Keith Woods: All right. Welcome, everyone. I’m back. I have a big guest today. A lot of you were really looking forward to this, and a lot of you have requested this before. It’s Ron Unz, the editor publisher of the Unz Review, one of my favourite websites. I often plug it at the end of streams here. You’ll notice when I’m recommending links for people to check out. And yeah, great, great aggregator of stuff that’s kind of broadly in the sort of dissident Right scene, or not even just dissident Right.

 

I mean, they publish people like Michael Hudson and so on. And his own series, American Pravda, is something I would recommend to everyone as well. I’ve been listening to the audio versions of that today where Ron goes over sort of revisionist history, takes on the 20th century as it relates to World War II and the JFK assassination, 9/11, and so on. And yeah, I’m excited to have one. It’s great to have you here, Ron.

 

Ron Unz: Hey, great to be here.

 

Keith Woods: Thank you. So what’s your own background? You don’t seem like the typical kind of person to end up in the position you’re in. It seems like you have a more sort of establishment conservatism background. You’ve been involved in Republican Party politics. So yeah, just like, what’s the general background there of how you made your way to kind of this side of things?

 

Ron Unz: Well, I mean, my original background was actually in theoretical physics.

 

In other words, I originally thought I studied theoretical physics in college, and I thought I’d probably be doing an academic career. And then basically around the mid 1980s, I ended up taking a detour where I took a summer job working on Wall Street. One thing led to another, and I ended up actually spending about the next ten years or 15 years of my life writing financial services software for Wall Street firms. And after about a year or so, I love to set up my own small company. And that really was sort of my main activity for a long period of time like that.

 

Now, I’d always been very interested in public policy and politics, and so after I moved back to California in the early mid 1990s, I ended up becoming involved in some of political campaigns out here. I just was very unhappy about what was going on in the state, and I actually ended up I didn’t expect to win, but I actually ended up challenging Governor Pete Wilson for renomination in his own Republican primary and then got involved in various other issues initiative campaigns, for example. I ran a series of successful initiative campaigns to shift California and the rest of the United States away from teaching immigrant children in their native language, so-called bilingual education towards making sure that they were taught English from the first day of school.

 

In other words, it seemed to me it really made no sense for children when they start school, not to be taught the English language and that ended up really being quite successful.

 

And in fact, bilingual education has largely disappeared around the United States because of those efforts. And I got involved in various other political activities as well. And then probably it was then probably about the mid to late 1990s when I became again actively involved in public policy, again more on the issue of international foreign policy.

 

In other words, I was very concerned about some of the actions we were taking, especially after the 9/11 attacks when we shifted towards the attack on Iraq, the Iraq, War, which I viewed as being probably a disaster.

 

And so I ended up actually providing some financial support to a magazine, the American Conservative, that was set up to oppose the policies of George W Bush with regard to Iraq and a lot of other things like that.

 

And so I ended up serving as a publisher of The American Conservative for about, I guess it was probably about seven or eight years. And then just about a decade ago, I ended up leaving to set up my own website, the Unz Review, which I thought would be a useful venue for my own writings.

 

In other words, at that point, at first I really was thinking more in terms of eventually doing a lot more writing of my own and having a website that I could basically use to publish my material on.

 

And then as it was, I got tied up with some software issues for a few years.

 

And so the website really primarily was providing a location for other writers, alternative media from the Left and the right to really have their articles published. Because in some ways one interesting thing I noticed gradually was that sometimes people, both who considered themselves very much on the Left or on the Right sometimes actually agreed with each other about many things that they might disagree with the more mainstream of the political spectrum on.

 

So it was the sort of thing where I felt by providing an Avenue for both people from the Left-Right libertarian camps to sort of cross-fertilize each other and trade ideas, it would show that sometimes they might agree with each other on things that they didn’t even realize. So that really had been probably the main thing I’ve been involved in over the last ten years.

 

And then about six or seven years ago, I ended up getting much more actively involved in going back to writing of my own. And just as you mentioned, the American Pravda series, which deals with a lot of controversial issues from the last 100 years of American society, is certainly the place where I’ve published most of my articles, basically during the 1990s. Most of my writings probably dealt with issues of race and ethnicity and social policy, affirmative action, bilingual education, multiculturalism, immigration. While probably in the last six or seven years, the focus probably has been more on foreign policy history and again, sort of looking at the history of the 20th century.

 

Now, one other thing I should mention is that from about the mid 1990s onward, I actually was involved in a major project to digitize the collected archives of many of America’s leading public policy magazines or opinion magazines of the last 100 years The Nation, The New Republic, National Review, Harpers, and also a lot of magazines that disappeared that had been once very influential but then had gone out of business. And by going through and digitizing all those old publications, I really came across a lot of facts and interesting aspects of American society from the 1920s, 1930s, 1950s that really I’d been very unaware of just by standard college history courses or things like that.

 

So, in other words, it provided a great deal of background information that was new to me and new to other people. And that’s actually one reason I started questioning a lot of the history that I learnt in college. Because when you actually come across articles published in America’s leading magazines from the 1910s and 1920s and you see the picture they portray of American society is so different than what you’d always imagined it was at the time, it really just opens your mind to other possibilities.

 

So, I mean, that’s a fairly long introduction, but that’s basically where I came from on these sorts of issues.

 

[0:07:50]

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, you mentioned immigration. You haven’t always had sort of an anti-immigration stance. That’s one thing I noticed looking back at your articles. When did that kind of change happen? You kind of evolved your stance on immigration in around the early 2010s, is that right?

 

Ron Unz: Right. I’ve always had mixed feelings about immigration, but generally very opposed to many of the anti-immigration activists around.

 

In other words, basically, it seems to me, immigration has both positives and negatives. And probably the biggest negative that’s become apparent to me in the last, 20 years looking at American society has been the impact of large scale immigration on economic issues.

 

In other words, one reason, for example, for the severe economic decline of much of American society has been, I think, the very large scale immigration we’ve seen over the last 30 or 40 years. A lot of the critics of immigrants say that immigrants are lazy, they’re on welfare or something like that, or they commit a lot of crime, and I don’t think there’s really any evidence for that at all in American society. Now, it may be different in other countries, but not in America.

 

The problem, though, is that when you bring in a large number of eager workers who are willing to work for low wages, you obviously, by the law of supply and demand, drive down the wages for everybody competing against them in American society. And that, I think, is probably one of the strongest arguments you can make against existing American immigration policy.

 

And the flip side of that is the exact reason why America’s business groups business interests have been so strongly pro-immigrant because they see that large scale immigration helps to keep down the wages of the workers. And so things that are beneficial for, obviously, employers or for business groups can be very harmful sometimes for the economic interests of the workers who they’re employing by driving down their wages.

 

And one of the interesting things about it is if the issue were handled, I think, the right way, it would be much easier for America to solve that problem than many of these, for example, anti-immigrant groups have focused on. And the reason for that is that the groups most competing with new immigrants in American society are existing immigrants, recent immigrants.

 

So for example, if the issue were cast in economic terms like that, I think a very substantial fraction of America’s immigrant or recent immigrant population would be certainly very supportive of the notion of taking steps to reduce the flow of future immigrants.

 

And in fact, one of the issues that I raised that probably was my own contribution to debate, which really had, I think, pretty substantial impact, is the issue of one of the best it’s the minimum wage.

 

In other words, the whole notion of raising the minimum wage to a much higher level by itself, I think would tremendously reduce some of the immigration problems because most of the immigrants who come here are obviously willing to work for relatively low wages. If you raise the wage, the minimum wage, to something much higher, 12 or $15 an hour, it would act as a formidable deterrent towards immigrants basically coming here since they wouldn’t be able to take those jobs very easily. And it would also act as a formidable deterrent towards business groups hiring workers at a lower wage since the wage would not be that much lower. And what I ended up doing about that was basically about seven or eight years ago, I ended up shifting the debate in American society on the minimum wage and successfully causing a revival of the minimum wage as a major issue in American society.

 

So for example, in California right now, the minimum wage is $15 an hour where as of a decade ago it was, I believe, about $8 an hour. So we’ve roughly doubled the minimum wage in California. And the same thing, for example, has happened in various other parts of the country as well, though it’s not happened on the national level. And if more effort were put into raising the minimum wage, I think that would be a very effective means of severely greatly reducing the problems that immigration has been causing in American society and decreased a lot of the incentive for immigration down the road.

 

[0:12:23]

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, your articles on immigration are interesting. To look back at them, you were making arguments that were seemed to be very unpopular at the time, that some tropes about Hispanics committing disproportionate amount of crime actually wasn’t accurate, Hispanic immigration.

 

And you also pushed back, which I thought was interesting, against the narrative about the 1965 Immigration Act, right. That’s pretty popular in Right-wing circles in the US. Like, it kind of all went wrong after the 65 Immigration Act. Like that’s what opened the borders. That’s what changed this immigration policy from exclusive to Europeans to open it to everyone. You had a very different take. You said the 1965 Immigration Act actually restricted immigration because it did something about the ease with which South Americans could immigrate to the US.

 

Ron Unz: Sure, it’s really a very simple issue. America traditionally had an open immigration policy for basically most of our history.

 

And then in 1924, an immigration act was passed severely restricting immigration from Europe.

 

In other words, we cut off most of our immigration from Europe, and at the same time it eliminated immigration almost entirely from Asia or from Africa.

 

So in other words, Eastern Hemisphere immigration was largely reduced in the 1920s partly because of concern over these economic issues or political issues.

 

In other words, there was a movement to restrict foreign immigration to the United States, but it excluded the entire Western Hemisphere.

 

So in other words, we kept our open borders policy towards Latin American and Caribbean immigration.

 

In other words, anybody from Mexico or the rest of Latin America who wanted to immigrate to the United States would have to pay something like, I think it was $14 or $18, wait a couple of days, and they could immigrate here. So in a sense, we kept what amounted to an open borders immigration policy towards Latin America. The reason we didn’t have much immigration from Latin America for the 40 years that followed was that Latin America was tremendously underpopulated.

 

In other words, the population density was lower. So there just weren’t that many people who would come here. Some came, but not that many. And then it turns out, in about the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s Mexico and Latin America, the rest of Latin America underwent a tremendous population boom, a population explosion.

 

For example, the population of Mexico, I think had quadrupled in a period of about 50 years, even excluding the large number of Mexicans who moved to the United States. So it turns out the 1965 Immigration Act was widely perceived as increasing immigration to the United States because it reopened the possibility of large scale immigration from Europe and from other parts around the world.

 

In other words, we undid the 1924 Immigration Act, and Europeans suddenly could move to the United States, where for about 40 years, very strict quotas had been placed against most of the European countries.

 

But at the same time, the 1965 Immigration Act also imposed quotas for the first time on Mexico and the rest of Latin America.

 

So in other words, prior to the 1965 Immigration Act, there was no limit on Latin American immigration. And given the fact that Latin America was right around then beginning to experience a tremendous population explosion. If not for the passage of the 1965 Immigration Act, you could imagine millions upon millions of Latin Americans moving to the United States as immigrants every year.

 

And so while it’s true that about 60 million Latin American, sorry, 60 million Americans are either immigrants or the descendants of immigrants from those parts of the world after 1965, if not for the passage of the 1965 Act, the numbers probably would have been much higher. It could have been 100 million or 150,000,000 or something like that, simply because changing immigration law in the United States is obviously a very difficult thing to do politically.

 

And in fact, as you know, I mean, for decades now we’ve been arguing about it, and simply because with business groups very interested in having immigration at very high levels, they can almost always block any members in Congress to reduce immigration.

 

And in fact, for the last, 20 years, business groups have been making an effort to even further open our borders, to have an amnesty and increase immigration even to much higher levels than before. So it sounds, I mean, it’s very counterintuitive. And certainly many individuals focused on immigration issues are under, are unaware of the facts. But the truth is, the 1965 Immigration Act, by sharply restricting immigration from Latin America for the first time, probably prevented much more immigration than it supported.

 

In other words, we had many more immigrants from Europe and we had many more immigrants from Asia than we would have without the 1965 Immigration Act. But if it hadn’t passed, probably Latin American immigration would have been far larger than it ended up being.

 

And since the majority of our immigrants have come from Latin America, it sounds counterintuitive, but the 1965 Immigration Act probably played a role in reducing net immigration to the United States rather than increasing it. And that’s something, again, that most people aren’t aware of its the sort of thing a lot of anti-immigration websites have written on the subject over the years. And when I’ve brought it to their attention and they’ve checked into it, they’ve found out that what I was saying was correct.

 

And so they’ve stopped writing new articles denouncing the 1965 Immigration Act. But they obviously can’t take down the hundreds of articles they’ve previously written on that subject.

 

And so it’s one of these things, it amounts to sort of a mistake that got into circulation about 30 or 35 years ago that probably will never be corrected. But it’s the sort of thing with all those thousands of articles there misfortune the 1965 Immigration Act. It’s hard to say what will happen, but I mean, basically anybody can go and just check the details.

 

In fact, you can even read Kevin MacDonald’s book on The Culture of Critique where he actually discusses the 1965 Act and the fact that it actually, for the first time, restricted immigration from Latin America. So it’s simply a factual matter. And there are a lot of stats floating around the Internet, and that’s simply one of them.

 

Keith Woods: Well, I don’t mind this narrative because it vindicates the Irish, right? We always get blamed for the 65 Immigration Act. Wasn’t it Ted Kennedy?

 

[0:19:26]

 

Ron Unz: Yeah, he actually played a very minor role.

 

In other words, basically he was a very junior Senator at the time. And it’s true. Certainly the Irish groups and jewish groups and Italian groups were all in favour of the 1965 Act because their immigration had been cut off to the United States.

 

And so it was suddenly opened up again after 40 years. But the number of European immigrants the point is, Europe was no longer suffering a population explosion at the time, and Europe had also become quite prosperous by 1965 or 1970. So there wasn’t the pressure to move to the United States that there probably would have been 30 or 40 years earlier.

 

Keith Woods: And you mentioned this a little bit earlier when you’re talking about the arguments around immigration and the fact that you think newer rivals in the US. Could be won over to Nancy immigration position. That’s another narrative that was very popular a few years ago, this narrative about immigration that if it’s not stopped in the US the Republicans will never win another election. And eventually they’ll realize this and they’ll become sort of an implicitly White anti-migration party. Didn’t quite play out that way.

 

But it is interesting looking at some of the polls from the last couple of years where it seems like among what’s classified as Hispanics, however they divide that up, that it’s like 50-50 Democrat-Republican, and some of them even lean Republican. So a lot of the things people took for granted about demographics and the political process there seem to be being challenged.

 

I’m just curious how you see that playing out. Like, do you think the Republican Party can become a party that’s viable in this new multiracial America? And then what does that do for the debate around immigration? It almost seems like it’s taken something of a backseat since Trump. Like there was a little bit of disappointment about Trump, and now I don’t know, I get this feeling among people on the Right in the US that they almost feel like that’s lost to an extent in terms of managing the demographics, like on the state level. But yeah, I don’t know what your feelings are about that.

 

Ron Unz: Well, I certainly think I’m not too surprised that there’s been a substantial shift of Hispanics and Asians towards the Republican Party.

 

In other words, they’re right now getting the Republicans are still getting less than half, but it’s probably 40, 45, sometimes closer to 50% from Hispanic and Asian groups. I don’t think it’s so much that the Republicans have attracted them, but many of the policies of the Democrats have been so disastrous that they’ve pushed many of those groups away.

 

For example, I think probably the biggest issue has been the crime issue.

 

In other words, there’s been a gigantic rise in urban crime in many parts of the country. And you’ve probably seen some of the videos where especially attacks by blacks on Asians, many times elderly Asians have been attacked and killed just walking on the street.

 

And so that, I think, has caused a tremendous shift of Asians towards the Republican Party simply because when you have a situation where there was a massive increase in crime in the United States, urban crime a year or two ago, and the response of many prominent Democrats was to say, we have to defund the police.

 

I mean, that’s utter insanity. And that, I think, is probably the reason many ordinary Hispanics and Asians started giving another look towards the Republican Party.

 

Also, for example, a lot of what I guess you could call the sort of wokeness or the transgenderism, those are not things that are particularly appealing to ordinary Hispanics or Asians or Whites, for that matter blacks. In other words, a lot of people who are more ordinary working class people have been pushed out of the Democratic Party because of some of its extreme positions it’s taken.

 

And so, again, it’s not a question of, like all the Republicans, the Republicans gaining necessarily 60% or 70% of these groups, but there’s definitely been a shift in that direction. It’s interesting that the shift started probably about four or five years ago.

 

In fact, if anything, when Donald Trump was elected, he ended up actually doing much better among Hispanic voters than anybody expected.

 

In other words, the media portrayed Trump as being a fanatic hater of Hispanics, that he attacked Hispanics, that he said all these nasty things about them, and surprisingly enough, he actually got a much larger share of the Hispanic vote than most people expected because he ran on working class concerns.

 

In other words, he ran saying, I intend to improve the economic position of ordinary working class Americans. Most Hispanics are working class, and so they were attracted by that argument, even if they were repelled by some of his other arguments. And then once he came into office, the fact that in some ways the economy was doing better under him caused again, many of those people to shift in his direction.

 

[0:24:30]

 

So the funny thing about it is, even though Donald Trump was portrayed as a tremendous villain by the media, somebody who hated Hispanics, who was anti-Hispanic, racist, he actually came close to getting the highest Hispanic percentage of any Republican president in modern times, almost equaling what Ronald Reagan had done 30 or 40 years ago.

 

So it’s the sort of thing, the Republican Party, if it’s simply concentrated on issues having to do with these economic facts or some of these social issues like the extreme policies in the public school. Sometimes I think it just naturally and a law and order policy I think would probably do much better among Hispanics and Asians and Whites and to some extent blacks than it would be if it simply tried some of these other things.

 

I mean, the whole thing about it, a lot of the Republican elites tend to believe that support for higher levels of immigration is the way to win Hispanic votes, and that’s not at all the case.

 

In other words, Hispanics are mostly motivated by bread and butter issues, by meat and potato issues, and larger scale immigration, in other words, is not something necessarily that improves the economic posture of ordinary Hispanic workers since they would be competing against these new immigrants.

 

And so for that reason, I think, for example, there certainly could be some political strategies the Republicans could follow that would be much more advantageous in that way. But I don’t really see any sign of the Republicans actually adopting it, partly because the Republicans are so much the captive of the same business interests that support large scale immigration that the Democratic Party is as well.

 

So, I mean, from my point of view, I think many of the attacks against immigration over the last, 20 or 30 or 40 years have been severely misguided. But I do think strong arguments can be made towards reducing immigration on entirely different grounds, and I think probably those lines of attack would be much more successful than what the Republican Party or what Conservatives have tried to achieve over the years.

 

Keith Woods: Another thing I’ve noticed recently, especially since I went back looking at Twitter, and I don’t know if this is due to Elon Musk’s, Twitter being more relaxed on this stuff and not having shadow banning, but it does seem like there’s something of a sea change in terms of people are really discussing the issue of black crime now. And it’s not just a few kooks out there like Jared Taylor or Colin Flaherty. It’s quite mainstream Conservatives that are discussing this issue. And you go on Twitter and there’s constantly these viral videos showing what it was like in public schools for White children and so on. Yet Scott Adams and his recent outbursts, which got a lot of support, actually. Yeah.

 

I’m just curious about that it’s kind of something people have been speculating on lately. Why do these mainstream Conservatives that have ignored this for so long seem to be embracing it now? Or is it just an organic thing that the viral effect of this stuff being out there, and after all the years of censorship, that eventually it just reached a boiling point. But yeah, I don’t know if you have a take on that or what, …

 

[0:28:00]

 

Ron Unz: Well, I mean, all of those things are factors, but another factor is black crime in the United States has become much, much worse than it was a few years ago.

 

In other words, in the aftermath of the George Floyd incident in Minneapolis that really forced a lot of the police to be adopting a much more defensive posture.

 

And again, there have been all these cases of, for example, police being prosecuted on grounds of, for example, sometimes even just shooting back at a black criminal and things like that. And so when you have so many police being very worried that they could become the next sacrificial lamb on something like that, if somebody takes a video of them, I think the police basically have pulled back in a lot of these cities.

 

And at the same time, the media narrative has been so extreme the last couple of years, the notion of, for example, police murdering large numbers of backs, killing blacks for no reason at all, that I think has in turn, enraged much of the black population.

 

And so there’s been a tremendous rise, I think, in the degree of black violence in many of these urban centres. Again, I mean, some of the things, for example, that have happened in San Francisco and other parts of the country, New York City as well. Elderly Asians simply walking on the street and suddenly being attacked and beaten or sometimes even killed by blacks in a random fashion. That was not something that was occurring five or six years ago. And things like that get on YouTube, they get on Twitter, and they go viral in just the way you’re saying.

 

So when you look, for example, at the rate of black homicides, it’s much, much higher than it was a few years ago.

 

Keith Woods: Do the policies of Trump have anything to do with that? He had the First Step Act, and he had a few Acts that kind of relaxed restrictions in terms of letting violent criminals out of prison early and so on. Did that play a factor?

 

Ron Unz: Oh, I think it certainly did.

 

In other words, Trump on that issue, in a sense, followed very much the liberal agenda, which was strange because.

 

I mean, the media portrayed him as an ultra Right-wing fascist or something like that. But I mean, he basically supported the media line of basically letting a lot of criminals out of prison.

 

So, for example, there’s been a tide of that.

 

For example, back about 20, 30 years ago, when crime was very high, there was a massive wave in California and other states to put people in prison for much longer periods of time. There was the three strikes movement, and in California, the percentage of the population incarcerated rose dramatically.

 

So in other words, many more people were put in prison, which might have gone too far in that direction. But on the other hand, with so many people in prison, obviously crime went down.

 

And so then for about 15 years, 15 or 20 years, with a decline in crime rates, partly because of those very high levels of incarceration, then there began a movement saying that we should really let more people out of prison, we should reduce sentencing, we. Should eliminate three strikes. And that ended up developing momentum of its own.

 

So now, for example, the number of people incarcerated in prison in California is much lower than it was ten or 15 years ago, and sentencing is much laxer. Unfortunately, one result of that is that crime rates are much, much higher than they had been, especially violent crime rates, which is what people are most concerned about.

 

There was also an effort, for example, on the part of various liberal or left liberal donors, George Soros being the best example, to fund District Attorneys who would be much less harsh on criminals than before. And that actually happened. The District Attorney, for example, in San Francisco was recalled from office because crime rates had spiked under his laxer policies. And there’s an effort actually to recall the District Attorney in Los Angeles for the same sort of reason.

 

So in other words, it’s been a mixture of a number of different factors. There was a sense that America was incarcerating too many individuals unfairly, and in many cases, those individuals were black. There were too many black men in prison.

 

And so that shifted towards an effort towards letting them out of prison, which resulted in tremendous increase in crime rates, especially in combination with the police being very nervous about being filmed and being sentenced if a criminal ended up dying or was an innocent person was shot in any of their actions.

 

So it’s a mixture of basically the police being much more cautious than they were in the past, District Attorneys sometimes refusing to press charges with the severity they had in the past, and many prisoners being let out of prison. And the result of that has just been much, much higher crime rates before.

 

Also, for example, in some cases in California, for example, I think shoplifting less than I think was like a couple was changed to misdemeanors.

 

So, for example, cases there were video cases where people would, for example, walk into a grocery store or walk into a drugstore and just fill a shopping bag with items that they then would sell on Ebay or sell on the Internet. And when someone like that basically is not prosecuted for the crimes, and when ordinary shoplifters are not prosecuted, it obviously gives people an incentive then to escalating to more serious crimes.

 

And here, for example, in Palo Alto, there have been many cases over the last few years of gangs of ten or 15 or 20 people coming here from Oakland or coming here from another city, rushing in a group into a high end department store and just stealing everything. Stealing, for example, Apple, looting an Apple store, looting other stores, sometimes breaking into, …

 

Keith Woods: Jewelry stores.

 

Ron Unz: Exactly. And when things like that get on the Internet and there’s a sense developing that crimes like that are not being punished, it obviously causes many other people to start considering doing something similar.

 

So I mean, crime is certainly a serious problem in the United States, and probably within a few years there’ll be such a reaction against it. We may go back to what we had 20 years ago with much stiffer sentencing, but at least for now, I mean, one reason there’s more concern about crime is that crime is much more severe than it was.

 

[0:34:45]

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, the popular issues for the Right are always crime and immigration. Right. I mean, you can see it with the guy in El Salvador, like, massive support for his policies. But yeah, it’s incredible. You get someone like Trump in office and he took extremely liberal positions on that issue. But I’m sure it’ll be more of a focus as maybe immigration becomes a bit more contentious and the country becomes more multiracial. I’m sure the crime issue will come more to the forefront.

 

But by the way, for the people watching, we’re also live on Cozy TV. We actually have more viewers on Cozy than YouTube tonight, which is interesting. The sort of old tech side is winning. There’s 500 watching there live. And you can send Super Chats if you have a question for Ron Unz on Power Chat. The link is there.

 

Now, actually, the reason I asked you on originally was because this thing about the origins of Covid right. The US government started putting this out that now they believe that it came from a Chinese laboratory.

 

And I thought it was interesting because immediately the reaction of the sort of old media types was like, oh, the conspiracy theorists have been proven correct again, and this kind of vindicates us. And we’re always right in the end, and the mainstream has to give in and not approach it with a great deal of skepticism. The government lies about everything, but not this kind of thing. And so, yeah, I went back to your articles on this because you’re one of the few people that has been pushing an alternative theory. There’s kind of been two theories, right. The sort of mainstream accepted theory was it came out of a wet market. It was like a natural mutation.

 

And then a lot of people speculated that it came from the laboratory in Wuhan. There are arguments for that. Supposedly someone that worked on the WHO investigation said that China pressured them heavily not to investigate the lab.

 

But then that’s something they would do either way, right, if they don’t want that narrative circulating. But you’ve promoted an alternative theory that you think elements of the US government or the US Deep State are responsible and that this was a means of sort of economic warfare against China. But instead of me summarizing it, maybe you can explain it to the audience.

 

[0:37:13]

 

Ron Unz: Sure. Well.

 

I mean, the whole thing about is when the virus first appeared in Wuhan, right towards the basically, it was first discovered probably right at the end of 2019.

 

So, in other words, the world started hearing about it in January, early January 2021, obviously, nobody had any idea what was going on.

 

In other words, a mysterious virus suddenly appeared in the city of Wuhan, and it seemed contagious it was spreading. And people also weren’t even sure how dangerous it was, what the death rate would be. And there were obviously a lot of concerns. And fairly quickly, within about a month or two, a standard narrative was formed, the sort of official narrative on the part of the American science establishment that the virus was natural.

 

In other words, it had mutated in probably a bat or some other form of animal, and it spread to the humans in Wuhan and then was going out from there.

 

So, in other words, the natural virus theory ended up being the dominant establishmentarian narrative for about a year, a year and a half in the West. And it was supported by a couple of paper, early papers that came out in nature health and in science magazine, where a number of very respectable scientists said that the virus was obviously natural.

 

Now, at the same time, there was a counter-narrative, fairly widespread in the alternative media and also anti-China groups that got started very early on. And that narrative was that the virus had come from a laboratory.

 

Keith Woods: I remember, sorry to interrupt. I remember Steve Bannon was pushing this very, …

 

Ron Unz: Exactly, and it got started very early.

 

In other words, basically, I ended up hearing it seeing on the internet in January, probably early to mid January, before almost anybody in the world was even focused on Wuhan.

 

In other words, before the virus had spread to any other country. And the story that they were putting out was that the virus had come from the Wuhan Institute of virology. Now, it just so happened the city of Wuhan, most Americans, most Westerners had probably never heard of Wuhan. I don’t think I’d ever heard of Wuhan until the viral outbreak.

 

Wuhan is a large city. It has a population of 11 million, but it’s an interior city, so it’s not the sort of city that most Westerners. It’s not like Beijing or Shanghai. And Wuhan is the site of China’s most advanced viral research facility, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was set up, I think, about eight or nine years ago.

 

So it makes perfect sense. We suddenly have this mysterious virus appearing in a city in China, and by an amazing coincidence, that same city has China’s most advanced viral laboratory. So it didn’t take too much to put two to two plus two together. And to see that why many people started arguing that the virus had probably leaked out of the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

 

In other words, the argument was some people claimed it might have even been developed deliberately as a Chinese bioweapon. Others said, oh, the Chinese were just running experiments on viruses in that facility, and it suddenly leaked out.

 

So in other words, the two arguments that ended up being widespread for really the last three years are, first of all, the natural virus argument, which is basically that the virus is entirely natural. It simply came from some animal species and happened to appear in the city of Wuhan at that time.

 

The other narrative, which was supported by many members of the Donald Trump administration trump sometimes implied it. Mike Pompeo implied at some of the people of his administration is that it leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the lab leak hypothesis. And then once it leaked, it then spread around parts of the city of Wuhan and eventually spread around the rest of the world.

 

So, in other words, it was a Chinese virus that devastated the United States eventually when it got here, that devastated Europe that’s probably killed 20 million people around the world.

 

And so, again, those are perfectly plausible theories.

 

But one thing that made me very suspicious early on, as early as January, before almost anybody was paying attention to that virus in the city of Wuhan, when it was just getting a little bit of coverage, there was already a tremendous propaganda campaign in the alternative media, especially the anti-China alternative media, portraying the virus as having come from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

 

In other words, it happened very early on. Radio Free Asia, which is one of America’s propaganda outlets, was talking about the virus having leaked from the Institute, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as early as January 6, before anybody else in the world was even paying attention to this disease, before a single person had died in the city of Wuhan. And that basically made me suspicious about why would there have been such a massive propaganda campaign targeting China and targeting the virus before almost anybody in the world was even paying attention to some obscure disease in the city of Wuhan, which most people had never heard of at all.

 

So early on, I started thinking that there are obviously two possibilities. The virus might be natural, or the virus might have leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology the way some people were suggesting. But there was obviously a third possibility as well. At that point, the virus appeared in the city of Wuhan when America was at an extreme international confrontation with China over issues of trade, over issues of national security.

 

In other words, China and America were in a confrontation at that point in time. What then happened a few weeks later, …

 

[0:43:01]

 

Keith Woods: That was the time the Hong Kong protests were going on.

 

Ron Unz: Exactly.

 

Keith Woods: This is part of Covid as well.

 

Ron Unz: Exactly. Hong Kong protests. And there’s a lot of suspicion that America, …

 

Keith Woods: Well I mean, they were definitely like, funded by the National Endowment.

 

Ron Unz: Exactly!

 

In other words, basically there were a lot of suspicions that the CIA or some of the American intelligence organizations were putting together the Hong Kong protests to basically cause trouble for China to disrupt China’s control over Hong Kong.

 

And again, I mean, that’s the sort of thing countries do all the time. But it seems to me that at that point in time, first of all, you’ve got to understand, I mean, China already had a larger, real economy than the United States. As far back as 2014, the Chinese economy was growing much more rapidly than the American economy, and it was larger in real terms and had been larger for a number of years. China was building up it’s military, and by all measures, all American national security experts agreed that China was America’s most formidable international rival down the road. And in the immediate terms, in other words, there was a feeling that Russia was weak, Russia was declining. America, anyway, had two to three times Russia’s population, a vastly larger economy than Russia.

 

So China was considered the future threat for the United States. And that’s actually why, for example, when Donald Trump became into office, one of his first actions was to take economic action against China.

 

In other words, saying, we have to reduce China’s economic strength. We have to cut our trade ties with China. We have to block, for example, China’s technological development. And America ended up kidnapping the chief financial officer of Huawei, restricting exports to Huawei, China’s most important technological company.

 

So, in other words, America was taking all these actions targeting China.

 

And so it just made me suspicious at the time that this mysterious viral epidemic breaks out in China at the point when America is most hostile to China.

 

And then a few other things came out, probably by about the end of January, I’d come across some other facts which I hadn’t been aware of at the time. First of all, the virus appeared in Wuhan probably towards the beginning of probably early November, possibly late October, but more likely early November.

 

Now, it turns out that was exactly when Wuhan was holding the international military game, the world military games, at that point in time. And there were 300 American military officers participating in those games in the city of Wuhan.

 

So just looking at it logically, if 300 Chinese military officers visited the city of Chicago in the United States, and immediately after they left, a mysterious viral epidemic suddenly broke out in the city of Chicago, it would certainly make people quite suspicious of what was going on.

 

I also found out that it turns out in the years 2018, there had been I probably should step back a little bit. This is stuff that basically I ended up working out five months, six months later, but really all ended up falling into place.

 

There’s a man, for example, named Robert Kadlec who for decades has been America’s leading biowarfare advocate. As far back as the 1990s, he was writing articles saying that biowarfare was the wave of the future. Biowarfare was the best means of severely damaging an international adversary and doing it in a plausibly deniable means, in other words, so that nobody could prove what was going on, a virus would appear in another country. And he pointed specifically at the use of viruses to damage the food supply and the economy of a geopolitical rival.

 

Now, it turns out Robert Kadlec was brought into the Trump administration in 2017. In 2018, China was suddenly hit by a mysterious viral epidemic that severely damaged it’s poultry industry.

 

Then in early 2019, right at the beginning of 2019, China was hit by another mysterious viral epidemic that wiped out 40% of China’s pig herds, the largest in the world and China’s primary meat source.

 

So, in other words, we have America basically elevating a top biowar for advocate to the Trump administration.

 

And then in the following two years.

 

[0:47:50]

 

Keith Woods: What position did you say he had?

 

Ron Unz: In the Trump administration? Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, which, strangely enough, that’s Fauci’s area, in other words, basically, he ended up being, he was basically put in as America’s chief biowarfare expert or something like that. He actually served a similar role in the George W Bush administration about 10 or 15 years earlier, but he was brought in in 2017 in the Trump administration.

 

And then in 2018 and, 20019, China’s food supply was suddenly hit by these mysterious viral epidemics, with some claims that the swine flu was being spread by small drones.

 

In other words, there were rumours in China, there were stories going around that drones were spreading the disease throughout the entire country.

 

And then in late 2019, suddenly the Covid virus appeared in the city of Wuhan.

 

Now the city of Wuhan, even though most Americans have not heard of it, it’s one of China’s leading transit hubs. It’s a city of 11 million, and it’s the place where many of the rail lines converge.

 

China has Lunar New Year holidays, which are the equivalent of Christmas, New Year’s, and several other holidays all rolled into one. During Lunar New Year 450,000,000 Chinese typically travel. In other words, they basically travel to their ancestral villages. They travel back home again if they’ve been working in cities. So it’s by far the biggest holiday for China. Now, the virus appeared in the city of Wuhan.

 

Keith Woods: That’s in February, right?

