Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 244 | YouTube Censors Inconvenient Facts

Episode Date: April 29, 2020

Today we discuss YouTube's authoritarian crackdowns on inconvenient coronavirus data, the media's hypocrisy regarding Joe Biden's accuser, and the myth of overpopulation propagated by leftist climate activists.

Hey guys, welcome to relatable, happy Wednesday. I hope everyone has had a great week. Today we're going to talk about a few things. We're going to talk a little bit more about Tara Reid, the woman who accused Joe Biden of sexual assault back in 1993. She has recently come forward with those allegations, and so we're going to talk a little bit about the media reaction to that or the lack thereof. We are also going to talk about the two doctors out of Bakersfield, California, who did a press conference with a local news organization. They looked at data and they said, based on this data, we don't think that these lockdowns are necessary. And in fact, they might be doing more harm than good. So we're going to talk about that and the censorship of that video on YouTube.

We'll also talk about this myth of overpopulation that seems to be increasingly popular on the left. and I'll tell you why that conversation is pertinent and what made me think about it and want to have that conversation. First, let's talk again about Tara Reid and Joe Biden. So Tara Reid, junior staffer for Joe Biden when he was a senator, claims that back in 1993, and what I'm about to say is graphic. So if you have kids in the car, you might want to fast forward. She claims that he pushed her up against the wall and he digitally penetrated her. And when she was visibly shaken, she says that he said,

fine, it's fine, you're going to be fine, you're going to be fine. So I don't know if this is true. I have no idea if her story is legitimate or not. I don't know. We do know that she is a Bernie supporter and so some people are saying that maybe this is political. I don't know. What I do know is that right now she has more corroboration and more substantiation for her story. than Christine Blaise Ford did. She has friends who said, oh, yeah, she told us about this in the 90s. When this happened, her brother says,

oh, yeah, she told me about this. And he says, you know, that he stupidly told her not to go forward. Her mom says, yeah, she told me about this. And her mom actually called Larry King and told him about it. Of course, didn't say her name. It didn't say Joe Biden's name, but said this happened. And she had a hard time knowing what to do

because she didn't want to ruin the senator's refuse. She also filed a police report. So based on all of this, she has a lot more credibility right now than Christine Blaisey Ford did. And yet the media ran forward with the Christine Blaise Ford story with the Julie Swetnik story with the Deborah Ramirez story against Kavanaugh without any substantiation without any corroboration whatsoever. And even with all of the inherent contradictions within the Christine Blazy Ford story. If you need a refresher on all of that, I talked about Kavanaugh a lot. I mean, like I've said, that was a turning point for me when I realized just how ruthless and how cruel people can be in Washington and in the media and in Hollywood like Alyssa Milano in ruining someone's life based on unsubstantiated allegations just because it suits them politically. I mean, that completely opened my eyes to the evil and corruption that exists in all sorts of institutions in America, especially when it comes to politics.

So the media ran with that story 100%. And oh, like I said, I talked about that a lot. Podcast episode, I think it's titled before believing Kavanaugh's accuser. So if you need like a refresher on the facts of that case, you can go back and listen to that. But the media ran with that full speed ahead without really even checking. And even though they knew that it lacked corroboration, they talked about it. They reported on it like it was absolute truth. And they hailed Christine Blaise Ford's hero.

And yet when it comes to Tara Reid, who has all of these people saying, oh, yeah, I remember her talking about that. Even though there's a lot more corroboration to her story, the New York Times went in 19 days before saying anything about it. And here are some of the headlines that we see when it comes to these allegations. Because the Washington Post, CNN, they also waited several days after the New York Times piece, after these allegations originally came out to say anything about it, to report on it at all. was not that kind of patience, that benefit of the doubt, that really investigative rigor when it came to Kavanaugh. So the Washington Post, here's their headline about it. Trump allies highlight new claims regarding allegations against Biden. So that's the headline. Not a former

staffer accuses Biden of sexual assault or Biden accused of sexual assault. Trump allies highlight new claims regarding allegations against Biden. So I don't know how familiar. you are with like conservative Twitter and conservative online conversations, but there's this joke. It's a joke, but it's not. It points to something serious. And the joke is conservatives pounce because it seems like every time there's a negative story about a Democrat, every time there's a negative story about a liberal. The headline in these left-wing media outlets like the Washington Post is never what the Democrat did wrong. So say, for example, Maxine Waters stole $1 million from her next door neighbor, whatever it is. And conservatives went on

