Jordan Holmes and Dan Friesen dissect Alex Jones’ October 3–4, 2021 episodes, where he amplified Mike Adams’ debunked claims about mRNA vaccines causing millions of deaths—ignoring Medicare’s age-specific data and ethnic disparities lacking causal proof—while falsely tying Facebook outages to globalist conspiracies. Jones also misrepresented a Polish journalist’s UK ban as evidence of "social credit scores," cherry-picked flawed CMS/VAERS data, and promoted boycotts against corporations like AT&T and Coca-Cola via Root’s telemarketer-harassed CEO list. Their mockery highlights Jones’ financial desperation, legal inconsistencies, and reliance on unverified theories to fund operations, revealing a pattern of self-serving paranoia over actual accountability. [Automatically generated summary]
We really should all just sit back for a moment and take a deep breath and cogitate or meditate or just think very deeply and very calmly and very serenely.
And then we have to make decisions at a cerebral level and then emotionally, once we've made our decisions in a very calm way, use the emotions the good Lord gave us to very aggressively power our intellect against the globalists.
You can intellectually decide that you're going to do something like unscrew a despot's head.
But then if you're going to do it physically, it takes the horsepower psychologically, mentally, and physically to actually break that neck quickly and easily.
He did a great job reporting on a story that broke Thursday evening.
A lot of different angles to it.
He went with the angle of AI-powered...
DOD data analysis program named Project Solace shatters official vaccine narrative, shows ADE accelerating in the fully vaccinated with each passing week.
And there's other angles to it, but ADE is the big one.
And again, for people that saw this and didn't follow the links, I have a whole stack of articles here that I'll show TV viewers first.
This is from Mainstream News.
This is from the Pentagon's...
On site, effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against the Delta variant amongst 5.6 million Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older.
This is a particular study.
It came out September 28, 2021.
It got discovered by a lawyer that's involved in these lawsuits against him, and it's now come out.
The JAIC, or the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, launched Project Salus in March 2020 as, quote, a predictive tool to help identify where critical supply chain shortages were occurring during the pandemic.
Essentially, it compiled a ton of data together and used it to make predictions about where resources should be allocated.
This document that Alex is talking about that Mike Adams has apparently reported on is a PowerPoint presentation that was put together by Humetrix, a medical app developer who was seeking to answer some questions by consulting data from Project Salus.
The central questions they were concerned with had to do with vaccine effectiveness and whether or not it waned over time.
They were further interested in reduced effectiveness with the Delta variant and among people in subpopulations within the data.
Essentially, they found that there may be some concern about waning effectiveness of the mRNA vaccines, but there's some huge caveats you have to give when discussing this PowerPoint presentation.
The first thing is that the data that they're using only covers people 65 and older.
It's not necessarily something that you can extrapolate out into the entire population.
Also, a very important point is that this is a PowerPoint presentation.
If you're looking at the slides, you can see what are basically the visual aids that someone has put together to help them in giving a lecture.
You're missing the essential context of the person's actual presentation which isn't being captured in the PowerPoint.
Case in point is slide number nine.
They were looking at vaccine effectiveness in a three to four month post-vaccination period and five to six months post.
This slide shows that their age distribution is heavily skewed, with people 85 and older making up 43% of the folks in the five to six month group, but only 14% in the three to four month group.
Conversely, people age 65 to 74 made up 51% of the three to four month group and only 24% of the five to six month group.
The fact that the five- to six-month group skews much older could introduce confounding variables that make the analysis more complicated, and as such, the slide includes a discussion question on the sidebar.
If you only have the PowerPoint to go off of, you have this discussion question, but you don't have the discussion.
Also, none of the stuff that Alex is saying about this having to do with ADE is real at all.
It's just made up explanations for data that they don't care to try to understand.
But the data that's being presented in this PowerPoint presentation, if everything is above board, It does introduce some interesting questions for people to look into, but it does not introduce conclusions.
