O:H header
On this episode of Objective:Health we're joined by Sott.net lead editor Joe Quinn to talk about the world's exasperating and mind-bogglingly stupid reaction to the SARS-cov-2 virus. Through careful analysis of data, Joe expertly expresses the frustration at the fact that people seem unable, or unwilling, to see what is directly in front of them, to come to the obvious conclusion that the planet is having the wool pulled over its collective eyes.

Joe also shares some of his personal theories which you are unlikely to find anywhere else on video sharing platforms!

Join us for this can't miss interview on Objective:Health!

And check us out on Brighteon!

For other health-related news and more, you can find us on:

♥Twitter: https://twitter.com/objecthealth
♥Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/objecthealth/
♥Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channel/objectivehealth

♥And you can check out all of our previous shows (pre YouTube) here.

Running Time: 01:08:40

Download: MP3 — 62.3 MB

Here's the transcript of the show:

Doug: Hello. Welcome to another exciting episode of Objective: Health. We decided this week that we wanted, for a change, to do a show about the coronavirus. {laughter} So we decided that we would bring on a very special guest, editor of sott.net Joe Quinn. So welcome Joe.

Joe: Thanks for the invite.

Doug: Joe, just to start things off, maybe you could tell everybody why you want everybody to die. {laughter}

Joe: Well me and Prince Charles - not Prince Charles but the Duke of Edinburgh - is that his name? Charles's father, the Duke of Windsor, I think his name is Philip...

Tiffany: It's Philip.

Joe: Philip yes. He's on record as having said that humanity is like a plague or something and that they all need to die and that if he reincarnates he wants to come back as a virus and kill everybody. So I spent a lot of time hanging out with him and he convinced me basically so that's why I want everybody to die and that's why I'm so happy about coronavirus.

Doug: Right. Makes sense.

Tiffany: Those are some true life goals right there. {laughter}

Joe: Yeah. That's true about Prince Philip though, although obviously this coronavirus isn't his fault because he's not dead yet. {laughter} so he hasn't reincarnated as a virus just yet, probably some other member of his family. Anyway not to be disrespectful to the royal family but - yeah I am being disrespectful of the royal family.

Doug: I was just being facetious obviously because it seems like whenever anybody speaks out against the lockdown measures and the coronavirus and actually analyzing the numbers and putting some truth out there, that's the automatic response that you get from people. It's either you accept everything that's going on or you just want people to die.

Joe: Right.

Tiffany: Or more specifically, you want to kill grandma.

Joe: Yeah. You want to kill old people. From the very beginning of this farce - it really is a farce if you look into it in enough depth, - the thing that struck me about it was that it was as if most of the world suddenly woke up to the fact that people die and they were horrified by it. You get the impression most people really didn't know, at least they were not conscious on anything like a daily basis or even a weekly a regular basis, that large numbers of people die in their countries every day, every week, every month, and that having these large numbers of deaths suddenly shoved in their faces every day by the media, every hour really, something happened to them and they just couldn't take it. Of course when it's attached to the idea as it has been, by governments and the media that it's a virus that anybody can spray and that they're potentially responsible for people dying, this is new and shocking to them and it's just amazing.

One thing I should say probably in the course of this discussion, I'm going to explain a lot of things ultimately by just the idiocy of a large percentage of the people on this planet. In many cases, if you want answers to what's actually going on and what has been going over the past couple of months, there aren't very many complex answers to it really and there's far more simplistic answers to it and the primary simplistic answer to it - not simplistic but simple answer and true answer - is that people are, generally speaking, clueless. They don't know what's going on around them. They generally don't know what's going on around them in the world and they're limited to their private little individual lives and everything outside of that bubble almost doesn't exist for them.

So like I was saying, when the media and the government suddenly intrude on that bubble with shocking facts and statistics that implicate them as being potentially responsible for, in this case killing people, a lot of people just lose all sanity, all sense and believe wholeheartedly what the government is saying. The remedy to that would be a little bit of awareness, a little bit of understanding on their part about the death tolls in their respective countries, how many people die every day around them that they don't see and this whole thing wouldn't be such a big deal to many people if they were aware of those things. But apparently they're not.

Doug: If you look at things like comparisons to flu deaths, heart attacks, cancer, any of those kinds of things, the numbers of covid deaths are actually minuscule by comparison.

Joe: Right. I wouldn't necessarily say miniscule, but they're in the same ballpark, not remarkable.

Doug: Yeah, for the flu.

Joe: I think the UK's numbers officially - we can talk about how they get their numbers - but the official numbers of 'death by covid' as the media and the government tends to portray it, is 30,000 people since it started in February or whenever. Two years ago 2017-2018 flu season was a bad flu season and there were estimated to be 50,000 deaths related to the flu. You ask anybody on the street in the UK about that and they won't know, they won't have heard about it because nobody told them about it. The media didn't say anything, the government didn't say anything. It was in the media here and there, the odd article, but nobody paid any attention because there was no alarm bell sounded, no Defcon5.

But the fact of the matter is that two years ago in the UK and around the same time of year 50,000 people died as a result of the flu. You could have gone back. Two years ago, if the government and the media wanted to portray the estimated number of flu deaths in the winter season two years ago, they could have done exactly the same thing that they're doing today. They could have chosen to do two years ago and they would have had more numbers to justify. They would have had 50,000 instead of 30,000.

