Knowledge Fight #402 dissects Alex Jones’ chaotic February 20, 2020 rant—mocking Roger Stone’s 40-month sentence (predicted as 7–11 years), exploiting coronavirus panic to sell survival food, and falsely tying the Diamond Princess deaths to "lack of food." He weaponized a 2015 UNC virology study and cherry-picked Francis Boyle’s legal claims to push lab-leak conspiracy theories, ignoring key scientific distinctions. Jones’ desperate pivot to sovereign citizen tactics and Trump’s non-pardon announcement reveals his reliance on fear-driven sales and fringe loyalty over facts, leaving the hosts to dismiss it as "just trash." [Automatically generated summary]
Like, one of the things in my household growing up was my parents were pretty controlling about media that we watched.
Right, of course.
You know, there was very, like, things that were at all violent were kind of frowned upon and not really allowed in the house.
So I don't know if it was like a hard and fast rule against martial arts movies, but like they definitely weren't something that was like something in my dad's interest.
Yeah, so getting ready for this episode was definitely like a why can't it always be like talking about Roger's deposition?
So it's kind of a it was a tough transition.
We need to switch to a deposition only podcast if there were a bunch of depositions if it were possible like if there were enough source material of InfoWars people being deposed all day all day 100% non-stop.
Yes We need to branch out well because what makes it so fascinating is like they're they have to be there.
Yeah, they're forced to answer questions and that's a really interesting dynamic.
But what I thought we would do today is we are going to go over I actually intended to do a bunch of days but it's just not possible.
We're going over February 20th 2020.
I'm Dan This is 2020.
And the reason for that is that that's the day that Roger got sentenced.
So it seems like it would be a good idea to see how Alex took the news what was going on on his show on that day.
I should say that I also prepared February 16th, which was Sunday's show, but we're not going to go over that.
But I think that it bears mentioning something, and that is that Max Kaiser, the guy of Max Coin Frames.
I wanted to cover that or at least mention it because if you'd see some signs in the future of things related to that, it's good to know, like, oh, Max Kaiser was on the show and they talked about how great Bitcoin is.
If you're out there listening and thinking, hey, I enjoy the show, I'd like to support with these gents, do you can do that by going to our website, knowledgefight.com, clicking the button to say support the show.
So you should just go, you know, hey, look, not for nothing.
Alex's instincts on a macro scale are bad.
And on a micro scale, they are also bad.
He is just really bad at just about all of this stuff.
His sense of things, his instincts.
So most of the beginning of this show, I would say a large portion of the beginning of this show is Owen Schroyer is there at the courthouse waiting for the verdict.
Great.
And Alex and him, they try and do a little bit of an interview where Alex is talking to Owen.
So Owen is talking about the jury for woman, Tamika Hart, who's become a bit of a target for right-wing media in their desperate attempts to come up with a reason for why Roger was found guilty and is going to prison.
On a recent episode, we talked about how Mike Cernovich was pushing this theory that she had not disclosed that she'd run for office as a Democrat during the jury selection process.
But as far as I can tell, this has not been proven in any way.
All the proof Cernovich offers is the fact that she had run for office and that one of the questions potential jurors are asked is if they've ever run for office.
This is not an indication that she lied in response to the question.
There's no proof that answering yes would be disqualifying.
There's nothing here.
All this amounts to is an argument that jurors are asked this question.
She had run for office.
She was on the jury.
Therefore, she must have lied about running for office.
The logic is full of holes.
And without any proof, this is just people talking shit.
Miss Hart has been the target of such vitriol that a fellow juror named Seth Cousins came out and spoke with USA Today about how shitty this all is.
He said, quote, the irony here is that Tamika Hart was perhaps the strongest advocate in the room for a rigorous process for the rights of the defendant and for making sure that we took it seriously and looked at each charge.
Cousins went on to say, quote, without her in the room, we would have returned the same verdict, and we would have returned it more quickly and without looking as deeply into the evidence.
I'm firmly convinced of that.
Owen and the right-wing media's theory that Miss Hart lied when being questioned is based on nothing other than their supposition.
You even heard that being echoed by Norm Pattis when he was on Alex's show last week.
He hadn't even read the transcripts, but was saying if she'd not disclosed it, it would be a cause for concern.
There was an article in The Hill published on February 15th, which includes this line, quote, the brief examination of the Voir Deere hearing shows that Hart did disclose her ties to the Democratic Party.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson asked if Hart's political history would prevent her from being fair, and Hart assured her it would not.
Most of the non-shithead right-wing propaganda sources I can find are really clear that Hart's background was brought up in her Voir Deer.
Her potential bias was established by that history, and Rogers' lawyers had every opportunity to question her and to eliminate her from the jury pool if they wanted to, which they didn't do.
This is just sad shit.
These people are so desperate to defend Roger that this is the level of defense they can come up with, speculating wildly about a juror lying in a response to a question that it turns out she answered honestly.
Also, not for nothing, what Owen is doing is directly accusing Hart of a crime with no evidence to support the accusations.
This is dangerous territory for a guy working at a place that is drowning in defamation claims.
It's tough because there's a lot of evidence that he did the things he's accused of.
And some of those things are sending really threatening messages to Randy Credico when Credico said that he wasn't going to plead the fifth and he was going to talk to Mueller's investigators.
