Aug. 14, 2021 - The Political Cesspool - James Edwards
50:21
20210814_Hour_3
|
Time
Text
You're listening to the Liberty News Radio Network, and this is the Political Cesspool.
The Political Cesspool, known across the South and worldwide as the South's foremost populist conservative radio program.
And here to guide you through the murky waters of the Political Cesspool is your host, James Edwards.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's now my esteemed pleasure to welcome a long-time acquaintance, but first-time guest to the program to tackle this most sensitive of topics.
He is Jean-François.
JF, help me with the pronunciation of the last name, please.
Absolutely.
Jean-François Garrier P. There he said it, ladies and gentlemen.
And he is a biologist and doctor of neuroscience.
He obtained his doctorate at the University of Montreal and continued a career in biomedical research at Duke University as a postdoctoral researcher and later has led research in the private clinical sector in neuropsychiatry.
He has received multiple awards for his contributions to science and public education, including the Next Generation Award by the Society for Neuroscience.
His works are published in the top scientific journals of his field, including PNAS and Nature Neuroscience.
And his book, The Revolutionary Phenotype, has been praised by some of the top biologists of our time, including Robert Trivers of Rutgers University and Manolis Kellis from MIT.
JF, it's great to have you on, particularly to talk about this topic, which the audience has demanded, and we look forward to your informed opinion.
It's a pleasure to be here.
Well, as I told you, my friend earlier, we sent out an email and we sent out an announcement that you would be coming on and asked the audience for some questions because this has been a topic that they wanted some answers on.
And so we were then flooded.
We don't know how many we can get to, but we'll get to as many as we can.
Let's start with this.
Whether it was man-made or developed naturally, are COVID-19 and its variants as dangerous as are claimed?
I think that there is some degree of exaggeration in the way we are treating this data.
This is not usually how we count death for the flu or for any other respiratory viruses.
What we're seeing on dashboards that are getting published are accumulations of people who have died while having tested positive for COVID.
But when we dig into the details, we find a lot of stories where some people may have died from something completely unrelated, such as a cancer, but they just happen to be testing positive for COVID because in their late days they were at the hospital and there was lots of COVID infections there.
So I definitely think that the numbers that we see is not an actual number, but is more a upper bound.
I think that it's the worst possible scenario that truly millions of people have died from COVID.
What's most likely happening is that because of our incentives in hospitals, we're actually encouraging doctors to find COVID in each of their patients.
Because if you can find that the person who just died on your bed had COVID, you're going to get more funding from the government.
And so we have that incentives built in the insurance system and in the government support system for hospital systems that leads every possible COVID case to be highly interesting to identify for doctors.
It's deplorable and we have to be careful therefore with the public data available.
That being said, I'm not denying the existence of COVID or the fact that COVID has killed some people, but I think that we're looking at it in the most exaggerated and the most hysterical way.
And it's very dangerous where society is headed with that kind of hysteria.
That is a fantastic answer, and it is an objective answer.
This is what we were getting at with Tim Murdoch in the previous hour.
He was looking at this from a more socio-political point of view, whereas you're looking at it from a medical point of view, somebody who has been in this particular field.
And this is what we want.
We want objectivity.
We don't want zealotry.
We don't want someone who has an agenda.
We want honest answers.
And I'm asking honest questions that have been submitted by our audience.
And I'm trying not to be leading in any way because we want someone on here who can answer, as you are doing, and as you have done, these questions without any agenda except for a seeking of the truth.
So let's get to this question.
Why are the official health organizations so disorganized in their advice and approach when the viruses are nothing new?
For example, we see contradictory advice on masks, what fabric to wear with or without vents, the necessity of gloves and goggles and respirators, the proper amount of social distance, three feet, six feet, etc.
Quarantining groceries.
Why is this something that has not been, what's the word they use in achievement testing, standardized?
Why has this not been standardized?
The narrative and the guidelines and the restrictions seem to change on a daily basis.
Because what we're seeing with the public response to COVID is the attempt at standardizing.
And believe it or not, we have government funding of science for decades now, sending hundreds of millions of dollars through the NIH.
I've been the benefactor of these awards, by the way.
I've been funded by the NIH to do some work in the U.S.
And this system of funding has never really directed people toward understanding what should be the optimal response against respiratory viruses.
Never before has it been the case that we have considered it a social obligation of all of society to somehow be pursuing the optimization of our response to a virus that comes in.
It's always been a case of viruses come in and people react with their individual decision making with their doctor.
