Finally, we're ready to start the great panel on the future of what we know, who can speak,
and who controls the public mind.
And I can't even imagine a more important discussion, because this really is about what
the public believes about the world around themselves.
I grew up when I was a kid.
We had three television channels and about 15 minutes of news a day, and we had no reason
to think there was any other news than what was going on at the time, right?
And people say, well, that was because it was trustworthy, maybe, or maybe, we just
didn't have the mechanisms in place to find out otherwise.
Well, we happen to live in times where we're blessed with great deal of technologies to
find out.
You found out about this conference through those technologies.
That's why you're here.
That's why you're finding out everything you know here today is because we've had open
access to these things.
People see just how long that goes.
Because you must be aware that we are facing profound threats.
And certain people do not like that you are here, that FLCCC exists, that Brownstone Institute
exists, which I represent.
And we have today a very distinguished panel of people that have been fighting through
a thicket of censorship in order to allow themselves to be heard and for you to hear
what they have to say.
Without that, we're doomed.
It's a problem.
It's a very serious issue.
My strong impression is that people seriously misunderstand this whole topic of media and
censorship.
They do not understand it.
They think so long as people have the right to speak out of soapbox at the public park
or post on some obscure app somewhere that your rights are being defended in the First
Amendment is being protected.
This profoundly misunderstands the problem we're facing.
And I'm going to take it before I introduce our panelists, take a few minutes to just
kind of lay out the history of the problem a little bit so that we understand it.
This country is unique in the world.
Maybe there are other countries that have similar laws.
I'm not entirely sure about them, but I do know that many people around the world are
very jealous of the fact that we have this thing called the First Amendment, which guarantees
the right of free expression as a matter of law.
It says that the Congress, the government cannot interfere with the freedom to speak.
That was part of the First Amendment, also in the same First Amendment, we got the rights
to religious freedom.
That was ratified in 1791.
Even in 1798, Congress trampled all over it.
It didn't last long because governments have a penchant to want to control the public
mind.
And they don't like it when there's people saying things that contradict the priorities
of powerful people.
That's a given.
That's always been true.
And it was true in this country too.
So in 1798, Congress passed the thing called the Alien and Sedition Acts.
The Sedition Act in particular made it illegal to criticize the president, members of Congress,
and the government generally.
The act conspicuously excluded the vice president.
You happen to be Thomas Jefferson.
John Adams hated his guts.
He was the president.
So the Sedition Acts were implemented and many newspaper editors were arrested.
Now why was that?
Because the way people found out their news was through the newspaper.
And so to enforce the Sedition Acts, you go after the editors and publishers of newspapers.
You go after the information channels, the portals through which people find out things.
That's how you sense it.
Now it was enormously controversial.
And two years later, Thomas Jefferson ran for president mostly against the Alien and
Sedition Acts.
And one, and instantly he repealed them, thereby protecting the first amendment.
That should have been a sign unto the world that not even in the United States is free
expression truly protected.
There were no consequences, by the way, for anybody who violated the first amendment.
It turns out government has a real difficulty policing itself.
It doesn't like to do that, actually.
So what happened then?
Thirty-five years later, a new law was passed by Congress this time pertaining to the South.
No abolitionist literature was to be distributed anywhere in southern states.
Any slave states that were not allowed to publish anything against slavery.
That act lasted till 1849 when it was finally repealed and free speech was restored.
Then eleven years later, Lincoln won, the war began, and a new censorship act came into
place, this time the opposite.
You could not say anything that was pro-Confederacy or against the draft.
And that lasted for the duration of the war.
And once again, many newspaper editors were arrested and so on.
It went.
And that was finally repealed.
There was a brief respite between 1860 and World War I, when the World War I broke out.
Of course, Wilson passed another law that said that any editors and newspaper editors
or publishers who opposed the war were guilty of criminal sedition.
And all those laws, by the way, still exist on the books.
In fact, I think Trump has recently hit with one of them.
I think he's been hit with everything.
But many, again, many newspaper editors went to jail and leaders of opposition parties
and so on.
And then after that war died down, we again saw new censorship efforts after the war against
during the first round of Red Scars where people were arrested for communist sympathies, sympathized
with the Bolshevik Revolution, so on.
When the New Deal came along, FDR implemented it again, started to jail and arrest and censor
opponents of the New Deal.
Then World War II came along once again.
If you were censored, if you expressed any sympathy for the enemy regime.
After World War II, we got a second round of the Red Scare and we got the blacklist and
so on.
In each case, and every time, it's always the same thing, that censorship is not so
much against individuals preaching on soapboxes in the public park or people what they say
in the privacy of their own homes.
The issue is the portals themselves.
How do you control the means by which information is broadcast out to the public to affect people's
attitudes towards the world, how they interpret and understand the world?
The censorship has always been an effort to curate and manage the public mind.
That's the key thing.
That's the issue.
When the internet came along, it created a problem, a serious problem.
Because now you had information and anarchy everywhere.
The invention of the web browser in 1995 was a catastrophe from their point of view of
the censors because you had people just opening up sites all over the place and saying whatever
they want.
That just clearly wouldn't work.
There's been a three-pronged attack here, it always goes the same way.
They try to reproduce the same effects from the past, whether it was under Wilson or Lincoln
or all the way back to the Alien and Sedition Acts.
First you have to control the industries, but before you can control the industries,
you have to consolidate them.
That was step one.
Consolidate the tech companies.
Make sure that Google is massive and any competitor to Google gets either bought by Google or
crushed.
Similarly with Facebook, same thing.
Similarly with Twitter, Microsoft, which runs LinkedIn, and so on.
First you consolidate the industry, then you embed all your employees within them, make
sure that the industry realizes that they've got to get along with Washington in order
to thrive.
We should have known something was wrong.
The slogan of Google used to be, don't do evil, remember that?
Then they took it off their website.
That's not a good sign.
That was not a good sign.
First you consolidate the industry and develop a tight relationship with Washington.
This is the next step.
As part of that, you embed people within the agencies, get them on the payroll.
For example, Washington starts using Amazon servers and becoming very important to their
profit margins so that way you can have leverage.
Then you start to crack down and you make it clear to all these companies it's very
much in their interest because if they play with the sensors, then they beat back their
competition.
Do you see how it works?
