O:H hearder denis rancourt
On this episode of Objective:Health we talk to Professor Denis Rancourt, author of over 100 scientific research papers in the diverse areas of physics, chemistry, geology, materials science, soil science, and environmental science. Dr. Rancourt has made fundamental scientific discoveries in the areas of environmental science, measurement science, soil science, bio-geochemistry, theoretical physics, alloy physics, magnetism, and planetary science.

Recently Dr. Rancourt has turned his attention to the science behind the Covid fiasco. He speaks to us today about his recent research and what he's been able to dig up looking into the all-cause mortality figures. His conclusions are rather stunning!

He also talks about what the research says about masks (spoiler alert: they don't work), and ties the entire Covid episode to geopolitics and the ongoing gloablist agenda. You don't want to miss this one!

You can find Denis on:

Twitter - @denisrancourt
Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/DenisRan...

Papers and Articles by or featuring Denis: And check us out on Brighteon and LBRY.tv!

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: 01:01:54

Download: MP3 — 56.7 MB

Here's the transcript of the show:

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

Tiffany: Hello.

Doug: And in the background our tech guy Damian. And with us today we have a very special interview with Professor Denis Rancourt. Denis Rancourt was a professor of physics at the University of Ottawa for 23 years, attaining the highest academic rank of tenured full professor. Dr. Rancourt has been invited as plenary keynote or special session speaker at major scientific conferences some 40 times. He has published over 100 research papers in leading peer-reviewed scientific journals in areas of physics, chemistry, geology, material science, soil science and environmental science. He has made fundamental scientific discoveries in the areas of environmental science, measurement science, soil science, biogeochemistry, theoretical physics, alloy physics, magnetism and planetary science.

Since 2014 Dr. Rancourt has been a researcher at the Ontario Civil Liberties Association. He is a frequent media commentator with recent notable appearances on Mercola.com and Digidebates. You can also find a number of his articles and papers re-published on SOTT.net. Professor Rancourt, thank you very much for joining us today.

Denis: It's a pleasure to be here with you guys, Doug and Tiffany. It's a pleasure to be here.

Doug: Maybe if our audience is familiar with you at all they're probably familiar with a lot of the work that you've been publishing and video appearances you've been doing about masks and the hard science on masks and debunking a lot of the narratives that have been going around on that. We might have a chance to get into some of that stuff later in the show, but I think to start with we were going to talk more about your more recent research on all cause mortality and looking at the numbers and what it actually tells us about what's really going on here with this whole Covid episode.

So maybe you can enlighten our viewers a little bit here on what you've been working on.

Denis: Okay. You're right. I'm more known for the masks. The masks work has been read millions of times and there's been a lot of interviews about it and so on. But I think what's more vitally important is what really happened. What has been this covid episode and how can we be sure of our understanding and our interpretations of what really just happened and is still unfolding?

So I've been concentrating on that and as a scientist I first looked at, 'well how can you tell'? If this is truly a virulent pathogen and we're in the middle of a pandemic there should be deaths. Let's agree on that. So let's look at deaths. It turns out you can't look at deaths that are attributed to have a certain cause because there's too much bias and politics in attributing the cause of death. Epidemiologists have known this forever. That's why they look at all cause mortality and especially in the mid-latitude countries that have what you might call a proper winter. All cause mortality is very cyclical. There's a large amplitude cyclical variation. It's much higher in the winter than in the summer. So we need to look at that data.

I guess by studying this I'm really reading a lot of the scientific papers and I'm really an expert reader about science and I really know measurement techniques. I used to teach at the graduate level all the different kinds of measurement methods that exist in science and how to use them and how you do error calculation and how you propagate error and statistics and I've written a research paper on bayesian statistics and so on.

So I know how to read science and looking at this and what I'm finding is that the virologists are having tunnel vision. They think in terms of the molecular mechanism of infection by a new strain of a virus and they're very limited in their outlook in this way whereas the epidemiologists have a much broader perspective and they look at population dynamics. They look at the death and the spread of a disease in a population. So they're using geographical and historical concepts and they have a much broader understanding of what's going on I find.

Then also, the medical researchers and biologists and the people who are really concerned about health and survival and treatment know a lot more about the human body and how it responds to disease than do the virologists per se in their little specialization. For example, it's really well known that psychological stress is a huge determinative factor in whether or not you're going to be particularly vulnerable to a viral respiratory disease. This is completely determined and these are not subtle effects.

