Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 21, 2023 - The Delingpod - James Delingpole

01:28:16

Patrick Henningsen

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to the DellingPod with me, James Dellingpole.
	And I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest, but I really am.
	Welcome to The Delling Pod, Patrick Henningsen.
	Thank you, James.
	Absolute pleasure.
	It's an honor to be here.
	I want you to know, Patrick, that I've been dying to have you along for some time, and the fact that I haven't had you on so far is not a sign that I'm thinking, yeah, whatever, Patrick Henningsen.
	You've been on the list, but I just haven't got my act together.
	And now finally we're there.
	I was particularly inspired to have you on by a podcast you did with the excellent Germ Warfare, and we're going to talk about that because I think it's quite topical.
	But first of all, just tell me a bit about yourself.
	I've seen you on UK Column and on other podcasts, but who are you?
	What's your background?
	Well, my background is I spent most of my adult life trying to be normal and fit in, and then I adopted the monastic life of becoming an independent journalist, probably around after the Iraq War.
	That was kind of like when that process began.
	But before that, I did my bachelor's degree in applied art and design, and I was pursuing a minor in philosophy as well, which I was really interested in, but I was totally out of my league.
	But that kind of got me really interested into political science.
	That was when I was very young.
	And so I worked in the sort of visual arts field.
	I worked in public relations and in marketing events and things like this.
	And I was trying to pursue a normal life, have a normal career, as it were, in the corporate world.
	I was an artist really, but I was convinced in high school by my art teacher that you'll never make money as an artist, that you should do something more practical.
	This is in the 80s, late 80s, that you should be a graphic designer because they're making money.
	Yeah, you've got to join the beast system.
	Yeah, otherwise you're going to sell your body on the streets for money.
	They literally told us that in high school.
	So I did.
	I went to a really good design school, but I found the career really kind of suffocating sometimes.
	You could say it's the most anal-retentive profession, or it used to be in the world.
	But as I got more worldly in terms of politics, And traveled more and also understood more about what's going on.
	Then I started noticing geopolitical events a bit more.
	I've always been political.
	I was the guy, James, that everyone said, will you just shut up, please?
	I remember having a chat with my ex-employer who just got done confessing to me that his whole business in Central America was a CIA front.
	But he said, well, if you're so opinionated about the Iraq war, why don't you start your, you know, why don't you become a journalist?
	And I was like the furthest thing from my mind at that point.
	And, um, that's what actually happened.
	He said, why don't you get a radio show?
	You like talking too much.
	So anyway, I do talk too much.
	So I finally found, after 15 years, found an outlet that I could do that.
	But I got my master's degree from Plymouth University in International Relations.
	So I went back as a mature student.
	I was a bit of a Marty McFly, back to the future experience after being out of higher ed for a long time and coming back into the world of diversity, equity and inclusion and everyone pounding laptops during lectures.
	Weirdest thing.
	I had my notebook in my pen.
	Is this Plymouth and Devon?
	Yeah, this is Plymouth and Devon.
	When was this?
	I started my Master's in 2017.
	Oh, blimey!
	So I was late.
	I was a mature student.
	So average age in my class, probably about 25.
	You must have been considered a total freak.
	I mean, did you find any kindred spirits?
	Yeah, you know what, it's a really good education because before that I was just recovering from being a flaming liberal, you know, during the 90s because I was educated in the California State school system, went to California State University, a good one.
	But, you know, they train you to be absolutely a good liberal and a corporate soldier.
	That's what that system is.
	And so I was decoupling from that very slow process of shedding that old skin and then becoming more of a libertarian, I guess.
	The Ron Paul movement woke me up back into politics in a big way in 2008.
	That's when I got a lot more engaged politically.
	But the Plymouth experience is good because I learned the language of the UN.
	I was kind of in the anti-imperialist discourse, you know, like US imperialism bad, and of course it is bad and a problem for the world, but it's one thing to rail against it, and it's another thing to rail against the globalists.
	And the UN and how corrupt it is.
	But then you also have to learn that language, too, because this is an important part of understanding the opposite side of the argument.
	So I relearned that during my postgraduate, was to be able to converse in someone else's lingua franca, someone else's jargon of globalese, as it were, and be able even to make their arguments from a neutral point of view, as a devil's advocate.
	So I didn't have the patience to do that before and I was forced to do that.
	That was one of the hardest things I've ever had to do in my life.
	And passing that, and I did okay in the end, I did very well, but it was very, it was difficult.
	And I had to read texts that I had no interest in reading, which I now am so grateful that I did, like Ken Waltz, John Mearsheimer, and all of these sort of realists.
	And so that kind of, I really understood what realism was, and it really helped me in my geopolitical analysis after that.
	Made me a little bit more well-rounded.
	But also, I understand where, you know, the kind of liberal, international, progressive, where they're coming from, what's the ideology that's pushing their ideas forward, being able to understand the left a lot better, more broadly, and also conservatives as well, and everything in the middle.
	So, it was a good education.
	So, in a nutshell, Where are they coming from?
	That's a good question.
	You know, what I noticed is in
	Is that the after the Iraq war it was a crushing defeat for the for the the anti-war left as an example and a lot of people that was shattered to the and you know flung to the four corners of the ideological universe and then things like the Guardian and these newspapers that used to be sort of the bedrock of you know the liberal intelligentsia became in-house newsletters for the deep state.
	Uh, at that point, you know, it's signaling to the, uh, the governing class, um, signaling to the deep state.
	So, you know, and then all of a sudden the Syrian war happened and there was absolutely, you know, literally you're getting attacked for basically protesting against the proxy war where we're arming jihadis and backing the quote moderate rebels with billions and billions in terms of arms and suffocating literally you're getting attacked for basically protesting against the proxy war where we're arming jihadis and backing the quote And you're getting attacked as a fascist for that.
	So imagine coming from the left into more of a libertarian centrist conservative position with a small C maybe.
	And then all of a sudden you're being called a fascist because you are not just, it's not that you're sympathizing with Syria or Russia, but you understand where they're coming from.
	So from a realist discourse, you're saying, well, of course this makes perfect sense.
	This is why Russia intervened in 2015.
	It wasn't because Putin's the next Hitler.
	It's because they had certain geopolitical aims and national interests and they were exerting the capabilities that they had built up in recent years in order to defend their interests.
	So, and Syria's defending against an external proxy, a multinational proxy war to crush it.
	And so, you know, those nuances, you know, and I had a good chance to make a lot of these interesting arguments as well during, with my lecturers, with my professors, and I had great professors, by the way.
	We didn't agree ideologically, but they were, I definitely took on board the best of what they were, Offering and I think I was it was a great asset to be able to do that Yeah, well, I I think I've been on a similar journey.
	I didn't come I Came from what I thought of at the time as as being the right and I thought My default assumption was that the West was a good thing that we were the kind of bastion of
	What I would have described at the time as Judeo-Christian values filtered through the Enlightenment, yadda yadda yadda, and that Western culture was superior to those of other benighted countries, and that therefore empire was essentially a good thing, and that
	The Iraq war was a good thing, Iraq wars were a good thing because we were imposing, we were bringing democracy to these benighted corners of the world.
	You mentioned Ron Paul, was it sort of end the Fed, your first rabbit hole moment or what took you down the rabbit hole?
	Um, I don't know.
	It was, it was a combination of things.
	There were a lot of things that took me down the rabbit hole.
	I mean, the, the kind of explosion in the alternative media or post nine 11, um, and the internet, the, you know, the, the internet, I used to buy James, you know, five newspapers on the weekend and drink coffee and read them all on Saturday and Sunday, um, in order to get the different viewpoints, telegraph, independent mail.
	I was fascinated with how they catered to all the different segments of the British electorate.
	And then you could see over the years, James, and you could probably comment on this because you used to work in that world, but they kind of started bleeding together.
	So that diversity, that plurality started disappearing and the consolidation, when the Times got bought by Murdoch.
	That was sort of a big moment, I think, in mainstream media, besides the Internet and all the rest of it.
