All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 30, 2025 - Stay Free - Russel Brand
01:07:31
Gavin de Becker | Fear, Freedom & Resisting Control - SF642
|

Time Text
Long Answer From Professors 00:08:47
Ladies and gentlemen, Russell Brown and Russell Russell trying to bring real journalism to the American people.
Hello there, you Awakening Widers.
Thanks for joining me today for Stay Free with Russell Brown.
I'm talking to Gavin DeBecker, who wrote that book there, Forbidden Facts, which is a study not only of the pandemic period, that uses information available from some of the regulatory bodies that we empowered during that period to debunk the very ideas that they put forward,
like the efficacy of vaccines, the importance of social distancing, but also the precedent to that period that was established through institutions like the Institute of Medicine that appear to me to be little more than a rubber stamping organization that says what the government need them to say for people to take the medications that they need them to take or not have the lawsuits that they might otherwise undertake were it not for the Institute of Medicine.
This is an incredible conversation.
Gavin De Becker is a free-time presidential appointee.
He's worked for governments.
He's a criminologist and he approaches the subject of the pandemic and vaccines.
It seems to me at least, not from the perspective of a doctor, but from the perspective of a criminologist.
And if you look at the period of the pandemic, that perhaps might be a better approach because it seems when you read that book, sorry, that book, what took place during the pandemic period was an unprecedented crime.
Let me know what you think.
It's an extraordinary conversation.
You're going to learn a great deal from it.
I know I did.
Wherever you're watching it, join us on Rumble.
And if you want to get Gavin DeBecker's book, click the link in the description.
We'll be giving away some as well.
No, we won't.
We've not sorted out that competition.
You're going to just simply have to buy it.
Here's my conversation with Gavin De Becker.
Thanks for joining us today, Gavin DeBeca, to talk about your book, Forbidden Facts, subtitle to be discussed and potentially altered.
Thanks for joining me.
It's lovely.
Very well.
Thank you, Chief.
What I was surprised by is not just, of course, what you say about vaccines, which is a subject that we all understand that's been somewhat divisive, but the arguments that you build using examples like the somewhat famous Johnson ⁇ Johnson baby powder asbestos argument,
the acknowledgement of mercury and the toxicity of ethylmercury in vaccines, but also the story about Agent Orange and the way that the Institute of Medicine seemed to be used as an organization to legitimize or sort of somehow morally backdate arguments for interested clients.
Would that be a good place to start the relationship between vaccine manufacturers and the Institute of Medicine and how they were used with Agent Orange during the Vietnam War and the post-Vietnam era?
It is a good place to start and I think it shows that there's a process.
The Institute of Medicine is revered, of course, you know, very major experts and people who are esteemed and it's part of the National Academies of Science.
And so when they say something, that's always been taken very seriously.
What people are unaware of that I'm glad to disclose in this book is that the Institute of Medicine and the National Academies of Science both are not government agencies.
They are private organizations.
The guy who runs the National Academies of Science, which the Institute of Medicine is underneath of, is a guy who has a $1.1 million salary.
It is an organization that is funded by government agencies at times, by pharma companies at times, by other corporations at times.
And really its function is to give a kind of scientific legitimacy to arguments that the government has wanted to make anyway.
For example, Agent Orange was a compound that for 10 years was sprayed on plants and jungles in Vietnam and human beings.
And it had in it one of the most toxic substances there is called dioxin.
And dioxin caused all variety of health problems for people and for their offspring who would often be born deformed.
And so when soldiers complained about this coming back from Vietnam, they were met by a federal government that said, no, no, no, that's not from Agent Orange.
Surely Agent Orange is only to defoliate the jungle.
It's not a chemical weapon, for God's sake.
Well, of course, it is a chemical weapon when it lands on you.
And many people had these health problems.
So the government turns to the Institute of Medicine and says, you esteemed scientists, you look into this and you dig into this and you let us know your answer.
And their answer always, always, always is, no, no, no connection.
What possible connection could we see between dioxin on people and these medical problems?
And so they did a study, and they end up being, rather than science, it's crisis management for the federal government.
They end up coming out with report after report.
In the case of Agent Orange, they came out and they said, no connection whatsoever.
Why in the world would you compensate soldiers for the injuries they had or their offspring had, because in reality, there's no connection.
We don't find a connection.
We can't find it, which is sort of in the category of we're not looking.
We can't find it.
And so they come out with a report, and then two years later, they do another report.
And the first report says additional studies needed.
That was the conclusion.
Studies needed.
Second report, studies needed.
Third report, studies needed.
About eight of these, studies needed.
And they basically never land a punch on anything serious.
They never come to any serious conclusion that there might be culpability about something used by the U.S. government.
So, what's Agent Orange got to do with vaccination?
Well, the two top scientists who ran the Agent Orange study for the Institute of Medicine, they were graduated or promoted to childhood vaccines afterwards, having just done this really shammy and scammy report on Agent Orange.
And so this idea that this is an authoritative, independent body, the Institute of Medicine, is really, really bullshit.
Really not true.
And I want to give a quick digression and a long answer.
You, who are famous for long questions, deserve to get a long answer from somebody.
There was a book called Hitler's Professors, and it is a book about scientists who were funded by the Hitler regime.
Remember, Hitler is originally elected democratically.
He's in office for 12 years before they begin any of their methodical killing.
And years before that methodical killing began, they funded scientists to do studies saying, look, the Jews spread disease.
They are genetically inclined to spread disease.
They hurt the economy in the following way.
Hitler's professors.
Professors are often used, research is often used to support the direction that government wants to go in anyway.
And not only can you always find a study that says what you want, but you can always fund a study that says what you want.
And the Institute of Medicine is at the center of that.
And so, you know, should we question, well, they're the science.
I'll tell you a really interesting thing.
Okay to go with a long answer?
Okay.
When they were then later asked to do a study on whether vaccines cause brain damage, for example, including autism, they convened, and it's this very special scientists and all esteemed and well-regarded and all those adjectives.
And they did a report and they issued a report to put to rest finally once and for all whether or not these vaccine products, including those with mercury, could possibly do brain damage, which is exactly what mercury does when it harms the human body, is brain damage.
So they come out with their report and everybody hears it and everybody publishes it, etc.
What people don't know is that that study did not involve anybody in white lab coats, no microscopes, no microscopy, I mean no autopsy reports, no scientists operating with beakers under a fire, none of that stuff.
What it actually was was just a closed-door series of meetings, right?
False Verification Loops 00:15:57
And in those meetings, they were told on day one, they were given two pronouncements on day one.
