Alex Berenson is an American writer and former New York Times journalist. He was a reporter for the Times, and has authored several thriller novels and a book on corporate financial filings. He is now a pariah among his former journalistic colleagues because he has integrity and an inclination to tell the truth, even when it doesn t suit his career or professional interests. In this episode, Alex tells Alex s story of how he became a thorn in the side of the pharmaceutical industry, and how the White House tried to silence him. Alex also talks about why the government shouldn t be trying to curtail his right to speak, and why it s a good thing he didn t get deplatformed by the government. This episode was produced and edited by Alex Blumberg. Our theme song is Come Alone by Suneaters, courtesy of Lotuspool Records, and our ad music is by Build Buildings Records, which you can stream on Apple Podcasts or wherever else you get your music. Please rate, review, and subscribe to our podcast! Thank you so much for your support and share the podcast with your friends and family! Timestamps: 3:00 - My name is Alex. 4:30 - My thoughts on the Bernie Madoff $50B Ponzi scheme scandal. 5:40 - Why we have a right to say what we think we think is wrong? 6:15 - What we think of the government should do? 7:20 - Who are you listening to the truth? 8:00 9:40 11:30 12:00s 13:30s 15:40s 16:00 s 17:15 15 & 16? 16c 13c = # ? & + ) 14c #c? 15c & #c = c? #d=3c ? #_ : etf c = c ? ? ? & ? c= @ v=c ? = ? & c ? ? & c& vec ?? & c& c? ? ) & ) ) ) #c=1 s=1 ? + c=1& c_co=4c=e=1? ) ?
00:00:00.000Hey everybody, most of you know my guest today, Alex Berenson.
00:00:04.000For those who aren't familiar with his background, Alex is an American writer and former New York Times journalist.
00:00:13.000He was a reporter for the Times and has authored several thriller novels and a book on corporate financial filings.
00:00:20.000He was born in New York, grew up in Englewood, New Jersey, graduated from Yale in 94 with a bachelor's degree in history and economics.
00:00:29.000In the fall of 2003, in the summer of 2004, Aronson worked covering the occupation of Iraq for the New York Times.
00:00:39.000He then covered the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries, specializing in issues concerning dangerous drugs.
00:00:46.000Beginning in 2008, Alex reported on the Bernie Madoff $50 billion Ponzi scheme scandal.
00:00:55.000He is now a pariah among his former journalistic colleagues because he has integrity and an inclination to tell the truth, even when it doesn't suit his career or professional interests.
00:01:12.000And we're all very, very grateful to that, Alex.
00:01:16.000The reason I wanted you on board, there's a couple of reasons.
00:01:19.000I mean, the stuff that you keep cranking out is amazing.
00:01:23.000And it's so well researched and so reliable.
00:01:26.000I love to read your post because, you know, you're very, very disciplined about making sure that you got your facts right.
00:01:35.000The really interesting thing that's happening now is your Twitter case.
00:01:40.000And particularly the recent revelations that show that the White House Actually, use your name in telling Twitter, you got to deplatform this.
00:01:51.000And that just seems like an open and shut, clear cut First Amendment violation.
00:01:57.000And I don't see how they get out of it.
00:02:31.000I thought, oh, this is, you know, this is probably a good thing, probably going to help end this epidemic.
00:02:36.000But as I, you know, I'd covered the drug industry for the Times for a long time, so I was pretty familiar with the games that they played.
00:02:43.000And I pretty rapidly, especially in clinical trial design and testing, and I pretty rapidly came to the conclusion that the vaccines really hadn't been very well tested, despite the size of the clinical trials.
00:02:54.000And so I, you know, the early rollout, I, you know, I raised questions about in Israel, and I quickly became, you know, there was this disinformation dozen that you were a part of, I think.
00:03:05.000And I was not part of that, but I was like the 13th person who became a focus of the White House.