 

Ron Unz: Exactly, that’s basically January, February, late January, early February. The virus appeared in the city of Wuhan and then started growing exponentially. So since it was a new virus that nobody heard of I mean, the Chinese only discovered it’s existence on the last day of December in 2019, and the Chinese didn’t even realize that it was contagious until early January 2019.

 

Once it then began spreading in the city of Wuhan, the Chinese finally, then in mid to late January, ended up instituting a severe lockdown and managed to stamp it out. But if they waited just a couple of weeks, the virus then would have spread throughout the entire city of Wuhan. And Wuhan, being a transit hub it would have spread out throughout the entire country of China with probably tens or hundreds of millions of Chinese being infected. The result of that.

 

Keith Woods: I’m just sharing an image on screen there for the audience, just to illustrate what you said about the Wuhan as a transportation hub. You can see in the green is Wuhan, and it’s right in the middle of all of these lines that connect these major cities like Shanghai and Guangzhou and so on.

 

Ron Unz: Exactly. Now, the whole thing about the virus, at first, nobody really knew how dangerous it was, and most of the evidence that come out later, obviously, it’s very much more dangerous to elderly people than younger people.

 

In other words, I think if you’re over 60, you have 100 times greater chance of dying than if you’re under 40. But overall, for the average American population, the death rate is something between 0.5 and 1%.

 

So in other words, we’re talking of a sort of bioweapon potentially that would not wipe out a population, but still it ended up killing about a million Americans.

 

So the result of that, if it had spread out throughout China, China would have to if tens of millions or hundreds of millions of Chinese have been infected, China then would have had to take tremendous economic measures, locking down the entire country to prevent millions upon millions of Chinese deaths. In a sense, China would have had to do, under those circumstances, very much what America end up doing once it’s spread back here. And so we would have seen tremendous disruption to Chinese society, disruption to the economy, as happened all around the world.

 

And so the point about it is probably the best way of looking at this type of virus, of these characteristics, is that it would have the characteristics of a very effective anti-economy bioweapon.

 

In other words, something that isn’t an anti-personnel weapon. It’s not intended to kill 30% or 50% or 70% of the population, but because it would be fatal to enough people, it would cause tremendous disruption in a society if it became widespread in that society.

 

So anyway, I’m jumping at it myself on some of that. But what I then ended up, as the pieces started coming together, one thing I discovered about a year later, which really was quite surprising, was, as I said, Robert Kadlec was America’s leading biowarfare advocate. And it turns out from January to August, 2019, he ran something called the Crimson Contagion Exercise, which was a federal state planning session, a series of exercises on how America would prevent leakage of a dangerous respiratory virus if such a virus were to appear in China.

 

So we’re talking about from January to August, 2019, America, under it’s chief biowarfare advocate, ran this massive planning exercises exercise to prepare itself for the appearance of a potentially dangerous Covid like virus in China. And such a virus then appeared in the city of Wuhan, just a couple of months later, which seems an awfully remarkable coincidence, if it were a coincidence.

 

Another factor which, …

 

Keith Woods: Can I just ask. I’m just imagining, like, someone that’s skeptical, listen to what they’d be then pushing back. Why did the US seem so kind of unprepared for the whole thing? It took a few months to even react, right?

 

[0:54:01]

 

Ron Unz: Exactly. America’s reaction was unbelievably incompetent.

 

I mean, the whole thing about it is not only that, but we botched the production of the CDC testing kit.

 

In other words, we did almost everything wrong. You can imagine the scenario I’m talking about, this sort of biowarfare scenario. The key factor to keep in mind is there’s absolutely no evidence that Donald Trump himself was at all aware of or involved of what was going on.

 

In fact, there’s tremendous evidence that he was absolutely not aware of what had happened. When the Covid virus started leaking back to the United States, and infecting people here, Trump basically said, oh, it wasn’t a problem, it would go away itself, people should ignore it, it wasn’t dangerous, that sort of thing.

 

So there’s absolutely no chance that he under my scenario, that he would have been aware of what had happened.

 

My argument is that it probably was an action taken by lower level officials in the Trump administration, probably a small hand.

 

Keith Woods: Wouldn’t they have foreseen that America won’t be prepared for this, and this will potentially do as much damage to the US?

 

Ron Unz: You see, part of it is that America dominates the world of propaganda.

 

In other words, America really dominates the world of media and propaganda. And one problem is you sometimes tend to believe your own propaganda.

 

Remember when the SARS epidemic, the original Coronavirus epidemic, suddenly appeared in China in 2002 and, 20003. It never spread much outside of China. It had a very high fatality rate, I think it was 20% or 30%.

 

So it was a very dangerous virus, but very few people outside of China were ever infected or died. It never spread to the United States, I don’t think. I think maybe one person died in the entire country. When the MERS epidemic, another Coronavirus suddenly appeared in the Middle East. I think it was 2007, 2008, something like that. It never much spread outside the Middle East, and not a single American ever died of MERS. So we had these two previous waves of Coronavirus infection, both of them natural.

 

In other words, they found the animal reservoir, neither of which had done any damage to the United States, it turns out. The National Health Organization, in late 2019, did a study on which countries in the world were best prepared to cope with any epidemic that might appear. Any dangerous epidemic. America was ranked number one. Britain was ranked number two.

 

In other words, all the West European countries were considered to have the best healthcare systems at coping with any epidemic of any sort that might appear. China was down around 50 or 60.

 

So in other words, anybody naively looking at all these international comparisons would have thought, well, SARS never got to the United States, MERS never got to the United States. The previous Coronavirus epidemics from the Middle East and from China had never done any damage to the United States. All the international bodies agree that America is best prepared at coping for any respiratory or other epidemic that might happen.

 

And so they might have believed that by organizing these exercises, eight months worth of planning for potentially dangerous Chinese virus that might appear that plus these other steps would basically safeguard America from any significant blowback. So it’s possible a few Americans would be infected, a few Americans would die, but by contrast, China potentially would be devastated.

 

In other words, hundreds of millions of Chinese might have been infected if the Chinese hadn’t reacted as quickly as they did.

 

And so the problem was the reality ended up being very different.

 

In other words, partly because of Trump’s basically unwillingness to confront the virus once it started leaking back into the United States, America basically just reacted very, very poorly.

 

And in fact, we had no idea how to cope with it.

 

In other words, our testing kits didn’t work. We refused to use the German testing kit that they’d already produced. And so for that reason, we had no idea what we do. And we ended up implementing lockdowns, then off and on for about a year or two, and then a controversial vaccination drive after that.

 

So the problem is, the scenario I’m talking about is not a scenario where America’s national security establishment as an organized body spent months or years planning and biowarfare attack against China.

 

The scenario I’m talking about is a small group of individuals, probably one or two of them near the top of the Trump administration, deciding to take this step without Trump being aware of it, without getting his authorization and simply deploying the resources, the lower level resources of the American national security establishment in this action, but without Trump or the top officials knowing what had happened.

 

[0:59:15]

 

And so, because Trump didn’t realize the virus was dangerous, he basically prevented any effective reaction once the virus unexpectedly leaked here and started infecting people. And there are a lot of other factors involved as well.

 

One early thing that made me extremely suspicious about the virus being more than it seemed was the fact that the second country in the world hit the hardest with Covid early on was Iran.

 

In other words, Iran became the second epicenter of the Covid world-wide outbreak, even though it has one of the lowest Chinese populations in the world.

 

In other words, only a few thousand Chinese people live in Iran, while the other countries that were fairly early, like, for example, northern Italy, has 300,000 Chinese living and working there, many of whom had returned from the Lunar New Year holidays and been infected and carried the infection there. Spain was another very country early infected. 150,000 Chinese live and work in Spain. So we had countries that basically had hundreds of thousands of Chinese, as you would expect, getting early infections with Covid because they got it from travels back to China.

 

And then you had the holy city of Qom, the centre of Iran’s political and religious establishment, becoming the epicenter of Iran’s Covid outbreak sooner than anyone, any other country in the world. And the infections hitting China’s political and religious elite. For example, 10% of Iran’s entire Parliament became infected by Covid before a single political figure anywhere else in the world had become infected. And that all happened.

 

In other words, if you trace back the pattern of infections in Iran, the first Iranians probably became infected just two or three weeks after America had assassinated Iran’s top military commander, general Kostam Suleimani.

 

So in other words, we have a situation where America assassinates Iran’s top military commander, and just a few weeks later, the Iranian political elites are infected with this mysterious virus, even though Iran has much less of a connection to China than most of these other countries that have not yet been infected. Not only that, but at the time all this was happening, I really was very surprised that nobody in the world noticed what was happening in Iran.

 

I mean, the fact that the Iranian infections had happened right after Iran’s top military commander had been assassinated and I couldn’t imagine why the Iranians hadn’t noticed what I noticed just by reading the newspapers. And then I found out a year later, not only did the Iranians accuse America of having launched a biowarfare attack against Iran and China, it was in all the Iranian newspapers. The Iranian political leaders accused them. They even filed a formal complaint with the United Nations accusing America of having launched a Covid biowarfare attack against Iran. But none of it was ever reported in the American media.

 

[1:02:21]

 

So in other words, it never got into the New York Times, it never got into the Washington Post, it never got into the Wall Street Journal.

 

So Americans were simply not aware of the fact that the Iranians were accusing America of having launched a biowarfare attack.

 

So we have a situation where basically the two countries in the world at that point in time that America was most hostile towards were China and Iran. And those were the two countries hit with this mysterious viral epidemic that had characteristics later argued obviously came from laboratory. And that’s actually something I should say from the beginning. I’m not somebody who is a trained virologist. I’m not a microbiologist. So I’ve generally stayed away from the science aspects of the issue, even though my background is in physics. Physics is not microbiology.

 

So the point about it is I can’t say whether the virus itself is natural or artificial. But there’s been a tremendous amount of evidence that’s come. Out over the last year or two. That the virus. That the characteristics of the virus, the genetic characteristics of the virus, the [word unclear] and cleavage sites. Other aspects of the virus are exactly the sort of thing you would expect to be produced in a laboratory and are very different than would defined in any of the other Coronaviruses that would be found in nature.

 

So, in other words, the individuals who are advocating the lab leak hypothesis are really making two separate points. They’re pointing to a tremendous amount of evidence that the virus was produced in a laboratory, the virus was a product of bioengineering, the virus did not come from nature.

 

And then they’re making the case that, well, if it came from a laboratory, well, there’s the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the city of Wuhan. That’s obviously a place that must have come from the problem is that there’s very, very little evidence that the virus either was created in the Wuhan Institute of Virology or that there was any lab leak in that Institute.

 

For example, just to give an example, early on, there were all these claims made of, for example, people having gotten sick in the laboratory or the virus having spread earlier, but there’s really very little evidence for any of that.

 

And in fact, there have been some quite a lot of detailed examinations of the timing involved. And the timing really shows that virtually nobody in China was aware of any virus spreading until right towards the end of December, in other words, long after the virus had appeared in the city of Wuhan.

 

Furthermore, an Australian biologist named Danielle Anderson was actually working at the Wuhan Institute of Technology during the period in question. She was very friendly with the people. It’s a research Institute. It’s not a biowarfare lab or anything like that. And she specifically says she’s seen absolutely no sign that a virus of that type was being worked on in the laboratory, was being developed there. There were no indications of any lab leak having occurred, and she’s very skeptical of anything like that having happened.

 

Some Western journalists then interviewed a lot of the people at the laboratory, and there’s simply no indication that any of them were aware of anything going on, any sort of lab leak or anything like that.

 

Furthermore, when you look at the pattern of infections in the city of Wuhan, the pattern of infections is on the other side of the city from the Wuhan Institute of Technology.

 

So, in other words, if the virus had leaked out of the laboratory, you would expect at least some of the early infections to be in the vicinity of the laboratory. But instead, it’s about ten or 12 miles away on the other side of the river, centreed on the wet market that people were often talking about.

 

In other words, that’s clearly where the virus first appeared.

 

[1:06:22]

 

So we’re talking about a situation where there’s really quite a lot of scientific evidence and a lot of people who have great deal of expertise on the structure of viruses, on DNA issues say that the virus very clearly came from a laboratory, was bioengineered.

 

In fact, someone like, for example, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, who was the chairman of the Lancet’s Covid Commission, he really became very suspicious that the people he’d put on the commission who were investigating the origins of the virus were simply covering up the fact that the virus was artificial rather than natural.

 

In fact, many of the early statements that have come out, you have all these experienced biologists saying what they looked at. The structure, the structure of the virus clearly came from a laboratory.

 

In other words, it’s not the sort of thing you would expect to come from nature. So essentially, there are three possibilities. There’s the natural scenario, the lab leak, accidental lab leak scenario, and the third scenario, which I think is by far the most likely, which is the deliberate biowarfare scenario.

 

Most advocates of the lab leak scenario spend their time and effort arguing that the virus was bioengineered in a laboratory, that it has characteristics, genetic characteristics of that sort, and they have very little evidence to supporting anything like a lab leak having happened at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

 

Most of the supporters of the natural virus theory focus on the fact that there’s very little evidence of a lab leak. And when you look at, for example, the spread of early infections, it’s on the other side of the city. There’s simply no evidence for any lab leak having occurred. And they tend to soft pedal the characteristics of the virus itself, which arguably seem quite likely to have been produced in a laboratory.

 

So we’re talking about a situation where if you look at the third scenario, which I think has the advantages of the other two, but none of the disadvantages, we’re talking about a situation where America is in a major confrontation with China and Iran, the two countries America is most hostile towards.

 

America has the oldest and largest biowarfare programme in the world. We’ve probably spent about $100 billion over the last 60 or 70 years on biowarfare, and suddenly a mysterious virus breaks out in China and Iran, hitting those countries right after America spent eight months in the Crimson Contagion Exercise, preparing itself for the possible appearance of a dangerous respiratory virus in China.

 

And so all of that, I think, is really quite strong evidence. But there’s one piece of evidence that really constitutes something closer to a smoking gun.

 

As I said, Donald Trump almost certainly had nothing to do with this.

 

And by the way, I should say that under normal circumstances, the notion of America or any major country launching a biowarfare attack against a leading international adversary without the leader of that country, without the President of the United States being aware of it, is utterly ridiculous. But the Trump administration was not a normal administration.

 

In other words, there were all these other things going on that were entirely kept away from Donald Trump.

 

In fact, some of the stories came out afterwards. Some of Donald Trump’s top aides would hide his own Executive Orders from his desk.

 

Keith Woods: I remember there was something published in the New York Times where it was like the headline was something like, I’m a member of the Deep State, and I’m sabotaging Trump’s administration plan to be a senior member.

 

Ron Unz: They just ignored him totally. Again, what I’m talking about in this case is a small group of individuals deciding that America has to strike a major blow against China, it’s greatest long term adversary, severely damaging the Chinese economy, maybe even causing the overthrow of the regime, and also probably striking Iran at the same time. And obviously, they really felt, well, Trump is not the sort of person to bring it into the loop on something like this.

 

So the fact that Trump was totally unaware of this meant that when the virus started leaking into the United States in the way that nobody really expected at the time, our reactions, trump basically told people to ignore it, pay no attention to it, forget about it. It would go away by itself. And so we ended up having a huge epidemic. By April, tens of thousands of Americans were becoming infected, and many of them were dying. It was spreading around the country. It was a gigantic disaster.

 

So for very obvious reasons, our intelligence agencies decided to try to explain to the public that they were not the ones responsible for this horrible disaster that potentially could kill hundreds of thousands of Americans. And four separate intelligence sources went to ABC News and told them that the Defense Intelligence Agency, one of our leading intelligence agencies, had produced an intelligence report describing this potentially cataclysmic disease outbreak taking place in the city of Wuhan, had distributed to our top officials, had sent it to the White House and ignore it.

 

[1:11:46]

 

So in other words, the intelligence agencies were trying through the leak, through the leak to ABC News, to explaining that they had warned the government of what was going on. They had warned of this terrible epidemic taking place in the city of Wuhan and the danger of it spreading. And the government, the White House had just ignored the problem.

 

So it wasn’t the fault of the intelligence agencies. And basically, it’s exactly the sort of thing you would expect them to do they basically had a secret intelligence report.

 

Now, the truth is, probably many, many of these reports are constantly being produced, warning of all sorts of things going around the world.

 

And so it’s not too surprising that Trump paid no attention to it. But the key thing is, the date of the report was November. It was early November when the report was produced.

 

So, in other words, in early November, the Defense Intelligence Agency had produced a secret report describing a potentially cataclysmic disease outbreak taking place in the city of Wuhan before there was an outbreak in the city of Wuhan.

 

In other words, according to most of the current timelines, probably in early November, there might have been ten or 15 people who’d just gotten infected in the city of Wuhan and were starting to feel a little sick. In a city of 11 million, there’s no way the Defense Intelligence Agency or any outside source could have been aware of what was happening at that time.

 

So that, in effect, was a smoking gun of foreign knowledge of the events. Now, as you can imagine, the Pentagon immediately denied the existence of the report, even though four separate intelligence sources had confirmed the fact that the report existed when they leaked it to ABC News. And it had been reported by the top people at ABC, the Pentagon, when they realized they were talking about November, that the report had been produced in November, they claimed the report had never existed.

 

But then a week later, Israeli TV reported the fact that naturally the report existed. The report had been sent to Israel, the report had been sent to all of our NATO allies, the report certainly existed, and the report had been produced in the second week of November.

 

So we’re talking about a situation where the Defense Intelligence Agency had produced a secret report distributed to our NATO allies, to Israel, and to our top government officials about a potentially cataclysmic disease outbreak taking place in the city of Wuhan before any significant number of people have been infected. And that is exactly the sort of thing that I think demonstrates foreknowledge, again confirmed, …

 

[1:14:27]

 

Keith Woods: Just for the people watching what should people search just to find that specific report, because an interest in the report?

 

Ron Unz: No copy of the report was ever actually leaked.

 

In other words, we don’t have a copy of the report, but it was reported by four sources to ABC News and then separately confirmed by Israel that it was sent to Israel and our NATO allies. And they describe the report and that sort of thing. It’s in my articles, and in fact, there’s sort of a summary that provides links to the ABC News story and the Israeli TV news story that explain the nature of the report.

 

So we’re talking about a situation where if you have foreknowledge of something like that, it’s very, very difficult to explain that unless at least some people in the American government were aware of the disease outbreak before anybody in China.

 

In other words, there’s absolutely no evidence that anybody in China and the Chinese government was aware of the virus invisibly spreading in the city of Wuhan until right towards the end of December, six or seven weeks after the American Defense Intelligence Agency had produced a report talking about this potentially cataclysmic disease outbreak taking place in the city of Wuhan.

 

So when you’re talking about something like that, again, that is basically the hard information we have. We have these news stories. ABC News, the New York Times reported the Crimson Contagion Exercise that went on for eight months right prior to the appearance of the virus.

 

The scenario, I think that’s most plausible to explain that evidence is, again, a small group of officials, probably one or two of whom might have been near the top of the Trump administration, decided to deal a severe blow to our Chinese and Iranian adversaries using an anti-economy bioweapon of the sort releasing in Wuhan and then separately releasing in the whole city of Qom, infecting them and damaging them.

 

And then they probably then notified individuals in the Defense Intelligence Agency saying that they had some intelligence report about some disease epidemic in the city of Wuhan.

 

In other words, it’s not at all clear whether anybody who produced the report in the Defense Intelligence Agency would have been aware of what I believe was an American biowarfare attack against China. It’s simply that they would have then been leaked intelligence probably by some of the conspirators.

 

Keith Woods: Wouldn’t you expect China to be aware of this, China’s own intelligence agencies and so on? And would you have expected them to go public with this?

 

Ron Unz: That’s the whole thing.

 

In other words, the Chinese, early in 2020, in February and March 2020, started making some accusations towards the United States.

 

In other words, they basically claimed the virus had been brought to China, probably by American participants in the Wuhan war exercises.

 

Keith Woods: They haven’t been disclaimed?

 

Ron Unz: Again, they’ve never specifically accused America of a biowarfare attack.

 

In other words, they’ve claimed America probably brought the virus to China, without specifying the circumstances. And I think probably part of it is there’s no proof.

 

In other words, it’s not that the Chinese or anybody else has proof. America dominates the world media. And so if the Chinese made accusations, people would say, well, where’s your proof? And they wouldn’t really have any proof.

 

In other words, what I’ve explained right here is, I think, a lot of strong evidence in favour of this scenario, but it’s not hard proof.

 

In other words, there’s absolutely no hard proof. It’s not like we have a confession by any of the participants of the world military games or anything like that. And the other thing to remember is the Iranians did specifically accuse America of a biowarfare attack. Their media reported, the top leaders reported it. Nothing happened.

 

In other words, the world media, which is under the control of the West, totally ignored the Iranian accusations and it did them no good at all.

 

Keith Woods: Arguably the US, just after killing Soleimani. You’d imagine Iran would maybe accuse the US of being involved regardless, right?

 

Ron Unz: Well, that’s actually one reason they did it, is because the timing. In other words, the fact that the disease outbreak hit the Iranian political elites like three weeks after we’d assassinated their top military commander. I mean that sort of coincidence is just so amazingly strong. I mean, you know, the whole thing is the fact that the virus allegedly jumped 4,000 or 5,000 miles from the city of Wuhan in China, all the way to the holy city of Qom in Iran, which has almost no Chinese population, was just a very implausible thing.

 

And so the Iranians naturally put two and two together and accused America, but again, they didn’t have any proof.

 

Another thing I should mention is back, …

 

[1:19:28]

 

Keith Woods: You think there would have been a separate leak done by the US in Iran?

 

Ron Unz: Yeah.

 

In other words, there’s no way. It’s very unlikely it would have suddenly jumped thousands of miles to a city with almost no Chinese population. It’s possible, …

 

Keith Woods: I guess maybe one objection is you said like previous SARS viruses, like they didn’t leave China so the people conspiring this would have thought, well, this will do damage to China, but we won’t really have to worry about it. But if they were looking at the Covid virus specifically, what seems to make it unique is how contagious it is and how easily it spreads.

 

And even in January 2020, there were people saying like, restrictions lockdowns, that would all be pointless because the way this virus functions, there’s basically nothing we can do except let it spread. It’s too contagious to do anything about.

 

So the theoretical people planning this, would that not have factored in that, well, this is so contagious that it would be impossible to confine it to China and Iran and the whole West is going to have to deal with it.

 

Ron Unz: It obviously ended up being a total disaster. What you’re saying is exactly what happened. But remember the scenario.

 

Keith Woods: So you think they probably didn’t take exactly how the virus would, …

 

Ron Unz: Well, the whole thing about it is the scenario I’m talking about is typically when a government like the United States might consider an action like this, it probably would go through 20 levels of planning stages.

 

In other words, we’re talking about a huge number of different individuals being brought into setting up the procedures for something like that, going through all these different possibilities.

 

The scenario I’m talking about was basically a rogue operation run by probably a small group of conspirators in the Trump administration. Since it was a rogue operation that was kept away from Trump himself and kept away from most of other top officials, they couldn’t have basically had all these planning sessions. It was probably just a small group of people who really ran the thing more in a seat of the pants operation.

 

In other words, basically they assumed that some of these defensive measures like the Crimson Contagion Exercise, the fact that the SARS virus hadn’t spread, the fact that the DIA secret report would warn of the epidemic taking place in Wuhan. They probably believe that the combination of those factors and America’s outstanding public health system ranked internationally as the best in the world at coping with any epidemic.

 

Keith Woods: When you say elements of the Trump administrator, are you mentioning something like a John Bolton type figure that’s working with elements of the CIA?

 

Ron Unz: Probably the two most likely suspects.

 

And again, there’s no way of telling who would have been involved under my scenario, but the two most likely suspects, I think, would probably be Mike Pompeo, the Secretary of State who’d previously been head of the CIA, or John Bolton, the National Security adviser. They were both ferociously anti-China. They were the leaders.

 

Keith Woods: Pompeo was very bullish, very against China, I think. Wasn’t he head of the CIA when the Hong Kong protest. There’s a suggestion that he may have been heavily involved there.

 

Ron Unz: Exactly. And for example, and John Bolton, by some accounts, John Bolton, we basically ended up kidnapping the CFO of Huawei, the daughter of the founder, when she was changing planes in a Canadian airport, and we ended up holding her for about a year, a year and a half.

 

I mean, it really almost caused a complete rupture with China. Allegedly, John Bolton ordered that, the seizure of a top Chinese business leader without informing Donald Trump.

 

In fact, the story came out about six months ago. Donald Trump afterwards said, but you arrested somebody who’s like the equivalent of my daughter in China. Why did you do that? And Bolton basically had done it without Trump’s permission.

 

So when things like that happen, when America basically arrests one of China’s top executives and potentially imprisons her for 20 years in the United States and it’s done by John Bolton, without informing Donald Trump of what he’s doing.

 

I mean, that’s exactly the scenario I’m talking about, where you had Pompeo and Bolton, either of them being senior enough to have organized something like this with a small group of conspirators around them.

 

In other words, their aides, their assistants. But I think probably someone like that could have arranged something like this. And the whole thing about it is, from their point of view, Trump, they probably regarded as being they probably didn’t want to take the risk of raising this sort of possibility with someone like Trump and just basically deal a severe blow to China and Iran without Trump knowing about it.

 

And then, obviously, once it ended up being a gigantic disaster and a million Americans died as a consequence, with two years worth of lockdowns, with all the controversies over vaccines under that scenario, obviously the people involved would be very concerned about anybody being becoming aware of what happened.

 

[1:24:48]

 

Keith Woods: All right, just one other question, because I just imagined the other thing that the audience would maybe be skeptical of is how useful Covid would even be as means of economic warfare. I’m sure people will say, well, it only really killed people that were very elderly or had underlying conditions. And even if the Chinese didn’t deal with it with severe lockdowns or whatever, they could probably more or less get on with business as usual. That is kind of the, I think, sort of dominant consensus on Covid. Now, it’s maybe worse than the common cold, but not as serious as was originally taught when it entered the West?

 

Ron Unz: Right. Well, you’ve got to remember, right now we’re talking about the Omicron version of Covid which is much milder than the original Wuhan version. Also, at the time the virus first appeared, nobody would be sure about the fatality rate.

 

In other words, remember, the original SARS that appeared in China had, I think, something like a 15% fatality rate. And early on in the first few weeks, there were all these rumours going around that the virus was extremely deadly.

 

So, in other words, if you’re the Chinese government, and if you have a massive spread of this virus throughout your country and you don’t know anything about the fatality rate, you don’t know that it would generally be targeting only the elderly. You couldn’t take any risks.

 

So, in other words, if the virus had spread throughout the entire country, probably 10 or 15 million Chinese would have died.

 

In other words, the original version of the virus probably had a 0.5% to 1% fatality rate. China has 1.4 billion people.

 

So if you multiply it out, I mean, we’re talking about many, many millions or even tens of millions of deaths in the country, plus a complete collapse of the Chinese healthcare system because it wouldn’t only be the people who would be dying, but the people who would be very sick for a period of a few weeks.

 

And also, the thing about China is China is a country that is much more respectful of its elderly.

 

So, in other words, a disease that would kill a large fraction of their people in their 70s or 80s might be treated even as a greater risk than something in the West, where there isn’t as much respect for elderly, including, for example, the party leaders in China.

 

So the whole thing about it is I’m not saying, for example, that the virus involved necessarily would have wiped out China’s entire population, but it probably was sufficiently contagious and sufficiently deadly that a country like China would have had to take very strong lockdown measures to control it. And if hundreds of millions of Chinese had been infected, it would have had a devastating impact on Chinese society.

 

The interesting thing about it is there was actually a 40 year veteran of American biowarfare who ended up writing a number of pieces on the Internet. And I ended up checking into his background, and it looks like he probably is exactly what he claimed to be. And he really was arguing it was basically in January when I came across some of his statements. He argued that the ideal sort of anti-economy bioweapon is something with a low fatality rate, but a very high rate of contagion.

 

In other words, something that was very infectious but had low fatality rates would tremendously disrupt a society.

 

In other words, if you had something, for example, that would simply kill 10% of the population, it probably would do less damage to a society than something that would infect 80%, 70 or 80% of the population. Even if only made the people sick and only killed a small fraction of them, it would tremendously disrupt a society.

 

So the point about is if the original Covid virus had spread around China, killed many, many millions or even tens of millions of Chinese and devastated the country, you could easily imagine the result would be a collapse of order in China.

 

In other words, people would blame the government for having failed in its mission to protect them. I mean, just like for example, look at all the incredible anger there’s been in the West over the fact that the governments have fallen down on the job with regard to the lockdowns, with regard to all these other policies.

 

So the point about it is, again, it wasn’t designed to be 100% effective at destroying China, but it was probably felt by the people involved that it would have a good chance of dealing a severe body blow to China, damaging the Chinese economy, damaging Chinese society and destroying much of the political legitimacy of the ruling Communist Party, which it probably would have if they hadn’t reacted as effectively as they did.

 

Because remember, even in the last six months, or a year, there’s been a lot of growing resentment in China towards the endless lockdowns to control the virus. And that’s despite the fact that the West and the rest of the world had suffered much more severely over the last couple of years than China did.

 

So in other words, there was some loss of legitimacy in the Chinese government even under the circumstances where 20 million people have died around the world with almost nobody dying in China until very recently.

 

So the whole point about bioweapons, as Robert Kadlec had written back in the 1990s, they’re a plausibly deniable means of severely damaging an international adversary.

 

In other words, there’s no proof America had attacked China or Iran or any of these other countries with bioweapons.

 

And so there’s nothing really the Chinese or the Iranians could say internationally that the global media which America controls would take seriously.

 

Well, one other point I should make is about six or eight months ago, the Russian general in charge of biological warfare held a press conference focused on the biolabs, whatever the 20 or 30 biolabs that Russia claims to have found in Ukraine. Biological warfare labs that he claimed were preparing biological attacks on Russia. And he actually specifically accused America of having released Covid as a biowarfare attack against the rest of the world, especially China and Iran.

 

And again, it got almost no attention in the American media. So probably very few Americans are aware of the fact that the Russian government has now officially accused America of having released Covid as a biowarfare.

 

So we’re talking about the Iranian government, the Russian government, and to some extent the Chinese government have all pointed the finger of blame at the United States. But since none of it is ever reported in a serious way in the American media or the Western media, probably very few Westerners are even aware of it.

 

[1:31:53]

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, it’s a very interesting theory. I mean, like you said, there’ll probably never be a smoking gun. We’ll probably never know for sure. But I think out of the three plausible theories that you laid out, I think that probably is the most plausible in terms of fitting with the facts and explaining things.

 

Ron Unz: It’s partly, I’d say it’s the process of elimination.

 

In other words, there seems to be a great deal of evidence that the Covid virus was bioengineered in a laboratory.

 

So the natural theory goes out the window.

 

And also they’ve never found an animal reservoir.

 

If it came from a laboratory. The two possibilities are the Wuhan lab that leaked out or the sort of biowarfare scenario I’m talking about. And the problem is there’s just no evidence of a Wuhan lab leak. And there seems to be a lot of other evidence that elements of the American national security establishment were aware of the viral epidemic before it happened.

 

So I think the combination of those two things is strong enough that it’s the sort of thing if the American media or even the alternative media began reporting the story, in other words, if it got almost any coverage at all, it could be facts would be shaken loose. But virtually all the coverage, probably 99% of all the discussion has either been natural virus or lab leak. And nobody is focused on any of this other evidence, even though it comes from mainstream media sources.

 

Keith Woods: Now, another thing you’ve been writing about recently, which I shared to my Telegram because obviously this has been hot topic of discussion the last few months is the topic of excess deaths. And I don’t know if I can even see that says the V [vaccine] word on YouTube. The terms are so ridiculous but related to medical treatments broadly for Covid.

 

But you’re one of the few people I’ve seen in the kind of brother Alt media sphere that kind of actually took a hard look at this and broke it down by demographics, by vaccination status, by country, by obesity and health status. And yeah, they’re very interested in the articles. People complain to me a lot that I don’t talk enough about the topic of side effects and excess deaths.

 

But honestly, it’s like the only pushback I’ve really seen from the stuff you’ve presented is kind of a lot of anecdotal evidence. There’s a lot of articles of people dying from heart attacks, young people. The problem with that is it seems like if you had Covid, you’re seven times more likely to get myocarditis from the vaccine. Obviously, those numbers could be wrong, but still, in a time when a lot of people have had Covid, which does affect the heart, you would expect there’d be more myocarditis.

 

I mean, that’s the only thing I noticed from having Covid myself that was different from any regular flu, is I was getting like, very sharp heart pains, which was a pretty weird experience. But yeah, we know it affects the heart.

 

But anyway, the basis of your article is you broke it down and showed that although there are a lot of excess deaths in the US, the UK, some other countries, if you break it down by the working age population, a lot of countries actually have a mortality deficit. They have less than what would be the expected number of deaths.

 

And there’s a few interesting things to come out of your article. I’ll pull it up in a second while you’re talking. I should have had already. But yeah, there’s a few interesting things to come out of me.

 

One thing is that there’s no real correlation that can be established between the vaccine rollout and the excess deaths. Like, a lot of countries that’s pointed to they had excess deaths prior to the vaccine rollout, and then they have mortality deficit after.

 

Countries that have low vaccine rollout, like Bulgaria, I think it only has like, 34% uptake of vaccines. They have much higher excess deaths than some countries that have very higher vaccine rollout. There’s countries with almost 100% that have mortality deficits.

 

So the long and the short of it is there isn’t any direct correlation you can establish based on the numbers between vaccine status and deaths, even if there’s a lot of stories of a lot of people dying right now that’s being shared around.

 

And the other thing was the obesity element that you analyzed. So trying to find an explanation, you broke it down by obesity and well, maybe I’ll let you explain that aspect of it.

 

[1:36:30]

 

Ron Unz: Sure. What I focused on is the single most important factor that gives you a high risk of dying from Covid is your age.

 

In other words, elderly people have a vastly greater chance of dying of Covid than younger people. I think it’s probably if you’re over 60, you have 100 times higher chance of dying than if you’re under 40.

 

So the point is, when you’re looking at individual countries and seeing, for example, what the pattern is with vaccinations or with Covid deaths, excess deaths, it’s probably better to focus on the working age population. People who are I think the figure is generally from about 16 to about 60, 16 to about 64 in that age range. So that you’re sort of getting out of the fact that some countries have much higher elderly populations than other countries.

 

And then when I simply looked at those countries, I saw America had probably the highest rate of excess deaths of any country in the working age population. And strangely enough, the other countries with very high excess deaths were not the ones you’d sort of imagine.

 

In other words, basically, Canada, which had very different has a very different political system than the United States had very high excess deaths as well. Britain had high excess deaths. A few other countries did as well. While in the other countries, like Sweden or Denmark or the Netherlands had relatively low excess deaths. And the pattern seemed to be, more than anything else, it was due to obesity.

