The David Knight Show - INTERVIEW - Finally, Fluoride on Trial

Episode Date: January 3, 2024

Ryan Cristian, TheLastAmericanVagabond.com, on fluoride trial with national consequences, the last interview of pathologist Arne Burkhardt, and another vaccine race and human experimentation in GazaFind out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @[e-mail] App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHTBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

My car needed repairs, but I could only pay for half of them. An easy loan through Lamina.ca made the difference between stressed-out driving and a smooth ride to work. Mark went the extra mile on his repairs with a loan from Brokers Lamina at 1-800-NEW-CREDIT. It's easy to apply over the phone or online at Lamina.ca. Load up to $1,500 and get funds in an hour with no documents or credit checks and pay back over three to seven months. Prop up your purchase and apply for a loan now at lamina.ca. All right, joining us now is Ryan Christian of thelastamericanvagabond.com. And I wanted to get Ryan on.

I talked about a landmark fluoride lawsuit. I saw this reprinted on Freethought Project. But, of course, it goes back quite a while. The Last American Vagabond has been covering this fluoride trial going back to November of last year. Not this year, but November of 2022. And then again in the summer, because this is something that has drug on for years in legal limbo, and it's now about to come back up in January. So I wanted to get Ryan on to talk about that and some other issues.

Thank you for joining us, Ryan. Hey, my pleasure, David. It's an honor to be on with you. It's a lot of our audience overlaps, and it's something people have been asking for for a long time so it's my pleasure to join you well thank you thank you it's great to have you on and especially i i thought it was very important and i'd not uh noticed this lawsuit until you picked it up and you've been on and as you pointed out the mainstream media and even conservative media is not really talking about what's going on this fluoride lawsuit bring us up to date as to some of the aspects of this,

and we can talk a little bit about what we anticipate is going to happen as it resumes really this month. But give people kind of a background of what's been happening with this. Yeah, first of all, the credit really goes to Derek Brose, the writer for The Last American Vagabond, who also runs The Conscious Resistance. He's been doing this work on this specific topic even before the, as we've termed it, the fluoride trial began. So a lot of great

credit goes to Derek Burrows for keeping up on this when so many others are, you know, it's such an important topic and so many others, including independent media, aren't really talking about this. And it's such an important shift in the understanding. And so for people to understand, there's been a debate about fluoride in your water for a long time and a quick small background on that it really breaks down to being a byproduct that was i mean think of it this way it's a byproduct that these companies would otherwise have to pay to dispose of and ultimately now pay to put into our water under the argument that it somehow benefits our our teeth which i mean i make the joke all the time where it's like,

our government barely wants to take care of us in serious ways, but we're going to pretend we're going to pay money to keep our teeth white. It just doesn't make any sense. And even then you could talk about a fluoridosis, the dental fluorosis of the teeth, which is what actually happens when people have too much fluoride. But so really this has been put in our water under, you could argue that it's,

they think it's good for you or not. The point is that the information over a very long period of time and it's been it goes back a long time. Peer reviewed study after peer reviewed study finds that it is damaging. Now, there's a whole level when you get into the different science and different opinions of how damaging. But let's be clear. It is not healthy for you. And it has a lot of dangerous effects. It is neurotoxic.

And I'll get into the studies that are showing this. The most important point they're pushing in the in the trial right now is that it is actually hurting your children it is reducing the iq of your children and it is in fact neurotoxic and it has a lot of deleterious effects yes now the point of the trial now this came in regard to the the national national toxicology program basically trying to push investigate this this study this and this this toxicology report where they're trying to basically get this study to be seen and acknowledged by the u.s government now at the moment they've been dragging their feet on this for i think over four years since this report has been completed now this is the important part and this is largely because of

the fluoride action network i mean almost. They've been really driving this entire thing. And the report has been finished. The report has been stated to be finished. And every single time it comes to a sort of point of culmination, they argue some things needed. We need another report. We need another evaluation. This time, and this is, you know, there's a lot we can get into in between all of that, right?

