top of page
Search
  • Team Cole

DNA Contamination Linked to Post-Vaccination Health Harms | American Thought Leaders

11/25/2023

In this hour-long interview with Epoch Times’ Jan Jekielek, Dr. Ryan Cole breaks down what we know about DNA contamination in the COVID-19 genetic vaccines, why it’s significant, and how it may be related to the rise in cancers and autoimmune diseases.

Dr. Cole explains the legal battles he faces and the backstory on being forced to close his pathology laboratory. Hope and optimism consistently color Cole’s sometimes grave comments about the corruption affecting him personally and the world at large in the wake of the Covid-19 crisis. The full transcript is shared below this video. Find the other conversations between Jekielek and Dr. Cole here, here, and here.

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Jan Jekielek: Dr. Ryan Cole, so good to have you back on American Thought Leaders.

Dr. Ryan Cole: I'm grateful to be here. Thank you.

Mr. Jekielek: We have a lot to talk about. You've been very busy. We've covered a number of issues that you as a pathologist have been studying over the years now, and I want to update our audiences on what we know.


Vaccine contamination

A few months ago, I did an interview with Kevin McKernan looking at what's in the vials, this contamination that multiple labs had already verified exists. We keep learning more about what's in there and the implications. Why don't we start with that, because that's something that you've been covering.

Dr. Cole: Many laboratories around the world have been looking at this issue. Kevin has been a leader in this area. He had kind of a eureka moment, and an accidental discovery, and I would commend that interview you've done with him. Where are we at? When these products were made, there was the J&J, that's an adenovirus factor, but then there was Moderna and Pfizer. These are mRNA; synthetically engineered, modified RNA.

For the trials, at least for Pfizer, there's a very synthetic PCR-type process in making up the mRNA sequence for these shots. That's what was given to 40,000 people, and this was a very deliberate, synthetic, engineered attempt at a precision-type process.

Mr. Jekielek: That's dubbed "process 1"?

Dr. Cole: That's dubbed "process 1." In terms of getting a lot of this made for billions of people, a second process was used, which was only tested on about 252 people instead of 40,000 people. That was taking this complementary DNA sequence that is the reverse pattern of the spike to make mRNA a message, and then your body would make that protein in your cells. There was a big old switcheroo. We did the trials on this very controlled synthetic process.

Then at the last minute they snuck under the radar and said, "But we're going to make all the rest of them using something we've barely tested." That's what got rolled out into billions of people's arms. It was kind of a bait and switch. Those large data sets one would want to see in terms of harms, you're not going to find that in 250 patients.

Mr. Jekielek: You mentioned the second process was used because we needed to make a lot of this stuff, correct?

Dr. Cole: Right.

Mr. Jekielek: You actually use E. Coli. You use a bacterium to grow these plasmids of DNA, which can then be turned into the RNA, but they just didn't clean them up.

Dr. Cole: They didn't clean them up properly. They're supposed to put in an enzyme that goes in and breaks down any residual DNA. Even up to the current vials of the fall booster, the XBB 1.5—which is technically extinct, so we're giving an expired shot for something that's extinct, which will always happen with coronaviruses—but even up to the current vials, Kevin McKernan, and 12 other laboratories have shown there is still this bacterial plasmid DNA contamination within these vials. The FDA allows up to, in gene products, 10 nanograms of DNA per dose, but that's based on old technology.

That's not even looking at something that's protected by fat. When you wrap these little things in fat, we don't know what the body's going to do. The allowable dose in certain FDA-approved products of DNA has been not only exceeded, but exceeded in a way that biologically we don't know the persistence of that DNA that can get into your cell and co-locate next to your nucleus.

Dr. Buchholz from South Carolina talked about this in his recent testimony. The smaller a fragment of DNA is, the more likely it has the opportunity to intercalate into your own DNA as well. Do we still have some testing and some probes that we need to develop to prove this? Yes, we still do have to do that. We're not there yet. Several of us are in some small communication groups trying to figure out the long-term implications of this.

But it does explain a lot of the really strange happenings in the human body that we're seeing in terms of clots, autoimmune disease, and cancers, because we're changing signals within cells. Human cells are meant to make human proteins. Human cells were not meant to make foreign proteins. When we program people's cells to make things they're not supposed to make, they can go haywire, they can mutate, and they can become a target of our own immune system attacking ourselves.

We could go on so many tangents on that. My big concern is the fact that billions of people across the earth have received a product that was overtly contaminated with something that should not have been in the product. If I bought some meat at the grocery store and it had heavy metal or pesticide toxins, they would pull that from the shelves immediately. You hear this in the news all the time. They would say, “If you have this bag of lettuce with this lot number, we're recalling it because it has this contamination in it and 30 people around the country got sick." Instead, we have vials going into billions of peoples’ arms around the world with known contamination, which has been admitted to by the Canadian health regulatory agency.

