Are we getting all the information necessary to make informed decisions about vaccination? Molecular biologistDr. Aditi Bhargava, the director of laboratory research at UCSF develops mRNA technology, the same technology used in covid vaccines. We are also joined by two individuals who have been injured by the vaccine, professional mountain biker Kyle Warner and Brianne Dressen who is a school teacher from Utah. In this profoundly illuminating and unifying podcast, we agree that everybody is simply doing what they think is best for themselves and society based on the information they have. An issue arises when we all operate with different information, which makes it difficult to make sense of this complicated issue.

AUBREY: Thank you, everybody, for coming to have this discussion. And just to have a discussion where we're just trying to help, like an archaeologists kind of has their brushes and they scrape away at a dig and try and find some bones of truth here in a world that's been obscured by a lot of fog and a lot of sand and, and just try to help give a greater understanding of some of the context of what's happening right now in the world with this pandemic, with this virus. So, I want to go to you first, Dr. Bhargava, and talk a little bit about what you've seen happen to science, which is really a huge part of your life. You've dedicated your life to the expansion and preservation of science. And science is now like a buzz word. The shirts that say science, it's team science. It's all of this energy. But in that, you've also seen a lot of ways in which science has fallen short of the ideal of what science could be, should be, and was designed to be. 

DR. ADITI: Thank you, Aubrey. Yes, it's been a very difficult process to follow what's been happening to science. But COVID has actually really exposed a lot of loopholes in the scientific process. And as an example, when the first pandemic with the first SARS happened, it took 11 years to find out what caused that pandemic. 

AUBREY: What SARS was that? 

DR. ADITI: The original SARS or the—

AUBREY: Yeah, the original one. 

DR. ADITI: The pandemic happened in 2000. And the first report of the virus, the Coronavirus that caused SARS was identified in 2011. 

AUBREY: And that was SARS-CoV-1 or what was that? 

DR. ADITI: It's called SARS-CoV-1. And that was also a bat Coronavirus. It was also noted at that time that... In fact, the report was a case report in "New England Journal of Medicine." That one of the graduate students working in an institution in Singapore actually caught an infection, was taken to the hospital, denied being exposed to the virus, and was discharged, but didn't do very well. Came back. And then it was found that he had this novel Coronavirus or SARS. And the strain was checked with the lab vile that he was working with, and it was identical to that vile. 

AUBREY: He was working in a lab. So, you have a lab technician working in a lab, working with—

DR. ADITI: He's a graduate student. 

AUBREY: Graduate student working in a lab, working with SARS-CoV-1 and Ebola virus, working on... And is this what they call gain of function research? Is that what goes on when people are researching these dangerous viruses? 

DR. ADITI: Gain of function, what it means is, normally, that function is not present in the original, in this case, virus. And you add that function. So, for example, in this case, the function is that these viruses normally will not infect humans, because these are bat viruses or other species. So, the gain of function would be when they start infecting humans. And so what that means is that in the lab, you are studying and making mutations in the virus and seeing what mutation causes these viruses to attach, or infect, or establish an infection in human cells. So once you make that kind of mutation, which is a gain of function and they can infect human cells, then for someone who's working with them, it's possible to get infected. It's not the first documented case of getting an infection from a pathogen that you're working with. There have been past cases of many lab-acquired infections that happened. In fact, you can go and find it in many scientific publications which document how many cases have been, at least, officially documented. And one is supposed to document as a principal investigator in a lab. If something like that were to happen in my lab, I am supposed to report it. There's a chain of command and there are protocols in order. Even if you get a needle stick in the lab, you're supposed to report it because the needle could potentially be contaminated with either human blood, or even if you're working with animals who have some sort of infection, you're supposed to report it. So, if you're supposed to report a needle steak, you're supposed to report perhaps other odd things that may happen. 

AUBREY: So, there's a couple things I want to point to. One is the idea that this took really 11 years for science to run its course and establish and understand exactly what happened with SARS-CoV-1, a long period of time before science. Like as if it was singular, it's never singular. It's always a discourse of opinions and differing opinions. And I think that's important to establish as well. There is no one science. It's not like there's one Bible. It's the constant asking of questions and testing of hypotheses that changes and evolves over time. But let's just say the consensus of science took 11 years before, is really what you were saying. So that's one factor, one thread to kind of track, and which is very different than what's happened with this one, which has all happened very fast within two years. The other is that immediately, when this virus came out, there were people who were saying that there's absolutely no chance that this came from a lab, came from gain of function research, even though there was evidence that they were studying this virus in a lab. But the interesting thing was the people who were saying, and it's actually since been retracted because it's kind of ridiculous. People say there is no chance. What do you mean there's no chance? That's not scientific to say there's no chance. You had to have seen that and be like, no chance? What are you talking about? 

DR. ADITI: Correct. To say that there is absolutely no chance is a difficult one. There's always a chance, especially if you are talking about viruses that normally don't infect a particular species, in this case, humans. And it takes, in the course of evolution, for this kind of breach of species barrier to happen or jumping, what is called a zoonotic jump to happen, it happens under a lot of pressure. So for a virus or a bacteria to feel threatened that they can't survive in the original host, that's when they will make that jump, or when there is too much of close contact. So in this case, obviously, there is the question that, where did that close contact happen with the bats, the bats that originally carry this virus, they don't live in Wuhan, they live very far away. So how did this originate in Wuhan? And of course, in science, you have to have an open mind. It's a process, like you pointed out. So, given the history of what had happened with the original SARS, that there was a graduate student who did get infected, and as you pointed out, that gain of function studies were going on. There were grants that were submitted to do this kind of gain of function studies to understand if this virus became pathogenic or acquired somehow, magically acquired the ability to jump and infect humans, then what would happen? And that's always been the justification for the group of scientists who want to do this kind of gain of function studies. 

AUBREY: It seems like playing with fire. 

DR. ADITI: It's playing with fire. It's also to develop biological warfare weapons, if you like. I definitely don't support that kind of science. I think it's playing with fire. When you don't understand, half knowledge is always dangerous. So, when you submit a grant to say, I would like to study so and so, you always have to submit what we call preliminary data. That means you have to show feasibility. So, if somebody submitted a grant to say, the NIH, or the Department of Defense, to say, I would like to do gain of function studies on SARS coronaviruses, then they would have had to submit some preliminary data to show feasibility. That means they've already done some part of that work. So to deny that nothing was ever done, or even if it doesn't get funded, you've done that kind of research to show that I can actually do it, or if I say that this is going to happen, this will happen. The other thing to keep in mind is that, for example, how are polio or measles vaccines made? These are live attenuated viruses. What that means is that you take a virus that infects a human. And in this case, you grow them in chicken eggs, and you grow them a number of times, you passage them, say 15 times. In that time, the virus loses its ability, if you like, to actually infect human cells, because now it thinks that the chicken cell is its new host. So that's how it's acquiring a new host. So, you're forcing it to jump, because it doesn't have any other place to grow. It's not seeing a human environment, it's only seeing a chicken environment, one after the other. So now it becomes, if you like, a chicken virus. And if you didn't control it, it would become a chicken pandemic. But then you take that virus, and you give it back to the humans. And when it sees a human cell, the first time, it's working like a vaccine because it can grow. So, it's a dead or live attenuated virus, but your body takes it as non-self or foreign, and it will mount an immune response and you get protection. So, if we come to a technical term, a vaccine is supposed to prevent infection, which is what some of these other vaccines like the polio, or the small pox, or the chicken pox vaccines do. And of course, the diseases caused by these viruses are pretty lethal and devastating. And these vaccines have done a really good job of preventing. So, when you come to COVID vaccines, the same definition if you apply that, do these prevent infection? And the answer is not because we've seen multiple breakthrough infections. And in fact, people who get breakthrough infections, despite being fully vaccinated, have the same viral load as unvaccinated. So if It's not preventing infection, and a number of people, it's not even preventing severe disease because we've seen a number of cases of people being hospitalized despite being fully vaccinated, so, in my mind, this doesn't really qualify as being a vaccine. And if we were to take at face value that these are indeed in some subset of people, decreasing their symptoms or causing a milder disease, then it's more like a drug. 

AUBREY: And that's what the data is showing, that in the aggregate, people who have been vaccinated tend to have a milder response, in the aggregate. And of course, there's variables in different individuals where some people have severe or even death reactions in what they call breakthrough cases after being vaccinated. But in the aggregate, it seems like the people who get vaccines, pretty good evidence that they have, in general, a slightly less severe response. And that's really what the vaccines can claim, right? 

DR. ADITI: So, I would pause here. If this was not such a scientifically, politically charged environment right now we would actually pause and ask, Is that really true? And how would you tease that out? You would need a control group, meaning an unvaccinated group which caught COVID. And because in these kinds of diseases, your symptoms are dictated by how good your immune system or your immune responses is, you would need a large number of people because there is no way to say that the variables that are there in you versus somebody else, you can't normalize or—

AUBREY: Only with very large numbers. 

DR. ADITI: Very large numbers, or you would have to have a very controlled clinical trial, which is what was supposed to happen with these therapeutics which we call COVID vaccines. So, in this case, to say that this vaccine is actually helping decrease your symptoms, you may need to make sure that, for example, the Delta variant, which they call is more transmissible, all that means is that it can grow much faster and infect more people. Is that really more virulent or pathogenic? We don't have that evidence. And we don't have that evidence in an objective or scientific manner because we don't have a control group. You would need to have unvaccinated people being infected with the Delta variant. You would compare their symptoms, you would compare their hospitalization rates, you would compare their outcomes, taking into account their comorbidities. So ideally, you would want to have just a healthy set of people who were naturally exposed to the Delta variant who didn't have any comorbidities, and a healthy set of people who were fully vaccinated, also did not have any comorbidities and they got exposed to Delta variant. Now if those set of people who were fully vaccinated, didn't develop the disease, didn't get symptoms, didn't need to be hospitalized at all whereas only the unvaccinated did, then you could potentially say with quite a bit of certainty that the vaccines were effective and that this delta variant was more virulent. Well, we don't have that. 

AUBREY: Which is crazy because this is basic science. This is science 101. And we have released literally trillions of dollars in the stimulus checks, and we're generating an infinite amount of money. So it's not like, where would we get the money for such a thing? Well, we just make it. We've been doing it all year. It's not like there's an absence of resources or an impetus to do this. It is interesting that some of these studies haven't been done, especially additional follow up studies on vaccinations versus people who aren't vaccinated to really study the effects of what's happening with people who are vaccinated. Right now, there's the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which is a self-reporting system, which all of the studies show is dramatically underreported as far as what's happening. And it's offered by the CDC as a repository, as a place for data, but there's no science being pushed to actually really study what's going on there. Which is also crazy. If you really care about your people, you run the best science possible and let the best science possible give access to that information, and leave no stone unturned, and just do your best as a governing body. And that's where it seems like, that doesn't seem like that's happening. It doesn't have to require a conspiracy or anything. But for whatever reason, the science that would be necessary to determine mask safety, vaccine safety, or mask, issues that, the psychological implications, the other variables that happen with lockdowns on studying different psychological issues, psychological issues in children, the whole gamut, everything that you can look at. So, you can look at all of the variables, have good data on everything, present the data, and then let the people speak and say, this is all the information that we got. What do you guys think? This, to me, is what would be the essence of democracy. And it doesn't really seem like that's what's happening. And I'm not in a position to understand the reasons why. Obviously, there's money that can be made in certain areas and not other areas. But for whatever reason, the thing that is clear is this type of process isn't really happening right now. 

DR. ADITI: Right. And you'll hear from other participants, Kyle, and Brianne, one of them being part of a clinical trial, how she was dropped and how hard it has been for both of them to report their adverse events. So despite the agency saying that anybody can report it, you'll see how difficult it's been for them. So, whether or not we are objectively studying these adverse events, and there are no drugs or therapeutics which don't have adverse events, I'm very puzzled as to why is the scientific community turning a blind eye that this product or vaccine can have no side effects? It's contradictory to everything we know about developing drugs. And in terms of, you brought up a number of issues, we can talk about each of them for hours till the cows come home and we might not do justice. For example, like you're saying, the media always says science is clear. I'm not sure which science they are talking about. Everything that I read in the journals, I have a hundred more questions. So, if the science is not clear to me, I'm not sure how the science is clear for everyone else. Perhaps they can explain to me, the media that claims that science is clear, which science? Unlike SARS, identification of which virus caused the SARS 1 pandemic, for this particular virus, of course, we learn from the past. When this pandemic was declared, it took them three months to identify the virus behind this pandemic. So, if we were to take them at face value that the first case in China happened in November, the first reports of the virus behind this pandemic was published in March of 2020. From the time the papers were submitted to "The Lancet" and "Nature Medicine," it took just a week to publish that data. In the normal course, it would take anywhere between months to six months to publish, go through the peer review process. But given the urgency of the situation, perhaps it was important to put out that potentially a virus has been identified. But science for people like me, we know that it can change. And so, science has not really been consumed in real time by the media and by the general public until recently. So you'll see Neil Tyson deGrasse or you had Carl Sagan who talked about cosmos and things like that. You don't really see such kind of shows for biological sciences. And the reason is that it takes a long time to establish. But suddenly, biological science, for the first time, was in the limelight in a way that it has never been. And it's not set in stone. It changes. 

