Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 14, 2023 - The David Knight Show

03:01:24

The David Knight Show - 09/14/2023

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Transcription by CastingWords
	Using free speech to free minds.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Thursday the 14th of September, year of our Lord 2023.
	Well, today we're going to begin by talking about politics and we're going to take a look at the interview that Megyn Kelly had with President Trump.
	She doesn't come after him directly with a vaccine, she comes after him through Fauci.
	Very interesting to see the back and forth with that.
	We're also going to take a look at what is happening with the ramping up of vaccines, and we'll take a look at what is happening across the political spectrum worldwide, I should say, the geopolitical spectrum worldwide, by taking a closer look at how things are shaping out, for example, in Latin America.
	The massive inflation that's there and how that is pushing them in one direction as we're being pushed in a different direction.
	Tony Arterman is going to join us today and we're going to have Dr.
	Andrew Kaufman joining us in the third hour.
	We're going to talk about the variants.
	What do they know?
	Have they measured anything? Have they isolated anything?
	You'll be surprised at the answer.
	Seriously, we'll be right back.
	And I say you'll be surprised at the answer because we all know how they're manipulating the data beyond what you can imagine.
	But let's begin with the mainstream media.
	Drudge headlines all day yesterday in the pretty good metric of what the mainstream media is pushing.
	The idea that this is somehow outrageous because Trump is privately encouraging GOP lawmakers to impeach Biden.
	So what? So what?
	What is Biden doing?
	Is Biden actively encouraging attacks against his opponents, not just against Trump, but against the January 6th people?
	Of course he is. This is about free speech.
	I don't really understand what they expect to get out of this, but again, it's the conspiracies of the left, conspiracy theories of the left, And the fact that so much of this is about demonizing Trump.
	And of course, that only makes him stronger in the Republican primary, but it does hurt him in the general election.
	There was an interesting piece by Dennis Prager saying, if liberals voted their values, America would be saved.
	I thought that was kind of interesting.
	He comes from, obviously, as he says, most of his friends and family identify themselves as liberals.
	In other words, if you look at how he's breaking this down, what do liberals believe and what do leftists believe?
	And why do liberals continue to vote for a party where the leftists have taken over?
	And what Dennis Prager is saying is that the liberals, the old-style FDR Democrat liberals, The socialists, they still have a patriotism about America.
	They still value things like free speech and other stuff like that.
	They don't realize that the party has now been taken over by hardcore Marxists, and they continue to vote that way.
	And so he says, and his labels, again, liberalism would be what I would call the old-style Democrats.
	And I said for the longest time, I said the Democrats of my youth, Have become hardcore Marxist.
	The Republicans, on the other hand, have become what the Democrats used to be.
	Statists, believing in the power of the state, seeing it as a savior that we need to give more power to.
	He says, liberalism has nothing in common with leftism, yet virtually every liberal votes for the left.
	And so he gives examples.
	He said, you know, liberals believe in the idea of colorblindness, but the left rejects that.
	The left claims that the very term colorblind is racist.
	Liberals have always believed in America without ignoring its flaws, but the left believes that America is and has always been fundamentally an immoral country, and on and on, talking about hate speech and all the rest of this stuff.
	But as I look at this, and of course this is an example of the tribalism that is being pushed, Nothing in there calling out Republicans, or especially MAGA, for saying, if you voted for what you believe, you would not be supporting Trump.
	And Dennis Prager is not going to do that.
	I'll do that. I'll talk about the blind loyalty, not even to a party, but to a person.
	They openly vote for the opposite of everything that they believe, just like he accuses, and rightfully so.
	Many old-style liberals who vote for hardcore leftist Marxists who hate this country.
	You have MAGA people who hate the lockdowns.
	They hate the mass.
	They hate the massive deficit spending that Trump brought in.
	They hate the election integrity, and they don't understand how Trump influenced and destroyed election integrity through his lockdown and the actions that he took in 2020.
	So they hate lockdown. They hate mass.
	They hate spending. They...
	They have concerns about election integrity.
	And of course, most of all, the jab.
	And yet, they don't attribute any of this stuff to Trump.
	It truly is delusional.
	And it is far beyond what he is even calling out the left for.
	And here's an example.
	This is sent by a listener. I really appreciate that.
	Michael Ramirez, a cartoonist, a political cartoonist.
	And he's somebody who does cartoons on both sides.
	But he is a free-market conservative, old-style conservative.
	And here's an example of what this looks like.
	You know, what Dennis Prager was accusing the left of, this is what Michael Ramirez, and it's the same thing I experienced as well.
	He says, a reader recently asked me if I'd changed.
	He implied I'd become a liberal because I had targeted Trump, and I thought, well, my response is worth sharing with you.
	He said, these are some things I've written about before, but I think the upcoming election, they're worth repeating.
	He said, I told him to take a look at my cartoons again.
	He said, there's literally hundreds of anti-Biden administration, anti-progressive, anti-wokeism cartoons for every single Trump cartoon.
	I told him cartoons are focused on issues, not on personalities.
	He said, I used to joke with one of my dear friends, a Republican governor, that I would stop doing cartoons against his policies if he stopped doing things I disagreed with.
	That is the big elephant in the room.
	As I said, I knew this is what had happened after Alex Jones, who used to be very much nonpartisan.
	He'd criticize Republicans and Democrats equally until Trump.
	And then he saw an opportunity, and he became a Trump man.
	And as I said before, the week before the election, two of us, the 2016 election, two of us were in the break room alone.
	He said, so what are we going to do?
	In other words, what are you going to do if Trump wins?
	And I said, we'll applaud him when he does the right thing.
	We'll criticize him when he does the wrong thing.
	Alex just stared at me silently for a few seconds, said, hmm, walked out of the room.
	Yeah. That's where it is.
	So anyway, he says, I'm still the same constitutional conservative free market capitalist I've always been.
	I'll always follow principles and defend the truth, even at the risk of being unpopular.
	I have a 40-year-plus record of supporting constitutional conservatism and free market capitalism, and I have never deviated from that.
	Unfortunately, he said, the Republican Party has navigated away from our founding principles towards a shallow conspiratorial populism.
	And also away from success at the ballot box.
	You see, this is what Dennis Prager doesn't want to touch.
	What Alex Jones doesn't want to touch.
	What Mark Levin pretends not to know.
	What Glenn Beck ignores after he stopped rolling his face in Cheetos and all the rest of this stuff.
	Some readers call me a rhino.
	I freely admit it.
	I am Republican in name only.
	I am not tied to any party.
	I am tied to conservative principles.
	The Republican Party has traditionally been the best vehicle to do that, but that is changing.
	And he said, and besides that, you have to win to actually implement your ideas.
	They said far too many pundits are already using social media to reinforce conspiratorial nonsense.
	Why, he says? Michael Ramirez says they do it for fame, for fortune, and for following.
	Well put. I like the alliteration.
	And he covered everything. You know, it's for audience, for getting famous, and make a fortune out of this stuff.
	And many people see this and have talked about it.
	Matt Taibbi has talked about it.
	Glenn Greenwald has talked about it.
	And Matt said, look...
	What journalism is turned into on both sides is people going out there and identifying a demographic that they can make money from and then producing content to cater to the prejudices and the beliefs of that demographic.
	It's not about principles.
	It's not about truth. It's not about investigating anything.
	It's about fame, fortune, and following.
	And so Michael Ramirez says, I choose not to be one of them.
	They have abused your trust for gain.
	And boy, if January the 6th isn't the epitome of that.
	But actually, it began before that.
	It began in March of 2020.
	Abusing your trust for gain.
	So we all see it.
	The people who do it see it.
	The people who don't do it see it.
	We can all read the room, and it just depends on whether you're going to tell the room what you believe, what you think is true, or whether you're going to go along and go for the applause and the money.
	He said, the shame is that America is ready for a conservative revolution on the scale of the Reagan years, and we'll talk about that with the money stuff.
	What is happening in Argentina?
	And it was a very interesting perspective about political division.
	And in this interview with someone in Argentina, as I pointed out, last week I had a very good interview with The Economist who has a 120-page book, 15 Different Principles, has become a bestseller in Latin America because their economy is in ruins.
	Right now, we're not talking about the economy that much.
	We're talking about LGBT and all the rest of this stuff, and the liberals are pushing their Marxist ideas around.
	But none of that is being talked about in Latin America because people are just trying to survive.
	And that's where they're taking us.
	You understand? And I would say that this other stuff is a, if I was a secularist, I would say all the LGBT stuff is a distraction.
	But because I'm not, because I'm a Christian, I understand this is a test.
	This is a test.
	If we go along with this, if we don't fight it, I understand that liberty, prosperity, I agree with the founders, they're blessings from God.
	They're not things that we did on our own.
	You're not going to be blessed.
	You're not going to be prosperous if you turn your back on God.
	But if you have a generation that follows God, those blessings will propagate for many subsequent generations.
	And we've been living off of the spiritual capital of our ancestors for a very, very long time.
	Anyway, going back to this, he said it's a shame because America is ready for a conservative revolution.
	And Biden is the best thing to happen to the GOP since Lincoln.
	I'll be careful about that.
	I wind up in another civil war.
	He has shown that progressive policies are a disaster.
	But this has been undermined by Trump and the GOP looking backward instead of forward.
	It's not only that they want to continue to relitigate the 2020 election, but it's also, as you saw with even the beef that Matt Gaetz had with Kevin McCarthy.
	You know, you're not talking about the deficit.
	You're not talking about... And so many things that completely ignore the full-on attack on our liberties.
	And the new attacks on our liberties.
	The new control structures.
	The new public health emergency orders and all the rest of this stuff that is being used to control us and take us down.
	There's absolutely no talk about that because that is bipartisan.
	And that is why I say the solution does not lie in Washington.
	People in Washington lie.
	Anyway, he says America needs a true conservative.
	This class one senatorial election cycle that we're in right now It's an opportunity for Republicans to pick up the Senate.
	There are 33 seats up for grabs.
	Only 10 of them are Republican seats.
	The other 20 are Democrat seats, plus three independents that caucus with the Democrats.
	But he points out, we've already had a situation where, because of Trump, we lost the Senate in 2020.
	The new rules that allowed a new level of corruption, but the new rules that came from the Trump administration that were not addressed.
	Instead, it became an opportunity for fame, following, and fortune to complain about the election.
	And that turned over the Senate to the Democrats.
	And then, of course, the midterm elections of Biden.
	In 2020, 43% of Democrats did not vote for Biden or for his liberal agenda.
	They voted against Trump, he says.
	Because of Trump, the Republican Party has shrunk to only 24% of the electorate.
	Diehard Trump supporters constitute about a third of the party.
	If we say that they're even half, that means it's 12% of the electorate.
	So, for all the videos that you see of the adoring crowds wherever Trump goes, understand, 12% of the electorate, that's a lot of people.
	And they really do love Trump.
	And it really is unprecedented the way that they love him.
	And it's really scary.
	And it is also the path to defeat.
	Because other people, even if they don't show up to throw rotten tomatoes at him, can't stand him.
	And we'll vote against him.
	41% of the voters are independent.
	Most of those are Republicans, former Republicans.
	And conservative Democrats.
	33% of the independents were Democrats, but they don't really like their party either.
	He says, so just do the math.
	You might be able to win with a plurality of the vote in the primary, but you cannot win a general election with only 8% of the vote, or even with 12%.
	He says, I'm not anti-Trump.
	I'm anti-stupid.
	Trump is a loser.
	He lost the House, he lost the Senate twice, and he lost the presidency to a borderline dementia patient who's been on the wrong side of every major issue in his political career.
	Biden is someone who hates liberty and freedom.
	He hates the very concepts that America was built on, of God-given natural rights.
	He hates that. Always has.
	He says Trump was unreliable.
	The largest deficit under Obama was $1.3 trillion.
	The largest deficit under Trump was $1.3 trillion before COVID, where he spends $3.7 trillion.
	After locking everybody down, creating a massive welfare program of universal basic income, which is temporary.
	It was a temporary adjustment to move The Overton window in people's minds.
	I could stay home and I could make money off of this.
	I think I like universal basic income.
	That was Trump.
	Another Trump precedent.
	Trump was anti-free market.
	And Biden has continued the Trump trade policies because they are leftist policies.
	He says the Trump administration did some good things.
	He was better than Hillary.
	They shut down $1.3 trillion in Obama regulations, unleashed the American economy.
	They cut taxes, making our corporate tax rates globally competitive at a conservative Supreme Court.
	But all of these things could have been done by any Republican.
	The good things that happened in the Trump administration happened in spite of Trump, not because of him.
	As a matter of fact, I'll add another one that Michael Ramirez didn't get.
	The energy policy that was there.
	Again, that happened not because of Trump, but in spite of him.
	It happened because of his one good appointment.
	And I mean that. There's not anybody that Trump appointed to be in his cabinet.
	And we all know that policy is personnel.
	The only good appointment he had in his cabinet was Scott Pruitt.
	And it was Scott Pruitt who got us more energy independence and unleashed that stuff.
	But he was run out of town and not supported by Trump.
	And Trump was gaslighted on the Paris Climate Accord.
	And then Trump had this weak, ineffective policy that, okay, well, I don't think I can get out of it.
	Well, I guess I should get out of it.
	I guess I will get out of it.
	But I'm going to wait until after the election.
	The day after the election, he says, okay, we're out.
	I'm going to declare...
	They were out of the Paris Climate Accord, and that lasted for two months until Biden came in.
	He says, now we're back in. What Trump did was he went with a precedent that Obama and John Kerry could self-ratify a treaty.
	And of course, Glitch McConnell is equally to blame, if not more so to blame.
	Glitch McConnell, before Trump ever came around, should have said, you can't ratify this.
	That is the job of the Senate.
	So we're going to have a vote. And that would have done it.
	And it would have done it all the way through.
	And it would have done it even during the lame duck period there after the election.
	All of that time. And we talked about that.
	I had Steve Malloy on and we talked about that.
	Why doesn't...
	Let's put pressure on the Republicans while they still have control of the Senate.
	Glitch McConnell is in control.
	Well, Glitch McConnell is on board with the globalists.
	And everybody knows that.
	What they won't admit is that Trump is on board with a globalist as well on so many different issues.
	Anyway, he said 64% of Americans wanted a wall built.
	That was Trump's central thing.
	58% still want it today.
	Trump had a Republican majority in the House and in the Senate, and he still couldn't get it done.
	As Ann Coulter said, because he turned the government over to his son-in-law and to a Cohen from Goldman Sachs.
	Then he contrasts this with Reagan.
	He says, Reagan assembled a conservative revolution and passed the largest tax cuts without a Republican majority in the House.
	Trump couldn't do anything with a majority in the House and the Senate.
	Why? Because Reagan made it cool to be a Republican.
	Trump did just the opposite.
	He said Trump and his acolytes went to court over 61 times over this election, went to court 61 times, courts that also had conservative and even Trump-appointed judges.
	He had a conservative Supreme Court, and he could not provide a shred of evidence of substantial voter fraud.
	Look, I've always been open to that.
	I believe that there's a tremendous amount of fraud in every election.
	Uh, but, um, we've had this go on and on and on.
	We've even had, as I pointed out before, Steve Bannon covering a live event where Mike Lindell was going to bring the receipts.
	All right, let's do this. It's going to be exciting.
	You know, finally, we're going to see the receipts after all this way after this is like a year ago or something like that.
	And Mike Lindell does his stuff, and after a while, Steve Bannon shut the thing down and said, he doesn't have anything.
	I was told we're going to have receipts.
	He didn't have anything. It was like Al Capone's vault with Roldo Rivera.
