All Episodes
Previous Next
June 19, 2022 - Info Warrior - Jason Bermas
22:24
A Faucian Smirk Indeed Mr. Paul! Thank You Rand

https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jasonbermasShow more https://rumble.com/c/c-1647952 https://rokfin.com/JasonBermas https://theinfowarrior.podbean.com/ https://www.youtube.com/InfoWarrior https://twitter.com/JasonBermas PayPal [email protected] #BermasBrigade Show less

|

Time Text
Covid Vaccines for Children: Data vs. Doubt 00:14:34
Hey everybody, Jason Burmes here, and I know it's been a few days, and I know a lot of you've seen clips of the exchange between Anthony Fauci and Rand Paul, but you haven't seen the Burmese Brigade break down.
And what I'm going to say about it, because I'm going to play the whole thing start to finish.
Obviously, there are many aspects of it that are indeed important.
However, what I want people to understand is one of the most important aspects of this entire thing is even though Rand Paul is obviously exposing the fact there is no need to be giving children these shots and boosters that are constantly being approved.
And I want to show you a headline while we do this over at the Daily Mail that you'll never see in this country.
You won't see this headline, okay?
But another reason I like the Daily Mail, at least they're putting it down and putting it up every once in a while.
All right.
You can hate all you want, and there's certainly particular things about certain things they put out there that I don't like, especially the tabloidization of royalty, royalty in 2022.
Like, that's okay.
Like, it's a big fun joke.
No.
But again, the big thing that concerns me about all this is no one will talk about the military-industrial complex connections.
Rand Paul does a great job of saying, hey, why are we pushing this on kids?
And hey, why don't these people disclose all the royalties and money they are making during this COVID-19 nightmare from the big pharma manufacturers?
That's good.
Good job, Rand.
But we're going to be getting into all of it.
And really also, how Fauci himself, Bill Gates among them, in the very beginning told you this was going to be a multitude of shots.
It wasn't really going to protect you from infection or the spread, but they were going to give you the false Bernesian talking points of safe and effective and keeping you from getting sick from it.
Okay?
And Fauci actually said that all the way back in October of 2020.
Well, I've got some other October of 2020 articles that I want to warn people about that you won't see.
Okay?
That you won't see.
You see, you might have seen this when this one was promoted.
Oh, it'll only prevent symptoms.
That was a talking point, safe and effective.
Okay?
Forget about the infections and the spread.
We'd settle for that.
We'll play that video in a moment.
But at the same time, you were getting actual warnings that these hate and lie shots could increase your chance of HIV.
How about them, apples?
How about them apples?
Those articles were released in a week of each other, which one was amplified by the mainstream media, okay?
And how many of these were amplified, that the federal government paid hundreds of media companies to advertise the hate and lies shots.
Huh?
Wow.
And provide positive coverage.
Good job, Blaze.
Again, played down completely.
Now, I want to show you just how all of this is based in hate and lies.
And Michael Yidon, also on my page, I don't think we're going to play it here, is saying some pretty heavy-handed things, finally coming out full board and talking about this.
But let's bring it on back to the Fauster right here.
Listen to what he has to say.
The end point of most of the virus is to prevent clinical disease, to prevent symptomatic disease, not necessarily to prevent infection.
That's a secondary end point.
But the primary thing you want to do is that if people get infected, prevent them from getting sick.
And if you prevent them from getting sick, you will ultimately prevent them from getting seriously ill.
So that's what we want to do.
So they had their talking point all the way back in October of 2020.
And yet, in November of 2020, when the data was coming in, Sandra Freihoffer, okay, of the American, what is it, American Medical Society?
Let's find out where it is.
I want to say, American Medical Association.
Sorry about that.
Talked about both Pfizer and Moderna's COVID-19 vaccines.
Now, by the way, they're ultimately censoring things.
Remember that MSN article?
That MSN article that dared to say unvaccinated people were unlikely to get severe COVID?
Took that right down.
We covered that on the show.
That article had to disappear.
It's so hard to find some of these quotes that Fauci said earlier on because they talk out of both sides of their mouth.
