“No One Is Investigating THIS!” Alex Berenson On What Is Causing Excess Deaths- Stay Free #335
Today is my conversation with journalist and writer Alex Berenson. You can find his work on Substack at alexberenson.substack.comAlex started reporting on the pharmaceutical industry and financial crime for the New York Times in 1999. He also served two stints as a correspondent in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 before leaving the Times in 2010.During our conversation, we delved into his experiences in the legacy media, his insights on the pandemic and vaccines, and we also engaged in a discussion about our differing perspectives on the Ukraine conflict.Join the awakening wonders community here:https://bit.ly/RussellBrand-SupportVisit the new merch store:https://bit.ly/Stay-Free-StoreFollow on social media:X: @rustyrocketsINSTAGRAM: @russellbrandFACEBOOK: @russellbrand
Hello you Awakening Wonders there on Spotify, Apple, Stink Whistle, Gurgle Dot or wherever you download your podcasts these days to remain at least peripherally connected to some tendril of truth in a bewildering miasma of lies and propaganda.
We appreciate you, and we love you.
You're part of our community.
So that's why we're very happy to give you an audio version of our live Rumble Show five days a week.
It's on Monday to Friday.
We decipher the latest news stories, we break down current topics that the mainstream media should be covering, and if they aren't, Then we critique why they're not and what they are covering.
Every week as well, right?
We do brilliant conversations with people like Jordan Peterson, RFK, Tucker Carlson, Sam Harris, Vandana Shiva, Gabor Mate.
These things are already up and you can listen to them now.
So remember, this is an audio version of our daily live show.
To tune in live, go to rumble.com forward slash Russell Brand.
You'll find it easily and I hope that you will love it.
Now, please enjoy this episode of Stay Free with Russell Brand.
Thanks.
Thanks for joining me today for Stay Free with Russell Brand.
Oh, thanks for mentioning it.
25% all this week.
Send me a picture of yourself wearing it in, I would say, auspicious, legitimate, civilised circumstances.
No smut, no filth.
25% off this week.
And become an Awake and Wonder to get additional content.
We make an exclusive video every week, plus you get to join us with fantastic guests.
Why?
Coming up we've got Vandana Shiva, we've got RFK, we've got Steve Bannon coming up, and today I'm talking to Alex Berenson.
If you don't know Alex Berenson, he used to be a legacy media commentator, but he broke away when the New York Times Well, I suppose during his time at the New York Times, while serving as an Iraq correspondent during the numerous wars, he discovered what the legacy media is really about.
If you were an awakened wonder on Locals, you could have joined us for that conversation.
And it's really worth becoming one, because this week, if you use the code, GODISGREAT, you get one month free.
Post that in the link, post it now, post it.
So, click on that link, become an awakened wonder, you get one month free.
You could just listen for a month, or join us for a month, and if you didn't like it, you could click off.
Now we'll be on YouTube for about another 10 minutes for our conversation with Alex Berenson, then we'll be exclusively available on that sweet stream of freedom that we call Rumble.
Here's Alex Berenson.
Alex, thank you for joining us.
Thank you so much for having me.
I'm glad to hear you sounding so well.
I know you live a life of dedicated research and inquiry and in 2024 it seems that finally long repressed suppressed and censored truths are emerging whether that's on adverse injuries, excess deaths, extraordinary profiteering, the manipulation and management of information And today in the United Kingdom where I live, it's been announced that AstraZeneca are giving 650 million pounds to Britain as some kind of demonstration of largesse for building more factories.
Now 97% of the research that AstraZeneca Did before establishing that vaccine was funded by by the taxpayer.
I wonder what this new story along with I suppose Mandy Cummings announcement of the normalization of COVID vax shots you know that's just part of life now having with the flu shot tells us about the next phase of the COVID and COVID medication process.
Do you think that most people in the US, certainly, and I assume in the UK and everywhere else, are basically, they don't want to hear about COVID anymore.
We're at a very interesting moment because, you know, I think there's some people, this sort of small group of hardcore COVID fanatics who, you know, the people who are still wearing masks, the people who are still complaining on Twitter that, you know, I'm immunocompromised and you, Which in most cases, they're not seriously immunocompromised in the way that you would be having chemotherapy or something like that.
They, you know, they just call themselves immunocompromised.
You know, you're putting me at risk, you're killing me.
So there's 10 or 15% of people who are in that place.
And then there's, you know, I'd say there's 10 or 15% of people who are seriously concerned about what we might have done to ourselves with the mRNAs and COVID vaccines and who definitely We want to make sure that going forward we don't lock down for another respiratory virus like this one, that we have accountability.
But unfortunately, or fortunately, I think most of the world just doesn't want to hear about COVID anymore.
And so, for those of us who want accountability and who want to ask questions about the long-term impacts of the COVID vaccines and who want to make sure that we don't have, you know, 2020 and 2021 don't repeat, it's an interesting place.
How do we continue to talk to people about this and keep them interested in it at least enough to get some accountability?
Yes it is interesting and I suppose one of the ways that we continue the conversation is by making it plain that there's a plan, if not a plan, it seems a strategy that may include future pandemics.
Now optimistically that would be an indication of perspicacity and responsibility in this a world government seems to be forming around us and
proposing treaties that bypass national sovereignty. The WHO version of a global
pandemic response certainly includes such measures. And indeed, the continual establishment
of new factories for Moderna and AstraZeneca and this country, and I'm sure there are comparable
stories in your country also, suggest that this is something that is ongoing. And what I feel that
people ought to remain vigilant about is the way that it seems to me two things are a significant
reframing of what's happened. The recent large COVID study that was to a degree funded by the
CDC and Pfizer appears to be an attempt to mitigate the impact of the stories at least that surround
adverse events. And in the UK, the way that excess deaths are being recorded has changed.
They've manipulated the way that they report excess deaths.
So those things indicate to me that this is something that is ongoing, is a strategy that's
likely to be deployed and normalized in the future. And it's clear that we were
deceived at least at the beginning of the pandemic period.
That's certainly true.
Let me go to a point that I think might have the most traction, again, for the people who are outside, the people who are really engaged in this going forward, and might be the most important thing we can talk about, which is the lab leak, okay?
So I think at this point that anybody who's paid attention to the evidence Would say with a near certainty that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab in Wuhan, okay?
And that there was gain-of-function research happening there on coronaviruses.
The Chinese were performing this.
They had talked to certain American scientists about what they might do.
Peter Daszak, who as you know, is British, was in the middle of all of this.
And that there was an accident.
And that's where SARS-CoV-2 came from.
Okay.
It is crucial for two reasons that we force governments, the US government, the UK government, the Chinese government will never admit it, but we need to get governments to admit this.
Why?
Why does it matter so much?
Well, first of all, we should try to have some accountability for these people who were involved in this, even And you know, again, we'll never get to the Chinese scientists, but somebody like Ralph Baric, who clearly was very involved in coronavirus research, who, you know, was talking to the scientists at the lab in China, where this most likely leaked from.
