The Covidian Narrative suffers another Major Blow

Last week Tucker Carlson interviewed evolutionary biologist, Dr. Bret Weinstein. In just under an hour Weinstein told the audience the real story about what has happened over the last four years.

X: The Tucker Carlson Encounter

There have been three jarring shakeups to big Pharma’s effort to deepen the public’s trance around the purported magical benefits of their blockbuster mRNA products.

The first was the Dark Horse Podcast episode in the spring of 2021 when Dr. Robert Malone, Steve Kirsch and host Dr. Bret Weinstein unpacked the disquieting findings of a hidden Pfizer biodistribution study in rodents which demonstrated that the Lipid Nanoparticles, the bubbles of fat in which the mRNA reside, go pretty much everywhere in the body. This was an unexpected finding, and one that the FDA was either unaware or willingly ignorant of.

The second was a three-hour long conversation between Malone and Joe Rogan which aired at the end of 2021. This was the first time that tens of millions of people heard a true expert on the mRNA “vaccine” express a litany of concerns surrounding a product that was supposedly safe and effective—a product to which billions of people had been exposed by that time.

The third was another Rogan podcast where prominent vaccine expert, Dr. Peter Hotez, defended the Covidian narrative against a brisk attack from vaccine safety advocate and independent candidate for the Presidency of the United States, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. The interesting part about this exchange was that it never happened. Hotez was offered over two million dollars in donations to charities of his choice just to appear. He made it clear that no sum of money would be enough to entice him to leave the cushy pulpits of legacy media studios to answer questions. Hotez wanted the public to understand that questions are not a part of science. Hotez would know. He’s a scientist, and he doesn’t have any.

Only the most conniving Covidians could find a way to rationalize why Hotez should eschew an opportunity to flatten the despised misinformation spreader in front of millions of voters without implying that the public was too stupid to know right from wrong:

When (and how) do we debate vaccine science?

Now there is a fourth. Last week Tucker Carlson used his platform on X to let Dr. Weinstein explain his concerns around the rapid deployment of the mRNA shots and what the future holds for us. Weinstein didn’t offer any revelatory information to those who have questioned the pandemic response for some time, but he was able to masterfully tell the story of what really happened over the last four years without invoking things like global cabals and “death shots”—stuff which often shuts down any meaningful conversations with those who are only starting to question what they have been told.

Weinstein acknowledged that the mRNA platform allowed manufacturers to rapidly develop “vaccines” against emerging pathogens or therapeutic agents to treat chronic disease or cancer. The technology has amazing potential but has a major problem in his view: the lipid nanoparticles migrate to all parts of the body.

In the case of the mRNA shots, it means that cells in every part of the body may synthesize the spike protein. Once the transfected cell presents the spike protein on its surface, our immune system will recognize this as foreign and thus learn how to recognize it again when it is attached to the corona virus. The cell will then be destroyed by elements of the immune system.

If the LNPs remained in the deltoid muscle as expected, it would result in a sore arm as warned. What happens when our immune system attacks cells in our reproductive organs, our hearts or our brains? This is its fatal flaw, and in some cases, literally.

Dr. Weinstein explained why he, as a scientist and a believer in vaccines and our agencies of public health, was skeptical from the beginning: Why were they claiming that these products had underwent the “most rigorous safety testing”? Trial participants were observed only for a few weeks before EUA was granted and a few months before the safety investigation was effectively ended. Though perhaps well-intending, our authorities were obviously lying.

There were other precious nuggets in their conversation. The most important was his message of hope and a call to action. The pharma/CDC/legacy media cartel created a small army of competent, courageous scientists by purging them from the medical establishment and scientific publications. They weeded out the smartest and most clear-headed and gave them nothing to lose. They unwittingly created a “dream team” that was ready and able to oppose them.

They also underestimated the power of independent media and podcasts to upend the controlled messaging of the mainstream and subvert the cancel culture and shadow banning of social media platforms. This is why independent platforms that are not beholden to corporate interests are so important. This is also why this interview is so important. It’s been a long while since a voice like Weinstein’s has appeared on a platform like Carlson’s.

Weinstein also warned Carlson of the power wielded by the Department of Homeland Security to combat narratives that pose a threat to the establishment. From their National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin dated 02/07/2022:

The United States remains in a heightened threat environment fueled by several factors, including an online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information (MDM) introduced and/or amplified by foreign and domestic threat actors. These threat actors seek to exacerbate societal friction to sow discord and undermine public trust in government institutions to encourage unrest, which could potentially inspire acts of violence.

What is mis-dis- and mal-information?

• Misinformation is false, but not created or shared with the intention of causing harm.

• Disinformation is deliberately created to mislead, harm, or manipulate a person, social group, organization, or country.

• Malinformation is based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate. 

Can we see the problem here? Our authorities decide what information is true and what is false. More importantly, if the Department of Homeland Security is the sole arbiter of truth when it comes to information, how would it view information that would “sow discord and undermine public trust in government institutions”? Would I be labeled a Mal-information spreader for pointing out where this will lead?

Hopefully the American people aren’t just starting to smell the rot in the medical establishment. They need to realize that the most grievous insult has been to our freedom to challenge what we are being told. This is precisely why we are where we are now.

This interview needs to be shared widely. The obvious challenge is that Carlson has a likability and credibility problem with the people who need to hear Weinstein’s account the most. To those of you who detest Tucker Carlson and Fox News like I once did, how do you regard him now that Fox News detests him too? If the mere sound of his voice is traumatizing, be assured that Weinstein does nearly all the talking.

If you are finally questioning what NPR and the New York Times have been telling you, there’s no way around it. At some point you are just going to have to realize that if you want to hear a different story you will have to listen to a different storyteller.