CHD Defender reporter, Dr. Michael Nevradakis, discusses BlackRock and Vanguard with RFK Jr in this episode. Read more in The Defender: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/corporate-vaccine-mandates-passports-blackrock-vanguard/
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| Hey everybody, welcome to the podcast. | |
| My guest today is Michael Neverdakis, PhD. | |
| Dr. | |
| Michael Neverdakis, who is one of our regular journalists for The Defender. | |
| He's coming to us from Athens, Greece, where he's based. | |
| And we're going to talk about his most recent article from The Defender, which I found fascinating, which is the role of the two biggest financial houses in the world in profiting from the pandemic. | |
| have profited enormously. | |
| And one of the opening salvos of your wonderful article, and I urge people to take a look at it, is your observation that many of our largest corporations Have dropped the COVID mandates as soon as the Supreme Court denied Biden administration's COVID plan, essentially. | |
| Among the corporations that immediately dropped mandates were Boeing. | |
| General Electric and Starbucks, but there were a number of companies that did not. | |
| And I'm going to actually read this list of companies, which is going to take maybe one minute. | |
| But it's interesting because the thing that they all have in common, as you pointed out, Is that they are owned in majority or in large part by these two big financial houses, which control a huge part of the world economy. | |
| Between them, I think they're worth $15 trillion, which is about three quarters of the U.S. gross national product. | |
| It's triple the GDP of Germany, and they are growing and growing. | |
| Let's just list these companies. | |
| American Express, Anthem, AstraZeneca, AT&T, Capital One, Carhartt, Centene, Chevron, Sigma, Cisco, Citigroup, Columbia, Sportswear, CVS, Deloitte, Delta Airlines, | |
| DoorDash, Eli Lilly, Emergent BioSolutions, Equinox Group, Facebook, Ford Motor Company, Frontier Airlines, The Gap, Gilead Sciences, Goldman Sachs, Google, ASRO, Hawaiian Airlines, | |
| Hershey, Hats, Humana, IBM, Intel, Jeffrey's, Johnson& Johnson, Kraft Heinz, Lyft, McDonald's, MGM Resorts, Microsoft, Moderna, Morgan Stanley, NBC Universal, Netflix, The New York Times Company, | |
| Nike, Novartis, Pfizer, Pioneer Natural Resources, PwC, Roblox, Roche, Salesforce, TJX, T-Mobile, Twitter, Tyson Foods, Uber, United Airlines, UPS, Valero, Verizon, Viacom, Walgreens, Walmart, Walt Disney, Warner Media, and The Washington Post. | |
| And those are only a few of the companies they own. | |
| You also point out that these two huge investment firms are also, they own companies that are at the spear tip for pushing for vaccine passports and also that stand to profit greatly from making and controlling and orchestrating vaccine passports. | |
| One of those is Microsoft, of course. | |
| And who are the other ones? | |
| There's a few others that I found. | |
| There may be more, but the ones that I found and that I mentioned in the article include Apple, which has been involved in developing the Apple Wallet, which several US states and some countries are using. | |
| As part of their rollout of digital wallets, as they're calling them. | |
| There's MasterCard, which has also been involved in similar types of initiatives. | |
| Oracle is another. | |
| And Thales Group is another, which is a French defense contractor partially owned by the French government, but also it has its own separate shareholders as well. | |
| And they are behind the development of some of these vaccine passports, as they're called as well. | |
| One of the things you point out is that those two companies actually own each other, too. | |
| Vanguard owns is, you know, the major shareholder in BlackRock, and BlackRock is one of the principal shareholders in Vanguard. | |
| So it's really kind of one massive monopoly company that now owns a huge portion of the global economy. | |
| That's very true. | |
| You mentioned before that these two companies alone control over $15 trillion in assets. | |
| That's predicted by Bloomberg to surpass $20 trillion by 2028 and has led various analysts to call these companies, which are essentially almost operating as one company because of the fact that they also have this cross which are essentially almost operating as one company because of the fact that they also have this cross ownership with each other as kingmakers, because they have such a significant share in so many companies, like the | |
| That they exert a lot of influence over votes that take place and over presumably decisions that are made within these companies. | |
| Bloomberg actually called BlockRock, specifically back in 2020, the fourth branch of government, which was an interesting way of putting it, and especially considering the source, which is Bloomberg. | |
| But there's this very strange cross-ownership where Vanguard is the biggest shareholder in BlackRock, and BlackRock is the biggest shareholder in Vanguard. | |
