“Here we are three years into this, with a virus that has evolved into something that for most people is a common cold, shots that are expired because the variants they cover are all extinct—I mean, it's an absurdity that the shots are even on the market at all—and yet, we're still seeing brilliant physicians and educators and scientists being attacked for simply calling out the truth.”
At the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) conference last month, I sat down with pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole to discuss autopsies and excess deaths rates allegedly related to the mRNA shot, and to dig into what has actually been found in the vials of these shots, as well as what studies are being done to differentiate between spike damage caused by the virus, versus the vaccine.
"There are two dangerous things in these vials—that’s a lipid nanoparticle, and a gene sequence that's making your body make foreign proteins," says Cole. "When a FOIA request was done of the European Medicines Agency, they found out that these vials were only about 50 percent pure mRNA, meaning they can potentially code for these other proteins for which we don't even know what they're going to do. And instead of saying, 'Yeah, you need to purify your product and make it better,' they said, 'Okay, we'll lower the standard to 50 percent.'"
We also discuss the curious emergence of what doctors are calling “turbo cancers," and how they potentially relate to the COVID genetic vaccine.
"What's happening is these cancers we are used to seeing, their growth patterns and their behavior are completely out of character ... So ‘turbo cancer’ is something that wasn't there and, all of a sudden, it's everywhere," says Cole.
He believes one of the biggest tragedies during the pandemic has been the loss of curiosity, and considers it tragic that so many people are afraid of having to pay a consequence for telling the truth.
"All doctors and scientists agree when you censor the ones who don't. And so this construct in dialogue and free speech of not allowing a contrary voice to come into the conversation means science isn't being done. If you can question it, it's science. If you can't question it, it's propaganda," says Cole.
FULL TRANSCRIPTJan Jekielek: Dr. Ryan Cole, such a pleasure to have you back on American thought leaders.
Dr. Ryan Cole: Great to be here with you, Jan. Thank you.
Mr. Jekielek: Let's talk about spike damage. This is something that's been a focus for you recently and a big focus actually at this conference. I see numerous people are talking about it. What do we know at this point?
Dr. Cole: There's so much literature surrounding the bad effects of this protein. Certainly, the virus caused a lot of damage to a lot of individuals. But what we're seeing with the spike protein induced by the injections is that it persists longer in the body.
With a normal infection, your body's going to clear it in a couple of days or a couple of weeks depending on your immune competence. But what we're finding with this synthetic mRNA is that it persists in the body longer. There are a lot of studies on that. In addition to that, it's making spike protein at low levels for a longer period of time.
The spike protein inflames the blood vessels. The spike protein breaks some of the barriers in the blood vessels, allowing spike protein to leak into organs. It can leak into the brain tissues. It can show up in the heart tissues. It can show up in the adrenal glands.
The spike protein itself, wherever it lands, causes the body to become inflamed, and it also triggers alterations in the immune response. We're seeing a lot of immune suppression in individuals. We're also seeing a lot of autoimmune disease where the body attacks itself. That's the tip of the iceberg, because there are so many things that spike protein does.
These are things, scientifically, we all wish the agencies and powers that be would have studied before using humans as the lab rats for this technology. Unfortunately, that spike protein is a known toxin, irritant, and poison, whatever you want to call it. We know it causes a lot of bad inflammatory patterns in the body, which can lead to organ failure.
Mr. Jekielek: There have also been reports of mRNA appearing in mother's milk and being passed on to newborns. What do you make of this?
Dr. Cole: In the literature it is reported that for up to 48 hours after injection the mRNA itself was showing up in the mother's breast milk. That means the mRNA can be transferred. Now, the gastric juices may break that mRNA down. Again, it's a synthetic mRNA, so it may not.
We know that spike protein can be transferred in secretions and is being transferred in mother's milk. The other concern, and I showed some images in my presentation today from my colleagues in Germany, is that they've identified spike protein in the uterine lining, in the testes, and in the sperm. But more concerningly, they have identified spike protein in the placenta. The Pfizer data that came out recently, forced by the judge that made the Pfizer data release happen, shows that Pfizer knew that it was going to cross into the placenta.
Again, we know this isn't a benign protein. This protein has toxic effects. Have we seen birth rate changes and miscarriage rate changes? You bet we have. Are there statistical increases in birth defects in animal models? Yes, there are.
We never roll out a new modality on children and pregnant women. We know it's crossing into the placenta. We know it's going into the baby. We know it's going into breast milk. We know it's being consumed by the baby. These are things that should be reported on and transparent across the media. People should be able to say, "If I'm going to do something risky to my body with a new modality and risk the next generation, I should have informed consent and the ability to say yes or no."
Mr. Jekielek: You mentioned there's a distinction between the spike in SARS-CoV-2 and the spike in the mRNA vaccines. What studies are being done on this? You mentioned they weren't done beforehand. What's being done now?