And that has been worked out very well.
I mean, doctors are trustable sources.
Since the last few decades, we have doctors that can actually improve our health when we make decisions with them.
But the kind of response you see with COVID is totally different.
It's at the level of what we call public health.
And public health is a bizarre place that bases a lot of decision on very little data.
I think, for example, of the early shifts of Fauci around masks and masks don't work at the beginning and we have to keep them for nurses and then masks work because a new study has emerged.
Believe it or not, a new study has emerged indicating that masks might work with COVID, which was not available before.
In decades of research, never has it been the case that we made an effort to discover this and to really standardize in advance, as you've suggested.
So essentially, we have public health authorities that respond to a demand of society.
It's like people turn to them to know what to do.
And most importantly, politicians turn to them to know what to do.
But they don't know what to do because the science is minimal.
I'm looking at the evidence on which the mask policies are based, for example.
We're talking about two different studies within the last 20 years, one of which having been done on a COVID-like virus, one of which having been done on influenza, both of which included less than 200 people in some specific circumstances testing whether the masks work in Australia, in households, between family members, and others looking at it in the lab.
So of course you end up with these small studies that are ridiculously small compared to anything we would do with pharmaceuticals, for example.
And yet at this low standard of evidence, we have the public health authorities thinking that they are entitled to make a statement, a moral and political statement about what people should do, based on evidence that if it was presented to you by a pharmaceutical would be absolutely rejected.
Ladies and gentlemen, did we pick the right guy for this particular topic or did we pick the right guy?
All praise be to Jean-François for being with us tonight.
Like our previous guest in the second hour, he had his own show tonight as well.
And he's doing double duty tonight.
And that is not an easy thing to do.
We thank him for that.
And he's with us for the remainder of the hour.
We're just getting started.
Stay tuned.
As the United States boldly stepped forward in the glorious light provided by its new constitution in 1787, the nations of the earth were in awe of the newfound strength and hope of this free land.
Today, the nation stands at a crossroads.
A divergence from the original intent put forth in the United States Constitution has brought grave threats to our beloved nation.
A miracle is needed if the United States is to survive.
That miracle is again the pure application of the United States Constitution.
I'm Scott Bradley.
In my To Preserve the Nation book and lecture series, I bring forth truths that will help raise up a new generation of statesmen like those noble Americans who founded this land.
Vigorous application of these principles will invigorate and restore the nation, and we may become again the freest, most prosperous, most respected, and happiest nation on earth.
Visit topreservethenation.com to begin that restoration.
Okay, girls, about finished with your lesson on money?
Daddy, what is a buy-sell spread for gold coins?
Well, when you sell a gold coin to a coin shop that's worth, say, $1,200, you don't actually get $1,200.
But don't worry, we're members of UPMA now, so we don't have to worry about that.
Daddy, why somebody steals that gold?
We don't have any gold at the house.
It's stored safely in the UPMA vault, securely and insured.
But the S ⁇ P 500 outperformed gold.
Daddy, gold is a bad investment.
Some people do think of it that way, but actually, gold is money.
And as members of the United Precious Metals Association, we can use our gold at any store, just like a credit card.
Or I can ask them to drop it right into Mommy and Daddy's bank account, because we're a UPMA member family.
Find out more at upma.org.
That's upma.org.
Why don't we say to the government writ large that they have to spend a little bit less?
Anybody ever had less money this year than you had last?
Anybody better have a 1% pay cut?
You deal with it.
That's what government needs, a 1% pay cut.
If you take a 1% pay cut across the board, you have more than enough money to actually pay for the disaster relief.
But nobody's going to do that because they're fiscally irresponsible.
Who are they?
Republicans.
Who are they?
Democrats.
Who are they?
Virtually the whole body is careless and reckless with your money.
So the money will not be offset by cuts anywhere.
The money will be added to the debt, and there will be a day of reckoning.
What's the day of reckoning?
The day of reckoning may well be the collapse of the stock market.
The day of reckoning may be the collapse of the dollar.
When it comes, I can't tell you exactly, but I can tell you it has happened repeatedly in history when countries ruin their currency.
To get on the show and speak with James and the gang, call us toll free at 1-866-986-6397.
And now back to tonight's show.
Welcome back to the main event tonight, ladies and gentlemen.
Our guest is indeed a scholar, and his credentials are impeccable.
And it's very much our honor to welcome him to the program tonight for the first time, the first time, but I hope not the last time.
I should mention that I have had the privilege of appearing with JF on his own program a couple three times in the past, going back some years when it was still the public space.