A professor Cohen has been working on this for 35 years and he has demonstrated with rigorous experiments that people, depending on the level of psychological stress that they're being subjected to in their lives, that they're feeling, will be far more susceptible to being violently attacked by a given virus that is around than if you're not being subjected to this stress. Then there's the additional layer that the effect of stress on diseases and this particular disease as well, is even greater if you're elderly.

So elderly people - and there's more and more science, but not enough science on this particular point - but there's more and more science showing that the stress as a liability is much, much higher for an elderly person than for a not-so-elderly person. So these are real, scientific health factors that the virologists ignore. They think in terms of virulence of the particular strain of the virus and they have a very limited view in those terms.

So I'm starting to see the big picture in this way. When you look at the history of deaths, as I said it's cyclical. I had prepared a slide, slide 2 I think in the PowerPoint. Let's go to slide 1 first. You guys there?

Doug: Yeah, yeah. Just one second.

Denis: Okay, no problem. I want to show you some figures from this latest paper that I did in collaboration with two co-authors, two scientists, Marine Baudin and Jérémie Mercier. It's entitled Evaluation of the Virulence of Sars-CoV-2 in France from All Cause Mortality 1946-2020. We also looked at the United States and Canada as comparison points. I think this is our most recent paper.

Now if we go to slide 2 it shows you all cause mortality as a function of time on a bi-month basis for France from 1946 to the present. You see these peaks and the peaks occur in the winter and they vary widely from winter-to-winter because the total amount of deaths in a given winter can vary a lot. They used to vary more when general health level in the population after the Second World War was not so good and as mortality dropped and general health status increased, the variation from winter-to-winter is not as big as it used to be and we get into the latest years there, like that.

Now if we go to the next slide, there's a blow-up of the latest years and what you see therefore - we're looking at 1994 to the present basically - so you see two anomalous peaks that I'm pointing out here in this thing. One is in August 2003. There was a huge heatwave that hit Europe and France, particularly in Paris and killed some 15,000 elderly people who were vulnerable to having their systems more affected by this heatwave than others.

So that peak shows up in a very unusual place in terms of the usual cycle. It shows up in August, that first arrow. All the other peaks are the usual winter burden peaks. They're centered usually on the beginning of January and they last many weeks and you go down to a trough in the summer and those troughs are pretty much at the same place and their height, if you like, in terms of numbers of deaths per month, varies very gradually compared to the heights of the winter peaks.

So the next anomaly is what we have been calling the Covid peak and that's the other arrow there, which is a very sharp peak that occurs later in this cycle than has ever occurred in all the data that we have for all the countries that we have. There has never been a sharp peak like this that happens so late in the cycle of these deaths and it happens synchronously. You can turn off the graph now if you want for a minute.

So this so-called Covid peak is unusual because it's very narrow. It only lasts for four or so weeks in terms of its half maximum. It full widths at half maximum and it happens very late in the cycle. So it happens synchronously at the same time everywhere where it does occur, which is it starts to shoot up immediately after the pandemic was declared by the World Health Organization. This is quite remarkable. The other remarkable thing about this peak is that it is completely absent in some jurisdictions, in some countries, even if they're geographically right next to another jurisdiction. That peak can be completely absent or it can be very intense, very large. It can vary in its relative intensity from country to country or jurisdiction to jurisdiction or state to state in the United States.

So this is a clear sign. If we go to one of the next graphs, slide No. 5, I want to show you more of these all cause mortality cycles for recent years. This is for two provinces in Canada. We've got Ontario on top there and Quebec at the bottom in a darker line and we see this very sharp Covid peak at the very end there, you see that. You'll notice that the two curves are fingerprints of each other. These are the two most populous provinces and they're side by side geographically in Canada. They're very similar in many regards and their epidemiology fingerprint if you like, all cause mortality on a by-week basis is just the same except when you get to this so-called Covid peak which is this very sharp feature that is very high in Quebec and not so high in Ontario, okay? None of the other features in the curve are that dramatically different in intensity but this peak can be completely absent or very intense.

So those features combined, the fact that it's so light in the cycle, that it's synchronous everywhere with what the governments were doing because they were told to do so by the World Health Organization and that it can be absent or not from one jurisdiction to another, led me to conclude in a first paper about this that those mortalities had to be due to the interventions that were occurring, not an uninterrupted normal evolution of a viral respiratory disease.