If we can create a world that's universally censored, nobody knows the difference.
Nobody will know what they're missing.
During COVID, of course, that's when it all happened.
I think we're going to hear stories tonight about how it began before then, but during
COVID it became very obvious.
We have now thousands, even tens of thousands of pages of documents from FOIA requests and
also from court discovery to prove that all the big tech companies and media were working
very closely with the NIH and the CDC and the NSA and CISA and all the other departments
to curate what information you knew.
If you contradicted this, you would get your account banned, throttled, and so on.
It got so bad that by the time the lockdowns happened, I truly felt completely alone.
I wasn't alone, it turns out.
There were tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people, even millions who agreed
with me, but I couldn't find them.
They're all shut down.
On Twitter, 1.0 was basically a government operation.
Three-fifths of the employees there were there dedicated to throttling two-thirds of the users
and what they say.
I mean, it's an astonishing thing.
This is an ongoing effort to make sure you don't hear things that contradict regime priorities.
Lots of things are going wrong here.
I'll just give you back up slightly.
You remember what they call the insurrection of January 6th, right?
People gathered in Washington like the old days in protest, except this time they were
called insurrectionists.
January 10th, this app that was making a lot of progress, and it had quite a lot of traction.
It was called Parler.
On January 10th, all in one day, Amazon unplugged their servers, Amazon, and the Apple store
removed their app, and Google removed their app from the Google store, Google Play, all
in the same day, and just absolutely crushed it within 24 hours, took a thriving, going
concern that was profitable, and smashed it into smithereens as a lesson to everybody
else.
The way this works is the control of the big portals of information.
They don't care about what happens at small levels.
In other words, you might have freedom of speech, or as one person put it, but you don't
have freedom of reach.
It's the reach that they care about.
That's how censorship works in our times.
It's amazing just how widespread this intimidation occurs.
We had invited, Brownstone had invited, and by the way, everybody always says, don't worry,
you shouldn't use third-party apps like Eventbrite, they're compromised by the CIA.
I'd heard this for a year, and we had been using it.
My first thought was, oh, yeah, sure, but that'll never happen to us, huh, well.
I invited a speaker from Moms for Liberty.
Everything was set up.
Moms for Liberty is described as a hate organization, but then the more you look at it, it turns
out it's just Moms for Liberty.
You're just Moms and you're for Liberty, yeah.
Well, we had a supper club, a supper club, a supper club scheduled, where this nice
lady was going to talk to us about schools, and Eventbrite said, you violated the terms
of where you can't hold that meeting.
What?
We can't hear from a mom for Liberty?
No.
Not through our app.
Isn't it remarkable, free enterprise companies attacking their own customers, refusing money?
That shows the power of the people that have infiltrated so many levels.
And at Brownstone, we've gotten ever since there, we've been really working on it.
We changed our mail services.
We're changing as much as we can to get away from these big organizations.
It's a very, very serious threat.
And the war is ongoing.
And who's going to win?
I don't know.
There's not going to be a winner or loser in this because it's just going to be an ongoing
struggle for the rest of our lives.
They want the internet.
Can they get it?
It's a challenge.
They did it in China.
It's working in Europe.
It would have worked here already, except that Elon Musk bought Twitter, and it's unbelievable.
That was a major setback.
Of course, now he's considered enemy of the state and facing nine levels of investigation
for this and that and the other thing, right?
This is the world we live in.
It's not the world we thought it was, a functioning free society.
It's not that anymore.
It's a tug of war between what Brett Weinstein calls Goliath and the rest of us, Davids.
That's what's going on.
And it's consuming our lives.
But it's essential that we fight and we fight with intelligence, with cleverness, and with
passion.
The three people I have with me today are tremendous fighters, and they're going to help us learn
more about it.
And the way we're going to structure this panel is that I've now had given my opening
soliloquy, which I couldn't resist.
We're going to hear from Francis Scott, Marybeth Pfeiffer, and Jan Jekyllic, and I'm just
going to go through our bios here real quickly.
And I think we're going to go in that order.
Start with Jan.
He's the host of Epic Times Program American Thought Leaders, which is, I've called him
the modern...
Did you...?
Yeah.
So I grew up with a show called Firing Line with William F. Buckley.
Did you ever see that?
It was great.
It was great.
Very intelligent.
So I think Jan Jekyllic is like our modern William F. Buckley, except about a thousand
times harder working, actually.
The guy is amazing.
But he runs Epoch Times American Thought Leaders, and he's going to tell the story about Epoch
actually.
Francis Scott is an Emmy Award-winning journalist, podcast host, patient safety advocate.
She spent two decades reporting, creating social media content, anchoring the news, before
a life altering health crisis sparked her decade-long investigation into practices in
the pharmaceutical industry.
So she'll be talking about that.
And then Marybeth Pfeiffer, who we heard from last night at the word show before COVID hit,
Pfeiffer was a journalist for more than 30 years, wrote an investigative series and book
on the diagnostic treatment of failures of Lyme disease.
And her health, journalism, and advocacy over the last four years has been a world-changing
and epic.
And I have to say, I am so newly appreciative of heroes like this.
I mean, people who stuck their necks out, who didn't give in, and God knows the world
has filled with cowards and careerists.
Did you have any idea?
I didn't know.
I didn't know that the whole of academia would fold and crash and burn.
Nobody told me this was going to happen.
They'd think, tanks, where were they?
No, they were gone.
A wall.
So we should appreciate people who've done what they've done at great personal cost.
So I think, yeah.
Look, I'm not exaggerating.
People like this saved the world.
Our civilization depends on moral courage above everything else.
And these people have exercised it, and so many in this room, and FLCCC, thank God for
you.
Without it, we're sunk, we're doomed.
So look, let's just start here.
I want to first open it up for Jan.
I want Jan to tell a story that I doubt you know.
Epoch Times is now, I think we can say, because it's now public knowledge, the fourth largest
newspaper in the world.
Okay?
I write for them every day.
Thank you, Jan.
And very grateful for this newspaper.
It's a miracle to survive, but it wasn't easy.
Jan Kelleck.
Go ahead.
Well, Jeffrey, thank you so much for that opening.
First of all, I love this concept of the public mind, and the Goliath trying to control the
public.
I hadn't heard that before.
That's very interesting.
