The Joe Rogan Experience - #1864 - Alex Berenson

Episode Date: August 26, 2022

Alex Berenson is a journalist and award-winning author of both fiction and non-fiction. His most recent book is "Pandemia: How Coronavirus Hysteria Took Over Our Government, Rights, and Lives" is available now. www.alexberenson.com

the Joe Rogan experience smell that that's vindication you are the sweet smell of vindication not not not yet my friend not yeah not yeah but it's it's definitely in the air. Has there ever been a person that has gone to court and got back on Twitter besides you? There has not. That's pretty impressive. That's pretty impressive. There's more coming.

There's more? Oh, yeah. So explain the process. So you were, what was the exact definition of what they kicked you off for? Are we live? Yeah, we're live. Oh, good, good. We're rolling. Okay.

All right. So it was almost exactly this time last year, Joe. It was August 28th, 2021. I wrote a tweet that began, it doesn't stop infection or transmission. And they banned me. I went on to say, this is not a vaccine or don't think of it as a vaccine. Think of it as a therapeutic, meaning a drug that has side effects and that you have to dose in advance of illness. And then the last line was, and we want to mandate it, insanity. Okay. I would say that that's been pretty well vindicated by events. That's vindication.

So they banned me. They said that was my fifth strike and that I was not allowed to tweet anymore. And my account was not available to anybody. All the previous tweets were gone. The 300,000 people, too bad. So I sued them in December. And here's – it gets interesting and tricky. So other people have sued Twitter and Facebook and YouTube and Wikipedia, actually all these companies, and said, you know, you've banned us. You know, I just want to be able to use your platform. I haven't done anything wrong. And the company say, we can do whatever we want. We can ban you. We can, you know, attach labels to your tweets, this, that, and the other. And there's a law called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It's a federal law

from 1998, I want to say, maybe 96, that basically was intended for two purposes. Purpose one was we don't want these companies to get sued over stuff that people are saying on them. So in other words, I go on and I say, you know, terrible things, defamatory things about Joe Rogan, or I say terrible things about my ex-wife, whatever. Okay. Or I say, you know, go shoot the president. Whatever it is that I'm saying, I'm saying something that's harassing or hateful or illegal. We can't expect a bulletin board or Facebook or Twitter or whoever to police all that stuff. There's too much of it. It's not fair. So we're going to give them complete protection from that. And that makes

total sense, by the way. All right. You can't, you know, you can't have these people policing everything that's uploaded or downloaded. It's not within their capability. Okay. The second idea was we want these folks to be able to give their users a better experience. And so we're going to give them some protection, limited protection, to moderate the content that's posted. Meaning, let's say I'm posting tons of pornography. And, you know, I'm posting it to a Christian website that, you know, that's advertising itself as a family-friendly place. The idea was the 230 is going to allow me to take action against that user in good faith for harassing or objectionable content. So I'm going to be allowed to ban stuff or to age restrict it. So I'm going to be allowed to ban stuff or to age restrict it. And that was really intended when you look back at the statute for pornography especially. judges in California, which is where most of these companies are based, California and the West Coast,

managed to get bigger protection. And this really, this was happening for a while. And then it really happened in 2015. There was this case where a group of Sikhs, you know, an Indian minority group, the government of India went to Facebook and said, we don't like these people. They're protesting against us. You got to ban them. You got to ban their, their group website. And Facebook said, okay. And pulled them. They sued Facebook. They said, this is not right. And by the way, like this was a classic example of a government telling, uh, you know, didn't want, not wanting dissent, okay? They didn't, the Indian government didn't want to deal with this group, so they told Facebook to ban it, okay? The Ninth Circuit said that 230 protection that allows you complete immunity,

if Alex Berenson says, you know, here's naked pictures of my ex-girlfriend, that also allows you to ban whoever you want, whenever you want. They called it first party, third party. you get for this defamation that Alex might be doing versus your own decision to ban these people who don't want to be banned. And ever since then, 230 has been a beast. And every time somebody has sued, the companies have said, look at Seeks versus Facebook, we win. And that's basically been how it's been. They've been allowed to do whatever they want.

And so, by the way, I know I'm not even talking about my case yet, but this is the legal background. So sometimes when conservatives say, hey, we need to ban 230, we need to repeal 230, that's actually not true. You just need to have the courts interpret 230 the right way, which is you don't get to sue Facebook or Twitter for these defamatory or harassing or illegal posts that other people are putting up. But at the same time, they shouldn't have blanket protection for their own decisions. So they've had the best of both worlds. They call themselves publishers when they want. And as a publisher, I have the protection to publish who I like, not publish who I like. But I'm not a publisher from the point of view I'm more like a telephone company if somebody does something bad over my airwaves. Does that make sense?

That's how they've gotten. Okay. Okay. All right. So fast forward. Berenson Suess. Berenson v. Twitter. Here's what I had.

I had emails from a guy inside Twitter named Brandon Borman, who is a pretty senior executive. He was their vice president of communications, telling me explicitly, hey, we know what you're saying. We are in favor of encouraging debate about COVID. That was in 2020. And then in early 2021, he even went on to say, we're encouraging debate about the vaccines. And we don't think you're doing anything wrong. So I said, not only are they violating my rights as an American,, the California constitution actually has additional free speech protections. And I think they're violating those too. They're specifically, they made these promises to me. They made, they, they modified their contract with me.

And there's a broader point that's important to everybody. When they say we have a COVID misinformation policy, or we have a election misinformation policy or we have an election misinformation policy or, you know, pretty soon they'll probably have a climate change misinformation policy, whatever these policies are that govern what you can and can't say on their platform, they have to follow those. say their contract, and if you sign up for Twitter, you click on something at the end, and you've signed a contract with them, basically. And that contract is written by their lawyers. It's very favorable to them, very unfavorable to you as the user. They're modifying that. That was our argument. They are modifying that when they put out a COVID-19 misinformation policy. They don't have to have a COVID-19 misinformation policy. They could say, hey, we're Twitter. We're going to ban you whenever we want for whatever reason. But they did have that policy. And our argument was they have to now follow it. And the judge, his name is Judge William Alsup. He was in California and he is

not a Trump appointee. He's not a George Bush appointee. He is a Bill Clinton appointee known for being a smart guy who kind of plays it down the middle. He, in April of this year, just a couple months ago, said, I think Berenson's got a case. I'm going to allow this lawsuit to proceed. I'm not going to dismiss it. And that was a major event in sort of the point of view of internet law. Because again, even though I did have these communications with Borman that other people don't have, this broader issue of whether or not these platforms, when they tell you, we're going to have this strike policy, we're going to do these things, do they have to follow that? That's the question. Again,

if the argument is, I'm Twitter or I'm Facebook, I'm all powerful, I operate under 230, and I'm going to kick you off whenever they want, they got to tell people that. Instead, it's like, well, as long as you play within the rules and you color by our guidelines, it's OK. And then they don't even do that. Now you can sue them. So you sue and then did they settle? So I sue in December. In April, we get this ruling and the judge doesn't allow everything to proceed, which from my point of view was sort of unfortunate. He didn't allow my big claims on the First Amendment or my California claims to proceed. And frankly, I still think there's a chance, whether it's me or, you know, it's not me, but whether it's somebody else going forward might be able to have a good claim on California

constitutional law. Because again, Twitter's based in California and the California Constitution is even more protective of free speech than the U.S. Constitution. It actually says, for example, the way it's been interpreted in California, the California Constitution, if you own a mall, you have to let people come in and protest. You have to let people come in and protest. Even if they're – like from the Vietnam War on, even though that's a private facility, you – because you're running this place that's open to the public and that a lot of people who go to, it becomes almost a public facility for the purposes of the California Constitution. And my argument, my lawyer's argument is Twitter is a huge public space. It's referred to itself as a public square many times. It should be forced to do the same thing under California law. And if the federal law, if 230 blocks that, now we have an issue of, you know, does the federal law go too far and sort of hurt First Amendment protections? But put all that aside. Judge didn't allow any of that stuff. But what he did allow was my breach of contract claim to proceed.

And he did something else, Joe. He said, this guy's going to get discovery. So discovery is a legal term. It means that the two parties have to exchange information in a civil lawsuit. So, and it's actually kind of amazing if you think about this, that this is how this works. The lawyers for, you know, for Twitter, we're going to go to Twitter and say, you got to give us all your documents that, you know, that where Alex Berenson is named, whether that's internal or whether that's, you know, Pfizer emailing about

him or whatever it is. And we're going to hand that over to his lawyers so he can help sue us. And I had to do the same thing. I mean, for me, it's not a big deal. You know, it's like me and my phone or whatever, but, but just, and then he said, the judge said, I would get to depose two Twitter executives. And that could be anybody. He didn't put any limits on it. So that could have been like Jack Dorsey. Okay. So if you're a big company, that's a nightmare for you. You do not want that. You do not want to have to go through discovery. You do not want to have to go through depositions. You just want, uh, you, you want a lawsuit to go away. Okay. So, and my position was,

look, the judge gave me this stuff. I'm not backing off. I want those depositions. I want this discovery and I want the right to make it public. And so Twitter, I did not think we were going to be able to settle. But Twitter and I, in June, we had this long mediation. And I can't sort of talk about how that went specifically. But I can tell you that at the end of, well, July 6th, they reinstated me to the platform. We settled. They reinstated me to the platform. We settled. They, I guess you could argue they didn't apologize, but they acknowledged they were wrong to have taken me off last August.

And, and this is the really good part, since then, I've been publishing internal documents where Twitter says that they came under pressure from the federal government to ban me. So this to me, so people said when I settled, and it's funny, it was actually people on the right, they said, this guy, he took all this money to sue Twitter. He didn't care. He just wanted to get back on the platform. He just wanted to be able to tweet. He wanted some money from Twitter. That's what he got. He promised you he'd get discovery. He didn't get it. Nothing's ever going to happen with this. Well, screw those people too, okay?

Because I've now been publishing documents that show that the White House wanted me banned. And that is the biggest part of all of this, okay? That's where the story is going now that people inside the White House, this is, and this is, this is Twitter employees talking to each other about a meeting that they had in April of 2021 before Twitter had ever done anything to me where they said, they said that the White House said, why is this guy still allowed to tweet? And at that time they were saying to each other, these Twitter employees, we think he's fine. We don't think he's doing anything wrong.

Well, you fast forward to July of 2021, just over a year ago, and Joe Biden says anybody who debates the vaccines, if social media platforms allow that, they are, quote, unquote, killing people. And then less or barely a month after that, four hours after that, I should say, Twitter puts a strike against me. They begin the process of deplatforming me. Six weeks later, they deplatform me. So my position, and I'm going to sue. I've said I'm going to sue the White House, and I'm going to sue a guy named Andy Slavitt, who's named in these documents, who was working at the White House at the time. My position is that those, that there are people inside the Biden administration who violated my rights as an American citizen, violated my First Amendment rights, tried to get Twitter to suppress me personally.

That's where this is going. And what was their basis? Like when they said, did they have a very specific thing that they were accusing you of where they wanted you to remove from Twitter? It's not clear from the documents that they had anything specific. They, I mean, the term they use is misinformation. So vaccine misinformation. And in fact, they specifically said, again, this is according to these Twitter employees who are talking about this meeting, that I was influencing persuadable people. So you got to remember. You got to remember what the landscape was last year.

OK. The beginning of the year, January through June, it was, hey, we're going to vaccinate a lot of people. This is going to go away. And yeah, there's people like Berenson who are out there talking about this VAERS data, and they're talking about side effects, and they're a pain in our ass. But ultimately, all those mouth-breathing anti-vaxxers, they're going to see their buddies die, and they're going to see how well this thing works, and we're going to get 90 or 95% of the country vaccinated. Okay, we're going to win. And so there was pressure from the White House, but they felt they were in a really good position. A lot of people have been vaccinated and it did look like, I mean, it looked like the

vaccines worked for a period of time in the spring. I don't know if you remember, but cases, especially in Israel, Israel was always the leader on this. Cases in Israel went down almost to zero. They'd been in the thousands and then they went to zero. Deaths had been close to a hundred a day in Israel. They went to zero. Okay. That was the spring. That was April. They were upset about me and people like me, April. They were upset about me and people like me, you know, disinformation, misinformation. To me, it's journalism, okay? If I'm pointing to you, to government statistics and data, and I'm saying, here's questions, and I'm saying, here's some questions about the clinical trial and how long it went and who was included in it and whether or not it actually shows the vaccine's work as well as you've been told, that's journalism. One man's reporter is another, you know, is another man's disinformation specialist. Okay. Just like one man's terrorist,

another man's freedom fighter. Okay. So that was April, May. Then something happened in June and July and August. The worst case scenario from the point of view of these people. What happened was cases started to go back up in Israel, in the UK, and then in the US. And they had known if they had any sense that the vaccines weren't going to be permanently protective. But I guarantee you, they did not think that that was going to happen in a matter of months. And that set them up to do two things. First of all, they were going to start to push for boosters.

OK, now maybe if all you watch is MSNBC, you could get convinced that boosters were, you know, that was always a part of the plan. But almost nobody who got a vaccine in, let's say, February or March or April thought that they were going to need another one by the end of the summer or the fall. OK, so they knew they knew that they were changing the narrative. Second, mandates. And this was really the worst part, Joe. Right. This was we are going to tie this to your job. We are going to tie this to your job.

We're going to basically force almost every American adult of working age to get one of these who isn't self-employed or who isn't an illegal immigrant. They don't have to get it. But most Americans who work are going to need this for their jobs. And every health care worker and every government employee, I mean, they pushed a lot of people last fall and the anger they stirred was intense and, you know, still intense. At that point, I was a problem for them. I'd been a problem in the spring, but I was a problem in the summer because it was starting to look like I was right. And it was starting to look like this wasn't going to be something you could just, I don't know if you remember the shot in a beer, the lotteries, there was all this sort of quasi coercive crap going on in the spring.

By the summer of 2021, it was different. It was, you want to fly? Maybe we're going to make you get vaccinated. They never did that, but they talked about it. And in Canada, they actually did do it. You want to work? You're damn well going to need you get vaccinated. They never did that, but they talked about it. And in Canada, they actually did do it. You want to work? You're damn well going to need to be vaccinated. You want to go to a restaurant? You want to go to a movie in New York City? You're going to need to be vaccinated.

You want your kids to go to school? Guess what? We're going to make you get them vaccinated. That was talked about too. They don't even want to pretend they said that. But everybody from Gavin Newsom on down said that. So I was a problem for them and Twitter cracked. Twitter had defended me and they clearly internally, at least into April, did not think I was saying anything wrong. And I can tell you, I did not change my reporting

standards. I did not ever say anything. I did not talk about, you know, magnetizing or any of that stuff. I always stuck to the data. Twitter cracked, they banned me. And now we know that the white house was leaning on them. So where do you go from here? Well, I'm back on, um, you're back on. And now I should point out that the things that you got in trouble for are now YouTube has amended their policy. They sure did. So now YouTube is allowing you to say that masks don't stop the spread. They don't protect you. They were also allowing you to say that the vaccines do not stop you from catching COVID or from spreading COVID.

Yep. Because that's true. so that's true. Cause that's true. And this is something that you said a year ago. A year ago. But unfortunately now we're at a whole different set of questions, unfortunately. We're so, so where do I go? Where do I go on Twitter and, and, uh, and the, and the Biden administration?

Well, I'm going to, you know, I'm going to keep pushing. Um, I mean, I'm going to keep pushing. I mean, I'm going to sue. I have I have my lawyer, James Lawrence, who I really like, who, you know, who handled who handled my lawsuit against Twitter. And we're going to be putting together a case against, again, the Biden administration. The only question, you know, you got to do it. You got to make sure it's right. You got to make sure it's nailed down. You know, we which documents do we include? What are our legal arguments? We have people, uh, very smart lawyers who want to be involved in this and help. Um, you know, do we sue in New York? Do we sue in DC? A lot of different questions, but, but that's going to happen. Um, and then, so that's a, but the, but the other question,

unfortunately, we're done talking about whether the vaccines help stop infection or transmission. We know the answer to that. They don't. There's two big questions now. One is, do the vaccines actually increase your risk of getting Omicron? And do they increase or decrease your risk of serious illness if you do? And in some ways, because Omicron is pretty mild and because we've all gotten it at least once, maybe twice, assuming nothing terrible happens to the virus itself going forward,

in other words, assuming the virus doesn't somehow mutate again to become more virulent, it's going to be what we thought it was going to be two years ago, which is ultimately winds up as a cold for everybody. It's just another, you know, virus that you get from time to time. And eventually they'll stop counting the cases and they'll stop counting deaths, in part because they don't want to admit the vaccines do nothing. So the easiest way to move past that is to just stop collecting the data. And you can already see the data is being collected less frequently. It's certainly being publicized less. So that's question A. And I'm hopeful, I'm hopeful basically that we

will get to a point where whether or not the vaccines do any good, the virus itself is essentially, you know, not a big threat. Not that it doesn't kill some people, but that it's not a big threat societally. Okay. But there's a bigger, even bigger issue that no one will talk about right now. And that is what is happening to all-cause mortality and to birth rates in countries that use these mRNA and DNA COVID vaccines very heavily. So essentially Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia, the United States, Canada, there is this notable increase in death rates in a lot of countries. And in the last couple of months, although the data is less clear, there's been a notable decrease in birth rates in some of them. Now, I don't want to overstate this. I'm not talking about like deaths are doubling or tripling or births have gone to zero. When I say notable increase, I mean, it looks to me when you,

and I actually just wrote a sub stack on this that I posted Thursday morning, all cause deaths might be up 10%. And when I say all cause, that's literally what it sounds like. It's like how many people died in Germany this week? How many people died in the UK this week? And other countries are better at collecting this data than we are. They collect it more rapidly. They publish it more rapidly. And then, you know, some people are still dying of COVID, a few.

