SPEAKERS

Dr Robert Reinders, Interviewer, Dr James Neueschwander, Dr Larry Pavlevsky, Dr Alvin Moss

Interviewer  00:01

So recently at the gaylord entertainment centre in Nashville, I had the opportunity to ask a panel of doctors, some very well respected well known doctors, some questions they did not expect. It was at a lunch and I was very interested in their responses and I think you will be as well check this out.

Interviewer  00:20

Okay, I don’t come from a medical background. I’m a former athlete, and I care about health and freedom in general, so that’s why I’m here, but I just want to set up this question with a few stories recently. So we were told foetal cell lines were absolutely not in the vaccines and Project Veritas did their you know, undercover journalism and found out it was. There was a German doctor Andres Novak, who was murdered last week after he reported that graphene oxide was actually in the vaccines. There was the head of a German hospital last week who jumped off the roof of his hospital after admitting COVID-19 vaccines were really about totalitarian control and was a scam. Then we had carried Dr. Carrie Madje showing several batches of Moderna and Pfizer vaccines with self assembling tentacle nanobots. I saw this video and images I didn’t know if I believed it. So then I read recently in 2019, where the NAIAD, I believe it is, said yes, we are looking at self assembling nanobots within the vaccines, and I saw Dr. Fauci’s signature on the document.

Interviewer  01:26

So all that sets up this question. Number one, what is really in these things cos I just don’t have access to a microscope to go look at it. Number two, these are bombshell stories to me. I mean, as a regular guy, this stuff speaks to me when you get a doctor head of hospitals jumping off the roof. So are these censored stories useful to the public? So number one, what’s in the vaccines? Number two, is this useful?

Dr Larry Pavlevsky  01:51

So because these injections are experimental, and they’re only being used under the EUA, we do not know the full list of ingredients that’s in them. No one knows. We do know that there’s supposed to be messenger RNA to manufacture spike protein. We found out that there’s also messenger RNA in there to stop the body from stopping the body from removing the messenger RNA. We know that there’s lipid nanoparticles in there. We know that there’s polyethylene glycol in there. What else is in there? We don’t know. And no one is holding them responsible for letting us know what is in the shots. The German doctor you mentioned, found that it wasn’t graphene oxide that was in it, it was graphene hydroxide. And the potential for graphene hydroxide, based on his scientific understanding was that it breaks apart in the bloodstream and causes razorblade cuts into the endothelial lining of the cells of the blood vessels. Now, we’re seeing people with increased clotting in their blood and strokes. We’re seeing over 100 soccer players internationally, who’ve already collapsed and died on the field. And he raised the suggestion that the action of the graphene hydroxide is what’s causing these blood clots and these heart attacks and these strokes. So any scientific mind when they see, any scientific mind that sees a list of of observations, then has to ask a question. That’s what the scientific method is. Scientific Method is, wow, over 100 of these soccer players have died suddenly, and many more athletes have died suddenly. And there’s some concern that there might be some chemicals in the shot that are creating not only the cytokine storm that Dr. Newt spoke about, but blood clots and strokes and sudden death.

Dr Larry Pavlevsky  04:11

The question that needs to be asked is, is there something or some things in this shot that could be contributing to the observations that we’re seeing? That’s a normal scientific method, and then you assess the shots by looking at what the ingredients are, looking at the chemical makeup and trying to understand the effects of those chemicals and what they would have on the body. We do know that there’s no study isolating any of the ingredients in these shots to test them for safety and biological effects in the body short or long term. Yet, you hear they say, these are safe. Right. So when your observation in the real world differs from what they say, do you pay attention to what the authority tells you, or do you adhere to your observation and your experience and question further?

Dr Larry Pavlevsky  05:15

When you realise that the more you question, the more you get censored, then you know where you are. And that’s where we are. Because a good scientific question would be, huh, this is really interesting. You know, almost 20,000 people have reportedly died in the United States, after having received the shot within two weeks or three weeks. And that may be only less than 1 percent of the total number of reports of deaths that are usually reported to VAERS. This is interesting, shouldn’t we investigate what might be in this shot. But what the censors say is no, nothing happening here. There’s nothing going on here.

Dr James Neueschwander  06:06

So the question of what’s in a vaccine is almost immaterial, because none of the ingredients of the vaccine are ever evaluated separately. The vaccine is evaluated as an entire shot. So you know, the FDA doesn’t approve vaccine adjuvants, the FDA doesn’t approve polysorbate 80, the FDA doesn’t approve any of that stuff. They approve the MMR vaccine, or they approve the Tdap vaccine, or they approve one of these COVID vaccines. So you know, whether there’s whatever the ingredients might be in there, you have to study it based on the whole compound. So when you look at some of the things in there, I mean, you know, you don’t have to go to self assembling nanobots. Let’s just start with the phospholipids that are in there. All right. So these are completely unnatural phospholipids, they do not occur in nature, they are manmade, they have the opposite polarity of any other phospholipid. Why does that matter? Because every membrane in your body is made of phospholipids. So what happens when you take a phospholipid that has the opposite charge, it’s going to bind to those membranes? What happens when that occurs? We don’t know? Why, because they never did animal studies. This is the whole point of animal studies to find out what happens when you inject this vaccine into a living being. And the nice thing about mice and rats is they don’t have an 80 year lifespan. So you can see effects like cancer and infertility and all the things we talk about. And they say we’re whack jobs for talking about it, you can see what happens in an animal model doesn’t necessarily apply to humans, but you look at drugs, drugs will have black box warnings that say this caused thyroid cancer in rats, this caused ovarian cancer in mice.

