Watch the UNCENSORED second hour live on RVM Premium Mon-Thur at 9AM EST:
https://redvoicemedia.com/uncensoredShow more Not RVM Premium yet? Try it for $1:
https://redvoicemedia.com/jason
Listen Live and Call In at:
https://theinfowarrior.podbean.com/
Send Some Love and Buy Me A Cup Of Joe:
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jasonbermas
Watch My Documentaries:
https://www.redvoicemedia.com/category/bermas-docs
Subscribe on Rokfin
https://rokfin.com/JasonBermas
Subscribe on Rumble
https://rumble.com/c/c-1647952
Subscribe on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/InfoWarrior
Follow me on Twitter
https://twitter.com/JasonBermas
PayPal: [email protected]
#BermasBrigade Show less
Hey everybody, Jason Burmes here and welcome to another Reality Rance Red Voice Media exclusive.
Before we get to the meat and potatoes of the broadcast, which is a one-on-one interview with Thomas Renz, which we get into the eco-health DARPA COVID vaccine lawsuits.
We get into the Alex Jones case and even this new story about Boston University using gain of function to essentially create a bioweaponized version of COVID-19 with an 80% fatality rate.
I wanted to play this clip of senior editor for the British medical journal Peter Doshi exposing the hypocrisy and outright lies of the media, military, industrial complex with their cohorts in the authoritative medical community, where he breaks down what quote unquote everybody knows.
It was a clip that I referenced during the interview and one I feel like we should break down in full as Doshi fully murders, murders the arguments of the people using Bernesian talking points to try to administer their authoritarian predator class agenda.
So without further ado, let's go to this Doshi clip.
I want to use my five minutes here to harness that spirit of critical thinking.
I'm saddened that we are super saturated as a society right now in the attitude of everybody knows that has shut down intellectual curiosity and led to self-censorship.
So let me start with a few everybody knows examples that I'm sure, I'm not sure we should be so certain about.
Everybody knows that this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated, but if hospitalizations and deaths were almost exclusively occurring in the unvaccinated, why would booster shots be necessary?
Or why would the statistics be so different in the UK, where most COVID hospitalizations and deaths are among the fully vaccinated, as Senator Johnson said?
There's a disconnect there.
There's something to be curious about.
There's something not adding up.
And we should all be asking, is it true that this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated?
What does that even mean?
I'll tell you what it means.
It means that the authoritarians are in control, that this great reset moved fully into their quote-unquote great narrative agenda, which is essentially repackaged new world order globalization and the criminalization of speech and free thought.
That's what that means.
Next slide, please.
Then there's this.
Everybody knows that COVID vaccines save lives.
In fact, we've known this from early 2021.
The clinical trials proved that to be the case, as you can see here in the quote of a February article in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
But is it true?
When that statement by prominent public health officials was penned, there had been just one death, one death, across the 70,000 Pfizer and Moderna trial participants.
Today we have more data, and you can see that there were similar numbers of deaths in the vaccine and placebo groups.
The trials did not show a reduction in death.
Even for COVID deaths, as opposed to other causes, the evidence is flimsy, with just two deaths in the placebo group versus one in the vaccine group.
My point is not that I know the truth about what the vaccine can and cannot do.
My point is that those who claimed the trials showed the vaccines were highly effective in saving lives were wrong.
No, they knew that that wasn't the case, just like they knew it didn't stop the spread.
And they knew that all they were doing is creating a forever shot of hate and lies.
These people at the very tippity top of this agenda in no way, shape, or form were trying to save lives at all, not even a little bit.
And we have to stop playing pretend and acting like children and acting like all of this malice is accidental.
The trials did not demonstrate this.
Next slide, please.
Now let's talk about anti-vaxxers.
Everybody knows you should discount what anti-vaxxers have to say.
But what does the term mean?
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as: quote, a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, what's this regulations?
Hmm, that just means that you want the proper terms when injecting people with things, especially because these quote-unquote vaccines aren't traditional vaccines whatsoever and are in fact gene therapy.
Gene therapy.
The first part of the definition, I expected.
The second part stunned me.
There are entire countries from the United Kingdom to Japan which do not mandate childhood vaccines.
Both achieve high levels of vaccination, just not through regulations mandating vaccines.
There are no mandates there, and I would wager that a large minority, perhaps a majority, of the world's population meets the definition here of an anti-vaxxer.
Another definition worth checking is vaccine.
Next slide, please.
I am one of the academics that argues that these mRNA products, which everybody calls vaccines, are qualitatively different than standard vaccines.
And so I found it fascinating to learn that Merriam-Webster changed its definition of vaccine early this year.
mRNA products did not meet the definition of vaccine that has been in place for 15 years at Merriam-Webster, but the definition was expanded such that mRNA products are now vaccines.
And as we will show you during the Thomas Wren's interview, when DARPA partnered with Moderna in their mRNA strategic collaboration to quote-unquote fight pandemics, they were specific on many levels.
Why these drugs, drugs, drugs were in fact not vaccines?
I highlight this to ask a question.
How would you feel about mandating COVID vaccines if we didn't call them vaccines?
What if these injections were called drugs instead?
So here's the scenario.
Have this drug, and we have evidence that it doesn't prevent infection, nor does it stop viral transmission.
But the drug is understood to reduce your risk of becoming very sick and dying of COVID.
Would you take a dose of this drug every six months or so for possibly the rest of your life if that's what it took for the drug to stay effective?
Would you not just take this drug yourself, but support regulations mandating that everybody else around you take this drug?
Mandating Non-Vaccines?00:12:09
Or would you say, hold on a sec.