	The Times used to be somewhat reflecting, you know, the kind of national interests of Britain and more broadly, and then all of a sudden it became a kind of a neocon intelligence apparatus rag.
	Yes.
	Well, so here's the thing.
	I totally agree that a bit like the political parties, which are all essentially a uniparty, So I think you look at the legacy media and it is now the union media.
	It sings from the same hymn sheet.
	It is a propaganda tool for the deep state.
	But you and I know that this goes back a very, very, very long, long way.
	I mean, do you?
	There's no question that when I was in the mainstream media, there was more of a sort of plurality of opinion and that you I wouldn't read The Guardian because I considered it leftist propaganda.
	Surely even then, I mean, even even say 50 years ago, you know, for example, you would have had, I would have thought, the entirety of the media pushing the narrative that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was real, that the North Vietnamese had provoked the American fleet and that therefore it was absolutely right that America should start this war with
	Or you could go back further and you could look at Lincoln Steffens on the New York Times.
	I know the New York Times isn't exactly a model of neutrality, but I've seen the future and it works.
	So this goes back a long way.
	And you look at Lord Reith, you know that Lord Reith was not about taking an objective view.
	The BBC was always a propaganda arm of the what you might call the deep state.
	So is it just that they've just become more obvious about it more recently or what?
	Yeah, so yeah, the big families that in Britain used to control all the major media outlets still do, the old legacy media anyway, the Rothermere's, the Barry's and the various changes of ownership of the Times, the Financial Times.
	In America, it's, you know, it's always been yellow journalism and it's always been oriented towards the establishment all the way back to, you know, William Randolph Hearst, Horace Greeley.
	So I mean, they started the fake news.
	The fake news has always been pioneered by mainstream media and uh so yeah you're right the legacy media as they call it now i think has has always been biased uh towards the establishment it the establishment own it and but there's always been maybe a more there's been allowed we've been allowed to have um a certain amount of uh plurality within the press um and certain personalities could be elevated
	be they columnists or journalists and they were their reputation was uh built upon the credibility that they had accrued over many many years um up until very recently and And there's not that many of them left.
	There's a whole different process going on now.
	And take an example, look at what they did to Donald Trump in four years.
	I mean, they just, every morning you wake up and I see something from the Washington Post.
	This is the beginning of the end.
	The walls are closing in.
	It's this scandal, it's Stormy Daniels.
	It's this, this is what's going to bring them down.
	They completely shackled the presidency and made the government dysfunctional.
	So the partisan urge to destroy Trump.
	They were willing to take the country down and burn down the utility of the federal government and achieving anything that was productive over that period.
	They're willing to sacrifice all that for partisan reasons.
	And the lies on Russiagate are just allegiant.
	I mean, that's a completely fabricated hoax that most of Americans believe happened.
	And I have no doubt that's the case.
	When I landed in Austin after being out of the U.S.
	for many years, I think it was 2017, yeah, and I got picked up on an Uber from the airport.
	And this nice young girl picked me up.
	She was a musician.
	We started talking.
	She said, oh, what do you do?
	And I said, well, I work in media and journalism.
	She said, oh, who do you work for?
	And I mentioned a few names.
	I said, RT.
	And she's, and I did some work with RT before and she's RT.
	So they meddled in our election.
	They put Donald Trump in the white house.
	And I was like, wow, first person I met off the, off the plane into the state.
	So then I realized it hit me that the power of the real power of propaganda is incredible.
	You can spin up a narrative.
	Lincoln shut down 50 media outlets during the civil war, like went in and basically shut down 50 newspapers.
	Because he thought they were printing fake news or things that were destabilizing the North's effort during the Civil War.
	So, I mean, in order to protect and allow the state to do its day-to-day business with what Washington was doing at that time, they thought it necessary to shut down 50 newspapers by force and lock the doors.
	If you look at how the media colluded to create a fiction of Russiagate, and that provided the bed.
	You need Americans to hate Russia, to hate Putin, to objectify Putin as the new Hitler avatar.
	Russiagate provided that.
	That was built up over six or seven years.
	And now we're on the cusp of World War III.
	It wouldn't have been possible.
	You couldn't get the public to buy in without that long-running lie.
	Yeah.
	They use the same template time and again.
	We know, I think, that in the years leading up to the First World War, for example, there was not particularly any inbuilt hatred of the Germans.
	After all, our rules were related.
	For what that matters.
	And gradually you had this stoking of this sort of anti-German hysteria.
	So it reached the point where people were killing Daxons and throwing Steinway pianos out of windows to show how evil the Germans were.
	And you're absolutely right.
	This is one of the things that puzzled me.
	I thought, OK, well, maybe there is a Russian threat because I read it all the time in every Every kind of defense correspondence think piece op-ed.
	For a time, I trusted these people.
	I mean, I know now that most defense correspondents and diplomatic correspondents are essentially working for the deep state, aren't they?
	They're paid for by the deep state.
	Sorry, going back a second.
	Was Lincoln goody or baddy?
	I don't look at him as good or bad.
	He was a chief executive.
	He did what he felt he had to do at the time and he, for the most part anyway, achieved a lot of the things that he set out to do in the most tumultuous period in the United States history.
	There's no doubt about that.
	Undebatable.
	That was the most tumultuous period in the history of the country.
	Okay, let me ask in a different way.
	When was the last US President who was not essentially a tool of the Deep State?
	Because Presidents, we know, are puppet figures.
	They have no autonomy.
	They have no autonomy.
	If I was to say that would have been before World War II, would have to be before World War II.
	I think Donald Trump, I mean, I know that's cliched, but for his one term, I think he, he embodies that as, as well as anybody.
	But before Donald Trump, I would say, um, you know, before us industrialists, uh, really took hold of the country and its foreign policy.
	And this is, this might be a bit ironic, but you know, someone like for instance, Teddy Roosevelt.
	So, Teddy Roosevelt as a kind of an interesting and impactful individual with a massive character, coming himself from a well-heeled background.
	It doesn't have to, you know, he can't be bought per se by special interest, but of course they went on in a kind of an imperial expansion adventure during his presidency.
	And that was, you know, a result of this kind of burgeoning idea of American manifest destiny, or American exceptionalism, really kind of coming, expressing itself at that time.
	So, independent, some people might not like the expression of that independence, but that's where America was at the time.
	So, I don't know, that's a difficult, that's an interesting question.
	There's probably people that are better qualified to answer that than me.
	Really good historians, like Robert Barnes for instance, could answer that question really well.
	I mean, there are a passing few historians that one can really trust because they are essentially house historians of the establishment.
	I mean, I've come to the view that pretty much everything we learn about everything is fake.
	And the more that we're taught something, the more likely it is that it is particularly fake.
	Science is, what we call science, is bunk.
	I mean, I saw that with climate science, but I realized that climate science is not some rare exception.
	It's sort of a branch of sociology which is designed to push propaganda.
	This applies to many of the more serious sciences.
	Including, let me segue into our favorite topic, medical science and fields like virology.
	So let's go there, because I think I've been doing far too much foreplay.
	It's a good segue, because we're going from geopolitics into what is not just a scientific discussion, but has become a geopolitical discussion, which is the global pandemic and who's responsible, the origins of COVID, So, yeah, good segue.
	This is the story right now.
	I've noticed this.
	I mean, OK, setting aside Gary Lineker, which they've decided.
	I was thinking, Gary, I mentioned this to Tobes on London Calling the other day, and he was trying to make out that this was the fact that it was in the media was a sign that this was a story.
	And I'm going, no, they could have picked any moment in Gary Lineker's public career for the last 15-20 years.
	He's always saying this stupid shit.
	He's always saying this woke shit.
	They could have picked up anything he said at any given time.
	The reason that they chose this story was because they wanted to distract from other things.
	Anyway, the other main story, apart from Gary Lineker right now, is everyone's talking about it.
	It's that Yeah, the Department of Defense was behind, they planned this virus and gain-of-function and we all know about this.