But they didn't and instead they chose this year and they chose to pick a virus that is very similar to the flu in its effects and its mortality rate and they decided to just go full totalitarian idiots on it. You can argue up and down, you can look at stats for this, that and the other, but the bottom line for me is that. The numbers do not justify what they've been doing and you have to come up with a different explanation as to why they're doing that. You can't say that this virus is justification for the lockdowns. When I post a lot of articles and data on Facebook that convince the odd person that there's something else going on, there are immediate questions why. "Okay. It looks like I might believe you or whatever but why are they doing this? Why would they do this?"

They're accepting that the virus isn't a reasonable excuse to lock down the country and cause all kinds of problems and suffering and misery and probably deaths, so why are they doing it? The people want to know why and that gets you into a whole other situation, a whole other scenario. That's a different story and a different narrative as to why. But I tend to not want to give any explanations. You can give some explanations but it's by definition theoretical because you don't have hard evidence for it. So I tend not to want to answer that question and answer that question by saying, "I don't have to have a reason why" because a lot of people seem to be making it contingent on accepting what you say, accepting the data and the evidence that's in front of their eyes, that there's no justification and the virus is not justification for these lockdowns. They come across as even though they accept that it's true, they'll only believe that data if you can explain then why they are doing a lockdown.

If you're saying the lockdown is not justified by the numbers from the virus, they're not going to accept that data until you explain why. I say, "Well, I don't need to explain why and you don't have to have an answer as to why, to recognize that it's not justified. We can try and figure out why afterwards but the first order of business is to stand up and speak out and say this makes no sense." As Donald Trump - not that I'm a Donald Trump supporter - but as he said at the beginning I think, he warned against the cure being worse than the problem. And he was right, that the cure is far worse than the problem because really there is no problem.

Erica: It's interesting that they call it a cure.

Joe: Yeah.

Elliot: Like you said two years ago Joe about the flu season being worse, I was looking at a statistic - I can't remember which country it was based in, either the US or the UK - and it was saying that since 1997, there's been five or six cases of flu seasons which far surpassed the amount of deaths that we've had with the covid. So the numbers simply don't add up. Historically there has been many more justifications to be able to implement this kind of control. So the question is, why now? Why is this different? It doesn't really make sense.

Joe: Do we want to theorize...? {laughter}

Tiffany: Sure.

Joe: ...or answer that question as to why?

Tiffany: I think it's always helpful to ask who benefits in the face of a situation like this. One of the primary beneficiaries, in my opinion, it's pretty obvious when you see all the trillions of dollars being laid out to the bankers, given to them for bailouts, that's the number one place to look.

Joe: Right.

Tiffany: There have been financial analysts who've been talking over the last years, maybe ten years or so, saying that the level of debt that just the United States has alone is not sustainable, "There's going to be a crash, there's going to be a crash, there's going to be a crash. We don't know when it's going to happen but it's coming soon." So this happened at a convenient time.

Joe: We don't know necessarily the exact mechanism by which they would be dealing with that economic problem and I'm not sure there is. The economy, for many decades has functioned on essentially funny money, if you know I mean, the fiat system. What they call the economy is really decoupled and has been for a long time, from the real economy, the bricks-and-mortar economy. The amount of money floating around the world and shares and equity floating around the world is totally decoupled from any reference to the actual value in any given country and by extension the entire world.

So I tend to think that they probably could keep it going for quite a while longer because they've been doing it for so long anyway but that doesn't mean that they don't have a reason to want to do what they're doing in terms of what some people are saying, resetting the economy or closing it down as they have to a large extent, and then reestablishing it or opening it up again on a slightly different footing. There have been mainstream articles about this, about how a lot of people have been benefiting, major hedge fund managers and major banking institutions etc., who have made a lot of money out of essentially shorting the economy. When you get wind of something like this coming down the pipeline you can make a lot of money if you bet that many companies are going to go to the wall.

So a lot of individuals and organizations have made a lot of money from this. That's one benefit. The other thing obviously is the push for a vaccine. Vaccines have been around for quite a long time and the uptake in vaccines is not bad. I'm not sure about the US, but in European countries it averages about 70 percent of the over-65-year-olds, which isn't a majority by any stretch of the population. A lot of the pharmaceutical companies make a lot of money out of vaccinations and no doubt they would like to make more money. But the only way they can really make more money than they have already been making is to vaccinate more people.

Certainly the fear mongering around this SARS-CoV2 has the potential to encourage a lot more younger people and maybe the rest of the over-65s, the other 25% that haven't been getting the flu vaccination and all the vaccinations every year, it's a way to encourage them to get it. You might see a significant increase in vaccinations, not just if and when they come out with a supposed vaccine for this SARS-CoV2, but also for other vaccinations in general because of the fear that has been spread around and also younger people deciding to take a vaccine, to accept vaccines.

Bill Gates explicitly said, I think in the context of talking about this situation, he said that the lockdown is not going to end fully until we vaccinate the entire globe. So I think it depends on the price. The price would vary and stuff but vaccines are a couple hundred dollars or something is banked in Western countries, between $100 and $200 per vaccine from government coffers into the pharmaceutical companies' bank account. So multiply eight billion by 100 - maybe close to a trillion dollars? So yeah, that's an incentive for sure. But that's always been an incentive to push vaccination programs on people. So I don't know.

