Tucker Carlson criticises Nikki Haley and Lindsey Graham for their statements on Ukraine and Russia. Do you trust them? And perhaps more importantly, do you trust the legacy media and institutions at all? Let's take a look at what Tucker is saying about this subject, and how we can all work together to find a way to get through it together. We're all in this together, and together we can make it through this together! Don't be afraid, we're going to keep going together. In this episode, we talk about: - Canada's Information and Banking Crackdown - Why is Canada being used as a testing ground for new degrees of tyranny? - Why should we trust them to handle this situation in the Middle East? - What do you think about what Tucker Carlson is saying on this subject? - How do you feel about what the media should respond to Israel's attack on the United States and its support for the Ukraine and Russian intervention in Ukraine? And what are your thoughts on what he's saying about the situation in Ukraine, and what should we do about it? Let me know your thoughts and reactions in the comments below! And don't forget to subscribe to our YouTube channel, where we'll be discussing the latest news and updates on the latest episodes of Awakened Wonder! and much more! Subscribe to our new weekly mini-series on all things AwakenEDWondering Wonder, wherever you are in the world! RUMBLE! RATE 5 stars, rate, review, subscribe, review and subscribe to RATE in Apple Podcasts, and leave us a review on your favourite streaming platform so you can stay up to date on what you're listening to the latest episode of AWakened Wondering What's going on the next episode? Subscribe, what s going on in your favourite podcast, RATE, what do you're up to? and who's up to what's up next? RATE and comment on it's the most awesome place on your favorite podcast? ? Subscribe and review us on Insta: and subscribe on your thoughts about what s the latest podcast you'll be up to next? RATE AND SUBSCOULD WE BEEP ON THAT'S UP TO MEET MEET US ON SOCIAL AND GOT A FRIENDS TO RISE TO RATE ME AND OTHER THOUGHT AND FOLLOW US IN OUR PODCAST AND MORE?
00:00:00.000I'm going to go ahead and get the computer.
00:02:31.000In this video, you're going to see the future.
00:02:48.000Hello there you awakening wonder wherever you are in this world amidst the omni-crisis that will not yield.
00:02:54.000Well done for continuing to transcend fear in a darkening space at a time of deep complexity.
00:03:01.000It's more important that we come together now than ever before.
00:03:05.000We must transcend this complex time by looking within and finding deep power Deep power that some would regard as holy is present with you now.
00:03:18.000We're going to talk today about Canada's ongoing information and banking crackdown.
00:03:24.000Is Canada being used to pilot new degrees of tyranny?
00:03:29.000I will be speaking to a personal hero of mine later as well, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, I love this man.
00:03:35.000He was one of the first credible academics to speak out openly and clearly during the pandemic period and say, what you're doing doesn't make sense.
00:03:45.000He therefore exposed that what we were being told was science was actually its opposite.
00:03:50.000When you have someone like Dr. Fauci say, I am science, you know you are dealing with orthodoxy, hegemony.
00:04:00.000For the first part of the show, I mean, we'll be available on all platforms.
00:04:03.000That was a weird colloquialism to have used there for an international medium such as this and for an international community such as ours.
00:04:10.000What I mean to say is wherever you get your content, you can watch us now, but you're going to have to click the link in the description eventually and get Rumble and join us on Rumble.
00:04:17.000And if you haven't got the Rumble app yet, Get it now because if you subscribe to us on Rumble and turn on the notification bell, you'll be told every time we make content.
00:04:25.000You'll be told about our live streams.
00:05:48.000But Tucker is pointing out some interesting things that I think we can all agree on.
00:05:53.000Wherever you stand on this complex issue, and I suppose the only way forward is to appreciate that there are numerous positions, You have to recognise, as we discussed yesterday, that it's wrong for people in Congress to profit from this.
00:06:09.000People in Congress shouldn't be investing right now in weapons manufacturers and energy companies to exploit their insider knowledge, should they?
00:06:17.000Let me know in the chat and the comments.
00:06:18.000Tucker points out that people in positions of political power should surely not be using incendiary rhetoric.
00:08:18.000Here's fellow neocon Lindsey Graham just spelling it out and calling for the bombing of Iran.
00:08:24.000Notice that Tucker uses phrases like neocon to ensure we understand that transcendent of the presumed division between Democrat and Republican, there's a political movement that encompasses both of those sides, meaning you have very little when it comes to meaningful democratic purchase.
00:08:41.000So I've been on the phone all day to the Mideast and I've told our allies and people with connections to Iran.
00:08:47.000What I would do, I would tell Iran that if Hezbollah attacks Israel, we're going to come after you, the Iranians, and have a coordinated effort between the United States and Israel.
00:08:59.000Do you wonder that complex, tragic, awful as this situation is and continues to be, that there are people that are exploiting it?
00:09:09.000Do you consider that the people in Congress that are purchasing stocks in weapons manufacturers are exploiting this situation?
00:09:15.000Do you think that those that are pushing an agenda to increase expenditure on the Ukraine-Russia conflict are exploiting this situation?
00:09:22.000Do you think that politicians such as we have just been shown are exploiting this situation to increase Military tensions to increase military expenditure.
00:09:33.000Do you think if we investigated the funding of Lindsay there and Nicky there, we might find that there are donations from weapons manufacturers and other vested interests?
00:09:45.000I cannot enough convey to you my determination not to further impede on the broken hearts of people directly affected by this tragedy.
00:09:57.000What I urge is that those of us that are not directly affected, and in a way we are all directly affected, but not in the same way that people that are religiously, ideologically or personally connected to this issue.
00:10:08.000We have to consider, how is this being exploited?
00:10:13.000Cynically exploited by institutions that usually, when our emotions are a little more in alignment, even though that's generally hard these days, in this state of omnicrisis and generally escalate intentions, it's hard to remain sanguine and clear and focused.
00:10:30.000And yet those of us who can, surely must.
00:10:33.000And those that are directly affected and understandably hurt, furious, broken, grief-stricken and terrified, those people's feelings must of course be respected.
00:10:44.000But let me know what you think about Tucker's observation that the hysteria of Nikki Haley and the warmongering of Lindsey Graham might not be about the service of any of the people directly involved in the conflict, For have we not seen many times legitimate and real crises exploited to the advantage of powerful interests?
00:11:09.000Even in times of heightened emotion, surely we must remain present enough To observe what we have already learned about these exploiting interests, it's so vital that those of us that can stay present, do stay present.
00:11:25.000And pray for those that are currently unable to, due to their understandable grief, anguish and despair.
00:11:32.000To put Iran out of the oil business by destroying their refineries.
00:11:37.000Don't actually talk about the oil business.
00:13:02.000Plainly, ordinary consciousness is being taken to its very limits.
00:13:07.000That's why it's worrying that progressive Gavin Newsom, governor of California, who has always presented himself as the future, plainly a person who sees himself as a potential president, let me know in the chat if you think he's being primed for such a role, has Vetoed the possibility of psychedelics being used therapeutically.
00:13:27.000There's a lot of complexity around this issue too.
00:13:29.000A lot of us think, oh man, you don't want those being exploited or falling into the hands of a big pharma or whatever.
00:13:35.000Because many of you know and sense that there are deeper realities than the material realities.
00:13:40.000If you believe in God, like I believe in God, you know there are great powers that are beyond any situation, any condition, any person, any political movement.
00:13:49.000And surely we must call upon those powers now.
00:13:51.000And one of the indicators that there are other layers, realms, and frequencies to reality are psychedelics.
00:14:04.000Governor Newsom has vetoed a bill to decriminalize the possession and personal use of magic mushrooms as well as other psychedelic drugs.
00:14:12.000Governor says the psychedelics may help people dealing with depression and mental illness, but the state must create clear guidelines for their use before they are legalized.
00:14:20.000The governor also vetoing a bill designed to legalize cannabis cafes in California.
00:14:26.000We know back in 2016, we saw Governor Newsom here championing legalizing cannabis.
00:14:36.000He uses the rhetoric of progressivism, but actually he seems to be quite authoritarian.
