O:H header
Today on Objective:Health we interview independent investigative journalist Rosemary Frei. Rosemary has an MSc in molecular biology from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary, was a freelance medical writer and journalist for 22 years before she had had enough of the industry, the lies, the shady Big Pharma influence and moved on to dig deep and report the Truth. Rosemary has written for OffGuardian, Global Research and you can find many of her articles on Sott.net. You can also follow her on Twitter @RosemaryFreiTO

Join us for a fascinating discussion on the great Covid swindle, vaccines, viruses and dubious "fact-checking" organizations. She goes into detail about how little is actually known about SARS-CoV-2 and what the implications are for the vaccine, testing, immunity passports and even the state of the research itself.

You won't want to miss this one!

And check us out on Brighteon!

Links to sources discussed in the show:

Rosemary Frei and Patrick Corbett's article on the revelations from a whistle-blowing Bulgarian pathologist:
"No one has died from the coronavirus"

Rosemary Frei's article fact-checking the 'fact checkers' on the Bulgarian pathologist's revelations:
Fact-Checking a "Fact-Checker": A Response to HealthFeedback.org

Rosemary Frei and Amory Devereux's article on how the novel coronavirus doesn't fulfill Koch's postulates:
Scientists Have Utterly Failed to Prove that the Coronavirus Fulfills Koch's Postulates

Rosemary Frei's article on deaths in long-term-care homes:
Were conditions for high death rates at Care Homes created on purpose?

Corbett Report interview of Rosemary Frei regarding her article on deaths in long-term-care homes:
Corbett Report: Rosemary Frei on how the high death rate in Care Homes was created on purpose

Rosemary Frei's article on Bill Gates revealing the reason behind the lockdown:
Did Bill Gates Just Reveal the Reason Behind the Lock-Downs?

The lengthy and excellent article about what happened to Dr. Andrew Wakefield:
L'affaire Wakefield: Shades of Dreyfus & BMJ's Descent into Tabloid Science

And the 54-tweet thread by Rosemary describing the main points in the article about Dr. Wakefield (written in response to three people on Twitter who challenged her assertions that the article clearly shows Dr. Wakefield's reputation was destroyed unjustly):

The study Rosemary referenced that compares vaccinated and unvaccinated children:
Analysis of health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children: Developmental delays, asthma, ear infections and gastrointestinal disorders, Brian S Hooker 1 , Neil Z Miller 2

The testimony by a US pediatrition about the dangers of vaccines:
Dr. Lawrence Palevsky Testimony: Unvaccinated Children Are "The Healthiest Children I've Ever Seen"

For other health-related news and more, you can find us on:

♥Twitter: https://twitter.com/objecthealth
♥Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/objecthealth/
♥Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channel/objectivehealth

♥And you can check out all of our previous shows (pre YouTube) here.

Running Time: 00:49:38

Download: MP3 — 45.5 MB

Here's the transcript of the show:

Doug: Hello and welcome to Objective: Health. I am your host Doug and my co-host today is Tiffany.

Tiffany: Hello.

Doug: And in the background is Damian.

Damian: Hello.

Doug: Today we have a very special guest, an interview with Rosemary Frei who is an investigative journalist. You may have seen her stuff on OffGuardian as well as Global Research. She was interviewed recently by James Corbett on the Corbett Report. So welcome Rosemary.

Rosemary: It's great to be here. Thanks Doug and Tiffany.

Doug: Maybe to start off you can give us a little bit of your background because I know you had an interesting voyage to where you are right now so maybe you can let our viewers know how you got here.

Rosemary: Sure. Happy to. I started as an academic or hoping to be an academic. I was going to do a PhD, ended up doing just a masters degree in molecular biology and then I switched into freelance journalism right after that, actually while I was finishing my masters and then I morphed into medical journalism specifically back in 1994 I think it was, and then I was just a freelance medical writer and journalist for 22 years.

I did some stuff for the dark side as well, for pharma companies and marketing materials and I finally woke up and stopped doing that because I saw how bad it was. I tried in my articles to show all the lies from pharma but I just sort of had enough and I quit that four years ago and just turned to full-time activism and investigative journalism. Then this year I started writing about Covid for OffGuardian.

Doug: That's great. Maybe to start with, you did an article on OffGuardian that was called No One Has Died from the Coronavirus.

Rosemary: Yes.

Doug: And in that you detail some evidence put forward by Dr. Stoyan Alexov.

Rosemary: Yes.

