Man, I gotta see if I remember how to do this.
Holy crap.
Am I already on?
Shoot, I'm already on.
After the season, the season ended, he needed a break, so he went to the beach.
As he was going down the beach, going down these dunes, he saw a military group working out on the beach.
maybe 10, 15 lines, something like that.
Each line maybe had about 10 or 20 army guys in it.
So he started to walk a little closer.
As he walked closer, he could see that the guys were drenched.
They had on full army fatigue.
They had all their weapon gear on, helmets on.
But they were wet, and they had sand all over them.
And he's watching.
He saw something.
They had these logs in their hands.
And they were holding them up over their shoulders.
three, maybe six, seven minutes, something like that.
Think about how long it burns to hold your hands up like that and hold them straight.
And they would hold them straight.
Then they would curl them like this.
They would get on the ground and do sit-ups together with them, put the log down, run into the ocean, swim around a buoy, come out, roll in the sand, run down the beach, run back, and do it all over again.
And this thing happened as he's walking down to the beach.
maybe 10 more minutes, 15 more minutes going.
Each group was doing this.
Some of the sergeants, the officers, saw him sitting there.
And they could recognize who the coach was, so they didn't mind him watching.
Soon as he got closer, he realized something.
All these guys look alike.
Same height, got the same cell phone, but he thought, in football, how do I pick my starters?
Who catches the ball?
Who makes the tackle?
Who doesn't have too many missed assignments?
You know, these are things that we judge you by.
Who's taller?
Who's shorter?
Who has the heart?
But all these guys look the same.
And he was thinking, how do they pick who stays and who leaves?
Because it was more than what a normal military group would have.
But how do they pick?
So he got closer and closer.
Again, some of them had boats.
Some of them had things that were holding them up again.
Another three, six minutes, four minutes, doing the crunches.
still holding their hands out straight, doing wall sit squats in the sand.
And he came to the sergeant and he said, how do you pick who stays and who goes?
And the sergeant looked at him and he smiled and he said, the ones who keep their arms straight.
He said, excuse me?
He said, the ones who keep their arms straight.
He said, you don't think we go into battle with logs and boats, do you?
Bullets are flying over your head.
When adversity hits,
When the firecrackers start going off, grenades, the ones who can stay in line, keep their horns straight through pressure, are the ones we want.
Those are the ones that are going to have your back.
So when the brush of the light strikes you and they say you can't do it, when people you love doubt you,
When it's fourth and one and we need a first down and we need to stop.
When somebody's phone turns the ball over.
When a penalty hits, you get backed up 15 more yards and you gotta keep going.
When we say run one more pass, when we say run off the field, who is keeping their arms straight?
When adversity outside of football hits and you have to come in here and do your job, are you keeping your arms straight?
Your families will depend on you to be that type of leader, man.
That's what life has to teach you.
That's what Colorado football would teach you.
That's what these coaches would teach you.
Listen, you've heard my story a million million times before.
I've been with this man 17, 18 years.
Pee-wee football.
How many people wanted to be next to him, wanted my job?
But guess what I did they couldn't do?
I kept my arms straight.
I didn't worry about what people were saying.
I didn't worry about what people were doing.
We just told you about believing in yourself.
When stuff start happening, people say you can't do it.
When we face adversity this year, keep your arms straight.
Do the right technique.
Make the right play, make the right execution.
You do that in life, nothing will ever stop you.
But once you start listening to everybody else, and the whistle's coming over your head, the bullets flying by you, and you cower in the corner, people then will label you.
Understand me, all it takes is one thing, and it's you.
And you keeping your arms straight.
Say I can, I will, I am.
I can, I will, I am.
I want you to ponder that thought, think about it.
We got a longer day today than we had yesterday.
I need you to know you can, you will, and you are.
If you're not aware that Deion Sanders took over the Colorado Buffaloes because his kids are all going to school there and his son is going to be the quarterback, you might want to check it out.
It is a very unique and can often be very inspiring insight, a slice of what America is now.
There's all kinds of things to feel good about what goes on.
at that place right now.
I think Deion Sanders is a really interesting character because he was one of the greatest athletes of all time.
And he's got a lot of wisdom that comes from old people and adults in his life.
He's got a lot of wisdom from being one of these dudes who really understands that working hard every day and showing up is what is important.
And all of his coaches are so inspiring like that, excuse me.
And what I find really cool about the whole thing is that they, they are trying to motivate a team that, that lost so many games in the past.
They won the national championship, I think when I was a high school senior.
So that would have been 1990.
And last year, I think they only won one game and now it's like going to be this thing, you know, that they're going to try and turn it around with a new coach and a new staff and a new, and the vibe is really cool because it's very motivationally.
philosophically driven that these guys have to bring it every day.
And I think you would really enjoy it a lot.
It's hard to find positivity.
And what this guy, what this talk is about in my mind, and what's relevant to us is that there are certain people at the beginning of the pandemic that kept their arms straight.
There are certain people at the beginning of the pandemic that knew that something was wrong, that something was incongruent.
And then those people hit the books, they hit the papers, they asked the questions, they taught themselves or read what was necessary to read in order to make sure that they could defend their sovereignty against any challenge.
and that they could stand up for what's right, rather than assuming that the truth was on television, rather than assuming that everything was being done in our best interest.
There's something in that about keeping your arms straight that I think everybody needs to start to reflect on.
And we have been purposefully misdirected so that we won't.
That we won't go back and look at the internet archive, the actual,
proof of what people were saying in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022.
The actual proof of what these people were doing in 2017, 18, 19 on Facebook.
And once we start to dissect these people that we thought were good people, that we thought were speaking out, that we thought were part of this
crazy, interesting time that we're all involved in, we need to look back and see who kept their arms straight.
Because I think if we look back and we find out and we identify the people who didn't keep their arms straight and we find them right now pretending as if they did, we can make a lot of progress in terms of finding out, finding our way out together.
because I am really done playing.
I'm done pretending that I'm among a bunch of people who kept their arms straight and we're gonna put our arms around each other and we're all gonna win because that's not the way it was.
There were a lots of people that were afraid and said crazy things.
A lot of people that were proud and said crazy things.
A lot of people that were certain and said crazy things and have now come around and pretended as though they're not saying that and didn't say them.
And that that's just, no, we cannot allow this to happen.
We are at a crucial moment right now.
where if we let this moment slip or we let these people have a free pass on this, where we're going to be in permanent danger.
I cannot stress enough how important it is to reflect on whether or not the people that you trust kept their arms straight.
I cannot stress it enough.
I don't know if this is gonna work.
Oh, it's on.
They get really fired up about that.
And I really like that.
So again, you can see all kinds of cool things on that.
It's just really motivating.
And if you don't know who Deion Sanders is, what was that?
Somebody trying to mess with me here.
Well, we are here this morning because I think there's a lot of work to do and I think that people like
Mark Kulak have been doing a lot of work while I have been doing other things and so I think it's about time first of all that I give a big plug to Mark because if you check out his last few videos I know that they don't always stay up because of their content but they're usually posted elsewhere I know you guys that follow him know how to do that you've really got to check it out because I think
Again, we need to work harder at establishing who got us here.
And that's why I think it's useful to go back all the way to the very beginning, the beginning of Robert Malone.
And I don't think anybody is really going to object to the characterization
of the Brett Weinstein podcast, the Dark Horse podcast, where Robert Malone and Steve Kirsch came out, if you will, about the RNA transfections.
I think this is really a crucial moment in the Scooby-Doo narrative.
And as I reflect on the Scooby-Doo narrative, when I originally came to this description, I really feel as though it was really very egoistic.
You know, I'm thinking about how did they fool me?
And over the last few weeks and months, I've really come to understand it, of course, in a broader perspective in how they've fooled all of us.
That, I think, was most masterfully done with some very key actors and actresses.
I guess you call them all actors nowadays.
The actors that I'm interested in are those that have taken the spotlight at one time or another and then claimed it and held it as either inventors or crusaders or people who have spoken out very early or purveyors of misinformation.
There's lots of
titles that people have given themselves.
The Mother of Dragons, you know, this kind of thing.
But let's say the inventor of airplanes or the first person to speak out about bears, you know, this kind of thing.
And so he'll just go away.
Which way do I have to look?
Do I have to look that way?
Oh, I have to look that way.
He'll go away.
I really think this is going to be a lot of fun.
I just... It's been a long time since I've been on.
I've had a lot of... A lot of life happening, let's say it like that.
And so I apologize for not being around.
Oh, I wanted it to do different there.
Why didn't that do... Oh, because I was on green.
Still trying to work out how this works here.
I'm going to fade this out.
And then see if I can end that.
Should be able to end the show, right?
Why am I having such a goofy... It's because I'm trying to use this third screen.
I apologize.
I've had this ability to use the C like that, use the third screen, and I've been trying to figure out how to do it, but then I have to push an extra button to get myself back down.
I don't know what I'm doing.
Anyway, here we go.
I'm so excited.
Thank you very much.
56 people joining me in the middle of the morning.
It's very nice.
This has to be the other mouse, but this will allow me to take notes.
So hopefully I can have a little more fun with this than normal.
Um...
Here they are.
Hey, folks.
Welcome to the Dark Horse Podcast.
I am Brett Weinstein.
I should say, in this case, I am Dr. Brett Weinstein, and that will become relevant based on what our topic is.
He's smiling.
He showed his teeth.
A little bit about who I am, and then I will introduce our two guests.
I'm not really sure he's very comfortable, actually.
Look at that.
My specialty is evolution.
I have some background in immunobiology.
And I'm going to be acting.
He has some background in immunobiology.
That's an interesting claim.
I've never heard him make that claim before.
Wow, good for you, Brett.
I wonder what that background is.
Today in the role of professor sometimes, student other times, traffic cop, and translator.
That's my plan in order to get this very complex story simple enough that people can understand it because it is of the utmost importance.
All right.
Oh, so you hear Brett is already positioning himself as somebody who's uniquely qualified to make these very complex issues accessible to you, useless eaters.
Just not saying he's trying to insult us, you know, but I mean, he's positioning himself really.
I use very big words and make very long sentences, but I can dumb it down for you.
which I've never really, anyway.
One other thing I should say is that there is also a final role for me, which is that when I was a graduate student, I did some work on telomeres, senescence, and cancer, and accidentally unearthed a flaw in our drug safety system that as far as I know still exists, despite my effort to raise the alarm about it.
So anyway, this is not the first time I have encountered the drug safety issue, and it is a thorny and wicked problem, as some might say.
To my right, we have Robert Malone.
Robert Malone is an MD, PhD?
No, Master's.
Master's and MD.
He is also, and most significantly here, the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology from back as a graduate student, am I correct?
Yeah, and I'm also a licensed physician in Maryland.
A licensed physician in Maryland.
And to my left is Steve Kirsch, who is a serial entrepreneur.
And actually, you want to tell us about your role in COVID treatment research?
Sure.
I started the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund, and we fund scientists throughout the world on looking at repurposed drugs for outpatient clinical trials.
And because using repurposed drugs is the fastest, safest, and lowest cost way to end the pandemic.
All right, excellent.
So I must say that this is a difficult topic for us to address.
We all, I believe, are agreed that something very serious is afoot and the public is largely unaware that they have been placed into a kind of danger.
And we also know that there's a great... We all, I believe, are agreed that something very serious is afoot and the public is largely unaware
that they have been placed into a kind of danger, and we also know that there's a great deal of stigma directed at those who would explore these dangers.
I know that I personally feel a certain amount of jeopardy over talking about these things publicly, but I also feel a moral obligation to do so in light of the fact that I believe in my heart of hearts that a great many lives are at stake.
There's just simply no question that come hell or high water, this must be discussed.
I would imagine you gentlemen feel similarly?
Yeah, I'm particularly concerned by all the censorship because it's making so that we cannot have a rational discussion.
Cannot have a rational discussion.
I think it's a very fair way to put it.
I should also point out that our viewers will have noticed that we are sitting here unmasked.
And I should point out that actually we are, in an interesting sense, a model of something that I believe is not on the public radar.
So if I'm correct, you, Robert, have had COVID.
I've had COVID, and I've been fully vaccinated with Moderna.
All right.
Steve, you have been vaccinated.
Fully vaccinated with Moderna.
All right.
I am unvaccinated, but I am on prophylactic ivermectin.
And the data actually, shocking as this will be to some people, the data suggests that prophylactic ivermectin is something like 100% effective at preventing people from contracting COVID when taken properly.
So aside from the risk that possibly the ivermectin I got wasn't real.
I am sorry.
You know, sometimes these kinds of things really, they're hard to process when they're happening.
I hope you just heard that and I hope you understand how significant it is.
They started with censorship.
We are unmasked.
Two people are fully vaccinated and I'm using a 100% effective prophylactic
which means that we are all participating in something that's really not on the public's radar, but you can survive and live together.
And, and strangers can, can interact if they're fully vaccinated with Moderna, or if you're like me and you know, the secret weapon is just prophylactic use of ivermectin.
Holy crap.
Are you kidding me?
I didn't even have to work for five minutes.
I can almost start crying.
I can't believe I haven't taken the time to come back and watch this movie.
You might think that I'm faking this, but actually it's been a very, very, very long on a list of things to do.
Mark has been telling me to watch it.
He's been sending me these clips and notes.
but from the middle of this three hours, not from the very beginning where they started off with everything, where they started off with everything.
So everybody, what month is this?
Holy shit.
What month is this?
Hold on, I gotta get it.
I don't know, maybe I made a mistake here by using two.
What month is this?
This would have been what, in June?
When did they do this?
Does somebody know when?
Oh my gosh.
You gotta be kidding me.
I don't even need to watch the rest.
I don't know when this was.
I think it was June of 2021.
I mean, someone can tell, right?
June, 2021.
Right.
So June 11th, even.
So think about this.
How many people have already had the shot then?
Think about this.
How many people have already had this shot?
How many people have already been injured by the shot?
How many old people have just had a stroke two weeks later?
Wow, darn, sorry.
These guys aren't coming out before the shot was rolled out.
You see, the shot is already in the process of being rolled out.
They're already lowering the age.
And these guys got on there and said, I'm really upset about the censorship.
Remdesivir has been used for like almost a year already.
I'm fully vaccinated.
He's fully vaccinated.
And, and, or no, he's fully back.
He's fully bad.
I I'm using ivermectin.
And if you use it appropriately, if you know the Freemason secret weapon way of using ivermectin by putting it between your toast
then you, you can also prevent COVID.
So there are ways that you can hang out with your friends without masks indoors.
And we're going to tell you how to do it.
And what is the title of this?
Three Simple Steps.
Holy crap.
Why would we need to do anything else?
Shouldn't I just stop the stream and start it again so that this is separate from the rest of the ranting that I'm not even going to get?
How am I going to get through three hours of this if I haven't even gotten through four minutes?
Do you see how clearly clear this is?
Do you see how clear this is?
Censorship?
Look at this, this is all the notes.
This is all the notes.
All the notes I've been able to take.
Censorship first is what they started with.
We are unmasked.
Notice, ladies and gentlemen, we are unmasked.
Let us tell you the secrets to how you too can be unmasked.
You and your family and friends can enjoy a real unmasked existence.
If you follow these simple rules, be fully vaccinated with Moderna or learn the secrets to the prophylactic application of ivermectin and the prevention of infection.
Holy crap.
I have every reason to think it was.
It certainly appears to be the genuine article.
I believe that what we have here is a demonstration of a kind of composite herd immunity through three different routes, COVID, vaccine,
and ivermectin we are protected and you are that's fair doubly protected so i would just say that for anybody who's enthusiastic about the vaccines if you're malone is doubly protected because he had covid and then he was smart enough as an immunologist to think well since i've had it already i might as well get the shot as if that was exactly what we did with measles for example
Interview some old lady and you say, hey, have you been vaccinated to measles?
I said, well, I had it when I was a kid Oh, we should vaccinate you.
Anyway, they don't do that They don't do that.
It's the primary counter indication of not needing the vaccine as if you've had it already And yet as a master
as one of the guru level guys with regard to vaccination, because he's been peddling vaccinations between governments and non-governmental organizations like the WHO and CEPI and others for decades, running around behind the scenes at those conferences, all that stuff.
That's Robert Malone.
is here telling us that despite having the disease, he decided to get fully vaccinated with Moderna anyway, fully knowing, I guess, that he would never do that for any other.
Holy, what is going on here?
Four minutes and 24 seconds, and I've already wasted 25 minutes.
I mean, I'm sorry, guys, this is gonna be, you might as well get your popcorn.
We're unconvinced by what we have to say about the hazard of them.
One thing to consider is that the way to get society to herd immunity and therefore drive COVID-19 to extinction, which ought to be our goal, the way to do it is to get people into this category one way or the other, whether that's through prophylaxis, whether it's through a vaccine, or whether it's because they've had COVID already.
Okay, I'm sorry, how much farther do we need to go?
These guys are all wrong.
They were all wrong and they all went on and they shouted fire in the theater and then they did this.
They essentially poured concrete around the narrative.
in most people's heads.
People saw this three hours.
It was the first time they sat down and watched anything for more than three hours except for a series like Game of Thrones.
Are you kidding me?
Do you not see how a perfect enchantment this is?
How many people have watched it since?
How many people saw it a month later?
How many people heard about it?
Six months later?
Do you understand?
This is a psychological nuclear bomb right here, except it exists.
It's real.
It's right here to see it.
You can, you can review it.
You can rewind the explosion and you can listen to what it did to your brain.
Because even though you now know that would be ridiculous to say, it would be ridiculous to say we are demonstrating a kind of, a kind of hybrid herd immunity because between him being fully vaccinated and previously infected, right?
I'm a little shaky.
Sorry about that.
And previously infected.
And then Steve Kirsch is fully vaccinated and Brett is on a prophylactic regimen of ivermectin.
They are demonstrating how you and your family can achieve an unmasked existence, a closed quarters, unmasked existence that, that almost resembles the old normal.
Holy crap.
One could argue that if everybody just took ivermectin for a month worldwide we would end the pandemic.
Some will find the title that I have given this episode perplexing.
I would ask them to stick with the episode through the end and I will explain why I titled it as I did.
I really believe that actually
we have the capacity at any moment we decide to utilize it to end the pandemic and that it is well within reach should we choose to see what is in front of us.
But we will get there later on.
It's kind of like Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz that she always had the ability to go back to Kansas.
We've always had the ability to end this pandemic.
It's just a question of whether we want to use it or not.
Well, actually, I'm going to push back slightly on you, Steve.
I was actually going to inquire from my friends who are closest to this, but I didn't get to it before the podcast.
But I believe we probably have had the ability to end the pandemic at any point in the last six months that we chose to.
I'm not sure it goes all the way back because I'm not sure we would have known what to do.
Yes, we've had the drugs available and then the know-how we developed late last year.
Okay, so if you'll let me, my pushback as a molecular virologist and physician and outbreak specialist.
I think that herd immunity is a noble cause and objective.
But if you look worldwide, um, I, I think that we kind of have to plan that we're unlikely to achieve it.
So I, I, I. So keep in mind when this is, this is June 21.
So we're already through the winter.
We've already gone through winter time and Christmas break with the college kids.
where Richard Ebright said on Twitter that if we open the colleges in the fall of 2020, we're gonna kill a quarter million college kids.
Then he kind of flipped it around and said, well, by the end of the year, there's gonna be 200,000 people dead because the college kids will spread it around.
then we get to June and now we've rolled out these vaccines.
We've done dances on late night shows and all of the, even the Saturday Night Live skit about the boomers got the vax.
is all about how the old people got the best vaccines and the things that are left over are for the people that aren't as old as them because they rolled it out like that.
And so they were kind of like making fun of how the really good stuff like Moderna, like they're talking about here.
We go with, got double bags with Moderna, the best one.
I mean, he's the smartest guy, so he chose Moderna.
So it must be the best one, right?
And so now we're in June and they're trying to get from the elderly to the 50 year olds like these guys are to the 40 year olds.
And they're convincing them that this is a good strategy to get out.
Now, Brett hasn't taken it.
Some people in the chat are making the point, do we really know that he's taken it?
I think it's very likely that that guy over there took it, but we don't really know if any of these guys took it.
As far as we know,
The main game here is lying.
So if it is really just saying you're fully vaccinated to be fully vaccinated, I would be happy to lie.
If they're in their shoes and there's a gun, you know, just maybe there's somebody with a pistol right over here behind Steve's head.
Or maybe there's a pistol under the table at the hip of Robert Malone.
I don't know.
but it's lying, lying is not a big deal.
And I think that we have to come to the realization that something is going on here and it is incongruent for this guy to be, what did he call himself?
Sorry, I'm gonna go back because he does state his many, many, let's say, expertises or whatever.
I didn't get to it before the podcast, but I believe we probably have had the ability to end the pandemic at any point in the last six months that we chose to.
I'm not sure it goes all the way back because I'm not sure we would have known what to do.
Yes, we've had the drugs.
OK, so Brett puts down the idea that at some point we knew and we could have figured it out, but we somehow hampered it with censorship and with not allowing these repurposed drugs.
I'm not sure really where he's going, because then Steve says, yeah, we've had the drugs.
So the idea is, again, we've identified drugs that work.
Presumably, Steve
keep pointing the wrong way.
Presumably Steve is thinking, is it, is it?
fluvoxamine or whatever one he was working on, or is it famotidine or is, what is it?
One of these drugs that we're doing clinical trials on, because again, he's got a foundation that's looking at repurposed drugs.
And then here comes, let's see what his qualifications are again.
Available.
And then the know-how we developed late last year.
Right.
Yeah.
Okay.
So if you'll let me, my pushback as a virologist, a molecular virologist and physician and outbreak specialist.
I think that herd immunity is a noble cause and objective.
But if you look worldwide, I think that... Sorry, I missed it.
I was reading the chat.
Yes, we've had the drugs available and then the know-how we developed late last year.
Right.
Okay, so if you'll let me, my pushback as a molecular virologist and physician and outbreak specialist, I think that... So, herd immunity is a noble cause and objective.
He's a virologist, molecular virologist, physician, and outbreak specialist.
It's pretty impressive.
But if you look worldwide, I think that we kind of have to plan that we're unlikely to achieve it.
So I applaud the logic.
I think the probability is really high.
There's no way pragmatically we're going to get there and we're going to be stuck with this virus in various forms for the rest of our lives.
All right.
Well, here's the thing.
We're not going to get bogged down here because it's not the central reason for our conversation.
I do want to have that conversation with you at some point because I believe what I'm doing is I'm probably butchering the term herd immunity by arguing that somebody who's on prophylactic ivermectin is within the herd.
But in any case, I believe that it is possible based on at least the Argentina study, which suggests essentially 100% effectiveness of ivermectin.
So he plugged it twice now.
Brett has plugged ivermectin twice.
We're not talking about him having taught himself anything relevant to the treatment of respiratory disease.
We're not talking about him understanding the basics of how respiratory disease has been categorized before 2020 and how it was changed in 2021 or going forward from 2020.
So notice how strict they are here.
They're not teaching you anything.
In fact, they're outlining a very specific and almost irrelevant narrative, given what we know now, which is the huge percentage of iatrogenic deaths that were probably caused by not treating secondary pneumonia correctly, by using remdesivir and assuming that that didn't cause any side effects.
And so the deaths that have happened up until this point where we're watching this video are not all COVID already.
And we already knew that.
And people were fighting and losing their career because they already knew that.
And yet that has not been mentioned at all yet.
but instead we're talking about ending the pandemic was possible, maybe not right at the beginning, but very soon afterward.
And we could end it at least earlier than we have because we have the drugs and we have the know-how.
There is, we needed to know other things.
And the Argentina study proves that ivermectin is one of those things that once we discovered it, we could have used it.
And so again, ivermectin completely overwrites the role that remdesivir plays in terms of all cause mortality.
It overwrites the role that these protocols that we've been enacted here for already a year and four months.
See this for what it is, please, because these are the people that we need.
This is the way that we get out of this.
Because you notice that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
is not at this table.
You notice that Peter McCullough is not at this table.
You notice that Ryan Cole is not at this table.
You notice that Pierre Kory is not at this table.
You notice a lot of people are not at this table.
And before this, there was no one but me.
And a lot of other people that were standing up about certain things.
Very few people standing up about natural immunity.
Very few people standing up about the transfection.
Very few people had written a review asking us to pause with the transfections because of their potential dangers.
I did.
And is Brett sharing it here?
Is Brett talking about it here?
Is he, is he, is he promoting it on any podcast?
No.
He's on here right now in June of 2021, a month after I wrote my review that he's well aware of and was well aware of why I was writing it.
He's here doing this.
Think about this.
I have to think about it for a minute.
Hold on a second, I might be telling a bullshit there.
The years are all smeared together.
I have to look at the review to make sure that it was then.
Yeah, it was really May 2021.
No shit, excuse my language.
It's just sometimes really hard for me to believe that this is all part of the same thing.
And I remember it now as I sit here and
I was actually really excited that these guys came out and started talking about the fact that the shot might not work as expected.
But now I'm looking at it and I'm realizing that, wait, they're not even saying that.
They're saying that it can work, that it often does work, but then now they're going to say something, I guess, like it sometimes doesn't work.
I'm, aren't you having a revelation here too?
I mean, look, I can show you it's, it's, it's, it's right here.
I mean, here's the review.
Transfections not are not vaccine stop transfections now written by Jonathan Cooley and Piper Stover on May 18th, 2021.
I mean, I don't, and this is June, 2021.
Do you not see what's happening here when you realize that these guys started this with the big message that we've got a way for you to spend time without masks?
No, Brett is the one who said it.
The bandana man is the one who said it.
You'll notice that we are all here without masks and we don't live together.
Of course, Heather and him can be without masks because they live together, but these guys are strangers.
They're coming into my home without masks on.
And the reason why is because they've been anointed by Moderna.
Wow.
I totally agree with you.
We're good.
We're quibbling and it's off-score.
What you're saying is that from a practical point of view, but my point is that if we were able to, just like we're trying to kind of get everybody to take the vaccine, if we had put that into getting everybody to take ivermectin and fluvoxamine for a month,
If so, essentially we got, if we only have one choice now, holy crap, Steve just said, you know, we're going to try and get everybody to take the vaccine.
But if we could have got everybody to take ivermectin for a month, it would have been the same thing.
Did you hear it?
What I'm talking about, ladies and gentlemen, is keeping your arms straight.
Are these guys keeping their arms straight?
Does it sound like three men that are interested in the well-being of our children and grandchildren, the freedom and sovereignty of our grandchildren, does it sound like they've got the right concerns in their mind with their smiles on their face?
And if we could accomplish that, then COVID would be wiped out.
We could do it.
And actually, any municipality that could regulate its borders could clear the disease if it could accomplish that goal, I believe.
And it's just a question of, you know, practically speaking, we agree with you, Robert.
It's practically speaking, it's hard to pull off.
I'm saying that theoretically, if we could get agreement
Because we have... Well, how about this?
Let's table this.
I will give you my plan at the end of this.
And my claim is that actually there is a way to do this.
We just have to think a bit outside the box.
Okay.
never seen so much of Robert's eyes before.
But let me just say that, Steve, I became aware of you after reading your article on Trial Site News in which this is actually kind of a living article.
Good point.
They still have not talked about the tests.
Of course, they're talking about ending the pandemic.
but they haven't once addressed the role that the application of a nonspecific PCR test to asymptomatic people, thousands of them in drive-throughs, drove the illusion of the pandemic, drove the illusion that allowed them to change the protocols of how they treated people with respiratory disease, allowed them to apply remdesivir in hospitals.
They're not acknowledging any of this yet.
Knowing that most people won't get to the third hour.
What does that really mean to you?
which you've been updating it as information has come to light.
And I must say this article, I'm always troubled by the loss of the useful term red pill by people who have borrowed it for various purposes that I don't think are legitimate.
But this article functions as a red pill.
You read this and either something's wrong with you, Steve, and you've completely misportrayed the data.
there's no problem and something's up with you, or if the data is anything like what you present, then the interpretation is quite clear and absolutely startling.
So I will just say, I believe that what you've pointed to is accurate and alarming.
Does anyone else find it interesting that when talking to Steve,
and Steve is listening, that Steve is nodding his head and his eyes are moving and he's listening to Brett.
And when Robert Malone is listening, he's not moving at all.
Does anyone else notice this?
Understatement.
I would invite people to look at it for themselves.
I would invite people to show it to others.
And most importantly, I would invite them to pay very close attention to what is said in response.
You will get a lot of pushback when you show this article to people.
But that pushback is not substantive, in my experience.
It's emotional.
Crickets.
Well, you either get crickets or you get some kind of squid ink phenomenon where a bunch of ink shows up and suddenly the person you're talking to is nowhere to be seen.
I think the term for a lot of the blowback is gaslighting.
Well, that hasn't happened yet, I think.
So we haven't been gaslighted yet, says Steve Kirsch in June of 2021.
We haven't been gaslighted yet.
What are they doing if they started this podcast
What are they doing if they started the podcast with, we're teaching you a secret about how to become unmasked, and that secret involves being fully vaccinated, previously infected, or using prophylactics like ivermectin?
And now he just stated, he just stated that we haven't been gaslighted yet.
I mean, the feedback that I've gotten is... I think the term for a lot of the blowback is gaslighting.
Well, that hasn't happened yet, I think.
I mean, the feedback that I've gotten is they'll look at it for about 30 seconds and say, I don't believe this, and it's the cognitive dissonance.
It's the people who took the blue pill and are living in the matrix, and everything is good, and this is
this can't possibly be true.
And they immediately write it off.
But they can't cite anything that is wrong with it.
They can't argue any of the points.
And they'll delve into ad hominem attacks and say, oh, well, this was written by an engineer.
He doesn't know anything.
And to me, that's a victory.
Because it says that everything I've written they can't argue with.
So the only thing left to attack is to try to attack the person when you can't attack the arguments.
And that's what people do.
And I would just say that, you know, looking at a complex puzzle like this, one needs some kind of tools.
I mean,
Undoubtedly, in what you've written, there are things that aren't going to turn out to be right.
Undoubtedly.
You've just written so broadly that, you know, with being such a large live issue.
Does it sound like that Brett is working to kind of tone down Steve's enthusiasm?
Nobody's responded to Steve at this point about the VAERS reports.
Nobody's responded to Steve about other things that he's going to rant about later.
And Brett is saying, well, you're inevitably going to be wrong about some of these things, though, Steve.
You're going to have to admit that, right?
I hear something very interesting here, actually.
Undoubtedly, there are errors.
But the point is, even if you read this thing and you say, what if what he's saying is 50% right, right?
It's still so alarming that, effectively, the response would have to be the same.
Something has gone wrong.
We are in danger, and we are not
We're not behaving rationally.
And you can detect where we are not behaving rationally in numerous places that I hope we will get to.
But do you want to outline the basics, like the bullet point, you know, the top 10 bullet points that people ought to be aware of that you're calling attention to in your article?
It's it's so hard because it's it's it's just this unbelievable story and and let me just tell you how it works Okay, sure.
So it got started when my carpet cleaner came and and he was wearing a mask I said, hey, we're all vaccinated you can take it off and He said, you know, I just got I I got the Pfizer vaccine and I had a heart attack two minutes later and
And so he spent the night in the hospital and he says, you know, he's kind of recovering from it.
And I said, how are you, how are you doing now?
And he said, you know, still, you know, feeling bad about it.
And he mentioned also that his wife also her hand, she'd, you know, hold a glass like this and her hand would be shaking like this and the water would be coming out and she was perfect before.
So I have two people, we'd have very few people in my house because of COVID.
So the fish guy the carpet cleaner and the house cleaner, right?
And so to have not just one person but him and his wife I mean that's like that is like lightning striking twice in the same place So and so if it was really a safe vaccine, then what I just saw was impossible So that's kind of what triggered me off on this and then I had been on this Canadian a physician's call with dr Byron brittle
and he showed this chart and he said normally when you vaccinate someone, the vaccine goes in the shoulder and it stays in the shoulder area and what happens is the antibodies are generated and they attack this antigen in the shoulder and it wipes it out and we're good.
But what Byron Brittle did is he did a FOIA request to the Japanese government to look at the biodistribution data.
And what he discovered is that it doesn't stay in the shoulder where we all thought it should stay.
It goes throughout your entire body.
It goes to your brain, to your heart.
So that's two problems.
One problem is it isn't where it's supposed to be ideally.
Where we thought it was for all the previous vaccines.
And the other problem, and this is your area of expertise, is that what these vaccines do is they encode spike protein alone so that the immune system will learn to recognize spike protein and will catch it quickly when one is confronted with COVID.
But the spike protein itself, we now know, is very dangerous.
It's cytotoxic.
Is that a fair description?
More than fair, and I alerted the FDA about this risk months and months and months ago.
And we had a discussion about it.
And to be fair, the FDA did not think that the S1 subunit and the spike protein was toxic.
And so they knew, the FDA knew about the biodistribution.
And one of the scary things is that the biodistribution like peaks in your ovaries.
