Brett Weinstein
58:59 Share

Amazingly, IT was four years next month that the first stories appeared in the american news media about a virus spreading through a city in central china. Won the vision, didn't have a name over time. IT was named COVID, and IT changed world history.

IT wasn't that long ago, but we don't talk about IT very much anymore in the way that you don't talk about traumatic things that happen to you. But that doesn't mean it's over and IT doesn't mean that huge decisions aren't being made right now that will affect your life and the lives of your children. Those decisions are being made.

The story is not over. And so we thought I would be worth taking just a moment to explain what that looks like. And there's no Better person to do that than bread wind's stein.

He's an evolution turned biologist. He taught at the college level for many years. He's got a fascinating by, you should look up because it's an amazing story. He's now the host with his wife of the dark course podcast and the author of a best selling and very excEllent book that came out not only really joins us now, great, great to see you.

IT is great to see you.

So instead of peppering you with all kinds of pointed questions, I want to guide you and sit back mostly as you tell the story of covered in condensed form. What are the outcomes of what we know now and where we're going? What's the next chapter in the story?

Well, first, let me just respond. Something you set up front. Nobody wants to be thinking about covered and IT was a traumatic and exhAusting experience. I don't want to be thinking about cover anymore either, but what I find is that every time I look away and move on to other topic, things move just out of our sideline and these things couldn't possibly be more important.

So i'm going to try to explain where we are and how we got here and what the implications are in the present that people are largely not noticing. All right. So I thought maybe I would be worth starting with just some part of the education that we all got uh during covet I know that I learned a tremendous amount about not only viruses and endemics in public health, but also about farmer, which is something, Frankly, I thought I knew a lot about.

I had run into IT earlier in my academic career, so I thought I was something of an expert, but I got schooled over the course of coffee. What i've come to understand is something I call the game of farmer. If you think about what farma is, we intend to imagine that IT is an industry that is, uh, hell bent on finding drugs that will make us healthier.

Yes, that's not what IT is. In fact, farmer is healthy when people are sick. And many people have noticed this, that, of course, IT depends on ill health. So IT has a perversion centive.

But what I think most of us did not realize is how elaborate its bag of tricks is, and what the nature of that bag tricks is and to to describe. But I would say um former is a an intellectual property racket, or at least that's what IT has become that essentially farmer owns various things that owns molecules, compounds, IT, oes technologies. And what it's looking for is um a disease to which these things lauber apply and its profits go up. To the extent that the disease is widespread, to the extent of the disease is serious, to the extent that competing drugs are unsafe or in effective, to the extent of the government will Mandate a drug to the extent of the medical establishment will declare at the standard of care all of .

these you've just describe pandemic response .

will I did and that's where I learned all of these tricks. Um was that basically every day of the year farma is engaged in um portraying the property that IT owns as more useful than they are, safer than they are and persuading the medical establishment, the journals, the societies to hospitals, the government i'm to direct people towards drugs they went otherwise be taking so that's um what the the rock is and and IT IT is necessary to understand that because you need to realize that before cover ever happened um farma was expert at figuring out how to portray a disease as more widespread and more serious than IT was IT was excEllent at a portraying a compound as more efficient that is safer than IT is and so when covet happened, all of this occurred a different scale. Covet was bigger than anything that had ever happened before.

But none of IT was new to farma and all of IT was new to us in the public trying to understand what we were supposed to do about this astana ally. Very serious disease. So i'm now going to put a hypothesis on the table about why things unfolded the way they did.

And IT involves that game of farmer. What was farmer thinking? Why was IT so obsessed with making sure that we all took, uh, the so called vaccines that were on offer?

Why was IT so obsessed with making sure we didn't take the alternative purpose drugs that so many doctors claimed were high effective as treatment, right? I've remitting hydrox when these things were demonized and we were a told not to them and we were marked if we distrusted that advice. So the question is what was all that? Why would that have happened? And again, this is this is not certain.

But what i've piece together is that pharma r owned what was potentially the um the biggest pharmacological cash cow conceivable. IT owned a beautiful technology. And I mean that since direly something truly brilliant, that would potentially not only allow a bright future from the perspective of creating new treatments and new I hesitate to use the word vaccine because IT doesn't really apply new vaccine like technologies but that I could do this indefinitely into the future. And that could allow you to reformulate every vaccine currently on the market. And what's more, the property in question would allow this whole process to be streamline at an incredible level, because effectively, all you needed was a sequence, a genetic sequence from a pathogen and you could literally type IT into a machine and produce a vaccine that was already in use but for the swapping out of the antigen in question.

so was like legos .

yeah it's exactly like legs and presumably um with some justification ation to the extent of this technology was safe, farmer would be able to argue what we don't really need to go through throw gh safety testing of the entire platform each time we deploy at all we need to do is cigarette. The anagen that we've loaded in this time is in some way a more dangerous than the last one.