| And then it makes you wonder, well, can we dig any deeper than that to get any more information about the Yeah, I think. | |
| Individuals who were trying to, in a way, defend Vanguard and say, well, it's not really like that. | |
| Their ownership in BlackRock and in these companies is through mutual funds and through this and through that. | |
| But it's been confirmed by many different sources. | |
| I'm not the first person in the world that's reported that That one company owns the other company. | |
| And all one has to do is really just look up any publicly available information. | |
| Who are the top shareholders in such and such company? | |
| Who are the top shareholders in Vanguard? | |
| Who are the top shareholders in BlackRock? | |
| The other company, you know, if you're looking for Vanguard, BlackRock shows up. | |
| If you're looking for BlackRock, Vanguard shows up. | |
| So regardless of how some people may try to spin it, it's obvious that these two companies are closely linked and their fortunes are closely linked to each other. | |
| And then we see inevitably in that list that you read a few moments ago, whether it's American Express or CVS or Microsoft or Lyft or Tyson Foods or any of these companies on that list, Invariably, what those companies on that list, almost all of them have in common, is both Vanguard and BlackRock are in the top 10 shareholders of those companies. | |
| And actually, usually, it's the top five. | |
| So there were very few cases where only Vanguard or only BlackRock would appear in a top 10, but usually it was both. | |
| So we're talking about significant power across not just a handful of companies, but really Dozens upon dozens of companies, which just that list that you read a few moments ago is, it's probably just the tip of the iceberg. | |
| And those are just the companies I was able to find that have, at some level, a vaccine mandate for their employees and that also have this very close connection to these two very large asset managers. | |
| You know, one of the other interesting and kind of sinister aspects up there is, Ownership compendium, this cornucopia of Fortune 500 companies that they control, is that many of those companies are ostensibly in competition with each other in the marketplace. | |
| But when you trace who actually owns those companies, they're owned by the same people. | |
| Pepsi and Coke are both owned by BlackRock. | |
| Microsoft, Google, Apple are ultimately owned by BlackRock. | |
| And so then you have to wonder, is this illusion that we are supposed to believe in a competitive capitalism, is it actually just corporate crony capitalism that is all with any sort of competition is really just an illusion? | |
| I think there's a lot of terms that could be used to describe this phenomenon that you just laid out for us. | |
| I wouldn't say that competitive capitalism is one of them at all. | |
| It's obvious that if you have Coke and Pepsi or Google, Apple and Microsoft, Supposedly in competition for each other, but their top shareholders are the same companies that really the level of competition that actually can possibly exist between these companies is minuscule at best. | |
| I would call it perhaps crony capitalism. | |
| I would call it perhaps corporatism or oligopoly. | |
| But it's definitely not capitalism for all of its flaws, and I'm not going to take a position for or against it, but for all of the flaws that capitalism has as an economic system, the original idea and theory behind it is that of competition. | |
| And I think that we're not seeing that in reality, where you have very, very large companies, and those large companies are owned by even larger companies. | |
| Asset management companies, and then the two largest ones of all also happen to own each other. | |
| So I don't think there's any way that that could be spun as a competitive situation. | |
| Perhaps the most disturbing part of their ownership. | |
| Compendium is their almost total control of all the media, of virtually all the newspapers in this country, all of the television stations, all the radio stations, and also all the ways that Americans communicate with each other have to go through the funnel of these two multi-trillion dollar asset managers. | |
| Let me just... | |
| I mentioned a small number, just the tip of the iceberg of the media outlets that are purportedly competitors, but are actually all working for BlackRock and Vanguard in their worldview. | |
| Fox News, CBS, Comcast. | |
| CNN, Disney, ABC, Gannett, USA Today, and 250 newspapers throughout the United States. | |
| Sinclair Media, whose television stations reach about 72% of the American people, and Graham Media Group, which is Slate, Foreign Policy, etc., And, you know, the political power that they get through this and the capacity to craft the narrative, including the COVID narrative, is something that I think should alarm anybody who cares about freedom of speech and democracy, ultimately. | |
| This is a, it's an oligarchy of control. | |
| It's a system that is bound to create it. | |
