The Joe Rogan Experience - #1717 - Alex Berenson

Episode Date: October 12, 2021

Alex Berenson is a journalist and author of both fiction and non-fiction. His latest book, "Pandemia: How Coronavirus Hysteria Took Over Our Government, Rights, and Lives," will be published on November 30, 2021.

The Joe Rogan Experience. Train by day, Joe Rogan Podcast by night, all day. Hello, Joe. What's it like to be in Twitter jail? Well, you're not even in Twitter jail. You're like excommunicado. I'm banned. You're banned.

Permanently. For telling the truth. For telling the truth. That's what the fascinating thing is. Everything that you were banned for You're banned. Permanently. For telling the truth. For telling the truth. That's what the fascinating thing is. Everything that you were banned for is verifiable. There's sources. You could go read those sources. I watched the whole process go down.

I don't understand. Yeah. Well, I'm not a naive guy, but I thought that being right would actually help. And it turns out being right hurts. Well, during this incredibly confusing time where people are more hysterical and more freaked out and anxiety filled than I've ever seen people in all of my 54 years of life, this is the peak. This is post 9-11 peak. 9-11 was a big anxiety moment for people, but at least it brought us all together. This, because of whatever it is, whether it's social media algorithms,

whether it's just the inevitable decline of an empire, whatever the fuck it is, we have hit a weird place right now. Yes. Right now. Yes. You know, I would say the people who were sort of very complacent about vaccinations and being vaccinated in the spring are now very angry. But they're the wrong people. They're somehow they're blaming people who are not vaccinated. They should be blaming Pfizer and the lies that the CDC told them. Well, what's really interesting is almost no anger at the lab in Wuhan. That's true too. Very strange. Almost no anger. Almost none.

It's almost like an inconvenient truth that most likely this virus emerged from a lab. I mean, Sagar and Jetty from Breaking Points broke down exactly when it went down, who were the initial people that got infected, how it most likely spread. It's been documented by Josh Dubin extensively, the involvement of Fauci, the NIH, the EcoHealth Alliance, all of the input, all of the deceptive public statements contrasted to the internal emails that showed a real concern that they might be responsible for it. A real concern that gain-of-function research might have been the cause of this, and no anger at that. But anger at people who are unvaccinated, even people who are unvaccinated and healthy, even people who have taken care of their body for their entire life, exercised, ate right, take vitamins, people who are fit and who don't want to take a chance with anything else.

Yeah. I mean, it's funny you mentioned the lab leak. So, you know, I now have this Substack, which is sort of my inadequate effort to replace Twitter. Tell people how to get to that, by the way. Sure. So Substack is substack.com. Substack is essentially a newsletter service and a hosting service, and they have guaranteed free expression. That's what they've said. They've said they're not going to censor. I have to choose to believe them on that. I believed in Twitter for a while. That confidence was clearly misplaced.

But Substack says they're not going to censor me or other people, and I got to hope that's true. How many people do you have on your Substack? More than 150,000. That's nice. Yes. Let's see if we can juice that up. I hope so. Yeah.

Here it is. Unreported truths. Yes. So you type in your email and then- You can subscribe. Or you can just say, let me read it first and you don't have to subscribe. And you will see the first- Beautiful. Excited to be in Austin to talk to Joe Rogan today. Yeah. Beautiful.

And so, by the way, most of the people who are signed up do not pay. You can choose to pay or not pay. Basically, you're going to get the same content. I'm very clear about that. There'll be a few things extra you get, but for the most part, it's not about money for me. It's about getting the largest audience possible. And so I have more than 150,000 people signed up right now. But I got to tell you, on Twitter, I had 350,000, 345,000, and that was growing by by about a thousand a day towards the end. And I had 25 million profile views in August and almost 200 million impressions. So Twitter, in cutting me off, Twitter not only defamed me, they really hurt my efforts to get the word out. Well, it's also one of the very best examples

that I think I've ever come across of egregious censorship that is ideologically based and not based on anyone doing anything that is, whether it's, I don't know what their code of conduct is, whether it's about someone being malicious or it's about someone being untruthful or misrepresentation of the facts. You did none of those things. None of those things, no. You really didn't. I mean, I watched it very carefully. I mean, you and I went back and forth with DMs and I watched your feed very carefully. And you would ask me questions. And I'd say, you know, Joe, I disagree with this. You can't go

this far. I would say that to you. Well, you were very, yeah, you're very, I would say, very objective about your interpretation of the data and what you think is going on versus, you know, what is being purported. And I should say, first of all, right away, you were correct about a lot of the data, particularly coming out of Israel, you sounded the warning shots long before anyone else that not only do the vaccines have a certain, there's like a window of efficacy, whether it's three months or five months, whatever it is. In there, yeah. Yeah. But you were saying that people who are vaccinated are getting sick and people were treating that like you were saying that vampires were rising. It was crazy.

It was crazy to watch. They were saying, you're lying. But now that's the narrative. The narrative is like the vaccines were never supposed to prevent you from getting sick. They're supposed to keep you from being hospitalized. Not even that anymore. Now it's basically they'll prevent you from dying, which also probably, I mean, there's evidence. There's some evidence of benefit of really serious illness or death,

but I'm not even convinced we're going to, when we look back over, let's say another 12 months out that that's going to be the case. Okay. Well, there have been people that have been fully vaccinated who've died from COVID and it's publicly, there was one that was crazy where this woman was fully vaccinated. She got COVID, she died. And the headline was because some people didn't get vaccinated. She got COVID. She died. And the headline was, because some people didn't get vaccinated, my mom died. And I was like, what the fuck did you just say?

But Joe, it's much worse than that. You say some people like it's rare. In the UK, okay, and the best data we have comes out of the UK and Israel. And I have to keep saying this to people because they almost don't believe it. In the UK, 70 plus percent of the people who die now from COVID are fully vaccinated. In Israel, that was 70 percent, 70 percent, seven in 10 of the people. I'm going to keep saying it because nobody believes it. But the numbers are there in the government documents. OK, they're not a secret. It's not a conspiracy theory.

It's not somebody saying, oh, I heard this from my cousin. It's in British government documents. Can you put that up so that Jamie can see it? Sure. Can you tell Jamie which? If you go to, it's called the technical briefing from the UK Public Health England. If you look at variants of concern, you should be able to pull up, Google should have a couple pages for you, and then I can walk you through where it is. But just to be clear on this, seven out of 10

of the people dying of COVID in the UK now are fully vaccinated. And another 5% or so are partly vaccinated, meaning they had one shot, but not the second. That was also the case in Israel until August, I mean, in August. And that's why they freaked out and made everyone get boosters. Because when you get the booster, you briefly drive up your antibodies. We don't know what the long-term effects are, but in the short term, that makes the numbers look better for vaccines. This is crazy. What's crazy is that I know a lot of people that got vaccinated and then immediately stopped taking vitamins

a good friend of mine he got vaccinated and then he got COVID after he got vaccinated he goes you know what man once I got vaccinated I stopped taking vitamins I stopped before that he was taking zinc and vitamin C and quercetin and he was like really keeping up on his

vitamin regimen and making sure that he was and then once he got vaccinated he was like oh we're good i made it and then he got covid and then he got covid and he probably was okay right in the end but he probably would have been okay either way he was okay he wasn't feeling so good and his doctor prescribed him ivermectin this is before the ivermectin horse dewormer craze became public disinformation campaign number one. But ivermectin essentially knocked him out of it. He was good within 24 hours after taking ivermectin. So I'm going to say something you don't like.

No. We have no idea if ivermectin works or doesn't. I know it worked for you. It works in vitro. We do know that, right? Yes, but the argument is that it's given... Explain that, how it works in vitro. Okay.

So the idea is that it interferes with the binding of SARS-CoV-2 to your cells. It stops viral replication in vitro, though. I can show you the studies on that. But the old joke about this is it's easy to cure cancer in mice, okay? Right. Human beings are complicated and the argument that people the anti-Ivermectin argument people make is in doses

that would be another if you dose it for humans at the levels that it blocks that replication in vitro you'd kill humans. So in other words it's not. Really? Yes. Kill humans? I don't know if that's true because it's not really a toxic drug.

I'm exaggerating. But the point that I'm trying to make is that at the levels that it's given in humans, which I think is less than a milligram per kilogram of body weight, it doesn't have... Yeah, it's 0.6. 0.6, right? That it hasn't been shown at those levels in vitro to work. I don't claim to be an expert on ivermectin, by the way. Do you know about what's going on in India and the one state in India where they've given the kits? Yeah. Yes.

Yes. They've essentially eliminated COVID in this state of 230 million people. Yes. Which is pretty wild. Yes. I'm not saying ivermectin doesn't work, Joe. What I'm saying is that we have to stand against junk science, whether it's

junk science about vaccines, whether it's junk science about HCQ. You have to test this stuff in clinical trials. Yes. For people that want to look up the India thing, it's I think it's called Uttar Pradesh. Yeah. Is it? How do you spell it? U-T-T-A-R P-R-A-D-A. Uttar Pradesh. Yeah. Yes. Is it?

How do you spell it? I don't know. U-T-T-A-R-P-R-A-D-A. Uttar Pradesh. And they've essentially eliminated COVID with this preventative kit that they've given out to people, which includes ivermectin. Yes. And I know you had a good experience with ivermectin.

I did. But here's the thing, man. I threw everything at it. I had intravenous vitamins. What was fascinating to me was how everybody just latched on to the ivermectin thing. That's all they talked about. And they started calling it horse dewormer until I threatened to sue CNN. And then they stopped talking about it.

But I was like, what the fuck are you guys? You know I can afford people medicine. Like, it's a real people medicine. Not only is it a real people medicine, it's literally on the World Health Organization's list of essential medicines. It's been given out to billions of people. Do you know ivermectin was a game changer in Central Africa? Yes. It's the medicine that essentially ended river blindness in Central Africa. And one of the inventors of it shared a Nobel Prize for finding it in 2015. That's right. It's one of the inventors of it shared a Nobel Prize for finding it. In 2015. That's right.

It's one of the great, actually one of the great pharmaceutical stories of the last 40 years. Because Merck, which is, you can't trust any of these companies, but Merck is the best of them, even though we can talk about Merck and Vioxx separately. Merck found ivermectin. And the CEO at the time, this was like 30 years ago, who was a physician, said, basically, we can't make any money off this in the U.S. There's no market for river blindness in the U.S. I'm going to give this away. And there is a statue in Merck's lobby, in the lobby in New Jersey, of somebody who is not blind because they got ivermectin. It is a really good drug. And this idea that it's horse paste or it's only given to animals is a lie.

It is a lie. And it was a confusing lie. But I loved the fact that it was coming my way. I really did. I enjoyed it. Because out of all the people that it could come towards, where it would be, I would say, why are they doing that to him? And this is not true.

And have it be frustrating. To see it come at me was fascinating. Because first of all, I was already healthy. By the time they were talking shit, I was already out of the woods. And I was negative the day afterwards. I was good in three days. I was negative in five days. And the fact that they concentrated on this lie that I was taking veterinary medicine instead of, I mean, it literally has a fucking box that says for human consumption.

Yes, it's a prescribed medicine. But the fact they were lying about it and not just lying about but using the same lie on MSNBC, on all these different Hollywood reporter on, you know, it was like, it was obvious that this press release had been sanctioned or that this narrative had been promoted. But that the fact that they didn't concentrate at all on the fact like, oh, here's this guy who just got better really quick. Well, there's something called the trusted news initiative, which is a consortium of companies. And this is sort of semi-public. It's not totally guy who just got better really quick. Well, there's something called the Trusted News Initiative, which is a consortium of companies. And this is sort of semi-public. It's not totally hidden. You can find a couple of news stories about it, but they're certainly not going another way to talk about it. And it includes like Reuters and the BBC, and I believe the Associated Press and

the Washington Post. I got to go check. But it also includes Facebook. And this is basically, But it also includes Facebook. And this is basically, we're going to all get on the same page when we talk to you about COVID. So when masks didn't work, remember the beginning, masks didn't work, we're going to all, is propaganda has gotten worse and worse and worse month by month. And it has gotten, you know, with ivermectin and the vaccines, it has reached new heights. What is the source of all this? Like, what's the epicenter of bullshit? So, you know, is it Johns Hopkins? Is it sort of the Gates Foundation? Well, it's specifically in my case,

like when they're saying horse dewormer. Like why? Who's doing that? So there are pollsters out there who are looking at focus groups and they're looking at the... Remember, it's your turn. Remember, get the vaccine when it's your turn. That was focus group tested. Okay. So when they're talking about horse dewormer, there's somebody out there who's spending a couple million bucks a month or whatever it is to make sure that, you know, if this is not for humans, it's for animals. They are testing all that language. And that is one reason why, you know, it sounds so similar. It's one of the reasons why I stopped using Google to search things, too. things too. They're doing, they're doing something to curate information where like,

if I wanted to find specific cases about people who died from vaccine related injuries, I had to go to DuckDuckGo. I wasn't, I wasn't finding them on Google. Yes. Yes. And I'm like, okay, well this is crazy. Like you, you guys are hiding information. I'm looking for very specific people in very specific cases and I'm getting CDC websites and I'm getting, you know, articles on the disinformation attached to vaccines and vaccines being safe and effective, which for the most part, they are just like peanuts are safe and effective for the most part. Well, I mean, again, we can listen. I've been vaccinated against everything, you know, as a child. I'm not COVID. I'm not vaccinated against COVID. But I'm talking about, am I an anti-vaxxer? No.

Do you know the newest Webster definition of anti-vaxxer includes someone who's against vaccine mandates or someone who's against vaccinating children? Seriously? Yes. I did not know that. Yeah, well, pull this up because this is new. They've updated the term anti-vaxxer

to not just mean someone who believes in fucking apple cider vinegar cures cancer like these wacky fucks but someone who thinks that vaccine mandates are a dangerous slippery slope to fascism now you're an anti-vaxxer like you have to fully buy into the narrative or you get labeled this very pejorative look at, definition of a person who opposes the use of vaccine or regulations mandating a vaccination. That's incredible to me. It is incredible.

It's dirty, man. By the way, Jimmy, if you haven't been able to find that, I can try to watch. It's a bit tricky to find. Look at this right here, though. Especially a parent who opposes having his or her child vaccinated. a parent who opposes having his or her child vaccinated. Do you know that, I mean, there's actually statistics now that show that for boys, it is more dangerous to be vaccinated than it is to get COVID.

Oh, yeah. For adolescent boys, absolutely. The rates of myocarditis, I don't think anybody's disputing now. They're in the, and this is hospitalizations. Yeah, and this isn't even unreported and underreported. That's right. So 1 in 5,000 is – okay, so that doesn't necessarily sound like that much. But if you're a healthy adolescent, your odds of dying from COVID are in the 1 in a million range.

And I will stand by that number. You can – so about 400 – They're very low. They're very, very low. I think all told children deaths from COVID haven't cracked 500. That is correct. But what you what you don't realize when you when you quote that number is, first of all, the CDC says about 45 percent of those cases were completely incidental. In other words, if somebody somebody with cancer or somebody who was in a car accident who tested positive for kids. or somebody who was in a car accident who tested positive for kids. OK, so cut it by 45 percent of the cases that are left. And there is good data on this.

Those kids, for the most part, are profoundly ill. I mean, I mean, they they're like they have severe genetic defects. They have cancer that's late stage there to try to find cases of healthy children who have died from COVID is next to impossible. Did you see, but meanwhile, the flu is dangerous for children, right? But did you see Fauci publicly declare that COVID is more dangerous for children than the flu? Yes. But the flu isn't that dangerous for kids either, but- But it's dangerous enough. I have a friend who's friend who's kind of like three people removed, but one of his friend's children died from the flu. It can happen.

There's also something called RSV, which is extremely dangerous for little kids. And that has come roaring back this year. And nobody can quite explain why. But it may be because, you know, we kept all our kids at home. We didn't let them trade it around last year. And all of a sudden, it's back. And their immune systems get compromised because of inactivity. Yes.

I mean, we're meant to be outside trading germs with each other. Yeah. There's a thing that happens with kids we were talking about at lunch today where when we were children, if someone got chicken pox, you would go over their house so you could get chicken pox. That's gone now. Yeah. I mean, that was literally how my parents dealt with it. I got chicken pox because one of my relatives got chicken pox. My cousin, I think it was, and we went over his house and we all got chicken pox. And you're immune to it for the rest of your life. Exactly. Yep. Same thing with me. So, by the way, you're talking about the Webster thing in the dictionary. It reminded me the CDC has changed its definition of vaccine, believe it or not.

To include gene therapies? No. What they're now saying is that vaccines don't need to confer immunity. If they have a protective effect, it's considered a vaccine. So by that definition, actually, vitamin C might be considered a vaccine. Was the flu shot thought? I mean, we always called it the shot, but did you, was it ever referred to as the flu vaccine?

Because people get the flu shot every year. It was considered a vaccine, even though it's not very effective. It's, you know, it's funny. What's happened is if you think about what vaccines were, you know, like the measles vaccine or the smallpox vaccine, they were effectively 100 percent effective for your whole life. Now, of course, some people many years later might have a breakthrough infection, but it was called a breakthrough because it was so rare. And so, you know, you get the MMR vaccine as a little kid and you never get measles. You know, you get the MMR vaccine as a little kid and you never get measles.

Somehow, I don't understand this like weird mind meld that Pfizer and Moderna and BioNTech have performed on the government and on the media where they have convinced people that these things, which by no classical definition are vaccines. They don't work like vaccines. They don't have the duration of protection of vaccines. And you can still get very sick and die post-vaccination. We should explain to people that maybe don't know, just in case someone's listening, that doesn't know how a regular vaccine works. A regular vaccine, if it's for smallpox, has an inert version of smallpox in it. So you can't catch it, but your body recognizes it. Your body develops the immunity to smallpox in it so you can't catch it but your body recognizes it your body develops the immunity to smallpox and then it fights it off that's basically yeah yeah right and these mrna vaccines which but by the way the the technology is amazing and fascinating and it

seems to have like profound possibilities in terms of like the ability to fight cancer like they have a lot of like really interesting research on the horizon so this is not demonizing the concept of mrna vaccines but what they essentially do is they they tell your body to produce a certain spike protein and this develops this ability to fight off the covid variants and so so if you think of coronavirus, it's called coronavirus because it has this corona of spikes. It looks like a ball and it's got these nasty little spikes poking off it.

Is there a real photo of one of those things? It's all sort of computer generated. It's too small to take a proper photo of. So how do they know it's got the spikes? Because they know what the shape is because they have the complete genetic code and they know what the shape is because they have the complete genetic code. And they know what amino acids it produces. And they know what those look like.

So, I mean, biology is magic these days. I mean, it's truly magic. Because they're at such small levels. That they can predict how this thing is going to fold on itself. They can predict how this thing is going to fold on itself. And they can actually predict what the mutations will cause the structural confirmation of this thing, which is so small you can't imagine how small it is. They can imagine how it's going to look. And when I say imagine, it's really predict.

And then they can predict how it's going to attach to your cells. So long story short on that, they know what the spike protein looks like and they know how to make your body make it. So when you get the vaccine, as you say, you're not getting a whole inactivated coronavirus. The Chinese vaccines use that technology. Do they? Yes. Is that more effective? No, it's less effective. Really?

Yes. For whatever reason with respiratory viruses, the whole inactivated virus thing, or it's sometimes called attenuated virus, doesn't work very well. We don't quite know why. But I thought that they thought that this was a respiratory virus, but really it's attacking the epithelial- It's both. Both. Both.

