Corona Investigative Committee, 128th Session on October 28th, 2022

Prof. Denis Rancourt

(Original language: English)

[Transcript from Team corona-ausschuss-info.com + Ed]


Viviane Fischer: [02:54:31]
Now we have– our next guest is Dr. Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics and lead scientist at the University of Ottawa for 23 years; has written over 100 peer-reviewed journal articles in technical areas of science and technology. Are you with us Dr. Rancourt?

Denis Rancourt PhD:
…happy to be with you.

Viviane Fischer:
Hello. Nice to see you.

Denis Rancourt PhD:
Hi.

Viviane Fischer:
Yeah, it– maybe, would you give us a few more words about your background? That would be interesting.

Denis Rancourt PhD:

Denis Rancourt PhD

I think it would– we have relatively little time, so rather than go into my background, which is: I’m an interdisciplinary scientist, and I’m also a social theorist, and I’m now working with the Ontario– I’m a researcher at the Ontario Civil Liberties Association, and I’m also a co-director of a new corporation, a nonprofit corporation called Correlation Research in the Public Interest.

[02:55:31]
And those are volunteer positions for me, because I… I’m retired from actual salaried work. And, but more importantly, what I have been doing since the start of, the announcement of a pandemic by the World Health Organization is: I’ve… really focused my research in those areas. So there– and… related areas that have become important as a result of our awakening due to covid. So I want to just, maybe I could summarize my research in that sense, okay? To start, as an introduction.

[02:56:07]
All of this can be found on my website, which is DenisRancourt.ca, so Denis with one “n” Rancourt dot ca. It’s a very extensive website that has all of these articles and my other research and so on. OK.

So I’ve worked on covid-19, and in that regard I’ve looked at the science of masks and whether they’re effective and safe. And I had a first article right away, where I reviewed the scientific literature on efficacy of wearing a face mask, that showed that there was no measurable efficacy. And there’s quite a lot of hagh– you know, policy-grade research regarding, that are randomized controlled trials with controlled out– with verified outcome. And they all show the same thing– there’s been over 10 of them, now– that you cannot detect an advantage from wearing a mask, whether it’s in a community environment or in… public or in the medical environment, medical health care environment.

[02:57:08]
So that article was read more than 400,000 times on ResearchGate, to the point where they… disappeared it from ResearchGate because they said it was being viewed by too many other web sites. It was a scientific review article. So that was one of the first things. I did it right away. That was back in, that was on the 11th of April, 2020, when I published that.

And then my next article was on all-cause mortality, which has become one of my main areas of research. And back on the 2nd of June, 2020, I wrote an article that I entitled “All-cause mortality in the Covid era: No plague, and likely signature of mass homicide by government response”. Some people said I was being too provocative, but we have continued that work, and it has been completely corroborated, what we were saying in our all-cause mortality work. And I will show some graphs about that today, if we have time. It, because it’s very important research. I’m also doing modeling on propagation models, mainly to criticize the models and… their assumptions and so on. And we’ve started publishing in that area. And I’ve been critical of the vaccine trials as well, and it got me permanently barred from Research Gate, So that’s on the covid-19.

Since 2007, I have been researching as a physicist this climate-change social phenomenon, if you like. And so I have done detailed radiation balance physics calculations for the planet. I have in-depth knowledge of how that works. And I’ve written about it, and I have written a big article explaining forest fires and the degree to which we’ve been lied to, in terms of that they’re more frequent. In fact, they’re less frequent. And one of the key papers that was published in _Science_ said they were more frequent, because they were comparing satellite measurements before they had infrared detectors on the satellites, to satellite measurements after they had infrared detectors.

So they found an increase, and they attributed it to CO2. And that’s why the media started saying that there were more forest fires, So I… did a… large critical article about that, and showed that myself and… other experts who had written in expert journals show that that _Science_ paper was totally wrong. So that was, that’s in relation to my climate work. There’s other things, too, like looking at the temperature data and the extreme, systematic bias in temperature data. So that’s the climate change.

[02:59:46]
I also do research on civil rights, and recently I’ve been analyzing Superior Court in Canada rulings and showing that the courts have not followed their own directives in examining the bias, the possible bias of expert witnesses. So that’s a huge flaw, and they have not even been following the jurisprudence in this regard. So I’ve shown that the courts have been misbehaving. We also wrote an article that’s now being– an editor of a law journal has a great interest in it. And it is to show that the vaccine coercion that’s being applied in Canada violates Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights. And– but the court is not admitting it, because they’re using an… incorrect interpretation of Section Seven of the Charter. So we wrote a paper about that.

The other and final area of research that’s relevant for today’s talk, that I’ve worked on extensively, is geopolitics. So in 2019, and this is all on my website, I wrote a very large paper on geopolitics since the Second World War, looking at globalization since that time, and the big tectonic shifts that have accelerated globalization, and how that relates to what I would call ideological capture of our institutions in the West. So you can… actually see by-design capture of the ideology at the same time that the Soviet Union disintegrated, basically, in 1991. And you can actually measure it, and there’s a lot of data for it. So I wrote a _very_ large article about that whole story of what drives geopolitics, the monetary system, the US petrodollar, how pharma is part of that and so on. And that is a 2019 geopolitics paper which I think is a very important background piece for understanding the context in which covid has developed.