AUBREY: There's two ways that you can look at this. And I love to look at things from all the different sides. One side is, we don't have time to do the normal, traditional way that we do things. We have to move fast. And even if we're wrong, we have to present the case that's going to convince the most amount of people to take the action that we need them to take for their own good. And you could assume some kind of benevolent manipulation. Basically, we know that this isn't really exactly right on the money, and we know that we don't really know yet. But we got to tell people that we know, we got to claim that we're certain. It's like if you're a captain of the ship, and your crew doesn't know which way to go and you're in a storm, you're like, we're going this way. And they're like, you sure captain? Captain is like, yeah, I'm sure. Even though the captain is like, I don't fucking know. It's fucking stormy. I can't see shit. But meanwhile, he's saying, we're definite, we're sure, we're going this way. So, you could assume there's just a benevolence, a benevolence to try and manipulate people in a way that's to their benefit. And that's certainly open. You also have to look at where billions of dollars are going. I think Pfizer's profits from the vaccine, I read somewhere, was like $34 billion, just that one company alone. You have to look at the money that they spend in the media, the money that they offer to political campaigns, the influence that they wield, because of the money they accumulate, and because of the money they're accumulating there. You also have to look at that factor, which is potentially not even a conspiracy, but just self-serving bias. They're seeing information and looking at information in a way that actually benefits themselves without them even being aware that they're doing it. So, you have to look at all of these different reasons and just say, all of this is possible. And most likely, it's a combination of all of these things that are happening. And maybe there's some malevolent actors, maybe there's some bad actors who are actually doing bad things on purpose. That's rare. I actually think in the world, it's rare that people do things on purpose that are bad, knowing that they're doing it. Even some of the greatest villains of our time, they all had a justification. Even Bond villains, All the movies that have James Bond villains are like, we're going to kill half the population, but it's going to be good for the world. Thanos had the same idea. He's the supervillain, but ultimately, he's justifying what he's doing for a greater purpose. It's just kind of a way to realize that, maybe there's some people who are intentionally doing bad things. But most likely, it's a combination of trying to do good things with limited information, maybe making mistakes, being victim to self-serving bias, where you're looking at data and actually seeing the world in a way that benefits you financially or through power. And then potentially, some aspect of maneuvering, strategy, and even potentially malevolence. That's what you have to look at to explain this. Because it seems undoubtedly that things are happening in a way that is manipulative. People aren't just expressing the truth in an open way. They're using different psychological mechanisms to kind of move people's opinions. And that's a very dangerous thing because then you're giving the ability to not allow truth to speak for itself, but allow truth to be driven and manipulated and to create actions. So I really want to get to y'all stories here. And before we get to your stories, I'd just love a brief description. You explained what some of the other vaccines, what their mechanism of action is, what they're doing. In this particular vaccine, people are calling it gene therapy. It's an mRNA vaccine. It's different than the other vaccines. It's new. So what exactly is going on with this current COVID vaccine. What's the mechanism of action? How is it working, or at least supposed to be working? 

DR. ADITI: Yes, thank you. Fear is one thing that can change the narrative. So, I'll just leave it at that. In terms of mechanism of action for the COVID-19 vaccines, I don't think we clearly know. There are two different kinds of vaccines that have, or rather, three different kinds of vaccines that have being used. One is the traditional vaccine, which is taking the virus and killing it and giving it. And I think there are some countries that have that virus. 

AUBREY: Is that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine? 

DR. ADITI: No, that is not in the US. India has that vaccine, which is called Covaxin. I think China has that vaccine. And I'm not sure if Russia has that vaccine. Which is traditional, you take the virus, you grow it, and you kill it, and you give it back just like smallpox, chickenpox, polio. And that vaccine, of course, anything that's naturally occurring, you can't patent it. So, there's not much money to be made. You talked about money. The two vaccines that are kind of vaccines for COVID-19 that are currently approved under EUA, were approved under EUA, the Moderna and Pfizer are the mRNA category. And Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca are what is called a recombinant vaccine. So a recombinant is taking another kind of virus, in this case, an adeno associated virus, and you put a portion of the COVID virus or the SARS CoV, in this case, the portion that makes the spike protein and you fuse them together. So you have the adenovirus and you have part of the Coronavirus, which is going to make spike protein and you give it to people. So the assumption is that the adenovirus, under adenovirus's supervision, the spike protein will be made using an individual's machinery. So, all the ingredients are in your cells. 

AUBREY: What is the purpose of a spike protein? Why do you want to make it? 

DR. ADITI: So, spike protein is the shell of the virus, if you like. And this is an RNA virus. What that means is that its genome can be made into protein as soon as it gets into the cells. The spike protein, which is the cover, allows the virus to enter its host cells. I think the analogy often being used is the lock key. So, the spike protein is like a key and you have locks of different, or a key that will fit into a particular kind of lock. In this case, it's a little bit, a promiscuous key, if you like, because it's not one kind of receptor or a lock. Because, although ACE2 has been thought to be the receptor through which this virus enters, the spike protein binds to your ACE2. There are experiments done in certain cell lines, human cell lines, which don't have ACE2 receptors, and the virus is still able to infect. So that's not the only receptor. So, the spike protein is important because it allows entry of the virus into the cells. So, the idea, in theory, is brilliant. That if you basically destroy the shell and the virus can't enter, then you will not have an infection. 

AUBREY: So basically, you're trying to stimulate antibodies in the body that actively destroy the presence of that particular spike protein. 

DR. ADITI: Right. So, you want to make antibodies to spike protein so that when it sees spike, it'll bind it and it'll sequester it or it'll—

AUBREY: Dendritic cells swallow it up or something, what happens? 

DR. ADITI: Or other kinds of immune cells. And the other kinds of the vaccine, which is the mRNA vaccine, is basically, the whole message for spike protein, the viral spike protein has been modified in some ways. And it's given in a shell of what they call, a liquid, sorry, a lipid nanoparticle. And so, the idea is you deliver a partial message, instead of the whole virus, which has spike protein and other components. Now you're delivering just the spike protein component of the virus into the cells. And then the cells will make spike protein. And then your immune cells will recognize it as a foreign or non-self protein and make antibodies to it. And so, when you subsequently get a viral infection, then it can attack that virus based on the spike protein. But our cells make spike protein so we really don't know what other things can happen. So for example, with the adenovirus vector, that's been used in the past for gene therapy. And in the past, the adeno associated viral vectors that were used, they caused issues, meaning they integrated in our genome, they became part of our genome. The integration is random. Where it can integrate in you, versus you, versus X is completely random. And so, in some of those patients who were undergoing gene therapy trials, they cured, for example, Leukemia, but they caused another kind of cancer because where these viruses had integrated. And in some cases, cause death. 

AUBREY: Again, we're playing with fire here at this point because we're causing something that modifies our genome. And we know from the science that we've done in the past, and also if we look at this data, that things are being modified that are not just simply the virus. 

DR. ADITI: The vector that is being used for this vaccine is modified and mutated in a way that it is not supposed to integrate in our genome. Nonetheless, FDA has put out, I don't know what's the word. But if you use adeno associated vectors for therapy, you're supposed to have at least a minimum of five-year follow-up. So even though, technically, the adeno associated vectors being used for this vaccine cannot integrate in our genome, there are a lot of people who actually have natural adenovirus latent, dormant in us. And we don't know if this virus, a mutated adeno vector, can somehow activate a virus which is latent in some people. And if that virus becomes activated, it can actually provide or do a rescue kind of an experiment, if you like, meaning, the virus, which in some people can code for the proteins that are now missing from these modified vectors. And these vectors can use that protein to do whatever they want to do because that's part of their DNA, if you like. 

AUBREY: It seems like this, to really understand what is happening, because of the possibility of these different things, you would need very close follow-up for a long time to understand how this, through many iterations of many cell lives and deaths, and iterations of this therapy going through the body for a long period of time, what are all of the possible things that could potentially happen here? Because we're really starting to mess with the genome in a significant way. And I've also thought to myself, too, even if you're creating antibodies to certain spike proteins, the body is making proteins all over the place in all kinds of areas. And I think this is an issue that I think people, they think of everything in such specific terms, like there's only one. The body is basically like it has a Home Depot of ingredients, and it makes its own little particles out of all of this. I'm going to use a little of this protein, I'm going to use a little of this lipid, I'm going to use a little of this enzyme, use all this, and it makes stuff constantly, that's what the body is doing. And to pretend that we understand every different thing that the body makes in all of the different combinations, it's a little bit of hubris to do that. To say, wow, do we really know what's happening when we're creating antibodies to this thing? Are we not going to be fighting ourself in some other way, as we're potentially fighting this virus? 

KYLE: Yeah. And then to say that it's safe and effective, period. That's the message and that's what they're telling people is, this is safe and effective, period. And even when you look at a commercial on TV, where you say like, Pfizer makes Viagra. And they have the Viagra commercial which says, side effects may include dot, dot, dot, dot, dot. 

AUBREY: Yeah, but the side effects of Viagra are like, your dick may be hard for up to one whole day. And you're like, eeh, I'll take the risk. 

KYLE: But then with this, it's a totally different message where the commercials on TV and the media that's portraying this message is saying, do your part, get vaccinated, save lives. This is safe and effective, period. 

AUBREY: Totally. 

KYLE: That's the issue that we're seeing. If you're not acknowledging that there is a potential risk, then how is that science? 

DR. ADITI: True. And also, what I was surprised to learn is that the unreported adverse events which is being reported by you, and Brianne, and many others, seem to fall or they're pretty common. 

KYLE: They're clustered. 

DR. ADITI: They are clustered. For those events to be completely random and not be caused by the vaccine, which is the only common factor between you all. At any other time, you would question that. You would say, it seems more logical, let's investigate it. But not to even think about that is contradictory to the whole scientific process. 

KYLE: And what she means by that is, we just went to DC and did this big press conference about vaccine injury. And almost every single person there is having issues with their heart, they're having neurological issues, or neuropathy, issues with their nerves or spinal cord, and immune issues, autoimmune issues. So, it's kind of three camps. You have people with heart issues, neurological issues, or neuropathy, so burning, tingling sensations, or autoimmune issues, like what I have now, where my IGE level, which is the indicator of allergic reaction, is off the charts high. And I'm now allergic to foods and things I never was before. So, you're having three main things happening. And the fact that the only common denominator, we're from different areas of the country, we're from different races, ethnicities, all these different things, and the only thing common is we had these vaccines and we're all developing heart, neurological, or allergic reactions. 

AUBREY: What we've established so far, and thank you so much, doctor, for kind of giving us the landscape. We've established that there's the possibility of mechanisms of action that we're just not aware of exactly how these different therapies are working. And so basically, what science should be saying is the jury is out. We're doing our best. We had a lot of pressure to make something quick, but we really don't know, we really don't know what the effects are. And if there was the proper process in place, everybody getting the vaccine would be tracked very carefully for adverse events and we would be trying to offer this data. But instead, there's this self-reporting system, and I'd love to get into that and the difficulty that was hinted at in actually utilizing the self-reporting system. Because the way that people actually position VAERS as the self-reporting system, is that anybody can just report anything. It's like you send in a Yelp review or something like that and it's that easy. And so, people who are antivax, they're just sitting at home and they're like, yeah, I died. I died three times from this thing. And they just send in the Yelp review, and that's it. And so, the numbers go up. And they're like, how many times did you die on VAERS? I died 12 times on VAERS. It's not that easy. This is not how it works. 

KYLE: People don't realize it's actually a felony, it's a federal offense to submit a false VAERS report. And if a doctor submits a false VAERS report, then they can lose their license, or they will lose their license. And it takes on average 20 to 45 minutes to fill out a report. You have to have your vaccine batch number, who administered it, where you got it, what your symptoms were, where you were treated, the doctor's name, phone numbers, your name, your address, everything. So the fact that they say there's a million trolls that have reported 800,000 adverse events around the COVID-19 virus or vaccine, that doesn't really make sense. 

AUBREY: No, it makes sense to push your argument forward and just use selective facts and have somebody say that. And then lots of these ways in which people get dismissed, information just gets dismissed by somebody just saying something like that. And then okay, okay, cool. But nobody's really looking deeper. And then if you look even deeper, there's lots of research that's indicating, maybe not proving, but indicating that VAERS is actually wildly underreported. 

KYLE: Like the Harvard study that said it's between 1% and 10% reported. And if that's the case, and they have 800,000 adverse reports, even if they're not all severe, you have moderate symptoms, that's even still a side effect. So when they say it's safe and effective, period, that kind of indicates that there's no side effects, right? That's what you would think if something was safe and effective, period. So if there's 800,000 reported side effects at maybe a 10%, if we take the high side of that, that's 8 million adverse reactions, which I think we should look into. 

AUBREY: I would say so. I know enough people in my group that have been, I know a good swath of people. And I know a lot of people, not just y'all who've had the more serious side, but I know a lot of people that have had adverse events. I also know some people who are healthy as hell, got COVID and had some really difficult times. So I want to say, I've seen both sides of things where there's been people, man, you're super healthy, super fit, you got COVID and it's been like two months and you're still really struggling. And then I've seen a lot of other people who are also healthy and fit who've been taking the vaccine and be like, damn, I thought I was going to die. This was the worst experience of my life. And I've heard a variety of these different things enough so that it's raised the awareness of, wow, this is an intense decision to make. 