Dr. Cole: In the laboratory, on a small scale, and I really wish I could do more and clone myself, I'm looking at the protein deposition and tissues. We have special stains we have used in pathology for years called immunohistochemistry stains.
In the tissues we look at a little lock and key pattern. If an antibody binds to that spike protein, we have another piece that makes the tail of the antibody light up. When we look through the microscope, we can see present or absent. In the laboratory, we look for that spike protein in different tissues and look for it in autopsy cases. In living patients, we've also seen it in several cancers as well.
My colleagues in Germany that first pioneered this, Dr. Burkhart, Dr. Moors and others, have also been looking at these same patterns. We're comparing it to antibodies looking for viruses, where we look for spike nucleocapsid membranes and other proteins that would be present to determine if this is virally-caused or is it spike protein-caused.
The NIH [National Institutes of Health] had done some small studies looking at a handful of patients early on, looking at proteins, and then they suddenly stopped. There are some universities that have done some spike protein studies in a case report here and there. There are not a lot of entities doing this.
Unfortunately, the reagents are commercially available from multiple vendors. It's not a new pathology technique. It's a known technique. Yes, you have to do the validation and dialing of the process, but once you've done that, then you can proceed any time that a stain is requested. You can look and determine if this is present in the tissues or not.
Now at the university level, Stanford, Harvard, and others have looked for circulating spike protein in certain patients. Is there free spike protein that can continue to deposit in these organs? That's a different type of testing. It's not commercially available yet. Along with a couple of other laboratories, I am working on that, because that's the one question a lot of clinicians have, "Do my patients still have circulating spike protein in their body that could be causing all these different inflammatory pathways and disease?"
Mr. Jekielek: How can you tell the difference between the two kinds of spike?
Dr. Cole: That's why we use the other proteins to determine if this is viral or this is vaccinal. Because if it were spiked from the virus, then you would see other proteins from the virus present as well. It's simple deductive reasoning. Additionally, we're developing mRNA primers.
Pfizer and Moderna have subtle differences in their genetic sequence. We're looking at hybridization primers where we can take a sequence and then bind that to the tissue and light it up and see if the mRNA or the complementary DNA is also still present in the tissues.
We’ve been working with a couple of laboratories developing that. That's coming. There have been some case reports in the literature where patients have skin lesions that have both spike and the mRNA in those shingles lesions. Again, at the university level, it's kind of funny. You wonder why they do this very important study that shows, "Here's a technique, and here's what we're finding in the tissues." Then, there is never a follow-up study. In basic science, that's not very common.
With one study that showed the persistence of this synthetic mRNA in the human body and lymph nodes for up to 60 days, there was not a four month follow-up, or a six or nine month follow up on that study. It's harder to do these basic science questions in the private setting because this costs money.
You go to the NIH and say, "We want to do this. Where's a grant for this type of study that should be done on humans, and that should have been done on animals?" There's not a penny to be had. These big universities, if they do a study that shows a finding that may not be convenient to the narrative, even though what they're publishing is very relevant scientifically, you don't see the follow-up study. It begs the question as to why science the way it used to be done isn't being followed today the way it should be.
Mr. Jekielek: I understand there are a lot of studies that are being done looking at long Covid and symptoms.
Dr. Cole: There are a lot of long Covid studies, and there are patients with long Covid, no doubt. But something needs to be teased out, and I find this overtly disingenuous in the literature. When you look at these patients with myocarditis or chronic brain fog or the long Covid symptoms, when you go to the end of the study they don't break down the cohort and say, "X patients that had these symptoms in this study had Covid, and these X patients that had Covid were, or were not vaccinated." They never mention the vaccinal status of these patients.
One might have had Covid and then was urged to get a shot on top of their Covid recovery. Again, historically we have never done that. We used to recognize that recovery from a disease was better than a vaccine itself. These patients have hyperimmune responses and a lot of these hyperimmune responses are what are leading to a lot of these chronic symptoms. It's very frustrating.
I would love to see somebody give me 10 studies, five studies, or even three studies where they say, "Here are the long Covid symptoms. By the way, this number and this cohort were vaccinated, and this number wasn't." It's being ignored. That's not good science. But I never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by ignorance.
But this is just scientifically ignorant to not be doing good control groups. With a novel modality, a new gene-based biologic product like these injections, they're not doing good science that should be clear and concise. They should have a control group, and tell the truth about who has these chronic symptoms, whether they've had one, two, three, four, five shots. It's incredibly relevant in terms of understanding what we need to know for the future.
Mr. Jekielek: You read a lot of literature. This might be a thing where you're not sleeping in the middle of the night. Are you telling me there aren't any studies?
Dr. Cole: There may be a handful of obscure ones where there's a small cohort. But if you look at these larger ones from a lot of the academic settings and highly funded institutions, they are all a homage to the shot. By the way, no matter what the study shows, you should get your shot anyway.
It's very frustrating to see that they're not breaking out those who got a shot. Sure, these patients had Covid, but a lot of them had shots too. It completely muddles the science.
