Knowledge Fight #892 dissects Alex Jones’ baseless Ebola vaccine conspiracy, citing fringe figures like Dr. Richard Bartlett (probation in 2003) and John Fleetwood (Substack researcher with AI-assisted misrepresentation). Jones falsely links Ervebo—FDA-approved in 2019—to U.S. outbreaks, ignoring its post-emergency deployment and negligible shedding risks. Bartlett’s claims about Colorado labs (BSL-2, Ebola research) are debunked; Fleetwood’s cherry-picked data and stock misrepresentations (Merck’s <50% ownership by BlackRock/Vanguard) reveal a pattern of anti-vaccine manipulation. Ultimately, the episode exposes Jones’ reliance on unverified narratives to stoke fear, undermine public health, and pivot to unrelated topics like secession. [Automatically generated summary]
It's the kind that makes you feel like in those movies whenever somebody's flying a dragon or the magic carpet, and they put their hand out in the cloud and everybody else.
But I got a call right after the show yesterday by a very respected medical doctor, hospital director, former leader of the governor of Texas health task force for seven years, Dr. Richard Bartlett.
And he said to me, You need to read all these documents I'm going to send you.
And then after I went over the documents and spent about two hours, I called him and I had my producer call him and I said, please come on.
In reality, Bartlett is a doctor who came to prominence during the early days of COVID because he claimed that a standard asthma inhaler with the steroid butcinide was the quote silver bullet to treating COVID-19.
And you know what?
Research has borne out that it is the case that budesinide has some therapeutic effect that may improve time of recovery for some patients.
The results didn't show it to be a silver bullet, but in terms of COVID solutions presented by folks in Alex's orbit, this one is at least better than a placebo, it appears.
The description of the book pretty clearly lays out that, quote, for as long as he could remember, Dr. Richard Bartlett wanted to be a missionary.
And it appears he decided to use his position as a doctor to do just that.
So here we can learn our first little tidbit about Bartlett, and that is that he believes in miracles and perhaps even thinks that they're an important part of the medical field.
So Alex then says that Bartlett was the head of the governor's task force for seven years.
This is just not true.
Alex either doesn't know or is intentionally obscuring the fact that the task force Bartlett was a part of was the Texas Health Disparities Task Force, which sought to get rid of the ways that people in different communities had unequal access to health care.
That task force was created in 2002, and according to Bartlett's bio, he was appointed to it that year.
In a 2002 article in the Victoria Advocate newspaper, Dr. Adela Valdez is named as the chair of that task force.
Valdez is once again credited as the quote presiding officer of the task force in a 2004 article in the Tyler Morning Telegraph.
So it appears that she went on to be it for a while.
Sure.
Interestingly, in 2003, there was a run for the vacant seat left by the resignation of Larry Combest, the representative in the U.S. House for Texas' 19th District.
Richard Bartlett threw his hat into the ring and ended up coming in 10th with just under 2% of the vote.
His candidacy was somewhat dead on arrival as he was dealing with a complaint from the Texas Board of Medical Examiners after, quote, an investigation revealed alleged unnecessary diagnostic tests, medication, and treatments for multiple patients.
According to, this is according to an article in the Midland Reporter Telegram.
Bartlett naturally argued that this was just the insurance companies coming after him because he dared to put patients first, and he swore that he would produce these patients who would testify on his behalf, and he predicted he'd get a letter of an apology from the board.
Well, in December 2003, after a hearing, the Medical Examiners Board and Bartlett agreed to basically have him on probation for a year.
He would need to submit, quote, selected patient records to be reviewed by the board-approved monitor.
He would also then need to take a class on some medical stuff.
After this point, I can find no official confirmation that Bartlett was on the health disparities task force, but that isn't the sort of thing that leaves a lot of documentation, so I can see that it's possible that he remained on it anyway after all this.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
This is Texas, and Rick Perry is the governor at this point, so who knows?
I have a suspicion that this made Bartlett lose it.
He began to become more antagonistic to the medical system as a whole.
He appeared on a radio show in November 2020 with one of his patients who would go on to call the doctors and staff at the medical center hospital, quote, murderers.
A little under a year later, things took a very bizarre twist when Bartlett was caught trying to sneak into the medical center hospital through the loading dock entry and appeared to be looking for stuff in their trash.
He claimed that he was looking for, quote, COVID bags, apparently trying to confirm a conspiracy theory that the hospital was putting bags on COVID patients' heads.
And there is, unfortunately, like a little bit of truth to this.
And that is that early on in the pandemic, they had a very unthoughtful method of transporting patients around the hospital who had tested positive for COVID.
Let's think about some people who have stridently called Alex with information that needs to be talked about that has led to people getting very seriously hurt in the past.
The short version of what's up here is that's not true.
The story is about how in November 2023, some frontline workers were some of the first people to get vaccinated in the U.S. for with a vaccine whose brand name is Ervabo.
It's an Ebola vaccine, but it's not experimental.
