Aug. 25, 2022 - Bannon's War Room
47:47
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| This is what you're fighting for. | ||
| I mean, every day you're out there. | ||
| What they're doing is blowing people off. | ||
| If you continue to look the other way and shut up, then the oppressors, the authoritarians, get total control and total power. | ||
| Because this is just like in Arizona. | ||
| This is just like in Georgia. | ||
| It's another element that backs them into a corner and shows their lies and misrepresentations. | ||
| This is why this audience is going to have to get engaged. | ||
| As we've told you, this is the fight. | ||
|
unidentified
|
All this nonsense, all this spin, they can't handle the truth. | |
| War Room, Battleground. | ||
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| Okay, you're in the Battleground. | ||
| It is Thursday, 25 August, Year of Our Lord 2022. | ||
| By the way, tomorrow is the one-year anniversary of the heroes, the attack on the heroes in Afghanistan. | ||
| We're going to be doing a special program throughout the day tomorrow to commemorate and honor them. | ||
| As I start the show, Ben Hornwell, our editor in Rome, is sending me, there's an announcement. | ||
| We've been saying how, you know, the U.S. | ||
| government announced the $3 billion arms, and nobody in Europe is stepping up. | ||
| The German government has now pledged 500 million euros. | ||
| So that is, you know, over half a billion dollars, or close to half a billion dollars. | ||
| To Ukraine military that it will roll out most or be delivered next year in 2023 but one nation has stood up and come close. | ||
| We did 3 billion Germany who's got the bigger problem here 500 million. | ||
| And that's the way it rolls. | ||
| We continue to shovel cash into the Toronto house, that is Ukraine, and of course the women and children over there continue to die needlessly until there's some sort of settlement. | ||
| I want to go, so we talked at length this morning about the problems, China, problems in Europe, problems in the United States economically. | ||
| But one thing we want to make sure that there's a thesis of our coverage here, particularly in the economy. | ||
| The central theory of the case is that the productive capacity of the United States, the productive capacity of the United States, which is driven by manufacturing, production, energy, all of that, is essentially dormant. | ||
| And all you're seeing now is games played by Keynesian spending or really loose money policies, the continued printing of money and loose money policies. | ||
| Dave Warsh has done such a great job on that on the energy side. | ||
| And of course, Dave Brat's been ahead of the curve and really going through all of this analysis on the economic side. | ||
| Dave Brat, Dean of the Business School at Liberty. | ||
| And by the way, ironically, We're going to have Joanna Miller, who that was her job at the White House, look at manufacturing. | ||
| She was the deputy to Peter Navarro. | ||
| She's on here for another manufacturing debacle in the United States after Dave Brat about the formulas and how there's no solution for that in the Biden administration. | ||
| The Biden regime continues to lie, misrepresent and spin. | ||
| Brat, I want to go to you, Dean Brat, and walk through. | ||
| We're going to take some time and go through this. | ||
| Your theory of the case is that the great production capacity of the United States is essentially dormant. | ||
| The real economy is dead, and all we do is continue to get injections of easy credit and easy money. | ||
| Sir, why don't you take it and make your case? | ||
| Yeah, well, let's just start even with the Keynesian case, right? | ||
| Adult out there fell asleep. | ||
| Bueller, hey Bueller, you know this. | ||
| The Keynesian economy is C plus I plus G plus net exports in your intro macro books, right? | ||
| So C is consumption. | ||
| That's 70% of the economy in the US, very different in China. | ||
| But in the US, that 70% of our economy is deader than a doornail, right? | ||
| The Consumer Index from University of Michigan is the place, it's the best index economists use to measure consumer sentiment, the way they feel about the present economy and about the future economy, and it's at all-time lows. | ||
| It's right now at the same level as after the 2008 financial crisis, after the stock market lost half its value. | ||
| And we haven't experienced that yet, right? | ||
| So the consumer's feeling this week And the bottom has not fallen out yet. | ||
| That's coming up probably in a few more months. | ||
| And then you move to C plus I investment business investment. | ||
| And as you were just saying, and as we said this morning, the Richmond Fed has the new PMI that fell to the lowest levels. | ||
| We've seen just a huge downward drop and that's reported today. | ||
| By the Richmond Federal Reserve Bank. | ||
| They each have their own little specialty. | ||
| Just explain to the audience, once again, PMI, why it's the only global, the only indice we can match globally and why it's so important. | ||
| It's kind of inside baseball, but why economists and investors and hedge funds really look at PMI. | ||
| Yeah, well, it's your index of what you're actually making as a country, right? | ||
| And so it's kind of a snapshot of taking into account China and their downfall and how the supply chains are affecting our manufacturers. Navarro and Steve go way back. They're the first in the world to put pressure on that story. It's the purchasing managers' index. | ||
| So it's those guys inside the factories, inside the companies, whether it's a service or manufacturing, they're actually deciding, hey, I need to buy more of this to keep our production line going. | ||
| I need this for service. | ||
| They're the node that everything kind of revolves around in these businesses and their index. | ||
| They're always reporting in. | ||
| You can tell the real health of this by how robust that index is. | ||
| Yeah, yeah, that's right. | ||
