← DarkHorse Podcast
Loading summary
Transcript205 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hey, folks, welcome to the Dark Horse podcast, Inside Rail. I am delighted to be sitting with Sonia Elijah today in person here in the formerly wonderful British Empire. No, not really an empire anymore, but nonetheless the formerly fabulous Britain, which is now teetering on the brink of collapse, unfortunately. But in any case, Sonia, welcome to Dark Horse.
- [00:27]
B
Thank you, Brett. Thank you very much for having me on your show.
- [00:31]
A
Really delighted to be able to do it, especially in person. I should tell the audience, for those who don't know you, you are a former researcher for the BBC. You're currently an independent journalist. People who find your name familiar may know you through Brownstone, where you have published many articles and you have now published a book, a rather Thor thorough review of the COVID debacle. You have a copy here. You want to hold that up?
- [01:04]
B
Yeah, this is my personal one.
- [01:06]
C
Yeah.
- [01:06]
B
Nicely tabbed and creased and highlighted.
- [01:10]
A
You can tell that you've been well used. You've been female from the beginning, by the way. You've annotated your. Your own book. It's. It's marvelous. So your book is titled 311 Viral Takeover. Obviously an allusion to 9 11, a topic that was very hard to discuss until fairly recently. People have become more broad minded about thinking about the anomalies of 9 11. But what is it that you see as parallel between these two stories?
- [01:40]
B
Yes, essentially what I see as parallel is that you have a major disruptive event that leads to obviously fear, understandably. But out of the fear you have massive expanded powers of the state. And it's sort of this recurring pattern pattern that I see. So I see 3:11, which is March 11, 2020. That is the day the World Health Organization declared Covid to be a pandemic. I see it as a biological sequel to 9 11. And also, Brett, what we saw with 9 11, we saw how, you know, we. The rise of the Patriot Act. We saw this sort of massive use of surveillance coming out of that and sort of, you know, surveillance of citizens by the state. With 311, we have obviously the rise of the Patriot act and the equivalents around the world, the Coronavirus act. And now you have mass citizen compliance with the state. We had this phenomenal use of people just complying with these rules that were forced upon them. So there I see a parallel.
- [03:01]
A
Yes, I would say in retrospect, many of the absurdities of the COVID debacle appeared to be a training exercise. Perfectly arbitrary judgments of what a safe distance to stand was. Requirements that we walk around the supermarket, you know, clockwise or Whatever it was. And these things, of course, had no relevance to public health. They were not measures based on some sort of analysis. It was like a diabolical game of Simon Says where we were told what we must do and anyone who didn't do it was viewed as morally broken. We were somehow not taking the virus seriously enough. We were selfish and not respecting the right of others not to become infected. And of course it was nonsense, but maybe it wasn't. Maybe the point was the population needs to be trained to listen to authority or else.
- [04:08]
B
Yeah, I see it as this psychological conditioning of the public, Brett. And it was from the very beginning. I mean, there's an extensive timeline I have at the beginning of the book and I, I wrote it just to give additional context for the reader and you see the traces. So even the year prior, we go back to 2019, you have these pandemic training simulation exercises going on. But the one that I find is really I, I, you know, that I grabbed my attention was event 201 that took place in the fall of 2019. It was hosted by the John Hopkins center, partnered with the World Economic Forum and Billinda Melinda Gates Foundation. And there what we saw, Brett, we saw the recommendations coming out of it, where it was, they, they wrote, governments need to work closely with the private sector. They highlighted social media companies and traditional media companies. They need to work together to come up with nimble approaches to combating disinformation, misinformation. And what did we see, which is essentially what they deem as misinformation. What we saw with 3:11, our post 3:11, we saw this widespread rampant use of censorship and big tech. We've got, obviously what I'd like to allude is the Trusted News initiative came out of this. So March 27, 2020, with a trusted news initiative which is led by the BBC. It is essentially a cross platform censorship network. So it's legacy media with big tech coming together to decide what is misinformation. And any voice that deviates from this official narrative is classified as you're spreading misinformation and you get essentially censored. So that came out of it. And so the blueprint was already, you know, set in stone prior, prior to 3 11. And what we saw, and I particularly wrote about that from the British standpoint, as a British citizen, what went on in the UK with these sort of project fear, we had the government messaging at the time and obviously hundreds of millions of taxpayers money spent on this on essentially frightening the public senseless, completely using weaponizing fear. And we have. The book has a lot of exhibits, some screenshots of a early SAGE meeting. SAGE stands for the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies. They advise the government, made up of behavioral scientists and they literally came up with how can we? We need to use the media to increase sense of personal threat. And they have a paper, a white paper and there's screenshots of it in the book. And coercion. They actually outline nine ways to modify behavior to bring about behavior change and coercion is one of them. It's just, yeah, very unsettling.
- [07:42]
A
Our first sponsor this week is one
- [07:43]
C
of our favorites and it's Maddie's all time favorite. It's Sundays for Dogs. Sundays makes extraordinary dog food. You love your dogs so you want to make them happy and you want to keep them nourished and healthy. Sundays helps you do all those things. Sundays for Dogs is different from any other dog food out there. Created by a dog loving Veterinarian, Sundaes has 80% or more all natural meat in every one of their formulations, then adds superfoods like kale, ginger and blueberries. No fillers, no added chemicals, just simple complete nutrition. Sundaes is gently air dried instead of using high heat so it doesn't look or smell like dog food. It looks like high quality human grade jerky. And sundaes requires no fridge, no freezer, no prep, no message. You get the quality of a home cooked meal with the scoop and serve. Ease of kibble. It's what dog food should have been all along. Even Fairfax, our epic tabby, likes it and I think it's pretty awesome too. When we were first introduced to sundaes, I tried it for myself. Made for dogs tested by men and
- [08:43]
A
I especially like that.
- [08:44]
C
When I feed it to Maddie, she jumps and spins. She obviously loves the stuff and that makes me feel really good. Sundays just launched a brand new fish recipe. It's made with 80% fish, including eco friendly invasive carp sourced from American rivers for a naturally rich flavor. Many dogs prefer fish flavor, so if you've got a picky eater, Sunday's new fish recipe may be just the food for your dog. Do you want to make your dog happy with her diet and keep her healthy? Try Sundays. Make the switch to Sundays. Go right now to sundaysfordogs.com darkhorse and get 50% off your first order. Or you can use the code Darkhorse at checkout. That's 50% off your first order at Sundays for dogs.com darkhorse sundaysfordogs.com darkhorse or use the code Darkhorse at checkout. Our next sponsor is back with us for a second growing and harvest season and we are thrilled to be working with them again. It's Sundries Farms which grows the most outstanding garlic. Eat garlic because it's delicious and exceptionally good for you. Numerous studies attest to the health benefits of garlic on heart and immune health. As an antioxidant and an anti inflammatory, garlic is a staple in many culinary traditions for good reason. Eat Sundries Farm garlic because this is a family farm of amazing people who care deeply about the land and their product, who know garlic in all of its intricacies, and who produce a diversity of garlics that is, in our experience, unparalleled. They grow 11 varieties of garlic, each one notably different, some mild and some hot, some ideal for baking, others great to eat raw. Some have huge clothes, others store for a very long time. Garlic takes on the terroir of its environment and Sundries Farm in Idaho's rich volcanic soils is ideal for growing perfect garlic. 73% of the world's garlic is produced in China and 80% of the garlic consumed in the US is grown in China. Imported garlic is always fumigated with methyl bromide, which is so toxic that it was phased out of use in 2005 in the US except for critical uses and application to some agricultural products, including all imported garlic. In comparison, the amazing garlic of Sundries Farm is naturally grown on a four year rotation with COVID crops to suppress weeds and build soil and Sundries Farm does everything by hand. Cloves are separated by hand for planting, hand planted, hand weeded scapes picked by hand, hand harvested, hand hung up to dry, hand trimmed, hand sorted and hand packaged. It's a labor of love and it shows. We loved Sundries Farms music, garlic and potato salad, Tesnoc red garlic in Venezuelan green sauce and Nootka rose garlic in a marinade for grilled chicken. It's all so delicious. It is also delightful to unwrap the different varieties of garlic and discover their secrets. Sundries Farm offers hard neck and soft neck varieties, selling a year's supply of gourmet garlic for your kitchen and also offering seed and gardening packages. Sundries Farm is a real farm selling real food. They grow one crop a year and when it sells out, that's it for their 2026 crop. They're taking pre orders now. Rare varieties often sell out by mid July. The garlic cures for four weeks after an early July harvest, with trimming happening in Early August to prep for shipments to go out by mid August. Get your pre order in now and then eagerly await your amazing garlic. Go to www.sundriesfarm.com to place your 2026 garlic order and enter the code DARKHORSE for 10% off. That's sundriesfarm.com code DARKHORSE. Check them out and get yourself some absolutely amazing garlic. That's sundries farm.com all right, I want
- [12:28]
A
to ask you about event 201. I've spent a lot of time thinking about it and a certain amount of time speaking publicly about the question of tabletop exercises. I'm convinced that there's something very important in their existence. They mean something that we in the public, I think, have not fully worked out. I don't know what it is. I have a hypothesis. But what. What's so surprising here is that event 201, with very slight modifications, previews the COVID pandemic. It certainly takes many of the people who the globalists would probably call stakeholders, and it trains them so that their reaction is already loaded at the point that the emergency happens. Now, this is very disturbing if that's what event 201 was, because ostensibly nobody knew there was going to be a pandemic. And yet here you have many of the forces that were so corrosive to civilization and so destructive of our rights, they're literally sitting in a room practicing to shut down the spread of what they would go on to call misdis and malinformation. But what I want to understand is obviously for those who know that the event happened, it is a red flag. Did they have foreknowledge? That's a powerful question. Maybe it wasn't so surprising. Maybe they knew it was coming. But why, if you did know it was coming, would you run the risk of a public exercise that would certainly be spotted, at least in the aftermath, by many who were beginning to work out what it was that took place. So my hypothesis has been that it actually has a purpose you can't circumvent. Not not only does it train people who will then go on to robotically do what they thought was sophisticated in that room, but I wonder if it doesn't also spread a kind of sketch of what's coming so that those who might find a stake in such an event would begin thinking about how they would go on to model, to monetize it, and to utilize it to their own ends, thereby bringing in powerful forces who can be helpful, in other words, getting people to freelance their role in the so called emergency and I wonder. The one question I've had all along is if they were running tabletop exercises every year or two on pandemics, then it wouldn't be so surprising to find one the year prior. If they're rare, then it is very surprising and it constitutes a kind of evidence of foreknowledge. Do you know how common these things are?