I'm not saying Ralph Baric knew what was happening exactly, but there's sufficient evidence That he had quite a bit of knowledge, you know, in the years leading up to 2020, that dangerous research might be being conducted.
And, you know, was he was he talking to the US government about this?
Was he?
He certainly didn't sound any public alarm about this.
So that's one.
But the second issue, and this kind of goes to what you just said, is there are these efforts for pandemic preparedness.
And my joke about this, but it's not a joke, is the number one way we're going to get another pandemic is funding pandemic preparedness efforts.
Okay, whether that's going into caves looking for dangerous viruses, whether that's trying to make viruses more dangerous with gain-of-function research in labs, we shouldn't be doing any of it.
And there should be a worldwide treaty that basically says we're not going to meddle with respiratory viruses to try to make them more dangerous.
That's a crime against humanity.
The only thing we should be doing for the pandemic A preparedness probably is buying some masks, even though they don't really work, buying some gloves, sticking them in a warehouse somewhere.
Okay, the truth, Russell, is that before COVID, we hadn't had a major respiratory virus epidemic since 1918, more than a century.
And it is almost certain that that that COVID was essentially a lab leak.
And so what are we doing?
We are very likely, and this is where you and I might disagree, you might think this is more of an intentional plan.
I think this is just, you know, people with a financial interest being stupid and not admitting the risks.
But I think you and I could both agree, we need not to fund pandemic preparedness efforts that are likely to cause another pandemic.
Yes and also I've not gotten into any ideas that are difficult to corroborate.
I'm quite happy to settle with dual purpose research seems pretty established.
Lab leak seems pretty established.
American financial involvement seems quite clear and what's plain to all of us and requires no further research is that if that is true the people that Collectively are responsible for this happening, were charged with our global response, are unwilling to admit their culpability and are now firstly moving on to preparing us for the next one without having learned any of the lessons of the previous one.
If they've learned, they're certainly not telling us publicly.
They're certainly, whatever, you know, whatever they may know, whatever they may think, they are just charging merrily along.
Our audience, like in the stream, the Rumble stream and the locals awakened wonder stream are certainly free to speculate.
But what I tend to do is remain within what is demonstrable.
And I do enjoy a little conjecture.
in the same way that you've said it's clear that certain financial interests have benefited and
are therefore perhaps viewing this myopically, it appears that what's particularly dangerous is where
the financial interests and the ability of states to regulate and impose authority and a general
trend towards authoritarianism in a more desperate diffuse and oppositional public sphere increasingly
charged by social media appear to align and are leading to whether it's through censorship laws
or the militarization of Police forces or the normalization of lockdowns or conversations around 15-minute cities.
Authoritarianism appears to be on the rise, most notably, in my view, not in the hands of resurgent nativist populism, but under the peculiar auspices of liberalism, in fact.
I mean, I would basically agree with that.
One thing I've written a lot about on my Substack on Unreported Truths recently, and, you know, Substack, Twitter, Rumble, these are some of the few places left where you can really say what you think, you know, for better or worse, where the First Amendment in the U.S.
really holds, is that I think the First Amendment in the United States is under threat.
And, you know, it's under threat From mostly from the left in a variety of ways, including defamation lawsuits, including, you know, campus speech codes, including cancel culture, you know, there's there's there's efforts to sort of ring fence what you can and can't say.
And including in my case, you know, direct efforts from the White House to force Twitter, and ultimately these efforts were successful by the White House and by Pfizer, to force Twitter to ban me.
So, you know, I have my cup that I like to, you know, Fauci and Gottlieb and Slavin and Borla.
You know, I am suing the federal government in the U.S.
I am suing, you know, senior Pfizer officials.
And I'm hoping that, you know, I'm hoping that lawsuit will continue to move forward and we're waiting on to hear about the motion to dismiss.
But, you know, beyond me, beyond you, beyond any single person, I think I'm really sad that younger people in the United States don't really seem, especially on the left, they don't really seem to believe in the First Amendment or understand its value.
And to me, that's just crazy.
We can't bring you this content without our sponsors.
Here's a message from one now.
We love our partners on this show because our partners keep us going, they support us, they stand firm and strong against a lot of powerful voices, corrupt voices, trying to bring down independence in these spaces and we couldn't have a better sponsor than our friends Black Forest and this product NMN.
This is a potential therapy for age-related diseases, cardiovascular disease, neurodegenerative degenerative disorders, diabetes. Big Pharma of course
wants to monopolize this incredible and powerful product charging dollar dollar dollar dollar
dollar dollar dollars dollars taking away your right to non-pharmaceutical alternatives like this one.
Transitioning NMN to a drug of course would inflate costs and prescription fees and it could be
as much as thirty thousand dollars which is unattainable without insurance and of course that's what
they want.
Now Black Forest partnered with the Natural Product Association to fight against the FDA and their stance on NMM.
This amazing Black Forest supplement could become the first anti-aging FDA approved drug where you'd need a prescription to buy it costing big bucks!
Fight against Big Pharma and FDA corruption and Old Father Time himself by using this incredible product.
I use it.
I love it.
Buy NMN with this 25% off deal.
Go to blackforestsupplements.com forward slash Russell.
You'll get 25% off.
Plus our friends at Black Forest will know that their adverts on our space is working.
This will mean we'll get more adverts from them and we'll become more powerful.
So, shake up your system and shake up their system with these glorious NMNs.
Okay, let's get back to our content.
Thank you, partners.
We are going to have to start the countdown now.
We're going to be exclusively available on Rumble now.
So, become an Awakened Wonder to join us for these conversations live.
Remember, you can get one month free by clicking the link in the description and using the code GODISGREAT.
I suppose that, well, you know, what we've learned about The way that the culture appears to be dividing is that values that seem to be somewhat permanent and connected to the ideology are mobile and are easily yielded when authoritarianism appears to be acting in their favor.
So and that's I suppose the opposite of a value or a principle in so much as it doesn't it's not able to withstand vicissitudes That's right.
I mean, it's all well and good to say you believe in free speech when you control, you know, most newspapers or most of academia or Hollywood, but you have to, if you truly believe in the value that it's a universal value, you have to be willing to listen or at least permit the speaking of stuff that you don't like.
And I, you know, I just, It is, again, I look, people say, you know, it too, when you're on Twitter, people say terrible things to you all the time.
And that's, that's the price you pay for having open dialogue, open discussion.
And I truly believe that's how you know, we get to answers by letting people say whatever they want.
And this idea that, I mean, somebody went on MSNBC, this sort of disinformation specialist,
went on MSNBC and said, "The First Amendment is a risk to the United States."
Like, you know, that is a crazy, It's the First Amendment.
It's the First Amendment.
It's at the core of who we are.
And I think it's made the United States a great place and we've exported that value of freedom of speech worldwide.
And the idea that somebody who claims to be an expert on information and speech would say that openly is just crazy to me.
I suppose it's become an important message.
