Oh, once upon a midnight dreary I woke with something in my head
I couldn't escape the memory of a phone call and of what you said.
You're like a game show contestant with a parting gift that could not but leave my eyes.
When I saw it through the buds of a trusted friend who needs to humor me and tell me lies.
Yeah, humor me and tell me lies.
And I'll lie to you and say I don't mind.
And as we sit so shall we find.
it's so low
But I crave many things But I've been there, I can see it A coward like a nervous magician waiting in the wings Of a bad play where the heroes are right Nobody thinks or expects too much Hollywood's calling for the movie rights Singing, hey babe, let's keep in touch
Hey, baby, let's keep in touch.
For our moment of touch, I want you to reach me and show me all the things no one else can see.
When all I got's this
And I've got some news for you It's in my ship still stands no matter what you drop And there ain't a whole lot that you can get I'm sure the battery's torn and the wind's gotten colder Perhaps I've grown a little cynical But I know no matter what the waitress proves I should drink it and always be poor Yeah, I will drink it and always be poor
I got this dream that you just can't shake.
I love you to the point you can't no longer take.
Well, all right.
OK, so be that way.
I hope and pray that there's something that you say.
But yeah.
Why do you want to give me a run around?
Is it a surefire way to speed things up when all it does is slow me down?
I rarely beat things up when all I've got is the love
You know who the best player in the game is?
Me, Mars Blackman.
And I'm way above the rim, demonstrating some serious hang time.
Very serious.
Do you know how I get up for my game?
Do you know?
That's right.
Air Jordan, Air Jordan, Air Jordan.
Mike, what's up?
Oh, money, money.
Why you wanna do that to me?
Why you leave me hanging?
Come on.
I got it.
one of our hits here in a second.
Here we go.
Set.
No waves, no beats.
an an an
so so
I think truth is good for kids.
We're so busy lying, we don't even recognize the truth no more in society.
We want everybody to feel good.
That's not the way life is.
you can tell if someone's lying, you know, you can sort of feel it in people.
And I have lied.
I'm sure I'll lie again.
I don't want to lie.
You know, I don't think I'm a liar.
I try not to be a liar.
I don't want to be a liar.
I think it's like really important not to be a liar.
Jonathan, who's going to talk about his latest distillation of what the pandemic means to society, to biology, to science, and to democracy, and to the whole kind of idea of empiricism and integrity.
And then each of us, this incredible preeminent panel that we have, each one of you is going to get a chance to comment
It doesn't matter much at all what you believe about vaccines until we invent really important ones, you know, until we have a pandemic that's killing everyone, you know, and, you know, it's not, it's, you know, measles plus, you know, okay, I can tolerate what you think about measles because, you know, not that many people die from it.
It's just a big hassle in the end, but no one,
when we have this new pandemic that is, you know, got 75% mortality.
It's not, it's, there'll be no pretense of being polite in the face of this flu.
It'll be a moral emergency because it has to be.
I'm afraid that the latest data tells us that we're dealing with essentially a worst-case scenario.
I'm afraid that the latest data... Now, Dr. Gallo and Dr. Fauci talked a lot about isolation and purification.
Can you tell me what the difference is between the two?
Isolation?
What was it?
Isolation and purification.
Of the virus?
Yes.
Well, you isolate a virus by finding the virus which causes a disease.
You purify a virus by making a lot of, I mean, just by purifying it so you get a pure virus.
I don't understand what the issue.
Well, they interchanged the two and I wasn't sure if it was the same thing or if it was two totally different.
No, it depends on how they used it.
Can you explain the process of HIV isolation?
Well, didn't Dr. Gallo do that?
I mean, he actually isolated it.
I mean, why should I do all of this?
This is all textbook stuff you're asking me.
so so
you
So I've been talking about truth for a while now and what this wave of consensus means for us.
And part of the difficulty of getting the truth out there is that social media is not behaving like we all imagine it does.
And there have been several times when I have been near where I am now and was misled and misdirected and lost another half a year of my life.
asking the wrong questions.
And so it might be simple to say that, why don't you just tell us what biology we should stay focused on?
Why don't you just tell us what their bait looks like?
And why don't you just teach us how to love our neighbor?
But teaching you how to love your neighbor, that's not my thing.
I didn't even recognize their bait on social media until probably this year when I realized the extent to which these people were coordinating their lies.
and that they were sharing with each other about me.
And so staying focused on the biology has been the only thing that's ever saved me from these people.
And every time I wander away and start to trust one of them, inevitably I lose some time and I lose some ground because I get caught up in this wave of consensus.
And so I'm an American.
I'm fighting for America.
My loyalty is to America.
It's not to a candidate or to an office or to some other nonsense.
It's to the dirt and to the future that I think my kids still have here.
And I think we have to stay focused on the biology.
We can't take their bait on social media.
We've got to learn to love our neighbors again.
We've got to get acquainted with them again.
And we need to spread the word of this each week.
We need to spread the word of the biology that we've come to understand and they have come to ignore.
It is a biology that has to do with irreducible complexity and being a little bit honest about our lack of understanding instead of exaggerating it and stop the lies.
Stop the lies about all these things we know about and all these phenomenon that we understand and start to just see science and biology and medicine as something that is all
a gift given to us as part of creation and as part of the world around us that we can hope to understand little pieces of, but until we have a shift in our understanding and we start to understand nature as something that we are a part of, an integral part of, rather than some lord of or manipulator of or demigod over,
We're not going to escape.
And if you keep your phone up to your face, you're going to see more and more people telling you that we are the lords of creation, and we are the lords of nature, and we run stuff, and we know how stuff works, and we can make it work better, and all of this stuff is absolute nonsense.
But if you want to engage in United Noncompliance, you need to understand how this illusion is created, how this illusion is sustained.
And we're going to have to break teachers out of it.
We're going to have to break doctors out of it.
We're going to have to break faculty members out of this illusion, or we're going to lose our country pretty fast here, ladies and gentlemen.
This is gigaohm biological.
do do
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
It is 253 here in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
I'm coming to you live from my garage.
My name is Jonathan Cooey, and this is GigaOM Biological.
GigaOM Biological, a high resistance, low noise information brief brought to you by me.
It's been a little while since I've been on and I don't have any good excuses for it other than I've been doing other things in the background.
Soon my family will go on a very brief trip to the Netherlands and so I'm spending the last couple days with them before they take off for grandma's house.
And so that coupled with some other things has kept me offline.
But I assure you, the ball has not stopped rolling down the hill.
The reaction to my latest sub stack has
has been kind of crickets.
Of course, some of you have been there posting nice comments, and I really appreciate that.
But I was really hoping that one or more molecular biologists would come there and cross things out or highlight things that don't make sense.
Or what's he talking about here?
And I understand it's not perfectly written.
Of course, it's as fast as I can write on
on a document to try and bring people into an understanding of where I was and what argument I wanted to make so that we could write a succinct substack about it.
Unfortunately, those people didn't help me do that and instead wrote their own substack and I, through that action and a few other mistakes made by them,
It's come to my understanding, at least as best as I can tell, that a lot of these people were wasting my time for more than six months of this year.
So there's just a lot of this stuff going on.
I've just recently had an interview about a month and a half ago, I think on the 19th or 18th of May.
with a guy by the name of Gabe Mason in Canada and he said it would be a few weeks before he put out the podcast but unfortunately I don't see anything and I knew I wouldn't see anything and that's why I did this little sub stack about him.
Just a few talking points or a few slogans for you here.
Intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Transfection in healthy humans is criminally negligent and RNA cannot pandemic.
The top one there should have enough useful combinations of English words that if you understand their sort of definition and combine them in the logical way dictated by the rules of English grammar, that's a pretty bold statement that shouldn't need a lot of backing.
It should just inspire a great number of questions in you.
And if it doesn't inspire a great number of questions in you, then I don't think you've been accurately paying attention.
Because the whole point is to inspire questions in the people that read these statements.
Because we want to inspire doctors and
academicians, otherwise known as faculty members of medical schools, to start to reconsider what they think they know about the immune system and what they think they know about vaccination.
And most importantly, what they think they know about the legal structure of the vaccination schedule in America.
Because if we don't bring these people step-by-step to understand the malevolence of the system, they're never gonna wake up from their slumber.
where they are still protected by an illusion of consensus all around them, where half of these children are wearing masks and where everybody agrees that, you know, the rainbow flag and all that stuff.
We are at a crucial turning point in our civilization.
And the only way we're gonna get a hold of the controls of this cruise ship and maybe change the direction by a few degrees in this year
is going to be to wake people up using statements like this, where they're like, wait, what?
And it ends up to be a ladder where they just climb right out.
Now, RNA cannot pandemic is backed by some of the things that I've outlined in that latest sub stack.
And I'm not covering that latest sub stack yet, because it's important for me that people have enough time to go and say, well, I'm going to look at some of these papers that he's cited here and see what they really say.
and maybe come to the same conclusions that I have in a better way or in a more clear way or even a more profound way and express it on your own sub stack or express it on your own tweet.
It's all right there laid out, even some of it's bolded.
And yet somehow or another, nobody's really been able to get the ball over the finish line by themselves.
And it's really unfortunate because that's where we are.
I had 50 comments in the first two or three hours of the substack where I released the email from Miss Hockett.
But on this substack where I release a working document that was working between me and Jonathan Engler, the co-chair of HART in the UK, as well as his friend and colleague from Panda and HART, I guess, Martin Neal, and Nick Hudson,
and Jessica Hockett.
And all of those people promoted their virology review, which is kind of a convoluted mix of Peter Hotez and Vincent Racaniello.
And then dared behind the scenes to scold me for not sharing it after a couple weeks of me saying, dude, this is not the review the world needs.
I got tricked into doing that review on my bicycle.
And so we are, I am, I am subject to wasting my time arguing with people that nobody listens to and have no intention of spreading my information anywhere.
One example would be this dude.
You can find him on YouTube.
You can find this thing, or he's done like 90 programs already, but he was gonna do some other new thing.
And this was on the 19th of May.
And this is just a email that I released of him the day after I recorded with him, because I asked him, you know, you think I could put out a transcript of this?
Because I'd really like to get this information out in the way that I expressed in this video.
I'd like to get it out as soon as possible.
And he flipped out.
in an email about how I was changing the rules of the experiment or something like that and how I didn't have his consent to release the recording of me talking.
Super strange.
And so I didn't know what else to do.
So I released it as a sub stack where I said I got an email.
It's kind of like what I did with Jessica Hockett.
I don't know what to do with that.
You didn't mention your sister.
And so these people are all playing the same game, where they get me to trust them, and then they can ask me questions, and then they can go on other podcasts and pawn some of it off as their own.
So it makes it seem like, wow, we're really on the same page.
And all along, their whole idea is to absorb and to ignore.
And so I think either tonight or tomorrow, I'm just going to play the video that I have of this recording.
It's just a video of me and you can hear his voice asking some questions, but who knows whose voice it is.
Anyway, all social media right now is expressing this in terms of a worst case scenario and asking the questions.
Was it a leak?
Was it a release?
Are they trying to kill us?
Who's coming to our rescue?
And is everything under their control?
Is bird flu also made by them?
souped up in laboratories and then released as a weapon.
Don't forget, this is 2024, ladies and gentlemen.
And this illusion of consensus is spread across the world.
We are at a crucial moment where it's still possible that a huge number of people could be snapped out of it.
But it's not long now.
We only need one more presidential assassination or presidential death or something like that for us to be fast forwarded into a future that it's no longer capable of looking back to here.
And that's really what this is all about.
That's why this worst case scenario is being pushed on social media because this is where they wanted us to end the narrative.
They wanted us to end it right here with an illusion of consensus and wondering if all of this stuff was always under their control.
Wondering if they really are trying to kill us.
Wondering if someone, if anyone will come to our rescue, who could it possibly be?
And then they've answered those questions for us, of course, on TV and social media with an illusion of consensus about who the heroes are.
That's why all around the world, in many, many countries, people know Pierre Kory, because he's flown around the world, even though he's only certified as a doctor in, I think, Illinois and Wisconsin.
It's absolutely spectacular what's happening right now and how much we've been led to believe we've spontaneously come to understand, as opposed to subvertly coerced into accepting.
That was pretty nice.
So COVID shots are bad, but don't talk about 2020.
That's really where we are right now.
And that's a lie, of course, because the faith is a lie.
Transfection is real though.
Transfection is surely real.
That's why I think if you look back at how they did it, and you think about the intellectual dark web alone, and just look at the last couple of weeks, where you see one member of the intellectual dark web interviewing another member of the intellectual dark web, and then that intellectual dark web member interviewing Vivek, and then Vivek getting interviewed by another guy who was promoted by them, but not really part of the direct intellectual dark web, he could be the second layer.