Doug: Can you just tell us about that rather than me trying to introduce it? It was relatively controversial and I know you got 'fact checked' on it at one point and maybe we can go into that as well. But what was Dr. Alexov actually saying that was so controversial?

Rosemary: Well the title of the article is No One Has Died from the Coronavirus.

Doug: Right. {laughter}

Rosemary: He was saying in a May 8th webinar of the European Society of Pathology that the consensus among the participants is that no one has died of the novel coronavirus. As pathologists there's no concrete proof that people have died of the novel coronavirus, of Covid as opposed to anything else. There's the flu or all their underlying conditions that a lot of old people have had serious conditions. There's no way for them to tell what really killed them. There's certainly on way to tell that they died of Covid. He's saying there's no what's called monoclonal antibodies.

When you produce antibodies, when you're challenged with a foreign substance you often or sometimes produce antibodies and some of those are very specific to that particular foreign substance and then they clone those in the lab to produce monoclonal antibodies and he said the consensus is "There are no monoclonal antibodies to the novel coronavirus!" And you need those monoclonal antibodies to then show exactly in tissues from people who have died, so autopsy tissue sections, to show pinpoint, "Here is the novel coronavirus". Without very specific antibodies to the novel coronavirus you can't pinpoint it.

Doug: Right. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it kind of sounds like he's saying that they haven't really isolated this virus and determined definitively that it's there.

Rosemary: He didn't talk about the isolation so much but he said that there are no monoclonal antibodies to it. And other things they said and in another webinar on a June 25 show, they have a heck of a time finding it. And it should be of course when they're looking at the autopsies of people who are said to have died of Covid, the lungs should be crawling with the novel coronavirus because that's the main target organ. That's where the novel coronavirus supposedly shows its effects. So it should be extremely easy to find the novel coronavirus and the viral particles and they take hours to find it. And they don't even know when they find it whether it's really the novel coronavirus or something else.

He didn't specifically talk about the isolation part but I did in my more recent article.

Doug: Right. He also said that he believes it is currently impossible to create a vaccine against the virus. Do you know what he meant by that specifically?

Rosemary: Well we asked him. My co-author of that article, Patrick Corbett, and I emailed Dr. Alexov with a few questions, including what do you mean by saying that there can be no vaccine against Covid. He didn't respond. He just said, "I support what you're going". We quoted his email in the July 2nd article. He didn't answer our questions. But in my most recent article I go into a little bit of detail about why there can't be a vaccine, including, "Well if it doesn't exist, how can you have a vaccine against it?"

Doug: Right.

Tiffany: I was just going to say that one can see from at least the mainstream point of view why they would want to fact check this particular statement from the doctor saying that no one has died from coronaviruses. They haven't been able to isolate any of these monoclonal antibodies and the whole Covid lockdown, the mask wearing, the social distancing and the shutting down of the economy is based upon the existence of these antibodies and the existence of the virus itself. To say that is pretty jaw-dropping like you wrote in your article.

One of the things you wrote in the article was "Therefore in an absence of monoclonal antibodies to the novel coronavirus, pathologists cannot verify whether SAR-Cov-2 is present in the body or whether the disease and deaths attributed to it indeed were caused by the virus rather than something else." I think that knocks a huge hole in the whole coronavirus...

Doug: Narrative?

Tiffany: Yeah, narrative. {laughter}

Rosemary: Yeah, they didn't like that very much.

Doug: Well it kind of goes beyond that too as you say in the article that it's what everything is also based on as far as the testing, the vaccine, all those kinds of things. There's so many implications involved in this having that monoclonal antibody that if that isn't actually found, identified, used, then it puts all these other things into question that are going on in the context of this whole coronavirus mayhem.

Rosemary: Yeah, it's where the big money is and they want to make sure they make that big money, whether it's with the testing kits - PCRs also but that's a little separate - but all the antibodies and they're developing all these antibodies to it. And of course the immunity passports or certificates they're going to be using to let people leave their dwellings basically - never mind traveling - and of course the vaccines. It's just huge money so it's hard to stand in the way of that roaring train. {laughter} "Thou shalt not raise your hand and say stop, this is a hoax!" So they had to work hard to fact check our article.

Tiffany: So what was the comeback when it was pointed out that the identity of these monoclonal antibodies has not actually been verified? What was the fact checkers' comeback to that?

Rosemary: Oh, they said, "Well here are these five studies that show that they do exist and there are monoclonal antibodies to it." But I looked at all five papers and it's actually a little humorous, if I may say so. One of those five papers didn't even mention monoclonal antibodies." {laughter} So that's an "eeeeee" {sound of buzzer}.

