O:H header
You may remember the names Hervé Seligmann and Haim Yativ from a show we published March 9 called 'Holocaust 2.0: Vaccine Deaths on the Rise in Multiple Countries,' where they studied the epidemiological data coming out of Israel to conclude that the Pfizer vaccine was, in fact, causing a momentous increase in deaths. Now they're back with a new study called 'Expert evaluation on adverse effects of the Pfizer-COVID-19 vaccination,' and it's another bombshell.

The authors again take a look at data coming from mainstream sources (in this case two data sets released by the Israel Ministry of Health) to demonstrate that the data shows the exact opposite of what was publicized. By undergoing a cost-benefit analysis of the vaccines, taking into account adverse vaccine effects during the period of vaccination, the authors show a documented 3 and 20 fold increase in infection and death rates respectively!

Join us on this episode of Objective:Health as we dig into this study and more to get to the bottom of what's really happening with these Covid shots.

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
♥LBRY: https://lbry.tv/@objectivehealth:f
♥Odysee: https://odysee.com/@objectivehealth:f

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


Running Time: 00:44:06

Download: MP3 — 40.4 MB

Here is the transcript:

Doug: Hello and welcome to the Objective: Health show. I am your host for today, Doug and with me in the virtual studio are Elliot and Tiff.


Doug: And in the background as usual, holding it tight is Damian.

Damian: Hello.

Doug: On today's show we are going to be talking about covid vaccines for a change. We're talking about does the covid vaccine actually decrease your risk of getting covid or is it more likely to make you die either of covid or from the vaccine side effects, adverse events?

There was an article in the Guardian about a week ago and the headline was Most Covid Patients In East Lancashire Hospital Had The Jab Says Council Leader. The subtitle being, Stop Blaming Vaccine Hesitancy for Spread of India Covid Variant Says Mohammed Kahn. Basically what it's saying in the article is that most of the people who they have in their hospitals right now who have covid are people who have been vaccinated. He said it's six out of nine coronavirus patients in the region's hospital had received at least one jab.

So we see all this stuff about spikes and more covid cases coming out but it always gets blamed on the people who are avoiding the vaccine when it seems like in reality this is not actually the case. It doesn't seem like the covid jab is really protecting people from covid. There was another article from leoholmann.com and it says, Study: Third Wave of Sickness and Death Will Be Dominated By Those Who Have Been Fully Vaccinated. In that they're talking about a study where the authors actually did make that prediction, that we would be seeing the third wave be dominated by people who had already been vaccinated.

They quote the study here and they say, "The resurgence in both hospitalizations and death is dominated by those that have received two doses of the vaccine comprising around 60 and 70% of the wave respectively." They say, "This can be attributed to high levels of uptake in the most at-risk age groups such that immunization failures account for more serious illness than unvaccinated individuals."

So what they're saying is that the reason that you're seeing more of these deaths and more of these cases coming from people who have been vaccinated is because it's mostly the elderly and the sick who are being vaccinated so you would expect to see more of them actually being the victims of adverse events. But is that really what's going on there? I'd like to point out also that when the covid thing was going around and people were saying that the reason that people are dying is because these are people who are elderly and have co-morbidities and stuff like that. They were like, "No, no, no, that's not the case. This is a very deadly virus." But when it comes to the vaccine they say the opposite. "It's because these people have co-morbidities and because they're old." So it's kind of ironic.

Stephanie Seneff was recently interviewed by Dr. Mercola and in it she brought a study to our attention, to the readers' attention, that was called "Expert Evaluation on Adverse Effects of the Pfizer Covid-19 Vaccination". Now this study was done by two gentlemen by the names of Herve Seligmann and Hatim Yativ, two Israeli guys. Now you might recognize those names. You probably won't, but we did a show previously back in March that was called Holocaust 2.0. The basis for that show, at least we talked about it on that show, was a study done by these same two who were talking about the increase in deaths in Israel after the vaccination came out. They made a very persuasive argument that the vaccine was what was actually leading to these increases in deaths.

This article is yet another study, the same kind of analysis, analyzing data sets to look at what's really going on. Elliot, maybe you can give us a rundown of what they were talking about in this study.

Elliot: Of course. So it was pretty ground-breaking, some of the conclusions they've come to. They analyzed two data sets. One was from a study performed, I believe, by the Israeli Ministry of Health, is that correct?

Doug: Mm-hm.