And what it came down to in the last year, Derek's been covering this is they essentially said look we have the report that's done it has all the information included you guys have checked off on it you just because you want another group that's not included to reevaluate this does not change the fact that the report has been completed and it shows exactly what you guys are trying to refuse to show and all that ultimately happened was interestingly enough of all people rachel levine put her basically stepped in and said nope we're going to pause this and this is publicly discussed until further notice and that was after all these different delays now judge chen who is the who is the one who's been involved in this this entire process basically agreed with this you can sense

frustration through these processes and this entire time it's been done via zoom because of covid19 or the illusion they're in and now what's happened today or rather over the last so many you know months weeks is they ultimately judge chen came back and said okay we're gonna have the final push for this it's going to be in person so one thing we're trying to fly out we're going to be flying out derrick to cover this in person trying to raise some funds for that and he's going to be going either way and what we're expecting is the actual culmination here where i don't see how they can get away with another dragging of their feet this is going to be the moment we're hoping where they essentially go okay the report is public here's what it shows and then it really is a game of who chooses to

acknowledge it which we already know how that works oh yeah but it's there and the evidence is astoundingly clear well you know it interesting. And you talk about this in your articles as well. CDC says, well, this is our crowning achievement, you know, of the 20th century until I guess they get their mRNA vaccines. But really what we're talking about here, above and beyond the debate over medical issues, is we're talking about coerced consumption or coerced treatment. Right. And so in that way, it ties to what we've just been through with the medical martial law in the last couple of years very tightly to that we see the cdc is going to decide what they're going to put in your body one way or the other put it in the water

supply or put it in and coerce you through uh you know the vaccine programs you're not going to go anywhere do anything or have a job unless you get this. So they're all about this forced medication. And to me, that ought to be the showstopper right there. You know, even we got a lot of data that's gone over a lot of years. Harvard even did a study talking about the correlation between lower IQ and children and fluoridation in the water. So, you know, we can have these arguments, and we should have these arguments about this.

But to me, it kind of feels like for the longest time it feels like um you know what the debate that we had over just the mri vaccine you know it's like well this is something is new it's it's not been tested but regardless you you don't have any right to coerce me into this and that's really what is that the basis of all this fluoride stuff it's big corporations working with the cdc for their financial benefit and they're forcing you to consume this stuff that's that's the worst thing not only are their financial benefit, and they're forcing you to consume this stuff. That's the worst thing. Not only are they ripping us off, but they're poisoning us one way after the other, aren't

they? Yeah, that's such an important point. And exactly where I'm coming from in this is that obviously we should be engaging with the fact that these things are dangerous, and they're killing people in the sense of the COVID-19 injections. And that's an important primary part of this. But obviously, the central conversation should be around whether or not it's dangerous. Do they have the right to just coerce you into doing this? Or I mean,

I agree with the word coerce in this, however, but people would argue that essentially it's not being coerced, it's just being put. But ultimately, it's the same conversation, right? That you are, you ultimately don't have a choice here unless you want to. And this is the choice game they play with the COVID-19 injections. Well, you can go buy bottled water. Well, not everybody has the option to do that. And ultimately it's not healthy anyway. So I think it's an early example of how they were trying to, and to your point, go back and state for this long period of time, that that's our crowning achievement, trying to create the illusion, the understanding, the impression that this was a success. And that's why that's the precedent for X, Y, and Z coming next.

And there's been conversations about lithium in the water. I mean, I often point to this, a study that's been done more than once, in fact, where at high levels, NIH was one of them discussing that should there be a need for some kind of, in this case, it was a bioethics, like an mRNA conversation, a need for something like that to be done compulsory, like we saw with COVID-19. They've argued time and again that it should be done secretly because, well, they don't understand. And that wasn't peer-reviewed science. That was before COVID-19. So I think that plays a factor. But the whole point is the mindset of what they think they're allowed to do, whether or not really it's counter to

constitutional rights. And they know that. That's right right and as we look at this to bring this up to date and to look forward into the future we now see these people because uh hey we know that you don't like to get the shots and so we're not going to stick a needle in your arm instead we've got these other forms of delivery including aerosol mrna so there's a lot of talk about that there's talk about putting it into our food, mRNA shots and things like that. So again, if we let this principle stand that they can put stuff in without our knowledge,

without our consent, they're going to find a way to do that with many other products and probably already are, you know, it's certainly food additives and other things like that that are happening in the way they've contaminated so many things. But, but again,

wherever we see this, we need to oppose this openly, what they're trying to do in a hidden way without our consent. And it's going to come across a whole spectrum of things. Let me also point out, too, something else that I think correlates with the vaccine stuff, and that is the dosage, right? How do you control the dosage for something that you dump into the water well i think the answer is that you don't you know they can come up with a concentration of it but that's not necessarily going to be the concentration that you get out of it and then when you dump it into the water you're giving the same dosage of this to a baby that you're giving to a 200 pound man okay so how do they justify something like that?

