COVID-19: Why the “Experts” Got it Wrong

So this is my place, the Pineapple Hill Grill and Saloon. If you go to my page, you can see all the work I did for outdoor dining for tables being 7 feet apart. And I come in today because I'm organizing A protest and I came in to get stuff for that. And I walk into my parking lot and obviously Mayor Garcetti has approved this, has approved this, being set up for this being set up for for a movie company. I'm losing everything. Everything I own is being taken away from me.

And they set up a movie company right next to my outdoor patio, which is right over here. And people wonder why I'm protesting and why I have had enough. They have not given us money and they have shut us down. We cannot survive. My staff cannot survive. Look at this. Tell me that this is dangerous but right next to me as a slap in my face. Welcome to the Libertarian Institute, YouTube and Odyssey

channel. Today we have Lori Calhoun, the author of Questioning the COVID Company line, Critical Thinking in Hysterical times. Lori, thank you so much for your time. Thanks for having me. When it comes to the claim, listen to the science. I want to listen to the science, but I'm not sure I exactly know how to. What is science and how can we differentiate it from coincidences or propaganda? That's a great question. Science drove, quote, quote, UN

quote science. The science drove all of the political measures used in response to the emergence of. The virus. And so you do have to get a handle on what exactly that phrase supposedly refers to. Science is the method used to adjudicate a variety of hypotheses regarding phenomena we observe. Okay. So it's empirical sciences. You you observe phenomena and you try to explain them. In a way, science is a kind of if you like.

Conspiracy theory cuz you're trying to connect the dots so you have a cause and effect, or what looks to be a cause and effect and you want to explain it through a theory. But science is considered respectable because it's repeatable. It's reproducible the studies that you use to. Confirm theories. And it's always open to refutation. So you can say, look, I have this theory and then you can test it in a variety of different ways.

You keep testing that theory and that this is how science evolves over time, that some theories get abandoned to get replaced by newer, better theories that better account for the phenomena. So science is an evolving method and process by which we make sense of empirical reality. So let me give you a statement. Tell me what, if anything, is wrong with the logic behind it. Raytheon and Northrop Grumman are the experts with regard to military capabilities.

Therefore, only Raytheon and Northrop Grumman should have a valid opinion with regard to what should be done militarily. Priests and people with theology degrees are the only people who can really have an opinion on religion because they are the experts you. Do not have a priesthood nor a theology degree. Most of you out there. Therefore you guys cannot have a valid opinion on such a thing. What, if anything, is wrong with this line of thinking?

Interesting comparison, those two cases, because on the one hand you have the obvious conflict of interest, where the people who are deciding what we should do in the face of conflict have values at stake. They have possible profits. At stake. And so they're going to promote a line which which will further their own interest.

So what happens, we actually have a system similar to that unfortunately in the United States with the military because we do defer much of the decision making to these people who do have industry connections. So the difference is, you know, between just like. Listening to the science and deciding what to do is vast. There there are descriptions of what what's going on, and then there are prescriptions or normative guidance about what we should do.

So the philosopher, the Scottish philosopher David Hume called this the is aught problem. So you can have a whole description of everything that's going on. It's all true, you know, you've confirmed your theory. You, you know you've decided that. This statement is true, and this theory is true, but there's still the whole extra question of what you do in response, Okay. So that question is answered by

appeal to values. So you can say, for example, just to give, you know, to continue the military analogy, you can say, all right, we've decided that Vladimir Putin is a bad actor. He invaded Ukraine. That was a bad thing to do, Okay. So then there's the whole, there's a whole other decision to be made, which is what do we do in response?

What should we do? Okay. So you can, you can agree with, you know, people who work at Raytheon and N Agreement. You can agree with them that Vladimir Putin, you know, should not have invaded Ukraine. Okay. So. But he did. So now what you do, what do you do? And on the one hand you have people are going to support the values of companies such as Raytheon and they're going to say, well, obviously we should ship as many weapons to Ukraine as we possibly can and let them

sort it out. And then you have, on the other hand, people who are advocating for human rights and they're saying actually it's, it's going to be a. Finder where you just are killing people, not just soldiers, but civilians. The more weapons you send over there, the more people you're going to kill. So they're very different solutions to to what should be done in the case of military conflict. And the solution that's opted for tends to be determined by

the person's prior values. So if they work for Raytheon or they have associations with Raytheon, as does our Secretary of Defense. Lloyd Austin they're going to have, they're going to be skewed toward a solution that favors those values. Okay that promotes those values. The religion case is also very interesting because as you may know, the Protestant Reformation came about because there was this concern that. There was a middleman between people on the ground and God, Okay.

So you can you can say I believe in God or I don't believe in God. But among people who believe in God, there they believed that Martin Luther believed that you actually have as much access to God as does, you know, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. And so there was a big dispute about that. It's actually it's interesting that it's a similar case

because. On the one hand, people would say, oh, religion is completely different topic, but it was, it was the very same question of you know, who exactly counts as an expert in these in these scenarios, in these vexed conflicts. So what's wrong with the? Ultimately, what's wrong with both of those, I would say is that they assume that descriptions dictate prescriptions and they don't. Nothing is dictated by the facts. About what we should do.

Best example I've come up with is smoking okay. We have tons of evidence, scientific evidence, theories confirmed over decades and decades that that smoking is going to increase your likelihood of dying early, increase your likelihood of developing lung cancer, emphysema, all sorts of other afflictions. And yet there's still the question, knowing this, should I smoke? And some people continue to decide to smoke because the pleasure they derive from from

smoking. Outweighs their concerns about the number of years which may be shaved off at the end of their life. So it's a value judgment how you're going to live your life and that is not dictated by the facts. So when it comes to COVID, have you seen any examples of the scientific community falling for the very same thing that we would expect, priests and members of the military industrial complex?

To fall into, yes, they're experts, but they also have a huge financial incentive which clouds their judgment. Have you seen any examples of that in the medical community? We have tons of examples of that. I mean, basically the regulatory agencies have been completely captured by the Pharmaceutical industry and the best example I. Could point to right now is the opioid crisis okay.

So if you This is why I have a couple couple chapters where I discussed this because it's really important to understand how the opioid crisis came about in order to understand what's going on in the in the COVID world. So the opioid crisis got off to a start when Purdue Pharma in the Sackler family marketed Oxycontin as a safe. Narcotic, which could and should be prescribed to people with any sorts of pain. You could have just a minor pain, you know, you stuck your toe or something.

Your doctor gives you a narcotic. So they marketed it very deceptively, suggesting that it wasn't addictive and that it was less subject to abuse than narcotics. Even though human societies have known for hundreds of years, many hundreds of years. Perhaps you know thousands of years that narcotics are extremely addictive and it's very, very difficult to shake a habit once you develop an addiction to narcotics.

So people have known this, but defying all of that they decided to market this very powerful narcotic as non addictive and they got the approval from FDA and not only that, but they included a package insert in the medication that said. You know, it's less subject to abuse and it it's safe for for applications that are that exceed terminal patients.

It used to be the narcotics were only given to people who are going to die, you know, because it didn't matter if they became addicted, you know they're going to die anyway. So you just want to make the end of their life as pleasant as possible. But with this new narcotic, they decided to market it really widely and give it to anyone for anything. And what happened was this sort of tidal wave of addiction. People losing their prescriptions, going to the streets.

I'm sure you know about the famous pain clinics. I talk about them in a chapter in this book. The pain clinics were where mercenary doctors teamed up with, you know, bad actors. And they opened these pain clinics where people could just come in and get narcotics freely and legally. And this went on for years. That finally was shut down. But when it was shut down, it had already created so many addicts. That they were all over the streets and there was a huge

market demand for narcotics. And so when people couldn't afford their prescription anymore because they lost their insurance, often because they lost their job, they went to the streets. And this is how the fentanyl crisis came, came to be because, you know, the cartels came, it rushed in to fill, to fill the demand.