I was astonished to find out how much money and how many resources Moderna, for example, had deployed to silence voices, I assume.
Silence both of us!
Yeah.
I mean, that doesn't seem like it would be in the ordinary remit of a pharmacological organization anyway.
Aren't they supposed to be manufacturing and distributing medicines?
You know, I think they correctly viewed people who were talking about vaccine side effects, who were saying, how long does this really work?
You know, does it make any sense to if you were previously infected to get vaccinated again?
What about, you know, what about if you're 20 years old and in good health?
Why would you take this vaccine?
They viewed it as a problem for their sales, as a problem for their profits, and they wanted to get us out of the way.
Yeah, it's plainly the case.
Now one of the stories that's going to be difficult to repress, though you can see the machinery maneuvering around it, is the increase in excess deaths across the world.
In this country, the Office for Statistics has altered the way that they measure excess deaths In order to, it seems at least to me, to lower the number of excess deaths which they have done successfully from 30,000 to 10,000.
Yet in your country it seems that in a period of around 10 months there were 150,000 excess deaths in an entirely unanticipated demographic.
Among other things this caused the insurance companies to re-evaluate the premiums and that's one of the ways that this becomes most empirical and demonstrable and the conversation unavoidable.
How do you think something as Difficult to dilute and ignore as excess deaths is going to be managed and why are we not getting the necessary research into this?
So that is a great question.
You know it does seem to me that both in both the US and the UK where I've seen the numbers yeah we have excess deaths at a rate of maybe eight to ten percent above pre-COVID time right which is Which is maybe worse than it looks like, because if you recall, early in COVID, there was this idea that the people who COVID attacked and killed were mostly so old and so sick that there was what was called the pull forward effect.
In other words, that people who were dying, who were very, very likely to have died a year or two later.
And so the belief was we would have a period after COVID where deaths were actually below normal for a year or two before they went back to trend.
So we never had that.
What we had in 2021, 2022, 2023 was continued excess deaths basically at the 2020 level, a little below.
But so in other words, we never got back to normal.
We seem to be at this new, in the US and the UK, which is the numbers I'm most familiar with, permanently high plateau of deaths.
And no one knows why, is the short answer, right?
You know, I know a lot of people blame the vaccines.
On the other side, a lot of people say, oh, well, you know, it was after effects from COVID.
You know, is there something else going on?
Is it that people didn't exercise in 2020 and they didn't go to the doctor?
Well, I mean, that's harder and harder to believe as we get more and more years out.
But the one thing that is clear is, as you said, no one's investigating this.
The CDC is not investigating it.
You know, the National National Health Service doesn't seem to be investigating it.
There's just a, oh, well, you know, a few hundred thousand people a year more are dying
in the US and the UK and Europe than were dying in 2019.
Well, well, you know, maybe it's COVID.
We won't worry about it.
And I, and whether or not it's vaccines, I don't know.
I think that, you know, I think, I think it's very, very hard to determine what's causing it.
And I think it should be a scientific project that governments are looking into.
And I think you're right to ask why that isn't happening.
No it's interesting they're not investigating it they're investigating people that are investigating it is it what they're investigating and they're altering the way that they measure excess deaths so it's astonishing of course Pfizer shares are well let me have a look I've got some data here but I don't think it's going too well for them it's collapsed to its lowest point in 10 years, Mandy Cohen has announced that there's a new COVID vaccine coming out this fall as if it was like a Kanye album.
Why does it seem now that COVID is being treated like flu after it was treated initially more like Ebola or HIV?
You know why?
People are tired of it and everyone's gotten it and everybody knows, you know, just that it's not Ebola, that it is more like the flu.
And so at some point, if you're the CDC and you're telling people to isolate for five days and wear masks all the time, people are just laughing at you.
And I think, you know, they've recognized that in the last couple of months.
They've lost so much credibility.
I mean, I don't know if it's the same in the UK, but in the US, the public health establishment has lost tremendous credibility.
And I would say that is not just for Again, for the sort of hardcore people who are really concerned.
I would say that average people are just don't, they've tuned out the CDC, and they even trust their own doctors less.
And I will say, it seems to me that doctors in the US are not pushing the COVID vaccines at all.
At this point and they have essentially realized that they don't want to sacrifice their credibility you know to help the CDC when ultimately there's no gain for their patients.
No, I think trust in institutions is at an all-time low.
Of course in the ascendancy of Trump we saw the power of social media and indeed let's say one man as the voice of a movement's ability to destabilize, diminish and maybe even decimate the power of legacy media perhaps just with the simple phrase fake news.
Even now, as Trump's various forms of lawfare continue, it seems that the left are equally willing to trash institutions if those institutions don't behave in accordance with their agenda.
I have seen MSNBC and CNN query the validity of the Supreme Court's decision To defer any January 6th related trials to post-November and therefore the election.
So this, while institutions and trusted institutions, be they medical, judicial or electoral, seems to be collapsing, do you think that this is a point of potential crisis for America?
You know, I hate to think that, but it, I mean, it sort of feels that whoever wins in November, and obviously it's going to be Biden and Trump again, you know, a lot of the country is not going to, I mean, obviously they wouldn't like the result.
Will they accept the result?
I mean, you know.
It's hard to know.
And Biden, obviously, he's 81.
It's hard to imagine him being president in two years, much less in 2028.
Trump, if he wins, is going to be very angry and understandably so, frankly, at the way he's been treated the last couple of years.
You know, the the four criminal trials, the civil suits, the crazy New York case where he's been fined, you know, 450 million dollars with interest for taking out some loans that he paid back in full.
I mean, that that that to me is a true miscarriage of justice.
And he's right to be angry about it.
So I am worried.
I mean, I think like a lot of Americans, it's I feel I don't know what to do.
You know, I it's It's worrisome.
Well it seems to me that what's happening in macro is trust in institutions is collapsing because of the impossibility of concealing their malfeasance in an open communication world before the censorship industrial complex can catch up to the capacities of independent media and social media communication.
Means that there's a need for a re-evaluation of all of our institutions and instead of recognizing that need there's an attempt to cling on to centralized authoritarian models in a landscape that cannot and will not accommodate them and that's going to lead to the rise of authoritarianism and it seems to me that the democrat party are unable to meaningfully introduce any policies that are going to appeal To ordinary Americans, blue-collar, what they call them, grey-collar, ordinary Americans of many distinctions and are leaning into only two areas really, the traditional areas of guns and abortion, the tropes that have emerged out of wokeism and the ongoing and increasingly hysterical vilification of Trump
When their own government and their own candidate is becoming increasingly popular as wars across the world cost the American taxpayer an unmanageable amount and seem increasingly either futile or worse than futile, nihilistic, self-destructive.
It really is stunning, the repudiation of Biden and the embrace of Trump.
You know, Trump, as somebody pointed out, in 2020, I don't believe there was ever a poll that showed Trump ahead of Biden.
And at this point, you know, in 2024, Trump is clearly ahead of Biden.
