By Neenah Payne
When Tucker Carlson suddenly got fired by Fox in April 2023, many people wondered what his next step would be. Carlson made the brilliant move of launching the Tucker Carlson Network which can be seen online by subscription.
On January 5, Carlson talked with Dr. Brett Weinstein, an evolutionary biologist who earned his PhD at the University of Michigan before teaching at The Evergreen State College for 14 years until 2017. Weinstein wrote A Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century: Evolution and the Challenges of Modern Life with his wife Heather Heying who is also an evolutionary biologist. The book has 2,865 reviews on Amazon with a rating of 4.6. Weinstein and his wife host The Dark Horse Podcast.
The video below allows you to see the interview which quickly went viral! Parts of the interview are discussed below. As you can see, the video was previously on YouTube, but was taken down.
Tucker Carlson : Bret Weinstein on the WHO’s plans for you 1/5/24
From BitChute:
Big Pharma’s Marketing Plan
Weinstein explains the brilliance of Big Pharma’s COVID strategy. He points out that Pharma had a problem in bringing the mRNA technology to market because of the known safety risks. So, to get the mRNA technology accepted, Big Pharma needed an “emergency” to justify an Emergency Use Authorization that would allow it to rush the technology to market without the usual safety tests.
The COVID “pandemic” provided the global emergency Big Pharma needed. That explains why safe, effective early treatments like HCQ/zinc, Ivermectin, vitamin D, vitamin C, and budesonide were ignored and vilified by the US government and corporate media (much of it “brought to you by Pfizer”). The fact that those treatments were available in early 2020 made the Emergency Use Authorizations issued in late 2020 illegal since EUAs can be issued if no treatments are available.
Weinstein explains:
What I've come to understand is something I call the game of pharma. If you think about what pharma is, we tend to imagine that it is an industry that is hell bent on finding drugs that will make us healthier. That's not what it is. In fact, pharma is healthy when people are sick. And many people have noticed this that of course it depends on ill health. So it has a perverse incentive. But what I think most of us did not realize is how elaborate its bag of tricks is and what the nature of that bag of tricks is.
.…basically every day of the year, pharma is engaged in portraying the properties that it owns as more useful than they are, safer than they are, and persuading the medical establishment, the journals, the societies, the hospitals, the government to direct people towards drugs they wouldn't otherwise be taking….COVID was bigger than anything that had ever happened before, but none of it was new to pharma, and all of it was new to us in the public trying to understand what we were supposed to do about this ostensibly very serious disease…
Weinstein points out that “pharma owned what was potentially the biggest pharmacological cash cow conceivable….to the extent that this technology was safe, pharma would be able to argue, well, we don't really need to go through thorough safety testing of the entire platform each time we deploy it …. it's very hard to estimate how much money pharma might have made. I think hundreds of billions of dollars is absolutely certain. Trillions of dollars is not off the table….”
Pharma had a potentially tremendously lucrative property that it couldn't bring to market because a safety test would have revealed this unsolvable problem. And so…my hypothesis is that it recognized that the thing that would bypass that obstacle was an emergency that caused the public to demand a remedy…. That would cause the government to streamline the safety testing process so that it wouldn't spot these things. And indeed…..the safety testing was radically truncated so that long term harms were impossible to detect. So, the hypothesis in question is. Pharma used an emergency to bypass an obstacle to bring in incredibly lucrative technology…. to sneak it by the things that would ordinarily prevent a dangerous technology like this one from being widely deployed.
When Tucker asks, “Do we have any guess as to how many of these shots were given out globally?” Weinstein says: “It's definitely in the billions.” Tucker asks, “What do you think we're going to see in terms of a death toll and injury toll from this vaccine?” Weinstein responds: “There's some new material out of New Zealand, which is jaw dropping….Joseph Fraiman and his colleagues, including Peter Doshi, did an evaluation of Pfizer's own safety data from its safety trials….And what they found was a one in 800 rate of serious adverse event….”
Tucker points out that one in eight hundred shots times billions of people is 17 million deaths -- like the death toll of a global war. Weinstein points out that since kids were not at risk from COVID, it made no sense to give them the shot since it doesn’t prevent infection or transmission. Weinstein says: “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.”
So the problem…for pharma and for the politicians who support and promote them in the media, who do the same, is that there are people like you who are not crackpots, who are scientists and physicians, long time researchers with fully credentialed work histories. Not too many, but a sizable number who will not let go, who are completely dogged in the pursuit of more data about this. So like, what do they do with you and people like you?