00:14:40.000I mean, remember when he sacked all those doctors for misinformation?
00:14:44.000Simply put, your family doctor had to tell you, agreed, Government positions on COVID, otherwise they risk being sacked.
00:14:52.000So that doesn't sound progressive, does it?
00:14:54.000And he's also recently announced upcoming digital ID.
00:14:58.000Like, really, they're not progressive.
00:14:59.000They just sort of have a haircut or whatever and talk about caring about minority groups or disadvantaged people, but actually don't create policies that will in any way benefit people that are disadvantaged in any way.
00:15:11.000All they ever care about, it seems, is increasing authoritarianism.
00:15:15.000And they certainly don't want people voyaging into the depths of their psyche and discovering a deep unity between all the world's people and that love is a powerful resource that can be accessed in every individual and could ultimately be used to create new systems and new democracies.
00:15:33.000I'm gonna hand myself in to Gavin Newsom right now.
00:15:35.000Now when it comes to psychedelics he says that more still needs to be done such as implementing more guidelines.
00:15:41.000Now this bill would have legalized or taken away those criminal penalties for anyone 21 and up in the state from possessing or using psychedelics such as magic mushrooms.
00:15:53.000Dr. Alia Ahmad is a psychedelic researcher and physician at Shaman's Healing Center in Sacramento.
00:15:59.000She says they are disappointed in the governor's decision after researching some of the positive impacts psychedelics can have on treating mental health disorders.
00:16:08.000What you've done there is you've made the mistake of thinking that Gavin Newsom and the government more broadly are interested in anything other than accruing more authority that can ultimately be used in the service of deep state and globalist corporate interests.
00:16:23.000As long as you bear that in mind, you'll never be disappointed again.
00:16:25.000Their legislation will always increase their ability to control individuals and let off the hook powerful corporations.
00:16:31.000That's why in the state of omnicrisis, ongoing war, lots of people profit from that.
00:16:36.000And people in Congress Invest in more war.
00:16:39.000That's why in a health crisis, pharmaceutical companies benefit.
00:16:43.000That's why in an energy crisis, where your energy bills go up, energy companies that are subsidized make record profits.
00:16:50.000So what they need is more and more ability to shut down dissent.
00:16:53.000No, as that's happening through censorship bills, more ability to control certainly the sort of consciousness and layers of consciousness and layers of reality that you explore that might possibly cause you to change your value system, all that's got to be shut right down.
00:17:08.000They want authority and absolute control and the way that they will legitimize that authority is through safety, through keeping you safe.
00:17:16.000Do you know who I'd like to keep safe?
00:17:17.000Like me and literally anyone other than the government, legacy media, financial system, Unelected globalist bodies that pass down regulation to individual sovereign nations.
00:17:30.000We can't do that unless all of us come together and are willing to put aside some of our many and sometimes glaringly obvious causes for division and opposition.
00:17:39.000My God, we better find a way to transcend.
00:17:41.000We better find a way to transcend because the enemy are organizing fast and the enemy is not each other.
00:17:48.000Also, X is being censored to within an inch of its life.
00:17:52.000Elon Musk's brave stand against censorship is now under attack from, of all things, the EU.
00:18:08.000And they've judged X to be a hotbed for illegal content and disinformation.
00:18:15.000Thierry Breton, who's like just some sort of EU commissioner, Talks like, like James Gandolfini or something.
00:18:21.000He's written Elon Musk a letter saying, following the terrorist attacks carried out by Hamas against Israel, we have indications that your platform is being used to disseminate illegal content and disinformation in the EU.
00:18:32.000I remind you that following the opening of a potential investigation and a finding of non-compliance, penalties can be imposed.
00:18:37.000Do you see how this awful, terrible situation is being exploited by the weapons industry?
00:18:45.000It's being exploited by people that want to censor Media spaces, it's being exploited because people's emotions are understandably running over and people see that as a window.
00:19:58.000The pilot also showed that disinformation actors were found to have significantly more followers than their non-disinformation counterparts.
00:20:07.000People seem to like people that don't like us and what we tell them.
00:20:31.000I mean, we can help people more, because you can see how we're helping!
00:20:35.000Look around at all of the help that's happening!
00:20:38.000Do you think that the imposition of online censorship is about Authoritarianism, managing information, managing dissent, presenting commercial opportunities to valued corporate partners, controlling the potential for oppositionist organizations in any country around the world, let alone global alliances that oppose the globalism itself, or do you think it's about they're worried that when you go online that you might be somehow vulnerable or hurt?
00:21:04.000What is it they've ever said or done in all history that leads you to think they care about your feelings?
00:21:10.000...tend and tend to have joined the platform more recently than non-disinformation users.
00:21:18.000Mr. Musk knows that he is not off the hook.
00:21:47.000We have our, I think, very well-equipped unit which will monitor and supervise what the platforms are doing.
00:21:59.000And as Twitter has been designated as the very large online platform, of course there are obligations given by the hard law.
00:22:11.000So my message for Twitter is you have to comply with the Hart Law.
00:22:16.000The only decision we have to make as individuals, people that believe in free speech, is do you trust these institutions or not?
00:22:23.000Do you trust them to make moral judgment?
00:22:25.000Do you trust them to discern what's misinformation and disinformation and what isn't?
00:22:29.000If the answer, like my personal answer, is no, I don't trust them, I don't trust them at all, then you have to, in one way or another, oppose This tyrannical tide towards centralised power and the closing down of free speech.
00:22:42.000We will be watching what you are doing.
00:22:45.000What's terrifying, additionally terrifying, about what Vera Jarová is saying is that laws are being passed all around the world to prohibit free speech.
00:22:52.000And as we have told you before, if you shut down free speech, then everything else is up in the air.
00:22:58.000Let's explain to you how that happens.
00:23:01.000Canada has already brought in online regulatory laws that mean that podcasts can be controlled and that online platforms can be fined if they report on information that the government deems to be misinformation.
00:23:45.000Yeah, I'll tell you why it's not in the news.
00:23:46.000Because the legacy media won't report it because they're in alignment with it, and independent media can't report it because they're being regulated and controlled.
00:23:53.000That's what What happens if you allow this type of legislation to be passed?
00:23:58.000If we don't all stand up together now, we're going to lose the possibility to stand together forever.
00:24:44.000It's not like Canada was a utopia, an Eden, a vision of a better world, even if they do have politicians called things like Justin Trudeau or Chrystia Freeland, the sarcastically named Canadian politicians.
00:25:14.000and the resource wars and all that kind of stuff.
00:25:16.000I'm talking about, you know, back in Iraq days.
00:25:18.000And I always think that Canada and Australia, well, they're not as bad as we are, trenched in tradition and the
00:25:23.000colonialism and all the blood on the hands of that stuff.
00:25:25.000But also they're not doing the new commercial version of colonialism that America's doing.
00:25:29.000Maybe Australia and Canada are some sort of slightly more neutered version of an anglophonic future, but now both those countries are essentially pilot schemes for dystopia, whether it's internment camps in Australia during lockdown or Canada's new online censorship bill, basically a censorship bill.
00:25:44.000We've got one of those here, of course, as well.
00:25:46.000But now, They're like literally debunking people.
00:25:48.000I don't like keep saying debunking because it sounds too much like debunking people.
00:26:09.000A bank or other financial service provider Okay, well that's terrifying.
00:26:17.000Don't just say that as if it's alright while Justin Trudeau stands there covering his mouth and genitals simultaneously as if that prevents us from seeing what's truly happening here.
00:26:30.000Canada is meant to be a country that is a celebration of liberalism.
00:27:07.000I think Nigel Farage should be allowed to express himself freely in a democracy, and if in a democracy a referendum don't go your way, hey baby, democracy that you said you love.
00:27:16.000So when you start shutting down people's bank accounts, shutting down people's free speech, and when the rest of us go, I don't mind really because I don't agree with that person, what we are is sort of compliant with emergent forms of fascism.
00:27:28.000The Canadian government is cracking down on financial supporters of the illegal blockade.
00:27:33.000So if you are one of the Canadians who donated, should you expect your bank accounts to be frozen today?
