Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 16, 2020 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:34:16

#CORONAVIRUS: SOLUTIONS - Stefan Molyneux and Dr Paul Cottrell

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I like that big long pause, like after you click go live.
	There we go. All right.
	All right. All right. And I was trying not to be like a totally different guy when the camera's on.
	Try to be sort of the same guy when the camera goes on, more or less, so it doesn't seem too schizoid.
	Like, which side of staff am I dealing with?
	The on-air personality or just the regular old dude?
	Hi, everybody. So, this is Steph, of course, from Freedom Aid.
	I'm here with Dr. Paul Cottrell.
	Not a medical doctor. Let's not get anyone confused.
	He's en route, but has not achieved his destination as we speak.
	And, yeah, we're going to do some thoughts about where the world is as parts of it seem to be entering or are, in fact, entering.
	The third wave.
	That's right. Sting said love is the seventh wave.
	Fall is the third wave for coronavirus.
	Thanks, Dr. Cottrell, for taking the time tonight.
	Thank you for having me. I appreciate these conversations that we have throughout this whole crisis.
	We're trying to inform the public and try to use logic and navigate through this whole crisis.
	Feels like it's been a while.
	Not since we've talked, but it feels like it's been a while.
	that this has been going on.
	I mean, because I started plugging into this stuff, it was kind of a fortunate coincidence that I was out in...
	I developed a lot of contacts, which sounds, I guess, probably cooler than it is, but I developed a lot of contacts out in Hong Kong when I was there to do my documentary, and they were the ones who reached out to me and said, hey, remember Chernobyl?
	This is going to be worse.
	And I was like, okay, now that you have my attention, perhaps you could tell me more.
	So I was fairly early out of the gate with this kind of stuff.
	And it really is something else.
	And it really, of course, we knew it was going to be a long haul.
	It was going to be a long haul given how embedded this stuff gets into the world systems.
	It wasn't going to be, you know, the 60s.
	It wasn't going to be the 50s with the flu.
	It wasn't going to be...
	MERS. It certainly wasn't going to be Ebola.
	I pushed back hard against the Ebola panic way back in the day.
	And it wasn't going to be SARS-03 because this thing does have this horrible incubation time and it is asymptomatic.
	And we've just got new data that it's been confirmed to live.
	And it's funny because I was talking about this way back in the day, like watch out for cash.
	And I showed videos of people in China boiling cash.
	Now they found out this virus can live for up to 28 days.
	On hard surfaces, on things like coins and even banknotes and so on.
	So, man, it's a nasty thing.
	And where are you in the arc of sort of processing everything that's going on with all of this?
	Because, you know, we've all got to have a life at the same time.
	And how's it affecting you?
	Well, just so I inform the public, I don't really have a life because I'm studying for medical school.
	You are preparing to give life.
	So I don't really have a life.
	But with that said, it's important to realize that this crisis is an evolving crisis and that new data comes out.
	And we've been going back and forth.
	Early on in the Wuhan days of this crisis, it was only in Wuhan, There was news announcements about it being 28-day surface contamination.
	Yeah, I remember that too. And then when it came to New York, the CDC said, you know what, the results are showing that it's about 14 days.
	And then now we're back to the Wuhan original data that was coming out of the University of Hong Kong.
	I've been somewhat more...
	Heavier weighted on the Hong Kong data and those researchers than any researchers coming out anywhere, even in the United States.
	I think they've been more on target throughout this whole crisis.
	So they did say that it was 28 days.
	Now, maybe what is happening is that different temperatures affect The actual incubation period on surfaces or in the body.
	The level of contamination on a surface may last longer in lower temperatures.
	You got to remember that the Wuhan crisis started in December or January.
	Well, that's the cold season.
	So the data that was coming out back then was during the cold season.
	So it could be very possible that surface contamination is 14 days in the summer months.
	And when you go more into the colder weather, that surface contamination and incubation period may actually be longer.
	What kind of reprieve have people gotten over the summer?
	Because I remember when I was, you know, growing up, you know, the summer cold was kind of a rarity, right?
	That was sort of what was considered, right?
	And there are, of course, some people who say, you know, it turned out to be not so bad, but then they are kind of confusing solving this problem with sort of actually having summer months, right?
	So based upon sort of your understanding of these coronaviruses, how they circulate, what kind of break, artificial reprieve, in a sense, have people been getting the dead cat bounce of the pandemic because of the summer months?
	Well, we haven't been getting one.
	I mean, that's the problem. A reprieve mentally, and then there is a reprieve physically.
	Those are two separate issues.
	Mentally, we have not had a reprieve.
	Normally, in the summer months, you go outside and you're enjoying nature or whatever, you're exercising, you're going on vacations.
	Throughout most of this year, people have been locked indoors, either forcibly or they're afraid to go out.
	So there's that psychological component of not being, quote, free.
	And then you have many areas of the country.
	Let's say the Eastern Seaboard had the big infection from March to about mid-May.
	And then you had a big wave happening in other states In June to August.
	And then we have this third wave, if you look at the aggregate data in the United States, that's starting to happen in other states.
	So we really, in the United States, we haven't had a reprieve of some sort of infection.
	There has been. I mean, so there was an initial climb, and then it leveled and sunk a little bit.
	Another little bump went down a little bit, and now it does seem to be sort of trending upwards.
	I just got some data here I wanted to share and get your thoughts on.
	So this is from yesterday from BuzzFeed.
	BuzzFeed sounds like something would feast on Mike Pence's hair.
	But, so they said, a third wave of COVID hospitalizations as Election Day nears.
	So they said, first the coronavirus ravaged the Northeast.
	Then it hit the Sun Belt and their hospitals across the Midwest and Northern Plains are feeling the strain as COVID-19 continues to stalk the nation.
	And the daily new cases, yeah, they sort of hit a peak around early mid-April, declined a little bit over the summer.
	Then July, they started climbing up.
	They've kind of beaten back down again in August, and now they're back up sort of from...
	Late September, sort of early August.
	Same thing is kind of happening with the hospitalizations.
	And so there are these waves and this is all kind of compressed.
	Like I did a little presentation, quite a big presentation on the Spanish flu about, you know, it was pretty mild in the spring, really kind of half disappeared over the summer and then hit like Death itself in the fall.
	And I guess that's sort of the big question now with the colder temperatures, you know, people being inside all the time.
	I remember being kind of blown away when I first heard that a cold was called a cold, not because you caught it because you were cold, but simply because people were indoors with the cold.
	Of course, the most common coronavirus around, the one that we've all had at one time or another.
	And so, you know, certainly up here in Canada, like the colder weather, yeah, people are just going to be jammed indoors.
	And... There's not a whole lot that can be done about that because, you know, you can stand outside for a smoke, but you can't stand outside to avoid a pandemic.
	Well, I mean, you know, those inflection points you're talking about, that's a good way to indicate if we're going into a new wave or not.
	so you have a curve and you have an inflection point it's based on differential slopes and stuff but but if something changes direction that inflection point is showing that you have a new wave now if now when we're looking at a country level we're looking at the aggregate data and then in the united states you see the three waves if you look at the world in the aggregate you also see the three waves but it's a different curve now In some states,
	let's say New York, we had one wave, even though the country has seen three waves.
	So that's why I use the term aggregate.
	At the aggregate level, there are three waves.
	But let's say in New York, we are just starting to see that inflection right after the Jewish holiday where it's starting to tick up.
	There's more cases, COVID-19 positive cases in Brooklyn and in Queens.
	There are more hospitalizations at the state level.
	It's staying at about 800 or so, 850 in hospitalizations.
	It hasn't breached the 1,000 mark yet.
	But in terms of where we are right now, we're kind of where we used to be near the tail end of May for New York.
	Okay? So we went through that big hump in March and April and then started going back down.
	And May, we kind of like started breathing a, you know, okay, maybe things are getting better here.
	And we flattened.
	You know, that Infection curve was very low.
	It was smashed.
	All of a sudden, it started ticking back up.
	We have those clusters that are happening in Brooklyn and Queens.
	Now, what's important is not to really look at just the COVID-19 positive cases.
	Testing positive.
	What to look for is the hospitalizations, but that number is hard to get.
	It's not easy to get, and it's not published by Johns Hopkins, unfortunately.
	I've been begging for someone to build a database that shows the hospitalizations, at least at the state level.
	But it's hard to get that data.
	That's an important data point. But you can get a hint of what's going on in hospitalizations if you look at number of people that are being tested, new tests for that day, who are testing positive divided by the number of new tests.
