you
I love the merch.
Love it all.
But listen, I just wanted to say I was honored to be asked to come to the White House to meet the President.
the most legislative successful president in my lifetime.
And, you know, I don't have to go through the list of bipartisan infrastructure, law, the PACT Act, the CHIPS Act, all that, inflation, 15 million jobs.
Look, it's all good.
I mean, I was really thrilled to meet the entire staff, because you know, it's not just one person.
It's like a composite endeavor.
And all these people, my goodness, you know, I mean, I have no idea
I had no idea just what went into what is on his plate on a daily basis.
So that's pretty much it.
I'm open to questions, although no Star Wars questions, please.
But I want to say once again how grateful I am.
And it just shows you that one person can be so influential and so positive in our lives.
The next thing that I want to say is our lack of biological knowledge and the general poor health of America, of the American people, is being used to create the crisis they need to divide and conquer us, to ruin
Maybe America, I don't know, crash the dollar, I don't know, steal the rest of our, what limited treasury value we have left, I don't know.
But I know for sure that they are combining our lack of biological knowledge and our general society's lack of good health and access to healthcare to create a crisis to usher in all kinds of changes that would otherwise never be necessary and more importantly, never be possible.
If you think about it, you know, if we're defining vaccine really liberally, and these COVID vaccines are vaccines, the flu vaccine is vaccine, okay.
But actually, they're kind of cheating when they're calling these things vaccines.
And, you know, anything with really rapidly fading efficacy, such that you need shots within a year, you know, Canada's saying nine months, is as actually J.J.
Cooey's insistence, and I think he's right, on calling them transfections rather than vaccines.
By and by, girl, we'll get over the things we've done and the things we've said.
But not just now, girl, when I can't remember exactly what it was we thought we had.
It's been so long, girl, and I came so far.
I see that you're not always who you say you are.
And there's a star in the book of lies by your name.
There's a star in the book of lies.
Santa Claus came home late last night, drunk on Christmas wine.
He fell down hard out in the driveway and hung his back out on the lawn.
Ž And there's a hello kitty for his pride and joy Ž Ž And a silver star and a book of liars by her name Ž Ž They hung a star and a book of liars Ž
Exploding with a long night passing Electrons dancing in a frozen crystal dome Here's one left stranded at the zero crossing With a hole of his half-life left to carry on And the world's much larger than it looks today And if my bad luck ever blows me back
Ž Well I just look in my book of liars for your name Ž Ž Ž Well you know I'm just gonna look in the book of liars for your name Ž Ž Ž
He's scheduled for 60 minutes next.
He's going on French, British, Italian, Japanese television.
People everywhere are starting to listen to him.
It's embarrassing.
Here we go.
It is another attempt at the cycle.
Trying very hard to be here as often as I can.
This weekend was an unmitigated disaster.
Staying focused on the biology, not taking the bait on social media and loving our neighbors is what we're trying to do.
It is a difficult task and especially when faced with
all of this immunomythology and all the people promoting it.
Sorry about that, that was a little loud.
And so that's where we are, still trying to fight this basic mythology about RNA viruses that can go around the world with high fidelity for five years.
And we are still trying to take back the power from the charlatans that we inherited from our parents.
Not just these people that were on the TV, but of course, also these people on social media.
It is a much, much more tangled web than any of us ever imagined.
And you can forgive yourself for being so naive.
Intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Transfection in healthy humans was always criminally negligent and RNA
pandemic because viruses are not pattern integrities.
The mystery virus doesn't equal excess deaths because again, it is a long list of lies and misdirection that has resulted in essentially murder and lies.
Financial incentives, all kinds of weird curated narratives.
that have made it very difficult for the lack of epidemiological evidence to get out as common knowledge.
Very difficult for the concept of strict liability being returned to all pharmaceutical products.
Difficult to get that idea out there.
And the idea that a lot of these laws and what they support are essentially a Seventh Amendment violation.
There's a little bit of jurisdiction stripping.
Nobody's talking about these things.
Because again, it's murder and lies they're trying to cover up.
And they're willing to do it because the vaccine schedule in America has always been criminally negligent.
And not only that, but what?
Transfection in healthy humans was criminally negligent at the start of the pandemic.
And a lot more academic biologists should have known better.
And RNA cannot pandemic.
That's also something that a lot of
A lot of these people should have done known better, and I'm starting to become skeptical of an awful lot of them.
As you know, that's what I'm famous for.
I don't believe anybody.
And the reason why I don't think that's a very bad strategy is because if we're all working toward the same goals, then not believing everybody isn't going to hurt us very much.
But if we are indeed not working toward the same goals, then surrendering action to these people and thinking that retweeting them is enough is a gigantic mistake.
A gigantic mistake.
And I believe, honestly, that that is what social media did to all of us, and me especially, and my own experience, because I engaged in this fight with Drastic and this argument on Twitter early on in 2020, and I got sucked into that debate, and that's why I found myself in contact with so many of these people above my head.
because they were part of this narrative control, this fifth generation warfare, wittingly or unwittingly, these people are still forwarding the faith in a novel virus that killed millions, that millions more were saved from, but will definitely come again because gain of function is real.
And that is a limited spectrum of debate under which we are starting to become enslaved.
And this is a new kind of totalitarianism where we have theater that we think is real and behind the scenes we are just ruled by a set of technocrats and oligarchs.
And the people on social media are nothing more than a trained set of acolytes
that know very well what they can talk about and what they can't talk about.
And the reason why I've had so much contact with these people is because each one of their little teams has been sent over to me over the last four and a half to five years to try and get me to accept a limited spectrum of debate, to accept a artificial focus on one particular aspect of the story, and then to try and make me famous for that little tiny aspect of the story
that little team, join our team, join this team, join this steering committee, join as a staff scientist, help me be a consultant for me.
And all of this was part of this never-ending, let's say, attempt to try and get the truth hidden, to try to get me to participate in this, to get in a hamster wheel and start running.
And I believe with all of my heart and soul that that's what this, this rescue the Republic nonsense and this whole idea that Bobby Kennedy is joining the Trump administration to create some kind of unity party, according to Brett Weinstein.
And so I implore you.
I implore you.
We must start to consider the possibility that these people and their controllers have been aware and preparing for this event for decades.
And the reason why they would be able to prepare for this event is because the population pyramid established or changed by the success and
what do you call it, prosperity that came after World War II.
There was a period of time in America where families were large and also that people survived until old age.
And the amount of people that are surviving to old age now is ever increasing.
It's almost impossible to die in our Western medical system.
There are many, many ways to extend life.
And so as a consequence of these two forces combining around 2017, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, there was an anticipated, for decades, an anticipated increase in all cause mortality that these people wanted to use to get rid of nation states and to invert our individual sovereignty into some kind of neocommunism.
And it is my belief that these people, years before the pandemic, established narratives and established people's credentials so that they could move as chess pawns into position to take control of a narrative that would eventually be an effect and a schism that would occur
in the mental connection between people all around in the Western world, especially English-speaking countries, the ones most vulnerable to this type of manipulation.
And social media, unlike ever before, has been used to do this.
And that's the reason why the lockdowns were so important, is to get everybody to turn to their screens and turn to social media for the truth.
That's the reason why so many of these people were convinced very early on that Twitter was the town square.
and that it was being censored, and that we need Elon Musk to come and buy Twitter to free the town square, to restore free speech.
This is a lie.
This is wrong.
This is the theater, and that's the reason why you should be able to see by now, if we have any hope, that these people are part of an elaborate performance.
And it is extremely difficult for young people to see it because of the fact that they've only started engaging in this adult dialogue in the past four or five years.
Those adults are the ones that are most susceptible to the manipulation that social media represents because they still believe wholeheartedly in the chair and then the joystick and in the goggles.
They think they're fighting the empire.
and that people go viral because, you know, they have good ideas and stuff.
And so I implore you to understand the truth that these weaponized piles of money have been organizing this for decades and have been organizing the control of the narrative for at least three or four years before the pandemic, because they understood how important it would be.
And that's why you can see that discussion in a microcosm and even to vent 201, where these bureaucrats are discussing how the control of the narrative was so important.
You can go back to see Mark Von Rahn say that, you know, day one,
You have to have a unified message.
And so participating in their unified argument, their limited spectrum of debate, reinforces that narrative of a novel virus, a continuous danger from laboratories and from bat caves.
And they all agree on it.
All of these people agree on it.
Robert Malone agrees that it's as dangerous as Tony Fauci.
Actually, Tony Fauci thinks it's less dangerous.
than Robert Malone.
Robert Malone believes that an undergraduate with the right orders on eBay could assemble the equipment and skills to produce a gain-of-function virus in their garage and endanger billions of people on the planet.
And so make no mistake about it.
The people that are now entering the Trump administration under the guise of, of, uh, or, or while holding Bobby Kennedy's coattails are all people who believe that the novel virus, if it wasn't bad, this time could be bad next time.
Jessica Rose, Meryl Nass, Mary Holland, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
As far as I can tell, Robert Malone,
Peter McCullough, I can't name anyone that doesn't believe in that unless they believe in nothing.
And then they're not on that team.
Those people are not going to get into the Trump administration.
And so essentially what you can see is that if this were to all go toward the red side of the narrative, we would have Trump in the white house with a bunch of people who believe in gain of function viruses as his kind of health and science advisors.
And the terrifying thing for me is that
that that book exists, that that book written by Jesse Ventura exists, that there's a chapter 13 where some president gets killed and we're left with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
as president.
Now, the funny thing about that chapter, of course, is that in that chapter, it's Jesse, the body Ventura, running for president and RFK as his vice president.
And so then Jesse gets assassinated and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
saves America as he ascends to the White House.
Now, the weird part about that is, is that actually from the perspective of the, hold on a minute.
From the perspective of the national security state, you must understand that vice president, unless given by executive order or decree, some special powers, it would be much more dangerous to have somebody like Robert Malone or Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
or Jay Bhattacharya in a position like, let's say, the head of the FDA or even worse, health and human services secretary or director of NIH.