And then that intellectual dark web guy interviews another intellectual dark web guy.
Then that other intellectual dark web guy does a show about the debates.
And then they talk about Joe Rogan on that Intellectual Dark Web member show.
That Intellectual Dark Web has another Intellectual Dark Web member on his show.
This is also in the last few weeks.
Then that Intellectual Dark Web member has Bobby on his show.
Then he has Dr. Phil on his show.
Dr. Phil then has Bobby on his show and also has Netanyahu on his show.
And then you have this same guy also having that lady from Fox on his show.
And then she's also talking about Biden and she's also talking to Steve Bannon.
And of course we can go back over here and he's also gonna have Kennedy on it.
I mean, Shapiro's gotta have Kennedy on his stream.
And this guy will have Vivek too, who's also been promoted by them.
And we'll also talk about Biden and the debates.
It's like they all got the same artist.
And then here we have Tucker.
Of course, Tucker will have a guy from the intellectual dark web Rogan streams.
And then also so will Tim Pool over and over and over again.
This is just in the last couple of weeks.
And that guy was also on this guy's show.
And this guy also has Shapiro on his show.
And this guy also has that guy on his show.
So he's pretty much in the same network too.
And then of course you have all kinds of other members and people that have their own podcasts on the left.
You have people in Australia that regularly make fun of America.
And then you have other people from the Five Eyes countries that are interviewing these same people.
And these Five Eyes countries are either making fun of Americans or talking to Canadians.
None of them will talk about who Ron Klain is.
None of them will talk about who Averill Haynes is.
None of them talk about the powers that Averill Haynes has or doesn't have.
They would never talk about what the powers that Jake Sullivan has or what he does.
They won't talk about Anthony Blinken very often.
And they don't talk about the role that Jill Biden probably plays in the White House right now.
None of these people will mention any of these people, nevermind Krupowski and Plotkin and Gallo and Baltimore and all the other
Once you just start paying attention and seeing where they direct your gaze and realize that your consciousness is prime real estate and how they're playing this, they had to have these people in place.
There had to be these people.
Some of these people were working already because of people like Brian Hooker and this lady from NBIC.
I'm sorry, I keep screwing that up.
I don't know what her organization's name is, but somebody will drop it in the chat.
And so I'll just pop my head out of the way a minute.
Here's Robert Malone telling us that the flu is going to be some kind of thing.
And avian flu
Avian flu has been endemic in many parts of the world for decades.
Therefore, this virus cannot be eradicated.
Infections with highly pathogen avian flu have resulted in the deaths of millions of domestic birds and thousands of wild birds.
A fraction of the millions of domestic birds that have died were intentionally culled.
Oh, a large fraction.
Throughout the current avian outbreaks, spillovers of the virus to mammals have been frequently documented.
I mean, are you kidding me?
Migratory waterfowl are often infected with influenza and shed large amounts of virus in their stool.
It is a well-established fact.
Don't walk outside with your mouth open.
It's a well-established fact that all influenza A viruses, including this one, exhibit exceptional stability in wet environments.
What?
Holy shit.
No human deaths or hospitalizations have been reported from the current circulating strain.
Cattle can be infected with the current circulating strain.
There is no evidence that the strain circulating in American birds is highly pathogenic or even lethal in cattle, humans, or other mammals.
When infected, it's there, it's there, it's real, it's there.
Open source with waterfowl, so it's possible, it's there.
Milk machines could spread it, unproven at this time.
Wow, unconsumption of unpasteurized milk, oh no.
Milk is unlikely to enter the flu supply, but unlikely.
He's already seeding the narrative of a contaminated food supply.
Of course, Andrew Huff is really an expert on the contaminated food supply.
He did like a couple papers for somebody, writing some papers about contamination of a supply chain or some shit.
And of course, you know, the day wouldn't be complete if I didn't point out that the Brownstone Institute is apparently being retweeted or republished or publishing articles of the Defender.
And this one is, government's pandemic preparedness operation looks a lot like arsonists running the fire department.
It says by the Brownstone Institute, July 2nd, 2024.
But then down here, it's Clayton Baker, MD, and Brian Hooker, PhD.
So it looks like a pretty good collaboration between the Children's Health Defense Defender and
and Brownstone Institute, which is somewhat discouraging, but it's not like I didn't really get that already.
Of course, that's going to be the case.
Imagine, if you will, an exceptionally ambitious city fire department located in a city with very few naturally occurring fires.
These ambitious firemen do not have nearly enough work prestige or pay for their liking, uninterested in simply polishing their trucks.
lifting weights and cooking chili, these firemen want more, a lot more.
So you're already painting an interesting picture where people that study viruses are such shitheads that they've decided to create dangerous viruses in order to justify their existence, which is already an incredibly far-fetched narrative relative to, for example, a biosecurity state that doesn't really have anything to scare you with, but needs you to believe that there's something scary out there.
This is extremely discouraging to me because rather than coming up with an apt metaphor for what we're dealing with or what we likely are dealing with,
They are painting biologists as people who are such shitheads that they would make dangerous viruses just so that grant applications become easier to get fulfilled or that they can get funding easier.
Because, you know, if we create dangerous viruses, then that's where we get funding.
And that's not even how the system works.
Wow.
They construct a plan.
They will start a research program funded by taxpayers where they will develop an arsenal of the biggest, scariest, most flammable products on earth.
See, this is completely wrong.
It's completely disingenuous.
It's not even the Scooby-Doo.
The Scooby-Doo where people made a mistake and then covered it up, or people were trying to invent a bioweapon, or people were making a huge quantity of something they shouldn't have made a huge, it's nothing like that.
We're talking about ambitious biologists who don't have nearly enough work prestige or pay for their liking, uninterested in simply using their microscopes and culturing their cells.
And going to conferences, these biologists want more, a lot more.
So they construct a plan.
They will start a research program funded by taxpayers where they will develop the most dangerous, scariest biology on earth.
I mean, listen to how dumb that is.
I'm extremely disappointed.
The fire department develops and grows its stockpile of manufactured fire super hazards until one day, oops.
And the image that the Children's Health Defense Defender has decided to post with the Brownstone Institute article
is an American flag with a burning virus overlay.
An American flag with a burning virus overlay.
I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen, but this is not the patriotic organization you were looking for.
This is not the organization that is trying to save children from a criminal vaccine schedule, at least not in my best estimation.
And now they are retweeting Brownstone, which I have a feeling is a bad organization.
I've had a bad feeling about them for quite some time.
And then they gave Brett Weinstein a... They gave Brett Weinstein a fellowship and then I was sold.
Then I knew they were good.
And so today I want to give another shout out to Joe Marshall of The Liberty Perspective.
If you go to Rumble somebody in the chat and you look up The Liberty Perspective as a channel and then copy that link and put it in the chat, I would be greatly appreciated.
Joe Marshall has become a pen pal of mine.
He sent me a letter, he sent me a few emails, and I covered or gave a shout out to his channel once when he had about 20 followers, and now he has a whopping 120 followers.
So if any of you went over there to subscribe to that, that would be really great.
I understand that a lot of people don't even have an account on Rumble.
But Joe Marshall's also got a book, Last Call for Liberty, and I assume it's available somewhere if you Google that as well.
But if you find him on Rumble or you look him up, you'll be able to find him and I can put you in touch with him if it's something very important.
He's actually going to read an article that he wrote a year and a half before making this video a couple days ago.
And so it's an article with links and stuff.
And so if there's anybody else who's doing any research on this dude, if you can find where he publishes some of these texts, that would also be great.
And if when Joe catches this video, I'm sure he'll send me the links and then I can put them up as well.
I'm very tempted to add Joe to the list of people that I advertised at the beginning of the show Because I just got the feeling that this guy is doing a lot of what I intend to do in the future Let me just get out of here and pull this up You'll see that Joe has very similar taste in hats that I do I'm not so into the blaze orange, but I Get it.
I have got a
Somewhere over there I think I have a Green Bay Packer hat that is actually real tree camo and bright orange in the back.
It's pretty funny.
And that is actually the other thing that everybody wears at Packer games is their snowmobile suits that are usually bright or else their hunting gear because a lot of times those are the
the warmest jackets that they've got there.
Anyway, and that's become a thing now.
Anyway, anyway, anyway, let's get on with the show.
So this is a essay He's gonna read an essay that he did about the Brownstone Institute about a year and a half ago And so I think it's really nice Because he's on to some things that I heard actually at the red pill conference the day after It was over on Monday.
We had breakfast and we got a lecture from G Edward Griffin and I gotta say a 90 plus year old man
sharp as a razor blade and extremely witty.
And also, I actually learned a lot from listening to that hour and, you know, eating scrambled eggs and stuff while I was doing it was an extra luxury.
I gotta say, it really comes down to collectivism versus individualism.
And it comes down to the fact, in my humble opinion,
that the American ideal was an ideal about individualism, that states should protect the rights of the individual because when the individual is truly free to pursue happiness in the state of liberty, then the most benefit to society will come from that individual.
And if society is organized around protecting the rights of society, then individuals will not thrive and individuals will not be free.
And that's called collectivism.
And so communism, totalitarianism, fascism, Black Lives Matter-ism and woke-ism, these are all things that are the same kind of, you know, communistic, communitarian is the word that
that Christine Grady used as she described the ethics of a pandemic.
And so these are all collectivist notions.
And that's one of the ways that they have used the biology of a pandemic and the biology of vaccines and infectious disease to declare war on this idea of individualism versus collectivism.
And they want you to feel guilty for
for thinking that you have individual rights to decide whatever the hell you want to do, because then that goes against this collectivist idea that you owe something to society, rather than society being essentially, you know, free individuals are the best component of society, the most robust and the most, how do you say it?
most valuable.
And so once you start to restrict the freedoms of an individual,
then society as a whole is not enriched in the way it otherwise would be.
And that's the idea of America from the very beginning.
And I'm not expressing it nearly as well as somebody like G. Edward Griffin can.
So if you go look for his stuff, you can find him on the net and then you can find all of these things, which I'm eventually gonna have a link to on my website, but I don't have it there yet.
So I'm gonna let Joe take it away and probably interrupt him a few hundred times, but let's see what we do here.
Welcome back to the Liberty Perspective.
Today I want to talk to you about
Brownstone Brownstone Institute, Jeffrey Tucker's organization and all the fellows, the academic fellows that he has in there that are all part of the medical freedom movement.
And it's been kind of, you know, for a while now, I've been asking, sent quite a few emails to Jeffrey Tucker, asking him about, you know, the human rights aspect of things.
You know, they're kind of they include human rights.
They don't mention so much our individual rights and liberty as our as our founding.
You know, he likes to
Anyways, there's a kind of a convolution there, and I was just hoping to get it straightened out, and I sent him some emails and asked him different things about stuff, and I've never heard back from him.
I've never heard back from him on anything.
I think he said thank you once when I sent him the mass formation, the liberty perspective that I did on, if you could call it a critique, I don't know, but I did on Matthias Desmet's psychology of totalitarianism.
I did a show on that, which,
you know, deciphering the collectivism of Matthias Desmet's mass formation or proto-totalitarian psychology of totalitarianism, where he basically blames everything on the individualism, free markets and individual rights and liberty as being the source, the ideological source, the philosophical source of all totalitarian states hitherto known to mankind, you know, should you not check it out?
But anyways, today, what I'd like to get into, I got a thing I wrote a year and a half, two years ago, or whatever.
I don't even know.
But I wrote Brownstone, Champions of Liberty, or Collectivist Human Rights Advocates Incognito.
I still don't know.
Still trying to find out about this medical freedom movement.
What's the freedom in the medical freedom movement supposed to be?
Is it our individual rights, our founding principles?
founding republic, free society, similar, or a constitutional republic, or limited constitution, is it free enterprise, free markets, what is it?
You know what I mean?
We're starting to get an idea lately as you see some of this freedom, quote unquote freedom in the medical freedom movement starting to come into question with, I don't know, Dr. McCullough, Peter McCullough out there, you know, introducing an mRNA platform
Vaccine vaccine so now for all the problems that everybody's having for the mRNA jabs cold jabs They're gonna have another mRNA jab to fix the jab.
You know, I don't know
So that's pretty extraordinary, right?
This is not a biologist, but somebody who's really picked up on the absolute contradiction that he is pushing some kind of mRNA jab for an mRNA jab.
He's also pushing some kind of nanosynthetic antibodies that are just one fragment of the antibody or something like this.
Um, all very extraordinary moves on, uh, Peter McCullough's part.
Um, and it may be because he spoke out so, so, um, so aggressively against the vaccine schedule a couple of times that he's been kind of forced to say these crazy things.