What else? Governments like control. The strange thing about this situation is that I've noticed most governments around the world have operated in lockstep with someone, with each other, but more likely with someone. The dates that they give for turning off the lock down, the dates that they all came on, they were there either following each other or they were following someone else. The first countries to lock down were China, then Iran, but you didn't hear much about those. China did its own thing. But in Europe it was Italy, Spain, and as soon as you know they started reporting large numbers of infections or deaths from covid then it moved to Spain and moved to France and most other European countries and they all followed each other, in terms of the timing of it. It was within 10 days or something or two weeks that everybody followed suit. Then they all started following and the same easing of the lockdown approach.

You could put that down to the virus, that the virus itself was kind of dying off or is going away essentially because of the change in weather or whatever, as far as these kind of seasonal flu-like viruses do, but there was a coherency among all of these governments. We know that a lot of them are getting information from advisors or scientific committees, unelected essentially that work for the government and their scientists supposedly or scientific advisors who are telling governments around the world what to do. Of course you got the World Health Organization who is also handing out missives and instructions to governments.

That's the problem for the people who need to understand this. It's not your government really deciding, at least not primarily your government, to impose these lockdowns and impose the different social distancing measures etc, on people. They're getting that from unelected scientific officials for some of them within the country in question, but others outside the country who don't work for your government. They work for the World Health Organization, for example.

You don't know these people. You have to hope that they have a positive agenda, that they don't have some nefarious motive for doing what they're doing. But certainly it was clear to me anyway that governments were simply following the orders of someone else and all following the same orders from somewhere else. That to me suggests that it's some supranational or transnational organization that's handing out instructions to governments and they're all doing it. They're all following those instructions, mostly to the letter, despite the resistance from the local populations and many people and in spite of the fact that they're making a lot of the population in their respective countries unhappy and making them suffer, governments were sticking to the instructions that they were given by someone else, by someone above them, let's say, in a hierarchy.

Of course you could say that governments do that because most politicians, most governments are made of politicians and they're not scientists. They're not doctors. They don't know, so they have to follow the instructions of someone else. But there's an awful lot about this situation over the past two months with coronavirus, that you don't have to be a doctor or scientist to see that it's deeply flawed and a very bad idea and doesn't help or isn't working. You don't have to be a scientist to figure those things out because many of them are just common sense.

For example, no one has ever explained why, from the beginning, you or I or any of us I think, could go to a supermarket anytime we wanted, every day if we wanted, where we could mingle, social distancing notwithstanding, because you can't always stay two meters or whatever it is from everybody in a supermarket with maybe 200 people in a supermarket. You have to squeeze past them. This happened to me multiple times. So I'm allowed to do that, mingle in with 200 people sometimes in close quarters doing my shopping for an hour, two hours, as long as I really wanted every day, but I couldn't go to a restaurant. If you think about it, I go to a restaurant, I call the restaurant, I say, "Have you got a table for two?" They say "Yes." I go there at eight o'clock in the evening or whatever it is. I go into the restaurant. I meet one person at the restaurant. He can keep his social distance, he can keep two meters from me. "Yes, I've got a reservation." He says, "Okay yeah, that table over there, table for two in the corner. All the tables are at least one meter or maybe even two meters away from everybody else. I sit there with the person I came with. I spend an hour, two hours eating and then I pay my bill hopefully and then I get up and I leave. I've been in close contact with really nobody and I've been in an establishment with far less people than in a supermarket. But I'm not allowed to do that.

That's just one example of the strictures that they put on people that don't make any sense whatsoever. A major problem from the very beginning is that you got the impression that governments have stayed away from it, studiously avoided it, but whenever it was brought up they've just bullshitted their way out of it or stuck their fingers in their ears and said, "La-la-la-la-la, we're not listening to you." It's about herd immunity. Herd immunity is a scientific or medical principle that has been used for 100 years for viruses of this type and it has worked very well and there's never been any suggestion at any time that should be changed.

So the problem has always been seen, like I said, for 100 years as the best way to deal with these kinds of viral outbreaks. Herd immunity means just basically letting people get on with their lives, not worrying about a viral outbreak at all. Once you understand the nature of it, and they did understand the nature of it from quite early on, in February after China had its experience with it, they understood very early on that this was more or less like a seasonal flu-like virus that was only dangerous to the elderly and particularly elderly with chronic underlying conditions. That's the same every year with the flu and large numbers of people die, estimated from complications from flu every single year. The governments and the population and media never batted an eyelid, never cared a thing about that. It's just a fact of life. That's just what happens and there's not much you can do about it.

Also it's seen as the most effective way of dealing with it. We let people circulate as normal so that the virus spreads as quickly as possible and the vast majority of people are not going to have any serious problem with it. When they contract it they're going to be immune to it therefore they're not no longer contagious. They're no longer spreading. So you stop the spread of an illness as quickly as possible. Governments around the world just ditched that idea completely in favor of exactly the opposite, which is prolonging the period during which a virus is around and can be spread around the population. It makes no sense whatsoever. And of course there's no scientific evidence, as far as we're being able to look at the situation so far in this case, there's no evidence that lock downs help to mitigate the dangers or the mortality rate from these kinds of viruses. In fact the kind of associated deaths from the lockdown may turn out to be much larger.