Dr James Neueschwander  07:56

You don’t have that with this vaccine, because they’ve never studied it in animals. So you don’t have to go off the deep end with conspiracies and self assembling nanobots and all that, because I will tell you, you start talking that way in mainstream, you are going to be completely dismissed as a whack job, nobody’s going to listen to you, you know, but if you say, gee, you know, when we use this vaccine on mice and rats, they developed thyroid cancer. Okay, that would be a concern. But they never did this with this vaccine, you know, and the reality is, you know, you can say that they don’t have to disclose what’s in the EUA experimental vaccine. They haven’t even disclosed what’s in Comirnaty, which technically was “approved” by the FDA. We can’t even get that data, you know, so it makes it very very suspicious what’s in there.

Dr James Neueschwander  08:15

But remember all these ingredients, they damage the cell. And then let’s just look at the spike protein. Alright, if this thing works the way it’s supposed to, it’s instructions for your body to make spike protein. What happens when you inject spike protein into animals? They have strokes, they have heart attacks, they develop myocarditis. It’s a toxin, all right, and you’re injecting instructions on how to make a toxin. We have no idea how long your body’s gonna make that, we have no idea how much you’re going to make. You know, if I give you an injection of an MMR vaccine, or not MMR, of a Dtap vaccine, I know how much aluminium you’re getting. Everybody gets the same dose.

Dr James Neueschwander  08:49

If I inject you with this, I have no idea what the toxin level is. Because you might make this much toxin, this much spike, and I might make this much spike. Right? So we have no idea. And that’s the scary thing about this. And again, this is science, and nobody’s even listening to this. And you think they’re gonna listen to graphene, hydroxide or self assembling nanobots.

Dr Robert Reinders  09:53

I’ve wanted to, I love your question and I think it kind of applies to all of us. We hear all these stories and see research papers and, you know, some of them are kind of you could label as conspiracy theories, but some are grounded [in] a lot of fact and research. And what I like to do is I like to keep things a lot more simple with people if you’re trying to reach somebody to get them to start thinking critically about this. And you don’t show him a bunch of, you know, articles about 20 different aspects of this and nanobots like you were  just saying. Keep it simple. And I think what I like to do is, is talk about how everyone has always accepted vaccination in our society. Almost everyone has accepted it as good and wonderful, very few people question it. There’s very few anti vaxxers out there, and you know, that’s not true, there’s a lot of a lot of us out there, but everyone kind of accepted vaccines, and the few that spoke out against them, they’re just, you know, they lose their medical licences or whatever.

Dr Robert Reinders  10:58

Now look what’s happening with COVID. It’s a completely different ballgame. Many, many health professionals are speaking out and raising questions about COVID, specifically about COVID vaccine. Look at the discrepancy. We all accepted vaccination, and you probably accepted the vaccine policies, you know, but why are so many doctors raising questions and speaking out specifically about COVID vaccine now? And don’t you think that’s interesting? You know, professors at universities, researchers, doctors, medical professionals, people that have devoted their lives to research are now putting their jobs at risk because they’re questioning. They’ve all accepted vaccines, you know, perfectly well, but now they’re questioning this? Why! Why do you think that is? If you can simply pique their interest? Don’t you know, don’t say nanobots, and don’t say Fauci and don’t say, I mean, all those things that are gonna trigger in their mind you’re a crazy person, you want to trigger in their mind, hey that’s interesting, I wonder why so many university professors are also questioning this, when they’ve never questioned the vaccine narrative before. Maybe I should look into that. And if you can achieve that, your job is done. Because nobody researches deeper into vaccines, and finds this nice package of safety research that now they feel great about it, and it’s all good.

Dr Robert Reinders  12:29

No, someone researches about vaccines, and they start to find questions, more questions, more questions that are never answered. And if you can achieve that, then then you’ve done your job, alright, and you don’t look like you’re a crazy person, and so that’s kind of how I approach this, more like a relationship [to] get them to think about it. Not, you know, throw five scientific facts at them that you believe that mean nothing to them. Right. Anyway, more about that tomorrow.

Dr Alvin Moss  13:00

So one more thing, so natural immunity is a really good example of where some of the Harvard and Johns Hopkins Physicians are questioning stuff. And these were not ones who would have stuck their necks out before. Dr. Marty Makary, who’s at Johns Hopkins, Dr. Martin Kulldorff at Harvard. They’re basically saying, we’ve always known that natural immunity is better than vaccine induced immunity. Why all of a sudden, are we turning this on its head and saying no no vaccine induced immunity is better. And so I think that following what Bob said, you have to ask, what is it they’re trying to do. To give you an example, and I’m not the paediatrician in the group, but MMR, I mean I read about MMR and supposedly after about 22 years, about 30 percent of people who are fully vaccinated with the MMR vaccines have what’s called secondary vaccine failure, and they no longer have immunity against measles. I’m looking to see if my pedia

Dr Robert Reinders  14:03

and mumps especially

Dr Alvin Moss  14:04

Mumps also, well mumps is a real question about how effective that component is even from day one, but the point is, we’ve always sort of known natural immunity is better, why all of a sudden are we having to throw that out? Right?

Dr Larry Pavlevsky  14:19

Because if a child has a natural measles infection, or a natural chickenpox infection, no paediatrician would say it’s medically indicated to give them the measles vaccine or the chickenpox vaccine. Now all of a sudden medicine is changing, whereby even if you have the infection, you need to get the vaccine. Doesn’t that strike you as odd? That policy would all of a sudden change when it’s never been like that before?