This is the article that I just wrote a couple of weeks ago on checking the fact checkers. So one of them doesn't even mention monoclonal antibodies. Three of the others involve monoclonal antibodies to SARS-Cov rather than SARS-Cov-2. So they cross-bind supposedly to SARS-Cov-2. And the fifth reference uses two antibody tests but, as I detail in one of the article appendices, neither of the tests has been shown to be specific to the novel coronavirus or even to be accurate at all and also - I'm just reading from my article - the five papers' authors didn't provide any objective verification that the novel coronavirus truly is present.

Doug: That seems like the modus operandi for a lot of these fact checkers. What was the one called that was doing yours? Was it Healthfeedback.org? Is that right?

Rosemary: Yes.

Doug: It seems like they do that. It's almost like they're trying to intimidate people by disputing the points and throwing in some references or something like that, kind of assuming that the average person isn't going to bother checking the references or anything.

Rosemary: Right.

Doug: But it's clout. They've thrown some studies at you so people see that and think, "Oh okay. Well I guess, case closed." But really, if you do what you're doing and what you should do, to actually look into those things and see, "What are these things actually saying? Is there actually evidence against the point that I made or is this just another smokescreen?"

Rosemary: I say that to people just about every day. When a claim is being made, whether or not a fact check like this or anything, take a little bit of time to try to verify at least part of that information, whether it's a newspaper article about all these children dying of multi-organ failure caused by Covid. Well take a look. Look for that paper on the set of children; how many children were involved, where there's any correction for other factors that may have been involved. There are so many ways that people themselves can be their own fact checkers and see right away that, just as you said, it's a smokescreen.

And in this case, Healthfeedback is part of a group that's funded by the World Health Organization. It's a project called Vaccine Safety Net and Healthfeedback is also certified through the International Fact Checking Network which sounds fancy but it's funded by our buddies the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Doug: Of course.

Rosemary: So it doesn't take long. Just follow the money. Always follow the money.

Doug: Absolutely. And in your article you actually go into a lot of the detail of some of the people who are behind this fact check network. We've looked at this kind of stuff in the past, these fact check sites or institutions, whatever you want to call them and it seems like if you follow it back far enough there's always a vested interest and it doesn't really take you that long to find it. Eventually, like you said, follow the money, you eventually get to the point where it's like, "Okay, that's why this person is debunking this article because their paycheck is coming from whatever they're debunking.

So I'm not surprised in the least that these guys are tied to Bill and Melinda Gates. You go into a number of different things that they're attached to.

Rosemary: And the expert they bring in to say that conspiracy theorists don't like data, he is hugely conflicted himself. But I read somewhere that they don't even try to hide their following the money, which is interesting because it doesn't take long at all to find this information.

Doug: I think they just know that so many people won't dig into it and that a number of people are kind of comfortable with the narrative that they're selling so they want to know that there is no conspiracy, that there's nothing there and that they can sleep soundly knowing that everything is right in the world and it's more people like us who are asking "Wait a minute! What's really going on here?" And we're the minority. And a lot of times our audience isn't nearly as big.

Tiffany: Well considering your background Rosemary, you've been an investigative journalist you said for 22 years?

Rosemary: More four years. I was just a pure medical journalist and writer before that.

Tiffany: Well when did your suspicions become aroused regarding this whole Covid-19 pandemic? When did you first start to think that something didn't quite add up?

Rosemary: Within about a week. {laughter} I was telling people, "My gut is telling me there's something wrong." So I rolled up my sleeves and I wrote a really long blog entry, about 5,000 words about 'here's the chronology and how it's boom, boom, boom' and I talk about Event 201 and following the money with Bill Gates. I was doing the blog for myself, to put things together and see what happens, what I found out. It was pretty clear that there was just too much coordination of too many things happening at too many levels of government around the world. Event 201 was telling us the model of what was about to happen. So it didn't take long.

And my first article then was for OffGuardian on April 4th which was talking about a videotape in which Bill Gates essentially said, "Well this is why we want the lockdowns, because we don't want too many people exposed to the virus because we want to be making and selling antivirals and vaccines.

Doug: Yeah, he came right out and said that. Your article on that is called Did Bill Gates Just Reveal the Reason Behind the Lockdowns? It's on OffGuardian as well.

Rosemary: And the reason it went viral and many other places covered it was because there was one sentence in the interview that was deleted. I had audiotaped the interview and then I checked again an hour or two later and that sentence was gone where Gates was saying 'we're going to be using these immunity passports to limit people's travel'.