- [15:24]
B
I don't think. I mean obviously there's been several, but I don't think it happens just on a regular basis, you know, like clockwork. I'm sure they're quite hard to sort of pull together as well. So in answer to your question, I'm not sure how regular I don't think they would be. Like I said, like every couple of months they're doing a pandemic exercise.
- [15:49]
A
Yeah. I have found no evidence that they are. They are a common feature which then does raise the question. And you know, I think this is one of the remaining questions. Questions for Covid. We've effectively shown the virus was not natural, that it had been modified technologically. We've shown that there were medicines that were in fact known to be effective against closely related viruses, in fact useful against any RNA based virus. We've discovered that there was awareness of the hazard of the gene therapies which were falsely called vaccines. We now know that the evidence that these things were effective at all in preventing people from contracting it was certainly did not exist. And in fact these things were not effective in preventing people from getting Covid. They in fact caused people to be more likely to contract the disease. So we've shown a lot of things. What we haven't shown yet as far as I'm concerned is evidence that the entire thing was deliberate. And I truly do not, do not know. I think on the one hand this looks to have been a virus whose origin is more North Carolina than Wuhan Institute. Doesn't mean the virus didn't emerge from the Wuhan Institute and it doesn't mean that it didn't leak accidentally. On the other hand, event 201 suggests somebody knew there was going to be a pandemic. It doesn't prove it, but it suggests it. So I wonder, do you think this leaked naturally from the Wuhan Institute?
- [17:31]
B
Yeah, you raised very, very valid points. Very good questions. I do believe that it was a. I mean it's interesting and it's, it's. You recently did an ex post on flagging a sort of DoD document where it actually states that the virus is an American created recumbent bat vaccine or its precursor virus. This is to do with SARS CoV2 coming out of an Eco Health alliance program at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. So the first two chapters of my book, Brett, I heavily go into the origin story and I really look at what was the. You know, this is Batwoman. Her name is Dr. Shi Zhengli, who was one of the leading scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. What were they doing at the time? And you look at their sort of seminal papers they were writing. 2013, she wrote a paper with Peter Daszak, who was leading Eco Health Alliance, a New York City nonprofit. And they were essentially tinkering around with coronaviruses, getting bat feces samples and doing what they were doing in the lab. But what you see is that in 2015, she wrote a paper with Ralph Barrick at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where they essentially take the backbone of a SARS virus, they replace its spike protein and put in a spike protein of a bat coronavirus. So they're developing a turmeric virus, two viruses together, and they're essentially saying, how can we make it more infectious? How can we, you know, I mean, it is. It's astounding what they.
- [19:23]
A
How can we make it infectious to people?
- [19:25]
B
Yeah, exactly. They were using humanized mice and, and agents like that. So in the book, there is a reference to a significant memorandum written by. And this was written. This was around August 2021. He wrote, he warned the institution Inspector General of the Department of defense. This is Major Joseph Murphy, a former DARPA fellow, stating that SARS COV2 is a. Is American created. And, and, and it's coming. It's, you know, essentially what your post was about. But actually the wording is lifted from the memorandum. Excuse me. So. And we know that this was going on. So. And he is referring, though, Major Murphy, to a Eco Health alliance grant proposal. So this is what they submitted to darpa, and this is the defuse project. Now, this defuse project got leaked, I think, around the fall of 2021, and it was published on the Drastic. The online group Drastic, their site. And it essentially says that they. This is Eco Health alliance asking for US$14 million asking DARPA for money. It's going to be, you know, stating they're going to be collaborating, you know, with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, University of North Carolina. This is Ralph Barrick. And they're going to be essentially vaccinating bats. They're going to be taking lots of samples. But they're going to be doing basically gain of function studies. It's very overt, I would say.
- [21:14]
A
Also, just to. I don't mean to interrupt.
- [21:16]
B
No, no, please.
- [21:17]
A
That proposal describes exactly the virus that we saw.
- [21:22]
B
Exactly.
- [21:23]
A
It describes exactly the proposal to create exactly the virus we saw. The blueprint right now. It was rejected. Yes, the proposal was rejected. Which does not mean what people think it means, because in science, the game of science. The game of science funding often has people doing work before they get the grant.
- [21:43]
B
Yeah.
- [21:43]
A
In other words, they do the work prospectively, then they propose it, then they get paid to do it, and it's already done. So the question is, did they actually do it? And then for whatever reason, it was rejected, but then the world was exposed to the pandemic.
- [21:56]
B
Yeah, that. You raise a very good point. And what is also interesting, Brett, if you look at my timeline that I create at the beginning of the book, what do you think happens September 2019 at the Wuhan Institute virology? Do you know what went on?
- [22:10]
A
Well, I did at one point know the timeline. I know that there is significant evidence that the virus was actually already circulating at the Wuhan Games in the fall of 2019. I know there was a shutdown around the Wuhan Institute.
- [22:28]
B
What was interesting is that. Yes. Just before the games. These are the military games you're talking about. I think that happened in October, in September, you had. So they had the world's biggest database of coronavirus samples, like that massive database. And it was Dr. Shi Zhengli. This is the Bat Woman, the Bat lady that people refer her to, that gets shut down, that goes offline. So that is quite. It kind of rings some alarm bells. Why were they suddenly shutting that down? Why were they. What were they hiding? You know, so there's a few. There's a few red flags here culminate, you know, leading up to the event. And yeah, it's just quite a lot of anomalies.
- [23:14]
A
I should also add, since it will have been a long time since people have thought about this part of the story, there's a very telling moment early on, before Xi Zhengli was effectively silenced by the CCP. She said that when she first got word of SARS CoV2 circulating, that she was terrified and unable to sleep out of fear that it may have leaked out of her lap, and that she then investigated and was greatly relieved to discover that it had not. I don't know whether to believe her, actually. There's a part of me that does. And it is among the possibilities that are on the table. Among the still standing viable hypotheses, the virus may have been released on Wuhan's doorstep in order effectively to frame them and to provide an alibi for Ralph Baric in his lab at North Carolina. If that is what happened, it is then mysterious that the Chinese begin acting quite guilty as if it is their virus. But I always wondered about whether actually Xi Zhang Li was telling it like it is and that the guilty behavior of, of the CCP was about something else and whether or not, if event 201 was indeed based on foreknowledge, that there was going to be an emergency, that it was going to be useful to powerful forces, and that the Wuhan Institute was going to take the blame, then her reaction would make perfect sense, that this is a virus that could conceivably have leaked from Wuhan. But it didn't. So if we are to get to the bottom of the story, I would love to know the answer to that question. Because of course, if this came from Ralph Baric's lab and it was dropped in Wuhan intentionally, then the question is, oh well, what was the purpose of this? And that goes straight to your point about control.