| Right. | ||
| And so right. | ||
| And so now you've got that C plus I investment. | ||
| And then, you know, government that government has been, you know, as you've reported the whole year, been growing and printing spending. | ||
| And then the Fed has accommodated their spending with money growth to boot. | ||
| And then you got net exports and the we've shared with people before. | ||
| But, you know, just as one indicator of if China sneezes, the world gets a flu. | ||
| But Bloomberg and Rand had an article that if China goes to war against Taiwan, it's a 5-10% GDP hit to the U.S. | ||
| and a 30% hit to China. | ||
| They are much more dependent on the rest of the world. | ||
| So if they have a 30% GDP hit, it's all trade-based in China. | ||
| Our economy is only about one-fifth traded. | ||
| So we get hit hard, but nothing like China gets hit. | ||
| And then the secondary effects Those are the effects just from a one-year war. | ||
| Obviously, the supply chain, you think you got supply chain problems, now they'll be non-existent if that kind of an event happens. | ||
| This morning, I put up some charts just to kind of show the populace the understanding of what's going on that matches this. | ||
| The Keynesian thing is all demand side, like you just said. | ||
| It focuses on government spending and monetary stimulus and all that. | ||
| They're propping up the economy. | ||
| I left the show joking, but it's a good analogy just so you get the numbers in your head. | ||
| Just a $1 trillion increase in spending like they just did comes out to be about $6,666, but it's about $7,000 in stimulus per person for every working person. | ||
| So people say a trillion dollars. | ||
| What's that? | ||
| Well, that's enough stimulus to get you by November if you're a little bit cynical About economists and the lack of economists out there speaking on any of these issues should tell you everything you need to know. | ||
| And so earlier today, Cameron, if you got some of those charts, we'll just whip through them because they all tell the same story just from different angles. | ||
| But here you see Americans, right? | ||
| It's kind of a populist graph. | ||
| This is not Republican or Democrat or whatever. | ||
| It's just everybody. | ||
| Everybody starts Googling the word recession. | ||
| Guess what? | ||
| Right when they feel like there's a recession coming on. | ||
| And it proves to be a very accurate predictor. | ||
| And then there's a few other things that are correlated with this chart. | ||
| You can go on to the next chart. | ||
| But falling stock prices, rising fuel costs, rising mortgage rates, all of those you see. | ||
| And then we went over this. | ||
| And again, kind of evidence of almost a political business cycle. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| And that's a formal term. | ||
| You can Google that. | ||
| And so here are, you know, economist forecasts. | ||
| From, you know, the blue chips and all the Federal Reserve, and they're all in unison somewhat. | ||
| And of course, way too rosy, right? | ||
| They had us growing at four percent, then three, then two. | ||
| Now we're down, we're shrinking. | ||
| We're at negative one and a half. | ||
| And then I noted this morning, Goldman Sachs still has us growing at one and a half percent this year, 2022, after we've shrunk for the first half a year by a percent or a percent and a half. | ||
| So there's no way that can be. | ||
| And so then I kept Googling a little bit and Fannie Mae, they have us growing at, you know, a much slower rate, maybe a half a percent this year. | ||
| Even that's optimistic, right? | ||
| I think we're still going down mildly for the rest of this year. | ||
| But then next year, the consensus is all the stimulus wears off. | ||
| The supply shock, stay and global demand by everyone out there is going down, down, down. | ||
| And that'll have a profound impact on our economy, of course, as well. | ||
| And so the next few charts, I just kind of get at this. | ||
| I went over productivity decline this morning. | ||
| That's obviously linked to the student loan issue, right? | ||
| And just the misallocation in addition to the equity concerns, right? | ||
| It funds up, you know, $250,000 per couple that go to Ivy League schools, like you were saying. | ||
| And of course, higher education is roughly correlated with the upper half of the income distribution. | ||
| And so you've got the bottom half of the income distribution, including the poor, paying for the wealthy to obtain higher education degrees. | ||
| And just roughly speaking, if you get a degree in Shakespearean pronoun studies, some in-trendy thing, The first year's out, you're paying off your student loans and you don't have a big income, so you qualify for this benefit, even if it's an Ivy League education in crazy studies. | ||
| So the productivity, that's the most important variable in the economy. | ||
| That's the same thing as GDP, roughly speaking, and it determines your income, right? | ||
| So productivity, the amount of stuff you make per hour is plunging. | ||
| While at the same time, we're supposed to believe that jobs are going up. | ||
| And if jobs are going up while GDP is going down, which it is, that's what productivity is telling you. | ||
| The productivity of our average worker is going down, down, down. | ||
| That's an indictment. | ||
| And this has been going on for 40 years, right? | ||
| And everybody can go out to Robert Gordon at Northwestern University. | ||
| He's the best in the world on this. | ||
| He's not political at all. | ||
| And he's been saying all this for 40 years before the political craziness set in. | ||
| And so the next few graphs, I just kind of do variations on a theme. | ||
| The oil price volatility, you know, there's news that the oil price is going down. | ||
| So, wow, this is great news and we're getting things right. | ||
| No, that's a preliminary indicator that global demand for energy use is going down. | ||
