on us for such a disease that most people experienced, recovered from. Yes, people did die. Obviously those who were of older age or had comorbidities or were not doing well with their overall health were at greater risk, but the overwhelming majority of us did quite well was nothing more than a cold. the fear mongering around this really set off alarm bells for many people. And I want to remind people what we were exposed to and just play a short clip from President Biden, who certainly at least ran on part of a message about being able to overcome this COVID pandemic and get our economy back on track. Amy Kelly (10:57.144) Thanks. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (12:50.192) Okay, you heard it there. It was the US president trusting the science, speaking to the experts. It's very, very clear. This vaccine, it's a vaccine first, and it is safe and it is effective. And listen, if you wouldn't believe that, you're some conspiracy nut, right? Who doesn't trust science, right? There's this expert class that we must trust and we're doing what is best for all of humanity. At this point, we have to suspend our critical analysis. All those questions that I posed earlier, suspend it because this is what's best for humanity. And it's very clear that Joe Biden said that he got the vaccine. He knows the clinical trial data. He spoke to the scientists. He is confirming it to all of you. So let's start with the very basics because I would say 99.9 % of everyone globally really has no idea. about the Pfizer clinical trials and what they were, how they're set up, but a lot of people repeat the messaging, right? You hear this all the time about the messaging. So what are the basics of the Pfizer clinical trial? Amy Kelly (13:52.6) That's the word. Amy Kelly (14:02.07) Yes, and I always think it's funny that it was science before the COVID pandemic and then it became the science, you know. So the basics of the trial are that Pfizer recruited approximately 44,000 people into this trial. They divided them essentially in half into a placebo cohort and the treatment cohort. They call it, I believe, the intervention cohort. And they had, I think it was 14 or 15 versions of their protocol. That's how many changes it had, which is an enormous number of changes for a clinical trial protocol during such a short period of time, which was more or less one year. And they They gathered data from these people that were in the trial through November 14th of 2020. That was the data cutoff date. And what the data cutoff date means is that that's when they took the data they had and gave it, cut it off at that point to put together to give to the FDA to seek emergency use authorization, on EUA for short. which would give the authorization for it to be rolled out publicly. So that's the short version of what happened during their clinical trial. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (15:37.534) Okay, so very basics. Initially, we were told that you would, if you got the shot, you wouldn't be able to obtain COVID or spread COVID, right? That didn't last long because so many people got COVID from after they got the vaccine. And so there was this, this message that people still repeat today, that it prevented deaths and reduced hospitalizations. So when we look at the basic trial data, Amy Kelly (15:39.607) Mm-hmm. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (16:06.152) when we look at those type of outcomes, how accurate was that? Amy Kelly (16:10.786) That is inaccurate. And I'll even step back a little bit from that and say COVID was one of the top adverse events experienced by patients in the clinical trial. And so they knew very well that it did not prevent people from getting COVID. They knew from their own clinical trial data, yet that was never communicated to the public. Lots of people who... got COVID during the clinical trial ended up being hospitalized as well. That could be from a combination of things, not necessarily just COVID, perhaps they had comorbidities that led to that, their case report file, CRFs, yeah, case report file, I'm making sure I got the right term, indicated that, and we have that data from the clinical trial. What is interesting is that data cutoff date, if we go back to that, Pfizer knew about more deaths in the vaccinated group than they documented at that point in time. So they were supposed to deaths or deaths in the clinical trial were supposed to be reported within, I think it was 24 hours. And so it would be in their data files for that. did not always happen, it generally happened. But even once they got them, then there was a process that went through behind the scenes to get documented in their own data files and so forth. So they knew about at least two more deaths in the vaccinated group that they didn't include in the data at that cutoff date, even though they had it. What that means is that when they presented the data to the FDA, showed that more people had died in the unvaccinated group than the vaccinated group, when in fact, at that point in time, the number of deaths were equal in each group. So there was no prevention of death benefit. And then in approximately a month after that data cutoff date and the additional data that came in, which would have been before it rolled out publicly in Amy Kelly (18:31.774) at least the US, there were a couple other deaths that happened among the vaccinated group. So it actually ended up that there were more in the vaccinated group who had died than in the unvaccinated group. So their own trial proved that what they were saying wasn't true. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (18:52.028) Now that's worth repeating. So the actual vaccinated group, there were more people who died in the vaccinated group than in the placebo group. Amy Kelly (19:03.06) And they conveniently hid that data from the public so that they could say that was not the case. At least what would have come out at least publicly looking at that cutoff date if everything had been presented as far as deaths go with the clinical trial would have been that it's an equal number. That's what the public should have been told, whether you take it or not, equal chance. Yeah, and then if they looked at the data a little further out into December of 2020, it would have actually shown that there were more deaths in the vaccinated group. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (19:42.398) Now these tactics by the pharmaceutical companies are not new. On my podcast, my audience is very aware of from, my analysis of a lot of the antidepressant trials is that they hide clinical data that shows severe adverse events. So this is part of the same kind of playbook, but it's a little bit different here, right? Because we rely on randomized blinded placebo-controlled trials is kind of like the gold standard to be able to determine efficacy. But from what I understand from reading your book is that the placebo group, we don't actually have a solid placebo group. Can you tell that story? Amy Kelly (20:29.624) Yes, this is just one of the more horrifying things for me from the trial. So what happened was, as I said, they divided them out into the two groups and then they had their data cut off and they went forward and on December 10th, I believe it was 2020, they were granted emergency use authorization from the FDA. As soon as that was granted to Pfizer, Pfizer started lobbying the FDA to be able to vaccinate the placebo group. And this is done in emergency situations. A lot of times it's said that it's inhumane not to offer the placebo group the vaccine. Well, in Pfizer's protocol, they said they were going to follow the placebo group for 24 months, which I would say is the minimum. they should do to look at how the vaccinated group is doing against the unvaccinated placebo group. Instead, by mid-March 2021, so just a few months after it publicly rolled out, they vaccinated, I think it was about 94 % of the placebo group. They offered it to everyone. Those are the people who accepted. So almost everyone in the placebo group accepted and it essentially it destroyed the clinical trial. At that point, you don't have a safety group or control group anymore. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (22:00.892) So one would have to surmise that they knew that the clinical trial did not determine that they had a vaccine at all. And the only way that they could actually present it to the global public would be to eliminate the entire protocol. Really, they'd have to destroy the protocol and make something up as a way of justifying why they eliminated their control group. So there's been, you said there were 14 changes to the Amy Kelly (22:08.236) Yes. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (22:30.066) to the protocol. We had more people die in the vaccine group compared to the control group. And then they vaccinated their control group, pretty much eliminating the standardization and the strength of the clinical trial at all. But that's not what's communicated to the general public. The general public, know, weirdly, they said that the unvaccinated were a threat to the vaccinated, which never really made Amy Kelly (22:59.008) Mm-hmm. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (22:59.834) any sense at all. We know the clinical trial that makes no sense at all, but if someone's vaccinated, they're immunized against a disease, why would there be a threat to them? None of that kind of made sense. I think those were some of the mistakes they made in some of their messaging. Amy Kelly (23:10.136) Mm-hmm. Amy Kelly (23:16.52) yes, I agree. I mean, it didn't make any sense. Logic was just thrown out the door when they started saying, even if you've had COVID, you still need to get the vaccine. And I think a lot of the push, the mandates push for the vaccine and just the language, like what you heard Joe Biden saying in that clip you played, was also part of that, we don't want a control group out there. And so, you know, about 15 % of the American public dug in their heels and said, I'm not doing it no matter what, you can't do it. So there is a control group, but they are purposely ignored and not followed. like I said, the one from the trial that could have been followed is gone. The messaging was, they just lied about it. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (24:11.358) Yeah, if you don't collect the data and follow the control group, you have no comparison. I don't understand how you can make the claim that it reduces hospitalizations and deaths when you don't have that placebo control group, but they did that stuff anyway, which I think the next question here is the FDA approval process. A lot of people are under the assumption that the FDA as a regulatory body protects us, that they investigate the efficacy of any type of medical intervention and there's enough safety data that would allow them to approve it and allow our doctors to be able to recommend it. So what do we know about the FDA approval process given what you've just surmised? Amy Kelly (24:55.832) I would definitely like to talk about that. have some other things that I would like to bring up in relation to that. for one thing, which it sounds like your audience knows, this is a gene therapy product. It's definitely not a vaccine. And that plays into the FDA approval process. So when this product started being routed into the FDA for it to be looked at, They knew it was a gene therapy product. We see that in Moderna's