Weinstein responds:
Well, I think the astonishing thing is that as you point out, small group of dissidents upended their narrative. Uptake rates on the new boosters are in the low single digits. Nobody's taking it. Now, I'm troubled by the fact that at the same time, we don't see a massive majority acknowledging the vaccination campaign was a mistake….I mean, we're still injecting these things into kids, for God sakes. So it is important to stand up and say I was had and I think all of us were….
The fact that that small number of dissidents was able to upend the narrative, was able to bring people's awareness to the massive levels of harm and ineffectiveness of the shots is in some ways the most surprising element of the story. And I think it truly surprised Pharma and its partners in social media and government, in non-governmental organizations. I think they thought that they owned enough of the media that they could sell us any narrative that they wished and. I think surprising as it is, they didn't really understand that podcasts could possibly be a countervailing force of significance.
our ability to reach millions of people surprised those who thought they were just going to shove this narrative down our throats.
This gets me to 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…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.
Carlson asks: “So you're saying that an international health organization could just end the First Amendment in the United States?”
Weinstein points out:
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….
What has been proposed….the World Health Organization and its signatory nations will be allowed to define a public health emergency….having declared one, they will be entitled to mandate remedies. Remedies that are named include vaccines. Gene therapy technology is literally named in the set of things that the World Health Organization is going to reserve the right to mandate, that it will be in a position to require these things of citizens, that it will be in a position to dictate our ability to travel, in other words, passports that would be predicated on one having accepted these technologies are clearly being described.
It would have the ability to forbid the use of other medications. So, this looks like they're preparing for a rerun where they can just simply take ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine off the table. They also have reserved the ability. Dictate how these measures are discussed. That censorship is described here as well, the right to dictate that. Of course, misinformation is how they're going to describe it.
Weinstein warns:
I think the World Health Organization is above the level of nations, and it is going to be in a position, if these provisions passed, to dictate to nations how they are to treat their own citizens, to override their constitutions, despite what Tedros has told you. So, that is frightening. It's not inherently about health.
What I think has happened is the fact of a possible pandemic causes a loophole in the mind. It's not a loophole in our governance documents. Our Constitution doesn't describe exemptions from your rights during a time of a pandemic emergency. Your rights simply are what they are, and they're not supposed to go anywhere just because there's a disease spreading. But nonetheless, people's willingness to accept the erosion of their rights because of a public health emergency has allowed this tyranny to use it as a Trojan horse. And…it's something people need to become aware...that there are blind spots we can't see past.
Vaccine was one….. When they called this mRNA tech technology a vaccine, many of us gave it more credibility than we should have if they had called it a gene transfection technology. We would have thought, wait, what? You know that sounds highly novel and it sounds dangerous. And how much do we know about the long term implications? But because they called it a vaccine, people were much more willing to accept it….
Later on, Carlson pointed out: “So, if this is ratified or signed on to by the United States in May. So, six months from now. It sounds like that's it.”
Weinstein responded:
I have very little hope that the U.S. will derail this. I have the sense that whatever has captured our government is driving this as well. And so, in effect, the U.S. wants this change.… I think the U.S. wants something to force it to violate our constitutional protections. And the World Health Organization is going to be that entity.
That said, I have recently been to the Czech Republic and I've been to Romania, and I've heard from other parts of the former Eastern Bloc that there is resistance, that people who have faced tyranny in living memory are much less ready to accept these changes and that they are actually beginning to mount a response. I worry that it will be too thin and easily defeated, especially if they do not understand that actually the world is depending on them, that.… the countries we traditionally think of as part of the West are compromised, and that these countries which have more recently joined or rejoined the West are the best hope we've got, that they are in a position to derail this set of provisions and that we are depending on them to do it.
Weinstein concluded with a slideshow and added:
I'm sad to report that I think the West has actually collapsed and what we are left with is now a nebulous echo. The values of the West still function, but they function in a vague way, and we have seen that they can evaporate quickly under the right circumstances….I suspect that some powerful set of forces has decided that consent of the governed is too dangerous to tolerate and that it has begun to unhook it. And we do not know how this works.
We can see some of the partners who are involved in this, but I don't think we know ultimately who's driving it or where they're going…. And I wonder if the rent-seeking elites that have hoarded so much power are not unhooking our rights because effectively they're afraid of some global French Revolution moment as people realize that they had been betrayed and left without good options. Is that what we're seeing?
Certainly feels like we're facing an end game where important properties that would once have been preserved by all parties because they might need them one day are now being dispensed with. And we're … watching our governmental structures and every one of our institutions captured, hollowed out, turned into a paradoxical inversion of what it was designed to do.