00:27:46.000If you don't agree with something that's happening in your country, your country that you live in, should you be able to protest without knowing what the subject is?
00:28:02.000An emailed comment from the Canadian Bankers Association says the required measures will be diligently implemented by financial service providers, but they don't expect them to impact the vast majority of customers.
00:28:15.000They also did not define what diligently implemented means.
00:28:19.000It just means they're going to try their hardest to shut down the bank accounts of people they don't agree with.
00:28:23.000And it won't impact the vast majority of customers.
00:28:26.000I mean, if the vast majority of your customers are going to have their bank accounts frozen, I don't see things going very well at the bank.
00:28:47.000Now you might have noticed that this is a news report from a little while ago.
00:28:50.000The news that we're going to tell you is up to the second.
00:28:53.000But there is no mainstream media news or indeed online news on this because Canada have introduced an online safety bill that allows them to censor this type of information and we're introducing these kind of bills all around the world and you might have noticed that independent media voices are being vehemently attacked and shut down everywhere.
00:29:12.000After three ministers, five years, and dozens of amendments, the Liberal government's controversial Online Streaming Act has finally become law.
00:29:19.000And there are some big changes coming for streamers.
00:29:23.000Everything you do is subject to new scrutiny and censorship and fines.
00:29:28.000You have seen that X were threatened with a fine just the other day.
00:29:32.000We'll be talking about that elsewhere.
00:29:33.000The law will require platforms to promote Canadian content, require streaming services like Netflix to pay to support Canadian media content like music and TV shows, and it will give the CRTC broad powers over digital media companies, including the ability to impose financial penalties for violations of the Act.
00:29:52.000That doesn't sound as good, especially if you can't pay those penalties because your bank account's been shut down.
00:30:14.000What about the misanthropy at the core of that?
00:30:16.000If you allow people to Yeah well sometimes people aren't perfect but I'd rather endure a little of that than the alternative which is granting authority to institutions that we know are corrupt already and don't trust.
00:30:31.000So you've not heard about the debanking firstly because it's a stupid word and secondly because it's a ludicrous policy.
00:30:37.000If you're British you'll have heard about the Nigel Farage story.
00:30:39.000If you're Canadian you might not have heard of the debanking that's going on in your country because people aren't reporting on it because Because there's a censorship law in place that prevents the truth from being accurately conveyed.
00:31:07.000Data unearthed through an access to information request by Black Locks, not to be confused with Black Rocks.
00:31:13.000Please don't confuse them with Black Rocks.
00:31:15.000Reporter unveiled a disturbing pattern where 837 individuals found the doors of their banks slammed shut on them over a span of five years.
00:31:23.000The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada was brought into the loop through grievances lodged with regulatory bodies shedding light on financial strangulation that bypassed cases of validated terrorism and money laundering.
00:31:35.000Right, so terrorism and money laundering, that's a legitimate reason, I guess, to debank someone.
00:31:40.000As has often been pointed out, in many of the areas where censorship regulation is introduced, or new forms of regulation are introduced, we already have laws for that.
00:31:53.000The new laws that you're legitimizing through the use of that language are actually redundant, because that stuff's already legislated against.
00:32:02.000And hold on, there's a whole raft of new powers that are going to affect Everybody.
00:32:07.000In a deeper dive into the numbers, it's revealed that the financial shackles tightened around 267 bank accounts and 170 Bitcoin wallets belonging to Freedom Convoy supporters ensnaring an estimated 7.8 million dollars.
00:32:21.000That probably means they won't be able to protest, so you won't be able to argue with the government.
00:32:27.000So the government is a liberal government that believes in freedom and helping people.
00:32:31.000No, no, that doesn't sound right, does it?
00:32:36.000This exercise in financial censorship spun a web of scrutiny during a hearing on March the 7th, 2022, when Angelina Mason, representing the Bankers Association, testified.
00:32:46.000Mason outlined that while the Royal Canadian Mounted Police supplied a list of names, banks were also mandated by separate orders to exercise their judgment in identifying account holders for debanking.
00:32:58.000So I sort of asked, right, well, the police can have a little look, but they're busy, you know, they're mounted after all, they've got a tent to the horse, I suppose, and that hat can't be easy to look after.
00:33:07.000So would you, the bank yourself, just have a look around in people's accounts, see if there's any familiar names, see if there's anything that you don't agree with going on.
00:33:14.000We can't empower banks to do that, that's not what a bank is.
00:33:17.000How can banks make moral decisions about their customers when they make their money through investing in all sorts of nefarious activity?
00:33:25.000Weapons manufacturers, energy, have you ever looked into how banks are making their money?
00:33:57.000A few years ago, maybe you'd see someone like Alex Jones or something, and you'd think, oh, come on, he's a sort of hysterical preacher.
00:34:03.000And perhaps archetypally, there is some of that in a character like Alex Jones, who, let me say plainly, I don't agree with everything he says, the same way as I don't agree with everything Nigel Farage says.
00:34:11.000But I do agree with people's right To speak.
00:34:13.000I do agree with people's right to disagree with me.
00:34:16.000I do agree with principles of justice and legislation and order and democracy.
00:34:21.000Ideas around which the argument is supposed to have been won.
00:34:24.000And the people and groups and parties that claim to most espouse and represent those values, guess what they're doing?
00:34:41.000And even if they do care about those things, they're not legislating in alignment with the principles they're discussing.
00:34:46.000They're legislating in an authoritarian manner.
00:34:48.000The outrage at the Nigel Farage-Coutts-NatWest debanking scandal in the United Kingdom does not align with the complete disinterest in Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's debanking of an entire political caste.
00:35:06.000Banking, it has been argued in the halls of parliament, in the pages of major publications, is a human right in the modern world.
00:35:12.000De-banking, it follows, should be seen as an abuse of those fundamental rights.
00:35:17.000Unfortunately, it is clear UK parliamentarians only cared about the Farage de-banking scandal because they could see themselves suffering the same fate when they're voted out of office, which is likely to be This goes a long way to explaining why those same MPs who now make grand speeches about the human rights of banking said nothing and did nothing during the Covid years when their fellow Commonwealth nation, Canada, debunked citizens as punishment for protesting against the government.
00:35:40.000The government may not be on your team, the legacy media may not be on your team, but I tell you who's on our team and therefore yours...
00:36:44.000Giving police excessive powers to attack the finances of those attending peaceful protests shocked many, and yet the silence from leaderships around the world fell heavy on the air.
00:36:53.000Only the pages of the truly independent press were screeching.
00:36:56.000Only independent media can report on stories like this for now.
00:36:59.000That's being impeded by censorship laws around the world.
00:37:02.000The silence from the political class is understandable.
00:37:05.000It happened during a time when every Western government was engaged in the abuse of human rights and civil rights through various emergency powers and health orders.
00:37:51.000None of our leaders broke ranks observing the don't throw stones in a glass house ideology.
00:37:55.000The press are the ones who should have been pelting rocks at these glass houses but they kept quiet too because they too had threatened their staff with mandates or taken vast sums of money from Big Pharma.
00:38:05.000If citizens tried to speak on social media they were erased from platforms that were making a killing in pharmaceutical ad revenue.
00:38:11.000The Russia-Ukraine conflict provided a well-timed distraction for Trudeau to wind back his emergency declaration and then not talk about it for months.
00:38:17.000While Trudeau scolded Russia for her authoritarian behaviour, his dictatorial leanings had already eroded Canada's democracy.
00:38:25.000To this, Trudeau blamed social media for spreading misinformation and disinformation which turned the people against the values and principles of democracies.
00:38:32.000Would those principles include the right to a peaceful protest, Trudeau?
00:38:37.000So how can something as radical as shutting down people's bank accounts and empowering banks to shut down people's bank accounts, banks, happen without being reported on?
00:38:46.000Because there's already censorship laws in place in Canada and it's happening in the UK and it's happening in your country.
00:38:52.000For months, representatives of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government insisted that their plans to regulate big tech social media platforms wouldn't impact independent news outlets or podcasters.
