Today, Dan and Jordan check in to see how things are going when Alex returned from bothering people in McAllen. In this installment, Alex misreports a story on Covid vaccination and pregnancy, creates a strawman version of the indictment against Trump's company, and warns that soon all children will be Peter Pan.
No, but because my coffee maker is so garbage, I didn't use that Hawaiian coffee that you bought for me because it would have just come out like garbage.
Alex was in down by the border, of course, and he had gotten back by Thursday, and I figured, hey, we're going to check in, see what he has to say about Rumsfeld, the Trump organization indictment.
Oh, during a divorce, Trump might have let one of his children Who's getting divorced stay in a condo because he was kicked out of the other condo that his wife was living in.
So Alex and Owen are having some fun here, but the reality of this case is a little bit different than the picture they're painting.
The case had its roots in some questions about Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg's son, who lived in a Trump-owned apartment and paid, quote, far below typical Manhattan prices for it.
Additionally, they found that Weisselberg himself reported to be a resident of Long Island, but in fact lived in a company-paid apartment in Manhattan, thereby avoiding, quote, So there's a bunch of things that are like...
I didn't even hear anybody bring up that Errol Morris documentary where he just talked directly to Rumsfeld for a while.
It was, like, you know, with terrifying genocidal psychopaths, you know, like George W. Bush, he's still got that kind of charm, that down-home folksy charm, and when you are just listening to Donald Rumsfeld talk and looking into his eyes, you're like, this is the most terrifying serial killer in the history of this fucking planet.
Meanwhile, freedom lovers are on a kamikaze mission to the flame of liberty to do anything to keep it going, even if that means jumping into it themselves to spontaneously combust.
I also do a lot of special transmissions, and I'm seriously considering, as so much news is breaking, on coming in Saturday and doing a special broadcast, and a special broadcast on Sunday, and maybe even on Monday, because we need to really understand this could be...
We're not honest with ourselves about how much trouble we're in.
We have no hope.
So I'm just asking listeners to realize that this is the moment of truth.
Well, I mean, on our last episode, we saw him go down to the border and manufacture an entire situation where he saw a blonde, blue-eyed kid being kidnapped.
Well, that's the problem, is, you know, just like the media is 10 or 20 years behind Infowars, simply just because they don't want to be fully honest with their audience.
Most of the stuff that Alex or I talk about on air...
The average person on Fox News or whatever will talk about behind the scenes with their family at the bar, at dinner, whatever.
They know it's all going on.
They're just not going to talk about it on TV.
So that causes the public to also kind of be 10, 20 years behind.
And that's why they're so stunned when they see Infowars reports from 10 years ago or whatever that are calling out everything that's happening now.
Alex didn't get any of that from some kind of evil globalist plan that he's read.
Anyone could predict that if an outbreak isn't contained quickly, the underlying virus will evolve as it's transmitted.
Every time it replicates, there's a chance for a mutation that could result in a new, more dangerous version of it, and that's something that pretty much everybody...
Yeah, you know, if you let anything reproduce trillions of times, it's gonna make a new variant.
And, I mean, obviously, not for nothing, Alex's rhetoric and the worldview that he's espoused greatly contribute towards people behaving in ways that increase transmission.
It's not quite right, but it's an outcome that he is warning against whilst acting towards.
So he is essentially saying...
Don't respect the lockdowns, and they're going to create more variants, but by not respecting the lockdowns, you create more variants, and so on and so forth.
Which fuels your propaganda more, and then creates the feedback loop that leads us to where you say that 10 years later, Fox News is finally catching up.
And in this newest paper, Global Governance Toolkit for Digital Mental Health, Building Trust.
In disruptive technology for mental health, they say, oh, our technology, our takeover, our end of the family is going to wreck their mental health, so now we've got to take control of them and help them.
He's interpreting the word in a way you might if you didn't understand the concept, and then you were just cold reading a headline and had to come up with a meaning for it on the fly.
If you'd actually read the paper, you would have known that this is about a specific topic, namely disruptive technology and its possible applications in helping address mental health issues.
Disruptive technology is a term that's used to describe things that are innovative to an almost upending scale.
A lot of tech startups aim to be disruptive.
If you look at something like Uber, that's kind of an instance of really disruptive innovation in the previous status quo of the taxi industry.