	There was nothing there.
	And yet, Steve Bannon, because he can read the room, because he wants fame, fortune, and a following, is back on the election bandwagon, even though there was nothing there.
	Even though nothing was shown.
	If you're going to make extraordinary claims, you've got to have some evidence.
	They've had now three years to show the evidence, and they haven't done it.
	So five of the six contested states had election systems that were set up by Republican legislatures.
	And all had paper ballots.
	All recounts, including the ridiculous cyber ninjas, showed gains for Biden.
	Which brings us to two conclusions.
	Number one... All of those judges, all of those Republican legislatures, all of those Republican election workers, all those Republican cybersecurity czars appointed by Trump who certified the election, 11 of his 14 cabinet members that are now opposed to Trump, and many more conservatives are all lying and in on the largest conspiracy in history.
	And all the paper ballots were rigged.
	Or, maybe Trump is a liar.
	Well put. That's Michael Ramirez.
	I 100% agree with him.
	He says, I don't care if Trump is obnoxious.
	He says, I'm obnoxious.
	But I do mind when it impulsively undermines the conservative agenda.
	What used to separate Republicans from Democrats are cold, hard facts.
	For Republicans, principles matter.
	Or at least they used to. Truth matters.
	At least it used to. The means are as important as the ends.
	You understand that? You don't lie to get what you want.
	And that's what Alex would always excuse.
	Oh, it's just 4D chess.
	I know, I know, he's doing the wrong thing.
	I know, I know, he said he's going to do this.
	And he's either lying then or lying now.
	But it's 4D chess. He's really on our side.
	You've got to keep believing in him.
	Even though he's doing everything he always said he opposed.
	It's simply 4D chess.
	Very, very complicated stuff you just don't understand.
	No, it's really simple.
	The truth is really simple.
	Integrity is really simple.
	Principles are really simple.
	Things get complicated when you start lying, Alex.
	That's the key thing.
	That's what MAGA needs to understand.
	We don't want 4D chess.
	We want straight shooters.
	We want people who have principles and a backbone and a spine.
	So he says, the means are as important as the ends.
	In my view, liberals deal with things emotionally and conservatives deal with things factually and intellectually.
	Not with MAGA. There is a derangement, a Trump derangement, where they can do doublethink.
	I hate the jabs.
	I hated the lockdowns.
	I hated the mask. I hated the, you know, massive trillions of dollars.
	But I love Trump who did all of those things.
	I hate the lockdown mail-in elections.
	But I love Trump.
	He said Republicans should stand for God.
	Family freedom, fidelity to the Constitution.
	Well, just think about that.
	Where is Trump on those issues?
	God? Trump defiantly worships money.
	Mammon. Always has.
	Always has. Look at his programs.
	Money, money, money.
	Always been about money.
	Before he got into politics, he was...
	Yeah. You want to talk about family?
	How many women has he not only divorced, but trashed like he does his former cabinet members?
	It's not enough for Trump to be unfaithful to his wives.
	He has to publicly humiliate them on the way out.
	What does that say about his character?
	God? Family?
	Where is Trump on that spectrum?
	What about freedom? What about the lockdown?
	What about being told you are not essential?
	Your job is not essential.
	Your small business that you've worked all your life for, poured all your money and labor into, is not essential.
	This is Wall Street big box retailers that are essential.
	What about fidelity of the Constitution?
	Forget the Constitution.
	We'll do due process later at some point in time, right?
	Whether you're talking about the Second Amendment or the rest of this stuff.
	Adherence to the law?
	What law? Medical martial law?
	Martial law is no law at all.
	It's a dictatorship.
	Now, he doesn't have any of those things.
	He's opposed to all of those things.
	Just because one side plays dirty and lies, says Michael Ramirez, it doesn't mean the other side should lower themselves to the quagmire.
	We are not five-year-olds.
	Except we're being led by one.
	America needs some adults.
	Trump is neither a conservative nor a Republican.
	He acts impulsively rather than intellectually.
	Now, he doesn't quote it, but I think his lawyer who defended him successfully against these false Russiagate charges, Ty Cobb.
	I mention it all the time.
	I'll mention it again. Because he nailed him exactly.
	This guy worked with him for a long period of time.
	He said he's a deeply wounded narcissist.
	Incapable of acting except out of his perceived self-interest, which may not really be his actual self-interest, but incapable of acting except out of his perceived self-interest or revenge.
	This is the five-year-old.
	It is a children's crusade.
	MAGA is a children's crusade.
	Because he's dishonest, which should concern conservative voters, if re-elected, he will be unpredictable because he is untethered to any philosophical foundation or any moral foundation as well.
	So what's your favorite Bible verse?
	Remember, he was asked. Well, that's just too personal.
	I just can't say. Really?
	Well, are you an Old Testament or New Testament guy?
	The other guy chimes in. Maybe we can get...
	Well, neither.
	I really like both of them equally.
	What is the New Testament or Old Testament?
	I don't even know what he's talking about.
	I can imagine going through his mind.
	It's funny how no reasonable person would buy a used car from a dealer if he lies about one thing.
	But there are still those who will buy Whoppers repeatedly from Trump.
	Yeah, Trump is a globalist.
	Who operated in lockstep with people like Trudeau, people like Macron.
	All of them doing the same thing.
	Our moral standards should not be sacrificed for political expedience.
	The truth is as important as winning.
	And the means are as important as the ends.
	We don't need to lie or deceive ourselves to win.
	And we don't want to play 40 chess.
	We should reject anybody who plays that type of game.
	Oh, I'm not lying to you.
	I'm lying to the other guys.
	This is just between you and me, right?
	I'm really a secret agent for our side.
	I just appear to be lying to you, but I'm really actually lying to the other people.
	In 1980, America was 45% Democrat and 29% Independent.
	Republicans only constituted 23% of the electorate.
	Reagan won 85% of Republicans, 27% of Democrats, 57% of Independents, and won the election, says Michael Ramirez.
	And so that's the key thing.
	We need to think about that.
	Do you really want to go down this path?
	This personality cult?
	How many times have I given you across the political spectrum?
	You know, Trump is our only hope.
	It's Trump or a civil war.
	It's Trump, and if we don't have Trump win this time, it's going to be bullets.
	Michael Huckabee, a pastor, former pastor, now apparently out for fame, fortune, and following.
	It's just disgusting to watch this.
	Now Trump has got a plan that he's floating out there.
	Who knows if he'll do it or not.
	I remember when he was a candidate, he had a policy paper on his website that somebody else wrote.
	I was concerned because Trump never mentioned any of it.
	But somebody was a real free market person.
	In contrast to Obamacare, they had about a 12-point program of all the different things that needed to be done.
	You know, we have to have more involvement in the market.
	So that means that consumers need to have purchasing power.
	So we do things like, you know, give them tax credits and medical savings accounts and things like that.
	They need to have information to make the right kinds of decisions in a medical decision.
	So there needs to be more transparency and open information about pricing and about how good the hospitals are and the doctors are.
	So that kind of information needs to be there.
	On and on. Get rid of the compulsion.
	And it was a great program.
	I covered it in detail.
	I said, this is really good.
	I hope this is... But I also knew that Trump never addressed it once.
	And as soon as he became president, that was flushed down the memory hole.
	That disappeared. And he didn't do any of that stuff.
	But now he's saying he's got a tariff plan.
	A tariff plan that would raise $2 trillion or more.
	And so he has proposed a baseline tariff of 10% on all U.S. imports.
	Now think about this. This is not just a situation where you're saying, well, I think that, you know, we ought to protect and help to grow internal industries, so I'm going to go to these protectionist economic policies.
	No, he's not getting rid of any internal taxes.
	All the internal taxes will still be there.
	He's just going to add 10% to all the imports.
	And guess what? Pretty much everything we get is imported.
	So it's going to pretty much add 10% to everything.
	And it'll add it all the way through the chain, like a value-added tax.
	But he's not talking about any tax relief.
	This is not free market versus protectionism debate.
	This is predatory taxes on everything.
	Many times people say, well, let's get rid of an income tax.
	Let's have a federal sales tax or something like that.
	And people say, oh, wait a minute.
	We could end up with both of these things.
	With Trump, you'd end up with both.
	You'd have internal taxes and you would have import taxes.
	Both. And what's he going to use it for?
	Is he going to use it to reduce the deficit?
	Or will he say, well, now we've got an emergency and we need to build up the military or something like that.
	Or we've got to give more money to the pharmaceutical companies because there's some kind of a medical emergency.
	I guarantee you, it's not going to be used to shut down the deficit.
	He's going to use this $2 trillion to buy favors with people.
	That's how this stuff works.
	Well, there was the interview yesterday that Trump had with Megyn Kelly.
	And I said, it's going to be interesting because the same day that she announced that she had this interview, the first one she's had in 10 years, you know, she hadn't interviewed him since 2013.
	Personally, she was able to engage him in a challenging way in debates, but he wouldn't set for an interview with her, not as a candidate, not as president.
	And at the same time, she announced that and did a 10-minute video hyping the fact she was going to be interviewing Trump.
	She also came out and said she'd been injured by the vaccine.
	She was so grateful that she had not vaccinated her kids as she was pressured to do it.
	But that it really has given her an autoimmune disease after she got vaccinated and then got a booster.
	And she had been a big cheerleader with all this stuff.
	And so I said at the time, I said, it's going to be interesting to see if Megyn Kelly challenges Trump on the vaccine.
	Well, not so much on that, but on Fauci.
	Listen to this. Fire Anthony Fauci was because he'd been there for a long time, that you would have taken heat, that it would have created a firestorm, quoting your words.
	Then for the first time in May...
	I also said I didn't listen to him too much.
	I'm getting there. But then in May you started saying, well, he's a civil servant, so I couldn't technically.
	The truth is, though, not only did you not fire Fauci, who is loathed by many, many millions of Republicans in particular, but also some Democrats.
	By the way. You made him a star.
	You made him a star. This is the criticism of you, that you made him the face of the White House coronavirus task force.
	You think so? That he was out at every presser, that he was running herd for the administration on COVID, and that you actually gave him a presidential commendation before he left office.
	Wouldn't you like a do-over on that?
	I don't know who gave him the commendation.
	I really don't know who gave him the commendation.
	I wouldn't have done it. He cannot, as a narcissist, admit that he ever did anything wrong.
	He'll come out as being stupid, or I don't know who did that.
	It wasn't me. What an obvious lie.
	Everything about that, an obvious lie.
	Well, I don't listen to him too much, he said.
	Oh, really? He made a campaign video, and I'm going to play it for you again.
	He made a campaign video, Cuts of Fauci.
	Talking about how Trump had obeyed him, this is Trump's campaign video for 2020.
	The president has listened to what I have said and what the other people on the task force have said.
	The first and only time that I went in and said we should do mitigation strongly, the response was yes, we'll do it.
	When he suggests, why don't we do this?
	And I say, no, that's really not a good idea from a scientific standpoint.
	He has never overruled me.
	The travel was another recommendation.
	When we went in and said, we probably should be doing that.
	And the answer was yes. When I've made recommendations, he's taken them.
	And then another time was we should do it with Europe.
	And the answer was yes. He's never countered or overridden me.
	And the next time we should do it with the UK. And the answer was yes.
	I never, in the multiple times that I've done that, where I said, for scientific reasons, we really should do this, that he hasn't said, let's do it.
	The first and only time that Dr.
	Birx and I went in and formally made a recommendation to the president to actually have a, quote, shutdown.
	The president listened to the recommendation and went to the mitigation.
	Trump Pence. Text Trump to 88022.
	Yeah, that's what this is about.
	It's a campaign video.
	Trump did everything I told him.
	He followed my recommendations.
	And understand when he says recommendations, that's a euphemism for orders.
	Oh, I only recommended stuff to people.
	I didn't make them do it.
	He made the quote-unquote recommendations and then Trump attached the massive amounts of money.
	Do this and you get this money.
	Yeah, Trump put him in charge.
	You made him a star, said Megyn Kelly.
	You made him a star.
	This is the criticism of you, that you made him the face of the White House Coronavirus Task Force.
	And Trump said, you think so?
	You just can't believe that.
	You made him the star of your campaign video, you lying son of a gun.
	She said, he's at every presser.
	You actually gave him a presidential commendation before you...
	I didn't... How did he get that?
	I don't know. I mean, this is...
	It's like the Martin Short character out of the 60 Minutes.
	Really? Really? It's funny you would say that.
	I don't know why you would say that.
	I really don't know.
	Yeah. As Chris Anunu said yesterday, all the governors, every time we would have a conference with them on a regular basis...
	He always turned it over to Fauci.
	It was Fauci who was the president.
	He made Fauci president.
	He didn't just make Fauci the star.
	He made Fauci the president.
	What a weak liar.
	Look, I've got my issues with Megyn Kelly, but just like I've got my issues with Tucker Carlson, but just like Tucker Carlson did with Pence when Pence said, yeah, problems with Americans, that's not my concern.
	I'm concerned about what's going on in Ukraine, essentially.
	That's not an exact quote, but that's what was being said.
	Kept talking about Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine.
	Tucker says, well, what about Americans?
	That's not my concern.
	This should be the thing that ends it.
	And of course, at the very beginning of that clip, she says, you know, why didn't you fire him?
	Well, he'd been around a long time, right?
	You know, you said that he'd been around for a long time, that it would have been too controversial a move and so forth.
	But, you know, it was a big controversial move when he fired FBI Director Comey.
	Everybody said, these people are appointed for 10 years.
	You can't do that. Yeah, just watch me.
	And he did it. And it stuck.
	You said, well, I can't fire somebody because he's a civil servant.
	Well, he also fired Andrew McCabe out of the FBI. When it was something that had to do with him, he would take the initiative.
	But he's only capable of acting in his own perceived self-interest or out of revenge.
	Not for you. And not for any principle.
	And certainly not for the Constitution.
	So, yeah, he made Fauci a star.
	The commentary from the guy who posted this on Twitter, Pedro Gonzalez, posted this clip.
	He says, well, I don't think a guy who says, I don't know who gave Fauci a presidential commendation while he was president.
	I don't think somebody like that is equipped to drain the swamp.
	Yeah, he's not.
	But, you know, Fauci is back.
	And so Fauci is now admitting.
	There's a connection between the vaccines and myocarditis, but don't worry about it because, you know, it's rare.
	Again, we have experience with this type of vaccine in billions of people.
	It's a safe vaccine.
	Of course, with the mRNA, there's a very, very, very low risk, particularly in young men, of getting a myocarditis.
	But if you look at the risk of myocarditis from COVID itself is greater than the risk of the vaccine.
	No, it isn't. Yet another lie from Fauci.
	We'd never heard of myocarditis until the vaccine.
	The public had never heard of it.
	James Woods, in response to that, says, wait, people were locked out of social media, ridiculed by people from the, quote, party of science, unquote, for saying that the vaccine causes myocarditis and now this weasel casually acknowledges that we were right all along?
	Yeah, that's where we are.
	That's exactly where we are.
	And, you know, talking about getting locked out of social media, we're talking about this stuff.
	It's still happening on X. Musk's Twitter, X. This is Michael Massey.
	It says, my X account was suspended a couple of days ago for daring to use what those sissies consider to be violent speech.
	What did I say, you ask?
	Well, I said, quote, Fauci needs to get the electric chair, unquote.
	And so they suspended his account on Musk's free speech account.
	He said, Saying that Anthony Fauci deserves the electric chair is me being extremely generous in my call for him to be punished.
	The death penalty is too good for them.
	That's right. Death penalty is too good for Fauci.
	The death penalty is too good for Trump and for Pence and for Biden and for Lala Harris and the rest of these people who push this.