- [25:24]
B
Absolutely. I also want to raise the point with the HIV inserts. Right, Brett? So I think that's quite important. So January 31, 2020, we have a group of Indian scientists who publish a paper. This is the Pradham et al paper, and they publish it on a preprint server. These scientists, what they discovered when they were looking at the genomic sequence of SARS COV2, they found four unique inserts. This is to do with on the spike protein where it was a perfect match for HIV.
- [26:02]
A
So these are genetic inserts. Insects. When the SARS CoV2 virus produces protein, it contains, yeah, amino acid sequences that are analogous to what's in HIV.
- [26:13]
B
And when they did 3D modeling, they, they realized that three out of the four inserts converge in the region of the receptor binding domain. This is where the virus, I guess, can latch onto host cells. So beauty, I mean, and they said that this is virtually impossible to get from nature, that there's no way that evolution can do it so perfectly raised the alarm. They were like, this needs further investigation. And then what happened is that literally two days later this paper gets withdrawn. And this is when I want to introduce the, the, the, the, these are the leaked. These. No, the freedom of information that released emails. This is from the nih. So these are all the FAUCI emails. So I went through all of like thousands of these emails. Fauci. But you know, who was leading a naiad with Francis Collins, who was heading up nih. And you've got these very interesting email exchanges going on by these elite scientists at the time. And they're flagging this paper. They're like, this is a really outlandish business. Fauci saying, this paper's really outlandish. Have you read it? And they're all sort of getting a bit worried about it. Very quickly. A teleconference is arranged on February 1st on a Saturday. Okay. And this is led by in. Who arranges it? Sir Jeremy Farrar, who was leading the Wellcome Trust at the time. Now, the Wellcome Trust is the most wealthy nonprofit. It's a charitable foundation that invests in sort of research, scientific research. Its portfolio is heavily tied to the pharmaceutical. To pharmaceutical companies. Anyway, so Jeremy Farada. He. He. And they are scrambling. You can sense the urgency of. Of we've got to put down these. Condemn these conspiracy theories, right. That it came out of the lab.
- [28:19]
C
Our final sponsor on this episode of the Dark Horse podcast, Inside Rail is Clear. Clear is a nasal spray that supports respiratory health. It's widely available online and in stores, and both it and the company that make it are fantastic. It's clear. That's X L E A R pronounced. Clear. Improvements in sanitation and hygiene have had huge impacts on human longevity and quality of life throughout history, more so than traditional medical advances. For instance, when doctors started to wash their hands between handling cadavers and helping women give birth, the rate of maternal deaths went way down. Breathing polluted air and drinking tainted water have hugely negative effects on human health. Clean up the air and water and people get healthier. Nasal hygiene often gets overlooked. But consider the majority of bacteria and viruses that make us sick enter through our mouths and noses. So wouldn't it be valuable to use something that blocks bacterial and viral adhesion in the nose? Enter. Clear. Clear is a nasal spray that contains xylitol, a 5 carbon sugar alcohol. Our bodies naturally contain 5 carbon sugars, mostly in the form of ribose and deoxyribose, which are the backbone sugars in RNA and DNA. Xylitol is known to reduce how sticky bacteria and viruses are to our tissues in the presence of xylitol. Bacteria and viruses, including Strep, SARS, COV2, and RSV, don't adhere to our airways as well, which helps our body's natural defense mechanisms easily flush them away. Clear is a simple nasal spray. Use it morning and evening it takes just three seconds. It's fast and easy and decidedly healthy. It's good to use Clear every day, but especially when you're going to be traveling or otherwise in a small space with lots of people and poor ventilation. It really seems to reduce the number of infections. The founder of clear, Nathan Jones, spoke with me on the Inside Rail in 2024. And in 2025, Lon Jones, osteopath and inventor of Clear, spoke with me about how xylitol interacts with respiratory viruses. We recommend those conversations and we highly recommend CLEAR as a daily habit and prophylactic against respiratory illnesses. That's CLEAR with an X, X, L, E, A, R. Get Clear online or at your pharmacy, grocery store or natural products retailer and start taking six seconds a day to improve your nasal hygiene and support your respiratory health.
- [30:39]
B
So I take these. There's three influential papers that, that happened around that time which condemned, literally condemned the, you know, as they labeled them as conspiracy theories. This is to do with the lab leak origin. And you have that half the people on the call ended up being in authors of these three papers which my, the beginning of the book goes into. I dissect these papers all published in prestigious journals and and so we have the joint statement that was published in the Lancet written and that her co signatories at 27 scientists signed that statement. Peter Daszak actually orchestrated that, that joint statement to show his support. And he said, actually this is an email. It's all in my book. We need to show. He was asked by people in China to do it, to show, you know, to show that they're supporting, appraising their work, their response to, to this novel virus. So he leads the way. 26 out of the 27 scientists who signed that statement who say we strongly condemn those, we disagree, that we brand it essentially as a conspiracy theory. Anybody saying that it comes From a lab, 26 out of the 27 had ties to either the Wuhan Institute of Virology or its funders. So huge red flags of conflicts of interest. Now those conflicts of interest were never disclosed at that time. It took a whole year later, I think, for a note to be added to that paper. This is to do with Peter Daszak's conflict of interest with his work with the Wuhan Institute Virology. And it's, it's, it, it really is very revealing, these email exchanges. And you know, you've got Francis Collins and obviously we've got the, the second paper which is, ended up being the most influential scientific paper in history that's what it was called. This is the proximal origin paper authored by Christian Andersen and many others.
- [33:04]
A
People who privately in their emails with Fauci recognized the very same signatures of genetic engineering that drastic. And others noticed. So privately they knew the truth. And I must tell you, of all of the maddening features of the entire episode, the idea that we were going to be gaslit for correctly interpreting evidence, I find this such an egregious breach of our scientific obligations to each other. Yeah, right. They didn't just pretend to disagree. They knew what we knew and they called us crazy publicly.
- [33:44]
B
Yes, right.
- [33:45]
A
That. It's hard to put into words how deep a breach that is.
- [33:51]
B
Yes.
- [33:52]
C
You.
- [33:52]
A
To call people who are correctly understanding evidence crazy is so sinister and it's far from the only time it's happened.
- [34:01]
B
Yeah, yeah. They wanted to shut down open scientific discourse. Absolutely. And you have even an email from Francis Collins. He's dismayed. He's really upset. Why? You know, he's saying, you know, I really thought this paper, this is referring to the proximal origin paper, should put a stop to all these conspiracy theories about the lab, you know, so they are. Yeah, they, they, they, they are, yeah. It's, I'd say censorship of the science. And that's what went on coming out. You know, this whole.
- [34:35]
A
It's not even censorship. It's something else that doesn't have a name. What you're talking about is the destruction of reason. Yeah, right. It's not that. You have your perspective and I have mine. You are literally going after my reputation because I am thinking rationally, logically and understanding what it is that I'm seeing it's next level in terms of COVID up. And frankly, the reason it's so important to me is that the corruption of science is pervasive. It's not local to an event like this. It's pervasive. It's discipline after discipline. And if you live in an era like that that looks scientifically vibrant, like it's tremendously productive, while at the same time all of these fields are corrupted by bad incentives, to say the least. We in the public have a right to say, actually, I don't believe that that drug that you say is the standard of care is safe just because you have a paper that claims it is because the corruption is pervasive. So we get a right to record this incident and to say, look what you did. You knew the truth and you pretended the exact inverse and you did it with a straight face and you described destroyed reputations over it. That's the standard of science now. And we have a right now to do science elsewhere. It's not the right place, but, you know, podcasts. Do you really want to be talking about science on podcasts? Does that sound like a good system to you? No, it doesn't sound like a good fucking system to me. But you've destroyed the system. That is good. Destroyed it. So we have a right now to do this in other venues precisely because you've destroyed the venues where it should be done. And that's not our fault.