	We've all read, I think you said it well, you said everyone's a virologist now and it's true that everyone knows about gain-of-function and they know what it is because they've read it in the newspapers and they probably even know that Luc Montagnier
	The guy who allegedly isolated the AIDS virus noticed that there was a strand of HIV built into the structure of the genomic sequence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
	So everyone knows this shit and they're thinking, well, Covid was really bad because it wasn't just an ordinary virus.
	It didn't come from a cave after all.
	It didn't come from pangolins.
	It actually was bioengineered in a lab.
	Maybe, you know, probably in Wuhan.
	Or maybe when one of those biolabs in Ukraine, who knows?
	But it's deadly.
	It's worse than ever.
	And then everyone starts coming up with all the symptoms that they had.
	And it was quite unlike any other form of flu they've had.
	This time it was different.
	This time it felt different.
	So tell me your view on that particular narrative.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	So I mean, where to start on this?
	I find it really fascinating how this particular, the latest Conspiracy theory, because look, lab leak or lab release, you know, China, the China virus, this is now adopted as the official state conspiracy theory by the United States.
	The Department of Energy put out this lukewarm intelligence assessment.
	The FBI said that it's their assessment that it came as a lab leak.
	I mean, the most trusted federal agency.
	Well, they're experts, for goodness sake, Patrick.
	They're not politicized.
	Their intelligence is going to tell them.
	Stuff that we don't know about.
	So it must be true, right?
	Yeah, yeah.
	This is the FBI that we're, you know, leading the charge into the White House dressed as Antifa on January 6th.
	Sure, they're trusted.
	So that should tell everybody everything they need to know is the U.S.
	government is having to pivot towards this lab leak conspiracy.
	And so it's funny, people have been kind of bamboozled on this and they say, well, what about They were censoring LabLeak.
	We were talking about it in February and March, and Facebook was censoring it.
	Therefore, it must be true.
	But, you know, the most censored position right now, and what I got kicked off of Twitter, banned for life, because I denied the existence of the Delta variant, okay?
	And also, I said that there might be an issue with global fertility levels as a result of the widespread distribution of the experimental mRNA gene jab.
	So, and the other thing I did before was I questioned the, you know, authenticity of the PCR testing data sets.
	Okay.
	These are the things that I got strikes and eventually got banned from Twitter on and got banned from Facebook for the same thing.
	So do not.
	And still today, still today, I do get rolling 30 day bans from Facebook for posting anything that insinuates that there wasn't a serious global pandemic and there might be a problem with the existence of SARS-CoV-2 as a novel virus.
	Right.
	So because I'm because I'm censored and everybody I know who does the same thing is censored.
	Does that mean it's automatically true?
	Of course not.
	It just means you're being censored.
	And so the other thing is, well, the email release, Fauci's emails, they were discussing the fur and cleavage site, ACE2 receptors, you know, all this, again, technical jargon.
	And what's that evidence of?
	It's evidence of people working in what is an industry full of charlatans, a massive gravy train, which is virology, especially government funded.
	Biological research, biodefense, it's one of the biggest gravy trains going and it's been rolling since the Cold War.
	And so, leaked emails of Fauci talking about gain of function with his other colleagues who speak the same language.
	I mean, there's nothing new there.
	There's only evidence of emails and discussions.
	And then they say, bah, EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak, federal government, NIH funding gain of function research in Wuhan labs.
	What's that evidence of?
	Well, it's evidence of funding of gain-of-function in Wuhan.
	It's not evidence of... There has never been, and people can fact-check me all they want on this, but there has never been any proven developments in gain-of-function research in the field of virology.
	Now, if you look at bacteriology, there's lots of applications for something akin to what you might describe as gain-of-function.
	There's a lot of good applications, actually, in bacteriology for that, including producing insulin and also studying the superbugs that are antibiotic-resistant, things like this.
	But in the field of virology, it's very shady.
	It's very sketchy.
	And people say, Ralph Baric, North Carolina, and Ford Dietrich, et cetera, Ebola, look, there is no actual evidence of it.
	What is there evidence of?
	is cell cultures, computer-generated theoretical genomic sequences that claim that they have found something in a mixed cell culture brew that's got all sorts of genetic material in it, and usually they use PCR tests to sample their cell cultures.
	So what I'm saying is the whole science of virology, a lot of it is sophistry.
	Uh, is scientific sophistry.
	It's not scientific at all.
	They don't run control experiments on any of these, uh, these various claims of isolating the stacks of papers since this pandemic began stacks of papers.
	They claim they've isolated this and isolated that, and if you actually go and read the methodology on it, you'll find it's almost all identical.
	It's cell culturing, mixed media, PCR testing, and so forth.
	So, there's no evidence of the virus.
	If you haven't isolated the very thing that you're looking for, that you can see it, then how can you know what it is, what it does, if it's infectious?
	No one's seen it before.
	It's like It's like you're talking about a unicorn.
	So all I'm saying is, show me the unicorn.
	Show me the unicorn.
	I want to see this unicorn.
	Because to date, all we have is indirect evidence or surrogate tests, which is what the PCR test is.
	It's a surrogate test.
	It's not a diagnostic test.
	But they deployed that globally to billions of people, and that's what drove the pandemic.
	So the argument doesn't stack up.
	The lab leak crowd are funny because they're saying, on one hand, COVID's a Chinese bioweapon, but it's still a hoax because it wasn't any worse than the flu.
	That's the Great Barrington crowd are saying this right now.
	And then, oh, but and Trump saved the world with Operation Warp Speed by strong arming and bypassing the FDA with an experimental jab, which I'm refusing to take because I think it's dangerous and I don't trust Pfizer.
	I mean, they're all everyone's like.
	Tied in knots on their arguments and they're saying, well, and I'll say, look, so you agree with me that the PCR test is a bogus diagnostic test and that any data and unlimited false positives as you, cause you can turn the dial up on cycle counts to make it more sensitive or not.
	So you can literally control the amount of positive results you get by how many cycles you run on it.
	That's not a test.
	So you agree with me on that.
	So all the data on cases of COVID cases is bogus.
	And they say, yes, I agree with you on that.
	OK, fine.
	And COVID deaths are using as well the PCR as this sort of evidence that it's a claim that it's a COVID death.
	They are PCR positive within 28 days of dying.
	Whether they had symptoms or not, same with the case, it goes in the COVID column.
	You agree that's bogus, right?
	And they say, yes.
	I say, well, if that's the case, then all the epidemiological models of the spread, what are those based on?
	Neil Ferguson, et al.
	Everyone's an epidemiologist now, or a biostatistician.
	What are those based on?
	What are the PCR tests?
	Lateral flow tests?
	The lateral flow is worse than the PCR test, okay?
	It's a 50-cent piece of plastic trinket that's made in China.
	And you're basing global policies, you're willing to shut down the global economy, put everybody into debt, throw everyone into their house, lock them up for a 50-cent plastic Cracker Jack box trinket from China that you think is a diagnostic test, an antigen test.
	It's a joke.
	So they agree with me on that.
	But then I'll say, so there's no pandemic.
	They said, no, well, actually there was.
	It just wasn't as serious.
	They released a bioweapon, but they didn't make it as virulent as just to scare us.
	I mean, people are doing mental gymnastics on their own conspiracy theories.
	When you look at Occam's Razor, and if the PCR is fraudulent, okay, and the flu disappeared in 2020 and 21, Obviously, the stats disappeared.
	It doesn't take a genius to work out what happened there.
	The flu is rebranded to SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19.
	The PCR test is bogus.
	So all the epidemiological spread data of infections around the world, from Fiji to New York, it's bogus.
	It's fraudulent.
	So everything downstream from that is null and void.
	You don't even need to make those arguments.
	And the vaccine is even a bigger joke because it's a military countermeasure, DoD-led.
	But for what?
	Countermeasure against what?
	A bioweapon?
	I don't think so.
	There's no proof of a novel SARS-CoV-2 virus from Wuhan shown to be an infectious agent from any patient in Wuhan.
	Okay.