[03:02:00]
So that in a nutshell are the big areas of research that I have worked on, that can be found on my website and that I had made many many interviews about. And all the, a lot of the interviews are in the video section of my website. So now we can go in to pick one of these. And I think we only have time to do maybe one or, one of these. And I would _like_ to talk, tell you about the all-cause mortality work, if that’s possible.

Viviane Fischer: [03:02:30]
Yes. Great. Thank you.

Denis Rancourt PhD:
Yeah. So in order to do that, maybe the best– well, let me just say a few things, and then I’ll share my screen.

All-cause mortality is counting deaths in a given jurisdiction that are simply when someone dies, irrespective of what any authority might say was the cause of death. So in other words you completely remove the variable, the uncertainty of establishing a cause of death. Because in reality, cause of death, except in special circumstances, is extremely difficult to define and to… determine — except when someone dies of a sudden accident, a car accident or something like that, obviously.

But otherwise you know, there are many organ– systems, there are many things going on, it’s a complex system. What exactly, which failure actually caused the death is… usually rather difficult– Anyway… because of that difficulty, it is also very prone to bias. And it is prone to social bias, media bias. And this has been known since epidemiology was developing. It’s been known for a hundred years that MDs will assign causes of death in a very biased way if there’s things in the newspaper about, you know, that…, the latest thing that’s killing people, and on.

So we avoid all of that bias and we look, we simply count deaths. And western nations have been very good and very organized at counting deaths by jurisdiction, by age. You can get the data as a function of time. So it’s all-cause mortality by day, by week, by month or by year. And you can do it by age group as well, and by jurisdiction. So, for example, in the United States, you can look at the, you know, fifty or more different states that are essentially countries in themselves. And each one, you… can do it by state, in that way and compare. And then try to find correlations between what you see in the all-cause mortality and what we know are the social-economic characteristics of those states. And we find very, very strong correlations for the excess deaths during the covid period, for example. So it’s a very powerful and robust thing to measure and to study. And we’ve concentrated on that to a large extent.

So I guess now I would like to– yeah, I think I’ll share my screen, and… show you some some graphs. It’s going to seem a little bit disconnected becauseI don’t have time to go through it in a super-pedagogical way, but here we go.

[03:05:15]
Share… I’m thinking that eventually you’ll see what I just shared. And it will be the– OK, that’s… my website, just to show you what it looks like. There’s a whole covid section here, with all the papers I’ve been writing relevant to covid. And then in the research section, you can go to climate change and so on. OK? And there’s a section in there on geopolitics. And this is the big paper that I was telling you about geopolitics. And it is a rather massive paper that’s, was published by the Ontario Civil Liberties Association, and so on. So that’s what my website looks like.

But now I’m going to go into the actual data and share a Powerpoint presentation. And I’m going to start in the United States, and I may be going to go to full screen here, one second. Slide show. Now I’ll explain what this is. I don’t– I maybe not– OK is the slide show coming on? I thought I… clicked the right thing. Hang on… oh yes, I have to do “from current slide”, yes. There it is. OK. And I’ll move this over, so that you can– wait, can I make this smaller? No. So I’ll move this over here. Now this is all-cause– this is, OK, this is excess all-cause mortality. I’m trying to find a way to minimize… No, OK, it doesn’t matter. This is–

Viviane Fischer:
{in German] Control? Can you make this smaller? [in English] … I think that they might be able to shrink it a little bit on the big screen. But I thinkthe, on line, you’re going to see your screen with the–

Denis Rancourt PhD: [03:07:26]
OK, very good.

Viviane Fischer:
title. xxxxx xxxx xxx xxxxxx. OK, just go ahead. I think they’ll take care of it.

Denis Rancourt PhD: [03:07:43]
Very good. So this is per percent increase of mortality by age group in the, in ten, the ten most populous states in the United States. OK? So you see the age groups at the bottom, there. You have zero to 24 years old, 25 to 44, and so on. And then the… last group is 85-plus. And the color codes correspond to the most populous states starting California, Texas, Florida and so on. And this is excess mortality beyond the historic baseline, as rigorously determined by our methods– which I don’t have time to explain. But we have very good methods for doing this, which are much better than what most governments are doing. And this is the percent on the historic baseline increase during the first half of the covid period. So from the 11th of March 2020,when they announced the pandemic, to about 50 weeks later, just before they started the vaccination campaign that they turned on suddenly in the United States. And this shows you how that in virtually all age groups, there is, you know, up to 40 percent more deaths than would have occurred, and on average something like 25 percent across the board.

[03:08:44]
So you’re… basically having a large increase in– this is the United States, do not forget. This is not the same situation that happened in Canada, not by any means, which is just the neighboring country, or in most western european countries, there was not mortality to this degree. But the US is very special because it has a huge pool of highly vulnerable, health vulnerable citizens. for example, people don’t generally know that in the United States, there are thirteen million people who are classified as suffering from a severe mental illness. Thirteen million.