Now he hosts these very slightly rebranded JFG Tonight, and I am at his playlist right now.
And folks, if you're enjoying the first segment of tonight's third hour, you will love what you will find him talking about on his own program.
Obviously, much more content about the so-called COVID-19 and the vaccines, but a variety of public issues and current event commentary as well.
JF, where can they find you and how can they support you?
Absolutely.
They can just type JFG Tonight on YouTube and they will find my channel.
You can then join my Twitter and see all of my links on JFG.world.
JF and I and Tim Murdoch, our guest in the second hour, were a few of the last of the Mohicans on Twitter.
But yes, we are still there for now.
But let's get back to the program at hand.
And again, we thank you, JF, for being with us tonight, especially immediately after your own program to answer these questions from our audience.
So here's the next one.
How much of this chaotic messaging, and this is what we were talking about just before the last break, is due to bureaucracy?
There is, of course, a book that everybody should know.
I believe it originally came out in 1841.
The author is Charles McKay.
The title is Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.
But with regards to this chaotic messaging, as the listener writes, how much of it is due to, in your opinion, groupthink, people doing what they see others doing, or fad, fads and diagnoses and treatment, or simply incompetence of affirmative action appointees?
What do you think is going on there with the chaotic messaging and the ever-changing narratives and restrictions, etc.?
I agree with the question.
This is one of the worst public response to any emergency I've ever seen in my life.
And I think that what we're seeing is an instantiation of the simple wisdom that government is relatively inefficient compared to the rest of the world.
Government is not an optimized machine for signaling, for communicating.
It's mostly populated by people who act in a leftist frame of mind and they are not subject to the free market optimization that companies are subjected to.
So I think that you have an accumulation of bureaucrats, of technocrats, of social engineers in all of these agencies, and they end up having a certain incompetence at even reaching their own stated goal.
For example, the vaccination campaign in the U.S., They want the most people possible to be vaccinated, but they're failing horribly at it.
And I'm kind of neutral.
I really don't care.
I think that the vaccine is a good tool for certain people.
I don't think that its imposition makes sense at all.
I think that it should be left to the traditional concept of a patient makes a decision with their doctor.
But just from a communication perspective, you see them failing so hard, reverting so much on their decision.
The example of the masked being just one of them.
You see them making so much efforts on the censorship of contrary information.
People register that kind of thing.
They observe it.
And it leads the human brain into a state of doubt.
It leads people to say, all right, something is afoot here.
I cannot watch a debate on YouTube involving one person who believes the vaccine is good and the other person believing the vaccine is bad.
How is that?
How is that that we've reached this point in America?
Well, it's with misinformation and the leftist campaigns against free speech and ultimately a leftist conception of the medical profession that society should impose on you your decision rather than you taking them.
All of it contributes to doubt and contributes to the very low vaccination rate in America and I don't think it's going to get much better.
Now again, JF, we had Tim Murdoch on who offered fantastic commentary from a socio-political point of view.
We are bringing you on.
Also that, I mean, obviously you have your own opinions as everybody in the world does who has had to deal with this.
We're all dealing with it.
But we're bringing you on more for a medical point of view with regard to your training and your credentials.
And so answer this if you will.
If COVID is as serious a threat as many claim, why is any travel allowed, especially international travel?
Why the Olympics?
Why are left-wing stars like Lady Gaga and Bruce Springsteen able to travel and do concerts?
Why the G7 summit at the height of the Indian variant hysteria?
Why is it safe for a frail old president to meet an even more frail old queen and without masks?
Absolutely.
And back in January 2020, when there was not a single mainstream article about the coronavirus, no one was talking about this.
It came in February.
On January, I was on my YouTube channel and I was explaining to people any procedure that is imperfect will fail.
So either you do a complete close-up of society, but I don't think you can handle that.
Are you able to handle a complete close-up of society?
This means no plane travel.
This means no going to the grocery store.
This means your house literally becomes a bunker and you're not getting out of it.
That could have worked in principle, but as I pointed out back then in January 2020, I said societies will not want to do this.
Even the COVID pass that they're trying to introduce.
I was pointing out last week that it's ridiculous.
I see policemen in France arresting people for dining in a restaurant and asking them, show me your COVID pass.
And as they show their COVID pass, they're showing their cell phone and they're handling it with their hands.
I'm like, this is enough to transmit a disorder.
This is enough to transmit a disease.
So we're implementing rules that are arbitrary, that are obviously not enough to contain the virus.
