Quick Disclaimer

The following is a transcript of recorded content. Please note, these transcripts are not always perfect and may contain typos. If you notice any major mistakes, please feel free to report them by opening a Technical Support ticket under the Help menu at the top of the screen.

Full Transcript

220607_ep64_part-1_Israel and hearts

Dr. Chris Martenson [00:00:00] If you’ve had COVID, how at risk are you of having either myocarditis or pericarditis? Come on, let’s go find out. Hello, everyone. Dr. Chris Martenson here back with you with some COVID coverage. I know I’ve been doing a lot of different coverage of late, but we’ve got to talk about this really big, really important study because it’s starting to really clarify where the injuries are, particularly for people who have long haul COVID or long COVID. Let’s take a look at this. We’ve got a really cool study again out of Israel. We’re getting a lot of our great studies out of Israel. We’re going to go through a couple of them today. Hey, heart issues, if you want to cut to the chase. Nope, they’re not associated with long COVID. Let’s go find out what that means.

Dr. Chris Martenson [00:00:48] Here’s this new study from Israel. It is the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis, both of those heart issues, obviously, in post COVID 19, unvaccinated patients, a large population based study. So coming out of all of these, well, let me get my drawing tool out a lot coming out of all these really good centers here in Israel. So this is a peer reviewed piece of work. It’s in the Journal of Clinical Medicine. So no preprint on this one. It’s been through the ringer. And let’s go right in. So the study is looking at heart issues after COVID recovery. Quote, this is from their introduction. It has recently been reported that the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis is increased in COVID 19 patients during the acute illness. So there’s a study saying that during the illness, while you’re in in the midst of it, you may be hospitalized on a vent something, but you’re you’re in pretty serious shape. The incidence of both myocarditis and pericarditis increased. But however, whether or not myocarditis and pericarditis after the recovery period are part of the long COVID 19 syndrome is yet unknown. Here in we study the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis in a large cohort of COVID 19 patients after recovering from the acute infection. We’re going to go through this and take a look because a lot of people have been concerned. You know, I’ve had COVID. I feel like I’ve got long COVID, which is a syndrome. Now, a syndrome isn’t a thing. A syndrome is a constellation of of different impacts that you might be experiencing. So your syndrome might be different from somebody else’s syndrome because, you know, you might have a different constellation of effects. So we know there’s small fiber neuropathies, there’s fibromyalgia, there’s various cognitive declines that people are reporting as part of long-covid. There’s different issues around sensing, taste, smell, hearing, things like that, as well as potentially heart issues. So want to talk about that and see what those mean. This was a really big study. I like these really big ones that they do in Israel because they’ve got really good data across a variety of different databases so they can sift back through them retrospectively and combine huge case matched cohort studies. So that’s what they did here. The abstract here, they say this was a retrospective up here in this part YOLO cohort study of 196,992 adults after COVID 19 infection in the cell IT Health Services members in Israel between March 20th January 2021. Why those particular dates? March is when they had their first wave 2021 January. That’s shortly after the vaccination started in December of 2020. So they wanted to make sure they were just looking at no influence from vaccination status because that’s a confounder in this potentially. So I like that they did that continuing the control cohort of 590,796 adults with at least one negative PCR and no positive PCR were age and sex matched, so they had at least one negative PCR. It means all they can tell you is they didn’t have an active infection and then later they didn’t have a positive PCR. Does that mean they weren’t infected? No, it doesn’t, obviously, because not everybody who got a positive PCR was infected in the first place. We know that not everybody who got infected was going to have a PCR test, but best you can do in these circumstances, at least that’s how they were able to rule people in and out was on the basis of that PCR test. All right. Study, design and patient population. What did they do? Well, they retrieved records of all adult patients over 18 years of age who had a documented positive COVID 19 PCR test. So that’s 213,624 between the 7th of March in 2020 and the 31st of January of 2021. And look at all the things they looked at. They lots of records, demography, cardiovascular risk factors, smoking status, obesity, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, on and on and on and on. You can read all those. So they were able to fish through and then really match patients against each other given a constellation of other morbidities and other risk factors that they may have had. All right. Continuing quote, this was done to ensure a minimum. Sorry. Let me back up a tiny bit. I think I need to. Yes. So they did that were extracted between this is important ten days after COVID 19 infection and earliest between six months from infection. So they were looking they’re looking at all the extracted all these records between ten days after the COVID 19 infection, so ten days after that PCR test and six months. So they’re looking at that window from ten days post, getting a PCR test and then six months later, what’s in that window from ten days after out to six months? Now, that would technically be the sort of the long haul window. If you’re going to have long haul COVID, I guess you’re going to be experiencing potentially longer than that. But it certainly has shown up within that window from ten days post-infection to six months out. Now, ten days, though, ten days post PCR. That’s a little early for me to be thinking that this is actually long haul COVID because you could still be experiencing what I would consider acute symptoms within ten days, obviously, of that of that PCR test. But let’s go on and take a look at this. So they say this was done to ensure a minimum follow up period of 18 days and a maximum follow up period of six months. And since data was retrieved during October 2021, we allowed for over six months of a delay in the data transfer between hospitals that do not belong in the normal data sets here. The post-COVID timeframe was defined from at least ten days after the date of positive PCR test. Contingent upon lack of symptoms related to COVID 19 infection, according to the definitions of the Israeli Ministry of Health. Patients with a first vaccine vaccination received before COVID 19 infection were excluded so that some 16,000 patients resulting in a final COVID 19 cohort of 196,992. So that’s who they’re looking at. 192 plus thousand people who haven’t been vaccinated, who have a positive PCR test. They know they’ve had COVID. Now they’re going to take a peak ten days after that test, up to six months later. What did they actually experience? All right.