While that was totally made up, it's fair to say that this slideshow does seem to indicate that there is an increase in breakthrough cases and thus a decrease in vaccine efficacy between the 3-4 month and 5-6 month groups.
Mike is ignoring all the context and the suggestions of possible explanations for the data presented because he has his own explanation that he just wants to jam down the audience's throat.
Also, on slide 6, it literally says that the rate of hospitalization dropped by a third, comparing breakthrough cases to people in the same age group who just got COVID before the vaccines rolled out in March to December 2020.
Not only that, in breakthrough infections, there was a 2.1% death rate among people age 65 and up compared to a 12% death rate in that same period between March and December 2020.
Mike is entirely misrepresenting this PowerPoint presentation in order to make a fraudulent argument against vaccination.
This is surprisingly weak stuff from the Health Ranger.
This looks like a flatline projection, so if we continue to project this out further in time to, let's say, 9 months or 12 months, which is coming up in our immediate future, It looks like this is going to triple the three-month negative effects or perhaps quadruple the three-month negative effects at 12 months.
And it looks like, Alex, that we're going to see probably, this is my estimation, this is not in the report, but by my estimation, we're going to see millions of Americans suffering severe hospitalizations and deaths over the next six months due to the vaccines.
Just based on the information in this PowerPoint presentation, there are very strong indications that Mike will be totally wrong with these predictions.
For one thing, he seems to be ignoring that this data is just a group of people 65 and older.
Secondly, because the age distribution in the 3-4 month group and the 5-6 month group is so different, there's not necessarily going to be this straight-line phenomenon Mike is predicting.
As time goes on, the average age of people getting vaccinated tends to go down because the elderly were a top priority initially for vaccination.
The proportion of the people aged 85 and older goes way down in the three to four month group and also the vaccine efficacy numbers go up.
It's entirely possible that there's some relationship between age and mRNA vaccine efficacy that we are yet to discover.
The point is that there's a lot of possible explanations for the data in this PowerPoint slide, and Mike is just making shit up so he can act like a dramatic little baby talking about millions dead on Alex, because that's how they have fun and make money.
To take something that so obviously shows a massive improvement over not getting a vaccine and then being like, see, I bet after three months it's four times as bad as it was after two days!
A lot of people are taking the vaccines even though they've already had the illness and been sick.
And so what we're finding is people that naturally already had it, even though this injection has compromised them and set them up for death, the body is so smart it's able to figure it out if it's already been in contact with it because it's the vaccine itself creating that in the body.
So it makes sense that having had COVID previously would give you a leg up in terms of immune response.
A lot of the science hasn't been totally clear on the exact extent to which people become immune for COVID after they get it, but there is some effect.
It's, you know, we'll know more later.
Again, though, I need to stress that this data set is entirely comprised of individuals age 65 and older, and it's not sensible to think that this can be applied to the general population.
Alex confused himself there because the narrative on Infowars up to this point is that the mRNA vaccines train your body to attack itself.
And Alex has been very clear that he believes that if you get the vaccine after having COVID, you're as good as dead.
This slideshow that Mike is covering shows some indications to the contrary.
So Alex has to figure out a way to dance around that in a ton of words, hoping that the audience doesn't realize that this is the exact opposite of what he's been saying for months.
If you plan to get vaccinated, according to these data put out by the DOD, the number one thing that you can do to survive the vaccine is to get COVID before you take the vaccine.
That's in the data.
That's what it shows.
So for those people who have been infected and then they get the vaccine, they are probably likely to have lower incidence of negative outcomes versus people who never had any infection.
I appreciate the restraint, but I mean, like the implication that he's giving is like, if you're going to get the vaccine, go give yourself COVID first.
But also notice the last slide of this, slide 17. It also shows the ethnic groups that are most affected by this.
That's slide 17, and it shows that Native Americans have the highest rate of increased odds of negative outcomes.