So how many, when you X out those deaths, you just say, if nobody died of COVID, would all cause deaths still be above normal? And the answer is yes. They'd be about 10% above normal. Now, I don't know whether 10% sounds like a lot or a little. To you, it's, you know, it's a- Sounds like a lot. It's enough that for COVID, COVID caused a 10% increase.

We shut down the world for that increase. And 10% in the U.S., really, less worldwide. With births, the data is a little more kind of all over the map. But what's so striking is birth rates in some of these countries started dropping almost exactly nine months to the day after they started mass vaccinating women of childbearing age. Now, we know the vaccines can cause some menstrual irregularities, and it looks like they can cause a drop in sperm count. It's not clear whether that's temporary or not.

It's possible that this is just sort of a temporary thing and births will come back to normal. Let's hope. But that's where I'm going. On the data, that's what I'm pursuing. I'm pursuing. Is this happening? It appears to be happening. Next question. Why is it happening? And there's you can come up with plenty of explanations that don't involve the vaccines. deaths are increasing because during the lockdown, people didn't go to the doctor, they didn't get medical care, maybe they didn't get exercise, they put on 20 pounds, that's increased their risk of a heart attack. And so now we're just seeing this downstream effect. You could say, well, I think deaths in people who are 30 are increasing because those folks, they were forced to be home, now they're making up for it by partying a lot more.

They're doing, you know, they're doing drugs or they're, you know, they're drinking and driving. And so those kinds of deaths are increasing. So there are stories you can tell that don't involve the vaccines to explain this. But my argument is we need to be talking about this. is we need to be talking about this. And the same people who were screaming about, you know, deaths during COVID need to be acknowledging this and looking into the reasons why. What do you make of these bizarre stories that you see that get published that are starting to blame an increase in heart attacks on climate change. Yeah, it's a joke.

It's strange. It's strange because journalists are publishing these things in legitimate places. Like ABC had one the other day that was widely mocked because it's so crazy for them to say that. Yes, it's bizarre. Like how much climate change are we talking about? Shouldn't the sky be on fire?

I mean, what the fuck are you talking about? Well, I will say this. It is true that when you have these extreme heat waves, especially in Europe where they don't have air conditioning, some old folks are just going to die, basically. They're going to be in their apartments, and they're just not going to be able to get out of bed, and they're going to die.

But that's not what you're talking about. You're talking about these stories where it's like some 30 year old had a heart attack. Yeah. No, that's, it's, it's absurd. It's absurd.

It is absurd. But where do you, are they being influenced? Like, why is someone publishing a story like that? Like what is going on? Like what's, what are the processes in place that would allow someone to publish a story that's that ludicrous?

So I see. I'm glad this is a good thing about talking news. You pull me back because I can get lost in the weeds and the details of, you know, this is what the deaths in Germany were last week. You get me or you think sort of more holistically. So here's what we've learned in the last couple of years. We've learned that the media broadly, the elite media, as I generally call it, but it's the New York Times and it's CNN. Corporations. Corporations. But it's more than corporations. It's a group of people who all live in Brooklyn and D.C. who are – tend to be politically liberal, who all went to the same schools. By the way, one reason they hate me is because I went to one of those schools, right?

So I'm a trader. And you worked for the New York Times. And I worked for the New York Times. So I'm a class trader, OK? class traitor, okay? They have engaged in the last several years in a coordinated effort to sort of present stories in a way that I don't think ever really happened before 2016, before Donald Trump was elected. So these people, when Trump beat Hillary, it was a shock to the system. They couldn't believe that America had betrayed them this way. And there's a famous Onion headline from 2015.

The Onion is always the best. And the headline was something like, Hillary Clinton tells America, don't fuck this up for me. Right. And there was a sort of like idea there was going to be this baton death march where it was going to end with our first female president. God help it. Didn't matter that no one on earth liked her. Like she was going to be the president. And it didn't work out that way. And these people decided, if this country is stupid enough to elect Donald Trump, we can't trust it. And we better work together to make sure nothing like this ever happens again.

So you saw really coordinated stories about how Russia had elected Trump, which turned out to be complete nonsense. And then, you know, Mueller was going to take Trump down. And they, I don't know whether they had actual meetings over that stuff. But when COVID came along in 2020, they did have actual meetings. There was something called the Trusted News Initiative. OK, the Trusted News Initiative was a group of organizations, which I think at the time actually didn't initially include Twitter, which is sort of interesting. It included Facebook and The Washington Post and the BBC and Reuters and a lot of other news organizations. And it was we're going to combat misinformation together.

OK, this was a mistake. and a lot of other news organizations. And it was, we're going to combat misinformation together. Okay. This was a mistake. News organizations should not be working with one another to set the agenda. Okay. They're better when they're independent, chasing their own stuff. Okay. And this is now happening with climate change. It's clear.

The same people who, you know, who were wrong about Donald Trump and Russian collusion, who were wrong about lockdowns and COVID and the effect of school closures and wrong. And I would say wrong completely about vaccines. Now we can talk about where we actually stand right now, but fine. They think that climate change is an existential threat. They have convinced each other that climate change is an existential threat. They have convinced each other that climate change is an existential threat. And, oh, by the way, they also think that, you know, like letting hundreds of thousands of people out of jail would have no effect on crime rates, which turns out not to be so true either. But, but, so they are going to present the same stories over and over again.

They're going to find that, you know, they're dying for a good hurricane. They would love a good hurricane to hit New Orleans or Miami, but they haven't been able to get one in 20 years. So they're stuck writing about, you know, flash floods in St. Louis or whatever. They're going to look for any extreme weather event they can. And they're going to, they're going to talk about how it's all climate change related. And the ultimate example of this is trying to blame some random heart attack on climate change. It's nonsense. Pretty soon they're going to be blaming fentanyl overdoses on climate change. They just, and it is, you're right. this didn't happen until the last few years because they didn't do this.

They didn't work together this way. Can this shit be turned back around at this point? I don't know. I mean, you know, there's people like you. There's people on Substack. But it's, I mean. Yeah, but I'm not a good example of this. I'm not chasing stories and that's not what I do.

I'm just talking to people. So the fact that I can get something that's widely spread and I can, you know, have this podcast and have conversations with people like you and some other controversial folks that have been telling the truth and have been suppressed. It's great. But, you know, clearly I'm not a journalist. Right. And you do need like these or, you know, when you have war reporters in Ukraine, OK, or you have reporters willing to spend a month chasing a story, really doing high end news work is expensive and difficult. And it requires editors and requires trained, you know, there's a skill to it, a legit skill to it. And there's only, you know, there's only so many organizations that can do it and, uh, how we break them out of their monoculture. I don't know. I mean, from, from what, what, what, I mean, so one of the like sad things about this is that there are many stories you could write, for example, about the vaccines that wouldn't necessarily be like all the vaccines are terrible and they're going to kill you all.

You could have written about, you know, like whether or not enough old people were included in the clinical trials. not enough old people were included in the clinical trials. OK, that would have been a legitimate question that once upon a time, the New York Times would have seen we can write stories questioning the development and pricing, let's say, of the vaccines. We can question whether the United States should be putting tens of billions of dollars in profit into the companies, you know, when this is a public health emergency. And those would have been legitimate questions. But because it became so politicized and polarized and ideological,

they fell down even on asking those questions. You can't even bring up whether or not the vaccine related injuries are real. That's right. They won't even discuss it. That's right. It's not, you don't hear legitimate stories about the numbers of people that have suffered strokes and blood clots and all the various ailments

and people that have pacemakers now, they're in their 30s. That's right. Let me give you, to me, what is a really good example of that, so, you know they're diabetes type one and type two right so type one diabetes used to be called childhood diabetes and type two was adult and the reason was called childhood was it's an autoimmune disease essentially right so type two diabetes you just eat and eat and eat and you overwhelm your uh your pancreas and your insulin you become you know you you basically eat so much you destroy your ability to process all that food.

But type 1 is different. Type 1 is your pancreas, you know, you stop making enough insulin as a kid. It's an autoimmune disease. So there are legitimate cases in peer-reviewed journals of people getting type 1 diabetes as adults following mRNA vaccination. Okay. Now, to me, that's a giant red flag. What are these numbers? They're not a lot of cases.

Okay. You know, it's like four cases in Japan, two cases in Turkey. It's what you would call in epidemiology or medicine a signal event. Right. It's a signal that call in epidemiology or medicine a signal event, right? It's a signal that should be followed up on. By the way, you never see these case reports coming out of the U.S. because U.S. doctors are – I think they have decided it's not in their career interest to write too much about vaccine side effects. So to me – OK, that doesn't mean that a million people are going to get type one diabetes following the mRNA vaccinations. What it means is these are, these are really biologically active compounds that we've given

to a lot of people and we owe it to them to figure out what some of these dangers might be. And we are not doing that. be and we are not doing that do you think that maybe with time as more of these instances arise and more people come forward about their injuries and their all the ailments that they've acquired since being vaccinated that this will somehow or another bring people back to where they were before where they were very skeptical about pharmaceutical companies and what they do with their studies and how they disseminate that information? I don't know. I mean, I think it goes back to the question you asked before,

which is how do we get the news media to take this more seriously? Well, they're captured, right? There's a lot of issues. One of the big ones is the amount of money that gets pumped into advertising. We brought it up on the podcast before, but it bears repeating. 75% of all television advertising is pharmaceutical companies. Is it that big? Yes. It's a big number, I know. 75%.

And they think that in news, it's higher, which is fucking bonkers. I mean, you've seen the clip brought to you by Pfizer. Anderson Cooper brought to you by Pfizer. You can't say something that's going to destroy the profits of those companies when the profits are literally what's funding your organization. So, again, maybe it's because I was on the inside. I do see it more as this cultural issue. I think it's both. I think it's because I was on the inside. I do see it more as this cultural issue. I think it's both. I think it's both.

I think the cultural issue with the Donald Trump thing, as you brought it up before, I think that emboldens people and it makes them justified in their actions. That the overall good is more valuable than being completely square with all the data. Yes. Yeah, right? Like, we're going to cut some corners here, but it's because we want you with all the data. Yes. Yeah, right like we're gonna cut some corners here But it's because we want you to get this vaccine right? It's good for you save people. That's right Well, they you know, I mean Rachel Maddow famously said the virus stops with you you get vaccinated. That's it The virus can't spread you can't catch it

It's not true. There's gonna be a lot of rewriting history in the next few months job, but it's it's a they're already doing it I mean there was a there was a smash cut of Fauci. Did you see that? Yes, I did. What he actually had. See if you can find that, Jamie. What he actually claimed he said versus what he actually said. Yes.

You know, that he said he never said shut anything down. But he's 81 or whatever he is. Are we giving him a pass because he's 81? No, but I'm saying maybe his memory sucks. No, his memory's fine. I think it's pretty good. are we giving him a pass because he's 81 no but i'm saying maybe his memory sucks no his memory's fine i think it's pretty good i'm giving him a pass somebody somebody referred to it as the shaggy clip it wasn't me shaggy yeah you know that video no yo you remember that song uh it's it wasn't me he gets caught by his girlfriend. He even caught me in the shower. It wasn't me. That's Fauci.

It wasn't me. Well, I think these guys operated in a day before the internet, and they became accustomed to these sort of patterns of just repeating a narrative over and over again, and then this is the official story, and that's what they did during the HIV crisis. That's what they're doing now. It's the same thing, but now people will go back and pull up clips and make these little edits.

Yes. Here's why it's not going to work, though. Here's why. I'm going to give you this right now, and I'm giving it to you for a reason. This is a whiskey. right now and I'm going to, I'm giving it to you for a reason. This is a whiskey. And it's from a, it's a distillery near where I live in the Hudson Valley of New York. But the reason I'm picking it specifically isn't just that it's delicious whiskey. The guy who runs the place emailed me a few months ago. He said, I'm on your side. Can I, I know it's been a long, you know, 18 months.

Can I send you some whiskey? I said, please do. I said, send me the strongest stuff you got. And so he sent me a couple bottles. But that guy, he hasn't forgotten that they tried to make him get vaccinated. I haven't forgotten. You haven't forgotten. There's a lot of pissed off people out there.

Let's play this. Here, have a little. Do you regret particularly the last one? The shutdown, the sweeping shutdown that some said made things worse. No, I don't, Neil. And in fact, I think we need to make sure that your listeners understand I didn't shut down anything. I recommended to the president that we shut the country down. And the only way to do that is by draconian means of essentially shutting down the country.

We know that we can do that if we shut down. We know that we can do that if we shut down. Well, I think one of the things you really need to do to the extent that you can shut down temporarily the country, I think, is important. Well, if I knew at the time that shutting down would have such a dramatic effect on controlling the spread. Obviously, we would have shut down earlier. There are those who say you shut down destructive things by disrupting the economy. And others say, well, if you save so many infections by shutting down, why didn't you shut down two weeks earlier? But I don't regret saying that the only way we could have really stopped the explosion of infection was by essentially, I want to say shutting down. I mean, essentially having the physical separation and the kinds of recommendations that we've made.

You've been a big fan of Cuomo and the shutdown in New York. You've lauded New York for their policy. New York had the highest death rate in the world. How can we possibly be jumping up and down and saying, oh, Governor Cuomo did a great job. He had the worst death rate in the world. No, you misconstrued that, Senator. Don't let the door hit you on your way out. Yeah. Why is he leaving? Do you think he's in trouble?

Do you think he realizes that the tide has turned? I think he doesn't want to have to sit for subpoenas. He would only have to do that if he stayed? Yeah. Well, he doesn't have to do it this year because the Democrats are protecting him. The Democrats control Congress. If the Republicans win, you know, and I think people still think they'll definitely take the House and possibly the Senate, although that's not as assured as it was a few months ago. Um, but if the Democrats win, they will definitely be targeting him. I'm sorry, if the Republicans win. Um, uh, and you know, I, he's such a megalomaniac. Um, he is trying to stay as long as he possibly can. So, you know, a couple of years ago he said, oh, maybe I'll stay until the end of the Biden administration. Now he's saying I'm going to stay till December. So he's got to, you know, he wants to stay until three minutes before the Republicans take the house. Will that save him? I think it makes it, and this is like, I'm not an expert on what, I don't think they can subpoena him or the process is much more complicated if he's not a federal employee,

they have to negotiate and get him to testify. Remember, there's three separate issues for Fauci, right? Gain of function research. Gain of function research, which he's definitely on the hook about. On the hook. Yeah. That one's the clearest. Yeah.

Okay. This came out of a Chinese lab. I'm not even sure too many people even argue that anymore. There's still articles. There's still articles and they're preposterous. They're preposterous. There's no biological, there's no animal host. That's right.

They have this mapping data that claims, oh, because, you know, most of the cases the Chinese reported first were in the vicinity of the market. It must have been the market. Which is also the vicinity of the Wuhan lab. And by the way, the Chinese knew exactly what they were doing when they were collecting that data. So it's totally compromised data. You can't trust it at all. Well, we've never trusted their data in the past, which is so bizarre. So there's data function, right? There's the lockdowns and his pushing. Now, he's probably got actually the best defense on that one. Right. Because that's about, you know, we didn't know exactly what was happening and I didn't make the decision. I just made my best recommendation. It was these governors who did it and we all agreed. It's OK. But nonetheless, he could he could get some heat for that. And then the third issue is the vaccines. Right.? And that one's interesting because NIH, National Institutes of Health, they were basically a direct partner with Moderna on the – not on the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, but there are two mRNA vaccines. And the federal government was basically more than a handshake partner, a partner of Moderna on that vaccine. And so there's going to, assuming we ever start asking real questions about what the data shows about the vaccine, he might be on the hook for that too. How much of an impediment is

this agreement that they had where they're not allowed to be held liable? It's a huge impediment. So it's a huge impediment for a few reasons. Now, as my lawsuit with Twitter shows, if you sue, the civil litigation process is very powerful. It's not as powerful as a subpoena from a prosecutor. It's still very powerful. You get these companies to hand over documents so you can see what they were thinking.

