Alex Berenson and Joe Rogan challenge COVID vaccine narratives, citing UK data where 70% of deaths in vaccinated populations occur post-vaccination, with efficacy dropping to 41% against infection after five months. Berenson highlights Israel’s 80% vaccinated death rate, rapid antibody decline (40% monthly), and booster mandates pushed despite FDA advisory panel opposition (16-2) and minuscule trials (Pfizer’s 36-person test). Rogan questions mandates as ideological control, comparing them to marijuana risks—where some users suffer irreversible psychosis—while Berenson links vaccine censorship to government pressure, including White House calls. Both argue vaccines fail to prevent transmission long-term, contradicting claims by Fauci, Walensky, and Biden, with 60% of U.S. hospitalizations involving vaccinated individuals. Censorship, they warn, fuels extremism, as mainstream publishers reject dissenting works like Berenson’s Pandemia while platforms like Twitter ban truthful reporting under shifting "misinformation" rules. [Automatically generated summary]
Well, during this incredibly confusing time where people are more hysterical and more freaked out and anxiety-filled than I've ever seen people in all of my 54 years of life, this is the peak.
This is post-9-11 peak.
9-11 was a big anxiety moment for people, but at least it brought us all together.
This, because of whatever it is, whether it's social media algorithms, whether it's just the inevitable decline of an empire, whatever the fuck it is, we have hit a weird place right now.
It's almost like an inconvenient truth that most likely this virus emerged from a lab.
I mean, Sagar and Jetty from Breaking Points broke down exactly when it went down, who were the initial people that got infected, how it most likely spread.
It's been documented by Josh Dubin extensively, the involvement of Fauci, the NIH, the Eco Health Alliance, all of the input, all of the deceptive public statements contrasted to the internal emails that showed a real concern that they might be responsible for it,
a real concern that gain of function research might have been the cause of this, and no anger at that, but anger at people who are unvaccinated.
Even people who are unvaccinated and healthy, even people who have taken care of their body for their entire life, exercised, ate right, take vitamins, people who are fit and who don't want to take a chance with anything else.
Well, it's also one of the very best examples that I think I've ever come across of egregious censorship that is ideologically based and not based on anyone doing anything that is whether it's what I don't know what their code of conduct is, whether it's about someone being malicious or it's about someone being untruthful or misrepresentation of the facts.
Well, you were very, yeah, you're very, I would say, very objective about your interpretation of the data and what you think is going on versus what is being purported.
And I should say, first of all, right away, you were correct about a lot of the data, particularly coming out of Israel.
You sounded the warning shots long before anyone else that not only do the vaccines have a certain, there's like a window of efficacy, whether it's three months or five months, whatever it is.
Now it's basically they'll prevent you from dying, which also probably, I mean, there's evidence, there's some evidence of benefit of really serious illness or death.
But I'm not even convinced when we look back over, let's say, another 12 months out that that's going to be the case.
And the argument that people, the anti-ivermectin argument people make is in doses that would be another, if you dose it for humans at the levels that it blocks that replication in vitro, you'd kill humans.
But the point is that I'm trying to make is that at the levels that it's given in humans, which I think is less than a milligram per kilogram of body weight, it doesn't have six, right?
That it hasn't been shown at those levels in vitro to work.
I don't claim to be an expert on ivermectin, by the way.
What I'm saying is that we have to stand against junk science, whether it's junk science about vaccines, whether it's junk science about HCQ, you have to test this stuff in clinical trials.
It's one of the great, actually one of the great pharmaceutical stories of the last 40 years because Merck, which is, you can't trust any of these companies, but Merck is the best of them, even though we can talk about Merck and Viox separately.
Merck found ivermectin and the CEO at the time, this was like 30 years ago, who was a physician, said, basically, we can't make any money off this in the U.S. There's no market for river blindness in the U.S. I'm going to give this away.
And there is a statue in Merck's lobby in the lobby in New Jersey of somebody who is not blind because they got ivermectin.
It is a really good drug.
And this idea that it's horse paste or it's only given to animals is a lie.
And it was a confusing lie, but I love the fact that it was coming my way.
I really did.
I enjoyed it.
Because out of all the people that it could come towards where it would be, I would say, why are they doing that to him?
And this is not true.
And have it be frustrating.
To see it come at me was fascinating.
Because first of all, I was already healthy.
By the time they were talking shit, I was already out of the woods.
And I was negative the day afterwards.
Like, I was good in three days.
I was negative in five days.
And the fact that they concentrated on this lie that I was taking veterinary medicine instead of, I mean, it literally has a fucking box that says for human consumption.
But the fact they were lying about it and not just lying about, but using the same lie on MSNBC, on all these different Hollywood Reporter, on, you know, it was like, it was obvious that this press release had been sanctioned or that this narrative had been promoted.
But that the fact that they didn't concentrate at all on the fact like, oh, here's this guy who just got better really quick.
So, so there, you know, there are pollsters out there who are looking at focus groups and they're looking at the, remember, it's your turn.
Remember, get the vaccine when it's your turn.
That was focus group tested.
Okay.
So when they're talking about horse dewormer, there's somebody out there who's spending a couple million bucks a month or whatever it is to make sure that, you know, oh, this is not for humans, it's for animals.
They are testing all that language.
And that is one reason why, you know, it sounds so similar.
It's one of the reasons why I stopped using Google to search things, too.
They're doing something to curate information where, like, if I wanted to find specific cases about people who died from vaccine-related injuries, I had to go to DuckDuckGo.
I'm looking for very specific people and very specific cases.
And I'm getting CDC websites and I'm getting, you know, articles on the disinformation attached to vaccines and vaccines being safe and effective, which for the most part, they are just like peanuts are safe and effective for the most part.
We were talking about at lunch today, where when we were children, if someone got chickenpox, you would go over their house so you could get chickenpox.
It was considered a vaccine, even though it's not very effective.
It's, you know, it's funny.
What's happened is if you think about what vaccines were, you know, like the measles vaccine or the smallpox vaccine, they were effectively 100% effective for your whole life.
Now, of course, some people many years later might have a breakthrough infection, but it was called a breakthrough because it was so rare.
And so, you know, you get the MMR vaccine as a little kid and you never get measles.
Somehow, I don't understand this like weird mind meld that Pfizer and Moderna and Bientech have performed on the government and on the media, where they have convinced people that these things, which by no classical definition are vaccines, they don't work like vaccines.
They don't have the duration of protection of vaccines.
And you can still get very sick and die post-vaccination.
And these mRNA vaccines, which, by the way, the technology is amazing and fascinating, and it seems to have like profound possibilities in terms of like the ability to fight cancer.
Like they have a lot of like really interesting research on the horizon.
So this is not demonizing the concept of mRNA vaccines.
But what they essentially do is they tell your body to produce a certain spike protein.
And this develops this ability to fight off the COVID variants.
Because they know what the shape is because they have the complete genetic code and they know what antibody, I'm sorry, what amino acids it produces, and they know what those look like.
So, I mean, biology is magic these days.
I mean, it's truly magic.
Because they're at such small levels of that they can predict how this thing's going to fold on itself, okay?
And they can actually predict what the mutations will cause the structural conformation of this thing, which is, you know, so small you can't imagine how small it is.
They can imagine how it's going to look.
And when I say imagine, it's really predict, okay?
And then they can predict how it's going to attach to your cells.
So long story short on that, they know what the spike protein looks like, and they know how to make your body make it.
So when you get the vaccine, as you say, you're not getting a whole inactivated coronavirus.
So you have the receptors that this virus attacks all over your body in both your lungs.
There's a ton in your lungs, but there's also a ton in the smooth muscle cells of your vasculature.
So it does have vascular complications, this virus.
So you get this vaccine.
It's a little bundle of RNA in the case of the Pfizer and the Moderna vaccines, which is stuck inside what's called a lipid nanoparticle.
Again, incredible technology.
That bundle of RNA gets into your cells, actually just like the virus would, and it tells your cells, make the spike protein.
So you then have a ton of spike protein in these cells.
Now, one of the promises about the vaccine that has turned out not to be true is you're only going to have those spike proteins basically near the injection site.
And turns out, unfortunately, some of them, some vaccine appears to leak and travel.
It turns out that messing with nature, there's always a price.
So you get this really high spike of, maybe I should use a different word, surge of antibodies that's much higher than the natural level that you'd get, but it declines really fast.
So Israel, there's a really good paper that came out of Israel, I think about two months ago on this, where natural immunity, natural antibodies fall about 5% or 10% a month.
This is the antibody count that your body is generating against these spike proteins.
And then there's another technical issue, which is that for some reason that I think they don't even really have even a good theory about, the vaccine-generated antibodies are much more narrowly focused on one part of the spike protein than natural antibodies.
Plus, if you, somebody like you, you got sick, you recovered, you have antibodies to other parts of SARS-CoV-2.
There's something called the nucleocapsid.
You have antibodies to that.
Plus, again, for reasons that we don't fully understand, it looks like your B cells, which are part of your immune system, which help, which in the long run will generate antibodies again if you face this again, if you're reinfected, if you're re-exposed.