Mr. Jekielek: It feels preposterous to me that someone wouldn't look at this very, very obvious factor—that you would need to separate these two groups. You mentioned that you never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by ignorance. Do you think that some of these researchers are just somehow blind to this, or is it malice?
Dr. Cole: It's willful ignorance. Nobody wants to be wrong. Part of it is because of ego. You've heard me joke before that a lot of doctors think MD means minor deity. A lot of us think it means we make a difference. I always say, “I'm willing to be wrong, because if you maintain an open curiosity, you have a better ability to learn." One of the biggest tragedies and deaths during the pandemic has been the loss of curiosity.
I understand that in the medical profession people are very busy, they're overwhelmed, they're overregulated, there's too much paperwork, and there's too many excess things to do within the practice of medicine that have nothing to do with medicine. At the end of the day, my colleagues may not be on the same page as me. I might say, "Hey, did you read this or did you read that?" They reply, "No, I saw my patients. I'm done for the day."
That healthy curiosity opens all these rabbit holes to say, "Wait a minute, is this true or is that true?" You've seen some of my talks where I love to open with the Mark Twain quote, "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." What I can comfortably say is a lot of my colleagues don't read.
There used to be a joke in medical school, “How do you hide a $100 bill from a surgeon? You put it in a textbook.” Because they're not going to crack open that book. They're not reading. They will during medical school and during the first parts of their training. After that, the science is always 10 years or more ahead of the practice of medicine.
Unfortunately, and this is another kind of joke in medicine, “It takes a generation to die for medicine and science to advance.” Because you get entrenched thinking, and there's a block in the ability to say that the way I was trained may not be the most current way."
We do have to keep our continuing education going, but a lot of these doctors don't want to be wrong. They get into groupthink and an unwillingness to engage in dialogue and have a reasonable conversation, even though one doesn't agree on an issue. That's another death we've obviously seen in many fields, but especially in medicine. It’s the unwillingness of many in the profession to dialogue.
Again, so many of my colleagues here are brilliant and some of the most published academicians prior to this whole Covid issue. All of a sudden, they're not smart anymore? It's astounding. Bringing dialogue and uncomfortable conversation back into our day-to-day life is so critical.
Mr. Jekielek: I'll just hypothesize here, because most of them have seen the cost of going against the "correct view." I wonder if a lot of people are subconsciously avoiding discovering the uncomfortable realities.
Dr. Cole: That's a great point. So many of my colleagues have seen what they've done to me and others. If you're a tall blade of grass, you get cut down first. That's a great observation, and that's how you control a population and a profession by putting people into fear.
I was personally attacked by insurance companies of all things. They're not regulators. That put the squeeze on my practice. But you're correct, so many people are afraid of having to pay the consequences for telling the truth, and that's a tragedy.
Mr. Jekielek: We talked about some of the challenges you faced in your career because of the pathology that you were doing and the positions you took publicly. How has that developed since?
Dr. Cole: I've essentially had to shut my lab down. I sold it to my associate at a fire sale price because the insurance companies were canceling my contracts for my unprofessional behavior. With the Boards of Medicine, thankfully I've resolved four of those with the complaints that had no merit. There's one still pending and open, and again, these are third-party complaints. These are political complaints from people that don't like somebody speaking out against their narrative. They are baseless claims, and no patient has claimed any harm.
Again, I'm at the receiving end of these absurdities. We don't seem to have the political will to stop these agencies from running amuck from being kangaroo courts and overstepping their legal bounds. They're using CARES Act funding that went to push a vaccine-only agenda. They don't counter any of the claims I made. I have defended myself in front of these boards successfully. I allude to science and say, "Show me where I'm wrong." They don't because they know they can't.
Mr. Jekielek: But it wastes your time?
Dr. Cole: It's an absolute waste of money and time. It has been tens and tens and tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees because I've exceeded what my malpractice insurance will cover just to protect my professional life for telling the truth. Every time I do these interviews or podcasts, I say, "Look, if I'm wrong, show me where. Bring better data." Crickets. Nobody wants to have that difficult conversation. Again, going back to the egos in medicine, they don't want to say, "I could have done something that maybe harmed my patient."
Certainly I'm viewed as a heretic. But even worse are these colleagues who were completely in the narrative of shot only. Now, they have looked at the science, done that necessary reading, and now they're the apostates, not the heretics. The apostate is stronger in terms of evangelizing truths, but they're also the bigger target now.
Getting philosophical about all of this stuff, it's fascinating to see that here we are three years into this with a virus that has evolved into something that for most people is a common cold, and with shots that have expired because the variants they cover are all extinct. It's absurd that these shots are even on the market at all. Yet, three years later, we're still seeing brilliant physicians and educators and scientists being attacked for simply calling out the truth.
Mr. Jekielek: How much do you think society has shifted in its view?