In this article, first of all, it says, side effects will not be a walk in the park.
They were talking upwards of 80% of these people were getting side effects.
So he's telling you that you're not going to have these symptoms.
You're not going to get sick.
You're not going to get severely ill.
Yet she's telling you that the shot itself is going to do that to you.
Many of the same exact symptoms that they're warning you about.
Huh?
How about that?
And of course, they've had their fact checkers.
Video represents Fauci's comment on vaccine effectiveness.
They love it.
So, guys, before we get going and we play the video here of Randy Dandy Paul, okay?
And again, props to him because he did a great job here.
Thumbs it up, subscribe, and share.
Rumble if you're rumbling.
Rumble it up.
And for your rumbling, if you're not subscribed on Rumble, subscribe on Rumble.
If you're not subscribed on Rumble, subscribe on Rumble.
I need your help right now.
We're fully demonetized on YouTube.
We're trying to get into the swing of things.
All right.
We've been kicked off of YouTube.
We will be for like the next week and a half from a February 2021 video.
It's absolutely absurd.
But hey, we get selective enforcement.
We're not about right and left here.
We go after everybody.
They don't like that.
They don't love it.
Rockfin, great way to support me.
Hit that subscribe button.
So many other talented people over on Rockfin, $9.99 a month or $99.99 for the year.
But I put all my stuff out for free.
So at least make the free account and follow me there.
We're on Podbean if you need an RSS feed.
We've also got VidCast over there, but rumble it, rumble it, rumble it.
Buy me a coffee if you can and share the documentary films if you will.
Loose Change Final Cut, Fabled Enemies, Invisible Empire, a new world order to find, and shade the motion picture.
Let's do it.
Let's get the Faucian language out there.
Dr. Fauci, the government recommends everybody take a booster over age five.
Are you aware of any studies that show reduction in hospitalization or death for children who take a booster?
Right now, there's not enough data that has been accumulated, Senator Paul, to indicate that that's the case.
I believe that the recommendation that was made was based on the assumption that if you look at the morbidity and mortality of children within each of the age groups, you know, zero to five, five to eleven.
So there are no studies, and Americans should all know this, there are no studies on children showing a reduction in hospitalization or death with taking a booster.
So let me just stop it right here.
Did you notice that again, Fauci not only didn't want to answer the question, but this time he's prepped because he knows that he's going to actually be asked real questions.
He's always got his talking points.
He's not as shaky.
He just tries to waste as much time as possible.
This is a classic maneuver you will see in these whitewash trials.
The 9-11 Commission was a great example.
They talk about nothing.
They answer nothing.
The only studies that were permitted, the only studies that were presented, were antibody studies.
So they say if we give you a booster, you make antibodies.
Now, a lot of scientists would question whether or not that's proof of efficacy of a vaccine.
If I give you 10, or if I give a patient 10 mRNA vaccines and they make protein each time or they make an antibody each time, is that proof that we should give 10 boosters, Dr. Fauci?
No, I think that is somewhat of an absurd exaggeration.
So that is the proof that you use.
Your committees use that.
That's the only proof you have to tell children to take a booster is that they make antibodies.
So it's not an absurdity.
You're already at like five boosters for people.
You've had, you know, two or three boosters.
It's like, where is oh, and by the way, he's got COVID too, two or three boosters.
And who knows if these bureaucrats are rolling up their sleeves and taking the boop poop, loving the hating live shots.
Who knows if they really are?
But again, it just expands into the absurdity of all of this theater of the COVID-19 44 nightmare.
This is the proof.
Now, I think there is probably some indication for older folks that have some risk factors.
For younger folks, there's not.
But here's the other thing: there are some risk factors for the vaccine.
So the risk of myocarditis with a second dose for adolescent boys 12 to 24 is about 80 in a million.
This is both from the CDC and from the Israeli study.
It's also in the VARE study, remarkably similar for boys, much higher from boys than girls, and much higher than the background.
The background's about two per million.
So there is risk and there are risks.
And you're telling everybody in America, just blindly go out there because we made antibodies.
So it is not an absurd corollary to say if you have 10.