The problem so that the technology in question is the M R, A transaction platform, which was wrongly, in this case called a vaccine. And IT is in genus IT solves a really important problem from gene therapy, which is often times you want to get the body to do something. Let's say that you are missing a functional copy of a gene that produces some product like insurance that you need where you can take insuing.

Or you would be great if we could convince your body to produce the product itself like a healthy person does very hard to do that though because the body is composed in adult humans. Thirty trillion cells are. So how do you get sells to take up the message and produce enough the product to matter? Well the M A technology allows you to um induce cells to take up an M R A message which they will then automatically transcribe.

And um IT does this by encapsulating these messages. In lip nano particle lipid just means fat. And you may remember from basic chemistry, like attracts like, like dissolves like. And so these facts get taken up by cells um uh very regularly for simple chemical reasons, and then the message gets transcribed and voila, you've gotten sells to produce something that they did not produce in the first place. You swiffer d vaccine like technology useful for curing efficiencies.

The problem, however, is that this amazing technology, which is very hard to estimate how much money farmer might have made, I think hundreds of billions of dollars is absolutely certain. Trillions of dollars is not off table given that this would allow patentable drugs to be produced indefinitely into the future um but the technology itself has a horrible safety flaw that in my opinion never would have gotten through even the most cursy safety tests um and that flaw is that there's no targeting of the lip ano particles the public and particles will be taken up by any cl encounter. And while that's not perfectly random, IT will be hazard around the body.

Now if they were limited, if they simply stayed in the injection site, as we were told when the vaccine rollout began, the the vaccines, the so called vaccines stay in the injection site. Well, then the cells that took up these messages would be in your deltoid, and what happens next wouldn't be terribly serious. The problem as we learn very quickly and should have predicted from the get COO that they weren't gonna stay in.

The all of anything you inject in that space is going to leak out and it's going circulate around the body. And here's the problem. Forgive me, this is a little bit technical. I know that. But IT involves understanding how immunity naturally developed.

So when you become sick, let's say with a virus, some um particle has gotten into a cell of yours and IT has high checked and IT has started IT has tricked that cell into producing copies of itself more viruses which affect were in fact adjacent cells and if the virus is an effective one, they will also figure out how to jump out of you like when you cough and get inhaled by the expression and infect their cells. The body's response to seeing a cell of yours which IT recognizes as yours that is producing an ann that is to say a protein that IT doesn't recognize is to assume that that cell is virtually infected. yes.

And to destroy IT, that is the only correct thing for the body to do when IT encountered a cell of yours is making foreign protein. Now, this transaction technology, the M R N. A vaccine technology, is they called IT, does exactly this.

IT tricks your cells into producing foreign integers, which the immune e system cannot help but recognize as an indication of infection. And IT destroyed those cells if those cells are in the muscle in your ARM, not a huge deal good if you get a sore ARM, you get a sore ARM. Presumably we might be a measure of decrease in your strength, but it's not going na short your life. However, if these transaction agents circulate around the body, as we know they do, and get taken up p hazarded, then whatever tissue you start producing, these foreign team is going to be attacked by.

Your definite wouldn't want any of this getting near a person's .

heart or brain. Um definitely not. and. Very bad if that happens in your brain IT ticula ly critical if IT happens in your heart. Because your heart, for reasons we can go into, if you want, has an incredibly low capacity for repair. In fact, your heart doesn't really repair what IT does. You get a wound if lose cells from your heart, uh your heart then scar is over and that will affect your heart rythm your capacity to transport oxana y around the body IT will um potentially short your life and IT will also create a vulnerability that you won't know that you have until .

you like playing soccer or something.

exactly. So if you imagine somebody has received one of these transaction shots, and especially in the unfortunate case where IT has been injected intravenously, which isn't supposed to happen, but the instructions on this shot were not to aspirate the middle, a proper injections should involve pulling back on the plunger in the surrender in order to see if there's blood if there's blood that indicates that you've landed in, uh, a circulatory ory vessel and that you should back the middle off or plant further so that you're not injecting indirectly into event. But in the case of the shots, amazing as the sounds, the advice was don't do that because IT requires the needle to be in the person's ARM longer might create extra pain and they didn't want create magazines hesitancy with her excused. So anyway, you might get a big bolas of a this material and IT might flow right through your heart and get taken up by a bunch of cells.