So there… are, there’s huge heterogeneity in terms of poverty, health, obesity, mental illness, you name it. And so it is a population that was on the brink of suffering a huge disaster if something hits, like the government measures that were imposed and… so on. And I could go into how that killed people and so on. But anyway, this– right now, we’re just looking at the first half of the covid period. And the second half of the covid period that we’re going to look at next is one where now you have essentially accomplished the vaccination campaign. And I want to show you how that changes this distribution of deaths, OK? This is in the United States for the ten most populous states, what that distribution of death looks like after you’ve essentially vaccinated everyone.

[03:10:47]
So you have a much bigger impact on younger people, it appears. So that’s the kind of data that we can look at, and… try to figure out what’s… doing what. And we can do maps, we can look at differences. But the next thing we did was: we looked at– well, another thing we did is: we looked at the excess mortality for the _entire_ covid period by population of states.

So each point on this graph is one… of the fifty or so states. And on the X axis, you have poverty, the degree of people living in poverty in the given state. And we find a very strong correlation, and I mean very strong. The… Pearson correlation coefficient for this graph is plus point eight six, very strong correlation. And it’s unheard of in the social sciences to see a correlation this strong.

[03:11:44]
And this is the same data, but now we’ve included the origin. And what we see is that the excess mortality during the covid period is not only are _correlated_ to poverty; it is _proportional_ to poverty. The… correlation line goes exactly he through the origin. And so if you double the poverty in a state, you double the excess mortality, and so on. So these are the kinds of correlations that we’re finding with the deaths that occurred the United States under covid.

This is the same kind of graph, but now we have family, family income in the state, median family income in the state. And we… see that if you, if the family made more than– it’s predicted that if the family made more than a hundred and thirty thousand per year, then no one in that family would die! …of covid. I mean, that would be one rough way of interpreting such a graph. There are also correlations, strong correlations, with obesity.

But there is no correlations with age of the populations in the state. So when we look at how many people are 65 and over, or 75 and over, 85 and– whatever, there is a… scatter pattern like this, no correlation with age, which… is contrary to what a viral respiratory disease should do, because viral respiratory deaths, including for covid, from quality clinical studies, are said to go exponentially with age, OK? But instead, we have the shotgun pattern.

[03:13:19]
And then we can look at the correlation between excess mortality and different measures of disability in the population of the state. So this is a disability program that’s funded by the government. There’s a correlation there. This is a different program, correlation again. This is actual disability, as defined by the government: percentage of the population living with a disability that does not allow them to work. And there’s a strong correlation with the excess mortality in the covid period.

So that’s the kind of study– and this… is to show that the… distribution, age-wise distribution of citizens living with a serious mental illness in the United States is highly… shifted towards younger adults. So this _could_ explain– and… we… interpret this in our paper and so on. I won’t get into the interpretations. But this is a very large paper about the United States that is one of our most important papers. This is what the act– well, here, let me– this is what the… yeah, that’s by age. Let me see… here.

[03:14:38]
This is what the all-cause mortality, by week, in the United states looks like. and we have different colors for the different integration periods that we used in order to quantify the total all-cause mortality in the covId period, before vaccination and after vaccination, just to show our methods here. And we show that historically, there’s basically a flat baseline. And then as soon as the pandemic is announced, you have this huge peak, this one, that immediately shoots up and which is extremely heterogeneous from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

There are about 30 states in the United States that don’t even show this anomaly. So it… cannot be– we argued from the beginning that this cannot be due to spread of… a disease and must be due to what happened in those jurisdictions. And then we were able to correlate the magnitude of that peak with the aggressive nature of the measures applied in the various jurisdictions. So that’s an example of… a large paper that we did.

[03:15:49]
And then we tred to correlate with the vaccination rollouts. and by age group. And we found strong evidence in certain states of a peak in all-cause mortality that coincided with a surge in vaccination rollout that corresponded to the
so-called equity campaigns of vaccination, when they went in and really vaccinated the most vulnerable that were hardest to reach. And they are in states like Georgia, Mississippi and so on. They really caused an anomalous all-cause mortality peak that is not the usual seasonal thing, that’s in fact happening in the summer, when they started vaccinating a lot. So this is all in that large paper on the United States. So we… found evidence of vaccine deaths that were large enough to actually be seen in all-cause mortality.

So that is a very large and very detailed paper that shows all the data for the United States and an examination of all the correlations and cites all our previous work. So if someone was going to read one paper to appreciate the importance of all-cause mortality related to understanding covid, this would be the paper you you’d want to read.

[03:17:11]
So that’s basically what I wanted to introduce you to on the all-cause mortality front, but I also want to show how different it is for Canada. And so let me see here… oh, I see what I have to do. I need to go here and show you my other Powerpoint presentation for Canada. All right now I’m going to put on the slide show … well, maybe I don’t need to start at the current slide. We recently wrote a paper about Canada, where– Canada as a very special– something very special happened, because the government is claiming deaths due to covid-19, and in fact the number of deaths that they’re claiming is almost twice as many as the excess deaths from all-cause mortality.