And when you look at the mRNA aspect of it, when you had the mRNA shots going out, we now know from looking at these different lots that different lots varied by a factor of 33. From the lowest to the highest dosage, the highest dosage was 33 times which you would get at the lowest dosage to me that looks very much like what they're doing in terms of dumping this stuff in the water and if you don't control for dosage any medication even something that's beneficial

turns into a poison yes we all said exactly and i think this overlaps with the first point you made in regard to the mrna and where it's going. But, you know, the first obvious point there is it's such an important thing to think about is that they in any number of these conversations, you can see that kind of disregard for the dose conversation. Actually, and I want to point out that in regard to the lot, I think that's a really important conversation that we that still needs more investigation. But one of the arguments that I want people to remember is, I think it was Ryan Cole made the argument that it's not necessarily that that proves that was a deliberate act, which I'm completely considering that it is, but that he argues that it's part of it is that they are the mRNA essentially, or rather the lipid nanoparticles broke down. And in ultimately that then changed or altered the dose comparatively in in one case anyway and argued in some cases that might have actually saved people's lives but you know the the mrna itself is dangerous spike protein and so on but I but to your other point and I just want to include that because I think it's

fascinating kind of where you know look just so it's clear I 100 think there was deliberate malfeasance and then deliberate actual criminal action to hurt people I really believe that I do think about the fact that overlap with that there was just simple mistakes by people that don't care about your safety in in you know in conclusion in in um combination but to your other point let me say before we leave that you know when we look at that um and i made this point when we looked at it's like a factor of 33 it's like 3300 percent more dosage i said how in the world does this happen in pharmaceutical world, right? They're so careful about the dosages and the quantities that they put out there, and they have to be, because as I said before, it turns into a poison.

How could you have a manufacturer that's kind of, again, maybe it's something about the lipid nanoparticles breaking down, I don't know. But it seems to me that is so extreme, I can't imagine how that could be done in a pharmaceutical environment without deliberate malfeasance with that or whatever you want to call it, maliciousness. But it seems to me that it'd have to be a deliberate process. But go ahead to the other point. I agree completely. I think that really it matters, obviously, whether it's deliberate or not.

But in the larger sense, it kind of doesn't. It just shows you that either way, obviously obviously it still leans into the point that we should have a choice here either they're making so many mistakes that are killing people or they're choosing to it kind of amounts to the same point but but on the other side of it the mrna part of it to overlap that with what you were saying it's exactly what my one of my biggest fears around all of this is either the step that's already taken that we're unaware of or that we haven't acknowledged or that is about to happen which is in regard to the self-spreading and really the same one step before that, the self-amplifying vaccines, which I think that's what this already

is. They've already argued this. One of Pfizer's earliest documents said self-amplifying in regard to their Pfizer BNT1B2, I think that series. And then that went away. And all that really means is that it essentially continues to produce the spike protein in a simplified way. And that's what we know is happening already. As I think Dr. Peter McCullough, in an unchallenged peer-reviewed study that still stands on Elisavir,

the sustained synthesis of the spike protein, that's what we're seeing. It's undeniable. And we'll get into Arne Burkhart, same point, finding spike protein all over the body and the same kind of things but my point is that the self-spreading which i i again question whether that might have already been used the omicron overlap and how that seems to be kind of a similar point and where it started in botswana or where they claim it was south africa and diplomats that we can't verify that came from botswana you know diplomatic community it seems like something was executed there my point though is that self-spreading, whether happening or next step, it keeps me up at night. We're talking about something that's already been designed.

They've talked about this going back as far as, I don't know if you're familiar with it, but it's called Insect Allies. It was a CDC program that scientists around the world signed documents saying, you know, we know what you're doing. This is dual-use technology. It's a weapon. And they made it, but they just kind of walked it back. Now we're talking about the same concept with, with pathogens or whatever you want to understand it as where it's something that can be released that literally spreads from person to person. And they proudly say, and it inoculates these people and there's no need for informed

consent. Like that's a proud statement coming from the people discussing this. That really concerns me. And to your point, there's no dosage there. You can get back, you know, inoculated, whatever you want to call it over and over and over. If you're around the same people with the same thing happening, I don't know how they make sense of that. And, you know, there's the also, you know, besides the aerosol delivery that they're talking about and putting it in food, they're talking about, there's also the issue of shedding. I was just talking to a friend this last weekend back in Austin and he never took the vaccine but he's he's got very sick with COVID and it's it's taken out his hearing in one ear is so congested with it he went to the doctor didn't get into his chest into pneumonia but he went to the doctor and they were doing some blood tests and they were trying to draw the blood out. And he said it literally took them like 20 minutes

to get a sufficient amount of blood to come out. He said the blood just wasn't flowing. The technician said, have you ever had a problem like this before? He goes, no. His blood was super, super thick. And so the question is, you know, is this something that is spreading even to unvaccinated people? They don't want their, they have nothing but contempt for our consent.

