-: My name is Liz Brady, and I'm a senior here
at Hillsdale from Syracuse, New York, studying economics.
It's a pleasure to welcome our speaker this afternoon.
Jordan Schachtel is an investigative journalist
and publisher of "The Dossier" on Substack.
He earned a BA from Monmouth University
and an MA in International Affairs
from the Institute of World Politics in Washington, DC.
He previously served as a national security correspondent
for Breitbart News and an investigative journalist
for "The Blaze," a frequent guest on radio shows,
podcasts and television shows, including on Fox News,
One American News Network and Newsmax.
He has written for numerous publications,
including the "Wall Street Journal," "RealClearPolitics,"
"USA Today," the "Epic Times," the "Federalist,"
and the "New York Times."
Please join me in welcoming Mr. Schachtel.
(audience applauding)
-: Hey everyone, thanks for having me.
Let me just set this up.
Wow, very cool facility, amazing auditorium.
I like how they have the students in the back,
and like the cool kids' section up top.
(audience laughing) It's a good look.
-: Jordan we love you! (Jordan chuckles)
-: But before I get it started,
I wanted to thank Hillsdale College,
especially the administrators
and the staff for their incredible courage
to defy the popular consensus over the last couple years.
I don't know if the students realize how lucky they were
to have this opportunity to learn in person
and to not be subject to this pharmaceutical regime
that basically, you know, the college population
of the rest of the entire nation was subject to.
Hillsdale is so unique in the fact that they defied
this big pharma, big government,
public health expert consensus and...
(audience applauding)
They didn't ask me to do a pitch,
but your money is well spent here.
It would've been so much easier for them
just to succumb to the demands of the Michigan Governor,
two administrations, one Republican, one Democrat.
And it speaks volumes that you charted
an independent course.
And it speaks to, you know, the mission of Hillsdale College
and that it's working to create independent,
interesting thinkers and successful people
in the United States.
And I was, you know, doing some research on Hillsdale.
I spent a lot of time in Washington, DC, last seven,
eight years before I moved to Florida.
And I knew about Hillsdale College, but I actually,
I was shocked by how difficult it is now
to get into Hillsdale.
I mean, if you guys were a a stock on the Nasdaq,
you'd be like one of those blue chip
with a lot of room to run.
And I think Hillsdale's gonna become like basically
the Harvard, Yale, whatever you want to call it,
of the Midwest on the trajectory it is.
And so the students here, you're in amazing shape right now.
So how did I find myself basically spending the last few
years diving down this Covid hysteria rabbit hole?
And as a journalist, I think one of the most important
qualities is you have to be able to challenge
conventional narratives.
And what we found was that that wasn't
really happening at all.
And for me, this journey from being basically labeled
a bio terrorist after anything I said, I mean,
I'm sure RFK Jr. has a similar experience and you know,
the cancel campaigns against him, but I feel like
the momentum is turning in the right direction finally.
And, you know, we can start by talking
about big pharma and these mRNA shots.
You know, this tale of power grabs, corruption, deceit.
And of course it begins in Wuhan in January, 2020.
The Chinese government uploads
this gene sequence to a database.
Suddenly Pfizer Moderna are right there.
They win this vaccine jackpot.
No one's really asking any questions.
Was it because they had a superior product?
Or rather, were they just having the pieces in place
to work the system to their benefit?
What's interesting about this is that before the Covid era,
Moderna had never brought a product to market before,
not a single product.
And this was amazing to me when I researched this,
I thought like, maybe it was just fake news or something,
but it is true.
And I was pointing this out and they're like,
"Ah, you know, they just kinda like figured it out."
And if you read these stories about Moderna
and these publications and these science publications,
it was all about their human tri...
Not even getting to human trials, like the rats were dying
when they injected them with this stuff.
And suddenly, you know, January, 2020 comes around
and Moderna has it figured out, it's good to go.
But it wasn't just a Moderna thing,
it was also a Pfizer thing.
You know, their partner BioNTech had also
never brought a single product to market,
but they were backed by very influential individuals
who were terrific at doing marketing campaigns
and spinning the narrative.
And this is where we have this fusion of, you know,
big government and big pharma, call it what you want,
you know, you call it the uni-party, the ruling class,
the Washington DC-Establishment.
In recent decades and years and months and days,
we continue to see this fusion of big pharma
and big government, corporatism and stateism.