The market demand for narcotics and they they've been filling it with fentanyl laced products and as as you know there have been hundreds of thousands of overdose deaths as a result of this. So to answer your question, how does this show that we have, you know, this problem of values affecting the science? It shows that.

If people have finance enough financial incentives, they're willing to do things that are going to actually harm people, even though they're a part of a regulatory apparatus that supposedly exists in order to help people. When I first was coming across a number of ideas such as mask mandates, lockdown mandates and a lot of the experts were

allegedly on the same page. I felt like I had had 10 years of practice of questioning the experts because in my field of economics or history, I constantly see all the experts say, you know, it's really dangerous to have too free of a market because you might get monopolies and with monopolies you'd get higher prices and worse quality than you otherwise would. Also, the state should monopolize taxation, compulsory education, the judicial system and the healthcare system, and guns.

Never clarifying the difference in the principle between monopolies are bad sometimes. They're inherently evil and should never exist, and they must exist or else life will be nasty, brutish and short. So going into this, there were examples that I had of experts getting it totally wrong and being incorrect when trying to analyze the situation. What are some other examples that we can actually point to of the Expert class being totally wrong in a field that they're

supposed to? Have the sole expertise in. Well certainly if you want to stick with pharma, lots of drugs have been withdrawn from the market after they've been out on the market for a while because it turned out after a while that they had lots of adverse effects and they killed a lot of people. A good example is Chantry which is the anti smoking drug Which which? You know, it's incredibly profitable, but it caused at least 500 suicides.

There were like thousands of other attempted suicides under the influence of that drug. It was not withdrawn for the market because of its suicidal ideation, which they knew about in the very first year it was withdrawn because now it appears that some components of it are carcinogenic. So. So that's a really good example and it's always going to happen that. I mean, basically you can look at every example of chemicals

that have been. You know, championed as like the the what, the solution to a problem. For example, are artificial sweeteners OK? They always get approved. And then, you know, decades later it turns out, oh, actually, they're carcinogenic and they're killing people and. As far as the most recent one, but it always happens. Basically, it's induction on every artificial sweetener we've ever had that your safest bet is to like you wanna cut down on calories?

Just drink iced tea without sugar in it, because based on Cyc limits, saccharin. Aspartame probably was the new one. Sucralose stevia, they already say there are problems with stevia. So basically those chemicals, they're all produced in laboratories and they end up having these adverse effects and they're not discovered until they've been out in the market for a really long time. So you could say, well, no one's this is not anyone's. Evil doing.

And they're just mistakes. But that's exactly the point. Human beings are fallible, and we do make mistakes. And even people who don't have vested interest in these cases can make errors of judgment. When it comes to the foreign policy establishment, something you are very heavily involved in and have done a terrific work, especially regarding the drone

program. What are some examples or an example of tons of experts, Tons of people with all this classified information at their fingertips, getting it wrong, so to speak? Well, you you just set me up for that one. Obviously it's the invasion of Iraq. Is the is the top contender there? Because we had all of the experts telling us that Saddam Hussein had WMD. Actually, not all of them. I take it back. Well, Rumsfeld himself said it, Secretary of Defense said.

No, the United States experts did. But I I want to say that Hans Blick's people outside the US demurred from this take. But if you want to talk about US experts who all came together to support the invasion, that's it.

I mean right there, Saddam had WMD, there were roving chemical laboratories, there was a yellow cake incident, you know, purchase in Niger. Not only that, but they tortured some some guy and got him to, quote, UN quote, confess that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Well, you know, people, when you torture people long enough, they're going to say whatever they think that you want them to say so that you'll stop

torturing them. I mean, this is a very ineffective means to ascertaining the truth. But we, the the US administration went along with that based on so supposedly the expert testimony of all these people. Colin Paul, you know went to the UN and made the case kind of unsuccessfully. No one really, you know, believed his his PowerPoint presentation. But in the US it really, it really took on, you know you you frighten people enough and this is a key element to what happened with COVID too.

You, you instill in them the fear of death and they will, basically. Sign on for just about anything. So that's what started the War on Terror. It went on for 20 years. So, so many more people were killed in the War on Terror than were killed on 911. And it's another really good example of you have a fact the Twin Towers were taken down. We had this horrible event on September 11th, 2001. Khache the, you know, truthers, We're just going to assume that it it really happened.

OK, so, so it really happened. We were attacked by Osama bin Laden. And then the question is, what do we do? What should we do? And of course, you know, for people who had been chomping on the bit to to attack Saddam Hussein and to, you know, launch a major initiative in the Middle East, this was the perfect opportunity. Yes, excellent, excellent answer there. Okay. So how can we verify or test the hypothesis that mask mandates

save lives? Okay. You have to look at places where they were used and look at places where they were not used and look at the outcomes. And this was done throughout the period for for about two years. People were comparing states, Okay so states. The United States actually is structured to be able to test some of these these things because we have different state government, you know, regulations than federal. A lot, a lot of places don't have that privilege.

So in the United States, there were states which never had mass mandates or had them only maybe for like a week and then they stopped. And then we had states that had them the whole time all the way up until like 2023, you know, in some, in some places, in some places in California and New York. I mean, it was really bad so. So what you do is you compare places scientifically. You want to do a scientific study of this okay. So you want to look at places where masks were used and places

where masks weren't used. And you try to isolate the variables as best you can, and then you see what were the outcomes. So if if there was a catastrophic amount of death in the place where no masks were used, and there was hardly any death in the place where masks were used, and this would give you evidence for believing that masks are actually an effective way to.

To contend with the virus. If that's not the result you see, then you have to ask yourself whether in fact they're effective, and if they're if they don't appear to be effective, you can investigate further into why that might be the case. So one reason that might not be the case is that the mask mandates in place were very loose. So you could wear a bandana, You could wear like a piece of cloth that had.

Pores that were larger than the size of the virus that supposedly the masks were protecting against. So obviously that's absurd. You know, if the virus can travel through the through the cloth, then it's not protecting anyone. When you wear a bandana, it's just for show as found, she said early on in in 2020. You know, his first statement on mask was that, oh, you just do it to make people feel better psychologically. He said that on 60 Minutes in March of 2020. Yeah, no. Yeah, exactly.

So and then later, you know, they backtracked and said, oh, he only said that to prevent a PPE personal protective equipment shortage in hospitals. So that was his explanation. But The thing is, the guy, like, lied so many times throughout that you just, like never had any idea when he was telling the truth or when he was sincere. He's a very smooth liar. Like when he lied, he often, like, came back and admitted that he lied. But then he's just as sincere,

right? So you like, was he lying then or is he lying now? You know you never knew with him. That that one was so incredible because he could have said something like look. I looked at the information. I gave my honest opinion. That's what it was at the time. But because I'm a scientist, I continue to research, question my premises and here is my most recent conclusion. I'm donating my last year salary to a a Health Organization because I really screwed up.

I'm a public servant. I'm so sorry. But instead he just said, well, that was to prevent a shortage okay. So you're explicitly on board with the noble lie being completely a completely justifiable approach. To public policy. Okay. Now what should I do, Mr. Fauci? I only spent 15 years building this business. I should lock it down. Okay. Let me know when you can give me the keys back. No, I know. It was incredible. The whole thing was incredible. I don't know if you got to the

Is it the. Yeah. It's the penultimate chapter of my book. It's called Launched on a Wing and a Prayer for Billions of Dollars. I'm not sure whether you got all the way through but this you have to read it if you haven't ready yet because this is this is like the day new mall of the story. It's so great. It's about OK, so I I sort of set it up and say you know I saw these articles early in 2020. Some of them have disappeared.

