468: Dr. Jane Ruby Drug Development Expert Explains Vaccine Trials
Ashley James & Dr. Jane Ruby
- Difference between each phase of clinical trials
- Nuremberg trials and informed consent
- What are nanoparticles
Dr. Jane Ruby, former pharmaceutical employee and drug development expert, explains the different phases of clinical trials and why we should be alarmed at how the current vaccine trials are progressing. She also shares how the COVID shots could potentially harm us.
[00:00:00] Ashley James: Welcome to the Learn True Health podcast. I’m your host, Ashley James. This is episode 468. I am really excited for today's guest. In exploring all of the crazy information that's out there, I came across Dr. Jane Ruby. I find that Dr. Ruby's information is eye-opening, and I love that because this podcast is all about teaching people all the information they need so that they can make the best decisions for their health on their health journey. Dr. Jane Ruby, it's such a pleasure having you on the show today, welcome.
[00:00:46] Dr. Jane Ruby: Thank you so much, Ashley. I'm really looking forward to this discussion.
[00:00:50] Ashley James: Absolutely. Now, before we dive into what you do today and how we can continue to plug in to you and learn from you today, I'd love to go back and understand your background. What happened that led you to do the work that you're doing today?
[00:01:10] Dr. Jane Ruby: That's a very frequently asked question, actually. I'm a Licensed Nurse Practitioner. I specialized in internal medicine with a subspecialty in surgical and medical cardiology. I have had full prescriptive privileges when I was treating patients, including the full federal schedule of narcotics, and I had an independent license to practice medicine in a limited specialty. So I took all my courses at the med school, not the nursing school, at the prestigious University of Rochester. I have two doctorates and two master's degrees. The two doctorates are in psychology (non-clinical) and education. And the two master's degrees are in nursing, of course. And then, international health economics.
I think it might be helpful for people to understand that in order to be at the level that I have been in 20 years of experience after my clinical work in taking care of patients in hospitals and ICUs, I then went on through a series of interesting happenings in the research world. I went on to spend 20 years in pharmaceutical drug development, on the inside if you will, across several different companies.
And so, in order to do what I did until recently, you have to have complete working knowledge of biochemistry—organic and inorganic chem—pharmacokinetics, receptor physiology—some really interesting esoteric stuff. My experience includes 20 years of experience in interfacing with the US FDA, in terms of their regulatory processes and things like that. I've worked on the human research studies to launch some of the most famous compounds in the world in both the United States and in the rest of the world, which would be Europe and Asia, particularly in depression, anxiety, Alzheimer's, opioid addiction, and some internal medicine areas like cardiopulmonary diseases, diabetes, and kidney disease.
I am peer-reviewed journal published multiple times. My work can be found on PubMed. Most recently, it's in Health Economics. So that's my background. It's really eclectic and it's very unique in terms of having that high-level clinical piece, but yet 20 years of understanding kind of how the sausage is at least supposed to be made. And now we've seen a drastic change of course in our institutions and how things are being done. I'm sure we're going to get into that, so that just gives you a little background.
[00:03:45] Ashley James: As you worked in the big pharma, as you worked with them, were there ever times when red flags came up and you're like, wait a second. Was there anything that alarmed you where you realize that there's something not right here?
[00:04:04] Dr. Jane Ruby: That's a great question. In my early years—I won't name companies right now because I'm not here to be a whistleblower and there were things that I might not have been privy to at my level for the total picture, in all fairness. But in my early years—20 years is a long time to spend in one industry, so I'd say for the first 10 years—there were times when I saw maybe not enough data came down. I was in medical affairs, so I wasn't on the business side of things.
Sometimes we were made aware that hey, the commercial sides, which are always like mavericks. They're incentivized heavily by prescription numbers, money, revenues, and things like that. So they tended to practice out on the line if you will. And we were kind of, I wouldn't say the police, but we in medical affairs on the research side, we're kind of like, okay, slow down. You can't say this and that, that's a claim. You got to be careful. Let's be true to the data. It is what it is. We're not incentivized by that.
So occasionally I'd see some overreach on the commercial side, and sometimes it was very blatant and it was wrong. I myself reported it internally. That's really how that came about. What I'm seeing now, Ashley, is not just an occasional deviation, shall we say, from general good practices or FDA guidance documents, things like that. I'm seeing a 180 degree flip from what should be happening to a few pharmaceutical companies that are representing these four injections. They're just running rogue. I have never seen anything to this degree in all of my 20 years, not anything even close to it.
What I'm suggesting is that something has collapsed, the institutions that we're used to—I'm sure you can think of your own equivalence in your various countries from wherever you're listening. In the United States—this is my opinion—I've seen what I think is the literal collapse of the FDA. It has been usurped and it appears to be performing or acting as a department in these pharmaceutical companies. They're just a rubber stamp. When I say the collapse of institutions, I'm seeing the absence of safeguard and oversight bodies like human subjects review boards, which originally emanated out of the Nuremberg trials and they are for the protection of human subjects. They appear to be absent in all of these processes.
And then where you have literally crimes, in my opinion, being committed on many levels. We have the Department of Justice in the United States appears to have collapsed or been usurped by these same entities and they're silent. They're going after people who went to hear people speak at the Capitol in Washington DC on January 6 who never even walked down to the Capitol. We have some of those people that are in jail right now because the DOJ, I don't know if they've been indicted or what but they're in there.
Whereas you have these kinds of crimes going on—illegal approvals, illegal emergency use authorizations, the overreach of police state powers—and there's not a peep from an institution like the DOJ that traditionally would be investigating. And in fact, our own politicians appear to be bought and paid for because they're very quiet. They rattle the cage now and then by calling for an investigation. There's an old expression down in Texas that is all hat no cattle. That means you're a big shot, you blow your mouth off, but you really don't have any money or cattle. That's how you measure wealth down there.
These politicians in the United States that I could name them all that come to mind foremind, but I think you see them in the news. They're calling for an investigation, an impeachment of Biden, or they're going to bring Dr. Fauci back for another hearing, but I conform the term to their all hearings and no indictments, no call for a criminal referral.
Everything seems to have collapsed and it seems to be what Dr. Shiva calls a swarm model. People say, well, is it George Soros, is it Bill Gates, or is it this cabal or that cabal? It seems to be rather than a top-down, I'm starting to figure—I'm an analyst by trade, so I like to know what's at the top of the food chain that I'm fighting, and it seems to be more of a multilateral swarm model. I kind of agree with his theory. That a lot of these entities are just coming in from many, many angles and many people are part of it and profiting off of it that we never would have thought of before. That's a long answer, but I hope I gave some interesting pearls in there to your question.
[00:09:37] Ashley James: Absolutely. My understanding is that to approve a drug for human use and to approve a vaccine for human use are two very different things. Maybe you could explain that. That for example, pharmaceutical companies are held liable when it comes to drugs, but they're not held liable when it comes to vaccines. And also, my understanding is—and please correct me if I'm wrong—they don't do double-blind studies of vaccines or maybe you could explain. Because they don't ever just use saline solution. They'll use a different vaccine as group B, from what I've seen. So maybe you could just explain the difference of the approval process to find a drug both safe and effective versus to find a vaccine to be safe and effective.
[00:10:41] Dr. Jane Ruby: I'm curious, before I untangle that, can you give me a category for the source of these things that you're trying to distinguish? Was it popular press? Is it just something that people have said to you?
[00:10:58] Ashley James: I think it's a combination of guests that have talked about that when a drug goes through trials and when a vaccine goes through trials, it's different, that it's not treated the same.
[00:11:16] Dr. Jane Ruby: Let me try to unpack that. Let's take the vaccine manufacturers' liability. Initially, there was no difference. They were liable. They were liable for injuries, especially if they didn't follow human subjects review, safety surveillance obligations, protocols. You have to follow your own protocol or it's a protocol violation, and it's reportable to the FDA as well as your human subjects review board, which I will talk about the IRB because I think it's important to understand that as a foundation because it's totally missing here.
So, okay. So there's the liability issue. What happened is there was a series of politicians including President Reagan, who apparently during their terms, they wrote laws, executive orders, or whatever that shielded pharmaceutical companies under the guise of, look, we don't want to discourage them from developing important treatments and vaccines, so we're going to like let them off the hook. If that sounds dirty to you, it should. It was wrong, it never should have happened.
When it comes to that liability, what I'm seeing now—and I'm sure we'll get into it when we start talking about these injections—these injections are not vaccines because they do not confer immunity, they do not confer protection. They are not for your health. I've seen enough evidence, data, and whatever you want to call it that to me, I'm comfortable saying that these injections and the materials in them are meant for harm on a mass level. We’ll talk about the details of that. But the reason I'm saying it now, Ashley, is because if that's true and it appears to be I mean out comes razor, right?