Obviously, everything that we've tried has not stopped this virus and it was predictable that it would be that way.
And so what are we doing?
The only thing that we're doing is truly not succeeding at the fight against the virus, but we're succeeding at the destruction of the credibility of our public institutions, which I don't care much about, but I can't believe that they are that incompetent.
They are that incompetent as to not be able to at least protect that.
Well, okay, let's talk about that.
Let's talk about this very quickly with about two minutes to go before the next break.
And what an hour this has already been.
But we talk about the politicalization of this particular topic.
You have to look at immigration.
Can there be any hope of avoiding future pandemics and lockdowns unless a travel to and from the third world is strictly severely restricted?
I mean, they tell us we can't have Thanksgiving meals with our own families while the border is wide open.
And we know that hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens that have had no vaccines, that are not wearing masks or not doing any of the things that they say we're supposed to be doing, are flooding in.
How can they say we have to do all of these things, get the vaccine?
It's mandated.
You have to wear masks.
You can't go see grandma at the nursing home while the border is leaking like a sieve.
Absolutely.
There's a double standard.
And we've never mastered the isolation of respiratory viruses.
It's like if you think that public health knows how to stop respiratory viruses, then why didn't we stop the flu five years ago or the flu three years ago or the flu 20 years ago?
We can't.
And we can't because the lifestyle that societies have committed to has disadvantages to it.
But societies are not willing to deprive themselves of this disadvantage.
They want the communication with the rest of the world.
They want the immigration.
They want the BM protest.
And so what we are left with is a double standard being applied to various right-wing lifestyle where we see Fauci, for example, complaining against the motorcycle meetup.
But when the BNM protests come, no one complains because suddenly the political cause trumps the medical cause.
Ladies and gentlemen, take a quick break with us.
Why don't you?
We've got two segments remaining with Jean-Francois.
And he's going to continue to answer your questions.
What a fantastic hour.
I want to thank you, ladies and gentlemen, of the listening audience, for thrusting this upon me.
We'll be right back.
Exposing corruption.
Informing citizens.
Pursuing liberty.
You're listening to Liberty News Radio.
USA Radio News with Dan Naraki.
Officials in Haiti say that hundreds are dead following a strong earthquake that struck the island on Saturday.
The 7.2 magnitude quake was centered about 75 miles west of the capital of Port-au-Prince.
Officials say at least 304 people have died and more than 1,800 have been injured, with Prime Minister Ariel Henri saying he was working to rush aid to areas devastated by the quake, as some towns had almost completely been raised.
He also declared a month-long state of emergency for the entire country.
And the number of children hospitalized with COVID-19 in the U.S. has reached a new record high with just over 1,900 as of Saturday.
Health officials blame the rapid spread of the Delta variant, along with children under 12 unable to receive a vaccination for the rise in serious cases.
Children now make up about 2.5% of the total COVID patients in American hospitals.
You're listening to USA Radio News.
Awesome and amazing day, men.
This is John Jubilee with energizedhealth.com.
That's right.
Write that down after you get off of this app, energizedhealth.com, because this is your moment to change your life.
Intelligent men are skeptical.
I want you to be skeptical, but I want you to go check this out today.
We have a breakthrough science that is so powerful that hundreds of doctors have changed their life.
They recommend it to their patients, physician to U.S. presidents, leading scientists across the world because it works.
Intercellular hydration pushes all the toxins out of your body.
It pushes all inflammation out of your body.
Can cause your brain to have double the function, man.
Double.
Your testosterone level could rise 500 points naturally.
You can wake up every morning like a teenage boy again and lose 30 to 40 pounds of solid fat every month.
Be skeptical, but go check this out today at energizehealth.com.
That's energizehealth.com.
President Biden ordered another 1,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan on Saturday to help in the evacuation of American personnel from the country.
Taliban forces are approaching the Afghan capital of Kabul and now control about 60% of the country.
In a statement, President Biden said it was time for the Afghan security forces to fight back against the Taliban for their country.
But Congressman Mark Green says the way that U.S. and NATO troops are leaving the country is affecting those forces.
The Tennessee Republican and Afghanistan veteran tells Fox News that those forces are choosing to walk away from a fight to the death.
And that kind of disrespect clearly makes them think, oh, the Americans don't have our back.
And when you communicate that to them in this kind of fight with the Taliban surprising us all, which could potentially be an intelligence failure that we need to dig into, their capability to synchronize attacks across the whole country, you know, their choice is lay down arms and blend in or, you know, fight to the death.