 

In other words, if you look at the charts of national obesity, those countries that have the highest rate of national obesity seem to have the highest rate of working age excess deaths. Which isn’t that surprising, because we know that Covid is much more dangerous to people who have weight problems, people who are obese than people who are thin or average weight.

 

So, in other words, it seemed to me that rather than looking at any patterns of vaccinations, or even the particular type of vaccination, the obesity factor was by far the most important element in determining the death rate, the excess death rate for working age populations. And when we’re talking about working age populations, excess deaths, we don’t have to worry about the fact of whether we’re talking about what they died, whether they died with Covid or whether they died from Covid. We’re simply talking about the total number of deaths in that country relative to deaths under normal circumstances for the few years before.

 

And so it seems to me that a lot of these concerns about vaccinations, I think, to be honest, are sort of misguided, or possibly due to the fact that in the United States we’ve had such a high rate of excess deaths. And the government the fact that the government and media in the United States has sacrificed the trust of so many Americans.

 

In other words, it’s been so dishonest about so many things for so many years that there’s naturally a sizable fraction of the American population that immediately becomes suspicious about anything the government or the authority or the media say on anything.

 

And so it seems to me that probably the obesity factor, just by looking at about 15 or 20 or 30 different countries, was the biggest factor in how much negative impact Covid had, how many people Covid killed outside of the elderly range.

 

Keith Woods: Now, one thing is, how is the expected deaths being calculated? Because for the countries that have a mortality deficit, this is something I’ve heard before for some of these projections is the expected deaths is based on the number of annual deaths from the past five years. Obviously, the past two, three years includes Covid itself. So maybe that expected number of deaths is higher than it should be, and then you get mortality deficit, but maybe you still have some excess deaths in there. Is that accounted for or how is, …

 

[1:40:36]

 

Ron Unz: There are lots of different ways of doing it.

 

So, in other words, every individual person can use the benchmark for excess deaths that they want. The one I was using was the simplest one possible.

 

In other words, in all of these countries, I just took the average deaths for the five previous years prior to the Covid epidemic, average prior to the Covid and comparing it now, that’s certainly not perfect.

 

In other words, for example, in some of these countries, there had been a steadily rising death rate over those five years.

 

And so it might be better to use, for example, a linear interpolation method or something like that. But the simplest possible method you can use is simply to average the deaths over the previous five years and compare it to the deaths for the last three years of the Covid epidemic. And that’s basically what I use in most of those countries.

 

Keith Woods: So, for example, I’m just sharing an image from the article you wrote.

 

So this is the US for 2022, ages 15 to 64, and orange is to say that there’s excess mortality.

 

So you can see it actually declines a little bit as the year goes on in 2022, which yeah, I don’t know what you make of that specifically, but I’ll pull up another one you included, which is the rate for France, where there’s actually a mortality deficit, like we said.

 

Ron Unz: Exactly.

 

Keith Woods: Yes, you can see that the blue is a mortality deficit.

 

So there’s actually less deaths than you would expect based on the five years prior to Covid.

 

Ron Unz: Right. And I mean, to some extent, we’re talking about, remember working age people where the death rate is normally very low with the lockdowns most of these countries had, the result was that, for example, regular illnesses like the ordinary flu was stamped out because of the lockdowns.

 

And also you had, for example, a decline generally in traffic accidents because fewer people were driving, factors like that. So it depends country by country. And I’m certainly not saying the differences are necessarily as enormous as those two tables there.

 

But when you’re looking at 30 or 40 different countries, each of them over three or four years, and the pattern seems very clear, that the ones with excess mortality in the working age population are the ones that have the highest obesity rates in the world charts that points towards obesity as being a very large factor. And it’s sort of interesting.

 

One thing I hadn’t realized is that for some reason, the countries in the Anglo sphere the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain tend to have much higher obesity rates than most of the other Western countries. I don’t know exactly why. Maybe it’s Western advertising, American advertising or something like that. But for example, you have much lower levels of obesity in the continent or in the Scandinavian countries than you do, for example, in Australia or Canada or Britain, and that seems to be the closest, the most important factor with excess deaths with Covid.

 

Keith Woods: Another thing I could think of in terms of trying to sort of steelman the other position of people we listen to this is could you say, okay, so we see some countries have a mortality deficit, but if we had two, three years of Covid couldn’t you say, like, Covid wiped out the low hanging fruit? In a sense, like it killed a lot of people.

 

And so then there are people that maybe would have died in 2022 or 23, but now they’re already dead. So then, basically, if you have a couple of years where there’s a lot of excess deaths and people with underlying conditions and overweight people are dying, then you’d expect that a couple of years after that, you’ll have a lot less excess deaths because, like I said, the kind of low hanging fruit is gone. So is that something you’re factored in? Because then maybe you could still have excess deaths against what you’d actually expect if you factor that in.

 

But if you compare it to the five years prior to Covid, it looked like a mortality deficit.

 

Ron Unz: Right. But what’s interesting is many of those countries had deficit mortality from the beginning of the Covid epidemic.

 

In other words, the deficit mortality began in 2020 and it continued in 2021 and, 20022.

 

So, in other words, there was no increase in deaths during the period of those years, despite the fact that, for example, many of them had very heavy vaccination drives.

 

Another example, which I focused on later in a later article, was that probably the country in the world that had the highest elderly population, the highest percentage of elderly population was actually Japan.

 

In other words, Japan had a much larger elderly population relative to its overall size than any other country in the world. I think 50% larger percentage or twice as large as any as the next most country in the world. So you’d expect a very high rate of Covid deaths in Japan for that reason. Also, Japan then had one of the world’s most extreme vaccination drives.

 

In other words, there was probably more vaccine in Japan than almost any other country around the world. And the result was Japan basically had relatively low mortality rates compared to most other countries.

 

So, in other words, when a country with a high elderly population that follows a very heavy vaccine schedule with boosting and vaccine still has relatively low deaths, to me, that’s evidence that the vaccinations aren’t nearly as dangerous as some people say.

 

[1:46:16]

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, I encourage everyone watching again to go and check out the archives. If you just search Ron on American Pravda, you’ll find the archive there. And I think that the Covid ones are all included in that because I’m sure a lot of the audience will be very triggered by that take, but I’d invite them to try and go through your article and disprove it because I tried to sort of steelman that position. But they’re the two objections that I could think of but you’ve dealt with them. And I really think what you presented in terms of cross analyzing the data is pretty solid.

 

But I guess that gets us to another question, actually, which again relates to another one of your articles, which I really liked, which is I think it’s called Alex Jones Cass Sunstein and Cognitive Infiltration. It’s something like that. I shared on my Telegram a while back. But it relates to the phenomenon of conspiracy theories, and obviously neither of us are blanket against conspiracy theories.

 

I mean, if people look at the American Bravo series, right, you have alternative texts on 9/11 and JFK, and your Covid theory and a host of other things. But you did analyze this phenomenon, which is interesting, the idea of cognitive infiltration. That there was this advisor to Barack Obama, Cass Sunstein, that wrote a paper where he talked about flooding the discourse of conspiracy theories to kind of introduce bad or ridiculous theories to kind of discredit anti-government narratives. It was actually Michael Collins Piper that talked about this a lot. You cited one of his books.

 

You thought an example of this was like the Sandy Hook thing, the narrative of crisis actors, which is a narrative that’s kind of persisted. I’ve seen that for other events like that since.

 

But maybe an obvious example people could think of is like some of the ridiculous theories that went around about 9/11. Like, that there was no planes, that there were holograms or missiles or something. But yeah, just a lot of very bad, very weird conspiracies related to 9/11.

 

I’m just curious because you’re obviously pushing this theory about the origins of Covid but at the same time, there’s been a lot of, I think, very bad, very weird conspiracies that have popped up on the Right since the origin of Covid And it seems like it kind of shifted the Right into a much more sort of conspiratorial frame. Like suddenly this old sort of Birch Society narrative about the UN controlling the world or Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates implementing global communism. This was like the very popular new frame among the Right. I’m kind of surprised in how mainstream it’s gone in terms of establishment. Conservatives talk about that kind of thing now, but you’re obviously pushing a theory about the origins of Covid.

 

But then you have theories out there. Covid doesn’t exist. There was these weird, like 5G theories I remember back in 2020, actually, I remember those few months. It was a weird time in terms of all the I almost forget about some of them, but like the 5G theory that there was nanobots going to be activated by 5G towers, all this kind of stuff.

 

So, yeah, I’m just curious. Do you think that was a case of what you described with the cognitive infiltration and flooding the zone with bad narratives. Do you think we’re seeing a lot of that on the Right?

 

[1:49:48]

 

Ron Unz: I think that’s very possible.

 

In other words, if you’re trying to basically hide something that is as serious as the scenario I’m talking about, one way of doing it is obviously just as you’re saying, to sort of flood the zone with a proliferation of every possible conspiracy theory so as to distract people, have them wandering off in different directions.

 

I mean, the strange thing about it is, in nearly all ways, my Covid scenario is actually a very mainstream establishment sort of scenario.

 

In other words, almost everything I’m saying about Covid is pretty much what you’d find in the New York times or most of these other publications, with the one exception being that it was an American biowarfare attack.

 

Now, the fact that America spent probably $100 billion on its biowarfare infrastructure over the last 60 or 70 years, the fact that we have the world’s largest biowarfare program, the fact that it’s the oldest biowarfare program, the fact that, again, it’s been giving out money through the Eco Health Alliance and all these other groups monitoring bio facilities around the world. I mean, all that is stuff you can just read in the New York times.

 

And the one element that is never discussed in the mainstream media is the possibility that elements of the American government might have used that biowarfare infrastructure.

 

And the truth is, when a mysterious, dangerous virus suddenly appears in the two countries that America is most hostile towards.

 

I mean, it’s not all that irrational to start wondering whether it might have been an American biowarfare attack. And when you start looking at the facts, I mean, one reason I’ve often said people are so reluctant even to raise this possible issue is because once they do, the pattern is so clear, the evidence is so strong.

 

I mean, the fact that basically the top Iranian leadership was infected with Covid in the holy city of Qom just a few weeks after we’d assassinated their top military commander.

 

I mean, that’s an awfully remarkable coincidence! And when all of these factors are brought into play, I think probably people would fairly quickly decide it’s at least as plausible as the other scenarios that they’ve been discussing.

 

So the problem is, once you sort of open the door, I think you’ll have a lot of people starting to ask themselves whether a million Americans died and we had years worth of lockdowns because of the blowback from a botched American biowarfare attack. And when you’re talking about, for example, Americans.

 

I mean, the suffering Americans underwent, I mean, probably the Covid epidemic, including everything about it, all the lockdowns, the deaths, the controversy over the vaccines, everything like that this is the worst disaster to hit the United States since the Great Depression. I mean, huge numbers of deaths huge amount of inconvenience. Our entire economy was disrupted.

 

And the fact that there’s a very real possibility it was because of a botched American biowarfare attack is probably almost too horrifying for most Americans to even contemplate. But we really have to ask ourselves, why did we get ourselves into the situation?

 

In other words, America’s biowarfare facilities had already gotten back in the 19, I think it was around 1968 or 1969, there was a famous case of a nerve gas facility in Utah that leaked and it killed 5000 sheep. If the wind had blown in a different direction, the nerve gas would have probably devastated Salt Lake City, Utah, and probably killed tens of thousands of Americans. For that reason, Richard Nixon, president Richard Nixon a year or two later, ended up announcing that we were terminating, we were abandoning our biowarfare facilities, and we signed on to international conventions to ban biowarfare. So in theory, biowarfare has been banned all these years, but it’s been brought in through the back door under the grounds of biodefense.

 

In other words, there’s really no difference between biodefense and biowarfare.

 

In other words, the argument is you produce all these dangerous viruses so that you can better defend against them. And the problem is whether it’s a lab leak or whether it’s something else. I mean, we’ve now had probably 20 million people around the world die from the impact of Covid. And if Covid had been more dangerous, if it had mutated in a more dangerous rather than a less dangerous direction, we could have had many, many tens of millions of deaths around the world.

 

So I just think it’s just unconscionable that neither the media, neither the mainstream media, nor even almost any of the alternative media until very recently has been willing to look at the facts regarding the Covid outbreak and the evidence that I’ve been writing about now for three years.

 

One thing I should say is, in the last few months I’ve been very impressed with the work that’s been done by the Daily Skeptic, which is a British alternative newspaper, alternative media outlet focused on Covid. They’ve really had a series, the editor has had a series of very good articles going through a lot of these issues, connecting up the dots, and I’d certainly recommend them very much.

 

But, I mean, the point is, aside from The Daily Skeptic and aside from the work that I’ve done, a very small number of people here or there, almost all of the alternative media has been very unwilling to look at the reality of what probably happened.

 

And now that, for example, the Covid epidemic is winding down now, I think to some extent, probably the controversy over the health measures taken to control it are subsiding. I think it’s much more important that people go back and ask how this disaster happened, especially with some of the hearings that the Republicans are now having in the House about the efforts that were made on the part of Fauci and others to basically start developing some of these dangerous viruses and do some of the bioengineering that could have led to the creation of Covid.

 

[1:56:04]

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, just on the topic more broadly of China and the US. We can get to the Superchats after this topic, but I guess this relates to the whole cognitive infiltration thing. You do observe this dynamic with the old media is very anti-China and the CCP, and they’ll often have a narrative like the mainstream media or the US Government is actually like pro-China, like we’re the anti-China ones. And you just get some utterly bizarre narratives, like the balloon thing recently that Biden is passing secrets to the Chinese, and he’s also letting them fly a massive spy balloon over the US. And all this kind of thing.

 

But, yeah, it does work. I mean, you get these conservative Right-wing types that are very skeptical of the mainstream media, very skeptical of the government.

 

But then their take on the sort of neocon push for war with China, it’s like the government isn’t saber rattling enough with China. They’re too soft on the CCP.

 

I’m just curious where you see that going, because you see Tucker Carlson now, he’s been a figure that’s been, you know, very good in terms of pushing a lot of populist talking points and pushing back on. He’s one of the few people to push back on the US involvement in war in Ukraine, and he platforms a lot of anti-war voices, but he’s getting very aggressive in his rhetoric on China. And this whole narrative has shifted to, like, we need to withdraw from Ukraine so that we can fight China over Taiwan, this kind of thing. He has these people like Eldridge Colby on that are very hawkish on China.

 

I’m just curious how you see that playing out.

 

I mean, that’s a very big question to ask you, but in terms of, would the US be willing to go to war over Taiwan? And maybe more importantly, do you think the US is capable of reforming itself to be able to fight China, or is there just too much ideological hubris there? You’ve mentioned that to an extent already.

 

Ron Unz: Well, I mean, the whole thing about it is for the last 30 years, America has reigned as the sole superpower on the world after the collapse of the Soviet Union. And for 60 years or 70 years, we’ve done our best to try to make sure that we prevented China and Russia from moving together.

 

In other words, basically, that was Richard Nixon’s great success, and it was followed by the people who came afterwards.

 

In other words, the fact that we were able to become, in effect, a quasi ally of China was one of the reasons we won the Cold War against the Soviet Union.

 

The one thing no geopolitical strategist in all of modern American history has ever considered is that any group of American leaders would be stupid enough to push China and Russia together again. And that’s exactly what we’ve done over the last couple of years.

 

In other words, we basically are almost at the verge of war with Russia right now over Ukraine. I mean, basically we are. I mean, NATO is more or less at war with Russia on Russia’s own border, which is an extremely dangerous situation. At the same time, we’re saber rattling towards China.

 

So the inevitable result, basically, we’ve pulled back on our agreement. Since Richard Nixon opened the door to China, we’ve always agreed that Taiwan is part of China, the One China policy. That was the pillar of our diplomatic relationship with China, and we’re not pulling back from that.

 

So what we’ve done is do everything we can to alienate both China and Russia at the same time and drive them together, which is exactly what happened a few days ago, the meeting in Moscow between the leaders of the two countries. We’ve also pushed Iran into that same camp, and most recently, we’ve even pushed Saudi Arabia into that camp. Even Saudi Arabia.

 

Keith Woods: That was very interesting, a deal brokered by China with Iran.

 

[2:00:20]

 

Ron Unz: It’s an incredibly important development! I mean, basically it means we’ve lost our strength in the Middle East.

 

I mean, Iran and Saudi Arabia re-established diplomatic relations after decades of hostility through the good auspices of China and the Chinese diplomats in Beijing. I mean, Saudi Arabia has been our most important Arab ally since Franklin Roosevelt met with them, I think, in 1944 and 1945.

 

So, I mean, we’re talking about 70 years of an alliance that we’ve now thrown away. And Saudi Arabia and Russia are two of the leading oil exporters in the world.

 

I mean, the two of them together, largely together with Iran, largely control the oil market around the world.

 

Basically, we’ve destroyed ourselves diplomatically. I certainly would agree with all of these Republican critics of the disastrous job the Biden administration has done on these issues. But they say we should have attacked China more ferociously than we did, which is ridiculous.

 

I mean, the point is, China has the world’s largest industrial capability. Russia has the world’s largest storehouse of natural resources. If you combine them together, they’re stronger than the US. And NATO. And what we’ve done is push them together.

 

And the fact that we destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines, I mean, everybody knows we did it, and most people were sure we did it even before Seymour Hersh, one of America’s most renowned investigative journalists, came out with all the details of it. The point is, we committed an act of war against Germany, our most important continental ally in Europe. We devastated the European economies because of these energy issues.

 

I mean, there’s a perfectly reasonable chance. I mean, it was a very mild winter. Not for the fact there was a mild winter, it would have been a terrible economic situation with the prices of energy and we still might have problems, for example, this summer because of air conditioning requiring a lot of energy. And the next winter. We have inflicted tremendous damage, economic damage upon Germany and our other NATO allies. We destroyed their infrastructure, illegally.

 

And so I think that is the sort of factor that went into the Saudi calculation.

 

In other words, the Saudis thought to themselves if we would destroy the Nord Stream pipelines of Germany, perhaps we’re not the sort of ally they should be involved with and when you take Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, China and a few of the other countries who have alienated around the world we’re in a very weak situation compared to what we would have been a few years ago. And what we’ve done is just so utterly irrational driving all these countries together that if we were deliberately trying to sabotage America’s strategic position we couldn’t have probably done a better job of it.

 

And it’s unclear what will end up happening with the Ukraine, but I mean, for example, I’ve been following very closely general Colonel Douglas Macgregor, again, very highly regarded military analyst. And he’s convinced that the Ukrainians are suffering very severe losses, and that the Russians will end up winning the war probably in the next few months and gaining control of most of Ukraine or at least as much of it as they want.

 

Now, again, I’m not a military expert. There are people on the other side who claim that the Russians are the ones suffering losses.

 

But, I mean, the fact that we’re basically right now depleting our storehouses of ammunition and weapons, much of which is being lost in the Ukraine war. I mean, basically there have been all these stories in the mainstream media of the fact that the Ukrainians right now are using up in a month the sort of munitions that America typically produces in a year.

 

And so if at some point we got into war with either China or Russia or some other major power around the world we’ll be in a much weaker state than we otherwise would have been and it was so unnecessary.

 

In other words, I’m very impressed with someone like for example, with John Mearsheimer who you’ve probably seen his lecture about how we basically spent all these years provoking the war, provoking the Ukraine war with the Russians, doing everything we could to try to avert any early peace after the war broke out.

 

And we’re now in a position where we basically are committing an awful lot of our military resources and $120,000,000,000 of our financial support to a regime that I think has a very good chance of losing in the next few months. And then where will it be? The Russians ended up calling up their reserves. They’re basically mobilizing and they might end up coming out of this with a much stronger military force than they’ve had in decades. And we brought it on ourselves, and now we’re looking for another fight with China at the same time, which is just insane.

 

[2:05:27]

 

Keith Woods: And you do think the US would be willing to go as far as war with China over Taiwan?

 

Ron Unz: Well, I hope not.

 

I mean, the whole thing about is China does not want war with Taiwan. China has basically said from the beginning that they’re willing to wait decades to reunify with Taiwan.

 

And in fact, for example, Taiwan right now, there are two political parties in Taiwan. One of them is more anti-China, and the other one, which actually was the original Kuomintang that came from China, that had been traditionally the government of China. They’re much more friendly towards China, and I think they probably have a fairly good chance of winning the next election.

 

So China certainly doesn’t want to start a war with Taiwan. But if we persuaded the Taiwanese to move towards independence, it’s certainly possible that China might end up demanding a blockade over Taiwan.

 

In other words, China could use their long range of missiles to declare a naval blockade of Taiwan, and then that either America would try to break the blockade, which would mean war with China, or America would have to give in on something like that.

 

So it makes absolutely no sense that we’re in one conflict with Russia right now, and at the same time, we’re looking for a new conflict with China.

 

Basically, under the right circumstances, we could have perfectly amicable relations with both Russia and China.

 

In other words, it’s a give and take situation. They have to recognize our interests in certain areas, and we have to recognize theirs in other areas. Ukraine was a red line towards Russia, and by crossing that red line, by forcing the Ukrainians over it, we started a war. Taiwan is a red line for China, and I certainly hope we don’t start another war with China over Taiwan.

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, I mean, sometimes people have these very structuralist interpretations of geopolitics where everything is for some very sensible, objective international relations reasons.

 

But I really think you can’t make sense of the strategy as it relates to Russia, except just being downstream of the ideology of the people in the State Department and genuine hatred of Russia and what it represents and genuine commitment to global dominance, basically. Because, like you said, the way it’s played out really isn’t going to benefit them in the long run. But look, we’ve gone over 2 hours. I’ll get to the Superchats now.

 

Ron Unz: Sure.

 

Keith Woods: So let’s see. Imperious sent a Superchat. He said if America wanted to devastate China economically, it would simply remove it’s most favoured trade status and hasten the already ongoing exfiltration of manufacturing into the next 14 Latin and Asian countries with better labour costs.

 

Ron Unz: I’m skeptical. Really? It would be that important. The thing to realize is that most favoured nation status was certainly very important for China. 15 or 20 years ago when they were building up. But from what I’ve read, a large fraction of the Chinese economy is now entirely domestic.

 

In other words, they’re not nearly as dependent on exports to the United States as people think they are. And I would argue probably in many ways, America is more dependent on exports from China, low cost exports from China than the other way around.

 

In other words, if you go into Walmart or if you go into a lot of the stores, a huge fraction of our goods come from China. And if we ended up cutting off those goods, I think a large fraction of the American population would suffer even more than they are economically. And that’s certainly.

 

I mean, the economic scenario that he’s talking about was exactly what Donald Trump was focused on.

 

In other words, he was talking about decoupling America from China. But China already has a larger economy than the United States.

 

In fact, an interesting article by a top French policy analyst that I just was looking at a couple of days ago. If you look at, for example, on a real basis, purchase power parity basis, the productive sectors of the economy rather than service economy, which is much more nebulous, China’s economy is already three times larger in real productive terms than the American economy, already three times larger, and it’s larger overall in real terms in purchasing power parity.

 

So the point about it is we’ve passed the point where any of these actions America could take could really severely damage the Chinese economy. While, on the other hand, releasing a virus there could have caused devastating losses and could have really damaged the economy in a very much more effective way.

 

I mean, the truth is, trade issues don’t have the sort of impact of something that could have basically caused the collapse of the Chinese economy or the sort of lockdowns that could have inflicted on the Chinese economy would ultimately happen in the American economy.

 

And also, I’m not necessarily saying it was a sensible action to take, but I’m saying inflicting severe economic damage through a highly contagious, low lethality virus is exactly the sort of thing an experienced biowarfare expert would certainly consider. And the fact that America spent all those decades building up it’s biowar infrastructure means that some point somebody without even asking permission of Donald Trump might decide to use it.

 

Keith Woods: All right. Covid was a fear virus said: Those other Western countries didn’t push fear as a way to control their populations. They more or less used the well earned public trust to calm everyone. Couldn’t access debts just be explained by countries that push fear versus those that pushed calm. I have no idea what point you’re making there.

 

Ron Unz: I’m skeptical. I mean, we’re talking about basically a million Americans died over a couple of years more than previously died if things had gone on the same way. And the pattern of excess deaths seems very closely linked to the obesity of the country.

 

So I think those sorts of objective factors are probably much more likely than questions of fear or lockdowns or anything like that.

 

Keith Woods: Anonymous said Ron Unz versus Ron DeSantis. Who wins in one on one pickup basketball game winners crown king of Florida. May the best Ron win. All right, thank you, Anonymous. Some real high quality Superchats tonight.

 

Another anonymous said, does Ron Unz eat onions? You don’t have to answer that, Ron. Anonymous, why did left liberals in the USA and the EU fall in line to support lockdowns and other such measures which hurt their domestic economy if the attack was directed at China and Iran?

 

Ron Unz: Well, I think as far as I know, the whole thing is American lockdowns actually began right my own part of the country.

 

In other words, the first lockdown in the United States occurred in the San Francisco bay area and was organized by the public health officer of Santa Clara county.

 

In fact, she lives here in Palo Alto. America was suddenly faced with this spreading virus, and we didn’t have any kits, so we couldn’t even tell who was infected, but we knew it was invisibly spreading around the country. Nobody really knew what to do.

 

[2:13:08]

 

In other words, Donald Trump and most of the people in his administration just said, oh, don’t pay any attention to it. It’s not a danger. It’ll go away by itself.

 

And yet suddenly there were more and more cases of people being infected in the Bay area and other parts of the country. I think what probably happened is these public health officers saw that China successfully stamped out the virus through the use of lockdowns in the city of Wuhan in the province of Hubei, and decided, well, if China had used lockdowns to stamp out the virus, the best thing we could try is something similar to that.

 

So, for example, the first lockdowns in the United States began here in the five counties of the San Francisco bay area. A day or two later, it spread to Los Angeles. A day or two after that, it spread to the rest of California and then New York City, New York state and other parts around the country until probably about half or two thirds of the country was locking down. The original lockdowns were intended to last only two or three or four weeks. The problem is they weren’t strict lockdowns.

 

In other words, China basically implemented extremely strict lockdowns in a few cities. To begin with, they stamped out the virus, and within a month or two, the country was back to normal again in the United States, because the virus was very contagious and the lockdowns weren’t at all strict or extremely strong. What ended up happening is the virus continued to spread. And so since the government didn’t really know what to do, they continued the lockdowns then going for weeks and months and for basically a year, or a year and a half.

 

And so the lockdowns ended up really being very ineffective. But they were ineffective not because I think in theory they would have failed, but they just were ineffective given the nature of American society. And it was simply impossible to have the very strict lockdowns that the Chinese had followed.

 

So, again, whether the lockdowns were a good idea or not at the time, I can’t really say, because they ended up failing. Maybe if they’d been done differently, they would have been more successful. But as it is, we ended up getting about 70 or 80% of the population infected despite the lockdowns, and we had a million excess deaths. So it’s not clear whether the efforts really ended up achieving much.

 

Keith Woods: All right. Yeah, this is kind of your last chance to send a Superchat, so if you want to go to Power chat, send them in. Did We Fall sent this on YouTube. I don’t know if you can see that. He said Unz Review and American Pravda are both essential reading. Does Ron foresee any great upheavals in the coming years? A Soviet collapse type event for the West where the system loses credibility and dissenting views prevail?

 

Ron Unz: Well, unfortunately, I think something like that has definitely been happening in the West. I mean, when you look at the tremendous loss of credibility in the American government and the American media, I mean, you know, 40 or 50 years ago, most Americans believed whatever the media and the government told them.

 

One reason, for example, with something like the JFK assassination, that there wasn’t much more of a backlash against what happened is the government, the elites, the media said it was a lone gunman, a random nut, and most people believed it. Most people accepted what the government told them. Even at the time of the 9/11 attacks, I think there was still a strong reservoir of belief in the government and the media.

 

But now we’ve reached the point. I mean, take, for example, the Covid epidemic. You have probably 20% to 30% of the American public that believes the vaccines are deadly and that the government or our elites want to kill them.

 

I mean, that’s much worse than, I think, almost any other country around the world. And it’s because the ruling elites in the United States, the government, the media, the corporations, most of the power centres have just been so dishonest for so long about so many important issues, that I think they’re undergoing the same tremendous loss of trust that was found in the last stages of the Soviet Union before the Soviet collapse.

 

I think when you look at some of the things going on in American society, or even, for example, the events right now going on in France, the protests in France, I think we’re seeing the West really undergoing much of the same disintegration that the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc underwent, 30 or 40 years ago.

 

In other words, I don’t know whether we’re at 1985 or 1987 or 1989 or 1991, but I mean, the degree of hostility towards the American government, or look, for example, the fact that we had a protest over the Donald Trump’s election. The fact that Donald Trump was elected president. Donald Trump, in my opinion, was an extremely flawed candidate, and I think most people would probably agree with that. He was opposed by 99% of the American media. He was massively outspent.

 

The other side spent billions of dollars more than he spent in his 2016 campaign, and he ended up winning the presidency despite all those tremendous handicaps. The reason he won is that the ruling elites of the United States, as exemplified in Hillary Clinton, were so tremendously hated, so tremendously disliked, so tremendously distrusted by the American public that people were willing to vote for a reality star like Donald Trump, over basically keeping things the way they are.

 

And in the case of, for example, when he was running for reelection, the fact that all the elites have to get together and ban him from social media, they have to ban any reports from Hunter Biden’s laptop, all those other factors. If not for those tilts on the scale, I think Trump probably would have been reelected despite the fact that there was such a massive effort on the part of all the unified elites to get rid of him.

 

So, I mean, the point is, when you have something like that happening in American political campaign, it just shows the tremendous hostility there is deep within the American public towards so much of the American leadership class, the American establishment, the Deep State, whatever you want to call it. And I think that’s getting worse rather than better.

 

[2:19:46]

 

Keith Woods: All right, Imperious sent another Superchat. Very generous, Superchat. Thank you, Imperious. Always appreciate your contributions. He said:

 

“Should jews police their own regarding anti-White racism just as much as White people police their own regarding non-White racism? If so, how? Are words enough? Or should there be firings and fines and moderate jail time for incitement against Whites?

 

Ron Unz: Well, I mean, certainly one aspect of our website is that even though we cover a lot of controversial things, the fact that we have much more of an open discussion on jewish issues than most of the other alternative websites, I think, is one sort of important aspect of what we do now. The point about it is, I think the biggest problem we face on all these issues is the media.

 

So, for example, most people, their view of reality is constructed by the media. And if the media constructs a false view of reality, a distorted view of reality, the result is that people believe that they’re acting in a reasonable way when they’re actually not.

 

I mean, the perfect example is what I was saying in the aftermath of the George Floyd death.

 

I mean, there seems to be a lot of evidence that George Floyd died of a drug overdose and a lot of those other incidents of alleged blacks killed by the police in a wanton fashion.

 

I mean, the real stories are very different than what most people believe. But if the media portrays those incidents as being the random killings of innocent blacks by the police, it’s not at all surprising that you get a much higher rate of black crime, of black violence, of black attacks.

 

And so the media is the fault involved. In the same way, I think if more jews in the United States or the Western world became familiar with the true history of the last hundred years, rather than the media portrayed history, which portrays things in a very distorted way, their attitudes towards things would be very different.

 

In fact, a piece I’m just about to republish has to do with the famous case of Leo Frank, the ADL, which was the founding incident of the ADL.

 

In other words, we’re talking about an organization like the ADL. I would bet probably that the vast majority of people in the ADL, in its leadership, probably believe all of the propaganda that the ADL and similar organizations put out about the massive tide of anti-semitism, all of these horrible things that have been done to jews in the United States, around the world, some of which are true, but many of which are not true.

 

And so the point is, once we have a more realistic view of the history of the last 50 years or the last 100 years, I think by itself, that would cause many jewish individuals to take a much more reasonable approach to things than they do right now. Because they get their knowledge of the world from the same movies and TV shows that I think most other people do.

 

And it’s in many cases an extremely distorted view of the world, a view of the world that basically engenders a tremendous amount of hostility, most of which really should not exist.

 

And so that’s a very severe problem.

 

Now, the truth about it is that some of the criticism made against jews or organized jewish groups is correct. Some of it is not, but a great deal of it is correct. And once the facts are brought out, I think that’s the best way to have any chance at harmonious relationships between all these different groups in our society, including blacks and non blacks and jews and non-jews and other groups like that. So it’s a very difficult position. But I think the media and the false portrayal of reality by the media, by the academic community, is a large measure of the problem involved.

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, it’s funny. Some people in the chat, like, thought you were going to dodge that question or something. They’ve obviously never visited the Unz Review guys. You should just check out the American Pravda series. It doesn’t exactly shy away from these issues.

 

Okay. Anan said:

 

“Hi. What is your opinion on Bitcoin and CBDCs?”

 

That’s the Central Bank Digital Currency.

 

Ron Unz: To be honest, I’m very skeptical of Bitcoin. It’s not something I’ve really paid much attention to or investigated, but I just don’t see why it’s worth the money it is.

 

In other words, basically, it’s mostly used by people who want to buy it because they hope it’ll go up in value.

 

In other words, it doesn’t really have an economic use. It’s not that people use it in transactions.

 

And in fact, given, for example, the energy cost involved, it’s reached the point where I think Bitcoin is very ineffective. It’s too expensive to use in ordinary transactions.

 

So that’s why some of the other crypto-currencies, I think, are more being used in that. But I should say I’m not an all expert in crypto-currency, and I was amazed when Bitcoin first became as valuable as it was, and I couldn’t imagine why it was going up. And I was not at all surprised when it went back down again. And now I know it’s gone up again a little bit the last few days. So I really don’t have a strong opinion on it.

 

But probably to the extent I do have an opinion, it’s probably much more to the conventional wisdom of someone like Jeffrey Sachs or someone like Paul Krugman, or someone like basically most of the leading investors, basically traditional investors just don’t think Bitcoin really makes sense as an investment, and I’ve never been involved in it myself.

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, I agree with you.

 

I mean, I’m not exactly an expert on crypto, but everything Bitcoin can do, another coin can do better. If it’s digital cash, there’s things like nano that do instant transactions with no fees and barely any energy. If it’s privacy, it has no privacy. If it’s smart contracts, it doesn’t really have that.

 

So, I mean, yeah, it’s purely the network effect, which how long can that last? I just don’t really buy that it’s going to be like an infinitely expanding network. The richest man in the world has already bought it and dumped it.

 

[2:26:22]

 

Ron Unz: Warren Buffett has been very critical of Bitcoin.

 

I mean, the truth about it is, if you remember about 15 years ago, there was a feeling that housing prices, the mortgage markets, were going up infinitely in the United States.