00:03:14.000And in some ways, I think I was more of a focus because I did have this background of credibility and because I used my Twitter feed in a pretty pointed way.
00:03:25.000I'm a writer by train, so I would be sarcastic and I would make fun of people like Andy Slavitt for posting 85 tweet threads.
00:03:35.000This is stuff that, you know, I think somebody like you didn't necessarily engage in that kind of voice.
00:03:40.000And I think that they didn't like my voice.
00:03:43.000And so in April of 2021, we now know, or I now know, there is a meeting that happened To discuss what the White House likes to call disinformation or misinformation, which to my mind is just, from my point of view, presenting facts about the vaccines that they didn't like.
00:04:02.000And look, I think there are other people out there who posted stuff that probably went too far, and in some cases wasn't true or was highly speculative.
00:04:11.000But whether it's disinformation or misinformation or malinformation, the most important part of that word is information.
00:04:20.000And, you know, in the United States, as far as I'm concerned, we have a right to say what we think and debate, even if we're wrong.
00:04:27.000And in some cases, even if you're lying, as long as you're not harassing people or hurting people, you have the right to speak.
00:04:32.000Whether that right extends to a platform like Twitter is a different issue, but certainly the government shouldn't be trying to curtail your right to speak.
00:04:41.000In April 2020, they have a meeting at the White House to talk to Twitter, and my name came up specifically as somebody who they were focused on as putting out information about the vaccines they didn't like.
00:04:53.000And this appears to have put Twitter in a bad position because Twitter had been assuring me Privately, that what I was doing was okay.
00:05:57.000And we had these sporadic conversations.
00:05:59.000They weren't long, but it was when the vaccines came out and I realized I was going to be questioning them, I wanted to make sure they would know that.
00:06:06.000And then again in March of 2021, I had a short conversation with them because they were again tightening their policies.
00:06:13.000So in April, Twitter's internal people were having communications with each other saying, you know, we don't actually think he's violating our policies.
00:06:25.000Yeah, he's saying stuff, but he's careful about it, and he's sort of coloring within the lines.
00:06:31.000And the White House was focused on me.
00:06:34.000And the language that they use is the White House asked, or I can't remember if it's asked or demanded, it's in what I posted, but the White House wanted to know why Alex Berenson hasn't been kicked off the platform, which is clearly targeting me.
00:06:50.000Now, I guess what the White House is going to say when we sue them is, well, we didn't demand it, we just asked.
00:06:57.000To which I say, when the cop says, sir, can you get out of your car?
00:07:01.000Do you think you have a lot of leeway in that question?
00:07:05.000So Twitter was in this position where they were under a lot of pressure, but they didn't seem to believe that I'd done anything wrong and they'd been having these conversations with me.
00:07:15.000So you fast forward to July of 2021, about a year ago, and the pressure's increasing even more.
00:07:21.000And I think the reason the pressure was increasing even more is that The smarter people inside, a few smarter people inside the White House and inside the companies, inside Pfizer and Moderna, were realizing that the vaccines weren't working nearly as well as they'd hoped.
00:07:36.000There was evidence out of Israel that they were already declining.
00:08:50.000Those claims, as you know, I know your claim did not survive the motion to dismiss and you're now appealing it.
00:08:56.000But these claims against social media companies have a very, very hard time because social media companies say, well, there's this thing called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and that gives us essentially carte blanche to do whatever we like in terms of banning decisions.
00:09:11.000And if you don't like it, sue us, but we're going to win anyway.
00:09:14.000In my case, the case was heard by a federal district judge for the Northern District of California, a Clinton appointee, not a Trump appointee, not a Republican judge.
00:09:25.000And he said, look, Berenson seems to have shown, at the least, that he has these communications with a Twitter executive, and they seem to have been in the process of sort of modifying their contract with him.
00:09:38.000And so he's got a breach of contract claim that I'm going to allow to move forward, and I'm going to allow very wide discovery of what they were talking about to third parties.