Elliot: One was published by the Israeli Ministry of Health and another one was by a team of researchers from Clalit. I'm not sure where that is.

Doug: Clalit was an insurance company if I'm remembering correctly.

Elliot: Okay. They pulled together quite a lot of data and overall it's looking specifically at the mortality of individuals who have not had the vaccine, who've had the vaccine, how many people got covid, how many people died of other causes within a certain time frame after receiving the vaccine and could theoretically be related to an adverse event.

What they were trying to do in this article specifically was a cost benefit analysis. So essentially what they are looking for is what are the potential costs that are associated with a mass vaccination campaign. When we're talking about costs, they're not talking about economic costs. They're talking about the cost of life, so people dying, people being negatively affected, detrimental effects being exerted upon people's health due to a mass vaccination campaign. That's one thing. And the potential benefit that that is going to provide society at large in the long term, right?

So theoretically what they're trying to do is know whether it's worth continuing a mass vaccination campaign, whether that is safe or whether that's not a good thing to do. In doing that they have presented their conclusions and it's a pretty large article but I would highly, highly recommend all of our listeners to take a look, even if it's just looking at the overview which is towards the top of the page and going down to the conclusions.

So what did they find out? I believe they're statisticians or one is a biomedical researcher. He has published over 100 peer-reviewed international publications. He has studied RNA transcriptions. He has studied protein. He has studied genes. He is a microbiology expert.

What they have found through looking at the data is that based on a cost benefit analysis, they've shown that in order for the mass vaccination to bear actual life saving benefits, they have predicted that the vaccine would need to provide full protection to each individual for at least 2.5 to three years. If it does not do that, then the costs which are associated with the vaccine are not worth it. The way that they've worked this out is by looking at the amount of deaths.

Towards the start of the article they have said that the cost benefit analysis favours vaccinations only against organisms with stable genomes. Now HIV, other types of viruses including the corona virus have extremely unstable genomes. What that means is they mutate very frequently. If you look at any of the news these days you'll be hearing about all of these different types of variants, one of them being the Indian variant. This is the case with certain viruses. Some mutate less frequently, they're very stable relatively speaking. Others have highly volatile genomes. They will mutate very quickly.

Essentially what they're saying is that because of this, there are inherent problems with a mass vaccination campaign first of all because it's probably not going to be effective. Let's assume you have a vaccine and it does work. If you've got a very unstable RNA or a virus which has highly mutatable, if that's even a word, mutable genome, then the likelihood is that as soon as you've formulated a vaccine it will be different so the virus that is being passed around is completely different.

So first of all we have a problem there immediately. But he says that there are also four other main inherent issues with the mRNA vaccination campaigns. First of all we have the fact that when someone is administered the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccine it causes a temporary weakening of the immune system. The way that he describes it is that people who are vaccinated become fragile and this means that they are, at least for a certain period of time, much more likely to develop any disease against which the immune system usually defends the body. What this means is it can be a virus, a bacterial infection, but it can also be cancer. Similar kinds of cells are also involved in the destruction of cancer cells, tagging cancer cells, destroying cancer cells.

So immediately we have a theoretical basis by which if someone has an mRNA vaccine and they come into contact with some other kind of pathogen, whether it be covid-19, any other kind of virus, any other kind of bacterial infection, they are theoretically way more likely to be susceptible to that. That's the first thing.

Secondly, what we also have is that in the long term, the antibodies which are induced by taking the mRNA vaccine can potentially be causing autoimmune reactions and this is because the cells which are producing viral protein encoded by the RNA contained within the vaccine is essentially a blueprint. It's giving ourselves a blueprint so that we can make this foreign protein, this spike protein.

So the cells that generate the foreign spike protein, we can easily develop autoimmune antibodies against those cells. Now the problem is that when we're looking at autoimmunity and we look at how the immune system works, it is identifying patterns. It's a pattern recognition system. In fact all antigens can be classified as either pamps or damps. These are pathogen associated molecular patterns, damage associated molecular patterns. This is one of the main ways by which food immune reactivity, if you've got antibodies against certain types of foods, this is the main reason or one of the main mechanisms by eating foods which you have an immune reaction against can trigger a systemic autoimmune disorder against your own tissue.

Sometimes the external proteins that we're coming into contact with, whether it be by food, whether it be by the spike protein that we are generating from the mRNA vaccine can look very similar to some of our own proteins. This is the thing. When you have a sequence of amino acids which looks very similar to a sequence of amino acids in say, a myelin sheath or pancreatic beta cells or our neurological tissue, any kind of tissue in the body, if it resembles it in any way, there is a high likelihood that our body can develop an autoimmune reaction against our own cells.