	And that's how they, that's a WHO declared a pandemic on the back of what?
	And here's the real laugh, James.
	Conservatives and the Fox crowd who I love to death, but they don't trust China, the China virus, Trump, it was China virus, China virus, Tucker Carlson's even saying Wuhan virus, China virus.
	I love these guys on so many other issues, but on this China's evil, everything out of China's bad.
	Don't trust the CCP.
	And yet.
	The one piece of evidence for this entire, quote, global pandemic comes from where?
	The Chinese CDC.
	It's a genomic sequence of a SARS-CoV-2 virus that is nothing more than a theoretical computer modeled construct made on a computer with software with Megahit or Trinity or BlastN or whatever these genomic sequence software assembly programs are.
	And they mashed that together, and then they matched it with the SARS-1 template, which was on the gene bank before.
	And that's how they came up with the brand SARS-CoV-2.
	It's not because they took a sputum sample out of patient zero in Wuhan and then brought the electron microscope, found the SARS virus, and then genomically sequenced that.
	No, they PCR'd some snot from one guy in China who had pneumonia, and then they ran that through their second-generation genomic sequencing and PCR assays, totally unstandardized, and then, boom, brought this genomic sequence to the world, and guess what?
	Everyone in America ran with it.
	Everyone in Europe ran with it.
	The UK ran with it.
	And, of course, the WHO loved it to death.
	And then the conspiracy theorists go wild because they say, oh, these researchers in India found an HIV sequence in their AIDS sequence from a theoretical computer-modeled algorithm-generated genomic sequence.
	So you can find anything in there if you want.
	If you want to look for base pairs and letters, phrases, if you will, within the genomic sequence, of course, you can find lots of things, including things that are omnipresent in humans, 90 different sets, in fact.
	So, I mean, it's a joke.
	So, but this is the problem is everybody becomes an expert overnight.
	And I think the establishment have looked and met, you know, kind of surveyed, uh, the trends, the talking points, the hashtags, what people's opinions are.
	And they've managed to kind of, I think in a, in a really good way, sheepdog, uh, a lot of different sectors of the population in order to, to, you know, head off opposition at the pass.
	And right now, you know, the lab leak, it absolves the state of all its sins.
	It does, because they're saying the pharma can turn around and say, well, we tried.
	We're sorry.
	We're sorry about all the deaths and adverse reactions.
	But we tried because because we knew secretly it was a Chinese bioweapon release.
	And look, Donald Trump was saying China virus from the get go.
	That's probably because and this is how I was told Washington works is he probably got a classified briefing back in the fall of twenty nineteen.
	By our friends at the CIA who said we think that there might be a possibility of this dangerous virus coming out of China.
	And they had already set up the Wuhan Virology Lab with the funding.
	Peter, you know, EcoHealth Alliance is a total scam.
	It's a biosurveillance racket where they're virus hunters and they go around, they have carte blanche to go anywhere in the world and declare a pandemic if they can swab the inside of the nose of a bat, claim that it's a zoonotic transfer.
	So they've created a really interesting paradigm where if you support zoonosis, from bat to pangolin to human, then you support Fauci.
	Then you must be a Democrat.
	You must be a mask wearer.
	So you must be a lockdowner.
	And if you support lab leak, you're a conservative, you're a patriot, and you want to nail Fauci.
	It's another divide and rule thing, isn't it?
	It's brilliant.
	You've got to hand it to these people.
	They have very successfully divided the red-pilled community because loads of people who are red-pilled are going to be watching this and they're going to be aghast because they're very emotionally invested in the idea that this is a biolab leak because they've learned all these terms like end of function and stuff.
	It's yet another, it's yet another con trick.
	It's part of the PSYOP.
	Yeah, it is.
	It is.
	You know, it's, it's amazing.
	And then if he's, James, and how many times has this happened to you?
	You, you, you, you posit some alternative hypothesis or that might even be based more on fact than the official narrative.
	And people say, well, I, I got sick.
	I had it really bad.
	I had really, really bad.
	I lost my sense of taste and smell.
	For two months.
	How do you explain that, Mr. Delingpool?
	How do you explain that?
	My suffering, you know, you're not going to validate my suffering.
	And the answer to that is, look, I'm sorry, you know, but we all get sick.
	It happens every year.
	Okay.
	Some people get sick worse than others, but your anecdotal individual story of you being ill, you cannot use that to generalize a global pandemic.
	We're talking about two different things.
	People get sick all the time.
	I've been sick way worse.
	I didn't get COVID during COVID.
	I wasn't wearing a mask or social distancing.
	So, you know, what was I doing that was so special?
	I don't know.
	And so the obvious answer is, well, maybe there wasn't a novel respiratory virus raging around the world and hit 170 countries in two weeks.
	Okay.
	That alone is such an act of science fiction to believe that.
	And yet, that's what people believe.
	Why?
	Because fear is a powerful motivator.
	Fear, if you can get people to go into a state of collective hysteria, and it's very easy these days, as we know, we have plenty of evidence now for that, And that permeates through all sectors of society, then people will believe anything.
	They just want solutions.
	They just want it to be over.
	They just want to get back to life as they once knew it.
	Take the damn vaccine.
	Yeah, take the damn vaccine.
	So, yeah.
	So, yes.
	Well, it's helmet the frog says so.
	So it's like, for instance, it would be like, nobody wants any, and they don't demand to see the evidence.
	You think James with all that's happened in the world, all everyone's lost and suffered that you would be able to see electron microscope video.
	Of the SARS-CoV-2 virus invading a cell, replicating its RNA, and then bursting out of the cell and triggering a cytokine storm.
	You'd be able to see some of this or some evidence of this, right?
	That's another one.
	Cytokine storm.
	I mean, I was using the phrase cytokine storm, really.
	I was on it, dude.
	I was there.
	I had all the terminology.
	We had to be fast studies.
	It nearly did me in, James.
	I had a war room in my place.
	I had whiteboards up.
	I was trying to figure out the difference between IFR, infection fatality rate, case fatality rate, all of this stuff, all this epidemiological.
	That was phase one, was getting through all the epidemiology.
	And I thought that was going to explain what was going on.
	And I realized what a pile of horse dung epidemiology is as a science and a profession.
	And what a load of used car salesmen these epidemiologists are, because all of their data is based on fake PCR tests and lateral flow tests.
	So it's useless.
	It says nothing.
	And the whole variant mythology came out of that.
	And what was interesting, and so that's all a variant is.
	A variant is when they run it through genomic sequence.
	I mean, I'm not a good person to ask about this, but I know the basics.
	And when they run the genomic sequencing on the software, if there's a slight difference in the result, and this happened in Wuhan the first time.
	The Chinese used two different software programs when they tried to create their first SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequence on the computer.
	And they used Megahit and Trinity, and they got two different results, two different genomic sequences.
	If you do it a third time, it'll give you a third result.
	It's not science.
	We're all trying to make sense of this.
	We're all looking for evidence of something that destroyed the world, That is now used as a possible motivator to attack China to hold China economically responsible trillion dollars of reparations for ruining the American economy as if government ruined the American economy.
	Government did all of these things that that ruin people's lives and ruin the economy, not the virus, but it's a convenient scapegoat, just like lab leak is a convenient scapegoat for a disastrous vaccine rollout that broke every law in the book.
	And also, this also preserves the myth of the asymptomatic spread and that the PCR test validated the asymptomatic spread theory and all of the, if you look at the major legal challenges to lockdowns, judges would always rule on, well, it's justified in the end because there's the risk of asymptomatic spread.
	And I remember Simon Dolan's case, I watched the arguments at the end, and that's what the judges said.
	So it all hinged on an interpretation of a scientific phenomenon that doesn't exist, that's never been proven to exist.
	And that's why we were locked down.
	That's why businesses were shut down.
	That's why airspace was shut down.
	Borders were closed.
	Schools were shut.
	People were mandated to take an experimental pharmaceutical product for the first time In living memory, okay?
	All because of a few of these constructs.
	And all you want is some proof of it, some evidence, and it's not forthcoming.
