Latest / Cultural Wars | America Out Loud News / Canada’s COVID injection tyranny hits new lows

Transcript

Canada’s COVID injection tyranny hits new lows · Cultural Wars | America Out Loud News

• 0:07
  Mainstream media has betrayed our trust.
• 0:10
  Rather than tell us the whole story about the important issues of the day, they tell us only what they want us to hear.
• 0:16
  Your hosts, Tom Harris and Todd Royal will bring you the other side of the story.
• 0:27
  In Canada, we have something called employment insurance or EI, which supposedly acts as a financial safety net for workers and a stabilizer for the Canadian economy during downturns.
• 0:39
  EI is supposed to provide temporary income support to people who lose their jobs through no fault of their own or cannot work for specific reasons.
• 0:48
  But it's not free.
• 0:50
  It's not a gift.
• 0:51
  It's a national program funded through premiums paid by workers and employers.
• 0:56
  And it's administered by the federal government under the Employment Insurance Act.
• 1:00
  And here's some examples as to how it's not free.
• 1:03
  You do pay for it throughout your career.
• 1:05
  If you average $50,000 a year for a 45-year career, you would have paid about 2% of your salary each year or a total of 45,000 into EI.
• 1:15
  But your employer would pay a bit more, 63,000.
• 1:19
  So in total, you would have paid 108,000.
• 1:22
  Okay.
• 1:23
  So this is not something that's free.
• 1:25
  In July 2024, nearly half a million Canadians were receiving regular EI benefits.
• 1:32
  But what if your employer insists that you take an injection that you consider unsafe and you refuse?
• 1:38
  And what if your employer then fires you because you wouldn't take the injection?
• 1:42
  Would you be entitled to receiving the EI benefits that you paid into for all those years that you worked up to this time?
• 1:50
  To answer these questions, we've invited Dr.
• 1:52
  Joseph Hickey, a data scientist with a PhD in physics back to the program.
• 1:57
  Dr.
• 1:57
  Hickey has first hand experience with these issues and is doing all Canadians a great service by his persistent legal battle against the government coercion to inject all of its employees, because that was the mandate.
• 2:11
  After completing his doctorate in physics at the University of Calgary, he worked as a data scientist at the Bank of Canada and completed a postdoctoral fellowship at the University that came back at Warri Vier.
• 2:23
  He's now president and associate researcher at Correlation Research in the public interest, a registered not-for-profit corporation based in Ottawa, Canada.
• 2:33
  Well, welcome to the show, Joseph.
• 2:34
  It's great to have you back.
• 2:36
  Hi, Tom.
• 2:37
  Good to be here.
• 2:38
  Yeah, for sure.
• 2:39
  So, first of all, can you tell us about correlation research in the public interest and how people can donate to help your work?
• 2:46
  Yes, Correlation is an entirely independent, uh non-governmental research, uh not for profit organization based in Canada.
• 2:55
  And we uh have been active mostly researching um COVID period mortality, and we have many papers on that topic, and we take uh very alternative uh view on this, and and our results have have led us to take that view, and I think we're going to talk about that a bit uh today.
• 3:14
  And um another topic and that we're uh doing more on nowadays is uh climate uh as well, and including uh temperature data in Canada and and elsewhere, and we talked a bit about that last time I was on the show, uh Tom.
• 3:27
  Yeah, we're a team of uh PhD researchers uh in Canada and uh a couple uh in Europe, including uh Professor Denir Rancourt, who is uh in our group, and um we're doing lots of work, and you can uh check it all out on our webpage, which is correlation Canada.org.
• 3:48
  And on that webpage, there's a donation section as well if you'd like to uh contribute.
• 3:54
  Um, and you can also find uh a list of all our research papers on on the webpage.
• 3:59
  Yeah, it's all available for free, it's all it's all online.
• 4:02
  Yeah, I find it a very interesting site to scroll around.
• 4:05
  So here's a question that I hear once in a while, and that is people saying, well, you know, they're not really vaccines based on the original definition.
• 4:14
  So I mean, were the vaccinations or injections, I guess, is the better word to use, were they actually really vaccines based on the original definition of vaccines?
• 4:25
  Right.
• 4:25
  So um uh with correlation, our work has mostly been on all cause mortality.
• 4:30
  So we take a broader point of view and we look, we use that data, which is very robust, very reliable data of counting deaths at the national level, or it can be subnational or even even regional, and then we do analyses of what happened during the COVID period on that basis.
• 4:48
  Some of that has to do with vaccination uh correlations between peaks in mortality and peaks in the rollouts of administering the vaccines that also were accompanied by severe measures, public health measures.
• 5:01
  So our work is not so much on molecular biology of pharmaceuticals, but there's also a personal side to what we're going to talk about today, which is that I was uh after completing my PhD, I worked as a data scientist at the Bank of Canada, which is Canada's central bank, a crown corporation, so essentially a part of government, although with some independence.
• 5:24
  And when the vaccine mandates were applied, I was affected by that.
• 5:28
  I refused to receive the vaccine, and I ended up losing my job over that.
• 5:33
  And I've been fighting that, or an aspect of that more to do with the um how the government denied employment insurance uh to people who were fired for those uh refusing vaccination.
• 5:46
  And so uh as part of that uh process, I have done a bit of research and a bit of arguments regarding the nature of these vaccines.
• 5:56
  So they comes that comes more from uh my personal um effort to oppose the vaccination mandate that was applied to me.
• 6:05
  Uh so regarding your question about these vaccines or these injections, if you like, um the first thing, the first big picture thing I would like to say is that when you take a step back and you look at the history of vaccination, what you find is that first of all, they're not necessary.
• 6:22
  Second of all, they're not effective, and they're not safe either.
• 6:26
  So necessary, effective, or safe if they fail on all those counts.
• 6:31
  And there's a very the book that really convinced me the most on this is called Dissolving Illusions by uh Dr.
• 6:38
  Suzanne Humphreys and Roman Bistrianic.
• 6:41
  It's called Dissolving Illusions, Disease Vaccines, and the Forgotten History.
• 6:46
  Uh, the copy I have is from I think it is 2013 or so, around that time.
• 6:52
  And um what they show is that all of the childhood vaccines that are the subject of the diseases that are the subject of vaccination.