And many of these guys, unfortunately, are choosing the former.
This is USA Radio News.
Welcome back.
To get on the show, call us on James's Dime at 1-866-986-6397.
Ladies and gentlemen, as you know, if you're a regular listener to this program, I have been doing this for 17 years.
This particular program, the Political Cesspool, went on the air for the first time on October 26th, 2004.
And I know a good show when I hear it.
I mean, they're all my babies and I love them all.
But what we're hearing right now is one that stands out to me.
And I want to thank JF for that.
And I appreciate, especially appreciate, I should say, his expertise on this.
Everybody's got an opinion on this topic.
He comes at it from an impeccably credentialed perspective that we read to you earlier.
And we continue on now with two segments to go.
JF, again, I just, on behalf of the audience who requested that this show be done, I want to thank you for taking the time.
Absolutely.
It's a pleasure.
All right, well, let's get back to the questions then.
And here's one.
If we accept the official narrative, how do the COVID and vaccine merchants explain Sweden's relative success without lockdown?
Absolutely.
Sweden is a wonderful example.
And South Dakota in the U.S. is also a good example of states that have come close to having absolutely zero lockdown policies.
Although Sweden later in the game changed its mind, and that's sad because this is one of the very sad things that's happening.
It's the blurring of data.
It used to be that medical science was careful enough that we were developing control groups and experimental groups for whatever we were doing.
No matter how urgent or promising a drug was, we were very careful about making sure that we have a bunch of people who will use the drug and a bunch of people who will not use the drug and be very clean about this.
Unfortunately, with the public health system, every country does a little bit of everything.
And therefore, you don't have a per-country that can say we did zero lockdown and we are a Western nation and therefore you can compare us to the rest of the world.
And that's very sad because it leaves us out of this pandemic eventually, perhaps in a year, two years down the line.
And we won't even know to which extent our interventions were useless.
And I'm afraid that this behavior of blurring the data, of blurring the control group, same thing with vaccines, by the way.
We still don't have, even for, let's leave aside the COVID vaccine question.
We don't have good control groups on the long-term follow-up for all of the vaccines that we use and that we give to most children.
For example, we cannot make a double-blind study, a randomized control trial over 18 years to determine whether the MMR vaccine has any influence on your development, on your long-term intellectual development or on certain diseases like odditis.
We can't do it because there are so many people vaccinated that we don't quite have a control group and the people who remain unvaccinated for that kind of wildly adhered to vaccine, they are weird in some way.
Maybe they're a little more religious.
Maybe there's a little more homeschooling in that group.
So we are blurring everything.
And so we end up with very few countries that we can use as a pillar of comparison.
That being said, Sweden remains one of the cases where we can say, definitely, if a country was adopting the no lockdown and no mask policy or being very liberal about it, they were not condemning their population to a mass genocide of any kind.
They may have a little more death, they may have a peak that comes a little more fast, but who knows?
You know, people compare Denmark to Sweden and they say, well, the Sweden pandemic was a little harsher on them.
Yeah, but who knows down the line, six months later, one month later, eventually all these countries that have used mask policies and lockdown policies, they would have to remove them.
And then the vulnerable people who haven't died in the pandemic may very well die when that happens.
So I think that we should start engaging in our public health directions in the discussion of who are we saving, why are we saving, how many years of life are we saving, and make a little more rational decisions around these things.
Because right now we're counting the deaths and that's a very misleading indicator.
Because you don't know the person you saved from COVID.
Did they have such a weak immune system that they will die three months down the line of something else?
I'm afraid that by making decision on the unit that life is, it's very weak evidence in the end.
Well, that's a great point.
And that actually segues into another question that I have here.
And by the way, we talked about this in the last hour with the previous guest.
Many doctors, there are many medical doctors who have opinions that differ from the official narrative.
And they have been essentially unpersoned.
I mean, their opinions are not tolerated at all.
Not only are they not tolerated, they in fact get canceled and blacklisted themselves.
But we have here, of course, Johns Hopskins University, which is a leading medical institution in the United States, produced a study that showed there were no excess deaths in the first year of the pandemic.
But deaths from heart disease and flu, among other causes, perhaps might have been moved into the COVID column.
That was a study that was ignored and quickly buried.
Do you agree with that?
And if so, why was that?
I think there has been some excess death.
But I think the study is valuable in trying to perhaps attribute better the COVID deaths, because definitely what we see in hospitals is an economic incentivization to find everything to be a COVID death.