And so this is an absurdity. And we wrote a paper just to point out that all the media and the government are claiming these numbers, but it’s in fact these deaths are twice as big as is possible, as the deaths that are available, if you like. So we looked at all-cause mortality. For example, we started by month. This is the data for Canada. We showed that in Canada, it’s very hard to detect, there’s not a very large excess all-cause mortality in the covid period.

[03:18:42]
This is by week data, where– now we blow up. In… this data, you… start at Y=0. You show the deaths on the… y axis to appreciate the seasonal variation versus the magnitude of total deaths in the country by week. And then we do a blowup and we– the– herem the 11th of March 2020you see starts just before this all-cause peak here. OK? And so this is the covid period here, beyond that last big blue dot. And then– so we integrate that period and get the… deaths, and that’s this blue dot. And then we integrate a window of equal width that is the prior period. That’s this dot; and then the prior puriod, the prior period, prior period.

And we see that when you integrate over long enough, like this, almost two years, you… average out the seasonal variations, and you get a very nice, regular increase, like that, which is linear. I guess you’re doing a kind of Taylor expansion, so basically a straight line. And that is the historically predicted trend. It’s increasing, because the population is aging and so on, other factors like that. But in the covid period, there’s a small increase here, which corresponds to three percent more than what the historical trend would predict, for Canada. So it’s barely visible when you put it, the… Y at zero. But it… is measurable and quantifiable. And we can estimate the error on it from the error in the extrapolation, and so on.

[03:20:24]
And it is half of the covid-19 deaths that are claimed by the government. All right? So that’s the situation in Canada. Now… in… yeah. I won’t tell you about the other stuff. So now the Government, the… chief health officer of Canada, wrote a scientific paper this… month [October, 2022], claiming that if they had not applied all of the measures that they applied– including vaccination, masking, distancing, lockdowns– that there would have been a million more deaths in Canada. They actually claim this in a peer-reviewed scientific paper, published, funded, by the Government.

So we wanted to, in this paper about Canada, also critique that. And so here I show how one can easily critique this. Here I show again the all-cause mortality for Canada on a bi-week basis. Now I put the zero on the Y axis, and I show the magnitude of this all-cause mortality here. And I show that– in blue, this is the actual measured all-cause mortality, and then into the covid period it does not, virtually does not change, except for that initial peak. And if you look at by age and by province, you can see horrible things happening, for example in Alberta and Saskatchewan. But with– but you really have to take a close look to actually see it. Otherwise, overall there’s a three-percent increase compared to the historic trend. But here in red is what the Government is claiming it’s an… illustration that with, that shows what a million extra deaths would look like if you distributed them uniformly by week over the period in question.

[03:22:15]
And so what they’re saying is that if they had not applied the measures, they’d have, they… would have had mortality up there during the covid period. This is more than doubling the mortality from all causes, irrespective of everything. This is absolutely crazy. And here’s the proof that it _is_ crazy. What– if it were true, then you’re saying that all of the measures that you apply, these complex measures applied at different times, brought the mortality down to basically exactly what the historic trend would have been within three percent of the total.

So the probability that that coincidence would occur,that you, by everything you did, brought everything down to the same point as if you had no particularly virulent pathogen acting and you hadn’t done anything. So they’re… saying that their magical measures brought this huge excess mortality that we _would_ have had, down to exactly the historic trend if there’s nothing special happening. And we argue that there’s only one universe in a million where that could have happened by accident. Yeah, you know, I’m… saying that that is an absolutely preposterous thing to say. And this is the graph that best illustrates that, I think.

[03:23:44]
So that is the most recent article that we wrote using all-cause mortality on the question of Canada. And I… think that the… best we can do now is to open the floor for questions, because there are many, many things that I didn’t say. And depending on your interest, I’ll be able to fill in the gaps. So I will… stop sharing my screen now, and we can do questions.

Viviane Fischer: [03.24.14]
These people that died in America, the– do we know also if they were, like a lot of younger people dying. Wwas that because of, like the special economic or whatever situation? Or was this because of the vaccines? Like from your, what you saw, thess excess deaths in the–

Denis Rancourt PhD:
We… concluded that the excess deaths in the younger people was probably due to the equity programs that, where they went in and vaccinated the… mentally disabled, who are disproportionately younger, and… situations like that. So they… stressed them out. And one of the big conclusions in our paper is that the vaccine alone, in terms of all-cause mortality, does not kill you. What you need– I’m not saying that clinically it doesn’t kill you. Of course we studied the VAERS data as well, and you see a very large peak in the first five days following injection. But that is a separate study from all-cause mortality, in the sense that those numbers are very small and would not show up inall-cause mortality, normally, OK? So we… looked at that.

But the point with the… question that you’re asking– the, what we found in the paper and we explain in some detail, is that the states where we see a peak that coincides with the vaccine rollout are states that have particularly large populations of very health-vulnerable people, OK? So we believe that the vaccine can kill you as a toxic additional challenge to someone who is already fragile.