00:09:48.000But he said, you know, the big claims, the big First Amendment claims, the claims that Twitter's a state actor, I'm going to throw those claims out.
00:09:54.000Okay, so this led to an interesting position for me, which was I could have...
00:10:00.000Let me interrupt so people understand, because the term state actor is a term of art.
00:10:07.000And what it means, so that people understand this, is that the First Amendment, if you own a printing press, you can print anything you want.
00:10:36.000The state has no right to tell them who and who they cannot fire or de-platform.
00:10:43.000The problem is, if a state or federal official orders them to censor people, And at that point, they become a surrogate of the state, and the way that we refer to that is a state actor, and the state is not allowed to censor you.
00:11:01.000You know, just so people understand when you say state actor, the theory is that in your case, they were acting as a surrogate for the federal government in censoring you, and they weren't.
00:11:15.000And at that point, the First Amendment is implicated.
00:11:19.000Yes, so I would, yes, that essentially the federal government has deputized them.
00:11:23.000So I would push back a little bit on the printing press analogy, especially because Twitter's a California company.
00:11:30.000There is a question under California law, certainly, of at what point does a private company become a public forum and have to allow all speech, even speech it doesn't like.
00:11:42.000California's constitution has even stronger free speech protections than the U.S. constitution.
00:11:48.000And for example, shopping malls in California are not allowed to ban political speech.
00:11:53.000And this is something that has been litigated over and over again, and it's very clear.
00:11:59.000And so one of the arguments we made was that, look, under California's constitution and California case law, Twitter is clearly bigger by far than the biggest shopping mall.
00:12:10.000It should be required to allow me that way.
00:12:13.000And if it's not going to because of federal law, because of Section 230, that creates a different constitutional problem.
00:12:19.000I still think that that claim can potentially be successful and certainly should be argued again in California courts, but it has not been successful, and it was not successful in my case.
00:12:29.000So the argument that, again, because these platforms are essentially...
00:12:34.000I mean, Twitter has referred to itself previously, although they don't anymore, as a public square.
00:12:42.000Broad platform, and they can't start discriminating on speech.
00:12:46.000But that said, that claim didn't survive either.
00:12:49.000So that left me, and the state action claim didn't survive, actually, because at that time, we didn't have this evidence.
00:12:57.000And in fact, the judge dismissed those claims with prejudice, which is another legal term, meaning you can't refile.
00:13:05.000Even if you get new facts, you can't refile.
00:13:07.000Now, I wish he hadn't done that, but he did.
00:13:10.000Nonetheless, it was a big win for me in April because he allowed my case to move forward on these narrow claims, these breach of contract claims.
00:13:19.000And most importantly, he allowed discovery.
00:13:22.000And discovery, again, people may not know sort of the ins and outs of how civil litigation works.
00:13:28.000Discovery means that under penalty of law, you have to turn over documents that are relevant to your case to the other side.
00:13:36.000It's actually a pretty amazing thing to make people do.
00:13:39.000So basically, you have the right to, you know, I had the right to find out whether Twitter had been talking to other third parties, because in that way, I would help make my case the breach of contract case.
00:13:51.000And, you know, I also had to turn over certain information to Twitter too.
00:13:54.000Then there's something called depositions, where you actually get to question people under oath.
00:13:58.000So the judge allowed me to have discovery of Twitter and to take depositions.
00:14:05.000And frankly, I thought we were going to roll right ahead into that phase of things.
00:14:11.000As part of federal litigation, once you survive a motion to dismiss, there's a mediation element.
00:14:16.000And that means you get either a retired judge or a lawyer, somebody who's got legal training, and they try to bring the two sides together.
00:14:25.000Because from the judge's point of view, the best case is a case that settles.
00:14:31.000So, you know, they view a trial as expensive and time consuming and you want to settle these cases if you can.