	I could just go on and on.
	All the people who push this stuff, who cover it up for it, Who killed people.
	How many people do you have to kill before we apply the death penalty?
	But of course, as we all know, the death of one person is a tragedy, as Stalin said.
	The death of millions is a statistic.
	And of course, we have murder charges if you kill one person.
	But if you kill millions of people, as a politician, there's never any penalty.
	Because it's just a statistic.
	He said, Would Musk feel better if I said that Fauci should receive a lethal injection?
	Well, there'd be some poetic justice in that, wouldn't there?
	The fact remains that it's exactly what he forced on those who bought into fear and applauded themselves for their lack of faith.
	Maybe, you know, we could give him a jab, but make sure, give him his own jab, and make sure it's the one that has 100 micrograms, not the batches that have 3 micrograms.
	And not a placebo for the politicians.
	We're going to take a quick break and when we come back we're going to talk more about this new jab that's being pushed on us.
	And again, I'm very excited to talk to our guest today, Dr.
	Andrew Kaufman, who's going to talk about the variants.
	How do we know anything about these variants?
	How do we know anything about COVID itself?
	Have they isolated this thing?
	Do they even have tests for these things?
	Well, we're going to find out about that later on.
	Stay with us. We're
	good to go. Making
	sense. Common again.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	All right, welcome back.
	Before we get into some more about what is happening with this new jab, new and improved.
	To address new and improved variants, we are told.
	Yeah, well, we're going to pull that apart in the third hour.
	We'll talk about these vaccines.
	But let me respond to some of the people who have left some comments and some tips on Rumble, One Mind, Covenant.
	Thank you very much for the tip.
	He said, Welcome, Tennessee.
	Y'all are about an hour south of me.
	I've been praying for you for two years.
	Well, thank you very much. I really do appreciate that.
	And his tip was $1.
	He says, $1 is no shame, folks.
	It's all I have and it matters.
	Yes, it does. And that's the key thing.
	We make it free one way or the other.
	And if you don't have any money, you don't need to leave a tip.
	And I don't want people to go into hardship to do that.
	But if it was just $1 from everybody, that would be great.
	That would work great. Even just a dollar.
	I say five dollars would be way more even than we needed if everybody did that.
	But very few people support the program.
	But thank you for that. I appreciate it.
	He says Trump didn't drain the swamp.
	He introduced new species.
	Variants. Yeah, he introduced variants.
	That's right. On Rumble.
	RCF 2020. Thank you very much for the tip.
	I appreciate that. He said, sadly, I still run into Trumpsters who tell me he's still president.
	And the military tribunals are going on behind the scenes.
	Yeah, that was the lie that was sold two days after the election with Owen and Steve Pachenik.
	Steve Pachenik came on. Owen said, oh, that's great.
	And that was the beginning of Start the Steal.
	Oh, wait, they called it Stop the Steal.
	Actually, it was Start the Steal.
	That's when they started stealing money from their supporters.
	On Rumble, Mr.
	Kishan G. Thank you for the tip.
	He says, Hi David, I know you have a beef with Alex.
	I agree with you about Trump.
	He is all talk. Enjoyed listening to your show.
	If I missed this opinion on Owen's sentencing.
	I began the program with that yesterday and I talked about it.
	Gerald and Eric are 100%.
	I'll just briefly recap for the people who didn't hear it.
	What I said about Owen is I said, you know, it is...
	The centerpiece of it, and I think it's important to get this right because it's more important.
	It is about speech, but it is not only about speech.
	As I said, Alex would have been locked up.
	If it had been about speech.
	So there's something else there, obviously, right?
	And they do admit it. I read from the decision, or rather the response from Norm Pattis, his lawyer, and he said, look, the core thing here is a very small misdemeanor.
	Owen had done a PR stunt a year earlier, and he was, yeah, it was two years earlier.
	He had done a stunt and he was told not to come back and he had to do public service and all the rest of the stuff.
	He did public service.
	There was a dispute. They said he was two hours short.
	Now, Owen disputes that.
	But the basis of that, whether or not that was even a crime, it was a misdemeanor.
	You stood up and you shouted at somebody, you can't come back for a year.
	And you've got to do some community service.
	And we're not going to put you in jail for that.
	But then they want to put him in jail.
	The prosecutors asked for four months.
	He got two months in jail.
	And what they did was they came back, and again, the core thing there, he may have, according to his numbers, he did fulfill the two hours.
	He wasn't two hours short.
	He fulfilled the community service time.
	But what they did was they took that misdemeanor that was the core thing, And then they used, and the prosecutors said, because he was talking about January the 6th, and because he was pushing people to go January the 6th for months, we want this sentencing enhancement.
	And that was the basis for the jail term.
	So in that sense, it was about the speech.
	But it's important that we make that distinction because I think the lesson to take away from this is that nobody's talking about.
	They're just saying, look, a journalist was sent to jail for a speech.
	No, it's actually even worse than that.
	Because what they did was they took something that's a minor misdemeanor infraction and they weaponized that because of speech.
	So at what point, since they're still going out and rounding up people for January the 6th, who are there, just there, didn't do anything.
	We're not violent. We're not rioters.
	They were just there. They were let in.
	I talked about yesterday a son and his mother.
	The son is 32, and the mother is now 59.
	He's got a family, small kids.
	They're going to put him in jail for four years and nine months.
	And he gets a $2,000 fine.
	His mother, who is 59, gets a $2,000 fine and two and a half years in prison.
	All they did was to walk in.
	You've got a guy who is middle-aged, his elderly father in his 70s, a retired pastor, and another friend in his 70s.
	They were there just watching everything going on.
	They had to use the restroom. They're elderly men.
	So they walked up to the open door where the police were standing there on either side and said, is there a restroom around here we could use?
	Yeah, it's right in here. Come in here.
	They go in there for five minutes, use the restroom, and come out.
	And as they came out, they asked somebody else, is there a better way to get out here?
	And they had a female cop who tried to direct them onto the floor of the house to get them into more trouble.
	And they said, oh, that doesn't seem right.
	So they went out. But because of that, all three of them are looking at five years in prison.
	A life sentence, probably, for these 70-plus-year-olds because it's a difficult time there in D.C. So that's the situation that we have.
	And that's why I said it's important that we get that right.
	I don't agree with what Owen did.
	I don't agree with what Alex did.
	I opposed it. I spoke out against it.
	I told Alex he couldn't come on my show and talk about it after he did it two times.
	I said, that's it. I don't want you on the show talking about this stuff anymore.
	I don't believe any of this stuff.
	I said, this started with a lie.
	I talked to Alex about it.
	I said, what Steve Pachinik said cannot possibly be true.
	It's a bunch of buzzwords that he chained together.
	And he talked about the blockchain watermark.
	He talked about quantum computing.
	Nonsense. Absolute nonsense.
	But the key thing that everybody could verify for themselves was two days after the election, Steve Pachinik told Owen, and Owen said, yeah, that's right.
	Oh, great. Good. He told Owen in that interview that there were 20,000 National Guard that were already fanning out across the country, arresting people.
	That's what these people believe.
	They think this is still going on.
	Secret tribunals. I said, there's absolutely no way that this is true.
	And I said that to Alex.
	And he kept having Pachenik back on.
	On, on, on, on. Even after Biden was president, he kept having Pachenik on over and over again.
	And he sarcastically said, hey, I'll give you David's job.
	My job was not to be a propagandist for the CIA, Alex.
	I never did that.
	All right. Pachenik wouldn't do my job because he can't tell the truth.
	He's a lying CIA show.
	Always was. Always will be.
	Somebody who was responsible for the death of Aldo Moro in Operation Gladio.
	The Italian Prime Minister.
	Kidnapped by a false flag NATO operation.
	Steve Pachenik sent there by Henry Kissinger.
	And think about the fact that that guy is a regular contributor with Alex Jones.
	Think about the fact that he was there to start the Stop the Steal stuff.
	People ask me if Alex is controlled.
	How much more specific do I have to be?
	Anyway, Roxanne, Amos Poole.
	Thank you very much. That's very generous.
	I appreciate that. Dr.
	Kaufman, I hope you cover the germ theory and the existence of viruses.
	Thank you for all your great work.
	I hope so, too.
	We're going to talk about all of that when we get into it.
	I'm anxious to talk to him as well.
	Let's talk about what they're now pulling now with this...
	This new and improved and respun vaccine and viruses.
	Yeah, we all really know where this is headed, right?
	In this clip, this man lays it out.
	He said, look, this has been the business model of pharmaceutical companies for the longest time.
	I've talked about it. And this was put out and published in April of 2018.
	And widely reported, Goldman Sachs criticized Gilead, the people who then later did this remdesivir for Fauci.
	They said, you came up with a cure for a strain of hepatitis.
	Well, that's nice, and you made a lot of money the first year, but look at how it just fell off the cliff the second year, and now it's essentially zero.
	We're not in the business to cure disease.
	We're in the business to help people with their symptoms and to turn these things into chronic conditions that we can continue to give you money.
	They were very upfront about that.
	Goldman Sachs lecturing the pharmaceutical business.
	Don't make the same mistake that Gilead did.
	They actually came up with a drug that cured something.
	We want to keep this going.
	And even beyond that, of course, they want to give you a drug that creates a whole bunch of other symptoms.
	That then starts to multiply.
	And I've seen this with elderly people.
	I've seen this with elderly people in my parents' generation.
	You know, they develop a particular health symptom, and they start taking medication for that, and all of a sudden now they've got five health symptoms.
	And they start taking medication for that, and now it goes to 25.
	I mean, it just multiplies exponentially.
	They want us all taking these vaccines as long as our body can take it as we get sicker and sicker and sicker.
	And there's a second component that is even more sinister to this subscription model, this big pharma subscription model, and that is that they will then sell you the drugs that you need to live to treat the injuries that they inflicted on you in the first place.
	That is why Pfizer's been acquiring blood clotting, companies that produce blood clot medications.
	In fact, before they rolled out, you couldn't make this up, before they rolled out COVID-19 vaccines in kids 5 to 11 years old, I forget if it was Pfizer or Moderna, it was one of them, they acquired drugs to treat blood clots in children.
	Just before they rolled out the vaccines in kids that are going to cause blood clots in kids.
	Pfizer just did a huge, I think it was like a $40 billion acquisition to novel ways to treat cancer.
	Yes, cancers that they will be causing.
	This is the second component of the model.
	They don't want to kill all of us.
	There's no money in that.
	Right? But I do believe that they want us sick.
	They want us dependent.
	And they want us dependent on their medications, their drugs.
	And this is the model that we're being pushed towards.
	Yeah, we say often that, you know, these things are untested.
	Well, not exactly.
	They know this stuff.
	Yeah. Nobody could have done it as fast as I did, said Trump.
	How'd he do it? Well, he shut down the tests for safety and efficacy.
	But they'd already done tests on animals, and they'd had these things for quite some time.
	They knew what these things were going to do.
	As he pointed out, they were acquiring companies that had medications to address the symptoms that they were going to be causing.
	And when you look at the jab rates...
	And you compare it to what is acceptable risk.
	Because now we're starting to get these numbers in.
	We always really knew where this was headed, didn't we, from the very beginning?
	But now the specifics are coming in.
	Listen to these numbers. Basically, one chance in 800 of a serious adverse event.
	Is this sort of risk commonplace in medicine?
	Do you take these risks on a daily basis as you prescribe for your patients?
	Or would you think, well, just a minute...
	Well, it depends on the drug.
	So, you know, for a chemotherapeutic, I would imagine the rate for serious adverse events is much, much higher than that.
	But for a vaccine, at least the CDC reports that the rate for most vaccines is about one to two per million.
	So this is a multifold difference in serious adverse events rate.
	Wow. So...
	We've gone from 1 to 2 per million to 1 to 800, which a quick sum in my head is like 1,200 times more common.
	Yeah, it's definitely, it is way worse.
	It's definitely a lot more.
	Yeah, it's like a thousand times worse by those criteria.
	Yes, it is. Wow.
	If you want to do the math, yep, a thousand times worse.
	Yeah, yeah. Yeah, isn't that amazing?
	It truly is amazing.
	You want to talk about risk?
	You want to talk about why you would want to take that?
	And yet, as all of that is rolling out, We see this from Canada.
	This masked official saying, yeah, we need to have two doses for kids.
	Individuals who are five years of age and older should receive one dose of the vaccine regardless of the COVID-19 vaccination history.
	And children between six months and four years of age should receive two doses if they have not previously been vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine.
	And if they have been previously vaccinated with one or more doses, they should receive a single dose.
	Yeah, yeah. Let's get it to the kids.
	Really key to get it to the kids.
	And that is what Hochul is saying as part of her hoax.
	And notice that she says, if you had the vaccine in the past, it won't help you this time around.
	Well, it didn't help you in the past either.
	Tell everybody, don't rely on the fact that you had a vaccine in the past.
	It will not help you this time around.
	Yeah, yeah. Didn't help you before, won't help you now.
	What kind of logic is that?
	Let me just respond to some of the things people have said here.
	Handy, good to see you there.
	Of course, Handy works EMS. And he's been seeing this stuff for a long time.
	He's been talking about the masks and the heart attacks and all the rest of the stuff.
	Again, one of the things I remember a couple of years ago.
	You know, so they could get their money.
	Handy brought somebody in who was having a heart attack.
	And he said, clearly having a heart attack.
	They take him in and do the PCR test first.
	Because, you know, if you could identify this person as a COVID patient with a PCR test that magnifies everything by 1.1 trillion times.
	And we'll talk about all this PCR stuff.
	What are they even testing for?
	We'll talk about that with Dr.
	Kaufman. Do they even have anything that they've isolated to test for?
	But nevertheless, you know, you do this thing and because they took tests right out of the box, you know, oh yeah, test positive, you know.
	You know, give me the results.
	Oh yeah, I'm already preloaded with this stuff, whatever it is, or maybe not.
	Maybe it's just the way this thing is set up to work.
	But anyway, as he pointed out, this guy's having a heart attack.
	They take him in and give him a test because their priority is to make money.
	They get 20% on everything they do with him if he's tested for COVID first.
	If they start with the heart stuff, well, you know, if he dies, they don't get that.
	So that's more important than his health.
	But Handy says nothing has changed.
	We still have young people going into cardiac arrest.
	That's right. Now think about that.
	Think about how little has been said from all these people.
	You know, they all play this game just like you heard Trump.
	Really? Really?
	Funny you would say that. I don't know why you would say that.
	Really? And they don't do anything.
	You know, as close as anybody has come, as DeSantis and his Surgeon General Latipo, they're telling people, don't have kids get this new vaccine, or don't take this new vaccine, or whatever.
	But they're not stopping people from doing it.
	This is poison. We already know what this is.
	It's too little. It's too late.
	They will say, well, I wouldn't do that again.
	I wish I hadn't done that, which is further than Trump would go.
	But nobody is calling it out for what it is.
	And I mean, nobody is calling it out.
	And that's one of the reasons, I think, when you look at this, we know what has happened.
	And when you look at the polls, and you look at the fact, as I pointed out yesterday, Biden and Trump are both dropping in the polls.
	But the other candidates are not going up by that amount.
	What is going up was none of the above.
	Because we're so disgusted with all of these people.
	Harps on Rumble. Thank you very much for the tip.
	He said the lesson to be learned from Owen, who I like, is stay away from the swamp that is D.C. because filth sticks.
	I agree. And, you know, if you're going to do a protest about anything, stay out of Washington, D.C. I wouldn't even drive there anymore.
	That place, it's a crime-ridden, Democrat-run place.