00:39:24.000While the government is preparing to regulate independent content providers, whether news or podcasts, it's preparing to subsidise more news media content.
00:39:32.000I wonder what type of news media content will get subsidised.
00:39:35.000I wonder if it'll be, like, favourable news.
00:39:38.000I wonder if it'll be news channels that don't go, hey, they're debanking your fellow Canadians because they disagree with the government.
00:39:45.000Because we already know that democracy is ineffectual for two reasons.
00:39:49.000Both of the two parties that you can vote for are too similar to make a meaningful impact on the lives of ordinary people.
00:39:55.000Also, they are funded by the same interests and there are sets of global bodies that dictate, as you have seen in the last few years, their policies, whether that's on health, medical or censorship matters.
00:40:06.000And now, independent media organisations that point that stuff out are being shut down.
00:40:16.000The federal government already gives $1.4 billion in direct support to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation compared to the $650 million it receives from commercial revenue.
00:40:47.000Commercial partners, who provide funding?
00:40:49.000Or you, Canadian people, who can have your bank accounts shut down if you don't do exactly what you're told?
00:40:55.000The Liberals are using two bills and a series of regulations to crack down on free speech online.
00:40:59.000C11, the Online News Act, and C18, the Online Streaming Act.
00:41:03.000While these bills worked their way through the legislative process, the Liberals repeatedly lied and said they were about targeting big tech and protecting and promoting Canadian culture.
00:41:11.000In fact, they were part of a deliberate effort to censor ordinary Canadians.
00:41:14.000They're not going to come out and say, we're going to censor ordinary Canadians.
00:41:17.000They say, oh, we've got Big Tech's got too much power.
00:41:20.000Meanwhile, what they have with Big Tech are partnerships.
00:41:22.000Partnerships, in the case of the United States, you know that they have military contracts, all manner of tech and data contracts with companies like Microsoft and Facebook.
00:41:32.000And now what they are doing is legislating new partnerships to control information and censor dissent.
00:41:38.000It's happening in Canada, particularly plainly observably now.
00:41:41.000This means it will be harder to express yourself online and digital first outlets will be disproportionately negatively impacted.
00:41:47.000Traditional outlets will be economically reliant on the Feds and their lobby groups are already mobilising to push the federal government for more support, so much for independent journalism.
00:41:55.000Even I was a relatively I'm a relative latecomer to YouTube.
00:41:57.000Been on there for like 10 years or whatever it is.
00:41:59.000And I noticed, and you will have noticed, that at the beginning, prominent independent YouTube voices were given quite large airs.
00:42:05.000It was like an ecosystem guided by the algorithm in which there was a kind of, I don't know, Darwinism, a kind of ecology that found its own way.
00:42:12.000But then there were some decisions made to promote what you might call legacy media within it.
00:42:17.000And now that's just blatantly happened, hasn't it?
00:42:19.000Now those sites are in lockstep with the government and legacy media.
00:42:34.000What we want is to keep alive the possibility of change, of empowering individuals and communities outside of these establishment institutions.
00:42:43.000That's only going to happen, the good news is it can happen, but it's only going to happen with individual responsibility.
00:42:49.000The famous comment, the thing that I always hear in the chat, but what can I do individually?
00:42:53.000Now, the government says it's doing this to protect and promote Canadian culture, ensure legacy news outlets operate for a healthy democracy, and ensure marginalised voices are heard.
00:43:03.000In reality, Trudeau and the Liberal Party are doing this so they can spread disinformation and quash dissent.
00:43:08.000It's the opposite of what they're saying.
00:43:09.000Trudeau's crackdown comes at a time when the European Union, United Nations and World Economic Forum are all demanding harsh crackdowns on free speech.
00:44:43.000And the media just amplifies and normalises the messaging of those people.
00:44:46.000And within democracy, there's no meaningful dissent or opposition to those ideas that both parties in any country, your one, my one, two parties, more or less the same, one goes up, one goes down, both crap.
00:44:56.000What then, if we aren't even able to use this new technology to go, hey, have you noticed this?
00:45:05.000Like that, what I just described, or is it?
00:45:06.000They're really worried that you might get your feelings hurt while you're on the internet.
00:45:11.000Do you really, really, after everything they've done, think it could be that?
00:45:15.000Polling shows these efforts run contrary to Canadian beliefs.
00:45:18.000Yeah, that's not what actual people want.
00:45:20.000We can solve our differences through conversation, through communication, through honesty, through transparency, through redemption, atonement, salvation, openness, through values and principles that they are not interested in because it would end their establishment interests.
00:45:32.000One poll shows nearly half of all Canadians think Fed should rescind Bill C-18, the online streaming act.
00:45:38.000There's not going to be a vote on that then.
00:45:40.000Now more than 6 in 10 Canadians are concerned about the bill's impacts.
00:45:43.000Canadians are also showing how media savvy they are.
00:45:46.000They don't think big news organisations need government bailouts.
00:45:53.000And they believe C18 will harm smaller outlets.
00:45:56.000Voters may soon too change how they view government promises as they learn that the Liberal Party lied when it said their plans to regulate big tech social media platforms wouldn't impact independent news outlets or podcasters.
00:46:06.000Eventually Canada must move to a regime where neither the big tech social media platforms nor users are in the government's censorship system.
00:46:30.000Let's think for a moment about the morality of the legacy media who are being advantaged by the online censorship bills that prevent the banking regulations that are just being introduced that you can be debanked.
00:46:43.000Well, here's the way that it won't happen to you.
00:46:45.000Become an obedient little prisoner of the state.
00:46:48.000Never think anything they don't want you to think.
00:46:50.000Certainly don't do anything they don't want you to do.
00:46:53.000Sit still, be quiet, never protest, never think about a better version of reality, never think about what words like democracy, justice, media, truth, opportunity, freedom, but get those words out of your vocabulary or invert their meanings into the new prescribed meanings of your new centralised, authoritarian, globalist overlords as being piloted in Canada.
00:48:13.000I wonder, can you tell us, sir, what exactly did you express that was initially subject to censure?
00:48:22.000It was the Great Barrington Declaration.
00:48:24.000So it was an article, basically a proposal that I wrote with Sunetra Gupta of Oxford and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard in October 2020.
00:48:33.000I'm sure your audience has heard of this.
00:48:36.000I've seen you telling your audience this, so they don't need to be told so much.
00:48:39.000But basically the idea was that we knew it was older people that were really vulnerable to COVID.
00:48:44.000And that young people, especially children, were not particularly vulnerable.
00:48:48.000The argument was to lift the lockdowns and do focused protection of vulnerable older people.
00:48:54.000That led to a tremendous propaganda campaign, a campaign that essentially villainized me and Martin and Sunetra as if we wanted to kill vast numbers of people and we were calling for better protection of vulnerable older people.
00:49:36.000So we wrote it because the spring lockdowns had failed.
00:49:40.000It was really clear from the epidemiological data that the COVID was coming back in the fall.
00:49:47.000It had already come back in several places.
00:49:49.000And it was also clear that the establishment was going to push for these lockdowns that had already damaged the well-being of the children, of the working class, of the poor worldwide.
00:50:00.000And we thought it was a tragedy that we were essentially throwing away the futures of these vulnerable people in the name of protecting people against a deadly infectious disease, which actually didn't end up protecting anybody, these lockdowns, instead of actually just directly protecting the people that were most vulnerable.
00:50:17.000It's likely, of course, based on just what you've explained in the last couple of minutes, that we've yet to fully experience and appreciate the consequences of those actions.
00:50:29.000Can you tell me why, Doctor, you feel that what even a few years later seem like perfectly reasonable proposals, that if they had been followed, many economic problems, sociological, psychological, Problems may have been, if not entirely ameliorated, somewhat assuaged.
00:50:56.000So you had a few people at the very top of these medical and bureaucracies, the social bureaucracies, that had taken on themselves this mantle of almost godlike authority.
00:51:10.000You remember Tony Fauci saying to some reporter, or maybe even just Senator Rand Paul, if you question me, you're not simply questioning a man, you are questioning science itself.
