Dr. James Thorp
Day 3 · September 10, 2026 · 1:04:24
Key points Dr. James Thorp is a board-certified obstetrician and maternal-fetal medicine physician with over 45 years' experience, 250-plus published papers, and prior roles as a medical journal reviewer and Senate expert witness. He argues medical literature on vaccine safety in pregnancy is biased, citing journals owned by a few companies, retractions, and reviewers and editors he says received over a billion dollars from pharmaceutical companies. He claims deaths and injuries within two weeks of vaccination were counted as unvaccinated in databases, distorting safety data. He presents analyses alleging large increases in miscarriage, stillbirth, and neonatal death, and criticizes the New England Journal of Medicine's Shimabukuro study for diluting its denominator. He argues that most cases labeled long COVID are actually vaccine injury, citing V-safe data and MIT researchers, and estimates over 630,000 injured Canadians. He describes being fired from SSM Health after testifying to the U.S. Senate and appearing on Tucker Carlson, and a 2021 threat letter from the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. He says the vaccine concentrates in the ovaries and reduces fertility, sperm counts, and birth rates, attributing the broader coverup to money, power, and pharmaceutical industry influence.
Speaker 5
0:04 We're just getting back together after lunch, and we're going to get started again right back into our witnesses and some testimony. 0:10 I'll turn it over to my colleague, Mr. Buckley. Speaker 6
0:16 So our next witness is Dr. James Thorpe. 0:20 Dr. Thorpe, would you please take the Bible in your right hand? 0:24 Dr. James Thorpe, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 0:36 And I thank you for coming. 0:37 I understand that it was a long trip and a commitment, but I also understand that you believe that you were supposed to be here. Speaker 3
0:50 I had a very strong calling to be here. 0:53 I wouldn't have been for the world. Speaker 6
0:56 I'm just going to introduce you to the inquiry. 1:01 So you are a board-certified obstetrician 1:05 gynecologist and maternal fetal medicine physician with over 45 years of experience. 1:13 Throughout your distinguished career, you have overseen countless high-risk pregnancies. 1:19 You are still practicing full-time. 1:22 You have been an examiner for the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1:28 You have been involved in over 250 published papers. 1:34 You have been a reviewer for major medical journals, and I'm just limiting myself to the ones on obstetrics and gynecology. 1:44 These journals, medical journals that you've been a peer reviewer on include the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the Journal of Maternal Fetal Investigation, 2:01 And then just listing a few. 2:03 So when these other mainstream medical journals need an expert in obstetrics or gynecology, you are brought in as a reviewer. 2:11 You have been for the Western Journal of Medicine, the Journal of Maternal Fetal Medicine, the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association. 2:22 You have written five chapters in obstetrics and gynecology textbooks. 2:27 You also held a position on the board of directors for the Society of Maternal Fetal Medicine for four years. 2:34 You have testified as an expert before U.S. Senate committees, and you have researched extensively into COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines in relation to fertility, pregnancy, and other issues. 2:48 This research has resulted in more than 70 published articles and two books. 2:54 And I'll advise the inquiry that we are including as an exhibit Dr. Thorpe's CV, which is 42 pages in length. 3:03 And Dr. Thorpe, we've invited you to speak about COVID-19 vaccines in relation to pregnancy and fertility. 3:12 And so I'd invite you to continue with your presentation. Speaker 3
3:16 Thank you very much, Counselor Attorney Sean Buckley. 3:21 And thank you so much 3:23 Chairperson Dean Ellison. 3:26 And thank you for all of the other members of Parliament. 3:31 It's an honor and a privilege for me to be here. 3:34 What I'd like to accomplish today is to focus on some of the discrepancy between the published medical literature and that of fact checkers 3:53 and the bias of the medical literature and why that exists. 3:59 So I'm really grateful to see that by my count, there's about 16 alternate media sites covering this. 4:10 And thank you for each of you for being here. 4:15 But what's really missing is where's all the legacy media 4:21 Where's the mainstream media? 4:23 I don't see them. 4:26 It's a very similar situation with regard to the mainstream media not being present here and the medical literature and the bias of the medical literature. 4:40 The mainstream media is ignoring this event. 4:45 I believe that this event is in that event of Senator Ron Johnson in the United States of America. 4:54 I believe it's my opinion that this is this is one of the most important hearings in the history of Canada and Senator Ron Johnson's in the history of the United States of America, because this has been the most egregious medical disaster 5:14 in the history of medicine. 5:18 So why is that? 5:20 I want to say, if you go on AI Chat GPT, or if you go on Grok, you say, hey, what's the effects? 5:31 What's the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine in pregnancy? 5:35 You're going to get about 100 articles that say it's safe and effective. 5:40 100 articles in peer reviewed medical journals. 5:43 Interestingly, 5:45 Not a one of those will cite the data that I'm about to present to you. 5:52 So medical journal publication bias, why does it exist? 5:58 Well, let's start from the top. 6:00 There's about 15,000 peer reviewed medical journals in the world. 6:06 The vast majority of these are owned by five companies. 6:10 The rest, medical organizations, 6:14 universities, private companies, private companies like the New England Journal of Medicine. 6:20 So in other words, these institutions that are, I'll show you, terminally captured, they have the power to determine what is published, what is not published. 6:34 And if it does get through the publication process into the journals, it'll get retracted if it's against their narrative. 