So you have the receptors that this virus attacks all over your body, in both your lungs. There's a ton in your lungs, but there's also a ton in the smooth muscle cells of your vasculature. So it does have vascular complications, this virus. So you get this vaccine. It's a little bundle of RNA in the case of the Pfizer and the Moderna vaccines, which is stuck inside what's called a lipid nanoparticle. Again, incredible technology. That bundle of RNA gets into your cells, actually just like the virus would, and it tells your cells, make the spike protein. So you then have a ton of spike protein in these cells. Now, one of the

promises about the vaccine that has turned out not to be true is you're only going to have those spike proteins basically near the injection site. And it turns out, unfortunately, some vaccine appears to leak and travel. When you're shooting something into someone's arm, right, and you're just injecting intramuscularly into the deltoid, is it possible to hit a vein? Yes. So that's been one of the questions is whether or not some of the people who get myocarditis get it because they were improperly injected. Is there a spot where you should and shouldn't hit? That I don't know. That's the kind of technical question I don't know. But it is – and by the way, that hasn't been proven.

It's just a theory that people are getting it injected into their bloodstream directly and that is leading to myocarditis. It's not clear that's true, but it's a possibility. So your body then makes all these spikes and your immune system recognizes them as an invader and it makes antibodies. So that's what the vaccine does. And guess what? It works. OK. The mRNA vaccines cause you to make a lot of antibodies, more antibodies than natural infection produces.

That's why early on people said, you know, including like including virologists who are not Tony Fauci, said, this looks really good. This looks better than natural immunity to us. They said it's like 94% effective or something like that initially once it kicks in? Yes. So we can talk about that. But here's the problem. It turns out that messing with nature, there's always a price.

It turns out that messing with nature, there's always a price. So you get this really high spike of, maybe I should use a different word, a surge of antibodies that's much higher than the natural level that you'd get. But it declines really fast. So Israel, there's a really good paper that came out of Israel, I think about two months ago on this, where natural immunity, about 5% or 10% a month. Vaccine-generated immunities fall 40% a month. 40%? 40% a month. So it doesn't take that long. So if you're 100% on month one, on month two, you're 60?

Well, no, no, no. This is not the protective effect of the vaccine. This is the antibody count that your body is generating against these spike proteins. Okay. And then there's another technical issue, which is that for some reason that I think they don't even really have even a good theory about, the vaccine-generated antibodies are much more narrowly focused on one part of the spike protein than natural antibodies. more narrowly focused on one part of the spike protein than natural antibodies. Plus, if you, for somebody like you, you got sick, you recovered, you have antibodies to other parts of SARS-CoV-2.

There's something called the nucleocapsid. You have antibodies to that. Plus, again, for reasons that we don't fully understand, it looks like your B cells, which are part of your immune system, which help, which in the long run will generate antibodies again if you face this again, if you're reinfected, if you're re-exposed. Those memory cells work better post-natural infection and recovery than vaccine-generated infection. I'm not suggesting that anybody do this. I want to be really clear. But I would think that a strategy, if one wanted to be fairly safe, would be get vaccinated, wait a month or two, and then go to a music festival and make out with everybody.

Like try to catch COVID, right? Like if you have some protection, then get the natural infection on top of it. Not clear. Okay. I'm not a doctor. No, no. Nor am I a scientist. Nor are you a scientist.

Nor do I give good advice. This is not good advice. That's not good advice. I'm not going to. No. Here's what I say because I don't want to tell go people to go tell them to get infected. I like how we're doing these little disclaimers. It helps.

Spotify is going to enjoy these disclaimers. Protection after natural infection and recovery is superior to vaccine protection. According to that study from Israel, 2.5 billion people, 6 to 13 percent. Or 6 to 13 times X. 6 to 13 times X better. That's correct. And that was with the Delta variant. Yeah.

6 to 13 times X better. That's correct. And that was with the Delta variant. Yeah. So here's the, of the many, many, there are many, many problems around vaccine immunity. Because your immunity is so tailored to the spike protein, and not just the spike protein, to one part of it, to the receptor binding domain, it's called of the spike protein. If the virus mutates just a little bit in that part, those vaccine antibodies you have don't work very well anymore. And you don't have the backup stuff that you get,

you personally and everybody else who's been infected and recovered gets. Yeah, I was reading something about that today. I actually made a note about it because I knew it was going to come up on the podcast today because I found this discussion of it to be pretty interesting. But this one guy had this take on it where he said that natural immunity is demonstrably more generalized and robust to variant mutations and that the vaccines are designed to be specifically targeted and that's what allowed them to get created so quickly. Is that an accurate assessment of it? Yes, that's absolutely correct.

Well, I mean, think about it. You're the virus, okay? I mean, the virus doesn't think, okay, but it wants to survive. If different human beings are going to have somewhat different responses to natural infection, the vaccine response is always the same, okay? Because the vaccine is always the same. So the vaccine response is we're going to generate a ton of antibodies for this one particular part of the spike protein. Well, the virus, quote unquote, knows that if it can just mutate that bit of itself, it will escape vaccination.

It will escape vaccine immunity, I should say. And that's what the virus appears to be doing. And there's a paper out of Japan from August where these researchers demonstrate, and these are all first-rate, okay? These are first-rate academic institutions that are doing this. They demonstrated that four relatively small mutations on SARS-CoV-2 could lead to escape from vaccine-generated immunity. Escape meaning that the vaccine-generated immunity would be non-existent? Or close to non-existent. That's not the worst case scenario, by the way. The worst case scenario

is that the virus mutates in a way that the vaccine actually, it's called, this is why it's called antibody dependent enhancement. The antibodies continue to be able to attach to part of the virus, but the virus has mutated in a way that after attaching, they actually help it bind to cells. Okay. Now, someone sent me something today from a very fishy looking GeoCities type website that was claiming that there was some Department of Defense artificial intelligence. Have you read that this is going around? Yeah, I thought it was BS, but I think it's actually totally true.

We can pull it up. It's correct. Really? Yes. By the way, it's called Humetrix. I think it's actually totally true. We can pull it up. It's correct. Really? Yes. By the way, it's called Humetrix. I still want you to find this other thing, though. By the way, the- Jamie's doubling over time with the fucking one-handed Google.

Let's do that first before I go into Humetrix. Yeah, because I don't want- It sounds like a left turn. I don't want people to, especially since I said 70%, and I know that's such a stunning number, I don't want people to think I made that up. Yes, let's go with that first. So this is 70% of all vaccinated people, of the deaths in England.

Okay, so this is what- I'm not saying I found it yet. So this is the bullshit that comes up. This is from Wall Street Journal. It says, study in England shows very few deaths among vaccinated people. Okay. England shows very few deaths among vaccinated people. Survey finds that 640 coronavirus deaths in the first half of 2021 among people who received two shots and more than 50,000 among those who had.

Right. So that's correct, too. Both things can be true. The reason is that most of those deaths occurred in January and February and March. of those deaths occurred in January and February and March. And as we know, this is another thing that I was criticized immensely for on Twitter and has turned out to be totally correct. In the first week or two after you get the first dose, you're actually at higher risk of being infected with and dying from COVID, it looks like. Because your immune system has to kick in. Yes. Looks like there's a temporary suppression of your immune system. We've seen this all over the world. There is a spike in COVID cases following that first dose. Here's how it works, okay? You get this

spike after the first dose, which we're not allowed to talk about, and which was specifically excluded from that 95% figure that the companies came up with. Specifically excluded from that 95% figure that the companies came up with. Specifically excluded meaning that they edited it out? They didn't count those cases. They counted cases at what point – I mean they counted them, but they didn't report them as part of the vaccine efficacy. So here's the theory. If a vaccine lasts 10 years, okay, yes, maybe there's a little spike in cases after that first dose, but who cares? You get 10 years of protection at 95%, a few cases at

the beginning does not matter. So the companies, when they counted cases, they said, we're going to count cases in people who are fully vaccinated. That's in the case of Pfizer, I believe it was one week after the second dose. In the case of believe, was one week after the second dose. In the case of Moderna, two weeks after the second dose. So all the cases in the first five weeks, whether you were vaccinated or not, were not included in the in the description in the in the calculation of vaccine protectiveness. Now, is there any documentation as to why they made that distinction? Yeah. Again, because they said, you know what, it's not fair. It's not fair to count those cases because, again, let's say the vaccine lasts forever

or 10 years. We don't really care about what's happening the first week or two in. But wouldn't it be important data? Well, I'm not saying they didn't. It's not that they didn't count them at all. They just didn't. You can find it in the trial data. They just didn't report it when they said 95% efficacy, 95% protectiveness.

They weren't counting a whole lot of cases in people who'd just been vaccinated. And they told the world that. I mean, it's just that nobody bothered to think about what that meant. Okay. And the reason it means so much is because vaccine protection doesn't last 10 years. It doesn't even last 10 months. Okay. So if you're thinking about a traditional drug, like an antidepressant or a cholesterol drug, a drug that, you know, people might take for a few months.

So you get depressed. Your doctor prescribes you an antidepressant. You take it for a few months. So you get depressed. Your doctor prescribes you an antidepressant. You take it for a few months. OK, if I, the company that made the antidepressant, said to the FDA, well, sure, there were a couple suicides and a couple cases of really severe depression after the first week, but we can't count those. We got to wait for this thing to kick in. The FDA would say, are you crazy? Like,

you count from the day the first person gets the first dose of your drug, okay? And if we want to see if this thing works, we got to count every case for six months, okay? That's totally reasonable, right? Because it doesn't not count if you killed yourself three days after starting your antidepressants. But the word vaccine has this magic for people. So the company said, we don't want to count any of those early cases. And the FDA said, OK. And all my competitors at the New York Times and everywhere else either didn't understand that this was happening or didn't understand what it meant. And they all bought that 95% figure. So, okay. So you get negative efficacy,

it looks like, early on, zero to negative efficacy. Then you get a few weeks of 50% efficacy. Then you get to what I call the happy vaccine valley, okay, which is where part of Europe is right now, which is where Israel was back in March and April and May, where everybody's walking around with tons of antibodies. Yes, they're declining, but they had so many that they have tons of antibodies, and it looks really good. Okay? Israel has 10 million people.

There were days in June, in late May and June, when they had 10 COVID cases, 15 COVID cases, and they had basically nobody in the hospital. Okay? And that's when everyone was like, these things are a miracle. We're going to end COVID and I can find you. Tony Fauci is basically saying, I believe we can eliminate COVID. He said that in May. Okay. It is really, it was peak overconfidence. Okay? And then what happens is the antibodies just go away. And or the virus mutates away from the antibodies. And guess what? You don't have zero COVID anymore.

You, in fact, in Israel, in late August, before they got desperate with the boosters, they were having more cases than they'd had back in January when they just started vaccinating. Have the boosters been effective in Israel? Yes, in the short run. They're going to be effective in the short run because they kick your antibodies back up. But the question is whether or not, A, how long that lasts, B, what the side effects are, and C, do you want to keep doing that forever to people? For people that have had no side effects though from the initial vaccines.

Even then it's not clear. Okay. Because it's- Have you talked to anybody that's gotten boosters? Yeah, yeah. What is- I mean, so I've talked to a couple of people who've gotten them. Most people, it's the same side effects as the second dose. One guy I talked to had more side effects. My mom actually got a booster and had fewer side effects as the second dose. One guy I talked to had more side effects. My mom actually got a booster and had fewer side effects. But mRNA vaccines, okay, and you're right,

it's an amazing technology. They weren't initially designed as vaccines, the technology. It was designed to treat cancer and other things where there's repeated dosing. And guess what? They had to drop that idea because the toxicity of the delivery mechanism appeared to increase with repeated dosing. So it is absolutely unclear what it will mean to give people a third dose, a fourth dose, a fifth dose, a sixth dose. Remember, if Fauci is saying, as he said, five to eight months after your second dose, you need a booster. Well, I would hope that we're all planning to live more than five to eight months after that second dose, you need a booster. Well, I would hope that we're all planning to live more than five to eight months after that second dose. So it's going to be,

are we going to need a fourth shot? Are we going to need a fifth shot? And what's interesting is that this talk about boosters was never considered initially. There was the talk of the first shot and the second shot. The companies were very careful in what they said. They were much more careful than everybody else. Well, a lot of people, including Bill Maher, he talked about it on the show. He's like, I got vaccinated. Take one for the team. That's right. And then, you know, now they're saying booster. He's like, I'm not doing it. No, that's right. I mean, I think there are people who feel fool me once, shame on you. Right. But but, you know, in Israel, they've now said

you're not considered vaccinated. Unless you've had three shots. That's right. What's weird to me, and I guess this is just human nature, is how people become so tribal about it and how the vaccinated people are doubling down. There's some of them that identify with being vaccinated to the point where it's almost like a religious distinction or a political distinction. So there's some really ugly stuff going on. And some of it's actually subtle and some of it's not subtle. One of the subtle things that I think has happened is that this is the first time in history, at least that I can think of, that the sort of most educated, wealthiest people have put their hands up and said, I want to be the guinea pig. So, like like those people

were desperate to get vaccinated, most of them. And, you know, people like me, you know, look, I went to Yale. I worked for the New York Times. They hate me because they consider me a traitor to the class. Right. And so and so I think, unfortunately, I think some of what's happened and you can see it sometimes explicitly is there's a lot of talking down to people who haven't been vaccinated. You're just dumb. You're just a mouth breather. You just want the horse paste. And now that those people who got themselves vaccinated, who desperately rushed out, in some cases lied about their eligibility back in January and February, are realizing that the stupid people maybe made the right choice.

It's very hard for them to admit that. I don't think they think they made the right choice. I think here's one of the things that I think is going on. I think some people were a little nervous to get vaccinated, but they did it. They bit the bullet and then they want other people to do it too. They want you to do it because they did it. And they think they did it. Like Bill Maher said, he did it for the right reasons. He took one for the team. They think they did it for the right reasons because it was what you're supposed to do it because they did it. And they think they did it, like Bill Maher said, he did it for the right reasons, he took one for the team.

They think they did it for the right reasons because it was what you're supposed to do, and they should be rewarded. And this is one of the things that sort of ramps up this acceptance of vaccine mandates and vaccine passports, which really disturbs me. It becomes, I did it, you should do it. We should make those people do it. We should force those people to do it,

regardless of whether or not there is an effective treatment outside of the vaccine, regardless of whether or not it makes sense because these people have had a previous infection to COVID, and that infection imparted superior protection. They don't care. They want you to do it because they did it. Yes. Yes, I agree with that. They want you to do it because they did it. Yes. Yes. I agree with that.

I mean, back in the spring, and I wrote this book, and this is one of two copies in the world, physical copies. This one's yours. The other one's Tucker's. Yes. Oh, I don't know if that's good. No, you guys are completely different, but you're the same in the most important way, which is you don't buy into bullshit.

Well, we'll also talk to anybody. Tucker has a lot of left-wing people on, and he doesn't disparage them or criticize them or mock them. He had Brett Weinstein on, who's very progressive. He has Tulsi Gabbard on. He has people on. I think he's unfairly labeled because people want to marginalize him and dismiss him immediately and call him a white

separatist or a white supremacist or whatever word that makes you a part of a list of people that you can never associate with. They like to initially do that about him. But I think his discussions that he has on his show are some of the most nuanced in that he is willing to have conversations with anybody from all these different people that have been in issues with college censorship or so-called progressive college students have censored professors from discussing certain topics. professors from discussing certain topics or, you know, he'll talk about all kinds of things. And I think that that's very important in this time that you have people like him. Yes. As much as he gets criticized and as much as I get criticized, there's a very important thing that is happening when people are discussing uncomfortable issues. And it's, we have to figure out what's right and what's wrong. And you don't get that by just buying into the official narrative.

Right. I mean, that's, you guys are both suspicious of the official narrative. And it's funny, you know, Tucker Carlson is, you know, like, could there be a sort of like whiter guy than Tucker? But at heart, he's a populist. I truly believe that. And, you know, I don't necessarily agree with him about everything, you know, but, but at heart, he's a populist and at heart, you're a populist. And, you know And I think I've become, maybe, I don't know if populist is the right word or the wrong word, but I am so struck by the left's willingness to buy into the narrative, especially that the pharma industry is selling right now. And I don't understand it. And I think you don't buy into that, and that's a good thing.

Well, you brought up Vioxx earlier with Merck. And one of the reasons why I became initially suspicious of... I mean, there's a lot of reasons to become suspicious of the motives behind pharmaceutical companies, because there's an enormous profit incentive. They make tremendous amounts of money from these things. And if they can fudge the numbers or move things around, I mean, Pfizer paid out, I think it was the biggest ever settlement by any company. It was more than $2 billion. Yes.

Yep. A stunning amount of money. For fraud, right? Yes. And so what did they pay? What did they do? It was $2.3 billion. It was for over-marketing a whole series of drugs, including Neurontin, which is a drug for fibromyalgia and for pain generally.

Here it is. Yes. Largest healthcare fraud settlement in its history. 2.3 billion for fraudulent marketing. So Neurontin is Lyrica. Bextra was their Coxib drug. So both Pfizer and Merck actually, even though I generally think Merck is one of the better of these companies, And Merck, actually, even though I generally think Merck is one of the better of these companies,

they made drugs that essentially were aspirin except that they had a little side effect, which is they caused heart attacks in people. Are you talking about Vioxx? I'm talking about Vioxx. Yeah. See, I have a friend who had pretty bad arthritis in his knees. And so he took Vioxx and had a fucking stroke. And he was like 30 years old. And he's a fighter. And, uh, you know,

he's a fighter and so his knees were just damaged from years of martial arts training. And, um, did he recover? Yes, pretty much. Yeah.

He still has some, I think he still has, I'd have to talk to him about that. I don't want to, I'm not sure, but I knew it was, I know it was a long process. He did a lot of things,

very unconventional things. He got, um, stem cell, uh, therapy and a bunch of different things to try to hit it wasn't a small deal no no no no it was a very big deal but he was talking to people and just started like trailing off in his words and and and everybody was like hey man are you okay like something was going and then it was like a slow subtle realization that he was having a stroke yeah when you Yeah. When you get a blood clot in your brain, bad things happen.

Yeah. So, and Merck, and you can pull it up or not, but Merck made Vioxx. And Vioxx, the FDA estimated, killed 55,000 people. 55,000 people. That's not a small number. Okay. And that's just been forgotten. And it was essentially like a type of

anti-inflammatory. Yes. So the idea was that, you know, I often take a lot of ibuprofen. It can be very hard on your stomach. You take these drugs for too long. Why are you taking that shit? Bad back. Yeah. Yeah. I go into the book a little actually. I treat my back badly. I don't stretch. And so, of course, I wind up throwing it out from time to time. I'm an idiot about it. We can talk about that outside of the podcast. I can help you. I need something. Yeah, I can help you. But so you take these drugs for too long, it tears up your stomach, tears up the lining of your

stomach. So Vioxx was supposed to, and Baxter, Cecoxib, and Rofocoxib, these two drugs, were supposed to spare the lining of your stomach, which they do. There's just one little problem, which is, it's like in the United States, and this is about all drugs, we have this idea like you take the pill and the problem goes away. Right. And that's what we want. That's what we want. That's what the commercials show. That's right. A lady dancing in the wheat field, butterflies, beautiful music. That's right.

Everything's cheery. That's right. I want to be like her. That's right. And unfortunately, that's not human biology. Okay. These are complicated products and almost always you have downstream side effects that you don't realize. The only drugs where that actually seems not to be the case broadly are statins. And I don't take a statin, but I would take one if I needed to without thinking about it. And even then, people complain about statins. I've heard negative side effects. I've heard doctors warn me about statins. People say it can cause muscle aches and other stuff.

