So this is my place, the Pineapple Hill Grill and Saloon.
If you go to my page, you can see all the work I did for
outdoor dining for tables being 7 feet apart.
And I come in today because I'm organizing A protest and I came
in to get stuff for that. And I walk into my parking lot
and obviously Mayor Garcetti has approved this, has approved
this, being set up for this being set up for for a movie
company. I'm losing everything.
Everything I own is being taken away from me.
And they set up a movie company right next to my outdoor patio,
which is right over here. And people wonder why I'm
protesting and why I have had enough.
They have not given us money and they have shut us down.
We cannot survive. My staff cannot survive.
Look at this. Tell me that this is dangerous
but right next to me as a slap in my face.
Welcome to the Libertarian Institute, YouTube and Odyssey
channel. Today we have Lori Calhoun, the
author of Questioning the COVID Company line, Critical Thinking
in Hysterical times. Lori, thank you so much for your
time. Thanks for having me.
When it comes to the claim, listen to the science.
I want to listen to the science, but I'm not sure I exactly know
how to. What is science and how can we
differentiate it from coincidences or propaganda?
That's a great question. Science drove, quote, quote, UN
quote science. The science drove all of the
political measures used in response to the emergence of.
The virus. And so you do have to get a
handle on what exactly that phrase supposedly refers to.
Science is the method used to adjudicate a variety of
hypotheses regarding phenomena we observe.
Okay. So it's empirical sciences.
You you observe phenomena and you try to explain them.
In a way, science is a kind of if you like.
Conspiracy theory cuz you're trying to connect the dots so
you have a cause and effect, or what looks to be a cause and
effect and you want to explain it through a theory.
But science is considered respectable because it's
repeatable. It's reproducible the studies
that you use to. Confirm theories.
And it's always open to refutation.
So you can say, look, I have this theory and then you can
test it in a variety of different ways.
You keep testing that theory and that this is how science evolves
over time, that some theories get abandoned to get replaced by
newer, better theories that better account for the
phenomena. So science is an evolving method
and process by which we make sense of empirical reality.
So let me give you a statement. Tell me what, if anything, is
wrong with the logic behind it. Raytheon and Northrop Grumman
are the experts with regard to military capabilities.
Therefore, only Raytheon and Northrop Grumman should have a
valid opinion with regard to what should be done militarily.
Priests and people with theology degrees are the only people who
can really have an opinion on religion because they are the
experts you. Do not have a priesthood nor a
theology degree. Most of you out there.
Therefore you guys cannot have a valid opinion on such a thing.
What, if anything, is wrong with this line of thinking?
Interesting comparison, those two cases, because on the one
hand you have the obvious conflict of interest, where the
people who are deciding what we should do in the face of
conflict have values at stake. They have possible profits.
At stake. And so they're going to promote
a line which which will further their own interest.
So what happens, we actually have a system similar to that
unfortunately in the United States with the military because
we do defer much of the decision making to these people who do
have industry connections. So the difference is, you know,
between just like. Listening to the science and
deciding what to do is vast. There there are descriptions of
what what's going on, and then there are prescriptions or
normative guidance about what we should do.
So the philosopher, the Scottish philosopher David Hume called
this the is aught problem. So you can have a whole
description of everything that's going on.
It's all true, you know, you've confirmed your theory.
You, you know you've decided that.
This statement is true, and this theory is true, but there's
still the whole extra question of what you do in response,
Okay. So that question is answered by
appeal to values. So you can say, for example,
just to give, you know, to continue the military analogy,
you can say, all right, we've decided that Vladimir Putin is a
bad actor. He invaded Ukraine.
That was a bad thing to do, Okay.
So then there's the whole, there's a whole other decision
to be made, which is what do we do in response?
What should we do? Okay.
So you can, you can agree with, you know, people who work at
Raytheon and N Agreement. You can agree with them that
Vladimir Putin, you know, should not have invaded Ukraine.
Okay. So.
But he did. So now what you do, what do you
do? And on the one hand you have
people are going to support the values of companies such as
Raytheon and they're going to say, well, obviously we should
ship as many weapons to Ukraine as we possibly can and let them
sort it out. And then you have, on the other
hand, people who are advocating for human rights and they're
saying actually it's, it's going to be a.
Finder where you just are killing people, not just
soldiers, but civilians. The more weapons you send over
there, the more people you're going to kill.
So they're very different solutions to to what should be
done in the case of military conflict.
And the solution that's opted for tends to be determined by
the person's prior values. So if they work for Raytheon or
they have associations with Raytheon, as does our Secretary
of Defense. Lloyd Austin they're going to
have, they're going to be skewed toward a solution that favors
those values. Okay that promotes those values.
The religion case is also very interesting because as you may
know, the Protestant Reformation came about because there was
this concern that. There was a middleman between
people on the ground and God, Okay.
So you can you can say I believe in God or I don't believe in
God. But among people who believe in
God, there they believed that Martin Luther believed that you
actually have as much access to God as does, you know, the
hierarchy of the Catholic Church.
And so there was a big dispute about that.
It's actually it's interesting that it's a similar case
because. On the one hand, people would
say, oh, religion is completely different topic, but it was, it
was the very same question of you know, who exactly counts as
an expert in these in these scenarios, in these vexed
conflicts. So what's wrong with the?
Ultimately, what's wrong with both of those, I would say is
that they assume that descriptions dictate
prescriptions and they don't. Nothing is dictated by the
facts. About what we should do.
Best example I've come up with is smoking okay.
We have tons of evidence, scientific evidence, theories
confirmed over decades and decades that that smoking is
going to increase your likelihood of dying early,
increase your likelihood of developing lung cancer,
emphysema, all sorts of other afflictions.
And yet there's still the question, knowing this, should I
smoke? And some people continue to
decide to smoke because the pleasure they derive from from
smoking. Outweighs their concerns about
the number of years which may be shaved off at the end of their
life. So it's a value judgment how
you're going to live your life and that is not dictated by the
facts. So when it comes to COVID, have
you seen any examples of the scientific community falling for
the very same thing that we would expect, priests and
members of the military industrial complex?
To fall into, yes, they're experts, but they also have a
huge financial incentive which clouds their judgment.
Have you seen any examples of that in the medical community?
We have tons of examples of that.
I mean, basically the regulatory agencies have been completely
captured by the Pharmaceutical industry and the best example I.
Could point to right now is the opioid crisis okay.
So if you This is why I have a couple couple chapters where I
discussed this because it's really important to understand
how the opioid crisis came about in order to understand what's
going on in the in the COVID world.
So the opioid crisis got off to a start when Purdue Pharma in
the Sackler family marketed Oxycontin as a safe.
Narcotic, which could and should be prescribed to people with any
sorts of pain. You could have just a minor
pain, you know, you stuck your toe or something.
Your doctor gives you a narcotic.
So they marketed it very deceptively, suggesting that it
wasn't addictive and that it was less subject to abuse than
narcotics. Even though human societies have
known for hundreds of years, many hundreds of years.
Perhaps you know thousands of years that narcotics are
extremely addictive and it's very, very difficult to shake a
habit once you develop an addiction to narcotics.
So people have known this, but defying all of that they decided
to market this very powerful narcotic as non addictive and
they got the approval from FDA and not only that, but they
included a package insert in the medication that said.
You know, it's less subject to abuse and it it's safe for for
applications that are that exceed terminal patients.
It used to be the narcotics were only given to people who are
going to die, you know, because it didn't matter if they became
addicted, you know they're going to die anyway.
So you just want to make the end of their life as pleasant as
possible. But with this new narcotic, they
decided to market it really widely and give it to anyone for
anything. And what happened was this sort
of tidal wave of addiction. People losing their
prescriptions, going to the streets.
I'm sure you know about the famous pain clinics.
I talk about them in a chapter in this book.
The pain clinics were where mercenary doctors teamed up
with, you know, bad actors. And they opened these pain
clinics where people could just come in and get narcotics freely
and legally. And this went on for years.
That finally was shut down. But when it was shut down, it
had already created so many addicts.