And I think, I actually have talked to a few of you.
And by the way, actually, let me just say this to start.
Thank you for being an Epoch Times subscriber.
Thank you, because people always ask us how are we funded, and what that means is what
are your conflicts of interest, right?
Well, we are 90 to 95% funded by you, our individual subscribers.
And that helps us avoid this question.
And in fact, this is one of the reasons I love the FLCCC, because I know Dr. Kori and
Dr. Paul Merrick very well, and I know how deeply committed they are to minimizing that.
And this is like an ever-present thing.
When we look at Goliath, we see so many conflicts of interest, it's almost hard to fathom.
So let me go back to the story.
I donned on me recently that the Epoch Times was actually founded back in 2000 to do what
we are doing now, which is to challenge some of the grand, I think I can say, false narratives
of our day.
Back in the day in 2000, it had to do with China.
There was something called the Kissinger Doctrine.
The Kissinger Doctrine was, we're going to invest a ton of money in China, and they're
not really communist anymore, they're becoming a democracy.
And as long as we put enough money in there, they'll become like us.
And by the way, if you're part of the team doing this, you're going to make a ton of
money.
Myself, around this time, I was realizing, oh my goodness, no, there's terrible things
happening over there.
People are being persecuted simply for their beliefs, for example.
Some of you will be familiar that the founders of Epoch Times were Falun Gong practitioners,
and there was this huge narrative developed to justify persecuting 70 to 100 million people
in China as the government estimated to basically demonize these people.
And it was a grand narrative, and a lot of American media took this narrative and ran
with it as if it were a fact.
And so Epoch Times found it to say, no, actually, this is not the reality.
We didn't realize back then that we would be doing this in so many other areas.
The next moment where we really had, and by the way, our health section, we've always
had this what we would call an alternative view on health, perhaps, from traditional
Chinese medicine.
And this has been what people have been coming to us for.
But it was around 2015, 2016, where something really fundamentally changed.
And I had been a China human rights guy.
That's how I got involved in Epoch in the first place.
And something happened when candidate Trump and then President Trump came on the scene.
And what happened was that media went nuts.
That was my observation.
Because I had been watching Chinese Communist Party media, and they're all controlled over
there, or run directly in most cases, they started behaving that way.
They started our media.
And we were reporting differently on China.
I knew the narratives in media around China were false, because we were doing the reporting.
But a lot of the other things, I didn't really know that.
But this was my so-called red pill moment.
And frankly, many of us at Epoch, why are you reporting on this guy in such a bizarre
way and all in unison, all the same way?
In a way that was, as we've learned more recently, at least I've learned more recently, it's
actually possible to kind of brainwash people when you keep hammering the same talking points
again and again and again.
Right?
You're going to kill grandma.
You're going to kill grandma.
Safe and effective.
Safe and effective.
You know, totalitarian, authoritarian, whatever.
These things are, I mean, I never knew that you could do that.
Right?
I had to see it a few times, I guess.
But that changed us.
And that also, we started being pejoratively called conservative, which I thought was bizarre.
I actually had to go out and find out why, like what does that mean exactly?
We didn't think in those categories, okay?
Not at all.
And initially, it kind of seemed fine, but then our Wikipedia page got remade.
You know, we're talking about this type of censorship, which is curation, right?
Basically, it's figuring out ways to effectively demonize you to make you not appropriate for
polite conversation, right?
That's the worst, right?
So there's all these different monikers went in, I think the one of the very few things
that are honest on our Wikipedia page are political orientation, anti-communist.
I think they meant it as a pejorative.
I kind of like it.
It's not our official position, but fine, okay?
And then, you know, around 2019, that's when the hit pieces really started to come.
And the purpose of the hit pieces, as we quickly learned, was to basically justify preventing
us from using the usual methods of marketing, because we were growing like crazy, okay?
I had a YouTube channel that was growing exponentially.
That's where American thought leaders landed first.
And then one day, it just stops growing.
No explanation.
Well, and by the way, you're demonetized because you put up some things we don't like, right?
The Epoch Times NBC did a whole series, like essentially the whole NBC ecosystem attacked
us.
And the reason why, what was the reason?
Well, we were the number two, we were using a platform very effective.
We were the number two advertiser on all of Facebook at the time, okay?
If you can imagine that.
And why?
Why?
Because it worked.
It was a way for us to build subscriber base, right?
This is, we live or die by the subscribers, as you know now.
And they basically, without consulting us really on this, Facebook sees the article
and in a few hours, we're out.
And that was, it wasn't a ton of money in the grand scheme of Facebook, but it wasn't
small either, right?
For them.
Tiny.
So anyway, this is how it all started.
And then the second wave, okay?
The second wave comes and this is COVID hits.
And in April of 2020, we have a documentary tracking down the origins of Wuhan coronavirus.
Okay?
Some of you will have seen it.
We measured across all platforms.
It was viewed over 100 million times, okay?
And then just sort of really attacked, or we were called racist, like, owners are Chinese
Americans.
It's hard to be, anyway, you get the idea.
We were called all sorts of things.
And you know, further, that's when I think that, I don't even want to repeat some of
the nasty things that ended up in the Wikipedia page.
But this is, you know, we're kind of on the other side of this.
And for us, I have a huge respect for people who have been in the sort of health freedom
fight for years.
In a way, we were, because we were used, we're always more progressive on the health side,
but we didn't fully realize how many of these big narratives that we believed, I mean, there's
things two years ago that I didn't, today I think completely differently about, because
I was showing the evidence that had to change my mind, right?
So what Jeffrey is talking about is incredibly apt.
There's been this huge effort to curate the public mind.
And I think, you know, at epoch times, it's become our job and our duty to challenge those
things.
And I can tell by, you know, so many of you that hear that are subscribers that I guess
it's working with at least a few out there.
Thank you.
A remarkable thing that you converted the platform from a social media-based, you know, the free
publication, Living Off Social Media, which is the model in the old days, where all just
friends, we're all getting along, we'll help each other.
And then it turned out all the things you were lying, announced that you're the enemy.
And you converted it practically overnight to a paid publication, which I find remarkable.
Yeah.
And, you know, we're kind of in a way, we put all our money into development, basically,
right?
Growth.
And this has always been our approach.
It has to work like a business.
It's a non-profit, but it has to work like a business.
