Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 23, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:06:00

Ep. 134: Trump, Bannon, Biden, Jones, Ye Jibby Jab & MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	During your campaign, you said that not only would you issue an apology to those prosecuted during COVID restrictions, but you would also grant them amnesty.
	When can we expect those apologies?
	I can apologize right now.
	I'm deeply sorry for anyone who was inappropriately subjected to discrimination as a result of their vaccine status.
	I'm deeply sorry for any government employee that was fired from their job.
	because of their vaccine status and I welcome them back if they want to come back.
	As for the Amnesty, I have to get some legal advice on that and so I've already asked my staff to request that advice so I can see how we would be able to proceed on that.
	My view has been that these were political decisions that were made and so I think that they could be political decisions to offer a reversal but I do want to get some legal advice on that first.
	Would that also have to do with the timeline for the proposed MSTs?
	I would have to see.
	If I can do it, I would do it at the earliest opportunity.
	So I'm hoping within the next week I'll get that legal advice.
	Thank you.
	It's not a bad answer.
	Not a bad answer to the extent that they don't browbeat an apology out of her because when you talk about compensation, reparations for one form of discrimination, get ready to be Pounded by the media.
	By apologizing for this form of discrimination, you're tacitly accepting and condoning other forms of discrimination unless you come out equally and vocally and condemn those other forms of discrimination.
	That's Danielle Smith, the new Premier of Alberta.
	And I gave her a bit of a hard time last week because when she came out and said that she hadn't seen a group of people In her lifetime, be so discriminated against as the unvaccinated over the last year and a half.
	She made a wonderful public statement.
	And anybody who is not vaccinated and has suffered the, I say the consequences, but also suffered the injustices that have been inflicted upon them, I think they were happy to hear it.
	I think they were relieved, finally, to have a voice saying it for them.
	And then, for whatever the reason, Not for whatever the reason.
	Politicians began immediately demanding an apology from Danielle Smith.
	It was insensitive.
	It ignores other forms of discrimination.
	How could she dare compare the discrimination against the unvaccinated to the discrimination against other minority groups, ethnic groups, who have experienced historical discrimination?
	And they browbeat.
	It wasn't an apology because those who hate her would not regard it to be an apology.
	And those who love her...
	We'll say, well, she didn't apologize.
	A clarification.
	I didn't mean to insult, demean, degrade.
	I will do my best to listen to all groups and yada, yada, yada.
	An unnecessary clarification that is something tantamount to bending the knee to the social pressure to try to make her feel bad for saying what I believe needs to be said and what many people believe needs to be said.
	That the last year and a half to two years has been...
	Shameless, unconstitutional, and as we're seeing now, and as we're going to see in greater detail tonight, unscientific discrimination.
	But she came out and said that last week, and then was browbeaten into something of an apology, and I gave her a hard time for that.
	And maybe, maybe she's learned a lesson now in politics, although she seems experienced enough to have learned the lessons.
	Maybe she's going to continue to prove That she is principled and that whatever lapse that might have been for those who want to be critical, she's nonetheless staying the path.
	Let's just hope she doesn't have to apologize, clarify for this.
	An apology for those who have been discriminated against for their medical choices, fired, prevented from boarding planes and trains, prevented from seeing loved ones for joyous occasions, for mourning occasions, prevented from living normal lives.
	And she's apologizing.
	And she's apologizing, A, because it's the right thing to do, B, because she has the courage to do it, and C, I can't think of what the C is.
	But she's sticking to it, which is good, and sticking it to the people out there who want to dump on her for saying what needs to be said and for what is right to be said.
	And who's dumping on her?
	Well, who's dumping on her?
	Who do you think's dumping on her?
	Let's just see here.
	Jason Merkasoff.
	Are we looking at the same thing here?
	Jason Merkasoff.
	Listen to this.
	Premier Danielle Smith was asked by reporters Saturday about her comments yesterday on Alberta Health Services' partnership with the World Economic Forum, that populist right-wing whipping post.
	In response, Smith, ex-journalist, ex-columnist radio host, dismissed journalists as in the entertainment biz.
	And this is what Danielle Smith wrote, apparently.
	There are certain forums that are entertainment forums.
	I was on an entertainment forum for a long time.
	Chorus entertainment.
	Ironically enough, called chorus.
	Because they chant the same chorus in tandem.
	And I recognize that you're in the entertainment industry, making sure you find the most outrageous statements that can get a lot of clicks.
	And there have been a lot of them.
	I recognize that.
	But you know what?
	I'm here to govern.
	I'm here to talk about the things that are the most important about two Albertans.
	Maybe there's a typo there.
	The man who's not to prove her wrong, Jason Merkisoff.
	I write analysis and do other things for CBC Calgary.
	The man who's funded.
	Whose salary is paid through taxpayer dollars, our taxpayer dollars, by the very government that Danielle Smith is standing up to, is now, you know, taking aim at Danielle Smith.
	Premier Daniel Smith was asked by reporters Saturday about her comments yesterday about Alberta Health Services' partnership with the WEF.
	Oh, and that's not a problem to this government-subsidized propagandist.
	That's not a problem.
	That's not the problem.
	The WEF partnering up with our governments to impose, I don't know, things like the known digital traveler identity program, policy about reducing emissions, making us eat bugs, making us have nothing and being happy about it, even though that was just an opinion piece that one of their columns, whatever.
	The problem is not that Canada and Alberta is partnering with a non-elected global entity.
	That's not the problem.
	The problem is that the right wing used the World Economic Forum as a whipping post.
	That's the problem, according to propagandist, state-subsidized Jason Markosoff.
	And now that we have a politician who's saying, what the hell are we doing partnering with these unelected global entities that have global interests above and beyond national interests, partnering with our government?
	Whom they've penetrated so thoroughly.
	Justin Trudeau, Jagmeet Singh, Chrystia Freeland on the Board of Trustees of the WEF.
	The problem is not the partnership you see with this globalist entity and the government that pays this guy's salary.
	The problem are the right-wingers, the populists who use the WEF, unelected entity that has infiltrated our government as a whipping post.
	Not sure I can recall a government leader wave off journalists as being in the entertainment industry like that, particularly one that was a year ago a professional in the news and journalism industry.
	Maybe she knows and understands a little something, Jason.
	Maybe her experience in the entertainment industry that is Canadian media, maybe that's taught her something.
	Maybe she knows something that we should actually rely on her experience.
	For knowledge that some of us might not have.
	But WEF and populists are the problem, LOL.
	No, it wasn't the WEF that was the problem.
	It's the populists, right-wingers, using the WEF as a whipping post.
	Because the WEF are the victims in all of this.
	A non-elected globalist entity with a leader...
	Klaus Schwab, who has very proudly boasted about having penetrated the Canadian Parliament, over half of the Canadian Parliament has been penetrated by this unelected global entity.
	That's not the problem.
	The problem is that people complain about it.
	The problem is that right-wingers, populists, complain about the fact that our government has been infiltrated.
	Admittedly, this is not my conspiracy theory.
	This is out of the words of Klaus Schwab.
	The founder of the World Economic Forum, he has bragged about having penetrated the Canadian government.
	Let me see something here.
	The problem is not that this has happened.
	The problem is that these yokels have the audacity to complain about it.
	I need a play so that nobody accuses me.
	Klaus Schwab viva frei penetrated the cabinet.
	It's a cabinet tweet.
	I know I've tweeted it many times.
	I'll take someone else's tweet here.
	Listen to this.
	I have to say, when I mention our names, like Mrs. Merkel, Vladimir Putin, and so on, they all have been young global leaders of the World Economic Forum.
	What we are very proud of now is the young generation like Prime Minister Trudeau, President of Argentina and so on, that we penetrate the cabinets.
	So yesterday I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau.
	And I know that half of this cabinet or even more half of this cabinet are For our, actually, young global leaders.
	For us.
	Yeah.
	And that's true in Argentina, too.
	Wow.
	Yeah, get your mic.
	You want to rule the world.
	Get your mic situation fixed.
	It's true in Argentina, and it's true in France now.
	I mean, with the president, who is a young global leader.
	But what is important for me?
	Let me just play that part again.
	Prime Minister Trudeau, president of Argentina, and so on.
	Penetrate the cabinet.
	Metaphorically speaking.
	...at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau.
	And I know that...
	That's not the problem according to the CBC journalist.
	The problem is that Right-wing yokels complain about it.
	And I know that we've seen this one.
	Chrystia Freeland.
	I know that we've seen this here.
	Let's just here.
	Just look at the bottom here, peeps.
	This is Chrystia Freeland.
	Reject cookies.
	Chrystia Freeland.
	Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.
	Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
	I don't know why she's got a profile there.
	Just so everybody knows.
	She is a member of the Forum's Board of Trustees.
	They've penetrated half of the cabinet.
	But that is not the problem.
	The problem is the Canadian citizens who complain about this.
	Shut up and let us penetrate your country.
	Okay.
	Everybody.
	First of all, the echo is here because my insulating gym mat is not here.
	Barnes is not coming in tonight.
	Nothing bad.
	He's traveling.
	He's got a number of events this week until Thursday.
	Cannot come in.
	So it's going to be me and all of us, except we have a special guest coming.
	Oh, jeez, she's coming in at 6.30.
	Alison Morrow, when we move over to Rumble, might be more than 6.40, Alison, if you're watching.
	When we go over to Rumble, exclusive, we're going to talk about...
	The latest vaccine stuff, because sweet, merciful goodness, it's going to be serious.
	Before we get started tonight, I've got to thank my sponsor, because you may have noticed this said there was a little sponsored thing as you clicked on this.
	This stream contains a paid promotional product, which is not just a product that has paid to come on the show.
	It's a product I use and have...
	Liked and entered into a relationship with called EnviroCleanse.
	It's an air purifier, a box that purifies air, filters air, filters out particulate matter, and then filters out...
	What do they call it?
	Chemical matter and bacteria matter.
	I use it.
	I used one in Montreal because we have dogs.
	I have kids.
	We have asthma in the family, and it's important for us to have clean air.
	So we use this thing called EnviroCleanse.
	Now, this particular one...
	It was a little more expensive than the one we had in Canada.
	And it's fantastic.
	It's got a HEPA filter, which filters out particulate matter.
	And then it's got a patented purifier, which neutralizes bacteria and particles smaller than the Rona, smaller than the COVID particle.
	So they swear to it that you'll be healthier.
	It will neutralize viruses, although for legal reasons, one cannot specify which viruses can be neutralized, but it neutralizes particles which are smaller.
	Then the Rona.
	Patented technology in the filter.
	You got the filter, which is HEPA, which just filters out particulate matter.
	Then you got the purifier part, which is patented.
	Department of Defense uses it.
	I can disclose that.
	Can't disclose how and when, but the Department of Defense uses it.
	It's in 300,000 classrooms across Canada.
	It's $699.
	It is an expensive air purifier.
	But for those of you who know that you need one, don't waste your money on a not good one.
	Get a good one.
	So the sponsor, and it's a product I use, it's out in the living room next to Pudge.
	The website is ekpure.com.
	E-E-C-O-K-E-L-O, pure.com.
	Promo code Viva will get you 10% off the product.
	It'll get you an air quality test, which is a third-party test, so you can test your air, know that it's working.
	And there's also 0% financing, but ekpure.com, promo code Viva.
	And again, I don't partner up with random sponsors.
	Sponsors that I like, sponsors that I have faith in, and sponsors of products that I use.
	So EK Pure, thank you for having the audacity of sponsoring a channel of the hinged and fringed minority.
	And also thank you for making a kick-ass air purifier product.
	EKPure.com, promo code Viva.
	I have one in the living room.
	It's on right now.
	You can't even hear it.
	Okay, that's it.
	Now let me get some Super Chats because this has been coming in.
	I can't make it.
	Keep fighting.
	Build that bag.
	Nine is on seven.
	Your Super Chats are getting more and more intense as we go.
	There are four lights.
	We love you, Susan.
	Okay, thank you.
	Just so you all know, YouTube takes 30% of Super Chats.
	If you don't like that, we are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	I've checked.
	We are good.
	There's a $5 Rumble rant.
	Short, fat, bald, ugly guy says, oh my God, Rumble sucks.
	11 minutes to join and stream.
	And Noah was here five minutes early, both app and website.
	Well, I've read it.
	They're working on user interface issues, so thank you.
	Nice shirt.
	I have the same one in Army Green.
	I met somebody today at Gumbo Limbo who said, I've got all of those shirts.
	I've got that shirt in every color.
	It's my new favorite shirt.
	I picked it up, actually, at Plato's Closet, a second-hand place.
	Always punctual.
	That is good for us.