Now, I don't have any short lists for the people who do qualify for those places, but I do think that I would be a pretty decent person to evaluate some of these potential candidates for their integrity and for their biological background and for what sort of idea set forms the foundation for what they believe.
And we could weed out people who believe in gain-of-function viruses and believe in this narrative that the biosecurity state is needed and necessary because Mother Nature herself is a danger, never mind the laboratories.
And this is an illusion.
And a couple of days ago, we talked about Kevin Esvelt at the end of the study hall.
And that guy is one of the greatest examples of how this is an illusion because his technology, much more dangerous
We don't even talk about that.
We don't have any Senate hearings about that for four years now.
Instead, we used him as a witness.
And so the horrible thing is to realize that we've been governed this way for a long time.
And it includes a lot of these mythologies about the Middle East, and about Ukraine, and about the EU, and about currencies, and about oil prices, and peak oil.
These are all mythologies that they have been in control of.
Some are true, some are false, and they all get mixed together, and so it's very difficult
to sort out what the truth is.
And that's what I think is so beautiful about biology, because biology and science and empirical observation and knowledge, once you see
the ways that these people have over the generations have contorted our knowledge base and engaged in this manufacture of false knowledge or this ritualistic production of knowledge, but it's not knowledge and it's not science, it's just data collection and even worse, it's probably very sloppy and non-reproducible data collection.
And these mythologies are what our kids are gonna be trapped in if only thing we can say is that there was something, something happened.
It was a really strange thing.
I know I had something strange.
We're really going to be in big trouble.
Ladies and gentlemen, who are you talking to?
You're talking to an academic biologist.
I tried to be an academic biologist and a tenured professor.
I gave a lot of my life energy to that idea and that career.
I dragged my wife around the world for that.
And that's how we ended up in Pittsburgh.
Gigalom Biologicals derived from that name.
You can look me up on PubMed and find
the work that I've done under my last name c-o-u-e-y with two j's and then just look for the author list there.
I think a better thing to consider is how many people have interacted with me over the last four years, how many people have tried to get me to follow one narrative or another, how many people have gotten together in groups to try and oppose some weird side story of my biology instead of addressing the main points of every stream.
That's really where we are.
I don't know why I use those slides.
I think I have those same slides lined up again.
We're doing Holland, Offutt, and Weinstein, put in place.
Sorry, I wanted to go back to that.
Put in place is all one word, but what I mean by put in place is put in place.
They were put in place.
All of these people were put in place.
And you have, I think that the challenge here is to be open to the idea that people were put in place years before the pandemic.
And not only because there were certain narratives that needed control, but because the internet was expanding.
The amount of content being created was expanding.
They couldn't leave that as a wilderness and a frontier uncontrolled.
And so they needed people to be there.
The military knew that, the government knew that.
That's why there were people like Soph.
That's why there were people like Alex Jones.
That's why there were people on this alternate internet on Bitchute and Rumble and all these other places that were, the weirdos on YouTube that got canceled.
Those are all real people that were before the pandemic, very, very busy.
I mean, even the Amazing Polly was very, very busy before the pandemic.
And her videos, Amazing Polly's videos are really interesting before the pandemic.
I should have looked that way.
Hey, how are you?
I just find it extraordinary.
I think most of these people were put in place.
And that's how you can see them.
There's no other explanation for why they would have been there and what they were doing at the time.
I think Polly is one of the best examples of that.
Just do some research and find out what she was talking about before the pandemic and how she was talking about it.
What voices was she using and that kind of thing.
Because all of these people reveal themselves once you look at what they were doing before 2020 or during 2020.
That's why I've been trying to emphasize that the real mystery here is how these all people are linked together, because the only people who see any of these people are people who genuinely question the TV narrative that is being curated on the nightly news and on Facebook.
And so that's the thing to remember.
Of all the people in the world, a very tiny fraction of the people know who any of these people are.
If you go to a random Thanksgiving dinner and open with any of these names, most of the people won't know who they are because they just watch television.
They just read what Facebook puts in front of them if they have time for that even.
And so this work that we've been doing over the last four years has been largely in a bubble, in a bubble that we thought was connected to the rest of this, but it wasn't.
And it wasn't because the only people that we even saw get close to getting out were these falsely or artificially amplified voices.
And that's why we're here now with an illusion of consensus that all of these people continue to sustain from Claire Craig to Kevin McKernan.
But Kevin McKernan is not on Tucker Carlson.
Claire Craig hasn't been on Tucker Carlson yet.
They probably won't be.
I mean,
George Webb, you know, he's been on 60 Minutes.
Jessica Rose, she'll never be on Tucker Carlson because her role in this is extremely dangerous.
If you look back at her funding of some of her postdocs, she's just a NATO scientist.
She's funded by NATO grants.
And so I can only see her as military, right?
And so she's Canadian, Israeli, NATO virologist.
And that's just her resume.
Her first few scientific papers are making models for virology papers.
And even one of them, I think, is about HIV.
It's kind of sad, really, when we realize that because of the nature of the pandemic and how they did it, it was hard to question anyone.
I would have never dreamed of questioning Jessica Rose in 2020 or 2021.
Never dreamed of questioning Pierre Kory in 2020.
And I certainly would have never dreamed of questioning Paul Cottrell because I was streaming with him for five weeks in the beginning of the pandemic.
And he seemed to know what he was talking about, about all kinds of immunology and stuff.
I mean, I was confused about how he got all of his information and why he was so confident about it.
I actually missed it until very much later that he was actually streaming with Robert Malone, right sort of practicing Robert Malone's shtick before Robert Malone went on on Bret Weinstein's podcast.
So I think that it's so important for us to have the courage to admit that we were wrong, a courage to admit that we maybe were fooled by lots of people.
And those people are continuing to fool many people today.
And you can see them because they don't talk about these very simple points.
I don't need the credit.
If Jessica Rose would start by writing a substack about why intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is not always dumb, and use her lifelong expertise in immunology and computational biology and virology and biostatistics to show why sometimes it's okay to inject a combination of substances to augment the immune system, but she won't,
Neither will Robert Malone, neither will Merrill Nass.
And they won't explain to you what transfection is and why it would have been appropriate to call the COVID countermeasures transfections from 2020.
They're certainly not going to say, well, viruses are not pattern integrity.
It doesn't make any sense to me.
I don't understand what Jonathan Cooley is talking about because it can be simplified to RNA cannot pandemic.
The fact of the matter is, ladies and gentlemen, all of these people could say, Jonathan Cooey is a real shithead and he keeps shooting himself in the foot with his attitude.
But man, oh man, are these three points so important for everybody to know?
And he's totally right about it.
Any one of these points being right would be a reason for somebody to at least say, at least he's got it right.
One no virus person could say, I really liked the way that Jonathan Cooey says it with the RNA cannot pandemic.
That's really clever.
You know, they stole the mythology from me that gain of function is a mythology.
The Bailey's stole that from me.
I was using that for months and months before that.
Not, not very dissimilar to how Jay Bhattacharya started a blog with a Canadian that Brett Weinstein introduced to us.
And that blog was called the illusion of consensus.
And I was already using that on my stream.
And Jay Bhattacharya is a friend of mine, or at least he says he is.
I've seen the alien, ladies and gentlemen.
I assure you, I've seen the alien.
And one of the things they really don't want you to talk about is the population pyramid and the expected rise in excess all cause mortality because of these old people.
And it's not really excess deaths if we just expected more old people to die.
So I haven't been as semantically precise as I should have.
There was a,
an expected increase in all cause mortality that was going to happen because we have a lot of old people from the big families after World War II.
And this phenomenon that was going to happen was known for decades because they were afraid it was going to bankrupt the United States and its social security system because Medicare and Medicaid is about half of the annual budget.
And that's why Tony Fauci in 2017 could tell you that there was going to be a challenge and that this was going to happen, because they knew that all cause mortality was going to increase.
And they knew it was an opportunity to tell you a story, to teach our children a mythology about infectious disease and how vaccines and even the new ones are better, have saved us countless lives.
You can watch that bump go up.
You can look at the people retiring.
You can see the phenomenon.
And I'm arguing that these people would have even hidden it.
They know it.
They know it for sure.
And so that's why you can see and even just look at Jimmy Dore and see what he's covered and over what time he's been exposed.
It's been titrated over years.
The truth has been titrated by these people, by an orchestrated group of people that knows what to say and when to say it, when it's okay, because this biology was available at the end of 2020, for sure.
The objection to transfection was known to that group of people at the end of 2020 coming from me.
Because that's when I was already talking to Brett Weinstein and Signal.
Alexandros Marinos knows it.
Chris Martinson knows it.
Matt Crawford knows it.
Roller Gator knows it.
Heather Haying knows it.
Those were the people that were in that at the beginning.
There's a couple others.
I can't remember their names.
They weren't too consequential.
So, you know, Robert Malone coming out in 2021 is interesting.
What he was doing in 2020 is really more interesting.
I think what everybody was doing in 2020 is the most interesting because in 2020 is when I was doing my bike rides and I was being, uh,
sort of manipulated by this group of international meddlers on Twitter called drastic.
And we were being manipulated into believing that Twitter was being censored unfairly and controlling the narrative.
And so we should fight against it.
And at that same time, people like Claire Craig, and Kevin McKernan, and Paul Cottrell, and James Lyons-Weiler, and Kevin McCairn, and Yuri Dagan, who got on the Brent Weinstein show in 2020, and George Webb.
They're all very busy.
George Webb got on 60 Minutes, right?
And so I found it very interesting that in April before the pandemic, we have James Lyons Weiler, one of the standard bearers for CHD.
At every conference, he gets multiple stage presence and gets to plug his own IPAC thing.
He says that vaccines have hurt a subset of genetically vulnerable people that can only be identified by canvassing the population.
And he says vaccine-preventable diseases spread asymptomatically among the vaccinated, an interesting phenomenon.
to bring up a few months before the pandemic of a largely asymptomatically transmitting coronavirus, don't you think?