00:14:37.000And I came in with, I would say, pretty aggressive demands.
00:14:40.000I can't really talk about them specifically, but I came in with pretty aggressive demands.
00:14:43.000And as I said publicly in June, which is just two months ago, I'm not going to settle this case unless Twitter essentially agrees to turn over all the third-party discovery that it would have to turn over otherwise.
00:14:57.000And lo and behold, a month later, I did settle the case.
00:15:00.000And a lot of people, people on the right actually said, oh, this jerk, he raised all this money to fight Twitter and he promised he'd never settle the case.
00:15:15.000You're never going to hear another word about this.
00:15:17.000Well, last week, I published documents that come out of the case.
00:15:22.000And those documents show that Amazingly, what we talked about to go all the way back, that in April 2021, the White House was asking for my head on a platter.
00:15:43.000I can now bring a claim directly against the White House and against people in the White House or who were in the White House at that time for trying to abridge my free speech rights.
00:15:53.000And there's something called a Bivens claim.
00:15:55.000And this is just something I'm starting to learn about.
00:15:57.000But essentially, a Bivens claim is Look, I have this constitutional right, even if there's nothing specific in the law that gives me a tort, my constitutional right is so powerful, I have to be allowed to sue the government on my own behalf, and I have to get injunctive relief if I win, and maybe monetary damages.
00:16:19.000But that's the next phase of this very clearly.
00:16:23.000Yeah, just to kind of compare our experiences, We sued.
00:16:30.000I have a couple of suits in this area.
00:16:33.000One, I have a direct suit against Elizabeth Warren, who asked Amazon to stop selling a book that I wrote the introduction to by Joe Mercola.
00:17:56.000It could be, you know, a week from now.
00:18:00.000But, you know, one of the things, the judge who was hostile to us, you know, we went in there and said, we said, look, the White House was telling them to do this.
00:18:11.000It told them, it told Facebook, To take down everybody who's on the disinformation dozen, and I'm at the top of the disinformation dozen.
00:18:21.000Not only that, but Janet Pisaki, the communications director for the White House, specifically mentioned me in a White House press conference as somebody who was promoting the kind of disinformation that they were asking the social media to take down.
00:18:38.000So We're not suing the public convention, which is what you're doing right now.
00:18:49.000With Facebook, not only the White House told them to take us down, but Adam Schiff told them to take us down, and Elizabeth Warren told them to take us down.
00:19:02.000And when we said that to the judge, the hostile judge ridiculed us and said, well, Congress tells people to do the same things all the time, that it has no power to make them do, and there was no threat behind that.
00:19:18.000And what I said to the judge is these are the same two senators who are publicly threatening to break up the company and to revoke their Section 230 immunity.
00:19:35.000This is an extraordinary law that says that even if somebody defames you on that site, so somebody says something that is overtly lying, defamatory about you, you may have a lawsuit against the guy who said it, but you cannot sue the site. you may have a lawsuit against the guy who said You cannot sue Facebook or Twitter, so they're not responsible for any kind of, you know, poison they put out.
00:20:01.000By the way, I agree with that part of 230, because how could Facebook or Twitter monitor a trillion tweets?
00:20:59.000Now, that's never been required by law, but that is now because of the panic of the pandemic.
00:21:05.000They're trying to make sure that, you know, the judges are doing things they never did before to really go out of their way to make sure to protect these organizations, these platforms, when they try to censor people who criticize government policies.
00:21:22.000Yes, and as the Wall Street Journal pointed out when they wrote an op-ed about the documents that I had disclosed the other day, and this is something that's funny, you may feel totally different.
00:21:36.000This idea, what if the White House was telling people who had views it didn't like about climate change?
00:21:45.000If this is the principle that the White House is going to meddle with people who are putting out information it doesn't like, there's no reason it has to be restricted to COVID or the vaccines.
00:21:54.000And it could be a position you totally personally agree with.