• 7:03
  Um, the mortality rates for those diseases dramatically started to decrease at the end of the 19th century before vaccines, because of improved sanitation conditions in the Western countries.
• 7:15
  So they they began the the death rate from these different diseases began an exponential decrease at that time.
• 7:22
  And then vaccines were only introduced later after the decrease had already been well, well underway.
• 7:27
  And so they they make a really strong argument that uh these vaccines have never been necessary, actually.
• 7:34
  Oh and then you get into other questions about whether they're effective, whether they're safe on top of that.
• 7:40
  And so that's the big picture view.
• 7:43
  And overall, there's no no case for the the products at all.
• 7:48
  Yeah.
• 7:48
  And I make ask a sub question, and that is I was watching a presentation last night from Dr.
• 7:53
  Rancur, and he was pointing out that in the Black Plague, for example, the autopsies show that you know the remains of people show that they were very malnourished.
• 8:03
  They were sick for it even before the particular disease hit them, and that that was the main cause of death.
• 8:10
  Right.
• 8:11
  So, yeah, when you when you look at those um studies of the victims of the black plague, you find that it's not uh just a killer pathogen that is affecting everybody with the same lethality.
• 8:24
  It's really the most impoverished, the low the most vulnerable, frail uh social status or health status people who succumbed to that, and not the wealthy who would have had you know, um, clean air, good food, uh freedom from harassment by the government and so on, and and the conditions that would have uh allowed them to stay healthy in this in this crisis time, and so that contradicts the popular image we have that a pandemic is a killer pathogen that harms humans indiscriminately.
• 9:01
  And what we have seen in our research is that none of the pandemics that are attributed to um influenza over the past hundred years are uh actually pandemics.
• 9:16
  There's there's essentially no excess mortality for any of them.
• 9:19
  The only exception would be the period of this the so-called Spanish flu.
• 9:22
  Oh, where there was a very large excess mortality.
• 9:26
  That was World War One, World War One, right?
• 9:28
  Just after World War War One, and that's important that it was just after in the years after World War One, that uh excess mortality event has very interesting characteristics, which is that it is the younger population, the young adults they're the ones who died at that time.
• 9:45
  And whereas what you would expect from uh uh influenza or respiratory illness is that it would be the older part of the population that would be dying in excess, uh, definitely.
• 9:56
  So there's something very strange going on, and at all points.
• 10:00
  To a very stressed population coming out of that very dire time of World War One.
• 10:08
  Also, the use of opiates had become more common at that time in the United States.
• 10:13
  And so it's it points more towards a stressed, impoverished younger adult population coming out of World War One with possibly opioid addiction uh happening as well, pretty widespread in the United States.
• 10:31
  The point is that it was uh much more likely to be bacterial pneumonia that would have been the the actual uh responsible the the killer responsible for the Spanish flu.
• 10:43
  And even there's even articles by Anthony Fauci of all people that that advanced that view that the Spanish flu was in fact pneumonia, and so um it's not this picture of a viral respiratory uh like a new virus that emerges, sweeps across the nation and kills a lot of people.
• 11:02
  It's something it's not that simple, it's it's probably not that at all.
• 11:06
  And so that's important to keep in mind.
• 11:09
  That's that seems to be a more realistic picture of the history of so-called pandemics, which aren't which aren't really what we think of as pandemics, which brings us to the period of COVID-19.
• 11:22
  And what we have found in our research is that the mortality uh patterns when you look at different jurisdictions around the world during the COVID period from 2020 to about 2023 are not compatible with the with the paradigm of a spreading novel virus that would be responsible for death.
• 11:42
  Yeah, that's right.
• 11:44
  And especially we we we zoomed in in a recent in a recent paper of June of last year, did a very extensive detailed study of the periods just in the spring of 2020, so the initial months, March, April, May, especially of 2020 in the United States and in Europe, and we looked at a high resolution in terms of time and uh geographics, that means subnational regions, so counties in the United States and uh something equivalent, roughly equivalent to counties in Europe, and then using weekly all-cause mortality, and we find results that are really not at all compatible with the concept of a spreading virus.
• 12:25
  So you'll have one of the most important things is you'll have jurisdictions with incredibly sharp peaks of mortality, and then neighboring jurisdictions that have no excess mortality.
• 12:37
  But there's a difference in the standard of living between the two.
• 12:41
  And there is, yes, and there's also a difference in the kinds of health measures that were applied, and how the region would have um got people to go to hospitals or not.
• 12:53
  That was one of the things we saw in Italy, was that the Italy was one of the hotspots, the largest peaks of excess mortality in the spring of 2020, especially in Lombardy in the north, and there was a neighboring region, Veneto, which is where Venice is, where uh in Lombardy, they had the authorities had told everyone to go to the hospital as soon as you have symptoms, essentially.
• 13:14
  Whereas in Veneto they said stay home if you have symptoms, and then there's lots and lots of reports of what happened to people who are put on mechanical resp uh respirators, which are known to be very it's very risky as soon as you're put on one of those, the probability of dying is very high just from being on one of these mechanical respirators, yes.
• 13:33
  And that's all detailed in the in the report.
• 13:35
  But um, that was one of the differences between those two regions.
• 13:38
  So intense, I would say mistreatment in hospitals in the in the urge in the panicked uh period of those first months in some regions, and other regions more taking a hands-off approach and it had very different outcomes in terms of the mortality.
• 13:52
  But there's no spreading, there's no sign of spreading.
• 13:56
  And you also have even within uh say a province, uh Lombardy is something like a province of Italy.
• 14:03
  Um within the within a region like that, you have sub-regions, some of which are urban and some of which are rural.
• 14:10
  And when you look at on that basis, you see that when there are peaks of mortality, they all rise and fall in synchrony, regardless of whether it's urban or rural.
• 14:22
  And so if you follow the paradigm of viral spread, the virus would be arriving at an airport, typically, which is an urban area, and then it would be presumably if if you follow the paradigm, it would be spreading out to the urban areas over time.
• 14:38
  And all the models and there are detailed models that try to model this, they always predict that those rural areas are gonna have their peaks of infection or mortality later than the urban centers where the airports are.
• 14:52
  Just because of the geographic spread.
• 14:55
  That's right.
• 14:55
  Yeah.
• 14:56
  It takes some time for people to travel, infected people to travel from the center where the virus has arrived, um, infecting others, and so the infection travel takes some time to travel out to the rural areas.