00:51:21.000I mean, let's think about the hubris of someone that says, I am science, in effect.
00:51:26.000You know, la science c'est moi, if you're like, you know, Louis XIV or something.
00:51:32.000And the idea that there would be credentialed people that would oppose them, that would say, look, you're saying that there's a scientific consensus in favor of lockdown when, in fact, just the very existence of the Great Barrington Declaration means there isn't.
00:51:46.000It means that you've just created an illusion of consensus to fool people into thinking that we ought to do what you say to do, rather than having a discussion and a debate, which is really what we owed the public.
00:51:58.000Claiming to be the physical embodiment of science, which is an ongoing, never-ending process of analysis, collaboration, accumulation of data.
00:52:12.000And in fact, it's more akin to religious demagoguery than even scientific orthodoxy.
00:52:20.000The early period, or perhaps the pandemic in its entirety, functioned as a lens that revealed I think already present but concealed institutional behaviours and assumptions.
00:52:32.000Particularly too, it could be used to identify where convergent interests met and where a kind of unconscious systemic process unfolded that might not require every step malfeasance, deliberately applied evil, but certainly showed institutionalism That is worryingly unconscious.
00:52:57.000But there are points when it seemed quite deliberate.
00:53:00.000Now I suppose it's very difficult to prove that there was something nefarious unfolding, but can you tell me Can you tell me where you think you have identified the most concerning moments and decisions?
00:53:17.000Obviously the early attempts to censor, the denial of the existence of the Barrington Declaration.
00:53:28.000Are there other significant moments that start to suggest a tendency, if not a strategy or conspiracy?
00:53:35.000I mean, you saw this almost from the beginning of the pandemic, maybe even from the very beginning of the pandemic.
00:53:40.000The idea that this virus may have been the outcome of a research enterprise actually aimed at preventing pandemics, ironically.
00:53:52.000That idea was turned into a conspiracy theory.
00:53:55.000Even though it's a viable scientific hypothesis, it's likely even a true hypothesis.
00:54:01.000In 2020, anyone who brought that hypothesis up was essentially labeled as a fringe figure, a conspiracy theorist, a racist demon, because you're saying it might have been the Chinese that were involved in this.
00:54:14.000It's okay to say that because of strange Chinese eating habits in wet markets, that's how the virus emerged.
00:54:20.000But it's not okay to say that there was an intentional scientific effort, funded by Americans in part, but also conducted in China, that led to the virus.
00:54:28.000The latter is racist, but the former is not.
00:54:32.000But yeah, people who said that there might actually have been a virus that was created in the lab
00:55:34.000And the central tactic was smearing and censorship of outside voices that criticized the people that were designing the pandemic response.
00:55:45.000If you are interested in centralizing authority and increasing authority, particularly beyond national sovereignty and the reach of democracy, there is going to be necessary censure because we live in a time where divergent, opposing and dissident voices now at least have the potential to be platformed and to gain incredible traction.
00:56:04.000And it seems to be a pretty prominent, evident and plain tactic that to Undermine the credibility of, as you say, dissenting voices.
00:56:14.000It's almost a uniform, observable strategy.
00:56:18.000If you cannot win the argument because it's unwinnable, because what's being claimed is true, let's take simply the case of the Great Barrington Declaration or, you know, the lab leak theory.
00:56:30.000Then what you of course have to do is undermine where those voices are coming from.
00:56:35.000And you're right, this extraordinary array of hypocritical tactics that are deployed suggest a kind of It would be on nihilism, beyond amorality.
00:56:49.000It's almost a kind of cynicism that really scares me, particularly given that I've had recently some experiences of how these institutions can function.
00:57:02.000Note the corroborating component that the media were willing to perform.
00:57:10.000Did you note that there was a great willingness in addition to the censor practice and social media spaces?
00:57:18.000...in legacy media sites to condemn, criticize you and frame you.
00:57:23.000Because even when you said that, even though this is stuff I know about already, when I just hear Harvard, Stanford, Oxford in relation to a scientific endeavor and, you know, furthering a discourse, I think, oh, well, this sounds pretty legitimate.
00:57:42.000Well, I mean, they were almost immediately after we wrote the declaration, I started, there was pit pieces about me and Sinatra and Martin essentially accusing us of wanting to let the virus rip.
00:57:55.000The argument was that we were somehow being deeply irresponsible by wanting to just ignore the virus.
00:58:01.000Again, as I've said, even though we wanted focus protection.
00:58:03.000You saw story after story in mainstream media saying this, essentially pushing this propaganda campaign.
00:58:10.000There was a story in the Washington Post.
00:58:12.000There was a story in the New York Times.
00:58:14.000Story after story, essentially pushing this lie.
00:58:17.000What we wanted was a discussion of how to better protect vulnerable older people.
00:58:20.000And in fact, I did a And now, I'd already had experience with this, Russell, before this.
00:58:26.000In April of 2020, I'd written a study, which was basically showing that the disease had spread much more broadly than people had realized, even as early as April of 2020, using antibody evidence from blood in the population.
00:58:40.000And what we found was that the 50 cases, you know, for every single person that had been identified as a case, the infection fatality rose much lower.
00:58:48.000That led to a tremendous number of personal hit pieces against me.
00:58:52.000Allegations that I had taken money to change the study, which was an absolute lie, hit pieces against my wife, who had written an email to my kid's middle school listserv, encouraging them to join the study, because she'd committed the sin of saying that if you have a positive antibody, that might mean you are immune.
00:59:11.000Which has turned out to be true, you know.
00:59:13.000And it was for me personally, as a scientist, I've just written papers and published them in journals all my life.
00:59:20.000I never faced that kind of media assault.
00:59:32.000And for me, it was a very, very difficult time.
00:59:35.000The power of the, essentially, the power of these conventional media sources to excommunicate you is tremendous.
00:59:44.000And I felt the full brunt of that before I decided I was just going to need to keep doing my job, which was to say what the scientific evidence said and provide health policy advice to the public.
00:59:59.000I was thinking about, like, yours is a name that I've heard from the beginning because it was a significant, it was a pivotal moment in spite of how it was handled, the Great Barrington Declaration, and your name, whilst I'm still never entirely confident, Jay Bhattacharya, like, was one of the names that was synonymous with the credible opposition to the dominant narrative, and for me, therefore, legitimised my own concern And an amateur analysis of how scientific orthodoxy was being mobilized to legitimize authority and it's almost at odds with what science is supposed to be essentially.
01:00:42.000It made me realize what dogmatism is and that dogmatism is not alloyed indecipherably or inextricably to religion or politics.
01:00:54.000Dogma means that you're willing to say stuff like, I'm science, if you argue with me, you're arguing with science.
01:01:06.000And to hear that you actually suffered in the way that you just described, obviously particularly because of recent experiences that I've encountered, shall we say, Like, it provides a sort of a, you know, you were right.
01:01:23.000What does it mean, like, to someone like you, who's a scientist, a career scientist at Harvard, whose previous life has never taken you into these sort of chasms and schisms of controversy, What does it tell you about how science can be industrialised, weaponised, deployed, defied, utilised in order to create conformity, oppression?
01:01:57.000I mean, of course, I knew the power of science.
01:02:00.000I mean, that's one of the reasons that anyone enters science is because it is a powerful tool to learn about the physical world through this process.
01:02:07.000But I always viewed it as a fundamentally humble thing, right?
01:02:11.000If I am doing science, I have some idea.
01:02:16.000And it's tempered by data and by other critics who say, look Jay, you've thought of this wrong.
01:02:22.000This piece of data disagrees with how you think.
01:02:24.000And then I change my mind on the basis of those data.
01:02:27.000It's a fundamentally humbling thing if you're actually going to do science for a living.
01:02:32.000To see it turned into dogma, as you say, is a violation of basically every norm that I've lived by in my entire career.
01:02:42.000It basically means that I don't really need to know what the data say.
01:02:46.000I don't really need to be creative and think about different hypotheses.
01:02:49.000All I have to do is I have to just pay attention to what the most powerful people inside the scientific community say, and then I'll know the truth.