It was approved by the FDA in 2019.
It's just that most people in the United States don't have a reason to get it since they're super unlikely to ever come into contact with Ebola in the wild.
Right, right, right.
These frontline workers in Denver were given the vaccine because the city houses one of the HHS-designated regional emerging special pathogens treatment centers.
In 2014, the last time Alex whipped the audience into an Ebola hysteria, the only cases that were not from people who caught it outside the country prior to coming here were two people who were treating the patients.
So having a vaccine like this available to people in that position essentially serves to limit the amount that it's possible for future cases that are imported to the United States to spread any further than a hospital.
You can find all kinds of coverage of this from the end of November, and it's weird that it's just coming up for Alex now, probably because his audience really isn't that worked up about COVID anymore and they need something else to be scared of.
Shedding sounds scary, but it's important to understand that it's not the same thing as spreading.
The likelihood of vaccines being spread that way is incredibly rare.
And one of the only exceptions is the oral polio vaccine, which has largely been replaced.
In some parts of the developing world, that oral polio vaccine is still used, which is why you'll end up seeing cases of vaccine-derived polio and why Alex can trot around saying that the majority of cases of polio are caused by the vaccine.
See, because I was thinking that they were talking about a vaccine where if you get a vaccine, then you can spread the vaccine like a super spreader kind of thing, which seems like a great idea.
Well, actually, that is some of the possible effect that unintentional effect that the oral polio vaccine can have in parts of the developing world where it's used.
And see, that's kind of the argument that anti-vaxxers have around this shedding business is that like vaccines shouldn't be allowed because you shed them and the people who then get sick from you, which they can't prove happens, then they don't have, they didn't consent to be around you with your vaccine.
And if you track the outbreaks of Ebola that happened during the Obama administration, they were directly linked back to the UN and the Pentagon with pharmaceutical companies in a whole bunch.
So nothing Alex is saying there is true or connected to reality, but that drop in audio seemed suspiciously timed.
It did.
What I'm using is audio straight from Infor's, but I was able to find another feed of it, and he just says that the old Ebola outbreaks were caused by the shot.
The 2013 outbreak of Ebola in Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia, among other affected countries, was the widest spread in history.
The outbreak began in December 2013 in Guinea, and then it spread slowly at first, but then it picked up steam in the spring of 2014.
By August 2014, there were already about 2,000 cases and almost 1,000 deaths from the outbreak.
And then that environment shit was very serious.
At this point, the drug that would become Ervebo had been studied and showed promise in non-human primates, but it is understandably pretty difficult to test something like an Ebola vaccine on human subjects, given how deadly it can be and how quickly it can kill a person.
Considering the circumstances and how severe the outbreak was, it was deemed ethical to deploy this vaccine on a trial basis among some people in Basquinay, Guinea, generally among people who had a contact with someone diagnosed with Ebola within the previous three weeks.
Now, it's important to point out that when we say that there's 100% or 97.5% effective rate here, that's not really a number that we can ever know because it's essentially impossible to set up a trial that includes placebos and control groups where the subjects would then be exposed to Ebola.
But we don't know that if some of them, like they would have, if they were, maybe just they weren't exposed to the virus.
It's complicated, so it's probably best to stay away from like hyperbolic claims.
But the vaccine showed and shows a lot of promise.
There's a lot you could say about this set of circumstances.
For instance, you could take issue with the use of this experimental vaccine among people in that earlier outbreak when it hadn't been tested for effectiveness on human subjects.
That's a definite ethical question, and it's possible to have mixed feelings about it.
On the one hand, they didn't know for sure if it was going to work.
On the other hand, there were thousands of cases of Ebola with an almost 50% fatality rate, and the outbreak showed no signs of slowing down.
A strong case could be made for trying the vaccine with people's informed consent, and that you could make an argument that that's the only ethical thing you could do in that situation.
If Alex wanted to have a discussion on this kind of a ground, I don't think I'd agree with him.
I don't think I'd end up on the same side, but at least it's a rational conversation to have.
Claiming that those outbreaks were caused by the vaccine is a disgusting lie, the perpetuation of which is just going to hurt more people, though.
That's not a rational conversation.
There's zero reason for Alex to be pulling this kind of shit because the strategy that's been used and found effective with Ervebo has been what's been called ring vaccination.
This is an outward ring starting from the point of a confirmed case, vaccinating the people who they've been in contact with.
As of this point, this has not been a vaccine that has been used at population levels, like the way that you would try and reach herd immunity through vaccination.
It's a prophylactic emergency strategy that's used to prevent outbreaks from spreading further.
Thinking about it, now that I think about what possible civil war kind of thing there could be, I think if there was another outbreak, it's possible that we could have a significant part of the population on the side of the virus at this point in time.
You get into a little bit of murky territory when you're on the side of the virus because I think you could make a pretty solid case that a lot of Alex's behaviors are indistinguishable from being in favor of the virus.
It is but he's not actively, he's not actually like in his head being like, I want to spread this fucking virus.