Twitter and they say, wow, look, Maxine Waters stole a million dollars from her next door neighbor. That's like, that's pretty bad. The media should probably start reporting on that. Look at this local police report. I can't believe Nancy or Maxine Waters did this. The headline in the Washington Post in this, this is obviously not a real scenario that happened, but the headline, in the Washington Post would be conservatives pounce on maxi waters based on allegations of theft or whatever it is. The story ends up being conservative reaction, conservatives pouncing rather than what the Democrat actually did wrong. And this headline is a perfect example of that. So the Washington Post reports that Trump allies highlight new claims regarding allegations against Biden. Before the

Washington Post actually reports the allegations against Joe Biden. CNN, one of their headlines was why Biden needs to personally address Tara Reid allegations. Again, the headline, the first headline wasn't that Biden has these allegations or that Terror Reed has come up with a very credible story based on the corroboration that we have right now against Joe Biden. It's that, you know, Biden, he really needs to address this. So already preemptively giving him, the benefit of the doubt that they did not afford to Kavanaugh. Ruth Marcus, she wrote an entire book on why Kavanaugh is guilty of the accusations that, like I've said, were uncorroborated, were unsubstantiated, unproven, and contradictory. She says that Tara reads accusations,

which were reported at the time that they happened and told to friends and a mother, she said that they probably didn't happen. So here's what Ruth Marcus says. Oh, by the way, she works for the Washington Post. The likelihood of definitive proof one way or another seems frustratingly low. My gut says, here's what she says, wrote an entire book, this editor for the Washington Post, Ruth Marcus on why Kavanaugh is definitely guilty. Wrote an entire book on that. She says, my gut says that what read alleges did not happen. Her gut says that. Okay. My head instructs that it is within the realm of possibility and fairness requires acknowledging. that. And there's another point to bear

in mind. Double standards work in both directions. Those who disbelieved and diminished Christine Blaisey Ford faced the challenge of explaining why they seem so much more eager to credit Terriads account. Okay, so you're comparing like random people on Twitter, so

me, you're comparing podcaster's reaction maybe to Christine Blazy Ford to this journalistic institution that is supposed to remain unbiased. and to report the facts, which of course we know the Washington Post does not do that, neither does the New York Times. And so who, like who, what other media outlet

cast doubt on Christine Blazy Ford that is automatically and immediately accepting Tara Reid's story? I don't think that actually exists. And for the record, I did not cast doubt on Christine Blazy Ford simply because she was accusing the nominee for the Supreme. court that was nominated by the president that I voted for. That is not why. It's because she didn't have any substantiation or corroboration. Like, I don't know how many times I have to say that. She asks us, Ruth Marcus asks us to explain our reasoning. That's our reasoning because there's more corroboration for this story. Like I don't want to, I don't want to set a precedent, no matter who it is, to just believe accusers, no matter what, based on absolutely nothing.

I don't care if someone's accusing a Republican or a Democrat that's not a precedent. I want to set. I do want people to be innocent until proven guilty. I want there to be due process. I want there to be questioning and I want there to be investigation. That's what journalists are for. But when you have this journalist, when you have this editor for the Washington Post that did not afford the same benefit of the doubt and the innocent until proven guilty mentality

when it came to Capitol saying that her gut tells her that it didn't happen based on who, knows what I don't know why her gut is telling her that then yeah you have a lot of people questioning whether or not like not only are we questioning whether or not we're able to trust the media but also if there isn't some kind of other political motivation behind downplaying these allegations I don't know like I said if this happened I don't know I am willing to say that there should be vetting. There should be questioning, but let's start with Joe Biden. Like he was on the news. Multiple times over the weekend, over the past few days, he did not receive one question about it.