And so, so just to, so he says that the FDA, so Brett understands how the vaccine is supposed to work.
The transfection works, but he doesn't really understand that it's a transfection.
You can hear him talking that way.
And Steve says that the, the FDA knew
that the spike was distributed throughout the body, but didn't know that the spike was toxic.
I got to just write this down because we're moving very fast here and I don't want to summarize it yet, but I want to, I can't catch up with these guys this quick.
Sorry.
Hold on one second.
The virus distribution was varied, but
Not that the spike was toxic.
So I guess this is really right on the narrative that I was saying at this time as well, which was that if there was an engineered something, it would have been the spike protein engineered to produce seroprevalence.
And engineering that to work would also make it dangerous.
Because it's an immunogen that the, that the, the immune system can't help, but pay attention to.
And this will be inevitably something that will have consequences we don't understand when you do it in the context of transfection.
So it's not just a foreign protein, but it's a foreign protein juiced up.
And so.
I find that very interesting because he mentions Byron Brittle, which again, remember that Brett never has Byron Brittle on his podcast after this.
So Byron Brittle is still a guy who's, sorry, Byron Brittle is a guy whose career is still being burnt.
I got to keep all of my things in my head straight.
I don't know how Mark Housatonic does what he does with all these names and stuff.
It must be very,
Um, it must make everything a little more solid in your mind.
If you organize that website of his and, and organize all those links and, and, and organize that archive, then maybe all these names and stuff stay together, but Byron brittle.
The guy who exposed the distribution of the lipid nanoparticle after having FOIAed information from the Japanese government is still having his career destroyed.
He still has to be very careful in Canada with what he does and how he does it because of the fact that he's still considered an out of the out group.
And Brett Weinstein has never talked to him.
And there, and Steve is very excited to mention it to him, but then Brett is always, you know, calming everybody down.
Okay, so that's two different things.
The first thing is that it's not where we said it was.
Don't mention Byram again.
Don't accentuate this hero in Canada who spoke out, but go back to sort of, you know, being the referee here, Brett.
Don't mention that again.
And then he explains how it's supposed to work and that the spike protein is toxic.
Is that an accurate thing?
And then Malone says, yes, it is.
And then Steve clarifies and says that the FDA knew that the biodistribution was varied.
but they didn't know that the spike protein was toxic.
That's a very, I mean, where are we?
We're 14 minutes into this and we have fully vaccinated.
People don't need masks anymore.
We have that.
There were other ways that you didn't need masks.
We could have used a prophylactic treatment like ivermectin and ended the pandemic too.
And something's gone terribly wrong.
but my carpet cleaner and his wife both reacted bad to the shot, but our whole family didn't.
And so they're laying down this narrative, which is wide open that you could drive a truck through that says, oh, the lots are different because his family's fine, but his carpet cleaner and his wife got sick.
So it's not people, but it's lots.
And the lots are all different.
And of course, we know that that narrative came up very soon after this, that the lots were different.
And so that's why there were some reactions and some people, which might be true, but it's secondary to the fact that these guys are still selling it.
If it works, it's great.
If you get one of those bad lots though, or if you don't get Moderna.
Do you hear all the, this is 15 minutes in and they've already laid down all of these subconscious clues about what the way out is.
The subconscious clues about what they have chosen as experts.
As smart people, they realize something's wrong.
Now, what are they doing?
Well, you know, Brett, the smart of the smart is using ivermectin as a prophylactic.
Wow.
It's, it's extraordinary.
to nail the point home.
They did know.
I did send them the manuscripts.
So, and, and their determination was.
It's a harmless spike protein.
That they didn't think that that was sufficient documentation of the risk that spike was biologically active.
Right.
They did not believe.
So that's curious because he might be talking about the two papers, which I think Mark has already covered, but he's definitely brought them to my attention as well as the Bregan's bringing them to people's attention.
That Robert Malone wrote a couple manuscripts with a guy by the name of David Rick or Rica Ricky.
And these manuscripts describe.
why immunization to the spike protein might not be ideal, might lead to antibody-dependent enhancement, and also some paper about how the cytokine storm tumbling out of control might also be caused by the spike protein.
These two papers were both written very early in 2020.
And so he said, I sent them manuscripts
But he's not explicitly saying, hey, if you want to understand, if you're a scientist out there, I know, Brett, your audience is very, very sophisticated.
Anybody who wants to know more, I've got two papers up on ResearchGate or two papers on BioRxiv, which describe why this shot might be.
He's not saying that.
Maybe he'll say it in a few minutes.
The spike was biologically active.
That was the big mistake.
We now know the spike protein is very dangerous.
Very dangerous.
We also know.
So if it was very dangerous, but it did what the brochure on these vaccines says it should do, which is lodge in the membrane of the cells that are doing the transcribing, it would be a lot less destructive, right?
I think that's fair, and you're right.
It's not just the documentation about the vaccine.
Are you hearing this?
That if the spike protein wasn't as toxic, that the RNA transfections would be working better.
I can't even believe that I'm discovering this all.
I have to almost apologize to Mark for this, because Mark has been trying to get me to watch this again for so long.
I just can't believe it.
We're 15 minutes into it.
As far as I'm concerned, this was like a fool's mate in chess.
They've already revealed it all.
There's no other reason why this podcast in the first 15 minutes would have gone in these directions with these words, unless that wasn't the plan.
You don't think that they just sat down and said, let's go.
Let's see where this takes us.
Are you kidding me?
It's the prior literature that was put out by the people that developed it, that developed these clones.
So they were aware that there was a risk of Spike being biologically active.
Did you hear that?
And having adverse events.
Did you hear that?
He did not stay stuck.
They were aware.
that there was a risk of a spike being biologically active and having adverse events if it did not stay stuck to the cells that were transfected that got the RNA and made it.
And they used a genetic engineering method of putting a transmembrane domain on it to ensure... Wait, we've got to go a little bit farther back.
...a spike being biologically developed.
that developed these clones.
See?
Did you hear it?
They were aware that there was a risk of a spike by the people that developed it, that developed these clones.
So they were aware that... I don't even know what to say.
He just said it.
Developed these clones.
He's using... Holy cow.
You understand why I'm talking about holding your arm straight in the beginning, why I played that clip.
If you didn't see the beginning of the stream after we're done, please go back and watch the beginning of the stream.
If you can't see it clearly now, if we can't use this to help people see clearly now, I don't know what else to say.
But these are not straight armed men right here.
And unfortunately, I don't think that their arms are bent because they're tired or they're exhausted or the censorship beat them down to the point where they just couldn't keep their arms straight anymore and they buckled under the pressure.
They're smiling.
They're excited.
They think they're right.
They're certain they're going to be okay.
Don't you see it?
I see it.
Thank you Mark for making me watch this video.
There was a risk of a spike being biologically active and having adverse events if it did not stay stuck to the cells that were transfected that got the RNA and made it.
And they used a genetic engineering method of putting a transmembrane domain on it to ensure that it stayed anchored and stayed put.
And they did limited non-clinical studies to say,
Looks like it stays stuck.
We engineered it to stay stuck.
They did.
And they published that.
Here's the thing.
Special engineered.
Okay.
Is that that's generally not good enough in a non-clinical data package.
So before we get a product released to use in humans, in the normal situation where we're not in a rush,
we have some really rigorous tests that have to be done in animals.
And, um, revealing that spike gets cleaved off of express cells and becomes free is something that absolutely should have been known and understood well before this ever gotten put into humans.
So I'll just leave it at that.
All right.
Well, that's, so what, that's the smoking gun.
Let me, uh,
Just make one thing clear.
You said it very clearly, but lots of people who aren't familiar with this aren't going to get it.
Do you see the eyes of Steve Kirsch looking at Robert Malone when he says that's the smoking gun?
It's like they just threaded the needle.
This is exactly what we wanted to say.
Wow, that was really spontaneous, man.
Wink, wink.
We did that really well.
We got this conversation right there.
Wink, wink.
Watch, please.
I'm sorry.
So the RNA gets so free is something that absolutely should have been known and understood well before this ever gotten put into humans.
So I'll just leave it at that.
All right.
Well, that's so what that's the smoking gun.
Let me, uh,
Just make one thing clear.
You said it very clearly, but lots of people who aren't familiar with you.
Did you see it?
Watch.
It's almost like Steve was waiting for the cue to say, that's the smoking gun.
And Robert said, I'm going to leave it at that.
And then Steve gets a little nervous.
And then he says, that's the smoking gun.
And then he's like, see, I said it.
I remembered to say it.
Listen, sorry if I'm hallucinating.
It would have been known and understood well before this ever gotten put into humans.
So I'll just leave it at that.
All right.
Well, that's so what.
That's the smoking gun.
Let me.
Just make one thing clear.
You said it very clearly, but lots of people who aren't familiar with this.
Why is he smiling like that?
RNA gets into the cell.
It is translated by the ribosome into a protein.
In this case, it's the spike protein, which is the best target on the coronavirus.
We could debate that.
Go ahead.
But it's at least a very good one.
It's a prominent one.
Yeah, it's a good target.
Nobody argues with that.
And if the antibodies grab onto it, the most likely thing to happen is that they will block it from doing what it does that facilitates the entry into the cell.
So if everything works the way the brochure says, it's a good target.
After about five days, though, the antibodies have to be- Okay, hold on.
So the whole reason to use an adenoviral vector, an mRNA,
is not just to generate antibodies.
I don't understand why he's having so much fun.
Why is he having so much fun?
If everything works the way the brochure says, it's a good target.
After about five days, though, the antibodies have to be... Hold on, hold on, he says.
The whole reason to use an adenoviral vector, an mRNA, is not just to generate antibodies.
And a lot of the data, and a lot of us that are deep in this data,
think that the way that they're really providing the protection is by cellular cytotoxicity.
So you're getting CTLs against it.
And that's the reason to use this gene therapy based technology is not just to generate neutralizing antibodies, but to generate cytotoxic de-lymphocytes.
Okay, you and I are about to go down the rabbit hole because this is biologically fascinating, which I want to avoid doing, but you just said the reason to use the adenovirus vector, which is with the DNA vaccines, not the RNA vaccines, which is what we were talking about.
I would, I would call it, it's not a DNA vaccine.
It's an ad vector vaccine.
Right.
It's a, it's a not, it is the use of the.
So it's not a DNA, but it's got DNA in it.
I think he's just trying to make sure that we get on the narrative.
Make sure you're using the right terms here, Dark Horse Podcast host.
Let me get everybody on the same rail here.
Steve's not on the rail yet.
He needs correcting too.
A recombinant virus, which happens to be a DNA virus.
Yeah.
But it's the same basic idea.
It's a recombinant virus that happens to be a DNA virus.
So what you said before was totally correct.
But let's call it an adeno vector.
Do you hear this?
Are you hearing this?
Please tell me you can hear this.
Gene therapy technology advector.
The reason to use the adenovirus vector, which is with the DNA vaccines, not the RNA vaccines, which is what we were talking about.
I would call it, it's not a DNA vaccine.
It's an advector vaccine.
Right.
It is the use of the- A recombinant virus, which happens to be a DNA virus.
Yeah.
But it's the same basic idea.
It's gene therapy technology applied to vaccines.
It's the same technology and everything downstream of the translation of the spike protein is the same.
Spike protein?
Yeah.
It is the same.
And by the way, so it's the same whether you use DNA to make RNA to make the spike or whether you use RNA to make the spike.
It's all the same.
If you use an adenovirus shell to carry it in, Brett was about to argue.
I don't know if you were feeling it, but Brett was about to argue that the adenovirus vaccines, because of their nature of using DNA to change the way or change the proteins that are expressed in a cell, because it's an adenovirus vector,
In some ways, it might call in a T cell response and teach a cytotoxic T cell response that the transfection would not do with the lipid nanoparticle and mRNA.
And Robert cut him off.
This was one of the main reasons why a lot of people were cheering for the
the AstraZeneca and the Johnson and Johnson shots.
And it was one of the reasons why people like immunologists were debating about which one would be the better one.
There were people who were saying that, well, you might end up building immunity to the adenovirus shell instead of to the protein that is supposed to make.
And then there were other people who were making the argument, no, by taking it in with a viral shell, you're more likely to activate the innate antiviral immune response, which will call in a more appropriate T cell response, which could generate a more reliable cytotoxic T cell response.
That's what Brett was about to say.
And Robert interrupted him and said, no, no, no, don't say that it's DNA.
Don't make such a big deal about it.
It's an advector.
It's all the same thing.
Once you get to the spike, it's all the same.
Did you hear it?
We have no problems at all with mRNA vaccines.
Right.
It's just this particular vaccine because of the spike protein and because it breaks, it cleaves off the cell and it goes throughout your body and your brain, your heart, anywhere.
that you can have these symptoms that are so varied, whether it's a 16-year-old who can't... What matters is when this was said.
It doesn't matter what he's saying now.
It matters when this was said.
This was June 2021.
More than enough people had said, don't do it.
More than enough people.
Peter McCullough had already said, don't do this.
Peter McCullough had already called it out.
Are you kidding me?
If it's not obvious now, ladies and gentlemen, I don't know what to say.
We are one hour and eight minutes into this.
In my mind, I could stop it right here.
There's nothing else to see except for these guys digging a deeper hole and making a more beautiful sandcastle, which when you view it from above, says that these guys were part of it.
Because that's all that I see here.
Somebody's playing somebody, maybe.
My guess is, unfortunately, that Steve Kirsch is being played by the other two guys, but he thinks that him and Malone are playing Brett Weinstein, and that's how this works.
That's how you get people sucked in.
You tell Brett Weinstein that I need your help with reining in
this entrepreneur named Steve Kirsch, who's all fired up about Remdesivir, and all fired up about the shot, and he's seen a ghost, and we've gotta rein him in.
And then Robert Malone says to Steve Kirsch, hey, let's go on, you go on Bret Weinstein's show with me, and make sure that Bret stays on task.
And these are the things that we wanna say, that the spike protein is really bad, but mRNA shots are okay,
And so we're gonna get some, I'm gonna orchestrate somewhere in there and we're gonna make sure that we say that the spike protein is the smoking gun.
And then now you're watching that play out where two guys are interacting with a third dude who has convinced each of those two guys that they're cooperating with him against the third guy.
That's what I see here, plain as day.
It's extraordinary to me.
It is absolutely extraordinary to me that it took me this long to watch this video again.
And it's in a way very good.
Because the longer we waited, the more likely it was that we would see the stark contrast and the stark incongruencies that were almost certainly much more difficult to see at the time.
It almost seemed like my review
asking to pause the transfections was making a difference.
That this guy had come out and started to say that it's bad and I was still...
wholly unaware of the way that the narrative could be twisted so that, okay, you're saying transfection is bad.
Well, we're gonna get these two guys on Brett Weinstein to say that I'm RNA and transfection is fine, but it's what we, the spike protein that we put into it.
The weird thing is, is that Mark Housatonic, Mark Kulak, sent me an article where Robert Malone is commenting in a couple different
newspapers about the death of some guy who they were trying to fix with a genetic defect by using transfection with adenovirus vectors, whatever he said to call them.
And the guy died.
So it's not like he doesn't know that this stuff can go south really fast.
But he's still saying it in a dishonest way.
He's still saying that it's the spike protein, probably.
I think that's accurate.
And who fed that to him?
Brett did.
Do you see?
He has worked these two, it feels like.
I'll give you a set of cues, and I want you to work with me to get these on.
And then in the other room, he said to Steve, I have these cues.
I want you to work me on and get these in.
and help me to convince Brett.
You help me to convince Steve.
And they both think that they're in on it.
They both think they're the secret guy helping Robert.
That's what I see here.
I mean, we already know that Brett Weinstein was somehow controlled or briefed or brought into this as part of the intellectual dark web.
That's why he had Sam Harris on his stream in December of 2019 saying that there will be a time when there's a pandemic, when we won't be able to tolerate anti-vaxxers anymore.
Bret Weinstein has been in on this from the very beginning.
That's also why he is the pseudo champion of the lab leak thing.
And we said it first and yada, yada, yada.
This is all part of that.
This is mid show right here.
This is June, 2021.
He's already sitting in this skeptic King camp, you know, where, well, at least we're skeptical enough.
We didn't take it yet.
That's what he represents at the table.
and pushing ivermectin at least three times already.
Talk or see 48 hours after injection or someone who's, you know, handshakes or someone who's, you know, my carpet cleaner, Tim, he's like disabled now.
He's lost $30,000 in terms of his costs.
And he's going in for an epidural because he's in such pain.
And so these side effects, the victims of this vaccine, they're not being able to tell their story at the press.
Because Tim says, I try to tell my story and the press ignores him.
And we have these groups that
Aren't able to get attention aren't able to get attention a large group of people who believe that they have suffered Negative consequences was removed from Facebook.
So there's very a large group of people that believe they have suffered negative consequences very specific language clearly an effort to 200,000 users just wiped off the right planet, right?
If there's so Steve is kind of fighting for things and saying things like he's seen it Whoa, like he's seen a UFO
I kind of like Steve here.
Oh, if this is a perfectly safe vaccine.
So the censoring has been going on for well over a year.
It's well documented.
It's unequivocal.
And my argument is that, um, by implementing censoring, what we're doing is making it so that signals can't be detected.
People's voices can't be heard.
And I, I'm, I'm of the opinion.
that we have to have free and open discussion, and we have to have full disclosure of risks.
And when you censor that, you cannot have that.
Yeah, it changes everybody's mindset into believing it's safe and effective.
And when you have that, you don't report these adverse events as being associated with it because you eliminate it.
You don't want to be the fly in the ointment of a great vaccine.
No, you don't think it's possible, right?
So when a doctor sees a miscarriage,
and says, I've never seen a baby like this in my entire career where it's so bloody and the brain is split in half and so forth.
She's never seen anything like it.
And the woman was vaccinated a month ago, and she's 25 weeks pregnant.
When you have that sort of thing, the doctors... I want you to watch him listen versus watching him listen.
It's through the whole video, but just keep in mind as you circle back, watch these three guys as they interact and as they listen to one another.
And so they say, well, it must be a genetic defect.
And they report it as a genetic defect.
And they don't even report it into the virus system.
So we never see any of these safety signals because everybody is trained to think that it's safe.
It couldn't have been a vaccine.
Yeah.
So that's this group think problem.
And I think it is a real problem.
Here's what they're going to say.
And I want to
work out how this functions, right?
So that's a groupthink problem, and that's a real big problem, but he doesn't talk about what the problem was again.
What is the problem that Steve was talking about?
That people don't expect the transfection to hurt people.
So without that expectation, when people get hurt, they don't make the correlation.
And Brett says, yeah, that's group.
I mean, Robert says, yeah, that's groupthink.
That's a problem.
No, the problem is, is that people don't expect the transfection to hurt them.
Not groupthink.
Did you see it?
This is Jedi master level interjection here.
That's why he's not nodding his head and whatever.
He's not listening.
He's actively counteracting in his head what needs to be said next.
That's what I see here.
I don't know.
I could be wrong, but it leaves me with a very dubious feeling with regard to what's going on here, because it's not a very spontaneous conversation for Robert.
It doesn't appear to be.
It's extraordinary what I see here.
This is a sliver of time.
June 11th, 2021, where three men are purported to have several different ways that we could end the pandemic in three simple steps.
We are not even 20 minutes into a podcast where they told us that they were demonstrating what people can do if they follow the rules or if they find biologically plausible alternatives to those rules and stick to them.
double vaccinated with Moderna or prophylactic use of Ivermectin.
story.
Hey, I, Steve, talked to a couple people who came through my house in various capacities and heard an alarmingly large number of stories that were very frightening.
Now, everybody at this table will agree that could be anecdotal.
It's totally anecdotal.
It's not even anecdotal.
It could be the result of sampling error.
Oh, absolutely.
And so the point is, how do you detect if something like that isn't sampling error?
So it could be sampling error, but he's making a big deal about it.
It might not have been a UFO, but I'm pretty sure it was a UFO.
Could have been something else, but I think it was a UFO.
Does that sound like somebody who's holding his arms straight?
Guys, I'm asking you a question.
Does that sound like a guy who's holding his arms straight?
I don't hear it.
find out what other people are saying.
Yes, you can look for confirmation.
And at the same time that you were having your experience, I was having a slightly different experience.
I was talking to every single person that I interact with, which is definitely not a random sample of people.
On the other hand, we're talking about the woman who cuts my hair, my doctor,
I was talking to everybody I encountered and I was asking them, my dentist, I asked them, what was your experience?
Did you get vaccinated?
Yes.
What was your experience?
And the number of people who had a frightening story was alarmingly large.
In fact, I believe it is the case that the only people who didn't have some anomalous reaction
were my parents and Heather's mom, which may be because older people have these things less.
That may be sampling error.
I don't know.
But the point is, there were stories that didn't sound like any vaccine I've ever heard of.
People who had weeks of fire-like pain in their arm, headaches that would not go away, fevers,
So I'm a regulatory professional and I do talk to the FDA.
Eye contact with the camera.
And I have friends there in senior positions.
Wow.
they were aware back when we were doing, is that like a, and I have good, is that like the rarest thing you've ever seen?
So I, I'm a regulatory professional and, and I do talk to the FDA and I have good friends there in, in senior positions.
They were aware
back when we were doing randomized clinical trials that- Do you believe him?
Is that what that is?
Do you believe him because of that?
They were a military professional and I do talk to the FDA and I have good friends there in senior positions.
They were aware
back when we were doing randomized clinical trials, that these adverse events were occurring.
Many of them were oddly delayed and atypical for a vaccine trial.
This is totally- Oddly delayed.
I don't know why you would call it oddly delayed.
He's supposed to be the guru level expert
Yet he doesn't understand why they would be oddly delayed.
Because maybe autoimmunity takes a little while to develop.
Maybe because the toxic effects of a transfection takes a little while to develop.
It's a little more variable depending on where it goes and what tissues are expressing the toxic protein or the fragments thereof.
There's no teaching happening here.
This is not somebody throwing themselves in front of a train to save the world.
Totally new technology.
And that kind of gets at the core.
I think one of our problems here is the assumption that this is like every other vaccine we've ever seen.
And it's not.
It's very different technology.
Right.
And so these weird symptoms.
It's almost like the syringe.
We've mistaken the syringe as delivery vehicle for some sort of a proxy for how to feel about these vaccines.
Now, Heather and I on this program, when we heard how the vaccines worked and that they had been accelerated through this process, our sense was, you're going to deliver a brand new technology with respect to deploying it in humans, and it's going to interact with the immune system, and you're going to speed it through this process.
We did not know that it had skipped the animal trials that might have alerted us to something really dangerous.
They didn't even test the vaccine itself in the animal trials.
I didn't know.
So I received this data package that Steve's referred to that the Canadians acquired by FOIA within about 24 hours when it went live.
And I reviewed it on behalf of Trial Site News on request.
And I was really alarmed, frankly, by what I saw.
It was very unusual.
And so I had an even more senior and experienced regulatory affairs professional review it.
And he picked out more things, like the absence of the reprotox.
Spell that out.
Reproductive toxicology package that normally would be in the genotoxicity.
So genotoxicity is
toxicity to the genes of the test system.
In this case it's the Ames test largely.
So that's kind of level one for genotoxicity analysis.
And these are imperfect assays.
If there's one truism in research... Looking in the camera again.
You know, we all say mice lie, monkeys mislead, and humans are the only things that really prove whether or not something is safe and effective is for humans.
But we have to do something before we authorize, approve for a material to be initially tested in humans.
So what the alarming thing was for me,
was that what had been done, at least in that package, and I'm told, I spoke to Peter Marks, the director of CBER, about this and about my concerns.
And he told me that the Pfizer has submitted a new data package in the just last couple of weeks, and they're currently evaluating it.
So I think we have to take those data with a little bit of a grain of salt, because they may have been updated and we don't know what's in there.
So maybe it is safer than I'm saying right now.
Maybe it is more reliable.
Maybe in the end it's going to be okay.
Do you hear it?
Can you see it?
It sounded like for a minute there that he was really going to come out and say something dramatic, but in the end that he didn't, right?
He, he, he didn't because he said, hold on.
Remember Jordan Peterson at this time was saying, I think we should give him six months and everybody should just take the shot so we can get out of this.
Jordan Peterson said the same thing at the same time as these guys came out.
And there's more data to come.
Jeremy Marks assured me, my friend at the FDA assured me that Pfizer has submitted a new data package and so we should wait and see.
Wait and see while thousands of people get transfected every day around the world because they feel coerced by their TV.
Because they feel coerced by their city's mayor.
Because they feel coerced by their kid's school.
Because they feel coerced by their morning show host.
Because they feel coerced by their people at work who watch the morning show host.
Don't you see it?
Is this in non-human primates?
Because there's a big difference between... No, it was done in rodents.
Yeah, but rodents don't have the same affinities for ACE2.
So we're down in the weeds, but I just wanted to say... But the point is that we should do it right.
Agreed.
And through all of this... So that's interesting because he's pointing out that you can't use an animal model of a rat to do the vaccine studies.
But of course, after this, there are monkey studies that purportedly used it as well.
And they used monkeys to do it.
But Steve is upset right now.
I believe Steve here.
He still seems like a guy who's seen the UFO and isn't really sure if you believe him yet or not.
And so every time he gets the feeling that people aren't listening to him or don't really understand what he means, he gets kind of upset.
He gets a little antsy.
I'm believing him.
I see Brett as being a guy who was brought in to rein in Steve almost.
I think we can all agree, Tony Fauci can agree.
that corners were cut in the interest of the emergency.
And when you do that, these are processes to ensure safety.
So again here, I think Mark and I are in total agreement.
I'm just guessing, but I think him and I would both hear another thing being laid down here, right?
Because again, if we wouldn't have rushed it,
If we would have considered a little better what protein we were using and adjusted it a little bit, if we had made it a little purer, if we had not rushed it, this technology would be fine.
Steve Kirsch, not even five minutes ago, said that we're not afraid of RNA vaccines at all.
They're fine.
It's just that this spike protein might be bad.
Man, oh man.
evolved over decades they took a risk they took a risk and they lost so we're gonna come back to this I know you have a background in bioethics I would point out that alright corners were cut let us all agree that we were how does somebody who is a vaccine technology broker have knowledge of bioethics what does that even mean
You can't have knowledge of bioethics unless you've been an objective arbitrator.
It just doesn't even make, how many different expertises does this guy have?
Because he can also put a saddle on a racehorse and raise a $30,000 foal and emus.
an emergency situation.
I would have done the same if I were in charge of the FDA.
I ran across an animation, I believe it was the FDA, and the specific purpose of this animation.
Exactly.
Christine Brady also has a rich background in bioethics.
It's just a question of what kind of bioethics do you mean?
If you mean undermining all of the standards of sovereignty over your body and what it means to exercise informed consent and always have the ability to say no,
then yeah, I guess you could say that she's involved in bioethics.
If you're interested in ways of testing vaccines on the back of each other or using immunobridging to justify new vaccine trials, sure, then I guess you could call that expertise in bioethics.
Do you hear this?
These are not men who are keeping their arms straight.
These are men who are performing, at least that's, I feel like Steve is trying to keep his arms straight.
And these guys keep reaching across the table and putting his arms back down.
But Steve keeps going, yeah, but come on guys, really?
Stick with me here.
No, no, no, calm down, Steve.
is to say the process was accelerated, but no corners were cut.
In fact, the metaphor they use is basically a road, right, in which they have straightened out the curves and basically, you know, it was a reduction in paperwork.
So it's a cartoon.
It is very literally a cartoon.
Yeah, so we learned from the disclosures that that was a misrepresentation.
So, but it's not just a misrepresentation, because the point is what is being allotted here is informed consent.
Basically, everybody who's getting these vaccines is
part of an experiment that we are running, that is actually wildly over generous of me to say, because for it to be an experiment, we would have to systematically collect data on what happened to them.
To every patient.
And in fact, our systematic system isn't so systematic.
No, it's all voluntary reports.
Voluntary reporting with stigma attached to the end.
If you report something, they're going to say, no, no, no.
They'll convince you that it's not.
So I just wanted to say that I didn't just rely on my carpet cleaner story.
Right.
Oh, no, no.
You pursued it.
Yeah, that was just the uh-oh right then my antenna went up and then when every place I went Every single place I talked to doctors.
I said, oh, you've got 900 patients.
How many of them have you know?
What's the adverse event rate the serious adverse event rate, you know?
And so doctors have a view and I talked to paramedics they've got a view and every I did a survey on next door and found, you know, I
3% had persistent troubling systems that haven't gone away.
So every single thing that I looked to verify, it was flashing red.
So you're coming at it from the street level, and that has validity.
And the FDA doesn't look at it that way.
They look at it as, hang on, hang on, one second.
Ooh, it's getting salty in here.
the very voluntary vaccine adverse event reporting system.
Okay, nobody knows about that.
They're all told to report into v-safe, they get these text messages that only last for a few weeks or so.
But nobody knows about this VAERS system.
And people aren't reporting in.
In fact, when doctors report in, they are told, you know, don't report this, this wasn't, I mean, we
We've had reports reversed from doctors without their consent, without the doctor's consent.
First of all, I don't want us to work too hard, okay?
There is something that goes on when we get into this space where the standards that are set for what constitutes evidence are absurd in the context of science and the way science actually functions.
What you did is perfectly defensible.
Had you concluded simply from three people in your sphere that there was a problem, that wouldn't have been.
Oh, no.
Yeah, absolutely not.
That was an observation.
It was an observation.
It created a hypothesis.
Exactly.
The hypothesis is there's a problem with these vaccines, and if I look farther, that signal's not going to disappear.
It's going to continue out as far as I look.
And when I looked at the VARIS database and I see like it's flatline for all the, you know, 30 years that VARIS has been around and then it just spikes up.
I mean, it's like a hockey stick.
And then it's like, how do you explain that?
So I see another dynamic that's going on here that I think I should put in to kind of underscore the context.
Remember that they're trying to be really careful because there's certain things you can't talk about.
So they're trying to portray Steve as just making observations.
We're not claiming anything, we're just making observations.
He's backing him up.
He's backing him up to this hypothetical line of censorship.
We don't want to get my channel demonetized, do we now?
And of course you know that this video is going to demonetize
the Dark Horse podcast on YouTube, and they're gonna claim grievance for that forever after as evidence that they were on the cutting edge of getting this truth out.
Right?
So that's the thing they're doing here, the little dance.
In case you can't feel it, Brett is walking Steve's statements back so that we make sure that we portray them just as observations.
You should bring up that graphic.
Sure.
So while you're doing that.
Yeah.
And the assumption, by the way, has to be for something like this is you have to assume that it's the vaccine because that's the conservative thing.
No, you're going the wrong way.
Yep.
That was the biodistribution.
And then here's this graph.
And when I saw this graph, I said, look, that needs to be explained.
And the default is when you do... What's this?
Are those subjects?
And times?
Or what are we doing here?
Do you see that?
That's what he was looking at.
What is this?
You didn't think that this was organized, did you?
I'm telling you, they're smiling at each other across the table for a reason.
And I don't know who's bamboozling who here, but it's more, it's more deep than them bamboozling us.
There's a game being played even among these people at the table.
That's why they behave so normally, so on edge, so,
why the improv is so believable.
Because they both think that they are understanding the game.
They both all think that they have some privilege.
Sorry, Brett and Steve both think that they have some privileged information.
Brett and Steve both think that Robert Malone is higher on this hierarchy of understanding.
And that Robert Malone is part of, you know, taking a big risk coming on Brett's show.
And so Brett wants to do it in the classiest, you know, avoid the censorship, say what needs to be said, be a standup guy.
That's what the performance is here.
There's only one person at the table that I know for sure.
I know for sure
is holding back reactions is carefully calculating his words is is it's amazing to me what I see here.
It's just a clinical trial is you have to ascribe it to the suspect should be the the vaccine because this is what's being tested and then you need to
to show that, oh, no, no, no, this was due to some other thing.
And nobody's explained that.
That's the thing.
And nobody's even asking that question, how many people have died.
You're playing by the scientific rules, right?
Your point is, I observed something.
I have a hypothesis.
What's the hypothesis?
And then the prediction is manifest.
Right.
And then the question is, all right, maybe there's some other hypothesis that predicts the same thing.
But if so, what is it?
But nobody's come up with it.
Exactly.
Right.
So they're using the rules of the game against science.
Now, here is the graph that you were referring to.
right?
These are the death reports in the VAERS system as of May 28, 2021.
And what you see is there's a certain amount of death following vaccine.
Some of those deaths will be just random chance.
Correct.
That's the random chance you see at the
It's a random chance you have a certain number of people who have an anaphylactic reaction to something the vaccine was grown in, right?
Or they just die.
But the point is, we get vaccines, they have values, there's a certain cost, a certain number of people die, we're adults, we get it, but then the question is, what the hell happens?
It's interesting what they're looking at.
I never thought about this before, but that implies a certain studio setup.
that they have a monitor on the wall or a TV on the wall that Steve can point up to.