- [36:24]
B
Yeah, yeah, yeah, well said. Absolutely. And also, you know, just the way they treated. You know, for example, what comes to mind is the Great Barrington Declaration. So you have doctors Sunitra Gupta, Jay Bhattacharya, Martin Kuldoff, who were, you know, they were, they were proposing focused protection and not against universal lockdowns. They were demonized, they were smeared. You have again, Francis Collins referring to them in an email, these three fringe scientists, you know, you know, and the whole world condemned them, that they were spreading dangerous theories that they would, you
- [37:04]
A
know, literally putting people in danger of
- [37:06]
B
putting people in danger. And when we look at the corruption of science and those papers, for example, what got us into lockdown in is report nine, I would say that would be the sync them if I had to highlight which paper. This is a heavily flawed paper coming out of Imperial College London and by Professor Neil Ferguson. Heavily compromised his ties with Gavi and heavily funded by the Gates Foundation Wellcome Trust. And he has a cat. His history is so bad with these alarmist projects with his modeling. So if you look at his track record, what he, you know, with foot and mouth disease, with avian fuse, swine flu, always saying like thousands are going to die. And they never materialized. So March 2020, we have this paper coming out that says if we do not lock down that US are going to have about two and a half million deaths by the summer of that year. UK we're going to see about half a million heavily flawed that, that you know it. And this was the paper that literally shut down the world.
- [38:14]
A
And it was, it was the paper that was used to shut down the world.
- [38:19]
B
Yes, used of the preface of it, you know, and they were looking at, they never looked. They ignored early data that was coming at the time. You had a Nobel Laureate, Michael Levitt at the time saying, look, it's the, it's coming down like the infection, you know, it's not spreading as rapidly and slowing down. They ignored the early data from the Princess Diamond Cruise ship, which was much lower. Infection fatality ratio. That's what it was signaling. And it was heavily flawed. And even, I think, the code that they did the modeling on was not available. It was never peer reviewed. It was very secretive. And the whole world. The whole world, yeah. That was used to shut down the world and cause catastrophic harms. What we saw with education, the children, you know, school shutting down, how the elderly were treated in care homes, it was a really awful time. And they, they got away with that because people, like I said, they use. They weaponized fear so much, it arrested people's critical thinking skills.
- [39:32]
A
Yes. It specifically went after people with two characteristics. Capability of thinking for themselves and courage.
- [39:41]
B
Yeah.
- [39:42]
A
They went after them across the board. Doctors lost their licenses, they lost their practices, they were derided as quacks, people at the tops of their fields, highly published, beautifully credentialed. People were called by all sorts of names and treated as if they'd lost their minds. And that has to have a reputational consequence for the people who did it. The people who were derided, very few of them have recovered their positions. J. Bhattacharya being one of the few. But he was literally derided as a fringe epidemiologist.
- [40:16]
B
Yes.
- [40:17]
A
Even though his position was perfectly borne out. And just to complete this case, the, the idea that modeling was going to be used as evidence and the basis of lockdowns. If you know anything about modeling, you know, it's unreliable as a test of anything because you can literally build a model to tell you whatever you want it to tell you.
- [40:43]
B
Yeah.
- [40:44]
A
Question is, you know, how did you parameterize it?
- [40:47]
B
Yeah.
- [40:47]
A
And so I would argue model is a perfectly valid source of a hypothesis. Never more. It can't be more. It is incapable of being more. You need the empirical evidence. And these models are still being used to confuse the public. You know, we're told, oh, yes, the vaccines saved millions of lives based on modeling, based on pure modeling. And it's nonsense, basically. The point is they asked the model to tell them that it saved millions of lives, and it did. No surprise. Right. Not evidence. And the evidence really goes in the other direction. So the hard part is it is much easier, especially from a position of power, to confuse the public with things that seem scientific than it is to unconfuse them by talking them through how the magic trick is done. Right. So we're just at a fundamental disadvantage because, you know, explaining why a model isn't good is difficult. Explaining that the model said, we're going to have this many deaths Right. You know, you need to understand that when somebody says model, you know, your, your skepticism should go through the roof.
- [41:56]
B
Yeah.
- [41:57]
A
So, you know, and, and we're in this funny place now. I mean, you've, you've now released this beautiful book at a moment when everybody is so sick of talking about COVID they just want to move on. And it's hard to compel them that however much fear you might have about what you did if you took the shots, however much fatigue you have at thinking about this, however much you want to go back to normal life, if you do that, it will keep happening.
- [42:27]
B
Yeah, right.
- [42:27]
A
They've preserved the architecture. Even if we won many battles and proved many things that they said were false, we have to complete the project, we have to pursue this, we have to do work like yours that, that catalogs what actually took place. And that in retrospect, it seems very clear that whatever this pandemic was, whether it was A, planned from the get go or B, capitalizing on an accidental leak of a biologically engineered virus, it has to be one of those two, whichever one of those it is, knowing who took advantage of this and for what is vital. Because the purpose to. Wasn't about biology. The purpose was about governmental control and the controls remain even if the pandemic has receded.
- [43:16]
B
Yeah, absolutely. I mean, what we saw, I mean, this is why my book takes us through the aftermath, which is the, what I see, this rise of digital authoritarianism we are seeing across the West. I mean, for example, and I see, let's say take vaccine, passports that were used, those were the proof, that was proof of concept, that it would work, that you could get people to comply, that you could say that your right, your fundamental right of travel work is now conditional on a government approved digital credential. This is extremely frightening. And what we have now, Brett, I mean, in this country, you know, they are, they are heavily pushing digital IDs. We have obviously now just recently, and I've written about this on my sub stack, that the UK government are going to be banning social media for under 16s. Right. And I. The way I see that, that is, you know, they're using the thing, emotion. A highly emotive issue of of course, children's safety. We all care about children's safety online. But it's a Trojan horse, I see it, for mandatory digital ID. And I think that post 311 we are in this heightened sense of, you know, it's all about control, censorship. Yes. And, and I, I dissect this. The machinery of censorship in this book as well, we have, you know, for example, the ngo, the, not the, the nonprofit American British organ. You know, this is ccdh, the center for Countering Digital Hate. It's very interesting how they came, they're very tied in with this because they, they published this report called the Disinformation Dozen, which I'm sure you're aware of. And RFK Jr was flagged. Many other scientists and doctors. Actually Sergi was one, he was also flagged and I've interviewed him as well, Dr. Sherry Tenpenny. And they were this, so this, this organization, they did this report saying these, this dozen people are responsible for all the sort of anti vaxx sentiment online. It's all coming from these people. They need to be shut down, they need to be censored, they need to be deplatformed. What we saw was this coordinated takedown of any dissenting voice. And this is even starting from, against lockdowns. And I haven't even mentioned the whole testing debacle, which I could talk quite a lot about the testing scams against the, you know, the use of these genetic shots, the harms from these shots all shut down. But the ccdh, which is, they did a very, they essentially laid out the blueprint for mass suppression, mass censorship, because they were instrumental in the, the sort of birth of the Online Safety act, which we have in the uk, which is the most sweeping piece of digital control legislation that we across, you know, that we've ever. It is the, you know, the most sweeping and, and most draconian. And they brag about, you know, how they advise the government on that and how they advise the EU on their Digital Services act, which is the equivalent in the eu. What do we have out of that? We have, we're living in such a controlled society. But it goes deeper than that, Brett. It's not just what you say online because obviously we know that you could get arrested. I think there's on average 30 arrests a day in the UK on, on tweets, on, on posts that you write on these. You know, it could offend somebody, it could incite hatred. They've made that illegal, right? Inciting violence, hatred. But what you've got is you've got them also conditioning people how to think. So my book also look at how NATO was involved in all of this. So you have at the time, you've got NATO publishing a report called the Inoculation Theory and Misinformation. It was written by two Cambridge scientists funded by the World Health Organization, the UK Cabinet Office and they are, they are saying that we need to inoculate society, give them a vaccine in a sense to, to be aware of, of, of, of misinformation, disinformation. So we're going to basically build up their resilience so you can play these games. So I go into these games, these online games, like for example, going viral and that it's a role playing game where you get to sort of, you know, you get to identify, you know, the misinformation that's being spread. And in that way you can build resilience to it and you can argue against it, but they are conditioning people how to think and how to preempt it. You know, so it's, it's very, very insidious. It's, it just, it's deeper than just, okay, you can't see that that's removed, that that's blocked. It's actually training you how to think. Yes, it's brainwashing.
- [48:35]
A
It's brainwashing and it's perfectly Orwellian. It is, it is effectively a direct hit on Western civilization.
- [48:45]
B
Absolutely.
- [48:46]
A
And the problem is it is actually indifferent to topic. We were, we were trained under the, the ostensible explanation of COVID into believing that the good people believe these things, those who are outside of those beliefs are inherently bad and dangerous, and that we must present a united front in shutting down the things that they say. When of course Western civilization is based on the idea that the way we figure out what's true is that we discussed whatever it feels like should be discussed. And you know, better ideas out compete worse ideas. Is it perfect? No. No one ever said it was. Most ideas are probably bad and wrong, but the way you find the good ones is through interaction, not through some top down distribution of reality in which everything else can safely be shut down because it's false. Where did anybody get the idea that the people at the top know what's true? Where would they have found out what's true? I mean, it's inconceivable, it doesn't make sense. But because it came with these coercive measures, these penalties, the fact is people fell in line.