So there's a possibility that you could see a case of this.
It's just a part of being in an interconnected world.
The issue is whether or not it will become an active outbreak here if something does happen.
And the only thing that determines that is how our leaders respond.
If we have a response like what happened in 2014, then there's a good chance that we'll end up with a similar outcome where things are well contained and it doesn't become a public health crisis.
If we have leaders like we did in 2020, I find it hard not to think that we will be fucked.
Fingers crossed, though, that we never have to find out.
You know how Alex pretends that he spends all this time studying and reading the news, figuring out the plots of the globalists?
You really got to think that if that were true, he would have heard about this before his idiot doctor/slash raccoon friend called him about it.
So there are 10 regional emerging special pathogens treatment centers in the United States, of which Denver Health is one of them.
It was their choice to vaccinate some of their frontline workers for Ebola, which really raises the question: if this were part of an elaborate globalist plot, wouldn't all of those regional emerging special pathogen treatment centers be vaccinating their employees?
Why is it just Denver?
I guess the conspiracy has got to be that that's where the outbreak's going to start.
Special guest, Dr. Richard Bartlett, and one other guest will announce once he joins us in the second hour today.
You need to tune in.
You need to share.
You need to research.
Because unlike the Washington Post that just wrote a big article two days ago that we wrote about last night at Infowars.com, we want you to do your own research.
Washington Post's latest outlet telling Americans doing own research is bad.
And the first example they use in the big report, we have a screenshot of right here with a link to it in the site, is Infowars.com reporting that leftists have been caught setting fires in Australia, and they say it's false, but then later in the article admit it's actually true.
So the term linked to in Alex's claim that the Ebola vaccine has been linked to four outbreaks is a pretty weasel bit of business.
Demonstrating that this vaccine was used in the context of Ebola outbreaks is not the same thing as it causing them.
Further, there are examples of outbreaks where the vaccine wasn't used because it's only effective against the Zaire strain.
Alex needs to prove a causal link instead of this weak shit he's doing.
And that burden of proof is on him, and he is not up to achieving it.
Also, Alex says that the vaccine is, you know, he says that it's linked to four global Ebola outbreaks, and there haven't been global Ebola outbreaks except for one.
You could call that 2013 to 2016 outbreak global since a few cases popped up around the world.
But other than that, the outbreaks have all been in Africa, particularly the Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Guinea.
Alex is being very sloppy with his language because the goal is to sensationalize the story to scare the audience.
And that's the name of the game.
Alex brings up this Washington Post article, which is just an op-ed covering a paper published in the journal Nature that found that people who do their own research online tend to, quote, gain more confidence in untrue information.
So the article quotes the paper, quote, when individuals search online about misinformation, they're more likely to be exposed to lower quality information than when individuals search about true stories.
And those who are exposed to low quality information are more likely to believe false slash misleading news stories to be true relative to those who are not.
Basically, legitimate outlets and sources of quality information, they generally aren't going to be talking about the stupid shit that people like Alex are.
So when you seek out information about the stupid shit Alex is saying, you're going to find low-quality information sources talking about it.
The only time that Alex or Infowars comes up in this article is in this passage.
Quote, channels like One America News, which I described shortly after the 2020 election as pro-Trump video channel offered with a cable news-like aesthetic, elevated numerous baseless claims before being booted from major cable news systems.
Its programming often appears to be the equivalent of taking Alex Jones's InfoWars, but setting it in a local television news studio.
Doing your own research might lead you to reputable-looking sources that are anything but.
There's nothing about fires or Australia in the article at all, so Alex's complaint about the Washington Post really isn't on target.
The words Alex and InfoWars don't appear in that nature paper, so I had to go to the Infowars article to even get what this was about.
Apparently, they're complaining about how one of Alex's articles about the Australian fires from 2020 was included in the paper and deemed false slash misleading.
So the headline in question is: quote, nearly 200 people arrested across Australia for deliberately starting fires, starting bushfires.
Sure.
To complain about this nature paper, Alex points to a Snopes fact check of the claims about the fires, which said that 183 people had been arrested for bushfire-related offenses, but, quote, 24 people have been charged with deliberately setting fires.
The InfoWars article goes on to whine, quote, Snopes was pretty hung up on the word deliberately, to which I would say that might be because the word was prominently used in your headlines.
So the InfoWars article says that the Snopes review, quote, failed to mention the source cited by the Infowars article.
The Brisbane Times wrote, quote, figures obtained by the Australian Associated Press revealed police had dealt with 98 people, 31 adults, and 67 juveniles for deliberately starting fires, a number that grew over time.
That last part, quote, a number that grew over time, wasn't from the Brisbane Times.
Alex is just tacking that on to save face.
That is odd.
Also, the source says the police, quote, dealt with 98 people, not arrested them.
Alex's article explicitly in the headline.
It says, quote, arrest and deliberately.
And the sources he's now pointing to don't back him up on that.
Also, Alex's claim on air here is that it was leftists who did this.