I mean, my monitor is right in front of me right here and another one over there.
So when I point at things, I have the cameras oriented so that it kind of looks like I'm looking, but I am really looking at what I'm looking at.
But they're now looking at something that's above the camera.
And presumably that means that people can see what's on the stream.
I only say this because again, remember.
Yeah, I don't know.
I'm just making observations.
With the COVID vaccines there, why is that signal so high?
How do you explain that?
And so what you see there, that number I know is not up to date.
The number is not.
Oh, no, no, no.
They're way backlogged.
And also, the current number is like 6,000, right?
Probably somewhere around there.
But they've actually taken, nobody can explain why they've removed reports from the VAERS system.
Because what we found is that the reports that were put in by people and,
they disappear.
They disappear and then again.
So this is a conservative estimate because what about those reports that they took out that we can't see?
So he does sound like somebody who is very much concerned that he's seen a ghost.
Brett's trying to calm him down.
Robert has said nothing.
Conservative and we can't calibrate how conservative it is.
Correct.
That's a key point.
It's a key issue.
So can I kind of peck at that a little bit?
And I wanted to make sure that I was prepared before we had this discussion today.
So this morning I called some friends at FDA again and talked to them about the databases and the database analysis.
And I wanted to just check in and make sure that I wasn't misunderstanding or misrepresenting.
And they used words like, it's chaotic, it's disorganized, they are not analyzing the data efficiently, they're understaffed, they're overwhelmed.
Furthermore, all of these, whether it's v-safe or this VAERS database, which by the way, physicians are alerted and have been told for many years to use VAERS, and many of them do.
VAERS is self-reported.
We don't have a good numerator or a good denominator.
In clinical research, we don't do this.
We get all the reports.
And if we're doing a structured clinical trial, we ensure that every single serious adverse event is carefully reported, carefully evaluated.
A physician has to make a judgment call as to whether it
is not or is possibly or is definitely associated with drug administration.
And the bias has to be anybody that, if you think about this for just a nanosecond, okay, if our goal is to ensure safety,
The bias has to be to assume that there is some association and then take the time to track it down.
And therein lies the rub.
So we have, and the last point I wanted to make is that under- So he says that he called some insiders at the FDA to talk about the databases and stuff.
And they use words like chaotic and disorganized.
Then he mentions the v-safe database
And he says that physicians have been instructed to use the VAERS in the v-safe database for years, and some of them do use it.
What do these statements mean?
What is he really saying here?
Is he saying anything at all?
Robert says that in clinical trials, we are very strict.
And we have a bias for, you know, it must have been the drug that we're testing.
Do you hear this too?
The idea that clinical trials are done with the utmost honesty, the utmost forthrightness.
When I do clinical trials, boy, I hold them to the highest standard.
I have the highest sense of morality.
Money never influences me.
I only do it the right way.
In clinical trials, I don't know how they did it here, but when I do these things, boy, I'm honest.
So I took the time to go back and reread the Emergency Use Authorization and the most recently updated EUA, that's the acronym, for COVID and the guidance from the FDA.
The FDA had the latitude to require that the vaccine sponsors, the developers, implement more rigorous data capture for safety.
And they elected not to.
So they had the statutory authorization to do that, and they made a conscious decision not to.
Let me understand what you're saying.
Are you talking about in order to get the EUA, or are you talking about following the release of the EUA?
I'm talking about post-authorization for EUA.
FDA had the option to elect to require
more or less rigor in how the data were captured normally under an EUA.
So again, you're talking about after the vaccines have been authorized to give.
Brett's pointing it out.
He's not saying anything here.
He's saying that the FDA could have followed up with the people they injected, but they chose not to as if that's part of this.
As if that has anything to do with already having the common sense to know that you don't transfect people that you want to live a long, healthy life afterward.
That transfection is not a suitable methodology for immunization against a respiratory disease.
These are the basic biological principles that he should be putting forth if he's the expert that he purports to be.
But instead, it seems like he's trying to blame the FDA for not having followed up with these people.
And so the VAERS database is overwhelmed and the FDA had the legislative authority to do it.
They coulda, but they chose not to.
You know who could have spoke out in 2020, but chose not to?
Do you know who could have held their arms straight in 2020, but was nowhere to be found?
All three of these men.
So throwing it on the FDA, as opposed to you who wrote a paper, two papers in 2020 about the dangers of these shots and then chose not to speak up about it.
Why did you write those papers then, Robert?
Could it have been because you wrote those papers because you had a, an Inovio vaccine that would not have had these kinds of problems because electroporation at a,
at the skin barrier is safer from an activation perspective than transfection.
So did you write those papers in 2020 to set the stage for a conclusion that the transfection was too dangerous and we should stick with something more rudimentary like an electroporation of a DNA into the skin?
Because if you're not going to mention them at this table,
If you're going to say you submitted manuscripts to the FDA, but you're not going to tell us where they are, if they're not in the notes of this, if, if Brett and, and Steve have not read those, those papers that you wrote more than a year earlier as part of the prep for this discussion, then what's going on here, I would ask.
I think the Breggans have also asked the question of why did you write those papers if you've never told anybody about them?
You wrote them so early.
And then when you came out on Brett's podcast, you didn't mention them at all.
The contents of them are not discussed.
So maybe he wrote those papers because he didn't want the mRNA or the adenovirus vectors to be chosen as the countermeasure.
rather than just because he was trying to save everybody from making a very big mistake.
He was trying to save everybody from making a very big mistake on that product because maybe he had another product or other products.
Steve, do you see where we are here, guys?
This is plain as day.
There's nothing to see here but malfeasance.
And I don't know who's responsible for it because they're doing such a wonderful job of making it seem like a spontaneous discussion with certain talking points that they want to hit.
To the public, data on what happens when it is administered to the public.
That's what you're saying.
Under an EUA, normally the way the statute was written,
It's predominantly set up so that you no longer require written informed consent, but the sponsors are, this was the original intent, but the sponsors are still required to carefully capture.
Malone doesn't show his hands because he's short.
So this table's probably too high for him to put his hands on.
Short people have that problem.
His legs are probably also swinging under the table.
Safety and efficacy information under EUA.
You're still in an experimental product.
You've just waived- With all subjects.
You've just waived- Not a voluntary report system.
You've just waived some of the requirements.
In the current version of the EUA authorization,
provides the FDA with the latitude to choose how rigorously that has to be done.
And in this case, I'm not aware that they implemented any requirements for the sponsors to capture those data.
See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.
It's almost like they didn't want to see it.
I don't want to imply intent.
I just want to stay with the facts.
Those are the facts.
I would say this is one of a number of anomalies.
Fair enough.
If you accept the narrative about why the EUA was granted, if you accept how we ended up here, then certain things would follow.
And when they don't, there's a reason to ask the question about why.
And so in this case, it seems like
If you're going to release this under an EUA because it's an emergency and because we've got a real problem that basically requires us to take more risk than we otherwise take, then what you would want to know is, well, actually how big is the risk?
And the way you would find that out is as you gave the thing to people, you would look for a signal.
That's the whole logic of EUA is you're basically substituting real-time capture of key information for prospective capture of key information, OK?
But in order to do that, you've got to get the information.
And it's got to be rigorous.
Right.
Now, another thing.
So there's a list of anomalies.
And it would be great to collect them.
In fact, you may have collected them.
I would say, when you've got an EUA, and that's the reason that you've licensed this vaccine, and you have no reason... It's not licensed.
You have authorized.
Authorized wide distribution of an experimental product.
Fair enough.
For experimentation on humans.
At the point that you have decided to do that, what you have done is you have said, it is worth taking more risk in this case because of X.
You certainly would not give it to people who get no benefit.
If there's more risk, then the people who get no benefit really shouldn't be involved.
In other words, people who have COVID should have no reason to take it.
Kids should not take it.
Kids shouldn't take it because they're actually fairly well protected against COVID.
So this gets to my point that I've made in a couple other podcasts.
Risk-benefit ratio sounds very sciency.
But it needs to be calculated for the short age range.
And it can be made sciency.
And the standard process which the ACIP, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the CDC, has in place and uses with every other vaccine,
is that there is a formal calculation about quality-adjusted life years, which is the basis for the risk-benefit equation, and they make a determination based on standard cohort brackets, okay, of which adolescence is one.
Okay, first of all, I see something happening in the chat there.
Mark Hustatonic is taller than me, so he's got to be at least 6'5",
or 6'6".
And I'm, on my basketball program in high school, I was 6'6", so I assume that I'm not that tall anymore.
I'm not as tall as George Webb, who I've heard is 6'8".
But Mark Housatonic and I see right eye to eye and his he's got like this giant skull.
I have a really tiny head He's got a giant skull.
So it's like sticks up above and then he's got that hair and then he's got Sunglasses and so he's he's like really tall so and Molarian curly was very funny.
I saw that and I had to stop with that so
Yeah, so I don't know.
Pregnancy is another.
I'm shocked really, because here we are talking about how exactly secret meetings and worst case scenario models, which again, if you go back to Mark's recent videos, you're going to find out that somebody who was very intimately related to Robert Malone was responsible for producing
this data or modeling the data in such a way to make projections about how so many people would die and about whether or certain mitigation strategies would reduce those people from dying.
So again, I can't stress enough how important it is to keep up with Mark.
Sometimes I give myself the excuse when Mark makes such a good video that I don't need to stream because everybody needs to be looking for content and hopefully they'll go look there.
I just can't stress enough how important it is.
to keep following the people that are, that have been putting these puzzle pieces together much longer than I have.
And Mark is one of the few that I can't.
We have to make sure that that guy gets lifted up.
So you've gotta be sharing his tweets.
You've gotta be posting his videos.
A lot of the people that are using the time and effort to post my videos should really also be sharing his because at this stage,
The reason why I feel so committed to this path forward and looking backwards and examining who kept their arms straight is because I've come to realize that Mark has kept his arms straight for a very, very long time and was actually holding his arms straight on the internet before it was cool.
And so I just, I don't know, I'm just very grateful to him for his friendship and I'm very grateful that, you know,
After all this time, I'm finally following your advice and watching this video.
I just can't believe how... I find a lot of hope here and a lot of reassurance that I'm not walking out on a limb.
I'm not standing on shaky ground when I suggest that Robert Malone's past track record and career
make it a dubious claim what he's making now, which is that he's a fifth generation warfare expert and that he's one of the few people telling the truth and that he has risked his life and limb and career to come out and do what he's done.
When we look back at exactly how he came out and the words that he used as he was coming out with the people that he came out with, you can clearly see that there's some incongruence there.
And it isn't necessarily to be assumed that this was an evolution in his position.
but rather a sort of ongoing absorption of whatever is necessary to keep the general population on narrative, which is there's a gain of function virus that was released.
It's still going around the world now.
We can track it with PCR.
Transfection is a pretty good technology that he's the inventor of.
And if we wouldn't have chosen this toxic spike protein, everything would be fine.
And now think back to that people map that I have and think about how many people have been convinced that the spike protein is especially toxic.
Because it's all part of the same narrative.
To try and hoodwink everybody to say that, oh no, the transfection is a wonderful idea.
But this spike protein, boy, was it nasty.
And when we find out who's responsible for choosing this antigen set, when we find out who's responsible for not regulating the production of this mRNA to a high enough standard, when we find out who's responsible for rushing us through, well, we'll fix it.
And then the vaccines will be better.
We're not gonna put anybody in jail.
We're not gonna blame anyone because the PrEP Act protects everybody.
Infants is another, et cetera.
The elderly, the immunocompromised are also special populations.
So usually the standard government practice is there's a formal evaluation of true risk benefit for each one of those cohorts and it shifts.
And by the way, risk benefit shifts as the incidence of the attack rate
of the pathogen changes, right?
Less COVID cases.
If there's no COVID, then there's no benefit to the vaccine, no reason to take the risk.
Right.
So I would also point out, though, that in this case, again, I respect not wanting to assume or infer intent.
And I think that's wise, because there are multiple ways you can get here.
But somehow, both the new- How many times did Robert Malone say on the podcast, the Defender podcast that I was on,
That unlike Jonathan, I would be very careful to infer intent.
And actually, the other person on that podcast who echoed that sentiment was Jessica Rose.
Just observations, data points.
The numerator and the denominator appear to have been gamed, right?
Because I would say they have been insufficiently documented.
I don't know what that flash was.
So what we have is almost worthless.
Well, let's put it this way.
The benefit calculation
requires you to look at the full set of alternatives in order to understand whether the risk is worth taking.
I concur on that.
Yeah, so let's talk about, you know, what the alternative is, right?
Because that's been unfairly, you know, they basically have this evidence and the NIH, and Cliff Lane, by the way, runs the NIH COVID treatment guidelines.
And I have told Cliff,
in many times that fluvoxamine, when it was confirmed in a large phase three trial, which is the standard of evidence, as I said, everybody's waiting for this large, really well done phase three trial.
And I told him about an interim result that was P value of 0.05, meets the bar, proves that it really works, there is no doubt.
Can you imagine advocating for something that has psychological effects on people that is supposed to be antidepressive?
as a way of combating a respiratory virus?
Can you imagine that?
What does that mean to you?
Were they interested in convincing people to take psychoactive medicine that would mellow them out, dumb them down, steady them?
What happens to people when they take fluvoxamine for COVID?
Do they get suicidal?
Do you understand how weird it is to be advocating for that drug as opposed to vitamin D or zinc or zinc ionophore?
Like at the time, somebody like Zev Zelenko was, was, was pushing.
Can you imagine this, how strange that is?
Wow.
How much of a context that is to just think about that.
Think about that for a minute.
The first thing that Mr. Steve Kirsch brings up is something that might make your teenager go crazy.
It might make you have suicidal thoughts.
Not vitamin D. So how much biology are we really learning here, ladies and gentlemen?
Or are we just learning what's going to be done to us?
what has been done, and what's going to be done to us.
What are we really being told here?
We're not being freed.
These people are not teaching us to fish so that we can go to the river and figure it out ourselves.
They're telling us what is, what's meant to be, what's gonna happen, so that we can accept it.
That's what I hear.
Even if Steve is an excellent, excellent, excellent dupe here,
This is what I hear.
This is an elaborate performance.
No change.
No, it doesn't even respond.
When Ivermectin
There was a report by Tess Lowry, an excellent report.
It was done three months ago.
She widely distributed to the WHO.
By the way, the WHO knows that fluvoxamine works too, and so does the Gates Foundation, but they're saying nothing to people.
And so this information, and if anyone wants to challenge me on this, you know, if Gates Foundation wants to debate me on this,
Bring it on.
If the WHO wants to debate me on this, bring it on.
And I will show that they knew, and they're not telling people.
Cliff Lane knew, and he's not changing the guidelines.
This information is being suppressed, and it's unfair.
But let's talk about the ivermectin report.
So what is being suppressed?
The information that fluvoxamine can help.
The information that ivermectin can help.
The information that's not being suppressed apparently is that vitamin D is an essential cofactor of your immune system.
It's not being said that vitamin C in general can help.
It's not being said that what you eat matters.
It's not being said that if you're 40 years old and haven't taken care of yourself for 30 of those years, you might have a problem.
It's not being said yet that remdesivir isn't useful here.
We're 40 minutes in, we still haven't mentioned that.
We haven't mentioned the improper ventilation of people.
We haven't mentioned anything of relevance on our table, on our bulletin boards, on our notes anymore.
Nothing yet.
Because Tess Lowry created this report, and these guys did nothing.
They sat back and said, well, Tess, it's not peer reviewed, so nobody's going to peer review it, so we don't have to do anything.
So Tess said,
You know, these guys aren't doing anything with it, so I'm going to submit it to a journal.
And she got it peer-reviewed, and it probably will be published tomorrow.
In which case, all these people that said, well, ivermectin doesn't work.
And I believe in evidence-based medicine.
And I would talk to the top officials in India.
And then they would say, I believe in evidence-based medicine.
I said, here's all the evidence.
Here's the systematic review and meta-analysis that you need.
That's the highest level of evidence.
Look at the evidence.
And he says, and the response is, well, the WHO and the NIH don't say so.
I'm sorry, I'm not interested.
And the evidence is overwhelming.
There's no question.
And this is among the safest drugs that we have in our arsenal.
So that's on the ivermectin story.
Yep.
Okay.
That's the sticker for me.
And I just got another report of a physician in Africa who had championed ivermectin, and then there was a regime change, and now she's being threatened with being put in jail.
There's all this pushback about ivermectin.
You're talking about Zimbabwe?
Yeah.
No, no, they changed it.
But my point is, to underscore what you just said,
is that at the doses that are being advocated that appear to be effective based on the data, and I've been tracking the same data, those are known to be safe.
And so you have a drug which is available in the pharmacopeia, it's licensed.
It's funny because this is actually the lens they chose.
If you choose a cheap lens that's like,
16 mils or 18 mil lens and it's kind of cheap, you know, like you don't get a Zeiss one or something like that, then the people on the outside of the circle are going to look bigger than the people on the inside.
And so that changes quite dramatically.
And so the reason why it looks like Robert Malone has a T-Rex arm is because that's in the normal focal plane of the lens.
And then whatever lens they chose here is really distorting it all the way out at the edges.
Um,
I think that's also because Steve Kersh is actually also quite a small guy.
I think they're all pretty short guys.
Um, but you can't really see it here because of the way the lens does this.
Physicians in the United States, at least in most countries have the right to prescribe from the existing pharmacopeia, even off label for other purposes.
Okay.
At safe levels.
And they're, they're, um, being, um, uh,
There is active consequences of physicians prescribing this drug openly and speaking about it.
And pharmacies won't even fill the prescriptions.
And yet they're administering it a safe dose.
So if it's being administered... Boy, he hates being interrupted.
Can you hear him sigh into the microphone every time Steve interrupts him?
sort of safe dose, and it's even marginally effective.
There's no harm.
That just doesn't make sense.
There's something called the precautionary principle.
This is really important, okay?
There's a precautionary principle of medicine.
And this is what- So again, they're pushing this idea that, wow, it doesn't make sense.
They're opposing the use of ivermectin.
So ivermectin must work.
I really believe in my heart of hearts that this is also part of the Scooby-Doo.
Not only have they argued to believe that, you know, it's a lab leak because Fauci and Rand Paul argued about it in front of the Senate.
It made it obvious because of the diffuse proposal.
It's obvious that this is a lab leak caused by spraying in bat caves, whatever.
I believe that what we are witnessing here is the seeding of an ivermectin narrative, the continuation of an ivermectin narrative that early treatment works on this novel pathogen that's going around the world.
And there are a lot of doctors, I think, that are coming to the realization that the effectiveness of this drug was not obvious.
And I'm not sure what's going on with it.
I'm not sure that we're right.
What I would argue is that by blaming everything on ivermectin without adequately looking at what it is that those patients also got, we are making a very dangerous leap here.
And one of the things that I would say Tess Lowry's meta-analysis does is it may make that leap.
I don't know to what extent we've looked at those papers, and no, we have to make sure that those papers don't have people that were on ivermectin, and also antibiotics, and also anti-inflammatories, and then some that weren't.
Because then that meta-analysis isn't as valid as we would have assumed it is.
And one of the things we need to be very honest about with ourselves is,
That if Ivermectin is used in the context of remdesivir, if it is used in the context of, well, let's say mixtures and interactions of any kind, we don't know if Ivermectin worked.
One of the best examples I have is, I was losing it there for a minute, but one of the best examples I have is Joe Rogan.
Joe Rogan made a very big to-do about the fact that CNN censored his use of ivermectin by saying that he took horse medicine, or horse paste, or horse medicine.
And it's not horse medicine, it's human medicine.
But what that did, I believe, very strongly I believe, what that did was distract from the fact that Joe Rogan also got anti-inflammatories and he also got monoclonal antibodies.
And so there's no way to judge whether it was the ivermectin or the monoclonal antibodies or whatever else he was given or his extreme, extremely
fit lifestyle that ultimately ended up getting him through whatever he had.
But saying that he had it, saying that he had ivermectin, saying that CNN made some big deal about it, saying that the FDA had this silly tweet about it being horse medicine, and listening to these guys hyper-focus on it,
as opposed to vitamin D, vitamin C, zinc, zinc ionophores, all the things that Zev Zelenko and other more holistic people that were promoting natural infection and were promoting natural immunity and overlapping previous immunity like I was, were promoting.
And at the time we were all panicked and we were all freaking out.
And so it didn't seem as obvious as this should seem now.
This is 100% on narrative performance here.
They used for mask wearing because masks, which are mandated, they actually didn't even have a double blind randomized control trial ever for mask wearing.
You did the mandate and then they did the, it couldn't be double blind because you can't do that.
It has to be a randomized control trial.
So they ran, there's one trial in Denmark.
Guess what happened?
No, it was not statistically significant difference whether you were wearing a mask or not.
There was a slight benefit, but it wasn't statistically significant.
So, everybody would say, they'd always say, well, so we can't use it, you know, until.
So, that's the question, right?
A lot of people have been saying that ivermectin interferes with the replication transcription complex, but I do believe that ivermectin is a zinc ionophore.
or upregulates zinc or has some interplay with zinc.
Andquiseratin is that way.
We just know these things from Zev Zelenko.
And I trust Zev Zelenko more than I trust any of these other people, because he has consistently been interested in educating people on the lack of
the lack of usefulness of the transfection, the danger of transfection, and the reason why our immune system is already ready to do that.
There's no question in my mind that it's notable that these guys in June of 2021 have not mentioned anything to do with zinc, anything to do with zinc ionophores, anything to do with vitamin D, and anything to do with Zev Zelenko.
They haven't even really mentioned hydroxychloroquine yet.
Are you noticing that?
They haven't even mentioned hydroxychloroquine yet.
Are you noticing that?
They haven't even mentioned hydroxychloroquine yet.
Are you noticing that?
It's proving because I don't want to do an unproven thing.
And yet for mass, they say, oh, it's mandated.
And they do that on the precautionary principle.
The precautionary principle says that, you know, as long as there are no downsides, and there might be an upside, we do it because until we have better data, and they're ignoring that for fluvoxamine and ivermectin, because they want to push the vaccine.
So there's no alternative.
Yeah, they've reversed it on us.
Yeah.
So this is the third anomaly, right?
So the third anomaly here is that given a drug about which people claim the data is ambiguous, I don't believe it is.
No, it's not at all.
But 23 studies all positive.
It wouldn't tell you not to administer it given how safe it is.
So you've got a bunch of anomalies that say they don't want to collect data on the hazard of the vaccines.
right?
They're administering the vaccines to people who get no benefit, in spite of the fact that there's clearly an elevated risk based on the accelerated profile.
And they don't want you to administer a drug that appears at worst to do no harm, and at best, potentially highly valuable.
And let me tell you the story of fluvoxamine.
Okay, because this really is.
So fluvoxamine came out, it was published in JAMA.
So fluvoxamine
is an SSRI.
It's an SSRI and it penetrates the blood-brain barrier which is great because people have this brain fog.
Holy crap!
Do you hear how ridiculous this is?
It penetrates the blood-brain barrier.
It's an SSRI and that makes perfect sense for a respiratory disease.
What in the nine hells is going on here?
He thinks it relieves the fog of COVID, the long COVID, the mental aspects of COVID.
Are you kidding me?
And so I've experienced it.
It's real.
I'm like ivermectin.
Flumoxib.
I've experienced it.
It's real.
I've experienced it.
It's real.
goes all the way to the brain.
Brain fog, okay?
And so, unlike ivermectin.
I've experienced it, it's real.
Unlike ivermectin, flumoxamine goes all the way to the brain, and it calms the inflammation in the brain, and because it activates the sigma-run receptor, which Francis Collins has written extensively about as saying this is really important.
So we have this drug that Francis Collins says, yeah, I love the mechanism of inaction.
We actually tried it.
So in the trial, it had 100% effect in terms of no hospitalization for the 80 patients in that trial.
And then what happened is that JAMA said, do not use, doctors, do not use this.
This is just a hypothesis.
despite the fact that everything leading up to that was all positive.
All of the observational studies, everybody was saying there's a huge signal here, so you run it in a randomized trial and confirm it, and JAMA says, that's not, just his hypothesis, don't use it.
So there's this guy, Dr. David Seftel, and I'm on his podcast talking about, hey, the fluvoxamine, the trial got published in JAMA, 100% effect size.
And so he says, oh, he had an outbreak at the racetrack
the next day after my podcast.
So he decided to ignore the advice from JAMA editors.
Howard Bachner wrote that.
He said, don't use this until it's proven in a clinical trial, which violates the precautionary principle.
Okay.
So Seftal said, no, I'm going to use this because it could save lives.
And he gave it to 77, uh, 77 people opted to do that, including eight crossovers.
So eight people failed the, the no treatment group and said, Hey, I want the drug.
And in fact, everybody after the first two weeks wanted the drug because they could see the difference, right?
They didn't have to look at P values.
They looked at one side where people who are like, you know, stuck in bed and mental fog, the other side.
They took the fluvoxamine, and in three days, people were like back to normal, and they told Seftal, I want to get back to work, like there's nothing wrong.
So let's unpack that a little bit, okay?
Hang on, let me just finish the story, because this is not the end of this.
Okay, so all 77 patients who got the fluvoxamine, and it was 50 milligrams twice a day, most of the people got that dose, which is one third of the FDA dose.
They recovered, they didn't have any long-haul COVID symptoms after two weeks, and they'd never even developed any long-haul COVID symptoms.
So this is what I call the miracle of the racetrack because the other matching group, they had a 12.5% hospitalization rate and one guy died.
So when you look at the p-value of that symptom data, oh, so the long-haul COVID symptoms, zero in the treatment group, 60% in the no treatment group, and you do a Fisher exact test and calculate the p-value, 10 to the minus 14.
Okay, that's 10 orders of magnitude more significant than the vaccines.
The chances that this worked by accident are effectively zero.
Zero, zero.
OK, but what should have happened is that NIH should have said, I want to send an investigator down.
I want to see if there was any bias.
See, Steve makes a lot of these arguments.
He used to waste a lot of time in his steering committee throwing all these random, what if I did this?
What if I asked people a bunch of questions about this stuff?
Do you think we could learn anything?
He's got a lot of really weird arguments that don't really get at the nuts and bolts of what's going on here.
And he, he, he sells them with an enthusiasm that can often on the surface, make it seem like that.
He's got a great idea, but they're, they're rarely great ideas.
I want to see if there were any confounders.
You know, this is like the miracle drug that we've been looking for.
They should have been, they should have sent the entire staff down there.
You want to respond to this?
I'd like to respond too.
This is one of many examples of where repurposed drug information is not being able to be processed and made available to the general public and to the scientific community because of journal editors.
No, no, no.
Look, both of these were published in peer-reviewed journals, top editor's choice in peer-reviewed journals.
So that's just a threat.
But here's the thing.
We know what they're going to say.
Yeah, the FDA said, well, it was quasi-randomized and people got to choose.
But the sicker people chose to take the drug.
This is exactly what I was going to say.
The fact is people do not understand how science works in a technical field like this.
There is bias in the test that you're talking about, but it happens to be conservative bias.
Exactly.
What it means is that what you saw is actually more aggressive.
Better than random.
And the FDA said, no, we're rejecting it because it was quasi-randomized.
So this, again, is anomalous behavior.
That's the point I was trying to make, is that there's, we got to, so if we're going to get sciency, we got a lot of data points.
And, um, they're, they're way past forming a line and, um, they're hard to explain.
Yeah.
Oh, look, Hey, I got to tell you about my $2 million offer, Brett.
So you can, after the podcast, you can check it out.
It's on trial site news.
There's an article.
I offered a million dollars if you could prove that the NIH got it right on ivermectin.
I offer a million dollars if you can prove that the NIH got it right on fluvoxamine.
And you have two ways to win.
You can either show that the evidence is, that your hypothesis matches the evidence more closely than the alternative hypothesis of it working.
Okay.
Or you can see, so here we are again.
I think that one of the things that we're going to have to learn over the next few weeks is that the way that hypothesis testing is represented as a foolproof Vorpal sword that can be used to cut through the weeds of, of, of information to produce knowledge is wrong.
And we have been led to believe that hypothesis testing and p-values result in a certainty that makes it able for us to move forward with big ideas.
And that big ideas can never be fully proven, but have to be tested over and over and over again.
That's why when this coronavirus came out and it's an RNA virus, we had to throw out everything that we knew before because this is a new virus that we would be silly to compare to other coronaviruses, other RNA viruses that we have come to understand.
It would be crazy to treat this respiratory disease like we treat any other respiratory disease.
We should try an antidepressant.
that passes the blood-brain barrier because some of the people that get this respiratory disease apparently also have long COVID.
Nothing is being taught here.
We are all dumber for having watched this podcast in 2021.
We were all less able to exercise our informed consent after having watched this podcast.
That's the real conclusion to come to.
is that Robert Malone, Brett Weinstein, and Steve Kirsch worked against our ability to exercise our informed consent when they said the words that they did in the first hour of this podcast, because they led us to believe that masking was required until you were fully vaccinated.
Masking was required until you had been infected
masking would be required until you came up with a suitable prophylactic.
And that evidence that this prophylactic works is an exhibited censorship of it.
And the existence of censorship of other repurposed drugs.
After 51 minutes, they have not mentioned zinc, not mentioned vitamin D. They have not told us the truth.
They have told us a narrative, a narrative that is essentially a trap because people will continue to take the transfections.
The age groups will continue to move down the scale.
And these guys did not put their foot down like we seem to have imagined that they did, that we have been led to believe that they had.
Because my YouTube got canceled and I couldn't make any more money on YouTube because I let Robert Malone and Steve Kirsch tell the truth on my podcast.
That's why I'm a hero.
show that you're going to save more lives by choosing what the NIH did.
Because the NIH doesn't care about lives at all.
They never make the lives calculation in their recommendations.
Let's not say they don't care about lives.
If you look at the recommendations, they never include anything about the cost of life.
No talk about hospitals getting paid.
No talk about hospitals getting paid to ventilate people.
No talk about hospitals getting
paid to use remdesivir, no talk about the financial incentives to blow up cases.
None at all.
And we are now 51 minutes in and we still haven't talked about the fact that the PCR test is probably not testing for what they said it's testing for.
We've never once questioned the prevalence of the virus.
It's crazy.
At the cost of being wrong.
Are we too far in the weeds right now?
No, this is important, right?
Because this is the, everybody looks to the NIH for these guidance and the NIH uses these academic principles of what is right instead of saving lives in a pandemic.
And that is absolutely wrong.
Actually, I would disagree with you.
Well, good.
Okay, I think that what's coming out in the recommendations right now is not really aligned with academic norms.
I think there is appearance that there's decisions being made that are somewhat arbitrary.
Oh, like, like, like, uh, uh, uh, like, um, uh, uh, uh, uh, well, the ivermectin response.
No, no, no, no.
Remdesivir.
Yes.
Right.
Remdesivir.
Remdesivir is one.
Dexamethasone is another.
Right after anomaly after anomaly and they all go in the same direction.
They all go in the same direction everything Being exerted it looks like Steve doesn't understand that remdesivir was pushed for Zika and was pushed for Ebola and was pushed for a number of
different things.
He doesn't understand that it was predicted by Sina Bavaria as being useful for the next pandemic in 2019.
He doesn't realize that Rick Bright made an orchestrated effort to get all the stuff ready to go so that we could manufacture lots and lots of doses of it even before we knew it would be useful.
They knew it would be useful.
Steve doesn't seem to be aware of that.
And Robert Malone threw dexamethasone out there right away.
Dexamethasone, unlike remdesivir, has its uses.
Wow.
by an object you cannot see.
Now my claim is going to be, and this is something I've spent decades thinking about and working on, is that there is an emergent kind of phenomenon that fits regulatory capture but doesn't have the components that you would expect to find necessarily when you go looking for it, right?
So regulatory capture
as a concept has to be broadened.
In other words, an industry comes to generate levers that it uses to influence processes, it increases the power with which those levers work, and somehow we are seeing the symptoms of that disease.
And it comes out, as you point out, in biases in journals and what the editors do want and don't want.
It comes out in, frankly, in the social media environment where what we're allowed to talk about
is being curtailed and the effect of that.
It's somehow very organic, it's odd.
How is it that JAMA only publishes a negative ivermectin study?
It is an emergent phenomenon, I agree.
It's an emergent phenomenon.
And so that means that this is a wicked problem in the sense that when we are trying to grapple with what it is that's doing this, it is very tempting to imagine
That there must have been a meeting in which people decide it was okay for tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, possibly millions to die needlessly, given a pandemic we might be able to end if we just simply decided to do it.
But it doesn't have to have been a meeting.
That's it.
It can be a function of the underlying drivers.
And if I can step into a murky realm here.
But it could also be a meeting.
It could also be a meeting.
It could be like, if you looked at Tony Fauci's emails, like Chris Martinson has dissected those emails.
Chris Martinson, oh my gosh.
And there are redactions to that.
They got Fauci's emails.