Just to give you a sense for how variable that so-called Covid peak is, we go to slide 6 now. Slide 6 is a map of the United States where we have looked at these curves for each of the states in the United States and we looked to see if there was the presence of a Covid peak, whether it was intense or whether it was completely absent. What we find is in the green and dark green there is no Covid peak. There is no anomaly in the all-cause mortality. That feature's just not there whereas in the light grey to dark grey states you have the anomaly and the darker grey you are the more intense it is, such as in the state of New York.

So it's dramatically different even though these states are side by side or for the same nation and so on. So that peak, I came to conclude, is artificial. We can take the slide down now if you want. So that's an artificial peak that tells us that something very unusual has occurred. My co-authors and I started researching and I earlier on as well, what could have caused this sudden acceleration of deaths that then crashes very quickly that gives you this very narrow peak at that time. We've come to believe that if you close in and isolate elderly people in their care homes and you don't allow them to see their families or any visitors - in a lot of cases they can't even get out of bed, they can't even meet each other, they can't even walk around in the halls - you basically put them in a very confined isolation and the staff are stressed out wearing rubber gloves and masks and so on and if they have access to the media it's all about this deadly pandemic.

So you're going to be inducing extreme psychological stress on these elderly people that is going to make them more susceptible than ever to being highly affected by any seasonal virus of this time that causes a respiratory disease and in addition to that you've closed the institutions so you're not allowing the air to circulate. You're not opening the windows or doors so the aerosol particles that transmit this disease are in suspension in the air. They're part of the fluid air and they're maintained in the building.

So eventually with any infected person it'll spread to everyone, especially if you're not aerating the place and so on. Those situations would have caused an extremely high number of deaths in those institutions. That's our conclusion. I could compare Sweden with its neighbours Finland and Norway. Maybe we could show the map that I had planned. So you've got Sweden in the middle. You've got the sequence there, Norway, Sweden and Finland that are right there, side by side, very similar countries.

It turns out that Sweden has a Covid peak, a reasonably strong Covid peak and the other two countries on either side do not at all have this feature. So what happened? Naively you might think, "Well Sweden did not have a lock down so there you go!" Actually we believe that that is not what happened. What we think is that it's not about the general population lockdown whether or not you're going to have a lot of deaths in this Covid peak but it's about how you treat your elderly and what the structure of the care homes is like in the jurisdiction and what's the population in those care homes when you lock them in like this.

So that's what we're finding. That's what determined how many of these elderly were killed in this way within that sharp Covid peak. So Sweden has double the population of the other two countries, is more urbanized. We're looking into this now but the first look at the information is that there's a more extended large care homes facilities network and they did isolate their elderly in this way and government officials have said that they did not do the best they could with their elderly people.

So it has nothing to do with masks and general population lockdown and everything to do with locking in and causing psychological stress in the elderly, we believe. That's the conclusion we're coming to.

Now having said all that, I should add that even when you integrate all the deaths in that sharp Covid peak, if you look at the total winter deaths including the Covid peak, it's not so much greater than you normally would have, even in the jurisdictions that have fairly large Covid peaks. So no matter how you slice it, this was not a very virulent pathogen. I'd like to demonstrate that with my final slide which is slide 13 in the PowerPoint presentation there and this is for France again.

What I've graphed here is the winter burden mortality, so the integrated deaths during the winter, as a percentage of the total mortality for that cycle year as a function of time, starting in 1946 to the present. You see the very last point there is this recent cycle and it is barely noticeable. Statistically it is not significantly higher than what has been happening for the last 10 years or more. There used to be more variations after the Second World War, very intense variations and there are these oscillations from year to year because if I may use the word cull, many of the vulnerable people in a particular winter then there are less vulnerable people that can die in the following winter and so on, you can start to interpret and understand these things. Then in the latter decade or so the variations are not as great and you can see there that even including the quite large Covid peak that occurred in France - France is one of the five European countries said to be most hit by Covid 19 - the overall mortality is not statistically different than it typically is and that is the general rule everywhere.

So a meteorite didn't hit the earth. The black plague did not invade humanity. Nothing like that happened. No matter what people did. But there is that sharp Covid peak which is a clear signature of institutionally causing deaths of elderly people in care homes we believe. So that's the conclusion of our research up to now and we're continuing this research in detail with each of the European countries, Canada and the United States. That's where we're at.

