0:00

We should totally concede

0:02

this obvious point. I don't know why this is a point that

0:04

has been made by some people that we know

0:06

that we need institutions. We

0:09

need institutions that we can rely on, that

0:11

we can trust. And

0:13

we can't only figure this out through Substacks

0:16

and through this infinite division

0:18

and, you know, all these different branches

0:20

on Substack and podcasts where everyone has

0:22

their hot takes on vaccines and all

0:25

these things. That's a totally

0:27

dysfunctional model, right? To have this

0:29

much division, this many infinite sources of

0:32

information.

0:36

Hey folks, welcome to the Dark Horse

0:38

podcast. I am Dr. Brett Weinstein

0:40

and I have the pleasure of sitting this afternoon with

0:43

Rav Arora, who is an independent

0:45

journalist and he

0:48

is part of the joint partnership called

0:50

Illusion of Consensus on Substack with

0:52

Jay Bhattacharya. Welcome to

0:54

Dark Horse, Rav. Hey

0:57

Brett, it's great to be here.

0:59

Awesome. So you

1:02

and I have been talking informally

1:04

over the course of many

1:07

months on a number of different topics.

1:10

And you

1:13

impressed upon me that some of these topics needed

1:15

a wider exploration, for example, here

1:17

on Dark Horse. So let's talk first

1:20

about how it is that you find yourself in

1:22

journalism and then we'll get to some of the topics that

1:25

you and I find jointly interesting.

1:27

Sure. Sure. So just

1:29

to paint a broad picture, I

1:32

graduated in 2019 and

1:35

didn't know what the fuck I was doing with my life and

1:39

was very creative into writing, into

1:41

reading, into debating and

1:44

looking at things critically. And then BLM

1:46

happened in 2020, the George

1:48

Floyd tragedy. And there I saw

1:51

a big vacuum in mainstream

1:53

media in covering these events, honestly.

1:57

And so I started writing about identity.

1:59

any politics and white

2:01

privilege claims about systemic racism,

2:04

group disparities, and

2:07

particularly police shootings and inner

2:09

city violence. And put out

2:11

a couple of big pieces that I had

2:14

no idea what I was getting into, but it ended up doing

2:16

really, really well. A lot of people saw

2:18

it at the time. A lot

2:20

of people in the formerly intellectual

2:22

dark web kind of circulated in those groups.

2:26

And after being quite

2:28

successful at writing about

2:30

identity politics and criminal justice

2:33

and police violence in particular in the

2:36

New York Post, Colette and the Globe

2:38

and Mail primarily, I just kept

2:40

on going on that path and writing more

2:42

and more, doing podcasts. And

2:45

long- Do you want to just

2:47

summarize for people in the audience

2:49

who may not be familiar with

2:52

that work? What was the

2:54

general tenor of your exploration

2:57

of the social justice

2:59

scene? Yeah, sure. Yeah. I mean,

3:01

and this actually relates to some of the COVID

3:03

stuff is the perception

3:05

on a lot of these hot button topics, like police

3:08

violence, like racial disparities,

3:11

was very different from what was actually

3:14

going on, right? If you pull liberals

3:16

and progressives on how

3:19

many black men are killed as a result of police

3:22

violence, how many black

3:25

men are the victims of police shootings? You

3:27

find that the people

3:29

surveyed in these polls, their estimates

3:32

are 10X, 100X more

3:35

than what the actual number often is. And

3:37

so there's this vast disparity

3:40

in perceptions and reality. And

3:42

that's a very interesting topic to explore

3:44

because you have the media that's

3:46

participating in this kind of gaslighting

3:49

and this exaggeration of

3:52

the statistics and

3:54

mentioning of the statistics would often get

3:56

you canceled or be quite

3:58

controversial. And so.

3:59

And that was kind of an area that I

4:02

was talking about was that what

4:04

the mainstream media is presenting and what politicians

4:07

and liberal activists are saying on this front is

4:09

very different from what's actually going

4:12

on. And as we'll get into with the

4:14

COVID stuff, the only reason why

4:16

I was able to succeed on that front was

4:18

because there was a serious

4:23

problem with how journalism was being conducted.

4:25

And there was a big room

4:28

for someone like myself, a 20 year old nobody to

4:30

come in and say something that a lot of other

4:32

journalists weren't saying. Now, obviously, I wasn't the

4:34

only one. There's guys like Coleman Hughes, who

4:36

I've kind of followed a little bit in their footsteps.

4:39

But there was a clear space to talk

4:41

honestly about these things when you can't

4:44

trust the New York Times the way you could have a few years

4:46

ago on some of these topics. And that directly

4:48

leads into the COVID stuff as well.

4:51

Yes, I did want to point out. I

4:53

think it will be an interesting

4:56

counterpoint to things that may come up

4:59

here later. But

5:01

I thought one of the best explorations

5:04

of this that I encountered in that time was actually

5:06

by Sam Harris, who I'm sure you remember

5:09

the podcast that he did up in which

5:11

he went painstakingly through the statistics

5:13

and compared them to people's

5:16

beliefs and expectations on this topic.

5:20

And it was absolutely stark, the distinction

5:22

between what people thought was going on and

5:24

what's actually going on, which

5:26

then suggests that

5:29

we live in an environment

5:32

in which people's beliefs

5:35

can become paramount above

5:38

and beyond reality. And it can motivate

5:42

social movements, for example, which

5:44

is a frightening prospect. That's exactly the kind of

5:46

thing that you would want reliable

5:49

institutions to prevent by saying,

5:51

as much as we may suspect X,

5:53

the truth is really Y. That's

5:56

an important role to play. And it's interesting

5:58

that many of... Um, the

6:00

institutions you would have expected to play that role

6:03

instead through gasoline on the fire and

6:05

that just simply amplified people's uh,

6:08

people's distortions. Right. And

6:10

interestingly on that example, and I absolutely

6:13

condemn, I condemned Sam at the, or

6:15

commended Sam at the time for what he did.

6:18

And that was excellent. But interestingly on that

6:20

example, like the BLM stuff and police

6:22

violence, the quote unquote expert

6:24

class on that topic was,

6:27

was and is completely wrong. Right. And that, that

6:30

expert class doesn't include Glenn Lowry,

6:32

John McWhorter. We're also very sophisticated

6:34

intellectuals, Thomas Sowell, but

6:36

that expert class of Michael

6:39

Eric Dyson, um, Ibram

6:41

X. Kendi, Ta-Nehisi Coates, um,

6:44

you know, I mean, I mean, take your pick. I mean, go, go to any

6:46

elite college university and things

6:49

like white privilege, systemic racism, there

6:51

being an epidemic of police violence is in

6:54

their sociology journals. It's, it's

6:56

absolutely institutionalized as these

6:59

kinds of sacred truths on race that someone

7:01

like Sam at the time and myself and others were

7:04

questioning and saying, Hey, these chosen

7:06

gurus on race and slavery

7:09

and the legacy of racism. These

7:11

guys are wrong. And that, and that's respectable

7:14

when you look at what the experts

7:16

are saying and recognize that they're wrong. And

7:18

here's actually what's, what's, what's really going on. And

7:20

the bravery and courage that comes with questioning

7:23

the experts on a given topic. Yeah.

7:27

It's a, it's a pattern that,

7:31

uh, I think we can see readily

7:33

across many topics at the moment, but it's

7:36

really that there are two

7:38

kinds of experts. There are anointed

7:41

experts and then there are off

7:43

label experts. And

7:46

the off label experts are obviously

7:48

going to be mixed in some

7:50

sense. They're going to have a diversity of

7:53

opinions. Some of them may be not so great, but

7:56

the interesting feature of the

7:58

present as we experience it. is that

8:00

the anointed experts seem to be wrong about

8:02

everything. It's

8:05

the most remarkable fact there is and so

8:07

you know you named a good list of people

8:10

who were quite insightful on this topic as

8:12

it was happening but you

8:15

know somehow it's

8:17

like they don't reflect in the mirror. Our

8:20

first sponsor for this episode is the Wellness

8:22

Company. World-renowned experts like

8:24

Dr. Peter McCullough have partnered with the Wellness Company

8:26

to create real change in health care. They

8:29

offer a wide variety of supplements and services

8:31

including telehealth and emergency medical

8:33

kits containing ivermectin and

8:36

teams of medical professionals that can assist in helping

8:38

patients kick the pharmaceutical habit with their Freedom

8:40

from Pharma program. The

8:43

Wellness Company has all sorts of useful

8:45

and important products. Try their

8:47

MitoSupport as in mitochondria which

8:49

is formulated to provide energy both physical

8:51

and mental. They also have

8:54

SpikeSupport formula which is their most popular

8:56

product. It is not only useful for those

8:58

who have been vaccinated but for

9:00

anyone who may be suffering from long COVID as

9:02

well. As the Wellness Company says on

9:04

their website if you're looking to get back to that pre-COVID

9:07

feeling their SpikeSupport formula can

9:09

help. SpikeSupport

9:11

is made with a combination of natural ingredients

9:14

like natokinase, dandelion root extract,

9:16

selenium, black sativa extract, Irish

9:19

sea moss and green tea extract. These

9:21

ingredients all contain immune boosting capabilities

9:24

and the natokinase specifically has been used

9:26

by the Japanese for decades because of its ability

9:29

to dissolve blood clots. But more recently

9:31

natokinase has been shown to be able to break down

9:34

spike protein in the bloodstream and even block

9:36

them from binding to cells. Dr.

9:39

McCullough says out of all the available

9:41

therapies I've used in my practice and

9:43

among all the proposed detoxification

9:45

agents I believe natokinase and related

9:48

peptides hold the greatest promise for patients. Whether

9:51

you've taken the vaccine or just had

9:53

COVID, if you're concerned about circulating

9:55

spike proteins go to

9:58

TWC.health and

10:01

use the code darkhorse to save 15% off your first order.

10:05

That's TWC.health

10:08

slash darkhorse code darkhorse to save 15%.

10:14

Our second sponsor is Paleo Valley.

10:17

Paleo Valley makes a huge range of products from

10:19

supplements like fish roe and organ complex,

10:21

grass fed bone broth protein and superfood

10:24

bars. Everything we've tried from them has

10:26

been terrific, including their golden milk, which

10:28

is made with tons of turmeric, but we're

10:30

going to talk today about beef sticks. The

10:33

beef in these delicious snacks comes from small American

10:36

owned farms that practice rotational grazing.

10:38

Paleo Valley's beef sticks are 100% grass

10:41

fed and finished, entirely organic and

10:43

naturally fermented. 100% grass

10:46

fed beef is more nutritious than grain fed beef

10:48

in many ways, including that it contains more calcium,

10:51

magnesium, potassium, zinc, phosphorus,

10:54

beta carotene and iron. It's

10:56

also delicious. If

10:58

you're thinking that Paleo Valley's beef sticks are like Slim

11:00

Jims, you're wrong. For one thing,

11:03

unlike Slim Jims, Paleo Valley beef

11:05

sticks contain no mechanically separated chicken

11:07

parts. For another, Paleo

11:09

Valley's beef sticks are actually good for you. Ingredients

11:12

hiding in most beef sticks and turkey

11:14

include MSG, hormones, hydrogenated

11:16

oils, and brominated vegetable

11:19

oil, which if you're wondering, was first

11:21

patented as a flame retardant. It's now

11:23

in a lot of food, but you won't find it if

11:25

you buy Paleo Valley. Furthermore,

11:28

unlike other meat snacks, Paleo Valley

11:31

uses natural fermentation to preserve its beef

11:33

sticks. This gives the beef sticks a

11:35

long shelf life without the use of harmful acids

11:37

and chemicals, and with the added benefit of

11:39

contributing to a healthy gut. Paleo

11:42

Valley beef sticks are also keto

11:45

friendly, and make a great protein rich

11:47

snack to grab when you are on the go, like

11:50

running out the door for a meeting

11:52

or going on a bike ride. Paleo

11:54

Valley doesn't cut corners, either. They source

11:56

only the highest quality ingredients and are passionate

11:59

not only about human. health, but also

12:01

about environmental restoration and animal

12:03

welfare as well. They are a

12:05

family-owned company. Try Paleo

12:07

Valley's beef sticks today. You won't be sorry.

12:10

Head over to paleovalley.com

12:12

slash dark horse for 15% off your

12:15

first order. Right,

12:18

the only experts who that make a difference are the ones

12:20

that have been almost

12:23

ordained in some sacred order in

12:25

which they are allowed to hold

12:27

forth on a topic because we know what they're

12:30

gonna say. They're gonna say exactly what is necessary

12:32

to reinforce a suspicion

12:35

the public has that may be dead wrong. Right,

12:39

and there's different ways to get into the COVID

12:41

stuff, but on that front,

12:43

I think it's important to say when it came to

12:46

expertise with BLM,

12:49

the way in which that was conducted, and now with

12:52

COVID, there's been I think

12:54

a big mistake among

12:57

many people in podcast

13:00

stand and media, alternative,

13:02

conservative, like it doesn't matter which political

13:05

affiliation, but there's been a big mistake on

13:07

the part of the public in thinking that

13:10

the experts

13:11

in the relevant areas in epidemiology

13:14

and immunology agree on

13:16

the fundamental points. Right, that

13:19

I think was a big big mistake. I mean you have a big

13:21

spectrum of experts, Peter Hotez,

13:24

Eric Topol, Nikos Christakis, Martin

13:26

Koldorf, Tracy Bethoge, Vinay Prashad,

13:28

Jay Bhattacharya, and then you can go on Robert

13:31

Malone, Peter McCullough, etc.