KYLE: Yeah. And it also points to the fact that the spike protein may be causing adverse events that we did not foresee. We're not understanding the full role of the CoV-2 virus. So, if it has spike protein on it and it's causing this cascade of events, and then we're encoding spike protein into people, then potentially, we've encoded something damaging into people. 

DR. ADITI: Also, the Alpha variant or the original variant, if you like, unlike other viruses, or other respiratory viruses has too many different organs. So, it was found in, for example, your brain, your lungs, your GI, or other areas, fat. And in contrast, actually, the Delta variant, which was more transmissible actually reverted to its natural target tissue, which is just the nasal pharynx and the lungs, or the respiratory tract. It was not found in other organs such as the brain, or the heart, or the GI tract so suggesting that perhaps it was less virulent and had less of an effect. So if people became very sick with the first COVID, the original COVID strain, under any other circumstances, this would be an interesting question to ask, what was the difference between the Alpha and the Delta variant? And in fact, you can find that information on Public Health of England, which is doing, although their policies may be very different than what the data is showing, but at least they're collecting that data. Unfortunately, the CDC even stopped collecting data on breakthrough infections in fully vaccinated people unless they were hospitalized or they died. So that means you're not really getting that information. And it took the outbreak in the Boston area, in which over 272 people, 70% of whom were fully vaccinated, for CDC to admit that there are breakthrough infections happening in fully vaccinated people. And if you look at that data, 70% fully vaccinated, of those, six people who were hospitalized or five people, four of them were fully vaccinated, one unvaccinated person. And the unvaccinated person had several other severe comorbidities. Whereas most of the fully vaccinated were healthy, with the exception of one person. And the other interesting thing was that they talk about the symptoms in the fully vaccinated people who had breakthrough infections, but absolutely no discussion about the symptoms of the unvaccinated people, which would tell you whether the Delta was more severe or not. And I actually wrote to the authors of this paper, and they responded saying they did not track the symptoms. And the question would be, wouldn't that be the most obvious thing to ask? If indeed, Delta was more virulent, then the people who are unvaccinated would have had more severe symptoms. But if let's just think that they didn't have, if they really did have, the newspaper media would be all over it, that these people had more severe symptoms. But we can't even find that information. And so, it just seems that there are lots of gaps in the scientific process. We are cherry picking a lot to show that things are looking good. 

AUBREY: Which is why people feel like there's an agenda. When you start to look at the way that things are, even the decision for the CDC to stop tracking breakthrough cases. What do you mean? What? Do you think that data is bad all of a sudden? You don't need data? This is the most important thing that's happened in this last century you could argue. What? You're stopping collecting data? There's things that clearly don't make enough sense that that's why people say, well, I get it, things don't make sense. And the only explanation for why things don't make sense is that there's some benefit that someone's getting from doing things a certain way. And so, it's very understandable to see how people are reaching that conclusion. 

KYLE: And that's kind of the thing that we've been running into as well. Brianne and I who have been injured by the vaccine, we're not trying to call for an end of vaccines or call for an end of this whole program. But what we're saying is, please at least acknowledge that this can happen so that our doctors can actually treat us and diagnose us. Because what's interesting now is that if a doctor diagnoses something as a vaccine injury, they're at risk of losing their license. So just before we got into this room, I had a nurse text me from Boise, Idaho where I live. And she said, hey, I heard about your story. I'm a nurse at the hospital. Who are you seeing? Who is helping you because I don't know who to send my vaccine injured patients to. So, by the CDC, NIH, and Fauci, and all these guys not admitting that there's a possibility of an adverse reaction, then we don't even get the ability to have help or support. That's the issue. 

BRIANNE: Complete stopgap. Complete stopgap. 

AUBREY: Tell us your story. Tell us what happened with you and so we can hear the process that you've gone through. 

BRIANNE: So, my one-year anniversary for my COVID injury is actually, today, my vaccine injury. So, one year ago, today, I woke up to a totally healthy person. Just a few days before, I had hiked up Mount Timpanogos, which is a mountain near where I live. The average time is 9 hours, I did it in 7. So, I was in prime physical condition. And that's part of the reason why the clinical trial company, the test clinic, enrolled me in their study. They needed healthy participants to make sure that they had a solid study group, so they could track the symptoms, and see what would happen, and what could go wrong. I was assured through my contracts with the test clinic, through the protocols that are put in place through the government, that if anything were to go wrong, that I would be taken care of; financially, medically. There was a safety net there for all of it. So, I've never had a problem with a vaccine previously. Wasn't supposed to be a big deal. So, I went got my vaccine—

AUBREY: And just so we know and get an insight into your mind, was your motivation to be in the trial, was it, I want to be part of this trial because I think this vaccine can help humanity, or were you personally like, I'm a little scared of this COVID thing and I'd rather get my vaccine early? 

BRIANNE: So, my husband's a scientist and so we're very scientifically minded. So we had been tracking the progression of the COVID pandemic from the beginning. We have family members that are high risk and I do not want to be the reason that somebody else gets ill and dies. And so at the time, that was my motivation. If I was going to be able to get a vaccine that would make it so I wasn't spreading a disease that could harm others, I was going to do it as soon as I could. And so I was able to get it before everybody else. So that's the reason I signed up. 

AUBREY: Understandable. And I think this is, just to pause for one brief moment. Everybody on either side are so angry at each other. But really, if you stop and take a look, everybody's really just trying to make the best decisions for themselves, their family, for society. We just have different data and different ideas about what those decisions are. But everybody's trying to push blame and say this person wants totalitarian control and wants to control and is evil. And then these people are domestic terrorists and they want to kill everybody. No. No. Everybody's just trying to make the best decision possible, which is exactly the decision you were trying to make and why you signed up to get the vaccine. So, you enrolled in the trial and which vaccine was this? 

BRIANNE: I enrolled in AstraZeneca here in the United States, which has since been obviously rescinded. They were not granted EUA authorization. So within an hour of my shot, I started getting tingling down my arm, the same injection arm. And later that night, my vision became double. And so I was watching TV and instead of one TV, there were two TVs that were stacked. So my vision started to go and sound started to become distorted, like a seashell you put up to your ear. So it sounded like there were two tin cans in my ears. And at that point, I remember looking at my husband's like, something's not right. So that night, I had a typical vaccine response. And I woke up the next morning, the fever and the malaise, everything that you would expect from a vaccine, that had all gone away. But the vision problems and the sound problems were still there. And I got up to get ready for work and my left leg was slumped and I was walking into the left doorway. So, I thought that was a little strange, that my left leg was dropped because I had never had any problems like that before. So, I went to work, and I'm a preschool teacher, and the kids, their cute little voices were just insanely loud. So, I remember telling them, hey, let's use our inside voices, guys. My symptoms just kept getting worse and worse throughout the day, to the point where I had to just park them in front of a TV and have the lights off in the classroom, and just have them watching a learning channel, and just wait for their parents to come get them. So, things progressed pretty quickly after that. I went from just barely being able to kind of tolerate noise to where I had to have like the shooting ear muffs that block out all the sound. I had to have those on my ears all the time and have the blackest, darkest sunglasses I could have. After I went to the test clinic and they evaluated me and thought, maybe you have MS. Went to the emergency room, they ruled out MS, they ruled out transverse myelitis, everything. So after that, I went home and I was confined to my room totally by myself. Like my little girl, she sings all the time, just the sound of her little voice was too much for my ears. So, I was removed from my kids' lives at that point. My skin became so sensitive to touch, it felt like my body was on fire. So my little boy, he couldn't even hold my hand. My teeth were too sensitive, I couldn't brush my teeth. And my husband, he'd come in the room and even the sound of his pants swishing was too much for my ears. So, it was complete darkness, complete silence. I work with little kids. I thrive in chaotic and loud environments. And so that was removed. And so, I went from someone that valued human connection, and you think about people social distancing and everything that happened at the beginning of the pandemic, well, imagine being social distance to the point where you can't even watch TV, you can't read a book, you can't escape with music, you can't go on a hike, you can't go on a walk, you're just trapped in a body that's attacking itself 24/7 in complete blackness, complete darkness. Your family can't be around you, your dog can't be around you. It was the worst experience of my life. It was terrifying. And I lost over 20 pounds. You could see every single rib in my body. I lost my ability to walk, I became incontinent. And when I lost my ability to walk and became incontinent, I obviously was admitted to the hospital. And they thought it was anxiety. 

AUBREY: Sounds like it. 

BRIANNE: And standard. 

AUBREY: That's what happens when I get a little nervous. Before a basketball game, it's exactly my symptoms. 

BRIANNE: You start peeing your pants and stop walking. 

KYLE: Especially after surviving a pandemic for a year. 

BRIANNE: Yeah. So, if you stop walking, don't go into the ER and cry about it because they're going to pin you as anxious and then it's going to be over. So, I was sent home from the hospital with intensive at home physical and occupational therapy because my injury was that severe. And my chart said, anxiety due to the COVID vaccine. And it stayed that way for months until I went to the NIH for research. And I was able to get appropriate diagnoses. Neuropathy, sensory neuropathy, short term memory loss, so if I repeat myself, I'm sorry. Let's see. What else is there? Oh, severe POTS, Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, which Kyle has as well. I have mast cell activation syndrome, dysautonomia. And still to this day, we can have an intelligent conversation, which six months ago was not possible for me. I couldn't do it. I had such severe brain fog. I couldn't comprehend the next day, the next hour. So, I'm glad that my brain has clicked back into place because that was a whole other kind of nightmare, to have your just personality removed from who you are. 

AUBREY: So, there's a couple of issues to discuss. One is that some people might say, well, of course, that's why the AstraZeneca vaccine wasn't approved. And this story only applies to people who got that thing, and it was an experimental thing, and it didn't work and everything worked out as it should. But the mechanism of action that was being used in AstraZeneca is still being used in other vaccines and similar responses are still happening to people who've received approved vaccines. 

BRIANNE: Yes, and that's what's so bizarre. I didn't say anything about my reaction to anybody other than the kids that I taught, their parents because we had to get subs, my family. I stayed completely silent because I didn't want to cause any hesitancy on anybody else's part until I ran into more like me in the spring. And then it was people like Kyle from the mRNA vaccines, JNJ vaccines. And then before we knew it, there were thousands of us. And then it started happening to kids. And it's the same cascade of neurological decline that happens. And actually, Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, that's a neurological breakdown. They all are interlinked. But it's really strange to hear stories, just person after person, after person, after person with a very similar set of symptoms, similar family, similar sequence. And their doctors, over 80% of the people in our groups are diagnosed initially, misdiagnosed with anxiety before—

AUBREY: Same for you too, Kyle. 

KYLE: Yeah, same for me too. He told me that I should get on antidepressants and anti-anxiety medication. And then went into a spiel about how during medical school, he had heart issues and got on antidepressants, and it helped him a lot. And then four days later, I ended up back in the ER. So that was the first ER visit that I did for my heart. And then I ended up back in the ER. 

AUBREY: Tell us your story. 

KYLE: And I don't mean to cut Brianne off either. 

AUBREY: I think it's good to have these things in tangent because we're drawing references between your experiences. So which vaccine did you get? When did you get it? What did you experience? 

KYLE: I actually got the Pfizer vaccine, and I actually got both doses. So, Brianne had a reaction after her first dose. I got my first dose in May. And then my second dose was June 10th. And like Brianne, I was really more worried about protecting other people. My girlfriend, April, and I run a YouTube channel and we're planning on traveling around the country doing free skills clinics for mountain biking, teach people how to mountain bike. And I didn't want to be the guy that got someone else sick. They come to learn something, get them sick. So June 10th, I got my second dose. And it was weird, because immediately upon injection, I tasted it. I was like, hey, what is this? And what I mean by tasted it is, I had a saline or almost like a metallic tasting, like saltwater. And I asked and started looking up, is this a normal reaction? They said, no. Sometimes if they nick a vein or something, you can get that taste. So if you administer something intravenously, if you ever had an IV, you'll taste it. Well, the mRNA vaccines are very specific to being in your deltoid muscle, because they use your muscle cells to create the spike protein. They encode your deltoid muscle cells to create spikes. In a lot of the studies they did, they found that if they administered intravenously, then the mice would have heart failure. So that was kind of in the directions. Make sure that you aspirate, make sure that you get it in the deltoid muscle, don't get it in the bloodstream. And the fact I tasted it right away was kind of a sign. And then also, my arm wasn't sore after the second dose. The first time it was. So, I was like, huh, this is interesting. And because it didn't, maybe stay in my deltoid muscle, my muscle cells weren't activating it, and I didn't really have the same soreness. So long story short, two weeks after the vaccine, I started to have some weird heart palpitations.

AUBREY: I just want to pause for one moment because this is really interesting. Because what we see is that some people get vaccinated, and it's like, whatever, give me 10 more, I don't care. It didn't even bother me. I got vaccinated and then I went out and played around a golf, and then had a couple beers. I didn't even notice anything. And then some people are having severe reactions. And one variable could be when you're going through tissue, you're not using a sonar or ultrasound to find out exactly where the muscle tissue is and where there might be a small capillary that you've actually pierced. And you're actually pushing something into it. It's impossible to do that really. So it could be, just one possible hypothesis, could be accounting for some of the difference between people who are receiving vaccines is maybe how much is going into the muscle tissue versus how much is actually going through capillaries, or arteries, or veins, or whatever that might be actually delivering this. 