Tiffany: Well it seems like for some reason, that statement that Bill Gates made about the immunity passports and the Event 201, it seems like they, as in the powers that be, always have to broadcast or give some kind of forewarning of what they're going to do. It just seems to me, if I were going to foist a pandemic upon the populace I would not have video of Event 201 all over the internet for people to see. I always question well, why did they do that. What is the whole purpose of that?

Rosemary: It's very interesting. It's almost like they're flexing their muscles. They say, "We're so powerful that we can just show what we're going to do and our propaganda is so thick that we can fool the majority of the population into believing us, into believing public health." Mind you too, all the build up to this has been, you could say, decades in the making and you see that especially with vaccines, how now when I spoke at the Board of Health last year, me and dozens of others in Toronto, spoke at the Board of Health, they were moving these motions to prohibit any information about any problems with any vaccine. One councillor who was on the Board was saying there's no such thing as bodily autonomy and they had this as part of the media and they censor people saying, "Wait a second! We have a problem. But the vast majority of people call us anti-vaxxers." But he questioned them.

So it has been a long campaign and there's a reason they focused on silencing people who ask questions about vaccines and trusting public health. Public health is much more authoritative than anybody else.

Doug: Yeah.

Tiffany: Yeah, this has been going on way, way before Covid-19. I started noticing how strong the push was for cracking down on any kind of exemptions on vaccines when there was a measles outbreak years ago. That's when I started noticing that they were really, really going for the gusto as far as not allowing anybody to get out of vaccines, like in Australia where they have the no jab, no pay and various other countries that were initiating things that make it very, very difficult for people to opt out of being vaccinated or having their children vaccinated.

Rosemary: So you've been following this. You've been woken up much longer than I have.

Doug: It's so crazy because even on the face of it they try to put this idea across that there is no potential of any harm from vaccines. They can't admit that there's any potential for any harm. But even on the face of it that doesn't make sense. Any pharmaceutical drug has side effects so of course there's going to be some level of danger! And if there's any level of danger then a person has the right to question that, to question whether or not and determine for themselves whether they want to put themselves in that danger or not.

So it's almost like they have to put up this wall of propaganda that there is absolutely no harm possible from these vaccines which is ridiculous. But people seem to buy it. It seems to work. If the media 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, any time they mention vaccines it's the idea that they are 100% safe and 100% effective, then that's what people end up believing.

Rosemary: And I talked to a journalist who wrote an article for a national newspaper in Canada. This article came out about five years ago saying there are some problems with vaccines and he told me that an editor talked to him after that saying, "You're never going to write anything about any problems with vaccines anymore."

Doug: Wow!

Rosemary: I tried to write an article last year for Boingboing.net out of the US. I said to the editor, "Look, there are some problems with vaccines. Can I write an article, not just saying there's lots of articles about great things about vaccines. Why are there no articles about problems with vaccines?" The editor, Cory Doctoro said, "Well first of all I've got very smart friends and they tell me vaccines are safe and effective. And another reason is that well vaccine companies don't make any money out of vaccines so what's the big deal?!" {laughter}

No! He told me that. I've got the email to prove it! You look it up. It's a huge money maker. So the editors themselves, the gatekeepers I think have some conflicts of interest and it's problematic. So it's like Plato's cave. People in the population only see the images projected in front of them and our job is to escape that cave and breathe the air and be free and seek the truth.

Doug: Exactly.

Tiffany: Not only do the big pharma companies make astronomical profits from their vaccines, they're indemnified from any kind of lawsuits when their vaccines harm people.

Rosemary: Yes. When we spoke at the Board of Health last year, just before the Board of Health meeting started there was a press conference with Joe Cressi, the chair of the Board of Health and public health officials and a woman who ostensibly had polio and this woman who had polio - it could have been acute flaccid paralysis instead but that's a whole other thing because you need a fecal test to tell whether it's polio or this AFP which mimics polio - and she said, "We're talking about setting up a vaccine injury compensation program here and that way the pharma companies will have skin in the game" and I said that when I made remarks after that Board of Health meeting, I said, "That's not true at all. They lie in these press conferences. They lie in what they tell the public. In fact the damages paid when people are successful at these courts for vaccine injury, that money is paid by you and me, the taxpayers. It's been decades since the vaccines were declared - at least in the states and also here - to be unavoidably unsafe and so that's just the way it is. So we the taxpayers pay any damages, not the pharma companies."