That's not supported by his own article from the past, nor the sources that he's pointing to, like the Brisbane Times.
Further, the point of Alex's article was the fact that some people were arrested for arson.
That was being used as proof that climate change isn't real.
By every metric, this was a false/slash misleading claim in the article.
He can grow up and stop whining about the fucking Washington Post.
So it found that 31.7% of children shed the vaccine virus in their saliva, mostly in the first week after vaccination, but then stopped entirely by day 28 and then did not shed at all if they got a second dose.
Sure.
The paper is about shedding in adults and children, and there's literally no mention of shedding observed in adults.
So Alex is just making up whatever claims he makes on that front.
That's not to say that there isn't any, but there isn't any based on the source that he provides.
Virus shedding does not equate to virus spreading.
That doesn't mean it's impossible, however.
And the literature around this vaccine does advise that people who receive this vaccine, quote, avoid close contact with and exposure of high-risk individuals to blood and bodily fluids for at least six weeks following vaccination.
Taking into consideration the rate of shedding and the nature of it, a study by the European Medical Association found: quote, the overall risk of Ervebo to human health and environment is considered negligible.
When you get a live attenuated virus vaccine, you're not actually getting that virus.
That is to say, you get herveabo, you aren't getting Ebola light.
The vaccine is introducing a very weakened version of the virus into your body, so it creates an immune response to it, creating antibodies.
Alex can point to the study to show that 31.7% of children who got the vaccine shedding in their saliva for about a week or so, and a little bit possibly after that, tapering off.
But what he needs to do is prove his actual claim that this can spread the Ebola virus.
And the best he'll be able to do is point at the oral polio vaccine and insist that they're the same thing.
And they're not.
The thing about the bat lab is about people freaking out on social media about Colorado State University getting a grant in 2021 to build a facility to study bat immune reactions.
Here is the New England Journal of Medicine, a random controlled trial of Ebola virus disease therapeutics, and it gets into what this vaccine did and its massive linkage to outbreaks in Africa.
I know this is powerful, of course, for Alex, and he has no idea about pretty much everything that he talks about, but this shit is sincerely dangerous.
In the unlikely but very possible scenario that there is a case of Ebola that comes into the country in the future, Alex is priming his audience to not take any public health guidance seriously.
He's doing literally everything within his power to make it more likely that the next outbreak, whatever it may be of, spreads more than it needs to, which is exactly what you're saying with he's on the side of the virus.
The promise of his conspiracies was that you, the listener, was smart for not getting vaccinated because all the idiots who did are going to be dead real soon.
And if Alex doesn't come up with a new medical set of keys to jangle in front of their faces, they might fuck around and start realizing that the prophecy of all these vaccine deaths didn't come true.
This was always the way it was going to go because Alex is, you know, kind of a coward about this stuff.
And he needs to distract the audience from his past bullshit with new bullshit.
But it's just a way to not own up to being wrong about this stuff.
And I don't know, especially when it's about something as potentially volatile as Ebola outbreaks.
Well, I mean, when you stop to think about the mass psychology of millions upon millions of people dying due to disease and how people, after like three years, they're like, let's just be done.
Let's just not talk about it.
Yeah, okay, there's a new way.
Who fucking cares?
I'm just tired.
That's what I am.
To the point where even people who are like, the government is killing us with it.
Ebola vaccine distributed before Africa's 2016, 18, 20, 21, 2022, and before that under Obama outbreaks, we're just giving to Colorado healthcare workers.
So, Fleetwood Substack post does literally nothing to demonstrate that the Urvebo vaccine is linked to increasing spread of Ebola during these outbreaks that are listed in the headline.
It's purely an exercise in misrepresentation.
In each of these instances that Fleetwood brings up, there was not a vaccine campaign that then led to an outbreak.
In each of these cases, there was an existing outbreak, and then vaccination efforts were launched to hopefully limit the spread of the virus.
The methodology used with the Urvebo vaccine is wholly responsive.
There's an outbreak, and then healthcare providers track contacts and get them vaccinated.
It's an emergency response paradigm, not a blanket coverage paradigm.
In these past instances, people were vaccinated, then there was an outbreak.
Now, some doctors in Colorado got vaccinated, so there's probably going to be an Ebola outbreak there.
It's a faulty argument built on false premises, but I'm noticing something here.
Both of the main stories today, the one about the Colorado doctors and the one about the Colorado State University Lab, are from John Fleetwood Substack.
This guy's sure getting a lot of play out of nowhere.
So John Fleetwood has been a writer for a few years at a blog called American Faith, where he writes about all the hot right-wing grievance memes that are going around.
Even after being on Infowars, he has under 600 followers on Twitter.
And I think that in 2001, he self-published a bit of a futurist fiction novel called 3000 AD: A New Beginning.
I recommend everyone, including you, get your phone out.
Sure.
I recommend everyone Google that book and look at the cover and tell me that it doesn't look like a guy wielding a big erection.