13:33

You have this interesting range and

13:36

even if you want to put aside Malone,

13:38

McCullough, we can talk about them, but even if you want to put them

13:40

aside and you only want to pick

13:43

experts at Stanford and Harvard and

13:45

our elite universities, so you end

13:48

up with Jay, Martin, Marty McCarry from Hopkins,

13:50

Tracy Bethoge, Dr. Laudipoe

13:52

from Harvard who's now Florida

13:55

Surgeon General. It's like those guys and

13:57

Eric Topol, Peter Hotez,

14:00

Nicholas Christakis, many people who understandably,

14:02

I would have also defaulted

14:05

to potentially at the very, very start, like Eric Topol,

14:08

rock solid credentials, Nicholas Christakis,

14:11

great respect for him before the pandemic and

14:13

at the start. But those guys

14:15

completely disagreed with this

14:17

other set of experts on the most fundamental

14:19

questions on lockdowns, on

14:21

vaccine mandates, on vaccine

14:24

safety. If you got those people

14:26

together in the room, you would find what

14:28

Dr. J. Bhattacharya has to say, or Martin

14:30

Koldorf has to say, and Martin is

14:32

one of the foremost experts on vaccine safety.

14:35

I mean, if you really want to play the expert game, there

14:37

are some people who are trained in vaccine safety.

14:40

I put Martin as one of the highest people

14:42

in that group. They took a very

14:44

different line than Dr. Eric Topol did

14:47

in terms of what's really going on with

14:49

vaccine injuries. And we can talk about specifics

14:51

of that. But I think that's been a fundamental error,

14:54

is grouping, well, the experts

14:56

say this on vaccine. The experts say this

14:58

on lockdown. It's like, which experts? The

15:02

anointed ones. And that's really the point,

15:04

is that you will be anointed if you say things that

15:06

are not discordant and you

15:08

will be sidelined and worse,

15:11

you will be stigmatized as a, what

15:13

was the term with J, a fringe epidemiologist.

15:18

It doesn't matter what your credential is. That's

15:20

the most remarkable feature of all, is that many

15:22

of the people who were stigmatized

15:25

as fringe quacks

15:28

are actually at the top of their fields.

15:31

These are leaders, the most insightful

15:33

folks. And the point is nobody is immune

15:35

from those stigmas in the

15:37

effort to create, well,

15:40

as your

15:42

sub-stack alludes to the

15:45

illusion of consensus. And that's really

15:47

what it is, is if you're not on message,

15:50

you will in one way or another,

15:53

you will be sidelined. And that will leave the impression

15:55

that there is broad agreement. something

16:00

was true. So it results in the

16:02

public that doesn't know how this game

16:04

is working, concluding quite

16:06

incorrectly that there is not a diversity

16:09

of opinion amongst people who know what

16:11

they're talking about. Yeah,

16:13

and this goes right back to the start of the pandemic, right?

16:16

Like, how deadly is COVID? Who's really

16:18

at risk? The people

16:20

that were chosen by the Atlantic, the New York

16:22

Times, etc. were

16:26

of a certain type who were saying things like,

16:29

I mean, even down to just 1% of people are

16:31

dying of COVID. And that was something Dr.

16:33

Nicholas Christakis was saying on Sam Harris's

16:35

podcast as late as late 2021,

16:38

I believe. That was wrong. That was wrong

16:40

in like summer of 2020.

16:43

That was wrong in 2021.

16:45

And again, if you want to play the expert game, someone

16:48

like Dr. J. Bhattacharya and Dr.

16:50

John Yannides, one of the most credentialed

16:52

sighted people, Dr. John Yannides, who was

16:55

doing the surveys and analyses

16:57

on infection fatality rate. And Dr.

17:00

J. and John at Stanford were authoring

17:02

these studies at the very, very start, and finding that,

17:04

oh, the number of people that are actually infected with

17:07

COVID is far bigger than what we thought.

17:09

Therefore, the denominator

17:13

of total people infected is far, far

17:15

bigger. Therefore, the fatality rate

17:17

is far, far lower than what we thought. So

17:19

it wasn't 1%, it wasn't 2%. They

17:21

found, I believe early on, 0.2%, 0.1% with a very sharp

17:24

age gradient with very few, like almost not

17:32

impossible, but very, very difficult to find cases under 30

17:35

with no comorbidities or, you

17:37

know, even older people with no comorbidities. And

17:40

those people were demonized from the very,

17:42

very start for doing that research. Whereas

17:45

other people were looking at other metrics

17:48

and studies that didn't take a proper account

17:50

of how many people were actually infected with COVID.

17:52

And therefore you have people, you

17:55

know, like Sam Harris reading the

17:57

New York Times, trusting Nicholas Christakis and hearing,

18:00

Oh, what did 100 people are dying of COVID?

18:03

Oh, shit, holy crap. What? 1% of people?

18:05

It's like, no, no, no, that's not actually the reality.

18:07

It's actually far, far lower than that.

18:10

And years after the fact, it

18:13

is now clear that a,

18:16

there was a systematic statistical

18:19

attempt to increase the impression

18:21

of lethality in the virus

18:24

that basically counting people who died with

18:26

COVID, but not of COVID,

18:28

or even counting people who didn't have COVID

18:30

at all as COVID deaths was

18:33

a mechanism to create this

18:35

fear, which caused us to overreact.

18:38

It's really like the bee sting that doesn't

18:40

kill you, but the overreaction

18:42

of your immune system to it does. But

18:45

beyond that, there is also the

18:47

jaw dropping fact of the

18:50

protocols that were deployed

18:53

for those who were in dire need of

18:56

help because they had severe COVID.

18:59

Seems to have killed an awful lot of people also

19:02

creating the impression that this was a much deadlier

19:04

disease than it actually turned out to be. So,

19:08

I do not know with

19:11

any certainty how to read that, but

19:13

one possible read is that

19:16

something wanted us terrified

19:18

so that we would allow a much

19:21

more aggressive response to this

19:23

than we should have, that we made COVID

19:26

vastly more destructive in

19:28

ways that are both direct by giving

19:31

bad medical advice as

19:33

to what to do if you contracted COVID,

19:36

but also lots of collateral

19:38

damage from the shutting down of

19:40

civilization, from

19:43

the breaking of normal developmental

19:46

patterns in children, the causing

19:50

people to stay indoors where

19:52

the virus does spread rather than go outdoors

19:55

where it doesn't spread and where they would make vitamin D,

19:57

which would make them safer, make them less

19:59

likely to contribute. And more like could have survived it

20:01

if they did contract it. So we did everything

20:04

wrong and it's possible that that

20:06

was just the most mind-blowing

20:10

series of incompetent decisions

20:12

the universe has ever seen Where it's

20:14

possible that actually something wanted

20:17

this to be worse than it actually was because

20:19

it had an ulterior motive I I

20:21

still don't know to this day, but it's

20:23

hard for me to believe incompetence could have gotten us

20:25

here And I guess the last thing

20:28

I would say on that is mention a list of people Who

20:31

were heterodox when it came to social justice?

20:34

Yeah Who then fumbled the ball with

20:36

respect to cove it and I find that

20:39

a fascinating pattern people who were perfectly

20:41

capable of standing up? To a false

20:43

consensus. Yeah, just in the case of

20:45

cove it absolutely fell in line and got

20:47

it all wrong. Yes. Yeah Yeah,

20:52

there's a lot to be said there I mean It's

20:55

you know I'm inclined

20:57

to just Default to

20:59

incompetence a lot of times

21:02

But the problem is a lot of mistakes

21:04

can't logically be chalked down

21:06

to just incompetence, right? You

21:08

have January 2021

21:11

Rachelle Walensky emailing I

21:13

believe I'm

21:16

forgetting who else is in this email head

21:18

of the NIH at the

21:20

time Collins

21:23

yeah, I believe Collins in the email. I think she might have

21:25

been the email anyway She brought this

21:27

email and said oh, we're hearing about breakthrough

21:29

cases. Can you please tell us more about this? We're

21:31

realizing a lot of people who Got

21:34

the vaccine are still getting kovat, right

21:36

yet five six months later MSNBC

21:40

on CDC press releases saying you

21:42

get the vaccine and You

21:45

become a dead end to the virus. It's like you

21:47

knew there was an issue there right same thing

21:49

with myocarditis, right in I

21:52

want to say March or April of 2021 Same

21:55

official CDC. Rochelle Walensky says we've

21:58

looked at millions of cases of

22:01

vaccine administration and this concern

22:04

of myocarditis, we've looked at it carefully, and

22:06

we haven't found a serious statistically

22:09

significant risk on that front. Later

22:11

on, they backtrack and say, oh, well, actually there is

22:13

a concern, but the risk

22:15

of COVID outweighs myocarditis,

22:18

which is honestly so,

22:20

so wrong on a number of different levels, and we can talk

22:22

about that. But repeatedly there have been

22:25

errors made where it's like, you knew you could do

22:27

better. You knew the facts, and

22:30

yet you still openly misled the

22:33

public on what was really

22:36

going on. I mean, again, so many, so many examples

22:38

on vaccine safety, on pregnant

22:40

women should be getting this, six months old should

22:43

be getting this, it's safe and effective when we

22:45

neither know about safety nor long-term effectiveness.

22:49

There wasn't even an approach that many European

22:51

countries took of let's really

22:54

focus on high-risk groups and

22:56

arguably give it to them where

22:58

we see most amount of benefit.

23:01

Everyone else, here's what we

23:03

know, here's what we don't know. The

23:06

initial trials say that the

23:08

COVID vaccines reduce symptomatic

23:10

infection for the first few months. We

23:12

don't know about long-term, we didn't test mortality,

23:15

so we can't really tell long-term

23:18

on severe COVID, although there was some data

23:20

afterwards that seemed to have suggested

23:22

that. But we don't know about safety. We're

23:25

not really sure. And this

23:27

actually goes, we can kind of segue into

23:30

some of the recent news of people recently

23:33

who kind of bought this

23:35

mainstream information on COVID, uncritically

23:38

and understandably fell

23:40

victim to some of the stuff and now have recently

23:42

come out and said, oh, that was a

23:45

mistake. There's a number of examples,

23:47

a lot of people know about this. Megan

23:49

Kelly recently saying she went to her doctor

23:52

and got tested positive for

23:55

some kind of autoimmune issue. Now

23:57

she was vague about it, so I don't know what the details are. But

24:00

she asked her doctor about could

24:02

this be related to the vaccine because there is certainly

24:06

a link between the mRNA

24:08

vaccines and certain autoimmune

24:11

conditions. And the doctor

24:13

said something like, yes, it could definitely

24:15

be possible. A lot of people with the vaccine

24:17

have been getting this. Now, obviously, we don't know for

24:19

sure. It could be totally unrelated. But,

24:23

you know, Megan said at the time in this recent

24:25

interview that she basically regrets getting

24:27

the vaccine at the time and not

24:29

making a smarter decision. Same

24:32

thing with Vivek Ramasamy, a

24:34

Republican candidate for

24:36

the presidency, talking about how

24:39

he got the first two shots

24:42

and regrets taking it in light of what we

24:44

know about the myocarditis

24:46

risk, which is concentrated in younger males.

24:49

And he happens to be, I believe, in his late

24:51

30s. And then

24:53

Elon Musk recently saying that his

24:55

third booster shot almost landed him in the

24:57

hospital. Right. And I believe he's

24:59

also talked, Elon, about how

25:02

I believe some family

25:04

relative, their son, who I

25:06

believe is an adolescent male, got

25:09

myocarditis after the vaccine. Tons

25:11

and tons of these stories. And then this relates

25:13

to, I'll just say one last thing, to

25:16

a recent piece that I did with Dr. Anish

25:18

Koka in Philadelphia. He runs

25:21

a leading cardiology clinic and his

25:23

clinic administered the mRNA vaccines

25:26

in big numbers, mostly to

25:28

elderly people, mostly

25:30

people over 65, but

25:33

some people under the age of 20 and 30, some

25:36

younger people involved. And

25:38

I spoke to him and he's been very honest

25:40

on this topic. He himself is double

25:43

vaccine boosted as well as his wife. And

25:45

one of his daughters, I believe, is immunocompromised. So

25:47

he was very worried about COVID. Not

25:49

at all a conspiracy theorist, very reasonable,

25:51

smart guy, pro vaccine, generally. He

25:54

told me upfront, he said, in light of

25:57

all this information that's come out on the... myocarditis

26:00

front, I regret, I

26:03

seriously regret giving this vaccine,

26:06

especially to younger people and violating

26:09

their informed consent when at that time

26:13

we did not know about safety and efficacy

26:15

the way we know certain things now, right? At

26:17

that time I was wrong to give this out knowing

26:19

that these people were at very low risk,

26:22

you know, may not have had comorbidities or

26:24

were immunocompromised and I gave it to them without

26:27

being absolutely certain about the safety

26:29

profile and that to me

26:31

is a level of honesty, whether it's Megyn Kelly, Elon,

26:34

Vivek, but this in particular, Dr.