Those memory cells work better post-natural immunity, natural infection and recovery than vaccine-generated infections.
But I would think that a strategy, if one wanted to be fairly safe, would be get vaccinated, wait a month or two, and then go to a music festival and make out with everybody.
Like try to catch COVID, right?
Like if you have some protection, then get the natural infection on top of it.
So here's the many, many, there are many, many problems around vaccine immunity.
Because your immunity is so tailored to the spike protein, and not just the spike protein, to one part of it, to the receptor binding domain, it's called of the spike protein.
If the virus mutates just a little bit in that part, those vaccine antibodies you have don't work very well anymore.
And you don't have the backup stuff that you get, you know, you personally and everybody else who's been infected and recovered gets.
I actually made a note about it because I knew it was going to come up on the podcast today because I found this discussion of it to be pretty interesting.
But this one guy had this take on it where he said that natural immunity is demonstrably more, demonstrably more generalized and robust of variant mutations, that the vaccines are designed to be specifically targeted, and that's what allowed them to get created so quickly.
I mean, the virus doesn't think, okay, but it wants to survive.
If, you know, different human beings are going to have somewhat different responses to natural infection.
The vaccine response is always the same, okay?
Because the vaccine is always the same.
So the vaccine response is we're going to generate a ton of antibodies for this one particular part of the spike protein.
Well, the virus, quote unquote, knows that if it can just mutate that bit of itself, it will escape vaccination.
It will escape vaccine immunity, I should say.
And that's what the virus appears to be doing.
And there's a paper out of Japan from August where these researchers demonstrate, and these are all first-rate, okay, these are first-rate academic institutions that are doing this.
They demonstrated that four relatively small vaccine, four relatively small mutations on SARS-CoV-2 could lead to escape from vaccine-generated immunity.
The worst case scenario is that the virus mutates in a way that the vaccine actually, it's called, this is why it's called antibody-dependent enhancement.
The antibodies continue to be able to attach to part of the virus, but the virus has mutated in a way that after attaching, they actually help it bind to cells.
Now, someone sent me something today from a very fishy-looking GeoCities type website that was claiming that there was some Department of Defense artificial intelligence.
Yes, there's a temporary, looks like there's a temporary suppression of your immune system.
We've seen this all over the world.
There is a spike in COVID cases following that first dose.
Here's how it works, okay?
You get this spike after the first dose, which we're not allowed to talk about, and which was specifically excluded from that 95% figure that the companies came up with.
They counted cases at what point, I mean, they counted them, but they didn't report them as part of the vaccine efficacy.
So here's the theory.
If a vaccine lasts 10 years, okay, yes, maybe there's a little spike in cases after that first dose, but who cares?
You get 10 years of protection at 95%.
A few cases at the beginning does not matter.
So the companies, when they counted cases, they said, we're going to count cases in people who are fully vaccinated.
That's 90, that's in the case of Pfizer, I believe it was one week after the second dose.
In the case of Moderna, two weeks after the second dose.
So all the cases in the first five weeks, whether you were vaccinated or not, were not included in the description in the calculation of vaccine protectiveness.
Well, I'm not saying they didn't, it's not that they didn't count them at all.
They just didn't, you can find it in the trial data.
They just didn't report it when they said, when they said 95% efficacy, 95% protectiveness, they weren't counting a whole lot of cases in people who'd just been vaccinated.
They just, and they told the world that, I mean, it's just that nobody bothered to think about what that meant.
Okay.
And the reason it means so much is because vaccine protection doesn't last 10 years.
It doesn't even last 10 months.
Okay.
So if you're thinking about a traditional drug like an antidepressant or a cholesterol drug, a drug that, you know, people might take for a few months.
So you get depressed, your doctor prescribes you an antidepressant, you take it for a few months.
Okay.
If I, the company that made the antidepressant, said to the FDA, well, sure, there were a couple suicides and a couple cases of really severe depression after the first week, but we can't count those.
We got to wait for this thing to kick in.
The FDA would say, are you crazy?
Like, you count from the day the first person gets the first dose of your drug.
Okay.
And we'll, and if we want to see if this thing works, we got to count every case for six months.
Okay.
That's totally reasonable, right?
Because it doesn't not count if you killed yourself three days after taking your, starting your antidepressants.
But the word vaccine has this magic for people.
So the companies said, we don't want to count any of those early cases.
And the FDA said, okay.
And all my competitors, I suppose, at the New York Times and everywhere else, either didn't understand that this was happening or didn't understand what it meant.
And they all bought that 95% figure.
So, okay.
So you get negative efficacy, it looks like, early on, zero to negative efficacy.
Then you get a few weeks of 50% efficacy.
Then you get to what I call the happy vaccine valley, okay?
Which is where part of Europe is right now, which is where Israel was back in March and April and May, where everybody's walking around with tons of antibodies.
Yes, they're declining, but they had so many that they have tons of antibodies and it looks really good.
Okay.
Israel has 10 million people.
There were days in June, in late May and June, when they had 10 COVID cases, 15 COVID cases, and they had basically nobody in the hospital.
And that's when everyone was like, these things are a miracle.
We're going to end COVID.
And I can find you.
Tony Fauci is basically saying, I believe we can eliminate COVID.
He said that in May.
It was peak overconfidence.
And then what happens is the antibodies just go away.
And or the virus mutates away from the antibodies.
And guess what?
You don't have zero COVID anymore.
You, in fact, in Israel in late August, before they, you know, they got desperate with the boosters, they were having more cases than they had had back in January when they just started vaccinating.
What's weird to me, and I guess this is just human nature, is how people have become so tribal about it and how the vaccinated people are doubling down.
There's some of them that identify with being vaccinated to the point where it's almost like a religious distinction or, you know, a political distinction.
And some of it's actually subtle and some of it's not subtle.
One of the subtle things that I think has happened is that this is the first time in history, at least that I can think of, that the sort of most educated, wealthiest people have put their hands up and said, I want to be the guinea pig.
So like those people were desperate to get vaccinated, most of them.
And, you know, people like me, you know, look, I went to Yale.
I worked for the New York Times.
They hate me because they consider me a traitor to the class.
Right.
And so, and so I think, unfortunately, I think some of what's happening, and you can see it sometimes explicitly, is there's a lot of talking down to people who haven't been vaccinated.
You're just dumb.
You're just a mouth breather.
You just, you know, you just want the horse paced.
And now that those people who got themselves vaccinated, who desperately rushed out, in some cases lied about their eligibility back in January and February, are realizing that, you know, the stupid people maybe made the right choice.
I don't think they think they made the right choice.
I think here's one of the things that I think is going on.
I think some people were a little nervous to get vaccinated, but they did it.
They bit the bullet, and then they want other people to do it too.
They want you to do it because they did it.
And they think they did it like Bill Maher said.
He did it for the right reasons.
He took one for the team.
They think they did it for the right reasons because it was what you're supposed to do and they should be rewarded.
And this is one of the things that sort of ramps up this acceptance of vaccine mandates and vaccine passports, which really disturbs me.
It becomes, I did it.
You should do it.
We should make those people do it.
We should force those people to do it, regardless of whether or not there is an effective treatment outside of the vaccine, regardless of whether or not it makes sense because these people have had a previous infection to COVID and that infection imparted superior protection.
Tucker has a lot of left-wing people on, and he doesn't disparage them or criticize them or mock them.
You know, he had Brett Weinstein on, who's very progressive.
He has Tulsi Gabbard on.
He has people on.
I mean, I think he's unfairly labeled because people want to marginalize him and dismiss him immediately and call him a white separatist or a white supremacist or whatever word that makes you a part of a list of people that you can never associate with.
They like to initially do that about him.
But I think his discussions that he has on his show are some of the most nuanced in that he is willing to have conversations with anybody from all these different people that have been in issues with college censorship where so-called progressive college students have censored professors from discussing certain topics.
He'll talk about all kinds of things.
And I think that that's very important in this time that you have people like him.
As much as he gets criticized and as much as I get criticized, there's a very important thing that is happening when people are discussing uncomfortable issues.
And it's, we have to figure out what's right and what's wrong.
And you don't get that by just buying into the official narrative.
I mean, that's, you guys are both suspicious of the official narrative.
And it's funny, you know, Tucker Carlson is, you know, like, could there be a sort of like whiter guy than Tucker?
But at heart, he's a populist.
I truly believe that.
And, you know, I don't necessarily agree with him about everything, you know, but at heart, he's a populist.
And at heart, you're a populist.
And, you know, I think I've become, maybe, I don't know if populist is the right word or the wrong word, but I am so struck by the left's willingness to buy in to the narrative that, especially that the pharma industry is selling right now.
And I don't understand it.
And I think, you know, like you, like, you don't buy into that off the, and that's a good thing.
Well, you know, you brought up Vioxx earlier and with Merck.
And one of the reasons why I became initially suspicious of, I mean, a lot of, there's a lot of reasons to become suspicious of the motives behind pharmaceutical companies because this is an enormous profit incentive.
They make tremendous amounts of money from these things.
And if they can fudge the numbers or move things around, I mean, Pfizer paid out, I think it was the biggest ever settlement by any company.