Dr. Cole: I like what Chris Martenson talks about. In conversations like this we have the private knowledge where you know something's wrong, and I know something's wrong, and we whisper together about what we've discovered and found out. But what's trickling out now is that common knowledge that Chris Martenson talks about.
It is becoming common knowledge that vaccine injury is real. Now, it's becoming common knowledge that these shots never prevented disease and never prevented transmission. Actually, if you look at the Cleveland Clinic study, the more shots you got, the more you got the disease.
Those quiet mumblings are now becoming common mumblings. I would say from when we last talked many months ago, instead of 10 percent, now maybe 30 percent of the people have been woken up. It’s the same thing in the profession of medicine. It was about 10 percent a year ago, and now it's maybe 30 to 40 percent.
Mr. Jekielek: Please qualify for me that the shots never prevented disease. For people that were older with comorbidities, there was a significant effect. But you're saying something different?
Dr. Cole: Show me the gold standard double blinded placebo controlled study making that claim—it doesn't exist. Even in the trials for the shots themselves, the placebo group was quickly crossed over, so you don't have good science. Now, you're back to observational science.
Let’s look at the claim that it prevented hospitalization, severity, and death. Maybe for a hot minute at the very beginning of the pandemic when they first rolled out, it had an effect for a couple of weeks. However, by then the virus was already mutating away from the shots that had been formulated. By the time Comirnaty and Moderna spike vacs got their technical approval, all that data was pre-Delta variant.
Number one, the data sets are corrupted because the control group is gone. Number two, it became a religious mantra. It was a mantra that kept repeating, "Safe and effective, safe and effective. It decreases hospitalization and death, it decreases hospitalization and death." If you say something long enough, you can convince yourself it is true. But the data sets aren't there. There's some observational data that suggests it. But what they negate is there was a good percentage of the population that got Covid and never knew they had Covid.
Now, they have some gene mutations. A good study recently came out and showed why that happened. But some claim, "I'm glad I got my shot. My Covid would've been so much worse." Ask all those people who got Covid and they will say, "Oh, really, I had Covid?" Well, how about that?” You don't have that comparator group. These claims that have been made are false claims.
Mr. Jekielek: One more thing in the vein of free speech, which we were talking about. It's just obvious that good science depends on it.
Dr. Cole: Absolutely. Science is not done by consensus, contrary to what Neil deGrasse Tyson said on a big show recently, "Well, there was scientific consensus."
Neil deGrasse Tyson: I'm not interested in medical pedigree. I'm interested in medical consensus, in scientific consensus. You need someone who represents a medical consensus producing a consensus and whatever is that consensus...
Dr. Cole: I'm like, "It was the heretics that were correct." Galileo was correct about where the sun is in the center of our solar system and not the Earth. Yet, he was thrown in the tower for being a heretic. It's that contrary voice that has to be present in science. You cannot lose this construct that scientists have to have competing hypotheses. Absolutely. You need to do the test. You need to do the experiment, and you need to be able to have open questioning.
I joke that all doctors and scientists agree when you censor the ones who don't. This construct in dialogue and free speech of not allowing a contrary voice to come into the conversation means science isn't being done. If you can question, it's science. If you can't question, it's propaganda.
Mr. Jekielek: You've been looking at the realities of the spike protein, but you've also been looking at the ingredients in the vials.
Dr. Cole: There's a lot of contamination in the vials. What's in the vials now? I've been privileged to work with a doctor in Austria bringing together some physicists who have remained quiet so they can keep doing the research. We've looked at hundreds of vials together. I've looked at many in my lab, and they looked at many. They did mass spectroscopy and Raman spectroscopy, and a lot of analytical clinical chemistry.
There are sugars, salts, lipid nanoparticles, and mRNA in the vials. We also know that there's contaminating DNA in these vials. This is the work of Kevin McKernan, and it's been replicated in one lab. My lab's looking at it, along with another lab I know of. Again, this relies on replicability of science and replicability of findings. We know that these were poorly manufactured.
Where does that DNA come from? You grow these sequences in bacterial cultures, e-coli. They produce mRNA, and then, you're supposed to be able to separate it out. We're finding that little circle of complementary DNA that makes the synthetic mRNA, these vials are contaminated with a percentage of that, up to 25 to 30 percent.
That's not good, because these are little antibiotic resistant plasmids that can actually conceptually get into the bacteria of your gut and cause antibiotic resistance in your body. That little circle of DNA can go into the nucleus and camp out there and keep producing little spike messages chronically over time. There are things in the vials that don't belong there.
Some of the studies of the vials showed metal contaminants. Some of them showed the metal contaminants were actually coming from rapid needle manufacture as well. We know Japan rejected 2 million vials of Moderna because there was visible debris in the vials. This was poor manufacturing. I don't know if you want to get into the graphene oxide controversy. I can tell you a two minute story on that.
Mr. Jekielek: Let's talk about that. Most of the doctors I speak to look at me and say, "Why are you asking me about this?" Basically, you hear a lot of people talking about it.