That they were all over the streets and there was a huge
market demand for narcotics. And so when people couldn't
afford their prescription anymore because they lost their
insurance, often because they lost their job, they went to the
streets. And this is how the fentanyl
crisis came, came to be because, you know, the cartels came, it
rushed in to fill, to fill the demand.
The market demand for narcotics and they they've been filling it
with fentanyl laced products and as as you know there have been
hundreds of thousands of overdose deaths as a result of
this. So to answer your question, how
does this show that we have, you know, this problem of values
affecting the science? It shows that.
If people have finance enough financial incentives, they're
willing to do things that are going to actually harm people,
even though they're a part of a regulatory apparatus that
supposedly exists in order to help people.
When I first was coming across a number of ideas such as mask
mandates, lockdown mandates and a lot of the experts were
allegedly on the same page. I felt like I had had 10 years
of practice of questioning the experts because in my field of
economics or history, I constantly see all the experts
say, you know, it's really dangerous to have too free of a
market because you might get monopolies and with monopolies
you'd get higher prices and worse quality than you otherwise
would. Also, the state should
monopolize taxation, compulsory education, the judicial system
and the healthcare system, and guns.
Never clarifying the difference in the principle between
monopolies are bad sometimes. They're inherently evil and
should never exist, and they must exist or else life will be
nasty, brutish and short. So going into this, there were
examples that I had of experts getting it totally wrong and
being incorrect when trying to analyze the situation.
What are some other examples that we can actually point to of
the Expert class being totally wrong in a field that they're
supposed to? Have the sole expertise in.
Well certainly if you want to stick with pharma, lots of drugs
have been withdrawn from the market after they've been out on
the market for a while because it turned out after a while that
they had lots of adverse effects and they killed a lot of people.
A good example is Chantry which is the anti smoking drug Which
which? You know, it's incredibly
profitable, but it caused at least 500 suicides.
There were like thousands of other attempted suicides under
the influence of that drug. It was not withdrawn for the
market because of its suicidal ideation, which they knew about
in the very first year it was withdrawn because now it appears
that some components of it are carcinogenic.
So. So that's a really good example
and it's always going to happen that.
I mean, basically you can look at every example of chemicals
that have been. You know, championed as like the
the what, the solution to a problem.
For example, are artificial sweeteners OK?
They always get approved. And then, you know, decades
later it turns out, oh, actually, they're carcinogenic
and they're killing people and. As far as the most recent one,
but it always happens. Basically, it's induction on
every artificial sweetener we've ever had that your safest bet is
to like you wanna cut down on calories?
Just drink iced tea without sugar in it, because based on
Cyc limits, saccharin. Aspartame probably was the new
one. Sucralose stevia, they already
say there are problems with stevia.
So basically those chemicals, they're all produced in
laboratories and they end up having these adverse effects and
they're not discovered until they've been out in the market
for a really long time. So you could say, well, no one's
this is not anyone's. Evil doing.
And they're just mistakes. But that's exactly the point.
Human beings are fallible, and we do make mistakes.
And even people who don't have vested interest in these cases
can make errors of judgment. When it comes to the foreign
policy establishment, something you are very heavily involved in
and have done a terrific work, especially regarding the drone
program. What are some examples or an
example of tons of experts, Tons of people with all this
classified information at their fingertips, getting it wrong, so
to speak? Well, you you just set me up for
that one. Obviously it's the invasion of
Iraq. Is the is the top contender
there? Because we had all of the
experts telling us that Saddam Hussein had WMD.
Actually, not all of them. I take it back.
Well, Rumsfeld himself said it, Secretary of Defense said.
No, the United States experts did.
But I I want to say that Hans Blick's people outside the US
demurred from this take. But if you want to talk about US
experts who all came together to support the invasion, that's it.
I mean right there, Saddam had WMD, there were roving chemical
laboratories, there was a yellow cake incident, you know,
purchase in Niger. Not only that, but they tortured
some some guy and got him to, quote, UN quote, confess that
there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin
Laden. Well, you know, people, when you
torture people long enough, they're going to say whatever
they think that you want them to say so that you'll stop
torturing them. I mean, this is a very
ineffective means to ascertaining the truth.
But we, the the US administration went along with
that based on so supposedly the expert testimony of all these
people. Colin Paul, you know went to the
UN and made the case kind of unsuccessfully.
No one really, you know, believed his his PowerPoint
presentation. But in the US it really, it
really took on, you know you you frighten people enough and this
is a key element to what happened with COVID too.
You, you instill in them the fear of death and they will,
basically. Sign on for just about anything.
So that's what started the War on Terror.
It went on for 20 years. So, so many more people were
killed in the War on Terror than were killed on 911.
And it's another really good example of you have a fact the
Twin Towers were taken down. We had this horrible event on
September 11th, 2001. Khache the, you know, truthers,
We're just going to assume that it it really happened.
OK, so, so it really happened. We were attacked by Osama bin
Laden. And then the question is, what
do we do? What should we do?
And of course, you know, for people who had been chomping on
the bit to to attack Saddam Hussein and to, you know, launch
a major initiative in the Middle East, this was the perfect
opportunity. Yes, excellent, excellent answer
there. Okay.
So how can we verify or test the hypothesis that mask mandates
save lives? Okay.
You have to look at places where they were used and look at
places where they were not used and look at the outcomes.
And this was done throughout the period for for about two years.
People were comparing states, Okay so states.
The United States actually is structured to be able to test
some of these these things because we have different state
government, you know, regulations than federal.
A lot, a lot of places don't have that privilege.
So in the United States, there were states which never had mass
mandates or had them only maybe for like a week and then they
stopped. And then we had states that had
them the whole time all the way up until like 2023, you know, in
some, in some places, in some places in California and New
York. I mean, it was really bad so.
So what you do is you compare places scientifically.
You want to do a scientific study of this okay.
So you want to look at places where masks were used and places
where masks weren't used. And you try to isolate the
variables as best you can, and then you see what were the
outcomes. So if if there was a
catastrophic amount of death in the place where no masks were
used, and there was hardly any death in the place where masks
were used, and this would give you evidence for believing that
masks are actually an effective way to.
To contend with the virus. If that's not the result you
see, then you have to ask yourself whether in fact they're
effective, and if they're if they don't appear to be
effective, you can investigate further into why that might be
the case. So one reason that might not be
the case is that the mask mandates in place were very
loose. So you could wear a bandana, You
could wear like a piece of cloth that had.
Pores that were larger than the size of the virus that
supposedly the masks were protecting against.
So obviously that's absurd. You know, if the virus can
travel through the through the cloth, then it's not protecting
anyone. When you wear a bandana, it's
just for show as found, she said early on in in 2020.
You know, his first statement on mask was that, oh, you just do
it to make people feel better psychologically.
He said that on 60 Minutes in March of 2020.
Yeah, no. Yeah, exactly.
So and then later, you know, they backtracked and said, oh,
he only said that to prevent a PPE personal protective
equipment shortage in hospitals. So that was his explanation.
But The thing is, the guy, like, lied so many times throughout
that you just, like never had any idea when he was telling the
truth or when he was sincere. He's a very smooth liar.
Like when he lied, he often, like, came back and admitted
that he lied. But then he's just as sincere,
right? So you like, was he lying then
or is he lying now? You know you never knew with
him. That that one was so incredible
because he could have said something like look.
I looked at the information. I gave my honest opinion.
That's what it was at the time. But because I'm a scientist, I
continue to research, question my premises and here is my most
recent conclusion. I'm donating my last year salary
to a a Health Organization because I really screwed up.
I'm a public servant. I'm so sorry.
But instead he just said, well, that was to prevent a shortage
okay. So you're explicitly on board
with the noble lie being completely a completely
justifiable approach. To public policy.
Okay. Now what should I do, Mr. Fauci?
I only spent 15 years building this business.
I should lock it down. Okay.
Let me know when you can give me the keys back.
No, I know. It was incredible.
The whole thing was incredible. I don't know if you got to the
Is it the. Yeah.
It's the penultimate chapter of my book.
It's called Launched on a Wing and a Prayer for Billions of
Dollars. I'm not sure whether you got all
the way through but this you have to read it if you haven't
ready yet because this is this is like the day new mall of the
story. It's so great.