Mr. Jekielek: It was Epoch Times reporting that caused that disclosure to happen.

Dr. Cole: Yes, well done. But the fact is that they have a contaminated product that still exists within the consumer marketplace. If two children die from a crib breaking, that crib is off the market. If a tire blows up, and 20 people over X period of time are in crashes because of that tire, it's off the market. Yet, we have products that are contaminated and were intentionally adulterated with hidden gene sequences that weren't even disclosed to regulatory agencies, and these products are still in the market.


Endotoxin effects

Mr. Jekielek: The purpose of this whole technology was to get the cells to produce something that wasn't there in the first place. You're saying that there is other stuff that's being produced as well .

Dr. Cole: Correct.

Mr. Jekielek: The effect on the cells is really unclear, and perhaps the cells could become cancerous. There are many things that could happen. Kevin McKernan said that because of the cleaning process that was in effect, there is also endotoxin from the E. Coli bacteria.

Dr. Cole: Correct. Some unfortunate individuals passed very quickly after their first shot, because that endotoxin can put you into shock very quickly. Those endotoxins are one of the products that those bacteria can produce. Some of the cell walls of the bacteria and the endotoxins of the bacteria, those in and of themselves can induce these anaphylactic responses.

My concern isn't just these Covid shots. My concern is this entire technology. A lipid nanoparticle in and of itself is an unproven product. It takes on whatever you put into it. They're trying to create them for RSV and for flu and for many other pathogens. It still takes those little gene sequences anywhere and everywhere in the body. Lipid nanoparticles were intended and designed to go anywhere and everywhere, especially to take chemotherapeutic agents across the blood brain barrier into the brain.

To use this as a carrier platform, a lipid nanoparticle plus whatever gene, sounds cool conceptually. In all practicality, it is a horrific idea. If a child is born with a gene disorder, you want to get that gene into all the disordered cells and try to repair that gene. Okay, that's one in a billion, or one in a couple million. It’s a cool experimental technology. But you shouldn’t give this randomly and willy-nilly to everybody with no long-term safety data.

For a gene-based product, the FDA usually is going to look at the safety profile for five or six or ten years before they even consider allowing it to go onto the market. That's what we're up against with something like this. It's a bad platform. Lipid nanoparticle plus and gene equals we don't know what in the long term.

Mr. Jekielek: Those lipid nanoparticles allow these products to go into the testes and the ovaries. Now, there is this DNA contamination that's potentially altering the germline, which is difficult to fathom.

Dr. Cole: It's astounding to even begin to go there. The late, great Dr. Burkhardt from Germany was a mentor, a great teacher, a great researcher, and a great pathologist. In some of his autopsy findings, he showed post-vaccine, spike protein in the testes in several cases, spike protein in the placenta, and spike protein in the uterus. I've seen some of those in the studies we were doing in my laboratory. You bring up a great concern.

What are the long-term effects of what we have done population-wide? Is it everybody? Probably not, thankfully. But what percentage? Where are all those NIH dollars going? Where is the research saying, "We brought something novel and new to the world, and we're going to make sure that what we did was the right thing."

Now, the hubris and the megalomania of society says, "We can't ever say we did anything wrong." Just go back and look at ice pick frontal lobotomy. Everybody thought it was a great idea until it wasn't." With Thalidomide, Vioxx, and all the disasters in medicine that have been created over time, one has to look back and say, "Okay, we made a mistake".

But you don't compound on your mistake. You go back and you correct the mistake. We're at this opportunity and inflection point in science where we can say, "Let's stop. Stop now. Stop all of this. Let's be honest. Let's assess the harm." Again, I don't want to scare people. I don't think it's everybody, but we're going to find out there were certain genetic subtypes that were predisposed to these factors kicking in.


Health Harms

Mr. Jekielek: You feel like this provides some explanation for these turbo cancers and this clotting we have been seeing. Let’s recap where we are with respect to these cancers. There are also very young age cohorts where typically there isn't much, and there's data around that. Please give us an update.

Dr. Cole: This is a very important point. These small DNA fragments wrapped in the lipid nanoparticle can now get into your nucleus, and this is what we're trying to prove under the microscope. I've demonstrated spike protein in cancers and Dr. Burkhardt's groups have demonstrated spike protein. The bigger concern is these smaller DNA fragments are binding to or near tumor-suppressor or tumor-promoter genes. Knowing that these are fragmented into billions of short, medium, and long fragments, it's the short ones that we worry about. Those are known carcinogens. MicroRNA is also a known carcinogen in many toxicity studies.

Mr. Jekielek: This SV40 promoter region, which is in the Pfizer products, is also one.