And Chris analyzed the redactions.
Here's the reasons for the redactions.
So to your point, to the point.
There is something going on here that people should be looking at.
Beyond Chris.
Okay, beyond Chris.
I mean, there's three major publications of record in the United States, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times.
Both the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal came out with the conclusion that a lot of those redactions may hide things that were intended to be hidden.
We can't prove that.
Chris Martinson is a guy on the internet who has a website called Peak Prosperity.
Chris Martinson was on PBS NewsHour about seven years ago as a guy who was a very successful pharma executive who decided to sell all that lifetime of luxury and wealth away and give up the fat rides on private jets to become a sustainable living farmer.
So he got a farm and he's got water and, you know, solar and he grows stuff and he advocates for sustainability because he saw in already seven years ago and was featured on PBS NewsHour as a guy who saw that we were going in the wrong direction.
And now he's basically on YouTube giving a play by play of what's happening to try and make sure that you see the direction we're going.
He's not resisting it.
He's just pointing out the directions we're going.
And at this time, he was a very outspoken critic of this email chain and what had been redacted and what wasn't redacted.
Essentially the Scooby Doo.
And a little interesting tidbit, when I was invited to be in a secret signal chat with Brett Weinstein, one of the members of that signal chat was Chris Martenson.
They were rejected.
Robert, they were rejected illegally.
OK, but what is clear?
We're going to table this for the moment, because I think the important thing is we've got anomalies.
Was there a meeting?
I'm betting if there was a meeting, journal editors weren't invited.
There were meetings, no doubt, and I bet you, if you tuned in on those meetings, you wouldn't necessarily know what was up.
As a matter of fact, I would imagine that every time a new pharmaceutical is being brought to market by a company, they have some sort of meeting in which they say, we have this very exciting new drug, it has this potential market.
The Ice Age Farmer is still at TheIceAgeFarmer.com.
You can still find him.
He's still working.
It would have to be used off-label and that can't possibly be safe.
So this is what we're going to highlight.
It's not safe to use a drug off-label.
Something like that is going to happen.
It's not going to sound like people being deaf to the idea that people are going to die by the thousands, right?
It's going to sound like something else.
And so, anyway, what we do know now
And people have been on this apparently for months.
I became aware of this yesterday, which is that Merck, which very conspicuously, another anomaly on the list, attacked the safety of its own drug, Ivermectin, even though they knew from four decades of work.
One of the safest drugs on the planet.
Vincent Ransom Yellow's wife worked for Merck for almost 20 years on the drug Ivermectin.
Curious data point, just throw it out there.
Right, so that was an anomaly.
Why would Merck say that its own drug was unsafe?
And citing no evidence.
Well, there is no evidence.
So why?
Well, it turns out they have another drug headed rapidly for what?
An EUA.
What does the EUA require?
It requires that there's no safe and effective therapy existing, because if there was, you wouldn't take the risk of fast-forwarding this process.
And not only that, but they're also involved with Johnson & Johnson.
They are a partner with Johnson & Johnson in producing their vaccines.
So the point is, all right, we've got an anomaly.
Why would Merck say things about its own drug that aren't true and that indicate that people should be afraid to apply it when the precautionary principle would actually suggest that they have to apply it?
Oh, absolutely.
Well, I don't know, it might have to do with the fact that their business, their portfolio of COVID therapies involves EUAs.
So these days, there are really rigorous terms and conditions that have been propagated all throughout academic medicine regarding disclosure of conflict of interest.
And this specific situation clearly meets those criteria.
You mean they didn't say they were developing an alternative drug in the press release that they issued about ivermectin not working?
Robert?
So, all right, now let's just say... But look, I am sure that now that Tess Lowry's systematic review and meta-analysis, which is the highest level of evidence in evidence-based medicine, so once this is published, and this can be published either today or tomorrow... Now you're talking about her ivermectin.
Her ivermectin, yes.
Okay, so once this is published, I am sure
that Gavi will stop running those anti-Ivermectin ads, that Google will refuse to run that, and that Google will change the YouTube policy and they will restore all those banned videos.
This is the vaccine paper.
So I don't have, unfortunately, I don't have test.
Yes, no, no.
But it will be published.
It's supposed to be out either today or tomorrow.
So this is the vaccine.
And I've been watching the meta-analysis that is being done semi-independently of her.
And I don't debate that the meta-analysis data for ivermectin, to my eye, is extremely encouraging.
Okay, so let us collect our gains and move forward from here.
What we have is data for ivermectin, to my eye, is extremely encouraging.
Okay, so let us collect our data that the meta-analysis done semi-independently of her.
And I don't debate that the meta-analysis data for ivermectin to my eye is extremely encouraging.
Okay, so let us... So what a weird way to say that he thinks ivermectin works is that I don't debate
that the data that I've seen with my own eyes is encouraging.
Just listen, actively listen.
Collect our gains and move forward from here.
What we have is anomaly after anomaly.
They all go in the same direction.
We've got a plausible motive for distorting things.
We've got the strong probability that they didn't decide to allow people to die by the thousands, and they didn't decide to inflict a dangerous pharmaceutical on people.
That as the danger emerged, they took the standard action to be very, very skeptical of the danger.
Wow, so they didn't do it on purpose.
Obviously they didn't do it on purpose.
Obviously they didn't give people a drug that would put them in danger.
Obviously they didn't do that.
What is happening here?
Are we being actively told what happened by the moderator of this discussion?
Are we being actively fed assumptions by the moderator of this discussion?
Are we being led to the water here?
I think we need to listen to this one again.
You see, it has nothing to do with convincing people that there's a dangerous gain-of-function virus that's going to go around the world and can go around the world forever.
It's to get products to market.
We're being fooled because they wanted to get products to market.
We're not being fooled about the virus.
That would be crazy.
probability that they didn't decide to allow people to die by the thousands and they didn't inside decide to inflict a dangerous pharmaceutical on people that as the danger emerged they took the standard action to be very very skeptical of the data of danger.
I love I love your thinking that this is an emergent phenomena of the system that it exists and its intrinsic flaws.
I love the fact that you are describing it as though we couldn't have avoided this because the system is screwed up.
You know, it's racist and stuff.
It doesn't support transgender as much as it should.
And it doesn't regulate gain-of-function research like it should.
It doesn't regulate the pharmaceutical industries like it should.
Our very shitty system is the reason why this happened.
The reason why a gain-of-function virus is cruising around the Earth.
The reason why we had to make choices about what to bring out, nobody did anything bad.
There was no bad intentions at all.
It's just a flawed system that Robert Malone has been getting rich from for 20 years.
As a broker of vaccine technologies between governments,
and non-governmental organizations as a contractor and grant writer to the tune of over five billion dollars in his career according to his own words.
He knows the ins and outs of what is being done to us and I believe with my heart of hearts that this is just damage control theater here.
We were led to believe, we were fooled into believing that we were figuring it out
that these guys were coming out, that these guys were leading the way, that these guys were speaking out and saying things that need to be said.
So why do I need to say anything?
Obviously, Robert Malone is like the best guy to speak out.
So I don't need to say anything as a doctor.
I'll just wait and see what happens from Robert Malone speaking out.
And since everybody's seen the video, then everybody's seen Robert Malone speak out.
So why would I need to do it?
Why would I need to post on Facebook that this is ridiculous when Robert Malone's doing it?
So everybody can see it.
There's no reason for me to speak up.
I'm just gonna wait and make sure everything will be fine.
Obviously these guys are brilliant.
These things extend, in my experience, they extend into all kinds of places.
So you described that your contacts in the regulatory apparatus, in the FDA, I think you said, report that they're extremely busy and they're just under strain.
But my guess is chronic condition, no?
It is.
So how do you end up with an FDA that chronically doesn't have enough people to deal with the data that comes in that might tell you that these things aren't safe?
And what's worse is they want to accelerate
the going from an EUA to approval they want to accelerate they're putting their their foot on the gas and they want to well then they want to vaccinate our kids they want to accelerate it at the same time so that's the am i wrong that's that's that's wrong phase four i'm happy that steve said that i'm happy that steve said that because that is the reason why i was sure this is wrong
Because Fauci was talking about it, everybody was talking about it, that they're going to go down the age groups, they're going to get it to the college kids, then they're going to go for the children and get it on the childhood schedule.
We said that before anybody else here at Gigome Biological.
And Steve is saying it here right now.
And Robert is biting his lips, got his hands all over his face.
Body language experts, go ahead and chime in, because this is one revealing video.
I'm going back.
Phase four.
Accelerate the going from an EUA to approval.
They want to accelerate.
They're putting their foot on the gas, and they want to vaccinate our kids.
They want to accelerate it at the same time.
Am I wrong?
That's wrong.
We are in phase four.
of these drug trials.
Phase four being you release it to the public and then you monitor what happened.
You need to explain all those deaths before you go and get it approved.
Yes, you're wrong.
Oh, okay.
He started ignoring Steve there.
Did you see that?
He let Steve go on.
He touched, touched Brett on the arm and said, I'm going to, you know, signal that he was going to ignore Steve and talk through him.
Watch carefully.
for being, you release it to the public and then you monitor what happened.
You need to explain all those deaths before you go and get it approved.
Yes.
You need to explain all those deaths before you go get it approved.
And he's just going to talk right over that.
That's the only, that's the only point that Steve's ever made that I think I still agree with.
That it should never have been given to a single person under the age of 65 once we realized that those people above 65 were dying.
It should have never been given to anyone under 50 once we realized that people above 50 were dying.
It should have never been given to anybody that was in shape that had taken care of themselves or chose to say no.
It should have never been coerced.
It should have never been driven into workplaces.
But of course, all around the world, they did it with healthcare workers.
They put our nurses and our doctors and their reputations on the line with intense coercion.
And you don't think for one second that this is coercion?
Robert Malone and Brett Weinstein and Steve Kirsch talking about them being doubly vaccinated as a way of getting out of this?
You don't think coercion is Jordan Peterson going on YouTube and saying, let's give them since months, take the shot and get this over with?
Take the shot and get it over with.
We're double vaccinated with Moderna, let them inject
something into you because we say so because we had good intentions because nobody meant to hurt anybody they keep wavering they keep wavering because they're not holding their arms straight they're not holding their arms straight don't you see it
You're wrong.
Okay.
Here's why.
Okay.
Phase four is what happens after market authorization.
Oh, and we haven't got, so technically we're not in phase four.
Absolutely not.
Right?
Okay.
So here's the thing.
We're still in phase three.
These are still, this is bedrock to understanding the bioethics.
This is phase three.
These are still experimental products.
This is phase three.
That's why it's called.
The emergency authorization did not require the collective.
So if you want to understand the bioethics of it from Robert Malone's perspective, what he means by bioethics is what do they tell themselves to justify this is okay?
What do they say in the secret meetings to justify that this is okay?
If you want to understand the bedrock of the bioethics here, you have to understand the PrEP Act.
You have to understand emergency countermeasures.
You have to understand secret meetings where people tell people that pandemics are possible.
You have to understand that these people were coerced, convinced over many years that this is a real danger and that we have real solutions in the pipeline for this real danger.
And the guy who was in the solution pipeline for years involved in brokering these ideas and in governing these ideas, funding these ideas as a, as a member of these study sections, chairman of these study sections is Robert Malone.
And he's got a lot of people believing that he's given up some career
that he sacrificed everything in order to come out of retirement and speak on behalf of humanity.
And I am finding that more and more dubious every day because the pins don't line up in a line like he wants them to.
His behaviors don't line up in a line like he wants them to.
His career doesn't line up in that line like he wants it to.
He hasn't kept his arms straight, ladies and gentlemen.
None of these men have.
Of the requisite data to figure out whether or not it should go to phase four.
um, the data that are being collected, you know, that's the, am I wrong?
That's, that's, that's wrong.
Phase four of these drug trials phase four being, you release it to the public and then you monitor what happened.
You need to explain all those deaths before, before you go and get it approved.
Yes, you're wrong.
Okay.
Here's why.
Okay.
Phase four is what happens after market authorization.
Oh, and we haven't got, so technically we're not in phase four.
Absolutely not.
Right.
Okay.
So here's the thing.
We're still in phase three.
We're, these are still, this is bedrock to understanding the bioethics.
This is phase three.
These are still experimental products.
Did Steve just laugh at him for saying that this is still phase three?
I think he did.
This is phase three.
That's why it's called.
The emergency authorization did not require the collection of the requisite data to figure out whether or not it should go to phase four.
The data that are being collected are not being done in a rigorous fashion and basically my colleagues are telling me they're extremely frustrated because they can't make heads or tails out of the data.
Not only that, they can't, they have not...
The public doesn't know how many people have died from the vaccine.
I want you to sketch the picture.
Of course, we are obligated to err in the right direction.
But what does this picture look like?
How many people could you say we know have died and how many people might have died?
And what does the distinction between those two numbers depend on?
So in the VAERS database, which is voluntary, the US government commissioned a study to find out how much underreporting this is, and they estimate that it could be only 1% of the reports
that are actually reported.
That 99 out of 100 don't get reported, which means 5,000 reports translates into 500,000 deaths.
And I don't think it's that high.
Right.
It's very unlikely to be that high.
It's unlikely that, you know, because, right, you know, there are mortuaries would be, you know, overrun with, you know, With vaccine deaths.
Okay.
So what, it's not that high, but, but it's higher.
It's, I guarantee you, it's higher.
The mortuaries would be overrun with vaccine deaths.
says Robert Malone.
But of course, since no effort is being made to differentiate between vaccine deaths and COVID deaths, and oftentimes they're called COVID deaths because John Baldwin has shown us that they were doing that all the time, calling vaccinated deaths COVID deaths in Massachusetts and elsewhere.
Again, we're not getting the picture here.
They're not teaching us the picture here.
This is obfuscation.
This is confusion.
This is frustration.
This is incongruency.
This is sowing fear and doubt.
The all cause mortality was up above normal in June of 2021 and not because of COVID.
And these guys know it.
The 5,000 that we know about, there are going to be a few of those that are actually just sampling error.
And then there's going to be the great majority of them which are connected to the vaccine.
But none of them have been explained.
Right.
But none of them has been investigated.
We are all old enough to have lived through the period in which every single person on earth knew that cigarettes caused cancer.
But we were fighting in court about whether or not you could prove it, because no individual death could be established on that basis.
It took a long time.
to get to the point where what we all knew about the population level meant anything about what happened to the individual who died of lung cancer after a lifetime of smoking, right?
I think the point that I'm trying to make here, if anybody has any questions about it, is that right now, the definitive leader of the dissident movement is Robert Malone.
The definitive authority on what we should be thinking of as the biology of this pandemic is Robert Malone.
The person that people are rallying around is Robert Malone.
The person that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
talks to about this is Robert Malone.
People have been bamboozled by Robert Malone.
That's what I kind of think now.
because his track record and his career suggests that he's not doing what he says he's doing.
His performance here on the Dark Horse Podcast is worth watching because if you watch it, he says the vaccine works, it's great, this technology is wonderful, it saved a lot of people, but the spike protein is toxic and so it might have hurt people too.
But we made a judgment call, people made a judgment call, this is where we are, now we have to deal with it.
And he's six months too late to save anybody.
And he's still not advocating for it to stop.
He still hasn't said in the first hour that we shouldn't give it to healthy adults.
He hasn't been explicit.
In fact, they started this whole podcast by telling people that the reason why we're able to unmask is because Brett uses ivermectin as a prophylactic and the other two of us are fully vaccinated with Moderna.
That's why we're watching this again.
because these people are responsible for laying down the narrative, for laying down the Scooby-Doo, for fooling us into using this transfection technology, and they are continuing to claim that they didn't.
Robert Malone is pretending like he tried to save us.
He didn't.
Here's where he came out in June of 2021, and he's not telling us to stop.
He's not talking about zinc.
He's not talking about coseratin.
He's not talking about hydroxychloroquine.
He's not talking about a basic immunology.
He's not telling you about T cell immunity.
He's not telling you about the homology between the RNA dependent RNA polymerase and the end protein of previous coronaviruses.
And this one, he's not talking at all about the fact that the PCR test can't possibly be as specific as they say it is.
He's not talking about the fact that they're, they're, they're disingenuously representing a casedemic with the, they haven't said that once, not once.
So we are there.
We are playing games with what's obvious from the data and what can be denied on the basis of fancy arguments and statistics that most people don't understand.
It's hard to deny this.
Yeah, it is.
And I think this is a great opportunity to segue to this compilation from the UK.
Yep.
Of adverse events that's been done in a responsible, rigorous fashion by a meticulous researcher that's well-respected.
You're talking about the Teslauri.
Teslauri in the UK.
You want to see... Who, by the way, is not being funded by anyone.
You know, she is like doing this on her own nickel.
Nobody has been willing to... That's another can of worms.
But the point is that she's got no conflict of interest here.
She's been the champion of ivermectin.
And then she looked at what was happening in the UK database, and you're seeing the same thing as in VAERS.
So let's look at the data.
Yeah, let's look at it.
Let's look at the data.
Steve, can you tee this up?
Give us some context.
What is the source of this data?
Tee this up.
Steve, can you tee this up?
Now they're very rehearsed.
What are these data?
So this is, if you go to the first page, they have a yellow tag system in Britain.
Which means?
It is Britain's version of the VAERS system in the US.
So it's a voluntary reporting system where, and in Britain, they have three vaccines, primarily the AstraZeneca vaccine, the Pfizer vaccine, and the Moderna vaccine.
So the first time he's nodding, you see that?
It is Britain's version of the Vera system in the US.
So it's a voluntary reporting system.
So look, he cued him up.
He cued him up.
And then he nods for the first time.
Let's look at the data.
Yeah, let's look at it.
Let's look at the data.
So this, can you, Steve, can you tee this up?
Give us some context.
What is the source of this data?
What are these data?
Watch him nod.
So this is, if you go to the first page, they have a yellow tag system in Britain.
Which means?
It is Britain's version.
How come he didn't act like that any other part?
Which means he's never done that through this whole thing.
He's never interrupted anybody, but now he's leading Steve.
of the VAERS system in the U.S.
So it's a voluntary reporting system where, and in Britain we have three vaccines primarily, the AstraZeneca vaccine, the Pfizer vaccine, and the Moderna vaccine.
So the AstraZeneca is an adenovirus DNA vaccine?
Right, correct.
So all three vaccines in the U.K.
are based on gene therapy technology and are producing
So right now he seems to say that all gene therapy is bad, but I wasn't gonna do gene therapy I was gonna do
you know, DNA in a, in a, in a electro parading gun.
Spike protein in cells.
Right.
The genes have been introduced to, they've either been introduced in the form of the DNA of an adenovirus of cold virus that we all get, or in the form of an RNA that's artificially inserted and artificially synthesized.
So forgive my ignorance here.
In the case of the DNA vaccines, the DNA is integrated into the nuclear genome or not?
Not.
That's what I thought.
It sort of stays on top.
It's attached.
Yeah, it's epigenetic.
You can think of it as a small circular extra chromosome.
It's like a plasmid that has gotten in there.
For mammalian cells.
So I always worry when people say gene therapy technology that they are painting a picture that actually isn't quite right here, even though that's technically accurate, I assume, because you're using the term.
I don't know how else to say it.
You could call it transfection and transformation.
If you use DNA to express proteins, it's called transformation.
And so the adenovirus vectors were transformation vectors, transformation methodologies.
And if you use mRNA to express a protein, that's called transfection.
That's how, that's how you call it.
That's the term that you use.
That's the term we've used for 20 years.
And at least the dude in the white shirt knows that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
The guy that founded Crucell was the senior postdoc in the gene therapy lab that I worked at at the Salk, Dinko Valerio.
And he came to me once, a few years after Crucell had been founded, which was a gene therapy company based on adenoviral vectors.
And he said to me, Robert, you're right.
We should use this for vaccines.
And he pivoted Crucell to being a vaccine company, and the rest is history.
It was bought by J&J, and that is the basis for the J&J technology.
It is explicitly a retooled gene therapy method applied to vaccines.
Full stop.
Okay, so you were telling us about what we've got here.
I do want to correct one thing.
It just came out this morning.
I just got it this morning at like 5 a.m.
So let me pause you.
In your piece, I believe it is not, you have to do some work to realize that the number of deaths that we're talking about, that 5,000 number, that's U.S.
That's US only.
Oh yeah, yeah, no.
In Europe, it's like over 12,000.
It's the self-reported deaths.
Yeah, self-reported deaths.
Self-reported deaths.
So it's probably a lower bound on that number.
Yeah.
If you think through, Mary has died after getting a vaccine.
and you're the relatives of Mary, and you're dealing with a whole bunch of stuff.
Okay, the probability that you're going to say to yourself, self, I need to log on to a website.
So my point is only, it's understandable, but this is the problem with self-reported databases.
Right.
It's a bias.
It's a bias in a direction we can infer.
Well known.
So is that a problem?
Is Malone saying, well, that sucks.
That's just the way it is.
Is he, is he admitting that all that means that other vaccines could also have a problem?
See, that's what Steve never really seems to get is that he uses this metric from this Harvard paper to say that there are 40 times as many
injuries from the vax because the Harvard study showed that they're mostly underreported.
But then now we show this number and we pretend that the previous numbers are okay and that this number is really high now and it's even higher.
So why doesn't Steve apply that correction across the whole graph so that we can see that the vaccine schedule has always been underplayed
And that we can see that in addition to that underplaying the injuries caused by the normal vaccine schedule by 40 times, which is what that paper showed, that we're also having an underreporting now.
So while they talk about it as if, yeah, but nobody ever reports the injury to Mary if she gets injured, because nobody thinks that the vaccines do anything wrong.
And that's always the way it's been.
That's just the downside of self-reporting systems.
Wah, wah.
And so they're actually talking around the fact that what they're saying obviously means that the childhood vaccination schedule needs revisiting.
But of course, they're not going to say that.
They want you to think that it's isolated to this particular vaccine.
But the underreporting applies to the previous vaccines, guys.
I want to say that number, 5,000, is a very frightening number.
It's an especially frightening number in comparison to the US population, when we basically have to extrapolate out.
And the data from Israel, from Europe, seems to reflect the same pattern.
It's the subset of the US population that's accepted vaccine.
So it's not the whole U.S.
population.
Right, right, right, right.
True.
It's a much smaller number.
Right, 130 some odd.
But the other thing is, look, I mean, I contacted the FDA when I saw this and I said, so what do you think?
They said, oh, you should contact a specialist who understands the VAERS data.
And I said, you know, I thought I understood it pretty well.
I did an analysis on trial site news where I show, there's a video on trial site news where I do some analysis and it shows, oh, this is like at least a hundred times worse than the flu virus in terms of the death.
the flu vaccine in terms of deaths.
And I argue actually that it's like a thousand times more than the flu vaccine in the paper.
And so that's kind of a straightforward, unadjusted analysis.
Can I transition to what we're looking at here?
No, no, let me finish.
because the FDA told me to go to an expert.
So I contacted the open VAERS people who are looking at this data, and I said, so it says 5,000, what do you guys think based on, you've been doing this for years, what do you think the true number is?
And they told me that, of course, nobody really knows, but based on their analysis, they put it around 20,000 deaths.
that are, you know, for the real numbers.
So that's just their opinion.
But can we segue to this?
Am I right?
Hang on.
Am I right that even at the lower bound number,
5,000.
It's a stopping condition.
Well, not only is it a stopping condition, but I mean, you tell me if I've got the statistic that you reported incorrect, but I believe what you say is that that number is more deaths than for all 70 other vaccines combined over the last 30 years.
Right.
So that tells you something.
Yeah, and also the adverse effects, if you look at those, it's not just the deaths that are... So now let's look at the adverse effects.
No, wait!
Please, let me finish, okay?
Stop interrupting.
All right, we're good.
OK, good.
So there are two aspects.
That if you look at this vaccine in terms of deaths, it's more than all the other ones.
If you look at it in terms of adverse events reported, it's also more than all the other vaccines over 30 years combined.
So if it's not, I'm OK.
Look, if it's not, if it's, you know.
Steve is actually.
off the hook right here and I see him as yet unread in he just hasn't been completely clued in to what the objective is here
And he still thinks that he is spreading information to save people.
It's really cute, actually.
We have a hypothesis that because this toxic spike protein breaks off and goes into your brain and heart and all over and causes these weird stuff, that's totally consistent with what we're observing.
And if somebody has a better hypothesis
in terms of what is causing this.
It's in the water, it's in the drinking supply, you know, whatever, whatever it is, let's hear it.
What would the dimension of the thing that explains it have to be?
It would have to be something like someone put this in the data, right?
Which would then not explain all of the people that we run into.
Yeah, somebody over-reported, somebody's gaming the Vera system, for example, but that's a federal crime.
Not only is it a federal crime, but the fact is the anecdotal stuff that we can all detect by asking people
confirms it.
It says actually there's a real pattern.
And guess what?
The exact same pattern exists in the UK.
So when I got this report, and you look through it, look at all the symptoms here.
Look at all the deaths in each of these categories.
And look at the breadth of this.
And it's two pages.
So this is the first page.
This is just the- This is bleeding, clotting, and ischemic adverse drug reactions up to the 26th of May.
Right.
And then the next page, and look at all these disorders that happen, and then it's now an immune system.
Immune system, adverse drug reaction.
We haven't even gotten to ADE and all the other things.
Steve, can I ask a question?
Because many of these adverse events were already known with the recombinant adenovirus vectors.
It's already been
These were expected before?
No, it's particularly the clotting disorders.
We've known for quite a while that they were associated.
That's why the J&J vaccine was stopped.
When you say quite a while, you mean since the release of these vaccines into the human population.
Yeah, like a couple months ago.
Remember, we had a pause.
And why was it detected in the phase 3 studies?
Phase 3 studies are supposed to be perfect.
You talk to an academic, they always tell you phase 3.
I'm going somewhere with this.
Steve, can you tell me this aggregated adverse event log that Tess has provided, is this in the UK based on the yellow cards?
Okay.
Is this for all three vaccines?
Yes.
It's a yellow card system.
It's all aggregated.
So what that means is we need to be a little cautious because we don't know which of those three vaccines of which represents two different technologies.
Right.
She doesn't have a breakdown.
And my point is that we already knew
that the advectors were associated with the coagulopathies, the clotting disorders that were in table one.
Holy cow, so here he's saying it.
This was a narrative that's been busted, of course.
But as you're well aware, they pulled the J&J shot because some people had some clotting.
And so that was their attempt at showing you that if something went wrong, they would definitely pull the shot.
And so if they, of course, pulled the adenovirus vector, which curiously is the one that Robert is pointing out is associated with the coagulopathies, not the mRNA, where now we know the mRNA and the transfections will do that too, of course.
Extremely telling.
this video.
So, so look, but, but we should scroll down to the, her conclusion of this, which says, okay, and she should go and, you know, she put this together and got it out quickly.
It says the MHRA now has more than enough evidence on the yellow card system to declare the COVID-19 vaccines unsafe for use in humans, period, full stop.
Preparation should now be made to scale up humanitarian efforts to assist those harmed by the COVID-19 vaccines and to anticipate and ameliorate... Remember, at the same time, Jill Malone is writing a Facebook post that says that these vaccines, the technology of her husband, have saved the world.
They're working as expected.
And his unappreciated contribution to saving the world is going unnoticed, and I'm mad about it, says Jill.
He specializes in long-haul COVID, so when you've had the original thing.
Well, now he's getting patients who are coming to him with, I never had COVID, but I had the vaccine.
And those patients come to him, and in every single case, he looks at the blood work and he says, your blood work is abnormal.
Your blood work looks like a long-haul COVID.
it kind of, it's different, right?
Because the vaccine, you get it, it goes all over you.
Your blood work is abnormal.
Your blood work looks like a long haul COVID.
it kind of, it's different, right?
Because the vaccine, you get it, it goes all over your, through your body, like, you know, in 15 minutes, it's like everywhere.
Whereas you get it naturally, it has a different pathway.
And so the blood work looks different.
But the point is that it shows up on his biomarkers as, you've got long haul vaccine.
Well, I think it is becoming clear to clinicians that long-haul COVID and post-vaccine syndrome are closely related because the spike protein is shared between all of these.
I would call that a valid working hypothesis.
There's the valid working hypothesis that long COVID is the spike, vaccine injury is the spike, and COVID is the spike.
You see it?
Do you see it?
This is the illusion.
This is the illusion that lots and lots and lots and lots of people that you follow have been pushing.
That it's the spike.
The spike is a gain-of-function protein.
The spike is cytotoxic.
The spike is an amyloid-generating protein.
A spike is a pre-antigenic protein.
And the bioweapon is the spike.
The spike is in COVID.
The spike is in the shot.
The spike, the spike, the spike.
Do you see it now?
And these guys are right on point, right on narrative, right?
It's not the RNA.
It's not the adenovirus.
It's not the gene therapy.
It's the spike.
association.
Right.
And nobody, nobody is even looking at this.
I mean, that's the sad thing.
So that's, that's as a professional.
Okay.
So we're looking at all this as a professional professional, nobody has looked at this for me.
The thing that's alarming is that there's no alarm, right?
Oh yes.
Exactly.
Like why aren't alarm bells going off?
5,000.
That's the sad thing.
Have you ever heard Robert Malone laugh?
Okay, so we're looking at all this Professional nobody has looked at this for for me the thing that's alarming is That there's no alarm
Right.
Oh, yes.
Exactly.
Why aren't alarm bells going off?
5,000 excess deaths.
That's my point.
Why is nobody saying, why is nobody in academia, why is no dean of a med school saying something?
They're all silent.
Look, they don't even know.
The reason is they don't even look at the VAERS system.
They don't even know is a really nice excuse and out to give everyone who didn't hold their arms
They didn't know is a great excuse to give everybody who just did what they were told and didn't hold their arms straight.
I Know a guy he's he's vaccinated like a million people.
Okay, and I went to Robert I Please let me let me finish.
Okay And because I know him and you don't all right.
All right, we're good.
His organization has vaccinated a million people there we go.
He is
Well, all right.
I'm up for the pursuit.
It's like, I can't even.
No, it's OK.
He's like the traffic cop here.
But I asked him, I said, so, and he says, hey, I'm on the CDC calls every week because I'm one of their big vaccinators.
Please make sure that you understand that the spike protein can be toxic.
It can be engineered to be a prion.
And it doesn't change the fact that people
that we know people that we were interacting with at that time said that billions of people were going to die.
Those people also didn't talk at all about transfection before it came out.
Didn't talk about the transfection as a bioweapon in 2021 at all.
They talked about the virus as a bioweapon.
Go back and check.
Go back and check and see if any of those people that you idolize or think are heroes were saying that the transfection was dangerous when these guys were saying that it was the spike.
Or were they saying that it was the spike?
Were they saying it was a gain-of-function virus?
The bioweapon did not become the shot until really 2023 for most of the clowns that get re-referenced in our chat.
I'll repeat that.
The transfection did not become a bioweapon for most of the clowns that get referenced in my chat until 2023.
The record is out there.
The videos are out there.
Go look up your heroes.
Go look up the people that you think were doing it right and see when they spoke out against the transfection as a bioweapon.
as a dumb idea.
Go see which one of those wrote a review in 2021 versus sat on their hands and complained about a gain-of-function virus leaking from a laboratory.
Sat on your hands.
I think I see this as plain as day.
I see the bad guys.
I see what they did.
I see what they said and how they said it.
and they all had to have been coached.
They all had to know that they had to stay on a narrative in order to be successful, in order to maintain their comfort, in order to maintain their subscriber base.
Otherwise, we will erase you.
That's why I still have less than 3,000 subscribers on Twitch, less than 4,000 subscribers on YouTube,
because I'm not artificially elevated.
I'm not part of this theater that we have all been subjected to, including myself.
I believed this when this video came out.
I thought Robert Malone was a hero.
So I said to him, so do you know how many people have died, have been killed by this virus?
And he said, it's really, really small.
It's like 100.
You mean the vaccine.
Sorry.
I don't think you can find that.
I'm sorry, but you can't find it.
Go ahead and find that video and send me the link.
I'll gladly watch it from end to end and give credit where credit's deserved, but you can't find that video.
By the way, this is really, really small.
It's about a hundred.
I said, really, they're telling you it's about 100?
Because the v-safe system, it is not transparent at all to the public.
You cannot search it at all.
It is like this secret black box that nobody can see inside.
Nor can my colleagues at the FDA that I just spoke with today, who are data analysis specialists.
What are they hiding, Brett?
What are they hiding?
That we shouldn't be allowed to see that.
We shouldn't be allowed to see, and in fact, I would argue
And why isn't even anyone asking?
Why can't we see it?
So this is the problem.
Heather and I did a segment on our last live stream.
And our point was, actually, you know what?
People do incredible science under conditions that are way harder than where you have a database or you have a laboratory, right?
We do science in the Amazon, right?
You can infer pattern
In such a circumstance, you can test hypotheses.
We do it all the time.
And yet, we are being held to this standard at the same time that the very data you would want to access is stored in a system that is impenetrable, right?