| So the price of gasoline going down isn't due to the fact that we've solved our energy problems. | ||
| And Dave Walsh on your show is just outstanding. | ||
| I got to talk with him at CPAC down in Dallas, and everybody ought to follow him on energy. | ||
| He's just world-class. | ||
| And then the next graph on mortgages, look at the left side. | ||
| The vertical axis, the variable there is percent of income spent on mortgage payments, right? | ||
| On the far left, going up, hard to read. | ||
| But that's the piece you want to see, right? | ||
| So back in 2005, You saw up to 30%, right? | ||
| 30% of your income is needed to pay your mortgage payment. | ||
| It went down and now we're way back up to there, in addition to a 10% haircut every year from inflation and gas prices and food prices and all of that. | ||
| So now you get a sense as to why all the populist folks are googling the word recession. | ||
| And then finally, last one, builder sentiment continues to fall sharply with new housing. | ||
| And up above I had, and I'm going to post this up at Brat Economics, but there was a famous paper a few years ago called Housing is the Business Cycle by Ed Leamer, Nobel Prize winner. | ||
| Ed Leamer, Housing is the Business Cycle. | ||
| And so this again is a leading indicator, here it comes, right, because housing itself isn't a huge percentage of the economy, but all the related items, right, all the tradesmen and craftsmen, plumbers, electrical, all the appliances, washers and dryers and fridges and all the stuff that go with the house. | ||
| Once you see this thing starting to go down, and you remember last time that was associated with the financial crisis, this time it's a housing bubble. | ||
| And, of course, you see the same thing in China. | ||
| It's also kind of a leading indicator for where folks are too heavily indebted. | ||
| And so I haven't done anything on the China piece here, but you guys have followed that. | ||
| But they got major problems. | ||
| It started with Evergrande in their real estate sector. | ||
| Too much debt. | ||
| Housing in China is 30% of GDP, and it's the primary asset that people use for their retirement accounts, and it's plunging. | ||
| So they've got a social crisis on their hands. | ||
| I heard you coming on in, Steve. | ||
| Yeah, here's the thing, is I want to go back, if we can do the chart easily and go back to the one where they put up the forecast for the three and four percent. | ||
| It may be too tough to pull, but I just want to say this. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| These were done, we were mocking these last year. | ||
| A lot of these were done in the first days of the Biden administration around the American Recovery Act. | ||
| We said the American Recovery Act is going to explode inflation. | ||
| And you're not going to get the growth that you thought you were going to get. | ||
| And of course, any percentage growth they got was just recovery from the COVID. | ||
| They haven't had any real growth at all, and American recovery turned out to be the worst thing for inflation. | ||
| These economists and these cheerleading economists have been absolutely dead wrong, and what they don't do is focus on the key issues that Brad continues to focus on. | ||
| If you don't look at productivity, if you don't look at manufacturing energy, you're kidding yourself. | ||
| All you're doing is playing around with monetary policy. | ||
| That's why tomorrow I wanted to have Dave kick off. | ||
| The 6 o'clock show, because tomorrow the whole world's just going to be hanging on Powell's words out in Jackson Hole. | ||
| And my point is, Powell's a lawyer who is kind of a third-rate investment banker at these fifth-rate, tiny, irrelevant firms, and he's no great shakes. | ||
| Mnuchin picked him because they thought he was most easily manipulated. | ||
| It's not that he's any genius or any capital markets guru. | ||
| This guy has no history at all of trading. | ||
| He was a factotum. | ||
| He was a functionary brought in, I think, over at the Fed during the Bush administration. | ||
| And that's just what he is. | ||
| He's just a grundoon. | ||
| And yet people are hanging on his words. | ||
| He has been dead wrong. | ||
| A year ago, Today, I think it was, a year ago today at the annual Jackson Hole, because they all go out there in the waning days of summer to kind of hang out. | ||
| He stood in front of the microphone. | ||
| His big talk last year is how inflation was transitory. | ||
| We were sitting on the show going, what are you talking about, dude? | ||
| It's not transitory at all. | ||
| So the war is blowing these guys up. | ||
| But you go back and the tell is where they're projecting three and four percent growth, which is a fantasy. | ||
| Now we're in negative growth, which is a recession. | ||
| They said, oh, yeah, but it's really a theoretical. | ||
| There's a recession slash depression for working class people who now they want to bail out the wealthy for the colleges. | ||
| Larry Tribe tweets out right away. | ||
| Want to thank Biden for helping out all the students at Harvard and Harvard Law School. | ||
| They're the last guys. | ||
| Remember, most of this debt comes from graduate school. | ||
| It comes from all these deadbeats getting gender studies, you know, African American studies, all this basket weaving, not engineering, not computer science, not things that make people productive and allow you to get jobs that you can pay off the loans. | ||
| I don't think anybody has a problem making a loan as long as you're going to go out and get a profession. | ||
| All you're doing is underwriting these woke faculties of a collection of deadbeats that just put poison in the society. | ||
| And now the working class has got to underwrite it. | ||
| Remember, these debts are not cancelled, they're just transferred to who's paying them off, Dave Brett. | ||
| Right, yeah, and to underscore the point you made, I was looking at some numbers on The Economist, and so 70% of economists, as of this week, I agree that the Fed has about the right mix, right? | ||