Doug: Right. Which completely gets rid of any incentive they have for actually making them safe, particularly if it's going to cost them more money to do the safety testing and put it through the proper procedures. Because there's zero accountability, they have zero motivation to actually make them safe.

Rosemary: At the beginning of last year - I'll just mention this - I looked into the whole case of Dr. Andrew Wakefield. There's an excellent article on a website by health care practitioners and these PhDs about the Wakefield case. It's like, "Oh my god! He was framed! I really hadn't realized that!" If you read it it's clear. I read the BMJ article and I looked at the pathology reports. My dad's a pathologist. I grew up with this stuff. You can read it and you can see he was never accused of fraud. It's not true and he wasn't faking anything.

So now the whole campaign of going after him means that nobody can question. The rates of autism are skyrocketing but nobody's really looking into why except the people who are concerned about vaccines. But you're not supposed to question that. You're just supposed to say, "Oh it's okay that huge percentages of young people these days are compromised in terms of their neurological development and behaviour. And they're sicker than ever before and they get way more vaccines.

Doug: Yeah. I don't think it's a coincidence. They try to pass that off as "Our testing has gotten better and that's why you see these numbers going up" but it's nonsense. You just have to look around and open your eyes and you can see that there is something going on and it's not just because it's better identified.

Rosemary: And parents are smart. They do try not to vaccinate their kids. I don't know, but in France or in Ohio, parents who don't want to vaccinate their kids are sent to these vaccine education sessions which is so Orwellian. I don't have children but I went to one to listen and I audio recorded it. As I've mentioned earlier, I've written for pharma companies and I could tell right away this was pure pharma propaganda, this nice, soft music and these cartoon characters saying "Adverse events are one in a million" and "Formaldehyde occurs naturally in the body so if it's in vaccines it's okay because it occurs naturally."

It's unbelievable. It's so over the top and this is how they're educating people about vaccines?! Let's follow the money a little bit shall we?

Doug: Seriously. That's just a straight feat of propaganda, straight to the people who are resisting.

Rosemary: And of course and for disenfranchise people. They have these sessions not that often, they have them in fairly large halls but they limit the number of people who can go to each one to 50 so people have to take the time to be able to go to them, wait until there's a session available. Then of course they don't sign your exemption form right there. You then have to go to somebody to get your exemption form signed so this is totally an attack on the most disenfranchised, the poor. It's crimes upon crimes.

Doug: And they're still allowing for exemptions?

Rosemary: Yes, here.

Doug: I know in a lot of places that they're eliminating those. I think they've been eliminated in California if I'm not mistaken and a few other states I think.

Tiffany: And the kids can't go to school.

Rosemary: They just tried it in New Brunswick. We just have to resist and resist strongly and support people wherever they're pushing. I just helped somebody. She's going to court later this month because the father of her son wants her son fully vaccinated right away. She hasn't vaccinated her son. So I helped her by going through the literature and finding the best papers that are peer reviewed, don't involve animals, that are human studies and not small numbers. There are some solid papers including a paper published in May of this year comparing unvaccinated to vaccinated children.

Doug: Oh really?

Rosemary: Vaccinated children are sicker.

Doug: No kidding! I know there was a lot of talk in the community - I don't want to call them the anti-vaxxer community - vaccine skeptic community may be a better term but that there was a dearth of studies that actually did that where they took two populations, one vaccinated kids, one unvaccinated kids and compared them, which seems like the most obvious study that you would want to do to be able to determine these things, but I didn't realize that one had actually been done at this point.

Tiffany: Yeah, seems like it was just one though.

Rosemary: There was another one published not too long ago, I think 2017, but it in a journal called the Open Access Text and understandably, the lawyer for the woman who's fighting to keep her kid safe by not pommelling him with vaccines, said she wants just higher profile or more rigorously reviewed journals so I didn't include that one. And the FDA has admitted they've not done studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children. There's also such censorship at all sorts of levels. Journals promote the studies that that vaccines are safe and they don't really want to publish ones showing any harms of vaccines.

Doug: Well they did such an efficient job with Dr. Wakefield that I think they have completely scared off any but the most diligent, hard core scientist. I can't imagine that any of them would want to completely risk their reputation and their career by actually taking an honest look into vaccines at this point.

Rosemary: This woman I was helping sent me a video of a pediatrician in the states in November testifying about the dangers of vaccines. So personally, to be completely honest, I don't completely understand people who aren't willing to stand up and say, "We're harming thousands and thousands of children and we have a responsibility." We can retire it or whatever. Some of them surely can and say, "We have a duty, a responsibility to humankind to speak up." So I don't quite understand. I can see people worrying about paying their mortgages and sending their kids to school.