Dr. Chris Martenson [00:07:44] So let’s carry on and take a look at what they did here. And I like that the vaccination effects were carefully excluded. This is really important because there’s been an open question about and we’ll get to some data in a later part of this that say that, hey, you know, there’s some question as to how much the vaccines themselves contribute to myocarditis. And we know about this now, and I guess we can all talk about it. But there’s another study that looks into that a little bit more, and I like that we’re able to exclude it in this case because you have to exclude it. So what did they do? They did here. A control group was created from a cohort of adult patients with at least one negative COVID 19 PCR between seven March and 15 December, both 2020, and with no prior positive COVID 19 PCR before retrieval of data in August of 2021. So this is their control group, right? They had at least one negative PCR test in there. They had no prior PCR before retrieval and they pulled out all this data. So they had a lot of people to look at. 935,976 15th of December 2020 was selected as the stop date since the massive Israeli vaccination campaign was initiated on the 20th of December. So five days before that, just to be sure, it can’t confound the data. I like that. Even with that, a few patients were actually had to be excluded and it wasn’t that many carrying on in yellow quote. The follow up period was calculated backwards from 15th December 2020 in order to avoid the potential impact of COVID 19 vaccination on myocarditis and pericarditis. So hopefully, end quote, we’re getting a really pure sample here that just says, hey, what what actually is the impact of COVID and COVID itself on myocarditis and pericarditis? Now, we’re going to combine that with another study that’s coming in a bit. I think these two pieces of data give us a pretty good view of what’s going on. So what did they do? Pretty cool how they had to run through this whole thing. The study design. Hey, over here, their COVID cohort over here. So these are all their health members. They’re at least 18 years of age. They say here they have a PCR test before the 1st January 2021. So they had 213,000 to look at here. They had to exclude some that had a previous vaccination, so they had to get rid of some here. And so these are the ones that are included. And then over here, these are the control population. These are people over the age of 18, all PCR negative the whole time through. And there were just five that ended up getting vaccinated somehow. And so they had this many available to work with and they matched them 3 to 1. So they had a big age sex and risk factor matching set. So they matched them 3 to 1 590,000 against these original these other 196 in the study population. And so this is what they have. Again, negatives, positives. So if you’re positive you went down that inclusion category, if you’re negative PCR tests, you were included in the control cohort. Again, it’s always possible that the PCR test litmus threshold they’re using here could have accidentally included people who had COVID in the control group and excluded people from the other group. That first one’s a little bit more important because if you actually have people with COVID in your control group, it’s it obviously it it muddies it up a little bit, but best they could do. And here they’re just showing here in figure B what the actual age sorry the date ranges were to show you how they went about excluding people on a temporal basis. This is really important because as we saw with the together trial, which is around Fluvoxamine and Ivermectin, they did a terrible job on this little part.