	And that number, if that stays at about 0.9 to about 1.5%, then you're okay.
	When it starts ticking up to 5%, then you have a problem.
	And that is what we're seeing with the clustering in Brooklyn.
	So you can somewhat get that data, you know, figuring out how many new cases that were tested, You know, that tested positive divided by the number of people that actually were tested.
	That way, that argument that it's all about just testing more, you just get a bigger number.
	No, if you look at that ratio that I'm talking about, then you understand the dynamic of what's changing.
	A lot of people are using the argument, well, if you just test more, then you'll get more cases per day.
	That's true. But what you really want to know is the ratio of positive cases to the number of people tested for that day.
	Then you have an understanding of what's the changing dynamic that's going on through this crisis.
	So those are two ways to find out are we really getting...
	In a worrisome situation.
	I think we're on a knife's edge at the moment for the third wave in the United States.
	Go on with that. I'll hold my question.
	Go on. Well, I mean, the reason why I think we're on a knife's edge is that these clusters that are popping up in the United States are testing higher than 5%.
	And that's a problem.
	And, you know, as that builds up, if these people are not being treated properly, you can start getting that severe infection.
	We know that if it's treated properly early, you probably will be fine.
	But there are a certain percentage that if not treated, it's going to be severe and probably permanent damage.
	See, this is the reason why Trump was, not just because he was the president, but part of the reason why he was treated the way he was treated was that they knew that if you stop that cytokine storm early, this is data that came out of the University of Hong Kong,
	If you stop that cytokine storm early with corticosteroids, then you have a higher chance of preventing that total destruction of those aviolar sac.
	So the corticosteroids that he was given was important.
	On top of, he was given that remdosphere.
	Remdosphere is kind of like a wedge into the replicates That actually helps create more of the RNA of the virus and code for proteins for the virus.
	If you put a wedge in that replicates, it doesn't work.
	And then you can take protease inhibitors that prevents certain enzymes to fold correctly to allow for the replicates to even start.
	So if you attack it almost like a cocktail, which he was kind of given, we learned from HIV that if you give a cocktail of drugs that you can suppress the growth of the virus, but you couldn't get rid of it, at least for AIDS. But he was given this cocktail and you treated it early.
	Now, what's really important here is that the Regeneron, a monoclonal antibody, it's not a vaccine.
	What that basically is is that they manipulated in the lab.
	To synthetically make an antibody that was very similar to what antibodies were made by individuals that survived SARS-CoV-2 and produced their own antibody.
	Because we don't have enough of the convalescent plasma antibodies to give everybody, the only way is to Create an antibody in the lab.
	Well, that's what Regeneron did with the monoclonal antibody.
	So by doing that, it's suppressing the virus and giving time for the body to come up with its own antibodies to fight the virus.
	It's buying time.
	So treating early is important.
	And this leads to the next discussion.
	Trump proved that you don't have to have a forced vaccine.
	There's a therapeutic route if you catch it early.
	Well, so that's the interesting thing, right?
	No, sorry, that sort of implies that the rest of what you said wasn't it, but here's something I can add to.
	Okay, let's get excited about that.
	So, yeah, one of the things that bothers me with this sort of rolling death toll is how unbelievably unfair it is to the new knowledge that's available on how to deal with COVID-19, right?
	So there are therapeutics that have now gone through the run of the mill, the rigor, they've gone through all of that, right?
	They've been put through the mill. And so to say, well, we're just going to keep a rolling total of the death count to me is really unfair.
	What should be happening is last 30-day death count, last 30-day hospitalization, last 30-day people who've slid into the long haulers, like the people who just can't shake the symptoms.
	Because it's sort of like if you were to total all the AIDS deaths before there were therapeutics to deal, Like AZT, I think it was.
	Before there were therapeutics to deal with AIDS, most people died.
	And you can't really just aggregate it all.
	And I would really like that broken out because I think that would give people some sense of security as to, yeah, like the death.
	It's not the death count isn't just coming down because younger people are getting it more, which is certainly a factor.
	But it is also because there is this testing and therapeutic regime that if people get a sense of confidence about, they may not be like, can't wait for the vaccine, which is going to have its own issues, which we'll get to.
	I think that there's not enough segmentation of the data from Johns Hopkins to understand the full dynamics.
	So when it's published to the public, the lay public, They're only seeing headline numbers, total deaths, total confirmed cases.
	Those are important numbers, but it doesn't allow you to ask In-depth questions off of those aggregated numbers.
	We need to segment the data.
	And that's why I keep on saying we need to know the hospitalizations.
	We need to know the ICUs.
	We also need to know which arms of individuals that are being treated in a hospital setting with which type of drug to understand what the recovery rates are.
	Is it three weeks with Remdesphere and, let's say, five days with Regeneron?
	These are important questions that everyone needs to know because when you have a business and you're trying to decide, let's say you're a CEO of a 10,000 employee business, You're on the stock exchange and you're making these decisions.
	We're not going to do remote anymore.
	We're going to bring people back to the office.
	Let's hear Jamie Dimon from JP Morgan.
	You've got to make these decisions.
	You want data to make an educated decision.
	The headline number You can't ask those sorts of questions.
	And that's why I keep on saying it's important to look at ratios, not just total data.
	So I'm totally with you on this.
	I think the more segmentation of the data, the better for everybody.
	Because what happens is that when you can ask that question of what's really going on, then people will say, do we really need a forced vaccine?
	See, if you just do the headline number, then Fauci can promote the vaccine program.
	But, you know, because they'll just say, well, you know, we've already had a quarter of a million deaths.
	You don't want to have that happen to, you know, to your son or daughter.
	Right? But then when you start looking at, well, how many people actually, you know, how many of those cases were comorbidities?
	How many of those were severe cases?
	How many of those were the early stage of this where we didn't know how to treat it and we put them on ventilators that we shouldn't have?
	Or just caught it really late.
	Yeah, yeah. You know, so I, you know, there's, there's, you know, When you have a problem, you ran a business, when you have a problem, you're making decisions, you want to look at data.
	And you want to be able to drill down into that data.
	Just for those who don't know, the statement is always, you cannot manage what you cannot measure.
	That was always my first question.
	I've got a great idea, somebody would say to me.
	And it's like, okay, how are we going to measure it?
	And they'd be like, long pause.
	Then it's not a great idea.
	Then it's, you know, you can tell me a story if you want over lunch, but it's not a business thing if you can't measure it.
	This feature would be great.
	How many customers have asked for it?
	And how much would they be willing to pay for it?
	And how long would it take for us to recoup the investment in building that feature?
	I don't know. It just hit me in the shower.
	It's like, well, hitting you in the shower is not an argument for a business case.
	And same thing with medicine, right?
	If you can't measure it, you can't manage it.
	And if the measuring is all blobbed in together, you know, I have sort of this weird suspicion that if Biden gets in, in a couple of weeks, suddenly they'll shift the reporting, right?
	So it'll be like, do you know that your odds of surviving now are blah, blah, blah, right?
	99.99, whatever.
	And it's like, there's going to be this miracle situation.
	Turnaround of how great things are now compared to when that evil Trump guy was in charge.
	Right, exactly. Here's the problem.
	Johns Hopkins is financed by the Bloomberg Foundation.
	And Bloomberg has been going against Trump.
	He's being sued in what he's been doing in Florida.
	Trying to get convicts out and getting them as voters and all this stuff.
	So I'll tell you, there is an orchestrated effort using this crisis to try to hurt the president and reduce his chances of re-election.
	So let's talk about...
	I gridded through the town hall tonight.
	Trump did a town hall which was going up against Biden, which is apparently big.
	A lot of things are going on today.
	Twitter censored the official Trump campaign.
	They censored the press secretary, Sebastian Gorka, Jack Posobiec, a lot of other people for tweeting about this New York Post story about Trump.
	Hunter Biden and the laptop and the unbelievably ghastly sex videos and photos and God knows what else is on there.
	Talking about your viruses.
	The fact that this came into America or came into a shop right before COVID is probably not unrelated.
	Actually, it is. I'm just trying to make a joke.
	So a lot of stuff went on today and then Twitter went down right after Tucker Carlson said, hey, we've got new emails from this and maybe they had new photos as well.
	So a lot of stuff went on today that was kind of wild, kind of powerful.
	But one of the things that I noticed in...
	The town hall, over and above the inevitable question about white supremacy, because there are just ghosts everywhere in people's minds.
	But there was this, you know, over two, I think it's 210 or something like that, 1,000 now Americans are supposed to have died.