	And if you say this, you get attacked.
	You're called a flat earther, a conspiracy theorist, a terrain theory extremist, or whatever.
	But it's not a minority position, James.
	There's a lot of doctors, scientists, statisticians, professionals who have found exactly this.
	But they're being censored and suppressed on social media.
	They're not allowed to speak in the mainstream.
	They're not being listened to by governments.
	Instead, everyone's herded into this latest iteration, which is total science fiction.
	Lab leak, lab release, we have evidence, Fauci's emails, you know.
	Peter Daszak, you hear the same repeated script all the time.
	All the evidence suggests, and now the polling's out, and most Americans, Clay Travis, who I love from OutKick, amazing show, radio show as well, he tweeted out, oh, the polling's in, and the majority of Americans, including Democrats, believe that the origins of COVID leak from a lap.
	So the polling, because of all the hysteria, the propaganda, now the polling suggests it, so therefore it must be true.
	I can't think of a bigger logical fallacy than this.
	Yes.
	And they, you know, it's amazing.
	Hang on, I just need to pause it a second.
	Can I pause it?
	If I...
	No.
	No.
	Oh.
	Just give me a second.
	sure so
	so so
	so so i hope it's i hope it's
	it's the recording i pressed a button there but um it's still uh it's still ticking away uh this is live oh yeah that's good okay um so what you've what you've hinted at
	there is something that i think a lot of us have been speculating on which is that in the last three years lots of figures have emerged apparently on our side of the argument um get van den bosch for example level.
	Robert Malone.
	These figures who seem to be on our side in that they're suggesting that the vaccines, for example, were unnecessary, which we know them to be.
	But I've always been unsure which ones to have on the podcast because there's always speculation.
	Is this person control opposition?
	Are they leading us in a false direction?
	I mean, there's the speculation, for example, about Asim Malhotra in the UK, the cardiologist who sort of Seems to be questioning the vaccines but holds many other assumptions which which see I mean for example he still believes in in the efficacy of vaccines which I mean I don't know about you I think vaccines are one of the biggest medical con tricks in the you know it's it's the beginning of Rockefeller medicine it's it's the end of end of real medicine.
	But what you seem to be suggesting is that a lot of these people are trying to prop up A junk science industry via virology, epidemiology, and either they won't acknowledge the truth, which is that they're in a bullshit industry or they are deliberately spreading misinformation about it.
	Is that right?
	Deliberately, that's difficult to say.
	So what I like, how I think the right way to look at this is, whether intentionally or not, it matters not.
	What matters is what's true.
	What matters is the facts.
	And whether it's, you know, intentionally or not, when you have a doctor, for instance, a cardiologist, a Peter McAuliffe, for instance, or a Dr. Aseem Malhotra, there's no doubt in my mind that their motivation is to save their patients, get them healthy, look after them, make sure they live a good and full life.
	There's no doubt in my mind that that's the case on all levels.
	And so they're great human beings and they sacrificed a lot.
	They put themselves on the firing line for coming out against the vaccine.
	And that is, you know, they're wagering a lot on putting that on the table, putting their money where their mouth is.
	And they deserve tremendous amount of respect and admiration.
	And we're grateful for that.
	They're absolutely amazing in that sense.
	But what I find is with medical doctors, and you said everybody's an expert on virology.
	And that includes medical doctors, because they're not au fait with all of the methodology of virological studies and papers.
	They've never had to look at it.
	They never studied it.
	They might have done a little bit of biology and various medical biology classes during their med school, but that's not their core competency.
	The core competency is, you know, whatever their specialist is, cardiology or whatever.
	So, you know, they're going to make certain assumptions that they've had their whole life, which is they believe in the epidemiological spread of pathogens.
	And the best way to stop that is the vaccines and vaccines work, etc.
	So, I mean, I totally see that.
	And, you know, where we have a problem is that when people say, well, we know that whenever you hear that term, well, we know And when you hear that, that's when the alarm bells need to go off, because you don't know.
	You don't know, because these professions, this pseudoscience, this science of virology, pseudoscience of virology, it's hardly ever challenged.
	And the reason is, is because virology and the pharmaceutical industry are two sides of the same coin.
	The virology would not exist without the pharmaceutical industry, and the pharmaceutical industry would half exist without modern virology, to provide the pretext for all of its products, okay?
	That's why the funding for this science, so-called science, comes from Big Pharma.
	They pay for the research labs, they pay for the university funding, they chip in for the costs of, you know, finding all these, quote, findings.
	And the government does as well, because pharma lobbies the government.
	This is the whole medical-industrial complex post-Flexner report.
	The Rockefeller owned and operated and dominated medical-industrial complex.
	Virology completely fell off a cliff.
	Well, with the invention of the electron microscope, that's when, in the 1920s and 30s, this is when they started looking for the viruses and they couldn't find them, couldn't find them.
	This pseudoscience fell off the face of the earth until around 1954, when John Enders pioneered this new cell culture brew technique.
	To quote, find viruses in cell cultures.
	And then, you know, who was backing that?
	Of course, big pharma loved it.
	And then the virology was breathe new life through this very questionable practice of cell culturing and cell culture media, to claiming that they have, you know, induced a cytopathic effect that because there's a virus in there, when in fact it's because they're dumping antibiotics and all these different things in there to break down the cells, and then they photograph it and tell you, you know, there's the virus.
	And by the way, those things sticking out, that's the spike protein.
	And anything that's in terms of ferron cleavage sites and spike proteins, that's all theoretical designed on the computer and bioinformatics and...
	And so it's still theoretical.
	It's still a construct.
	It's a guess of what they think is there.
	So it'd be like, James, for instance, if you wanted to sell your house, right?
	And, you know, your estate agent comes over and says, James, you know, we can't sell this house unless we do a termite inspection.
	Because, you know, if you've got termites, we're not going to sell it, James.
	So it's not going to happen.
	So you call the termite guy.
	So I'm the termite guy.
	I come over there and I check it out.
	And you say, well, let me have a look around, James.
	I'll see if we can see anything.
	So I've got my magnifying glass, my camera, looking around.
	Check your floorboards, your baseboards.
	Can't find anything, James.
	Can't find anything.
	Nothing out in the garden.
	Nothing there.
	So I think, tell you what, how about this, James?
	Can I take a sample?
	Can I take one of your floorboards?
	Let me take one of your floorboards.
	I'm going to take it back to the lab and I'm going to culture this, see if we, because there might be a termite in there.
	So, you know, otherwise, you know, you're not going to be able to sell the house.
	You're going to have to do this.
	So I take the floorboard out, I bring it back to the lab.
	Look at it.
	Can't see anything.
	So I'm going to take a hammer and chisel to it.
	Crack it open.
	Still don't see anything.
	And so what do I do then?
	Well, let me get some paraffin and some gasoline.
	Pour it over there.
	Light it on fire.
	Okay.
	Burns up.
	And look at this.
	There's some bits of residual here.
	A lot of damage there.
	This is not looking good.
	Call you on the... James, I got bad news for you.
	We've run the culture on your floorboard and it's bad.
	It's really bad.
	You're not going to be able to sell the house.
	And so, yeah, here's the evidence.
	Let me photograph that for you.
	That's a charred floorboard.
	That's basically what virology does.
	They destroy the cell culture and then claim that that's evidence that a virus was running amok.
	I mean, it's ridiculous if you really break it down.
	And then they use a PCR test To test the cell culture and then make up the, fill in the blanks with metagenomic second generation genomic sequencing software.
	I mean, how is this science?
	There's nothing scientific about it.
	Can I just say, just going back a second, that intuitively it makes sense to me that all these, some of the people we've named, they're not consciously bad actors.
	No, I don't think so.
	I think that applies to most people.
	I get this a lot.
	There's a tremendous division in my Telegram chat channel between people who sort of accept that human beings are frail and subject to any number of influences and also capable of changing their mind and their worldview at the drop of a hat.
	And those who say no.
	They knew.
	Here is a quote they gave when they did this or when they did that.