So I'm sorry to report that jurisdictions have literally caused the deaths by the way that they enforced their treatment of elderly people in many, many jurisdictions. That's what happened.

Doug: Wow! So you're saying that this isn't an unusual killer virus in some way. There was no plague. Basically the consequence of treating it like it was is what actually led to the deaths.

Denis: Yes, isolating the people like they did. Treatment is another story. There's some extra deaths because they used ventilators in hospitals and things like that but those are additional effects and they're very serious. Whenever the state or the medical establishment kills a person when it didn't need to, it's a terrible thing. But I believe even though they're large numbers, they're relatively small compared to the mass of deaths that occurred in that Covid peak. In France it's some 30,200 people that we can quantify with accuracy that are part of this Covid peak mortality that would have been killed in this way.

That's right. There was not a specific virus that was particularly virulent. And also from winter to winter there are many viruses acting all the time simultaneously. Whenever patients who are ill are analyzed for what's infecting them, researchers typically find a host of several viruses that they can detect that are co-active and co-infecting the person. So the virologists' cartoon view that there's a new strain all of a sudden and that that is the thing causing the deaths in this winter season and so on, is a cartoonish view of things. Actually there are hundreds of viruses that live within our bodies constantly, that are constantly evolving, that are constantly there and this winter burden mortality is largely a result of this coexistence between viruses that cause these respiratory diseases and us as humans and it's been there forever and we've co-evolved with it.

And there are many science researchers that have argued that this coexistence is important, that we need to keep educating our immune system, that we need to keep fine tuning and co-evolving our immune system because these viruses and also microbes of all kinds mutate quickly. They evolve quickly and so we have to keep up. It is kind of a crazy suicidal mission to try to live in a sterile environment. There is science that argues very, very convincingly that sterile environments in urban centers are causing us as a species, a lot of trouble.

Doug: Yeah.

Tiffany: Considering your research, have you noticed any positive effects, any changes either on the local or the countrywide level on any policies as far as the whole lockdown goes concerning nursing home residents? Have you noticed that anyone has actually heeded the research?

Denis: There are some small things happening. For example 239 scientists wrote a letter and published it as a paper also, to the World Health Organization, telling them, "Please stop. The transmission mechanism is not limited to droplets and contact surfaces. Please stop being so ridiculous." They didn't say it in these words {laughter} but that's basically what it meant. They said "You have to consider aerosol particles. You know, those really fine particles that are in suspension in the air and that don't settle and that are part of the fluid air and that you can't stop with a mask and that you can't stop in any way and that they completely fill the volume in institutions and places where there are people. You know. You have to consider that World Health Organization and please do. Here we are, a bunch of experts in many different fields and we've come to that conclusion. So if you really want to do something to help vulnerable people and the elderly", basically this is what they said, "You have to think about how to ventilate these buildings."

And they drew pictures about why ventilation is important and so on. And in that entire article which was extremely authoritative, they didn't once mention masks. I think that that's not an accident. Masks are useless in a disease that is transmitted by fine aerosol particles that are completely in suspension in air. I've written a lot about this but when you wear a mask, it's never perfect. There is never a complete seal with your face. There is always a low impedance route for the air to come in and out and one of these aerosol particles is enough, probability-wise, to infect you.

So this idea that if you reduce the number of droplets that are being spit out by people that you're reducing the load and that therefore people are less likely to get the disease, is complete nonsense because the infectious dose is so small that it's not a question of being proportional to the number of droplets that people are spitting out. If there's aerosol particles in the air, there's lots of them, any one can infect you in a probabilistic way therefore there is not this relationship between load as imagined by them in terms of droplets, and chance of being infected. That's just a nonsensical, non-scientific invention.

That brings us into the work I've been doing on masks. So basically there's that realization that the air management in buildings is important in terms of transmission and there is some talk, more and more, about the importance of psychological stress. For example, Professor Cohen that I mentioned earlier, wrote a review of his work in the context of Covid 19 that was published recently and reemphasized how important psychological stress and also social isolation are in terms of disease and this particular disease in particular.

So there's a little bit of an opening. These people are getting that work published but it's in an ocean of often useless and stupid writings {laughter} unfortunately. So scientists are building their careers. They see it as a bonanza that they can publish papers quickly as soon as there's Covid-19 in the title. There's a lot of quick stuff that's being said, just going along. If you have a nice phrase like 'the vaccine will save us' or 'of course the best way to solve this is with a vaccine' then of course you're just going to sail through.