And just for perspective, do we have any guests to how many these shots were given out globally?

It's definitely in the billions, billions. Yeah, it's in with the e yes, which is an amazing fact. I mean, the in addition of the technology itself being remarkable, the rate at which this was scaled up positively incredible.

Now I had horrible downsides. I enough will have time to get to the downsides of the way they scaled up their production on this. Um but if we can separate the marvel of what they did, yes, there's an awful lot of stuff here that's beyond wish or grades is just incredible. But they, but they .

accomplished good. I arted anyone take you track, but you were describing what would happen if IT went to various organs, would damage them.

What could .

IT cause cancer too?

We can get back at that. We clearly are seeing an uptake in cancers and an uptake in cancers that are unusual, especially in their speed. Um so uh maybe we maybe if we have time, we can come back to the reasons that, that might be occurring as a lot of discussion among gs, the medical dissidents about why that pattern exists and what IT implies.

But yes, um clearly cancers are one of the failure modes of the body and this highly novel technology clearly had that as a risk even if we didn't know what mechanism that would happen. But yes, if you lets at your soccer player and you've been injected with this stuff in a bullis of IT has hit your heart and caused a bunch of yourself ells to be destroyed by your own immunity by psychological ic t cells, metro ourselves. Well, now you ve got a wound.

If you managed to survive to have its gar over, than that wound will be less of a vulnerability, and that would otherwise be but if in the period after you've been damaged before your heart has fully scar, you were to push yourself to some new athletic limit, or let's say you in the middle of particularly intense game, right, that would be exactly the time when a weakness in A A vessel wall might cause a critical failure and know you could die on the very plausible mechanism to explain the pattern of, uh, sudden death that we have seen often times and people are unusually healthy and up. yes. So to go back to the original story for of my head, and potentially a tremendously lucrative property that IT couldn't bring to market, because a safety test would have revealed this unsolvable problem at its heart.

And so what i'm wondering, my hypothesis is that IT recognized that the thing that would buy pass, that obstacle, was an emergency that caused the public to demand A A remedy to allow them to go back to work into living their lives. IT would cause the government to streamline the safety testing process so that IT wouldn't spot these things. And indeed, one of the things that we see, in addition to A A lot more harm in those safety test than we were initially allowed to understand. But also the safety testing was radically truncated so that long term harms were impossible to detect. So my boss in question is farmer used an emergency to buy, pass an obstacle to bring an incredibly lucrative technology um to Normalize IT in the public, in the regulatory apparata us to sneak IT by the things that would ordinarily prevent a dangerous technology like this one from being widely deployed.

So I think that sounds entirely possible, in fact likely but very likely. But the downside for farmer and crucial rest of us is that if you roll at a harmful product of adding the conventional safety screens, you're gonna urt a lot of people. And then what? So just first part of question, what do you think we're going na see in terms of a death toll and injury toll from this vaccine? So cold um a .

lot has gone into preventing us from answering that question. And some very dedicated people have done some very high quality work and the numbers are staggering. Now i'm hesitant to say what I think the toll might be because this is not my area of expertise and um I would leave IT to others.

I would say john cambell would be an excEllent source to look at. There's some new material out of new zealand, which is job dropping. I have a hard time to look at IT in depth, so i'm a little um concerned about putting my weight on the ice.

But let's say what here's here's what we here's what we know. Joseph frame and his colleagues, including Peter, do he did a um an evaluation of fizz on safety data from its safety trials and these trials were absurdly short. In fact, Fisher only allowed one month before IT vaccinated its controls and made IT impossible to detect further harms.

And what they found was a one in eight hundred rates of serious adverse event. This is not minor stuff. This is serious harm to health.

One in a hundred per shot, that's not per person, that's per shot. One in eight hundred rate, which in one month that suggests am a very a very high mortality risk. In fact, we saw mortality in the safety trials. Um what happens over the long time, we've certainly seen such a range of pathologies is that have crippling effects on people's health that um I should have to think how .

many people have actually so i'm not a math genius but one and eight hundred shots times billions is you know a lot of people .

yeah um there was uh a press I was recently at a conference uh in romania on the covet crisis and so there was a lot of work trying to impact what we actually understand. And I saw credible estimate or something like seventeen million that's that globally from this technology. So seventeen .

million deaths from the cover bags.