| About the right degree of stimulus and easing going on, or tightening. | ||
| I view it as easing. | ||
| They view it as tightening. | ||
| But that's kind of shocking, right? | ||
| So that's back to the political alignments of faculty. | ||
| And that's all readily available for people to see, right? | ||
| So most economists are academic trained at the Ivies and around the more liberal departments. | ||
| And even if they're conservative, they can't say so. | ||
| Right, but it's interesting about 80 or 90% of CEOs and COOs think they're off course. | ||
| So the business folks think these forecasts are ridiculous, but they're not. | ||
|
unidentified
|
They know what's coming down the chain. | |
| Bloomberg had the same day. | ||
| 50% of CEOs think they're going to commence layoffs in the next six months to next year. | ||
| Dave, how do people get to you on Getter? | ||
| You're putting this stuff up all the time now that your wife taught you how to use social media. | ||
| How do people get to your stuff, Dean Bratt? | ||
| Yep. | ||
| Brat. | ||
| B-R-A-T. | ||
| Brat Economics Getter. | ||
| And then I'm up on Rumble on the show. | ||
| You can watch it there. | ||
| And then parents, bring your young scholars to Liberty University. | ||
| I'm on the third floor. | ||
| I got an open door policy. | ||
| All the students are back in the halls. | ||
| Pumps me up. | ||
| Just great, great students here and great human beings and faculty. | ||
| And so come take a visit. | ||
| We still teach the Judeo-Christian West. | ||
| All the founding principles that made us great. | ||
| And of course, God is our founding and first principle, always at liberty. | ||
| And so thanks, Steve. | ||
| Thanks for having me on. | ||
| God bless everyone out there listening. | ||
| Amen. | ||
| Great job. | ||
| Joanna Miller is on today about the formula. | ||
| But Joanna, you were Navarro's wingman in the White House of Manufacturing. | ||
| When you see these numbers, given what you were able to accomplish within the team with President Trump in that great year of 2019 before the CCP virus, Just give me your first impressions when you see, given everything you worked on at the White House, and how great you guys were there for manufacturing, for working class people, for wages. | ||
| Tell me what you, as a young White House aide, look at this now. | ||
|
unidentified
|
What these numbers scream to me is a total neglect of American manufacturing, American workers. | |
| It's extremely sad. | ||
| Woke universities are training people, just like you were saying, to get basket weaving degrees because the interest and investment in American manufacturing, high-paying manufacturing jobs, high-paying engineering jobs just isn't there. | ||
| Companies like Westwind Elements setting up the first U.S. | ||
| cobalt refinery are completely abandoned and having to figure out how to enter their own supply chains and set up high-paying manufacturing jobs for national security and patriotic reasons, completely independent of President Biden. | ||
| It just shows a complete neglect of national security and economic security priorities by the Biden administration. | ||
| What do you think? | ||
| This is your generation. | ||
| Tell me what you think of the Lawrence tribe saying, hey, I want to thank Biden for paying off all the loans for my students at Harvard. | ||
| And two thirds of the nation don't have college degrees. | ||
| Do you think this is just up in the grill of African-American and Hispanic working class folks? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, and what I think it does is it erodes our culture. | |
| People want to feel productive. | ||
| You're investing so much money to go to these woke universities that aren't going to teach you hard life skills that you can use in multiple different fields. | ||
| And what this is going to do is prevent people from actually being able to have jobs and provide for their families. | ||
| What minority communities care about most of all are having jobs and having a purpose. | ||
| And the Biden administration is completely neglecting them, telling them they're not worth Anything except for a woke degree that won't get them anywhere in life and same goes for everybody. | ||
| I mean, we should be teaching people and encouraging people to get degrees that actually teach them skills and supporting our manufacturing base through government subsidies like the CCP does with their own companies. | ||
| Here, it's like we expect our industry to take care of itself no matter what, while we continue to just facilitate this globalism order, the new liberal world order that the Biden administration wants us to put out here, while every other country is working on on-shoring its own supply chains and protecting its own people. | ||
| So, Joanne, I can't understand this article that came out, I got to you last night, about the formula, about how it happened. | ||
| Is there a solution right now? | ||
| Has the Biden administration come up with a solution? | ||
| Are the young moms in America still there? | ||
| Fauci's running around, the FDA and the CDC's running around trying to get the vax into the babies, and yet they can't get any formula. | ||
| Walk us through what's happening. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, so the Bloomberg article highlighted not just a gross neglect by the FDA of America's workers, but of the health and well-being of babies. | |
| As early as September, they sent two inspectors into that Abbott factory, and Abbott is responsible for half of the market in the US for baby formula. | ||
| Those two inspectors uh... had found evidence of contamination of bacteria spreading poor hygiene at the factory with workers reaching into ingredients for the baby formula with with their bare hands are not cleaning their gloves and this resulted in babies getting hospitalized and dying and so you have those two inspectors yes it's it's horrible that the abbott factory wasn't able to fix that on their own but when you send the FDA in there it's the government's responsibility at that point | ||