Have there been positive things? I think one of the positive things is that the governments have gone so far and this is so insane and so reckless and it was so murderous that some people are noticing and have noticed and those people who have seen this can't forget it and they're not going to drop it. They're going to find every occasion they can to bring this up to try to get it corrected. It's literally a crime against humanity, what was done on a global scale and many people, many researchers, many observers have noticed and have taken note and are angry about it. So there is a lot of that in the background and hopefully that will be enough to change policies and disarm the World Health Organization that is funded by huge private capital and disarm a lot of this propaganda as well if we can start to demonstrate how ridiculous this propaganda is.

I wrote a paper just on the propaganda related to masks where all the health officials will say there is growing evidence that masks help. I wrote an article just on that little mantra that they keep repeating. Okay, what is the growing evidence you're talking about? Where is it? What is it? It's a complete lie. All the randomized control trials of verified outcome - and more of them are coming out - in the last decade have all consistently shown that there is no measurable, detectible advantage in terms of reducing risk of getting a respiratory disease by wearing a mask versus not wearing a mask. It's uniform.

So yeah, some of those papers might say it might still be a good idea to wear masks after they have rigorously concluded from their randomized control trials that there's no detectable advantage. Yeah that's true, but that doesn't mean that their data is any different from having demonstrated that there's no measurable advantage.

It's sad, but one of the only benefits of all this is that it's so insane that some people have noticed and have been very perturbed by how insane it all is.

Doug: Unfortunately it seems that it's still the minority though.

Denis: Yeah, it is a minority but it's a very determined minority. It's one that is demonstrating in the streets more and more. The rallies and the protests are bigger and bigger. I was at the protest in Ottawa recently. There were 4,000 people. The mainstream media said 500. Well I know what 500 looks like. {laughter} I've taught in auditoriums where there were 500 students. I know what 500 is. There was more like 4,000-5,000 people present on Parliament Hill. They completely filled the space. The CBC is out to lunch. Maybe they were there just at the beginning as people were arriving and took a quick count and then went away. They certainly didn't report on what happened there because the speeches were amazing.

So there are more and more people who are organizing and speaking out. I think there is a large silent majority of people. I don't know if it's a majority but there's a large silent fraction that understand that the whole masking thing is a bit crazy, makes no sense, that it makes no sense that they lost their job, that it makes no sense that the government keeps insisting and repeating this nonsense that you constantly hear. Propaganda backfires when you have to say it too much, when you have to insist too much, when you have to keep inventing new mantras. It starts to backfire after a while and I think that's happening to a large degree. I hope that there will be a turnaround point and that some politicians will be able to take advantage of it and recruit people as political followers that are these people who are more suspicious of the propaganda and so on. So I hope that that will play a role and it will turn this thing back.

There is an example of this kind of propaganda that has been turned back in recent history. For example, globalization is the solution to everything. If you have globalization everyone on the planet will be healthy and wealthy. That's been the mantra of all the financial influencers, the global influencers and it's been on the lips of all our politicians and everything. 'We have to globalize, globalize' and so on and that eventually led to 'we have to save the planet from carbon' and so on.

Well it's gone too far and the result is that there are now strong political movements that want to make the national economy strong again, that want to bring back the democracy that exists in a nation country, that want to not follow these global mantras and so on. So we saw that with Brexit and the Yellow Vests and Trump and movements like that. So you can see that even these extremely well oiled and well funded propaganda campaigns can fail because people know that this plan is not helping them. In fact they're hurting more and more.

So political movements that oppose these global campaigns start to develop. We've seen it before. We've seen it recently and it can happen again with what I would call a health dictatorship. We can see it happening again. I hope that that's what will happen. But I can tell you that it's not going to happen as a gradual process. My guess is it will be a non-linear phase transition in a sense. [chuckles] That's what a physicist would say. It will be very sudden. There'll be kind of a collapsing domino effect and all of a sudden it will not be cool for politicians to say that we should listen to the World Health Organization and so on. It'll kind of disappear because stronger political parties that are not aligned with these schemes will have too much influence that you just can't go there anymore.

So I think there will be some non-linear reactions eventually but right now we're in the middle of an ocean of propaganda.

Tiffany: Well that was actually going to be my next question to you, what were your thoughts on how all of this will play out so it's good to hear that you do have some hope that eventually things will snap back. We talked about this on some of our other shows regarding Covid. Do you have any more Covid-related research in the works?