KYLE: And that's actually interesting is both Pfizer and Moderna, on their administration guidelines, they say, make sure you aspirate, which means that once you put a needle in, you pull back on the syringe to see if you introduce any blood into the syringe. It says to aspirate. But the CDC changed the administration guidelines for people administering the vaccine and says, do not aspirate because it will cause slightly less arm soreness the next day if you do not aspirate. 

DR. ADITI: Deltoid muscle is easy to find and that's why it's given in the muscle. In Kyle's case, it looks like there was an IV administration during the second dose. But there are other causes for which you might see this kind of variability. It's not being tested how many people who actually get the vaccine are actually making antibodies. So the mRNA, as you've heard, these mRNA vaccines, they're to be stored at minus 80 or at very low temperatures because they might degrade. So there is no way to really find out from person to person, from batch to batch, from the time it's diluted, what's the concentration of intact RNA that's left. So how much protein that each person may make is also variable. It will depend on a number of things. It will also depend on what are the kinds of previous infections you've had. Coronaviruses exist in us. So if you've had previous Coronavirus infections, which will not have been so severe as with CoV-2, then you could neutralize it and the vaccines in a way would be ineffective. In terms of natural immunity, which is completely disregarded, in this case—

AUBREY: The word natural immunity has actually been scrubbed from utilization on social media, which is insane, first of all. But anyways, carry on. 

DR. ADITI: If the dose of mRNA vaccine that you got didn't have, the dose is supposed to be 30 micrograms. So you have to assume that all 30 micrograms of RNA is intact or full length, which is very hard to establish. And there's never been any studies done to determine whether or not you're getting exactly 30 micrograms, which I can explain, perhaps not right now, that it's not possible. So you could also have other errors and other issues, just—

KYLE: That could account for variability between people. 

DR. ADITI: And that probably is. 

AUBREY: What we're establishing is that there's variability in the administration site, and how its administered, and whether it's aspirated, whether you're making sure it's going in the muscle cells. There's variability in how the vaccine was stored and how much there is intact. And then there's also variability in what the body's immuno history looks like. And so, there's lots of different variables that are making each individual different as they approach vaccination. 

KYLE: Yeah. And one thing that I thought was interesting that Brianne told me is so far, and I'll get to my story in a second, too. But so far, the average age of vaccine injury is 33 years old. And why is that? Is it because the people that are older have less of an immune response and their body attacks them less? Or could it be that younger people are more vascular, maybe they're more active? 

AUBREY: Is this the average age or the median age? Because I think that's important. 

BRIANNE: This is the average. But younger and younger populations are not included in that number. So, this is just for the adult population. This doesn't include teenagers, children. And my concern after seeing what's happening with the Moderna vaccine in Europe, especially with myocarditis, is it the UK? 

KYLE: Swelling of the heart. 

BRIANNE: Yeah. So, the UK and Sweden, a bunch of countries over there, they actually stopped using Moderna altogether in anyone younger than 30 because of a higher rate of myocarditis. And so, if you think about, maybe there's some kind of immunogenicity, reactogenicity happening, then you start administering that to younger and younger populations, there is the concern that you could be causing, there might be a higher rate of an incidence of adverse events. 

AUBREY: It makes sense. If the immune system has more troops, basically, and it's more high powered and then you're targeting it to attack something, anything in particular, then it's going to galvanize all of that support, and all of that energy, and all of that power to be used for good and for also self-destruction at that point, which is one way that this seems to make sense. 

KYLE: Yeah. And that was just something I thought was interesting because as we start doing kids, that 33-year-old age number is going to keep coming down and down and down. 

DR. ADITI: The dose is different. 

KYLE: It's 1/3 the dose. 

DR. ADITI: 1/3. Moderna is given at 100 micrograms, and Pfizer actually has very similar products. And the more RNA you have... One of the things that is very important in any kind of immunity is our thymus or T-cell education. The thymic function deteriorates as we age. It's really there till you're 35 and after that, it becomes harder to train and that's why you have childhood vaccines because that's the time you can educate your T-cells. And that thymic education is almost like a black box. And that's very important for your immune cells to learn. It's a very integral part of your innate immune responses. So, before you can have adaptive immune responses, your innate has to work. Innate means you're born with it. And of course, the vaccines rely on your own immune responses. They're not equalizers. We've seen that. So, if you don't have a very good immune system or your immune responses were not trained before, then you see the consequences of that. 

AUBREY: Tell your story. 

KYLE: Yeah. Sorry. 

AUBREY: It's all right. Lots of things to talk about. 

KYLE: Yeah, it's a very multifaceted subject. So, two weeks after my second dose on June 10th, I started to notice some weird heart palpitations. And it almost kind of did feel like anxiety. I've never struggled with anxiety, really, in the past. But I was like, oh, man, my heart's kind of jacked up. And I actually got to the point where I just cut all caffeine and any stimulant in a drink or anything, just got rid of all that to see if it was maybe causing it. And I actually started to feel so bad that I took a few weeks off mountain biking and hadn't ridden at all. So about a month after my vaccine, I went on a bike ride with my girlfriend, and my heart just went up to like 160 beats a minute on a very mellow climb, which is a lot higher than I'm normally and I couldn't get it to come down. So, it was stuck up. And I got stuck in a tachycardia, so like a high heart rate. And even when I went back to the van, I was like laying there trying to meditate, and deep breathe, and get my heart down. And it was stuck at 130. Couldn't get it down. Usually, my resting heart rate is like 55 to 60. So, I was like, this is weird. An older friend that was with us is like, dude, you need to go to the hospital. I was like, man, I know it's going to be expensive. I don't want to do this. We were in Sun Valley, Idaho. It's about an hour and a half to two hours from Boise. I decided to drive back and try to just meditate and see if I could get it to drop. By the time I got back to Boise it was still at 130. I went to the hospital. And my resting heart rate was super elevated, my resting breath rate was 22 breaths a minute. Usually, an average one is 13 to 15. And then when we got in, I was telling them, I think I may be having this reaction, the pericarditis or myocarditis. I read about that being a side effect of the vaccine, and my heart isn't working right. And the guy who talked to me first is triaging me. He's like, no, you're not. That's very rare. Have you tried pooping lately? And I was like, what? And he's like, so bear down like you need to poop and if you squeeze your core, it'll reset your heart. And I was like, no, I don't think it will. So, then he's like, alright, we'll bring you back. And so, he's like, just go hang out in the waiting room for a bit. So I waited in the waiting room for three and a half hours, holding my heart like oh my God, I don't know what's happening. I don't know if I'm going to die or something. I've never had this happen. I get put into the back. By that time, I started to have some other symptoms as well, which was like severe joint pain. It almost felt like rheumatoid arthritis. And then my head, I just had like this pressure headache that was equally distributed around my entire head. And so when I went back there, I was telling him, my heart for one, and my joints, and my head, something's wrong. Do I need to get a CAT scan or something? And the guy just basically said, if you think you need one, I'll order you one. But it's up to you. You tell me. Do you want me to order this for you or not? I was like, I don't know. I'm a patient. You're supposed to help me. He's like, I think you're just having an anxiety attack. So, what I'm going to do is I'm going to give you Toradol. So, he injected me with IV Toradol, which is anti-inflammatory. And it helped my joint pain kind of relax. And it really just mellowed me out. And with that, my heart rate went from 130 to about 110 when I was laying in the hospital bed. Then he's like, oh, cool, you're getting better, look good. And I was like, this isn't normal. He's like, I recommend that you take some time, and maybe we'll start putting you towards a therapist or something. I'd like you to look at seeing a therapist and maybe getting on some antidepressants to help you with anxiety because it seems like you're really stressed out. And so, then I left the hospital with that. And what was interesting is looking back on my paperwork, they ran my troponin levels, which is the marker for damage on your heart or stress on your heart. And a healthy troponin level is like anything under a 1, anything above a 1 they consider damaged. And my troponin was 25. And so, what was interesting is in my notes, he wrote, troponin level elevated. Chronically sick or older people may have a baseline similar to this. And I'm a professional athlete and I came in for heart issues. And my troponin was elevated, my breath rate was elevated, my heart rate was elevated. I was sore, complaining of all these symptoms and he told me I had anxiety and sent me on my way. 

AUBREY: So, this is going to make a lot of people feel like these doctors are out to get us. I don't think that that's a reasonable explanation. I think it's actually, the confirmation bias is so strong because you're taught to believe what the authorities tell you to believe in medical school as you go through the whole process. If the consensus, if the data says this, if this is it, this is what must be true. And you can look at examples of this. Whether it's H. pylori causing ulcers and people are saying, this is bullshit. Absolutely not. This is quackery. And then one doctor has the courage to be like, no, it really is. And drinks the beaker and gets the ulcers. There's lots of ways in which, even from Ignaz Semmelweis in hand washing where he's like, if you wash your hands and deliver babies, less people are going to die. They beat him and put him in a mental institution for this. Confirmation bias is so strong. It's just so absolutely strong that this doctor, even though he's seeing this data, his analysis that it couldn't be the vaccines because of what he's been told, and his training is causing him to misread this radically. And it's not that he's bad or he's trying to hurt you and he's like, fuck you, Kyle. It's not that. The confirmation bias is just such a strong psychological force. That's what's really happening here. And until the conversation opens, and expands, and people become aware, and the doctors become aware, and the patients become aware, and this awareness becomes pervasive, we're still going to suffer these same things, where people aren't going to be looking at the real cause of what's happening. They're going to say, take a shit and have some antidepressants. 

KYLE: And what's interesting is I understand and empathize with what he was feeling too. Because they worked through this whole pandemic, and they saw a lot of people die. And a lot of people get very sick, and they have a solution now. We have a solution to this problem. And this 20-something-year-old guy came in and told me it's causing him issues. Fuck that guy. That's kind of how it felt. Because as soon as I said the word vaccine, it was like, you're an idiot. I'm a fucking conspiracy theorist dude from Idaho, 20-year-old guy who's a conspiracy theorists and he thinks that this vaccine is out to get him. And this is a solution to the problem I've been dealing with for a year. So, I understand. I talked to the resource nurse afterwards and just said, I ended up in the hospital again four days later, with kind of like a mini heart attack, severe heart cramp and burning, and I ended up going to the hospital. They sent me to a cardiologist, and I got diagnosed with swelling of the heart. I did have this thing happen. And I just want to let you guys know that it was what I thought it was and he overlooked it. And I don't want him to get in trouble. I don't want to cause him to lose his job or anything, but I think we should discuss this. So, she had me write a letter. And I wrote a letter to him and the response I got from the hospital was, thank you for your letter. As you may know, our ER doctors are not our employees, they're independent contractors. We'll refer you to the company that... 

BRIANNE: So they're worried about liability. It's not even been about the patient. 

KYLE: Yeah, exactly. And then I did get a note from the company that independent contracts with the hospital and they said, sorry. We talked about this and we're still learning so much with COVID. And this is a very rare thing. And so, we'll try to do a better job in the future. As long as I can help them, maybe look at things a bit different in the future, now, if they have a 20-year-old guy presenting with the same symptoms, maybe they'll say, let's get him to a cardiologist right away. Then that was worth that conversation. 

AUBREY: That's the whole point of this podcast here. The whole point is not an agenda other than to raise awareness about all of the possibilities that might exist. And this is unfortunately not what people are doing. People have an agenda, they have something that they're trying to do. And they're willing to justify their agenda by any means necessary. And that's not the way. It's not treating people with the reverence and respect to say, here's the truth and you're a sovereign being. Here's the risks, here's the effects, here's the results, here's everything that we got. Everything that we got. You make the best choice. And maybe in certain circumstances, there needs to be overt controls. I don't think anybody was arguing with the first few weeks of lockdown when this first came out. And we're like, shit, who knows what's going on? In fact, all of the energy around it was like, wow, the skies are clearing up, and the waters are clearing up, and we've had this sacred pause. And everybody was excited about it. It seemed like a reasonable thing. And then lots of different layers of manipulation started to expose itself and selective data and ways in which the two weeks became indefinite, and all of this. And that's where the division started to happen here. But there are certain instances where it's like, for sure. We don't know what's going on here. Let's close everything down for a couple of weeks, let's look at the data, and then let's expose the truth. And unfortunately, that hasn't been what we've seen is awareness. And so that's why we're having this conversation, other podcasts we're having this conversation. We're having the conversation just to be like, here's a lot of information that you might not be getting. And so, this is important for all of us to have because we trust you. The listeners here, I trust y'all. Use the best information you can. I have reverence for you as a human being. I trust you. Just get this information and then make the decisions that make sense for you. And also, take into consideration the societal implications. We have to look at all of this information fairly. 