6:43 And to prove that, you can go to retractionwatch.com. 6:49 And you'll see over the last 20 years, the number of journal articles retracted was very linear, very linear. 6:58 Before the pandemic, there was a logarithmic increase in the number of retractions. 7:05 For example, Dr. Peter McCullough's article on autopsy proven causes that the COVID-19 vaccine 7:14 Killed individual, autopsy proven, retracted. 7:18 So there's a lot of bias here and that's gotta be acknowledged. 7:24 The four most influential medical journals in the world. 7:27 New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, British Medical Journal. 7:33 And Journal of the American Medical Association, probably in that order. 7:38 Now. 7:41 I want you to focus on this slide. 7:44 because this slide is self-evident and it really is convicting. 7:53 It is a conviction and testimony of the major editors-in-chiefs of these journals who testify, who go on record, editors-in-chiefs of their own journal, the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Marshall Angel. 8:13 Dr. Arnold Rellman. 8:15 And I'll paraphrase them, but you can read what they've said. 8:18 This is a quarter of a century ago. 8:21 That basically, the New England Journal of Medicine is terminally kleptocratically entangled with the pharmaceutical industry and medical device companies. 8:32 As editors in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, it's not Jim Thorpe. 8:37 It's not others. 8:40 It's their own top brass. 8:42 Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet. 8:47 Same sentiments. 8:49 And then you have three high-ranking officers of the British Medical Journal. 8:54 You have Fiona Godley, former editor-in-chief. 8:58 Richard Smith, former editor-in-chief. 9:01 And you also have Doug Altman, chief statistical officer for the 9:07 for the British Medical Journal. 9:09 These are the top three most influential medical journals in the world. 9:15 So if this is 25 years ago, it's gotten a lot worse since then. 9:20 And I'll show you that. 9:22 By the way, this would be equivalent to, let's say, the CNN or Fox News or MSNBC, their CEOs coming out and saying, 9:33 Oh, everything we're published is horribly biased and is fraudulent. 9:37 That's basically what it would be roughly equivalent to. 9:42 It's gotten worse. 9:43 This is a quarter of a century ago. 9:44 This is just not even two years ago. 9:49 This is published, to their credit, in the Journal of the American Medical Association, David Dan Wynn and colleagues. 9:58 This is October 10th of 2020. 10:02 And what these authors published is nothing short than astounding. 10:09 Excuse me. 10:09 What they published just two years ago is that they looked at the main reviewers, medical journal reviewers like I was. 10:20 For the four major medical journals that I've described, the four major medical journals, BMJ, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and the Journal of the American Medical Association, and they match their primary reviewers with private pay databases in the United States of America. 10:41 So this is just four medical journals, just the United States of America, 10:49 just two years, three years, 2020, 2021, and 2022, these allegedly private independent reviewers, they were paid $1.06 billion from the pharmaceutical companies. 11:07 This is a horrible conflict of interest. 11:13 And how can we trust this peer review process? 11:18 I mentioned that I was a journal reviewer for multiple different journals my entire career. 11:26 I've never received a dime. 11:29 So this is really concerning, but it gets worse. 11:32 It gets much worse. 11:34 Not only are the independent, allegedly independent reviewers, not independent, they're paid off by big pharma and device manufacturers. 11:45 But the journal editors themselves are also paid off. 11:49 Look at the mean payment, $37,000. 11:53 That's not chump change. 11:55 So they're all paid off. 11:58 They're incentivized. 12:00 So what can you believe? 12:02 You go to chat. 12:03 It's no wonder you go to chat GP and you get an extremely biased review because any AI will only generate articles from peer reviewed publications. 12:15 This is even worse. 12:17 This is published in one of our papers, prominent co-authors who you recognize. 12:26 And I have to acknowledge attorney Maggie Thorpe, JD, for pulling this up. 12:33 But this sure looks like money laundering to me through Rochelle Walensky and Janet Woodcock at the HHS 12:44 appears to be funneling money through the Massachusetts Department of Health, through the Massachusetts Medical Society, which is a private organization, which, by the way, owns the New England Journal of Medicine, $426,000. 13:02 For what reason? 13:04 Wait a minute. 13:06 Why is a government organization paying the New England Journal of Medicine $426,000? 13:13 Well, I'll tell you why on subsequent slides. 13:17 It's very clear that the government needed a mouthpiece to the most influential medical journal in the world. 13:26 This is the way medical journal writing works. 13:30 It's corrupt. 13:34 I've detailed here on the slide just 12 levels, hierarchical levels of medical journal bias. 13:42 It's atrocious. 13:44 Let me give you a personal example. 13:48 If essentially every institution, academic center in Canada and in the United States of America have protocol for authorship, any doctor in that system or researcher 14:05 is not allowed to submit anything for publication unless it's approved by their department chair, their division director, or the director of research of that institution. 14:17 Well, guess what? 14:18 They're never allowed to publish something that goes against this current protocol of these hospitals, which is pushing the COVID-19 vaccines, not only in all their employees and their patients, but their pregnant women, 14:36 So they would never allow that to be published. 14:39 So is it any wonder? 14:40 And to attest to this, exactly why I was fired from SSM Health Hospital, because I testified in the United States Senate. 14:52 I was on Tucker Carlson before he was fired from Fox News. 14:58 I probably contributed to that since he interviewed me. 15:02 And of course, Fox News 15:05 it gains a revenue, a huge amount of revenue from the pharmaceutical advertising. 