Dr. Chris Martenson [00:11:39] There was like you couldn’t figure out what was going on from their dates and they had missing dates. And yeah, it was a kind of a kind of a hot mess. Is Alexandros very honest has done a great job pulling that one apart. We’ll talk about that one in detail at some other point, because I think it’s it’s important to understand the ways in which science has gone off the rails or been exposed to have never been on the rails in the first place. When it comes to these sorts of studies now here now COVID, they found, had zero effect on myocarditis. Zero. So this is the control group in red sorry, the COVID group in red and the no COVID in blue. And these are the two lines over time just tracking each other. And this is across six months. You can see that there’s more and more people showing up with myocarditis over that timeframe, which is what you would expect. A normal population has a certain incidence of myocarditis. Interestingly, pericarditis here you can see that in the no COVID group is actually going higher than in the. Big group kind of interesting. It doesn’t achieve what’s called statistical significance, at least here. Using this p value test they ran has a p value of 0.17 and of course 0.05 or less or lower is considered threshold for statistical significance. Still, there’s something there that says, well, that’s interesting. That’s the first I’ve heard that COVID may be protective, but it’s just curious at this point. It’s nothing I’d hang my hat on. It’s definitely something that I would go, Hmm. File away. I’m going to be curious to see if there are follow up studies that give us more on that. So but that’s the that is the punch line right there. You know, long COVID, is it associated at least long COVID defined as ten days after getting a positive PCR test to six months, is there any increase in either myocarditis or pericarditis? The answer is no, there is not. Not according to this study. So that’s part one. Part two is this, which was looking at a study that looked at sorry, emergency calls that came in. So this is ambulance services. These are the the the first line responders who’ve been called. And they sifted through those records and said how many calls were made to ambulance services for a certain class of conditions. So here the report and this is in nature, by the way, here.

Dr. Chris Martenson [00:14:03] And by the way, I’ll read you that part down in yellow, down below the title is Increased Emergency Cardiovascular Events Among Under 40 Population in Israel during vaccine rollout in third COVID 19 wave. Here are the authors here a son and leave the Levi Levi and look at this though in May the editor’s note as readers are alerted that the conclusions of this article are subject to criticisms that are being considered by the editors, a further editorial response will follow once all parties have been given an opportunity to respond in full. Oh, not this again. Look, every time we see something, that’s even the slight bit questioning about vaccines or is positive for ivermectin or anything like that. What we’ve seen is these editors suddenly come into the fray and start exerting editorial control. We’ve seen this over and over and over again enough that we say, well, once is an accident can happen twice was a coincidence, but three times is enemy action. We are now so deep into enemy territory around this it’s very clear there’s a bias inherent and it’s caused me to lose a lot of respect for front line scientific journals that I used to have a lot of respect for. Nature is in there, not least of which is because of nature’s running of the lab, the lab origin versus the natural or zoonotic spillover data. They ran some horrible pieces of work, never had an editorial review, never editorially started to question it, never retracted them, never put any other color on it besides pushing that narrative. So science isn’t about pushing narratives, or at least it’s not supposed to be. It’s supposed to be about a free and open, sometimes knuckle dragging, you know, blood inducing scrum where different people come together with their data and they hack it out. And that’s how it advances, right? This whole idea that science advances because an editor disproved of something or enough scientists decided that this was true versus that and how it works. So this is really offensive to me as a somebody who cares about legitimate open inquiry, finding the truth as much as possible.