Bextra is the Bextra was their coccib drug, which so both Pfizer and Merck, actually, even though I generally think Merck is one of the better of these companies, they made drugs that essentially were aspirin, except that they had a little side effect, which is they caused heart attacks in people.
So you take these drugs for too long, it tears up your stomach, tears up the lining of your stomach.
So Viox was supposed to, and Bextra, silicoxib and rofocoxib, these two drugs, were supposed to spare the lining of your stomach, which they do.
There's just one little problem, which is this is it's like in the United States, and this is about all drugs, we have this idea, like you take the pill and the problem goes away.
People say they can cause muscle aches and other stuff.
But for the most part, and those drugs have been tested in tens of thousands of people, and they actually appear to reduce deaths from heart attacks and strokes.
If you do the tests right, you get real answers.
Okay.
Viox, unfortunately, caused people to have heart attacks.
I covered, there was the very first Viox trial was in Texas.
This was in 2005.
And I was down here for the New York Times covering that trial.
Okay, and I paid really close attention.
They knew what was going on.
Now, they came up with this cockamaming story that Viox didn't actually cause heart attacks, that naproxen, which is a leave, actually protected people from heart attacks, and they convinced the FDA that that was the truth.
And the FDA allowed them to sell Viox.
And then Merck in 2001 spent $160 million advertising Viox to consumers.
More money than Budweiser spent advertising Budweiser that year for a product that you can't go into a store and buy for a product that you need a doctor's prescription to get.
Okay?
Wow.
And they got tens of millions of people to take that drug and they killed, by the FDA's estimate, 55,000 people.
And Merck is supposedly the best of these guys.
And not one person ever went to jail for that.
And Merck paid out a few billion dollars to plaintiffs, lawyers, and to the families of people who've been hurt.
And that was the end of it.
And everyone's forgotten all about it.
And I'm not even talking about the opioid crisis and Purdue Pharma.
And you know one of the companies that makes that has gotten in trouble for opioids?
Johnson ⁇ Johnson, maker of the third major vaccine in the United States, the third major COVID vaccine.
So do not tell me that these companies are our friends.
They are in it for the money.
If they can produce a product that helps people, they will do it.
But if that product turns out to have side effects or problems, you cannot expect them to tell the truth because they don't.
And I am totally okay saying that about specific companies because I covered these cases.
What you said, everyone, college professors, CEOs, garbage men, everyone would agree with you across the board.
Now, all of a sudden, because it's an inconvenient truth in the fact that we need these pharmaceutical companies to deliver these vaccines, which people have decided, like, did you see that lady in New York, your new governor?
Do you see that fucking lady?
Who's saying that the vaccines are from God and she needs us to all be apostles?
And what we went through this pandemic made us stronger.
I believe that, especially when I talk to young people who weren't able to have their graduations from high school or a normal life for the last 18 months, I say to them, whatever comes your way in life, you are stronger.
You are more resilient.
God let you survive this pandemic because he wants you to do great things someday.
He lets you live through this when so many other people did not.
Let me let me I don't want to I don't want to have to subject the audience to this let me find it so while you're I guess I've was digging through that and I found this interpretation of data just this said that there's a lot of people in that age range that would be vaccinated yes I found there's a lot of people in the one chart that said there was like 200,000 People that got it that were unvaccinated under the age of like 25.
Rates of illness among people who have and have not been vaccinated.
Over on the right.
So what you can see is that in people over 50.
Rates of illness are higher in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated.
900 to 600 in people 50 to 60.
600 to 400 in people 60 to 70.
500 roughly to 360.
In each of those cases, the number in the second to last graph, the second to last column is higher.
So what that's telling you is that people who are vaccinated with two doses are more likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 than people who are not vaccinated.
And there's a good scientific reason for that, which is basically there's something called immunosenescence, which basically means that your immune system, as you get older, has a harder time dealing with disease, right?
I mean, that's sort of like intuitively obvious.
It also has a harder time mounting the response that the vaccines are supposed to help with.
So, okay.
So that's one chart.
And again, this is UK government data.
And what it says is that the idea that this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated is a total lie.
You are more likely to become sick if you are vaccinated than if you are not.
So what they're showing you there is that even though the vast majority of people who died were vaccinated, the vaccine still appears to have some protective effect because rates among because, so here, think of it this way, Joe.
80% of the people who died over 80 were vaccinated, but 95% of people in that age range were vaccinated.
So that implies that the vaccine still offers you some protection.
Because if it offered you zero protection, then it would be 95% of the people who died over age 80 were vaccinated.
Suppose we have a room 100 people, or 1,000 people.
950 of those people are vaccinated and 50 are not.
If 100 people died out of the 950, but 20 people died out of the 50, that would still imply that the vaccine was doing some good.
Got it.
Even though it's, and that's actually a pretty good analogy to what you're seeing there, because you're getting 100 out of 950 compared to 20 out of 50.
Yeah, because I just, I know there's a lot of people that are just untrusting of the government or they're really into, you know, air quotes, holistic medicine.
But we're not talking about 50 or 40 or 30 year olds.
We're talking about people in this group of people who are at high risk and who basically, I mean, I don't want to say, you know, hopefully we'll all be 90 one day, but I'm not sure how much like agency those folks have when somebody shows up at the old age home and says, we're going to vaccinate everybody.
Now, maybe, so I know what you're saying.
Do you see what I'm saying?
So, so what I'm saying, though, is that tiny group of people who are not vaccinated in that age range, I suspect, and you're right, it's speculation, are materially sicker than the people who are vaccinated.
Oh, here's the evidence.
Let me give you this evidence for this.
The evidence is in the flu vaccine, okay?
When you look at flu vaccines, you say, and there's been a lot of work done on this.
I'm talking about in older people.
People who get the flu vaccine are less likely to die than people who don't get the flu vaccine.
Looks really good for the flu vaccine.
Here's the problem.
You go back and look at the six months before people got the flu vaccine.
People who get the flu vaccine are less likely to die in those six months too.
Much less likely.
Why?
Because if you're together enough, if you're 80 years old and together enough to want the flu vaccine, you have a certain baseline level of health.
You are, and you probably care more about your health, okay?
So the flu vaccine on a population level basis appears to do nothing to reduce flu deaths in people over 65, but it also appears to reduce deaths in people over 65.
And the explanation is it's not actually reducing deaths.
It's telling you who's healthier and who's less likely to die.
Imagine making that and thinking this is a good thing to release when you're in a penthouse apartment.
It looks like he's on the 80th floor in the most expensive real estate on planet Earth, overlooking Central Park in this beautiful view that he has, and then making this and thinking you're...
In the countries that have real data that they're releasing on a timely basis, you see, okay?
The vaccine.
And again, in Israel, last month, well, now it's August, they got so terrified they were going to have the worst wave yet of COVID that they gave people boosters.
They asked the entire country to get boosters.
Do you know how much data there was around booster shots when they did that?
There was data, published data, wasn't even published, it was just the company press release data on about three dozen people.
In June, at the beginning of June, there are 15 COVID cases a day in Israel.
They are done with COVID.
At the end of June, there are 300.
In mid-July, there are 3,000.
At the end of July, there are like – it might be the end of July when there are 3,000.
In any case, 200-fold increase in cases a day in positive tests for COVID in between June 1st and August 1st in Israel.
The vaccines just stop working, okay?
They just stop.
Biologically, your body gets rid of these antibodies that it's been forced to generate.
And sort of like sociologically, people start getting sick.
I mean, you know, there's what happens at the cellular level and then there's what happens at the body level, right?
At the like level of counting cases.
So we know.
We know antibodies go away and we know people start getting sick again.
That's a better way to explain it.
Fine.
Okay.
By early July, I'm looking at this and I'm like, you know, this does not look good.
And I don't understand what's going to turn it around.
I don't understand why we think that the biology of these first few people to start getting infected post-vaccine is different than the biology of other people who were vaccinated later.
I think this is going to get worse.
And I start saying this on Twitter.
Vaccines are failing.
Vaccines are failing.
People did not like hearing it.
Okay.
By the end of July, early August, it was clear that Israel and the UK were headed for a crisis.
It was more clear in Israel because the UK, it's a little bit complicated because they used several different vaccines and they dosed them off schedule.
Israel is just like the U.S., right?
they used really only they israel used only the pfizer vaccine where in the u.s we basically used only the pfizer and moderna the mRNA vaccines we used a little J and J but not very much and Israel dosed on the schedule the companies had suggested just as we did okay it is clear by early August that something bad is happening and the Israeli response is we want everyone to get a booster everyone over 80 under 80 sick well it doesn't matter you got the vaccine now you need your booster
OK, it's time for your bonus vaccine, as I was as I like to call it, the bonus vaccine.
It's a free freebie.
Hey, good for Pfizer.
The stocks of the companies of Pfizer and Moderna and biotech hit new highs when this happened.
Why?
Because the perfect product from Wall Street's point of view is a product that fails and needs to be redosed.
Right.
The speculation early or in the year was these are going to last forever.
People aren't going to need many boosters.
That was actually bad for the company stocks.
Good for the company stocks is you need a booster.