	I was a few seconds late tonight.
	I had to get my stuff in.
	Write on Twitter got to be banned for journalists.
	Writing on Twitter got to be banned for journalists.
	I don't know what that is, but I'll have a look at that afterwards.
	Diva, have you looked into what Danielle Smith, new president in Alberta, has been saying?
	Finally, a Canadian politician speaking some truth.
	Kevin Taylor, I think that was what our intro was about.
	I like her.
	Maybe she has strategy behind her initial apology.
	Maybe she's learned a lesson.
	Don't apologize to the mob because what they're seeking is not a sincere request.
	It's a power play.
	Have you ever considered Whitney Webb for Sidebar?
	She has a new book out, One Nation Under Blackmail, all about the rise of Epstein and all involved.
	I will keep that and screen grab that.
	I'm open to anybody for a Sidebar, even Ethan Klein.
	Okay, before we go over to Rumble, people, let's just start with the big news of the week, of last week.
	We talked about it.
	Steve Bannon sentenced to four months in jail.
	The fine was not where they got him.
	I actually had predicted that Bannon was going to get more in the fine and less in the jail.
	I thought they were going to go with the minimum one month per contempt charge and a big fine to teach him a lesson because I also was operating on the basis that maybe there would be less sympathy on an appeal of an excessive fine.
	Than on an appeal of excessive jail time.
	But no, they went the other way.
	The judge went the other way.
	And my goodness, I like Steve Bannon.
	This is a crazy thing because until all this stuff started happening, I can say I didn't know all that much about Steve Bannon.
	I got to know Steve much better during the trucker convoy in Canada because Steve and the war room had me on multiple times to talk about my documenting that protest.
	I knew of Steve Bannon.
	I know Steve Bannon a lot better now because of the convoy, but because of what they've been doing to Steve Bannon for the last year and a half.
	When a tyrannical regime wants to make an example out of someone, or they decide that they're going to go after someone and martyrize them, you know what ends up happening?
	Their message reverberates.
	They actually get better known.
	Their message is amplified to more people.
	And Bannon...
	Speaking after having gotten sentenced, I'll see if I can find that video because it's fantastic.
	He's eloquent.
	He's well-spoken.
	He's determined.
	And you watch that video for anybody who hasn't already made up their mind.
	And he's reasonable and sounds sincere and determined.
	Well, I'll see if I can pull up the video afterwards, but just the news.
	Banned sentence of four months in prison for flouting the January 6th panel.
	Flouting it!
	NPR.
	You can tell the terms that they use and the agency reporting it.
	If it were more right-wing, they would say, for defying an abusive congressional subpoena.
	Or they might just be objective.
	So they sentenced him to four months and $6,500 fine for criminal contempt.
	The good news is that they've released him pending his appeal.
	And the reason for that is quite logical.
	It will take more than four months to hear the appeal.
	And if he has to go to jail pending his appeal, well, any success on the appeal becomes illusory.
	And so, you know, it's what happened with Jussie Smollett.
	And as much as anybody hates Jussie Smollett, it is only fair that for the nature of the conviction, he be released pending an appeal because if it gets overturned on appeal, he's already done his time.
	In which case, the appeal is illusory.
	The type of crime, look, Jussie Smollett's crime, I would argue, is much more serious.
	I think most people would agree with that.
	But not like severely violent risk to society to be released pending his appeal.
	Hold on, what does this say?
	Andrew L. Viva just realized the guy interviewing Klaus was David Gergen.
	Alex Jones ambushed interviewed him about being a member of the Bohemian Grove.
	Okay, I didn't notice that.
	So they got Bannon for four months.
	He's going to appeal it.
	That's the news.
	The prosecution, by the way, because the prosecution is after justice, right?
	They're not after just a conviction.
	Federal prosecutors were seeking what they describe as a severe penalty.
	Six months in jail.
	For contempt of a congressional subpoena, what did Eric Holder get?
	Fast and the Furious.
	What was his position?
	Geez, he was a member of, I forget his position now.
	Attorney General.
	It was Attorney General.
	What did Eric Holder get for defying a congressional subpoena to look into an unlawful government program by which they were running illegal guns or guns illegally to Mexican cartels to track the crimes committed with him?
	What did Holder get for defying a congressional subpoena?
	He didn't even get prosecuted.
	He was found in contempt of Congress.
	Obama's attorney general or whoever it was decided, declined to prosecute.
	What did Michael Sussman get for lying to the FBI?
	Charged, went to trial.
	What did he get?
	Oh yeah, he got acquitted.
	What did Igor Danchenko get for allegedly lying to the FBI?
	He got arrested.
	He got indicted.
	He went to trial.
	What did he get?
	How much time?
	Oh yeah, acquitted.
	But Steve Bannon.
	Defies a congressional subpoena.
	Doesn't show up to testify.
	And plead the fifth.
	So it would be showing up as a purely procedural matter.
	Doesn't produce documents.
	Charged.
	Indicted.
	Indicted.
	Charged.
	A trial in which he couldn't raise certain legal defenses.
	In which he was deprived of the legal defenses that he was allowed to raise.
	Convicted.
	Federal prosecutors were seeking a severe...
	Six months in jail they were seeking.
	And a fine of $200,000.
	Oh, he pursued a bad faith strategy of defiance and contempt.
	Well, there would be no good faith way to not respect a congressional subpoena.
	So it's superfluous rhetoric.
	No one has been incarcerated for contempt of Congress in decades.
	Oh, yeah, I know.
	Who was the last one?
	Do tell.
	I wonder if it's politically motivated.
	In its court filing, the justice took the unusual step of listing a series of bombastic and demeaning statements Bannon made about the justice system and lawmakers.
	Oh.
	That's proof of character.
	It's interesting.
	He called the House Select Committee Chair Benny Thompson gutless.
	Oh, my goodness.
	Sent him to jail for four months.
	He called a politician gutless and said the panel is conducting a show trial.
	Oh, my goodness.
	What better way to prove that it's not a show trial than by severely punishing your political adversary or...
	What better way to show it's not a show trial than to strip an accused of certain grounds of defense and then sentence him to six months in jail?
	Bannon used his podcast, which traffics in conspiracy theories.
	Oh, which one?
	Like the Russia collusion conspiracy theory?
	The Steele Dose conspiracy theory?
	The Trump shithole country's conspiracy theory?
	The Trump removed Martin Luther King's statue from his office conspiracy theory?
	That one?
	Oh yeah, he uses it, which traffics in conspiracy theories, to target people he considered his political enemies.
	Do we appreciate the thorough confession through projection that's going on right here?
	They are doing exactly what they are accusing Bannon of doing.
	He refused to turn over, blah, blah, blah.
	All right, the rest we know.
	Oh, and they've got Peter Navarro also.
	He's going to trial on misdemeanor charges of criminal contempt for stiffing the January panel, too.
	Oh, my goodness.
	The panel, which was arguably not legitimately constituted, arguably, because there's an argument about this.
	It doesn't meet the quorum of 12 members.
	Bipartisan with two Republican members, Kinzinger and Liz Cheney, who were appointed by Nancy Pelosi and not by the...
	Bipartisan aspect of the committee.
	Yeah, yeah, no, no.
	It's totally not political.
	Totally not political and totally legitimate.
	Totally not a show trial.
	And that's it.
	It's totally, totally on the level.
	I remember when Trump came out and called Steve Bannon Sloppy Steve.
	Cheeto Jesus was the best.
	Looking at that avatar.
	So Bannon is out.
	Pending his appeal.
	And he's got a robust appeal.
	We'll see where it goes.
	But it's just political rubbish.
	Democrats got all three branches of government and we cannot even get legalized weed.
	I know people disagree with it, but I don't.
	I don't agree with it.
	If I support pardoning non-violent petty marijuana offenders, it would follow that legalizing recreational marijuana.
	It would be tough to argue that recreational marijuana should not be legal, but alcohol, which is, you know...
	I just listened to the Anthony Huberman podcast.
	He's a neuroscientist.
	He did a two-hour episode on alcohol.
	Anybody who needed the impetus to not drink alcohol again, you listen to that, you'd think it's the most toxic substance on earth.
	But it objectively is probably not good for you.
	The fact that alcohol is legal and marijuana is not...
	You know, you could legalize marijuana with the same restrictions as alcohol, but anyway, separate discussion.
	So that's the Steve Bannon.
	One more thing that we're going to talk about, speaking of political persecution, before we head on over to Rumble and welcome Alison Morrow to talk about the Rona Jibby Jab.
	2.75 trillion.
	$2.75 trillion.
	Now, I'm going to preface all of this by saying that I have nothing but the utmost of sympathy and heartache for the parents of Sandy Hook.
	And not saying it to say it.
	We have all had our own life experiences.
	I have known, I would say not firsthand, it's close to firsthand.
	Family, within our family circle, not immediate.
	Quite close family.
	The devastation that comes with...
	Give me one second.
	Give me one second.
	Sorry about that.
	Not at a good time that required call came.
	The devastation of losing a child, from the parent's perspective.
	A couple of weeks ago, we talked about the Cotard syndrome, where someone feels like they're dead.
	They feel like they're dead in their own body.
	And trauma can trigger that.
	And the trauma of losing a child can trigger that in an adult.
	I mean, you can't even call it a cliche.
	Any parent who's ever gone through it says, a parent's worst nightmare is burying a child.
	Period.
	Full stop.
	Nothing but sympathy.
	I know people entertain certain theories about the Sandy Hook.
	I don't.
	I don't believe them.
	I don't believe in engaging in the discussion with them.
	I don't believe in silencing and shutting people up.
	People are going to believe what they want to believe.
	Shutting them down is not going to change their mind.
	Ultimately, nothing might change their mind.
	In which case, there's no point arguing.
	Just agree to disagree.
	You believe what you believe and I'll believe what I want to believe.
	Preface all of it with that.
	And I'll preface it by even saying that I do believe Alex Jones said a couple of things, which in the ordinary run of justice could have been maybe not defamatory, because the question would be whether or not someone is stating their belief, their opinion.
	Maybe defamatory, but then you'd have to get into the question of public figures, special purpose public figures.
	You know, whether or not, whatever he said, however wrong and outrageous it might have been, was it done with actual malice?
	There's that legal side to it.
	Then there's the legal argument, well, it was pure opinion, in which case it can't be defamatory, but it still could be intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	There are legal questions in there.
	And I had said from the beginning, and some people who, you know, follow, didn't like it.
	Some of the things Alex said were objectively wrong.
	They could have been defamatory, subject to whatever legal defenses were there.
	They could have been intentionally infliction of emotional distress if you believe that he intentionally said it to inflict emotional distress and not because he might have legitimately believed it, however insensitive and wrong it might have been at the time.
	There were statute of limitations issued.
	Subject to all of the legal defenses, Jones probably said certain things which would have been actionable.
	To go from there to a default judgment in multiple states, To a judgment for words spoken of $45 million in Texas to be reduced because of punitive damage caps, then to a $965 million judgment against multiple defendants in Connecticut.
	That's enough to say I might feel bad for the parents.
	As our Supreme Court Justice in Canada once said, Judge Bish, B-I-C-H, The court cannot let sympathy guide us.
	The court cannot be guided by sympathy.
	It's a terrible thing to have to say and it's a terrible thing to have to live by.
	You can feel exquisitely badly for parties.
	You could feel their pain and you can feel their trauma.
	But sympathy cannot, should not, and must not guide the court.
	Um...
	It's not as much sympathy.
	As one can have for the parents, at some point, people have to say, the process has to be respected, the system has to be respected, and above all else, even if I think Jones should be punished, the punishment has to be proportionate and reasonable.
	$45 million in Texas was not reasonable.
	$965 million in Connecticut is not reasonable.
	But it gets worse now, because the $965 million split among 16 defendants.
	$120 million was the biggest award for Robbie Parker.
	$90 million compensatory damages to an FBI agent who didn't have a child get killed in that incident.
	Who didn't have any family member get killed in that incident.
	$90 million to an FBI agent because his character was maligned, impugned.
	I don't think he was accused of being a crisis actor specifically.
	He was accused of not being an FBI agent, not wearing his uniform the right way.
	He had a picture that was used out of context or whatever.
	$90 million, not punitive damages, compensatory damages for an FBI agent doing his job that day.
	Somebody, however much pity and however sad and sympathetic you are for the plaintiffs, for the trauma they've gone through, you have to stop and say this doesn't make any sense anymore.
	It's now gone beyond that.
	It's gone now to what are laughable, ridiculous, and figures that make a mockery of the system.
	Is this the one?
	Let's look at this.
	This is from Bloomberg.
	I want to split up the outlets that I cite from.