And we saw the writing on the wall, the advertising started to look dodgy.
We quickly pivoted to a subscription model.
And, you know, thanks to you, this is actually the truth.
It worked.
Yeah.
Well, there's a lot in that word pivoted, I can just tell you.
Anybody who's developed websites in this room knows that it's not just a button you push,
right?
It's a major managerial achievement.
The story is not understood.
It's one of the great industrial achievements.
In a fair world, Epoch would be on the cover of Forbes or Inc. or something, you know,
celebrating what you did.
But no.
But actually.
Okay.
Let's move on to Francis Scott.
Please.
So, I had worked for 20 years in news, local TV, English major, just kind of curious.
I didn't go to journalism school.
I kind of fell into news, but it was fit for me because I'm just curious person.
I love to ask questions.
And I've done that for 20 years, was a news anchor in Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina was my home.
I never wanted to go higher than that.
I was pretty settled in and in 2011, I had both hips replaced.
I was 39 years old, runner, dancer, hypermobile, EDS, a lot of those things that I didn't really
know I had.
And, you know, this was the most successful procedure in the history of medicine, I was
told.
I didn't just run out and do it.
And when you're told at 38, you need both hips replaced immediately to end your years
of pain.
You don't just do it.
So I'd been raised by a physician in a pretty medical family.
So I spent a year on opioids to buy myself some time, but I was definitely afraid of
becoming an addict because, you know, Rush Limbaugh and Brett Favre had just come out
with their problem and the opioid issue was just beginning.
So I hired a couple of doctors and I said, you guys are checks and balances on each other
to make sure that I don't go through this, you know, long medical procedure and then
end up with an addiction.
So I spent a year investigating.
I got 12 different opinions, finally had it done and ended up worse.
In worse pain, my face broke out in these little bleeding lesions.
I was hallucinating, tinnitus, couldn't sleep, my mood personality and eventually behavior
totally changed.
I say I was bat house crazy, but I was bat shit crazy, really.
And I thought, well, it's probably the general anesthesia when I first saw the dragon floating
over my husband in the bed beside me.
So, you know, I was like, that's just a side effect of the general anesthesia.
But it went on and on and nobody had any reason why I was doing poorly.
And I had known about this hip device.
My hips were made by Johnson and Johnson and I had done enough research ahead of time to
learn that J&J had recalled one of the devices.
And I had asked my doctor about it and I said, I'm worried about these cobalt ions that are
getting into the bloodstreams of the people who had that ASR device and he was like, oh,
it's nothing like what I'm going to use in you.
He quoted me all these studies that, you know, this was the young active patient product.
Eventually I ended up, you know, kind of getting jettisoned after about a year of just
pain and no answers and all these weird symptoms.
So I ended up losing my career.
I was a train wreck.
I got lost on my way to work.
I would have hour-long conversations that I couldn't remember.
And my stepfather, a physician, had just passed away of dementia.
And that last, my last day of work when I got lost, trying to get back to work from a doctor's
appointment on the I-40, the main interstate in town, I'd driven it at least a thousand
times in my 10 years that I'd been there, I realized, like, this is what it feels like
to be a dementia patient.
My hands would shake and I, you know, I would just think, oh, I guess I've had a lot of
coffee today.
I developed a tremor.
I would, you know, just fall over.
So eventually I ended up learning that it was encephalopathy from cobalt toxicity coming
from my hip replacement devices, not necessarily from wear debris from the metal ball rubbing
against the metal socket liner, but it was from corrosion.
We got my ex-planted devices.
It took me about six years to figure this out.
In the process, I interviewed whistleblower surgeons, sat in on other people's civil
trials related to my product.
And that's where I saw the rampant fraud in the literature that my doctor had been quoting
to me that I had been reading myself.
And because I had grown up reading medical journals, just because it was the 80s and
there was no cable and we didn't have cell phones or the internet, so, you know, you're
in the den and there's nothing there but a medical journal that your physician father
has ordered.
It's like, you just start reading them, or at least some people do.
I know it's weird.
I'm not saying I understood them, but, you know, over time I was curious.
So that's one aside here I want to say for you guys.
Corporate media is gone.
We've lost them.
We've lost the media in the old form.
Thank God we have epoch and many other organizations that are doing independent journalism.
We have to fund our news now because we are the product of the corporate media.
We're just the eyeballs.
If you're not paying for news, you are the product that is being sold to Pfizer or whatever
pharmaceutical companies.
So I used to say, I started out on local TV.
I mean, they kind of fit me.
I'm a little bit shallow and, you know, a little like a squirrel all over the place.
So we used to say that the newspaper kept the TV doing good journalism because you subscribed
to the newspaper.
The newspaper needed to, you know, provide for its customers, and so they did actual
journalism.
And then the TV, we didn't want to look bad, so we made sure we did real journalism, too.
So even though you, what with the cable penetration and the internet, the pie got smaller and people
stopped paying for the newspaper.
And therefore, we all, the viewers, the readers became the product.
And that's in part why we've lost news.
Right now, I don't, I haven't had cable in years.
You know, I subscribed to epoch.
I subscribed to the high wire with Dell Big Tree, many different organizations.
So when COVID hit, you know, I had been kind of clucking about all I had learned in my
hip investigation.
And I was how stunned I was that the research in the medical journals was absolute fraud.
They would run the money through a nonprofit to hide the money trail connecting the device
company to the study that said the device was great.
And the only reason I learned that is because I'm sitting in a, you know, courthouse in
Dallas just seeing the evidence for myself.
And I thought, the doctors have no way to find this out.
The doctors don't know they're being lied to in the medical journals.
And I was devastated because I'd grown up believing in this system.
And so I went to the FDA, spoke there, lobbied members of Congress, went to the Texas Health
and Human Services Committee on Preventing Patient Harm, kind of realized that everybody
was already pharma purchased pretty much, especially in D.C.
And I was devastated.
I was just broken because I wasn't going to be able to fix it, what had hurt my family.
By the way, I had three small kids when this started and this pretty much wrecked their
childhood.
And so, but that's when COVID hit and I was like, wait a minute, what just ruined my
life for the past 10 years is potentially about to do that and worse to billions of
people.
And I had no audience.
But I was obsessed.