You know, whether it's two points or five points, if the election were held today, it seems almost certain that Donald Trump would win.
And considering, you know, January 6th and considering, um, uh, you know, that, that made that upset a lot of people, including me.
I did not like to see the Capitol, the riot outside the Capitol.
I'm not going to call it an insurrection.
It clearly was not an insurrection, but it was a bad day.
And, and, and, and it was a riot to see that, that the, the Donald Trump, that the Democrats have overreached so badly.
In the last three years that Donald Trump is now leading, that he's managed to become a sympathetic figure to a lot of Americans is really amazing and says, you're right, the Democrats, they seem to stake their whole future on demonizing Trump.
And at least for now, it is not working.
No, it doesn't appear to be.
It's difficult to imagine what further strategies remain, especially when there's an unwillingness to accommodate other candidates, an unwillingness to debate.
When RFK, who I Well, increasingly, if you think of the views that RFK espoused that were regarded as extreme, mostly centered around his book about Fauci, his concerns around vaccines and their potential side effects, dual-purpose research, the weaponization of health, it seems
Odd that RFK was demonized and ultimately annexed by a party that he's plainly historically affiliated with in order to once again ensure that the Democrat Party remains a sort of a hierarchical institution with preferred candidates given easy access to candidacy.
Well, you see it, I think, on both sides that no one can tell Biden he shouldn't run again.
The Democratic Party does not have the power to do that.
And Donald Trump, all the people in the Republican Party who didn't like Donald Trump, all those rhinos, you know, he's destroyed them.
The Republican Party is Donald Trump's party and the Democratic Party, you know, there may be people in the Democratic Party who don't want Joe Biden to run, but they're not in charge.
So we are, it is, You can argue that parties as institutions, you talk about a lot of institutions that have lost power, that that's another institution that's lost power.
That Donald Trump or Elon or you or Tucker, the power has sort of shifted to individuals who are able to reach large groups of people via social media.
And you're right.
I think there's these like in academia, these institutions don't know how to deal with it.
And this idea that they're going to respond by censoring to go back to the lab leak.
It's very interesting, right?
The lab leak.
The first and most crucial research showing that this probably came out of a lab was literally done on Twitter, open source, you know, some scientists, some non-scientists kind of, you know, playing hopscotch with each other, finding, you know, an obscure database here, a paper there, and really putting together something that, you know, that Fauci wanted to hide, that the U.S.
government wanted to hide, that the media wanted to hide, because You know, whether you want to say, well, they did that for the right reasons.
They thought, you know, maybe there would be real anger at China.
I mean, I don't I don't think that's most of what it was.
I think it was mostly an effort to protect their own interests.
The power devolved.
And you're right.
Institutions don't like that.
And they and they're and they're trying to suppress it.
And so far they've failed.
And so we are at a time of of tension.
When you were working at the New York Times, as well as reporting on financial crime, am I right in saying that you served as a foreign correspondent in Iraq and reported presumably on the conditions of the Iraq conflicts and the subsequent period in that region?
You left the New York Times in 2010 and it seems now that the New York Times is essentially, or at least functionally, a limb of the establishment if you take for example their involvement in the Jack Teixeira case where it was New York Times investigators that contributed to the his eventual arrest at least they're reporting and their research led to his arrest they were sort of almost a law enforcement agency in that instance and the recent story about CIA having bases in Ukraine and having had them for the last 10 years while contrarily reporting that
Putin's attack on Ukraine was entirely unprovoked whilst it's clear that the CIA have been acting as provocateurs in that region prior even to 2014 and significantly since then.
What do you think has changed in the way that legacy media operates?
Is the age where journalists can become heroic, win Pulitzer Prizes, be like men or women of the people?
Adored voices of truth and reason and still operate at institutions like the New York Times, truly over.
What is the role of the New York Times now?
How have those institutions changed since, you know, during the time that you've worked for them and since you've left them?
I'll say a couple things.
First of all, I think there's nothing more dangerous than a journalist who wants to be a hero.
The biggest mistakes, and I'm not even joking right now, the biggest mistakes I saw and the most glaring problems I saw at the Times came when there, I'm thinking of one in particular, but there were journalists who thought I'm the center of the story.
I want to be the center of attention and and that causes overreach.
Okay.
Secondly, when I looked at the times, okay, well, I wrote a lot of stories that you know, when I was in Iraq, that the coalition provisional authority, which was the US government did not like.
And so, I certainly didn't view myself as a tool of the U.S.
government.
Maybe I was in some broader way that I didn't see, but I didn't view myself that way and I was never encouraged to view myself that way.
Third, I couldn't work at the New York Times anymore.
I mean, first of all, they would never have me back.
And sometimes I think it's funny when I write something that people on Twitter don't like.
They say, oh, he wants to get back to the New York Times.
That will never, ever, ever happen.
And I know it.
And that's fine with me.
I have a great, great audience on Substack.
And I do quite well.
And I'm very happy about that.
But I couldn't work there because politically, I'm too independent.
And, you know, the stories that I wrote were they were really investigative stories about companies.
And, you know, that was fine with me.
I love doing that.
I love investigating companies.
But but I would I don't even think I'd be able to do that these days, because if I had an opinion about, you know, the 1619 project or whatever, I would have to either keep my mouth shut or risk, you know, censure and being fired.
And so the Times has lost It's not just me.
They've lost a fair number of people like me.
They've shifted further and further left.
I don't even, I wouldn't even say they're necessarily a tool of the establishment.
They're just a tool of the sort of progressive wing of the Democratic Party at this point.
And look, if Donald Trump comes, you know, is reelected or is elected in 2024, They're going to be at open war with the government.
You won't see them as a tool of the establishment.
They will go to war with the government.
It's all political.
It's not sort of like we want to work for the U.S.
government.
We stand with the woke wing of the Democratic Party.
I wonder then where, in your mind at least, the location of the establishment is at this point.
I feel that potentially in this kind of spaces that we report in and communicate in, the establishment is regarded as the nexus of interest, a transcendent of Partisan politics and that currently the the democrat party are more representative of those interests indeed using the sort of cultural issues as a veil or smoke screen for the broad compliance with the economic interests with the industries that tacitly or otherwise control those institutions.
I've heard the phrase the blob used a lot to to describe those interests via the CIA and State departments and so I suppose what I mean by that yes it's pretty plain that the New York Times wouldn't pivot in favor of Trump were he to be re-elected but isn't it whether this is true or not in terms of policy or his his record in office certainly the emotion that he the engenders in his supporters is a kind of anti-establishment fervor drain the swamp
Lock her up.
This is like, this kind of nativist populism is, I suppose, fundamentally derived from a sense that's probably been a lot worse since 2008, and I don't mean the presidency of Obama, I mean Obama's decision primarily to bail out the banks, that's kind of fostered a sense that these institutions are no longer, let alone in the service of American people, even particularly connected to them.
I would certainly agree with that.
And I would also agree, you know, you really started in 2003, right, with the Iraq War, which, you know, proved to be basically a strategic disaster, you know, that the Republican foreign policy establishment never admitted.