OK, that’s… the conclusion that we came to, in the large US paper. Now, the other big conclusion that we came to is that– and… we’ve written two big papers in the United States, and this was.. the first conclusion looking at the data _before_ the vaccine rollout, but it… holds as the vaccines come out as well. We found that the US claims of covid-19 deaths are related to the excess mortality and all-cause mortality, very closely related in time. However, the… CDC is admitting that a majority of those were, had co-morbidity condition which was pneumonia that was _not_ covid-19, in addition to what they’re claiming the covid-19. Now at the same time, there were directives that went out and scientific papers written recommending that we stop prescribing antibiotics.

And so _we_ concluded that the people who normally suffer from pneumonia– and that, that’s in the poor states. If you draw a map of the antibiotic prescriptions, it’s very, very dark in the poorer states, and that’s where the excess mortality mostly occurred as well. And they stopped prescribing antibiotics to those people, and we believe that mechanistically… it was bacterial pneumonia that killed the… majority of people in the United States.

[03:27:46]
And we also suggested that the reason that many MDs were saying that Ivermectin was saving lives is because Ivermectin is an extremely efficient agent against bacterial pneumonia, and that’s proven in the scientific literature. So we think that that explains that anecdotal evidence by MDs that Ivermectin was useful because they were prescribing Ivermectinso-called for covid-19 at a time when it was shunned upon to prescribe antibiotics, and where most fragile people who died would have died from bacterial pneumonia.

So we… concluded in our papers that what the government did was recreate the conditions of 1918 before antibiotics existed, where you had a huge number of deaths from bacterial pneumonia just after massive social economic upheaval, war, horrendous living conditions and so on. And it’s now been proven in five independent scientific papers that in 1918, all the lung tissue that was examined corresponded to bacterial pneumonia.

So we think… the US basically reproduced what happened in 1918 and that that is _mechanistically_ how the deaths occurred. We… also believe that the reason people are even more likely to get bacterial pneumonia or any infection in the covid period is because of psychological stress and social isolation. There is an enormous amount of scientific literature that proves that psychological stress on the individual and social isolation devastates you in terms of the likelihood of dying.

There’s also molecular science that showed that it has a big impact on your immune system. So we think that they took away people’s livelihoods, they completely disrupted their lives, they isolated them, they took away the ability to go to the swimming pool, go into air conditioned places in the summer. And in the southern states, that stress would have increased the likelihood of getting bacterial infections in the lungs. They were not prescribing antibiotics. And that is mechanistically how they killed these incredibly vulnerable people in the United States. And that’s why the United States is so different from Canada and most– if you look at Europe, western European countries are similar to Canada. Several eastern European countries show all-cause mortality that’s similar to what happened in the United States, possibly for the same reasons.

Viviane Fischer:
And the xxxxxx of the antibiotics, was that by some government regulation, or just–

Denis Rancourt PhD:
Not regulation, I don’t think. Although there, there’s, you can find directives to that effect. You can find– I don’t know… that the professional orders would have disciplined them these if they felt that they were prescribing too many antibiotics. Probably not, but if you look at the actual data of prescriptions of antibiotics in… western countries, they _all_ have a drop when the pandemic was announced. And that drop is sustained beyond the start of the pandemic. So you really go down to about half, and… it stays low. And it’s a… real historical anomaly.

[03:31:33]
And this… is about the same time where in some of the top medical journals they were saying, “Listen, this is a viral disease; stop abusing of antibiotics”, you know. There… were scientific articles to that effect, and there were government memos to that effect. And the CDC was saying the same thing as well. So we think that the, there was a systemic stoppage of what… would have been normal use of antibiotics, for vulnerable people who normally have a high infection rate in… these states in the United States.

Viviane Fischer: [03:32:13]
seems to have… been like also some effects of, like, that you… are double, doubly affected by… covid and… a bacterial or other– or like, also like from, I think Wolfgang Wodarg pointed that out in some statement. That you know, you have like, you are infected by influenza A or B, and then corona. and then maybe you also get, like a super infection onto it also–

Denis Rancourt PhD:
Yeah, there are scientific articles that demonstrate that if, that a viral respiratory infection will prepare you for an onslaught of a bacterial lung infection. Bad you know, from my personal perspective…, there– the all-cause mortality in Canada and in many countries and in about thirty of the state suggests that there was no special virulent pathogen present. So I tend to think that– I… believe that there was no special virulent pathogen present. There was all the usual seasonal things and things that are in our bodies and things that are in the environment. But there was no killer that really devastated us particularly.

I think that the death in the, the high deaths in the United States can all be explained in terms of the stress mechanism, stopping the use of antibiotics, and how people were treated. And, plus the medical abusive so-called treatments, you know, that very clearly caused the very first all-cause mortality peak in places where they were being aggressive in this way and taking elderly, fragile patients off of ICU units and putting them in care homes and things like that. They did that in a mass way in… the state of New York, for example. And they had the biggest peak of deaths you can imagine.

[03:34:14]
So I… think, our conclusion is: the excess mortality is due to Government and medical establishment denial of treatment and mistreatment, and measures that were applied. And I think that we underestimate far too much the importance of psychological stress and social isolation. I think that that is… since the work of Sheldon Cohen the… American scientist that’s worked on this for thirty or more years, forty years, he showed that, with influenza for example, the likelihood of being infected– and this was with young university students, at a time when you were allowed to infect them, purposefully– he showed that the likelihood of actually _being_ infected and then the likelihood of being very sick _from_ that infection were both _highly_ correlated to experienced psychological stress and social isolation. And this was not a subtle effect; it was a massive effect. He didn’t have to do a randomized, controlled trial. You could see– it was… the dominant… result.