15:09 So that's not tenable. 15:11 You can't do that. 15:13 So I was fired for the same reason from SSM Health Hospital. 15:19 Now, we alluded to this earlier. 15:22 The corruption goes much beyond this. 15:26 I've listened 15:28 in tears here, listening to some of the witnesses here. 15:32 It's horrible. 15:32 Many of these witnesses had their COVID-19 vaccine and their adverse events within two weeks of the vaccine. 15:41 Guess what? 15:43 Canada, your databases, your societies, your hospitals, American, mine, they counted those individuals that were killed or injured by the vaccine, they counted them as unvaccinated. 15:57 until two weeks after the vaccine. 16:00 Some cases, three weeks. 16:04 Horrible. 16:07 Now, there's been a lot of focus and Senator Ron Johnson and myself took a lot of heat by bringing up the miscarriages associated. 16:19 And on this slide, you'll see that miscarriages associated with the vaccine are definitely increased. 16:27 By how much? 16:29 Nobody knows. 16:30 There hasn't been not allowed to be adequately performed studies to determine that. 16:37 But what I can tell you, the Pfizer 5.3.6 post-marketing data, which I'll show you in a minute, noted a rate of 81%. 16:49 The Shimabukuro study, their raw data showed a rate of 82%. 16:54 Do I trust either of those sources? 16:56 No, I don't have much confidence. 17:00 My open letter to the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology noted literally a 17:08 very significant 271 fold increase in comparison of the COVID-19 vaccine to the influenza vaccine 17:16 Likewise, our study in the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons Journal noted 177-fold increase in miscarriage with the COVID-19 vaccine compared to the influenza vaccine. 17:33 Now, Dr. Naomi Wolf, completely separate and independent of me, 17:39 And independent of the Pfizer 5.3.6 data that I analyzed, she came up with a miscarriage rate of 82% from Pfizer's internal papers. 17:50 Do I trust that data? 17:51 No, I don't trust anything from Pfizer or for that matter, the New England Journal of Medicine. 17:57 And then finally, our last study that was published in Science Public Health Policy and the law looked again at 114 fold increase. 18:08 So from comparing COVID-19 vaccines to the influenza vaccines. 18:15 Now, this is. 18:18 This is Pfizer 5.3.6 data legally mandated 18:26 by our country to report back the first 90 days. 18:30 Interestingly, they cut it off at 70 days. 18:34 This is what you see on page seven. 18:37 I had this data in 2021. 18:38 There were 42,086 casualties, including 1,223 dead in just 70 days after the rollout. 18:42 Importantly, of those dead, 18:56 25% died on the first day of the vaccine. 19:00 And by the way, in your databases, our databases are counted as unvaccinated. 19:06 Unvaccinated, right? 19:08 Now, you can easily do an injure to kill ratio simply by taking that 42,086. 19:15 subtracting the number died and divided it by the number of died. 19:20 And you come up with an injured to kill ratio of 33.4. 19:23 Now, if you do that same analytic with the VAERS database, it comes up to about 45. 19:30 Now, I'm a disabled Air Force veteran, and I know my military history. 19:38 You look at wars, you're looking at an injured to kill ratio that is less than 10. 19:43 Even the atomic weapons that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were looking at an injury to kill ratio of less than five. 19:56 This is the page 12 of the Pfizer 5.3.6 data. 20:03 Pregnant women weren't supposed to be in here, but 270 of them were in there. 20:07 Majority, I won't, this is a very busy slide, but by my analytics, what they reported, there's a miscarriage rate of 81%. 20:17 The stillbirth rate is five fold of what it should be by national average. 20:22 The neonatal death rate is eight fold. 20:24 The breastfeeding complications were significant. 20:28 Now, this is the infamous New England Journal of Medicine study. 20:32 It was published on the E Journal, June 21st, I'm sorry, April 21st, 2021. 20:39 Now, this is their raw data. 20:42 What they reported was 827 pregnant women, and they reported 104 miscarriages. 20:51 Now, interesting sleight of hand, 20:55 They state you can clearly see in their text that 700 of these 827 pregnant women didn't receive their COVID-19 vaccine until after 28 weeks. 21:08 You can't have a miscarriage after 28 weeks. 21:11 A miscarriage occurs only 21:14 before 20 weeks. 21:16 So they diluted the denominator and they reported a miscarriage rate of 12.6, which is 102 divided by 827. 21:26 But really you take that 700 out of the denominator and you're looking at 102 over 127, that's a miscarriage rate of 82%, multiple erratum and corrections. 21:41 I don't believe this article was written by the authors. 21:44 I think it was ghostwritten. 21:47 It's horribly, ridiculously written. 21:53 It's only 10 weeks of data. 21:54 Pregnancy is 40 weeks. 21:57 And they use the V-safe data system, which is very easy to manipulate, as you'll see on subsequent slides. 22:06 What should a miscarriage rate be? 22:09 Well, even their 12.6%, if you look at the best study on miscarriage rates, 22:15 by Tong and colleagues published in our main green journal, you're looking at 1.6%. 22:22 So 12.6 divided by 1.6, you're looking at a risk rate of COVID-19 vaccines of even of their lower number, which I don't believe of eight fold. 22:34 So who knows, it's definitely increased. 22:37 Now, I got back to that what appears to be money laundering 22:43 between the United States government, Rochelle Walensky, and Kashima Bakuro, the whole team over there, you can add Francis Collins, you can add Jeffrey Zients, the chief executive of the White House, and many others, Vivek Murthy, the Surgeon General. 23:03 I could go on and on. 23:05 So they pay the New England Journal of Medicine $426,000. 23:09 Why? 23:12 Well, for this reason. 23:14 So they can publish two articles in the New England Journal of Medicine on April 21st. 23:20 One, the fraudulent, corrupted Shimabukuro article. 23:25 And the second one, interestingly, an op-ed. 23:28 Isn't that interesting? 23:30 Eric Rubin, the editor-in-chief, invites who? 23:35 Rochelle Walensky. 23:36 Well, isn't that convenient? 