Maybe you'd say that if that's all the drug does, why not use a normal medicine instead?
The kind we take when we're sick and want to get better.
And why would you mandate it?
Boy, this sounds like too much common sense, Mr. Doshi.
Point is just because we call it a vaccine doesn't mean we should assume these new products are just like all other childhood vaccines which get mandated.
Each product is a different product.
And if people are okay with mandating something simply because it's a vaccine and we mandate other vaccines, so why shouldn't we mandate this?
I think it's time to inject some critical thinking into that conversation.
And that is what I hope we're doing today.
And we're definitely going to be doing that up next with Thomas Renz.
So buckle the truck up.
And I am just so excited to have Thomas Renz on the program.
I was able to discuss a lot with him at the last Reawaken America tour.
I will be there this weekend in Pennsylvania where I hope to see Thomas once again.
We have so much to go over from his newest lawsuit, EcoHealth, DARPA, and this new Boston story that ironically just got me banned on YouTube yet again.
But I thought that I would talk to him in the beginning about free speech and in particular, the Alex Jones case, because in my opinion, this is meant to send a chilling effect to any type of independent media that would question any narrative and essentially criminalize speech.
So without further ado, we're with Thomas Renz.
I want to thank him so much for joining us.
Thomas, how are you today?
I'm doing very well.
All fired up today.
I got all sorts of things that are making me fussy that are going on.
The corruption just makes me sick.
Every time I see it, I get mad.
Well, you know what?
For my audience that may not be aware, how did you get involved in all of this in the first place?
Because there were so many people in your profession that just said there wasn't going to be an avenue, a way for people to fight back against the mandates, against the shots, and against really anything outside of a globalist World Health Organization narrative.
And it's my feeling if we just had five or ten Thomas Renzes, we might be able to save this country.
Hell, we already would have saved it, perhaps.
But that isn't the case.
It really took some guts to step up.
Yeah, I mean, and I'm the least likely guy for it, right?
So I'm historically, I was pro-vax.
I was, you know, I didn't know any better, which I was clearly wrong about.
But all this stuff that happened stemmed from the fact that I was my phone, right?
So I'm sitting at home on my phone like everybody else, watching the videos and doing the thing.
And, you know, they're talking about the lockdowns and everything else.
And yeah, I just couldn't take it anymore, right?
We, the people, have to do something.
It's not enough to sit around at home and do nothing.
So, you know, they started doing these lockdowns.
I said, no, I'm just not going to deal with it.
So I looked at what I had.
I looked at my skill set, what I could do, how I could do something.
And, you know, I'm a lawyer.
And there was no easy path, right?
There's no quick, straightforward, as much as I had hoped at the beginning that we had an easy path, there wasn't.
So, you know, what you do is you develop solutions.
You find ways to do it.
You take the skills that you got, you pray, you look for discernment, you look for wisdom, and then you apply it and you go.
And the two most important things about it are not being a lawyer or being a doctor or being a scientist.
The two most important things are, first of all, you've got to have the will, the courage to stand for something, even when people call you names and rip you and cause problems for you.
And then the other thing is you've got to not be lazy.
This isn't easy.
I mean, I work 20 hours a day frequently.
It's not an uncommon thing for me to go two or three days without sleeping.
You have to actually do the work.
You know, I get a lot of people.
One of the things that I will see is people who want to dabble in this or dabble in that.
Well, you know what?
I'll take it.
I'll take any help I can get, including the dabblers, but you're not going to change the world dabbling.
You either fight or you don't.
And if you're willing to fight, you're going to get there.
If you're not willing to fight, well, you're going to have that sort of an impact.
Well, I absolutely agree that you kind of have to be all in on these things if you want to make an impact and you can contribute in certain ways.
But again, if you want to have the impact that's going to change the world, you have to let these people know that you are absolutely serious because they have infinite resources on their side.
And at the same time, they demonize people like yourself for daring to step up to the plate.
And they somehow try to make this about you looking for fame or money when really anything could be further of the truth.
And this is nothing but an inversion of reality.
In many cases, you're not charging for your time.
You're not getting paid to be on this program.
You're not being paid to be on tour and tell people about these lawsuits and spend endless hours in case law, are you, Thomas?
No, no.
A vast majority of my work is unpaid.
And a vast majority of it's supported by donations, which by the way, I've got to give, send, go on my website, and we could really use some help.
You know, when I go on the reawakening tour, a lot of people have said, well, how much do you make for that?
Nothing.
I actually pay for my travel expenses.
And not in all cases, you know, a lot of travel that I do at this point, I have to have people cover costs just because I don't have the money to do it.
You know, I mean, I'm giving away a lot of stuff.
Now, we're trying to build some infrastructure and develop some things so that we can do more.
Like you said, if we had, you know, five, 10 more lawyers that were real hardcore like this, you know, it would have a huge impact.
And so I'm working on developing that.
And we're actually finally, after two and a half years plus, making progress in that.
So as long as we can get the funds lined up to do it, I feel like over the next couple of years, we're going to be able to really develop that army of freedom fighters.
And, you know, with that, with that, you know, we'll be able to do a lot more.
You know, not only are we going to free ourselves on the COVID, but, you know, things like child sex trafficking, you know, the things like the crazy borders, things like the corruption in DC and the FBI.
All these things are things that can be addressed.
You just got to have the courage and willingness to do it.
And we got to have the funding to get some people, you know, in line to do it.
And, you know, I'm in that same boat.
I pay for all of my travel expenses.
And I wouldn't be able to do it without the donations of my great audience, the Burmese Brigade out there.
So I want to thank them.