 

In other words, everybody was buying houses and speculating on houses because they felt housing prices could only go upwards. And the end result was the market collapse, and a lot of people lost everything they had.

 

And so it wouldn’t surprise me if the same thing happens with Bitcoin.

 

In fact, I think there was one claim that right now, the energy cost to produce a single Bitcoin is not that much lower than the lower end of what Bitcoin value was, at one point back maybe a few months ago or something like that, after one of those collapses took place.

 

So if at some point, obviously, the value of a single Bitcoin becomes lower than the energy mining costs of the Bitcoin that produced it, you could see a complete collapse in the Bitcoin market.

 

So, again, it’s not something I’d really rather stick to things where I at least have done some investigation.

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, I do think crypto is around. It’ll get a lot bigger and there will be huge growth there. But I just don’t think it’s Bitcoin. I think Ethereum will flip Bitcoin and other coins will take over and eventually it’ll collapse.

 

Okay, I think this is the last Superchat, Mike said:

 

“Is the suppression of all the Chinese protests in 2019 sufficient motivation for China to have released the virus? At the time, it just seemed to me like it was the golden excuse for them to shut everything down?”

 

I do remember some people having that narrative that was like CCP pretence to end all the riots and anti-government protests and implement full authoritarianism.

 

Ron Unz: I’m very skeptical of that. I mean, the whole thing about it is the only protests I’m aware of really were in Hong Kong, which is not even really part of China proper, and Hong Kong is a very small postage stamp.

 

So, in other words, if the Chinese wanted to deploy heavy forces, they certainly could have stamped out the protests very easily to whatever extent they wanted. There were no protests anywhere else in China, and the clamp down, basically the lockdowns then were relaxed a month or two later, as soon as they said that, they’d stamped out the virus.

 

It was only last year or so, when the extremely contagious Omicron version got it leaked into China, that they had to have a series of lockdowns, which they finally gave up on and ended up letting the virus spread. And ended up I mean, probably like a million extra Chinese died probably in the last six months because of the spread of Omicron. But it would have been much more serious if the original Wuhan virus had been spread instead.

 

So, I mean, overall, I’m very skeptical of those sorts of scenarios, and I think probably what happened in China was exactly what the government said was happening.

 

In other words, they found this mysterious virus, whose lethality they weren’t sure of at the time, that was spreading very rapidly and threatened to infect the entire country and potentially kill many, many millions of Chinese. But the Chinese stamped it out very quickly in the city of Wuhan, in the provinces, and then life in China went back to normal.

 

So the funny thing about it is, six months after that, life in China was almost entirely back to normal everywhere in the country, while it was the West and America and other parts of the world that were suffering from these very severe lockdowns.

 

So I really am very skeptical of those sorts of complicated explanations. I don’t think the governments in either China or the West did anything other than what they claimed to do. It’s just that the Western governments did a poor job of stamping out the virus early on when they might have been able to.

 

Keith Woods: All right, well, that’s all of the Superchats. Yeah, we’ve gone, two and a half hours, so I do appreciate all your time, Ron. And yeah, again, I recommend everyone check out the American Pravda series. It’s great. I’ve been listening to them today. I need to catch up on more of them. Apparently, it had a big role in red pilling Nicholas Fuentes, I’ve heard him mention that.

 

Ron Unz: That’s great. And what I should say is that the side of the website, if you go to our basic website, there are sections, for example, there’s the Covid section, there’s the Public Health Vaccination section, and that has some of my articles grouped in those sections.

 

So if you’re interested in the Covid issues, going to that section basically contains those articles summaries and also the video clip of the ABC News report regarding basically what might be called the smoking gun of the Secret DIA Report, describing an epidemic in China before it actually happened.

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, and just in general, Unz is a great website to visit, Anyone that’s worth reading, Andrew Joyce, Michael Jones, all the sort of big names this side of things, you’ll catch what they write republished there.

 

So, yeah, this was great. Thanks for joining me, Ron. Thanks for everyone that Superchatted and tuned in and take care of one.

 

Ron Unz: Hey, thanks for having me.

 

[2:31:52]

 

END

top

 

============================================

 

YouTube Comments

top

 

173 Comments

@johnnywesley7695
1 day ago (edited)
Unz is wrong about the 1965 Immigration Act. What the Act did is allow immigration through family-based sponsorship which in turn has turned into what we call “chain migration”. The 1924 Immigration Act severely restricted immigration. Then, the 1952 Immigration Act allowed for certain kinds of immigrants with a preference strictly from Europe. The 1965 Act got rid of non-European restrictions and allowed immigrants to come from everywhere, but it did put country quotas and a cap on green cards. As things improved in Europe, less Europeans moved to the US and more third world immigrants who had families already settled in America had them sponsor them for green cards. Once they received green cards, they would eventually become citizens and end up sponsoring other family members left behind — chain migration. Today, the top 10 countries where immigrants are coming from, zero European countries are even on the top 10 list. Mexico ranks number one, followed by China. The rest are Latin American countries, Central American countries, and rest Asian countries. So Unz claiming it reduced Latino immigration is entirely false. Just look up the data via Pew Research.
Read more
105

14 replies

@50centpb7
1 day ago
His take on this doesn’t seem to pass the smell test, just the intentions behind the 1965 immigration act were obviously not to reduce net migration. The complete opposite was true.
26

@wangChung-on4kx
22 hours ago
This entire thing is a larp use critical thinking
2

@nickmoser7785
21 hours ago (edited)
Also prior to the 1924 immigration act we had the Nationality Act of 1790 mostly limited access to U.S. citizenship to White Protestant immigrants from Western Europe—who had resided in the U.S. at least two years and their children under 21 years of age.
7

@wangChung-on4kx
21 hours ago
@nickmoser7785 God Bless I love you, without Christ, we are just Jews
1

@MichaelJohnson-ij5ei
21 hours ago
Am I wrong in thinking his woefully absurd take on this is purely determined by his chewish background? If everything was the same, except America was historically a chewish majority state, would he have the same take?
7

@wangChung-on4kx
21 hours ago
@MichaelJohnson-ij5ei Kanye I love you j-wish (Christian ) God bless

@nickmoser7785
20 hours ago
@wangChung-on4kx wrong Judaism split from Christianity not other way around. Christianity is the religion of the old and New Testament
4

@sergeytheweberian7064
15 hours ago (edited)
​ @MichaelJohnson-ij5ei Unz is tricky with this, sorta like Rothbard. In that he did call out The Lobby and tribe’s strong connection to Communism and censoring people to the right of neocons while also being a defacto civic nationalist. And i don’t think he is insincere about it. It’s just that people of his background have rather natural tendency to downplay ideas coming from ethnonationalist camp even when they come eventually to deconstruct the rest of leftist historical and political mythology.
Show less
3

@kw8831
15 hours ago

@Sergey theWeberian I completely agree with your take. I just discovered Roy Unz several weeks ago so this has been on my mind recently. If you just read an article or two of his, you’d get the impression that he is the rarest type of Jew, a full blown based ethno-nat! but after reading many more of his works I kept getting off put by little things, & occasionally something major. It made much more sense after I discovered his heritage…
Not that his Jewishness necessarily makes him wrong or our foe. Roy Unz is not on our side & that’s okay, we should not expect that of anyone but ourselves. With that said some of his articles are brilliant and while he isn’t on our side he certainly isn’t on our enemies either. That’s fair enough to me!
Show less
3

@magaelectrician657
11 hours ago
I don’t think he knew the audience he was talking to
2

@glaucon7337
7 hours ago
It’s not complicated. He is saying that without it the Hispanic immigration rates would have been higher, not that it would be non existent. He explained it very clearly.
1

@musphat3311
22 hours ago
His theories on the pandemic are genuinely intriguing and thought provoking
27
Keith Woods

1 reply
@p.pingtam7253

@p.pingtam7253
18 hours ago
What you thought it was the evil chinese, bruh?
, clever boy.
3

@pantsmonsterv6
1 day ago
Unz has done incredible work. Thank you!
51
Keith Woods

@LT-xb5su
1 day ago
Super excited to watch this. Two of my favorites
22
Keith Woods

@zonefreakman
1 day ago
I haven’t really read the Unz publication but I’ll give an open ear if Keith is willing to interview the owner of it. Starting off his immigration argument with saying that one of the biggest negatives of it is the economic problems that come with it is pretty milquetoast though. But I do like his perspective of having brought together people from the left and right on his website rather than being an echo chamber. I’m not sure if it will be effective long term but it’s something different.
Show less
9

1 reply
@cascadiapatriot7831

@cascadiapatriot7831
17 hours ago
It’s obviously in our faces everyday, on the streets, at work, in schools, at stores, in advertising, media, entertainment, and many other areas that the most serious problem with immigration is something other than economics.
5

@k.k8291
1 day ago
Very interesting interview. I’ve always been curious about Ron Unz given his fantastic website (its comment section is of the highest quality I’ve ever came across).
22
Keith Woods

1 reply
@bigolboomerbelly4348

@bigolboomerbelly4348
1 day ago
Totally rocking interview bros!! Im gonna start the new Ron fan club!
9

@joeshmoe4656
23 hours ago
Everyone should check out Douglas MacGregor. Excellent analysis of the situation in Ukraine. He does a lot of interviews with smaller channels Keith, you should try and get him on!
20

1 reply
@brotherjamesstrang

@brotherjamesstrang
21 hours ago
Didn’t know Unz was so soft spoke, very soothing.
8

@UndergroundFriendly
13 hours ago (edited)
29:52 while discussing the subject of increasing amounts of black violence, Keith emphasizes the word “relaxed” followed by a distinct pause.
5

1 reply
@Andrew-cc4vk

@Andrew-cc4vk
9 hours ago
I caught that too

@rorschach6809
22 hours ago
The Pravda series is amazing. Great man
4

@justinhoward218
1 day ago
Yes, fantastic work from Unz. Might need to be backed up on Bufferchute and Odysee l think lol
8

@simonaguilar3646
1 day ago
Love the website. Unz’s own articles not so much.
7

@goodmorningweimerica9741
13 hours ago
Excellent interview with Ron “in other words” Unz!
3

2 replies
@GaryHost-zb5jv

@GaryHost-zb5jv
9 hours ago
I’m glad someone else picked up on this. In other words, I watched some of his talks after seeing Keith would be bringing him on, and noticed he uses the phrase a lot.
3

@goodmorningweimerica9741
8 hours ago
@GaryHost-zb5jv yeah just seems like a tic or something. I notice a lot of intelligent people do something similar when speaking for long periods of time.

@thethinredline4714
1 day ago
I have been for someone from our sphere to interview Ron Unz and who better than Keith Woods
14
Keith Woods

@retter2critical
9 hours ago
This was Unz-Believable!
1

@jewelcitizen2567
1 day ago
Wow… massive scoop kudos to you!
7
Keith Woods

@harryrichards4899
6 hours ago
Unz cheesin at keith is so funny
1

@hansnielsen6280
1 day ago
Great stream, very interesting
1

@indigo6981
9 hours ago
Great interview
1

@MichaelJohnson-ij5ei
22 hours ago (edited)
He’s wrong about migrants not being on more welfare & not committing more crime.
Stats across the board, regardless of nation/continent of origin, show that migrants are more likely to be on welfare. Bearing in mind that there was a time (for most of American history), when America was developing into a superpower, that migrants & settlers received no welfare at all. Welfare + mass migration is just asking for an economic disaster for the common man.
Then in terms of crime, a lot of the migrants flooding into America are coming over the Southern border, & they absolutely do commit more crime. They may not have crime rates as bad as African Americans, but it’s still substantially higher than the White population. I think it’s typically double/triple the rate, & they’re far more likely to be involved in gang activity. Then you also need to factor in that plenty of jurisdictions are now counting Hispanics as Whites, so the true discrepancy is even worse in reality.
Regardless, it’s not even about economics or crime for me, they could all be model citizens waiting on us hand & foot & I still wouldn’t want them here. It’s about the social cost, it’s about self-determination. America as a European melting pot, despite some national frictions, worked because it was formed by people with racially & culturally/religiously similar backgrounds. It’s a lot easier for these people to be absorbed into the host race/culture after a generation or two. Whereas an Indian or Muslim will always consider his interests foreign to those of a White Christian background.
In some ways it is even worse when they’re more capable migrants, because then they have the ability to obtain power & naturally, as I just pointed out, their alien interests agitate against those of the host race. You see this all the time by any alien migrant with any sort of political or legislative power. They’re not thankful towards the host people, they’re only concerned about transforming the nation to reflect/protect their interests & identity, just like chews do. In fact, the way Unz talks about immigration, not even factoring in the social/dispossession cost, reflects his own chewish out-group background. In other words, if Unz was living in Israel as part of the host race, then I’m almost certain he would be factoring in this cost, & it would likely be his primary concern.
Show less
13

3 replies

@Leathal
18 hours ago
It’s clear that even the “good ones” see the native born population as essentially indistinguishable worker units that are no longer replacing themselves through reproduction and thus replacement through immigration is the only path that can be envisioned. It’s not their culture dying out. It’s not their standard of living decreasing. With one specific exception, nations have no purpose but to fill a prescribed role in the grander global machine
Show less
2

@UndergroundFriendly
11 hours ago (edited)
the other thing he missed with regard to immigration and crime is that you tend to see much higher rates among the American born children of immigrants than their parents. they’re most often the ones who become gang members, etc.
1

@crimson1453
5 hours ago
Thank you! This dude genuinely seems very misinformed.

@calengr1
1 day ago
2:17:10 trust level analogous to late USSR
3

@louduva9849
1 day ago
Fascinating guy. I like Ron.
16
Keith Woods

3 replies

@chrisandrews4927
18 hours ago
Glad you’re still around, Lou. Been making me laugh in the comment section for the better part of a decade.
6

@marylamb1407
15 hours ago
Unz is like Makow. “Just as Noam Chomsky strategizes to neutralize leftist anti-semitism by making it seem that Israel is a client state of the U.S. and “neo”-conservatives fund and theorize and promote only those ‘conservatisms’ which lead to bigger government, and military action abroad in favor of Israel.
Makow works the crowd that has its eyes on the NWO. He concedes to small J**ish crimes to direct what would otherwise be a beneficial anti-J**aism which could free us, to a fictional and illusory entity, the Illuminati.” Wintermute. You notice how Ron blames a lot on the CIA but never mentions the Mossad. One would think they are seperate organizations.
Read more
1

@MrTrenttness
8 hours ago

Thank you

@kirktuss4819
14 hours ago
Unz Review legitimizes the internet.
1

@calengr1
1 day ago (edited)
2:22: 01 ADL :self perception and sense of history; 2:14:15 skeptical re crypto

@thevanillamaster8103
1 day ago
Unz was one of the first people who redpilled me early on
1

@cwilliams6884
11 hours ago
proud monolinguist here, thanks ron

@yankeecornbread8464
9 hours ago
Presents a believable political explanation for why “1965” doesn’t do what we think it does, until one looks at before and after photos taken in metro areas. And not just there. Rural areas in the interior are now visibly different.

@thethinredline4714
1 day ago
I don’t agree with Ron on the 1965 immigration act
48

14 replies
@odyssey9707

@odyssey9707
23 hours ago
Its okay to disagree with someone, believe it or not.
8

@donjuanmckenzie4897
22 hours ago
He has a point though
4

@moma8518
20 hours ago
Can you explain why? He gave good reasoning and has evidence to back it up, can you refute the reasoning he gave?
2

@thethinredline4714
19 hours ago
@odyssey9707 sure

@thethinredline4714
19 hours ago
@moma8518 look at America before and after 1965
17

@bruno.6610
15 hours ago
@thethinredline4714

@Kevin-kb9nz
12 hours ago
To some extent its inevitable that a rich country will be flooded by a poor one when there is no or very little natrual barrier.
2

@mooseolini1447
12 hours ago
​ @moma8518 I may misunderstand the finer details of the 1965 act and Ron’s arguement, so what follows is my very basic and probably flawed understanding.
As far I understand it, America’s immigration policy prior to the 1965 act, stressed that only “free white men of good character”, could migrate to the US and become citizens.
After the act was passed, anyone could potentially gain citizenship.
Ron is arguing that immigration was higher prior to 1965 and lower afterwards, without regard to the race of those immigrating.
Prior to 1965 only Whites would immigrate, afterwards, any race could immigrate.
I don’t know whether or not what Ron says is true, that immigration rates were higher before the act but regardless, I know which type of immigrant I prefer.
Show less
4

@donjuanmckenzie4897
11 hours ago
​@Moose Olini His argument is that 1965 Act RESTRICTED Latin American immigration, and without it Latin American immigration would have been even higher than it has been
1

@mooseolini1447
11 hours ago
@donjuanmckenzie4897 “Latin American” is a deceptive term. Latin Americans can be White, black, Mestizo, Castizo, Indio, etc.
If “Latin American” immigration was higher prior to 1965 than after 1965 (doubtful, honestly), then it would’ve been White ones who were taken in, as immigration policy at the time restricted citizenship to other races.
My point is that regardless of immigration rates, American immigration policy was superior prior to 1965 because it only granted access to Whites.
Ron seems to dismiss the relevance of racial considerations in his argument.
Show less
4

@enjoful
9 hours ago

@DudeReturns-ty1bg
3 hours ago
Dude the critical drinker complains about ethnic diversity then reinforces it.
1

@johnnywesley7695
2 hours ago
@donjuanmckenzie4897 It didn’t restrict Latin American immigration. 1965 Act opened immigration to any country through family-based sponsorship. As a result Mexico now is the number 1 country where family-based immigrants are coming from. China is second and India is third.
Show less

@jmedlin81
22 hours ago
very ‘normie-tier’ COVID takes.. wild to hear people still speaking highly of the vaccine, and still speaking of COVID as if it’s a legitimate dangerous threat. I didn’t expect this chat to be so COVID dominated. As someone with several family members having had strokes and other lasting health issues just after the jab, I had to tune out.
Read more
18

6 replies
@p.pingtam7253

@p.pingtam7253
18 hours ago
I betcha Keith is jabberwocky’d.
5

@cantankerouspatriarch4981
15 hours ago
Ron’s take on covid is strangely bluepilled. His views
on pretty much everything else are decently accurate.
5

@ryanthompson3446
15 hours ago
Yep super disappointing, big yikes for me.
5

@conoraq
9 hours ago
This isn’t Infowars, dunno how you ended up here but you’re out of your depth

@milan6555
9 hours ago (edited)
I am neither here nor there on the covid topic, but I know people who died from covid, who didn’t take vaccines. And no, they were not seniors. Does that mean the vaccine was not harmful to anyone? No, definitely not. But this topic is more complex. People on both sides are just obsessed with their one sided version of it and it’s tiresome.
Read more
3

@magaelectrician657
1 day ago
Raising the minimum wage would reduce immigration??? He needs to flesh out this idea a bit more….this is bonkers
10

4 replies

@evanschulz7375
22 hours ago
Strict immigration policy and border enforcement/deportation would work better.
6

@peenweinerstein9968
16 hours ago
At least it’s a palatable proposal to a modern government… not sold on its effectiveness tho

@magaelectrician657
11 hours ago
@evanschulz7375 seriously I mean wtf.

@UndergroundFriendly
11 hours ago
yeah, and he didn’t even explain that claim in any level of detail that supported his argument.

@Kevin-kb9nz
13 hours ago
Please do a follow up with his views
on the holocaust.
2

@evolassunglasses4673
1 day ago
Very interesting. The only other person I have heard on the anti lab leak theory is Patrick Henningsen from 21st Century Wire (also presents UK Column on Fridays).
2

3 replies
@smashedpumpking

@smashedpumpking
1 day ago
Patrick’s great, excellent speaker. Really enjoyed his recent chat with James Delingpole
3

@evolassunglasses4673
1 day ago
@smashedpumpking yes, I saw that. I’d recommend that, it’s on James Delingpole’s Odysee channel.
2

@shayneswenson
23 hours ago
I love when he btfo’s Ukraine regime narrative enjoyers on Twitter spaces
1

@chrishsmith451
1 day ago
Interview steve sailer next
8

@thebrickton1947
1 day ago
Australia’s deindustrialisation, reduction in smoking, western diets and general affluence has contributed to the obesity epidemic, in my opinion, which is what I have seen, everyone was athletic in the 70-80s. Today, popular media promotes the obese clumsy father as an archetype, and the mass abide to the norm.
Read more
3

4 replies

@zonefreakman
1 day ago
Reduction in smoking and deindustrialization? I don’t understand how those things are supposed to contribute to obesity rates. True you have less appetite if you smoke, but there are plenty of obese smokers. It’s a non sequitur. The diets which you’ve mentioned too, is one of the biggest factors in the obesity epidemic, and a lifestyle of laziness. And I’m not sure how lack of industrialization contributes to obesity. Before industrialization most people were not obese, then some time after industrialization obesity rates skyrocketed with mass produced unhealthy food, and comfortable lifestyles.
Read more
2

@nolanhardy3320
23 hours ago
@zonefreakman what he is referring to is post-industrialization, which outsources the industrialization of a nation without removing the abundance that comes with it. This way it is different than pre-industrial state of a nation, because prior to industrialization men had to still toil in the fields. In post industrial societies, you have mostly desk jockeys and great reduction in laborious jobs.
Read more
1

@thebrickton1947
23 hours ago
@zonefreakman smoking surpresses appetite, before automation when aus was expanding and industrial, a large portion of the workforce did manual labour, it ‘road the sheeps back’, and realied upon agriculure and mining, and we had a domestic industry supplying goods to themselves. I have worked many of these roles, many of which are gone due to outsourcing to chinese slave labour
Read more

@thebrickton1947
23 hours ago
@zonefreakman otherwise, I agree with all your points

@gabbyk1391
1 day ago
“The largest problem I see with immigration has been economic.”
This guy doesn’t get it. Not worth conversing with him after he says something as shallow as that.
19

4 replies
@cascadiapatriot7831

@cascadiapatriot7831
17 hours ago
It’s in his genes.
5

@bruno.6610
15 hours ago
He’s jewish, c’mon be fair
1

@milan6555
9 hours ago (edited)
Any kind of argument against it, is appreciated.

@gabbyk1391
7 hours ago
@milan6555 I’m at the point now where I don’t even argue or discuss with people on YT anymore. It always leads to nothing. If someone like you ever asks to be told why something blatantly obvious is the way it is they’re trying to prove something. You can find arguments against it all day if you wanted. You’re on Keith Woods channel friend. He has entire videos about this very topic. So where did you come from and what are your motives?
Read more

@jmedlin81
22 hours ago
1:34:55 I worry when people take Pfizer, CDC, WHO etc at their word, regarding COVID causing the heart issues. It seems these heart issues are vaccine caused, and they’re being blamed on COVID.
12

1 reply
@make756perday

@make756perday
19 hours ago
“If you’re going through hell keep going.” -Winston Churchill
1

2 replies
@whatda7705

@whatda7705
1 day ago

1

@MikeSmith-go8wk
18 hours ago
Unz fails to recognise that a mix of socialism and nationalism fixes everything. Therefore Unz fails.
3

1 reply
@Dixey71

@Dixey71
13 hours ago
Well he is Jewish
1

@marylamb1407
14 hours ago
Honestly Keith this stream was a flop. Unz is as cutting edge as Chomsky. BTW both serve the same purpose, inking the waters of truth.
5

@calengr1
1 day ago
2:09:50 China 3x USA in real goods

@dr.johnbarron746
23 hours ago
interesting man
2

@matthewcarpenter3137
1 day ago
Wow big guest indeed.
1

@marccroft3328
19 hours ago
Not saying he’s all wrong, but be careful, Keith – since you have apparently attracted these types
5

Keith Woods
·
4 replies

@moma8518
19 hours ago
Types of what? Can you elaborate

@marccroft3328
18 hours ago
The 60% revealers & 100% diverters
3

@KeithWoods
18 hours ago
Huh
8

@bruno.6610
14 hours ago
@marccroft3328 What does Unz divert from?

@seapigbs4167
1 day ago
Why does Ron get so little heat?
7

9 replies
@satireofcircumstance6458

@satireofcircumstance6458
1 day ago
Don’t know. But it’s not like he and the contributers on his site pull their punches at all about the taboo subjects.
6

@persiandrum9871
1 day ago (edited)
It’s a fair question. Some surmise that if the ADL and other hall-monitors bring any attention to Uno (especially his excellent article on Holocaustianity) it would only add to their ever-mounting problems. Others think that perhaps Ron is placed there as a relief valve. Who knows? Either way his American Pravda series, while not always on the money, is very worthwhile reading.
Show less
9

@Leathal
1 day ago
He’s like Norm Finklestein on the left – neither are getting their doors knocked down for mainstream speaking engagements, but they’re both oddly allowed to freely speak on forbidden topics without repercussions. (Norm is strictly anti-Israel, he doesn’t discuss the ‘bunga and is mostly pro degeneracy but it’s certainly weird how he can casually drop hard r’s in interviews and such)
Show less
7

@evanschulz7375
22 hours ago
Do a nose check.
5

@cromartie1984
17 hours ago
and yet zemmour had lot of trials.

@marccroft3328
15 hours ago
Controlled opposition

@smittywarbenyagermangensen4860
21 hours ago
In other words, on the other hand
1

@beatsbyjiro8291
16 hours ago
so funny ron is talking about american crime and woods is talking about crime being linked to immigration which is a european view, our biggest crime element has been here since the 1700s
2

@ArilandoArilando
16 hours ago (edited)
55:00

@gorillabiskut
1 day ago
Where Steve sailer at doe?

@ThomasBoyd-pe3wc
1 day ago
Based.
2

@nathanhoskins
11 hours ago
My covid related comment got scrubbed FFS.
2

@ryanthompson3446
15 hours ago
Rons c0vid take is cringe.
9

@schoenengutentag
16 hours ago
Very interesting interview. But wow, the chat is just full of nonsense and “just so-” or “heard it from dude on bitchute”-opinions.
4

1 reply

@milan6555
9 hours ago (edited)
I hate to say it, but bever underestimate the grug element within the dissident sphere.
2

@sniper6668
4 hours ago
The Giga-Jew

@KissSlowlyLoveDeeply-pm2je
1 day ago
early life
8

@dancooper4733
20 hours ago
Unz is jewish. That doesnt matter anymore, eh?
4

6 replies
@australiafair5926

@australiafair5926
20 hours ago
If you refuse to engage with any Jewish research/literature you won’t be able to participate in any public conversation. Just don’t take on a Jew as a moral/political guru/leader.
9

@chrisandrews4927
18 hours ago
Honestly no, it doesn’t. Some people will give a nuanced answer involving making perfect the enemy of the good, optics, learning from your enemies, engagement with anyone outside of the “dissident right ghetto” is worthwhile, etc. I’ll give you the real answer- we already lost, our “fight” is over, so we might as well have interesting conversations with interesting people.
Show less
2

@evolassunglasses4673
16 hours ago
He platforms Kevin Mcdonald.
2

@odinsire3879
1 day ago
Based Jew
21

5 replies
@WakaWaka2468

@WakaWaka2468
1 day ago
Nah, the only truly based J was Bobby Fischer.
16

@johnnywesley7695
1 day ago
No. He’s wrong about the 1965 Immigration Act
9

@bruno.6610
14 hours ago
@WakaWaka2468 Otto Weininger

@odinsire3879
12 hours ago
Yeah, he is wrong about that. But overall he seems like a solid guy.
1

@alaskantundrawolf8831
1 day ago
One of the good ones, like Eric Zemmour and Doja Cat.
1

@ericmay4421
1 day ago
Unz is the best
1

2 replies
@Dixey71

@Dixey71
13 hours ago
Nah

@ericmay4421
12 hours ago
@Dixey71 Admittedly his voice can work your last good nerve.

@555Trout
22 hours ago
Weird dude. Fed sus.
1

1 reply
@Dixey71

@Dixey71
13 hours ago
He is Jewish
1

 

==========================

See Also

top

 

Mark Collett — It’s Okay To Be White — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — Christmas Adverts – Multicultural Propaganda — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — What We Must Do To Win — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — Assad Didn’t Do It – Faked Syrian Gas Attack — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — The Plot to Flood Europe with 200 Million Africans — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — The jewish Question Explained in Four Minutes — TRANSCRIPT

 

============================================

PDF Download

top

 

• Total words in post = 27,059
• Total words in transcript = xxx
• Total images = xx
• Total A4 pages = xxx

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB): (Available later)

 

Version History

top

Version 5:

Version 4:

Version 3:

Version 2: Mon, Mar 27, 2023 – Updated YouTube Comments (173).

Version 1: Sun, Mar 26, 2023 — Published post. Includes YouTube comments (xx).

 

 

Mark Collett — It’s Okay To Be White — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — Christmas Adverts – Multicultural Propaganda — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — What We Must Do To Win — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — Assad Didn’t Do It – Faked Syrian Gas Attack — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

Mark Collett — It’s Okay To Be White — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — Christmas Adverts – Multicultural Propaganda — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — What We Must Do To Win — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — Assad Didn’t Do It – Faked Syrian Gas Attack — TRANSCRIPT

Dr Paul Alexander: Hello once again. It’s June 7, 2022. I’m Dr Paul Alexander. I’m in the United States right now. And I’m with fantastic Dr Mike Yeadon. And well, there’s so much we can talk about. We have about 30-35 minutes. I want us to get straight to the point.

 

 

You guys knew from the beginning, when I worked in the Trump Administration, that our [word unclear] was myself, Kulldorff, Bhattacharya, people like Scott Atlas, etc., Gupta. But we use a more focused age stratified approach. We felt very early on we knew after about three weeks to a month that Covid was amenable to risk stratification. And your baseline risk was prognostic on the severity of outcome.

 

So we felt that the lockdown, the [word unclear] approach, school closures, etc., were wrong! Were not needed. And we actually knew that it would have resulted in a catastrophic failure! We found no evidence, anywhere in the world to date, after over two years, that any Covid restriction has ever worked! Locked downs, school closures.

 

I want to put it over to Dr Yeadon, because he’s world renowned. And I would like him to briefly introduce himself. You guys know me. And let him talk, ad lib, about his feelings, next half an hour, to talk to you, to help you continue to understand what we’ve been facing! Thank you.

 

Dr Mike Yeadon: Okay. Well, thank you very much, you know, Paul. So I’m Dr Mike Yeadon. And I’ve been an admirer, and I think a friend of yours as well Paul, for some time. So yes, I’m a person that’s spent 32 years in bio pharmaceutical R & D. Most of it inside big companies. And my last long-term job was as Vice President and world-wide head of Respiratory Research and Development at Pfizer. So I left in 2011. But I was there for 17 years.

 

So I have a good understanding of how the industry selects drug targets, runs research programs to discover exploratory Medicines, and then advances them through toxicology clinical trials, all the way through manufacturing, to a regulatory submission.

 

It also happens that because I’ve been around a long time in Britain, that I ended up knowing the chief scientific advisor to the UK government, Sir Patrick Vallance. And I noticed early on in 2020, as early as about February, certainly in March, on the TV every night, lying to us.

 

I mean, it’s an awful thing to have to say. But he was saying things that would lead people to have an exaggerated sense of the threat, of whatever this pathogen was, that was coming coming out of Southeast Asia.

 

And then, as you’ve mentioned Paul, as time went on the suggestion, and then eventually the forced introduction of a variety of control measures, that I knew that he knew, were not correct. And I will emphasize this very briefly. How do I know that he knew, as we have just outlined, that they couldn’t work?

 

Well he and I trained in the same university system, UK, across the same period of time. And although he is a doctor, and I have a Phd, our base level training, foundational training, would have been the same. Microbiology, immunology, you know, organic chemistry.

 

You’d have a term, or two, of every one of these things in order to then build on it. And we would all have the same set textbooks. And I can even quote you which one it was for immunology. Essential Immunology by Ivan Roitt. So I knew that Patrick Vallance had a copy of that, and would have probably been trained in the same unit as I was, at the same time.

 

And you didn’t need advanced immunology, for example, to know that once you’ve been exposed to one of these pathogens you acquire robust, complete, and durable immunity. And you can’t, you’re really unlikely to become clinically ill again, the second time. You might acquire the pathogen, but you won’t get ill and transmit it again.

 

And so quite early on people I knew slightly, just from my history, were lying to us! And then when we later got onto the vaccines, I know the head of the vaccine programme in three of the four companies. It’s just shocking to me! I’ve not been able to make contact with them, which is absurd! They’re people I worked with over the last say 20, 30 years. And they won’t reply to my calls and emails!

 

[05:02]

 

Anyway. So I will say without getting into the weeds initially, three things that I can tell you that governments all around the world all did.

 

First they did everything they could to give an exaggerated sense of the threats. And I think the purpose of that, was that we would all become frightened! And if we’re frightened and fearful, we’ll be amenable to the second one a useless and injurious measures! Like lockdown, school closures, mass testing, masking, border restrictions, and the like.

 

Now the funny thing is, as Paul mentioned, I know because you can go and find this document. The WHO, sort of scientific branch, not the politicians, that you see. The scientific branch of WHO had systematically reviewed all of what are called “non-pharmaceutical interventions”, the kind of things I just listed. And they did this as recently as the second half of 2019. And it’s about 120 page document. You can find it. We can put it in the notes Paul, if you would like.

 

And it concludes that none of them work! And so the only reasonable thing you would ask a person to do is, almost instinctive, which is, if you are symptomatic, if you were ill, please stay at home, so that you keep away from other people until you are improved.

 

And that’s because people who are ill, and symptomatic, are much more likely to infect others. It’s as simple as that! That’s the only thing that would have been a rational thing. And you wouldn’t have needed to have made it a law, because people who are heavily symptomatic – we also call that ill – that they almost certainly wouldn’t want to leave home!

 

If you can remember what it’s like last time you had flu. If it’s a bad flu, and you were heavily symptomatic, you probably needed assistance even in your own home, to give you chicken soup, and keep you hydrated, and taken to the loo. You’re not going to be going out and about.

 

But so that was all you needed to do. And all the other things such as mandatory business closures, locked downs, you know, saying you can’t leave your home except for an hour a day, I was instinctively sure this was a really bad thing! And not true! It probably took me a few months I think, until kind of poured through all of the science. But by about summer time I was sure that they had exaggerated the nature of the threat.

 

Bill Gates says in the last few days, said:

 

“We didn’t realize it was a low lethality virus.”

 

Yes we did Bill! We knew that! There was an accidental experiment, an actual experiment, called the Diamond Princess, a very large cruise ship. So we knew that even people 60 and older on cruises, only about one percent of them actually died. So that looked like the infection fatality ratio for the older group.

 

None of the crew who all younger than sixty died. Not a single one! So that maps exactly onto the very early days we got suggested, that it was maybe a tiny bit worse than seasonal influenza in the old, and slightly less injurious in the young. I don’t think in several countries not a single healthy child acquired this pathogen and died as a consequence.