Doug: I guess that's what I'm thinking. You're absolutely right. To say that I understand is more like I understand people who are more concerned about that kind of stuff, somebody maybe who isn't driven to put that kind of thing out there maybe more than your average scientist has a choice of which direction he could go in wouldn't choose vaccines after seeing what happened. They're being dissuaded I guess is what I'm saying.

Rosemary: That's right. Dr. Wakefield actually had to leave the UK so that's a good point. You pay a very high price, you can, for speaking up. But more and more people I think are starting to because it's so bad out there now.

Doug: Absolutely.

Tiffany: I guess an argument can be made - and of course you'd have to ask Dr. Wakefield himself - if his life has improved or not after what happened to him. It seems like the example that was set by him probably got a lot of people who are more on the fence about vaccination to come over to the other side of truth, just based on what happened to him and how severely they cracked down on him. So in a way maybe his life has improved but I think that what happened probably opened up a lot of people's eyes whose eyes would remain closed otherwise. So in a way maybe it was a good thing.

Rosemary: I hope so. Apparently he just has a new documentary that came out called 1986 which was the year that the US legislation was passed saying that vaccine companies are completely indemnified from having to pay damages. So I'm looking forward to seeing his documentary.

Doug: Definitely.

Tiffany: Well speaking of obvious things that scientists could do, like when you were speaking about comparing vaccinated children to unvaccinated children, it seems like another obvious thing that scientists would do when it comes to the coronavirus is to see if they fulfill Koch's postulate. It seems that that has not been done and you wrote about that in your article as well Rosemary, on the fact checking.

Rosemary: Yes, with the Koch's postulates, you have to show that this pathogen occurs in every case in the disease in question - I'm just reading from my article that I co-wrote with Amory Devereau and it came out back on June 9th - they have to be present in every case of the disease and the causative microorganism occurs in no other disease. It can't be just a fortuitous or non-pathogenic parasite. It has to be the cause. It has to cause the disease.

Then a key one also is after being fully isolated from the body and grown in tissue culture or cloned, it can induce the disease in you and we show how these postulates have not been fulfilled. It doesn't seem to have been isolated and that when their article is talking about how the virus has fulfilled the Koch's postulates they say, "We've done the preliminary work and there's still more work to be done." You'd think this would be front and center saying, "Well we've done it and here's all the proof" but unfortunately there is no such thing.

Another pair of writers for OffGuardian wrote an article saying the same thing and they also said they approached all of the authors of the seminal early papers on isolation of the virus to say, "Well did you actually isolate an image?" They showed images of these viral particles and asked them, "Are those images of the isolated virus? The novel coronavirus?" And none of them said "We know it is." So it's a big red flag.

Doug: Yeah, seriously. As far as the coronavirus not being able to fulfill any of these postulates, because the first one - the pathogen occurs in every case of the disease in question - they're not really looking at that. You've gone into that before as well with the autopsies. The autopsies aren't being done, essentially and they're not actually looking to see, "Did this person actually die of what we think they died of?" They're just making an assumption.

Rosemary: Right. Autopsies were halted for a while. I think they've been started again, from the WHO basically that if somebody dies and has tested positive at some point for Covid or the novel coronavirus, they're deemed to have died of Covid. In my article about the Bulgarian pathologist, he said that pathologists everywhere are revolting against this because their job is to see the proof in the tissue and then put that on the death certificate. But even though they're not finding proof that these people have died of Covid, they're still forced to say that they died of Covid. He said we're just completely abandoning our responsibility, our ethics and people in a few years are going to be saying these guys were not doing their job because the tissues can be kept for decades, for hundreds of years so a person in a few years or many years in the future can look at the tissue and they'll see that there's no proof that these people died of Covid.

Doug: The more you look into it the more you realize that it seems to be a game about just getting the numbers up. All that they want to do is just inflate these numbers so anybody who dies and is even suspected of having Covid and I forget which article it was that you wrote about it in, but it was that when they had changed how they were defining whether there was an outbreak, in Ontario I believe, they changed it to that they only had to have one symptom and when I read the list of symptoms my jaw just hit the floor!

It was diarrhea, nausea, falling down, headache. It's something that somebody who's working in a nursing home is going to be seeing every day. Suddenly one of those symptoms means that they have Covid. It's just unbelievable! And then if they die then they died of Covid.