So if you're Native American and you're getting this vaccine, you have about a 1.5 times higher risk of death and negative side effects compared to Caucasians.
If you're Hispanic, it's about a roughly 1.3 to 1.4 times greater odds.
If you're black, It's something more like 1.25, roughly in that range.
But the point is, this vaccine has ethnic effects that, you know, there have been many people out there warning about the possibility of this vaccine being a biological weapon.
This is not a responsible reading of this graph at all.
There is a higher risk of hospitalization in breakthrough cases among people of Native American populations, but this slide alone is not enough to demonstrate that there's a causal relationship.
Throughout the pandemic, if you cared to listen, people were talking a bunch about disproportionately high rates of infection and death among Native communities.
This is part of a longstanding conversation, and there are a number of hypotheses given for the numbers, including a higher rate of shared and intergenerational housing, decreased access to health care, and higher prevalence of COVID-19 comorbidities This is something relevant.
For sure, and it's something that researchers are keeping an eye on and discussing, but the way that Mike's talking about this stuff is just not, it's not connected to reality.
I mean, it does sound like he's literally saying that, once again, smallpox blankets are roaming across this land, tearing everybody to pieces, which is, I mean, not terribly wrong.
So I want to talk about that here in a few minutes, but just going back to this, because we could talk 10 hours about this, to have the Pentagon's main AI program that's all over the news, monitoring deaths, monitoring what's happening, and then they just put out a report, what it does, and they're honest about it, but no political statements are in it, and it says that you're way more likely to die if you've had these shots.
Can they do aerosolized releases of these toxic nanoparticles this coming winter?
Could they release this in the United States?
Could they target a particular city?
Have they already done so in the past?
Personally, this is my opinion, Alex, but I believe they've already done so, and I think they're planning to do so again, and I think they are going to continue.
To commit genocide against not just the American people, but everybody around the world to try to drive people into the vaccines while they're crashing the economy and causing widespread suffering and death and destitution.
They will then blame the unvaccinated for the vaccinated dying and others, but to cover it up, they'll then just spray the general public, like my dad and countless others, and almost kill them.
My prediction is people are going to see troops on the streets by Christmas, and they're going to see bodies piling up in certain areas, of course, with a false narrative stating, no, it couldn't have been the vaccines, but this is what we're going to see.
This is the winter die-off.
This is the sort of soft coup military replacement of the infrastructure of first responders and medical workers, and you may have even, at some point, troops in certain areas at grocery stores checking your vaccine.
So, by Christmas, like in two months, two and a half months, we're going to have military on the street, guarding grocery stores, bodies piling up everywhere.
They got stir-crazy because they assumed that the lockdown and the COVID thing wouldn't last as long, so they thought it would be fun to scaremonger about it.
Yeah, I was really kind of hoping for maybe a Barnes.
I was kind of thinking that a Barnes would show up to let us know that it's actually, he actually won the lawsuit somehow and there's a secret double powerful constitutional amendment that we're going to have.
He responds a little bit more to the Sandy Hook stuff on Monday, because this is mostly about Mike Adams' Mike Adams seems to have paid for some time on the program.
I'm not sure they realize how close we are to the end of the American empire, period.
The end of the dollar.
You see, the only way that they're keeping this going and the way that Biden is bribing all of the Democrat groups to carry out more voter fraud on the ground is through money printing.
So the money printing allows them to distribute these trillions of dollars.
They call it a COVID stimulus, but of course, as you know, almost none of it goes to anything related to COVID.
This just goes...
It gets funneled into other groups to keep the Democrats in power.
When you're the devil, you don't want to have different teams working on goals that are completely antithetical to each other and have nothing to do with the larger objective.
And that seems to be how the organizational chart works.
So you're fighting the devil whose plan is to have his followers fight against himself in order to torture them eternally because their plans will not...