But, um, yeah, I mean, I mean, Joe's completely right here and it's, and it's impressive.
It's a, it's a feather in his hat that, that he's on top of it in that way.
I don't know.
You got other people like Dr. Pierre Corey, you're finding out why he's calling for public-private partnerships.
He's a medical freedom doctor calling for more public-private partnerships.
You know, come to find out he was, you know, the one who testified on behalf of, you know, George Floyd's family and basically put it out there that he was murdered by the cops and ensuing chaos.
cities and everything getting burned down to the ground all across the country and sued right after that.
I mean, medical freedom doctor, right?
I don't know.
But then you've got, you know, the Great Awakening tour.
I don't know the new freedom as Trump.
And you got other people, the new the new medical freedom is going to be Kennedy, right?
I don't know.
But none of them have pointed to the individual rights and liberty of our founding as of yet.
I've been asking.
But anyways, so the Brownstone Institute, I've had questions about the Brownstone Institute.
I've been kind of holding off, hoping that they'd come around, that it was just a mistake that they were calling our individual human, individual... That extra buzz in the background is on his recording, not on mine, just so you can hear it.
I mean, there is something in the background of mine, but not like this.
Natural, endowed by our creator, unalienable individual rights and liberty, just confusing them with, you know, the populism of the term human rights, but...
I'm gonna go over some stuff and I'll leave that with you this is with this information and you can make that determination But I've got this article that I wrote I'm gonna share it with you here If you can see that Give her to I got my dog with me any pee I don't know how much of this shit she can take for she bugs out but if she does Take care of that then but um
okay brownstone champions of liberty or collectivist human rights advocates incognito to some people there's a higher just you know it's just semantics but i'm telling you i've done enough shows on here where you can go and see where i'm coming from human rights intrinsically implicitly inherently uh... correlate to world socialism globalist world socialism global governance you can't have human rights without the
Global world socialism that it that it that it that's implicit to it.
You see what I'm saying?
But anyways As a totalitarianism of pandemic mandates and lockdowns continues to expand the technocratic influence of the science and academia behind Being used to justify it is expanding as well few to none remain among them who would dare to counter the centrally planned narrative for any reason be it life or liberty or
except for maybe the Brownstone Institute, whose website says that they're a small scholarly group of scientists and intellectuals who, at least at the onset, appear to be bucking the trend.
Again, I wrote this year and a half ago, last year anyways, right?
In a recent article posted under the large and looming image of a cock guillotine, they bluntly ask who will be held responsible for this devastation.
That article.
If we can get it to come up, no longer has that picture of the big picture of the guillotine.
They changed it.
I don't know.
Anyways, it used to be a big picture of a big guillotine, cocked and ready to fricking drop.
Presumably, like in the French Revolution, once they figure it out, some heads are going to roll.
For many, sick of the loss of liberty, that alone could be reason enough to want to welcome and hear more of what this group of renegade intellectuals has to say.
And I agree.
As the author says,
If the pandemic policy response had taken the form of mere advice, we would not be in the midst of this social, economic, cultural, and political disaster."
Unquote.
So here you can hear him identifying that the Brownstone Institute is writing it as we are in a socio... What?
We are in a socio-economic, cultural, and political disaster, which is a pretty incredible statement.
And I agree that it's...
that it's the compulsion that's the source of all these issues.
But what's the source of the compulsion?
What was the source of the compulsion in the centralized COVID narrative, COVID protocol, COVID countermeasures mandates?
What's the source of the compulsion?
Just skip the head to kill it, you know, like, it's collectivism, but I'm going to get there.
Presumably, okay.
Yeah.
The answer is simple.
Collectivism.
I'm on the same page with myself, I guess.
If not for the tenets of collectivism permeating the mindset of both government and the people, none of these mandates or lockdowns would have or could have possibly happened.
without a collectivist mindset on not only the part of the planners and the quote-unquote elite, but on the masses at large conditioned to the collectivist mindset and the duties owed to the collective.
None of that shit would have happened.
When they first started coming out with all these socialist distancing and all this fricking shit, I was like, I hope they don't fall for it.
I hope these people don't fall for it.
They came up with the mask mandates and the lockdowns and all this other shit.
If people had a free mindset, none of that shit would have flown.
They tried to implement that shit 50 years ago, none of that shit would have flown.
Even 25 years ago, maybe even 15 years ago.
But they had a collectivist mindset.
Everybody, everybody's got the same collectivist mindset from the planners,
to the, you know, compliant masses and everybody in between all the Project Halo, fricking influencers and all that shit.
They all had the same social contract training, you know.
But however, for the past 150 years or so, the mindset of America, as well as the world at large, has been undergoing a radical fundamental transformation from one of freedom, autonomy and unalienable.
No lien can be put on our natural rights.
Collectivist rights, human rights, have that social contract lien.
Can't be spoken of outside the context of the duties owed back to the collective from which they came.
Autonomy, from one of freedom, autonomy, an unalienable, natural, and or God-given individual rights and liberty necessary for a truly free and independent pursuit of happiness to one of a collectivist living for the sake of others' altruism and human rights-based security of person.
Necessary for mass compliance with central planning.
Our Declaration of Independence.
Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Life, liberty, security of person.
They sound familiar?
Totally opposite in meaning.
Totally opposite.
One is liberty and freedom.
The other one is literal enslavement to the will of others, to the central plan.
Accordingly, such lockdowns were eventually inevitable.
The fact that they actually happen now is only proof of the saturation level of just such a populist collectivist mindset hasn't only reached but surpassed the level needed to ensure mass compliance.
What Gramsci, Antonio Gramsci, called natural consent, immediate consent,
I'll think of it in a minute.
But anyways, um, spontaneous consent.
Spontaneous consent.
You're trained.
You get your cue, you get your order, you're trained, you respond.
Just like a trained animal.
No different.
At which point, all the planners had to do was flip the switch for whatever reason.
Warp speed was the switch.
They flipped it.
at least on the level of the masses.
And coming out against the lockdowns, academic organizations like the Brownstone Institute, if genuine, can become a valuable source of real and well-documented non-conspiratorial scientific information countering the technocratic narrative defenders of liberty have been starving for.
The whole time, I was pretty much on my own.
Here all through 2020, 2021, 2022,
I was putting out information, trying to gather information, because none of it sounded right to me.
None of the numbers were adding up to me.
So we started researching.
And I was always looking for objective, scientific information that I could use to say, hey, people, look it.
The narrative is bullshit.
And here's some scientific evidence to the contrary that they're not allowing because of narrative control, right?
I was on my own.
I was always looking for places like the Brownstone Institute.
When they came out with all the information they had on mass, I'd use a lot of their information, their scientific information,
get people as much information on what the hell was going on as I could, right?
So yeah.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that they're a pro-individual liberty organization.
As Brownstone's own About page points out, their social message is at best convoluted.
OK, this is their social.
Let's see if it even comes up.
Yep, there's their About page.
This is from the About page.
The revision, it says, is that of the Enlightenment, the elevated learning, science, progress, and universal rights.
The motive force of Brownstone Institute is the global crisis created by the policy response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Jeffrey Tucker was also involved with the Great Barrington Declaration.
The trauma revealed a fundamental misunderstanding alive in all countries around the world today, a willingness on the part of the public and officials to relinquish.
Jordan Peterson says it's a trauma.
It's a psychological trauma, and he doesn't have any defense against it any other than us.
He's just, he's a psychological disarray.
And so here's the Brownstone Institute again, stating that this is a public health crisis.
The pandemic is definitely real.
And the response screwed it up.
It's it's incredible, really.
Freedom and fundamental human rights in the name of managing a public health crisis.
The Brownstone Institute regards the great task of our times as rebuilding the foundation of liberalism as classically understood, including core values of human rights.
He contradicts himself.
The brownstone literally ideologically and philosophically counter contradicts itself a multiple times So if you're trying to understand what the hell they're actually saying here, this this is so convoluted You wouldn't I can't tell what they're saying and I'm gonna go over that in a minute But I got an idea that they're just are they trying to convolute truth?
Are they?
Mistaking human rights for our individual rights and the classic liberalism that they say they are or they are they just do they know what frickin you do they know the world socialism of what that the human rights represents and They're just trying to confuse everybody.
It's like that bug zapper you put up there You draw the frickin bugs to the light and then frickin zap them.
I don't know.
I'm at a loss You know, I'm at a loss
The point is that despite being against the lockdowns, there are still academics who at heart are still human rights advocates.
I'm going to say, look at the Enlightenment.
I'm just going to go on.
I'll go back to it if I don't cover it here.
As such, they have not divorced themselves of the collectivism that got us here in the first place.
Right.
It was the collectivism of the whole COVID narrative, centralized COVID narrative, centralized COVID protocols, COVID lockdowns, everything was centralized.
You can't have that without a full-blown collectivism.
Can't have it.
Centralized shit, central planning.
They haven't divorced themselves of the collectivism.
If they're pushing human rights, if they're pushing the enlightenment, other than John Locke, Adams, and maybe a couple others,
The rest of the whole quote unquote enlightenment coming out of the French Revolution is nothing but the secularization and collectivization of humanity towards the end goal of a single global human organism run by one queen, be it one dictator, king, queen, or a single table of central planners, you know, stakeholder model beehive, right?
I don't know.
Doesn't matter.
It's all the same collectivism.
And they obviously if they're pushing human rights, they haven't divorced themselves of the collectivism that got us here.
So what's the freedom in the medical freedom movement that they're pushing?
I don't know.
Still don't know.
Digging in a little bit more here, you know.
The Enlightenment, we need to remember, didn't just bring us Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, and Adam Smith.
It also brought us the collectivist social contracts.
General will and force to be free, moral liberty of Hobbes, Rousseau, and not to mention the guillotines of the French Revolution.
Well, that whole concept, you know, Hobbes was before the Enlightenment, but it goes back to Hobbes.
It goes back to Plato.
Plato's Republic, the whole centralized utopian society, right?
And not to mention the guillotines of the French Revolution.
That was the Enlightenment.
It's what brought us the collectivism of secular humanism, critical theory, socialism, communism, in the age of reasons, materialist sciences, born to prove the fallacy of the individual.
The fallacy of the individual.
This is Michael Bakunin, Man, Society, Freedom.
This is anarchist doctrine.
The whole thing.
The Human Rights, Universal Declaration of Human Rights is consistent with all that.
Eradication of any value to the human individual outside society.
It's the society that gives you value.
We're an individual rights and liberty, our founding republic.
Every individual life has intrinsic value.
You don't, your value isn't determined by that value which you add to society.
Anything outside that, you become a drag to society.
You know?
But anyways, so it's what brought us to collectivism of secular humanism.
Ever read the Humanist Manifesto?
Try reading the Humanist Manifesto sometime.
All three of them, every 40 years or so, they come out with a new one.
The first one was written in 1933.
You should read it.
Second one came out 40 years later, and then 40 years later.
I think it was every 40 years, I don't know.
But you'll see how they change, how they change.
the terminologies and words that they're using to today's collectivism, global world collectivism.
Critical theory, you know, critical race theory, that whole thing right there.
Socialism, communism, the age of reasons, materialist science is born to prove the fallacy of the individual like radical revolutionary anarchism does the same thing and facilitates not only the abolition of the family and all the objective eternal absolute truth.
and facilitates not only the abolition of the family and all objective eternal and absolute truths, but the annihilation of an ultimate patriarchy and the superstition of God himself.
That's really the essence of collectivist doctrine, be it anarchist, humanist, communist, even nationalist.
It's all the same.
They all do the same.
Abolition of the family.
OK, let me see what we got here.
Uh-huh.
Oh, it's Communist Manifesto.
It says it right in the Communist Manifesto.
A couple of misunderstandings here, misrepresentations to be revealed here are Brownstone's own, okay?
One, to rebuild the foundation of classic liberalism on the core values of human rights would be to rebuild the foundation of individual rights and liberty within the confines of the collectivism targeting them for destruction.
See, that's why I don't get why people are trying to say that it's just semantics.
Oh, people aren't ready to differentiate, to clarify the difference between human rights and our individual rights and liberty, our natural individual rights and liberty.
We don't need to clarify.
People aren't ready for that.
They just think they're the same thing.
Well, right there, I just went over that.
I'm going to read that to you again
It's not just semantics.
To rebuild the foundation of classic liberalism, as Brownstone says it wants to do, on the core values on human rights would be to rebuild the foundation of individual rights and liberty within the confines of the collectivism targeting them for destruction.
It can't be put any clearer than that.
At least I haven't seen it.
Maybe an academic could do it.
jar themselves of their stupor, their mental, if they have the mental metanoia, as Dr. James Thorpe puts it, to do it, right?