	But, again, I think the lesson to learn from Owen, if you go there and you get a speeding ticket, they may, you know, weaponize that and say, this person was there on January the 6th.
	Let's throw the book at him. We need to have some sentencing guidelines.
	You know, this guy was just speeding through here.
	But, you know, he was here on January the 6th.
	So we need to do something about that.
	Obsolete Man, 1776, thank you very much for the tip on Rumble.
	The 6th was a perfect setup to use a Patriot Act, yes, against fellow citizens, and no doubt they will do it again.
	It had setup written all over it from the get-go.
	That's what I said. I said, they can go back and check the tapes.
	I said, running up to it, I said, don't go.
	It's a setup. It's a setup for all of you who go, and it's a setup for all conservatives.
	To label anybody from here on out, people like we see, the parents at the school board meetings, anybody who is patriotic, any parents, anyone who is conservative, label them as extremists.
	The whole thing was a setup.
	I said it's going to be riddled with agent provocateurs, and I said that the morning of January the 6th, because all this stuff happened after my show.
	So, Unrockfan Papa CT2G, thank you for the tip.
	He says, thanks for all that you and your family do for us, David.
	Thanks for spreading the word and love of the Lord.
	Dr. Kaufman is a fantastic guest.
	I'm anxious to talk to him.
	Thank you. That's very kind.
	Unrockfan Handy replies and said, I did see them COVID swab a 38-year-old dead body.
	Dead from the jab.
	It's in the substance. Wow.
	Wow. It is amazing.
	It is truly amazing.
	And thank you, Jana Murray, now a monthly supporter on Rumble.
	Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
	We don't talk about that too much.
	We usually talk about Subscribestar, and that is very important to us to know what our budget is.
	But you can also subscribe on Rumble.
	And through the rest of this year, I think, there's not a fee on Rumble for subscriptions.
	I think it'll start after that.
	I think there is still a fee on the donations, but not on that.
	But of course, you know, on SubscribeStar, many people have left tips there as well.
	So we really do appreciate your support.
	Thank you so much, all of you.
	Let's talk a little bit about CNN pushing the latest and greatest COVID vaccine.
	It's now here. Here's where and when to get it.
	And also the RSV and the flu shots too.
	That's the headline. CNN brought to you by Pfizer and the CDC and the pharmaceutical industry.
	Could they be any more obvious in terms of what they're doing?
	It is absolutely shameless.
	I mean, you know, there's a lot of things that I don't want to associate with this show.
	I did have some, the first month that we turned on ads, I didn't realize.
	It only happened for a couple of weeks, but Pfizer just dumped a bunch of ads in that first week.
	That was December of 2021, I think it was.
	And they dumped a bunch of ads in there for two weeks and then figured out who they were paying.
	I didn't know it. People said, you got Pfizer ads running on your thing.
	It's like, well, that's kind of poetic justice, isn't it?
	I felt good enough about the fact that I'd warned people about it that nobody's going to be fooled about it, but still.
	Yeah. Now the U.S. FDA and the CDC, says CNN, now that they've signed off, you won't have to wait long to get your updated COVID-19 shot.
	Eh, there you go.
	Great. Major pharmacy chains have already started rolling out appointments.
	And so there you go, because the FDA and the CDC say it's okay.
	CNN is pushing it and telling you that manufacturers say...
	The tweaked mRNA vaccines are effective against EG.5, the strain that is currently dominant in the U.S. And that's what we're going to talk about with Dr.
	Kaufman. Look, why would you say the manufacturers say this?
	Didn't the FDA test it?
	Didn't the CDC? Well, no, of course not.
	They're going to let the manufacturers tell you that this is good.
	There's going to be no independent verification.
	You're talking about regulatory capture.
	Journalism capture, the rest of this stuff.
	Health officials are urging people to get vaccinated as soon as possible with this untested vaccine.
	Maybe they know that it will harm you.
	Everyone aged six months and older should get an updated vaccine, says CNN. And CNN said, well, that's the CDC that's telling you that.
	This is an interesting article that's on Brownstone from Ray Aurora.
	He said, a few weeks ago, I published a bombshell story in which I shared my private communications with editors at top publications who roundly rejected my writing anything that was critical of COVID mandates.
	He's not even talking about the vaccine per se, but just the mandate, right?
	This stuff is good. Shouldn't I have...
	Isn't that my body, my choice?
	Isn't that what these people always say?
	And we'll talk about that coming up.
	An amazing story about both the challenges to some of these abortion laws and what one mother did when the doctors told her to abort her child.
	But anyway, getting back to this, he says, as an example, one editor made clear his publication's strong pro-vaccination stance.
	And he said, when he gave him this anti-mandate article, he says, I'm going to pass.
	As I've said many times before, we are pro-vaccination newspaper.
	And personally, I just wish everyone would get vaccinated already.
	While I respect your decision not to do so, And I agree that jail time, for those who don't, is overkill.
	Oh, isn't that very liberal of him, isn't it?
	He says, I'm not keen on op-eds that even appear like they're arguing against vaccination for COVID or anything else.
	And so he said, my reporting on vaccine adverse events was also suppressed by major and alternative media outlets.
	But he said, following this story...
	Exposing this pro-pharmaceutical bias in the corporate media like CNN. He says, But he said,
	for context, when I pitched one of their other editors, that editor responded with the following.
	That editor said, Ray, sorry, but we're not going to run any anti-vaccine pieces.
	I think the risk is totally overblown and amplified by right-wing pundits who have no concern for public help.
	These are the safest vaccines we've ever had, and virtually everyone seeks to benefit.
	So yeah, what is this?
	I mean, you know, when we talk about the masks, does public health matter anymore?
	No. You know, Fauci stopped talking about herd immunity a long time ago.
	Long time ago. And then when people said, well, what about this?
	What is going on with the vaccines?
	He said, public health really doesn't matter.
	It's the individual's health that matters.
	Well, he says, off the record, I started chatting with him about how he diverged from his colleagues' authoritarian pro-mandate positions.
	My views differed a lot from other editors here.
	He said they were all pro-vaccine passport.
	I remember being stunned when my colleague said that these were the, quote, safest and most effective vaccines we've ever seen, said the other editor.
	He said after some extended communication with him, he revealed to me how he had had a terrifying experience after the second Pfizer vaccine shot.
	That's the one that got Megyn Kelly, the second one.
	He said about seven hours after my second shot, I was in bed and I started shaking.
	My heart began to pound.
	Then the shaking got worse and my heart was pounding so hard that it felt like it was going to explode.
	Every beat hurt.
	I continued shaking and my heart pounding like that for hours.
	Hot and cold sweats.
	And so Ray says, no, this is going to come as a surprise to anybody who has tracked and reported on vaccine-induced myocarditis issue.
	And Ben predictably happens to be a young man, 32 years of age, in great shape, who exercises regularly.
	Anyone who sees photos of him can tell that he rarely skips a gym day.
	But then he went on.
	He said, I would have gone to the hospital, but I was honestly so also delirious.
	And I wasn't in my right mind.
	It was extremely scary.
	I woke up and my heart was still noticeably racing.
	But it wasn't super bad.
	My entire body was sore and I could barely walk.
	And so, as a result, he said, I decided that would be my last COVID shot.
	So, as we've often said, experience is an expensive school, but it's the only one a fool will attend.
	You don't want to do journalism.
	You don't want to do science.
	Come on, as a journalist, they can't be that dense.
	Don't they realize that if people don't have data, if you're just going to go off of the hand-waving and the recommendations of experts without any data or without any proof?
	I mean, we all knew from the very beginning of this, they're going to rush this stuff out.
	They're not going to test it. They were bragging about that.
	It was a hard no from the very beginning, just from a basic logical standpoint.
	I really can't understand the people who went with this.
	And we've seen so many people.
	I feel sorry for them in terms of this.
	But it's one of these things.
	The vaccines, January the 6th.
	How could you not see this stuff coming?
	Pfizer and Moderna want to sell you drugs for injuries that they are causing.
	That's exactly right.
	And that's what we showed there.
	And then the death shot.
	The United States is facing a crisis of early death and missing Americans.
	And even mainstream media is saying this.
	USA Today and others.
	Although they're trying to spin it into something else, as they always will, We just had a former NBA star die at the age of 42, collapsing in a yoga class.
	Now, we don't know if Brandon Hunter, if this was what killed him.
	I just have to say that it certainly does look familiar.
	Athletes who are used to strenuous workouts, not realizing that the myocarditis is essentially the same as having had a heart attack.
	And then finally, you know, children between ages of six months and four years of age should receive two doses if they've not previously been vaccinated.
	I played for you. We know that they haven't done any trials in any of this stuff.
	And as we're going to talk about when we get Dr.
	Kaufman on, They don't have a variant either.
	The whole thing is a big, stinking lie.
	We will be right back.
	��
	��
	�� Liberty.
	It's your move. .
	And now, The David Knight Show.
	Well, let me read some of the comments here and tips on Rumble.
	Jason Barker, good to see you, Jason.
	Thank you. Thank you, especially for the tip.
	He says, with all the boosters and the new vax jabs, it seems like Big Pharma is moving into a subscription-based model like everything else.
	That's right. You pay them as long as you live.
	It's a joke.
	A couple of years ago from Babylon Bee, when they started all this booster stuff over and over again, you know, just like masks.
	You know, well, one mask doesn't work, so put on two, put on three.
	You know, well, one jab doesn't work, so let's do some boosters.
	And they said they're going to come up with it, call it Pfizer Plus, you know, just like Disney Plus, the subscription model, exactly.
	Rumble, Radice Bro, thank you very much for the tip.
	And he writes, Owen is still unremorseful of the thousands of lives that he and Alex ruined.
	On January 6th.
	And in fact, they're making it all about him.
	Honestly, they should all be in prison for as long as the innocent followers of theirs.
	I agree. That's what I said yesterday.
	Over 1,100 people.
	You look at Newsweek and the list that they have of them.
	Two or three sentences for each of them.
	And it went on for, I think it was 58 pages.
	Of people who were going to jail for years.
	Some of them for decades.
	All of it was unnecessary.
	All of it was chasing their tail, jousting at windmills, dreaming the impossible dream.
	They gave that dream to people and they took their money.
	What were people giving money to Alex for about January the 6th anyway?
	What was that about?
	I mean, Trump made $250 million, didn't really do anything.
	He said, I'm going to pay lawyers.
	To contest this.
	Didn't really. But I just never understood the whole Stop the Steal thing.
	Al Alexander, a crook, his partner in that stuff, just amazing to me.
	Let's talk about something else here.
	Let's talk about abortion and life.
	We have two contrasting stories here.
	First, there's a story that you've got an organization, an abortion organization, is now challenging the strict anti-abortion laws in three states, in Idaho, as well as in Tennessee and Oklahoma.
	Now, they do have exceptions for the life of the mother.
	But in this particular case, in the story that is being put forth by Yahoo News, has picked it up from the Idaho Statesman, I think.
	They said earlier this year, in their particular story, Jennifer Atkins, one of the plaintiffs, learned during a 12-week ultrasound that her second child, nicknamed Spooky, because she was due near Halloween, was unlikely to survive her pregnancy.
	Atkins said doctors told her the likely miscarriage would result in, listen to this, I've never heard of this before, mirror syndrome.
	Mirror syndrome.
	A rare disorder that would cause her to experience the same life-threatening symptoms as the fetus.
	Well, I don't know if that's a real thing or not.
	I know that I have...
	We personally know people who have been told their baby has no chance of survival.
	And, you know, it's going to have a horrific condition.
	Just abort it. It's not, you know, you shouldn't allow this baby to come into existence.
	And they did not do that.
	And... They did not have that condition, or maybe they did have a condition.
	Maybe it was something like Down syndrome.
	And even children who are born with severe issues, like Rhonda Tate's Maddox, her grandson, something that is very difficult for the parents to watch, and yet you love that child.
	There's still love in all of that suffering.
	But anyway, she said doctors told her it could result in mirror syndrome.
	She recalled that her medical providers were, quote, visibly distraught when they told her that Idaho law prevented them from performing abortion, which is not true.
	They needed to have something, they needed to be able to prove that her life was in danger.
	And they came up with something called mirror syndrome.
	So I suspect that they didn't really have a solid case that her life was in danger.
	But anyway, she traveled to Oregon for an abortion there, and she said that she and her husband struggled to pay their mortgage.
	This is the damage. Now Atkins is suing the state along with a group of doctors and three Idaho women who were also denied abortions despite dangerous pregnancy complications.
	The legal complaint asks a court to clarify the circumstances that are grounds for a legal abortion in Idaho.
	She told reporters during a news conference, it isn't safe to be pregnant in Idaho.
	People in Idaho must be able to make informed decisions about their doctors without the intrusion of politics.
	Really? Did she say that about the masks and the jabs and the lockdowns and the rest of the stuff?
	This is the hypocrisy of all this.
	I have not found any of these people who claimed their pro-choice, my body, my choice, who really made an issue about when it really was their body and not another body.
	She said, what I needed was an abortion, an abortion of spooky.
	This baby that she called spooky.
	Idaho is among three states targeted for legal challenges by the Center for Reproductive Rights, an advocate for abortion.
	The group also filed complaints on behalf of women who were denied abortions in Tennessee and in Oklahoma.
	They said there's eight women who are challenging their state's abortion restrictions and they have experienced, quote, unthinkable trauma.
	But nobody, this organization wants to talk about rights.
	Did they talk about people who were coerced into jabs?
	Did they talk about the unspeakable trauma of life-destroying adverse events?
	Or the unspeakable deaths that occurred?
	Or the trauma to the family members who survived?
	Sudden deaths of young people given heart attacks?
	Anybody want to talk about that?
	No. How can we kill more babies?
	That's the only thing they're concerned with.
	The abortion bans in Idaho, Tennessee and Oklahoma have forced these women to flee their own states To survive.
	No, they can have if the life of the woman is legitimately in danger.
	The doctors have to prove it, but, you know, come up with something instead of some syndrome that they've invented.
	But there is an exception for that.
	Idaho law makes it a crime to perform any abortion unless the procedure saves the life of the mother or terminates a pregnancy that was a result of incest or rape.
	Idaho physicians have pushed for health exceptions as well, which would allow an abortion when a non-viable pregnancy presents serious health risks.
	Would it be possible for us to abort the vaccine mandates?
	Would these physicians, quote unquote, support that?
	How about aborting the consequences of these masks, the health consequences of that?
	Are they concerned about the health risks of the masks?
	Because there are health risks to the mask.
	Clear health risks.
	We all understood that, acknowledge it.
	They even had regulations from OSHA about the health risks of masks, but they don't care.
	Doctors who perform an illegal abortion in Idaho can face up to five years in prison, $20,000 in fines, as well as having their medical license revoked.
	Killing a baby in Idaho as a doctor is not nearly as serious as walking into the Capitol on January the 6th.
	Just to put that in perspective.
	Situation should alarm anyone in Idaho who wants to expand their family.
	Wait a minute, I thought we were talking about killing kids here.
	You know, it's the whole lie of planned parenthood.
	It's planned unparenthood.
	Last year, the Idaho Supreme Court upheld Idaho's near-total abortion ban against the constitutional challenge by Idaho abortion providers and attorneys from Planned Parenthood.
	But then the U.S. so-called Justice Department One, an injunction on Idaho's criminal abortion penalties in emergency situations.
	So, if the doctor is penalized for this, the U.S. Department of Justice is going to come in and say, no, no, you can't penalize them for that.
	But if doctors lose their license or face other penalties because they successfully treated people with ivermectin, Or if they came out against the jab or used their free speech to talk about their opinion, right or wrong?