And, you know, hey, when you make threats towards someone who's going to go testify, it kind of tends to lend the idea that you're trying to threaten them into not testifying.
The surrounding context of Roger's threat to take that dog away from you seems to not support Alex's claim that it was set out of Roger's good-hearted concern for the dog's diet.
The texts say, you're a rat, you're a stoole, you backstab your friends.
Or what about the time just after threatening to take his dog away?
I could respect Alex saying that Roger talked shit to Credico, but that it shouldn't matter.
It's just locker room talk or something.
Yeah, at least that would be an attempt to spin this within the realm of reality.
But this week, shit, man, Alex really expects people to believe that Roger was concerned that Randy wasn't feeding his dog enough, and so he's going to take the dog for its own good.
That's sad.
Alex should be ashamed of himself trying to pitch something like that.
I don't know if it, I mean, it's certainly not appropriate the idea that a witness in Rogers' trial would be having back-channel communications with Alex.
I'm not actually sure if that is happening, but if it is, I just wanted to put this in the episode that Alex is claiming.
On the surface, it seems like the thing Alex would be very opposed to.
Blago was a Democrat in the most corruptly Democratic state in the country, part of the same machine that he thinks brought Barack Obama into the world.
Like, this is not somebody who Alex would be pulling for.
But you always have to remember that InfoWars is weird.
Sometimes they have positions you wouldn't expect.
I would almost guarantee that if we went back to any time where Blagojevich was governor, at some point Alex would have talked endless amounts of shit about how he should be in jail.
Because according to Infowars lore, Blagojevich wasn't arrested because he was trying to profit off the filling of Obama's former Senate seat, among other flagrantly corrupt actions.
He was taken down because he dared stand up to the Bank of America, which is, of course, part of the Federal Reserve System.
And if you fuck with the Fed, you end up like Blago.
This narrative is based on the fact that on December 8th, 2008, Blagojevich restricted government agencies from working with Bank of America until they restored credit to the Republic Windows and Doors, a factory in Illinois that had been put into bankruptcy and whose employees were staging a sit-in.
The next day, on December 9th, Blagojevich was arrested on his corruption charges.
These things happened close to each other in time.
Therefore, a causal relationship has been established.
And therefore, we know that Blagojevich was a good guy who was just trying to fight the Fed and got screwed.
The InfoWars narrative makes it sound like Blagojevich was trying to permanently sever relations between the state of Illinois and Bank of America, which is absolutely not the case.
An article on Infowars says that he made a, quote, declaration that Illinois would no longer deal with Bank of America.
But that's just silly.
It was a negotiation tactic he was using to try and save a factory where employees were protesting.
Articles from the time are really clear about this, like this one from December 8th in the State Journal Register.
Quote, Governor Rod Blagojevich has ordered all state agencies to stop doing business with Bank of America to pressure the company to help workers who are staging a sit-in at a shuttered Chicago plant.
Blagojevich says banks got bailout money and should provide lines of credit to businesses that need it so workers can keep working.
The employees were staging a sit-in because they were informed that they were going out of business with no notice and they didn't receive pay or any benefits.
Ultimately, Bank of America announced a settlement on December 10th where they would create a fund of $1.75 million to take care of the workers who were owed back pay, severance, vacation time, and whatnot.
This achievement was possibly helped by Blagojevich's action, but it was in any way, it was not infected at all by his arrest.
The real win was because the workers stood their ground and because of the support of the Union Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America Union.
Anyway, Infowars is super anti-union, so they don't tend to get into the details of the actual story.
No, they prefer just to pretend that Blago exiled Bank of America from Illinois and then was arrested the next day because he was a threat to the Federal Reserve.
This is how children tell stories, and that's the level of shit that we're dealing with.
But it helps explain why Alex is really okay with Trump pardoning Blagojevich.
It's like, you know, when somebody's got the earpiece in and you clearly know that they're getting instructions, but you don't hear what's in the earpiece.
It looks a little bit because Alex is like too overeager to be out there himself and he's clearly like bummed out that Owen isn't doing this exactly right.
Like you can hear him be like, yo, Infowars.com lives.
Let's go ahead and actually cut to the Fox News live feed that Owen was just live on a moment ago.
Let's cut to Fox News.
unidentified
Talking with his attorneys today.
So what was the actual reaction when we found out it was three years and four months and not anywhere near the seven to nine years that originally had been prosecutor's recommendation?
So you have a situation where Alex started the show with his prediction that he's going to get seven, nine, eleven years, and they're going to take him away in handcuffs.
They're going to throw the book at him.
All of this has not come true.
He got a little over three years.
He's probably not going to serve even if he doesn't get a pardon.
He'll still only be in for like a year or whatever.
So that failed.
His like the globalist swamp who wants to destroy this man, that failed.
He's going to be taken away in handcuffs.
No, he wasn't.
He's at home preparing to go to prison as we speak.
But then trying to assume whether he thinks that he did those things and they shouldn't be illegal or they are illegal, but it's cool because he did it for a good reason.
So Alex has now sent Owen out there to yell at these cameras.
And in that clip, you heard he's throwing it to Fox News and he brings up Owen was just on the Fox News feed.
Oh, no.
So there is an increased traffic to Alex's website.
And of course, just naturally, as we've seen, whenever these things happen that are relevant to InfoWars world, like Roger being sentenced to prison, people tune in to InfoWars.