It's the same spelling of the name, too, because John is without an H. If there's two John Fleetwoods, both of them in this particular field, both of them with a level of Christian person, then the God vanquishes the devil at the end of his fiction novel.
Yeah, so we've talked about the dynamics of the polio vaccine a hundred times, so I'm not going to get into it again here, but this is still important because it's the only thing Alex can point to to make his case.
The orally administered polio vaccine is the exception to the rule where shedding experienced by people who got the vaccine has more of a high likelihood to spread the virus.
While it's not true of all live attenuated virus vaccines, that is the impression that Alex is trying to give.
Right.
But this is the one gotcha type thing that Alex can pull out to prop up all of his claims about this Ebola vaccine.
He can point to that other article about 31.7% of children shedding the Ebola vaccine, but what he can't do is prove that this can cause infection in another person.
Because he can't do that, he just points to the oral polio vaccine and pretends that his case is made.
So there's a single story from last November out of Denver, and he's saying it's happening everywhere, which is not going to be substantiated by his coverage.
So Alex is further lying about his source, but in a compounded way.
These doctors were not the people who were included in the study that cited the 31.7% shedding number.
That was entirely different and reflected a quote randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial conducted at six centers in four West African countries.
It wasn't testing the efficacy of the vaccine, but it was testing how well antibodies were produced and stayed around.
And so, you know, you can do a placebo-controlled study around that because there wasn't the challenge of the Ebola in it.
So Alex is lying about that being related to the medical workers in Colorado.
So you can see from that clip, though, how important the precise optics of this polio vaccine thing is to selling the shoddy argument he has about the Ebola vaccine.
The crew pulls up a very serviceable article about a case of vaccine-derived polio in the Democratic Republic of Congo, but that's not enough for Alex.
He needs that majority of cases thing because he thinks it's going to blow the audience's collective mind, but it's just sleight of hand tricks.
Yeah, you know, a new and maybe, fuck, I didn't go to journalism school and I've been out of college for a while, so maybe things have changed a bit, but a priority for people who are in the field in this current state of the way the clickbait is misused and abused by actors like Alex and so many more now.
You have to play preemptive defense against what you're writing being used as a weapon.
And that is definitely the case.
I agree with you.
But I also, the only reason I have some pause is, I don't know if maybe some journalism schools are incorporating some of that understanding.
Hospital workers, you know, there's other trials going on with an Ebola vaccine that creates this derivative of Ebola in the body that then replicates and then sheds onto other people.
And then it lists here: headaches, nausea, comas, passing out, bleeding sores, Ebola.
ebola ebola ebola so i wanted to be sensational Bill Gates caught injecting healthcare workers with live Ebola.
Because if you look at the Globalist War Games, they're constantly talking about Ebola hitting the United States or Europe and the panic it's going to create.
And how they're going to use that for control in their UN treaty.
He's trying to justify and rationalize by inch, by degree, trying to get there to the end goal, which is he wants to just say that Bill Gates is trying to give everyone Ebola.
And I think some of the unfamiliarity about it comes from a place of luxury, that it is so disconnected from our realities that you don't need to know much about it other than it's scary.
Yeah, it's all essentially leading to the call to action.
Yeah, you know, I think that there's a deeply unethical part of this that he starts the ad with, now it's time to boost your immune system, like he's obviously using the specter and fear of Ebola to sell his products.
So print me those articles I had you pull up earlier.
I want to show that dovetailing with all this to explain it next hour with Dr. Richard Bartlett and other expert guests on this huge breaking now news story.
The government, with Bill Gates, is injecting medical workers with an Ebola vaccine that creates Ebola-like symptoms and spreads.
Oh, my gosh.
And please support us.
Please go to InfowarStore.com and get amazing products like Next Level Foundational Energy.
So one aspect of what Alex is doing is practicing the narratives and working out the beats where he wants to exaggerate things.
But another aspect is just repeatedly driving the narrative into the audience's head.
He says this over and over and over because if you do that, there's a better chance that your audience is just going to take that on as true, whatever you're saying.
In this clip, Alex has directly connected the healthcare workers who were vaccinated with the Colorado State University Bat Lab, which is apparently a Pentagon project now, too.
The healthcare workers are in Denver, and the CSU lab is in Fort Collins.
It's a good 70 miles away, just down the road when the road's a highway.
Sure.
Also, Alex is going to need to show that the lab is a Pentagon project, and just talking about some unconnected incident from the 60s isn't going to help.
They got an NIH grant, but that's not going to cut it in terms of Alex's claim either.
Another problem with Alex's narrative is the Fort Collins lab is explicitly not going to be studying Ebola.
It does not have the clearance to do that.
And the bats they're going to be studying are going to be born there free from wild diseases.
So there's no chance that Ebola is just going to randomly pop up in that environment.
So you can see how Alex has this narrative that's built up from all these distortions of various aspects of these two stories.
And on their own, they don't really do much.
But when they're combined, they form into a really powerful clickbait story that's going to be useful to freak the audience out.