	Although, of course, we all know the number is well north of 90% of those who had significant comorbidities that, you know, doesn't mean that it wasn't the virus, but it also means it wasn't only the virus.
	There's only, I think, 12,000 who died just of the virus.
	But in this, they're always talking about somehow Trump is responsible for 200,000 Americans dying.
	Now, Trump deflects to China, which is not the worst thing in the world to do because you and I both know the case against China is pretty strong.
	He did a whole presentation on it.
	To me, it's open and shut.
	But they're always trying to lay 200,000 corpses at Trump's feet.
	Trump is, say, China, and then he says, well, but there were 2.2 million estimates, and, you know, we're down way below that, 2 million lives saved and all that.
	Your take, I think, is something worth getting on the record.
	So let's say that you're the press secretary, and I'm some dunghole from CNN or something like that.
	Hey, Paul! Hey, Paul!
	Hey, Apple! Hey, Paul!
	Does the president feel responsible for 200,000 deaths that he caused?
	No. What would you say?
	Well, I think it's very important for the public to understand the genesis of this virus.
	This was a weapon program that started in the United States under the Obama administration and Biden was the VP. And this thing started right after an in vitro chimera experiment with Dr.
	Xi. This was in your case against China video.
	And once Xi could show that there was a gain of function with the ACE2 receptor using HIV homology, that Gain attention at the DOD to get funding to do the full assembly in the United States.
	Because it's a total economy killer!
	This virus, like, sorry to interrupt, I know you've got a lot to say.
	I'll keep it brief, and I'm just stepping out of character here at the moment, not being the CNA bunghole.
	But there's the old stories about the resistance, right?
	The resistance in France under the Nazis.
	And the resistance in France under the Nazis said, no, we don't want to kill a guy.
	We don't want to kill a guy because then they just bury him.
	What we want to do is wound him significantly so that he consumes hospital resources, so that he needs a pension, so that he ties up doctors, so that, you know, that's what we want.
	Just killing a guy is no good. This virus targets the economy even more so than it targets people, and that's been stunningly and, I think, largely unnecessarily successful in targeting the economy.
	But that's the weaponization because people think the weapon has to take you out.
	No, no, no, no. To wreck an economy, the weapon has to target the flow of goods, the flow of capital, and existing configurations of capital investment, such as, I don't know, transportation, cars, buses, offices, and so on.
	If you target existing economic structures, which you don't do by killing people, but rather by terrifying and disabling them, this – I don't want to speak, obviously, for the Department of Defense.
	God forbid that ever be my job.
	But that, to me, would be putting on my black hat.
	What you'd want is something that terrifies people and disables people and renders existing economic investments largely counterproductive, and then you're basically dynamiting the base of the economy.
	No, I agree with it.
	Here's the problem, though. I mean, from the philosophical perspective, there's such a thing as medical ethics.
	And we have had not just the military-industrial complex, but we have a scientific military-industrial complex.
	And what is happening is these labs need funding from the NIH or just from the Defense Department Through different conduits to be able to fund their research so they can publish papers, get tenure, and get well-known within their little community of scientists.
	And unfortunately, they don't pay attention to the main theme of Jurassic Park, and that is they're so busy worrying about how to do the crazy chimera experiments and making these crazy viruses in the lab, they never ask the question, should they be doing this?
	So there is the medical ethics point here.
	There is a rogue DOD doing things that they shouldn't be doing.
	There is decades, there's 60 or 70 years of experimentation that's been going on On either populations that are outside the United States or even are in the United States where they're doing testing on individuals they didn't even know.
	Either radiation testing or syphilis testing or whatever.
	This is another aspect to this whole crisis where you had a government or a branch of government that was out of control and no one can check them.
	Because it's hidden under this idea, it's either a black operation or it's thrown under the umbrella of national security or whatever.
	But I hold the stance that the DOD was out of control and they shouldn't have been doing this.
	They gained function on a virus that ended up Destroying $5 trillion of US GDP alone, let alone how many trillions of dollars in the world economy and countless deaths.
	And we don't even know, you know, what the long-term ramifications are for the chronic illnesses for these individuals that had the severe case of SARS-CoV-2.
	We're going to see lots of more emphysema.
	We're going to see lots of more COPD cases.
	And potentially lung transplants for the ones that had the glass opacity problem.
	Oh, yeah, yeah. We talked about that some months ago as well.
	Yeah, I mean, it is really, really pretty terrifying stuff.
	But if I was that press secretary, I'd basically say to the CNN reporter, It was the Obama administration that created the virus, that shipped it overseas for further gain of function, and it was released out of the Wuhan lab, and that I believe they released the virus on purpose because their economy,
	the CCP's economy, was plummeting because of the stance that Trump had Where he cut the legs out of TPP and he was asking for manufacturers and somewhat forcing manufacturers to come back to the United States or go to other lower cost areas around the world.
	And that was a permanent blow to the CCP and that they were having agricultural problems too.
	So it was guaranteeing that the 21st century China would not happen.
	And they let that virus out to weaken the world.
	So now it's all about differential equations.
	Before the virus was hit, this is where China was with economics, with the Trump policy.
	Have a virus out and you bring down the world, now you're more equalized.
	Now you have a better chance to rise up again.
	And so they used that virus And it's not just the CCP. There's a deep state CCP. And that's why I keep on stating that it's a USA CCP virus.
	There's a dark side in the U.S. I don't know if you want to call it the U.S. There is a side that wants to take away the constitutional freedoms that we have in the United States.
	And they're in line with the CCP. These people are in line with...
	World integration and One Health and giving more power to the UN. And that is the big, big discussion here.
	It's not really the coronavirus or the Wuhan crisis, but it's this curtailment of civil liberties and by people capitulating and having that mask on.
	And, you know, saying, well, just give me that vaccine because I just want to go back to work, that you're buying right into their system.
	They want to control you.
	They're literally burning down the Constitution.
	And that's why it's so important to shine a big light like you did on CCP. But they are in cahoots with a deep state, or maybe I'm not using the right term, but a deep faction within the U.S. that doesn't like what we consider freedom.
	Well, this is also something that was an interesting pivot from the World Health Organization, which I have fairly bottomless contempt for as a whole, as a communist-run, centralized bureaucracy that has no accountability.
	Just for those who don't know, maybe you're kind of new to the conversation, and maybe Paul doesn't agree, but maybe he does.
	So basically, for me, if somebody doesn't have any skin in the game, I don't care.
	I don't care what they have to say.
	So the World Health Organization, if they make a mistake, And they don't lose their houses.
	I don't care what they have to say.
	And it's not World Health Organization in particular.
	It's any bureaucrat. It's anybody.
	This is why I respect entrepreneurs because they've got skin in the game.
	And so when the World Health Organization says do this or don't do that or you've got to keep open borders, I don't care because what price do they pay?
	If they're wrong, what price do they pay?
	I'm not talking jail. A man can dream.
	But, you know, they pay no price.
	There's no cost. You know, like, if you're not getting marked on the test, if you're just auditing the course, like, I don't care what you have to say about it because you're just kind of drifting through.
	But a couple days ago, the World Health Organization, you know, when I, back in April, was talking about, late March, early April, was saying, yeah, it's a real thing.
	You know, I think masks can be really helpful, but the cost of the lockdowns is going to vastly exceed any salvation from, respite from the virus, right?
	So lockdowns are going to be more costly.
	Because... The very poorly named elective surgeries.
	They say, oh, well, they're just canceling elective surgeries.
	And what are those, breast implants and facials?
	No, there's not. Elective surgeries are things that are just not the ER. They're a really important thing.
	You've got to get tumors removed. You've got to have exploratory surgeries.
	You've got to have hernias.
	You've got a whole bunch of stuff that needs to get done that was kind of being postponed.
	And I said, look, it's not going to take a brain surgeon to figure out And this is, what, six, seven months ago, that the cost of the lockdowns is going to be vastly greater.
	Because, you know, when you've got any training in economics, as I know Paul does, he ran a market fund for a while, a long while, you don't look at the obvious, you look at the hidden.
	So you don't look and say, well, you know, the R0 value, the reproduction value of COVID has gone down, and therefore X number of lives have been saved.
	It's like, okay, well, that's obvious you make that case, but you've got to look We're good to go.
	We don't want misinformation on our platform, so we're just going to go with the World Health Organization.
	So two things happened. Number one, the World Health Organization said there was no science behind their commandment to keep the borders open.
	No science. It was all politics.
	It was all politics.