| to take care of the factory especially when babies lives are at risk and their brain development being so young and vulnerable uh... when they're dependent on this formula So you had as early as September 2021. | ||
| a whole series of warnings coming from Abbott in October, and then letters of reports getting lost within the FDA. | ||
| And this is the reason that they didn't take action. | ||
| They were aware for over a year. | ||
| And just to make another point, the Abbott factory had gone down in February and shut down completely. | ||
| And they provide a significant chunk of formula for low-income families. | ||
| The Biden administration has expanded access for low-income families in states because under the specific program called the WIC, you're only able to access a particular kind of formula depending on what state you live in. | ||
| The Biden administration has expanded access to different kinds of formula for these families and extended this deadline to December, 2022, indicating that they have no ability to fix this factory even a year later from when it went down. | ||
| So you just have neglect of America's babies, their health and wellbeing, and now mothers on Facebook. | ||
| On the formula exchange group are having to solve this crisis on their own. | ||
| They've done a remarkable job. | ||
| They have about 25,000 followers. | ||
| This is the best solution that mothers in America have is relying on this Facebook page so that mothers nationwide can ship formula to each other. | ||
| But you have a complete neglect of babies and manufacturing by the Biden administration. | ||
| But this Facebook page has done wonders and I think that's where mothers should absolutely turn for the near term. | ||
| Real quickly, we've got about a minute. | ||
| I want to ask you, if you were in the White House, given you and Navarro, action, action, action, what would President Trump do if this problem was active? | ||
| What would he tell you and Navarro to do? | ||
|
unidentified
|
When first warnings of bacteria anything came out as early as October, President Trump would have invoked the Defense Production Act. | |
| He would have sent inspectors in there and cleaned up the factory, making sure that no bacteria was going to contaminate our infants and our babies. | ||
| And we would have had that factory cleaned out and up and running and mass producing to make up for the shortage within days. | ||
| With the ventilator crisis, When we didn't have any ventilators, we stood up a factory in 17 days of beautiful, brand-new, USA-made ventilators. | ||
| With this baby formula, we would have had that factory cleaned up and mass-producing within days as well. | ||
| Biden has still not allocated a single dollar for contracts for this Abbott factory and has not cleaned it up with the FDA. | ||
| They've only just told them to fix it on their own. | ||
| We would have given them all the assistance they would have needed and helped them mass-produce to meet demand of the American people. | ||
| Joanna Miller, how do people get to you? | ||
| What's your social media? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Truth Social and Getter is Joanna Miller and my Instagram is JoannaMiller1026. | |
| Joanna, thank you very much for answering our questions and explaining this horrific crisis in baby formula. | ||
| Thank you very much. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you for having me. | |
| Okay, short commercial break. | ||
| The Associated Press mainstream media is all over Dr. Naomi Wolf, she's going to walk you through chapter and verse of what's real and what's fake news. | ||
|
unidentified
|
All next in The War Room. | |
| War Room Battlegrounds with Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| . | ||
| Okay, welcome back. | ||
| Naomi Wolf has been doing some amazing work with this team of 3,500 volunteers from the War on Posse, plus about 250 lawyers. | ||
| They've got lawsuits, they have reports, they have studies. | ||
| But here recently, you've got the mainstream media. | ||
| Now, I think this tells us she's over the target. | ||
| Naomi, thank you for joining us. | ||
| Let's talk about the AP story. | ||
| You're over the target. | ||
| They're coming at you hard. | ||
| Let's walk through the story and then walk through, I know you've got a way to counter these and update them. | ||
| So you take it away, man. | ||
| Yeah, look, I do agree and I've learned to conclude that when there's big resources devoted to a big smear campaign or a big critique, That usually does mean we're over the target and that we should look more deeply. | ||
| This is not a critique. | ||
| This is a smear campaign. | ||
| They understand you're going to the heart of the beast. | ||
| You've got Pfizer and these big pharma companies on their back foot. | ||
| With a little gorilla operation of a bunch of very smart volunteers, very dedicated volunteers, a great team and Amy Kelly, some great lawyers. | ||
| But compared to Big Pharma, this is not David. | ||
| This is like micro David versus Uber Goliath, right? | ||
| But they want, they understand that you are. | ||
| Like a B-17 in World War II over the Ruhr Valley. | ||
| You're getting through the flak and now you're getting over the target. | ||
| And they want to make sure there are no bombs dropped. | ||
| So they said, let's take her out and let's take her entire apparatus right now. | ||
| So walk us through what are they saying and what are the facts? | ||
| What's fake news and what's real? | ||
| I'd like to. | ||
| So I do think it's notable that before this hit piece came out, The volunteers had done a series of pieces proving, really breaking story after story about reproductive harms. | ||
| This goes back to May when one of our volunteers groups broke the story, which you can see on the Daily Cloud website, showing that there had been a section in the Pfizer documents that shows a miscarriage rate and a spontaneous abortion rate of over 76%. | ||