If you're coming at me with a knife, you're not coming to hug me because you're happy to see me. So let's just say it's so blatant that I can say that it looks like premeditated murder. And as far as I know, in the United States, across all of our laws—our federal laws as well as most or all individual state laws—there's no immunity for premeditated murder. So let's start there, that's my answer to the vaccine liability issue.
The second point, and it's near and dear to my heart, is the pharmaceutical drug development processes that have been laid out and used for years that were designed to develop good treatments to help people, but designed to do it in a deliberative protective way because you have human subjects that are volunteering themselves to test these things for future recipients, and they deserve to be protected.
And after the Nuremberg trials, we had developed what were called Institutional Review Boards. They're also known as Human Subjects Review Boards, and these are federal. They're independent, but they're federally registered groups. They stamp a protocol and an informed consent that always is joined to that protocol, and I know because I've written hundreds of human subjects protocols and I've written the accompanying informed consent, which is often 20 or 30 pages. I don't think when you go into get one of these jabs in your local drugstore or grocery store that you're getting an IRB-stamped informed consent. That alone should make you turn around and walk out.
But getting back to this, these are groups or panels that some of them are independent in the community but they are registered. Most universities that do research will have their own IRBs. They are an eclectic group of researchers, medical ethicists, attorneys—it's a very interesting group. They will many times send back your draft of your informed consent and say, you don't have enough information to protect children. You don't have enough disclosure for this group or that group.
And so you go back and you refine it and then finally they approve it, and they approve your protocol because you can't just say well I'm going to stick knives into people's heads, okay. I'm using extreme examples, obviously. So they have to approve the protocol, your methodology, how are you going to treat people, how are you going to measure, and most of all, what safety features oversight are you building in and putting upon yourself as a manufacturer who's testing these, right?
Because the testing theoretically goes on in multi centers, universities, or independent research centers like one that I ran for a few years in New York. And you recruit subjects and they come in. You have to read everything in that informed consent document. Before they sign on and say, yes, I'm going to let myself go through this, they have to know all the risks, any potential benefits. They also have to understand that they can get out any time and that they're entitled to know exactly what they're getting.
Now if it's a blinded study, and we're going to get to that because you mentioned randomized placebo-controlled trials. What they can know is that if I get the active treatment, I'm getting X, Y, and Z including the excipients. But I don't know if I'm going to get product A or if I'm going to get placebo.
Let me jump to the process of developing drugs for human beings. It starts in phases. The first phase is what we call preclinical. Preclinical is Petri dishes and animals. That's it. And that can take five or six years. And let me just tell you that the information you gather, it's very important the preclinical phase because that informs the entity previously known as the FDA—and I'm being a little facetious—that preclinical phase, those results inform the FDA as to whether or not they would give the company, the right to move on to human trial, which occurs in four distinct phases. But before I get into that, let me just go back to the preclinical.
There was a company that I worked for in the early 2000s, but before I got there, they had a drug, a very famous antidepressant called Celexa. And this drug was going through preclinical trials, and it was being given to animals. And in the process of these tests, five Beagle dogs died of a heart attack. And so the FDA said, shut everything down and told this company, go back and find out what it is or you're not going forward in human trials. I'm not saying the FDA was angelic 20 years ago, but they were surely activists in terms of following their own regulations.
This company, it took them a couple of years. They lost money, they lost time on the patent, but they were able to determine and show proof that it was just a genetic anomaly in this particular breed, not even all dogs. But look at how sensitive this was that they shut it down for two years—hadn't even gotten to humans yet.
We have anywhere from 10,000 to 50,000 plus. it's probably more in the millions, to be honest with you, if you use the Harvard Pilgrim study to multiply the real numbers of reported vaccine adverse events in the United States, but whatever. Whether you want to use 10,000 or 50,000, I always laugh when people challenge me. Really, would you feel better if it's 50,000 deaths and not a million? Okay, whichever. My question is still valid. We shut down a study for five Beagle dogs that had a heart attack in 1990 something, but we don't have a threshold for five figures of deaths directly related to this thing?
Okay, so let me just wrap up on the phases of humans. So let's say you successfully make it through your preclinical. You then are able to go into phase 1 of human research, and anybody can look this stuff up, Ashley. You can look at it. You can just google phases of clinical trials, you'll be very, very educated. It's fascinating. Once you get into phase 2, here's the problem, and this is why I'm telling you this. If you look at Pfizer's protocol, I'm going to say the number so that if people replay this later on multiple times you'll have the number.
The protocol number is C4591001. The title of this protocol, which is the main protocol for Pfizer's injection, is called—and there should be a red flag the minute I give you the first few words—A PHASE 1/2/3, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, RANDOMIZED, OBSERVER-BLIND, DOSE-FINDING STUDY TO EVALUATE THE SAFETY, TOLERABILITY, IMMUNOGENICITY, AND EFFICACY OF SARS-COV-2 RNA VACCINE CANDIDATES AGAINST COVID-19 IN HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS. Now let me stop myself. A phase 1, 2, and 3 simultaneously? Okay, hold on.
Phase 1 uses maybe 10 people. Ten healthy 25-year-olds. Why you ask me? Those people get paid very, very high amounts of money. Why? Because they're taking something that's never been given to a human. There's a fair amount of safety data from preclinical that's factored into it. Now, each phase has its own design, its own protocol, or should. And it's very few numbers of people, and it's in phase one that we collect the mechanism of the drug's action—metabolism excretion, pharmacokinetics, where does the drug go? How long does it stay? Where does it accumulate? What organs get rid of it? What organs concentrate it? We need to know what the half-life is because that's how you know if you have to take it twice a day or once a day, okay. It's very important.
Now, you can't go to phase 2 without your phase 1 data. You get into phase 2, you're talking about maybe a couple of 100 people. Now you got people either with the disease you're trying to prevent, or you're testing against placebo to get efficacy. Is this thing working? Okay. You can't know that the light’s on if you don't compare it to a dark room.
And it goes up to phase 3, which phase 3 becomes very critical because it is built on the safety and efficacy of the three previous phases, and it is what we call the pivotal trial, it has to be designed a certain way, Ashley. It's got to be very tight, it is randomized, it is double-blind. That means you don't know and the investigator gives it to you doesn't know. It has to be placebo-controlled. You have to have a control arm, otherwise, what are you measuring it against, okay? I mean, you can do a trial without a placebo, but that's not the standard and that's not what the FDA traditionally had required for drugs or vaccines, okay.
When you get to phase 4 that's after your drug is approved because the FDA has evaluated your phase 3. It evaluates everything from preclinical up to phase 3, but your phase 3 is critical, and let me tell you why because this is going to be a startling revelation to your audience. In phase 3. when you design that randomized placebo-controlled trial, you have to pick one—not more than two—what we call a primary endpoint. That's the thing you're going to measure placebo against whether it's my nails are going to turn blue or not. I'm going to get COVID after getting this injection or not because then you can say prevention of COVID, okay.
The reason the primary endpoint is important is because that's going to translate if you get approval from the FDA to your indication. That's what I wanted to finish. The indication is the lifeblood of any pharma company. Why? Because that's your marketing authorization label. You've heard people say on-label off-label. A pharmaceutical company, it's illegal for them to market or promote their drug for anything other than what the FDA approved it for.
Here's where the rub comes in. As a prescriber, doctor, or nurse practitioner, I can prescribe a drug for anything as long as I take responsibility for it in terms of, I think it's got some mechanism of action. I've seen it work over here. Somebody wrote a paper over there, right? It's not illegal for me to prescribe. This is where the hoax came in around, oh ivermectin and HCQ. It wasn't approved for COVID so we can't use it, and the doctors that are going along with that when they know that they have every legal right to prescribe off-label. They should be in Gitmo right now.
Okay, well, let me just finish up on the phases. I'm sorry for the digression.
[00:24:47] Ashley James: No, it’s perfect.
[00:24:47] Dr. Jane Ruby: Those are the four phases of human research, so what did Pfizer do? If you go to a website called clinicaltrials.gov, I believe it's worldwide but it started out as the US government's repository for human research studies. We have to register your trial there. Pfizer's registration and I'm going to read the number again, so people get a pen if you want to replay it. You go to clinicaltrials.gov and in the search box, you don't have to put a word, just put in the following: NCT04368728.