	Oh no, there will be no protections for that.
	Again, when we look at the hypocrisy of all of this, it is stunning to see what is happening.
	So, we have, with all of this, there was a Fox News report of a pregnant woman who, as she was pregnant, was diagnosed with brain cancer.
	And the doctors told her, you need to abort your baby so that we can start you on chemotherapy and radiation.
	And she refused to do that.
	She chose life, and I want you to hear this report.
	Natasha Kahn was 20 weeks pregnant.
	She was diagnosed with brain cancer.
	And doctors repeatedly suggested that she should get an abortion so that she could begin chemotherapy.
	But she refused, saying aborting her baby was never an option because it goes against God's will.
	And she gave birth to a healthy baby girl while fighting the disease in October.
	So her little girl will turn a year next month.
	Though her battle continues, Tasha says every day with her daughter is a miracle from God.
	And Tasha joins us now along with her husband Taylor Kahn.
	Good morning to both of you. Good morning.
	Good morning. So Tasha, the doctor said you will die if you don't abort your baby and you're still alive and your baby girl turns a year and a month.
	So what went into that decision?
	Well, my baby ultimately had nothing to do with the cancer, so killing her wasn't going to take the cancer away.
	So that's ultimately what was the biggest decision.
	She was my baby, and I knew that keeping her alive, God will keep me alive.
	Wow. Taylor, how did you feel about that?
	Because you obviously don't want...
	You have a son, a two-year-old son, Declan.
	You don't want to lose your wife for Declan to not have a mother.
	How did you feel? I knew that when she made that decision, she was determined and I knew that everything was going to be okay.
	I knew she wasn't going to make a decision that would detriment her family in any way.
	Tasha, did you talk to the doctors that were telling you to abort your child afterwards?
	Yeah, I tried to discuss other options with them, and their opinion was my only option for treatment was radiation and chemo.
	And they didn't want to do that while I was pregnant.
	So then, now that once Gracie was born, what did you do for your treatments?
	So I'm taking alternative routes.
	Right now, I'm at a clinic in Texas.
	I'm doing some different therapies that a doctor is offering.
	Okay, so we won't get into that.
	But again, they have a GoFundMe if you want to go to foxandfriends.com to help that family.
	I thought it was interesting.
	She said, you know, when I looked at this, you know, she said the baby had nothing to do with the cancer.
	And killing the baby would not take that cancer away.
	And in a sense, you can make the same argument about rape, right?
	Although in these states, they do have exception for rape.
	If it has been reported as a crime, not after the fact.
	But she said, every single day I look at my beautiful baby and I think about how easy it was for them to tell me to abort like she was nothing.
	If I'd listened like most patients do because they trust the doctors and because they don't do their own research, my baby would not be here.
	See, she did the difficult thing.
	She listened to God.
	And not to the so-called medical experts.
	So we're going to take a quick break and Tony is ready to join us.
	And on Rumble, before we take a break on Rumble, thank you very much for the tip, YJ72. And he says, David, Dr.
	Kaufman's interview on High Wire with Del Bigtree was my awakening.
	Good. He mentioned so-called C19 virus not being isolated.
	We'll talk about that. The veil came off.
	Please thank him for me, of course.
	Thank you for all you do. Yes, I will.
	And he's done a great service to many people.
	And he, of course, has paid the price for telling the truth.
	Because that's the criminal government that we live under.
	So we're going to take a quick break.
	break.
	We're going to connect up with Tony and we'll be right back.
	The common man. . . .
	They created common core to dumb down our children.
	They created common past to track and control us.
	Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing.
	And the communist future.
	They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.
	But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.
	That is what we have in common.
	That is what they want to take away.
	Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
	They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
	It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
	Please share the information and links you'll find at TheDavidKnightShow.com.
	Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.
	TheDavidKnightShow.com All right, and joining us now is Tony Ardobin of Wise Wolf Gold, and Tony has been a big supporter of this show.
	Really do appreciate that.
	He's set up davidknight.gold, so he knows if you're coming from this show.
	But I'm looking at, and talked last week, Tony, to an economist from Argentina.
	Depending on how they, if it's the government counting the inflation, if it's other people, they're at $100.
	25% to 150% a year inflation.
	I mean, things are just out of control there.
	But we were talking as you came on and you said this interesting story about the Federal Reserve and they put themselves in something of a bind.
	Tell us about that. Thank you for joining us.
	Well, it's great to be here, David.
	Yeah, the Federal Reserve is losing money, which is kind of akin to if you're Trump and you own a casino but you go bankrupt.
	That's really hard to do.
	Michael Meharry put out an article on Zero Hedge from ShiftGold.
	And apparently in the charter of the Federal Reserve, if they make money on interest, they have to pay the United States Treasury.
	But if they lose, the Treasury has to cover their losses.
	And right now, the Treasury of the United States is covering the Federal Reserve's losses because of raising interest rates.
	And this is going to continue because inflation is not going away.
	They're not able to raise rates enough to stop this.
	I mean, because of the trillions and trillions that were printed.
	David, talk about devaluation.
	And inherently, you know, talking about Argentina and inflation in general, you know, the currency is evil.
	You know, I mean, we laugh about it and we talk about hyperinflation and wheelbarrows full of Deutschmarks, you know, in the 1920s, 1930s in Weimar Republic, Germany, but It hurts people and destroys lives and, of course, enriches the most powerful because they control the money supply.
	I was talking to a friend of mine last week, and I said, you know, fiat currency is a lot like Tinkerbell.
	If you stop clapping, it dies.
	You know, the same thing with...
	The same thing with our world's reserve currency status.
	It is crazy.
	I had a friend send me a link yesterday to Miles Franklin, Andy Sheckman over there, Miles Franklin, who I follow, and he said, is this real?
	The headline was that the Wholesalers and trading houses are running out of gold and silver.
	And I said, well, you should have listened to my show.
	I've been saying this for quite a while.
	A lot of the larger capital holders are quietly buying up the supply because they see the writing on the wall.
	Inherently, you can't save money.
	currency is always losing value and the dollar is slower to lose than others.
	But, you know, again, the Fed, the Fed itself is losing money.
	That's a huge, that's a huge headline that should be everywhere.
	I mean, that, that is, you would think it, how do you lose money when you make the money?
	You are the money and you lose it.
	Don't know where they put it, I guess at this point.
	That is truly amazing.
	And when I was talking about what was going on in Argentina, one guy was talking about how this whole idea of the fiat currency, doing it for sovereignty control, and yet As you see in the situation in Argentina, they have lost control of the situation, and they're losing their sovereignty now as well.
	And so all these, it just blew up and backfired in their face.
	But there's something else that's going on with gold.
	I want to get your comments about this.
	This is a piece on Zero Hedge from Gold Fix.
	And I'm saying that comics pricing is a lie.
	Why is China's price higher than the comics exchange?
	And they talk about the Shanghai Gold Exchange.
	They said gold was approximately $2,004 per ounce, whereas on comics, it was $1,935.
	So why is this spread happening?
	And we see that kind of spread happening, as you've talked about many times before, with the ETFs of GLD and SLB, gold and silver ETFs.
	What is going on with that kind of rigging?
	Is that part of the shortages?
	I think it does correlate to that.
	I think what you're witnessing, whether it's the European Central Bank or the Federal Reserve, the West itself, I think, colludes with the bullion houses and the paper markets to keep the price of gold and silver suppressed.
	Whereas you see the BRICS nations trying to break away, create their own currency backed by gold, and especially China, they want the price of gold to go up.
	They're not at war with gold, but the West is.
	The Federal Reserve especially is the world's reserve currency status.
	And you know, David, better than anybody.
	Look at the 1970s.
	We talk about this all the time.
	You know, when gold was, when the dollar was de-tethered from gold, the price of gold shot up.
	And they had, throughout the 70s, they didn't know what to do.
	I mean, they had Paul Volcker at the end of the 70s raising interest rates to the teens because inflation was out of control.
	They really, really tried to put that genie back in the bottle.
	And they did that. Really by getting people to turn away from gold by trying to crash the price.
	And again, I think that's indisputable.
	If you look at what the Federal Reserve has a massive interest in keeping the price of gold suppressed, this country, the United States of America, hasn't bought gold since the 1950s.
	We haven't added to our gold reserves.
	Every other country on earth has.
	Again, since 2009, all central banks around the world are net gold buyers except one, and that's the United States.
	Yeah. Well, why do that when we just print paper money?
	And that's the key. You know, when we look at it and it's all relative, but it is kind of interesting to see how people are actually operating in that black market.
	They're still hanging on to cash.
	They understand how important it is to have something physical in Argentina, even though people are going nuts.
	I mean, the prices are going up over 12% each month on everything.
	And so they're going up so fast, sometimes they're going crazy running from place to place trying to find a place where they haven't raised it yet so they can buy the commodity there before they can raise it and then run to another location to get it.
	So it's that inflation that is impoverishing everybody.
	About half of the people are below poverty rate now because of this inflation and because of the We're good to go.
	And one of the things that he was talking about, they call it, interestingly enough, when we talk about blue states, they call it, instead of a black market, they call it a blue market.
	I thought, well, we might as well adopt that as well because that maybe fits better with the economic misery and austerity inflicted on us by Democrat states, a blue market.
	But he was talking about how they would have people come in with suitcases full of money.
	You go to a nice hotel and you want to pay for it in cash.
	Then you call up this service.
	And they come in with suitcases full of money and hand it, you know, discreetly to the person behind the desk and they take it back there and they've got money counters like a casino to do that.
	I mean, that's the kind of, that's the way that people are coping with this by keeping, trying to cope with it by keeping cash.
	But they're too poor for the most part to be able to afford getting into gold or silver at this point now.
	And that's the point.
	They've waited too late. They're on the other end of money velocity.
	Yeah. That's the death of money.
	When money dies, that's what it looks like.
	I talk about this all the time.
	I remember going into Iraq.
	When Mosul fell, they sent us to the bank because people were taking all the dinar, the Iraqi dinar, out of the bank, but no one was stopping.
	They had boxes full of Iraqi dinar with Saddam Hussein's picture on nobody wanted them.
	The currency died in one day, and people were trading U.S. dollars.
	You have to remember, too, the fifth plank of the Communist Manifesto, David, is the central bank.
	The endgame of Marxism, right?
	If you want to destroy a country, you first debauch its currency.
	That's quoting Lenin. I think that's really what this is.
	You mentioned Being able to get into gold or silver.
	Your fiat currency, I don't care what country you're in, is constantly losing value.
	And the dollar is losing purchasing power.
	It's a really deadly game of musical chairs with value.
	No one's going to tell you that you need to get out of the fiat currency.
	They're going to tell you to get into the markets that the fiat currency props up.
	I think this is another thing we'll talk about before.
	You have an interview coming up, but I wanted to mention something about 401ks and IRAs.
	This is really an opportunity for people to look at what happens.
	This is the endgame of fiat currency.
	Argentina, something like that.
	I don't know. I mean, we've mentioned this before.
	2001, 75% of all the transactions went on in dollars around the globe.
	2021, 56%.
	2022, 46%.
	It's declining because of our sanctions.
	We have 40 sanctions on 36 different countries.
	So the dollar is on its way out.
	And again, it's not happening tomorrow.
	You're looking at the slow decline, and it may happen one of those gradually, then suddenly, you know, kind of things.
	That tends to happen in the modern era, but I would pay attention to what's happening.
	And I noticed there's some things going on in my business.
	I know people need money.
	I'm watching... My purchase ratios go way up, like the people trying to sell their gold and silver holdings, raising capital.
	I totally understand that.
	I make money either way.
	It's part of what I do, but I hate to see that because I know people are going to need that, especially when you see the loss of the purchasing power.
	I was part of that panel.
	I spoke in New York City last week near the anniversary of 9-11 with Richard Gage and Charlie Robinson and Wayne McCoy and Don Jeffries for FreeWorld.fm.
	And I was talking to my friend Charlie Robinson and he said, how's the 401ks and IRAs doing?
	And I said, you know, it kind of went really quiet.
	He said, that's shocking.
	I can't believe that more people aren't doing that.
	I said, I know. It is right now.
	There is a calm in the storm.
	You still get supply. It's really easy to do that, but it's kind of alarming.
	He mentioned it.
	I said, I hadn't thought about that, but a lot of that has dried up, and I think people take a second look.
	If you're looking at this market and studying it like David and I do and saying, I don't think this is going to have a good outcome, If you're tied into the fiat system, which in and of itself, the 401ks, the stock markets, IRAs, all of that's tied to paper.
	You might want to take a look and give us a call through davidknight.gold because I can easily put you into real value.
	There's another article that came out today on Kitco, and it talked about how gold was not affected by the European Central Bank raising rates.
	It's another example of why the gold price has remained high or higher.
	In the face of them raising rates, which usually drives it lower because that is the way that they show that their fiat currency has strength.
	It's a strong dollar.
	The European Central Bank raises rates.
	Gold doesn't do anything.
	That should tell you a lot because the gold demand is so high with these central banks around the world buying it.
	Yes, yes. That is true.
	And, you know, when you think about an IRA or something, the key thing that you want to have with your retirement is preservation of capital.
	You know, a lot of people say, well, you know, at your age, you need to be conservative.
	Well, you need to be conservative at any age.
	You don't want to... You get into a situation where if you speculate a lot when you're young, then you don't have it later on either.
	So you want to preserve your capital, and that's going to be one of the key things to do it.
	I think it's a very safe haven to have gold there.
	But as you're talking about looking at Argentina and what it looks like, how people are still going for the dollar, but you can see the weakness in it.
	One of the stories that I was looking at, they were talking about The fact that Javier Malay, who has finished in first place, a political newcomer, beat the other parties, and now he is still strongly in the lead for the coming election, And he wants to just completely get rid of the Argentine peso.
	He said nobody wants it.
	They can't use it for trade with anybody outside of the country.
	And so you can't, China won't take it.
	The U.S. isn't going to take it.
	Nobody is going to take it for goods.
	And then within the country, it is rapidly losing its value at like 12% a month.
	And so he said that they looked at it and they considered, well, you know, would it be the dollar?
	Would it be China? They said China's got a lot of strings attached.
	But I thought it was interesting that it wasn't, you know, that they did consider the Chinese yuan instead of only looking at the U.S. dollar.
	And that's a warning sign, as you point out, the fact that the dollar's dominance because of what Biden has done, the way he's weaponized it and so forth.
	It's taken a big hit.
	And who knows what they will do?
	I mean, who would have thought a decade ago that they would have done to our central energy grid the types of things that they've done to make it vulnerable and fragile and, And look at what they're doing in the financial way as well.
	The central control of finances.
	Same type of thing is happening with the central banks.
	It's happening with the central grid.
	They're working overtime to try to make everything fail, it seems like.
	One of Biden's economic advisors, one of the top advisors, has written op-eds on why we should lose the world's reserve currency status.
	That's insane to me, but the calls are coming from inside the House.
	I mean, this is a controlled demolition of the American empire.
	That's right. It's a great book by my friend Charlie Robinson.
	I mean, you look at it across the board.
	You know, we talked about 9-11 this past week.
	I mean, what was that all about?
	I mean, you look at the cash heist that happened, the debt that was added.
	You know, the year 2000, David, the debt of the U.S. was $5 trillion.
	It's $30 trillion now and climbing.
	These numbers are unsustainable.
	But again, who benefited?
	Who bono? Just the elites that look like they're mooting the Treasury, right?
	They're going to bring themselves in for a soft landing.
	You know, you look at the 2019, the largest mass exodus of CEOs ever in recorded history right before COVID-19.