And so, yes, it's important that we ask these questions.
Unfortunately, that debate which you described just couldn't happen in the current circumstance of kind of imperiodistic domination, of knowledge generation, and just the idea of scientific research, of caring for the facts, has been abandoned to the interest of caring for the cause and caring for the mainstream discourse, which has changed so often that you cannot say that the CDC is very competent at being an ideological authority.
So why not let the debate happen?
Maybe you're going to have some people convinced of misinformation, but in the end, at least the majority of the reasonable people will be able to say at least the guy had a chance to make his point.
Well, that's a great point you're making yourself, JF, because this is again the same CDC who said, and we've mentioned this time and time again, we mentioned it in the previous hour, that COVID could not be spread at a BLM riot, but it could be spread at a Trump rally.
This is the same CDC who has said on the record that racism, so-called racism, is a public health crisis.
How can you trust a health organization that has sold itself and sold its soul to political correctness?
And this gets to the next question we have from our audience.
Can we trust any official figures of cases?
And we remember there's a difference between cases and deaths.
When the World Health Organization itself has admitted that the PCR test is massively inaccurate and its inventor, its own inventor said that it should not be used to test for coronavirus.
Well, I don't think they said it was massively inaccurate.
I think that they switched toward a mixed test that can allow further characterization of whether what you have is the influenza or COVID, which is different from just a test that tells you whether you have COVID or not.
That being said, yeah, I have reviewed these claims against the precision of tests.
And I think that very early in the pandemic, there were several problems.
There was an abuse of what we call cycle threshold.
And a cycle threshold essentially means boosting the signal until you find something.
And eventually Fauci came with standards and the WHO and POSE standards by saying, okay, above 35 repetition of this boosting technique and you will find nothing of significance.
So they started adjusting their standard.
There's definitely been big questions around the RTPCR test.
And I agree with these questions.
I agree to question this test.
It is not a test that has been designed for the kind of clinical application that we are giving it.
It's a test that's very useful to scientists in the lab to characterize whether in a given solution of water they have the RNA strand that they expect to have or not.
But that's very different from taking the goo out of someone on the street, putting it on a Q-tip and saying, let's do the RTPCR of this.
Problem being, there are already, even in a human cell, you know, there are parts of our genome that very much resemble sequences that are in the coronavirus.
The reason being we have an evolutionary history of 7 million years since we distinguished from apes, from chimpanzees.
And during these 7 million years, our genome has been bombarded by viruses that have introduced their own code into us, such that today, 17% or more of your genome comes from viruses that have inserted themselves in there.
It doesn't even come from the human chimpanzee line.
So when we run the test, there are possibilities of false positives where the RTPCR test ends up detecting, ends up detecting a part of your genome rather than the coronavirus that you're trying to detect.
And this was actually shown in peer-reviewed research in the case of the avian flu that leads to false impressions that a bird has the flu, but it doesn't have the flu.
It's just its genome is that way.
Ladies and gentlemen, he's knocking it out of the park tonight.
We have more questions than we have minutes remaining, and I wish we had had the opportunity to have JF on for a full three-hour show tonight.
But we do have one segment remaining, and we'll get to everything that we can.
Stay tuned, won't you?
You know where the solution can be found, Mr. President?
In churches, in wedding chapels, in maternity wards across the country and around the world.
More babies will mean forward-looking adults, the sort we need to tackle long-term, large-scale problems.
American babies, in particular, are likely going to be wealthier, better educated, and more conservation-minded than children raised in still industrializing countries.
As economist Tyler Cowan recently wrote, quote, by having more children, you're making your nation more populous, thus boosting its capacity to solve climate change.
The planet does not need for us to think globally and act locally so much as it needs us to think family and act personally.
The solution to so many of our problems at all times and in all places is to fall in love, get married, and have some kids.
The Foundation for Moral Law is a non-profit legal foundation committed to protecting our unalienable right to publicly acknowledge God.
The Foundation for Moral Law exists to restore the knowledge of God in law and government and to acknowledge and defend the truth that man is endowed with rights not by our fellow man, but by God.
The Foundation maintains a twofold focus.
First, litigation within state and federal courts.
Second, education.
Conducting seminars to teach the necessity and importance of acknowledging God in law and government.
How can you help?
Please make a tax-deductible contribution, allowing Foundation attorneys to continue the fight.
You may also purchase various foundation products as well at morallaw.org.