	They liked the free flow of movement, particularly mass immigration, and they had made a mistake in the past in India that cost about $3 billion.
	So there was no science behind it.
	If you give out advice that's costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, let's not kid ourselves, open borders on recommendation from the World Health Organization, without a doubt, in my mind, at least, costs the lives of at least hundreds of thousands of people and more, and that's not even counting the suffering, the expenses, the... Seven times loss, ten times loss of life that occurred from lack of access to primary health care.
	So that was number one. And did anybody pay for that?
	Did anybody lose their jobs?
	No, they get more funding. They get more funding because now you see we're in a pandemic, so you need more funding.
	But the other thing that they said a couple of days ago, and this is from the special envoy on COVID-19.
	He said he urged leaders to stop, quote, using lockdowns as your primary control method.
	And he said, we in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus.
	The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted.
	But by and large, we'd rather not...
	Do it. So he wanted to point out several negative consequences.
	And it devastated the tourism industries and increased hunger and poverty.
	Tourist industry in the Caribbean, Pacific Islands, and so on.
	A small hole to farmers around the world.
	Poverty levels. It seems we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year.
	We may well have at least a doubling of child poverty.
	Nutrition. And in the United States, last thing I'll say here, lockdowns have been tied to increased thoughts of suicide from children.
	A surge in drug overdoses and uptick in domestic violence and a study conducted in May concluded that stress and anxiety from lockdowns could destroy seven times the years of life that lockdowns potentially save.
	And so, you know, my conscience is clear, right?
	I mean, I was like, yeah, this is a big thing.
	This is a dangerous thing.
	But lockdowns are a terrible way of doing it.
	OK, one last thing I'll say and I'll turn it over to you.
	The last thing I'll say is that it's also destroyed, which to me is not necessarily a bad thing.
	I wish it didn't come at a big human cost, of course.
	But, you know, this we need two weeks to flatten the curve.
	And now it's been like seven or eight months and still nobody has a face.
	And what's happened, I know up here in Canada, I think it's happened in the States as well, is everybody said, okay, we'll stop using the hospital so that you all can get ready for an influx of COVID patients, right?
	And now here in Canada, the influx of COVID patients is coming in, the numbers are getting higher and higher.
	And you know what the hospitals are saying?
	We're not ready. We're not ready.
	So what the hell was the entire point?
	Of people not using healthcare facilities for the last six months so they could get everything ready and there's not going to be anything left in the chamber.
	Like when the fourth wave hits or the fifth wave hits and people say, oh, we've got to shut down to flatten the curve, people will be just like, that's bullshit.
	You fooled us three times, but not fourth.
	And that means that this option...
	It's really not going to be available.
	People are going to have to find something else.
	So they've really, I think, burned their goodwill with the populations as a whole because this whole, hold off, don't get your cancer checkup, we've got to take time to get ready.
	People didn't get their cancer checkup.
	Maybe they got sick and then they're not ready anyway.
	Well, there's a lot to unpack there.
	First of all, we know that the UN has been looking for decades, through the Tobin tax, to be able to try to find a funding mechanism for taxation.
	That's why they're promoting the whole idea of global warming, or in medical school, they're stating that the reason why this happened is that it's human encroachment on nature.
	And that it was a zoonotic thing.
	Obviously, I don't believe that for a second.
	Because, you know, we went in detail.
	Why? But the thing is that by doing that, you can follow the logic and say, well, we are going to now put caps.
	We're going to put carbon caps.
	And if you break the carbon cap, then you're going to be taxed.
	Or there's going to be some sort of taxation.
	Even if it's that.001 of a cent.
	For everybody, there's a substantial amount of funds that could flow to be the funding mechanism for issuance of bonds for the UN. All right?
	So that's the big new world thing.
	What's the funding mechanism?
	They don't have one other than some countries paying, you know, dues.
	No, they want taxation.
	Without equal representation, all right?
	And if you promote this agenda of One Health and say that this huge virus was, you know, because of nature, you know, being mad at mankind, then we're going to tax you so we'll calm nature, mother nature down.
	But they'll use that as a funding mechanism for the bond market.
	So that's an important piece to pay attention to because the people that are making these decisions Are moving us in that direction of some sort of taxation without equal representation, so they have that funding mechanism.
	Now, with that said, the pandemic Should we stay sheltered in place or should we start taking risks?
	I think on our last show, I'm to the point now that I would prefer to start living free and taking risks.
	And it's now, you know what?
	We listened to you guys.
	We've been in shelter in place for so long.
	It didn't work. You know what?
	Take the damn mask off and start living your life and we're going to hit it like D-Day.
	All right? And I know this sounds crazy.
	They keep talking about this COVID fatigue.
	Like we just, you know, just kind of ran out of steam, just kind of got bored.
	It's like, no, if you strangle me for long enough, eventually I'm going to fight back.
	It's like, you have strangulation fatigue.
	You know, that's a problem. Right, right, right.
	We as a populace needs to just say enough is enough and we are going back To the good old days.
	We're taking the damn mask off.
	People are going to get sick. And hospitals, doctors, nurses, they need everything in the toolbox.
	So the CDC and the FDA, they need to put hydroxychloroquine and everything on the shelf so they can use it.
	It's the new for the ride.
	But we need to punch through this wall.
	We have to create a beachhead because shelter in place for how long?
	The damn thing didn't work.
	So are we going to shelter in place for five years?
	Well, there'll be no economy left.
	Right. Well, now it goes back to the whole New World Order kind of mechanism.
	They want taxation without equal representation and have a one-world government.
	And weaken who's the big player in the room that's preventing it from happening.
	It's the economic government.
	A prowess of North America.
	If you bring that down, you weaken and everyone starts thinking, you know what, I want universal income, I want socialism, I need nanny state, I need da-da-da-da-da, and then all of a sudden, they have exactly what they're looking for.
	Now here, people that are saying, oh, pay attention to the CDC or the NIH, I think Kennedy said it best when he was debating Dershowitz.
	You're assuming that they're not captured agencies.
	These people that are running these agencies are captured.
	They know that if they tow a certain line, when they retire from that position, that they have a board position at some big pharma, and they're going to be making millions of dollars.
	And they don't want to rock the boat and prevent that.
	They don't want to hurt their golden parachute.
	The people that are running these agencies don't have your best interest in mind.
	They have their own best interest in mind.
	They are captured.
	And we see this also in Congress.
	We put people in a position of power in the legislative branch.
	And I find it odd that they go in as a thousandaires and they come out as millionaires.
	How does that work? I remember that as a kid.
	Like, you look at this congressman's salary was like, I don't know, $150,000, $175,000.
	Net worth, $15 million.
	I'm like, wow, that guy's really good at pinching his pennies, man.
	He really had to have invested in – no, he can't even invest in that much, right?
	It's supposed to be a blind trust and all that kind of stuff.
	And, oh, yeah, no, the ratio of – well, it's the Biden story, right?
	The ratio between income and net worth is – well, it's tumoresque, so to speak.
	Right. So with such great deals out there, as long as they tow a certain line, of course they're not going to pay attention to the masses and what we need.
	They're going to say, well, what's in it for them?
	So I think this is why I keep on...
	We created a foundation on Facebook until they pull it down, but it's called Freedom Restoration Foundation.
	So we try to publish articles about constitutional rights and paying attention to the Biopatriot Act elements that are moving through Congress and also a news feed of certain publications that capture what's happening in the news about vaccines or the loss of civil liberties or whatever.
	Or even geopolitical problems, because there's a geopolitical component to this, as we were talking about with the CCP. But it's important to have people engaged in saying, you know what, enough is enough, and it's time to...
	To move forward and stop paying attention to, quote, the experts.
	Because the experts made us sicker.
	We're sicker.
	We're sicker people. We're fatter.
	We're lazier. Like you said, there's the psychological component.
	There's more domestic violence going on.
	There's more suicide attempts going on.
	I'll tell you...
	Everybody's... Sorry, the dating life is on hold.
	Getting married is on hold.
	Having kids is on hold.
	And I think around the world...
	I mean, when Trump came in, I know a lot of it was bubble.
	A lot of it was Fed-driven.
	A lot of it was funny money. A lot of it was debt.
	But there were some genuine cuts in taxation.
	There were some genuine cuts...
	In regulations, which is the great hidden spiderweb choky mechanism by which economies often expire, and then, of course, the market gets blamed for it.
	So you've got to remember this.
	All around the world, there are these leaders, right?
	And these leaders generally suck, and they're dictatorial, and they're narcissistic, and they're megalomaniacal, and they're highly nepotistic, you know, the sort of traditional banana republic where everybody's third cousin ends up as a millionaire, or the Bidens.