SEC filings, which, you know, it's essentially a very similar product, Pfizer and Moderna. They said the FDA told Moderna it's a gene therapy product, but then the messaging changed because they didn't think people would be accepting of the gene therapy message. But the other aspect of that is that the FDA has advisory groups. Many people may not be familiar with all the advisory groups within like associated with the FDA, but there's a lot of them. One is the vaccines and related biologics advisory group. And then there's also a gene therapy advisory group. If this drug had been routed through the gene therapy advisory group, it's a much more stringent process. It takes a lot longer to get through there, many more questions are asked, especially for a completely novel product, an mRNA product that had never been put out publicly. And yet the FDA chose to route this through the Vaccines and Related Biologics Advisory Committee. And so they're the ones looking at the data coming out and meeting and saying, is what we are seeing, and who ultimately go to the FDA, before approval and say, is our recommendation based on our review of the data. And so in my opinion, the wrong group, the advisory group was chosen from the very get-go and they were ill-equipped to look at the data that was coming in because it was such a novel product and a gene therapy product. The right people just weren't on the board to look at it. So there was no one Amy Kelly (27:22.432) in my opinion, based on what I know of who was on the advisory committee who really had the right skill set for that. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (27:30.322) Yeah, I think the question always comes up whether this was ignorance with good intention or just plain evil criminal behavior. And I know that's very difficult. We'll probably get into that after we start talking about some of the adverse events. But one thing that came out from your book that was absolutely shocking to me was the product itself. So the difference between what was tested and evaluated and then what was manufactured. Can you explain? Amy Kelly (28:05.226) Yes. So there are two different manufacturing processes. They are referred to as process one and process two. Process one was what was used for the vast majority of the clinical trial. And when I say that, I mean for both the length of the trial and given to the vast majority of patients who participated in the trial and received the treatment. So the non-placebo group. As they got further along in that, they realized they were not going to be able to scale that product and mass produce it like they wanted to. So they developed process two, a different manufacturing process and introduced that into the clinical trial. And it was introduced late in the clinical trial process. I believe it was October 2020, if I remember correctly. And they used a tiny subset of those 44,000 people. They used 252 people to test process two. And that's both the treatment group and the placebo group. So, you know, split it in half. And went after they were done with that, they realized that they could mass produce the process two one. And so that's what they moved forward with. without telling anyone openly, without telling the public, we looked at this tiny subset of people. This is who is tested on, it's tested for a very short period of time, and that's what they rolled out to the public. So the public received process two vaccines, even though process one vaccines were what were mostly tested during the clinical trial. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (29:57.436) So that's absolutely frightening. The drug company changed the product that was evaluated. So do we know the differences between the two products? Amy Kelly (30:05.142) Yes. Amy Kelly (30:09.164) We do know a good many of them. I don't know the minute details of it. know E. coli is used in the production of the process 2.1. As scary as that sounds initially, it's actually used in a lot of drug production. And so that was part of the process 2.1 that wasn't part of process 1. There are a lot of details available and we have an article on it that I can give you a link to if you'd like to share it with your audience. But that's one of the main things that was different. And then as perhaps many in your audience know, the process two ones, since they were out publicly, are what ended up getting tested by scientists after the fact. And that's where the DNA plasmid and the SV40 contamination was found. I certainly wonder myself if that's part of perhaps the manufac... Well, clearly it's part of the manufacturing process that it wasn't cleaned up enough. But I also wonder if it was part of that shortened timeframe that they did where they didn't really look into it quite enough to realize there were going to be unacceptable levels of contamination in it. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (31:30.376) Well, let's get to the major question to be asked. And I think this is what people want to hear. What are the scope of adverse events and what are people looking at here, both short term and potentially long term? Amy Kelly (31:47.03) The scope is truly terrifying. It's everything from a fever and sore muscles to some of the worst diseases you can imagine. One that people may be familiar with is what Celine Dion has. I think it's called stick person disease, if I remember right, where all of your muscles freeze throughout your body. That's listed as an adverse event of special interest in Pfizer's. post-marketing evaluation or post-marketing report for this trial, all types of cancers, and they, in many cases, are turbo cancers. They are very aggressive. They don't respond to traditional treatments. We have instances, many