Of course, it's even more curious that this guy is on a podcast talking to an Australian about how the Americas are screwing it up because they're not using the WHO PCR test, that in a few months would be called lame by Mike Eden, Thomas Binder, Kevin McKernan, uh,
and Claire Craig.
So Kevin McKernan and Claire Craig, two geneticists that work on sampling people, work on trying to find genomic markers.
Kevin McKernan's been working on that since he was like a teenager.
It's interesting, right, that the other thing is, is that he knew about the fear and cleavage site and knew that it would make it a lab virus.
That's an exceedingly odd thing for somebody who was a anti-vaccine, sort of pseudo anti-vaccine advocate before the pandemic.
He's also kind of an expert on the short sequences that you can add to an RNA to make it pandemic potential.
Lion!
And once you see that this person is central to CHD, once you see that CHD and Mary Holland have been promoting this guy consistently since they were brought together, since Mary Holland entered CHD, this guy has been central to CHD.
He's been at every conference, on stage, every time as their expert.
Now, what's really curious about this, of course, is that the CHD has also promoted Kevin McKernan because he says there's DNA contamination.
And Kevin McKernan and Claire Craig were authors on this Corman-Jorston report in December of 2020 or November of 2020.
where they objected to the WHO PCR test, where they said it wasn't very good, that it caused primer dimers, and they roped in Thomas Binder and Mike Yeadon on this paper.
And so it seemed like a united front that agreed that PCR would work, but just not the one described by Corman and Jorstin, which is a strange position to take
but not inconsistent because if you go to my website and to the Batcave channel, you can find three videos from 2020 where Kevin McKernan explains how PCR works, why it's so useful, why he thinks he needs to test weed for SARS-2 to be sure that it's not spreading via the cannabis.
And all of this is real biology to him in 2020.
That's how you know he's a liar.
because he's in place early on in 2020 to tell you that PCR works for detecting a novel virus, but it's probably not as novel as Tony says.
And I'm testing the weed for SARS-CoV-2.
If you haven't learned enough biology to understand how absurd it would be for him to be testing weed for SARS-CoV-2.
then make sure you wash your hands and wear a mask when you go out in the woods because all the white-tailed deer have it too.
And the white-tailed deer story is maybe several orders of magnitude more plausible than testing weed for SARS-CoV-2 to avoid it contaminating in the supply chain.
Stop lying!
And so the only way to explain why this clown has been performing for four years straight is because his father was in the same system that he is a part of.
His father worked on microarray technologies, which was a central technology to the Human Genome Project, which at the time was the Department of Energy, which is as close to DITRA as you can be without actually wearing a badge.
Maybe some of the contractors that work for the Human Genome Project also were contracted through DITRA.
Wouldn't that be interesting?
And so Claire Craig at the beginning of the pandemic in 2021, when she finally pulled her head out and objected to something, was of course a clinical pathologist, a geneticist.
It says right here behind my head, AI optimist, but skeptic, a skeptic, but optimist and a data lover.
PCR testing is a set of trade-offs akin to one can,
to one can understand the trade-offs of restaurant food.
PCR is a set of trade-offs akin to one.
Akin to how, sorry.
Akin to how one can understand, ah, I gotta write one in there, sorry.
akin to how one can understand trade-offs.
So she talked about how you get accuracy and it's expensive, or you save money and it's not so accurate, or you test a lot.
But she made that comparison with food, right?
Good food is expensive, or it's fast, or it's cheap.
And that was legit.
She's considered legit.
She's the head of the e-dissidence organization in the UK and promoted by all of the panda people.
She can be she has her own book.
They're all part of the same show, ladies and gentlemen, it is a controlled demolition of America.
It is team Malone is the best I can describe it because he's a red thread through all these people, especially from the perspective of the ideas that these people push.
We can go back to 2017.
And you want and you can see that he was involved in all of this.
Speaking at the who
brokering vaccine fill and finish technologies, advocating for Arbovirus vaccines here in this video, also Zika virus, and he brokered the Ebola vaccine that was bought by Merck.
The list is endless why this horse farmer extraordinaire
Rich man north of Richmond is not coming to our rescue, but as part of the show.
He is the fifth generation warfare that he's writing a book about.
He is that fifth generation warfare.
And his book is a manifestation of it.
And once you see it for what it is, then we enter a very extraordinary time because Donald Trump needs to understand this, that it is possible, the most optimistic
The most optimistic I can be is that Bobby has been fooled by all these people since he was 14 years old.
That people like Jeffrey Sachs have been lying to him since he was 14 years old.
The alternative is, of course, they recruited him a long time ago and he's been read in a long time ago on limited things that needed to be done.
And one of the things he was read in was, hey, we got all these autism moms.
They're starting to organize.
We might need you to help us.
I don't know.
But the most optimistic appraisal would be that he's just been fooled by all these people, that he gets bombarded with this stuff every day for a very long time.
And as his bear story told you, he's very manipulatable.
He's very influenceable.
So if somebody or lots of people told him that this guy, you know, that you had in your book, he's an idiot.
Well, he might believe him.
Even if the idea is just so simple that transfection and transformation using synthetic DNA and RNA is what they misconstrue as virology nowadays, and he knows it, and David Baltimore knows it, and Vincent Racaniello knows it, and Tony Fauci knows it, well, you know, whatever.
And it comes down to the cuckoo clock analogy, of course.
It comes down to whether you can make cells do something that they don't already do.
So, remember, Mary Holland, back in 2015, was on Democracy Now!
complaining about...
selling her book.
Sorry, I forgot.
She's selling her book, The Vaccine Epidemic.
She's a law professor.
She's a mother of an affected child.
And she says that the MMR vaccine or some components of it, as well as a potential genetic predisposition could explain her son's condition.
but it's so temporally related to the vaccine that it has to be the MMR shot.
Very, very, very similar to Polly and the story of Wakefield's paper that got retracted.
It's all the same.
It's MMR.
It's a component of the vaccines.
You can advocate for single vaccines instead of triple vaccines.
But none of these people will ever approach the possibility that the lack of strict liability has led to an essentially criminally untested vaccine schedule that has never proven its worth.
And adding shots to the schedule is is is there's almost no mechanism to prevent unnecessary shots for being added to the schedule.
None of these people.
And look where we
are.
This is 2015.
We are now nearly 10 years in the future.
And we are nearly five years after a healthcare disaster debacle, where these people, with three years of preparation, two major movies,
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
as their spokesperson.
And at the start of the crisis, they were not able to even score a field goal on vaccines.
Not even score a field goal on the previously existing, already known to be injurious
Vaccine schedule in America already could be shown to be ridiculous in comparison to other countries.
And yet for some reason or another, people that were around in 2015, at the start of the pandemic, they already had movies.
They were unable to score a field goal in 2020.
They were unable to score a field goal in 2021 even.
And to this day, the best thing that Mary Holland has ever done is support Meryl Nass in her fight to keep her license or some stuff for prescribing ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine or who knows what.
Now, why is this important?
because I'm trying to challenge my viewers and those people here for the first time to consider the possibility that in order for this population pyramid attribute, this known and expected increase in all cause mortality, that would not be excess because these people are expected to die, but there's just more of them.
that this was going to be used by the biosecurity state headed by Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci to orchestrate a pandemic.
And in order to do that, they needed people in place, leaders in place that could control
the dissident narrative, the opposition to that, and make sure that the limited spectrum of debate would be about lockdowns, would be about repurposed drugs, would be about drugs that can work but are being blocked by the FDA, about who lied about what, about the deletion of databases, about whether it's natural or a lab leak.
And if this was gonna work, ladies and gentlemen, they had decades.
And the internet was growing.
And so you can go back and you can see how these teams are put in place and how their reputations are built and how these not grassroots but very artificial rise to prominence is scripted.
There's no other way to explain why this law professor, after a decade, is still unable to enunciate it clearly.
We just need to restore strict liability to the vaccine schedule and a lot of these problems will go away.
There is no other explanation for 10 years of incompetence.
I have been able to make progress in my understanding
between getting fired from CHD and now that is orders of magnitude.
We could have saved, they could have saved countless lives.
The vaccine schedule would have already been under scrutiny.
Any possibility of a mandate would have been out of the water had they meaningfully pushed the ball forward with Vax or Vax2.
They had all of that stuff in 2020.
They could have just re-released it.
But instead, what did they do?
CHD promoted the videos of Mickey Willis, collaborator of Judy Mikovits, Robert Malone, and all of these intellectual dark web people that are not all on American TV.
A lot of them go to Australia and on Great Britain television.
But they're all in Mickey Willis' videos.
They're all American meddlers.
We are being set up for the rest of the world to blame us for this.
We are being set up.
I don't know what just unconnected there.
That was a little weird.
So let's listen to the first segment of this because I think it's really insightful.
This is still 2015.
If you want to see it, you can look back at a previous episode where I'm talking about Mary Holland.
You can see the first segment with her.
It's actually the second segment.
And so this is the very first segment.
I think you'll find it insightful.
And this is especially for the young people that we
inadvertently threw under the bus in 2020, when we should have told you unequivocally, don't go back to college, don't listen to these fools, take the year off and do something constructive, build something in your community, form a club, something.
You need to see that this debate and the limited spectrum of it
has not changed in a decade.
And that cannot be explained by natural progression of ideas.
That can only be explained because people were put in place to make sure that we would titrate our way to the truth and that the truth could be used to distort the effects of a population bump that was going to increase all cause mortality for more than a decade and make a story about how public health saved us.
And it would require planning, preparation, and people being put in place.
This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report.
I'm Amy Goodman.
And I'm Nermeen Shaikh.
Welcome to our listeners and viewers around the country and around the world.
The federal government has confirmed over 100 people across 14 states have now developed measles.
Public health officials suspect the outbreak, which is concentrated in California, began when an infected person visited Disneyland in Anaheim in December.
On Wednesday, Dr. Jeffrey Gunzenhauser, Los Angeles County's interim health officer, updated reporters on the outbreak.