Dr. Cole: Yes. It's not just that it's a promoter. It was put in there to rev up the production of the protein they wanted to make, but it also has a nuclear colocalization sequence in it. That is what's concerning. It's not just that it promotes replication, but it also has this sequence that allows it to get into the nucleus of the cell and to induce these different pathways of action and mechanisms that can go haywire, mutate, and cause toxicity. This is where the NIH, which lately I call, Not in the Interest of Health, should be focusing their interest, because this really is in the interest of health. If you don't look, you can't find it.

In theoretical science and hypothetical science, we know what to look for now, because we know the contamination is there. It's time to put those dollars towards those large laboratories that already have the equipment in place to look at the cancers in young people. Ed Dowd has done phenomenal research with his team. If you look at the 10-year deaths per one hundred thousand in the 15 to 44 age group, you will hear this argument about the uptick in cancer. They will say, “Everybody missed their screenings because we locked down, so that explains it all."

No, it doesn't. The 15 to 44 age group, historically, isn't your high cancer screening group, ever. Then all of a sudden, you can look at the data sets that Ed Dowd has put out at, phnancetechnologies.com, where you can see 10 years of data. Here are your deaths per hundred thousand and it’s cancer, cancer, cancer. 2021, boom. 2022, boom. It's astounding to look at that new blip on the radar that is just way out of pattern.

Why is it way out of pattern? You tell me. What new thing happened in the world in 2021 that we didn't see in 2020? Interestingly, Josh Sterling went into some of the private German insurance company data sets as well and saw some 30-plus percent upticks in pediatric cancers as well.

Our health and human services here in the United States are sitting on the data sets. They know the vaccination rates and they know the cancer rates. In medicine, we use the international diagnostic codes, so every cancer gets coded. Every time you go in for a cough, a sneeze, or a cold, it always gets a code. Those go into large databases and our government compiles those.

They have the top 10 common cancers. They know what the rates are, but they also know what the vaccination status is of all these individuals. Senator Ron Johnson and others have tried to get our agencies to release the data. Here in the U.S., taxpayers pay for that data, but it's buried. The question is, “How long can you hide what's real?” I wish I had the answer.

Mr. Jekielek: It seems like the powers that be are more ready to accept that small DNA fragments are there, than the whole plasmids that haven't necessarily been seen. Why are those potentially problematic when it comes to cancers?

Dr. Cole: It's like when your computer has a read error. We have little correction enzymes in our cells that are called DNA-mismatched repair enzymes. If there's a break in your DNA, they'll go back and zip things together. It is like when you're driving down the interstate and zipping along, there's that car that sees a spot and doesn't signal and just kind of slides in front of you. If you have these smaller spaces and these smaller fragments, it's easier to slip into those spaces and evade these stitching enzymes. If everything's tight and tight and tight, you can't slip in.

To have contamination with a larger fragment, it's harder for that to become part of DNA. But this is used in research all the time. You try to cause breaks in whatever organism or cell culture you're working on. You cause a lot of breaks, then you throw in the gene that you want to get in there and the different sequences. Then as everything is trying to be stitched back together, all of a sudden you get that sequence stitched in. It's a whole lot more complex than that, but that's just an easy way to explain how that happens.

That's the concern with these lipid nanoparticles in these sequences, having those present and readily available to go through this accidental process becomes the concern. Depending on where they park themselves in the genome, they can activate a gene or inactivate a gene. We have genes that turn on cancers. We have genes that are there to keep cancers from happening, tumor suppressor genes. If those aren't working and doing their job, then these cell pathways that allow mutation go on without being stopped.

Mr. Jekielek: Basically, you're incorporating a bunch of these strands which could randomly activate or inactivate genes. The effect of that is in some people might be increased cancer.

Dr. Cole: It's an unfortunate roll of the celestial dice at that point, yes. Because some people may have strong enzymatic clearing mechanisms and other people may not. These are things that in the theoretical sciences, much of the benchtop science has been shown, and then there are still things we have to prove. But what you can't hide at this point are the data points and the hockey stick inflections in every age group. The pattern is a big screaming red flag right now. Now, we have to go look at the whole forest, and now, we have to go down and look at the individual tree.


Is Data Being Hidden from the Public?

Mr. Jekielek: The CDC releasing the existing data would be a huge step forward.

Dr. Cole: That would be a gross admission of negligence and error. I wish they would, and they should, because there has to be some accountability for experimenting on a world population and the American population without knowing the long-term effects. It would be useful for those who are afraid. I'm not here to judge anyone if they got a shot or not.

I'm just saying, "Don't ever get another lipid nanoparticle gene shot." Am I really saying that? I am absolutely saying that. Definitively. But those who went ahead doing the right thing in their mind at the right time for what they were afraid of, fine. But this is why our agencies need to be honest enough to say, "Okay, if we did harm, let's rectify what we can or prevent what may be coming."


Turbo Cancer: A Working Definition

Mr. Jekielek: Just very briefly, the term turbo cancer sounds scary.