There were articles about like if they didn't get to work and make the vaccine quickly, then the then the virus would mutate and they'd miss out on the opportunity of making a blockbuster. So I read lots of business articles way back in spring talking from a business perspective about how COVID was this great opportunity. Many of those have disappeared from Google.

You can't find them. But there was there's one that I found that was titled Coronavirus mutation could threaten the race to develop that vaccine. But what gets what is most unbelievable is that in January 2023 an article came out peer reviewed scientific article which says in effect that viruses that replicate and I'll just read those viruses that replicate in the human

respiratory mucus. So without infecting systemically, including influenza A, SARS, COVID 2, COVID-19, endemic coronaviruses, RSV and many other common cold viruses cause significant mortality and morbidity and are important public health concerns because these viruses generally do not elicit complete and durable protective immunity by themselves. They have not, to date, been effectively controlled by licensed or experimental vaccines. So this sounds like okay.

So you're saying basically there was never a possibility that COVID could have been controlled by a vaccine? That's what this article is saying that it's it's its structure, it's rapidly mutating quality, and the fact that it's relatively weak, it kills .5% of people. So it's the human body launches the minimal needed response to rid itself of the invader, and then it moves on. So this is the explanation for why every year you can get a flu

shot. But getting a flu shot this year or getting the flu this year has no bearing on whether you're going to get flu next year, because the flu mutates so rapidly and your body doesn't mount a permanent response to it. So since your body does not ever mount a permanent response to these sorts of viruses, you can't actually create an effective vaccine, because vaccines of course, utilize your immune system.

And so it's the it's the same technology the vaccine provokes your immune system to respond and that's going to protect you in the short term. And as we know, the COVID vaccines protected people only for a few months and then they had to get boosters or whatever. So, so the what's what's amazing about this article is that it was coauthored by Anthony Fauci.

So. So it's an incredible conclusion to the story where he in effect, there are two ways of understanding it. You can say, OK, so Fauci is admitting defeat. He realized he believed in the vaccines, but he realizes now that you can't actually have a vaccine against COVID, or he actually knew all along or, you know, and all he tried to do basically throughout the pandemic was sell vaccines. So there are two very different ways of understanding what went on there.

In a way it's a Corribtus and Silla for him. Because, you know, if he admits that he didn't know what was known by many virologists way back in 2020, he didn't know that then he really had no business serving as our fount of public health wisdom. And if he did know, then it shows he's completely corrupt, you know, and and completely moved, driven by financial interest. When it comes to finding comparative examples for a

controlled experiment. The one that comes to mind would either be California verse New York or California or California New York verse a place like Florida. Because I know Christie gnome in either North or South Dakota had like no lockdowns. However, when it comes to the population density, it's extremely difficult to to compare those. Also, Florida has a much older population than California, so of course there's no perfect controlled experiment with something like this.

What is the best controlled experiment we can use and what can that teach us about lockdowns, mask mandates and vaccine mandates? Sweden, Sweden versus the rest of Europe. OK. Sweden did not lock down. They had one of the best outcomes in Europe. So all of Europe, you know, they were in lockstep except for Sweden and Sweden. You, you may remember the press at the time. They really, like, dragged Sweden. Oh, they're killing their, their population, you know, blah,

blah, blah. It's like it's murder, you know, so. And they ended up doing, like much better than most of the other European countries. So they had no lockdowns. They, I don't think they had mask mandates either. And so if you compare Sweden, it's you can, you can find, you know, similarly sized European countries that went whole hog. You know, they had like massive lockdowns. You couldn't like leave your house. You couldn't go to the grocery store. You had to wear a mask.

You had to use a tracking app. You know if you got near anyone you know and if you compare them, actually Sweden did better. So that's a real life example. That's science based because you can compare. You're right, you can never completely. You can't find 2 identical cases because there are no two identical countries or two identical states. But you can correct for the differences.

And and same with Florida, when people say that you know Florida did bad, they're not correcting for the age of the population because COVID is much more dangerous to people in the cohort of retirees which populate much of Florida. So you can't just go by like per capita mortality in that case,

you have to adjust for age. So in Sweden, you know, given that the population is similar in terms of demographics, you know, in terms of his age breakdown, everything, you can compare to many of the other European countries and find that Sweden actually actually did better, especially when you look at not only virus deaths but also nonvirus deaths. So nonvirus deaths were excess deaths caused by political

measures. You know, like this poor woman you featured at the opening of our interview who lost your business. There are lots of people who lost their businesses. I thought it was thousands, but somewhere I think it was brownstone. I read that it's actually 3.5 billion, Could that be right? No 3.5 million businesses were were permanently shuttered.

So, and I'm not sure if that was for the, I'm not sure exactly what that covered, but I believe that it's true because there are tons and tons of people and you can actually see some, you know, sort of empirical evidence when you go through any major US city, all the shuttered stores that are still there. So all those people lost everything. All right, so a little more on the experts. The Atlantic says Georgia's experiment in human sacrifice.

The state is about to find out how many people need to lose their lives to shore up the economy. Thank you, Amanda Mull. This was published April 29th of 2020. When I look at Georgia, I can go to April. So here is March, April of 2020. This is from usafax.org. Here on the screen you will see where let's get as close as we can. So here is April 29th, almost exactly. We had an average of 662. Cases. Looking at this graph on your screen, Lori, is there any

correlation between lockdowns? No lockdowns. Is there any lesson we can learn from Georgia's experiment in human sacrifice being one of the earlier states to open up? No. And in fact you can look at all of the states that there are some people who have quite diligently tracked all of this data, You know, all the lockdowns and oh, you have it right there, there we go. So people have graphed this throughout the pandemic and and discovered that in fact there's nothing to discover.

There is no pattern that the the virus was completely untamable and it wasn't affected by things like whether a state allowed there to be outdoor concerts or whether beaches were closed. It wasn't affected by any of these things. The virus was just out there circulating around the the mitigation measures did not work. Even the vaccines did not work. The vaccines were supposedly, you know, going to save us from, you know, the boogeyman of

COVID-19. There were more COVID deaths after the vaccines were widely distributed. Even in places where they were, there was almost universal uptake, for example, Israel and Gibraltar. So basically, the vaccines didn't save us, The masks didn't save us. The lockdowns didn't save us. The the, the virus killed old and sick people and obese people at, you know, an unfortunate rate, but it also killed them at a rate that's very similar to their deaths by the seasonal

flu. So what happened though is I I think because they called this a pandemic and they made everything seem so much more dire than it was, that people really panicked. And that's why the subtitle of my book is Critical Thinking in Hysterical Times. People really became hysterical over this. And you know, you can just look at all the pictures of people wearing, you know, 5 masks and hazmat suits and dining behind plexiglass. I mean, it just went on and on.

People playing musical instruments with a mask in front of them. I mean, they were just like really crazy things that people were doing because they were completely discombobulated by the amount of fearmongering propaganda to which they were subjected for for years. I mean, it wasn't just like 2 weeks, it was like it went on and on and on. Every time you turned on your TV, you would see death ticker tapes and there was never any attempt to place the number of deaths into context.

So how many people were dying per day? Before COVID, people didn't know that because people didn't pay attention to the number of flu deaths among elderly people before COVID. Actually, they they didn't pay attention to that either because they stopped dying of flu. They all died of COVID but, or most of them. So basically, since people had no idea how many people usually die every day, they were completely freaked out by these ticker tapes of death on the television that went on and on.