KYLE: And that's the problem with censorship that we're facing now and discrediting people just on face value. Because we get that a lot as well, where it's like, you know what? You're not actually sick, you're just trying to get famous. And it's like, dude, I have everything to lose from speaking out about this. Every sponsorship, everything that we have built up our whole life. If we are deemed antivax, we could lose everything. And the only reason I'm speaking out is because I get messages all the time from people that are alone and they don't have a resource, they don't have people to talk to. And that's what Brianne has really been for me with the ReAct19 group. I posted on my YouTube channel just, here's what happened to me. This is why we've been quiet because we were just out for three months. I was in bed for two months solid. I couldn't move, couldn't walk, even standing up and trying to cook breakfast in the morning. My heart rate was 120, 130. I couldn't do anything. And so, we were just completely silent and scared to say anything. And finally, I posted, this is why we've been quiet. This isn't about dividing people. This isn't about the vaccine or not. This is just why we haven't been posting. And a ton of people start reaching out and saying, oh my God, I'm going through the same thing. Thank you so much. I appreciate this. And a doctor from the UK who's really pushing the aspiration narrative, he did an interview with me about a week and a half ago and it reached a million views already. And there's 20,000 comments, with over 5,000 comments of people saying I'm going through the same thing. And it's one of the only ones that hasn't been pulled off YouTube because I was very neutral on purpose. You have to stay in your lane. We're not condemning the vaccine, we're not saying it's anti anything. We're just saying, this is information that needs to be considered so that people get help, and we can have a conversation as a country. How do you have a conversation when one side isn't talking or one side isn't listening? 

AUBREY: Yeah. One side has duct tape over their mouth. 

KYLE: Yeah. And the other one's like this. 

BRIANNE: How do you find something you're not looking for? If you're not looking for it, you're not going to find it. And we've been drilled. The medical community, I feel super bad for them. We have family and friends that are physicians and nurses, and they can't see it. They don't know what they're looking for. The CDC and the FDA, they have drilled into the medical community's heads that we're going to provide guidance for you to be able to follow. We're going to analyze the data, complete full data and we're going to be able to help everybody through the pandemic. We're going to be able to give you the tools to help the people, whether it's vaccine reactions, or with actual COVID. But unfortunately, that's not happening. And so, what's happening is now you've sown distrust between the patient and their physicians. But it's not entirely the physician's fault because they don't even know, they have not been informed by trusted sources that this is even a possibility. And so I have all sympathy for these physicians that have people like Kyle land in their ERs because they can't see it. They don't know what it is. 

KYLE: And it's uncomfortable. It's so uncomfortable for them because we have a solution. Let's just fix the pandemic. No one wants COVID to keep going. And they're saying herd immunity, we can fix the pandemic, we can end this whole thing if you guys just get vaccinated. And then to admit there's a problem with that, or a problem with the vaccine, it's uncomfortable. No one wants to have that conversation because that means that maybe we can't get through COVID right now. Maybe it's endemic. Maybe we're going to live with this. And maybe we need to just figure out how to live with it. So, I think I understand. And I don't know, it's interesting, the whole one side has their ears closed, and one side has their eyes closed. And it's just funny because we did this big press conference in DC and Senator Johnson invited personally, Dr. Fauci, the head of the NIH, the head of the FDA, the head of the CDC, the CEO of Pfizer, the CEO of Moderna, all of those people invited to hear our stories about vaccine injury. And we had multiple scientists and doctors speaking out as well. Not a single one of those heads decided to show up. 

BRIANNE: Or send someone in their place. 

KYLE: Zero. 0% attendance from the people in charge. 

BRIANNE: And these are people that I've talked to directly, so they know. They know all of it. 

DR. ADITI: Sorry if I can interrupt. This actually demonstrates the failure of the scientific process. Science is supposed to have an open mind. Here are your patients telling you your symptoms. And even if it's an observational study, they're not documenting it. Or they're saying it doesn't exist or it's all anxiety. Brianne's case, getting dropped from the clinical trial or in the published "New England Journal of Medicine," which the report recently came out. Misrepresentation in a way of her symptoms, or in other cases as well, downplaying the adverse events. 

AUBREY: Just to clarify that. There was a study in the "New England Journal of Medicine" saying that participants in the trials who had adverse events, their symptoms were misrepresented? 

BRIANNE: Should I fill that in since it was my trial? 

DR. ADITI: Yes. You can fill that in and then I'll complete my thoughts. 

BRIANNE: The clinical trials, obviously, it's a two-dose setup. So, if you can't finish the dosing series, what happens? So, if someone has an adverse event and they get dropped from the trial—

KYLE: After the first dose. 

BRIANNE: Yeah, after the first dose? That's critical data, right? I would want to know what happened to those people that were dropped. Why couldn't they finish the series? Well, I'm a prime example of what happens because I couldn't finish the dose series. The drug company told me not to have the second dose, which makes sense because I was hospitalized. Well, in the clinical trial report, it says that all participants elected to forgo the second dose. So that right there is this misrepresentation, obviously. And then the other thing that they say, and it's like the second paragraph, that they follow up with all severe adverse events for up to 730 days. They followed up with me for 60. And here I am, officially today, on day 366 days. Critical data. I've been in three different scientific studies, and they followed me for 60 days. And wouldn't you think that if this was your drug that was doing this to people, wouldn't you want to know what your drug was capable of doing to people? That's a lot of data, and a lot of information, and a lot we have learned, right, Kyle, in those last 10 months that the drug company is completely oblivious to. The other issue with the clinical trials because I'm not the only one that this has happened to, as we found out sadly. The apps only track a preset set of symptoms. So, headache, malaise, typical. There's no free form, where you can enter your leg to stop working, you start peeing your pants, sensitivity to sound, sensitivity to light, none of that happens. It's not there. And so, you have to call the test clinic and report your symptoms. Well, as one of the scientists pointed out yesterday, that's an issue because instead of patient-reported symptoms, it all of a sudden becomes clinician-reported symptoms, which there's a confirmation bias, there's reporting bias. So that's another huge flaw in the scientific process for these reports to be collected, to be able to present unbiased data. So there's some very clear holes in how they're collecting the data. That, obviously, should give everybody pause because we were told that these scientific reports are, it's the science, trust the science. That's great. But there's flaws in the science, it's flawed. 

AUBREY: We got to open up the process and see where there's spots that are missing and opportunities to make science more robust. It's not the people who don't trust science or trust science, it's saying, we want better science. We want science to continue as the process that it was designed to be, the art of asking questions and proving hypotheses to the best of your ability. And I think that's what we're all here for. It's all very much like, let's get the information and science is the best process we know to get information. And so let's do it in the best way possible. You have to run. You mentioned ReAct19 as a group. Can you just mention what that is? I would love to continue for a little while longer after you leave. But if you want to just mention that, and we'll let you get on with your adventures. Glad that you can get on with your adventures. 

BRIANNE: Right? Thank you so much for having me. I really do appreciate it. This platform means a lot to a lot of people, not just me and Kyle and Aditi. But there's thousands of sick people like Kyle mentioned, that are sick, hiding in the shadows, just completely lost and unable to know what's happening in their bodies. First and foremost, we need them to know that they're not alone, that we are here for them. And we're here to support them in any way that we can. And so, we've established an organization. It's a patient advocacy organization called ReAct19.org. And what we're doing is we're tracking several different patient groups to see how we can develop protocols that will help people get better, increase awareness like what we're doing today. As well as basically just trying to give these people a safe environment where they don't have to feel like they're crazy, because they're not. 

AUBREY: This is not a strategy to make a bunch of profit with this ReAct19. 

BRIANNE: No. There's no money in this. 

KYLE: And what's sad is, just one quick thing. Brianne told me when I started talking with her, they had been monitoring over 5,000 people in this group of ReAct19 and six of them committed suicide in the past month because they don't have anyone to talk to. I have people messaging me saying I haven't even been able to tell my family because they're going to disown me. I don't know what to tell my family. They're pro-vax. They're super liberal, democrat and they're just like, we're so pro-vax, we want this to work so bad that I can't even tell my family I'm having a reaction. 

AUBREY: Yeah. It's a sad state. 

BRIANNE: It's brutal and it's cruel. I've never seen anything like it. And it's person after person, after person, after person being abandoned, and marginalized, and discounted, and brushed aside. And they're suffering. 

AUBREY: Patients, doctors, scientists, anybody who seems to have a narrative contrary to what capital S science is for the first time in history in absolute consensus is dictating, they're suffering the consequences from that. And thanks for standing up. Thanks for standing up for the patients and for spreading that awareness and safe travels on your flight. 

BRIANNE: Thank you so much. 

AUBREY: Appreciate you and I'd love to continue the conversation for a little while with both of you. So, Kyle, in the break there, you were showing me some videos of, you have some interactions and some stories of people who, like Brianne, like yourself, have experienced some of these injuries, which some people pretend are just fictions of our imagination. They're just not real. They're making stuff up that doesn't actually exist. Vaccines don't hurt people. But you know these people and you know a different side of the story. And these people aren't just numbers. It's not just one of the 800,000 reported on VAERS. It's not just one of the 15,000 deaths. These are people, too. And that number 15,000's probably gone up. That was probably a month old of the deaths that are attributed through the VAERS reporting system as being a vaccine injury, fatal vaccine injury. But you know some of these people and you were showing me some videos. And it's pretty heart wrenching to see and actually know the stories of these victims. 

KYLE: Yeah. And the saddest thing is that one of the people that they're attacking the most, and by they, I just mean people that are pushing the mainstream narrative. One of the people that's getting attacked the most is this young girl Maddy. And she was 12 years old when she did the clinical trial. And she got injured with the vaccine. And her symptoms are very severe. So, she has paralysis from the waist down. She can't feel her legs at all. And her brothers and everyone, all her friends and stuff, they make fun of it, but they slap her legs and see if she can feel it. And she has shown me videos of them just like messing with her. But she's just a normal kid that's been paralyzed from this experience. And she also has paralysis of the stomach. So, what's happening is she can't actually digest food. And so, she has stopped eating solid foods. And she has a tube that goes through her nose and then back down her throat. And she has a little kind of port right here. And they have a syringe and so we were at dinner and they're sucking water up out of the cup. And then she hooks it up and then pushes the water through her syringe into her stomach. And that's also how she gets medication too. So, when we were hanging out in her room the other night, they crushed up a Tylenol, put it in the syringe, and then it was my job. She's like, you got to try this. And I gave her Tylenol through the syringe. And I was like, does that hurt? What does that feel like? She's like, yeah, it hurts. I can feel it. So, it's a 12 or 13 year old girl that's dealing with this. And then what was interesting is I was like, hey, Maddie, can you show me some videos of you just before this happened, what was like before. And she started showing me all of her TikToks and all the little dances she used to do with her friends. And she’s just normal, completely healthy, she didn't have any comorbidity. She wasn't obese. She was a totally normal girl, dancing with her mom, having fun. And then she got the shots that changed her life irreversibly. And she was actually showing me all the hate comments that she gets, where people say that she's faking it, or that she just got in a car accident and broke her neck and now she's paralyzed. And she's trying to get famous saying it's a vaccine injury. And people were saying, that's not a feeding tube. That’s oxygen because you broke your neck. And she just has all these people commenting, telling her that her story is fake. And it's like, I'm hanging out with her watching this happen. And what's sad is that even the mainstream media is calling and trying to attack her and her family saying, tell us the real story. Tell us what happened. Tell us what comorbidities you had. Tell us when this actually happened. And it's like, it's documented that she was in a clinical trial. You couldn't ask for a better case study than this. And they're trying to discredit it. And like I was telling you, at this event in DC that we did. Brianne invited over 300 people and most of them couldn't attend because they can't travel because of either severe neuropathy, severe arthritis, or they're in a wheelchair, it's just too difficult to travel. Well, just with the group that we did have, there was for people that have transverse myelitis, which is basically, whatever the mechanism of attack is with this vaccine, it attacked their spinal cord. And four of them were in wheelchairs due to spinal injury from the mechanism. Whatever this mechanism is with the vaccine, it attacks their spinal cord, causing them spinal injury, they're in a wheelchair. And one of the guys, Doug, who's a farmer from Idaho actually lives pretty close to me, super sweet guy in his 60s, he got vaccinated because the country told him and asked him, can you please do this, do your part? He got vaccinated and now he's paralyzed, and it burst his spinal cord. He has no hope of recovery from this. He's paralyzed for the rest of his life now. And people were saying, he's faking it, just trying to get money. And it's weird, because I talked to him, and we were just having a conversation out front of the hotel. And he's like, can I tell you something, Kyle. He's like, the first 30 days of my treatment cost $1.2 million and I can't get a diagnosis that it's the vaccine injury. There's no funding. The companies have zero liability right now. Pfizer, Moderna, no one is paying. And the government has a setup where they have CICP, which is like the last resort payer for vaccine injury. And they have over 2,000 claims already submitted. And it says right on the website, 99.9% of claims are under review. They haven't paid a single person yet through this program, zero funding. Like we were talking about earlier, I'm very lucky, because all I had was a heart issue and then POTS, which is basically Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia. Means when I go from laying to standing, I black out, my vision comes in. And what that is, it's a neurological issue that basically messes with your parasympathetic and your sympathetic nervous system. So, your body changes in elevation, it doesn't adjust your blood pressure quick enough and your heart rate will skyrocket. So that's what I have and I can live a functional life, and I'm slowly getting better. But a lot of the people that are bound to wheelchairs, they're going to require care for the rest of their life. And if there's no money there, then what do these people do? Are they just a sacrifice? Are we willing to make the sacrifice and just say, get fucked? What do you do? 

AUBREY: In some ways, the argument that this is an acceptable collateral damage, makes some sense if the people who get vaccinated, the people who get vaccinated do not get the virus and do not spread it. If that was ironclad, you get this, you'd never get it again, and you never spread it. But there's going to be some people who have collateral damage. Then you could start to make like, these are the soldiers that had to die in this war, for this war. But that's not the reality. The reality is that you can get vaccinated, still get the virus, and still transmit the virus. 