	This is from Bloomberg.
	Sandy Hook families asked the judge to max out on Jones' penalty.
	Now, you recall that the $965 million was not punitive.
	It was not exemplary.
	It was compensatory.
	There is no cap on compensatory damages in Connecticut, from what I understand.
	From what I understand, the cap on punitive is a multiple of the compensatory.
	Do the math.
	Well, oh, you don't have to do the math.
	I'll do the math.
	The judge already awarded the families $965 million in compensatory damages.
	That's to say, evidence was shown that the plaintiffs suffered $965 million in damages.
	Some of you out there might say Jones sent people to harass them.
	That was not fleshed out by the evidence.
	There was evidence to the effect that these people might have been harassed.
	Not by anyone that Jones specifically...
	Directly or indirectly asked to do it.
	Set that aside.
	They were harassed.
	People were calling them.
	People were writing them emails.
	They might have had to get extra security.
	Okay.
	They incurred the cost of security.
	They incurred emotional distress.
	$120 million for Robbie Parker.
	$90 million for an FBI agent.
	$90 million, by the way, in the context of that trial, all of the alleged harassment that Alex Jones directed their way, nobody was arrested.
	Nobody was charged.
	Nobody was charged for harassment.
	This is evidence that I discovered watching the trial.
	So these are compensatory damages for which evidence had to be adduced.
	$90 million for an FBI agent.
	Okay.
	Judge to decide damages under state deceptive trade law.
	The way some people are arguing around it is that Alex Jones made money off of his misinformation.
	Deceptive trade practices under the Connecticut...
	Deceptive Trade Practice.
	It's Cutpa.
	Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.
	That's how they're going to get around it, to try to even reasonably just...
	If I'm going to steel man the argument, it's under Cutpa that they could get these damages.
	But by the way, $965 million, just wait.
	Sandy Hook family said at a Connecticut, said a Connecticut judge should impose, quote, the highest possible punitive damages for Alex Jones, suggesting by one calculation that could be as high as two point seven five trillion dollars.
	This is coming from the lawyer.
	And I'm going to tell you something.
	I feel so bad for the families that I say they are either blinded by their trauma.
	Their trauma has driven them mad to the point where this is what they...
	Feel the need to do.
	To go after Alex Jones, a man who had nothing to do with the actual source of their trauma, that being their children having been killed in Sandy Hook.
	Or they're being used by other people.
	In their grief, in their sorrow, they are being used by other people for political purposes.
	The lawyer is at, max it out!
	965 million.
	Well, I don't know what the mathematical cap is on the factor of punitive damages to compensatory.
	I guess it equals $2.75 trillion.
	The family said that additional damages are warranted on top of the nearly $1 billion jury award because George broke a state law barring the sale of products using false statements.
	He didn't break the law by selling products and making false statements about the products being sold, which is my understanding of what the law means.
	False statements.
	Let's just operate on the basis that they were false statements about somebody else in the context of selling products.
	It's not that he sold products and said, this will cure your whatever.
	It's that he said, I'm selling this product and Brett Kavanaugh is guilty of X, Y, and Z. So, false statement about somebody while selling a product and that's how they get to this.
	They reached the trillion dollar sum by multiplying the state laws up to $5,000.
	Per violation, fine.
	By the 550 million social media exposures Jones' audience received, 550 million, I think they mean impressions here, by the way.
	As if impressions in the social media world means anything.
	At trial, the lawyer said that Jones reached 550 million users.
	That was an outlandish, preposterous statement for anybody who knows anything.
	Preposterous.
	Now, it might have been they meant exposures, not individual users.
	No, exposures.
	$5,000 per exposure for the 550 million exposures.
	It was the largest of the several damages, whatever.
	And it goes on.
	The only appropriate punitive damages award in this case is the largest award within the court's power, the family's lawyer said in the filing.
	The defendants have acted willfully.
	Maliciously and evilly in full knowledge of the harm they are causing.
	People who had no means to fight back except to bring this case.
	And they couldn't even let Jones go to trial on the merits.
	Avail himself of his legal defenses.
	Actual malice.
	Statute of limitations.
	Opinion versus fact.
	Whether or not Jones was actually the source of the harassment that the families may have suffered.
	Bypass all of that.
	Default verdict.
	Trial on the quantum, a billion dollars, and now let's just max it out.
	Max it out.
	2.75 trillion.
	Alex Jones perpetrates this attack for one reason.
	Greed.
	Say the people seeking 2.75 trillion dollars in damages for words spoken.
	And it goes on.
	It doesn't matter.
	And just to put it into perspective, because it's tough, you know, you can even hear that $2.75 trillion is the GDP of France.
	That won't mean anything to you.
	That won't mean anything because there's no human element to that.
	To contextualize what $2.75 trillion looks like, I was thinking about it over the weekend, and I wanted to see what the reparations that were being demanded for the Armenian genocide were.
	This is from the New York Times.
	It's an older article.
	Armenian groups are increasingly focused on reparations for genocide.
	What do you think Armenian groups are seeking by way of reparations for the Armenian genocide, which killed over, I think it's 1.6 million Armenians?
	Let's say over 1 million Armenians.
	The Armenian genocide, just before World War I. Over a million Armenians.
	Massacred.
	Killed.
	Starved.
	A genocide.
	What are they asking for?
	For reparations?
	Where was it?
	Here we go.
	This is according to one website which is quantifying the genocide for reparations from Turkey, among other countries.
	The website estimated the total value of reparations at approximately $3 trillion, of which it said Turkey owes about $1.64 trillion.
	Alex Jones' defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress for words spoken.
	Alex Jones did not murder those children.
	Alex Jones was not in charge of the school that arguably failed to implement any sort of safety protocol to protect those children.
	They want $2.75 trillion from Alex Jones.
	They just want a cool reparations for the Armenian genocide quantum.
	And people are, you know, Saying Jones is getting what he deserves.
	Jones, in as much as you think he's getting what he deserves, set that aside.
	This is an all-out assault on the First Amendment.
	And even if you think Alex Jones' First Amendment protections do not cover defamation, intentional infliction, emotional distress, fine.
	You know what else the Constitution protects?
	Due process.
	And if he was going to be found guilty on the merits...
	He had a right at, oh yeah, but he defaulted on his discovery obligations, therefore nuclear, the ultimatum, the ultimate penalty, default verdict.
	And we're seeing the impact of this assault on the First Amendment.
	Kanye West says he doesn't believe that George Floyd, you know, says he believes George Floyd died from overdose of fentanyl and not from Derek Chauvin.
	Maybe Kanye's relying on the Hennepin autopsy report that came to certain findings, although it didn't come to certain conclusions.
	Now he's going to get sued for $250 million.
	Disagreeing with the cause of death publicly, $250 million.
	Say stupid things which might have been hurtful, which might have been factually incorrect, even if you apologize for them later.
	Default verdict, $2.75 trillion.
	Armenian genocide reparations, $3 trillion.
	Alex Jones, seven minutes of bad words, $2.75 trillion.
	And if people are not objecting to this and starting to say, as much sympathy as I have for these families, this might have gone a little too far.
	Well, this is a knife that cuts both ways.
	Okay, now, with that said, let me just see one other thing here before I go over to rumble.
	There were some rants.
	There are some chats.
	We got Mandrake.
	Yes, losing a child is horrible.
	The pain never goes away.
	However, it does not permanently rob someone of their sanity.
	This is bitter robbery at the expense of your loss.
	I call BS no way.
	Also, it never goes away.
	And then you can become so blinded by rage because of your trauma, and you have nobody to go after.
	The guy who killed the kids is dead.
	His family, gone.
	The school, destroyed.
	Their ability to go after the people who might have actually been responsible for the deaths themselves, gone.
	They have no one else to go after except for Alex Jones.
	I can see it.
	It doesn't justify it.
	I can be very sympathetic to it.
	Viva, you're invited to fish my upcoming kayaking fishing tournament in SoFlo, trying to get some eyeballs on it.
	If you can plug the site, Triple Crown of Kayak Fishing, Freddie New York.
	I'm screen grabbing this and I'm signing up for it.
	I thank you very much for the Super Chat, but I need to know the website.
	Oh, yeah.
	And as I've screen grabbed this, I'm going to look at it afterwards.
	Guaranteed.
	Heart Tackle, speaking of fishing.
	Oh, Heart Tackle, I just...
	Cripe, I just got rid of your $10 Super Chat in the flag, and I don't know if I can go back and find it.
	Give me 30 seconds.
	I see Allison's in the backdrop, and I can't be ruder than I've already been.
	Hold on.
	Oh, I can find it.
	Heart Tackle.
	Booyah.
	Great to see you here, as always, sir.
	Heart, thank you very much.
	Cheers again from Kisby, Saskatchewan.
	Are you a glass half full or half empty these days?
	Keep up the good fight, brother.
	I don't know.
	It depends what's in the glass.
	Okay.
	Viva just realized, okay, I got that one.
	Okay, fine.
	Now, with that said, I'm going to give everyone the link to the Rumbles.
	Be so kind as to mosey on over, and we're going to talk with Allison Morrow, journalist.
	I think I can call her my friend.
	She's a friend.
	This is the link to rumble.
	Mosey on over, and we're going to talk.
	The jibby-jabby, the most recent information coming out of the, not the CDC, the most recent decision coming out of the CDC, and the most recent information coming out of a certain FOIA request, which contains an unredacted vaccine order form for Slovenia.
	And what's in that will blow your mind.
	Okay, everyone, mosey on over to the rumbles, if you would be so kind.
	And EnviroCleanse, just to plug in one more time before we go over there, ekpure.com, promo code Viva, 10% off the unit.
	They have 0% financing if you meet certain conditions.
	The Viva promo code also gets you an air testing unit.
	It's a third-party unit, and it has a red light, green light, and lets you know if the air quality is good, whatever.
	It's a phenomenal product.
	Patented.
	Filtration.
	Department of Defense uses it in 300,000 classrooms in America.
	And I actually want to try to find a way to get it into Quebec.
	Because for all of you who don't know, during the COVID lockdowns, the air quality in schools was so bad in general that what they were doing to increase circulation was opening the windows of classrooms in winter.
	I know this because they did this in my kids' school.
	Maybe instead of wasting $135, $150 million on COVID ads, buy a unit per classroom so that kids don't have to open the freaking windows in winter to get air circulation in class.
	Okay, done.
	Rumble.
	Ending on YouTube.
	Removing.
	Three, two, one.
	Ah.
	Okay, I've gone way too late for Allison.
	Everybody, let me just go here and satisfy my OCD and see the number just start going up.
	Oh, yes.
	9,300.
	Refresh.
	9,391.
	Refresh.
	Okay.
	One.
	Oh, crap.
	I've lost it.
	All right.
	I'm bringing her in.
	Allison, stop picking your nose.
	Dang.
	I was just getting a good one out.
	Sorry, but that was a joke, everyone.
	She wasn't.
	Allison, hold on.
	Either you fix your camera or I'll go like this.
	Let's do this.
	This is good.
	You want me to fix my camera?
	No, no, no.
	I'll leave it in wide frame.
	What's wrong with my camera?
	Well, if I zoom in on your face like this, it's off center.
	There you go.
	That's better.
	Okay.
	I just say, Allison, move over an inch.
	Okay, and then are you able to tilt it down a quarter of an inch?
	My camera?
	Why?
	Because you want me to be just as tall as you?
	Yes.
	It's really bothering you, huh?
	No, no, no.
	I'll back out.
	I cannot let my own...
	I can stand on my tip.
	I can't reach my tip.
	No, forget it.
	Okay, it doesn't matter.
	What do you think?
	I use a laptop.
	I'm a professional.
	Okay, here.
	You sit normally.
	Okay.
	I'm standing.
	Okay, then stand on it.
	Perfect.
	And I'll just keep it like this.
	Okay.
	I won't slouch.
	Allison, when was the last time you were on my channel?
	It's been a while.
	It's been a while.
	It's probably been over a year.
	And things have changed.
	It was before COVID.
	Wasn't it?
	No, it could not have been.
	No, you're right.
	You're right.
	But it was before, I would say, mandates, like the insanity.
	COVID was a thing, but it was before we really knew what it was going to become.
	Because I know we would have talked a lot about that and we didn't talk a ton about that at the time.
	Well, Allison, was it before?
	No, you were having problems on YouTube.
	No, it was before your problems on YouTube.
	Absolutely.
	Yeah, it was.
	No, it was the end of 2020 because my channel had blown up with my Antifa video.
	And that was one of the reasons that you guys had me on because I did this video about what it was like covering Antifa and what the news often leaves out.