The outbreak of measles that we're currently experiencing is the largest that we've had in this county and in this state in 15 years.
Public health is doing all we can to identify cases and to isolate contacts so as to prevent spread.
However, to end this outbreak we need to do more and we need help.
I encourage everyone to review their vaccination status and if needed to get the vaccine now.
Fifteen years ago, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention proclaimed victory over measles.
But in recent years, there's been an increase in outbreaks, as a growing number of parents have opted not to have their children vaccinated, claiming a link between vaccines and autism.
The prestigious medical journal Lancet published a study in 1998 showing such a link, but the study was later retracted and has been widely discredited.
According to the CDC, one in 12 children born in the United States is not being vaccinated as recommended.
On Wednesday, two California lawmakers announced a bill to eliminate, quote, personal belief exemptions that allow parents to refuse to vaccinate their children.
The state has allowed such exemptions since 1961, when it first required all public school teachers and students to be inoculated against polio.
But since 2000, the rate of parents seeking exemptions has tripled to about one in every 40 children.
Meanwhile, Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer asked state health officials to go further and eliminate, quote, religious exemptions.
Several potential Republican presidential candidates have also weighed in on the debate.
On Monday, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, an ophthalmologist, said he'd heard of instances where vaccines caused mental disorders.
The hepatitis B vaccine is now given to newborns.
We sometimes give five and six vaccines all at one time.
I chose to have mine delayed.
I don't want the government telling me that I have to give my newborn hepatitis B vaccine, which is transmitted by sexually transmitted disease and or blood transfusions.
Do I think it's ultimately a good idea?
Yeah.
And so I had mine staggered over several months.
I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines.
I'm not arguing vaccines are a bad idea.
I think they're a good thing, but I think the parents should have some input.
The state doesn't own your children.
Parents own the children and it is an issue of freedom.
So ownership of children is something we should debate and vaccines are great.
And it's this guy.
I don't know.
Did he have any role in the narrative in the Scooby-Doo?
Did he have any role in it?
I don't know.
I can't remember anymore.
That's Senator Rand Paul on Monday.
Since then, he's backtracked on his comments.
On Tuesday, he was photographed receiving a hepatitis A booster shot at the Capitol to show his support for vaccinations.
But Senator Paul has deep ties to vaccine skeptics.
For 20 years, he was a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, which has backed a moratorium on vaccine mandates.
Meanwhile, another possible Republican presidential candidate, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, was questioned about vaccines during his trip to England.
Do you think Americans should vaccinate their kids?
Is the measles vaccine safe?
All I can say is that we vaccinate ours.
And so, you know, that's the best expression I can give you, my opinion.
You know, it's much more important, I think, what you think as a parent than what you think as a public official.
What I said was that there has to be a balance, and it depends on what the vaccine is, what the disease type is, and all the rest.
And so I didn't say I'm leaving people the option.
What I'm saying is that you have to have that balance in considering parental concerns.
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's spokesman later said the governor believes kids should be vaccinated against measles.
Well, for more, we're joined by several guests today.
Later in the broadcast, we'll speak with Mary Holland, the mother of a child with regressive autism, who she believes was injured by the measles, mumps, rubella vaccination, known as the MMR vaccine.
And we'll speak with Dr. Paul Offit, professor in the Division of Infectious Diseases and the director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.
But first, we're joined now from San Francisco by Dorit Rice, professor of law at UC Hastings College of the Law.
She specializes in legal issues related to vaccines, including exemption laws.
She co-authored a report last year about, quote, funding the costs of disease outbreaks caused by non-vaccination.
Professor Rice, welcome to Democracy Now!
So could you lay out for us what you think the key issues are regarding exemptions on people getting vaccinated?
What's her name?
Dr. Rice?
Of course.
So, first, thanks for having me.
Oh, yeah.
Dr. Rice.
We have a tension between three important values.
The first is parental rights.
Parents have rights.
We care about their ability to take care of their children, guide their children.
The second is the public health.
We want to make sure that the public is protected against infectious diseases and other problems.
And remember, the public includes other people.
Other parents and other children have rights to be protected against disease as well.
And the third is the right of a child.
Given the incredible imbalance between the risks of vaccines and the risks of not vaccinating, with the risks of vaccines very small and the risks of not vaccinating much larger,
There's a strong argument that the right to health of the child means that the child should be vaccinated.
The combination of that is part of what supports the state's right to impose school immunization requirements.
School immunization requirements have been in the states since the 19th century at least, and in the first years we didn't have exemptions.
I can't place her accent, but it's strange that they don't just have an American on here to explain this to us.
And it's very strange that Pamela points out that this is like a pharma shrill lawyer.
So democracy now?
Maybe not so much.
Or maybe yes, democracy now, not republic now, but democracy now.
That's why the show is named the way it's named.
Exemptions are
relatively new during the 20th century.
And in terms of exemption, as you probably know, we have three types.
We have medical exemptions, which all states have.
We have religious exemptions or personal belief exemptions, also known as philosophical exemptions.
And 48 states, every state except West Virginia and Mississippi, have either a personal belief exemption or a religious exemption or both.
The issues that come up is how much—how broad should the exemption be, and states vary dramatically on that.
California, for example, is right now one of the broadest, and that's part of the reason behind the change.
So, this issue, for example, of Mississippi, even though something like two dozen lawmakers wanted to support this exemption based on conscientious beliefs, they are, in the vast minority here of states—48 states, as you said, allow for a conscientious objection—saying no public or private school student can go without a vaccine.
That's correct.
Most states allow either personal belief or religious exemption, and that has been started around the 60s as well.
Mostly, my best reading is because of the high value we place on personal freedom and on religious values.
And I'd expect that most states that adopted religious exemption expected them to be very limited, mostly to Christian scientists and other small sects.
That's not what happened.
In many states, religious exemptions are used much more broadly than by the very small sects that have strong views against vaccination.
And our jurisprudence makes it very hard to limit religious exemptions only to those religions that really object to vaccination.
But do you believe, Professor Rice, that with the latest outbreak, now states will reconsider the extent and range of these exemptions?
Yes, I think we're already seeing that.
We're seeing several states consider following the Western state—California, Oregon, and Washington—and adopting an educational requirement in addition to their personal belief exemption.
We're seeing this discussed in Maine, in Minnesota, and in other states.
And as you've seen, California has recently been reconsidering its own exemption law.
So I would— I would love to attend a course that was supposed to teach me why it was dumb not to vaccinate my kids.
I think a state-funded course like that with an instructor would be a hilarious way to spend a couple hours.
Expect to move to more restrictive exemptions.
And given what we're seeing, the rise of outbreaks, that's all for the good.
Well, explain why that is so important, why parents shouldn't be able to opt out.
In a moment, we're going to hear from a parent who feels very differently from you.
So remember what we're talking about.
We're not talking about telling parents, whether you wish to or not, we're going to tie your child down and vaccinate them.
That's something that, if done, is done only in extreme circumstances.
We're talking about the question whether a parent can send a child to a school, public or private, unvaccinated.
If a child is sent to a school unvaccinated, first of all, the child herself is at risk.
But in the atmosphere of the school, the child also puts others at risk.
First, directly, if the child who is unvaccinated and higher risk of disease, contracted disease, they may infect someone else.
And second, by reducing... But how would they infect somebody else if the vaccines work?
And so already back in 2015, the people that were representing this position couldn't represent it with any congruency.
Because it doesn't make any sense if the vaccine works to prevent the disease, that having one unvaccinated kid there is only dangerous to the one unvaccinated kid.
If we fast forward to 2019,
James Lyons Wyler would argue that we have to have some unvaccinated kids in schools so that we have a sentinel reading out for all the asymptomatic transmission that's happening among the vaccinated.
And so that the immunocompromised people that can't take the vaccine or the people that are vulnerable to vaccine injury can be protected because then they'll know when, when there are, there's a video of Anne Rand.
explaining that if a vaccine works, then you don't need to mandate it.
And if a vaccine doesn't work, then mandating it would be crazy.
And it is really that simple.
And yet somehow or another, democracy now, this, let's call it spontaneous people's news, is producing what appears to be CDC, FDA, NIH, biosecurity state propaganda,
with a limited spectrum of debate on one side represented by Mary Holland and on the other side represented by this person, Dr. Rice and Paul Offit.
It is extraordinary.
the level of immunity in the school, by undermining herd immunity, the school is more vulnerable to an outbreak.
When you say that, just for people who are not familiar with this debate, Professor Rice, when you say, herd immunity, explain what you mean.
I hope Dr. Offit will talk about this more in detail, but basically the idea is that if we have a certain number of people immunized in the school, those people form kind of a ring around the few that aren't immunized and prevent the disease from reaching them.
That's the idea of herd immunity.
If you have enough people immunized, even if one person who's infected comes into the school, the disease won't spread.
You've also suggested, Professor Rice, that parents who choose not to have their children vaccinated are almost always negligent under the law.
So do you think that there should be legal consequences for parents who choose not to have their children vaccinated?
Yes, I do.
And my point of view is less focused on the parent that doesn't vaccinate.
We need the behavior to be negligent, to impose consequences, but more those harmed by the decision.
If one parent chooses to reject expert opinion, to choose for their own child the bigger risk, the risk of not vaccinating, over the smaller risk of vaccinating,
And something happened that harms another family, I think it's unfair to make the other family pay for the costs of the first family's decision.
Nice.
Again, think about the situation.
A child is left unvaccinated, contracts measles, passes it to an immunocompromised child that suffers serious complication.
The family of that child has emotional costs, the child that suffers pays a physical price, and they have financial costs.
Why should they have to pay for someone else's choice?
Is there any kind of legal precedent for that, though?
Not at this point.
The case has simply, to my knowledge, not come up.
We have other cases of liability for infectious disease.
We have a case of a liability when someone went into a boarding house that has produced this whooping cough and wasn't told that there was a whooping cough, and his children caught whooping cough.
We have liability for sexual transmitted diseases if there was negligent non-disclosure.
So we have a history of liability for infectious disease.
But this context hasn't come up yet.