But for the most part, and those drugs have been tested in tens of thousands of people, and they actually appear to reduce deaths from heart attacks and strokes. If you do the test right, you get real answers. Okay. Vioxx, unfortunately, caused people to have heart attacks. And Merck, unfortunately, knew about it. Okay. They knew. They knew years before they stopped selling it. They knew before they released it? Yes. They knew even before they released it. I know this. I covered, there was a, the very first Vioxx trial was in Texas, and this was in 2005. And I was down here for the New York Times covering that trial, okay? And I paid really close attention. They knew what was going on.

Now, they came up with this cockamamie story that Vioxx didn't actually cause heart attacks, that naproxen, which is Ale leave, actually protected people from heart attacks. And they convinced the FDA that that was the truth. And the FDA allowed them to sell Vioxx. And then Merck in 2001 spent $160 million advertising Vioxx to consumers. More money than Budweiser spent advertising Budweiser that year for a product that you can't go into a store and buy, for a product that you need a doctor's prescription to get. Okay? Wow. And they got tens of millions of people to take that drug, and they killed,

by the FDA's estimate, 55,000 people. And Merck is supposedly the best of these guys. thousand people. And Merck is supposedly the best of these guys. And not one person ever went to jail for that. And Merck paid out a few billion dollars to plaintiff's lawyers and to the families of people who've been hurt. And that was the end of it. And everyone's forgotten all about it. And I'm not even talking about the opioid crisis and Purdue Pharma. And you know, one of the companies that makes that has gotten in trouble for opioids? Johnson & Johnson, maker of the third major vaccine in the United States, the third major COVID vaccine. So do not tell me that these companies are our friends. They are in it for the money. If they can produce a product that helps people, they will do it.

But if that product turns out to have side effects or problems, you cannot expect them to tell the truth because they don't. have side effects or problems, you cannot expect them to tell the truth because they don't. And I am totally okay saying that about specific companies because I covered these cases. What you said wouldn't be remotely controversial 24 months ago. Right? Not even remotely. What you said, everyone, college professors, CEOs, garbage men, everyone would agree with you. Across the board. Now, all of a sudden, because it's an inconvenient truth in the fact that we need these pharmaceutical companies to deliver these vaccines, which people have decided.

Like, did you see that lady in New York, your new governor? Did you see that fucking crazy lady? Yes. Who was saying that the vaccines are from god and she needs us to all be apostles yes folks find that video because jamie please it is so fucking patently insane like we got rid of a molester and we replaced it with a crazy person like a person who is like i don't do you see she's got a necklace that says vaxxed yes which is fine that doesn't bother me these statements i mean if you want to have

a, I mean, you want to get a Pfizer tattoo, I don't give a fuck. But I've seen that too. There's a lot of Pfizer tattoos. You know, now they're, because Pfizer was supposedly the good one. Now they're all sad because Moderna actually turns out to, it seems like it has a little bit longer protective effect. Well, it's more of an impact, but also more side effects. Yes.

Well, it's 100 micrograms against 30 per dose, so it seems to last a little bit longer. Wrong. I dose so it seems to last longer i believe listen listen lady listen this is so crazy and by the way she didn't even win the election okay you got lucky that it turns out the other guy was a creep to get this community back and what we went through this pandemic made us stronger i believe that especially as i talked to young people who weren't able to have their graduations from high school or a normal life for the last 18 months. I say to them, whatever comes your way in life, you are stronger. You are more resilient. God let you survive this pandemic because he wants you to do great things someday. He lets you live through this when so many other people did not. And that is also

your responsibility. How do we keep more people alive? We are not through this pandemic. I wished we were, but I prayed a lot to God during this time. And you know what? God did answer our prayers. He made the smartest men and women, the scientists, the doctors, the researchers. He made them come up with a vaccine. That is from God to us. And we must say, thank you, God. Thank you. And I wear my vaccinated necklace all the time to say, I'm vaccinated. All of you.

Yes, I know you're vaccinated. You're the smart ones. But you know there's people out there who aren't listening to God and what God wants. You know this. You know who they are. I need you to be my apostles. I need you to go out and talk about it and say, we owe this to each other. We love each other.

Jesus taught us to love one another. And how do you show that love? Pfizer. But to care about each other enough to say, please get vaccinated because I love you. Okay. You got something else? If you Google variants of concern,

UK technical briefing. Here it is. Okay. Oh, they got 24 out now. That must have just come out. So go to 24 and this will be exciting for me too because I haven't seen it. I was have just come out. So go to 24. And this will be exciting for me too because I haven't seen it. I was trying to figure out where in here

I was supposed to look. Go down, down, down, down. Keep going, keep going, keep going. Keep going, keep going, keep going. Keep going, keep going. Okay. Okay, so this tells you as of the 27th of September,

there were 3,200 deaths from the Delta variant. Okay? So that's going to be – the Delta variant is almost all the cases these days, not just in the U.K., but everywhere in the world. So go down some more. Some more. Some more. Some more. And keep going, but everywhere in the world. So go down some more. Some more. Some more. Some more.

Keep going. Keep going. Keep going. Secondary attack rates. Keep going. Keep going. This is variant stuff. Keep going.

Don't tell me they took it out. I don't think they took it out. Keep going. Keep going. Keep going. Whoa! Well, that's interesting. We may need to go back to the previous one because it's not in here.

What do you mean? Go to 23? Yeah, go to 23. Right below that? Yeah. Unless it's in the underlying data. What are we looking for here? What we're looking for is figures that will tell.

You know what? Let me... I don't want to have to subject the audience to this. Let me find it. So while you're... I guess I was digging through that and I found this interpretation of data. It just...

This said that there's a lot of people in that age range that would be vaccinated. Yes. I found there's a lot of people in one chart that said there was like 200,000 people that got it that were unvaccinated under the age of like 25. Yes. Go down one more page. Okay. Okay. All right. So this is week 34 through week 37. That's going to be basically September. So this tells you the rates. Oh, yes, this is great. Rates of illness among people who have and have not been vaccinated over on the right.

So what you can see is that in people over 50, rates of illness are higher in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. are higher in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. 900 to 600 in people 50 to 60, 600 to 400 in people 60 to 70, 500 roughly to 360. In each of those cases, the number in the second to last graph, the second to last column is higher. So what that's telling you is that people who are vaccinated with two doses are more likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 than people who are not vaccinated. It's interesting how it changes somewhere around 40 to 49. That's right. And there's a good scientific reason for that, which is basically there's something called immunosenescence, which basically means that your immune system, as you get older, has a harder time dealing with disease, right? I mean,

that's sort of like intuitively obvious. It also has a harder time mounting the response that the vaccines are supposed to help with. So, okay. So that's one chart. And again, this is UK government data. And what it says is that the idea that this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated is a total lie. You are more likely to become sick if you are vaccinated than if you are not. And you're over 50. In these older categories. In these older categories. So anything above 50 is where the number shifts. If you see, because 40 is actually the highest number of all. There's 1,150. So it's about one in 100 people in those four weeks in 40 to 50

year olds. Right. So before that, before 40, it seems to shift in favor of the vaccinated. Yes. So would you make the argument that if you're younger, you should be vaccinated? No, because in that case, your risk of underlying disease, you're very likely to recover very quickly from COVID if you're not. If you're younger. Yes. So let's go to the next page. Okay, this is emergency care.

Go to the next page. Okay, so these are deaths. Okay, so now this is on a per 100,000 basis. this is this is on a per 100 000 basis so what you will see is that vaccines uh oh no look at the look at the third the third from the from the left third from the left second dose more than 14 days above specimen before specimen date these are people who have died, fully vaccinated people who have died. There were 1,270 fully vaccinated people who died out of 1,500 in the over 80 category. But this is under 14 days before specimen date. No, no, no. Over.

Over. Second dose greater than 14 days means I am fully vaccinated by anybody's definition. Okay. Not vaccinated, it says. When it says second dose before 14 days or more than 14 days, what it should say is fully vaccinated. That's what that means. Why does it differentiate between that after 14 days and then the next one is rates among persons vaccinated with two doses? Okay. So I promise you I will answer

that question. But what I want everyone to see is that the vast majority of people in Britain who died in September were fully vaccinated. 1,270 out of 1,500 were fully vaccinated. 607 of the 70-year-olds out of 800 were fully vaccinated. 258 out of the 411 60-year-olds, they were almost all fully vaccinated. Most people who die of this now are fully vaccinated in the UK. Those are the numbers. And the rates among persons not vaccinated and vaccinated with two doses per 100,000, what do they mean by that? So what they're showing you there is that even though the vast majority of people who died were vaccinated, the vaccine

still appears to have some protective effect because rates among, because, so here, think of it this way, Joe, 80% of the people who died over 80 were vaccinated, but 95% of people in that age range were vaccinated. So that implies that the vaccine still offers you some protection, because if it offered you zero protection, then it would be 95 percent of the people who died over age 80 were vaccinated. Does that make sense? Sort of. It's complicated. Suppose we have a room of 100 people, OK, or 1,000 people. 950 of those people are vaccinated and 50 are not. If 100 people died out of the 950, but 20 people died out of the 50, that would still imply that the vaccine was doing some good. Got it. And that's actually a pretty good analogy to what you're seeing there because you're getting 100 out of 950 compared to 20 out of 50.

So when you say that most of the people who are dying are vaccinated, is that because the levels or the rates of vaccination is very high? Yes, but there's another complexity here, and this is the part that the vaccine advocates never admit. When you get to a place like Britain or Israel, where almost everybody in that age range is vaccinated, over 70, over 80, who's not being vaccinated? Do you think there's a lot of people in the old age home who are saying, you know what? I'm insisting on my personal rights. You can't vaccinate me, some 88-year-old. No. The only people who aren't being vaccinated in the age group are probably too sick or too close to the end of their lives.

Isn't that speculative, though? It could be rebels. It could be people that are into holistic medicine or whatever. Well, there's some evidence. We have evidence that people who are vaccinated are more fearful than people who are not vaccinated. You should tell that to Keith Olbermann. Did you see his rant? No. You didn't see it? No, I did not see this. It's one of the most unhinged. It's sad that this guy was like a respected pundit. Have you seen it, Jamie?

No. You need to see it. He publicly gets vaccinated and then yells at all the people that are not vaccinated. We need to play it. It's so unhinged. You know, Joe, you caught me, though. I want to say you caught me on this because you're right. It is speculative. That is my speculation that there is this difference in these two groups. Yeah, because I know there's a lot of people that are just untrusting of the government,

or they're really into, you know, air quotes, holistic medicine, But we're not talking about 50 or 40 or 30 year olds. We're talking about people in this group of people who are at high risk, and who basically, I mean, I don't want to say, you know, hopefully we'll all be 90 one

day, but, you know, I'm not sure how much, like, agency those folks have when somebody shows up at the old age home and says, we're going to vaccinate everybody. Right. I know what you're saying. Do you see what I'm saying? Yeah. So what I'm saying, though, is that tiny group of people who are not vaccinated in that age range, I suspect, and you're right, it's speculation, are materially sicker than the people who are vaccinated. Oh, here's the evidence. Let me give you this evidence for this.

The evidence is in the flu vaccine, okay? When you look at flu vaccines, you say, and there's been a lot of work done on this. I'm talking about in older people. People who get the flu vaccine are less likely to die than people who don't get the flu vaccine. Looks really good for the flu vaccine. Here's the problem. You go back and look at the six months before people got the flu vaccine. People who get the flu vaccine are less likely to die in those six months too. Much less likely.

Why? Because if you're together enough, if you're 80 years old and together enough to want the flu vaccine, you have a certain baseline level of health. And you probably care more about your health, okay? So the flu vaccine on a population level basis appears to do nothing to reduce flu deaths in people over 65, but it also appears to reduce deaths in people over 65. And the explanation is it's not actually reducing deaths. It's telling you who's healthier and who's less likely to die. Does that make sense? It does. So that it is very, very likely, at least in my mind, that something similar has happened.

I see. I hesitate to agree with you. I see what you're saying, but I hesitate to agree with you because I do believe there's a certain amount of speculation involved. Yes. Yeah. You got the Keith Overman thing? Watch this. You need to see this.

And you gotta remember also snowflakes who are afraid of getting the vaccine. You gotta watch this because it's... He's gonna get the shot. He gets it. Mission accomplished. And it is. It is time to stop coddling them. The ones who won't

get the damn shot already. And our first step, you and I, is symbols. The language we use. We call these people vaccine hesitant. Vaccine skeptics. Anti-vax. We say they're protesting mandates and passports. They're making a personal choice. They're waiting for more information. They're making a medical decision. Bullshit! They're afraid. They're afraid to get vaccinated. Stop feeding their egos about what they're doing.

Stop legitimizing it. Vaccine hesitant? They're afraid. Vaccine skeptics? They're afraid. Anti-vax? They're afraid. Anti-vax? They're afraid. Is that a little bit of spit in his upper lip? Oh my god, I saw that 30 seconds ago.

They're afraid. They're making a personal choice. They're afraid. They're waiting for more information. Afraid. They're making a medical decision to be afraid. The snowflakes are afraid. Afraid of the vaccine.

Afraid of being proved wrong. Afraid of doing what anybody else in the world tells them to do. Afraid of needles. So no more pleasant euphemisms about what's going on here. Apart from the people who have legitimate medical complications about vaccines, we have to stop coddling the morons who will not get the shot. We start by calling them what they are. They are all snowflakes and cowards and idiots and losers.

And most importantly, they are afraid. Imagine. Oh my God, he's so insane. Imagine making that and thinking this is a good thing to release when you're in a penthouse apartment. It looks like he's on the 80th floor in the most expensive real estate on planet Earth, overlooking Central Park in this beautiful view that he has, and then making this and thinking you're – what are you thinking?

You're Billy Badass? I don't – listen, this is so stupid, Joe. Like we haven't even gotten to the fundamental stupidity of this. If the vaccine works, then great. You're vaccinated. Congratulations. You don't have to worry about me. I made a bad decision.

Maybe I'll get sick and die. Like, okay, it's not your problem. And don't give me this nonsense that like somehow there are so many unvaccinated people that it's going to destroy hospital systems. Okay. Even in the United States, 80% of the people who are at real risk of getting sick and dying from COVID, people over 65, are fully vaccinated. All right?

The reason that we have a problem with COVID right now is not that people are unvaccinated. It is that the vaccines do not work as promised, and they don't work for very long. That's what the British data told you. That's why I wanted everyone to see that. Well, I talked to the mayor of Austin. what the British data told you. That's why I wanted everyone to see that. Well, I talked to the mayor of Austin. He said that most people in the ICU for COVID, most people hospitalized for COVID are unvaccinated. Yeah. I'm not sure if that's true or not. Okay. I don't really- You calling the mayor of Austin, Texas a liar, you son of a bitch.

Did he give you specific numbers? No. No. Of course not. But he told me. We were talking about it. Okay. So most could be 51%. That's possible. Of course not. They told me. We were talking about it. Okay. So most could be 51%. That's possible. In the countries that have real data that they're releasing on a timely basis, you see,

okay, the vaccine. And again, in Israel, last month, well, now it's August, they got so terrified they were going to have the worst wave yet of COVID that they gave people boosters. They asked the entire country to get boosters. Do you know how much data there was around booster shots when they did that? There was data, published data. It wasn't even published. It was just the company press release data on about three dozen people.

Okay? That's it? Yes. People don't understand. 36 people? Yeah. Really? Yes. At that time. Okay. That's it? Yes. People don't understand. 36 people? Really? Yes. At that time. Okay. Now there's data on a couple hundred. And that's what the FDA, that's why the FDA choked. Okay. That's why the FDA wouldn't give Pfizer and Fauci and Biden what they wanted last month, because finally- Explain that to people. Okay. So in August, the vaccines go off the rails in Israel.

In June and July, I say the vaccines are going off the rails and people start to lose their mind. And that's when Twitter really starts to come at me. And we can talk about that chronology and we can talk about my potential legal causes of action against Twitter if we want. But you know what? We definitely will. Let's not make it about me. Okay. In June, at the beginning of June, there are 15

COVID cases a day in Israel. They are done with COVID. At the end of June, there are 300. In mid-July, there are 3,000. At the end of July, there are like, it might be the end of July when there are 3,000. In any case, 200-fold increase in cases a day in positive tests for COVID in between June 1st and August 1st in Israel. The vaccines just stop working. Okay? They just stop. Biologically, your body gets rid of these antibodies that it's been forced to generate. And sort of like sociologically, people start getting sick.

I mean, you know, there's what happens at the cellular level and then there's what happens at the body level, right, at the like level of counting cases. So we know antibodies go away and we know people start getting sick again. That's a better way to explain it. Fine. Okay. By early July, I'm looking at this and I'm like, you know, this does not look good. And I don't

understand what's going to turn it around. I don't understand why we think that the biology of these first few people to start getting infected post-vaccine is different than the biology of other people who were vaccinated later. I think this is going to get worse. And I start saying this on Twitter. Vaccines are failing. Vaccines are failing. People did not like hearing it. Okay. By the end of July, early August, it was clear that Israel and the UK were headed for a crisis. It was more clear in Israel because the UK, it's a little bit complicated because they used several different vaccines and they dosed them off schedule. Israel is just like the US. They used really only, Israel used only the Pfizer vaccine, where in the US we basically

used only the Pfizer and Moderna, the mRNA vaccines. We used a little J&J, but not very much. And Israel dosed on the schedule the companies had suggested, just as we did. OK. It is clear by early August that something bad is happening. And the Israeli response is, we want everyone to get a booster. Everyone, over 80, under 80, sick, well, it doesn't matter. You got the vaccine, now you need your booster. Okay. It's time for your bonus vaccine, as I like to call it, the bonus vaccine. It's a freebie.

as I like to call it, the bonus vaccine. It's a freebie. Hey, good for Pfizer. The stocks of the companies of Pfizer and Moderna and BioNTech hit new highs when this happened. Why? Because the perfect product from Wall Street's point of view is a product that fails and needs to be redosed. Right? The speculation earlier in the year was these are going to last forever. People aren't going to need many boosters. That was actually bad for the company stocks. Good for the company stocks is you need a booster. Right. Right. Planned obsolescence. You need a booster. It's like the iPhone, except it goes in your body and forces your cells to do something. OK. Fauci, Biden, who knows what Biden thinks? Who knows what, if anything, Biden is thinking? But Fauci understands. He's not dumb. He knows what's going on. He knows that what he thought in April and May is wrong. These are not going to last forever. You're going to need boosters. He goes to Biden, and in late, I think it was August 20th,

the date's in the book, I think, but Biden says, time for your boosters. We're going to give boosters to everybody after eight months. There's only one problem. These vaccines were approved on a two-dose schedule, okay? You get two doses. You're done. It's not a therapeutic. It's not a drug that your doctor prescribes to you. You know what? I feel depressed. I'm going to give you an antidepressant for a month, and we'll reconsider in a month. You know, I have high cholesterol. Try the statin for three months. We'll take your blood again at the end of three months. We'll see how it goes. No, that's not what these are supposed to be. Supposed to be, you get it, you're done. And the vaccine fanatics will say, oh, well, you know, the tetanus shot sometimes people get after a 10-year boost. 10 years is very different

than eight months. And that's, you know, there's been so much sort of, I hate to say misinformation, but misinformation about why these vaccines are really so different. So Biden does this. OK, he he promises the world or the United States, we're all going to get boosters. And two of the most senior FDA officials who are in charge of vaccine approval resign within two weeks. vaccine approval resign within two weeks. Okay. They resign and they write a letter with other people to the Lancet, which is probably the best medical journal in the world saying, we don't think boosters are a good idea for the general population. And somehow the media, there are a few stories about this. Can you imagine if Donald Trump had said something so out of line about vaccines that two of his most senior FDA officials resigned within a couple weeks?