• 15:12
  Yeah.
• 15:12
  That's not what you see in the real data in terms of the peaks of mortality.
• 15:15
  It's synchronous, it happens all at the same time.
• 15:17
  Whoa.
• 15:18
  And so it's more of the sign.
• 15:19
  That's right.
• 15:20
  It's not compatible with the models.
• 15:22
  I mean, we go into great detail explaining and showing how the models, even in the state-of-the-art models, predict that essentially everywhere where there's a big airport, you're gonna have a big peak of infections and mortality, given an infection that starts, say, in in China, which is uh, you know, the the idea here.
• 15:44
  So you would have uh about as many infections in Italy as you would in Germany, or as many in New York City as you would in uh Los Angeles.
• 15:54
  And but that's not at all what you see in reality when you look at the mortality data.
• 15:58
  So you have Italy had a huge peak of mortality in in the north in Milan, which is the second largest city um in Italy, but essentially nothing in Rome, which is a similar is bigger and is a similar-sized city, and it even Rome even receives more flights from China and East Asia than Milan.
• 16:16
  So huge peak in Milan, nothing in Rome, nothing in Germany, which also has large airports, huge peak in New York City, nothing in Los Angeles at that at that point in time.
• 16:27
  So why is that like it taken the case of Rome versus Milan?
• 16:32
  Why was Milan hit so hard and Rome wasn't?
• 16:35
  Right.
• 16:36
  So because of the policies that were applied.
• 16:38
  That that the main point of our paper is to argue that these results are incompatible with the paradigm of spread.
• 16:46
  Uh huh.
• 16:46
  Then you can ask, well, if it's if if if we believe that we we agree that that's incompatible, then what would have caused these peaks of mortality instead of then you can propose an alternative hypothesis, which is in our view is that the measures uh that were applied were responsible for mortality ultimately, and and via the mechanism of bacterial pneumonia.
• 17:11
  So we we think that the deaths were respiratory and they were often labeled as respiratory by the uh doctors who would have uh assigned the cause of death.
• 17:22
  Um it's just and we think that um the stressful conditions of that panicked period in the first month are such that they they create conditions where the where one is much less able to cope with uh those kinds of respiratory infections, especially for uh populations of people who are are in a vulnerable health state.
• 17:48
  Yeah.
• 17:49
  So I guess the the bottom line is that it's probably it's not a pandemic, it was induced by the measures that were taken to fight the supposed pandemic.
• 17:58
  Jeez.
• 17:59
  That that is that is uh our view, yes, on this.
• 18:02
  Yeah.
• 18:02
  And you can see, for example, in New York City, the borough, which is a county in in New York City, is the Bronx, is the one that is the most devastated uh in those first months, and that is the poorest um uh borough of New York City.
• 18:20
  Um very vulnerable population there, and it has large hospitals.
• 18:28
  And the other the other aspect is that it is a very impoverished county, but it's right beside a very wealthy county, which is Manhattan.
• 18:36
  And so we did something called what we called intercounty disparity in socioeconomic status, compared say a factor like the uh the median income uh for the county, one county compared to its neighbors.
• 18:51
  And it turned out that the Bronx is the one where this disparity is highest, it's like it's kind of like an inequality type of measure.
• 18:58
  And that is where the excess mortality was highest.
• 19:01
  And we and we had we saw some similar results in London, England.
• 19:05
  Uh, there's some, I think they call them boroughs in London as well, some regions of the city where you have a similar effect happening, very poor people living beside very rich people.
• 19:16
  Yeah.
• 19:16
  And we, while this is more discussion, but we speculate that in those cases you can have charitable through, you know, charity, charitable organizations throughout many years.
• 19:27
  You have the establishment of these large uh publicly funded hospitals in the poor boroughs, uh funded by the neighboring wealthy people through philanthropy.
• 19:38
  Yeah.
• 19:38
  And that in that situation in the spring of 2020, that was like the most deadly place to be because you're very in a very frail health state, but you have this big hospital where you're encouraged to go to, and then they're applying these treatments, and there's also yeah, and mistreatments essentially.
• 19:55
  So, do you call the injections vaccines?
• 19:59
  Well, I
• 20:00
  Don't make too much distinction on that because of my view that and I get that from literature such as dissolving illusions uh by Humphreys and Bistrianic and other books of that nature that the vaccines uh are not useful at all.
• 20:15
  Uh and so I don't take too much uh uh issue with the distinction between the pre-COVID vaccines and the and the and the mRNA vaccines.
• 20:27
  Um especially for and theoretically, and this is another aspect that I wanted to bring up, especially for respiratory illnesses.
• 20:34
  Uh-huh.
• 20:35
  And this is something I argued when I was, you know, I had lost my job because of the vaccine mandate, and I was appealing to my employer because they offered a process like this where I could I could at first I asked I asked for what's called an accommodation, so uh an exemption to their policy.
• 20:53
  And I had given several different reasons, medical, religious, and human rights reasons for the exemption, and I argued them all.
• 21:01
  And um, the medical one was that I uh was a male under age 40, I was 36 at the time, and it had already been proven scientifically that males under 40 were at significantly elevated risk of heart inflammation, so myocarditis and pericarditis from the MRNA vaccines.
• 21:21
  And that's really like a really well demonstrated um result uh risk from these from these vaccines, and including even including autopsy studies of uh younger males who have died from having myocarditis directly after one of these uh injections.
• 21:39
  Yeah.
• 21:39
  So just as an aside, I should mention that some coach, some coaches of soccer teams in Europe, uh, they decided they didn't want to have people on the team who are vaccinated.
• 21:49
  There are a lot of videos of uh people collapsing on sports fields, uh from that time is quite shocking.
• 21:56
  Yeah.
• 21:57
  But um, what I wanted to say is that as part of so I was denied the accommodation.
• 22:01
  Um, yeah, because the government just decided they were going to brutally apply this mandate to everybody.
• 22:08
  Um, and then, but then my employer offered this what they called an appeal process.
• 22:12
  So I was given time to present additional information if I if I wanted to.
• 22:17
  And so what I did was I wrote sorry, but by this time you were not being paid, right?
• 22:23
  No, that's right.
• 22:24
  I was they called it uh unpaid leave without benefits.