	And the problem is, of course, when people look across at a place like America and they say, wow, that economy is really doing well and finally people are starting to get raises after four decades and manufacturing is coming back and the economy is doing well.
	Why? Because the government is withdrawing itself from the economy, allowing the free market to operate.
	So that is a, and now with social media and all of that, like it makes a big deal.
	It's a big difference. You can get live footage of what's going on in America all over the world, and people get kind of restless.
	And they say, wow, you know that, A, that goes against everything I've ever been taught.
	And B, I'd like me some of that.
	What took down the Soviet Empire?
	Well, the inefficiencies of an economy that has no price signals and hamburgers and blue jeans that people could see in America that they couldn't get over under Soviet Russia.
	So there's this whole problem in all these countries that the population is, well, I'd like lower taxes.
	I'd like less regulation.
	I'd like for more jobs to be created.
	And that's a huge problem because the oligarchs in most of these countries, they didn't get into power in order to free the people.
	They got into power to control the people and feed their wallets.
	And, you know, if you can nuke the U.S. economy, that takes a lot of pressure off the sort of banana republic dictators on what needs to be provided because then they can say, aha, you look, you see, they've got a high case rate and they blah, blah, blah, and their economy is destroyed and isn't it better here?
	And then it's the people like, oh, yeah, I guess that was kind of a mirage.
	You know, it's bad. But yeah, it takes a lot of pressure off the lack of freedoms in a lot of countries around the world.
	To prove your point, that was exactly the argument right after Lehman.
	So, right before Lehman was, you know, great, you know, economy, open market, you know, civil rights, you know, civil liberties and everything.
	And then we had Lehman, and then the world kept on saying, oh, see, crazy traders in a free market society.
	It just sucks. And then, you know, what's interesting is it's right after that, Obama gets in it.
	And he represents, he's a poster child of socialism.
	Let's just face it, he is.
	His major mentor was a straight up Marxist.
	Yeah, yeah. So I used to go even further.
	I mean, he's a poster child for communism.
	But the thing is, is that there was right at that Lehman point in time where everyone was saying capitalism bad, socialism good.
	Well, you're right. In this situation, make it so bad This falls in line with what I was saying about the CCP was knocked down with the Trump administration while the US economy was growing.
	Not only was the CCP knocked down, the US was growing and that gap increased.
	And that's a huge threat to all of the central planners out there.
	A massive threat that deregulation and lower taxes was growing in economy.
	And that had to be stopped.
	Had to be stopped. You got it.
	You got it. And that's why I have the hypothesis that that was the reason why it was released.
	That virus was released on purpose to weaken the free world.
	AKA the United States.
	And to bring back that differential where there's more normalized with the CCP and give them a fighting chance to really have that 21st century China that they want to promote.
	Because that's going to be the vehicle.
	To get Hong Kong, to get Taiwan, to get the other geopolitical aims that they have to stop threatening Japan or all of the stuff that they want to do to expand.
	Yeah, because think about what's going to happen there.
	If the United States is weakened financially, then we have a harder time to be able to finance a war.
	And so our hegemonic power in the Pacific is going to wane.
	This is exactly what happened to the British Empire.
	They financially were strapped and they weren't able to project their empire power and they had to retreat.
	And they want to weaken the United States so we are retreating so the Chinese can move forward.
	This is why I keep on saying this is a battle between the United States and the CCP. And I think I've told you this, maybe I haven't, but my grandfather was a CB in the Navy during World War II. So he was an island hopper, and then they paved the strips, and they used those bombing strips to get to Japan to do the bombing runs.
	Because we didn't have, you know, planes that had large enough tanks for fuel to get to Japan from mainland United States.
	So we had an island hop. That was the whole point.
	So because of that hard fight during World War II, those soldiers, just like my grandfather, that allowed us to have the hegemonic power that we've had since World War II in the Pacific, and had somewhat of a stable world.
	All right? Now there's a debate, you know, about proxy wars, you know, in Korea and Vietnam and, you know, and all that stuff.
	But we have a somewhat stable world relative to the carnage of World War II. So if we lose that hegemonic power, we don't know what's going to happen.
	There's a high probability of higher...
	We can do. We can do.
	Yeah, there's a high probability there's going to be a lot of carnage.
	You know, so... That's why I keep on saying that we cannot let the CCP win.
	This is where you and I are in 100% lockstep agreement.
	The CCP, if they are allowed to be successful, will be the blueprint for tyranny in the world.
	For the next 150 years, maybe longer.
	Yeah, and it is, to me, it is kind of one of these ghastly, horrible ironies of history, Paul, that the generation that swallowed the lie that McCarthyism was just some made-up thing and the communists don't have infiltration, well, that is the generation that is actually suffering the most From the Chinese virus, right?
	The people who said, oh, you know, there's not really any real danger from communism.
	It's like, oh, okay, well, here's the virus that's going to hit you the hardest.
	And, you know, if you put it in a novel, it would be like, oh, come on, you know, this is too Old Testament, you know, the curse of ignorance and the wages of sin and inattention and so on are really hitting...
	Hard, because I don't know if people know this.
	I mean, I don't know if you have older relatives or older people you know who are in elder care homes, but I'm going to just throw a little bit of data at you, and then we'll talk about the vaccine and what's going on with Johnson& Johnson.
	So, this is just from today.
	It actually just came out at 5 o'clock, right?
	The larger the coronavirus outbreak in an area, the more deaths elder care facilities there can expect to see.
	Across 26 countries, elder care home residents have accounted for an average of 47% of recorded coronavirus deaths.
	This is pretty good data.
	In some nations...
	Including the United States, the data suggests that roughly one in 20 elder care residents have already died of COVID-19.
	Died! One is 5%, right?
	5%, right? And it's really...
	Astonishing. And in Canada, it's really – it's some of the worst numbers in Canada.
	Although, of course, New York was terrible as well.
	You know, my whole life I've been saying, oh, the government shouldn't do this.
	The government shouldn't do that.
	And then people always say – they always say the same thing.
	Oh, I don't think the government should build the roads.
	I don't think governments should run public education.
	Oh, yeah? Well, if – who will build the roads?
	Who will educate the kids, right?
	And I've been patiently – well, sometimes patiently – answering those questions for like, I don't know, 40 years or whatever, right?
	But, you know, another question you can ask is, okay, but without the government, how our satanic half-HIV SARS-CoV-2 bat coronavirus is going to get into the general population?
	There's no profit in that.
	You can't get that kind of cool stuff without governments.
	And without governments, who the hell is going to order old-age homes to take in coronavirus patients?
	How? They're not going to do that of their own accord because it's really dangerous to old people.
	Without the government...
	Who's going to say, oh, we've got to keep the borders open during a pandemic because otherwise it's racist?
	Anyway, just wanted to point that out.
	Everyone's like, oh, yeah, well, what about all these good things?
	What about the bad things? They're not going to happen either with this kind of stuff.
	But, yeah, it really has torn through the elderly in brutal ways.
	And some of this is political.
	I think a lot of it, certainly New York, is political.
	But, yeah, some of it is just, you know, it's really harsh on the elderly, which is kind of different from, like, 100 years ago when it was harsh on the young.
	Well... Unfortunately, most of that generation in my family passed away.
	And they passed away in the 80s.
	Most of them passed away in the late 80s.
	But my experience in Japan, I lived in Japan for a little while, about a year and a half when I was working for a Nissan.
	As an automotive engineer.
	And what I learned from the Japanese culture was that they respected their elderly.
	And we don't have that in the United States.
	Wait, sorry. We don't have a theory of respect for the elderly or we don't have elderly that we can respect?
	I'm trying to figure out how to slice and dice this sentence here.
	I meant both.
	No, no, no. But I really meant that we don't have a theory of respect for the elderly.
	You know, and this is a shame because we...
	One, that generation did do a lot to provide the freedoms that we have today.
	I'm talking about the greatest generation here.
	Most of them are passing away, especially the ones that fought in World War II. Now, my father, he's in his 70s, but he was that Vietnam era.
	And they're starting to...
	We need to have that respect of the sacrifices of the previous generation.
	Unfortunately, we have this hyper-individualism where, well, we have a throwaway society.
	So the way we treat our toasters is like how we treat the elderly.
	Okay, we got an old toaster.
	You know what? I'm going to go online and I'll get a new one in five days.
	People are viewing the elderly as throwaway commodities, and they're not.
	I was walking outside today, just talking on the phone.