Denis: Oh yeah, like I said we have streams of research in the works. There's some research that is examining why yearly mortality has started increasing and has been continuously increasing in many, many countries starting in 2008 after the last big financial restructuring and crash and everything. So we've observed that in a lot of the data and we're looking into why that is. Can a baby boom effect be ruled out? We believe so, that it cannot be explained by the pyramid of ages and so on. So we're looking into that.

We're doing a special on just Sweden and its neighbours. I alluded to that earlier. We want to do a special on Canada because you can compare province to province and it's really fascinating what you see there. And we're doing a big special on the United States because the differences from jurisdiction to jurisdiction there are really stunning. It also gives you a baseline to see what typically the winter burden mortality is, really, and in what bounds it statistically lies and has lied for decades. Unless you've got something that gets you out of that distribution of normalcy, even though it is death, it is normal deaths, then you can't talk about a particularly virulent pathogen.

So we're developing all of those concepts and our method of analysis of the epidemiological data is more advanced, I believe, than what epidemiologists have been doing so far because epidemiologists have been using a sinusoidal variation of that cycle which we argue is incorrect because the shape is not sinusoidal and the sinusoidal doesn't capture a true background that would exclude the viral respiratory disease fractions. So we have developed an analysis where we analyze in terms of winter burden deaths where we can show that the summer troughs vary very regularly and that it is everything above the summer trough that should be counted and that you cannot discriminate what's happening within that winter burden, that it's virtually impossible to do so mathematically.

So we adopt an interpretation of that type and we find that the numbers that come out are less susceptible to air, are robust basically and can really be looked at and their statistics can be studied. So we're just moving forward. We're just going as fast as we can trying to get this research out.

Doug: That's great. I have a question that's kind of more of an opinion type of question. When you look at this, from the big picture, looking at everything that has happened and really digging into the research and actually seeing the numbers and that sort of thing, do you think that this was just a comedy of errors where it was one mistake after another, people overreacting to different things or do you see some kind of purpose in this? Something nefarious?

Denis: Well my vision - thanks for that question - my vision of that question is based on my research on geopolitics. I wrote a large paper which we haven't talked about, which was about the geopolitics of globalization since the Second World War. There were two major events that happened. One was the US unanimously opted out of the Bretton Woods Agreement in the early 1970s and that transformed the world. That was the first big cycle of globalization controlled by western powers centered in the United States.

Then the next really huge acceleration of globalization occurred at the point where the Soviet Union disintegrated, so the early 1990s, 1992 roughly. The early 1990s was the next big turning point in this so-called globalization which means financial and resource globalization. That second cycle was huge. We have studied it in detail and looked at all kinds of data that shows that big turning point and also the official documents of the United Nations and of various state legislatures and so on. I wrote a big paper about that and what we found was that in addition to this really aggressive globalization in terms of monopolizing the big corporations and the big financial interests and so on and really bringing the world that could be controlled by the US-centered enterprise into alignment and being even more vicious than previously regarding the allies - so Japan, Europe and so on - it was also accompanied by ideological newness.

So at the same time in the early 1990s you had an environmental movement that was born out of thin air where there were these global conferences, the Earth Day and so on, that started telling us that carbon was going to destroy the planet.

Doug: Right.

Denis: And at the same time you had NGOs which are these private money-funded non-democratic entities, acquire the status of a person with rights and assay at the UN. This happened at the same time. And at the same time you had gender equity that became something disproportionate in the sense that it was not about where children were being killed in wars and were being brought in as soldiers and were being used as sex slaves, it was that female children were being exploited in this way and the UN became all about the female child being exploited in this way around the world. What became important was that you had to have as many female senate members as male senate members and that became the new kind of thing and that led to a new wave of feminism that became really important and overtook a lot of academia.

And at the same time, at the very same time - and each had its own international conference that happened in the early 1990s - was the anti-racism movement, but a new kind of anti-racism movement. So it was no longer about 'you can't have discrimination, you can't exploit weaker countries, you can't exploit entire regions just because you have a military presence there', it was no longer about those kinds of really big and vile exploitations. It became equally about racism in the language, racism in thought and attitude and academia was geared in that same direction led by the UN.