That identifier will get you to the clinicaltrials.gov for the Pfizer study and it's entitled, Study to Describe the Safety, Tolerability, Immunogenicity, and Efficacy of RNA Vaccine Candidates. Now, that is the corollary to the protocol I just read to you guys before that. Why is that important? Because that's where you'll find the primary endpoint. You can have a million secondary endpoints because that's not what you're going to be measured against. If your primary endpoint does not supersede placebo by a statistically significant separation, you are not going to get your label or you shouldn't. You're not going to get approved by the FDA. Say you have 50 secondary endpoints, even if you meet all of those perfectly, you're not going to get that indication.
Well, here's the problem. In clinicaltrials.gov for NCT04368728, you will see 35 primary endpoints. I'm like, what? Okay, okay. None of them were for the prevention of COVID, but watch this. Initially, that primary endpoint—because they've changed it around. They've updated it. You can see different versions. I think everybody remembers because it was in the news all the time. Hey, they're testing it to minimize COVID symptoms and to minimize hospitalization rates, right? And they had 95% efficacy on reducing symptom severity.
When they approved it, when the FDA approved the sham approval of Comirnaty, which they say is the same formulation as the other injection, it's the same, same chemicals. The other injection was called the Pfizer-BioNTech—the German company they're in business with—COVID-19 vaccine. They're supposed to be the same. The company and the FDA say publicly on their websites that they're interchangeable. People argued, oh, Dr. Jane, it’s not approved. Trust me, I'm in pharmaceutical drug development for 20 years. I know something when it's approved, so here's the point. The sleight of hand was they said, oh, Comirnaty is approved, but the other one, the no-name, the Pfizer-BioNTech one is going to be under emergency use authorization. Okay.
When the approval came out, and one of the ways you know something has been approved is because all of a sudden there's a package insert with information on it. Remember all that stuff that was going around a few months ago? You went to a pharmacy, opened up the package, and it was empty, it was blank the package insert? Well, now you have a package insert, right? And that package insert you can download from Pfizer's website. And in that package insert it says on the front page, upper left-hand corner, the indication.
I waited for that package insert for weeks. When that came out and I looked at it, it said, Comirnaty—don't forget, by the FDA and Pfizer's own words on their websites is interchangeable with Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine—is approved and indicated for—ready—the prevention of COVID-19. That was never ever a primary endpoint. In fact, I don't even think it was any endpoint. So that's illegal, number one.
The other thing is, and I'll wrap up really quick on this point. The package insert is important because every word, every letter, every number is hammered out. It's a contract between the FDA and the pharmaceutical company. That label is everything. That's going to become their moneymaker. But here's the point. I challenge anyone, get grandma's favorite high blood pressure medication. Look it up online, the company. Download the package insert PDF. You don't have to be a scientist. Just compare that document—in terms of the categories as it goes down the line—with this one for Comirnaty. You'll see the absence of so much information. There's no disclosure in pharmacokinetics.
Remember, I said before, how long does the drug last in your body, where does it go? How does your body break it down? What are the drug interactions because in the real world, grandma's taking or anybody—not grandma, Uncle Ned, your mom—could be taking a number of different drugs. We need to know as prescribers, hey, what are the interactions with some key drugs that interact with the liver and the kidneys because we might want to do a dose adjustment? We got to protect our patients. That's all missing, Ashley.
If you compare line by line, category by category with a bonafide-approved drug, you're going to see so much missing. Under pregnant women, I can quote it for you, “Insufficient data to establish efficacy and safety.” Well then, how the heck do you not put pregnant women over under the category called contraindications, which is the signal to us as providers, not to give it to those populations, and it shouldn't be given to populations in which you have never tested it.
I want to go back to the placebo thing really quick. The standard for testing a drug or a vaccine is to get to phase 3 if you pass all your safety musters and to compare it to placebo. Now, on page seven, at the top of the package insert for Comirnaty, which you can download from the Pfizer website, they tell a little story about how somewhere in the early part of 2021 they had about 44,000 people in a “study” that was a randomized placebo-controlled that goes with this protocol I just read to you guys. And they claim that they unblinded the study from the placebo people and then gave them the opportunity if they wanted it. They were supposedly contacted to be then offered the real injection.
What they did, Ashley, essentially in my world is they converted their randomized placebo-controlled trial. The bare minimum controlled trials, specific good research practice design. They converted that into an open-label—because everybody knows what they're getting—observational trial. And then eight months later they claim they approved it based on the very little data they had when they broke their blind, and then secondly, they don't bring any data to those categories in their package insert.
So I have maintained that in my estimation and my expert opinion, the entire emergency use authorization was illegal and the approval and the extension of the EUA for the non-name product were all illegal. And this is the basis upon which I've submitted affidavits to a lot of different legal groups that are bringing suits against our Department of Defense because this is designed to take out our military. I've given you a lot of information.
[00:33:15] Ashley James: No, I love it. So many questions. Back in the 1970s, the swine flu vaccine was fast-tracked and then taken off the market when was it 25 people died from it?
[00:33:31] Dr. Jane Ruby: Yes.
[00:33:32] Ashley James: It was taken off the market. How does that compare to what's going on right now?
[00:33:36] Dr. Jane Ruby: Well, as I said, I did mention, if you look at VAERS, which is the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, it's situated on the CDC website. The CDC in the US that is virtually a patent-holding vaccine patent company. They're a joke as well. That's an institution that's bought and paid for you. This is a self-reporting system. Doctors and nurses are supposed to be aware of their obligation to report. It's not their role, Ashley, or their obligation, first of all, to determine if it's related to the substance or the injection. That's not what they're asked to do. They're asked to report anything that is in proximity temporally to a given drug or injection. That's number one.
Number two, family and patients themselves or friends who become aware of it are able to report to this thing, but it's really all we have as the public, okay. Now, when I mentioned the Harvard Pilgrim study before, there's a study. This was paid for by the National Institutes of Health in the United States. This is paid for with federal tax dollars. A study, about 10 years ago, was done to look at how accurate VAERS is in terms of capturing reports of adverse events for drugs in general and vaccines. And what they found—this was their own thing. This was long before this. What they found was, and this is the quote from their study their published study, “less than 1% of all vaccine-related adverse events actually make it into VAERS.”
Now, some people have misquoted that paper and said, oh, it's 1% to 10%. Well, that's because they didn't read the paper properly. I've made my living for 20 years reading scientific publications and papers. They were using a sentence that was preceding that that stated that 1% to 10% of all regular drug adverse events were reported. And then if you follow down two or three sentences after that, it says that, “less than 1% of all vaccine adverse related events are reported into VAERS.” So any of these numbers you get, if you get VAERS right now, oh yeah, but it's all self-report. They could be doing doubles and things like that.
First of all, the CDC by their own admission goes through it, they throttle numbers left and right all the time. Oh, this doesn't look right. You didn't fill out line four, okay so that's a joke. But let's just say the numbers that they're releasing, maybe, I don't know what are they up to now 9,000 or 10,000? According to the government's own study, that number of let's say it's 10,000, add two zeros to that. That's a million people dead. So, let's start there.
Now in Europe, you have EudraVigilance, which I don't know if it captures Canada or not. I think it might. Their numbers are staggering, and it's the same, self-reporting. They're up to about 60,000 deaths. It's just atrocious. You mentioned the swine flu, 25 deaths, boom, shut down. No questions asked.
[00:37:11] Ashley James: They’ve shut down the vaccine. They took it off the market. They said, no, we're not doing this anymore. Twenty-five deaths are enough. We’re doing something wrong and they took it off the market. And here we have thousands of known deaths. I know two people that died within days of getting one of the shots. One of them got a blood clot, the other one just didn't wake up. Otherwise healthy people and their doctors will not report to VAERS, but I talked to the families.
[00:37:44] Dr. Jane Ruby: That’s terrible. That's a topic that I get very passionate about. There are countless doctors in the United States, Canada, across Europe, across the world, Asia, Africa that are complicit, and it's either one of two things. By now I don't give them the benefit of the doubt anymore. There's too much information for them not to at least know there's something wrong, but I think it's mostly because they're incentivized.
I've seen insurance companies, Blue Cross and Blue Shield—I've seen that so I'm just going to speak to that, I'm sure there are many more—that have sent notices to doctors that have been leaked to us on the Stew Peters Show. And they've said, you know, doctor, if you can get 60% of your practice injected, you will get a bonus at the end of the year of $75,000. That doctor telling you, yeah, you should get it. But doctor, I have lupus, I have fibromyalgia, and I had breast cancer five years ago. Do you really think I should get it? Yes, you should really get it. I call them zombie doctors at first because they seem to be going around in lockstep saying, yeah, get it, get it, get it. There's no way they don't know something's wrong right now. There's no way anymore. There's too much.