| And that analysis was recently confirmed by Dr. Pierre Corey, who looked at the same section and found over 80% spontaneous abortion and miscarriage rate. | ||
| So what did happen is that, you know, we broke story after story about harms to reproduction, moving on to harms to male reproduction. | ||
| Amy Kelly has a blistering piece up about how the lipid nanoparticles damage, not just the testes, but the epididymis, the things that, you know, boys and youths and men You know, young men need to have functioning properly in order to develop normally, not just in terms of sperm count and sperm motility, which has already been documented to be harmed by these injections, but also in terms of secondary sex characteristics. | ||
| So, we were making an impact. | ||
| Now, it is true that on August 12th, we posted a piece by a volunteer named Berberine, that's her pseudonym, that had an error. | ||
| She miscounted, and I announced this on this show, I've announced it on a bunch of other shows. | ||
| I announced it on Getter because I believe in accuracy, transparency, and accountability. | ||
| She made a mistake and we made a mistake in posting it. | ||
| She counted some miscarriages that should not have been counted because she didn't notice that it was the same subjects in two different tables. | ||
| So that was wrong. | ||
| So we immediately issued a correction. | ||
| Many days later, after we'd issued a public correction, a correction on our website, a correction on social media, corrections on all the podcasts on which I appeared, and we kept posting new reports showing additional shocking harms to women and to reproduction, which I'll get to, the AP ran this hit piece, which itself has horrible errors in it. | ||
| One of the things that's really notable about this piece is they did The reporter reached out to me for a quote, and my quote was something like, yes, Berberine's article had an error. | ||
| It was incorrect. | ||
| We corrected it immediately. | ||
| However, sadly, elsewhere in the Pfizer documents, the miscarriage rate is even higher, over 70%. | ||
| The AP just cut everything in my comment except the word incorrect. | ||
| So they cut my saying, yes, that was wrong, but sadly elsewhere there is confirmation that the miscarriage rate was even higher. | ||
| They just cut it, they just erased it. | ||
| It went into the memory hole. | ||
| Another disturbing thing is that they had a biostatistician, not a gynecologist or an obstetrician, note, or rather they noted, after the biostatistician had his say, that linking to the Mayo Clinic, there's a 10 to 20% miscarriage rate. | ||
| Well, that's kind of deceptive. | ||
| And it's interesting that that Mayo Clinic piece is from 2021, when we began to have this massive volume of miscarriages. | ||
| You know, 2021 was when the vaccinated pregnant women began to miscarry at scale. | ||
| If you go to another site, a UK government site, nct.org.uk, you see that it's actually up to 25% In the first trimester, when 80% of miscarriages do take place. | ||
| But after that, it drops precipitously to 5%, and then 1.7%, and then 0.5%. | ||
| So the kinds of miscarriage rates that we're seeing in the Pfizer documents are still a signal of something really being wrong. | ||
| And I just want to note the bizarre fact that in the APP's, the reporter, went to Pfizer and went to the FDA for comment. | ||
| Pfizer said, oh, we had, you know, 44,000 subjects and there were not miscarriages reported. | ||
| And I did a double take when I saw that because if they're talking about the same table that I understand them to be talking about, pregnant women were excluded intentionally from the trials because it wasn't safe to include them. | ||
| That's why I've been saying for months now that the assurances that to pregnant women that the vaccine was safe and effective for them was based on a study of 44 French rats followed for 42 days. That was the pregnancy study. Nonetheless, in the Pfizer papers, 270 women got pregnant. And you really need to look at this section. The report is up on Daily Cloud. And again, Dr. Khoury confirmed our analysis. | ||
| Pfizer lost the records of 234 of those women. And that's illegal. You're supposed to follow these women all the way through. | ||
| But of the 36 that were left, 28 of them lost their babies. | ||
| So over 70 percent, 28 of them sustained spontaneous abortion or miscarriage. So this AP piece They didn't cover any of that, right? | ||
| They didn't cover any of the abundant documentation that Aetana Hecht has provided. | ||
| Let me just understand something. | ||
| Although there was a mathematical miscalculation in your study, directionally and everything else in the study was correct, but instead of having almost half, which blows my head up, it was over a quarter? | ||
| I just want to make sure the math, it's 26%? | ||
| Is that the correct number? | ||
| 2% would be, 2% you should put him in prison. | ||
| It's 26%, correct? | ||
| This is my point. | ||
| Yes, there was a mathematical thing that the whole company should go to prison, but it's still at 26%, which is outrageous. | ||
| I just want to make sure I understand this, correct? | ||
| I'm not willing to say that that's correct, because our experts are now re-analyzing that whole section, which is quite opaque. | ||
| Different people looking at it are reaching different conclusions. | ||
| But there are signals in other places, in the Pfizer documents as well as there, that this is a higher than normal miscarriage rate. | ||
| And that's something that AP should be reporting on. | ||
| And AP should also be reporting on the 200% rise in miscarriages and spontaneous abortions in Scotland, reported by the BBC. | ||
| They should be reporting on the 86 baby deaths when usually they have five or six in Ontario Canada. | ||
| Why has the War Room Posse with you under Amy Kelly and Daily Cloud with Dolores, why are you the clearinghouse now for pulling all this information together that's out there in these disparate studies and reports? | ||