It's going to be an engineered famine situation, a release of another bioweapon, an energy collapse resulting in at least regional power grid disruptions, and then followed by, at the worst possible time, in my opinion, they're going to cause an economic catastrophe, which may be bank holidays, it may eventually be the actual collapse of the dollar itself, but we can't know the timing, so I'm not making that prediction for this winter.
The reason that Mike does stuff like this, and it's scattershot, there's so many different things that just make no sense why someone would have all of these plans operating, is because, like, let's say that there is a famine.
Well, I mean, for those who don't know, we gave them every document, everything they ever asked for, more than anybody ever did.
They removed one judge, put a new one in, and she said, first hearing, first real hearing, I'm defaulting you, you never gave us one document, and then they lie all over the news.
Well, they're going to try to kill others to get the drugs and food that they want, but they have very little discipline and training, and most of them will be killed themselves.
What an incredible time to be alive, ladies and gentlemen.
I have a very important special report we're going to air at the start of the next segment.
And then he's got so much to cover tonight in Sunday Live, 6 to 8 p.m.
I've asked Harrison Smith who's going to be hosting those weekday mornings at 8 a.m.
American Journal here on the InfoWars Network.
He's going to come in and finish the last segment and a half to tell you what's coming up and hit some other news he's got, and then he'll be back tomorrow morning, 8 a.m.
I'll be back at 11 a.m., and Owen Schroyer will be back tomorrow.
So what are you talking about there about the budget thing?
That was about Representative John Yarmuth, who gave a speech back in June at a Rotary Club, and he touched on how we don't actually have to pay off the national debt.
Then I guess people are mad about this now, even though it was back in June.
He explained things pretty well, but Alex didn't have time to get into it today before he left work early, so I guess I'll wait until he covers it to get into the specifics about it.
And InfoWars has always been the canary in the coal mine.
For when you know InfoWars is in trouble, you know the country is on its knees and willfully sticking its head into the chopping block of the guillotine.
Thank you so much for joining us.
Well, we've been at the top of Twitter all weekend since last Thursday.
The end of Alex Jones.
Jury finds Jones guilty of defamation.
Must pay.
Nobody knows Adam Lanza's name, the man that they say killed those children at Sandy Hook, the young drug addict, devil worshiper.
People don't know his name.
They know my name, though, because the corporate media constantly attaches me to a shooting that happened.
Almost ten years ago, and that I did question, is my right as American?
But yeah, I've got stacks of news here from those controlled corporate press where they don't tell you that a judge says, a Democrat judge that just got elected in Texas, same one trying to block the pro-life bill that's law.
She doesn't have that power as a county judge to do it, but she's trying.
And she took the case over from the last judge that just retired, and at the second hearing, said you didn't give him anything.
And Mr. Jones, you said this is a kangaroo trial on your show, she said in the ruling, a month ago.
The exact quote was, you said this is a show trial.
Well, I said when she said a month ago, now five weeks ago at a hearing, the second hearing, And I think I'm going to default you because you haven't given any evidence because the other lawyers said we hadn't.
It didn't matter what the proof was or the record or the depositions or all of it.
But for every attack you see on Infowars, you understand that's an attack on you, the infrastructure.
I mean, this announcement...
We'll cover next segment that you don't have juries anymore and that suits against Rachel Maddow get thrown out when she says things way more defamatory than I've said.
That's all okay because she has free speech, but I don't.
Others won't have free speech under this model, and then the judges will simply say it doesn't matter how much.
Discover you give us on something that has nothing to do with what this case is.
We're just going to say you didn't and default you and say you're guilty and owe money.
That's a violation of the 7th Amendment on its face.
That guy's from the 7th Amendment police.
They're trying to get rid of jury trials for criminal stuff as well.
So that's why you need to understand when I tell you that we need your financial support, when I tell you that we're working with a lot of folks out there to make sure there's serious redundancy and a lot of other things, that takes money.
To fight this war.
And they realize they're losing that war, so they had to bypass the jury altogether.