So racism became racism of thought. It was no longer primarily stopping the actual mega crimes against humanity and stopping the actual physical harms that were happening. This all happened and you can follow it. I wrote a huge paper about this as one of the reports for the Ontario Civil Liberties Association which got covered in the alternative media quite a lot. So that is the context I understand this in and in that context, what has happened recently is that it's becoming more and more clear that China, with Russia and some others, Eurasia, is developing and is understanding that it needs to dissociate itself financially. It cannot be controlled by the US centered system. So it is standing up. That standing up is very real and is very strong and it's very regular and there is a rise.

So the world is going from being a hegemony to being at least a bipolar world, okay? And that is freaking out the US system and the mega financiers that manage a lot of how the world gets occupied. They are freaking out because the US dollar will no longer be the global currency which has been the mechanistic basis of that exploitation. So they're looking for something else and one of the big ways to solve this problem is to enforce a carbon economy and to have currency tied to carbon and to control that.

So that has explained the drive for this whole carbon madness. They're trying to create as many ties as they can to their currency and things that they want to be real in the world. See, they can't control energy like they used to. The problem with fossil fuels is there's way more of them than you can control on the planet, okay? So you've got Venezuela. You've got Russia. You've got Canada. You've got all these places that can discover more fossil fuels. China can buy coal and get coal and has coal. Coal and fossil fuel are extremely abundant on the planet so it's no longer a question of just controlling the Middle East. So the Middle East model is failing which is why Israel is nervous, I think also, and they should be.

They want to control it and they do things to control the price of fossil fuel. They don't want their competitors - Russia and Venezuela - to benefit from the high price of fossil fuel but they need a high price of fossil fuel to prop up the US dollar as a world currency. So what they need is they need as many tangible things or things made tangible that are tied to a currency that they control. So they want an e-currency that's tied to carbon. The US dollar has been tied to the opium trade which is why you have the occupation in Afghanistan, okay? That's a big part of propping up the dollar.

The other big thing that could prop up this e-currency that they're thinking of installing as the global currency would be a dependence on the pharmaceutical industry for health and survival. So if they can convince us that everyone must have one or several vaccines every year and it's a question of human survival and that all governments should be paying for this in that they should be enforcing this and that you need to have an electronic passport to prove that you have had your vaccines or else you cannot travel, cannot have a business, you cannot live basically in the world without this, then they have created yet another thing that they control, that they produce, that they sell, that gives value to their new e-currency.

So whatever global currency you want to install, it has to be tied to something that is believed to be real or that is real such as fossil fuel, opium, the armaments themselves. If you've got a racket like the US has had which is to sell overpriced military equipment, protection to the allies, then you've got a way to ensure that they need US dollars to buy that protection in the form of overpriced military equipment that often doesn't work.

So these are the rackets that sustain a global currency that in turn is the mechanism for global exploitation. So as long as they can keep China and Russia in line, as long as they can impose themselves financially in this way, they can continue to control the world. I think a lot of this is in play here and I think that vaccines and pharma, like genetically modified crops and so on, same kind of deal, all of these things are about controlling the world. That's my understanding of it.

Doug: So the whole Covid business was essentially just an extension of that.

Denis: Yeah.

Doug: Just a further enforcing...

Denis: One of many campaigns along those lines. You've got the global warming campaign which becomes the climate campaign. You've got all these campaigns and at the same time you're keeping all the professional and middle class managers of the empire preoccupied with antiracist language and gender equity in every workplace and whether or not our carbon footprint is too big. So you've got everybody ideologically aligned with that and it becomes okay to have a military campaign intervene to protect if someone wants to burn too much coal or not have gender equity or whatever. Then it becomes okay. Everything that the empire does in the world is seen through the filter of those glasses. So it's kind of a national religion for the empire to have this wonderful antiracist politically correct language and to be completely obsessed with that.

So it all kind of fits together in that way and it is social engineering and all our institutions participate in it and all our institutions follow the suggestions and directives of the United Nations and the World Health Organization because these institutions have traditionally been controlled. Now what has happened is that those finance centers are in competition with more nationalist industry in the United States. That's why you've got the republican/democrat battles and that's why you've got the Trump phenomenon. Trump's financial base, if you like, is more tied to the military and military armament industry which is domestic and also domestic fossil fuel production which is really big now in the United States.

So the national industry interests have been tied to Trump and that is a very real and important movement because it wants to ensure that the middle class in the United States is treated well and does well and that becomes the political basis for a nationalist Trump-like movement. So you've got an opposition between that and the truly globalized finance centers that are more tied to the CIA and so on, that don't care about the middle class in the United States or in any western country really. They only care about the professional and managerial classes that they need and complete control of everything.