It's resulted in this incredibly weird scenario
we find ourselves today, where I think, of course,
like, you know, the coming graduates of Hillsdale
who I just met are going to have to make
a difficult decision, you know, whether you want to become
part of that system or try to do something on your own.
And there's positives and negatives to each part of that.
But I think that, you know, as proven by me
being on this stage after 99% of the folks who hated
my opinions in January and through December of 2020
now are very much on my side, I think.
You have this kind of like Newton's 3rd Law-effect
where you have this equal and opposite reaction.
And I hope to bring the best out of that,
but I wanna get back to this Pfizer Moderna thing
because I think that it's still not really clear,
like what exactly happened and the power grab
and the money grab.
And it was just so, you know, I don't think
that we really were able to focus on it because, you know,
there was all this hysteria happening.
You know, people were getting sick
and there was just way too much on people's minds.
But pharmaceutical companies were getting very rich.
Pfizer had the federal government siphon off
a hundred billion from the American taxpayer
last year in revenue, and 31 billion of that was profit.
And what's even more shocking is that all of Pfizer's profit
comes from these pharmaceutical products
that are supposedly free and that they mandated
upon the population that if it wasn't for the Covid era,
these companies would not be making any money.
They would not be able to buy other companies,
be able to in invest in other R&D platforms
that will help them succeed in the future.
I mean, this was such a coup for these two companies.
And I wanna just give you
a perfect example of the hypocrisy.
So there's a 2020 interview with Albert Bourla,
the CEO of Pfizer, who happens to be a horse doctor,
by the way, I don't know if many people know that.
He's an equestrian veterinarian.
So "The Times" interviewer asks him, "What about pricing?"
And he goes, "The vaccine should be free to all people."
And he kind of like it, you know, he's a clever salesman
because like, what does that mean?
So the guy goes, you know,
"Are you giving it away like for free?"
And he goes, "No, no, no, no, no,
we're gonna give it to governments,
but we're gonna charge the government."
So he goes a very nominal value, but our intent is
to ask governments that they should, for these prices,
they should provide it free of charge for all citizens.
So they're just going to rob the taxpayer blind,
but deliver it free of charge.
And then the interviewer says,
"So are you essentially selling it to governments at cost?"
And he goes, "No, you know, I think we'll make a profit,
but a marginal profit."
And now we just see Pfizer's filings last month
that they made a hundred billion dollars
in revenue last year.
Half of that being, almost half of that being profit.
And of course, the profit comes from you,
the American taxpayer.
And it's only made possible through its, you know,
the big pharma, big government nexus.
I've reported on Pfizer's tax filing
since the beginning of this era.
And every single time, you know, they're banking
tens of billions of dollars per quarter.
And people are just like, "Yeah, you know,
they saved the world."
So it's fine.
But I think as this quote unquote emergency winds down,
you can expect Pfizer to pivot elsewhere.
I think that they've already kind of started on that path.
They're now introducing RSV vaccines for pregnant women.
So they're getting into all kinds of things.
Moderna wants you to take a shot now
that you inject directly into your heart.
So they're very ambitious.
And I think like there's a real disconnect
between what the corporate press is telling them
and these government partners are telling them
and how the people really feel about them.
And I think you saw this at the World Economic Forum
in Davos earlier this year,
where you had a lot of good reporters,
like from Rebel News and elsewhere that were
kinda like really laying into them.
And the CEO of Pfizer was pretty shocked
and like unable to answer these questions.
So I think that the tide is definitely turning.
And if we wanna talk about Moderna,
it's really the same thing.
You know, they didn't make as much money,
but they have an incredible, since their founding in 2010,
they've been interlinked with the federal government
in ways that still kind of remain unexplained.
You know, their IPO, they were talking about
curing cancer and other types of disease.
They weren't talking about making vaccines
for Coronaviruses, but people really seem
to have not held them accountable.
And you have this weird thing in the pharmaceutical industry
that I'm sure RFK Jr. talked about last night,
where you have these repurposed drugs like an Ebola drug,
all of a sudden becomes a coronavirus drug.
And none of it really makes any scientific sense
when you look into it.
But then they just start marketing it that way
and it's all good, you know, they just start selling it.
By 2012, Moderna was a biotech unicorn,
raised a billion dollars
on the promise of the mRNA platform.
