Tucker Carlson interviews Bret Weinstein

More evidence that Covid could never have happened without the HIV AIDS psyop

This interview is an hour long, and it is worth every minute to watch it. However, if you don’t want to watch it (or even if you do), I’m going to provide a summary and commentary on what Dr. Weinstein says. This is very different to Tucker’s Fox News style; he basically sits back and lets Dr. Weinstein have the floor. I admit I’ve never listened to The Dark Horse podcast, although I have several family members that do, but I may have to start. I was very pleasantly surprised.

What I want you to keep in mind is that almost everything he says about Covid applies to AIDS as well; and I’d go even further and say that what he states supports the notion that the public health and clinical trial practices put into place thanks to AIDS activists were entirely what made the pandemic response to Covid possible. The lockdowns were so unpleasant that people literally begged for the vaccine. I don’t know what proportion of those who chose to be vaccinated did so largely because of a desperate desire to return to normalcy, which the vaccine was hoped to provide. I don’t think anyone is going to tolerate lockdowns in the future, but it might be even worse for humanity because of what we have proven that we will tolerate.

Something important to pay attention to is his referencing, at the very end of the interview, of “Goliath,” a name he invokes to refer to whatever entity is behind the curtain controlling the narrative. We see “Goliath” at least partly represented in the institutions of public health. He refers to “Goliath” as having made a giant misstep during Covid that revealed, if only fleetingly, the face behind the mask. (I’m mixing metaphors horribly.) He’s almost right about that; those of us that have been paying attention to AIDS for a long time know that the advent of AIDS was when we first saw “Goliath” publicly flex its muscles, and for some of us, the Covid response was no surprise at all. What Covid did for the general public was that Covid just made “Goliath” obvious to everyone, or at least to a lot of people. The pandemic response to Covid used strategies that had been tested in AIDS, but at that time the subjects of the experiment were members of a relatively small, marginalized group. In some sense, the gay community and other “AIDS risk groups” functioned as a test group—the response to AIDS could be seen as the “clinical trial” for the response to Covid. That was no mistake.

Anyway, here is the interview. Commentary to follow. I’ve tried to keep his quotes as accurate as possible, but there may be a few small inconsequential errors.

Bret Weinstein interview

At 1:00 Tucker reminds us that it was almost four years ago that the first stories came out about a mysterious virus that was circulating through Wuhan, China. It seemed odd to me at the time, and it seems even odder in retrospect, that the news media were picking up on a virus the other side of the world with such fervor. At the very beginning, I thought it would either turn out to be not much of anything—the new Zika, perhaps—or that, more ominously, the reports were coming out for a reason, and that reason could not possibly be the untapped potential of this virus, because at the time there was no real evidence that it was anything unusual. We deal with countless respiratory illnesses all the time—why should this one be so unusual?

At 3:30 Dr. Weinstein discusses “the game of pharma.” This part is interesting and highly relevant. “What I’ve come to understand is what I call the game of pharma. If you think about what pharma is, we tend to think it is an industry that is hell bent on finding drugs that will make us healthier. That’s not what it is. Pharma is healthy when people are sick.” (Emphasis mine.)

He then points out that we are only beginning to realize that pharma has a “bag of tricks” and that bag is very elaborate.

4:10 “Pharma is an intellectual property racket, or at least that’s what it’s become.” It owns things like molecules, compounds, etc., and it is “looking for a disease to which these things [owned by pharma] can possibly apply.” This is reminiscent of the way the research refugees of the 1970s “War on Cancer,” which was at least in part a failed endeavor to find a retroviral cause for cancer, became AIDS researchers overnight because they had to find some terrible disease caused by a retrovirus. It remains unclear why a retroviral cause was assumed, but it’s awfully suspicious that this horrifying disease just so happened to come along in perfect timing. Combine that with the fact that when the first cases of AIDS were identified, the technology for counting T cells had coincidentally just been developed. The books have been cooked from the very beginning.

4:55 “Basically every day of the year, pharma is engaged in portraying the properties that they own 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.” The Truvada disaster, anyone? Or, worse, PrEP, anyone? Talk about pharma convincing people to take a product they don’t need, by the original mainstream definition.

5:30 “Before Covid ever happened, pharma was excellent at portraying a disease as more widespread and more serious than it was. It was excellent at portraying a compound as more efficacious than it is, safer than it is, and when all Covid happened, all of this occurred at a different scale. Covid was bigger than anything that had happened before, but none of it was new to pharma.” He’s absolutely correct, but I wish he’d revisit AIDS and how it fits into the Covid psyop. More efficacious and safer than it is? Need I remind you of the AZT disaster? “All of it was new to us in the public.” Actually, it wasn’t new to all of us.