	So, you know, this class of people, the ruling elite, especially tied into the banking houses and the multinational corporations, have no interest in the United States being a strong economy.
	Or a free market. Or anything like that.
	And so you're watching that decline.
	It's directly correlated to the world's reserve currency status of the dollar.
	This is unfortunate for...
	And there's a great quote from R. Buckminster Fuller.
	He said, people cannot get out of the way of what they don't see coming.
	That's right. Yeah, that's the key thing.
	That's what we're trying to do is to show people what is coming.
	Show people what's coming with the lockdown and the vaccine mandates are on the way and the vaccines are on the way.
	If you don't understand what the game is, if you don't understand what they understand, and I played it again yesterday.
	It was back in March of 2022.
	Biden said, you know, one of those times that happens about every four generations and it's going to change everything.
	We're going to have a new world order and all the rest of this stuff.
	It's like, yeah, they know this.
	We need to see what's coming.
	We need to see what they, the train that they have running down the track straight on, head-on collusion with us that they have put on that track.
	Tell us a little bit, Tony, about what is happening at Wise Wolf.
	Well, as I mentioned earlier, we're looking at options for folks who want to turn their IRAs, 401ks, you want to roll that into physical precious metals.
	I know we're looking at supply and different deals.
	And I've learned over the years of doing those that you want to put people in the most amount of metals for their dollar because that's the way it's going to, because of the fees and the things rolling over.
	So we're looking at how to get people into the most, you know, quality metal for their dollar and something like that.
	Same thing goes with just direct purchases, David.
	You go to davidknight.gold, you're going to be able to get in touch with us really easy.
	You can even text us. And I've got a team that, you know, Branson, Missouri and Denison, Texas, we'll source product for you and there's no minimum.
	That's one of the reasons I built my business.
	We don't have a guessing game.
	It's not a magic trick. We don't want to know how much you know.
	We're just going to tell you this is how much metal we can get you.
	These are the quality products.
	And, of course, Wolfpack.
	I really want to get Wolfpack to a thousand members.
	I'm really close. And a lot of those are David Knight listeners.
	And we've had some cancellations because I know the economy is tough.
	But if you think you can't afford precious metals, you go to davidknott.gold, you click on Join Wolfpack.
	It is easy. We direct ship the precious metals directly from the Branson location.
	I source them from all over the country, but especially the trading floor in Dallas.
	And we got a lot of variety there, but you can start as little as $50.
	And we have a lot of new things being added to Wolfpack.
	I have some specials coming up.
	There's flash sales.
	It's just a good thing. If you're looking to get out of the dollar, which I think you should, I don't think you should save dollars.
	The rich don't save dollars, ladies and gentlemen.
	The rich don't hoard cash.
	Maybe a little bit for, you know, again, like David talked about, you have a little bit on hand, a little variety to trade.
	But look at precious metals.
	We send you a variety through Wolfpack.
	And again, there's Lots of incentives.
	There's going to be some more flash sales coming up.
	I know Kenzie's working on a buy-in on small fractional gold.
	So you look for that.
	If you join Wolfpack, you'll get a text and we'll have some of that.
	And so lots going on and we definitely want to...
	We continue to support you, and we appreciate your listeners.
	It's a weird time in the economy, and I understand that, and I'm seeing that.
	I'm on the front lines of it, and there is a shift going on.
	Videnomics doesn't work.
	I'm here to report because my business is totally different this year than it was last year.
	Yes, yes, absolutely.
	Let me ask you a technical question before, because we do have to break off a little bit early so we can establish contact with Dr.
	Kaufman. Well, let me ask you about the IRA thing.
	When you have to take withdrawals, can you take the withdrawals in the form of the metal itself, or does it have to be converted over to a cash?
	No, it's your metal. Okay.
	You would take that. Yeah, we'd have to calculate.
	You have to go through New Direction Trust and have to do all the legal stuff.
	But when you withdraw, that's your metal.
	If you buy, you know, 10 one-ounce gold American Eagles, those are your American Eagles.
	They go into your vault.
	It's a $179 a year fee, but that's your metal.
	It's not paper.
	It's not in a ledger somewhere.
	It's yours. And that's the difference between buying physical precious metals and buying something in paper.
	It's not in Shanghai. You're not going to get Shanghai'd with that, so that's good to know.
	And that's a very important thing, you know, that you'll be able to preserve it that way without the additional exchange fees with it.
	Thank you so much, Tony.
	I appreciate you coming on, and thank you for all that you do for the program.
	It's a great program, folks, especially the Wolfpack, where you can Set up a regular savings program there, and also a community that he's got there.
	It's a great program, and as we start to look at this, as things start to get tight, understand that on the backside of this, one of the safest places that you can be is going to be in gold and silver.
	I really do believe that.
	So do your own research, and don't take my advice as an expert, but we do know how dangerous the The paper currency is.
	Thank you so much. Tony Ardobin, Wise Wolf Gold, and you can get there at davidknight.gold.
	Thank you, Tony. Appreciate it.
	Thank you, Dave. Okay, folks, we're going to take a quick break, and we're going to connect with Dr.
	Dr. Kaufman, and we will be right back.
	The Common Man.
	They created Common Core to dumb down our children.
	They created Common Past to track and control us.
	Their Commons Project to make sure the commoners own nothing.
	And the communist future.
	They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.
	But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.
	That is what we have in common.
	That is what they want to take away.
	Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
	They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
	It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
	Please share the information and links you'll find at TheDavidKnightShow.com.
	Thank you for listening.
	Thank you for sharing.
	If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.
	The David Knight Show dot com.
	All right.
	it is a real honor to have with us Dr.
	Andrew Kaufman. He is, among other things, a forensic psychiatrist.
	And I've said for the longest time, the only science really going on here is behavioral psychology.
	He got his psychiatric training at Duke University Medical Center.
	He also has a BS from MIT in molecular biology.
	And so we're going to tap into that primarily today, his background in biology.
	He says he's been qualified as an expert witness in local, state, and federal courts.
	I've held leadership positions in academic medicine and professional organizations.
	He ran a startup company to develop a medical device that he invented and patented.
	So it's great to have on with us now Dr.
	Andrew Kaufman. Thank you for joining us, sir.
	Oh, it's a pleasure to be here, David.
	One of the things that I wanted to talk to you about, which I think is very, very important, and I've not really talked about this at all, and that is the difference between their models and having anything that has been isolated.
	Talk to us a little bit about that.
	What is involved with that?
	Because we, just as a background, I'll just interject this.
	People have always heard about in vitro, right?
	That means in the glass. You've heard about in vitro fertilization.
	But then they look at effects of things as they do an experiment in a Petri dish.
	And then they also look, hopefully, at what happens in living bodies.
	That's in vivo. But now we have what they call, I think it's in silico or something like that, where they do the models, computer models.
	And they don't bother to do any of this other stuff.
	It's their models. And of course, it was their models that got us into this lockdown, March the 13th, 2020.
	But let's talk a little bit about that.
	Models versus actually having some kind of an isolated pathogen.
	Tell us a little bit about that. Well, let me first say that I really appreciate that you're bringing up this topic at this point because it's really imperative to understand the truth about infectious disease in order to prepare yourself to deal with whatever may come in the future because we know that this program will run again.
	Mm-hmm. And you've hit the nail on the head with the idea of models, or I call them simulations.
	And there's really two parallel avenues of research in virology where they do simulations.
	So one is with the physical laboratory experiments that are in vitro, like you described, in a dish in the laboratory with a lot of artificial ingredients and conditions.
	And then with respect to the genetic sequences or the so-called viral genome, and this is how the variants, by the way, are identified, is purely by a computer model of the little genetic fragments of is purely by a computer model of the little genetic fragments of So I could explain these two separately.
	The physical laboratory experiments are a little bit more straightforward, so let me start there.
	And it's important to begin with definitions because the mainstream, or if you look in a typical biology or microbiology textbook, they'll have a specific definition of viruses.
	And it describes them as particles that are made of certain materials that they generally have a protein coat or shell.
	And inside they contain proteins and genetic material.
	And that they are what's called obligate intracellular parasites.
	In other words, they can't reproduce on their own, but they allegedly invade host cells, which would be like our cells if we got sick with a virus.
	And inside our cells, they use our own machinery to make copies of themselves.
	And then they would, you know, explode out and those particles would spread around and penetrate other cells and do the same thing.
	And that's how we're told they cause disease.
	So that's the definition of a virus.
	Now, originally, when the word virus was used as a hypothesis to explain illness in medicine, it didn't have that definition.
	At that time, it was just thought to be a poison.
	And in fact, the word virus comes from the Latin meaning poison, or it was used to describe things like snake venom back in antiquity.
	But in the modern era, like around the turn of the 20th century, when there were experiments with tobacco mosaic virus, which is not a virus, at the time, the theory or hypothesis was that it was a toxic protein, perhaps that could reproduce the theory or hypothesis was that it was a toxic protein, perhaps that could Around the turn of the 20th century, when there were experiments with tobacco mosaic virus, which is not a virus, at the time the theory or hypothesis was that it was a toxic protein, perhaps that could reproduce itself or amplify itself. perhaps that could reproduce itself or amplify itself.
	But they had no idea about particles.
	When the electron microscope was invented in the late 1930s, that's when scientists actually started looking at disease tissue for illnesses that they couldn't explain otherwise.
	Like, in other words, they didn't find bacteria there.
	And they suspected there was some small poison or particle like that they called a virus at the time.
	They began looking at disease tissue, but they couldn't find any particles that represented a single thing.
	They just found essentially breakdown products of our own cells and tissues.
	And now it's well characterized that when our cells or any other animal cells are damaged, that they form little particles.
	Kind of like if your house got hit by a tree in a hurricane and you had to clean up the mess, you would take all of the destroyed materials and put them in plastic bags.
	And each plastic bag would be like a separate compartment.
	And that's a neat way to dispose of the trash without getting the contents everywhere.
	And our bodies do the same thing.
	So what happened was, is that even though they were unable to find these particles or have a clear theory about viruses, they already had been making vaccines.
	And they were, you know, convinced themselves that they were growing viruses now.
	In a cell culture when they made these vaccines, even though they had no evidence of that.
	In other words, they never identified the actual virus in there conclusively.
	They just assumed that it was always in there.
	There was a problem, though, because they thought that they had to use the type of cells that are infected.
	So, for example, in polio, it's a disease of the spinal cord.
	So they would thought that to grow the polio virus, which they never showed to exist, that they would have to use cultures of spinal cord cells.
	And those are very, very difficult to grow in the laboratory.
	So a scientist named John Enders got an idea that what if we tried using cells that are easy to grow in the laboratory?
	And the cells he chose were fetal stem cells.
	So, in other words, from an aborted fetus, the stem cells, which grow very readily in the laboratory and they stay alive pretty much forever.
	He took ground up spinal cords from children who died of polio and added them to fetal cell cultures and claimed that this was growing the virus successfully and used it to manufacture vaccines and actually won a Nobel Prize.
	Mm hmm.
	And after that process was complete, he applied the same kind of process to study measles in a famous paper in 1954.
	And in that paper, he did not actually claim that the experiment where he grew a cell culture of foreign cells, in that experiment he used monkey kidney cells that were genetically modified, In a commercially available cell line, so any laboratory around the world could buy these cells and do this experiment.
	And he added secretions from measles patients and put some antibiotics in the Petri dish as well.
	And some of those cultures ended up showing some damage to the cells, which he called cytopathic effects or CPEs.
	And he also actually did a culture where he did not add anything from a measles patient and got the same result, damage to the culture and CPEs.
	And even in the paper that was published, he stated...
	You know, that there must be other factors in the experiment that caused the CPE in that control experiment.
	And he didn't make any claims that that experiment proved the existence of measles.
	In fact, he said that what happens in vitro, just like you mentioned in the laboratory, does not inform us about what's happening in the body.
	Oh, that's not science then.
	Yeah. Well, I would call it observation, because you're right.
	The scientific method showed that those cytopathic effects were due to the experiment and not due to the measles, because they occurred when no measles was in the sample.
	But there perhaps are still things that could be learned if there really was a virus in that experiment.
	It's just that they never showed one.
	But what happened after that is that other scientists used that procedure and started claiming that it showed a new virus, that it discovered a new virus if there were cytopathic effects.
	And they ignored the control experiment where there was no virus or they didn't ignore it exactly.
	But in their experiments, they left that part out.
	So in other words, they didn't do control experiments.
	So it was not scientific.
	They also didn't have an independent variable because they just added body fluids or tissues that were diseased to the experiment.
	They never separated out a virus from those body fluids or tissues because when they looked for that in the past they were never able to find it.
	That's amazing.
	But essentially what's happening is that if someone is sick, and let's say that it actually was due to a virus, then essentially that person's body would be the cell culture for that virus to reproduce.
	And it should be very easy to simply take out that part of the body and find tons of virus because it's been reproducing.
	If it didn't reproduce and spread around, it couldn't make you sick.
	So in other words, to do that experiment, it would be very easy and should readily show the presence of this invasive particle.
	but those experiments when they were done didn't show that and now they're no longer done because they have this other simulation in the laboratory where and it's been shown that you can get the same results without adding any biological material at all you just put in the antibiotics and the cell culture medium with reduced nutrition which is the same protocol they use and you can get cytopathic effects wow I think of this, Dr.
	Kaufman, in a sense of the subatomic models.
	And so we've had the Neil Bohr's model of the atom, and then we've moved on to quantum mechanics.
	And these are abstractions.
	That people, they make some observations and they say, well, you know, if this were true, because they can't see it, you know, that's the key thing.
	They can't observe a virus there.
	And so they're coming up with these abstractions to try to describe what is there at a subatomic level.
	Is that accurate or would you disagree with that?
	Is that an abstraction that we use to try to figure out what is going on with disease transmission, but they can't really see it or prove it, right?
	Yeah. I think you're on the right track.
	And what I've observed within the fields of science, or so-called science and technology, is that sometimes we can make observations about things, and we can describe them so well that we can predict the behavior of things in the future.
	And I think a great example of this is with respect to Isaac Newton and gravity.
	So, you know, as the story goes, Newton observed an apple falling to the ground, and then he began to measure things, and, you know, and observe things carefully, and then he was able to come up with an equation.
	and predicted how fast the apple would fall to the ground.
	And then he saw that other things also fall at the same rate of acceleration, right?
	And that's how we got the acceleration due to gravity.
	So we can do experiments where we drop things, and we can plug in the numbers to the equation, and we can get pretty accurate predictions about what happens when we drop that thing.
	However, it doesn't tell us anything at all about what makes it drop.
	So, in other words, the cause.
	Why is it dropping? The equation doesn't speak to that.
	Now, they invented the word gravity to describe that, but no one could show what gravity was.
	And it was assumed to be a force all of these years.
	But then in the last 10 years, through some crazy experiments done with satellites, now the scientists claim that it's not a force, that it's a disruption of the space time continuum.
	And I don't think they can really prove that either.
	I think that's just another hypothesis.
	But the equations that I described earlier are still useful because we can predict behavior.
	So in chemistry, the model of the atom...
	been directly observed there's only you know inferential or circumstantial evidence from which one explanation has been put forth as the model of the atom but there are many other explanations that could be put forth that would explain those experimental findings just as easily yeah but based on how we look at the atom and the periodic table and the atomic numbers and such
	we can use this arbitrary system of nomenclature and of rules and we can go to the laboratory and we can synthesize chemicals and do chemical reactions that we can predict with some accuracy.
	So, it's useful to have that system But it really doesn't tell us the true nature of the atom or of matter.
	We only have one possible model for that, but we have no conclusive evidence.