And they were locked in their homes. So all they did was watch TV and think about death. I mean, it was unbelievable. So when it comes to how many people die per day, just as a reference point, the number that I found, I can't. It's not coming to me now. I think it was in the world population review. 167,000 people across the planet die every day, which is extremely tragic and I am sad for basically all of those. However, when you don't even have a reference point, 100,000

people just died. You have no ability to determine, well what could happen. Even if it is a billion people die in one day. That doesn't justify Gavin Newsom locking you and your house while he's at the French Laundry restaurant with the With No Mask. One of the first things that really got me thinking that we are in sort of like a critical or hysterical time, as as you call it, was I went to the restaurant that my friends and I always go to, Charleston's and.

Arizona, unfortunately, I have not been back. But we walk in and they say, I'm sorry, we can't serve you without a mask. And I look around and I said even though none of the other customers are wearing a mask, we have to wear when they go, Oh no, no, no, they're sitting down and you just have to wear it until you get to your seat. And I said, hold on. I don't know anything about

virology, however. This felt like me saying, hey, you don't know anything about economics, but give me 100% of your income and I'll just triple it by tomorrow. It's like okay, even if you've never studied economics, that just seems fake. So when they said that to me, I go so to walk 10 feet, I can literally see the chairs we've been sitting in every other Saturday for like 2 years. I go sit down and then for three hours we don't wear a mask.

Do we have to wear it when we get up to walk outside and they go? Well, once you've paid your bill, there's not much we can do. But we do ask that you wear it, including if you get up to go to the restroom. I go. I don't know how to analyze this, but this sounds ridiculous and maybe I am. Totally no the case, I don't think. So I think that's nonsense. Yeah. No, I, you know, I think your

intuition is right there. I mean basically, you know, I some of this just goes back to to chemistry 101, you know, like molecules just disperse in the air. So this was one of the most shocking things when I, when I relocated from Austria to the UK, I was in England for a while and sharing them, which is a village, OK. It's on the East Coast of England. And I was walking on the pier and they had these like big

circular stickers all along. The pier, mind you sharing them, has a population of I think 5, 5000 people. So maybe you'll see like two people on on the on the pier, on the shore there at a time. And so they're really spread out. So if they're breathing, they're obviously their molecules are are mingling with like a vast volume of air. Like the chance that your little, you know, COVID piece of dust is going to hit someone on the pier is like it's it's like infinitesimally small.

There's just like no way it can't happen because there's so much air the the waves are rushing in against the on the beach, you know, so the waves are like shaking up there. There's just no way you can get COVID from someone on the beach. And yet in sharing on this little teeny village, they had these big stickers all around where you're supposed to, like, keep your distance, you know, from people.

And it was all over the village. They were all over the sidewalks, They were in all the stores. And I just thought to myself, how in the world did this happen? How did these stickers get placed in this obscure little village on the East Coast of England? And yeah, the same thing is happening like, all over the world simultaneously. And I was like, this is really nuts. Like what is going on here? So that, you know, those were some of the first things that I observed, just complete

craziness when I was. I finally went back to the United States because Boris Johnson ordered a a Country down lockdown which made it illegal for me to go anywhere and he also closed all the hotels. So I I either had to like shack up with my artist friends in London forever or just like go home. So I finally came back to the US and I was in Abington, PA and I would go out during the day and like walk up the street. There was a TJMaxx up the

street. They had a sign on their door that said that they would only admit 163 people at a time. And I was just like like who who did this like 3 significant digit calculation of how many people are allowed to go shopping in TJMX? I mean, the whole thing was so ludicrous. I I should say it was funny. But it was also tragic because so many people lost their livelihood through this, through the ever shifting rules and regulations on businesses who were forced to close down for,

you know, serving customers. Even though, as you said, there's lots of hypocrisy. And that Nancy Pelosi went to the beauty salon, right as another example. Glory Lightfoot. Yeah, so, so, so anyway, you know, the hypocrisy just didn't stop. But also just the absurdity. But the whole thing was so ludicrous. And I I laughed.

But again, I have to say, it was also equally tragic, you know, for all the people who who lost their shirts through this, because anyone who was in the gig economy, they didn't have any sort of protection, They didn't have a pension, they didn't have savings, they were barely making ends, ends meet and they lost everything. It's really sad. They did. Do you remember?

I haven't talked about this, so I'm trying to remember exactly what my position was because I remember being very pissed off at the time. But I seem to remember AOC giving an interview and all the experts saying what you want to do. There's a new thing. It's called Coronavirus. And the way to keep yourself safe is to not touch the three doors to your system. Eyes, nose and mouth. Always keep your hands clean. Don't touch your face or anything.

And then that just dropped. And now it was all about masks and saying staying 6 feet apart. They had actually said, here's what you do, always wash your hands. And then stop saying that and then never mentioned it again. Do you remember that's what's happening? Or is this just a lot of no, a lot of this stuff happened? No, no, no. I think that probably did happen. I mean, there were so many crazy

things that happened. And the most important point, though, is that they kept shifting the guidelines and they kept changing the directives. So this kept people in a constant state of uncertainty. What can I do? What can I not do? What's legal? What's illegal? Can I go somewhere? Can I go shopping? I mean, it was really, really crazy and it kept people on the edge of their seats, just very nervous about what to do up until the vaccines arrived. OK. So basically this was all a

preamble to vaccine update. So uptake. So the minute the vaccines were available, all these people, many of whom were not vulnerable at all to the coronavirus because they're young and healthy, lined up to get their vaccines. And so that's because they, they had been told by the powers that be that the vaccine was like the solution to the crisis. So people like Tony Blair, former Prime Minister Tony Blair of the UK, he said, you know, vaccine, passports will be our ticket to freedom.

You know, as, as though he, he actually owns our freedom. He's going to tell us what we can do and what we cannot do. I mean, it was all part of this big push for for vaccines and then ultimately this kind of passport. System where our behavior can be controlled in the future.

It's actually a little bit frightening looking back at what went on because the level of hysteria that was generated through propaganda and its pervasiveness and its effectiveness in getting people to promote the what I call the COVID company line is unbelievable.

Like the amount of divisiveness, the anger, the enmity, I mean some, in some cases it was acted upon when people would shout people out of stores and etc. And people became very polarized and alienated throughout this entire period of of history. And it was, it was very frightening for everyone. And then the people who didn't comply were set up as the evil

enemy. So the very same template that we've seen in the year in in wars, you know forever where you have good and evil and you have you're either with us or you're against us. And the anti, the quote UN quote anti vaxxers were people who exhibited vaccine hesitancy. In fact, they exhibit hesitancy to taking it, to taking an experimental remedy for which they had no need according to

all available statistical data. Right, Because their chances of surviving COVID were already 99.5% in many cases, or they had already survived COVID. If you had already had COVID, that meant that your protection was insured. It was. It was demonstrated by the fact that you were no longer sick, so you had you had to have created antibodies and T cells, otherwise you would still be

sick or you would have died. And yet they pretended that natural immunity had no relevance somehow to this, even though the effectiveness of any vaccine is based upon natural immunity. If if the if the immune system didn't work, then the and then no vaccine could work, because the only thing a vaccine does is it provokes your immune system to get to work. So if you've already survived the virus, you've already generated antibodies and T cells

in response. And yet these socalled experts were telling us that, oh, we don't know about natural immunity. I mean, it was really, really crazy. And these sorts of contradictions are are what led me to keep writing about this and just trying to solve the puzzle, to solve the mystery of what was going on around us. And it was one of those things, like the vaccine that we wait for is the cure. So there's nothing else you can do. Exercise. Forget about it.

