Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 686 | Yes, COVID Vaccines Affect Breastmilk & Periods

Episode Date: September 28, 2022

Today we’re discussing new studies cautioning vaccinated women who are breastfeeding babies younger than 6 months old, which say that the possible mRNA exposure in breast milk is unsafe. Of course, we were all previously told explicitly that the vaccine could not cause any damage to babies being breastfed. New studies also reveal how these vaccines actually affect menstrual cycles, after months of being told they don’t. Then, we’re joined by Ross Kennedy of Fortis Analysis to discuss the mysterious Nord Stream pipelines leaks, what they mean for Europe’s access to gas, and what might be going on behind the scenes. --- Timecodes: [1:04] Effects of vaccine on breast milk [18:06] Effects of vaccine on menstrual cycles [30:50] Interview with Ross Kennedy --- Today's Sponsors: Birch Gold — protect your future with gold. Text 'ALLIE' to 989898 for a free, zero obligation info kit on diversifying and protecting your savings with gold. My Patriot Supply — prepare yourself for anything with long-term emergency food storage. Go to PrepareWithAllie.com to save 20% on your 3-Month Emergency Food Kit. EdenPURE — get 3 Thunderstorm Air Purifiers for under $200 at EdenPureDeals.com, use promo code 'ALLIE'! Garnuu – receive your first month of organic tampons FREE when you subscribe. Join the Girls Only Club by going to garnuu.com/allie and use code "ALLIE" at checkout. --- Show Links: Washington Post: “Women said coronavirus shots affect periods. New study shows they’re right.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2022/09/27/covid-vaccine-period-late/ CDC: “COVID-19 Vaccines While Pregnant or Breastfeeding” https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/pregnancy.html JAMA: “Detection of Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Human Breast Milk” https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2796427?guestAccessKey=1c13d17c-1c25-4828-b261-9f321e5126a1&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social_jamapeds&utm_term=7701881843&utm_campaign=article_alert&linkId=183092079 Reuters: “No trace of mRNA vaccine found in breast milk; gene found that helps identify COVID-19 early” https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/no-trace-mrna-vaccine-found-breast-milk-gene-found-that-helps-identify-covid-19-2021-07-19/ CNBC: “Sabotage suspected after unexplained leaks found on major Russian gas pipelines” https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/27/russia-sabotage-suspected-after-leaks-found-on-nord-stream-pipelines.html --- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise – use promo code 'ALLIE10' for a discount: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed.

You can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. A new study shows that trace amounts of MRNAs from the COVID vaccine is now showing up in breast milk. Also, the Washington Post is finally reporting that yes, the COVID vaccine is affecting women's cycles after we heard. for so long that this definitely was not happening. Also, the Nord Stream pipeline going from Russia to European countries is suffering from

unexplained leaks that is affecting the continent. And so we are going to talk to one of our favorite guests about what exactly that means and what the consequences will be. We've got all of this and more today. Of course, this episode is brought to you by our friends at Good Ranchers. go to good ranchers.com slash alley. That's good ranchers.com slash alley. All right.

Before we get into the interview that we have for today, I wanted to make sure that I talked about this new revelation, this new study in the scientific community that says that trace amounts of the COVID vaccine, MRNAs, were found in breast milk. And now they are cautioning women who are breastfeeding babies. under the age of six months that if they get the vaccine, they should not breastfeed their babies for two days after that, because that's totally feasible, right? You can just stop breastfeeding your baby for a couple days. All right. Here's what the Daily Wire has reported.

A new study published Monday revealed trace amounts of COVID-vaccine MRNAs were found in the breast milk of some lactating women. The Journal of the American Medical Association and international peer-reviewed general medical journal published since 1993, released the study to the public and has now issued a warning for women breastfeeding infants younger than six months. So just as an aside, don't worry. It's only babies under six months. So apparently something magical happens on the night that your baby goes from five months, 30 days to six months, that it's totally okay for your six-month-old baby to be taking in these traces. amounts of this vaccine through your breast milk.