• 22:29
  Lovely.
• 22:30
  It was involuntary.
• 22:32
  So then, you know, the when I was pursuing this through through the tribunals, they decided to call it suspension without pay.
• 22:39
  Uh, it ended up being the equivalent to being fired because I never got my job back.
• 22:44
  Uh yeah.
• 22:45
  And they called it misconduct, right?
• 22:47
  That was the excuse.
• 22:48
  Well, that's the other thing, yeah.
• 22:50
  Um, and I would like to talk about that, because that is a whole legal battle with uh what's called the Social Security Tribunal trying to get employment insurance.
• 23:01
  Yeah.
• 23:01
  Um but the one little point that I wanted to make about vaccines was that while making my appeal to the employer.
• 23:08
  Uh I wrote a uh roughly 800, 766-page uh document where I laid out all the scientific evidence uh that was my reason for not taking this vaccine, as well as many legal arguments about uh you know the how the constitution is supposed to protect you from being coerced into I'll bet they were shocked to see such a such an appeal.
• 23:32
  Well, they had to deal with it.
• 23:34
  But one of the um one of the arguments that I made was this argument that's Professor Sukharid Bakdi in Germany was making, and he's a very prominent immunologist, and also he became a very vocal critic of the COVID mRNA vaccines.
• 23:50
  And um he was arguing at that time that vaccines for respiratory illnesses in particular make no sense to be it makes no sense to be injecting them into muscle in your body.
• 24:03
  Oh, okay.
• 24:04
  It's very interesting.
• 24:05
  And you know, uh I'm not someone who's uh done any training in immunology or anything, but I've just paid attention to what he was saying and carefully read it, and what he says is that it's textbook immunology.
• 24:17
  That there are essentially there's a a divide in the immune system.
• 24:22
  You have the mucosal immune system, so it's the respiratory tract, especially that has its own immune functioning, it produces its own antibodies, whereas the rest of it is called the parental, so the rest of the body.
• 24:37
  Uh and so, and they the two basically don't cross over.
• 24:41
  So if you uh were to have a product that functions like a vaccine, you know, you introduce it into the body, and it trains the body to create the antibodies that are there to attack the pathogens.
• 24:55
  If it's if it's working and you and you're able to do that in the muscle of your arm, those antibodies that the that you're that you're now trained to produce are not gonna be active in the the mucus membranes of your respiratory system, according to textbook immunology that they that they all subscribe to.
• 25:13
  So they're they're useless.
• 25:15
  So it conceptually it makes no sense.
• 25:18
  And he he was going on and on about this, and very convincingly.
• 25:23
  And so what it would mean is that you'd need to to develop some kind of product that is more of a spray or something that that gets into your respiratory tract and um allows you to develop the antibodies there that would be needed to attack the pathogen that's being breathed in and it's going into your lungs, and that's where it's affecting you, right?
• 25:43
  So that was one of the arguments I made in my appeal, is that that's a medical reason for me not to be vaccinated, is that it makes no sense to be injecting this product into your arm when you're trying to stop a respiratory virus.
• 25:56
  That was one of many, many, many arguments that I included.
• 26:00
  Um, and that's online.
• 26:02
  There was some alternative media coverage of that appeal back when I did that back in 2022.
• 26:08
  Um the documents on everything I've tried to do on my own case there are on the uh the website of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association.
• 26:15
  So it's OCLA.ca and that includes then this once once I lost my income for not being vaccinated.
• 26:27
  Then there was and I just want to emphasize one point, you were working remotely.
• 26:32
  That's right.
• 26:32
  Entirely from home.
• 26:34
  Yeah.
• 26:34
  And you know, I had a discussion with Copilot last night, as you saw.
• 26:38
  And and it admitted that there was no rational reason to inject people who were working remotely.
• 26:45
  Yeah.
• 26:46
  That's right.
• 26:46
  So I was working entirely from home uh since March 2020.
• 26:51
  So at that time, this was in the autumn of 2021, so it was 20 months.
• 26:54
  I'd been working at home.
• 26:56
  100% from home for 20 months.
• 26:58
  All my colleagues worked entirely from home.
• 27:01
  Um, I had no contact with them.
• 27:03
  They had no contact with me.
• 27:05
  None of us had any contact with each other or with uh the public or anybody.
• 27:09
  We were isolated as far as our work was concerned from everyone.
• 27:12
  Yeah.
• 27:13
  And uh you can't uh transmit a respiratory virus across a computer, at least.
• 27:18
  That's you know what we believe back in the fall of 2021.
• 27:22
  We have to go for we have to go for a break now.
• 27:24
  Uh I've lost track to the time because it's so amazing this the story we're hearing.
• 27:28
  I mean, what we're hearing, uh, just before we go to rate, tell me if this sort of sums it up.
• 27:33
  There was no pandemic.
• 27:34
  The vaccine could not not only did not, but could not actually solve the respiratory problem.
• 27:42
  And yet they were insisting everybody do it, and their actions were what caused the excess mortality.
• 27:48
  Even the insisting is part of that story.
• 27:51
  Oh man, what a nightmare.
• 27:52
  Yeah, well, but we'll be right back after the ring.
• 27:54
  My guest today is Joseph Hickey, a PhD in physics, and as you can hear, we're turning the tables right upside down.
• 28:01
  So stay tuned for the second half.
• 28:04
  Let's get real.
• 28:05
  Let's get loud on America Out Loud Talk News.
• 28:08
  Yes, this is Dr.
• 28:09
  Peter McCullough, and I'm personally inviting you to join me in Nashville on July 2nd, 3rd, and 4th for a historic experience of 2026.
• 28:18
  America Out Loud News 250 slash 10, Nashville.
• 28:22
  Along with Clear and the Wellness Company, we're celebrating two big milestones.
• 28:26
  250 years of America and 10 years of America Out Loud News.
• 28:31
  I'm calling all patriots to this historic weekend with inspiring entertainment, incredible fireworks, and nationally recognized speakers who proudly stand for freedom.
• 28:40
  I would love to see you there because your presence matters, and you are family.
• 28:45
  Now's the time to get together, and we can exchange ideas, answer your questions, and enjoy fellowship.
• 28:52
  Join us and register now at America Outloud dot news forward slash Nashville.
• 28:57
  That's America Outloud.news forward slash Nashville.