And so that work cannot be ignored. Psychological stress is _far_ more important than we’ve given it credit for. And there… this is… also true of, from animal studies. All of the best animal studies show that the very first factor that determines the individual health is stress from the dominance hierarchy. In other words, dominant stress applied within the social fabric of the animal community is the determining factor of how sick you’ll be, how often you’ll be sick, and how… early you will die. And I don’t think that humans are… different. I think this is true of all social animals and primates and so on.

[03:36:12]
And so when you are devastated in your life, your circumstances are transformed, you are powerless in front of them and they are harming you and your livelihood and your self image — that has a devastating effect on your individual health. And this is, I think this is– we are…– in… Your previous speaker, Rabbi Smith– I agree with him when he says that, you know, forget about science. I think that science– as a scientist, I believe that science thinks it knows much more than it actually knows, and misguides itself _tremendously_, in many more ways than we think and that we are prepared to admit.

And so a starting point where you throw out all the science, you could argue reasonably, might be better than a starting point where you think that you know… a lot. So, anyway, that’s… just a tie with your previous speaker. But yeah, that’s– I hope I answered your question somewhat.

Viviane Fischer: [03:37:27]
Yeah, you did. I have, so like from the audience there’s a question. I mean there’s now a lot of the facts out there and, but we still, and that the facts, I mean, as you pointed out your articles came out, like rather early in the… whole process, the measures, well frenzy or what, xxxxxx, how could you call it. So, but… still, the… the political decision makers just did not pay attention to these kind of things. And also maybe people weren’t reached by all the facts. So there must be something else going on.

Denis Rancourt PhD:
Absolutely.

Viviane Fischer:
Political–

Denis Rancourt PhD:
Absolutely. I mean, from my study of geopolitics if you– because I think your question is… pointing us in that direction– I have argued and I have said this often, and there are transcripts of my talks where I explain this– that I have argued that the covid measures were intended, planned and are intended to be war measures.

[03:38:33]
And so you have, you compound the resisters, the people who will not be vaccinated. They are now identified, and you isolate them and mistreat them within compounds. There are biometric concentration camps, if you like. You have invasive surveillance all the time. You impose that everyone must identify themselves, whether they’re going to the restaurant or the bathroom or whatever. You have rationing of… resources, of food, of energy. You have extreme censorship, combined with controlled and extreme propaganda. You have capture and alignment of all the corporate sectors. They have to be completely aligned with this project. You have increased weapons and weapon delivery systems research, and I’m talking about vaccines, you know, the ability to go in and vaccinate everybody. And to have a system in place where you can do that. And you convince them to receive the vaccine. That is, that can be thought of as a delivery system, that once it’s in place, can be used militarily. And you have, you encourage the mobbing of dissenters, reporting and shaming your neighbors and your colleagues, I mean that is encouraged.

[03:39:56]
All of these are war measures and war conditions. And I have argued that we really, they really, they… _are_ having a war, and the war is the attempt to destroy the economic development of China and Eurasia. The Pentagon has completely announced this. They have said that they’re giving themselves a decade to destroy the system. There are, there is a huge naval presence around China right now. There’s the war in Ukraine. There’s every, there’s sanctions like you wouldn’t believe, as though we were in a war time.

So the… Pentagon and the US regime is at war against development of Eurasia and China, and this is what they’ve decided to do. And they know that there’s going to be blowback; they know there’s going to be consequences for the domestic populations, and so they need to control any resistance from within and eliminate it. And they apply these war measures.
And so _I_ think we’re going to have covid-like measures for at least a decade. That’s my prediction, if you like. Whether, whether, you know, whether it’s a new variant or a new disease or if… they can convince us that there’s a climate emergency. Whatever… they need with their propaganda to get us to accept these war measures. Because there will be significant consequences to this war. They want everyone in compounds, and no development except where they allow it.

[03:41:45]
So they don’t want development of Africa, they don’t want– development is frightening to the regime, because development means independent thinking. It means resources that are locally provided, it means potential for resistance. Development is a very dangerous thing. So they… want to stop and control development. And I believe that that’s what the climate agenda is about, the zero- the so-called net-zero campaigns and everything. They’re frightened. Population growth and development is the biggest threat to a system that is completely top-down and wants to control the world, basically.

[03:42:29]
So I… think that geopolitics is the big structural frame that allows us to understand all of this, that geopolitics did not disappear when the pandemic was announced. It has been there since before the Second World War. You can follow it, you can study it, you can quantify it. And it is– systems like, basically an empire, that has an educational system, a military complex, a… you know, that trains its professionals, that indoctrinates them. That is the most powerful thing, historically, on the planet. These billionaires are allowed to exist because they serve a purpose to this regime. They can be eliminated any time.