And I would like to encourage them to also support you, Thomas.
Now, you talked about freedom fighters.
And Alex Jones, an imperfect vessel, as we all are, has gotten things wrong in the past.
I particularly would say he said things that were incorrect about Sandy Hook.
However, this was not a simple defamation case.
In fact, these are multiple cases in which he was not even allowed to present a defense.
And that was due to the fact that these judges said that he had defaulted by not giving them discovery evidence.
Yet it seemed in the courtroom they had all the quote-unquote discovery evidence they could handle.
What are your views of these cases?
And especially in the second case, although I would say the monetary amount in the first case was utterly absurd, in excess of 50 million, but in the second case, almost a billion dollars liable for questioning an event.
Well, I'll tell you what I'm going to do with this, Jason.
I'm going to do what I think is probably the worst thing I could do to these guys.
So I am, I like Alex.
He's a good guy.
You know, mistakes happen.
They do.
Especially when you care about what you're doing and you get fired up and you think you've got it and you turn out to be incorrect.
It doesn't matter.
Sometimes these guys, if they can use that to make you pay, they'll do anything they can.
But you got to be careful what you wish for, right?
So what I would love to do, and I'm going to tip this for any lawyer that wants to do it, but I'm going to also tell you that if I got the funding and support to do it, I would love to do it myself.
You know, if Alex Jones is going to be accountable to the tune of almost a billion dollars for something that was after people died, I want to know when I file the lawsuit for withholding and covering up information that is resulting in more people dying from COVID, how they're going to defend it, right?
So I've got all sorts of people, both public and private, pushing misinformation on COVID, on the vaccines, on all these different things, early treatment, ivermectin, all this nonsense.
So now that I know that Alex Jones is going to be held accountable to the tune of a billion dollars for a mistake he made after people died, I can't wait to go into those same courtrooms and say, hey, how much is it going to be worth for the millions of people you're killing by intentionally putting out false information, even though we know and have studies from everyone from Pfizer on down showing that you guys are liars.
So I love this.
I can't wait to turn this around and slap them in the face with it.
Well, it certainly is ironic that this is an after-the-fact.
And obviously, Alex Jones had nothing to do with the deaths of the children at Sandy Hook.
And yet we don't seem to have a media military industrial complex that is, say, you know, liable for all the lies that led us into the Iraq war, that led us into the Syrian war, that continue in this war on terror that are costing lives daily.
And they've never been held financially accountable.
Yet Alex Jones questions event, and the lawyers are pretty much outright.
They want to shut the operation down.
You saw one of the lawyers, for instance, saying not to support Alex Jones financially because it's a losing battle.
You would think he would want them to support Alex Jones financially if he wanted his clients to be paid.
And that kind of adds to the absurdity of it all.
These people know they're not going to get paid this amount.
And that's not the point of the exercise, Thomas.
No, no, it doesn't have anything to do with this.
This is all about trying to shut down InfoWars.
I mean, you know, Alex has done as much as anybody on this planet to get word out and to spread the word and to let people know what's going on.
And this is entirely about shutting Alex Jones down.
It really, you know, from a legal standpoint, you know, this billion-dollar award and all this stuff, this has nothing to do at all with a defamation case, in my opinion.
I mean, yes, there's a case.
Yes, the award was based on that.
And yes, the court did what it did.
But I don't for a second believe that the attorneys on this or anything about this are doing anything other than trying to shut that down.
And, well, like I said, turnabouts fair play.
So I look forward to doing the same thing with the Washington Post and pick your other outlet.
I mean, New York Times, LA Times, anything Bezos owned and operated and beyond really seems to be a viable target.
DOD And Intelligence Community Suspect00:12:36
I want to move into this new lawsuit, DARPA, EchoHealth, the new whistleblower.
And before we get there, I thought that I would show people, the audience here, how DARPA partnered up with Moderna back in 2013 to fight pandemics with mRNA drugs.
And if you read this article, it specifically lists the difference between what an mRNA drug is and what a vaccine is.
In fact, Moderna's own website here, this is from 2013, discusses this and says that this is a new platform in which they can protect the United States from engineered biological weapons and natural diseases in just days.
And that's what they did.
They sequenced this over three days and then started the trials.
And they did this with their strategic collaborators, including AstraZeneca, Merck, Vertex, BARTA, there's DARPA right there, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and as well as the Pasteur Institute.
And then you find out that Moderna has patented a drug in 2016, two and a half years after this partnership, that has a 12-sequence DNA nucleotide identical to the COVID virus.
Yet we're supposed to think that that is simply a coincidence.
So tell us what you found in your studies via DARPA and this pandemic, because you can, again, go to DARPA's own website and they will list a ton of their protocol via COVID-19 and their involvement, again, through their own sources, Thomas.
Yeah, I mean, the tie-ins between, you have to understand that DARPA being defense, IARPA being the intelligence version, community version of DARPA, and all these different groups, they are absolutely involved with everything here.
Probably, and I'll tell you, I know I'm over the target with this because I've gotten a lot of blowback lately, a lot more than what I've gotten even when I go after Big Pharma, which is saying something.
So, you know, the intelligence community and the DOD are definitely involved in this.
And it's really one of those things that they don't want anybody looking at, right?
So you think you had trouble with YouTube now?
Wait till this one goes out there.
The suppression I'm getting right now is mind-blowing.
But the reality is, is to believe that our Intel community and our defense department didn't know about this or wasn't aware of this is mind-blowing.
So in 2015, when Dr. Huff testified that they created SARS-CoV-2 in the lab in Wuhan, China, and where we have all sorts of corroborating evidence, because the report that goes with that, Gateway Pundit just dropped an article on this, and they did a good job talking about Huff.