	The reason why is that we don't have the ability to observe things at such a small scale that we can see what it's really made of.
	Or at least that's one hypothesis about why You know, we don't know it exactly.
	And so with that, as we're talking about observation, let's talk a little bit about the PCR thing, Kerry Mullis' PCR. Because, you know, that is, they talk about that incessantly as, you know, this is our observation.
	What are they really seeing with that?
	Well, you've got to understand that if you want to identify a covariate, because really what we're talking about is something that represents something else, right?
	Like we have a fingerprint.
	A fingerprint is not a human being, but it's a part of a human being.
	And we know if we see a fingerprint, a human being has been there.
	But we can't identify the human being unless we already analyze their fingerprint and have something to match it to.
	So the PCR test, now it's not really a test per se, it's actually a manufacturing technology because it takes...
	Some starting material and makes more of that.
	It replicates it, right?
	Makes copies of it so there's more quantity of that stuff.
	And that's really what it does.
	But it can only make these quantities of something that's a small piece of something.
	And that piece of something would be a piece of genetic material, right, that is broken off a larger piece.
	So in order to say that if we find this piece of genetic material, first we have to say, all right, we've identified the organism and we've identified We've characterized all the genetic material in this organism and we've compared it with all the genetic material of other organisms and we know this piece here is unique.
	It doesn't occur in any other part of nature and we know that it comes from this particular organism.
	And we can do this for humans or other organisms that we've mapped their entire genome by taking a cell from a human body Mapping out every sequence of DNA in the nucleus and the mitochondria.
	And then putting those all in a database.
	And that's been done.
	It took a long time, but it's been done.
	So if you were to develop a genetic test for a piece of the genetic material of a virus...
	First, you'd have to discover the virus.
	You'd have to extract the genetic material from it and sequence it in its entirety, then compare it to all the other known sequences and pick out a fragment of it that's unique.
	And then you could develop a test and then you'd have to validate it by comparing it to, you know.
	So in other words, you would have, let's say, 100 people that were sick and you would demonstrate the virus in those people through being able to purify it out and visualize it from those people.
	Then you would know out of the 100 people how many have the virus and don't.
	And then you would do this, you know, proposed test for this genetic fragment and you would get the results and see how many times you found the unique fragment.
	and you would compare it.
	To the people that actually, whether they had the actual virus or not in their body.
	And if it matched up 100% of the time, it would be an amazing test with a zero error rate.
	But in reality, there are no tests which are that good.
	And, you know, like, for example, if you were going to validate a pregnancy test, you would, you know, do the test and then you'd wait nine months and see if a baby came out.
	And if your test showed the presence of something and a baby came out at the end, you'd know it was good.
	Right? And you could even do this for fun with a...
	pendulum swings uh you know side to side or up and down it could predict pregnancy and you could test it by just waiting nine months and see if it's accurate and that's called validation and it's never been done with the pcr test for this alleged virus or for any other alleged virus so there's even if it was a good test in detecting this particular genetic fragment and
	There's no way to know if this genetic fragment actually came from a virus or not.
	We don't know the origin of it.
	They've never taken this virus and pulled the genetic material out of it to determine what sequences are in it because they've never actually found the particle.
	Now, there are pictures where they point to something and say that's the particle.
	But they don't do any experiment or test to demonstrate that that particle has any of the properties of a virus.
	And we saw this, Fauci's first PCR game.
	Was still when Kerry was still alive.
	Kerry Mullis was still alive.
	And he said, you can't prove that there's that HIV is the cause of AIDS using my test.
	And he had this fight with him all that time.
	And of course, just before this thing rolled out, he died.
	Kerry Mullis died a few months before Fauci rolled this stuff out.
	I've always found that fascinating.
	The fact that even though he was the one who invented it, and even though he won a Nobel Prize for it, He could not ever get tried over and over again to set up something where he was going to debate Fauci.
	Fauci was always able to avoid that, always able to keep the spotlight on himself and never have to explain what the person who invented the test said was a misuse of his test.
	Yeah, well, there's no reason for, Fauci would have nothing to gain, would have had nothing to gain from debating Carey Mullis because he knew that he was, you know, exploiting this technology for commercial gain.
	Yes, that's right. It's always a key when somebody doesn't want to show you their data and they don't want to have a debate.
	It always tells you something about their confidence level of what they're telling everybody.
	But the guy was an amazing, or is even still, as he's still doing it, an amazing con man.
	And so we have this PCR test.
	As you pointed out, we don't really know when they're testing for something.
	We don't really know, well, is that connected to what we're seeing here, right?
	So they're magnifying this with their cycle threshold of 40.
	They're magnifying it over a trillion times.
	But what are they even looking for?
	Is there any connection between what they're looking for and a disease?
	They're shutting people down who have no symptoms, right?
	Yeah, you're right.
	They've never established a connection.
	In fact, the CDC described how they validated the PCR test.
	And what they did is they made a synthetic strand of genetic material that matched...
	The one that the test was designed for, and they made up solutions of different concentrations and they put it through the PCR. So all they showed was that you can use this test and amplify a man-made piece of genetic material.
	Had nothing to do with a virus or any sick patients at all.
	They weren't even part of the experiment.
	But the reason I think that PCR is the preferred choice for these tests is, you know, one, because...
	It can be very simply modified to any sequence.
	So it's already there.
	It's already a protocol and even have machines that have automated protocols that run this.
	You put the sample and add the ingredients and it does everything if you program it correctly.
	So all you do is put in a different sequence and make a different primer and then you can adapt it to any sequence that you say is from anything.
	Yeah. With no R&D needed.
	So it's very convenient.
	And then the other thing is that there are many parameters that you can adjust To a PCR protocol to change the percent of results that are positive or negative.
	So if you want to tweak the parameters such that 80% of samples come back positive, you can do that.
	If you want to make it 10%, you can do that.
	So in other words...
	By manipulating it, you could give the appearance that there was a surge of cases or that there was an improvement in the number of cases.
	When you say tweaking it, is that something that's different from the cycle threshold?
	How many times they go through and double it?
	Well, the cycle threshold is only one way that you can manipulate the outcome.
	So certainly that is a very potent way because each time you do one cycle means that you're making one copy of your starting sample.
	So if you start out with just one copy of this specific genetic sequence, after doing one cycle, you'll end up with two copies.
	And after the second cycle, you'll go from two to four.
	So each time it doubles.
	Now, each time that you double, there are errors that occur.
	So it doesn't copy each piece perfectly.
	It copies it perfectly some of the time and then also makes some errors.
	So think about if you were doing this with rewriting a sentence.
	Someone originally wrote the sentence and then you have to copy the sentence a hundred times.
	One of those times you might substitute an E for an A. Mm-hmm.
	And then that error might get perpetuated because if you copy that E correctly, it's still a mistake from the original, right?
	It didn't exist in the original.
	And that's what happens as you do more and more copies.
	And the cycle threshold is generally the guidelines say it should be under 20.
	So under 20 doublings to get accurate results without introducing so much error.
	That you could essentially get anything in your final sample because the mistakes multiply and, you know, add up over time.
	Like you get a mistake here, then there was a mistake in the mistake and a mistake in the mistake and you get something that is totally different.
	It was never in your sample to start with.
	So that's one way you can fudge the results.
	The other way is that you set an arbitrary threshold Of how much material you made that you call positive.
	So in other words, there could be 10 picograms of it in your 40th cycle, and you call that a positive, or it could be 100 picograms that you call positive.
	And it's totally arbitrary where you set that threshold of positive and negative.
	It's not like an on-off switch.
	it's more it's like a dial and you just pick a point in the dial that's positive and negative it's kind of like asking the question um you know at what temperature is does it go from cold to hot mm-hmm Right? You can make one up, but there's no real answer.
	And so that changes it.
	And then the other thing is that you typically dilute your sample before you put it into the PCR machine.
	So depending on how much you dilute your sample, if you dilute it more, then there'll be less in the final result and more likely a negative result.
	And if you dilute it less, there'll be more in your starting sample and more likely a positive result.
	Adjusting those parameters, you could easily change the number of positive results you get when you apply it to a population of samples.
	And so, you know, they've got a model and an abstraction, and then they level, you know, you look at the PCR test and all the different ways that you can define what you're looking for and how much you can magnify it and the errors that are induced into that.
	And then they come up with a variance.
	Now, since we don't have anything that's tied to something that is absolutely real, it's kind of an abstraction model, as you point out, it's a Digital simulation.
	What does any of this variant stuff mean when they...
	Right. Well, now this gets into the whole area of the genome sequencing.
	And now, you know, earlier I kind of described how we got the human genome, right?
	That we took the genetic material, the DNA, out of human cells, out of their nuclei and mitochondria, and then we sequenced that genetic material and that genetic material only, right?
	We started with just human cells.
	Right. Now, since they've never actually found a virus or separated it and purified it so you just have a test tube with only virus particles, they were never able to take the genetic material out of it.
	What they do is they take the tissue or the fluid from a sick person.
	With COVID, for example, the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus, they did this with just one single patient.
	Of course, they said that they had the virus because of a PCR test.
	Which was developed without ever finding the virus in the first place.
	So it's sort of, it's a circular reasoning, right?
	Why is the virus in there?
	Well, we assume the virus is in there.
	We assume that if the virus is in there, the PCR will be positive.
	So we do the PCR and it's positive.
	So that means the virus is in there, even though we never demonstrated it, right?
	And then that means that the genetic material from the virus is also in there.
	What they do is they take that fluid and they pull out every fragment of genetic material that's in there, but they don't know where any of those fragments are from.
	They assume that some of them are from a virus.
	They know that some of them must be from the human.
	But they don't know where else they might come from because, you know, we have bacteria in us.
	We have fungi.
	We have parasites. Even if just if we breathe in the air, there's genetic material in the air.
	And so, like, if you take fluid out of the lungs, whatever you just breathed in in the last half hour is going to be in that sample.
	So they have this mixture of unknown material and they're all little fragments.
	And, you know, little fragments are redundant because there's only four letters, right?
	So there's only so many ten-letter words you can make with four letters.
	And so when you have small fragments, they're present everywhere in nature.
	Like, every organism has it because, you know, you've got trillions or quadrillions of these letters in your vocabulary, so they make every ten-letter word there is in there, right?
	So they're not specific.
	But they sequence all these little fragments and then this is where the computer simulation comes in.
	They put in all that data into the computer and the computer tries to, out of nothing, put together a genome that is from this virus that they've never shown to be in the experiment.
	And it comes up with like a million solutions.
	In fact, for the SARS-CoV-2 experiment, they actually used two separate computer programs because they couldn't trust that one would give them the answer they wanted.
	And between those two programs, there were over a million results of possible theoretical computer simulation genomes.
	in that sample.
	And they basically also had an assumption that the length of the genome would be around either 20 or 30,000 bases long.
	So out of the million solutions, there was some solutions that were around that length, and they just picked the longest one of those.
	I thought the epidemiological models were bad enough.
	This is way, way beyond all the stuff that was done by the Imperial College of London.
	It truly is amazing. It really is.
	It really is amazing.
	And the thing is that so few people can read these papers and understand what they're doing or take the time to read them that no one knows they're doing this little magic trick where they're giving you a computer-generated result, not something that's in nature.
	And so then they have an even better trick.
	So once they basically published that and said, boom, this is the genome of SARS-CoV-2, and they entered it in a database that anyone can look at in the world...
	Then the companies that make the technology that does this kind of sequencing, it's called next-generation sequencing, and it's a very big business, they develop the protocol using PCR where you could essentially apply the template of that genome And find it in any other sample.
	So it's kind of like a rigged game because the PCR primers make up more than half of the entire genome.
	And then they do that, and it's like a recipe that labs around the world can just follow this procedure, you know, step one, step two, step three, and at the end, they get this result, and then the result is supposed to represent the genome of the virus in their patient's sample.
	Wow. And the thing is, they could never replicate the exact findings.
	So every time they did this, they didn't get the same exact genome that they found in the first experiment because it wasn't real.
	So they couldn't get the same results from repeating the experiment.
	In fact, that's one of the scientific principles that invalidates the results.
	If you can't repeat the experiment and get the same results, then the original experiment is flawed.
	Yes. Wow.
	And our results are close, but not exactly the same.
	So we have a genetic mutated version of the virus, and we'll call that a variant.
	Wow.
	Wow.
	And how many variants have they invented here?
	There have been millions, millions that they've invented by this.
	And then, you know, the public health agencies like the CDC, they then make a classification.
	Of these variants as being, you know, dangerous or threatening or not.
	And the way they do this is even more ridiculous because they take these computer simulated sequences and for like the spike protein gene, for example, the S gene, because they say that part of this sequence makes the spike protein, which has also never been shown to come from nature.
	And then they make a synthetic sequence of the spike protein gene that they say is from this new variant.
	And they transfect it into a bacterial cell culture.
	And so the bacterial cells make this gene for the spike protein supposedly.
	And then they add antibodies to the Petri dish that are supposed to be the antibodies that protect us from the infection, but there's never been any studies that prove that.
	And based on how the antibodies bind with the bacteria, they make a judgment of how dangerous this virus is.
	So they don't follow the people who had this sequence in their sample and say, how do they do?
	Yeah, exactly.
	They do this, once again, another laboratory simulation in vitro without anything resembling nature in the experiment, but then they draw conclusions and then they make policy based on those experiments.
	Yeah. Wow. And so we have their existing vaccines, which we don't see anybody getting any better from, and you still have people who are testing positive for it.
	Let me ask you this.
	I've always wondered if, since there are Coming up with a sequence and telling people, this is what you're going to test for.
	And then saying, you know, that there's, you know, we're going to create this sequence as part of our vaccine.
	I think we're going to get your body to create this.
	Are they also injecting what they're looking for to some degree or the other?
	Is that something else that's another factor here besides all the magnification?
	And all the rest of the things they can do, are they actually, what they're injecting people with, is that another piece of circular logic that they're going to inject you with something that they're going to look at to see if they can find that?
	Well, there are many logical errors in the approach with these alleged vaccines.
	Obviously, if you haven't proven that there's a microorganism causing the disease, if you develop a therapeutic based on getting rid of a microorganism, it couldn't possibly be successful.
	In order to develop a way to help address the A problem you have to know what's causing the problem.
	Right. So there's no way a vaccine could be useful.
	And also, because these vaccines were allowed to be sold, right, they were never approved, or at least only until after the pandemic, some of them might have gotten approval from an official government body.
	But they were allowed to be sold under an emergency exception.
	Right. Right?
	EUA is what it's called Emergency Use Authorization in the United States.
	It has different names in other countries, but that's all over the world.
	That's the only way it could be used.
	And that allows the manufacturer to change the ingredients and to not disclose things because it's a work in progress.
	And it's like the emergency is so dire that we'll take the risk.
	Right? That's what it states in the law, essentially.
	Right? So, they didn't test properly to even know what exactly these shots do to people.
	Like, they didn't even test to say, well, if we give it to people, can we detect this spike protein in their body?
	They didn't do that research.
	There have been a couple of small studies that independent researchers have tried to look at that after the fact.
	But the manufacturer, that's the most basic thing.
	You design this thing, it's supposed to make a protein in the recipient, and then you never test for that protein in the recipient.
	We've had some information come out, would you agree with it or not, that in some of the animal tests they found a concentration of spike proteins in ovaries and in the spleen.
	Would you disagree with that, that they did not find the spike protein?
	Yeah, well those were not spike proteins, those were the lipid nanoparticles.
	So they did what they call pharmacokinetic studies, which is required for any pharmaceutical, and that's basically what does your body do to this drug or substance when you put it in there, right?