He sees a big spike in traffic and he behaves exactly like you'd expect.
For whatever reason, he sees like engaging with people who are telling him he's lying about stuff is a good play.
And it's not.
His brand is as like the guy, like when he went and yelled at Jerry Nadler and got taken out and they got to pretend he was going to be in prison forever for yelling at the impeachment stuff.
That's his brand.
He's a strong young man.
He is not the person who maybe looks incapable of arguing with a crowd of people.
See, they're all astro turf, and they're there for some nefarious, unspecified purpose.
Owen manages to find one person there who supports Roger, and it happens to be the leader of a street gang that's associated with Roger, who happens to own the t-shirt shop that sold the Roger Stone Did Nothing Wrong shirt.
Seems like there's a whole lot of conflicts Alex should be pointing out in relation to interviewing this person, as opposed to just presenting them as a random supporter of Rogers.
So he was asked, quote, what do you perceive to be the U.S.'s greatest challenges as a nation over the next decade?
His answer was, quote, partisan division and the introduction of socialist policies in our government.
As to the partisan division, he's the leader of a right-wing street gang.
And he was physically present at the Unite the Right rally, so he can straight up fuck himself on that count.
As for the socialist policies being a problem in the future, it makes me wonder if he's campaigning on getting rid of social security.
I wonder if that whole like socialist policies thing is just a talking point and a fun word for him to say, or if he's in favor of doing away with one of the most successful and popular programs in this country's history.
I also have a strong suspicion that Enrique Tario is running for office as a ploy to get back on Twitter and PayPal.
Since if he were running for the House, he could make an argument that he's being banned from those programs and platforms.
It's a form of election meddling.
Tommy Robinson and Sargon of Akkad tried to make that argument when they ran with UKIP, and I believe Laura Loomers made similar attempts to get back on social media.
Whatever the motivation, though, this dude has no chance, even in the GOP primary.
It's all very dumb.
What anya, do this interview, and Alex comes back, and he's just so pissed that he's not there.
Not just that, but like, God, if you know you're going to get so many more viewers because of this stunt, then as important as it is to try and sell there, the other big, perhaps the biggest thing you should be doing is putting on a fucking show that people are going to watch tomorrow.
I think Alex kind of knows on some level that he's going to get whatever maintenance or like retained viewers he's because he's going to get it's more important just do a smash and grab robbery as opposed to a confidence scam.
Now the ADL says that Senator Ted Cruz is anti-Semitic for criticizing Bloomberg when it's the ADL constantly injecting Judaism into things and saying if you oppose anybody that's Jewish, that you're a Nazi.
Very, very sad to see the ADL trying to promote anti-Semitism because that is what they're doing, trying to make everything about if somebody's Jewish or not.
I don't think people are making that an issue about Bloomberg, but he's a globalist.
Yeah, it is, it must be a struggle because when you're looking at Bloomberg next to Trump, his real decision is just like, well, Trump's a bigger asshole and he's louder.
A lot of the other complaints you could rise bring up points about Trump that you don't want to discuss.
So Alex is in a very weird pickle there about attacking Bloomberg, but whatever.
Anyway, the ADL critiqued Ted Cruz for tweeting out a suggestion that Mike Bloomberg, quote, owns the media, which, of course, is a classical element of anti-Semitic rhetoric and conspiracy theory.
In this case, it's kind of a tightrope act that needs to be walked.
If you don't want to fall into that pit because Mike Bloomberg obviously does own some media outlets.
I don't think that anyone would get too upset if you want to discuss how the fact that he does personally own actual outlets like Bloomberg, how that could have an actual effect on the coverage coming out of them.
It's a really hard thing for me to believe that people who work at Bloomberg feel completely free to cover Mike Bloomberg from an unbiased perspective.
That's an acceptable thing to voice concerns about.
But what Ted Cruz was doing was suggesting that Bloomberg owned the media, not specific outlets.
This plays into the narratives that have deeply anti-Semitic roots, and an organization like ADL exists in part to point these things out, not to call Ted Cruz an anti-Semite, but to take advantage of a teachable moment where people could learn to express things better and not fall into these traps that have been used historically for nefarious purposes.
And from, I don't know, I don't know if he had more.
I don't know if he had more comments than just the tweet about it.
Yeah.
But I think that the tweet that Ted Cruz made probably was closer to pointing out the ownership of Bloomberg than it was to say he owns the entire media.
So here's some information that Alex will absolutely never tell his audience about the two people who died on the Diamond Princess cruise ship that's quarantined off the coast of Japan.
One was an 87-year-old man who had a history of bronchial asthma.
The other was an 84-year-old woman who also had an unspecified pre-existing condition.
These deaths are very sad, and I don't mean to minimize them, but demographically, they are the sort of people you would expect to see dying from a virus like this.
People in this cohort are the sort of people you expect to see dying of normal flus every year.
There's just no way around it.
People over the age of 80 with underlying medical conditions are at a much greater risk from things like this than a healthy 30 or 40 year old person is.
Unfortunately, the cruise ship evokes all sorts of mental images that Alex can use to sell more fear about the virus.
In reality, there are about 620 people who have tested positive on that boat who are quarantined.
Out of the original 3,700 who were on the cruise, the rest of those people, they were quarantined for the 14 days that they needed to be for examination, and then they were released and sent on their way.