23:38 Rochelle Walensky 23:40 Four hundred and twenty six thousand dollars. 23:42 She'd never seen a pregnant woman before in practice. 23:46 She's not. 23:47 Why didn't Eric Rubin invite somebody with extensive obstetrical experience and extensive research in maternal fetal medicine physician that would have been much more qualified to have an op ed on the effects of the vaccine and pregnancy? 24:05 Why? 24:06 Hmm. 24:08 probably related to $420,000, I would guess. 24:13 So I want to say they push these articles out, pushing the safety of vaccine and pregnancy to the most vulnerable patients, pregnant women. 24:25 This is April 21st, 2021. 24:29 We just listened to Senator Ron Johnson. 24:33 We chatted, Senator Ron Johnson presented, you know, over the last month. 24:39 They lied. 24:40 They hid the safety signals. 24:42 We have the receipts. 24:44 We know where the bones are buried. 24:46 We have the emails of Fauci, the diary of Fauci. 24:52 They knew that there was a safety signal, concerns. 24:58 concerns for inflammation and fever and miscarriage and they hit it yet 25:06 They not only hit it, but Rochelle Walensky gets up here in this op-ed and she says, you threaten this pregnant woman. 25:14 If you don't take it, you may die. 25:15 Your babies may die. 25:17 When the exact opposite was true, the study by Pinnells and colleagues is very clear. 25:23 Pregnant women had a 75% reduction in mortality compared to non-pregnant women. 25:31 So this is an abomination of truth. 25:36 These are the emails. 25:38 I won't go through these. 25:39 We heard Senator Ron Johnson. 25:42 But, you know, there's one other email that I, some more emails and texts. 25:47 These are damning. 25:49 These are in writing. 25:50 These are January 25th, 2021. 25:54 They knew there was an issue and it was buried and hidden from the American people and worse, pushed. 26:02 push is necessary in pregnancy, you need to take the vaccines. 26:07 So but there was one more email that you didn't see. 26:13 And that was from the diary. 26:15 And this is this is from Nobel laureate, who got the Nobel Prize for the COVID-19 vaccine, Andrew Weissman. 26:26 And he 26:28 email Fauci and said, hey, we have animal data, pregnant animal data, and we have amniotic fluid saying that there is a safety signal inflammation in the amniotic fluid, in the amniotic fluid of these pregnant animals. 26:48 Heard nothing of it. 26:50 Nobody. 26:51 Fauci buried it. 26:53 This 26:57 V-safe data, I do need, because this is really important for the Canadian Parliament, the citizens, and for America to know. 27:06 This is just published, the V-safe data. 27:08 This is United States FDA government data that, of course, the Shimabukuro article was based on. 27:17 It was a corrupt system, but they followed 10 million people. 27:21 50% of those 10 million had significant 27:26 adverse effects. 27:28 Most importantly, this long COVID syndrome is a charade. 27:35 It's a masquerade for vaccine injury, as demonstrated by this study. 27:42 So what they found, and this is published by Ratzef Levi and by Nelson Liu of MIT. 27:51 These are very brilliant 27:54 physician researchers, and what they found was 1.87% of the V-safe data had long COVID defined as significant symptoms for three months or longer. 28:07 What's this mean? 28:08 This means that there are over 630,000 Canadians that are vaccine injured with quote, long COVID syndrome, but it's from vaccine injury. 28:22 over 5 million Americans. 28:25 This is very important study. 28:28 It's very important for the Parliament and the Canadian people to understand don't use long COVID syndrome. 28:37 It's a masquerade for vaccine injury, period. Speaker 6
28:41 So, Dr. Thorpe, can you go into that a little more? 28:43 Because it's not really coming out on the slide as to why they say that that long COVID is really 28:52 Vaccine injury, like, I do appreciate that. 28:54 There's the odd study out there where they're pretending that's long covered. 28:57 But when you look into the data, like 70 or 80% of the people are vaccinated. 29:02 So, how do we know that? 29:04 Can you just. Speaker 3
29:05 Go into that in a little more detail, all of these patients in visa. 29:09 The safe data received at least 1 coded vaccine. 29:14 All of them. 29:15 And there are other studies, most notably published and reviewed by Nick Holscher and colleagues showing in other databases that these long COVID clinics, they're all vaccinated. 29:31 Now, what I believe is that, yes, if just the infection itself, it can occur, it can cause long COVID. 29:43 But it's pretty unusual, in my opinion, in my research, it's far less than 10 percent. 29:50 So 90 percent, I believe, in my opinion, 90 percent of quote long COVID is vaccine injury, as we've seen the parade of these really. Speaker 6
30:01 I'm just going to slow us down again because this is an important point for Canada. 30:05 And the reason why it's an important point for Canada is that our mainstream media. 30:11 The message is. 30:13 that everyone knows there's death and injury around. 30:18 They can't hide that. 30:19 Like we all, regardless of what we believe is the cause, we all understand that we know people who have died. 30:26 Everyone knows somebody who's died and we know they shouldn't have died. 30:31 And everyone knows that there's injuries around them and cancer seem to be just going off the chart right now. 30:39 But the belief as to the cause of that 30:42 We're split in this nation. 30:44 So people that watch the mainstream media, the message is, yes, we've got these injuries, but it's long COVID. 30:53 And thank goodness for the COVID-19 vaccines that worked, so we have less long COVID. 31:00 And if you believe that, then ethically, you have to be against anything that would cause vaccine injury, which makes it interesting because then a lot of people that react really 31:11 negatively about anything vaccine injury, they're actually acting ethically based on what they believe. 31:17 And so if it's not true that it's vaccine injury, long COVID is, I'm sorry, if it's not true that long COVID is caused by the COVID-19 vaccine, this is a very important point for us coming together as a nation and having a discussion. 31:32 That's why I'm slowing you down on this, because we're divided over this issue. 31:36 We all agree there's injuries, but 31:39 You know, over half of us, a comfortable majority of Canadians believe it's the COVID-19 vaccine causing most of these injuries. 31:48 And a minority of us, but still a sizable minority, believes that this is caused by the COVID-19 virus. 31:56 And those beliefs are not reconcilable. 32:00 So this is really important. 32:01 That's why I'm slowing you down. 32:02 So I'd like you to explain that again, because we can't miss this one. 32:07 It's a key point. Speaker 3