And so that's eventually how I found Pierre Corey, Paul Merrick, many of the others that
spoke out and what they were saying resonated.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., when I heard that he had been censored, it made me want to go
hear more of what he had to say.
And I started in COVID.
I had had revision, got the bad hips taken out and got less toxic ones put in.
But there was complications.
So I was back in pain.
And all I did the summer of 2020 was just read medical journals, read how the trials
were being designed.
I was just curious.
Like, is the same fraud that happened to me, are they going big time with it?
And I found that the people being called the disinformation spreaders were telling the
truth.
That's usually a sign.
When they cite their source, you can go look it up yourself.
And I know many of you are medical practitioners.
But please encourage all the people you know who aren't.
You guys can read.
Just because you didn't go to med school, you can learn.
You can learn.
You can follow.
So don't think that you're not smart enough.
I'm afraid our American public is being told you're not smart enough to understand this.
You guys are the media now.
And we need you to tell your stories online.
We need to write, do it on video.
If you don't know, if you just want to capture what Dr. Corey and Dr. Merrick are saying,
get a teenager to teach you how to use, you know, screen record.
And then, and they will teach you it's really fast.
And then post, you know, if you don't feel comfortable on camera, we have to be the voice
now because we've lost CBS, ABC and NBC.
And one last thing I'll say, when COVID hit, because people with whom I had worked over
the years were all in different TV markets by then.
And a lot of them didn't know each other, but they knew me as the anti-pharma girl
by then.
I'm not totally.
And they all started calling me separately and saying, what is going on?
Like suddenly in March of 2020, there's stories that we're told we can't pitch.
We're told that question you asked in the morning editorial meeting was dangerous.
I had one friend say, I don't know what the hell this is we've been doing since March,
but it sure ain't news.
So when you're hearing that and you're seeing that what's being spoken in the headlines
and by our regulators is not what's reflected in the study of the COVID shot products.
It's pretty stunning.
So I'm just so grateful for FLCC and Children's Health Defense became my news at that point.
And now I work for the Kennedy Beacon on Substack.
So that's the super PAC that's trying to elect Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Okay.
Short, Mersion.
You know, I hear these stories and I feel like I'm the most naive person in the room,
but if you had told me in 2019 and a year, it will be revealed that pharma has taken
over every government in the world.
I never would have believed it.
So we live in strange times.
Thank you, Francis.
And now Mary Beth Pfeiffer.
Well, before COVID came along, I was a mainstream journalist and I was a believer in journalism.
And it's ability to reform.
I read The New York Times.
I more or less trusted my government.
My entire worldview has been shaken and changed.
A lot of it for the good, I'm much more realistic right now.
But that said, you know, I knew certainly of the corruption in medicine, for example.
I had written a book on Lyme disease.
I spent about five years reporting on Lyme disease and Lyme disease is one of those
illnesses like COVID that in the mainstream medicine journals, it's one thing.
And among the masses who have chronic Lyme disease, it's something quite different.
There was definitely a mismatch in what Lyme disease was portrayed to be and what it actually
was.
And when I began writing about Lyme disease in 2012 and then I wrote a book in 2018,
I would, you know, read the medical journals, as Francis said, and, you know, would build
story upon story and got to the point where I could see that there's something wrong with
this picture.
I had to make a decision, too, as a journalist as to what side, because I was an investigative
reporter, I had a voice, I could draw conclusions, I could bring threads together, what side
was I going to be on?
And I decided that these people who were called, by the way, Lyme loonies, kind of a nice
little linguistic technique that's been used against all of us, all of us anti-vaxxers,
I would stand up for them and I would portray the injustices that were being propagated
against them or perpetrated against them.
So COVID comes along, I've written this book, I know that every time I pick up the New England
Journal and there's something about Lyme disease, I can predict what side it's going
to come down on.
So I had some expertise by virtue of that.
I also was an investigative reporter for a long time, would sift through lots of stuff,
municipal corruption, you know, abuses in prisons, you name it, I covered it, I got
a few people put in prison, fired, fixed a few things along the way, which was also
part of why I believed in my profession, journalism could help in that slow but meaningful process
of reform and change.
So along comes COVID and I've just finished my book and what am I going to do, I start
doing some freelance writing and I know a little bit so I start poking into COVID and
at this point I'm writing some articles for Forbes.com, which is a fairly big outlet.
Two or three articles later it became clear as I started writing about COVID that Forbes.com
did not want what I had to offer because I wanted to keep peeling the layers of the onion
and find out what was going on, why the tests were taking so long, whether the government
was responding to this properly.
I was asking the questions.
So I have to leave there and I'm bouncing around a little bit, I'm reading the Internet
and I end up at trial site news, which is where I've been for the past four years.
I also write for Rescue Substack, we now have a simultaneous publication agreement for which
I thank them both, so I'm in both outlets and as you might also know I have written
a couple of articles with the wonderful Pierre Corrie because we are attempting to take some
of what we both know to be true and get it into the mainstream press.
And we've so far managed to get into USA Today, Newsweek and The Hill, so we're pretty excited
about that.
But part of that means something I think we all do is self-censorship.
You know there's only certain things we know we can say in mainstream and get it published.
But I also just want to talk for one minute about the censorship that we likely all practice
every day in our lives.
I don't know how many people I've spoken to here who say I have this book group and
I'm the only one who believes what I believe and I can't tell any of them about it.
I don't post any of this on Facebook because all my relatives, and this includes me, will
you know come out of the woodwork and give me crap.
I think we've all done that kind of self-censorship and one of the reasons we've done it is because
of this huge, well-entrenched narrative about COVID.
And part of it has been to set us against them or more of them against us.
When Joe Biden came out and said, you know, get vaccinated, you know, the unvaccinated
bad people, he did that.
And they did that in many other ways.
But they made the people who believe the dogma, the police of the people like us.
And I think it's time we all started pushing back on that.
Can I ask you, Mary Beth, why were the tests delayed so long?
Why were the tests delayed so long?
The tests.
I only peeled a little bit of the onion on that one, but the CDC made some grievous errors
in the beginning is what I understand, and I probably can't speak to it.
Ask me about ivermectin, ask me about the vaccines, but I didn't do that much reporting
on that.
Anybody else?
Yeah, that's a puzzle.
I'd love to see more reporting on that.