Yeah, that's the key thing. And they don't follow any procedures or testing. You know, they don't, uh, uh, they don't even pretend to do testing to see if this stuff is safe or not. We've had that discussion through this MRNA stuff all along. And that's really began though with fluoride many, many years ago, as you point out, it was a industrial waste product that they would have had to pay a lot of money to get rid of it's used as rat poison in china

and yet if they told everybody that this is going to be something's going to help your teeth they could get paid to dump it into our water that's the most amazing thing isn't it it is it is and and one more point before we go if we go back to florida just that the overlap there you made is so important that it's it. This is why I'm convinced this was not by accident that every single choice made, whether we're talking about the choice to make people wear cloth masks, where a peer study in 2015 proved that it increased your risk of illness. Every choice that was made deliberately seemed, well, I think deliberately seemed to increase all the problems. But it's the overlap of both mechanisms here or rather just aspects of it.

The mRNA itself, as you pointed out is at least now being discussed as I think it was an overlap of MIT and Harvard of the, both the aerosolization of it. And as well as the fact that it can be deployed, you know, via particle, like,

so they can release all the nanoparticles and it can inoculate you in the same way they say, but so that's one side of it. And let's not forget the technology they argue is that mrna is the instruction to create the spike protein but then as you point out the spike protein itself however that comes along in and of itself is cytotoxic that salk institute proved that with a peer-reviewed study and the point was that itself and this was the main point they said the spike protein is capable of shedding or rather they in that study they didn't say shedding but rather, it in and of itself can cause disease, which means that gives you symptoms, which means it can then

be spread. So whatever, whatever you want to call that, how is that not a self-spreading concept? I mean, that's what we're, you know, you get the spike proteins delivered, then it spreads to somebody else. But the real problem is that we also know as Dr. Warren, Luigi Warren, who was one of the primary people in regard to this technology itself, the discovery of mRNA said that, yes, of course it can shed rather the spike, said that, yes, of course it can shed, rather than the spike protein itself. He said, of course it can shed. But he argued at the time that it was not likely to get you sick because the amount was so small.

But we've then later come to find out that it was sustained synthesis. So it's all there if you really just look at the information. So you're definitely spreading spike protein. And to your question, I really don't know whether it's a risk. I would imagine it clearly is to the average person, but you know, it's about being healthy and fighting things off like anything, you know, but ultimately I think that's a deliberate action. Oh yeah. Yeah. I said from the very beginning, I said, okay, so as they're describing this self-replicating and, you know, as Trump had his little dog and pony show, he went around the

table. How long is it going to take you? That's too long. Next person is faster. And then they finally get to the punchline. It's like's like well we can do it right now because we can turn your body into a manufacturing plant and i said okay so as they're describing this sounds like cancer or something so how do you turn this thing off you know how do you stop this and it turns out as people are starting to see no it doesn't turn off it keeps going on it keeps replicating it keeps ampl, as you pointed out. And so that's where we are with this. But again, I think the fluoride thing is important from a health standpoint.

And I think it's also important that people see the bigger picture and how this has been done for many decades. They really kind of set this precedent of a coerced ingestion of their stuff for their corporate cronies and i think there's a lot of that that is connected let me ask you this though as we move forward to this you're talking about the report that was there and um there's a an article that just came out saying that in um uh that last Wednesday there was a report linking fluoride to lower IQ in children. It was made public after the CDC and the HHS tried to block it. Is that something that's a new development? Because you've been talking about this for a long time.

Is that the report that, I call him Dick divine uh rachel levine or whatever is that the report that he tried to suppress or is this something that we uh that is different from that yeah i'm not i'm not familiar with what article you're referencing if it's new then it's old i mean derrick derrick covered that exact point i think maybe six months ago i think that's the same report so basically i this is in the opening discussion. I don't think I mentioned that the reason that we know and verbatim what the report already shows is because it was leaked. It already the information was already released. It was already discussed and it's already present. Now, that's what's so crazy is that we link to the report in our coverage. So it's already present. And yet the corporate media, nobody's talking about it.

And so, yeah, that, that might, if it's a new article, that's a little bit of old news, but I'm glad it's getting out to people. You know, it's important because of the, the it's damning. I mean, it really is. There's literally nothing in there that even gives you the indication that there might be a benefit to it. And that's why I think they're dragging their feet. That's the craziest part to think about. So they're aware of what it says. They're not even disputing what it says. They're just going like, well, let's get more evaluation from groups that have no historical being involved in this process you know and yet they are okay allowing it to continue to be in your water while it's hurting

your children but we know different than in vaccinations or anything else we're talking about but it just shows a level of deliberate harm i think you know like choosing to let this happen oh yeah absolutely and and you know they played choosing to let this happen. Oh, yeah, absolutely. And, you know, they played this game with a scientist who said, well, we've got our conclusion. Let us put it out there. If you disagree with it, you can do that. But that's not the way the game's played. The way the game is played is to shut down anything that goes against their narrative.