Caution is warranted regarding breastfeeding infants younger than six months. In the first two days after maternal COVID-19 vaccination, the journal said in a tweet, that is just transphobic nonsense. Don't they know it's supposed to be chest feeding? And you can't say maternal. You have to say parental. Officials said that despite believing it is safe to breastfeed after maternal COVID vaccination, they did not test the possible cumulative.

vaccine mRNA exposure after frequent breastfeeding in infants. In addition, the potential interference of COVID-19 vaccine MRI with the immune response to multiple routine vaccines given to infants during the first six months of age needs to be considered. The study reads, it is critical that lactating individuals, there it is, there it is, we got the trans inclusion. It is critical that lactating individuals be included in future vaccination trials to better evaluate the effect of MRNA vaccines on lactation outcomes. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the FDA held off on approving vaccinating infants younger than six months until more data on how it could impact their immune system became available.

So this study came out on Monday saying, oh, shoot, actually, actually we've got amounts of the vaccine that are getting through breast milk, probably. probably shouldn't get through to babies that are under six months. Now, this is after mothers who have been breastfeeding their babies who are under six months old have been told for many months now that it's perfectly safe. Don't be a conspiracy theorist. Don't be a science denier. Oh, what you want you and your baby to die?

You need to get this vaccine. There is no evidence that this is going to harm you or harm your baby in any way. In fact, we were told explicitly that the vaccine could not cause any damage or was not passing through in any detrimental way to babies who are being breastfed. And yet, if you look at the CDC website that is up right now that was last updated July 14th, 2022, it says this COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for all people six months and older. this includes people who are pregnant, people who are pregnant. I wish there was a shorter word for that. Breastfeeding, trying to get pregnant now or might become pregnant in the future. CDC also recommends COVID-19 vaccines for infants six months and older whose mother.

Wow, they use the wrong who's. Come on. I guess that shouldn't surprise us. It's W-H-O-S-E when you're talking about possessive, not apostrophe S. and an older whose mother, mother, so inconsistent here. I can't even get through this without talking about like the inconsistency, whose mother was vaccinated or had a COVID infection before or while pregnant. So if you are pregnant or were recently pregnant, the CDC site says you are more likely to get very sick from COVID-19 compared to people who are not pregnant.

Additionally, if you have COVID-19 during pregnancy, you are at increased risk of complications that can affect your pregnancy. and developing baby. And so of course, of course a lot of people are going to be pressured into this. Of course, a lot of people are going to be shamed and told that you're not a good mother. You're not taking care of yourself. You're not taking care of your baby if you don't get this COVID-19 vaccine while you are pregnant or postpartum. Getting a COVID-19 vaccine, the CDC site says now can help protect you from getting very sick from COVID-19. There's no stipulation. There's no caveat. There's no point here that says, hey, You know what? We just don't know enough yet to say that this is perfectly safe for breastfeeding moms. We don't have enough evidence quite yet to say that this is going to be healthy for women who are pregnant and they're developing babies.

So let's just kind of wait and see. You know, that's all they had to say. I'm not mad that things change based on more data, based on more studying. I mean, human beings are fallible. and of course people are going to make errors or we're just not going to have enough information to draw certain conclusions at certain points, but maybe a little bit of humility at some point by the scientific and medical community or most people or a lot of people in it, including Anthony Fauci, would have really gone a long way from the CDC, from the NIH to just say, you know what, maybe we shouldn't be threatening to take away people's livelihoods when it comes

to this vaccine, especially when it comes to mothers, because we just don't know enough yet to be mandating this and to be shaming people into this. And maybe we shouldn't be encouraging OBGYNs and nurses to pressure these women into getting this vaccine because we just don't quite have the data yet. That's all I'm asking. I'm not asking that scientists and that, doctors get everything right the first time. I'm not even asking that if someone with as much responsibility and as much impact on public policy as Anthony Fauci. I'm just asking for a little humility. A little bit of admission in the beginning that we're still looking at this. And it is perfectly logical for people, but especially mothers who are pregnant or breastfeeding to say,

you know what, I'd like a little bit more information on this before I make my decision. And for doctors and for scientists and for people in the media, for friends to take a step back and say, you know what, that's wise. That's prudent. If we look at the statistics surrounding the seriousness of COVID and the lack of data in a lot of ways that we have on the vaccine, especially when it comes to certain populations, that actually makes a lot of logical and rational sense for you, mom, to take a step back and maybe don't do this, but that's not what happened. That's not what happened.

People were shamed. People lost their jobs. People quit their jobs so they wouldn't be forced to take this vaccine. I know women who did not want to get the vaccine, but they were postpartum, very vulnerable, emotional state. Or they were pregnant and they were told by their doctor, if you don't get this, you are likely to die. your baby is likely to die. But if you do get this postpartum mom still in the hospital being stitched up,

then you will pass immunity on to your child. Isn't that what a good mother would do? They didn't want to. But they felt like they were manipulated and they did. And now we're told that maybe it actually is a little bit harmful. And it doesn't say in this particular study that the vaccine is harmful for developing babies in the womb. it doesn't say in particular that it's harmful for pregnant women. But I think we can use like a little bit of deductive reasoning again.