Well, you know when you scale up to billions, um it's not hard to reach a number like that with a technology this dangerous. Now to your deeper question, I think let's steel man so just for .

perspective, mean that's like the .

death toll of the global war yes, absolutely. IT is this is A A A great tragedy of history of that proportion. And amazingly, there is no way in which is over.

I mean, we are still apparently recommending these things for healthy children ever stood any chance getting any benefit from every chance of suffering harms that are uh not only serious but tragic on the basis that children have a long lives ahead of. If you ruin IT our child's abuse system, uh, in youth, they have to spend the rest of their resume bly shorten life in that state. So never made IT any sense that we were giving us to kids in the first place.

The fact that we're still doing IT when the emergency, to the extent that even loves one, is clearly over and um when there has never been any proper justification of administering to healthy gets IT just healthy kids don't die of code um and the shot doesn't prevent you from catching your transmitting and so there was just literally no justification you could come up with. But I think a lot of us um maybe call us Normals have a hard time imaging the um the breath taking evil that IT would take to allow such a tragedy to unfold or two uh cause IT to unfold for profit. I still struggle to image but think about think about this way far more on a Normal day is composed of people who have to become even if they were doing their job exactly right, they have to be comfortable with causing a certain amount of that, right?

If you give a drug to people, if the net effect is positive, but it's going to kill some people who would have lived if they never got IT. Somehow you have to sleep at night having put that dragon into the world. And, you know we want that if we had a healthy farming industry, we would want them to produce the drugs that had a net benefit and that benefit includes some serious arms.

Um so once you have stepped on that slippery slope, the once you have become comfortable with using deaths, then I believe IT becomes very easy to rationalize um that the greater good is being served by X Y R Z and then there's some point at which you're causing enough harm. And you you know when farma takes an old out of pattern drug and supercedes ds IT with a new highly profitable drug, they've done something that's negative. We should almost always prefer the older drug unless the evidence is extremely ly convincing.

The new drug is just world's Better because an old drug, we know something about its interactions with other things, we know something about its safety profile knew is not Better when IT comes to molecules that you're gonna taking into your g um fair. But farma has to be in the business of getting you to take the new and having you distrust the old. And so anyway, I I think there's a way in which the ratification has no limit and they've gotten to the point that they are willing to cause a huge amount of death currently. Um and even at the point that it's been revealed in public ah they don't stop, which is another amazing fact. You would imagine that they would have been embarrassed into stopping this vaccination program at this point.

So the problem though, I would say for for farming, for the politicians who uh support and promote them in the media to same is that um there are people like you who are not crack lots, who are scientists and physicians, long time researchers with fully credential or history, not too many but a sizeable number who will not let go, who are completely doggedly in the pursuit of more data about this um so like what do they do with you and people like you?

Well, I think the astonishing thing is that a as you point out, small group of dissidents appended their narrative. Uptake rates on the new boosters are in the low single digits. So a large .

single digits. Yes, nobody y's taking.

nobody y's taking. Now I am troubled by the fact that at the same time, we don't see uh a massive majority acknowledging the accent ation campaign was .

a mistake in the first place.

And I I get IT um I wouldn't want to think about IT either, but the problem is it's a more obligation. We're still injecting these things and the kids we're not like. So um IT is important to stand up and say I was had and I think all of us were I i'd believed that this vaccine was likely effective when I first came out. And the thing that triggered either in me to question IT was the fact that we were also told that IT was safe, which couldn't possibly be true, might have been harmless, but they couldn't say safe because nobody on earth knew what the long term impacts would be.

When you say safe, you're not if I say I drove home drunk um but I made IT without harm so IT was safe you know that I have said something for yes and in this case, even if the thing had turned out to be harmless, nobody could know that IT was so IT wasn't safe and for them to assure us that IT was was a live from the gate go that's what caused heather me to start looking into IT and the deeper we are, the crazy or the story got not safe and effective. In fact harmful and shockingly and effective at everything that you might want them to be effective at. So the story is a an armed one.