Avoiding carbs. I'm not even going to comment on that. That has nothing to do with health at all. Wait until this vaccine comes out. All right. Good news, audience, you don't have to unsubscribe. I'm not crazy how touching your face can spread the virus and why it's so bad. And you should avoid it from March of 2020. And then here is the LA Times and New York Times. Stop touching your face. It's an easy way to spread the virus. How? Coronavirus.

Can and cannot spread sex sneezing, surface face touching. So this is these are both from March of 2020 and look again if they had just said, look, here's what we thought. We did some science and it turns out we were incorrect and now we're correcting ourselves. The fact that they didn't is so damaging to the reputation that it it's just what Johnny Cochran told us years ago. It goes looks, it's all about credibility. That's all you have. I don't know if even if I'm reading a study.

And it's a peer reviewed. Well, those are written by people and people are fallible. So how do we know what's true and what's not? A huge thing is reputation and the people with the worst reputation on planet Earth. We're saying there's nothing you can do until you get this shot and align the pockets of Pfizer and Moderna and Glaxo Smith Kline. So just take the shot. Wouldn't we tell you to? You guys had. That's such a terrible reputation.

This is Bernie Madoff asking you to invest, and we're totally skeptical and they're like, how dare you? He's been an investment banker for decades. He knows what he's doing. That's like, that's a perfect example because Pfizer paid the largest. Yeah, Pfizer paid the largest fine for healthcare fraud in the

history of the world. And yet they just every all these supposed experts, you know, are saying, oh, Pfizer, they're they're like, you know, worshipping Albert Borla, the CEO, or Stefan Bansal of Moderna, who never had a product go to market before the COVID vaccine. He never made it to market. None of his, none of his products ever got out of the animal trials. The only reason he became a billionaire during COVID because governments bought so many of his shots.

So. So you're absolutely right with this with the history of this industry and like the shenanigans that went on, it's it's it's awe inspiring that people got, got taken into it. And the only way I can explain it is through the complete discombobulation that was caused by fear mongering propaganda. It's it was very similar to post 911 people were really out of sorts after 911 everyone was

just kind of disoriented. They're like what's going on, you know if I go to the mall, is there going to be a terrorist attack? Like people were really frightened for for like months, they were kind of traumatized. And what happened was with COVID, a similar, a similar phenomenon where people were so afraid of death suddenly that they would they would exceed to anything.

So even when it flew in the face of common sense and just basic precepts of science, they wanted an answer and they wanted someone who who would guide them through the pandemic. That was Anthony Fauci here in the United States and they wanted to believe in him. So This is why we had this phenomenon of people buying Anthony Fauci, Anthony Fauci paraphernalia. They had like votive candles and you know, basically they erected him as a kind of St. And so it really became very, very cult like.

I mean we used that word cult like probably too much, but this is a clear case where it really was cult behavior. I mean, it was like there were the outsiders and the insiders. And if you're an outsider, you were evil and they didn't have to talk to you. You couldn't actually have a conversation with people because you were evil. They had to stay away from you. So. So it was very cold. Like, there was one solution. And Anthony Fauci was the the source of the science.

And so you had to listen to whatever Anthony Fauci said. And if he said pee one day, then pee was true. And if he said not pee the next day, then not pee was true. You just had to forget what went on before because you had to believe in Fauci. It was the worst sort of scientism. Scientism is the elevation of science to the status of a religion where you're no longer actually in this skeptical investigative mode, but instead you have accepted that you have arrived at the final truth.

There's not going to be any more investigation. The censorship is a perfect example of scientific tendencies. When you stop having conversations, when you shut down dissent, that's where science comes to an end. And now scientism has taken over, because science in science requires an ongoing dialogue. There's no way that you're you're following the science if

you're not having conversations. And if you're not considering new data as it comes in, if you just stick with the March 2020 narrative, you've just adopted a religion. That's not science. And and they would always use that fear of the authorities and not being popular. They they would merge that, you know, fear of people being isolated with fear of not being liked by those in power.

It was exactly like 17 intelligence agencies have confirmed Donald Trump has colluded with Vladimir Putin in hacking Hillary Clinton's e-mail. I go. 17 said this I go, I can't wait to see what they say. And then none of them came out to defend it. And then the New York Times redacted it one one year later. I didn't mean to get into a no no no. But that's actually a really good example. Because, she said on the presidential debate Stage 17 intelligence agency, remember that.

And then Joe Biden. Four years later. Russia Gate 2.0 said Putin has bounties on the head of American soldiers in Afghanistan, and 50 intelligence officials confirmed that the Hunter Biden laptop is a Russian. Planned just they just lie. The experts yeah no they do lie and they even sometimes admit that they lie. So. So there's this great clip of Mike Pompeo where he's he's at some event and he said when he was director of the CIA he said we lie we cheat.

We still we have entire courses. I mean they actually admit that they do this and then the question is why does anyone believe anything that they say. So another really good example is Nord Stream Okay. So initially, the US take on Nord Stream was Russia did it. Russia sabotaged the North Stream pipelines. This was the US take for like months. And then Seymour Hers arrives. He says no, actually, here's how it happened.

I have a whistleblower, Here's the detailed chronology, here's the mechanism, here's how it happened with the help of the CIA. And then suddenly it's like, I guess we could better come up with another story. So there's this new yacht theory where this handful of people in a yacht did it. And you know, in the end, the US admits, oh, actually it was Ukraine.

We knew it was Ukraine all along, but we just said it was Russia. So it's like, should we believe you now or should we believe you then or should we just never believe you? Because clearly you're pathological liars and you're very good at lying in the way that Anthony Anthony Fauci is. I mean, if he's if he, if he knew he was lying about the masks, then he's a very accomplished liar because he says things very sincerely.

And it's the same with our, our foreign policy spokespersons when they get up there and say, yeah, Russia blew up the North Stream pipeline, you know, so, so then you ask yourself, like, why would they do that? And so the explanation is supposed to be, well, Putin is evil and he's underhanded and he wants to generate sympathy for Russia. So they have a whole, like, explanation of why Russia would have sabotage the North Stream pipelines until it turns out

that in fact, he didn't. So and then they come up with a new story. Yeah. And and the fact that they never apologize or clarify or resign is why you can put it in the category of nefarious actors as opposed to they're human. They're fallible. Where is this apology? Sorry, I locked everyone down unnecessarily. Well, I guess I'll have to pay some reparations when it comes to the vaccine issue. The biggest vaccine skeptics seem to be the people who were

big supporters of the vaccine. They said I'm getting this, I can't wait to get it, but mine is not. It's actually not effective unless everyone else gets it. So they had less confidence that this was going to protect them then the average person who didn't get it. In my estimation, I don't have much to back that up.

But when I saw so many examples of it, these people who got the vaccine were so extraordinarily insecure about the level of efficacy and safety that it was going to have on them that it it just seemed mindblowing when I was reading the book. Page 138 caught my eye. You mentioned the inexplicable success story of largely unvaccinated Africa. What can we learn from the 50 plus African countries when it

comes to the vaccine? Yeah, they had very low vaccine uptake, partly because of their, you know, poor economic situation, but also partly because they're very wary of vaccines because a lot of experimentation has gone on in the third world. And so there are people who are like, I'm staying very, very far away from Pfizer or don't. No, thank you. We'll weather the storm on our

own. So another thing that was different, you know, if you want to compare different cases and and how the circumstances different differed and then the

outcomes were different. Different in in Africa, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, these are medications that are used regularly, you know, in combating and preventing malaria and other diseases that we don't have in the West. And because you know, it's entirely possible that people were protected by these things, but those were outlawed in the US because we were only allowed

to have the vaccine. So if you if you had a Doctor Who thought, oh, let's do some preventative work here, you know, like Doctor Peter McCullough and some other people, they had some, they devised some regimens to help people so they they wouldn't get to the point of being so sick. They would have to go to the hospital and then they'd be ventilated and be killed by either that or REM Desver, REM Remistever or whatever that. That REM desever.