	And I got like 60,000 subscribers overnight and then YouTube shadow banned my video.
	I mean, to the point where you could Google the exact title of the video with my name and you would not get any results about it.
	It would bring up every other video I'd ever done.
	And then it came back on the radar a few weeks after that.
	But it was age-restricted to 18 and up, which is very weird because there was nothing in it that you couldn't watch at 16 or even 8, frankly.
	It wasn't violent or anything.
	It was just explaining what goes on when you cover Antifa.
	Okay, now I remember all of that.
	So everyone in the chat, I mean, I think everybody knows who you are.
	I take for granted they do because it's a small community and I think...
	But Allison, 30-second overview for those who are new to this channel and might not know who you are.
	Who are you?
	I was a TV reporter for 12 years.
	Before I was a reporter, I produced for Fox News Channel's morning show, Fox& Friends.
	I have a Master of Divinity degree in psychology and counseling, which I think has really actually helped me understand some of the craziness that we've gone through over the last couple of years.
	I took a transition job, actually, when I quit my TV news career and was starting my podcast on the side.
	I took a transition job with the Department of Natural Resources in Washington State, which is the wildest I was a wild firefighting agency, a government agency.
	And they knew I had my podcast and everything at the time.
	They actually told me they wanted me to promote them on it.
	I never did because I didn't want to cross contaminate.
	But when COVID became a reality, I started focusing my podcast on censorship.
	And even though I was keeping it totally separate...
	Because they decided they wanted to have this vaccine mandate that a lot of government agencies decided to have along with corporations and require everybody at our agency to be vaccinated for COVID.
	They caught on to the fact that my podcast was allowing people to speak against mandates and to question the vaccines themselves.
	And so they told me if I wanted to keep my job, I had to comply with never talking to somebody like that publicly ever again.
	I refused to comply, so I was fired.
	That was last year.
	And believe it or not, you know we're going to talk about this.
	But they still have the mandate.
	I mean, it's totally insane, given what we've learned about what's going on.
	But they still have the mandate at my agency and many others in our country.
	But it's just nuts to me.
	And I got to say, Viva, one of the things I think I've learned since I was on your channel the first time, I think I was still waking up to how intentional and delusional.
	The manipulation is in my old industry of corporate news.
	I was still, I think, in the process of trying to understand what if this is just complete ignorance?
	What if this is intentional malice?
	And I sadly have a much darker view of it all now, but that's my story.
	Allison, I don't remember exactly when it was.
	I just remember the substance where I said, you used to work at...
	It was a mainstream outlet.
	Was it Fox?
	Do I want to say?
	Fox, yeah.
	So you used to work at Fox.
	We were talking about journalists and whether or not they're useful idiots, pawns, or malicious liars.
	And back then, and you were taking flack in the chat for giving them the benefit of the doubt, saying, look, they're all just part of a machine.
	They think they're doing good.
	Has that since evolved over the last year and a half?
	Yes.
	I think I have a much darker view of there being a...
	Puppeteer or multiple puppeteers at the top tier level.
	I think what's become most depressing for me is I still believe that a lot of these people think that they're doing something in the name of benevolence, but they're like benevolent nanny messiahs.
	They have these massive egos and have basically made advocacy.
	I was just doing a video the other day about how, once again, the calls are coming in to do journalism differently if Trump runs in 2024.
	And the woman who wrote it, Margaret Sullivan, I think she wrote for the Washington Post, she's like, hey guys, I know we were balanced in 2016, or 2020, but if this guy runs again, we can't be balanced anymore.
	You've got to think, like, this woman in her brain, she somehow believes they were balanced and now they're going to change tactics.
	But they're openly called for what I would call activism and advocacy.
	Like, they're showing you their cards now.
	And I don't know what to call that.
	I mean, I believe that that is kind of like this brainwashed zombie state of just being.
	And it translates into being...
	A terrible journalist, not being curious whatsoever about what else is out there other than just to say these opposing views are extremists, they're domestic terrorists, they're selfish, they're idiots, they're crazy.
	I mean, they've somehow come to terms with writing off half of the entire country here.
	And I do think that...
	I do think...
	I don't think they're smart.
	I guess I should say I don't think they're smart enough.
	This sounds mean, but I don't think they're smart enough and aware enough to be good liars.
	I think the ones at the top probably are, yeah.
	But the average one is still, I think what's become most depressing for me is that sense that a lot of, I think, journalists have that they're here.
	To save you from yourself.
	That's what they think a journalist does.
	They're here to save you, the idiot, average consumer of news, to tell you what's good for you and to help you get through the cesspool that is the information war right now.
	They have amped up their level of ego and benevolence to the point where it's extremely dangerous.
	And they look at everybody else, like Joe Smith on the internet, as the danger to democracy.
	They are the danger to democracy.
	What you're describing is, I always say Lewis Carroll.
	That's my favorite quote.
	It's C.S. Lewis.
	Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.
	It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent royal busybodies.
	The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep.
	His cupidity may at some point be satiated.
	But those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end.
	For they do it with the approval.
	Of their own conscience.
	But no, I think it's malice at this point, and I think it's self-preservation malice.
	And you reminded me to say, at the beginning of this stream, I started off with Rebel News, a clip from Rebel News.
	I read an article from, I think one of them was from the Gateway Pundit.
	And people say, they're not news outlets.
	The people who say that are the very liars.
	Who themselves are the activist journalists that they criticize.
	And I'll say this.
	Anybody who says that Rebel News is not a news outlet, on whatever side you're on, I won't call you idiots, but I'm thinking it.
	Because they might be activist journalists.
	They might be biased.
	You might even think that they're propagandists.
	But to say that one activist journalist, one activist outlet is not a media outlet, but CNN, MSNBC, New York Times are, I'll grant that they're news, but I'll call them Propaganda news.
	But busybody.
	So, malicious.
	I think it's malicious.
	And you seem to have darkened your soul in a year and a half, but who wouldn't?
	Have you been having problems on YouTube still to this day?
	Not as many as I was because I realized that I had to fight them with my own terms of service and not try to go to battle with them with theirs.
	I was never going to win.
	I was never going to win playing their game, so I've started my own, which is basically to use YouTube as a platform to get people off of YouTube and to go to the other sites, kind of like you're doing.
	I think that YouTube, you know, it's relaxing some of its COVID rules.
	I cover COVID quite a bit, but I just realized, like, at first I said, screw you, you know, I'm going to talk.
	I'm going to invite whoever I want on there.
	I'm going to ask them whatever I want and let them say whatever they want.
	But it's YouTube's playing field, and they would, I think, love nothing more than to have me give them the reason and opportunity to get rid of me.
	So I'm not going to do that.
	I'm not going to give them the pleasure of getting me off their platform.
	I'm sure they'll figure out a way eventually.
	But as of now, no, I mean, I've won every suspension that I've argued against, and thanks to your help.
	The insanity of dealing with YouTube is that you have to go to Twitter.
	Twitter is the courtroom, I guess, of big tech policy.
	So we get suspended.
	We all go to Twitter.
	We rage against them on Twitter.
	We get all our friends to retweet.
	To me, even when I win those, it's not a celebration because it's still proof that you have to be a big dog in the game in order to win anything.
	That means that all the little people, the folks who have...
	I don't even have that many followers, but say Joe with 50 followers has a YouTube channel and has some really good information.
	Why can't Joe keep his channel up if he argues the way we do?
	He does a good job with making his case.
	It won't matter because Joe doesn't have a thousand people retweeting his tweets, and that's apparently what YouTube cares most about.
	So it's not a celebration for me when I win.
	It's just proof, once again, that it creates its own tech oligarchy, I think.
	And I don't want to be a part of it, but it's the only way to win.
	They don't listen any other way.
	And now just to remind me, so you're on Locals.
	It's alisonmorrow.locals.com.
	One L, people.
	Two R's.
	Okay, but Allison, let's get into it.
	You're a journalist.
	By training, by life experience, and you've been journalizing a lot these days.
	Before we get into the CDC, because I know you had a good show on that the other day, are you up to speed with the ABC or NBC producer who has been disappeared and nobody seems to know where he is?
	Not even ABC?
	They don't seem to care?
	Okay, so I actually had a friend of his friends, he may be sort of tangentially a friend of this guy, reach out to me because I did do a video about all of this.
	Allegedly, he's been seen.
	His family knows where he is.
	He's not missing in the sense of milk carton.
	We gotta find this guy.
	He might be dead.
	He has oddly resigned from his job.
	According to what Rolling Stone said, he resigned right before this raid.
	And he hasn't been seen in his typical circles.
	If you read the report, the lawyer for this guy said that...
	He was concerned, the information Rolling Stone got, about him having potentially confidential, or sorry, what's the word?
	Not secret, but classified.
	Classified, thank you.
	Classified documents on his laptop, that that came from somewhere deep in the government.
	And so the attorney, that was his statement, not, hey, my client's missing, have a heart, let's look out for him.
	It's such an odd story, because on one hand, they're making the case that he sort of fell off the face of the earth.
	On the other hand, There's no urgency to try to find him in the article.
	It's all about what was going on, what was happening behind the scenes, what did he really have on his laptop, who had he interviewed recently, who were his connections.
	And it doesn't really make the case that the guy's in imminent danger.
	It didn't sound like that from what his attorney said.
	So from what I've heard from people who have seen my videos and reached out and said, hey, we're connected in his circles.
	He's laying low.
	Now, that's the real question.
	What's going on?
	Why did he resign his job?
	He was at the height of his career.
	He was producing multiple documentaries that were winning awards, doing high-level national security investigations, and he just quits.
	Why?
	What is he working on now?
	What's going on behind the scenes?
	I think that's the big question.
	Or, you know, is it all what he...
	They say it is.
	I mean, you know, who knows who this guy is connected to or what he was doing.
	And I'll say this, this is not to put Gavin, what's Gavin's last name?
	McInnes.
	Not to put Gavin McInnes on blast or to show the problems of the fallout of the gag that he pulled.
	But, you know, when he disappeared and everyone was like, oh, wondering why?
	Arrested.
	Was he detained?
	And then we find out, you know, it was an Andy Kaufman-esque prank.
	So, you know, now we have to have that same reflex where you have people saying, I just can't find the article that I just said.
	Oh, for goodness sake.
	Where, you know, I see the article.
	Hold on.
	Let me just bring it back.
	Are you talking about Gavin McInnes?
	Yeah, when Gavin McInnes disappeared and everyone was like, oh, he got arrested.
	He said the FBI came in and took him away.
	Yeah, and so now we hear this story where you got a few outlets reporting things like award-winning journalists missing.
	Since FBI raid.
	Who wrote that?
	What outlet is this?
	This is New York Post.
	Yeah, that's just, that's, from my knowledge, it's incorrect to call him missing.
	So it says he's a 52-year-old investigative reporter, yada, yada, yada.
	Has not been seen in public.
	By who, though?
	See, this is a great, like, how to read articles critically, okay?
	Yeah, he's here.
	Because you have to ask, he hasn't been seen publicly.
	What does that mean?
	By whom?
	By his former peers?
	By the grocery store checkout clerk?
	What does that mean?
	It's interesting.
	You could imagine a circumstance in which he might have been arrested and put on house arrest.
	I can't even imagine.
	Let's think about this too.
	Where's his family?
	I mean, why aren't they talking publicly if they want to try to find the guy?
	That's another very odd part about this.
	If the guy's missing or he's in danger, where's his family?
	Why aren't they trying to find him?
	And here's another thing.
	If I got raided by the FBI, even if I had quit my job at my former employer, I want to make sure I'm still centered so I'm not throwing you off.
	Thank you very much.
	I would be shocked if they didn't run stories about it immediately.
	Not even because they cared about me, but because of the ratings opportunity.
	Hey, Allison got raided by the FBI and now we can't find her.
	They would be trying to find everybody they could to interview to keep the story going.
	Unless there was some kind of backdoor knowledge about what's going on on ABC's side.
	And they don't want to cover this.
	It stinks.
	This story stinks of something.
	It doesn't add up.
	So Medic Deb, with a $50 rant, said, who is the media member missing after the FBI?
	We're talking about this guy, Gordon Meek.
	And so your information is that he's laying low.
	He's not detained.
	He hasn't been put in a ditch somewhere.
	And he allegedly had classified information on his computer as he's working on a documentary piece about the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
	So, okay.
	Interesting.
	Now, what were you going to say?
	I was just going to say, one thing I do know about this guy is that he has connected some very high-level people at the security agencies.
	So he also did work for the government, like some kind of national security counterterrorism stuff.
	He's lived in this very blurry world of government and journalism.
	He's not your average journalist.