So yes, that's anomalous.
So can I kind of peck at that just a little bit?
Because I'm going to trot out the bioethics argument.
Sure.
So they're currently experimental vaccines.
There's three fundamental bedrock principles in Western bioethics.
One is full and complete disclosure of risks.
One is ensuring full comprehension of risks by people that are going to be taking the experimental product.
And one is willing consent.
You've got to have those three.
And the thing about
this database not being available for outside query by responsible parties, which is what, by the way, any academic publication would require.
If you were going to say in JAMA, you were going to say, we conclude based on our analysis of this v-safe database that the vaccine is safe and that there are no deaths.
If you were going to say that,
You would have to say that we will provide these data for outside analysis by third parties upon request.
If you publish, that's what you have to put in there.
It's no ifs, ands, or buts.
So what we functionally have is folks within the government saying, this is the truth.
Trust us.
Well put.
But I'm sorry, but I'm sorry.
We are not going to allow this information to be independently analyzed by responsible, qualified third parties.
That's not right.
Right.
Well, at the same time, and somebody's going to have to do the work to figure out how this actually functions, but then there's the social media side.
where the natural processes that would allow a massive error like this to emerge naturally is being so shaped by an environment in which one is presumed morally bad if you express skepticism over things that one should obviously be skeptical about, if one tries to gather with other people who are suffering the same symptoms.
There's a whole bunch of thou shalt not discuss this, that, or the other.
It doesn't matter who you are.
Which is unprecedented.
It's unprecedented.
But there's an explanation for it.
Okay.
No, no, no.
Because look, Mark Zuckerberg sent an email and this is in the public domain now where he said, he sent it to Tony Fauci and he said, we will censor anything that goes against the narrative.
I mean, essentially that's what he said.
Okay.
So when you have a Facebook group of 70,000 people who are vaccine sufferers, that
group disappears overnight.
We have another Facebook group of COVID vaccine side effects, 120,000 people.
disappears overnight.
So how could you have, you know, like 200,000 people who are in these COVID vaccine side effect groups, like they would have nothing to talk about.
Because it's a perfectly safe vaccine.
Like what we're, we don't even know what they were talking about because it's taken from.
No, no, we're not.
This is us.
Good.
We,
So he's got multiple screens up there to see what they're doing.
It's a pretty fancy setup he's got.
This is unprecedented.
We have no cognitive immune system to prepare us for this kind of shaping of what we can see.
Cognitive immune system?
Don't try to confuse anybody anymore there, Brett.
Might as well say that we have a cognitive immune system as well.
What a bunch of horse.
Oh my gosh.
Or what we can even are allowed to discuss.
This is not normal.
And so the point is we use our normal heuristics to figure out how dangerous something is and how, how dangerous it is would ordinarily be something you could detect by how frequently you encounter discussions of things that have gone wrong.
But if those discussions aren't allowed to be had, then the point is you artificially have the sense that this is very safe.
And so, you know, again, it's an anomaly.
Now, I don't think – maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm being naive – but I don't think that, you know, Twitter and Facebook were in the meeting in which something was decided that it was going to be fine for thousands of people to die immediately.
No, they're just buying into – because it's suppressed, they're buying into the whole thing that – Robert, please, let me – can I finish?
I have never broken this out before, but we are going to be very careful, all right?
We are going to be nice to each other, and that thing is going to...
You have just gotten a foul.
Oh, sorry.
Oh, I'm sorry.
They're not allowed to be had.
The point is, you artificially have the sense that this is very safe.
And so, you know, again, it's an anomaly.
Now, I don't think, maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm being naive, but I don't think that, you know, Twitter and Facebook were in the meeting in which something was decided that it was going to be fine for thousands of people.
No, they're just buying into, because it's suppressed, they're buying into the whole thing.
Robert, please, let me, let me.
All right, I may have to use... I have never broken this card before.
Dang, that's awesome, the yellow card.
We're gonna be nice to each other and that thing is gonna...
You have just gotten a foul.
Oh, sorry.
Oh, I'm sorry.
You have to give it to me.
I thought I was supposed to take it.
I was warning you.
Oh, that's a warning.
I thought it was who's got the ball, who can speak.
No, no.
I thought it was like the judge.
No, but you got the floor.
Yeah.
OK.
So thank you.
So I did a test.
I went to a vaccine line in my local pharmacy.
And I said, hi, I'm thinking about getting the vaccine, but I've heard some things that some people have died.
Does anybody know how many people have died from the vaccine?
Because I'm not sure what to believe.
So one woman says, oh, I believe in God.
And God says that I should go and take the vaccine.
And then another guy says, are you an anti-vaxxer?
And it's like you cannot even raise even a question.
In fact, I asked people on Nextdoor, I put up a poll to say, right, to say how many people, you know, oh, there's this posting on trial site news, how many people believed it?
And, you know, 10 people responded, five said, yep, totally believe it.
And the other five said, totally bullshit.
Right, and it was it wasn't anywhere in between I gave them like five levels and it was either you thought it was total bullshit or you totally believed it's is a sensor is The the pole was censored by by next door like hours Later and and so you can't even ask people the question and when I asked the pharmacist I asked the pharmacist so do you know how many people have been killed by this virus and she says
Vaccine.
No, sorry.
Yep, buy the vaccine.
Thank you.
She says, actually, I don't.
And it's almost like she never even thought that it's an issue because they're so programmed to think that the vaccine is safe and effective that your mind shuts off to the possibility that, you know, and if you have an abortion,
you can't even think that it could have been caused by the safe and effective vaccine.
Spontaneous.
It's like, it's, it's, you know, so, yeah.
So this is again, in my area of expertise, there is something about the, you know, your poll, small as it was, reveals that there's something very unnatural about people's conclusions about how likely this is to be safe.
You would expect a range, right?
You would expect some outliers who think it's
incredibly dangerous, and you would expect some people to think it's perfectly safe, and you would expect a whole lot in between.
But our environment basically has... Yeah, kind of like a bell curve.
It's the total opposite.
Right.
We're divided into teams, and the teams are basically repelled by each other out of disgust.
Oh yeah, no, absolutely.
So the sense, and this is something that we have faced on this channel from the beginning, is to even begin to try to unpack the nuance around this.
What is going on, right, is to step into the line of fire of this disgust mechanism.
You're morally bad for even raising this question.
Now, how can it be, how is it possible that scientists, raising the question of how safe is this novel technology actually, how could that possibly be, you know, a morally deficient position, right?
It's the right thing to do.
It's, yeah, I mean, you should be able to question, you know, science is about, you know, questioning and science should be free.
to question what the narrative is and, oh, there's a phase three, because even phase three studies are never perfect, right?
And so, but the thing is that when I posted this article to Trial Site News, I had a scientific advisory board of 14 academics, very high power academics, all of them resigned.
Good to bring that up.
I'm sorry, I had to step out to go to the bathroom really quick.
There was a story posted
on Twitter about the fact that the Swiss government had changed their mind about vaccination.
It was promoted by Kirsch and promoted by Robert Malone.
If you follow a guy on Twitter by the name of Thomas Binder, B-I-N-D-E-R, that is a cardiologist from Switzerland that I've known since the beginning.
He's part of the Doctors for COVID Ethics group in Europe.
And you read him on Twitter,
you will find a very different story about what has changed with regard to the recommendations of vaccination and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and what hasn't changed.
And Robert and Steve were both very incorrect about what has changed and what hasn't changed.
And they even told a story about liability, which hasn't changed at all.
according to Thomas Binder.
So a real Swiss doctor says that these two guys were passing misinformation about what has recently changed in Switzerland.
That's just recent.
So it's still happening.
This is still ongoing.
These two guys, these three guys are still part of an ongoing narrative control paradigm.
that's trapping us and thereby our children and our grandchildren in a public health mythology forever.
Like three days later saying that what I was doing, it was irresponsible, that it will cause vaccine hesitancy.
I should take it down.
They don't want to associate it with me anymore and don't email me ever again.
Was there any substantive critique?
No, and I asked for it.
I said, hey, I'm sorry you're resigning, but could you please point out an error, and I will correct it.
And in my article, I say, hey, if you've got an error, post it, and I will go and correct it.
And they gave me nothing.
They just said, I don't want to talk to you again.
They gave me nothing of factual that was wrong with my article.
So this is another symptom that is another data point on that line.
And this is the thing that I find most troubling, frankly.
Is he going to give him a yellow card?
And much of it is coming from the academic community.
I call it, you know, self-appointed academic policeman.
Oh, yeah.
And, you know, I go on Clubhouse.
And I show up in a room, and I say, well, I'd like to talk.
Well, the moderator's like shut me down.
And then I challenge them.
I say, hey, let's go to a private room, or let's go off on Twitter.
I claim that you're wrong about ivermectin.
Let's go off.
And so the moderator says, well, I can't go, but I'll appoint someone.
So I go off with this guy on Twitter.
And he DMs me, and he says, show me your evidence.
And I said, I gave him the web link to Tess's meta-analysis.
So he says, oh, that's a web link.
I want to study.
And so, OK, well, so here's the link that's in the study.
So I give it to him.
And he says, OK, well, I have to study this.
And I say, OK.
And it's clear he's never looked at a systematic review before, because he didn't ask for the protocol that they use.
And normally, you would go and do that.
And so I said, OK.
Uh, he comes back and he says, well, how would those studies, uh, uh, you know, how did they, I said, well, I guess you've never done this before because you would be asking for the entire protocol, which you didn't ask for, which was on the webpage that I gave you in the beginning.
So the point is that these people who are these self-appointed police don't even know what they're policing.
And then when I wrote him and I told him, hey, you know, Tess's thing is coming out as peer-reviewed.
And you can't get any better than a peer-reviewed meta-analysis that's the highest.
And so I said, you have to go and accept that.
And the precautionary principle says you should use it on your patients now.
silence right so so again the thing that the thing you should detect at the end of this is not all of the text in the middle it's that at the end of the day what's being said doesn't add up right if you believed the data was all that ambiguous you'd still give a safe drug because you don't have an alternative absolutely we're literally sending people
home without treatment, where they go and sicken the people that they live with, when there's a perfectly safe drug.
It's worse than that.
Go for it.
We're sending them home and we're saying, don't come back until your lips are blue.
Until you're sick.
Right.
No, it's not sick.
Okay?
It's hypoxic.
it's that your blood oxygen is so, no, sick is, you know, I've got a headache and I've got a fever and I'm sorry to nip it, but this is turning the dial up on sick.
This is pretty severe sick.
You need an intervention because you have to get oxygen now.
Lips are blue equals oxygen saturation of high 80s.
Way sick.
Yep.
So and and and our policy is
you know, despite all the data that you've and others have championed, you have personally funded, which I acknowledge that commitment.
I think that's super important for the audience to understand, is for you, this isn't just talk, you walked the walk.
You took your wallet and you said fluvoxamine study at Wash U, one of the top universities in the United States, you funded it.
So when you talk about the fluvoxamine study, it's not just that you pulled something out of the air, you enabled it.
you provided leadership.
Okay, so all those data are out there, and yet, the current public policy is, if you come into my hospital, and you've got all the signs and symptoms, and you got a PCR diagnosis, and you feel sick enough with COVID, that you feel like you gotta go to the ER, and the ER tells you, I'm sorry, Mrs. Smith, we're not gonna take you in,
because your blood oxygen saturation levels are not at critical levels and you need to go home and just incubate.
Without giving you a drug that would almost certainly make you better and without giving it to your family so you don't sicken them.
We are actually behaving in a way that propagates the pandemic.
What I understand here is that they're implying that, okay, your blood oxygen level is very low
We're not gonna test you for a secondary pneumonia.
We're not even gonna worry about whether you have pneumonia.
We're just gonna send you home until you have a lower blood oxygen level and then bring you in and ventilate you.
So they're not saying that that's the mistake.
They're not saying that and not using antibiotics is the mistake.
They're saying that we know that ivermectin would be something we could send home to these people.
Brett says we could give ivermectin to their families.
Why do we suddenly have to turn to another drug instead of just treating the people who come to the hospital sick?
Why do we have to put a new drug into the story?
Because there's a new virus.
There's a new way to die.
And none of these people on this screen are aware of the fact that there isn't a new way to die from a respiratory disease.
There's not a new way to die from a secondary pneumonia.
That's an old way to die.
Getting sent home with a low oxygen level in your blood because of secondary pneumonia is a great way, an old way to die.
Do you hear me?
This is not a new way of dying.
This is an old way of dying that they are describing as a new way of dying, insisting that it's a new way of dying.
This is theater.
This is pandemic story being laid down in front of you by people who are claiming to be whistleblowers.
I think we can all agree that the behavior is bizarre.
Yes.
Especially when we know, like George Farid and Brian Tyson, they have a little practice.
They've treated 6,500 patients, average age is 60 years old.
They have like zero hospitalizations.
They say, we only get a hospitalization when someone comes up to us really late.
But anyone who gets to us early, they don't go to the hospital at all.
We turn them around with our treatment protocol.
So the most important thing is to treat people early with these drugs.
And it almost doesn't matter.
Their treatment protocol
Oh, it has hydroxychloroquine, it has ivermectin, it has fluvoxamine in it.
And the point is that they use the drugs that are shown to have an effect.
And they use them in combination so that they don't really know which ones are working.
And so when they use the old-fashioned treatment for pneumonia and they use the old-fashioned treatment for cytokine storm, which is steroids, well, then they get results.
But if you send people home and do nothing, they can die.
If you don't give them antibiotics, they can die.
But again, here we are trying to obfuscate what it is that's really saving these people.
What's really saving these people is being treated at all.
And not being treated in the way that they are being suggested to be treated by the protocols with remdesivir, etc.
but we don't know because remdesivir is given oftentimes in parallel with these other drugs that they say work great.
100% effective at prophylactics says Brett Weinstein in the first 10 minutes of this podcast.
of drugs, you know, David Seftel just used fluvoxamine, he got a 100% track record.
Other people use ivermectin and fluvoxamine.
I know a lot of docs who started with ivermectin, they added fluvoxamine.
They say, oh my gosh, you know, this is even better than what I had before.
So it's all about this combination of drugs.
And of course, we don't tell people about George Farid and Brian Tyson.
They don't even exist because those are anecdotes.
We ignore the frontline physicians who are having success.
You're ignoring natural immunity playing a huge role in these perceived successes, Steve.
Robert Malone and Brett Weinstein are also completely ignoring previous existing T-cell immunity as playing a huge role in these perceived successes.
I mean, we're gonna go on for hours, it looks like, because this is just a, it's a minefield of ridiculous statements, a minefield of assumptions, a minefield of misdirection.
It's a minefield of misinformation that these guys have laid down so thoroughly with a censored video that everybody just had to see.
And then what follows here?
Joe Rogan appearances by all these clowns.
Come on, guys, can't you see it now?
Go and find out, oh, why isn't the NIH saying, hey, this guy has 100% track record.
He just said something that's super important.
OK.
Oh, finally.
No, you said a lot of things that are super important, but I want to highlight that one.
You emphasize frontline physicians.
And this has been my observation.
I'm dealing with this community intensively since January of 2020.
They only trust these double-blind randomized control trials that take a year to do.
It's crazy.
And typically require 20 million or more to do.
Well, yeah.
Okay.
Um, so for a billion dollars in the case of what can I can I get the little yellow card you want?
Wow.
And he just said that Merck was asking for a billion dollars from Barta.
Did you hear that?
Did you hear it?
Or a billion dollars in the case of what Merck is asking for.
Can I get the little yellow card?
I ask for the floor.
I just want to make a point to amplify on the good message that you just gave.
Um, and it's a good news story.
We need a little bit of good news here.
There's a lot of, a lot of kind of creepy stuff.
We're going to end with great news, but anyway, we could use some good news along the way.
Um, here in the States and across the world.
We've had primary care physicians, frontline docs, ICU docs, desperately seeking solutions.
And they have resorted because they have the right to do so as physicians to prescribe things off label.
And I can tell you these docs that I deal with all the time are spending enormous amounts of time in the litter.
I thought he raised horses.
I thought he had a farm.
I thought he was retired.
But he deals with these doctors all the time.
He talks to these people at the FDA.
He just picks up the phone and calls them.
Stops at the water cooler and talks to a few other guys.
He's either an insider or he's not.
He's either retired or he's not.
And if you don't see that he's not retired, if you don't see that he's not active, if you don't see that this man has been bamboozling us from the very beginning,
You're going to have to wake up and apologize eventually.
If it's not to me and your friends and family, it's going to be to your kids or to your grandkids.
You're going to wake up and apologize.
You might as well wake up and apologize right now because Robert Malone's not going to wake up and apologize.
He's not going to wake up and apologize for enabling Remdesivir.
He's not going to wake up and apologize for not having spoken out about Remdesivir on this podcast.
He's not going to wake up and apologize for suing the Breggans for nothing.
He's not going to wake up and apologize for misleading us, for misdirecting us, for distracting us.
He's not going to apologize for not having come on Brett Weinstein's podcast in October of 2020, before anybody had meaningfully been vaccinated.
He's not going to apologize for this video today and say that I should have come out stronger on Brett's podcast.
He's not going to say that because at the same time, his wife was writing articles in Facebook and on her blog about her.
Her husband had not given credit, had not gotten the credit he deserves for saving the world with his ideas.
Please see the truth so that we can start to move forward.
We need individual people, one by one, to start to turn away from these people.
To stop following them.
To call them out.
To tweet against them.
To comment on their videos.
To cancel your Patreon subscription.
To cancel your subscription to their sub stack.
We need to tune these people out because they did not hold their arms straight.
They didn't keep their arms straight, guys.
These are people that are encouraging you to put your arms down.
These are people that are encouraging you to put your arms down, to not take responsibility, to trust them, and they don't deserve your trust.
That's why we're watching this video because I don't believe these people deserve your trust.
And it is vital that we start trusting people that deserve our trust or we will not get out of this.
Bret Weinstein has never had Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
on his podcast.
Data point.
Sure.
Reading the preprints, trying to figure out some solution to save their patients' lives in the face of this amazing gap of clarity from our centralized public health service.
And I just kind of wanted to take a moment and pick at what you just said.
The innovation, this is amazingly paradoxical.
What I've seen is all of the innovation in treating this disease is coming from these frontline docs that are tinkering and innovating.
And what this gets to is the fundamentals of, and I'm going to say it, what makes this country great?
And it's historically not been large, centrally controlled enterprises.
It's been individual initiative.
And one of the good news stories in COVID,
is that a lot of the success have come from the docs like you're dealing with innovating, tinkering, experimenting, trying things, and they're driven by the need to give their patients some option.
I just wanted to amplify that.
Thanks for letting me have a look.
Let me give the counterpoint to that when you give it to me.
OK.
So the docs on the ground are in a position to see this.
They are in a good position, at least with respect to ivermectin, because it's so safe, right?
If you don't believe it's any good, but it might be, you can give it to a few patients.
And if you see a signal, then you can give it to more patients.
If you can get it.
But you can't get it in Canada.
The pushback is incredible.
The stigmatization of doctors, the punishment of doctors.
But you also, you make a really good point in your document, right?
Which is that doctors who have a number of patients below a certain threshold.
Never see anything bad.
What they see are anecdotes, right?
And so you need a practice of a certain size before you see anything you're going to regard as a stigma.
600 or more, 900.
That wouldn't matter so much if the doctors were in a position to
Encounter each other online and say, you know, I had the weirdest and they won't talk about it And the point is the stigma for talking about it in public.
I can't tell you this is driving the paramedics won't talk about it They see all the professionals in all of the related disciplines the number of people who will say to you well, I
Actually, here's what I'm seeing, but I'd really rather not because you know what happens if I do.
I get fired.
Right.
And the point is that's a signal in and of itself, right?
That is a signal that some phenomenon does not want this discussed.
And frankly, again, if you imagine that what we've got now at the very least, right, we've got an excellent prophylactic that is extremely safe.
We've got an excellent treatment that is extremely safe.
Those are both ivermectin.
Then we've got fluvoxamine, which crosses the blood-brain barrier, so it gets to some place.
Ivermectin is a proven prophylactic and a proven treatment.
Not vitamin D, not previous immunity.
Do you hear this?
Not that the PCR tests are inaccurate.
We've got ivermectin as a prophylactic and ivermectin as a treatment and fluvoxamine and fluvoxamine.
the brain fog and all that, and long haul COVID.
These things, that's a pretty good kit to deal with this pandemic.
It's a good kit for ending this pandemic.
A good kit that Zev Zelenko did not have, his good kit was hydroxychloroquine, quercetin, zinc, anything to get zinc into cells.
They haven't mentioned zinc once, they haven't mentioned vitamin D once, they haven't mentioned
Zelenko once.
They barely, barely mentioned hydroxychloroquine.
And they mentioned ivermectin and flumoxamine every chance they get.
And the only reason why they're not wearing masks is because Brett is using ivermectin prophylactically, which is 100% effective.
And the other two are injected twice with Moderna shot.
And what we have is, I can't swear that it's related, but it's certainly conspicuous.
It's the only hypothesis I can think of that we have financial interests of private corporations that involve these excellent treatments not being available in order to try experimental stuff that's not out of patent.
But I wanted to point out something cryptic that's hanging out here.
You said it's going to cost $20,000 to do a randomized
20 million bucks, sorry, what did I say?
20 million, that's not a small amount of money.
So when somebody online, whoever they are, however well-intentioned they are, whatever degree they may have, when they say really the only thing that's going to convince me that I should risk my patient's life with ivermectin, which is of course an insane
assertion that there's any risk at all, really.
Depending, so long as you keep the dose within the safe range.
Within the range that we know to be safe, right?
Of course, there's some risk, but... Like all drugs.
Right.
The problem is... But with ivermectin, the risk profile is extremely well known.
It's been out there for decades.
40 years, 4 billion doses already delivered.
Just so.
Right.
So, here's the point.
When you, as a warrior on Twitter,
start battling for, hey, I'm a science person.
I want to see the randomized controlled trial before I give patients any risk at all for ivermectin.
What you're effectively doing is you are a warrior on behalf of new and less well-known drugs that are still under patent and against drugs that are old and out of patent, because who's going to pony up the $20 million?
For something they can't make a profit on.
For something they can't make a profit on and that would block their EUA.
I live this, OK?
I set up a company.
Therac Pharmaceuticals for Zika, and I worked closely with the DoD and developed a portfolio of drugs, repurposed drugs, many of which are now being applied to COVID because they're antivirals.
I went bankrupt.
The investment community had zero interest because there's no way- We should be able to verify that he went bankrupt, right?
Otherwise, you wouldn't use that term.
Bankrupt means you file for having no money and want forgiveness for it.
So it's a weird you term to use I Doubt that he went bankrupt to make a buck Okay, and pharma would not partner because there's no way to make a buck and you can't so so that I have direct personal experience validating the thesis
that the financial incentives around drug repurposing are such that it doesn't get done.
Well, even worse is you can't get an EUA.
Can you give me a pen?
Yes, sir.
I got one.
You can't get an EUA.
We applied for an EUA at the FDA, and they basically said, eh, we're not convinced by your evidence.
And you need to come to us with a drug company to show us how it's going to be made.
It's a drug that's already on the market, right?
They're not even set up for issuing an EUA on a repurposed drug.
No, they're not.
You're right.
You're fundamentally right.
OK, can I finish, please?
Wow, what is going on there?
With a drug company to show us how it's going to be made.
It's a drug that's already on the market, right?
They're not even set up for issuing an EUA on a repurposed drug.
No, they're not.
You're right.
You're fundamentally right.
So we reached out to all these drug manufacturers.
Usually, we would get no response at all.
And the ones that we did, and I won't say who they were, but thank you for responding, was, yeah, look, we can't really come up with a financial justification to get involved.
And I said, I'll pay for all your expenses.
you know, I'll cover all your costs.
Eh, we just don't want to do it.
So I can't even, even if I had their phase three trial that they need, which I do have now, they still would, I still would not be able to get an EUA on a repurposed drug.
The weird thing is, is that Steve doesn't seem to understand that what's missing from his, from his
EUA authorization would be a plausible mechanism by which an SSRI would help with a viral infection that's largely focused on the lungs.
You see, he can argue all he wants, but there's not really a plausible mechanism by which this working, crossing the blood-brain barrier, this kind of thing, is not a mechanistic explanation for why it would have antiviral properties and therefore giving it an EUA
on numbers where it's 50 or 60% effective would not make sense because if you don't have a mechanistic explanation for why you should consider that a significant effect,
then chances are it's just a random effect.
At least that's the way I would see the argument.
And I think Steve is portraying it as though these people aren't listening to reason.
They're not following their own rules.
But he's discarding this idea that there should be some mechanistic understanding of what you expect the drug to do and why that expectation is in line with the results that you see.
And so if you think ivermectin is a drug that interferes with the replication of the virus, then you should see and you should describe it as that.
You should see a reduction in viral load.
If you think it's something that's a zinc ionophore, then you should see and show evidence of that and why that would be expected to reduce all cause mortality with regard to COVID.
But don't.
Don't think that you don't need to have an explanation for how you think the drug works.
And I doubt that Steve had an explanation for why an SSRI would work.
I think it was set up to be a little bit of a fake, you know, thing to object about.
When he's never once sat us down with a picture and said, here's how a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor can help you against COVID.
And that's a pretty interesting statement.
I don't know why that all of a sudden went blank.
Hopefully, this computer will wake up in just a second here.
Otherwise, I'll have to find this thing again.
I think it was just going to sleep.
Yeah, so I have a thought here.
You tell me, actually.
You're the expert on whether or not.
I don't know why that all of a sudden went blank.
Hold on one second.
Let me see if I can cut over and cut over and cut over.
It's not working.
Why is this not working?
It's playing it, but I can't see it.
I don't know what happened here.
It's supposed to be right here, but I don't see my screen anymore.
I'm going to pull this out once.
Put this back in.
Shoot.
Something crashed.
Oh, there we go.
I think I got it back now.
I just got to move this over here.
Yep.
There we go.
Thanks for your patience.
Sorry about that.
Thing is plausible, but here's my sense.
SARS-CoV-2 is a funny virus, right?
It seems to infect a number of different creatures, but especially high on the list are minks and ferrets, right?
Now, I think that this is highly likely to be the result of experiments that may have produced this virus, but it doesn't really matter.
The thing is, ferrets and minks appear to be the only creatures who not only contract COVID, but can also pass it on like human beings do.
I'm not entirely sure that there aren't some other domestic animals.
There are domestic animals that catch it.
I don't know of any domestic animals that transmit it.
Now, if I'm wrong about that, I'm wrong about that.
No, I don't know that you're right or wrong.
What I know is that to detect that signal would be really tough.
Yeah, but here's the thing.
The mink ferret signal, not tough.
We've seen that one.
So here's the question.
is there room for some kind of guerrilla research effort where ferrets i mean imagine you got 2 000 ferrets but why do you need to do a guerrilla research because what you want is the quick and dirty
randomized controlled trial that demonstrates the effectiveness, the safety, and doesn't cost the 20 million bucks.
So there are ways to do that.
Right.
It's like the Seftel trial, right?
Instead of having the rigor
of a IRB-approved randomized controlled trial.
When David Seftal did his study, it was like, hey, I got two options for you.
You choose.
Let me document that, and I'll publish the results.
Well, if you do that 1,000 times, if there are 100 physicians that do the same thing, and they publish the same result, do you really need a randomized controlled trial?
Believe me, I think the signal here is such a slam dunk.
It's 100% effect size.
So what you're talking about is building a new animal model.
Well, no, I'm talking about the fact that, A, because ferrets and minks, which are very close relatives, that's why this is true, have a human-like ACE2 receptor, right?
Which is, if this was the product of research in Wuhan, this is probably why they would have used ferrets.
What did he do?
Did he just shake his head no?
What did he do there?
Oh, man, did you see that?
Did you see it?
He shook his head no.
Mark has been trying to impress upon me that he didn't think that the lab leak was necessarily part of the plan.
that adding that part of the narrative wasn't necessarily part of the narrative that they were gonna do, and that they may have conceded that later.
And holy smokes, if I don't see it right now, that he's saying, no, that didn't happen yet.
They haven't conceded to the lab leak narrative yet here.
That's incredible to me.
That's incredible.
Did you see it?
Oh yeah!
animal that has the appropriate receptor in order to create a human effect.
And it's universally used for influenza vaccine research, for example.
So readily available, you can order them.
Universally available for flu vaccine research.
Of course, we've already been told in 2012 and 11 and 12 that they enriched an avian flu virus to become aerosolized in ferrets.
That's also why
Brett is so excited to bring it up.
He feels so smart.
So all I'm saying is that that is a ready-made model for COVID.
And that therefore, anything that we need to demonstrate, I mean, look, you get 2,000 Farads, okay?
Half of them are treatment, half of them are control, right?
You give the half that are treatment, ivermectin, you then expose them to COVID.
My guess is you're gonna find out that they don't get sick, the ones that aren't protected with COVID do get sick, and then you take those that got COVID and you divide them in half, right?
And you treat those that got COVID with ivermectin or a placebo and voila, we're gonna know everything we need to know from that experiment, I would imagine.
So, um, I used to be a primate center researcher at Davis.
I do understand animal models and I have good friends who have been at the tip of the spear in developing the animal models for here.
We've got pretty good animal model in the golden hamster, golden hamster.
So we don't have to go there.
And, um, yes, those, those hamster gets COVID and transmits it.
I don't know about transmission.
If you want to ask transmission question, that's a different, but you can still check.
How can it not transmit?
I don't understand how they can even say that.
If it doesn't recapitulate transmission, then how is it an adequate model for infection?
I don't get that at all.
That's weird.
Tip of the spear is something that I know other people use a lot, and certainly I've never used the word tip of the spear, at least not in the context of how other people use it.
My point is, if you're going to go down there, there's a whole lot that goes into building a good animal model, including titrating the virus dose and a whole ton of stuff.
It's not cheap.
And at the end, remember what I said?
Mice lie.
Monkeys mislead.
The only thing it tells us about humans is humans.
Ah, but wait, wait, wait, wait.
I used to have that on a slide with his face on it.
Remember that?
The way that we can really tell about humans
in this kind of a context is a meta-analysis, which we've got.
So Mark is right.
They knew that they couldn't test this on anybody but humans because if they tested it on animals, of course it wouldn't work.
They didn't have any higher expectations for humans, but the excuse is now, the excuse is for Robert that mice and monkeys don't tell you anything about humans, but they do if it's a poison.
They do if it's wholly inappropriate for all mammals that you want to live a long and healthy life.
And I think all experiments in mice and all experiments in animals that have been done with transfections have told us that it's not an appropriate therapeutic strategy for human beings.
And they're not saying that here.
None of these gentlemen are saying that here.
None of these gentlemen are keeping their arms straight.
We've got two of them.
But hold on a second.
I have to go just a little bit down this rabbit hole here, because I believe that the golden hamsters have anomalously long telomeres, which will be the result of their captive breeding, which have an implication for how susceptible they are to toxic phenomena like spike protein.
So, okay.
It could be.
All right.
So my, so Brett Weinstein has done exactly one molecular biological study that had to do with telomeres and gotten one result scientifically that he now believes is a, is a ground truth of biology that longer telomeres can make animals susceptible to toxicities and to sickness and to all kinds of misfunction.
And so he thinks he has a very unique insight on something.
And that's why he's saying this to Robert.
And that's why Robert's kind of like, okay, well, whatever you say, sure, go ahead.
This is the only card that is meaningful molecular biology that Brett ever can hope to play.
And often he misplays it and he's misplaying it here, but that's okay.
He's trying to play with the big boys.
Let's see how he does.
Fences that ferrets actually are a better model also because we can model not only the effect of the drug on the animal, but we can also model the epidemiological impact.
Could be.
And you're dead on that one of the lovely things about ferrets and respiratory viruses is that we have a huge body of literature on transmissibility and how to assess it.
So that's all fair too.
So what you're criticizing is the folks in the animal model community that have made some strategic decisions that you disagree with and that
That may be that they should have gone down that rabbit hole instead of the one that they did.
And as far as Golden Hamster, I'm no fan of that model.
But I'm just saying that
Even if we were to do what you did, which is a non-trivial investment, we still don't get to what Tess has done.
Or Andy Hill.
I think the signal is so strong, and if the signal was that strong and the drug is that safe, the whole thing just stops.
So what is about to happen?
And what happened was there was some large trials started with ivermectin and the data was supposed to come in right before the WHO determination and it didn't come in because this is how it is with clinical trials.
Sometimes you get the enrollment that you want.
It's turning out to be wicked hard to enroll trials with COVID.
It just is.
Well, WHO doesn't have any outpatient trials.
Which is another problem.
They're not WHO trials.
So there are trials, large trials pending, Andy Hill tells me.
And we discussed at length about what he was going to disclose and when publicly.
And together we made a decision, it's his decision, I was just counseling him, to just stop releasing interim results and wait for these large trial results, and they're scheduled to come in about September.