There were several senators who did not question about it. It's beyond parody. And you wonder if at this point the media is just accepting, are they just accepting that they're biased? Are they just accepting that they are propaganda arm of the DNC? Or is there something in their head where they're truly convincing themselves that they are unbiased and that they're objective? I I don't know, I'm not sure. Okay, let's move on to this video. So Dr. Dan Erickson, Dr. Artine Masih, they are two doctors that own,

I didn't write it down accelerated urgent care. I think that's what it's called, in Bakersfield, California. Shout out to Bakersfield. I really like Bakersfield, California. There's just a lot of great people. Anyway, they did this press conference with a local news organization,

They looked at the data for about an hour and they said, look, based on this data, we just don't think these lockdowns are necessary. We actually think they do more harm than good because the cases of abuse have gone up. The cases of child molestation has gone up, have gone up. The suicide rates have gone up. It's just not good. This is not creating a good situation for people. He also argued that the more people are inside and not. not interacting with the outside world, their immune system, the immune system's power to be able

to fight off disease and viruses, it lessens. And so he basically said, we don't think that this lockdown is a very good idea. It doesn't make sense economically. And he argues it also doesn't really make sense medically either. So we knew this was going to be controversial because he draws conclusions from the data that other people, that Dr. Fauci, for example, and Dr. Burr, did not draw and there are a lot of people and it seems to be splitting across partisan lines at this point there are a lot of people that say no we need these lockdowns no matter what for a really long time youtube they said that they're going to take down videos that are critical of the w ho or they go against anything that the w h o says if you need to know how corrupt the w h o is you can go back

and listen to my podcast title who is who or who is w h o i walk through the very tangled web of corruption and misinformation that the WHO represents. But YouTube said, yeah, we're just going to go ahead and take down any videos that go against what the WHO says or lockdown guidelines or anything like that. So this video, it had millions and millions of views. It was being shared everywhere. A ton of you shared it with me. It was taken down by YouTube. Thankfully, there are other, there are other outlets or there are other YouTube accounts that have put it back up. So you can still go watch it at least for now and I would go watch it if you want to if you're interested. I watched the whole thing and I thought that it was very interesting. Now there there is criticism

to this video. So basically they said look we've got millions of cases and we have a very small number of deaths. That means the death rate is so low. They said it's comparable to the flu and that means that people don't need to be sheltering in place. It's counterproductive. Other people are saying, okay, there's a problem with how they looked at the data. So if you watch YouTube videos or you read any posts that are saying that these doctors got it wrong, in general, their reasoning for their critique is this, is that you can't say that, oh, 6% of the people that we have tested are positive because that's what this doctor said.

I think he said, like 6% of the people we've tested are positive. Therefore, you know, he extrapolated that. Therefore, all of California, or 6% of all of California is, is, uh, is, uh, positive. People are saying you can't do that. You can't extrapolate the data that way. And that criticism I think is fair. Obviously, it's more likely that people in the urgent care are going to be positive for coronavirus. In other words, what he's looking at isn't a random sampling. So it can't be extrapolated to the entire state of California to then calculate the death rate. And that's what he did to get that very low death rate of like 0.03%. That is a lot like the flu. And people are saying,

you can't do that. That's not really probably the rate of infection in all of California. However, what I would say to those critics is that they are discounting that we actually do know that there are more people who have coronavirus than those who have tested positive. Because, A, Americans have been told not to go to urgent care or not to go to the ER unless they feel like they can't breathe, like unless they feel like they're dying. So there are definitely lots of people who have had coronavirus who never got tested and are not being counted in the official number, either in the state of California or in the country as a whole. We now know that the virus was known about in China in November, if not earlier, and people were traveling from Wuhan, China to other parts of the country to other countries, including to the U.S. all the way through January, which means it's also very likely people had the virus before. we even knew what coronavirus was back in December and January. So add that to the number of people