| You know, an aristocracy of wealth and power that controls the rest of the entire now American experience. | |
| I agree, and I think that's why it was so significant that Bloomberg itself, an arm of the media system, called BlackRock the fourth branch of government two years ago, because typically the fourth branch of government has been the news media and journalism, at least that's been... | |
| What, in theory, people have said is the role of journalism and the news media to act as the fourth branch of government and to act as a watchdog over the other three branches of government. | |
| And I think that if you have a situation like the one that you just described, where BlackRock has shares in ABC, CNN, NBC, USA Today, Sinclair Media, and so many other media outlets, Fox News as well and CBS... I don't think there's any way that one can reasonably expect that those media outlets are going to do any sort of serious reporting or, | |
| in particular, any sort of serious investigative reporting about those companies that are their major shareholders. | |
| So it creates a situation where not only is there already a lack of Competition in what we are told is the marketplace. | |
| But then there's also a lack of oversight as well, because the supposed watchdog is owned by the same entity as well. | |
| So I think it's a very dangerous situation for a democracy to find itself in a situation where these two gigantic funds not only exert influence over A large percentage of the Fortune 500 companies, but then they also ensure, in a sense, positive media coverage because they also own significant shares of media outlets that you would think they're competitors with each other. | |
| You would think that MSNBC and Fox are two very different outlets, and yet their main stockholder is BlockRock. | |
| So that's a dangerous situation in my view. | |
| Yeah, I mean, Americans largely divide themselves as adherence to kind of the Fox worldview or the CNN worldview or the MSNBC worldview. | |
| And I think most of them would be surprised to know that, you know, all of those outlets are controlled by one company and that the constraints of our debate are entirely taking place within guardrails. | |
| That are controlled by these huge financial behemoths who are making sure that although there can be disagreement within that, you know, within that pasture, that we're all kept in safe constraints that don't threaten the prevailing economic model from which they're profiting. | |
| Absolutely. | |
| It's going to be very difficult in such a situation to get any sort of critical reporting that questions this economic model, essentially, and then that questions everything that is associated with that economic model. | |
| I'm actually, at heart, I'm a media scholar. | |
| I have a PhD in media studies. | |
| Even if I If I enjoy practicing journalism, anyone that has studied, even at the undergraduate level of media and communication, will know what agenda setting is, the theory of agenda setting, and that the idea that powerful news organizations have the opportunity to set the news agenda, In other words, sort of determine what people think about in the first place, which by extension also means what they're not paying attention to, what they're not thinking about, | |
| by choosing which stories and which topics and which issues to give attention to or to not give attention by choosing which stories and which topics and which issues to And then, of course, this leads to what we call the news cycle and the stories that make it into the news cycle that drop out of the news cycle. | |
| So I would not expect a situation like this to allow for any sort of real critical commentary or any sort of critical comment about the very economic system that has allowed this level of concentration to take place. | |
| And this is, by the way, not to get too far off subject, but it's not just an American phenomenon. | |
| And I think that what we've seen in many parts of the world, certainly in Europe, where I am, is that beginning in the 1980s and 1990s, and continuing to the present, this high level of deregulation in the media has brought media outlets across this high level of deregulation in the media has brought media outlets across different countries into the hands of fewer and fewer companies, and in many cases into the hands of companies like | |
| They, by all means, do not limit themselves just to the US. | |
| And the same can also be said about big tech and the influence that Google and other major platforms, Twitter and so forth, have in how the public gets its information nowadays. | |
| And we're seeing right now with everything that is going on in the world around us how these companies can flex their muscle and actually shut off media outlets from certain parts of the world and from certain origins because they might be presenting a narrative that is a little bit different than what they wish the public to be receiving. | |
| And big tech If we look again at who their shareholders are, we once again see, in companies like Google, in companies like Facebook, and so forth, we see these two names, BlackRock and Vanguard, showing up. | |