And that even happens, of course, internally when you've got government scientists who are talking about the dangers of fluoride. They're just going to suppress that. That's where we are right now. And that's why it's very important for people to see, you know, the last American vagabond. You guys have been covering this stuff, and thanks for doing that. It's just amazing to me how nobody really seems to care about anything

except the presidential election, which isn't going to change anything, you know. If you're going to get focused on politics, focus locally as to what's going to happen there. But it takes up everybody's, it's all about entertainment. It's about national politics. And yet none of the people in national politics are going to put any restrictions on the CDC, let alone get rid of it. This predatory organization has been poisoning us

since the middle of the 20th century, just in the water, let alone the vaccines that they're involved in. You've got an article at Last American Vagabond about Arnie Burkhart. Tell us a little bit about this guy who came out of retirement to take a look at mRNA. Yeah, we're very, very, very proud of this work. And Taylor Hudak deserves every ounce of credit for the amazing work that was done here. And she's a writer and interviewer for The Last American Vagabond. It's profound. And quite frankly, probably one of the things I'm most proud of that we've ever done at The Last American Vagabond.

And it's a high-level, multi-camera, in-his-lab interview. And this was the final interview he gave before he died. And there's a lot of discussion to be had around that. That's something that I think we're going to dive into going forward, but it's a, it's a very strange circumstance, but the, so he, as you said, he came out, he, you know, was basically in the process of retiring. It was, you know, that it was, as he says in the interview, it was something, somebody contacted him with this information and he kind of felt drawn to do

something about it and and that draw him drew him back into this and so he was as we now know looking back one of the few people that was willing that were willing to go through and do what they thought was right you know and that's one of the things by the way to state right out of the gate that is just over it's just blowing over the top in this interview his integrity is impossible to miss every is what he's doing is is at his expense and he was doing it because he thought it was right you know going to the point to where he was working with other german uh um pathologists and in the beginning until suddenly whoever whatever happened somebody told him no they thought it was conspiracy theory

they all just dropped it and ran and so he was the he got pulled into it and then ended up being the only one really driving this forward save for the people in his inner circle so the bottom line is he he was a a you know very very highly respected pathologist and he went into this work and started doing autopsies where people as you well know were not doing them like this is the lie that we were sold from the cdc as i like i broke down in the first year they're they're they're not doing the work they claim they were doing in the investigation around the people they claim are dying. They're not, you know, or rather, I think, more so into the second year when the injections were given

in regard to the byproducts of what was happening. And remember, they claimed, we're investigating every one of them until it came out that they didn't have the resources to do that, let alone the autopsies, let alone interview everybody. You know, and so he started doing this, and lo and behold, it was exactly what we found.

And I think the two other examples that I've seen of autopsies that it's your body is being overwhelmed with this process i mean we can get into the different and to be clear i'm in no way an expert like he was and even taylor i think is far more immersed in the interworkings of how these things all operate but really coming down to uh just some of the things I pulled up, the first part of it was the assumption of what was really being caused in the process of these injections. And so people were like we all saw they were saying, well, this looks like this. Therefore, it was caused by covid and nobody was doing the histopathology. Nobody was really diving into it to find these things out. And what he ultimately found is what we what we all talk about the thrombocytes thrombosis even um uh dr bakhti made this claim right in the first year if

i remember correctly the the vitt vaccine induced thrombocytosis thrombocytopenia and so as he points out in this that it's really about this is your body's process to try to like heal the problems that are being created by by the injection but see the problem is that's never stopping so it causes all these blood clots he talks about uh lymph lymphocytic inflammation which is the kind of you know i've talked about systemic inflammation for a long time and i think that's what ultimately this develops into and and then he argues the most alarming problem and this is what he argued, was the vasculitis, the argument about the brain as well as the endothelial cells and the blood vessels

and how this is all causing the blood clots and the breakdown of your system. I personally find the most alarming aspect of this to be the sperm port. And he made this point before this interview

and in a public presentation, but he really made this clear in this interview with Taylor that there, there, in my opinion, there's just no way that this was an accident. I mean, you can go back as far as you want and find other research showing the same overlap,

knowing how this process works, that he basically shows that these, these are passing through your sperm. And I mean, I think Dr. Peter McColl has made that point as well. I mean, and I don't know how we get away from something like that. i often make the point about glyphosate in the sense that we

had a chance in time to maybe stop what they did with that but at this point it's the world around it's in the air you're breathing it's the clothes you're wearing it's literally everywhere and so how we stop this i think should be another main focus in regard to the spread of these kind of things but we're right now battling with people's awareness of whether this is even the case. And that's the hard part. That's right. Yeah. We've got a lot of scientists and medical people who are now looking at this.