• 29:01
  We'll see you there.
• 29:04
  Your heart is the most crucial muscle in your body.
• 29:06
  Are you doing enough to keep it strong?
• 29:08
  Introducing the wellness company's breakthrough healthy heart formula.
• 29:11
  Designed by Dr.
• 29:12
  Peter McCullough, now upgraded with taurine.
• 29:15
  This daily supplement supports cardiovascular health and works to protect cells against oxidative stress.
• 29:21
  Packed with Dribose to boost heart function, taurine to help maintain heart and muscular health, coenzyme Q10 and selenium citrate to help reduce risk of cardiac disease.
• 29:31
  And a vitamin B complex with L-carnitine for energy and muscle support.
• 29:35
  Endorsed by the wellness company's chief medical board.
• 29:38
  This formula is your ally for heart health.
• 29:40
  Reclaim your health now at TWC.
• 29:50
  Is your gut a mess?
• 29:51
  Two thirds of Americans suffer because of gastrointestinal issues, and I was one of them.
• 29:56
  That is why we created a three step doctor formulated completely.
• 30:00
  Completely natural gut reboot system that you can do at home in just minutes a day.
• 30:05
  Go to chemicalfree body.com forward slash out loud today.
• 30:09
  Get the Malcolm Healthy Gut bundle, reboot your gut and your energy, and save 20% on your first order.
• 30:17
  Oral hygiene hasn't changed in 50 years, but our diet and the way we eat has creating an environment in your mouth for bacteria to wreck havoc on your teeth and gums for better oral health.
• 30:28
  Get spray dental defense, an oral care line designed to combat acid creating bacteria.
• 30:35
  The toothpaste, mouthwash, mints, and gum all contain xylitol, and natural ingredients shown to dramatically improve oral health.
• 30:43
  Sprite can be found online and at all fine natural retailers.
• 30:47
  The smartest food on the planet doesn't come from a lab or in a package.
• 30:52
  It grows in a glass jar.
• 30:54
  I'm Doug Evans, author of the national bestseller, the Sprout Book.
• 30:58
  Sprouts deliver up to a hundred times the antioxidants of mature vegetables.
• 31:04
  They grow in just three to five days for under a dollar serving.
• 31:09
  Get your sprouting kit at the sprouting company.com slash out loud, use the code out loud for an exclusive offer.
• 31:17
  Grow smarter.
• 31:18
  Prepare for the next pandemic with the wellness company's contagion emergency kit designed by Dr.
• 31:23
  Peter McCullough.
• 31:24
  Get life-saving medications like Ivermectin and Hydroxychorquin.
• 31:27
  Plus a free nebulizer and a guidebook for safe use.
• 31:30
  Order now by going to TWC.
• 31:43
  The American experiment was a stroke of genius in a world of oppressors.
• 31:48
  July 4th, 2026 marks 250 years since the sign-in of the declaration of independence.
• 31:59
  America out loud.
• 32:01
  Is that place to awaken your heart, soul, and mind to the output.
• 32:13
  So I'm on with Dr.
• 32:14
  Joseph Hickey, and he's telling us his personal story, not just the research that they did, but also the personal story, which I'm sure what must have been a driver to do the research.
• 32:25
  Because what the government did was not only, you know, ridiculous, it didn't make any sense.
• 32:30
  It was actually very counterproductive, wasn't it, Joseph?
• 32:34
  Yes.
• 32:35
  And so we were talking about um what happened in the fall of 2021.
• 32:40
  Yeah.
• 32:41
  And you put in the appeal, and with all the science and the legality and all sorts of things.
• 32:47
  And how did they react to that?
• 32:49
  Right.
• 32:49
  And and just to take us back to that time of uh the late summer fall of 2021, there's an something I wanted to mention is there's an infamous Toronto Star uh front page, which is uh prominent newspaper in Canada where they had quotes about how people were feeling about the unvaccinated, they called them at the time, people who had not uh received the COVID vaccines, and they it's they've got these big letters on the front page, and it says things like if an unvaccinated person catches it from someone who is vaccinated, boo-hoo, too bad.
• 33:23
  Have no empathy left for the willfully unvaccinated.
• 33:26
  Let them die.
• 33:28
  Yeah.
• 33:28
  Um, one of our neighbors is a PhD geologist, so you think he's a pretty smart guy.
• 33:33
  And yet he and his neighbor he and his wife, who were both vaccinated, they would walk on the other side of the street when I came by with the dog.
• 33:42
  And our dog's a cockpoo, so that wasn't scaring them away.
• 33:45
  Uh, but yeah, they they were just so paranoid.
• 33:48
  And I saw this with lots of people in Ottawa, Canada.
• 33:51
  It was illegal to sit on a bench in the park.
• 33:55
  You know, I mean, the whole thing got it was like Monty Python almost.
• 34:00
  Yeah, so that's just a little reminder, because it can we can forget the intensity of what it was like at that time.
• 34:07
  And basically, one way of looking at it is you could say that the Trudeau government in Canada that wanted uh they were a minority government, and they decided to call an election and kind of have a kind of referendum on these vaccine mandates because they were popular with you could see that from the headlines there I was reading, and yeah, and your neighbors and so on.
• 34:27
  Um and they decided to have a kind of referendum uh on the vaccine mandates.
• 34:31
  It was a hedge issue, and they uh they won that and then they pushed through these very uh draconian uh mandates.
• 34:40
  Not only that, but for the people who lost their jobs because of that, they also denied employment insurance benefits.
• 34:47
  And those are not there to support you when you you know you lose work and you're looking for a new job, you've been paying into this insurance program, and it's normally there to support you for for a couple months or a couple weeks.
• 34:59
  And um, so the it was insult to injuries, you know, the injury of losing your job, but then this insult on top of we're not even gonna give you these benefits.
• 35:08
  So people were quite upset about that.
• 35:10
  And so I tried to pursue that myself.
• 35:15
  I you know, as soon as I was put out of work for refusing vaccination, I applied for this employment insurance benefit.
• 35:23
  And that has been a process now that's gone on since uh well about November 2021 till now, so I guess it's four and a half years or so.
• 35:33
  So what happened was the there's the government first makes the decision and they they uh they first called it voluntarily leaving work without just cause.
• 35:44
  Like you quit and you had no good reason to do it.
