Tom Renz
speaker
588 appearances
4 recordings
2 series
first heard Jan 2025
last heard 30 Jan
Tom Renz’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsRecordings per month over the last 12 months — 2 in all, peaking in Jan 2026 with 2.
Appearances
We're not having it on hand.
Yeah, promoter. So there's... evidence of a promoter. I can't remember who found it, but it was published somewhere. And it looks like this was intentional. I mean, you know, you and I have talked about this in terms of cancer. Well, you got SV40, possibly some promoters, the pseudouridine, all these things. Is this what's behind the turbo cancer? And you know, Doc, I've never, ever...
I'm a lawyer, not a doctor, right? So I read the science, I understand it, but I can't perform the science. But, you know, I've came on here and we've talked about it. I've got a 2006 document from the FDA saying, hey, these mRNA gene therapy type products have the potential to create cancer on the long term. Well, now we see these guys trying to push to get mRNA and the flu vaccine.
We still haven't had the 10 to 20-year look-back studies that we need to to determine whether these gene therapies are safe or effective or whether they do cause cancers and these sorts of things. But all the evidence is pointing to the fact that they do. And I will right here say, I will bet you any amount of money you want to bet
That over the next five years, I will very sadly, and I actually, I wish I was wrong on this. I'll be proven right on this cancer. I don't need, as a lawyer, I don't need to wait for a study. I've got beyond a reasonable doubt in terms of that. I got opposing party admissions. I've got their documents. I've got their papers. They don't admit to this stuff, you know, unless it's really happening.
I mean, no one's going to say that this is a risk.
Well, I mean, the WHO's expecting, what was it, a 50% or 65% by 2030? Now, let me ask you this, Doc. Now, the WHO is predicting that sort of an increase in cancer. Well, if they're predicting that sort of an increase, there's a reason for it. Now, they're not being real forthcoming about why they think cancer is going to explode that much. but they're predicting it, right?
So what do they know that we don't? You know, what would cause, I mean, we've never had that sort of an explosion in cancer in human history. What's changed?
Uh, someone probably did ask why, you know, I didn't find anything that was all that conclusory, but I mean, you know, one of the things that they won't do is they won't, no one will touch or look at the fact that, you know, we've, we've mapped our whole genome, right?
We've mapped the whole genome, but only 2% of our DNA, and you can correct me if I'm wrong on these numbers, but only 2% of our DNA codes for proteins. We don't know what the other 98% does. We have no idea what it's there for. So when we start inserting genetic material, well, maybe nothing, maybe something.
But when we start inserting genetic material that may or may not interact, what's going on there? And we also know even if that genetic material does not have SV4 to promoters and things like it where it may reintegrate back into the DNA, even if it doesn't, What we do know is there's a number of studies, and I actually have them on my other screen right here.
I was looking at them to prep for this interview. A number of studies suggesting that the spike protein itself is a pathogen. It crosses the blood-brain barrier. Oh, no doubt in my mind.
I mean, I can give you 14 trillion reasons in the United States alone. There's $14 trillion that changed hands in the United States alone based on COVID. I mean, so the amount of money there, the control, the power, and you know, I mean, there's conspiracy theories out there.
And I'm not going to discount them at this point because if you would allow children to be exposed to something that can kill them, With absolutely no benefit. I mean, there were no healthy children that died from COVID during the pandemic. Virtually, yes.
But, Doc, let me ask you this. If you would allow... If you would allow that, if you would support that, if you would promote something that has no known benefit and loads of risks in children, right, for money, because you get more money out of it. What ethical standards do you have? So when you say, what's the motivation? Well, it's money. They don't care about anything else.
They don't care about the results. And what would be too low for someone like that? So if you're someone who knows there's no benefit, loads of risk, but you get a big fat check if you promote it. and yet you promote it anyways, then you've demonstrated to me that you have no ethical standards. So what's too low? What's too low for someone that'll risk a child's life?
Yeah, well, and one of the most foundational issues here is that medical school has gone from teaching doctors to think critically and find solutions for their patients to checking boxes and to lining up the drug with the... Yes, you're singing my tune.
My wife has... We actually, just today, actually a few hours ago, we got the PATH report from her final, what I hope will be her final surgery related. She had stage four cancer. I believe we've beat it, right? We've beat that cancer, and I'm going to tell you something.
I have had to fight harder to get adequate care, not great care, not perfect care, but adequate care in the world of oncology for my wife than almost anything I've ever had to fight. Now, Doc... These oncologists are wonderful people. I've met some wonderful oncologists. But if it's not in the NCCN handbook, it can't possibly be right. And it doesn't matter how much evidence you present.
Terrible. Well, and I mean, listen, our federal government is carrying both the carrot and the stick. And you know this as a doctor better than anybody. And I've described this in testimony before all sorts of legislatures. When you go to the doctor, the doctor-patient relationship is number four.
Showing 561–580 of 588 · page 29 of 30
← Previous
Next →