It's about OK, so I I sort of set it up and say you know I saw
these articles early in 2020. Some of them have disappeared.
There were articles about like if they didn't get to work and
make the vaccine quickly, then the then the virus would mutate
and they'd miss out on the opportunity of making a
blockbuster. So I read lots of business
articles way back in spring talking from a business
perspective about how COVID was this great opportunity.
Many of those have disappeared from Google.
You can't find them. But there was there's one that I
found that was titled Coronavirus mutation could
threaten the race to develop that vaccine.
But what gets what is most unbelievable is that in January
2023 an article came out peer reviewed scientific article
which says in effect that viruses that replicate and I'll
just read those viruses that replicate in the human
respiratory mucus. So without infecting
systemically, including influenza A, SARS, COVID 2,
COVID-19, endemic coronaviruses, RSV and many other common cold
viruses cause significant mortality and morbidity and are
important public health concerns because these viruses generally
do not elicit complete and durable protective immunity by
themselves. They have not, to date, been
effectively controlled by licensed or experimental
vaccines. So this sounds like okay.
So you're saying basically there was never a possibility that
COVID could have been controlled by a vaccine?
That's what this article is saying that it's it's its
structure, it's rapidly mutating quality, and the fact that it's
relatively weak, it kills .5% of people.
So it's the human body launches the minimal needed response to
rid itself of the invader, and then it moves on.
So this is the explanation for why every year you can get a flu
shot. But getting a flu shot this year
or getting the flu this year has no bearing on whether you're
going to get flu next year, because the flu mutates so
rapidly and your body doesn't mount a permanent response to
it. So since your body does not ever
mount a permanent response to these sorts of viruses, you
can't actually create an effective vaccine, because
vaccines of course, utilize your immune system.
And so it's the it's the same technology the vaccine provokes
your immune system to respond and that's going to protect you
in the short term. And as we know, the COVID
vaccines protected people only for a few months and then they
had to get boosters or whatever. So, so the what's what's amazing
about this article is that it was coauthored by Anthony Fauci.
So. So it's an incredible conclusion
to the story where he in effect, there are two ways of
understanding it. You can say, OK, so Fauci is
admitting defeat. He realized he believed in the
vaccines, but he realizes now that you can't actually have a
vaccine against COVID, or he actually knew all along or, you
know, and all he tried to do basically throughout the
pandemic was sell vaccines. So there are two very different
ways of understanding what went on there.
In a way it's a Corribtus and Silla for him.
Because, you know, if he admits that he didn't know what was
known by many virologists way back in 2020, he didn't know
that then he really had no business serving as our fount of
public health wisdom. And if he did know, then it
shows he's completely corrupt, you know, and and completely
moved, driven by financial interest.
When it comes to finding comparative examples for a
controlled experiment. The one that comes to mind would
either be California verse New York or California or California
New York verse a place like Florida.
Because I know Christie gnome in either North or South Dakota had
like no lockdowns. However, when it comes to the
population density, it's extremely difficult to to
compare those. Also, Florida has a much older
population than California, so of course there's no perfect
controlled experiment with something like this.
What is the best controlled experiment we can use and what
can that teach us about lockdowns, mask mandates and
vaccine mandates? Sweden, Sweden versus the rest
of Europe. OK.
Sweden did not lock down. They had one of the best
outcomes in Europe. So all of Europe, you know, they
were in lockstep except for Sweden and Sweden.
You, you may remember the press at the time.
They really, like, dragged Sweden.
Oh, they're killing their, their population, you know, blah,
blah, blah. It's like it's murder, you know,
so. And they ended up doing, like
much better than most of the other European countries.
So they had no lockdowns. They, I don't think they had
mask mandates either. And so if you compare Sweden,
it's you can, you can find, you know, similarly sized European
countries that went whole hog. You know, they had like massive
lockdowns. You couldn't like leave your
house. You couldn't go to the grocery
store. You had to wear a mask.
You had to use a tracking app. You know if you got near anyone
you know and if you compare them, actually Sweden did
better. So that's a real life example.
That's science based because you can compare.
You're right, you can never completely.
You can't find 2 identical cases because there are no two
identical countries or two identical states.
But you can correct for the differences.
And and same with Florida, when people say that you know Florida
did bad, they're not correcting for the age of the population
because COVID is much more dangerous to people in the
cohort of retirees which populate much of Florida.
So you can't just go by like per capita mortality in that case,
you have to adjust for age. So in Sweden, you know, given
that the population is similar in terms of demographics, you
know, in terms of his age breakdown, everything, you can
compare to many of the other European countries and find that
Sweden actually actually did better, especially when you look
at not only virus deaths but also nonvirus deaths.
So nonvirus deaths were excess deaths caused by political
measures. You know, like this poor woman
you featured at the opening of our interview who lost your
business. There are lots of people who
lost their businesses. I thought it was thousands, but
somewhere I think it was brownstone.
I read that it's actually 3.5 billion, Could that be right?
No 3.5 million businesses were were permanently shuttered.
So, and I'm not sure if that was for the, I'm not sure exactly
what that covered, but I believe that it's true because there are
tons and tons of people and you can actually see some, you know,
sort of empirical evidence when you go through any major US
city, all the shuttered stores that are still there.
So all those people lost everything.
All right, so a little more on the experts.
The Atlantic says Georgia's experiment in human sacrifice.
The state is about to find out how many people need to lose
their lives to shore up the economy.
Thank you, Amanda Mull. This was published April 29th of
2020. When I look at Georgia, I can go
to April. So here is March, April of 2020.
This is from usafax.org. Here on the screen you will see
where let's get as close as we can.
So here is April 29th, almost exactly.
We had an average of 662. Cases.
Looking at this graph on your screen, Lori, is there any
correlation between lockdowns? No lockdowns.
Is there any lesson we can learn from Georgia's experiment in
human sacrifice being one of the earlier states to open up?
No. And in fact you can look at all
of the states that there are some people who have quite
diligently tracked all of this data, You know, all the
lockdowns and oh, you have it right there, there we go.
So people have graphed this throughout the pandemic and and
discovered that in fact there's nothing to discover.
There is no pattern that the the virus was completely untamable
and it wasn't affected by things like whether a state allowed
there to be outdoor concerts or whether beaches were closed.
It wasn't affected by any of these things.
The virus was just out there circulating around the the
mitigation measures did not work.
Even the vaccines did not work. The vaccines were supposedly,
you know, going to save us from, you know, the boogeyman of
COVID-19. There were more COVID deaths
after the vaccines were widely distributed.
Even in places where they were, there was almost universal
uptake, for example, Israel and Gibraltar.
So basically, the vaccines didn't save us, The masks didn't
save us. The lockdowns didn't save us.
The the, the virus killed old and sick people and obese people
at, you know, an unfortunate rate, but it also killed them at
a rate that's very similar to their deaths by the seasonal
flu. So what happened though is I I
think because they called this a pandemic and they made
everything seem so much more dire than it was, that people
really panicked. And that's why the subtitle of
my book is Critical Thinking in Hysterical Times.
People really became hysterical over this.
And you know, you can just look at all the pictures of people
wearing, you know, 5 masks and hazmat suits and dining behind
plexiglass. I mean, it just went on and on.
People playing musical instruments with a mask in front
of them. I mean, they were just like
really crazy things that people were doing because they were
completely discombobulated by the amount of fearmongering
propaganda to which they were subjected for for years.
I mean, it wasn't just like 2 weeks, it was like it went on
and on and on. Every time you turned on your
TV, you would see death ticker tapes and there was never any
attempt to place the number of deaths into context.
So how many people were dying per day?
Before COVID, people didn't know that because people didn't pay
attention to the number of flu deaths among elderly people
before COVID. Actually, they they didn't pay
attention to that either because they stopped dying of flu.
They all died of COVID but, or most of them.
So basically, since people had no idea how many people usually
die every day, they were completely freaked out by these
ticker tapes of death on the television that went on and on.
And they were locked in their homes.
So all they did was watch TV and think about death.