So the only conclusion for me anyway, is that it's a bit hard to get your head around in a sense, but the government did want to, or was given instructions from someone, let's just call it the government, the governments around the world decided, on someone else's advice maybe, but they did want to severely restrict the spread of this virus around the population, but not to save lives because the approach they took was not to save lives. It did help to stop the spread I think, of the virus around a large percentage of the population thereby providing herd immunity. But they didn't do it to save lives. They did it for some other reason. That's the only conclusion I can come to. I know it doesn't make much sense but it's like Sherlock Holmes' maxim, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth".

That's where I'm at on it, in that the measures they have taken have been designed to stop the spread of the virus around the population. In the case of the virus itself, it's not dangerous to the vast majority of the population. Why would they want to do that? I don't know. You can do a two plus two equals four and say that maybe there's something positive about the virus, but I don't know. There are some stories. People know so very little. I'm not saying I know a lot either but I know a little bit more than the average person, I think, about viruses just because I've studied them a little bit, the very basics. There are millions of viruses floating around all the time and people think they're all deadly but I think probably a majority of them are actually beneficial in one way or another for humans and for other mammals and there are viruses that confer protection and have beneficial effects on the host.

So it's not totally out there or crazy to suggest that there may have been something about this virus that was positive or beneficial. That's my most fringe theory, that the government or someone above the government or someone handing out advice to governments did not want those beneficial effect to accrue to the population through the wide spread of the virus and that's why they followed the lockdown procedure when it made no sense whatsoever and it was breaking with standard policy or tradition for 100 years as to how to deal with these kinds of a outbreaks, which are very similar to the flu.

Elliot: Well it has certainly not saved any deaths.

Joe: It has probably increased deaths. The fact of the matter is that the people who have died from/with this - most people have probably heard about the with/from thing. It's true to say that no one dies from coronavirus, the same way no one dies from the flu. Influenza has never been put down as an underlying cause of death on any death certificate ever before because influence is not a notifiable disease. It's not classified as a disease. It's classified as an organism or something like that, which means that you can't put it on a death certificate. The reason they've never done that and the reason they can't put it down on a certificate is because they know that pretty much no one dies as a result of contracting a flu virus, a common flu virus, because it's not dangerous enough. You have to have a significantly weakened system or some kind of a genetic disorder or whatever for the flu to be a contributing factor to your death and that's why they call it a contributing factor to the death of someone.

But that person who dies with the flu was in one way or another, in a precarious state of health or a very poor state of health already. So in any statistics they never put down influenza as the underlying cause of death and that's the same case with coronavirus. In the case of the flu, the vast majority of people who die with the flu every year are people generally over 65 with one, two, three or more serious underlying conditions. The flu virus, the respiratory issues that it causes and knock-on effects etc., can be too much for someone and push them over the edge and they die. But on the death certificate they put down the pre-existing chronic issues or illnesses that the person had. Those are the cause of death. Any doctor will tell you that that's what they've done all along.

Of course it's quite difficult sometimes for doctors to figure out in a lot of situations to figure out what to write on a death certificate. The attending GP or doctor has sometimes a difficult job to figure out exactly what caused someone to die. Sometimes it's obviously, sometimes it's not. But flu is never put on the death certificate and when you look at the Covid19 or SARS-CoV2, it is really only dangerous to exactly the same demographic - over 65s with chronic, underlying conditions.

So the same rule should apply, that you can't put Covid19, SARS-CoV2 on the death certificate of anybody who dies having tested positive for SARS-CoV2. But they do. They did. They have been in massive numbers and the reason they were able to do that in fact was that the various health bodies in major countries around the world, and including the World Health Organization, at the beginning of March elevated Covid19 to a notifiable disease. They essentially elevated it to the status of a disease like Ebola or some serious infectious disease so that they could put it down as an underlying cause of death. That obviously raises my suspicions that the reason they did that was so that they could actually have official death certificates with lots of people having died from a Covid19 and shove that in peoples' faces 24/7. Otherwise they would never have done any testing, like they do with the flu. They never do very little testing and every year they estimate how many people died from the flu in any given year.

Last year I think the CDC estimates that 650,000 people died from complications with the flu, but they have no idea. It could be 300,000. I think they give a spectrum of somewhere between 300,000 to 1.5 million. They're just wild, general estimates from data they collect and stuff, but they never test anybody. So they don't know if those people who died with what they say were complications from the flu, had any flu virus in them at the time of death at all. They just estimate based on cases of pneumonia, respiratory illnesses, different reports coming from different places.

They should have done the same thing with this virus because it's pretty much the same thing but they didn't. They elevated it to, like I said, to the level of the disease which means then that they start to produce tests that they can test people for, but the telling thing is in many cases they're not being tested, which is another question maybe that we'll get back to, as to why they haven't been testing a lot people, why they've been dragging their feet on testing people. But certainly they wanted to be able to put down Covid19 as the underlying cause of death in order to scare people, to say that this is a very dangerous virus that's literally killing people all by itself, which is totally untrue.