Are you saying that parents, what should happen?
What should be the consequence for parents who doesn't alienize their child, vaccinate their child?
She's actually not sitting still.
It's not that she's shaking her head.
Her whole body is moving.
She's not comfortable with the lies that she's telling.
And she knows, because you can see her glancing to the left, that she has talking points that she needs to hit.
And she's very nervous about hitting them.
You can see it.
This is a lie.
This is fifth generation warfare before anybody ever talked about it.
And it started already in 2015.
Do you know what else?
Do you know what else happened in 2015?
The Peter Daszak paper.
You know, gain of function with Shengxi Li.
The same year.
It's not a joke anymore, ladies and gentlemen.
You can see it.
You're saying they should be jailed?
No, I'm not.
There's a whole range of possible consequences.
I've heard the idea of jailing parents in that situation, and I think that's going substantially too far.
A parent making the decision is making the decision on
their best judgment.
There's a lot of misinformation out there.
And it's natural for the parents to make the wrong decision for their child.
And it's a decision that puts their own child first and foremost at risk.
I don't think the level of culpability is high enough to justify criminal law.
But I think it's fair to tell the parents, you made the decision, you internalize the consequences.
Make no mistake about it.
This is exactly how the limited spectrum of debate is created.
The host and the host and this woman all agree that these are the questions to ask and that these are the possible answers.
I'm not sure they deserve jail.
The flip side of that thought is that they do deserve jail.
And if you don't start to regularly hear the part that's not said, you will miss all the times that these people are casting a spell on you, because that's how they do it.
By these three people agreeing that this is a legitimate question, do you think these people deserve jail time?
And the answer no doesn't change the fact that the limited spectrum of debate is being defined right now is this is a worthy question.
No, they don't deserve jail time.
You've got to start to learn to be able to see it.
And then when you look back in the past, you will see that they've been doing it for much longer than Robert Malone would have you believe.
Take personal responsibility.
Nobody else should have to pay for that.
You're going against expert opinion.
You're going against the science.
You're going against the credible data.
Why should others carry the cost?
And that's true for another family, if they're infected, or the public health.
These outbreaks cost a lot of money to contain.
And that money comes from somewhere.
Public health departments are cutting
are cutting other budget and not doing other things in order to track down and contain measles.
Why should the public pay, rather than those that made the decision that led to the outbreak?
Dory Grace, we want to thank you for being with us, professor of law at UC Hastings College of Law, specializing in legal issues related to vaccines, including exemption laws.
And that money comes from somewhere.
Look how uncomfortable she is.
are cutting other budget and not doing other things in order to track down and contain news.
And she's a foreigner.
Why should the public pay rather than those that made the decision that led to the outbreak?
Dorit Rice, we want to thank you for... I'm sorry to get so angry about this, but it's really important to understand that Americans need to save America.
And America has been undermined through the cooperative effort of traitors working with foreigners.
And this is a traitor?
with a podcast working with foreigners.
And Paul Offit is a trader working with the same foreigners.
On Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report.
I'm Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh, as we go to Philadelphia, where we're joined by Dr. Paul Offit, professor in the Division of Infectious Diseases and the director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.
Dr. Offit is also professor of vaccinology and a professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, also the co-inventor of the rotavirus.
So why don't we have a pediatric department of exercise?
Why don't we have a pediatric department of exercise that needs to teach people the importance of exercising since you're a young child so that you don't grow up without the maximum potential of muscle and sinew and strong joints?
Why don't we have that?
Or maybe a childhood nutrition department.
Why do we have a department on, what did he call it?
What was it called?
Vaccine what?
If it's such a good idea, why do we need to convince people all the time?
movement threatens us all.
Well, Dr. Offit, you have heard our show today.
Can you— The first thing that strikes me is that nobody's sending self-addressed stamped envelopes to my P.O.
box to get patches and stickers, so please send—you know, like, I didn't print all these things so that nobody would have any.
Secondly, what strikes me as really interesting is this sort of
Well, let's queue it up again to make sure we hear it correctly, because I think it's really, it's really a nice thing to catch.
Numerous books, including Autism's False Prophets, Bad Science, Risky Medicine.
Numerous books.
So it seems at first, like I just wasn't aware that this is how they've done it for many, many years, but publishing a book
as I look back on it and realize it, publishing a book is the bending of a lot of resources and human energy toward a particular person or set of ideas.
Writing a book very rarely occurs with one guy in his basement just working really hard, typing, typing, typing away, and then nobody else needs to be involved, unless you do it on Amazon.
and freely publish something or just publish it on your website or something like that, in order to make a book, you usually have to get people interested in you.
You know, somebody like the guy at Skyhorse Publishing or the guy at Chelsea House or whatever other book publisher needs to get your attention and the idea has to be real.
And so on Democracy Now are not people that are fighting to get their words out.
There are people in 2015 who already have a book, already got a book deal.
And those people are on Democracy Now.
Mary Holland is not suffering if she's already got a book deal and a publisher publishing her book.
What you need to see is that that means, by necessity, that it's not the controversial message that we thought it was.
Otherwise, she wouldn't have a freaking book deal.
And neither would Paul Offit.
The search for a cure and deadly choices, how the anti-vaccine movement threatens us all.
Well, Dr. Offit, you have heard our show today.
Can you talk about why you feel vaccines are so important?
Well, because they saved our lives.
If you look at how long we lived, say, 100 years ago, we lived 30 years less long then than we do today.
So the main reason for that is vaccines.
We no longer have to see 50,000 children hospitalized and 500 die from measles every year as we did before the vaccine.
We no longer have to see diphtheria as a common killer of teenagers.
We no longer have to see 20,000 children
suffer severe and permanent defects caused by rubella virus, so-called German measles virus.
We no longer have to see children die or suffer permanent disability from bacterial meningitis from diseases like meningococcus, pneumococcus, haemophilus influenzae type A. Vaccines, I think, are the single best preventive measure that we've ever had.
The problem, as clearly reflected by your previous caller,
is that we don't appreciate them.
I think vaccines are a victim of their own success, and they're obviously being blamed for things that they don't cause.
Well, what about the issue of the connection between MMR and problems in children?
Our last guest, Mary Holland.
Recall and listen carefully to the fact that they are curating a limited spectrum of debate where she says, what about the MMR shot?
Not the flu, not Hep B, not the vitamin K, not the polio, not measles, mumps, but measles, mumps, and rubella.
Not DTaP, not the HIV vaccine, which, hib titer.
None of these other vaccines are being considered because she just seeded the narrative that what about the MMR vaccine?
I think there are limited reports that that vaccine might be actually more dangerous than other vaccines.
That is actually the thought that she projected there.
That the MMR vaccine or a component of it might be responsible for some things, right?
Not all vaccines, just this one in particular.
That's a worthwhile question, isn't it, Paul?
I hope you can see it.
I think it's perfectly reasonable for a parent to ask the question, my child was fine, they got a vaccine, then they weren't fine anymore.
Could the vaccine have done it?
And as Ms.
Hollins argued, it is a temporal connection, but it's not a causal connection.
I mean, there have now been 14 studies done looking at hundreds of thousands of children who either did or did not receive the MMR vaccine, and the results have been clear and consistent and reproducible.
MMR vaccine does not increase your risk of autism.
All you do by choosing not to get an MMR vaccine is increase your risk of getting measles, mumps, or rubella.
You know, what is upsetting to me about this, and I honestly think the last 10 minutes of your program set a new record for consecutive statements that were incorrect, is that when you do the science, when you do these excellent, retrospective, huge studies that answer the question that people don't believe them,
And the reason Ms.
Hala doesn't believe him is she's a conspiracy theorist.
I mean, listen to what she says.
There's this guy who's a fraud, and then there's this whistleblower at the CDC.
I mean, there are 14 studies on three continents involving hundreds of thousands of children.
Is she claiming that there is a massive international conspiracy to hide the truth?
I think she is, and that's what makes her, to me, a classic anti-vaccine person.
Well, what about the issue, for example— That is fabulous.
—of the combined vaccine, the MMR, measles, mumps, rubella, and the argument for separating them?
And what was the—why were they put together?
Talk about how vaccines came to be what they are and why they are mandated or not mandated in this country.
Right, so the measles vaccine was developed in 1963, the mumps vaccine in 67, there was a second measles vaccine, the last best vaccine in 68, and then we had the rubella vaccine in 69.
In 1971, those three vaccines were put together because you could.
Because you could do it safely, as was proven, that when you combine those vaccines, that you didn't interfere with or change the safety profile or immunogenicity profile of those vaccines when they were given separately.
So now you had to give one shot instead of three.
Now we have a two-dose vaccine, so that means you give two doses instead of six.
There's no reason to separate those vaccines out because all you do by separating them out is increase the number of shots without in any way changing the safety profile.
In terms of mandates, your question about mandates, I think you're starting to see... One thing you do when you mix them up is that if there was a particular explanation or a particularly dangerous recombinant protein as part of one
of the antigen subsets, then you would never be able to decide which one it was because you're administering them all at once.
It's just like, you know, if you take cocaine and fentanyl and heroin all at the same time and then you die, it's really hard to attribute the death to any one of those drugs.
And he knows this, and he is being very disingenuous about it.
And that's the whole reason why they combine these things.
It is to make it even harder for us to disambiguate the effects of intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system, which is dumb.
why it is that mandates are so important.
There is no good reason to choose not to get a vaccine.
If you're choosing not to get a vaccine, then you're basing it on a misperception or a series of false beliefs as Ms.
Holland has about vaccines.
She says, for example, that vaccines are never tested together.
Of course they're tested together.
You cannot put a new vaccine on the schedule without proving that your vaccine doesn't interfere with the safety and immunogenicity profile of existing vaccines and vice versa.
Those are called concomitant use studies.
Ms.
Holland says that there have been no studies looking at sort of relatively vaccinated or unvaccinated children.
That's not true.
There are several studies that have looked at that, including that of Peter Abbey, which suggests that the highly vaccinated child has better health than the child who is less vaccinated.