But I… think that this is really about large systems and their survival. And the US is making a big mistake, because you cannot have a successful empire if you gut the domestic population. If you don’t have creativity and domestic economic development, you cannot have a successful empire that is based only on exploiting other continents. So I think they’re making a big mistake. And I think Trump recognized that when he said he wanted to make America great again.

And so there is a faction in the military complex that recognizes this problem, but that’s where we’re headed. There’s… a group of people that are more CIA-connected that think they can have a world where they exploit everyone and change governments at will, and that they don’t need a strong _institutionally-based_ empire. And I think that they’re making a mistake. So that’s my view of the geopolitics of the situation.

Viviane Fischer:
Do you think that the, that… it’s the goal of the government or whatever, who’s behind, the global government, or how should we call it, the global interconnection of things there, that it’s actually like wanting to kill people, like be it through vaccines or through the measures? Or at least, it’s like risking this kind of, do you know, like leisurely without–

Denis Rancourt PhD:
I… do not– personally, I do not believe that the goal is actual genocidal extermination. I do not believe that. This is– if… they wanted to do that, it would have been a virulent– you know, they would… actually _use_ a bioweapon. I don’t believe they are. And that would be a whole other discussion as to why I came to that conclusion. But I… think that population growth _is_ a threat to the elite. And they know that, and they are afraid of it. And they have always tried to control it, because where you have population growth, you have economic growth, and you have distributed resources and ideas and power, and that is a threat to them. And it cannot be controlled as well. Where you you have growth and when you have growth, you have freedom. And that was clear after the Second World War. There was huge– in fact, the US _used_ the notion of economic growth and freedom in the Bretton Woods agreement, to ensure that the West would develop quickly, Japan, western Europe and the United States. The Bretton Woods agreement was an incredible time of development and of freedom. So much so that Europe, Germany, and… France and so on, and Japan developed too much and became a threat to the United States; they were going to overtake them economically.

[03:46:35]
So the United States unilaterally retracted from the Bretton Woods agreement overnight. And that completely stopped that. And then at the same time, you can see an upsurge of so-called globalization, where US interests took over many companies and many corporate sectors at that time. And then the, the next big acceleration of globalization occurred at the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and you can really see _huge_ corporate and financial takeovers at that time, where the US again did another bound of global– so-called globalization. And that is also– at the, at that time, in early 1990s is when the UN for the first time in a long time, in decades, had major international conferences to set up the new ideology that would rule the world under this globalization.

[03:47:30]
And so they introduced the idea– that’s when the climate summit was held in Rio. And they, that was a big arm of the new ideology. Another… big conference that was held at that time was this notion that racism was a problem of language — not of inequity in Africa and other places, but of language. And so they argued in these conferences that if you could eliminate racism from the language, you would eliminate racism itself. And there was a– so that was a second arm of the new ideology. And it gave rise to and was accompanied by the so-called, you know, the– well, it’s the origin of wokeism, basically. Wokeism originated at the fall of the Soviet Union, at the time when the UN aligned all of the educational institutions in the western countries to follow these new, this new, these new ideologies.

And so there was– climate was one. Anti-racism of language was another. And the third one was what they called at the time gender equity. And it meant that it became vital that all the CEOs, all the top exploiters and government officials– there would be as many women as men. And that became an ideology, and so you had, even the names of academic departments [were] changing from Women’s Studies to Gender Studies. And that… happened basically overnight, as a result of this new alignment of the educational complexes in western countries.

[03:49:14]
And so I… cover all of that in my large geopolitical paper. I explain how that comes in, and I show the data. And that’s… the world that we live in now. That’s the world that– where they can have a covid, and where they can have this complete control of propaganda, and where people are already habituated to the, to these ideas. I think they’ve destroyed the true educational systems that were built up after the Second World War, where it was important to be inventive and to have independent thinking and to create growth. Those were important attributes. And… then it was more important to control the domestic populations, because they already had everything they wanted by exploiting Latin America and Africa and as much of Asia as they could.

[03:50:07]
After– in 1992, when the Soviet Union failed, or not failed but was disintegrated politically, that is when they opened up to China and invested in China. So the plan was to take over China through capitalist means. So there was a massive investment with this paper money that the US was printing, because they controlled energy resources and had the military projection to be able to impose their… global currency, they invested massively into China, and they created a millionaire class they hoped would threaten the Communist Party. And they– so it’s the usual corruption, infiltration, like they did in Latin America. And their hope was to take over China throughput through… capitalist means, and to bring everyone on side, and incorporate even China into their system.

But it did not work, because the Communist Party was too well organized and too well controlled, and it didn’t work. China found a way to use those capital investments to its advantage and to not be gobbled up and to control it’s… millionaire, billionaire classes. And so then the US said, “Well if– we’re going to negotiate a new deal.” That’s what Trump tried to do. China’s said, “No way, that’s not happening.” And the next step was military blockade of China and sanctions and threatening and this economic war that we’re presently in.

So that in a nutshell is the recent geopolitical events that are the context of covid-19.

Viviane Fischer: [03:51:58]
Um-hm. So what’s the… way out, both for science and for us?

