All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 20, 2025 - Jim Fetzer
51:11
Looking at the Possible Future of Vaccines Under MAHA: Webinar from February 19, 2025
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, welcome everybody.
I hope you can hear me okay.
I'm sure I'll find out if you can.
And welcome to another Wednesday webinar.
And today is Wednesday, February 19th, 2025. Thanks for joining me as always.
And thanks everybody who's helped with buying the Common Sense Child Rearing book.
I think they're in stock now, so hopefully everybody's getting their copies.
And if you want more or new ones, you can hopefully get them soon now.
And I would appreciate everybody writing a comment.
And as I've said, I read them, so I will hear what you have to say.
And that always helps the cause.
The other thing I was going to say, just as a note here, I happened to receive the new apple cider vinegar and fire cider that we're selling at Dr. Cowan's Garden.
And I've got to say, those are the best apple cider vinegar and fire cider I've ever eaten.
They're just rich and full of flavor.
You know, they're fully raw every step of the process.
So I put a little bit of either one in a little bit of water two or three times a day just because I like the taste and I think it's good for me and all the rest of it.
So if you haven't tried that, that would be a great thing to try.
And as always, we appreciate your support and using our store as something to help your life.
Okay, so the subject today is what about the future of vaccines under the Make America Healthy initiative?
And I'm just going to say that I'm going to try to be as, as they say, fair and balanced as I can be.
And I will also try to differentiate from when I'm saying what I think are, you know, Proven facts versus when I'm speculating.
And there will be some speculation.
In other words, there's going to be some things that I don't know what's going to happen, so I will make some predictions.
I do a lot of predictions.
I write them in a book that I have just mostly for fun.
Some of them are right, like I predicted that there would be a fire in Maui about a year before that happened, or a conflagration.
It's not really a fire.
And that Oprah Winfrey and Zach Bush, who I think both live on Maui, would not be affected.
And that was true.
And then there's been some other things that haven't been exactly right.
So I certainly don't get all the predictions right.
But it's just sort of a fun game I play to try to...
Predict or understand from what I'm seeing, reading, hearing, and thinking about what might happen.
So I'm going to be doing a little bit of that today.
So the next thing I want to say is this is a very hot, obviously an important subject right now.
The whole...
There's a lot of, at the same time, people who are enthusiastic and hopeful and working on it and donating time and energy to the cause.
And they feel like there's sort of a new day coming.
They also feel like there's a new day coming because people, particularly mothers, are waking up.
And, like, they're not going to take this anymore.
And I would separate, or at least I separate in my mind, that phenomena, which I think is real, which is people are waking up and they're starting to take life into their own hands, especially their health, and especially, you know, it's my body and you can't tell me what to do kind of thing.
All that, I think, is happening and I think is great.
What I'm going to be investigating is whether the Make America Healthy initiative fosters that or not.
That's one of the things I'm going to be looking at.
So, there's also on the other side of this people, and I don't think I need to mention any names, but who are also writing about it.
Who are very skeptical and not happy with what's happening, not just with that, but the whole Trump administration and worried about a sort of coming technocracy or a so-called fourth industrial revolution or a revolutionary change in how life functions and not in a good way, but in a very...
And I'm not going to get into that so much, but this is a kind of a subset of that.
So I think the point is everybody, not everybody, a lot of people think that something big is happening, and I would say that I more or less agree with that.
And there are certainly some positive things happening, particularly with the consciousness of the people.
I'm going to try to look at what might happen with regards to vaccines today given this change in what's happening.
So that's the agenda for today.
So I wanted to start off by taking a look at, say, current vaccines and what are they made of.
The ingredients.
And I thought the best way to do that would be to play a short video by my new friend, Mike Cardamoni, because I think he does a good job of outlining what are in the vaccines that are currently in use.
So let me take, hopefully bring this up.
Let's just look at some vaccine ingredients.
We're just going to look at them.
Monkey kidney cell culture.
A monkey's kidney is injected with what is assumed to be poliovirus and other toxic stabilizers.
This is continued until the monkey sickens and nearly dies.
The cell culture from that sick kidney is now taken out and mixed with carrying agents.
Not a great start.
What else?
Blood from an infected horse.
When the horse is so sick it can't stand anymore, its blood is drawn and used in this vaccine for diphtheria.
What else?
Milk from the tits of a basset hound.
This one I made up, but I might as well not have.
I mean, we got the monkey kidney, we got the horse blood, throw in some piss from an armadillo.
What difference does it make?
Honestly.