Dr. Cole: Turbo cancer is a term Dr. Ute Krüger from Sweden, she was the one that coined the term. She's a breast pathologist, and she was looking at the damage of these shots. In her practice as a breast pathologist, she was noticing increases in cancer just like I was. I had commented on it, and then a couple months later, a couple other pathologists in the world started commenting.

She noticed an uptick not only in the size of the cancers, but also the stage of the cancers. Instead of just getting a lesion taken out, one was finding spread to lymph nodes, spread to the liver, spread to the bone marrow, and spread to the brain. She was seeing these cancers behave in a manner that she hadn't before. I've traveled the world and spoken with many oncologists and physicians around the world, and everywhere I go, I hear this story.

I was here last week where we are now in Texas. There was one of the very prominent oncologists in Texas here who I've stayed in contact with. He stayed kind of quiet behind the scenes, which is good, and he was doing his job. He said, "At first I saw the clots, then I saw the blood cancers, the leukemias, and the lymphomas. Now, I'm seeing the solid tissue cancers at rates I've never seen. Patients that were stable or cancer-free for 1, 2, 5, or 10 years, their cancer is now back. It's back with a vengeance and it's not responding to the traditional therapies."

There's an easy explanation as to why that's happening. It's not necessarily that the gene sequence is causing cancer. The gene sequence can cause some of the mutations that lead to cancers. But it's also suppressing the immune system, and your immune system is what kills cancer. If your immune system is asleep, your killer cells can't be activated.

It doesn't matter what poison and chemotherapy one throws at a tumor if the immune system isn't going to come in and play its puzzle-piece, mopping-up game that it's supposed to play to help kill those cells and clean them out. This is what the oncologists are seeing that I have talked to. That's my big concern, on top of the other concerns. Not only do we have these subtle inflections happening as predicted, but we have the immune suppression. Then we have traditional therapies that are gone because there is not the response from them that one would expect.

In fact, before we came up here to do this interview, I was chatting with a lovely gal who has breast cancer that came back. We were going through this very same question. This is real, on a one-to-one, human to human to human level. She said, "My dad got the shots. He was a veteran and his doctor said to get them. He was a good soldier and he did. He died from his prostate cancer that had been suppressed for 10 years." Things like that.

Turbo is a colloquial term. Some doctors say, "There's no such thing." Of course, there's no such thing as turbo cancer. It's a colloquial term, but it describes the pattern that physicians are seeing. It puts it into a layman's understanding. Yes, there is cancer, but it's behaving in a way that it shouldn't.

Mr. Jekielek: Is it behaving in a way where the symptoms come faster?

Dr. Cole: Yes. Again, I don't want to scare people, but look, most people got a shot. My colleague, Dr. Angus Dalgleish in the United Kingdom, is one of the leading cancer researchers in the UK. After the third shot, after the booster, that's when he called for an international moratorium. If you have a new symptom, or if you have several, this is where the medical system is broken. Don't ignore your symptoms. That's what I would like to emphasize.

Certainly vitamin D plays a huge role in keeping cancers in check. We could go down that hole and we've done lectures on that before. But there's so many things that our public health system isn't teaching, basic things that people should know. Do we have a horrible diet? Do we have a lot of toxins in our environment?

Are we vitamin D-deficient? Absolutely. But in addition, we have a lot of people that received a contaminated adulterated gene-based product, and we don't know the long-term outcomes. I am not your doctor, but just make sure you're watching your health.


Vitamin D, a Superhero

Mr. Jekielek: Since we're on this topic, please give me the vitamin D plug. Because this one thing improves outcomes in all sorts of ways for everybody without any real down side.

Dr. Cole: Yes. Normally, we synthesize Vitamin D through our skin. It's a prohormone. It's a pre-form of a hormone, and so it directly and indirectly affects about 2,000 genes in our body in terms of activity. Of your 30,000 genes, about 2,000 are dependent on vitamin D being active.

It's the master conductor of your immune system. You have normal levels if you go out in the summertime and get 20, 30 minutes of sunshine and expose as much skin as possible. The darker your skin, the more time you need to spend in the sun, because melanin is a natural sunscreen.

Vitamin D controls immune pathways. It controls cancer pathways. It controls signaling pathways. It controls clotting pathways. There are so many different pathways that this vitamin prohormone controls in our body. If you're deficient, then instead of having a fine conductor of the immune system, your immune system is more like the mosh pit at a punk rock concert.

There's a very esteemed researcher in the UK who did a large study and said, "If we did a vitamin D repletion campaign, spent about $20 billion worldwide, we could save about $300 billion in health costs.” Most of the world spends their time indoors, and we aren't outdoors like we used to be. Here in the Northern Hemisphere, we are going into winter. Most of us are vitamin D-deficient at this point, and we will be until the sunshine shifts in the angle of the earth and the sunshine is back again. It's so important to understand that there are 17 known cancers that vitamin D levels correlate with. For those cancers, and with prostate cancer, breast cancer, and colon cancers, the rates go up the further north you live. It's fascinating just to realize how important this thing is. I would be remiss if I didn't mention vitamin K2, because as you get your vitamin D levels up, you need to make sure that your vitamin K2 levels follow that. There's your little side note on vitamin D, and it is an important cancer fighting pathway as well.