	And there are a lot of questions in my mind if I had the chance to ask him that I would ask him about.
	I would not hire someone or allow someone to be doing work for the government at the time that they were working in my newsroom.
	So what's the deal there?
	Was it before his employment?
	Was he in the military?
	There's all kinds of just...
	Just so people know, this wasn't just some bumbling producer guy.
	He was very highly connected in the government.
	And I think it was with, who was it?
	It was with Barnes, but it's known that the individual, the reporter, Gordon, not has ties, but was in intelligence.
	Yeah, he has intelligence ties.
	Yeah, and he did do work for the government in intelligence, so I don't know, man.
	So the story, as you understand it, he has not been disappeared.
	He's not in a hole somewhere in whatever that building is in Chicago.
	Laying low, but has been seen, but has been silenced, which is its own story, and we'll maybe find out later.
	Or he's choosing to...
	Not talk right now.
	Why does he have an attorney?
	That's the other, you know, I mean, I don't have an attorney.
	Do you have, I mean, I have you.
	I got Barnes.
	I got my dad.
	I mean, so, yeah, but what I heard from my source is that he's, yeah, he was seen at a concert in August with his daughter, actually.
	So he's out and about, and some people are seeing him.
	But when I asked if somebody would talk to me even anonymously, Off the record about what's going on, a big no for multiple.
	So they're scared.
	For whatever reason, people connected don't want to have anything to do with talking about what's going on.
	Do with that what you will.
	Interesting enough.
	Now, Allison, you also had a good show on last week, or was it not yesterday, but I guess last week technically, Friday or Thursday, about the recent CDC decision to add the Rona jab to the immunization schedule of children.
	The recommended immunization schedule, which we know does not bind the states, but we know that historically the states have acted in accordance with what the CDC guidelines, CDC recommendations were.
	Inform the people what you learned during that interview.
	Who did you have on and what was the bottom line takeaway from what the CDC did?
	Bernadette Pager was on.
	She's with Informed Choice Washington and she does a bunch of other work.
	It would be of interest, I think, to your audience to know that she and I crossed paths years ago when I was in TV news in Seattle.
	I was an environmental reporter there, and I had gotten an email from a conference that was happening that weekend with Informed Choice Washington to talk about doctors who were in support of having exemptions for the prior vaccines required for school before COVID was even a thing.
	At the time, Washington legislators were debating whether to remove some of these exemptions.
	There were all kinds of protests around the state, and our station was covering it.
	When I saw that they were having doctors come to town who were questioning whether kids should be required to have vaccines at all to go to school, and specifically...
	You know, defending the exemptions.
	I realized I'd never heard from doctors.
	I always heard from, like, a mom at a protest debating the Department of Health.
	Our station always set it up like that was a fair fight.
	I always thought that was pretty unfair.
	And I was genuinely curious.
	I had never heard a doctor talk about this before.
	I thought that that's what journalists should do.
	I forwarded the email onto my assignment desk and to my manager and said, hey, this is happening this weekend.
	Maybe we should go get some sound bites from these doctors and have them go up against the Department of Health instead of just moms at the protests.
	And my manager told me that he...
	I was never allowed to discuss vaccines again in the newsroom.
	That meant passing along an email.
	I was never going to cover it.
	It wasn't my beat.
	My beat was the environment.
	But I was never allowed to pass an email along or to discuss the topic because if I would even question this at all, he did not trust my judgment on the topic.
	And it was the first time that I'd ever had a manager really outwardly censor a topic.
	Before, it's like...
	Kind of what you were asking earlier about what's really going on.
	Journals live in a bubble.
	A lot of them live in an ideological bubble.
	They go to the same schools.
	They go out to the same bars.
	They talk about the same things.
	They live in the same areas.
	They run in the same circles as the government types and the tech types.
	All of those people, they just all think the same.
	You know, boring in a lot of ways.
	And so the news reflects that.
	It reflects that you don't have to force censorship on a bunch of bumbling idiots who all think the same thing.
	But when somebody starts to wake up and they start questioning, that's when it comes out.
	And that was the first time I'd ever had a manager say something like that to me.
	So Bernadette was one of the people with that conference.
	And because I was so curious at that point, having had a manager say that I was never allowed to ask questions about it.
	Or even talk to my coworkers about it.
	I went to the conference myself.
	And that's how we cross paths.
	And I've learned a ton about this issue since then.
	And I got to say, you know, a lot of people woke up during COVID, but...
	There's been a lot of really nefarious stuff happening behind the scenes with this particular topic for a long time.
	And many of your viewers are probably familiar with Cheryl Atkinson, who's written many books on propaganda and government surveillance and just how terrible the decline of journalism has been.
	And she said in the 90s that she was writing reports about...
	Possible links of autism with vaccines.
	And they were actually publishing that stuff at the time.
	But then over the course of several more years, it became a very taboo topic.
	As somebody who never really had learned much about it, I was shocked to...
	To see that it wasn't even something that you were safely allowed to debate.
	You couldn't even ask questions about it, which then made me just more curious.
	So basically what Bernadette said was that they voted to add these vaccines to the recommended immunizations for kids.
	And that would mean that if your state follows CDC guidelines, it's highly likely that your state is going to...
	In some way, add these vaccines to school schedules, whether it's going to be your Department of Health for the state or you've got a health commissioner.
	That's who you've got to be paying attention to if you're concerned about this.
	In states like Florida, it may not be as much of an issue because the legislature passed a law saying you couldn't mandate.
	This kind of stuff.
	But if something changes, say Governor DeSantis goes and runs for president in a few years and this hasn't gone away, it could change.
	So you shouldn't just blind yourself in states like Florida.
	But in my state, Washington, it's going to be a big deal.
	And I'm not sure I'll be able to find it now, but we've seen examples historically where I think it was Shapiro out of Pennsylvania.
	Look, these are the requirements.
	These are the guidelines from the CDC.
	They shall form part of our...
	State requirements for school vaccinations.
	We're following the science.
	But, Alison, so Bernadette explains what happens.
	And for anybody who doesn't know, it was 15 to 0. Approval of the new schedule for recommended...
	I don't even know what to call it now because...
	For the childhood vaccine or immunization schedule.
	Immunization, that's right.
	So the immunization, which has a meaning and therapeutic is not immunization, but whatever.
	15 to 0 to approve the new schedule, which includes the Rona jab.
	Did Bernadette and others hypothesize as to the motivation?
	Because we're going to get into the other part of the story, which is what's in these purchase order forms for the Rona jab that might...
	Make it inexplicable that the CDC could come to this conclusion, but did Bernadette get into potential motivation, the fact that this would immunize permanently the pharma companies who manufacture this once it gets on the childhood recommended immunization schedule?
	Well, if you think about it, actually, vaccine manufacturers have immunity even without this EUA because of that 1986 rule where basically you fall under this protection and if you have an injury, you sue the federal government.
	So what likely is behind all of this is that it's going to switch from the government paying for the vaccines to your insurance now covering it.
	So it's a huge pool of money.
	Opening up to these vaccine manufacturers, because if your school's requiring it, now you have to go get it, and your insurance company, which a lot of these insurance companies are all in bed also with these pharmaceutical companies, now they're going to dish out the money for it, and it's just going to create a whole new customer base.
	So they're going to stay likely under this emergency use.
	For the beginning, but eventually will likely transition to that 1986 protection where, like I said, you can go to the vaccine court, which often does not find in favor of the vaccine injured, but you can't sue the company.
	You end up suing the federal government.
	The federal government then has to pay out.
	In Canada, we have the vaccine injury.
	It's called vaccineinjury.ca, but basically it's a program.
	That's funded, managed by the government.
	You go through the program for vaccine injuries, and you don't get to sue the vaccine manufacturer specifically.
	My understanding, and I'd like...
	Greg Price, journalist, also has the same understanding.
	And I should say, I'm relying on people who I think are smarter than me for this opinion.
	RFK Jr. also had the explanation that there was immunity under the emergency authorization use, which goes back to the PrEP Act, which says, compelling circumstances, we need to get this out.
	We're doing our best to meet the emergency so we can't be held liable.
	We understand that in theory.
	People, you're going to freak out when we get to this order as to what that all means in reality.
	But now, you know, you can't use emergency authorization use.
	You can't use it.
	Is it emergency use authorization?
	EUA or EAU?
	EUA.
	EUA.
	You can't use it forever.
	And you also can't, apparently...
	If you want the permanent immunity, you can't get that under the EUA because the emergency at one point is going to lapse.
	And so the way to get the permanent immunity is by once it's recommended on the children's schedule, any injury has to go through the government program and you don't get to sue the company itself.
	So that's Bernadette's understanding as well?
	Yeah, she was basically saying they're putting the car before the horse by doing this because you would normally see them.
	File it under this other, like move it from EUA to this other Protection Act deal.
	So they're moving it to the childhood immunization schedule basically to bolster its requirement, to say like, hey, everybody needs it now, so it should fall under.
	It should fall under every other vaccine that's required.
	Just to basically tee it up.
	I don't know if it's an automatic thing.
	You make it onto the childhood immunization schedule and then automatically you fall into this category of protection.
	I think something else has to happen.
	But it essentially bolsters your ability to do so.
	And they're doing it before the EUA runs out.
	I'm trying to find the...
	A tweet from Albert Bourla, where they announced authorization of the EUA for the vaccine for children.
	I've got the tweet where they say they've submitted their application.
	They got approval for EUA for children aged 5 to 11. And I just said, A, where's the emergency?
	But how on earth do they get approval if it's the updated vaccine?
	How do they get approval for EUA while simultaneously adding it to the recommended immunization schedule?
	And what's the emergency?
	If anybody can answer that question.
	I mean, which shot are they talking about?
	Is it going to be...
	Which shot?
	The one from before?
	My old government agency still requires the original shot.
	It's like even their own people have said that that doesn't protect you.
	That's why there are boosters that they push.
	Now, I don't buy into all this anyway, but let's just talk about how they argue it.
	It doesn't make any sense.
	They've come out.
	these people who are saying this should be on the childhood immunization schedule have already said it doesn't prevent transmission.
	What is the point?
	I just, I cannot, that's the first thing I I don't understand their reasoning behind this.
	If you're flat out saying it doesn't prevent transmission, why are you forcing these kids to get this to go to school?
	That in and of itself should be a deal breaker.
	It just does not make any sense.
	So yeah, there's that part of it.
	The questions about which shot.
	They haven't said, like, okay, so are kids going to be required to get an updated booster every year?
	Because we already know the efficacy, according to them, runs out after a certain amount of time.
	Is that even safe?
	We don't have any data on this.
	I mean, we have more data to show it's not.
	You know, it's not safe.
	So, yeah, I mean, this is truly insane.
	Anyone who thinks this is normal, and Viva, I don't know if you can...
	Show my screen, but let me see if I can share it.
	While you bring that up, I'm just going to bring...
	Okay.
	I found one of the tweets.
	I'm breaking.
	The U.S. FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted in support of granting emergency use authorization for the Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in children age 5 to 11. Pfizer 12. A, where's the emergency?
	And B, if they've got EUA now.
	How then does the CDC and which version of the jab are they authorizing on this immunization schedule?
	I don't understand it.
	And Albert Bourla, I don't think will be coming.
	He will not be accepting my invitation onto the channel ever.
	If not, maybe anytime soon.
	Allison, I see your channel.
	I see your side here.
	Okay, let's see this.
	Well, I just wanted to show people how the news covered this because it's so dumb.
	So it's not news nor scandalous that Pfizer trial didn't test transmission because people probably remember this.
	Go ahead.
	I was going to say, it's not scandalous that they didn't test for transmission if they didn't say that it would prevent transmission.
	The scandal is not what they tested for.
	It's what they lied about.
	Exactly.
	Yeah, I mean, that's the thing that, you know, to go back to, like, the original question you had about, you know, how my opinion has changed and what I mean by this, just...
	I don't know, completely brainwashed bubble.
	Did you not see how many people lost their jobs, folks who have had their family members die because they chose to get this and they had some kind of reaction to it or are still getting better from that?
	These people were coerced.
	People have been coerced into choosing to support their family or to see their kids' school play.
	It's just insane.
	To say that that's not news, that it's not scandalous, because that was how it was sold to all of us.
	It was sold to all of us that we were not a team player and we shouldn't be able to participate in society if we didn't do what they say.
	Now they're like, wait, of course we didn't.
	It wasn't required to be tested.
	This is the weird part, though, too.
	In that article and in other articles that discuss this, where they do their fact checks, they run you through.
	This is where they self-own.
	They run you through the last two years of the things the FDA has said or the things that Pfizer has said or the CDC has said or Fauci has said.