It's not an ideal situation, and it probably sucks to be quarantined anywhere.
But honestly, I would assume a luxury cruise boat is not the worst place ever to be stuck.
That sounds like the nearest civilization burns away is when tyrants get rid of chivalry.
Believing people that came before him were wimps.
They had all these checks and balances in place.
They didn't do all these hard, mean things.
They didn't lie.
They didn't cheat.
They didn't steal.
They didn't persecute people.
They didn't intimidate.
They must have been idiots.
No, they always came out of long, bloody decades, sometimes centuries of millions dead in hell on earth.
And they promised never to do it again by breaking the law.
Breaking the law of God.
Breaking the law of common sense.
It isn't weaklings that follow chivalry.
It's those that know the dark side and seek compounded and change so that we might live as free men and women and not live under conquest and tyranny.
Not to see the burned cities and destroyed fields and farms laid to waste and the rape and the rapine and evil turned loose, but to empower the great spirit of human ingenuity and freedom by passing limited laws to tie down the tyrant and empower the family and the individual and those that love God.
But the tyrants and the control freaks and the Satanists continue to break the law.
God's law.
Common sense.
Natural law.
Everything they do is about saying men are women and women are men and God doesn't exist and there is no right or wrong.
Listen to their song.
Breaking the law, breaking the law, breaking the law, breaking the law, breaking the law.
But I think we're jumping on which side is breaking the law very, very liberally.
Like, because at some point he's saying that the tyrants are defeated by people who break the law because the tyrants instituted a law that sometimes you have to.
Right, exactly.
Break of the law.
Then we have to make limited laws to rein in the tyrants.
I'm not positive that this requires a ton of analysis outside of just like, I think, like, this is something I like to bring to the people because, you know, lately there have been more of these like full songs Sherry does.
Covering something this horrible, covering something this crazy, covering something this serious, just mixed in with everything else we're covering, doesn't feel right.
I mean, I look at the numbers, I look at the viruses, I look at the scientific papers, I look at the reports, and I just pull back and go.
I got up at 5:30 in the morning this morning, and I did about an hour of research before my children woke up before I made them breakfast.
And there's just some type of psychological compulsion.
Because I'm not somebody that wants to cover stuff up, but it's kind of like the military when it's got to go to your door and tell you your son just got killed.
And so as a man, I become a sellout and a wimp if I don't tell people that folks doing this are violent towards everybody and are the same as terrorists or worse, running around with suicide vests or flying airplanes into buildings.
I ask you, Jordan, who, if not everyone, could have seen it coming?
Because Alex's very sincere, flustered tone about the coronavirus news was all just a lead into a plea for money.
If I'm being honest, I think that Alex knows that the products he has to sell that relate to the outbreak are kind of sold out and he's made a bunch of money off this.
There's no real financial bottom line in it for him to cover the virus news from a health fear standpoint.
So his coverage in the future is probably going to lean more towards the political intrigue as we see kind of happening here.
This article that he's talking about in The Scientist that Alex referenced in that clip has nothing to do with Obama selling a virus to the Chinese government.
It's about a guy named Ralph Barrick, who's an infectious disease researcher at UNC Chapel Hill creating a chimeric coronavirus for research purposes, which kicked off a debate about how that probably wasn't worth the risk involved.
This very article says that the U.S. government halted all financial funding from the federal level for research like this, what's known as, quote, gain of function studies as it relates to influenza, SARS, and MERS.
Put simply, that refers to adding the function of a pathogen, giving it an added function in order to better understand its interaction with the world and its hosts.
It's long been a hotly debated question if these sorts of studies are ethical, given the potential downsides that they have are practically incalculable.
You have a that's a farcical take on what these studies are, but I mean, yeah.
I mean, it's add something to this on a genetic level in order to test it.
So, in 2015, the scientist published an article about this guy at UNC Chapel Hill who did a gain of function study on a coronavirus.
But it's definitely not the same virus that's currently breaking out from China.
This article is not a study, though it does involve a study conducted by Ralph Barrick.
And there's no chance that Alex read that study.
And even if he did, it has nothing to do with the current situation.
That legitimately seems like it's Alex's only primary source on this, and nothing in there says or even implies that Obama or Homeland Security sold a virus to China.
In fact, it explicitly says that no federal funding went to that study, nor any like it for at least the two years prior.
So, Obama had even less to do with this.
Alex has had his fun with the public health panic sales drive, but his heart isn't in it anymore.
So, he doesn't quite know where to go with things.
The natural choice is to make it a political thriller, but I think he also realizes that he can't pull that off without totally saying that Trump is complicit with releasing a bioweapon on innocent civilians.
That clip is less than 30 seconds long, and Alex reveals clearly that he has no idea what he's talking about five times.
This is why he does 30 minutes on his show about how he can't cover the news because he knows his shit's weak.
There's a whole lot of nothing here.
But you can make nothing look like something with theatrics like this.
The article in The Scientist is a complete zero in terms of Alex's narratives.
But if he can completely act fucked up about it on air, like he can't do his job because the news is so big, that passion will sell the weak shit to his audience without him even trying to engage with what's in the article or the study.
I'm not trying to sit here and pretend that Alex is some kind of like he's a conniving genius, but he does things for a reason.
He absolutely wouldn't have a job if his audience stopped for a second to ask themselves why he's doing the things he's doing every now and again.