[00:39:11] Ashley James: We've talked about the safety a little bit, let's talk about efficacy. I had Dr. Richard Fleming on my show, episode 463. He's very pro-vaccine. He's very pro-drug. I respect his work because he wants to share the truth. Whatever science he uncovers, he's a research cardiology for the last over 30 years.
[00:39:37] Dr. Jane Ruby: Yup, I know him. I how who he is.
[00:39:39] Ashley James: Okay, cool. So what I love about him—I'm a huge crunchy holistic person. Drugs are the last thing I'm going to take. I believe in drugs, I believe they have their place, but I will do everything I can first to try to mitigate something or support my body's ability to beat something like an ear infection. I'll do everything out so first before I'll go to a drug, but I won't wait too long until it gets so bad that it's unmanageable, right? I appreciate holistic medicine very much, but I really like his stance.
He is all about the drugs, he's a great scientist. He's very pro-vaccine, but in our episode 463, he says, let's not even talk about the safety. Let's talk about the efficacy because if it's not effective, then we shouldn't even be having this conversation. It should not be on the market. So he went through the numbers and says that they're completely lying. That it is not 96% effective. It's actually less than 1% effective and he goes through their own data and sees that it's not in any way effective.
Now I love what you’ve pointed out here. We've talked about the safety and the fact that there are—is it loopholes are they using? They're just being fraudulent. They're not following the standards that they're supposed to be held to. And what body is supposed to be holding them to these standards? The FDA? They're just stepping back.
[00:41:26] Dr. Jane Ruby: Yeah, as I mentioned before, all these institutions have collapsed. I think there's a question in there about Dr. Fleming and the efficacy issue and all that. Before I address that, I want to just ask people to think for a moment, now companies are normally very concerned about public relations.
If you had a company where the information was spreading around—at least through social media and alternative media, there's enough of it going around regular life without the MSM, mainstream. They were saying that your medication was causing acute cardiac death in teenagers, was filled with stainless steel mechanical parasites, toxic industrial chemicals, don't you think you'd want to hold a press conference and vindicate yourself? Don't you think you'd want to come forward and provide as much information as possible to dispel this despicable rumor about your product that you worked so hard on, that you put in billions of dollars—billions?
They know what they're doing. You don't spend that kind of money and not know what you're producing. You haven't heard one of these four companies come forward. There's been no defense. There's been no press conference. Even the FDA doesn't hold press conferences. They don't care. They don't care.
I just want you to think about that. Let me address the efficacy thing. Let me start from the beginning. This is Dr. Jane’s beginning. This is not a vaccine. If you notice the majority of my language has been the injection, the jab, the shot. This is not a vaccine. If you continue to call it a vaccine, you've already lost your ability to research this, to really get information that will educate you and inform you. You've lost the argument. These are not vaccines, okay. This is a lot of things. Let's go use the words of the criminals.
This is an mRNA. It's computer-generated, never before seen in nature. Want to talk about being crunchy and alternative, I spent the first half of my life studying alternative medicine. I hated allopathic medicine as a child, so I came up through the crunchy life, so let's go back. This is a computer-generated non-biologic chimeric—when they call it a Frankenshot, it's because the computer and the computer starting point was from what Wuhan lab released in December of 2019, which was what they called “a facsimile” stay with me everyone, “of a protein sequence representative of a portion of a spike protein on a natural coronavirus,” which is why people say in the know this whole virus that is SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated and purified from an ill individual.
They're not saying that's a hoax, they’re not saying that no one's gotten sick, okay. I just want to throw that out there for later if you want to talk about it, but let me get back to what this is. It is a computer-generated chimeric, and when I say chimeric it means that it is pulled information from very old dated aborted fetal cell line. It’s one person that was aborted. Macaque monkey, I believe it's two cell lines, and God knows what else. And use those as models (parts of them) to replicate this mRNA code.
So this mRNA has never been tested in humans before this rollout, and why? Because in the preclinical studies for SARS-CoV-1, which was similar, they gave this to the animals—animals have a shorter lifespan, so when we see safety signals, it happens very fast. It doesn't happen over years. It happens over weeks or months. So these animals, when they were rechallenged in the wild with natural coronaviruses, they died. And basically, all of them died. Those are preclinical publications.
Let's go back to what this is. So now you have this computer-generated model of a genetic code, which as I said, you go to the Moderna website—don't believe Jane. Go to the Moderna website and they tell you they're going to reset your operating system. They tell you this mRNA will embed with your own DNA.
[00:46:44] Ashley James: I have a question. I'm sorry to interrupt, but you explained earlier that pre-clinical phase trials are in Petri dishes and animals. And you're saying that in the testing of these poisoned concoctions that all the animals died during the preclinical phase. How did it get approved for human use then if the animals died?
[00:47:12] Dr. Jane Ruby: Let me clarify. They died when they were doing the preclinical animal work in SARS-CoV-1. Okay. So just know that. So they knew when they had what they were going to test for SARS-CoV-2—whatever they called that or whatever that was supposed to be—they were allowed to skip over that. That's another piece, argument that makes this approval illegal. Do you see what I'm saying?
[00:47:39] Ashley James: So they never did for SARS-CoV-2.
[00:47:42] Dr. Jane Ruby: Correct.
[00:47:43] Ashley James: They never did a preclinical phase trial with animals and Petri dishes. They went straight to human trials.
[00:47:51] Dr. Jane Ruby: Correct.
[00:47:53] Ashley James: And then they messed up the double-blind placebo by then contacting all the placebos and saying, hey—
[00:48:03] Dr. Jane Ruby: By breaking the blind.
[00:48:05] Ashley James: They broke the blind so that we couldn't actually get a true understanding of the efficacy.
[00:48:12] Dr. Jane Ruby: Correct, beautiful.
[00:48:14] Ashley James: But then they also had like 30 primary endpoints, none of which was to prevent getting COVID-19.
[00:48:26] Dr. Jane Ruby: Yeah, and then they got approval for preventing when they didn't even show efficacy on it. So let me go back to what this thing is when I say to you it's not a vaccine. If you're on the fence about it, get off the fence because you're not on the fence about a vaccine.
[00:48:44] Ashley James: It’s the marketing.
[00:48:46] Dr. Jane Ruby: So here we go. So you got this molecule that's computer-generated based on everything. I won't repeat myself. Genetic material outside of the human cell cannot survive. It gets attacked by the body's defense system. It's called ectopic and abnormal and it doesn't survive. So in order to get this thing into every cell in your body, it has to be in something that will protect it.
Enter the lipid nanoparticle that you've heard so much about, and that lipid nanoparticle can be made of many different things. In fact, some of the disclosure—I don't believe these companies have fully disclosed, but some of the disclosures on ingredients have included dangerous substances that they've utilized in part to construct their lipid nanoparticle.
Polyethylene glycol you've heard of and some of them I'm sure by now. SM-102, which is on the website of chemical companies where it says this is not intended for a veterinarian or human research, but those are in our shots. What I call the lipid nanoparticle, Ashley, is the transporter. But the keyword is nano. You have to understand that nano, at the level of nano, you need an electron microscope to see it. It's at the atomic level, okay? It doesn't need to get past a barrier. Your cells have lipid or hydrophilic barriers. Sodium and potassium go through certain types of barriers because your body regulates what goes in and out to regulate other systems.
The blood-brain barrier is the famous one that I think laypeople are most familiar with, and it's a very powerful barrier because very little should and normally does get into the brain. But nano, nano is another story. You can inject this thing into your foot, into your arm, into the fat of your belly. When you would inject normal molecules into those areas, you get different rates of absorption. It's by intention. If a doctor, I prescribe something intramuscular, that's because that's the way it's supposed to be given to be absorbed into the body over a certain amount of time. If I give it insulin, you squeeze the fat and you stick it in at a wide angle because you want to slow absorption through the fat. If I put something into a vein, you're in, you're in the system. You have immediate into the compartment, we call it, okay.
By giving a nano substance, forget detoxing, okay. This is where the detox myth comes out. Within minutes to hours, you can now understand how this is in almost every cell in your body. It's pretty, pretty, pretty spread prolifically. And when it gets into every cell, it disrupts the cell, the cells are out of their minds. You have all kinds of inflammatory transmitters, trans factors—you have all kinds of materials that are screaming out danger, danger, right? But this material integrates with your DNA and it tells your DNA to use this plan, this blueprint, and you need to make billions of these spike proteins.
Now in a normal natural coronavirus—the common cold is a form of coronavirus—there are these spikes, but they're natural and they're part of that organism. These, that your body are told to make, are the synthetic version. We have no idea what this is. We have no idea how potent. And by the way, you see a lot of preclinical work that shows in natural coronaviruses, if you get infected, the spike protein is the pathogenic part. That's the part that makes you feel like crap, like you're sick.