At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if every vaccine had moose cum in it.
Alright, what else?
Aluminum.
Hey, you know the stuff you use to put over a plate of leftover mashed potatoes?
Melt that down and inject it into your muscles.
Aluminum is a potent carcinogen linked by research to nervous system breakdown disorders.
But it's fine.
It's not a big deal that vaccines have aluminum because the World Health Organization says it's safe right here on their website.
The FDA analysis indicates that the body burden of aluminum following injections of aluminum-containing vaccines never exceeds safe U.S. regulatory thresholds based on orally ingested aluminum.
And that's the key right here is that these Safety regulations are based on orally ingested aluminum.
So what they're saying is that these vaccines are safe as long as injecting something is the same as eating it.
Which is why, for lunch today, I liquefied a ham and cheese sandwich and shot it into the side of my neck.
It's like the same thing as eating it.
Obviously, this statement by the World Health Organization is incredibly disingenuous.
A comparison between orally ingested levels and injected levels of aluminum is wholly inappropriate.
They are not at all comparable.
Dr. Blalock explains the absorption level of ingested aluminum.
Normally, absorption of aluminum from the gastrointestinal tract is rather low, and excretion from the body is rather rapid following absorption.
The absorption of aluminum when injected intramuscularly is, however, entirely different.
When aluminum is injected into muscle, your body absorbs 100%.
The consequences of the total absorption of aluminum when injected are extremely significant, especially for the brain, as Dr. Blalock has indicated.
So when you eat aluminum, your body absorbs very little, about 0.1%, versus when you...
Inject aluminum into your arms, legs, and ass cheeks, your body absorbs 100%.
In addition, all vaccines contain some form of protein.
The adverse effects of injected proteins are also explained by Herbert Shelton.
Protein, as essential to life as it is, is a poison if introduced directly into the blood without first undergoing digestion.
So again, when protein is eaten as food, It's broken down in the stomach, but when protein is in the blood, it putrefies, which means it actually rots in there in the same way that meat goes rancid over time when not refrigerated.
This produces toxic byproducts in the blood, most of which are carcinogenic.
So if you want to put poisonous vaccine ingredients into your body, you're better off eating them.
That's all I'm saying.
Is that it's a healthier alternative to start your day with a bowl of formaldehyde flakes.
And maybe you can end your night with some chocolate chip antifreeze ice cream, the number one doctor-recommended dessert.
And that's the problem, really, is that vaccines are recommended by someone in a white coat.
And if the same vaccine with the same ingredients...
was recommended by someone who wasn't wearing a white coat, I don't think you would accept the vaccine.
For example, if you're waiting in the examination room, and instead of your doctor, a guy named Crowbar walks in, and he's not wearing a shirt at all.
And on his chest, he has a tattoo of Tweety Bird pecking at his nipple.
And he says to you, I would like to stab you.
With a needle, full of aborted human fetal tissue, pig blood, horse blood, rabbit brain, dog kidney, cow heart, sheep blood, and ant killer, do you take the vaccine from a guy named Crowbar?
Or do you say, you know what, I appreciate the offer, Crowbar, but I would much rather get my doctor back in here and see what they recommend.
Then your doctor comes back in and says, I recommend the same thing as Crowbar.
Your doctor would recommend the same thing as a guy named Crowbar who was arrested for defecating in a funeral home.
You gotta wake up.
Don't slap snooze.
Okay.
So now we have an idea what the old vaccines are made of.
They're a mixture of animal tissues, kidney cells, fetal bovine serum, horse serum.
Sometimes they have aluminum and borax and a bunch of other chemicals in them.
Whoops.
Hang on.
Hang on. Hang on.
This is what he adopted.
It's a differential gynecnosis to distinguish Sorry about that.
Hang on a minute.
Hang on.
I'm gonna have to turn the video off for a minute Okay, sorry about that.
Some reason it kept going.
Okay, so that gives you an idea of what were the ingredients in the old vaccines.
Like I said, monkey kidney cells, and we've been over this a million times, and horse serum, and fetal bovine serum, and trypsin, and chemicals, and some borax, and aluminum, and lots of other things.
So that's the current sort of ingredient list or current status.
That's what we're using as the current vaccines.
Now, I thought then it would be interesting to take a look at, obviously, the history of the leadership of the Make America Healthy movement and see what we can learn from that.
Science around vaccines and viruses and virology.
And here we find something very interesting, which I've also talked about many times, is that if you look into the role of the leadership of the Maha movement as regards to COVID, so that's a huge part of this.