The other, which within the confines of the collectivism targeted for destruction.
The other, sorry, which most have yet to realize is that the concept of universal human rights has already done just that.
human rights, takes liberty, even individual rights and liberty, and restructures it, redefines it within the confines of the collectivism targeting them for destruction within the world globalist
That's why a lot of nationalists, a lot of far-right people might have an argument against human rights because it's a globalist, leftist, collectivist fricking concept more than it is a nationalist.
But nationalists, you'll see them hating human rights and also agreeing with human rights at the same time.
That's not something that you should be too surprised to find either.
But either way, it's collectivism.
It's collectivism.
Let me see.
Where was I?
The simple truth is that there is no and can be no violation or relinquishing of any fundamental human right in the name of managing this or any public crisis and managing the COVID or any public crisis.
As even individual human rights mean absolutely nothing outside their collectivist context, their social contract context, that the needs of society as per its planners always come first.
In short, the collective freedom of society determines the extent of the individual freedom as opposed to
under our Constitution, where it's the freedom of our individual rights and liberty that determine the governing limits of society.
Accordingly, there is no and can be no such thing as a human right to not wear a mask or refuse the vaccine or not comply with any collective society or not comply with any of the lockdowns and mandates anywhere it has been deemed in the best interest of the collective or society to do so.
This is a source I got on as individual freedom in a collective context.
This was back in 2020.
And they asked the question, by asking me to incorporate a philosopher and a fine scholar with a PhD from Germany responded to my recent columns on the idea of freedom by asking me to incorporate the idea of individual freedom into my argument.
It is an intriguing line of thought.
that I intended to pursue.
My argument in this regard is that the individual's freedom makes sense in the context of society.
This is where they're coming from.
I'm not making this shit up.
It's out there.
It's a commonplace.
It's known amongst collectivists and human rights advocates that your individual rights and liberty are meaningless outside their collectivist context.
The collective freedom of society determines the extent of the individual's freedom.
I mean, it's right there.
You know what I mean?
This is where these people are coming from.
I just wanted you to see that.
That's why I put that there.
It's not me.
I'm just bringing this information to you so you can see how these people freaking think.
They're talking about human rights and freedom and liberty.
According to their collectivist mindset, you're hearing those same words that from a, well, if you're an American with any remembrance of what America was and our founding principles were and individual rights and liberty are,
You're going to hear them according to how you understand them.
You're hearing the opposite of what they're actually freaking saying.
Like, oh, that's cool.
You know.
But from a liberty perspective, it's not cool, and that's why I'm trying to unravel the convolution here.
You know what I mean?
I'm trying to unravel the convolution so you can have this information kicking around yourself.
You know, maybe I'm just freaking seeing shit.
Maybe I'm just maybe I'm maybe I'm crazy.
I don't know.
I don't think I am, but I'm giving you this information.
You can just decide for yourself.
Because it's, I don't know, when I see it, it makes me mad that they're doing this to people.
And it's all part of the, you know, applied psychology tactics to do exactly what they're doing, to use your own biases, our own biases against us, to manipulate us into accepting the plan.
Gramsci said it's the free.
It's it's the Conformity that's been proposed to us as freedom His plans coming together pretty good in this too Bottom line is that human rights are not the individual rights of our founding They are opposites if individual rights and liberty are matter the human rights are antimatter.
It can't exist together Just like in Star Trek, right?
Can't do it.
If Brownstone truly wants to influence a post lockdown world and shed light on a path to recovery, recovery by providing a vision for a different way to think about freedom, security and public life.
As they say, they do.
A good place to start would be in helping to clarify the difference between human rights and individual liberty instead of further convoluting them.
Or is that the idea?
I like Joe a lot.
That's the whole thing.
Is that the idea?
Wouldn't it be cool if we could get Joe for the weekend in Pittsburgh to come to the Brownstone thing?
Do you imagine that as a little gathering?
Maybe we should do the first ever live broadcast of GigaOM Biological with an audience on the November 3rd, which would be the Sunday.
after the Brownstone event.
The Brownstone event is Friday and Saturday so we could do it on the Sunday and then if Joe comes to town he could be one of the guys on stage with me and then we could broadcast live from some kind of card table on a stage somewhere with a live studio audience of everybody that wanted to come and be at the Brownstone thing and also hang out with us.
It could be a really great idea.
I mean if
if Mark Kulak from Boston were to come into Pittsburgh and I was here and maybe, I don't know, Jessica Hockett and Nick Hudson will be here, maybe we'll get lucky and Brett Weinstein will join us on stage for a quick chat and we can get a lot of pop-ins.
It'd be kind of funny, we could go all afternoon and invite everybody that wants to show up to show up and we'll just bring people on stage.
All I really need is a
is a hard line.
If I can get a hard line at one of these community centers around here, then I'm good to go.
I mean, we could do that easily.
Stay tuned.
I think we should try and plan that.
Maybe I'll reserve a space because I've got the equipment to do it and I've got a sound, you know, I can take my smaller soundboard and I could bring my, I could actually bring these speakers too.
I mean, why not?
We could use the PA and everything.
It'd be fun.
Um, yeah, so I think, I think there's a possibility that Joe might come.
So let's just see.
He's got, this is like a two hour video.
We're definitely not going to watch it all.
This has already been one hour of it, and I do have it on 1.23, so if you want to watch him again and you see him on Rumble, he might speak a little slower, but that's all right.
I mean, you know, you can listen to it or speed it up, whatever you want.
I think he's a nice guy, though, and I think he's on to something here.
It literally saturates the whole of academia, and it helps explain a lot in science and education today from the social constructs of race.
Social constructs of race, okay?
Shit you not, race is a social construct.
Race is a social construct.
Making this shit up.
Gender is a social construct.
Is it going?
I think it might be going.
So he's got links that are dead.
No longer available.
Yeah.
Gender.
Childhood is a social construct.
Evolutionary determinism of sexual preference.
Social sciences of climate change, eugenics and Malthusian principles of population control to change agents of stem change agents of stem.
You don't think that this critical theory is infiltrated the science, technology.
Engineering and math.
Systemic four frames for systemic change in STEM departments.
I shit you not.
Inherent whiteness of implicit bias, social determinants of health, of health equity in the mere existence, in the mere existence of critical math and science.
Why would there be a critical math?
How could math be racist or white?
You know what I mean?
Critical mathematics education for the future.
Education can mean disempowerment or empowerment.
Crazy, right?
The shit flies, though.
The shit flies.
But anyways, not to mention that the student agency of critical pedagogy in which our own children are being schooled in the revolutionary arts of agents of change disrupting the narrative of America's capitalist white supremacist white supremacist Christian normative oppressor society.
And that's what that whole pedagogy of the oppressed, which is today's critical pedagogy, today's critical curricula are all.
Apollo Furies pedagogy of the oppressed which is in the context of the oppressed versus oppressor of the context of the Communist Revolution and part of that is that the students are to become to leave school and go out in society and become agents of change and to disrupt the normative Disrupt the normative take it down man burn it down if you gotta doesn't matter.
It's all part of the same doctrine Liberty
Even more alarming about these lockdowns and mandates, from a liberty perspective, are the automated ease in which the grand scheme benchmark of a spontaneous consent, which I mentioned earlier, to mass compliance was achieved in the speed in which the mutual surrender of liberty became the populist general will, forcing the rest of us to no longer be free as well.
That's just like an illusion of consensus.
And the thing about it that I would add to Joe's thesis here is that with
with the illusion that social media is, with the illusion that Twitter is or Facebook is, they can get that appearance of a populist general will forcing the rest of us to no longer be free as well.
That is much more powerful in a world where everybody's willingly holding a phone that has four or five different social media apps on it.
And so that's something that he could add to this that would really drive the point home, that we're not even talking about a few newspapers or what's on TV.
We're talking about really intimate programming of social media to create this general will.
In arguing the collectivism of human rights as the cure for the totalitarianism of these lockdowns, the spirit of resistance being put forth by the intellectuals at Brownstone can only serve to further instill the very collectivism upon which they are wholly contingent.
Even deeper into the populist mindset of our body politic.
The more you familiarize people with the terminology of human rights, the more you familiarize people with the terminologies of sustainability, the more you familiarize people with the terminology of altruism or, you know, inclusion or, you know, whatever.
The more you instill that into the normative of the mindset of the body politic, they don't see any problem with it, you know.
which in the end secures nothing other than, at minimum, the real political force baked into the pandemic response, collectivism.
Its enslaving cycle of deception lives on to repeat itself over and over and over again, just as it did through the bloodlust of the French, Russian, and Cuban revolutions, which long-term could be far more devastating for the future of mankind than these lockdowns themselves.
If the real freedom and actual individual rights and liberty is to ever survive at all, we can't allow it to get sucked into that trap again.
In 1221 I wrote that, at least when I finished it.
But anyways, that's my whole thing.
If the medical freedom
the parallel society that these people in the medical freedom movement, these academics in the medical freedom movement want to establish, then all they're going to do, the best that they can possibly do, is to hit the reset button to start us right back over with the same human rights collectivism.
The same collectivism, human rights comes right out of the same collectivism that wound up bringing you the tyranny of COVID, the centralized tyranny of COVID.
I'm going to read this thing that's next to him here.
Jeffrey Tucker is a writer, published entrepreneur, and advocate of anarchical capitalism and Bitcoin.
I wrote a few things about you, actually.
The founder and president of the Brownstone Institute is senior economist, columnist for the
economics columnist for the Epoch Times, author of 10 books, including Liberty or Lockdown.
He's worked with Ron Paul, the Mises Institute, Lou Rockwell, the American Institute for Economics Research, and you've organized efforts against the COVID-19 restrictions.
He's also the Chief Liberty Officer of Liberty.me.
I don't know what that is.
He's an Advent advisor, Advent scholar with
Macadam Advent Scholar with a Macadam.
I assume this is like a translation.
I mean, like, you know, text to speech to text.
And so it's not right.
But that's interesting.
What's an Advent Scholar with a name for that wrong Center of Public Policy and Research Affiliate of?
Emory University Blockchain Innovation Fund, so it's interesting that he's also a Bitcoin fella.
I would strongly encourage you to go find this whole video by Joe Marshall on the Liberty Perspective on Rumble and take a listen.
I'm gonna move on to the next video that I wanted to watch, which I hinted to in the title as Bob on Joe.
I think Bob on Joe is very, very, very interesting.
And so I wanted to watch Bob on Joe, if you don't mind.
And specifically, I just want to watch the beginning.
I want to hear how long it takes them to get to, how long does it take them to get to saying something useful?
I like them because they keep people from locking in.
But one of the things I wanted to make sure I did in this conversation is not interrupt you.
Because it's very frustrating for me.
Now, the reason why I want to watch this is very, very simple, right?
I want to see at what point in time do we get to the stage where we say anything close to something like this, for example.
Oh, come on, Zach.
I had it on the right slide.
I know I had it on the right slide.
You know, is he going to get anywhere near explaining that intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb because of what we don't know about the immune system?
Is he going to say that transfection was always something we knew and we used and we've used in cell culture and in animals for a long time?
and it should be criminally negligent to suddenly start calling it an investigative vaccine and give it an EUA, and RNA cannot pandemic.
All things that he could say.
I know he's not gonna say them, but he could say.
So how close will he get to saying strict liability?
How close will he get to saying the Seventh Amendment is being violated by a number of these laws?
What point is he gonna say something that I'm gonna go, because that'll be a good statement.
Like, wow, that's awesome.
And otherwise I'm not gonna put any sound effects in unless he gets something wrong.
But I don't expect that he'll get something wrong.
So we'll see where we are here with this.
But I want to just watch the first few minutes.
Maybe I will speed it up just a bit because, you know, it always helps when you're watching something to speed it up just a little bit.
Can I do that right there?
Is that sped up?
Yes.
So then I'll go full screen.
I'm hearing people talk in these what should be long form conversations about very important and nuanced things.
And I think one of the things that happens is people are very concerned with letting you say things that is going to get them in trouble or get their channel in trouble.
There's people that are doing a lot of self-censoring.
And I think they're doing that also when they have these conversations with you.
because they want to stab... Okay, so here we're talking about a story where people have decided not to publish the interviews with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
because they're afraid to get a YouTube strike.
They wouldn't want to lose all their ad revenue like Brett Weinstein did.
And so they're opening with a story about the fake censorship, which I think is really fake censorship, because when you get censored on one platform, but you're allowed to cry about it on all the other platforms, and also on Tucker Carlson, and also on Fox News, then it's not exactly the same thing as getting your videos taken down, or your channel cancelled, and remaining at like 6,000 followers for six years in a row.