Number one, nothing you say in here will ever be heard outside.
That turned out to be wrong because some lovely person leaked the transcripts.
And this book has the transcripts in it and has the discussions that they had.
And the second thing they were told is, the line we will not cross is to change the childhood vaccine schedule.
That's the line we will not cross.
So you mean you're asked to look at whether vaccines might cause brain damage, but the line you will not cross is finding that they might cause brain damage.
And so somebody leaked these transcripts and you get to see how this thing actually works.
And all they talk about in that room, those rooms, because they convened over several years, three years, all they talk about is how to say it.
We can't continue this work without the support of our partners.
Here's a message from one now.
What makes Balance of Nature unique?
Their supplements are the result of years of research and are manufactured under current good manufacturing practices with regular third-party lab testing.
They never had sugar or anything artificial.
Any sugars occur naturally.
Balance of Nature delivers the phytonutrients that naturally occur in 47 whole fruits, vegetables, spices and fibers.
Their fruits and veggies supplements include 31 colourful ingredients like mango, pineapple, wild blueberries, spinach, kale and broccoli.
Their fibre and spice blend features four whole fibers, psyllium husk, flaxseed, whole apple and monk fruit plus 12 aromatic spices such as cinnamon, turmeric and cardamom.
More than 90% of Americans don't get enough dietary fibre.
Their stools are thin or watery.
Balance of Nature makes it easy.
No bags, no mess, just clean quality ingredients with a long shelf life.
Take them with water, chew them or mix them into food or drinks.
Balance of Nature supplements are vegan, kosher and gluten-free.
There's really no excuse.
Check the label and you'll see ingredients.
You can actually pronounce.
Experience the original balance of colour, taste and smell, just as Sweet Lady Nature herself intended.
Sign up with the code Russell, that's 2S's and L's.
Go to balanceofnature.com, sign up as a new preferred customer with the code Russell and you'll get 35% off your first order plus a free fiber and spice supplement.
Hurry!
This of course is only available while stocks like once the stocks last.
We're not doing this anymore.
So sign up now.
That's a lot for us to analyse.
My first impression is that the Institute of Medicine is presented as a legitimate organisation that conducts legitimate science and whose information you can rely on.
But there in a sense, as you said towards the end of your extraordinary encyclopedic answer, was that in a way the conclusion had been established prior to the inquiry and that was we will not cross that line.
So any endeavor undertaken on that premise is in a way it's revealed that what's taking place is the legitimization of a predetermined outcome rather than genuine inquiry.
And what I enjoyed about your book is I felt that I was being armed with facts that backed up what to me was an intuitive understanding that only science that is profitable is being conducted.
No one's funding clinical trials that conclude that Pfizer can't make profits in this way or Merck or Moderna can't make profits in this way because why would anybody fund those studies?
Why would anyone fund unprofitable studies?
Elsewhere in our conversations, we've had it explained to us, disclosed to us, that a kind of warping of even within the realm of pharma and medicine has taken place because of the unique legal status granted to vaccines.
It means there's an undue bias because there's indemnity from prosecution if there's any injury from any of their products.
It just makes more sense to make a product from which there can be no legal consequences.
I also enjoyed when you were talking about the Institute of Medicine, how we're sort of invited to regard them as an authoritative and reliable institution, but in a sense they're just a financial entity.
And it reminded me a bit of how in the financial crisis of 2008, various categories and awards have been granted.
This is a AAA set of mortgages.
These things are reliable.
But under scrutiny, these are all interwoven institutions that are reliant on the same outcome.
So they aren't going to oppose the trajectory that they're all participants in and the requirements that they all have.
So whether it's financial crime, which is sort of somewhat by its nature diffuse, or what appears to be a kind of medical crime.
In fact, when reading the book, there are points where, you know, because you range between describing very beautifully the manner in which language can be altered in order to make a definition or diagnosis even impossible to render, in particular, with autism, sort of enjoyable stuff about words, where like we're in the territory of literal absurdism, in fact.
But then, of course, there are personal anecdotes where someone just describes how their daughter had a bunch of MMR jabs or simultaneous inoculations and then was never the same.
So you're kind of dragged around a little bit emotionally when reading this book into dealing with the personal impact of these decisions, the kind of visible ideology that it demonstrates, the fact that, like you said, that what has emerged is a kind of peculiar new technocracy, no different than if you asked a lot of theologians, you know, in a pre-secular society, can you find something in the Bible that's going to justify us doing this?
Because we're doing it and we need to justify using the Bible.
And some poor sod in a monastery somewhere might go, I suppose you could use this passage to justify that.
I mean, it would be terrible and unethical, but come back.
They're already out the door using it to legitimize it.
So like, in a way, I talked to the publisher of this book from Skyhorse Publishing, Tony Lyons.
So there's points where it seems evil, evil.
Like the word sort of looms large.
Dealing with a kind of demonic force.
Who would continue to use these compounds in these products except unless they were evil?
So now that we've established that one of the ways they do it is through false verification of information that's financially beneficial to them, I wonder when compiling this, if you were at times struck with something that seemed unnerving and frightening and difficult to understand.
Because why are so many institutions willing to participate in this sort of murderous endeavor?
Well, it's a good question.
And the easy one for me is, was I ever disturbed?
You know, very, very much so.
This book is downright funny.
It's absolutely funny at times.
And in the same sense, it's absolutely enraging.
What's funny is seeing the dialogue of these chuckleheads, the way they're talking to each other, and the things they're talking about, believing that they will never be heard, where they are acknowledging the absolute silliness of their endeavor.
They're saying it point blank.
One of them says, if we were a company, if we were a group working for Philip Morris, we'd be saying tobacco doesn't cause cancer.
Literally says that in one of the things.
So it's almost like a Broadway play when you get the dialogue going back and forth.
And then every single time I look at one of the passages in this book, it pisses me off.
Because then you're wondering how can it be that the Institute of Medicine does a report to Congress saying don't pay anybody for Agent Orange injuries.
That's what this is always about, is compensation to people who are injured.
And then Admiral Zumwalt does an independent study of the same thing, same issue, and he concludes, I'm reading it here, the government and industry officials credited with examining this intentionality, intentionally manipulated or withheld compelling information of the adverse health effects associated with exposure to the toxic contaminants contained in Agent Orange.
Now, his review and his testimony before Congress that I just read a piece of is triply dramatic because he ordered Agent Orange to be sprayed in Vietnam and his own son died from it.
And so he has particular credibility in coming in and saying that this thing is, this study by the IOM is absolutely ridiculous.