It's like the iPhone, except it goes in your body and forces your cells to do something.
OK.
Fauci, Biden, who knows what Biden thinks?
Who knows or who knows what, if anything, Biden is thinking.
But Fauci understands.
He's not dumb.
He knows what's going on.
He knows that what he thought in April and May is wrong.
These are not going to last forever.
You're going to need boosters.
He goes to Biden, and in late, I think it was August 20th.
The dates in the book, I think, but Biden says, time for your boosters.
We're going to give boosters to everybody after eight months.
There's only one problem.
These vaccines were approved on a two-dose schedule.
Okay?
You get two doses.
You're done.
It's not a therapeutic.
It's not a drug that your doctor prescribes to you.
You know what?
I feel depressed.
I'm going to give you an antidepressant for a month and we'll reconsider in a month.
You know, I have high cholesterol.
Try the statin for three months.
We'll take your blood again at the end of three months.
We'll see how it goes.
No, that's not what these are supposed to be.
Supposed to be, you get it, you're done.
And the vaccine fanatics will say, oh, well, you know, the tetanus shot sometimes people get after a 10-year boost.
10 years is very different than eight months.
And that's, you know, there's been so much sort of, I hate to say misinformation, but misinformation about why these vaccines are really so different.
So Biden does this, okay?
He promises the world or the United States, we're all going to get boosters.
And two of the most senior FDA officials who are in charge of vaccine approval resign within two weeks.
Okay?
They resign and they write a letter with other people to the Lancet, which is probably the best medical journal in the world, saying, we don't think boosters are a good idea for the general population.
And somehow the media, you know, there are a few stories about this.
Can you imagine if Donald Trump had said something so out of line about vaccines that two of his most senior FDA officials resigned within a couple weeks, the Democrats would be ready to impeach him.
Merck's and Merck, the data on the Merck drug is actually quite good.
They released it.
And by the way, the stocks of the vaccine companies went down more than 10% the day the Merck reports came out because Wall Street said, oh, there's an actual therapeutic.
So we're not going to be able to jam these boosters into people's arms forever.
So Fauci and Biden say something based on next to no data.
And the FDA, the vaccine, again, the people in the FDA whose job it is to approve vaccines say, we don't, we are so troubled by this.
I mean, they didn't explicitly say why they were resigning, but we know they resigned within weeks and then wrote a letter saying we don't think vaccines should be approved.
Then the FDA holds a committee meeting in mid-September.
It's one of the last things in the book.
I managed to get it in there.
Where they vote 16 to 2 not to approve boosters for the general population.
Because what the FDA was saying was not just high risk of complications from COVID, but high risk of getting COVID.
And this was going to be a backdoor way to let teachers who actually aren't at high risk from getting of getting COVID, but nurses, healthcare workers.
But it just makes sense, though, that if children are getting it and they're sick, even if it's for a day, it seems like it could possibly spread to the parents.
And if the parents are high risk or if the teacher's high risk.
I was watching a video of an obese teacher who was complaining about the fact that she has to go back to school because she's worried about her life and her safety.
You know, it was one of those unhinged rants with a mask on.
What we know based on the Israeli experience, and again, like this is what you need randomized trials.
You can't just look at large populations because you don't know sort of internally who's getting that third dose, who's getting the second dose, how they, but what it looks like from Israel is you do get this short-term bump in antibodies, and in the short run, that leads to people who've gotten the third dose not being in the hospital as much.
Right, but it's a different thing because it's supposed to be a one shot.
So if you get that, you're getting one shot of the J and J, and then eight months later, you get another one shot of the J and J. Is that more effective or less effective than the boosters when you're taking a third shot of Pfizer?
So JNJ did a big clinical trial where they did two doses.
The initial clinical trial they did was one dose, and that got compared to the Pfizer and Moderna two doses, and it looked like J and J was not as effective.
J and J at the same time ran another clinical trial that was two doses of its own medicine, no no Moderna or Pfizer.
Okay.
And that, when you do that, it looks like it's just as effective as the two-dose Pfizer-Moderna.
The problem is the same problem as we have with the mRNA vaccines.
There's a few that are clearly fake that people have thrown in to try to, I think in most cases, actually, I think they've been thrown in by pro-vaccine people to try to embarrass people like me into, you know, if you fool me into reporting it, then you can say, oh, look, Berenson reported that, you know, three eight-year-olds died on the same day from the vaccine is nonsense, right?
So I'm actually pretty careful about using VARIS data.
It is also clear to me that most of those reports are made in good faith and they show what they say they show.
Okay, they have lots of detail.
And that doesn't mean, by the way, it doesn't mean that everybody who has a side effect following a vaccine or who has a negative event following the vaccine, that the vaccine has caused the negative event.
Let me give you a good example, okay?
There's this big question about whether or not the vaccines can cause miscarriages.
Not infertility, okay?
I don't think there's any evidence right now that the vaccines cause infertility.
There is some animal evidence early on that the vaccines can cause miscarriages.
And it was reported in the Moderna and actually the Pfizer European data.
There's something called the European Medicines Agency, the EMA.
And they posted more complete data than our FDA did.
And that showed that there were these rat dams that had more deaths in the rats that were vaccinated, more miscarriages, I should say, in the rats that were vaccinated than those that weren't.
So what they do is they count, they look at the at the like number of, I guess live, I don't know how they would, it was about 15% of rat pregnancies in vaccinated people, vaccinated rats, miscarried and 7% in rats that didn't receive a vaccine.
We could find this, but it's way, way buried in this file.
So you count live rat births.
You impregnate the rats and then you give some of them a vaccine.
You give some of them placebo and then the rats have their little rat babies and you see who's alive and do they give them a ratio of the vaccine that's proportionate.
No, I think it's higher.
I don't know how much higher, but it's significantly higher than humans would receive.
Because this is not meant to prove anything.
It's meant to sort of be an avenue for exploration.
And obviously what you're hoping is that no matter how much you give, the same percentage of rat babies will be born dead in both arms.
In this case, in both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, double the number of rats were born dead in the vaccine arm as in the placebo arm.
And so that's a signal.
It doesn't prove anything.
It's just a little signal.
But here's something else we know.
Pregnancy is a vascular, you know, it's a vascular event, right?
The woman is feeding this fetus.
It requires a lot of cell growth.
It requires a lot of like, you know, there's increases in blood volume.
There's all kinds of stuff that happens to women when they're pregnant, right?
It's a major metabolic event.
Some women get diabetes when they're pregnant.
It can happen.
These vaccines appear to the extent they have side effects, those side effects are centered around the cardiovascular system, right?
Because we know, as you said earlier, the spike protein and SARS-CoV-2 in general have effects on the endothelium, on the lining of your vasculature, the walls, okay?
One wouldn't be shocked to find that in some cases, perhaps a vascular event could lead to problems for fetal growth.
I'm not saying that's happening.
I'm just saying theoretically, there's sort of a biological plausibility there.
Okay.
So there are a bunch of reports in veyors of miscarriages following the vaccine.
In some cases, very shortly following the vaccine.
Here's what else we know.
Miscarriage is very common, especially early on in pregnancy.
Sometimes women miscarry and don't even know they were pregnant.
So when you give something to lots and lots of people and it's a common event, you're going to have lots and lots of cases.
What I'm saying is that when people email me and they do regularly email me and say, do you think the vaccine causes miscarriage?
I say, I don't know because that's the best answer.
And I say sometimes now, because there's been a couple studies out of Israel, actually, and the U.S., where they've looked at sort of large cohorts of pregnant women and they haven't found excess miscarriages.
That doesn't mean, again, because it's not a randomized trial, there could be that the women who got the vaccine tend to take better care of themselves in general and had a lower miscarriage base rate and it got pushed up.
We don't know.
What I'm saying is all this stuff is incredibly complicated.
But when the director of the CDC or when Twitter or whoever says, we know these things are safe, we know there's no infertility risk.
We know there's no miscarriage risk.
They are lying.
It doesn't mean that I'm saying I know there is a risk.
What it means is the correct answer is there's a lot we don't understand about this and it's early days.
And to tell pregnant women who are at very low risk of death from COVID, very low, that they need to take this is wrong.
What bothers me, and it seems to be a real thing, is that there is a real resistance to not just accepting, but even the distribution of possible therapeutics other than the vaccine, a big one being the monoclonal antibodies,
where Biden actually restricted the amount that went to Florida and Texas after it showed that widespread use of monoclonal antibodies on people who were unvaccinated led to superior outcomes.
Yeah, is it just because there's just this mad scramble to get the vaccines out and because the vaccines were thought to be the savior of this pandemic that all of our eggs were in that one basket?
And that's the best explanation, actually, because that's not the one that's like, oh, they want to depopulate everybody or, you know, it's all Pfizer-y.
To get into that position where you're saying, I don't think there's evidence for a booster when there's also evidence that the drug or the vaccine rather stops working.
But then I've also heard that there's people that believe that the variants are being caused by the vaccinated people or the unvaccinated people.
Right.
And then I've had explained to be that, no, it's actually probably what's happening is when you vaccinate people for a very specific spike protein that the variants, the virus selects for the variants.