Or in my case, I went up to 14,000 followers on Twitter and then I've stayed there ever since.
It's a strange world we live in because nothing is spontaneous on social media.
Nothing is something that, there's nothing going viral.
They allow things, they make things go viral and they can make anything they want go viral.
Like the idea that we're going to run out of toilet paper in the next week and a half could go viral.
Like the idea that a lab leak is being covered up could go viral.
It's right away that they have problems with you.
They have problems with some of the positions that a lot of people have problems with.
I was one of those people.
So when I had heard of you in the past, before I had read your book and before I'd met you, I had no information on you.
But there was this narrative.
And this narrative was you were anti-vax, and you believed in pseudoscience, and you were kind of loony.
I didn't look into it at all.
I just took it at face value, because that's what everybody had said.
And in my mind, vaccines have been one of the most important medical advancements in human history, saved countless lives, protected children.
And I thought very strongly that they were important.
I didn't have any information on that anyway.
This was also just a narrative that I got from cursory reading of news articles and not really getting into the subject at all.
then the pandemic happens.
And I had quite a few very reasonable, liberal people, rational people, people that I trusted their mind, recommend the real Anthony Fauci, your book.
And I'm like, Robert Kennedy wrote a book about Anthony Fauci?
What is this going to be about?
This is my initial reaction.
You've got this, what I perceive to be a kind of fringy thinking, you know, almost conspiracy theorist type person that's not based in fact what their argument was.
And he had written a book on Anthony Fauci.
And I think Robert Malone helped him write that book on Anthony Fauci.
And I think actually they called Davis, David Hone is named Davis Hone in that book.
I don't know if that's an accident or not, but since Robert Malone used to sleep on Dave Hone's couch, it seems like weird that he wouldn't have got the name right.
And this was right around the time where I was very concerned with the way things were going, that people were just blindly trusting that there was only one way out of this.
That was kind of bothering me, particularly when I had known that so many people had gotten the virus, had been fine.
So I'm like, well, what's the reality of this?
So then I read the book.
So many people that have gotten the virus were fine.
And so here we are very, very, very nicely reinforcing all the presuppositions of the state.
that there was a novel virus, that it infected and killed millions of people around the world, that millions more were saved from it.
Because as he said, you know, vaccines have saved countless lives in the past and they've saved countless lives this time around as well.
Just harder to count them.
And I've talked about it multiple times on the podcast.
But if what you were saying in that book was not true, I do not understand how you are not being sued.
You would instantly, immediately be sued.
The book was very successful.
It sold a lot of copies, but it was mysteriously absent from certain, certain
Test one, two, test, test, test.
Seller lists.
People were not promoting that book at all, but through word of mouth and through the time that we live in, through this time where there was so much uncertainty and people were very confused and also suspicious.
They were suspicious that they're being told a narrative and they were starting to remember that, hey, this has happened in the past.
These kind of narratives about medications, they have happened in the past, they just never happened.
I want you to think about how significant it is that these people, this having this conversation in 2024, how much of a sort of... This conversation could have happened in May, 2020, but it didn't.
It could have been these two guys in May of 2020, but it didn't.
I was having this conversation with my viewers in May of 2020.
I was having this conversation with Kevin McCairn and Paul Cottrell.
during these months of 2020.
So it's very strange that so far you can't even really place this in the time frame.
We're talking about COVID like it's old history and there's no reason to be precise about what year we're talking about.
This is extraordinary.
Like the whole country is being convinced that this is the way to do it.
So I'll read your book.
And by the end of the book, it was so disturbing that sometimes I had to put it away and just read fiction for a few days.
I was like, I don't want this in my head right now.
Because I listen on audio.
And a lot of times, I'm listening in the sauna.
So I'm listening while I'm already getting tortured.
So it's 185 degrees, and I'm listening to this book that, if it's telling the truth, just about the AIDS crisis, just about the AIDS crisis, just about the use of AZT, just about all of it, all of it.
that they murdered people and lied about it in order to create the illusion of a pandemic, the illusion of an epidemic, the illusion of a novel spreading pathogen, a retrovirus, a latent virus, a coronavirus, Zika virus.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is a very big problem we have right now because we are being fooled.
Remember that slide I started with, with all the pictures there.
This is just one frame of that, right?
This is just one frame of that, that slide that I showed in the beginning where, you know, you have all these, how can I get it up?
there in the right way so that you can see it immediately without having to go through it.
I think I have to start with this one and then if I go back one you will see it, right?
I mean, no?
Oh darn it.
I can pull them all in like this, right?
This is just one part of the illusion, one frame of the illusion that we just saw.
And in this frame of the illusion, we have an intellectual dark web central player talking to a Kennedy whose dad worked with
the dad of another two members of the intellectual dark web, Brett and Eric Weinstein's dad, worked in the Department of Justice of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'
's dad.
So it's a really interesting sort of my dad, your dad thing that they never talked about on the podcast when Robert F. Kennedy was talking to
Bret Weinstein for three hours and in fact I was so stupid as to send an email thinking that I was revealing some information to Bobby about how Bret Weinstein might have lied to him.
I actually sent that mail.
still believing at some point that this was a good guy and that he was on my team and I was on his team.
And it's not that way at all.
This is an orchestrated theater fueled by Peter Thiel and Elon Musk and a bunch of other people with a lot of money and their weaponized piles of money that are in their control.
I was on the wrong thing there.
Here we go.
So I had
I'd seen numerous interviews with you, and you seemed very reasonable and very rational.
And then I was like, is this possible that this is the guy that's telling the truth?
Is this possible that everyone that I know that had these strong opinions of you, that most of them at least, were like me?
They had formed these opinions through a glance at a headline, someone talking about you on a television show.
And so then we run into each other in Aspen.
Just random.
That was the weirdest moment because we were both staring at each other.
Yeah.
And then we almost did it like a full 360.
Yeah.
I noticed you walking.
I'm like, that's, yeah it is.
I was like, hey, what's up?
So first of all, I wanted to ask you.
I saw you in Aspen.
Oh, great.
Oh, my God.
If you could just please explain how you got into these controversial positions in the first place.
How did you adopt these opinions that people find so controversial?
Because you started out as an environmental guy, right?
What are the positions?
You know, I find myself asking kind of Joe kind of questions.
Joe Marshall would ask the same question.
What are these positions?
Why don't we talk about what his positions are before we talk about the history of how he came to be in those positions?
Because if we're not very succinct about those positions, we're not going to learn very much about the guy who wants to be president.
Yeah, and I'll say one thing about that book is that it is depressing to read and like my wife could not read it, she, she was going to read it out of loyalty to me and I just said you can't do that because it would have depressed her so much, you know, this is not a good advertisement for this book but it's, you know, she.
There's so much about documentation of corruption and the brutality towards children.
And I didn't want her reading that.
Her life is about making people laugh, making people joyful, which is its own contribution to global health.
People who can make you laugh are doing something for you that is going to probably extend your lifetime.
You know, I look at Norman Lear, who's like 96 years old or whatever, and he's looked like 50, and Carl Reiner and all these people who, you know, there's something about laughter that makes, you know, that is good for you.
And so, you know, I admire anybody who took it on to read that book and made it through.
I was kind of one of the leading environmentalists in the country.
It's the previous book.
They're talking about the Fauci book.
I went to work for commercial fishermen on the Hudson River in 1983 when I first got sober.
And I wanted to do something with my life that I felt drawn to, and I'd always been an outdoors person.
I'd always been a fisherman, and outdoors, wildlife, kayaking, and all that stuff.
And I went to work for a commercial fisherman on the Hudson River.
We began suing polluters.
They purchased a patrol boat and began patrolling the river.
And we sued.
While I was there, we sued over 500 polluters.
We forced polluters to spend almost $5 billion on remediation of the Hudson.
And today, partially as a result of our work, the Hudson is now the richest waterway in the North Atlantic.
It produces more biomass per gallon, more pounds of fish per acre than any other waterway in the Atlantic Ocean north of the equator.
The miraculous resurrection, and when I first started working on the Hudson, it caught fire, it was dead water, zero dissolved oxygen for 20 miles north of New York City, 20 miles south of Albany, no life in it.
It caught fire.
It was that polluted?
It caught fire.
It would turn colors every week, depending on what color they were painting the trucks at the GM plant in Tarrytown.
You know, it was really my father toured it in 1967 and it was regarded as... I think it's a good exercise to watch it though.
That's why I want to see how long it takes to get to a talking point.
slogan, a succinct elevator pitch message of what I stand for right now.
And I'm very curious as to when that's going to come out, because I start every stream with what I stand for.
National joke.
Well, today it's an international model for ecosystem protection.
and the miraculous resurrection.
It's the only waterway in the North Atlantic that still has strong spawning stocks of all of its historical species of migratory fish, of the anadromous fish like striped bass, sturgeon, herring, alewives, blue crab, etc.
The miraculous resurrection of Hudson inspired the creation of new river keepers.
We copyrighted the name, and we started helping these other groups get started.
And today it's the biggest water protection group in the world.
So we have 350 water keepers.
Each one has a patrol boat.
Each one patrols their local waterway, and they sue polluters.
And we're in 46 countries.
So in 2005,
I was representing a bunch of water keepers all over the United States and in the province of Canada suing coal-burning power plants and cement kilns for discharging mercury.
So if Joe Rogan and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
are sitting across from each other and they both work out a lot, but they also both take testosterone replacement therapy, are you impressed or not impressed?
Because I'm a 53-year-old guy, I'm like 6'5", and I'm definitely less than 200 pounds.
I'm sure if I took testosterone, I could get bigger.
I'm sure if I just worked out more and spent more time lifting weights, I could get bigger.
But I don't have much time for that with three kids and a wife and hobbies and a stream to do and consulting to do.
I don't know how these people do it unless
And then what is it really?
What does it really represent?
If Sam Harris is a buff guy, what does that represent?
If all of these dudes like Huberman and all of them are taking testosterone and creatine on the side, what does it really mean?
Other than that, they're kind of transhuman like a lot of these people are.
And supplements is just the slippery slope to mechanical enhancement or augmentation.
I mean, if you could bench press three tons with a shirt that you could wear, would you wear the shirt?
Some of these guys would.
And that's the thing, right?
That's where we are at this stage, where I think you're seeing an absolute, it's an awful representation of life as an old man.
It's an awful representation of,
of aging gracefully.
And instead, I mean, you want to say that he's raging against the dying of the light.
I don't, I don't really see testosterone replacement therapy and as, as the same thing, it might be, I could be wrong.
I'm not a doctor, but for me, I don't have any respect for somebody who works out in that way.
I train.
I don't gain a lot of weight.
I train.
I get better at jumping and shooting a basketball.
I'm not interested in becoming a giant muscle man.
But on the other hand, if I was, I know there are shortcuts to it.
I know there are ways that I could do it that would be a lot better than just going and lifting weights until I was big enough.
And there's no question that both of these guys do those things.
So now the question really becomes, where are we going and who are these people that are leading us there?
Because they are not the examples to our kids that we imagine them to be because they're fit.
If our kids don't understand that that fitness is kind of an illusion.
I don't know.
I mean, maybe I'm being too harsh.
Two years before nine, 2003.
The National Academy of Sciences and the FDA had published a report, like a five-year study, that showed that every freshwater fish in America had dangerous levels of mercury in its flesh.
the cdc simultaneously publish a study that showed that one of every six american women at levels high enough in her core blood in order that her child would have some kind of intellectual deficiency like lost iq et cetera there was a murky coming from the mercury was largely coming from coal-burning power plants it's in the geology in the cold and precipitates out you know when there's rain if u when you burn the coal it's in the you know it's an element so it doesn't degrade
and when the rain comes it falls onto the landscapes and it washes off the landscapes into the rivers and the fish were all contaminated.
We know that saltwater fish, the big predatory species that have mercury, but the freshwater fish are just as bad.
And it struck me then that we were living in a science fiction nightmare where my children and the children of every other American could now no longer engage in the seminal, primal activity of American youth that I had grown up with, of your parents taking you to the local fishing hole and then coming home and safely eating the fish.
You can't do that anymore in the United States of America or anywhere in North America.
And so we started suing coal plants and cement kilns, which were the primary contributor of mercury.
And there were a lot of people suing coal plants back then.
They were suing them for other reasons, for ozone particulates, for acid rain, for carbon, et cetera.
And we were focused, the water keepers were mainly focused on mercury.
Yeah, I was going to say that I think in northern Wisconsin, where we used to go fishing, I bet those lakes are still clean.
I don't know.
I mean, maybe not, but I don't think they've been
They've been rained on so much that there's mercury in them, and the fish can't be eaten.
I mean, we ate them all winter.
Of course, they could be more polluted now than they were when I was a kid.