instances, where more than one kind of cancer is showing up at once. I actually have that going on with a family member in our family right now. And it's been shocking to see what's happening related to that. There's also something that I believe, if I remember right, is called multifocal. And it means there's tumors showing up in lots of different places where you wouldn't expect them from a given cancer, for example, in breast cancer. A lot of times in breast cancer, a tumor's a single cancer. I mean, cancer is a single tumor and you won't have multiple tumors throughout the breasts, but people are seeing that, for example. There's all types of autoimmune diseases, neurological disorders. There's been things that happen, for example, women during childbirth who are, a lot of women during childbirth, who are hemorrhaging at a not normal level. when they're giving birth. I think we have seen a lot of what's gonna happen, but in another way, I think we're just beginning to see there's some longer term, for example, cancers that take a good while to show up. They aren't necessarily the quick growing ones that show up immediately on the scene. I think we're gonna have more of that. And I'm very interested to see what happens on an ongoing basis. Amy Kelly (34:09.016) related to reproduction because they vaccinated down to such a young age that we have children who got vaccinated with this clearly down to six months who haven't even gone through puberty yet. And I, I'm concerned about what may happen when those children become of an age where they may want to have babies. We already see. a lot of fertility concerns happening with women of childbearing age and honestly men of the age to also be thinking about having children. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (34:46.546) Yeah, I want to stop right there and I want to share a clip from Rochelle Walensky, who was our CDC director at the time. And I want to get your thoughts on her statements. Amy Kelly (36:06.631) I remember that. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (36:10.312) thoughts since you're part of the group. you, you really are the one who is overseeing the entire group of experts who analyzed all that data. Is there any accuracy to what she said? Amy Kelly (36:27.218) Absolutely none. And I actually wrote the report that in our reports that mentions this particular speech she just gave in April 2021, Pfizer produced a pregnancy and lactation cumulative review. And their own review showed just atrocities happening with women and babies. miscarriages, premature births, baby suffering, all kinds of side effects from nursing from vaccinated moms. I would be very surprised if she did not have access to that information before she came out and said that. But even if she didn't, if you look back at the women who were followed, the women who got vaccinated, and were followed and reported on in the post marketing report, which the time period for that for anyone who doesn't know is December 1st, 2020 through February 28th, 2021. First, they lost a very large number of the pregnant women they were following. And so they were lost to follow up. So out of the ones that they did follow, the miscarriage rate was over 80%. for those women. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (37:58.202) And that number was confirmed by Dr. Pierre Corey's analysis as well, that there's an 80 % miscarriage, right? Now, the question that a lot of people have when I have these conversations with, you know, just friends of mine and so forth, they say, well, how do we know it's the vaccine versus COVID itself? I mean, everyone was exposed to COVID. How do we not know all these health problems are just related to the original virus? Amy Kelly (38:03.743) That's right. Amy Kelly (38:24.6) Well, you can actually test for what it is related to. So for example, and you won't know in every single case, but there are tests to look at the spike protein in the body and the spike protein from a COVID infection is different than the spike protein from a vaccine produced reaction. And there have been Arnie Burkhart and his team in Germany have done just amazing work on this. Sadly, Dr. Burkhart passed away, but his team has carried on. And they did lots of histopathology studies, and you will see those slides in this book. And it shows the cells and how they are being affected by the vaccine. And different stains show different colors and allow you to see. what a normal tissue looks like versus a vaccinated tissue. And so it's very clear, for example, if you're looking at cancers or liver disease or something like that under a microscope and you stain normal against not normal, you can see what's wrong with it. And it makes it clear that it's the vaccine and they don't have that evidence that that's happening from COVID infections. The CDC is running a gigantic long COVID study right now called Recover. And they set themselves up to fail. In my opinion, I follow the study because I'm interested to see what they're doing. I feel like long COVID is the excuse for everything that's happening from the vaccines. And when I say they set themselves up to fail, what I mean is they are not distinguishing in that study between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. So there's no way to tell from it what's causing what. They're just lumping everyone together and saying everyone who has these ongoing various symptoms and the list is long have long COVID when that may not be the fact. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (40:39.58) Yeah, so they want to keep that narrative and not implicate the vaccine because the vaccine is still recommended by the CDC. Amy Kelly (40:46.612) It is, it is, it's out for the fall and people are getting it sadly enough. Luckily, very small uptake compared to what it was, but people are still getting it. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (40:58.974) Okay, I want to stay on the pregnancy and young mothers who are recommended it. What do we know about babies who are nursing, for example, nursing of vaccinated mothers? Amy Kelly (41:12.276) Yes. Well, one thing that we know, this is not directly really the baby, it's more the mom, is that there's been discoloration of breast milk. So kind of blue green breast milk, which is very strange. Babies that are nursing from vaccinated moms have suffered all kinds of side effects from fussiness to vomiting to skin disorders to allergic reactions. There's an incredibly long list actually in that report that I mentioned to you, upset stomach, refusal to eat. It just goes on and on. There's definitely fallout from having a baby nurse from a vaccinated mom. had moms who weren't vaccinated, got vaccinated while nursing, and then they're still nursing their babies. And so these reactions the babies are having that they weren't having before the mom was vaccinated are obvious and it's temporally related to what was done. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (42:30.706) heartbreaking. I mean, it's heartbreaking and it's infuriating. And I mean, we stand here today knowing that the US government was complicit in these acts, knowing that these were not safe vaccines. mean, Amy Kelly (42:31.948) Mm-hmm. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (42:51.462) It's very, very disorienting to be able to think that our own government plays a role in harming its own people. But this seems to be clearly the case based on what we know. Amy Kelly (43:07.33) think it is. I wasn't necessarily on board originally with the depopulation aspect that was potentially part of this, but I've seen enough now. hear from people every day directly in my inbox who either they or their loved ones or neighbors are suffering or dying. Even though our government knows how much it's hurting people to have this now, it's, they continue to go on and put these out there and allow people to get them. It's just, it's terrible what's being done. I do think the government is purposely harming people. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (43:57.126) I do want to get into that depopulation movement, but first you mentioned something about it, the way that affects males that would also create problems with fertility. Can you extrapolate on that a bit? Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (00:01.464) So Amy, you mentioned earlier concerns about male fertility. Can you extrapolate on that a bit? Amy Kelly (00:08.494) Yes, I actually wrote a report on this as well. It was very interesting to go through the data. One of the things that is in that post marketing report that I've referred to a few times is something called anti sperm antibodies. That's in the adverse events of special interests. And what that means is that when you get that in your body, A man's body views sperm as an enemy invader and attacks it and kills it. So that's one thing that came up in the Pfizer documents as a whole. Another thing that came up a lot were process was prostate cancer. There are also some, and I've done videos on this, some very graphic discussions of cancers related to the penis. and growths on the penis. And additionally, there have been several different external studies done, and this is in the report I did on it, that show that sperm levels drop after vaccination, both in their density and in their mobility. And they don't recover by the time the study periods have ended, which is like five to six weeks out. So they never go out far enough that you can be like, does it ever recover? You know, they say they may eventually recover, but there was a lot of evidence that that's not the case. you know, we have multiple re or not multiple lots and lots of evidence and reports showing that Couples are suffering from infertility issues and birth rates have dropped very significantly across the Western world since the vaccines were rolled out. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (02:13.954) Before we talk more about that depopulation movement, that's pretty powerful and large. It seems after hearing you on some other podcasts, you and Naomi, that the data might actually be worse than what you're actually, that you're reporting. Meaning that, from, from what I understand, there was a large pool of people where there was no finalized outcome data. They were labeled as recovered or recovering, but Amy Kelly (02:39.236) Mm-hmm. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (02:42.68) They had adverse events, just were not followed. And then there's threshold levels about like what can be identified as an adverse event. Amy Kelly (02:50.06) Mm-hmm. Yes. So when they categorize people in these trial documents, if they've recovered from an adverse event, they are marked as recovered. There are other categories, such as recovering. It's either recovering or recovered with sequela, I believe it's called. And then the other is unknown, meaning they don't know what happened to the person. And there are large, large pools of people who fall into those last three categories, which means they really aren't recovered and we don't know what happened to them because the follow-up data isn't available. regarding what you're saying on thresholds, this came into play during that post-marketing report. So what happened and what happens during post-marketing, which is part of the clinical trial. process after the vaccine goes out publicly is clinicians can report in, in this case to Pfizer worldwide safety adverse events they're seeing following