There's at least enough information now to take a step back for someone to have just a little bit of freaking humility and say, ooh, maybe we don't know. Maybe we don't know. Maybe we should look at this a little bit harder. Maybe we should wait just a little bit before saying that pregnant women should be taking this. Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself.

On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this T-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. Reuters in July of 2021 published this very confidently. No traces of MRNA vaccines end up in mother's breast milk.

A small study suggests the COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna deliver a synthetic version of messenger RNA. molecules designed to instruct cells to build replicas of the coronavirus by protein. While these beneficial antibodies may pass from mothers to infants via breast milk, isn't that great? The milk does not contain the MRIMRNA itself, dummy. Researchers found in their analyses of 13 breast milk samples from seven vaccinated women. Wow, what a huge sample size. Thank you so much. The World Health Organization recommends that breastfeeding mothers be vaccinated against COVID-19

and does not advise stopping breastfeeding afterwards. Well, thank you so much to Reuters. Thank you so much, Pfizer. Thank you so much, scientific community for your confidence. I mean, I was called a science denier. Thankfully, when I was pregnant last time, my youngest was born in April of 2021. And if you'll remember, that was like right at the height of pressure to get the vaccine. Thankfully, my providers did not pressure me to get it.

But there was, I mean, there was pressure in the hospital. There was just pressure in general to get the vaccine. And again, like your quality of motherhood in many of these cases is being judged based on whether or not you get the vaccine. And I didn't. I didn't want to. I didn't feel comfortable with it. both when I was pregnant and when I was postpartum, I still am not, I still haven't been vaccinated. I don't know if I've ever said that like completely explicitly, but I'm not, didn't want to,

got COVID, whole family got COVID. It sucked. I won't lie. But we got over it and I never felt comfortable with it. I always wanted more information. I always wanted more data, especially though while I was pregnant and breastfeeding. And so I feel, I mean, I'm sad, but I do feel a little bit vindicated. I do feel like, okay, I'm really glad that I went with that. I'm really glad that I stuck with my choice. And I'll be honest, like there were moments while I was pregnant last time,

2020, 2020, 2021 where I thought, you know, maybe I should just get it. Maybe I should. Like, maybe it is the smart thing to do. Like I don't, if this really is that much more dangerous and deadly for pregnant women, then maybe I should just get it. I personally am glad that I did. Now I know that there are many of you out there who did. And you and your baby are perfectly fine.

And you're glad that you got that. And that is fine. That is fine. I don't judge you. I'm not mad about that. That is perfectly fine. What I am mad about and what I don't expect to get any apology for, either to me or to all of the other people who bore the brunt of this is the gaslighting and the manipulation

and the bullying and the pressure to get something that we did not want to get. And we knew at that time that we really didn't need it. Okay? I'm not speaking for everyone. I'm not saying that no one needs it or no one should get it. But again, all I'm asking for is like a little bit of humility that trust. the science is a nonsensical phrase. It doesn't, it, it, it defies all logic. It defies actually, like, what science is. You don't trust the science. You test the science. That is what science is

by nature. So when Dr. Fauci says, people who deny me or people who question me are actually denying science or questioning science, that is someone who has a God complex. I think that's true of a lot of people at the CDC, a lot of people at the NIH, a lot of people in the media, a lot of people in our medical industrial complex, a lot of people at these pharmaceutical companies, and they just couldn't bear to say we don't quite know yet. And who knows, honestly, the damage that that might have done. Like, is there, are there going to be reparations to the babies that may have suffered from this whose moms thought that they were taking good advice from their doctor and Dr. Fauci and maybe now their baby is harmed in some way,

probably in ways that we will never fully know. Will there be payback? Will there be some kind of sorry for that? Doesn't sound like it. Doesn't seem like it. Because remember, the people, well, it's really it breaks down to people on the left, but it's people who followed the mainstream progressive position at the first, whether it was lockdowns or whether, whether, it's, you know, mandating vaccines or whatever it was. Like they will never be held accountable for the consequences of their lives. They are always going to be remembered, at least by the mainstream media, for their valiant intentions.