This white paper is looking at ethical implications and other issues surrounding the emergence of disruptive technologies aimed at mental health, quote, from simple educational websites to virtual reality avatars delivering cognitive behavioral therapy.
...
...
Honestly, some of the stuff I think is a little unnerving, like the conversation about using digital phenotyping, quote, where phones, watches and computers measure everything from behavior, language, facial expressions and voice voice tonality in helping to make diagnoses.
But that's not so.
something that's being forced upon people.
It's just a subject of conversation in this paper about tech innovation in the mental health space.
Right.
unidentified
Another thing that they bring up is how, quote, augmented and virtual reality are enabling consumers to experience and practice real-life scenarios within the safe confines of a visit to their psychologist, which seems like a pretty amazing possibility for a disruptive technology breakthrough in mental health.
So she ran for a Senate seat in Delaware in 2020 and made it through the GOP primary but lost pretty resoundingly in the general election against Chris Coons.
This is an interesting instance of basically like an Ouroboros happening on Infowars, where Alex himself probably had a huge hand in radicalizing Lauren, who he's now interviewing, as if she's some kind of an independent expert in things.
She once said in a podcast that watching Loose Change, the 9-11 documentary that Alex produced, was her, quote, great awakening moment.
She was a big QAnon booster, and an article in the Daily Beast by Will Sommer does a pretty good job of racking up some of her great...
For instance, she stated that she believes the Earth is flat.
Also, she posted an image on Pinterest that said, quote, over 620,000 white people died to free black slaves, and still to this day, not one thank you.
Quote, you know, that would be really cool, because I really think that he's a man who puts America first, and he's the first president I've seen in my lifetime who really puts America first, and the people of America first.
I guess I could get behind Trump lifelong term, I guess.
She's either trolling or she's a lunatic right-wing extremist, and I don't really care which it is.
I don't think that a right-wing ding-dong showing up on a right-wing ding-dong program and talking about how Christians are under attack and the Equality Act is evil, I don't think that is going to even raise anyone's pulse.
So, you remember how when Alex was on that podcast, Flagrant 2, he was trying to pretend that his problem with things like the Pride flag and Black Lives Matter, where the corporations are trying to mask their evil actions by hiding behind socially conscious signals?
This is what his actual content entails and is made up of.
Blue's Clues put out a clip on their YouTube channel where Blue sings an alphabet song where the P in it stood for pride.
There's a bunch of flags on the screen momentarily, like the asexual flag, the trans flag, the pansexual flag, and the intersex flag, for instance.
is not concerned with the corporate co-option of LGBTQ plus identities.
He just uses that as a respectable mask to hide his own overt bigotries when he's on a platform where that sort of conversation, like, it would come off as being Yeah.
A podcast where you can bro out and talk about how you gotta trick dick and what have you.
You might be showing your cards a little too much, and so you hide behind this respectable facade that is, I'm just not into corporations doing this Pride Month thing where you put up a logo and then all of your past sins are forgotten.
So LifeSite News is a pretty bad outlet with dog shit editorial standards, and I don't usually trust them for shit.
And you always hear things being cited.
It's like Natural News and LifeSite or two that are always like, eh, I don't know about this.
That said, if you try to find this article that Lauren is telling Alex about, you'll find the headline, quote, huge red flag, medical researchers bury data showing 82% miscarriage rate in vaccinated women.
This is followed by no actual article, but instead, there's an editor's note that says, quote, This article has been temporarily pulled for further review, so LifeSite can make adjustments and provide additional clarification regarding the data.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Thank you for your understanding and patience as we seek to maintain accurate and honest reporting.
Even though they've taken down the article, guess what?
It's still the number one article listed on the site's must-read list, so that's cool.
There's a copy of this article on the Wayback Machine, and it relies on comments from an oncologist and a, quote, reader who described herself as a teacher of medical research to insist that a New England Journal of Medicine paper was lying about the conclusions that its data found.
The paper is easily accessible if anybody wants to read it.
What the researchers did was use self-reported information to assess the outcomes of vaccination on pregnancies.
They found that, quote, preliminary findings did not show obvious safety signals among pregnant persons who received mRNA COVID vaccines.