What they forgot to talk about, although, was that we corroborated everything he said with a report that had 130-plus citations, right?
So when you look at this, you got to understand it's very clear what happened.
You know, they created this in the lab and so on and so forth.
But what's a little less apparent until you dig into this is, okay, the gain of function research that you have to do to create SARS-CoV-2 in a lab is super complex.
It's advanced.
It's new.
It's cutting edge type stuff, right?
So you go back to 2015 and even before that, where we're doing these experiments, and you say, well, if you're going to experiment genetically modifying viruses to make them more different or to more powerful, how is that anything but germ warfare?
How is that anything but biowarfare, bioweapon development, right?
So we're going to go to China, to Wuhan, and we're going to take the technology and the scientific expertise there, teach the Wuhan lab, which we all know has ties to the Chinese bioweapons development process.
We're going to teach them our cutting edge techniques and technology to genetically modify viruses to make them more dangerous.
Now, you're going to tell me that we did all this without our intelligence community and our Department of Defense knowing?
You're going to suggest that the grants coming from the government to fund this were done without the wisdom or knowledge of our Defense Department?
That's insanity.
Now, you throw on top of that that Huff has the IARPA proposal that shows that he was or shows that EcoHealth was working with the intelligence community, and you've got all these other things.
It is absolutely beyond any question in my mind or any reasonable question that the Intel community and the DOD was deeply and fully involved or aware of this research.
They knew that SARS-CoV-2 existed in that lab.
They were okay with us developing more dangerous viruses in Wuhan in China, and yet they stood aside and allowed it to happen or facilitated it happening, arguably by funding it further.
So, you know, this DARPA stuff that we're seeing now, yeah, hey, we're going to help fight COVID-19.
I don't believe that for a second.
I think the whole thing is just a cover, given the fact that they were there from the beginning.
All this, anything from the Defense Department or intelligence community is suspect to me at this point.
And I'm so glad you said that, because I think that that is going to be one of the major roadblocks in why this lawsuit is so important.
I think people often lose the reality that the Defense Department has no obligation to tell the general populace the truth about anything.
And we have historical records of different levels of classification and then disinformation, really psychological warfare campaigns against the populaces historically that prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now, in this latest lawsuit, you have a new whistleblower.
Walk us through that.
I'm going to, but I want to, you just said something really important, and I want to lay this out, right?
We get called conspiracy theorists.
Okay.
So I'm not into conspiracy theory.
I'm into evidence-based fact and conspiracy fact.
So let me lay this out for you.
Is it likely that someone would try and risk putting a virus out there that would destroy the world or cause the problems that SARS-CoV-2 has caused without any sort of a plan or is this an accident, right?
Well, it's not likely, but let's talk about what happened.
We've got a disease that was created in a lab.
And as I just said, it's hard to argue that our Defense Department didn't know it.
It's hard to argue our intelligence agencies wouldn't know this.
It was created in a lab owned by our enemies, for God's sakes.
So, you know, I mean, if they didn't know it, then we have the least competent defense department on the planet.
So you've got this all going on.
Now, let me ask you: is it beyond the scope to think that guys who would create a disease that's killed over 6 million, they would push vaccines that were knowingly untested and that were killing, you know, millions more and that they were covering up.
Is it impossible that these same sort of people who were that rotten, who said that SARS-CoV-2 is the most profitable endeavor in human history, is it possible that they would be willing to run this through DOD to cover their tracks, knowing that DOD has different procurement and disclosure rules.
See, DOD, as you said, doesn't have to share this information.
Now, that sounds like a pretty wild conspiracy, except for we have evidence on all this stuff.
Now, is it a conspiracy theory?
Maybe.
I haven't proven it yet, but boy, does it look likely.
And I'm tired of this whole castigation, this conspiracy theory.
You know, it's a conspiracy theory that seems a little out there until you look at the six and a half million dead people from a disease you created in the lab, until you look at the tens of millions dead globally from a vaccine that is not a vaccine, it's a gene therapy drug, until you look at the way that this money has traveled, the cover-up, the fact that we, the people, still haven't seen the actual contract between Pfizer and Moderna, even though people have requested it in discovery.
The fact that Biden and crew tried to give an extra 75 years to release the data and research that they used to prove this totally safe and effective drug.
I mean, at what point do we say to ourselves, yeah, it may be conspiracy theory, but we ought to be investigating it.
That is unbelievable.
Absolutely.
And let me lay down some of the other things that really point to this.
You know, we talk about Wuhan China, but there's also evidence that it may have started in Chapel Hill.
We also have military officials within China accusing the United States of actually seeding this during the Wuhan military game.
So there's a lot of fog of war.
We see a global preparation prior to the outbreak in October, aka event 201, where all of the same players that you see pushed by the media during COVID-19 just happened to be on this panel,
where again, they're wargaming a South American coronavirus from a pig instead of a bat in China and going through the steps of not only how they're going to manage the situation with therapeutics and vaccines, but also manage narratives and information.
And this is the first time in global history that we have seen mass censorship imposed under the guise of the United Nations and world health organizations as the ultimate fact checkers, Thomas?
Yeah, I mean, listen, and more.
You know, between what you listed and what I listed, there's a fairly strong argument here.
And that's not even all of it.
I mean, we could spend an entire show going over related facts.
So at the end of the day, though, the question is, if you want to call me a conspiracy theory or theorist, that's fine.
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but then show me.
Let's have a transparent investigation into my conspiracy theory.
Let's see what's there.