And for the most part, it's actually kind of hard to believe, but the companies do comply with this. They will, whether it's because their lawyers make them or whether it's because they don't really know what they're giving you or whether it's because they actually believe in, you know, the American justice system, that's probably the least likely, they give you the documents so you can actually see them. No litigation or immunity means no liability means there's no – A, there's no way to get the documents and B, the really good trial lawyers aren't interested because there's no money for them. It also means Wall Street doesn't care because Wall Street, from their point of view, if there's no liability issue, it's not going to hurt the company stock. So they don't care either. So two very powerful forces that could help kind of keep the companies on a straight path are gone. It was so strange to me to watch people blindly believe the pharmaceutical companies, given their history.

companies given their history given the history that they have of being fined insane amounts causing tens of thousands of deaths that could have been prevented causing the opioid crisis all all the things that we know that they lied about hid data distorted data and yet still people were getting pfizer tattoos yeah it was a strange thing to watch, this sort of, what does Robert Malone call it? Mass formation psychosis? And people are like, that's not a thing. But what about, forget what he called it. That thing is clearly real and happening.

We saw people that just put all of their suspicions, all of their misgivings aside from the past and now blindly trust the same organizations that they had widely disparaged just a few months before that. Yes. Yeah. Look, I mean, you can call lots of things. We've all – look, I play poker, okay? And I think of myself as a pretty good poker player. But a few days ago, I was at the casino. It's about an hour from our house.

And I was not having a good night. And I was in a hand, and somebody made a bet. And I was like, I am so beaten here. Like, I'm just beaten. And I called. And then that was like, I'm so beaten here. Like I'm just beaten. And I called. And then that was the turn card, the fourth card. The river card came. The guy made another big bet.

And I called again. Okay. And I didn't have a – I was destroyed. Okay. People make bad decisions. They double down. They fall in love with a hand or with a product and they can't rethink it. And, you know, Tucker would say it's a lack of faith. Right. It's a secular.

You know, it's the crisis of we don't believe in God anymore. We're all terribly scared of our own mortality. We're looking for some product that will save us. Yeah. You know, I think that's part of it. I don't know if that's all of it. I think it's part of it. Certainly, vaccines became an object of secular veneration on the left. I mean, and I'm going, anybody who wants in the office can have, but I will, I'll just read to you very quickly. Here's, here's a couple of the things that people were saying about the vaccines. This is Lindsey Graham. Thank God for nurses who help people in need and know how to use a needle. Thank God for those who produce these vaccines need and know how to use a needle. Thank God for those who produce these vaccines. If enough of us take it, we will get back to normal lives. Help is on the way.

And then here's a guy named Robbie Suave. I think that's how you pronounce his last name, who's a libertarian. OK. People who say, well, the vaccine doesn't actually prevent infection are wrong. The vaccine almost certainly prevents infection. It is akin to a cure. If you got it, you don't have to wear a mask. You will neither contract nor spread the disease.

They believed that. They believed it. It's not like there was just a giant group of people that were lying. They did believe it. And then when they looked at the Israeli data, particularly the early data, they thought they were right. That's right. So this would cause this all in the beginning.

Yes. And in the beginning, it did seem to offer protection. It did seem to help people. But what I'm saying is people were primed to believe. One more. One more. This is from somebody on the left. This is a woman named Molly Jongfast, who was like the voice of the terrified Brooklyn left throughout 2020.

OK, this is what these people thought of the vaccine. Yes, the vaccine is coming. I told myself as I spent my first Thanksgiving without any of my 70 something parents in the hope of keeping them safe. Yes, the vaccine is coming. I told myself as I look ahead to what will be an even lonelier Christmas. Yes, the vaccine is coming, I tell my father who hasn't seen his grandchildren in months. Yes, the vaccine is coming, I silently mouth as I look into my children's bedrooms as they stare into the blue lights of their computer screens,

deprived of school, friends, family, and what used to be called normal life. Now, that wasn't my 2020. Okay. And I suspect it wasn't yours either. But for these people who had terrified themselves about COVID, who had told themselves that, you know, COVID really was the black plague. They needed to believe in something and they believed in the vaccines. And let me tell you, even now it is hard for them to accept the truth. It is hard. I mean, I have friends that were against my perspective initially, and they thought that I was being ignorant and foolish, that I was believing conspiracy theories.

And now they're like, fuck, how did I buy into it? The same people. And some of them are vaccinated. And some of them have real problems now because of the vaccine. And I know a lot of people that got vaccinated had zero issues. None. And I know a lot of people that got vaccinated that never got COVID. And they're okay.

They're fine. And I think that's most people. And if you looked at the overall positive net benefit of the vaccine, I think it saved lives. I will give you the best bull case of the vaccine. I think it saved lives. I will give you the best bull case for the vaccines. So last year, Delta, Delta was clearly a worse variant than Omicron. For a period of months in the spring, probably into the summer of 2020, the vaccines probably reduced the infection rate substantially. That's what they do for a period, you know, a few months. They really do. And then I think the booster in the fall probably

helps some, not as much, because there's definitely, like, you definitely, your first hit is your best hit. There's definitely a limited sort of benefit from boosting. There's definitely a limited sort of benefit from boosting. But let's say that last year in 2021, there was a substantial decrease in the number of Delta infections. Now, all those people wound up getting Omicron this year. But Omicron is not as dangerous as Delta. And we have Paxlovid now. So even just by delaying a few months, you can argue that the lives of some 70 and 80-year-olds were saved. Some of those people who got infected this year and were fine might have gotten Delta last year and died.

Particularly older folks. Particularly older folks. And I think there's a legit case to be made about that. I've actually been meaning to write a sub stack about that because I think it's important that people understand that. But that doesn't mean that this benefited anybody under 50 or 60. OK. And unfortunately, certainly with the myocarditis, which is, you know, this heart infection you can get that can actually be quite dangerous and in some cases deadly to younger people, especially men, the risk is the other way. The younger you are, the worse the risk seems to be. So here's what we should have done. Okay. First of all, we should have tested the vaccines

for longer. And we should have made sure that we tested them on old people who are the most at risk. We didn't do either of those things. But okay. They wanted to get this out very quickly in the winter of 2020, January 2021. Fine. They should have said, OK, we think we have something good here. But because it's been so – it's been tested for such a short period of time and because the technology is so novel, we're going to limit its use to the people who are really at risk from COVID. We know who those people are. You know, over 70, maybe if you're under 70 and you're really severe comorbidities, go get your vaccine. Can't hurt you.

The rest of us, we're going to wait and we're going to see. And we're going to see. And probably if they had done that, they could have had whatever benefits they did have last year without any of the problems that seem to be getting worse. And again, this is why we have to talk about all cause deaths. Okay. Because that is the, those numbers shouldn't be where they are right now. Now, these people that were convinced early on that the vaccine was the savior and that these people would have resisted that narrative that you are going to vaccinate the older folks and the other people are going to wait. They didn't want to wait. No, they were desperate to get vaccinated. But there was also this narrative that kept being promoted, safe and effective. Those were the two words that they used, you know, and it was so prevalent.

It was everywhere. And if you resisted that, somehow or another, you were an enemy of the future. You were an anti-vaxxer. You're an anti-vaxxer, which is that pejorative that they used over and over again. It's like it didn't matter if you had every other vaccine there was. If you didn't believe in this one thing that you stated, and I think accurately so, that you should think of more of as a therapeutic, it's a gene therapy, correct? We can argue about that.

Whatever you want to call it. What I meant by therapeutic was it had a limited window of working. It worked for three, four months. Well, there were certainly people that were resisting the idea that it was a leaky vaccine. Oh, right. Which was crazy because there was already indications that people were... And remember in the early days, it was breakthrough infections are very rare. That's right.

It was breakthrough infections. These were these aberrations. These rare outlier cases and they're not to be taken into consideration. Yeah. And now all of a sudden it's just the norm. It's just and they've changed the goalposts in this weird way

where everybody just didn't want to admit that they were wrong. Everybody didn't want to admit they got duped. So they started saying it too. We've always known. Yep. Total lie. Total lie. And by the way, I will argue this, you know, and this gets complicated

epidemiologically. I don't think the vaccines work very well. Once they stop working against infection, remember they have this period when they do work against infection. I think that once they stop working against infection, the protection they offer against serious disease and death is actually pretty limited too. And I think that's really true for Omicron.

But it gets complicated. They didn't want to release the data on boosters for people 18 to 49 because they said it would increase vaccine hesitancy. That's right. What the fuck does that mean? Yeah, if telling the truth indicates that you're going to have a problem with vaccine hesitancy, the problem is the vaccine, Joe. Right. The problem If telling the truth indicates that you're going to have a problem with vaccine hesitancy, the problem is the vaccine, Joe.

Right. The problem is never the truth. That's right. That's bonkers. That's right. It's a very bizarre time to be going through this because there was such a social push and so many people were upset. And I've seen so many of those people come around now

when they've had friends that have had strokes or they've had their own personal issues with it. And then they've also got it and they got COVID. I had a very good friend of mine who was all about the vaccine and then he got COVID recently. And I'm the first fucking person he called. And I sent a nurse to him and I had him taken care of. We got a monoclonal antibodies. That's another thing that was very bizarre was the not just limited distribution, but preventing people from getting monoclonal antibodies. Yes. Yeah. Well, the Biden administration was playing a game with Ron DeSantis. They, you know, they were trying to get, you know, DeSantis has been the smartest politician about

all of this from the beginning. And he knew that the antibodies were a good idea. And he tried to get a lot of them for, you know, people in Florida. And the Biden administration tried to stand in his way. Not a great moment for the Biden administration. Well, they were also trying to – they were trying to limit the distribution of them, saying that it was based on the earlier strains. Meanwhile, they were trying to increase the distribution of the vaccine, which was also based on the earliest strains. Yes, absolutely correct. It's just how the fuck did we get here?

It's so disconcerting and it just makes you distrust the very foundation of truth that we supposedly operate under. So I wrote a sub stack a few days ago where I said, we need a name for this phenomenon. This phenomenon of I don't really, I used to be somebody, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I used to think, hey, if the government says this is a safe drug or safe medicine, I'm going to take it if my doctor tells me to. I believe in the system broadly. I know it's not perfect, but I believe in it.

And a lot of people, including me, now don't believe in the system broadly. And there needs to be a name for that. The way I described it's you're on the plane. The plane's taken off and you suddenly realize that the guy, you know, the cockpit, you know, the captain, the voice you heard coming out of the cockpit is the voice of somebody who you saw doing some shots the night before in the bar. And it's like, oh, man, maybe I'm not as safe as I thought it was. Not that he's drunk right now, but maybe I'm not as safe as I thought it was. It's that. Yeah, it's that. It's the knowledge that the system is run by humans and humans that have a very clear interest in pushing a very specific narrative. And they pushed it early on. And one of the things you'll find about people in the media that's really bizarre,

they have a complete total unwillingness to admit any incorrect information they won't admit that they've made mistakes they won't admit that they were incorrect they won't admit that they were misled or confused or just flat-out wrong because if they do it opens them up to liabilities it opens them up to not being trusted it opens them up to saying well if you're the expert and you were wrong well you're not an expert don't we all have that though isn't that human nature to uh to not want to admit you're wrong i mean i'm guilty of it too i don't know man i'm a big proponent of admitting you're wrong i think it's very important i think it doesn't

mean that you're it just if you are wrong and you don't admit you're wrong now you're wrong again now you're wrong more and i know it if you are wrong and you admit you're wrong i just know you're a human and if you say i'm sorry i thought this is what i thought this is why i thought it this turns out to not be correct this is one reason cancel culture such actually you know you did admit you were wrong back in January. But you were big enough – I mean, not just big enough, but like big enough and important enough culturally, they couldn't cancel you. They were trying to cancel you. And your apology meant nothing to them.

Well, it's not about whether or not someone's wrong or right. It's about someone being inconvenient and someone being a problem. It's about someone being inconvenient and someone being a problem and the the fact that my platform is not controlled By any corporation so I can have a guy like Robert Malone on and who is he owns the patent for nine? Nine patents in the the invention of mrna technology. I mean he's a guy who fucking knows what he's talking Oh, yeah, you know and they tried to make him out to be a kook I mean, this is a guy with a rock solid reputation outside of that. I mean.

But back to you, right? Like I don't remember the exact words that you used, but you admitted you'd made a mistake. You'd use the word that, you know, was not a good word. And unfortunately it didn't satisfy the people criticizing you. That's part of the problem. Yeah, but you're always going to have people who hate hate you they're always going to be there and they're not

going to want to forgive you that's just them that's on them now if I don't like someone but someone comes out and says they made a mistake I admire that because I think that's an admirable human quality the the ability to swallow your pride and also the ability to want to be forthcoming with truth and just say, this is where I am. This is who I am. This is what I did. I shouldn't have done that. And I recognize that. And if I hurt your feelings, I'm sorry. Or if I misled you, I'm sorry. If I gave you information that made you act in a certain way or go and make a certain choice because you thought that I was informed and I was correct I feel like you have an obligation if

you're someone who's your job is to distribute the truth that's what you're doing if you're a journalist if that's what you're doing if you're a pundit if you're someone on television and you're speaking from a position where you supposedly have some sort of authority or at least some sort of like reasonable research basis to say these things. You should come out and say it. I mean, look, I basically agree. Look, I just said a few minutes ago, I think there's a case to be made the vaccine saved

lives last year. I think there's a case to be made. The vaccine saved lives. I think there's a case to be made, too. But see, I'm not a black and white person. I'm not a one or zero. I'm not binary on these things. I think it's a very messy situation. And I think part of the problem is that we were so indoctrinated with this propaganda. It was so shoved down everyone's throats that people are very reluctantly to abandon their earliest notions. down everyone's throats that people are very reluctantly to abandon their earliest notions. And a lot of their earliest notions were based in anger on people who weren't doing the right thing,

who weren't spreading the right thing. We're doing what they're told. Yes. Doing what they're told. But they thought that doing what they were told was doing the right thing. And I think there's a lot of people that did it with noble intentions. I really do believe that. So here's what I would... Now we're actually pulled back again, right? Here's what I would argue. Even if the vaccines worked,

even if they'd worked perfectly, the way that people like me were treated last year was wrong and are treated now. Yes. It's wrong, okay? The fact they didn't work is just the icing on the cake. But when Joe Biden says a pandemic of the unvaccinated, and if you're not vaccinated, you're going to be sick or dying,

and you're going to fill our hospitals, it was demonizing a lot of people for a personal medical decision. It's wrong. Not allowing Novak Djokovic to play in the U.S. Open because he's not vaccinated. It's wrong. That's now. That's now.

Right now they're doing that, which is fucking insane not vaccinated. It's wrong. That's now. That's now. Right now they're doing that, which is fucking insane. Yeah. It's insane. I mean, he's one of the healthiest human beings alive on earth. And he's had COVID twice. Leave him alone.

Let him play tennis. That's what's even crazier. He has the antibodies. His body's recovered. Yeah. And it wasn't a big deal for him either. No. Of course,

because he's a fucking super athlete. I mean, it's really crazy that we want everyone held to the same standards but we're still not telling people to lose weight i mean if the government cared about you they would say hey you know one of the things we found out 78 of the people who are admitted to the icu with covid are obese and that's a giant problem with your immune system and we have to fix that collectively as a country yeah and here's what we need to do. We need to avoid all these things that are terrible for you and the things that people are addicted to.

Well, I mean, they're doing it with monkey pox, Joe. They tried. Yeah, it's true. The data came out and everybody's like, hey, hey, hey, hold the fuck on. First of all, no one's dead. No one. Second of all, it's 98% one second of all it's all 98 percent unprotected gay sex that's right and the other two percent are liars that's a joke that's just

a joke folks i got it and maybe you can get it it's not a lot of people and it's it's you know it's an unfortunate disease that people are getting for getting reckless. And look, listen, it's a free country, okay? Get reckless if you want to. That's right. But let's be honest with these folks about they're the ones at risk. And by the way, this is what happened with HIV the first few years too. They wouldn't tell the truth about that.