At about 7:00 Dr. Weinstein puts forth his own hypothesis as to how Covid could have unfolded the way that it did, vaccine madness and all. He refers to Pharma’s ownership of the mRNA technology. At 7:40 he mentions how the mRNA technology would allow for new drug development at an “extremely streamlined level.” This is important. “All you would need is a genetic sequence from a pathogen, and you could literally type it into a machine and produce a vaccine that was already in use but swapping out the antigen in question.” This would then theoretically allow for the safety screening to be dramatically shortened since, at least in theory, the safety of the technique had already been established for a previous compound. But what I’d like you to notice is the line “you could literally type it into a machine.” The general public has this romantic image of medical researchers making these very cutting edge developments in a lab as they look under an electron microscope, but what they don’t realize is that a lot of “medical laboratories” are also computer laboratories, and that a lot of these “incredible advances” in medicine are coming to fruition via computer models and not any direct experiments on actual pathogens.

Starting at 8:05, he spends nearly twenty minutes discussing the mRNA technology and its inherent dangers, which I won’t spend much time on because I’m interested in the parallels with AIDS, and many, many other writers have tackled the problems with the Covid vaccines. He does an elegant job explaining the mechanism whereby the elements in the Covid vaccines appear to be linked to serious heart problems at about the 12:00 mark if you’re interested.

There is some time spent on the fast tracked clinical trials for the Covid vaccines. Remember that the fast tracking of clinical trials—coupled with the abandonment of both clinical endpoints in favor of so-called surrogate markers and of placebo controls—really started with urgency during the AZT trials. That had an effect that we now know was disastrous in terms of lives lost to AZT, but that has implications far beyond AIDS, because now we’re fast tracking anything that can be deemed necessary to an “emergency response.”

17:30 “Pharma had a tremendously potentially lucrative property that it couldn’t bring to market because the safety tests would have revealed an unsolvable problem at its heart. [I hypothesize that] what would bypass this problem was an emergency that would cause the public to demand a remedy.” You might not all know this, but for years the HIV antibody test was in use under “emergency authorization.” Furthermore, if you go back to the early days of AIDS activism, you’ll recall that there were protests on Wall Street, in churches, on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, demanding fast tracked approval of AZT, and later, free AZT. We all know what a disaster that turned out to be. There was a real sense of urgency at the time that this bloodbath of death could only be stopped by bypassing safety testing on AIDS drugs so that people could get them into their bodies immediately. Do something. People are dying.

18:23 “The safety testing was radically truncated so that long term harms were impossible to detect. […] Pharma used an emergency to normalize a highly lucrative dangerous new technology.”

21:50 He cites estimates that globally the Covid vaccine might be responsible for 17 million deaths. That estimate seems absurdly high, but I’m laughing at Dr. Weinstein’s reply to Tucker’s question as to what the death toll might be, which was “A lot has gone into making sure we can’t answer that question.”

23:45 “Pharma, on a normal day, is composed of people who have to be comfortable, even if they were doing their job exactly right, they have to be comfortable causing a certain amount of death. If you give a drug to people and the net effect is positive, but it’s going to kill some people, but it will help some people who would have died if they never had it, you have to find a way to sleep at night.” This is wonderfully stated.

At 24:45 he discusses the phenomenon of replacing old, out of patent drugs with new, designer drugs and comments that “We should almost always prefer the old drug unless the evidence for the new drug is completely compelling. […] New is not always better, especially when it comes to putting molecules into your body.” However, our society has come to view medications as basically iPhones in that we are always clamoring for the “new and improved” version despite no evidence that “new” implies “improved.”

27:00 Referring to the “the fact that this small group of dissidents upended the narrative” regarding Covid, one might plausibly ask oneself how a “small group of dissidents” did not manage to upend the HIV AIDS story. I believe that the reason this did not happen with AIDS is that AIDS in the West was an experiment carried out on a small marginalized group, by design. Find a “risk group” that has been historically oppressed and quite often disenfranchised, and use them as Guinea pigs for the response to a so-called epidemic that you have identified as affecting that group almost exclusively. Cloak the response with a veneer of care and political correctness so that no one outside the group questions it. Recruit agents and call them “activists” so that it appears that the pressure for fast tracked drugs comes from them. If this scheme works on this small group, wait until many of the members of the original “risk group” have died and are therefore no longer able to contradict you, scale it up massively, and try again. And that’s how we got from AIDS to Covid. AIDS was literally the clinical trial for Covid. This leads me to a question that has been bothering me for quite some time.

Why would so many people be skeptics of many things in medicine yet somehow default to the position that HIV AIDS is the one shining example of when “they” got it right? What evidence is there for this? Why is HIV AIDS the third rail for so many people? Peter Duesberg falsified it all the way back in 1987 with his Cancer Research paper, “Retroviruses as carcinogens and pathogens: Expectations and reality,” which blew the lid off of HIV AIDS yet was largely ignored. Since then, nothing has improved, but the pharmaceutical industry and those that benefit from it are perfectly fine claiming the emergency is so bad that we need “anti-HIV drugs” even for people with no hint of HIV.