And that's unfortunate because there is really good data to show that live attenuated vaccines do seem to have that kind of effect on all cause mortality in children.
Because Christine Stibel-Ben has that data from Denmark's Health Administration of Islands in somewhere off the coast of South America or something like that.
And so we know what he's talking about and how he's distorting it because recombinant vaccines like the DTaP vaccine do not do that.
And she already demonstrated that in this timeframe.
And so this is incredibly disingenuous, but it's also incredibly certain.
And it's also incredibly certain that the conspiracy theorist you need to be worried about is Mary Holland.
And he said her name a couple of times because it's a magic spell, because they're establishing her as an alternative voice to these other two people that you're hearing, because she's going to go on to play that role as one alternative voice for almost a decade to come.
And the crazy part is, is that she's not going to get any farther than she was in this video right here.
where she was lined up against Paul Offit and did not say that strict liability.
As a lawyer, a law professor, did not say that we need to restore strict liability to vaccine products and that we need to abolish these laws because they are a Seventh Amendment violation.
We are essentially having jurisdiction stripping en masse because nobody can sue these people.
There's no jurisdiction in which we can file a claim.
and the only lawyers that are allowed to speak out, who regularly use the kangaroo administrative courts of the CIP and the VICP, and therefore has a conflict of interest and can't actually speak out against them as being a violation of our constitutional rights, if he's simultaneously advocating for victims of the vaccine schedule to use that to find their recompense.
Is that the right word?
To find their payback, their compensation.
It's one or the other.
Either they're taking away our rights and they're foisting this on us and it's not allowed, it's against the Constitution, or it's not.
And I'm afraid one of the ways that this debate has been limited for a literal decade is that they have people like the lawyer we saw today and like Mary Holland get on there and curate a limited spectrum of debate where nobody realizes that the legal challenge that would work is just one injured person,
going to a federal court and having the federal court say, no, federal law prohibits me or doesn't allow me to hear your case.
And then you appeal that to a circuit court that says, oh, wow, that's weird.
That's a violation of your seventh amendment right to sue.
Let's strike that law.
No lawyers want to talk about that.
No lawyer at CHD wants to talk about that.
No lawyer at ICANN wants to talk about that.
The only lawyer at ICANN that gets any publicity is a former lawyer for Goldman Sachs.
and an avid user of the CICP and the VICP that is the only legal corner in our entire republic where lawyers that lose the case get paid before the case is decided.
If you bring a case to
court in Pennsylvania because you're complaining about a business, you need to hire a lawyer and pay that lawyer yourself.
And if you win that case, then maybe the court will award you your legal fees and then you will get paid back for all the money that you paid that lawyer through the whole time of the trial.
If Aaron Seery loses a case at the CICP or the VICP, he can bill in real time for the hours that they accrue.
And it doesn't matter whether they win or not, they're going to get paid anyway.
No other lawyer in the world has that advantage.
At least no other lawyer in America has that advantage.
There's no other corner of legal, legal,
What do you call that when you're deciding things in court?
Judicial space.
Where the lawyers get paid before the case is decided and even the lawyers that lose are compensated.
There's no other place.
And so if you can't see that this guy, who is also associated with years of opposition, has not moved the ball forward beyond mandates and testing, and he used to work for Goldman Sachs, and he uses the kangaroo courts that this system needs him to use, and therefore cannot mount a useful challenge against it, because you can't advise people to use a court that you say is unconstitutional, then that's not the right thing for the lawyer to do.
He can't do both things.
And every lawyer that's listening should be able to understand this.
There is a giant conflict of interest in what Aaron Siri is representing himself as, and ICANN is representing him as, and all these people at CHD are promoting him as.
He cannot be that, because his skepticism is necessarily, by definition, it's artificial.
And there will be no answer to this challenge.
No one on Twitter, no one at CHD, not one lawyer in the world, not even the lawyers that were recently laid off from CHD are going to come to our rescue and say, he's right.
Oh my gosh, we need a case in every state that's fighting against this and suing for damages.
And only one needs to make it to federal court for that law to be struck.
Please somebody debunk this.
I mean, Ms.
Holland says that the hepatitis B virus is only transmitted by sexual contact.
That's not true.
Children less than 10 years of age in this country before the hepatitis B vaccine, 18,000 would suffer hepatitis B. And so now we're debating the biology of hepatitis virus and accepting the need for vaccination is just a question of when.
And so he is bouncing ideas off of Mary Holland and the result is the definition of the limited spectrum of debate and a very vigorous debate within it.
Darn it.
I wish it was so, I wish you could see it.
intravenous blood transfusions or intravenous drugs, and they certainly weren't getting it from sexual contact.
They were getting it from Uncle Bob, who had hepatitis B but didn't know it, who gives them a little kiss.
That's how they were getting hepatitis B. So there's so much misinformation out there that causes people like Mary Holland to make bad decisions for her children.
If vaccines were unsafe, I think this would be an interesting and reasonable discussion.
But vaccines are remarkably safe and remarkably effective.
And when you watch herd immunity erode, as it clearly is in this country, we eliminated measles by the year 2000.
And now, because parents are choosing not to give vaccines based on their false or at least ill-founded concerns, other people are suffering.
I think Professor Rice, who was just spot on on what she said earlier, I think said it best.
Is it your right to catch and transmit a potentially fatal infection?
I think the answer's no.
But Dr. Offit, can you explain how it is that so many parents- Understand that this is exactly the same debate that they started at 2020 and the exact same people curated it.
Mary Holland agreed.
CHD, under her leadership, agreed.
That the debate was lab leak or natural virus.
That the debate was whether or not the vaccine has been tested.
Transfection?
What?
came to make an association between vaccines and autism, given all of the scientific research and the studies that you cite?
Is there—is it because such a large number of children were suffering after having received vaccines?
Or what do you attribute this to?
I think it's—the analogy could be made for diabetes in the 1800s.
In the 1800s, people suffered diabetes, and nobody knew why.
And many things were blamed, including vaccines, right?
I got a vaccine.
Now, you know, within six months, my child has type 1 diabetes.
I think the vaccine did it.
And at the time, it was a smallpox vaccine or the rabies vaccine, which was introduced in the late 1800s.
The vaccines are always sort of the universal scapegoat.
Then in 1920, Banting and Best isolated insulin and all that nonsense went away.
I think maybe this nonsense doesn't go away until we clearly have a cause or causes for autism, or I think much more difficult, a cure for autism.
It'd be really interesting, right, if this book, the Domestic Medical Practice Manual from 1913, would shed any light on any of these diseases and claims that he's making.
Wouldn't that be weird?
This is a pretty good book.
It's got a lot of stuff in it, a whole chapter on infectious disease and their treatment and attributes.
Hey, Paul, the truth is coming for you in the form of old books from eBay that are in mint condition because apparently nobody wants them anymore.
I can't wait.
It'll all go away.
I mean, clearly, if you look at the science of autism, it's clearly at least genetic.
I mean, we know that it appears to be an in utero event.
So I don't think there's any evidence that an environmental influence, especially vaccines, have ever been shown to increase the rate of autism.
You know, and I think the answer to the question, why is it that people aren't convinced?
I think the media is perfectly willing to put the sort of, you know, man bites dog story out there, which is Mary, Mary Holland's rant that, you know, that vaccines cause autism.
And she knows it because that's what she saw.
You know, I'll give you a story.
My wife is a private practicing pediatrician.
She goes into the office.
Okay.
So he's about to tell a lie and it's an anecdotal lie and it's stupid, but remember how many times
How many times has Paul Offit said Mary Holland's name?
Not Miss Holland or Professor Holland, but Mary Holland.
Mary Holland, Mary Holland.
Every time he said it, he said Mary Holland.
It's an enchantment.
They are casting a spell.
You're supposed to remember her.
one day and she's helping the nurse give vaccines.
There's a mother who has a four-month-old that's sitting on her lap along the sidewall.
While my wife was drawing the vaccine up into the syringe, the four-month-old had a seizure, went on to have a permanent seizure disorder, epilepsy.
If my wife had given that vaccine five minutes earlier, I don't think there are any amount of statistical data that would have convinced that mother of anything other than what
She believed to be true.
What do you think?
I'm stupid and my child was fine.
And so that anecdote should be enough from Paul's perspective to make everyone doubt that temporal relationships between the intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system can be wholly dismissed as serendipitous.
spontaneous because he tells you one lie about his wife's practice that may or may not be true but cannot possibly explain the preponderance of these temporal correlations.
Not possible.
But he wants you to believe that that story alone is enough to convince you, and it should be.
And I don't think that the hosts are gonna usefully push back against the anecdotal nature of this bullshit spell he's casting, because they're part of it.
I mean, here they got a vaccine, now they have epilepsy.
I know what I saw, even though it was a temporal association.
I mean, to be fair, we wanted to have both of you on together to have a conversation, because there are many in this country and a growing movement of parents who are deeply concerned.
But you wanted to have this conversation separately, Mary Holland, and you separately.
So it's important to, I think, have this kind of dialogue on all of these issues.
Dr. Offit, on this issue of vaccines now being— Can I just address that?
Yes, sure.
Can I address that for one second?
I think that it is not important to have a debate about the science with someone who clearly doesn't know the science.
I'm sorry.
Ms.
Holland misrepresented the science again and again and again.
I don't think that in any way helps your viewer.
I don't think it's fair to have a debate where two sides are presented when only one side is really—
I think I'd like to think we're beyond that.
If you ask the question, why is it that...
Dr. Offit, what I think is important, it's not only about science.
We're talking about science.
We're talking about the practice of medicine in this country.
We're talking about public policy.
I mean, after all, this has now become a presidential campaign issue, with possible presidential candidates taking on the issues, and I want to get your comment on that.
But you're combining all of this, and it's important to bring all the various expertises of parents, of lawyers, of doctors together in a conversation on these issues.
It's important that we bring doctors and lawyers into a conversation about these issues that can usefully curate a limited spectrum of debate that will never free our children.
That's what she should have said.