The Democrats would be ready to impeach him. Well, then Biden or yeah, he went and took a booster on television. Yeah. OK, good for him. He's 78 years old. He maybe it makes sense for him. He's 78 years old. Maybe it makes sense for him. Okay? Should some 30-year-old or 40 or 50 or even 60-year-old be on a treadmill of boosters?

But this is the question. This is why it leads to – it's a conundrum. Because if the vaccines do greatly reduce in their efficacy over six, seven, eight months. And the FDA says no boosters. So that means you have no protection. So here we are eight months after people are being vaccinated, they're giving no recommendation to take a booster. So it means you basically took a vaccine for nothing. That's right. That's right. And they don't want to admit it. That's right. That's right. That's right. And they don't want to admit it. That's right. So by the FDA pulling their recommendation for booster shots, they've essentially said, do nothing? Well, now we're in this position where Pfizer and Merck are both about to release a therapeutic.

Merck, the data on the Merck drug is actually quite good. They released it. And by the way, the stocks of the vaccine companies went down more than 10% the day the Merck reports came out because Wall Street said, oh- There's a therapeutic now. There's an actual therapeutic. So we're not going to be able to jam these boosters into people's arms forever. But now these therapeutics, do they have an emergency use authorization or do they have to go through the full approval process? Well, that's going to be an interesting question. Probably, I think Merck has indicated it wants an EUA and should get an EUA. And this drug, do we have data on potential side effects?

Only the top. So the top line data, again, this is what got us into trouble last year because the companies released this top line data that looked really good. We have top line data showing that hospitalizations were less than, I believe it was less than half in the people who received the drug. They decreased them by half, right? That's correct. And deaths were eight in people who received the placebo, zero in people who received the drug. And the side effect data was higher in people who received the placebo. Now, that's top line, but it looks really good. But let me go back.

That's great. It's great. So Fauci and Biden say something based on next to no data. And the FDA, the vaccine, again, the people in the FDA whose job it is to approve vaccines say, we are so troubled by this. I mean, they didn't explicitly say why they were resigning, but we know they resigned within weeks and then wrote. It's one of the last things in the book. I managed to get it in there. Where they vote 16 to 2 not to approve boosters for the general population. It is an incredible blackout. I thought it was 15 to 3.

I think it might be 16 to 3. I think it was one of those. It was a landslide. Yeah. Okay. I might be wrong. We can look it up or not. I might have been repeating it incorrectly and have it in my head the wrong way.

Find out what the vote was. So the FDA says no boosters for the general population. What does it say? 16 to 2? 16 to 2. So the FDA says no boosters. Not no boosters at all. No boosters for the general population.

So do they say no boosters. Not no boosters at all. Right. No boosters for the general population. So do they say no boosters, but we recommend? Then they say we're going to okay these for people 65 and over and quote unquote at high risk. Okay. Okay. Okay. Which was clearly a sop to the administration. So 65 and over plus high risk. Yes. Both those things are Keith Olbermann, right?

Isn't he? He certainly looked at high – he might be suffering. He just might be crazy. He might be crazy. Okay. Then the CDC has to get involved. Okay. So normally because it's not – normally once the FDA approves, then it's a drug that you can – your doctor can prescribe to you. In this case with vaccines, there's something

called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices that the CDC runs. And those guys meet a few days after, men and women, I should say, they meet a few days after the FDA, and they vote nine to six that they actually want a tighter rule than the FDA. They only want it for older people, not for these people at high risk. Why is that? Okay. Because what the FDA was saying was not just high risk of complications from COVID,

but high risk of getting COVID. And this was going to be a backdoor way to let teachers, who actually aren't at high risk of getting COVID, but nurses, healthcare workers. You don't think teachers are at high risk of getting COVID, but nurses, healthcare workers- Wait a minute. You don't think teachers are at high risk of getting COVID? Nope. There's very strong evidence that they're not.

But they're constantly around children. Yeah, but children don't spread COVID at all. I mean, I shouldn't say at all, but- They gave it to my mom, my wife, rather. It's much more likely your wife gave it to them. No, no, no, no. There's really, really good data on this. No, no, no, no. I 100% know. They were both sick first. One of them actually recovered

and the second one got sick and then my wife got it after them. It can happen. I'm telling you, this data isn't, it's been clear. How is that possible though if kids are sick

that they're not spreading it? Because they clear it so fast. It's not the flu. But yeah, but my kids had it for a couple days. They're weaklings. They're weaklings?

They're weaklings. How dare you? How dare you? Most kids, it's barely a cold. They don't even know. Well, one of them, it was barely a cold. But the other one, she was sick. She didn't feel good for two days.

Two solid days. So she spread it to your wife along the way. Yes. That is unusual. Really? Yes. I mean, we don't want to pull up every scientific paper that's ever been written, but there is chapter and verse on this. So teachers, and there's a paper from Finland, the paper-

But it just makes sense though, that if children are getting it and they're sick, even if it's for a day, it seems like it could possibly spread to the parents. And if the parents are high risk or if the teacher's high risk. Sure. I mean, it's possible. There's a lot of obese teachers out there, right? I don't know. That's not what I think of as a teacher.

I was watching a video of an obese teacher who was complaining about the fact that she has to go back to school because she's worried about her life and her safety. It was one of those unhinged rants with a mask on, by the way. Was her name Keith Olbermann? No. Anyway. She wasn't that unhinged. The CDC committee says 9-6, we don't, we want tighter rules. 65 and older

only and people at high risk of complications not getting it. Not this backdoor way. And then what happens? Rochelle Walensky, the head of the CDC, overrules her own committee's recommendation. And so now you can walk into a, you know, the CVS and say, I'm a teacher, I'm at high risk or I'm whatever, I'm a nurse, and I want a booster. And so it's up to your discretion.. So it's up to your discretion? Yes, it's up to your discretion. If you're high risk, if you deem yourself to be high risk.

Yeah, I don't know if there's specific categories of people, but yes, I think if you deem yourself to be high risk, you can go get yourself a booster. Well, isn't that different though than in the FDA recommendation though? Like if you allow people to make their own decision. Sure, except that in New York City right now, you need to have been vaccinated to go to a restaurant as we as we talked. Now, that's for now, two doses. And it may be three. No boost. That's right. Like what they're doing in Israel.

That's right. Israel, they don't consider you fully vaccinated until you get a third shot. That's correct. And the data on third shots is very small. That's correct. And the data on third shots is very small. That's right. What we know, based on the Israeli experience, and again, this is why you need randomized trials. You can't just look at large populations

because you don't know sort of internally who's getting that third dose, who's getting the second dose, how they... But what it looks like from Israel is you do get this short term bump in antibodies. And in the short run, that leads to people who've gotten the third dose, not being in the hospital as much. I was seeing something on the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, the second dose imparts 94% effectiveness up to two months out. Yes. So that, I mean, it's pretty

good. It's just like the, you know, it's just like Pfizer and Moderna. Right. But it's a different thing because it's supposed to be a one shot. So if you get that, you're getting one shot of the J&J and then eight months later, you get another one shot of the J&J. Is that more effective or less effective than the boosters when you're taking a third shot of Pfizer? So we're kind of talking about a couple of things. Yeah. So J&J did a big clinical trial where they did two doses. The initial clinical trial they did was one dose. And that got compared to the Pfizer or Moderna two doses. And it looked like J&J was not as effective. J&J at the same time ran another clinical trial that was two doses of its own medicine, no Moderna or Pfizer. Okay. And that, when you do that, it looks like it's just as effective as the two-dose Pfizer-Moderna.

The problem is the same problem as we have with the mRNA vaccines. We don't know how long that efficacy lasts. What do you think about people that are saying we should combine vaccines? What do you think about people that are saying we should combine vaccines? I think this is all it's all it's all it's all made up. OK, it's not we are. When you get the when you get a vaccine that works as a vaccine is intended to you don't have any of these questions. You are permanently protected from the disease, whether it's measles. I mean, again, permanently, we can argue and say, OK, you know, 25 years later, one person in 10,000 winds up getting measles. Yeah, but we keep going back to the flu shot, which is.

Yeah, but the flu shot doesn't. Is it a vaccine? Yes, it's a flu. Yes, but it's not very effective. Right. So this is kind of like that. Yeah, except the side effects are off the charts compared to the flu vaccine. The flu vaccine is basically water for most people.

What do you think the VAERS data shows? It shows that this thing is extremely, by the standards of other vaccines, extremely dangerous. If it were a therapeutic with this level of side effects and this level of protection, I don't think it would be approved. Forget whether we'd be arguing whether we needed mandates. I don't think this could be approved if it were not called a vaccine. My concern is whether or not the reporting is accurate. Do you think the reporting is accurate? Because the VAERS data, if we're just going by that data, you think it wouldn't be approved. But is that data accurate? So listen, the vaccine fanatics like to say VAERS is a voluntary reporting system. Anybody can report anything. It doesn't prove that

the vaccine is actually dangerous. Right. It could be over-reported. That's true. Look, I've read a lot of VAERS reports. And there's a few that are clearly fake, that some people have thrown in to try to... I think in most cases, actually, I think they've been thrown in by pro-vaccine people to try to embarrass people like me. If you fool me into reporting it, then you can say, oh, look, Berenson reported that three eight-year-olds died on the same day from the vaccine. It's nonsense, right? So I'm actually pretty careful about using various data. It is also clear to me that most of those reports are made in good faith and they show what they say they show, okay? They have lots of detail. And that doesn't mean, by the way, it doesn't mean

that everybody who has a side effect following a vaccine or who has a negative event following the vaccine, that the vaccine has caused the negative event. Let me give you a good example, OK? There's this big question about whether or not the vaccines can cause miscarriages. Not infertility, OK? I don't think there's any evidence right now that the vaccines cause infertility. There is some animal evidence early on that the vaccines can cause miscarriages. What animal evidence is this? It's from rat dams in the preclinical work. And it was reported in the Moderna and actually the

Pfizer European data. There's something called the European Medicines Agency, the EMA. And they posted more complete data than our FDA did. And that showed that there were these rat dams that had more deaths in the rats that were vaccinated, more miscarriages, I should say, in the rats that were vaccinated than those that weren't. What was the ratio? It was about two to one or three to one. Really? Yeah, yeah. I mean, listen, it's rats. It's a high.

I should say it was two to one. So what they do is they count. They look at the number of, I guess, live. I don't know how they would. Vaccinated people – vaccinated rats miscarried and 7 percent in rats that didn't receive a vaccine. So 15 percent – let me start again. OK. Because I want to be right about this. I think you count live births.

I think that's actually how they do it. We could find this, but it's way, way buried in this file. So you count live rat births. You impregnate the rats, and then you give some of them a vaccine, and you give some of them placebo, and then the rats have their little rat babies, and you see who's alive and who's not. And do they give them a ratio of the vaccine that's proportionate? No, I think it's higher. I don't know how much higher, but it's significantly higher than humans would receive. Because this is not meant to prove anything. It's meant to sort of be an avenue for exploration.

And obviously what you're hoping is that no matter how much you give, the same percentage of rat babies will be born dead in both arms. In this case, in both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, So in this case, in both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, double the number of rats were born dead in the vaccine arm as in the placebo arm. And so that's a signal. It doesn't prove anything. It's just a little signal. But here's something else we know. Pregnancy is a vascular event, right? The woman is feeding this fetus.

It requires a lot of cell growth. It requires a lot of, like, you know, there's increases in blood volume. There's all kinds of stuff that happens to women when they're pregnant, right? It's a major metabolic event. Some women get diabetes when they're pregnant. It can happen. These vaccines appear, to the extent they have side effects, those side effects are centered around the cardiovascular system, right? Because we know, as you said earlier, the spike protein and SARS-CoV-2 in general have effects on the endothelium, on the lining of your vasculature, the walls, okay? One wouldn't be shocked to find that in some cases, perhaps a vascular event could lead to problems for fetal growth. I'm not saying that's happening. I'm just saying theoretically, there's sort of a biological plausibility there. Okay. So there are a bunch of reports in VAERS

of miscarriages following the vaccine, in some cases, very shortly following the vaccine. Okay. Here's what else we know. Miscarriage is very common, especially early on in pregnancy. Tons of, sometimes women miscarrying don't even know they were pregnant. So when you give something to lots and lots of people and it's a common event, you're going to have lots and lots of cases. What I'm saying is that when people email me, and they do regularly email me, and say, do you think the vaccine causes miscarriage? I say, I don't know, because that's the best answer. And I say, sometimes now, because there's been a couple studies out of Israel, actually,

and the U.S., where they've looked at sort of large cohorts of pregnant women, and they haven't found excess miscarriages. That doesn't mean, again, because it's not a randomized trial, there could be that the women who got the vaccine tend to take better care of themselves in general and had a lower miscarriage base rate and that got pushed up. We don't know. What I'm saying is all this stuff is incredibly complicated. But when the director of the CDC or when Twitter or whoever says, we know these things are safe. We know there's no infertility risk. We know there's no miscarriage risk. They are lying. Okay. It doesn't mean that I'm saying I know there is a risk. What it means is the correct answer is there's a lot we don't understand about this,

and it's early days. And to tell pregnant women who are at very low risk of death from COVID, very low, that they need to take this is wrong. Why do you think they're urging pregnant women to take it? Because I have seen that, that COVID while you're pregnant is exceptionally dangerous. So there is a slight excess risk, but it's off a baseline that's almost too low to be measured. A 25-year-old woman who gets COVID is at, again, basically no risk unless she's morbidly obese. What if she's a 38-year-old woman that has COVID and pregnant?

Still at very, very low risk. Not zero. Very, very low. Okay? Okay. I think that for whatever reason, there's just a societal campaign that these people have convinced themselves that everyone needs the shot. What bothers me, and it seems to be a real thing, is that there is a real resistance to not just accepting, but even the distribution of possible therapeutics other than the vaccine, a big one being the monoclonal antibodies, where Biden actually restricted the amount that went to Florida and Texas after it showed that widespread use of monoclonal antibodies on people who were unvaccinated led to superior outcomes. Yeah, you're right. It's insane. Okay.

DeSantis has been, like, he's followed the science better than any other political leader, elected official. And somebody told him, or he looked at the data himself, he realized that the monoclonal antibodies work. Okay. They work like the Merck drug works. We have real evidence. This is the thing.

I'm not out there saying, like, homeopathic remedies are going to get you out of, I'm not saying – right? You need treatments for this. Yeah. Okay? And you're right. But it's bizarre that they've been hesitant and resisting them in fact. Yeah.

It's bizarre. It's bizarre that ivermectin hasn't been properly tested. It's bizarre that vitamin D hasn't been properly tested or zinc or there's an antidepressant, weirdly enough, that seems to show some efficacy, fluvoxamine it's called. We could have tested all of these things a year ago. We haven't. Yeah. Is it just because there's just this mad scramble to get the vaccines out? And because the vaccines were thought to be the savior of this pandemic that all of our eggs are in that one basket? Look, I don't understand. I don't. And that's the best explanation, actually, because that's not the one that's like, oh, they want to depopulate everybody or it's all Pfizer-y.

I've heard that one. I know you've heard that one. That one gets weird. It gets weird. I heard that one. I know you've heard that one. That one gets weird. It gets weird. I heard that one from a doctor. People go down rabbit holes. Okay. So there's that edge. And then I'd say there's like the middle conspiracy theories, which is like Pfizer just owns the FDA. Well, Pfizer doesn't own the FDA, but they're a big, powerful company and they have 24 lobbying groups in Washington apparently. And they're making a few billion dollars a year off these vaccines did you see that the woman from the cdc is now talking about gun violence no she's moved on good it was

the strangest thing is it related to covid covid causes gun violence not at all i i just don't understand how the center for disease control oh they've been talking about this for a while. But, like, publicly about gun violence? Yeah, yeah, they're super woke on this. Oh, woke? Yeah, yeah. Are they talking about obesity? No.

I mean, yes, but... Weird. They'll talk about obesity when they have it. Are they talking about diet and heart disease? You know, once in a while. But that seems like something they should talk about since those are diseases. Yeah, well, gun violence, you know, it's an epidemic.

So that's... Right, but not in comparison. I know, but I mean numbers-wise, if you look at the people that die from guns versus the people that die from heart attacks? Joe. But your explanation is the least conspiratorial, right? It's that a bunch of people made kind of bad decisions early on based on panic. And one of the decisions they made is we have to get these vaccines out at any cost without, you know, we're going to speed the test, warp speed. And this is going to, we're going to have a chance to really change human history. For the first time ever, we are going to crash

an epidemic in its tracks. We are going to use this new technology. It is going to be great. It's going to be Nobel Prizes and billions for everybody. Yeah. And they stuck to that narrative. And they stuck to that narrative. And unfortunately, human biology and the virus are not cooperating. I was absolutely fascinated when the FDA retracted its recommendation for the booster shot, because my thought was, now what? Because this is a real quagmire. That's right. To get into that position where you're saying, I don't think there's evidence for a booster when there's also evidence that the drug or the vaccine rather stops working.

Well, this is why they're blaming the unvaccinated. Yeah. But that thing doesn't even make sense. I know. It's like, you know, you've seen the memes like, you know, you're saying that you being protected is you're in danger from the unprotected, but you're protected. Right. So they need to be protected too so that you're protected.

Right. I don't. I know. But then I've also heard that very specific spike protein, that the variants, the virus selects for the variants. Yes. And that it finds what's not, where there is no immunity, and that those variants then propagate. Yes.

The vaccine reduces the genomic diversity of the virus and causes it, as you say, to select for mutations that are going to enable it to beat the vaccine. But the idea also is that these variants actually came from a place where there's low vaccination rates, which is even weirder. And then it was explained to me that no, all sorts of things cause viruses to mutate. Viruses are constantly mutating and the vaccines, whether it's vaccinated or unvaccinated, it's just one or two factors in this incredible equation of billions of people that are infected by a similar virus. Yeah. Billions of people with trillions or virions, viral particles. And this thing is kind of sloppy and makes mistakes when it's replicating.

Yeah. Delta came from India, we think. Again, we're not allowed to talk about where things came from anymore. Can you call it the Indian virus? Are you allowed to say that or do you get racist? You used to be able to. It was the Indian. The Spanish flu, remember? That's right.

But Delta came from India at a time when almost nobody was vaccinated. Right. But that doesn't mean that the vaccine didn't help make it more common. It may have had characteristics that an unvaccinated population wouldn't have allowed it to take over the way it did in vaccinated populations. We don't know. This is complicated. It's very complicated, but it's very contagious in unvaccinated people. And in vaccinated people. And in vaccinated people. And in vaccinated people. So I put up a paper on my sub stack two days ago, actually yesterday, out of Israel.

I mean, I hate to make it sound like the Israelis are the only ones who are doing anything, but they are doing a lot. Why are they doing things differently? Well, no, it's not that they're doing things differently. It's that they appear to be a little bit less political. Yeah, but that's what I'm saying. I mean, not that their government to be a little bit less political. Yeah, but that's what I'm saying. Like, what is it? So, so they're, I mean, not that their government isn't very pro-vaccine. It's very, look, you got this green pass where you're going to need a third dose. But they have scientists out

there who, for whatever reason, are reporting stuff in a less, I would say, in a more transparent way. And that's true in the UK, too. Here, I mean, I mean, you asked me about the mayor of Austin. Look, it is entirely clear that Fauci lied about lots of stuff. He lied. Including gain-of-function research. Oh God, did he lie about that? Yeah. Which is stunning that he did that in front of Congress. In front of Congress. Yeah. And we didn't even, we started with that. That was an hour and a half ago. I mean, this is one of the problems with the Joe. Like, I'm going to go in whatever time I'm going to go.