- [50:06]
B
Yeah.
- [50:06]
A
And I will say one of the troubling facts is that many, many people who did know better took the shots.
- [50:15]
B
Yeah.
- [50:16]
A
Why? Because they correctly deployed all of these penalties if you refused. You had to effectively be self employed, not needing to travel, willing to take a giant hit in terms of your quality of life in order to, to say no to these things. And a lot of people, I mean, Robert Malone.
- [50:40]
B
Yeah.
- [50:40]
A
He took the shots and got hurt.
- [50:42]
B
Yeah.
- [50:43]
A
He knew that these things weren't safe, but he had to travel. And you know, the number of people in the dissident community who have that story, I took it because science is. Is shocking.
- [50:54]
B
Yeah.
- [50:55]
A
And it's a lesson for next time.
- [50:56]
B
Yeah. I mean, you introduced the shots, which I would like to talk about. I even believe that the lockdowns were the vehicle to usher in the shots. Right. And we know that the event itself, 311, that it took a unprecedented, you know, health event, you know, or a crisis disruptive event to usher in this new technology. If you look at MRNA technology, my book documents the rise of MRNA tech, the rise of Moderna, all of you know, this rise of the bio defense industrial complex as well that we're seeing, well, actually came out of the Project BioShield, the ACT, in 2004. This is following the anthrax attacks. It, you know, I look at the history, there's always, you know, and the pattern that keeps recurring. So Moderna and Biontech had failed to bring any of their MRNA products to market prior to 311. So because they always failed the safety testing, they were highly toxic.
- [52:02]
A
You needed an emergency in order to truncate the safety testing.
- [52:06]
B
Absolutely. To rush through, to jump through all the hurdles. And there were so many red flags at the time because I also dissect. These are the leaked European Medicine Agency emails. I don't know if you've come across them, Brett, but what we, what we saw is that around November 2020, this is, is pre authorization. This is running up to the kind of green light for it. You had the ema, which is a European Medicines Agency, the regulator, discussing amongst themselves. These are confidential emails that were leaked and I've written about them. There's screenshots in the book. They're stating that there is a significant. They're objecting to the. This is to do with the commercial batches of the Pfizer shots. There's a drop in MRNA technology. So they are very concerned because they don't know the safety and efficacy implications of that. I think it drops down from like 78% in the clinical batches down to 55% in the commercial batches that were rolled out to the public. Okay. So you have all that going on and they're like, we don't know what to do. This is a major objection. And the way they sort of resolve it is literally, literally lowering the threshold down to 50%. And this is how intact the MRNA molecule is. And it's just, really, it's just, it's, it's, it's deeply disturbing because they knew something was wrong even with the quality of the product. And also we have now this whole DNA contamination scandal coming out of that. And I interviewed Josh Getsko, he's a lecturer at the Hebrew University in Israel. And he was the first to sort of coin as Pfizer's bait and switch. And what he identified was essentially that we have two processes of making this product. This is to do with the Pfizer BioNTech product. Process one, process versus process two. Process one was used in the clinical trial. Small batches. They, I think they had, they cleaned the product better.
- [54:17]
A
I think they used a PCR technology that did not involve DNA at all,
- [54:21]
B
did not avoid plasmid DNA used from E. Coli, but process two did. And this is why you've got. So, you know this, I think hundreds of billions of molecules of plasma DNA residue left in the vials when independent scientists like Kevin McKernan were, you know, first analyzed these, these vials. And this is. And actually I found it also in the modern vaccine as well. But they also found traces of SV40 genetic sequences, which is very alarming because of its oncogenic potential. Right. The risks of inducing cancers.
- [54:59]
A
So SV40 is a reference to simian virus 40, which is a problem for humans because of. It initially emerged in polio vaccine manufacture, where I think it was green monkey kidneys were used to produce the vaccine, and this unknown virus, nobody knew there was the virus, managed to make it into the vaccines and therefore into people. And so simian virus 40 has oncogenic potential. The promoter, which is the piece that's found in the COVID MRNA shots, is oncogenic by its nature. And so you've got this ongoing contamination story from polio vaccine manufacturer that now finds its way into MRNA vaccine manufacture. And the public took a shot that they were wrongly told had passed safety testing.
- [55:57]
B
Absolutely.
- [55:58]
A
And then the shot they were actually given wasn't the same shot.
- [56:01]
B
It wasn't the same shot.
- [56:02]
A
So that is a shocking fraud by people who did not care that safety testing was effectively not done on what the public was given and are now denying the wave of cancers that we're seeing. They're calling that misinformation.
- [56:17]
B
Yes.
- [56:18]
A
And, you know, at what point do you just say the source of information that is telling you the shot is safe, the shot is effective, the shot is not going to cause unintended consequences. The cancers that you see popping up all over the place are the result of some mystery we can't solve rather than the result of the shot. That source of information is compromised. It's lying to you on every front. And what that means is you should be on your guard. And sorry, I don't mean to rant, but the fact that at this moment, not only if the system had the slightest degree of decency or honesty to it, then the wave of harms that came from these shots would have caused it to reverse course. Yeah, it would have thought differently about all of the MRNA platform vaccines that are currently under development. It would have stopped giving these vaccines to anybody, frankly, especially children, pregnant women. At the moment, we are ratcheting up the production of these things. Four children.
- [57:26]
B
Yeah.
- [57:26]
A
What that tells you is that people who, if they were ever in the dark about the harms that these things were doing, if they were ever in the dark about the fact that they have no benefit whatsoever to children who tolerate Covid very well, they are now not in the dark. They know that these things kill and they are still making them for kids. That's who you're dealing with. You're dealing with monsters.
- [57:49]
B
It is absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, it's. Yeah, it's just, it really. The mind boggles and obviously the harms that they knew before. So I also. The book picks up on this particular FDA slide. I'm not sure if you're aware of that in October 2020, this is during the FDA's VirBAC meetings and they had this presentation slide looking at the safety adverse events related to the. These MRNA shots. And slide goes on for literally less split second. The, the, the.
- [58:21]
A
The.
- [58:22]
B
The slide of it is. Is in my book, the screenshot literally for a few. I don't think it was meant to even be part of the presentation because they like put it on, then it's. It gets taken away. But on this slide is, and this is from October 2020, all the, the adverse events, the potential adverse events they were looking out for. And it's, it's a whole list of like myocarditis, pericarditis, seizures, neurological issues, death, stroke, heart attack, all listed in this slide. This is before EUA was granted.
- [58:56]
A
I remember this shocking moment. It was just like a peek behind the curtain.
- [59:00]
B
Yes.
- [59:00]
A
And what it told you is they knew and they were lying to the public.
- [59:04]
B
Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. And the whole eua, if you look at the eua, Emergency use authorization was only granted because there was no. This is the premise. The no available alternative safe treatment is available. We know that was A lie. We know that was complete lie. Because I also look at the black listing of early Covid treatment. This is particular with hydroxychloroquine I write about in the book Ivermectin. And it's as they, they, it was a systematic attack to sort of smear these early cheap repurposed drugs so they could railroad through these, these shots using the EU eua, you know, meeting that condition of no early or no treatment available. And it's, I mean, I looked at what they did with their hydroxychloroquine. Now it's interesting because you have this, this, you have this very high profile study that comes out. This is the Mehra et al study. I think it gets published in the Lancet and it states that this is, they're looking at 96,000 patients. So it's a huge data set. And they say that these patients that are taking HCQ hydroxychloroquine have more higher risk of cardiac adverse events, heart attacks. Essentially. We, the data sets all came from one small unknown company based in Chicago called Surgisphere. And that became a huge scandal because they were later deemed this, this study actually did get retracted, but it did so much damage, was all based on fraud, fraudulent data never existed. And it was published in a, you know, you know, a prestigious journal like the Lancet. Out of that, you have on the same day, the BBC, the New York Times saying Trump's drug kills people, gives heart attacks, essentially, you know, and this gets to all the HCQ arms of any trials being done. Like the World Health Organization was doing a trial called Solidarity. You had Oxford University doing a trial, they all suspend the hydroxychloroquine arm based on this. The EUA4 hydroxychloroquine gets revoked, gets rescinded and. But it was all based on a fraudulent study that gets retracted. But the harm's already done. It's like HCQ is now, you know, you can't use it. So it's, it's this. And then with Ivermectin, I know you know a lot with Ivermectin and what they did there. We can talk about the infamous tweet that the FDA sent out.