| And just to put this in historical context, when radio was invented at the beginning of the century, Congress recognized that radio was going to be the way that people communicated with each other, and that America Americans got information. | |
| And, you know, one of the key assumptions of a democracy was, at the beginning of our democracy, a debate between Hamilton and Madison and Adams, on one side and Jefferson on the other, where Jefferson thought everybody should be given, you know, which at that point was all males, the capacity to vote. | |
| And Madison, Adams, and Hamilton said, no, it should only go to the landed gentry. | |
| And they didn't say that because... | |
| They were anti-democratic, but they understood that people who were uneducated and most people who didn't have land at that time were uneducated. | |
| And that they would easily, without education, without proper information, that cohort would easily fall to the seductions of demagogues. | |
| And they would give away the constitutional rights that the revolutionary generation had won for us. | |
| So they said, we can't allow uneducated people to vote because they will fall. | |
| The demagogues, using these alchemy as a demagoguery, We'll be able to seduce them into relinquishing their constitutional rights. | |
| And so one of the things that happened in Virginia and Massachusetts and all of these other states, the state constitutions, as Jefferson made the argument I agree with you, but the remedy is not to deprive the people of their vote, | |
| unproperty people of their vote, or rather to forcibly educate them, to make sure that the entire population is educated and able to process information critically, to read and write, to think for themselves. | |
| And so the states, like Massachusetts and Virginia, did something that nobody had done in history, which is to mandate public education. | |
| And to require people to do that. | |
| So in 1926, when radios started proliferating, Congress took a look at that and said, we will lose our democracy if we let this potent form of communication fall into the hands of, you know, large corporations who will operate it not for the good of democracy, but for their own profit. | |
| So they passed a law, which we now call the Fairness Doctrine, The beginning of the Federal Communications Act required that TV and radio must stay separate from newspaper ownership, and that it had to be, there couldn't be national stations, that they had to be locally controlled so that you get a multiplicity of voices and of attitudes. | |
| And that fell apart in 1986. | |
| Ronald Reagan essentially abolished the Fairness Doctrine as a favor to the big studio heads who had gotten them elected and who wanted to control all of the media. | |
| And as a result of that, we now have, I think, four companies that control all of our radio, all of our television, all of our newspapers. | |
| And as I said, the billboards and those companies are now under the control largely of these two financial behemoths. | |
| And the political power that has accrued to BlackRock and to Vanguard, which you talk about in this article, is extraordinary. | |
| They basically have the capacity now to manufacture wealth. | |
| They were, because of their political clout and their media control, President Obama designated them in the Treasury Department in 2008. | |
| To buy up all the toxic assets from the 2007-2008 financial collapse, which was like printing money for those companies. | |
| And in 2020, BlackRock received another no-bid contract from the U.S. Treasury to manage the $454 billion fund under the Coronavirus Relief and Economic Security Act, which is called CARES, where businesses adversely impacted by COVID lockdowns So, | |
| you know, they get the government contracts, they get to basically print money, and now they're profiting from the lockdown by using all of their surplus cash to buy up virtually an unprecedented purchase of residential real estate in this country, | |
| where they're buying whole neighborhoods and all regions, and they're displacing people from their homes, turning them into rental properties and bringing Absolutely. | |
| I mentioned this in my piece, but it warrants really its own separate article. | |
| BlackRock and Vanguard have been on a buying spree, in some instances buying entire neighbourhoods. | |
| And in many cases, it's holding on to these houses. | |
| So this creates an artificial shortage in the marketplace, which, as you can imagine, drives up the prices of both rentals and home purchases as well. | |
| So it's artificially driving up the prices on the marketplace. | |
| And as you can imagine, Vanguard and BlackRock having the ability to actually buy massive amounts of properties stand to benefit from a real estate market where those property values are then going up. | |
| So it's a very similar strategy all across the different sectors of the economy that they are operating in, which has the common thread is that it's so anti-competitive. | |