32:08 Yeah, this is very important. 32:10 And it's not just this MIT study that is published on the V-safe data system. 32:19 And again, what they show 1.87% of this 10 million people were vaccine injured that would fall into the category of long COVID as defined as significant symptoms. 32:37 beyond three months, beyond three months from the vaccination. 32:41 By the way, these are patients that attribute their injury to the vaccine. 32:48 So, and there are, as I mentioned, other studies by many other authors, some of whom will not come out and state that, but it's obvious in their literature, and that's reviewed very nicely by Holscher and colleagues Speaker 6
33:08 Okay, so it's clearly coming out in the literature that the majority of people suffering from what is called long COVID, they're really suffering from COVID-19 vaccine injury. Speaker 3
33:22 Absolutely, yes. Speaker 3
33:24 Yeah, that's very important. 33:27 Now, this is the infamous letter. 33:30 We talk about why is there... Speaker 5
33:34 Doctor, can we just have a quick follow-up on that? 33:37 Please. Speaker 1
33:38 Yes, thank you, doctor. 33:39 This is very personal for me also. 33:43 And I'm struggling how to handle it. 33:48 And the reason being is because 33:50 When I got the first shot of Pfizer, second one in 2021 during, we had to in order to travel back to Ottawa as an election campaign. 33:58 So I got shingles right away, immediately after the second one. 34:01 So I certainly attribute that to the vaccine. 34:05 I had great difficulty walking during the campaign. 34:08 It was excruciating. 34:11 And that I don't know about, okay? 34:13 I mean, I've just put that up. 34:15 I've had no sense of smell since then. 34:18 zero and so that has been I've just attributed that to long COVID so I haven't put that towards vaccine I've just kind of put it up there and there's another significant issue which I don't feel a liberty to talk about so it's just it just seems that there's a lot more than what people might realize as far as the injuries if it was what your data is showing. Speaker 3
34:39 Did you have walking issues before? Speaker 1
34:42 I had, not to the extent, and now I'm better, but I still, you know, there's pain, but I would say I had some, not so much walking, but a little bit of feet pain years before, but it was immediately afterwards, it was very painful and I had to kind of hobble around. 35:01 This went on for a while, but, you know, it got better. 35:06 Basically, and again, I'm not trying to attribute that to the vaccine. 35:11 I'm just saying the timing is very suspect. 35:14 And particularly with these, well, sense of smell right then and then other. 35:19 But again, I haven't said something I've really considered a lot. 35:22 I'm not trying to get a diagnosis. 35:23 I'm just throwing this out there. Speaker 3
35:25 I really consider getting a serum. 35:30 anti-spike protein antibody level and seeing what that is. 35:34 I'd love to see that. Speaker 4
35:35 I'd love for you to get that. Speaker 3
35:40 This is the infamous, the famous threat from the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 35:49 And remember, I was a former examiner. 35:51 This came out September 27th, 2021. 35:54 And you can read it. 35:58 There's no data presented here, but in essence, this is saying this went out to 62,000 OBGYN doctors, not only in the United States of America, all 50 states, but in six provinces of Canada and in Central America, some countries in Central America and South America. 36:16 And can you imagine this is basically read between the lines saying you follow our protocol, our draconian HHS protocols. 36:27 or you will lose your license and you will lose your accreditation. 36:33 This is very serious. 36:35 I've never seen a threat like this. 36:37 I was very upset. 36:41 I called up George Wendell, who was the executive director, who I knew, it was a colleague of mine, wouldn't talk to me about this, emailed 36:52 They basically threatened my license. 36:54 I said, okay, we'll see about that. 36:58 But you can see that they implicated the Federation of State Medical Boards in here. 37:02 They implicated the American College of Obstetricians in here. 37:06 They implicated the American Board of Medical Specialties in here. 37:10 It's right here. 37:11 It's right here. 37:12 Now, they erased this and tried to get it off, but this is what they did, and they haven't retracted it. 37:18 So what I did was I then I this is not going to happen. 37:24 And I wrote an extensive letter, did extensive analytics. 37:29 And I wrote this letter to each of the examiners and the board of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 37:38 um this was an extensive letter this was a 98 page letter because it included just 12 months after the rollout of the vaccine 1019 peer-reviewed medical journal references in this letter showing demonstrating reporting vaccine injuries or deaths uh 38:01 in the medical literature. 38:02 So I reported all those. 38:03 But I also did my own analytics on the government database. 38:06 And there was horrible safety signals with pregnancy. 38:10 And I'm here to show you. 38:12 I'll run through these quickly. 38:14 But the first bar is we're just looking at 10 months. 38:18 This is just October of 2021. 38:20 You're looking at 38:22 20,244 deaths from COVID vaccine compared with 2000 of influenza for 30 years. 38:32 This is unbelievable. 38:34 The next slide, the same setup here, you're looking at 38:38 pregnancy losses, miscarriage and fetal deaths. 38:42 You're looking at a vast safety signal compared to influenza vaccines, even all of the other vaccines together. 38:51 I want to say that going back to this corruption of Fauci and Biden White House, Vivek Murthy, Francis Collins, Rochelle Walensky, the whole crew, 39:06 They had this data. 39:09 If I was following their own database from every month since the vaccine rollout, six weeks after the vaccine rollout, January 31st, 2021, six weeks after the rollout, massive safety signal of pregnancy loss. 39:29 in the COVID-19 vaccine compared to all other vaccines. 39:34 So this is very disturbing. 39:37 And this is why I still have my license and why I still have my board certifications, because after this was published and went viral all over the world, they knew they couldn't 39:50 Take my license away, because if they did, there'd be a lawsuit and there would be discovery. 39:56 This is fetal malformations, just 10 months, significant increase in fetal malformations. 40:01 This is our first article, multiple. 40:06 You'll see co-authors, very notable co-authors, as you'll see there. 40:11 This was another analysis, 18 months after the rollout. Speaker 6