01:02:58.000As you say, it's not simply, it's not a matter of like a particular, you know, it's not a religious thing.
01:03:03.000It's not even just even a political thing.
01:03:04.000It is just, I think, is a common human thing to have that hubris.
01:03:07.000Even scientists themselves often have that hubris.
01:03:10.000When you get things right, I mean, it's like you feel like you're on the top of the world.
01:03:15.000You make some prediction and it comes out to be true.
01:03:17.000But then the next prediction you make is going to be wrong.
01:03:19.000I mean, you have to remember all the time in science that every idea may be met with a fact that disproves it, even if you had it, even if you're the brightest person.
01:03:29.000Even Einstein was wrong over and over again.
01:03:33.000Of course, he was right about some fundamental things.
01:03:36.000So I think that humility, the loss of it during the pandemic, was a real shock to me.
01:03:43.000But then to see how that power is used in the world outside of science, because the ability to distinguish between true and false, If you have an entity that can do that, the power is tremendous.
01:03:58.000It's far beyond what kings of ancient times had.
01:04:04.000It's analogous to what maybe the medieval church had.
01:04:08.000You say the distinction between which was true and false, but even within religious traditions, the best of religious traditions have at their center a fundamental humility.
01:04:21.000So it's every human endeavor, I think, faces this.
01:04:24.000But during the pandemic, it was deployed at scale to say, look, Jay from Stanford and Martin from Harvard and Sunetra from Oxford are wrong just because Tony Fauci says so.
01:04:38.000By the way, we discovered this was not just like an organic reaction.
01:04:44.000Four days after we wrote the declaration, the head of the National Institute of Health, Francis Collins, wrote an email to Tony Fauci calling me, Martin Sinatra, fringe epidemiologist, F-R-I-N-G-E.
01:04:58.000The card that I made up says fringe epidemiology on it now.
01:05:02.000It's so it's it was one of these things where like the head of the National Institute of Health and then he called for a devastating takedown in an email to Tony Fauci.
01:05:13.000And that led to the propaganda campaign.
01:05:16.000They used the control of what the press sees as true and false to smear us and destroy us.
01:05:24.000It's one of these things, if it's some random scientist doing it, even a prominent scientist doing it, that's one thing.
01:05:28.000But the head of the National Institute of Health controls $45 billion of money that And that amount of money essentially makes and breaks the careers of every biomedical scientist known in the U.S.
01:05:40.000and many scientists of note outside the U.S.
01:05:43.000It's very difficult to cross someone like that.
01:05:46.000If someone like that says, this guy's a fringe epidemiologist, let's do a devastating takedown, even a scientist that agrees with us is going to want to stay silent.
01:05:55.000It's unfortunate and ridiculous that they use the phrase devastating takedown because that's the sort of thing that people with evil intentions say.
01:06:16.000Did you, were you surprised by how few people were willing to support you?
01:06:20.000Were you heartened by the support that you received?
01:06:24.000And did you, were there times, I mean, given that you just said you lost 30 pounds, you didn't sleep and you forgot to eat, which all seems pretty unscientific to me, as a matter of fact, you should have been paying attention in the lab of your life.
01:06:35.000I wonder, like, was it interpersonally challenging and did you get a lot of heat from Harvard and stuff?
01:06:42.000Well, yeah, so I'm actually at Stanford, but I got a lot of grief from friends of mine at Stanford.
01:06:51.000But on the other hand, almost a million people signed the declaration.
01:07:24.000That was one of the major goals of the Declaration, to tell people You know, lots of scientists are seeing what you were seeing.
01:07:31.000Lots of scientists are saying, look, look at the devastation we're causing to the poor.
01:07:35.000Like, you know, in Uganda, four and a half million children were out of school for two years because of the lockdowns.
01:07:41.000I mean, actually 15 million people, kids are out of school for two years.
01:07:45.000Four and a half million never came back to school in Uganda.
01:07:48.000And it turns out the UN did this report on this around Africa.
01:07:53.000It turns out a lot of those kids didn't come back because the little girls were sold into sexual slavery and the little boys were put into child labor.
01:08:00.000Because the reason is their families were put on the brink of starvation by the economic dislocations caused by the lockdowns.
01:08:07.000We put those poor families in this like devastating bind where they had to like essentially either do this terrible thing to their children or starve them.
01:08:17.000That's what those lockdowns were doing.
01:08:32.000And thank you for introducing me to a level of reality that I'd not Pondered because I was still somewhat selfishly looking at the lockdown for the personal inconvenience I'd endured and perhaps on occasion I would think of the psychological impact and the educational impact and their mental health and suicide and all of those other things that we were told not to think about or worry about when people were speculatively discussing those things and now to introduce to it rafts of almost inconceivable suffering
01:09:02.000For children in Uganda, that's a new component to consider.
01:09:08.000I thought the phrase I found myself using was, but in this instance, science is a subset of a different ideology, whether that's an economic ideology or an authoritarian ideology or sort of an unconscious ideology.
01:09:44.000You can't have science without the ability to speak to one another, to be able to freely, without undue influence.
01:09:52.000A lot of the distortions in science that we documented before the pandemic come from this.
01:09:57.000So like, for instance, the role that pharmaceutical money plays in scientific output.
01:10:04.000Huge, huge amounts of money poured into doing science that's essentially aimed at making sure that pharmaceutical companies do well, right?
01:10:15.000That was known before the pandemic, and there's mechanisms in place to try to... You don't want to say, if you're a pharmaceutical company, you can't do science.
01:10:22.000What you want to say is, look, you have to declare that you are a pharmaceutical company-funded scientist, and now you can use that in your assessment of the scientific result.
01:10:31.000I personally never taken any pharmaceutical company money.
01:10:34.000So I never I just because I wanted to stay independent of that.
01:10:37.000Wow, you realize then on some personal and ethical level that to take that money and this is not a judgment of obviously it seems like the majority I presume people were funded in that manner.
01:10:50.000But you personally made a choice that that would impede your ability to indeed be a scientist, and you were right about that.
01:11:02.000I wonder, Jay, what you think, if you'd like to explore further the necessity for discourse, conversation, account and narratives in the pursuit of true objectivity.
01:11:15.000And how that aligns with your recent experiences in federal court and the attempts to further curtail, legislate against free speech by the Biden administration.
01:11:31.000Tell us about that recent, and I understand you were victorious.
01:11:35.000The whole experience we've been talking about led me to the suspicion that this suppression of scientific speech wasn't simply an organic thing.
01:11:45.000That in fact there was a campaign organized by governments to suppress scientific discussion online.
01:11:54.000A lot of people suspected with social media is doing it, right?
01:11:56.000So YouTube, for instance, banning your video.
01:11:59.000I mean, last time I was on, Russell, you told me that you were only going to say approved things to put on YouTube and then the rest you'll put on Rumble.
01:12:37.000Are there such a thing as illegal ideas?
01:12:40.000Their business interests would normally cut in favor of allowing this kind of speech, and yet they didn't.
01:12:46.000It turns out, so the Missouri and Louisiana Attorney General's offices approached me, Martin Kulldorff, Aaron Cariotti, another scientist, and asked us if we'd be willing to join any lawsuit against the Biden administration.
01:12:59.000That lawsuit in federal court led to discovery where we read the emails of a tremendous number of federal officials in the White House, in the CDC, in the Surgeon General's office, in the FBI, in the State Department.
01:13:16.000Basically, what the Biden administration did was that they would Contact social media companies.
01:13:24.000These are the ideas you need to censor.
01:13:26.000These are the people you need to censor.
01:13:28.000And they would then threaten the social media companies that if you don't censor these people and these ideas, we're going to regulate you out of existence.
01:14:00.000And, you know, it was a federal judge that found this.
01:14:04.000Then it was the Biden administration that appealed it, saying that they needed to be able to censor to keep the public safe.
01:14:11.000And then a district court basically said, you can't do that.
01:14:15.000That violates the American First Amendment.
01:14:18.000I was and this is just this, by the way, all this just came out this this year, just in past this summer, actually.