Dr. Cole: There was one small group in Spain that got some vials. There's a technique called Raman spectroscopy where you put some of the vial content on a slide, and then you pick your target and you shine a laser and it'll break down the basic elements of what you're pointing at. When you do that, you're supposed to do it for a millisecond or less because the laser is powerful. Then, it will fractionate the basic particles of what is there. Pablo Campra, the guy that did the Raman study, fired his laser at a handful of targets for 30 seconds each, not a millisecond, but 30 seconds. He fried them.
If I take a little dish of creme brûlée, put some sugar on top of it, and we know there's a lot of sugar in Moderna and Pfizer, and I take my little chef's torch, what happens to that sugar? It browns and it crisps, and if I run it too long, I will scorch it. I turn it into charcoal. What is charcoal? Charcoal is carbon, and can be graphene with a little oxygen. If I fry sugar molecules, I am going to make a carbon byproduct. He burnt the toast. He burnt the creme brûlée by using bad technique.
Thankfully, he published what he did. Any good physicist will say, "Wait a minute. You don't do this for 30 seconds. You do it for a fraction of a second." Then, if you look at it under electron microscopy, graphene is this regular sheet of 200 nanometer spaced, little hexagons, thin flat sheets. What the Spanish studies showed were 500 nanometer sheets. I said, "That's not graphene oxide."
Basic science and good scientific practice negate this argument about graphene oxide being in the vials. There's a Pfizer document that says, "Graphene oxide and gold." They said, "See, it's in the Pfizer documents." I said, "No, that's a different lab doing a technique for protein isolation." They mention their technique, which is a gold and a graphene layering, but it has nothing to do with the manufacturing line. There are all these red herrings.
There are two dangerous things in these vials; a lipid nanoparticle, and a gene sequence that's making your body make foreign proteins. Your cells are meant to make human proteins. We are going down these rabbit holes and distracting pathways, when we should be stopping this platform of lipid nanoparticle shots altogether. That's where the focus should be, and that's what frustrates me.
Do all the science you want, hypothesize and experiment. Great, that's cool. With all these little hydras that people see, they're non-microscopists that have an old med school microscope sitting in a dusty room. They are looking at their dog's hair, looking at pollen particles, looking at these hydra that are actually little pieces from the bottom of a leaf.
I get frustrated that people are making claims that scare people that people do not need to be scared about. It's scary enough that we're using a new gene-based modality with a lipid nanoparticle that goes to every organ in the body. Let's stop doing that. Don't worry about all this other stuff. Have your fantasy life with your fictional, hypothetical exploration, whatever it is that you want to do. Cool, but don't make claims based on bad science.
Mr. Jekielek: It creates a situation where people that are actively interested in detracting from this work will conflate the two.
Dr. Cole: Absolutely, that is harmful to the cause. I absolutely agree with that assertion because they do look a little out there and tinfoil-ish, and it detracts from the actual solid good science that is happening.
I spoke out on this at a conference and I literally got death threats for saying graphene oxide isn't any of these vials. To get death threats from the Freedom Movement is really concerning. I stick to science, but when you get into some of these philosophical battles in life, it's really fascinating to see where people cling to their concepts and constructs and ideas to the detriment of their ability to critically and broadly think.
Mr. Jekielek: Let's go back to this RNA and DNA as well, and then the lipid nanoparticles. Aside from what the RNA produces, I understand it's not just spike protein.
Dr. Cole: Yes.
Mr. Jekielek: There are other elements?
Dr. Cole: This is a very good study, and it may have come from BioNTech on paper. They take cell culture, transfect it with the injection, and then once that cell culture starts producing the proteins that it's supposed to make, then you separate those out to say, "Are these cells making the target protein we want? Are they making the spike protein?"
It's supposed to weigh about 141 kilodaltons. We put a little electrical field on, a little gel on, these proteins migrate, and then they stop according to their weight and electrical charge. It was fascinating to look at that study and say, "Wait, we have a 100 kilodalton weight protein, and one at 190, but nothing at 141, which would be a spike protein." My concern scientifically is these products are causing the body to make unknown proteins that could be creating these autoimmune responses.
You can look at the purity of the mRNA and the vials. If you go buy an aspirin, you want to know that it's actually aspirin that you’re taking. I don't want half of it to be aspirin and half of it to be laced with some other production side product that may be harmful. We know microRNAs are a known carcinogen. There's medical literature showing how sequences of mRNA can either be helpful in the body, the natural ones, or they can be extremely harmful. In certain types of cancers, you see increased circulating microRNAs in these patients.
These unknown fragmented parts of mRNA in these vials are, one, poor manufacturing. Two, it’s medically dangerous. Three, we don't know what all those things could be causing. The panoply of side effects that we're seeing in injured patients are numerous, and these are just tip of the iceberg reasons why these things could be happening. These are impure manufactured products and other proteins could be causing the harm, not just spike protein.
Mr. Jekielek: This is just another area where there should be robust study, correct?