The fact that that small number of dissidents was able to append the narrative, was able to bring people's awareness to the massive levels of and effectiveness of the shot is in some ways um the most surprising element of the story. And I think IT truly surprised farma and its partners in social media, in government, on mental organizations. I think they thought that they owned enough of the media that they can sell any narrative they wished. And I think surprising as IT is they didn't really understand that podcasts could possibly be a countervAiling force of significant .

you own N B C news is enough.

you would think already you know it's fAiling to update from the buying by the barrel total afra. Um so what happened was IT turned out that a number of us were willing to make mistakes and correct them in real time to talk about this in plain english with the public um to do so you know and joe rogan, man cave. And the fact is people listened because of course this was on everybody's mind.

And what they were supposed to do to protect they've been terrified. And they, what to do to protect your family's health was a question that everybody want to know the answer to. So our ability to reach millions of people surprised those who thought they were just onna.

Shove this narrative, downright roads. And this gets me to the the whole, the world health organization and its pandemic prepared ness, a plan modifications. What I believe is going on is the world health organization is now revising the structures that allowed the dissidents to upon the narrative. And they are looking for very much, I think um what they want are the measures that would have allowed them to silence the pod casters to Mandate various things internally in a way that would prevent the emergence of a control group that would allow us to see harms clearly.

Um so that's the reason that I think people as much as they want to move on from thinking about covet, maybe stop thinking about coffee, but do start thinking about what has taken place with respect to medicine, with respect to public health, with respect to farma and ask yourself the question, given what you now know, what you want to need, live a pandemic like the of the pandemic without the tools that allowed you to ultimately in the nc. Clearly that I didn't make sense to take another one of these shots or to have your kids take right. We want those tools. In fact, we need them. And something is quietly moving just out of sight in order that we will not have access to them the next time we face a serious emergency.

So you're saying that an international health organization could just end the first women in the states?

yes. And in fact, um as much as this sounds, I know that IT sounds proposed .

but IT is not sound .

proposers the ability to do IT is currently under discussion at the international level and it's almost impossible to exaggerate how troubling what is being discussed is. In fact, I think he is fair to say that we are in the middle of a coup, that we are actually facing the elimination of our national and our personal sovereign and that that is the purpose of what is being constructed that IT has been a written in such a way that your eyes are supposed to glass is over as you attempt to sort out what is what is under discussion. And if you do that, then come may of this year, your nation is almost certain to sign on to an agreement that in some utterly ve vaguely described future circumstance a public health emergency which the director general of the world health organisation has total liberty to define in any way that he sees fit in other words, nothing prevents um climate change from being declared a public health emergency that would trigger the provisions of these modifications. And in the case that some emergency were some pretense of an emergency shows up the provisions that would kick in are am beyond john rob.

So before you get into IT and night, I just want to thank you, by the way, for taking the time to go through this proposal because you're absolutely write its its impenetrable is designed to be to look what they're saying rather than a little minute um what is .

called well the funny thing is actually I was looking um this morning to find out what the current name is and the names have actually been shifted slightly early.

A feature it's a shape .

shifting yeah did so what I would do in order and and I it's unclear to me how much that's just simply designed to confuse somebody who tries to sort and how much that's designed to, for example, um game the search ancient technology that might allow you to track the changes because to the extent of the name has shifted so smart I call up the um world health organization pandemic prepared ness right and what is under discussion uh are some modifications to the global public health regulations and modifications to an existing treaty but all of this makes IT sound minor and procedure what has been proposed are uh and again, the number of things included here is incredible.

It's hard even for those of us who have been focused on this track all of the important things under discussion and to reduce the meaning some of the more subtle provisions but um they uh world health organza in its signatory nations will um be allowed to define a public health merchants y on any basis that having declared one, they will be entitled to Mandate remedies the remedies that are named include vaccines a gene therapy technology is literally named in the set of things that the world health organization is gna reserve the right to Mandate, that IT will be in a position to um require these things of citizens, that IT will be in a position to uh dict, our ability to travel, in other words passports. That would be predicated on one having accepted uh, these technologies are um clearly being described IT would have the ability to forbid the use of other medications. So this looks like they're preparing for a run where they can just simply take I reacted hydroxyl lick off the table um. They also have reserved the ability to dictate how these uh, measures are discussed, that censorship is described here as well. The right to dictate that the, of course, this information is how they're .

going to describe IT. Well, in fact, when ask Price and play a sound back from tetro s um in which you lose to this and I want to get your .

assessment of here is we continue to see information on the media and in main three media about the pandemic accord that countries are now negotiating the claim that the accord will see power to W. H. Is quite simply false.