Thank you, Remdesivir, the antiviral component, which is actually toxic and kill a lot of people. So. So when people wanted to use these things, Joe Rogan, of course, famously said that he used ivermectin, I believe. Was it hydroxy? Yeah. Okay. So yeah. He said it was ivermectin and they said that's for horses, right, exactly. But it's a medication that I guess won an award. I think someone actually got the Nobel Prize for for inventing it

because it cured so many things. It's really good for a lot of the insect borne diseases in Africa and stuff. So, so in Africa you know they just didn't have this tsunami of deaths from COVID. People survived and so there were some non virus deaths in places what like Kenya where they actually had lockdowns and stuff, which was crazy because a lot of the population lives in shanty towns which are open air. So it does it. How does it help you to have a

lockdown in a shanty town? I mean it absolutely doesn't. So. But they were, you know, following the examples of the West. And in those places, there were some excess deaths, but they were not. They were not from the virus. They were from the political measures locking people down, destroying their means of livelihood. So Oh, thank you. I from Mectin, A multifaceted drug of Nobel Prize honored distinction with indicated efficacy. Yeah. So. Oh, there we are.

So, so, so, you know, there are people, the die hard branch comedians, They'll still come forth and say, oh, the reason why Africa did better is because they have a much younger population. That's their explanation.

It's not. You know, it's not fair to say that Africa did better because they're their average resident is much, much younger and but what they do is they they fall into the trap of admitting that children are not vulnerable to Coven 19. And therefore, there's no way in hell that the Coven 19 shots should be on the formulary for childhood immunization, that they were put on the immunization schedule before the emergency use authorization

expired, which protects the companies for perpetuity. And anything that makes it on to the child immunization schedule protects the manufacturer from lawsuits forever. So this is another case where it's really, really shady because kids are not vulnerable to COVID-19 and now it's on the it's a recommended list, but the fact that it's recommended by people who are regarded as experts means that there are states where they will be required now.

So they're required to have the first COVID-19 shot, which which was formulated against a variant that no longer exists, that no longer exists. So you're getting a shot that actually serves 0 purpose beyond inducing your body's production of spike protein. And if you're unlucky, you'll get blood clots or myocarditis. But you know, if you're lucky, it will just be innocuous. But it's certainly not going to protect you against anything if the original virus no longer

exists. But in addition to the original virus vaccine, which is required on the form or recommended on the formulary for children, they're also saying a booster shot. So you're supposed to be getting COVID shots from the time you're six months, you know, all the way until you're adult. Which means, as I argue in my book, they are setting these children up to be Guinea pigs, to be Guinea pigs throughout their entire childhood, because every booster is of necessity, a an experimental trial.

Okay. So when it comes to testing whether or not the vax saved lives, what is a way that we could falsify that? Looking at people who roughly weigh the same in the same age group and compare a million vax people to unvaxed and we should see way more deaths among the unvaxed. What what are? What is a way we can actually? Test lockdowns are fake and evil and unjustified, along with mass mandates.

When it comes to the VACS, how can we verify whether or not it was as safe and effective and mandatory as they promised us it would be? Yeah, Well, I mean, the data certainly suggests that it wasn't effective. Lots of people who were doubly triply and quadruple VACS died Okay. So right there you have that that fact, it did not prevent death and people who had the vaccine died and people who didn't have the vaccine lived.

And so you if you want to compare the numbers, you would have to, I suppose you would really have to look at the original placebo trial which they ruined the the companies ruined the placebo trial by by by providing the vaccine to the placebo group. So instead of following it through and finding out you know, like you know what happens if you didn't vaccinate people, they actually they yeah, they they unblinded it and they gave all the placebo people the

vaccine. So there's no way you can compare from the original trial. That's impossible. They destroyed the ability to to make the comparison that way and you might, you know, be a little bit suspicious. Why would you want to do that? Why would you not want to know the truth? And of course their pretext, I'm sure, was that, oh, we want to provide them with this

medication to save their life. But the fact is, the CDC's own death data, statistical data on on deaths by age group shows that most people were never actually going to die of COVID, whether or not they had the vaccine. So I mean ultimately if you wanted a really clean comparison, you would have to study what happened to the placebo group, people who didn't get the vaccine and compared to the people who did get the vaccine, It's it's it's a mess.

You can't do it with the original trial group because they gave the placebo people the vaccine. But you could, I suppose, try to just figure out what percentage of people in each group who died had the vaccine in in in what percentage didn't have the vaccine. You could do it that way. I mean, it's going to people are going to be crunching these numbers for decades.

It's very, very complicated. But what one thing we do know is that a lot of people who died had been vaccinated and a lot of people who weren't vaccinated survived. So you know. Yeah, which is not what they predicted before, which is not what they told. So when when Joe Biden came out around Christmas 2021 and said the unvaccinated can expect a winter of severe illness and death, he was wrong. Lots of people who weren't

vaccinated survived that winter. And it was in in some cases it was because perhaps because they had survived the virus. But that actually proves the point. They had already survived the virus. So they didn't need the vaccine because they survived it before.

So why would they need it? Like the second time when natural immunity mounts a much stronger response than response to one single protein, which was what the injections induced the production of. So the injections only induced the production of a tiny part of the virus, the spike protein. So basically if you survived the the whole virus, then you got rid of all parts of the virus. You didn't just get rid of the spike protein, you got rid of all of it.

So, and they're subsumed. Of course, it's the spike protein, so it's redundant for you to get a shot. That your body already if your body already rid yourself of the the entire virus. Now I realized for the last hour I've been breaking one of my rules, which is to fall for the thinking past the sale tactic that the corporate press and politicians always play, getting people to argue over. Do lockdowns work or not work? The question is they've already

thought past. We have the right to lock you down if it quote works when it comes to how they were able to propagate. Propagandize the masses in such a way, getting them to think past the sale. What were some tactics they used and how can we avoid them in the future? Well, we talked a little bit about one of them before, which is the the horrible polarization and division between people. Where where people who had even very legitimate concerns were denigrated as evil, selfish,

ignorant. There was a huge propaganda campaign intended to make people feel like they were, you know, somehow criminals for not getting the shot even though they had already survived COVID. Or they had an examined the data and decided it wasn't in their best interest. Given their cohort and their prospects for survival, they were made to feel as though they were the evil enemy. So the the the evil enemy was not just the virus.

In this case it became the people who who refused to comply with the dictates and they became the scapegoats for the virus. The virus. At some point it became obvious that it was everywhere and it was untamable. But what happened is the propaganda made the compliant start to blame the unvaccinated. So you heard this little trope. It's a pandemic of the unvaccinated that was like circulated all over the world, over and over again. It's a pandemic of the

unvaccinated. So you are driving the pandemic. You're the reason why we still have restrictions. If you would just do the right thing and roll up your sleeve, the pandemic would come to an end. So you are to blame. Evil anti vaxxer when in fact a lot of these people weren't anti vaxxers. I mean, they just had a they had reasonable skeptical responses to demands on them to get a vaccine in exchange for a free donut. For example, I saw. I mean, there were just so many cream.

One My God and Bill de Blasio eating a hot dog on TV? Yes, yes, there's. Really good. No? You can get free French fries. Bill de Blasio with. Free French fries. Yeah, it's up there somewhere where he's like shoving French fries into his mouth, saying free French fries, you get a vaccine. I was like, this is so insane. I mean like you have got to be kidding me. I mean, even setting aside the whole thing that like 78% of the

people who died were obese. So setting aside the whole issue of like, whether you should be feeding people free French fries and Donuts, there's just like the ludicrousness of that being your compensation for serving as a as a as a subject in an experimental trial for a novel medical device. I mean, it's really crazy, and I think a lot of people don't realize that when healthy subjects volunteer to serve in pharmaceutical company trials, they get paid thousands of dollars. They have to.