If you look at the data from Italy, I think it was 99% of people who died were, again, in that age group-over 65, with one, two or three chronic underlying conditions and 52% of those 99 had three chronic underlying conditions. That's the people who died in Italy. It's bizarre! I don't understand it really, because it's like living in two different realities at the same time because on the one hand, I think everybody knows that Covid19 is not a danger to the majority of people, but everybody is acting as if it is. It's what I was saying at the beginning, I think that most people don't know the numbers of people who die and who those people are. The majority of people who die and the numbers who die every month in any given country, people don't know it. They've never known it. In the UK where you're from Elliot, 60,000 people die every month and about 75% of those are over 65s with chronic underlying conditions. That's every month. So 75% of 60,000, about 45,000 people, die every single month on average in the UK, these old people that we're meant to be protecting right now. But for the past forever basically, 45,000 of those people have died every single month in the UK and we've never cared.

Doug: Right.

Joe: Why are we carrying now when 30,000 have died? I don't know.

Tiffany: Because the government is telling us to care for some reason.

Joe: The other thing is that there's been a lot of problems with testing. I'm pretty sure if they wanted to, they could easily distribute effective tests to find an accurate infection rate and to find out whether people who have died over this period of six weeks or two months, how many of them actually tested positive for SARS-CoV2. But they've been very slow, dragging their feet on making those tests available widely and I think it's because if they were to do that and they had done that from the very beginning, very quickly it would become apparent just how many people had been infected. Of course the numbers are probably smaller than it would be if there was no lockdown but still a significant number of people I think may have already had this virus. If you were able to test the whole country, or a large percentage of the country, you'd get a very high number relatively, of people who had already contracted the virus and then if you compared that to the numbers of deaths, you would see that it's in the same range as the flu.

But what they've been doing, totally ingenuously from the beginning, is showing you data or statistics that compared the number of deaths with the number of people who had tested positive for it and had not died. But that obviously doesn't include all the people who haven't been tested and had it and didn't die as well. Of course doing it that way you can come up with a mortality rate of maybe four or five percent or three or four percent, which is 20 or 30 times the mortality rate of the flu. But that's stupid. It's amazing to me that they are able to pass that off and the media will actually put out those figures when it's patently false, when you have to know what the mortality rate is, literally you have to test the whole country to find out exactly how many people had this virus and then look at how many people died and you'd get a tiny percentage of the population, a fraction of one percent, a very small fraction of one percent of a mortality rate.

But that's no good if you want to have a lockdown, right? If your goal is having a lockdown and imposing all of these strictures and the removal of freedoms and really squeezing people, almost just for fun in a certain sense - it seems to me anyway that that's why they're doing it because there's no justification for it and someone is enjoying exerting this level of control and power of the population - if you want to do that, you have to have a good reason to do it and it has to be a fear-based reason. You have to be able to scare the population. The best way to scare the population is to show them false or bogus statistics that this virus is much more deadly than anything we've seen in recent history and that many people might die and all this kind of stuff, which is not true.

I don't know what's going to happen after this lockdown has fully eased or whatever happens, or however it's going to go, but when they look back, if we can look back on more objective numbers and show that really it was no different, it was no more deadly than the flu, I don't know how people are going to react. Are people going to react? Are they going to say that it was the lockdown that stopped that from happening, which again is false, because there have been enough people who have been tested or have been shown to have contracted the virus and had no symptoms whatsoever. The statistic that they can't fudge is the demographic, the type of people who are dying with this virus. You can't say that 50,000 young, healthy 25-year-olds died from it. I'm assuming they can't do that and they're not going to have those kinds of statistics. The only statistics they're going to have is that, like I said before, the people who died with this virus or for whom this virus was a contributing factor to their death, were people who were in very poor health anyway and had a very short life expectancy. That's the same as the flu.

Doug: Yeah.

Joe: So how are they going to spin that? I don't know. We live in Bizarro World right now where nothing really makes any sense, where the government is just doing what it wants and repeating the message over and over again in the face of facts to the contrary. They're just pushing the same hysterical, "This is dangerous. Stay at home. Social distancing measures, blah blah blah," and there's no reason for it. I gave the example of going to the supermarket or going to the restaurant and why you can go to super more and why you can't go to our restaurant as one example, but another one is beaches, shutting down beaches. Not every country in Europe, especially this time of year, has a climate that means that people would even be interested in going to the beach at this time of year but there are some places, especially on the west coast the US and south of the US and in southern Europe, where people would still go to the beach but beaches were closed across all of these countries. The last place you were allowed to go was the beach.

But there's plenty of studies - you can look them up - showing that sea air and iodine and the sodium and magnesium in the sea air is extremely beneficial for lungs. They've done multiple studies to show that people with various lung issues show a marked improvement when they go and spend a couple of weeks at the beach breathing sea air. So if you wanted to cure people, why would you stop them going to the beach? If you wanted to help them, let's say, because it's all about the infection, that's what we keep coming back to, the infection, stopping people getting this virus, despite the fact that it's not really dangerous to the vast majority of people, but we still don't want anybody to get it, despite the fact that everybody getting it as fast as possible is the fastest way to bring an end to it, still we don't want people to get it! Why?! I keep asking the question. Why don't you want people to get this?! You don't have any good reason at all for not wanting people to get this! It goes against standard scientific practice or medical practice in these cases and you're going against that, because you want really, really, really, really, really want people to not get this, even though it's not a danger to the vast majority of them. Why?!