Make America Healthy initiative.
And obviously we're talking about people like Kennedy and Bigtree and Cole and Malone and Mickey Willis, Mercola, and a whole lot of other people, Kirsch, people that we all know.
So what was their role in COVID? And I think there are probably a number of roles, but...
The one that I want to focus on is their role in the engineered virus lab leak story.
And again, I've been over this so many times, everybody's probably sick of hearing it.
But I think it's worth repeating because the same people who are the leadership of this Maha movement were the people who brought...
This lab leak gain-of-function story.
So what is the gain-of-function story?
So it's very interesting to look at this.
So the original genome for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that allegedly causes COVID, was created by the FanWu paper early on in 2020. And again, I've been over this many times, but it's still very interesting to look at what happened in that paper.
So in that paper, they take one person with an unusual or sort of atypical pneumonia.
They take the fluid from their lungs.
They chop it up into little pieces of RNA. They say they discard the human and the bacterial.
Pieces of RNA, although that's actually impossible to do unless you knew which ones were the virus and which ones were the human, but let's forget about that for a minute.
And so then they have these 56 million so-called reads, which is like letters in an alphabet, and then they put that into two different software computer programs, and they generate in one about 400,000...
Different genomes or contigs, and in the other one, about 100 and some thousand.
So about 100, sorry, 1,200,001 and 400,000 in another possible combinations of those letters.
So in other words, we have 1.6 different combinations of letters generated from those RNA segments in the sputum, the bronchial fluid of the original paper.
Then they discard one of the programs and choose the longest of the contigs.
So they chose the longest sequence and that became the SARS-CoV-2 genome from which all the PCR tests were made and became the blueprint upon which all the rest of the genomes were assembled against.
So that original Fan Wu genome, the one that they published, is an extremely important part of this whole COVID story.
Now, the first thing, since obviously we want...
There's a lot of talk about we're going to trust the science and follow the science and believe the science and that this Maha initiative is all based on doing real science and following the science wherever it leads.
That's one of their selling points.
So, interestingly, and just to say, The first thing, one of the main principles, foundational principles of any scientific endeavor is repeatability.
So you would expect that many times, maybe even hundreds or thousands of times, other virologists, other researchers would have done two things.
One is take different people with allegedly the same symptoms and do the same sort of metagenomic de novo synthesis of the genome and see if they get the same genome.
That's one thing they would do.
But the other thing, and maybe even more important, is since the FanWu paper published the original reads, the original RNA segments, you would think somebody would take those reads, those segments, and assemble them themselves and see if they get the same genome.
And as far as I know, that had never been done.
And nobody who is looking at this, no virologist, no member of the Maha community who allegedly knows about this and was interested in this, actually asked for this to be done.
Now, the interesting thing about that genome is it was very unusual, and I would say guaranteed to catch the eyes of any scrutinizing virologist.
And what I mean by that is there was segments in that original FanWu genome that basically could not possibly have been evolved naturally in the way that virologists think of it, and therefore had to be somehow inserted into this genome, which is what is called the gain-of-function research.
Just to give you an example so you know exactly what I'm talking about, imagine instead of RNA segments, you have letters of an alphabet.
So you look and you see there's three letters – T, E, and A. And you say, what are the possible combinations that I can make out of these three letters?
And the answer is you can make T, you can make EAT, or you can make EAT. Now, if I come along and publish, so I have these three letters, T, E, and A, and I made the letter TEAM,
or sorry, the word TEAM, T-E-A-M. Now, anybody who knows anything about words would look at this and say, wait a minute, where did you get the M from?
It's not in your published data.
It's not in the RNA letters.
I don't have an explanation for where the M came from.
And you would say, well, that can't possibly have just occurred naturally, like a so-called mutation.
So somebody must have put that in.
And the way that it was done, put in with a segment that's related to HIV, was guaranteed to be caught.
So, in other words, the original Fan Wu paper had at least, like, three frauds.
First of all, they said that those reads, those letters, came from a virus of which there was no...
There's no evidence for that.
So that's the first fraud.
The second fraud is they then assemble that into the genome, which was the same length approximately as previous coronavirus genomes.
So that's also a fraud because all they did was pick the one that had the approximate length out of over a million and a half.
And then third of all, they put...
Deliberately sequences RNA bases or base pairs, supposedly, in there which weren't in their actual data.
Now think about that.
And they did it in a way that guaranteed that this would be caught.
By anybody scrutinizing this and say, hey, this could not possibly have been a naturally occurring event.