They have to sign a contract. But in effect, what happened in this case is you were asked to be a pro bono subject in an experimental trial, the largest experimental trial in the history of humanity. And you were offered no compensation. And you were also, in effect, your right to to sue these people if they killed you or or for your family to sue them if they kill you or if you if they harmed you. For you to sue them was was taken away from you by the government.

So you you were asked to do this for free because you were made to believe that it was unpatriotic somehow, if you didn't get on board the vaccine train, you're asked to do it for free and to accept any possible adverse effects as just like part of your patriotic duty, I guess. And I think a lot of people just didn't know the history of pharma, like those of us who knew the history of pharma. I saw a really good Italian film where it.

It follows the story of this guy who decided he needed to pay some bills. So he's like, oh, yeah, I'll just volunteer for this pharma trial and get, you know, thousands of of EUR. And he ended up being terminally ill as a result, but he had, you know, effectively signed his life away. Most people have not watched these films. They haven't read books. They know nothing about the the fines that Pfizer has paid Johnson and Johnson has paid, AstraZeneca has paid.

They had no idea that Madonna had no products on the market. Most people had no idea. They just thought oh thank you Madonna for saving us. You know you've you've arrived to save the day when in fact none of their product, they're none of their products ever made it to market. So I don't know. I think it was.

It was like a combination of ignorance and fear that drove people to get on board the vaccine train and to to promote really crazy policies such as forced vaccination mandates, coercion, coercion of healthcare workers who had already recovered from the virus, coercion of military people. The refusal to allow people to come to the US unless they showed proof of vaccination all the way up until May 11th to 2023, so that the actual public health, the pretext behind us

was, was ludicrous. Because what what the law said was that you could come to the United States if you were vaccinated like two years ago, but if you recovered from the virus like six months ago, you couldn't come to the United States. And in fact, if you, if so long as you had your vaccine papers, you could even come to the United States infected with COVID because they didn't require you to test and they they already knew by, you know,

long, long ago, they knew that you could get COVID even if you had the vaccine. I mean, Biden himself had it a couple times and he's obviously like sex to plead jabbed, you know, so so basically we had these really visible examples of people who had all the right shots, who did all the right thing, and they got COVID anyway.

And yet they kept this mandate in place on people wanting to travel to the United States. They kept it in place all the way up until May 11th 2023. Yeah, it was a classic unfalsifiable thing where they're like, well, if you get the jab, then you won't get coveted. Rachel Maddow explicitly said this. Joe Biden said this. And then they got KOVAT and then they go, oh, see, that proves our case because. You can get COVID and with the jab you survived.

Oh, as opposed to everyone else who got covered without the jab? Exactly. Over bodies in order to get to work every day. Because every. Exactly. I mean, Jen Sake was a good one. The former press secretary to Biden, she was like, oh, I had covet, you know, she's like in her 40s I think her early 40s.

You know, so but, you know, fortunately I had the vaccine and so, so I came through it. No, You would have come through it like in any event, whether you have the vaccine or not, because you are young and healthy, it has nothing to do with the job. And likewise, people who are really, really old and really frail and have comorbidities or are obese, they're going to die of one of these viruses. Whether or not they have a vaccine. The vaccine is not going to save them.

And that's why we saw a lot of people die who had been vaccinated. It wasn't it. You know, when your number's up, your number's up. You know, I'm sorry. But, you know, if you're if you're 88 and you know you have all these comorbidities, vaccines are not going to save you. At that point, it didn't save people. So when it comes to testing to see if the people who got the jab died or not, let me go about this eight different way.

When they say people who are extremely out of shape and extremely old are going to die from COVID-19, those people are already in the category of much more likely to die than the population at large. It's sort of like saying there's a new virus and it causes scabs on your skin. It especially affects crystal meth addicts. Well, those people already have a ton of scabs everywhere. That's what we would expect to be seen. So even their claim, because I remember.

This one is going to be a little harder for me to find. I remember the first thing that was being said. One of the earlier claims was the people that are especially vulnerable to coronavirus are little children because they have weak immune systems and they break out in all these hives. This is really who the lockdowns are for and then they ditch that narrative as well. I promise. I saw that on the news a number of times and that's what people were just mindlessly repeating.

So they said everything, Remember. Yeah. Remember when people were bleaching their vegetables? So, like, there was a period in there where people were actually using Clorox to wipe off their vegetables in their house. So they got their groceries delivered to their house, and then they were using Clorox to to wipe them off to supposedly, you know, prevent them from getting COVID. I mean, people did really crazy things. So I'm sorry I interrupted you.

No that that's all right that that was my whole point, that they're saying this might have affect X, but we're already expecting X to happen. As it is, X being extremely old, people die and people who are extraordinarily out of shape, which again is no one, is an explanation as to why they didn't say cut out carbs and increase exercise or resistance training. Here is 1 video from across the

pond that caught my eye. To the most up to date information daily, you can trust us as a source of that information. You can also trust the Director General of Health and the Ministry of Health for that information. Do feel free to visit at anytime to clarify any rumor you may hear. COVID-19 dot govt dot NZ. Otherwise dismiss anything else. We will continue to be your single source of truth. We will provide information frequently.

We will share everything we can, everything you are else, you see a grain of salt. And so I really ask people to focus. So this egregious example of that appears to be this text which originated in Malaysia and has kind of has become a viral hope from Australia and in New Zealand. How irresponsible is it? The people that are sharing that news have been locked down imminent in New Zealand. And look, that's the kind of thing that adds to the anxiety that people feel.

So I continue to share the message New Zealanders must prepare but do not panic. Prepare and and when you see those messages remember that unless you hear it from us, it is not the truth. And I really ask people, just visit COVID-19 dot govt dot NZ. It has all of the up to date information and we will continue to provide everything you need to. So that was the Prime Minister right there. That was the Prime Minister of New Zealand. Not like I found a crazy lady on

Twitter one time. It's like this is someone and you know, she never resigned over this or anything, she said. You're one source of truth, another monopoly. The state has granted itself truth along with the guns and compulsory education right up with what's going on now that the revelations in the Twitter files and the attempt to completely squelch any dissent, you know, which is completely antithetical to to the scientific enterprise.

She did, by the way, resign. She's no longer the Prime Minister, but she resigned, like, you know, sometime after that, so. Yeah, I'm sorry. I should have clarified. She did not resign as a causal result of this. Apologize and be shamed forever. No, no, no, it was. There was no comment to that effect. She just said she was tired or something. That was like her reason for resigning either. Maybe you know, who knows what went on really. Maybe she realized how many

excess deaths were non virus. Excess deaths were caused by her lockdowns because they locked down like every time there'd be like 4 cases, Not deaths, but cases Cases they would lock down the entire, you know, metropolitan area of of Auckland. So they were incredibly severe. And then at some point both New Zealand and Australia realized that they couldn't control it. It was just uncontrollable. I mean they couldn't. It was it was going to happen and they've they finally realized it.

Now she, she didn't say she resigned because of that, but they did eventually open. That's what I knew, the pound that was winding down when Australia and New Zealand opened up finally, I was like, oh, they actually opened up before the United States. The United States didn't really open to unvaccinated people until May 11th, 2023, unbelievably. Have you found any evidence in your research that COVID-19 was the result of a lab leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology? Oh boy.