And then eventually the gay community said, look, we're the ones who are dying here. We have to be honest with each other. And we want the government to be honest, too. And hopefully that will happen with monkey pucks. But the idea that the public health establishment, their first inclination is to lie and to not tell you who's really doctor, and it was a very quiet conversation where he was like, I can't tell people what I really think about these things. I cannot. I can't say it. I can't talk about the people that I've treated that have had real issues after being vaccinated. I can't. You know, I can tell you that I know a lot of people who got COVID who really got fucked up by it, really bad.

But I can't tell you that most of them were fat and old. I can't say that. I can't say you, a guy who works out six days a week, you're probably going to be okay. You, a guy who regularly takes vitamins, has all sorts of things you do for your health, you are supposed to be treated the same way as that fat old guy, which is bonkers. Yep. And one of the things that drove me nuts about when they were so mad at me about COVID, forget about the fact that CNN literally used a filter on my face to make me look jaundiced, which

is so- Is that true? Oh yeah, 100%. Yeah, they literally, we've showed side-by-side clips of the original video that I posted on Instagram, which is just me standing in front of my sauna with my iPhone going, I feel pretty good. And then they took that and put it through a filter that made me look yellow. Have you seen it?

No. See, pull it up, because it's so strange. But all those people are gone now, which is hilarious. Brian Stelter, boop. Yeah, they're all on the chopping block. Don Lemon's on the chopping block, Jim Costa, they're all on the way out, which is hilarious. Look, I shouldn't laugh. But they should be because they suck at their job.

It has nothing to do with what they did to me. But look at this. That's the picture on the bottom. That's the real me. You look like the Hulk! Yeah, it's crazy. They wanted to make me look like dog shit. They wanted to make me look like I've been smoking. Oh, I remember

that. Horsey Wormer. Praise his Horsey Wormer. Meanwhile, I didn't praise it. This is what I did. I listed the things that I took and I said I'm way better. Right. In three days. In five days I was negative. Right. No one cared about that. Six days later I did ten rounds in the bag. I didn't I was negative. No one cared about that. Six days later, I did 10 rounds in

the back. I didn't get that sick. And I wasn't vaccinated. And I was 54. You didn't get sick because you're in good shape. Yes. But this is the thing that they don't want you to say. They wanted it to be, this is something that everyone has to do. And if you don't do it, you're not doing the right thing. Listen, there's data. And this is one of the storylines that I need to pursue going forward. You're talking about what's going to happen. There's this whole behavioral psychology movement that governments and private NGOs funded. And really, it started a few years ago, but it really took off with COVID, this idea of how do we nudge and persuade people?

How do we get healthy people to stay home? Because they're not really at risk and some of them are aware of that. So is the best way to try to scare them? Is the best way social pressure? Is the best way to shut stuff down so they just can't go anywhere. How do we get people without actually doing sort of Chinese style?

We're just going to take your rights away. How do we get people to surrender their rights? And the email – I don't think I've said this to you in the past, but the email that I got was just a couple lines a few months ago that stuck with me more than any of the, you know, like obviously a lot of people contact me over the last couple of years. This guy said to me, he said, I thought love and hate were the two most powerful emotions, but it turns out I was wrong. It turns out the most powerful emotion is fear. Fear. And it's true. If you can, if you can scare people, you can get them to do whatever you want. Yeah. Hate dissipates, fear lingers. And especially during a pandemic. And it just, there's a certain level of anxiety that many people in this country already had.

And they had a hard time with just regular everyday life before the pandemic. And then the pandemic came along and that shit got ramped up to 11. And we got to see a lot of very frail psychologically frail people completely fall apart and you saw them on twitter calling people that were unvaccinated they they call them plague rats i mean it's it's just wild and this othering of other people the same people that when roe v. Wade was overturned, they're my body, my choice. The same people. Which, by the way, I think you and I,

we talked about that briefly the last time I was on. I think we both agree about that. That banning abortion is a mistake. Yes. You're not going to get women not to have abortions. You're just going to make them miserable. You're going to make it more dangerous. You're going to make it horrible.

It's a horrible health choice. Yep. And there's conversations to be had, particularly about late-term abortions. Yes. And there's certainly some conversations to be had about cases of rape and certainly underage people. It's like the idea that you're going to flat-out ban that from those people, it's horrifying. idea that you're going to flat out ban that from those people is it it's horrifying yes and and you know look i think as as in a lot of things the europeans have found sort of this you know it's 15 weeks or whatever there's reasonable ways you can do this but i think you i mean

i'm consistent i didn't want to force people to be vaccinated and i don't want to force people to have an abortion or not to have an abortion it's it's and i hate abortion okay anybody who has kids knows that anybody who's seen the sonogram, abortion is murder. It's the murder of a living child. It doesn't mean you can ban it. I wrote something about this a few months ago, the day after that decision got leaked. Just because it's horrible doesn't mean you can ban it. And, you know, all I ask, I guess, of myself is to try to be consistent ideologically. And, you know, if I don't believe that I should have, you know, vaccinated, you know, that I should have to be vaccinated or that I should or that you need to be vaccinated because I want you to be, then it's the same thing with abortion. It's a personal decision, even if I think it's a horrible one.

I guess the one thing people would argue with me about is that I'm not consistent about drugs, that I'm anti-drug use. No, I don't think you are. And you and I had this conversation with Dr. Mike Hart from Canada, and I brought you on here because even though I am a proponent of cannabis, I'm a regular user of cannabis, I think you're correct. And that is in many ways in opposition to my desire to have it legalized. I think it should be legalized because I think people should have the choice and the decision. But for me, it's not that problem.

For some people, it clearly causes schizophrenic breaks It's doing something it at the very least is a correlation Yeah, between cannabis use and I think edibles in general or in particular rather I think there's a there's a connection and I've personally witnessed it. I've seen it Yeah, I know people that went over and didn't come back. I mean yeah We I mean we I remember we talked about this year It's funny like I now feel like we have had a conversation

that's gone on for years about various topics. We have. You know, my problem with cannabis use and with sort of drug use in general, whether it's cocaine or methamphetamine, is that these drugs have risks

that most people use, like underestimate until it's too late. And there's people who can use, like, you know, like you clearly can use drugs and use them your whole life and not have a problem, but there's people who are going to have problems and we don't really know who those people are and they can do a lot of damage,

not just to themselves, but to their families. They can destroy families. And this is just, but this is the case with alcohol. We both just had a drink, you know, it's the case with many,

many, many things that people regularly consume, but human beings are not identical we're not bio-identical the the things that affect you might not affect jamie it's just the way it is with being a human being and to deny that nuance i think is ridiculous and for me as a person who uses cannabis there were so many people that were upset at me that were cannabis users. Just for having me on, huh? Yeah, well, not just for having you on, but agreeing with you. And they were like, what are you doing?

And I'm like, I'm telling the fucking truth. That's right. This is a part of it. And it didn't stop me from smoking pot. That's right. Because it doesn't do that to me. Right. But it doesn't stop me from eating peanuts either.

I'm not allergic to them. You know what I'm saying? It's like, but we need reality and we need data and we need all the truth laid out in front of us so that we can make informed decisions. You can't make informed decisions if the truth is hidden. You can't make it if these inconvenient truths bother some people

and they would rather you deny reality and remove facts from the conversation. That's not the way to do things. Yep. Well, that's why I admired the way you handled that.

And that's why I admired the way you handled COVID. Cause I know the pressure that was on you was substantial. The shittiest thing that's happened to me. And I would actually guess this hasn't happened to you. Is that I've lost a lot of friends. Now I didn't have that many friends and I, and, uh, you know, I'm not like that social a guy. Um, and you know, some of my best friends are not my friends anymore because of, uh, it's cause you live in New York. You lived in Texas that you'd have the same friends. I guess

so. I guess this place is different, man. It is shitty to realize that there are people who, you know, who will let their political views or their feelings about. I mean, and I feel strongly. I feel strongly. First of all, I feel strong. I was right about the lockdown and right about the vaccines. I also feel strongly that even if I'd been wrong, it's my right as an American to be wrong and to be publicly wrong. And I feel like taking people's rights to, you know, whether it's to go outside and play in a playground or the choice to be vaccinated or not, that is just as wrong as can be. Even if it works, it's wrong, okay? Unless, I mean,

if you're dealing with something that's going to kill, you know, 98% of the world or whatever, by the way, then you wouldn't have to have any rules. People would stay inside, you know, till the end of time. But it is it is it was striking and upsetting to me that people I'd known for years would say to me, basically, screw you. I don't like the way you think. I don't like the way you've been talking about this. And I'm not I'm not going to talk to you anymore. I mean, that's your right. But God, like, what does it say about what our relationship was?

It's not a good relationship and you're better off without those people. You got off light. You don't want those people in your life. They're weak. It's just, it's not, there's a lot of people that sit, look, there was a lot of people that were very pro vaccine that were very, uh, anti what I was doing that I still am friends with. And my God, so many of them turned around. My God. I mean, the numbers are crazy. The numbers of people that have emailed me or texted me or called me.

So people come, they say to you, hey, you were right about that. Yeah, comics in particular. Comics that really thought that this was their way back to touring. And they would text me, hey man, I think what you're doing is bad for us because, you know, we need to tour and this and that.

Like, dude, if you get vaccinated, if this really works, you shouldn't care about me because I can't give it to you. That's right. What are you talking about? That's right. So I have to do it so it protects you. I have to wear a condom so your wife doesn't get pregnant when you have sex with her. It doesn't make any sense.

Right. What you're saying is nonsense. But it's a narrative. And it's a narrative that was based on fear. And I understand their perspective. Look, I came within a moment of getting the vaccine. The only reason why I didn't get the vaccine was because I would have had to... The UFC allocated a certain amount of vaccines to their employees.

I showed up on the day of the fights, and I was going to get vaccinated right before I called the fights. I didn't think it was a big deal. I'm like, maybe I'll be tired. I don't give a shit. I can do this. So I showed up, and I said, hey, can I get the vaccine?

And they said, yeah, let me work this out. We'll call you right back. And then they said, because I called Dana White, and I said, hey, how many, we got them for everybody. We got one for you. I go, great, let's do it.

And so then they said I had to go to the clinic, and I said, well, I many you got? Well, we got them for everybody who got one for you. I go, great, let's do it. And so then they said I had to go to the clinic. And I said, well, I can't now because it's Saturday. They said, can you come back on Monday? And I said, I'm back home on Monday. I said, but I'll be back in two weeks. We'll do it then. I said, good. So I was like, okay, good, in two weeks.

Within that time period, two people I know had strokes. Wow. Yeah. This was spring of last year? This was a full-on pandemic. Right when the vaccine started getting distributed to regular people. It was old people at first. Must have been February, March.

Somewhere around then. Somewhere around then. And it was a weird moment where I was like, whoa. And then a couple of people that I knew that were fit. So these were folks who'd gotten vaccinated and then almost immediately had strokes? Within 10, 15 days. Yeah. Now I didn't know if that was the case, but one of them was a fit guy who was in his fifties and the other one was in his forties. It was weird and it got me like, whoa. And then it brought me back to all of my thoughts that I'd always had about pharmaceutical companies and studies and the day what I understand from talking to people from talking to researchers

when they would describe how they were allowed to throw out studies that didn't fit their narrative and that they would do ten studies and then they'd have two bias studies that showed you know what oh 100% effective because you know two people got it in the control but four people got it in the control, but four people got it in the COVID. So that means it was weird fucking – it was weird monkeying of data. The opposite. Two people got it in the – Yep, yep.

But the weird monkeying of data that they're allowed to do. It's not like transparent. Then I talked to John Abramson, and John Abramson told me that when, and this is where it got really strange. Like, John Abramson was explaining how these studies work, and he was explaining how they're funded, and you just realize all the shenanigans that take place in these things, and how they're allowed to manipulate data. Yes. And also that the scientists that are doing peer-reviewed research on the data, they don't get access to the raw data. They get access to the data from the review by the pharmaceutical companies, which is just fucking crazy.

You're trusting the people that make the product to give you the data instead of the scientists having access to all the data and them being able to make their own informed decisions. So there's a, and I, you know, I don't like talking about stuff when I have not read it myself, when I haven't sort of reviewed it myself. But there's a, one of the people in the Pfizer trial, there's a case report. I believe she had a heart attack and died. And it was a few days. I would love if we could pull it up, but I can't remember it. I'm not going to sort of make you try to find it. But she had a heart attack a few days, I believe. It was a young girl. No, no, this is somebody else.

Oh, the different one. She had a heart attack and died after the second shot, I think it was. And the reviewers said, I think they said, you know, she had had maybe she'd had, you know, cardiac disease before. We're we're classifying this as not related to the vaccine. OK, so so the way that works is when the FDA then publishes the report on the you know, they're sort of like review of the vaccine. And when the pharmaceutical company, when Pfizer writes about it, when their researchers write about it for the New England Journal of Medicine, they say there were X deaths in the trial. None were related to the vaccine. OK. And only because there was this FOIA request of the FDA, Freedom of Information Act request of the FDA, that forced

the FDA to disclose lots of documents, including these documents that showed the underlying cases of the people who had died. Do we know that, okay, the reviewer said this wasn't related to the vaccine, but in fact, it was really just a few days after that second dose was given. So people can, now, do I have her autopsy report? No. I don't even know if an autopsy was done. I don't know more than what they said. But the reason I mention this to you is this is an example of how you make data – how you make problematic data go away.

Your researcher, for whatever reason, says, I don't think this was related to the vaccine. It didn't happen five minutes after. And this woman did have heart disease. And sometimes people have heart disease, have heart attacks and die. I classify this as unrelated. By the time it gets to the public through the FDA, all you hear is there were no deaths related to the vaccine. And technically, nobody's lying because that's what the reviewer said. We just don't know and wouldn't have known if not for this Freedom of Information Act request

that maybe it's more complicated than that. And maybe, you know, maybe there was somebody who, well, we know there was somebody who had a heart attack and died post-vaccine, and it was pretty close, but the company just decided to say no, it wasn't related. What's the data when it comes to the VAERS report? How much of it is published versus how much of it is reported versus how much of it is actually taking place? So it's a great question. We don't know the answer to that.

There's clearly underreporting of specific events. And I suspect at this point with COVID, first of all, almost no COVID vaccines are being given. Can I stop you there? Is it possible that it's overreported? No, it is not possible it's overreported. It's possible that here's what the vaccine advocates would tell you. They would say there was a lot of public attention given to this particular vaccine. OK. Right. And as a result, people who had side effects were more likely to report those than if I had got the flu vaccine. Maybe three days later, I had a headache.

I wouldn't report that. So that would mean less underreporting. Right. But it wouldn't mean overreporting. Does that make sense? Yeah, I see what you're saying. So, no, here's the other thing they would say. And here's an interesting situation.

So I actually wrote about this a few days ago. There's a woman in Miami, 64 years old, got the vaccine, got a second dose. It was last April. In May, she was in her car and she had a terrible panic attack. She basically just forgot where she was. Okay. You know, you can imagine you're driving. All of a sudden, you're like, it's like you're in a, you're having an amnesia attack.

Over the next few days, her symptoms worsened. She started having headaches. She goes to the hospital. They don't know what's wrong. By mid-June, this is less than a month later, it's two months after the vaccine, she's hospitalized. She has something called CJD, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Terrible. It's a brain disease.

It's invariably fatal. What's that? Pre-on disease. Exactly. Exactly. She dies. She dies in July of 2021. Her doctors actually wrote up this report because it was so striking to them. It was so closely related to the timing of the vaccine. Okay. And this was published on HCA, which is the Hospital Corporation of America, the biggest for-profit hospital chain in the world. They have an academic website. They put up stuff from their researchers. And then they actually pulled the report, but they claim they're going to repost it. They said they pulled it because too many people had downloaded it, which is an interesting explanation. Yeah, we don't want that.

Yeah, we don't want people to know about our research. So, okay, here's the thing. It is possible, Joe, and I would actually say it's likely that this is a coincidence, okay? CJD is very rare. About three, actually, last year, I think the numbers have been going up slightly, but about 400 or 500 people a year in the United States get it. OK, there's 350 million people in the United States, 330 million. That's one per million, maybe a bit more. But we vaccinated everybody, you know. So some people are going to wind up getting CJD or being diagnosed.