So he says that due to this process called molecular mimicry, because we're introducing this mRNA, because we're generating these antibodies against the spike protein, in some individuals what we may find is that natural human proteins which resemble the viral protein may start to be attacked by our own immune system. This is what many of the doctors and researchers in the field who are speaking out against this are saying, is that we could be looking at very major, severe autoimmune reactions cropping up over the next five or 10 years, all kinds of things in people who do not have the ordinary risk factors.

So this is a very real possibility. Autoimmunity often takes a long time to develop. It's not going to be an immediate thing. What we have seen already is that some people getting the vaccine have developed strange autoimmune disorders against their own platelets for instance. This is happening. But it's not necessarily going to be immediate.

This is something that has not really had any research done on yet and this is one of the main concerns that he's bringing up. This is the second reason why we should really be cautious about implementing a mass vaccination campaign.

Thirdly, he said that mass vaccination might select for vaccine-resistant viral variants which could potentially cause catastrophic effects, especially on people who are vaccinated and that's I think primarily because if someone is vaccinated they get this severe weakening of their immune system for five or six weeks after having the vaccine and yet there are vaccine-resistant strains going around. This is potentially going to make them a lot more susceptible.

Finally what he has said, and this is probably the most concerning thing in this entire paper, is that the RNA from vaccines will in some cases integrate into our chromosomes, into the chromosomes of people who have been vaccinated. Chromosomes are essentially the houses for our genes, for our DNA. What this means is that RNA through an enzyme has been shown to have the capability to take retroviral RNA and incorporate it into chromosomes via an RNA/DNA reverse transcriptase enzyme.

So this is a possibility. For anyone who says this isn't a possibility he cites the 1976 Nobel Prize in physiology which was showing that this could occur and it was on this exact topic. So it is entirely possible that what might be happening is that we are taking this foreign RNA and we are incorporating this and this is literally changing our genetic makeup, changing our genes. Now whether that will affect children or adults in different ways we have yet to know how that will affect people's offspring, how that will affect people in utero, in the womb. For babies we have absolutely no idea and this is one of the reasons why he's saying this is probably a really bad idea at the moment because no one knows the answers to these questions.

So those are the four primary reasons why he's saying that generally a mass vaccination campaign is not much of a good idea. But then if we look at the actual statistical analysis, here are some of the things that they have found, interestingly. They've shown that for people above the age of 60, during the first 14 days after the first dose of the vaccination, they are 14.6 times more likely to die than people who are unvaccinated. We've spoken about this on the show before, how in Israel for instance, we had mad vaccination. All of a sudden a bunch of those people were getting covid. A bunch of those people were also dying. We're told that that's not meant to make sense because the covid vaccine supposedly protects against covid.

But what we see here is that essentially these people, if you're above 60, you're 14.6 times more likely to die than someone who did not receive the vaccine in the previous 14 days. So let that sink in. It's pretty bad, right?

Doug: Kind of doing the opposite of what it's intended to do, oddly enough.

Elliot: Exactly.

Tiffany: Well vaccine manufacturers themselves don't even claim that the vaccines prevent covid or stop the transmission of covid. They say that their idea of success is if the symptoms decrease.

Doug: Is death one of the symptoms? Because it's clearly not working.

Tiffany: No, they're talking about mild symptoms like coughing, sneezing, that sort of thing.

Doug: They don't really advertise that you're 15 times more likely to die if you get the vaccine. That's not something that you really see in any of the adverts.

Elliot: No indeed. It's actually having the exact opposite effect. From the other set of data that they analyzed, they showed that during the 21 day period between the two injections, the daily vaccinated covid-19 death rates are 11.65 times greater than for unvaccinated. This was specifically for people who are over the age of 60, who had been vaccinated, who got covid and who died. So it is doing the exact opposite to what they say it's doing.

So if you get the two vaccines, or if you get the first vaccine and in the 21 days between getting the first and second vaccine, you're 11.65 times more likely to die than someone who has not had that vaccine. I mean, how wrong could they be?!

Doug: It's insane.

Elliot: What on earth is going on?! This vaccine is supposedly meant to protect people. What they talk about is when they're looking at the adverse events - and we've spoken about how essentially what is happening is when they get this vaccine, their immune system is tanking. So they're getting neutropenia, low lymphocytes, low levels of systemic immune cells and whatnot. They lose their defenses against anything else that's going around or against covid by the look of things.

