Throughout the so-called pandemic, the so-called experts sounded like a broken record with ‘trust the data’ on repeat.
Now that more and more data is coming out that shows that these so-called experts were completely wrong, are we still supposed to trust the data?
If we trust the data, there’s a stronger and stronger case building that all of these public ‘health experts’ should face serious charges, up to and including crimes against humanity, Nuremberg 2.0, if you will.
Edward Dowd & Naomi Wolf discuss some of the newer data out of Canada below.
Edward Dowd: The deaths will continue as long as the boosters continue. Now we’re getting in, hearing about long-term disability where you can’t work. Like what like you’ve mentioned muscle pain, you can’t walk, you’re like 45, and all of a sudden, you’re in such pain, you can’t work. Then you, if you’re employed, you file for long-term disability. And I think that’s more costly than an acute death to the system.
Naomi Wolf: Right.
Edward Dowd: I mean, I don’t like to put numbers on it. Deaths are horrible. That’s death.
Naomi Wolf: Right.
Edward Dowd: But in terms of economics, you’re disabled. And you do have an insurance policy.
Naomi Wolf: That gets the attention of the insurance industry at scale.
Edward Dowd: Yea
Naomi Wolf: Is there any last comment you want to make? Or have we covered everything you want to say in this amazing hour that you’ve given us?
Edward Dowd: So I want to, one last comment. There’s an individual, Kelly Brown, who is a finance professional up in Canada. He and I’ve been chatting since I started going public because he’s done the same work that I’ve done up in Canada. And my colleague has done, he took the Canadian data and recreated for, now his category is zero to 44 because that’s how they do it. But so zero to 44. He found similar spiking to the August, October, and September mandates, but the data in Canada lags considerably our death data. And the two provinces that are the most updated are British Columbia and Ontario, the most populous provinces. That data shows a continued, not only elevated excess mortality but hitting new highs.
Naomi Wolf: Oh my God. That’s very important.
Edward Dowd: Yeah, into the end of the year. So they only have data to the end of the year in those two provinces, but it went to a new high into the end of the year. And so what I want to say about that is it’s just confirmatory of what we’ve already discovered. And if there was if it was totally different data, then I would have to then question my thesis, but I’m here to report I don’t have to.
So the question remains. Are we still supposed to trust the data?
I highly doubt that those very same ‘experts’ will be singing the same tune as the data of the long-term effects of what they’ve done continues to be revealed.
You can see the entire segment by clicking on the link below…
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Red Voice Media. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary. Red Voice Media would like to make a point of clarification on why we do not refer to any shot related to COVID-19 as a "vaccine." According to the CDC, the definition of a vaccine necessitates that said vaccine have a lasting effect of at least one year in preventing the contraction of the virus or disease it's intended to fight. Because all of the COVID-19 shots thus far available have barely offered six months of protection, and even then not absolute, Red Voice Media has made the decision hereafter to no longer refer to the Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson substances as vaccinations.