Let's see if you open the books and if you quit hiding everything, what we find, right?
If you don't have anything to hide, quit hiding it.
Let's take a look at this.
Let's have an honest investigation.
Let's see what we can find.
And then, you know, after that, if I'm wrong, you've discredited me and I go away.
But I've been saying from day one, since summer of 2020, when I started fighting this, I've been saying, listen, it's real easy to get me to go away.
You don't need to censor me.
Just prove I'm wrong.
Just open the books.
Let's have a transparent investigation.
Don't call me a conspiracy theorist.
Prove I'm a conspiracy theorist.
I challenge you to prove that I'm a conspiracy theorist.
I challenge you to show me where my evidence is incorrect.
I challenge you to show me where the government documents that I keep producing, the whistleblowers I keep finding, the data that I keep coming up with, I challenge you to show me where that's wrong, to show me where that's incorrect.
Disprove me.
Please discredit me.
I need a week off.
I feel your pain, my friend.
You know, one of the other things that we didn't even hit upon on the fact that the vast majority, if not all of the evidence points to this being created in a lab.
Investigating HIV Backbone00:05:50
And the idea that this was natural or zoological is absolutely absurd is the fact that people like Luke Montier, who have now passed, who won a Nobel Prize for their work with HIV in 2008, noted that the virus had to be created in the lab because it had portions of HIV in the virus.
Now, that's separate from that 12-sequence DNA nucleotide, which some have said is a one in three trillion chance that matches a cancer drug, an mRNA drug produced by Moderna after that partnership with DARPA.
But then when the vaccines were being ready to roll out, this is in October of 2020, researchers warned some COVID-19 vaccines could increase the risk of HIV infection.
And then they started running trials in Australia and it produced false HIV positives and they actually had to pull these shots.
I doubt that is coincidental and it is certainly something that has never been expanded upon or even explored in the vast majority of the mainstream media.
No, it hasn't.
Well, and listen, here's the deal.
I'm not deep enough as a scientist to be able to go into the specifics of that.
But what I can tell you is this.
We know that if you get these jabs, they destroy your immune system, right?
What is HIV?
Well, it's a disease that causes AIDS.
AIDS is autoimmune deficiency syndrome.
And what AIDS means is that your immune system is broken.
It's defective.
It's not doing its job.
Well, listen, if you take a drug that permanently screws up your immune system and damages it, and it damages it to a sufficient level, that's going to look like AIDS.
Now, I don't know whether or not, you know, it's AIDS backbone in the virus, AIDS backbone in the vaccine.
You know, I don't know whether that's going on.
And it's not that I'm saying that it isn't, because as you said, there's quite a bit of evidence that suggests we should be looking into it.
But what I can say is that regardless of the mechanism by which the injury is caused, the injury is clearly there.
I mean, it's listed, right, as a potential adverse event of special interest in the Pfizer documents.
To suggest that this isn't something worth investigating is ridiculous.
But this is like everything else.
It's like everything else.
You know, there's a million things that ought to be looked into.
I mean, look at Jason, you're a media guy, right?
You're a news guy, except for you actually, you know, do what news people used to do, which was investigate and then report real facts.
Okay.
You know, when you report a real fact as an investigative journalist, what you're reporting is something that you have a basis to report, right?
So in this case, what you've reported is you've got these articles talking about HIV backbone, different things like that that may or may not be part of this disease.
Well, in any sane world, instead of saying you're a conspiracy theorist, we would say, well, he does have some evidence.
It seems to be credible.
Why don't we investigate it and find out whether Jason's nuts or whether it's a legitimate thing?
But they won't do that, right?
What they do is they say, well, we're not going to look at this because it's conspiracy theory.
Meanwhile, we're going to spend another six years on January 1st because Nancy Pelosi was apparently scared in her cubby hole somewhere in the Capitol, which I'm sure she needed to be scared because I'm certain that she didn't have enough armed people around her to keep her safe from those horrible terrorists that had the audacity to exercise their free speech rights by coming to Washington and doing a protest.
I mean, it's ridiculous.
But we're not going to investigate any of that.
We're not going to investigate the January 6th people who've been locked in cells for a year and tortured at the hands of our criminal justice system.
We're not going to investigate the corruption that's Hunter Biden.
We're not going to see whether or not he made any money off of Metabiota when Metabiota was partnered with EcoHealth Alliance during the time that they were creating SARS-CoV-2.
We're not going to investigate the Hunter Biden laptop.
We're not going to investigate all these things that we have facts on.
No, no, we're going to call you a conspiracy theorist for bringing forth facts that we don't like to look at that are uncomfortable for our narrative.
Absolutely.
And one of those facts sets a historical precedent for big pharma and then government allowing them to inject live HIV virus into people.
I know this sounds wild, folks, but Bayer Division, you know, Bayer, who's partnered with Monsanto now, knowingly sold HIV infected drug.
And it was an injectable.
It was a blood-clotting drug.
And this happened in the late 80s, early 90s.
They were caught.
They did not pay out almost a billion dollars.
They did sign NDAs and they did pay out some money, but none of these people were ever held criminally accountable.
I want people to understand this once again.
Some of these people were children who were injected with live HIV virus.
And Bayer is to this day one of the most powerful pharmaceutical companies in the world.
And that's not something that, again, you're going to hear in the mainstream media.
So these precedents are there.
The evidence is there that you cannot trust these companies or these government organizations.
And that now takes us to DARPA EcoHealth and this lawsuit.
Yeah, so the impetus for this lawsuit started when, I mean, listen, people have been talking to me about suing over this from the beginning.
But yeah, I met Dr. Andrew Huff.