40:16 Dr. Tharp, can I just have you go back to it? 40:19 couple of slides. 40:21 Back one more. 40:22 So this is pregnancy losses. 40:24 That top bar on the right is COVID-19 for 10 months. Speaker 3
40:31 The top bar on the right. Speaker 6
40:33 Yeah. 40:34 So on the left, 2737 COVID vaccine. Speaker 2
40:47 pour le vaccin de la COVID et ensuite c'est moins pour les autres vaccins. 40:53 Donc, en 10 mois, nous avions plus de bébés perdus en raison de la vaccination contre la COVID par rapport à tous les autres vaccins. 41:03 Oui, c'est ce que je dis. 41:09 Et ils le savaient. 41:11 Ils l'ont quand même mis de l'avant. 41:14 Et le Canada fait la même chose. Speaker 3
41:17 The Journal of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, this is 18 months after rollout, and we compared the adverse events, 18 of them, for the COVID-19 vaccine compared to the influenza vaccines. 41:37 Now, when we're, again, comparing vaccines to vaccines, you can't translate that to prevalence. 41:46 And that's, we see a safety signal. 41:49 So, again, we saw substantial, you're looking at 100 plus. 41:54 Again, the FDA, CDC, safety signal is defined as a risk ratio of two, a risk ratio of two or more. 42:06 These aren't three or four. 42:08 These are hundreds or hundreds. 42:10 We talked about menstrual irregularities before in one of our victims before this morning. 42:19 1,200-fold increase in abnormal menstrual periods in COVID-19 vaccines compared to other vaccines. 42:30 And, you know, this is a next slide is a 42:33 I won't bore you with a forest plot, but again, remember the risk ratio that FDA, CDC is two. 42:41 Listen, these risk ratios were so off the chart that look at, we needed to make that X axis a logarithmic axis, or those dots, the end of the dots would be in, you know, 42:58 Lake Superior, all the way over. 43:01 So we had to compress it. 43:03 But look at these risk ratios, whether you looked at miscarriage, fetal death, fetal growth restriction, they're all very significant. 43:11 This is published in that same journal. 43:14 And the line below shows national data for stillbirth data. 43:23 We're about in the range of five, you know, 43:26 upper fives to six were very stable. 43:30 But what I want to show you is that in 2020, there was actually a reduction in fetal deaths compared to the aggregation of the three prior years. 43:46 And you know, that's consistent with testimony of others. 43:50 Again, I was very busy. 43:53 I'm not just presenting data, 43:55 I saw 27,500 high risk pregnancy patients in four and a half years, beginning in 2019, going to June 29th, 2023, when I was fired for speaking the truth. Speaker 6
44:12 Can I just point out the obvious? 44:14 So when the 2020 rate is 5.74, which is below the average for four years, that's when there's no vaccine to protect us. 44:24 If 44:25 If COVID-19 is going to be affecting pregnant women in pregnancies, it's going to be before the vaccine to protect us. Speaker 6
44:34 So that's why you stopped there, because you're going to give us another number now for when the vaccines are introduced. Speaker 3
44:40 Right. 44:40 And those are the triangles, the red triangles. 44:43 And this is data from Michelle Gershman in Fresno, California. 44:50 highly vaccinated area like Canada, very highly vaccinated. 44:56 And Michelle Gershman presented her data. 44:59 She received an email and she was used to seeing one to two stillbirths. 45:05 Now, miscarriages before 20 weeks, relatively common. 45:09 Fetal deaths 20 weeks or later, rare. 45:13 She was seeing on average one to two stillbirths per quarter. 45:19 All of a sudden, the vaccines roll out. 45:22 Fetal deaths are just every day, multiple times a week. 45:28 They get an email. 45:29 The nurses get an email from the nurse administrator, the head of women's services saying, we're seeing unprecedented, never seen this before, rise in fetal deaths. 45:42 And we've seen 22. 45:45 And there's probably more that went to other hospitals or didn't come through labor and delivery, went to the ER. 45:51 22 at a minimum. 45:53 22. 45:55 The statistical probability of that is it's nonexistent. 46:00 So she went on record. 46:02 They tried to fire her and CHD stepped in. 46:08 And she's a very verifiable, very trustworthy, I believe her. 46:12 it's not just fresno california i'm here to tell you ladies and gentlemen it's canada look at this this is your lionsgate hospital vancouver right british columbia they have 13 stillbirths in 24 hours now they deny it but they have testimony from five care providers you're going to believe 46:43 Lionsgate Hospital? 46:45 Like Fresno Hospital or other hospitals? 46:50 I don't think so. 46:51 Not with the shenanigans that they played. 46:54 So this is I had to stretch this out to seven days. 46:58 The statistical probability of this occurring. 47:02 Well, you take. 47:05 0. 47:08 220,000 zeros. 47:09 This doesn't occur. 47:11 This is statistically improbable. 47:14 And it's not just over in British Columbia. 47:17 It was also here in Ontario. 47:22 I'm here to tell you, here it is. 47:25 Now, I'm running a little bit short. 47:28 Do you want me to stop here? Speaker 6
47:30 No, but we will pick up the pace. 47:33 But it's curious, wasn't there a cluster of 47:39 I guess it wasn't stillbirth, but baby deaths in Ottawa. 47:43 Yes. 47:45 Right. 47:45 Okay. Speaker 3