The vaccine reduces the genomic diversity of the virus and causes it, as you say, to select for mutations that are going to enable it to beat the vaccine.
But the idea also is that these variants actually came from a place where there's low vaccination rates, which is even weirder.
And then it was explained to me that, no, all sorts of things cause viruses to mutate.
Viruses are constantly mutating.
And the vaccines, whether it's vaccinated or unvaccinated, is just one or two factors in this incredible equation of billions of people that are infected by a similar virus.
And we didn't even, you know, we started with that.
That was an hour and a half ago.
I mean, this is one of the problems with the Joe.
Like, I'm going to go in whatever time I'm going to go.
Like, we could talk.
We could talk for 24 hours straight.
We could do like a COVID 24-hour marathon.
There's so much to talk about.
So this, not this month, because now it's October, in September, there were two major document dumps that came out about Wuhan.
Okay.
And it was the second one, actually, was the most important one.
This showed that the EcoHealth Alliance, unless these documents are made up, and I do not believe they're made up, and DAZAC, who's the head of EcoHealth, has not said they're made up, and presumably he would.
He hasn't threatened to sue anybody.
Internal documents from EcoHealth from 2018 showed that they were considering, and not just considering, they made a proposal to DARPA, which is the Pentagon Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency.
They made a proposal to spend $14 million infecting bats in Wuhan with a spike protein that was optimized to attack humans.
The same leak grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research, the proposal rejected by the U.S. military research agency DARPA, which, by the way, they're making robots that can think for themselves and shoot missiles.
So by the way, the Chinese, okay, they got a few bucks themselves these days.
Do you think that when DARPA didn't fund this, maybe like the Chinese government didn't fund it themselves?
We don't know.
One reason we don't know, because I'm going to not curse.
I promised myself, even though this is a curse, you know, this is a curse happy environment, I told myself, I'm going to be the higher mammal today.
I'm not going to curse.
Tony Fauci in February, beginning in February 2020, when this thing had just come out of Wuhan, shockingly, became involved in a campaign to discourage anyone from investigating the lab leak and saying that anyone who did was racist.
Okay.
And who was his best buddy on that campaign?
Peter Dazak.
Okay.
This got so bad that last week, finally, the Lancet, Lancet had a commission to investigate the origins of COVID-19.
Who was part of the commission?
Peter Dazak.
So finally, the guy who was in charge of the commission said, we have to disband this because it looks like there might be an appearance of a conflict of interest.
Oh, really?
You hired OJ to investigate Nicole Brown Simpson's death.
Was that an appearance of a conflict of interest, too?
They're insane.
Like, this is, it's all been happening in plain sight.
And that's why when Rand Paul confronts Fauci about it and then most recently confronted that lawyer who was responsible for calling people who believe in natural immunity inferred by previous infection, he equated those people to flat earthers.
And then Fauci, you know, or Rand Paul rather, is questioning him and talking to him about this.
You got to go back to his public statements the last 30 years.
He's such a megalomaniac.
He's such a megalomaniac.
And it sneaks out from, he's kind of like this, you know, he's such a, he's, you know, he's like, he's like, he wants to sort of be to have this like air of science about him.
And yeah, I mean, obviously he's a smart guy.
He understands science, but, you know, wearing the lab coat, he used to do that a lot more.
There are miracle immune systems who clear it, but it kills almost everybody.
I mean, so Fauci in the 80s, you know, there's this, it's a plague, right?
And it's hurting, who's it hurting the most?
It's hurting gay people and it's hurting intravenous drug users, marginalized people.
So Fauci basically starts lying about that and says, you know, he wasn't the only one, but there was this idea, like if in the public health, if we tell the truth, then no one's going to want to fund research.
You know, Americans are so evil, they won't do anything to help these people.
You know, I don't think that was true, actually, even then.
It's certainly not true now.
But so Fauci, you know, pretends that like this is a disease that anybody can get.
You know, you walk into a disco, you walk out with the wrong guy, you're going to get HIV.
Fauci realizes that the activists can be on his side if he's nice to them, and that's a good thing.
Why is it a good thing?
Well, it's a good thing for a couple of reasons.
It means his scientists aren't going to have to worry about getting blood thrown at them.
It means that That he's got a large pool of people with HIV who are willing to participate in clinical trials.
But why is it good for Anthony Fauci?
It's good for Anthony Fauci because all these really organized people are going to tell Congress to give him more money.
And over the next few years, Fauci's budget for research goes from like $300 million to $5 billion.
By the early aughts, the U.S. was spending more money on HIV research than almost anything else, or more money, I should say, on his unit of the NIH than I believe any other unit except cancer.
So his budget goes from like $300 million a year to $5 billion a year, which basically he controls.
It's a huge kitty for him.
But what's the good news in all this?
The good news is that the companies, the pharma companies and the government researchers and academia got together and came up with treatments for HIV.
We should not forget that.
We basically solved HIV.
Very few people in the United States, not nobody, but very few people die from this thing anymore when it killed 95% of the people who got it early on.
And Fauci has gotten a ton of credit for that, even though he's not really a bench scientist.
He didn't really invent any of the drugs or anything, but he did manage the politics of it.
He's really good at managing the politics of things.
So my view on him is that when this came along, he had two concerns.
One was to make sure he didn't get blamed for the gain of function stuff.
And it's pretty clear, again, very early on, that he was aware that this might have come out of a lab.
Okay.
But the other thing is, Tony Fauci can get his Nobel Prize now.
How's he going to get it?
He's going to get it by solving the epidemic by leading the development of a vaccine to market.
Not just a therapeutic that helps cure it, a vaccine that makes it go away.
And so basically, since February or March of 2020, the U.S. government has been focused on vaccines as the answer to the detriment of almost everything else.
And unfortunately, that would have been fine if the vaccines had worked as we hoped they would, but they don't.
So it's a bunch of different factors all combining together to put us in the position we're in.
It's him, it's his history, and it's also the amount of money that's generated by the propagation of these vaccines and the ignoring of all the other possible therapeutics, including emergency use authorization ones like the monoclonal antibodies.
Even to the point of ignoring the data that shows that people who have had a previous infection and recovered actually have superior antibodies than people who have been vaccinated.
They still are trying to require those people to get vaccinated, including people that risked their lives on the front lines, the hospital workers that got COVID, survived it, have better immunity, and now are being forced out of their jobs because they don't want to get shot.
And ignoring the data that says, you know what, after a few months, your antibodies go away.
And ignoring the data that says we don't have, you know, we've had a dozen people or two dozen people or three dozen people with boosters, and now we're going to tell the whole world to get them.
Ignoring all of this.
I mean, look, so I got so much shit from the left.
Because they viewed it as – so people on the left were terrified of COVID, right?
Terrified, out of their minds, terrified of COVID.
I'm not going outside.
I'm not letting my kids outside.
My kids aren't going to school.
They ruin their lives for more than a year, right?
And then the vaccines came.
The vaccines will save us all.
Lordy, lordy, okay?
It truly was a religious cult around these things for the people on the left.
Okay.
The people on the right weren't so scared, right?
For the most part.
They had a better idea.
But I'm not, and I'm not talking about like ordinary folks.
I'm talking about like the K-Streeters, the Mitch McConnells of the world.
It was, you know what?
I don't really understand the science of this, but if this is going to get us out of this nonsense, okay.
And so a lot of people on the right happily like were happy to go along with the vaccines without looking at the data too much.
So who does that leave?
It leaves like me and a few other people who are going to be the flies in the ointment who are going to be like, you know, guys, FISA actually only enrolled six people over 85 in this trial.
And those are the people who die from COVID.
So maybe we don't actually know how well the vaccines work.
And VARES is getting so badly beaten up by all the side effect reports.
It keeps crashing.
And maybe that actually means something.
Maybe it's not just a bunch of anti-vaxxers doing it for kicks.
Maybe it's actually people who've had, you know, myocarditis.
I don't know any, well, I mean, I know people now because people come to me.
But personally, I don't know anybody who's had a really serious COVID case, but I do know of someone who's had what I believe is a very serious vaccine injury.
So, but, but, so people got themselves locked in to the narrative because, but what, what they never understood, and this is, you know, I say this at the end of the book, okay?
What they never understood was it wasn't, the choice is not vaccines or pandemic.
The choice is normal life or pandemic.
Because this thing kills probably worldwide somewhere between two and three out of every thousand people it infects.
You know, in the U.S., it's a little bit more because in the U.S., you know, we're older compared to, let's say, Africa and we're fatter compared to Europe.
So we might be at three per thousand.
There is no reason on earth to be turning our lives upside down for this thing.
There has never been, not since April of 2020, any evidence that this could destroy hospitals or hospital systems.
Remember, those hospital ships that went into New York Harbor left a month later and they'd taken care of almost no one.
Okay.
I'm not saying hospitals don't get full sometimes.
Listen, unfortunately, by the time you get to needing a ventilator with COVID, you're pretty sick.
And some of those people are going to die.
But we clearly overused ventilators early on.
But why?
What we should have been saying from the, not, okay, not from, you know, not from the day it came out, but certainly from April 2020 was, this is manageable.
We have an advanced healthcare system.