They also found that there seemed to be very low risk in people who were vaccinated in later terms, like third trimester.
There's some concern in the data about how many people who got vaccinated early in their pregnancy did not end up in a live birth.
However, the data is unclear about exactly the circumstances.
Since everything was self-reported, there is a possibility of...
Another issue is that this study, we need to wait to give more info, and there's an obvious reason.
People who were vaccinated in their first trimester might not have reached the point where they would be giving birth yet, and thus, this data is not going to be particularly useful in terms of assessing those outcomes.
In terms of people who were vaccinated in their third trimester, most of those pregnancies have come to term, so there's a more useful metric for the purposes of what this paper could hope to capture.
The paper literally says this.
Quote, I'm gonna wait and see what comes out on this subject as the fuller scope of information becomes available, but for now, I can say with some certainty, and LifeSite News seems to agree, that the version that's being peddled by Lauren is fucking nonsense.
Ladies and gentlemen, I just read the study that's using mainline federal numbers from the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most prestigious journals in the world.
Depopulation alert, the articles on Infowars.com.
Shocking new study reveals COVID vaccine treatments terminates four out of five pregnancies.
So what's going on here is that the anti-vax folks have glommed onto a specific data point from this report in the New England Journal of Medicine, and they're using it to argue that COVID vaccine results in 80 or so percent death rate for pregnancies.
This New England Journal of Medicine article includes a table where they list the number of spontaneous abortions observed as a percentage of the total pregnancies completed captured in their registry.
There were 827 total pregnancies, 104 of which resulted in spontaneous abortion.
This number is in line with the expected incidents.
Sure, sure, sure, sure.
The reason why it's a little murky here is it comes from the definition of spontaneous abortion only being relevant until week 20 of pregnancy.
Past that point, it's considered a stillbirth.
So the folks like Alex and such, they insist that what should be done is to not consider the total number of completed pregnancies as the denominator of the fraction.
Instead, it should be the number of people who got vaccinated in the first trimester.
So, you understand what I'm saying?
Basically, you should exclude everyone from that, and then now the number becomes 82%.
But Alex and his friends are also being kind of dishonest about what these numbers capture, because these are completed pregnancies.
Right, right, right.
If you want to use the argument that they have and stay honest with it, you can scroll up in the paper and find that 1132 people were vaccinated in their first trimester.
You know, the proportion of spontaneous abortions there would be lower than the figure that they use in the actual paper, because the denominator they use is 827 as opposed to 1132.
So the issue is that 827, that number is all completed pregnancies, which includes known live births and spontaneous abortions or stillbirths.
Many of the people who were vaccinated in the first trimester had not completed their pregnancies at the point when the data was compiled, so the stats look a lot worse in that column, for reasons that should be really obvious.
If you think about it, for any stretch of time longer than one of Alex's stupid commercial breaks.
This makes total sense.
Later, there will be more full information.
We can make a better assessment of it.
This paper is useful in as much as it captures some...
Information about late trimester outcomes in vaccines.
The stuff about the beginning, the first and second trimester, is a little bit murky due to availability of information and incompleteness.
The study authors apparently sought to deliberately obfuscate the truth about the vaccines causing spontaneous abortion.
You understand, this was an attempted cover-up.
By obfuscating numbers in their own calculations, originally brought to our attention by a Life Science News article.
We checked with our own science contacts to review the data and double-check all the math.
In doing so, we were able to confirm, this is natural news, two things.
Yes, the study shows an 82% rate of spontaneous abortions and expectant mothers given COVID vaccines during their first and second trimesters.
They may be the lucky ones.
Imagine what's going to happen to the kids that are born.
Number two, yes, the study authors either deliberately sought to hide the facts in dishonest obfuscation, explained below, or they are incompetent amid a glaring error that brings into question their credibility.
In other words, the study was almost certainly a cover-up to try to calm vaccinated pregnant women.
It's perfectly safe, but the study data actually shows the opposite.
I mean, I really feel like it must suck a lot to just not know anything about science and actively hate it, just to the point where somebody can be like, these scientists were clearly obfuscating deliberately this information and just say...
Sounds true to me.
You know, just like that reactionary hatred of people who have dedicated their lives to learning.