But, of course, from the very beginning, the same type of stuff we were talking about with fluoride was the big warning sign about this. It's not been tested. We know what these people are doing. Yeah. And they've come up with all these things talking about, oh, well, look, this is long COVID. Or now they talk about holiday heart. Or this is a new variant is going to come after your heart. Or the brain fog.

There was a study I talked about yesterday. They said, well, you know, look at this brain fog. It must be due to COVID. They said, as they did the study, they found that it was due to people being in the hospital. So they said, it's not the hospital, though. It's serious illness. No matter what it points to.

I had an orthopedic surgeon who got the shot because he was being coerced into doing it and it ended his career he can't do surgery anymore and uh and with all the horrible symptoms that he's having he went to doctor after doctor and they would just say nope i'm not going to touch this they're afraid of this one there's one of the reasons why uh burkhart who is retired i think he came out he didn't have you know you know it makes it easier when you don't have your career on the line and uh but you know still it's a a bull thing to come out and oppose this and to expose this and perhaps he did pay the price for this but um for for doing that but uh for the most part he finally finally this orthopedic

surgeon that i interviewed he found a doctor he said well i know what it is and you know what it is but we're not going to say that and i'll help to try to treat you with this that's how afraid everybody is of identifying what this trump shot is doing to people yeah yeah i also and i believe he's also an orthopedic surgeon uh dr malik i just recently interviewed similar similar point except he he basically went to you know he went with the truth and ultimately lost his career for it and now he's spreading you know trying to do podcasts and just talk about this and so i was i like promoting his work because it's you know anybody that's willing to sacrifice everything for the truth is somebody

that i respect you know it's yeah it's really this whole process has been so overwhelmingly obvious from from day one in my opinion. You know, everything seemed to be clear and the almost deliberate effort to both create the circumstance to drive this on people. And this is where I get into the question of what the ultimate outcome, what the ultimate driving purpose was of all this. And I think it is ultimately to create the setting, sort of like we talk about the fluoride step into what we're doing now for whatever is coming next and i think that this has been a resounding failure dr fauci has written articles in cell.com that make the argument that this didn't work and we're not even taking a step back i mean they're now driving aggressively into things like ferritin nanopicle universal flu vaccines. That's literally about to

come out. Or a pan-coronavirus vaccine also using ferret nanoparticles, which, I mean, The Guardian wrote an article about this, I think, in 2006 in regard to how the ferret nanoparticle injections were used to literally control the movements of these animals and insects. Now, that may sound ridiculous to some people, but The Guardian covered this, and it's a peer-reviewed science that overlaps with people that were involved with the COVID-19 injection, one of them being Bob Langer, the co-founder of Moderna. So these things are very real, and it's an alarming step that I think we're seeing.

That's why I think this conversation and what we're doing is so important so people realize not what's coming next, but that it's already happening. That's right. That's right. Yeah, when we look at nanotech, that's one of the things that is so, you just don't know what they're capable of doing. It's got infinite possibilities, and as people look at artificial intelligence and some of these other things, I think the most opaque of all of these

is really nanotech, that people don't really understand the capabilities that are there. But when we look at the overall picture, and I've talked about this with Netanyahu and pushing his own people in Israel as lab rats, pushing them to Pfizer. And of course, you know, I've played the clips of him multiple times, calling, doing a teleconference with the World Economic Forum, Davos, talking about how he's constantly on the phone with Moderna and all these other people, how they're using his people as lab rats.

It's just amazing. And yet, you know, another part of it was they were really leading in terms of tying a digital ID. That's a big part of where this is all coming. And you got an article that came out just, let's see, December 27th, just the end of last week. Pfizer is experimenting in Gaza with a digital ID, just the beginning of this. So tell us now what is happening. We know what Netanyahu did to push Israel to the front of the line, uses people as lab rats to collect data for Pfizer, and then to push the digital ID. What is happening now in Gaza with that?