Now, Dr. Huff is a combat vet.
He has a master's in security technology.
He's got a PhD in environmental epidemiology.
He worked for Sandia Labs.
He had cue clearance.
The guy is a high-end guy, right?
Become a friend of mine over this.
And Andrew says, hey, you know, they created SARS-CoV-2 when I was working at EcoHealth Alliance.
They did it in the lab in China.
And I can tell you firsthand, because I worked there, that all of the rumors are true.
So, okay, well, let's take a look at this.
So this is back in the spring of this year, so quite a while ago.
And, you know, if you're going to make a claim like we made and file a billion-dollar lawsuit, you got to do some homework, right?
You can't just throw that together.
So we started doing our homework.
And, you know, we took everything that Andrew said and we spent a very long time digging into Andrew, digging into everything we could, right?
And it's an interesting process because with Andrew's security clearance, there's a lot of things he can't talk about.
You know, there's a lot of things that you can't check because when you have that kind of security clearance, those promises not to disclose last forever.
So, you know, and even as an attorney representing someone, for him to disclose certain things to me, I would have to have certain security clearances.
So I'd have to go through this process.
So it was an interesting process to go through and to verify everything.
So part of that process was for us to work with Make Americans Free Again to research what available information was out there beyond just what Andrew was saying, right?
What coroborates it?
So we spent months with this, months digging into all this stuff.
And it wasn't that I doubted Andrew.
It was that, you know, if you're going to come forward, you never want to put all your eggs in one basket.
Even though Andrew is an incredibly credible, really strong witness, we wanted to make sure that they couldn't just undermine him or try and make him look bad because, you know, we all know that that's what the mainstream does.
So we spent all this time and put together this report.
And again, I want to thank Pam Popper and Mafa.
And we get this report together that cooperates as much as we can of everything he's saying with public information and other available data.
And it turns out that everything Andrew said was stuff we could find information to back up.
So we did.
So when we released this report a few weeks ago, the initial report that was a foundational aspect of this lawsuit, it had 130 some plus citations.
It had Andrew's declaration under penalty of perjury, and it had everything else.
Now, I'll tell you this.
The first thing that you would think would happen if anything Andrew said was a lie was a defamation suit.
Evolve: Medical Records Ahead00:15:55
That hasn't happened.
I wonder why.
You know, the truth is an absolute bar for a defamation suit.
So we would ask for discovery to prove anything he said was wrong if they sue him.
I can't wait.
Go ahead and try that one.
I can't wait for that discovery.
So, you know, we made sure that he was protected to the best of our ability and we're making sure that this is done well.
But at the end of the day, you know, we've made a good faith allegation that these guys created this in the lab.
The allegations also include the fact that not only did they do this dangerous experimentation in a lab, but they did it in a lab where they didn't have proper safety protocols and they couldn't verify the safety protocols.
An EcoHealth Alliance didn't have the right people in the right places to ensure safety and didn't care about it according to the allegations in the complaint.
So what all that means is that they were doing this deadly, dangerous experimentation, but did it in a knowingly unsafe facility.
It's insane.
As though, although I will say, I don't know how you could ever have it be a safe facility, given that it was a lab owned by the CCP, but in any event, even worse, right?
So we said that you've done all this, you did all this, you created all this, and it got out and it killed a whole bunch of people, including causing injury to our plaintiffs.
So we filed a suit.
And the suit, on legal principles, is essentially akin to, and I've described this a few times, it's essentially akin to if you build a dynamite factory, your dynamite factory blows up and it blows up a couple houses and kills some people around the dynamite factory.
Well, you created this super dangerous dynamite factory.
You're going to get sued and you're going to lose because you created the dangerous dynamite factory.
In the same way, if you create a factory that creates pathogens that kill people, well, if it gets out and kills people, you're going to be in trouble.
And so that's the lawsuit.
So let's talk about the fact that right now we have Fauci, DAZIC, EcoHealth continuing coronavirus, that coronavirus research.
That headline was out there.
It blew some people's minds.
But again, the masses don't seem to be paying attention.
And now we have this story out of the Daily Mail where they're claiming that they've taken several strains of COVID, the Wuhan variant, the Omicron variant, done gain of function, in other words, souped up the virus in order to create a strain that apparently kills 80% of the mice that they're using via this testing.
Now, in retrospect, you could make arguments on how deadly COVID was, but it was somewhere under the one percentile, even if you give them the most generous numbers.
This is 80 times as deadly and apparently taking place via Boston University.
What are your thoughts on this story?
Well, I mean, listen, we've got them doing gain of function on Ebola down in Texas.
We got them doing it here at Boston.
This is unbelievable.
I mean, you know, it starts out with Anthony Fauci giving his donation to the EcoHealth Legal Defense Fund, which is the way that I term that last grant.
You know, that last grant, the idea that they're going to give them more money for more gain of function work in China, I mean, and more importantly, that EcoHealth is going to accept it.
You know, I can't wait to talk about that in terms of the punitive damages that ought to be awarded.
But now you have these buffoons at Boston doing the same thing.
Listen, here's the thing.
I asked for support at the beginning.
The reason I asked for support is if we don't win this, these lunatics are going to create an extinction event.
They're going to destroy the whole planet.
It's unbelievable.
80%.
And when you look at evolution, okay, so yeah, I spent a lot of time on this.
The way a virus works is when it comes out and it's novel, that's typically when it's at its most dangerous, right?
When it first emerges.
And then you've got to understand that a virus doesn't do anything but propagate.
You know, as a form of life, the only thing a virus wants to do is create more of itself.
It doesn't have any other purpose.