who we know for sure have had it, who have tested positive. And maybe there are people who you could say, okay, maybe there are people who died from it back then who weren't counted as COVID deaths. So you'd have to add those to the death toll two to get an accurate death rate. But the point is there are very likely, he's right, and that there are very likely millions who have had this, who have tested positive and who have recovered and are therefore not contributing to the official number of those being tested. And so the death rate probably is a lot lower than what is being reported. Plus, what the CDC has told us about people being asymptomatic that emphasizes the likelihood

that far more people have had this than those who have actually tested positive. because why would you get tested unless you actually felt some sort of symptoms? According to a study out of LA reported by ABC News, an estimated 320,000 adults in Los Angeles County may have been infected with coronavirus according to the preliminary results of a study that suggested the illness is far more widespread than current testing shows and the death rate is much lower. The study conducted at April 10th through 14th by the county and the University of Southern California estimated that approximately 4.1% of the county's adult population of 8 million has antibodies to the virus.

When adjusted for margin of error, the infection rate ranged from 2.8% to 5.6% or about 220,000 to 440,000 adults. At the time the testing was conducted, the county reported nearly 8,000 cases, meaning that the actual number was probably 28 to 55 times higher, and the fatality rate was much lower than that, on the number of people tested. So what he's saying is right, and some of the people that other news outlets have put up to say that these two doctors, they're absolutely wrong,

they shouldn't be listened to. They have also not presented a good argument. I saw that there is another immunologist that a local news station put up in Bakersfield that said, he didn't give any data or facts. He just said, yeah, you know, this virus doesn't, It doesn't spare anyone. It's not something we need to be taking lightly.

Well, that's not an argument against what these other Bakersfield doctors said. They didn't say we should take it lightly. They didn't say that we shouldn't abide by any CDC guidelines. He didn't tell people that, hey, if you're sick, you should just go out and, you know, eat lunch at your favorite restaurant. He didn't say don't wash your hands or don't wear a mask or anything like that. He just said maybe the full-scale economic shutdown isn't what is best. for this virus and isn't what is best for people holistically.

And yet other doctors have said, this doctor also said this virus is sparing no one, the doctor who was trying to contradict what Dr. Erickson said, but this virus is sparing a lot of people. It's sparing probably 99% of people. And every death is tragic. Every death matters, whether they are old,

whether they were medically fragile, whether they had underlying conditions, whether they were rich or poor, it doesn't matter. Of course, every death matters. And I still believe that people should do whatever they can to mitigate the risk of spreading the virus. Like, I do think that we should still be wise. I do think that people should still socially distance to a degree.

In Texas, they are actually lifting the stay-at-home order, and they are going to open things back up in stages. Things aren't going to be, you know, roaring 20s right away. But you can already see that states that are opening up, they're really just responsible. to not just pressure, but they're also responding to the fact that a lot of people are just disobeying these orders. A lot of people are saying, hey, it's warm outside. Like, I've got to get some fresh air. I've got to go outside here. I'm going to go crazy. People with kids, especially if you live in the city, like you've got to go to a park. Your kids have to exercise. They have to get their energy out. It's good for us to be out in the open, to be in the sun, to get that vitamin D

and to just refresh our minds as well. Like we were not made to be isolated at home. That's just not how human beings thrive or flourish. Like we were made to be in community. And still, I still believe that we should take proper precautions, but I just happen to trust people. Like there's a lot of stupid people out there. Don't get me wrong.

Trust me, I know that there are a lot of stupid people out there. But I think for the most part, like people don't want to die from a virus. People don't want to get the virus. People don't want their family to get the virus. They love their parents and grandparents. They love their babies. They love their, you know, friends who is going through cancer treatment.

So I think most people are going to be responsible. And look, you don't have to, even if your state opens up tomorrow, you don't have to go out. Like, you can shelter in place for the next two to three years if you want to. Like, if you want to stay in your house until there is a vaccine, there is nothing stopping you from doing that. If you are a business owner and you don't want to open your restaurant, you don't have to open your restaurant. I'm supposing if you're a business owner, if you're a restaurant owner who only wants to let five people at a time, five people in a design, you can probably do that for the next three years. I mean, I don't know how you're going to survive, but just remember, as the media is

lambasting all of these more conservative governors that are starting to open up their states strategically and slowly. Just understand that that doesn't mean that people, that people are ordered to go outside. Like you're not ordered to go to the, you know, mall and start making out with someone. Like you don't have to do that. So also understand, though,

that the media is going to be exaggerating and reporting on every single case and every single tragic death. of coronavirus that comes out of these states that are loosing the orders, that are loosening the orders, that's just going to happen because they want to prove that people should have stayed inside. Yes, we're going to see the infection rate probably go up, which means there will be a higher number of deaths as things open up. But that is, that's the case no matter what you do. Yes, when people go outside, they're going to be more car wrecks. There are going to be more cases of the cold.