I mean, it was unbelievable. So when it comes to how many
people die per day, just as a reference point, the number that
I found, I can't. It's not coming to me now.
I think it was in the world population review. 167,000
people across the planet die every day, which is extremely
tragic and I am sad for basically all of those.
However, when you don't even have a reference point, 100,000
people just died. You have no ability to
determine, well what could happen.
Even if it is a billion people die in one day.
That doesn't justify Gavin Newsom locking you and your
house while he's at the French Laundry restaurant with the With
No Mask. One of the first things that
really got me thinking that we are in sort of like a critical
or hysterical time, as as you call it, was I went to the
restaurant that my friends and I always go to, Charleston's and.
Arizona, unfortunately, I have not been back.
But we walk in and they say, I'm sorry, we can't serve you
without a mask. And I look around and I said
even though none of the other customers are wearing a mask, we
have to wear when they go, Oh no, no, no, they're sitting down
and you just have to wear it until you get to your seat.
And I said, hold on. I don't know anything about
virology, however. This felt like me saying, hey,
you don't know anything about economics, but give me 100% of
your income and I'll just triple it by tomorrow.
It's like okay, even if you've never studied economics, that
just seems fake. So when they said that to me, I
go so to walk 10 feet, I can literally see the chairs we've
been sitting in every other Saturday for like 2 years.
I go sit down and then for three hours we don't wear a mask.
Do we have to wear it when we get up to walk outside and they
go? Well, once you've paid your
bill, there's not much we can do.
But we do ask that you wear it, including if you get up to go to
the restroom. I go.
I don't know how to analyze this, but this sounds ridiculous
and maybe I am. Totally no the case, I don't
think. So I think that's nonsense.
Yeah. No, I, you know, I think your
intuition is right there. I mean basically, you know, I
some of this just goes back to to chemistry 101, you know, like
molecules just disperse in the air.
So this was one of the most shocking things when I, when I
relocated from Austria to the UK, I was in England for a while
and sharing them, which is a village, OK.
It's on the East Coast of England.
And I was walking on the pier and they had these like big
circular stickers all along. The pier, mind you sharing them,
has a population of I think 5, 5000 people.
So maybe you'll see like two people on on the on the pier, on
the shore there at a time. And so they're really spread
out. So if they're breathing, they're
obviously their molecules are are mingling with like a vast
volume of air. Like the chance that your
little, you know, COVID piece of dust is going to hit someone on
the pier is like it's it's like infinitesimally small.
There's just like no way it can't happen because there's so
much air the the waves are rushing in against the on the
beach, you know, so the waves are like shaking up there.
There's just no way you can get COVID from someone on the beach.
And yet in sharing on this little teeny village, they had
these big stickers all around where you're supposed to, like,
keep your distance, you know, from people.
And it was all over the village. They were all over the
sidewalks, They were in all the stores.
And I just thought to myself, how in the world did this
happen? How did these stickers get
placed in this obscure little village on the East Coast of
England? And yeah, the same thing is
happening like, all over the world simultaneously.
And I was like, this is really nuts.
Like what is going on here? So that, you know, those were
some of the first things that I observed, just complete
craziness when I was. I finally went back to the
United States because Boris Johnson ordered a a Country down
lockdown which made it illegal for me to go anywhere and he
also closed all the hotels. So I I either had to like shack
up with my artist friends in London forever or just like go
home. So I finally came back to the US
and I was in Abington, PA and I would go out during the day and
like walk up the street. There was a TJMaxx up the
street. They had a sign on their door
that said that they would only admit 163 people at a time.
And I was just like like who who did this like 3 significant
digit calculation of how many people are allowed to go
shopping in TJMX? I mean, the whole thing was so
ludicrous. I I should say it was funny.
But it was also tragic because so many people lost their
livelihood through this, through the ever shifting rules and
regulations on businesses who were forced to close down for,
you know, serving customers. Even though, as you said,
there's lots of hypocrisy. And that Nancy Pelosi went to
the beauty salon, right as another example.
Glory Lightfoot. Yeah, so, so, so anyway, you
know, the hypocrisy just didn't stop.
But also just the absurdity. But the whole thing was so
ludicrous. And I I laughed.
But again, I have to say, it was also equally tragic, you know,
for all the people who who lost their shirts through this,
because anyone who was in the gig economy, they didn't have
any sort of protection, They didn't have a pension, they
didn't have savings, they were barely making ends, ends meet
and they lost everything. It's really sad.
They did. Do you remember?
I haven't talked about this, so I'm trying to remember exactly
what my position was because I remember being very pissed off
at the time. But I seem to remember AOC
giving an interview and all the experts saying what you want to
do. There's a new thing.
It's called Coronavirus. And the way to keep yourself
safe is to not touch the three doors to your system.
Eyes, nose and mouth. Always keep your hands clean.
Don't touch your face or anything.
And then that just dropped. And now it was all about masks
and saying staying 6 feet apart. They had actually said, here's
what you do, always wash your hands.
And then stop saying that and then never mentioned it again.
Do you remember that's what's happening?
Or is this just a lot of no, a lot of this stuff happened?
No, no, no. I think that probably did
happen. I mean, there were so many crazy
things that happened. And the most important point,
though, is that they kept shifting the guidelines and they
kept changing the directives. So this kept people in a
constant state of uncertainty. What can I do?
What can I not do? What's legal?
What's illegal? Can I go somewhere?
Can I go shopping? I mean, it was really, really
crazy and it kept people on the edge of their seats, just very
nervous about what to do up until the vaccines arrived.
OK. So basically this was all a
preamble to vaccine update. So uptake.
So the minute the vaccines were available, all these people,
many of whom were not vulnerable at all to the coronavirus
because they're young and healthy, lined up to get their
vaccines. And so that's because they, they
had been told by the powers that be that the vaccine was like the
solution to the crisis. So people like Tony Blair,
former Prime Minister Tony Blair of the UK, he said, you know,
vaccine, passports will be our ticket to freedom.
You know, as, as though he, he actually owns our freedom.
He's going to tell us what we can do and what we cannot do.
I mean, it was all part of this big push for for vaccines and
then ultimately this kind of passport.
System where our behavior can be controlled in the future.
It's actually a little bit frightening looking back at what
went on because the level of hysteria that was generated
through propaganda and its pervasiveness and its
effectiveness in getting people to promote the what I call the
COVID company line is unbelievable.
Like the amount of divisiveness, the anger, the enmity, I mean
some, in some cases it was acted upon when people would shout
people out of stores and etc. And people became very polarized
and alienated throughout this entire period of of history.
And it was, it was very frightening for everyone.
And then the people who didn't comply were set up as the evil
enemy. So the very same template that
we've seen in the year in in wars, you know forever where you
have good and evil and you have you're either with us or you're
against us. And the anti, the quote UN quote
anti vaxxers were people who exhibited vaccine hesitancy.
In fact, they exhibit hesitancy to taking it, to taking an
experimental remedy for which they had no need according to
all available statistical data. Right, Because their chances of
surviving COVID were already 99.5% in many cases, or they had
already survived COVID. If you had already had COVID,
that meant that your protection was insured.
It was. It was demonstrated by the fact
that you were no longer sick, so you had you had to have created
antibodies and T cells, otherwise you would still be
sick or you would have died. And yet they pretended that
natural immunity had no relevance somehow to this, even
though the effectiveness of any vaccine is based upon natural
immunity. If if the if the immune system
didn't work, then the and then no vaccine could work, because
the only thing a vaccine does is it provokes your immune system
to get to work. So if you've already survived
the virus, you've already generated antibodies and T cells
in response. And yet these socalled experts
were telling us that, oh, we don't know about natural
immunity. I mean, it was really, really
crazy. And these sorts of
contradictions are are what led me to keep writing about this
and just trying to solve the puzzle, to solve the mystery of
what was going on around us. And it was one of those things,
like the vaccine that we wait for is the cure.
So there's nothing else you can do.
Exercise. Forget about it.
Avoiding carbs. I'm not even going to comment on
that. That has nothing to do with
health at all. Wait until this vaccine comes
out. All right.
Good news, audience, you don't have to unsubscribe.