So I was also pushing legislation about mercury, lobbying EPA to reduce it.
And I was giving lectures all over the place.
So these women start showing up at every lecture that I give, public lectures.
And they would come and sit in the front seat.
Occupy the front, they'd come early.
Occupy the front row, and then afterwards they'd stay late, and they would ask to talk to me.
And they would say to me, in a very respectful, and by the way, these women all looked kind of similar.
They were very pulled together.
They were women in childbearing years.
As it turns out, they were all the mothers of intellectually disabled children, and they believed that their children had been injured by the vaccines, by mercury in the vaccines.
So they would say to me in kind of a respectful but vaguely scolding way, if you're really interested in mercury contamination exposures to children, you need to look at the vaccines.
Now, this is something I didn't want to do.
Because first of all, I'm not a public health person.
I wanted to do environmental stuff.
Second of all, I've been involved since I was a little kid in the whole area of intellectual disabilities.
It's a wonderful pitch.
I mean, it really is.
It's hard.
It's really, really.
It's a wonderful pitch.
And I believed wholeheartedly in it when I worked for him and helped him write that book.
Ira, who was my godmother, founded Special Olympics in 1969.
But before it was called Special Olympics, it was called Camp Shriver.
She lived 10 minutes from my house.
And I would go over there every weekend to be a hugger and a coach in Special Olympics.
And then when I was in high school, because this was so much part of my family DNA,
I spent 200 hours in, let's say, a gun for the retarded, you know, working, doing service.
So, but it wasn't something I wanted to do with my life.
Other people in my family were devoting their lives to that.
My cousin Anthony Shriver started Best Buddies and many other people.
My family had written a lot of the legislation that protected people and gave rights to people with intellectual disabilities.
My father had kicked down the door and, you know,
of Willowbrook, which was a big hospital in Staten Island.
So my family was deeply involved, but it was not what I wanted to do with my life.
But these women kept continually, I don't want to say harassing me, but they were following me.
And it was different ones at every speech.
And I did enough research to show that the public health authorities were saying that these women were crazy.
But they didn't look crazy to me.
And they were rational.
They weren't excitable.
And they had done their research.
And I was like, I should be listening to these people.
Even if they're wrong, somebody needs to listen to them.
And by the way, I had worked on the Hudson River with commercial fishermen.
And I'd seen so many times when the scientists were wrong and the commercial fishermen were right about what was happening in the Hudson River.
One time, I'll just give you an example.
This commercial fisherman came to me and said,
all the goldfish are dying uh... up in the wall kill creek and and i went up they said we help us get to that because there's a new sewer plant up there that's discharging chlorine it's hard to kill a goldfish they're one of the most hardy species in the world you can put oil on a goldfish and it won't do anything it won't hurt it and uh... i went up to uh... to the department of environmental conservation they said there are no goldfish in the hudson river well these were people who i'd watch them catch goldfish in the hudson
So anyway, that was just part of the background of my little bit of skepticism about government scientists, that they're not always right, that sometimes you have to listen to people.
And that human experience is valid.
And that if a woman tells you something about her child, you should listen.
And so then one of these women came to my home.
And she found my home in Hyannisport at a little bungalow.
And her name was Sarah Bridges.
She was a psychologist from Minnesota.
And she found my home.
She came to it.
She took out of the trunk of her car.
a pile of scientific studies that was 18 inches thick.
She put it on my front porch, my stoop, and then she rang the bell, and then she pointed to that pile, and she said, I'm not leaving here until you read those.
And as it turns out, her son, Porter Bridges, had been a perfectly healthy kid, got a battery of vaccines when he was two, and lost the ability to speak.
He lost the ability to, he lost his toilet training.
He began headbanging and engaging in other stereotypical behavior like stimming, hand-flapping, toe-walking, and got an autism diagnosis.
And the vaccine court had awarded her $20 million for acknowledging that the child had gotten autism from the vaccines.
And she didn't want it to happen to other kids.
And so I started, I sat down with this pile of studies and I'm used to reading science.
I'm very comfortable reading it.
I wanted to be a scientist when I was a little kid.
And my life, my legal career has been about science.
It's, you know, virtually all the,
cases that I've been involved with, hundreds and hundreds of cases, almost all of them involve some scientific controversy.
And so I'm comfortable with reading science, and I know how to read it critically.
I know how to look for the flaws in it, and how to attribute weight to various studies, et cetera.
And I sat down while she was there and I read through the abstracts of these studies one after the other.
And before I was six inches down in that pile, I recognized that there was this huge delta between what the public health agencies were saying, were telling us about vaccine safety and what the actual peer reviewed public science was saying.
There is a huge delta.
This is the first kind of statement about
what he knows and what his message might be.
Let's listen to it again.
And, you know, how to weigh the attribute weight to various studies, etc.
And I sat down while she was there and I read through the abstracts of these studies one after the other.
And before I was six inches down in that pile, I recognized that there was this huge delta between what the public health agencies were saying, were telling us about vaccine safety and what the actual peer reviewed public science was saying.
Then I took the next step, which is I started calling people, high-level public officials, and I had access to everyone.
I called Francis Collins.
I called Marie McCormick, who ran the Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences.
I called Kathleen Stratton at the National Academy of Sciences.
who was the chief staffer, and I was asking her about these studies.
And I realized during these conversations that none of these people had read any of the science.
They were just repeating things that they had been told about the science.
And they kept saying to me, well, I can't answer that detailed question.
You need to talk to Paul Offit.
Well, Paul Offit is a vaccine developer who made $186 million deal with Merck on the rotavirus vaccine.
And it was odd to me that government regulators were saying, you should talk to somebody in the industry.
I used to talk to EPA people all the time asking them, what does this provision mean in the permit?
Why did you put it in there?
And if they said to me, I don't know, why don't you go talk to the coal industry, or this lobbyist for the coal industry, and he will tell you what we're doing, I would have been very, you know, puzzled and indignant.
It was weird to me that the top regulators in the country were telling me, go talk to somebody who's an industry insider, because we don't understand.
I don't know if I would call him an industry insider.
I mean, is he an industry insider because he's the author of this book?
Paul Offit worked for the FDA, didn't he?
He worked for the Vaccine Safety Committee.
He's written a book titled Vaccines, and it's, like, gigantic.
It's one of the biggest books I have.
It's as big as the old Catholic Bible that I have on my desk.
It's gigantic.
Like, Paul Offit is a authority on vaccines, just like Stanley Plotkin is.
It's a weird industry insider.
Really?
He's an academic.
I mean, he's an insider at the FDA.
He's an insider at the, at the, at the vaccine approval, you know, the whatever they're called ACIP or whatever.
It's a weird, I don't think that's a good one.
That's not accurate in my humble opinion.
Not when this book, the book on vaccines was written by that guy.
He's more than a vaccine insider and I wouldn't, he's more like a traitor.
He's more like a biological insider.
He's like a biosecurity state insider.
He's not a, I just, I find that a very disingenuous representation of the role of somebody like, like Paul Offit.
It's weak in the science.
And when I talked to him, I caught him in a lie.
And both of us knew that he was lying, and that both of us recognized that he was lying.
And at that point, I was like- What was the lie?
Well, I asked him this question.
I said, why is it that CDC and every state regulator recommends that pregnant women do not eat tuna fish?
to avoid the mercury, but that CDC is recommending mercury-containing flu shots with huge bolus doses of mercury, I mean massive doses, to pregnant women in every trimester of pregnancy.
And he said to me, he said, well, Bobby, in this kind of patronizing way, and by the way, when I talked to Paul Offit,
He started the conversation, he was very enthusiastic, and he said, you know, your father was my hero.
The reason I got into public service and public health was because I was inspired by your father.
So that kind of, you know, I'm susceptible, like anybody else, to kind of that kind of flattery.
So I was inclined to like the guy.
But then he said, I asked him about how can you be, you know, telling people not to eat, women not to eat tuna fish, giving them a flu shot that has, you know, these huge doses.
And he said, well, Bobby, there are, there's two kinds of mercury.
There's a good mercury and there's a bad mercury.
And the minute he said, and I knew there's a different kind of mercury in the vaccines.
It's ethylmercury in the vaccines and methylmercury in the fish.
And you can imagine, I know a lot about mercury.
I've been suing people.
When you sue somebody, you get a PhD in that.
You know more than anybody in the world.
You have to or you're not going to win your lawsuit.
So I knew a lot about mercury.
And I knew that his argument was not with me, but it was with the periodic tables, because there's no such thing as a good mercury.
And I also knew the history of why he was saying that because, you know, mercury was added to vaccines in a form called dimerosol in 1932.
And Eli Lilly, which was the manufacturer, was because people knew then that mercury was horrendously neurotoxic.
Mercury is 1,000 times more neurotoxic than lead.
You would never shoot lead into your baby.
Why was thermosol introduced in the United States?
It was allegedly introduced as a preservative.
But it doesn't kill streptococcus or any of the other contaminants you would be worried about.
In fact, it kills brain cells.
At 130 of the dose that it takes to kill streptococcus or staphylococcus.
It wasn't a good preservative.
What NIH admitted to me in 2016, the real reason was there as an adjuvant.
An adjuvant is a toxic material that they add to dead virus vaccines to amplify the immune response.
So your body
This is kind of getting into the weeds, but a live virus vaccine, if they give it to you, it can spread the disease.
It can mutate in you and spread the disease.
That's why most of the polio today, 70% of the polio today is vaccine polio that came from the vaccines.
So the regulators expressed a preference for dead virus vaccines.
A dead virus vaccine, however, will not produce a durable or robust immune response enough to get a license.
The way you get a license for a vaccine is showing that you got an antibody response for a certain amount of time and that it's a strong antibody response, but the dead virus vaccine won't produce that.
But vaccinologists figured out that if you add something horrendously toxic to the vaccine,
that your body confuses that toxic product, you add it with the dead antigen, which is the viral particle, your body confuses that toxin with the viral particle and gets frightened and mounts this huge, humongous immune response.
The next time it sees that virus,
the immune response is there.
So at that point, vaccinologists went around searching around the world to find the most.
See, it's not next time the virus is there, the immune response is there.
That's already a poor, it's a poor characterization.
So what he should have said was gone on with the previous analogy.
He said that dead virus vaccines don't produce a robust antibody response and a robust antibody response is the only observation required
to claim that you have an effective vaccine.
And so they added toxic adjuvants to these recombinant proteins as a way of increasing the seroprevalence that resulted.
It has nothing to do with the next time you see the virus.
It only has to do with whether or not they can measure a detectable seroprevalence in the vast majority of people exposed to this combination of substances injected intramuscularly to augment the immune system.
It could be said better.
and in some cases, more accurately.
There's horrendously toxic materials to add to vaccines.
And there's a mantra in vaccinology that the more toxic the adjuvant, the more robust the immune.
But I want to stress something to Girl Rocks in chat.
Hello, good to see you.
They could be having this conversation in 2020.
They could have had this conversation before the pandemic.
Because that's supposedly where Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
was before the pandemic.
He knew all of this before the pandemic.
CHD knew all of this before the pandemic.
That's why they made the movie Vaxxed.
And so this is very important to see that this conversation could have and should have happened in 2020.
And it didn't, except for in fringe places like on my broadcast, on my bicycle, or in arguments that I was having with people on Twitter and other places in 2020.
And there's a really, it's a really gaping hole in our little history here that it wasn't until October of 2020 that this guy spoke out against lockdowns in the street of Germany and started to sell that idea that maybe it's a bioweapon, that maybe it's a lab leak, that maybe the virus was definitely real, but we just shouldn't surrender to their totalitarian response to it.
It's a very subtle,
It's a very subtle shepherding of our thoughts.
Response.
And so that's why toxicologists and vaccinologists don't get along with each other.
Because the toxicologists would say to the vaccinologists, well, I understand it gave you immune response, but then what is the fate of that in your body?
Where is it going?
Is it being excreted?
Is it being lodged in the brain?
Is it penetrating the blood brain barrier?
And the vaccinologist could not answer those questions and did not want to.
So they basically moved the toxicologists out of these, you know, out of the vaccine, the whole vaccine universe.
Anyway, so when it was added in 1932, the industry said, Eli Lilly said, well, the reason, because everybody was saying, how can you put mercury into a child?
Who would do that?
And they said, well, it's a different kind of mercury.
It's ethylmercury, and the ethylmercury is excreted very quickly, so it won't stay in your body.
They had no science to say that, but that's what they were saying for years.
And then, in 2003, a CDC scientist called Picciaro did a study where he gave tuna sandwiches that were mercury-contaminated to children, and then measured their blood.
And the mercury from the tuna sandwich was there.
a half-life 64 days later, so it was still there 64 days.