But I need your financial support, so I'm going to tell you right now.
You never know, this will be your last chance today to get an Infowars t-shirt.
I'm gonna get on a water slide instead of buy your shirt because you've told me you've failed, that it's all over, and that everything that you've done up to this point is meaningless.
So anyway, the Seventh Amendment says, quote, In suits at common law where the value in controversy shall exceed $20, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.
And no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law.
This would be relevant, except this only applies to federal courts, and very specifically not to civil cases being heard in state courts.
The Supreme Court has thrice affirmed that state courts have no obligation to provide jury trials for civil cases, but many do anyway, just sort of as a formality.
I do love, I do love sometimes you really, you know, like, you know the stuff is in there, but then you go back and you actually hear it, and you read it.
You read it again and again, and you're like, wait a second.
We're still listening to a constitution that has a Seventh Amendment that includes a dollar amount in it.
Like a $1776 amount of $20 being like...
Holy shit, this is worth a million dollars in today's money.
But we've covered this before, and in case anyone's forgotten, Alex has a good argument here, just not against the Associated Press.
The headline that Alex is reading is from Market Watch, and someone who works there definitely fucked up and attributed the writing of that book to Alex.
The Market Watch page is just an article that's reposted from the Associated Press, but with a new headline that Market Watch wrote, which does not appear in the original AP story.
Right.
On the AP website, the headline is, quote, Newtown parents score a win in growing fight against hoaxers.
And it's never claimed that Alex wrote Fetzer's book.
As for the Wall Street Journal, I can't find that article posted on their site, but this is an important dynamic to understand.
Alex can threaten to sue the AP all he wants.
They didn't do anything.
His beef is with Market Watch, and I've never heard him complain about them.
And I think that this is intentional.
I'm sure that Alex knows that if he just contacted MarketWatch and complained about this very demonstrably not true claim, they would immediately retract it and probably even issue an apology, which doesn't work for Alex.
He gets much more out of it by constantly pointing to the headline and blaming the wrong entity for it and saying that they won't own up to something they didn't do.
Well, I mean, Alex just has to find a way to make this fight between him and lawyers as opposed to humanizing the people behind it who are the real victims.
And Alex can't accept that because he's the real victim, according to him.
Alex Jones fumes after judge rules he must pay for his Sandy Hook conspiracy theories, but not after a jury trial in violation of the Seventh Amendment.
She lies, which is a clear lie, and says we've given him nothing.
And then she goes, and he says this is a show trial.
Well, I did say that a month ago when she announced I'm probably going to default you.
You've given us nothing.
81,000 pages?
Two depositions with myself and my whole crew?
Because we don't have what you claim we have?
The battle plan to say Sandy Hook was a hoax because it'd make us so famous when it was something I barely covered nine years ago?
Imagine they say, give me the smoking gun.
I don't have the smoking gun, but okay, you don't get a jury trial then because we have no case.
You kind of have to think he's playing with house money right now because he's about to be like, and I think we should put a million dollars out for anybody who takes care of this judge for me.
So all Alex really has to go on is just pointing to this Market Watch headline over and over again and using it to sort of imply that any stories about him now are not true.
Typically, if some kind of giant mafia cartel syndicate or whatever kills somebody as a warning to somebody else, when they don't back down at that point, they get killed.
I need to expand, and I'm not going to get into strategic regions for hearing you on air.
That gives the enemy too much information.
But listen, I need financial support right now.
So go to InfoWarsStore.com, click on the support button at the top, go to the donation area, give a one-time donation, give a long-term donation, you can do recurring donations, give a hundred bucks.
So Klaus Schwab's book, The Great Reset, was released in July 2020, which is a little bit more than a month after the COVID crisis started.
Mm-hmm.
You know, using things that seem like trivial facts, getting you to accept them will bring you closer to accepting his completely nonsensical conclusion.
If you're wondering, he wasn't barred from entering the UK because of his views on globalism or the lockdowns.