 

So now the FDA is about to consider whether they should recommend vaccinating children. And the answer is no! There isn’t a hazard to consider reducing.

 

So please parents, do not go with this, even if the authorities recommend it. Because I’ve just told you, they’ve lied to you repeatedly!

 

And then the last lie, is superfluous, ineffective, and toxic, “vaccines”! They call them vaccines. But yeah, that’s really an exaggeration. So superfluous! Why do I say superfluous? It’s always a stupid idea – this took me a while to work it out, so forgive me. It’s always a bad idea when it was a new pathogen to start running alongside it and saying:

 

“We’ll invent a new vaccine to bring this event to a close.”

 

Why? Because in order to obtain the safety information, the longitudinal safety information that you really should want, before you, or a child, or relative, is exposed to this new vaccine, it will take you longer to acquire that longitudinal data, than any realistic expectations for the length, the elapsed time, of a pandemic.

 

You can’t do it! I think you would want a small number of years, ideally. Any less than that and you’re saying:

 

“We’ve no idea what will happen, say a year after dosing this. But we’ll give it to several billion people!”

 

That’s what they’ve done! It’s the largest medical experiment ever in history! Mostly without informed consent, because these are new technologies, these are gene-based vaccines, I genuinely don’t know what’s going to happen. And I know that they don’t either!

 

[10:09]

 

So I feel, I’m shocked every time I say it. So superfluous! They never should have done this! And if that wretched Bill Gates suggests that we’ll be ready with a vaccine even more quickly, put your hand up and say with a new medicinal intervention you need longitudinal safety.

 

It’s reckless to go into a broad population without that data. And you can’t get it quickly. So it’s the wrong answer.

 

But the next thing is, and again, I’m a bit stupid, it took me a while to realize this. The people who are vulnerable, the people who get severely ill, hospitalized, and die, tended to be the older people. Over 70, even over 80. The median age of death appeared to be about the same as life expectancy. And I think that most of the time those people became unwell at least in part, because their immune systems, they weren’t as sprightly, weren’t as responsive, as in a younger person.

 

Well, if that’s true. What do you think will happen when you give them a vaccine? The answer is, they don’t respond as well as the immune system of a young person. I genuinely don’t believe you can greatly assist an older person, whose immune system is senescent. And if that’s why they’re vulnerable, you can’t help them with a vaccine.

 

What you need to do, is partly shield them, and partly treat their illness with whatever medicines the medical community is able to come up with.

 

And as it’s turned out, the medical community has come up with lots of old, well understood, generic, and low-cost treatments, which are very good.

 

So we shouldn’t ever have gone down the route of vaccines! One they’re superfluous, because they don’t work in people whose immune systems are suppressed. It’s the wrong kind of intervention.

 

Secondly you won’t get the required safety data before blazing away at the whole population. And it turns out anyway these don’t seem to work. And I’m really shocked that former colleagues of mine have got together, you know whatever it was, beginning of 2020, designs what they were going to do, done it. And they really haven’t worked.

 

They haven’t induced, even younger people, prominent immunity. That is, it doesn’t seem to stop people getting it. It doesn’t stop them catching the virus. At peak levels of pathogen in their airway, it seems to be the same, whether vaccinated or not, suggesting it hasn’t stopped the virus from replicating in their airways. And I’m not convinced it’s reduced deaths.

 

And in addition, and I’m afraid I knew this just looking at the design in the middle of 2020, I thought there would be safety liabilities, which you’ve got to net that off. So even if you could save some people with this, you’ve got to then subtract the number of people injured and killed by it. And I think that’s a very substantial number.

 

And I don’t think, here’s the shocking part, none of this is bad luck! None of it is bad luck! So what do I mean? Well again it took me a year before I found the information. But there’s a German documentary filmmaker called Paul Schreyer, S-C-H-R-E-Y-E-R. And if you look on YouTube and other video platforms, and look up a video called Pandemic Simulations-Preparation for a New Era, question mark.

 

In one hour in a German, but English subtitled documentary, he takes us through 25 plus years of pandemic tabletop simulations, that look exactly like what we’re living through right now! Literally, there are eight, or ten of these, with fantastical names, like Dark Winter, Atlantic Storm, I don’t know, Crimson Tide, bullshit like that.

 

And sitting around the table initially were pretty much the American military, and the spooks. All the CIA types. But, as you came closer and closer to the present day, guess what? It was exactly the same stakeholders! And sometimes the same people, that you see are occupying those roles now, in Covid era.

 

And the most recent one was Event 201. And that was Bill Gates, and others, Johns Hopkins university, the WHO, the EU, American government, China, and so on. And they all sat round the table and said:

 

“Imagine if a novel Coronavirus emerges out of Southeast Asia and sweeps across the world, what will we do to get control of it?”

 

And the thing is, if you watch Event 201, the films are available online, you watch. What do you think they should be doing? I think they should be calming the population down, reassuring them, and doing their very best to find ways to treat, and reduce, new harms and deaths. They didn’t do any of that.

 

What they did is they sought to take over as quickly as possible! That’s what they did! Almost military martial law. They wanted to get as close as possible to martial law without calling it that. And that’s what all of these practices that they’ve done for the last, 25 years, are identical to what we are doing right now.

 

[15:14]

 

I’m telling you, in my opinion, as a 35-year professional scientist, who’s paid to make judgments, and did okay at it, I think the scientific evidence says that the exaggerated threat was deliberate, not accidental. They never corrected it, even when evidence became extremely clear that they’d overdone it. They’re still frightening you now and then they made you lock down, wear masks, get tested, close schools, border restrictions.

 

I can’t leave America. I’m in I’m in Florida. I got in before President Biden made a requirement for foreigners to be vaccinated before entry. So if we leave we can’t come back, even though we’ve visaed here for a few years to work. It’s literally absurd! The vaccines don’t prevent transmission! There’s no possible public health argument to do what they’re doing.

 

And they’re not stupid. These people are not stupid! They know exactly what they’re doing.

 

And then this final thing, superfluous, ineffective, and toxic vaccines. This is my meat and drink. Not vaccines, but drugs on a rational drug design, working out what you think is likely to happen. Obviously you look for efficacy. Is this going to produce an immune response? And hopefully do so in the absence of unacceptable toxic side effects. That was my job. I was the senior most person in Pfizer, for 17 years, in my inner field of respiratory new Medicines. And then I was for six years, a successful biotech CEO..

 

So I think I know what I’m talking about. And when I looked at the so-called “vaccines”, I saw a completely unprecedented approach. Where by design they would take a piece of this alleged pathogen, the spiky part, or spike protein on the outside of what they’ve declared is the structure of SARS CoV-2, and attached it to, in the case of the DNA vaccines, it was like a chimp adenovirus.

 

And in the mRNA vaccines of Moderna and Pfizer they would just cover it in grease essentially to have the messenger RNA fired into a cell. Well, I knew, thinking about it, that this is the wrong choice. Let me explain why. When you take a piece of a pathogen and then ask your body to practice on it and become immune to it, you always ask yourself:

 

“Is this a safe thing to do?”

 

Because I’m going to get the body to practice on it. Yes, but will there be any toxicity from doing what I’m doing? And, you know what? By far the most toxic part of SARS CoV-2, and related Coronaviruses, is the spike protein! Amongst other things the spike protein is able to initiate cascade events that leads to blood clots. It also can have negative neurological impacts.

 

Well, we know this! And we knew this in 2020, by analogy with similar viruses affecting humans and animals. And yet, not just one company, but four companies! Moderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and J&J [Johnson & Johnson] all alighted on that! Don’t you think that’s surprising? I wrote to James Merson, who is in charge of vaccines at J&J, and I said:

 

“No brainstorming team James, that you and I would have ever led, would have come out of that closed door meeting with ‘let’s pick the spike protein’! We even talked about things like that 15 years ago. You would have picked the nucleocap, the capsid, or the nuclear protein, because they’re not strongly biologically active. But here’s the other thing, you would pick a piece of the pathogen that’s very different from you!”

 

The spike protein isn’t similar to humans. But it’s the least dissimilar. So there are slight overlaps. And to the extent, and I would think it was they’ve taken a risk of what’s called autoimmunity, that as you get the body to respond to spike protein there’s lots of human proteins that are just similar enough, that in the unlucky penumbra, some people will find their immune system, their new immunity is going to attack bits of themselves, that are slightly similar.

 

They could have avoided that by picking something more different from you. So that when you then mount an attack on that new foreign thing, none of those weapons, those guns and ammo, are going to harm you. So that’s the second thing.

 

And then the third thing you would pick is genetically the part of a pathogen that’s most stable. Because we know pathogens, when they replicate they make typographical mistakes, and they gradually drift from the version you first worked on.

 

Well again this wretched spike protein, is and was well known to be the part that adapts most quickly, it’s the bit that interacts with the host, in this case human. Of course, it’ll evolve quickly by mutation. That’s what it does. But the bits in the centre, those are pretty genetically stable.

 

[20:01]

 

So for three reasons, acute safety, avoiding any autoimmunity, and maintaining activity over time, you would do something other than what they did. And all four of them did it! Sorry! My conclusion your Honour – if I was trying to persuade a judge with all the references to support what I’ve just said – I would say this is evidence of collusion, and malfeasance! They have intentionally harmed you! They have not put in place the ideal vaccine. But they’ve picked something that’s least likely to work, and most likely to harm you!

 

And it’s not that much of a shock to me, my original training included toxicology, [word unclear] toxicology, mechanistic toxicity. Understanding why things harm people, sometimes. As I’ve just described. And that when I saw it time I thought:

 

“This is going to hurt people!”

 

And so with another doctor, Doctor Vodog [sp] in Germany in December of 2020, before any of the vaccines received an emergency authorization anywhere, we wrote like a hundred page petition outlining these concerns, saying:

 

“For goodness sake, don’t approve this!”

 

So here’s the thing, what happened? First, I was de-platformed from almost everything I was on. And secondly, I was systematically smeared in the British media, the BBC and what are called broadsheet newspapers, things like the Daily Telegraph, and things like that.

 

So someone spent money, and assigned people, to rubbish me, and to hide from you the fact that I was very concerned with good reason about the safety. Does that sound like an error to you? No! It’s not.

 

So I’ll pause, at this point, because I can use all the time. But there’s no question in my mind that systematic rehearsal, over at least two and a half decades, has been recapitulated in the last two years, with an intention to harm you! Now, I’m not a detective. But it seems to me, if you look in parallel at what bodies like the World Economic Forum, the people who say:

 

“You’ll own nothing and be happy.”

 

It seems to me quite reasonable that what they want, why they’re using the vaccines, what they want is for you to carry a mandatory digital ID at all times. And that’s why they’re chasing everyone to vaccinate everybody.

 

By the way, three groups we would never vaccinate if this was about public health. Three groups. Very quickly, the people have been infected and recovered. There’s no dispute anywhere, that those people are immune, and do not require vaccination. And in fact, they may be more likely to be harmed by vaccination. So the infected recovered, definitely, definitely should not be vaccinated!

 

Is that what they’re doing? No! They’re making every person have a vax pass, or they can’t go to work, or buy food, or travel on an aeroplane into the US of A. So that’s one thing. You can tell that’s wrong.

 

The second group, I would say, people who are not at risk at all. So healthy young children. None of them have caught it, and has a consequence side. And yet they’ve already vaccinated lots of young children in the UK. And I think they’re going to do it in the US, if you don’t stop them. So that’s another thing that they’re definitely taking a risk for no gain! And it’s going to result in injuries and some deaths, right? This is mass murder! Sorry!

 

And then the third category you would never, ever, vaccinate are pregnant women! Because 60 years ago we learnt through Thalidomide, tragically, that babies aren’t insulated from harm in their mother’s womb. The babies are sometimes exquisitely sensitive to toxic perturbation by chemicals. And I would say every woman, either [word unclear], a relative, or otherwise, knows that it’s ideal to avoid normal chemicals while you’re pregnant.

 

Why in the world would you take a gene based vaccine for which there’s no proper pregnancy safety test? It’s not been done! They’ve not done it! So when they told you it was safe, what were they doing? Lying!

 

Dr Paul Alexander: Lying!

 

Dr Mike Yeadon: Lying! And I’m not claiming they’ve harmed lots of people. That’s not my job. I’m pointing out there’s more than a shadow of doubt. And normal caution would say you don’t do this! And they’ve done those three things.

 

So it’s all lies! And I’m afraid I think the intention is to force mandatory digital ID on everybody. So to enter, or exit, any regulated space, you’ll have to beep your vaccine passport. I don’t really think they care that it’s a vaccine passport. But they want you to carry unique digital identifier.

 

And I think, in time, you’re going to need it to buy food, or gasoline, or get on an aeroplane. And so the way to resist I think is not to accept any common format. And certainly no mandatory digital ID..

 

And then there’s this other part of this that’s not my skill area. But I think part of this Great Reset will involve, I think, converting money into a cashless digital form, that is called Central Bank Digital Currencies. As they’re not my skill area, but you go and look it up. And I think that’s the other half of the control grid. Mandatory ID, cash with digital money.

 

And if we let them take us to this point, we’re through the Gates of Hell! Without any way of getting out.

 

Dr Paul Alexander: Look, Dr Yeadon. First of all your background, and academic depth, and expertise, can’t be questioned in this. And I know you were one of them were cancelled. I myself was cancelled and silenced, with others.

 

The point though, is I think from the word go, I actually accept now and believe 99.99% of everything you just saids as a statistician I don’t like to use them with 100%. But before there were things that I would say:

 

“Hmm. Let me just stick to the science and the evidence base.”

 

But as the last two years have unfolded, we’ve come to realize that things that you’ve been saying are almost bang on the head! And the reality is that from the word go, we said:

 

“Look all you needed to do was strongly double, down triple down, protect the elderly, [word unclear].”

 

That’s it!

 

Dr Mike Yeadon: Yes.

 

Dr Paul Alexander: That’s it. Nothing else! Leave the rest of society alone. And we will be fine. They have actually done the opposite. They’ve locked down the healthy, and we still fail to protect the vulnerable.

 

Dr Mike Yeadon: I know. It’s terrible! Not only do we harm everyone else, we didn’t even protect the elderly. Because if we’d allowed a relatively harmless, you know, dear Bill Gates, are not high lethality pathogen. If we just let it pass through the community of healthy, relatively young people, … I count myself in that group, I’m 62. I’m not going to die of flu. I’m really not. Not now. I might say 10, or 20 years

 

If we’d done that, that would have blocked the paths to the more vulnerable, elderly people. So that would have provided like passive protection. And then colleagues like Paul, other medics – not me – worked like crazy and have identified a good handful, as I say, of really satisfactory treatments, depending on the stage of the disease. And almost, I wouldn’t say no one needs to die of this pathogen, but you could probably cut the death by at least 10 fold.

 

Dr Paul Alexander: Yes!

 

Dr Mike Yeadon: Yeah. And so even if they had made a mistake. Let’s say there was, … Some people have said to me:

 

“No. It’s safety culture.”

 

Or they followed my leader. China did it, then Italy, then everybody else. It’s like, even if I accepted that for a moment, which I don’t. For example, lockdowns. By the summer of 2020 there were lots of academic papers, at least, I think, 20, or 30. And they all said, it may be a bit of a surprise, but this process called lockdown, and various stringencies, and some places you literally couldn’t leave home, and food would be delivered to you. In others it was pretty much don’t go out very often. And it didn’t make any difference regardless of the stringency. It didn’t stop the transmission through the community of this apparent pathogen.

 

And I think the reason for that, as we mentioned earlier you have to be symptomatic, you have to be ill, floridly ill, in order to be a good source of infection. And this isn’t a surprise. We’ve known this for a long time, just by common observation.

 

And so, of course, lockdown, if you remove healthy people from their normal day-to-day interaction and shut them in their homes. Well, that wasn’t where transmission was occurring anyway. So you lock them away, no benefits!

 

Well you’ve definitely killed the economy. And that’s the key thing, Paul. I do think that was intentional, to maintain the fear, to damage the economy, to require for support, each of our governments, to print money it didn’t have money. Literally money printing. And I think that will cause sovereign currencies eventually to fail. A lot of classical economists are scratching their heads thinking:

 

“What’s holding it up?”

 

So yeah, I would just say this, at this point, that I’ve not been a conspiracy theorist all my life. I will say I’ve never made a public comment about anything, until the last two years! I just kept my head down and did my job. I only ever spoke in my field. So in the trade press, for research, whatever. That’s the only time you would see me.

 

And what I’m doing now, I’ve not monetized a single thing. So those who say I’m a grifter, or whatever the word is, I’ve lost money. I’ve been fired from every consulting post I had, board advisory positions. So I’ve lost a ton of money. I’ve not monetized anything. I don’t do it for fame, because I was very happily early retired and I’m relatively shy. And I don’t like doing this.

 

And then finally, some people said, oh maybe I had a bad experience with my last employer. I mean, for pity’s sake! I left 11 years ago. And left on very good terms.

 

And then the evidence for how good our relationship was, was that a year later Pfizers’s business development, and myself, and a couple of people, we went into business funding a biotech between us, for six years. And then it ended very amicably. We made them and us some money. So no, that’s not true either!

 

There’s literally no reason why I would say any of the things I’m saying other than, I think they’re true. And you can judge for yourself well.

 

Dr Paul Alexander: Dr Yeadon all I could have at this stage of the game is compliments for someone like you. I’m so inspired by a lot of what you’ve done. And the reality is that you have looked at all of the evidence.

 

To come to close this terrific interview out, we found no evidence too, in the entire world. Look at all countries including America, in all settings, that any lockdowns, any sheltering, any school closure, any mass mandate, any business closure, we have found no evidence that they have worked!

 

And I recently published a paper with Jeff Tucker and Ian Brown [sp]. And this recent Johns Hopkins School [word unclear] review showed the lockdowns all failed! They provided no benefit! Zero! Just harm the economy.

 

Dr Mike Yeadon: That is right.

 

Dr Paul Alexander: Exactly what you’re saying.

 

Dr Mike Yeadon: Yeah. And like I said, the WHO scientists performed a similar review, without the benefits of the last two years of data poor. But they performed the review with the data they had, and they arrived at the same conclusions, that you’ve just summarized.

 

 

Now I can’t believe that the all the primary governments that are part of the WHO did not have a copy of that report. Their public health departments would have had a copy. I found it. And so when they went into spring 2020, and then imposed these, I’m afraid, ridiculous and cruel measures, also ineffective, and damaging, their public health people knew that they didn’t work. So there’s no excuse that they overreacted, or didn’t know! Not true! Not true!

 

Dr Paul Alexander: So let us close this off. Because I don’t want Zoom to just cancelled out.

 

Dr Mike Yeadon: Okay.

 

Dr Paul Alexander: If you have a close-out final words you’d like to say to the public, because I’m gonna put this on Gab, get a Substack, everywhere I can share it. What would you say?

 

Dr Mike Yeadon: Yeah, just very quickly then. I’ve tried to think global for the last two years, just doing as many interviews as I can. I now say folks. I think it’s time to act local. Think about where you are now, and ask yourself if quite likely there are food shortages, fuel shortages, potential brownouts, or blackouts, how are you going to cope?

 

Don’t assume the government’s going to come to your aid. I provided you with evidence that they’ve done quite the opposite for the last two years.

 

So I think spend a bit of time, basically get yourself together, and maybe even consider being in a safer place if you can so that you can withstand whatever’s coming. Because I’m afraid, I don’t believe we’ve seen even the beginning of the rest of it yet. I wish I was wrong!

 

Dr Paul Alexander: Okay. And that’s really not a uplifting hand. But what I mean, this thing, …

 

Dr Mike Yeadon: No! It’s take control. You can take control and then while you’re doing this, people will say:

 

“Why are you doing this?”

 

You’ll say:

 

“Well the evidence is our government’s lied to us!”

 

And I can’t see any benign reasons for them to do this. And now look at what’s happening to the supply chains. That’s why I’m buying rice, and beans, you know, [chuckling] and extra, …

 

Dr Paul Alexander: No! No! You are really ending here by saying you are trying to impart to people, like look, you need to stop now and think, that if things get worse, what you’re going to do? And I think it’s tremendous. I really appreciate the time you give today sir.

 

And let me just end by saying this. For those who have not yet, I will thank you on behalf of them, you have done human service the last years, you really have! I listened to you in the beginning and I learnt a lot that got me to think and try more! It was people like you that spurred me on. Thank you very much sir.

 

Dr Mike Yeadon: Thank you as well Paul for providing the audience, as it were. It’s useless me speaking if I don’t reach people. So thank you for all your sterling efforts as well, and also reaching out to people. Thank you.

 

Dr Paul Alexander: As soon as I put this on Rumble I’m going to send you the link.

 

Dr Mike Yeadon: Thank you.

 

Dr Paul Alexander: Good day. Bye bye to you.

 

[35:06]

 

END

 

 

[Readers: If you see any errors (however minor), or ways to improve things, in the transcript, please let me know in the Comment section.

Also please share the link to this transcript, so others can benefit. Thanks.]

 

 

============================================

 

Rumble Comments

 

23 Comments

 

Paulsaun, 1 week ago
I have a massive amount of respect and admiration for Dr Yeadon and Dr Alexander. Without them and others I’m not sure where we would be.
28 rumbles

ALLANMACRAE, 1 week ago
The Covid-19 lockdowns and masking were never justified – as proved by Sweden. As I published on 21March2020, all we needed to do was over-protect the very elderly and infirm and get everyone else back to work and school. Six months later world experts published the exact same recommendations in the Great Barrington Declaration. To 1July2020 there was NO increase in Total Deaths in Alberta or Canada above the trend line of the previous six years and average age of Covid-19 deaths in Alberta was 82 – that means there was NO REAL PANDEMIC! Actual USA deaths FROM Covid-19 were exaggerated – more than 93% were actually deaths WITH a positive PCR test, but the cause of death was NOT Covid-19! Total Deaths did increase in the USA because of the harmful treatments applied by USA heath care – those Excess Deaths were avoidable – we did not have them in Canada! The entire Covid-19 worldwide false narrative was a way to sell costly , toxic and ineffective “vaccines” and to exert total dictatorial control over you and me – it was led by Trudeau’s friends at the World Economic Forum and the uber-corrupt World Health Organization. The toxic Covid-19 “vaccines” will destroy many more people worldwide than the Covid-19 virus and probably already have. Told you so, 26 months ago, on 21March 2020. SCIENTIFIC COMPETENCE – THE ABILITY TO CORRECTLY PREDICT 20Oct2021. Update 12May2022 https://correctpredictions.ca/ Regards, Allan MacRae Calgary https://energy-experts-international.com
19 rumbles

HMcN, 1 week ago
Well done Mike and Paul,You have logically demolished the narrative and kept exactly the right tone to show the people who don’t believe exactly what is happening.I am in the UK and everyone around me still think I am exaggerating.Please WAKE UP UK. Go to your local astandinthepark.com connect with local people who are forming supportive communities.Together, as free caring people we will overcome unjust and harming policies. Build groups not based on the Internet.Please try this avenue.I have, and in doing so,discovered a diverse group of people,who all have a good heart and community spirit.
13 rumbles

Offroy, 1 week ago
Thank you Dr Mike and Dr Paul. May you never ever give up this very dirty fight. I only find serenity when listening / following all of you great doctors. (also Bridle/Malone/Lawrie etc , also Russell Brand, Jimmy Dore , who give me a much needed giggle) I cannot believe so many of my family & friends, have fallen for this. It’s like they are asleep. I now just try and get through each day and hope that one day, good wins over evil. But I find it so hard to stay upbeat. Stay free.
12 rumbles

FreeToBe2, 1 week ago
Thank you Mike and Paul for doing this very important video. We need to keep putting this information out for as long as it takes
10 rumbles

Rosalindroz, 1 week ago
Thank you both for speaking up & info is. My head spins daily at the lies and deception by Fauxchi and crew. I’m 56 and am disgusted by my government intentionally injuring & killing people wi this& zero accountability. How are we going to get these people to trial, we another Nuremberg. Including billy Gates and Fauxchi. God bless and protect you truth tellers. Honestly, a few friends & I pray for the warriors fighting for humanity. I don’t have ma friends but they are true and trusted. Lockdown weeded a lot of people from my life, not from deaths , rather who followed blindly and who trusted in God over fake science. They really do have Stockholm syndrome and cognitive dissonance. So many of us are the only ones in our family that know it isn’t about Covid & our families treat us like freaks or criminals for not blindly trusting the criminal Fauxchi. Even with cancer recurrences , thrybd questions anything, they just say Thank goodness they found it early.
10 rumbles

PamelaDrew, 1 week ago
Much love, respect and thanks to both you courageous champions of truth and freedom!
8 rumbles

Rosalindroz, 1 week ago
I recommend your substack highly!
7 rumbles

Hawedehre, 1 week ago
Thank you both.
7 rumbles

schutzhund, 1 week ago
The Nation Speaks Upcoming Special Series, ‘COVID-19: A Reckoning,’ Premieres This Weekend “We’re at a turning point—our actions now will determine the future.” The Nation Speaks upcoming special “COVID-19: A Reckoning,” gives a comprehensive picture of what happened after two years of aggressive lockdowns, masks, and mandates. The new two-part series will start this weekend, on June 11, broadcasting on the platforms of NTD Television and EpochTV. https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-nation-speaks-upcoming-special-series-covid-19-a-reckoning-premieres-this-weekend_4523202.html?
7 rumbles

Alexa161, 1 week ago
thank you for your continued perseverance. Eventually, more and more people will wake up.
7 rumbles

robnitro, 1 week ago
Lock em all up! Even Trump who started operation warp speed for the MAGAjabs
6 rumbles

mansfield45, 1 week ago
Regarding what Yeadon was saying about the “WHY” behind the idiotic public health policies: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/01/the_vaccine_is_a_dud.html https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/01/the_vaccine_passport_pathway_to_a_social_credit_system.html
5 rumbles

Rosalindroz, 1 week ago
Sorry for so many typos
3 rumbles

Rosalindroz, 1 week ago
* maiming not amp
2 rumbles

Rosalindroz, 1 week ago
* maiming not amp
2 rumbles

Rosalindroz, 1 week ago
I recommend your substack highly!
2 rumbles

Graphite, 1 week ago
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10904349/Biden-FINALLY-announce-CDC-dropping-requirements-international-travelers.html ???
2 rumbles

Rosalindroz, 1 week ago
I recommend your substack highly!
1 rumble

MAGA5tar, 1 week ago

1 rumble

WalterSieruk, 1 week ago
The best way to handle the terrible problem of the coronavirus. By it by gaining natural hard immunity or by the COVID -19 vaccine. Well one ancient wise man ,Aristotle , had written “If one way be better than another, we may be sure that it’s nature’s way.”
1 rumble

123Harrycat, 1 week ago
What we have to do is to come together and stand up against this evil..they can’t get control of us we are millions and there is not that many of them..we have to win this war against humanity they can’t do anything if we don’t listen to them and stop watching that evil program box in your living room switch it off and don’t listen to the radio they can’t brainwashed you if you don’t listen to them don’t obey anything that they want and good will always overcome evil believe in people power
1 rumble

gordonbird, 1 week ago
I agree with Brave Dr. Mike Yeadon!…I agree more with Professor Stefan Lanka…Dr. Amandah Vollmer…Dr. Andrew Kaufman that Viruses do not exist! Covid is a fiction according to the most eminent Stefan Lanka who copied the test done in China and in his second trial DID NOT include the virus samples”!…He got EXACTLY the same result with the same genetic codes showing!…PS I,m an ex Sailor and retired Truck Driver! I am not a “No-It-All!”…LA5 UK
1 rumble

 

============================================

 

See Also

Hearts of Oak – John O’Looney – Were Funeral Parlours Overwhelmed by Vaccine Related Deaths? – Jun 11, 2022 – Transcript

TheCrowhouse – Funeral Director John O’Looney Blows the Whistle on Covid – Sep 16, 2021 — Transcript

 

 

Stew Peters Show – Funeral Director – Mass Vaccine Deaths, Child Danger, Covid Camps, Genocide Planned – Sep 23, 2021 — Transcript

 

Peter McIlvenna: And hello Hearts of Oak. Thank you so much for joining us once again, on another pre-record, with a guest who has certainly been on my radar from early on. From the videos that he made about the funeral parlour industry. And what was happening. Something I’d never heard before. And I’ve been fascinated to follow him. And also to see him in person at Milton Keynes the other week, at an event.

 

And it is John O’Looney. John, thank you so much for your time today.

 

John O’Looney: You are more than welcome. Thank you for taking the time to have me on the show. And hello to everyone that’s watching.

 

Peter McIlvenna: Well, thank you for coming on and joining us. As I said, to our viewers, that’s where I first came across you, and probably many other people. But if I could just actually step back. We have lots of non-UK viewers, certainly over in the States, watching on Gettr, and the other channels.

 

And it’ll be good to maybe have you introduce yourself before we go into the topic and what you’ve seen over the last probably yeah 18 months, or. So so yeah, take a moment to introduce yourself John.

 

John O’Looney: Well hi guys. Firstly, my name is John O’Looney. I’m a funeral director based in Milton Keynes. I’ve been a funeral director for 15 years, give, or take. And for the first 10 years I was a funeral director working for one of the major funeral providers. And I spent 10 years working for them and then left. It was Co-operative Funeral Care, big funeral provider. And the bank went under, and they bought the money men in to try and squeeze as much money out of people to prop the bank up.

 

 

And I wasn’t happy working like that, because I actually really care about people. So I set up on my own five years ago. And I’ve been working for myself, running my own small family-run funeral home ever since.

 

Peter McIlvenna: So what you’ve seen is something that no one has any idea about. And I think the first, when I watched what you originally put out, I thought:

 

“Well John doesn’t really have anything to gain from this!”

 

And this could have a different, …

 

John O’Looney: Far from it! Yeah!

 

Peter McIlvenna: Exactly! So whenever someone doesn’t have a financial gain then you begin to take notice of what they say, because you realize they’re saying it, because they believe it, as opposed to there’s a financial game.

 

But could you just relay what you’ve begun to see to our viewers, at the beginning. And then we’ll move on to where we are today. So yeah, what alerted you? What did you begin to see at the beginning?

 

John O’Looney: So there were initially the first kind of 12 weeks, or so, I didn’t see anything at all. I was convinced as everyone else. And I would hasten to add I’m not an anti-vaccine. I’m anything. But I’ve had every injection that I’ve been offered. You know, swine flu, and flu jabs. Certainly up until the last few years.

 

Early on I’d have family come to, … Well it started off, I’ll rewind back to 2019, in late November, December time. I had a family come and see me who’d lost a loved one in the neighbouring borough of Northamptonshire, at Northampton General Hospital. So they kind of asked me to, they instructed me to look after their loved one.

 

And said that they were a bit annoyed. Because the mortuary staff wouldn’t let them view their loved one in the mortuary, which is unusual, because all hospitals have a mortuary obviously, sadly. And they also have a viewing room attached to that mortuary. So that if someone, for example, has been suffering on the ward, they’ll pass away, come down off the ward, and that family can spend a bit of time in the chapel of rest. And they said that the hospital wouldn’t allow that. Now that’s really unusual. So I kind of said:

 

“Look, don’t worry. I’ll go to the hospital and pick them up promptly.”

 

Because I’m a strong believer in treating people how they want to be treated. So I always move very quickly. I won’t make a promise that I can’t keep.

 

And I went to the hospital, picked their loved one up. And while I was there I couldn’t help but ask, obviously, you know:

 

“Why wouldn’t you let them see their loved one?”

 

I kind of thought perhaps he was being passed away a long time, and was not in a viewable state, or something. But they said:

 

“No. This is why.”

 

And they opened the viewing room door. And there was a quite a great big inflatable kind of pandemic tent in there. I hadn’t seen one before and it resembled a child’s bouncy castle.

 

Peter McIlvenna: Yeah.

 

John O’Looney: But it had like different compartments. And that was my first introduction.

 

Peter McIlvenna: And when was this? Sorry, when was it?

 

John O’Looney: That was first week in December of 2019

 

Peter McIlvenna: Wow!

 

[04:28]

 

John O’Looney: So the word “Covid” wasn’t used. But they kind of said basically:

 

“We’ve been told there’s something horrible coming.”

 

I’d hasten to add this deceased wasn’t in that particular enclosure, whatever. So I went about my business. I told a couple of family and friends what I’ve been told. And what do you tell them? Maybe put some pasta away, and rice. And I really don’t know, because you don’t know at that point how bad things are going to be.

 

But lo and behold, the news broke just into the New Year. And we were shown pictures of people falling over in China, in the streets. And I suppose January, February, about March time, … There was no increase in death rate. And I kind of put that down too:

 

“Well China’s a long way away. It’s got to work its way through Europe, perhaps to get over here.”

 

But I kept waiting around for a death rate that just simply wasn’t there! It came to like March. And I got contacted by a guy, who was also called John, who identified himself as a government-sponsored pandemic agency guy. And he told me that his job was to call all of the funeral directors in our area, and ask them various questions, collating numbers, basically. And, of course, you’re happy to help, because it’s a pandemic. So we’ve got to do what we can. And he would ask me:

 

“How many I’d picked up that week? What my capacity was as a maximum.”

 

And I kind of told him and how many I picked up, and where from, and how many were Covid. And almost straight away he started deliberately steering me. And by that, … I mean, the conversation would go much like, he’d kind of say:

 

“Well who have you picked up?”

 

And I’d say:

 

“Well, I’ve picked up two over this week, one was from a care home.”

 

There was no doctor present. Because the doctors suddenly stopped attending to protect the NHS, we were told, as we clapped on doorsteps. And there was no Covid test present. No doctor present. No police officer present. I’d spoke to the guy’s family. He’d been in there for five years with onset dementia. And he said:

 

“No. I’ve got to put him down as a Covid death.”

 

And I kind of:

 

“Okay. Why is that then? Because I’ve spoke to the family. I spoke to the care home. He was a dementia patient. There was no Covid test present. No doctor. Why?”

 

“Oh. We’ve been told there was a case of Covid in there, so everyone has to go down at Covid in that care home.”

 

And this was rinse and repeat! Everyone they possibly could. Heart attack victims. Even one guy that was run over! Yeah, he had tyre marks on his hip to his shoulder. He was a Covid death, because he’d been in ICU for a couple of weeks. And they’ve been spam testing him, PCR test up his nose, as he lay dying. Desperate to get a positive test. They got a positive test. And he was a Covid death!

 

And that was throughout 2020. I’d hasten to add, the interesting thing was there was no increase in death rate at all. There was no increase at any point. In fact if you looked at the figures before they pulled him down from everywhere, the vast majority of funerals we do in the UK are cremations.