| If we go back to the media for a moment, you mentioned the fairness doctrine. | |
| That eliminated this diversity of voices that previously one could find on the public airwaves. | |
| There were a couple of other laws as well that went into the wastebasket at around the same time. | |
| One, I believe, was called the Equal Time Rule or the Equal Time Act, which basically prevented broadcast stations from operating sort of as a... | |
| A one-party platform. | |
| So if they brought a candidate on from one party, they had to offer equal time to the candidate from the other party if it was requested and so forth. | |
| And then there were also ownership caps. | |
| And those began to be watered down in the 80s as well. | |
| And then they were further watered down in the 90s with the Telecommunications Act of 96. | |
| And then there's been further loosening of those restrictions. | |
| And now actually major radio groups are asking for these caps to, in some cases and in some markets, to be repealed completely. | |
| So you could have a situation in the not too distant future where the same company, the exact same company, owns all of the commercial stations in the market, and it would be perfectly legal. | |
| And then if we go up the ladder, we see that whether it's company A or company B or company C that owns these radio or TV stations, like we mentioned before, Sinclair Media, they operate a lot of the local TV stations in local markets around the U.S., | |
| There's all these videos one could find on YouTube and on other platforms like this that show snippets of newscasts from all sorts of different places, whether it's like Tucson, Arizona, or Boise, Idaho, or Burlington, Vermont. | |
| Same script, same news story, same exact language. | |
| And it makes sense. | |
| They're owned by the same company. | |
| But then whether we're talking about Sinclair or any of these other media owners, going up the ladder, we see that above them, companies like BlackRock And Vanguard are major shareholders there. | |
| So it is a danger for our democracy. | |
| It is a danger for our economy, as we saw with the housing example. | |
| And it all comes back to a situation that is grossly anti-competitive. | |
| For the sake of our listeners, I know you know this, but let me just paint a portrait of a different view of America and the way things were under the Fairness Doctrine when it was still operating. | |
| There was a case, and I think it was in the 70s or early 80s, but it was a case against one of the networks Pursued by a large group like the American Heart Association or an Asthma Association because they were airing ads for Mustang, which was the most fuel-inefficient automobile at that time. | |
| The group that was, you know, the asthma advocacy group, they're advertising something that is making our lives more difficult. | |
| And we need extra time. | |
| We need a guarantee equal time so that we can explain why that automobile is actually hurting another group of Americans. | |
| And the Supreme Court upheld that. | |
| And so the networks, it was recognized that the airwaves were owned by the public. | |
| The same as our rivers and our shorelines are owned by the public, that the government could license those networks to use the airwaves, but ultimately they had to use them for a public purpose. | |
| And so they said to the network, you have to reserve 30 minutes a day to tell the Americans the truth about the news. | |
| And that's why at that point in history, you had these really respected news anchors and producers of the evening news who were untouchable because you had Walter Cronkite and David Brinkley and Chad Huntley and Newt Minow and all these people who were managing the news stations and who were managing them for the American public and who were making sure that what they put | |
| on the news was actually truthful and was not ideologically driven. | |
| You could talk against Vietnam, as Walter Cronkite did at that time, without The American people were listening and they believed the news. | |
| The news stations were money losers for all the networks. | |
| They were losing huge amounts of money, but they needed to operate those news stations in order to maintain their licenses to sell entertainment for the other 23 and a half hours a day. | |
| They sacrificed at one time at 6 o'clock, because Congress told them there's got to be one time at night when every American can watch TV and can find out the facts are relevant to policymaking and to our democracy, and you need to give them those facts. | |
| The networks took their hands off the news departments. | |
| They appointed really highly respected individuals to run them, and then they didn't touch them. | |
| And they understood they were going to lose millions of dollars a year telling the news, but that was part of the condition of keeping their license. | |
| To do that service for democracy. | |
| And then in the, you know, after 1986, the networks, when Reagan changes the law, the networks started telling their news departments, you know, the bean counters in these networks, you got to make money, you got to get audiences. | |