That's why I come to the conclusion that there's some other reason they don't want people to get it for some other reason, not for their health, not because it's dangerous, not because it's going to make millions of people sick and whatever or make millions die or hundreds of thousands die. The data on that is clear at this point. That was never going to happen. And I think they knew it from the beginning. They should have known it. They're smart people, right? They can figure things out. They have their scientists to show that was not going to happen. It was not going to be a deadly pandemic. But still they pushed hard and fast with stopping people contracting this virus. Why?

Doug: It's a good question. Well as you were saying before Joe, about the idea that when we look back on this, assuming we do have some good figures and things to look at, people are going to think that the reaction to this was incredibly overblown, especially considering the amount of good information that is actually getting out. Maybe it's just my personal perspective, but it seems like there's been a rapid increase in the amount of good information, people who are actually looking at the numbers, analyzing them. There was one that just came out recently where there was a person who was analyzing the code behind what Neil Ferguson had done on which the whole UK lockdown was based. So it just seems like there are a number of people out there who are actually spreading this good information and more and more people are becoming aware of the situation for what it really is. So I personally think that the elite, the leaders, are going to have a lot to answer for, especially when the full repercussions of the lockdown, all the economic repercussions etc., really start to pile up and people really start to see the consequences of this thing that has gone on.

Joe: Yes. I would like to think so. There'll be a lot of difficult questions put to government and there will be a lot of hard-hitting expose articles that will blow the whole thing wide open and show how evil government is and governments will fall {laughter}and we'll all march off into a utopia where we have nice governments who don't do anything weird and nasty. Yeah, I'd like to believe that, but I don't know. It would be a turn out for the books, at least in my experience, if that were to happen. I'm not exactly sure of the mechanism by which they'll just ignore this. But while we do know the mechanism is that most people don't care. You have to remember that a lot of people, I don't know what percent is a population, but a lot of people out there are fully behind this, over and above them just doing it out of fear or doing it because they want to protect the elderly, as they've been told.

There's a lot of people out there who really seem to really like following what the government says. They certainly seem to be enjoying the over-weaning intrusion of government into their lives. There's a lot of people who are very dependent on authority in a very visceral way and they're having a very different response to these this lockdown situation than you or I, or any of us here where we're really feeling quite indignant, let's say, and outrage at the government ruling or controlling the minutiae of our lives. There are other people who don't seem to have a problem with it whatsoever.

So those people are going to be very unlikely, even after the fact, if there's some data coming out that shows that it was all overblown, to complain and the people who do complain, what voice do they have? They can do it on social media. They can maybe have an odd protest or something, but the media is not going to be their champion in that respect. So I think in the same way that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were just made to go away or were ignored at the time, even though I was saying at the time Saddam's weapons of mass destruction - that's 17 years ago - I was pointing out the problem along with quite a few other people, and the media completely ignored us and call us conspiracy theorists and then two years later I think, the media admitted mea culpa. We should learn some lessons. We shouldn't have been so quick to believe the government, blah, blah, blah, but now that we've said mea culpa let's just move on.

I don't see any reason why this won't follow the same process. There'll be mealy-mouthed words to excuse it all, assuming things don't go really bad in the sense of the economy. We still don't know the full effects on the economy or how its going to recover as it is beginning to now I suppose as a lot of places are starting to unlock down. We still have to wait. It'll probably be six months or a year before we see the full effects of it. It can have knock-on effects. I don't know. We'll have to wait and see. There's no way to know, particularly because the economy has been, for a very long time, a funny money economy and they can print money and make up figures to their heart's content. It's all about sentiment, how the markets feel today. {laughter} How does the market feel today? Has it got a headache or is it okay? If the market feels okay then the economy is doing good. If the market doesn't feel good stocks and shares go down.

But actually that market economy feeling and the effect it has, how are the markets today, there's something like 25 or 30 big hedge fund managers around the world who control the purse strings of a large amount of capital around the world and it's those guys, if they come out and publicly say in the channels that they like one stock or don't like another stock or make a comment on some industry, that's where market sentiment comes from. It's the sentiment of those guys that can affect entire economies.

So it's all pretty fake in that respect. It's very much decoupled from the actual nuts and bolts economy and the actual value or the worth in terms of tables and chairs of any given country. For me that's all unknown. It's just a scandal. This whole situation is a scandal of massive proportions and the scariest part of it for me or the most interesting part of it, maybe, is to see how people have reacted and to see the inability of so many people to notice a line of bullshit when it comes our way. Even worse is to actually enjoy it. They may recognize it as bullshit but they're fond of bullshit basically.

It's more like the authoritarian follower mentality among so many people. That's kind of scary. I thought there would have been limits to even the authoritarian follower mindset, that when you're told that you have to imprison yourself in your house for two months on the basis of a viral scare, I thought that that might have been pushing the limits of even the most ardent authoritarian follower, of their ability to accept that. But apparently not with many people willingly jumping on the enforcement bandwagon as well, where people will call the police on their neighbors or give shit to their neighbors for going out and shout at people for endangering the old. There's a lot of people that are just waiting for their five moments of authority, where they're empowered to go out and control their communities in some way or another. There's a lot of people really ready for that and they're dangerous people.