 

So I would say around five percent of the funerals we do are burials. And that’s many cultural, or religious. For example, Catholics, Africans, west Indians, they like their loved ones buried. But the vast majority are.

 

And the cremation numbers were actually lower in my region in 2020 than there were in 2019. And this certainly was felt through the business. It just wasn’t as busy. We had a brief period in March, April, where Hancock said, he openly said:

 

“Oh, we’re going to see Covid attack care homes. And move people into care homes to die from Covid.”

 

And I kind of remember thinking:

 

“That’s really strange. Because I don’t see, if the virus is out there, surely it’s in the community. Everyone would suffer. Why would it target specific buildings?”

 

But lo and behold, as if by a miracle, we start getting calls almost exclusively from care homes.

 

Now to give you an idea, if I was to take 10 phone calls, and most funeral operatives who run a funeral home, or work in a funeral home will relate to this. If I get 10 calls we’re very good as a society of getting people to pass away in hospital. Maybe as many as eighty percent of people pass away in hospital. One would be in a care home, and one would be where they’ve gone home to die at home with their family have and a morphine driving have and a district nurse visiting.

 

But literally every phone call for about two weeks was exclusively care homes! And, in fact, I didn’t have a night’s sleep, a full night sleep for about two weeks between March and April of 2020. And again there was never any doctor on scene. There was never any Covid test done. But every one of them had to go down as Covid.

 

Peter McIlvenna: So I mean, is that strange for a government official to contact a funeral parlour? Because obviously the declaration of the cause of death is a doctor, not with you working the funeral parlour.

 

[09:39]

 

John O’Looney: Yeah. Well, it was very interesting. Because then a couple of months later on I received an email from Thames Valley police. I believe it was the Commissioner, I can’t remember. I’ve got a copy of it somewhere. And it basically instructed us that no doctors would be attending. And I was kind of like:

 

“Really? You’re telling me?”

 

Two months later I’ve been attending he said:

 

“We want no police officers would attend, unless called to do so. And as funeral directors we were expected to declare death, not certify, declare. And if we had any concerns to raise those concerns for a police officer to get involved.”

 

Now, no disrespect to any of these serving police officers, but it’s not my job. I’m not qualified to determine whether a person has died. I’m an undertaker. And whilst we do checks in the course of our business, would I want you to rely on your mum, or dad being declared dead on my say so? Certainly not!

 

You know, I’m not on a hundred and fifty grand a year! That is a a GP’s job. But we were apparently protecting the GPs. So they’re working from home with the headset on, on double the money on a Covid payment. And I kind of said this to this copper. I said:

 

“I’m not qualified to do that. And, you know how can I do your job for you? If I’ve got concerns, what do I do if I attend a scene and there’s a gentleman laying, passed away in bed, there’s a bit of blood on the pillow. Do I start telling the family I’m not happy with what I’ve seen? It puts me in a very difficult position.”

 

So I kind of said, no. And he said:

 

“But I thought we’re all in it together? Clearly not!”

 

Yeah, clearly not, because I’m the only one turning up making these calls. So I kind of said:

 

“No. I wasn’t willing to do that. And if they needed to do that, …”

 

But lo and behold, no doctors have been, … They’re starting to attend now.

 

But there was that. There was the lack of numbers. And there was the deliberate efforts to make, relabel everyone as a Covid death. And all funeral directors will tell you this.

 

And I don’t doubt some of them will be convinced they were Covid deaths, because they were told they were Covid deaths. And they were the sealed body bag. Does that mean they’re a Covid death? No it doesn’t! No it doesn’t! It means they’ve been labelled with that.

 

And they were paying premiums to health authorities for every Covid death. They were paying premiums for everyone that was put on a ventilator. They were paying premiums for everyone who was given Remdesivir. The same Remdesivir Mr Fauci killed a lot of African kids who had Ebola with.

 

Peter McIlvenna: Yeah.

 

John O’Looney: So I kind of started to see the cracks in the whole thing. I would hasten to wear this was at a time when funeral directors weren’t washing, or dressing anyone, because of this deadly plague. And I was frightened. We’re all frightened.

 

But my job is to care for people. And part of that care is treating them the way I would want to be treated. Now, these are people that have lost their mum over a bloody Zoom call!

 

Peter McIlvenna: Yeah.

 

John O’Looney: Standing there in a HazMat suit. This is not people that have been cared for! So I was washing and dressing them all. Because I had a young girl brought into my care. She was only six. She died from cancer. I believe that was in the February of 2020, 2021? No, 2020. And her family wanted to spend time with her. She had a brother of five and a sister of six, seven sorry. And she was six. And so I washed and dressed her. And I kind of thought:

 

“If I can do that for them, I can do that for everyone.”

 

Because everyone’s family is just as important. And as I said, I washed and dressed them all, the whole way through. And it’s a miracle I’m alive, because I’ve never won a mask!

 

Peter McIlvenna: So when funerals happened the family weren’t allowed in, or was it just one, or two, closer?

 

John O’Looney: No, there were varying levels of paranoia. So, for example, different crematoria are run by different people. So the one locally is council run. And they were particularly, I felt OTT [Over The Top] really, but following government guidelines! And they actually, at one point, sat everyone, two meters apart. And I kind of said:

 

“You can’t do that.”

 

I remember a guy moved his chair sitting next to his mom and the soundman came out, stopped the funeral. And that wasn’t at my funeral, I’d hasten to add.

 

But there was a big furore about that, and rightly so, because you shouldn’t be treating people like that. These are people that got out the same bed some of them. Why can’t they sit together and hold each other’s hand during a funeral?

 

So there were a lot of people very frightened, very scared. And I suppose I was the exception to the rule, because I just felt that people, … I was worried. I was waking up every morning wondering if I was going to be ill. But I kind of thought:

 

“Well, these people got to be looked after.”

 

How can you tell someone they can’t see their baby, you know, they can’t see a little girl? I weren’t willing to do that. So I washed and dressed them all. And I had a lot of funeral directors sending people to me, because they knew that I would wash and dress them, and nobody else would.

 

Peter McIlvenna: Wow! Well, I guess you just get on with your business, or is there an organization, a group, an association that you link with other funeral directors, or is it very much you’re running your own business?

 

John O’Looney: Well you’re running your own business. But you can be member of an advisory body. There are two in the UK. One is called the NAFD, and the National Association of Funeral Directors. The other one is called SAIF. But it’s spelled S-A-I-F. I was a member of SAIF. It wasn’t too long before I started speaking out, I started getting pressure from them telling me that, yeah, they weren’t happy with me raising concerns.

 

[15:08]

 

Peter McIlvenna: Were there any particular, … Did they come to you and say:

 

“Look, just get on with your business.”

 

Or is it actually?

 

John O’Looney: Yeah, basically. Yeah. I think it was a matter of putting pressure on me to shut up. Basically to remain complicit and silent. Saying that I was bringing them into disrepute. And they would suspend me. And I kind of said:

 

“Look. My job is to look after people. You suspend away! I don’t care!”

 

Peter McIlvenna: Yeah.

 

John O’Looney: And that’s what they’ve done. But they I don’t rely on them to be able to trade. Do, you know what? Being a member of a governing body doesn’t make you a decent undertaker. You know, caring about people is what makes you a decent undertaker. And that’s what put me in that predicament is, because I care enough to actually stand and put my head above the parapet, and say there’s something very wrong here! What is going on?

 

So I began then to openly speak about my concerns as I was seeing something was very, very wrong. And then in the end of 2020, again there was just no increase in death rate. They were telling everyone how terrible this pandemic was and getting us to clap on doorsteps for the NHS, and saying they were swamped. And they were showing us pictures of overrun wards, when the reality was very different to that!

 

And I know, because I’ve spoke to a lot of nurses and doctors who were practicing well-rehearsed dance routines! And stuff like that. It wasn’t what was being told. And I dislike very much liars!

 

And we’re not talking about a heating installation, we’re talking about the lives of people! It’s not a service provider, this is people’s lives.

 

So we were doing funerals in November, December, of 2020. It wasn’t busier, no busier than normal! What they did was they actively relabeled everyone as a Covid death.

 

So they said, they advertised widely, we’re going to cut, we’ve got this life-saving injection! And we’re going to roll it out locally here in January, January 6th of 2021. And I kind of said to a few people:

 

“I wonder if we’re going to see that pandemic death rate, the moment needles go in arms?”

 

And a couple of people laughed at me, and said:

 

“Oh! You’re paranoid!”

 

And lo and behold, needles went in arms, and it went through the roof! Around 300% what it should have been. And people were dropping like flies. And there was your pandemic! Your pandemic that only when needles went in arms.

 

And it’s been that way ever since really. We’ve seen more youngsters die from thrombosis-based deaths, for example, in the last two years, that I’ve seen more than I had from the previous ten.

 

Like this week I’ve got a 29 year old in, 23 year olds, 32 year olds. People that shouldn’t be dying, without going into detail of who they are, which I could never do. I wouldn’t do. But people that shouldn’t be dying are passing away suddenly from undiscovered heart conditions, apparently.

 

Now as a funeral director, my job is to raise any concerns I have to the governing body i.e., the local coroner. In the case of it being multiple deaths, it felt sensible to go to the Chief Coroner of England, which I did. I emailed him and I CCed around 40 doctors and scientists, who have reached out to me. Very eminent people who have the same concerns. Because I knew it would put pressure on them to give me a response. And I’ve got no response. So three weeks later, …

 

Peter McIlvenna: What did you say you were giving the increase in the figures you were seeing and raising concerns?

 

John O’Looney: Yeah, basically, I’ve seen around a 500% increase in thrombosis deaths. Now, when you think, a thrombosis death is a blood clot. A blood clot culminates and you dying from a heart attack, or a stroke, or an aneurysm, where that blockage is such that the pressure bursts your artery, and you bleed out quite quickly, and that’s an aneurysm.

 

Now I’ve seen a massive increase in these. And I’ve had, for example, I had a guy called Nick called me from a mortar in a hospital. And he said:

 

“He’d seen the same thing, around 600%, almost exclusively in jab recipients.”

 

Because they collate the records there. So I know what I’ve seen. I emailed the Coroner and I didn’t get response. Emailed the Coroner again to put pressure on and, CCed him 40 doctors. And got a reply via the secretary:

 

“We follow government policy.”

 

So that’s a way of acknowledging it, but saying they’re following government policy.

 

Do you know, I’ve been to various hospitals I went to Stoke Mandeville Hospital and spoke to the mortuary staff there, with a colleague of mine. A guy that works for me went. And I couldn’t resist asking:

 

“Have you seen an increase in thrombosis-based deaths.”

 

“Yes. Loads.”

 

And she said:

 

“Because it turns the blood to glue.”

 

And they’ve seen it firsthand! Now, I went there six months later and she’d obviously been pulled about that comment, and insisted:

 

“That wasn’t what I said! I said Covid deaths!”

 

I’ve still got the email that I sent saying:

 

“Thank you for the chat. I wouldn’t take the jab based on what you said.”

 

Peter McIlvenna: Yeah.

 

John O’Looney: So these people know! There’s a number of reasons. Some of them are complicit. Some of them have bought into the narrative and are blissfully unaware. But they know the truth! I’ve had a GP standing four foot away, here by my door, doing cremation paperwork, two, or three, weeks ago. And again, I looked at that as an opportunity, and said to him:

 

“Have you seen an increase in jab recipient deaths.?”

 

And he said:

 

“Everybody knows!”

 

That was his exact words, “everybody knows”. Everybody, I kind of think he refers to the 80,000 NHS staff that would rather lose their careers, than take the protection, for example.

 

Peter McIlvenna: Wow!

 

[20:43]

 

John O’Looney: So the government said they were going to sack them all. Why didn’t they sack them? Because there’d be 80,000 prime witnesses that would all spill their guts then!

 

Peter McIlvenna: Yeah.

 

John O’Looney: They would have no hold over them, over their jobs.

 

So anyways, September of last year I took a phone call from a guy called Mark Sexton. Really good guy, really good guy. Ex-police officer and a man of integrity and honour. And he invited me to attend the meeting in Westminster and address number one Birdcage Walk on the 21st of September.

 

And there we were due to sit with two Ministers from Parliament. And one of them never showed. The other one was a guy called Sir Graham Brady. Very senior Tory politician. He’s the commissioner of something called the 1922 Committee.

 

So there are around 18 of us there. The Times, or the Guardian, one of the puppet papers, reported it as a group of “anti-vaxxers”. This is a group of anything but anti-vaxxers! I’m an undertaker do you know? If people start dropping down dead shortly after a vaccine that’s why I’m standing up and speaking! I’ve got nothing to gain!

 

Professor Dolores Cahill was there. Dr Tess Lori, Dr Steven Frost, Dr Sam White, Dr Sucharit Bhakdi. People that I’ve never even really heard of but were all saying the same thing as me. And they were going into a little bit more detail, obviously on the science.

 

Now to give you an idea, Dolores Cahill is a girl who was advising the government in her 20s. Now she must be approaching 60, now. So this is a girl that’s at the top of her game. She’s an absolute genius.

 

And some of the things that was said were very shocking and very upsetting. And my feeling is that this Sir Graham Brady knew. It was all of us, we all felt that he knew by his reaction to what was said. And we kind of went in there full of hope:

 

“At last! Someone’s listening to us!”

 

Because all these people are dying. And I’m on the coal face! I see it! When people come in, for example, I had a 28 year old who went into hospital for a minor procedure. The NHS there, following government policy attacked her. First of all and said how selfish she was, because they look and see you’re not jabbed. And then they target you.

 

And they told her how selfish she was. And then they told her how much danger she was in being in hospital. And it’s all full of Covid! And they coerced her after attacking her. And she agreed to have it. And she died 90 minutes later in the bed! In the same bed that they gave her the injection in, from a blood clot. Now she didn’t have an ounce of fat on her. She was in excellent health.

 

It’s one of hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds that have reached out to me after seeing me as a focal point after being very honest. Open and honest about what’s going on. I went to Milton Keynes police station a few weeks ago, April 28th, to report something that I wasn’t happy with. With what’s been going on. I went with Mark Sexton.

 

We were asked to wait for a police officer. The incident number was 1062, 28th of April. After sitting there for three hours they came out and said there was no one free to see us. Okay. So they said they would be in touch and assign us an officer, just to hear what we had to say, and to listen to us, our evidence. Nothing! And whenever I ring up they say:

 

“No, they don’t consider it a crime. Contact the local health authority.”

 

They’re all complicit! They’re all complicit. They know what’s going on! Because these are the same guys turning up now to scenes of sudden deaths. I’ve got mates in the industry that do the coroner’s contract. Now the way that works is, for example, the coroner doesn’t employ funeral directors. He contracts the recovery of sudden deaths, back to the coroner’s office. And I speak to these guys, and they’re busier than they’ve ever been with sudden deaths. Because more, and more, people are falling over suddenly at home from natural deaths, natural thrombosis deaths.

 

Peter McIlvenna: The whole thing in politicians are real. I mean, I basically loved politics from when I was young. I remember growing up, I’ve worked in the House of Lords for 10 years with one of the Peers. And it is neigh unbelievable that you have 1500, you’ve got 650 MPs, you’ve got about 800 odd, Lords.

 

And I have seen maybe two, or three of them actually speak out. And yet they must have questions as well. They must have family members. And they’re not just purely there as an MP. There as an individual, as a person with connections. And they must have questions. And yet there is absolute silence!

 

[25:26]

 

John O’Looney: I think to understand the mindset of these people you have to put yourself in their shoes. And I felt this very strongly. My job is people, engaging people, and reading people. I would suggest that Sir Graham is deciding which side of the fence to fall on. He knows! He knew! He looked like a guy, a little boy, who had been caught with his hand in the biscuit tin.

 

And he couldn’t get out that meeting quick enough, I tell you! He knows! Does that make him complicit? Only you can decide. I think if, you know what’s going on, and you do nothing, and you say nothing, that makes you complicit. That’s the bottom line.

 

What would make you complicit? A lot of money, and a seat on the ark for you and your loved ones.

 

Peter McIlvenna: Yeah, yeah.

 

John O’Looney: That’s the bottom line. And the mistake these people make is believing, that they have a seat on the ark. Because I can tell you now, once they’ve fulfilled their usefulness, their purpose, the gaze will be cast on them. And there’d be no one there to fight for them. They’ll just sweep them under the carpet! Because they’re also witnesses as well. One thing history tells us about criminals. They don’t want any witnesses.

 

Peter McIlvenna: Well.

 

John O’Looney: Yeah, once they’ve fulfilled their purpose they’ll treat them with the same disdain they’re treating us. Like livestock.

 

And I can tell you that meeting for me, if that had been filmed, that would have brought it all to a crashing, … That would have all crashed down, because people would have seen the truth that we saw sitting around that table.

 

Peter McIlvenna: So at the moment you have raised these concerns with a range of people, including sitting with Sir Graham Brady, who is one of the top conservatives, with the 1922 Committee. And you’ve had very little response, I’m assuming?

 

John O’Looney: I mean, I can’t even get a police officer to sit with me to hear what I have to say!

 

Peter McIlvenna: Wow.

 

John O’Looney: Doesn’t that in itself, … And people need to ask yourself a number of questions. For example, why would 80,000 NHS staff at most risk on the front line, prefer to lose their careers than take their protection? And why did the government backtrack if it’s so important they’d be jabbed? Why did the government backtrack and let them keep their jobs?

 

It’s there! It’s in front of you! For example, eight weeks ago, why was Covid going to kill us, and we couldn’t work, we couldn’t travel, you couldn’t see your own family? But eight weeks later, Putin’s going to kill you and you can move a family in from the Ukraine!

 

Peter McIlvenna: [chuckling] Yeah!

 

John O’Looney: What can’t people see? It’s there in front of you! And the idea is, I believe, I think there’s a number of people with a number of fingers in a number of pies. I kind of feel that Europe is being targeted, and the US, specifically. And I think they’re all queuing up especially for slices of pie from the US, when that falls over. And I don’t think the way things are going under the Biden administration, … Because it isn’t Biden, we all know that! He’ll sign what he’s told to sign, and walk where he’s told to walk. Bless him, he’s long, long, lost!

 

But I kind of feel that there’s definitely an agenda there. Does it make me a “conspiracy theorist”? I don’t know. I looked after another 29 year old this week. And I picked a 27 year old up today. You tell me! It seems to be never-ending at the moment. And you have to ask yourself, why Chief Coroners are not listening, and why a police officer won’t even sit down and talk to me?

 

And why I’ve got GPs and nurses confessing to me what’s happening? The same people that will put needles in your arm, but won’t put it in their own! So yeah, we know what’s going on! We know what’s going on. I just would rather be an honest man, and meet my maker with a clear conscience. I would suggest that there are a large number of people who won’t be able to do that.

 

Peter McIlvenna: Tell us about the impact that it’s had on you.

 

John O’Looney: Yeah, I kind of, a number of people kind of said to me:

 

“You should be quiet, because you will be targeted.”

 

And lo and behold just before Christmas, I fell ill. I went into hospital and was tested several times for Covid. Every time it came back negative. I bet they were gutted! And but anyway, the following morning after being admitted I felt like I’d been poisoned. I felt really ill! Yeah, it wasn’t like an illness. I definitely feel, on reflection, I was targeted. And I was warned that I would be. They sat consulting down with me in the morning, said:

 

“Look we’re gonna save your life, because you’re gonna die without Remdesivir.”

 

I kind of said:

 

“No. I’m not taking it!”

 

And they:

 

“Well, why?”

 

And I said:

 

“Well, let’s look at the side effects of Remdesivir. And what that will do to me as a respiratory patient? What effect would I have on my liver and my kidneys?”

 

And he just stomped off! And then that he was doing what he was told to do.

 

Later in the day I had a woman who sat down on the bed from Oxford University. And she said:

 

“Hi, I’m from Oxford University. We want to save you! We want to, …”

 

John O’Looney: Oxford University?

 

John O’Looney: Yeah! Touting Oxford University, out talking to me at my bedside.

 

Peter McIlvenna: Wow!

 

John O’Looney: So she said:

 

“We want to give you a drug called Baricitinib, and another one called Tocilizumab.”

 

And I kind of said the same to her:

 

“Okay. Let’s have a look at the side effects of these drugs.”

 

And she just walked away!

 

Peter McIlvenna: Wow!

 

John O’Looney: Yeah:

 

“I’m only doing what I’m told to do!”

 

And there you go. I even had a nurse come up to me and thank me for what I’d done. Mark Sexton came and got me out. He discharged me, along with a doctor, who will remain nameless, because he’s obviously got the GMC [General Medical Council] putting pressure on any of those doctors who do work outside the NHS. But unfortunately, they’re a growing number that are, because they see what is going on.

 

And I would urge all of these medical professionals to be honest and open, because history will remember what has been done! And what side do you want to be on? Do you want to be on the side of good, or the side of a clear evil? And what’s being done is evil.

 

Peter McIlvenna: Well, what are the conversations, because I remember even talking to someone today. And they talked about some of their family had been seriously ill, but thank god they were triple jabbed! Because if they haven’t been triple jabbed, it would have been even worse! They don’t get. And I’m sure it’s the same conversations you have with family members that come in.

 

[32:04]

 

John O’Looney: Yeah. So when I sat down in Westminster, obviously I have been very fortunate. And I’ve had a great insight into what’s gone on in other fields, not just in what I know as a funeral director. Now it was felt that there were a great number of different variants of jab. And that would correlate perfectly with some of the symptoms that I’ve heard.

 

For example, some people have gone blind shortly after having these jabs. I know, because I’ve spoke to them. Other people have gone paralyzed from the waist down. Women have bled menstrually, profusely, non-stop. People have died from blood clots.

 

Now the other chilling one, the real chilling one that was for me, they were using placebos, initially. And the idea of that is to recruit you as an advocate. Because, if you have a jab. And it’s a placebo, obviously you’re not going to suffer an ill effect. You’re not going to get Covid. So you’re then going to tell everyone how wonderful is. And that’s the great benefit for them, and the agenda. Having a placebo that recruits you as an advocate, doesn’t it?

 

And the most chilling with, obviously the other one is the “clot shot”, and some are dying. The quickest one I’ve ever known, died was 90 minutes, up to about six, or seven, months. And some families are blissfully unaware. They just don’t know. And I’m not there to tell them. I’m there look after their loved one. But others are very aware, and they’re very angry! And nobody’s listening. They don’t care. They’re more bothered about their direct debits than now the life of these people.

 

But the third one that was particularly chilling, was the one that reprograms your that-cells. Now the way it was explained to me in Westminster was, your body over the course of two years it regenerates all of the cells inside your body – which I didn’t know – with the exception of a number of things; the heart, your sexual organs. And I think something else they were saying.

 

But anyway, these cells that reproduce have a new instruction in the T-cells, the immune system. And as they multiply they will attack the healthy host. They will see it, the spike proteins as the enemy. And so they flock to attack that. And that leads to clotting. And it also leads to deterioration.

 

So, for example, if your immune system starts attacking your liver, your liver is going to deteriorate! What are the symptoms of that? You’ll get sick, and you would eventually die. So there’s your new variant, your latest variant, isn’t it?

 

And then they said more. The most disturbing thing was anyone that’s had a jab of this specific type. And let’s face it nobody bloody knows! We’ll have between two and five years to live, and there isn’t no cure!

 

Peter McIlvenna: Wow!

 

John O’Looney: Yeah, is it true? I really don’t know! I’m seeing a growing number of sudden deaths in people under 40, that shouldn’t be dying.

 

Peter McIlvenna: I mean, when the history is written, depending on who is around, …

 

John O’Looney: Oh! History is written by the winners, isn’t it!

 

Peter McIlvenna: Well, it is, but the data will not be there! Because the data, stories, are coming from individuals who are listing the data. But the government doesn’t want to connect the jab with an adverse reaction and death. So, …

 

John O’Looney: That’s right.

 

Peter McIlvenna: The data will not be there! That’s the frightening thing! The truth will maybe not be told.

 

John O’Looney: The strange thing that we’re noticing is say, for example, pre-plandemic, if you were to die suddenly, there would be postmortem, that’s it. There was no ifs, or buts, or maybes. And we’re seeing more, and more, people slip through that net, where they’re suddenly deemed just not requiring a postmortem, which is obviously in itself very strange. I’ve never, ever, known that before. And the way they streamline the process.

 

So if we cast our mind back to Dr Harold Shipman. He was a GP that was killing people. And the way he would do, was he would befriend his elderly patients. He would ask them what their plans for their funerals were. And if they said cremation, and he didn’t like them, or whatever, he would give them a vitamin injection of morphine and kill them. And the way he got caught was a couple of the families went for burial, instead of promotion. So there was the evidence sitting there in a coffin, in a grave.

 

And now every GP has an average number of deaths. That’s just the way the business works. And this guy was around, 200 over the average. So there was enough numbers there to raise suspicion for a coroner to order an exhumation. And that’s how they caught him out, kind of thing.

 

Now something they put in place to stop that happening again was, anyone that’s due for cremation, they have two independent doctors look at the case history, look at the deceased, examine the deceased, and fill in forms to say they’re happy there’s nothing untoward, no question unanswered. That was streamlined for the “plandemic”. And that has remained in place. It’s still only one doctor.

 

So the questions that perhaps were being asked before, are not being asked at all now! So again, you have to ask yourself, why is that? Why are a record number of sports men and women dying, or being forced into retirement? Why? In the last 18 months? What have they all got in common? Is this environmental? What’s caused this sudden surge in myocardial cases?

 

I would suggest it’s exactly what all the experts in Westminster said it is. And what this undertaker sees it is, in the deaths of all the, … I’ve seen far more people die from thrombosis than I have, labelled Covid.

 

Peter McIlvenna: Do funeral parlours, do you publish the figures to the public, or is it internally you collect them, or is that the government?

 

John O’Looney: Well, it’s very interesting. Because I think once you have a look down the rabbit hole and you dig a little bit deeper, and you liaise with people who furnish you with the information that perhaps you were missing, you see very clearly that this is something they’ve been preparing for a long time.

 

And part of that preparation is moving the right people into the right places. And also passing the right legislation to make it very difficult for anyone to dig a little bit deeper. Now the new GDPR laws [The General Data Protection Regulation] make it very difficult. And you have to you can’t really keep information, or collate information, without express permission. And so that makes it then more difficult to find the truth. Trust me, I know that what I’m saying is totally right.

 

In fact, I received an email last year from someone called Yvonne Myers, she told me her name was. And said she was from RT Media. I don’t think she was. I was suggested to me, she might have been an intelligence service. I really don’t know. But I was offered 85,000 for an exclusive. Now what that meant was, I would give them my story, and then sign a contract to say that I wouldn’t tell it again to anyone else. They would then present that story to all of the different networks. They would all be told:

 

“No. We can’t show that!”

 

And it would go in a bottom drawer. And I then couldn’t talk to anyone else. And for that I would get 85,000. Obviously, I said no. I’m not interested. There’s no amount of money could make me sell people out. That might be for them. But it’s not for me.

 

Peter McIlvenna: So you’ve all during this time you have a funeral parlour business, but also you’re speaking out and engaged with a range of people, a range of events, what does that been like for you personally? Because that’s completely different to what you’re normally doing.

 

[40:02]

 

John O’Looney: Yeah, don’t get me wrong I kind of did consider what the effect might have on the business. But it’s been amazingly positive. In fact, I would suggest that I’ve actually got a lot of work, because people have respected the fact that I’ve been honest. A lot of jab victims I’ve looked after and their families have targeted me to take care of them, because they know exactly what’s going on.

 

And for a lot of these people I know it will only really hit home to them when death touches their family, and they lose the family member. Then they’ll realize, you know what, that guy we thought was crazy, perhaps he isn’t, because this has happened.

 

So people I think, respect integrity. And when you look at, when you listen to one of these politicians talk utter crap! Utter crap! It oozes out of them! The deceit oozes out of them! They can’t help it, because it’s lies. They talk lies!

 

Like, for example, Boris Johnson locking everyone down and ruining all these livelihoods and businesses while they’re having karaoke parties! And they kind of released that to put the knife in Johnson, didn’t they? That was clear. But what they failed to actually think about, they’re so desperate to get Johnson, that that didn’t just show him partying, it showed everyone! So what that means is that everyone knew there was no risk whatsoever!

 

Peter McIlvenna: Yep.

 

John O’Looney: So whilst everyone’s livelihoods and businesses were being decimated, these people were partying! All of them! All of them! Not just Johnson. So do you know, does that correlate with what I’m telling you, or does that kind of just cast out on what I’ve said?

 

Along with the 80,000 NHS workers who’d rather lose their job than take the protection. Does that cast out on what I’ve said? It’s there in front, along with all the young sportsmen, and footballers, FIFA registered players that have fallen over and died. Does that lend itself to what I said, or does that discredit me, factually?

 

Peter McIlvenna: When I talk to people about that if Boris, suppose he was about to die, and then three weeks later was touching shoulders with people. And then that could kill him, either he was never in hospital, was never about to die, because if you’re about to die of something you recover. You’re not going to go near the possibility of getting that serious illness again! And yet he didn’t give a damn. So, why should anyone else worry?

 

John O’Looney: Well, that’s the thing. I used to be the same as everyone else when I would believe whatever I was told. But now I see the truth. And I kind of, my experience whatever they tell you, it’s actually the polar opposite. It’s very much like this war in Ukraine, you know:

 

“Oh we’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning!”

 

Meanwhile America fronts 40 billion extra in a desperate attempt to win, because they’re getting their arse kicked! , you know whatever these people tell you, they’re serial liars! Let me tell you! And I would suggest whatever report you see, it is actually the polar opposite is the truth.

 

Peter McIlvenna: Yeah.

 

John O’Looney: And I’m not a conspiracy theorist! I’m really not. I’m an undertaker. But I’ve seen through them. Now I see them for what they are! And I sat at the table with Mr Graham. He knows! I know! As the GP said to me a couple of weeks ago:

 

“They all know.”

 

They all know.

 

Peter McIlvenna: Yeah. Wow. No you’re right whenever I read a story I wonder what they’re trying to tell me [chuckling]! What message are they really trying to get across, as opposed to what the story says.

 

John O’Looney: Well I sense a lot of it is mocking us.

 

Peter McIlvenna: Yeah.

 

John O’Looney: The another big mistake I feel they’ve made is calling the latest lie, Monkeypox, as a kind of derogatory term to mock us. And certainly the people that I’ve spoke to would suggest that is a vaccine herpes induced, and not Monkeypox at all. But they need a cover story to explain why so many people who’ve been vaccinated have got this herpes rash. Because they were given it!

 

Peter McIlvenna: Yeah, exactly! John. Thank you for your time. It’s fascinating. And I love talking to people, as I said, who’ve got nothing to gain from speaking, except for speaking the truth and wanting the truth to get out.

 

John O’Looney: Yeah, do you know, I would welcome the debate. I would open debate. It was very interesting with the hospital experience. Because for me that was really quite chilling. Hospital was not a place I would ever want to go again! And it was very interesting, because at the beginning of this lie, I had the BBC contact me locally. And they asked to do an interview as an undertaker. So, of course, I believed it. It was early in the game. And I kind of said:

 

“Yes, come in.”

 

They sat me down. They got me to dress in full PPE [Personal Protection Equipment] and put a mask on. Well I kind of did what they asked me to do. And they spent about half an hour rehearsing everything they wanted me to say. And I thought that was normal! You know, how long did you spend briefing me before interviewing me? You didn’t.

 

Peter McIlvenna: Two minutes? One minute?

 

[45:06]

 

John O’Looney: Yeah you did. Yeah, you didn’t. But that’s what they did. And the end result of that was I promoted their propaganda. And I kick myself now! Now it’s very interesting. Because I’ve been very desperate and keen to speak to them since, and they know what I’ve said, and they won’t speak to me. Yet when I left the hospital I got a call fromThree Counties Radio*:

 

“Oh, we’d like to talk to you about your Covid experience.”

 

I said.:

 

“I don’t think you would.”

 

“Oh yes we would! Yes we would!”

 

[* BBC Three Counties Radio is the BBC’s local radio station serving the counties of Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire.].

 

So anyway, we started having a conversation. And I told them the truth about how they tried to nail me. And the fact that I’d had three negative tests, and they tried to put Remdesivir in me. And the history of Fauci and Ebola, Remdesivir, and how all these people were dying from kidney and liver failure. That’s exactly what all the families said that come through the door who lost people with Covid, treated in hospital by Remdesivir. So he said:

 

“Well, let me come down. And I’ll record an interview with you.”

 

I said:

 

“Okay.”

 

I said:

 

“And just to keep it well balanced, I’ll film that interview.”

 

I never heard from them again. And what they wanted was the reality, is they wanted a very, very prominent anti-vaxxer, to die from Covid. That’s what they wanted! And they ain’t got it. They ain’t got it.

 

Peter McIlvenna: Yeah. John. Thank you for your time. I know you’re busy. Thank you for giving us your time today.

 

John O’Looney: It’s a pleasure, it’s a pleasure. And thank you everyone for listening. You take care. And by all means, anyone who wants to reach out to me to verify I’m a funeral director. Milton Keynes Family Funeral Services. Do a search on Google, have a look through the reviews. You’ll see what I’m all about.

 

Peter McIlvenna: Yeah. No absolutely. Well, I certainly [words unclear] and I’ll vouch for you then. And as with Jeff Wyatt, who we’ve had on regularly. And I know Jeff well.

 

John O’Looney: Yeah, he’s a lovely guy. Very passionate about the right thing taking place. It’s gonna be dark times ahead I suspect. And we’re gonna need everyone on board to fight these demons!

 

Peter McIlvenna: No absolutely. Well thank you John. Thank you to our viewers and listeners for tuning in this was pre-recorded few days before. So thank you for watching and listening on whichever platform you’re on. And do take a moment, and maybe share this video with someone who has bought into the lie. Take an opportunity and use that to send it on to someone else, and hopefully your recommendation will encourage them to watch it, and maybe think differently.

 

John O’Looney: Well, it was a very interesting, last snippet, I’ll tell you. It was suggested to me that it’s a Russian roulette. So when you go you’re either lucky, or you’re not. Now you could be lucky once, maybe twice, maybe three times. Can you be lucky half a dozen times over the next five years? No!

 

Peter McIlvenna: No, exactly.

 

John O’Looney: Don’t play Russian roulette with your life, guys.

 

Peter McIlvenna: Absolutely! And on that piece of very good advice, which I think many of our listeners will have taken to heart completely, I’ll let our listeners and viewers go. So thank you so much for being part of this today.

 

John O’Looney: Thank you Peter. Take care.

 

[48:00]

 

END

 

 

[Readers: If you see any errors (however minor), or ways to improve things, in the transcript, please let me know in the Comment section.