As it turns out, he's one of the very fortunate folks to be on the home office's list of people who are such shitheads that they can't enter the country.
This illustrious list includes Americans like Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church and Alex's buddy Michael Savage.
Typically these are people who are bigots and they have a history of agitating and I guess the UK government is smart enough to just say we don't want that kind of bullshit over here.
As for that thing about white people being mutants, this is one of Alex's big headlines for the day.
The left didn't say that.
It was just one person named Francis Cress Welsing.
Welsing was an Afrocentric activist, and I think it might be fair to describe her beliefs as being black supremacist.
Uh-huh.
I'm not sure what site people are referring to, but you can find a number of message board posts by people who are very mad that a, quote, Black History Month website quoted her.
I have no idea what's going on, and I can't find a link to the site in question, and even if you assume it's all true, Alex's presentation of it is still bullshit.
So, Patriot Street Fighter, the Truth Hammer, what is this local market-ass commercial doing on Alex's big-time important show?
You think Putin cares about the Street Fighter Patriot guy?
Nonsense.
So, I decided to learn a little bit more about who this guy is, and I found his Twitter.
This is a guy named Scott McKay, and this is his bio.
Quote, former competitive bodybuilder, wellness industry entrepreneur, former political consultant, campaign manager, radio talk show host, Q Patriot Street Fighter.
I scrolled down a little bit on his Twitter page, and I saw a picture of him, and I immediately realized he's a dude that I've seen as a guest on Project Camelot, and we might have actually talked about him on the podcast.
So, also, Mike Adams was a guest on his show back in August, so I guess this dude is another direct connection between Infowars and Project Camelot worlds.
So probably more troubling is that he has dates listed on his website from October 16th to December 15th with specific cities on specific dates, but the venue for all of them is TBD.
The page says, quote, site has not been determined.
If you know of potential locations, please go to the contact us page and submit your recommendations.
And look, you could say, hey, this is just people pissed off, and that's something that's up to the line, but it's civil disobedience, and it's people being a little bit noisy, and it should be protected.
But the Democrats, though, when conservatives do it, they want us to arrest it.
And they defend Antifa when they shoot people in the back.
So they want to be aggressive and say burning down buildings is mostly peaceful, but then they want to arrest hundreds of people that even go into the U.S. Capitol, like Owen Schroer.
And now others.
So here's Joe Biden.
unidentified
Mr. President, you're talking about how you have 48 Democratic votes right now.
The other two have been pressured over the weekend by activists.
Joe Manchin had people on kayaks show up to his boat.
Senator Sinema last night was chased into a press room.
Do you think that those tactics are crossing a line?
Is it part of the process to have one of your supporters go shoot a bunch of people or try to kill a bunch of people and shoot Congressman Scalise at the baseball field?
Also, it's really fun how that dude who did the shooting was a Bernie Sanders supporter literally every time it's come up, but now I guess he was into Biden.
The idea was that Biden was endorsing the protesters following Sinema into a bathroom, which I guess proves Alex's theory that there's different treatment for left and right-leaning protesters, like the right-leaning ones who go into the Capitol and get arrested.
Biden explicitly says that he didn't think that those are appropriate tactics.
Alex set up this clip completely wrong, and it's painfully obvious as it's playing, so in the moment, he has to find a way to shift attention as soon as the clip is over.
So magically, the guy who shot Scalise is now a Biden supporter.
This is a rhetorical version of Alex waving a red flag at a bull.
And I suppose in this metaphor, the bull is the consequences of his lack of preparation.
He'd heard a few things and he's like, ah, here's how I'm going to dunk on this in order to weave it into all of my narratives about right-wing aggrievement.
It would have been more fun if he was like, no, of course I don't support that.
What should happen is every time she wears clean clothes, somebody throws a bucket of fake blood on her, and then the moment she changes her clothes, boom!