They would have had it. That's right. A few days after the vaccine. And it's just coincidence. OK, I don't know. And at this point, no one can prove that there's a relationship there. And here's the thing about VAERS. You can make that argument about practically any case in VAERS, even if it's five minutes after you could say, well, this person, you know, they were going to have a heart attack anyway. Now, at some point, at some point, if enough doctors who, you know, who are some medical experts in a field,

write enough case reports, and there's enough of an outlier with the myocarditis, okay, myocarditis in young people is rare. And there were so many extra cases following vaccination that even the CDC and the FDA and Rochelle Walensky and all the vaccine fanatics, they couldn't argue about it anymore. They had to admit that this was a problem, that this was happening. But for something like strokes, especially, the more common the illness is, even if there's a big increase, any one case, it's going to be hard to argue. And the increase has to be really big before it stands out. So if you had Peter Hotez or some vaccine advocate on, he would be saying to you, well, Joe, I'm really sorry your friend's had strokes, but we can't know that that's related to the vaccine. And Berenson, that Berenson character pointing at the VAERS data, he was just putting out things to try to discourage people from getting vaccinated, and that's wrong.

It's so weird to hear you say these things because it sounds so logical, but it's more acceptable now for some strange reason. It seems like the tide is turning and then the numbers of people that are upset about the fact that they had been misled and the fact that the data was somewhat, I mean, absolutely filtered. It's just, it's such a confusing time because I don't remember a time where there was this much pushback against data, this much pushback against analyzing something that could be a significant factor

in the rest of people's lives. Yes, I agree. I mean, again, I do think there's, it'd be interesting to see how it goes in the next few months and years because there are people, and not a small number of people, who are angry now that they were forced to be vaccinated.

They feel they were forced, right, at risk of losing their jobs. Yeah. And they are, I hear from them. They are angry. I know people. Yeah. Yeah. And I know people I hear from them. They are angry. I know people. Yeah. Yeah.

And I know people with vaccine injuries that were forced. Well, tell them to email me. I'll write about it. Yeah, well,

get ready. But, but, you know, here's how we know, or here's how I know that the, that the zeitgeist

has changed more than, you know, more than people will even admit publicly. Look at the data on kids. Look at how few children under five have gotten this thing since it was approved in June. And I don't know if Jimmy can pull up the number, but 95% of kids under five have not gotten a single shot. And what's even more stunning to me is that even in that group,

that 5% group that got the first shot, 80% of those kids didn't get a second shot yet, even though most of them are eligible at this point. So 99, 99% of children under five are not vaccinated against COVID. And you're a parent, I'm a parent. If we believed that that was good for our kids or even not bad for them, we'd go do it tomorrow. Yeah. So people know. Well, that's where people are freaking out, right? When you come for their kids. And that seems to be the data on children was so undeniable in terms of like what happens

when they actually get it. I mean, I have anecdotal data because both of my children got it, and it was nothing. Nothing. I mean, one kid had a headache. The other kid, she just didn't feel good for a couple of days. And I've seen her way worse with the flu. Yep. The flu is much worse for kids.

For kids. My parents, on the other hand, were terrified of it. I didn't see him for a year. And they're, you know, they're hardline Democrats. My parents are hippies. That's interesting. And they were all in on the vaccine and they thought I was wrong. How do they feel now?

They, you know, they're reluctant to change, unfortunately. But I think they recognize clearly when I got better so quick that i would at least for my own personal choice i was correct have they gotten covid yes and they've been they've been fine i had them taken care of too yeah it's just it's one of those things man it's just people have these belief systems that they've adhered to and they don't want to let it go and that gave them comfort during the early days of COVID. And it's going to be a slow erosion of that faith that they have. And I don't know what's going to turn the tide for everybody, but I feel like in the future when the dust settles and we get a chance to look

at this accurately, I think people are going to have a very different view than they had when this all was going down. I hope you are right. I mean, you and I are both old enough to remember the Berlin Wall and remember the Berlin Wall coming down. And there was this moment afterwards when the Soviet archives opened up and it was like, we got the truth. We got, you know, we always knew the Soviet was bad and they did X, Y and Z and, you know, these camps and whatever. But to see the internal documents and to realize like they here's what they were saying inside that government. It was I think I think, you know, especially if you lived over there, it was this moment of great relief. Like the truth came out.

You know, we always knew they lied to us. We always knew that they were terrible and they cheated us and everything else. But here's the truth. And so, you know, I'd like to believe that maybe we'll have that moment with this. I'm not so sure. I think the people that stick to the original narrative are going to feel so foolish. I really do. I think they're going to push back against it for as long as they can, and they're going to stop talking about it.

They're claiming that the vaccine saved 20 million lives last year, which is a joke, Joe. How many do you think it saved? Maybe saved a million? How many old people? How many fat people? I mean, it has to have saved people. No, again, I think it is... So again, the math gets really complicated. First of all, it's not an accident that both in the U.S. and the U.K., the deaths and Israel deaths went up in January 2021 because there is this period of time after you get the first shot, you are definitely more vulnerable. That's why you don't vaccinate for the flu in the middle of flu season. You try to vaccinate out of season. Okay. Well, that's what they always have said in the past about pandemics. But they didn't do it in this case. Okay. So A, there was that period. Then you had this, what I call in the book and what I've always called the happy vaccine valley. Okay. You get this period where it actually works for a few months. All right, that's where

the lives were saved, the spring of 2021. Okay, I don't know how many lives that would be. Then it started to break down. They gave people a booster. They got a couple more months. Then Omicron came along. Since Omicron, the vaccines are useless. Useless, if not negative. And I am promising you that it's against infection. The data is clear. And I would again argue against serious disease and death. Also useless. It's a complicated data argument. I'm not going to bore you with it. But at the least, they're not very useful against Omicron. Is that because they believe that Omicron is a vaccine escape variant? Yes. Probably because we gave it a billion-person target of people who all had the exact same immunity. No anti-N antibody immunity, just the spike and a very specific version of the spike. We gave the virus a target. And the virus, you know, it's going to mutate in the way that it gets the greatest benefit. All right. So the vaccines are now useless. They're useless now. There was this

moment in January of 2021. I don't think they did any good because, again, you have that first month or the first couple of weeks of where infections actually appeared to rise. You have a few months of protection. How many people got saved? I don't know. How many of those people were under 50? Almost none. Do we have any data on why they tried to stop the distribution of the antibodies? Well, yeah, because they said they didn't work against Omicron.

So, again, you made the point. Because they said they didn't work against Omicron. So again, you made the point. If the antibodies don't work against Omicron, why are we giving people this vaccine that causes your body to produce the old spike? And I'll tell you something else. This Omicron booster, it's basically BS. It's basically PR. Okay? OK, because anybody who got vaccinated with the original, their body, it's called original antigenic sin.

It's called immune imprinting. Your body is going to be focused on the original, even if you get the new vaccine. And this is the theory as to why Omicron evades it, because your body is looking for something that's not there. And then this other virus comes in and gets the spike. The spike is different in shape. Right. So this is like this. You know, the simple coronavirus, it's a you know, it looks like a fist with these with these spikes sticking out. But the spike itself is actually this incredibly complicated, essentially coil of proteins. OK.

And Omicron is has different proteins in various places, so the coil looks different. It's subtle, but it's different. And that means that these antibodies that you're making, when your body recognizes it's been infected again, don't attach to it the same way. They don't, quote, the term is neutralized. They don't neutralize it in the same way. Now, what is this? Conspiracy theorists love to cling on to. I can't believe I used that pejorative, but that's it. They love to cling on to this notion that COVID has not been isolated.

What does that mean? I don't know. I don't know what they're talking about. We know we have the genetic formula for COVID. We know exactly what it looks like. They've taken electron microscope pictures of it. It's been isolated. They say the same thing about HIV, that HIV doesn't really exist.

HIV exists. These viruses exist. They kill people. Yeah. Why do you think they say that it hasn't been isolated? What's the purpose of that? So I believe that it's sort of a corruption of the argument, which I think actually is true, that the Chinese never provided the original virions. So when they isolated the original virus in Wuhan, in Hunan province, in Wuhan, in Hunan province,

they didn't give us copies of that. They just gave us the molecular, the formula. I think that's where that complaint comes from. So where it stands with you now is that you are in the process of preparing to sue the federal government? The United States government. And now what specific branch? I'm going to sue the president.

Maybe it's technically the United States or maybe it's actually Biden himself. I'm going to sue Andy Slavitt. I'm going to say they violated my First Amendment rights by attempting to get Twitter. Twitter is a private company. So, you know, again, we can argue about what the California Constitution might, you know, give what rights it might give me. But putting that aside as the First Amendment does not apply to private companies. Right. So Spotify, you know, they want to they want to carry you or they want to carry me or they want to carry Rachel Maddow or whoever, right?

They're a private company. They have the right to do what they want. Twitter, the argument is Twitter is just a bigger version of that. So if they want to dump me, they have the First Amendment right to do that. And again, we can argue about whether California actually stops them from doing that. But put that aside. The federal government doesn't have the right to stop me from speaking, right? Unless I'm screaming harassment at somebody for six hours, then I'm committing a crime.

But it doesn't have the right to stop me from being outside and speaking or speaking in my house. I have the right for stop me from being outside and speaking or speaking in my house. It's, you know, I have the right for freedom of speech. And when, when whoever it was in the white house, uh, told Twitter, and again, we can, we could pull up the exact language, but you know, Twitter executive or Twitter employees said to each other after this meeting, they had a very tough question about why Alex Berenson is still on the platform. Okay. So this is like third hand? No, not third hand. It was somebody at the meeting. Somebody at the meeting. Talking to somebody else at the meeting. And then they said they

were very interested in Alex Berenson. That's another direct quote from this meeting. And what human being was saying that? I don't know that. The discovery that I have obtained in this lawsuit doesn't include the names of certain Twitter employees. So Twitter, for example, if it was Jack Dorsey, I would know. But junior employees, I don't care who said it. In other words, I'm not in this to damage some junior Twitter employee. So I don't care whether it was person X or person Y. I know he or she worked for Twitter. I know they were having a Slack channel conversation. And I know this is what they said. So my argument is going to be – and by the way, I have more discovery on the way. I keep publishing new documents. Last week or just a couple of days ago, I published something showing that Oliver Darcy of our favorite network, CNN, went to Twitter to complain about me and basically try to get me banned. Although he didn't use those words.

What specific claim had you said that he was in opposition to? I can't remember. I think he complained to them a couple of times about me. Once he's mentioned my name and then once it just says a CNN reporter. This was in July and August. Why would a CNN reporter? Because they don't believe in free speech for anybody but themselves i don't know ask him but how strange is that that a journalist would contact a social media platform i i agree on the you know on my on the sub stack i said journalists who hate journalism that was the headline um but headline. But it's not just that. It's like, what weird overstep is that?

You know, it's phrased as, are you going to do anything about this because this guy's spreading misinformation? Well, is that because they were doing an interview with this person and they were trying to figure out like- No, no, no. It's just about a tweet. No, no, no.

It was me saying stuff that people didn't like, that they call misinformation, and then they go to Twitter and say, this guy's using your platform for evil. You need to do something. Or are you going to do anything about it, Twitter? That's how they phrase it. When The Atlantic wrote that article about you, the wrongest man of the pandemic. The pandemic's wrongest man, yeah. How many of those things that they said turned out to be absolutely true? That's a good question. The single best thing in there, and I'd have to go back and look, is they said, Berenson claims that infections increased after vaccination. That's totally wrong.

Infections decreased after vaccination. That's totally wrong. Infections decreased after vaccination. Well, that sentence has proven not to be so accurate in the last 18 months. What was their other claims that you'd said? Were they right about anything? Well, we got to go back and look. I mean, there were a couple of things that they were sort of focused on that I didn't really say. Like, they were talking about how cases were counted during the clinical trials, which was something I didn't care about. I can't remember what else they said.

I think if you went back and looked, you would say a couple of their points have not been proven wrong and a couple have at this point. But the tenor of the piece was this guy's an idiot or worse than an idiot. He's spreading lies and the vaccines really work and are going to get us out of this. And it was also that you're a grifter. No, they weren't calling me. I don't think they called me a grifter at that point because that was pre-substack. Okay.

So the grifting stuff really started after the stack because I didn't get paid to be on Twitter. Although I did write those booklets. I don't know. I can't remember if they used the word grifter. I hate that word, but what can I do about it? But the last line in the piece, Joe, was something like the case against the case for the vaccines is built on scientific evidence. The case against the vaccines is a steaming pile of horseshit.

So that, so that's, you know, what is the the problem with that term scientific evidence is now that we know where the evidence is coming from and how the evidence is actually being relayed to the people that are reviewing the evidence. It's not raw data. Well, it's, I mean, it's more, a vaccine sort of by its nature is supposed to be a long-term solution, right? So one of the points that I made was because we rushed this out and then because we blew up these clinical trials, in other words, we gave everyone who had the placebo the vaccine. Why did they do that? Well, this is a legitimate – I think it was a terrible idea, but this was the vaccine. Why did they do that? Well, this is a legitimate, I think it was a terrible idea, but this was the argument. The argument was, we know these work and we have a couple months of data showing that they're not dangerous. And so it's unethical to deny these people who took a

risk, you know, because we don't, you know, they went into the trial, we didn't know how well the vaccine would work. Now we know it works. We have to allow them to be vaccinated. And since we're rolling this out to everybody, as a practical matter, they're going to go get the vaccine anyway. So we might as well offer it to them. And the FDA agreed with that. But what it meant was we don't have any long-term safety data that's really clean.

And now that all these – the strokes, the myocarditis, and worst of all, this increase in all-cause deaths that no one has been able to explain. Now that this stuff is piling up, if we had this group, if we had continued the trials and said to those 20,000 people who'd been gotten the placebo, you can't get the vaccine. We need you to continue to be in this control group so that we can compare your outcomes to the vaccinated people for the next five years. I'm sorry. We just need you to do this. It's important for it's important because we're going to give this thing to a lot of people and we need a clean group. We would be able to say, OK, right now, if 50 people in the vaccinated group had died of anything and 100 people in the placebo group had died of anything, I'd feel pretty confident saying to you, hey, vaccines are pretty safe. Even if it was 50-50.

Say, OK, you know what? Yeah, we have this weird thing happening with all these deaths, but in this really good sample, there doesn't seem to be any problem. You know what? So Berenson's just, he's just firing flares, okay? On the other hand, if it was 100 people who'd been vaccinated had died and 20 in the placebo group, then we say, this is not good. And we really need to look at what might be causing this, whether or not the companies want us to or not.

The problem is we don't have either of those. We don't have any of those because we blew up the placebo group. So we are operating in a – it's not an information vacuum. It's worse than that. Okay. This is why if you were a doctor in 1965, okay, if you were somebody who operated on lungs, okay, or you're an oncologist of any kind, you knew, you knew that cigarettes were poison. Okay. You'd seen too many cases. All right. By the the late 50s, the early 60s, and the epidemiology was very clear. Cigarettes are not good for you. You smoke for a long time, they're not good for your lungs.

I can't believe I, you know. Duh. Duh, right? Joe, it took 35 years for that to become the public consensus and for people to stop smoking. And that was something that was like a 25 to 1 risk ratio. Everybody who got lung cancer after the 1960s was a smoker. Didn't matter. It took forever.

And the companies threw up every single obstacle they could. Oh, people have a genetic predisposition that makes them smoke and makes them have lung cancer. There's no chemicals that, you know, we burn all these chemicals that you find in here, so it's not there. I can't even remember. They had all these excuses.

It took a long time. And so, with this, it's going to be worse. Why do you think it's going to be worse? Well, because the risks are seemingly marginal, although a marginal risk over a huge group of people can still be a lot of injuries and death, because it's not just that the companies don't want to do any research. It's that the governments encourage this. So they're not going to want to find out the answer. I mean, I wrote something like this a few weeks ago where I said,

the problem for the public health authorities is that even announcing an inquiry, even saying, you know what, we're concerned about this rise in all-cause deaths, we're going to look, would throw into doubt the last 18 months. to look would throw into doubt the last 18 months. Yeah. Is there any data that's being done on the all-cause mortality increase or is there any studies? I mean, there's been some report, you know, so like, you know, the UK government reports the data each week and they break it out. The Australian government has been reporting the data monthly and they actually have said,

you know, here's the baskets, right? So here's the people who died of diabetes and that's been a big increase. Here's the people who died of Alzheimer's, that's been a big increase. So beyond that, no, not really. There's not been this – you know, I sort of outlined what would have to happen. This is a national level problem. So the analogy that I use is like – so there are some problems that like you can solve as a person. There are some problems you can solve with like civil litigation and regulation. There are some problems that you need a subpoena and a gun and a badge to solve. Right. And then there's problems that are bigger than that.

Right. Like we're like, no, despite, you know, despite what Hollywood, you know, what, you know, Sylvester Stallone or, you know, or Chris Evans can't fly to Ukraine and get the Russians out. Right. That's a national level problem, which requires, you know, a government or group of governments to figure out. The vaccine issue is now a national level issue. Right. It would require like enormous data collection, somebody in charge asking the right questions and a decision that we're going to find out the answer, even if it's really unpleasant. Maybe it won't be unpleasant. Maybe it will, but we're going to find out the answer. Is there any possible connection to people getting COVID and developing heart issues and that leading to the all-cause mortality increase? So that I think is going to be the case that's made. I don't see it.