Also please share the link to this transcript, so others can benefit. Thanks.]

 

 

============================================

 

Odysee Comments

 

4 Comments

 

@PW
9 days ago
Excellent interview. We need more like this.
Reply
2
0

@YosserHughes
7 days ago
Great to see Mr O’Looney still fighting the good fight. I remember being a little sceptical of him when I first saw a podcast a loooong time ago, these are strange times. Clearly a man of great integrity and courage.
Reply
1
0

@martartat
7 days ago
Been ‘following’ you since your first interview, you’re a trooper! <3
Reply
1
0

@jacquelynsauriol
7 days ago
Hospital Executions.
Reply
0
0

 

============================================

 

See Also

 

TheCrowhouse – Funeral Director John O’Looney Blows the Whistle on Covid – Sep 16, 2021 — Transcript

 

 

Stew Peters Show – Funeral Director – Mass Vaccine Deaths, Child Danger, Covid Camps, Genocide Planned – Sep 23, 2021 — Transcript

 

Maria Zeee: We are live with Dr Ryan Cole. He runs the largest pathology lab in Idaho. 26 years experience in the Mayo Clinic. And is working with the Global Covid Summit and International Alliance Of Physicians And Medical Scientists. Thank you so much Dr Cole for joining us today.

 

Dr Ryan Cole: It’s an honour to be with you and with your listeners. So hopefully we can enlighten some people on some important matters.

 

Maria Zeee: Yes I think we have a lot to unpack here. So you started speaking last year about the increase in cancers. That you were seeing in your clinic. Let’s start there. Let’s talk about that increase. Has that further increased now?

 

Dr Ryan Cole: Yes. I mean, I’m still seeing it at the same degree increased in the different age groups above yearly averages. So like you mentioned I’ve been doing pathology for 26 years. I’ve seen about 500,000 patients in my career. So I know the annual patterns in certain types of diseases. So when the shots rolled out, it was interesting that correlating with each decile of age group coming downward I would start to see a bump up in certain types of cancers, which was very concerning.

 

And the first signal I saw was endometrial cancers, cancers of the uterus. And normally I would see maybe two of those a month, two, or three a month. And I was starting to see two, or three per week! Which was very, very concerning. And then I started seeing melanomas of the skin at younger ages. And those ended up being thicker.

 

And it was interesting, because I knew the clinics I was serving – we weren’t as tightly locked down here as many states and countries. So I know those clinics stayed open. So it wasn’t the excuse that:

 

“Gosh! Nobody could get into the doctor and these were all a delayed diagnosis.”

 

So yes, I’m still seeing that uptick. I’m still seeing shockingly odd cancers at shockingly odd ages! And so that pattern persists. And we’re starting to understand more, and more, the mechanisms as to why those are happening.

 

Maria Zeee: So could you talk us through those mechanisms and why we are seeing this uptick in cancer?

 

Dr Ryan Cole: Certainly. So one of the biggest problems is the spike protein persists in the body after the shots. And so the synthetic RNA, we know from a Stanford study a couple months ago came out that showed the synthetic RNA doesn’t break down like scientists had hoped and predicted.

 

So with that synthetic RNA still in our lymph nodes spike is persistently produced. That spike protein can bind to two very important genes. One is called p53. And I call that one the “Guardian of the genome”. So goes your p53, it’s a tumor suppressor gene. So basically it’s a family of genes that keeps atypical cells from proliferating. But when that p53 gene is bound, those regulatory pathways are no longer regulated. Now cancer can take off.

 

And then another very important one that a lot of women I know are aware of is the BRCA gene. And that’s very responsible for breast cancers and ovarian cancers. We also know that that spike protein can bind to that BRCA receptor.

 

Now in addition to that the spike protein can get into our T-cells. And all day long we have little rips and tears in our DNA. And we have little zippers that zip it back together. Well when the spike gets into the nucleus of our very important White blood cells, the T-cells, then that DNA repair can’t happen anymore. The spike blocks that from happening.

 

And then there’s also another DNA repair mechanism that’s blocked. It’s a gene, MSH3, MSH2, MSH6. And again we know that if you have those in the wrong ratio that can also lead to cancer pathways. So I mean, this is just the tip of the iceberg of the different things that can induce that into happening.

 

And the problem is that synthetic spike is making spike that persists in the body. We know in the Stanford study at least 60 days. A colleague in Germany, Dr Burkhart found spike deposited in a post-vaccinated patient 128 days at time of autopsy. So this spike protein, the Salk Institute showed that it’s a toxin. That it can induce the same bad effects that the virus, the viral infection can produce itself.

 

Now the difference is, if you get the viral infection your body can clear the infection within about a week, or so, if you’re reasonably immune competent. Now you have the virus gone, you have the spike gone for the most part, and you’re not prone to these chronic pathways from a synthetic spike circulating constantly.

 

[05:26]

 

So that’s kind of the concern. A natural infection from this engineered virus, you know, no matter what it was a virus that was tinkered with, in a laboratory setting. But if you have the whole virus and you mount a whole immune response then you’re generally okay. If you get excess amount of spike from these shots then that becomes a very big concern.

 

Maria Zeee: Dr Cole, a lot of people who are immuno-compromised – because you mentioned there if your immune system’s fairly strong you can overcome the virus – a lot of people who are immuno-compromised have been told to go and get these injections. And what we’re seeing is that it’s much worse for them when they do. But they were worried that they wouldn’t be able to survive the virus. Can you talk to those people in particular?

 

Dr Ryan Cole: Yeah. I know and see this is frustrating. Because that’s so anti-science to say:

 

“Gosh! Your immune compromised. So we’re going to give you a shot, to an immune system that’s immune compromised, and isn’t going to be able to mount an immune response, even to a vaccine.”

 

So a lot of immune compromised people are actually very vitamin D deficient, which is interesting. And any individual that’s vitamin D deficient can’t mount a good immune response from any vaccine, for that matter!

 

That’s why we saw so many people in care homes, the elderly, pass on and be so susceptible. The majority of those individuals are vitamin D deficient most nursing homes around the world don’t supplement them, which is kind of foolishness.

 

But anyway those immune compromised individuals, … And I have an oncology colleague down in Texas and he showed that none of his patients that were immune compromised chemo patients mounted any immune response to the shots at all.

 

So again this is another international problem with the suppression of early treatment. Of all the patients I treated with early treatment, you know, be it Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin phenol vibrate, budestinide, steroids, anti-clotting agents, not a single patient I treated went to the hospital, not a single patient I treated passed on. About half of my patient cohort was elderly, multiply comorbid, individuals.

 

So even in those immune compromised individuals if you can treat them with something that inhibits the binding of the spike to the cell which many of those agents I just listed do, then their viral load goes down.

 

And a very simple one especially with Omicron is just mixing some iodine drops in some salt water, and the moment you have a symptom you start doing some nasal rinses and, or, gargling. And that will kill the virus straight away! Very, very, very quickly. So these immune compromised individuals, it’s foolishness in medicine to say we don’t have early treatment for a disease. It’s akin to me saying:

 

“Gosh, you have a broken leg with a bone sticking out! In two weeks when it’s gangrenous why don’t you come in? And then we’ll consider treating you.”

 

Gosh we’d never do that! Or a woman comes in with a urinary tract infection. I would never say:

 

“Gosh, why don’t you just go home. When it reaches up into your kidneys, and you need to be in the ICU, then we’ll treat you.”

 

Nonsense! Early treatment has always been the standard of care in Medicine. So be it an immune compromised patient, be it a healthy patient, no matter what, you treat you treat any and every disease early! If you want to have a good outcome.

 

Maria Zeee: What we’ve also seen. And I want to know whether you and your colleagues have seen the same, is people that were in remission, people who had been undergoing chemo, were doing better, got the shots. And now, all of a sudden they have aggressive cancers.

 

Dr Ryan Cole: Yeah. And that’s a huge, huge concern I have. I just got back from some travels Paris, France, Miami, Houston, LA. But everywhere I went I had doctors come up to me:

 

“Yes, I have a friend, a brother, a cousin, a colleague, they had a stable stage one cancer of this type, or that type, and after the second, or the third shot, it took off like wildfire!”

 

Some people call them “wildfire cancers, turbo cancers”. But they go from stage one to stage four within a couple of weeks of that second, or third, shot. Again this goes to that spike disregulating immune pathways and normal repair mechanisms.

 

And even more importantly what we’re seeing, you have White blood cells that keep cancers in check. Most of those are your T-cells, your killer T-cells, your natural killer cells. And you and I, sitting here, anybody listening, has about 30 billion T-cells in circulation right now in your body. And a good percentage of those are killer T-cells.

 

[10:14]

 

Their job is to go around, … I call them kind of the “Marines” of your immune system. They’re shaking hands with all your cells all day long, saying:

 

“Friend, or foe? Friend, or foe?”

 

And if a cell is atypical, your body, that T-cell will throw a little hand grenade and blow up that atypical cell, or an infected cell, or even a bacteria. So these Marines surveilling your body all day long, that’s what they’re doing.

 

Now after the shot, unfortunately, there’s a couple of receptors in our body. They’re called “toll-like” receptors, like a toll road. And when these receptors are down regulated, these pattern receptors, the T-cells, are kind of waiting for instructions, or a signal. And they don’t have that. And toll like receptor number three and four are responsible for the entrainment of T-cells to fight cancer. And these T-cells end up being like drunk marines going back to the barracks and snoozing. Now you don’t have these marines on guard. Now, they’re not circulating, or they just don’t even know how to react to that friend, or foe signal.

 

And. So these wildfire cancers normally would be kept in check by this population of T-cells just fighting it off as constantly as possible. And that’s why a lot of cancers can be kept in check for many years, because you will constantly have your immune system trying to fight it off. So when you have a weakened immune system. Because the spike protein, the shots, the mRNA, the lipid nanoparticle itself, all these toxic agents turning off that immune response. Now the cancer says:

 

“Hey! I have nobody fighting me off!”

 

And then the cancer starts doubling very quickly, and then can spread very quickly.

 

Maria Zeee: I think this answers a lot of questions for people who, because they see their family members now who were recovering. And there was hope. And, all of a sudden, it’s now, so aggressive in their bodies. So is there anything that can be done to reverse this? To treat this?

 

Dr Ryan Cole: That’s a good question. I wish I had an easy answer for you and I don’t. The key is trying to turn the immune system back on after it’s been suppressed.

 

I mentioned that Stanford study. We don’t know, there’s not a single study yet showing when the body stops making the spike protein from the synthetic mRNA. Not one study.

 

The Stanford study stopped at 60 days. There was a Journal of Immunology study that showed at four months, spike was still circulating in exosomes. You know, similar to Dr Burkhart’s autopsy study, 128 days there. Dr Bruce Patterson. In one of his studies showed spikes still circulating in pac-man cells in your blood, monocytes, CD16 monocytes. So we know that spike is persistent for a long time. We know it inhibits so many important immune pathways.

 

Vitamin D levels are critical. I’d say vitamin D is like the conductor of your immune system. If you have vitamin D and normal levels you have this [word unclear] conductor of a symphony that brings sections in and out appropriately. If you have low vitamin D your immune system is like the mosh pit at a punk rock concert. [chuckling] So, it’s so important to have vitamin D in normal levels.

 

A lot of individuals are deficient in trace minerals. Selenium will activate your the cell activity. Selenium, about three, or four Brazil nuts a day. If you like eating Brazil nuts, that’s a very good source of natural selenium is. A little bit of zinc just enough not too much, kind of the Goldilocks effect. Zinc will activate your T-cells. A little magnesium at bedtime is very good for mobilizing your vitamin D and also other enzyme pathways.

 

Cutting out the sugar, the high fructose corn syrup. You know, those will disregulate your immune system. So the closer you can get to eating close to nature and then supplementing as needed. We already live kind of in a toxic food jungle of bad things that get put into the body.

 

Sleep is critically important for your immune system. The more your rest you get, appropriately seven, eight hours a night, then your immune cells are stickier, literally stickier! And they can talk to each other. If you don’t get enough sleep your cortisol levels are disregulated, and then your immune response is disregulated.

 

So. I mean, those are a few things one can do. The honest problem is we just don’t know when the body stops making this spike, and continues to drive some of those cancer pathways. And what I’ve heard from many oncologists I’ve talked to is the normal chemotherapies, or the normal treatments they do, the cancers aren’t responding as usual.

 

[15:08]

 

There’s a couple other things. It’s interesting, because Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, there are multiple anti-cancer studies for both of those medications. And there’s another drug that I’ve taken for three years for chronic mononucleosis. But it’s good for a lot of autoimmune conditions and that’s called low-dose naltrexone which can be compounded by a pharmacy. And it also helps modulate your immune response your T-cell response.

 

So there’s a lot of, again, off label, out of the box, super safe, long proven modalities, especially when the cancer isn’t responding to the traditional allopathic type therapies.

 

Maria Zeee: You mentioned something there that that your colleagues were seeing that the cancers weren’t responding in the normal way that they would to treatment. What do you mean by that question.

 

Dr Ryan Cole: Well normally, … So we’ve studied certain cancers long enough that we know many of them are going to respond. You know, say breast cancer will respond to certain hormonal therapies and a couple other chemotherapies.

 

But a big part of those chemo reactions is working hand in hand with your immune system. So even though the chemical is there, some of the pathways to get those chemicals to the cells, and, or once those cells are injured by the chemo, then it’s kind of a one-two punch of your immune system coming in and mopping up those cancer cells. So for whatever reason, even though the chemo is being given, the body isn’t responding in a way that it normally would, saying:

 

“Okay, we got this first dose to knock down the first line of the cancer cells, now my immune system should come in knock down the second line and mop up the debris of the cells that have been killed.”

 

And our immune system is being disregulated enough by the chronic toxic present of the spike protein, that again, those cells are equivalent to the Marines drunk in the barrack. They’re just not on the battlefield doing what they’re supposed to do. And so it’s that augmented effect of having not only the chemo but the immune cells working together. And I think that’s part of the reason why we’re just not seeing that effect. We’re just not seeing those cancers respond the way they normally would to some of those therapies. And I think that’s why these cancers are taking off so much faster.

 

I mean, I’ve heard of individuals that had stable stage one cancer and were dead two, or three weeks later. And I mean, that’s unheard of with a lot of the cancers that I’ve seen over my career and diagnosed! Because the progression of, … Certain types of cancers we call them indolent, or smouldering, where you just look at it and go:

 

“All right, you’ve got a lot of life ahead. We can keep the cancer in check. You’re going to do fine.”

 

And certain ones, certain even low-grade lymphomas, or leukemias, all of a sudden transform to high grade. And again, we’ve just disregulated enough of the gene pathways that I think we’ve made a big mistake internationally!

 

And I don’t mean to sound alarmist. I’m hopeful. We’re not seeing it in everybody, that’s the good news. Hard to explain why, other than there are multiple facilities making the shots. And I think some of them have different quality control practices than others. So I think some doses may be lower than others.

 

And some it may just not even be effective doses at all. If you see where people were lined up in stadiums and those little vials sat out in the hot sun, and probably degraded to where nobody got toxic anything! Because by the time they got a shot it was mush!

 

So who knows? I mean, it’s not everybody. There may be certain genetic subtypes of individuals that are more predisposed. There’s multiple things that it’s going to take us years to study and find out.

 

Maria Zeee: I was just about to say. This is going to take years to answer. That there’s no quick fix to this. And thank god for the vials that were sitting out in the sun that aren’t toxic to people. If that’s the case! [chuckling] seriously.

 

I wanted to ask you what other problems is this immune suppression causing in individuals? We know about the cancer. We’ve seen the DOD data about miscarriages. We’ve seen so much data coming out. But what else are we seeing?

 

Dr Ryan Cole: Yeah, one of the important ones is reactivation of latent viruses. So again due to those immune suppressive effects and those toll-like receptors I mentioned. Toll-like receptors number seven and eight, those are responsible for keeping viruses in check.

 

[19:56]

 

So the other thing we’re seeing is reactivation of mononucleosis, herpes family viruses, human papilloma virus. So I’ve seen an uptick in human papilloma viruses in pap smears and cervical biopsies. Which leads to an increase in cervical cancers as well.

 

There was a really good paper out of the Netherlands on the Pfizer shots by Dr Fossa et al. And that one showed, and the conclusion in that paper was there’s a concerning disregulation of the innate immune system. That’s your dendritic cells, your macrophages, and T-cells. Those are the ones that keep viruses in check. Those are the ones that keep cancers in check.

 

So just as much as we’re seeing activation of cancers. We’re also seeing activation of so many other viral families. I find it interesting that in the summer here in the States when the shots started rolling out in the kids, all of a sudden we had an RSV outbreak, Respiratory Syncytial Virus. And off season, the wrong time of year, in the summer. Well, it’s, because kids were getting their shot! And what did it do? It suppressed them. And they’re even in the Pfizer data dump, I think it was two weeks ago, they admitted:

 

“Yeah, well after you get the shot you’re immune suppressed for at least a week, or two.”

 

Which is exactly when everybody after their shots started getting Covid.

 

Maria Zeee: Correct.

 

Dr Ryan Cole: So the shots we knew, well, I knew it early on when the data started coming out. Every time a shot would roll out you’d see a peak in Covid cases wherever in the world that was. So that’s the other concerning finding.

 

And this is important too, because people with Long Covid and, or Long Covid-like symptoms after their shots, their doctor really should be checking them for reactivated herpes family viruses. I have a colleague down in Texas he says anywhere from six to eight out of ten patients post shot that are coming in with fatigue are testing positive for reactivated mononucleosis, Epstein-Barr virus number four.

 

And. I mean, there are some treatments you can do. I keep mine in check on and off. I’ve suffered chronic fatigue for many years. But there are things one can do. But you can’t find that for which you do not look. So I just like to make people at least aware, gosh if you’re feeling that chronic fatigue, make sure you get an appropriate reactivated microbe panel.

 

I don’t know how prevalent Lyme disease is down there in Australia. But I know here in the States many regions people who have chronic Lyme, they’ll get reactivated Lyme disease, and many other microbes. So that’s the other concern.

 

And then you pointed out as well the DMED [Defense Medical Epidemiology Database], the military database. A huge concern that I have is the neurologic conditions. Increase in multiple sclerosis, which can be Epstein-Barr related. By the way. About 80 percent of cases have high titers of Epstein-Barr. Tremorsc seizures, neurocognitive decline. So many things of that nature.

 

And. This is why the shot is more dangerous than the virus now. So the virus before, when it was the Alpha Delta variant, original Wuhan variant, the spike would split. You had a S2 and an S1 subunit. And that S1 would split off and go into circulation cause clotting. That S1 could land anywhere in the body across the blood-brain barrier.

 

Now the shot is made for that original Wuhan spike. The shot is made for a virus that went extinct in humanity over a year ago! The Wuhan variant doesn’t exist! They have not modified these shots whatsoever!

 

With the Omicron variant it acts more like a cold. Because the mutation in that spike doesn’t allow for the S2 and the S1 to split apart as much. So you end up with more of a whole spike subunit instead of this split subunit, S1 and S2. Which means we’re seeing less clotting with Omicron. We’re seeing less severe disease and hospitalization with Omicron.

 

But where are we seeing this severe disease, and where are we seeing the clotting? From the shots!

 

Maria Zeee: From vaccinated people.

 

Dr Ryan Cole: Yeah, from the shots proper. And that’s the problem now. The shot is more dangerous than the virus from a scientific point of view.

 

Maria Zeee: I want to go into this genetic clotting disorder and mystery blood clots that you’ve recently been speaking about.

 

But before we do, I just really want to clarify. What is “Long Covid”? We hear this term, what is it?

 

[24:40]

 

Dr Ryan Cole: Well, it’s a constellation of findings. It’s not the same thing in any given individual. An important aspect of the fatigue and the persistent feeling that you’re still sick, a lot of that comes from. Also this is one I didn’t mention yet, is the damage that the spike can do to our mitochondria. The mitochondria is the powerhouse of your cell. So you have tons of mitochondria in every cell in your body.

 

We know in neurologic tissue from a study out of Poland they show that spike can get into the cell, can get into the mitochondria and then what’s called the “electron transport chain” it down regulates cytochrome C, which is the beginning of the pathway that goes all the way down to ATP, which is the energy for your cell. So it’s basically respiration at the individual cellular level. So it’s really weakening and knocking out a lot of mitochondria.

 

So that fatigue, that brain fog, the inability to just day-to-day function at the level one had before it’s, because it’s like throwing sand in your gas tank basically, or petrol tank, or whatever you call it! But it’s inhibiting full combustion at the cellular level for your cells to produce the normal amount of energy. So that’s one pathway. Again reactivated viruses causing fatigue, that’s another pathway. This spike protein is such a sneaky little thing that can cause so many symptoms, and so many diseases!

 

Long Covid isn’t the same between any given two individuals per se. So and this is where it’s important for a doctor to be caring, astute, and listening. Because there are different things they need to test to see which of these many different pathways may be happening in these patients that are chronically suffering.

 

Maria Zeee: When I spoke to Dr Robert Malone last year he said that what they were seeing was that the spike was going into the body and potentially activating things that were dormant. Things that would have never been a problem for individuals.

 

And now, all of a sudden you had a flare-up of, like you said, maybe herpes, or things that people would have normally been able to fight off. And I think you’ve explained that process to us. But it would be amplified from the shots themselves, rather than Covid. Correct?

 

Dr Ryan Cole: Correct. And again, if you get Covid most people that are immune competent clear that virus within about a week, within about seven days there’s no whole virus left in our body. When I had Covid, Covid was three days for me. You know, did I take some early treatment? Sure. Most people that are immune competent clear that very quickly.

 

So to your point you’re absolutely right. And Dr Malone and I are good friends, and we talk about these mechanisms very often. And even certain micro RNA arrays that are getting messed up, G proteins, all sorts of mechanisms. If we had never introduced this shot into the body most people wouldn’t be having these problems.

 

And the answer is don’t get another dose of a toxic spike! So if you’ve taken one, fine. If you’ve taken two, I’m not here to judge anybody. But as a scientist now knowing the mechanisms, I’m here to say the third shot’s not going to do anything for you other than cause harm. A fourth shot’s not going to do anything for you other than cause harm. Because the shots aren’t formulated for the virus that is present.

 

The virus that’s present is completely mutated enough that the shots don’t cover it. In fact, we’ve seen data out of the UK showing that the body has a two to five times increased risk of getting sick from Omicron if you got your second, or third shot, than if you hadn’t!

 

So Wuhan is extinct. These shots are expired! These are scientifically expired! They don’t do anything now other than cause all these conditions, you and I have been talking about.

 

And that’s my concern as a scientist. Do I get cancelled, or censored, or fact-checked? You bet! All the time! Do I care? No! Because I say look I have the data, I have the papers, I have the peer reviewed material. If you disagree with me, wonderful! I don’t need some high school opinion maker that’s paid by Facebook, or Reuters, or one of these big companies, to say:

 

“You’re wrong! I fact-checked you!”

 

I’m like:

 

“No. I’m the scientist that sees all this on a daily basis.”

 

So does Dr Malone, so my other colleagues at the Global Covid Summit. We see this. We’re reporting it. We’re publishing it. It’s happening! The shots are expired. They are going to make your body more prone to very bad outcomes!
We’re starting to see this as well. This is the other sad part. The all-cause mortality death from all causes is now going up, in those who have gotten the shots, compared to those who haven’t.

 

And we have this false construct in society that the vaccinated and unvaccinated. No. There’s the vaccinated, the Covid recovered, which is the majority of individuals. And then that handful of individuals that haven’t had Covid or a shot.

 

But this false dichotomy needs to go away. And that’s politically how they try to divide us. You’re either in this purity signaling group, or not. Nonsense! If you’ve had Covid your immunity is 13 to 30 times better than if you had a shot. And that’s data out of Israel, data out of Qatar. And then they say:

 

“Well gosh, if you had Covid get one, or two shots, it gives you, you know, super immunity!”

 

Nonsense! That’s about as equivalent as superman! It doesn’t happen! It actually can lead to increased adverse reactions if you’ve had Covid and then get a shot on top of it, because it leads to a hyper immune response that your body doesn’t know how to deal with.

 

So I’m kind of rambling. So you can redirect me if you want. But those are some additional thoughts.

 

[30:46]

 

Maria Zeee: No, this is really important information Dr Cole. Because we’re at a point in society where people don’t want the booster. They’ve had their one and two that the government sort of pushed them to have. Told them:

 

“You can’t eat unless you undertake, you know, participate in this medical experiment.”

 

Disgraceful! But most of these people have had Covid and recovered, or at least what they think is Covid, whether it really was, whether the PCR was, …

 

Dr Ryan Cole: Sure.

 

Maria Zeee: I won’t get into that. What I’m saying is most people have recovered. And they’ve been fine, and they know people that have had Covid and recovered. They know unvaccinated people who fared much better than those who’ve had the shots.

 

So this is why this information is so crucial. Because we are at a point where I think many are starting to realize this is not necessary anymore, despite the governments trying to drag out this crisis, which just isn’t a crisis anymore, at all.

 

I wanted to ask you there’s been reports of a spike in cervical ulcers in young girls.

 

Dr Ryan Cole: I saw that, yeah.

 

Maria Zeee: Is this also related?

 

Dr Ryan Cole: Yeah, so and those are, I mean, there’s a genetic condition called Behcets’ disease. And these are Behcets like ulcers. And again, a lot of these different cutaneous ulcers and mucosal ulcers are generally driven by either a certain type of microbe, a certain type of anaerobic bacteria and, or, a virus. And again, is everybody getting them? No. Or is there enough of an uptick?

 

Yes. I mean, there’s almost 100 kids now, in the UK that have had hepatitis. And I think six, or eight of them have needed a liver transplant. Why is that? Spike protein is toxic! Spike protein suppresses other viruses. Now you’re more prone to hepatitis A, or C, or D, or B. And like in these young women and these ulcers, it’s plain and simple their body is immune suppressed. And certain organisms that can cause those ulcers aren’t being kept in check.

 

And so this is the insanity now of moving forward with any booster for anybody. Again the shot is expired, it doesn’t cover Omicron. The shot does suppress your immune system. And then the shot allows all these other microbes to wake up and cause, like you mentioned, these ulcers and young women, other autoimmune diseases, other neurologic diseases, etc., etc.

 

So public policy always lags science by months, and months. So we’re having these mandates by public health officials that have never seen a patient, never treated a patient. They have a Master’s in Public Health. They’re not clinicians. And so they think they’re doing something good, when they don’t understand!

 

I mean, I understand the deep mechanisms of genes, of genetics, of viruses, of immunology, of virology pathology. It’s what I do every day.

 

And when I hear these public health officials saying:

 

“No, get your shot!”

 

I’m like:

 

“Oh my gosh!”

 

And never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by ignorance. But they’re ignorant! That’s the problem. They don’t know the facts! They don’t know the hard science! And they don’t know that what they’re choosing to do and telling people to do.

 

And the people are waking up, like you said. The people are quite awake and aware. But these public policy makers are literally harming people! And when I went into Medicine I took an oath to first do no harm, “primo non nocere”. And that’s physical harm, psychological harm, financial harm. I promise not to harm human beings. So people say:

 

“Well, why are you speaking out? You should just be quiet.”

 

I’m like:

 

“Because I see society harming people!”

 

And it’s my duty, as a caring physician to step up and say stop it! This is wrong! This is scientifically wrong! It’s harmful!

 

And we don’t know the long-term outcomes. We don’t have that crystal ball. We’ve only been doing this for a year and change, with these shots. I can only imagine what we’re going to see long term down the road in terms of effects from this. And that’s what’s very concerning to me.

 

[34:52]

 

Maria Zeee: And speaking of long term we’ve seen data coming out of the UK and Canada. And I believe the US now as well, if I’m not mistaken, supporting the fact that after two shots there is a severe decline in the immune system. After three it’s particularly alarming! And now we’re talking about fourth and fifth doses even here in Australia.

 

So can you speak to us about what happens? Do we know what the percentage of decline in the immune system is? Do we know, is there data around that?

 

Dr Ryan Cole: Well. I mean, there’s some data that looks at that. And it depends on the individual I guess is the quick and the easy answer. Depends on the individual but the short answer is, if you’ve been poisoned the answer isn’t take more poison!

 

Maria Zeee: Of course.

 

Dr Ryan Cole: I mean, if I gave you a little arsenic on your eggs for breakfast this morning you may have a tummy ache and a little hair might fall out, but you’d probably recover and do okay. But if I said, you know, every eight weeks I’m giving you a little bit more arsenic on your eggs in the morning, eventually you’re dead.

 

Similarly, to that analogy, the spike protein, … Again Salk Institute, and many other studies, we know that spike is toxic. Why in the world would we continue to introduce a shot into the body that makes a toxic product, that spiked protein, that continues to suppress our immune system! And eventually that immune suppression.

 

Again the answer is, we have no idea when the body is going to stop making that spike. So why keep stacking spike, on top of spike, on top of spike?

 

And this is where it is absolutely criminal and shameful for any doctor, any health care agencies, any health system, any hospital, any public health official, anywhere in the world, to say any one more individual needs one more of these shots! They’re expired! Wrong protein! Wrong virus! Wuhan is gone. These are for Wuhan. Omicron is here. BA2 is here. XE is here. Completely different. Most people have natural immunity. To most people Omicron’s a cold.

 

We need to stop poisoning people! With a toxic spike that causes immune suppression, that causes cancer, that causes neurologic conditions, that causes infections of other types, that causes all sorts of bodily harm! It makes no sense, whatsoever, to say a shot is the answer in the middle of a pandemic! Early treatment is! Early treatment saves lives.

 

And then the double, triple, crime in all of this is that anyone would put any of this into a child’s body! We don’t know the long-term outcome to their fertility. We know that the lipid nanoparticle goes to the ovaries. We know there are a lot of base two receptors on the ovaries and the eggs. A woman is born with every egg she will ever have a lot of base two receptor there. What binds to that? Circulating spike protein! What does that lead to? Inflammation. And so any cell that that lipid nanoparticle goes into carrying that mRNA, that secondarily expresses the spike on its surface, is now an enemy to the immune system. And your body’s going to attack those cells.

 

Why would we do this to our children?

 

I mean, this is not an approved shot. These are all still experimental world-wide! They say there are quote “approved shots”. But if you look at their data they were approved like community here in the US, was approved on data through March 31st, before Delta ever appeared, before Omicron ever appeared. They got they got their biologic licensing agreement through data that was very old, and very irrelevant.

 

And these shots are causing harm to a lot of people! And there is no way we use our children as human shields and guinea pigs. When kids survive this virus statistically at a hundred percent anyway.

 

So if you have someone that’s surviving a virus at a hundred percent. And there’s a shot that is now all risk with no benefit, no reward, why would you put even one of those in the arm of a child? I mean, that would be like me saying in front of some public peace officer:

 

“Hey! I’m just going to shoot this person once with this bullet. I don’t mean any harm!”

 

You know, something’s as stupid as that! I would get thrown in jail for that. And we have health care providers around the world that are brainwashed into thinking they’re doing something good for a patient when they’re actually harming them.

 

We have government officials and public health officials mandating something that people don’t need. And actually harming them! This is where you’re absolutely right when you pointed out, people are waking up, because there’s no emergency! We see that, plain and simple in front of our eyes!

 

Are there a handful of individuals that are still weakened and frail? You bet! Should we have protected them from the beginning of all this two years ago? You bet!

 

Maria Zeee: With early treatment.

 

Dr Ryan Cole: Yeah, with early treatment! Absolutely! Because it saves lives. Always has, always will.

 

[40:01]

 

Maria Zeee: I want to talk now about this genetic clotting disorder Dr Cole. I saw some footage with you and Steve Kirsch where you actually lifted up these mystery blood clots. What are they? It’s not the first that we’ve seen. We’re talking, how many feet coming out of people?

 

Dr Ryan Cole: Three feet, four feet long, veins and arteries. So some patients get the shot. And then they’re short of breath, or fatigued, or lethargic. Usually what we think about is you’ll think of like a deep vein thrombosis in the leg. And then you’ll end up with a saddle embolus where somebody will quickly die from an embolus to the lungs.

 

What’s interesting about these is when the shots rolled out, just like I was seeing with some cancers, I was seeing interesting clotting conditions in skin biopsies. And then I had a pathology colleague down in Texas call me and say:

 

“Hey! I’m seeing a lot of micro clots in the GI tract!”

 

So we were seeing early on after the roll out, the clotting condition, even on the micro level!

 

Now these ones that I showed in front of the camera on that Steve Kirsch interview. And these are coming from morticians, and pathologists, around the country. And Dr Pretorius in South Africa has done some good studies on the mechanism of the spike protein. And so normally you have a lot of little clotting factors in the blood. And this little waterfall cascade, this triggers this, triggers this, triggers this, plus platelets, plus fibrin and thrombin, equals clot.

 

What Dr Pretorius showed is without all those little factors and without the platelets, if you put the spike protein into the blood it will cause all the blood proteins to clump into a clot. So that’s why these look odd. They’re really like firm and rubbery, because it’s a thickened clumped protein.

 

So in Alzheimer’s you hear about amyloid in the brain. Amyloid plaques in the brain. Amyloid is a unique type of protein that’s difficult to break down. And that’s what the spike is triggering in the human body. And so you’ll get basically this amyloid-like, or amyloid-esque clot that normally you have your plasminogen, this enzyme that will break clots down, … Because it’s not a normal clot, it’s not easy for the body to break it down. And that’s another huge concern! Again we have this unique toxic spike protein that bypasses all these other physiological processes of the human body.

 

And here we are two years later, or year and a half later, just learning about these mechanisms in the laboratory, and science papers, and research. These all should have been done long before any shot ever rolled out onto humanity! And instead we’re seeing people die suddenly from these clots blocking off circulation to the brain, or to the heart, or to the lungs, infarcting a liver, or a spleen, or an organ, a kidney. These are not normal clots. It’s a very unique type of protein deposited within these.

 

Maria Zeee: So to clarify. I just want to make sure I and the audience understand. The clots are happening, because of the spike. The spike again is the main culprit here. And are we saying that these amyloid clots that we see in Alzheimer’s patients, are we saying that for those who survive these clots that they could potentially end up with early onset Alzheimer’s, as well?

 

Dr Ryan Cole: That was another paper that just came out about a week ago showing the ability for these amyloid proteins to break off of the clot circulate and go to neurologic tissue. So that’s another potential concern. That was an animal study. But that amyloid again everything’s not these big clots. You’ve got the micro ones too. And that amyloid, a sheet of protein, can transmit and deposit in neurologic tissues. So that is a long-term concern.

 

Maria Zeee: And then these sort of larger clots that are killing people, are they restricted to one area, or are they could they happen anywhere?