26:36

Anish Koka saying that he

26:38

would have done differently if he could, you know, change

26:41

his decision now, that is

26:43

what you call epistemic humility, right? I

26:45

was wrong at the time and now my views

26:47

have changed and now I'm going to look at the world differently,

26:50

here is how my narrative has changed, here is how

26:52

the system in which I use to understand

26:56

reality and analyze data has

26:58

changed and I'm a human, I get

27:00

things wrong, we all get things wrong, so here's how

27:02

I'm going to act differently. Not this other,

27:05

frankly, bullshit of like, oh, at

27:07

that time I was actually right because

27:10

that's what the data said, now things have changed,

27:13

but I was right at the time and I was right and I was appropriately

27:15

worried along every step of the way because

27:17

that's what the FDA and the CDC

27:20

and Eric Toble were saying, therefore,

27:22

I was right at the time. It's like, no, no, oh, and

27:24

up to at that time, you being wrong about

27:27

some very serious things and that's okay to

27:29

be wrong because we're humans and we get things

27:31

wrong all the time. Wrong

27:34

and one of the things that they were wrong about

27:37

was the reliability of the

27:39

messaging that was supposedly derived

27:41

from the data, which we now know it

27:43

was wrong because we have better information,

27:46

but the

27:50

Megan Kelly situation is interesting

27:55

for me. You probably do not know,

27:57

but I remember vividly that Megan Kelly

27:59

had a very good time. me on her show. She took

28:02

me to task for a tweet

28:05

that I had made and I had already corrected

28:08

it. I had deleted it, reposted

28:10

it, and explained that I had made

28:12

an error in my tweet but that

28:15

the theme of the tweet was still one that I believed

28:17

in. My claim in the tweet

28:20

was that virtually everybody that I had talked

28:22

to who had gotten the vaccines

28:26

had a story to tell about a reaction and that

28:28

a lot of this was frightening.

28:31

It turned out there were a few people that I had forgotten

28:33

that I had talked to so it wasn't quite as extreme

28:35

as I had said but nonetheless

28:38

I did have an incredible number of conversations

28:41

with people who did not volunteer that

28:43

they had had a adverse reaction

28:47

until I asked them at which point I

28:49

found out. So my point had been you have

28:52

to ask in order to know how common these adverse

28:54

reactions are and when you do you'll find out they're very

28:56

very common. In any case, Megyn

28:59

Kelly gave me a hard time over this.

29:02

I thought she was fair about it but it

29:05

was a difficult interview and then

29:07

there's a question about well how much of a

29:09

coincidence is it that years down

29:12

the road she herself is now

29:14

reporting a severe adverse event

29:17

and I can't, you know,

29:19

obviously any individual case could be a coincidence

29:21

but the fact is I also, other people that I have

29:23

tangled with over the safety

29:26

of these vaccines also have people

29:28

in their immediate circle who have had very

29:30

serious adverse events and

29:33

so in any case the

29:35

real point is the number of adverse events here

29:38

is truly staggering. It

29:40

is truly staggering such that if

29:43

we look around our circle and evaluate

29:46

honestly it is touching

29:48

all of us. Yeah,

29:50

yeah there's a lot I have to say about this because so

29:52

this leads to and we should close the loop on how

29:55

you know I got into this on the COVID front. So

30:02

2021 vaccine mandates start getting pushed

30:05

in my province, BC, and federally in Canada.

30:08

Start seeing this in the US as well. Basically

30:11

mandates of, I

30:13

couldn't exercise at a gym, couldn't leave the country,

30:16

couldn't get on an airplane or

30:19

train or weddings, large gatherings,

30:21

a number of different places for not

30:23

getting the vaccine. Me

30:26

at the time, I was completely

30:29

going in with a blank slate as much as possible on

30:32

the stuff and being like, okay, what's

30:35

the risk? What's the benefit? One

30:39

of the first people I spoke to was Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, which

30:41

eventually led to our collaboration on Substack

30:44

now. But he was one of the first people I spoke

30:46

to because in attempts

30:48

to try to make sense of what was going on, just on the

30:50

raw data, hearing about the

30:52

risk of myocarditis first being reported in

30:54

Israel and then by the US

30:57

military, I was very concerned

30:59

about that particular risk and how high

31:01

it was and who it's affecting. And

31:03

when I spoke to Jay, when I had all these concerns,

31:06

he was able to validate them and say, yeah, these

31:09

are real concerns. And unfortunately, the

31:11

CDC and the FDA and Health Canada

31:13

and Biden and the

31:15

US Surgeon General are not actually

31:17

taking this seriously. There is something

31:20

here that needs to be taken

31:22

seriously, but these experts are not talking

31:25

about it in an honest way. And

31:27

so that right away was like, okay,

31:30

that doesn't make sense. Why am I being mandated

31:32

to take a shot where there's an unknown

31:35

slash unclear slash concerning

31:39

risk of myocarditis that at that point

31:41

was not really defined, not properly

31:43

stratified, but we had

31:46

some rough indication of what was going on. And

31:49

then at that point, I just

31:52

started kind of looking around and just started

31:54

hearing about serious adverse events

31:58

of a young boy. a

32:01

couple of young males in my city, as

32:03

well as one individual in

32:05

particular who I later interviewed on

32:08

the sub-stack, people can go check it out on

32:10

the illusion of consensus, a 38-year-old law enforcement

32:13

member. It's kind of a long story, but

32:16

the short of it is he was mandated to take the vaccine

32:18

as someone working in a federally regulated

32:21

industry, law enforcement, the RCMP,

32:24

and got his first shot,

32:26

had some chest complaints that

32:29

eventually went away, got his second

32:31

Pfizer shot, and had

32:33

this excruciating chest pain

32:36

a few days afterwards, was in Victoria

32:38

at the time, Victoria, BC, and

32:40

he thought that it might have been

32:42

a virus or something he ate, and then his girlfriend

32:45

forced him to call the ambulance. The ambulance came,

32:48

his heart rate was something crazy, like 180, 190, maybe 200,

32:54

really high number, and got sent

32:56

to the hospital right away, and the cardiologist right

32:59

away said, this is from the vaccine. And

33:01

that's, from what he said, is kind of

33:04

a rare thing because other people that he had

33:06

heard about, this law enforcement member,

33:08

happened, he himself happened to hear

33:10

about a couple of other cases where

33:13

people had gotten myocarditis right

33:15

after the vaccine a few days or weeks, and

33:17

their cardiologist refused to say

33:20

that this was from the vaccine. Yet, in this particular

33:22

hospital, it appears that this individual

33:25

lucked out because the Victoria

33:27

Hospital has a specialized cardiology

33:29

unit, so they were able to take care of him right away, and they had

33:31

the relevant specific experts to look

33:33

after it. But fast forward

33:35

to six months to a year later, he's still

33:39

ailing from this condition, not fully recovered,

33:41

hasn't gone back to his job for

33:44

months, couldn't exercise, couldn't go to a gym,

33:46

he was a very healthy guy. And that, so

33:49

hearing about stories like that, and then

33:51

writing about it, for me, it was like,

33:55

kind of a bit of an awakening, like, oh, people

33:58

are being actually harmed by these shots. And

34:01

why am I hearing about it so much? Am I just an

34:03

unlucky person or just is this some

34:06

weird coincidence where I just happen to hear of these? I

34:08

mean, that's possible. It could be... I

34:10

wondered the same thing. Am I

34:13

the only one? And then I started looking around asking

34:15

other people, and then this

34:17

relates to some other stuff too. I

34:20

was also hearing about the menstrual irregularities,

34:22

right? Virtually all of these

34:25

sort of young

34:27

women in my circles from friends and family

34:29

members and relatives, I would

34:32

say the vast majority of them that I knew about. And

34:34

I started asking around awkwardly like, hey,

34:37

is this a thing? Or what's going on? And they're like, oh,

34:39

yeah, yeah. This happened to me. I had serious

34:42

vaginal bleeding and menstrual irregularities.

34:44

I remember tweeting about this like, I'm hearing a

34:46

lot about this. What's going on here? And

34:49

people left and right were saying this is completely

34:51

unsupported. There's no data. This is conspiracy theory. And

34:53

then I remember at the time, my

34:55

friend, Ricky Schlott, who has

34:58

a book coming out with Greg Wuchianoff, she

35:00

writes for the New York Post, she went... She came

35:02

to my defense on Twitter and said, hey, guys,

35:04

stop piling on RAV. This actually happened to me. And

35:07

I'm at the time 20, 20, 20 or 21

35:10

and saying this happened to

35:12

me and lots of my female friends. We experienced

35:14

severe menstrual irregularities and

35:17

public health has not acknowledged us and

35:19

we're concerned about what's going on here. And

35:22

so the totality of all of these

35:24

anecdotes for me was

35:26

enough to push... for me was

35:28

enough to take a serious look at the

35:31

facts and the data and to be very,

35:33

very suspicious and skeptical of

35:36

what public health was saying. Even

35:38

as previously someone who got all the vaccines,

35:41

someone as recent as senior year of high

35:43

school, which wasn't that long

35:45

ago, it was 2019. The

35:48

school said that we have the flu shot coming in.

35:50

The nurses are downstairs. You can go and get it. And

35:52

I just gave a quick call to my mom.

35:54

Hey, the flu shots available. Can I take it? She's like,

35:56

yeah, go for it. I was like, great. Didn't think

35:58

about it once. my flute, like I've

36:00

always been very pro-vaccine, never been

36:02

skeptical in any of this stuff, but suddenly this

36:05

totality of, not

36:07

a totality, but this initial exposure

36:10

to these deeply troubling anecdotes

36:14

pushed me in this direction of investigating this

36:16

further. Yeah, I mean,

36:18

I have a parallel story. I

36:21

was a very strong believer

36:24

in the utility of vaccines. I

36:26

was never a believer that they were inherently

36:28

safe. It's a preposterous thing to imagine,

36:31

but I was not nearly skeptical enough of

36:34

the safety profile of

36:36

vaccines until COVID happened

36:39

and the lies here were

36:41

just too blatant to ignore.

36:45

And I would also point out that all of the

36:47

things you're describing, all of these young people

36:50

who were given these vaccines, that was all

36:53

predicated on the idea

36:55

that we were trying to reach

36:58

herd immunity and

37:01

that it was therefore necessary to vaccinate everyone,

37:03

which is why ostensibly they did

37:05

not age stratify the recommendations.

37:09

But the problem is they apparently knew

37:12

that at best they'd had no evidence

37:14

that these things stop transmission, which of course they

37:16

don't. And at worst

37:18

they knew and pretended that it stopped

37:21

transmission, hence the claim that the virus

37:23

stops with you, et cetera, which you mentioned earlier.

37:26

They only had evidence for the first couple of months

37:29

that transmission reduced significantly. It

37:32

certainly was no basis to think

37:35

you could control this virus

37:37

by getting full

37:40

penetration with these vaccines. So

37:44

the idea that in light of that, the

37:46

unknowns were not sufficient for

37:49

us to keep these vaccines from

37:51

being inflicted on people who

37:54

faced very little risk from the disease itself

37:57

is a monstrous

38:00

oversight to say the least, as you pointed out earlier

38:02

in our discussion, the people who

38:04

suffer from the vaccine injuries are

38:07

different from the people who suffer

38:09

from the viral

38:12

injuries. And therefore, to

38:14

the extent that there was any argument at all for

38:17

these vaccines, it could have been limited to people

38:19

who stood in principle to gain something.

38:22

And it did not need to be given to people who

38:24

could have faced COVID,

38:26

gotten a much more robust immunity from

38:29

their infection, and not faced the

38:32

risk of serious adverse event.

38:35

That would have been the obvious way to handle it. And there's

38:38

something unholy

38:40

about what appears to

38:43

be an insatiable

38:45

desire to inject

38:48

the maximum number of doses of,

38:50

especially mRNA vaccines, possible,

38:53

irrespective of any medical or epidemiological

38:56

justification.

38:59

I should go back to the journalistic

39:03

journey that I've been on. So, started

39:07

hearing about these cases, and I

39:09

wanted to write about these in many of the places

39:12

I was writing for. And I've deliberately not named

39:14

any editors or any publications where

39:16

this is going on. I don't want to get

39:18

into any big wars with legacy

39:20

media outlets or anything, or even alternative outlets.

39:23

But I tried to publish on this front.

39:25

And long story short, I couldn't.

39:28

The message I explicitly was given was

39:30

that we are a pro-vaccine publication.

39:32

We're not going to publish this. Our

39:35

paper encourages vaccinations. We

39:37

don't want to promote vaccine hesitancy.

39:40

We don't think this is conducive

39:43

to the public discourse, to

39:45

the epidemiological research,

39:48

even though a lot of these articles featured people

39:51

like Dr. J. Bhattacharya and Vanay Prashad,

39:54

Martin Koldorf, other people. And that,

39:56

to me, was just another Um,

40:01

shock was like, okay, so here's

40:03

a problem and I want to write about it, but

40:07

there's another problem here that the institutions

40:10

don't want us to talk about this. Honestly,

40:12

the institutions that again,

40:14

I'm being vague here, but previously allowed

40:16

dissent on the social justice stuff.

40:19

And when we know some of those institutions, we know some of those

40:21

people personally. Um, but

40:25

these places allow dissent on this stuff, but

40:28

not here. And there's been some recent things

40:30

that I've uncovered actually. I'm going to go into

40:32

that briefly of actually

40:35

I've found out recently that, um,

40:37

I don't know if you know about this Brett. Um, I'm

40:40

curious what your thoughts would be on this, but places

40:42

like the New York Times, the New York Post, uh,

40:45

Washington Post, many other mainstream

40:48

publications were actually paid by the

40:50

federal government to promote the COVID vaccines.

40:54

They were paid explicitly paid. You

40:56

have to, here's an advertisement from the CDC and the FDA

40:59

why vaccines are beneficial for kids

41:01

and adults and here's why you should get it. So

41:04

isn't that a serious conflict of interest that we

41:06

should be talking about? Like can we really rely

41:09

on the Atlantic and the New York Times for coverage

41:12

on vaccine injuries when those same places are

41:14

being paid by the government

41:16

who are, you know, have deals with Pfizer and

41:18

Moderna and all these

41:21

complex networks between the FDA

41:23

and pharmaceutical companies to promote these products.

41:26

That's fascinating.