Those are two areas where I have to wear my inability on my sleeve.
Like those are not subjects that I'm well equipped in.
Sometimes I can read stuff over and get a good sense of it.
Sometimes, like today, I can't.
I actually consulted a specialist to get to the bottom of some of the stuff that we're going to end up discussing.
But it's important to recognize that, like, yes, the way Alex speaks about these things is indicative of someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.
And all you need to do is listen to someone who knows what they're talking about.
The way that he's doing this, the way that he's selling this stuff reminds me so much of like, I was, I remember working with one of those Roadhack headliners at the club in Aurora, and I could not understand why this guy was fucking killing because he was garbage.
And then after one of the shows, he's just, he came up to me and was like, you know what your problem is?
You're not selling your jokes, man.
You got to really sell them.
Even if they're weak, if you sell the jokes right, you can get a lot out of it.
For a while, Alex has been pushing this narrative that the Canadian lab, the one in Winnipeg, is the source of the stuff because there was those two Chinese folks who were expelled from the lab.
That's wild because I heard a ton of coverage about how the virus was stolen from that lab in Winnipeg on Alex's show from Alex and his trusted experts, like the health ranger Mike Adams.
But that can't possibly be the case because Alex's gut is never wrong.
He's right 99% of the time.
So there's no way you would have spent a ridiculous amount of time on his show trying to spread conspiracy theories about that lab in the past.
So this is a conspiracy theory about that Canadian lab where the two Chinese people were taken out of the lab back in July.
That was Dr. Kyu and her husband, Kiding Cheng.
Now, if you come to the present day, CTV News reported back on February 4th that a man named Frank Plummer, the former head of the National Microbiology Lab, which is the lab in Winnipeg, had passed away at the age of 67.
This is a very sad story, but if you actually read articles about his passing, it doesn't look like this was a murder or even suspicious, which Alex is definitely trying to imply.
From that CTV News article, quote, in December and December, Plummer shared details of his personal battle with alcohol use disorder after undergoing experimental brain treatment to treat it.
He told CTV News how using alcohol to relax after work progressed to a habit that saw him drinking up to 20 ounces of whiskey a night, leading to cirrhosis and end-stage liver disease diagnosis in 2012.
Citing the stress of responding to pandemics, he said that he was unable to stop himself from returning to alcohol after a 2014 liver transplant.
He ended up getting that experimental procedure done.
What it did is it implanted electrodes in his brain.
And it turns out that that did have some positive effect on his desire to drink.
That said, he clearly was the kind of drinker who would have done serious damage to his body by that point.
So it's good that you can stop drinking, but you'd already had cirrhosis and a liver transplant and kept drinking.
It's very, very sad.
It's true that Plummer was the head of the same lab that these two Chinese scientists were removed from, but Plummer couldn't have had anything to do with that situation since he left his position in 2014, citing personal reasons, most likely the severe alcoholism.
This is sloppy shit on Alex's part and a deep disrespect to Dr. Plummer's passing.
From everything I can tell, he was a fantastic researcher who struggled with some heavy demons only to get his life back on track, which is inspirational and also tragic.
People are things, mere props to be used to make narratives sound more convincing to the audience, who are also people who don't matter to the conspiracy.
The people listening, they too are just props to spread the narratives.
This is all very disgusting.
And it's for all Alex's talk about like all these dehumanizing aspects of the globalists.
Yeah, it would take a second to think about him treating this doctor's death as a mere prop to be thrown out to support the narrative that the virus was stolen from this lab in Winnipeg, which he's now saying is misinformation a mere couple days later.
This is what it takes to be an Infowars believer.
To take this show seriously, you have to believe that a guy who tries to use a doctor's death to prop up a conspiracy on Sunday, then he says that all that Canadian lab stuff was misinformation on Thursday.
You have to believe that that guy is a good source of information and someone you should trust.
So we get back to, I just want to take a little diversion there to hear a little bit of that from Sunday to be like, you were just talking about the Canadian lab stuff.
The clip of Alex talking is the cold open of the clip, but hilariously, the way the video is edited, it kind of sounds like he's asking who gains from all this coronavirus business.
If that's some editor fucking around and trying to make fun of Alex's completely disgraceful behavior over the last month or so, it's one of the best jokes I've seen on this show in a while.
And if it's not, and it's just someone doing a straight editing job, their subconscious might be trying to tell them something.
As for the smoking gun, that's just Francis Boyle pretending to be a science expert.
The smoking gun here is on page 11 near the bottom, the last full paragraph from the bottom where it says may provide a gain of function to the coronavirus for efficient spreading in the human population.
So let me repeat, Alex, as I've told you before, gain of function technology is DNA genetic engineering of dangerous biological warfare substances to begin with.
So Francis Boyle has found the words gain of function in a study posted on ScienceDirect about the 2019 coronavirus, which is ultimately going to be connected to that 2015 article from the scientist about a gain of function study on the coronavirus, on a coronavirus.
Thus, these two must be the same thing, and that study in 2015 was clearly the cover for the creation of the virus that is now in outbreak.
I can see how this game is probably super fun to play.
You just find words and then yell about them, but this is really stupid.
Francis Boyle is a lawyer.
He has absolutely no background in science, and he really should not be offering opinions about this.
Because when he suggests that there being a gain of function in the 2019 coronavirus, that's a smoking gun proof that it was engineered as a bioweapon.