No.
The WHO already knows that ivermectin works.
We already have.
There's never been a case where a peer-reviewed... He's really opposing Robert here.
This is pretty impressive.
Even though it's about ivermectin, it's impressive what's happening here.
But I think it might... it's just to fool us into thinking that there's a discussion going on here.
They're not talking about
the most important fundamental issues, which is the PCR test being misused, pneumonia being mistreated, remdesivir being used, midazolam being used in the two countries that he's singing about, the VAERS reports and the yellow card reports.
He's not talking about remdesivir or midazolam and about vitamin D. This is all just disturbing to see
that a year after or more, maybe even a year and a half after I started advocating for those things, don't transfect people, use vitamin D and zinc, like Zelenko says, and we have previous existing immunity.
These guys have been talking for one hour and 47 minutes and haven't said any of those things.
natural immunity, vitamin D, don't transfect people.
They haven't said any of those things.
And at this stage in our history, I had already been saying those things for more than a year and a half, gotten fired at American medical school for it.
Do you see this?
These people are fake leaders.
They are fake objectors.
They are not people who held their arms straight when it was necessary to hold your arms straight.
And in fact, they are actively engaged in getting people to drop their arms right now on this stream.
Give up and submit.
This is the way it is.
These are the things that are going on.
These guys are speaking up so you don't have to do anything.
Censorship was more important to mention over and over than the overt coercion that it resulted in.
They talk about the censorship, but they don't talk about how the censorship resulted in coercion, which is the real reason and the worst reason why we weren't able to exercise informed consent in so many cases around the world because of the coercion.
The censorship was just a passive version and it enabled people to say, hey,
You have to see this for what it is.
These people are bad news.
They are part of something that we are not a part of.
They are part of a club that we are not in.
And it doesn't even matter if at this stage in time, Steve is in the club or Brett is in the club, or both of them think that the other one's not in the club, but I'm in the club because Robert said I'm in the club.
Something is going on here besides three guys trying to speak out carefully.
I assure you.
systematic review and meta-analysis has been overturned, because I asked an expert in this area, and I said, hey, what happens if you have the top level of evidence, and you have one systematic review that says it works, and you have another one that says it causes harm, then how do you resolve that?
And she says, well, that's never happened in history, so we don't have to worry about that.
So you're advising the WHO to wait,
is counter to... I'm not advising the WHO, I'm advising Andy Hill, who's now at the same position.
Yeah, but now it's a moot point, okay?
Because we now have this peer-reviewed... We agree.
It is a moot point.
Ivermectin clearly works, right?
The signal is overwhelmingly clear.
It's done.
And the people who are saying it isn't clear enough don't make sense because their next sentence is we shouldn't prescribe it until we have better evidence, when in fact, because it's a safe drug and because the evidence in their mind is not clear, you should prescribe it and see if it works, because the alternative is sent people home.
You're being a hypocrite if you're saying, hey, oh, I... And so this doesn't apply to hydroxychloroquine in their mind, even though that is what Peter McCullough spoke out in 2020 about.
Peter McCullough got burnt for using hydroxychloroquine even though hydroxychloroquine worked.
Peter McCullough was in front of the Texas Senate and the United States Senate saying that they're lying about the swollen hearts.
I know they're lying about the swollen hearts because I have a technician who's held more hearts in her hand than anyone else and she can tell you that hydroxychloroquine doesn't cause that problem.
Where is this part of the story in June of 2021?
Why isn't anybody mentioning that?
Because that's not part of the narrative they're pushing.
That's not the objective of this video.
subscribe to evidence-based medicine, and I believe in the triangle, and this is the way it's done.
And then they don't do it.
They don't walk the talk.
It's hypocritical.
It's preposterous.
It's an anomaly, and it seems to match the incentives of a corporation that's got two EUAs in play and potentially a lot of money to be made if we can't
deal with the pandemic and we have to get lost.
I'd just like to add one more log to your fire.
Okay.
Um, in the, in the roster of, uh, the blizzard of criticisms about the ivermectin data, one that comes up often is that these small studies that have been done across the world in various sites independently,
are not peer-reviewed and published.
And the log I want to add on the fire is that it's become wicked hard to get anything through peer review involving repurposed drugs.
which is why I set up that whole special edition of Frontiers in Pharmacology for repurposed drugs.
And then all of them quit.
And then it got killed.
Well, no, all of the editors quit.
Yeah, I was one of them.
I was one of the leaders on that.
Because the journal, because once these papers had gotten through, the journal decided to
Well, we don't like this.
The ivermectin was very arbitrary.
So I would say that's another signal of some kind of emergent capture.
That's all I wanted to share, is this argument that's put out by your hypothetical objector that's out there, who has not ever tried to publish anything, but by God, they're an expert.
And I deal with them all the time on LinkedIn and Twitter.
But the objection that those data in that, those meta-analyses are not peer-reviewed and published.
overlooks the fact that it has become insanely, bizarrely, and I know because I interact with my academic colleagues, we've never encountered a situation like this, where it has become this difficult
to get anything through peer review.
And anything that has to do with repurposed drugs is just almost impossible.
No, but it's easy if you have a study where you claim that the repurposed drug doesn't work.
So we call that a negative reporting bias.
And I think there is a number of instances that support
You know, classically, there's a positive reporting bias, that the negative studies never get published.
Here at Storybrooke, this is the opposite of that.
So you're confusing everybody by just not stating it as clearly as Steve did, that it's really easy to publish a negative study about a repurposed drug, and it's very hard to publish a positive study about a repurposed drug with regard to COVID.
It's really not that difficult to say those words,
It's really not that difficult to describe it.
You don't have to call it a negative publication bias where there's normally a positive publication bias, unless the idea is to confuse college kids that are casually listening or to confuse 50 plus year old adults who don't have all the biology and technical jargon in their head.
Do you hear what Robert Malone is doing here?
Do you hear it?
Oh, that's what happened.
Something froze over here somehow.
What the hell is this all about?
Is that better?
Is this working now?
No.
That's what happened.
I see.
So I'm going to keep this playing.
Sorry.
Classic p-hacking stuff.
Right.
We have currently some pretty strong evidence that the script has been flipped.
Yep.
Which is
It is a priori evidence of some kind of corruption of the system, right?
Or, or it's just an anecdote.
Well, the point is, what it does is it says the deck is stacked against, uh, for some reason that we don't need to know in order to understand that we have to be alert.
It was Janet Woodcock and it was also Rick Bright.
They were in the meetings, um, where that happened.
You're correct.
I can't imagine what that would be.
I want to say a few things.
OK.
I want to make sure that before we finish up that we cover the issue of reproductive harm because I feel like we should.
Sure.
Yeah.
So OK.
So let me just say I've been saving this.
So for in pain.
So if you get hospitalized
You know, like Robert just said, oh, you know, the doctors are the front lines, they're coming up with innovative treatments.
I found it's almost the reverse because someone called me because her husband was in one of our hospitals, El Camino Hospital.
And she called me for help because he was in bad shape, he was in ICU.
And so I've known about these drugs, ciproheptadine, and inhaled adenosine.
And both of these are like for ciprohepatidine, 50% of the time, you give this, it's an antihistamine, right?
I mean, it's really cheap, eight milligrams, three times a day.
And you go from, and I posted on this on my Twitter account, you go from lungs, which are like dark, to fully clear in 48 hours.
And the physicians say, we've never seen anything like this.
Happens about 50% of the time.
And so I try to get El Camino Hospital to do this on this patient.
I said, I'm a friend of the wife.
She's authorized me to talk to you.
And he said, well, I have to get that IRB approved.
And it was like a Saturday.
So I had to reach out and contact the IRB.
He doesn't need it.
I would suggest.
Honestly, if you want to talk about that, I would suggest that Bret Weinstein wants to be part of the ruling class.
Bret Weinstein wants to be part of the ruling class, just like a lot of other people do.
And I think he was given the opportunity to join the ruling class as part of the intellectual dark web.
with his brother leading the funding to make sure that his podcast and his brother's podcast and Sam Harris's podcast and Joe Rogan's podcast and Shapiro's podcast and the Daily Wire and all these other things were ready and controlled and populated so that when the narrative needed to be controlled, the two sides of the narrative could be crafted the way they wanted to be crafted.
And this is an extension of that.
Maybe it's a, maybe it's an adjustment to the plan.
Maybe they didn't think that they needed to do this, but now they're doing it.
And so that's why it's still a very haphazardly done rollout of the message.
They're not sure what message they need to give yet.
So they're still titrating it out.
That's why the clones word came up once.
That's why, that's why these things are,
not as oiled out with Steve as they are with Robert.
That's why we're still working through the, what can we really say and not say is still being decided in this video.
IRB approval.
But he told me, hey, if you can get an IRB approved, I have no trouble doing it.
So I get the IRB approval.
And the IRB guy says, you don't need IRB approval.
It's a repurposed drug.
So I tell him that.
And he says, well, let me check that.
So he calls the guy just to verify that I was telling him the truth.
And then he says, yeah, but we're not going to do it.
And I said, well, why?
You know, here are all the papers.
Here's all the justification.
Why would you not do this?
And he said, well, we're just not going to do it.
We convinced the patient not to accept that therapy.
And it's like, here you go and you give them the treatment on a silver platter.
and they say no we're not going to do it and it's the same thing for ivermectin right when people have gone to court to force doctors to give ivermectin and the hospital doesn't want to do it because if the hospital
gives a drug which has not been approved by the NIH.
They are liable if something happens.
Because if they follow what the NIH says, then they're clean of liability.
So the hospital actually doesn't want to give you stuff that would save your life because the NIH is keeping it from you.
Hang on, Robert.
I know you want to talk, but hang on.
Wow, that is pretty condescending shit right there from Steve.
That's impressive.
It's interesting because he is making a valid point that if they stay on the CDC protocol, they'll get financial protection and they get legal protection as well, right?
For not knowing what they're doing, but doing what they're told.
The other thing is that in a pandemic, another solution rather than the ferrets and animals is just to, doctors are always, the outpatient doctors are always trying new things.
And so if they reported in to the FDA, that's all we need, right?
Because you see all the data coming in and you can see, holy moly, the doctors that are giving the ivermectin and fluvoxamine, they've got like no hospitalization.
Repeatedly and so you can see a signal there and the final thing and then Robert I'll let you talk is that Bruce Patterson.
That was awesome.
Is specializing in long-haul COVID and he's found that there are four drugs that are effective for long haulers.
It's fluvoxamine, ivermectin,
simvastatin, or statin, and maraviroc.
Stats.
I have problems with pronouncing it also.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And those four drugs, he's found that, well, some people need these two, and other people need these two.
He's still smiling.
I have problems with pronouncing it also.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And those four drugs, he's found... We can't pronounce drug names, and people are dying by the thousands every day from a gain-of-function virus.
It's pretty funny, right?
that well some people need like these two and other people need these two and other people need this dose and so forth and he measures the biomarkers so he has a scientific way to tell which of those four but those four drugs he says that if one of his friends gets acute COVID which means you got COVID he says if they take these four drugs right because he knows what works because long-haul COVID is essentially oh I get to experiment on you until I cure you
And then, so he says, hey, if this works in long-haul COVID, then isn't that interesting that ivermectin works in acute COVID?
And isn't it interesting that fluoxamine works in acute COVID?
So if I was running ACTIV6,
I would take Bruce up on the offer and I would use all four of these drugs.
Okay, so I can speak to that too.
Okay.
So you hit on three things.
Let's see if I can remember.
Active six was one.
What is that?
We'll get there.
Okay.
One is the inherent paradox of the disincentives for hospitals.
Yep.
Okay.
Right.
Um, uh, and I figured what the third one was.
Um, so let me just do the two that I, that I, that I remember, um, on that the hospital has two components and, and, oh, well the third one is, I just wanted to acknowledge what a pleasure it is, um, interacting with you because you often, oh, I remember now the third one, you often independently arrive at the same position, which kind of is validating.
Yeah.
Um,
that the team that I work with at the DOD comes to.
I work closely with a team at the Defense Threat Reduction Agency in the Joint Science and Technology Office that's specifically focused on coming up with systems to allow rapid response for outbreaks and engineered pathogens
for warfighters.
That's our mission.
So hold on, I want to highlight something.
What you said will be misinterpreted by some people.
When somebody else arrives at the same position, yes, that's very nice and validating, but what you're really saying is if somebody arrives at the same position from a different starting point, it's very likely that that position has a great deal of merit, right?
It's a signal that the thing is actually robust because it doesn't matter where you start, you land there.
Just so.
Well put.
Thank you.
Okay.
The comment that you made about actually really saying is if the DOD comes to, okay, I work closely with a team at the Defense Threat Reduction Agency in the Joint Science and Technology Office that specifically focus... So he called it DOD at first, then he says DTRA, and it's about, you know, finding systems to deal with biotechnology for the warfighter in the field.
on coming up with systems to allow rapid response for outbreaks and engineered pathogens for warfighters.
That's our mission.
I want to highlight something.
What you said will be misinterpreted by some people.
He also said engineered pathogens.
the technology office that's specifically focused on coming up with systems to allow rapid response for outbreaks and engineered pathogens for warfighters.
So what if there aren't any real engineered pathogens that we need to be worried about except for synthetic viruses?
Is that what he means?
Or is he seeding the narrative that there are synthetic pathogens and that this could be one of them?
You see, it's very clever what's happening here.
It's our mission.
So hold on, I want to highlight something.
What you said will be misinterpreted by some people.
When somebody else arrives at the same position, yes, that's very nice and validating.
But what you're really saying is if somebody arrives at the same position from a different starting point, it's very likely that that position has a great deal of merit.
It's a signal that the thing is actually robust because it doesn't matter where you start, you land there.
Just so.
Well put.
Thank you.
The comment that you made about setting up a system to enable patient-reported outcomes and physician-reported outcomes on a national or global basis is a profound statement.
We have nothing like that.
My friends at the FDA also came to that conclusion, and they're frustrated because it doesn't exist.
My friends at the FDA again.
We have, you know, you come from the Silicon Valley culture.
And that culture gives us, as a nation, some incredible tools, including machine learning and artificial intelligence and deep learning.
And if we were to set up a system, as you're proposing, to enable distributed capture
of primary reports from practicing physicians and then apply our amazing toolkit now for analysis of that.
It is probably one of the strongest things that we could do that would have the lowest cost in terms of being able to identify and discriminate signal and noise from novel interventions.
So that's that one.
Good job, we agree.
And if you did it here, if you had that in place here, it would have identified a kit of, it sounds like four drugs that between them are essentially sufficient, which is amazing because frankly, antivirals that actually work and are safe.
So it's curious because he's not saying domain here.
And he's not saying that they used an AI to find the drugs that they identified as remdesivir and other things.
He's not saying that right now.
But he's suggesting that it's cool that Steve suggested of setting up a system to capture the reports from physicians and then use AI or machine learning to extract from that data meaningful interpretations.
Sounds a lot like trying to give up our sovereignty in order to get us out of a mess.
Sounds like trying to give up our genetic data and our medical data to get us out of a mess, to use AI to get us out of a mess.
Sounds like a bunch of transhuman hocus pocus to me there, Robert.
Well, there's a reason for that we can unpack, but let's not.
I want to get down to it.
But amazing that with this pandemic, that actually.
So hospitals, hospitals, you've identified one of the structural disincentives.
which is legal liability.
And remember who the cops are that are enforcing this.
It's administrators.
It's not docs.
So what you have is MBAs.
They're not allowed to.
MBAs controlling the practice of medicine and the use of alternative drugs.
The other disincentive they have, and this is really coming out of the federal treasury.
This is coming out of your tax dollars.
Okay.
Is that, um, they don't make the same compensation if, if they're, if they prescribe remdesivir, you know, six or 8,000 bucks pop, um, for treatment course versus they prescribe ivermectin.
Okay.
12 bucks a dose or something.
They're not making the same nickel.
Right.
So there's a legal liability structural disincentive.
Yeah, it's a disincentive.
And there is a financial disincentive.
Now, what was the third one we were talking about?
See, now we keep using these words that confuse people like disincentive, this kind of thing.
Why not just say it very clearly?
Remdesivir is more profitable.
Why not just say it clearly?
If the goal is to inform people, why do people like Brett Weinstein and Robert Malone talk the way that they talk?
Just ask yourself that question.
It doesn't make it any easier.
Would it help if I use bigger words like these guys?
If I use those disincentive and dispositive proof and all this other crap?
Of course not.
I'm not trying to reach those high level elite readers.
I'm trying to reach average Joe and Jane.
I'm trying to reach the average person on the street that's not a biological expert, that's dabbled in telomere biology and immunology and evolutionary biology as the perfect toolkit to interpret the pandemic biology.
So who are these guys talking to when they talk like this?
That's your question you need to ask.
the other big theme that you were hitting on.
which I've now lost because I got lost in the hospital world.
I was talking about long COVID and the fact that, uh, it's a place to test.
You've got a bunch of different tools.
Um, yeah, so no, I've lost that.
Well, hold on.
Um, before we go to reproductive, uh, before we go to reproductive harms, damn, I've now lost what I was going to say.
I could give you my, my paper.
Um, but, uh, there's another, uh, drug, um,
which we funded the work on, which is GS441524.
And this is an antiviral.
It's, in fact, sort of the precursor to remdesivir.
And it works really, really well.
But it's being pursued by Victoria Yan, who's just an individual.
And so she's raised some money privately to do this.
A long hauler essentially got this drug and the long hauler said, oh my God, I have been a long hauler for like six months, I have been in pain, I can't get out of, and a week
Or it was like three days after taking this gs4 4 1 5 2 4 she said like I Have I like back to normal.
I have never seen say, you know, it's like it was Couldn't believe it right, you know and and Gilead is doing nothing, right?
I
On this drug.
I mean it's crazy and it's much safer than remdesivir It's easier much easier to produce and yet the Gilead has totally dropped the ball on This thing which was transformative for this long haul so somehow there's enough bias in this system to shut down Anything generic cheap and safe and to amplify things that are dangerous news still under patent can understand it's multifactorial, right?
It's multifactorial now.
Here's the thing.
I forgot I've come back up with it the
I was talking to Pierre Corey about this.
There's something that bugs me about what doctors once were and what they've become.
And my sense is doctors, you know, I used the example of Frontier doctors when I was talking to him.
Frontier doctors had a lot fewer tools at their disposal, right?
A lot less knowledge about what could be done, a lot fewer drugs, right?
But what they had was the ability to interact with patients.
The house call led you to see the context in which somebody was sick, led you to see the pattern of sickness in a neighborhood.
There are all kinds of things that you might detect.
Classical diagnosis.
Right.
And the point is, doctors were scientists.
right?
They may have been informal scientists but they were in a position to experiment and tinker and you give the patient a hypothesis and it's right it doesn't really work and you've got something's bugging you in the back of your mind that actually this looks more like that and so you try the thing that works on that and lo and behold the person gets better.
That kind of scientific doctoring is shut down by exactly the processes you're talking about the lies The the the liability sensitivity of the hospital right the the the FDA Broadcasting, you know checklists are on high all of these things are resulting in the information that would be screwed
screaming at us if each doctor was having the same patients and you know they sit down at lunch with their buddy and they say you know I've got this patient I don't know what to do oh I had one of those and here's what I did and it worked and then you know the point is it would spread.
It's not only that it shut down structurally but the new wrinkle now is communication about it is forbidden.
Right.
It prevents the natural accumulation of information that would make us smarter.
And people don't believe it, too.
And when I see, like, there's a case of a doctor who I finally convinced to use fluvoxin.
So he says, okay, fine, I'll use it in my practice.
It'll be, if you're over 65, you have multiple risk factors, and you have symptoms and, you know,
You're in bad shape then only then will I use it and it's this is like are you kidding me, right?
You're supposed to use it as soon as the patient presents, right?
And you're supposed to use it even you should be even using it on kids because I mean the tragedy is that There's a doctor.
I know that said oh you're a kid.
I'm not gonna give you anything, right?
Well, fluvoxamine is really a very mild drug.
And what happened is that the 17-year-old developed Tourette's syndrome as a result of the long-haul COVID.
And so this doctor said, OK, I learned my lesson.
I am going to treat even the kids.
Can he say that?
Can he say that it's a really mild drug?
It's an SSRI inhibitor.
To give an SSRI inhibitor to the developing brain of a teenager.
To stop long COVID.
to use prophylactically.
This kind of advocation for a drug known to cross the blood brain barrier is absurd.
It's absurd.
Can I tell you how much I think it is absurd that Steve is so focused on this one substance and no other one?
Can I tell you how absurd it is that Brett Weinstein is focused on ivermectin and not one other one?
And so you have the physicians who are like, oh, can't do any harm.
We'll only treat you if you're necessary.
But this is a virus.
You always treat viruses early.
It's like if you had a fire right here on your laptop, you'd be like this.
I would need a randomized controlled trial to see if water would help.
Right.
The 17-year-old developed a really very mild drug.
What happened is that... A very mild drug.
The 17-year-old developed Tourette's syndrome as a result of the long-haul COVID.
And so Tourette's syndrome comes from long COVID, is what Steve says.
And if he would have used the SSRI inhibitor on that kid, he wouldn't have it.
Do you hear him?
Do you see what they're doing here?
It's constant.
They're not stopping.
And so this doctor said, OK, I learned my lesson.
I am going to treat even the kids.
And so you have the physicians who are like, oh, can't do any harm.
We'll only treat you if you're necessary.
But this is a virus.
You always treat viruses
early quickly it's like it's like if you had a fire right here on your laptop you'd you'd be like i would need a randomized controlled trial to see if water would help right no no but it's a it's a reasonable metaphor you take the glass of water and put out the fire you wouldn't like wait and wait and wait and wait oh yeah it's really big now right you'll call the fire department all right i want to push back in one place okay and it's not so we know that's true about remdesivir we know that they have data that shows that remdesivir doesn't do anything
for the survival rate unless you use it early, but are they mentioning that now in September of 2021?
No.
serious pushback.
I think what you found is right.
I'm compelled that we've got multiple drugs that work, okay?
I'm a little nervous about fluvoxamine because it's an SSRI, and so I know it's gonna have cognitive implications.
Not in 14 days.
Maybe not, but the point is I'm a little cautious about it because I know it's interacting with systems that we ideally would like not to mess with.
Don't take coffee when you're taking fluvoxamine.
Okay, but here's my point, right?
we've got a drug that seems to have no serious interactions with other systems.
And so it should be your go-to first.
If you've got fog, maybe fluvoxamine is the go-to.
No, no, no, no, no.
And the reason for that is that this, you're, you're thinking that this virus should be treated, you know, tenderly and gingerly and let's only put, you know, remember David Hope?
You remember David's sister?
AIDS, the guy that came up with multi-drug combinations for AIDS.
It's early and hard.
And so the point is that COVID is so deceptive.
It's not the right analogy, and here's why.
OK.
Here's why.
Because the problem with AIDS was as a retrovirus,
you had an impossibly fast rate of evolution.
And so the reason you hit it with three drugs is that it can evolve in three directions at once.
Yeah.
Right.
And so the point is, should I miss that?
I'm going to go back.
Sorry.
We're going for the five hour marathon, six hour marathon.
No, I want to hear the Dr. Steve have cognitive implications, not not in 14 days.
Maybe not, but the point is I'm a little cautious about it because I know it's interacting with systems that we ideally would like not to mess with.
Don't, yeah, don't take coffee when you're taking Fluboxamine.
Okay, but here's my point, right?
We've got a drug that seems to have no serious interactions with other systems.
And so it should be your go-to first.
If you've got fog, maybe fluvoxamine is the go-to.
No, no, no, no.
And the reason for that is that you're thinking that this virus should be treated, you know, tenderly and gingerly and let's only put, you know, remember David Hope?
You remember David Ho, right?
AIDS, the guy that came up with multi-drug combinations for AIDS.
It's early and hard.
And so the point is that COVID is so deceptive.
It's not the right analogy, and here's why.
OK.
Here's why.
Because the problem with AIDS was, as a retrovirus,
you had an impossibly fast rate of evolution.
And so the reason you hit it with three drugs is that it can't evolve in three directions at once.
Yeah.
Right?
And so the point is, it's like, you know, one of these military things where you've got guns on three islands and it stifles the enemy.
In this case... I'm sorry, but I'm actually shocked by what Brett's saying.
I don't think Brett knows Jack about the evolutionary rate of AIDS.
And how the evolutionary rate of AIDS
factors into the infection and its time course.
So the idea that he's saying that the AIDS virus has an impossibly fast rate of evolution is ridiculous.
Ridiculous.
No evidence that I'm aware of that there's actually any evolution away from the kind of protection you get from ivermectin.
And so the point is, if ivermectin works, you've got an evolution.
No, no, no.
OK, so here's my counter argument.
OK, Robert, you can go next.
OK.
So my counter argument is this.
So let's take an anecdote.
OK, let's take Dr. Drew.
Dr. Drew, he's a doctor.
He knows what he's doing.
He got COVID.
and he went for the monoclonal, he got it early, and he went for ivermectin.
He went for the monoclonal and he went for ivermectin.
That was his treatment.
He didn't do fluoxamine at all.
Guess what happened to him?
Well, I'm trying to figure out whether there's any reason to expect.
I don't think that the monoclonal is going to interact with the ivermectin.
No, it doesn't.
They both point to the same thing.
It doesn't.
Yeah.
Right?
OK.
Because I think the antiviral for ivermectin is fairly modest.
But OK.
So he took those two drugs.
Yeah.
Guess what happened?
He kept getting sick.
No.
Well, he ended up with long-haul COVID.
So the point is that this is a very, very serious virus.
And people are treating it like it's a regular virus.
Now, I agree with you about HIV and how it's different.
But David Ho's point should still be the same for this virus in that we should not go and say, like undertreat it.
If we have safe, effective drug.
Right, too slow is an error in and of itself, you're right.
Right, and so in Pierre Khoury's FLCC protocol, they say, well start with ivermectin, but if you're getting worse over two days, then give the fluvoxamine.
And that's not right, because fluvoxamine, it's not the mental drug.
It activates sigma-1, which calms down the inflammation.
And the thing you do not want is- I think the reason why they don't talk about monoclonal antibodies is that they actually work for a brief period of time, and because they're extremely expensive to design and produce, and because they require hospitalization and injection to work.
So they work in the context of a war fighter.
They work in the context of somebody you're sparing no expense to save.
They don't work so much in the context of a general treatment.
And if you apply an antibody that's not appropriate for the pathogen that you have, you could potentially have a bad reaction or a negative reaction to it.
I don't think monoclonals are bad, they're just kludgy, as Robert Malone has said many times.
inflammation in the brain.
And this is what Dr. Drew suffered from.
So yes, ivermectin is great, but it's not 100%.
And once we have a combo, which is 100%.
And so he's advocating for the fact that his drug of choice, fluvoxamine, crosses the blood-brain barrier, but never gives a mechanistic explanation for how it reduces the effect of long COVID.
So it's very, very,
He's missing a lot of biology if he's gonna advocate for that drug.
He's missing a lot of biology if he's gonna advocate for a less than perfect response.
It's just annoying.
Then we can go and say, okay, we're done.
You've compelled me, right?
And the answer is my concern, which is real, is minor in comparison to the hazard of COVID.
Correct, because he was in terrible shape.
And I said, look, Dr. Drew, you should try the fluvoxamine.
And I kept beating on him like every time I was on his show.
And he finally got the fluvoxamine.
And he said, wow, this is like really game changing.
And I said, yeah, you know, doctors are the worst patients, aren't they?
Right.
So the point is, and so again, we have an anecdotal story about the effectiveness of an SSRI on long COVID as an anecdotal story that it should also work on regular COVID and, and Robert's just sitting there with his finger in the air and both Steve Kirsch and, and
Brett Weinstein agree that the hazards of COVID are much greater than the hazards of using an SSRI or any other experimental therapy.
Even transfection is worth the risk because of the hazards of COVID.
These people are responsible.
that treat this virus like your life depended on it because you don't want to have any kind of inflammation in your brain.
All right.
So I'm compelled and I would say ivermectin is a prophylactic.
I think that's a slam dunk.
Treating it with the drugs you've got that work in some reasonable combination is a slam dunk.
The third point was active six.
Okay.
Oh, right.
Okay.
And it's germane, it's, it's germane to this.
Okay.
A statement was Steve suggested the obvious.
Why don't you do trials with these drug combinations?
Okay.
So agents.
So for me, this isn't a theoretical, I'm living it.
I've been living it for the last nine months.
Okay.
I've been trying to advance a two drug and three drug strategy with us government funding.
Through the FDA because my the source of this capital is coming through the Department of Defense We have to be very rigorous about ensuring human subject safety FDA compliance all that we got to do everything by the book That's the way it is in the DOD these days.
Not like it used to be.
Okay, we're really rigorous So we're living it
I can tell you that the barriers to proceeding with clinical research in either inpatient or outpatient environments for repurposed multi-drug strategies are immense.
The agency is requiring that we do the full portfolio of drug interaction studies before we are allowed to proceed.
That's nine to 12 months worth of stuff.
And in our case, it's for drug combinations that we already have data on substantial numbers of patients because of the things I was talking about, docs tinkering.
So this idea, which is totally valid and has guided us from the get-go, that we would build, we would learn from David Ho.
And we would use a multi-drug strategy.
In this case, for repurposed drugs, what we have is a rich library of capabilities relates to anti-inflammatories.
Almost all the agents you've been talking about are acting at the level of anti-inflammatories, not antivirals.
Why are we not focused on antivirals?
Tamiflu is the best way I can express that.
The history, long history of coming up with strategies for treating pulmonary viral infections at the level of an antiviral agent is horrible.
It basically doesn't work.
It's a strategy that doesn't work.
Why not?
Because it's too hard to get it early.
And that's what you gotta do.
Okay?
And what- So he's advocating, I think he's using this active six thing
as the HIV reference for using multi-drugs.
And then he says that he's advocating for two and three drug treatments, but the DOD has to go by the book because they're very rigorous in the DOD.
So they have to do a full portfolio on drug interactions.
And so we should be learning from HIV and from David Ho.
And why aren't we all, in addition to using anti-inflammatories, why aren't we using antivirals like Tamiflu?
It's a really
It's a really strange situation we're in.
What you're doing with fluvoxamine, what we're doing with our agents that we're trying to get through the FDA, and perhaps we'll launch in India soon, is that we're attacking the second phase.
COVID is a hyper-inflammatory response.
It's not the virus that kills you.
It's your response to the virus, okay?
And the good news that, I'm sorry, I'm gonna criticize Tony.
I didn't wanna go there.
The thought leaders that have set public strategy in the drug space have decided
to a large part to emphasize direct acting antivirals.
And they have sought... It's a very interesting segue he does here because he's talking about antivirals, but what he really should be mentioning is that they have decided to use seroprevalence and the presence of antibodies as a proxy for generating immunity to an immunization.
That's what he should be saying we have been broken by.
but instead he says something completely different.
The thought leaders that have set public strategy in the drug space have decided to a large part to emphasize direct acting antivirals.
And they have sought to test those most often in a late stage COVID environment.
And- That's not true.
Okay, COVID environment maybe, but not for virals, antivirals they test upon exposure.
Remdesivir was tested upon exposure.
and it was shown that it doesn't work after.
So this is a disingenuous representation of what's going on and that's why Steve is reacting that way.
It is a disingenuous representation of what's going on because we know that the thought leaders have not just emphasized direct acting antivirals, but they have actually emphasized
Antibody, seroprevalence, right?
This is what they emphasize over and over and over again.
This is what all the grant applications are written for.
These are what the endpoints are.
These are how they immunobridge to the little kids.
So in a way here, you have a guy who claims to be objecting and saying that, you know, they're not really, they have chosen to emphasize direct acting antivirals.
They've chosen to emphasize this.
That's a mistake.
They've chosen to emphasize antibody seroprevalence.
That's the mistake.
So again, pretending to be a dissident, actually not teaching you anything that can help you actively save your family.
Like severe hospitalized car that makes no sense and well more importantly it doesn't work But it gives it gives you the faulty signal that there's some ambiguity I mean I've seen this in the ivermectin data where the point is the studies vary and if it takes you five days to get to the patient then of course the signal is weak and
And if you're giving insufficient drug and you're only giving it for one day, and ivermectin, so in my correspondence with the agency, advocating for an ivermectin-containing arm in the study, I had to write the section about the justification for mechanism of action of ivermectin.
And just to illustrate the point, okay, so this is, I've never disclosed this publicly, I don't have actually authorization to say so, so maybe I shouldn't.
But the truth is that I wrote this big long section, summarized the different potential mechanisms of action of ivermectin, most of which are anti-inflammatory.
The agency wrote back and said, you have to do the studies in cell culture to prove the mechanism of action.
What's happening?
Come on, computer, don't screw up.
I don't know what's going on.
I think my computer is under attack.
It's my second.
It's my, my other, my other computer here that I use for a backup.