Dr. Chris Martenson [00:16:13] And you don’t do that with shadowy statements like this, which is like, look at this subject to criticisms from who exactly I would like to know are those criticisms, say, from the CEO of Pfizer, that would be relevant. I bet you anything we’re not going to find out who the criticisms are coming from. That’s what we’ve seen over and over again in these so-called editorial reviews. As some criticisms came in, we had to consider them. And then there you go. All right. At any rate, until we see those criticisms, let’s look at this. This is the IMF study I’m calling it here. And the methods in study design here in yellow quote This retrospective population based study leverages the IEEE IMS data system in analyzes all cause causes calls related to cardiac arrest that a and acute cardiac syndrome there so two events so cardiac arrest is bad. Otherwise you’re having an acute cardiac event of some kind. And they looked at these over two and a half years, first in the pre-COVID period from January 1st, 2019 to June 20th, 2021. The items call data are coupled to data on COVID 19 infection rates as well as the respective vaccination rates over the same period of time. So call volume coming into ambulances coupled. With how many COVID cases are there, coupled with what are the vaccination rates going on and is there anything in that data? Can we tease that out? Can anything be found there? Well, if they did the study right, you can always find something that correlates if it’s they are possibly the studies time period spans 14 months of a normal period prior to the COVID 19 pandemic and vaccine rollout, which was from one of 2019 through to of 2020. That’s the normal period and about ten months of pandemic period with two waves of pandemic and about six months of pandemic and vaccination period. So this is why it’s going to be harder to tease the symptoms apart, syndromes apart, unless you don’t see anything in just the pure pandemic was just COVID without any vaccination. So you could compare those two and say, well, if we see something here. Well, it might be something because we’re the new factor would have been the vaccines. Of course, there are going to be people who are going to criticize it and say, oh, you can’t prove anything because, you know, you had both at the same time. How would you ever prove anything? Here’s the thing. In science, you can’t ever prove anything. Like like with aspirin. Can I prove to you that aspirin makes aches and pains go away? I can’t. Because the only way we know that is because people say that’s what happens. That’s subjective data. It’s only anecdote counts for nothing. All right.

Dr. Chris Martenson [00:19:07] But it works. So at any rate, carrying on thus this study, it allows to study how the CIA and AK’s call count change over time with different background conditions and potentially highlight factors that are associated with the observed temporal changes. That’s always where your first clue comes, people. The observed temporal changes. Right. I pulled the trigger. There was a loud noise. And then something happened over there. There’s a temporal association between those events. We might start to think they’re linked. That’s the first line of inquiry. Always in science is you observe A in proximity to B, maybe they’re maybe they have something to do with each other. Right. So that’s how it should go. What were their methods here? So in yellow quote, data on the vaccinations and COVID 19 cases were obtained from the online Israel government database portal. They give the link there. These data include the number of daily administered first and second vaccination doses by age group. So you could do an age stratification here, as well as the weekly number of new confirmed COVID 19 cases, again by age group across all of Israel. The age groups consist of bins of 20 years, starting with 0 to 19, which they were five year age bins. But there you have it. Population counts by similar age groups were also collected from publicly accessible data. And they note here that Israel administered only the bnt162b2, the Pfizer vaccines during this time frame. So we have a fairly pure study population to look at here. So what were their findings? The main findings of this study concerned itself. They found increases of over 25% in both the number of cardiac arrest calls in the acute cardiac syndrome calls coming of people in the 16 to 39 age group. So a 25% increase above baseline during the COVID 19 vaccination rollout in Israel, which from January to May in this study period of 2021, compared with the same period of time in prior years, which included both 2019, which is pre-pandemic and 2020, which is just pure pandemic. So they have a table on that. I don’t present the whole table here. I’ll show you the charts from this quote. Moreover, there is a robust and statistically significant association between the weekly cardiac arrests and X call counts and the rates of first and second vaccine doses administered to this age group. So they did find a statistically significant association. Now, normally that would tell us something, which is maybe we should look into this further. And that’s what they call for in this study. They say, hey, we found this association, it’s there. We think it deserves more study carrying on, quote, in green. At the same time, there is no observed, statistically significant association between COVID 19 infection rates in the cardiac arrest and acute cardiac syndrome call counts. This result, aligned with previous findings, which show increases in overall cardiac arrest incidents, were not always associated with higher COVID 19 infection rates at a population level. Lots of studies cited there, as well as the stability of hospitalization rates related to myocardial infarction throughout the initial COVID 19 wave compared to pre-pandemic baselines in Israel. So we have the pre-pandemic baselines.