Clotting and Cancer

Mr. Jekielek: You also mentioned an oncologist that first noticed clotting and then blood cancers. Does clotting play a role in cancer?

Dr. Cole: It can to a degree, in the sense that oxygenation of tissues is critically important for function of the energy producers inside your cellular mitochondria. A lot of cancer pathways are related to mitochondrial dysfunction. We inherit most of our mitochondrial DNA from our mother, which is how we do a lot of these ancestral mappings.

The mitochondria are an ancient form of DNA within our cells. They're the energy producers. Lack of oxygenation can lead to mutation, which can lead to dysfunction, which can lead to cancer. Yes, clotting can be one of the many pathways that lead to an unfortunate triggering in some of those directions. The way that the clots are forming is highly concerning.

Mr. Jekielek: Related to vaccines?

Dr. Cole: Related to the vaccine shots, and related to the spike protein in particular. But not just the spike protein. This was a message I got yesterday from a colleague, "We need to look at this particular sequence within the DNA contamination, because it also codes for a very sticky protein." This is another area to explore. Again, I wish the NIH were throwing money out left and right, which they may be. But who knows what they're up to? I wish I knew.

But the clots are an unusual type of clot. It's an amyloid-type protein, not a traditional amyloid. I want to give all the credit to Dr. Resia Pretorius in South Africa, and Dr. Kell in the UK and their working group. Then there's a physician in Alabama, Dr. Jordan Vaughn, who's been doing a lot of work on clotting and has had some success in his clinic with some anti-clotting therapies.

I was with Dr. McCullough recently at a conference in Alaska, and then in Texas last weekend as well. He's seeing patients two years later that are still clotting after having had the shots with no previous family history or personal history of clotting. This goes back to the permanence of some of these fragments in some individuals. Again, scientifically, am I still hypothesizing? I am. But the clinical patterns are suggesting that some of these individuals are still making considerable amounts of spike protein.

Dr. Brogna et al., out of Europe, just put out a paper in September that showed vaccinal spike protein circulating six months after the last injection. We know that spike protein can induce clotting pathways. It can induce unusual clumps of proteins and sugars, almost silk-like patterns of interlaced, intertwining blood agents that you and I have circulating right now. They need to be there and they all have a role and a function. But when there's a pile up on the interstate, they all get blocked up behind that pile up.

That's what we're seeing with these clots, these unusual amyloids and fibrin that's hard to break down. We are finding these long after they should have been broken down. We have natural processes that form clots and break clots down. Those enzymes and those processes are being blocked and inhibited, because of these unusual sequences that have been injected into a lot of people. Is it happening to everybody? It is not, which is the good news. The bad news is that there’s a subset that is suffering, and we can't ignore them.


Mortician Reporting Strange Clots

Mr. Jekielek: We did an in-depth study. There was a researcher that had called up all these different morticians and learned that quite a few people were finding these weird clots in the cadavers. It all sounds very fantastic, so we called all those people again. Then it was kind of a mixed response. There were people that said, "Yes, this is very real. This is happening." Then there were a whole bunch of people that said "Don't ever call this number again."

It's unclear what the relationship is between finding these things in cadavers and in living people. We've seen some of these clots, and they look terrible and scary. Is that what is happening in the body?

Dr. Cole: With postmortem clots, if a patient unfortunately passes and one looks at that individual’s blood within a vessel, you can see a layering pattern. You can tell that the clotting happened as the body was cooling and all those proteins were congealing. It's almost like the rings of a tree where you can look and say, "I can count the pattern of the weather in this year and that year." You can look at those tree rings and it tells a story.

It’s the same thing in a postmortem clot vs. something that happened while the patient was still alive and the clot formed. You'll see a different pattern within that clot in terms of how the different proteins lay down and the patterns you see. One can analyze and distinguish that difference.

Many of the critics say, "Oh, those aren't real." They are real. They're real. They don't have that post-mortem pattern. They were in the patient pre-mortem and these patients died with these clots in them. Is the human body amazing? Can you bypass blockages just like that pile up on the interstate? Sure. That's why we have microcirculation. But once a big vessel is blocked, then the whole city is backed up and then eventually collapses, to carry the metaphor.

But yes, that's a good critique. I understand the critique, but from a pathology point of view, there is a way to tell that these were forming while the patient was still alive. My biggest concern is the fact that some individuals are still continuing to form these. An even bigger concern is the big scary ones that are talked about. But there are also micro clots, microthrombi that one can see there's a little fluorescent test.