• 35:47
  Okay, and then I asked them to reconsider it, and I give them that big package of documents I give to my uh and arguments I give to my employer, I give it to the the government.
• 35:56
  And then they they came back with their final decision and they called it misconduct.
• 36:01
  Oh, yeah.
• 36:04
  You know too much.
• 36:06
  So if you've committed misconduct in the employment insurance act, which is the written law, then you're not entitled to these benefits.
• 36:13
  And normally that means something like stealing from your employer or uh violence in the workplace or not showing up for work, even though you've been told again and again.
• 36:23
  So that would be what misconduct usually is.
• 36:26
  But now it's uh insisting on the the right to choose what medical treatments you receive is now.
• 36:33
  If you do that and your employer doesn't like it and you lose your work, now that's considered to be misconduct, even if it was never in your contract.
• 36:40
  Is you know, and you and you work entirely from home, and there's no logical reason for this.
• 36:45
  So that now isn't in the government's view is misconduct.
• 36:48
  So then I took that case to the what's called the Social Security Tribunal.
• 36:53
  So it's kind of like a court, but it's it's not exactly a court, it's an administrative tribunal, but it's there to it then becomes a legal battle between me and the um the commission, the government to argue over whether it was this misconduct or not.
• 37:10
  And so this took years.
• 37:11
  I tried to challenge the constitutionality of that section of the act that that talks about misconduct because misconduct is not defined in the act.
• 37:21
  Tell you what it is.
• 37:23
  And I argued that um when a law is not clear when it's vague, that that violates the constitution.
• 37:32
  It can lead to the government can then be arbitrary about how they use that law.
• 37:38
  That's a very important fundamental constitutional uh uh premise that's part of the rule of law.
• 37:44
  And so what they did was they refused to let me make that argument.
• 37:49
  They barred they didn't even hear it.
• 37:52
  They wouldn't even let you appear.
• 37:54
  They wouldn't let you even wouldn't let you even go to court on it.
• 37:57
  That's right.
• 37:58
  They wouldn't let me have my day in court on that on that.
• 38:01
  Normally when you raise a constitutional issue, they have to, they have to let you have to hear it.
• 38:05
  They have to at least let you make your argument and then decide because you're you're challenging something really fundamental.
• 38:10
  But here they used a pretext, they used this procedure where you have to provide notice to the attorney general and actually the attorney generals of all the provinces because it's constitutional, it's important, they have to have an opportunity to respond and defend the law because that's their that's you know their their role as the ministers.
• 38:31
  Um they used that because that section had you're supposed to include a summary of your legal arguments that you're gonna make.
• 38:38
  They started saying in holding as decision makers that they can exclude an argument if they think it has no chance of success based on this procedural notice stage before you've ever made your arguments.
• 38:53
  And this was new because they had just changed the procedure in 2022, and so it was quite a battle.
• 39:01
  I even went to the they did give me appeal leave to appeal within the tribunal on that question of whether they can bar it in that way, and I ended up losing that appeal.
• 39:11
  So that was part a big part of the Saigo.
• 39:15
  Trying to somehow challenge the constitutionality of what they're doing here, because really what they're doing is they're just using the benefits regime to coerce people to get vaccinated.
• 39:26
  And that's yeah, it's bad enough that you lose your job, but they're saying something you've paid tens of thousands of dollars into.
• 39:32
  And as I said in the introduction, EI is not free, it's not charity.
• 39:36
  You and the employer have paid tens of thousands of dollars into this, and they won't let you have it when you need it.
• 39:43
  Yeah, and you can't just have a benefits regime and then use it to coerce people to do things that violate their fundamental rights or infringe on their fundamental rights.
• 39:53
  Um that's what they did.
• 39:55
  But that's exactly what they're doing.
• 39:57
  And um, so that is what.
• 40:00
  I argued I ended up taking this to court, which is what they call judicial review.
• 40:06
  So you get you ask a court to take a look at what the administrative tribunal did.
• 40:11
  And when I and I so then I had to argue that you know this whole misconduct thing is is crazy.
• 40:18
  This is illogical.
• 40:20
  What they ended up saying, and what they've been saying in many cases, it's not just mine, there's a lot of cases on this topic, exactly the same topic, although my case is distinguished from the others.
• 40:29
  That's one of the things I have to argue.
• 40:30
  But the topic of being denied EI for refusing vaccination.
• 40:35
  Um they keep applying this formula that if you willfully disobey your employer, then it's misconduct, regardless of what the employer was demanding of you.
• 40:46
  That's the logic to applying.
• 40:48
  And that you obviously has uh absurd consequences if you think about it, because the employer could be asking you to do anything.
• 40:55
  They could ask you to go and murder somebody, and if and if you refuse, according to this logic, then you have committed misconduct.
• 41:04
  You when if your employer fires you because you refused, then you're not going to get the benefits that the government has set up to sub, you know, support unemployed uh workers.
• 41:14
  So that's the kind of situation that we're dealing with is that the courts and the tribunals have been applying this formula.
• 41:23
  So in my case, I had conclusive documentary scientific evidence of harm to me, which is the myocarditis and the power pericarditis.
• 41:34
  If I were to comply with the my employer's demand, um, that was on the record in an affidavit in the tribunal process and before the court, and that was never contested by the other side.
• 41:46
  They did not take any issue with it, they didn't provide one iota of counter evidence.
• 41:51
  And so this is on the record, and so the facts of my case, and I worked entirely from home.
• 41:58
  So those two features of my case distinguish my case from all the other ones that have been before the courts.
• 42:04
  So I had to argue this, and I had to keep trying to drive home this point that when the decision maker at the tribunal decides whether an employee's action is misconduct, and the action is a refusal to do something, the decision major has to look at what was being demanded of the employer.
• 42:26
  Um you can't just ignore it.
• 42:29
  And if that demand uh introduces a real risk of harm to the employee, then that that has to be part of their consideration.
• 42:39
  They can't just ignore that.
• 42:40
  There are other cases where it's obvious that the person would lose their job and it's uncontested, like that's like the workplace violence or the theft from the employer.
• 42:48
  These other cases, which would more typically be misconduct.
• 42:51
  In that case, you don't really need to spend a lot of time considering uh what that aspect of the action.
• 42:58
  You just think about and they they focus on more on was it willful?