And, you know, Trump came on.
I mean, if you really think about what Trump... Well, the first truth that he told that people didn't want to hear was about Iraq being a disaster.
Um, and so, and, and, and that was almost, that was almost his first engine.
And the second truth I would say he told that people didn't want to hear was about immigration and that, you know, too much immigration is destabilizing whether it's in the U S or Europe and the U S look, we can tolerate immigration.
We, we, we were an immigrant society, but that does not mean that having, you know, One or two percent of the country come in every year from really poor countries is good for the United States.
It's not.
And so and so Trump, you know, when he said build the wall, you know, people on the left, that was that was very much something people in the establishment didn't want to hear.
It was too raw.
It was too true.
And and frankly, that as much as anything, I think that's why he won.
Yeah, apparently so.
Back in 2016.
With regard to the Iraq War, what was the nature of your reporting on it at that time?
What were the kind of stories, because I suppose then you were sort of, although Obama would have been in office, I guess it would have been critiques of Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc.
No, I mean, listen, I was not a political reporter.
I went there in 2003, I went there in 2004, and just tried to report from Baghdad and the rest of Iraq what I was seeing.
And it was very clear that the occupation was not going well,
that decisions that had been made inside the green zone were not playing out on the ground as the US claimed
or wanted.
And so the tension was building, and there was going to be an insurrection.
And I think the only people who really knew that in Iraq in 2003 were some of the front line officers,
military officers, and some of the reporters.
And the green zone, they just, la, la, la, la, la, la.
We're just-- everything is great.
And this country is going to be Lebanon in a couple of years.
And all we need to worry about is how to distribute the reconstruction contracts.
And that blew up in their faces in a matter of months and became a very expensive nightmare that in some ways
is-- we're still dealing with the consequences of.
But that's what I was writing about.
It was the ultimate example of propaganda meeting reality, right?
It was sort of in the same way that Vietnam was for a generation of reporters before, right?
Where for all these years, the United States insisted that Vietnam was under control.
And if we just had a few more troops, everything would be fine.
And the South Vietnamese really wanted us there.
And it was all lies, right?
And it blew up.
And so And so, you know, war is the ultimate place where you can't, you can lie all you want, but the enemy ultimately gets a vote.
And, and so that, that's the kind of reporter I was.
I always liked being outside.
I didn't like being in talking to sort of the people in charge.
I like seeing it for myself.
I see and I wonder if ultimately we will come to regard subsequent conflicts in the same light that the propaganda simply cannot withstand reality as more and more people are exposed to that reality.
Certainly Afghanistan could be described in those terms although it was never a particularly popular conflict neither was it much publicized even though it cost I think two trillion dollars.
It seems to me that what's happening now between Ukraine and Russia and the degree to which NATO countries and certainly Western interests are involved in that conflict is Is an available comparison as well as the legitimacy of the endeavor and what is actually at play when it comes to the motivation of nations like yours and mine.
So, you know, Ukraine is probably a place where I differ in my views from you, but I will say this.
I would say we're probably not getting the full story, right?
There's not a lot of reporting from the front lines on either side, on either the Russian or the Ukrainian side.
You know, front lines.
And it does seem clear that that, you know, this idea that some of us had that, you know, the Ukrainians are really going to counterattack and deal a blow to the Russians in 2023.
Well, that didn't happen.
And so, you know, I don't have to agree with you, you know, completely about Ukraine to understand that you're probably right that we are not getting the full story.
Also, I wonder where we disagree.
Do you consider then that Putin has expansionist plans that go beyond Ukraine?
Do you think that the CIA involvement in the 2014 coup is significant?
Do you think that the NATO impingement on former Soviet territories, as Putin himself states, is a One of the reasons this conflict started and were the US to use their considerable might to push for diplomacy rather than an escalation of hostilities that that wouldn't be a better way to proceed it given that they're in all likelihood this could if this war were to escalate we're dealing with a pretty serious opponent
Yes, I think it's hard to think of a war where the two sides have such a completely different view of the Motivations, right?
So it's pretty clear that at least in the Kremlin, they view Ukraine, you know, if not as a completely as completely, you know, Russian territory, certainly it should be a vassal state, right?
That it's that it's part of the buffer between Russia and Europe, that that's what it's been.
And that, you know, NATO really, and the EU should really lay off Ukraine.
And then from the European point of view, well, Ukraine's in Europe, and we should be encouraging Ukraine to become this Western democratic society.
And ultimately, I mean, I guess what I believed Well, you know, in 2022, and would like to believe today is that Ukrainians mostly agree with the European point of view.
If that's wrong, if it turns out that there's a significant number of people in Ukraine, who really want to be aligned with Russia, you know, that that would be that would be something that I would say I haven't heard in the media.
And is it true?
I don't think it's true.
But you raise it, you raise a fair question.
Yeah it seems like it's somewhat regionalized even within the reporting that I have had access to and simply I suppose what I would return to is what is the function of the United States in bringing about a resolution in this conflict and what are the motivations in the continual arming of Ukraine?
Indeed your earlier remark that Russia perhaps regards Ukraine as a vassal
and a border I think could equally be applied to NATO and the US's
perspective on Ukraine.
Fair point, fair point. Look, you know, a good question.
What I don't...
Here's the one thing I think that people on the right need to acknowledge, which is that Putin tends to be a bad actor.
And I do think that the unwillingness to make excuses for him in terms of the internal repression in Russia, That's not a society I would want to live in, and I assume it's not a society you would want to live in.
And look, I have real problems with the way the left treats the First Amendment in the United States, I have real problems with the way I've been treated, the way you've been treated by people, but we're not being poisoned for our political views.
And Russia is a rough place, and I do think the right needs to admit that.
Absolutely, I certainly have no problems admitting that Russia is a rough place, and these points about our nations being preferable is certainly one that conservatives were willing to use when the left were advocating for different forms of socialism in an earlier incarnation of that movement.
But when it comes to the matter of liberty, these are questions that, you know, gosh, I'd love the opportunity to put before Julian Assange, for example, and certainly the way his case... Fair points!
Fair point.
It's funny, this has turned into, you know, a much, in some ways, this is what, look, even you and I can't talk about COVID for an hour anymore.
That's it.
We've had to go in there and start talking about Julian Assange.
Alex, thank you so much for coming on and thank you for sharing your perspectives.
I only want to speak to people I agree with on everything.
If that was my perspective, I wouldn't be able to remain married.
So it's lovely to speak with you.
There's nothing you've said that It troubles me remotely.
Indeed, my belief in free speech precisely means I want to hear a variety of perspectives that I may learn and become more sophisticated in my own understanding of a complex world.
I feel the same.
And I feel that the left likes to brand, for lack of a better word, people like you.
They want to take They want to say, you know, oh, he, you know, he's crazy or he, you know, he's a conspiracy theorist.
It's, you know, when you actually have a conversation and get into it, you can hear the places of agreement and disagreement and that we should, we should all be doing this.