From about 29:00 to 37:00 they discuss the WHO Pandemic Preparedness Plan, or whatever it’s called. Apparently the name keeps changing. I’ll refer you to that section of the video for more information.

38:30 They discuss misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation, which is quite enlightening. Misinformation refers to unintentional error, disinformation is the intentional spread of falsehood, and malinformation are “things that are based in truth but cause you to distrust authority.” Tucker replies with, “So it’s what you say when you’ve caught them lying?”

40:00 “The Covid pandemic caused us to become aware of a lot of structures that had been built up around us, something that [has been described as] the turn-key totalitarian state. The totalitarian state is erected around you but it’s not activated. Once it’s built, the key gets turned.” One might accurately describe AIDS as “turn-key totalitarian science.”

41:00 “It’s not inherently about health.” Of course not. It never was.

42:45 “When they [falsely] called this mRNA technology a vaccine, many of us gave it more credibility than we should have. If they had called it a gene transvection technology we’d have gone, ‘what?’ […] Because they called it a vaccine, people were much more willing to accept it.” We meet the old changing definitions trick again. As a mathematician this really offends me.

43:00 He has some strong words about the concept of “public health,” which I have some strong feelings about. Marginally noble idea (maybe), extremely poor execution. “Something above doctors relative to your health?” How about yourself, who knows your body far better than your doctor does? I’m just being nit picky at this point; I think Dr. Weinstein’s presentation is excellent overall.

45:00 “Public health has been adopted, it’s like the wolf in sheep’s clothing trying to go after our rights. In theory, it’s trying to protect us from harms we’d like to be protected from.” It generates fear. As well, “when we raised questions about what was being delivered us under the guise of public health, we were demonized as if we had a moral defect […] where we were failing to protect others.” This is absolutely out of the AIDS playbook. When we questioned AIDS, we were immediately accused of racism, homophobia, and even “causing African deaths,” which is a neat trick given that the entire HIV AIDS story depends on racism and homophobia to keep it afloat.

I love this line though, because it’s completely correct: “The idea that health is at stake in some vague, larger sense that requires us to override the natural relationship between doctor and patient is itself a coup against medicine by something else.”

46:00 “I still see claims that just simply, if they initially believed them, they were long ago falsified, but they’re still being advanced for people who haven’t noticed.” I won’t even comment on that one. You know what I’d say. Boldface is sufficient.

47:00 Dr. Weinstein laments the death of journalism and the fact that, “We don’t have journalists who are scientifically trained.” Dr. Weinstein, you can reach out to me anytime. I admit I don’t have a journalism degree, but I am certainly scientifically trained.

Finally, he discusses the broad, worldwide implication of this public health propaganda, and this is where he introduces the concept of “Goliath.” Tucker asks at 50:00, “What is this moment? What is happening in the West?” Dr. Weinstein replies:

“I suspect that some powerful set of forces has decided that consent of the governed is too dangerous to tolerate.” There is a lot of talk about who our real enemies are; again, I refer you to the video, although he does say that the notion of two parties competing with each other is in some sense smoke and mirrors to distract us from what’s really going on, and as a libertarian, I tend to agree.

53:46 “The thing that worries me most is 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.” I don’t know that I agree with this, but it is true that one ought not to ascribe to malice what can be explained by idiocy and/or incompetence. I’m not certain it is incompetence, though.

58:00 “If people somehow put aside the obvious danger to their ability to earn and maybe to their lives in order to say 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. I call this force we’re up against ‘Goliath,’ and Goliath made a terrible mistake, and it made it most egregiously during Covid, which is it took all the competent people, all the courageous, and it shoved them out of the institutions they were hanging onto and it created the so called ‘Dream Team’… […] We have the people that know how to think.”

That is an optimistic ending to this interview, but I’d like to interject a note of caution and say that this supposed “Dream Team” of courageous, competent scientists has still, for the most part, not figured out the crucial missing puzzle piece that was AIDS and the precedents set by the response to AIDS in the name of “public health.” I’ll say it until I’m blue in the face—Covid could never have gone down the way it did had AIDS not gone down the way it did. Goliath made the same mistake during AIDS as it did during Covid, but it went largely unnoticed because AIDS was, by design, classified as a “risk group” disease and I believe that that was intentional. As I mentioned already, testing your “epidemic response strategy” on a small, heavily discriminated against risk group whose members are your victims of Stockholm Syndrome is the perfect way to hide what is being done in plain sight.

Well, this was long, but I think it’s important to point out many of the points made in this interview. I do encourage you to go watch it yourself. If you do, please let me know what you think and whether the parallels to AIDS were as obvious to you as they are to me.

To support my work on Substack, please purchase my book for yourself or for a friend, and leave a review on Amazon. You can learn about efforts to ban my book here. You can also buy my new book Almost Cancelled.

If you’re a new reader and would like some background as to my views on HIV AIDS, including the “existence” question, please refer to this post and the links contained therein.