So there's this long COVID thing, right? There's this idea you get long COVID. What is long COVID? What is long COVID? Has it been defined? It's people who still suffer physically after having had COVID. Not always physically. Sometimes psychologically, psychiatrically. Psychiatrically. Yeah, yeah. So here, look. That's what they're calling lung COVID? Oh, no, no, no. It's brain fog.

It's fatigue. It's anxiety. No. Look, if you actually got really sick with COVID, you know, you're unlucky or you're old or whatever. And let's say you wound up in the hospital. You wound up on oxygen. You wound up on a ventilator. Lung damage.

Lung damage. It's going to take you a while to recover. I mean, just like, you know, the flu or whatever, getting put on a ventilator is bad for you, right? I mean, you even need it to save your life, but in the long run, it's not, you know, it's not good for you. So those people, you know, I can believe they have post-COVID symptoms, but that's not what we're talking about mainly when we're talking about long COVID.

It is a group of – I get in trouble, but I'm just going to say it because it's true. It's a group of middle-aged women generally with anxiety disorders or other moderate psychiatric syndromes who oftentimes had other sort of ill-defined, whether it was fibromyalgia or irritable bowel, you know, this stuff that doesn't really get worse or better. It kind of comes and goes. It's not easy to define or treat. These are the people who say they have long COVID. Not always, but mostly. And it is very hard to connect those illnesses, whether it's fatigue or, you know, uterine fibroids or whatever the syndrome of the week is, with serious, you know, strokes and heart attacks and the stuff that actually kills people. Now, when we talk about myocarditis, like what is the data in terms of people who got COVID and got myocarditis versus people who got vaccinated and got myocarditis? So the argument people will make, sort of the vaccine community will make, is that... Is there a community of vaccines?

The vaccine advocacy community. Sometimes I think they are actually vaccines. They love vaccines so much. Is that, you know, there's very high rates of myocarditis in people who got COVID. So the problem is, you know, when you actually, when you really dive into the data, it's not clear. Let's just, you know, I'm not even going to argue. Let's just assume that's true. Okay.

Here's the real problem. The problem is the people who get myocarditis after getting COVID are old generally. Okay. People get myocarditis after a COVID vaccine are young generally. So once again, it's an issue of why did we vaccinate these people who aren't at risk from COVID with a shot that is bad for them? Well, they didn't think it was bad when they first got it. They shouldn't. The default should have been this is a technology that has been used in a few hundred, a couple thousand people in clinical trials in the last five years.

We've been unable to advance any of these drugs out of phase one or two testing. Why on earth are we telling a healthy 20-year-old or 10-year-old or 30-year-old who's at zero risk of serious complications from COVID to get this shot? And it shouldn't be, by the way, it shouldn't be to make grandma feel better. You do not make people get medical care to make somebody else's life better. That's not how it was supposed to work. Particularly after the wide distribution of the vaccines for those people. That's right.

Because if it did offer the protection that they were advertising, it should have been a non-issue. That's right. It should have been like, well, you didn't listen and now you have COVID and now you're sick and I'm not. That's right. It should have been like, well, you didn't listen, and now you have COVID, and now you're sick and I'm not. That's right. Because I did the right thing. Another wonderful aspect of last year that all these people want to forget, the I'm going to deny you medical care. Yeah.

The you didn't get vaccinated, so screw you. Everything, including children who needed heart transplants. Yeah. Wild. Yeah. It needed heart transplants. Yeah. Wild.

Yeah. Wild shit, because with what we know about the potential risks of the vaccine, giving that to a child who's already compromised doesn't seem like a wise choice anyway. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, look, so, for example, in Denmark now, they're not giving the vaccine to any kids under five, except if those kids are really sick. So the idea is, you know. Immune compromised people.

Yeah. And maybe like maybe COVID, COVID is a risk for you. So we're going to we're going to hope that the vaccine is a better alternative for you. So, like, again, I get that. The problem with that is that then they should have tested the vaccine on more of those people before, you know, making these assumptions. But at least that's like a reasonable way to look at it. Do they have a theory? And, you know, I know Dr. Peter McCullough has a theory. Well, he has his opinion on this, but what do they think is causing these adverse reactions? So the best guess is that it's often autoimmune. So again, this is what the diabetes points to. This is what they're, you know, there's cases of shingles and sort of bad psoriatic arthritis, bad, in some cases,

rheumatoid arthritis. These are all autoimmune conditions, right? So your body is attacking itself, right? Your immune system is going haywire, going into overdrive. Well, what does the vaccine do? The vaccine is designed to encourage your immune system to ramp it up in case you are infected with COVID. So is it possible that that is having off-target effects in some people? Again, as you said, we're not all the same. It's not everybody has a peanut allergy. Maybe some people, for whatever reason, have these bad autoimmune reactions. Now, there's another theory that it is simply the spike protein that your body, you know, you make the vaccine, makes your body produce the spike protein.

And so if what we were told, and I believe the CDC has now taken this off its website, is that the spike protein would be very, very localized. They just took it off their website. So they're now admitting that that's not always true. And maybe the spike itself, even if it's unconnected to the rest, the coronavirus can have especially heart problems. So those are sort of the two primary theories. What I will say is this is where like an A-team of immunologists and virologists and people who are like specialized in organic chemistry. Like this is where we need those people to be operating outside of Pfizer and to be coming in clean and to be really looking for what the answer is. And maybe the answer is, you know what, we've looked for a year and we really actually don't think the vaccines cause any of these problems. But I would feel way better if it weren't the same people who'd been saying since December of 2020, the vaccines are perfect

saying that. Why is it affecting young boys and young men so much? So, you know, another great question. You know, one theory is that the analogy that I've heard is that so, like, if you're a young athlete, for example, you know, you're the equivalent of a fast car, right? So if the engine is going to blow, it's going to be more obvious in the case of a car that's, you know, 10,000 RPMs, you know, than, you know, most of us who are semi-sedentary. Hence the soccer players dropping off flies. Exactly. 3000 RPMs a minute, uh, you know, then, you know, most of us who are semi-sedentary. Hence the soccer players. Exactly. Exactly. Um, uh, so that, you know, essentially that, that there's going to be other people who've had heart damage. It just hasn't shown up. Now I will, I want to say one positive thing about the myocarditis, which is, uh, you know, the studies that have been done seem to show that after a few months, you don't see few months, you don't see long-term heart damage.

Now, I would say, you know, have they looked really, really hard? They haven't looked really, really hard, but they've looked pretty hard, and they seem fairly confident that whatever, you know, adverse impact doesn't necessarily last that long. Well, that's good news. Yes. And this is good news for the young people that suffered from it. Yes. Including one of my friend's sons who was 21. They forced him to get it and he had a terrible reaction.

This data that they have on the long term, what is based on, what is it based on? What are they, how are they measuring the myocarditis? Are they, are seeing a dissipation of the myocarditis? You go back and look at, you know, what somebody's ejection fraction is and how well their heart is pumping. And you can, you know, you can, you can image the heart now. I mean, in some ways, medicine is just, it's just absolutely amazing, like what they can do, right? And so they're not seeing long-term heart damage. They're not seeing necessarily elevated enzymes. If your heart starts to deteriorate, you get CK and troponin and these other enzymes that they can measure.

So there's all these ways to measure how well your heart's working. And again, I'm not a cardiologist, but my strong impression is that the data shows that after a few months, people seem to be better. Well, that's good news. Paxlovid. Paxlovid, I like. People hate me for liking it. Why do they hate you for liking it? Because I love ivermectin. My readers love ivermectin, which I think is fine, but basically a placebo. Really? Yeah, pretty much. Why do you think that?

It's complicated. Didn't we get into this last time? But it's worth it for people that didn't listen. Not everyone listens all eight hours. I don't think so. I think most people don't. I'm actually amazed how many people will come back to me and quote So no one, not everyone listens all eight hours. I think most people don't.

I'm actually amazed how many people will come back to me and quote me something that I said, like two hours. I'm like, wow, you listen to the whole thing. I think ivermectin, first of all, I don't think it's particularly dangerous. And I think anybody who wants it should be allowed to use it under a doctor's care. I don't think there's like a great theoretical justification for it. And I think that the data – when they've tried to do prospective trials – so there's – you can go look at a bunch of people who got it and say, oh, they did really well. And we're going to find an equal group of people who didn't get it and see how they did. But there's always a little bit of cloudiness around how good that data really is.

The best way to do it is to take 1,000 people, say, I'm going to give 500 of you ivermectin and 500 of you nothing, and we're going to see how you are a week later. And there have been a couple of those trials done, and they haven't shown great results for ivermectin. And is it the dosage that's recommended by the FLCC? Like what is the – because that's what I've heard. Here's my argument. That's the pushback.

If the drug works, you're going to see an effect. There may be an ideal dosing level, but if the drug broadly works... Look, if you take antibiotics, if you have some nasty infection, you take antibiotics, you skip a day. You skip day six out of the 10 days or even day four and days eight or whatever, you're going to get infection cleared up. If a drug broadly works, it works. And you can start to argue about it's not, you know, the dosing wasn't perfect. People have to make guesses going in. Right. And, you know, as far as I, and I have done some work on this, the people who conducted those trials discussed the correct dosing with some of the very big ivermectin advocates on the way in.

of the very big ivermectin advocates on the way in. So they didn't get the results that the ivermectin people were hoping for. And now the advocates say that the trials weren't properly conducted. What do you think about the assertion that it is prophylactic? Viral replication in vitro was stopped by ivermectin, right? Yeah, yeah. I mean, you can stop- So there's a mechanism. You can stop viral replication in a test tube with a lot of things. Right. It doesn't mean it works in a human being.

So, you know, I'm just broadly unconvinced. Now, Paxlovid, they ran a clinical trial, and it had very, very positive results. We could find it, but zero deaths versus eight deaths in the unvaccinated, and a big decrease in hospitalizations. What's the mechanism? So it's called a protease inhibitor. This is well-known. It blocks viral replication.

And I know people have said, well, ivermectin is also a protease inhibitor. But what's funny is that until Paxlovid came along, they weren't saying that was the mechanism of action for ivermectin. But it still is. Yeah, but they had a different theory before Paxlovid worked. Did they have a different theory or did they have a different narrative? I think in I mean, I think in this case- Because once they brought up the protease, the way I understood it is once they brought up the fact that Paxlovid was a protease inhibitor, then people started saying, yeah, well,

yes, but so is ivermectin. Right. But you can't, if you're going to say ivermectin works because it blocks entry of the virus into the cell, which I think was the original theory. And then some other drug comes along that works really well and has a different mechanism of action. It seems to me bad faith that all of a sudden you say your drug is just like that other drug. But does, is ivermectin a protease inhibitor? I mean, people have said to me, look, here's this paper showing that it does,

you know, that it does have this effect as well. This is, again, this is a level of complexity of sort of, you know, I would say virology complexity that I don't claim to be an expert. I don't claim to be able to say, having read this paper, I can tell you that this, that ivermectin works as well as a protease inhibitor as, as Paxlovid did and does. What I can say, this is what I am good at, Joe, is saying, you guys are changing your story on this. And that's what I say to anybody on any side. Right. Right. You're very consistent. So that's why I'm skeptical. Now, the other argument about Paxlovid is, well, they tested in the unvaccinated. They didn't test it in the vaccinated. So how do we know it actually works in the vaccinated?

Well, there was a pretty good retrospective trial where they looked at two groups of people with Omicron. And once again, they had very positive results for the Paxlovid group. Now, if you want to say to me, you just said to me, that's not a good kind of trial to do. You discounted all the positive ivermectin trials that had that kind of study where you go back and look instead of going in at the beginning and then measuring the two groups. I will say to you, you're correct. But what we don't have for ivermectin that we do have for pexlovid is a prospective trial with the same good results and is that just because they haven't been conducted no no no there's been ivermectin prospective trials they've and they

this is the one we're talking about where they supposedly didn't use the right amount so at some point you got to stop making excuses for your drug. And here's what I say. When people try to tell me ivermectin works, I know all these people who took ivermectin and didn't get sick. My argument to you, and I say this about all these things, in most people, COVID is just not that dangerous. I think I got in trouble because what I said was I could give you Alpo and you'd probably recover from COVID if you were healthy. This is why you got to test the vaccines in people that are high risk. You got to test Paxlovid in people that are high risk, which they did. You got to test the monoclonals in people that are high risk, which they did. You got to

test ivermectin in people who are high risk, which they did, and they didn't find a good result when they did it. I've seen recent articles that have started to promote this narrative that Trump is to blame because he fast-tracked the COVID vaccines, which is really fascinating because if the COVID vaccines were what you were reporting, not you, but what these people were reporting, where you were reporting, not you, but what these people were reporting, that means it's safe and effective. So why are you upset that he fast-tracked something that was proven to be safe and effective? Yes. See if you can find some of those articles.

Just in the last couple days. It just started to roll out. And to me, knowing that the government did come in contact and even cnn came in contact with twitter about you i wonder what kind of influence is causing these new articles to be released trump white house this is a politico trump white house exerted pressure on fda for covid 19 emergency use authorization house House report finds. Trump officials tried to bully FDA over COVID treatments, House panel says. This is The Guardian. So this is a recent narrative that it's one of those trusted news source initiative weird

things that you realize that, okay, there's a signal. Where's the signal coming from? Right. Is it that they're starting to realize they're going to just have to drop the idea that the vaccine's worked at all? And who's to blame for that? Right. Yeah. It's a good question.

I mean, I do wonder this fall, is anybody going to get this booster? I think a lot of people are going to get it. Do you? Sure. There's a lot of people that are all in still. Yeah. There's people that are all in that I know that are all in. I guess so. Are any of them under 50?

Most of them are not. Yeah, I think most of them are not. You know, there's a thing of B cell and T cell immunity that's imparted by that it doesn't – the T cells that you gain don't work very well against Omicron, which is another reason that I think that this notion that the vaccines give you any help against severe disease is nonsense. you see, if you look at New Zealand and Australia, which are very interesting cases, because those countries locked down hard, right? And, you know, New Zealand's a couple little islands. Australia is a big, big island, continent-sized island. They were able to control COVID for two years, right? Really control it. And so they had almost nobody who was infected. You know, they were going to be the great success story, the ones that showed how terrible Donald Trump was, how terrible I am. They got through it with no deaths. They had no deaths in 2020, almost no deaths in 2021.

Then they got everybody vaccinated. They win. It's only one problem. They've had terrible COVID outbreaks the last seven, eight months, basically continuing the whole time. And bad in January, which is their summer. Bad in May, June, July, August, their winter. And a lot of deaths. Now, not as many deaths as we had.

I mean, I'm talking about relative population. Not as many deaths as we had at our peaks, not even close. But this is Omicron. Omicron is less virulent. And it's gone on and on and on. And they've had a bad flu outbreak. And their hospitals have been pretty overwhelmed. And their all-cause mortality has been terrible this year.

So if you want to tell me that they are the great success story, it doesn't look like it did a year ago. It does not look like there's any free lunch. It looks like you're going to get your COVID outbreak. If you lock down hard, eventually you're going to have to let up and you're going to get COVID. It's very interesting. Here's another fascinating thing that you never hear about. Chinese, okay? And we don't really know what's going on in China.

We never have, and who knows if we ever will. But they were first. Then they got scared. They locked down really hard. They've been basically isolating themselves for two years. really hard. They've been basically isolating themselves for two years. Two things. They've completely avoided the mRNA vaccines. Completely. They've had contracts to have those vaccines in their country for more than a year. They've refused. They haven't given anybody mRNA vaccines. They, for whatever reason, are continuing to stick with this, to my mind, bizarre strategy of zero COVID. So at some point, I mean, presumably, they're going to have to let it out. And it will be very interesting to see what their experience is without the mRNAs, whether they have a lot of deaths, a few deaths, we will see. As a journalist, what has this been like for you you were never involved in

any real significant controversies about the things that you reported or data are you being called a grifter or you know promoter of misinformation and disinformation what has this been like for you um it's been pretty great, actually. The shitty part has been the personal stuff with my friends, and it hasn't been great for my marriage either, but as a reporter, it's been great in two ways. First of all, I have all these great stories, and no one else writes about them. So I get to, I mean, it's like,

this is the most important story in the world, and I'm coming at it, and there should be 15 people out there. Good investigative reporters who are competing with me to break news about the vaccines and everything else. And there's none. So if whistleblower, if you're a whistleblower, you've got some data from a health insurance company. You're coming to me. You're a pilot. You want to talk about somebody who dropped dead in a cockpit. You're coming to me. You got nobody else. And by the way, you folks, if you're out there, I'm very findable.