| And, you know, if it bleeds, it leads. | |
| And gossip, and, you know, who's going out with Brad Pitt? | |
| All of this became news because it was drawing viewership and increasingly ideologically driven news hours, which have now polarized and divided our country. | |
| But that's not the way it started. | |
| That's not the way it operated. | |
| And Americans were much better informed and much better at democracy at that point. | |
| The monopolization of the evening news issues, where they've got this kind of fake, you know, fight between CNN and Fox News, which is all orchestrated by, you know, BlackRock to maximize profits by extracting, by commoditizing everything, including the news, is something that most Americans should be regarding as really sinister, exploited, and dangerous. | |
| Absolutely. | |
| And just to add to that, if you look at cable news, like CNN and Fox News and MSNBC, they're not even under any sort of FCC regulation at this time, even to the limited extent that broadcast over-the-air networks like CBS and NBC and ABC are. | |
| So they can get away with even more What their broadcast counterparts can, but even what their broadcast counterparts can do today is significantly more relaxed from a regulatory standpoint than it was up until the 1980s. | |
| So it's created this sort of perfect storm where you have what I would Even describe as blatantly ideological. | |
| I hesitate to even call it news a lot of the time. | |
| It's commentary. | |
| It's a lot of things, but it's not hard news reporting, unfortunately, and it's not, in many cases, truthful reporting. | |
| If we look at the internet, the internet is not regulated in the same way that, let's say, telephone networks were regulated way back when. | |
| And I'm not saying that the government needs to come in and start censoring. | |
| Obviously, there's a lot of views on the internet that do not get onto the airwaves or cable. | |
| But there is, however, something sinister about the fact that the major pipelines that people use to connect to the internet are companies that in many cases are associated with what we call the mainstream media and in turn associated with BlackRock. | |
| And then what we've seen now in the European Union is the EU has net neutrality and yet they've blocked entire news websites From the entire continent, from, you know, most members of the public being able to access those sites, just because they were reporting a narrative different from the one that most EU governments want to present to the public. | |
| So there's a dangerous situation And there's a lot of holes from a regulatory standpoint that are allowing this to take place. | |
| And I think, again, it comes back to the fact that if all of these major internet service providers, major media outlets, et cetera, are operated or are owned by... | |
| A couple of companies like Vanguard and BlackRock. | |
| Those companies, if their total valuation is larger by far than, for instance, the GDP of Germany, which is Europe's largest economy and most powerful economy, That shows you just how strong these companies are. | |
| They have larger GDPs. | |
| If their valuation was a GDP, they have a larger GDP than most countries in the world. | |
| So this means they have massive political influence. | |
| And he gave those examples before from the Obama administration and from 2020, no bid contracts and just receiving these major, major In a situation like that, I would think that politicians would be very reluctant to enforce a heavy hand of regulation against those same companies. | |
| Yeah, I mean, it goes back to, like I said, when they, when the news divisions became profit centers. | |
| They went from independent, untouchable entities within, they were part of kind of the licensing fee. | |
| You're going to tell the news, the real news. | |
| And they became profit centers for the network. | |
| And the network came, bean counters came in and said, you've got to get more viewership. | |
| So put on more about Hollywood gossip, put more on violence, put anything that... | |
| It's going to make more viewership and allow us to sell more ad revenue. | |
| You get eyeballs on your site. | |
| Consider this. | |
| If the evening news put something on the air that was not true, any viewer could petition the FCC to pull their license and basically destroy the network. | |
| So they were terrified of putting anything on that even I'm not being true. | |
| And you had appointed to run these news divisions, the most respectable journalists in the world, who would fact check, who would make sure that what they were putting on was important for Americans to understand in order to make rational choices about political policies, about foreign policies. | |
| And they had to make sure it was true. | |
| If it wasn't true, then the FCC could come in And pull their license and give it to somebody else. | |
| And, you know, now it's a wild west and there's no regulation of the cable news and there's almost no regulation of the airwaves. | |