00:21:58.000For all I know, you think every car in the country should be...
00:22:01.000It should run on, you know, vegetable oil or whatever.
00:22:14.000And I think the Ukraine issue is a really important one.
00:22:19.000There was self-censorship in the media.
00:22:23.000During the Iraq War, as you know, the New York Times apologized for Judith Miller's reporting and everybody was kind of subsumed in the orthodoxy that Saddam Hussein is bad and we gotta get him.
00:22:35.000And anybody who says anything else than that should be shut up and silenced because they're an enemy of the public.
00:22:43.000They're doing the same thing with the Ukraine crisis right now.
00:22:50.000It's really, really dangerous when government can get these platforms to censor dissent or to censor anybody who criticizes any government policy.
00:23:01.000It's a license for governments to commit atrocities.
00:27:13.000For any statement that departs from government proclamations and government orthodoxies, and that's all right.
00:27:19.000Let me ask you this, because you had a kind of unique seat in the stands watching the Elon Musk take over of Twitter.
00:27:29.000And also, your insight was interesting to me to watch because I don't know Musk and I don't know Jack Dorsey, but Jack Dorsey's been the one guy who has seemed, in his public statements, as parsimonious as they have been, but has seemed really uneasy with the censorship.
00:27:51.000So yeah, I mean, look, I don't really have insight into Dorsey personally, but I will.
00:27:56.000One theory that my lawyers and I had as we were discussing a settlement with Twitter and sort of finding them surprisingly willing to budge on stuff, and again, I can't be more specific, but was that we were talking about deposing Dorsey.
00:28:13.000You know, that was something that I thought we should do.
00:28:16.000And that perhaps Dorsey had things he wanted to say that he would be prevented from saying as a result of, you know, his fiduciary duty to the company or an employment contract or whatever.
00:28:31.000That under a compelled deposition, he would have actually been able to say.
00:29:12.000I don't think it's a great thing for the world that we would be dependent on this billionaire for our free speech.
00:29:19.000Especially because Tesla has a huge market in China.
00:29:24.000You know what the Chinese think of free speech.
00:29:26.000I would like to believe that If Elon owned Twitter and the Chinese government said to him, hey, you know, we don't like what you're doing with this, you know, make up your mind whether you're going to be allowed to sell cars in China or not, he would say, go get bent.
00:30:01.000It was this very, very strange outcry in the liberal media when Elon was going to take over Twitter saying we can't have a billionaire running our communications.
00:30:14.000What about Dorsey and Zuckerberg and Sergey Brin and Larry Ellison and Bill Gates?
00:30:21.000And Jeff Bezos owning the Washington Post.
00:30:24.000Yeah, who owns the Post, which was apoplectic about Elon.
00:30:34.000No, the left has really not distinguished itself, and I know that this has been upsetting to you, and it's upsetting to me too, but you must feel it very personally.
00:30:45.000It's really baffling that You know, it's what my cousin said to me one time, we were talking about, you know, somebody who had gone off the rails and he said one day we were all eating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and thinking we're on the same page and the next day you wake up and, you know, who are these people?
00:31:04.000I grew up believing that free speech was sanctimonious, that we ought to be protecting the poor and vulnerable in our society, and these COVID countermeasures were really just a war on the poor.
00:31:18.000They were, as I say in my new book, A Letter to Liberals, it was a pajama party for the wealthy.
00:31:26.000They got to order DoorDash and Uber and And their kids were watching, you know, were doing remote learning and the whole family.
00:31:35.000For me, it was wonderful having my kids home for a year.
00:31:38.000If you were a Black in Compton or Harlem, it was a nightmare where the police come in and they cut the rims off the basketball court so you can't go out where you don't have the computer, you know, the laptops in your house.
00:32:19.000It was an artifact of data collection.
00:32:22.000And what we really did is we took those kids who were abused and we locked them at home with their abusers and 55% of teenagers in this country, black and white, reported being abused during the pandemic of emotional abuse or physical abuse.