Located in Montgomery, Alabama, the Foundation for Moral Law is a non-profit, tax-exempt 501c3 founded by Judge Roy Moore.
Please partner with us to achieve this important mission, morallaw.org.
The spirit of the American West is live and well in Range Magazine, the award-winning quarterly devoted to the issues affecting the American West.
Each issue contains informative articles, breathtaking imagery, as well as the culture of cowboy spirit today, and gift ideas like the 2021 Real Buckaroo Calendar.
Order online from RangeMagazine.com.
Loving Liberty Network salutes the spirit of the American West at rangemagazine.com.
Well, my mom smokes and my dad smokes and I saw them smoking, so I tried it.
They're telling me not to smoke, but they smoke themselves.
When it comes to smoking, are you sending mixed signals?
But when you teach someone a certain way to do things and you go back on that certain way, it sends mixed signals to the person that they're trying to teach.
The parents need to be the example.
Smoking.
If you think you're old enough to start, you're smart enough to stop.
A public service message from this station and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Welcome back.
To get on the show, call us on James's Dime at 1-866-986-6397.
Well, in spite of the intro, as is so often the case, we're not taking calls tonight, but we do have a fantastic guest.
I guess we could have gone a full three hours with.
And we appreciate his doctorate, and we appreciate that he has a background in medicine that offers us an informed opinion on this topic that so many of us are concerned about.
And JF has done a fantastic job of answering so many questions tonight.
Of course, JF, with only 10 minutes remaining, we have more questions than we could ever get to.
I would, if you can, I would say let's try to take the questions we have left in about 60 to 90 seconds apiece so we can try to work through.
These are such good questions, and these are questions we really want to get to.
But before we do any of that, give us that contact information one more time.
Folks, if you're enjoying him tonight, you'll enjoy him on his own program, and he's got such a wide variety of topics he covers.
This being, of course, one of them, but not the least of them.
JF, give us that contact info one more time.
It's Tree Letters website, jfg.world.
And if you want to buy my book, it's on Amazon, The Revolutionary Phenotype.
Well, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen.
So take that and take that to the bank.
Why don't you?
And we hope to have JF back with us again very soon.
Let's get to as many of these questions as we can with the time we have left.
So let's first talk about very quickly, very quickly, herd immunity.
This was something that Donald Trump and Boris Johnson were speaking about in the early days of this hysteria.
Is it too late to develop herd immunity?
What happened to that conversation?
Herd immunity has never been attainable, and yet people have acted and our public experts have acted as if it was attainable.
It has never been attained with the flu.
And so why would it be attainable with a new virus that has features that are very much like the flu?
It spreads by the air, it mutates, and it generates variants.
The only viruses for which you can attain that kind of things are viruses that spread widely, but that spread, they have some weakness.
They either spread slowly, they don't mutate much, they don't have animal reservoirs.
They have some weakness that leads them to be easily gotten out of the population and therefore never come back.
We could never reach that with COVID, and we never will.
A fantastic answer to a good question.
So here's a question, and this may not fall upon your particular background.
This may be a question you have to answer as any of us, as any of us might.
But the question is, and this is a good one, and I would like to get your opinion.
Who is really in charge here?
Is it the CDC?
Is it Fauci?
Is it the World Health Organization?
Is it Big Pharma?
Is it a hidden hand?
What do you think?
It's a chicken with no head.
And so who's in charge?
Well, it's from the mix of signals from the spinal cord, the muscles twitching in all directions at the same time.
But what we have here is a machine.
It's a machine of corporate interest.
It's a machine of governmental interest.
And it's a machine of long-term invasion of private rights by leftists.
And COVID will only be a part of it.
I encourage people to think around how is that advancing the causes of leftists?
How is that relatable to global climate change?
And how there is a similar control of information in that field.
And there are similar attacks on individual liberty and the ultimate ownership of yourself and the ownership of your lands.
All of this is the teams that leftists like to adhere to, and we're seeing them deploy this in full force.
This has been a great hour.
I say again at the risk of being repetitious.
I have enjoyed this as a listener as much as a host.
So with a few questions remaining, let's get to these.
Again, if we can't, you're doing a great job, JF.
60, 90 seconds or less.
Here is one in your informed medically based opinion.
How concerned should people be about receiving one of the vaccines?
And how concerned should they be about not receiving one?
Great question.
Well, I should say that I am a PhD, so my opinions are not medical in nature, but I know a lot about medicine because I've been doing research in medicine.
So the vaccine are somewhat concerning in the simple fact that they are novel.