41:28

I mean, several things you've said are fascinating. The idea

41:30

that

41:31

that publications are being paid to

41:34

advocate for vaccines, which

41:36

made it impossible for them to do journalism.

41:40

Um, the statement, we are a

41:42

pro vaccine publication.

41:45

What could that possibly mean? This

41:48

goes back to my point about whatever

41:50

you think about vaccines and then, you know, until,

41:54

um, 2021, I thought vaccines, uh,

41:58

were among the greatest medical. successes

42:01

in history. I

42:04

now question that based on a great

42:07

deal more evidence than I had at the time. But

42:11

there is no argument that they are

42:14

inherently safe because there have been numerous examples

42:16

where vaccines have turned out to be

42:18

very dangerous. And therefore, the idea that

42:21

a publication would express a

42:24

general stance

42:27

on vaccines, thereby making it impossible

42:29

for them to call into question a bad vaccine

42:31

or call into question the process that leaves a bad

42:33

vaccine on the market. That's

42:36

a shocking declaration

42:38

of allegiance with no scientific

42:42

justification whatsoever. So

42:45

yeah, what you're talking about the paying of

42:47

publications to embrace

42:50

a particular vaccine, especially one

42:52

about which almost nothing is known because it's brand

42:55

new. That is

42:57

I'm groping

43:03

for the example, you know, the only thing I

43:05

come up with is the payola scandal. But in the

43:07

payola scandal, it

43:09

was music that was artificially

43:12

being hyped, the danger of which is much less

43:14

than, you know, a

43:17

pseudo uridine stabilized

43:19

lipid nanoparticle, coded

43:22

mRNA and coding cytotoxic

43:24

protein, right? That's a recipe

43:26

for disaster and to pay publications

43:30

to shill for it is a shocking

43:32

breach of the public trust to say the very

43:35

least. Yeah. Yeah.

43:37

So that that

43:39

response I was getting from publications was

43:42

quite shocking and quite disorienting

43:46

and led to

43:48

my migration on Substack, which I had

43:50

no interest in doing. I know at

43:52

some point, Clyde Raspen from Substack, who's

43:54

fantastic. I think you're in touch with him as well. He's

43:57

great. He I think he reached out to me and

43:59

we were talking. about getting me on Substack and I was like,

44:01

no, hell no. I don't want Substack

44:04

because I like having someone

44:06

to edit my work and to fact

44:08

check and to go through this process. And I like having

44:11

someone for accountability. Like I generally like

44:13

collaboration and being in an institution,

44:15

to be honest. Um, you know, they

44:17

say too much freedom equals tyranny. Like

44:19

you want some sort of guidelines and regulations

44:21

and people to keep you accountable. But

44:24

I was left with no choice, Brett. I

44:26

had to go to Substack because the message

44:28

I was getting was we're not going to publish this

44:31

work. Um, but

44:33

you know, in 10 cases, it was like, feel

44:35

free to keep sending us stories about cancel culture and

44:38

identity politics. Like it's just like, well,

44:41

those are serious topics and I'll talk about them anytime.

44:43

And I'm happy to, but this idea that

44:46

I'm only going to just endlessly write about

44:48

cancellations at universities and the next

44:51

social justice fad, it's like, this

44:53

is a really serious issue and I want to write about it. And

44:56

it led to many, many months of frustration and

44:58

lost income and just, I

45:00

mean, I, I look back on that and I have so

45:02

much gratitude for where I'm at right

45:04

now with this project with Jay

45:07

and, and, and having the kind of platform

45:09

that's growing that I do right now, because there

45:11

were many, many months where I was like, fuck,

45:14

I can't write at these, these places that I wanted

45:16

to. Um, and now I have to go

45:18

independent and I had a very small audience, but thankfully,

45:21

you know, some people have been, you know, kind to me

45:24

and promoting things, you know, Jordan Peterson,

45:26

Joe Rogan and amplifying certain things.

45:28

And so that that's been kind of the journey

45:30

over the past year, a couple

45:32

of years has been going on sub stack

45:35

and writing about issues like vaccine

45:37

myocarditis side effects mandates

45:40

where again, it's like

45:42

you, you know, these

45:44

topics, if you had told me Brett three

45:47

years ago or even two years ago, or it

45:49

was 2021 in the summer when the mandates

45:51

were introduced. So if you told me

45:53

a bit more than two years ago, Rav, you'll

45:55

be primarily writing about myocarditis,

45:59

a word I've been. probably didn't even hear about until 2021,

46:01

to be honest. And vaccines, it

46:04

was a pretty rare condition. Well, yeah.

46:06

Yeah. And so I had no interest

46:09

in vaccines. I stayed away

46:11

from like I took science courses in high school, but

46:13

I wasn't very good at them, to be honest, physics. I

46:16

failed grade 12 biology, by the way, which is not something

46:19

I should probably advertise, but in grade 12,

46:21

I took on like every AP course and biology

46:24

was the one that I hated the most and I ended up failing

46:26

it. And that's a long story. I should stop advertising

46:29

openly on the dark horse. Fuck

46:31

out. I will say, you know, you

46:33

are far from the first person who has told me

46:35

they didn't think they had any aptitude for biology.

46:38

And, you know, if you dig deeply in those

46:40

stories, inevitably it's about bad

46:43

biology teaching, which is all

46:45

too common. Yeah. I mean, I'll concede I

46:47

was just a bad student at the time and I was interested

46:49

in doing well on AP literature and

46:53

civics and math and calculus, but not

46:55

anyway. So this

46:59

is a relevant question. I think when it comes to

47:01

some of the macro stuff is why do

47:03

you have people like me writing about this? Why

47:06

do I feel the need to write about vaccine

47:08

safety? Like a topic that I've no expertise

47:11

in, no inherent interest in.

47:13

Why do I feel like I have to cover this topic?

47:16

Why is there a space for me to write about this topic? Right.

47:18

Someone like me, there is no utility or

47:21

space for someone like me to enter

47:23

into the discussion on

47:26

heart inflammation caused by the vaccine. If you

47:29

had the New York Times and the CDC

47:32

and FDA, honestly talking about

47:34

this, right? I wouldn't be interested in

47:36

talking about this, nor would there be any need

47:39

for me to talk about this. No one would be reading my work because

47:41

you already have the CDC and the New York Times

47:43

to trust, but you've turned so

47:46

many people into,

47:50

you know, thinkers on this topic, like people

47:53

who never would have been interested in this stuff. I mean, you

47:55

know, why is Joe Rogan talking

47:57

about this? Why am I talking about this? Why? I mean, you're a biologist.

48:00

this so you're a little more relevant, but even you,

48:02

you weren't talking about vaccines to the

48:04

extent you are right now. And the reason for that

48:06

is because the public health messaging

48:08

has been so disastrously

48:11

wrong on this front that

48:14

you, you know, we have this need for sub-stack.

48:16

We have been, there's a real space for

48:19

podcasters to come in and

48:21

to present a narrative that's very different

48:23

from what the public health, what

48:26

the public health dogma

48:28

is. And it's honestly, I mean, putting

48:30

aside whatever pat on the back, I want to give

48:32

myself for being an honest and whatever

48:35

journalist on this front and hopefully providing

48:37

honest coverage. But it's

48:40

honestly quite tragic that I feel

48:42

like my coverage on

48:45

vaccine injuries and vaccine mandates

48:49

has been better and

48:51

more in line with the signs than the CDC.

48:54

It's like, why is that? Why is that? I mean,

48:56

I've been a 22 year old, nobody previously until

48:59

a couple of years ago, someone with no, no

49:01

PhDs or degrees in epidemiology,

49:04

immunology suddenly feels like he himself and

49:06

many people reading me and many people taking me seriously,

49:09

viewing my work as more credible than

49:12

the CDC, right? That's not my

49:14

fault. That's not the fault of Joe Rogan.

49:16

That's the fault of the CDC and the

49:18

FDA and mainstream experts

49:20

chosen by the New York Times. Yes.

49:24

And if I can look at the same

49:26

picture from a slightly different angle, what

49:29

you have is a system

49:33

that is not trying

49:35

to figure out what is true and

49:37

certainly uninterested in sharing

49:39

the information with the public where it knows.

49:43

That's the alarming discovery is

49:45

that whether this is runaway,

49:49

noble lies or whether this

49:51

is actually an ulterior

49:54

motive that has taken over the system, the

49:56

reason that you, I won't

49:59

describe you as

49:59

a, you know, 20

50:01

something, nobody

50:03

the way you've described yourself. But the reason

50:05

that you as effectively

50:08

an amateur are able

50:10

to beat the pants off the CDC

50:13

is because the CDC isn't trying.

50:15

Something has captured the CDC and

50:18

the CDC has a higher priority than

50:20

figuring out what's true and broadcasting

50:22

it. And many of us have discovered this,

50:25

which is why you have the odd

50:27

fact of the

50:30

high quality analysis is

50:32

now outside the institutions. You

50:35

have lots of doctors who, if you look at

50:37

their Wikipedia page, these are fringe

50:40

quacks. If you look at their CV,

50:42

you discover they're anything but fringe quacks.

50:44

These are people who are top

50:46

of their field, who have now given up careers

50:48

in many cases in order to speak

50:50

the truth on these topics. Where are they

50:52

speaking the truth? On something

50:55

called a podcast, a totally unregulated,

50:58

uh, with

51:00

bread. As you know, might be regulated in

51:02

Canada. Well, yeah,

51:05

that's another story for another podcast, but I have

51:07

to update my model. But the

51:10

idea that sub stack and podcasts

51:13

are where the high quality analysis is going to

51:15

be tells you how deeply

51:18

sick the system that is supposed to be doing that

51:21

analysis actually is. It's really, um,

51:23

you know, it's in its death throes

51:26

and many of us are out here trying to warn

51:28

people the system that's supposed to be protecting you

51:30

is actually steering you into danger. Yeah.

51:33

Yeah. And we should totally

51:35

concede this obvious point. I don't know why this is a

51:37

point that has been made by some

51:39

people that we know that we need institutions.

51:42

We need institutions that we can rely on that

51:45

we can trust. Um, and

51:47

we can't only figure this out through sub stacks

51:49

and through this infinite division

51:52

and you know, all these different branches on

51:54

sub stack and podcasts where everyone has their

51:56

hot takes on vaccines and all

51:58

these things. That's a totally

52:01

dysfunctional model, right? To have this

52:03

much division, this many infinite sources of

52:05

information, everyone with their own

52:07

experts. I don't

52:09

think there's anyone that disagrees, anyone reasonable

52:11

that I know of that disagrees with this

52:15

position that we need institutions and that sub-stack

52:18

and podcasting is a dysfunctional

52:21

default to go to for complex

52:23

topics pertaining to our health, right? I won't call

52:25

it dysfunctional because

52:28

it has been a lifesaver, but what I will say...

52:30

Well, dysfunctional in the long term. If the

52:32

institutions continue to fail us and

52:34

we have 20 different podcasts to listen to and

52:37

we can't ever trust the CDC and the FDA anymore,

52:40

that to me is completely dysfunctional, right?

52:43

Well, it is no substitute

52:46

for institutions that work. That

52:48

said, there are those in

52:51

our various circles who

52:54

say that the importance of institutions

52:56

is so great that even if they are failing,

52:59

we must listen to them and not listen

53:01

to the people who've shown a track

53:03

record of being right on sub-stack and podcasts.

53:06

And that's nonsense. The fact is, until

53:08

the institutions are rescued from whatever has

53:11

captured them, we are stuck

53:14

with the system of

53:16

podcasts and sub-stacks because it

53:19

at least has some capacity to

53:21

actually resolve

53:23

a coherent picture. So I don't

53:26

like that at all. I look, I

53:29

invested in science. I want

53:31

to live in a world where we have

53:33

scientific institutions that are capable

53:36

of enlightening us and allowing us

53:38

to steer away from self-harm

53:41

based on insight.

53:42

But

53:43

that's not the world I'm living in. And I know it.

53:46

Yes. And until then, what I'm going to have

53:48

to do is I'm going to have to go to the places where the exiled

53:50

adults are, and I'm going to have to listen

53:53

and I'm going to have to do my sorting. Which of these

53:55

people really are the exiled adults trying to tell

53:57

me something? And which of them are fakers? And

53:59

that's not an easy job but the

54:01

institutions so routinely fail now

54:04

we don't have a choice. Yes, yeah

54:06

and I'm glad we're saying this openly and

54:08

getting this out of the way because there seems to

54:10

be some confusion on this front as if we don't want institutions

54:13

or we think we can just do this by... no, no,

54:16

we want institutions. Aside

54:18

from some anarchists who don't want any reliable

54:21

authorities and just want you know the public to decide

54:23

everything, we as reasonable people

54:25

want institutions, right? But the

54:28

institutions have failed so much you have

54:30

you know publications on sub-stacks

54:33

you know some individual writers earning millions of dollars

54:36

and doing so well and podcasts excelling

54:38

to the point of just absurdity because

54:41

the mainstream messaging on this

54:43

front has been so disastrously

54:47

wrong over and over again to the

54:49

point where it's like when

54:52

can I go back to trusting you know the CDC

54:54

and the FDA they continue to fail

54:57

us more and more continuously

54:59

with the new push for the booster

55:02

which we can talk about it's like they're continuing

55:04

to embarrass themselves in

55:07

a way where if you were

55:09

mildly critical them before or

55:12

were critical in some ways like you

55:15

know it's like the CDC and the

55:17

FDA and the Surgeon General's Office

55:19

and the Biden administration and the Trudeau

55:21

government and mainstream you know

55:24

pediatricians and you know many doctors

55:26

near you all have

55:29

this kind of false consensus

55:31

in my view but there is this consensus among our scientific

55:34

institutions right now that you

55:36

should get the new updated booster

55:38

shot, right? Which has been tested in

55:41

Moderna in 50 people which by

55:43

the way there was one incident that required

55:45

medical attention one serious adverse event

55:48

in that 50 person trial so

55:50

one in 50 for whatever that's worth and we don't know what

55:52

exactly happened there and we're looking for we hope

55:55

they can tell us what is that myocarditis or an

55:57

autoimmune issue or is that a heart attack what

55:59

is I don't know. And then the Pfizer

56:02

arm, you have a test in 10

56:04

mice. And that we

56:06

ran through emergency use authorization,

56:09

which deliberately allows you to cut corners and

56:11

to speed up the approval of a drug or

56:13

vaccine because of

56:16

a perceived or purported emergency. This

56:19

is the mainstream messaging now, get the new booster

56:21

shot, it is safe and

56:24

effective. And we know this to be the case. And

56:26

you have people previously who were in

56:29

agreement with the messaging, people like Dr. Paul

56:31

Offit saying that, I don't see the

56:33

evidence here, you know, maybe for people 65 and over,

56:36

I'm not getting this, even though I believe Paul is

56:39

like 72. So, you know, he's not getting this himself.