In fact, you probably make antibodies if you get 100 boosters.
All right?
That's not science.
That's conjecture.
And we should not be making public policy on it.
You know, and I mean, Rand Paul is a doctor.
No big deal.
Oh, but we must follow the Faucian ways.
So, Senator Paul, if I might respond to that, we just heard in his opening statement, Ranking Member Burr talk about his staff who went to Israel.
And if you look at the data from Israel, the boosts, both the third shot boost and the fourth shot boost, was associated with a clear-cut clinical effect, mostly in elderly people, but also as they gathered more data, even in people in the 40s and the 50s.
So there is clinical data, but not in children.
Well, see, here's the thing is, you're not willing to be honest with the American people.
So, for example, 75% of kids have had the disease.
Why is the CDC not including this in the data?
You can ask the question.
Yeah.
Why was natural immunity never considered?
If you actually could prove that you produced antibodies, why was that never enough?
You can do laboratory tests to find out who's had it and who hasn't had the disease.
What is the incidence of hospitalization and death for children who've been infected with COVID, subsequently going to the hospital or dying?
What is the possibility if your kid has had COVID, which is 75% of the country's had COVID, what is the chance that my child's going to the hospital or dying?
If you look at the number of deaths in pediatrics, Senator, you can see that there are more deaths of people who have had it.
Of people who had the disease.
Senator, we also know from other studies that the optimal degree of protection when you get infection is to get vaccinated after infection.
And in fact, showing reinfection in the era of Omicron and the sub-lineages that vaccinate.
The era of Omicron and sub-lineages.
This is how much they hate you.
Okay.
Now, again, props to the Daily Mail.
You will never see this headline in a major publication in this country or on a major website.
It will get torn down.
Experts question CDC's approval of COVID vaccines for under fives because Pfizer study used just three children to prove it works.
And Moderna admits it is only 37% effective.
We should just assume we don't have efficacy data.
Never.
You think Fox News is going to run that one?
Hmm?
I hope they do.
It's a Murdoch publication.
At the very least, they should be running that one.
But of course, you're not going to see it on CBS, NBC, Yahoo News.
Forget about it.
They censor.
Watch this.
I'm going to type in MSN.
Okay, see this?
MSN, if you read it, it says, rare, COVID-19, severe COVID-19, rare in unvaccinated probe.
Okay?
Well, let's go to it.
Oh, it's not there anymore.
And I don't know the Wayback Machine had it either.
Censorship City.
So let's get back to Rand Paul right here.
Answer the question I asked.
The question I ask is, how many kids are dying and how many kids are going to the hospital who've already had COVID?
The answer may be zero, but you're not even giving us the data because you have so much wanted to protect everybody from all the data because we're not smart enough to look at the data.
When you released data earlier, when the CDC released the data, they left out the category of 18 to 49 on whether or not there was a health benefit for adults 18 to 49.
Why was it left out?
When critics finally complained, it was finally included because there was no health benefit from taking a booster between the 18 to 49 and the CDC study.
None.
But you know, again, you can't say that on YouTube.
You'll get banned.
Banned sauce USA.
You're not allowed to play hearings anymore.
You're not allowed to listen to a doctor that happens to be a senator.
No, you have to listen to the Faucian way of things.
Fact Checks Needed 00:05:49
A puppet mouthpiece for the predator class.
Love it.
It's great stuff.
While they all profiteer, and he smugly smirks that they're not required to tell you about the royalties they receive when they endorse this shit.
Hmm?
And, you know, let's take you on.
This is a good time to sidewind on a little bit of a journey, okay?
Because once again, all this stuff, you know, with this, oh, videos misrepresenting in the fact checks.
We got some fact checks for you.
Let's do a little check diddly eckin' on the facts.
All right.
The fact is that if you look at the virus, it's it somehow had this DNA sequence that matched a Moderna patent.
Wow, for a cancer drug.
Weird.
Until you figure out that DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, that's allowed to lie to you anytime they want because they're part of the Defense Department.
They have programs that are admittedly born classified since post-World War II.
Well, don't worry.