	And we must hunt them down and kill them.
	It seems to be the attitude.
	There can be no forgiveness.
	Scorched earth.
	If they aren't where I am now, then they must die.
	Because they are part of the new world order to destroy the world.
	I don't look at, for example, Asim Malhotra and think, there is a sinister guy.
	I think, no, not at all.
	And this does make absolute sense.
	Can I add to that?
	Hold that thought, James.
	Look, all the people you mentioned, you know, Robert Malone, Aseem Malhotra, Peter, all the leaders of the health freedom movement, a lot of people are upset because they say, well, you're, and they even have said in public speeches, I mean, Robert Malone himself said, I saw a recent clip from a speech.
	He said, there's a lot of people trying to break up this movement.
	They're accusing me and others of being controlled opposition.
	We need to stay together.
	But here's the problem.
	When you think it's a movement, when someone announces that it's now a movement, that a movement is political, and a movement has leaders, and leaders need to preserve their position, and especially, and I'm not naming any names here, but when the leaders monetize the movement,
	In other words, and a lot of people, not just in the establishment, of course, what the alternative health freedom crowd have accumulated in terms of success as a result of COVID, any particular person or media outlet or whatever, it pales in comparison to what Pfizer and the big boys have done getting rich off the backs of everybody suffering.
	It means that if you then start making inroads with elected officials who are sympathetic to your cause, or you're getting a look in now on mainstream media, you're at that point, if you start talking about there was no novel SARS-CoV-2 virus, and those doors will shut because people will accuse you of being a conspiracy theorist, then that's going to be motivation to toe the line on the narrative.
	And if the narrative is then lab leak, Then you know I'm not going to get on Fox News unless I say China lab leak.
	And this is how it works.
	And you know and everyone who works in media knows that's how it works.
	So then you self-censor.
	And if you're self-censoring and you're blocking off real scientific inquiry and you're ignoring the scientific method that should validate all of these claims in order to get access to media or in order to get more subscribers or in order to get on this platform At this event, or whatever, and you don't want to be disinvited to any of this stuff, or called a freak in a nutcase.
	That's polluting the discourse and corrupting it in a big way.
	And I'm telling you, James, how is that any different than how the mainstream establishment in Hollywood have worked for years?
	It's the same.
	So it shows you that even the alternative media becomes the mainstream media, can behave like the mainstream media, can self-censor like the mainstream media.
	Can make calculated decisions of loss or gain based on what they say and what ideas that they give a platform to.
	And they all of a sudden are not courageous anymore.
	They're basically leading groupthink and very closely become aligned with whatever the establishment talking point is.
	And this is also a problem if you have people who come from the industry Gerd Vandenbosch is a vaccinologist, worked for Gavi, so he's a, you know, a credible, quote, whistleblower.
	But at the end of the day, he's still promoting vaccines and the efficacy of vaccines when quite clearly the efficacy and the safety and effectiveness is shown to be a total sham.
	And the idea that there's a live virus in the vaccine is shown to be a complete sham.
	And again, using the same tools that I've said previously, So they're building lies on top of lies on top of lies.
	And these people are saying, oh, the vaccine's dangerous, but they're saying it's a leaky vaccine.
	And it, it might make the, make you susceptible to a more dangerous virus.
	If you take it during a, I mean, the things that people come up with and believe are unbelievable.
	Robert Malone comes from that industry.
	He comes from the biodefense industry.
	He's a, he was a major stakeholder in this whole industry and the Fauci empire.
	Okay.
	He's even said as much.
	So, I mean, everyone has vested interests.
	So, you know, we, we have to consider where people's, uh, the timing of when they come out, what they come out with.
	And then you have the, it's more like the limited hangout or, you know, talking about half of the issue and not going for the whole thing.
	Why don't all these people I noticed and Del Bigtree is the same way.
	He, Del is brilliant.
	Del has been a pioneer on vaccine safety.
	For years, he was Dell big tree was doing it when it was, there was no one else doing it.
	And he was taking all the hits him in a handful of other people being called anti-vaxxers.
	And I have so much respect for this guy and how hard he's battled to get this issue out and how many lives he's saved.
	Unbelievable.
	He deserves every bit of recognition and support for that.
	But if he comes and says, well.
	There might be a problem with the existence of SARS-CoV-2.
	The pandemic might have been a complete hoax, but we can't talk about that now because we have a stadium that's full of people, and we're going to lose our crowd if I say that now.
	So we can't do it yet.
	Let's do it a little bit later.
	You know what this is like, James?
	This is like weapons of mass destruction now.
	This is Iraqi WMDs.
	So everybody has to entertain a conspiracy theory that's now endorsed by the deep state, that's endorsed by government.
	And if truth be known, I think the US deep state did a great job at setting up China as a backstop and to create a permanent red herring.
	Well, indeed.
	I was going to pick you up on that point.
	China must surely know That this is all bollocks.
	And that they're being the fall guy for something that didn't actually happen.
	Yes and no.
	Yes and no.
	So look, the people who work in the top positions, Chinese virology, in science, medicine, ministers, many of them have been educated, where James?
	United States, in Britain, in France, at the top institutions.
	The top students in the top institutions in the West go back to China.
	And so they believe in modern allopathic medicine.
	They follow all they have.
	They've been trained by the same people that our health public health experts are trained by.
	So we've given China the tools from genomic sequencing to the bogus cell culture routine that virology has done.
	We've inculcated them with all the same tools that have created this megalomania industrial complex in the West and pharmaceutical industrial complex.
	So if you're in politics and people think, well, the Chinese CCP must have worked this out.
	James, politicians have one thing in common.
	And that's that they're usually completely aloof to details and technical stuff, and they rely on people to brief them.
	They rely on aides.
	And the Chinese politician is no more au fait with genomic sequencing, and whether it's legitimate, as any MP in Britain is, or any knucklehead congressman or senator in the United States, who don't know anything about anything.
	And they rely on the media to tell them they rely.
	The Republicans rely on Fox to give them their talking points.
	The Democrats rely on CNN and MSNBC for their talk in the Washington Post and the Times for their talking points.
	And so China is no different.
	So the political class in China.
	They're on board with everything, because they're like us.
	They're not any different, any smarter, any more sophisticated.
	They're victims of this modernity, hyper-modernity and technocracy as much as anybody is.
	So they're going to go along with it.
	So that's the short answer to that, James.
	I can see at least two very obvious reasons why the current, it's the lab leak, is being pushed by the deep state.
	One, obviously, is its intimate relationship with big pharma profits.
	You know, you need that industry and professional vested interests and stuff.
	Also, the move towards, well, creating an overseas enemy in which to focus our hatred and distract from domestic problems.
	And it seems fairly clear to me that the deep state right now is pushing for war with Russia and war with China.
	Where are you on that?
	I mean, are we going to get War with China as a result of this?
	Just like Russiagate as a hoax laid the groundwork to get the public to support a more aggressive stance and policies against Russia, lab leak and lab release will lay the groundwork for Americans, especially on the right, to be lab leak and lab release will lay the groundwork for Americans, especially on the right, to be able to support a more
	And everyone's saying it's like very trendy on all the outlets now.
	Well, China's our biggest adversary.
	It's funny how people repeat talking points that get seeded in the media by think tankers, by politicians and presenters.
	And then everyone just it just self-replicates.
	Next thing you know, everyone's saying the same thing.
	I find it almost comical.
	But so the COVID lab leak look and they say, well, it's the counter argument, James, I get on this is, well, it's not just China, you know, because it's US government funded the gain of function research Okay.
	So I'm like, okay, so Rand Paul's been grilling Fauci over this for the last year and a half.
	Has Fauci lost his job?
	Has Fauci got a pay cut?
	Has Fauci lost his pension?
	No.
	Foushee hasn't lost anything.
	They can't do a damn thing because it was all legal.
	It was all above board.
	And because, truth be known, James, you can't prove gain of function happened in a court of law.
	And we know this based on everything that we've said in the last hour, and that I could back up by an umpteen amount of scientists and doctors to validate that point.