• 43:02
  Did they deliberately do it or not?
• 43:04
  Yeah, so they drove a trunk truck in the front door of the building because they were mad at the boss.
• 43:09
  I mean, exactly.
• 43:10
  Yeah, that's pretty obvious.
• 43:12
  Or they operated construction machinery when they were high on drugs.
• 43:16
  Or these are the type of cases that actually have normally come before the tribunal for that.
• 43:21
  Yeah.
• 43:22
  So um so I I did what I could to advance that argument.
• 43:28
  The judge kept asking me, aren't you just challenging the reasonableness of the policy, the employer's policy?
• 43:37
  And the reason he did he did that is because there are lots of cases that where the court has said the tribunal can't evaluate the reasonableness of the policy.
• 43:46
  The tribunal can't make a declaration about the policy was good or bad or right or wrong.
• 43:52
  All the tribunal can do is evaluate the employee's action and see if it was misconduct.
• 43:56
  It's a bit of a sophistry that they're they're pulling.
• 43:59
  Yeah.
• 44:01
  And I dug in with Copilot last night a little on that because I said, well, what if the employer said that there's an extraterrestrial invasion?
• 44:10
  And therefore, part of your you have to, as part of your job, hide under your desk for the first two hours of every day.
• 44:17
  And uh co-pilot said, Oh no, they would consider that absurd.
• 44:22
  And so they would not say that that was you know, um, misconduct if you said no, I'm not hiding under my desk, this is ridiculous.
• 44:30
  Um, but it is ridiculous, and it is absurd to tell people they have to get an injection even when they're working remotely.
• 44:38
  And so it said, yes, in a common sort of um, you know, if you look at it from a normal point of view, the government's policy was completely absurd.
• 44:48
  But then it went into a very convoluted argument as to how legally it was not absurd.
• 44:54
  And uh does that hold any water?
• 44:57
  Like, I mean, can you say that it I would say the two are the same?
• 45:01
  If there's no extraterrestrial invasion, if there's no pandemic, if the if the hiding under your desk would make no difference anyway, if there was an extraterrestrial invasion and the vaccine does nothing positive, then surely the two cases are similar because they're both absurd.
• 45:19
  Yeah, so so in that case, the tribunal does have the ability to declare something ridiculous and therefore throw it out.
• 45:28
  So the idea that they can't judge whether something is absurd.
• 45:32
  I I don't know if that's actually true, is it?
• 45:35
  No, I don't think it is true, but it's just that it's where they've gone with the jurisprudence, and so it becomes a real uphill battle.
• 45:44
  Um if you if the judge sees that you fit into that um that category, yeah, then it becomes very very difficult to um get a different decision from the judge.
• 45:57
  Um it sounds like they're kind of making making up the rules as they go along.
• 46:01
  They are, they are.
• 46:03
  Um and something that's very important is that the the written law, the act, the employment insurance act has that has this section about voluntarily leaving without just cause.
• 46:15
  That's another way that you can get disqualified from the benefits.
• 46:17
  So you can either be doing misconduct or voluntarily leaving for no good reason.
• 46:22
  But when you look at that section about the voluntarily leaving for no good reason, there is a list of good reasons.
• 46:28
  Okay, they might say that you've voluntarily left, but there's this long list of 14 reasons why um you can leave, and it can be things like um the employer is creating an unsafe workplace, or the employer has uh policies that are against the law, or practices that are against the law, and or there's sexual harassment, or there's these different things where it would be you could just walk out uh quit and you would still get the employment insurance benefits according to the written law, right?
• 47:00
  So, given that that's the intent of the act, that a refusal by an employee to do something is not always something that would disqualify for them from benefits, you can't then interpret the misconduct section to mean any refusal is categorically going to be uh disqualifying you from benefits regardless of what it is.
• 47:19
  It's it's against the intent and the purpose of the what the legislature had in mind when it created the act.
• 47:25
  That's that's this distinction shows that, right?
• 47:27
  So that's another thing I argued to the judge is you can't you can't apply this formula because look at you know, that's not the intent here of the law.
• 47:35
  So what happened then?
• 47:38
  Well, um I it's a reserved judgment.
• 47:41
  So the judge said at the end, uh Mr.
• 47:45
  Hickey has argued that his case is distinguished from all the others, and I had a table where I had looked at there's 30 plus cases, and I had made my notes, uh, all the cases, and I and he saw me holding my table up when he asked me about certain cases, and I was responding to what the government had said and by looking at my table and everything.
• 48:04
  And so he said, I'm gonna have to uh step back and and and uh analyze that and decide that you've given him a real headache.
• 48:13
  Yeah, and another thing I wanted to mention is in during um the argument, I had talked about a case, another case, where I had to I had to illustrate how my case was different from others.
• 48:27
  But there was a case of a security guard, and the case is called Sullivan, and he uh refused vaccination and he lost his job and he was trying to get employment insurance.
• 48:38
  Um there was no possibility of working from home in his case, but he did he went back in March of 2021.
• 48:45
  So before the mandates were applied, he had asked his doctor for a medical note to get an exemption from the COVID vaccines.
• 48:52
  And he got it back then, and uh you know at that point in time, and and it was because he had had allergic reactions to other vaccines pre prior to COVID.
• 49:02
  So he had that note, and then when later in the fall, when the government applied these mandates, he went back to the doctor and tried to get a new note, and the doctor refused because they had been advised that they're not supposed to do that.
• 49:16
  And so he was not able to s to fill out his employer's forms where they had said, here's the form, bring it to your doctor to get the medical exemption.
• 49:24
  He couldn't do that because the doctor wouldn't wouldn't help.
• 49:28
  And so he but he but he used his old his note from a few months earlier, and he gave that to the employer, and then the employer still fired him and he was still denied employment insurance, but he was trying to argue that look, I've I've got an actual medical reason here.
• 49:43
  It didn't matter, that one went all the way up to the federal court of appeal and he did not end up getting benefits.
• 49:49
  But I asked the judge, look, what if that medical note had said that the employee had a 50% chance of dying if he got a COVID vaccine?
• 50:00
  Would he still then be denied employment insurance by the tribunal?
• 50:05
  And then the judge said probably.
• 50:08
  Huh.
• 50:09
  So that was so I mean, they do have the opportunity to apply logic and actually say this is irrational.