It doesn't matter that in Michigan and in New York and in California that the rate of death was the same as a lot of the red states that never locked down. What really matters is that they locked down. And apparently that was the compassionate position. It's going to be the same thing here. The people who make decisions in our country are never held accountable and never have to endure the consequences of the decisions that they make. No, those consequences rest on people like you and me. There's another aspect of this that I want to talk about briefly.

I just saw it this morning. It was published yesterday in the Washington Post. And again, this is another example of COVID gas lighting, especially when it comes to women, that a lot of people are going to feel vindicated about. Some people might feel regretful about their choice based on this. This is according to the Washington Post. Women said coronavirus shots affect periods.

New studies show they're right. Really? Because I seem to remember listening to a podcast that someone recommended to me by these two doctors and scientists, these lovers of objective truth, that said, that doesn't even make any sense. It doesn't even make any sense. sense that somehow the vaccine would affect a woman's cycle. Because the components of the vaccine

do this and are this and a woman's cycle does this and they are not dependent on one another at all. So it's probably just a coincidence. I mean, it's probably just because of the stress that people are in or if you've gotten COVID. And other people, though, I did acknowledge, I will say there are people left, right, whatever, who did say, okay, any kind of, of vaccine, any kind of like shock to the system has the potential of changing your cycle, but they would say it doesn't affect fertility. But again, I would say we don't know. We don't know if it affects fertility.

It might not. But really, we don't know. I just think that it would be a whole lot better off if more people and more people in charge said we don't know. And also just remember this as just a rule of thumb saying there is no evidence for is not the same thing as. saying something's not true or something's not real. Just because something doesn't have evidence yet, because it hasn't been studied,

doesn't mean that it's not true or that there won't be data supporting that one day. So let me read you a little bit from this Washington Post, this Washington Post story. Not long after the rollout of the coronavirus vaccine last year, women began posting on social media about what they believed was a side effect, a side effect changes to their periods. Now, I will say that my friend, Gabriel Finocchio, he posted messages of women. I think it was sometime last year or maybe it was the beginning of this year. He posted messages from women who said this, who said, yeah, my cycle changed after getting the vaccine.

He was kicked off Instagram. I think he like started it back up. He was able to get another account. But he was kicked off Instagram for sharing women's stories about this because that was spreading misinformation. I think I've heard it say heard it said before and I don't remember who said it like the difference between the right, a right wing conspiracy theory and the truth is six months, something like that. That seems to be true. What starts out is this crazy conspiracy theory that like maybe COVID didn't come from pangolins and like a like, a wet market in China ends up being confirmed.

And it seems to be the same thing here. A new study of nearly 20,000 women, women, wow, Washington Post, shows that getting vaccinated against COVID can change the timing of the menstrual cycle. Study was conducted for the National Institutes of Health. Vaccinated women experienced on average about a one-day delay in getting their periods compared with those who hadn't been vaccinated. Data was taken from a popular period tracking. app called natural cycles. Was this consented to? I hope so. This included women around the world.

Researchers analyzed three menstrual cycles before the vaccine and at least one after and compared with four cycles in the undvaccinated group. People who receive two vaccinations within one menstrual cycle experience greater disruptions. Four day average increase in cycle link, 13% experiencing a delay of eight days or more. I mean, that's pretty significant. Allison Edelman, professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at Oregon Health and Sciences, who led the study said the effects were mostly temporary, only lasting one cycle before returning to normal. No indications from this study that there was any impact on fertility. Yes, because again, that's not what this study actually studied. Researchers don't know exactly why the vaccine seemed to affect menstrual cycles, but Edelman said

that the immune and reproductive systems are linked, okay, and that, and that, inflammation or a strong immune response could trigger menstrual fluctuation. Okay, so maybe it's no big deal. I'm totally open to that possibility. Maybe it's no big deal at all. Maybe it is just that it's causing inflammation. That's what the vaccines do. That's what lots of different vaccines do.