DR. ADITI: And still die from it. 

AUBREY: And still die from it. But the transmission of which, which is the justification for all of this, I don't want to get other people sick. Or if you get this and you won't get other people sick. That's the only justification for the collateral damage. It's also the only justification for vaccinating kids who have an enormously good set of data on their response to the actual virus itself. Sure, there's rare cases where kids have had difficult times with the virus itself. But overwhelmingly, they respond very, very well to actually contracting the virus. So vaccinating children seems insane because they can still spread it. And they're taking a huge risk that looks like it may very well outweigh the risk of getting the virus. The risk of them getting vaccinated is very real. 

KYLE: Yeah. And what's interesting is that by admitting that there is collateral damage, you have to first admit that there's a risk. And so that's the problem. That's what we're fighting right now is that it says, like I've said many times, it is safe and effective, period. And so in the last interview I did with Dr. Campbell, I made a statement that said, I believe, where there is risk, there must be choice. But if we don't admit that there's a risk, then we're never going to get through this conversation about mandates. Because if, if there is a risk, and you say, why aren't you vaccinated? I'm kind of worried about developing pericarditis, or myocarditis, or neuropathy, or I might die from the vaccine. So, I'm kind of worried about that. And I'm just going to take my chance with COVID. That's a different conversation than when people say, why aren't you vaccinated? It's safe and effective. And there you go, I just don't trust science. That's kind of what they're telling you now is, this guy isn't getting vaccinated because he's just scared. He doesn't trust science. He doesn't believe in science. No, actually, I'm not getting vaccinated because I'm worried that it might cause me an adverse reaction that I don't have any help of getting funding with, or any support, and I can't talk about it without getting censored. And it's very likely that my family may disown me if they're pro-vaccine. So I'm just going to take my risk of COVID. Because at least if you catch COVID, people acknowledge that you had COVID, and they'll help you. 

AUBREY: Yeah. And then the social psychodynamics of this are really intense, because it's been positioned that if you get the vaccine, you're a good citizen. And if you don't, you're a bad citizen. And this is pervasive all the way down through. I've talked to a lot of parents with teens and parents who don't want to get the vaccine and are really anti-vaccine. And their kids are like, no, I want this mom, I want this dad, because they know that all of their friends will tell them that they're a bad person if they don't get it. They're not doing their social duty. They're not being good. And there's all of those psychological mechanisms that allow people to want to be better than somebody else, first of all. And then also to kind of create a lot of this social pressure on top of the other political pressure and mandate pressure that exists. So, there's lots of factors but as you said, unless we start to analyze risk and say, this is a very personal and important choice for somebody to make because of the risk profile that exists. And it's really essential to restore that truth and understanding of what is possible so that we can have a real nuanced discussion about what's going on here. 

KYLE: Yeah, and it's similar to the conversation that we're having as a country around nutrition and diet, where it's like, you can eat all this food. Here's candy, Coca Cola, pizza, all this stuff and there's no risk with it. A lot of people just think that's nutrition. No, we have to actually say, every time you eat this, it contributes to this comorbidity or this factor. And if people understood that, then this whole health dynamic would be a lot different as well. And personal choice relies on risk assessment and understanding, what are the pros and what are the cons? And if the pros outweigh the cons, then most people will make that decision. But that's still their choice, right? 

AUBREY: Yeah. And not only that. Professor Mattias Desmet who I interviewed was talking about. He's a statistician. And he was looking at how nobody's actually comparing also the ancillary effects and the causal effects of social isolation of all of these different policies that are in place. No one's comparing those to the benefits of this either, which is just science, right? 

DR. ADITI: We actually submitted five grants in March of 2020, on exactly the same thing, predicting that these lockdowns are going to have a huge impact on our mental state, and especially for children. And they were all either triaged or their views were like, no, this is not going to happen. That would be admitting that these lockdowns will have adverse events. So, of course, none of those grants were funded to even study what was the impact of these lockdowns on children. And of course, that creates a lot of stress and isolation that can also adversely affect your own immune systems. But it's interesting, Kyle, that you talked about nutrition. And in that case, in that scenario, sugar and fat have been made evil, whatever you want to call it. That if you take away fat and you take away sugar, everything is going to be fine. But unfortunately, that's not how it works. These are all very integral components of nutrition. As you know, for our cells to generate ATP, which is the source of all our energy, you need sugar, glucose. So if you take away all sugar, what is the source for the cell? So then it has to go to an alternate mechanism which could be protein or fat. But then it's a completely different biochemical pathway and process that's not normally utilized. Fat is not actually bad. Again, everything in moderation. Fat is what is around your neurons for myelin. You need it. If children are deprived of fat, there is not going to be enough myelination. Fat also sends satiety signals to the brain. So, when you eat a food that is a wholesome food and has fat, that sends a signal to your brain saying, stop eating, you're full. So if you're never going to eat fat, you're always craving or you feel like you're not actually had enough nutrition then, you can only fool yourself and say, you can snack with this, you can snack with that. But that's sort of cheating. 

AUBREY: In time, and this is something that I wanted to pose this question to you, because over time, that understanding has become more pervasive. Everything for a long time, everything was low fat, non-fat. And the sugar was fine. Put as much sugar as you want in here and just take the fat out. And then we've seen the catastrophic impact of that dietary decision of saying, sugar's good, fat's bad. And now we're becoming more aware of that. People are putting butter in their coffee and not the low fat, non-fat. And now MCT oils are now the buzzword food to put in there, which is a type of fat. Over time, science has kind of eventually found the truth of, now we're starting to understand this. And it's taken years, like five decades of this where this process has kind of come to, and it's still, it's still an issue, but it's working its way through and it's just taking a long time. When you look at this current issue with vaccination, with COVID, do you have confidence that given enough time, the truth will emerge as the truth is emerging with nutrition? Of course, there's still debate. But do you have confidence that we'll look back in 10 years and be like, damn, we really made some mistakes? Do you trust that science will eventually yield the truth? 

DR. ADITI: Well, I surely hope so. The future of science, if people lose faith in science, that would be, I think, the end of medicine as we know it. And it was interesting that, previously, you were talking about how there are protocols that need to be followed. And perhaps that's important for physicians and doctors who see patients, or nurses to follow a certain protocol. But in the lab, there's always deviations from the protocol. That's how discoveries are made. I remember when I first started to work with surgery residents in my lab, it was a learning experience for me too. And they would come to the lab and within the first week, most of them would say, we are failures, we can't get an experiment to work. And these are very bright surgeons. And so I really didn't know how to deal with that either because in the lab, 99% of the experiments actually fail. So, then I realized I have to tell them that, no, it's not. You've been trained to follow protocols. And in the lab, an experimental protocol is just a guideline. And depending on the experimental procedure, or the question you're asking, deviations are normal. So don't be scared to deviate. Don't be scared to ask questions. If you do that, then your chances of succeeding will be much higher. It's again, one question that I often get asked when we are running DNA gels, is when am I going to see the double helix? And when you tell them that nobody's seen the double helix, they're like, what? Yeah, you don't see double helix. There is no DNA double helix that you can see. A lot of it is just colorless solutions and you're inferring, and you're inferring from good data. And you can infer because you have appropriate controls. And when there are no appropriate controls and there is no proper documentation of data, then your inferences are also just loosey goosey all over the place. So, it is very important that we have that open mind that there are side effects, dangers associated with therapeutics. And as you correctly pointed out, if this particular vaccine or therapeutic was actually preventing infections, preventing people from getting the disease and transmitting it to others, then it would make sense to mandate. But if it isn't doing it, then what's the purpose of mandating? And even then, when we have mandates for certain childhood vaccines, if somebody's had chickenpox, they're not required to be vaccinated again. We talked, very briefly touched upon herd immunity or eradicating this. Have we had herd immunity for the flu? We've been vaccinating year after year. Have you eradicated it? No. So, there is a fundamental difference between RNA viruses and DNA viruses. You can't compare COVID to chickenpox because chickenpox is caused by DNA viruses. They don't mutate as often. They induce lifelong immunity, which we know that once you have chickenpox, you're never going to get it. But even if you've had the chickenpox vaccine, you may still get chickenpox. And you will still, in some ways, actually be infectious. And you could transmit to the unvaccinated. But somebody who's had chickenpox will never get it. Doesn't matter if they're exposed to a person who's actively infectious. In fact, when I was a child, after having chickenpox, one of my friends had it. And she was in isolation, but she could only see people who had chicken pox. And we went and visited her so that she wouldn't be in quarantine and wouldn't feel isolated. But that's not the case with flu, or in this case, Coronavirus. And if somebody in the household has the flu, it doesn't mean that everybody in the household will get the flu. Right? And the symptoms of flu vary from person to person. And even if you get the flu, it's very rare that you get the flu year after year. You have some short-term, 5-year, 10-year immunity. And in fact, data from people who had the first SARS shows that they're still protected. So maybe 10-year, maybe 20-year immunity you have. Maybe not lifelong. And the next time you get that, it may not be as severe. So, to completely discount that people who've recovered from COVID also need to be vaccinated is completely mind boggling to me and to the whole principles of immunology. 

AUBREY: Let's talk about this a little deeper. There is some data emerging, showing the efficacy of natural immunity, people who've been exposed and what their responses are. What is, from your scientific lens, what is the data showing from the efficacy of natural immunity? We understand that from a policy perspective, it doesn't matter at all. Only vaccines are mandated. You got to show your vaccine card. Doesn't matter if you have proof of positive infection and recovery of COVID. The only thing they're caring about is vaccines, which seems crazy. Based on the data that I've seen, natural immunity is highly effective. 

KYLE: Antibodies are even different. The antibody from natural immunity codes for the whole virus, whereas the antibody from that mRNA vaccine just codes for just the spike. So, you have less protection. Correct? 

DR. ADITI: Right. So, as you say, when you have a natural infection, first of all, obviously, the route of infection is important. Not all viruses infect the same organ, or in this case, let's just stick to the respiratory viruses. What you call resident immune cells, they are different in different organs. So obviously, the way they first recognize the invading pathogen is obviously different. So, if you have a stomach virus, or the GI, or gastrointestinal virus, it's being recognized by immune cells of the gut, which differ from the immune cells of the nasal pathway or the lungs. So, in an ideal situation, you have two arms of your immune responses. The innate arm and the adaptive arm. So, in an ideal situation, your innate arm first kicks in. Which is, it's going to see if there is previous memory from something that looks similar. So, the coronaviruses look similar to the flu viruses. So if you've had the flu in the past, it will say, this looks similar to this. I recognize it. Let's take care of it. So, in some ways, if you were healthy and you've had the flu, and this is what studies from England have found that people who've had flu in the past, they were actually quite protected. They didn't have severe symptoms or had really mild symptoms from CoV-2, and that's cross protection. So your immune cells say, I recognize this, it looks a little bit like that, just get rid of it.

KYLE: So would that be to say then that if you had natural immunity from the CoV-2 virus we have currently, and then it mutated down the road, you'd be much more likely to be protected from that with your natural immunity than from just the immunity and from the mRNA? 

DR. ADITI: Right because like you pointed out, our bodies are making antibodies not just to the spike protein, but to the nucleocapsid protein. And in some cases, even to the RNA genome itself. So, the RNA itself is non-self, because it's not part of you. We have a surveillance system that says, this is foreign, attack it. And so you have very robust, what we call, and also polyclonal antibodies. And that's the best way to basically triangulate. So, you want everything. It's not like, just to say, spike protein is the face. And if all you're doing is recognizing the face, next time, all I have to do is put on a mask and you don't know me. But if you are trained to recognize not just the face, but my hair, my hands, my shape of my legs, or the sound of my steps, or whatever it is, then it'll take a lot for me to change all of that to protect myself. 

AUBREY: I think it's a great way to look at it. A great way to explain it. 

DR. ADITI: And that's why you see mutations more mutations in the spike region and less mutations in every other region. So the more evolutionary force you're putting on it with, say, for example, with vaccines, the more mutations you see. I've never seen or heard about these viruses mutating so frequently, but they seem to be mutating every month. 

AUBREY: I think his name's Vanden Bossche, he talked about this extensively, about the danger of vaccination in the midst of a pandemic, being that it's putting pressure on the virus to mutate, basically, to change its face, because you're identifying one particular face and trying to stomp that out. And it's putting pressure on the virus to actually mutate into a different variant, like the Delta variant, for example, which can escape facial recognition. Again, I love this analogy, and continue to infect hosts. And so there's an argument that what we're doing is actually creating an infinite amount of variants, or at least the pressure that can accelerate the amount of variants that are being created. From a scientific perspective, anecdotes are interesting, but they don't prove anything. 

KYLE: But they're valuable, though. 

AUBREY: They're valuable but it's not enough evidence to N equals 1. And for me, N equals 1 is I got the Alpha, I got the regular, I assume it was. It was right when everybody first had Coronavirus right around that time in 2020 in, I don't know, summer 2020. And it was two of the worst days I've ever been sick. It was miserable. It felt like all the nerves on my body were on fire. I was feverish. It was like a crazy two days and then I recovered. Subsequently, I've been exposed many, many times to many people who've had it and haven't had any issues. And so for me, in my experience, it's been like, whoa, alright. That makes sense to me. I got a really strong reaction. My body freaked out for two days. It went into full defense mode overload. It was really hard. And then, in my experience it's been like, I've been exposed a lot. People have come over for dinner and then next day, they're like, oh my God, I'm so sorry. I just tested positive and we were sharing drinks. Crazy things that have that have happened. And I'll wait out a couple days. I'll get tested a couple times. I guess I'm okay. 