In a natural coronavirus like the common cold, because your body's being hijacked to make viral load, you might make like 100,000 spike. That's enough to make you sick. But this encoding forces your body to make them in the billions. Why am I not sick every minute? Why is everybody not sick? Well, that's another question. That has to do with timing, the lack of truth. We know about what's really in these at any given time. Remember, anything under an emergency use authorization, they can change the formulation, they can change the dosage, and remember this is phase 1, 2, and 3.
[00:53:37] Ashley James: Oh my gosh. We're all sitting here thinking everyone's getting the same. You go for the Moderna, you're getting the same shot that everyone's been getting for months. But what you're saying is they can change it, they can change the dose.
[00:53:54] Dr. Jane Ruby: Any minute.
[00:53:55] Ashley James: And so you go for your second shot you're maybe getting something different. Now we're talking boosters for people 65 and up, you could be getting something different. If it's still in trial, how are they tracking any of this data? Are they?
[00:54:09] Dr. Jane Ruby: They're not that we know of and they're not disclosing it if they are. And let me tell you a couple of other tidbits. These things have lot numbers on them. I just saw something the other day, oh Pfizer doesn't track it. Come on. This is creepy, Ashley, they know who got what, when, and where because why? Because you get your little card. All these people that are proud of it. I got the COVID shot, and they've got their card. The card has the lot number on it. Well, that's refiled back. When you come in, they don't know you're coming in that day to the Walgreens, okay. But when you do, that lot number, they record who got out of that lot.
Look, a lot of this stuff that’s evil is happening in plain sight. Go to the protocol that I told you about. You can go to clinicaltrials.gov, that would be the best one. Remember that NCT number I gave you?
[00:55:03] Ashley James: it's going to be in the show notes of the podcast. We transcribe everything.
[00:55:06] Dr. Jane Ruby: Okay, good. You scroll down you can see different arms of the study. When I say “the study,” that's what's going on right now. Everybody is aware or should be, if you take one of these shots, even one, you are in a trial until 2023. Do you know it? Not really because you haven't been fully informed consented. Normally, if you were in a trial for a year or two, you'd be contacted every 30 days, every 60 days, or whatever. How are you feeling, Ashley? Can we take your temperature? Can you come into the….? There's a protocol for patient visits, subject visits. Everything's been thrown out the window. This is all the stuff that I see from my wheelhouse that's missing.
Okay, so let's go back to this. So if you look at that clinicaltrials.gov, there are arms of the study, and here's the point, this is this will shock you—another epiphany. The dosages, and it's micrograms of what, okay? But the dosages are 5 micrograms, 10 micrograms, 20, 30. There's also an arm, two arms actually. When I say an arm, that means a portion of patients or subjects will be given. In other words, they're going to send out lots that they anticipate a certain number, okay.
Now watch this, there are two arms, and you can look at it yourself on clinicaltrials.gov, that are going to get 100 micrograms. God help those people and please God don't make it be a 5- to 11-year-old, please.
[00:56:46] Ashley James: My heart breaks for these children and their parents that don't know any better because they're listening to the mainstream. And the children that are going to die.
[00:56:56] Dr. Jane Ruby: And they get all indignant, I'm going to get my kid. Hey dude, back up a little bit. I got notified by a Nashville singer-songwriter, an award-winning songwriter named Shawn Gallaway. He's a wonderful man. Great patriot, great Christian, loving man, very sweet. I've worked with him in business. He's just so kind, it seems rare. But anyway, he said to me, in the early part of this year I was saying on Stew Peter Show just wait, just wait. What do you have to lose? This is a flu with a 99% recovery rate, for God's sake. Snap out of it and just wait. And so it got to be this little moniker thing.
So he calls me one day and he said, Dr. Jane, he said, I love what you did with just wait. He had written a previous song that's really beautiful, Ashley, it's called Hands Off! And it goes, hands off, hands off our children.” It's just beautiful. He's got it uploaded. You can all find it. That'll make you cry, but in a good way, right?
So he says to me, I would love to write a song with you. I said, oh, Shawn, I've got talents, but singing, music lyric writing, that's not me. And he said, no, no, no. I need you to help me write it because I need to know what's behind just wait, I like it, I got a good instinct. Anyway, long story short, we write this song. And we kind of homemade the video that goes with it, now it's a music video called Just Wait. And it's got a lot of children in it, and they're standing there holding a sign that says, just wait. And they flip it in the air and they run away like run away from this thing, right? And it's a beautiful melody, and it's lots of fun, it's catchy.
So it gets back to that whole point, to the parents right now, what are you doing? These kids don't get it. They don't give it much less to anybody, much less grandma. You've been sold a bill of goods. These are your babies. I want to get back, if you'd indulge me one minute, back to this mRNA and this lipid nanoparticle because it's important relative to the children. This is going to change your DNA. You're going to permanently and irreversibly—listen, everything I'm saying I say with the caveat that look, if some genius comes up in a month and says, hey, I found the antidote or I found the reversal of how to do this thing, I'm all for it. I'll say, well, I wasn't aware of it at the time. But from what I know now and understanding what this thing is doing, it is irreversible.
This is not like taking a mercury-based traditional vaccine where you can chelate off the metals. This is a totally different animal. We don't even know. We don't even have short-term data. Forget long-term, right, We have speculations from Nobel Peace Prize nominees like Dr. Luc Montagnier and Dr. Vernon Coleman who are making these predictions. But we don't really have that data on this particular thing. But I will tell you that if it gets into your cells and it's directing your cell’s machinery to produce something, that you can't chelate off a genetic material once it's inside your cells. So use your own common sense.
[01:00:06] Ashley James: If you could, there would be a cure to cancer.
[01:00:09] Dr. Jane Ruby: Of course, of course, of course. Now, let me read something. I think this is worth reading, Ashley. By the way, I actually got, just in case, because we're really getting deep into this and I'm able to stay for your entire show. So the duration that we originally talked about, if that helps.
[01:00:32] Ashley James: I'd love that.
[01:00:33] Dr. Jane Ruby: Yeah, yeah. I'm happy we could do that. I wanted to read something that's really important. I'll tell you where it's from after I read it, okay. “We've been told that SARS-CoV-2 mRNA (vaccines) cannot be integrated into the human genome because messenger RNA cannot be turned back into DNA. This is false. There are elements in human cells called LINE-1 retrotransposons, which can indeed integrate mRNA into a human genome by endogenous reverse transcription.” Write that down you guys, you can go look it up.
“Because the mRNA used in these injections is stabilized, it hangs around the cells longer increasing the chances for this to happen. If the gene for SARS-CoV-2 spike is integrated into a portion of the human genome that is not silent and actually expresses a protein, it's possible that people who take this injection may continuously express SARS-CoV-2 spike from their somatic cells for the rest of their lives.”
It finishes up with, “By inoculating people with a material that causes their bodies to produce Spike in-situ,” like in different places in the body, “they are being inoculated with a pathogenic protein. A toxin that may cause long-term inflammation, heart problems, and a raised risk of cancers. In the long-term, it may also potentially lead to premature neurodegenerative disease.”
That's from a scientist who has anonymously come forward but put together all of this logic in a beautiful publication called the Spartacus Letter that just came out. And I can tell you, as a research scientist myself, that the science makes perfect sense. I can vet the science. And the most important thing to remember is that this thing that your body's being forced to make, this material, and it's all four injections, whatever you've heard. People ask me all the time, is one safer than the other? They might go about producing the material to tell your body to make the spike protein, but it's all basically mRNA, and it's going to get you to the same place. None of the four are better than the others.
[01:02:56] Ashley James: Right. They're saying J&J is better. That's what people have been saying.
[01:03:02] Dr. Jane Ruby: I don't know where they're getting that.
[01:03:03] Ashley James: Is J&J doing the same mechanism in the body?
[01:03:07] Dr. Jane Ruby: Okay, I'm happy to clarify. So the J&J and the AstraZeneca injections use what's called an adenovirus vector for genetic material delivery instead of the lipid nanoparticles. So you see what I’m saying? You're getting to the same place just a different transporter.
[01:03:25] Ashley James: So it's changing the RNA of the body, causing the body—like the Spartacus Letter—to potentially make spike protein for the rest of their life. Different organs, different tissues of the body will continuously produce it. And the spike protein is what causes the inflammation, and that's something that listeners can go back to Episode 463 with Dr. Richard Fleming and he explains what the spike protein does because he studied for many years—as a research cardiologist—different viruses and their effects on cardiovascular health. He saw that viruses cause inflammation, and in this case, coronaviruses often caused micro blood clots. What you're saying is you're essentially continuously having the symptoms of it.