vaccination. And then those are pulled together and put into this report. So the first thing to know is that you're seeing likely a very small subset of overall adverse events because these are the clinicians who took the time to report it into Pfizer worldwide safety. Who knows how many weren't reported. what they did when they were calculating the different adverse events by what they call system organ class in this document is that they set different thresholds for different system organ classes. So for example, liver adverse events, I'm, I don't remember off the top of my head, but let's say more than 10 of those had to occur before they started counting. the adverse events to keep track of them. And then maybe you would have a pulmonary adverse event and that the threshold for that may have only been five or you may have had GI related issues and the threshold may have been 12 for that. So you're never measuring apples to apples. It's not like they are counting every single adverse event that comes in. Instead, they're saying Amy Kelly (05:14.58) And if it hits this benchmark, then we're going to say it's something worth looking at and we're going to start counting it. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (05:21.9) Wow. So let's take a little bit of a wide angle lens right now. The prevailing narrative out there was that the vaccination might have protected a subset of the population who were greater at risk, but we really have no data that supports that, correct? Amy Kelly (05:25.338) Mm-hmm. Amy Kelly (05:43.168) Yes, I'm not aware of any data that actually supports that. And I would say, in fact, there's data to support that those are often the people that most should not have been getting it. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (05:55.286) fascinating. Can you talk more about that? Amy Kelly (05:58.156) Sure. For example, people that they said were at risk and really needed to be first in line a lot of times were cancer patients. Well, this is a known cancer causing agent now. And so they gave people with cancer something that can both cause cancer and make existing cancer worse. The same as the case for people with diabetes. There are multiple different types of diabetes mentioned in Pfizer's own documentation as being adverse events from the vaccine. So if you had somebody who was either already had diabetes or was perhaps pre-diabetic and you give them the shot, then you push them over potentially the threshold into actually having it if they were pre-diabetic. or making their existing case worse or perhaps even introducing a new kind to somebody that already has it. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (06:56.162) Yeah, I feel like there's been so much collective brainwashing that occurs in Western societies around allopathic medicine in general is that the idea that if you're provided a medical treatment that it could make you worse, it's not really even held in consciousness, right? Or we use the word vaccination. The power of that language in itself makes people believe that it is reducing severity at best when really our kind of collective idea of what an immunization is, it protects you from getting the disease in the first place. Amy Kelly (07:11.332) Mm-hmm. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (07:26.072) But in this regard, it seems pretty clear that those who got the COVID vaccination were more susceptible to additional infections. And it's something that things that like, I have a large psychology practice and you know, we see these repeated infections that are occurring not only from like staff members or from patients. And that's included in the people who have gotten the vaccine while those who haven't, you you get it one time. you recover and it seems like your natural antibodies or everything that we know about, you know, sixth grade biology, you know, allows us to be able to be protected against that disease in the future. We know that the trial eliminated its placebo groups. We weren't able to really measure differences long-term. We have these adverse effects. They're significant. And we don't have long-term analysis of Amy Kelly (08:01.232) Mm-hmm. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (08:25.826) what the COVID vaccinated group, know, what are the challenges they're facing compared to those who weren't because we're just not, we're not studying it. But the narrative kind of continues. We see these very significant reproduction and fertility concerns, 80 % miscarriage rate. You just mentioned everything that's going on with male sperm. I know this is uncomfortable for people to hear, but there is and has been a strong depopulation movement pushed by global elites for decades. Even if you look into the history of hormonal birth control, you know, that was the fear mongering at the time that the planet was going to be inhabitable. And, you know, now we see it kind of related to climate change and global inequities and a number of things, like people talking about really influential people believing that we have to decrease the population of planet earth to under one million. So then when something like this happens, I mean, how can we look at it in any other way than this was intentional? Amy Kelly (09:39.808) I agree. one thing that has really disturbed me about this and kind of brought me over to saying, okay, what's going on with this depopulation thing is that it was pushed so strongly that elderly needed to get this vaccine first and their immune systems are generally compromised much more than your average younger person. And, you know, they were put first in line for it. And we saw massive amounts of deaths, even after they received it in the elderly population. And I, from what