Definitely we're not looking either at a genocide.
Just like COVID, the people who will suffer from the symptoms induced by the vaccine or some will die by it are a very few people.
But it still matters that this little few people die from it.
And so if we look at the open bars data in the U.S., with maybe around 150 million people more or less having had the vaccine, we're looking at 12,000 deaths or more.
We're looking at 4,000 cases of bell palsy.
And you might say, well, it's not necessarily caused by the vaccine.
Yeah, but let's give it the same criteria that we're giving to COVID, right?
You have died with COVID.
Well, these people have died with the vaccine.
And we should care about this and consider that intervention is not always the right decision.
You should make the decision for yourself.
If I was 80 years old, I would take the vaccine, let me tell you, because that might give me one or two more years.
But in front of all these deaths, I am afraid of mandating the vaccine to large segments of the population, especially the young.
JF, you have said it exactly as I have, I think, in recent weeks, and exactly as I think Tim Murdoch said in just our previous hour.
It's an objective.
It's a matter-of-fact take.
It is the take that I share.
I echo what we just heard from our featured guest of the evening in the last 60 seconds.
So, but here's another question.
For those who do not wish to be vaccinated against COVID, quote-unquote, vaccinated, what do we do?
What do they do?
If we cannot avoid the vaccines, what can be done to counteract their harmful effects?
What can be done to claim exemptions?
Do you know anything about that?
We are looking at a rise of totalitarianism, and it will get worse.
And it's a capricious form of authoritarianism that is developing, where without evidence, even that the unvaccinated constitute a special threat.
Because what do we see?
When the science is published, we're seeing more and more that actually the vaccinated are carrying the virus just as much.
Yes.
Or at least the reduction that the vaccine is providing on infection is minimal.
And so essentially, standing beside a vaccinated people puts you at equal threat level as beside an unvaccinated person.
If they have COVID, you have equal chance of catching it.
And so all of the political authoritarianism we're seeing develop is unjustified scientifically.
That being said, it will happen still.
Now, we can be thankful that the leftists are extremely shy at invading on certain private liberties, but they will restrict what kind of exemptions you can claim.
They will probably leave an exemption for religious reasons.
And so it's time for people to open up their Bible, which is not something I often recommend as a man who is an agnostic.
But it's time to open the Bible and look for passages that may justify a religious exemption if you're looking for one.
And there are, you know, there are passages in the Bible that will say essentially don't fix it if it's not broken in the domain of medicine.
And that's exactly what a vaccine does.
It tries to fix a problem that doesn't yet exist.
Great answer.
A great answer.
Now I've got two questions left for you and only two minutes remaining.
Great interview tonight, JF.
Listen, I want to say again to you, I appreciate you having me on your program in years past, and I really appreciate you coming on ours tonight.
And I look forward to the next collaboration that we have.
I want to tell you that I think you're doing great work and I'm a big admirer.
Ladies and gentlemen, follow what he's doing.
And we've given you all the contact information prior to this.
Very quickly, very, very quickly.
A question from the audience.
Do those in charge believe their narrative or are they consciously nefarious?
And if the latter, is there in-game depopulation, total social control, or is it simply monkey-see-monkey do?
It is monkey-see-monkey do.
The people who are enacting these ridiculous rules actually believe that they are protecting you from harm.
They have been convinced by a very vicious type of conviction and belief.
They believe that they know better how to care for you than you do.
And they will use that superiority claim to justify their intervention.
Last question of the night: Are we heading into a medico-technocratic dictatorship?
And is there a possible fight back?
Are you hopeful at all?
No, we are headed toward a medical technocratic social engineering-based society, what we could call a communistic society.
And there is no way to stop this.
The only way you can do to protect yourself from it is to flee civilization, find places to live where you live far enough from them so that they can control much of your life.
What we can do is withdraw from public institutions.
We can stop going to public schools.
We can form our own institution.
But our continued existence will be away from civilization in secrecy and protecting ourselves from unjust government intervention.
The Constitution is falling.
No one is respecting it in these groups, and they will step over your rights.
Well, we saw it in New York with the restrictions with regards to vaccinations.
And now in New Orleans, if come Monday, you are not vaccinated.
You cannot go to a theater.
You cannot go to a gym.
You cannot go to a restaurant.
It is coming, ladies and gentlemen, to a city near you.
You better believe it.
JF, Dr. JF, thank you for being with us tonight.
What a fantastic hour.
We hope to do it again soon for Tim Murdoch and the entire staff and crew here at TPC.