Dr. Cole: Absolutely. In the way these were rushed out societally, they'll say, "Oh, we did some animal studies." I'm like, "Why am I at a conference right now where I have brilliant scientists and physicians explaining every mechanism of harm? Those weren't all in the literature from all these companies and these government agencies prior to saying, "Okay, this technology is safe to use?"
Why are we finding out after the fact after billions of people have had it and countless millions have been injured. It's scientifically unethical and it's unfathomable to think what we've done to humanity for a virus that ended up having a case fatality rate no worse than a flu season, other than in an elderly comorbid cohort. We used humanity as guinea pigs in a very, very unethical manner. It's very frustrating to see science being adulterated and ignored, and the ethical and moral obligation to patients absolutely thrown out the window by a profession.
Mr. Jekielek: One of the things we've discussed in the past is you were observing an uptick in certain rare cancers, and also lymphomas which are more common. You were noticing a bacterium that once was only in childhood now appearing in adults. You were wondering about that. With the literature around that, has the study progressed? What do we know now? What are we seeing?
Dr. Cole: I'm not the only one making the claim anymore, which is comforting. Many pathologists around the world are seeing it. My colleagues in Europe have pointed it out, as I travel the world and give lectures. I've had so many doctors approach me, saying, "Gosh, I'm seeing this in my population."
I was talking to an oncologist in England a couple months ago about lymphomas, myelomas, and leukemias at rates he's never seen in his 40 years of practice. I was on the phone last week with an oncologist here in Texas where we are right now, and it’s the same thing. He has patients that are cancer free, their markers are all down, and they have been cancer free for one, two, five, 10, 17, 20 years. Then, after they're shot with the second, third, or fourth, the cancer is back like wildfire. That goes back to all these immune suppression mechanisms that are multitudinous. It's trackable now in the CDC data.
There is one researcher who has a great Substack, The Ethical Skeptic. He shows the CDC manipulating their data sets. But if you do the pulled forward data and look at what we call variation above trend, in the lymphomas we're seeing about a four sigma increase.
Mr. Jekielek: What does that mean exactly, a four sigma?
Dr. Cole: A four sigma. If I have a 100 patients that get lymphoma out of 100,000 every year, now I'm seeing maybe 105 patients. That’s a subtle change, but it's a statistically significant change. Then, you say, "Wait, this month it was four above the 100. Now it's five above the 100. Now it's 12 above the 100."
You're seeing that the trend should be this, historically, but what you're actually watching is the trend doing something else. If you read some of the breakdowns of his dataset in some of the solid tissue tumor cancers, ages zero to 54, what we're seeing now is a 12 sigma increase. These are massive amounts compared to past statistical analysis, year by year.
Mr. Jekielek: The baseline, basically?
Dr. Cole: The baseline, yes. You would expect, "Okay, there's going to be some of that from people missing oncology screenings during the pandemic." I appreciate that argument. A degree of that is going to be true. But look at the population zero to 54 where the cancer rate is very low to start with.
All of a sudden, why are we seeing very aggressive cancers in these age cohorts? Now, this is an easy study to do. If our government would be honest, HHS, Health and Human Services, has the data. As physicians, we report. If a doctor sees a patient in a clinic, they code using ICD 10 codes, saying, "Here's my code, and here's what I did. I did this, I did this, and I did this. They get paid for it based on the code."
In the laboratory if a patient has a diagnosis, we put down a code. If it's a certain type of cancer, it has its own code. These codes all go to the government, and the government has this database. They literally could go into their database. The insurance companies could do this too. Every week they could say, "Here's the change in the data in this age group and in this age group." It's a simple spreadsheet analysis with nothing to hide. Show us the data and be transparent.
Most governments and health agencies around the world have this ability. Look at Australia, why haven't we gotten birth data out of them for seven months, when we can look at the birth rates in Europe? There is a 10 to 20 percent decrease in birth rates across most European countries. It’s the same thing with the cancer trends.
We can have good researchers tease out information from knowing how to look at the data systems. But why isn't the government just saying, "Okay, your tax dollars pay for this information and pay for our agency to exist. We will give you what we have whether we like it or not." Sometimes that data is inconvenient because it tells the truth, but that's what matters to humanity. That's why we supposedly have these agencies, is to keep us healthy and well, or at least monitor that so we can change healthcare and society. You can call it anecdotal, great.
If you start looking at the Bradford Hill criteria of causation and correlation, things start adding up very quickly across the board. In the meeting today when I gave my talk, I said, "Raise your hand if you have a friend or a family member that ended up with cancer after the shots." It was astounding the number of hands that went up in that room. Is it everybody? Do I want to scare people, "Oh, you got the shot, you're going to get cancer?" No, but it's more significant statistically than it was before. It was after the shots rolled out that this started happening due to multiple immune reasons and other harm reasons.
Mr. Jekielek: We've experienced a pandemic of fear.
Dr. Cole: Correct.