| Something like maybe, I don't know, CDC? | ||
| I'm throwing out a random institution. | ||
| Why are they not declaring house? | ||
| Why is FDA not declaring house? | ||
| Maybe even the pharma companies? | ||
| Why are they not declaring? | ||
| Why is MSNBC or Harvard or Yale? | ||
| You pick it. | ||
| Why does it have to be a group of volunteers that are essentially not just doing their own analysis of these documents, but you're kind of the clearinghouse for all these reports that have been, and news articles throughout the world. | ||
| And what planet is that the right way to do things? | ||
| Well, you know, you're exactly right. | ||
| I mean, it shouldn't be a group of very distinguished, very committed volunteers The other thing, like, we should never have a mistake, right? | ||
| And we should always correct any mistake we have. | ||
| And we've been going for about six months now with over 150 pages of analysis, over 30 reports, and this is the first error. | ||
| You know, I take responsibility. | ||
| We should be perfect, right? | ||
| We're also racing against time. | ||
| Like, usually a peer-reviewed report takes over a year to compose, to check, to, you know, to publish. | ||
| We're basically racing to get this information in the hands of human beings because what we're finding is that the human species is being put at risk, especially by these reproductive harms. | ||
| And I'll get to the new evidence, you know, after we talk about this, but we shouldn't be. | ||
| The bottom line is it shouldn't be, you know, 3,500 volunteers and one project director, you know, surviving on your lovely and generous Kind of checks to us of $5 to, you know, $30 or whatever. | ||
| It should be the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. | ||
| It should be the FDA, right? | ||
| It should be Pfizer. | ||
| I mean, Pfizer's so extraordinary because, you know, this piece just lies. | ||
| There's a quote saying, studies have found that the vaccines do not increase the chances of spontaneous abortion. | ||
| Well, right in the Pfizer documents, which this reporter could have looked at, there's a section showing That 78% of the group there had spontaneous abortions or miscarriages. | ||
| So they're not seeing what they choose not to find. | ||
| And the same is true of the CDC study, Least Safe, which I've spoken about a lot. | ||
| You know, that's the CDC. | ||
| Well, they structured the pregnancy study so that it's a phone app, so that you're self-reporting. | ||
| You're supposed to call the call center and say, I had a spontaneous abortion or I had a miscarriage. | ||
| If you don't want to do that because you're grieving, no one's going to follow up with you. | ||
| It's not doctors. | ||
| It's not a clinic or scientists following up with you. | ||
| And it's disproportionately women who are health care workers, who are white, who are educated, who are educated about nutrition and pregnancy, and who have, you know, employment and access to health care and all these things that the actual demographic average of women giving birth and being vaccinated don't have. | ||
| And even with all of those Illusions of a normal study. | ||
| They took tens of thousands of women going in and they ended up with less than a thousand. | ||
| And they still got a 13% miscarriage or spontaneous abortion rate. | ||
| So that's not science. | ||
| And you see that over and over. | ||
| And you're absolutely right. | ||
| It shouldn't be, you know, volunteers who are angels of mercy taking their lifetimes as scientists or as doctors or RNs or epidemiologists | ||
| Pouring through these thousands and thousands of records, and then me racing to bring it to the world, you know, as amazing a job as we're doing, I think, and as many important stories as we've broken, you know, we're stepping in a kind of guerrilla scholarship, guerrilla, like G-U-E-R-I-L-L-A, because the doctors have failed us, the obstetricians have failed us, and the agencies have failed us. | ||
| Look, you're, you're a journalist. | ||
| You've got a couple of three years doing this. | ||
| Um, did, did the AP story, or when you talk to them, did you get any sense? | ||
| They say, okay, I see you've got the War Room Posse and Daily Cloud managed by the project manager, Andrew Michele. | ||
| You've got these lawyers, you've got Naomi. | ||
| I see that. | ||
| And look, I think there's a miscalculation on a number, but I see what they've done and all these 115 reports, all the, you know, 750 pages of reports. | ||
| But let's put that aside. | ||
| Did you get any indication whatsoever that the Associated Press said independently with their massive global staff had gone through these documents as you guys went through them and tried to analyze them in pieces together? | ||
| Was there any sense from you that they had gone through with their huge professional staff and gone through these documents independently? | ||
| There was no evidence. | ||
| There's no evidence in the piece that they've done that. | ||
| They got a guy, and this is, I guess, a guy who's got a perfectly distinguished CV, but he tends to comment about vaccine-related issues. | ||
| But no, they did not pour through the documents themselves. | ||
| They took Pfizer's word for whatever Pfizer wanted to say. | ||
| The FDA didn't say anything. | ||
| The FDA didn't comment. | ||
| So the Associated Press can't, pester the spokesperson of the FDA to give a comment in the face of these damning findings, not just this one. Let me say, let's not believe anything that Naomi Wolf says or her team says. | ||
| Has there been any news organization to your knowledge that has drilled down to the level you guys have drilled down and come to any conclusion? | ||
| Let's say they're radically different conclusions from the data to go through, was it 50,000 pages of documentation? | ||
| Has any news organization to your knowledge gone through at the level you guys have gone through to really try to get and see what the ground truth is of what Pfizer has been forced by a federal court to put forward? | ||