They're working on mRNA technology and stopping pandemics with Moderna.
They got the contracts.
Look at that.
Isn't that great?
mRNA therapeutics.
And then you go down, and by the way, they ghosted this after I started reporting on it.
It's another thing that just disappeared.
And now we have to use the Wayback Machine.
The goal, and this is back in 2013, okay, is to develop platform technologies that can be deployed safely and rapidly to provide the U.S. population with near immediate protection against emerging infectious diseases and engineered biological weapons.
Worked out for us, didn't it?
They're going to fight pandemics.
Worked.
They did a great job.
Great job.
Hmm.
And then you look at the partnership with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, DARPA, BARDA, Vertex, Merck, AstraZeneca, and of course, the good people at Moderna, which is really just an extension of DARPA.
But just great.
They're great.
So let's bring it back and we'll start talking about the profiteering.
Because, yeah, it's important we talk about the big pharma profiteering, but we have to talk about the military-industrial complex angles of total and complete secrecy and the allowance of disinformation and misinformation.
But we're the people, the UNIs, the Mon Pas, the Dare to Dreamers, everywhere.
We're the misinformation people.
Another question for you.
The NIH continues to refuse to voluntarily divulge the names of scientists who receive royalties and from which companies.
Over the period of time from 2010 to 2016, 27,000 royalty payments were paid to 1,800 NIH employees.
We know that not because you told us, but because we forced you to tell us through the Freedom of Information Act.
Over $193 million was given to these 1,800 employees.
Can you tell me that you have not received a royalty from any entity that you ever oversaw the distribution of money in research grants?
Well, first of all, let's talk about royalty.
That's the question.
No, that's the question.
Have you ever overseen a company?
Have you ever received a royalty payment from a company that you later oversaw money going to that company?
You know, I don't know as a fact, but I doubt it.
Well, here's the thing: why don't you let us know?
Why don't you reveal how much you've gotten and from what entities?
The NIH refuses.
We ask them.
We ask them.
The NIH, we ask them whether or not who got it and how much.
They refuse to tell us.
They sent it redacted.
Here's what I want to know.
It's not just about you.
Everybody on the vaccine committee, have any of them ever received money from the people who make vaccines?
Can you tell me that?
Reasonable question.
Has anybody on the vaccine approval committees ever received any money?
Let me answer a question.
Soundbite, number one.
Are you going to let me answer a question?
Okay, so let me give you some information.
First of all, according to the regulations.
Look at the smart, the smirk.
Oh, they block it off.
Man, I want to bring it back.
You can see, look, he's just so happy.
He's going to get to tell him.
Watch.
Look at the smirk.
According to the regulations, we don't have to tell you anything, peasant.
So let me give you some information.
First of all, according to the regulations, people who receive royalties are not required to divulge them, even on their financial statement, according to the Buh-Dole Act.
So let me give you some example.
From 2015 to 2020, the only royalties I have was my lab and I made a monoclonal antibody for use in vitro reagent that had nothing to do with patients.
And during that period of time, my royalties ranged from $21 a year to $700 a year.
And the average per year was $191.46.
It's all redacted, and you can't get any information on the 1800 scientists.
Consider Supporting 00:01:07
Your time is longer.
So we want to know whether or not people got money from the people who made the manufacturing.
Senator Paul, your time is long over-expired.
I gave you an additional two and a half minutes.
The witness has responded.
We are going to move on.
Senator.
Get him out of there.
He's telling it like it is.
He's daring to ask questions.
Guys, consider supporting the broadcast.
Share the links.
Consider buying me a coffee, $5, $10, $15.
It means the world to me.
This is how we're doing it.
It's the link down below.
Make sure you're subscribed on Rumble.
Go do the Rockfin thing.
Get the podcast on the pod bean.
Share the information.
Share the love.
Realize it's about us as human beings coming together against a predator class that absolutely hates you and your family.
Why?
Because they believe they get to re-engineer human society with their own evolutionary, transhumanist, fourth industrial revolution.
They can call it the New World Order.
They can call it the Great Reset.
I call it something I'm going to fight till my dying day.
Export Selection