01:14:24.000But the judge issued his ruling in July 4, 2023.
01:14:28.000So what we now see is part of the mechanisms by which the scientific discussion during the pandemic was suppressed, the policy discussion was suppressed, was by direct government policy.
01:14:39.000Governments decided, and I'm certain it's not just the United States government did this, I know the UK government was involved in this as well, based on reports I've seen from organizations like Big Brother Watch, you know, what you have is essentially a government policy in the West to suppress Dissident voices.
01:14:59.000Because they think that the dissidents are so dangerous to public health.
01:15:03.000At least that's the argument that they make when they're pressed on it in court.
01:15:09.000But it doesn't seem that the way that they behave generally is motivated by the desire to preserve, protect and improve public health.
01:15:17.000Otherwise you would not have made those decisions relatively early in the pandemic period that caused so much damage and even for children to be sold into sexual slavery.
01:15:27.000It seems that these choices were at best misguided and at worst malevolent.
01:15:33.000That dissidents and opposing their dominating narratives is being Gosh, I sometimes feel it's not even incrementally.
01:15:43.000In a way that appears to be coordinated, the possibility for dissent is being shut down.
01:15:47.000Legislation in the UK, the new, again, the sort of ludicrously and somewhat ironically named online safety bill in Canada, they've introduced new laws to control information in these type of spaces.
01:16:00.000And based on what you've just told us, and the kind of relationships between government and social media platforms, this legislation is merely enshrining something that's been
01:16:09.000happening less formally and will now happen to a far greater degree and the dangers that you've
01:16:15.000described, the evident, observable, actual danger that has taken place, the lives that have
01:16:22.000been lost, the lives that have been ruined, it feels like this is gonna get worse.
01:16:28.000Now, I understand that YouTube are using the WHO's medical guidelines now, not just for COVID, but for all diseases.
01:16:37.000The WHO is preparing a pandemic treaty that will allow them to further bypass national sovereignty, taking, I think, 5% of the budgets of Like of any nation that's a participant in the treaty and people's fears that the censorship is increasing, surveillance is increasing, globalism and by what I mean by globalism is that there are unelected bodies that are not tethered to nations and therefore are not democratically accountable are making decisions transcendent of democracies and so
01:17:07.000It's like this subject that we're discussing that used to just be about oh like the pandemic which we're already being sort of invited to forget and just move beyond because as I say of the Omnicrisis, of the endless wars, escalating wars, the whole just sort of climate of horror and fracture.
01:17:25.000It appears to me that this is a significant issue and it's one that is going to It's increasing in its power.
01:17:33.000These kind of measures are increasing in spite of your recent significant victory.
01:17:39.000I mean, I share with you the dread of the future if we allow this kind of infrastructure to stay in place.
01:18:01.000I mean, and the WHO, it's not as if they got things right all the time.
01:18:04.000During the pandemic, a few days after we wrote the Great Barrington Declaration, the Great Barrington Declaration is premised on the idea that if you get COVID and recover, you have some immunity, right?
01:18:13.000That's what herd immunity is based on, which is true.
01:18:15.000You get some immunity after you recover from COVID.
01:18:18.000The WHO changed the definition of herd immunity to exclude immunity after recovery from the disease.
01:18:26.000Only vaccines produced immunity in the definition of herd immunity, and they did that in response to the Great Barrington Declaration.
01:18:33.000The WHO put out misinformation over and over, information at odds with the scientific data over and over and over again during the pandemic.
01:18:43.000They downplayed the damage to the poorest places of the world.
01:18:46.000They recommended the lockdowns because in February 2020, they thought that what China did had worked, that the lockdowns would get rid of the disease everywhere if we just did what China did.
01:18:57.000The World Health Organization has a lot to answer for, and to have YouTube then say, okay, we're going to take this organization that failed so fundamentally during the pandemic and take it as our lodestar, the science itself, and we'll suppress everyone that disagrees with them.
01:19:10.000Well, you know, why even have science?
01:19:12.000I mean, that's one of these things where, like, you essentially are done, you know, you've created this epistemic bubble that cannot be pierced because you say this organization has a monopoly on the truth.
01:19:29.000I do think that the American First Amendment, before the Missouri v. Biden case, I had started to despair.
01:19:36.000During the case, and especially with the recent rulings, I'm starting to feel a glimmer of hope, Russell.
01:19:41.000I hope you don't talk me out of it, because I think I think the American First Amendment might be strong enough to shatter this whole regime.
01:19:51.000I need your hope and I certainly need my own.
01:19:54.000I'm just looking at the article you wrote, I think, on Substack about your experience, I think, on arriving in America and becoming an American citizen, at least, and you talk about the First Amendment and how that it's Not only constitutional, but it's almost formative, and it's in some ways the crucible of all other American values, rights, and even perhaps even human rights.
01:20:19.000Can you sort of reprise what you mean?
01:20:25.000I got a little emotional when I wrote that piece, Russell.
01:20:27.000It was for Barry Weiss's sub-stack of Free Press.
01:20:34.000When the July 4th ruling came down from the judge saying that the Biden administration had violated my First Amendment rights, my free speech rights, I thought back to when I first arrived in the United States.
01:21:27.000Killed a lot of people, actually, that opposed her during a state of emergency that she declared.
01:21:33.000And I remember in my family, I was young then, very young then, but just the horror that this could happen in their home country, and also the relief that we were in a country that valued free speech, where that kind of suppression of dissident ideas could never happen.
01:21:51.000That for me was a formative value, like a sense of like, you know, the United States can stand as a bulwark against this kind of authoritarian power.
01:22:01.000And when the judge ruled in favor of the First Amendment in this case, it cracked open, I think, this entire enterprise.
01:22:13.000Because it doesn't take much, Russell.
01:22:14.000It just takes a few people telling the truth.
01:22:17.000that are heard widely, that then shatters the power of these authoritarians.
01:22:25.000It can cost a lot to the people telling the truth, of course, but that cost is part of how we renew our societies, that we bring these basic fundamental values back to our societies, fundamental ideas, you know,
01:22:41.000like the scientific ideas like we've been talking about, ideas of free expression.
01:22:46.000Those, I think free expression to me is the fundamental thing
01:22:49.000that allows even David to overthrow Goliath.
01:22:54.000It seems that we move in our conversations between the importance of the work that you do
01:23:07.000because it is empirical, because you're able to say, wait a minute, that's not true.
01:23:23.000And to, in a sense, what can be extrapolated from that and what can be observed when that kind of data is censored, shut down, ignored, attacked.
01:23:41.000It's interesting that the pandemic period had nestled within it so many little crises, sociological, ideological, philosophical, judicial, political, and even within the biological component, The cover-up of myocarditis and the administering of vaccines.
01:24:04.000There's the non-medical interventions.
01:24:15.000That's why people were having parties during it, because they knew it wasn't dangerous.
01:24:20.000They were just letting us know it was dangerous.
01:24:24.000An area of conjecture, of course, is Oh, now they have recognised that it is possible to impose levels of previously unimagined control on a population as long as they legitimise it.
01:24:35.000It is possible to destroy dissenting voices as long as you are able to use information that legitimises the destruction of those voices.
01:24:45.000When it comes to myocarditis and the increased rates of myocarditis in people that have taken vaccines and the way that information was initially framed, can you tell us what we have learned with that particular little lie?
01:25:01.000Now that is a little bit heartbreaking because when the vaccines were first introduced, they had run honest studies, like large-scale randomized studies.
01:25:13.000Tens of thousands of people enrolled in a control arm that included placebo.
01:25:18.000But you know, the thing about vaccines, when you go from tens of thousands to billions, you're going to learn things that you didn't know automatically.
01:25:26.000They're going to be people that have conditions that are a result of the vaccine sometimes that you learn about.
01:25:34.000The way that it's always been handled in the past is an honesty of like, okay, if you see these conditions in this group, you tell people in that group, maybe don't take this vaccine, maybe take a different vaccine, maybe You put it off and tell them to go talk to their doctor, decide what's best for them.