Well, to your point, is it, what is your assessment right now of where we stand with the COVID
orthodoxy?
Do you see, you know, certain cracks taking place in the mainstream coverage of what happened
over the last four years?
And if so, how do we know they're authentic or versus what's called a limited hangout,
if you know what I mean?
I think there's hope.
There are some things that are breaking through, but the media is still extremely hesitant
to say we got it wrong, either the government or they got it wrong.
One of the things I did in preparing to come here is I looked at the Pulitzer Prizes that
were given over the last years, but this is interesting.
In the first year of COVID, 2020, the New York Times got, I think it was six Pulitzers
for its coverage, the Wall Street Journal and the Atlantic, no, the Atlantic was the
only other one that got a Pulitzer Prize.
And that's kind of to be expected that there would be, you know, reporting on this novel
new illness and what was happening in the world about it.
But in the following two years, in 2021 and 2022, there was, in 2021, there was one Pulitzer
given for photography of COVID, you know, pyres and coffins and deaths in India.
And in 2022, there was one more also, no, I don't even think there was one.
What I'm, the point that I'm making is judges who judge the biggest journalism contest in
the world are hedging their bets.
They're not giving prizes, except for that first year for coverage of COVID and coverage
of the vaccines and the lockdowns and so forth.
That's good.
That gives me hope.
But it also tells me, where is the investigative reporting about COVID?
Why didn't they do it?
Why aren't they doing it now?
That's fascinating.
Do you know this guy, Donald J. McNeil, Donald G. McNeil, the Donald McNeil.
He's a lead virus reporter for the New York Times and the first reporter in the English
language who really was responsible for whipping up disease panic.
Nationwide, February 27th with Michael Barbero on the New York Times daily podcast.
That was the first, you know, violation of traditional public health principles instead
of go see your doctor if you get sick.
It was everybody run for your life, we're all going to die, right?
That was, that was his message.
And interestingly, he was, he was, when the New York Times was being considered for their
Pulitzer Prize, he had so many enemies within the New York Times that he was fired several
weeks before the prizes were given, just so he could be denied any credit for it.
Yeah.
I'm not, you know, too broken up about his sad plight, but still the pettiness of the
industry is quite shocking.
I am just aghast at how journalism just went along, how it bought the COVID narrative hook
line and sinker.
And in one particular instance, I had written an article about the whole horse bleep, horse
shit or whatever, horse paste narrative that was, you know, put out there by the FDA about
ivermectin.
And my colleague Linda Bondi and I managed to get documents under FOIA, which showed
really what it was based on.
It allegedly grew out of this huge outpouring of complaints to poison control centers in
Mississippi, saying that people were keeling over because they were taking horse paste.
It was 70% of all the calls in this one given period of time, and this was picked up by
everybody by the New York Times, by the Washington Post, by, you name it.
And come to find out, it was actually 2% of the calls.
It was not 70% of the calls.
So we have this documentation.
We write a story, I contact the New York Times and the Washington Post, and they both print
corrections.
Hey, we won something.
But the thing is, they put this little correction on the bottom of the story, and the correction
really undermines the whole underpinning of the story.
The story is about all these people keeling over, and it just was not true.
The story, the headline remained, and believe it or not, the New York Times repeated the
error a couple of weeks later.
I dial them up and tell them, you did it again, guys.
So they write another correction.
I managed to achieve two or three corrections over the last four years in the New York Times,
and the paper was corrected with no acknowledgement and with no notice that it was ever corrected.
So that actually happens.
Well, let me ask Jan, or Francis, the one, this question, and Mary Beth, you can weigh
on this too.
What are the mechanisms of control that are deployed within newsrooms and the journalist
community to arrive at this consensus?
It's got to be a complicated system, because journalists are nationally curious.
Is it just careerism that disables this?
What happens?
Go ahead.
One of the things, there was a recent, Tucker Carlson did a recent interview on this topic.
This is just something that I've been thinking about a lot.
I don't fully understand, well, actually, I have a theory.
How about this?
This is my theory.
Big Pharma, as you know, provides a ton of ad funding to TV networks.
I've heard something like 60%, 70% in non-election years.
Imagine losing 70% of your billion-dollar revenues.
That would be a tough decision.
So we're talking about conflicts of interest here.
So if you're a big pharma company, you see all sorts of sponsorships of all sorts of
shows by some of these companies, not going to name them, with who they are, that might
actually influence editorial policy somehow.
I think it actually very much does.
The question is, why is it that on block, all of the journalists are kind of on board
with basically following a narrative that is acceptable to the sponsor or to the funder.
There's something that I think it was in 2021, a Nieman lab associated with Harvard University.
This is again going back to Trump times.
They basically decided that objectivity in journalism, they wrote this.
This is one of these premier organizations associated with mainstream journalism.
Objectivity should be replaced with solidarity.
You can look this up.
Maybe that's what happened.
So imagine the conflict now that exists in these organizations.
I'm pretty sure my son and I had COVID.
We were in Colorado at the site of a big outbreak in Vale there.
He was getting surgery.
But we both got really sick.
So I was pretty sure we had it in February.
My son and I were in February 2020.
So we got really sick and nobody would test us.
So I was like, well, by default, that means the denominator has to be bigger.
So by default, the death rate can't be what they said because if they weren't testing
us as sick as we were, my son's toes were blue.
So that made me just a little less scared.
And so I knew we were hearing about it and it was coming.
So with any major news situation like Virginia Tech shooting or big hurricane or something,
those are some of the things that had been around in my news days.
It's very traumatic, probably like practitioners on the frontline news people.
So I called a couple of friends who were still in the business when I got home from
that trip where we were so sick.
And I was like, are y'all doing OK?
Because I knew the coverage was starting to ramp up and they were starting to hear about
deaths.
And I didn't watch TV at the time, so I didn't know about all the video of the people falling
over that was scaring most TV viewers.
And a lot of my friends were terrified.
There had been corporate meetings, a station-wide meeting at multiple different stations, bring
everybody in for the plan.
This is how we're going to cover it.
It's what you do before a hurricane.
You all get together and say, who's going to be here and what are we going to do?
What are our angles?
And I think the corporations, possibly from anecdotal stories, had scared their workers
about what was coming.
And then a couple of weeks later, I called back to check on them and they're like, yeah,
this wasn't what they told us it was going to be.