Well, there there's of course the circumstantial evidence, which is that oh, the the Wuhan Institute of Virology does gain of function research on bad viruses. OK so so and it happens to be where the outbreak first

occurred. So the Wuhan live market where they sell animals to use in culinary delicacies such as bad soup is like down the road Okay. So that that was the the claim by Fauci and others that it it came from the live market it it evolved naturally and so it had nothing to do with the gated function research that was going on at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It was just a sheer coincidence, I suppose that that it was a bad virus and that that's exactly

the kind of research that was being done at the institute. But totally natural origin it did not come from the from the institute. So there's first the circumstantial evidence which is just where it happened, where that where the outbreak first happened and also the fact I believe that the first person who died worked at the Wuhan Institute. So it's also possible that he just encountered someone who had made bat soup that he got the

ingredients from the market. It's it's possible but the the coincidence is like kind of hard to hard to believe. And then there's the genomic evidence so that this is this is the real this is going to be the determine of the answer to the question is the genomic evidence Okay. So there's a sequence in the COVID virus that is it looks to be artifactual, looks to have been to have been created in a

lab. And if that's the case, if it's it's a sequence that never appears otherwise in these sorts of viruses, it's a completely unique sequence and it's only appeared in artifactual modifications of viruses, then that is kind of slam dunk argument that it was actually a product of gain of function research. So if this sequence, if it's true that this sequence that the suspect sequence doesn't occur in any other analogous Organism, then it looks like it what it did escape from the lab.

But they're going to find out. Okay. They're going to find out it it hasn't been resolved yet, but they can. They can determine, for example, how many years or how many generations it would take a certain mutation to appear in an animal. And if it if it is it actually impossible, if it's scientifically impossible for that sequence to to have been produced from one generation to the next.

Just a quick leap from bats to humans then that will be the end of the the argument right there if it's actually impossible. So some people have said from the very beginning a lot of these people were deep platform back in 2020 have said, some biologists have said in fact in order to have that particular mutation to have taken place, it would have taken like 1000 years. So it wouldn't have been just like jumping from the bat to the human.

It would have had to evolve like here's like a feasible sequence of mutations that could have given rise to that sequence. So this is still under investigation. But yes, to answer your question, there's plenty of evidence that it came from the lab. And is there any evidence that the funding came from the National Institute of Health or the Eco Health Alliance with Tony Fauci stamp of approval as a result of the gain of research function ban that I believe Obama implemented in 2014?

Yeah, there is. First of all, it's funny because Peter Dassek was assigned to assess, you know what what happened and he actually distributed funds to be used for gated function research. So he had a major conflict of interest in in, in, in proclaiming that it would had a natural origin. Why? Because he didn't want to be responsible for millions of deaths. We're now getting Anthony Fauci's correspondence, and there's a lot of stuff coming

out where he has interactions. And there was testimony on the Hill also where he had interactions with people who believed that it was a gain of function release from the lab. And they they shut them down. They shut those people down. It looks like a couple of them have been brought by has two people in the e-mail correspondents who today Collins and Anthony Fauci in a conference call they changed their tune. They said no, it's natural

origin. They went from, you know, black to white, from thinking that it was gain of function to absolute certainty that it was natural. And then a few months down the line they got huge grants from NIH. So it looks like, you know, we're going to see more and more investigation of of these of this correspondence as it's made public. So yeah, there's plenty of evidence and it's certainly the case that Anthony Fauci brought

back gain of function research. So whether or not he himself funded the production of the COVID-19 virus itself, he definitely brought it back, brought back funding for that sort of research. And so this should really be a cautionary tale for all of us. Because whether or not this virus came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, we should be very wary of this form of research.

Because it's incredibly dangerous and it it could lead to the production of a virus which is much more lethal than COVID-19 was okay. If we had a pandemic where half the people of the world are wiped out by it, that's a completely different level of of atrocity.

And although the hysteria would be the same, the hysteria for this was the same as though we were in the face of the Black Plague. I mean, let's be honest, people were acting for months as though they were going to see wheelbarrows coming through the streets, picking up corpses. None of this happened. Many people never knew anyone who died of COVID. Many people, you know, we're just mystified by by this whole period of history, and with good

reason. Sure. I remember Rand Paul asking Tony Fauci. About the gain of function issue and he said taking a bat virus and trying to increase its ability to infect humans. Is this gain of function research? And he said absolutely not. He interrupts him and says so. Taking the bat virus and gain and giving it another function to infect humans, he goes, no, absolutely not. That's only from human to human. Going from bat to human that's not gain of function. That's called 3PP.

Something else he a fake thing that they made-up two days before and then handed him a note for. So I guess one of the responses could be. Does COVID? It seems as though you're more likely if you're with 10 people and you're indoors, you're more likely to get COVID than if you were with 10 people outdoors. Therefore we can conclude that this virus has lived and evolved inside to survive more so than something that evolved in an

outside area. Because you would think if it evolved outside through these animals then outside is more dangerous than inside, but the reverse is true. Could that be another indicator that it actually originated? From a lab, Yeah, that's very logical. Yeah. Going back to the question of redefinition, that is like a specialty that's like modus operandi of these people. So they redefined.

In advance, back in 2009, they redefined pandemic, so no longer the the definition The Who definition. The World Health Organization of definition of pandemic no longer includes the word severity over a broad geographical area. So they they weakened the definition of pandemic so that it would cover stuff like it covered the swine flu and it covered COVID-19 with a 99.5% survival rate. So, but because people associate the word, they continue to

associate the word pandemic. With things like the black plague or Ebola, you know very, very deadly diseases that can wipe out huge portions of the population. This helped to promote to fuel the panic throughout the population. And similarly they redefined the word vaccine. I have it in here somewhere in in before 2021 vaccine was something which reliably immunized. Advised you against a disease and they weakened the definition of vaccine.

So then so that now vaccine means it strengthens. That is such a broad and general definition that lots of things that you do like drink water, eat green vegetables, get fresh air, all of those things can count as a vaccine by that new definition. So, but because they they changed the definition of the vaccine, they immediately started calling COVID-19 vaccines. Vaccine. And this is what impelled because they believed that it was going to reliably prevent

transmission and infection. Final question is far as you know, people say well how could a medical establishment do such a thing? This is wild. You mentioned in the book the Tuskegee Experiment of 1932 to 1972. What was this? OK, this was a horrible episode in history about 40 years long as you said, where men who had been black men, mind you, who had been infected with syphilis were not treated.

So the the medical professionals they worked with knew that they had syphilis and did not give them any sort of antidote. So they just allowed the syphilis to develop to see what would happen. So basically these people were used as experimental subjects, non consensual experimental subjects, about what exactly the outcome of untreated syphilis would be. So that went on for years and years and you know. It's ghastly. People. People talk about the Nazis

experimenting on people. Well, people in the United States have been experimented on as well. And when the Moderna vaccine was released, Fauci went out and he did one of his PR things was, oh, the Moderna vaccine was created by a black woman. So this was supposed to be a selling point, right? And I was like, yeah, the people who ran the Tuskegee experiment also some of them were black. In fact, the program coordinator was an African American woman.

So there's there's no, there's no guarantee that someone is gonna have your, your interest necessarily in mind. But he was trying to there's a lot of acts hesitancy among African, African Americans. So he was trying to say, you know, basically this woman would never give you something that's going to harm you, you know, So just take the Medina vaccine. Look, it was invented by a black woman. It was crazy. Another just one of the many, many crazy things. I mean, I think nothing tops the

free doughnut thing. That was like nothing tops the free Krispy Kreme doughnut. But the book is questioning the COVID company line. Critical thinking in hysterical times. Check it out at libertarianinstitute.org. Laurie Calhoun, thank you so much for writing the book, and thank you for your time. Thank you for having me. Great talking with you.