This is the real globalist attack that they intend to hide, claiming a new virus has been released, which they're already claiming new variants are about to come out that are going to kill you.
Well, yeah, because you're releasing them.
But first, let me point this out.
We're having one of the biggest flash sales of our history today.
And I can tell you, we need funds big time right now.
And that information showed, and it's incontrovertible, it's straight from the CMS servers, that there are thousands and thousands dying with this vaccine.
48,000 dead within 14 days of getting the vaccination, which is an important number.
Because if you're within 14 days, they don't count you as a vaccine death.
Anyway, Renz hasn't produced the data he's claiming this comes from, and it's all very suspicious.
The most likely explanation for what's going on is that he's just trying to repackage the old conspiracies about vaccine deaths that people took from VAERS data.
Going back to July, Renz was serving as the lawyer for America's Frontline Doctors, the wacko group of doctors who love hydroxychloroquine.
He filed a lawsuit on their behalf against the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, and in that filing he included a section about some alleged whistleblower testimony.
He had an expert, Jane Doe, who was a computer programmer who had access to Medicare and Medicaid data.
From the lawsuit, quote, in her expert opinion, VAERS underreported deaths caused by the vaccines by a conservative factor of at least five.
As of July 9th, 2021, VAERS reported 9048 deaths associated with the vaccines.
Jane Doe queried all the data from CMS medical claims and has determined that the number of deaths occurred within three days of injection with the vaccines exceeds those reported by VAERS by a factor of at least five, indicating that the true number of deaths caused by the vaccines is at least 45,000.
At this point, there was this 45,000 figure, which was based on an anonymous expert witness who was guessing that you can multiply the VAERS data by five to get the true vaccine death numbers.
This is absolute garbage, and it means nothing.
She didn't get to this conclusion by way of data or death records.
She was just guessing and multiplying, and then Renz put that into his lawsuit.
I'm not impressed by any of this, and it's clearly him trying to just sort of redo the same hustle.
This new intel that he's bringing about is based on whistleblower information.
So I scrolled down to the page that Ranz is talking about, and it's apparently an FDA briefing document from the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee meeting from September 17th, 2021.
This page on his presentation, it includes the heading of it and then a random paragraph from the document.
This is an easily accessible document.
You can find the whole thing.
You do not need a whistleblower to get to it.
In fact, I found it, and what's going on is that the line that he read there is being taken completely out of context.
Because Renz's PowerPoint presentation just chops this paragraph out of the text, you wouldn't know what this is referring to or even what's being analyzed.
So this was a study that Pfizer carried out, and it was meant to, quote, compare rates of COVID-19 among participants who completed the two-dose primary series early in the study, i.e., those who were originally randomized into the experimental group, versus those who completed the two-dose primary series later in the study.
I.e., those who were originally randomized to placebo and then crossed over to the experimental group.
There is not an unvaccinated group that these people are being compared to.
The specific point of the study was just to test to see if there is a waning efficacy of the vaccine, and if so, was it something that should be addressed by boosters?
In the paragraph that Renz uses, they do say that people who got the shot earlier had 70.3 cases per 1,000 person years, compared to 51.6 cases for the group that was vaccinated more recently in the same 1,000 person years.
That would tend to support Renz's argument, or at least imply that vaccine efficacy could drop off a bit.
However, Renz very clearly intentionally ignored the next paragraph.
Quote, in contrast, during the blinded placebo-controlled follow-up period of the study, with data cut off March 13th, 2021, prior to the Delta variant surge, the incidence of COVID-19 among recipients in the evaluable...
Evaluable efficacy population, nearly 60% of whom had four months or more of blinded follow-up post-dose 2, was 12.6 cases per 1,000 person-years.
This observation suggests that while waning immunity is one potential factor that may have contributed to the higher incidence breakthrough cases during the Delta variant surge, it's possible that other factors, e.g.
dynamics of the Delta variant transmission and potential differences in vaccine effectiveness against the Delta variant, Right.
saying that the vaccine will make you more likely to get COVID.