	Wait, you were doing what? Yeah, I was walking outside without a mask.
	I'm sorry. The internet somehow translated that into you were walking outside today.
	I thought you said you were studying. Get back to studying.
	No outside for you. No, but I was...
	I had to take a break. But there was this elderly couple just sitting on the bench looking at the East River, almost like something right out of a movie, you know?
	And, you know, they...
	As I was walking by, they struck up a conversation because you could tell that they wanted to communicate with people.
	They... This crisis has created this division of connection with community.
	And we need to get reconnected.
	And hopefully this crisis, we learn something from it, and that is to take care of the elderly.
	To have respect for the elderly.
	How many people actually that are younger actually hold the door for an elderly person when they walk through?
	Not many. Not many.
	I hear you. I really do.
	But I got to be honorable to my baby boomer selfish generation kind of thing.
	It's a little... So the schools suck.
	Immigration is out of control.
	Demographics are going haywire and...
	American children are now born into a million dollars of debt that they never asked for, at a minimum, right?
	Unfunded liabilities plus debt is brutal.
	And anytime they complain, they just kind of shout it down at the ballot box told to deal with it, right?
	And there's this meme, you've probably heard of it, it's called Old Economy Steve.
	Old Economy Steve got fired from his job, walked across the street, and got another job.
	Old Economy Steve, who paid $700 a month, sorry, $700 a term for tuition, is now complaining that young kids don't appreciate a quality college education that they're paying like $20,000 or more a year for.
	And, you know, the young people look at the world around them and they say, okay, is it better?
	Am I more free?
	Is the economy more stable?
	Is there less debt? Are we better off?
	Is the culture enriched?
	No, it's all propaganda and debt and this flaming wreckage of free speech that passes for commitment to the First Amendment these days.
	And And again, there are lots of honorable people.
	It sounds like your family was one of them.
	Lots of honorable people who fought really hard against that.
	Those people should be respected and listened to and so on.
	But as a whole, you know, what they call, I mean, this has been since I was a kid, right?
	Social Security, right?
	The third rail of American politics.
	You touch it, you die. And it's like, so talking about any clawbacks, because the boomers, you know, they took all these pensions, or they're taking all these pensions.
	They didn't pay tax for those pensions.
	There's no money in the, you know, it's just a bunch of dusty IOUs and treasury bonds, right?
	There's no money for the pensions.
	The pensions are being siphoned directly off the backs of the young.
	The richest generation in history is vampire-like, reaching down two or three generations to hoover money off the backs of the young.
	I gotta tell you, I mean, I'd love to live in a society where I could look at the elderly and say, wow, you guys delivered a better world to us than you inherited, but I don't really think I can.
	I think a lot of people feel that way.
	I see your point.
	And it's important to parse it out.
	The greatest generation versus the baby boomers.
	The greatest generation sacrificed a lot more.
	And, you know, or, you know, had that can-do spirit.
	All right? The baby boomers.
	But the baby boomers, what they were, a lot of them were draft dodgers, at least in the United States.
	And they were very self-oriented.
	And the whole, that whole sexual That's sexual revolution and almost a drug-induced coma that the United States was in from the 60s all the way through the 80s.
	There's a lot to be said about the baby boomers causing social problems in the United States.
	I'm assuming that similar sociological dynamics But I'm a little centric to the United States, you know, from my observation.
	So my, quote, respect level would be much higher for my grandfather to, let's say, my father's generation.
	But what does it say, you know, what does the Torah say?
	You know, the Torah says, you know, you have to honor your father and mother.
	It doesn't mean you have to agree.
	It doesn't mean that you can't call them off on things that they did wrong.
	You just have to honor them.
	That was the point I was making. By holding the door, by doing community service for people that are in need, that are elderly.
	Because a lot of them, they're cutting their pills in half because they don't have enough food to eat.
	But some of them, It was due to improper planning.
	So let's call it a spade a spade.
	But that doesn't mean that we don't try to help.
	But I think that there was a selfishness, and there's some books that have been coming out about this, about the selfishness of the baby boom generation, and that how it has created this kind of negative Negative blowback from Gen X and the millennials saying, okay, boomer. That's the big meme now.
	Okay, boomer. Never seen it. See, I'm up by one year.
	One year I managed to escape.
	I'm like Indiana Jones going back to get that hat with the door.
	One year. One year.
	I'm going to be like, anyway, nobody cares.
	Nobody cares. But basically, there's this okay, boomer mentality that if – If someone that's elderly, let's say my parents' generation, you know, is telling someone, let's say it's Gen X, you know, they would say, you know, you really basically caused a problem, you know, boomer generation.
	Because of the self-centeredness and this free love and this, you know, But it doesn't mean that their whole generation was all bad.
	It's not all bad.
	But we still have to honor our father and our mother.
	Our father and mother is that previous generation.
	I'll honor them by telling them the truth.
	That's the biggest honor I can give to anyone if you're trying to tell the truth.
	That's true. We can't brush it under the rug that their generation has caused many problems.
	The debt that we have is primarily because of them.
	Primarily because of them.
	That's a fact. And they are such a large voting block that that's the reason why it's a third rail.
	And they're a voting block that won't take any sacrifices.
	You can't go to the boomers and you can't go to the retirees.
	You can't go to them and say, look, you guys, you voted giant pensions for yourself, but you didn't want to pay for them.
	Like, I'm sorry, but that's not fair for the children, the young people who weren't born, who didn't make it.
	It's not fair to take from them.
	Right.
	And, you know, your grandfather, you know, he was asked to demand it or drafted to serve.
	And he went and he served and he faced down death and so on.
	It's like, well, you guys can't take a 25 percent cut in your pensions.
	You know, these guys faced withering bullets coming out of Japanese and German soldiers for years and had to stroll across landmines and do the Bataan Death March and show up in fairly inaccurate John Grisham novels.
	Forty years later.
	I mean, and yet you go to the boomers and say, you know, you guys wanted all this spending here.
	You didn't want to pay for it. It's not fair.
	It's not right. To pass the bill to your kids.
	Those guys, at some point, you've got to say to people, look, this is unfair to the young.
	The taxes weren't there to pay for it.
	Anyway, we're kind of getting off COVID, but there's no one who's willing to make a call for sacrifice because there's this petulant toddlerhood among a lot of the boomers, which is like, well, what do you mean my actions have consequences?
	What do you mean wanting more than I ever paid in taxes is going to actually have consequences?
	No, no, no, other people. I should smoke.
	You should get cancer. That's the way it should work, right?
	And that's tough for people.
	It... It's directly related to how to handle this crisis for COVID-19, and I'll tell you how.
	Oh, man. Good grapple hook.
	Thank you. Directly related.
	My grandfather, he enlisted right after Pearl Harbor.
	So there was a big slew, obviously.
	once Pearl Harbor happened, there were many people that enlisted.
	I had about six relatives on my, on my, um, on my mother's side that, that were in the United States, um, before, before the Holocaust.
	So a part of her family was in the United States before, and a part of it came, um, after.
	But, um, So the ones that were in the United States, the ones that were in the United States on my family's side, about six of them enlisted right after Pearl Harbor.
	Two of them were in the Navy, and the majority served in the Army in the European theater.
	One of them was in the Air Force as a bomber, a bombardier.
	Now, all of them enlisted.
	They viewed it as a duty to country, duty and honor to country.
	This is their generation.
	And now...
	Fast forward to my father's generation.
	He's the Vietnam era.
	Now, he enlisted. He served honorably in the Army.
	But the far majority draft dodged.
	Burned their draft card. Hated the government.
	Decided to go to Woodstock.
	That's their generation.
	And then it led to no sacrifice whatsoever.
	In any decade of their life.
	In any decade of their life.
	No sacrifice.
	Now, all of a sudden, you get to the Gen Xers.
	The Gen Xers, what did we see?
	Gulf War I. That's Desert Storm and Desert Shield.
	We saw 9-11 and had to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.
	The Gen Xers have served a lot and have done a lot for the United States.
	A lot more than the baby boomers did.
	And there's an anger within the Gen Xers now.
	It's like, we did duty and honor, just like our grandparents did.
	The far majority of the baby boomers did not.
	And that's where the problem comes in.
	Now fast forward to COVID-19.
	We need to take a lesson from the greatest generation.
	And that is, what was the sacrifice?
	We have to pierce through, get out of shelter in place, take off the damn mask, and move on with our lives, and hit it like D-Day.
	There will be people that lose their life.
	But if we do this with compassion, we will be able to save this country.