Mr. Jekielek: Which caused some of the problems that we're experiencing today, and we don't want to be part of that. Just in terms of raw numbers, what kind of differences are we talking about in the areas that come to mind?
Dr. Cole: The raw numbers are going up, the percentage numbers look scarier than the raw numbers, but the trend line is consistently going up. Take care of your body and take care of your health. Do not panic, but if you have risk factors, take care of those. If you haven't had your screenings, get your screenings, because we're seeing things that we shouldn't.
Mr. Jekielek: So to your point, I was recently talking with a physician out of Virginia, Brooke Miller, who's been treating Covid and treating some levels of vaccine injury. You said some of the best results have to do with very basic things like changing diet and lifestyle. Those things are kind of foundational.
Dr. Cole: That is absolutely correct. I like to joke, the best medicine is the tip of your fork.
Mr. Jekielek: You hear the term turbo cancers. What does that mean?
Dr. Cole: Good question. It was popularized by a colleague over in Europe in an article she wrote, and she's a breast pathologist. I've met with her at some of the national or international meetings. In her cohort, she noticed younger women developing more aggressive cancers.
In oncology and pathology, we look at certain tumors and say, "Okay, they have this stage of cancer and they have this grade of tumor." You know how it's going to behave over a set period of time. What's happening is that with these cancers we're used to seeing, their growth patterns and their behavior are completely out of character. This adjective that's been tacked onto cancer is describing a phenomenon that's unusual in the practice of medicine.
Observationally, countless professionals around the world are saying, "Wait a minute, I haven't seen cancer behave this way before. What's going on?" Turbo cancer is something that wasn't there, and all of a sudden it's everywhere. It goes from being in one spot to everywhere all at once, and it happens in a manner that is timeline accelerated.
Many months back, a radiologist called me and he had two 31-year-old women come into his office for scans on that same day. They both had stage four breast cancer after their third shot. These are the types of stories we hear. A young, healthy, marathon runner gets his third shot, and all of a sudden he has stage four lymphoma.
Mr. Jekielek: I really like this idea of making the databases available. A lot of very interesting and valuable work could be done. It would probably save quite a few lives, ultimately. What do you think is really holding back these data sets?
Is it just that it's going to be inconvenient what these data sets will show? Will someone point this out and it will be disinformation in the sense that it's inconvenient information? That is increasingly what that word seems to mean.
Dr. Cole: Yes. Who knows what those words mean. It means whatever those that weaponize those words want them to mean. It's all just information. Whether you like it or not, it's information, but allow all the information to come out. Again, I'll go back to Mark Twain, "There are lies. There are damn lies. And then, there are statistics."
That means allowing transparency in those data sets, and making sure it's a complete dataset, not excluding data. Again, one can massage the data to make it say what you want it to say. You should use raw data and put in all the data points, whether it's convenient to whatever story you're trying to tell or not. No one should be trying to tell a story with the data other than the truth.
I like that construct also. That's where I've met many brilliant mathematical colleagues who do these data analyses and dive into data sets and point out the things that the agencies maybe did or didn't see, but intentionally did not report. It is helpful in truth seeking to have those who are willing to make the inconvenient statements of, "Guess what the data is really showing?" It may be against the wishes of a government agency, a pharmaceutical company, or a university's vested interest in grants. But let the truth be transparent.
Mr. Jekielek: What is your reaction to the Twitter Files release that we've seen over past months?
Dr. Cole: Obviously, it's highly concerning the degree of infiltration into Twitter that intelligence agencies did have and government interference did have. I'm grateful that things have opened up in terms of the ability to actually have some dialogue and get some truth out there now. It's very telling that we're kind of at a precipice of freedom in terms of realizing our government will violate our own constitution and weaponize any media source they can against its own people. That's a highly concerning harbinger of things to come if we don't step up and stand against that.
Why do I keep speaking out? Because I want people to be free and I want patients to be well. It's disturbing to see a government inserting itself where it doesn't belong on behalf of bigger entities with financial interests, like large pharmaceutical lobbies. I'm grateful the Twitter Files have been exposing what they have been exposing. I think we need the Facebook files. You name the social media source. We need the MSNBC and CNBC files. We need all the ones that are being paid off by the government and/or infiltrated by media control groups.
That's why I like The Epoch Times because you guys are seeking transparency and allowing a breadth of voices to actually come out and say, "This is free speech. Let's talk about the issues." It's a great question. It's very frustrating to see a nation going in the wrong direction.
I'll go back to the curiosity question, why are so many citizens here and in other countries not curious enough to ask the question, "Why can't I talk about this?" That's what this nation was founded upon; that ability to protest, that ability to disagree, and that ability to have your voice heard.
Mr. Jekielek: You mentioned it's important to open up these databases. For these large entities that have the money, what is the most important research that should begin right now?