00:32:40.000So this was just, you know, there was many more children died of color across the globe, 200,000 kids, many more than died from the pandemic.
00:32:52.000They were being killed by the lockdowns, by the We're catastrophic for the poor.
00:33:00.000What's funny, funny is the wrong word, but what's funny is, you know, people on the left, you see them just starting to talk about this.
00:33:07.000I mean, mainly they don't want to talk about 2020 at all, which is very interesting.
00:33:10.000But you see there's sort of this consensus, the schools must never close again.
00:33:16.000And, you know, these few people who are left, you know, on Twitter and elsewhere who are sort of complaining that the country's moved on, even the left is largely mocking them at this point.
00:34:18.000That's a real kind of just is a subject of great interest to me just because it's so much a part of human nature is to embrace orthodoxy, follow a strong leader, and then, you know, make yourself impervious to any information that challenges your worldview.
00:34:37.000And I think a lot of that predisposition to embrace orthodoxy is hardwired into us.
00:34:45.000From the 20,000 generations that human beings spent on the, you know, wandering the African savanna and these tiny groups following a strong male leader and with being the only key to survival.
00:35:02.000Yeah, I mean, look, it's a scary world and everybody dies at the end.
00:35:05.000And so you need to believe in something along the way, something and someone.
00:35:16.000Let me ask you just about one other thing that I know you've been following, which is the Denmark decisions.
00:35:23.000Now, I want to mention this about Denmark.
00:35:26.000For many, many years, CDC's position is that Denmark has the best data reporting system and virtually all of the vaccine decisions are Are based in one way or another, and sometimes almost completely on Danish data.
00:35:47.000And so now the Danes have said, holy cow, we should not be vaccinating children.
00:35:53.000And so tell me what your take is on that.
00:35:58.000Well, my take is they've been pretty...
00:36:05.000The left, as you say, the CDC in Denmark, I say, you know, the left in Denmark, you can find stories in the New York Times talking about how the Danes had wonderful vaccine uptake in the first, you know, in the first wave last year and how they all wore masks and they had tremendous social cohesion and they have government trust.
00:36:23.000And that's why everything works so wonderfully there.
00:36:30.000And so, you know, as we know, sort of the number one, well, the number one, you know, mortality risk with COVID is age, but the number two is obesity and sort of general cardiac and cardiovascular unhealthiness.
00:36:42.000So, you know, they did reasonably well, and then they did go get vaccinated, and they enjoyed what I call this happy vaccine valley for a few months last year.
00:36:51.000But lo and behold, In December and January, December 2021 and January 2022, as Omicron came to town, they had a huge wave.
00:37:01.000And they had a lot of deaths, and they've had another wave since then.
00:37:06.000And I think that they are well aware that the vaccines don't work very well against Omicron.
00:37:12.000And they know that any risk for kids, even if it's a small risk of myocarditis or other potential long-term problems, is just completely unacceptable.
00:37:22.000And so that's basically what they've said.
00:37:24.000You are not going to be allowed to be vaccinated as a child or anybody under 18 unless you have some sort of severe condition that would put you at high risk from COVID and you have a consultation with a pediatrician.
00:37:38.000That's where the United States should be, by the way.
00:37:41.000If we're not going to completely pull these vaccines from the market, basically for any...
00:37:51.000Anybody who's not morbidly obese or at really high risk from COVID for some reason, who's under 50, these vaccines should be black boxed for, and basically nobody should be allowed to get them at this point.
00:38:03.000Look, you could go even further and say they should just be pulled entirely, but I'm trying to reach some kind of reasonable suggestion.
00:38:39.000And these countries that are sort of 5 to 10 million people that are well run, it's sort of like a handful of people can be in charge of collecting this data.
00:39:00.000Everything else in the U.S. healthcare system.