Right, Paul?
Don't you think that's important?
But what Ms.
Holland does is she presumes to represent the science.
I actually agree with you.
I think we're at a tipping point.
And I think the critical discussion now is the one that was brought up by Professor Rice, which is, how far do we go here?
I mean, I happen to have survived the 1991 Philadelphia measles epidemic.
I was a doctor at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.
During a four-month period in Philadelphia in 1991, we had 1,400 cases of measles and nine deaths.
And it centered on two fundamentalist churches that chose not to vaccinate their children.
we got to the point of compulsory vaccination.
And believe me, no one in Philadelphia had a problem with that.
People were so scared of that disease because it was so common and so fatal that we got to compulsory vaccination.
By that, I mean those children in that school who were unvaccinated.
It could have been live attenuated measles vaccine, right?
That's what we don't know.
And that's what I'm sure he's being disingenuous about.
It could be a real historical fact and a real historical incident.
But I assure you, it wasn't a recombinant protein set with
with measles, mumps, and rubella represented and an adjuvant conjugated to them.
It just wasn't.
There's no way.
were made wards of the state, vaccinated, and then given back to the parents.
And the American Civil Liberties Union, who is perfectly comfortable representing pretty unpopular causes, never stepped in.
They were asked to step in by Charles Reinert, who was the pastor of one of those churches.
And remember, there was a religious exemption to vaccination on the books for 10 years at the time this happened.
And the American Civil Liberties Union said, while we believe it is your right to martyr yourself to your religion,
We don't believe it is your right to martyr your child to your religion.
And I give the ACLU credit for that at times, but you had to be here.
I'm not sure they would feel the same way.
How bad does it have to get before you say, you know, it is your right to swing your fist wildly, but that right ends at the tip of my nose.
And I think that's what's true here.
We were offended when that man got on a plane with tuberculosis and was coughing and had, you know, so-called multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis.
We thought he had done something that was awful.
And I think this is no different.
I don't think it is your right to expose your child needlessly to infection and to expose those with whom they come in contact needlessly with infection.
And if vaccines were a safety issue, I would get it, but it's not.
This is fake.
This is k-fabe.
This is fake wrestling.
And that's why he repeats Mary Holland's name over and over, because she's his fake opponent.
Just as fake as Professor Rosenstein or whatever her name was.
What about the Vaccine Compensation Board?
Talk about what that is all about, how families get compensated.
Yes.
So in the early 1980s, there was born the notion, which was since refuted by scientific study, that the whole cell pertussis or whooping cough vaccine caused permanent brain damage.
It was a documentary that was made by Lee Thompson, a veteran newsmaker from NBC, called DPT Vaccine Roulette.
And it showed a series of children who supposedly were permanently brain damaged by pertussis vaccine.
Now, that was wrong.
Study after study showed it was wrong, but it was a vivid image and it brought a ton of litigation.
So it's extraordinary, right?
Because he's even making the argument that all Pertussis vaccine is the same, that the lot that those kids got is the same one that was tested and all of these things.
And that is the same shell game that they play all the time, that all vaccines are the same.
And so if people die of this vaccine, it couldn't be because they have
no liability, and so there's no reason for them to have any real strict safety protocols, and that so occasionally there might be a lot or two that gets contaminated, a lot or two with too much adjuvant, or a lot or two with a different protein or set, or contamination of some other kind.
None of these things are considered a possibility, and none of these things are considered a consequence of the lack of strict liability.
None of these people want to consider it, not Mary Holland.
and not Paul Offit.
And it cannot be seen any longer as an accident if this is 2015 and we are now in 2024.
You cannot see it as an accident anymore.
If you see it as an accident, then you believe
that understanding in the larger society requires more than a decade to get a simple idea out like strict liability not being applied to pharmaceutical products will make those pharmaceutical products very dangerous, especially if the biological principle that supposedly edifies all of those pharmaceutical products is in and of itself flawed.
Like intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system, if that was dumb,
then this would be a very, very, very, very.
patient against pharmaceutical companies that made vaccines to the point that they were out i mean they were they were going to make vaccines for american children anymore because they didn't want to have to fight all this in civil court based on a false notion it was that was the vaccines were causing permanent harm and in your juries were probably want to side against other pharmaceutical companies and so what was put in place that's not what the law says the law says that vaccines are necessarily dangerous and injure people and so therefore
Vaccine makers need to be protected again.
He's just lying.
And he's telling the same lie that he told 10 years ago, still today, despite the fact that he's you should be years retired already.
Just like Tony Fauci should have been years retired already.
Just like Vincent Rack and yellow should be years retired already.
And, and David Baltimore and all these other people.
It's a limited spectrum of debate that agrees that a novel virus occurred, that millions of people were killed, that millions more were saved, that it might come again because gain-of-function viruses is a real thing.
We don't need to worry about gene drives or synthetic DNA and RNA being misconstrued using transfection and transformation as high-level virology.
Nah, we don't need to be worried about that.
We need to be worried about that nasty Mary Holland.
She's really, she's bad.
She misrepresents the science that I know so good.
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in 86, which became the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in 1988 to basically give people who, who, who may have suffered a permanent harm from a, from a vaccine compensation.
Fair enough.
But that is not the place to determine scientific truths.
I mean, the — so, for example, there was a rotavirus vaccine that was introduced in this country in 1998.
It was on the market for a year.
It was found to be a rare but real cause of intestinal blockage, something called intussusception.
I think parents were fairly compensated for that, because I think if we're asking our citizens to give vaccines, there should be this sort of compensation system.
But believe me, there are many compensations in that program.
that are wrong.
I mean, they have compensated people for multiple sclerosis caused by hepatitis B vaccine when it clearly doesn't do that until New England Journal.
So there is one really big case about vaccines.
And it's my understanding that at least one of the lawyers whose kid is in that case, the original foundational case of a lot of vaccine law and precedents in America, that lawyer used to work for CHD, but very recently, no longer.
He may have even been fired by Mary Holland, a guy with a vaccine injured kid.
There are lots of people I think that were let go from CHD because Mary Holland let them go.
And a lot of them have injured children.
A lot of them worked on Bobby's book, but I guess big pharma is not paying for them anymore.
I guess Mary Holland's got to move on to bigger, better things like Rise and Resist, or People Over Profits, or Truth Over Lies, or Courage Over Fear.
Can you believe that Mary Holland, who started out in 2015 on the same Democracy Now!
program as Paul Offit, hasn't managed to take CHD any farther than Rise and Resist, People Over Profits, Truth Over Lies, and Courage Over Fear?
Ladies and gentlemen, there are good explanations for why PCR can be highly accurate on the academic bench and also a complete lie for SARS-CoV-2.
There is a good reason why virology could be a lie, but transfection and transformation can be misconstrued as virology for decades now.
And there is a good reason why the population pyramid provided a booming opportunity that these people are using and misconstruing as a biological phenomenon that is simply more old people dying.
And more murder and lies, that's all it is.
And you have to understand, in order to cover up these truths, they would definitely murder and lie about it.
The national security state, the global interests, the banks, the world, weaponized piles of money, they would all do it.
And they have.
And America is the last bastion of freedom.
That's the reason why Bret Weinstein thinks we need to save the West and not America.
The End
So Holland Offutt, Bret Weinstein, put in place.
I just want to watch a very brief part of a video that I'll probably watch again on another day just to give you an idea of how funny things are.
I'm gonna let someone else do the talking for a little while because I think my voice is really shot.
I have a lot of pain when I talk and if you can't hear it I think
whatever happened a couple years ago might be happening again.
And so I might go from this hazy voice to a frog voice soon.
I don't, I don't, I don't know, but I know I have pain and it's part of the reason why I haven't been streaming over the last couple days.
And since I don't have insurance, that's really the only thing I can do is not stream for a couple days.
So I'm going to take a break now and listen to this video as much as I can without, without, um, using my voice.
Gather round, I want to tell you a story.
The story of how one man, a leftist professor, Bernie voter, and liberal arts college educator, found himself through a series of events beyond his control, helplessly entangled in a web so
dark and so intellectual that he watched as his reputation transformed before his eyes into becoming more and more associated with the far right, and less and less with his own political self-identification.
Brett Weinstein is an obviously smart guy, a expert in evolutionary biology, and an, I would say, engaging speaker.
Though he does pal around with the likes of Ben Shapiro, Andy Ngo, and members of Project Veritas, he has been described by himself and others as a liberal... Did you hear that?
Project Veritas?
So if I go to YouTube,
And I go to Brett Weinstein's podcast, The Dark Horse.
And I find his videos, and I go to the podcast.
Preparing for a disease of very unusual.
So let's see, Brett Weinstein, and then I go to videos, and then I go to the oldest.
What I find is something very interesting.
So I'm just going to drive this over here.
and pop it out.
So if I scroll down, you can see that actually he started about seven years ago, doing little goofy things, didn't really know much about thumbnails or anything like that.
And then at some point, we see the dark horse starting.
Speak of the devil, whiteness, and here's the, well, look at that.
Which includes you, but I've gone beyond the breath.
So the first,
The first couple podcasts that he does, one of the first ones he does is Project Veritas.
Remember, Project Veritas is the news organization that supposedly busted the Pfizer whistleblower about the gain-of-function virus that they said they were making.
It was also the, supposedly Project Veritas released the whistleblown diffuse proposal separate from, independent from Drastic and Charles Rixey releasing the diffuse proposal.
One member of Drastic was on Brett Weinstein's podcast before I knew who he was.
His name was Yuri Dagan.
Yes, Uri Dagan was on Brett Weinstein's podcast talking about the fear and cleavage site and lab leak, and before I even knew who Brett Weinstein was.
And in his second or third podcast, before the start of the pandemic, in the months before the pandemic, what month?
June of 2019, he's starting a podcast just in time
And he's having Project Veritas on.
That's an interesting anecdote.
or a leftist who is just unafraid of speaking the truth.
Tucker has a lot of left-wing people on, you know, he had Brett Weinstein on, who's very progressive.