I'm not crazy how touching your face can spread the virus and
why it's so bad. And you should avoid it from
March of 2020. And then here is the LA Times
and New York Times. Stop touching your face.
It's an easy way to spread the virus.
How? Coronavirus.
Can and cannot spread sex sneezing, surface face touching.
So this is these are both from March of 2020 and look again if
they had just said, look, here's what we thought.
We did some science and it turns out we were incorrect and now
we're correcting ourselves. The fact that they didn't is so
damaging to the reputation that it it's just what Johnny Cochran
told us years ago. It goes looks, it's all about
credibility. That's all you have.
I don't know if even if I'm reading a study.
And it's a peer reviewed. Well, those are written by
people and people are fallible. So how do we know what's true
and what's not? A huge thing is reputation and
the people with the worst reputation on planet Earth.
We're saying there's nothing you can do until you get this shot
and align the pockets of Pfizer and Moderna and Glaxo Smith
Kline. So just take the shot.
Wouldn't we tell you to? You guys had.
That's such a terrible reputation.
This is Bernie Madoff asking you to invest, and we're totally
skeptical and they're like, how dare you?
He's been an investment banker for decades.
He knows what he's doing. That's like, that's a perfect
example because Pfizer paid the largest.
Yeah, Pfizer paid the largest fine for healthcare fraud in the
history of the world. And yet they just every all
these supposed experts, you know, are saying, oh, Pfizer,
they're they're like, you know, worshipping Albert Borla, the
CEO, or Stefan Bansal of Moderna, who never had a product
go to market before the COVID vaccine.
He never made it to market. None of his, none of his
products ever got out of the animal trials.
The only reason he became a billionaire during COVID because
governments bought so many of his shots.
So. So you're absolutely right with
this with the history of this industry and like the
shenanigans that went on, it's it's it's awe inspiring that
people got, got taken into it. And the only way I can explain
it is through the complete discombobulation that was caused
by fear mongering propaganda. It's it was very similar to post
911 people were really out of sorts after 911 everyone was
just kind of disoriented. They're like what's going on,
you know if I go to the mall, is there going to be a terrorist
attack? Like people were really
frightened for for like months, they were kind of traumatized.
And what happened was with COVID, a similar, a similar
phenomenon where people were so afraid of death suddenly that
they would they would exceed to anything.
So even when it flew in the face of common sense and just basic
precepts of science, they wanted an answer and they wanted
someone who who would guide them through the pandemic.
That was Anthony Fauci here in the United States and they
wanted to believe in him. So This is why we had this
phenomenon of people buying Anthony Fauci, Anthony Fauci
paraphernalia. They had like votive candles and
you know, basically they erected him as a kind of St.
And so it really became very, very cult like.
I mean we used that word cult like probably too much, but this
is a clear case where it really was cult behavior.
I mean, it was like there were the outsiders and the insiders.
And if you're an outsider, you were evil and they didn't have
to talk to you. You couldn't actually have a
conversation with people because you were evil.
They had to stay away from you. So.
So it was very cold. Like, there was one solution.
And Anthony Fauci was the the source of the science.
And so you had to listen to whatever Anthony Fauci said.
And if he said pee one day, then pee was true.
And if he said not pee the next day, then not pee was true.
You just had to forget what went on before because you had to
believe in Fauci. It was the worst sort of
scientism. Scientism is the elevation of
science to the status of a religion where you're no longer
actually in this skeptical investigative mode, but instead
you have accepted that you have arrived at the final truth.
There's not going to be any more investigation.
The censorship is a perfect example of scientific
tendencies. When you stop having
conversations, when you shut down dissent, that's where
science comes to an end. And now scientism has taken
over, because science in science requires an ongoing dialogue.
There's no way that you're you're following the science if
you're not having conversations. And if you're not considering
new data as it comes in, if you just stick with the March 2020
narrative, you've just adopted a religion.
That's not science. And and they would always use
that fear of the authorities and not being popular.
They they would merge that, you know, fear of people being
isolated with fear of not being liked by those in power.
It was exactly like 17 intelligence agencies have
confirmed Donald Trump has colluded with Vladimir Putin in
hacking Hillary Clinton's e-mail.
I go. 17 said this I go, I can't wait to see what they say.
And then none of them came out to defend it.
And then the New York Times redacted it one one year later.
I didn't mean to get into a no no no.
But that's actually a really good example.
Because, she said on the presidential debate Stage 17
intelligence agency, remember that.
And then Joe Biden. Four years later.
Russia Gate 2.0 said Putin has bounties on the head of American
soldiers in Afghanistan, and 50 intelligence officials confirmed
that the Hunter Biden laptop is a Russian.
Planned just they just lie. The experts yeah no they do lie
and they even sometimes admit that they lie.
So. So there's this great clip of
Mike Pompeo where he's he's at some event and he said when he
was director of the CIA he said we lie we cheat.
We still we have entire courses. I mean they actually admit that
they do this and then the question is why does anyone
believe anything that they say. So another really good example
is Nord Stream Okay. So initially, the US take on
Nord Stream was Russia did it. Russia sabotaged the North
Stream pipelines. This was the US take for like
months. And then Seymour Hers arrives.
He says no, actually, here's how it happened.
I have a whistleblower, Here's the detailed chronology, here's
the mechanism, here's how it happened with the help of the
CIA. And then suddenly it's like, I
guess we could better come up with another story.
So there's this new yacht theory where this handful of people in
a yacht did it. And you know, in the end, the US
admits, oh, actually it was Ukraine.
We knew it was Ukraine all along, but we just said it was
Russia. So it's like, should we believe
you now or should we believe you then or should we just never
believe you? Because clearly you're
pathological liars and you're very good at lying in the way
that Anthony Anthony Fauci is. I mean, if he's if he, if he
knew he was lying about the masks, then he's a very
accomplished liar because he says things very sincerely.
And it's the same with our, our foreign policy spokespersons
when they get up there and say, yeah, Russia blew up the North
Stream pipeline, you know, so, so then you ask yourself, like,
why would they do that? And so the explanation is
supposed to be, well, Putin is evil and he's underhanded and he
wants to generate sympathy for Russia.
So they have a whole, like, explanation of why Russia would
have sabotage the North Stream pipelines until it turns out
that in fact, he didn't. So and then they come up with a
new story. Yeah.
And and the fact that they never apologize or clarify or resign
is why you can put it in the category of nefarious actors as
opposed to they're human. They're fallible.
Where is this apology? Sorry, I locked everyone down
unnecessarily. Well, I guess I'll have to pay
some reparations when it comes to the vaccine issue.
The biggest vaccine skeptics seem to be the people who were
big supporters of the vaccine. They said I'm getting this, I
can't wait to get it, but mine is not.
It's actually not effective unless everyone else gets it.
So they had less confidence that this was going to protect them
then the average person who didn't get it.
In my estimation, I don't have much to back that up.
But when I saw so many examples of it, these people who got the
vaccine were so extraordinarily insecure about the level of
efficacy and safety that it was going to have on them that it it
just seemed mindblowing when I was reading the book.
Page 138 caught my eye. You mentioned the inexplicable
success story of largely unvaccinated Africa.
What can we learn from the 50 plus African countries when it
comes to the vaccine? Yeah, they had very low vaccine
uptake, partly because of their, you know, poor economic
situation, but also partly because they're very wary of
vaccines because a lot of experimentation has gone on in
the third world. And so there are people who are
like, I'm staying very, very far away from Pfizer or don't.
No, thank you. We'll weather the storm on our
own. So another thing that was
different, you know, if you want to compare different cases and
and how the circumstances different differed and then the
outcomes were different. Different in in Africa,
hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, these are
medications that are used regularly, you know, in
combating and preventing malaria and other diseases that we don't
have in the West. And because you know, it's
entirely possible that people were protected by these things,
but those were outlawed in the US because we were only allowed
to have the vaccine. So if you if you had a Doctor
Who thought, oh, let's do some preventative work here, you
know, like Doctor Peter McCullough and some other
people, they had some, they devised some regimens to help
people so they they wouldn't get to the point of being so sick.