[01:04:15] Dr. Jane Ruby: Yeah. Let me go back and complete the clarification on J&J and AstraZeneca because I really want to clear this thing up that it's safer because it does something different. Remember I said the lipid nanoparticle was the transporter? It's the car that gets the mRNA into every cell in your body. The J&J and AstraZeneca, they use a different transporter but they get the mRNA into your cells and they get the spike protein production every bit as high. And here's the bottom line, the synthetic SARS-CoV-2 spike is a highly pathogenic protein all by itself. It doesn't need to be part of a virus. They soup this thing up, the computer-generated model for it that then they build it on.
What this scientist said, and I highly agree, it's impossible to overstate the danger presented by introducing this protein into the human body. I don't want people to despair, Ashley. People say to me, well, should I kill myself now or what? I was stupid, I took this thing. Here's your hope. You took one, don't take the second part. If you took the two parts of Pfizer or Moderna, don't take any more. Do you see how they're coming after you with boosters?
[01:05:33] Ashley James: You might be the 100 micrograms one.
[01:05:35] Dr. Jane Ruby: That's right, and let me back up. Do you want proof that these companies are lying? Ashley, they told you at the beginning of the year, 100% certainty these are 95% effective. Oh, but six months later they want to give you a booster because it's waning. I've never even heard. You're either efficacious or you're not, Ashley. You don't have waning efficacy. Oh, my insulin doesn't work anymore. It just doesn't work like that. This is proof that they're lying.
[01:06:13] Ashley James: What came about because of the Nuremberg trials? That we get to have informed consent. Can we talk a bit about that? That is the history of informed consent, its creation. In my opinion, it's a human right. It should be part of our human rights. Isn't it illegal to not give informed consent?
[01:06:44] Dr. Jane Ruby: Yes, but a lot of things have happened that are illegal. I've laid some of them out today, and I will get to the informed consent in one second. But there's no oversight body. Who's going to adjudicate it? You don't have a Department of Justice, you don't have an FDA. You have an FDA that is down on its knees. When I tell you, in my opinion, it's performing like a department at Pfizer. It's an approval body with no oversight. There's no restriction. It's carte blanche.
So let's get into informed consent. The Nuremberg trials, just in general for people, came out of the Nazi atrocities because people were in the camps and there were these sick Nazi doctors who would bring them in, take an organ out without anesthesia just to see how the person reacted—really, really horrible things. And when these things came out into the public light after the liberation and World War II ended, the International Court at The Hague conducted these trials. A lot of Nazis escaped. The famous Dr. Mengele, these people, some of them were never found, some of them were prosecuted. They were hung in the streets all over the world.
The problem with the International Court is it is now the judicial arm of the UN, okay, and that's a topic for another day. You're not going to go anywhere with that right now. It's got to be a different international tribunal, but I digress. They came up, they had these trials, and from the trials, they had certain plans of action, action items, and things like that. One of the wonderful things that came out of it was the code, the Nuremberg Code, which is their list of 10 unequivocal, non-negotiable requirements before you do anything to a human being from a research standpoint. And that's how those human subjects review boards came about. They were an offshoot because you got to have an oversight body.
And so, certain thing, I don't have it in front of me, the Nuremberg Code, but if you look it up, it's everywhere on the internet. Print off a copy of it because you may need it with your employer or other entities. But it says things like, you are entitled to know what you're getting. You're entitled to know that you can leave at any time. You're entitled to know if something is irreversible and permanent, not walk into Walgreens and be given a one-page sheet that says, you might get a little fever, some arm soreness, and that's it. You want it or not? Yeah, I'll take it. It's a vaccine. It's going to help me.
[01:09:39] Ashley James: I was in the hospital with COVID. Five months ago, I was pregnant, and during labor, I lost our daughter. We actually don't know why she passed away, they couldn't figure it out. It was right at the very end, and we think that her record got pinched right as she was coming out. I was in shock, obviously, but the paramedics were there. I might have caught it from the paramedics. But days later, I was positive with COVID and I was having problems breathing. The concern was that I had a blood clot from the pregnancy. I went in to get checked because I was having such difficulty breathing that it was like, okay, well, yes, I understand you have COVID, but you could also have a blood clot on top of that, right? And luckily it wasn't.
But as I'm in the hospital, the doctor wants to put me on a trial drug. And I said, give me the big long list of side effects and show me the information about this trial that's supposed to be amazing. He's like, you absolutely are a candidate for this. I'm concerned that if you go home, you're going to die. He was trying to really sell it to me with fear, I was pretty impressed. He hands me over one page—one page—and I'm sitting there in a hospital bed looking at it like, are you kidding me? Nothing on this page says that there's anything bad except you might get some nausea. I'm like, this is not the truth, right?
And so my midwife, this was like 3:00 in the morning we're texting each other. I text her the information, and we're both poring through the data of all the studies. One study just stopped me in my tracks that I had a 1% more chance of dying if I was hospitalized and received this drug than if I was hospitalized and not receive the drug. I’m like, how are they continuing this study? They saw that more people die. The two groups of people both hospitalized, the people that got the drug died more.
I said, no thanks. Two days later I'm sitting up on the couch, I'm doing much better and I get a phone call. It's the pharmacist of the hospital calling me saying, we're really concerned. You should come back and you should get this drug. Now, remember, it's a trial. It’s a trial drug for increasing the antibodies for fighting COVID. I said, I'm fine, I'm doing great. He's like, no, your chart said you're really bad. He was trying to sell me on it, I thought that was really weird.
But you're right, they didn't do for informed consent. And I started quizzing the doctor and he had no information that could give me informed consent, other than this is good, you should take it. So, not only with the vaccines, but also with the other trials that they're doing for drugs, they're not giving true informed consent, and that's really, first of all, blows my mind. Second of all, very concerning. How many years are going to have to go by for us to turn around and realize how much we've been lied to? Everyone's going to wake up and look back and go, this was the biggest disaster we've ever seen medically for human rights, for medical freedom. It's mind-blowing.
[01:13:22] Dr. Jane Ruby: Somebody asked me on my Telegram channel this morning, what do you think is going to happen to the medical complex after this? And I'm thinking to myself, right now, I'm just focused on stopping as many people, children, and babies as possible from getting this thing so that we have people to fight this thing. Do you think the medical complex will change?
I actually did sort of a coffee chat live with them later on and I addressed the question. I said, I pray to God it does change into something else because it has been overrun. That doctor who was really hard selling you should have known better with the lack of informed consent that he or she was pushing on you in trying to get you to accept without adequate information. He or she should have known that. That doctor, I can almost guarantee you, was incentivized by pharma to do that.
[01:14:19] Ashley James: It felt like it. It felt like they were absolutely. I mean, a hospital calls you two days later, you should come back and get on this trial. I'm doing fine now, I don't need it. No, no, you really need it. Your chart says you're really sick. I'm like, I'm not sick anymore.
So how do we follow you on Telegram? I know that you've been kicked off of all the social media that are cracking down. That's a whole other topic. This is while these shots were in trial, right? They have emergency use authorization. When you're in trial, we don't know if it's safe and effective, yet they're already telling us it’s safe and effective, right? So they're putting the cart before the horse so many times, and you've demonstrated and pointed us in the direction where we can go see that for ourselves on clinicaltrials.gov and on the websites, the different pharmaceutical websites. We can go look them up and see that for ourselves that they're putting the cart before the horse many times, then the media runs with it.
And so we've got that. We've got the media. We have to be careful where we're getting our science from. If you're getting your science from a news channel, from the media, then what you're getting is you're getting propaganda. I really recommend reading the book Propaganda by Edward Bernays to understand how media works. And so you're on Telegram because you're not being censored there. And the fact that we're being censored by other organizations makes me wonder about their agenda.
[01:16:04] Dr. Jane Ruby: Well, there is no media anymore. None of this would be happening, you have to understand, without a complicit bought and paid for media. The media is a corporate entity now. I guess back to the original question, I was banned from Twitter twice, now it's permanent because when they register your IP address, and it's just not even worth it because half the people on that channel who have been good people that I would want to hear from have been banned. I mean, they took out a sitting US president, so who cares about me, right?
I am still on Facebook, although I don't get really the following and the traction. Facebook, it doesn't know what it wants to be. It’s too socially and everything, and I'll probably shut that down soon. I'm really pushing the envelope so they'll just ban me. Yeah, I found a really good home at Telegram. For those of you who are not on it yet, everybody hates change, but it's great for breaking news and lots of conversation with people that really are soaking in information from all over.