One can do a Thioflavin T test. You stain the blood, and if these micro-amyloid fragments are there and you can see them. Then you realize that these patients are forming the tiny, tiny clots that are affecting vessels in the eye. We're hearing about occlusions of the retina. We're hearing about little mini strokes. Wherever you have a tiny vessel, some of those individuals are having those problems long term.


“Safe and Effective” Falsity

Mr. Jekielek: This is what Dr. Vaughn has been working on directly, if I recall correctly.

Dr. Cole: Yes, he's been a leader in that area. This is an important point I want to add. In the United States, the attorney general in each state is responsible for consumer product safety. If you look at what is allowable for a claim, for an emergency use authorized product, you are allowed to say, "May be effective." You cannot say, “Safe and effective.” That is false advertising.

The attorney general in each state is required to ensure consumer product safety for all the products distributed in their individual state. How do we attack this? We're all waiting for some knight on a white horse to come riding in and save us all from this insanity and stupidity. It's not going to happen. You have to think globally, but act locally.

You have to engage with your attorney general and your local health board, which will probably ignore you. My health board won’t, but others will. But work your way upward and get to the attorney general's office and say, "Are you allowing contaminated adulterated products to be put into the arms of the citizens within the state in which I live? Yes or no?" That's a great question to ask. That's how you change things.


Corruption Seemingly Runs Deep

Mr. Jekielek: I'm very concerned that there's this doubling down on these products.

Dr. Cole: The regulatory agencies are captured. It is absolute corruption. There is zero science at this point. It is all risk and zero benefit to take these shots. All risk, zero benefit. I have no problem stating that. Is that hyperbolic? No, because that very end of the virus is now gone. To have our agencies pushing a vaccine for a virus that has evolved away from what they designed, the only answer for that is corruption at the CDC, at the FDA, and at the NIH.

I go to meetings like this all the time. Many colleagues come to these meetings and approach me and say, "Thank you so much for speaking out. I wish I could." I just look at them and say, "You can. If you would speak out, we wouldn't be here where we are now. We wouldn't have this problem because people would've woken up sooner, less people would've been harmed, and we could have gotten ourselves out of this mess sooner."

But these regulatory agencies are being paid off by pharma, and being captured by who knows who the puppeteers are. I don't care. The fact of the matter is that we have people that are in a mindset and a mantra and a repetition of something that's harmful to humanity. That means that we need to clean house at these agencies and/or get rid of these agencies.

I now call the CDC, the Centers for Deception and Confusion. I now call the FDA, the Fraudulent Drug Administration. I now call the NIH, Not in the Interest of Health. Because if one follows the pattern of real science and not funded propagandistic science, then one would look at what's happening. One would look at the actual data sets and say, "This is not good for humanity. Let's stop this."


A True Vaccine? Or Gene Therapy? Definitions Matter

Mr. Jekielek: It's still officially called a vaccine. More and more people are saying, "Stop calling this a vaccine." Going back to the definition some years back, it would be called a gene therapy.

Dr. Cole: Absolutely.

Mr. Jekielek: Where do you stand on this?

Dr. Cole: It was used for patient language. The CDC changed definitions to make it more palatable for the public to think, "Okay, it's a vaccine." It's interesting to listen to Senator Rennick down in Australia last week confronting their gene regulators.

Senator Rennick: Gene therapies are a delicate and intentional process encapsulating the desired gene. Manufacturing gene therapies is challenging and it requires certain steps including transfection. That is on Pfizer's own website.

Dr. Cole: In the Pfizer documents, it actually says, "This is a gene therapy." If you go to Moderna's original page they admit, “This is a gene therapy." Yet, in order to push for a program or a narrative or this mass international experimentation upon humanity, they had to call it a vaccine. I am 100 percent in the camp that this was a gene therapy.

Some will argue, what about Novavax? I'll just say that Novavax is a protein therapy, but it's not even traditional because of the way that one's made in terms of moth cells and other things. It still imprints the original wrong virus on your immune system, and there's problems with that as well. The J&J and AstraZeneca were genetic-based, DNA-based instead of RNA-based, but they're all technically genetic therapies. The long-term effects are still unknown.

Mr. Jekielek: Three years ago, if you heard about gene therapy you might think, “That sounds like something unknown that I might be a little skeptical of, and something I might not want to do." On the other hand, when you hear about vaccines, you think they are safe and effective and they have saved millions of lives over the years. It's curious to me that that terminology was used for this product, given how you might perceive these two different types of products.

Dr. Cole: Today, this is the challenge societally with many things—we're in a war of words and a twisting of language. You may say "But Orwell was a warning, not an instruction manual." Using the term vaccine for what is a gene therapy, I find insulting as a scientist. I find it frustrating as a caring physician, and I find it deceiving as a citizen. It's no different than historical patterns in other cultures and other revolutions.