47:46 I can't quantitate that because I don't, I don't, I don't, I can't verify the data, but yes, there was. Speaker 6
47:55 Okay. 47:55 So we'll, I'll just ask you to pick it up and, uh, 47:59 Can you finish in about five minutes and time for a question? Speaker 3
48:02 I'll run through. 48:03 This is Pfizer 5.3.6. 48:05 I'm sorry. 48:06 No, no, no. 48:06 Strike that. 48:07 This is Pfizer phase two, three trial, clinical trial of pregnant women. 48:12 Okay. 48:13 There were such adverse outcomes that they stopped the trial with only 350 patients in it. 48:21 Why? 48:22 Because they were sweating bullets because there was clinically significant increase in adverse neonatal outcomes in those babies whose mothers received the COVID-19 injection. 48:37 And then they buried this on, like, 48:42 after 200 pages of gobbledygook, meaningless stuff, so nobody would see it. 48:48 I found it. 48:49 Here's the data. 48:52 So this is a second article that we published. 48:58 Again, this is after 40 months, very similar findings, except we had 37 adverse events, 37 adverse events, 49:11 27 of them during pregnancy, 10 of them in newborns. 49:16 This is a typical placenta that I've seen that was a classic vaccinated placenta. 49:22 This is probably not real meaningful to most of you. 49:27 And there's a series of articles that were these, I would call these white papers. 49:33 They are extensively cited. 49:36 They are first authored by a very, very brilliant attorney and a second author by myself, a maternal field medicine physician. Speaker 6
49:47 Dr. Thorpe, I'm going to stop you and ask a couple of questions and then turn you over to the panel. 49:52 But your slide presentation is going to be an exhibit. 49:57 But I had a question about fertility. 50:00 So, because you've been talking rather clearly that this was a nightmare for babies in utero. 50:09 And I think also for baby death also, right, after pregnancy? Speaker 6
50:15 So, but what about fertility? 50:19 Has there been any evidence that the COVID-19 vaccine has affected fertility? Speaker 3
50:24 Significantly. Speaker 6
50:25 Can you speak about that? Speaker 3
50:26 Yes, very significant. 50:28 Well, I think one of one of the victims that testified here. 50:36 And I spoke with her afterwards yesterday and she was crying on my shoulder. 50:43 Premature menopause, right? 50:46 So the vaccine and you've heard this in the Japanese bio distribution data. 50:54 The vaccine is concentrated in the ovaries, in the fetal life, in female fetuses and in women after birth. 51:05 It's concentrated. 51:07 It appears to kill off the ovum, the primary oocytes. 51:12 That's our future generation, ladies and gentlemen. 51:15 That's our future generation. 51:17 And we have studies from the Czech Republic. 51:21 showing a dramatic reduction in birth rates, 30%. 51:25 By the way, the only country in the world that has opened up their clinical database, de-identified, why hasn't everybody else done that? 51:35 Why did they try to hide the Pfizer 5.3.6 data for 75 years if it were safe and effective? 51:43 Why aren't they showing us the data? 51:45 Why are they hiding it? 51:47 There's a reason for that. 51:49 The other study from actually from Turkey suggests that in the rodent model, that the equivalent of human dose of COVID-19 vaccine kills off 60% of the primary ovarian follicles. 52:08 That's exactly why the Advanced Biological Research Group, 52:13 A group of which I'm a founding member and many other 5 other individuals, including 2 other obstetricians. 52:21 We are trying to study that. 52:24 We are looking at the effect of the vaccine on. 52:29 Ovarian reserve and looking at these stains of the tissues of placenta and but guess what? 52:38 It's going to cost millions of dollars and nobody will fund it. 52:42 We've put thousands and thousands of our own hours and dollars into it. 52:46 It's sitting there ready to go, IRB approved, no funding. 52:51 Nobody wants to fund this. 52:53 They want to sweep it under the rug. Speaker 6
53:00 Did Pfizer in their original clinical trial look at pregnancy issues? Speaker 3
53:06 No. 53:08 No, not their phase one and phase two, but there were in their post-market that they did have 270 pregnant women that probably shouldn't have been enrolled, but they put them in there. Speaker 5
53:26 Okay. 53:26 Thank you. 53:27 Thank you, Dr. Tharp. 53:27 I'm going to turn it over to my colleague, Mr. Motz. Speaker 4
53:32 Thank you. 53:33 Thank you, Dr. Tharp. 53:36 From your perspective, 53:38 given your credentials and your research, I'm gonna ask for some, an opinion, but it baffles my mind that we have, and I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but it baffles my mind that we have such an overt process by multiple, by big pharma, by doctors, 54:08 YOU KNOW, BY RESEARCHERS, BY GOVERNMENTS TO COVER THE FACTS. 54:15 AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY. 54:16 I MEAN, WE'RE GENERALLY, THE POPULATION IS GENERALLY VERY COMMON SENSIBLE, YOU WOULD THINK. 54:22 AND WITH FED WITH THE SAME DATA, HOW ARE WE ARRIVING AT SUCH DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES? 54:27 AND, YOU KNOW, OUR PRIME MINISTERS, WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT THIS MORNING, TALKED ABOUT THE DIVISION. 54:33 AND HE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT IT. 54:35 HE ACTUALLY PROVIDED 54:37 the fodder for it. 54:39 And being Justin Trudeau, but what was the purpose? 54:45 What's the purpose behind this? 54:47 Is it, you know, I'm confused sometimes just to try to grasp the depths of this. 54:57 And if it happens with this, what else is going on? 55:04 that we don't know about. 55:04 So from your perspective as a respected doctor and a researcher, there has to be something behind this that either I'm not seeing or I'm missing something. Speaker 3