So I've got a pretty good channel. It's now up to about 45,000 people. It's not about the clicks and the fame or anything because to be honest with you, Ashley, I was sort of at the end of my career anyway and I just wanted to just sail off and party in the tropics or something. God had a different idea because the world was shifting over.
I'm on Telegram. I get a lot of reach in terms of educating people, and they get to use it. They're smart, they put it out exponentially. It's t.me/DrJaneRuby. All of the media that I have left is @DrJaneRuby. I am on Instagram, but that's another one. It kind of axes and wanes between socially stuff. It's nice. I think politically or medically people want to go there, but I'd say Telegram. I've tried to do some stuff on Gab, Gab had some technical snafus in the beginning. I like the thinking, but I don't focus so much there. I'd like to just do one thing and you can find me there. I guess that's it for social media. I mean it's Telegram.
Like I said, I left the industry a few months ago out of good conscience. Then I had this opportunity through Stew Peters, who's an incredible patriot, a great American, and he's the real deal because believe me, we work together every day. We talk, we share our stuff, we prepare the shows. I’m really grateful because people are responding to his network, and he's asked me to do my own show in addition to being the medical contributor to his show, which has millions of viewers worldwide. So I'm very grateful for that connection and the chance to get the word out.
Even more so, on Patreon, if people want to support me, everything that we collect from there goes into the studio and the production of the shows. It takes a lot of time to do all that. I do the engineering and the production. If it gets too big, I'm going to have to get some volunteers or hire somebody. But anyway, so the same thing. Patreon is @DrJaneRuby, and yeah, that's about it for social media. Just two important things. Just follow the news and the information on Telegram, and if you are in a position to support, Patreon @DrJaneRuby.
[01:19:36] Ashley James: I love it. Your Telegram is where you also like to talk about it and help people understand breaking news through your lens of understanding behind the scenes in the world of FDA and big pharma. So I appreciate that. I have learned so much today and I've been in it with all kinds of doctors learning about this since it started. I've learned so much from you.
My episode 462 with Dr. David Brownstein, he's a holistic MD and he chose to treat. He has over 500 patients that he treated that were positive for the coronavirus and the COVID-19. He chose to use the same formula that he has used for the last 20 plus years for any upper respiratory virus. He just uses the same formula. He talked about on the show, high dose vitamin D and there's something that you inhale. He does ozone, iodine, and basically, everything that supports the body in fighting off a virus and keeping the lungs healthy.
He had such great success, everyone survived. He wrote it on his website. He's been doing a blog since the ‘90s just sharing, sharing, sharing, sharing not charging anyone just so maybe other holistic doctors would be able to copy his information and it could help more people, which is how it how science and medicine should work. We should always share when we get really good results, right? And so we can all learn from each other and better humanity.
He was then contacted by the FCC to shut down his blog. And he said, wait a second. You have to shut down your blog because there is no treatment for SARS-CoV-2. There's no treatment. And so you are doing something illegal. He's practicing medicine, what are you talking about? And so he got a constitutional lawyer and the lawyer said in every case I would tell you to fight except for this one. You should absolutely take your blog down. And this is crazy. So what he figured out was that they are not allowed just like hydroxychloroquine, just like ivermectin and others. They are saying you cannot treat it because if you can treat it, then they would lose the emergency use authorization.
[01:22:16] Dr. Jane Ruby: That's exactly right.
[01:22:18] Ashley James: In that interview, he shares what happened, and then what they did is they said if you have a study you can keep it. So he actually published the study in a good journal, and he had even more success, he even have more patients and he published a study. And then they came back and they said no, you need a double-blind study. And he said, that's unethical. I'm not going to take half my patients with COVID and give them a placebo. That's unethical. And they said, well, then you have to take it down.
So anyway, he ended up publishing a book with the information because apparently book is still protected by First Amendment rights but his blog wasn't. I don't quite understand the logic there. But that is the heart of it is that this is the weirdest thing we've seen in the last 19 months where doctors have been told for the first time ever, you can't practice medicine. You can't treat this. You're not allowed to treat it. And how many people have died because of that? We don't know the numbers, but how many people have died because doctors weren't allowed to use their best judgment, look at what other countries are doing, and mimic what other countries are getting success doing and do that.
[01:23:35] Dr. Jane Ruby: But Pfizer can get a drug approved without a standard control trial and without informed consent.
[01:23:44] Ashley James: At the very beginning of coronavirus back over a year ago, right at the very beginning I was interviewing a doctor and I said, I just got a feeling that maybe it'll be 10 years, maybe it'll be 100 years, but humanity will look back on these times, we'll see the truth, and it will be one of the greatest atrocities, the biggest lies across all the board. Like you said, there's no governing body. What's going on? Who's protecting us?
[01:24:19] Dr. Jane Ruby: It's only us, Ashley, and that's what people are having a hard time seeing. We had a little bit of a come to Jesus meeting in my live thing this morning. I get tons of people saying in the channel, Dr. Jane, when is somebody going to? Why isn't this done yet? And I've said to them, guys, you're at the frontline. You're at the frontline. Your institutions have collapsed. Politicians aren’t going to get you out, they got you in. They got you in. You guys should watch the interview with Dr. David Martin. Forgive me, I can send you the link later but it's with a Canadian interviewer, and it's stunning evidence of Trudeau’s business interest in either the mRNA technology or the lipid nanoparticle technology. Like a long, long-standing. This is going to line his family pockets for generations to come and he knows it.
This is about money, it's about power, it's about control. All three things are not always the same motivator in a person. And I'm not picking on one leader. We have a fake leader because this was installed, this was an installation. And then for the first time ever in our country's history, we had electrified barbed wire around our three branches of government. It is down to the people. What do I mean by that?
I'm not saying, take to the streets. You don't have guns, you do have guns. What you do have is you have the power, but it's collective, and you got to stop pearl clutching. Oh my God, is the government really lying to me? Oh my God, how could they put stainless steel particles and parasites into these injections? Well, they are, and your government is lying to you. And there's like a fire ant phenomenon.
I keep looking for upstream. Where's the upstream evil cabal? Like I was saying earlier referencing Dr. Shiva something he said recently, it's a swarm model, it's not a hierarchical model. Fauci’s in on it. It's a Gates thing. The pharmaceutical companies have been literally tanking, if you really look at their history. This is their lifeblood now. This is the way they're going to make their trillions. It is down to the people, but what the people can do is start locally.
So I've said to people, for example, here in the United States I've said, you know what, you can't do anything about the federal government right now so start where you are. Start in your neighborhood committees, your town councils, your school boards. If you don't have children or grandchildren, it doesn't matter. Go stand with your fellow citizens. They're trying to get the boot off the neck because the people locally have the power over you. They're affecting your life, whether they're forcing you into a mask or this or that or some other crazy nonsense, and you got to wrangle the power back. Find a legal way, hold a quorum, kick them out, whatever you need to do but take that power peacefully, legally but take it back and take it back soon.
Then from there, once you get that power hold, you can go to the next level. Maybe it's a regional thing or something like that. That's one suggestion. The other thing is to form mini-communities because we have to get ourselves, Ashley, off of the corporate teat, okay? I'm going to lose my job, we got the letter. Yeah, they're going to fire you. They're coming after two things, Ashley, two things because these are the hills to die on, remember. Mark my words, okay.
The first one is your livelihood. Of course, it's going to be the hardest thing. And the second thing is your babies, right? They're already putting in their data for 5 to 11 because you know that the FDA is going to approve it, then the CDC is going to recommend it, and then the rest of the world goes in lockstep. So the point is they are coming after those two things. You know it's going to happen so stop whining and bitching and step forward and start thinking.
Put your energy into, okay, I'm an electrician, and my wife is a bookkeeper or an accountant. Okay, how can we, with our families, with our neighbors, get ourselves off of the corporate dependence and start to provide services for each other because there's going to be a little bit of a darker time before we get to the other side of this, in my opinion. And if I'm wrong, you've prepared and didn't need it. I've always been of the philosophy I'd rather prepare for something and not need it than to not prepare and need it.
If you have a medical background, you're a nurse or a physical therapist, start thinking with other people how can I repurpose my skills to barter and keep my family and myself going. Maybe work in a different job or for a small business to keep them alive and they don't demand that you have the jab before working there. I mean find those, find each other. Find each other. That's the way you're going to survive, and we are going to get to the other side.
[01:30:02] Ashley James: I totally recommend that. Create a network so that you can find better work somewhere where they're going to respect your medical freedom, but also the emotional relief that comes from being surrounded by like-minded people. I did that.