And he injected the children with mercury from a vaccine, and that mercury disappeared from their blood within a week.
And this kind of confirmed
What Eli Lilly had said in 1932, oh, it disappears really quickly from the body.
And that was published, I believe, in the Lanceter Pediatrics.
But immediately... A lot of times the adjuvant is actually conjugated to the protein.
So they put the toxin on the protein using a chemical bond.
And so then when the antigen-presenting cell takes in the toxin to dispose of it or whatever, they also antigenically process the protein that's attached to it.
So honestly, Girl Rocks, it's not very clear how the adjuvant works together with the recombinant protein, but generally speaking,
The narrative that they tell you is that the detection of antibodies are antibody specific for that protein associated with the pathogen rather than the toxin because
The toxin, the toxic adjuvant is going to be a small chemical compound, maybe a heavy metal.
And so it's very unlikely that you'll develop an autoimmune, or sorry, an antibody response to that chemical, but rather to what it's conjugated to.
So the HibTiter injection, for example, is a protein from the Hib,
Hib toxin, and then I think it's conjugated to some heavy metal or something like that.
I'd have to look it up again, but it's definitely one of these tagged or conjugated, I guess that's the best word, conjugated molecules where they conjugate the protein with some kind of toxin that's actually the adjuvant.
And so that also keeps the localization correct.
I'm just trying to relay the cartoon version of what they say happens and try to help you understand why it is possible that some of the seroprevalence that gets produced is specific for the toxin, rather, sorry, specific for the protein that they attach the toxin to.
That still doesn't mean that those antibodies are gonna protect you from the bacteria or from the whatever pathogen they say that that recombinant protein is derived from.
because the recombinant protein and how it's derived and how it's produced might fold it differently and therefore create a whole different epitope structure that'll have nothing to do with the original natural protein, whatever it's derived from.
So that's a whole nother ball of wax.
But anyway, I just wanted to say that.
The journal began getting letters from people, including this famous scientist called Dr. Boyd Haley, who is the head of, he's the chair of that chemistry department of the University of Kentucky.
And he said, but what happened to the mercury?
Because Piggier couldn't find it in the children's
urine or in their feces or in their hair or sweat or nails.
So where is it?
And then NIH actually then commissioned a study.
And they, because they, at that point, they were really trying to figure out.
Putting mercury and these other things in as preservatives could also keep them out of the regulatory structure where they are required for safety testing and that kind of thing.
I could be wrong, but that could be part of the
the thing they're trying to do there with that language.
You know, whether this was dangerous.
And they commissioned a very famous scientist called Thomas Burbacker out of the University of Washington, Seattle, to do a study with monkeys, with macaques.
And he did the same study, Pichiera did.
But he did something you can't do with children, which he then killed the monkeys.
And then he looked for the mercury, and what he found was the mercury, yes, it left their blood immediately.
The ethylmercury from the vaccines was gone from their blood in a week.
Methylmercury from the tuna fish was there a month later, two months later.
And he sacrificed the monkeys and did postmortems.
He found that the mercury had not left their body.
Instead, the reason it was disappearing from their blood is because ethylmercury causes the blood-brain barrier much easier than methylmercury.
The ethylmercury from the vaccines was going directly to the brains of these animals, and it was lodging there and causing severe inflammation.
And we now know it's there 20 years later.
So when I'm on the phone with Burba and I said, he said, the ethylmercury is excreted quickly.
And I said, how do you know that?
And he said, because of the Picciaro study.
because a study by Pigiero found that it was excreted quick in a week.
And I said, but you're familiar with the Burbacher study that showed that it's gone to the brain.
And there was dead silence on the phone.
And then he said to me, he kind of hemmed and hawed and said, well, you're right.
It's not that study.
It's just a whole mosaic of studies.
And I said, can you cite any for me?
And he said, I'll send them to you.
And he never did.
That's the last I heard from him.
So at that point, I knew there was something wrong.
And then somebody handed me a transcript.
of a secret meeting that took place in 1999.
I think it was 1999.
It might have been 2000.
But it's called the Simpsonwood meeting.
And what happened is, in the midnight, I mean, the history is that in 1986, well, I'll go back a little further.
In 1979, 1980, when I was a kid, I only had three vaccines.
My kids got 72 vaccines.
That's what you need now to get through school, 72 doses of 16 vaccines.
So and it started changing in the 80s and 90s.
But in 1979, they they brought out a vaccine called the diphtheria tetanus and pertussis vaccine.
And that vaccine was very dangerous.
And it was killing one out of killing or giving severe brain damage to one in 300 kids.
And it was pulled in the United States.
It was pulled in Europe.
But Bill Gates still gives 161 million African children every year.
the same vaccine vaccine and the south asian kids i'll tell you you know we now know what that does because the danish government to the study uh... called morganson in twenty seventeen that show that african kids and that's that's uh... polish in a journal called e-bio pharma and it was done by the leading duties of of of african faxology all of them pro-vaccine people like peter a a b whose name is very famous sigrid morgan said a bunch of others
And they went to Africa and looked at that.
They had 30 years of data.
And Gates had gone to the Danish government and said, you know, give us money because we've saved millions of lives with this vaccine in Africa.
And the Danish government said, can you show us the data?
And he couldn't.
So they went to Guinea-Bissau, which is a country in the west of Africa.
And Guinea-Bissau, the Danes for 30 years had been paying for these very advanced health clinics, local health clinics all over Guinea-Bissau.
He's now citing Christine Stibel, Ben's work that we covered on this broadcast in 2021, in the beginning of 2021, over and over and over again.
as an example for how vaccines aren't doing what they say they were doing.
We still didn't understand it all, but we definitely understood that all-cause mortality increased by a factor of five in those kids that took some of these shots versus the kids that didn't get them.
And the clinics were weighing every child at three months and every child at six months.
And in the 80s or 90s, they began giving the DTP vaccine at the first visit, a three-month visit.
But if they didn't hit the child exactly, if they didn't have full 90 days of age, if they were 89 days, they wouldn't give it to them at the six-month visit.
As it turns out, they had 30 years of data where half the kids were vaccinated and half the kids were not, between two months and five months of age.
So it was a perfect natural experiment.
And they went in there, and they looked at it.
They looked at 30 years of data, and they found that girls who got that vaccine, the DTP vaccine, were 10 times more likely to die.
I think it was only five, but it could have been 10.
Three months, then girls.
Then children who did not.
And they weren't dying of diphtheria, deadness, and pertussis.
They were protected against those by the vaccine.
They were dying.
They were protected by those against the vaccine.
And that's not technically true.
See, that's the problem that we have here.
And the problem that I have with Christine Stibel's, Ben's work is that it's used as a way of saying that, well, they didn't get diphtheria, pertussis, and whatever else is in there, but they got other things.
And for me, the prevalence of diphtheria and other things in these countries needs to be figured in because if nobody else has diphtheria, or the people that aren't vaccinated aren't getting diphtheria, then you can't make the same statement that he just made there.
He just told you.
He just told you that there were unvaccinated kids and vaccinated kids.
So did any of those vaccinated kids get diphtheria, pertussis, or tetanus?
Because if they didn't, that's not really proof of anything in the injected group.
Yet he stated it as clear as day.
They were protected by the vaccines.
And that is not a logical assumption here.
And yet he does that a lot.
And it's reinforcing the presuppositions that Joe has been working under, which is that vaccines have saved millions of lives.
We've got to roll that back.
At some point we got to roll that assumption back and revisit it because that's not the case.
And definitely not if kids weren't already dying from pertussis and diphtheria and tetanus all the time, that injecting them to protect them from something they're not going to get anyway is pretty extraordinary.
And yet he says they were protected.
Listen carefully.
Vaccine had, um, had, uh, 10 times over 10 times more likely to die.
over the next three months than children who did not.
And they weren't dying of diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis.
They were protected against those by the vaccine.
They were dying of anemia, and bilharzia, and malaria, and pulmonary disease.
But mainly, they were dying of pneumonia.
And what the researchers said is- Of pneumonia.
vulnerability to bacterial infection at the barrier of the lungs due to a adjuvant exposure, a toxin exposure, a heavy metal exposure.
So the propensity for weakening the immune system and having one of the first things that's happening is an imbalance in that bacterial presence in your lungs and a infection of sorts, a bacterial pneumonia,
I can see the theme here.
The old people in Italy were vaccinated two years in a row for pneumonia and flu.
They were vulnerable.
Flu vaccines could have created vulnerabilities.
vulnerabilities to just viral, sorry, just bacterial pneumonia, not viral pneumonia, but bacterial pneumonia due to a weakened immune system.
And that raising that up and then simultaneously rolling out a test that was not indicative of what they said it was, but indicative of a background signal that was being misconstrued as a spreading novel pathogen that needed novel treatments.
that the vaccine is almost certainly killing more children than diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis prior to the vaccine because it was protecting them against the target illnesses, but it had ruined their immune systems.
So they could not defend themselves against these other minor infections.
And nobody noticed for 30 years that it was the vaccinated children who were disproportionately dying.
And that's the problem with not doing real placebo-controlled trials.
None of the vaccines are ever subjected to true placebo-controlled trials.
It's the only medical product that is exempt from that prior to licensure.
Anyway, what happened in the DDP vaccine, when it was pulled in this country, it was pulled because so many people were suing the drug companies.
Why is, which is now Pfizer, was the primary manufacturer.
They went to the Reagan administration in 1986 and they said, you need to give us full immunity from liability for all vaccines or we're going to get out of the business.
And Reagan actually said to them, they said, we're losing $20 in downstream liability for every dollar we're making in profits.
And Reagan said to them, well, why don't you make the vaccine safe?
And they said, because vaccines are unavoidably unsafe.
That's the phrase they use.
And that phrase is in the statute.
And it's also in the Brusewitz case, which is the Supreme Court decision upholding that statute.
And so anybody who tells you vaccines are safe and effective, the industry itself got immunity from liability by convincing the president and Congress that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe.
Now, the argument against that would obviously be they've prevented disease that would have killed untold numbers of children, right?
That would be the argument they would use against that.
Exactly.
And that vaccine injuries are very rare.
That is the argument that is used against them.
And both of those arguments in CDC's own studies have been severely challenged.
Oh, the CDC did a study in 2010 called Lazarus.
And it was Harvard scientists who looked at one of the HMOs, the Harvard Pilgrim HMO, which is one of the top HMOs.
It's actually, I think, the ninth biggest HMO.
And they were testing a machine counting system that could do
a cluster analysis because right now the only way, the only vaccine injury surveillance system they have, it doesn't work, it's fewer than 1 in 100 vaccine injuries are ever reported because it's voluntary.
And this is what you can find support for this in the Lazarus study.
Lazarus actually looked and said, how many injuries are actually happening, how many are reported?
And they said fewer than 1 in 100 are ever reported.
And they developed a system of machine counting so that it doesn't rely on voluntary reporting.
What you do is you look at all the vaccine records or population and all of the medical claims, the subsequent medical claims.
And you do machine counting.
You do a cluster analysis.
And you it's very, very accurate.
And they found CDC at that time was saying one out of a million people were being injured by the vaccine.
They found one in 37.
And so, and CDC had asked this team to design a machine counting system because their system was so heavily criticized by everybody.
David Kessler, who was a Surgeon General, everybody was saying it's terrible, it doesn't work.
And Congress had told them you have to accurately count vaccine injuries and they weren't doing it.
But when they did it, when they actually looked, they found that it's not one in a million.
One in 37 kids had potential vaccine claims.
Now, you can't tell whether any of those claims were actually from the vaccine, because it's a machine counting.
So it's statistical.
But you can say that the number of injuries is much higher than anybody was admitting.
And then in the year 2000, CDC did a study with Johns Hopkins called Geyer, because there was this emerging claim that vaccines had saved tens of millions of lives around the world.
I'm not going to tell you that they don't, because nobody should trust my word on this.
What I say is irrelevant.
What is relevant is the science.
And this is the principal effort by CDC to actually verify that claim.
and what the Geyer study, and they looked at all the history of each vaccine and health claims.
And what they were trying to say is there was this huge decline in mortality from infectious disease that took place in the 20th century.
An 80% drop in deaths from infectious disease.
And what caused that?
Was it vaccines?
And what they said is no.
It had very little, almost nothing to do with vaccines.
The real drop happened because
of really engineering solutions, refrigerators, you could store food, transportation systems that would get oranges up from Florida, et cetera, roads, better housing, sanitation, the invention of chlorine, sewage treatment, but mainly nutrition.
Nutrition is absolutely critical to building immune systems.
And so- So interesting, good statement, good statement.
What does the, what does Children's Health Defense want
I guess they want public demands a safe COVID-19 vaccine.