But what they're also talking about is the adverse events that people can get from the vaccine itself. What we're looking at here, there was a section where they're talking about the difference between elderly and young people in vaccine reactions. The stronger the immune system, the less likely they are to develop covid-19 symptoms. For example, children don't get covid. People below the age of 40 have a much lower risk of getting covid and getting any symptoms. But when you are above 50, 60 and 70, that is when the symptoms really are quite significant and some people are inevitably dying from that.

So what they're saying is if you've got a really strong immune system there is very little chance that you're ever going to get covid and if you do, you'll probably be fine. However, what they've shown is that statistically, the adverse reactions to vaccines tend to behave in the opposite way. What this means is that they are proportional to the strength of the immune system because many adverse effects which are associated with the vaccine are immune system overreactions or hyper reactivity. What this means is that vaccine adverse events are statistically a lot more common in younger adults and in women - the exact opposite demographic to those who succumb to covid.

So we've got a bit of an issue here. People who are old are likely to suffer the consequences of covid but people who are younger are protected against it. But when we introduce vaccines, because the immune system is stronger in the younger ones, it means that they are more likely to succumb to serious side effects from vaccination.

Doug: Right.

Elliot: This is a little bit of a problem. They're talking about previous data coming in from VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Event Registry and they're looking at all of the vaccines from the years 1990 to 2020 and that they showed that the mortality due to adverse vaccine events is far greater for the very young than it is for the elderly, even for traditional vaccines. So this is completely separate to covid. This is for basically any vaccine.

So they are hypothesizing that when young individuals, when people who are below the age of 20 or 30, get the vaccine we are potentially going to see some very, very severe side effects and many people dying. They were looking at the difference in deaths in various months in 2021 compared with 2020 and what they found was that the amount of deaths in 2021 are far higher for younger adults and they were not sure why this was so they were asking the question, based on the data that we have, is there a way to determine whether this is due simply to covid-19? Is it a new variant of covid-19? Is it more dangerous for younger adults now? Or alternatively, is what we're seeing actually a result of the vaccination? So is it an adverse event to the vaccination? Is it the secondary effect of having the vaccination and having an attacked immune system? Is it some other effect that the vaccine is having on the immune system that is causing them to die at much higher rates than they were doing previously last year?

So what they found was that indeed the younger ages, people of ages below I think 20 years old, there are many more people dying in the months February to March 2021 than there were in 2020. They looked at the data and they did a calculation and what they found was that the only plausible explanation for why people are dying at such a higher rate is simply because in Israel at least, many of them have had the vaccine. As per their calculation, if you'd had a vaccination and you were below the age of 20, it increased the deaths by a factor of at least 20. So vaccine increases your likelihood of dying by 20 times! If you're under 20 years old.

Now if we consider this virus basically doesn't kill anyone under the age of 20 years old, kids don't even get it, but when we're looking at people who got the vaccine, you've got 20 times more risk of dying due to covid!

Doug: It's stunning! It's stunning!

Tiffany: So in other words, the vaccines kill.

Elliot: Yeah, essentially.

Doug: Big time. Twenty times more likely!

Elliot: Categorically these are not good!

Doug: It's too bad that this study is likely to get absolutely no press whatsoever because it would be a game changer. If this actually got reported on the mainstream news that young people getting the vaccine are 20 times more likely to die, you can bet that vaccine uptake would drop even more than it currently has, pretty much to zero I would think.

Elliot: There's a section of the paper that's titled The Vaccination Against Covid-19 Drives the Spread of Covid-19. He makes the point, "Increases in covid-19 cases have been observed in various countries shortly after vaccination projects were initiated." He's talking about observations which were reported in India. There was an analysis based on 35 states in India and also in the USA. They showed that in India a majority of states have positive correlations between vaccination and ulterior covid-19 case numbers. What they're saying is that the more people that get vaccinated, the more covid-19 spreads. At the same time in the USA most states have a positive correlation three to five days after vaccination.

I don't think that this vaccine is giving them covid-19. Maybe they already had covid-19 but they were dealing with it quite nicely, but the vaccine because it is having such a detrimental effect on the immune system, it would seem that people are succumbing to covid-19. I don't even know how one would explain that but it seems as though the data supports it. So whatever is going on, the more vaccinations that are going on, the more deaths that occur and the wider the virus spreads.