- [61:51]
A
You know, they alerted me very helpfully that I'm not a horse.
- [61:54]
B
Yes. In case you were wondering.
- [61:57]
A
I had wondered, but I'm glad they settled that question for me.
- [62:00]
B
Yeah, I mean, I. Look, also, there's a, there's a, there's a snapshot of a, of an internal confidential email between FDA Officials. And they are bragging about this tweet. They're bragging about this post being. It's the most most successful tweet ever. It's gone viral. And. And it's really. They wrote that tweet. Do you remember the Mississippi health message that got sent out? This is. It was in 2021. It was the summer of 2021. And they're saying that people are calling up because they're taking ivermectin and they're getting poisoned. And there was this huge story that the Rolling Stone covers, the New York Times covers like, people are taking horse dewormer and they're getting poisoned. That whole story was false because. Yes, of course. Because when investigative journalists. I think it's like Linda Bonvie, she. She actually looked at, you know, what, what, how many, what was the percent? What. It was 7. It was 70. Because they make a claim that it's 70 of calls coming through to the Mississippi State at the health department. It ends up being just 2%. And of the two, it was just 11 calls that people were taking veterinary. Because there is a formulation for animals, but there's also a formulation for humans. And so that whole story was spun. It was all fake. And actually, I think the New York Times and the. They had to retract. They had to actually do update their articles based on it, but it caused this widespread spread fear and panic. People were demonized like Joe Rogan for taking it. And I mean, it's just. It's all part of the whole propaganda machine.
- [63:44]
A
It's pure propaganda. Once they seed one of these wrong ideas, the fact that they issue a correction later, it reaches almost no one. So people are still confused about. Yes, about ivermectin, a drug which, for reasons I'm unclear on is. Is so safe that it is almost impossible to take enough of it to do significant damage to yourself.
- [64:08]
B
And it's listed on the World Health Organization's essential list of medicines as well. Brad.
- [64:13]
A
It's an essential medicine. It's won a Nobel Prize for use in humans. And literally, I mean, I'm a little confused by your tale about hydroxychloroquine, because I do know that it was represented as dangerous. I thought that the study in which it was shown to be dangerous had hugely overdosed the patients.
- [64:32]
B
That's a different study.
- [64:33]
A
Different study. But so in that study, people literally died because in a safety test for hydroxychloroquine, they were given enough huge doses, Huge doses. So I'm forgetting what the scientific term for that is. Oh, yeah, it's murder.
- [64:49]
B
Right.
- [64:49]
A
If you give people enough of a. No, I mean, what else are you going to do? In this case, they literally gave people enough hydroxychloroquine to kill them in order that they could claim it was too dangerous to use for Covid because they knew damn well it was going to work. But here's the other interesting wrinkle, which I don't think is widely understood. They derided hydroxychloroquine on the basis of the danger. One study is fraudulent, another study is murder. Why didn't they do it with ivermectin? Because you can't. It's too safe. You couldn't get people to take enough of the stuff in order to claim it was dangerous. So what did they do? They ran a dozen studies in which they wildly underdosed people. They set ridiculous parameters so that it couldn't show effectiveness because, for example, the effectiveness was going to be judged relative to an endpoint of death. And there wasn't enough death being caused by Covid to even see the effectiveness. Even still, if you go to the papers in which they showed that ivermectin was ineffective against Covid, these RCTs that we treat with religious reverence for no good reason, the papers actually say that even when you set up a study to fail, Ivermectin is so effective that it still works. You have to look at the data. You can't look at what they say in the abstract, but if you look at the data, the effect is there. Even in cases where they can set it up to fail. That's how good a drug it was.
- [66:19]
B
Yeah.
- [66:19]
A
So I just think that you have to understand how diabolical it is.
- [66:25]
B
Oh, I do.
- [66:26]
A
You're literally willing to murder people in the hydroxychloroquine study. And then in the midst of a panic, in the midst of a situation where you're trying to sell a dangerous shot, you want to deny people a medicine that actually works really well for Covid and means that virtually every person, no matter how sick they are, is within range of a safe medical treatment. How. How much of a monster do you have to be to think that?
- [66:51]
B
Oh, yeah. Huge. And you know what they did as well? They. The studies that did come out showing that ivermectin was very effective for early Covid treatment. They went after those studies and they literally. I mean, I write about this. There was a group of so called fraud, actually, they described themselves as fraud detectives and, you know, went after all the studies showing that ivermectin was very effective. And they literally were like hounded, those scientists. They got, you know, trying to get these studies retracted, saying that they were fraudulent, making all these accusations. The BBC jumping on that bandwagon and promoting these sort of fraud detectives, this group. But so it, it wasn't even. And then the. There was also a lot of scientists who were actually trying to get their papers published into the scientific journals, but they couldn't. They were always getting rejected. So it's, It's a very multi pronged attack.
- [67:56]
A
Well, and the, the most, the clearest bit of proof, I thought came from the video that Tess Laurie captured. I've forgotten the name of the. So Tess Laurie had published a meta analysis that had looked at the ivermected studies and showed very clearly that it works. And then another meta analysis came out that said it didn't. And she confronted the author in what he thought was a private discussion, and he admitted that he had changed the conclusion of the study under pressure from a funder.
- [68:37]
B
Yes.
- [68:38]
A
And this is all captured on video. You can just see the fraud.
- [68:42]
B
Yeah, right.
- [68:43]
A
He took a medicine known to be very useful against Covid, wrote a paper that said it was not useful against Covid and admitted that the conclusion was because a funder wanted it written out that way.
- [68:55]
B
Yeah, yeah. Huge, highly conflicted person. You know, conflicts of interest, you know, just.
- [69:01]
A
That's not even a conflict. That's just a scientific fraudster.
- [69:04]
B
Yeah, yeah.
- [69:05]
A
He should be, you know, working at a fast food joint.
- [69:08]
B
Yeah, he was affiliate with Oxford University. Yeah.
- [69:11]
A
Proud moment for them, I'm sure.
- [69:13]
B
Yeah, I know. It is really. It's just. Yeah, it. When you really take a look just to have a breath and to think, oh, it's just so much was done, so many crimes committed, and we haven't even talked about the testing, Brett, you know, the whole PCR test, all the sort of. I mean, these. This was the vehicle that they used to perpetuate lockdowns. Right.
- [69:37]
A
To keep lockdowns going, to cultivate fear, fear of a virus. Fear which is in and of itself ramping up fear. Ramping up fear. Which was true from the get go. Which goes back to the issue of the tabletop exercises. I think one of the things. I'm gonna let you roll here in a second, but I think one of the things that was most diabolical and frankly most brilliant from the perspective of the folks who orchestrated this was they created terror in our doctors and nurses before the virus ostensibly arrived in The US and the purpose of that, I think was clear that they needed, frankly, the doctors to institute protocols that were in themselves dangerous.
- [70:29]
B
Yes.
- [70:29]
A
Fatally so in many, many cases. They needed to create bodies in order to claim that Covid was so deadly that we would need the controls that you're pointing to. And so they gave them, you know, all of the phony stuff that came out of, of China. The guy falling down in the street. Right. The guy riding his bike in a hazmat suit. Right. That was all done so that before it came, people were primed for a terrifying plague. And the fact is, I actually think Covid is a dangerous disease. It's not a very deadly disease and readily treatable.
- [71:04]
B
Yes.
- [71:04]
A
But they needed everybody to think there's nothing that can be done for this disease. It can't be controlled, it's very deadly. You doctors are going to be on the front lines, you're going to be in contact with, with sick people. We don't know how many of you are going to survive. Right. They created that fear and then they leveraged it and they kept leveraging it. And the testing is one of the ways they did it.