That's what he's practicing on air here.
The best way to combine his lies in an effective thesis statement that conveys the right amount of terror to the audience to get them to go to InfowarStore.com.
Ebola vaccine that sheds onto and infects others 31% of the time, given to Colorado healthcare workers just down the road from the new Ebola bat lab in Colorado.
Here is the immune Colorado announcement.
Denver Health Medical Team receives Ebola vaccine.
You're going to give me an overhead shot.
I'm going to show people this.
This is from the local government.
Here's the actual breakdown of the so-called Ebola vaccine from the FDA.
There's the document there.
A randomized controlled trial of Ebola vaccine disease therapeutics.
What these vaccines have done, all the outbreaks they've caused.
Same Bill Gates-backed live Ebola vaccine distributed before Africa's 2016, 2018, 2020, 21, 2022 outbreaks was just given to Colorado healthcare workers.
So what I'm going to do here is I'm going to take that clip and I'm going to go one by one through the headlines that he used and illustrate why this is a pile of nothing.
Ebola vaccine that sheds onto and infects others 31% of the time given to Colorado healthcare workers just down the road from the new Ebola Bat Lab in Colorado.
Also, the Bat Lab isn't down the road and they aren't studying Ebola.
John Substack post doesn't prove any of this.
It's just asserted in the headline, which is the only part of any of this that Alex pays attention to.
Further, John's post straight up lies.
For instance, he says the CSU lab, quote, proposals for the 14,000 square foot facility indicate the lab could store and study some of the most deadly or transmissible pathogens on the planet, including Ebola, Nipah virus, and COVID-19.
You can find the grant summary for this bat lab, and they say in it, quote, pathogens transmitted by bat vectors continue to burden the health of humans around the world, as evident by the number of emerging zoonotic viruses that cause high mortality in humans that originate in bats.
SARS Cove, MERS Cove, and SARS-CoV-2, Ebola virus, Marburg virus, Nipah virus, and Hendravirus.
This has nothing to do with vaccines, but Alex doesn't know that because he hasn't read it and he doesn't understand this headline that he's cold reading.
Shane Bill Gates backed live Ebola vaccine distributed before Africa's 2016, 2018, 2020, 21, 2022 outbreaks was just given to Colorado healthcare workers.
So this is just another headline from John Fleetwood Substack post posting that doesn't go on to justify its assertion.
I noticed that this is pretty much all John Fleetwood's stuff, and it made it click for me that this is like Alex is reading off this headline about therapeutics and he thinks it's about virus.
The vaccine, excuse me, it made me understand that.
He doesn't understand the story he's covering at all, and he's making it up as he goes along.
But part of that Fleetwood blog post about shedding included complaints about the use of remdesivir as one of the therapeutics people were trying in relation to Ebola.
And he links to that New England Journal of Medicine article that Alex thinks is about vaccines.
It seems clear to me that John Fleetwood just sent all this over to Alex.
He didn't read the therapeutics article nor John Substack posts and has just made up his own story about it.
The more I see how much of this is just kind of an ad for John Substack, whether it's paid or not.
It's all just panic about Ebola.
Go to my store and read John Substack.
Either way, whatever the case, this is a mountain of evidence that Alex is presenting behind his narrative, and none of it means anything.
He can fool his audience by rattling off a ton of headlines in a row, but if you take the time to assess them individually and see what he's talking about and where it comes from, you'll find that he hasn't proven anything, which is your instinct to begin with.
You know what I find fascinating about that is that that is, in essence, intelligence failures.
Like across the board, whenever you have, you know, like 9-11, like, yes, you have all of the information.
You have more than enough information.
So much information that if you hand it all to somebody, they're not going to be able to make any decision other than to pick out the information they already like and pursue that.
They said they're doing it in preparation for a potential Ebola outbreak.
Why would they be thinking that's possible?
Well, there's a lab being created down the street from Denver in Colorado Springs where they're literally, it's advertising that they will be doing bat research, and it has been reported that they will be working with Ebola, Nipah virus, and COVID.
So I was asking myself, it's been reported, but by whom?
Is it just John Fleetwood's Substack post?
So that post on his substack has a source, which is a Daily Mail article, which doesn't have any proof, but it says, quote, proposals seen by this website show how the 14,000 square foot facility could store and study some of the most transmissible pathogens on the planet, including Ebola, Nipavirus, and COVID-19.
They don't present these documents in the article, and I can easily find the grant proposal abstract that explicitly says the opposite.
So I guess the burden of proof is on them, which hasn't been reached.
So I can see that what they might be misrepresenting is that these conditions very well may be studied elsewhere using the bats that are born and raised in the Colorado lab that is in question.
But that research will be being done elsewhere.
So I dug into this a little bit and I think I found out what's going on.
There's two different grants and they're being confused and conflated together.
Everything that I've said is accurate about the Colorado State University Bat Lab that got this grant, but there's a second grant for a different thing that is also at CSU.