They would have to go to the hospital and then they'd be
ventilated and be killed by either that or REM Desver, REM
Remistever or whatever that. That REM desever.
Thank you, Remdesivir, the antiviral component, which is
actually toxic and kill a lot of people.
So. So when people wanted to use
these things, Joe Rogan, of course, famously said that he
used ivermectin, I believe. Was it hydroxy?
Yeah. Okay.
So yeah. He said it was ivermectin and
they said that's for horses, right, exactly.
But it's a medication that I guess won an award.
I think someone actually got the Nobel Prize for for inventing it
because it cured so many things. It's really good for a lot of
the insect borne diseases in Africa and stuff.
So, so in Africa you know they just didn't have this tsunami of
deaths from COVID. People survived and so there
were some non virus deaths in places what like Kenya where
they actually had lockdowns and stuff, which was crazy because a
lot of the population lives in shanty towns which are open air.
So it does it. How does it help you to have a
lockdown in a shanty town? I mean it absolutely doesn't.
So. But they were, you know,
following the examples of the West.
And in those places, there were some excess deaths, but they
were not. They were not from the virus.
They were from the political measures locking people down,
destroying their means of livelihood.
So Oh, thank you. I from Mectin, A multifaceted
drug of Nobel Prize honored distinction with indicated
efficacy. Yeah.
So. Oh, there we are.
So, so, so, you know, there are people, the die hard branch
comedians, They'll still come forth and say, oh, the reason
why Africa did better is because they have a much younger
population. That's their explanation.
It's not. You know, it's not fair to say
that Africa did better because they're their average resident
is much, much younger and but what they do is they they fall
into the trap of admitting that children are not vulnerable to
Coven 19. And therefore, there's no way in
hell that the Coven 19 shots should be on the formulary for
childhood immunization, that they were put on the
immunization schedule before the emergency use authorization
expired, which protects the companies for perpetuity.
And anything that makes it on to the child immunization schedule
protects the manufacturer from lawsuits forever.
So this is another case where it's really, really shady
because kids are not vulnerable to COVID-19 and now it's on the
it's a recommended list, but the fact that it's recommended by
people who are regarded as experts means that there are
states where they will be required now.
So they're required to have the first COVID-19 shot, which which
was formulated against a variant that no longer exists, that no
longer exists. So you're getting a shot that
actually serves 0 purpose beyond inducing your body's production
of spike protein. And if you're unlucky, you'll
get blood clots or myocarditis. But you know, if you're lucky,
it will just be innocuous. But it's certainly not going to
protect you against anything if the original virus no longer
exists. But in addition to the original
virus vaccine, which is required on the form or recommended on
the formulary for children, they're also saying a booster
shot. So you're supposed to be getting
COVID shots from the time you're six months, you know, all the
way until you're adult. Which means, as I argue in my
book, they are setting these children up to be Guinea pigs,
to be Guinea pigs throughout their entire childhood, because
every booster is of necessity, a an experimental trial.
Okay. So when it comes to testing
whether or not the vax saved lives, what is a way that we
could falsify that? Looking at people who roughly
weigh the same in the same age group and compare a million vax
people to unvaxed and we should see way more deaths among the
unvaxed. What what are?
What is a way we can actually? Test lockdowns are fake and evil
and unjustified, along with mass mandates.
When it comes to the VACS, how can we verify whether or not it
was as safe and effective and mandatory as they promised us it
would be? Yeah, Well, I mean, the data
certainly suggests that it wasn't effective.
Lots of people who were doubly triply and quadruple VACS died
Okay. So right there you have that
that fact, it did not prevent death and people who had the
vaccine died and people who didn't have the vaccine lived.
And so you if you want to compare the numbers, you would
have to, I suppose you would really have to look at the
original placebo trial which they ruined the the companies
ruined the placebo trial by by by providing the vaccine to the
placebo group. So instead of following it
through and finding out you know, like you know what happens
if you didn't vaccinate people, they actually they yeah, they
they unblinded it and they gave all the placebo people the
vaccine. So there's no way you can
compare from the original trial. That's impossible.
They destroyed the ability to to make the comparison that way and
you might, you know, be a little bit suspicious.
Why would you want to do that? Why would you not want to know
the truth? And of course their pretext, I'm
sure, was that, oh, we want to provide them with this
medication to save their life. But the fact is, the CDC's own
death data, statistical data on on deaths by age group shows
that most people were never actually going to die of COVID,
whether or not they had the vaccine.
So I mean ultimately if you wanted a really clean
comparison, you would have to study what happened to the
placebo group, people who didn't get the vaccine and compared to
the people who did get the vaccine, It's it's it's a mess.
You can't do it with the original trial group because
they gave the placebo people the vaccine.
But you could, I suppose, try to just figure out what percentage
of people in each group who died had the vaccine in in in what
percentage didn't have the vaccine.
You could do it that way. I mean, it's going to people are
going to be crunching these numbers for decades.
It's very, very complicated. But what one thing we do know is
that a lot of people who died had been vaccinated and a lot of
people who weren't vaccinated survived.
So you know. Yeah, which is not what they
predicted before, which is not what they told.
So when when Joe Biden came out around Christmas 2021 and said
the unvaccinated can expect a winter of severe illness and
death, he was wrong. Lots of people who weren't
vaccinated survived that winter. And it was in in some cases it
was because perhaps because they had survived the virus.
But that actually proves the point.
They had already survived the virus.
So they didn't need the vaccine because they survived it before.
So why would they need it? Like the second time when
natural immunity mounts a much stronger response than response
to one single protein, which was what the injections induced the
production of. So the injections only induced
the production of a tiny part of the virus, the spike protein.
So basically if you survived the the whole virus, then you got
rid of all parts of the virus. You didn't just get rid of the
spike protein, you got rid of all of it.
So, and they're subsumed. Of course, it's the spike
protein, so it's redundant for you to get a shot.
That your body already if your body already rid yourself of the
the entire virus. Now I realized for the last hour
I've been breaking one of my rules, which is to fall for the
thinking past the sale tactic that the corporate press and
politicians always play, getting people to argue over.
Do lockdowns work or not work? The question is they've already
thought past. We have the right to lock you
down if it quote works when it comes to how they were able to
propagate. Propagandize the masses in such
a way, getting them to think past the sale.
What were some tactics they used and how can we avoid them in the
future? Well, we talked a little bit
about one of them before, which is the the horrible polarization
and division between people. Where where people who had even
very legitimate concerns were denigrated as evil, selfish,
ignorant. There was a huge propaganda
campaign intended to make people feel like they were, you know,
somehow criminals for not getting the shot even though
they had already survived COVID. Or they had an examined the data
and decided it wasn't in their best interest.
Given their cohort and their prospects for survival, they
were made to feel as though they were the evil enemy.
So the the the evil enemy was not just the virus.
In this case it became the people who who refused to comply
with the dictates and they became the scapegoats for the
virus. The virus.
At some point it became obvious that it was everywhere and it
was untamable. But what happened is the
propaganda made the compliant start to blame the unvaccinated.
So you heard this little trope. It's a pandemic of the
unvaccinated that was like circulated all over the world,
over and over again. It's a pandemic of the
unvaccinated. So you are driving the pandemic.
You're the reason why we still have restrictions.
If you would just do the right thing and roll up your sleeve,
the pandemic would come to an end.
So you are to blame. Evil anti vaxxer when in fact a
lot of these people weren't anti vaxxers.
I mean, they just had a they had reasonable skeptical responses
to demands on them to get a vaccine in exchange for a free
donut. For example, I saw.
I mean, there were just so many cream.
One My God and Bill de Blasio eating a hot dog on TV?
Yes, yes, there's. Really good.
No? You can get free French fries.
Bill de Blasio with. Free French fries.
Yeah, it's up there somewhere where he's like shoving French
fries into his mouth, saying free French fries, you get a
vaccine. I was like, this is so insane.
I mean like you have got to be kidding me.
I mean, even setting aside the whole thing that like 78% of the
people who died were obese. So setting aside the whole issue
of like, whether you should be feeding people free French fries
and Donuts, there's just like the ludicrousness of that being
your compensation for serving as a as a as a subject in an
experimental trial for a novel medical device.