And as your body is adjusting to that inflammation, just like your body adjusts to inflammation that comes from other causes, your cycle is just temporarily disrupted. Everything goes back to normal. And it's all good. That is, that could be what is. It is and maybe for some people, for some women, it is still worth it to get vaccinated. But knowing what we know, again, again, like, wouldn't the better position to be, all right, some women don't want a disruption of their cycle because we do not know yet how this could affect

other parts of their reproductive system? If it is affecting your cycle, if it is affecting in some ways your reproductive health, Isn't it just logical to say that maybe there is a possibility, even if it's a tiny possibility, that it could affect your fertility? Like, isn't that a possibility? Let's just say that it is. And if that possibility is out there, because we know that there is an effect on the menstrual cycle by these vaccines,

we should not be pressuring women to get it who don't want to get it. No more doctors pressuring, no more politicians pressuring. Like you will remember that the president of the United States said that companies with 100 employees or more must force their employees to get this vaccine or those companies will face inordinate, unaffordable fines. So that means pregnant employees. That means women in their childbearing years, the president of the United States wanted to make sure that you were forced. if you worked for one of these companies to get this vaccine that we now know has an effect on breastfeeding comes through the milk and we now know has an effect on the cycle. So again, let's just take a step back, have a little bit of humility and just say we don't quite

no. We don't quite no. There's also another part of this study. The study also found that Breakthrough bleeding. So I'm guessing this is probably defined as like spotting in between periods. Not fun. Breakthrough bleeding was reported by 39% of women on gender affirming hormones. Wow. My mind is so on testosterone. So these are actual women trying to be a man very confused about this language.

Our world is crazy. So 39% of those women found that they had breakthrough bleeding. 71% of women on long-lasting or reversible contraceptive, so like a birth control pill or something that actually stopped the period, they had breakthrough bleeding. So they're not supposed to be bleeding. They were bleeding 66% of post-menopausal women. So that's women who were supposed to have stopped having a period.

After they got the COVID vaccine, they started bleeding again. Not great. Not great. Again, I think science is wonderful. I think modern medicine is wonderful. I am thankful for scientists. I could never be a scientist. I'm very thankful for scientists.

I'm very thankful for modern medicine. I am very thankful for so many of the developments that technology and science and medicine have brought us over the past century, especially. I mean, it's really incredible how many lives that has saved. But when you replace God with science and say, that we must trust the science, we must follow the science, we must do what the scientists say no matter what or else you're going to be punished by the government or else you're going to be excluded from society. You're going to be unable to basically provide for yourself or your family or engage in your community at all. That's going to lead to some really, really scary

repercussions for people, for people. And it has. And it has. especially that now we know that there is potentially a lot more harm that is being done by these vaccines than we originally were told. Don't just trust the science just because someone tells you to. Ask critical questions and those who did are feeling a little bit vindicated right now. And again, if you did get this vaccine, I'm not trying to guilt you. I'm not trying to make you feel bad about that. I'm just saying that, again, we should all, especially those who tried to use this to kind of hammer people over the head, have some humility and ask some questions the next time one of these so-called

solutions comes around for a so-called emergency. All right. That's all I've got with that. And now we are going to move into our conversation. But first, let me tell you about our next sponsor. Ross, thank you so much for joining us. I think this is your third time on your great at explaining the complexities of everything that is happening. What is the Nord Stream pipeline?

Is this different than Nordstrom the department store? It's a little bit different. One moves natural gas. One sells dresses and silverware. I don't know. I'll be honest with you, I've probably never been in a Nord Stream in my life. Got it. So your expertise is Nord Stream Pipeline.

Tell us what's going on. are people talking about this? Yeah, so the first Nord Stream opened up a little over 10 years ago, and the idea is that it would, so gas prom, the Russian energy giant, was a big part of that. It's a major partner in that. And you had a couple of European entities as well. And it connects, essentially connects natural gas flows from Russia into northern Europe for consumption.

And it is a major pipeline. It's quite enormous, actually. And then about six years ago, they wanted to start building Nord Stream 2, which would double the throughput of natural gas from Russia into Europe. And so, of course, a lot of companies that depend on natural gas, it's fertilizer manufacturers, vitamin manufacturers, you know, anything that basically utilizes natural gas as energy feedstock or as a raw material in the production, the way nitrogen fertilizer does, would have been really dependent on that. It was the cheapest and most abundant source of energy available. And at a time when Europe was really focused on decarbonization, on getting away from coal or even things like nuclear, which has a zero carbon footprint, but was still worrisome to a lot of people. Natural gas seemed like a really great transitional fuel. But it also increased European dependence on natural gas.