DR. ADITI: But this is not an anecdote. 

KYLE: That's the past. 

DR. ADITI: That's how vaccines were developed. Against the cow pox. When smallpox vaccines were being developed, there was a farm maid who used to work with the cows and she got the cow pox disease, so she was resistant to getting smallpox. That's where the idea came from. And they took material from the exudate, from those pus or pock marks that were there, and you expose it to people from cow pox virus and then they found that they wouldn't get smallpox. Natural immunity has been known to be the gold standard for the longest time. We just talked about how we've had chicken pox, you don't get it again. How if you've had childhood measles, you never get it again. And if you were to look for antibodies for those in me, you wouldn't find them. Having high levels of antibody in you alerts the immune system that there's something wrong. That's what happens in autoimmune diseases. That's what's happening, for example, with celiac. You have gluten. Gluten is foreign protein. Doesn't get cleared from your system. Your immune cell says, what's this foreign protein doing here? Make antibodies, kill it. So, now you want to keep on giving boosters, so keep on making spike protein, and so your body will always be in an alert state. That's how immunology works. I have really no idea what's happened to the immunologist as to why they are so scared to come out and say that natural immunity is the thing, if anything. And like you're saying that, yes, you had it. And then you subsequently got potentially exposed a number of times, and you didn't get it. So, it's not an anecdote. That's how you document and then do a scientific study. And that's been done previously for many other infectious diseases. So suddenly, why is this any different? 

KYLE: Yeah. And I think we as a society are asking the wrong question. And we're asking, how do we stop COVID? And like you said, we've never stopped the flu. If the real question is, how do we live with COVID? If it's going to be endemic and it's going to be something that comes back every single year, are we just going to start living with boosters every six months? And we'll just have to get booster, after booster, after booster of this mRNA vaccine that is causing people issues like dramatic issues. 

AUBREY: And not working to stop COVID either. 

KYLE: Yeah. And Ron Johnson at this big press conference in DC, he put up a graphic and it showed the amount of adverse events from flu vaccine versus the adverse reported events on VAERS from the COVID-19 vaccine. And the flu vaccine this past year had, I think it was 2,300 adverse events and COVID vaccine 800,000. So if we're going to start mandating this for even children, to start getting boosters every six months and we're paying billions and billions and billions of dollars to society for something we're just going to be living with forever, at what point do we just say, stop it, we need to stop. We need to do early treatment. We need to take care of people that do get sick. We need to start telling people to be healthier. Because it's a fact, the number one cause of death with COVID is obesity and comorbidities. 

DR. ADITI: And diabetes. 

KYLE: Yeah. And you have data saying that it binds to the fat cells potentially differently and can cause, that's maybe one of the reasons that it's causing excess viral load. Right? 

DR. ADITI: Right. So, let's just assume that the spike protein is only bound to ACE2 receptors. But that's, like I mentioned before, is not the only thing that it binds to. But the amount of ACE2 receptors in different organs, first of all, is different. And the amount of ACE2 receptors in you versus Kyle versus me could be different. And the ACE2 receptors, It's not like a steady state or baseline levels, and that it never goes up and down. Certain things that you do, certain activities that you may do may change the levels of your ACE2 receptor. But just going back to the natural immunity and the fact that when you get a natural infection, your body makes antibodies or has ways to recognize different components of the virus and thus, provide you cross protection. There's data, recent data from the England health ministry, where they actually looked at antibodies to other parts of the virus, the nucleocapsid, for example, in fully vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated and who got infected with the virus. The fully vaccinated people had much lower antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein compared to the unvaccinated. So what that tells me is that the vaccines are actually interfering with the function of your immune system to actually mount a robust immune response against the virus when you get infected. 

KYLE: Because you're saying it has like a limited toolbox, and it says, we have this new virus that came in and I have this hammer. And instead of creating a hammer that works perfectly to smash this one, I'm just going to use this little hammer and see what I can do. 

DR. ADITI: And the other thing that most people do in these publications is compare the spike protein, when you look at all the neutralizing assays and things like that, they're just taking the spike protein component and disregarding the other components, the nucleocapsid and other. So if you look at the natural responses and see how much the spike protein contributes to it, so if you have a pie, spike protein contributes only 35 to 50% of that pie. The rest is to the other parts of the viruses. But the vaccine is 100% of spike protein. So, when you compare natural immunity to vaccine induced immunity, and by just looking at the spike protein, you're comparing 35 to 50% of the responses to 100% of the responses and saying, look, how good is this 100% response? Because 100% is your bar. And that's the only comparison you're doing. You're ignoring the rest of the 50% of the response, natural immune responses and saying, that has absolutely no significance. 

AUBREY: This is where the mistrust is really starting to develop. Because there's things that when you actually just start to look and talk to scientists and people who understand natural immunity, and then start to look at the data that's emerging, and then recognize that there has been suppression of natural immunity, it's not being considered in mandates—

KYLE: They pulled the hashtag off Instagram. 

AUBREY: They pulled the hashtag off Instagram. All of these things and you start to go like, what the hell world are we in? And then people take that, which is, again, a question. And I think the important thing is to allow yourself to sit with a question without filling in the blanks. Because some people will ask that question like, why are we doing this? And then immediately, they'll take seven leaps to the powerful elite cabal in some eugenics program. Slow down. Slow down. But we need to ask this question first. Why is this happening? And then apply some sound philosophical principles like Occam's Razor. What's the simplest way to explain this? And you can just look at some very basic things like money, self-serving bias, some confirmation bias, some very simple things to explain it. And maybe it's more. You can leave your open mind more. But there's clearly a lot of misinformation and a lot of misunderstanding of what's going on. And the policies are reflecting that. At the very least, if you wanted to have a mandate, if you really felt like that, then it should be either, you have proof of contraction of COVID and the sufficient antibodies, or you have vaccination. One or the other. That's the only thing that would actually make sense if you decided that mandates were important. But the fact that they're not doing that, you just start scratching your head, going like, this seems like a money grab. 

KYLE: Yeah, it does. And then one thing that I thought was interesting, too, is like you said, with the Delta variant, the spike protein mutated more than anything else and it caused it to be less virulent, meaning that it's less deadly but it spreads more and spreads faster. So we're getting these changes in the virus, like we talked about earlier. And it just is interesting, because if it keeps pushing, and it starts mutating to be less deadly and less deadly, at what point do we just start living with the virus and get back to life? When do we take the masks off? 

AUBREY: This is a very interesting question. And this is where you have to start accounting for all kinds of other different factors. And actually start, if you really want to say how do we live with the virus, which I think is the right question to ask, then you have to say, how do we support people with all of these comorbidities? How do we support nutrition education? How do we get better nutrition in schools? How do we put together programs and encourage people to go outside, and to exercise, and to get adequate amounts of vitamin D? The correlation between vitamin D and severe reactions is strong. Which vitamin D levels are also correlated to obesity, but also the actual levels you get from the sun. There's many factors of pushing, let's get back to some basics here. Are you getting good sleep? Are you getting good time spent outside in the sun? Are you getting good water? Are you getting good food, getting good exercise? And then of course, we know the detrimental effects of loneliness. What's your community like? 

KYLE: Are you smiling? Are you laughing? Are you dancing? 

AUBREY: How much have you spent with the community? How much time have you spent feeling seen and loved and all of these different things. Then you start to have this whole picture of what this really looks like. But again, we're just myopically focused on this one thing. And as Prof. Mattias, Desmet said, free floating anxiety. We're all anxious, we all feel existential anxiety. And then all of a sudden, all of that gets shifted to this one thing, which is COVID. And that becomes the number one thing that we're of concern. And so our natural inclination is when we have something, an enemy, attack it, attack it with full force. And that gives us a lot of energy, and we have all the energy. We'll kill COVID. And then everything will be fine. Rather than looking at the holistic approach. We kill COVID. We still have epidemics of loneliness, we still have epidemics of obesity, we still have epidemics of abuse of substances, we still have all of these things that we're not addressing. Social isolation that's going down through the generations. We have the issues of exponential tech and the way that all of these different social media influences are affecting our psychology. We have so many things to take a look at. But instead, everybody's just focused on this one thing, imagining that if we kill it, everything's going to be great. Well, it's not. 

KYLE: And also, oh, sorry. 

DR. ADITI: Sorry, go ahead. 

KYLE: I was just going to say also, if the goal is to kill COVID, then why... It's a global pandemic, correct? It's not just a localized pandemic. Then why are we talking about a third and fourth shot for people here in the US when most of the rest of the world isn't even on shot one? There's not vaccinated people in most of the world. So why are we getting the Western civilization three or four shots already and we're not focusing on the rest of the world that has zero? Wouldn't that be contributing to killing COVID? If vaccines really do kill COVID, then don't we need everyone to get vaccinated? Isn't that a good question to ask as well too? 

DR. ADITI: We know vaccines are not killing COVID. But just to take a step back. In the case of the Delta variant, it actually emerged pretty early on. And I have it in my blog. I don't remember the name of the first author from that paper, but it was published, actually, in March of 2020. They already showed that the Delta variant was predominant in Europe in March of 2020. And they showed data that this Delta variant can replicate more, because it actually has three mutations. One in the spike protein, that's why it's called the Delta variant. Delta, in its amino acid position 416 on the spike protein, D, which is aspartic acid changes to glycine, that's why it's called the Delta variant, D416G. But there are two other mutations that are accompanied in this Delta mutation, one in its part of the genome, which allows it to replicate. And that makes it replicate 10 times faster than the Alpha variant. And so it was already emerging, or the virus was already trying to go back to an equilibrium where it was not going to kill. This is before the vaccines were even rolled out in such large quantities. The virus was already going on a trajectory where it said, I don't want to be so pathogenic to society in a way or to my host. Because if it kills all its hosts, then it has to actually find a new host. And that's a lot of work. 

KYLE: It's incentivized to be less deadly but spread more. 

DR. ADITI: And to me, actually, there's the ethics to mandate vaccines. There's an ethical question, as we talked about. That not everybody has the same baseline immunity or same baseline health conditions. We know all vaccines actually have caused adverse reactions. They've gone through several iterations. There was no such thing that they got it right in the first shot. So, measles vaccines have been recalled multiple times. Rotavirus vaccines were recalled over here due to safety concerns despite stringent clinical trials and having a placebo group. And at least in the US for the rotavirus, I was reading that 1 in 10,000 to 20,000 deaths was considered one too many and they were stopped. And here we have over 7, 8, I don't know if it's underreported. 70,000 deaths or I don't know how many deaths whatever. 

KYLE: There's 17,000 VAERS currently, and they estimate 10% reported. 

DR. ADITI: And we haven't even hit the pause button. Instead of hitting the pause button, the CDC and the FDA went and authorized it to be given to 5 to 11 years old. 

KYLE: And they said in that meeting, too, we won't know the risks until we start giving it to them. 

DR. ADITI: And one of the panelists said that if we don't approve it, then the black and the brown children will be left out. That's not the reason to give authorization there. If there are other ways, there are compassionate uses. If it was indeed preventing people from getting infection, then that would be a valid reason. But then too, in my mind, medical procedures or interventions should never be mandated. Especially for healthy people. We have our natural immunity for a reason. We have our natural defenses and that's how evolution occurs. If you don't allow it to learn, how is it going to teach? And for me, the analogy for our immune system is that because there is this education of the immune system, for example, if you have a child, and you are always helping them and doing their homework so that they can look like an A student, are you really making an A student? When they're exposed to the real world, they're going to fail. 

KYLE: And that's what they're doing with the vaccines. 

DR. ADITI: So, you help your immune system with deadly diseases such as polio or smallpox, but you let the immune system learn and evolve for nondeadly diseases. And yes, there will be a subset of the population who is more at risk. And you can have preventative mechanisms, or therapeutics, or take extra care for those people. But that does not mean you have to mandate it on everybody who's healthy. And 90% of people don't even have very severe effects from this COVID. Not everybody gets respiratory distress from having COVID. 

AUBREY: I want to pose this question as we wrap up this podcast. For those people listening who have these ruptures in their family, they have friends, they have children even who are just following this kind of mainstream narrative, fully safe and effective, if you don't get it, you're killing people. We have to kill COVID. You have to do your part. This is this clear one-sided argument. What do you recommend to start to open the conversation that will kind of help people start to see the other side of this issue? Where do you point people? Obviously, there's this podcast, but where are some of the resources that you guys recommend? And what are some of the things that you've seen effective? Because I'm sure you guys have dealt with this personally as well. You with colleagues and maybe family—

KYLE: My mom didn't believe me at first, just because she was very pro. I think what really started to change that a little bit was the WHO has formally acknowledged myocarditis, so they say myopericarditis, which means, ‘myo’ is the swelling of the muscle and peri is the swelling of the liner around the heart. So, it's kind of like a gelatinous liner. They have acknowledged that myopericarditis is happening in young men. And it's at a pretty high number. The last one I read was between 1 in 1,000 and 1 in 5,000. So, if you had 100,000 people in a stadium, that means 100 guys there are going to have heart swelling, which is irreversible. It never heals. If your myocardium is affected, which is your heart muscle, it's lifelong. And so, what's interesting is it's prevalently happening under 30 years old. So that's why they've halted it in Scandinavia and countries for Moderna. Because Moderna is three times the dose of the mRNA vaccine, sorry. So Moderna gives you three times the dose, which means that you're having a higher incidence of this heart issue. So now you're only allowed to get Pfizer in those countries. Well, I got Pfizer here and I still had a heart issue. But I was lucky I didn't take Moderna. 