What is the date on pilots? Because pilots are, that's a unique case, right? Particularly like fighter jet pilots. Well, so I don't know what the date is on fighter jet pilots. Here's what I know. A lot of pilots didn't want to get vaccinated last year and a lot of them did under pressure. And for, and at least one, at least one major airline disability claims are way up this year. Now from pilots, I mean, now listen, that may be because they're just sick of, you know,

being screamed at by passengers or whatever and they want out. But it's certainly an interesting data point. But so just to go back to the reporting question. So first off, I feel like I've got a great story and I have a big audience that's interested. I mean, it's not a Joe Rogan size on it, but it's a good audience. And, you know, those people, some of those people are willing to pay, you know, my sub stack, most people who subscribe don't pay, but enough people pay that, you know, I, I'm doing well. Which by the way, I think is one other reason that a lot of people at the New York Times and elsewhere don't like me

because the idea is if you ever leave The Times, you're never going to be able to support yourself as a journalist, and I've managed to do that pretty well. So has Barry Weiss, so many others. Yeah, Glenn, that's right. It's a weird world now, right? Because I think people are recognizing the influence that corporations have on information. Yes. And they don't like it.

No, they don't. And so far, Substack's been good. Let's see. Substack is fantastic. Let's hope they can stay that way. I think they can. I mean, as long as they don't get bought out. As long as they don't get bought out and as long as they can generate enough money from

their 10% to support. But they seem truly committed to free speech. They do. And I think that this also opens the door for similar platforms. And there have been some copycat sub stacks out there. And I think that's great. And by the way, I think the fact that Spotify supported you the way it did is very, you know, it's significant. And, you know, and hopefully, you know, that's been to their benefit commercially because you want that.

During the height of the cancellation, I gained 2 million subscribers. Wow. See? It was wild. That's amazing. I mean, really. Yeah. It's pretty wild.

But fortunately, they're not an American company. Right. Swedish, right? Yeah. So that's A, is that I have this great story myself. But B, and you may have had this experience too. I was talking to somebody about this a few days ago. So there's a reporter.

I think his last name is Ryan, Ben Ryan. And he's a science journalist and he's gay and he's been writing a lot about monkey pox. And he's gotten kind of upset with the public health authorities. You see it on Twitter. He's, you know, why aren't you telling the truth? Why aren't you telling, you know, gay men who are most at risk? Didn't we learn anything from HIV? And he's gotten some pushback. And what I was saying is what I think he has seen is what I've seen and maybe what you've seen. If you are telling the truth, if

you're doing your job and you believe you're telling the truth, if you're doing your job and you believe you're telling the truth and trying to get the word out on whatever the issue is and people start lying about you and attacking you personally and calling you a grifter, it doesn't make you want to stop. It makes you want to push because it becomes personal. It makes you want to push because it becomes personal. This is your attack. You're attacking. You're attacking my skills.

You're attacking my integrity. You're attacking my family. In some cases, I'm not backing off. I know what I'm doing. I may be. I'm look right or wrong. And I think I've been pretty right. I've done this to the best of my ability for the last two years. And I am not going to let somebody say, you know, I'm not going to let somebody intimidate me.

What have you been wrong about? What have I been wrong about? I've been wrong that, the number one thing I was wrong about that I can remember is that in 2020 in the summer, I thought that we might be getting close to herd immunity. I thought there was this possibility because the waves seemed to come and go without everybody being infected that there would be this sort of what people speculate there'd be what was called cross T cell immunity. That people had been exposed to other coronaviruses, couldn't get sick with SARS-CoV-2. And that that's why, you know, in New York, there had been this big fall off in cases.

And that's why in the Sunbelt states, there was a big rise and a big fall. That turned out not to be true. Basically, everybody had to get infected with SARS-CoV-2, either the original or Delta or Omicron. There's no cross immunity, it seems like. What about the people that got vaccinated that never got it? Oh, they'll get it.

I mean, there may be some fraction of people who've never got it, but I suspect almost everybody's gotten it at this point. And if you think you didn't get it, you probably just didn't get symptoms. There are people that I know that didn't think they got it, and we brought them in here because, you know, we do antibody testing here. And did they? They got it. Yeah.

A lot of people got it. So actually the last time I was in here, I had still negative antibodies and I don't know that I've had it since then. I haven't had a positive test. I've really stopped testing myself basically.

But I think it's possible if I had gotten an antibody test, it would show that I'm positive. Everybody gets it. Yeah. So I was wrong about that.

You know, I mean, I publicly said I thought 600,000 people would die. You know, we're at a million now. I mean, 600,000 when I put it out there, that was considered a big number. Right. So, you know, was I wrong? Yeah, I was wrong. I don't know how many people predicted a million. And when they say died.

With versus from. Yeah. What is the actual number when when you take away people that are already on death's door when you take away people that are already morbidly obese with i think amongst the people that died there was a significant number like a huge number that had at least four comorbidities yes right what was that number uh i i want to say is that the average number was four so it would be at least half. Right, but what was the percentage of people who died from COVID that had four comorbidities?

So over 50% of those. So in other words, of the million who died, if you look at the comorbidities, I think at least half of those had four or more comorbidities. Which means comorbidities means things that were killing you already. Yeah. Comorbidities. Yes. They're morbidities. Yes. But it's not necessarily that were killing you already. Yeah. You know. Comorbidities. Yes. They're morbidities. Yes.

But it's not necessarily going to kill you tomorrow. So you can be 400 pounds and live another 10 years. But you're significantly weakened. Yes. So look, there was a group of people who have COVID on their death certificates who didn't die from COVID. Right. Right.

You know, then there's this bigger group of people who were who were in this group who wouldn't have died today if they didn't have COVID, but who weren't very healthy. And how many of those people were there? There were, I mean, a lot. But those are still people who died from COVID, you would say, I think, because. But here's here's what's so screwed up about the excess mortality i know i keep coming back to this and i you know and i know it's sort of complicated and mushy in 2020 in early 2021 the people who were looking at the numbers the hardest were all saying the same thing which was okay we got all these people dying um kovat's going to go away and we're going to have fewer deaths for a while because COVID pulled forward.

They actually referred to it. There's a company called Service Corporation of America. It's the biggest funeral home operator. They own like 15 percent of funeral homes in the United States. They call it pull forward. What they were talking about was pulling death forward. They called it pull forward. What they were talking about was pulling death forward.

So COVID was going to kill people or COVID was killing people who were going to die in 2022 in 2020. You were going to die in 2021. COVID killed you in 2020. So they were actually sort of warning their investors. We're getting more funerals now. We're going to get fewer funerals later. That didn't happen. We're going to get fewer funerals later. That didn't happen.

We have excess deaths now, even though people predicted we would have fewer deaths now. What do you think is causing the excess deaths? I think it's some problem with the vaccines. I don't know more than that. But to me, the most likely reason is the billion people we gave this technology to. And if you look at 10% increase in all-cause mortality, what are the numbers we're looking at nationally? So it's several hundred thousand people in the U.S., several hundred thousand people a year in Europe. It's a big – I mean, it's a big number. And has this been consistent?

Has it dropped off? So last fall, it was a big increase. Now, it's interesting. So the better data, again, comes out of Europe because, among other things, Europe doesn't have a terrible opioid epidemic. So the numbers are cleaner. So last fall in Europe, UK, Germany, they were having big increases in mortality, some of which was COVID, some of which was not. That was about three months. It started about three months after the mass vaccination campaigns.

It was increase in deaths in cancer, increase in deaths in Alzheimer's. Sort of broad, broad. Not huge in each category, but broad. Come the winter, that increase went away. Okay? For just a couple months, we had zero extra all-cause mortality in these countries. And I thought to myself, this is good. Whatever was happening, it went away.

What else happened in the winter? Well, they pushed the boosters. They had widespread booster campaigns. About three months after those booster campaigns, all-cause mortality started to rise again. And that was sort of in March and April. And it has not come down since. We're now five, six months in. So, again, this is non-COVID.

These countries, just like the U.S., still have COVID deaths. Nobody talks about it anymore because it's inconvenient. They still have plenty of COVID deaths. Even when you factor those out, they have all-cause mortality. Basically, they're about 5% above normal on COVID deaths and 5% to 10% additionally above normal on other deaths. So they're running about 15% above normal on all-cause mortality, which in a country like the United States, four or 500,000 deaths a year. the United States, four or five hundred thousand deaths a year. Across Europe, about the same number. So you add those up, you get close to

a million. A million here, a million there, you know. Is there any legitimate reporting other than people like yourself that are independent on this? So the British, a couple British newspapers have started to note this. Now, what they mainly say is it looks like this is lockdown related. So, again, there's this theory people didn't get medical care. So now you're seeing an increase. And, you know, other people, a little more speculative, they'll say long COVID. So there's been a couple places that have talked about it. My impression is that this is so unpleasant to even consider that nobody wants to consider it.

You can't get unvaccinated, Joe. Right. Like you're just living with whatever it is. And I also want to be clear, like even if it's a million people, we gave the vaccines to more than – we gave all the COVID vaccines worldwide to billions of people. We gave these mRNAs to a billion people. So it could be a very small absolute increase per person in your risk still leading to a lot of deaths just because so many people got it. What is the relationship between the mRNA vaccines versus the adenovirus vaccines? They're just completely different.

Right. But I mean, in terms of like all cause mortality, in terms of health complications. So the AAVs, actually, by the way, look a little bit better now against COVID. It looks like they, like, interestingly, if you got one dose of J&J, your protection didn't, wasn't as great initially, but it looks like it lasts longer. They kind of look like better vaccines as vaccines. They definitely can cause what's called thromboembolic events. They can cause nasty, nasty clots in people that lead to strokes. You know, this is another great question that if we had a real investigative reporting community would be asked. Somehow, for reasons that are not clear to me, the mRNAs won. Okay, they won commercially, they won in public view.

authorities wouldn't take a strong position on one vaccine versus another. But they did in this case. You basically can't get J&J anymore in the U.S. and you can't really get the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe. Well, they pulled the J&J vaccine. They basically pulled it. And it is, by the way, right in the same time period that I was going to get vaccinated. Yes, it was back in April of last year. Now, it is not clear to me at all that the overall safety profile of the DNA vaccines is worse than the mRNA. But for some reason, a decision was made inside the governments and inside the public health authorities, we're going to lean on the mRNAs. Now, you said DNA versus mRNA? Yes. So the adenovirus vaccine is a DNA?

That's right. Or is it adenovirus that they say? Adenovirus, yes. So what it is is it delivers DNA to your cells, this virus. It's a cold virus. Delivers it to your cells. Your cells process that DNA into RNA, actually, and then cause your body to produce the spike. So whereas the mRNA is a little bit of this

mRNA, which is actually not the same RNA that's in nature. It's been modified in a specific way that's inside a tiny little ball of fat that then delivers that RNA to your cells that causes you to make the spike. The outcome is the same in both. Both the DNA and the mRNA vaccines cause your body to make the spike protein. That was the great innovation. We're gonna turn your body into a little cell, or into a little factory to make the spike protein. The Novavax vaccine, by the way, is actually just them injecting the spike protein into you. And then the other vaccines are more old school, where it's basically just the virus itself

that's been changed so it doesn't replicate, and that's injected into you. And which vaccines are those? Those are not allowed. They're not used in the US. They're the Chinese and the Indian vaccines, which have actually been given to more people worldwide than the more advanced, quote unquote, advanced vaccines. And why are they not allowed in the United States?

That's a really good question, Joe. They were never tested here. The argument was basically that the mRNAs would be better, that they would cause your body to have a stronger immune response. And, you know, inactivated flu vaccines don't work very well. And the belief was that the same would be true for the coronavirus. So we're just going to go with this new, better technology. But you ask a very good question. Why haven't we even looked at those? Yeah.

The Novavax, is that the new one? Yes. So Novavax, which nobody, it's approved, but nobody's, I mean, Novavax stock actually crashed a few weeks ago because they basically acknowledged nobody was using it. And why do you think that is? Well, nobody wants to, I mean, anybody who's going to be vaccinated has been vaccinated at this point. There's not a big audience. And, you know, it's funny every, I would say, I guess a few times a week, I get emails from people that are like, hey, can you tell me about Novavax? And I'm sort of like, I don't have time to talk about this because nobody's getting it. The public health authorities, they don't want Novavax. They don't want the J&J or AstraZeneca.

They certainly don't want Covaxin or the Chinese vaccines. They want you to get mRNAs. And look, I think it should be clear to everybody at this point, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I would love to know. I would love to be a fly on the wall when Pfizer is talking to the NIH about why that is. Do you think that any of this was done in good faith? Do you think that they believe the data? Do you think that they believe that this was going to be the panacea to everybody? I think they hoped it. I think that they got fooled by the data, by the clinical trial data in November and December of 2020. And then they got fooled, as you said, by the Israeli data and the British data in the spring. If you look at what Fauci said, what Lenski said, I mean, what they said wasn't that different than what our friend Rachel Maddow said. You know, like Fauci was talking about

elimination of the virus and they were all talking about herd immunity and that's just a remarkably stupid thing to have said in the light of what happened there's a few things that he said that were remarkably stupid one of the things that he says that lockdowns are designed to increase vaccination yeah i mean which is just did he say that he did. He said the quiet part out loud. I missed that. Yeah. I mean, a lot of what they did was, right? So when the Canadians wouldn't let, I mean, Canada's a bigger country than the United States.

They wouldn't let unvaccinated people on planes. They were clearly trying to punish those of us who are unvaccinated, force us to do this. It's wrong. Yeah. It's also wild how many of them wound up getting covid they all got it's wild biden got it twice jill biden's got it fauci got it everyone got it did you see that burke's said that she knew that the vaccines were not going to stop the spread of the virus yeah that's funny because that's not what she said two years ago but it's wild that she said it. Like, why do you think she said that?

I talked to somebody who knows her, and he said he thought she wanted to be right about something. Oh, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ. I know we joked around about you being vindicated, but you are, you have been, does this, is this a net good? Do you think that people like you exist in that?

You're going to ask me if I think it's good. Yeah. But you know what I'm saying? I mean, like you're, you're a courageous guy in a lot of ways. Like what you did, you know, you talked about the personal cost of this in terms of relationships that you've had. And, and I know the attacks aren't fun. Yeah. I mean, look, I think it's, you know, somebody, this got taken out of context. I said it, maybe I said it to you last year, but even if I were wrong about all of it, it would be good that there's somebody on the

red team, right? It'd be good that there's somebody raising these questions. From the point of view of society, it would be better if I were wrong about all of it. It'd be better if we had no COVID right now and the vaccines actually worked. And I were saying to you, you know what, Joe? I was wrong. I'm going to end this show by going to the vaccine clinic and getting a vaccine. Instead, I feel one of the best decisions I've ever made is not being vaccinated. With this vaccine, okay? I got all the normal childhood vaccines. I think it's really bad that journalists have lost their skepticism about either tech or the

pharmaceutical industry. I don't understand. I don't understand. Yeah, it's bizarre. It's bizarre to watch because these are the people that are supposed to be uncovering corruption and undue influence and following the money and they just didn't do it. They got captured.

These are the biggest, most profitable pharmaceutical products ever made. They're some of the most profitable products made in history. Okay. And here's another thing, by the way, the penny may drop in, you know, 2026, 2027. It'll be nice to see the first journalist asking why there's no other mRNA product approved, which I will bet you there isn't at that time. I mean, you know what, that's something I could be wrong about in five years. But- Well, they've talked about using it for cancer. Oh, yeah. But guess what? It's really hard to use multiple doses and it doesn't- I'm actually

talking about a vaccine, whether it's a flu vaccine or Ebola vaccine or dengue vaccine. I think it's going to be very hard to prove mRNAs under a normal development process because the side effects are too complex. But that's all right. We gave it to a billion people. We did our best. What a strange time to be alive. And as a journalist, this must be almost kind of bittersweet, right? Because what you do is chase these kinds of stories. I mean, these kinds of stories can make or break a journalist's career. I mean, I guess it's both made and broken mine. I ain't going back to the New York Times. I don't think you need to. And I think the rise of independent journalism,

and that's one of the reasons why I praise Substack so much, and giving people like yourself and other independent voices who are legitimate journalists who do the work and really are chasing down the truth of the story and not this culturally convenient narrative. But they're pushing back. You know, they, these folks would get me banned again on Twitter tomorrow if they could. And I mean. But they can't. But the thing is, is like what you're saying is accurate, which is so crazy. They shouldn't want to ban you. They shouldn't.