	Does it stay around in the body?
	Does it go in the urine?
	Does it go in the stool? Does the liver process us?
	Those kind of questions. So I believe it was Pfizer released a document in Japan That described the pharmacokinetic studies of the lipid nanoparticles.
	Now that's the little containers that allegedly contain the mRNA.
	Okay. And those lipid nanoparticles were shown to distribute To all locations in the body, but they were highly concentrated, as you pointed out, in the genital regions, especially the female genitals, like the uterus, the ovaries, and also in the brain tissue and in several other organs.
	So that was found.
	So if there was actually mRNA that could cause your cells to make spike protein, it would be delivered to all those locations in your body.
	But they did not do experiments where they You know, they measured spike protein in those organs that I'm aware of.
	I see. Okay. Well, that's interesting because I've seen it reported that way, but they're looking at the lipid nanoparticles.
	And what do we know about the lipid nanoparticles and their health effects?
	Well, we know they're fairly toxic.
	There are toxicology studies looking at these things, and they could also be called hydrogels, by the way.
	That's a different technological name for them.
	But yeah, these things are definitely not good for us.
	But, you know, we don't know the...
	Each version of it is slightly different.
	It's a proprietary chemical.
	So, you know, the version of it that's in the current...
	You know, that hasn't been tested directly that I'm aware of.
	But in general, there is a significant toxicity just from these lipid nanoparticles themselves.
	Well, it certainly is amazing.
	And of course, we know that there's something up with this.
	You know, when you see people, members of the European Parliament and say, well, we want to see the contract and other things like this, and they get nothing but redacted documents back.
	We know that Pfizer was leaning on various countries who have gone public with the fact that they wanted additional protection over and above what they would have normally had with an emergency experimental vaccine.
	They wanted protection about negligence in manufacturing and all the rest of this stuff.
	And they even wanted to have assets that were outside of that country that they would be able to get to.
	So there's just all these different smoking guns, but that's a whole nother level.
	And, of course, what you're talking about here also gets back to the baseline understanding of what is a virus and what is a vaccine.
	And these are abstractions.
	I've had a lot of people who have sent me information in the past.
	I've never gotten into it that much.
	I just looked at it and it's like, you know, that may not actually be an accurate model.
	And certainly from the way that you're describing it, it looks like an endless loop of circular lines.
	That is just going round and round again.
	And what comes out at the end of that is a big pile of money, I guess, is what we get out of that circular logic.
	Well, I mean, even before COVID, vaccines were a multi-billion dollar industry in the United States.
	I mean, really second to cancer treatment.
	But the COVID vaccines were the best-selling drugs ever in the history of the pharmaceutical industry.
	So this was a huge windfall.
	And all the companies that made testing kits as well, a huge, huge windfall.
	Windfall. People even made money all sorts of ways.
	They bought cheap masks and other PPE from China and resold it, doubling and tripling the price.
	It was a real boon for anyone who wanted to, you know, corrupt themselves and join on the medical bandwagon of, you know, medical fraud to bring that about.
	So it's, you know, this is not going to stop because these profits, right, are too sweet to pass up for that industry.
	And I'm sure, you know, what you were talking about with contracts and such, you know, all the governments entered into those contracts voluntarily.
	And they even provided blanket immunity from product liability for the manufacturers.
	And so really, they are at fault just as much as the drug companies for perpetrating this poison injections upon us and causing all of the morbidity and mortality that resulted.
	And, you know, the vaccine industry recognized decades ago that their products were toxic and because they were getting sued and they they were getting sued and losing so much that vaccines were not profitable. the vaccine industry recognized decades ago that their products were And so they basically told the government, they gave them an ultimatum.
	They said, if you want us to keep making vaccines, you have to take away our liability.
	Yeah.
	And it's unprecedented.
	There's no other product manufacturer that is free from product liability.
	If I manufacture a gas fireplace and it explodes and kills you and your family, I have to pay.
	But if I manufacture a vaccine and it kills you and your family, I just keep selling it to more people.
	That's right. And, you know, that's what has resulted.
	And, of course, they find more and more profitable ways over time, and they keep expanding the number of vaccines, the vaccine recommendations in their government partnerships, etc., etc.
	And even if you don't want to question the validity of germ theory as a cause of disease, which is clearly not scientifically proven, You can just look at the actual data.
	So, for example, for every illness that was said to have disappeared because of vaccines, if you go and look at the number of cases year by year and look out when the vaccine was first invented and when people actually took the vaccine, you'll see that the disease went away first.
	And then the vaccine came.
	Mm-hmm. And then have a thousand kids I don't give it to and follow
	all of them, you know, through age 10 and see how many get measles in the group that got the shot and how many got measles in the group that didn't and then compare it and see if it really prevented measles.
	But those experiments have never, ever been done with any vaccine.
	Wow. And that's what we've been told that they used to do, that they used to have...
	And I've talked about this.
	I said, look at what they used to do.
	And Fauci said, yeah, we're going to get rid of this decade-long protocol.
	They would have their phase one, which they would have a small group of volunteers, and they would look for toxicity, they would say.
	And then they would expand it to phase two, and they would have people who...
	You know, if it was a therapeutic, somebody who actually has a condition, so let's see if it worked, and then expand it in phase three.
	But for vaccines, they would give it to a bunch of people in phase two and then let them circulate around for a long period of time and say, well, how many people came down with the disease that we're vaccinating for in our control group that wasn't vaccinated or had a placebo versus the other one?
	And then with phase three, they would expand it.
	That's what we were always told, and that would be a 10-year protocol.
	That's right. So that's That's not what they were doing then, right?
	That's not what they do.
	So they still have the same process, but the experiment they did was not looking to see if the disease developed.
	And, you know, if you were going to do that, you'd have to conduct the trial for a substantial length of time, right?
	Because many of those illnesses, the incidence is very low.
	You might even need a very large group of people to test it in.
	But what they do is that they give it To experimental subjects, and then a week later or two weeks later, they test their blood for antibodies.
	And if they have the antibodies that they designate as meaning immunity from that disease, they say the vaccine's good.
	The only problem is that they've never...
	demonstrated that those antibodies actually mean anything.
	They're only theoretical.
	And I heard that. I remember when Fauci was talking about that and saying, you know, we know this works because we observe the antibodies with this COVID thing.
	I was under the impression that they had always been doing it, you know, for a 10-year period or something like that, and that they just cut that off and then looked for the antibodies with this particular one.
	But you're saying they've been doing it that way for a long time.
	Yeah, yeah. I mean, for as long as I can remember, for as long as, you know, the oldest clinical trial I've ever seen used that methodology.
	Wow, wow. So, we've now gotten to the point where they can just invent out of thin air, not just viruses, but variants of viruses.
	They can go in and who knows if they've...
	They can say, now we've got a new and improved vaccine.
	We don't know if they even bothered to change it.
	You know, just slap a new label on it like you used to see with the, you know, particular washing machine soap.
	You know, it's new and improved.
	How? I don't know how it's any different from the other one.
	But, you know, it's got sunlight in it or something.
	Solium. That's one of the...
	Well, you know, look, they...
	They do make new recipes, and the reason why you know this is because there are different patterns of toxicity.
	Yes. Right?
	So, I mean, for example, with the flu vaccines, what we saw was mostly neurologic issues like Guillain-Barre, which is a type of paralysis.
	With hepatitis B, we've seen sudden death and encephalitis.
	With the COVID vaccines, we've seen also sudden death, but we've also seen blood clots.
	We've also seen myocarditis, right?
	And that's pretty specific, right?
	No other vaccines that I know of are associated with myocarditis, and that's a very strong factor.
	And even the mainstream admits to that.
	They downplay it a lot, but they admit to it.
	And then you've also had neurologic conditions, including seizures develop, as well as other paralytic events like Bell's palsy.
	So, you know, maybe they took some of the stuff that was in the flu shot, which caused that neurological toxicity, but then there clearly are novel patterns.
	Mm-hmm. So there must be, you know, different things in there that cause different toxicities to develop in the recipients.
	And that's a clue, you know, that they're using a unique recipe, but it doesn't tell us what exactly is in it.
	Right. And also, we know that...
	So let me ask you, have we seen different pathologies from these...
	Supposedly reworked COVID vaccines are supposed to address these different variants.
	Because, you know, like you're talking about, we had different neurological diseases.
	I remember pandemics that Fauci and Sawi did, and they had narcolepsy and catalepsy.
	It was very well documented in some Scandinavian countries for young kids.
	But have we seen that?
	You know, from the injection for one variant or the other, you know, they've now said, oh, we got a new vaccine that's coming out.
	But they've done that already, right, for the supposedly reformulated COVID vaccine.
	So we've seen different pathologies with that.
	Right. Well, you know, it's really difficult to tell because a lot of this information is suppressed.
	And I haven't looked at it, you know, this recently myself, but certainly one could go to the...
	Find the database, you know, in your country and, you know, look at the reports and see if, you know, knowing the date when they change to a different formulation, you know, was there any different pattern?
	And it'll come out eventually if there is.
	But it is very difficult to get the stuff out of these databases, out of VAERS and out of DMEDS and all the rest of the stuff, and then they play games with it.
	Let me ask you this. Well, we're talking about the different labs and other things like that, and we're talking about this abstraction.
	One of the things that's been a real stickler with me, I hate to see the people who are going back and making a big issue out of the Wuhan lab.
	I see that as misdirection.
	How do you see that as people talking about the Wuhan lab and focusing on that and focusing on China?
	Do you see that as a misdirection?
	Yeah, absolutely. I mean, you know, I don't mean to deny that, you know, there are government scientists who are doing all sorts of unscrupulous things.
	I'm sure that that happens all the time.
	Yeah, and we did have cases of that, especially in 2014, and they were doing things with known pathogens that were bacteriological and stuff and bringing them in and...
	Losing track of them, you know, letting them escape the lab.
	And so we did have a history of that.
	But with this particular thing, with the Wuhan lab and with COVID specifically, now you've got so many people who are now making that the focus rather than the vaccine.
	And that's the thing that really bothers me.
	Yeah, well, I agree, because there's simply no evidence to support it.
	And, you know, the only credible evidence of something like that would be evidence that there actually affected people in the world.
	You know, but where is the experiment showing that there's some manufactured, you know, bioweapon?
	You know, the other thing that's really important about this is that, you know, because...
	If you drill down and look at the evidence, you'll see that disease-causing viruses don't exist in nature.
	So if they don't exist in nature, then how can you make a synthetic version of one?
	You can't.
	Right? So you'd have to basically have a completely novel technology.
	And, you know, in addition, there's no natural model for contagion.
	Like, we all grow up and we're told that diseases are contagious and it can pass from person to person.
	Mm-hmm. But that's been tested many, many times in very well done scientific experiments with control groups and everything.
	And they've never, ever demonstrated even a single case where a disease was transmitted from one person to another.
	So if there's no model for that in nature, then you can't, you know, how do you make a technology do that?
	Mm-hmm. It's very, very challenging.
	I spent some time thinking about this, and the only thing I could come up with would be making some kind of robotic devices or nanobots that could go and inject things into you or get things in your body in some other way.
	But I don't see how you could make it spread from person to person.
	Yeah, it is amazing to see all the different circular logic, as you pointed out, and how this is a model abstraction.
	And we seem to be rapidly moving in that direction in so many different ways, whether you're talking about this or...
	I guess this is kind of like the chat GPT of medicine.
	Well, all of the climate arguments about climate catastrophe are all also based on computer models.
	And you can go back in time to the earlier models and then see what really happened and see how they were totally wrong every single time.
	That's right. And they don't have a database that is consistent and reliable for comparison of warming.
	But I remember it was just, I think it was last year, and it made headlines.
	Oh, look, the temperature just jumped by 40 degrees on the Arctic and the Antarctic.
	And then it went back to normal, and people looked at it, what is going on?
	They said, well, we don't actually have any thermometers up there.
	We've got computer models, and the computer models flaked out on us.
	And so that's really key.
	People don't realize how much of what we think is observational science Is done with computer models and garbage in, garbage out.
	And that was one glimpse that we had of the climate panic.
	But as your presentation points out, it truly is amazing what we're seeing with all of this medical stuff.
	And very alarming because it's being used for political purposes and to lock us down, as the climate stuff is as well, isn't it?
	Well, there are many...
	So, if you're going to truly be a scientist and investigate nature and try to understand how nature works, right?
	And illness is part of nature.
	We can all observe illness, right?
	I'm not denying that we get sick.
	That's, you know, obvious.
	But... In order to approach that, it's kind of a two-part pursuit.
	The first part is we have to come up with some idea about how it works in the first part.
	And then the second part is we can design a scientific experiment to test that idea.
	Mm-hmm. But people confuse these two, and they think the first part where you just observe and come up with an idea about a hypothesis, a guess, a reasoned guess...
	About what causes the phenomenon.
	So epidemiology, which you mentioned earlier, right?
	Now that is what public health departments do.
	And there are, you know, academic departments at universities that study public health.
	They apply statistics.
	And it has the air of being scientific, but it's purely observation.
	Because all they're doing is they're observing people and they're saying, some people are sick.
	Some people are healthy.
	Some people die.
	What age do they die?
	Do more people die this year than last year?
	Why is that? What's causing more people to die?
	That's epidemiology.
	You can't draw any conclusions...
	about what's causing changes in people's health from epidemiology at all.
	All you can do is you can observe phenomena and say, oh my gosh, in Seattle last year, Twice as many people had lung cancer than in Detroit last year.
	And you'd be like, oh my God, maybe there's something in Seattle causing people to develop lung cancer.
	And then you can say, all right, I'm going to look further at that.
	And I find out that, oh, more people smoke in Seattle than in Detroit.
	There's more smog in Seattle than in Detroit.
	So I say, oh, could these things...
	why there's more lung cancer.
	And then in order to determine that, I could go and take air samples of the smog and expose those to mice in a laboratory and to have another group of mice that don't get exposed and say, I could go and take air samples of the smog and expose those to mice in a laboratory And then I could know that those substances may have caused the lung cancer.
	but that's a scientific experiment, right?
	And not the epidemiology.
	So we confuse the observation with understanding.
	And a computer simulation is only a way of observing and coming up with hypotheses.
	And sometimes they can be ridiculous because you can fudge computer models to get almost any result that you want.
	But it can be useful.
	If you don't know where to go, you make a model and then you come up with some hypotheses, then you can do an experiment and see if that's really true.
	But never substitute for a real-life measurement.
	I understand. So, yeah, when we see a cluster of a particular type of disease or something like that, again, we can identify that.
	But it's another issue in terms of actually identifying the cause of that, and that's where the real question comes in.
	Thank you so much for joining us, sir, and how can people best find you?
	Where can they find you? Yeah, please go to my website, andrewkaufmanmd.com, that's K-A-U-F-M-A-N, and you'll be able to access everything there.
	Well, very interesting.
	Thank you so much for your research.
	And it's been a pleasure having you on.
	And let me just thank on Rockfin.
	Thank you, Karius Rex.
	Thank you very much.
	And Dystopian Dissonant, we will try to get John Rapoport on.
	I've had him on before.
	Haven't had him on since I've had my show.
	We're trying to get in touch with him again.
	Thank you so much.
	Thank you. The David Knight Show is a critical thinking super spreader.
	If you've been exposed to logic by listening to The David Knight Show, please do your part.
	And try not to spread it.
	Financial support or simply telling others about the show causes this dangerous information to spread farther.
	People have to trust me.
	I mean, trust the science.
	Wear your mask.
	Take your vaccine.
	Don't ask questions.
	Using free speech to free minds.

▲