	And they're like, see?
	They always said that it wasn't going to prevent transmission.
	So what are you guys complaining about?
	It's like, wait a second.
	Are you serious?
	Then where were you this whole time?
	If they were saying this, For years, okay, not just months, but for years into it, if they were literally saying, as you say, that it doesn't prevent transmission for years, where were you, the media?
	Holding them accountable to that while these mandates were coming down and people were losing their jobs all over the country because they were pushing the opposite message.
	So you're right, they are nefarious and they're malicious, but they're also total boneheads.
	I sit back and I think, how divorced from reality, and I hate to use that term because that's how they look at the rest of us that were divorced from reality, but truly, how do you not read this article?
	If you're in mainstream news, how do you not read this article with all these examples of it doesn't prevent transmission, it doesn't prevent transmission, in order to prove your case that everybody who's freaking out about this online is wrong and it's not news?
	How do you read that and sleep at night knowing that for two years you pushed a storyline that has left people's lives irreparably damaged?
	I just don't understand.
	I'm trying to find the video.
	There was a montage floating around Twitter.
	And it seems that the video is no longer on the original poster's website.
	Video proof here.
	Something went wrong.
	Try reloading.
	Hold on.
	Before I jump to conclusions, there was a montage.
	And if I can't find the montage, at the very least, I'll find Albert Vula 100%.
	Tweet.
	Listen to this.
	Everybody on the channel has seen this.
	Excited to share.
	They never said it would stop transmission.
	They never said it would stop transmission.
	Except Albert Bourla said it.
	We see this here?
	Excited to share that updated analysis from our Phase 3 study with BioNTech also showed that our COVID-19 vaccine was 100% effective in preventing COVID-19 cases in South Africa.
	100%.
	And then you had Dr. Fauci explaining how it neutralized and prevented transmission.
	You had Rachel Maddow, the video, saying, if you're vaccinated, you will not get it.
	You had Joe Biden saying it.
	And then they try to tell you in real time they never said it.
	And the funny thing is, hold on, I'm going to pull this one off.
	I found another old tweet.
	Brian Shelter was telling people that, you know, you weren't a real journalist if you didn't post your selfie getting your vaccine because you needed to set a good example for everybody to jump in on this one.
	This was my deep...
	This is over a year ago.
	If the vaccinated can still contract, carry, and spread the virus but are less likely to show symptoms when infected, does that...
	Does the vaccine not in fact make the vaccinated the real super spreaders?
	Yeah, that's what a lot of people were questioning back then.
	And it's a fair question.
	This whole thing is just insane.
	It's truly insane.
	And then, you know, when you try to talk about it, you can't because the tech platforms don't allow you to.
	And frankly, you know, a lot of the corporate news journalists, they look at us on the internet as their...
	You know, dirty, redheaded stepchildren or something.
	Like, they don't take us seriously anyway.
	Whoa, whoa, Allison, don't.
	I'm not redheaded.
	I like red hair, but...
	But, okay, hold on.
	We're going to go to the next level of crazy now.
	And I'll find the montage.
	I'll retweet it or make a new montage.
	They said it.
	That was the rationale for getting it.
	Even if you're not at a demographic at risk, you get the shot because you don't want Granny to die.
	Because when you go visit Granny, you want Granny to be protected.
	And then they say, We never tested for transmission.
	And you're an idiot if you understood that, when that was the basis for vaccinating, compelling vaccination of a demographic that was not at risk for the Rona.
	But let's go to the next level of crazy, Alison.
	Have you seen this?
	I flipped you the link earlier, but...
	Yeah, I looked at it.
	Yeah.
	It is nuts.
	This is the Gateway Pundit, so you can take it for what it's worth as activist journalism.
	But if it's bunk fake news and it's a fake document that's been released...
	Well then, I'll correct myself afterwards.
	But unredacted Pfizer agreement from FOIA request with Slovenian government reveals long-term effects and efficacy of the vaccine are not currently known.
	And there might be adverse effects.
	Okay, so that's the article.
	I'm just going to share that here, but then we're going to pull up the article.
	Let me just share this in Rumble so people can read this themselves.
	Although if people were in our vivabarnslaw.locals.com community, you'd have already seen it.
	Because I was angry this morning.
	But look at this.
	Where's my Albanian?
	No, we don't want the Albanian one.
	We want the...
	Microsoft?
	No, that's the...
	Oh, what did I do, Allison?
	Come on!
	What do you need?
	I need the actual document.
	Oh, it's in your tweet.
	Do you want me to send you that?
	Well, send me that or maybe what I'll just do.
	Just share my screen right now.
	Okay, here we go.
	Now, can you go into...
	Oh, yeah, here we go.
	So we won't get the actual document.
	That's the document.
	And this is what it said.
	That's a cut and paste, people.
	So that is section four that I overlaid because I didn't want to just show one useless page.
	It's called...
	Let me get in here.
	I can't see too good.
	The vaccine order form between Slovenia, the member state, and Pfizer.
	And it was dated...
	Go to the second page.
	I think it was dated 2021 September.
	September 2021.
	Okay.
	And now let's just go back to what, you know, because a lawyer drafted this.
	And if somebody's selling a product that might not work, you want the purchaser of that product to acknowledge we're not guaranteeing anything.
	The participating member state, that being Slovenia as defined in the agreement, acknowledges, they acknowledge that the vaccine and materials related to the vaccine and their components and constituent materials are being rapidly developed.
	Due to the emergency circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and will continue to be studied.
	Studied after the provision of this vaccine.
	That, sorry, yeah, that might offend people.
	We're going to continue studying it after we've administered it to billions of people.
	Obama said it very eloquently.
	It'll be studied after provision of the vaccine for the participating member states under the APA.
	Something purchase agreement, whatever purchase agreement.
	The participating member state further acknowledges that the long-term effects and efficacy of the vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the vaccine that are not currently known.
	We can remove that.
	Actually, I have the power on this end.
	When Justin Trudeau was walking around saying it's safe and effective, I'd like to know, did he make that acknowledgement in Canada's purchase order for the vaccine from Pfizer?
	Because if he did...
	I want to make sure not to use expressions that can be misconstrued.
	He needs to go to jail.
	I'll say that.
	There needs to be a trial first.
	And if found guilty, he needs to go to jail.
	There's a very big problem.
	If these politicians and medical experts were making public statements that are diametrically opposed and contradicted to contractual recognitions that they undertook to acknowledge in the very purchase orders.
	Alison, did your mind get blown when you saw that?
	Yes and no, because Honestly, this is so obvious.
	To me, it's been so obvious that this stuff has been going on for a long time, and that these, especially the government leaders who have been pushing this stupid safe and effective line, which is, even if you really believe that the vaccines are, you know, you're in on it, right, dude?
	You just love them.
	You drink them if you have the opportunity.
	You can't say anything is safe and effective all the time for everybody.
	So that was just a fake propaganda line that was spread by these people.
	Even before we could see these FOIA requests and everything else from behind the scenes.
	Anyone that had half a brain could sit back and go, wait a second, what medicine?
	What medicine is ever safe and effective all the time for everybody?
	Nothing.
	We never say that about anything.
	So any politician who repeated that line was either willfully ignorant or purposely pushing propaganda, knowing the opposite.
	Because you could literally, I feel like my two-year-old could understand that.
	I think she could understand that you can't say that about everything and just force it on people in the way that they did.
	Yeah, I'm still horrified by how either stupid the people who are running things are, or evil.
	I mean, it really, and that includes my old industry.
	I mean, you can't be, I don't see it any other way.
	It's either like you're a total moron, or you are completely evil.
	And neither one of those are good options.
	At this point, I'm going with...
	Evil covering up its own, you know, they never thought it would see the light of day.
	I'm sending myself the link to the actual PDF so that I can just show that and share that later.
	No, but that's pretty shocking because, you know, that makes sense internally.
	They never tested for the transmission or they never tested against transmission or did the studies, whatever, developed it to prevent transmission.
	So they specifically say that in their contracts.
	But how do you sell this to people?
	A foreign medication, a foreign medical procedure entering your body, if it's not going to protect against that which it's supposed to, don't tell them.
	Right.
	But yet at the same time, if you go back and look at some of these statements that now all of a sudden these media outlets are able to compile, like they just didn't know about them for the last two years, but now they're able to compile them.
	It was out there.
	It was out there in plain sight, which is, this is the weird thing about media manipulation.
	It's like, if they focus on one particular thing and everybody gets hysterical about it...
	Because if they're hysterical about it, they need you to be hysterical about it.
	Really, a lot of the news is just a reflection of their own anxiety about the world and what's going on.
	The other issue that I wasn't allowed to question, climate change.
	They're very anxious about that.
	We're all going to die because of climate change, so now that's going to be on the news a lot.
	But doesn't it fascinate you?
	I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
	That when they want to prove their point, okay, in this particular case it is, everybody just settle down.
	Settle down.
	Stop freaking out.
	You know, you're listening to right-wing propaganda or whatever it is that they're trying to say this is.
	They're able to dig up the quotes which, over the last two years, they somehow...
	They didn't share these quotes because the whole transmission thing was out there.
	And they're able to put it out there to people when it serves their purpose.
	So I'm just curious what you think about that.
	I think they're pathological liars.
	They never thought that it would see the light of day.
	And now it's full cover-up mode.
	It's full cover-up mode because they moved too fast at the beginning.
	And even I said this to myself when I made the decision to insert this into my body in August.
	I said, I mean, Even if it's useless, well, so long as it's not harmful.
	There.
	And I'm, you know, in my own ignorance and naivety, I'm thinking, well, I mean, what is it?
	So it's some inert substance they're putting in my body, and it'll give me a sore shoulder for a bit, and that's it.
	And then, you know, it's only learning afterwards that...
	Yeah, now look at your hair, Viva.
	No, look at my...
	Just so long as my heart's fine.
	That's what I'm worried about.
	It's been over a year.
	I can still...
	I mean, I'm still running good, but...
	You know, I just said, okay, it might be useless so long as it's not harmful.
	And a year later, well, you know, we're seeing some trends.
	But at the time when they were saying it's, you know, maybe overselling it, fine.
	That's, you know, like, what's it called?
	Bon d 'oeil, as we say in French.
	It's good exaggeration.
	They just, you know, they want people to buy it.
	Selling it on a feature that they've never tested it is dishonest.
	Selling it knowing that they haven't, I mean, even I said at the time, you can't have safety data.
	After six months of trials, period.
	You're not a doctor.
	You knew that.
	That's why anyone with half a brain knows that.
	So it's like you're either in a trance and you're an idiot or you're woefully malicious.
	Because you don't need to be a scientist and you don't even need these FOIAs to know what we're talking about right now.
	We all knew this years ago when this was all going down.
	It's just...
	Like I said, it's like a three-year-old could understand this.
	Viva, when I was going through my graduate degree, I was focusing on...
	Addiction psychology.
	I thought I wanted to work with drug addicts.
	And one of the reasons I decided not to was because I was very easily manipulated by drug addicts.
	They were like master manipulators.
	And I say this as somebody who has a recovered drug addict in her family, a very close family I love very much.
	But I knew I couldn't do that job because I was not able to see through the BS.
	I think about these journalists now sometimes.
	They're addicted.
	I don't know how to make any sense of it other than they live in this world where they're addicted to their narrative.
	Almost to the extent where they're willing to just go down with it and die with it.
	It's like their drug of choice.
	Whatever they've chosen, they will do whatever it is to bring you on to their side and to use manipulation taxes to get you on their side.
	It's nuts.
	The point I'm making is this stuff was out there in plain sight, I feel like, for anybody who is half aware.
	Look, you were talking about this a couple years ago.
	I was talking about this a couple years ago.
	This is just comfort.
	This, to me, is not anything new.
	Now, hold on.
	I'm going to pull this one up.
	This one is from the Albanian draft agreement.
	Manufacturing and supply agreement.
	You can Google this online.
	Between Pfizer and Albania Ministry of Health.
	We don't know what the final version says.
	And I think it was section five.
	These freaking contracts.
	And who reads these things?
	I mean, this is...
	Can't stand this stuff.
	Let me just see here.
	Not known.
	Let's just go.
	Section 5. Here we go.
	This is a draft, people, so we don't know if this is the final version.
	Available online when you Google it.
	Purchaser acknowledges that the vaccine and materials related to the vaccine.
	It sounds very familiar.
	And their components and constituents of materials are being rapidly developed due to the emergency circumstances, yada, yada, yada.
	Purchaser further acknowledges that the long-term effects and efficacy of the vaccine are not currently known and that there may be signs.
	It sounds like it's standard in all of the agreements.