• 50:17
  But they're not taking that opportunity.
• 50:20
  Exactly.
• 50:21
  Wow.
• 50:22
  Yeah.
• 50:23
  It's like a bloody nightmare.
• 50:24
  When I was talking to uh co-pilot, it was like I was going around and round in circles.
• 50:29
  It would make a statement, and I'd say, okay, if that's true, then what you said previously is not true.
• 50:35
  And and I kept doing that over and over and over, and it finally admitted at the end.
• 50:40
  Yes, the government's decision was irrational.
• 50:43
  Uh it makes no sense in the normal point of view.
• 50:47
  But because there it was considered a pandemic and the vaccines were considered real treatment, then they can kind of twist the law so that it does apply, and and you were you know in engaged in misconduct.
• 51:01
  And so I said, so it sounds like the only way to really kill this is if somehow the mandates were declared to be unlawful in the first place, and that there was no pandemic and the vaccines didn't help.
• 51:15
  And it admitted, yes, that that could kill the whole thing.
• 51:18
  And it's interesting because that to me sounds like one way that maybe you can win.
• 51:23
  Um, although the process would be would be horrific.
• 51:27
  Uh, and that is to somehow find that the mandates were unlawful.
• 51:31
  Do you agree with the co-pilot on that?
• 51:34
  Well, um if the uh AI eventually admitted that this is absurd, what they're doing.
• 51:42
  Yeah, and it it seems to be uh a step ahead of the the tribunals and the judges on this on this point.
• 51:49
  Yeah, yeah.
• 51:49
  It did admit it.
• 51:50
  It said, however, it said, however, there are two definitions of absurd.
• 51:54
  One is the common language definition where something makes no sense and everybody can see it, but then there's this legal way you can twist it into being not absurd.
• 52:04
  And yeah, I mean, the government just simply is making up rules to engage in what they want to do, and that is to force people to have vaccines.
• 52:13
  I mean, that's the the overall objective, isn't it?
• 52:15
  It's not really even honest in that sense.
• 52:18
  That's right.
• 52:18
  Yeah, no, it's uh and it's um that coercion uh was clear from statements of the Minister of Employment at the time.
• 52:27
  Yeah.
• 52:27
  In the fall of 2021, yeah.
• 52:29
  Yeah, so your latest court case, you don't have a result yet, but you're gonna see one in a month or two.
• 52:36
  Is that what you expect?
• 52:37
  Something like that, yeah.
• 52:39
  Yeah.
• 52:39
  Do you have any idea?
• 52:40
  Is it is it gonna succeed, or you just gonna hold your breath?
• 52:44
  What do what do you think is gonna happen, or can you even say?
• 52:47
  Oh, well, I've done what I can do.
• 52:49
  Um I'm a self-represented.
• 52:53
  But again, you know, I'm not a lawyer.
• 52:54
  Uh I'm just uh doing what I can as an individual.
• 52:58
  And I thought it was important to push it to this stage.
• 53:03
  Um because of the principles involved.
• 53:06
  And um, a lot of others have done it too.
• 53:09
  Uh like I said, there are about 30 court cases in this, so that's just the tip of the iceberg because you've got hundreds of tribunal cases and then thousands of cases that didn't even go to that level, you know.
• 53:22
  So I estimate on the order of 10,000 people that would have been denied employment insurance benefits is just a rough estimate.
• 53:29
  I'm sure this is just a rough estimate, but I'm uh it could be more quite a bit more than that.
• 53:34
  Um I don't think it's much less.
• 53:36
  So the government must be hoping you lose or it'll open the floodgates for other people to follow suit.
• 53:41
  Right.
• 53:42
  Yeah, yeah.
• 53:43
  But it should.
• 53:44
  I mean, they paid into that program.
• 53:46
  It's not free, it's not like you're getting a gift.
• 53:48
  You're getting money back that you put in.
• 53:51
  So I mean, to hold it back is just completely immoral.
• 53:54
  It's also a scenario where you have lost your income because of your up your deciding to choose what medical treatment you want to receive or not receive.
• 54:06
  Yeah.
• 54:06
  So the government said that you sh is taking away your job because you don't want to receive this medical treatment.
• 54:15
  So um it's uh it is it uh not a typical situation to be on unemployed.
• 54:25
  Uh I guess that you can you can argue that any situation of losing your job because of being laid off is uh is also uh a very rough situation to be as well.
• 54:35
  Well, we'll definitely stay in touch with you to find out what the outcome is, but I'd like to drill in a little deeper to some other issues next week if you're okay with that.
• 54:44
  Uh and and that is whether the COVID injections were properly tested, whether they were really safe, was the benefits worth the risk, you know, and and things like you know, I saw a uh testimony actually from a Pfizer representative, I think she was a vice president, where she admitted before the European Commission that they never tested the drug for transmission, and yet you had Trudeau standing up in front of various audiences saying, Imagine if your child was sitting on an airplane next to somebody who is unvaccinated, you know, and and he was making the case, and so was Joe Biden, that it would stop transmission or at least reduce it.
• 55:23
  But the actual manufacturer admitted under oath that they didn't even test it for that.
• 55:28
  And can we get into some of that next week?
• 55:32
  Yes, although um our work, our research with correlation has more been on the big picture of mortality rather than the nitty-gritty of um the vaccines and what did they do with the clinical trials and um and so on.
• 55:48
  So yeah, well, the mortality issue and the the real causes of all those deaths, that's something that I really do want to dig into because this could turn the tables upside down on the whole history of pandemics.
• 56:00
  I mean, it's amazing research.
• 56:03
  You know, so we unfortunately we have to log off for this week, but we'll be back next week to talk to Dr.
• 56:08
  Joseph Hickey about all of this because holy smokes, this is gonna turn turn the world of epidemiology upside down, or at least the government's approach to it, that's for sure.
• 56:19
  So Joseph, thanks so much for being my guest on my show today.
• 56:22
  Thanks a lot, it's my pleasure.
• 56:24
  Yeah, for sure.
• 56:24
  So next week will be an exciting presentation.
• 56:26
  Um, I really look forward to the show next week.
• 56:29
  So this is Tom Harrison, my guest, Dr.
• 56:31
  Joseph Hickey, a PhD in physics, who's been looking into the whole COVID issue, uh, the injections and everything else, signing out from the other side of the story.