I mean, it's really crazy, and I think a lot of people don't
realize that when healthy subjects volunteer to serve in
pharmaceutical company trials, they get paid thousands of
dollars. They have to.
They have to sign a contract. But in effect, what happened in
this case is you were asked to be a pro bono subject in an
experimental trial, the largest experimental trial in the
history of humanity. And you were offered no
compensation. And you were also, in effect,
your right to to sue these people if they killed you or or
for your family to sue them if they kill you or if you if they
harmed you. For you to sue them was was
taken away from you by the government.
So you you were asked to do this for free because you were made
to believe that it was unpatriotic somehow, if you
didn't get on board the vaccine train, you're asked to do it for
free and to accept any possible adverse effects as just like
part of your patriotic duty, I guess.
And I think a lot of people just didn't know the history of
pharma, like those of us who knew the history of pharma.
I saw a really good Italian film where it.
It follows the story of this guy who decided he needed to pay
some bills. So he's like, oh, yeah, I'll
just volunteer for this pharma trial and get, you know,
thousands of of EUR. And he ended up being terminally
ill as a result, but he had, you know, effectively signed his
life away. Most people have not watched
these films. They haven't read books.
They know nothing about the the fines that Pfizer has paid
Johnson and Johnson has paid, AstraZeneca has paid.
They had no idea that Madonna had no products on the market.
Most people had no idea. They just thought oh thank you
Madonna for saving us. You know you've you've arrived
to save the day when in fact none of their product, they're
none of their products ever made it to market.
So I don't know. I think it was.
It was like a combination of ignorance and fear that drove
people to get on board the vaccine train and to to promote
really crazy policies such as forced vaccination mandates,
coercion, coercion of healthcare workers who had already
recovered from the virus, coercion of military people.
The refusal to allow people to come to the US unless they
showed proof of vaccination all the way up until May 11th to
2023, so that the actual public health, the pretext behind us
was, was ludicrous. Because what what the law said
was that you could come to the United States if you were
vaccinated like two years ago, but if you recovered from the
virus like six months ago, you couldn't come to the United
States. And in fact, if you, if so long
as you had your vaccine papers, you could even come to the
United States infected with COVID because they didn't
require you to test and they they already knew by, you know,
long, long ago, they knew that you could get COVID even if you
had the vaccine. I mean, Biden himself had it a
couple times and he's obviously like sex to plead jabbed, you
know, so so basically we had these really visible examples of
people who had all the right shots, who did all the right
thing, and they got COVID anyway.
And yet they kept this mandate in place on people wanting to
travel to the United States. They kept it in place all the
way up until May 11th 2023. Yeah, it was a classic
unfalsifiable thing where they're like, well, if you get
the jab, then you won't get coveted.
Rachel Maddow explicitly said this.
Joe Biden said this. And then they got KOVAT and then
they go, oh, see, that proves our case because.
You can get COVID and with the jab you survived.
Oh, as opposed to everyone else who got covered without the jab?
Exactly. Over bodies in order to get to
work every day. Because every.
Exactly. I mean, Jen Sake was a good one.
The former press secretary to Biden, she was like, oh, I had
covet, you know, she's like in her 40s I think her early 40s.
You know, so but, you know, fortunately I had the vaccine
and so, so I came through it. No, You would have come through
it like in any event, whether you have the vaccine or not,
because you are young and healthy, it has nothing to do
with the job. And likewise, people who are
really, really old and really frail and have comorbidities or
are obese, they're going to die of one of these viruses.
Whether or not they have a vaccine.
The vaccine is not going to save them.
And that's why we saw a lot of people die who had been
vaccinated. It wasn't it.
You know, when your number's up, your number's up.
You know, I'm sorry. But, you know, if you're if
you're 88 and you know you have all these comorbidities,
vaccines are not going to save you.
At that point, it didn't save people.
So when it comes to testing to see if the people who got the
jab died or not, let me go about this eight different way.
When they say people who are extremely out of shape and
extremely old are going to die from COVID-19, those people are
already in the category of much more likely to die than the
population at large. It's sort of like saying there's
a new virus and it causes scabs on your skin.
It especially affects crystal meth addicts.
Well, those people already have a ton of scabs everywhere.
That's what we would expect to be seen.
So even their claim, because I remember.
This one is going to be a little harder for me to find.
I remember the first thing that was being said.
One of the earlier claims was the people that are especially
vulnerable to coronavirus are little children because they
have weak immune systems and they break out in all these
hives. This is really who the lockdowns
are for and then they ditch that narrative as well.
I promise. I saw that on the news a number
of times and that's what people were just mindlessly repeating.
So they said everything, Remember.
Yeah. Remember when people were
bleaching their vegetables? So, like, there was a period in
there where people were actually using Clorox to wipe off their
vegetables in their house. So they got their groceries
delivered to their house, and then they were using Clorox to
to wipe them off to supposedly, you know, prevent them from
getting COVID. I mean, people did really crazy
things. So I'm sorry I interrupted you.
No that that's all right that that was my whole point, that
they're saying this might have affect X, but we're already
expecting X to happen. As it is, X being extremely old,
people die and people who are extraordinarily out of shape,
which again is no one, is an explanation as to why they
didn't say cut out carbs and increase exercise or resistance
training. Here is 1 video from across the
pond that caught my eye. To the most up to date
information daily, you can trust us as a source of that
information. You can also trust the Director
General of Health and the Ministry of Health for that
information. Do feel free to visit at anytime
to clarify any rumor you may hear.
COVID-19 dot govt dot NZ. Otherwise dismiss anything else.
We will continue to be your single source of truth.
We will provide information frequently.
We will share everything we can, everything you are else, you see
a grain of salt. And so I really ask people to
focus. So this egregious example of
that appears to be this text which originated in Malaysia and
has kind of has become a viral hope from Australia and in New
Zealand. How irresponsible is it?
The people that are sharing that news have been locked down
imminent in New Zealand. And look, that's the kind of
thing that adds to the anxiety that people feel.
So I continue to share the message New Zealanders must
prepare but do not panic. Prepare and and when you see
those messages remember that unless you hear it from us, it
is not the truth. And I really ask people, just
visit COVID-19 dot govt dot NZ. It has all of the up to date
information and we will continue to provide everything you need
to. So that was the Prime Minister
right there. That was the Prime Minister of
New Zealand. Not like I found a crazy lady on
Twitter one time. It's like this is someone and
you know, she never resigned over this or anything, she said.
You're one source of truth, another monopoly.
The state has granted itself truth along with the guns and
compulsory education right up with what's going on now that
the revelations in the Twitter files and the attempt to
completely squelch any dissent, you know, which is completely
antithetical to to the scientific enterprise.
She did, by the way, resign. She's no longer the Prime
Minister, but she resigned, like, you know, sometime after
that, so. Yeah, I'm sorry.
I should have clarified. She did not resign as a causal
result of this. Apologize and be shamed forever.
No, no, no, it was. There was no comment to that
effect. She just said she was tired or
something. That was like her reason for
resigning either. Maybe you know, who knows what
went on really. Maybe she realized how many
excess deaths were non virus. Excess deaths were caused by her
lockdowns because they locked down like every time there'd be
like 4 cases, Not deaths, but cases Cases they would lock down
the entire, you know, metropolitan area of of
Auckland. So they were incredibly severe.
And then at some point both New Zealand and Australia realized
that they couldn't control it. It was just uncontrollable.
I mean they couldn't. It was it was going to happen
and they've they finally realized it.
Now she, she didn't say she resigned because of that, but
they did eventually open. That's what I knew, the pound
that was winding down when Australia and New Zealand opened
up finally, I was like, oh, they actually opened up before the
United States. The United States didn't really
open to unvaccinated people until May 11th, 2023,
unbelievably. Have you found any evidence in
your research that COVID-19 was the result of a lab leak from
the Wuhan Institute of Virology? Oh boy.
Well, there there's of course the circumstantial evidence,
which is that oh, the the Wuhan Institute of Virology does gain
of function research on bad viruses.