| So, to my knowledge, absolutely zero legacy media has even taken a look at these documents. | ||
| I mean, they literally are ignoring the biggest story of the 21st century and the most exciting journalistic trove of primary source documents, you know, since Watergate or since the Pentagon Papers. | ||
| So, no legacy media. | ||
| There are very committed dissident analysts like Dr. Pierre Corey, who confirmed our other findings about these high miscarriage and abortion rates, spontaneous abortion rates. | ||
| You know, Dr. McCullough also has been doing incredibly good analysis of high miscarriage rates from other sources. | ||
| These Israeli journalists that Eitana Hecht brought to our attention went through the VAERS database and found Terribly high miscarriage, spontaneous abortion rates from the mRNA vaccines. | ||
| But apart from these other independent commentators, and to their credit, they're doing a lot of important things, but no, they're not doing this heavy lifting that we're doing. | ||
| And I'm going to blow your mind and say it's not 55,000 documents total. | ||
| I thought that was the case, but Amy Kelly corrected me. | ||
| It's 55,000 a month or thereabouts. | ||
| Every month, there's a document dump of tens of thousands of documents. | ||
| And these six groups, under the guidance of Amy Kelly, are absolutely heroically poring through document after document. | ||
| To my knowledge, no one else is doing anything like it. | ||
| For our audience, and we're going to have to contain this for the details tomorrow, Naomi, and then the following day, and I've got to talk to you maybe a Saturday special, because you mentioned the Pentagon Papers. | ||
| The Pentagon Papers, which was as a guy at the Pentagon was put together, were those guys trying to look back how they had gotten to a certain place, given the official reporting that was done from documentation. | ||
| And what happened, it was all put together. | ||
| People go, Oh my God, we were actively lied to, you know, people trying to separate themselves, but there was a pattern of not just errors that people would normally make in assessing it, but there was obviously outright lies and lies to the American people consistently to justify the war and to justify our actually winning the war. | ||
| The reason we were putting more young men into this charnel house over there. | ||
| You made the exact point. | ||
| This is the Pentagon Papers of this generation. | ||
| It's sitting there in the mainstream media. | ||
| By the way, the New York Times made its bones on the Pentagon Papers, right? | ||
| Neil Shaheen and a bunch of guys won Pulitzer Prizes, as they should have. | ||
| It was shocking and it changed the direction of the country, not just politically, but the structure of politics with different committees set up and we're not going to believe certain people anymore, right? | ||
| The FBI, the CIA, that all came out of the railhead of the Pentagon Papers. | ||
| In Big Pharma, this is what you have. | ||
| And it seems to me, I don't know, the AP, yes. | ||
| How can the Associated Press, how can Reuters, how can Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, and the New York Times and the Washington Post, how can Tom Hamburger and the investigative unit, how can the investigative unit of the New York Times, which prides themselves on being the best, and the Wall Street Journal, have not even begun or it looks like commenced To go through a treasure trove of which Pfizer and Big Pharma fought to have these documents secured for, what, 70 years? | ||
| That's not a random thing. | ||
| And to go to federal court. | ||
| So the last two minutes, talk to us about why this is the Pentagon Papers. | ||
| And quite frankly, the crime we have is a journalistic crime. | ||
| It is also journalistic crime. | ||
| It's a multivalent crime. | ||
| Our government is refusing to answer basic questions. | ||
| The FDA is the custodian of these documents, and they didn't bother to answer the Associated Press when we've got now 150 pages of analysis of, and you're right, about how the FDA has harmed us and let us be poisoned and let us be injured and let us be killed and let the next generation be sterilized. | ||
| And, you know, Pfizer's certainly lying, but they're a private company. | ||
| I expect them to lie. | ||
| And journalists have absolutely betrayed the trust, the public trust, in not covering This story. | ||
| How is it the Pentagon Papers? | ||
| Well, I'll tell you, I think you're right about the cumulative nature of what we're doing. | ||
| And I try to be humble, but what these people have done is monumental. | ||
| You know, I'm just the reporter of their work. | ||
| It's cumulative, right? | ||
| It's now over 150 pages, over 30 reports, one after the other, after the other, showing lies, twisted data, harms that were covered up, harms to kids' hearts, Harms to ovaries, harms to testes. | ||
| And I think that what's happening is it's been a hammering, especially the last few weeks. | ||
| But really what happened is that with the report of Dr. Chandler... Hang on. | ||
| We're going to hold that to tomorrow morning. | ||
| Give right now how everybody gets you on social media, how they get to the Daily Clap. | ||
| Sure. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| So everyone go to dailyclap.io and read what we're talking about. | ||
| You know, read these, especially the Dr. Chandler piece, which I'll save for you showing that the next generation is being sterilized and that women especially are being harmed. | ||
| Go to Dr. Naomi Wolf on Getter. | ||
| That's where I post a lot of this material. | ||
| And my book is The Bodies of Others. | ||
| It shows how this whole machine of injection geared up to harm us. | ||
| And please keep supporting us. | ||
| The Hero's Journey. | ||
| We'll be back here tomorrow at 10 o'clock. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Nothing will stop us. | |
| See you then. |
Export Selection