He sounds like a fucking dum-dum.
Gain of function studies are studies where pathogens are given other properties to test their responses, but that's not the only use of the word.
This is really indicative of Boyle not even doing basic research on the topic, because if he had, he could have learned very quickly that gain of function is a category of mutation that happens naturally, as is loss of function.
When that Science Direct article is talking about there being a possible gain of function in the 2019 coronavirus, that makes it more spreadable.
It's talking about natural mutation that could set it apart from other viruses in its clade.
This is a little bit outside my pay grade from a science perspective, so I consulted with an expert on these matters who made me insist that I not call him our health ranger.
As it was explained to me, this 2015 study was looking at SARS and was based on a prediction that in the future, viruses like it would become less picky about ACE2 cleavage.
And to study that, they augmented an existing SARS-like virus in a way that would make it more readily cleaved by an ACE2 receptor.
The goal was to evaluate the risks of other coronaviruses that were circulating in bat populations and what we needed to prepare for if this mutation to ACE2 receptivity did happen.
Conversely, the 2019 paper is an analysis of the current coronavirus, which found that there is a mutation that has occurred that allows the virus to cleave with furin sites, which is intrinsically different than the work that they were doing in that 2015 study.
In effect, the finding of the 2019 paper invalidates the hypothesis of the 2015 study, which is to say that the prior study predicted that future SARS-like viruses would affect humans due to changes in ACE2 receptor cleavage.
Whereas this paper is asserting that that was incorrect and that the actual, actually, the current coronavirus is possibly as widespread as it is because it bypasses the difficulty of ACE2 cleavage altogether, going the furin route instead.
While this has some scary implications, inasmuch as furin cleavage is a simpler process and could make this virus much easier for people to get, it's not all bad news.
If this is in case, if this is the fact, how the 2019 coronavirus is taken in by the body, there are already a ton of treatments and preventative drugs that could be effective against furin cleavage.
This essentially opens up a ton of options for medical treatment if this paper is shown to be perfectly correct.
I have no business discussing the nitty-gritty of this hardcore science stuff.
So to put it simply, these two papers are nowhere near about the same thing.
Even if the 2015 study were proof of the creation of a deadly bioweapon, it still could not possibly be the same virus as the 2019 coronavirus, since the changes to ACE2 cleavage in that study have literally nothing to do with the furin cleavage, which is the discussion about the current virus.
They're two completely different things.
Whatever gain of function was being discussed in that UNC Chapel Hill thing is fundamentally intrinsically different than whatever mutation is being discussed.
Just because those same words are there, that's the connection that's being made.
That's why you don't listen to Francis Boyle about science-related issues.
So if I understand this correctly, based on what you've just described to me, the 2015 paper is talking about ACE2 cleavage, which is something that is less common and something that we're not as prepared for.
So the study there was trying to figure out if this is the way that it mutates, then we need to be able to prepare for ACE2 cleavage.
ACE2 cleaving in the sites is the way it was described to me, it's very finicky between populations.
So like something that would bind to, or not, the binding is simple, but the cleaving is not.
So something that would be taken in by ACE2 receptors in a bat, let's say, is not the same as would be taken in by humans through the ACE2 receptors.
So there is differences there that cause an inability for one thing to affect different animal populations.
So the study that they were doing is testing if it was easier, could humans be susceptible to other coronaviruses that were traveling in bat communities.
And it's done clear to me that this scientist from the Wuhan Institute of Virology got this gain of function technology for SARS from this University of North Carolina lab.
This is very interesting, though I'm not sure proves that the scientist from the Wuhan Institute of Virology got some super virus from this study, which is ridiculous bullshit.
Francis Boyle did such a lazy job of reading the study that he completely missed that there was a second person on it from Wuhan involved.
Jing Yi Ji was also an author on the study, and Boyle doesn't seem to realize that.
Also, if he's going to say that anyone on this study is automatically somehow suspicious, why is he leaving off that another author that was named was Antonio Lanzavicia, who's from the Institute of Research and Biomedicine in Zurich, Switzerland?
It's not because I'm certain that Francis Boyle didn't uncover this study.
He just found it on a dumb conspiracy website and he's regurgitating it for Alex's audience, lending it credibility by virtue of his position as this guy who wrote a law.
This has all the fingerprints of some lazy conspiracy site because they missed the second researcher from Wuhan.
This is what happens when someone scanning names sees one that points towards their predetermined conclusion and says, good enough, the dumb dumbs will buy this.
There's nothing fundamentally suspicious about a couple of Chinese researchers having co-authore credits on a paper that has to do with the SARS-like coronavirus.
If you don't recall, their country has a bit of a history on the subject.
It makes sense that there will be a possibility of collaboration there.
Like, for one, Alex says that he's just getting to reading the study, which literally means he's reading it while Boyle is talking, which is simultaneously a bad way to interview and a bad way to read.
You're just going to do a bad job of both.
Second, Boyle is giving up the game.
If you watch the video when he's describing how he found this information, he has a little smile on his face.
And he just says that's part of the job.
That, you know, all in a day's work.
Oh, shucks.
It's just what heroes do.
Stuff is horseshit.
This is a man who knows he can't tell Alex where he got the information from because if he did, he would instantly reveal that he didn't do any research.
He just found it on a conspiracy blog.