Usurping the language and manipulating behavior is what we are observing. In science, it's frustrating to watch that happen because it shouldn't happen. Does it prevent the disease? No. Does it prevent transmission? No. Does it prevent you from getting sick? No. Does it prevent hospitalization and death? No.

Is it a vaccine then? No. Pretty simple. But if you slap a label on something it's putting lipstick on a pig. It's really just not what they want it to be. But to your point, you're exactly right. It induced an acceptance in the mind, and then it induced a groupthink that you are a lesser person if you don't get this vaccine, which really isn't a vaccine.


Wearing a Paperclip

Mr. Jekielek: I can't help but notice that you're wearing a paperclip beneath your microphone there.

Dr. Cole: I was inspired. I was at a meeting in Copenhagen a couple of weeks back with a great group of physicians and philosophers and thinkers and freedom fighters. Andrew Bridgen has been one of the few brave people in the UK Parliament speaking out as he's learned the science and evolved and stood up for his constituents.

He told the story of the freedom fighters up in Norway during World War II. The original patent for the paperclip came out of Norway and was modified in another country. During the resistance, the sign that you were awake and knew it was happening and were fighting the fight together was to wear a paperclip.

I noticed this at that meeting in Copenhagen and said, "You're wearing a paperclip. What does that mean?" He told the story. I always try to keep it on my lapel just to remind people we're in this together. This is bigger than just a virus. This is bigger than just some corruption. This is a movement for individual freedom, self sovereignty, and autonomy.

It would be fun for people to put a little paperclip on and say, "We're with you. Let's have a comfortable conversation.” Maybe the more paperclips you see, then you don't have to be that one that's afraid to speak out. You don't have to say, "I wish I could say what you're saying." Just wear the paperclip. When everybody sees that everyone else is wearing a paperclip, all of a sudden we'll hit that tipping point societally, and hopefully much of this chaos will implode.

Mr. Jekielek: It's very interesting because the paperclip is innocuous. It's not like a ribbon.

Dr. Cole: Right, it's not a certain colored ribbon. But it does have an important historical construct and connection.


Cole’s Fight Holds Both Cost and Opportunity

Mr. Jekielek: The cost of wearing the metaphorical paperclip has been quite high for many. Since our first interview you've actually lost your lab where you were doing the pathology work around these things. At the moment, you don't have a lab to work in anymore.

Dr. Cole: I have gone from 80 employees and millions of dollars of equipment down to my wife and I, a little office, and a microscope. I still have my entity open trying to contract with another lab. I had to sell off what I had to just basically save enough to maintain the family. I don’t have a lack of desire to want to continue, and I get countless requests saying, "Can you look at this autopsy? Can you do that?" I want to help, but I’m just hamstrung at the moment and trying to retool.

It wasn't the boards of medicine that defeated me. It was a local insurance company. It was one man, Dr. David Pate, CEO of the biggest health system in Idaho. I found out in my hearings with the Washington State Medical Commission for my missed dismal information that he was the one that attacked me. Meanwhile, I went millions into debt to serve my community, then I lost my lab.

I'm not saying that Orwell was me. I am saying that fighting for freedom has a price. Those of us who have had just about everything taken away from us would do it all over again, because we didn't go into medicine because we care about ego. We care about patients. So many of these people are corporatized and have weaponized the insurance companies.

The insurance company canceled my contract, not the board of medicine. The beginning of the end of my business was the insurance company saying, "We don't like what you're saying," which technically was his health systems insurance company. That was the beginning of the end of what I was doing at that time. Am I still speaking out about health freedom and science? Absolutely. Am I still a hardcore scientist? Absolutely. Am I trying to tool back up to just do a small consultation type practice? I am.

But at the same time, when boards of medicine and insurance companies attack some of the most experienced and published doctors in the world that you've interviewed, there's something bigger than us behind all of this. I never went into medicine for the money. Those that go into medicine to take care of the patients always do fine enough. I had a comfortable life and I love what I do. To have that taken away is exceedingly frustrating when one knows the science.

The game isn't over yet. One, the best defense is a good offense. I was speaking to a colleague last night. We're going to flip the tables on them. It's our turn now to take them to court for trying to destroy reputations. Science is on our side. The data sets are on our side. We were a voice of warning from the beginning. Things have panned out. People are waking up. We're at that tipping point and now it's our turn to win.


Washington Board of Medicine Legal Battle

Mr. Jekielek: What about the Washington Board of Medicine then?

Dr. Cole: Most other states looked at these complaints and said, "This is free speech. There's no patient complaint here. There's no patient harm here." Washington, being Washington, said, "We have a missed dismal information policy. We're happy to go after him."

Now, I have some counter constitutional lawsuits against them. After the kangaroo court hearing finishes, then I get to turn around and play the legal game back against them. If we have a nation left and a Constitution left, I'm confident we will win.