	So it's a non-issue.
	So Fauci takes one for the team.
	Fauci takes one for Big Pharma.
	EcoHealth Alliance takes one for the team.
	The job's done.
	The job's done, but by validating lab leak or lab release, you then keep the whole pandemic industrial complex locked into place and the whole biosurveillance gravy train racket locked into place And then they can spin up.
	It doesn't even need to be a real outbreak.
	It could be the threat of an outbreak or a variant.
	And this system can be spun up and run into a high level of fever pitch mode in a matter of days or weeks, okay, at any point in the future.
	And I will say this as well.
	The war on terror brought in this new security industrial complex and surveillance industrial complex that's still with us today, even though the threat of theoretical threat of radical Islamic terrorists is far in the rearview mirror of society.
	We still have to go through the body scanners, take our shoes off, empty our shampoo, and we can't bring water on the plane.
	Because some lecturer at Reading University said it was theoretically possible to mix Drano and Fairy Liquid and make a liquid bomb, and Tony Blair sent tanks around Heathrow.
	Do you remember that?
	Ridiculous.
	Yes.
	And the tabloids ran that, and so that's the basis for not bringing more than 100 mils of lotion or liquid on planes, globally.
	So, if they allow lab leak, it's totally evidence-free conspiracy theory.
	It's not empirical at all.
	If they allow that to be the narrative, then we get the global war on bioterror.
	We get that for the next 50 or 100 years, okay?
	There's no doubt about that.
	The money has already been allocated.
	It's in the new U.S.
	defense budget.
	They already have the Health Security Agency.
	They spun up a DHS version for viruses in the UK.
	It's called the Health Security Agency, right?
	Didn't exist before last year.
	It's the same with the DHS.
	That was spun up in 2002.
	That's the biggest, most well-funded federal department in the United States government, and it didn't exist before 2002.
	And it does nothing, does it?
	I mean, not a single life has been saved, not a standard of life has been improved.
	No, it doesn't do anything.
	What it is, it's an array of contractors and subcontractors and fusion projects to do interagency operability and all this other stuff.
	And it's created a whole sort of set of high-paid salary positions for political appointees.
	And now they're getting into the managing speech business with the disinformation racket.
	That's what DHS has been doing.
	That's all been kind of exposed in the Twitter files and Nina Jankovic doing her little jig as the head of the Ministry of Truth.
	She got Demoted and put off that project, but that's all the same type of thing.
	So this thing could morph into a biosecurity agency can morph into bizarre things that we can't even possibly imagine and place restrictions on our movements, on our freedoms and liberties that we can't possibly imagine.
	And it's all based on what?
	It's based on science fiction at the end of the day, but everyone's too afraid to challenge it, or they don't want to be part of the outgroup on this, or they don't want to challenge the heterodoxy view on this at the moment.
	And so I'm going to say that those people who know and who don't, I'm going to say you're absolute cowards for capitulating.
	to groupthink on this.
	After all we've been through in three years, after all the world's been through, after all the people not allowed to see their dying family in a nursing home because they weren't jabbed, or because they wouldn't get PCR tested, or just because they quarantined the whole place, okay?
	And you know, everyone's got a horror story, James.
	And for all these people that are just basically standing down now doing a victory lap like somehow they've won because the FBI and the Department of Energy said that there might be a lab leak, it's kind of Ridiculous.
	You know, playground mentality, schoolyard mentality.
	And it just allows people to not ask the hard questions, to not challenge the science, and they're not.
	They're not challenging the science.
	They're pandering to whatever interests and also protecting their rear guard of their careers.
	If they're in the virology racket, or they're in the vaccine racket, or then the mRNA racket is a whole racket, okay?
	Where is the proof that the mRNA component of this vaccine burrows into the cell and rewrites the cell's ability to manufacture spike proteins?
	Where is the evidence of this?
	Where?
	Oh, so what do you think it is doing?
	Moderna couldn't get it to work.
	They didn't have a viable product until, as if by magic, COVID comes along, emergency use authorization.
	They say, we'll believe anything that you roll off your assembly line, Moderna.
	Yeah, of course it works now.
	It's not been proven to work or do anything.
	It's a gimmick.
	mRNA is a marketing gimmick.
	Theoretically, it might be a concept.
	It could be patented.
	It could be theoretically possible.
	But Moderna has never shown it.
	And there is, to date, no evidence other than, again, genomic sequencing of spike proteins and, you know, show me the spike protein.
	Show me a picture of the unicorn.
	And it's not.
	The cytopathic effect in a cell culture has been completely debunked.
	Completely debunked.
	What do you think it is that's causing all this vaccine damage?
	Well, common sense, James.
	You know, and you only have to read the Pfizer clinical trials, which are a complete sham, okay?
	And all vaccine clinical trials are a complete sham, because they do this.
	They say, well, you know, they inject it into somebody and then they do an antibody test.
	Really?
	What's an antibody test?
	I just assume everybody knows what that is.
	They say, well, look at the antibody response from the vaccine.
	It's a significant response.
	So therefore, it looks like it's, and that's, but actually for this one, you need two, maybe three or four, maybe five, to really get that proper charge on the antibody response.
	What exactly is going on there?
	Well, if you read a book, which I recommend called Dissolving Illusion, okay?
	The History of Vaccines, Dissolving Illusion.
	What they're measuring there, that's your body's response to a toxic substance being injected into it.
	It's not an antibody response to the vaccine.
	It's an antitoxic response by your body to push it out, to detoxify.
	And so, and this is what the, and they say, well, we put adjuvants in like aluminum, thimerosal and et cetera, all these different ingredients to stimulate the antibody response.
	That's what big pharmacists say.
	That's what big pharma say.
	Uh, no, it is the adjuvants.
	It is the ingredients that's causing the body to respond, not the quote live virus in the vaccine.
	The amount of, uh, sorcery involved in this pharmakia, the Latin root of pharmacy, pharmakia is sorcery, right?
	It's, it's deception.
	And, uh, it's all in the name.
	But, you know, who am I?
	I'm not, I'm not the best expert.
	I'm just going to point you to people who have already, you know, demonstrated this to be the case.
	So what we're talking about, James, and this is important too, we're talking about competing interpretations of the same phenomenon.
	So big Pfizer does a clinical trial, they inject, they measure the quote antibody response.
	That's their interpretation of the phenomenon.
	The other person, the alternative hypothesis is you're injecting someone with a toxic compound.
	Your body is making a detoxification response.
	That's another interpretation.
	Both of those people think that they're correct, but they come from two different schools of training and two different schools of viewing the world.
	And one of them happens to be backed by a multinational, multi-trillion dollar empire.
	And the other doesn't.
	Does that mean that one is more valid than the other or because it has the weight of the establishment and the media and the crowd and the group think behind it?
	Does that mean that it's correct?
	Because it's the consensus?
	Or is it the consensus because of what is backing that and holding that viewpoint, that worldview, that view of biology, that evolutionary view, Which is what virology is based on, evolutionary genetics and science.
	But there's a whole other school of thought that's been completely suppressed, which is things like epigenetics, for example, or the toxicology explanation for people getting sick, people getting the flu.
	And it's just as valid, and there's no studies going in that.
	We've spent billions over here.
	We've spent nothing over here.
	Ask yourself, why is that?
	And when you get the answer to that question, then you'll really understand how this paradigm has been constructed.
	Briefly, what's epigenetics?
	I would, you know, it's the idea, I'm not an expert in this, but the basic concept is that DNA is not permanent, it's constantly changing, it's dynamic, and it's a lot more complex and unpredictable than what orthodox thinking would have you believe.
	In other words, this idea that there's And this is the problem with genomics, and the Human Genome Project has opened up a Pandora's box for a lot of other forces to come in and interpret that as, oh, you might have, how many times have you seen this headline, James?
	And the Daily Mail is the worst, because, no, the Express is the worst.
	For pharmaceutical ads on the front page, they'll say, oh, they discovered the cancer gene.