So this is for research that's being done by a doctor named Tony Schontz.
The part that has like with Ebola, Nipavirus, and that stuff.
He runs a lab at the Center for Vector-Borne Infectious Diseases, which is associated with the Colorado State University.
Sure.
This is a BSL-3 level lab that has been around for decades that does work with insect as well as bat-related diseases.
Schounts got a similar grant with the title, quote, Establishment of a Bat Resource for Infectious Disease Research, awarded in September 2023, whereas the grant for the bat lab is titled, quote, Establishment of the Bat Resource Center for the Study of Zoonotic Diseases.
And that was awarded two years prior, and it is run by a completely different professor at the school.
Even so, this other lab is not going to be dealing with Ebola.
That's work that they may be associated with or participate in those studies, but that's being done at a different location where there's BSL-4 facilities and everything.
You can look through the papers published by people at this lab, and when they involve BSL-4 pathogens like Ebola, the research is done elsewhere, like in the case of a 2018 study on snakes and Ebola that was done at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases.
Their grant application mentions some of these more serious pathogens because that lab is actually studying those, but they're doing it elsewhere.
So the issue that we come to at the bottom of this is that there are these two different grants that are being mixed up and conflated.
And the Daily Mail article is relying on documents that were shown to them by the White Coat Waste Project, which is a right-wing animal rights activist group.
And it appears that they may have gotten some of their facts wrong.
Whether it's through sloppy handling of facts or through intentional misrepresentation, I can't say.
But it appears that these two bat-related grants involving Colorado State University have been turned into the same thing by figures of the conspiracy and right-wing media.
And that's how we've gotten to the place that we're at now.
I want to spend a few minutes with your highly recommended Let's Cape Journalist familiar with his work, John Fleetwood, johnfleetwood.com on Substack.
John, you've been helping Kole to get this all together.
We've got about three minutes, four minutes to bring.
All said, the three companies are about 30% of the stock, which is a lot.
But Yahoo Finance did an analysis and found that, quote, 25 of the top shareholders collectively own less than 50% of share register, but also found that only 22% of the stock was held by the general public.
So it's not a great picture, but it's not what he's saying.
Fleetwood has taken some stuff he's got out of context about Merck's stock in order to connect the manufacturer of the Ebola vaccine to BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, which then allows him to connect it to the World Economic Forum and the boogeyman of the season, Klaus Schwab.
Seems like there's an easier path to this.
The World Health Organization.
I think you could just draw even, but it's fun to talk about BlackRock Street and Vanguard.
Maybe you can go behind that and point to the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers.
Maybe you can do that.
But what we can prove is that the WEF is pushing this depopulation agenda, their great reset, at the end of which you'll loan nothing and you'll be happy.
They have as an official partner, BlackRock, this asset manager who owns all of the pharmaceutical industry.
They also own all the news industry from CNN, ABC, CBS.
Wow, they got them both.
That's the same asset managers who run all the news agencies from Fox News to CNN.
It doesn't matter if it's left or right or it's mainstream.
It's owned and controlled by BlackRock, who's a partner with the WEF.
This is a real boardwalk and these are the industries from Pfizer is owned by BlackRock.
What's so important for these is the aspect of it's possible to make change from the inside.
You know, there has to be that level of like, if we stop this, if we get the Patriots in the stuff, if we do the right thing, you can't concentrate too much power there because then the answer suddenly becomes, okay, well, then we'll get 30 guys and we'll kill this guy.
So it is true that asset management companies represent a significant problem that we need to address through greater regulation and likely breaking them up.
But to just pretend that they control everything, it's a lazy cop-out.
What does it mean to someone like John Fleetwood that BlackRock owns these companies?
It doesn't mean anything in his world because it's not a concrete claim.
It's just a shortcut to connect various threads together.
Because companies like BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street are an issue we need to deal with, but shit like this will never begin to mount actual opposition to the companies, except for hypothetically what you're talking about, like blowing up a, you know what I mean.
No, I mean, I think that what you're saying is that that is a conclusion that if you take in John's premise of them up.
Yeah, and it's, it's, it's a creating an impotence in terms of dealing with the actual problem, which to me is really frustrating because they just turn them into a boogeyman that like you pretend to fight against and you're not.
Like if I true, if I believed that they were trying to kill us all, I would at least be like, well, at least they acknowledge that other human beings exist.
I think the most terrifying aspect of them is that they don't care.
Like they own 5% of Merck, but that's just because they get a better return on investment.
It has nothing to do with pharmacy.
It doesn't mean anything.
We'll get 5% extra compared to if we invested in this.
So you can see how much of this traces back to and relies on misrepresentations about the polio vaccine and insisting that this one, this vaccine, is the same.
It's sloppy.
So Bartlett wanted people to look into this stuff, so I have, and I found that his work is shit.
The lab's in Fort Collins, not Colorado Springs.
They aren't doing gain of function research.
The lab that works with the more dangerous diseases is a completely different lab associated with CSU.