	And what is more important is saving the Constitution than worrying about one's individual life.
	And that is the big lesson learned from the greatest generation.
	And we need to start looking in the mirror and saying, you know what?
	We have been living too high on the hog.
	And you know what? It's time to pay the piper and get a little bit of balls and move forward and stop living in this realm of I need nanny state and to be protected and coddled.
	Well, there is no pain-free solution forward and nothing kills initiative more than imagining there's a pain-free solution forward, right?
	Right now, we can say, oh, well, you know, if we just open up again, then yes, some old people are going to die.
	Yes, without a doubt. Okay, so what happens if we don't?
	Well, if we don't, there isn't going to be any money to pay doctors.
	And if we don't, there isn't going to be any money for medication.
	And a whole lot more old people are going to die through that.
	Because right now we have this fantasy, like somehow people say, well, these 210,000 Americans who've died...
	Well, the number should have been zero.
	It's like, in what completely screwed up universe do you think you can get a virus that's disdangerous to old people and have no deaths?
	And again, Trump, you know, January, he's closing borders.
	January, he's setting up a task for it.
	This is back when the Democrats were still calling him racist and Nancy Pelosi was inviting everyone to come down to Chinatown and enjoy the food.
	God's sakes. So, there's this, and this to me is the boomer thing.
	It's like, the starting position should be zero deaths.
	And then anything that happens in deviation to that is absolutely terrible.
	And it's, you know, I mean, I'm 54 now, right?
	So I'm getting a little creakier and all of that.
	So my starting position is I should be exactly the same as when I was 18 years old.
	Okay, if I looked like this when I was 18, people would rush me to ER, right?
	What happened to him?
	He's a vampire. Hit the sunlight.
	But the starting position should not be perfection, and then everything, that's the boomer mentality.
	The starting, hey, I want to help the poor.
	Yeah, we can wage wars overseas.
	Yeah, I want giant pensions.
	Everything you want, and anything that is a pullback from everything that you want is somehow an insult to your dignity as a human being.
	That, to me, is completely...
	Insane. It'd be like me saying, well, yes, I do want to do a great show with Dr.
	Paul Cottrell while at the same time learning how to be a ballet dancer.
	You know, like, you've got to pick one.
	Like, this idea that there's limits.
	This is economic thinking, right?
	Everything you do is opportunity costs and all of that.
	And this, to me, is the frustrating thing.
	And you can see this coming out of the media in waves and waves and waves and waves.
	It's just like there are 214,000 deaths.
	Yeah. Yeah. Because China opened up its borders to international travel, because the World Health Organization said, everyone keep your borders open, and because everybody screamed that there was racism involved, and because the universities are so greedy for foreign students.
	Because foreign students up in Canada pay like five times what domestic students pay for university, that they're hugely happy to have international students come in, despite the fact that there's a pandemic going on.
	And so they scream bloody murder, and the media amplifies it, and the government fears it, and then you're anti-intellectual.
	So because there's all these power centers, you've got this Thousand Talents program that's helicoptering masses of bales of cash.
	I mean, people are like, oh my god, it's so terrible that Obama sent bales of cash to Iran.
	Yes, it was! And what about China sending massive amounts of cash to everybody and their dog in American academia and media?
	And it's up here in Canada, too.
	And it's like, that seems kind of important.
	So there's this weird belief that the standard is perfection and zero deaths.
	And it's like, well, then it's not a pandemic.
	They understand it's not a pandemic.
	And so, or like another standard of perfection is, well, you can't ever have controlled fires in forests because that's just burning things pointlessly.
	It's like, okay, well, you can have this perfection that there should never be a fire in a forest.
	Then what do you have? Well, you have the entire left coast of America on fire, which mysteriously stops at the border, even though the climate doesn't.
	Anyway, so this bothers me, this standard of perfection.
	So let's... Go to where we do have some imperfection coming out in these vaccines.
	We can close on this one. Antibody trial on Eli Lilly is paused because of potential safety concerns.
	The New York Times reported Tuesday that, and I quote, a government-sponsored clinical trial testing and antibody treatment made by the drug company Eli Lilly has been paused because of a potential safety concern.
	So, the trial was designed to test the benefits of the therapy on hundreds of people hospitalized with COVID-19.
	It did not say how many volunteers were sick or any details about their illnesses.
	That's not too unusual, because here's another standard.
	And this is why I'm magically with like a flaming gay lariat tying it into the previous topic.
	But the standard of perfection is, hey, man, don't sweat it, because we're going to get a vaccine, man.
	And when we get a vaccine, it's going to be perfect.
	And it's going to be great.
	And people think that the imperfection is only, well, you might still get COVID occasionally, you know, like a condom is effective, whatever percentage of the time, right?
	Or in my case, a Zeppelin.
	So people are going to have this standard like, well, you know, maybe it's only 95% effective.
	But no, no, no, that's not what vaccines are.
	I mean, that certainly is the case with vaccines.
	But maybe talk to people a little bit about what is going to happen with the law of large numbers in these vaccine rollouts.
	Because everybody's just got to get ready for this stuff.
	Because, again, you have the standard of perfection and anything that falls short of it.
	Is just horror on wheels?
	These things, it's going to be nasty.
	It's going to be nasty just based upon the number of people who are going to get it.
	There... We know that there's going to be adverse side effects to this vaccine, no matter what type of vaccine it is, either the Moderna one or the Oxford or Eli Lilly or Johnson& Johnson.
	But there is a theme here, and that is as they increase the numbers in the clinical trials, for clinical trials three or two, depending on which one we're talking about here, They are starting to see signs of unexplained illnesses.
	And that's showing up when they increase the number for the sample size.
	So we are starting to see a shadow of the black swan.
	And the black swan is the negative side effects, the vaccine injury or some sort of cytokine storm that makes this infection worse.
	There is research out there that shows that the vaccines could actually enhance a secondary infection.
	Secondary infection. Okay, so just break that out, because I think I get it.
	Okay, so you get a vaccine, and supposedly the vaccine is really giving you the infection, but it's not multiplying.
	It's an inert structure, right?
	It can't reproduce, but your immune system gets muscular in targeting it, right?
	Right. So now you have an antibody.
	Okay, now you get SARS-CoV-2, and it now creates a cytokine storm.
	It creates a reaction, an immune response so violent that it actually kills you.
	Or it makes the situation worse than actually just getting SARS-CoV-2.
	So yeah, if you want, this is a very amateur way of looking at it, but the cytokine storm is when your immune system can't quite figure out where the virus is and just starts attacking everything.
	So the way I picture it, probably incorrectly, is something like this.
	You're standing by a cliff and a whole bunch of bees swarm you.
	The bees aren't going to kill you, but when you try and beat them off and run away from them, you fall off the cliff.
	It's kind of like that. Basically.
	There's things called cytokines.
	You need certain cytokines for certain phases of the immune response.
	Well, they're in such high production levels that it's detrimental to the body.
	So you fall off the cliff.
	And you go into sepsis.
	This is part of the issue of you need to treat this early with corticosteroids and protease inhibitors.
	But back to the point here is that the power of numbers.
	So we are seeing with the clinical trials that there's a black swan there.
	So now if you force a program On a population in the United States of 330 million, and you only have 1% that has some level of vaccine injury, you have 3.3 million people that are on some spectrum of injury.
	That's a lot. It's a lot more than 214,000 dead.
	Right. So we're going to actually, the reality of the situation is this.
	A forced vaccine program is going to hurt more people than SARS-CoV-2 ever did.
	And that's assuming 1%, which is 1% is on a pretty thoroughly tested and vetted.
	This thing is in and out in less than a year, 10 years normally, and 94% of vaccines fail.
	So this is a real dice roll.
	There's going to be more people harmed by a forced vaccine program.
	Especially when you add in year after year after year, you know, because it's not just one administration.
	This is going to be administered, you know, to either annually, there's a debate on this, either annually or generationally, you know, like TB or, you know.
	Yeah, yeah. So the vaccine injury will grow over time.
	And that injury...
	It may not manifest itself in the first five years.
	The injury may manifest itself in the 10th year.
	And for those, listen, we're just two guys on the internet.
	I mean, Paul obviously has more expertise in that.
	Listen, no, but be skeptical, right?
	Be skeptical. So, you know, assume that everything we're saying, we, you know, just hand puppets of space aliens here to confuse human beings for our fun, right?
	So all you need to do to start to dig into this is you can go to your favorite search engine, Not Google.
	You can go to your favorite search engine, DuckDuckGo or Epic Search or whatever, right?