Weirdly, an article covering very similar territory was published on February 15th, a couple days before this interview took place on Zero Hedge.
This was about a Chinese researcher who theorized that the virus could have escaped from the lab at Wuhan, who points out that Zheng Li Li Shi works at the Wuhan lab and was involved in that North Carolina study in 2015, which would explain why Boyle seems unaware of the other people on that study.
Boyle is not a scientist.
He does not keep up with scientific journals.
He's just a conspiracy theorist who happens to teach law.
And he read some dumb shit, probably on Zero Edge.
Now he's playing the role of a genius researcher who cracked the case with Alex.
Also, that part about China paying for the study is because Boyle is cherry-picking stuff out of the acknowledgements.
The study was partially funded by an award from the National Natural Science Foundation of China.
But, you know, he kind of leaves off that there were also grants from the National Institutes of Aging.
That might sound weird, but why aging people?
Why is that in there?
Well, probably because things like coronaviruses mostly kill the elderly.
So finding treatments and prevention for it would really have the effect of drastically improving the lives of the older set.
So we don't need to listen to any more of Boyle's shit, but I do want to say that there's something particularly hilarious about this interview.
Alex is going on and on about how there's a smoke and gun stuff and they've got the globalists dead to right and they've proved that the virus is a bioweapon.
And instead of getting into the specifics of the research and demonstrating their argument past surface-level things like I found two articles that have the word gain of function in them or like I saw a Chinese person involved in this study, instead of doing any of that, Alex does a long plug for his products.
It's really easy to use this kind of conversation to drive sales when you know everything that's happening on your show isn't real.
And that's what's going on.
Because if not, Alex would be like, holy shit, holy shit, call everybody.
If that's real, then he gives up that he doesn't believe the stories he's telling by his lackadaisical sales pitch for five minutes in the middle of this video.
There's another reality that we need to discuss.
And I think it might help in explaining Alex's unwillingness to get into the virus news on this February 20th show.
I was speculating that it's because, you know, hey, everything's sold out, no real financial motive to do this.
But I actually, now that I, you know, I've watched this Boyle interview and see that he's saying that there's a smoking gun, that the U.S. sold this bioweapon to try all this stuff, I think he realizes he's gone too far.
So he already has the world's number one fake authority on the science of bioweapons, Francis Boyle, coming on his show and giving him absolute definitive smoking gun proof that not only is the coronavirus lab made, but that Alex is now in possession of the documents that prove that this lab in North Carolina created it in 2015 at the behest of the Chinese government who paid for its creation.
According to the reality of his show, Boyle is a credible source, and it's been proven that the researchers at UNC Chapel Hill made China a bioweapon because they wanted money.
The problem with this is, from a narrative standpoint, there's nowhere good to go.
Alex knows that his proof isn't proof, and any real scientist that looks at it or any court or legal investigator would laugh in his face.
So that route is not going to work.
That's one direction he could go, trying to pursue legal action against the folks in North Carolina, but he knows that's a dead end and it probably could result in a countersuit.
If you're presenting to your audience that you have definitive smoking gun evidence, this is a bioweapon and, you know, they were selling it to China and it's the most deadly thing ever.
Not think that you're getting dangerously close to the point where your audience is going to start calling in and saying, hey, why aren't you telling us to like you should be telling us to burn down UNC Chapel Hill and kill those scientists?
He has proven demonstrably that this is a bioweapon that's killing hundreds and hundreds of people, and you've cracked the conspiracy.
Yeah, you need to call in the mobs now.
That's based on everything that exists in Alex's show.
That's like where he should be.
So Alex has backed himself into a corner with the sensationalism of his coronavirus coverage.
According to Infowars, this is a civilizational level threat that's definitely a bioweapon.
And now he accidentally allowed Francis Boyle to come on and definitively name the culprits.
This kind of leaves Alex with only a few choices.
One is to continue escalating and risk one of his listeners taking him seriously and trying to hurt the folks at UNC, which is kind of the natural conclusion a person would have listening to his show.
Another option is to throw Boyle under the bus and say that he's wrong about this.
But if Alex does that, he risks calling into question all the other stuff that Boyle has told him about the outbreak.
And it also risks his ability to have Boyle on when the next outbreak comes and he needs to sell his survival food.
I guess the third option is this: be a coward and ramble for about half an hour about how you can't cover the story because it's already a solved case.
And the only thing left to do for Alex is rally the troops.
This is really, really a good case study for why, even if you're a propagandist conspiracy theorist, and even if it seems like it's appealing to dabble in the pandemic outbreak stuff, it's just not a good idea to go all in with it.
It's a delicate conspiracy game.
And as you can see here, it's not even a line that a pro like Alex can walk well.
It is, this is like an episode of Law and Order where they like go through all the facts of the case and they solve the mystery and they're like, all right, we got him.
I mean, if you are actually telling me in real life, 100% true that you know exactly who is infecting thousands of people, killing people all over the world, and nobody is doing anything about it.
There's two guys there who literally did this, then it's like, let's get them, let's go find them.
The kind of panic that Alex wants is the kind that drives you to buy his products, not the point where you like, you feel justified in actually torching a building.
Visit operationwin2020.com to discover how you can join the second American Revolution and secure the First Amendment, not just for ourselves, but for future generations.
I recently told the former head of psychological warfare at the State Department, Dr. Steve Pieczenik, about our plan, and he loved it.