Therapy and it's like here you go and you give them the treatment on a silver platter That bugs me about what doctors once were and what they've become and my sense is doctors You know, I used the example of frontier doctors when I was talking to him Frontier doctor about ensuring human subject safety FDA compliance all that we got to do everything by the book That's the way it is in the DOD these days not like it used to be.
Okay, we're really rigorous.
So we're living it
I'm gonna fast forward a little bit.
At the level of an antiviral agent is horrible.
It basically doesn't work.
It's a strategy that doesn't work.
Why not?
Because it's too hard to get it early.
And that's what you gotta do.
And what you're doing with Fluvoxamine, what we're doing with our agents that we're trying to get through the FDA, and perhaps we'll launch in India soon,
is that we're attacking the second phase.
COVID is a hyper-inflammatory response.
It's not the virus that kills you.
It's your response to the virus, okay?
And the good news, I'm sorry, I'm gonna criticize Tony.
I didn't wanna go there.
The thought leaders that have set public strategy in the drug space have decided
to a large part to emphasize direct acting antivirals.
And they have sought to test those most often in a late stage COVID environment.
and like severe hospitalized cause that makes no sense.
And well, more importantly, it doesn't work, but it gives, it gives you the faulty signal that there's some ambiguity.
I mean, I've seen this in the ivermectin data where the point is the studies vary.
And if it takes you five days to get to the patient, then of course the signal is weak.
And if you're giving insufficient drug and you're only giving it for one day and ivermectin... So in my correspondence with the agency advocating for an ivermectin-containing arm in the study, I had to write the section about the justification for mechanism of action of ivermectin.
And just to illustrate the point... Did you hear that?
Mechanism of action?
Mechanism of action is something that he doesn't have, that Steve Kirsch doesn't have for an SSRI that crosses the blood-brain barrier.
How does it protect you from a respiratory disease?
Do you hear it?
It doesn't want me to keep going or what?
I don't know why it keeps dying like this.
Super weird.
I'm telling you, I'm not doing this.
This is like something that Rumble's doing to me.
They got a little ahead of them.
We got a little ahead of them there.
Sorry about that.
Rumble just isn't helping me.
Why isn't rumble helping me?
I mean, I'm pushing rumble here.
You should be helping me rumble.
Come on, come on.
We just crossed the five hour mark and now I can't get this to work anymore.
Me, not so happy.
goes up concentrating in bone marrow.
And we're just going to start in here because we skipped like three minutes.
I'm not saying this is going to happen, but I'm saying we need to look for something like leukemias showing up here because of their creation in bone marrow.
I know from other work that it also seems to show up preferentially in lymph nodes.
which raises the question of whether or not lymphomas might be created.
In any case, these are possible long-term effects that we have no way of knowing don't arise because these things have not been injected into people for more than a year.
So we have two adverse event signals that are starting to become apparent, my friends at the FDA tell me.
Okay.
Keep saying his friends at the FDA that are relevant to what you're saying.
You're focusing on bone marrow.
So typically a plastic anemia, leukemia, lymphoma, those kinds of things might, if, if there are is going to be, is going to be a signal, we might see it six months, three years, nine years.
Okay.
Card to tell.
Well, isn't that just nice?
Isn't that just nice?
The cancers that John Bodeman are finding is just the tip of the iceberg.
that we need to wait a few years before some of these more complicated bone marrow cancers will show up in symptomology.
Oh joy.
Fires multiple mutations.
Yep.
Okay.
So, so let's just park that.
Yeah.
It is a risk.
It is a risk that should be monitored.
Well, wait a second.
You said, you said somebody is beginning to see a signal of something, but I didn't get what it was.
Yeah.
So I was going to get into that.
Okay.
There's two signals that are starting to in,
We don't have time to go into the nuance of how come it takes so long for them to figure out what's going on.
But one of them is thrombocytopenia, that's not having the platelets.
His hands could also be swollen from the gout he supposedly has because when I shook his hand at the CHD meeting in Knoxville and he jerked his hand away and said he didn't know who I was and that he didn't introduce me to RFK and then walked away from me, his wife later told me that he had gout and that maybe I had just hurt his hand when I shook his hand with my very delicate man hands.
I'm not shoveling stalls all day, so I have very delicate man hands.
But when I shook his hand, I heard it.
Because he's got gout.
Which are manufactured in the bone marrow.
Could be true, I don't know, it could be true.
But I see him shake a lot of other people's hands without pain.
Another one that is very hard to understand that's starting to come up in the database.
I wonder if he'll remember me on Wednesday when we see each other in Boston.
Okay, so this is shingles, shingles is an example of that, but there are many others.
And there's something in the literature about reactivation of human, latent human retroviruses.
Okay, so it is, there are anomalous findings cropping up and I concur that it was when I received these data to evaluate,
I gave you that whole story.
Okay?
Those are two of the things.
And by the way, what's really odd to me about the ovarian signal is there's no signal in the testis.
Right.
It's very low.
And a colleague of mine, Dr. Kevin Tamera, has done a lot of thinking and reading about that because it bothers him too.
He's a urologist, so he kind of specializes in the male reproductive system.
And he has some
Gosh darn Rumble.
Rumble is not going to let me finish this video.
What is happening here?
Maybe I should pull it up on my other computer.
Maybe I can double team this thing.
No, Rumble's really mad.
It's not playing on this computer either.
This computer's hard-lined and it's not playing either.
I think they're slowing me down.
I gotta be really honest with you.
I think they're stopping me from doing this because I'm just crushing them right now.
And they can't do anything about it except for stop the video from playing.
Otherwise, I got another hour of these clowns.
I mean, what is the other explanation for the reason why this is not working?
So there are anomalous findings cropping up, and I concur that it was when I received these data to evaluate, I gave you that whole story.
Those are two of the things.
And by the way, what's really odd to me about the ovarian signal is there's no signal in the testis.
Right.
It's very low.
And a colleague of mine, Dr. Kevin Tamera, has done a lot of thinking and reading about that because it bothers him too.
He's a urologist, so he kind of specializes in the male reproductive system.
And he has some theories having to do with charge, because these are charged lipids.
So there are particular features of the ovary that may, as opposed to the testis, that may explain some of this, but it doesn't get us away from the two core things.
Number one,
This was known with the original data packages.
The Japanese data package is essentially a historic document.
It's different from what the FDA is currently looking at.
So these data have been out there a long time.
And yes, we have a whole lot of messaging.
But not in public view.
within the purview, the confidential, protected, not disclosed purview of the regulators across the world.
So this messaging that we're all good, nothing to worry about.
That messaging was inconsistent with these signals that were apparent, at least inside of the data.
The data or the data?
Yeah.
Okay.
We've got potential long-term, we've got short-term implications in the bone marrow.
We've got potential long-term implications in the bone marrow.
We have short-term implications in the ovaries.
We've got potential long-term implications.
I would add to the list what I've been worried about most from the beginning are autoimmune disorders that might show up in the long run.
Is that plausible as you see it?
We talked about this earlier.
And for me, it's less the lipid component, although that certainly has merit for autoimmune.
It's more the circulating free spike protein, which we didn't expect.
And in the literature, the developers assured us this would not happen.
The literature suggested we would not have free spike.
There we go again, we're talking about spike protein being free and so some mistake being made in the manufacturing process or an assumption being made that was incorrect.
And then Harvard and Brigham did a study in nurses and lo and behold, we clearly have free spike after vaccination.
And that has a whole other set of implications, but autoimmune
development of autoimmune disease against complexes of foreign protein plus normal human proteins is certainly something that you'd have to monitor for.
As we were discussing, the way that that's... That was very well said.
Complexes made with viral proteins and self proteins can cause autoimmunity.
That's exactly
what Michael Eden and I have been arguing for three years.
So it's nice to hear him say it in the midst of this three and a half hour word salad.
Part of the reason why you typically want a two to three year follow up period on the initial group of phase three patients to make sure that autoimmune consequences don't develop because they typically take time.
Right.
And this is why, you know, they always say that there's no such thing as a vaccine that was, that has developed fast.
You know, like the fastest we've ever developed a vaccine has been like, what?
So it's really weird, right?
That Robert, or that, that, that on a podcast with Robert Malone, almost a year after this in Bath, the UK, they're sitting on a, on a, on a couch and Brett Weinstein says,
He says, what is this?
What is this?
He says, why is this not going away?
What does he say?
I mean, I'm being serious here.
There's something here.
I've got it clipped up, listen.
Listen, I'll pause you because I advanced a hypothesis on dark horse, which is now just come right back up.
So I want to catch people up and then I want you to pick up your explanation.
So what I argued, and I, I believe I came up with this independently, but I believe Peter McCullough has mentioned something similar as has Jonathan Cooley.
So what he's going to say there really interestingly is, is what Mike Eden says here.
And what I've said before.
which is that the transfection of a spike protein can cause an autoimmune reaction.
And more than a year before that, here's Robert Malone saying it on his podcast.
And yet still, Brett Weinstein says that I came up with this on my own.
And Robert doesn't correct him.
Robert is leading a narrative.
He's making sure that everybody stays on point.
So if you claim it's you, that's all the better.
If you say it was Jay, that's all the better.
Keep everybody on message and encourage them to focus on the shot and not on the virus.
Not on the gain of function.
Assume that's all real.
Keep them focused on the transfection and what the transfection might do.
That's what was done to us.
Prefer to stay out of the public eye and they've done that.
But I took this position because I feel very strongly.
Easy, easy, easy.
Nobody said we wanted you to keep talking there.
Okay.
Here we go.
Seven years or.
Yeah, probably if we, unless we go back mid century when things were loose and fast.
Right, but there's a reason for that.
It's not just that, OK, well, we have better technology now.
We still need to be able to see what the long-term effects is on a 12-year-old.
You can't fast-forward time.
And in fact, usually you use animal models to do that.
And the assumptions on which the animal models bring these things to light are faulty.
Right, and how do you judge the effect on the 12-year-old?
What the animal models give us is a signal that alerts us to things that we need to follow up on carefully in humans.
Okay, so hold on.
Unless that signal is of toxicity or autoimmunity and then you don't need to follow up on it, you just don't do it.
Again, we're clouding the waters here.
We're muddying the waters here.
We're making it worse for people to understand.
There's no gray area here.
If an animal model shows toxicity or autoimmunity, you don't try it in humans.
That's not what Robert Malone is arguing in this long little thing here.
He's arguing that mice and monkeys don't tell us anything about what's in humans.
So the only way to test it in humans is to do a meta-analysis, he said.
I don't think you can underestimate the extent to which this single podcast bamboozled so many people, including myself, into believing a laboratory leak was being covered up and that a imperfect transfection was being used to counteract it.
and that was soon to be sold as a serendipitous consequence of the pandemic that these transfections are working, except, well, you know, we didn't get the batches right and the spike protein was toxic.
Just to make this segment clear, OK, we've got very alarming short-term stuff.
We've got short-term stuff that is alarming on the basis of where we find these lipids, where we find the spike proteins.
Those things are reasons for concern because it wasn't supposed to be this way.
We've also got an alarming signal in terms of the hazards and deaths or the harms and the deaths that are reported in the system.
And there's a reason to think that those are dramatic under-reports.
Yes, and they're all consistent with the spike distribution.
That's two parts of the harm equation.
Okay, the harm equation involves, there appears to be short-term harm being done at an alarming level.
Long-term harm is quite plausible based on what we already know about what's taking place, but we, of course, are going to take time to figure out whether it's actually manifest.
To find out and then it's going to be too late.
You can vaccinate yourself, but you can never unvaccinate.
You can't unvaccinate.
Okay, so then there are two other harms that are potentially involved in this vaccine.
I wanted to get your input on whether it's worth worrying about these things.
One of them, as made famous by Garrett Vandenbosch, who was a guest on this program, is the hazard of the vaccines because they create a very concentrated evolutionary push on spike protein alone.
Vaccinating into a pandemic rather than in advance of the pandemic is like... Here it comes.
The transfection works.
Spike protein is produced, it goes into circulation and puts a very pinpoint immune pressure on the virus.
Exactly the story that Herod von den Bosch is selling on Amazon for $35 a book right now.
A nonsense story about transfection being able to put pinpoint immune pressure on the virus to cause
Immune re, immune refocusing is what, what cared, cared funding Bosch has as a new, new term, immune refocusing.
And you can buy his Amazon book for 35 bucks and find out what he means.
Able to cause the evolution of escape mutants and that it could in fact make a much worse pandemic in the end.
So this isn't a theoretical, this is a real, it's real.
We already have the data.
What does that mean?
We are having escape mutants arise all over the place.
Yep.
And you believe it is caused by the vaccines?
So I can't, I can't.
So because we've got two variables going on at the same time, we've got vaccination and we've got natural infection.
Yeah.
But in my mind, I mean, the data, the, the, the data are in.
Yep.
The escape.
The data are in, the escape mutants are there.
The escape mutants, the dangerous variants are there.
This is all narrative, guys.
Mutants are happening, yeah.
We have focused on the spike domains that are associated with escape from the vaccine domains.
We have neglected to focus as a community on the other mutations that are also accumulating.
So that's kind of a sampling or selection bias that we have ongoing because we're focused on the vaccines, but it's not the only thing that's changing.
You mentioned HIV, super example.
HIV evolves during its infection of each separate patient.
Single-stranded RNA.
As a virologist, and there's some veterinary virologists that are speaking about this too, that this is, for those of us who are hardcore virologists and vaccinologists,
This is accepted wisdom.
This is just the way things are.
This kind of gets to my point that I made earlier.
We're focused on the vaccines, but it's not the only thing that's changing.
You mentioned HIV, super example.
HIV evolves during its infection of each separate patient.
Single-stranded RNA.
So as a virologist, and there's some veterinary virologists that are speaking about this too.
Veterinary virologists speaking out about this would be here at VandenBosch.
He's queuing him up right now just so you know what's going on.
For those of us who are hardcore virologists and vaccinologists, this is accepted wisdom.
This is just the way things are.
And this kind of gets to my point that I made earlier.
I objected a little bit to some of the statements.
In my opinion, we're stuck with this virus or its downstream variants pretty much for the rest of our lives.
For the rest of our lives.
for the rest of our lives, for the rest of our lives.
We're stuck with this virus or its downstream variants pretty much for the rest of our lives.
I have no responsibility for the current pandemic.
I believe that that is inescapable.
Well, so I would argue, based on what I understand,
that that might happen.
I've worried about it from the beginning, that the likelihood of it happening has to do with the fact that we botched the early response and therefore gave it a large canvas in which to experiment.
Yeah, a large canvas.
It's all Trump's fault.
We blew it in the beginning.
We should have locked down harder, right?
I don't, I haven't seen anything yet that tells me that we couldn't, if we got on this now, that we couldn't stamp it out in two months, three months of concerted effort.
Except for the experience of actually trying to do that with polio and smallpox.
I don't know what to say here.
My whole computer is just freaking out and I don't get it.
I don't know why it's freaking out, but this computer is definitely having some issues here.
And I don't get it.
We are at 231.
Oh man, you're killing me. 231.
stuff that sticks to other stuff, but it can stick in a way that actually enhances the infectivity, right?
So, the fact that we don't control what happens after we introduce the immune system to the antigen, and that the evolution can produce things with unpredictable effects, can result in exactly the opposite.
And in fact, this is not just a theoretical possibility.
This is something we've actually seen, and I believe we've seen it with mRNA
Vaccines Okay, so is that right?
So there haven't been any mRNA vaccines and other creatures.
We are the first creatures that is being tried to there's just that okay, okay, okay, but What you're talking about did Brett really not know that?
That's not even possible Is it possible that he's so irresponsible.
He didn't even know the answer to that.
I mean, come on Brett really
Come on.
Um, when I, so we've been writing and trying to get published papers about this, uh, kind of from the beginning, I think her father was British intelligence, not CIA.
It's not purely theoretical.
Um, it is the basis for dengue hemorrhagic fever.
Okay.
So it's not what he's talking about.
Isn't something that he's just come up with out of his mind.
Um, it's, it's a, it's actually the basis for one of the major viral diseases.
So is this why the second bout of dengue is worse?
That is precisely it, especially it has to be a different strain and, and it is a whole.
So he didn't even bother to do due diligence to read that by the time we got to September of 2021, he's been online for a year.
Daily or weekly talking about the pandemic and he didn't bother to read about dengue fever.
I mean, Bret Weinstein is one of the biggest posers of all time, pretending to be this preeminent biologist with this polymath-like knowledge, and it's really a joke.
I'm sorry, but it's really, really a joke.
It's a lovely, if you wanna understand the interaction of virology and immunology, dengue is a super way to dive into that world.
But one of the nuances that you almost got to,
So I'm going to go to my metaphor of the fork.
And so the tines of a fork, if you think about that, are akin to the sticky part of the antibody that he's talking about.
But the fork has a tail, the handle that we hold on to.
That tail is not there just for nothing.
That tail has its own cool, evolved, neat stuff that it does.
And one of the things that it does is it sticks to specific evolved receptors.
It's called the FC region because it's the constant region of the antibody.
The tines are variable, as you say.
So the part that sticks out has a receptor that it binds to.
That receptor is present in cells that normally can't be infected by this virus, dendritic cells and macrophage, which, by the way, go to lymph nodes and travel around all over the body and are totally central to our ability to generate an immune response.
And one of the things that happens… Nice to mention that at 2 hours and 36 in there, Robert.
with certain types, because there are different types of antibody-dependent enhancement, but the word, antibody, so that's the fork, dependent, this won't happen without it, enhancement, what is being enhanced?
What's being enhanced is infection and virus replication.
How is that happening?
How is the presence of an antibody
increasing the ability of the virus to infect something else when it's blocking the virus.
Because what happens is that essentially that handle of the fork can now interact with the FC receptors on macrophaged dendritic cells and other antigen-presenting cells and enable that virus to come into those cells that would normally not be able to infect.
And those cells travel all over the body.
These are immune cells.
These are the cells responsible for presenting antigen.
And so what you have happened with antibody-dependent enhancement is you can get an explosive increase, not only in virus replication, but in activation of inflammatory responses, which happens about seven days after the infection.
And all of the prior vaccines
that have been developed largely for veterinary purposes and all of the prior attempts to develop human coronavirus vaccines have failed due to ADE.
That's one of the things that's really interesting.
Really interesting about the current ones is they are showing so much efficacy.
It's the reason why I wouldn't take vaccine for a long time.
is I was watching for an ADE signal.
I'm not seeing it.
We're all looking for it.
And we're not seeing it.
We're not seeing an ADE signal, huh?
Anti-interferon antibodies.
We're not seeing it.
He's just full of it.
Everywhere we've looked, we've found it.
And more importantly, if you don't look, you don't find it.
and emphasizing that antibody-dependent enhancement is the primary thing he was concerned about and not the globs of self and viral proteins that could cause autoimmunity three years from now.
What is he talking about?
He was worried about antibody-dependent enhancement.
He was watching for those signals, but he wasn't worried about any of the other things that come along with transfection, like autoimmunity that could show up as cancer in the bone marrow three years from his injection that he was just talking about a few minutes ago, but now says, my main concern was antibody-dependent enhancement.
Holy balls is this nonsense.
Get vaccinated.
See, I got vaccinated because I didn't know any of this.
I assumed that what I was being told is the truth.
Nobody was dying and everything was safe and it was safe and effective that I was told that.
And I trusted the authorities and I, you know, was just like that.
And then when I discovered, you know, my little, you know, you know, popped up and is he pissed?
Because I would be pissed.
It doesn't really seem like Steve is pissed that he injected his children with something he should have never injected his children with, that this guy didn't warn him early enough.
This guy didn't warn him early enough, that's why he took it.
Why isn't he pissed about that?
Why doesn't he hear the incongruency that's sitting across the table from him at all?
discovered, wow, confirmation of my hypothesis.
You took the red pill and suddenly.
Yeah, well, no, I've always had the red pill.
But on this one, I said, there's only so much you can question, right?
And when has the CDC ever misled us and the NIH ever misled us?
So I can't blame ignorance.
I'm a bona fide expert, right?
Right, right.
So how did you?
Well, we didn't know about the biodistribution.
We didn't know about the free.
It's so funny.
It's so funny how I took a transfection I should have never taken, because I'm an expert.
I should have known better.
It's so funny, isn't it?
It's so funny.
About the pathogenics?
So why did I take the vaccine?
Yeah, why did you?
Two reasons.
Admit it.
I'm finally on the spot here.
No, I'm totally transparent about it and have been in multiple other podcasts and online.
There's two reasons.
And I waited.
I would not get involved early on, um, because I, I knew that it was going to take time for the ADE signal to either be proven or not revealed.
Yeah.
Okay.
So I came to the conclusion, it's been enough time.
We're not.
The only thing he was concerned about was ADE, nothing else.
He's saying that right now, hear him.
Hear him tell you that none of the other concerns that they've been talking about for the last hour were on his radar as he decided to take two shots in the Moderna vaccine.
He wanted acceptance.
He wanted to be able to travel.
This is just the biggest ball of nonsense I've ever heard in my life.
And I agree totally with the Breggins that this guy's pulling the wool over our eyes.
He's gotta be.
This is just one great big gigantic pile of nonsense.
I don't know what he's up to.
But oh man, this is really something special to me.
The idea that he's suing the Breggans while he did this and said these words.
Did this whole podcast, we could watch it over and over and over again.
It'll only become more and more clear how absurd it is that he sits where he sits right now in the eyes of so many people as some kind of knight in shining armor.
What a joke.
Seeing the 80s E signal.
And I don't have to worry about that too much.
Remember I'm a long COVID.
there was a lot of reports popping up about vaccines helping with long COVID.
And number two, I need to travel.
And the rules that are emerging, particularly if you wanna go to Europe or offshore.
The rules that are emerging that you might have to accept, the rules that are emerging that you might have to accept because these men aren't gonna keep their arms straight
because these men aren't going to keep their arms straight.
You might have to put up with these rules because these men aren't willing to stand up for those rules being against all forms of informed consent, against all previous principles of sovereignty.
They're not going to stand up for that because these men aren't holding their arms straight.
It's just crazy.
You gotta have, well, it is what it is.
I live in the real world and I need to travel.
So the reason my wife and I both took vaccines, because she's also a vaccine expert.
She's also a vaccine expert on the incorporation papers of Inovio, on Facebook saying that the technology and ideas of Robert Malone are saving the world.
that the vaccine is working exactly as it expected, and it's saved millions of people.
They're recommending that you take it now because the ADA signal is not there.
It hasn't shown up yet, says Robert Malone on this podcast, so take the shot.
I both took Moderna, the highest dose, right?
The one, frankly, the one that I advise to everybody, don't take Moderna.
If you're gonna take anything, take Pfizer.
Okay, that's been my advice again and again, but it wasn't an option for me where I live in Virginia.
By the way, what he's talking about is... So that's what I took.
Yeah, they never did any dosing studies to find out whether they were overdosing.
So hold on.
I want to just collect our gains here, okay?
We've got two kinds of harm to patients, short-term and long-term.
Both of these are alarming.
They're worrying from what we already know.
You've got the possibility of the driving of escape mutants, for which we know that we were getting escape mutants, and we don't know to what degree that is responsive to the vaccine, but it's at least... I would speculate that Meryl Nass is beguiled by Robert Malone.
I would speculate that she's just been fooled.
She spent a lot of time with him and his wife, and they have a very good schtick.
of fighting in front of people and being condescending to one another.
And then it seems like they have this real marriage and it's almost embarrassing.
And I've heard the story from too many people that if you're around the Malones long enough, you hear Robert talk very nasty to Jill, or you hear very, uh, court, uh, curt language with one another.
And it's obvious that they're really just a married couple.
And this level of trust that one gets when you think that they can't be lying is what I think Meryl has experienced.
I think Meryl is just beguiled by someone who she is so, she's probably incapable of imagining that someone would lie to her so consistently and so often.
And that's, I think, you know, what happens to everybody that gets beguiled by somebody who's a liar.
I don't know what lies he's told.
I don't know what lies he's telling.
I just know that he's probably very skilled at it.
Like he said that his friend Michael Callahan is also a very skilled liar.
If he can say that Michael Callahan's a very skilled liar, I wonder if it's okay for me to hypothetically wax intellectual about how skilled of a liar Robert Malone might be.
at least quite plausible.
And then we have the risk of ADE, which it turns out we don't have the signal for.
So that's good news.
Yeah, currently.
Yeah.
So far.
But that's great.
Good news.
No ADE.
That's a pretty good encapsulation of worries in this neighborhood that are... The one that was unexpected is the coagulopathy associated with the adenovector.
Holy cow, he did it again.
The adenovector.
adenovirus transformation that's the one that has coagulopathy not the mRNA the mRNA doesn't do that oh wait now it does this was an orchestrated calculated differential between those two at this time to try and make you think that them taking the Moderna was smart that the Moderna works that the Moderna is the pure one yada yada yada it's all
fun and games with your brain here.
That's what's happening.
That one was out of the blue.
So the coagulation problems, which are almost one of the central hallmarks of COVID disease.
Right.
So am I wrong to think that that's just more spike protein cytotoxicity?
I think it's a plausible hypothesis.
OK.
All right.
Which means, in English, that means he agrees.
No, it means it's a plausible hypothesis.
He's a scientist, he gets what I mean.
I'm translating it for the non-scientists.
It's a plausible hypothesis, and the tone in your voice suggested there's not another obvious, more plausible hypothesis.
I think it is the most compelling current hypothesis that I know of.
Yes, June 21.
So I think we have taken care of the big pieces of the puzzle that I was hoping to hit aside from the one where we saved the earth from COVID.
Are there things on your agenda that you... You wanted to talk a little more about the repro talks.
Yes.
Well, indeed.
So we did it, but what should people be thinking about the fact that we at least know that it... So the thing that this signal about the relative concentration of these novel lipids that we've never had before in humans that we don't have long exposure to in animals and the signal in this limited rodent study
Hopefully, which was not done under good laboratory practices.
It wasn't the real vaccine.
It wasn't even the RNA encoding spike.
Right.
And you couldn't, because you'd want to find out where the spike actually went.
I spoke to, remember I spoke to the director of CBER about all this and he said, you know, that was then, we have a new data package now and please allow us the respect to evaluate it.
Okay.
And Peter Marks is, they said it again, that we've got a new data set.
So give us the time to evaluate it.
He's saying it again.
He's leaving the door open for it working or for the data to say, Oh, it's okay.
Do you hear it?
Ladies and gentlemen.
Among the best we have at the FDA.
Okay.
He's he's time-tested.
He's smart.
He has integrity.
He asked me, he is saying that Jeremy Marks has integrity.
The guy who pushed this vaccine all the way to six month old kids.
He's saying, Jeremy Marks has integrity.
Can you believe this?
To allow them the respect to evaluate the product.
And I think we've kind of got to give that.
But if we go off the date.
We've got to give it that.
We've got to give them six months.
We've got to take the shot and just get this over with.
Do you hear it?
that the Canadians provided to us from that package that shows the graph that you just showed.
We have concentration in ovarian tissue of a novel lipid reagent.
that is previously untested and has some very unique characteristics.
It's an ionizable cationic lipid.
We just don't know what that means.
Here's the thing.
When I first started, when I first trained about what the history of the FDA is, the thing that is the hallmark of the modern FDA is the response to thalidomide.
And that has guided the whole legislative structure and organizational structure of the FDA.
That's all about reproductive toxicity and potential consequences in terms of birth defects.
I hope that Pfizer has submitted to Peter a comprehensive genotoxicity and reproductive toxicity panel in the non-clinical studies.
But even then, rats are not humans.
And what we've learned is that reproductive risks don't always manifest in the first generation.
So I don't mean to scare, but I do mean to speak honestly and with integrity.
And, um, I think the, the, the honest position is if you were to ask me, Robert, do you know what the reproductive consequences are for this signal?
I have to tell you, no, I don't because we don't have the data.
And if you then ask me, has there been any examples in the past of reproductive effects of agents in female reproductive tissue that were not anticipated by the animal model testing, I would have to say, yes, there is.
So I think my position on all of this goes back to the bioethics, if you'll forgive me.
There has to be full and open disclosure.
I think we owe it, we do owe it to people, to the audience, to those of us who are facing this crisis and wanting to do the right thing.
I think we, this gets back to it's your body.
I think that the burden is on the government not to tell us what to do, but to convince us based on the information what to do.
And I think that they have an obligation, they do have an obligation, this goes back to the bedrocks of bioethics, to full and open disclosure.
And in the case of the
potential reproductive implications of this.
That's on the video.
I don't know where that aggregated noise is coming from signal in a female reproductive tissue.
I think that there needs to be transparency.
I think that we have to not
assume that reports such as dysmenorrhea, which are occurring, and you can appreciate if you're a young woman and you're having menstrual irregularities, it's kind of embarrassing socially to talk about it.
And you're not going to rush off to the internet and go post it.
even if you're a millennial, and I don't think.
So I think that we as a public health community, if I can speak for the public health community,
really should err on the side of transparency and disclosure and trust the American people and the people all over the world, the adults who are competent to make decisions, to make decisions for their own health and for those adolescents and infants and youth.
Remember, they cannot give informed consent.
They can't by definition.
The only people that can give it for them are their parents and their guardians.
And, um, I, I do feel pretty strongly that these things that I hear about now in multiple cultures, the strategy, we're going to give out ice cream to get the kids to get vaccinated.
That's just wrong.
Yeah.
Now it's, it's tantamount to evil in light of the very scary implications of the thing.
And we're going to, we're going to look back.
We're going to look back.
It would be wrong also to go on a podcast and suggest that the main danger of transfection was ADE.
It would also be wrong to go on a podcast and suggest that the main danger is a virus rather than the transfection.
And we are going to look back on this in a few years or in a generation and realize that these men were among the men that led us down the path of destruction.
That led us down the path that we should not have ever walked because they didn't hold their arms straight.
These are not good men.
These are men who have broken under the pressure of the narrative and have towed the line because they were forced to tow the line.
They're happy to tow the line.
I don't care if they don't know they're towing the line.
They are responsible for where we are now, and they could have done something different, like hold their arms straight.
You know, there's been times when as a culture facing as, you know, many cultures facing major crises, war and other things, where there's been decisions made to cross ethical lines.
And, you know, in US history recently, in our experience in World War II, we had the internment camps.
Germany has had their experiences, heaven knows.
And it's easy in the fog of war, and I can tell you from being on the front lines of outbreak response, it is like war.
And it's easy to make judgment calls.
where you say that the benefits merit compromising some of our core ethical principles.
And invariably, in retrospect, we end up saying that was a mistake.
And I'm going to leave it at that.
All right.
So I think you have a last point you want to make and then I will deploy my plan and we'll see how that goes.
Well, look, knowing what I know today, if I had known what I know today, I never would have vaccinated my three young daughters.
I would have done whatever I could, you know, they're of age, they can decide for themselves.
Um, but I would have done everything, uh, in, in my power to have tried to domain was not mentioned in this podcast, even though it was mentioned in science magazine before the podcast and associated Robert Malone with it changed their minds.
And I don't have any boys, but if it were my children, I would do whatever I could to do that.
I think it's, I do not understand this push to let's get this, let's accelerate the approval of this experiment.
And to experiment on our kids is to me, and what really frustrates me
is I know one of the cabinet members of the Biden administration, and I brought this to his attention numerous times, and he has tried to get the attention of the proper people.
And I hear crickets.
The bell doesn't ring.
It doesn't register because it's against the narrative.
Yeah.
And there's a reason for that.
It's it's like I and I because I sent it to a friend of mine.
It's against their narrative because they they have been told that vaccines work.
They have told that vaccines can't be questioned.
They have been told that vaccines are the way out.
They have been told that gain-of-function viruses are real, that synthetic viruses are dangerous on a military field and in bioterrorism, and they've been told all of this stuff by people like Robert Malone for 20 years.
He's trying to say that these people don't understand and that they've been misled and whatever, but what he's not saying is that they've been misled by people like Robert Malone.
that perpetuate the danger of zoonotic viruses, perpetuate the danger of gain-of-function viruses, perpetuate the danger and need for vaccine-like countermeasures, for vaccine technologies, for vaccine budgets.
And Robert Malone sits on those study sections.
He chairs those study sections that distribute those billions of dollars for those imaginary dangers.
And he is now involved in ushering in the permanent system that will govern us by the existence of those imaginary dangers.
That's where we are.
Welcome to the real world.
And you can see it plain as day through the Dark Horse podcast from June of 2021.
Yesterday, and I said, hey, could you get the, you know, I've tried the secretary and he was unable to get it to Biden's attention.
Could you at least get it to and mention someone who's a top staffer of Pelosi?
And so he looked at the document, he spent probably spent two minutes looking at it.
And he said, Steve, I love you.
I've known you for a long time.
You're a great guy, but it, I mean, I should show you the email, but it ended with, and you probably don't think that there was an attack on January 6th.
And that is just, you know, it's like, look, it's gaslighting.