	Comparing and contrasting that to what we were told, they lied to us, period.
	Now, some people might forget, oh, they were doing the best they could at the time.
	Not if they were saying things that they knew were not true because they weren't even looking for them.
	Yeah, and I mean, I totally, 100% agree with that.
	Like, you're right that the media, the government officials, if they were doing their jobs and paying attention to this stuff, which they said they were, so they were lying.
	In that case, if they weren't, but they were really paying attention, then yeah, they sold us a fake bill of goods, and they should be held accountable to this.
	I can't even believe it's still.
	Why do you think still there are mandates?
	This doesn't make any sense to me.
	Why do you think they're still doing it?
	Someone said they're all in, and they have to keep going, because if they admit they did something wrong now, it means that they did something wrong for the last two years, and they knew it.
	Yeah, I agree.
	My brother, who's also a lawyer who's been digging into this, is in the backdrop.
	Do you mind if I bring him in?
	No, please do.
	It'll become asymmetrical, which is going to drive me crazy.
	How do I add to screen Dan?
	Oh, look, there I am.
	Hey, Allison, nice to meet you.
	Hi!
	Allison, one day...
	Where should I stand so that I don't get too mad about it?
	Hold on, hold on.
	Do we do this?
	Wait, should we go?
	That's cool.
	Oh, hold on.
	Now we can do this.
	I like that better.
	And I go on the bottom so that I can cover.
	Oh, no.
	I don't have a super chest.
	Allison, Dan, Dan.
	Hi, Dan.
	Now you're over there?
	No, it's that way.
	There you are.
	And Allison, I think I can take credit for having started my brother's descent down the rabbit hole of the world in which we live.
	Dan?
	Yeah, you got me to go to Windsor.
	So that's what kind of kicked off this whole...
	My brother went to Windsor during the protest in Ottawa.
	I went to Ottawa and I was like, Viva, you've got to go to Windsor.
	And I'm like, dude, Windsor's 10 hours away from where I live.
	My brother lives in Toronto, so he went to Windsor, which is where they had the other portion of the Ottawa protest.
	But Dan, so you actually sent me the link for that vaccine story.
	Yeah, I got that from another source, but that seemed to be common knowledge.
	After I posted it, it's like a lot of folks, this seemed to be an old hat for a lot of people.
	It's in the monographs, right?
	Some of the information was in the monographs.
	What does monographs mean?
	The detailed spec sheet for the vaccines, right?
	They discuss what's known, what's not known, and the limits of their own information.
	And so a lot of the people that have been digging through this for a while were in the know.
	It's like, yeah, now the mainstream lawyers are kind of like, oh.
	Well, the mainstream lawyers who can tell you what this means, this means they lied to you when they said, when Joe Biden said, well, he might not have lied because he just might not know what the hell he's saying.
	And Rachel Maddow might not have lied because she was just relying on what she was told.
	And that person wasn't lying because everyone's pointing the finger like the Spider-Man meme.
	But this means something.
	Right, and this is the issue.
	This is the issue with liability.
	The question is, if there's going to be the class actions that everybody's screaming for, who's going to be the one to, you know, who's going to be the best defendant in all this?
	And that's, I think, a question that's going to have to be asked and answered at some point.
	I would say here in Canada, at least, it would be between Health Canada, Pfizer.
	I think those two big players would seem to be the big keys here, right?
	But everyone else kind of was just relying on, like, you can't hold judges personally.
	You're not going to hold, you know, doctors who are, for the most part, just following what they understood to be, you know, the best practices and best information, right?
	So Health Canada, from what this...
	From what it looks like from these two disclosures, it looks like Health Canada is just basically saying one thing privately or acknowledging one thing to Pfizer privately in these contracts and then publicly saying something very different, right?
	This is the actual PDF and so we can scroll all the way down.
	I'm just so neurotic.
	Maybe this is a forged document and it's just a total forged document.
	Someone made a fake forged.
	My conspiratorial wheels spin.
	When you see the draft agreement with Albania, it's online.
	It's always been there.
	Maybe they're just going to say, well, you guys, you did it to yourself.
	I'd be curious about the redacted version because there's a heavily redacted version in the indemnification provisions in Canada, but it sounds like if these agreements are all pretty much the same, then we know what it says.
	Allison, I should have asked this.
	Do you need to go, Allison?
	No, I'm okay.
	I have a producer hiding behind me right now, which my husband is trying to get out for a diaper change, but I'm going to mute myself so you don't hear the...
	And one day we'll have Smell-O-Vision where we can smell the poopy diaper.
	Dan.
	Yes.
	How are you doing?
	It's happening.
	Dan, sorry, what was I going to say with you?
	Can I embarrass you about the Twitter, you know, your recent Twitter blocks?
	Or is that, you don't want me to do that publicly?
	Oh, well, I mean, yeah, that's, look, I tweeted about it.
	You know, I'm trying to get the hospitals to acknowledge, you know, some of these coalition websites, what we call them, right?
	These were websites that were created to communicate this safe and effective message.
	Okay.
	And it was really difficult for me to find out who the legal entities were behind these websites.
	And again, this goes to liability, like responsibility, who is taking ownership.
	And so I've been, you know, petitioning these folks for, you know, to come out.
	Now that some people took responsibility for the information, the question is now, you know, to your point, Alison, about why we still have mandates.
	Now we need hospitals and doctors to say, look, get vaccinated if you think it's right for you, but don't.
	Schools and all these people, all these organizations should not be, you know, still having mandates.
	And we're talking mandates sometimes for like kids 13 and not.
	It's crazy.
	And we're well past it.
	I have a doctor friend who's been very pro-vax for the past two, three years.
	And we've been having some very friendly heated exchanges.
	But now, with this past release of the bivalent vaccine and the risk to myocarditis, they're like, you know what?
	I see your point now.
	It wasn't my point.
	This was what everyone was talking about.
	The ultimate irony, this is going back to the intro with Alex Jones.
	You want to talk about people making false statements to sell a product.
	Not false statements about a third party while selling an unrelated product.
	About the product.
	The government seems to have done what...
	They're accusing or finding Alex Jones did, except the false statements that they seem to have made were about the product itself.
	Allison, there was a rumble rant for you from Hermartix.
	It says, Allison, I've been looking for anyone doing studies on possible ovarian damage from the therapeutics.
	I have seen damage on sperm, but that recovers, and that doesn't matter if you don't want to have any more kids, but that recovers, and ovaries would not.
	Anything you've seen.
	Well, there's a paper that was published by Stephanie Seneff and Peter McCullough and a couple other doctors looking at suppression of your innate immune response post-vaccination.
	If you use whatever your search of choice is, don't use Google, I guess.
	I shouldn't promote Google.
	But if you use DuckDuckGo and you just Google DuckDuckGo, Stephanie Seneff, which is S-E-N-E-F-F, Peter McCullough.
	M-C-C-U-L-L-O-U-G-H, innate immune study.
	It will come up.
	Or, you know, innate immune study COVID vaccine.
	It'll come up.
	And they basically compiled data from VAERS to show the different issues that people are having because of the suppression or what they're arguing is the suppression of your innate immune system post-vaccination, including what this person is asking about.
	I don't know any trials right now that I've been privy to that have a considerable amount of data behind them.
	I would guess that they're probably out there.
	I will tell you anecdotally, I've had several friends who've had issues post-vaccination when it comes to either uterine or ovarian issues.
	One friend who had her menstrual cycle lasted a month.
	She was bleeding for a month after the vaccine.
	Then she had to go get a bunch of polyps removed.
	And so I know they're looking into it, allegedly.
	Even the drug companies said they're going to start looking.
	I would go look at that study that Dr. McCullough and Stephanie Seneff did, basically compiling reports of issues like that and start there.
	Interestingly, that is one of the places that even the drug companies are willing to now...
	And that must show us that there have been, in my opinion, a considerable amount of reports of it for them to be willing to say, okay, because at first women were talking about it and that was considered misinformation.
	Now they're willing to consider it.
	At first they denied that it had any impact on the menstrual cycle.
	Then they said, yeah, it's normal, but all shots do that anyhow.
	So moving goalposts.
	It's like, we never said it.
	We said it.
	We never said it was safe and safe for breastfeeding and pregnant women.
	But we said it while saying we didn't have enough data.
	Dan, what's the latest on your end of the search?
	I'm trying to get more people to document all these things better.
	I think that's what the public really needs to be aware of and mindful of.
	It's kind of tricky because everyone's kind of so beaten down and tired, but it's really important that everyone documents everything.
	So whether it's menstrual changes or anything like that, they've got to set up appointments with their family, doctors, physicians, and track all this stuff.
	Because, you know, there will come a point, and hopefully it won't be relevant for most people, but there will come a point where all this is going to have to be evaluated and there may be damages.
	And if people aren't documenting what's happening to them now, it's going to make things complicated.
	So that's what I kind of wanted to hop on today and just, you know, get that message out there.
	It used to be that the VAERS system was for documenting adverse effects, but now nobody cares about VAERS.
	All of a sudden, it's become an unreliable bellwether.
	Well, Allison, I don't know your extent of your knowledge of the vaccine injuries, like if you have the equivalent or you've reported on the injury support program in the States.
	I'd be curious to hear your experience with that.
	Okay, ask the question one more time.
	Vaccine injuries.
	Is there like a vaccine injury support program like there's here in Canada in the States?
	Like to what extent do people rely on kind of like an insurance program for any kind of injuries that they've had?
	Oh.
	Well, we were talking about this earlier.
	Well, so you can sue the federal government, and you'll probably lose, and you have to mount a pretty expensive legal case against basically the government.
	You can't sue the vaccine manufacturers, but you can sue the government.
	It's called that vaccine, oh gosh, I have it, the national vaccine.
	Injury compensation program.
	That's where you go.
	But it rarely ever awards in favor of the vaccine injured.
	When you were bringing up, Viva, the issue with VAERS, I really believe that VAERS is left intentionally the way that it is as a sort of unreliable reporting system because the government doesn't want to know what's really going on.
	If you think about how good they are at tracking and surveilling us, For any purpose that they've decided that they want to, they can obviously mobilize to get their data on people when they want to.
	So the fact that VAERS has been kind of left as this floating planet in the middle of a black void or something, that we just, oh, well, that's all we have.
	We just can't trust it, but that's all we have.
	Well, why is that all we have?
	And this is something that I've really changed my mind on over the years when it comes to looking at...
	The way things are as an intentional manipulation of reality versus like, oh, it just got to be this way.
	I really believe that when it comes to something like theirs, the powers that be will say, we just can't trust it, but that's the best we have.
	It's because they want it to be that way.
	They want it to be confusing.
	They want it to be untrustworthy because...
	You know, we've seen over the last few years that when they want to find out something about us, it's very easy for them to do so.
	They can have all kinds of committees and all kinds of programs to figure out every little secret that you have.
	But when it comes to vaccines, they just can't figure it out.
	I mean, does anyone really buy that that just organically occurred, that VAERS is the way it is just because we just haven't gotten to it yet?
	I'm convinced that they like it that way.
	No, no.
	I'm looking for the graph of VAERS reports over time, but the whole issue with VAERS is that it was just supposed to be something of an indicator.
	If there's a blip, see what's going on.
	And then when there was a massive blip, it just became, well, that's only because they're vaccinating everybody, so you're going to see more.
	They know that the VAERS reporting, from what I understand, is a fraction of what would otherwise be the real number, because only a fraction reported.
	Go for it, Dan.
	I was going to say, there was an article about a year, a year and a half ago when VAERS was causing a lot of alarm, and there was an expert they quoted, I forget where he was from, he was a Canadian expert on VAERS, and he dissed the entire reporting system at the time as totally unreliable, like it's a total, anybody, it's junk.
	And I was like, but you've had it for so long.
	So I actually reached out to the guy, I'm like, I emailed him a few months later, I'm like, is your position still saying that VAERS is just a system of junk?
	Six months later, he's like, you know what, I think it's actually not so sure about it anymore.
	I'm like, okay, well, you came out six months ago and you said it was junk.
	Now you're not so sure.
	How come you haven't gone back to the media and updated or asked for a refresh?
	So it's really selective kind of reporting on VAERS reliability.
	Just to touch on the media side of things when it comes to vaccines, my experience was that It wasn't even that you were ignorant of the issues of vaccines, the compensation program, liability for the manufacturers, any of that.
	It wasn't just that you were ignorant.
	It was that you were proud that you were ignorant when you were in corporate news.
	There's almost this pride that one has when it comes to being ignorant of the skeptic.
	Of the person who's asking questions about this, the resistor, you're proud to not know what they think.