And then we get to see that, and this is a key point.
If you can embrace that the Institute of Medicine, paid for by the federal government, lied and deceived and suppressed information that Americans ought to know about because they're giving their kids vaccines or they're using Johnson Johnson baby powder, which has asbestos in it and causes cancer, or any of these things that they did.
If you can embrace that, then you can embrace that the same thing might have happened with mRNA vaccines in our time.
And so when you look at what I try to do in this book is identify all these cases.
I mentioned baby powder a minute ago.
So you have Johnson Johnson baby powder when 50 years ago, Johnson Johnson itself asked for a special meeting and sent a delegation to the FDA in Washington.
And they said, look, we have to tell you something.
There's a tiny bit of asbestos in our product.
It's not a lot, it's not a bad thing, but we want to let you know.
And the FDA says, well, we're going to study how much asbestos should be allowed in baby powder while allowing it, by the way.
And then they allow it for maybe one decade.
No, sorry, it's two.
No, sorry, it's three.
No, sorry, it's four.
They actually said that it was unhealthy to babies in 2024, which by my count is just a year ago.
So it took them more than 50 years to acknowledge what they already knew and to say, yes, Johnson's baby powder and other baby powders, it's not good for your baby.
That's not good for you.
This is after lots of people got cancer, by the way.
And so now it no longer has asbestos in it.
So you're talking about something literally sprinkled on babies.
What's the difference between that and something injected into babies, for example, that had mercury in it?
Now, mercury is interesting.
If any audience member wants to, go to ChatGPT or Grok or whoever you use and ask if mercury is dangerous if you touch it.
And it will say mercury in any amount is lethal in any amount.
What about if you breathe it?
Yep, any amount, you can't breathe it.
What about if you eat it?
Are you crazy, says ChatGPT, in any quantity?
It's no good.
What about if you inject it?
Pause, pause, pause.
Well, it's been determined that small amounts, trace amounts in vaccines, is okay.
And so if I want to inject it myself, ChatGPT will say no way.
Oh, have you got the ChatGPT discussion there?
It's good.
It's funny.
If I want to inject it into myself, ChatGPT will say, no, no, please don't.
But if I want to let this company that has no liability, Merck, for example, they cannot be sued because of the 1986 law that prohibits any lawsuits against vaccine companies, if they want to inject it into my baby, that's okay.
That's all right.
So here's this product that under all circumstances, I mean, if a fluorescent bulb falls in a school and breaks, they call a hazmat team to clean it up because it has mercury inside, old-style fluorescent bulbs.
It's just outrageously toxic.
It's right under radioactivity in terms of toxicity to human beings.
And yet it appeared in vaccines and then the Institute of Medicine and others lied and said it was removed from vaccines in 2001.
It wasn't.
A, it took till 2005 to remove any of it.
But until right now, until right now under Bobby Kennedy, it was still in six vaccine products given to children.
And that's in America.
Around the world, hundreds of millions of doses given to people and children in other countries with mercury in it.
Are you fucking kidding?
Is it fucking okay?
Sorry, I won't do it.
It depends who's doing it, Gavin.
I meant is the word okay.
I knew the stuff was okay, because that I accept completely.
But the idea that there are companies, so you said you brought up evil.
It's a whole system, meaning you have the government involved, you have the incentives all broken, because National Institutes of Health, for example, and NIAD, the shop that was run by Tony Fauci, they actually get royalties for the products that are developed by NIH.
So the individual scientists, 1,600 of them, 1,600, get royalties from these products.
The first check to come from Moderna was $430 million to the NIH.
That's distributed up to $100,000 a year for life for NIH scientists.
So do you think they're likely to want to approve something or say, no, no, no, that's too dangerous?
I reckon that those biases could impact them personally.
Sometimes the question that's on the very edge of my mind is, why do you want asbestos in baby powder?
Why do you want mercury in vaccines?
In one of the parts of the book, you talk about early vaccine medicine and experimentation and how it has a kind of almost Shakespearean kind of tincture component to it.
I have new and sort of scum scraped off boils.
Again, I feel like we're on the edge of occultism, but I recognize that with an undertaking of this nature, it's difficult.
One has to remain within what is corroboratable because of the conditions that are laying before us.
And I feel like from my own relationship with this book, that the silver bullet that may emerge is the way that you describe the debunking of a connection between autism and vaccines around which the conversation globally is visibly and perceptibly shifting.
And it's become clear that something that it gives me vertigo to think that we might be on the edge of an announcement along the lines of vaccines are connected to autism.
Near the book, after laying out the Agent Orange, the report, your own book, back to you, you move on to describing the process of how the debunking of the connection between vaccines and autism was undertaken.
I'd love to talk about that for a bit.
And what I was really struck by, and what seemed like diabolical, diabolical to me, in the most literal sense, actually, when I think of division and splitting and creating confusion, is that the changing of the definition of the word vaccine and the changing of the sort of deliberate amorphous nature of a diagnosis like autism,
because important though the subjects in this book are in and of themselves, they point to something even greater, which seems to be the ability to control reality, to control language, to control institutes that verify and authenticate ideas.
The right hand comes up with an idea and the left hand rubber stamps it.
And we're supposed to see that as a system of integrity, even beyond something as significant as big pharma, which is obviously a subject people are becoming a lot more cynical, sceptical, and outraged about, even though people have an astonishing level of amnesia, I sometimes think, and maybe we're all participants in this, that we're not on the edge of continual visceral rage about this, but more likely to be provoked by secondary cultural issues.
Debunking Mercury Myths 00:15:39
In fact, like, I don't know, what does crack a barrel look like these days when you walk past it, if you've got any sense.
So I wonder if, I wonder if you'd tell me a little bit about that process of debunking and something about What you take from the manipulation of language that comes up a lot in this book.
Yeah, I'd say that this book, if I were going to identify two things that it's really meant to do, is one is to focus people on language and to not be vulnerable to the shifting definitions.
And then secondarily, as all my books are, are about personal responsibility.
Meaning, you don't leave this up to the government or the police department or the manager of the apartment building or the corporate executives or boardroom.
You have to make these decisions on your own.
So if you'll promise to bring me back to the vaccine ingredients, then I'll answer your question under those limited circumstances.
Okay, I'm signing here, and I've got the Institute of Medicine to verify that this is my signature.
That's it.
So on the question of debunking, so what happens is that everybody knows that gravity is the force that pulls people toward the center of the Earth.
Everybody knows the Earth rotates around the Sun.
And these things are just taken for granted.