- [71:23]
B
They did, absolutely. So you have, going back to my timeline in the book, so Early January, actually January 10th, was when the genomic sequence was uploaded to virological.org, this is by Edward Holmes. He was working with the Chinese team at the time. So three days later, January 3rd, 13th, you've got. Now this is the German virologist, Professor Christian Drosden. So he, he comes out with this PCR test protocol that gets authorized by the World Health Organization just three days after. Think about that. Just three days after the genomic sequence is uploaded. Okay? He develops this test for it, this protocol, and out of that comes the Corman Drosden paper that was published in Euro Surveillance, where he happens to be the editor in chief. Okay? And this paper gets somehow mysteriously passes peer review process within 24 hours and it is adopted as the gold standard for, you know, this is the test we're going to use to diagnose PC, the COVID When the actual inventor of the PCR technique, Dr. Carrie Mullis, we have him clearly stating interviews dated in the late 90s stating this has never been designed to for diagnosis, it should never be used as such as a diagnostic tool. And this is essentially, you know, they do the reverse. They use it as a, you know, it's going to detect you've got Covid. And, you know, it's just again, a lot of conflicts of Interest because one of the. Another co author of that paper, a colleague of his, he had a German biotech company based in Berlin who was shipping out PCR tests on January 10, the same day. I mean, it's insane. To Hong Kong. This is. I've got screenshots of it. There's a German newspaper picture, picked this up at the time and huge conflicts of interest. And they happen to be the same team that did the whole. When SARS came out, it was Christian Drosden and his team who developed again, a testing kit for sars. And I mean, you've got this. It is a billion dollar industry, right? The whole diagnostics, the countermeasures, all of this. And what we saw after 3:11, we saw this massive transfer of wealth as well.
- [73:54]
A
Huge upward.
- [73:56]
B
We haven't even discussed this. I mean, that is huge. Yeah, yeah. And it's just you have to think who gained, who gained from it? Who gained from this disruptive event.
- [74:06]
A
So many people.
- [74:07]
B
So many people.
- [74:08]
A
Back to. Back to the tabletop exercise. So you've got all of these people who are poised to make a fortune on this event for which there was a subtle little announcement that something might be coming down the pike. And just to complete the picture, I can't help but wonder about Kerry Mullis's death. Yeah, people die. Sometimes it happens at a coincidental moment just because that's the nature of life before.
- [74:33]
B
Do you remember his death? What it was? It was. I don't remember, Was it early 2020 or late 2019?
- [74:39]
A
It was late 2019.
- [74:41]
B
Okay.
- [74:42]
A
And so he dies.
- [74:44]
B
Yeah.
- [74:45]
A
He's on record saying you can't use this for diagnosis for a reason that most people will not quite understand but is very simple to understand if you know what PCR is. So pcr, what Kerry Mollis invented, was a system for taking a tiny amount of DNA or RNA and amplifying it into a huge amount by getting it to duplicate itself. So if you ever played the game of, you know, you put a one grain of rice on the first space of the chessboard and you double it in the second space and you keep going and the numbers grow astronomical.
- [75:20]
B
Yes.
- [75:20]
A
So the basic point is PCR as a technique is highly sensitive to something called the cycle threshold.
- [75:26]
B
Yes.
- [75:26]
A
How many doublings you put it through. And the point is, if you have the tiniest bit of contamination, you can amplify it and make it show as present. So, you know, imagine you're okay, you've got a laboratory and they're doing Covid tests. Well, there's going to be some Covid RNA floating around that lab. Right. You've got how many samples coming in from how many people. And the point is, this test will amplify the tiniest bit of contamination. It doesn't say anything about a live virus at all, will amplify it into a positive test. So if you want to create the impression that this virus is everywhere and spreading rapidly, all you've got to do is turn up the cycle threshold of the pcr. And the fact is, most people, when you say the cycle threshold was what? They're like, what's a cycle threshold? Right. They don't know.
- [76:15]
B
They use 30, I think over 35, you're guaranteed. So what's interesting, I'm glad you mentioned this point because just recently, I think last year Germany released a study when they analyzed all the PCR tests from the 20, 20, 21 period, I think, think 85, as high as 85 were false positives, right?
- [76:36]
A
Of course, of course they would be
- [76:38]
B
because they use such a high cycle threshold, I think 35 plus or something, right? Yeah.
- [76:43]
A
Now imagine, just rerun the pandemic in your mind with Kerry Mullis alive. Now, Kerry Mullis was, among other things, a courageous, outspoken person.
- [76:53]
B
Yeah.
- [76:54]
A
He knew Anthony Fauci was a diabolical, unscientific guy. He would have been screaming bloody murder about the abuse of the technology for which he won a Nobel Prize. And everybody in the public would be saying, it would have been like a second Robert Malone. Robert Malone's telling you, hey, this technology I invented is not safe to inject into people. Kerry Mullis would have been saying, hey, this technology I invented is not valid as a test of whether or not you're sick with this disease. Right. So his death, coincidental or not, so convenient for those who decided that they wanted control. And we're going to use Covet to get it.
- [77:35]
B
But even if he remained alive, he would have been censored anyway. Brett, do you think his, his, his, his thing would have gotten out? I mean, think of all the scientists that were trying to raise the alarm. All these dissenting voices, they were all silenced. I mean, what they did, I mean, I mean, essentially to the, you know, the vaccine injured was deplorable as well. I mean, we haven't even gone about the censorship of those groups, how they were treated, and, and they were just all your. And, you know, these are anti vax groups. I mean, we had the BBC flag and they actually flagged this, and obviously we knew they were leading the Trusted News initiative. What they were doing. They were systematically alerting Facebook, big tech, that these groups are using carrot emojis to circumvent the senses. So a huge article comes out by the bc. This is what we're doing. And we've. And it's. These are. You know, and they're labeling. Labeling these injured people as anti vax groups. Okay. These people have been injured.
- [78:34]
A
Injured by a shot they took. Demonstrating they're not anti vax.
- [78:37]
B
Exactly, exactly. And they're being taken down. So it's just. Yeah. It's just so deplorable.
- [78:44]
A
Well, to your point, though, about. Kerry Mullis would have been censored. I have no doubt that he would have been. But now rerun the pandemic. Without Robert Malone, we would have been in a lot worse shape.
- [78:55]
B
Yeah.
- [78:55]
A
The fact is, he was censored.
- [78:57]
B
Yeah, absolutely.
- [78:58]
A
As were we. I mean, my podcast was demonetized for five years.
- [79:02]
B
When you were discussing Ivermectin with Steve Kirsch and Robert Malone, they took it offline.
- [79:08]
A
It's still not on YouTube, and demonetized us for five years. They, you know, they put a big ding in our ship for sure, but they didn't silence us. Yeah, they tried. They would have thrown us off of YouTube if Joe Rogan hadn't stepped in. I'm almost certain of that. And as it was, they left us unmonetized, but essentially free to speak. And then they've slandered us and all of that. But. But the point is, every person who had a position from which to speak about what was taking place, to reveal what was being done and for what purpose, all of those people played an important role in bringing the public out of the darkness.
- [79:50]
B
Yes.
- [79:51]
A
So I think we would have been much better off if Kary Mullis had lived.
- [79:56]
B
Of course.
- [79:56]
A
And.
- [79:58]
B
Yeah.
- [79:58]
A
Yeah.
- [79:59]
C
I mean,
- [80:01]
A
it doesn't take very many of those people to reveal. Yeah. That effectively organized crime has dressed itself in a lab coat and a stethoscope and gone about administering dangerous, dangerous drugs.
- [80:16]
B
Yes. Yeah, absolutely.
- [80:19]
A
I know. So where are we now?
- [80:25]
B
As you see it, where are we now? I do. I am quite an optimistic person. I mean, I do see that. That we. I think people are a little bit more clued up with what's going on. I think they're less. I think they're aware more of the legacy media spinning. Spinning these stories and essentially being, you know, a form of propaganda, particularly the BBC. So I think there are people who are waking up to it. I mean, essentially the reason my aim of writing this book was to arm people with knowledge and truth. I believe truth and knowledge is the antidote to all the lies, everything that went on. So if you can. Then you mentioned bringing people out of the darkness. You know, it is. It's like, wake up. Because I don't know if we'll ever get full accountability for all of what went on. I. I just don't see that happening. We had the COVID inquiry, which I see as the biggest, you know, whitewashing exercise. Right. And it was the most expensive public inquiry ever done as well. This is taxpayers money. And they just essentially saying, oh, we should have locked down a week earlier. We should have done this, we should have done that, you know, nonsense. And these are the, you know, and they have, you know, you know, interviewing and, you know, bringing people into question. The same scientists who were all about lockdowns saying, again, we should have just locked down earlier and. But where we are now. Yeah, optimistic. I think people are a bit more awake. They. They realize they have to do their own research and also look to independent media, right. You know, like your podcast, and independent journalists like myself writing about these things. It's. It's like you can't just. Whatever you hear on the television is. Is the truth, you know, you've got to wake up. So. But I do see us. I see the landscape being much more. It's a centralized. This. This digital control is. Is very alarming to me. And then you have to couple that with AI, artificial intelligence. Imagine mass surveillance powered by AI monitoring you in real time, where you're going, what you're buying, you know, plus a
- [82:42]
A
thousand AI bots shaping every conversation so that the next time this happens, you will feel like, you know, the skeptics are on board this time or something like that. No, it's frightening. And, you know, if there's one thing that I would wish out of this, short of a Nuremberg trial for those who orchestrated this, which I think is fully justified, and we'd be very smart to do it. But short of that, if I could wish for one thing, it's for people to understand the connection between the COVID catastrophe and the creeping changes in our civil liberties. Right. The digital id, the censorship, all of the little incremental things that are being done now while we don't have a pretend emergency taking over the world, those are being done in preparation for the next one.