If you want to, if you want to criticize what I've written,
Please tell me what's wrong and I'll fix it and and I said so you just so Can you believe they brought up January 6th on this interview Can you believe it?
That they set up that controversy already on this interview.
Tell me the truth.
You just deleted it when when you saw it He said no, I I I didn't delete it.
I kept it around but I didn't forward it like he said he would
He said, forward it to me, I will send it to... So he just, you know... Cowardice.
Yeah, I mean, this is important, right?
I might be right on this.
And everything I've seen, every single thing I've seen from talking to the paramedics, from talking to the doctors, seeing doctors fired, seeing paramedics intimidated,
You know, seeing my friends, doing the next door surveys, every single time I try to look for, oh, maybe, you know, are they right?
And I get nothing.
I get confirmation the more I learn.
And for me to try to convince an academic, oh, and his argument was, Steve, you must be wrong.
because all the academics say that it's safe and effective.
I commented on a post from one of the doctors at UCSF who says, I'm going to vaccinate my kid.
And I said, well, you should look at this first.
And so my friend's comment was, look, this is like global warming.
And so there's the global warming deniers.
And they're, you know, deniers of, you know, what happened.
It's tribal.
He goes and he says, he says, Look, you're up against all everybody else.
says that it's safe and effective.
All the academics say it's safe and effective.
No one is raising any alarms.
And so it's basically, they're saying like, there's something wrong with you.
And in fact, right after Byram's presentation, my wife was entertaining five of my friends, or five of our friends.
And after I heard this about the biodistribution, I said, hey, if you haven't vaccinated your kids, I just found out some information that says, this is gonna be unsafe and here's why, we're supposed to be in the arm, went to the whole body, spike protein is not a harmless antigen.
And then they said, hey, thank you, Steve, thank you, Steve.
We were gonna vaccinate our kids, but we're not gonna go to, and then I walk out.
And then they're like, is Steve okay?
Has he been working too hard?
Is he like, you know?
As if this was a minor issue.
Yeah, they're like thinking that he's lost it, right?
And so this is the frustration.
This is why people can't speak out, right?
Because the narrative is so strong that everybody believes in this false narrative.
And so anyone who challenges and says the emperor wears no clothes,
is just shot down and marginalized and they say to your face, oh, hey, thank you a lot.
And then when you turn around, they're like, wow, what's happened to him?
And the amazing thing, of course, is that here you have a case.
where the NIH is basically sandbagging effective treatments, that the CDC is going along for the ride, that the FDA is fooled, and that people in Congress think Tony Fauci, who's been called out as the creator of the coronavirus and caused this whole thing, and then screwed up by not
Oh, no, it's no there is believe me.
I was I was very early on the lab We should we should have a separate one on this but Chris Chris Martinson does a fabulous job on his YouTube channel in taking down Tony Fauci Chris Martinson mentioned again interesting small circle of people getting mentioned on this podcast, isn't it in this whole cover?
I'm not defending but okay.
Okay.
Yeah, but you know, but Congress like I wrote to Anna
sorry, my Congresswoman, and I said, look at, here's the document, here's the facts.
How do you respond to this?
She wrote me a nice letter that says the vaccine is safe and effective, we'll be rolling it out, and the CDC has found no problems, and I'm going like, well, they haven't even analyzed any of the cases, and they should be assuming that there's a vaccine.
Like, they halt things, like they're stopping criteria.
you know, should be a hundred deaths or 200, you know, anyway.
Robert's right.
They're gaslighting us.
It's getting to you.
I hear you.
You sound completely rational to me, but you know, look, look, look, I expected this.
I knew, I knew when I went into this that I would suffer, that, that, that, you know, I would be, let me give you 30 seconds of comfort and then we're going to, we're going to fix the planet.
This is always the case when you're at the tip of the spear.
He said it again, tip of the spear.
All you get is arrows in the ass.
Yeah.
Okay, this is a paradigm shift problem.
And the lovely thing about medicine is we've been through multiple cycles of this.
The classic one is gastric ulcers and the bacterial basis for gastric ulcers, which the guy that did that was subjected to everything that you're experiencing and more.
It is just, so I guess I'm saying, welcome to my world.
Embrace you.
And it's the nature, it is the.
He's never been in that world.
What is he talking about?
It's the red badge of courage that you're going through this and you have the guts, despite all that, to continue to say whether you're right or wrong, to have the courage to go to swim upstream and say, this isn't right.
Right.
And everybody, by the way, everybody advised me because I told people, look, and you know, this is the real, like Pierre Cory doesn't do this.
This is like, you're taking on two albatrosses.
One is championing early treatment.
In Brazil, they don't think early treatment works at all, despite all the proof.
So, you're trying to champion this cause.
You're going up against the NIH and the WHO.
And they said, if you take on also the vaccine,
You're done.
So wait a minute.
Robert is saying something very important.
And I know he's right, because I've been through it in a totally separate instance, right?
The work I did that revealed that there was a flaw in the drug safety system, that was 2002, right?
So I know what that is.
And Robert's right.
This is par for the course, except the stakes are really high here.
And the amazing thing is that nobody is pulling the Andon cord in Congress to say, hey, stop.
But that's what we've got to do with the Save the World Plan here.
Because I really want to begin to wrap this up.
And I think the point is, you've got all of these anomalous signatures, right?
Even if the answer is, and I can make a defense for emergency authorizations for a vaccine that is not well enough tested in the face of an emergency, in the face of a virus that we might get stuck with as a permanent fellow traveler.
know about the risk.
I can't make that argument when there's perfectly safe therapies that are available to us off the shelf.
That's right.
Absolutely right.
And I never could have made that argument for people who've already had COVID.
And I certainly wouldn't have made that argument for women or children, especially pregnant women.
But the fact is, that's ovaries, right?
That signal is telling us something about potential long-term reproductive health.
So all of that said,
Nicely worded.
Potential long-term reproductive health.
Thank you.
I would have said something different, but you said it correctly.
He's a scientist.
I'm cautious this way.
So let's just say we've got all of these signals of something I would call extended regulatory capture, where regulatory capture now reaches into
Not just regulatory agencies, it reaches into journals, it reaches into universities, it reaches into the social media layer, it reaches into the organizations of doctors, all of the things.
And the World Health Organization.
So this extended capture, we're all feeling it.
To the extent that people are not doing what we're doing here, and they are silencing themselves because they're afraid of the stigma that comes back if they talk about the things they think they might be seeing.
right?
Everybody is being touched by this.
I call it self-censorship.
It is self-censorship, but the point is, I don't think there's any way to beat that going through the front door.
What you're finding out about trying to raise the alarm here is telling you something about that's not going to work, because there are so many layers protecting it.
We are aligned.
Right.
The only way to go is to go to the people.
Not the people, because the people can't do anything about it.
No, no, no, no, no.
Yes, they can.
It sounds to me like you're coming to the same point.
Oh, yeah.
Well, OK.
Well, let's see.
Let's see what your solution is.
My solution, and I, you know.
I have my own solution.
OK.
So my solution.
It doesn't have to be Elon, but it can be Elon, right?
Now, here's my point.
Elon checks all the boxes, right?
Elon is hyper-intelligent, right?
And he appears to be hell-bent on saving planet Earth.
And he's willing to do this with Herculean efforts, right?
How hard is it to shift the country to thinking that electric cars are safe?
That is some si- where did- did that come out of left field for you?
Elon?
What in the hell are we talking about here?
I gotta go back.
I thought he was gonna have like a series of planned, like, not a person.
What the hell is this?
Right, right.
The only way to go is to go to the people.
Not the people, because the people can't do anything about it.
No, no, no, no, no.
Yes, they can.
Sounds to me like you're coming to the same point.
The people can't do anything about it.
That's an interesting theme, isn't it?
Point of view.
Well, let's see.
OK, well, let's see what your solution is.
My solution, and I, you know, I have my own solution.
OK, so my solution, it doesn't have to be Elon.
But it can be Elon.
It can be!
Here's my point.
Elon checks all the boxes, right?
Oh man, he checks all those boxes.
Elon is hyper-intelligent, right?
And he appears to be hell-bent on saving planet Earth.
And he's willing to do this with Herculean effort.
Do you really have the opinion that Elon Musk is hyper-intelligent?
Have you ever heard him speak in a way that makes him hyper-intelligent?
You know who I've heard speak that I think is hyper-intelligent?
Thomas Sowell.
When I watch him speak, I think somebody speaking there is very hyper-intelligent.
But I don't have that feeling about very many people.
I'm not trying to be arrogant or anything like that.
The average adult is the average adult.
Most people have a pretty hard time conveying the ideas that are floating around in their head.
Most people have an even harder time juggling the ideas that were just thrown at them and then throwing them back to the person and repeating that over and over again.
I think that what you see here on a regular basis on the Dark Horse Podcast is people pretending to be able to juggle ideas in their head and then throw them back to the other person, juggle them around and then throw them back again.
And they're not doing that at all.
that's actually a carefully orchestrated pigeonholing your brain into thinking very, very limited thoughts.
Rather than showing you the possibilities, they limit them.
And that's what this podcast was designed to do.
Rather than show you all the possibilities of what's going on and what is causing the pandemic, what's going wrong in the pandemic, they have narrowed your focus.
narrowed your focus, never once in three hours did they mention the PCR test.
Not once in three hours did they mention the PCR test.
And I have heard remdesivir a total of twice, I believe, not even five times.
And the one time that Robert Malone said it, he followed it immediately with dexamethasone.
efforts, right?
How hard is it to shift the country to thinking that electric cars are super cool, right?
How hard is it to get us to actually put people on Mars?
These are difficult.
And so my point is, look, if Elon is hell-bent on saving planet Earth, the hard thing to come by when you're in the saving planet Earth business is practice, right?
It's very hard to find places where you can- Make no mistake about it, Elon Musk has an RNA-making company.
Make no mistake about it.
He loves the RNA.
He loves transfection.
He loves genetic therapy.
He loves the fact that we are being coerced into giving up the sovereignty over our bodies.
He loves it.
practice that skill and you need it because it's a difficult job.
So my point is this is the perfect instance because here we have an easy way to save planet Earth and it just so happens that Elon has a tremendous number of resources.
Now he could do this as a matter, he could get together some of his friends and he could pool the resources or he could do it alone.
But my point is
What we're really looking at is runaway extended regulatory capture that has caused the greatest defect.
If there is an argument to be made about our economic and political system, it is that our system can allow you to evaporate trillions of dollars of wealth in the pursuit of billions of dollars of wealth.
And that is what is happening here.
If what we see- There's a lot to be said for that statement.
That bears repeating.
It's pretty scary and the point is it's not just wealth in this case.
We're talking about trillions of dollars of wealth.
We're talking about the tensions on the global economic and political system like we have never seen before.
We're talking about a huge amount of needless death and suffering and loss of years of viable life from people.
So that's a hell of a lot to lose so that some entity or set of entities can make
I don't know, five, ten billion dollars, right?
It's absurd.
So the point is, look, there's a bitter pill here.
The bitter pill is we can't solve the problem perfectly.
We're going to have to accept something ugly.
And I think what we have to accept is that if this is going to happen to planet Earth with perfectly viable solutions available to us off the shelf that we're not going to be allowed to touch, I'm afraid the next move is that they're going to be taken from us so that we can't even source them as individuals.
If that's what's going to happen, then the answer is we need to buy out the interests of those who are doing it.
right?
If they've got an emergency use authorization for an untested dangerous new drug and that's the reason that they're thwarting our ability to talk about the solutions that are available to us, then let's just fucking buy them out already, right?
And if that's Elon, then it's Elon.
And if it's a group of people, then it's a group of people.
But there's no reason to crash plant Earth.
So Elon should buy everybody ivermectin.
Is that what he's saying?
I guess it is.
It's the little fish rising up enough.
I've never even imagined acting with that strategy.
That's profound.
Why wouldn't we do it?
Well, cash, capital.
Right, but the point is, OK.
I ain't got it.
I don't think any of us have it.
Well, as you've done, my friend, I don't think you've got it.
Not quite in that category.
No, but you know.
But you've done your part.
I can speak to something.
Assuming we're not silenced.
Right.
I don't know if YouTube is going to go and say this violates their policy.
We talked about Ivermectin.
We're going to find out in a few minutes whether we're even still on the internet.
My guess is we are or somebody would have found a way to alert us.
Well, I'm getting these all, you know, all these texts.
They're pretending like they don't know it's going to be canceled.
Oh, it might be canceled.
And then we'll know for sure that we're being censored.
So we must be right.
It's cute, isn't it?
It's just terrible how they played us.
It's diabolical.
It's malevolent.
It's not funny.
It's a disaster.
They played us.
They got us to drop our arms.
Millions of people around the world did not keep their arms straight like they would have as normal, wide-awake adults because they were terrified by the TV, they were terrified by social media, they were terrified by the censorship, and they were terrified by people on this podcast.
It's a signal.
But in any case, look, I do think this is way easier than shifting people to electric cars.
And it's a hell of a lot easier than going to Mars.
Can we just try this one?
This is a, hey, practice saving planet Earth kind of a plan.
And it's right there in front of us.
And everything adds up.
And the thing is,
The thing that's really glorious about Elon is he is way smart enough to look at the same data that we've looked at.
How many times is he gonna say that Elon Musk is hyper smart?
He's way smart.
He's so smart he can look at the data and see stuff we don't see.
What is with this man crush that Brett has with Elon?
You know another person that was in that
That secret chat group with Brett Weinstein and Chris Martinson is a guy by the name of Alexandros Marinos.
And if there's anybody on the internet that has a crush on Elon Musk, oh my goodness, get a room.
It's the only conclusion you could reach if you look at it, right?
He'll see it.
So, um, I, I have to be careful here.
I'm a consultant.
Uh, one of my clients is a very, very large Indian conglomerate.
run by one of the wealthiest men in the world, who the tax law there basically requires companies to tithe into a non-profit.
and one has awareness, your comments spark a link.
In that setting, that very large multi-billion dollar non-profit, a fund that's been created.
Alex tweeted my Twitch.
He's actively investing in.
Alex tweeted my Twitch, well that's pretty sweet.
I didn't think that he had ever, ever, ever once promoted me.
That's very, very nice to hear.
I hope that's true.
Novel solutions of the kind that we're talking about for the rural poor in India.
And so that, I think one of the things that... Relcovax, that sounds like a laxative, doesn't sound like a vaccine, yikes.
I have, we haven't talked about,
but the global kind of geopolitical what comes out the other side of the sausage machine thing is we're facing a future where pharmaceuticals and vaccines are largely produced offshore.
We are losing or have largely lost.
Did somebody slow the video down?
I don't understand why he's talking like this.
our pharmaceutical industry here in the United States as a consequence of this kind of kookiness.
And it's the odd thing is, as you say, use the term market regulatory capture.
Problem with those kind of situations is you get protected industries and they're not able to continue to compete on a global stage.
And I fear with good reason and knowledge and experience
that we're well along that road.
And it's hard for me to see a future, basically I'm going to use slang, where China and India have not eaten our lunch.
No, and you know, the thing is, this actually dovetails with the, if you zoom out and you look at planet Earth with respect to the question of vaccines and off the shelf, out of patent drugs,
Somehow, whatever it is that looks a lot like extended regulatory capture is putting the United States behind.
Exactly.
Right.
How is it we botched the initial reaction to COVID and now we're going to botch the solution?
Everybody else is going to reach for ivermectin because it works and they're going to figure it out.
Right.
They already are.
And other agents, not just ivermectin.
Sure.
Other repurposed agents?
Fluvoxin.
You can take ivermectin as a prototype.
Inhaled butasenide.
And you know, it's the one, maybe there are others, but it is the one that seems to me like a safe prophylactic response, which is really the key to making it drive COVID to extinction.
But so anyway,
If there's a group out there or an Elon that wants to do this, the key thing is you have to buy out the interests of the obstructionists who are making billions and evaporating trillions and inadvertently, I assume, killing tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands.
He thinks that Elon is going to buy a bunch of drug companies to prevent them from profiting on their EUAs that have already been granted.
What kind of nonsense solution is this?
Why doesn't he just say noncompliance?
Why doesn't he just say united noncompliance is the only way out?
Learning the biology is the only way out.
Informed consent and the ability to say no is the only way out.
Why is he saying Elon?
Why is he saying that some super rich guy?
Not any of us.
Not the horse guy.
Not me.
I used to be a university professor.
Not the optical mouse inventor.
He's got a lot of money, but not that much money.
Not Elon money.
We need Elon style amount of money in order to save the world.
Average people can't do anything.
There's nothing you can do as an average person that would work besides united non-compliance with everybody around you.
Can you see this, ladies and gentlemen, the intellectual dark web at its finest?
I give you Brett Weinstein.
potentially millions of people and the other thing you have to do is you have to ratchet up a campaign to generate these agents and to get them to the people who need them so we can drive COVID to extinction which really does to me at least look readily possible.
Okay so I have a different solution.
He thinks that we can drive COVID to extinction.
Can we once and for all realize that this totally and completely discredits Brett as a biologist?
as having any relevant opinion.
Can we just say that this completely discredits him?
I mean, I know I've been working on that for months now, trying to convince you that he keeps stepping in it, but this is just a joke.
If this doesn't reveal him as somebody who's got some hands firmly up inside of him like a puppet, I don't know what does.
Come on, guys.
All right.
Elon tweets a link to this video.
And he says, everybody should watch this.
So Elon can tweet this video to everyone and save the world.
What is with Elon?
This is very, very, very important.
He has 50 million Twitter followers.
And with 50 million, you've got scale.
Well, you guys are operating in a world that I don't touch, and so I defer to you and your knowledge of these things.
It's a different world than I live in, and I wish you godspeed, quite literally.
And I hope, like we said about extinction of COVID,
I hope I'm wrong and you're right.
Yeah.
I fear that's not the case.
So he doesn't live in that world now, but in a few months apparently he's going to live in that world because he'll be on Getter and Gab and Telegram and Twitter and writing sub stack posts, sometimes three or four a day.
And so while he doesn't dabble in any of that right now in June of 2021, I assure you at some point his staff
and his wife are gonna dabble in that pretty readily.
It's all a big show.
So there's another solution too, which is that everybody who is watching this video,
I think has a social responsibility, moral responsibility, ethical responsibility to retweet this, share it on whatever social media, LinkedIn, Facebook, the employees.
of these companies also, if you're an employee of Facebook and LinkedIn and Twitter and so forth, that if you see your company acting in a way that is actually where they're taking this, where they're promoting misinformation or suppressing legitimate information, then
You know, the only thing that can stop, the government is not gonna stop these companies from doing the wrong things, but the employees of these companies can say, this is not acceptable for humanity, and I will not work for a company that is basically telling people to get the safe virus that is running ads that says ivermectin doesn't work, that is censoring
Like how do you, if you work at Facebook, how do you think about working for a company which is censoring these vaccine victims who are trying to get support and trying to understand what can I do about them?
And this company is censoring those people.
And what we don't have is these people don't have a voice.
The people who have died.
I think that's crucial what you just said.
The people who have died from this vaccine
don't have a voice.
The people who, the doctors, who want to speak out cannot because they don't have a voice, especially if you got any kind of NIH funding, if you're in academia, you speak out, you will never see a dime, you will never get a drug approved again.
These agencies have a long, you know,
people, I need to, you know, so I'm trying to be the voice for the voiceless for the vaccine victims who are ignored by the mainstream media.
And and I just got a tweet yesterday from a woman who says I run a support group.
And one of our members
a committed suicide.
Because this can I can I jump in on this?
Because no one was listening to her.
And yeah, can I can I let me finish?
Okay.
And a voice for the children.
Right?
Because who is going to speak for the children?
Right?
Who is going to be the voice of the children here, and to speak up for them.
And so we have all of these people who are afraid to speak up.
And I was told Steve,
They told me, let me advise you, don't touch this issue.
It's a third rail.
If you touch it, you'll vanish.
I was given the same advice.
Right.
And look, I really acknowledge your taking.
He was given the same advice?
So are they rolling it back now a little bit?
They're getting back from that line of don't touch it.
What is happening here?
Let's make sure we heard that correct.
To speak up.
And I was told, Steve, they told me, let me advise you, don't touch this issue.
It's a third rail.
If you touch it, you'll vanish.
I was given the same advice.
Right.
Um, you know, and, and look, and my, I really acknowledge you're taking the risk here because YouTube may totally demonetize you.
Your, your income will be wiped out.
Oh, his income will be wiped out.
Oh, he won't have any alternative, but to use Patreon.
Oh, his income will be wiped out.
I wonder how he saw that coming.
I wonder why Steve is bringing that up.
because it's part of the planned narrative.
It was part of the song, the little violin that Brett's been playing for the last three years now.
My YouTube channel got canceled because I let Robert Malone and Steve Kersh speak out about the truth.
What was the truth?
Let's go back to the beginning and find out what the truth was, shall we?
The truth was, hmm, censorship first.
And we are unmasked.
We are going to reveal a new secret as to how you too can be unmasked.
You can be fully vaccinated with previous infection, like Robert Malone is.
You can be fully vaccinated like Steve Kersh is, or you can use a prophylactic like ivermectin, and then you and your family can also enjoy a close proximity, mask-free existence.
That's how they started this podcast, ladies and gentlemen.
And what you're doing is trying to spread information that's all factual.
But it goes against the narrative.
But what choice is there?
And so people are afraid to speak out.
And everybody I asked
Every single person I asked said, Steve, do not do this because you will get shot down.
You will get gaslighted.
People will not believe you.
And you will, this message of early treatment then will never.
You will get gaslighted.
Is he just talking nonsense?
Is he just throwing terms out there?
He doesn't really know what they mean, or is he really trying to confuse people?
If Steve comes out speaking against injuries due to the vaccine, how does he get gaslighted?
What does that mean?
You see what we're talking about here?
There's an imprecision.
that belies lying.
Be heard.
Yeah, but if not this, what?
And if not now, when?
That's really what it comes down to.
Robert?
Two things.
The irony is that the RNA story went through this same thing, where it got suppressed and shut down and was considered to be crazy talk.
OK?
That's a small thing.
Many years ago.
That's a small thing.
Um, riffing off of your speaker for the dead, just kind of what you're saying.
Um, I just like to throw in that I'm in close contact with the, um, long hauler community.
And, um, like your story, a member of that community recently committed suicide.
And, um, there was a huge outpouring in social media
particularly in LinkedIn, in the long hauler chat groups of other people that have been suffering long hauler syndrome that feel, you know, hopeless and helpless.
This is, you know, the parameters of depression and are also at risk for suicide.
And, um, so speaking, you were speaking to employees of it companies, um,
If we can't allow these people to even have a voice, then they're completely disempowered.
It's as if they are written out of history.
And I think that if you want to make a case for a moral obligation, we must let these people who have no voice to at least speak to each other.
If we're not going to listen to them as a
And he's talking about long COVID.
He's not talking about people who died of remdesivir and he's not talking about people who died of the shot or suffering from it.
Public health community.
Let's at least let them talk to each other.
They have an absolute right.
Yeah.
Absolute right.
These people are suffering, whatever they may be suffering from.
They have an absolute right to discuss it with others who are suffering.
Thank you.
Absolute right.
Yeah.
I was trying to look for my, the, the message.
Um,
Yeah, well for what it's worth I'm getting these messages too and people are clearly losing their lives to suicide among other things because it's so horrible and how much worse does it make it when you're being gaslit and told that it isn't a thing and you're not allowed to talk to others.
It's an impossibly cruel situation.
All right, I think we have to bring this to a close.
I think we've covered what we needed to cover.
I must say I am very grateful to you both.
I regard you both as extremely courageous for speaking up.
This is not an easy topic to speak up on.
I know it's not safe for any of us.
I do hope that whatever it is that needs to coalesce out there to fix this problem, we'll hear what we're saying and figure out how to put it into motion.
If we haven't gotten it right,
then that's fine.
There's some way to do this, and it's got to happen now.
And frankly, the clock is ticking because every month that we don't do this or do something, we are giving COVID-19 time to evolve to become a permanent fellow traveler, which will be an absolute tragedy for humanity.
So let's get on this immediately.
Thanks for joining us on Dark Horse.
Steve Kirsch, Robert Malone.
Thank you.
I really appreciate it.
Thank you for allowing us to be here.
Be well, everyone.
I want to remind you about the video that I started with, because those men that we just watched are not men that kept their arms straight.
They are not men that stood up when should have been standing up, but they stood up a year too late.
And I would argue that what we just watched right there was beyond a shadow of a doubt evidence that they didn't stand up at all.
but they were actually part of this narrative, part of this theater, which was designed to make us believe that there was a gain of function virus, that it was released, that they did cover it up, that we needed the countermeasures, that everybody was just doing what they thought they had to do.
And so we're stuck with where we are.
It's an imperfect system, but you know, we got to work with what we got to work with, right, Robert?
I don't believe that that's true.
I believe that people like myself were standing up for what was right when it was time to stand up for what was right.
Speaking out against transfection as an immunization when there was still hope because we were keeping our arms straight because we did what was right when it was time to do what was right.
Not a year and a half later when they decided not to choose my company for an EUA.
Not a year and a half later when my vaccine is already out there and I'm already being reviewed for the Nobel Prize.
Not a year and a half later when my wife is still saying that my vaccine technology is saving the world.
I came out immediately when I knew it was wrong.
And then I learned the immunology and I learned the biology and I taught it to everybody I could.
That was what I thought was the right thing to do.
That's what I thought was keeping my arms straight.
And this is what I mean by keeping my arms straight.
After the season, the season ended, we needed a break, so we went to a beach.
As he was going down the beach, going down these dunes, he saw a military group working out on the beach.
It was about maybe 10, 15 lines, something like that.
Each line maybe had about 10 or 20 army guys in it.
So he started to walk a little closer.
As he walked closer, he could see that the guys were drenched.
They had on full army fatigue.
They had all their weapon gear on, helmets on.
But they were wet, and they had sand all over them.
And he's watching.
He saw something.
They had these logs in their hands.
And they were holding them up over their shoulders.
Three, maybe six, seven minutes, something like that.
Think about how long that burns.
to hold your hands up like that and hold them straight.
And they would hold them straight.
Then they would curl them like this.
They would get on the ground and do sit-ups together with them, put the log down, run into the ocean, swim around a buoy, come out, roll in the sand, run down the beach, run back, and do it all over again.
And this thing happened as he's walking down to the beaches, maybe 10 more minutes, 15 more minutes going.
Each group was doing this.
Some of the sergeants and officers saw him sitting there, and they could recognize who the coach was, so they didn't mind him watching.
Soon as he got closer, he realized something.
All these guys look alike.
Same height, got the same cell phone, but he thought, in football, how do I pick my stars?
Who catches the ball?
Who makes the tally?
Who doesn't have too many missed assignments?
You know, these are things that we judge you by.
Who's taller?
Who's shorter?
Who has the heart?
But all these guys look the same.
And he was thinking,
How do they pick who stays and who leaves?
Because it was more than what a normal military group would have.
But how do they pick?
So he got closer and closer.
Again, some of them had boats.
Some of them had things that were holding them up again.
Another three, six minutes, four minutes, doing the crunches, still holding their hands out straight, doing wall sit squats in the sand.
And he came to the sergeant and he said, how do you pick who stays and who goes?
And the sergeant looked at him and he smiled.
He said, the ones who keep their arms straight.
He said, excuse me?
He said, the ones who keep their arms straight.
He said, you don't think we go into battle with logs and boats, do you?
Bullets are flying over your head.
When adversity hits, when the firecrackers start going off, grenades, the ones who can stay in line, keep their arms straight through pressure, are the ones we want.
Those are the ones that are going to have your back.
So when adversity strikes you and they say you can't do it,
When people you love doubt you.
When it's fourth and one and we need a first down and we need to stop.
When somebody's phone turns the ball over.
When a penalty hits, you get backed up 15 more yards.
And you gotta keep going.
When we say run one more pass, when we say run off the field, who is keeping their arms straight?
When adversity outside of football hits, and you have to come in here and do your job, are you keeping your arms straight?
When somebody contacts you and says, shut up about remdesivir and tell everybody the spike protein is dangerous and you'll make money, you got to keep your arms straight.
When somebody tells you that you're going to get fired if you don't shut up on your YouTube channel about the transfection, you got to keep your arms straight.
When somebody insists that a billion people are gonna die and that we need to wear masks, you need to keep your arms straight.
When somebody tells you that there's a gain-of-function virus that leaked out of a laboratory and it's causing millions of people to die, you gotta keep your arms straight.
You gotta pull up your pants.
You gotta light a candle and you gotta start reading.
You gotta learn.
You gotta take responsibility for being the adult that you are, and you gotta keep your arms straight for your family and for your friends.
And so many adults on this planet did not keep their arms straight.
And for the first time, unlike this coach here, who's telling us a very, very cool story,
about training military guys and finding a way to get soldiers to be of the highest level.
What I'm trying to suggest to you is that there are people who kept their arms straight in the face of adversity that was the pandemic, an unknown, a worst case scenario possibly.
But there were people that kept their arms straight and knew that our sovereignty was paramount, that informed consent was paramount, and were smart enough to know that we were not being allowed to exercise informed consent.
And that kept their arms straight and knew that an emergency was not a good enough excuse for us not to keep our arms straight.
You need to reflect on the fact that there are some people in our midst who did not keep their arms straight and they are not being honest about it.
And we need to make sure that these people do not continue to be influential until they apologize for not keeping their arms straight and they get back in line.
They sit back down.
That's what this stream is about.
It's been taking me a long time to figure out what to do with myself now that I know that Robert F. Kennedy's book is about to end.
Now that I know that I'm going to need to start shaking the can for money on the internet again.
What are we really doing here?
Well, ladies and gentlemen, what we're doing here is we're keeping our arms straight.
We were standing up for the principles of freedom, of individual sovereignty, of parental sovereignty over their children.
And we were standing up for fundamental biology, standing up for God's creation and the sacredness of it.
And the active degradation that is going on right now by people like Robert Malone and Elon Musk and Brett Weinstein and all the other people who think that it's possible to augment such a complex mechanism as the human body, the human immune system, the human brain.
This arrogance belies nothing.
These people are just that.
They're just power-hungry, fame-hungry, power-hungry monkeys.
It's time for this to end.
Identify the people that kept their arms straight and follow the people who kept their arms straight.
Do not, do not underestimate how many of these people are still a danger to you and your family.
They are not being honest.
When people you love doubt you, when it's fourth and one and we need a first down and we need to stop, when somebody's phone turns the ball over, when a penalty hits you, you get backed up 15 more yards and you gotta keep going.
When we say run one more pass, when we say run off the field, who is keeping their arms straight?
When adversity outside of football hits, and you have to come in here and do your job, are you keeping your arms straight?
Your families will depend on you to be that type of leader, man.
That's what life has to teach you.
That's what Colorado football will teach you.
That's what these coaches will teach you.
Listen, you've heard my story a million million times before.
I've been with this man 17, 18 years.
Pee-wee football.
How many people wanted to be next to him, wanted my job?
But guess what I did they couldn't do?
I kept my arms straight.
I didn't worry about what people were saying.
I didn't worry about what people were doing.
We just told you about believing in yourself.
Keep your arms straight.
When stuff start happening, people say you can't do it.
When we face adversity this year, keep your arms straight.
Do the right techniques.
Make the right plays.
Make the right execution.
You do that in life, nothing will ever stop you.
But once you start listening to everybody else,
and the whistle's coming over your head, the bullets flying by you, and you cower in the corner, people then will label you.
I'll label them right now.
I'll label those people right now.
The people that put on the bandanas like Brett Weinstein.
The people who said they took the shot because ADE signal wasn't there and didn't care about any other signal like Brett or like Robert Malone.
People didn't know better like Steve Kirsch.
I blame them for not keeping their arms straight, but I don't blame people that followed them for not keeping their arms straight.
They were part of an elaborate scheme to make it very hard for you and I to keep our arms straight.
Robert Malone, Brett Weinstein, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, all of the people on PBS NewsHour were all part of an elaborate scheme to make it very hard for us to keep our arms straight.
But I believe in us.
I believe in Team Human.
I believe that we're going to overcome.
I believe that there's a possibility that Team Human's gonna win.
But we've got to make sure we realize who kept their arms straight and get them out of leadership positions.
Stop following them.
Stop sharing their substacks and reading their Twitters.
Just stop.
There's lots of people out there worth following.
And I don't think that the three guys on this podcast were the ones to follow.
I don't think these three guys right here were the ones to follow.
That's my message.
I just think you shouldn't follow them anymore.
I don't think they're the leaders that they claim to be.
And I think this three hour video shows exactly why that's the case.
They didn't have the insight.
They didn't try to teach you.
They didn't try to save us.
They limited, they limited the narrative.
They limited the possibilities.
And they focused us on things that wouldn't help us escape.
You have to see it.
I see it.
I hope you see it.
Thanks very much for joining me.
It's been Giga Home Biological.
A high resistance, low noise information stream brought to you by a biologist.