Denis Rancourt PhD:
OK. Well, I’m going to speak at a macro level in answering that question. At… you know, at the individual level we all do everything that we can. I mean, I worked tirelessly to– yeah, I mean, if we do science, we’re already doing a lot, because science necessarily is going to be very harmful to their lies and to their propaganda, if we do good science. So that’s a very good thing to do. But on the macro scale, what is going to make a difference, I believe, is the development of Eurasia. So when Russia and China succeed in resisting these attempts to destroy Eurasia, they will create and they are creating a very strong and… powerful system that has growth, that has professional development and that… will compete with the…– so the multi-polar world that is developing is what is going to give us a new surge of inventiveness, competition, growth. Because the US will have to have domestic and actual economic growth in order to compete with that system. And so it will find its ability to do that again, and that will give us our, the population’s freedom. It’ll give us a… more realistic educational system. It will put the importance on individual contribution to this, to these economic efforts, and it will change the circumstances, like what happened after the Second World War.

[03:53:47]
So I… think that the world will evolve the next decade and more in this kind of a direction. And I think that Europe, the planners in Europe should see this and should resist the US directives to isolate themselves from Eurasia and to be an enemy and to continue along the path that they are doing now. I think it’s better to– I believe that China and Russia are authentically interested in development of their territories and their populations, and they want economic cooperation. And I think there’s ways to negotiate, negotiate peace, negotiate economic collaboration and so on.

And I think that’s the direction that the world needs to go in, rather than risk more war and more conflict and put everyone in more stressed conditions. That’s my view of it, from a macro scale, you know.

Viviane Fischer:
And is that going to happen, without a physical war?

Denis Rancourt PhD:
Well, there’s already a physical war in Ukraine.

Viviane Fischer:
…spreading to the whole world, or like Europe, at least?

Denis Rancourt PhD:
Well, there’s always a danger. These are nonlinear systems. We’re very fortunate that Russia and the Russian and Chinese leaderships are adults, and they’re very rational, and they’re very clever and… well structured in their institutions and everything. We’re very fortunate of that. Because the US tends to be more unpredictable. Internal fighting is… massive. There are, you know, the Republicans and Democrats are actually tied preferentially to different corporate and finance sectors. So there’s big battles going on there all the time. And they… are reckless. So… thank… God not everyone is as reckless as the… biggest empire.

Can– you know, you’re asking me to… say what I think about war, a nuclear war. I think we can look at history to… inform us about that, Wars can get out of hand, wars can propagate. That’s always a possibility. This is a… nonlinear human process. And hopefully people will know to ratchet things down and to negotiate rather than risk unavoidable escalation.

Viviane Fischer: [03:56:34]
OK, thanks so much. Really inspirational. And we’re going to look at your website and all the… papers that you’ve worked. I think it’s very… inspiring. I mean also impressive that you worked on these, all these different fields. But it also allows you to get like, to create a full picture, basically.

Denis Rancourt PhD: [03:56:55]
Thank you very much. It was my pleasure to have a chance to tell you about all this work.

Viviane Fischer:
Thanks, thanks ever so much. Great, fantastic.

Denis Rancourt PhD:
OK.

Viviane Fischer:
Thank you. Yeah. And so… we actually have–
[switchig to German] Exactly. That was Denis Rancourt from Canada. And again, thank you very much. He told us again and explained all the connections between mortality, excess mortality in the overall geopolitical picture. Well I don’t know. I can’t see whether Wolfgang is still in the Zoom, or is there still somebody there? Or not? Not. OK. Well then, I’ll just wrap it up now.

Yes, I would like to mention one more thing that is really a bit of a strain if I may say so. We have the well-known problems at the Corona Committee right now. We are in an economically difficult situation, if we may say so. We have the situation where Reiner Fuellmich still holds a liquidity reserve of the Corona Committee, that’s 700,000 euro which he has not yet returned, even though in an interview he has claimed that his economic position allows him to do that at any time. This hasn’t happened yet. I used to have a liquidity reserve of 100,000 euro, which I have returned in full as agreed.

But due to the current costs and liabilities that we had, have been largely used up, fully used up. And we have now already been sent invoices by legitimate suppliers, and he refused to pay them. That’s a very difficult situation, and we’re working on this. And I think that he should stand by his word to return the money where it belongs, i.e., back to the Corona Committee for its further work. But against this background, I would like to make my call for donations with a bit more verve now. We have to make sure that we overcome this impasse now, until we finally get back the money from Reiner Fuellmich. And if you can give us any support, we’ll be very grateful.

[03:59:41]
We will also soon publish the account movements, so that you can verify that the payments only go to legitimate suppliers, blackening out names of individuals. That’s a matter of caurse for data protection reasons. But just to make sure that everybody can see that there is no illegitimate use of funds. So I would like to appeal to everybody to support us. I think that the work that we do here is very important. It’s very important that we keep it up, that we remain an asking voice and an investigative entity. I think that is becoming particularly obvious now, that things are interconnected in a way that we couldn’t have imagined. So I would like to wish everybody a nice Friday evening and pleasant

weekend.
[04:00:42]

 


Imprint / Privacy Policy / Contact Send / support