Like, we could talk. We could talk for 24 hours straight. We could do like a COVID 24-hour marathon. There's so much to talk about. So this, not this month because now it's October. In September, there were two major document dumps that came out about Wuhan. Okay. And it was the second one, actually, it was the most important one.

This showed that the EcoHealth Alliance, unless these documents are made up, and I do not believe they're made up, and Dazak, who's the head of EcoHealth, has not said they're made up, and presumably he would, he hasn't threatened to sue anybody. Internal documents from EcoHealth from 2018

showed that they were considering, and not just considering, they made a proposal to DARPA, which is the Pentagon Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency. They made a proposal to spend $14 million infecting bats in Wuhan with a spike protein that was optimized to attack humans. I mean, it's so insane. It sounds conspiratorial. It sounds like I made that up, but I didn't. The same guy. There it is.

Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research. The proposal rejected by the U.S. military research agency DARPA, which, by the way, they're making robots that can think for themselves and shoot missiles. That's right. Describes the insertion of human specific cleavage sites into SARS related bat coronaviruses. I mean, you can't make this up. No, you can't make this up. And this EcoHealth Alliance was funded by the NIH, which then in turn worked with the

Wuhan lab. That's right. And so DARPA, which as in turn worked with the Wuhan lab. That's right. And so DARPA, which as you say, they make robots that can shoot people. This was too risky for them. Yeah, they're like, oh, that shit's crazy, son. Yeah, that's right. So by the way, the Chinese, okay, they got a few bucks themselves these days. Do you think that when DARPA didn't fund this, maybe like the Chinese government didn't fund it themselves? DARPA didn't fund this, maybe the Chinese government didn't fund it themselves? We don't know.

One reason we don't know, because I'm going to not curse. I promised myself, even though this is a curse-happy environment, I told myself, I'm going to be the higher mammal today. I'm not going to curse. Tony Fauci in February, beginning

in February 2020, when this thing had just come out of Wuhan, shockingly, became involved in a campaign to discourage anyone from investigating the lab leak and saying that anyone who did was racist. Okay. And who was his best buddy on that campaign? Peter Daszak. OK. And who was his best buddy on that campaign? Peter Daszak. OK. This got so bad that last week, finally, the Lancet had a commission to investigate the origins of COVID-19. Who was part of the commission? Peter Daszak. So finally, the guy who was in charge of the commission said we have to disband this because it looks like there might be an appearance of a conflict of interest.

Oh, really? You hired OJ to investigate Nicole Brown Simpson's death. Was that an appearance of a conflict of interest, too? They're insane. Like this is it's all it's not hidden at all and that's why when ran paul confronts fauci about it and then most recently confronted that lawyer um who was responsible for calling people who believe in natural immunity inferred by previous infection he equated those people to flat earthers and then fauci or you know i mean or ran pa rather, is questioning him and talking to him about this. Like, do you have a medical degree? Do you have any scientific background at all? No, you're just a lawyer. And how are you getting away with saying this?

And the guy literally had no answer. No answer. Fauci, here's the thing about Fauci, which- I like how you're whispering. You got to go back to his public statements the last 30 years. He's such megalomaniac he's such a megalomaniac and it sneaks out from he's kind of like this you know he's such a he's you know he's like he's like he wants to sort of be to have this like air of science about him and yeah I mean obviously he's a smart guy he understands science but you know wearing the lab, he used to do that a lot more.

He- Just wear the lab coat everywhere. To restaurants and shit. I think he used to. But every once in a while, what he really thinks about himself sneaks out and he's a megalomaniac. Well, you heard the third person thing. No.

You didn't hear what he said? No. When you're criticizing- Oh, when you're spouting, you criticize science. Yeah. Yes. You didn't hear what he said? No, no, no. When you're criticizing- Oh, when you're Fauci, you criticize science. Yeah. Yes! He said his name.

Yeah, that's always a bad sign. I thought only athletes were allowed to do that. When you're criticizing Anthony Fauci, you're criticizing science itself. Yes.

Yes. He believes that. That's a crazy thing to say. It's a crazy thing to say. An absolutely crazy thing to say from someone who's been proven to have lied in front of Congress. Yes! So he, and I think we talked about this a

little bit off air before it came out, but so the HIV, you know, story is an, is an interesting story. Okay. And it's actually a story of medicine working and science working, right? Because we, eventually, eventually, but not that long. AZT though. Yeah, but there's these people out there who think AZT killed a whole bunch of people. The truth is AZT actually is still used in some of these regimens. It's just that AZT by itself doesn't stop the virus. It can't. You need multiple. Wasn't AZT something that they used for chemotherapy?

Yes. It's a very toxic drug. Yeah, they stopped using it because it was killing people quick. Yes, but you've got to remember, untreated HIV has a 90% plus fatality rate. It is incredibly lethal. Who are the 10%

savages that are surviving? I think it's even closer to 95 to 99. I mean, there's a few people somehow, their miracle immune systems who clear it, but it kills almost everybody. I mean, so's a few people somehow there with miracle immune systems who clear it, but it kills almost everybody. So Fauci in the 80s, it's a plague, right? And who's it hurting the most? It's hurting gay people and it's hurting intravenous drug users, marginalized people. So Fauci basically starts lying about that and says, he wasn't the only one, but there was this idea like if in the public health, if we tell the truth, then no one's going to want to fund

research. You know, Americans are so evil, they won't do anything to help these people. You know, I don't think that was true, actually, even then. It's certainly not true now. But so Fauci, you know, pretends that like this is a disease that anybody can get. You walk into a disco. You walk out with the wrong guy. You're going to get HIV. Very, very, very rare. OK.

Fauci realizes that the activists can be on his side if he's nice to them and that's a good thing. Why is it a good thing? Well, it's a good thing for a couple of reasons. It means his scientists aren't going to have to worry about getting blood thrown at them. And that's a good thing. Why is it a good thing? Well, it's a good thing for a couple reasons. It means his scientists aren't going to have to worry about getting blood thrown at them. It means that he's got a large pool of people with HIV who are willing to participate in clinical trials. But why is it good for Anthony Fauci? It's good for Anthony Fauci because all these really organized people are going to tell Congress to give him more money. And over the next few years, Fauci's budget for research goes from like $300 million to $5 billion. By the early aughts,

the U.S. was spending more money on HIV research than almost anything else, or more money, I should say, on his unit of the NIH than I believe any other unit except cancer. That's a weird statement, the early aughts. Is that the early 2000s? The early 2000s. Okay. So his budget goes from like $300 million a year to $5 billion a year, which basically he controls.

It's a huge kitty for him. But what's the good news in all this? The good news is that the companies, the pharma companies and the government researchers and academia got together and came up with treatments for HIV. We should not forget that. We basically solved HIV. Very few people in the United, not nobody, but very few people die from this thing anymore when it killed 95 percent of the people who got it early on. And Fauci has gotten a ton of credit for that even though he's not really a bench scientist. He didn't really invent any of the drugs or anything. But he did manage the politics of it.

He's really good at managing the politics of things. So my view on him is that when this came along, he had two concerns. One was to make sure he didn't get blamed for the gain-of-function stuff. And it's pretty clear, again, very early on that he was aware that this might have come out of a lab. But the other thing is Tony Fauci can get his Nobel Prize now. How is he going to get it? He's going to get it by solving the epidemic by leading the development of a vaccine to market. Not just a therapeutic that helps cure it, a vaccine that makes it go away. And so basically since February or March of 2020,

the U.S. government has been focused on vaccines as the answer to the detriment of almost everything else. And unfortunately, that would have been fine if the vaccines had worked as we hoped they would, but they don't. So it's a bunch of different factors all combining together to put us in the position we're in. we're in. It's him, it's his history, and it's also the amount of money that's generated by the propagation of these vaccines and the ignoring of all the other possible therapeutics, including emergency use authorization ones like the monoclonal antibodies. Correct. Correct. Because the narrative is get everyone vaccinated. Correct.

Even to the point of ignoring the data that shows that people who have had a previous infection and recovered actually have superior antibodies than people who have been vaccinated. They still are trying to require those people to get vaccinated, including people that risk their lives on the front lines, the hospital workers that got COVID, survived it, have better immunity and now are being forced out of their jobs because they don't want to get shot. That's right. And ignoring the data that says, you know what, after a few months, your antibodies

go away. And ignoring the data that says we don't have, you know, we've had a dozen people or two dozen people or three dozen people with boosters and now we're going to tell the whole world to get them ignoring all of this. I mean, look, so so I got so much shit from the left. I cursed. You fucked up the whole show. Couldn't do it. But you you get shit on Twitter.

You say from the left, but it's really from Twitter. And Twitter is a mental institution where people are throwing shit at each other all day That's what they do. But but no this was this was here's here's here's what I what I like So I yeah, I got a lot of grief from the left and I said grief that time I don't know why this has become something for me today. Jamie could put a beep over that I cursed on the show all the time blast. Why Why do you want to not do it this time? I don't know. I'm like, I've got this like OCD about it.

You're not even wearing a suit or anything. I know. It's like you're not, you're just a normal person. I know. I was going to wear, I was like, and then I was like, what am I doing? You're in a position. You're in a weird position. I'm in a weird position.

I want to be taken seriously. I understand. Yeah. So I shouldn't be wearing a Kermit the Frog t-shirt, which is what I had on. Is that a Kermit the Frog shirt? No, no. I had one that I was like, I'm going to- Oh, you can't wear Kermit the Frog. I can't wear Kermit the Frog t-shirt, which is what I had on. Is that a Kermit the Frog shirt? No, no. I had one that I was like, I'm going to- Oh, you can't wear Kermit the Frog.

I can't wear Kermit the Frog. We can't wear any frogs because of the whole Pepe the Frog thing. Oh, God. You know? If you have a frog, you're signaling to the right. Oh, my God. These rules. Don't you know about the frog?

Pepe the Frog? I knew about Pepe, but Kermit is- Too close to Pepe. Is that true? I would imagine. Oh, God. Well, Kermit sips tea and mocks things too sometimes. Don't you know there's a meme of Kermit sipping tea?

You've seen that, right, Jamie? Jamie's the most inside. He knows all that shit. I know you're joking. He knows the guy who made QAnon. He knows him. He knows him personally. Mr. Q?

Yeah, he knows him. Don't even. I'm just joking. Don't even. You're going to get in trouble. I'm joking so so but so people on the right were attacking me though when i was you know when i had the like balls when i had the attacking you because because they viewed it as so people on the left were terrified of covid right terrified out of their minds terrified of covid i'm not going outside

i'm not letting my kids outside my kids aren aren't going to school. They ruin their lives for more than a year. Right. Right. And then the vaccines came. The vaccines will save us all. Lordy, lordy. OK. It truly was a religious cult around these things for the people on the left. OK. The people on the right weren't so scared. Right. For the most part, they had a better idea. And I'm not talking about like ordinary folks. I'm talking about like the K Streeters, the Mitch McConnells of the world. It was, you know what? I don't really understand the science of this, but if this is going to get us out of this nonsense, okay. And so a lot of people on the right happily, like, were happy to go along with the vaccines without looking at the data too much. So who does that leave? It leaves, like, me and a few other people who are going to be the flies in the ointment who are going to be like, you know, guys, Pfizer actually only enrolled six people over 85 in this trial. And those are the people who die from COVID. So maybe we don't actually know how well the vaccines work. And VAERS is getting so badly beaten up by all the side effect

reports, it keeps crashing. And maybe that actually means something. Maybe it's not just a bunch of anti-vaxxers doing it for kicks. Maybe it's actually people who've had myocarditis. Do you know anyone? Who's suffered vaccine? Yes, I actually do know. I don't know any. Well, I mean, I know people now because people come to me. But personally, I don't know anybody who's had a really serious COVID case.

But I do know of someone who's had what I believe is a very serious vaccine injury. And, you know, again, you can't prove it. Yeah. But that's my belief. And this is a relative. So people got themselves locked in to the narrative. Yes. Because what they never understood, and I say this at the end of the book, okay,

what they never understood was the choice is not vaccines or pandemic. The choice is normal life or pandemic. Because this thing kills probably worldwide somewhere between two and three out of every thousand people it infects. You know, in the U.S., it's a little bit more because in the U.S., you know, we're older compared to, let's say, Africa, and we're fatter compared to Europe. So we might be at three per thousand. There is no reason on earth to be turning our lives upside down for this thing. There has never been, not since April of 2020, any evidence that this could destroy hospitals or hospital systems.

Remember, those hospital ships that went into New York Harbor left a month later and they'd taken care of almost no one. Okay. I'm not saying hospitals don't get full sometimes. I'm not saying that there's not- Hospital ships? They had ships? Yeah. USS Comfort, USNS Comfort, and USNS Mercy. So they pulled into new york harbor in anticipation of an overwhelming amount of people with covid in new york in april 2020 won a city councilman not some rando a city councilman said we are going to start burying people in central park okay that's how crazy it got he probably wanted to get re-elected

he actually ran for mayor and got nowhere. See what I'm saying? Idiot. But that was back in the day also when really people did not know the actual effects of the disease. That's right. There was no treatment. It was very speculative. People were very scared.

And also there was this thought that we needed ventilators. Yes. And ventilators killed people. In New York, unquestionably. Yes. Yes. And ventilators killed people in New York, unquestionably. Yes. OK. Listen, unfortunately, by the time you get to needing a ventilator with COVID, you're pretty sick. And some of those people are going to die.

But we clearly overuse ventilators early on. But why – what we should have been saying from the – not – OK, not from the day it came out, but certainly from April 2020 was this is manageable. We have an advanced healthcare system. We're going to take care of this problem without destroying our society. And the public health establishment wouldn't do it. The media wouldn't do it. And clearly, with the media, a lot of it was hatred of Trump. They saw it as punishing him. And he, I'm not going to say clearly, he probably, I would say there's a better than even chance he wins the election, if not for the coronavirus. That's certainly what the betting markets thought in January 2020. So the coronavirus destroyed his re-election,

for sure. But along the way, it got so deep into so many people, into their psyches, it panicked so many people that it became, it seems impossible, at least not, you know, it's not down here. Down here, people live normal lives. But in New York, people are so crazy about this. And the vaccines were promised as the answer. And there's just this total unwillingness to admit that they are not working as promised. What was it about this? I mean, you've had some controversial takes on things in the past, and that's actually how we got to know each other, where I actually agreed with you, even though I'm a marijuana enthusiast. I do know people that

have had very adverse reactions to marijuana. And when you had this book that came out, Tell Your Children, about the dangers of marijuana, there was a lot of people that were like potheads that wanted me to have you on to go after you. But I was like, hold on, guys. Like, this is a thing. Like, this is a thing that I've witnessed. I know people that have had psychotic episodes or

schizophrenic episodes the numbers of people that have schizophrenia they it varies I think they think it's one in a hundred that just naturally it could be that that we're experiencing and marijuana like enhances it but it's certainly something that's worth discussing and it's certainly something that with some people's not a good idea for them to engage in. And we had you on with Mike Hart, who's a marijuana doctor or prescribes it. Who, by the way, is very sort of in favor of my views on COVID. Yes. Weirdly. Well, not weirdly. I mean, I think it's hard when you go into a debate because you want to come out victorious. You have this preconceived assumption of your being correct.

And you go into this thing. And I'm sure you probably expected more support from me, too. Yes. I thought you really played it neutral that day. Well, I know people. That's the problem. I have personal experience with friends who've lost their fucking mind. And

I've had some slippery moments on marijuana too. Not slippery to the point where I thought I was going psychotic, but where I'm like, wow, this is scary. Like, you can get so paranoid and so freaked out from THC that if you had a mind that was already

in trouble, that's how I would perceive it. And I know of people, I know of one guy very clearly, there was a moment where it changed his life. Yep. It changed his life. He got a high dose edibles and he's never been the same person. Never. And since then, he's gone further and further downhill, like earth Everything like all everything all the above he's and you know

I haven't spoken to him in years, but he's out of his fucking mind Like legitimately and I don't know how much of it would have happened anyway, right? But I do know that a large amount of it happened because of that that one day Yes, and I've know of other people too that I think it happened to them too. I mean, and that's, you know, I think that's what's really, certainly the cannabis industry lobby hates that idea because it's like, if there's a risk that one day you can kind of sort of break yourself and not come back, it's one thing to have like a temporary psychosis and you recover and you know what, okay, I'm not going to use again or i'm not going to use for a while but if if there's this if there's this realization

that for some people we don't know how many and we don't know what the dose might be that you can use one time at the wrong time and you know possibly cause yourself some permanent injury and you don't get that back i think obviously that won't be great for cannabis sales. Well, I think it's one of those things like alcohol, right? Like you can drink yourself to death. It's very possible. It's rare that people do it. Most of us have had a few drinks and we feel terrible the next day. But there are people amongst us that have died from alcohol poisoning.

It's a real thing. When you hear about someone that has some crazy event on marijuana Most of us just get a little high and that's it but the ones who have crossed over into the netherland You know, I've crossed over a few times to the you but if you for whatever reason your mind you come back Yeah, I always come back. I've come back. I've come back, but I've come back really nervous. But it's all, I just, I'm a fan. Joe Rogan says, get straight. I'm a fan of reality.

I do not like delusional thinking. I do not like deceptive thinking. I don't like it. Even if it challenges my preconceived notions, even if it challenged whatever narrative that I've associated myself with. And one of those narratives is that marijuana is good. But along the way in my life, seeing some people where I think that something definitely happened to them from marijuana led me into this place where I would be a liar if I wasn't honest about it. And I'm not interested in being a liar.

I don't. This is what I don't. And, you know, this is, it's funny. This is the same thing with the vaccines. Like, at what point, the hospitals have tons of vaccinated people. We saw the British data, okay? And I'm telling you, human biology is the same everywhere, and there's plenty of people dying, getting sick and dying, who are vaccinated in the U.S. Why can't they admit it?

Why do they have to lie about it? I think it's this thing where everyone is committed to this narrative. Like I was saying, I could have done with marijuana. People, they identify with being a person that's on the right side. If you're a person who got vaccinated, you did the right thing. If you're a person who is pro-vax, you are on the right side. If you're a person who got vaccinated, you did the right thing. If you're a person who is pro-vax, you are on the right side, including like when you're seeing that vaccine mandates. Folks, be really clear about this. Vaccine mandates is a form of control. That's all it is. That's all it is. If you're dealing with a vaccine that you could get

in January, and here we are, we're a good solid 10 months later. That shit is useless, right? If that's the case, if that is the case, how is that okay? How is it okay that you can have a vaccine, you can go anywhere you want, as long as you got a shot in January, but someone who got infected last month who has rock solid antibodies can't go in there. That is nonsense.

I have a real concern about this in the slippery slope of government control. You make a great point, and I appreciate your bringing this up. So if you're vaccinated back early on, you probably... Again, this is what the Israeli data suggests. This is what our breakthrough infection data suggests, even in the U.S. You probably have very little protection right now. If you got infected three months ago yourself and recovered by yourself with no vaccine, or maybe you had been previously vaccinated, it doesn't matter,

you have good protection right now. Okay? So why is the person in the first category privileged over the person in the second category? It has nothing to do with the medical reality. Well, it's a binary decision. It's like there's a one or a zero, a good or a bad. Get vaccinated. That's good.

And so they've decided there's too many cases. We need to get everybody vaxxed. And the mayor of New York is such a buffoon to have it come from him makes so much sense because he's such a dullard. And when he proclaims this, that we're going to do this, after he's told people they can get free vaccine or free cheeseburgers with vaccines, you see this is not a rational decision that's based on science and based on the data like DeSantis is making. But this is, again, this is where I come back to you and I say, I do see a sociological element in this. I see a lot of talking down to people.