Rosemary: I document in my article how they say, "Oh you've got Covid. You've got the sniffles. You've got Covid. We have to put you into palliative care." Then they would die a few days later from dehydration and if they get some kind of serious illness they're not allowed to go to the hospital. Federal guidelines said you shouldn't transfer older people from long-term care homes into hospital because we need to keep room for all these hundreds of people who are going to be flooding the hospital which never happened in the vast majority of jurisdictions.

Also a paper from the New England Journal of Medicine came out in the middle of March. It was triaging guidelines and the lead author is Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel who, as pointed out by James Corbett who, has been tracking the career and eugenics bent of Dr. Ezekiel, what they're trying to do is reduce the population, reduce the number of old people. So, "Let's not give them care. Let's not allow them to go to hospital. Younger people should take precedence." And the Canadians used those guidelines as well. The Canadian Medical Association said, "We don't have time to produce our own guidelines for triage and care. Let's follow the New England Journal of Medicine."

Let's face it, the government benefits and so do corporations, when people die at a younger age, when there are fewer old people. Old people don't contribute as much in the tax base because they're not working, getting an income except from their investments or their pensions and also the pension plans save money because it's expensive to pay people's pensions. And of course corporations pay billions of dollars. {laughter} These are huge liabilities on the balance sheet of corporations to have to pay these pensions and pensions are expensive, at least the old ones that are defined benefits.

So there's many reasons to surmise that the government benefits from getting rid of old people.

Doug: It seems like a convenient way for them to just push them aside, get rid of the old people which is disgusting to think about.

Tiffany: Well it sounds like state sponsored euthanasia to me.

Doug: Yeah.

Tiffany: That was typically one of the fears that people bring up when they're talking about whether there should be socialized medicine or not. When they have this debate they're saying, "Okay, well who's to say that there won't be death panels or older people won't be pushed out of the system and eventually left to die because of socialized medicine?" And then the coronavirus comes along and here we are. We have old people being left to die in nursing homes.

Rosemary: It's happening all over the world. People have sent me information. I hope that's going to be one of my next articles - how this is happening. It's happening in Sweden. It's happening in Italy. It's happening in the UK.

Tiffany: If anybody wants to check out Rosemary's article, Were Conditions for High Death Rates at Care Home Created on Purpose, it's a really excellent article so check that out.

Doug: There was also the do not resuscitate orders as well. I think it was in the UK where they were forcing these 'do not resuscitate' orders on people?

Rosemary: In the UK. I talked about here in Canada how they sat down with a family and said, "You really should have a DNR" so it was pretty widespread. It's suspicious as hell.

Doug: It definitely is. That's two benefits. You get rid of the old people who are a drain on the system and you bump up the Covid numbers and increase the fear. It's win-win.

Tiffany: Yet, if you don't wear your mask you're going to kill grandma but what's happening in nursing homes really shows how people really feel about grandma I guess.

Doug: Or how they feel about your grandma anyway.

Tiffany: Yeah.

Rosemary: Now they're just driving us towards compliance with everything. If you don't wear a mask or even if you have a medical exemption, for example and you don't wear a mask, people are being refused - I've got a legitimate medical exemption. I was just on holiday and I was kicked out of the hotel because I wouldn't wear a mask even though I have a medical exemption against it.

Doug: They actually kicked you out.

Rosemary: They're violating people's human rights. They did. So I'll be writing about that. I'll probably be filing a human rights complaint. It's unbelievable! There are reasons there are exemptions because it compromises many people's psychological and physical health by forcing them to wear masks so there are reasons there are exemptions. Those exemptions are being ignored.

Doug: And where does a hotel manager get off not recognizing a medical exemption?

Rosemary: Oh he flipped out. The psyop on these people has totally worked. They're really afraid.

Doug: It really has.

Rosemary: And he said, "Your rights don't matter! Your health doesn't matter and that's okay that we can tell you that your rights and your wellbeing don't matter." It's pretty bad!

Doug: It's really bad. It's really bad. In one way it's incredibly disappointing to see how many people have completely rolled over to this mask thing, given up any semblance of rights or anything like that. Not just giving it up and going along with it but the zealousness of some of them about enforcing it! A hotel manager, a manager in a store who's screeching at people to put their masks on. I find it very disheartening.

Rosemary: They seem to have thought of all of the different angles. They've got people who are usually very skeptical but somehow they've gotten through that chink in their armour because they're afraid of viruses I guess. They've found people's blind spots and gone for that. It's subtle enough but strong enough to have gotten a lot of people.