56:42

Yet the CDC and the FDA

56:44

want you to get this. And so this is a big

56:46

question for people who have

56:50

been on the side of defending these institutions

56:52

and not being

56:55

honest about what's really going on is,

56:58

do you agree with the FDA and the CDC right

57:00

now? And if the answer

57:02

is yes, if you think that

57:05

they are right in pushing

57:07

every American, by the way, not just

57:09

like adults, but I'm almost certain

57:11

it's six months and older, but at

57:14

the very least, all, you know, children of a certain

57:16

age, pretty sure it's six months and older, actually, they

57:18

want everyone boosted with

57:21

the new COVID shot. If

57:23

you agree with that, well, I

57:25

feel like we can't explain anything

57:28

to you anymore, because even people who were previously

57:30

in accord with those institutions are now

57:33

in disagreement with them. I mean, I mean, just

57:35

so many people that disagree with that now. But

57:37

if you don't agree with them now, which I suspect some people

57:40

are in that boat, well, why not? Why

57:43

not be in agreement with them? Why not just

57:45

default to the CDC

57:48

and the FDA? If you trusted

57:50

them previously, you know, where's the

57:52

line between where they were wrong and where they

57:54

were right? And there

57:57

has been some people who have said, well,

57:59

Well,

58:00

I think they are right and I'm going to be getting this shot

58:02

like the annual flu shot Without

58:05

at all acknowledging that those are two very different

58:07

things The flu shot has been tested for decades

58:10

and decades and we know the safety profile It's

58:12

nothing of the sort Um that we have with

58:15

these mRNA vaccines. So it's it's

58:17

honestly just an absurd Um

58:20

ridiculous claim to make that those

58:22

two things are somehow similar, but This

58:26

is where we are right now where the FDA and the

58:28

cdc continue to zealously push

58:30

for These pharmaceutical products

58:32

absent safety and efficacy well

58:37

I want to look at it from a different perspective If

58:41

this had been an honest effort

58:44

to keep the public safe Then

58:48

it would update with

58:51

Information about the fact that the

58:53

vaccines did not turn out to be safe

58:56

in the way people had initially portrayed them

58:58

Nor did they turn out to be effective

59:01

in the way

59:02

people initially portrayed them That

59:04

would cause you if this if it

59:06

was originally an error then

59:08

the messaging would rapidly

59:11

shift in the direction of You

59:13

know not children should be getting

59:15

their booster, but children should under no

59:17

circumstance be getting this booster And

59:20

you know if we if we were now pushing it only towards

59:22

people who were old and had

59:24

multiple comorbidities You

59:27

could at least imagine that this was an honest effort

59:29

to update with information the fact that

59:31

the messaging doesn't change at all Says

59:34

wait a minute. This is an advertisement This

59:37

is an advertisement for a product

59:39

that is now being broadcast through an official

59:41

channel And I want to go back to

59:43

the issue Of

59:46

institutions I

59:50

take no responsibility for

59:52

doing this work outside of an institutional

59:55

framework Because I have been shouting about

59:57

the problem of capture for at least 20 years I've

1:00:00

been trying to call attention to the fact that

1:00:02

this capture was creeping and that it was escaping

1:00:05

the original conceptualization of the

1:00:07

capture of the regulators and it was taking

1:00:10

over institution after institution. We

1:00:13

are now finally at a place. It's like if

1:00:15

you had been on the Titanic and

1:00:17

you had been talking about

1:00:19

the defects in the boats design

1:00:22

and the insanity

1:00:25

of speeding through the North Atlantic when

1:00:28

there were obstacles and then

1:00:30

it hits an obstacle, then

1:00:32

the point is, well, I tried to tell

1:00:34

you, I tried to tell you that this was going to

1:00:36

happen. I'm not arguing that lifeboats are a solution

1:00:39

for the North Atlantic in the winter. They're not, but

1:00:42

they're better than nothing and the

1:00:44

fact that we are left with lifeboats is

1:00:47

the fault of the people who designed the ship,

1:00:49

didn't put enough lifeboats on it and then

1:00:51

allowed the captain speed to the North Atlantic to set

1:00:53

a record, right? So the point is, yeah,

1:00:56

podcasts, sub-stack, those are lifeboats. Nobody

1:00:59

is arguing that's the right way to get across the Atlantic.

1:01:02

I don't know why that's the position then. Why

1:01:04

some people is this weird straw man thing going

1:01:06

on that maybe we, some people think

1:01:08

that people in our camp, whatever

1:01:11

camp you and I, wherever you and I converge or diverge,

1:01:13

whatever, but the alternative side

1:01:15

to COVID that we think that

1:01:18

we can get through this with sub-stack and podcast only

1:01:20

and that we don't want institutions. We

1:01:22

agree. We need institutions. So

1:01:25

I don't know what the point there

1:01:27

is being made to be honest. Right.

1:01:30

I mean, my point is if

1:01:33

some of our friends are talking

1:01:35

about this as if we are not interested in

1:01:37

institutions, the fault is

1:01:39

on them. They should have listened earlier

1:01:42

when the institutions might've been salvageable.

1:01:44

And the fact is they're gone. Those

1:01:47

institutions no longer function. And you can tell

1:01:50

because they're not updating their advice in

1:01:52

light of evidence that we now have. The

1:01:55

irony of the whole situation is to

1:01:57

the extent that the institutions are

1:01:59

now. grudgingly talking about things

1:02:01

like myocarditis, adverse events,

1:02:05

age stratification, all of these things to the

1:02:07

extent that these things have percolated

1:02:09

into the public conversation, it's only

1:02:11

because of the unregulated space

1:02:13

of sub stacks and podcasts

1:02:16

that that discussion ever broke. Otherwise,

1:02:19

we would, we would hold right now that

1:02:22

this had been a spectacular success and it had

1:02:24

demonstrated the power and safety of the mRNA

1:02:27

vaccine platform. That's what they would

1:02:29

say. And the fact is, they still do say it,

1:02:31

but they can't say it with a straight face and lots of people

1:02:33

push back because we managed to get enough

1:02:36

experts in front of the public by not

1:02:38

going through the institutions. That's why

1:02:40

we did. Yeah. And it's, to

1:02:42

me, it's a very weird, biased focus

1:02:46

of only focusing on,

1:02:48

and I'll get

1:02:50

in a minute to the other side of the problem, which does exist,

1:02:52

but there's this weird lack

1:02:55

of focus, lack of coverage, this

1:02:58

transparency about the

1:03:00

continued mistakes and dishonesty

1:03:02

on the part of CDC and FDA. Like

1:03:05

CDC had, you

1:03:09

know, up until very recently, continuing

1:03:13

to say that for this new booster

1:03:15

shot, the risk of

1:03:18

vaccine myocarditis is lower than the

1:03:21

risk of myocarditis from COVID. Therefore,

1:03:23

all young boys and girls and

1:03:25

everyone should be getting this. You have a she's jaw,

1:03:28

the COVID white house coordinator saying

1:03:30

that if you get this new booster shot, your

1:03:32

risk of hospitalization and long COVID

1:03:35

will go down if you get this

1:03:37

thing, complete, bullshit scientific

1:03:39

claims that have no, I mean, they're unscientific

1:03:42

that have no basis in reality. These

1:03:45

people, it is not, it is not exaggeration

1:03:47

to say that these people are propagandists on

1:03:49

that front. Okay. They, it doesn't mean that they're totally

1:03:52

wrong about everything. I'm sure some of these people

1:03:54

are nice and ethical in other ways and have

1:03:56

credentials that are solid, you know, and whatever.

1:04:00

I don't know why you would say that, Raph. They are lying

1:04:02

to the public in ways that will put young people

1:04:04

who should not be placed in danger into danger.

1:04:06

I don't know why you'd make excuses for them. No,

1:04:09

no, I'm not making excuses. I'm saying they

1:04:11

might be right about other things potentially, but

1:04:13

they are so wrong about this thing that

1:04:16

we would agree it's disqualifying. To me,

1:04:19

it is disqualifying. That's a big thing, that this person

1:04:22

who just plowed their vehicle into

1:04:25

a crowd, think of all

1:04:28

the people they didn't hit. My

1:04:32

feeling is no, this person just recklessly operated

1:04:34

their vehicle in such a way they just killed a bunch of people.

1:04:37

That's all I'm interested in talking about actually, the fact that

1:04:39

they might not have killed other people or

1:04:42

they might have a perfect pitch

1:04:44

or whatever we might say in their defense

1:04:46

is irrelevant. Yeah. There's

1:04:49

an important point to be made here of if you

1:04:51

don't want to listen to me or to you or to

1:04:54

Joe or Jay Bhattacharya or

1:04:56

Martin Koldorf or whoever, listen

1:04:58

to the people in these organizations who have been

1:05:00

dissenting on this front. You

1:05:03

have winter of 2021,

1:05:06

two top senior officials at the FDA

1:05:08

were part of the vaccine approval process.

1:05:12

You can look this up. They had a piece in

1:05:15

the Washington Post. It was, believe

1:05:17

the names are Dr. Philip Krause and Mary Ann Goober,

1:05:20

if I'm getting that right. They

1:05:22

openly said, we are leaving the FDA

1:05:25

because we feel politically pressured to

1:05:27

approve the booster

1:05:29

shot in young healthy

1:05:32

people for which there's no evidence for. We

1:05:34

feel we are being pressured or

1:05:36

coerced in some way to push things that

1:05:38

have no scientific basis, therefore

1:05:41

we're leaving the organization. There's

1:05:44

many other examples too. There's a great piece

1:05:46

in Barry Weiss's sub-stack maybe last

1:05:49

year, I think with Dr. Tracy Betts Hogue

1:05:51

and Dr. Marty McCarry who have various contacts

1:05:53

in the CDC and the FDA. Honestly,

1:05:57

this piece was quite incredible.

1:06:00

be reread many times over and should be taken

1:06:03

so seriously because they had connections

1:06:07

at the FDA and the CDC and many people

1:06:09

at these institutions told, and I wrote this down

1:06:12

actually because it was so striking

1:06:14

to me. I remember reading the piece

1:06:16

at the time and then I just got the quotes again

1:06:18

for us today because it reveals so

1:06:20

much of what's going on. Top

1:06:23

CDC officials quoted in this article in

1:06:25

Barry's Substack at the FDA

1:06:28

and the CDC saying things like, this

1:06:30

is a horror show. For

1:06:33

kids, you can inject them with this COVID

1:06:35

vaccine or squirt it in their face. It's

1:06:37

just as effective. One

1:06:42

official, I didn't write down here,

1:06:45

because that was a CDC or FDA, one of the two saying,

1:06:47

it seems criminal to

1:06:49

push these shots, to push these shots, these

1:06:52

mRNA shots in kids. One

1:06:54

FDA official saying, if you speak honestly

1:06:57

about this, you get treated differently.

1:07:00

This is not my quote. This is not my

1:07:02

opinion. This is people within those fucking

1:07:05

organizations who are trying

1:07:07

to do good, who feel stifled,

1:07:10

who feel like the way that their organization

1:07:12

is being run is completely corrupt and

1:07:15

dangerous and not

1:07:17

actually solely

1:07:20

serving the interests of the people, but actually violating

1:07:24

informed consent and pushing products where

1:07:28

they're actively dangerous and lack

1:07:30

the data on efficacy. This is these

1:07:32

people. Can we trust the FDA and

1:07:34

the CDC when people in their own

1:07:36

organizations, irrespective of what you and I think,

1:07:39

are saying on this topic? Can we

1:07:42

trust these places? Yeah,

1:07:44

clearly not. And for dozens of

1:07:46

different reasons, I

1:07:48

would also point out, in light of

1:07:52

your point regarding the,

1:07:55

was it a White House spokesperson who was saying

1:07:57

that the vaccines...

1:08:00

reduce long COVID and hospitalization. This

1:08:04

is an increasingly

1:08:07

obvious pattern where people

1:08:10

who are in a position that they have

1:08:12

to know better say things

1:08:15

that will not fool anyone

1:08:19

who is informed, but will successfully

1:08:22

fool people who are ignorant. And

1:08:25

we saw this a couple of days ago with

1:08:27

the Nobel committee that

1:08:30

awarded the 2023 Nobel Prize

1:08:34

for Physiology and Medicine for

1:08:36

the pseudo-uridine alterations

1:08:39

to the mRNA transcripts in these very

1:08:41

vaccines. And in their

1:08:44

press conference in describing

1:08:47

this award, they specifically say

1:08:50

in response to the question from a Chinese journalist

1:08:52

who asks, we don't know anything about the long-term

1:08:54

impacts of these vaccines.