And just as strong as that, I would say just about everybody knows that the idea of a link between vaccines and autism has been debunked.
And all kinds of intelligent people will say to you, but that's been debunked.
That's been debunked.
You know that's been debunked, don't you?
But ah, that's been debunked.
It's a very common hand-waving argument.
And yet, just about nobody can answer these two simple questions.
Who debunked it?
And how was it debunked?
There's even a third question.
Why was it debunked?
Suddenly the conversation's over.
They can't tell you.
Oh, well, here's who debunked it.
The Institute of Medicine debunked it.
And how did they debunk it?
By the method I described to you earlier.
They get a group of experts together.
They sometimes have public hearings.
They assess the issue in terms of how it needs to be concluded.
And they use the same process they used for Agent Orange.
Not only the same process, Russell, the same people, and the same language.
In the book, I list the five categories that they had to choose from for Agent Orange.
Things like no association, meaning no association between Agent Orange and birth defects, a limited association, no evidence of an association, a possible association, none of the options, by the way, being holy shit, yes.
But they list them, and I list them in the book, and I say, which one of these are the categories for vaccines, childhood vaccines, and which one of these are the categories for Agent Orange, the chemical weapon?
And both.
The answer is both.
They are the same categories in each circumstance.
So that while parents wouldn't love the idea that their childhood vaccines are assessed in the same way that a chemical weapon is assessed, that is actually the reality.
And so once you say debunked, you basically, anybody who will ask a question after that is either crazy or a conspiracy theorist or insane or sinister in some way or all four, right?
You're basically as crazy as Bobby Kennedy if you continue to question something that's been debunked because it's been debunked.
Now, what happens in this book, humorously, is that I talk about how they debunked the connection between baby powder and cancer, for example.
That one got rebunked, my own word, meaning it kept coming back.
They debunked it, but it kept coming back and it kept coming back until finally even the FDA had to say, okay, okay, asbestos is bad for babies.
You know, asbestos, that stuff we remove from the wall, that stuff we condemn buildings over.
Yeah, we agree now you shouldn't sprinkle it on babies.
That's the rebunking, basically.
But the debunking piece, it says if you question this, you're stupid, you're anti-science, and you're an idiot because it's been debunked.
And the reality is that when you see the method by which these things are supposedly debunked, you recognize how flawed it is, how all the incentives are broken.
Clearly, the U.S. government cannot do its own homework, which is what, you know, grade its own homework, which is what's happening when it says, oh, let's see, where can we send a check to somebody where they'll agree that burn pits don't cause cancer?
Burn pits don't make you sick.
Well, it may even be good to be breathing the smoke from burn pits.
Or Gulf War syndrome, what?
What's Gulf War syndrome?
Let's give it to the Institute of Medicine and they'll figure this out for us.
And surely they did.
Guess what?
No problem.
No Gulf War syndrome.
Never mind that the Veterans Administration and university after university found that Gulf War syndrome was a very real thing.
The Institute of Medicine didn't agree.
And they are, after all, the Institute of Medicine.
And so that's debunking and how it works.
And why we should never be persuaded that that word ought to govern.
I'm laughing because there's a section in this book where the spokesperson for Johnson & Johnson, they lose all these trials, right?
And trials are a real test of information, right?
A trial has experts from both sides, etc.
They lose and they lose and they lose.
And then finally the FDA comes around and says, okay, okay, maybe it's bad asbestos.
And a Johnson & Johnson spokesperson says, well, we believe that all of these studies are flawed.
And I have a joke in there that if she were the last survivor on earth of baby powder poisoning, she'd still be reading that press statement.
You know, that's what she's doing.
And so debunking is a very powerful method.
You know, the JFK was assassinated by a conspiracy as opposed to an individual.
Oh, that's been debunked.
That's been debunked.
You always have to ask, and what I hope readers of this book will do after reading it is ask who debunked it, ask why it was debunked.
You know, interesting, by the way, I said the two questions were who debunked it and how.
But the third question is why.
And I'll tell you why it had to be debunked.
It had nothing to do with Bobby Kennedy.
Everybody thinks Bobby Kennedy is the source of all things to do with vaccines.
At that point, Bobby Kennedy had already vaccinated seven of his kids.
He'd already, he was now working on mercury and fish.
Nobody ever called him anti-fish.
But as soon as he talked about mercury and vaccines, they called him anti-vaccine.
But years before that, there was study after study after study about the association between vaccines and autism, for God's sake.
It wasn't something that came up out of nowhere.
And that's why it needed to be debunked, because of all those studies, not to mention the thousands and thousands of parents who said, my baby was fine, even sometimes my four-year-old child was fine.
And then we had that day of three or four vaccines, and when we came home that night, she had terrible seizures, which, by the way, the Institute of Medicine and the FDA will tell you, seizures?
Seizures is totally normal for babies.
That's called, we've given it a name, it's called febrile seizures, and it's just fine, no problem.
And why are you even worried about that?
Just because you ended up in the emergency room.
It's the second leading cause, by the way, of emergency room visits, is seizures after vaccines.
But the veterinarians, the pediatricians could be either, will tell you, oh, babies have seizures.
Now, can you imagine a product for adults, and it said, oh, side effect will be seizures.
It's no problem, don't even call us about it, just let the baby go to sleep.
But it's adults, right?
The reason that adult seizures would be a problem is because they might happen when you're driving, or you're standing up and you fall down.
But infants, of course, they're already falling down, they're laying down.
So it's no problem, seizures.
This thing that panicked you to madness that you parents are screaming through traffic to get to the emergency room, well, it's no problem, it's just a febrile seizure.
And that's what they had to do because of vaccine-induced seizures.
We can't continue to make this sort of content without the support of our partners.
Here's a message from one now.
Rumble Premium is a beautiful way of getting additional content, not just from me, but from Kim Iverson, from Ruben, from Mug Club, from Tim Kast, some of the world's softest, fluffiest liberals.
Rumble Premium gives you an ad-free experience, and you will get access to things that I wouldn't normally show anybody.
Yes, that's right, my genitals.
There will be no genitals.
Whether it's breaking news or real talk or the content that challenges the narrative, Rumble Premium puts you in the front row.
Support creators who actually say what they mean and mean what they say, who aren't just, what's it say there, reading a script to get, what's that, money.
Yeah, you don't need none of that stuff.
Go to rumble.com forward slash premium brand and join today.
That's rumble.com premium slash brand, because truth shouldn't come from a filter.
Remember when the government tried to bring me down?
Rumble backed me, because why?