Therefore, it must have been created by some lab.
And interestingly, they put the same sequences as were created and patented by Ralph Baric at UNC, and you've all heard about that story, so that...
You could actually trace this back for at least, say, 7 to 10 years and show that this thing was organized for many, many years before this happened.
So the third fraud is you can't get this genome from the data that they published.
And the fourth fraud is not only does the genome have no proof or evidence that it came from a virus, they actually put in a segment which was guaranteed to be caught and therefore guaranteed to promote the lab leak story as the alternative to the natural story.
So then the question is, How are you going to sell this to the world?
And that's where the leadership of the Maha community came in.
So this fraud of a lab-created virus was sold to the world by Kennedy and Bigtree and Mercola and Martin and Mickey Willis and Steve Kirsch and Hammond and all the rest of them,
Ryan Cole, everybody who jumped on the lab-created virus narrative, which was basically a plant to...
To create an alternative narrative.
Now, you could say, Tom, how do you know that?
And remember I said, nobody had actually demanded, as any reputable scientist would, you have to redo this, or we're going to take this raw data and see if we can get the same genome.
Nobody did that, and it was never published in the scientific literature as far as we know.
So we actually did it, we being Stefan Lenka's team that we and you folks out there helped fundraise for, and we hired a mathematician who ran the genome based on the original published data and said, you cannot get this genome.
So the genome was...
It was manually created to be a fraud, to be guaranteed to be caught by anybody scrutinizing it, which means that this lab leak narrative was embedded in the original COVID story.
And then came the movies and Jeff Sachs and everybody finding it.
And then the intrigue about they said it was like that from the beginning, but they were censored and they were stopped from saying it.
And now even the government has said, yeah, it's probably in the CIA or whoever has said, yeah, it was probably created in a lab.
There was nothing created in the lab.
The only thing that was created was this narrative.
Now, what was the consequence of that?
Well, first of all, it kept the whole pandemic story going.
So it fed into the narrative that there was a pandemic.
Caused by a virus, now this time not a natural virus, but one created by some really evil people, and we caught them creating it.
And so in some ways, that's even a scarier narrative than just happens to be some virus that somehow is affecting us.
So this lab-created, weaponized biology, which doesn't exist, right?
There is no lab-created virus.
That genome, you can't even get it from the original data.
That's the point.
But this became the alternative narrative.
So you had two possible narratives to be scared about.
One, the normal virus.
Or two, the lab-created virus.
And then you get all this attention on...
You know, stopping the bad guys from making bad viruses, these lab-created viruses, because then Ebola viruses may be a lab-created, and maybe the flu virus is lab-created, and a whole industry around imaginary lab-created viruses, which can't possibly exist, all because the people who promoted this story...
Didn't do their scientific due diligence like we did and actually taking the raw data and seeing if you could even get that genome.
That would be the obvious and first step that anybody would do.
And obviously, from our perspective, it keeps the virus story going.
And that, I think, is the main thing.
Which I want to emphasize, because if you really realize that the only way to get rid of the whole vaccine narrative and industry is to simply present the factual,
easy-to-understand evidence that these diseases as specific separate entities don't exist, That's number one.
And the viruses that are said to cause them have never been shown to exist either.
Then there is obviously no reason for vaccines.
Now, if you take another way, which is why I showed the clip from Mike.
And you say, okay, what we want, which is what we're hearing, is we are pro-vaccine and we want safer vaccine based on real scientific studies.
So first of all, I question the ability of the leadership to monitor or organize or create real scientific studies.
Because they certainly didn't do that with COVID. Not at all.
They failed to do, even with the lab-created virus, which were whole books written about this, even then, never bothered to do the real science to say whether this was a real entity in spite of many, many opportunities to go down that road.
They never took it.
That's the next thing.
So you will end up then with what the initiative seems to be about is not questioning these diseases, whether there's actually bird flu or monkeypox or smallpox or polio or COVID or measles or mumps, which is a whole interesting question itself.
And you certainly don't question whether anybody has ever shown that a virus is a possible cause of any of these.
So you're going to be left with, there are these horrible diseases caused by viruses, and people are going to want to do something about it.
Now, here's, I think, really the linchpin of what I wanted to say in this.
To me, the reason for what's happening now to happen is the powers that be, and I'm not saying, by the way, that any of this was...
Conscious or anybody got together in a room and said, how are we going to fool the people or anything like that?
I don't know if that's the case, and I don't even know whether it's better that they did it, anybody did this deliberately, like foisted this lab leak, or they did it because they don't understand science.