	That's what I use, DuckDuckGo.
	Yeah, so go to your favorite search engine and look up vaccine lawsuit immunity.
	Is that a fair place to start, Paul?
	Exactly. Because that's what people don't understand.
	See, if I put out a product that harms people, I'm going to lose my house, right?
	Because, you know, philosophy, on the other hand, just feels like it's harming you, but actually it's helping.
	It's kind of like surgery. Without anesthetic, while people are laughing at you and you're being rolled out of the hospital.
	The hospital being social media.
	I'm probably extending this metaphor too much, but anyway, analogy.
	So the important thing is that go look this up.
	If I put out something, I lose my house.
	They are specifically setting up legal structures all over the place, setting up legal structures so that if you get harmed by a vaccine, Maybe you can get a couple of hundred K. Max!
	Max! And that's, you know, even that's pretty, the vaccine funds that are set up and there's special immunities being set up, like the Section 230 immunities for social media, but even worse, right?
	The immunities that are being set up saying you can't sue these people.
	Well, oh, come on.
	Isn't that a... I mean, don't listen to us.
	Just listen to these basic warnings coming out of the legal system.
	Because these are like, hey, man, we're not putting this vaccine out there if we're going to be responsible for what happens.
	Are you crazy? The reality of the situation is in 1986, under the Reagan administration, Congress passed a law where it absolved any liability of the medical industry.
	That meant the hospitals, the doctor that administered the vaccine, or the pharmaceutical company that made it.
	And they created a super fund for anyone that was vaccine injured to be able to get, you know, basically pennies relative to the actual harm that they caused.
	So I think the average is around $80,000 that they can get from the super fund.
	Dr. Wakefield, I don't know if you've interviewed him, but Dr.
	Wakefield, he was the one that sounded the alarm about the MMR vaccine, and they destroyed his career.
	And there's a similar theme, that anyone that goes against the vaccine agenda or the vaccine...
	Orthodoxy, we could say, maybe.
	Orthodoxy, right. Yeah. Their career is destroyed.
	Now, he was an expert at gastrointestinal diseases, and he was able to create a show-a-link for children that had the MMR 3-in-1 facts causing spectral disorders, autism, and gastrointestinal issues.
	The CDC went after him like nothing and destroyed his career.
	They tried to destroy it. And he just released a new documentary called 1986 or 1986 Act.
	He's been doing the circuit.
	Mike Adams interviewed him.
	There's a pretty good interview by Mike Adams on Brighteon that you should watch.
	I'll try to get the link for you.
	Wakefield would be a great person to interview because he goes into detail on that circuit.
	Act and how it changed the industry and just swept all the liability under the rug and now the big pharma can do whatever they want and people need to get educated that this happened in 1986.
	We're not just saying maybe Congress would do this.
	Congress did it in 1986 and now there's some talk in the news that additional What protections will have to be put in place for this vaccine?
	So there's talk of maybe doing a modernization of the 1986 Act, and those modernizations, they aren't in our favor.
	That's in the favor of the big pharma.
	So it's only going to get worse.
	It's not going to get better. Well, it's something that Harry Brown used to say that...
	There will be people who will influence the government very, very strongly, but it's never going to be you, and it's never going to be me.
	And so if you want all those people to have that power, you know, because you think, oh, this government's going to do all this great stuff, and it's going to listen to me as a voter.
	Nope. They'll just take all this power and they'll just listen to the person with the deepest pockets or the most Biden-based blackmail material.
	Anyway, sorry, you were going to say? And going back to the idea of being captured, these agencies being captured, the CDC and the FDA are the ones that give the stamp of approval for the vaccines.
	Well, these individuals, when they retire, that revolving door goes right to Big Pharma.
	You know, so they are, one, suppressing people like Wakefield, Trying to sound the alarm and showing scientific data that this stuff is harming children and, you know, pushing that legislation to protect big pharma from any tort And I like the theory of vaccines.
	I mean, I'm very happy that, you know, my gorgeous visage is not ravaged by a moon crater deposit of smallpox.
	Like, that to me is a good thing.
	It just seems like there's quite a lot and they're quite clustered together.
	And I just, you know, I think the only thing more dangerous than questioning the vaccine orthodoxy is questioning whether we need 14 pounds of carbs a day to stay healthy.
	That's a whole other... One last question because I want to make sure I get something in here from the listeners.
	A couple of people have been commenting and saying that the PCR test...
	They have doubts about its accuracy, that sometimes people need to run it 40 times to find the markers and so on.
	How accurate in your thoughts is, I guess, the latest and greatest in COVID detection?
	Okay, so the epidemiologists are stating, this is what they're stating in medical school.
	I know this for a fact because of my particular track of education.
	They're stating that it's about 85% accurate.
	Now, here's the problem.
	The PCR is not telling you you have COVID-19.
	The PCR is saying that there is enough product in the epithelial tissue that they're sampling that they can multiply through the PCR technique to state that you have SARS-CoV-2.
	That's what it's saying.
	It's not saying you have COVID-19.
	You have to have further clinical presentation like Pneumonia, a fever, some sort of immune response, some other thing happening.
	So you could test positive for SARS-CoV-2.
	See, the way it's spun in the media and it's published on the John Hopkins database is kind of misleading.
	A positive case is for SARS-CoV-2, not COVID-19.
	That's an important point to understand.
	The other point is that a lot of the people, a lot of the testing, there's this, as you know, there's this swab, long swab that goes into the nasal cavity and it has to take tissue from the back of the throat area.
	Now, They're supposed to take six turns to get enough tissue.
	There's a lot of cases where they're actually only doing one turn.
	There's studies where it's saying six turns is the better method to have a higher accuracy, because if you only do one turn, you're actually getting more false negatives.
	Now this is worrisome.
	That's what you really don't want. Yeah, that's worrisome.
	Because what we're basically stating is that the numbers are higher than what they're publishing.
	Because they're not turning it six times.
	But they're in the community.
	Here's the problem with the alt news community.
	They know enough to be dangerous.
	So they get a piece of knowledge and they extrapolate it and not fully understand the nuances.
	Like PCR is confirming SARS-CoV-2 virus in the epithelial tissue.
	It is not confirming you have COVID-19.
	You need other clinical presentations.
	You could have SARS-CoV-2 and not have COVID-19 because COVID-19 is a disease.
	You could have a virus that's just sitting there in dormant or you have such a low load and you have such a constitution in terms of your immune system that you're asymptomatic and you don't have COVID-19.
	So, you know, it's a diagnostic tool.
	That is one piece of many other tests and clinical presentations that leads a physician to say this individual has COVID-19.
	And there is the nuance.
	But telling that to the public, because they have goldfish, you know...
	Memory and attention span.
	They just say, PCR test, it's testing, and that means I have it or I don't have it.
	No, you can test positive and not have COVID-19, but have SARS-CoV-2, and then you blow up their mind when you tell them that.
	Their mind just explodes, because they can't digest that difference.
	Everything's black and white with them.
	Oh, that's so funny, too, because I just heard a little boom coming from the chat window.
	I think that is... Yeah, his head definitely exploded.
	Somebody told me that. Okay. All right.
	Well, listen, I appreciate that.
	Of course, it was a great chat.
	I really appreciate the update.
	And I assume you will be now getting back to studying till approximately dawn 3000 AD. And yeah, so do you want to just give people, and I'll put the links in your rather mouthful of a website.
	I'll put your links in below.
	But if you wanted to mention it for those listening on the audio.
	Yes, my website is the-studio-reikovic.com.
	I have three, basically, channels that I publish my videos.
	My main channel is on YouTube.
	It's called Paul Cottrell.
	The backup channel on YouTube is Dr.
	Paul Cottrell, but I'm moving my catalog all to Brighteon, and that is Dr.
	Paul Cottrell on Brighteon.
	So please subscribe and follow this whole, trying to cover this whole journey of SARS-CoV-2 and beyond.
	All right. Well, thanks, Paul.
	A great pleasure to chat as always, and I'm sure we'll talk again soon.
	Take care. Thank you.
	Bye-bye. Well, thank you so much for enjoying this latest Free Domain Show on Philosophy.
	And I'm going to be frank and ask you for your help, your support, your encouragement, and your resources.
	Please like, subscribe, and share, and all of that good stuff to get philosophy out into the world.
	And also, equally importantly, go to freedomain.com forward slash donate.
	To help out the show, to give me the resources that I need to bring more and better philosophy to an increasingly desperate world.
	So thank you so much for your support, my friends.

▲