by Margaret Flavin
On Friday, Tucker Carlson dropped episode 60 of his show on X: Is the lesson of the Covid disaster that we should give its architects more power? Bret Weinstein joined Tucker to discuss the COVID response and the WHO’s plans for you.
Weinstein delves into how the Covid pandemic led to exposing big pharma and its dependence on ill health rather than finding drugs that make us healthier. He also describes the demonization of alternative treatments like Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and the overall health consequences and potential 17 million deaths from the COVID-19 vaccine.
Tucker: So I’m not a math genius, but one in eight hundred shots times billions is a lot of people…..17 million deaths from the COVID vaccine? Just for perspective. I mean, that’s like the death toll of a global war.
Bret Weinstein: Yes, absolutely. This is a great tragedy of history. So that proportion. And amazingly there is no way in which it’s over. I mean, we are still apparently recommending these things for healthy children. Never stood any chance of getting any benefit from it. Every chance of suffering harms that are not only serious but tragic on the basis that children have long lives ahead of them. If you ruin a child’s immune system in youth, they have to spend the rest of their presumably shortened life in that state. So never made any sense that we were giving this to kids in the first place. The fact that we’re still doing it when the emergency, to the extent there even was one, is clearly over. And when there’s never been any proper justification of administering it to health, he gets it just, you know, healthy kids don’t die of COVID. And the shot doesn’t prevent you from catching or transmitting it. So there was just literally no justification you could come up. I think a lot of us – maybe call us normies – have a hard time imagining the breathtaking evil that it would take to allow such a tragedy to unfold, or to cause it to unfold, for profit. I still struggle to imagine it. But think about it this way. Pharma on a normal day is composed of people who have to become – even if they were doing their job exactly right – they have to be comfortable with causing a certain amount of death. Right. If you give a drug to people, if the net effect is positive, but it’s going to kill some people who would have lived if they never got it. Somehow you have to sleep at night having put that drug into the world. And, you know, we want… if we had a healthy pharma industry, we would want them to produce the drugs that had a net benefit. And that benefit includes some serious harms. So once you have stepped on that slippery slope, though, once you have become comfortable with causing deaths, then I believe it becomes very easy to rationalize that the greater good is being served by X, Y or Z. And then there’s some point at which you’re causing enough harm and you’re, you know… When pharma takes an all out of patent drug and supersedes it with a new, highly profitable drug. They’ve done something that’s negative. We should almost always prefer the older drug, unless the evidence is extremely convincing. The new drug is just worlds better because an old drug, we know something about its interactions with other things. We know something about its safety profile. New is not better when it comes to molecules that you’re going to be taking into your biology.
Weinstein acknowledged the David versus Goliath battle to upend and expose the COVID vaccine narrative and the WHO’s plans to control the narrative, and citizens across the globe, going forward.
Bret Weinstein: You would think, all right, you know, it’s a it’s failing to update from the buying by the barrel aphorism. So what happened was it turned out that a number of us were willing to make mistakes and correct them in real time to talk about this in plain English with the public to do so, you know, in Joe Rogan’s man cave. And the fact is, people listened because, of course, this was on everybody’s mind and what they were supposed to do to protect. You know, they’ve been terrified and what to do to protect your family’s health was a question that everybody wants to know the answer to. So our ability to reach millions of people surprised those who thought they were just going to shove this narrative down our throats. And. This gets me to the The WHO, the World Health Organization and its pandemic preparedness plan modifications. What I believe is going on is the World Health Organization is now revising the structures that allowed the dissidents to upend the narrative, and they are looking for a rematch. I think. What they want are the measures that would have allowed them to silence the podcasters, to mandate various things internationally in a way that would prevent the emergence of a control group that would allow us to see harms clearly. So that’s the reason that I think people, as much as they want to move on from thinking about COVID, maybe stop thinking about it, but do start thinking about what has taken place with respect to medicine, with respect to public health, with respect to pharma, and ask yourself the question, given what you now know, would you want to relive a pandemic like the COVID pandemic without the tools that allowed you to ultimately, in the end, see clearly that it didn’t make sense to take another one of these shots or to have your kids take. We want those tools. In fact, we need them. And something is quietly moving just out of sight in order that we will not have access to them the next time we face a serious emergency.
Tucker: So you’re saying that an international health organization could just end the First Amendment in the United States?
Bret Weinstein: Yes. And in fact, as much as this sounds, I know that it sounds preposterous, but.
Tucker: It does not sound preposterous.
Bret Weinstein: The ability to do it is currently under discussion at the international level. It’s almost impossible to exaggerate how troubling what is being discussed is. In fact, I think it is fair to say that we are in the middle of a coup. We are actually facing the elimination of our national and our personal sovereignty. And that that is the purpose of what is being constructed, that it has been written in such a way that your eyes are supposed to glaze over as you attempt to sort out what is it? What is under discussion? And if you do that, then come May of this year, your nation is almost certain to sign on to an agreement that in some utterly, vaguely described future circumstance, a public health emergency which the director general of the World Health Organization has total liberty to define in any way that he sees fit. In other words, nothing prevents climate change from being declared a public health emergency that would trigger the provisions of these modifications. And in the case that some emergency or some pretense of an emergency shows up, the provisions that would kick in are beyond jaw-dropping.