It locked out other European manufacturers of the natural gas market or reduced the market share that they would have been able to tap into. You know, Norway has a mega natural gas company as well that would have been able to make use of it. So, and really, I think what people realized is that it is a tool of political leverage from Putin, Europe. And so that was where kind of the initial concerns about it, but now the concerns are setting aside Putin's ability to influence Europe by controlling natural gas flows. now that natural gas is gone, the pipeline does appear to be offline completely and permanently so from some reports. And the question now is what's next for your year? So what happened? Why were people talking about this yesterday? I saw that CNN reported that there were mysterious leaks and that CNBC said that sabotage is suspected after unexplained leaks found on major Russian gas pipelines.

There's a lot of speculation on Twitter about who did what and how this happened. So what is going on there? There's a lot of game theory calculations. If you're really looking at the flow of natural gas and what it means to the various stakeholders involved, I can argue both sides of it because I'm of two minds. There is one side that says that entities inside the EU, possibly even inside NATO, that are, very worried about and frankly sick of Russian control of European and transatlantic affairs, you know, be in control of the natural gas flows into Europe, that they just took matters into their own hands and said,

we're going to rip the Band-Aid off, and this pipeline's going to go, and we will figure out what to do next, but we have to break the dependence in a very kinetic way. You've got some people that the Scandinavian countries, Poland, for example, have shown little regard, increasingly so, for what Germany thinks. And Germany, of course, is the one that's most dependent on these natural gas flows. So it's going to be somebody that's probably not aligned with Germany's agenda, or at least is said we're willing to ignore Germany as the largest economy in the EU and take our chances. The other side of it is, and this

is the side that a lot of other people have argued against, is there's a compelling case that Russia could have done to themselves. But in such a way that you would increase the infighting and tension and suffocation, if you will, of the European economy, by not having access to this natural gas at all, by forcing them to import more supplies, to bring in more from Norway, but that they weren't maybe ready to do that. And that makes sense if you consider that for Russia, there is an economic offset on the other side. the ability to push more natural gas, more energy product into China, into the Central Asian nations, to buyers that would benefit from a sudden surplus of supplies that was going to Europe, that's now going the other way. We don't know for sure that those buyers would have exists, that China and Russia maybe are polluting, but both scenarios very much are on the realm,

within the realm of possibility here. What we do know for sure is that, it's offline and that Europe is kind of casting about wondering what do we do next. So what do you think about Biden in February saying there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2? We will bring it into it. And then the reporter says, how will you do that exactly since the project and the control of the project is within Germany's control? And he says, I promise you will be able to do it. And so some people are like, okay, that's a little ominous. Did the U.S. somehow have a hand in this? I've seen a lot of back and forth about that. So I'm going to do what I always do when it comes to public statements from this particular

president and throw the entire salt shaker over my shoulder instead of just a couple grains of salt, you know, it's framing it that way certainly does make it seem like there could have been a nefarious plot of foot reports, you know, Der Spiegel, you know, ran an article recently that said, you know, the CIA tried to warn German authorities and Nordstream officials that there were, you know, several weeks ago that there was a imminent risk to the pipeline. If such is the case, then tipping our hand that way probably means that we were not involved, even if we had some knowledge of it. The benefit to the U.S. though, in that scenario, if the U.S. was in some way complicit with it, is that the U.S. does have an abundance of natural gas.

it's easier for us to export it to Europe than to, so to speak, exported to ourselves on liquid natural gas carriers because of the Jones Act. So, yeah, American export of natural gas to Europe has been up and certainly will continue to be because of this. But for Biden saying, you know, we guarantee my senses is that he was probably referring to the way in which Trump was able to stymie or stop construction of Nord Street 2, which was a mix of giving and taking of incentive. with regard to Germany and to NATO and to the EU to compel them economically to stop construction project. When you're talking about an actual attack, right, where you've got small boats and you've got teams of divers that would be going down there,

you've got submarines that have the ability to attack infrastructure undetected until the attack's already done. When you're talking about that level of state cooperation and support, I doubt if we had any involvement that, you know, Biden, such as he is, would have tipped our hand to it. My sense is that he was referring to, you know, severe economic sanctions to stop the project the same way. Which is also bad. Which is also bad. Which is also bad.

And I know we don't have to get into all of this. We talked about this recently with another guest, but about the assault on on nuclear energy and also natural. gas that it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense even from a climate change perspective, which again, kind of makes it seem like it is more nefarious than actual, you know, any actual attempt to help the environment. And so, I mean, I'm with you and that. I don't know. I have no idea.