Yes.
Yes, we must.
We must, Alex.
Alex, thank you so much for your time today.
It's lovely speaking with you.
I hope you enjoyed that conversation with Alex Berenson.
You can find him on Substack at hisname.substank.
There's a, excuse me, Substack.
There's a link in the description for that.
Remember, 25% off this all week.
Remember, too, to join us on Locals to get additional content.
Now, you cannot trust the Legacy Media to report on complex subjects in a nuanced way.
You know what they do.
They amplify the intentions of the powerful in the establishment.
But we don't do that.
Here's the news.
No, here's the FN news.
Thank you for choosing Fox News.
Good day.
No, here's the FN news.
Ivermectin is a type of horse paste that should only be used on horses to make them better.
I can say that, but the FDA, you mustn't say it anymore because you've over said it and now you've had to be banned.
See how you like it.
Today we're talking about Ivermectin and how now the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, can no longer call it a horse paste.
But it's a bit late now, isn't it?
They've really horse pasted it off to within an inch of its life.
I mean, do you remember that moment when all you could really hear on the news?
Hello, welcome to the news.
Ivermectin, yeah, don't really think about it.
Well, it's a thing.
It's horse paste, OK?
And don't go using it like that Joe Rogan to make yourself better if you get an illness, which is definitely a political thing now and not a private medical matter.
One of those drugs he mentioned, ivermectin, is something more often used to deworm horses.
When you have a horse deworming medication that's discouraged by the government, that actually causes some people in this crazed environment we're in to actually want to try it.
Because for some reason we're turning medicine into politics now.
Which seems weird when you reflect on it just a short while later, especially as we now know the whole thing was a mad and ridiculous pack of lies.
So now let's have a look at why the FDA are not allowed to call Ivermectin a horse paste anymore and why we couldn't refer to it as a Nobel Prize winning anti-parasitic drug in the first place when that's what it was.
The FDA has agreed to remove and stop reposting several social media messages suggesting ivermectin, a drug some doctors use to treat COVID, is intended for animals and not humans.
I like that because it sort of sounds like a harassment claim, doesn't it?
You've got to stop and stop repeating.
Okay, sorry, we won't.
Can we just occasionally on a Saturday say it's a little bit of a pace for animals?
No, not at all.
Under no circumstances.
Stop saying it's a pace for animals.
What did you just say?
I said it's a waste for kajigals.
The move settles a lawsuit filed by three doctors who accused the agency of hurting their medical practices.
The lawsuit targeted not only the FDA, but the Department of Health and Human Services.
The case was initially dismissed, citing the FDA's sovereign immunity.
However, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned the ruling.
The court said the FDA's role is not to provide personalized medical advice.
Wow, that's amazing, isn't it?
That's not the FDA's role, even, to provide personal, medicalised advice.
They're meant to actually oversee clinical trials, regulate pharmaceutical companies, from whom they also receive their funding, insignificant part.
That's not even their job.
In fact, when you start thinking about all these groups, NIA, HCDC, what are they really supposed to do?
They're not meant to be in charge of you, are they?
They're meant to be your advisors.
It's odd how tyranny works now.
It's colourful, it's lurid, there's songs, there's dances, but at the end of it, you are getting told what to do.
And if you try doing what you want to do, even if it's not outside of the law in normal ways,
you'll be annihilated.
I mean, all Joe Rogan actually did was went, "I've got COVID actually, and what I did was these things."
(snoring)
What have you ever done ever?
That's a horse paste.
Let's look at what you've done online.
We will find a way to destroy you!
And now the FDA mustn't call it a horse paste anymore.
It's simply not true.
It's misleading.
It's misinformation.
Ironically, disinformation.
As a result, the FDA will now stop publishing a consumer update titled, Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Prevent COVID-19.
We'd prefer that you use drugs that are patented, even if there are all sorts of adverse events and possibly even excess deaths that we're frantically trying to conceal right now.
And remove all related social media posts within 21 days.
Ivermectin is approved for both animal and human use.
There are loads of things though, like antibiotics and headache tablets.
You don't have to get all hysterical about it.
It's just like, an animal's not that different from a human.
We're 98% identical to a chimpanzee.
We're 60% identical to an earthworm.
Why are we all getting so excited?
Trying to get that last bit in.
But I will say, even though it's not a horse pace, you could take too much of it and then your butt would clog up and no one would like you.
I can't stop being childish about Ivermectin.
Ivermectin advocates celebrated the ruling and independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
claimed the FDA's stance is biased against low-cost therapies.
Oh, well there you go.
That's the root of it, isn't it?
Ivermectin's been out of patent for years and years and years and we'd much rather you took this stuff.
Is this stuff profitable?
Is this stuff effective?
Can you show me the data?
Can I have access to completely unredacted information when it comes to this subject?
Can you tell me about the profits?
Can you tell me about the funding?
Can you tell me about the adverse events, the excess deaths, the origin of the virus in the first place, and whether there's any U.S.
involvement?
I can't answer any of those questions, and neither can I say what I'd really like to say, which Ivan Mekdin is a...
The FDA declined to comment on Kennedy's claims.
Kennedy's claims?
Claims?
That the pharmaceutical industry exists to make profit.
That's what he's claiming.
You maniac conspiracy theorist!
You're lucky your surname's Kennedy or you'd be in a lot of trouble.
But again said clinical trial data does not support Ivermectin's use to treat COVID.
This is the classic moment now in conspiracy world, because this was when Joe Rogan was much mocked and maligned at an international level because he took his own course of action when it comes to his private business and then had the audacity to have a successful podcast.
What I didn't know until just now is that Dr. Pierre Khoury, guest on our show and vital voice when it comes to Ivermectin, COVID treatment and medicine and ethics more broadly, He's the one that told Joe Rogan to take Ivermectin, which is rather like telling JFK to get a convertible.
Bro, do I have to sue CNN?
I don't know, do you?
They're making shit up.
They keep saying I'm taking horse dewormer.
I literally got it from a doctor.
It's an American company.
They won the Nobel Prize in 2015 for use in human beings.
Yeah.
CNN is saying I'm taking horse dewormer.
Yeah, so... They must know that that's a lie.
Well, there's a lot of people saying it.
Right, but a lot of people can say it.
Okay.
Like, the internet says it, who cares?
Sure.
But CNN is saying it.
This is already, like, a sort of beautiful, nostalgic... It's only probably a couple of years ago, that, isn't it?
But I feel like I'm almost watching the moon landings.
Let's not get into that!
Okay, let's have a look at Dr. Pierre Khoury's writing on this subject.
He seems to be a voice that we can trust because he's not a stooge of the establishment or a corporate...
Slut?
I don't know, what word do you want to use?
Dr. Pierre Corey, the horse dewormer PR campaign involved coordinated and sequentially timed actions between the FDA, CDC, AMA, APHA, and corporate controlled media, i.e.
late night hosts, news broadcasts, newspapers, etc.