 

Dr Ryan Cole: They can happen anywhere. And this is what was interesting, the morticians would find. Because normally when they would preserve a body, you know, they’ll find a vein, find an artery. And they’ll pump their preservative fluid in. They were finding that they couldn’t get the fluid to go in, because these clots were so thick and blocking off so many vessels!

 

So I have one patient where that individual had about a dozen of these large ones, anywhere from 12 inches to 48 inches. Literally, it’s like Iceman comes up in some Avenger movie and freezes everything! It’s just like freezing the blood into these tubes in certain patients!

 

So is it everybody? No, it’s not. But we still don’t know who’s genetically predisposed to this, versus others who aren’t. And it’s literally, … I mean, people demeaned me for calling these “the clot shot”, a year and a half ago, or I guess a year ago. And I’m like:

 

“Well, now I’m right!”

 

I didn’t want to be right! I don’t want to be right on any of these things I’m sharing with you! All I am, a pathologist. We’re the quality control of Medicine. We’re the observers. I’m a reporter. All I do is report what I see. I don’t cause the disease, I don’t prevent the disease, I don’t cure the disease. I report the disease!

 

So what I’m doing here is reporting the process. And I’m calling on my colleagues in the laboratories around the world to quit your silence and speak up. Because I have plenty of people that have approached me, that are also pathologists, saying:

 

“Hey, thanks for speaking out. I can’t say anything, I’ll lose my job!”

 

I’m like:

 

“Well, don’t make me the tall blade of grass! Join me!”

 

And that’s really what we need to end this narrative, and end this problem with all of these different things, is everybody to speak up! Because courage begets courage. And once some people wake up then more people wake up. And then this whole game is over. And then we don’t harm any more people.

 

But in the laboratory, I’m just reporting what we’re seeing. And these clots are a problem.

 

[46:21]

 

Maria Zeee: So with these clots is there anything that people can do preventatively, if someone has been injected?

 

Dr Ryan Cole: Well, it’s interesting. So one of them, the triggering mechanisms, there’s a receptor on the blood vessel linings, the red blood cells, as well as the platelets, called CD147. And that little protein marker is where the spike likes to bind. Well, guess what binds there and inhibits the spike? Ivermectin. That’s one of its about 20 mechanisms of action, that are not only antiviral, but also anti-inflammatory and anti-clotting. Another good anti-clotting agent is Hydroxychloroquine. One of the best anti-clotting agents of all is a normal vitamin D level. If you have a normal vitamin D level, above 50 nanograms per milliliter you’re far less inclined to clot! So everybody thinks:

 

“Oh gosh, I go out in the sunshine!”

 

Usually not during the hot peak of the day when you would be getting your normal amount. And in the spring and summer you can get adequate D. But in the fall and winter, the UVB rays bounce off of the atmosphere. You can’t synthesize D for several months in the winter time. People need normal vitamin D that inhibits clotting.

 

Now the primary clotting pathway for the virus itself is what we call the thromboxane A2 pathway. And the best inhibitor of that is plain and simple aspirin. Not too much! But just enough. So I’m again a big believer in the “Goldilocks effect” in life. Just enough, not too much.

 

So a baby aspirin every day, or every other day, is pretty harmless in terms of the human body. But it’s pretty helpful in terms of inhibiting that pathway from happening. If you’re going to get a shot make sure you’re doing something to inhibit clotting before you even get the shot.

 

And another one that’s really interesting that does break down fibrin quite well. There’s a traditional food in northern Japan called “natto”, which is a fermented soy product. And there’s an enzyme in that soy. It’s fascinating in that population, you don’t see a lot of deaths from heart disease, or strokes. And they live to a ripe old age. And that’s because in natto is an enzyme called nattokinase. And that enzyme is very prone to breaking down fibrin. So that’s just one other thing, one an individual can do.

 

As well as staying hydrated. I could put a needle in a hundred people’s arms right now and most people will be dehydrated. The more dehydrated you are, the more prone you are to clotting. So that’s just another thing to keep into consideration is. Just make sure you get adequate hydration during the day. I’m going to close my blind here. I noticed the sun’s peeking through.

 

Maria Zeee: Sure, sure. I’ll just speak to the audience for a moment. If you are watching this. And you have a loved one, or a friend or even if you meet a stranger that has been injected, encourage them to watch this and educate themselves, but also talk to them about these preventative measures from clotting.

 

I mean, like you said Dr Cole we’re not judging people that have done it. But we’re actually now, in the business of is saving lives and mopping up the devastating effects of these injections. And so it’s important to maintain our compassion for people in this time.

 

[49:43]

 

 

Dr Ryan Cole: Absolutely correct! Yes.

 

Maria Zeee: Do we know about natural blood thinners, like lemons, etc., are they things that can also assist?

 

Dr Ryan Cole: The closer you live in nature the better. So I mean, most Medicines actually come from nature until, you know, our modern era, you know, got into synthetic Medicines. There are so many things. The closer you can eat to the earth, I’m literally here on my organic farm right now. I have nine acres of veggies, I have 250 fruit trees, I have my lambs, and my cows out in my pasture. I try to live close to nature. And yes, there are plenty of things one can do.

 

Maria Zeee: Wonderful. I want to ask Dr Cole, if people want to follow you, you recently had the Global Covid Summit. Is that done now, or is that going to be a recurring event?

 

Dr Ryan Cole: Well it’s a recurring event. So if you go to globalcovidsummit.org, that’s usually where we’ll have our events. I know we have some down weeks as each of us in the group are kind of going in to different lecture circuits for the different next two, or three weeks. But then we’ll be back together in May sometime, as well as in June.

 

And usually at each one we try to bring what’s the most up-to-date science, what are the most up-to-date studies. Me personally, R as in Ryan R Cole, colermd.com. Which is very simple. I post some of my videos there. I’ll repost this there and share links. And then I get like frequently asked questions, you know, say to the clotting, or things like that, because I’ll get hundreds of inquiries per day and there’s only one of me.

 

Maria Zeee: Yes!

 

Dr Ryan Cole: With colleagues. So you’re probably thankfully Kelly connected us. But it’s so hard to get hold of me. I apologize.

 

Maria Zeee: It is! It’s okay.

 

Dr Ryan Cole: But when I do get a common question from about a hundred questions, then it’s easier just to convey that in one short synopsis for all those people. So I wish I could answer everybody. And like you mentioned we’re here to help people. This isn’t judgment. This is here’s the concerning factors. We need public policy to match what the science is. And we’re here to help people who have been injured and to prevent other people from being injured, absolutely!

 

Maria Zeee: You have some words of encouragement Dr Cole for those who are saying they’re desperately trying to wake up their loved ones. But they’re not listening.

 

Dr Ryan Cole: Don’t give up hope. Don’t be judgmental. Be kind, be loving. Don’t forget we’re all in this human condition. Yes, this has been divisive. But we’re still all just humans. You can try, don’t force people, people don’t react to forcing quite well, quite too well. Just keep loving them. And they’re individuals they are going to make their individual choice. Hopefully you can help them be informed, so they don’t make a choice that’s going to harm.

 

So just remember to hug people! Remember to love your loved ones! Remember to laugh! Laughter really is the best Medicine, believe it, or not. Laughter releases nitric oxide. Not nitrous oxide! Nitric oxide in your circulation literally kills viruses!

 

Maria Zeee: Really!

 

Dr Ryan Cole: Right, really! Yep, laughter is the best Medicine. So let’s laugh!

 

And again, if you want somebody to listen to you make sure you listen to them. So hear their concerns. I try to be very balanced in what I do. If somebody opposes my thought I say:

 

“Great! Wonderful. Present your thoughts to me. So I can process it.”

 

And then, if I have an answer that’s different, at least the other individual has been heard. You can’t be heard until you hear someone else.

 

So I think it’s very important for all of us to get back around that campfire and listen to each other, whether we agree, or not. It’s so important to share. And again, we’re not always going to agree. That’s fine. But just having that voice and having that listening ear brings us back together as a human family. I think that’s so important.

 

Maria Zeee: And it’s something that we’re missing. It’s something that was really destroyed during the time of lockdowns. It’s something that social media has contributed really negatively to, as well, because it’s easier to connect through our phones. But that human contact is so crucial.

 

And I always say, someone who looks at my website Dr Cole might think what a crazy conspiracist! Right? But when you meet me in person. And you see the conviction in my eyes and you hear it in my tone, it’s a totally different thing. So we need to keep that human contact going in that care for our neighbour.

 

Dr Ryan Cole: We do. Absolutely we do! And that human contact. I mean, physical contact is so good for immune health. Giving that hug, being in proximity, and literally. I mean, sharing just our cloud of our own microbiome being in the physical space of each other is not a bad thing, it’s a good thing. In the sense that it trains our immune system.

 

And the real pandemic in my mind was fear. And they intentionally induced a fear into the people. And I’ll admit I was afraid for a hot minute for the first week, or two, until I really doubled down on my virology and immunology that I’d already studied. I’m like now, we don’t need to worry about this. And then it’s been trying to combat that fear for the last, you know, two plus years. Just anybody I could teach, I would teach. Because then they would go:

 

“Oh! I don’t need to be so afraid!”

 

I’m like:

 

“No you don’t.”

 

And so you’re right, just coming together in community in closeness. Lockdowns were evil. And they still are evil! Because they’ve accomplished absolutely zero! I like my colleague Dr Paul Alexander, he writes a lot at brownstone.org. And he has this one paper, “400 things we did and the studies that showed that nothing we did worked”. And including lockdowns. Lockdowns are nothing short of cruelty! They didn’t save a soul.

 

[55:48]

 

Maria Zeee: Dr Cole it’s potentially a conversation for another time. But I’ll quickly mention last night I interviewed Dr Tess Laurie. And we were discussing the WHO pandemic agreement. And we’re talking about giving an organization like the World Health Organization, who’s done nothing good for two years, power over every country’s constitution. This is going to supersede every country’s constitution.

 

And they’re talking about more measures, harsher measures, even use the word “punishment” for those countries who don’t go ahead with what they’re proposing for future pandemics! Could you just quickly comment on that? The risks of that.

 

Dr Ryan Cole: Yeah, this is gravely important! Every citizen in the world needs to wake up to this right away. Because these international health regulations that they’re using literally to try to usurp the Constitution of any and every country. The WHO is owned by Pharma. 70% of its funding comes from Pharma. The rest comes from Bill Gates and China. And some of the nation donors.

 

The WHO spends more on travel than it does on disease. The WHO is an absolutely corrupt organization! And we need to stop! They need to go away! It’s not that we need to modify the WHO. No! It just needs to go away.

 

And we need to start a better, more ethical, health foundation. Dr Laurie would be, Tess would be a great leader of that, and World Council for Health. I’ll be with her in London next month at a meeting. And we’re trying to get the ethical doctors of the world together. Because we are not corrupted by Pharma money! That’s why we’re speaking out! We’re independent.

 

And the world needs to be aware of what you just said. And it’s not conspiracy. This is the WHO literally trying to become the power of the world, and to treat you with cruelty, and force you into Pharma drugs that you don’t need.

 

Maria Zeee: Yes, yes. Thank you for adding to that Dr Cole. I think it we really need global awareness around this. Thank you as well for your bravery, your courage, for being that person that other people look up to and saying, oh gosh! Thank you so much for speaking up! I encourage more to do it. Now the time really is now.

 

We’re at a crucial point in history particularly with these moves from the WHO. We can’t have this happen. And you’ve been silent for a couple of years you’ve been worried about your own skin, but really – I’m not talking to you, I’m talking to them – but really that time is over! You can’t worry about your own skin. This is about all of humanity and we need more people speaking up.

 

Dr Cole I’ll include those couple of links in the description. I’ll update it. And I’ll send you this. Please do share this interview far and wide! Subscribe to this Rumble channel, if you’re not already subscribed! Give this video a rumble, with a little plus in the bottom left-hand corner of the screen. And head to zeeemedia.com for all of my latest interviews.

 

Also a really quick plug to was media’s sponsor Dr Zelenko. There is a link down the bottom where you can get five percent off for his products.

 

And again, Dr Cole. Thank you so much for your time today, god bless!

 

Dr Ryan Cole: Thank you. You as well.

 

 

[58:57]

 

 

END

 

 

[Readers: If you see any errors (however minor), or ways to improve things, in the transcript, please let me know in the Comment section.

Also please share the link to this transcript, so others can benefit. Thanks.]

 

 

============================================

 

Rumble Comments

 

79 Comments

 

PatrioticDuty01, 2 weeks ago
I recommend everyone to read Real Anthony Fauci by Bobby Kennedy Jr. On chapther 3 he explains how Ivermectin could have saved 80 percent of deaths Worldwide. This book have opened my eyes. I now know that, 90% of all medicine is not for anything else than profit for them. Low profit and effective medicines are bashed and marketed as ineffective because they go against their narrative and profit plans. One of them is wonder drug Ivermectin. I see that everyday people search for it but can’t find a place to obtain. You can get yours by visiting https://www.ivmcures.com
REPLY
56 rumbles

Libertarian99, 2 weeks ago
If you like that info you should check out dr Joel Wallach. In the year 1900 they knew how to cure 700 known diseases in livestock animals using only MINERALS & VITAMINS as they needed food prices to remain low. He says every disease is a NUTRIENT DEFICIENCY DISEASE as he promotes the 90 nutrients needed for health which he calls the MIGHTY90 and has been promoting it for almost 30 years now. Dr Wallach has always said your average MD is the 3rd worst serial killer due to their treatments and says antibiotics is the only thing he would buy from big pharma. Dr Wallach has brought the corrupt FDA to court 8 times and won as they tried to ban vitamins and minerals in the past. He says our bodies have divine intelligence to heal ourselves and all we have to do is give our bodies the raw nutrients to heal itself. Of course John D Rockefeller took over that industry around 1910 and called things that worked as QUACKERY. If people can’t get Ivermectin remember you can make your own HYDROXYCLORIQUINN at home by boiling the RINES of 3 cantaloupes & 3 lemons for 3 hours on simmer. Lots of info about that on YT. Heard Dr Sherry Tenpenny explain that too.
REPLY
22 rumbles

JMPG, 2 weeks ago
Thanks for info. I had seen recipes for HCQ on YT but was not sure about efficacy.
REPLY
6 rumbles

FordeeeJH, 2 weeks ago
On the same page as you. My friend has made hydro too with rinds of lemons and grapefruits. Big pharma have had their day.
REPLY
5 rumbles

Alohasunset, 1 week ago
Oh cantaloupes as well.. thought it was grapefruit. But yes this would be something we can all easily make to help us
REPLY
2 rumbles

Libertarian99, 1 week ago
FordeeeJH & Alohasunset- Thanks for correcting that. Yes, Rines of Grapefruit and lemons.
1 rumble

realKish, 16 hours ago
Love Wallace’s work, thanks for reminder. Is cantaloupe another name for grapefruit? Grapefruit peels contain quinine. I cook 3 grapefruit peels + 3 lemon peels (eat the flesh as normal). Cover with distilled water, cook in slow cooker six hours. Do not remove lid until cool. Can freeze portions – 2 tablespoons daily (1 x twice daily). Also, drink pine needle tea 3 cups daily) or dandelion leaf tea (3-4 cups daily) or star anise (ground like coffee), 2-3 cups daily. Blocks spike from docking on ACE2 receptor.
REPLY
1 rumble

yarnover128, 2 days ago
Using organic produce of course
REPLY
1 rumble

willowsong, 2 weeks ago
Great recommendation and fantastic book. Amazingly referenced. And every penny goes to support the work the Children’s Defense Fund does, which helps shed light on vax harms. He’s not taking a penny of profit. Really good man.
REPLY
14 rumbles

FordeeeJH, 2 weeks ago
Ive got the book at last now, I’ve been on the waiting list here in the UK to read the real Anthony Fauci. Kennedy is an amazing man, humanitarian and incredibly knowledgeable and compassionate. Thank God for people like him..he is heaven sent. I have listened to so many of his interviews now. I listened to him talk about the power of 5 last year. And although I don’t meet many people, I’m retired now, I spread the word now every chance I get. Great man.
REPLY
4 rumbles

baking0707, 2 weeks ago
Thank you. I will check it out
REPLY
5 rumbles

Endofdays333, 2 weeks ago
ya everytime they say covid death besides bs test of dying with should say , COVID/GOVERMENT MURDERS , PREMEDITATED,
REPLY
4 rumbles

PeterCryptoRoo, 2 weeks ago
Note: We do not ship Ivermectin products to Australia
REPLY
1 rumble

3rdGrace, 2 weeks ago
What has that got to do with anything?? Many countries have problems getting IVM, but we’re figuring out ways to get it!
REPLY
6 rumbles

PepeLePede, 2 weeks ago
I’m happy to report that I received two boxes of paste… for my horse of course.
7 rumbles

Corruptus, 2 weeks ago
Makes me sad. Everyone I know but my wife and kids took that crap.
REPLY
30 rumbles

willowsong, 2 weeks ago
My family and friends, too. Let’s hope all our loved ones got the saline or even the low-dose jabs.
REPLY
17 rumbles

NoAngelJustMe, 2 weeks ago
Thats what I’m hoping for to One daughter, my husband, the rest of my family and my friends all took it. And even 3 kids under 16.
REPLY
5 rumbles

yarnover128, 2 days ago
Red states got lethal lots of bioweapon…see reesereport
1 rumble

DaisysMum, 2 weeks ago
It is hard when even my brother and his young girls have all been given the clot shot. All my friends who are in the older age group. Heck apart from myself and the OH are shot. I hope it’s not going to be so lonely in 5 years time.
REPLY
9 rumbles

FordeeeJH, 2 weeks ago
We all need to keep hope and faith in all of the credible doctors, scientists desperately working to find an antidote. Go to The World Council for Health, you should find Dr Tess Lawrie, Dr Peter McCullough and lots of other high profile names. There is advice on how to detox metals etc, like Zeolite, NAC. It won’t remove all but it will help a lot. And vitamin D of course. I take so many now I rattle! I didn’t take the jabs cus I didn’t think they could have possibly explored interactions of this wonder vax with different medications and med conditions (as I have a few) but I am convinced I have high levels of metals myself even without the jabs. I am currently trying to get off opioid meds and other prescription meds. Point is we may all have a Health journey to face but now we know who are real enemies are. Big pharma and our Govs. Find our real allies now. We all in this together, from here in the UK to Aus, NZ, US and all over the world. Take care all. X
REPLY
5 rumbles

NoAngelJustMe, 2 days ago
I feel you My husband and one daughter has taken 2 each and my parents and extended family 3 so far I worry about them and I am so concerned about their future. Scared to loose them sooner and lots of worries about their health as months turns to year’s. I hope they all have stopped believing in the jab’s now but I don’t know. They get mad at me when I try to tell them anything
REPLY
1 rumble

lightfromabove, 2 weeks ago
same here
REPLY
5 rumbles

TechMom7, 2 weeks ago
Same here.
REPLY
1 rumble

LuckyRain, 2 weeks ago
I had Covid. I was sick for a week. I was fine and able to go back to work after that. Yes, I did NOT take this experimental injections! I just let my God Given immune system for me. . Thank you Dr. Cole and Mariazeee.
REPLY
19 rumbles

youwho, 2 weeks ago
Dr Robert Malone and Dr Peter McCullough both say “Give the jab to immune compromised and old or vulnerable people”. That is the reason I have never trusted them. I think he is being over generous in saying doctors are doing this in ignorance. If they are still that ignorant they don’t qualify to call themselves doctors.
REPLY
17 rumbles

Ronaldlees, 2 weeks ago
I think Malone thinks that mRNA tech is valuable, but the way it was done this time was bad, mistakes were made, and all we have to do is fix the mistakes, and then the tech will be great. That’s my opinion of his opinion, which I perceive by the way he delivers his information, and the nuance I seem to pick up from it. I think mRNA is bad, period, becuz there will always be mistakes, and they are too costly.
REPLY
7 rumbles

NoAngelJustMe, 2 weeks ago
No one should get the MRNAshots Nobody. They are not a vaccine at all! And the people who forces them on us know that!
REPLY
7 rumbles

GypsyinAus, 2 weeks ago
Can’t wait for this show….love this channel…Thankyou Maria.
REPLY
17 rumbles

ExBabylonian, 2 weeks ago
Amazing Interview big thanks to you both.
REPLY
16 rumbles

JackBurtonKBF, 2 weeks ago
Dr Cole is the man. Top fella and I’ve been listening to him since his first talk on HCQ. Brilliant guy.
REPLY
13 rumbles

Built4Purpose, 2 weeks ago
A natural blood thinner that is also known to heal arteries – a wee pinch of cayenne pepper every morning. My husband was told to do this 5 years ago, his blood is fabulous now, I do it as a maintenance thing.
REPLY
12 rumbles

2dgamemania, 2 weeks ago
interesting, i have a raw garlic clove once a day. Done wonders for me.
REPLY
3 rumbles

heatheram29, 2 weeks ago
Complete Hero!!
REPLY
11 rumbles

laurakeet, 2 weeks ago
I love this guy. He is so full of truth.
REPLY
10 rumbles

Applesewer, 2 weeks ago
I really like your interviews Maria Zeee. You ask good, common sense questions.
REPLY
9 rumbles

joanie333, 2 weeks ago
Thank you Maria, for having such wonderful guests. Ryan is such a heart-felt, noble, empathic, honourable man! Very good information for everyone.
REPLY
9 rumbles

lightfromabove, 2 weeks ago
I would like you to ask these popular doctors about nano tech observed by microscopes… they never mention it, never explain it, so what are the others seeing with microscopes???? normal stuff or not? It bugs me nobody like Malone, Cole mention that???
REPLY
7 rumbles

Hedva, 2 weeks ago
Listening to Drs Corrie Madej and Lee Merrit on rumble, borax scrubbing was mentioned to remove nanoparticles.
REPLY
2 rumbles

HBGdave, 2 weeks ago
Thanks. Interesting and nice to hear such good advice. Don’t get the boosters, it is simply insane to do so.
REPLY
7 rumbles

fitnessrocker1, 2 weeks ago
These are smart people who created this poison vax..it is doing exactly as intended…helping to mass murder the gullible and venerable.
REPLY
6 rumbles

FatherCorapiCatholicChannel, 2 weeks ago
The jab is a killer, my cousin who was healthy was conned into getting the jabs, a few weeks after her 2nd jab she couldn’t breath, rushed to hospital was told she miraculously developed stage 3C ovarian cancer. She was so sick, her body kept filling up with fluid, so the hospital decided to try a small amount of chemo in the hope that helped, within a week she was dead. I have no doubt they know the jab caused her sudden cancer & death, but will remain silent. This jab is the perfect murder, it is genocide.
REPLY
6 rumbles

TechMom7, 2 weeks ago
I am so so sorry.
REPLY
3 rumbles

FordeeeJH, 2 weeks ago
So very sorry for your loss. Its absolutely shocking. Crimes against humanity. This time Nuremberg trials should ensure all of those guilty should be punished and not rewarded by a new life and job else where, so they can repeat their crimes. No compensation for your loss but it will hopefully one day help you some.
REPLY
3 rumbles

Contora78, 2 weeks ago
Great interview!
REPLY
6 rumbles

justpassinthru5, 2 weeks ago
Thank you Once again an amazing show!
REPLY
6 rumbles

PatrioticTrumpet, 2 weeks ago
tremendous amount of well needed information. THANK YOU
REPLY
6 rumbles

pickonme, 2 weeks ago
My concern is Doctors that promote this vaccine for elderly and compromised people…. in other words I read that as “LET THEM DIE”. IF you listen to many of these Doctors who are “against” the vaccine… they STILL promote it for our most vulnerable which I see as VERY HYPOCRITICAL! This vaccine is “DEADLY TO ALL WHO TAKE IT…… PLEASE NO ONE TAKE THIS VACCINE!” EVERY PERSON WHO PROMOTED THIS VACCINE IN ANY WAY SHOULD BE PROSECUTED FOR MURDER!
REPLY
5 rumbles

SaraSamec, 2 weeks ago
Such an interesting and informative interview and adorable doctor!
REPLY
5 rumbles

AEtherEMF, 2 weeks ago
https://theuniversalantidote.com SARS CoV2 air-infectious-particle not proven to exist, a S-Protein is a poison NOT the spiked TV ball virus delusion, Multi-Poisons are in WW3 war theatre, Synthethic S-Proteins only one, eg tests & jabs, more synthetic mRNA creations in LNPs,, graphene, Ethylene Oxide, Siver Azide, nano-tech, chemtrails, heavy metals RF Microwave Radiation antennae exposure, all sorts 177 health/science institutions globally all failed to cite even 1 record of “SARS-COV-2” purification, by anyone, anywhere, ever – As of February 25, 2022 – https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/68-health-science-institutions-globally-all-failed-to-cite-even-1-record-of-sars-cov-2-purification-by-anyone-anywhere-ever Downloaded insilico [computer] from China to manufacture jab potions because TV-virus-particle real-world does not exist – www.cormandrostenreview.com ***DOWNLOAD: The world must go to —-> www.bit.ly/awcevidence <—- download all pdf’s and videos. All the evidence the world needs to see to understand the COVID19 SARS-CoV-2 LIE will be found. Learn difference between legal & lawful ‘jurisdictions’, watch first x4 simple website foundational knowledge videos. —-> www.awarriorcalls.com – Livestreams —> https://rumble.com/c/c-443257 — https://www.brighteon.com/channels/awarriorcalls No ‘TV virus’ but a ‘mass poisoning’ of many different types deployed, even hospital protocol order following fiscally incentivised.
REPLY
5 rumbles

the20percent, 2 weeks ago
Awesome as always! Thank you!
REPLY
5 rumbles

iskwewak, 1 week ago
I learned about SaNOtize almost a year ago. It’s a nitric oxide nasal spray. That has been suppressed to the masses. It was invented in Canada. Did great in all the trials. Killed covid and varients in 2 minutes what more do we want?!!! With no side effects; so just more BS that our government is not looking after our health(we must), they’re not working for us. Nitric oxide has been used on premies for forever to prevent illness.
REPLY
4 rumbles

MollyBNC, 2 weeks ago
He’s an extraordinary man and doctor!
REPLY
4 rumbles

Endofdays333, 2 weeks ago
Faucie gates all governments and newscasters for DEATH PENALTY! LETHAL INJECTION!
REPLY
4 rumbles

3rdGrace, 2 weeks ago
Where is “doctor” Ruby, ranting about doctor Cole’s tie? Ugh!
REPLY
4 rumbles

willowsong, 2 weeks ago
She’s actually equivalent to a doctor–all the same prescribing rights, etc. But she hangs out with disinfo agent Stew Peters, so I no longer give her credence.
REPLY
1 rumble

pickonme, 2 weeks ago
WILLOW….. STEW PETERS BRINGS OUT A LOT OF REAL INFORMATION…. MAYBE YOU SHOULD STICK WITH DON LEMON AND JOY BEHAR.
REPLY
5 rumbles

DeeisFree, 1 week ago
Such a brilliant interview! As always from Dr. Cole; smart, intelligent, level headed facts. And as always from Maria; a smart, intelligent interview with well considered questions.
REPLY
3 rumbles

oxgmcx, 2 weeks ago
Here is another video featuring Ryan Cole … great work Maria! https://rumble.com/vxxcl9-saif-41-when-will-the-mantra-of-safe-and-effective-loose-its-appeal-among-t.html
REPLY
3 rumbles

PatrickJordan, 2 weeks ago
Steve Kirch sent us here. So the clotting is basically Mad Cow Blood. Prions in the Plumbing. The only thing that I’ve seen that can address amyloid (false word) tangles is to open the molecule with sodium laurel sulfate (coconut oil) lyse it with carboxylic acid (lactic/acetic) and then dissolve it with serine proteases. Other than black stone flower lichen that can deliver serine protease that I’m working on as a home remedy, I don’t know another source of that enzyme.
REPLY
3 rumbles

2dgamemania, 2 weeks ago
That last few minutes about the WHO is scary, i just hope they dont succeed.
REPLY
3 rumbles

SouWester, 2 weeks ago
Today in the Epoch Times: mRNA Vaccines Produce Persisting Spike Protein, Likely Causing Clots, Heart Inflammations, Cancers: Dr. Ryan Cole By Harry Lee and Roman Balmakov April 18, 2022 Updated: April 19, 2022 https://www.theepochtimes.com/mrna-vaccines-produce-persisting-spike-protein-likely-causing-clots-heart-inflammations-cancers-dr-ryan-cole_4407193.html?utm_source=morningbriefnoe&utm_campaign=Aomb-2022-04-19&utm_medium=Aoemail&est=OV6UbIue2EmssJV0BMs29NAcMaSoCWoYlUKyDBGrydySSpT0b9D4WrQWyndZRB0%3D
REPLY
3 rumbles

NelsonM67, 2 weeks ago
This video has also been made available and preserved on the uncensorable, permanent, distributed, peer-to-peer-network platform LBRY: lbry://@ZeeeMedia#3/Dr.-Ryan-Cole—Cancer,-Depleting-Immune-Systems-and-The-WHO-Pandemic-Treaty-vyss6t#6 *** and on the related web portal Odysee: https://odysee.com/@ZeeeMedia:3/Dr.-Ryan-Cole—Cancer%2C-Depleting-Immune-Systems-and-The-WHO-Pandemic-Treaty-vyss6t:6?r=HCLAAPgYMJ8zCjnm8BFRuxYCLTvj6CHe
REPLY
3 rumbles

AEtherEMF, 2 weeks ago
Mass multivector poisoning whats happening no SARS CoV infectious particle proven to exist, for that matter any other big-pharma-virus-infectious-particle, only deployed poisons do, eg spraying chemical DDT created Polio Explosive Evidence Virology a Global Lie NO COVID19 SARS-CoV-2 Exists – Part 1 – https://rumble.com/vzpdql-united-we-stand-with-police-genocide-is-occurring-part-1.html – 2h 19m 45s – 4Apr22 – A Warrior Calls Explosive Evidence Virology a Global Lie NO COVID19 SARS-CoV-2 Exists – Part 2 – https://rumble.com/vzpet7-united-we-stand-with-police-genocide-is-occurring-part-2.html – 1h 6m 23s – 4Apr22 – A Warrior Calls Rockefeller funded Pasteur Germ Theory Pt.1 | The scam of the century goes back to one man – https://www.brighteon.com/b14dba33-db7b-44dc-98aa-c9bf962e5bb3 – 12m 54s -Aug21 – FalconsCAFE Coronavirus Truths: Part 2: Koch’s Postulates Not Being Used at All for COVID-19, Why? July 3, 2020 – https://frankreport.com/2020/07/03/coronavirus-truths-part-2-kochs-postulates-not-being-used-at-all-for-covid-19-why Virology pseudo-science exposed – www.cormandrostenreview.com – insilico [computer model] downloaded poison – https://brandnewtube.com/@DrTomCowan
REPLY
3 rumbles

katana17, 2 weeks ago
Maria, here’s a transcript of your informative discussion with Dr Ryan Cole: Maria Zeee – Dr Ryan Cole – Cancer, Depleting Immune Systems, and the WHO Pandemic Treaty – Apr 18, 2022 – Transcript https://katana17.com/2022/04/24/maria-zeee-dr-ryan-cole-cancer-depleting-immune-systems-and-the-who-pandemic-treaty-apr-18-2022-transcript/ Also, some other Covid related transcripts.
REPLY
2 rumbles

realKish, 2 weeks ago
Great info, thank you! Not supplementing aged care residents with Vit D isn’t just foolishness, it’s by design. Just like the $2 and change allocated per main meal. Aged care facilities, unless you’re wealthy, are warehouses.The Rockefeller Medicine symptom suppression, disease management repeat business model was never about good outcomes – I think most ppl now understand that?
REPLY
2 rumbles

TechMom7, 2 weeks ago
This is the best interview I have heard all year!
REPLY
2 rumbles

johnbeaudoinsr, 2 weeks ago
This article has all the data necessary to cease all these faux-vaccines. Read this article or skim it and look at the data tables at the end. https://coquindechien.substack.com/p/c19-vaccine-the-cause-of-causes?s=w
REPLY
2 rumbles

JMPG, 2 weeks ago
Really good explanation by Dr Ryan Cole.
REPLY
2 rumbles

Watcher888, 2 weeks ago
Think about these neuro-degnerative people driving around like loose canons!
REPLY
2 rumbles

Jwtfuw, 2 weeks ago
Harry Vox, please beautiful Maria!!!
REPLY
2 rumbles

Ronaldlees, 2 weeks ago
As I mentioned on the Dowd thread, the bug is like doubling your pennies every day. On the first few days, and in the first week, you have small number of pennies. After 30 days of doubling your pennies, you have $5 million dollars worth of pennies. It’s the same with bugs. You can stop the bugs in the first week cuz they’re just like the few number of pennies. By day 30 you’re screwed (actually, well before that). So, purposely waiting til late in the game allowed the bugs to win the millionaire prize, and many of us to go broke or die.
REPLY
2 rumbles

Hedva, 2 weeks ago
Your metaphor of pennies is good. The red blood cells clump into penny rolls with progression of the blood contamination.
REPLY
2 rumbles

AEtherEMF, 2 weeks ago
Long Covid – poisoning of body by injection/ingestion of poisons &/or dose exposure absorption RF Microwave Radiation from Cell Towers / home WiFi, smart phones polluting the environment air cannot see or feel. RF connectable to any conductive particles in body. No suvery of RF Microwaves in environment to discount then your just guessing.
REPLY
2 rumbles

realKish, 15 hours ago
The lockdowns had nothing to do with Rona. None of the measures taken were. And the public health crew absolutely knew and know this. They are culpable.
REPLY
1 rumble

adjustyoursettings, 23 hours ago
Maria, you are a fantastic interviewer. Keep up the good work!
REPLY
1 rumble

Jonathanwalter, 2 weeks ago
which of the telegram channels in his name and photo is genuine..so many adds for cures on the big ones is suspicious.
REPLY
1 rumble

Evasic, 2 weeks ago
No offense but Maria kind of looks like a reptilian when she stares at her screen, broadcast on 240p… And if you’re schizophrenic, no this message is not from the pleyedians or Jesus telling you that Maria is a counter-agent working for constellation Draco or working working Satan. (I wanted to be inclusive of both manic Christians and new agers in psychedelic induced psychosis)
REPLY
-6 rumbles

SouWester, 2 weeks ago
It’s the look of shock and horror when hearing about how horrific something through empathy knowing that these horrific things are happening to friends, loved ones and people of the world. It’s Normal for Sane people with empathy that have the ability to critical think to have a look of horror, worry, sad, distraught all rolled into one when hearing more confirmations of how bad a situation is , and can put the pieces together of how enormous the deaths/injuries have been, will be, and that it all could have been prevented.
REPLY
7 rumbles

 

 

============================================