And that one is a BSL3 lab.
There are just countless errors with the narrative that's being put forth.
And that's because this isn't an organic conspiracy, which is to say, it's a conspiracy that begins with a conclusion and is working backwards to fill in the details.
If I was concerned about a lab having a disease potentially capable of killing a large number of people, and possibly people planning to release it through that.
The absolute last thing that I would want is a bunch of my conspiracy weirdos around the lab.
Even if I know for a fact there are evil, shady businesses going on with there, they are only going to cause more problems than they are helping the situation.
The insert for the year Vivo vaccine that they're giving to these Denver Health workers in Colorado, it says that they can detect viruses in the saliva and urine of the vaccinated individuals for up to 28 days.
Now, that doesn't mean that they went looking and they did the studies and tested for a year or two years to find out how long it was and it's only 28 days.
From the FDA insert, quote, viral shedding was greatest on day seven and declined thereafter with no shedding detected after day 28.
John is making this up because he's just consulting the FDA insert instead of reading the study that that's based on, which is the study that we discussed earlier.
Because he doesn't know the underlying source, he doesn't know that this study actually did track the children for three months and found that there was no shedding after day 28 and none after the second dose for those that got the second dose.
This very same vaccine made by Merck, who's an official partner of the World Economic Forum, owned by BlackRock Vanguard State Street and Disney World.
Their ERVO E-R-V-E-B-O vaccine that we've been talking about was given in mass campaigns across Africa before the 2016 outbreak, before the 2018 outbreak, before the 2020 outbreak, before the 2021 outbreak, and before the 2022 outbreak at least.
So I consulted John's Substack article about this, and he fails to demonstrate that these vaccines were given out before the outbreaks he's listing off.
He does need to prove chronological and causal connection in order to make the sort of claims that he's making, and he does nothing of the sort.
Further, he doesn't seem to have any understanding of the ring vaccination paradigm that they used, where the vaccines were given out after identification of cases to the people who had close contact with the person infected, like a ring around them.
Take, for example, the 2018 outbreak that began in the Kivu provinces of the DRC.
John says that Merck approved sending the DRC 7,500 doses in May 2018, and then in August 2018, there was an outbreak.
He does nothing to illustrate that those doses were administered to anybody, when in reality, it could just be that they stockpiled those for use whenever an outbreak did come.
Or in the case of the 2021 outbreak, he says that in November 2020, the WHO announced that they had vaccinated more than 40,000 people in the course of that outbreak in the DRC, which was declared over.
Then, in February 2021, there was another outbreak in the DRC.
These were in entirely different locations.
The outbreak that had ended in 2020 was in the Ecuador province, and in the February 2021 one was in the North Kivu province.
They're distinct from one another.
So, claiming that vaccinations in one region caused the outbreak in the other is going to require a little bit more work on John's part, which he has not done.
Imagine trying to convince people that you could say that there are secondary implications of Alex's financial and capitalistic motives that play into his opposition to taking care of some of these issues.
You might be able to make an interesting argument down those lines.
But yeah, it's a mess.
I agree with you, though.
I think that it would be an interesting next evolution of our society to take on the paradigm of fuck you, virus.
For him, there's problems like what I was describing all over because this is the result of someone having a conclusion that they're going to arrive at and then molding the information they find to get to that conclusion.
That's all he's doing.
It's all shit.
But if you take nothing away from this episode, know that I had to do it because of the cover of 3000 Day D Anubia.
No, every single thing of like the Chuck Tingle cover, you know, all of those will never compare to somebody who's so earnestly making a dick like that.
So unfortunately, another bad performer comes to the stage in the form of John talking more.
And he's, so the basic premise here is that you can't get an emergency authorization, emergency use authorization for something if there is a safe and effective thing to be used.
We have treatments for Ebola that are safe and effective.
Remember the EUA?
The emergency use authorization?
I don't know if they're going to maybe be making a new Ebola vaccine that they might have to get an EUA for.
I don't know.
But if they try to do that, what I know is you can't get an EUA if you have safe and effective treatment for the disease, which with COVID, we had budesinide, potentially ivermectin, and down the list.
So you can't get an EUA for dangerous mRNA or other vaccines if there is safe and effective treatment for the disease.
Well, with Ebola, it turns out we do have safe and effective treatment that the NIH that the FDA have already confirmed works.
So that study that John is citing about NTZ, they found that it's effective in vitro, but it's not been tested in vivo, which is to say that it shows promise in cells, but they've never done an actual test on human bodies.
Which would be very difficult, except in the case of a compassionate use within an active pandemic or outbreak.
Excuse me.
But this distinction, maybe the AI that he was using to explain the study to him didn't pick that up.
So, look, I think that this was a crazy pile of nonsense for Alex's show.
Yeah.
And I think that until earlier today when Alex is talking about secession and all this stuff, I figured we're going to have to be dealing with this Ebola vaccine stuff for a while.
And now I kind of think that maybe this is not a priority anymore.