But they won't even write the Times. So forget, you don't want to write that I, you know, that I survived my motion to dismiss back in April. You don't want to write even that Twitter put me back on, which is a pretty big deal. Okay. It's a fucking huge deal. Does that, did anybody write about it? No, no one. Washington post. No, no. Okay. You don't want to write about that. You think that's, he's just one schmo with 300,000 followers. We're not going to write about it. Two weeks ago, Joe, and I and maybe we should pull it up so people could see it for themselves. Two weeks ago on my stack, I published in black and white Twitter employees what they said about what the White House had told them to do. OK, it is it is about as clear.

Yeah, this one, the White House privately demanded Twitter ban me months before the company did so. Federal officials targeted me specifically when they met with Twitter in 2021. They really wanted to know about Alex Perrinson. Go down and you'll see what they said. There it is. There it is. How was

W-H? That next thing is just an emoji. Overall, pretty good. They had one really tough question about why Alex Berenson has been kicked off the platform. Otherwise, their questions were pointed but fair, and mercifully, we had answers. Mercifully. Mercifully. By the way, that's not the comment of somebody who's confident that they can stand up to the White House. They're saying, we are lucky we had answers. Here's another one.

High-level takeaways from the meeting, anything we should keep an eye out for. They really wanted to know about Alex Berenson. All right. Andy Slavitt suggested they had seen data viz that had showed he was the epicenter of disinfo that radiated outwards to the persuadable public. That's right. Wow. At the time, employees said internally they did not believe I had broken the company's rules. I've taken a pretty close look at his account, and I don't think any of it's violative.

That's right. Said an employee wrote on the Slack conversation a few minutes after the really tough question about why Alex Berenson hadn't been kicked off. That's right. So you try to imagine if the Trump white house had done that to a journalist at the New York times. Okay. They, I mean, it would be front page news for days. They won't even write one story about this. That's how much they hate me. Yeah. Well, you're inconvenient. Journalists are supposed to be inconvenient to the powers that be when the powers that be are not doing what they're saying they're doing and that are withholding information or are being unduly influenced by massive amounts of money.

And also their initial choices. We're supposed to be inconvenient. What's next for you? How is this book selling? It's available now. It's available now. It's out now. It's everywhere.

It's a legitimate publisher. How hard was that by the way? We talked about that last time but it bears repeating so it's regnery which is a real publisher but conservative um they actually want me to write another book uh which i would love to do i don't have time right now sort of about how screwed up uh uh teenagers are these days and whether it's you know uh adhd drugs or whether it's you, bad over parenting or whatever it is that's causing these terrible anxiety disorders among teenagers, which I think is a really good book. And I would like to write, you know, because in some ways it ties into COVID. Right.

It's like the great lie of COVID is if you just listen to us, everything will be fine. No one will ever die again. And this is sort of what we tell our kids, right? Like, we can make everything perfect for you. There's a pill for this. Hey, you don't like your gender? We'll just change it for you. You know, you don't have to be anxious. And unfortunately, that's a lie. And when they realize it's a lie, it makes them more anxious. So that's a book Regnery wants me to write. But no, Simon & Schuster or Putnam, all these places that published my earlier books and my novels, I don't think they're going to publish anything for me anymore.

I am outside the mainstream media. Do you think that's permanent? I do. Some of this vindication, though, has to open people's eyes. It would be better if I had been wrong. If I had been wrong, I could apologize and ask to be forgiven. Wow.

I'm pretty sure it's... Other people say to me it's not permanent. I think it's permanent. So you just resigned to this independent life, but it's... I got the stack. You're doing great. I get to come out with you once a year. I got a publisher who can put out a pretty good-looking book and hardcover.

I'm okay. Do they carry these at Barnes & Noble in the front when you walk in at the airport? They couldn't get much distribution at BNN, but they did get a little bit. It didn't get reviewed. All those places refused to review it. I don't know. Have you written a book? One day you'll write your memoirs, and there's something called these pre-pub places.

There's Kirkus, Publishers Weekly. They review everything. That's just what they do. They wouldn't review it. I mean I'm lucky in a way. I don't live in Brooklyn. I don't live in Manhattan. I live in upstate with my family.

Our life is our life. But I mean, I've been shut out personally and professionally from the people who should be my peers. I guess they're not. But you must have gotten some support from people. Very little. Much more support from people like cops or pilots. Yeah. No. People inside journalism, people say to me, oh, you must have a lot of people contacting you quietly from the Times than elsewhere. Not really. Not really. Really? Yeah.

I'm not surprised about the Times. The Times is strange. It's captivated by our current culture in a weird way that I don't think I've ever seen before. I never thought I would see. I thought that the ethics of journalism was always supposed to be objective analysis of data. And if it's inconvenient and uncomfortable for people, that's sort of the point. Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. uncomfortable for people. That's sort of the point. Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Yep. But it turns out it's comfort the Democrats and afflict the Republicans. Yeah. Which is not- Are you a Democrat? Are you independent? What are you?

I'm an independent. And as I say in Pandemia, I didn't vote for Biden and I didn't vote for Trump. Yeah. Nor did I. I mean, yeah. And how, I mean, given everything that's happened, how do you feel bad about that decision? No, no. Well, whatever, everything I said was true. The thing that I said when, when, you know, I got famously canceled when I had Eric Weinstein on the podcast and he said, I can't vote for Biden. I just can't. And he was like, I can't vote for Trump.

And I said, I would vote for Trump before I'd vote for Biden I didn't vote for either but I said that because I realized that Biden was He's deteriorating in front of our eyes and to deny that was crazy. And now that we're seeing it We're seeing him fall down walking upstairs. We're seeing him Ramble on in these run-on conversations forget where he is come offstage Try to shake hands and people who aren't there. There's something really, really wrong. And if he was Trump, they would be on the top of every building with bullhorns

screaming to remove him from office. And these people are all blacking out from all the gaslighting. It's wild to watch. If it's Trump versus Biden in 2024, are you going to vote? I think I'd still vote independent. I really wish there was an independent option. I think that the problem is human nature tends towards tribalism. And we have these people on one side that think that Trump is the devil and that having him in place, regardless of whether or not his economic policies

were more effective, that Trump is bad for our culture and bad for society and divides us. And I understand their perspective. I think they're right, though, aren't they? Yes, yes, and that's what I've said. And that's why I didn't want to have him on. Yep. I don't want to support that.

I don't think that's good for people. I don't think that's good for our culture. Do you think you'd be able to challenge him? I wonder if you actually had him for two hours. I'd have to have him for six. I'd have to wait for the Adderall to wear off. I don't know if he's on Adderall. I'm kidding, Donald. Don't sue me. I think, unfortunately, I'd probably have fun with him. I think he's a funny guy. He says some wild shit. He's a bombastic, huge character.

And I think it would probably, people would get a chance to see a side of him, a fucking around side that they would like. I don't know if it would be the worst thing in the world if you had him on. It probably wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. I just don't want to be involved in that. I don't want to be involved in helping political figures. I think Tulsi Gabbard should be president. She's the only one that makes any sense to me. I think she's a powerful, independent voice who speaks her mind on a variety of subjects and makes a

lot of sense, exhibits real leadership capability. She's a congresswoman for a year. Is she not? In what way? Well, that's a good question. That's a great narrative, right? But I'm crazy too. I mean, you're right. When you actually say that to me, I actually realize I don't know very much about her ultimately.

The problem is that's what people like to say. I think she's a woman of character, and I think it's everything that everybody wants. You want a woman president, you got one. You want a woman of noble character who displays excellent leadership capability, you got one. You got someone who reaches across the aisle and communicates to people on both sides, you got one. You got someone who served overseas twice, and she was in these medical units. She was helping people that were blown up from the fucking war. I mean, that's why she has that gray streak in her hair.

She got that gray streak when she was serving overseas. You got a person who exposes on her side corruption and evil acts of politicians. One of them is now the Vice President of the United States. I don't think there's a better person out there to run for President than her. And a person that's loved by people on the right as well. I mean, she is a long-time

Democrat, but she's a person who substitutes for Tucker Carlson when he's out of town, which is wild. Fair enough. But they don't want her. No, that's definitely true. Which is wild, because she's a woman of color, right? She's from Hawaii. She's got all the things that supposedly you're looking for if you want diversity. All the things. I mean, she could be our first woman president. Interesting. See, I don't know, really, as I hear you say, I realize I know almost nothing about her.

That's the problem is that everybody has this thing in their head, oh, Tulsi Gabbard's crazy. Okay, why? Why is she crazy? And wouldn't you be crazy if you were her? Wouldn't you be crazy if you've experienced what she's experienced? Just how the DNC tried to shut her out and wouldn't let her debate? Well, one thing I think that you've managed to avoid,

and I'd like to think I've managed to avoid, is getting too angry. And by the way, I'm not saying this about Tulsi Gabbard. I see it just from the outside. I don't know him at all. With Glenn Greenwald, that I feel he's gotten really angry at sort of the establishment. And now maybe he's acting in ways that don't help him long term. How so? Well, I think the thing with Alex Jones, I mean, you and I may disagree about Alex Jones. I just think Alex Jones is a bad guy. I think what he said about the Sandy Hook stuff was pretty unforgivable.

And, you know, for Glenn to get on stage with him, I don't love that. I don't know what happened there. I'm not aware of that. So this was just a few weeks ago. Alex Jones had this documentary that came out about him. I think he was involved in the making of it. And Glenn interviewed him about it and said basically something like, I'm not here to really push you about Sandy Hook. I may have the way that was proper for a journalist to, you know, maybe I have a visceral reaction to Sandy Hook because we live, you know, like 15 minutes away from there on the other side of the Connecticut, you know, on the New York side of the border. But like that happened. OK. And it's pretty terrible to to to have done when Alex Jones did about that. I think it's terrible that he said it. And I think he thinks it's terrible that he said it.

And I think he was also going through a mental health breakdown. And, you know, Alex has had problems in the past with substances and he's had problems with he he's a guy who had significant head trauma when he was younger. And I attribute that to some of the issues that he has. And I think excess drinking also, and it's also the fact that he keeps finding things that are true. Right. The problem is you find things that are true and you're alone. And that's what I think Alex was.

He was alone. You know, Alex, when I first met him, was a guy who was showing up at George Bush rallies and calling him a criminal. And this was when Bush was running for president. And that's when I at first was aware of him. against what they were doing with the World Trade Organization where they were stopping any kind of dissent where you couldn't even have a WTO badge on your backpack with a line through it and go and cross. This was in Seattle back. Yes and he also was the first to expose the agent provocateurs and that they use government agents to smash buildings and light things on fire so they could say this is not a peaceful protest and then they could go in with force and stop the protests he exposed a lot of things that are true he told me about epstein's island when i thought that was the craziest

fucking thing i'd ever heard from him 100 true of course 100 true you know when someone like him tells you there's an island that they take influential people and they have sex with underage people you'd be like what the fuck are you talking about? And then if you told me years later that the guy, Epstein, would, first of all, go to jail for doing that very thing, for having sex with underage people, then still be able to court people like Bill Gates and be able to have them and travel with them and go places with them. And then years later, he would be suicided in some way where all the cameras stopped working and no one ever got brought to justice for it in any significant way. And that years after that, Ghislaine Maxwell would be arrested, that she would be tried, that she'd be convicted, and that the list of the people that engaged in this illegal activity would never be released, I would say that is a banana republic bullshit thing.

That's not going to happen in the United States of America. People are going to be brought to justice. I don't care how powerful they are, but that's not the case. No, that's basically accurate. This is why Alex went crazy. And by the way, it's true. I'm thinking like, we've never had a report on the right was there ever been a sort of government any kind of independent report on what happened to maxwell or uh to to epstein in the uh in the prison well no

other than that one guy um michael badden who was a uh autopsy specialist, the guy was in the autopsy show on HBO, who reviewed the case and said that his injuries were indicative of someone who was strangled, not indicative of someone who hung himself. Yeah, fair enough. I mean, where we sort of started this whole line of conversation is like, you got to know that stuff and still keep your bearings. Right. So like, I'm not out there saying like Pfizer and Bill Gates are trying to kill everybody in the world. Right. And I think that's why I'm kind of valuable. And I think that's why I'm kind of dangerous to some of these people. I think so, too.

I think you're you are what I like in a journalist. You're objective and reasonable, even when it's inconvenient. And that is a, that's a thing that escaped a lot of people during this time. And I hope people can find their way back again to what they wanted to be when they started out to become journalists. Yes. But I, you know, I hope Glenn will break some national security news in the next year, right? I hope, I hope he'll get a new WikiLeaks or whatever, you know, a new Snowden document or whatever. Whatever it is, like I'd love to see him go back to that. Because you can spend all your time feeling ill-treated and it doesn't do anybody any good. Yeah, I know.

I see what you're saying. I know what you're saying. and it is a that's a natural aspect of human nature you dig your heels in and you get angry and make it about you yeah yeah i mean and it believe me i get it i mean look you got to understand what that guy was exposed to you know when he did release Ed Snowden's information. I mean, that had to be horrific. His life has been threatened on multiple occasions. No, I mean, they threatened to go after him

with the espionage act. No, there's a reason he's basically in Brazil, although he obviously comes back from time to time. But yeah, no. I mean, and honestly, that was an amazing piece of journalism, right? Like seeing the extent of the federal government and the NSA's surveillance efforts and everything they could do. It's certainly among the more important pieces of journalism

in the last 20 years. And it's so bizarre that that wasn't met with the kind of outrage in this country that I felt it should be met with. You know, that this was done in the guise of protecting us from terrorism. You know, I want to know how much terrorism has that actually stopped and how many people have been violated? How many people have had their rights violated because of this? This thing that's not supposed to be legal in this country. Yep. It's yeah. I mean, again, it's because the media has been so focused on trying to get Donald Trump the last six years. All those stories don't count anymore. He's a giant problem in that way, right? Because he represents this thing that's so easy to label as evil and must be stopped that it justifies so much. And, you know, I mean, as I say, he's I always I keep quoting.

I wrote this a few weeks ago. He's ruined journalism. Right. He ruined it because he made it all about him. And the idea was we'll do whatever we have to do. We'll go with any rumor just to get him. And, of course, it didn't work. And now I fear, and we'll find out more about this raid last month, but I fear he's ruined, I guess it was earlier this month, but he's ruined law enforcement. You know, those guys have even, you know, they have real strict ethical guidelines because the stakes are so high. They have real strict ethical guidelines because the stakes are so high. And, you know, to raid the ex-president and possibly future president's house because of some, you know, some boxes of papers he took home, you better have – I hope they have more than that. I mean, I do.

Because Trump has a way of making everyone crazy and making people violate their own standards. Yeah. And that is not good for anyone. On both sides, right? On both sides. Yeah. Anything else? It's been a pleasure.

I appreciate you, man. I really do. I appreciate you. I know you take a lot of shit, but I appreciate you. I appreciated you when I first had you on to talk about cannabis because I think it's a very important thing. And I don't think if someone thinks that some parts of something are good, you should ignore the bad parts. belief amongst people that love cannabis, that it's this wonder drug that's nothing but good and a net positive for everybody. But I think we have to look at reality. And I think that what you did in publishing that, Tell Your Children, is very important. And I think people should be aware of it. And I think that what you've done with all this information in the pandemic and the way you've distributed it, I think it's very valuable. And I think a lot of people appreciate you. Well, I, I, I listen, I hope so. I, I know,

I, I, you know, I, I wish people I were close to could see it that way. Um, you probably shouldn't be close to those folks. I, I, yeah, I, I, I hate to, when somebody has been a friend for 30 years, man. I know. I get it, man. Maybe they'll come back. Maybe they'll get it eventually, ultimately. I hope so. I think what you did, you did for the right reasons.

Well, that's true. Right or wrong, I did it for the right reasons. Yeah. I don't think you're wrong. Well, I'm going to keep publishing. Can I mention the Substack? Yes, please. It's called Unreported Truths.

It's at alexbarrinson.substack.com. I hope and expect to have a lot more to say from the Twitter documents very soon. I am going to, I believe, I've sort of promised it and I do think it's going to happen. I'm going to be suing Biden and Andy Slavitt. We'll see what happens with that. And the book, if you can find the final remaining copy at a Barnes & Noble, it's Pandemia. But, you know, look, I hope at this time next year or whatever time, you know, I hope obviously they come down and I'll come on with you anytime.

We are talking about sort of Twitter and big tech and all that stuff. I'd much rather be talking about that than some wave of deaths, all-cause mortality. Let's just hope that goes away. I truly would love for that not to be a story in a few months. As would I. As would I. Alex Berenson, thank you very much. Appreciate you, brother.

All right, bye, everybody. it's been an experience thank you very much appreciate you brother alright bye everybody