Well, just to clarify the title, and this is the way I title my shows often, that there's a comma and that's kind of like separate topics, but ultimately the Pfizer part of it is, they're right now experimenting with a, it is stated, an experimental injection to fight what was, I think, a fungus of undefined origin. And this goes into the very alarming discussion about what's been done to Gaza. And I'm not even getting into the bombing aspect of it, just the deliberate kind of destabilization, the flooding, which weirdly was stopped, discussed.

They no longer talk about on the corporate media and right after that happened we saw this flooding and yes it was raining but i've never seen this kind of flooding before in the area that's as they're flooding underneath the ground that rose up to their waste into many places you know and so that what that caused is what they worried about was a massive spreading of waste and and you know it caused the spreading of illness so one part of it is wondering whether this was deliberate right and then and then ask her i mean we've talked about the as i'm sure you have discussed before the concept of israel's battle tested weapons that they test on palestinians and then sell as battle tested so i wonder what this kind of dynamic is as you

mentioned as netanyahu openly stated that this is pfizer's or rather pfizer called it pfizer's lab as he openly stated they were allowing them to find out how these things worked on people. So what they're using is an injection that Pfizer, of course, is testing and it's barely tested. It's experimental. And interestingly, this is designed to stop in one case, Candida albacon, which was, guess what, the thing that was spreading through hospitals during all of the COVID-19 discussion. So I don't know if there's an exact point that makes that overlap, but I found that interesting. Either case, the point is that Pfizer, yet again, is being allowed to experiment on the

Israeli people, or in this case, the Palestinian people, because they're being told they can. Based on something that we can't even define, the digital ID part of it was just going into the deeper part of it, which I can't easily overlap with Israel, the point made. And all of this is, mean this is this is a universal agenda as i think you're well aware of and this is going around the world and it is already happening now i think what is the original drive was sort of as we all saw the vaccine passport and the argument that that was in you know one that we're stepping into a technological world so we shouldn't do paper anymore but rather that it was safer and less dangerous germs in the paper

you know and so that didn't work i mean clearly people pushed back they tried it worked in some cases but it wasn't as sound as i think they wanted now it's sort of coming the other way and this is how i see this happening and this is where you know israel's involved with the cbdc aspect and and what they're creating is this justification for digital currency in the same discussion right they say paper money is dangerous and spreads pathogens. And so what I believe is now going to happen is sort of the inverse of what I expected, which is that the CBDC aspect is going to be pushed on us maybe because

of some mass event that wipes out all of their, you know, paper money records and they have to dole out digital currency. Like that's a worry that I have, but then that will be the point at which, and this is my, my, my guess where they say oh well we'll

give you back your digital currency we don't worry you didn't lose anything as long as you sign up for this digital id that then we'll allow you to have it i mean who wouldn't go through that process to get what they think is theirs back you know the money you stored in a bank before the emp or whatever happens now i'm not saying i think that's happening i just think that's a possibility so that being said last point is just that this is how we're seeing this driven in everywhere around the world. Coercion, as you're pointing out the justification that is needed because these people

in South America don't have rights without it, which is a lie or, you know, any number of ways that's happening. That's right. And that's when I can't, that's why I tried to get people to understand that the way the government gets what it wants is usually not with direct

mandates and coercion it's usually with bribery uh and you know they can conveniently with some kind of a financial crisis take everything away from you and then dole this out that's what they did bill gates did with adhar in india he went to the poor people and said well we'll give you health care we'll give you welfare uh but you're going to take the number and uh and so i think that's going to be the way they're going to do this so probably even pull um kind of a world coin type of thing and say hey we know this this new stuff here we're going to give you a special treatment reduce the taxes or something or you know here's some free money but you got to sign up for this stuff and so it'll be that way it'll be done as something that you must accept or that you made as an offer for for you to

accept but they will make your life very difficult if you don't accept it they will take things away and then offer this as a carrot to you and that's the way the federal government always operates they operate by using their ability to create money out of thin air they use it to bribe states and local governments to you know here's a bunch of money. Now, if you don't do X, we're going to take that money away. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about the boys in the girls bathroom or whether you're talking about any of these other issues. I think that is going to be the way they're going to operate. They're going to create some kind of a crisis. This will be their helping hand to you.

It won't probably come to you as a mandate and and that's the scary thing because this is being pushed by um you know the cbdc and the digital id stuff and everything is being pushed by both biden and the trump administration was being pushed it was pushing it jared kushner when he was there was pushing uh cbdc and um so for the most part the politicians won't even talk about this and as you pointed out every, every country, every political philosophy, every political party was marching in lockstep to this global agenda throughout 2020. It truly was amazing to see. And it is amazing, I think, Ryan, as I try to talk about this, people just, well, Trump never forced anything on anybody. It's like, okay, you know, we just, we got this partisan blindness about this because we're lined up behind, you up behind the left or the right or the Republicans or Democrats.