00:39:02.000I would argue it was deliberately sabotaged, and that's not theoretical or conspiracy theory I can show you.
00:39:09.000But, you know, one of the interesting things, the last thing I'll just mention to you, and I don't know whether you have any comment on it or not, but it came out this week that Pfizer...
00:39:21.000As you know, Pfizer is the only company that has an approved vaccine, an FDA approved vaccine.
00:39:28.000But the FDA approved vaccine, which is the Cominardi vaccine, is not available in the United States of America.
00:39:37.000The Comanardi vaccine is identical to BioNTech vaccine, which is available, but that one is still under emergency use authorization.
00:40:05.000It was pretty clearly related to the mandate push last summer, but yes.
00:40:09.000It justified the mandate push because everybody said, oh, it's approved now, and now we can mandate it.
00:40:16.000But what they didn't tell you is the approved one's not available, and they will never be available.
00:40:21.000And we said, ISIS at the outset, they will never let an approved vaccine be available in this country, because the second they make it available, we can start suing them.
00:40:31.000Under the VICA, the new vaccine would go through the VICA system.
00:40:36.000And under VICA, you have to go to the vaccine court first, but you can't sue them for product liability.
00:41:35.000I mean, so this is an area that I'm not, you know, I don't claim to be anything close to an expert on.
00:41:41.000I mean, it's clear to me that they prefer the current situation where they are sort of completely immune from any liability at all.
00:41:48.000It's also been very clear to me that they don't want to sell the approved vaccine in the U.S. I'm not trying to disagree with you.
00:41:54.000I'm just trying to tell you I don't really have much to add to the story that you're telling me because this is something I'm not an expert in, but it sounds plausible.
00:42:01.000Let me just finish with a short plug for my substack, which is Unreported Truths, where I did write about the Denmark stuff just a few days ago, and actually today I wrote about something that you and the Defender wrote about last year, which is the case of a woman who Who developed a CJD, which is a terrible brain disease, literally days after her second Pfizer dose.
00:42:24.000Now, there's no proof there was a connection.
00:42:27.000I think her daughter believes there's a connection, but she's now unfortunately died.
00:42:31.000But what was interesting to me, because I'm not going to write about something that you wrote about nine months ago just for the sake of it.
00:42:38.000What's interesting to me, or it's actually even further ago than that, Is that the doctor, one of the doctors who treated her, several of the doctors who treated her, wrote up a case report on this and put it in a poster that HCA, which is a giant healthcare, a giant hospital company, the biggest for-profit hospital company in the United States, if not the world, put up on its website.
00:43:00.000They actually put up a case report of this woman who'd gotten CJD and died after getting an MRA COVID vaccine, which surprised me that they put it up.
00:43:10.000But lo and behold, People started paying attention to this thing, this case report, and HCA pulled it.
00:43:16.000So that is actually my newest substack.
00:43:19.000It is about this case report of this woman being pulled.
00:43:22.000And to me, so somebody said to me, well, do you believe that the mRNA vaccine caused this?
00:43:38.000And if you just look at sort of the number of people we vaccinated, there are going to be some number of people who develop this in the weeks or months after being vaccinated just by chance.
00:43:48.000What I do care about is that this company, after allowing its physicians to write about this, suddenly decided it was too hot to handle.
00:43:57.000And so when I called HCA or I emailed HCA and said, hey guys, what happened here?
00:44:01.000Well, they've now claimed they're going to put it back online.
00:44:54.000But enough people have decided to sort of support me and support the movement that I know I can support my family, which is very nice considering I don't think I'm going to be working again at the New York Times anytime soon.
00:45:05.000Yeah, so, and I think it's important for our movement, for people who care about democracy, about public health, and about just integrity and good government to support the people who are taking a stand on that and getting punished for it.
00:45:22.000You've lost a lot of income, you've lost a lot of career prospects, and I would encourage all of our audience to subscribe to the extent you can also pay for Alex's subset.