We're going to take care of this problem without destroying our society.
And the public health establishment wouldn't do it.
The media wouldn't do it.
And clearly with the media, a lot of it was hatred of Trump.
They saw it as punishing him.
And he clear, I'm not going to say clearly, he probably, I would say there's a better than even chance he wins the election, if not for the coronavirus.
That's certainly what the betting markets thought in January 2020.
So the coronavirus destroyed his reelection, for sure.
But along the way, it got so deep into so many people, into their psyches.
It panicked so many people that it became, it seems impossible, at least not, you know, it's not down here.
Down here, people live normal lives.
But in New York, people are still crazy about this.
And the vaccines were promised as the answer.
And there's just this total unwillingness to admit that they are not working as promised.
I mean, you've had some controversial takes on things in the past, and that's actually how we got to know each other.
Yes.
Where I actually agreed with you, even though I'm a marijuana enthusiast, I do know people that have had very adverse reactions to marijuana.
And when you had this book that came out, Tell Your Children, about the dangers of marijuana, there was a lot of people that were like potheads that wanted me to have you on to go after you.
But I was like, well, hold on, guys.
Like, this is a thing.
Like, this is a thing that I've witnessed.
I know people that have had psychotic episodes or schizophrenic episodes.
The numbers of people that have schizophrenia, it varies.
I think they think it's one in 100 just naturally.
It could be that that we're experiencing and marijuana enhances it.
But it's certainly something that's worth discussing.
And it's certainly something that with some people is not a good idea for them to engage in.
And we had you on with Mike Hart, who's a marijuana doctor or prescribes it.
Certainly the cannabis industry lobby hates that idea because it's like if there's a risk that one day you can kind of sort of break yourself and not come back.
It's one thing to have, like, a temporary psychosis.
And you recover.
And you know what?
Okay.
I'm not going to use again.
I'm not going to use for a while.
But if there's this realization that for some people we don't know how many and we don't know what the dose might be, that you can use one time at the wrong time and, you know, possibly cause yourself some permanent injury and you don't get that back.
Even if it challenges my preconceived notions, even if it challenged whatever narrative that I've associated myself with, and one of those narratives is that marijuana is good.
But along the way in my life, seeing some people where I think that something definitely happened to them from marijuana led me into this place where I would be a liar if I wasn't honest about it.
I don't, this is what I don't, and you know, this is, it's funny.
This is the same thing with the vaccines.
Like at what point the hospitals have tons of vaccinated people.
We saw the British data, okay?
And I'm telling you, human biology is the same everywhere, and there's plenty of people dying, getting sick, and dying who are vaccinated in the U.S. Why can't they admit it?
You make a great point, which is, and I appreciate your bringing this up.
So if you're vaccinated back early on, you probably, again, this is what the Israeli data suggests.
This is what our breakthrough infection data suggests.
And even in the U.S., you probably have very little protection right now.
If you got infected three months ago yourself and recovered by yourself with no vaccine, or maybe you had been previously vaccinated, it doesn't matter.
You have good protection right now.
Okay?
So why is the person in the first category privileged over the person in the second category?
It's like there's a one or a zero, a good or a bad.
Get vaccinated, that's good.
And so they've decided there's too many cases.
We need to get everybody vaxed.
And the mayor of New York is such a buffoon.
To have it come from him makes so much sense because he's such a dullard.
And when he proclaims this, that we're going to do this, you know, after he's like told people they can get free vaccine or free cheeseburgers with vaccines.
Like you see, like this is not a rational decision that's based on science and based on the data.
But this is, but this is, again, this is where I come back to you and I say, I do see a sociological element in this.
I see a lot of talking down to people.
And you may remember back, again, back February, March, April, it was, we're going to tell those idiots they can get a lottery ticket if they're vaccinated.
One can only hope because my thought on any of these ridiculous overreach things is they make people swing in the other direction.
And I think it's good to have Texas red.
I think, and again, this is coming from someone who's very liberal, but I think that there's a certain rigidity and a certain like discipline and like respect for law that's involved in the right that we're really slipping on in these blue states.
And when I see all the chaos that happens in a lot of these blue cities like San Francisco, allowing people to just go into stores and steal $900 worth of shit and run out.
Like it doesn't work.
You have to have accountability.
You have to have a certain amount of accountability.
You have to have a certain amount of law and order.
It gives internet companies tremendous protection against lawsuits related to their content decisions.
Okay, this is not a secret.
There's two main provisions, and it's been totally sort of misinterpreted in a way that doesn't really make any sense, but is now basically the rules.
So there's two main provisions.
Provision one says essentially, and this is really what it was designed for, you can't be sued if you host something sort of unknowingly that's child pornography or that's like go kill my ex-wife.
You're not going to be considered the publisher legally for that if you do that.
And that makes sense.
Okay.
You know, your Twitter, you get, I don't know how many billion tweets that day they get, but it's a lot, okay?
Or Facebook or whatever.
Okay.
So it would be unfair to hold them legally responsible.
Then there's a second part of this that says, essentially, you can make decisions about what to host in good faith and you can't be held liable.
And that includes indecent or prurient, there's certain specific statutory language or otherwise objectionable.
It includes that language, otherwise objectionable, which is not defined, even if it's constitutionally protected.
Okay.
So you take those two things together.
Now the first part has been interpreted in a way that clearly was not intended by the people who wrote the law, which is what people have said is even though basically I get all the protections of the law and I get to make publishing decisions.
So in other words, I can choose, essentially, what it was meant to be was you can't sue me for some, you know, Joe puts up something saying Alex is a child molester.
And I, so and I sue Twitter saying, you know, that's wrong.
And Twitter says, you know, we didn't do this.
We're not the publisher.
That clearly makes sense.
What the companies have managed to convince the courts to do is say, I put up all this stuff about myself or about whatever and you took it down.
And they say, you know, that's our decision.
We can choose whether or not to host any content because choosing to protection for hosting should include protection for not hosting as a blanket principle.
That's what they've convinced the courts.
So in other words, we win.
Whether we host it, we don't host it.
We have a good reason.
We have no reason.
We win.
You cannot sue us for any choices around this.
And this has been a position that the courts have essentially accepted.
And they've also said, we're private companies.
Yes, we have power, but we're not the government.
Facebook might have 2 billion users a month or whatever it is, but it's not the government.
So the First Amendment does not apply to us.
And the courts have accepted that.
This has proven to be a pretty strong legal barrier to law.
I mean, almost completely strong.
And the companies have gotten more and more aggressive about choosing who they will and will not host.
Okay.
They've now gotten so aggressive that they, you know, they took the president off or the former president off.
And they took me off.
Did I say, forget, you know, did I, I mean, first it had to be, you had to kind of make active threats to get taken off.
Then it would be, you know, broad incitements against, you know, for law breaking to get taken off.
I got taken off for being right about the vaccines.
That's why I got taken off, essentially, and for asking questions that people didn't want asked.
Yes, although I never told people, and I've actually been on Tucker and I think I was on with you back in December, and didn't say people shouldn't get vaccinated if they're older, certainly.
So back in the day, you had to, you know, first you had to threaten people, then maybe we'll take off some racists, then we'll take off some people who are inciting law breaking.
We take off a guy who used to write for the New York Times who's actually quoting real studies and real data that's coming out of all parts of the world.
And they've changed the policies repeatedly in the last 18 months.
Now, I actually – Well, yes, but it's their service.
Okay.
They can change the policies.
There are several questions of fact around me.
And again, I have to be careful here.
One would be whether or not they followed their own stated policies around me.
Another would be if they made assurances to me, executives at Twitter or an executive at Twitter made assurances to me based on conversations via email that we had.
And I will tell you, we had conversations via email.
You know, there was a lot of controversy around what I was saying, and it increased when I started to criticize the vaccines.
And my account became, you know, more and more viewed over the summer.
But for several months, okay, for several months, anyone at Twitter, and, you know, they're going to pay attention to accounts that get 10 million impressions a day or 5 million impressions a day.
Anyone at Twitter would have known what I was saying, saying it on their service.
They did sometimes label, they labeled some tweets as misleading, which in my opinion, and maybe if we get to a court, we'll see.
Those tweets were not misleading.
But Twitter took no action against me for those tweets.
Okay.
On June 15th, 2021, the Press Secretary of the United States and the Surgeon General of the United States called on social media services to begin enforcing rules about misinformation, including Facebook and Twitter.
They mentioned platforms, not just one.
Facebook is the main platform, and Twitter is the second main platform.
On July 16th, 2021, the President of the United States was asked a question about Facebook and vaccines, and he said, Facebook, he said, they're killing people.
I think it was actually Facebook and other platforms, and he said they're killing people.
And the same day, Jen Pasaki, the press secretary of the United States, again repeated that platforms needed to take enforcement action.
July 16th, 2021 is the first time Twitter suspended me.
Okay?
So we'll see if a court wants to decide whether the U.S. government put undue pressure on Twitter and whether Twitter was acting as a state actor, which would mean they're subject to the First Amendment, whether or not 230 applies.
But discovery is an avenue where you find out what the other side knows and doesn't know.