It really was that extensive wasn't it?
I saw sort of people dressed up as Joe Rogan, probably there was a dance or something, Don Lemon, I mean it was just so mad and it's like you're sort of told to forget about it but It's not because you want to go on about it for his own sake, even.
It's actually, it was revealing.
And then you can track what's happening now based on that.
Clearly, the goal of the campaign was to convince the public that ivermectin was a dangerous and ineffective horse dewormer.
No!
There's horse dewormer!
No, FDA?
I can say it.
You can't.
In the wake of that campaign, pharmacies stopped filling valid legal prescriptions and hospitals removed ivermectin from their formularies.
They really went to town on it, like it was Satanic Verses or my videos on Netflix.
Get that stuff out of there!
Never had an FDA approved drug, one of the, if not the safest prescribed medications in history, ever been vilified or restricted to this extent.
Just like hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin had to be stopped.
The FDA's role in that campaign started with the posting of the below tweet on August 21st 2021, a week after the report on the below left came out showing a massive rise in ivermectin prescriptions in the US during the deadly delta wave.
So let's have a look at that graphic.
So what they said is, you are not a horse, you are not a cow, seriously y'all, stop it.
That's what it is.
Hold on, this drug's been used for many years for a variety of purposes, but were some of those purposes horse dewormer?
Yeah, I suppose so.
So what if we just say that it's only a horse dewormer and tell people that if they take it, it means that they're a horse also.
Of course, a horse.
Of course, of course, a horse.
It rhymes.
Let's make it a policy.
The rise in prescribing terrified the COVID cartel because it threatened the global vaccine market north of $100 billion.
It's as simple as that!
It also threatened the markets for all the competing pricey patented pipeline pharmaceuticals like Remdesivir and Paxlovid, Moldopiravir and the monoclonal antibodies.
Also massive global markets in the many billions.
It's like when like some piece of IP becomes available.
Hey, wait a minute!
All the Beatles music's available for everyone now!
Yesterday.
Cut it!
Pharma's greatest weapon to attack ivermectin is the FDA.
Pharma, and especially Pfizer, has near complete control of the FDA and the CDC and the NIH.
Not that you'd ever know it from the tough time they're given by those bureaucrats over
at the FDA.
Pfizer, how and when would you like this drug released?
Now and expensively?
And what would you like us to do with this information about your product?
Oh, well, get that black pen, see, and cross out, oh, heart attack, that's gotta go.
Turbo, that's out.
Increased risk, that could go.
There it is, a black piece of paper.
Oh, that's beautiful!
I can put this on my lunch pack!
But the FDA couldn't do it all by themselves, so they called in the CDC to do some day work.
Five days after the FDA tweet, the CDC sent out a warning advisory toward the state medical boards, which was then forwarded to every licensed physician in the country.
Here it is.
This is an official CDC health advisory.
Rapid increase in ivermectin prescription and reports of severe illness associated with use of products containing ivermectin to prevent or treat...
Well, three days after the CDC memo, they then trotted Fauci out on national TV.
And he says this, What I think would be a fun game is to apply those exact words to another popular product around that time.
Don't do it.
There's no evidence whatsoever that it works.
For example, on preventing transmission.
It could potentially have toxicity.
That protein spike.
It's gonna stay there, right?
There's no clinical evidence that indicates that this works, because we redacted all of the evidence.
148 pages.
The entire thing is redacted.
Curious business, isn't it?
Then two days after that, they got three major professional societies to call for an end to using ivermectin.
So here that is.
AMA, APHA, ASHP call for immediate end to prescribing, dispensing and use of ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19 outside clinical trials.
And then they called in for mass media firepower.
This is brilliant, isn't it?
Looking at it this way shows sort of how it actually went down and how it works.
In the middle of it, it was just like, what?
Why is this happening?
So why is this important?
I don't understand.
And now you can see how that's replicated.
We've done previous stories on the Trusted News Initiative, which shows how various broadcast media have relationships and a shared agenda.
This is a brilliant example of how that works, but it's not the only one, because whenever there's an agenda, whether it's don't report on this war, take out this dissenting voice, whatever it is, they will operate in this way.
You'll see this pattern.
I believe, without evidence, that the tweet and the entire PR campaign was devised and executed by Weber Shandwick, the massive PR firm that simultaneously works for the CDC, Moderna and Pfizer.
At the risk of foreshadowing, I also believe, without evidence, that the entire reason the FDA settled this case is because discovery would be severely damaging to many people involved.
Wow!
They settled so that it didn't come out.
If there was a massive trial, you'd have to start looking at What?
This was all coordinated.
And now because we're like, oh, I don't want to talk about COVID anymore, like Bill Hicks' joke, quit talking about Kennedy, man.
It's a long time ago.
Forget about it.
OK, don't bring up Jesus to me, as he used to say, the great Bill Hicks.
Taking over of democracy by totalitarian government.
Let it go.
So what he's saying is, is that if this thing's settled out of court, people will just forget it and people are just tired and exhausted and energy prices and shrinkflation and all those problems that we suffer every day.
We don't have time to remember that we were all lied to and manipulated on a massive scale in a variety of ways during that extraordinary period.
That tweet went absolutely viral and became the FDA's most popular tweet in history.
I believe that tweet was the opening shot that completely turned from what had been isolated battles against ivermectin into an all-out war.
Like, why aren't they bothered about us eating processed food?
They'd let us eat, like, processed food and corn syrup and sugars and seed oils and stuff that are causing cancer and heart disease.
Like, why are they not going, stop eating it!
Stop it!
Is the difference possibly that they'll let us do things that are bad for us, that are profitable, And not let us do things that may or may not be bad for us, that are not profitable.
What's the line?
Where's the line here?
It doesn't seem to be looking after you and loving you.
As we all know, the FDA's opinion was misleading and deceptive.
Once a drug receives FDA approval for a disease, it can legally be used to treat any other disease, a practice called off-label prescribing.
The FDA knows this full well.
They knew that no physician needed a COVID-specific approval or authorization.
So this was a time where extraordinary legislation, regulations and practices became normalized.
Why?
Know that 20% of outpatient prescriptions and 30% of inpatient prescriptions are written in this off-label manner so it's just a normal regular practice happens all the time and the FDA literally champions the practice for very sound reasons and here is them doing just that.
I think it's important to note this page above was was last edited in 2018. I suspect they will disappear that
page soon.
Yeah, because, right, their agenda's changed.
Basically, many medicines have multiple pharmacologic mechanisms of action
and so can be useful in different diseases.
Ivermectin probably has the broadest applicability of any medicine that I'm aware of.
Antiparasitic, antiviral, antibacterial, anti-inflammatory and anti-tumour.
As Professor Satoshi Omura, the Nobel Prize winning discoverer of the drug,
said in his Nobel acceptance speech, "It truly is a wonder drug."
Well, we think it might be a bit of a...
[snoring]
Now beyond the tweet, the FDA also went on the warpath across all other major social media.