So when viruses come out, they typically evolve quickly and they evolve quickly to become less dangerous but more transmissible.
And the reason for that is if you were to become more dangerous or less transmissible, then you wouldn't propagate.
You wouldn't have more virus.
You'd just go extinct, right?
So it doesn't make sense from an evolutionary or life standpoint to see a virus that comes out and then gets more dangerous or less transmissible.
So that's what's happened with COVID and all the variants.
We see it get dumped from the lab, but just like every other virus, it gets less dangerous over time and more transmissible.
Well, these guys decided to run 180 degrees opposite of that normal evolutionary trajectory and take all of the gains that the virus has made in increasing transmissibility and put them in with the most dangerous version.
Now, if the idea of gain of function research is to determine how a virus might evolve so that you can prevent it, this is absolutely counter to that.
Why would you do this?
This is the opposite of how viruses evolve.
Everybody knows that.
There is literally no purpose in doing this.
All it did was create risk with zero benefit.
It is the definition of insanity.
It is literally mind-blowing.
This is a, well, we can do it, so why don't we try it?
I mean, because it works so well when you did it in China.
You know, I mean, this is insanity, Jason.
This absolutely insanity.
These guys have to be held accountable.
You know, on so many fronts, our scientists have lost their mind.
They'll do anything for money.
I don't, you know, I can't prove who's driving all this.
We've got a pretty good idea.
But at the end of the day, these people have to be held to account.
And this story, as much as anything else, demonstrates the arrogance, the absolute malice, and just the absurdity of this whole situation we're in.
These guys, you know, they take a pandemic-type virus that killed six and a half million people, do everything they can to make it worse, and then they put it, you know, they risk essentially creating an extinction level event.
You know, earlier we talked about the narrative control, and now almost three years later, we have this new law in California that is taking it one step further and criminalizing doctors who would quote unquote spread misinformation about COVID and treatments.
And obviously, this is extremely alarming as we, again, know in retrospect that the use of hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and other cheap and effective and also safe and effective, ironically, drugs were suppressed from the public.
And instead, we encouraged ventilators and remdesivir.
We're seeing now legal dealings with the remdesivir on several fronts.
What are your thoughts on this California law?
Is it going to hold up or is it somehow going to be overturned in short fashion?
Well, I think from a free speech perspective, I think it'll end up being overturned constitutionally.
I mean, it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that doctors can't exercise their professional opinion to offer an opinion on the proper treatment mechanisms.
So I think this whole law is a bit of a stretch.
But that said, much like Alex Jones, I think there's an opportunity here, right?
Okay, if the law says that you can't spread misinformation, I look forward to seeing the first several bad faith lawsuits against the government for doing just that.
I mean, you know, okay, you can't spread misinformation.
Great.
That means I can sue Gavin Newsom, right?
I mean, I can't wait.
I'll see in court.
You know, Newsome needs sued anyways.
His entire health department, the entire California health department, the medical boards there are as corrupt as can be.
So let's look at the silver lining.
While people are suing to overturn this, which I'm sure it'll happen, let's also look at the opportunity we have to take the stupid law that they passed and turn it around on them.
Every time these idiots do something, they open another door.
We just have to quit taking everything they say at face value and say, okay, well, how do we turn this against them?
Now, Thomas, earlier this week, we had kind of a viral moment where we had a member of European Parliament questioning a Pfizer representative where this Pfizer representative basically admitted that there was no testing done on transmissibility or infection.
But what I found most alarming was the excuse that they were moving quote unquote at the speed of science.
And one of the few people out there that actually questioned all of this was Dr. Peter Doshi, who is a senior editor at the British Medical Journal.
And in the speech behind me, he not only discussed how these were mRNA drugs, gene therapies, and not traditional vaccines, but they had not been tested for transmissibility or stopping infection rates.
In fact, this was kind of an open secret.
Even Bill Gates, all the way back in April of 2020, said these quote unquote first generation vaccines wouldn't necessarily stop transmission.
And the way that they were trying to sell them to the public was that they were going to keep you out of the hospital and keep you from dying.
I would also argue there was no information that suggested that either in these trials.
And that's one of the reasons that the FDA and Pfizer didn't want to release their data for 75 years.
What are your thoughts on that admission by the Pfizer executive?
And where do we go from here?
Well, I think the admission is, I mean, I'm glad that it went viral.
The only reason it went viral is because people haven't heard it.
But it's, I mean, we've been talking about it since the JABs came out.
I mean, summer 21, I was out talking about the fact that get the jab, get COVID.
It's going to damage your immune system.
It's going to make you more likely to get it.
You know, we know all these things, right?
It's not going to stop transmission.
You know, follow rems-law.com.
You'll find all this stuff out, you know, apparently a year ahead of time.
So, you know, follow Jason Burmes.
I know you've been talking about a lot of this stuff.
So at the end of the day, I don't think it was anything new, but I think it's a really important thing because so many more people heard it.
I think that the thing about this is, is we knew from the beginning that these would actually increase your likelihood of getting COVID, which the numbers are now bearing out.
I literally, I talked about it.
I said, you know, we're going to see the vaccine variant.
And this fall, by the way, this fall and winter, you know, everybody's talking about this new terrible strain.
Yeah, if you're vaccinated, if you're not, you'll be fine.
You know, just take ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine and vitamin D and zinc and whatever and do your thing.
You'll be just fine.
Don't worry about it.
But if you're vaccinated, yeah, they probably will be because your immune system should be getting more and more damaged by the day.
And, you know, the variants will seem worse to you because by design, these things are destroying your immune system.
Absolutely.