And it's also possible, you know, because some of the stuff is government, I can try to FOIA it.
I can file Freedom of Information Act requests to try to find out what they know and don't know.
Okay.
So those are all avenues.
Beyond that, there are legal doctrines.
And again, because the companies have gotten so fat and happy with 230 and they've gotten so protected from it and they've become more and more aggressive about deplatforming people, there's now lawyers who are concerned about this.
And they are looking at various legal doctrines, precedents that would raise the question of whether or not 230 is being misapplied and overapplied.
And you actually saw some of this last week.
Former President Trump filed a request for a preliminary injunction against Twitter so he could get back on the service.
And he raised the question of some precedents from cases that are decades old.
I, frankly, think that my claims are stronger than his because of some of the specifics of the timing and the specifics of my communications with Twitter.
We will see.
These cases are complicated.
And if I'm going to bring one, I want to bring it in a way that is likely to win.
It's a very short-sighted approach because it's extremely dangerous to just start censoring people because you – for many reasons.
But one of the big ones is that you deny the value of discourse.
You deny the value of debate and of good speech winning out over bad speech.
When you have people that are saying things that are wrong or that you disagree with, the greatest power is someone to come along who is more intellectual, more articulate, more convincing, that has an argument that's grounded in facts.
And it's not going to convince everybody, but you're going to convince enough people that it's going to be valuable to have that debate.
And then overall, our body of knowledge and our understanding of this, whatever issue they're debating and discussing, it becomes enhanced.
When you silence people that disagree with something or people that have opposing views, then you just live in an echo chamber.
And you also are going to galvanize all the people that are on the opposing side because now they're going to realize that not only can they not discuss it, but they've been completely silenced.
And their perspective is never heard from again.
So then they just try to find other places to go to.
I mean, to me, the whole article was broadly wrong, but I actually address it in the book.
Here's, so look, when I worked for the New York Times, before that, okay, when I was a reporter, quote unquote, real reporter, you know, for major news organizations, if you're going to write about somebody, you have an obligation to run all your important questions by them, okay?
And not just once.
And the harder the article is going to be, the more obligation you have.
Now, if they don't want to talk to you, they want to lawyer up, they want to tell you you're an asshole, whatever, okay.
But you, as the reporter, the harder you're going to hit them, the more responsibility you have to make sure they know what your questions are and to give them a chance to answer factually.
And then, and then you should consider those answers, okay?
What has happened in the last, one of the many terrible things that's happened in the last five years is it's a gotcha game, but it isn't even really a game, a gotcha game.
It's like this guy sent me one round of questions, and I knew immediately upon reading them, and I also knew it was the Atlantic, which I'd been writing about on Twitter as being totally wrong for months and months.
I knew immediately that he was out to get me.
Nonetheless, I answered those questions in full.
And if he'd had more questions for me, I would have answered those too.
He took my answers.
He looked for other people.
He looked for sort of like these friendly epidemiologists or whatever to try to poke holes in them.
Where he had to, he sort of like he twisted stuff that I had said.
And then he wrote what he wrote.
And he didn't come back to me and say, hey, you said this, and I talked to three epidemiologists who said this.
What's your response?
You said this.
And when I look at this data source, it says this.
Back then, now my worries are about duration of protection as much as anything else.
But back then, I had two main concerns about the vaccines, which I expressed very clearly in a booklet, in a 14,000-word booklet that came out a few days before that piece ran.
They were that the side effect profile looked much worse than other vaccines and that the companies had not enrolled the right people in the clinical trial, so we didn't really know how protective the vaccines were.
All right.
You read that piece.
Well, don't read it, but you read it if you like.
You tell me that it is a fair assessment of those two problems.
The problem isn't that he wanted to hit me.
It's that he didn't want to write any, he didn't want to actually address my real concerns.
So, you know, it is what it is.
The nice thing about the book is like the book will stand.
My Twitter account, one of the terrible things about what Twitter did to me is my account is gone.
I mean, I have it.
I have the archive and I'm going to put it up at some point.
I'm hoping to do it soon because I want people to be able to read everything that I wrote.
How did you archive it?
In the weeks leading up to the ban.
You can ask Twitter.
You should actually do this.
You can ask Twitter to send you an archive.
They'll do it for anybody.
And people said to me, if you don't do this before they ban you, because it seemed pretty clear they were going to try to ban me at some point by August.
You're going to have a hard time doing this after you ban you.
So there's a paper that came out, I think it was in April 2021.
It's a good paper, and it has this chart, and it shows, so the one thing you can't ever do is speed up time, right?
So they were guessing.
They were guessing at how long the protective effect would last.
And there's something called the vaccine correlate of protect or the immune correlative protection.
What they were essentially trying to guess was two different things.
One was what level of antibodies correlated to vaccine protection.
So in other words, if your antibodies got to, I'm just going to make a number, 1,000 units per milliliter of blood, how protected were you compared to if your vaccine, if your antibodies only got to 10 units per milliliter of blood.
And we knew some vaccines are better at getting your antibodies to go really high than others.
So they were guessing on how quickly that would decline and on how low once, at what point would you be vulnerable again?
Okay.
But they also had to guess where you're going to get this BNT cell immunity, this long-term immunity, and they didn't know that either.
Long story short, there's a paper that became sort of the seminal paper on this, and it suggested that at 95% initial immunity, you would have really good protection for at least nine months.
You'd still be in the, I think, in the 80% plus range after nine months.
And then assuming that there was some argument among virologists and stuff, does it flatten out there?
Does it continue to decline?
But that would suggest that you probably were going to have pretty good immunity for at least 18 months.
And when you heard the companies talk, they were initially sort of talking about an annual booster.
And that was, you know, maybe that was a little bit conservative.
I think that there's no way to look at this other than it was just a stunning failure.
Again, three things have happened.
One is the antibodies go down faster than was predicted.
Two is that the virus has mutated in a way against, again, it's mutated against the antibodies.
And three is that the vaccines don't produce the same B and T cell immunity that natural infection and recovery does.
But so this may have come as a surprise.
Again, I don't think Fauci wanted to be this wrong.
I don't think you, why would you say in May, no, we can eliminate this, eliminate, not control, eliminate.
Why would you say in May we could eliminate this?
And three months later, three months, you're telling people they have to get boosters.
You said it because you made a mistake.
The question that I think we should all ask is, did the companies know more?
Okay, were the companies looking at their data internally in January and February and March from the clinical trials, unpublished data, and maybe saying, you know what, we're seeing that the antibodies go away more quickly than we thought.
And we're seeing some rate of breakthrough infections in these people.
Or were the companies sort of eating their own cooking and they didn't know either?
And if we had real investigative reporters in the United States, this would be a great question.
Just like the question about why Pfizer, why last year people were saying, oh, you know what?
This is going to be for the good of humanity.
No one's going to make any money off these.
And this year, it turns out these are the most profitable pharmaceutical products ever invented.
Nothing in history has made money for the companies like these.
Why that happened?
Maybe we'd ask questions about VARES and how well it's working.
Maybe we'd ask some questions about the relationships between the regulatory agencies and the vaccine makers.
I mean, if I tried to work for the New York Times again, I mean, I can't even get an op-ed, you know, one a year.
It would never happen now.
And I'm very fortunate.
You know, I have this loyal audience, and I have 150,000 people who are signed up for Substack, and a fraction of those people are subscribing enough that I don't really have to worry about money right now.
There's a few people at those places who I can still talk to.
But they're not willing to write anything defending me.
But they'll still, we can still have back channel conversations.
But somebody emailed me, a former reporter actually emailed me a few weeks ago and said, do you have a lot of people in the business who are talking to you, telling you, I think you're right.
And I told them the truth.
The answer is no.
I don't have a lot of hidden, or if I do, it's so well hidden that no one's coming and telling me.
Here's my hidden support, Joe.
My hidden support's in the scientific and medical communities.
I get so many emails with tips and stuff.
If I put up on my Substack about a paper that came out or something, it's quite likely that somebody tipped me to that.
And those people, the scientists and the doctors, there's a lot of them who have a lot of very serious questions, but they're afraid to ask them publicly.
And that's what gets really crazy is people who, it's their field of expertise and they don't want to discuss it.
And I think the only thing that would turn this around is if the attitude of the social media sites changed and they encouraged open discourse on that.
It would have to be some monumental change in the narrative, some shift where we realize, oh, okay, this is what's going on.
This is clear.
There's no reason to deny this any longer.
And, you know, I think it would take some very courageous people to step in and try to adjust that because the narrative has shifted.
So, I mean, I can't tell you how many times I've read a tweet about someone dying.
And then some people will jump in and say the vaccines are safe and effective.
And then I look at that post and it's not even a real human.
You go to their thing and it's all just them retweeting things that follow some sort of a Democrat narrative.
And you go, oh, this is probably someone in Russia and a Russian troll farm.
Did you see that there's a Facebook thing recently that found out that 19 out of 20 of the top Christian sites on Facebook were run by a Russian troll farm?
I mean, so, you know, as somebody was saying to me, like, if you live in Texas or you, you know, you live in a rural part of a blue state, I mean, like, you've probably been living your life pretty normally for the last 12 months plus.