So they made the mistake of ignoring the middle class too much, the working and middle class. So now we have this very real battle. I don't buy this thing that it's controlled opposition and that the democrats and the republicans presently are just two facets of the same thing. To some degree that's true, but to a large degree there's a very real political war going on and it's about these two very different visions of how can the empire be strong. Trump et. al. are saying you need a strong middle class, working class, you need the domestic culture and people and economy to be strong if you want to be a leader in the world and the globalists have forgotten that. They've forgotten that they need a base because they can live anywhere and they can just be well by taking care only of the elite circles as long as they control things.

That's the way I understand it. That's the way I see it.

Tiffany: Well thanks for that because we don't hear many people connecting the dots regarding Covid and the whole global agenda that is taking place right now. That's something that we try to do on this show but that was a pretty excellent answer.

Doug: Yeah, fantastic!

Denis: I've written a paper about globalization. I've written papers about Covid in a rigorous paper. Hello?

Doug: I think we lost you for a second.

Denis: Okay, sorry.

Doug: We heard you say you've written papers about...

Denis: I've written about and studied globalization and the history of it. I've written about and studied Covid and the masks and the virology, the epidemiology, but I never connected the two in a scientific paper. I never wrote it down and spelled it out, but you asked for my opinion so there it is. {laughter}

Doug: That was great! I don't know if I have any more questions. Tiff, did you have anything else that you wanted to ask?

Tiffany: Do you have a website or a place where all of your research is collated in one spot or where can our listeners find your research?

Denis: I wish. I should get a website or something. I have a blog that I've had for many years where I made a blog post listing all the links to my Covid-related research and that blog is activistteacher.blogspot.com. You'll probably find a list of links there. The place where I'm publishing most of this science stuff these days is ResearchGate. So almost everything is there except the one that they de-platformed because the mask don't work article which was so popular had 400,000 reads on ResearchGate, unseen before. They took it down and when I challenged them on it they said it was because it was being read too much. {laughter}

Tiffany: That's the whole point.

Denis: It's having too much influence. Basically that's what it meant and I made their letters to me public and that's been written about in the media and so on. But that's the only one that they've dared to de-platform. All my other scientific research is still on ResearchGate so the globalization paper's on ResearchGate. All the big, serious reports and scientific articles are on ResearchGate.

Doug: And I do have to definitely plug your twitter as well.

Denis: Oh yeah.

Doug: Because I was very impressed as I was scrolling through it. We could have been talking to you about climate change or Julian Assange or critical race theory or a whole number of different things. I thought, this guy is on point with everything. {laughter} So if you want a good twitter stream to follow, you're just DenisRancourt on there, right?

Denis: Yes.

Doug: Okay.

Denis: One word, DenisRancourt. That's right. I wrote critical pieces about critical race theory a decade ago. I was saying "This is obscene. This is crazy. This is not right." And I was not the only academic to say that. There have been some heavy duty academics who've said this is wrong. And I've reviewed their work and I've been writing about it and in my book - I only wrote one book about antiracism - I'm very critical of critical race theory. But then I was pleasantly surprised to see Trump deciding to explicitly defund critical race theory in universities and in institutions. I mean, I had a mini party when I saw that! {laughter}

I only understood how vile critical race theory is when I studied the history of geopolitics and when I saw how it was initiated and what it was tied to, like I reviewed earlier in the show here today.

Doug: That's great. And you have a YouTube channel as well.

Denis: I do, yup.

Doug: So people can find you. You do a number of commentary type videos there.

Denis: Yes.

Doug: And that also is just Denis Rancourt?

Denis: That's right. YouTube channel Denis Rancourt. And I have a playlist there of everything I could find where I'm being interviewed about Covid 19 or masks. So there's a playlist about Covid 19 on my YouTube channel. There's various things there. I don't have time to do very much of it because I'm giving my time to interviews and I'm happy to see other people doing that.

Doug: Well we're very glad that you did because this was great. Thank you very much for joining us today.

Denis: It was my pleasure Doug and Tiffany. It was really wonderful to be with you guys. I did all the talking but, hey! That's the way it goes. {laughter}

Doug: That's the best kind of guest. Okay thanks everybody for joining us today. Be sure to like and subscribe and we will be back next week with another exciting show. Talk to you soon.

Tiffany: Bye.