Yeah, a couple weeks later, right?
Yeah, just weeks later.
You know, I called back to make sure that everybody's OK, what's going on.
And I would touch base every now and then and be told about half of us think it's bull,
and then the other half are terrified.
So there were divisions in the newsroom where half the people were scared to death, and half
the people were had that normal questioning, like, why are we making such a big deal about
this?
You know, there aren't that many people right now, and this was early on, in the hospital,
in our state, or this state, in that state.
And then the boss would call and say, why did you, you made people uncomfortable with
that question.
And this was in remote editorial morning meetings, like, nobody was even together.
They were all at home having their editorial meeting.
And so I think there was kind of a censorship, like, there are questions you can't ask, there
are stories you cannot pitch.
And it seemed like, and then a lot of my journalist friends quit because they said, I can't be
a part of this, and I'm not changing it, and I'm fighting every day.
And these kids, you know, are coming straight out of school and not just reading things
straight from the press release, from the CDC.
And of course, we know about the Trusted News Initiative.
And when I heard Biden say, you know, we have first, I think it was one billion, then it
was three more billion, that we were going to use taxpayer dollars to market the sale
or the, you know, take up of these COVID shop products.
I thought, well, that's it.
I mean, if you don't comply, if you say anything that goes against the government narrative,
which hello, it's our job to question authority.
But if you do, maybe you won't get a cut of that, you know, all those commercials that
ran, like someone was paying for all, for all that, like that was, you know, when Krispy
Cream Donuts gives away one donut, I still want to see a foyer foyer of, was there some
back end funding?
Yeah.
You know, when you hear of what Paramount, one of those, you know, amusement park places
was giving away, I think we found out it was like $500,000 in free memberships.
If you got your shot and bring in your card, I'm sorry, they didn't just eat that.
So we have more digging to do, but we have some questions.
Yeah, just one point on that.
A friend of the New York Times, he said that he described the ethos in March 2020 at the
New York Times as, this is great.
So we get Trump and we get to do it from our living rooms in pajamas.
We don't even have to go into the office.
And then once they got Trump, they loved just not taking the commute, so they wanted to prolong
it as long as possible.
I don't know if there's any truth to that, but that's the way they described it.
So we've burned through a few questions, and I don't know if these are on a time limit
or what, but the question before was, what's the elephant in the room is, who's pulling
the strings behind all the messaging?
And that, of course, is the great question, right?
And I've been asked that question for four years, and I've usually not had an answer.
But at this stage, I'm just willing to say what I think the answer is.
I think it's the intelligence community, and I think that's the whole of it.
Yeah, so maybe I'll just throw that question out to the three of you.
Yeah.
I just read Aaron Carrady's book, The Rise of the Biosecurity State, which kind of outlines
this whole thing as to how the internet and how electronic messaging and so forth has
been used, and I'm going to say this in a clunky way, to instill control over all of
us.
I got a, this is just a little anecdote that sort of is illustrative, a text from my grandson
the other day, and it said, Nona, I just wanted to take a moment to tell you how much you
mean in my life, and how I would not be where I am without you, and it went on.
And I was like, oh my gosh, this is really great, you know, I immediately write him back.
And I think, and I ask his mother, and she says, chat GPT.
And then a colleague of mine uses chat GPT to ask the question, what is vaccine-enhanced
disease, about which we had both written in the context of COVID and vaccines killing
pregnant women.
I just recently wrote an article on that.
And we got this incredibly cogent response, well stated, and basically it doesn't exist,
no such thing as it's not doing any harm, especially in COVID vaccines.
That's just a small, you know, example of the kind of, of the ways in which the messages
we get and everybody out there gets, is controlled, how they are controlled by forces much larger
than they and much smarter than they do.
Who is, I mean, doing the messaging, that's the, that's the question, right?
I mean, I don't know where the original messaging necessarily came from, but I think there's
this, there seems to be a whole lot of, let's say, interests that are all aligned in the
same direction or incentive structures that are all aligned, kind of in the same direction.
And a lot of it has to do with, you know, this is one of the things I've discovered doing
this show and watching.
There's been this, you know, basically like massive buildup of bureaucracy, right?
In almost every aspect of our society, right?
Whether it's in education, there's more administrators at sub universities than there are staff,
you know, people actually doing teaching.
And of course in these, you know, multiple letter agencies, these three letter agencies
and so forth.
And, you know, this replicates everywhere, but the thing about bureaucracies, and this
is something I discovered years ago, they all sort of function at some point, when they
grow to a certain size, they all function in a way to prevent the ability to be able
to tell where the locus of accountability and responsibility is, it's diffuse, okay?
And so, you know, you have these weird sort of legal doctrines like Chevron deference,
it's been something that's around for, been around for 40 years.
Essentially it says that the agents, if Congress haven't specifically said how a law is to
be applied, well, the agencies get to decide, I mean, that's basically what it says.
I know for 40 years, sort of a lot, essentially a lot of governance has been transferred there,
but now Congress is kind of happy about that too, because they can say, well, we didn't,
you know, it's the agencies really that are deciding, the agencies say, well, that's the
congressional law, right?
Nobody's in the end kind of responsible.
And I kind of see, you know, there was this initial messaging, which was insane, right?
Like this is what we were talking about, we knew within a few weeks that this, you know,
I hate to use this term, but it kind of sums it up, you're porn, right?
That was pushed into society in all these different ways, influencers, huge money pushing
in billions, right?
And now everybody's committed, this is what I'm getting at, right, by these aligned interests,
everybody, people that participated in this, I mean, it was crazy, right?
But now they're all on the same team, right?
And who wants to be the person who says, well, I was wrong about, you know, destroying the
world, destroying society, destroying our economy, destroying, you know, so many lives,
frankly, right?
As we've been discussing here.
So what about the facts though?
The facts have changed, you know, and we've had other stories in our history on which,
you know, there was basically only one side.
For a long time, the press went along with the Vietnam War.
It's not the best example, but, you know, there was, you know, we just tolerated it for years
and years until that famous, you know, Walter Cronkite statement.
And if Walter Cronkite, you know, lost middle America, then we lost the war.
So and that was largely driven by, well, first activism among the population, but the facts
on the ground, we weren't winning, it was time to get out.