And we can't see what is actually being done to us and what they're going to do in the future. But I think you're right. I think it will be presented to us as, well, here's this nice stuff that we're going to help you out after the problems that we created. That's always what they do. What I often have said over the years is that's how it starts every time. Where it's just like we saw with the COVID injection. It's, you know, here, if you take this thing or you do this action, you get to go to the front of the line. Yeah.

Right? But then eventually, especially if nobody does it, they go, okay, but now if you don't do it, now you go to the back of the line. Right? Then it becomes, well, if you don't do it, you're killing grandma, so we have to do it. Right? Like, that's the escalation we've seen. And so that's where I worry about this is I feel like we've already passed that step where they're trying to go like look at this great new thing so i worry that it's going to be something that's a little bit more

coercive or like a rug pull kind of an action but you know i think that it all very clearly shows you that the same people that you know a good example is something like the gmo program right how is it possible that we have somebody like Bill Gates who has spectacularly in worldview failed, right? The company, the countries that they were pushing GMOs on are more food insecure now than they were before they pushed that agenda. So the point is, we let them just try again with another GMO product. You know, these people are connected with all of this and that includes the CBDCs, that

includes, you know, it's all interconnected. Now, for those that feel like that somehow starts to develop into an image of what you think you're supposed to dispute as conspiracy theory it's just a reality of the way the world works as you well know david the powerful people will often collect conspire if you will you can use whatever word you want to decide what they will do to gain more power to influence their position and you know you could pretend that sometimes that overlaps with what's best for the people quite frankly i think that's just a coincidence when that happens oh yeah yeah it absolutely is true and that's why i'm trying to explain to people it doesn't matter what country or what party but it blinds people because they get into these

political loyalties to really see what's going on and um and it is across the board and that's what's so dangerous about this is that you know they control and manipulate us with this phony competition between different groups that are both pushing for the same thing and so that's why it's very important i want to keep a track of what's going on with the fluoride stuff so i know we'll be talking again about that uh it's that's a very important uh thing and again it shows the long-term disregard for our choice as well as a caution of consumption of this stuff that in and of itself ought to be something that people push back against.

And they need to realize that this has been going on for decades. It's been going on through Republicans and Democrats being in charge and in Washington, it really doesn't matter from that standpoint. So we really do have to fight this, bring up awareness of it, and maybe we can get people to start fighting this at the local level. That's really, it ultimately is there where they pump it into the water. So if you can stop this at the local level,

then you're on your way to getting control of individual health, taking it away from these public health dictators that really have established themselves in the last couple of years. It was great talking to you again, Ryan Christian. And it is the lastamericanvagabond.com is where you'll find these articles and a great interview. Take a look at that interview with Arnie Burkhart that we were talking about.

A lot to learn from that. Thank you so much, Ryan. Great talking to you. My pleasure, David. If I could just leave you with one thing in general, I think it's important, you know, maybe we could talk about this in the future. Maybe I'll have you on my show and so on

about the idea of, you know, far more than just what we talked about today, endocrine disrupting chemicals, you know, all the different things that are just drenched. Our world is drenched with these things and they don't care about our health. And so we'll be covering this more.

But that way, that includes glyphosate, what's in the injections, and so on. But Derek is going to be covering the fluoride trial, so make sure you keep track of that. And we'll be talking soon about that in general. And it's an honor to be on the show, David, so it's nice to have you. And thank you for being on top of this when everybody else is ignoring it. And, you know, we can throw in all that soup, even things like 5G, you know, the health effects of 5G. Another example, they don't care. Another example of how it comes back to surveillance. The surveillance is not even a question, you know, but there is a lot of evidence to show that the health effects of 5G and other things. But again, we got to have this because,

you know, we got to beat the Chinese and that type of thing. It is absolutely, it's absolute insanity. All we can try to do is try to inform people about this. So thank you so much for what you do, Ryan. Appreciate it. The last American vagabond.com. That's where you can keep up with what's going on with the fluoride stuff, as well as many other issues. Thank you, Ryan. Appreciate it. The David Knight Show is a critical thinking super spreader.

If you've been exposed to logic by listening to The David Knight Show, please do your part and try not to spread it. Financial support or simply telling others about the show causes this dangerous information to spread farther. People have to trust me.

I mean, trust the science. Wear your mask. Take your vaccine. You have to trust me. I mean, trust the science. Wear your mask. Take your vaccine. Don't ask questions. Using free speech to free minds. It's the David Knight Show.