Doug: They're using the same one again that they used with the vaccines; the guilt thing 'because you're not doing this you're putting me at risk or you're putting other people at risk'. So they're really tugging at people's empathy. It's like, "I don't want to get a vaccine but I'll get it because I don't want to put other people in danger". And they do the same thing with the mask. "You're not wearing a mask. You're putting me in danger. You're putting the rest of the community in danger. You're not being a team players" and isolating people in their decisions.

I think that's one that they play on big time, just the guilt, just absolutely guilt people. A person thinks, do I want to be perceived as this pariah or do I just want to wear a mask. I guess at the end of the day they're just going to wear a mask unless people who really see through it all and can stand up for themselves and say, "No. Forget it. I'm not doing this," choosing your battles obviously but taking a stand in some way, shape or form.

Rosemary: And the implications are ginormous of compliance. So if we don't raise our head and say no at this stage! They've already got us in the palm of their hand and they're crushing us. There's too big a price to pay for compliance. There's too much control they're exerting over our lives and too much surveillance. So that in itself is a reason to stand up and say no.

Tiffany: I think there have been some pockets of resistance in various places all over the world. You've seen people going out protesting against the lockdowns or mask wearing. I think there is a little bit of hope and I think that with this vaccine, especially if they make it mandatory or I say otherwise mandatory where they don't actually force you to take an injection but they make your life so difficult to make you want to take the injection, I think they might overstep. I can only hope that people will finally wake up when the vaccines start to roll out and things really, really get bad. Hopefully things will change then but I don't know what it will take. It doesn't even have to be everybody. It could just be a third of the people in the world that say, "No! We're not doing this!" Maybe other people will come onboard. But I think that they are going to overstep in some way and there's going to be a gigantic backlash.

Rosemary: Most people I talk to are not comfortable taking the vaccine so that's heartening. They've not fooled that many people when it comes to the vaccine.

Doug: I think they actually made a mistake making Bill Gates their front guy for the whole thing because that guy is not trustworthy. He can wear as many nice sweaters as he wants to wear, but he comes across as creepy, to me anyway. He comes across as creepy. So I think a lot of people, even if they might have been rather indifferent to the idea of the vaccine, are thinking why is this guy pushing it so hard? He has this creepiness about him. Anyway.

Rosemary: Like in the video about him revealing the reasons for the lockdowns. He says, "Well a lot of people are going to be suffering economically" and there's this huge smile on his face when he's saying that. That's a bit of a clue that this guy is a sociopath.

Doug: I think that's definitely the case.

Tiffany: So for you Rosemary, what are some future projects that you have coming down the pipeline? Are you working on anything that we should keep an eye out for?

Rosemary: Yes. I'll be writing about how people were euthanized in seniors homes in different countries in the world and I'll be writing another article about how people who have been in put in charge of helping set up conditions for euthanasia of people in seniors homes were rewarded by getting promoted and having more power during this Covid era. Those are the two that are on my front burner right now.

Tiffany: Wow!

Doug: I'll ask you this question maybe just as a last question for you Rosemary. I asked the same one to James Corbett. Do you still have hope that this is going to - I don't know - blow over or be exposed and people will rise up or anything? What gets you out of bed in the morning? {laughter}

Rosemary: Well I think the search for truth on some spiritual level. We have to stand up for truth whatever the consequences. Even if you don't see a lot of people around you, we don't have much choice. Even if you don't see a lot of people around you standing up and speaking out, you still have a responsibility to do so. I think there are a lot of people who feel the same way so that certainly is on the largest scope of things, is almost eternal hope. I'm not religious but it's in our beings to follow the path of doing the right thing. So there's many, many, many people who feel that way. So by doing what you're doing and what I'm doing and what hundreds of thousands of other people are doing, speaking out, that's going to persist in more and more people waking up.

Tiffany: Ultimately good will prevail over evil.

Doug: I'd like to believe so.

Tiffany: The path there may not be pretty.

Rosemary So that gives you hope too, it sounds like.

Tiffany: Yeah.

Doug: Well that's great. Thanks very much for joining us Rosemary. It's really great to get the word out there. People need to read your articles because they are very informative and very good.

Rosemary: Thanks very much. Thanks Doug and thanks Tiffany. It's been nice hearing your views as well. It's not just a one way exchange.

Doug: Thanks to all our viewers for watching. Be sure to join us next time on the next episode and we will see you next time. Bye everybody.

Tiffany: Bye.

Rosemary: Thanks.