Dr. Chris Martenson [00:22:37] We have just the COVID pandemic itself without any vaccines. And you can compare rates of myocarditis and pericarditis. Again, this is just one possible thing that could be looked at. One possible impact of COVID and or vaccines is the heart issues. Obviously gets a lot of press, but there are lots of other things that actually deserve to be looked at because this is one of the first respiratory viruses we know about that’s come along and has apparently harmed kidneys, the blood heart, brain, testes. I mean, it’s pretty bizarre how many things this particular virus hits, which is why nature I think we should have been more open minded about where this thing came from. Was it zoonotic or lab origin? Because if it’s lab origin, then we can ask some questions about what you guys do to it in the lab. And why did you give it so many keys to get into the human cells and which keys does it have? And then we you know, it’s possible for clinicians and public health authorities to then devise legitimate, rational strategies based on that information, rather than sort of having to figure this out by looking in through the wrong end of the telescope. Right. We shouldn’t be looking at it this way. All right. Quote yellow. These results are also mirrored by a report of increased emergency department visits in cardiovascular complaints during the vaccine rollout in Germany, as well as increased DMS calls for cardiac incidents in Scotland. So this is fitting with a pattern. We now have a pattern of results that are saying the same things which make sense, I guess. All right. This is the chart that I know some of you have seen a bunch of you sent it to me and thank you for that. Let’s decode it. Let’s look at this because it’s kind of a busy chart. I want to make sure we understand this together because kind of it’s important. So first, these in the red line that’s going up and down like a well, like a like a heart signal in a EKG. These are cardiac arrest calls. So that’s what we’re looking at here only is just cardiac arrest, not the X. And then in these other the purple and blue colors here, these are first and second vaccine doses. And then in the gray down here, we have COVID 19 cases right here. You see that coming up? Like this, like this, like this. There is a big spike of COVID 19 cases right here. Right. Which could confound this. But we’re going to look at this carefully and see why I think they were able to pull that out. And then all these dotted lines here, these are the public health advisories. This was the first one here that they put out in that light, a bluish greenish color there. They got this one here and then this one here. So those are the public health emergencies. You see. They correspond with these peaks in COVID cases. So they had the public health emergencies and they’re there it is. So I by eyeball just said what was going on here in terms of in terms of what’s the mean here? This is pre-pandemic here. So you can see it’s pretty variable data. Sometimes the calls for cardiac arrest are low and sometimes they came up a lot higher and then they’re low and then they’re higher. So I just drew a line between them here and call it that. And then when I did the same thing for this period, they’re pretty close. But you can clearly see I think this was actually a tiny bit lower here. Not clear why. Maybe it’s because everybody’s in lockdown. I don’t know. But then here there’s a pretty large jump in this time period here. Now they’re saying it’s associated with those vaccines, but other people would say, yeah, but look, you can see clearly that we’re seeing a fairly large increase in COVID cases at the same time. So you can’t tell them apart. What they’re saying is, well, we do have this whole period here before the vaccines rolled out, which is here. We can compare all of this time here. That’s with COVID in particular, this wave right here. Notice this wave? Well, actually, let’s zoom in on this so we can see it a little bit better. So you can see you have this is the second largest wave that comes in like this. We had this prior wave back here. I just have to zoom back out again. We had this prior wave here. This came up pretty tall. There’s no increase here anywhere that we can see of in here. There’s no increase in heart attacks through this period. So this was caused we were seeing this big peak in the heart attacks right here. We would expect to see some corresponding peak right about here. If you said, well, COVID peaks here a little bit later, there’s heart attacks here, we should say, okay, COVID peaks here. There should be there should be something here, but there’s nothing. This is this is just well within normal parameters. So looking at this just even a little bit more closely, they say, well, because of that prior lack of association with COVID and heart attacks, then what’s the explanatory function? We have first doses here. We have second doses starting just a few weeks later. We have this big surge in heart attacks that comes up here above, way above normal. And then there’s this second peak right here, which they said in their in their discussion or in their methods, I can’t remember where I found this, but their quote from the paper says, a second increase is observed starting around April 18th. Interestingly, this second increase seems to track closely the estimated number of single doses delivered for individuals who recovered from COVID 19. That’s the Green Line starting April 11th. So it’s always possible here that for people who have already recovered from COVID getting a vaccine, they’re suggesting, hey, it looks like there’s a second increase in in heart attacks. That or yeah, this is cardiac arrest, heart attacks that followed, getting a dose of the vaccine after having already had COVID. So we’ve heard about that before. We’ve seen lots of data to suggest that you probably shouldn’t be getting any sort of a vaccine for some number of months at a minimum, if ever, following getting COVID itself. So that’s what they said.