No, we don't.
What many really want is a safe vaccination program for everyone.
No, I think we should tell people that it's a criminal enterprise and it's probably biologically debunk.
It's a biologically bunk idea.
I don't think that was the right word of debunk, but it is a bunk idea.
The desire is common to all of us.
All of us.
It's common to all of us.
It's a community.
It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a collective.
It's common to all of us.
Those who are pro-vaccine and those who have voiced concerns.
It's a collectivist idea.
Just like Joe pointed out the brownstone who retweets and publishes cross posts.
It's a collectivist idea.
It's not individualism.
It's not the individualist ideal of America.
It is collectivism.
We can work together to make a safer vaccine program for everyone.
We at CHD have been looking at the vaccine safety issue for years, and there are legitimate scientific concerns that need to be addressed, nevermind the criminal enterprise that it is.
It is time for medicine and public health to address them.
So see, that's it.
That's really it.
It's a criminal enterprise and you don't really have much to say at that stage if you see it for what it is.
Thanks for that slide deck.
That was handy.
It's going to be scary to look at that after the show.
What was really killing these children was malnutrition, and it was the infectious disease that was kind of knocking them off at the end.
But the real cause of death was malnutrition and a collapsed immune system.
And that is what the Geyer study says.
Now, anybody who's listening to this,
You know, you can go look at this study.
Couldn't be DDT, right?
None of these things that were also phased out at the same time.
It's still a very limited spectrum.
It's not discussing all of the things on the table all of the time, and I think that's how you can catch them.
Don't blame me and don't say, you know, Kennedy's in denial.
This is the only time CDC ever looked at this, and it's called G-U-Y-E-R.
It's published, as I recall, in Pediatrics, and it's CDC and Johns Hopkins in the year 2000.
And I believe the study is true, and it's borne out by many, many others.
There's another study from 1977 called McGinley and McGinley, and it was
And that study also said that fewer than 1% of the decline in infectious mortality deaths could be attributed to vaccines.
And that study was required reading in almost every medical school in this country until the mid-1980s.
So anyway, I'm just saying that that orthodoxy that you just described, it's not an orthodoxy that should be accepted on faith.
People should actually look at it.
And when they have, it has not borne up.
I'll just finish this story, and I'll try to be brief.
I'm in because why because Reagan caved in and it wasn't just Reagan it was the Democrats my uncle was chairing the Health Committee at that time and the Democrats also went along.
They passed the Vaccine Act in 1986 and the Vaccine Act gave immunity from liability to all vaccine companies if you for any injury for negligence no matter how negligent you are no matter how reckless your conduct no matter how toxic the agreement how shoddily tested or manufactured the product no matter how grievous your injury you your vaccine company you cannot be sued.
This was a huge gift for this industry because the biggest cost for every medical product is downstream liabilities.
And all of a sudden, those have disappeared.
So you're not only taking away that cost, but you're also incentivizing the production of many new vaccines.
You're also disincentivizing.
You're removing the incentive to make them safe because no matter how dangerous they are, they don't care because they can't be sued.
But you may say, well, if they're really dangerous, then nobody is going to buy them.
But the problem with that is nobody has a choice.
They not only got rid of the downstream liability, but they don't have any advertising or marketing costs because the federal government is ordering 76 million people, essentially ordering 76 million kids to take the product a year.
If you can get that on the schedule, it's like printing a billion dollars for you.
And so there was a gold rush.
And then the other thing is they are exempt from pre-licensing safety testing.
They don't have to be tested.
And they're not.
And I said this for many, many years.
You know, I said not one of these 72 vaccines has ever been tested, pre-licensing and a placebo-controlled trial where you're looking at vaccinated versus unvaccinated kids and looking at health outcomes.
So it's frustrating because we're really not saying it.
And I get it.
I want to say it.
He's a politician.
I get it that the message has to be crafted in the right way to open other people's minds.
But, um,
What strikes me as much more important is that they had me in their stable.
They had me in their stable and they threw me out.
And they threw me out with a vengeance, with prejudice.
and now are in a concerted effort to assert this narrative of a circulating, many circulating pathogens for which we may need vaccines.
We just may not have working vaccines right now.
We may not have well-tested vaccines right now.
We may not have completely safe vaccines right now, but we definitely need vaccines.
There are definitely viruses for which we would need vaccines if we could produce vaccines that weren't inherently dangerous.
And so just like the slideshow that I just showed you is stating it, they are not arguing that the vaccine schedule is a crime.
They're not arguing that the vaccines represent a toxifying of our children that is wholly unnecessary.
Even though he kind of says it, the Geier study kind of said that.
But if the Geier study is true, then the next thing out of your mouth should be, it looks like this vaccine schedule has largely become a criminal enterprise, even if there was something there in the original three shots that we were given when I was a kid.
How hard would it be to say that?
You're already alienating anybody anyway.
You're on the Joe Rogan podcast.
It's not like more than half of the world just discounts Joe Rogan as an idiot from the start.
I don't know, I see a problem here.
I definitely see a problem here and I don't like it.
You can watch the rest of that if you'd like.
Ladies and gentlemen, this has been Joe Marshall, the Liberty Perspective you can find on Rumble and elsewhere.
He's also got a book called The Last Call for Liberty.
And then this has also been Bob on Joe.
So that was Bobby on Joe Rogan's podcast.
And we're trying to build an understanding of the illusion here.
If you want to understand the illusion, you have to understand how they've been telling us that the algorithms have been telling us, yeah, the programming of social media has been telling us that there's pandemic potential and bat caves.
that can be accessed by Dutch and Wisconsin scientists in animal passage and in serial passage in cell culture.
And then there's also people like Ralph Baric and Peter Daszak and Shengli Shi, who can stitch different genes of these viruses together and create thing that mother nature never would have created on her own.
And the reason why they've told us this mythology is because they wanna invert our individual sovereignty
our individualism to collectivism so that they can have us as experimental subjects, or more importantly, your kids.
And so the real truth is, is that they can make DNA and RNA and they can play with it in animals, they can play with it in cell culture, they can passage it in animals, and they can stitch it together and see what happens when they make a lot of it and put it on a cell culture in an animal.
But just because the DNA is in the first one and then in the last dish, or just because the DNA is in the first animal and then in the last animal, doesn't mean that all of the pretenses and presuppositions of virology have been confirmed by any of these experiments.
And in fact, the no virus people like Andy Kaufman and Tom Cowan have been very right about that.
But I think they've been standing in front of somebody like
like Mark Bailey, who actually was saying it in a way that meant something, saying it in a way that would have moved the ball forward because he was connecting his observations about SARS-CoV-2 to the observations that were made about AIDS and other virology, and those observations need to be hidden behind a clown show
that I think is Andy Kaufman and Tom Cowan.
Because otherwise we would have usefully reached the point of hearing from Stefan Lanka or maybe from Dave Resnick or any of these other people that have literally 20 more years of
credit under their belt for having been skeptical at a time when it wasn't cool to be skeptical.
And instead, we've been force-fed the opinions and the images of these other people who don't have the street cred to be where they are.
They just don't.
And that's really unfortunate, but that's where we are.
And that's why this common knowledge is not out there yet.
What should be common knowledge is not out there yet.
Yes, they can make DNA.
Yes, they can make RNA.
And yes, they can force it into cell culture and into animals and get immune responses and get PCR positives and sequence stuff.
Sure they can.
that does not prove the tenements of biology or whatever the right word is.
It's not that doesn't prove that the presuppositions of the virology narrative at all.
And it certainly doesn't prove the existence of pandemic potential.
And if you understand that RNA can't be copied very well, just like
An audio cassette from the 80s can't be copied very well, so you could sell those in music stores, and you could also sell a dubbing tape deck, and there was no danger of you selling these copied tapes or copied albums.
The album 1984 from
Van Halen was one of the first albums I ever got as a gift.
It came on a cassette tape, and I had a dual cassette player that could copy that one onto another one.
Sure, you could make mixtapes from your albums, but you couldn't copy an album and sell it to somebody.
the level of the audio and the quality of the sound will necessarily degrade every time you copy it.
And so just like that analogy, you can't copy these, whatever these RNA signals are, you can't copy them by putting them into a Vero 6 cell culture and get lots and lots more DNA out.
It doesn't work like that.
It's never worked like that.
And in fact, the way that they've circumvented this huge problem is they just say, well, we sequence something in the wild and we made a DNA copy of it.
because DNA copies are very easy to make and they're double-stranded so they're also very high fidelity to copy.
And so unlike an RNA signal found in the wild and purported to be sequenced that can't be grown in a culture, we can use very, very standard techniques to grow DNA plasmids in bacterial culture.
And so we can make as much DNA as we want to by any number of means, including the way that Brian Artis showed us in the red pill presentation that came right before mine, where he showed that venom was being made, but he didn't describe exactly how the venom is made, which is that they make the DNA that encodes the venom.
And they make a large quantity of that DNA before they use any number of means to convert it from RNA to protein.
And these same methodologies that are essentially used to produce all protein biologics up until the pandemic can also be used to produce large quantities of RNA, which can be put on cell culture and called virology, put on animals and called virology, or given to other people and called virological samples.
And in the literature of virology, these things are called infectious clones.
And yes, you can use these same industrial techniques to make a lot of DNA or RNA and call them infectious clones.
And in fact, that's most likely what they've done here.
They don't need to produce a lot of it, but whatever they wanted to find, they probably put it there so that they were sure to find what they wanted to find.
You know, like a designer spike protein that they could cry about for four and a half years.
But it's just synthetic DNA.
It's just synthetic RNA, or just made in quantity.
That's it.
There's no more tricks.
There's no more mastery of the human genome.
No more massive understanding of how to stitch gain-of-function viruses together.
It's this simple.
And then they tell you they found it.
If this signal that they put in a certain place could be confounded with a background signal, then you've got the most convoluted Scooby-Doo mystery ever, especially if the people that social media say are the leaders in solving the mystery are actually part of the show.
And I assure you, these people are part of the show and they are hiding it by cooperative lying.
And they absorb people, they let people participate in it, and they never say these things.
Intermuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Transfection in healthy humans is criminally negligent, and RNA cannot pandemic.
You could say it a different way if you wanted to.
You could say weaponized piles of money have murdered people and gotten people to agree about it being a lab leak.
The old vaccine schedule was injuring and killing thousands of people every year and VAERS sucked.
So comparing the VAERS sucky signal from before to the VAERS signal now is stupid because it sort of kind of just says that the previous VAERS was okay.
RNA virology is just transformation and transfection of cell cultures and animal models.
Ladies and gentlemen, these are as close as I can get to the truth in a few words.
And there's lots and lots for you to read if you want to find out.
Maybe start with the citations in my latest substack titled, A Working Document.
Please stop all transfections in humans because they are trying to eliminate the control group by any means necessary.
If you want to support the stream, you can go to gigaohmbiological.com.
If you want to share the stream, you can actually go to stream.gigaohm.bio and guess what?
You can now download all the videos at either 480 or at full resolution and then you can post them wherever you want to.
You can start your own Rumble channel called Gigaohm Biological Rocks and you can download a video a day and you can post it on your own Rumble channel or you can post them to Twitter or you can do anything you want with them.
All of them are downloadable.
We're gonna get Jeff from Earth on stream.gigaohm.bio so that he can upload clips there as well, so that we can start to bombard Twitter with our own message as we slowly leave Twitter behind.
Because it's not working for us.
It's never worked for us.
It's always been a tool to manipulate us.
And so, thank you very much for joining me.
Shout out to Rodney Mullen, and I will see you guys again soon.
This is a luxury of having spent my life doing what I love.
The cost of that, it sucks.
I'm not blind.
I'm not numb to the pain.
I would argue I'm more conscious of it than anybody else, but I'm also more conscious of what that gives me.
And when I'm done with this, that will be what it is and I'll find a way.
But there's something inside of me propelling that I'm not going to give up until the wheels fall off.
That's what I'm made of.
And I wish I see all the arguments against it, but I wish I could relate the intangibles to you.
My guess is that we're all built the same.
None of us are completely stupid, a little deranged.
I think a strong argument, I do.
But ultimately, we also know what we have.
And to go and lay down in that sense of it, that's like embracing what we've done with our lives, you know?
You guys are all a part of this, you know.
We all made it here together.
And we're gonna make it to the finish line together.
Don't you ever forget it.
Thank you very much for being a part of this.
And I will see you tomorrow for a 4th of July special stream.
Because our basketball gym is closed tomorrow.
So if you need something to listen to, I'll be on sometime in the afternoon.
Probably right after lunch or right before.
I don't know.
I'll figure it out.
I love you guys all very much and I will see you again very soon.