Its big news. Countries will decide what the accord says and countries alone, and countries will implement the accord in line with their own national laws. No country will see any solar unity to w if any politician, business person or anyone at all is confused about what the pandemic accord is and isn't, we would be more than happy to discuss IT and explain IT.

So he's me more than happy to discuss and explain them this information that .

you ah that is now spreading that is comforting um well on the one hand I must have not seen that and um IT is tremendously good news actually what IT means is that once again, we have managed to raise awareness of something in time that there is a conceivably a Better outcome still available to us.

They spoke enough .

to bother why there there's you couldn't set IT a more accurately. Yes, those were clearly lies. And of course, his saying into a camera is supposed to convince you, you know, nobody could possibly lie so directly. So there must be some truth in what he sandwich is, of course, nonsense.

Anybody who goes back to uh map awful as compendium of various things that people have set into cameras over the course of code that they then swear they didn't say you know months later um knows that these folks are very comfortable at saying totally false things into a camera doesn't cause them to to think twice or swear anything um but it's great that we have managed to raise enough awareness that ted ros is actually addressing our spreading of what IT actually is. Is more information aware of this tension? No yeah oh, it's a beautiful .

so I was I was i'm so all that I was still stuck in the truth or falsehood binary yes, where what matter was whether IT was due not no.

no, no. The mall information is actually exactly what you need to know about to see um how antiquated that notion is because um this is actually the department of homeland security actually issued a memo um in which had defined three kinds of I could you not terrorism, mis, mal information misinformation are errors are disinformation are intentional errors lies and mal information are things that are based in truth but caused you to distrust authority so more information is what .

you commit when you catch them lying yes um exactly um .

yeah and IT is discussing the lives of your your government uh is my information and there for a kind of terrorism which I should point out as funny is that is, and as obviously well in as that is, it's also terrifying, because if you have tracked the history of the spreading tyrannic, the beginning of the war on terror, you know that terrorism is not a Normal english word.

The way I once was terrorism is now a legal designation that causes all of your rights to evaporate. So at the point of the department of homeland security says that you are a guilty of a kind of terrorism for saying true things that caused you to distrust your government. They're also telling you something about what rights they have to silence you.

They are not Normal rights. So um these things are all uh, terrifying. And I do think as much .

as my jaws open.

the covet pandemic caused us to become aware of a lot of structures that had been built around us something that um former N. S. A officer William bini once described as the turn key to talith an state.

The totalitarian status is erected around you, but it's not activate. And then once it's built, the key gets turned. And so we are now seeing, I believe, something that even outstrips will amense description because it's the turn key to talith an planet, the world health org ization is above for the level of nations.

And that is going to be in a position if uh, these provisions to dictate to nations how they are to treat their own citizens, to override their constitutions despite what team is just told you. Um so that is um frightening. It's not enhances about health when I think this happened is the fact of a possible pandemic causes a loophole in the mind.

It's not a loophole in our governance dockets. Our constitution doesn't describe no exemptions from your rights during time of a pandemic emergency. You're right. Simply are what they are and they're not supposed to go anywhere just because there's a disease spreading um but nonetheless um people's willingness to accept the erosion of their rights because of a public health emergency um has allowed this tyranny to to use that as a croation horse. yes.

And I think that's also um is something people need to become aware of that uh there are a number of features of our environment that are um basically they are blind spots that we can see. Past vaccine was won and I know I was in an enthusiastic about vaccines. I still believe deeply in the elegance of vaccines as they should exist.

But i'm now very alarmed at how they are produced and I even more alarmed at what has been called a vaccine that doesn't meet the defintion right that because many of us believed that vaccine ines h were an extremely elegant, low harm, high efficacy method of preventing disease when they called the M R N A technology of vaccine, many of us um gave IT more credibility than we should have if they had called IT uh A A gene transaction technology, we would have thought, wait what you know that that that sounds highly novel and that sounds dangerous and how much do we know about the long term implications? But because they call that a vaccine, people were much readily, much more willing to to accept IT public health functions is the same way. If you think about IT public health, step back a second.

Your relationship with your doctor, your personal health, uh, ought to be very important to. But there are ways in which things that happen at a population level affect your personal health and your doctor's is not opposition to do anything about, right? So somebody dumping pollution into a stream from which you're polling fish, you know, you might detect the harm at the population level.