AUBREY: Yeah, might have killed you. 

KYLE: It might have killed me. And so, what's interesting is I think when I started to show my mom, look at WHO is saying this is happening. So, if they know there is a risk for young men, period, they know that, they're acknowledging that, then why do the commercials say it's safe and effective, period? That's a lie. That's a blatant lie. So then why are they lying to us? We have to ask those questions. And I think that once you start looking at it and seeing that there's so many things that don't make sense at all. Why are they lying about it being safe and effective? And if it is truly safe and effective and they're not lying, then why do the companies have no responsibility? Why do they have no liability? And then another one that's interesting is Pfizer. They were the only approved vaccine, right? Well, did you know that there's actually two Pfizer vaccines right now? There's an approved one and an unapproved one. And the approved one is called Comirnaty, C-O-M-I-R-N-A-T-Y. And you have to go find Comirnaty and look it up, and ask for it by name to get the approved version. So if you go in right now and you get the Pfizer vaccine, just asking for a Pfizer vaccine, they give you the EUA unapproved version with zero liability for Pfizer. And Pfizer said they have not found someone to manufacture the Comirnaty vaccine yet, even though the formulation is the same. So, you can't even get the approved one. Why? If it's safe and effective, then why can you not get the approved version? 

AUBREY: Those are starting to point to the premises that we all understand. There's a lot of money involved, and there's a lot of bias involved, and a lot of decisions are being made for profit, rather than for public health. And this is an issue with medicine in general. A profit driven medicine model is a big issue. Travis Christofferson wrote a book called "Curable" and it's talking about how profit driven medicine has been a problem. There was a hospital in Corpus Christi, where all the doctors just started diagnosing people with certain conditions and giving surgeries. And it just got out of hand because they were billing the insurance companies for all this. All these doctors were getting filthy rich. Everybody in the hospital had the prevalence of, I forget which condition it was. And it required a surgical intervention. I think it was something with the heart. And then they did an audit of it. And they're like, wait a minute. This is wrong. But profit driven motivations are an issue. We have to be aware that when we have a profit driven medicine model, there are things that can emerge. And I think what basically I can take from what you're saying is, you just help people find a thread where they can start to tug, start to tug at the narrative and start to see this doesn't make sense. And then it at least opens a little bit of a softening of the mind. So, it's not exactly what they've been saying. And then once the mind is open and there's more threads that will emerge and more ways in which we can start to shape a more comprehensive truth. 

KYLE: Yeah. Sorry. One last thing too. What's interesting is they're also calling ‘myo’ and pericarditis, a mild adverse symptom. And if it's irreversible, and most people who get severe myocarditis need a full heart transplant within five years, so is that mild? Does that seem mild to you? 

AUBREY: That's a hell of a classification system. That'd be like ordering mild sauce for your tacos and then lighting your face on fire and sweating like you're at the end of "Hot Ones." But yeah, I get it. There's a lot of issues with how things are being played. So, to ask you that question. When you have colleagues, or you have friends, or you have allies, what is your strategy for helping open their mind to the nuances of this issue? 

DR. ADITI: So the struggle for me is far more because, as I mentioned before, there's a lot of cherry picking of data in our scientific community. And that's been going on for a while. So we have been turning a blind eye to either lack of controls, or eliminating data points that don't fit the narrative or don't tell a good story. And, in fact, the Norway study where a lot of elderly people died in that nursing home and they did a complete thorough investigation, and they could very conclusively say that 26 of those people died because of the COVID vaccine. So to completely deny that this could happen anywhere else in the world is again, somehow turning a blind eye. 

AUBREY: So, there was a study. Just to be clear for people who are unfamiliar with this study. There was a study done in Norway that showed that there was, in a select group of people, 26 of them died from the vaccine. 

DR. ADITI: There was a report, almost now maybe a year ago, where elderly people in a nursing home were given COVID vaccines. And I think 26 out of, I don't remember the exact number, maybe 30, 26 of them died. And so, they stopped vaccinating them and then they did a thorough investigation and found that yes, it was due to COVID vaccine. So, we've had a lot of deaths in nursing homes as well, but those are not obviously pinned down to the vaccines. There is no postmortem or any other thorough studies done. But in terms of, you've mentioned several times about profits and things like that, we would call conflict of interest. There was a time that drug company reps would be in the doctor's office asking them to promote their drugs. And that was stopped. There's a conflict of interest. They cannot come and promote, ask doctors or physicians to promote their drugs. What's happening with this COVID vaccine? We have everybody, including the president of the United States, promoting this vaccine. Wouldn't you call it conflict of interest? Wouldn't you want to go check, why is everybody promoting it? Let the data and let the science, if you really like, show it. Why does Dr. Fauci need to come on television shows and say that these vaccines are safe without any studies? How? Does he have some crystal ball that when he can say that, today, 50% of people, if they were infected, we would reach herd immunity, and tomorrow, that number changes to 75%, and then next day to 90%? On what basis? What's the science behind that? Does anybody question that? Why not? What is he basing—

KYLE: Fear. 

DR. ADITI: So, fear is the biggest thing that's been driving. And it's like hypnotized the whole, globally, people about that. I was in India last month and everybody that I met has, or at least 90% of people that I met in my family, has had COVID. My 87-year-old mother lives with my sister. My niece had COVID. My mother didn't even know for three days that she had COVID. She had very mild symptoms. And it was like, oops. But my mother didn't get it. My sister didn't get it. And there's only one person in the family who had very severe COVID, but most of them didn't. And then a number of them went ahead and got COVID vaccine because of whatever travel restrictions. The US wouldn't let anybody come, or globally, you can't travel without a vaccine because even if you've had it naturally, it doesn't count. And especially my cousins who are women, some of them are pretty young, and they reported that they haven't had their periods. Is it a side effect that is from the vaccine? I don't know. It needs to be looked into. But seven of them are in their early 40s. Is that just a coincidence? Is it what? So, I told them to report it as an adverse event. And they, first of all, didn't even know you could do it. They don't know they have a system. So, we do need to hit the pause button and look into the fear drive letting this whole, drive this thinking. We need to take a pause and really think that is it really the case? If you just look at CDC's own report, the number of deaths for this year from COVID is 350,000. That's 0.1% of our population. Is that really an emergency? There are more people who are dying, 10 times more people who are dying from cardiovascular or other chronic conditions. This is not the only thing that has long haul effects. People deny long haul effects from Lyme disease. In countries like India, there are people who have chikungunya and dengue. Those have long term effects. Malaria, typhoid. I've had typhoid twice in my life. I've had malaria. You can have long-haul effects from so many other infectious diseases. You stop gene therapy trials because four people died. You were using adeno associated vectors. Here, thousands of people have died, but we don't want to hit the pause button. We continue with the narrative that it's safe and we continue to mandate it. To me, the biggest issue is forcing everyone to have it and then making people feel, who have genuine fear of not taking it, make them feel like they are heels, that they are some evil people who are there to destroy this world or they're so selfish. And to then hear the President of the United States say the same words, that this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated and that they're selfish people is outrageous. 

AUBREY: Yeah. And again, goes to the conflict of interests. Knowing that the pharmaceuticals are one of the top contributors to campaign contributions and all of the other ways in which money is involved in all of these different things. Conflict of interest is a major issue that we have to take a look at. And I think your analysis of the situation as a whole is really well said. And look, for everybody listening, it's important that we speak up. Again, referring to the podcast with Mattias Desmet, which I really recommend to everybody. There's an effect called mass formation, where people start to get in this herd mentality, this mass hypnosis, where they just keep hearing the same information, which is triggered like a hypnotist, through vocal repetition of the same things over and over again. And how news media is saying the same thing, literally the same thing on every different channel. And there's really powerful clips of the exact same words coming out of all of these different channels, which pretend like they don't like each other, but they're all saying the same thing. And then all of a sudden, there becomes this state where it's very difficult to convince someone of something other than what they've been, in some ways, hypnotized to believe. But one way to do it is to use our voices in a rational, logical, calm, loving way, to be a different voice. A voice that says it's also important to consider the quality of our lives and choosing how we live over worrying about how likely we are to die. We're not here to prevent death at all cost. We're here to live an amazing, beautiful life. And so, let's look at this thing holistically. And the more people who can share that message from all the different perspectives, the better off we'll be. And we need that. We need to take a stand. But also, the finger-pointing, the villainization, the dehumanization on both sides. No matter who you are, don't be calling somebody a sheep. That's dehumanization. That's not going to help anything. You call someone a sheep and then you expect them to listen to your point of view, get out of here. Don't be calling someone a domestic terrorist if you're on the other side. That's not going to work. You're not going to have any conversations. This isn't going to work. I have an organization I'm developing called United Polarity. And the idea of that is to recognize that we may have different opinions, but underneath all that, there's the commonality that we're all human beings in a human experience. And there should be reverence for that on all sides. And if you start with a reverence for each other, and then you can start to explore the ideas. That's just my heartfelt prayer for the world is that we start to listen to each other, respect each other, open the dialogues. And I truly believe that truth is like a beach ball that you're trying to keep submerged underwater. And it just keeps gathering air and takes more and more effort to submerge the truth. And eventually, it's so buoyant that it comes to the surface. And I really believe that the truth of everything that's going on will come to the surface. But we're a part of that. Every time we give our voice to what we see, and what we hear, and what we believe, it adds a little bit of air to that beach ball and makes it a little more buoyant. And that's the way that we're going to make it through this thing. 

KYLE: And I think, just like we said, neither of us are anti-vaccine by any means. It's just we believe that you should be able to make your own decision and do a risk analysis. That's what life is based off of. Every time you get in a car, you're making a risk assessment. So, for them to start mandating something and pretend that it's 100% completely safe and effective, zero risk at all, that's what we're talking about as an issue. Because if there are people that do have comorbidities and they are afraid of COVID, which there's a lot of people that are very afraid of COVID and should maybe be so, and those people, if they want to take a vaccine, then by all means they should have the ability to do so. And if you're not as apt to get serious COVID and you don't want to make that risk of taking the vaccine, when we're seeing a lot of people that are younger getting injured, then I think that's a fair ask. 

AUBREY: Yeah, absolutely. It's very difficult to argue with that, but some people still will. Any final words doctor? 

DR. ADITI: No, I just hope that, like you said, people are open minded and listen. And I cannot emphasize enough that the future of science is at stake. If people lose faith in science because this was so botched up, if it does indeed turn out that these vaccines are causing so much more harm than causing benefit and people lose faith in science, then for me, all my life I've dedicated to science and that's just going to crumble. And then what? The next medication that comes out that could be really, truly groundbreaking and beneficial, nobody will want to touch it. And it's not like FDA or CDC, they don't make mistakes. What's happened with the opioid crisis. It took them forever to even recognize it. Approval of new Alzheimer's drug. Everybody on the panel voted to say no, it's not effective. And yet they went ahead and approved it. So, I definitely can't get into their minds and say, what is behind all of that? But I do appeal that let's do good science before we throw out that science is clear. No, science is not clear. 

KYLE: That's a huge fear of mine as well, because the mRNA technology has so much promise. 

DR. ADITI: Right. 

KYLE: It has so much promise in fixing things like, potentially even cancer and AIDS, things like this. There's so much that we're learning about mRNA. And now, if this does become this massive, botched experiment with no communication from the government, then anything mRNA in the future is going to be discredited. 

DR. ADITI: And they've been trying mRNA. Moderna's mRNA flu vaccine was a colossal failure. It didn't go past phase one. They had in their phase one 124 unsolicited adverse events reported. People are trying mRNA vaccines for HIV and other viruses, and it hasn't worked. So my question is, and their flu vaccine trial was on clinicaltrials.gov, what happened between 2019 and 2020 that a very similar technology went from being a failure to a spectacular success with no side effects, no safety issues? If something is too good to be true, it is. 

AUBREY: Yeah. We've gone from science to magic, and not the good kind of magic because I'm all for the good kind of magic, not the smoke and mirrors type. Well, thank you so much. 

DR. ADITI: Thank you. 

AUBREY: I appreciate you guys for making the trip out here and sharing this discourse. And appreciate everybody for listening with an open mind. Or if you don't have an open mind, I appreciate you listening anyways. So much love to everybody who's struggling with this in their family, personally, anybody who's had any issues, whether that's with the virus itself or with the vaccine. Let's all remember that there's tragedies on every side. If you're against the vaccine narrative, you shouldn't be rooting for people to get injured because they're people. Remember that every vaccine injury is a tragedy. And on the other side, if people who are unvaccinated get sick and get hurt, they shouldn't be rooting for that either. These are people who are like us. They're me and you living a different life. And so remember, just remember, these are all not numbers. These are people and people are invaluable and they cannot be reduced. So, thank you so much. Appreciate you, brother, I appreciate you, and I appreciate everybody for tuning in.