He has Tulsi Gabbard on.
If you teach at Evergreen, I'm sure you're, you know, a Hillary voter, but you had this... No, no, not a Hillary voter.
I'm a deeply progressive person.
And I must say, I'm... There you go.
Deeply progressive person.
Doesn't sound like a conservative to me.
Doesn't sound like the Unity Party to me.
I don't know.
It doesn't sound like Donald Trump and Brett Weinstein make a very good match to rescue the republic, does it?
I'm troubled by what this implies about the current state of the left.
I'm a Bernie Sanders voter.
If I'm all right, I mean, where are they?
Ladies and gentlemen, Brett Weinstein, a truly fascinating case, one of the most mysterious enigmas in the history of riddles.
What would make someone act like this?
Well, I've got a theory, a sort of grand unifying theory of geometric Brett Weinstein that I believe should answer the age-old question, why is Brett Weinstein like this?
But before I get into my theory, I first would like to tell you about everything that's happened in Brett Weinstein's whole entire life.
So buckle up, this
This is going to be my longest video, hopefully ever.
Think of it as a Quentin Reviews video where he watched the worst Disney Channel show ever made.
Oh no, I didn't realize Joe Rogan was such a prominent recurring character on iCarly.
It's gonna be rough.
Let's do it.
Oh yeah, that's right.
It's called Chill Goblin.
That's the... You can find Chill Goblin on YouTube.
Now we should stop because he says, what, February 2020?
So he's already skipping a lot.
And he's already skipping the eighth podcast of Bret Weinstein, where Sam Harris says that when the next pandemic comes and it's killing 70% of those infected, that we won't be able to tolerate anti-vaxxers anymore.
But let's go.
This duo, Bret and Eric Weinstein, sat down on Eric's podcast, The Portal, to talk about old times.
But it wasn't a happy sort of reminiscing.
You see, Eric, the older Weinstein, had a bone to pick with Brett, the cooler Weinstein.
Because you're going to do this thing where you downplay your gift.
And I'm sick of it.
I'm tired of it.
I'm just I've had it.
You have a place in the history of science that you are not taking up.
You are not advocating for.
There's something that you don't like about this.
Eric was disturbed that while Brett had made himself famous, nobody respected him as a scientist.
Brett had recently sat down- Well, why would he be an NCP?
Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, who had- Why would he be a non-player character?
Well, of course, why?
Because this guy's never gonna get to the point where he realizes that Brett Weinstein had Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
on his podcast in the end of 2021, but didn't show it until the middle of 2023.
And he's never going to talk about how Brett Weinstein's father is the most prominent patent
arbitrator in America for biological patent law, he's never going to talk about how Brett's dad and Eric's dad, Eric being the advisor to Palantir and Peter Thiel, that Eric's dad and Brett's dad is probably partially responsible for the formation of the FDA and maybe was even involved in some Senator Kefauver having a not so great day.
And if you were following Mark Kulak of Housatonic Live, you'd already know all this stuff and know how extraordinary it is that this guy is going to recapitulate all of the Evergreen stuff and say all the things about Brad and become very skeptical of him, but never go so far as to say
that he might have just been elevated by the government, by the military-industrial complex, who needed people like Mary Holland and Paul Offit and Brett Weinstein and Eric Weinstein and Sam Harris and all these people to be in place to create a limited spectrum of debate, to curate a limited spectrum of debate, so that the narrative of a novel virus would never be usefully challenged by anyone.
And so while this is a funny video, is of course the things that he doesn't know and never bothers to figure out that will make it very, very safe for Brett to allow this on YouTube and allow it to go, even go viral.
Failed to show Brett the respect he was due when Brett shared some thoughts he had about beavers.
Serving the interests of the underlying genome the same way ponds are serving the interests of the underlying beaver genome.
I'm familiar with the fallacy.
That is absolutely wrong.
The sad, hard truth of the matter was that nobody knew Brett from his scientific accomplishments.
They knew him from something else.
As Brett himself put it,
To the extent that I am recognized, it is typically as a result of the meltdown at Evergreen and my stance.
It's Evergreen State College.
Evergreen State College and Olympia.
I am so looking forward to the to the Brownstone event in November 1st and 2nd and I'm also looking forward to my first live live event on November 3rd here in Bethel Park.
So if you're not aware and you want to join us, send me an email and let me know.
We have a few people already flying in from different places, but by no means is the maximum attendance of 250 been met yet.
So we'd love to have you.
It's like a four hour show on Sunday the 3rd.
I think Mark Kulak will be here in person.
I think Joe Marshall will be here in person.
And I had never even thought about it, but maybe we can also get Grace's dad to come up for that.
Um, and, and it's going to be a really, really nice four hour presentation about the timeline and about the work that we're doing and the courses that we want to teach and the directions we want to go and how to save the Republic from this.
What I think is a Trojan horse.
Um.
being led wittingly or unwittingly by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
into the Trump administration, who, without our help, the Trump administration will just be what it was in the first one, which is just a bunch of people saying what they need to say in order to get in positions of power and tweaking as much as they possibly can in concert with the rest of these people that have been working for 20 years.
In Washington, where I taught for 14 years,
And Brett was right.
If you were familiar with Brett Weinstein before February 2020, you more than likely knew him from what happened with him at Evergreen College years earlier.
Let's flash back to that.
The Evergreen years.
After completing his PhD, Brett eventually joined his wife, Heather Haying, another evolutionary biologist, teaching at a tiny liberal arts school called Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington.
Brett, and especially his wife Heather, were very popular and well-liked teachers at Evergreen.
they were both able to turn evolutionary biology into something fun and interesting that had surprisingly practical applications to everyday life.
Even one of his more outspoken critics of the time, fellow evergreen educator Nancy Kopelman, acknowledged Brett's popularity with the students.
Weinstein was indeed a popular professor, and his classes tended to be full with waiting lists.
He is a bright and entertaining person.
He's witty, funny, and a creative thinker.
He was fond of claiming that college, in general, was largely a sham.
but that the knowledge students would gain in his classes was so profound, so life-changing, so unusual, so startling that something completely unique and almost impossible to describe would happen to them when they studied with him.
At the same time, she criticized his over-reliance on his particular scientific niche.
He is convinced that evolutionary theory is the grand organizing principle for virtually everything, and that other fields are derivative.
Liberal arts professors embrace complexity.
We encourage students to see value in all disciplines.
He did not.
Years later, Richard Dawkins would criticize Brett in the exact same way during their talk, reminding him that evolutionary biology is not the only lens through which to view the world.
This is not Darwinism.
This is something else, which historians deal with, sociologists deal with, psychologists deal with.
This is not
Darwinism.
It's not helpful to try to couch this in what sounds like Darwinian terms.
What he's talking about there is the idea that mankind should put its big boy pants on and take control of its evolution.
Bret Weinstein sits at the table with these people.
He thinks it's a great idea.
He might be an idiot.
He might be unwittingly participating in this scheme, but he knows damn well what they're doing.
He knows damn well what they're advocating for.
And he knows damn well who's advocating for it.
I don't need to watch this very much longer.
I just want you to see this video.
I'm gonna go play basketball with my kids and try to start making biology videos on the basketball court as well.
I'm finally in sort of kind of shape where I'm not embarrassed to show you a video of me on a basketball court.
Ladies and gentlemen, get these books.
This one is still available on eBay for like $7 a book used.
It is called The Phenomenon of Man.
It is a most important book and it is very complimentary to the book that came a little later
man and his future.
These people have been planning this inversion of our sovereignty for nearly 30 years, and they've been planning to use the population pyramid to tell us a story about what happened in a pandemic, and we cannot allow them to do it.
They will murder and lie.
They definitely will murder and lie to hide how PCR was used, to hide how the population pyramid was used, and to hide how virology is a lie.
But transfection and transformation most certainly is not a lie.
And they would murder and lie to make sure that you don't realize that the vaccine schedule has always been criminally negligent and RNA cannot pandemic.
Thank you very much for joining me.
Thank you very much for being here and having the patience.
And I don't know what to tell you.
I don't know if I'm going to be on again tomorrow.
It's just all about my voice.
And I will try to teach biology tomorrow in the morning at 10.
But if I feel this much pain, I might need to take another day off.
I don't know.
Thanks again for being here.
Thanks for being a subscriber.
Hey, I forgot.
Darn it.
I'm going to switch over to this.
I got a new idea.
I'm going to do this from now on.
And this will be the way, whoops, sorry, cut.
And this will be the way that we see everybody's names.
If you look down here at the bottom, coming out from behind the pyramid over here are all the supporters of GigaOM Biological, if I could look at the right camera.
I haven't had your names up there for a while.
The list is not complete and the list is not going to run long enough for everybody to see everybody's name.
But this is the way we're going to do it going forward so that everybody who has helped support this stream and keeps this afloat is credited.
And I'm also going to try and put this list somewhere on the website, which definitely needs an update.
Thank you, Catherine, for pointing that out.
I need to get some of these interviews up there.
The interviews are also in the Batcave channel on PeerTube.
And if you really haven't yet and you think you want to, I humbly request that you go to GigaOMBiological.com and find a way to subscribe or support.
I'm going to start putting up regular annotated PDFs and slide sets again, I promise.
It has just really been a question of getting the right infrastructure together and getting the right people on board and convincing my wife, for example, that I think that this is a way that we can work together on this because
It's all hands on deck now in the Cooey family.
And so even my 14 year old is learning to edit videos so that we can try to make this work a little better.
I love you all very much.
I'll see you again tomorrow.
Feel free also, you know, to like, uh, you can, you can also just send me an address via email.
Maybe I can also mail envelopes to people.
It's a raised patch so it's kind of cool on your jacket.
And this one looks really good on water bottles because it's actually clear.
So you can put it on windows and the white is white and the white on the outside is clear so you can see the G and the OM too.
And they're free because I already spent the money because I want people to be able to spread the word in the right way.
Thank you very much for joining me and I will see you again tomorrow.
Yeah, tomorrow.
I'll be here tomorrow.