1:08:57

Are we worried about this? They

1:08:59

assure her that there's nothing to be worried

1:09:02

about in part because

1:09:04

the mRNAs are

1:09:07

so transient in their existence

1:09:10

in the body. That's

1:09:12

absurd in light of the fact that they just

1:09:14

gave a Nobel Prize for the pseudo-uridine

1:09:17

enrichment that causes

1:09:19

these things to become durable. So

1:09:22

they're representing this as something that is gone within

1:09:25

days to a week when we actually

1:09:28

know that these things persist in the body for months.

1:09:30

So the Nobel committee has awarded

1:09:33

a Nobel

1:09:34

Prize

1:09:35

for the stabilization

1:09:39

of mRNAs that makes them long lasting.

1:09:42

And in the press conference, they tout the

1:09:44

ephemeral nature of these mRNAs

1:09:47

as a reason to be confident that there are no

1:09:49

long-term effects. It's a preposterous

1:09:52

statement. What are you to do with the fact that the committee

1:09:54

that just gave the award is now

1:09:56

saying something in direct contradiction

1:09:58

to the... very mechanism

1:10:00

for which they just called the world's attention.

1:10:04

It's preposterous. The only person that can fool is somebody who

1:10:06

doesn't know what's going on. Yeah. Yeah.

1:10:09

Yeah. On the question of long-term

1:10:11

safety, there's been some interesting

1:10:14

recent data and I feel like I've

1:10:16

skipped over a couple of things I should have said earlier.

1:10:18

Um, I'll just maybe quickly go into that,

1:10:20

uh, with respect to what

1:10:23

I've been writing about and how I came to form

1:10:25

my perspective on this, um,

1:10:27

so I'll quickly just back up here quickly and

1:10:30

just say that, um,

1:10:33

when I started going independent and started hearing about

1:10:35

these stories of vaccine myocarditis, I then

1:10:38

delved into the data and found

1:10:41

a serious, uh,

1:10:44

risk for myocarditis up

1:10:47

to one in 2000, um, young

1:10:49

men in particular concentrated in Moderna

1:10:51

dose two. Um,

1:10:54

but, and

1:10:56

there's a lot of data points that I can go into there, but that

1:10:59

alone doesn't tell

1:11:01

the full story because there's so

1:11:03

much else going on. So many other data points that

1:11:07

show that this is a far bigger risk

1:11:09

than we thought it was, even among the people

1:11:11

who have acknowledged that, Oh, okay, Moderna dose two,

1:11:13

don't give it to young boys. Give it to everyone. It's like, there's

1:11:16

a lot more going on here. And what

1:11:18

I started doing was tracking some of the

1:11:20

international data countries that keep a closed database

1:11:23

on this. And I found that in 2021,

1:11:26

you had countries like Israel,

1:11:28

France, uh, Germany,

1:11:31

and a select few us hospitals for which I

1:11:33

could find data had striking

1:11:36

increases in myocarditis

1:11:38

rates in 2021, but not 2020 increases of up to 30%, 75%. There

1:11:45

was one peer reviewed study in particular by

1:11:47

Dr. Retsa Flevi, the MIT

1:11:49

researcher. Uh, this was

1:11:52

in nature, which found,

1:11:54

um, in Israel where they keep a close

1:11:57

database of nine on one calls. He basically.

1:12:00

We put together 911 calls

1:12:02

for acute cardiac events versus

1:12:05

the distribution of mRNA

1:12:07

vaccines and finds a direct,

1:12:10

not a causation because you couldn't prove that there, but

1:12:12

a direct correlation between

1:12:14

distribution of mRNA vaccines goes

1:12:17

up, suddenly big spike in 911

1:12:20

calls for acute cardiac events, specifically

1:12:23

in 16 to 39 year olds in

1:12:25

both men and women. I believe actually the study,

1:12:27

strangely enough, showed a bit of a higher

1:12:30

rate among women by some slight margin,

1:12:32

which poses

1:12:35

some strange questions there. But

1:12:37

you had data like that where it was

1:12:40

unequivocal, increasingly

1:12:43

so with more and more other studies as

1:12:46

well, where you have

1:12:48

the reported cases of myocarditis, cases

1:12:50

that fall under the clinical diagnosis.

1:12:53

And then you also had studies, and weirdly

1:12:56

enough, not in the US, but

1:12:58

in other countries, studies that looked at subclinical

1:13:00

myocarditis, so patients that

1:13:02

weren't necessarily presenting symptoms

1:13:06

and weren't admitted to the hospital. But

1:13:09

these were patients who were

1:13:12

surveyed for a marker

1:13:14

of myocarditis without having

1:13:17

sought treatment. So these are people who had

1:13:19

it when they looked into them, but there was no reason

1:13:21

to think they had it at the point that their blood was looked

1:13:23

at. Right. So there's one Thai study in

1:13:25

particular, and it was very, very small, so

1:13:28

you can make it that way you will, but

1:13:30

it was a couple hundred young

1:13:32

kids, 13 to 18. After

1:13:34

the second Pfizer dose, about 3% of

1:13:38

those young kids had

1:13:40

evidence of myocardial injury.

1:13:43

1% was clinical myocarditis, but 2% to 3%

1:13:46

overall of subclinical

1:13:48

plus clinical. A lot of those cases were subclinical,

1:13:51

as in elevated troponin levels,

1:13:54

which show evidence of some myocardial

1:13:58

damage that...

1:13:59

As the

1:14:02

study author said, likely short-term,

1:14:04

easily resolvable, at worst

1:14:07

a few months. For my interviews

1:14:09

with people, if you get clinical myocarditis,

1:14:11

it takes several months of no exercise,

1:14:14

no elevating

1:14:17

your heart rate is a potentially dangerous

1:14:19

thing. Doctors recommend you to

1:14:21

stay away from even walking fast

1:14:23

upstairs and they're given a bunch of medications.

1:14:26

Long-term effects not known,

1:14:29

but there was one recent study from Hong Kong that

1:14:31

came out this summer and I delved into it

1:14:34

with my friend Dr. Anish Koka

1:14:36

at Koka Cardiology in

1:14:38

Philadelphia and we went into it and

1:14:40

the study showed over 50%

1:14:42

of people who in this studied

1:14:45

sample, primarily young

1:14:48

people who had gotten vaccine myocarditis,

1:14:50

over 50% of them at the one-year

1:14:52

follow-up had evidence of

1:14:55

scarring in their heart muscle, over 50%.

1:14:58

This jives with other CDC data as

1:15:00

well where you look at the long-term six months,

1:15:03

eight months, one-year follow-up and you

1:15:05

have a significant percentage of people

1:15:08

that have not recovered.

1:15:11

That is so alarming and

1:15:16

the fact that these things were pushed without

1:15:19

knowledge of these things and eventually when we did

1:15:21

find more and more evidence that these

1:15:23

things were, these vaccines were

1:15:26

dangerous, particularly the young people, the

1:15:28

fact that they were continually pushed without

1:15:31

informed consent to me

1:15:34

is just completely outrageous

1:15:36

and perhaps even criminal when you

1:15:38

look at… Yeah. It's beyond criminal.

1:15:42

So the fact that they continue to be pushed in

1:15:44

a non-age stratified

1:15:46

way is the indication that

1:15:48

whatever is driving this policy does

1:15:51

not care about killing young

1:15:53

people because you

1:15:55

could with no harm…

1:16:00

Irrespective of how good these vaccines are,

1:16:04

you could with no harm exclude

1:16:07

young people from the risk that they apparently

1:16:09

face disproportionately by

1:16:11

excluding them from this campaign and healthy

1:16:14

young people do not die of COVID. So the fact

1:16:16

is, the obvious thing

1:16:18

to do from the perspective of public

1:16:20

health is to recommend against and actually

1:16:22

to forbid healthy young people from getting

1:16:24

these vaccines. And if you feel that they

1:16:27

are necessary for older people, which I do not,

1:16:29

but if they have a disagreement about that,

1:16:31

they could advise them for older people. The fact

1:16:33

that they don't do

1:16:34

that

1:16:35

means that they are willing to

1:16:37

have young people die needlessly. People

1:16:40

who get no benefit from these shots and,

1:16:43

you know, let's put it this way. I don't know if it's technically

1:16:45

criminal, what they're doing, but it is

1:16:47

beyond criminal. And in fact, that's the

1:16:49

point about the Nuremberg code. The violation

1:16:51

of informed consent is above

1:16:54

the question of the law. This

1:16:57

is a set of questions, a set of moral questions

1:16:59

over which the West literally

1:17:02

hung seven doctors

1:17:06

for violating informed consent before

1:17:09

it was even codified. The

1:17:11

idea being that for a doctor, it was

1:17:13

so obvious that a patient had the right to informed

1:17:15

consent that to violate that right was

1:17:18

a hanging offense. And

1:17:20

somehow at this point, it's a nothing burger.

1:17:23

We just violate people's informed consent. We

1:17:25

give them vaccines we know a lot about the hazards

1:17:28

of and don't tell them. We

1:17:30

don't tell them about the contents.

1:17:33

We don't tell them about the impurities.

1:17:35

We don't tell them about any of the things that they would need to know

1:17:37

to make a reasonable choice. It's insane.

1:17:40

Yeah. And we should bring in one other data

1:17:42

point here is the fact that

1:17:45

this isn't just myocarditis either. And

1:17:48

there's this weird straw man where some people say, well,

1:17:50

okay, myocarditis, young boys, don't give it to them.

1:17:53

Everyone else get it. But no, it's not just that.

1:17:55

And the best study we have on

1:17:58

the overall adverse events. rate

1:18:00

comes from Dr. Joseph Raymond, who

1:18:02

led the study, published in the journal Vaccine,

1:18:06

arguably the foremost reputable

1:18:09

institution for looking

1:18:11

at these things. And him and on his team

1:18:14

were people like Dr.

1:18:16

Sander Greenland, one of the most renowned

1:18:19

biostatisticians in the US, he's at USLA,

1:18:22

Dr. John Kaplan from Stanford, and

1:18:24

many other distinguished people in

1:18:26

their field. Peter Doshi. I

1:18:29

was going to mention Dr. Peter Doshi, who's an expert in

1:18:32

pharmaceuticals. And they

1:18:35

just went back from the original trials and just counted

1:18:37

the serious adverse events. And

1:18:41

they were blinded in a way that was quite compelling,

1:18:43

where we had Framon on our podcast recently,

1:18:46

Dr. Jay interviewed him, and he

1:18:48

was telling how he was blinded. So he didn't know which adverse

1:18:50

event was from the placebo or the vaccine

1:18:52

arm and him and his review board looked

1:18:55

at every single serious adverse event and

1:18:57

counted them and found that

1:19:00

in the Pfizer study, the

1:19:02

serious adverse event rate was about one

1:19:05

in 550. Combined with the Moderna, when you add

1:19:09

those two together, you have an average serious

1:19:11

adverse event rate of one in 800. So that includes

1:19:14

myocarditis, it includes menstrual regularities, it

1:19:16

includes autoimmune issues, blood clotting,

1:19:19

etc. Serious

1:19:21

adverse events, that's what they were looking at. These are not minor

1:19:23

things. These are serious adverse

1:19:25

events. And the conclusion of their study

1:19:28

was that the overall rate of adverse events exceeds

1:19:31

the purported reduction

1:19:34

in hospitalization from COVID vaccines.

1:19:37

And they very clearly said it's possible that

1:19:40

these vaccines on a cost benefit analysis

1:19:43

could be favorable in people over the age

1:19:45

of 65. But you

1:19:47

go lower down the age gradient 50, 40, especially

1:19:50

among healthy people is very likely,

1:19:53

perhaps almost certain, that

1:19:55

the cost benefit analysis looking back

1:19:58

on this has been negative. for

1:20:00

vaccinating young and healthy people with

1:20:03

the mRNA shots? Yes, I think

1:20:05

it is increasingly clear that the mRNA shots are

1:20:07

net negative, at least the way they've been deployed

1:20:10

and probably under any circumstances. But about

1:20:13

that study, I want to make it very clear for

1:20:15

people who are listening. That

1:20:17

study found an overall 1 in 800 rate

1:20:21

of serious adverse events, but

1:20:24

it only covered the very

1:20:27

short period of the trial itself.

1:20:29

In the case of Pfizer, that was literally one

1:20:32

month. So these are adverse

1:20:34

events that happened within one month

1:20:36

of getting the shot. This

1:20:38

says nothing about what the actual

1:20:40

rate of adverse events is, because we

1:20:43

now know that adverse events actually extend

1:20:45

way into the future for these things. And this is also

1:20:48

for a limited number of

1:20:50

inoculations. We don't know what happens

1:20:52

when you've gotten two

1:20:54

shots and two boosters or whatever it is.