And you may remember back, again, back February, March, April, it was we're going to tell those idiots they can get a lottery ticket if they're vaccinated. Well, how about fucking Keith Olbermann? Yeah. They're morons. They're idiots.

They're snowflakes. Right, but now he's angry and afraid. Before, it was condescension. Before, it was just, and you could see it. You know who's the worst of all, by the way? John Oliver. John Oliver is the most condescending. He's worse than Keith Olbermann?

Yeah, because he's just, he's so oily and condescending. Olbermann's just crazy. Well, he was really good on Community. Is he worse than Stephen Colbert? Stephen Colbert is dancing with needles. Yeah, Colbert is right up there. Have you seen that, Jamie? You've seen that.

Have we played that before? I want to see this. We should play the vaccine dance. Because, you know, like, da-da-da-da-da-da-da. Have you seen that? No. What is this? I try to avoid these things.

You're in for a treat things You're in for a treat You're in for a treat Stephen Colbert I don't know what happened I think they brought him To Bohemian Grove And they let him Fuck the owl god or something

Oh god I don't know what happened All these people on the lift They're so unfunny now too That's a whole different issue He was brilliant When he was on Comedy Central When he was doing

The Colbert Report He was fucking brilliant It was one of the best shows On television That character that he developed That Republican asshole character on Comedy Central. When he was doing the Colbert Report, he was fucking brilliant. It was one of the best shows on television. That character that he developed, that Republican asshole character was amazing. But then he goes over-

But you know, it's Bill O'Reilly. It's better than Bill O'Reilly. Could never hope to be. If that was a real person, he would be the king of the world. If he could get Colbert, if he could maintain

that character and run for president, he would win hands down. Because he would control the right. They would all fucking fall in line for him. If they could find a guy like that with no legit skeletons, no dead girls or live boys, it would be a fucking game changer. But I mean, I think he was amazing in that character.

But as the host of a talk show, he's just different. I mean, maybe he's older and he sees things differently. The left has beat the stuffing out of humor. I guess. I don't know. I'm left wing. I'm still left. I'm only right wing on some personal freedoms and guns and a few other things.

And the military and support of the military and support of police. You know, I'm very right wing in that, but I'm very pro-choice. I'm very pro-civil rights. I'm very pro-gay rights. By the way, this abortion law in Texas is crazy. Crazy. Crazy.

Crazy. Preposterous. Preposterous. Six weeks is literally like a grain of rice. You know what? You want to outlaw abortion? Outlaw it. Don't set up this craziness of like, we're not doing it and we're going to hope the Supreme Court like goes with our weirdness.

Yeah. No, it's not good. And I think most of us living in Texas had no idea that it was even happening until it was too late. And then it was a wake up call. Right. It's going to get struck down, I think. One can only hope because my thought on any of these like ridiculous overreach things is they make people swing in the other direction. And I think it's good to have Texas red. discipline and like respect for law that's involved in the right that we're we're really slipping on in these blue states and when i see all the chaos that happens in a lot of these blue cities like san francisco allowing people to just go into stores and steal 900 with a shit and run

out like it doesn't work you have to have accountability you have to have a certain amount of accountability you have to have you have to have a certain amount of accountability. You have to have a certain amount of law and order. It's important. Yeah. It's important. But one of the things, and again, this is what's so odd. Like, these people are the same people who suddenly want vaccine mandates, right? And they want to-

Oh, here we go. Here it is. You need to see this. This is new, though, which is weird. It's posted in June, and everyone just saw it last week. Well, nobody watches that show. Well, that's probably the reason why. Give me some wine.

Look at the dance. What is it? These are needles. So he's dancing, and there's needles behind him dancing. Wow. It gets worse. So he's doing his little dance. Not a bad dancer.

Looks like he's having a good time, but here's the best part. Vaccine! Oh my god. Dude, there's not even a song. So he's going through the crowd crowd and he finds people and they're all clapping because the applause signs are on ladies and gentlemen and no one and he grabs some old lady's dancing with no one in this is appalled by this insane attempt at propaganda dressed up as entertainment.

That's keen. Like, what is this? Tell me what that is. And it just ends? Thank you. Let him keep talking. I want to hear what he says. And they said it couldn't get any longer.

Wow. What is that? I don't know. Like, imagine being in a meeting, me as a comedian, I imagine being in a meeting with a bunch of writers, and this is what they pitch. Wait a minute. So I'm going to dance with needles?

So you just want me to kind of like dance with needles and then go vaccine. That's it? That's it. That's the whole thing. That's all you need to know. Who's paying for this? And you just want to pull their masks off like a Scooby-Doo episode and it's a bunch of Pfizer execs? You motherfuckers.

It was you all along. I would have got away with it if it wasn't for you meddling kids. Well, they did get away with it though because they blocked me from Twitter. They blocked me. Who do you think blocked you? This is okay. So, well, we may find out. It wasn't for you meddling kids. Well, they did get away with it, though, because they blocked me from Twitter. They blocked me. Who do you think blocked you? Well, we may find out. It'd be nice if we could get a little discovery. Are you going to court? I am keeping my legal options open. Where are you at now?

What can you say? What can I say? I can say that I am... Okay. Here's why people think say that I am... Okay. Here's why people think these suits can't win. There's something called Section 230.

Section 230 is part of the... It's a law. It's like 25 years old. It's part of the Communications Decency Act. It gives internet companies tremendous protection against lawsuits related to their content decisions. OK, this is not a secret. There's two main provisions, and it's been totally sort of misinterpreted in a way that doesn't really make any sense but is now basically the rules.

So there's two main provisions. Provision one says essentially, and this is really what it was designed for, Essentially, and this is really what it was designed for, you can't be sued if you host something sort of unknowingly that's child pornography or that's like go kill my ex-wife. You can't get in trouble for that. For something you don't know about. That's right. You're not going to be considered the publisher legally for that if you do that. And that makes sense.

OK. You know, your Twitter, you get up. I don't know how many billion tweets that day they get, but it's a lot. OK. Or Facebook or whatever. OK. So it would be unfair to hold them legally responsible. Then there's a second part of this that says essentially you can make decisions about what to host in good faith and you can't be held liable.

And that includes, you know, indecent or, you know, prurient. There's certain specific statutory language or otherwise objectionable. It includes that language, otherwise objectionable, which is not defined, even if it's constitutionally protected. Okay. So you take those two things together. Now, the first part has been interpreted in a way that clearly was not intended by the people who wrote the law, which is what people have said is, even though basically I get all the protections of the law and I get to make publishing decisions. So in other words, I can choose. What it was meant to be was you can't sue me.

Joe puts up something saying Alex is a child molester. So I sue Twitter saying that's wrong. And Twitter says we didn't do this. We're not the publisher. That clearly makes sense. And Twitter says, you know, we didn't do this. We're not the publisher. That clearly makes sense.

What the companies have managed to convince the courts to do is say, I put up all this stuff about myself or about whatever and you took it down. And they say, you know, that's our decision. We can choose whether or not to host any content because choosing protection for hosting should include protection for not hosting as a blanket principle. That's what they've convinced the courts. So in other words, we win. Whether we host it, we don't host it, we have a good reason, we have no reason, we win. You cannot sue us for any choices around this. And this has been a position that the courts have essentially accepted.

And they've also said we're private companies. Yes, we have power. We're, you know, but we're not the government. Facebook might have 2 billion users a month or whatever it is, but it's not the government. So the First Amendment does not apply to us. And the courts have accepted that. Okay. This has proven to be a pretty strong legal barrier to,

I mean, almost, almost completely strong. And the companies have gotten more and more aggressive about choosing who they will and will not host. Okay. They've now gotten so aggressive that they, you know, they took the president off or the, you know, the former president off. And, you know, they took me off. Did I say, forget, you know, did I, I mean, first it had to be, you had to kind of make active threats to get taken off. Then it would be, you know, broad incitements against, you know, for lawbreaking to get taken off. I got taken off for being right about the vaccines. I mean, that's why I got taken off, essentially, and for asking questions that people didn't want asked. You were also promoting vaccine hesitancy by your unsightly truths. Yes. Although I never told people, and I've actually been on Tucker, and I think I was on with you back in December, didn't say people shouldn't get vaccinated if they're older, certainly. I think it's a risk benefit analysis.

It's a spectrum, as with anything. Yeah. And I think for older people, it's actually clearly more beneficial to get vaccinated. I mean, at this point, I'm not as positive about that as I used to be. But because, again, because there's this duration issue. Right. But whatever. OK.

I did not. So back in the day, you had to, you know, first you had to threaten people. Then maybe we'll take off some racists. Then we'll take off some people who are inciting law breaking. Now, whatever. We'll take off whoever the hell we want. We'll take off a guy who used to write for the New York Times who's actually quoting real studies and real data that's coming out of all parts of the world. That's right.

That's right. Why? Because we can. And good luck suing us. Okay. So the thing- Did they tell you anything? No.

You just get these notices? Like, how does it go? So, okay. Well- I'm a good boy. I've never even been suspended from Twitter. Oh, you're doing something wrong, Joe. I just don't type on it.

You're not pushing enough. I retweet things. That's it. You didn't retweet me enough before I got suspended. You just asked. I retweeted you a little bit. I got to put Pandemia over my face. I retweeted you a little bit.

Didn't I? A couple of times. How many times do you want me to? You know, sell some books. Sell some books. You got to realize, man, I can't just retweet one person. There's a lot of people out there. Yeah, four million of them follow you or whatever.

5 million now? I think it's more than that. Really? Anyway, so okay. So Twitter has policies, okay? Right. And they've changed the policies repeatedly in the last 18 months. Now, I actually...

Arbitrarily. Well, yes, but it's their service, okay? Yes. They can change the policies 18 months. Now, I- Arbitrarily. Well, yes, but it's their service, okay? They can change the policies. Right. There are several questions of fact around me. And again, I have to be careful here. One would be whether or not they followed their own stated policies around me, okay? Another would be if they made assurances to me, executives at Twitter or an executive at Twitter made assurances to me based on conversations via email that we had. And I will tell you, we had conversations via email. It's in the book.

With editors? With executives? With an executive at Twitter, where I explained exactly what I was going to say, and I was explicitly told, go ahead. Okay. So who is making the decision? Do we have any idea who's making the decision to hit the ban hammer on you? So here's what else I can tell you. I mean, this is sort of, it's public. There was a lot of controversy around what I was saying and it increased when I started to criticize the vaccines. And my account became more and more viewed over the summer.

But for several months, OK, for several months, anyone at Twitter, and they're going to pay attention to accounts that get 10 million impressions a day or 5 million impressions a day. that get 10 million impressions a day or 5 million impressions a day. Anyone at Twitter would have known what I was saying, saying it on their service, okay? And Twitter took no action against me, no action. They did sometimes label, they labeled some tweets as misleading, which in my opinion, and maybe if we get to a court we'll see, those tweets were not misleading.

But Twitter took no action against me for those tweets. Okay? On June 15th, 2021, the press secretary of the United States and the surgeon general of the United States called on social media services to begin enforcing rules about misinformation, including Facebook and Twitter. So they mentioned platforms, not just one. Facebook is the main platform and Twitter is the second main platform. On July 16th, 2021, the president of the United States was asked a question about Facebook and vaccines. And he said, Facebook, he said, they're killing people. Okay. And I think it was actually Facebook and other platforms.

And he said, they're killing people. And the same day, Jan Psaki, the press secretary of the United States, again, repeated that platforms needed to take enforcement action. July 16th, 2021 is the first time Twitter suspended me. Okay. So we'll see if a court wants to decide whether the U.S. government put undue pressure on Twitter and whether Twitter was acting as a state actor. Okay. Which would mean they're subject to the First Amendment, whether or not 230 applies. Would you have to have direct correspondence between Twitter and the State Department in order to make that claim? Well, I can claim whatever I want. To prove it is different.

Right. Okay. To prove it. But discovery is an avenue where you find out what the other side knows and doesn't know. And it's also possible, you know, because this is some of the stuff is government, I can try to FOIA it. I can file Freedom of Information Act requests to try to find out what they know and don't know. Okay. So those are all avenues. Beyond that, there are legal doctrines. And again, because the companies have gotten so fat and happy with 230 and they've gotten so protected from it, and they've become more and more aggressive about deplatforming people, there's now

lawyers who are concerned about this. And they are looking at various legal doctrines, precedents, that would raise the question of whether or not 230 is being misapplied and over applied. And you actually saw some of this last week. President former President Trump filed a request for a preliminary injunction against Twitter so he could get back on the service. And he raised the question of some precedents from cases that are decades old. When did he do this? He did it Friday. Really? I wasn't aware of that. Yes. He wants to get back on the service. And so, you know, he has some claims. I frankly think that my claims are stronger than his because of some of the specifics of the timing and the specifics of my communications with Twitter.

We will see. These cases are complicated. And if I'm going to bring one, I want to bring it in a way that is likely to win. Now, if he has a case and his case gets out there first, and by some miracle they wind up reinstating him on Twitter, then your case becomes stronger. Yes, much stronger. I would think so. But is there any possibility that they're going to let him back on Twitter? Well, they won't let him back on unless a court forces them to. him back on Twitter. Well, they won't let him back on unless a court forces them to. That's what the preliminary injunction is a requirement. So Twitter, you know, it doesn't matter what

Twitter wants in that case. Now, Twitter is going to say we're a private company. We can choose to have whoever we want on. We have our own rules. And, you know, it's a violation of our First Amendment rights to force us to put anyone on, including the former president. God, what a mess. It's a mess. And it's a mess because the companies have grown too powerful and they are exercising censorship much too aggressively. And frankly, the left isn't satisfied. This is beyond the fact. Who is the left like even more than big Pharma right now? Big Tech. Well, the reason why is because they are silencing their enemies, right? The enemy of my enemy is also my friend. Until it's not, right?

Right, until it's not. It's a very short-sighted approach because it's extremely dangerous to just start censoring people because you – for many reasons. But one of the big ones is that you deny the value of discourse. You deny the value of debate and of good speech winning out over bad speech. When you have people that are saying things that are wrong or that you disagree with, the greatest power is someone to come along who is more intellectual, more articulate, more convincing, that has an argument that's grounded in facts. And it's not going to convince everybody, but you're going to convince enough people

that it's going to be valuable to have that debate. And then overall, our body of knowledge and our understanding of this, whatever issue they're debating and discussing, it becomes enhanced. When you silence people that disagree with something or people that have opposing views, then you just live in an echo chamber. And you also, you're going to galvanize all the people that are on the opposing side, because now they're going to realize that not only can they not discuss it, but they've been completely silenced. And their perspective is never heard from again.

So then they just try to find other places to go to. Well, and it breeds conspiracy theories. Yes, we know. And it breeds, you know, when people are only talking to each other, they're going to naturally sort of pursue the wildest possible avenues. At least with the news, there's Fox. Right. So you can get an opposing viewpoint. There's no opposing viewpoint that is of a commensurate level.

Oh, it's not. There's nothing close. Not even close. People, you know, people say, oh, you should go on Parler or Gab or Getter. Right. or Gab or Getter, right? And the thing is, like, first of all, I don't want to just be talking to the people who are agreeing with me. Of course.

And second of all, there's nothing. Twitter is by far the most important of these platforms. And they, listen, they've caused me real economic harm because, you know, I was able, even though it's free, right? And as we talked about with Substack, you can get almost all my content, basically all of it, for free. When I would tell people on Twitter, hey, you should sign up for my Substack, they did. So that was my, with no other form of advertising, I was able to drive people to my Substack. And frankly, this book is going to come out in a month and a half. And I would love to be able to talk about it on Twitter. It would be valuable for me. So they have hurt me economically.

They have defamed me. When they say my reputation, I mean, listen, people can watch this and think that like I made a mistake here. I made a mistake there. I don't think anybody who watches this can't say that I'm serious about what I'm talking about, right? That is my, as a reporter, it's important to me. And as a reporter who's trying to sell books or whatever, it's important to my brand. And Twitter defames me when they say that I'm putting out misleading information when that's the last thing I want to do. If you want to say, Alex doesn't care, he knows that old people are dying, and he's just a bad guy and he doesn't care. Okay. Make that argument. But don't tell me that I'm saying things that are not true or inaccurate because I do whatever I can to be accurate. Now, you said you were in conversation with this executive. Yes. And you

told them what you were going to do. Did you ever contact them after you were banned? So the executive I was in contact with is a guy who was the head of global communications. He actually left in June of 2020. So you left right before you started getting suspended. Yeah, and I don't know what internal politics, if any. I mean, he could have left for 100 reasons. There was an article that was written in The Atlantic about you. Yes. The pandemic's wrongest man. Yes.

I didn't read it, but did they get anything wrong? Did they get anything wrong? I mean, to me, the whole article was broadly wrong, but I actually address it in the book. Here's so look,

when I worked for the New York times, when I, before that, okay. When I was a reporter, quote unquote, real reporter, uh, you know, for major news organizations, if you're going to if you're going to write about somebody, you have an obligation to run all your important questions by them.

OK, and not just once. And the harder the article is going to be, the more obligation you have. Now, if they don't want to talk to you, they want to lawyer up, they want to tell you you're an asshole, whatever, okay. But you, as the reporter, the harder you're going to hit them, the more responsibility you have to make sure they know what your questions are and to give them a chance to answer factually.

And then you should consider those answers, okay? Not just try to poke holes in them. You should consider them. That's what journalism used to be, Joe. Right. OK. What has happened in the last one of the many terrible things that's happened in the last five years is it's a gotcha game, but it isn't even really a game, a gotcha game.

It's like this guy sent me one round of questions, and I knew immediately upon reading them, and I also knew it was The Atlantic, which I'd been writing, you know, about on Twitter as being totally wrong for months and months. I knew immediately that he was out to get me. Nonetheless, I answered those questions in full. And if he'd had more questions for me, I would have answered those too. He took my answers. I would have answered those too. He took my answers. He looked for other, he looked for sort of like the, you know, friendly epidemiologists or whatever to try to poke holes in them, where he had to, he, you know, he sort of like, he twisted stuff that I had said.

And then he wrote what he wrote. And he didn't come back to me and say, hey, you said this, and I talked to three epidemiologists who said this. What's your response? You said this. And when I look at this data source, it says this. What's your response? So it was a hit piece in that regard. Oh, it was a – but that's okay.

You can come to a peace with a point of view. But – and here's the other thing, okay? Back then – now my worries are about duration of protection as much as anything else. But back then, I had two main concerns about the vaccines, which I expressed very clearly in a booklet, in a 14,000-word booklet that came out a few days before that piece ran. They were that the side effect profile looked much worse than other vaccines and that the companies had not enrolled the right people in the clinical trial. So we didn't really know how protective the vaccines were. All right. You read that piece. Well, don't read it, but read it if you like. You tell me that it is a fair assessment of those two problems. The problem isn't that he wanted to hit me. It's that he

didn't want to write any. he didn't want to actually address my real concerns so so what you know it is what it is the nice thing about the book is like the book will stand my twitter account one of the terrible things about what twitter did to me is my account is gone i mean i have it i have the archive and i'm going to put it up at some point i'm hoping to do it soon because i want people to be able to read everything that I wrote. How did you archive it? In the weeks leading up to the ban, you can ask Twitter. You should actually do this. You can ask Twitter to send you an archive. They'll do it for anybody. And people said to me, if you don't do this before they ban you, because, you know, it seemed pretty clear they were going to try to ban me at some

point by, you know, by August, you're going to have a hard time doing this after you ban you. So ask for your archive. So I did. So I have all my tweets. But no one else can see them. Has anyone been reinstated on Twitter? I don't know. That's a good question.