Although the initial salvo started on social media, it didn't end there.
Four months later, in another attempt to influence the practice of medicine, they sent letters to the Federation of State Medical Boards and the American Board of Pharmacy.
Now, when the lawsuit was first filed, obviously the FDA moved immediately to dismiss, and they did so by arguing that they cannot be sued because they have sovereign immunity.
It lets you know a great deal about how the FDIC sees itself, like a type of king.
We've got sovereign immunity!
You can't just claim sovereign immunity, can you?
Can you?
Well, they did.
Diplomatic immunity!
It's just been revoked.
You can't make this stuff up.
What you also can't make up is that the district court judge agreed with them and dismissed the case.
Amazing nexus of interests all intertwining here.
But lawyer Clayland Boyden Gray immediately appealed the case because he knew that although federal law actually does give the government immunity against legal actions, there are some exceptions, such as ultraviars, a term describing when an official acts outside their authority.
Plaintiffs challenging the acts must show that the official was acting without any authority whatever, or without any tolerable basis for the exercise of authority.
Boyden's decision to appeal was spot on because the appeals court judge was truly miffed at the FDA and immediately ruled that the plaintiffs had standing and that the lawsuit could proceed.
This was a huge win back then in our court of public opinion, largely because the FDA lawyer had to admit in open court that physicians did indeed have every right to prescribe ivermectin off-label for COVID.
It gets even better because in the appeals court opinion, the judge went off on the FDA with the following statement.
FDA can inform, but it has identified no authority allowing it to recommend consumers to stop taking medicine.
That's not part of its job.
It's just decided it was gonna start doing that.
FDA is not a physician.
It has authority to inform, announce, and apprise, but not to endorse, denounce, or advise.
So that's amazing, isn't it?
They can tell you, we think this.
They can announce, hello!
And they can apprise, hmm.
But they can't go, that's good, or that isn't good, or you should do this.
That's beyond their authority.
My God.
These sort of almost naive, adorable children don't even really know what agencies are supposed to be doing.
Like, democracy can start doing stuff that it's not meant to do, or the government can start doing stuff that it's not allowed to do, or its regulatory bodies can start saying and doing things that are well beyond its remit, and we're just like, oh, okay, well, we don't want to be like a bunch of horses, so I guess we'll just do what you told us, huh?
But actually, we should have gone, what else has this got to do with you?
Get out of here!
Oh, okay, but you realise it might be...
D'oh!
Even tweet-sized doses of personalized medical advice are beyond FDA's statutory authority.
That is good, isn't it?
They're not supposed to tweet you advice.
Now that the FDA has to take down every single one of their posted and or published advice against using ivermectin in COVID.
Wow.
We've got to just take all of that back.
We've got to pretend that whole thing didn't happen.
All of the sketches, all of the skits, all of the bombast, all of the attacks, we've got to sort of unravel it from our mind.
And remember, Joe Rogan's bafflement there, like, should I sue CNN?
Are they supposed to be saying that?
And well, we know why they said it, because the FDA approved it, Big Pharma are their biggest advertisers, there was a government edict to regulate and centralize authority at that time, and that's why this has been such a confusing event for us all.
However, it's my opinion that because the case ended in settlement, we cannot claim total victory because it allows the FDA to continue to lie with statements like this one today, claiming they are not guilty of wrongdoing.
FDA has not admitted any violation of law or any wrongdoing, disagreeing with the plaintiff's allegation that the agency exceeded its authority in issuing the statements challenged in the lawsuit, and it stands by its authority to communicate with the public regarding the products it regulates, the spokesperson said.
And look how they had to tiptoe through that.
And that's how the law works.
How can anyone have any trust in the judiciary?
How can anyone have any trust in the media?
How can anyone have any trust in the state when we see how they work together?
I bet even now, depending on where you're watching this, if you're watching it on Instagram, there'll be something under there.
If you're watching it on YouTube, there'll be something under there.
If you're watching and looking at it at X, there won't be something under there.
And if you're watching it on our home rumble, there might be some crazy ads and some crazy comment, but there'll be nothing else under there.
Because this mentality is prevailing.
Still now, when you report on this subject, they're still trying to control it.
They're introducing different regulations to control comparable things.
And you can hear in the FDA, didn't I?
Sorry about that.
We went totally mad and said something that was a horse paste, even though it's something we ourselves had approved of.
And indeed, the off-label prescribing is a practice that we ourselves endorsed.
We went all mad for some reason, and I can't remember what it was.
Oh yeah, it's money, isn't it?
It's money and corruption and the opportunity to regulate.
And maybe even, we don't know for sure, because we don't say things that we can't corroborate.
More insidious things than that, we'll have to keep looking.
It reveals so much to us.
That's why we're still reporting on this story, because it shows us who we are and who we're not and how we're governed.
But I trust the wider public, says Pierre Corrie, can see right through such a statement.
I mean, who will believe that they can claim innocence when they were forced to settle?
You only settle when you know you're going to lose in court or you cannot risk
going through the discovery process. Either way, the plaintiffs, Boyden Gray & Associates
and the FLCCC, Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, landed a big victory against
one of our most captured federal health agencies.
A win against tyranny, really.
here's a post from RFK, "Ivermectin is not an exceptional case. The FDA is biased against
many low-cost generic and/or natural therapies with low profit potential. Could it be because
half its funding comes from Big Pharma?" That's RFK responding to the below post announcing the
FDA's requirement to get rid of all those posts. And perhaps we'll think about medication more
broadly in your country and how it is prescribed and if it's expensive or not, and whether or not
competitive practices are encouraged or perhaps even more broadly than that. Is the industry,
odd word, of health focused on patient health care and wellness of individuals or is it focused on
Once you've answered that question, you can ask some more questions about the way that the legacy media report.
Are they on your side, or are they on the side of a kind of nexus of interests that include the state and corporations?
Then you can talk about the judiciary.
Is it corruptible?
You can ask yourself those questions, but not for long, because...
Or even now, while we're speaking, there are sets of forces enclosing all around us, on me in particular, and on you specifically, to ensure, just even take a simple example like Instagram going, political speech?
No thank you!
You think that doesn't include this?
You think that that doesn't essentially mean information that would encourage you to become discerning, agitated and angry?
About the way that you are treated by the powerful.
That's essentially what that means.
And it will be masked in bureaucracy.
It will be hidden from your view.
And instead, what will be put in front of you is all an old twaddle.
But hopefully, you and I and us together can continue to create relationships and participate in a movement that opposes this madness.
But that's just what I think.
Remember, become an Awake and Wonder one month free right now by clicking the link in the description.
and I'll see you in a second in the chat.
*outro* Join us for that.
Remember, you could have been there live for our conversation if you were an awakened wonder on Locals.
You could also join us for our conversations where we discuss where to purchase real estate to set up a glorious, revolutionary new movement.
I want to welcome some of the new people that have joined us.
Lou555, Completely Loved, Counter Blow, Hungry Josh and Liza9.
Join us tomorrow, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