Either of those are a real problem as far as I'm concerned.
But what's happened in the last, say, 5 to 10 years, and this is where I'm now speculating, is this whole thing that Mike talked about with the cell cultures and this horse serum and the monkey blood and all the rest of the fetal bovine serum is a very crude,
inefficient, expensive, labor-intensive way of making these injections.
And I think it's also true that people are catching on to the fraud and the lack of science behind this.
And they're starting to ask the question, do I really want to inject myself with aluminum and dead monkey kidney cells and aborted fetal Tissue and fetal bovine serum sucked out of the heart of a newborn calf.
Is that really what I want to inject in my child?
So, what I think is happening on the one hand, the first thing, is they want to get rid of the old vaccine model.
They want to do away with these so-called live viral cultures or attenuated viral cultures.
As I said, they're crude, laborious, expensive to make, time-consuming, and it takes years to even make one.
You have to put them in the culture and grow it and purify some of the things out of it.
It's just kind of a mess, and I think people are on to it.
They don't want to be injected with monkey kidney cells.
This, along with that phenomena, which is they want to get rid of the old vaccines, whoever they is, but let's just say the powers that be.
And the way to do that is change the whole conception of what a virus is.
And then that brings me to the next thing which I want to share, which is a paper.
Which I may have shared before.
It's called Redefining the Invertebrate RNA Virosphere.
And I think actually Andy first showed me this paper three or four years ago.
It's from Nature, so it's a huge publication.
2017 or 2016. And let me just read the abstract.
I'm not going to go through the whole paper, but I'll explain it so you get the point.
Current knowledge of RNA virus biodiversity is both biased and fragmentary, reflecting a focus on culturable or disease-causing agents.
In other words, so they're saying, what is an RNA virus or which RNA viruses do we know?
Well, we only know the ones that cause disease or we can culture.
We can put into one of our monkey kidney cells and get, you know, so-called grow it.
Which we know is a fraud.
But that's what they say.
Here we profile the transcript...
Transcript tomes of over 220 invertebrate species sampled across nine animal phyla and report the discovery of 1,445 RNA viruses, including some that are sufficiently divergent to comprise new families.
The identified viruses fill major gaps in the RNA virus phylogeny and reveal an evolutionary history that is characterized by By both host switching and codivergence, the invertebrate virome also reveals remarkable genomic flexibility that includes frequent recombinations, lateral gene transfer among virus and hosts, gene gain and loss, and complex genomic rearrangements.
Together, these data present a view of the RNA virosphere that is more phylogenetically and genomically diverse than is that depicted in current classification schemes and provide a more solid foundation for studies in virus ecology and evolution.
So what does that nonsense mess mean?
I think here also think about the so-called virome that people like Zach Bush talk about.
We got 10 to the 48th different viruses.
Or viral particles in our bodies, on our eyelids, in our lungs, on our skin.
Everywhere you look, there's these RNA viruses.
Every disease is associated with RNA virus.
They're switching genes with us all the time.
So, bottom line, how did they find these RNA viruses?
And so you could say, did they find these 10 to the 48th or the 1,445 different families of viruses by looking through people's biological fluid and identifying 1,400 different families of viruses by looking through people's biological fluid and identifying 1,400 different
And then isolating them and showing that they were distinct species or families of viruses?
No, that is not what they did.
All they did was take some biological fluid, could be in this case from insects, various insects, grind it up, and then determine how many different sequences of RNA, which is...
Continually coming and going into existence, if it even exists at all.
And there's an infinite number of these RNA sequences.
And with every different situation of the host, you'll get different RNA sequences.
And there are basically an infinite number of these RNA sequences.
So as the title of the paper suggested, they have redefined what a virus is from a particle that you can isolate and has characteristics that you can then attempt to show that they have redefined what a virus is from a particle that you can isolate and has characteristics that you can then attempt to show that it has biological effects and is an intracellular parasite
and all the rest of the stuff that they tell us that viruses are, all that goes out the window and Now, what does this have to do with the future of vaccines?
What this means is that with any illness, whether it's a hangnail or cancer or Alzheimer's, so-called, or rheumatoid arthritis or so-called measles or so-called chicken pox or whooping cough or any condition you will be able to find a cohort of RNA that you will then be able to say
this RNA is associated with this More often than some other condition, just because there's probably different breakdown of your genetic material or different breakdown of certain proteins or segments of RNA to a certain extent,
not a large extent, depending on what it is that you're actually being poisoned by or suffering from.