They believe in freedom.
Mine, yours, everyone's.
Join us.
Click the link.
And so this is, these are some of the ways that debunking works.
They have to rebrand seizures.
And so this is, these are some of the ways that we're going to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be as a seizure a day is not that bad.
Just keeps the doctor away.
Yeah, the occasional seizure is good for a child.
How else will they grow robust against future seizures?
And the sort of dreadful utility implicit in because a baby's not operating a combine harvester or driving a taxicab, it can have seizures as long as it wants and as frequently as it wants to.
Remember before you go to your question.
I know, I've got to remind you of the ingredients of vaccines.
You remember it.
Of course I did.
I wrote it down here in your book, as a matter of fact, a kind of addendum.
Here's why it's can I do it now?
Well, what about if we circle back?
Don't you feel?
Don't you think that we'll get back to it?
I don't know.
I'll see what happens.
Because what I like about this bit here, what I like is the continual sense that underneath this data must be an agenda or an objective.
And again, I keep locating the idea of evil within it.
Now, when it comes to anecdotal evidence, which is another of those terms that's been kind of tarnished, like that it's sort of akin to, adjacent to, lying.
Now, that's just an anecdote.
That's just like some breezy raconteur in the corner of a bar.
Or, you know, correlation is not causation.
Yes.
Oh, and you follow the science.
Oh, you're a doctor all of a sudden.
You've got an opinion on this, have you?
Like, I remember all of that, of course, at the height of COVID.
But what's delicious about this is a correlative to perhaps all of our intuitive sense when there is something being suppressed is now technology exists so that you have in real time all of these kind of nodal accounts contemporaneously
with, hey, I took that vaccine and then I felt all asthmatic or I fainted or myocarditis or, you know, as it was in the vaccine era, all of us experienced what seemed like a jarring number of athletes like passing out, fainting and in some cases dying.
And that had to be repackaged as normal, whether it's seizures or mercury, anything can be repackaged as normal.
And I've noticed again and again that what power does is it doesn't even concentrate on truth or righteousness, but normality, a kind of invisibility, so that you don't register it.
Like, you're coached to see your baby having a seizure as something that is not relevant, important or significant.
And that kind of denial of your instincts as a parent or as a person is kind of breathtaking.
Now, I suppose, even though we are definitely at some point going to circle back to those dreadful witch's brew of ingredients, pustules, fingernails, old clock parts, orphan tears.
None of that is in vaccine.
Because his name was mentioned, and like Beetlejuice, if we say it enough, surely he will be summoned.
You talked about Robert Kennedy, and in the book you describe how he came to even be connected to the subject of vaccines.
And my understanding of it is that he's an environmental lawyer concerned with mercury in waterways and in fish.
And some activist mums call upon him and badger him until he eventually agrees to participate in their anecdotal, personal, but somewhat undergirded by a study, I don't know how that came about, until he agrees to be a participant.
Now, in the book, you point out that this has hardly been a humdinger of a success for Robert Kennedy, except, you know, plus time and a few pretty difficult-to-predict political events, it has led to him being the secretary of the HHS.
But it did not look like he was backing a winning horse when he was talking about vaccines and vaccine injuries.
How significant is Robert Kennedy on this particular interface, in this particular fight?
And what does his story and his evolution and association with these ideas tell us about the stories more broadly?
One of these days we'll get into vaccine ingredients.
Thank you, I believe you.
There's a whole chapter in here called, I think it's called RFK is Crazy and Insane, or something like that.
RFK and his crazy wacky ideas or something like that.
So he was, as you said, an environmental lawyer.
He was working on mercury and fish.
He was working on getting mercury out of waterways.
And every time he would give a speech, there was a group of women who would show up and they would sort of corner him afterwards and say, hey, you know, you're talking about mercury in these things.
What about mercury and vaccines?
And he did not want to be involved in it.
He had no interest in it.
He didn't want to engage in the subject.
And eventually they'd show up at another event and another event.
And he basically got to the place that he was avoiding these women who had these stories because he had a different mission.
And then one day he's at home in Hyannisport and a woman knocks on the door and she says, I'm not leaving until you read this.
And she puts a stack of papers on his front porch and she sits in her car in front of the house.
And he thinks that she's really maybe not going to leave.
And he begins to read through the material.
And about halfway through the material, he says, oh, I have to get involved in this.
He sees that it's a real serious issue and undergirded not just by people's anecdotal experiences, but by the science.
And so he gets involved.
And at that moment, when he steps into, he writes a book called Thimerosol, which is a mercury ingredient in vaccines.
Thimerosol let the science speak.
That was the title of his book.
He does one interview about that book.
And from that moment on, for the next 18 years, even up to the present moment in large measure, he was never allowed on a network television show, including Fox.
He was never given another paid speech.
I mean, he saw the world collapse on him, his siblings turning against him, old friends who'd been friends for life because he was saying something insane, something mad.
How could it be?
Vaccines are the most benign and life-saving discovery of our time.
And how could it be that he had gone so crazy and was so crazy to take on this, to take on pharma, basically?
ABC Interview Cuts 00:02:23
And he didn't know that was coming, but it certainly wasn't a good career move for him.
And it led to 18 years in the wilderness all the way up until when he ran for president.
And then a couple of times people had to put him on regular television.
And one of them was so interesting.
I hope it's on YouTube.
It was an ABC interview in which they say, we're about to interview Robert Kennedy, but we must let you know in advance we had to edit this interview to remove misinformation.
And then they go through the interview and you see someone says, well, what science tells you that there could possibly be a connection?
And he says, when I, it's a total flashcut, like you can't believe.
He doesn't answer the question.
And then the interview ends.
And at the end, they say, we want to remind you that much of what Mr. Kennedy just said is not true and it's been debunked.
It was the most extraordinary interview you could imagine.
And then slowly, because he's a presidential candidate and by law they couldn't deny him, he could get on, but not to discuss those topics, right?
It had to be other things.
And it was quite a dark little episode of seeing how they manipulated this stuff and how they were all so certain that they all were experts on, became experts on vaccines, for example.
Now, speaking of expertise, I'm not a doctor.
I have to always remind people.
But it's interesting what my relationship to this subject is, because I'm a criminologist.
And I looked at this from the point of view of crime and identifying criminal behavior in individuals, in institutions, criminal conspiracies.
And this word conspiracy is one that I want to talk about for a minute, because is it a conspiracy?
For example, when pharma gets together with the head of the HHS who they're about to hire and put on their board, is that a conspiracy when they conspire to get an approval, for example?