Dr. Chris Martenson [00:28:43] Again, they’re just noting there’s an opposite set of observations here. There’s a similar set of of wiggly, squiggly line charts like this for the aches, the acute cardiac syndrome. But this is cardiac arrest. This is what they found. So that’s what they found. And they noted that this is just an interesting finding and maybe it should be followed up. So naturally, living in the world we live in, the world swings to action. And and of course, Reuters fact check this and Reuters fact checking is really just pharma gatekeeping and not a big surprise given the CEO serves on the board of Pfizer and all that. But look at this, the Reuters fact check, vector, fact check, they’re very happy with their picture. So on May 10th, they said fact check study using Israeli emergency services data does not prove COVID 19 vaccines cause heart problems. Reading down into it, they said here the study has been criticized online for not proving a correlation between COVID 19 vaccines and heart bombs. Actually, they you don’t. How do you prove a correlation? Reuters link to fact check your fact checking here. How do you what do you mean prove a correlation? You can show that something is correlated and that’s it. There’s no proving of correlations like there it is. The correlation is there. And you know, it might have a very high correlation, which would be a one or might have a partial correlation, which is like point two. But there’s a correlation there and it has a very high p value. So they did prove the correlation, but that’s not what they actually meant. They just misuse the words because down here when they got to their verdict, they said verdict misleading. A study noting an increase in ambulance calls for cardiovascular problems does not provide proof that this was caused by the COVID 19 vaccine roll up. So again, Reuters quick tip, you know how many things are actually proven to be caused by in medicine? Almost none. It’s very, very difficult to ever prove that anything is caused by by the same standard. I could say you nobody is proven that the reduction in deaths associated with. Vaccines of COVID from COVID has been proven. There’s a very strong association there. There’s a strong correlation. In fact, this is how this is how life just works. You note these things, you take you see the correlations. They’re strong enough. And once they rise above a certain level of repeated correlation, you say, Oh, that’s just kind of how it is. We can we can say, you know, the sun goes lower in the horizon and that correlates with things getting colder. But you couldn’t prove that it was cold in February at that temperature on that day because of that. You can’t it’s just not it’s but the correlation is pretty good. So carrying back I love how they find like here they found Dr. Deepti, Gerta Sonia, clinical epidemiologist, Queen Mary, University of London, told Reuters via email. It’s rather bizarre to study cardiac events at a population level without individual assessment of whether they were linked to COVID or vaccination. End quote. Hey, Dr. Gerta Sanneh. But they did that. Not sure if you read the study or not, but. But that’s what they did. They said at the individual, I mean, how can you take it to the individual level? They’re doing a population level study and they’re saying the population with just COVID didn’t experience an increase in heart attacks in a population with both COVID and vaccines did experience an increase in heart attacks. That’s what they showed. Dr.. And so, again, a lot of gatekeepers out there are working very, very hard to keep this narrative up around, you know, the vaccines are there safe and effective, and that’s it. End of story. That’s as far as we’re going to look. And anybody who says otherwise, we’re going to gaslight them. And if anybody thinks they were harmed by them, they’re going to get gaslit. It’s just it’s really a totally irrational way to go about conducting health policy. And it’s not scientific and it’s not very. Dr. Lee. Doctors who are busy gatekeeping for that I understand you know why Reuters does was it you know because I can show you I can prove factually that Reuters has a conflict of interest in this story. Guaranteed. Now, can I prove that that conflict of interest cause this article or fact check to be written this way? No, I can’t. But you stack up enough of those conflicts of interest and fact checks that always fall one direction and again three times as enemy action. You figure it out, right? That the conflict of interest is a very strong explanatory function for why Reuters fact checks in the direction it does every single time. Not a big surprise. All right. So conclusion here for episode 64. Yes, myocarditis and pericarditis. Good news. They are not associated with COVID plus ten days after a positive test. So we’ll call that long COVID ten days, two up to six months afterwards. No additional increase in myocarditis or pericarditis. That’s the good news. So if you have long COVID, breathe a sigh of relief, at least around that second. Cardiac events in 16 to 39 year olds are statistically significantly elevated, plus 25% in the weeks immediately following vaccination with the Pfizer COVID vaccine.