| That's very true. | |
| And I think it also, you know, we've been talking about the economics of it all, but it has major societal effects, in my opinion. | |
| I think that we've in recent years, even before COVID, We're seeing a trend in the U.S. certainly and also I've seen this in many European countries as well. | |
| Society is just more polarized and people just sort of join one camp or the other camp and they find not just the media outlet that in a sense becomes sort of like their echo chamber But also, | |
| they kind of begin to, in the same way that the media might sensationalize the news or turn what they call their news coverage into a shouting match or into an us versus them type of proposition, that kind of trickles down to the public. | |
| There's no room in that sort of landscape for reasoned debate. | |
| You've brought up the fairness doctrine. | |
| When you hear multiple viewpoints on the same station, that encourages reasoned debate. | |
| That reasoned debate, I think, has gone out the window not just in the media, but unfortunately also quite often in broader society as well. | |
| And it leads to all sorts of just ugly situations where over any given issue, whether it's Vaccine mandates or whether it's what's going on now in the Ukraine and Russia, it leads to just nasty situations where everyone sort of just picks up their bowl and goes home and no one wants to hear the other side out and try to find some common ground. | |
| Also identify the areas where they disagree and agree to disagree. | |
| There's a lot less of that, and so I feel it creates a toxic situation for society in addition to being a toxic situation economically. | |
| Here's something that people should think about, and it's exactly along the lines of what you're saying. | |
| There's this illusion that CNN and Fox are opposite sides of a political spectrum. | |
| If you actually look at the debate that occurs there, there's a lot of poison, there's a lot of smoke, there's a lot of anger and vitriol and name-calling. | |
| But both networks, if you look at their coverage of COVID, it was almost identical. | |
| There was no experts on what are the lockdowns going to do to the economy. | |
| There's nobody going on and saying, let's look at the mask, the science. | |
| Let's say, do masks work? | |
| You know, let's get some people on here. | |
| There's hundreds of studies about this. | |
| Let's get some of the scientists on to talk about alternative views. | |
| Social distancing. | |
| The vaccines, et cetera. | |
| There are many, many experts who differed. | |
| There were people like Pierre Corey and Peter McCulloch from the beginning who were saying we should be looking at these repurposed medications. | |
| There was not a spot for them on either network. | |
| Now, recently, there's a few journalists like Dr. | |
| Carlson and others who have let their voices on, but it was in the very tail end of the COVID pandemic. | |
| That these alternative voices on one of the networks were given airtime. | |
| Throughout the whole time, they were all for warp speed, they were all for lockdowns, they were all for masking, all for social distancing. | |
| Nobody's asking about the impact on the poor. | |
| Nobody's asking about the impact on children. | |
| None of that was discussed on either network. | |
| The debates that they do have, which are filled with this smoke and fire and anger, they're ridiculous debates. | |
| They're debates about whether or not we should build a wall. | |
| You know, with one side saying yes, one side, listen, if you wanted to end the immigration problem in this country, there's an easy way to do it overnight. | |
| Put one employer in jail for hiring illegal immigrants, you know, and it's over. | |
| There's no jobs left. | |
| You prosecute people for illegal, you don't have to build a wall, you don't have to do anything, you don't have to have patrols on the Southwest. | |
| It's all kind of contrived. | |
| Debates about Black Lives Matter, etc. | |
| They're all on the fringes and don't go to the central concerns of Americans at this point in history. | |
| You know, the central concerns, there's always a consensus right now in the Ukraine. | |
| There's no difference between the Fox coverage of the Ukraine and CNN coverage. | |
| Everybody wants to go in and have a war. | |
| It was the same thing when we went into Iraq. | |
| The voices of dissent, of real dissent, are not occurring in our society. | |
| And if you hear incredible journalism, if you're tracking how all of these people are owned by the same financial entities, It is a good explanation of why that never happens. | |
| So, thank you. | |
| Thank you very much. | |
| We all follow your writings on Children's Health Defense, on the Defender, and I urge you, if you haven't read Michael Neverdoch's writing, Dr. | |
| Michael Neverdoch, please go to the Defender, read his recent article, Corporate Vaccine Mandates and Vaccine Passports, brought to you by BlackRock Thank you, Michael. | |
| Thank you for having me. |