1:20:56

So this is the low

1:20:59

estimate for how common

1:21:01

these serious adverse events are, because it

1:21:03

was over a very limited window of time

1:21:06

and without four boosters or

1:21:09

four shots. So you

1:21:12

have to extrapolate. What is the actual rate

1:21:14

of adverse events if we weren't just looking at

1:21:16

the trial data, but we were looking at the people

1:21:19

who had gotten those initial shots and then

1:21:21

had continued on. And the fact

1:21:23

is there's a reason that we don't know, which

1:21:26

is that pharma plays a little game, which

1:21:28

is as soon as it has demonstrated what it regards

1:21:31

as high efficacy, it

1:21:34

is deemed unethical not

1:21:36

to vaccinate everybody in the study,

1:21:39

including people in the control group. So what happens

1:21:41

is they eliminate our ability to see what

1:21:43

the actual adverse event rate is, because

1:21:46

everybody is now in the vaccine

1:21:48

group rather than the placebo group. That's

1:21:50

a trick they play so that we cannot see the actual

1:21:53

rate. And even with that trick, we've got

1:21:55

a 1 in 800 rate of adverse events or

1:21:57

serious adverse events. Right. Yeah. To

1:21:59

go to your... point about it doesn't capture everything,

1:22:02

that subclinical rate that we

1:22:04

found in that one Thai study, which by the way was replicated

1:22:06

in a couple of other small studies too and again

1:22:08

they're small so we don't really know but

1:22:11

subclinical myocarditis, we really

1:22:13

don't know what the rate of that is. Like

1:22:15

how many young people's hearts have

1:22:17

been damaged to some degree,

1:22:20

whether that's transient or long-term, we don't know.

1:22:23

What is that actual percentage? We

1:22:25

really don't know and the studies that were supposed

1:22:27

to be done on this by the way that are apparently complete,

1:22:30

there's some interesting sort

1:22:33

of behind the scenes stuff about this that we really

1:22:35

don't know but my friend Jessica Adams

1:22:37

on Twitter, she's for some reason been

1:22:39

just amazing at just

1:22:42

pursuing this constantly. The

1:22:45

Pfizer and Moderna were mandated

1:22:48

to complete subclinical myocarditis studies

1:22:50

particularly in young males and that was due

1:22:52

I believe in December of last

1:22:54

year and they got an extension to like June

1:22:57

and we still don't have the results for that and

1:22:59

I'm getting very very suspicious not being conspiratorial

1:23:02

but I'm getting very suspicious about why

1:23:04

aren't those results being released now, it could be it takes

1:23:06

time or whatever but how many billions

1:23:09

of dollars have they generated, how many studies could

1:23:11

they have done? This new booster shot,

1:23:13

they could have done a proper randomized controlled

1:23:15

study and enlisting large numbers of people,

1:23:18

they have the money for that, they have the resources for that, they

1:23:20

could have gotten the subclinical study done way

1:23:22

earlier than it's being done and I wonder

1:23:25

is it did they want to push this new booster

1:23:27

first and you know tell people to get it before

1:23:30

they release the subclinical but that study

1:23:32

was due many many months

1:23:34

ago and we still don't know the results

1:23:36

for that and one other thing I'll say about that study Brett

1:23:39

is many people don't know that vaccines

1:23:42

have been pulled off the market for adverse

1:23:45

event rates far far far

1:23:47

lower than this one right. Adverse

1:23:50

vaccine was pulled off the market for

1:23:52

an adverse event rate, serious adverse event

1:23:54

rate for 1 in 10,000. Swine

1:23:57

flu vaccine I believe in 1976 was pulled. off

1:24:00

for 1 in 100,000 adverse event rate. These

1:24:03

vaccines, there's best available evidence. If

1:24:06

there's better evidence, someone can show me. But

1:24:08

the best available evidence in this

1:24:10

particular study shows 1 in 800. And

1:24:14

this lines up with- 1 in 800 in the

1:24:16

short period of time during the trial.

1:24:18

We don't know about subclinical myocarditis. We don't

1:24:20

know. I mean, there's recent studies on breast

1:24:23

milk. There's a study in the Lancet that confirmed

1:24:25

a previous study from last year showing that

1:24:27

traces of mRNA were found in breast milk

1:24:29

for a certain amount of time after the vaccines,

1:24:34

even though the CDC and the FDA said this

1:24:36

was unequivocally safe and effective for pregnant

1:24:38

and breastfeeding women, not only that they could

1:24:40

take it, but that they should take it in

1:24:43

light of this evidence. And there's recent studies also

1:24:46

about the vaginal bleeding risk, which again, we

1:24:48

talked about before that more and more

1:24:50

just confirming these risks

1:24:53

that I've been talking about for a couple of years, things that

1:24:55

initially would brand you a conspiracy

1:24:57

theorist. There's

1:25:00

an important point here we should make, and I'd

1:25:02

like to hear your thoughts on this as well, is that the

1:25:04

pushback that we're going to get about talking about this is, oh,

1:25:08

this is just the evolution of the science, right?

1:25:10

This is things that we're learning about and we

1:25:13

can change- If that were true,

1:25:15

the messaging would change. And they, for

1:25:17

example, in advance

1:25:19

of them releasing their subclinical myocarditis

1:25:22

study, they might advise that young

1:25:24

people hold off until those

1:25:26

results are out. And the fact that they are allowing young

1:25:29

people, and in fact, pushing young people to

1:25:31

get these vaccines before that evidence

1:25:33

emerges says that they are not interested.

1:25:36

This is not evolving science. In fact, what they're doing

1:25:38

is resisting whatever might be in

1:25:40

that data. People

1:25:43

have not updated their models sufficiently, certainly the CDC

1:25:46

and the FDA hasn't, but there

1:25:48

are people saying, well, things

1:25:50

have changed now, but I wasn't

1:25:52

wrong at the time. I specifically

1:25:54

say this is one of Sam Harris' claims is, well,

1:25:56

I wasn't wrong at the time in July

1:25:59

and August of 2020. 2021 to openly

1:26:01

use my podcast as

1:26:03

a platform to explicitly

1:26:06

advocate for not only

1:26:08

why maybe you could get the vaccine or why

1:26:10

it might make sense for some people, but why the case

1:26:13

for getting vaccinated is absolutely

1:26:16

clear cut. That was the message that I got

1:26:18

from the Baking Sense podcast in July

1:26:21

and August of 2021. And

1:26:23

that message was sculpted and

1:26:25

sourced from someone like Eric Topol

1:26:28

and Nicholas Christakis who are the chosen

1:26:31

experts on that podcast. Anointed.

1:26:34

Yeah. And it's not just

1:26:37

a matter of the sciences evolved on this and

1:26:39

now things have changed. At that time,

1:26:41

you were

1:26:43

wrong to say the case for getting vaccinated

1:26:46

is absolutely clear cut. At that time,

1:26:48

we were not sure about safety. We

1:26:51

had some evidence of blocking transmission

1:26:53

for some period of time. We knew people

1:26:56

over 65 were at higher risk

1:26:58

and we should potentially concentrate on them

1:27:01

and arguably give them the vaccine. I

1:27:04

believe that was actually your position, Brett. I

1:27:06

believe that might have been a sub-stack piece on

1:27:08

Heather's sub-stack or you guys talked

1:27:10

about it, but I believe that was the initial perspective

1:27:14

on your and Heather's part that this seems

1:27:16

to make sense or could make sense for over 65. But

1:27:19

this idea that everyone should be getting

1:27:21

this thing at that time was

1:27:24

wrong, especially when many

1:27:26

other experts disagreed on that point.

1:27:29

I spoke to Jay Bhattacharya in

1:27:31

that exact time and

1:27:33

Martin Koldorf and many other people, Marty

1:27:35

McCary, they were saying something very different

1:27:38

than Eric Topol was. They were saying, actually,

1:27:41

we don't really know. And that's, I

1:27:43

mean, in terms of safety and long-term

1:27:45

efficacy, we're not really sure. We know

1:27:47

who's at risk and based on that,

1:27:49

we can make a rough calculation of

1:27:51

who should be encouraged to

1:27:54

get this thing while telling them that we're not really

1:27:56

clear about the exact risks, but

1:27:58

there was that epistemic. humility of

1:28:00

here's what we know, here's what we don't know.

1:28:03

Epistemic humility does not

1:28:05

say the case we're

1:28:07

getting, this experimental inoculation is

1:28:10

clear-cut. Epistemic humility is saying

1:28:12

here are the benefits or here are the seeming

1:28:15

benefits, here are some of the risks, here are the

1:28:17

unknowns, here's my decision

1:28:19

if you want to say that but you should decide

1:28:22

for yourself and make an informed decision

1:28:25

and we shall wait to see what the emerging

1:28:27

evidence shows. At that point many

1:28:30

people made that mistake of being advocates

1:28:32

for these shots and they frankly have

1:28:35

failed to update their model accordingly

1:28:38

with the highest quality evidence

1:28:40

on the risks associated with the

1:28:43

mRNA vaccines. Well

1:28:45

it's it's worse than that. I

1:28:48

do not remember Sam's

1:28:51

particular formulation but

1:28:54

the argument that

1:28:56

the evidence

1:28:58

available at that time made

1:29:00

it clear-cut means

1:29:03

that there was not enough room left

1:29:06

in the unknowns for that conclusion

1:29:08

to change. So the fact

1:29:10

that the conclusion has now changed means

1:29:13

that what was said back then was far

1:29:16

too certain and a failure

1:29:18

to acknowledge that is part of a broad

1:29:22

pattern I'm afraid to say on Sam's

1:29:24

part of being unwilling

1:29:27

to look at his own record and

1:29:30

extrapolate from his failures

1:29:32

and I don't I don't want to

1:29:34

focus terribly much on Sam. I know he's

1:29:36

released some recent stuff which I honestly have not

1:29:38

seen but I

1:29:41

do know that you've been in contact

1:29:43

with him and you might have some things that you want to say.

1:29:46

Yeah

1:29:46

yeah well well it's a private

1:29:49

communication and it's interesting watching

1:29:51

I saw Sam on Lexus podcast and

1:29:53

I mean in general Sam isn't

1:29:55

very openly critical about you and Joe not

1:29:58

pulling back any punches. But he

1:30:01

similarly, I mean, he was talking to Lex

1:30:03

about how he reached out to Elon for spreading

1:30:06

misinformation on COVID and he reached out

1:30:08

to him and it failed. And I feel

1:30:11

a similar way, but of a

1:30:13

different viewpoint of, of me trying to reach out

1:30:15

to him. Credit

1:30:17

to him for taking me very seriously and engaging

1:30:19

with me over a very extended chain

1:30:22

of emails and going back and forth over data. I

1:30:25

really credit him for that. And

1:30:27

generally I'm a big supporter

1:30:30

of his and I, of particularly

1:30:32

his waking up app, which I think is a phenomenal resource

1:30:34

for mindfulness and for understanding

1:30:37

some of our core spiritual

1:30:40

questions about the illusion of self and of ego

1:30:43

and of our obsession with our own thoughts, etc.

1:30:46

And so I, he's been a hero of mine

1:30:48

for so, so long and there might be a book in

1:30:50

the back, which he authored, which I think

1:30:52

was and is incredible. But on

1:30:55

this front, I've just been, again, without

1:30:58

getting into the private communications, because that's practically,

1:31:01

I feel like that's not right. And, and by the way, I've

1:31:03

also been hesitant to really

1:31:06

openly talk about him over and over again, because

1:31:08

I, I, at some point I feel like a public

1:31:11

conversation with him might be the right way

1:31:13

to go on some platform and

1:31:15

I want to be careful in what I say. But

1:31:18

in summation,

1:31:20

I've just been very, very disappointed in

1:31:23

the way he's handled this. Given

1:31:26

his previous messaging has been

1:31:29

all we have is conversation. Ultimately,

1:31:31

civilization depends on our ability to

1:31:34

have a reasoned conversation on

1:31:36

very important topics. And

1:31:38

he said, he said the alternative that we

1:31:40

have is violence. That's, that's literally

1:31:43

the way he has laid out the case. And

1:31:45

he has also said that

1:31:50

when one says something

1:31:52

and it turns out to be incorrect, the

1:31:55

right thing to do is to fix

1:31:57

it as quickly as possible. But that

1:31:59

is by far. far the best course of action.

1:32:01

And so his continually doubling down

1:32:04

on wrong formulations in this case, and

1:32:06

his refusal to discuss

1:32:08

this, in particular with me, is

1:32:11

very strange in light of beliefs that

1:32:13

he has been perfectly clear about. Yeah.

1:32:16

And this whole line of, well,

1:32:19

I'm not an expert, so I'm not the right person

1:32:21

to talk to, Brett's not the person to write talk to.

1:32:23

It's just this weird disconnect

1:32:25

there of on the one hand, the

1:32:28

case for getting vaccinated is absolutely clear cut. And

1:32:30

here's why you should get it. And here's why I got it. And

1:32:32

everyone, you know, I think should get it minus young

1:32:35

boys. That's one concession you made. Saying

1:32:38

that with such certainty

1:32:40

and very little humility, but then also saying,

1:32:43

I'm not the expert. Don't listen to me. I'm not the guy.

1:32:45

Neither is Joe. Neither is Brett. You know, neither is whoever.

1:32:48

It's like either you talk about this issue, which

1:32:50

he did and took a position, right?

1:32:52

His position was not, I don't know, people should,

1:32:54

you know, here's what I'm doing. I'm getting the vaccine and my

1:32:57

kids are, and you can decide for yourself. His

1:32:59

thing was advocating other people do

1:33:02

this. And but

1:33:04

then at the same time saying, I'm not the expert.