So I think that's probably the most important lesson in all of this. We already knew the governments are suspect, let's say. Governments are suspect and you can't easily just dismiss any conspiracy theories about government malfeasance or wrongdoing. You can't just automatically dismiss it. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that governments get up to pretty nasty stuff. In that sense I'm not that surprised. What I'm most surprised about and what I've learned most about is other people in society and the divisions in society between those people who are essentially really strong authoritarian followers who have a very strong need to rely on authority to tell them what to do, to do their thinking for them and other people who have a stronger sense of their own personal power, or personal sovereignty, or independence where they're willing to go against the grain no matter what the grain is if what they're being told doesn't make sense. They can stand up and speak out.

It's interesting as well in the US, for example, that the people who are out protesting about the lockdowns - I don't know if all of them are - but a lot of a good portion of them tend to be conservatives and Trump supporters.

Doug: Yeah.

Joe: Better to say conservatives. And of course they're the people who have for the past few years been pushing back against radical leftist politics and that kind of thing as well and I think it's probably true that a good percentage of the authoritarian followers, the ones who are most happy to go along with the lockdowns and government dictates, would have also been people who would have leaned over the past few years towards those kind of radical, social justice agendas. So there's sort of a continuation there between the two.

Elliot: It's ironic because they are the ones, the conservatives who've been accused of being the Nazis.

Joe: Right.

Elliot: The tides have turned and actually they don't necessarily seem to be the ones who are welcoming these completely uncalled-for, strict draconian measures.

Joe: Yeah.

Elliot: On social media it's really easy to get stuck in an echo chamber kind of thing. But just to echo your thoughts on that Joe, I would say that that's really been the most eye-opening part of this whole thing. You can't expect any different from governments, right? You start learning about the kind of things they get up to and you should be anticipating that they will do that at any opportunity. As soon as they get the opportunity they will jump on it. But it's seeing how there is such a major division. Authoritarians have just sprung up out of nowhere and really seem to be taking pleasure in enforcing that on others and that's the scary thing. It's not just that they're going about their business and following orders and not questioning themselves, but it's actually that they will jump on your status, they'll jump on what anyone else says. It's like it's so threatening to their worldview, almost like it causes them pain and they need to shut it down.

Joe: Right.

Elliot: It's so interesting to see people who you previously did not necessarily suspect this of and then all of a sudden, it seems that they show their true colors.

Joe: Right. It's a real separation of - I don't want to get biblical - but the wheat and the chaff in a certain sense. The thing about Nazis, it's ridiculous that conservatives were called Nazis because the radical left or the left-leaning people in the western world anyway, are the ones who clearly had the strongest reliance on government, right? They're the ones who wanted all of the social government to mandate all sorts of social policies to help the poor or help the marginalized or the migrants, etc. They can't do it themselves so they want government to come in and change the world, make the world a better place for them. So those people by definition are the ones who are most reliant in their inner core, on authority.

So if an authority comes along that is an evil or malevolent authority, then it's those leftist types, as we call them today, who have the most reliance on authority, who will be the followers of that evil authority. They will be the Nazis by definition. What defined you as a Nazi, if you want to use that term, is your strict reliance on and obedience to authority. You might be a nice person when you've got a nice government and you're following the dictates of the government to the letter, as long as the dictates are nice dictates, are positive dictates. But as soon as it's negative, what's clear is that when it switches to an evil government, those people won't switch to be anti-government. They'll maintain their core need, which is to believe in everything that the government says and believe that the government's doing right basically, whatever it is. That was the case of Nazi Germany.

So the vast majority of the Nazis, by definition, were what we would call today leftists because the Nazis who followed the Nazi program, citizens who were Nazis who supported or joined the Nazi Party, whatever, were the ones who obviously were fixated most on government and doing whatever the government said. And today the people who are doing that, who show that nature are the radical lefties. So if you want to use that term - I don't like using that term at all - Nazis. It's stupid. It's not really relevant today in a certain sense except in that divide between people who are strict authoritarian followers and need an external sense of authority in their lives and others who have their own sense of authority.

Doug: Well unless you guys have any other questions I guess we could maybe wrap it up.

Joe: I don't know. There's no point in going into all the numbers and all that kind of stuff. We've already said it. Anybody can look at them if they want and compare them to previous flu seasons and all that kind of stuff and see if this really isn't anything different from a bad flu season and then ask yourself the question, why is the government reacting as if it's a biblical plague or something? As if it's the black death or something when it's not?" The figures show that it's not. The data shows that it's not. People are all over social media. People are using statistics and stuff there to argue against the lockdowns and to try and expose it, but at this point, I still do, but I don't need to look at any more figures to draw that conclusion, that this was essentially in historical terms, in modern terms, this was a nothing burger.

But they made a really big deal out of nothing for ulterior motives. That's the only conclusion; that they did it for ulterior motives. And the only ulterior motive that is obvious, as manifested, is the lock downs and the strictures. It's almost like they used it as an excuse for a giant experiment in social engineering essentially to see how far they could push people and see how they would react. "What if we said that you can't leave your house except from the door and back to the door once a day for 30 minutes and all the rest of the time you have to stay inside? What if we said? What would people say? It's an interesting question. How would we apply that? How would we justify that? Well there's always a virus. People are afraid of viruses aren't they? They know nothing about them."