there's going to be a lot more risk. The more people that are on the road, the more people that are outside, the more there are germs, the more there are viruses, the more risks there are of all kinds of risks. Eventually, you have to trust people to make responsible decisions. And here's my question. So for the people that are saying, this is so stupid to open back up, like you have to stay locked down for the governor of California, for the mayor of L.A. to say, oh, no, we're doing this for several more weeks like you've got to stay locked down what exactly are you waiting for so the curve is already flat we know that the curve is flat in most places are you waiting for it to get down to zero because that's just that's not going to happen and like I said people are already disobeying these orders people in

California are going out to the beaches because you've got to get outside like this was a great social experiment to see how long people are willing to stay inside for risk or perceived risk but I think people are getting to the end of their rope. I think people are saying, okay, I can't do this anymore, especially when it's warm outside and it feels like summer. People want to get back to their lives, and I think people are more and more willing to take on that risk. That doesn't mean that you're irresponsible.

That doesn't mean that you don't wash your hands and cover your mouth and don't go outside if you're sick and all of that good stuff. But of course, like people have to live their lives. They have to provide for their families. They have to engage in recreation. They have to do the things that keep human beings alive and sane. and these leaders that are staying, oh, no, shelter in place forever. A lot of them aren't even abiding by their own guidelines.

We saw Mayor de Blasio and his wife. We saw them, I think it was someone reported like 11 miles from their house. They were actually driven to a park where they could go, you know, walk and do the things that they want to do. And so they're obviously not taking it as seriously as they expect everyone else to, which is why people don't trust them. Like people don't trust the powers that be. And another reason why people have stopped taking this seriously is because it has become so politicized.

So when it became obvious via the media and opposing politicians that they were going to try to weaponize the coronavirus against Trump to try to use this to help Joe Biden or to hurt Donald Trump, then I think people stopped taking it as seriously because it seemed like it was more of, not that the vice,

was a conspiracy, but that the reaction to it was a conspiracy against Donald Trump. But when you politicize something like this and when you make it seem more than it really is, then people are just going to stop listening to you and they're going to do what they are going to do, which is what is happening right now. You can go back and listen to the episode, Little Tyrants Everywhere, and it talks about some of the crackdowns that are happening in how different people and different segments of society, so politics, journalists, professors are trying to use this to gain more control and power. And when people

see that, they say, you know what, I don't really want to be a part of this. I'm going to do the things that I want to do. Okay, I want to talk about one more thing. And that is this myth of overpopulation. So I, there is an Instagram account. I actually forget what it was called. Is it architect to digest? Is that something? Is that like an outlet that people read? Well, there's the Instagram account that shows people's houses. It's famous people's houses. and like how their houses are designed. And there's this couple, James and Kimberly Vanderbeek. And he was on Dawson's Creek.

He was also recently on Dancing with the Sharks. He's done a lot of other things too. And they have five beautiful kids. Like they're just such a precious family. They've got four girls. And one boy, I don't really know. I don't follow them that closely. But I saw this story because I follow her actually.

So she is, she doesn't listen to this podcast. She is super new age, super into witchcraft and things like that. And so we are definitely not on the same page worldview-wise, but she has a lot of good advice for moms and like she's very organic and things like that. And their family's just precious. So I do follow her and I saw that they were featured on this Instagram account. And it was a precious picture of all seven of them. And I went to the comments.