And I think the facts on the ground are changing.
So, you know, hopeful that media will begin to recognize that.
Francis, before you jump in, if I can say just one quick thing, my theory here, right,
is that I think these facts on the ground, you're right, but there aren't terribly many
sort of things that are very acute that you can see.
And I actually think that horribly, COVID vaccine injury, right, it's such a significant
reality in our society right now.
I mean, there's polls that show us that what is it a third of people believe they know someone
who has died, I think might even be who has died from it, you know.
That's very significant given the messaging, right, that it's safe and effective, right.
And I think that horribly, I mean, this is a terrible realization, but I think that this
might be the issue where the facts on the ground overcome the propaganda.
And there has to be a reckoning, right, but then unfortunately there'll be a, you know,
seeking of escape code instead of proper accountability.
And what that reckoning looks like, we just don't know yet.
No, I think what's going to happen is already happening.
People are turning away from the news that they know is letting them down.
And they are finding other news sources like yours.
Case in point, who saw Ernest Ramirez, Junior Ramirez, who knows the story of Ernesto?
So Ernesto Ramirez and his son, Junior, died after his Pfizer vaccine.
And I saw, because no, you know, you probably all know, but Senator Johnson's hearings,
which were not covered by the legacy news, the corporate news, I happen to see,
watch all of his hearings if you haven't seen him, please go find some platform
that doesn't censor and ignore the commenters because usually they're horrible.
But if you can find a video platform that doesn't censor and watch those,
I had seen his testimony about losing his son.
And I'm sorry, in 20 years of news, that's as sick as it sounds, but that would be a lead.
That would be headline TV, it would be in what's called the Cold Open, the headlines,
that first bit of audio, that, you know, the grieving father.
In any other realm before 2020, that would have led the national news.
So he's in, I know him now.
I've met him at a couple of events and he's willing to speak to anybody.
And I have friends in Texas news media and I reach out.
I send the video of Ernesto and I say, he will come to you.
Can I please facilitate an interview?
He just wants to say, hey, this can happen.
And people, he had no idea that myocarditis could happen as a side effect.
And nobody responded.
And I'm like, that to me was incredibly telling.
The Ralph Barrett gain of function work, I mean, I'm not, I was not a journalism major.
I'm not a great researcher, but, you know, you can go to sec.gov, read the 10K filings
of Moderna and Pfizer, find out who the major stakeholders are.
I mean, they're boring.
You know, it's 100 pages of really boring, you know, what my husband calls boring but
deadly stuff.
He's an accountant, so everything is boring.
But so you see in there that Moderna discloses that its major stakeholder include major
stakeholders include Barda and DARPA.
Well, Barda is a division of the NIH, DARPA is a division of the DOD, Moderna in my mind
is the government's horse in the COVID vaccine race.
Shouldn't you disclose that to people when you're telling them?
But that's never, I mean, that's basic reporting.
That's not hard to find.
And the fact that none of the corporate, I don't think the corporate media is ever going
to come along because they're a marketing arm of pharma, in my opinion now.
Maybe not completely, maybe not every story, but that's what they do.
So I guess this might be our final question, but how would you vet an unknown news source
besides its source funding?
And it's an interesting question because we are living in a, in strange times, we know
what we can't trust.
It's hard to know what we can trust.
So what are your rules of thumb?
IRS 990, if they're claiming that they have a non-profit supporting them, you can look
up the 990s, but the part that is turned over to the IRS when you do a 990, the part
where you disclose who your major funders are, the IRS can see it, but the part that
we can pull, the public can pull, is redacted.
So it's very hard to find out when a non-profit's involved who's really funding an organization.
Yeah, I mean, I think it's, for me, it's the way I think probably a lot of everybody
here does it.
You talk to people that you trust, and you say, oh, hey, there's this new site, they've
got some really good stuff.
I mean, that's, and then I look and I see, is this, does this comport with reality, or
is this plausible?
And I kind of build like that, there's a handful of sites, Brownstone I might mention, hasn't
been mentioned tonight, that's one excellent site where I go regularly, we should give
it a little, let's give Brownstone a bit of a hand for its work.
But, you know, tablet, there's not a lot of places, trial site news.
Trial site news, yeah.
Yeah.
Very, you know, it's remarkable when you think about just how thin the read is on which
truth and freedom depend.
So much of the legacy world has been proven itself to have been uncrageous, part of the
regime, part of the problem, collapsed, uncourageous, filled with careerists and bureaucrats.
This is vast amounts of medicine, academia, media, think tank world, government, you name
it, everything.
And then on the other side, we have, you know, Substack and Twitter 2.0 and CHD, Brownstone,
FLCCCC, trial site news and just a hand.
But the word is getting out there, gradually.
We see from our own traffic and we're starting to see funding roll in and we're starting
to see these conferences fill up, right?
My overwhelming sense was that March 2020 was a hinge of history, a real turning point.
That's why we started Brownstone Institute was to come to terms with it and we are dealing
with that reality and the grittiest, most truth telling possible way as are all these
affiliated organizations.
And yet the legacy world in which we live is just trying to pretend like it never happened.
Have you noticed that?
Oh, everything's fine.
We hid for a while from a virus and we did a good job and that was it.
And then we got the magic fix in the form of the tremendous potion and shut up.
Could I also add something, Jeffrey?
Trial site news is also subscriber funded.
It does not take advertising.
So we can trust what it says to a greater degree than we can these days in the New York
Times, unfortunately, but so I'm putting that out there for you.
It's up to us to share and subscribe and share.
We depend fundamentally on our readers.
I see it every single day without readers with passion and dedication and willing to
take risks among their own friend circle and with their career.
We wouldn't have anything.
But on the other hand, you know, it's a beautiful thing in some ways that we've all been dropped
into this moment in history, which each and every one of us can make a gigantic difference
for our children and their children and the future of civilization itself.
It's just true.
Thank you.
It's true.
We have been given that opportunity and it's up to us to step up, use that fundamental
thing that's inside of us to love liberty, love freedom and love truth, go forth and
make it happen in our times.
There is no, you know, farming is not in charge of the narrative of history.
I'm sorry.
They're not in charge.
They claim they are, but they're not.
People are in charge and the truth is in charge, but we've got to make it happen.
So I'd like to thank our panelists for coming.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