What concerns me is we're a month into this, and food sales aren't going down.
They're going up.
And so, you guys, I was talking to you last night and this morning, you're going to have to raise prices a little bit because food prices are going up.
Have you and I ever done an episode where maybe Alex says specifically that these guys are great because they are not opportunists who are raising prices in the face of a crisis?
Have you noticed that the death count, or not the death count, I'm sorry, the those infected in the U.S., the number was like 15.
Suddenly you can't get that number.
Or the number that are under quarantine or self-quarantine in the U.S. You saw a story a couple of days ago, 4,500 in California quarantined or under self-quarantine, 712 in the state of Washington.
Why is there nobody adding up that number to tell us what the picture truly is?
And why has the number of infections number kind of just stopped being reported?
How is anyone going to be able to accurately capture the figure of how many people are self-isolating?
Seems outside the scope of a researcher.
As for the U.S. cases of the virus, this dude's just making it up.
The people have stopped reporting on it.
There's an article right here from the New York Times that the headline, coronavirus cases in the U.S. reach 34.
There's an article in CBS News right here about how many of the people, many of the people who represent that uptick from the previous figure are U.S. citizens who were evacuated from the Diamond Princess cruise ship and are now being quarantined in the United States.
You can find the stories easily if you look for them.
However, if you're trying to drive sales for disaster survival food, it's in your best interest to pretend that there's a cover-up going on, since that tends to imply that things are way worse than they appear and you definitely need survival food right now.
This is all disingenuous exploitation of a public health event to translate it into money.
These people should be ashamed of themselves and their sales practices.
So the fact that you've gotten to the point behind the scenes and you're willing to say it on air that, yeah, our prices are about to go up in a few weeks.
And if it keeps on like this, let's just be honest.
I was talking to you and I was talking to founder Matt Red Hog.
You guys are like, we're going 24 hours a day and we've got the food.
We don't know.
This is scary.
It's only going up.
We just wish this wasn't as big a crisis.
We wish it would stop.
We're scared.
I don't know.
We didn't pre-talk about this, but I'm just being honest about behind the scenes.
I imagine that the food companies that have like, I don't know, I mean, souls or something along those lines are like fully aware that this is all because of the coronavirus panic and they're not pushing it.
But it's wrong to artificially create that demand by the sort of actions that Alex is taking.
So they get done with this interview and Alex comes back and it's time to get to this Trump press conference because Trump is giving his speech about criminal justice.
Now, mic down for this because this clip takes a ride.
Alex jumps in immediate res in the middle of Trump's speech and he thinks that Trump is about to pardon Roger.
So Alex thinks that this speech Trump is giving is going to be where he pardons Roger, but in reality, it's just Trump giving a stump speech at the commencement of a Hope for Prisoners graduation ceremony in Las Vegas.
It was just part of his re-election publicity speech tour.
It has nothing to do with Roger or even any of the pardons like with Blago that he gave up.
It's just press.
So anyway, Trump rambles in the middle of this speech.
And he talks about, like, hey, you know, we're going to get some, hey, you know, some people getting out of prison.
And there are good people.
Well, maybe some of them aren't good people.
He specifically is saying that, like, yeah, I might let some bad people out of prison.
Is this, I like it, must be so similar to what it was like to live during like 85 to 88 with every time Reagan spoke out loud and everybody was just like but with the internet, yeah, yeah, exactly.
When if you heard Reagan speak in those last three years, you must have just been like, I'm going to pretend that didn't happen because that was nuts.
And when Roger was determined by the same jury to be guilty before the judge issued a sentence, and he was determined to be guilty, and she started going a little wild.
She's very happy.
And she started saying things that people said, that's strange.
That's strange.
And then they started looking at how can you have a jury pool tainted so badly?
So, I mean, you can hear like slight nervous laughter from people in the audience.
Like, if you're there for this, like, graduation from a rehabilitation program, like prison to release, like, you're there because maybe one of your loved ones has been trying really hard to get their life back on track, and this is a big time for them.
It's very, it's, you know, you get to reconnect with this person and bring them back into your day-to-day lives.
And you've got the fucking president rambling about a conspiracy theory about a juror.
With regards to Roger Stone, I do want to say if it did work out any differently, because I got a feeling he's going to be pardoned, but in the event this were to come up for other people, he honestly should get rid of his attorneys at law because, I mean, those are titles of nobility, and he should stand in the law, in proprietora, as the attorney, in fact, and use his saving to suitor.
He's in that in-between state where pushing back on this risks alienating the hard sovereign citizen support that exists within his audience and validating it makes it so like his show is stupid.
I would go to city council and county commissioners every week and give a three-minute speech about the world, and that'll dominate them and destroy them until others come and speak.
So we come to the end of this February 20th, 2020 episode, and I think that Alex has dealt quite well with the fact that his best friend got sentenced to three years plus in prison.
I just, I have this dream in my head that I like, I really hope Trump abandons Stone because I think Stone might be the only rat fucker able to rat fuck Trump.
Right.
I think he's the only one who could really do it.
And I want to see what happens because he's got so much shit.
I imagine those lines blur together just like in a personal sense of like, I, well, I mean, yeah, if you're friends with Roger Stone, the longer your friendship goes, the more part of your friendship is like, I wish I hadn't said that to Roger Stone.