Doug: It could simply be that they're getting the vaccine and then they're coming in contact with the wild virus and their immune system has absolutely no defense against it, so they catch it. I remember those stories coming out of Israel at first where they were reporting that so many people were coming down with covid after getting the first vaccine.

Elliot: Yeah.

Doug: And it was a head scratcher. Not really, but it was a head scratcher for many.

Elliot: Yeah. Towards the end of the paper they summarize all of the details. Of course I'm not a statistician so my interpretation of it may have missed out some key points, but thankfully they do provide a succinct conclusion with what they're trying to say and what this all means. They conclude that the results in this analysis show that vaccination-induced infection rates increased threefold. So if people have been vaccinated, overall there was a threefold increased risk of infection, of getting covid-19 and death rates are around 20 times the covid death rate of the unvaccinated overall.

He said these are serious reasons to suspect a balanced cost/benefit analysis would not be in favour of vaccination of any risk group. He says,
Our calculation for younger age groups predicts an even more extreme and dire situation. It is long known that vaccination is not cost effective against organisms or viruses with highly mutable genomes. RNA viruses, corona viruses and HIV included have the most mutable known genomes known to man. Note that the vaccine associated risk increase proportionally to the strength of the immune system predicting that vaccination will greatly increase the very low covid-19 risk experienced by the younger population,
meaning that basically these people ordinarily have zero risk of getting a virus and dying but the covid-19 vaccine seems to be doing exactly the opposite and making them highly susceptible to it. It's saying,
Extrapolations of two independent available datasets confirm this prediction. The precautionary principle is the first priority for those responsible for public health and its urgent application is required at this point, especially when the whole population of a country potentially has up to a 20 times greater risk of death.
So just to add in something that I didn't mention before, in this cost benefit analysis they are looking for the costs, what it will take or cost to see benefits. They're saying that because deaths for those above 60 for instance, in the first two weeks after that first injection, because deaths are 14 times more frequent per day for the people who are vaccinated, the only way to make that beneficial from an economic standpoint if you're looking at health economics, looking to make that worth it, to make it balance out, is that you would require a total of 690 days of full vaccine protection against covid-19 for the elderly.

So what they're basically saying is, "We can accept some deaths as long as the vaccine is really highly effective for the majority of people and the vaccine lasts for 700 days. If it doesn't provide 100% protection for that period of time, then all of those deaths are not worth it based on this cost risk analysis." They're saying it absolutely makes zero sense to continue with this vaccination campaign. In fact it's having highly detrimental effects and we have not even begun to see the start of it.

Doug: Seven hundred days is two years essentially. They're not even claiming that it provides protection for 700 days. At first they were saying 12 months but now they're saying that you need to get a third shot. So the idea that it would provide protection for that long, nobody is even claiming that. So it clearly is not worth it.

Tiffany: Will the vaccine trials even be over by that time because they are still ongoing, technically?

Elliot: Indeed. Like the authors rightly point out, they're talking about how a lot of this data was derived from the Israel Ministry of Health and what they're essentially talking about is that the main financier or funder for the Israeli Ministry of Health is Pfizer. {laughter} So you've got a study which is done by an institution which receives most of its funding from the pharmaceutical company that makes the vaccine that they're studying? Secondly, the other study that they were looking at was done by 10 researchers and of those 10 researchers, eight were involved in other projects where they were receiving funding from Pfizer.

So essentially they're pointing out that this data, which was published, which is used as evidence that the vaccine is highly safe, what they've shown is that the conclusions which were originally made about this data were not to be trusted because these people are highly biased. The large majority of them receive funding from the company that makes the vaccine that they're testing safety out of. So whether that's conscious or unconscious bias, it doesn't really matter. They should not be able to interpret that data. It should be done by people who are completely independent, unbiased, if you can achieve that, or the best that you can achieve in that regard.

That's what they've done and that's one of the reasons why they took this data, re-analyzed it and came to this conclusion because they are not in the pockets of big pharma.

Doug: Right.

Elliot: That's the way that science is generally done and we've known this. We've been speaking about this for how many years, right? It's the modus operandi. It's not like the MMR vaccine which would increase the risk of autism by a certain percentage, kind of thing. We're looking at mass vaccination of potentially most of the entire population of the world and we're not just talking about a two times increased risk of developmental delay or autism. We're talking about 20 times the risk of death! Within five weeks of having the vaccine! This is serious stuff, really serious! It's unbelievable that they have managed to pull it off.