- [83:42]
B
Yes.
- [83:42]
A
And if you allow it to happen, happen, because it doesn't seem that important, you know, oh, well, you know, maybe I don't want a real ID to go On a flight. But I'm already, you know, I've already got a government ID and there are cameras all over the. If you think that way, right? If you think, well, yeah, I don't want to centralize bank digital currency, but I already use a credit card. It's the same thing. If you start allowing it to be done to you because you can talk yourself into it, then the next time you're not going to understand why you don't have a Robert Malone. Right. The connection is clear. You needed the dissidents this time. They went through hell to make sure you had access to real information.
- [84:22]
B
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
- [84:23]
A
You now need to protect the things that they're worried about. They're worried about it for a reason and they know because they've seen it. So I don't know how we can get people there. I think reading your book would be a marvelous first step. I mean, it's like a post mortem on this tremendous trauma that the world went through together.
- [84:44]
B
Well, I see it as a live indictment more than a post mortem.
- [84:47]
A
I take back post mortem, a live indictment.
- [84:50]
B
Very nice of it. You know, it's, it's a turning. It's still unfolding.
- [84:54]
A
Yes.
- [84:54]
B
This is it. It continues. So people think, oh, why'd you store it? Isn't it. It's. We're in a new era. You know, I see it as a new era of, of like you're saying, surveillance, this digital control, the censorship, it's all been ramped up. So the architecture that was all put in place for Covid is just now being repurposed. Right. And I also just wanted to make the point with what it's, it's a small. It's. It's. It's important I want to raise it is what they did with trying to hide excess deaths. We know this has been a. This has happened. Right. And this is all coming out of after the vaccine rollout. I'm not saying it's the only reason, you know, because there was a lot of people, they couldn't access health care at the time. Right. They were being turned away. But I would say the UK Health Security Agency and this is also in the book. I'm not sure if you aware they are refusing to release any data, patient data linking the COVID shots with excess deaths and they were taken to a tribunal. Dr. Claire Craig was really pushing for this and they refused on the most crazy grounds that if they were to release the data, people would be emotionally so distressed, especially the bereaved families and Anti vax groups would use it for spreading disinformation. Okay. It is crazy, right?
- [86:23]
A
I mean it's. It's actually inhuman in the following sense. Imagine the worst happens. You get the phone call that somebody very close to you has died unexpectedly.
- [86:39]
B
Yes.
- [86:40]
A
Your first question is what happened?
- [86:43]
B
Yes.
- [86:44]
A
Nobody is uninterested in what happened. Nobody. It is not human for you not to want to know. So the idea that we're going to protect the families from evidence about what happened to their loved ones, that's insane. Especially in light of the fact they haven't pulled the shots from the market. So the point is, the people who haven't taken them or have taken some and are thinking of continuing to take more, they have a right to that information. And anybody who is hiding that information is signing up for the equivalent of murder. There are people who will die from COVID shots that have yet to be administered because the information that might have woken them up is not being released by you for some bullshit reason. So I guess what I would say is this. Even if you give them the benefit of every doubt, the pandemic was organic. It was a surprise. They brought out a shot under confusing circumstances. They didn't know how bad it was. At the point that there were more adverse events in the first, first year as a result of that shot than all previous vaccines combined over 30 years. Then they did know they had a problem and they continued to inject it into children for whom they had the evidence. It did no good whatsoever. So all of the people who died because of the games that they played, that is a mass murder. Yeah, that's not an exaggeration. It's mass murder. And so those mass murderers, how many of them have gone to jail? Well, let's, let's count. It's none. So they're out there walking around having dinner at the restaurant next to you. They need to be held to account.
- [88:23]
B
Absolutely.
- [88:24]
A
And until we do. You're right. It's not a post mortem.
- [88:26]
C
This is very live.
- [88:28]
B
Absolutely. And it's interesting because, for example, the covering up of the crimes. So for example, the, the data. So I was looking. You remember that the, the group of medical professionals in the US that took the FDA to court to release all the documents that they had on Pfizer to authorize the shot.
- [88:46]
A
Oh yeah, right. Pfizer wasn't going to release them for 75 years.
- [88:49]
B
Well, actually with the FDA, with Pfizer. But the FDA was saying, no, we're going to wait for the public to wait till 2096. Something crazy. I was one of the first journalists. This is towards of the end of 2021. I was writing about this for trial site news and I looked and I was going through. So this is all on, on this website, website. And I was literally going through thousands of documents, Brett and I came across this cumulative adverse event reports post. This is post authorization within the, the first 90 days. Okay. So this is buried in this trove of documents that get released end of 2021. I write about this, this, this report. I analyze the numbers. Insane. 1228 deaths. The first first 90 months. 48, 000 cases of adverse events. 8 pages of all these lists of all these various horrible events that you would get. I was interviewed by an Australian media company at the time. So that video of me talking about my report using Pfizer's own data, I'm not. This is just literally using their own data. It goes viral. This, this, it got 3 million, 3 million views in like 24 hours. And this is crazy. It gets just taken down and there's obviously going back to the whole scent. It gets taken down. I don't know if this agency gets demonetized. It was Calkine Media I think at the time. But I was speaking the truth. I was just saying this is Pfizer just warning people essentially. This is, you know, this is, this is, this is what's going on gets removed, gets taken down and it, it's just, yeah, covering up, covering up the data that they don't want people to see is, is awful. I also interview in the book this Dutch, a brilliant Dutch analyst, Wouter Orkema. So he managed to develop this sort of software tool with his team where he was able to download Udravigilance. So Udravigilance is the database. It's like v. It's the EU's equivalent of VAERS of safety monitoring, you know, the vaccines and other medicinal products. He was able to download I think like 15 million files and it was shocking what was revealed. So he revealed there was three times more adverse events reported for the COVID shots, you know, Moderna, Pfizer, J and J. All of those compared to, to any other medicinal product over 20 year period. Yeah, it's a really shocking number. Okay. But not only that, he also uncovered that the EMA or who, we don't know who was doing it. 40% of the serious adverse reports, this includes death, were being systematically. They disappeared. Yeah, they were being removed. And then he actually did some more digging and he realized what was going on every time a case report, you get. You get a number, a case report number gets assigned to it. If that narrative, if that report gets changed a bit, like even adding a comma or a period or whatever it is, full stop, a new number gets assigned. So what you have is a floating duck syndrome thing where you can't. Can't find the original document. So it's just to hide. It's. And this is only for the COVID shots. This happened recently, and it's 40 of only the serious adverse event reports.
- [92:24]
A
I mean, it's, it's, it's obviously intentional.
- [92:27]
B
It's. Yeah, this is, this is just to hide. This is talking about hiding the crimes.
- [92:33]
A
It is. I'm struggling to think of a more egregious cover up that we have ever become aware of. And, you know, it really is the important message, you can't let this go because they're not done with you. They have other shots on the drawing board. They have mandates on their minds. They have all of these techniques to disguise the true signal about what's hazardous and what's safe. And they have demonstrated depraved indifference. So the reason that we can't let this go is that those monsters are still powerful. Yeah, we've done much better than they expected, I think, with respect to exposing them. But to the extent that most of the public has moved on, it's a terrible error and we need to fix it. We need to get to the bottom of this now. And you've done a huge service with this beautiful book.
- [93:27]
B
Thank you. Thank you very much. Much, Brett. Yeah, yeah, thank you.
- [93:31]
A
All right, Sonia, Elijah, where can people find you?
- [93:34]
B
Right, so I have a substack, Sonia Elijah investigates, and I also have a podcast there as well with the substack. And yeah, they can find me sonya elijah.com. they can also, you know, follow and find me on X. I'm at Sonya Underscore Elijah.
- [93:56]
A
And they can buy your marvelous book.
- [93:58]
B
And they can buy my book. Yeah, every. I mean, any online book outlet store sells it, including Amazon as well.
- [94:05]
A
All right, well, I hope it's a huge success. It certainly deserves to be. And anyway, thank you very much for the work you've been doing on this. It's really a service to all of you.
- [94:13]
B
Thank you for all your work as well, Brett. Thank you.
- [94:15]
A
All right, thanks for joining, everybody.