So you will be able to find correlations.
More people with ovarian cancer have this kind of RNA. Therefore, this RNA represents a specific sequence, a specific species of virus.
And then, obviously, you're going to be able to treat this by giving somebody an RNA vaccine to treat this RNA virus, stimulate your antibodies, allegedly, against this virus, because it's obviously the virus, the RNA virus that is causing the disease, every disease.
Every situation of a human being and then they will gradually personalize it.
So this is your particular RNA cohort and then they will be able to develop a vaccine in two days with almost no expense.
We're not talking about monkey kidney cells anymore and trypsin and aluminum and fetal bovine serum and horse serum and snot from a...
Three-toed frog or any of that stuff anymore.
All that biological stuff is gone.
It's anyways messy and expensive and those idiots like Cowan and they're on to us anyways and the mothers, they don't want to be injected with horse serum anymore.
They're children.
And so now we have exactly what we hear.
We are pro-vaccine.
We want safe vaccines.
What could be safer than simply RNA with a few other little nanotech things, a little electrical things or whatever, a little few keyboards in there, you know, just to make it or you got to put the RNA in a lipid thing so you get a little peg and you got to make some other things in there.
But those are Pretty simple, easy-to-make, inexpensive compounds, which then we can treat all the poor and starving people of the world at very little expense, very personalized, and treat them for not 73 different shots like now, but your whole life for all your different conditions.
And that is exactly why there's a $500 billion investment into mRNA technology happening along this same time.
And so my hypothesis is the complaining and scrutinizing of the vaccines is to shed negative light on the old way that we make vaccines.
And the people who are doing it are adamantly pro-vaccine, according to what they say.
Therefore, and because they have never and will not entertain any questions about the need for these vaccines in the first place.
Are they really treating specific entities?
And are these entities caused by a virus?
That has never come up.
That will not be looked at.
And so you will be left with, well, the old vaccines are not any good.
Obviously, nobody wants to inject horse serum anymore.
But we still got this problem of measles.
And don't you know that if measles is horrible, you know, one out of 100 children is going to die.
You don't want little Johnny to die.
Therefore, we need a new vaccine.
And by the way, we've spent $500 billion.
And by the way, we've invested it in ourselves to create new safe vaccines.
So everybody's good.
And that's where the new vaccine...
Now, I could be wrong.
I've been wrong lots of times before, and there's paper evidence to prove it.
And this could be not this at all, and they're just really going to do proper science and look at the whole paradigm and all this.
But I've...
I've said this for years and have written it and said it even to Kennedy himself.
If you go in front of these people like the Senate and you can't argue...
The case against polio being a specific illness and against there being a virus and you let those things stand and the people say, well, you don't want to go back to the old days of every 10th child getting polio.
You don't stand a chance.
And that's exactly what happened.
This is the only argument that will work to get rid of vaccines once and for all, not new, safe vaccines for everybody.
And so that's where I think the vaccine agenda is going.
Again, I could be wrong.
That's a hypothesis on my part.
And I just want to finish by saying...
It's not that I don't think that there may be some good that will come out of this.
They may get rid of glyphosate.
They may get rid of fluoride in the water.
They may get rid of chemtrails.
They're talking about that.
They may fire a lot of people who should be fired and get rid of a lot of wasteful money.
And there's a whole lot of things that might happen which are good things.
The thing that I would be cautious about, because this is the history, is that these will all inevitably increase the power of regulation and the government.
So the government will then get to say, I mean, the government is the ones putting fluoride in the water and chemtrails.
And a whole lot of other things.
And actually, corporations are government entities.
So all of this is actually done under the sponsorship of government.
And I think that the real movement, the real exciting movement, is for people realizing that they don't have to be victims anymore.
That the power is in our hands and it's mostly in our minds as to what we will believe.
And if we stop believing in the mythical germ theory of disease and the imaginary viruses...
Then we don't need safer vaccines.
We don't need to support the childhood vaccine schedule.
We don't need to ever take a vaccine ever again.
And we can work together to end some of the egregious Environmental things that are happening by simply not supporting anybody who would put a so-called GMO product in their food.
That's the kind of things that are in our hands, and that's the kind of thing that I think we should be excited about and work together on and share information about what's actually happening.
And my worry is that we're going to be led astray by an agenda that's meant to not get rid of vaccines in particular, but to change how they're made, and I think that will be worse.
So, those are my thoughts, and as always, I welcome people's comments, and thanks for listening.
▲
Export Selection