That's not an accident….the thing that worries me most, actually, that whatever is driving this is not composed of diabolical geniuses who at least have some plan for the future, but it's being driven by people who actually do not know what kind of hell they are inviting. They are going to create a kind of chaos from which humanity may well not emerge. And I get the sense that unless they have some remarkable plan that is not obvious, that they are just simply drunk with power and putting everyone, including themselves, in tremendous jeopardy by taking apart the structures on which we depend.
My family has found itself in very uncomfortable and sometimes dangerous circumstances because we speak out. I don't think I had a choice. I just I, I literally cannot understand how I would sleep at night, how I would look at myself in the mirror if I didn't say what needed to be said.
You know, I heard a very good speech by Bobby Kennedy Jr….at the Liberty Conference in Memphis, and the last thing he said in that speech struck me to my core. Something I saw often and said almost never. But there are fates far worse than death…. I have lived an incredible life…. there's plenty I still want to do. And I am not eager to leave this planet any earlier than I have to. I have a marvelous family. I live in a wonderful place and I've got lots of things on a bucket list….However.
Humanity is depending on everybody who has a position from which to see what is taking place, to grapple with what it might mean to describe it so that the public understands where their interests are.
It is depending on us to do what needs to be done if we're to have a chance of delivering a planet to our children and our grandchildren that is worthy of them. If we're going to deliver a system that allows them to live meaningful, healthy lives, we have to speak up…I don't know how to get people to do that. I'm very hesitant to urge others to put themselves or their families in danger, and I know that everybody's circumstances are different.
Some people are struggling just simply to feed a family and keep a roof over their heads. Those people obviously have a great deal less liberty with respect to standing up….it's what we call in game theory a collective action problem. Everybody responds to their personal well-being. If everybody says “That's too dangerous to stand up, you know, I'm not suicidal. I can't do it” then not enough people stand up to change the course of history. Whereas if people somehow put aside the obvious danger…of saying what needs to be said, then we greatly outnumber those we are pitted against. They are ferociously powerful. But.
I would also point out this interesting error. So, I call the force that were up against Goliath. Just so I remember what the battle is. Goliath made a terrible mistake and made it most egregiously during COVID…. It took all of the competent people. Took all of the courageous people, and it shoved them out of the institutions where they were hanging on. And it created in so doing The Dream Team. Created every player you could possibly want on your team to fight some historic battle against a terrible evil. All of those people are now at least somewhat awake. They've now been picked on by the same enemy. And yeah, all right, we're outgunned. It has a tremendous amount of power. But we've got all of the people who know how to think.
So. I hate to say it, or maybe I like to say it, but. I don't think it's a slam dunk, but I like our odds.
Weinstein points out the need for qualified journalists to raise important questions. He says:
So, we have to boot up some kind of new institution that will allow us to do this job well. And presumably that will involve taking the few investigative journalists…and the few scientists and doctors who are willing to still do their job.
Three Categories of Censored Information Now
In the video below, Weinstein explains that the Department of Homeland Security issued a memo that defines three categories of “terrorism”: “misinformation” (errors), “disinformation” (intentional errors/lies), and “malinformation” is “based in truth but causes people to distrust authority”. As Tucker points out, that third category applies when journalists catch the government lying!
However, the US Founding Fathers used the First Amendment to protect Freedom of the Press so the media could serve as the Fourth Estate and expose wrong-doing by the other three branches of government. So, the Department of Homeland Security doesn’t seem to understand the US Constitution.
Bret Weinstein Exposes the World Health Organization’s Dark Agenda (video)
In Watch: ‘A Terrible Truth’: COVID Response Was About Profits and Power, The Defender of Children’s Health Defense reported about this interview on 12/8/24:
The value added from this interview is truly incalculable. It’s not only the reach, which quickly passed three million a day after its release. That’s a vast number of influencers who now know what’s what.
Carlson played a recent video Weinstein had not seen of WHO General Director Tedros saying the WHO Pandemic Treaty does not threaten national sovereignty. This shows that since more people realize the treat the treaty poses to our freedom, nations may not ratify the WHO Pandemic Treaty in MAY.
For More Information
Courage In The Age of COVID
Global Coup By WHO and Bill Gates?
The Growing Revolution Against Globalists
It’s Beginning To Look A Lot Like Genocide!
Monday, December 18: Watch WHO Debate!
WHO Pandemic Treaty Will Enslave Humanity!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on SoMee, Telegram, HIVE, Minds, MeWe, Twitter - X, Gab, and What Really Happened.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what's coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.