You might need a regulation at a population level in order to protect you, your doctors, not a position review. Appeals are corrected. So the idea that public health is potentially a place to improve all of our well being is real once you decide that there's something above doctors relative to your health than that can be an excuse for all manner of tyranny. Public health has been adopted. It's like, it's like the sheep clothing that has allowed the wolf to go after our rights because infer it's trying to protect us from harms that we would .

like to be to generate such fear. It's is such a huge scale that IT weakens people's moral immune systems, absolutely cept things they would .

never accept of the wise. absolutely. And as you know, and as as I know, when we raised questions about what was being uh being delivered to us under the guys of public health, we were demonised as if we had a moral defect IT wasn't even a cognitive.

The effect where we were fAiling to understand the wisdom of these vaccines that was immoral, the effect where we were fAiling to protect others who were vulnerable by questioning these things. And so the idea that health is at stake in some vague, larger sense that requires us to to override the natural relationship between doctors and patients is itself a cool against medicine by something else. And we need to become aware of that.

So just to check, kind of like the souls of the people who are running all of this, the public health establishment, international public, now that know some researchers believe up to seventy million people could have been killed by these M R N. A shot, has any international public count? Officials said warhol, on a second we need to get to the bottom of that. Is that provoke any response? People in charge for our public hell.

Well, i'm trying to think globally whether they're good examples. There are certainly some folks who have stood up in the european parliament.

but I mean in word health organization cdc.

no, I don't think so. I don't think we not seen an no judged of the harm and error.

Um they don't have internet access. They don't know what is that.

Well, that's the incredible thing is I still see claims um that just simply if they initially had believed them then there are long ago falsified that there are still being advanced for whoever hasn't noticed, you know the idea that is a good idea of X N kids with M R N A shots being one of the right to the extent that there is a panic that caused us to give these are shops to people who couldn't possibly benefit from them, you would expect us to have back that off extremely rapidly as IT became impossible to defend those shots.

And yet because there's still presumably some market for IT, um we are we are still doing IT. So we are living some crazy story in which things that are perfectly obvious are still somehow have not lodging themselves in the official public record. And you know I think that has a lot to do with, Frankly, the death of journalism.

A lot of us are doing jobs we didn't train for either. And I are doing some journalists job that we certainly didn't train for. We trained to think about biology and know we do that in front of a camera.

So that functions as a kind of stand in for journalism about the hand full of journalists who still exist, I think, without exception, are not scientifically trained, right? You know, matt, A B grand Green world, you we don't have very many people doing investigative journalism. And the ones who are who are doing that, they don't have the skill set that would make this a natural topic to investigate.

So we have to boot up some kind of new institution that will allow us to do this job well. And presumably that will involve taking a few investigative journalists who remember how to do that job and the few scientists and doctors who are willing to still do their job. And you know put us together right.

Podcast isn't the right place to do IT. If that's all we got, that's all we got. But um there's got to be a Better a Better method.

So if this is ratified to sign on to body nine states in may for six months from now um that sounds like get IT we .

don't know. Um I will say I have very little hope that the U. S. Will derail us. I have the sense that whatever has captured. Our government um is driving this as well and so in fact, uh the U S. Wants this change.

IT will in fact you know in the same way that the five eyes nations agreed to mutually violate the rights of each other citizens because that was not prevented in any of our constitutions. I think the U. S. Wants something to force IT to violate our constitutional protections. And the world health organization is going to be that entity.

That said, I have recently been to the check republic, and i've been to romania, and i've heard from other parts of the former eastern walk that there is resistance that people who have faced tyranny in living memory um are much less ready to accept these changes and that they are actually beginning to to mount a response. I worry that IT will be too thin and easily defeated, especially if they do not understand that actually the world is, depending on them, the traditionally the countries we traditionally think of as part of the west are compromise, ed. And that these countries which have more recently joined or rejoined the west are the best hope we've got that they are in a position to derail um this set of provisions and that we are depending on them to do this.

So I I I just want to end for few moments on your on the overview here. So you have always remarkable things converging in a single twelve month period of war, pestilence, political unrest, apparently unsolvable political unrest. What do you think we're looking at in the west? Like what is this moment and how does IT?

And well, so I have long been interested in questions of good governance and the west, and i'm sad to report that I think the west has actually collapsed and what we are left with is now and nebula echo, the values of the west still function, but they function um in a vae way. And we have seen that they can evaporate quickly under the right circumstance.

Ces, um I suspect, and I really don't know, I don't think anybody know, but I suspect that some powerful set of forces has decided that consent of the government is too dangerous to tolerate and that IT has begun to unhook IT. And we do not know how this works. We can see some of the partners who are involved in this, but I don't think we know ultimately whose driving IT or where they're going.