The part that Rents is using is saying that one data set showed some indications that people who got vaccinated more recently may have better protection than those people who were vaccinated longer ago.
But there's also data that seems to indicate that that conclusion might not be so certain and other vectors could be involved.
And he just ignores that paragraph.
Anyway, Thomas Renz is just cherry-picking bullshit and pretending credible whistleblowers are involved and he's rightly figured out all this stuff.
The only thing that he's figured out is that there's a lot of money to be made in being a lawyer for these right-wing shitheads.
Yeah, it does tend to, I mean, all the surrounding context would lead somebody to a reasonable conclusion that he's intentionally ignoring the other part.
Sir, I had a court do default judgments on me when I gave them everything, and they assigned a new judge, and at the second hearing they just said default, and all of the news it says I've lost, and then I don't get the Seventh Amendment.
And for what you see on the news with them saying, oh, Jones will be shut down, Jones will have all these judgments, Jones will have all that, on and on and on, that's not going to be the case, ladies and gentlemen, if you support us and spread the word about the articles and the videos and pray for us and have other talk show hosts rally behind us and other folks on Twitter, because Facebook and all that's down right now.
And support us and say, hey, see what you're not supposed to see.
Hear what you're supposed to hear.
Hear the verboten person that's under constant demonization, constant attack.
Well, first of all, in the book I list, the whole book is about one way of attacking, which is the way Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have done it for the last four decades.
They intimidate corporate America.
I'm a believer, Alex, that nothing happens from the politicians.
They're a bunch of nobodies, right?
The money is what allows them to be important and to make policy and to ruin our country.
And by the way, all the politicians, in my opinion, the most important ones are owned by China.
They're either owned or blackmailed by China.
So they don't care what we say, even if we are the majority.
And we've been the silent majority.
My book, The Great Patriot Protest, a boycott book, is all about making us the loud majority.
We've got to be loud.
We've got to tell corporate America that writes all the checks and backs all these politicians and backs all the PACs, not with $10 like you and I give, or $100 or $1,000.
They write $1 million and $10 million checks.
So the politicians listen to them, and we've got to bring them to their knees and starve them.
Yeah, I mean, on an elementary level, putting financial pressure on businesses is...
An effective organizing strategy.
But unfortunately, one of the things that he's going to quickly learn is that a lot of these same people that he would like to pressure also fund all of the information space and the politicians that he supports.
So I went out and I hired a team of telemarketers to dial the 116 most liberal, woke companies in America that survive on our sales.
We, conservatives, Christians, and patriots, are the ones buying their products, but they're spitting in our face, they're insulting us, they're offending us, they're ignoring us.
So I identified what I think are the top 116.
Coca-Cola, AT&T, that owns CNN, Ben& Jerry's.
The list is long.
Victoria's Secret.
And we can bring them to their knees.
So I had the telemarketers find out with hundreds of phone calls.
Pushing, pushing, pushing.
What's the phone number of the CEO?
What's the email for the CEO?
What's the social media accounts?
What's the websites?
What is the physical mailing address?
And I've got the board of directors' names and the CEO's names.
Yeah, I think that if some kind of quote-unquote Antifa group were finding CEOs of right-leaning companies like Hobby Lobby or whatever and posting their contact information, I think Alex would not enjoy that.
I mean, like, if you're posting, like, ways to get in contact with decision makers for corporations, I don't know if that's bad, but if you're putting, like, home addresses or phone numbers or doxing people, I think that that's still maybe, like, I don't know if that's cool.
And just one person that bought my book, one, on the first day he came out, sent me an email and said, Wayne, I sent an email to the head of Nordstrom's, the head of Costco, and the head of AT&T.
And all three answered back and said, why are you boycotting?
Don't do this to us.
What can I do to make you happy?
That was one.
Can you imagine if we got 100,000 or a million patriots to do this every day?