I've read about, about depopulation agendas, like the World Economic Forum has and so forth, those are exactly the people they would want to target first. you know, they view them as non-contributing, which is just heartbreaking. So there's that. then you're, so there's killing off those people and then, you know, other people that are adults. And then there's potentially disturbing the reproductive functions of those who are of reproducing age or who are going to be of age to reproduce. so I, As I mentioned earlier, I think we're just seeing the front end of it. I hear about miscarriages all the time. We had someone actually send us a placenta pathology report from a baby that was born who had to be delivered a little bit early because he was failing to thrive in the womb. Well, the placenta was covered in calcifications. had this almost like a woven look over it that's not normal. It was so hard that it was restricting the growth area of the baby and was no longer able to carry nutrients through it to nourish the baby, which is why there was growth restriction happening and failure to thrive. remember we were told it Amy Kelly (11:58.434) it stays in your deltoid too, right? So how in the world could it be crossing the placental barrier? But in fact it was, and we know that it gets in there and that it causes a lot of issues for the placenta. And in addition to that pathology report, Dr. Wolf has interviewed a couple of midwives who gave the same type of information about what they're seeing. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (12:00.812) Yeah. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (12:22.382) frightening. Now we are in the midst of a contentious election. think when this podcast is going to be released, the election will be over. I'd be surprised if we know the results by the time that this is being heard. I sure hope I'm wrong. I sure hope I'm wrong. But to me, this is this has to be the number one Amy Kelly (12:23.791) Mm-hmm. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (12:46.794) issue, and you don't really see either candidate talking about it. Now, Bobby Kennedy and the Make America Healthy a again, movement has certainly been outspoken and they've joined the Trump campaign. But like these questions aren't being asked by the mainstream media. I mean, this brings up real critical questions around the trust of our current government and the regulatory bodies and whether we're under attack by our own government. Amy Kelly (13:16.292) Mm-hmm. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (13:16.78) Why do you think neither party is really discussing this? Amy Kelly (13:21.05) Well, I think the Republican side is not discussing it because these started being developed under President Trump and he was all in for them and has talked very publicly about what a fantastic job he did getting them out and how many lives they saved. And so I think regardless of what he may know personally, there's hesitancy to backtrack or contradict any of that that may have been said. on the Democrat side, I mean, they've been all in and really still are on these vaccines, which they hated under president Trump when he was getting them ready. But man, as soon as they got in power, they were the best thing that ever had come on the scene medically. And they've pushed them so hard that I think they are afraid to backtrack. on what we all know we're seeing, we're experiencing in our own personal lives. And I think it's to the detriment of both. I certainly hope that President Trump will come out and speak very frankly about it at some point. This day that you and I are talking, it so happens he's going on Joe Rogan. And if anybody is going to hold his feet to the fire about it, I expect it to happen there. So maybe. By the time this is live, we will know more on his thoughts about it than we do at this point. But it's been disappointing to see everyone hold back so much on it. I am glad Bobby Kennedy's involved now. I think that if Trump gets into office and he's involved in that administration, we will see more truth and movement on it than we have seen up to this point. But at this point, it all remains to be seen. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (15:14.828) Yeah, I mean, I'm hopeful that President Trump would just admit that he was ignorant on a lot of this and he trusted the wrong people. Now changes are going to be made based on what he knows, but we just haven't seen that transparency. And generally speaking, politicians aren't really good at admitting when they make mistakes or they're wrong. I sure hope that Joe Rogan asked these questions. These are really, really good questions for someone like me and many Americans. Amy Kelly (15:22.937) Mm-hmm. Amy Kelly (15:34.864) Mm-hmm. Amy Kelly (15:40.218) Yeah. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (15:45.236) out there. Yeah, this is a very, I think this is going to be a very difficult conversation for many people to hear. And it's so easy just to for this to be labeled misinformation, right? And so I am, I am curious to know what the reaction has been to your work. And for the Pfizer papers, the book to be released, I know the first book that you put out had to be self published, but I'm trying to get a sense of what the community response across Amy Kelly (15:58.138) Mm-hmm. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (16:14.683) This is a nonpartisan issue, across all political spectrums, I'm just kind of curious to know what the reaction has been. Amy Kelly (16:22.554) We have actually had very positive feedback so far. Of course, mostly from the medical freedom community, I would say the more conservative side of politics. The other side seems to mostly ignore what we do. They'll come out and attack it on X. and tell us why we're all wrong and so forth. But it never really makes it in to the traditional mainstream media as far as being talked about. I mean, like you said, people don't even really realize that the Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials have been, or clinical trial documentation has been released by the FDA. So usually people are shocked to hear that if... they're unfamiliar with the work we're doing, but we've gotten great feedback so far on this book. think this book in particular is special because it's in color and there are a lot of those histopathology slides that I mentioned where you can see for yourself, you know, you know, your eyes aren't lying. You can see what's happening within people's bodies after they receive the vaccine. So, and everything is cited. for anyone who might not know that the links are provided to the original documentation that she used, whether that is the Pfizer documents, which it is in a lot of cases, or related medical studies that have been used. even though traditional media remains silent about a lot of it, they can't really fight back against it. And so far we haven't heard from Pfizer, so that's a good sign as well. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (18:13.12) Yeah, it's sad that we're at this point in history where there's going to be a lot of people who just dismiss it because they trust what the authority is to them. And the authority to them would be the mainstream media or some government bureaucrat that represents science. then, because I think the cognitive dissonance is just too great. mean, what would it mean to their worldview if they were lied to, if their own government is attacking them? and they go into their doctor's offices and their doctor's office looks, their doctors look them in the eye and communicate honestly, hey, we've been giving this out for years. We don't see any problems. It's been thoroughly evaluated. It's safe. And then you hear something like this from somebody who has done the work. mean, you're the only group that has done the work. No one else has evaluated. There's no other expert out there that's dismissing or debating any of your findings. Amy Kelly (18:59.824) Mm-hmm. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (19:10.562) The source materials there, it's cited, it's clear, it's for anyone to read. It's extensive. I mean, that's a textbook that you've created. It's extensive, but it's not going to be, it's not going to generally be read in medical schools and the training of, of medical doctors. They're still going to be trained on the old model that's going to fit industry. And so one of the things that one of the great things about this is you begin to have a renewed sense of hope in humanity that I'm sitting here. Amy Kelly (19:17.134) Mm-hmm. Amy Kelly (19:29.859) Mm-hmm. Amy Kelly (19:39.492) Mm-hmm. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (19:40.206) today with someone like you, Amy, who has been able to organize such a large effort of experts around the globe to be able to do this work caring for our fellow man and women, listen, a lot of people, I don't know, 20%, 15 % of us chose not ever to get the vaccine in the first place. And now it's about preventing further harm with the data so, so clear. And that's why I think Amy Kelly (19:59.216) Mm-hmm. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (20:06.562) this episode and any episode, Amy, that you're on and Naomi's on. It's about kind of sharing this with people you know, because these are reasonable discussions. It's an investigation of the data. It's not a two-minute clip that you watch on social media. There's a textbook. There's a lot of work done, a lot of experts. We're questioning now who we can trust. Amy Kelly (20:15.567) Mm-hmm. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (20:35.037) And you get a sense of who you can trust because you move beyond the ad hominem, hominem attacks and the kind of the propaganda marketing statements that are pushed by the government authorities and the medical authorities. And you just ask those critical questions, right? So I want to, first of all, I just want to say how grateful I personally am for your work. I see you as a hero. I think you're, you're, saving lives. Amy Kelly (20:47.6) Mm-hmm. Amy Kelly (20:51.952) Mm-hmm. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (21:03.096) but we need to get more people who are aware of this work and what you're doing. So how can we bring attention to this? Where can people find you, Naomi, your organization? How can we direct them to this? Amy Kelly (21:17.496) Well, thank you for those kind words. Please go to dailyclout.io and on the front page you can scroll down and there's a section called investigations. That's the link if you click on it to all of the reports that exist. The manuscript for the Pfizer Papers book that we're discussing was turned in in August 2023. And so quite a while ago and so we've had a good many more reports come out. since then and you can access them there. The book is available on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, most major book sellers. So you can find that there. Dr. Wolf and I are on X and Getter and she's on a lot of other social media as well, Facebook, Instagram and so forth. Daily Cloud is also, so please find us there. When we put out new reports or we put out new opinion pieces, we push them out across our social media so you'll be able to stay up to date there as well. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (22:26.144) Amy Kelly, want to, from the bottom of my heart, thank you for a radically genuine conversation. Amy Kelly (22:33.166) Thank you. I appreciate being here.