I don't think anybody sort of well-known has. I haven't heard of anybody. So by the way, you asked me this before. So they it's supposed to be a five strike policy. That's what they instituted in March. And they're supposed to tell you, they say, we'll tell you after each strike, what you got in trouble for. So they never told me I had a first strike, you know, and again, back sort of March through July, pre-Biden, I seemed to be able to post, you know, essentially freely without censorship. And even when they would put a misleading tag on, they didn't notify me.

Then they told me what my second strike was. The third strike, they sent me an email, but they didn't say what it was. The fourth strike is to me, I mean, they're all egregious, but the fourth strike was so egregious. The fourth strike, I reported this. I said Pfizer has updated the results of its clinical trial from the big one, the one that got the vaccine approved. It shows that there were 15 deaths in the placebo arm. I'm sorry, 15 deaths in the vaccine arm, 14 deaths in the placebo arm. There's no benefit on this basis to taking the vaccine.

It doesn't reduce deaths. And this is all the data we're ever going to have about this because they blew up their clinical trial, which they did. They gave the vaccine to everybody in the placebo arm. That means you don't have two arms to compare. You just have everybody getting the vaccine. Right. They've killed the control. Correct. They killed the control. Correct. They killed the control.

So Twitter said that was misleading. How could it possibly be misleading? It was a completely accurate description of the clinical trial results that Pfizer posted about its own trial. Okay. That was my fourth strike. Fourth strike is a week. Fourth strike is the last one before you get banned. And then a month later, they banned me. They never notified me. I still don't, I mean, I think I know which tweet it was because it must've been the last

tweet that they put a misleading tag on. What was that one? That one was, I'll read it to you. Okay. But again, they don't tell you what was wrong with it. They just said it's misleading. No, they didn't, right. They didn't tell me anything. They put this tag on it. They don't give me a chance to cure it. They don't, they don't, yeah,

they don't say why it's misleading. The tweet was. That's the universal sound when someone's looking for something so sad zero following zero followers and and my final tweet drum roll please it doesn't stop infection or transmission don Don't think of it as a vaccine. Think of it at best as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be diagnosed in advance of illness.

And we want to mandate it in sanity. And there it is. This tweet is misleading. Learn why health officials recommend a vaccine for most people. We're in a movie. We are in They Live. This tweet is misleading. It is.

Learn why health officials recommend a vaccine for most people. Yeah. By the way, it doesn't stop infection or transmission. Can we all agree on that? Well, it's clear now. We know that now. We know that now. And now they're saying it stops death.

I mean, there's a video of Fauci talking to this influencer on Instagram. It's kind of a hilarious video. Because she's talking about like hot vaxxed. Oh, yes. Yeah. And he's saying, yes, you can do it because you won't catch it and you won't transmit it to your friends. And when he says that, that's not true. No, well, I mean, here's the thing.

Right? No, it's not true. Now we know that's not true. Now, here's my books. I've got, you know, 65 pages of notes. But Fauci said... At the time, that's what he did think, though. It seems to be what he thought.

This is in May, OK? In May, he said, with good vaccination programs, countries can essentially eliminate the presence of a particular pathogen. That's called elimination. And the other is control. You have a very, very low level in the community, enough to know you haven't completely eliminated it. So he was actually saying, he was saying, control means you get to a very, very low level. There's also this thing called elimination. And then he said, with SARS-CoV-2 and with COVID-19, I would hope it would be much closer to elimination than just control.

That was in May. So when these people tell you that they didn't say the vaccines could end the epidemic, they are lying. They were just wrong. Now, when they initially released the vaccines, what kind of a window of efficacy did they envision? Did they have data that showed a wane after a certain amount of time? No. So there's a paper that came out, I think it was in April 2021. It's a good paper, and it has this chart, and it shows – the one thing you can't ever do is speed up time, right? So they were guessing. They were guessing at how long the protective effect would last, and there's something called the vaccine correlate of protect or the immune correlative protection.

What they were essentially trying to guess was two different things. One was what level of antibodies correlated to vaccine protection. So in other words, if your antibodies got to, I'm just going to make up a number, a thousand units per, you know, per milliliter of blood. How protected were you compared to if your vaccine, if your antibodies only got to 10 units per milliliter of blood? So, and we knew some vaccines are better at getting your antibodies to go really high than others. Okay. And the best ones were the mRNA ones.

Okay. So they were guessing on how quickly that would decline and on how low at what point would you be vulnerable again? Okay. But they also had to guess, were you going to get this B and T cell immunity, this long-term immunity? And they didn't know that either. Long story short, there's a paper that became sort of the seminal paper on this, and it suggested that at 95% initial immunity, you would have really good protection for at least nine months. You'd still be in the, I think, in the 80% plus range after nine months. And then assuming that there was some argument among virologists and stuff, does it flatten out there? Does it continue to decline? But that would suggest that you probably were going to have pretty good immunity for at least 18 months. They were initially sort of talking about an annual booster. And that was, you know, maybe that was a little bit conservative. I think that there's no way to look at this other than it was just a stunning failure. Again, three things have happened.

One is the antibodies go down faster than was predicted. Two is that the virus has mutated in a way against – again, it's mutated against the antibodies. And three is that the vaccines don't produce the same B and T cell immunity that natural infection and recovery does. But – so this may have come as a – again, I don't think Fauci wanted to be this wrong. I don't think you – I mean, why would you say in May, no, we can eliminate this, eliminate, not control, eliminate. Why would you say in May we could eliminate this? And three months later, three months, you're telling people they have to get boosters. You said it because you made a mistake. The question that I think we should all ask is, did the companies know more? Okay. Were the companies looking at their data internally in January and February and March

from the clinical trials, unpublished data, and maybe saying, you know what, we're seeing that the antibodies go away more quickly than we thought, and we're seeing some rate of breakthrough infections in these people? Or were the companies sort of eating their own cooking and they didn't know either? And we're seeing some rate of breakthrough infections in these people. Or were the companies sort of eating their own cooking and they didn't know either? And if we had real investigative reporters in the United States, this would be a great question. Just like the question about why Pfizer, why last year people were saying, oh, you know what? This is going to be for the good of humanity. No one's going to make any money off these.

And this year, it turns out these are the most profitable pharmaceutical products ever invented. Nothing in history has made money for the companies like these. Why that happened? Maybe we'd ask questions about VAERS and how well it's working. Maybe we'd ask some questions about the relationships between the regulatory agencies and the vaccine makers. We don't do any of that. What happened? Why did we lose all of our – not all of them. Matt Taibbi is still out there.

Glenn Greenwald is still out there. There are independent investigative journalists that still do real good work, but it's not nearly as common. So, look, because you can investigate Donald Trump's ties to Russia and do real work on that. But God forbid you investigate, you know, Hunter Biden's ties to China. Unfortunately, investigative reporting has gotten politically polarized in a way it shouldn't be. And there aren't that many people who do this sort of complex pharma reporting. There's some. And those people have stayed away from this. They have just... Because it's so dangerous. It's such a third rail.

Yes. I mean, you know, I can't go back. I can't go. I mean, if I tried to work for the New York Times again, I mean, I can't even get an op-ed, you know, one a year. That would never happen now. And I'm very fortunate. You know, I have this loyal audience and I have 150,000 people who are signed up for Substack and a fraction of those people are subscribing, enough that I don't really have to worry about money right now. I mean, you know, so that's a good thing. But there's only, but I'm lucky. But you're a sort of persona non grata in these mainstream publications now, like the Washington Post or the New York Times. I mean, they go out of their way. Now, it's funny. Here's a funny thing.

There's a few people at those places who I can still talk to. But they're not willing to write anything defending me. But we can still have to. Now, but they're not willing to write anything defending me. But they'll still, we can still back channel conversations. But somebody emailed me, a former reporter actually emailed me a few weeks ago and said, do you have a lot of people in the business who are talking to you, telling you, I think you're right? And I told him the truth. The answer is no.

I don't have a lot of hidden, or if I do, it's so well hidden that no one's coming and telling me. Here's my hidden support, Joe. My hidden support is in the scientific and medical communities. I get so many emails with tips and stuff. If I write – if I put up on my sub stack about a paper that came out or something, it's quite likely that somebody tipped me to that. And those people, the scientists and the doctors, there's a lot of them who have a lot

of very serious questions, but they're afraid to ask them publicly. They are afraid. They're afraid to discuss it. And that's where it gets really crazy is people who it's their field of expertise and they don't want to discuss it. And I think the only thing that would turn this around

is if the attitude of the social media sites changed and they encouraged open discourse on that. It would have to be some monumental change in the narrative, some shift where we realize, oh, okay, this is what's going on. This is clear. There's no reason to deny this any longer. And I think it would take some very courageous people to step in and try the vaccines are safe and effective. And then I look at that post and it's not even a real human. Right. You go to their thing and it's all just them retweeting things that follow some sort of a Democrat narrative. And you go, oh, this is probably someone in Russia, in a Russian troll farm. Did you see that there's a Facebook thing recently?

They found that 19 out of 20 of the top Christian sites on Facebook were run by a Russian troll farm. No, I did not see that. Or Macedonia, I think it was. Yeah, some Eastern European troll farm. Yeah, I mean, this is a giant part of the problem is that these people in these, whatever these troll farms are, they want us to be at each other's throats. And it's very effective. And it's happening.

It's happening constantly. And then other people just sort of dive into it because they think it's ideologically significant. But don't you think it's more organic than that? Don't you think it's just that these people are scared? It's that too. That's what I'm saying. It's all the above.

It's accentuated and it's natural. It's organic and it's also it's influenced i mean so you know somebody was saying to me like if you live in texas or you know you live in a rural part of a blue state even like you've probably been living your life pretty normally for the last 12 months plus you know maybe a red state a red state or or like you know a red part of a blue state right but the people who didn't live their lives normally, the Molly Jongfas of the world, these people who stayed in their apartments and- Triple masked while they're watching TV. Like they haven't figured out how to stop being afraid.

Right. And they're just getting angrier and angrier. And they seem to be addicted to the fear porn. seem to be addicted to the fear porn. It's when we came here, we came here in May of last year. That's when I first started thinking that LA was falling apart. I was like, I just, I didn't buy, you know, it was two weeks to flatten the curve. And then all of a sudden I was like, oh, they're not going to let this go. Like this is, and then they wouldn't allow anything to open. They were closing down restaurants. I was, I was having people in, friends of mine that owned restaurants. I was like, this is devastating.

And they were telling me that 70% of these places are going under. And they can't stay open. It doesn't make sense. None of this makes any sense. This is so crazy. And then they shut down outdoor dining. It's so crazy. And then they shut down outdoor dining.

My friend who worked, my friend has a brother who works for the state and was in the room when they were making these decisions. And he said, there's no data to support. But listen, he said this to the woman who made the decision. There's no data to support transmission outdoor in outdoor dining. She said, it's all about optics. That was the answer the answer was it's all about optics which is a fucking insanely calloused answer yeah to someone when you're saying something that's going to shut down people's business kill their livelihood the the number of people that

had their lives devastated by that one decision by a woman by the way the same woman in los angeles went to eat at a restaurant the day she shut it down. Well, that's the question that, you know, and you saw this with the San Francisco mayor who, you know, she got caught or, you know, London breed caught not wearing a mask and then made this comment about the fun police. Yeah. And so, so you do, that kind of makes you wonder, are they as scared as they're pretending

to be and as scared as they want to make everyone else be? It's theater. It's, it's theater. But, you know, look at Australia. We they're pretending to be and as scared as they want to make everyone else be? It's theater. It's theater. But, you know, look at Australia. We haven't talked about Australia. Right. Right. We haven't.

I mean, Australia is becoming a police state. It's insane. A genuine police state. And I don't think there's a way out of that for them. I'm really, really, really concerned about Australia because the deaths there are so low. The cases are, they're not experiencing some hellscape of infections and hospital overruns. It's not, that's not what's happening.

No, it's not what's happening. And they're still this terrified. And, you know, I mean, there's this weird law that enables the government to, you know, take over people's internet accounts. It's actually, I wouldn't have believed this, but it's a real thing. They have these riot police shooting rubber bullets at people. When did... Australia.

Australia. It's a cool place. A democratic society. But no guns. Yeah, you know, I stayed away from saying that on Twitter. You should say it. Well, I can't say it.

I mean, it really is what it is. You can't do that to people when everyone's armed. You can't do that. When no one's armed, you can do that. And I hate saying that because I don't want to say it like that these people are jackbooted thugs that are taking advantage of the situation to control people. I'm not saying that. But what I'm saying is it is human nature to change the way your perceptions of someone. If you're in a position where whether you've been bestowed this power by the state or by whatever the fuck it is, a higher power, whatever. If you

think you have control and power over other people, then you exercise it. It is a natural thing. The Stanford prison experiments show it. It's a natural thing that people do when they have power over other people. They exert that power. I mean, and the language of the state premieres in Australia is not that different than Olbermann. No. It's very weird that they're- Well, not only that, it's anti-science. Have you seen the woman who's their head, the medical lady, who said that vaccines are better than natural infection?

And then you just have to get used to getting vaccines and boosters and constant vaccines. There's no science behind what she's saying. No. And, you know, are we going to count deaths from this? Are we ever going to have another season? Or no, you know, we count flu deaths every year. We count other deaths on an annual basis. COVID deaths, it's just like the meter never stops.

It never resets. Even people, I mean, I had a conversation with my friend Rhonda Patrick, who's a vaccine. I mean, she believes in the vaccine. She's a scientist and she's a brilliant woman. When we told her that 95% of the people who died from COVID had an average of four comorbidities. She didn't believe it. We had to show her. You had to show her, right?

And you see people go, what? 95%? Like 95% have something that's killing them. Yeah. Whether it's diabetes or cancer or heart disease or obesity or, you know, there's a whole host of these comorbidities. But four. And at 95, so the vast host of these comorbidities, but four and 95. So the vast amount of people who died from COVID, 95% of them had four other things that were killing them.

I mean, you can give people these like in Canada. OK, Canada, not another place losing their fucking losing their minds. The average age of death or the median age of a COVID patient is 85. OK. In Denmark, which is six million people, 26 people since this whole thing started under the age of 50 have died. Twenty six out of six million. But they have a different approach. No, they're just healthier than we are. But I mean, the way they're treating it than Canada, like we can't conflate the two. All I'm saying is when you actually understand who's getting sick

and dying from this, it doesn't make a bit of sense what we're doing. Well, what it gets to me is when I have these conversations with people, when they start talking about it, like it's a boogeyman, when it's going to get you. And then I tell them I've had it I just got it I had it last month right half the country's had it but I mean when you're saying it to me and you haven't had it that's right and I've had it that's right we're in a weird place man that's right like you're telling me about something as if I didn't catch it that's right like I got it that's right so then they have to talk about well you know it could mutate yes it could mutate it could mutate. Yes, it could mutate. It could mutate. It did mutate. I got the Delta. And also, I'm 54. I'm not young.

I'm not like a super young guy. No, but you're obviously healthy. You take care of yourself. I've been doing that my whole life. And that should count. That should count. Like when you're pretending that you can lump me into a fat guy with diabetes in the same category, that's crazy.

But people want to do that. They want to pretend that these 95% with four comorbidities are exactly the same as you and you should be scared and stay in your house. When I'm like, I'm not scared, people get so fucking angry. It's weird. It's weird. It's weird. And the people who are... Again, this is... I talk about this in the book.

It's crazy. The people who are the angriest are the people who for 15... Not 15, for 30 years have been saying, you know what? You use drugs drugs it can cause consequences we will help you you drink too much we will help you you don't take care of your body you eat too much we will help you yes but if you choose not to get vaccinated go to hell well the narrative is that you are not you're not contributing to the greater good of the community the greater good of the community means you get vaccinated.

But my perception is the greater good of the community is you take care of yourself, be healthy, and don't be a strain on the healthcare system. Let's go all the way back to the data from the UK. Vaccinated people are being infected just as frequently, which means that they are most likely transmitting this just as frequently. That's another narrative that's shifted too, because initially they were saying that if you are vaccinated and you have a so-called breakthrough case, which is very, very rare, which is not rare at all.

But when they were saying it was very, very rare, they were saying that you're carrying less of the virus. Not true. That's not true. Not true. In fact, there's some evidence actually that those people are carrying more of the virus. Why is that? Because it may be that the vaccine confers partial protection on some people.

So you get it. It's not enough to keep you from having like very high viral loads, but it is enough for some people from getting very sick with those viral loads. So they're just out and about in the community. And they also, I'm vaccinated. I probably just have a cold. I don't have COVID. This was more likely a couple of months ago when people- When people didn't know. That's right. But they were out there transmitting very high levels of viral load to people. Yeah. Wouldn't that be the same with people that have also had a natural infection and then had a second case? It just doesn't happen.

Second cases? I have a friend who's had two. Who's gotten sick twice. I shouldn't say it doesn't happen. It's very, very rare. Natural infection is very protective. My friend Curtis, one of his relatives, got it three times. And he was confirmed PCR infection?

Three times. By the way, they are super unhealthy. Super hillbillies. He said they drink Mountain Dew and eat Cheetos all day. Like he said, he goes, I can't fucking believe they're still alive. That's great. Did we want to go back and look at that humetrics thing, just look at this one thing or no? Sure, sure, sure.

I mean, look, unfortunately or fortunately, I could do, I know we're three hours in. That's okay. There's so much more to talk about. Listen, man, this is what this podcast is all about. I mean, the reason why I want to have you on, first of all, I enjoyed having you on in the past. I think you are grossly misrepresented and because you are a courageous person

who's willing to buck the trend of being a propagandist for this system, the way that's running, you know, this narrative that you can't vary from no matter what. And you shift the narrative shifts according to what's happening. That's right. So like it pretends that, oh, we always knew that you could still get sick. That is not true. Not true. get sick. That is not true. Not true. Not true.

That is not what was said before. And yes, I mean, so I, one thing I talk about in the book, um, go ahead, Jamie,

sort of put it up there. What was that? Okay. Oh, this is the AI power DOD analysis program named project. So loose shatters, official vaccine narrative shows antibody dependent

enhancement accelerating in the fully vaccinated with each passing week. What is this website? This is your news.com. Yeah, this is a problem. So here's the problem. That's a real thing though. When you delete me, when you ban me,

you get stuff like this. This is not correct. Pause for a second. What do you mean That's a real thing, though. When you delete me, when you ban me, you get stuff like this. This is not correct. Pause for a second. What do you mean it's a real thing? Well, this is how I first found it because you said you found it on some GeoCities site, so I went to try to find it that way. Yeah. So I was like, all right, well, let me Google Project Salus and see what pops up that way.

That's what I meant. It's a real thing. Project Salus is a real thing. Yes, Project Salus is a real thing. It's run by the joint AI force. Can you go to fucking DuckDuckGo and stop using Google and see if you can find a real- Just type in Humetrix Salus. Well, so that was in there too.

I mean, I just was trying to decipher what- Because that's how wild things start that way. Humetrix is the- Yeah, that's the- Okay. So yeah, waning effect of COVID-19 vaccine. Okay. Okay. Okay, so this is the real thing. Okay. And by the way- That's the, okay. So yeah, waning effect of COVID-19 vaccine. Okay. Okay.

Okay, so this is the real thing. Okay. And by the way, what is- That's the same thing. Okay. Excuse me? This was in that same article. Yes, it's in the article.

But it's not in the yournews.com. It's right here. The thing is the yournews people lied about what this says. Okay. It doesn't say that there's ADE. ADE would be terrible, okay? It says the vaccines are failing, which is a different thing. Failing means they're going back to zero.