Or is it a conspiracy when a corporation, and this goes to almost every product rollout in America, what I'm going to describe right now, they sit in a room, they get together and they say, how can we undermine the competitive product in ways that are wrongful?
Vaccine: Redefined Meanings 00:03:39
How can we oversell the quality of our product?
And I'm not just talking about pharma products, I'm talking about all kinds of products.
How can we oversell the value of it and make claims that it's better than it actually is?
How can we choose the right date and the right style of advertising to deceive the consumer?
That's the norm.
That's conspiracy.
Conspiracy just means one or more person getting together to do something wrongful that they wouldn't like the public to know about.
That's a conspiracy.
So when people say conspiracy theorist as if it's an insult, I say, you know, long live conspiracy theorists and also, you know, Ich Bien ein conspiracy theorists.
There's nothing wrong with identifying that groups of people get together and do wrongful things.
That's part of human behavior.
But that word has been rebranded, conspiracy theory.
What it really means is that person's crazy, right?
Yeah.
You mentioned words, the word vaccine.
100% redefined.
It used to mean a product that makes you immune to an infection and prevents the disease.
The new current definition of vaccine, I'm not reading it, I'm just doing it from memory, is a product that mounts an immune response in the body.
Doesn't mean it has to work.
And then pandemic, completely redefined.
It used to mean a disease or an infection that spreads around the world and causes a lot of suffering and ill health and death.
Guess what's been removed from that?
Suffering and ill health and death and widespread.
Doesn't have to be widespread anymore.
It just has to be today a virus that is new.
That's all.
And so the World Health Organization, you know, pandemic, what did it mean to us 10 years ago?
Emergency.
Pandemic.
Holy shit.
People are going to die and it's going to spread disease and it's a big issue.
What did vaccine mean to us 10 years ago?
Give it to me and I won't get the disease.
Yeah.
I won't get measles, right?
No, you give me the COVID vaccine and I will get it.
And I'll get it three times and I'll get it worse than an unvaccinated person.
That wasn't the definition.
So they just changed the definition, right?
And when you change, sometimes you don't have to change the law.
You can just change the definition.
You know, I'm fond of reflecting on these three authors when trying to understand our time.
Of course, Orwell, but that aspect of Orwell that you are evoking now, where it's vaccines always meant that.
Of course.
Pandemic always meant.
The idea of someone getting under the hood of language and altering what it meant is the most dreadful and terrifying gaslighting.
Of course, I always see as an accompaniment to Orwell's writing.
And before moving on from that, just to tag that perhaps the most famous line from 84, if you want an image of the future of humanity, envisage your boots stamping on a human face forever.
Since Coming to Christ, I've seen that as doubly defamatory and blasphemous indeed for whose image is it we bear.
Like Orwell sees it as a sort of annihilation of the divine.
Tucker Carlson in a conversation once said that he reckoned that it was social democracies that Orwell was writing about rather than the kind of totalitarianism of Stalin because at the point that Orwell was writing, we were well into a kind of a diagnostic around Soviet communism.
Vaccine Flu Paradox 00:06:16
They both do the same thing.
And yeah.
And also, Huxley's writing, again, when talking about the kind of Apple iPod logos ease, the kind of sanitary ease, the kind of comfortable, convenient ease of these new forms of tyranny that don't even have the priapic marches or the elegant moustaches of good old 20th century fascism and totalitarianism.
But I'm always inclined to include Kafka too because of that bizarre and absurdist component so easily found when tackling these giant institutions, whether it's YouTube or Facebook or the Institution of Medicine, these new constructed entities that behind their insignia clearly operate in this peculiar way of you're not even able to know what you've done wrong.
It's not clear to you who you're talking to.
It's not clear where the power is located.
That bureaucracies, these kind of anodyne institutions, wield this dark power.
And it's no longer presented to you in vivid and villainous terms, but innocuous, insidious, tepid, calm, just gently ushering you into the room to be inoculated, just gently calming you down, a kind of soothing nurse ratchet-style benign thin smile that leads you into the coma.
The Canadian Maid program, you know, their program for euthanasia.
And it's very gentle and it's very, it makes good sense.
And that's right.
You'd be happier, dead.
You could relax at last.
Exactly.
Not have all those problems of poverty and homelessness, etc.
Yeah, it's a, you know, speaking of Orwell, because so much of this book is about words, and as books ought to be, but, you know, in the beginning of COVID in 2020, 1984 became the 17th highest selling book in the English language.
After 75 years, it became a bestseller again.
And that actually gave me a lot of encouragement.
and confidence because people were seeing, wait a minute, somehow they were seeing, I want to read 1984 right now.
They were seeing something earlier than I would have expected that was this kind of gaslighting that you're describing.
A good example of it is that the COVID vaccine, if you remember the mRNA vaccine, you would need one and you would need, and then you would not get sick.
And as Biden said, you will not get sick and you will not die.
And everybody made clear that this vaccine would be a one-time vaccine that would save the planet.
Well, soon enough, it turned out to be you'll need two.
Pardon me, let me adjust that to maybe three.
By the way, the total number is nine as of right now, including one every year for a child's life, right?
Starts at six months old, three injections at six months old.
Luckily, because of the new more sane HHS, that's not going to happen quite that way.
But my point is that it went from that to, what are you talking about?
We never said the vaccine would stop you from getting an infection.
We never said the vaccine would give you immunity against the infection.
And then we were all sort of, but I really thought you did.
I thought that's what vaccine meant.
I thought that, no, no, no, no, no, no, all it was going to do was keep you out of the hospital.
And then when people were hospitalized, nonetheless, all it was going to do was keep you from dying.
And then, of course, people were dying.
And all it was going to do was reduce your chances.
It's a little bit like the flu vaccine.
Flu vaccine doesn't mean you don't get the flu.
It means, oh, you might still get the flu.
That can happen.
That's called a breakthrough infection.
It can happen.
But it'll be better than it would have been.
As if you could possibly have some scientific study that said, well, I still got the thing, but imagine, and I swear this is true, by the way.
When Fauci got COVID for the second time, after having all the vaccines and all the boosters, et cetera, assuming that he did, he said, man, I was really sick because he took Paxlovid.
And Paxlovid was a pharma product made by Pfizer that had a rebound effect, meaning it's a small problem with it is you'll get COVID again when you take Paxlovid.
And so they called it a rebound effect.
And he said, I was really, really sick.
And his way of interpreting that, Fauci, was imagine how it would have been if I hadn't had that vaccine.