	We discovered this gene that causes cancer or causes this or causes whatever.
	And if we can fix that gene, and they've got a drug to deal with that as well, then, you know, it'll prevent your, you might be less likely to get this disease.
	Okay.
	This idea that we're pre-programmed So, this is true.
	Some things are hereditary, but it's a much smaller percentage as to what the orthodox thinking is.
	The reality is our environment, how we live, how we eat, how we feel, has a lot more to do with our health outcomes than what drugs we take or what genetic tree we're born into.
	That's my basic explanation on epigenetics.
	If you think you're healthy, the placebo effect is a powerful effect.
	And if you think that you're sick, if you think that you are under attack from microbes 24 hours a day, and you develop anxiety, permanent anxiety, hypochondria, all the things that have been endemic As a result of the pandemic hysteria, that's not going to be good for your health, of course, and if you're not living in that paradigm, then you're probably going to have a very different health outcome.
	You might be happier and healthier.
	But anyway, these things should be studied.
	We should be spending hundreds of billions on this, but we're not.
	We're spending it on drugs.
	Patrick, this podcast could be five times longer because you're right, you're a good talker.
	We haven't even got on to the subject of of terrain theory we've we've we've we've barely touched it in a way you don't need to take a position on terrain theory or otherwise for everything you've said to make total sense you don't you don't i'm not arguing for terrain theory or germ theory um because again everything the those arguments were really uh separate and
	I mean, I'll tell you what, James, I'm arguing for science, for real science.
	I'm arguing for controlled experiments to back up the claims and all the stacks of papers that are producing all this so-called evidence of COVID and spread and this and all this stuff.
	Where's the controlled experiments?
	Can it be repeated?
	Can it be falsified?
	Genomic sequencing on computers can't.
	These cell culture brews can't.
	PCR testing is not standardized.
	Christian Drosten, who authored the first PCR standardization paper, they peer-reviewed that in 24 hours.
	It takes eight months.
	It takes eight months.
	They were very good though, you see.
	They were very quick workers.
	They were quick studies.
	And he admitted in the paper that they do not have the actual sample of a SARS-CoV-2 virus and it's only stuff in labs and using the genomic sequence provided by the Chinese CDC.
	So everything else is downstream from that.
	If that doesn't make sense, if that doesn't hold water, then you can just write everything else downstream off.
	But what people have done, because they've bonded to the trauma, they've bonded to the narrative, so they're willing to, I can give you a logical argument like that, and they'll say, but I still believe, because again, it comes back to, I was sick, or my Aunt Sally was sick, my daughter and my dog had COVID at the same time, and it was really bad.
	And so that's the default position.
	And so what you have to say is just because I can't explain your flu doesn't mean that you have the right to default to the dominant narrative.
	That's, you know, that's not logical.
	That's just your emotion.
	But we're driven by emotion, and the Behavioral Insights team, the nudge units in these government agencies, have taken advantage of the best qualities of humans, that people want to be compassionate, they want to protect each other, they want everybody to be safe, and they've weaponized that.
	They've amplified that, and then they've weaponized that.
	And then they've used that in order to provide the sort of soft bedding for some of the most pernicious policies ever introduced in modern times.
	This is the biggest human event.
	In modern history, maybe in the history of humanity, if you think about it in this global context.
	And I still have to interact with journalists and editors of media outlets that didn't say anything about it, that didn't even report on it for two years.
	And they all sat and waited for the Ukraine thing to kick off, and then they pivoted back into Ukraine.
	And all the anti-imperialists who are stop imperialism and stop hegemony and literally your own government is denying you every single liberty and basic right.
	And you're completely silent about it with your mask on, locked in your house and cheering for the government to do more and to be more like China.
	I've had to deal with people like that as well in the foreign policy arena.
	And nothing to say about it.
	No questioning of authority at all.
	And everyone just kind of lays quiet and then they've let back out again.
	So my point is, it's pointless.
	Like you're railing for the rights of people in Syria or Palestine or Iraq, but you don't give a damn about the rights of people who you live with in your own community.
	Real fascism came home and steamrolled over the West and all the people that would Rail against it overseas, stay quiet for one or two years.
	They're slowly coming out now and being in opposition to it, but limited opposition and certainly not going to challenge the whole premise of a global pandemic or the existence of a novel SARS-CoV-2 virus that exists in nature as an infectious agent.
	They're not going to go that far yet, but guess what, James?
	They will eventually.
	Because the ball of truth is rolling on this, and it's getting bigger by the day.
	And this is going to be, I think by the end of it, a very swift and crushing defeat of one of the worst concoctions and constructs that has plagued the human race forever.
	And I think it's just a question of time.
	I don't know how long it's going to take, but it is already breaking down right now.
	I'm going to end this podcast, Patrick, on that final note of optimism, and I'm going to ask you to, you must come back on the podcast, because we've only just scratched the surface, we've only just examined one facet of all the stuff that's going on right now, and I love what you're saying, so thank you very much.
	Where can people find you, Patrick?
	Well, you can find me, I'm doing seven live shows a week.
	I do Monday to Friday TNT radio, 4 p.m.
	6 p.m.
	UK time, and that's 12 till 2 U.S.
	at the moment, daylight savings gap.
	So that's radio, that's live radio, and it's a good dynamic program every day.
	We hit everything, got all the different people, correspondents in different parts of the world.
	And then I do the UK column news, which most people in the UK would know me from that.
	That's on Friday.
	I do 1 p.m.
	UK Column.org, also live on Rumble and Odyssey as well.
	And Sunday I do my long-running podcast live radio show called The Sunday Wire, which is 5 p.m.
	UK time and that's two or three hours.
	That's an omnibus week program that It covers everything with guests and things like that.
	Those are my three main venues.
	21stCenturyWired.com, that's my website, which I founded 12 years ago, 11 years ago, something like that.
	And then TNT Radio, which is a new outlet.
	They're doing really great.
	And UKColumn.org, which is the longest-running UK alternative media outlet and probably the most successful as well.
	But among those three outlets mainly.
	Patrick, you make me sound like a lazy-ass bastard.
	Truly, you are the Stakhanov of...
	I'm just trying to keep busy, James, but James, I'm going to give you props, too, because, you know, I followed your work for years when you were on the climate trail, and there weren't very many people in the mainstream media who dared to challenge that sacred cow.
	You were one of them.
	Christopher Booker was another.
	In the UK, there was only a handful of people that dared even to say anything against the climate narrative.
	And that was tough times and, you know, you stuck it out.
	And I knew, when I saw you kind of, this podcast, when Dell Impulse was launched and I saw the things that you were getting into, I thought, wow, this is risky for James.
	I mean, he's going to burn his chances of getting a nice cushy column job at the Telegram.
	Or the mail or whatever.
	That ship has sailed.
	Those bridges have burned.
	You're not going to ride into the sunset there.
	And Bob Moran did the same thing.
	Bob, who is a very successful mainstream cartoonist.
	But I love what you're doing and I love the fact that you're doing it unscripted.
	I love the fact that you're going into areas that You're absolutely exploring stuff that you think needs to be talked about, whether you believe it or not, doesn't matter.
	Some things you do, some things you probably don't, but you're allowing that conversation to happen and you're exposing that to a whole new range of people.
	So I think that's amazing.
	You're one of the few people that came from that world and has come into this kind of more Wild West open space and fending for yourself on the wild plains of the information.
	Badlands.
	Well, thank you, Patrick.
	After that completely unbiased, independent testimonial, dear viewers and listeners, I'm worth it.
	You know I'm worth it.
	So please continue to support me.
	And if you don't support me already, please, please consider doing so.
	I'm on Patreon, Subscribestar, Substack, Locals.
	You can buy me a coffee.
	Lots of people like to buy me coffees, and that's nice.
	I've even got now a Bitcoin thing, which I must post up the address thingy, so you can send me some Yeah, Bitcoin.
	Patrick, thank you again.
	That was really good.
	And let's have you back.
	My pleasure.
	Anytime, James.

▲