Back in June of last year, I reached out to a homeschooling community and I said, hey, can we come out of hiding? Can we have a playdate? Three women in the Facebook group called me grandma killer, and then one person said, hey, we're at the park already. We basically quarantined for three months because no one was going to do playdates. That was so bad for our son who was five. And so we went to that park and there's three moms. They were so like-minded, and then we just started building. Now we've got like 100 moms all in the area and all very like-minded.
I found another Facebook group of women in my area, very similar to what you're saying, they're all talking about the jobs they're leaving, the companies they will not work for, and the companies in the area that will not force anything medical on someone, and so they're all going to work for those companies. You can find each other.
But when you're surrounded by friends and family that are pressuring you, that are listening to the media, and that are criticizing you or even isolating you or threatening you, it feels very lonely, it feels very isolating. You begin to question your decisions. Surround yourself with like-minded people.
Now, you have a book and I think it's very important that people know about it based on what we're talking about now. Your book is A Sea of New Media. I think it's important to read now because it's going to teach us what we can do and what we definitely should be doing. I don't think everyone has the talents or the desire to step out and be a reporter. But for those that have the drive that wants to speak out to want to support each other, to want to continue to get this information out there and share, definitely get the book A Sea of New Media. You can get it on Amazon or Barnes & Noble. Maybe tell us a bit about your book.
[01:32:36] Dr. Jane Ruby: Yeah, let me clarify something. This is not for people who want to become a reporter. So I'm sorry if I miss characterized it, but this book is the opposite. You carry around that device every day with you called a cell phone. It's got a camera on it. It's a computer, okay. It's an audio device. If you think you can't make a difference because we can't trust the mainstream media. But if you have people out there photographing something and uploading it.
If you think you can't make a difference as a single person, a simple single person. Think about the guy who was at the 9/11 Memorial in 2016 who captured Hillary Clinton being dragged into that van, right? He was just walking by. Nobody knows his name now. I know his name because that's my business, but nobody knows his name now or could recall it. But he was just walking by and he said, oh, that's weird. Look at them dragging Hillary. He turned his phone on, he videotaped it. That changed the course of history. It changed the course of the election because they were lying. He proved that she was sick.
So I was at an airport once, an alarm broke out, and people were going in every different direction. It was the Raleigh-Durham Airport, and they had no emergency plan. I was not into any of this. This was years ago. I took pictures of everybody running, tripping, getting injured, running out of exit signs that were like two storeys high because they were for airplanes. It was terrible.
I uploaded it, local TV station called me, I gave them the film, and it resulted in them revising their emergency plan for that airport. You don't have to be, oh, I want to be a reporter, I want to be a journalist, no. I don't want to do that. But automatically, you’re a truth-teller. Before I close because I have to run soon, but I just want to say, the title of the book, A Sea of New Media, came from a comment made by the late Andrew Breitbart, who was an amazing patriot and a great light in our lives here who mysteriously died two weeks after he was giving a speech at CPAC in Washington DC. I watched it in person and he said that we were going to vet Obama. He had films and documents, and I think they took them out, but that's just my opinion.
But earlier to that, he had been very active with the Tea Party and there was this event in the steps of the US Capitol around 2010 and three African American legislators were coming down the steps. The Tea Party was going, kill the bill, kill the bill. And later that night, the thing came out in the media that these three leaders claimed that somebody yelled the N word or that a bunch of people were. And Breitbart said fine, if you got an audio or a video that you got, you had 20,000 people standing there. Somebody's got to have a cell phone or something, right? He offered up to $100,000, nobody could come up with any proof.
And so weeks later, he was on the national mall that, grassy knoll between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument, and he was giving a speech to just tens of thousands of people. And he said, we vindicated because it was a lie because you guys, nobody could show the proof. It was like the inverse of what I'm saying. If they had said that or called the man name, somebody would have had some video on it out of all those thousands of people.
And he said, hold up your cell phones, it was nighttime so all these beautiful lights were twinkling. And he said, now you have a sea of new media to capture the lies. And I thought, you know what, I'm going to write a book. This was around 2015, 2016. I was in DC for 10 years and everything was turning over. I was engaged with all these people, many of whom you probably know on social media now. They're much more famous, but we were all shoulder to shoulder just hanging out. We didn't even realize we were at the beginning of a major movement. And I thought, I'm going to write a book about these people, myself, and all of our experiences how important it is just to take a picture.
If you're going to call an entity like call your politician's office and give them hell because they got the boot on your neck, tape it. Tape everything. When the police walk up to you, tape it, okay? You never know when that's going to become something important and it's going to make you a truth-teller because you've got evidence.
[01:37:13] Ashley James: I love it.
[01:37:14] Dr. Jane Ruby: Thanks for the time on that, but I think it's important for people to understand how it came about. It's for everybody. I think it's inspiring in that way. It's kind of fun too.
[01:37:24] Ashley James: Well, thank you. Do you identify as a whistleblower? I definitely can see you as a truth-teller.
[01:37:32] Dr. Jane Ruby: No.
[01:37:33] Ashley James: Thank you. Thank you for illuminating this darkness and for us to see. I really, really appreciate it, and I appreciate your time coming here. Of course, the links to everything that Dr. Ruby does are going to be in the show notes of today's podcast at learntruehealth.com, especially the link to Telegram, to her Patreon, and to her book, A Sea of New Media. I'd love to have you back on the show. You're welcome back anytime.
[01:38:00] Dr. Jane Ruby: Thank you.
[01:38:01] Ashley James: You said talking about the judicial arm of the UN is a whole nother topic for a whole nother day, so you're definitely welcome back. We'd love to have you. It has been such a pleasure. And I really hope, no matter where any of my listeners are on the political spectrum, I respect and love all of you. We're all on this journey together. I respect medical freedom, the freedom to choose. I want you to have the freedom to choose or to say no.
[01:38:29] Dr. Jane Ruby: Exactly right.
[01:38:32] Ashley James: I hate this term, anti, right? I am pro-medical freedom. I believe in your freedom and your right to choose something or to say no to something. That freedom needs to be protected, and so all of us need to be truth-tellers to continue to enforce and protect our freedoms, or else we will lose them forever. Thank you for coming on the show. Is there anything you'd like to say to wrap up today's interview?
[01:39:02] Dr. Jane Ruby: I want to second what you just said. This is not political at all. Freedom is in everybody's good interest, right? We're all brothers and sisters. I would echo what you said, Ashley, it's about making your own choices, and doing so in the most informed way you can. Just stay open, take your time, and do your own double-checking. Anybody who says, oh, you don't have to look that up. Do what I say, that should be your red flag, not somebody who says, hey, go double-check me. I say that all the time, all the time. So God bless everyone. Just stay well and take your time, be discerning. It's been a pleasure, Ashley. Thanks for having me, and hopefully we'll get together soon.
[01:39:53] Ashley James: I'd love that. Thank you so much, Dr. Jane Ruby. This has been wonderful. Thank you.
[01:39:58] Dr. Jane Ruby: You're welcome. Take care.
Get Connected with Dr. Jane Ruby!
Book by Dr. Jane Ruby
Health Coach, Podcast Creator, Homeschooling Mom, Passionate About God & Healing
Ashley James is a Holistic Health Coach, Podcaster, Rapid Anxiety Cessation Expert, and avid Whole Food Plant-Based Home Chef. Since 2005 Ashley has worked with clients to transform their lives as a Master Practitioner and Trainer of Neuro-linguistic Programming.
Her health struggles led her to study under the world’s top holistic doctors, where she reversed her type 2 diabetes, PCOS, infertility, chronic infections, and debilitating adrenal fatigue.
In 2016, Ashley launched her podcast Learn True Health with Ashley James to spread the TRUTH about health and healing. You no longer need to suffer; your body CAN and WILL heal itself when we give it what it needs and stop what is harming it!
The Learn True Health Podcast has been celebrated as one of the top holistic health shows today because of Ashley’s passion for extracting the right information from leading experts and doctors of holistic health and Naturopathic medicine
Follow LTH on Social Media
Join The LTH Supportive Community!
Ashley's Top 10 Favorite Episodes
Herbalist Elizabeth Guthrie, Ph.D. in Natural Medicine, shares her insights on the multifaceted world of plants and their significance in promoting well-being. She emphasizes the
In this engaging podcast episode, host Ashley recounts her personal journey of discovering the transformative power of herbs, essential oils, and holistic wellness practices. Her
Today’s podcast discussion centered around quantum healing, ayurvedic herbal medicine, and the benefits of drinking structured water. Dr. John Douillard, an Ayurvedic physician, shared his
In this interesting podcast episode, Ashley and her guest delve into the world of an extraordinary American-made mattress that originally served as a medical device