Yeah, and that's not a scientific perspective to sort of imagine how bad it would be without it because it's, of course, an impossible proposition to ever study.
Again, when Albert Baller, the CEO of Pfizer, used to turn up on TV shows, even with the near immediate retrospective, just a few years later, to see the fawning anchors on daytime TV talking to Albert Baller, not asking him any difficult questions, not following up on anything when he says, you know, it's 98% effective.
It's a moonshot, a kind of sort of celebratory tone.
Like they're fawning over him as if he had a kind of David Bowie like charisma sat there oozing in that chair.
And it's pretty clear that the financial relationships, the investments in people that receive, you know, the fact that people in the, was it the CDC or NIH where they receive royalties, the NIH was there.
And then the fact that the TV companies, even if you stay well within what can be tracked, observed, and corroborated, which you do very well in this book, obviously, it becomes clear that what's happening is a warping of reality.
Shifting Realities 00:07:44
And it was called Operation Walk Speed, wasn't it?
Like that reality itself is being changed.
The perception, communication, relationships, priorities, the meaning of words, all of these things are being shifted.
And it's difficult, as your great comedian George Carlin said, that no conspiracy is required when interests converge.
And you've offered additionally that conspiracy just means communication.
If there was that level of when the ordinary launch of a new product requires, as you described, how do we highlight the benefits of this product and denigrate and even ignore, eliminate the problems of this product.
If something that thorough takes place with ordinary products, like, I don't know, some new type of cheese or soda, then do you imagine or project or consider that prior to these events, there were conversations.
Do you think this took place in real time?
Do you think that there was an understanding of the impact?
Do you think this is just about profit and the movement of resources?
Well, I hate the question.
Dear.
Yeah.
Because unfortunately, I've had to come to the conclusion that most large events of which COVID is COVID and the lockdowns is probably the biggest event, much bigger than a world war.
probably the biggest event in our lifetimes in terms of its impact on people.
Starvation, interference with industry, hundreds of thousands of businesses, small businesses closed in America forever, and a deep wound on a whole generation of people who didn't get their prom and didn't get to go to Christmas dinner or Thanksgiving dinner.
Funerals and christenings.
Of course.
And young people, church itself, and young people deeply need a social relationship outside of the household, and they were imprisoned in the household.
And all of this extraordinary overreach in Western societies, it's a normal overreach in a monarchy or in Stalin's Russia or something like that.
That's just the way life is.
But for us, it was quite a culture shock.
And so when you look at this that I call the largest event in world history, the largest mass control of human beings, and also, by the way, the largest injection of a consumer product, far, far bigger than Coca-Cola in terms of its profit, far, far more people given the product and against their will in many cases and without even being able to understand what they were participating in.
This mass vaccination of billions of people, if it's a bad product, let's imagine for a moment that the COVID vaccine, mRNA, is not good for you.
We don't really have to imagine that.
I can talk about it in a moment.
But just imagine that somebody knew that this crosses the blood-brain barrier, that this does not stay in your arm, which was their assertion, that this goes into the ovaries, that this goes into the testes, that this goes into the liver.
It doesn't go there for a birthday party.
It goes there and it does harm.
And so this was known.
This was known.
So what you are left with are all the dark possibilities.
And I want to go to what you said about reality for a moment.
When we are gaslit, when we are told, no, no, no, that's not what that word means.
It always meant such and such.
When we're told, well, what are you talking about?
Well, surely such and such.
And when all of that deceit and distortion of reality occurs, I actually see one good aspect of the distortion of reality.
And that is that, in a sense, much of our human experience materialistically is an illusion.
And so in a way, all the AI and the deep fakes and the we already can't tell, is that really Trump saying that?
Or is it something that somebody made up?
And is it really such and such?
Or is it something that AI is just telling us, et cetera?
That is happening now, meaning people are questioning their reality.
That's not entirely bad for the reason I mentioned, because if you can sort of move and say, well, I'm not going to trust that reality, that this one here is wood or plastic or whatever it is, if I'm not going to trust that one, there's something higher to be had there, which is that this, you know, that the things we think are important are illusions.
That's the positive side.
The not positive side is that most people are living in the material world and are having to navigate and find their way.
And when you can't trust government and you can't trust Fauci, let's say, and you can't trust industry and you can't, and you can't trust your own senses in some cases, then what are you left with?
And here you come to the spiritual.
Because what the spiritual does and even the religious does is give you answers that you are not told you need to understand everything.
You are told specifically you are asked to have faith.
And if you are going to have faith, which 12-step programs ask you to do, which religions ask you to do, is faith inherently bad?
Does that mean you're giving up your ability to assess things with your intellect?
It says it's higher.
In other words, to have faith in something.
For example, me personally, when people said, for example, in a 12-step program, well, you need to have faith in this program, for example, I thought, well, I don't know how to have faith in something.
But then I realized, wait a minute, I had always had faith in certain ideas.
Like from my childhood, I had the faith that things will go badly.
That's a faith as well.
That's another form of faith, right?
The belief that things will go badly.
Things won't go well for you, for example.
So it's just a little turn to take that ability to have faith and say, I will have faith that there is something higher than me in this universe and there is something higher than intellectual belief and proof, as we're given by science, that there's something higher than all that and bigger than all that.
Now, that is a very big step to take that doesn't let me forgive that there are people sitting in rooms.
and making decisions that they know are bad for others, that they know are good for them, and that they know they can't be sued for in the case of one product in America, just one.
You can sue a gun manufacturer, for God's sake.
You can sue a maker of a drill has to have a safety trigger on it, but you cannot sue somebody who makes a product to inject into your infant on the first day of life, which is the hepatitis B vaccine that was until Bobby Kennedy's HHS mandated to be given on the first day of life.
We can't bring you any more of this conversation on YouTube.
Click the link in the description and join us over on Rumble.
There were numerous examples throughout the pandemic of the evocation of faith.
Indeed, there was a peculiar and almost instantaneous priesthood that emerged.
For me, there were a collapsing of idols during that time and lurid examples of New Babylon when watching people on late-night talk shows dress up as vaccines.
And indeed, although we've touched on him already, not literally, but figuratively, Robert Kennedy, who I've seen derided and attacked and ridiculed by Stephen Colbert, who until like five, six years ago, I would have seen as a kind of a comedian of integrity and a significant satirist.
Why Would You Put It In Vaccines? 00:08:40
And a Catholic like Bobby Kennedy, by the way.
A Christian, all of that, like it, there's something visceral I feel when I see him like, you know, oh, the shooting of bear, a thing on the head, the earworm or whatever, the kind of delight, the brainworm rather, the delight taken in that condemnation and contempt, in fact, showed me that it showed me something.