	Because the second you engage with their thoughts, you've now been dirtied with their ideological leprosy.
	And if you're the good public servant that you say that you are, you won't engage with them.
	I mean, that's where we are now.
	And so journalists, it's not even that they're ignorant.
	They're proud to be ignorant.
	They do not want to know what questions you have or what thoughts you have that run countercurrent to...
	The mainstream narrative on this, they're proud of that.
	And I just think people should know that because probably the people who are watching your channel are not suffering this delusion anymore.
	But anyone who still thinks that you're watching a bunch of educated people who have done deep dives on this topic, I hate to break it to you, but that's not the case.
	I'm going to flesh this one out in greater detail tomorrow, but I'm going to send myself a link now.
	This is a fact check.
	Wait until you see this flipping fact check.
	I was only able to read the headline.
	Oh, I just lost it.
	Hold on.
	On my computer.
	This is it.
	Fact check.
	Graph showing increase in myopericarditis after COVID-19 vaccine rollout does not confirm link.
	That's right, Reuters, you liars, because it's not supposed to confirm a link.
	It's just supposed to show what's being reported at a given point in time.
	And this is the graph.
	Nothing to see.
	Look at it compared to previous years.
	But it's only because they vaccinated everybody.
	What is the verdict?
	Misleading.
	There were two.
	Oh, I'm destroying this tomorrow.
	Hold on.
	When is this from?
	What's the art?
	Does it?
	Updated?
	Oh, this is a year old.
	I wonder what it's going to be now.
	Misleading.
	There were 2,200 reports of myocarditis in VAERS from 1990 to October, whatever, according to the CDC.
	Reports of myocarditis have increased since the rollout, with 1,005 cases confirmed.
	But a link to the shots has so far not been established.
	These are my favorite fact checks when they're like, it's misleading because it just has this one thing, you know, but it still proves, but they'll still say it's misleading.
	By the way, no, it was never, you cannot definitively establish a causal connection.
	Ever, period, regardless, unless there's some sort of, you know, maybe there's a way.
	That's never what it was intended to show.
	So they confirmed the number.
	Outrageous.
	Okay, I'm going to read some of the Rumble Rants afterwards, but I want to give you guys a proper excerpt.
	Allison.
	Where can people find you?
	And I will put your links down in the pinned comments everywhere.
	Please go to alisonmorrow.locals.com.
	That's the best place to follow my work.
	You can become part of my editorial board.
	I have actually, when I was talking about that study done by Dr. Seneff and Dr. Bacala, I've had both of them on.
	I had Dr. Seneff come on talking about that study.
	I focus on censored people, a lot of folks that you're not going to see anywhere else.
	And the cool part about being on my Locals community is that you can put in the questions ahead of time for interviews.
	The way that I wanted to do news now is...
	Instead of this top-down model where I ask all the questions and I know everything from once I came, I want it to be the people's news.
	So you get to ask the questions.
	You get to hear from the people that often are silenced.
	And then you get to be the person asking them the questions.
	I found that my locals community, I don't know about you, but my locals community knows a lot more than I do.
	Most of them do.
	So I really appreciated that.
	But that's the best place to go.
	And Locals, you know, Twitter is even a good place to aggregate knowledge, but Locals is like Twitter without the trolls.
	It's people who are genuinely interested in sincere discourse, even if it means sincere disagreement.
	AllisonMorrow.locals.com And the link is already in YouTube.
	I'll put it here afterwards.
	And make sure it's 1L, Allison.
	Don't give me any 2Ls.
	Don't support that other Allison.
	That's a joke.
	Dan is still a practicing lawyer, but Dan, where can people find you into your descent into madness?
	I'm online for one purpose only, that's to raise awareness about the importance of getting rid of vaccine mandates and having an equitable vaccine workplace enforcement policies.
	So, I rant on Twitter, and that's where you can find me, LionAdvocacy, on Twitter.
	And follow me there, and you'll...
	I left my DMs open.
	And you can DM me if you want some information.
	That's a dangerous proposition that you just publicly announced that your DMs are open, but you're doing good, Dan.
	And I'll keep you from going too far down the rabbit hole.
	Is Dan the older brother?
	Dan is one of my older four siblings.
	One of my four older siblings.
	You're the youngest?
	I'm the youngest.
	It's Dan, a middle one, and then two older boys.
	Four to five are lawyers.
	Oh, yeah.
	We had good times growing up.
	Can I ask real fast, Dan, what do you think about Viva's career, like being this big-time YouTuber?
	I mean, did you think about that when he was a kid?
	Did you think he was going to be this guy?
	Not only did I think about it, I predicted, I've got to find the audio recording, but it was a conversation he was having with an ex-girlfriend, I think, when he was in grade three or four.
	I was going to say her name on loud, but I know exactly who you're talking about.
	And I predicted in that, while I was, don't ask, but I basically predicted during that call he was going to be a great debater and he was going to do great things, so I've got to find that.
	But yes, I had a feeling he was going to do big and great things.
	That made one of us.
	Dan, Allison, thank you very much.
	Ordinarily, I'd say our proper goodbyes, but I'm going to read some of the Rumble rants and then finish it up, and I don't want you to be here for that.
	But, Allison, everyone knows where to find you.
	Dan, everyone knows where to find you.
	Keep up the good fight, and we'll do this again sooner than later.
	Bye, guys.
	Thanks for having me.
	Thanks so much.
	Have a good night.
	Well, that was delightful.
	I pushed my brother down the rabbit hole.
	The best is, though, we have our Sunday afternoon Zoom calls with my parents and all of my siblings, you know, nieces and nephews.
	And there's like, people have to appreciate it.
	You have five siblings.
	Everyone's got their two to five kids of the siblings.
	It's a big family.
	And so it makes for some fun Zoom calls.
	But I don't think my parents are angry with me.
	But I think they recognize that.
	I introduced Dan to the world.
	And he's taken a very active approach in trying to make it better, which is great.
	I'm going to read some of the Rumble Rants so I don't do this tomorrow.
	And then I'll have a Locals exclusive, you know, Monday morning with Viva.
	But let me get some of these.
	Awe to real.
	Hold on, I gotta see.
	I can't see my camera.
	Awe to real.
	Make sure there's nothing else in there.
	Booyah.
	$5 Rumbaran says, Maria Liedenberger, she died in a barbaric fashion.
	Her parents were essentially forced to revoke their own daughter in the name of the current thing.
	The same scenario is taking place with Vaxes.
	There's a story that I'm going to talk about tomorrow that we didn't get to tonight.
	And it's heartbreaking.
	It's shocking.
	And if people don't start pushing people to ask the questions publicly, we're all doing a disservice to those who have suffered, to those who have died, to those who have been injured, and to those who will be injured.
	And if we sit here quietly and say nothing and do nothing and expect no more, a part of us will be responsible for what continues to happen in the future.
	D.I. Johnston, 007, says, got the plain old flu shot this week.
	Pharmacist said she was completely disillusioned with COVID shot since she was fully vaccinated and had contracted COVID four times.
	And that was a $10 rum brand.
	Thank you very much.
	Let me just get to the comments here.
	The John Beck, how's it going?
	$3 rum brand says, have bought my second double deal of the wine promo.
	Drunken voice-ish.
	Good stuff.
	Good stuff.
	John Beck, don't listen to Andrew Huberman's podcast on alcohol.
	Funny thing is, at some point, we accept we're going to have some vices in life.
	Something's going to kill us.
	The question is, you know, what do we do with our time on this earth?
	Awe2Real says, 42-year-old brother died July 2. Had issues with first, second shots, but got the booster.
	Worked in the concert stage hand business.
	Forced with daily testing to work, spear in the nose or vax.
	Four months, no autopsy result.
	Hamartix with a $10 rant that just came in.
	What concerns me, Viva, is that we may well have a wave of infertility among our kids.
	How many are we vaxing?
	Infertility at best.
	I mean, it's just...
	Black Jer.
	Black Jer or Black Jacker?
	Black J-E-R.
	If they weren't lying about transmission, then why were initial cases of people getting infected after being vaxxed called breakthrough cases?
	Checkmate, liars of the world.
	And I'm talking about Albert Buller.
	You're right.
	Oh, there will be breakthrough cases.
	That's correct.
	If they were not measuring transmission as the criteria, breakthrough becomes the inappropriate term.
	It wouldn't have been a breakthrough.
	If they weren't measuring to prevent transmission.
	Blackter, I might be stealing your knowledge.
	Operations underscore consultant $10 rumble rent says 265 peer-reviewed COVID-19 articles have been retracted by their publisher.
	See Business Reform channel on YouTube.
	There's a link there that I can't...
	It's not an active hyperlink in the chat.
	Everyone, you can copy and paste and look at that.
	Ausgal50.
	I guess that's an Australian or Austrian gal.
	Viva Greg Hunter, USA watchdog.
	Rumble three weeks to America.
	Total collapse.
	False flag coming ninth.
	Sanico says, could there be a case of false advertising?
	Well, now that we've put two and two together in real time, hey, if Cutpa worked for Alex Jones when he made false statements, not about the product he was selling, but about third parties while selling a product, I would imagine Cutpa would apply even more to false statements made about the product.
	That is being sold for the purposes of selling it.
	That's what I suspect Cuppa was intended to cover.
	Oh, stop with the fat fingers.
	Oscar, Viva, Monkey Works reports, flights going all over the world carrying troops, all over U.S. carrying troops.
	Haven't heard anything about that.
	All2Real says, one, Brandon, why don't you take the Vax?
	Okay, one, All2Real, $10 rumble rent.
	Brandon, why won't you take the vax?
	You drink like a fish, smoke cigs, etc.
	I've done cocaine off a public toilet in Walgreens.
	There are more studies on above than vax.
	That was one of the great...
	They're trying to talk you into doing it.
	You've done cocaine in a Vegas bathroom.
	Well, first of all, it's a fair point.
	They know a lot more about cocaine than they do about some other stuff, evidently.
	And vaccine transmission montage.
	You know what?
	We could end on the vaccine transmission montage.
	Fat fingers come with age, says Rob A. We'll end on the vaccine montage because I think I actually have it laid in the backdrop and I need to end on a video, otherwise it cuts off the stream.
	Let me make sure I see it here.
	Montage of the top officials.
	Okay, here we go.
	Everybody, that does it for a fantastic stream.
	Barnes couldn't be here.
	No problems.
	All good things, travel, events, and commitments.
	So he's going to be very occupied until Thursday.
	I'm glad Allison could pop on and be with us again.
	She's a phenomenal source to follow.
	And she also just happens to be a wonderful person to be friends with.
	And then Altriel says, Viva, it looks like they fixed the ability to lower video quality for data crunchers.
	They should go to 240p.
	Most unlimited plans will still allow 240p without throttling or with throttling.
	360p still struggles.
	I don't understand a word you just said.
	MedicDeb says, just gone.
	TalkTheRiot says, 11,615 people watching, but only 1,260 rumbles?
	Come on, people!
	Okay, before you leave, hit that rumble number, and let's end it.
	Salty Cracker is live, so go catch up with Salty.
	Thank you all for spending another Sunday evening with me.
	It has been great.
	Stay the course.
	Don't lose faith, but that doesn't mean be passive and think things are going to happen.
	That also means...
	Don't do things in a manner that would make your parents, your children, or your pets ashamed.
	Make them proud.
	You can do no wrong.
	And with that said, let's enjoy a little montage.
	I haven't watched this one, so I don't know if it's going to be bad.
	We'll watch it together in real time.
	Enjoy the rest of the evening, people.
	Thank you for being here.
	Almost no infection going on whatsoever.
	Everyone who takes the vaccine is not just protecting themselves, but...
	Reducing their transmission to other people and allowing society to get back to normal.
	We can kind of almost see the end.
	We're vaccinating so very fast.
	Our data from the CDC today suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don't get sick.
	Now we know that the vaccines work well enough that the virus stops with every vaccinated person.
	A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus.
	The virus does not infect them.
	The virus cannot then use that person to go anywhere else.
	It cannot use a vaccinated person as a host.
	That means the vaccines will get us to the end of this.
	I didn't realize this was an ad for Gravian.
	I have no idea what Gravian is.
	This is the link someone sent in the chat.
	Anyhow, enjoy it.
	The multimedia marketplace.
	...are at a very, very low risk of getting COVID-19.
	Therefore...
	If you've been fully vaccinated, you no longer need to wear a mask.
	When people are vaccinated, they can feel safe that they are not going to get infected.
	We have all the vaccines we need.
	We just need our people to take it.
	A, for their own protection, for the protection of their family, but also to break the chain of transmission.
	You want to be a dead end to the virus.

▲