I don't even know why I just did. I went through the comments and a huge number of the comments. were about how many kids they have and how irresponsible it is for them to have that many kids and how she looks really tired and she looks like she's super over it and how how could you have this many kids in this kind of climate well also she shared on social media that she recently miscarried pretty late in her pregnancy with their sixth child which is absolutely tragic so obviously they're happy with the number of kids they have they're even willing to have more kids than they have And so all of these people who simultaneously scream,

my body, my choice, her body, her choice, you can do what you want with the baby in your room, are also saying that, well, you can't have more kids than we, whatever, whoever they are, the climate activist of the world, you can have more kids than we say is responsible. These are the same kind of people, by the way, who are constantly telling Christians

and conservatives that we're judgmental, that we care too much about what they do with their lives. Now, they're both, prying into one of the most personal decisions that a family can ever make. How many kids that you're going to have? And they're saying, oh, you're irresponsible for that. First of all, what they're saying is a myth. There is not an overpopulation problem. So they see, these climate activists, they say, okay, we've got a finite amount of resources in the world. And since 1980, we have increased our population by three billion. And eventually we're going to run

out of resources because we have too many people. But that is a faulty mindset. That is when you view people as liabilities rather than assets. And environmentalists always have, not always, but leftist environmentalists almost always have an anti-human point of view. They see us is the problem. They see us at war with the earth rather than what most people really are. Sure, there's irresponsible people that may be irresponsibly drain resources. But most people are assets so most people actually contribute to the good of the world around them either economically or actually caring for the earth even having a family is a way that you help humanity as a way that you help the earth now we talked about on Monday we

talked about the the truths and the falsehoods in climate change and climate activism and how how we should look at climate change from a biblical perspective but there are a lot of myths surrounding climate change that say, okay, if you have babies, if you have more babies, then that's irresponsible and your carbon footprint is going to be huge. But the reality is that's just not true because human beings contribute more than they actually take away. Because extreme poverty also since 1980 has been cut in half. And so if it were true that we had a finite amount of resources, and if it were true that human beings are taking away from the,

these resources to the point to where we're not going to have any anymore and the world, the world is just going to get worse and worse, then that wouldn't be the case. As the population has increased by 3 billion since 1980, extreme poverty, you would think with our very finite resources would have increased along with that, but it hasn't. It has actually gone down by half. So it is a myth and it's more of an anti-human, anti-baby, anti-natalist worldview. that it has to do with climate change, because all of these people aren't living their lives. All of these people have their phones,

they're on social media, all of these things, all of these things also contribute to their carbon footprint. And I guarantee you all of these people use paper towels and paper plates and probably go to the grocery store and get their plastic bags, and they're willing to use the paper masks for their face during coronavirus

and the latex gloves and all of that. But they're really worried about one family, who has the means to raise these kids having a few too many kids. It's just so interesting how much they want to pride people's lives while simultaneously saying that, you know, live and let live and just be tolerant and her body, her choice. There's always that kind of hypocrisy. But really underneath it all, it is an anti-life worldview.

It is an anti-compassion, anti-Natalist worldview. And this is the godless mindset, the hatred of babies, the hatred of children, the hatred of procreation is a godless mindset. It's a satanic mindset, actually, because it is everything that goes against what God, the giver of life, says is good and right and true. And it's just sad. This is increasing on the left. It's increasing among, amongst climate activists. And this is why I say, by the way, I'm always very skeptical of any organization that is already caught, that is run by someone whose main concern is overpopulation, especially in atheists.

And it's almost always atheists that are concerned with overpopulation. But I don't trust that organization, especially if that organization is billed to help people. I'm sorry, I just don't trust you because if you think there are too many people already, why do I think that you are going to do something to preserve my life for the life of my family? No thanks. So I just wanted to talk about that. It's crazy. And I'm so glad that she was, you know, happy to show her family because her family really is precious. And for all the people saying that she doesn't look happy, she, you should

actually go to her, you should go to her profile because she absolutely, it seems like, loves her children and loves her family. And it's just sad how quick people are to judge other people's choices and even their appearances based on all that they don't know. Okay, that's all I have for you today. I will be back here on Friday. to talk about out of shadows i promise you that okay i'll see you then