A red state or like a red part of a blue state, right?
But the people who didn't live their lives normally, the Molly Jong fast of the world, these, you know, these people who stayed in their apartments and masked while they're watching TV.
Like, they haven't figured out how to stop being afraid.
Like, this is, and then they wouldn't allow anything to open.
They were closing down restaurants.
I was having people in, friends of mine that owned restaurants that, you know, I was like, this is devastating.
And they were telling me that 70% of these places are going under and they just, they can't stay open.
It doesn't make sense.
None of this makes any sense.
This is so crazy.
And then they shut down outdoor dining.
My friend who worked my friend has a brother who works for the state and was in the room when they were making these decisions.
And he said there's no data to support.
But listen, he said this to the woman who made the decision.
There's no data to support transmission outdoor in outdoor dining.
She said, it's all about optics.
That was the answer.
The answer was it's all about optics, which is a fucking insanely calloused answer to someone when you're saying something that's going to shut down people's business, kill their livelihood.
The number of people that had their lives devastated by that one decision by a woman, by the way, the same woman in Los Angeles went to eat at a restaurant the day she shut it down.
Well, that's the question that, you know, and you saw this with the San Francisco mayor who, you know, she got caught, or London Breed, got caught not wearing a mask and then made this comment about the fun police.
Yeah.
And so you do, that kind of makes you wonder, are they as scared as they're pretending to be and as scared as they want to make everyone else be?
You can't do that to people when everyone's armed.
You can't do that.
When no one's armed, you can do that.
And I hate saying that because I don't want to say it like that these people are jackbooted thugs that are taking advantage of the situation to control people.
I'm not saying that.
But what I'm saying is it is human nature to change the way your perceptions of someone.
If you're in a position where whether you've been bestowed this power by the state or by whatever the fuck it is, a higher power, if you think you have control and power over other people, then you exercise it.
It is a natural thing.
The Stanford prison experiments show it.
It's a natural thing that people do when they have power over other people.
Have you seen the woman who's their head, the medical lady, who said that vaccines are better than natural infection and that you just have to get used to getting vaccines and boosters and constant vaccines?
What it gets to me is when I have these conversations with people, when they start talking about it like it's a boogeyman, when it's going to get you, and then I tell them, I've had it.
That's another narrative that's shifted too, because initially they were saying that if you are vaccinated and you have a so-called breakthrough case, which is very, very rare, which is not rare at all.
But when they were saying it was very, very rare, they were saying that you're carrying less of the virus.
Listen, man, this is what this podcast is all about.
I mean, the reason why I want to have you on, first of all, I enjoyed having you on in the past.
I think you are grossly misrepresented.
And because you are a courageous person who's willing to buck the trend of being a propagandist for this system, the way that's running, you know, this narrative that you can't vary from no matter what.
And you shift the narrative.
The narrative shifts according to what's happening.
So if you go through, okay, this is the key, and I can, I can, so what they're saying right now is that the vaccine is 41% protective against infection and 62% effective against hospitalization.
We don't know if after six months it continues to go towards zero.
My strong suspicion is it goes to zero, but I'm not sure we know.
So go on, go on.
So this is, okay, this is sort of the most important thing.
So this is as of late August is the most recent data they had.
So this is still a month plus out.
The dark red line is the number or the percentage of people, number per 100,000, so on the left, of people who are getting sick after five to six months after being vaccinated versus the number of people who are getting sick three to four months out.
And oh, next, if you go to the next slide, you have to go back to that, please.
You have to think, this is how many people have gotten infected based on what it would be like if you were vaccinated five to six months versus what would it be like three to four months.
But what it doesn't show is unvaccinated.
So the question would be, how close is that red line to unvaccinated?
So if the vaccine is 100% effective, if it stops every infection, then you will have 0% of people getting sick after vaccination against whatever percentage of the population.
Nobody ever gets infected, whether 100% of people are vaccinated or 80 or whatever.
Now you go to the other case, if vaccine effectiveness is zero, then the percentage of people who get sick exactly matches the percentage of people who are vaccinated.
So if 50% of people are vaccinated, then 50% of the people who get sick are vaccinated.
So they're comparing, and then between 0 and 100, you can calculate what the percentage of vaccinated people getting sick will be.
So they tested, they checked that against the fact that they know that 80% of their people in their group, which is basically people over 65, are fully vaccinated.
So if 80% of people were fully vaccinated and the vaccine were 90% effective, you'd still have some cases of people getting sick after vaccination, but it'd be like 20%.
Instead, what you're seeing is that 71% of people who got sick were fully vaccinated.
And 60% of people, this is in the United States, okay, where we quote unquote have a pandemic of the vaccinated.
Their own data said, this is, again, this is from a huge group.
It's more than 5 million people.
I think it's DOD, like, you know, it's like retirees, military retirees.
60% of people in this group who were hospitalized with COVID were vaccinated.
Not 1%, not 2%, 60%.
And what they're saying to you is that that still shows some level of vaccine protection because you would expect if vaccines were totally useless, you'd get to 80% being in the hospital.
Instead, you have 60% in the hospital.
So they're saying, well, the vaccine looks like it still does some good.
But is that what Fauci has told you?
Is that what Walensky has told you?
Is that what Biden has told you?
They didn't tell you that 60% of people in the United States right now are hospitalized.
And this is coming from someone who gets insulted on Twitter every day.
I don't want anybody silenced.
I don't read it.
But I feel like you should be able to express yourself.
I feel like it's no different than talking.
At this point, it's a part of being a human being.
The way people talk on Twitter is very similar to the way people talk amongst friends when no one's listening.
There's a weird thing that's happening where we're accepting the idea of silencing people from expressing themselves in a way that is arguably one of the most important methods of expression that's ever existed.
This is one of the most amazing creations and the accidental creation, by the way, right?
Yeah, like hashtag started because people started typing hashtag whatever word, and then they started making them clickable and searchable and all of that.
I don't know how much his hands are tied, but I know he has advocated for a completely Wild West version of Twitter and then a moderated version of Twitter.
They now have a thing where you can report things.
Yeah, to this, they've encouraged users to report stuff.
But again, as I've been preparing for this potential legal action, I've gone back and sort of looked at how their policies have changed and how they're like, and they've, at each step, they become more controlling.
So for, you know, for a while, you could say whatever you wanted.
Then it was, you know, you could say that masks don't work, but as long as you don't tell people to violate sort of local laws against masks, okay, like I don't, I'm with you.
I'm basically a free speech absolutist, unless it's like, you know, again, stuff like that.
Again, sometimes, but like, but I get that Twitter doesn't want the service if they feel like they don't want to be used to encourage people to break the law.
But then they tighten the restrictions again, where it was just, if you're presenting factual information and saying, as a fact, masks don't work, which I said many times on their website, you can get in trouble for that.
Now, one of the things, if the lawsuit was forward, then I would like them to answer is, why was I able to say that for so many months?
But suddenly when, you know, Saki and Biden and Vivek Murthy told them they needed to do something different, they did it.
I've got to record the audio book, but Regnery, which is a conservative publisher, because my old publishers, I mean, I'm actually really happy to have Regnery because they've been 100% in my corner in a way that a mainstream publisher might not be at this point.
But, you know, my old publisher, Simon ⁇ Schuster, and my previous publisher to that, Random House in Putnam, they would not publish me.
I mean, how you can say with a straight face, masks, telling people not to wear masks is dangerous when the whole country's been wearing them for the last 18 months and it's made zero difference to the course of this epidemic.
In other words, and I'm making up a number, if the minimum dose of infection is 10,000 viral particles, okay?
And I, as an infected person, am breathing out a million viral particles per breath, and the vaccine or the mask keeps 20% of those particles in, I'm at 800,000, and it still only takes 10,000 to infect you.
So you're going to get sick whether I'm wearing the mask or not.
You know, back in March or April or May, if you were in New Zealand and you'd kept your population COVID-free, you could say, we won.
How do we win?
We have an effective vaccine.
There will be people in New Zealand who will never get COVID.
We win.
Not for a month or a year.
Yeah, we went through that, but we won permanently.
The vaccines don't work.
They certainly don't work to stop infection or transmission.
What that means is that everyone, every human being on this planet is going to be exposed to COVID if they haven't already been, whether you wear a mask or not, whether you lock down or not.
New Zealand, Australia, they can't keep it out.
And the only way they're going to keep it, they have even a prayer of keeping it out.
Once that window has been established and people are safe, then maybe it's the Merck drug or whether they do tests and prove that it's ivermectin or something else.
But so, I mean, I think this is a legit question, Joe.
I guess you'd rather get COVID next year than this year because there's more treatments out there.
So, if the vaccines are just delaying, you know, even if they don't work forever, if they delay for six months or a year, is it worth the aggravation to get people vaccinated?
Well, there is a friend of a friend who is an older person who just got COVID very recently, and they were fully vaccinated, and they were very sick, and they got the monoclonal antibodies, and within 24 hours, they started feeling much better.
Yeah, they start talking crazy, and then they start bringing up stories about billionaires that met at some summit in the early 2000s and talked about having to reduce the population of the world.