1:33:06

It's like, you can have a one way, right? Either

1:33:08

you have a perspective, in which case you should

1:33:11

defend it and talk to people who

1:33:13

are critical of it. And he's been doing some recent interviews

1:33:15

that I think were, I mean,

1:33:18

he spoke to Majid at some point earlier

1:33:21

this year, I listened to and I thought, I love

1:33:23

Majid and I still like Sam, but I thought

1:33:25

it was kind of a failure because it was way too

1:33:27

sprawling and way too all over the place and

1:33:29

focusing on a lot of macro issues

1:33:31

without kind of drilling down on some very

1:33:34

fundamental points about what was, you know,

1:33:36

what mistakes were made. But this,

1:33:39

this overall shift

1:33:41

that I see that

1:33:43

he's taken where it's like previously

1:33:46

the kind of bravery and

1:33:48

courage and conversational

1:33:51

skill and aptitude that I saw with Sam was

1:33:54

getting in the ring with Christian

1:33:56

fundamentalists, you know, advocates

1:33:59

for Islam. and debating them, people

1:34:01

on the BLM side. There was one debate I remember actually

1:34:03

with this one comedian

1:34:06

with, I think Joe was there and openly talking

1:34:08

about police shootings and racial profiling, et

1:34:11

cetera, openly going into that

1:34:13

dangerous territory and holding his ground right

1:34:15

or wrong. Like there was an infamous debate with Cenk

1:34:17

Uygur about Islam, fantastic debate.

1:34:20

And actually defending his position to now, well,

1:34:24

we can really, unlimited conversation

1:34:26

is not the right way and this is not something that

1:34:28

I'm gonna get into. I'm not the expert, but

1:34:30

also you should get the vaccine and you should get boosted. It's

1:34:33

like, what? That doesn't make sense. Well, since you

1:34:35

raised the issue of his talking to

1:34:37

Manjid, I would also point out

1:34:39

he's talked to Russell Brand. Yeah,

1:34:43

I also thought, by the way, that was, I

1:34:45

liked the conversation, but I thought it was a failure again,

1:34:47

just overall. It was just too

1:34:49

sprawling, not enough time, I feel like, and

1:34:51

too all over the place. Like there used

1:34:54

to be a sit down conversation and at some point

1:34:56

I'd love to talk to Sam about this and be like, okay, 2021,

1:34:59

this was your position. Here's where I think you

1:35:01

got it wrong. Like go point by point as opposed

1:35:03

to these big macro discussions

1:35:05

where all the specifics get lost in

1:35:08

my perspective. Well, I hope

1:35:10

he takes you up on that, but the fact

1:35:12

that he's willing to talk to Russell Brand

1:35:15

and Manjid Nawaz, but not

1:35:18

me. And also he's expressed, he's wanted

1:35:20

to talk to Joe. He's openly said that several times.

1:35:22

He's happy to go on Joe's podcast. The

1:35:25

fact that he would talk to these people whose position

1:35:28

was not in any way less

1:35:31

extreme than mine. I don't think mine was extreme,

1:35:34

but the fact that there is

1:35:36

not a tremendous amount of difference in the hazard

1:35:40

that I view these vaccines as

1:35:43

being versus what Manjid believes,

1:35:46

for example, and yet he's willing to talk to Manjid and not

1:35:48

me, suggests that

1:35:50

there is something about a conversation with

1:35:53

frankly, somebody who knows a lot more about

1:35:55

this topic than he does that

1:35:59

he is shying away. from and frankly

1:36:01

at this point I have as

1:36:22

a forfeit on his count

1:36:24

in his case. He is forfeiting

1:36:27

by refusing to discuss it and he

1:36:29

no longer has any

1:36:32

excuse based on

1:36:35

platforming or whatever because his

1:36:37

conversation with Maude and

1:36:40

Russell Brand and his willingness

1:36:42

to talk to Joe all suggest

1:36:44

that this is somehow about

1:36:47

about me and not about the topic. Yeah

1:36:51

and I feel like you've already said this before let's

1:36:53

just do it again in case he's listening like you're

1:36:56

happy to talk to him with you bring your expert

1:36:58

he brings his expert and you

1:37:01

can decide beforehand which studies to talk about and

1:37:03

which topics to focus on you're

1:37:05

willing to go on you know whatever Joe's podcast

1:37:08

or you know I'm happy to moderate a discussion you're

1:37:10

happy to bring whatever expert you want and you're letting

1:37:12

him bring whatever

1:37:14

person he wants to bring to the table like you're willing to

1:37:16

do basically anything to

1:37:19

talk to him. Well that has been my position there's

1:37:21

some point at which I show up to the field

1:37:23

of play and he doesn't show up and my feeling

1:37:25

is okay then you

1:37:27

take the L then you're telling

1:37:30

us that you're not capable of prevailing

1:37:34

in such a discussion and that's why

1:37:36

you're not showing up so what we you

1:37:38

know I'd rather we do this with a discussion

1:37:41

but no at this point Sam

1:37:43

has lost. His

1:37:46

recent podcast the post-mortem on Covid

1:37:49

I listened to it and you know I'm

1:37:51

listening to it and I just feel like it's

1:37:53

there's some serious fallacies and a misunderstanding

1:37:56

of what's going on just there's

1:37:58

a couple things in particular that really struck

1:38:00

my attention, one in particular was this

1:38:02

complete misunderstanding of, we

1:38:05

alluded to this before, of who's

1:38:08

at risk of COVID versus who's at risk

1:38:10

of vaccine injuries. And his point was,

1:38:13

we administered

1:38:15

COVID shots and if we believe

1:38:18

there's the benefit for mortality,

1:38:21

especially in older people, the

1:38:23

amount of lives that vaccines have saved,

1:38:26

even if 20 people, 200 people, 2000,

1:38:29

I believe he went up to 20,000 people

1:38:32

died from the vaccines, he's like, there's nothing to

1:38:34

talk about. It's no big deal because on a cost benefit

1:38:36

analysis, it makes sense just

1:38:39

like, you know, for example, driving

1:38:41

cars on highways, right? We, there's

1:38:43

a number of a staggering number of fatalities,

1:38:47

complete tragedies that we accept because

1:38:49

we want to get to places on time. We accept

1:38:51

that as a society that some number of people

1:38:53

are going to get killed on highways every year

1:38:56

because of efficiency and because of the way

1:38:58

our society runs. And that's obviously

1:39:00

Sam involved in sophistry because

1:39:03

as we have made the point here multiple times

1:39:05

on this podcast, if

1:39:08

there were a small number of adverse

1:39:10

events, you could reduce that

1:39:13

number a great deal by age

1:39:15

stratifying the application of these vaccines.

1:39:18

And if he has not been an advocate for age stratifying

1:39:20

these things, then he is effectively

1:39:22

saying that a small number of

1:39:25

deaths that are completely needless are okay

1:39:27

with him and they're not okay with me. Yeah.

1:39:30

Let me make this very clear for him. If, you

1:39:32

know, 2000 people, 20,000 people, whatever

1:39:34

number of people died from vaccines, that

1:39:36

group is concentrated

1:39:38

among younger, healthier people that

1:39:40

have higher risk, particularly of myocarditis

1:39:42

and sudden cardiac death and heart

1:39:45

attacks. And we think that

1:39:47

number is very, very low on net, but

1:39:50

that number exists. And there was a recent study from

1:39:52

South Korea where they very

1:39:55

comprehensively looked at myocarditis

1:39:59

cases and death. deaths associated with vaccine

1:40:02

related to sudden cardiac

1:40:04

death. And they confirmed several

1:40:06

cases of such of concentrated

1:40:10

among younger, healthier people,

1:40:12

particularly men between the ages of 15 and 30, but

1:40:15

also older, where they died right

1:40:17

after the vaccine. And there was evidence of

1:40:20

myocardial injury. And we

1:40:22

know this to be the case, that there are some number of

1:40:24

people that have died or had

1:40:27

heart attacks, severe cardiac

1:40:29

outcomes from this vaccine. And

1:40:31

we know that group is very different from

1:40:33

the group that's been vulnerable, that

1:40:37

has been at risk for COVID. So

1:40:39

this idea that that's a risk that

1:40:42

we should bear, it's like, no, no, that

1:40:44

that could have been easily mitigated. If our

1:40:46

policy had been over 65, you

1:40:49

should, you should get it. Talk to your doctor, look

1:40:51

at the risk and benefits, healthy young

1:40:53

people under the age of 50 or 60 with

1:40:55

no comorbidities, there's not

1:40:58

clear evidence of benefit. And that

1:41:00

could have prevented whatever number,

1:41:02

$2,000, $2,000, but this idea that that is a cost that was justified

1:41:04

to bear is a

1:41:09

complete misunderstanding of

1:41:11

who's actually at risk of dying from

1:41:13

the vaccine or getting serious adverse events. And

1:41:16

who's actually at risk of dying from COVID because

1:41:18

those are very, very different risks. And we

1:41:20

could have done a far, far better job at stratifying

1:41:24

by age and by risk. Um,

1:41:26

on this front, well, what's more, his argument

1:41:29

is just simply childish because

1:41:31

he is treating this number of, uh,

1:41:37

supposed, uh, acceptable losses

1:41:40

as if that number is not climbing. And

1:41:42

the fact is the evidence strongly

1:41:45

supports the idea that these vaccines are invading

1:41:50

tissues all around the body, most

1:41:52

critically, the heart, but all around the

1:41:54

body and that when they do, they are resulting in

1:41:56

damage to those tissues, which is going to reduce

1:41:59

life expectancy.

1:42:00

So the problem is we don't know the

1:42:03

full extent

1:42:05

of years of life lost

1:42:09

degree to which the aging of people

1:42:11

has been accelerated by the damage done by

1:42:13

these vaccines. We will not know that until

1:42:15

this cohort has moved through

1:42:18

life and we will only know it if we measure

1:42:20

it. So to treat this as if we know

1:42:22

the number and it's small and therefore totally

1:42:24

acceptable, well it may be

1:42:26

acceptable to use Sam but that's the result

1:42:29

of a moral defect on your part. It

1:42:32

is not the result of a careful calculation of anything.

1:42:35

I'm just, Brett, I'm just so confused on

1:42:37

this fundamental thing that he

1:42:39

said again very clearly on his last podcast,

1:42:42

Sam said that if

1:42:44

you, you know, didn't get the,

1:42:46

you know, someone who didn't get the vaccine

1:42:50

before being naturally infected, I don't

1:42:53

understand you at all, he said. I

1:42:55

just don't get why you would make that decision. And

1:42:58

if you've got natural immunity, then okay, that counts for

1:43:00

something. But before

1:43:02

being naturally infected, I don't understand why

1:43:04

someone wouldn't get the vaccine. That's

1:43:07

a statement. And I'm like, well, does that include me?

1:43:09

Does that include my mom? Like my parents chose not

1:43:11

to get vaccinated for different reasons. Like

1:43:14

who's he talking about there? And why do you not?

1:43:17

Like we've been over this many times. I

1:43:19

feel like it's like we know who

1:43:21

was at risk, right? The average

1:43:23

person who died from COVID had four comorbidities,

1:43:26

their mean age was something like 75

1:43:28

or 85, very high. We

1:43:31

knew who was getting this. There's been multiple, multiple

1:43:33

studies that we can talk about from Italy

1:43:35

and Sweden showing that, you know, 98% of

1:43:38

people dying from COVID had three plus comorbidities,

1:43:40

etc. Like, like we know the data. So

1:43:43

and we knew this data at the time, this isn't just

1:43:45

new information. So it was perfectly

1:43:48

rational in July or August and

1:43:50

September of 2021 to say, I'm 45 years old,

1:43:54

I'm healthy, I don't have any comorbidities.

1:43:58

I'm choosing not to get vaccinated or for my kids. kids

1:44:00

to get vaccinated. That's irrational.

1:44:02

That was a rational position. That was not

1:44:05

irrational or crazy. Yet

1:44:07

for Sam, that was completely irrational.

1:44:09

I don't understand why he would say that

1:44:11

at all. Not only was

1:44:14

it rational, but I literally do

1:44:16

not know a single person

1:44:19

who made such a decision who

1:44:21

regrets it. I know lots

1:44:23

of people who made the decision to get

1:44:26

at least one shot and

1:44:28

regret it. But I literally

1:44:31

do not know a single example of somebody who

1:44:33

resisted the shot as terrifying as it was

1:44:35

to do that in the face of the kind of pressure that

1:44:38

was exerted. Those

1:44:40

of us who did not get the shot do not

1:44:43

regret it because, frankly,

1:44:45

our intuition that the shot was more dangerous

1:44:48

than we were being told has been borne out

1:44:50

in spades. Right. And

1:44:52

we should acknowledge the other side too, which I think

1:44:54

is important. So you had stories,

1:44:58

real stories of there was a lot of like Christian

1:45:00

pastors, a number of sort of elderly

1:45:02

people, activists who are very anti-vaccine

1:45:05

who on their deathbed said they made a

1:45:08

mistake and later died, people over 60. And

1:45:11

those examples have been used by Sam and others

1:45:13

to say, well, OK, clear problem,

1:45:16

misinformation with deadly consequences. First

1:45:19

of all, again, it's the problem of stratification. Those

1:45:21

were not 25 year old guys. They were not 47

1:45:24

year old healthy women. Those were

1:45:27

people over the age of 65 with

1:45:29

multiple comorbidities, which arguably initially

1:45:32

they should have been encouraged and perhaps

1:45:34

have gotten the vaccine early on. And well,

1:45:37

but those people are also downstream

1:45:40

of a systematic campaign to represent

1:45:43

these shots as much more efficacious

1:45:45

than they actually are. And I don't

1:45:47

know how deeply you have delved into

1:45:50

Martin Neil and Norman Fenton's work

1:45:52

on what they call the cheap trick, but

1:45:55

the impression

1:45:58

that these shots were highly effective. was

1:46:01

largely the result of what

1:46:04

has to have been a deliberately constructed

1:46:07

statistical artifact. Where

1:46:10

if you shove people into the category of

1:46:12

unvaccinated so long as they come down

1:46:14

with COVID less than two weeks

1:46:17

from their inoculation, you

1:46:19

create something in excess of 80% apparent

1:46:23

efficacy. Even if you were injected in with saline

1:46:25

you would get something like 83% efficacy.