And of course the only other thing I'd say is that the way they're easing out of it now is being done out of necessity. It seems clear to me and to most people I think, that governments were being given these instructions as to how to go about dealing with this virus, i.e., lock down, social distancing, all I kind of stuff. They were being given those instructions by someone else. So in a certain sense governments were given a problem. They were told "Follow these instructions to the letter." Those instructions caused a lot of social upheaval and social chaos and a lot of resentment from a lot of people. Obviously people believed that the government decided to do this, therefore the government's responsible.

So the overt government like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump, Macron in France, the Italian and Spanish governments, all of them who put really severe restrictions on the populations and made them suffer quite a lot and killed quite a lot of people as a result, they realize that there's a potential for a lot of anger directed at them as a result of this. They can't just end it all of a sudden and let everything go back to normal. That's why they talk about "There's going to be a new normal. There's going to be an easing of the restrictions over the next few months. We'll allow some restaurants to open. We'll allow some of this to open, some of that to open. There'll be no sports games until next year." That's all to justify what they have done essentially because they can't just suddenly bring it to an end. People will go, "What? The virus just went away all of a sudden and we can go back to normal? What was that two months for?" {laughter}

They have to have a plausible...

Tiffany: Escape route?

Erica: Exit strategy.

Joe: Yeah, a plausible exit strategy that doesn't make a mockery of what they had just done because that runs the risk of people getting wise to it and getting angry. But unfortunately that means that we have to put up with this feckless, idiotic easing of all of the restrictions where you can't go back to life as normal. But I think eventually it will, once they get a read that people have eased them back into normal life it will go back to normal, that's assuming they haven't done something really bad to the economy.

Erica: Well I think it's interesting too because they get a picture of how willing people are to go along with the agenda, like you were saying. You pretty clearly saw in the first couple of weeks who was going to follow all the mandates and who wasn't, what type of people are going to step out of line and what aren't.

Joe: Right.

Erica: So maybe for an overview for some future scenario, they can count on so many people just going along with the program.

Joe: Yeah, absolutely. So we'll have to wait and see but I think there's probably more nonsense coming down the pipeline, more chaos, more craziness going to be happening on this planet. In a certain sense they've opened the gates of something scary by doing this and I think there's other things going to be coming through those gates in the not-too-distant future. So we just need to be prepared. And there may be things that make this little episode pale into insignificance.

Tiffany: Well our dark overlord Bill Gates is already talking about pandemic II, so we'll see what he means by that.

Joe: What they all mean by that is just a return of SARS-CoV2, but big deal. It wasn't a big deal this time. The flu comes back every year, so what's your point? Unless you're going to decide that every time there's a flu-like illness we're going into lock down for two months, then yeah, that's a big deal. But the point is, it shouldn't have happened.

Elliot: You referenced something else coming through the gates, perhaps in the future which may be a little bit more sinister. What kind of thing do you think might come through?

Joe: Now Elliot, that's...{laughter}

Erica: To be determined.

Joe: What's the phrase? The poem...

Doug: "What beast, slouches towards Bethlehem?"

Joe: "What rough beast slouches towards Bethlehem." Is that what you're asking? {laughter} I don't know what's going to come down the tube. We'll have to wait and see what happens with the economy, like I said. If the economy goes into "freefall" or something like that, then you're going to have some serious issues, something that would make this pale into insignificance would be if there were serious food shortages. The people have had a little bit of food shortages, but I'm talking about serious food shortages where there's nothing in the supermarket and people are starving, people are queuing up and dependant on the government for handouts, millions and millions of people, like maybe 50% of the population. That's a bad, bad scenario. People don't know.

They talk about this being a pandemic, they have no idea. A pandemic like they're pretending this is, is one where there are bodies in the streets. People are falling over dead in the streets, young people, everybody, old people, children, everybody's down. A pandemic is when there's 30 to 40 percent of the population dead. That's a pandemic. People have no idea what they're talking about. They better not say pandemic too often because it's kind of like beetle juice, you know? If you say three times you'll get a real one. {laughter} I don't know what would happen. People would just lose their shit completely.

So that's something. Then the weather, the environment is pretty chaotic, pretty crazy these days. It can go bad pretty quickly in terms of growing seasons and harvests big enough to feed everybody on the planet and stuff. It can go pretty bad, pretty easily, pretty quickly, and much, much worse than this. This is just this was just a little taster. In a certain sense it may be good because it acclimatizes everybody, us included, to dealing with a crisis even though we know this was a manufactured, fake crisis, it gives us a good feel of what one might be like and maybe it prepares us in a way for something much more real and more serious that could be coming down the 'pike.

So that's all I'm going to tell you Elliot. I'm sorry I don't have my crystal ball right here so I'll have to get back to you. {laughter}

Doug: Oh we don't want any spoilers anyway.

Joe: Cliff-hanger.

Doug: Exactly.

Joe: All right. Well I've got to push off here, so thanks again for inviting me. I watch your show a lot and I like it. They're all super cool, super good, super interesting people and I'll come back for the next pandemic as long it's a real one. {laughter}

Doug: Okay, with that stipulation.

Joe:. Yeah, it has to be real. I'm not doing this again just for a shits and giggles. I want the real deal well.

Doug: Well thanks a lot for joining us Joe.

Joe: All right, no problem. Talk to you later.

Doug: Talk to you later Joe.