55:19 Well, thank you. 55:21 Thank you very much for coming. 55:22 It's very courageous of the MPs that showed up. 55:25 Thank you very much. 55:27 And I'll say this, that the illegal drug cartels globally, 55:33 they command a revenue stream of about, I think, $0.5 trillion a year. 55:44 The pharmaceutical cartel engenders, they enjoy a revenue stream 3.4x, 3.4 times $1.7 trillion a year. 55:54 That's a lot of money and that's a lot of power. 56:03 And they control the narrative. 56:08 It's very powerful. 56:11 I don't have time to go through the rest of these articles, but it's detailed how that was done through a variety of mechanisms. 56:20 In this particular article you'll see on there, we actually broke this charade of the COVID-19 community core, which the government endowed with 56:32 Hundreds of millions and billions of dollars to covertly co-opt all of the influencers. 56:41 So the pharmaceutical cartel is very powerful. 56:46 Now, I can't speak to their narratives, but I do know that they're very powerful. 56:52 They control the government in terms of the government. 56:56 They control the government oversight. 57:02 They control the medical journals. 57:05 Obviously, where's the mainstream media? 57:08 They control the mainstream media. 57:10 We also have a white paper on that as well. 57:14 By the way, anybody that wants a copy of this presentation, it's heavily cited. 57:19 Email me at jathorpe at bellsouth.net, jathorpe at bellsouth.net, or go to my website, drjamesthorpe.com. Speaker 4
57:33 So as a follow-up to that, and thank you for sharing your perspective, you're suggesting that money, 57:45 is a driver. 57:47 Potentially power is a driver. 57:52 But we're talking about experiments on. Speaker 3
57:58 Yes, we are. Speaker 4
57:59 Population. Speaker 3
58:00 Yes, we are. Speaker 3
58:02 Yes, we are. 58:04 Yes, we are. 58:05 The study by Schmeling and colleagues showed that 30 percent 58:13 Of the individuals that got the original vaccine, 30% had zero, nothing at the injection site. 58:21 Absolutely nothing. 58:22 They got a little prick. 58:25 There's no redness, nothing, no muscle aches, no fever, no pain, no. 58:29 And there's a lot of experts that have varying opinions on that. 58:34 I can tell you that many experts I know believe that that was a saline injection and that was a mass experimentation. 58:42 there there are others that would suggest well they did a bait we know they did a bait and switch they used in their clinical trials before the rollout they used a highly sophisticated careful vaccine manufacturing process remember it required really low temperatures special transport well as soon as it was rolled out completely different manufacturing process which is 59:11 very illegal. 59:13 And so others would suggest that it was just variation in batch content. Speaker 4
59:20 So if I may, I'm thinking about how we, I know I've seen some media coverage, not mainstream, obviously, but of what U.S. congressmen and senators are doing down there to try and 59:40 bring this to a head. 59:42 And I think that's kind of the purpose behind us. 59:44 We want to hear from the victims and the families who have suffered as a result of these injuries and from the medical professionals and researchers. 59:56 But how do we move forward? 1:00:01 I'm talking about Canada. 1:00:02 So your perspective in the U.S. might be a little bit different, but how do we move forward with the system that we have here 1:00:09 to properly address the injuries and then make sure it doesn't happen again. Speaker 3
1:00:19 We do exactly what you're doing, what you're doing, what you're doing, what our chairperson, Dean Allison, is doing. 1:00:32 We talk about it. 1:00:37 We discuss it openly. 1:00:39 We have open discussion. 1:00:44 We be honest with our citizens. 1:00:50 I'm upset at the doctors. 1:00:53 I'm upset at my colleagues, most of them. 1:00:55 I'm very upset at them because they betrayed their patients. 1:01:02 There was no informed consent. 1:01:04 You go and you open up the package insert. 1:01:07 It's blank. 1:01:08 You can't give informed consent when you don't know what's in a vial and the doctors were forced to do that if they wanted to collect their paychecks. 1:01:17 And so I'm very upset at the doctors that did that. 1:01:21 They had the responsibility to to honor their relationship with God that would honor their relationship with their patient. 1:01:34 their paycheck be damned. Speaker 5
1:01:41 Thank you. 1:01:42 We're almost out of time, but just one more final question. Speaker 1
1:01:45 Yeah, thank you. 1:01:49 Just to clarify, in the States, corporations, I believe, can give donations directly to candidates. 1:01:59 In Canada, we don't have that. 1:02:02 The corporations aren't supposed to be 1:02:04 They don't give directly to the candidates and to parties. 1:02:10 But there's still, you know, we found that there was a real political reason for, in Canada, for having, I guess, really fear, I guess, promoting it because it really helped the governing party as far as their polling numbers too. 1:02:28 So they were able to use it. 1:02:29 So I'm just... 1:02:32 Going to what Glenn said about the, you know, I hadn't written those questions. 1:02:36 It seems like a lot of this ties in with money and power. 1:02:41 Do you want to elaborate that? 1:02:43 And then I'm going to throw this in right here as a sidebar. 1:02:46 You mentioned about the impact of the vaccines upon the female reproductive system, ovaries. 1:02:54 What about the males? 1:02:55 So there's two little questions there. Speaker 3
1:02:57 Easy. 1:02:57 Males, same thing. 1:02:59 The sperm count? 1:03:01 dramatically reduces from the male component. 1:03:06 EDS, erectile dysfunction, massively increased in young 20-year-olds, right? 1:03:13 So I've had many couples. 1:03:15 With regard to the first question, you know, 70% of our Congress has taken money from Pfizer. 1:03:25 Now, I'm not familiar with your system, but I do know that your former prime minister 1:03:31 had a very significant financial interest in holdings of the vaccine manufacturers. 1:03:38 I do know that. 1:03:40 So at the end of the day, it's evil. 1:03:47 It's driven by money, power, and greed. 1:03:51 And it's really a spiritual battle. Speaker 5
1:03:56 Thank you very much. 1:03:58 Once again, I just mentioned that, Dr. Thorpe, it took quite a lengthy amount of time to get here because of where you live and planes, trains, and automobiles. 1:04:07 So we thank you for taking that time. 1:04:09 We thank you for being here for a couple of days to sit in the meetings as well. 1:04:14 And so thank you for your testimony today. Speaker 3
1:04:16 Thank you for having me. 1:04:17 God bless. Speaker 5
1:04:19 God bless Canada. 1:04:21 Thank you.