U.S. involvement, of course, I hope that that's not true. But the fact that the Biden administration could even possibly be cheering on any kind of ending to this project is troubling to me. Neither pipeline was delivering commercial gas at the time of the leaks, yet both, given both lines, were still pressured and each has the capacity to pipe around 165 million cubic meters of methane heavy gas per day. Leaks of this size are a severe safety environmental hazard, especially should Russia not stop pumping gas into the system.

Depending on the scale of the damage, the leaks could even mean a permanent closure of both lines. What would be the consequences of that for Europe? Well, Europe would have to immediately replace that energy supply to the extent possible. In Germany's case in particular, one very notable example, it's one I've talked publicly about, is BASF. When Russia first invaded Ukraine, the next move that came out of Germany was a number of companies that are dependent on Russia natural gas, saying this could impact production of products, X, Y, and Z. In the case of an industry, I'm very familiar with vitamin production was severely impacted an immediate warning went out from BASF about shortages of materials that were produced

using natural gas as a key input. And so that's been, you know, Germany and Europe's worries all along is, does restriction of natural gas direct flows of Russian natural gas that come directly into Germany, does it cripple some of their biggest and most companies Mercedes-Penz as well, right? So if there is a replacement or standby capacity of additional natural gas, whether it's imported from the United States, whether it's the new pipeline that's running from Norway through Denmark into Europe, if they're able to kind of piecemeal things together long enough to solve the energy riddle over the next 18 to 24 months, then the impact of Europe will actually be, I hate to say this, but a net positive in this regard because it fully decouples Europe from a country that has proven it is willing to manipulate energy and human lives as a means of getting its way from on the global political scale. It will also push Russia and China more closely together. It will cause, you know, firmly, I guess, bifurcate, if you will, the two global factions into sort of an anglosphereic European West and then the countries that are part of that. And then, you know, what, you know, Valena Chakaroba, who is a fantastic

academic and strategist in Europe, what she calls the Dragon Bear sphere of influence, which say China, Russia-led sphere of influence, then others will define themselves by, and particularly in Asia and Africa. That, I think, is the most likely outcome of this, as we will probably see a unraveling of the current transatlantic order shuffling around where the Baltic states and Poland, Scandinavian states, I think, moved more to the forefront.

You'll see Germany and France probably minimized a bit as a result of this. And you will see Russia and China and those countries, move more firmly in alignment from a political and from a commodity and economics. Yeah, I see what you're saying. And that's something that Trump said a couple of years ago and he was kind of laughed at when he said, look, it's not good that Germany is relying on a country like Russia for their energy. And everyone laughed at him in the room and said, that's ridiculous, but that's exactly what's happened. And that has partly caused this problem here. So you're saying in the long run by decoupling those two countries,

that could be a good thing for Germany because they never should have been relying on Russia in the first place. And that bifurcation can actually be good. But there's going to be some suffering. Like in the short term, right, as they transition into other sources of energy, it just doesn't look like there's an easy way to do that. Well, humans are creatures of incentive, right? And we respond to pain. We respond to pleasure. We respond to good things and bad things.

But always in somewhat predictable ways. And in this particular case, you know, I think the report came out last. night here in the U.S. that Germany had come out this morning their time and said, well, the planned sunset of certain nuclear capacity, we're not going to proceed with, that we're going to continue to use that nuclear capacity for an additional time. It really, the best thing about this, in my view, is that it is forcing maybe for the first time for a lot of people, a real reckoning of what is the cost of ESG, what is the cost of clean energy, what are the tradeoffs and the incentives or disincentives associated with it because to this point,

we've been able to kind of chug along in this fairy tale, and particularly in the European side, to say that, yeah, we can transition to perfectly clean energy and renewables, solar, and wind, and all these things. And now they're, but they were able to do these things and to kind of lie about that and the benefits of these things because they always had in those quantities of natural gas and nuclear to hold up everything while the transition was slowly on going to better renewables. The reckoning is here now. If those pipelines are permanently off, Europe now has to face a very stark, very realistic

choice of is it going to continue to pursue this ESG agenda, this all clean everything agenda, or is it going to have to kneel to reality a little bit and admit that natural gas and nuclear must be a part of that transition for the indefinite future. Yeah, and that's really going to make or break it. Obviously, the United States faces the same decision in a different way, but with the same kind of consequences. Well, thank you so much for especially bringing it to that last point, because, man, that part, the ESG, the denial of reality when it comes to clean energy

is connected to so many other things in our political and cultural. cultural sphere. So thank you so much for breaking that all down for us. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular.

This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us.