Dr. Cole: The basic one that the CDC is supposed to report is morbidity mortality trends, the MMWR, in their weekly report. Many of these data sleuths have shown us the life insurance and disability insurance data. We need to know what that excess death rate actually is. Every young, unexpected, sudden death should be autopsied.
In these previous studies, you and I talked about spike proteins and about these conditions happening in the body with this new modality that's been rolled out onto humanity. We need to know why there's an increase in excess deaths across a lot of age cohorts. My personal bias is that I want to see the cancer datasets because this is so important, not just to us. I'll also be testifying in the EU Parliament next week.
This is critical to the economic stability of nations in terms of knowing the death rates within your populace, especially if you're losing young, healthy cohorts of your populace in terms of productivity in the workplace, your tax base, and your social security base. To ignore death signals and/or ignore disability and cancer signals is political foolery, because you're going to pay the piper down the road socially and economically if you don't focus on the facts. Those would be some of the basic ones to tease out of that data right up front.
Mr. Jekielek: What you just described seem like incredibly easy studies to do.
Dr. Cole: Yes.
Mr. Jekielek: What are the double blind RCTs [randomized control trial] that need to begin right now that cost however many millions that really it's the only NIH or perhaps the Gates Foundation that has the money to fund? What would be a study that we should launch right now?
Dr. Cole: I would like to see a sudden death study on healthy young individuals from age 10 to 50. I would love to see every one of those individuals with no preexisting condition. If they've had multiple injections, I would like to see a large autopsy study. Prove me right, prove me wrong. That's critically important.
Not just because of the COVID shot, because now we have an avaricious pharmaceutical industry that has now built a $500 million factory in Kenya, has built an mRNA factory in the UK, is building an mRNA factory in Canada, and is building an mRNA factory in Australia. They're acting as though they have this permission now to use this new technology, which many of us know is very dangerous. They want to use it for all these other pathogens, be it influenza, HIV, RSV, you name it.
We need to study why this technology is causing death before we continue to roll it out into all these other branches. They made their billions and now they think, "Oh, we have billions now, we can do this and get away with it." The science isn't there to say this is safe.
It's important to do these sudden death studies and look at the presence of lipid nanoparticles by mass spectroscopy. Which part of the body did it go to? Were these genes being expressed? Because even if we look at rat studies with lipid nanoparticles and influenza gene sequences, we're finding that that's altering the gene expression of future generations of mice and rats.
We already know it's causing genetic imprint problems. We know the technology is doing things the body isn't supposed to do. These data sets should be opened, obviously. Just statistical analysis would be the easiest study to do. That's a computer algorithm. Get a couple of smart programmers, query the databases, and boom, you got the information.
We need to do the physical studies on suddenly deceased individuals in different age cohorts, looking at the tissues, finding which you find or don't find, but honestly reporting it. That would be critically important because it's still not happening like you and I talked about a year ago—why are the autopsies not being done? If the autopsies are done, why aren't the laboratories doing the appropriate stains to look for causes?
Mr. Jekielek: Let's say you're someone who's gotten one shot, two shots, maybe more, and you're wondering to yourself, "There are all these unknowns and studies aren't being done. There are a few doctors trying to figure this stuff out. There doesn't seem like there's much wrong with me right now. What should I be doing?"
Dr. Cole: That's a great question. I start by saying, “If you got one shot, don't get two. If you got two, don't get three. If you got three, don't get four. If you never got one, don't get one.” That's how you start. Halt the harm where it may be. Thankfully, 85 percent of the people seem to be fine. There was a poll that said 15 out of a 100 Americans had a new chronic condition after the shots. That means 85 percent didn't.
Now what do you do? This concerns me as well. I have two older daughters that are adults that made the decision. One got one J&J, another got three Modernas. She's the one I'm a little more concerned about in terms of long-term harm. They both seem to have no side effects, thankfully, like many people don't.
Optimize your health if you are in a more inflamed state. All of these different pathways of harm that the spike can induce include clotting, autoimmune disease, and immune suppression. Again, at the tip of your fork, what are you putting in? What are you not? What's your vitamin D level? Are you moving your body enough to optimize physical health?
There are supplements one can take. I won't long list those. I'll refer to my colleagues at the FLCCC [Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance], because they have good long lists of things one can do. We also need to minimize our exposure to excessively industrialized products, be they chemicals, or be they foods that are sprayed with pesticides.
We need to get back to who we are naturally as human beings and not be dependent on big agriculture or big pharma or big industry to make our lives more convenient at the long term cost of our health and wellness. Fasting several days a week is one thing. Use near infrared light. I would like to see America become less insulin-resistant, and less obese. I would like to see us actually emphasize public health as a nation, instead focusing on convenience and profits and greed. The healthier the nation is, the happier the nation is.
Mr. Jekielek: Dr. Ryan Cole, it's such a pleasure to have you on again.
Dr. Cole: Always an honor. Thank you.
Mr. Jekielek: Thank you all for joining Dr. Ryan Cole and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I'm your host, Jan Jekielek.
This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.