But it's frustrating to see egregious violations of the rights of an individual citizen to speak what they know. When I received my degree, I didn't say, "I will now check my constitutional rights at the door." There are doctors all around this country who have been attacked with Facebook complaints against doctors; third, fourth, fifth party. In the media, "We heard this doctor say this, we're complaining, and we want this doctor's license taken away." There are no direct patient care complaints.

In many states around this country in order to file a complaint, you either need to have participated in the care where someone was harmed, be the patient, or be a family member of the patient. What we're seeing is the weaponization of the regulatory deep administrative state process. Some of my complaints that keep coming in are because this newspaper author, Audrey Dutton, keeps attacking me. Then they file it as a board complaint and say, "Well, see, it's printed." Then they use that as an attack. It's a harassment campaign.

Washington State, for whatever reasons, being a little more Left-leaning really doesn't believe in free speech. They should show me where I was wrong on data and Covid, which I invite anywhere, anytime. Look, if I'm wrong on all of this stuff, show me. Bring better data than I have.

I'm only doing this to honor the oath I took to the patient. Let's have a discussion. Let's have dialogue. Let's have a conversation that's patient-focused, not based on propaganda. If you can question it, it's science. If you can't question it, it's propaganda. Plain and simple.

To have this state come after me by honoring these soliloquies—the court transcripts will be available—was a kangaroo court. They had an expert who had a financial interest against me in the community. Their other expert was an addiction psychiatrist trying to teach me about virology. This is similar to Jordan Peterson's attacks in Canada. They want to reeducate me according to their final statements.

Their other expert was a family doctor that only did one year of training beyond their medical school. I said, "Those are virology experts? I don't think so." Yet, they tried to limit what I could bring in as a presentation to these hearings. They attacked me personally and tried to cut off my fellow expert. It was just a kangaroo court. Their decision was already made before I went into the hearing.

Some of the panel members that will be making the decision seemed to soften up by the end of the hearing, realizing, "There are a lot of things we haven't heard." That was encouraging in the sense that I was able to get enough science into their mind that there is another story besides the narrative drum beaten into them over the last several years. The lesson learned here is that it's a waste of my time, and a huge waste of money.

I have six daughters, three in college. I was making a good living, then all of a sudden, I am making no living. Some colleagues raised a nice legal fund for me through a nonprofit, which is great. We'll use this to take this as high as we need to constitutionally. It's not about me. It's about the opportunity for scientists to speak freely. Be they right or be they wrong, they need the opportunity to at least put ideas out there or science will never advance.


Science and Change

Mr. Jekielek: It's core to the concept of science, isn't it? Does this term settled science even make sense? Is there such a thing?

Dr. Cole: The construct or the term settled science is antithetical to the construct of science.

Mr. Jekielek: Right. There are things we observe that we can all agree on, like the sun rises and sets. We can see that and we can observe that. That's a fact.

Dr. Cole: Yes. Is the earth going to spin a few milliseconds less this year, and then 10 years later spin a few milliseconds more on its axis? Yes. Even the spin of the earth isn't settled in terms of our clocks. There's so many things that are unsettled. Certainly, one can observe the basic patterns. Science happens through observations and eureka moments and discovery, but if we don't allow the dialogue to discuss it, then science is dead.

Mr. Jekielek: Certainly in medicine, it's never black and white.

Dr. Cole: We're not leeching people and bleeding people anymore, are we? I guess we use leeches in plastic surgery. But some of the things like giving mercury for syphilis, of course, we're not giving mercury for syphilis anymore. There's so many things in medicine we don't do now because our knowledge base has evolved. Observations were made, and experiments were done.

These boards of medicine honor non-scientists complaints and have no patient complaints. In fact, they tried to extort and induce the patients in Washington to complain against me that I had treated by telemedicine early in the pandemic. But those patients said, "No, we did well. Why would we complain against the doctor that helped us when no one else would help us?"

It's very frustrating to watch because they're overstepping their legal bounds to punish someone publicly and to scare others so that other people won't speak up. If people stay silent, then others continue to be harmed and science doesn't advance.


Optimism Reigns Supreme

Mr. Jekielek: Ryan, any final thoughts as we finish up?

Dr. Cole: Life is still good. We're heading in good directions. As a society, if we continue to work together, if we allow conflicts to be resolved by coming to the table, having face-to-face conversation, the world will be a better place. Science is still optimistic. Medicine is still a noble profession with a lot of good people within it. Maintaining your individual rights to speak freely, to think freely, to opt for what you do or don't want for yourself is more important than anything.

Don't forget to be a friend of those in your community. Don't forget to help others in need. Be a part of what we're trying to do, all of us together. This never was about any individual. This is about making sure that we are healthy on the individual level, community level, and the world level. Stay positive. Stay optimistic. Life is still good to be lived.


Mr. Jekielek: Dr. Ryan Cole, it's so good to have you on the show again.

Dr. Cole: Always a pleasure. 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.



1,572 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page