I think many of the notions that we picked up about, uh, nations and who are friends are and who are enemies are are a, they are now were misleading and they are informative in other risk. A, I don't think the U. S.

Has an enemy called china. I think there are elements within the U. S. That are partner within with elements within the chinese communist party for practical reasons.

And so are you know the the notion that these uh two parties are competing with each other distract us from what's actually taking place. but. Let's just put in this way, we have a large global population. Most people have no useful role through no fault of their own. They have not been given A, A, an opportunity in life to find a useful way to contribute.

And I wonder if the rent seeking elites that have hoarded so much power are not unhooking our rights because effectively they're afraid of some global french revolution moment as people realized that they've been betrayed and left without good options. Is that what we're seeing certainly feels like we're facing um an end game where important uh properties that would once have been preserved by all parties because they might need them monday are now being dispensed with them. We're being um and we're watching our governmental structures and every one of our institutions captured, hollowed out, turned into A A paradoxically inversion of what I was designed to do. It's not an accident whether they are you know the thing that worries me most actually is that whatever is driving this is not composed of diabolical genius who at least have some planned for the future, but it's being driven by people who actually do not know what kind of hell they are inviting.

Yes.

they are going to create a kind of chaos from which uh humanity may well not emerge. And I get the sensitive um unless they have some remarkable plan that is not obvious that they are just simply drunk with power and putting everyone, including themselves in tremendous jeopardy by taking apart the structures on which we depend.

How do you see my last question? How do you see you I mean you you're speaking in in grand terms that three years ago I I might have laughed and not laughing at all and I think you're absolutely right um but you're also choosing as you know a fifty ash man, your old man, to say this stuff out loud and to pursue the truth as you find IT and then to talk about IT like so how do you why did you decide to do that? And how do you think that ends well?

You know, we are all the products of whatever development environment produced us. And as i've said on multiple topics where my family has found itself in very uncomfortable and sometimes dangerous circumstances, because we speak out, I don't think I had a choice, and just, I literally cannot understand how I would sleep at night, how I would look at myself in the mirror if I didn't say what needed to be said.

And you know, I heard of a very good speech by by by Kennedy june, or though neither rest or libertarians, he was at the liberty conference in in memphis. And the last thing he said in that speech and struck me to my core, something. I've thought often and said almost never, but there are fates far worse than death.

And I think for my part, I have, I have lived an incredible wife. I have there plenty I still want to do. And I am not eager to leave this planet any earlier than I have to.

I have a marvel family. I live a wonderful place. And i've got lots of things, bucket list. I got lots of things on my bucket list. However, humanity is, depending on everybody who has a position from which to see what is taking place, to grapple with what you might mean to describe IT so that the public understands where their interest are. IT is depending on us to do what needs to be done.

If we're to have a chance of delivering A A planet to our children and our grandchildren that is worthy of them, if we're going to deliver a system that allows them to live meaningful, healthy lines, we have to speak up. And I don't know. I don't know how to get people to do that.

I am very hesitant to urge others to put themselves or their families in danger. And I know that everybody, the circumstances are different. Some people are struggling just simply to feed a family and keep roof over their heads.

Those people obviously have a great deal less liberty with respect to standing up and saying what needs to be said. But this is really is what we call in game theory, a collective action problem. If everybody responds to their personal well being, if everybody says it's too dangerous to stand up, you know, i'm not suicide, I I can't do IT, then not enough people stand up to change the course of history.

Whereas if people somehow put a side the obvious danger to their ability to earn and maybe to their lives of saying what needs to be said, then we greatly outnumber those we are pitted against. They are ferociously powerful. But I would also point out this interesting error.

So I call the force that we're up against the gliff. Just so I I remember what the battle is. Gay has made a terrible mistake, and he had made IT most degree's sly during of IT, which is IT took all of the competent people, took all of the courageous people, and IT showed them out of the institutions where they were hanging on.

And IT created. In so doing, the dream team created every player you could possibly want on your team to fight some historic battle against a terrible evil. All of those people are now at least somewhat awake.

They've now been picked on by the same enemy. And yeah, all right, we're out gone. IT has a tremendous amount of power, but but we've got all of the people who know how to think. So I hate to say IT or maybe I like to say that, but I don't think it's a slam dunk. But I like our odds.

I've never met more fluent biologist. I great. What that amazing conversation.

Thank you for that. Thank you for you. action.