01:25:54.000A lot of nuanced discussion based on what you learn after the vaccine has been rolled out.
01:26:02.000One of the things we learned very early on in the rollout of this vaccine is that young men taking this vaccine have a higher elevated risk of myocarditis.
01:26:12.000Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle.
01:26:34.000I mean, I believe anywhere in between there.
01:26:38.000And I think, but that's high enough to say, well, look, I'm going to give it to billions of people, including, you know, hundreds of millions of young men.
01:26:47.000I'm going to end up getting a lot of cases of myocarditis.
01:26:50.000And normally with vaccines, you want something to be so safe that no one would question not just that vaccine, but all vaccines.
01:26:59.000If you have a 1 in 5,000 risk of some severe outcome, you would probably be very careful with that vaccine for that group because you don't want to create this skepticism about all vaccines because you're seeing a subgroup of people hurt by this vaccine.
01:27:16.000That's what they did, by the way, in the United States with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
01:27:19.000When they saw an elevated risk of thrombocytopenia and clotting in older women and middle-aged women, they paused the rollout of the vaccine.
01:27:30.000My colleague, Martin Kulldorff, who wrote the Great Parenthood Declaration, disagreed with me about this, but I actually think it was probably the reasonable thing to do.
01:27:37.000You know, again, you could argue with me about this, whether I'm right or wrong.
01:27:40.000But the point is that's consistent with what we normally do with vaccines.
01:27:42.000As soon as there's a signal, we pause, we're careful about it.
01:27:46.000Because even relatively rare signals can undermine public confidence in all vaccines.
01:27:50.000That's why most of the traditional vaccines that are out there, we have a lot of confidence in it because they pull them every time there's something, just a few, one in a million cases of something, and they're very careful about it.
01:28:02.000With this vaccine, that caution was thrown to the wind, especially with the mRNA vaccines, and the signal was for young men.
01:28:09.000It should have led to a pause for young men taking the mRNA vaccines, and it didn't.
01:28:14.000Certainly vaccines have been cancelled on the basis of much statistically lower impact than that, I understand.
01:28:23.000And this sort of crisis of confidence in our institutions and science itself has to be halted at some point because in a way science is one of the few things that can prevent us becoming hysterical because I wondered As many people surely must, if you have felt that the kind of certainty that you've had in the institutions to a degree you participate in, if you consider at least science to be an institution, although I recognise there are many, many sectors within that, plainly the funding being a significant point of difference,
01:28:59.000I wonder if, like, you know, when you say something like, you know, vaccines historically have been like, you know, they're verifiably much safer.
01:29:09.000Is there anything that happened in the pandemic period that made you think, hold on a minute, I'm gonna have to review the trust that I'd bestowed on either other medical or legislative or regulatory, you know, like, for example, Andy Fauci.
01:29:22.000Most people didn't think about Andy Fauci very much prior to that.
01:29:25.000I feel like during the AIDS crisis, some people were like, whoa, he's, this guy's making some crazy decisions and many might argue some crazy dollars as well through some of those royalty arrangements.
01:29:35.000But Generally speaking, it's not something you think about.
01:29:38.000I wonder if you've had the opportunity, chance or inclination to review some areas that you previously would have considered that didn't require further analysis.
01:29:47.000I mean, it's funny, Russell, you ask that, because I actually have on my bookshelf somewhere a textbook that Anthony Fauci edited, from which I learned internal medicine.
01:29:57.000You know, it was, you know, before the pandemic, I had tremendous admiration for him.
01:30:02.000I had to revise that admiration considerably.
01:30:07.000I've been at Stanford for 37 years, first as a student, then as a professor, and the motto of the university is the winds of freedom blow, and they didn't blow during the pandemic.
01:30:19.000A lot of my colleagues I'm now deeply disappointed in I do think you have to resist the urge to say, everything I knew before was wrong.
01:31:22.000That kind of questioning happens all the time with vaccines.
01:31:25.000It's a normal part of why vaccines can be recommended at scale, is because as soon as there's a safety signal, you say, okay, well, even if it turns out to be just a statistical artifact, you still, with an abundance of caution, you pull the vaccine.
01:32:08.000Personally, I'm confident enough that I would give my kids those traditional childhood vaccines.
01:32:14.000But I can understand the desire to revisit, given how poorly our scientific institutions, our regulatory institutions did during the pandemic, to protect the health of the public.
01:32:24.000I can completely understand where that impetus is coming from.
01:32:27.000Yeah, because you start to question who's spending money to ensure that non-profitable drugs are promoted, that profitable drugs are rigorously explored.
01:32:38.000Where's that appetite coming from and what is this trend and what was revealed during that period?
01:32:43.000That's a very sort of open-hearted and open-minded answer.
01:32:47.000And I was thinking about like, you know, revisiting foundational principles and it Yeah, epochs are defined by those moments of revision and revelation, whether it's heliocentrism, if I'm saying it right, or in the nature of sub-particular reality.
01:33:05.000When those revelations are made, It defines our species, it defines our kind, it defines our time, and that's why the neutrality and objectivity of science has to be protected in the same way that something like free speech has to be protected.
01:33:21.000When science is a subset of financial interests and methods of dominion, then it's difficult to see how you're not going to end up in some kind of form of tyranny as a result of that, because of the biases accumulatively Will lead to the end of the ability for debate and the ability to undergird dissident voices in so many ways.
01:33:49.000Getting to the sort of not the heart of the matter but a significant part of the matter it seems that here it says Moderna and Pfizer made a thousand dollars of profit every second.
01:33:58.000They charge governments up to 24 times more than the potential cost of generic production.
01:34:03.000It seems that there were many systemic problems, plainly, between the kind of relationships
01:34:09.000between, let's just say, government and big tech, government and big pharma.
01:34:14.000It seems that what's needed is new capacity for regulation.
01:34:20.000And I'm saying decentralization of power, breaking up of monopolies in all the areas
01:34:25.000where they appear to be able to reign, to reduce, indeed, end the ability of companies
01:34:30.000of this scale to influence government through lobbying and other forms of funding.
01:34:35.000And these are the kind of ideas that need to be discussed in independent media and won't
01:34:48.000I mean, I knew that it existed, but I didn't realize the scope of it before the pandemic.
01:34:54.000The regulatory agencies that are supposed to oversee and represent the public interest, you know, the Food and Drug Administration, the CDC, a lot of this, a lot of that has, there's this like revolving door with industry.
01:35:13.000There's a sense of where the regulators who are supposed to protect the public from the depredations of the pharmaceutical companies are often representing the pharmaceutical companies.
01:35:28.000You have former FDA chairs now on the board of big pharmaceutical companies.
01:36:11.000You have to pay penalties for it, right?
01:36:14.000You have the wrong incentives in place if you don't have some possibility that if you do something bad, something bad will happen to you.
01:36:23.000And essentially that's what these deals with the pharmaceutical companies did, is they told the pharmaceutical companies, you can have a bad product and you don't have to pay the price for it.
01:36:33.000I can't believe it that I'd ever say we have to get back to capitalism.
01:36:37.000I didn't realize that we'd gone so far beyond it in so many areas where subsidized energy companies are able to profit in energy crises, pharmaceutical companies benefit in health and medical crises.
01:36:51.000Military-industrial complex organizations benefit in wars.
01:36:55.000Seems that there's some opportunity for real review.
01:36:58.000Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, thank you so much for joining us today.
01:37:03.000Thank you for your easy, effortless, or at least it seems effortless, ability to communicate complex ideas gently, and thank you for the plain morality of your position and the lack of hubris and presence of humility that's Most heartening for me.
01:37:19.000You suggested that somehow I could diminish your hope over the course of this conversation.
01:37:23.000Certainly you've lifted and increased mine, so thank you.
01:38:35.000Because, you know, you listen to Jay Bhattacharya for a moment and you think, uh-oh!
01:38:39.000Revolution required, and those of you that are supporting our movement this week include Tom Town, Great Candidate, Dean O'Dean 3, Brock 23, and Lila 16.
01:38:50.000Join us tomorrow, not for more of the same, no, not for that, but for more of the different.