OK so so and it happens to be where the outbreak first
occurred. So the Wuhan live market where
they sell animals to use in culinary delicacies such as bad
soup is like down the road Okay. So that that was the the claim
by Fauci and others that it it came from the live market it it
evolved naturally and so it had nothing to do with the gated
function research that was going on at the Wuhan Institute of
Virology. It was just a sheer coincidence,
I suppose that that it was a bad virus and that that's exactly
the kind of research that was being done at the institute.
But totally natural origin it did not come from the from the
institute. So there's first the
circumstantial evidence which is just where it happened, where
that where the outbreak first happened and also the fact I
believe that the first person who died worked at the Wuhan
Institute. So it's also possible that he
just encountered someone who had made bat soup that he got the
ingredients from the market. It's it's possible but the the
coincidence is like kind of hard to hard to believe.
And then there's the genomic evidence so that this is this is
the real this is going to be the determine of the answer to the
question is the genomic evidence Okay.
So there's a sequence in the COVID virus that is it looks to
be artifactual, looks to have been to have been created in a
lab. And if that's the case, if it's
it's a sequence that never appears otherwise in these sorts
of viruses, it's a completely unique sequence and it's only
appeared in artifactual modifications of viruses, then
that is kind of slam dunk argument that it was actually a
product of gain of function research.
So if this sequence, if it's true that this sequence that the
suspect sequence doesn't occur in any other analogous Organism,
then it looks like it what it did escape from the lab.
But they're going to find out. Okay.
They're going to find out it it hasn't been resolved yet, but
they can. They can determine, for example,
how many years or how many generations it would take a
certain mutation to appear in an animal.
And if it if it is it actually impossible, if it's
scientifically impossible for that sequence to to have been
produced from one generation to the next.
Just a quick leap from bats to humans then that will be the end
of the the argument right there if it's actually impossible.
So some people have said from the very beginning a lot of
these people were deep platform back in 2020 have said, some
biologists have said in fact in order to have that particular
mutation to have taken place, it would have taken like 1000
years. So it wouldn't have been just
like jumping from the bat to the human.
It would have had to evolve like here's like a feasible sequence
of mutations that could have given rise to that sequence.
So this is still under investigation.
But yes, to answer your question, there's plenty of
evidence that it came from the lab.
And is there any evidence that the funding came from the
National Institute of Health or the Eco Health Alliance with
Tony Fauci stamp of approval as a result of the gain of research
function ban that I believe Obama implemented in 2014?
Yeah, there is. First of all, it's funny because
Peter Dassek was assigned to assess, you know what what
happened and he actually distributed funds to be used for
gated function research. So he had a major conflict of
interest in in, in, in proclaiming that it would had a
natural origin. Why?
Because he didn't want to be responsible for millions of
deaths. We're now getting Anthony
Fauci's correspondence, and there's a lot of stuff coming
out where he has interactions. And there was testimony on the
Hill also where he had interactions with people who
believed that it was a gain of function release from the lab.
And they they shut them down. They shut those people down.
It looks like a couple of them have been brought by has two
people in the e-mail correspondents who today Collins
and Anthony Fauci in a conference call they changed
their tune. They said no, it's natural
origin. They went from, you know, black
to white, from thinking that it was gain of function to absolute
certainty that it was natural. And then a few months down the
line they got huge grants from NIH.
So it looks like, you know, we're going to see more and more
investigation of of these of this correspondence as it's made
public. So yeah, there's plenty of
evidence and it's certainly the case that Anthony Fauci brought
back gain of function research. So whether or not he himself
funded the production of the COVID-19 virus itself, he
definitely brought it back, brought back funding for that
sort of research. And so this should really be a
cautionary tale for all of us. Because whether or not this
virus came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, we should
be very wary of this form of research.
Because it's incredibly dangerous and it it could lead
to the production of a virus which is much more lethal than
COVID-19 was okay. If we had a pandemic where half
the people of the world are wiped out by it, that's a
completely different level of of atrocity.
And although the hysteria would be the same, the hysteria for
this was the same as though we were in the face of the Black
Plague. I mean, let's be honest, people
were acting for months as though they were going to see
wheelbarrows coming through the streets, picking up corpses.
None of this happened. Many people never knew anyone
who died of COVID. Many people, you know, we're
just mystified by by this whole period of history, and with good
reason. Sure.
I remember Rand Paul asking Tony Fauci.
About the gain of function issue and he said taking a bat virus
and trying to increase its ability to infect humans.
Is this gain of function research?
And he said absolutely not. He interrupts him and says so.
Taking the bat virus and gain and giving it another function
to infect humans, he goes, no, absolutely not.
That's only from human to human. Going from bat to human that's
not gain of function. That's called 3PP.
Something else he a fake thing that they made-up two days
before and then handed him a note for.
So I guess one of the responses could be.
Does COVID? It seems as though you're more
likely if you're with 10 people and you're indoors, you're more
likely to get COVID than if you were with 10 people outdoors.
Therefore we can conclude that this virus has lived and evolved
inside to survive more so than something that evolved in an
outside area. Because you would think if it
evolved outside through these animals then outside is more
dangerous than inside, but the reverse is true.
Could that be another indicator that it actually originated?
From a lab, Yeah, that's very logical.
Yeah. Going back to the question of
redefinition, that is like a specialty that's like modus
operandi of these people. So they redefined.
In advance, back in 2009, they redefined pandemic, so no longer
the the definition The Who definition.
The World Health Organization of definition of pandemic no longer
includes the word severity over a broad geographical area.
So they they weakened the definition of pandemic so that
it would cover stuff like it covered the swine flu and it
covered COVID-19 with a 99.5% survival rate.
So, but because people associate the word, they continue to
associate the word pandemic. With things like the black
plague or Ebola, you know very, very deadly diseases that can
wipe out huge portions of the population.
This helped to promote to fuel the panic throughout the
population. And similarly they redefined the
word vaccine. I have it in here somewhere in
in before 2021 vaccine was something which reliably
immunized. Advised you against a disease
and they weakened the definition of vaccine.
So then so that now vaccine means it strengthens.
That is such a broad and general definition that lots of things
that you do like drink water, eat green vegetables, get fresh
air, all of those things can count as a vaccine by that new
definition. So, but because they they
changed the definition of the vaccine, they immediately
started calling COVID-19 vaccines.
Vaccine. And this is what impelled
because they believed that it was going to reliably prevent
transmission and infection. Final question is far as you
know, people say well how could a medical establishment do such
a thing? This is wild.
You mentioned in the book the Tuskegee Experiment of 1932 to
1972. What was this?
OK, this was a horrible episode in history about 40 years long
as you said, where men who had been black men, mind you, who
had been infected with syphilis were not treated.
So the the medical professionals they worked with knew that they
had syphilis and did not give them any sort of antidote.
So they just allowed the syphilis to develop to see what
would happen. So basically these people were
used as experimental subjects, non consensual experimental
subjects, about what exactly the outcome of untreated syphilis
would be. So that went on for years and
years and you know. It's ghastly.
People. People talk about the Nazis
experimenting on people. Well, people in the United
States have been experimented on as well.
And when the Moderna vaccine was released, Fauci went out and he
did one of his PR things was, oh, the Moderna vaccine was
created by a black woman. So this was supposed to be a
selling point, right? And I was like, yeah, the people
who ran the Tuskegee experiment also some of them were black.
In fact, the program coordinator was an African American woman.
So there's there's no, there's no guarantee that someone is
gonna have your, your interest necessarily in mind.
But he was trying to there's a lot of acts hesitancy among
African, African Americans. So he was trying to say, you
know, basically this woman would never give you something that's
going to harm you, you know, So just take the Medina vaccine.
Look, it was invented by a black woman.
It was crazy. Another just one of the many,
many crazy things. I mean, I think nothing tops the
free doughnut thing. That was like nothing tops the
free Krispy Kreme doughnut. But the book is questioning the
COVID company line. Critical thinking in hysterical
times. Check it out at
libertarianinstitute.org. Laurie Calhoun, thank you so
much for writing the book, and thank you for your time.
Thank you for having me. Great talking with you.