There were a lot of doctors, Alex, a lot of doctors that took our webinar the first time that actually reached out to me, medical doctors, MDs, DOs, naturopaths, who reached out to me after the webinar and they were like, wow, I had no idea.
Thank you so much.
The information you gave us was so valuable.
So if we can convert them one doctor at a time, that one doctor sees 5,000 patients.
So perhaps of those 5,000 patients, we can...
Keep more of them from being injected with this genetic modification technology that will permanently and irreversibly change your genes.
And you know, it's interesting that we just got some notifications yesterday that they really are giving some people sailing shots.
And that's because they don't want everybody to die all at once, is my opinion of that.
But every single person that has been injected, even if you say, oh, well, I feel fine, there's nothing wrong with me, I always sadly say, well, I'm glad that you didn't fall into Category 1 of the 20 mechanisms of injuries.
Oh, my God.
Which is anaphylactic shock, heart attack, and stroke.
And so you didn't have one of those, so that doesn't mean you're scot-free.
And so some people just accidentally got the unactivated shot, essentially.
Yeah, I don't know.
I don't know why this retired colonel guy, his son, who's in Special Forces, gets a shot, and the guy tells him, don't worry, we're just giving you saline.
Why would they even go through the play-acting of it?
Yeah, I mean, if you're giving this kind of information to someone who's in Special Forces who's going to tell his dad who's going to tell Alex Jones...
Indiana came out with a thing a couple of weeks ago that said, if your kids are vaccinated in great age groups K through 7, They haven't even gotten to that point yet.
But if they've been injected, kindergarteners, through the seventh grade, then those injected children who are now marked forever and forever will have their genetics modified and most likely will not turn into adult women or adult men.
They will be kind of neutered and be a eunuch as they grow up and will not actually evolve into mature adults.
But if we've injected them, if parents have been stupid enough to inject their children with these technologies, oh, well, then that will give them privileges.
Tough conversations and tough decisions that need to be made, and I'm really glad on some level that I don't have any kids, and I don't have an involvement in those sorts of decisions.
I don't know if there's anything I can think of that's funnier than them believing that in ten years we're going to have a generation of 18-year-old tiny people just wandering around with their tiny little high-pitched voices and the experience of a lifetime.
They can absolutely, they're just signing away their rights to ever wanting to become a grandparent.
And if they give these kids, these 12 to 15 year old kids these shots, if they give it to a 12 year old girl who's already started her periods, is anybody going to keep track to see whether or not she stops them?
If she hasn't started her periods yet, is anybody going to look to see if she ever does?
That will never grow into men, will never go through puberty.
They won't develop body hair and facial hair and lower their voice and get muscles and grow tall.
Is anybody going to monitor to see if that happens?
If we give this to 12-year-old boys, what happens if we don't get females that grow into women and boys that don't grow into men and they can't reproduce?
Well, the nefarious people at the top are spending a whole lot of time killing a lot of people off from the top.
They certainly don't want to have their children.
All of these children repopulate the planet from the bottom.
The obvious angle for Alex, though, is to say that the reason the elites are doing this is so they can have an infinite amount of pedophile children around.
The silliness of some of the attacks on vaccine and sort of reality are growing.
Yeah.
It's more nonsensical than usual, certainly, checking in.
I was shocked.
There's no real Rumsfeld conversation on this episode, but hey, you know, when you get breaking news like this study that Loren Witzke brings to his attention, you know, sometimes it'll catch you off guard.
I can't get out of my head the idea that when I'm like 90, I'm going to be hanging out with this child who is 87. Just this tiny little child next to me with all the world weariness that comes with that age.
It would have the same amount of grounding and support.
So yeah, I'll see what happens in the future with Alex, but I think he's going to be talking about this 82% number, probably for the foreseeable future, which will be annoying.
LifeSite said, we're going to rethink this one a little bit.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So yeah, and it's because also one of the problems with it is it's pretty easily explainable based on the context of the study.
And the conclusion that's trying to be pushed by Alex is so incendiary that like...
If you actually believed that 82% of people who got vaccinated lost their pregnancies, I don't know what you would be driven to do to resolve that or to fight back against that.
Like I said, I hope you would have the restraint to realize the danger of playing with that kind of fire, but I've been very wrong about people in the past.