Doug: It's kind of stunning.

Tiffany: Well the chances of this being reported on any mainstream outlet is practically nil because they do such a great job of schilling for the powers that be. I can't believe that people actually still watch television and actually base their lives on the media's recommendations. This won't be talked about, as so many other important studies concerning this have not been talked about in the mainstream.

Doug: Well even one part of the study that I actually found quite interesting is one of his recommendations is that people who do get vaccinated should be isolating themselves, lockdown essentially, for five weeks because during that time period their immune system is much weaker and they have a much greater chance of contracting covid or any other disease for that matter. If that piece of information got out there, that's kind of important. That should get out to the public. People should know that, that this is something that could help protect them. But even that piece of information is not going to get out. They would never say that because that would drive people away from getting vaccinated. Nobody wants to lock down for that long.

Elliot: Exactly. I was also very surprised - I guess not so surprised because I've seen it play out and I've spoken to many parents whose children have been through this - but this inverse correlation with age, as in the older you are, the less likely you are to react to vaccinations having adverse events. But the younger you are, as the more robust your immune system, the data really supports the idea that these are the people who are most likely to develop adverse events from the vaccine, right? It makes you wonder, does that translate to babies? What's going to happen for the pregnant mothers who have this mRNA vaccine? What's going to happen as they start doing trials on children? How many children are going to have to die? How is this going to affect the fertility? How is this going to affect the offspring that are growing in the womb? There are so many unanswered questions.

You were saying something earlier Doug about Stephanie Seneff's research in animals, is that correct?

Doug: Yeah. She was talking about the possibility that the vaccine, so the RNA from the vaccine would be taken up into the genome and apparently sperm cells are particularly good at doing this and then transferring it to the egg. So what potentially could happen - it's theoretical of course - but what potentially could happen is that babies being born would have this RNA incorporated into their DNA, so essentially the vaccine would be part of them, that covid would be part of them.

So when they encounter covid out in the world, their immune system wouldn't react to it because it's a part of their genome. They would recognize it as part of themselves so they wouldn't mount an immune response to covid. So that means that covid would come in, unimpeded into them and they would become super spreaders, people who could spread this everywhere because they are literally making absolutely no immune response to it whatsoever.

Elliot: Wasn't that shown in cattle?

Doug: Yeah. She gave an example that there were cattle, calves that were being born that had a viral protein integrated into their genome and when they were exposed to the virus these cows were unable to clear the virus naturally and then spread it to the adult cows which got sick. Their answer to that was to actually kill off those calves to protect the herd. But what are they going to do if it's kids who are spreading covid amongst the population? Are they going to kill them off?

Elliot: It's a mess, isn't it?

Doug: It really is. I do actually recommend that people check out that Mercola article with Stephanie Seneff. There's an interview with her as well that you can watch. It's very interesting. Some of it's quite theoretical but very interesting.

Elliot: Indeed. Lots of unanswered questions, lots of things probably to look forward to in the coming times.

Tiffany: That's one way to put it.

Doug: Yeah, sit back and enjoy the show folks.

Elliot: There's probably not much to enjoy.

Doug: Yeah.

Tiffany: I think at this point I think all we can do is wait and see what's going to happen because nobody knows really!

Doug: It's true.

Tiffany: Nobody knows.

Elliot: Well we've been talking about this for how many years, we've been talking about something like this happening. We weren't sure exactly what it would be.

Doug: Yeah.

Elliot: But something dark this way comes. Something wicked this way comes. I don't think anyone could anticipate this but it seems as though if there's anything that has the capability to wipe out a significant chunk of the population this vaccine is looking like a pretty good candidate at the moment.

Doug: It's true.

Tiffany: The vaccine is covid. Covid is not covid but the vaccine is covid. The vaccine is the covid they've been warning us about.

Doug: It seems that way. And the vaccinated are the most susceptible to it.

Elliot: What a twist in the turning of events, eh? It's like a movie. You think you know what's happening and then it gets to the final 30 minutes and there's a plot twist. {laughter}

Doug: Yeah, quite the plot twist really. If you guys don't have anything else to add, I think that could be our show for this week. We have gone on for longer than usual so we should wrap it up.

Tiffany: Okay.

Doug: Thanks for joining us everybody. We will be back next week with another excellent show for you to check out. Be sure to like and subscribe if you so desire and we will see y'all on the next one.

Elliot: Bye-bye.

Tiffany: Bye.