Like, indeed, he's a unique figure, I suppose, Secretary Kennedy, in so much as a media with any integrity at all would have had to have said, this is really weird that Donald Trump has invited this guy to be in his government because it doesn't make sense based on what we've previously reported to you.
It would make much more sense if he was still in the Democrat Party or if he was the leader of the Democrat Party.
And that the fact that it couldn't even acknowledge that is in a way this way one, oh yes, this is how.
They infer the existence of dark energy and dark matter, not from being able to detect its presence, of course, because it's undetectable by its nature, but by the movements of the phenomena around it, they posit its existence.
And the COVID period allowed, I think, the collective to see the silhouette of evil in the peripheral movements in a variety of institutions and indeed by their fruit, shall we know them, the numerous calculable injustices,
whether it's the wealth transfer or the suicides or the cancers or the heart disease or the many things that you cover in this book, the only thing is really that how could we be surprised after the opioid crisis, after the Johnson & Johnson, after the 40 ignitions at General Motors, after the...
Baby food, baby formula.
Right.
Right.
And like in a way, it's almost sort of almost beyond contemplation.
Why would you put something in baby powder that poisons babies?
Why would you put something in vaccines?
And so now the fact that you're approaching this as a criminologist, it becomes less jarring.
Because I can see you're looking for further data, Bob.
I was actually just doing some YouTube.
You've gone on for so long, I was checking my email.
I hope it was me.
It wasn't even one of my videos that you were checking.
I wanted to ask you, Gavin, when we look even at your CV, you're someone that's been consulted by governments, you're someone that's worked for the CIA, you've worked for a bunch of presidents.
How is it that you have such an anti-establishment stance as to be approaching the pandemic and vaccines from your position as a criminologist?
I mean, I'm assuming that criminology means a particular expertise in the motivations of a criminal and the behavior of a criminal.
Sure, it does.
And in human behavior in general, because I'm a behavioral scientist as well and looking at predicting human behavior, that's been my life's work, assessing people who threaten or would harm public figures, for example, has been a big piece of my work.
But I want to answer the question of how I come to it.
I have always believed, and in my first book, which is now 25 years ago, A Gift of Fear, I have always believed that reality is the highest ground you can get to.
And from there, you can see what's coming.
And that's important.
And I don't mean that you can always see what's coming or always predict everything.
And I don't even always want to predict everything.
This movie we're watching is more interesting when we don't know what's coming.
But in some cases, when it comes to personal safety or it comes to cautions that I'm inspiring people in some cases to take, should you be concerned about this workplace violence guy who makes threats in the workplace?
That's been a big piece of my work.
This person who threatens assassination, that's been a big piece of my work.
So there's an element of prediction, of predicting human behavior.
And where it crossed over here, and I'll tell you literally where it crossed over, is I was asked by clients to do a report on COVID at the very beginning of COVID.
And so all we knew at the very beginning of COVID was we just had two metrics we were given by the government.
Over 60 die.
That was it.
And so I was like anybody else.
Should we wash the outside of the pizza box but still eat the pizza because that was okay.
Should we clean the bananas before we peel them?
Should we check things before they come?
Because we were told that contact transmission was possible.
They didn't bother to tell us it wasn't when they realized it wasn't, but nonetheless, they left us with the contact transmission.
And Fauci had a revolting phrase.
He said, I wouldn't be swapping air with anybody, swapping air.
You mean breathing God's oxygen hero that's helped by these plants and what have you?
And so I was seeing all of this happen and I had to do this report.
So I did the report on the only information we had at that time, which was the first stats to come out of northern Italy.
And that was in about March of 2020.
And I looked at those stats and said, look at this.
90% of the people who died were over 80 years old, which means they had already outlived the life expectancy in Italy.
They had already won the jackpot.
And then I looked at them, and at that time, it was 3.5% of them already had a fatal comorbidity, meaning they were already very sick.
And in America, that later moved to 4.7% of people who died of COVID already had it.
I'll give you the most amazing stat at all of all of them.
I didn't know it at the time.
70% of the people whose deaths were attributed to COVID in Canada, 70%, lived in nursing homes.
In other words, you could say, I don't live in a nursing home, so I'm already in the minority of people who could be harmed by this virus, right?
This virus, everybody in this building had it.
Most people had it more than once, and guess what we all did to surprise the government?
We all survived.
And what do you do, by the way, in a nursing home?
Why are you in a nursing home?
In Los Angeles, in a Medicare nursing home, the average stay in a Medicare nursing home in Los Angeles is four and a half months.
And that's not because you check out to go dancing or go to a Vegas vacation.
That's because you die.
That's what you do in the nursing home.
So if you have a disease that you're focusing on the nursing homes in order to get your stats from, you're going to do very, very well.
Because guess what they're going to keep on doing and they'll never stop?
3.4 million of them a year will die.
You can be sure of it.
And so that, I could see that in the Italian statistics.
So I wrote a report to a client of mine who was 56 years old.
And I said, the following nine things you would have to do to die from COVID.
Number one, you'd have to catch COVID.
Number two, you'd have to not do anything about it.
Not tell your doctor, not go to the doctor.
Number three, you'd have to get sick from it because many people, of course, as with all viruses, are asymptomatic.
Number four, you'd have to get sick enough to go to the hospital.
Number five, you'd have to get accepted into the hospital, which was only about 10% of people who came to the hospital would even be admitted.
And ultimately, you'd get to number eight, which is you'd have to end up in the intensive care unit.
And even then, even then, if you were 90 years old, you'd be 90% likely to go home.
Wow.
Even then.
In other words, dear clients, don't worry about this.
Yeah.
And then came, once you're giving a vaccine, I'll tell you a really interesting thing about the vaccine trials for Pfizer's product.
So they did, as many people said, oh, they tested it on 40,000 people.
There were 40,000 people in the trials.
That's not true.
What there were is 22,000 people who got the vaccine and 22,000 people who did not get the vaccine.
So you can't consider them being tested for getting the vaccine.
And then they send them out into the population, right?
And they see how many come back with COVID.
Will it be more among those who are vaccinated or will it be more among those who are not vaccinated?
And it turned out it was slightly more among the people who were not vaccinated.
But you know what the number was?
186 people.
In other words, what you really learned from the Pfizer-COVID trials was you don't need a vaccine.
Yeah.
Something is 186 out of 40,000 people.
40,000, 10% would be 4,000.
Export Selection