Right. So if you go through, okay, this is the key. So what they're saying right now is that the vaccine is 41% protective against infection and 62% effective against hospitalization. At what? At how many months out? That's about, I believe that's five to six months out. Oh, so that's better than I thought. No, I thought they were saying that like six months, it's like that's when you should consider

getting a booster, right? Well, yes. Eight months, they're saying a booster. If you go on, go through this. Keep going, keep going, keep going. But that's nothing like 90 or 95%. Okay. They said 3%. Oh, go back one slide. 3% breakthrough rate, meaning you have a 3 in 100% chance already of being infected if you're vaccinated. Pfizer said that over a one-year period, they believed it was 7%. In other words- So by 3% at what time?

Over the first six months, basically. Okay. So during the time where the vaccine is at its highest efficacy, there's a 2.9% cumulative breakthrough rate. That's right. But you have to- Pretty good. No, no, not pretty good. No? Because think about if you're unvaccinated, what's your risk of getting COVID is in the

United States over a six-month period? It's certainly no more than 10%. It might be closer to, you know, it's probably in the 10% range. We'll find that out in a moment. We'll Google that in a moment. So 21% hospitalization rate in breakthrough infections. Yes. So, okay. 21% hospitalization rate. Again, that doesn't say that you're not going to be hospitalized if you're breakthrough. Okay. Okay. So go to the next slide. So do they know from January to today, which is a 10-month period, do they know what the efficacy is, the average efficacy of the vaccine from that 10-month time period? Because then it wanes even further, right? Well, we don't know.

We don't know if after six months it continues to go towards zero. My strong suspicion is it goes to zero, but I'm not sure we know. So go on. Go on. So this is, okay, this is sort of the most important thing. So this is as of late August is the most recent data they had. So this is still a month plus out. is the most recent data they had.

So this is still a month plus out. The dark red line is the number or the percentage of people, number per 100,000, so on the left, of people who are getting sick after five to six months after being vaccinated versus the number of people who are getting sick three to four months out. That's a big number. It's more than double. We're looking at a graph, folks, and it's three to four months out. That's a big number. It's more than double. We're looking at a graph, folks, and it's more than double the size. That's right.

And what you can see is they're both trending up. Or close to, maybe it's double. I don't know. Yes. It's like almost 400 per 100,000 versus 200 per 100,000. So that's in a week, though. That's over the course of a week. So you have about a one in 250 chance of getting

infected six months after your vaccination. And that's in people 65 and older. Next, if you go to the next slide. And then this is the question is you have to go back to that, please. Oh, sorry. You have to think this is how many people have gotten infected based on what it would be like if you were vaccinated five to six months versus what would it be like three to four months. But what it doesn't show is unvaccinated. Correct. So the question would be how close is that red line to unvaccinated? So they do have, if you go to the next slide, you'll see that they try to provide an answer to that. Okay.

Okay. So this is, oh, no you go to the next slide, you'll see that they try to provide an answer to that. Okay. Okay. So this is, oh, no, sorry, not this one. Next one. Nope. Next one. It's in here. Nope. This is Pfizer versus Moderna. Breakthrough. Keep going. We'll find it. Oh, back one. Okay.

No. I know they have this, though. I know they give this to us. I mean, what I hope, by the way, you're seeing in all of this. Oh, here we go. Okay. Okay. So this is a complicated chart. But what they're trying to do is they're guessing, in the broadest sense, how many people would get infected at various levels of vaccine protection. Okay. So if the vaccine is 100% effective, if it stops every infection, then you will have 0% of people getting sick after vaccination against whatever percentage of the population.

And that's the blue line at the very bottom. Exactly. It stays flat. Nobody ever gets infected, whether 100% of people are vaccinated or 80 or whatever. Okay. Now, you go to the other case. If vaccine effectiveness is zero, then the percentage of people who get sick exactly matches the percentage of people who are vaccinated. So if 50% of people are vaccinated, then 50% of the people who get sick are vaccinated. then 50% of the people who get sick are vaccinated. So they're comparing, and then between zero and 100, you can calculate what the percentage of vaccinated people getting sick will be. So they tested, they checked that against the fact that they know that 80% of their people

in their group, which is basically people over 65, are fully vaccinated. So if 80% of people were fully vaccinated and the vaccine were 90% effective, you'd still have some cases of people getting sick after vaccination, but it'd be like 20%. Instead, what you're seeing is that 71% of people who got sick were fully vaccinated and 60% of people, this is in the United States, okay, where we quote unquote have a pandemic of the vaccinated, their own data, this is again, this is from a huge group. It's more than 5 million people.

I think it's DOD, like, you know, it's like retirees, military retirees. 60% of people in this group who were hospitalized with COVID were vaccinated. Not 1%, not 2%, 60%. And what they're saying to you is that that still shows some level of vaccine protection because you would expect if vaccines were totally useless, you'd get to 80% being in the hospital. Instead, you have 60%

in the hospital. So they're saying, well, the vaccine looks like it still does some good. But is that what Fauci has told you? Is that what Walensky has told you? Is that what Biden has told you? They didn't tell you that 60% of people in the United States right now are hospitalized? I'm sorry, are vaccinated. So essentially, they're not being honest as the data changes. That's correct. So the data initially was very promising. It looked pretty good. Looked great. Yeah. As it did in Israel. Yes. But as the data has changed, then they're not being honest. And then they're shifting the narrative to this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated. And yet you need a booster. Yeah. And yet you need a booster.

Yeah. Why do you need a booster if the vaccine works? Where does this all go, Alex? Have you sat down and tried to figure this out? I mean, you're a guy who's – you've paid the price for your reporting and your honesty on this. And where does this go? I don't know. I used to... There's never been a time where you could report on something honestly that is a public health concern and because of that you would

be ostracized, you'd be kicked out of the town square, which is what Twitter really is. I'm sure you probably agree with me that it should be regulated in some way where it could ... Or it should be completely unregulated. Well, I mean regulated in some way that you treat it like a utility where it's a basic human right to be able to express yourself. I think that's – I mean other than doxing people, threatening people, that kind of stuff, I think you should have the right to express yourself. Yeah. And this is coming from someone who gets insulted on Twitter every day.

I don't want anybody silenced. I don't read it. But I feel like you should be able to express yourself. I feel like it's no different than talking. At this point, it's a part of being a human being. The way people talk on Twitter is very similar to the way people talk amongst friends when no one's listening. It's very – there's a weird thing that's happening where we're accepting the idea

of silencing people from expressing themselves in a way that is arguably one of the most important methods of expression that's ever existed. This is one of the most amazing creations, an accidental creation, by the way. Is that true? Yes. Much like this podcast. When they started doing that, they had no idea it was going to become what it is. They thought it was going to be a thing where you're like going,

at Alex Berenstein is going to the movies. Right? Right. No, it's true. That's what it used to be used as. It's true. At Joe Rogan is going to eat pizza. That's what they would say

No It's become the most and arguably the most important journalistic medium of all people used to use it in the third term people forgot How it was used, but that's how it was used some of the early tweets like it would be at Jamie Vernon is taking a nap Do you remember that true? Yeah, see if you can find it was created because there's no group texting back then and Easiest way to tell everyone one thing at once. Right, but it was used in a way that is not normal. It's not a normal method of interacting, the third-person method. Yeah, I see what you're saying.

You're saying the actual speech on it. Yes, yes. Oh, interesting. Yeah, see if you can find that. Hashtag started because people started typing hashtag whatever word, and then they started making them clickable and searchable. Oh, that's interesting. They added that functionality.

Did you know that the hashtag naturalimmunity has been banned from Instagram? You cannot use it? If you use the hashtag naturalimmunity, you'll be redirected to the CDC's website? I mean, one of the great disciplines. Did you know that? I did not know that. It's stunning. I will show you, but actually, Instagram faced

they're all down right now. They've been down the whole day. Oh, really? I wonder what happened. They don't know. Actually, shit's been deleted. It could cause an issue. Russians. Maybe. Maybe the Chinese. It could be. It's an attack. It's an attack.

That is another show. One of the great disappointments to me is that I thought Twitter was better than Facebook. I thought that Twitter actually had a commitment to free speech, in part because they told me they had a commitment to free speech. Well, I think Jack does. I really do believe Jack does. Do you know him at all? Yes, I do know him. I like him a lot.

I really do. Because I've heard this from someone else. He's a brilliant guy. I like him a lot. I really enjoy communicating with him. I really enjoy the Because I've heard this from someone else. He's a brilliant guy. I like him a lot. I really enjoy communicating with him. I really enjoy the way he thinks. I don't know how much his hands are tied, but I know he has advocated for a completely Wild West version of Twitter and then a moderated version of Twitter.

And he gets a lot of pushback from it internally. I don't know how much power he really has. I mean, somebody said, and again, I don't know if this is true, maybe if this lawsuit gets filed we'll get to depose him, that he was on my side. I bet he is. I bet he is. He's definitely on the side of free speech.

But it's his company. Man, is it anymore? Do you know how big that goddamn monster is, that fucking machine? It's true. It's so big. And who is pulling the string? What is it, the trust monster is? That fucking machine? It's true. It's so big. And who is pulling the string? What is it? The trust and safety?

What is that? What is that? No, no. I don't know what that is. You know, they have like some- They now have a thing where you can report things. They encouraged users to report stuff. But they've-

I mean, it has- Again, as I've been preparing for this potential legal action, I've gone back and sort of looked at how their policies have changed and how they're like and they've at each step they become more controlling. So for you know, for a while, you could say whatever you wanted. Then it was, you know, you could say that masks don't work. But as long as you don't tell people to violate sort of local laws against masks, OK, like I don't – I'm with you. I'm basically a free speech absolutist unless it's like, you know, again, stuff. Again, sometimes it's going to harm people.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But like – but I get that Twitter doesn't want the service if they feel like – they don't want it to be used to encourage people to break the law. Right. if they feel like they don't want to be used to encourage people to break the law. But then they tighten the restrictions again where it was just if you're presenting factual information and saying as a fact masks don't work, which I said many times on their website, you can get in trouble for that. Now, one of the things, if the lawsuit was forwarded, that I would like them to answer is why was I able to say that for so many months? But suddenly when, you know, Psaki and Biden and, you know, Vivek Murthy told

them they needed to do something different, they did it. So where are you at? Like, what do you do now? So, well, I, so I just finished Pandemia, the book. Right. And it's going to be available when? It will be available November 30th. I've got to record the audio book, but Regnery, which is a conservative publisher because my old publishers, I mean, I'm actually really happy to have Regnery because they've been 100% in my corner in a way that, you know, a mainstream publisher might not be at this point. But, you know, my old publisher, Simon & Schuster, and my previous publisher to that, Random House in Putnam, they would not publish me. They would not publish this book. Did they discuss it with you?

Yes. So there were several. And, you know, some of these places have conservative imprints. Those imprints, and this is before the vaccines. This was just about masks last year. Those conservative imprints, a couple of them came to me and said, we would like to publish a book. So, you know, that's great. You get a couple of publishers. You get an auction set up. You really see what the book's going to sell for. Great. Days before the auction was going to begin, the mainstream houses all walked away.

I guess one did not walk away, but the mainstream houses walked away. And so Regnery got this book at a pretty good price. Did they get, was there any discussion? Did they get pressure from someone? Yes. The editors told me they had pressure from senior people. Senior people at the publishing house.

Yes. And I actually went to John Karp, who's the head of Simon & Schuster, who I've known for almost 20 years, who published my very first book. So he knows what – and he published Tell Your Children. He published both my nonfiction books before this. And I said, John, you got to let me write this book. So he knows what, and he published, and he published Tell Your Children. He published both my nonfiction books before this. And I said, John, you got to let me write this book. I mean, this is, this is important. And even if I'm wrong, you have to have other views. And he said, no, I think it could be dangerous and I'm not going to do it. Dangerous. Dangerous was the word. This is before vaccines.

But people love to say that. They've been saying that. Dangerous misinformation. Dangerous. Because masks are so, I mean, how you can say with a straight face, masks, telling people not to wear masks is dangerous when the whole country's been wearing them for the last 18 months and it's made zero difference to the course of this epidemic. So you don't think that masks confer any protection? Not surgical or cloth ones. They are useless. Really?

Oh yeah. Usel Really? Oh, yeah. Useless? Useless. Like they don't keep certain amount of spittle from coming out of your mouth and getting onto other people? Sure.

And if you're sick and coughing, you should wear a mask if you're outside. But the virus is not transmitted through particles of that size. It's transmitted through small particles. Much smaller.

So just... But doesn't it block any of the small particles when you're using those masks? It blocks some. Some. So better than nothing, though? Is it really better than nothing? It's not clear because people still get infected. In other words, and I'm making up a number, if the minimum dose of infection is 10,000 viral particles, okay, and I as an infected person am breathing out a million viral particles per breath, and the mask keeps 20% of those particles in, I'm at 800,000 and it still only takes 10,000 to infect you.

So you're going to get sick whether I'm wearing the mask or not. But if it protects, like maybe there's like a fence, like an edge where it protects. I know there's on the margins. Can it help? There's a theoretical case to be made there. But if that theoretical case gets distributed over a population of 350 million people, you get a lot of dirty masks thrown in parking lots. You also get a lot of people that don't get infected that maybe would have.

No, no, no. You don't think so? No. Here's what I will tell you with certainty, okay? And vaccines are no. Back in March or April or May, if you were New Zealand and you'd kept your population COVID-free, you could say, we won. How do we win? We have an effective vaccine.

There will be people in New Zealand who will never get COVID. We win. Not for a month or a year. Yeah, we went through that, but we won permanently. The vaccines don't work. They certainly don't work to stop infection or transmission. What that means is that everyone, every human being on this planet is going to be exposed to COVID if they haven't already been, whether you wear a mask or not, whether you lock

down or not. New Zealand, Australia, they can't keep it out. And the only way they're going to keep it, they have even a prayer of keeping it out who knows what the Chinese are doing the Chinese are who knows what are they doing what do you mean

well they claim they've kind of stopped COVID permanently you don't think so do you find the Chinese very trustworthy about this

super trustworthy super right I'm starting to use their phones I'm buying my phone straight from China. So every human being on the planet is going to be exposed. You can get it early.

You can get it now. You can get it in a month. Doesn't matter if you wear masks. It's all theater. The lockdowns are theater. The masks are theater. And unfortunately, it turns out the vaccines are theater too. You know, it works being healthy.

And it looks like the antibodies work. It looks like this new Merck drug works. Well, I don't think it's fair to say the vaccines are theater if they work initially. Why? Because they do work. Six months? But they do work for that period of time and they protect people, right? Okay.

Fair enough. Fair enough. I mean, I think this is a legitimate philosophical question. And they do protect people from more serious illness, even if they allow you to get infected. That's pretty much been proven, right? I would say... Especially in the efficacy range? Yes, within that window of a few months, that's true.

The problem is something has to be done. Once that window has been established and people are safe, then maybe it's the Merck drug or whether they do tests and prove that it's ivermectin or something else. There's a Pfizer drug as well, correct? Yes, there's a Pfizer drug. And there's a lot of other people testing. What is the Pfizer drug? Is it similar to the protease inhibitor? I believe that's correct.

It also is with replication. Right. So, I mean, I think this is a legit question, Joe. replication. Right. But so, I mean, I think this is a legit question, Joe. If I guess you'd rather get COVID next year than this year. Why? Because there's more treatments out there. So if the vaccines are just delaying, you know, even if they don't work forever, if they delay for six months or a year, is it worth the aggravation to get people vaccinated? Well, there is a friend of a friend who is an older person who just got COVID very recently, and they were fully vaccinated, and they were very sick. And they got the monoclonal antibodies, and within 24 hours, they started feeling much better.

36 hours later, they felt really good. There you go. So, okay. You want to say, well, if that person had gotten COVID a year plus ago, he or she might've died. Yeah. It wouldn't be available. That's right. There wouldn't be a vaccine and there wouldn't also be the monoclonal antibodies and also an understanding of what to do and not to do, like not put people on ventilators, that kind of stuff. So the argument, okay, delaying is a good thing and the vaccines are delaying. Let's go with that. But here's, I'm going to tell you, the vaccines are not risk-free. I don't mean that, I don't talk about cost or anything. I'm talking about this ADE,

which we haven't talked about at all. I mean, we talked about it briefly. Anybody who tells you that they know what the real risk that ADE might occur in a few months or a year or five years is lying. I'm not saying it's a high risk. It could be a very low risk, but we don't know what the risk really is. And when you say we don't know what the risk really is, when viruses in general, when they mutate, don't they tend to become less virulent? Yes.

But more contagious? Yes. That's, yes. Because that's actually good for the virus. Yes. The virus spreads. It doesn't kill the host. It spreads to more people. That's right. But the virus isn't making that decision. It's just doing something that makes it more contagious. Right.

Vaccines change that equation, and they change it in ways we don't necessarily understand. Well, Alex, I'm glad you came in here. And it saddens me that you've been censored. I don't like it. I don't like this time we're living in. I don't like the polarization. I don't like this tribal bullshit that's going on. And I think it interrupts the conversation and it stops rational discourse. It's terrible.

It's terrible. It's terrible for all of us. Your book, thank you. Pandemia, they cannot censor it. It will be out. I hope you read it. You are acknowledged in it. Thank you.

I'm going to read it. It's going to sell like hotcakes. I hope so. It's going to sell like hotcakes. I guarantee you. Because this kind of information is difficult to read it. It's going to sell like hotcakes. I hope so. It's going to sell like hotcakes. I guarantee you. Because this kind of information is difficult to come by. And there's a lot of people vaccinated and unvaccinated that want to know what the fuck

is actually going on. And there's not enough people that are telling the truth. You're getting these watered down narratives that are filled with propaganda and no one knows what to do. There's a lot of scared people. Again, both vaccinated and unvaccinated. And I'll just leave you, I know we gotta go, it's been almost four hours, it's crazy.

When you censor people like me, you drive people to these conspiracies. Yes, you do, you do. That's why I was worried about yournews.com. Yeah, that's right, no joke, man! But serious people will talk about depopulation. Oh yeah, no, that's what I was saying, a doctor was talking to me about that.

And I was like, what? I was like, I gotta get the fuck out of here. No, right? Yeah. They start talking crazy. And then they start bringing up stories about billionaires that met at some summit in the early 2000s and talked about having to reduce the population of the world. They're like, wait, what are you saying?

Right. Are you saying they're going to kill everybody? That's like, yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you, sir. I appreciate you very much thanks for having me you're a brave man you really are dude i does not feel that way i'm sure people

say it to you too it just feels like i'm doing what i want to do and trying to tell the truth yeah i think you're doing what you think is correct which is discussing things that are uncomfortable for folks and things that apparently are true i mean mean, you're only reading studies that are published by serious institutions. This is not nonsense. 800 footnotes in that book, and not one of them is from yournews.com. I hope you get reinstated. I really do. I think you are a valuable voice on Twitter.

Well, tell your buddy Jack. He's not going to listen. Maybe he'll avoid being sued. I don't know if he's got, like I said, it's an uncomfortable conversation. I don't know how much control he has. I guess he's

got $10 billion. He does what he wants. I don't know what he does, man. I don't know what he does. All right, Joe. Thank you. I really do hope you get back on. Are you on other platforms? Just the Substack. Oh, I have an Instagram now that I just basically use to repost my Substack. I really do hope you get back on are you on other platforms? just the sub stack oh I have an Instagram now that I just basically use to repost my sub stack

oh okay eventually they're going to get smart and cancel me there well I hope not the stack though the stack cannot go away okay that will be bad

so sub stack so get to you on sub stack yes alright thanks Josh bye everybody to you on Substack. Yes. All right. Thanks, Josh. Thank you. Bye, everybody.