Dr. Chris Martenson [00:33:48] Now, this paper has been critiqued. It’s now under editorial review. It’s been fact checked and found to be nonproductive. But it’s really that’s what it’s supposed to be as a signal to say it’s time to go look deeper. So the next question ought to be, hey, CDC, tell us how you’re going about studying this to either prove it or disprove it at a higher level of certainty. It’s worth studying. That’s what you do at the population, public health level, that’s your job, is to find signals like this. And, you know, sometimes they have those clusters, like people sometimes randomly have these clusters of cancers that show up and they study it like crazy and they find out it was just one of those unfortunate clusters they happen. But you know that after you study it a lot, you don’t know that because some doctor emailed you and said, Oh, now you can’t prove that. That’s not how this works at all. All right. So good news for Long-Covid sufferers, by the way. I’m going to be moving on to part two about this. We’re going to be bracing for impact at Peak Prosperity. We will be talking about what’s going on out there. And I got some some very shocking gas prices down there, but I have a bunch of things I got to talk to you about. Next includes the war on our culture that’s happening right now, the war on Second Amendment rights that’s happening in the United States at this point. There’s really it’s a culture war that’s got some pretty powerful implications, what might be coming from it as well, the inflationary signs and all the economic signs really astonishing the time we’re living through. So that’s what I’ll be talking about in part two of this and of course, carrying on any conversations around any of this stuff, which is, by the way, what we’ll see, you know, if this stays up or not, because I am daring to call some of the using data and my background and my qualifications as a B.S. detector to start to ask the questions that really need to be asked about this. And I know lots of people are doing that, but right now we need to absolutely be as rational as we possibly can if we can’t get COVID right, if we can’t even be rational about what should be fairly simple. Scientific and I mean simple scientific inquiries into public health and things like that. How are we ever going to deal with things like a broken supply chain, which is very complicated and has lots of interested parties, or the fact that we have vast under-investment in all sorts of infrastructures we desperately need. If we can’t do the simple right, we’re not going to do the hard. And what’s coming in terms of energy and the economy is going to be very hard for us to deal with. That’s why I care as well. I like to defend the scientific process and being rational. So with that, thank you very much for listening. We’ll see you next time. Hope you got something from this. If you did hit like hit share, hit subscribe if you need to resubscribe people get unsubscribe from my channel all the time. Hey, what you can do with that?

Dr. Chris Martenson [00:36:41] I’m Dr. Chris Martenson. I’ll see you next time. Be good. Be safe. Be well. Bye.