Go ahead.
I would say also something that's really critical about this is that you mentioned that Gates talked about the first generation.
Okay, that is very, very important because what people fail to understand is that, you know, this rollout of jabs, not everybody got the same jab, right?
There are a whole bunch of different jabs.
It's like the guy from France said, you know, the people in parliament and your ministers, they weren't actually getting the vaccine.
They were getting placebos.
You know, if you happen to live in certain areas of the world, you got the real dangerous one.
And then you got other people who got different versions and different formulas.
And short of having the actual piece of paper that shows who got what, I think there's plenty of evidence to show this.
So you got to understand that what this really is, realistically, was the largest human trial in history.
There is no and has never been any interest by people in getting gene therapy.
They don't want people screwing with their genes.
So what they did was they rolled this out.
And this has been a data collection exercise in part.
And by the way, in case you guys think that there was no prep for this, what was the number one thing that actually got done in Obamacare?
It was electronic medical records.
Why is that?
Well, it'd be hard to collect this data if you didn't have electronic medical records, wouldn't it?
But with electronic medical records, all of your data is being shared with the government, who is then sharing it with everybody else.
And you got to understand that this was really nothing more than the largest experiment in history related to healthcare.
Absolutely.
And I want to show people the fact that, again, when they first cut this deal, Moderna and DARPA, to, again, fight pandemics, they illustrated that these were completely different things, okay?
If Moderna is successful in getting its mRNA drugs through clinical trials, which they didn't have to do, by the way, it could radically change the way public health officials think about pandemics.
The idea of using mRNA drugs is quite different than vaccines.
These are synthetic compounds that can be designed and manufactured in just about three weeks with a customized genetic sequence for making any protein of interest, aka these spike proteins.
And remember, Thomas just told you, not all of these were mRNA drugs.
We had vector-based, and not all of them were the same dosages either.
And that should also raise alarm bells other than the fact that they never even allowed you to claim what, natural immunity for the first time in history.
As this pandemic is happening, they tell you that the regular flu has disappeared from the planet Earth.
Hold People Accountable00:04:40
That's the World Health Organization and the so-called authoritative sources.
And now we do seem to have the largest human trials in history via this multitude of different cocktails.
Thomas, what's next?
And what would you like to leave my audience with?
And of course, where can they support you?
So the next step for me is developing this accountability, right?
We've got to hold these people accountable.
The eco-health suit is the first real big step.
A lot of the stuff that we've done up till now has been very important in getting the information out and in trying to slow down what's happened.
And I'm proud to say I think we've probably saved some lives because a lot of people have heard about the work and then refused to go get the jab.
So I praise God for that.
I praise this network.
I praise you and your work and all the people who have really helped us get the message out for the last few years because we've been fighting against one of the most powerful machines in human history to push this.
And we've done so well.
So the next step now, though, is we're moving into accountability.
We've got to hold these people accountable.
We've got to stop them from what they're doing.
And we've got to make sure that it never happens again.
That happens with more lawsuits.
That happens with more research, more development, more investigations, and forcing our politicians to act, despite the fact that they don't want to.
There are ways that we can do this.
So that's next on my agenda.
At the end of the day, if you looked at what I've done for the last couple of years, you'll see that most of the time I rarely like to talk about money or ask for money.
Right now, I'm asking for a lot of it.
I need a lot of it.
I don't know how else to say that.
It's not for my pocket.
It's so that I can bring in more lawyers.
I've got great lawyers who I can work with.
I've got other people I can work with.
I've got people waiting.
We've got the infrastructure.
We've got the connections now to get some of this done.
We just have to finish building it out.
So I'm working on building that so that we can expand this capacity, hold these people properly accountable.
We're going to keep doing it anyways.
Listen, God's got my back.
And if you can't afford to help us that way, send us a prayer.
I'd rather have the prayer than the money, believe it or not, because the prayer will result in more money than I'd get any other way.
But that said, and it'll result in me getting whatever else God thinks I need, which is, yeah, I trust his judgment more than mine.
But at the end of the day, it is about building the infrastructure to hold these people accountable.
These people have trillions of dollars now because we've printed it out and handed it to them.
And we have a heck of a fight.
If we want to hold these people accountable, and I'm not just talking about Fauci, don't worry.
I'm trying to make sure he goes into orange.
But I'm talking about the people who bought him off.
It's going to be a heck of a fight.
It's going to be long term.
And we've got to hold the course.
And we need to have the capacity to do so.
So go to rens-law.com, R-E-N-Z-Law.com.
If you sign up for the sub stack, we're going to, you know, that's free, but if you pay for it, that goes to the fight.
If you donate, we're grateful.
But also, one other thing, Jason, God help me that I'm doing this.
It makes me smile every time I think about it.
We put up a link.
It says, if you or a loved one's been hurt by COVID-19 or killed, you know, fill out our form.
I'm hoping to turn this into one of the largest mass torts in history.
You know, right now we're starting it out where it is, but we want to get anybody, anybody, if you got COVID, if you had someone died from COVID, fill out the form.
If we can, there's no guarantees.
You know, there's no promises.
There never is with litigation.
But if it works out, you know, where we can do so, we'll get a hold of you.
And if we can use it as a mechanism to hold these people accountable, man, I can't tell you anything that'd make me happier.
Well, I'm with you, my friend.
This is, in my opinion, a large part of the battle for humanity.
As we always say here, this is not a right or left issue.
This is a right and wrong issue.
And if you can support Thomas Renz in any way, now is the time to do it.
Thomas.
I look forward to seeing you in Pennsylvania and continuing on the Reawaken America tour with you.