DARPA got involved,
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
They gave hundreds of millions of dollars.
Fauci's, National Institute for Allergy
and Infectious Diseases.
Also, they have confidential agreements, they got patents,
they got royalty deals.
The US Government has joint ownership
of the Moderna vaccine.
And then there's something that we can talk about
more broadly in a second.
But we also have like this public-private network fusion,
which I think is best exemplified by Bill Gates
and the Gates Network, and the Gates Network's,
basically like its own quasi-government entity.
And his people have been allowed to have massive
pre-IPO equity investments in Moderna BioNTech,
which again partnered with Pfizer to make the shots.
And as we have seen in the coming months
and years after that, this man and his institutions
have used their influence to get their products
and their services in front of the government.
And I'm sure there, there are some other companies.
And what I'll touch upon in a second is like,
why did we only have such few options?
Why was it only Moderna, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson
and Novavax, which was way too late?
And they're basically, they're basically bankrupt.
They're, if you look at their shares, they're down 90%
and considering pulling the plug in the whole company.
So this gold rush effect
was so important for these companies.
Johnson & Johnson, if you recall, they were
the third company to receive clearance for their shot.
It wasn't mRNA.
But what was interesting was that there was
a giant corporate press campaign against Johnson & Johnson
about specifically the safety and efficacy of their shots.
Supposedly, like they were the only one
that was having the problems, not anyone else.
And it successfully, like this was like
akin to a ruthless cartel battle.
And Johnson & Johnson lost and they kind of like retreated
back into the other space because Johnson & Johnson,
like Pfizer, they have other products.
You know, for Moderna it's all or nothing.
For Pfizer's bottom line, it's very much all or nothing.
For Johnson & Johnson, they can go back
to selling whatever they wanna sell.
So they were treated,
there was a vicious media campaign labeled,
they said that people were developing, you know,
deep vein thrombosis, other blood clotting disorders,
heart disorders, but it was only Johnson & Johnson.
So my academic background in international affairs
and foreign policy, so this why only four companies
in the United States making these shots,
is very interesting to me.
Especially when you look at what
was happening around the world.
And I know better to believe that the nations of the world,
especially fierce adversaries, Russia, China, US,
somehow found like a "Kumbaya"-moment.
And we all got together.
You know, the institutional narrative is that we found
a cure to the coronavirus because there was
this global effort you know, bring everyone together
and succeed for the good of humanity.
But if you look at what happened with these vaccine
platforms, that's not at all what happened.
I think what we've really been witnessing is a series
of state backed big pharma, kinda like cartel fights,
geopolitical information operations that they're running
against each other.
And the United States, it was very successful.
We said mRNA is the best thing.
And then everyone kind of believed that mRNA
is the best thing, but that's not what they say in China.
That's not what they say in Russia.
And if you look at the data, there is no clear real winner.
In my non-scientific opinion, I think that it's all trash.
So basically in the United States,
select pharmaceutical companies were able
to seal off the market.
But in some countries, governments decided
not to go this route.
For instance, in Mexico, they have access
to 10 different brands of shots.
In Hungary, they have 15.
In other places like Iran, Turkey, Cuba, and elsewhere,
they made their own thing that they put
in their citizen's arms.
They have their state, you know,
there's no separation between big pharma and big government.
They just tell the government scientists,
"Hey, make something and write a paper
that says it's 90% effective and have people take it."
And then you're cured.
You know, you move on.
China and India, you have over
a billion people in the worlds there.
And they didn't adopt mRNA technology.
Is it because everyone in China, India is stupid?
Like, I'm very doubtful that that's the situation there.
China's now potentially rolling out mRNA applications,
but it seems more, it's just like a marketing campaign.
And Russia, you know,
the world's 10th most populated country,
they also have their own thing that they call Sputnik,
which is a viral vector shot.
So billions and billions of people have had
a variety of different options.
According to the World Health Organization,
I think there's over 50 approved Covid vaccines.
And it's just amazing the level
of propaganda globally that we've been subject to,
that we just need to kind of like accept
that all of this stuff has like 80% efficacy, 92% efficacy.
And like, this is the paper that is very interesting to me.
And a fascinating study should happen
in the continent of Africa because hardly anyone
has ever taken these shots.
And you know, Africa wasn't annihilated.
I mean, remember in Wuhan we saw photos in January, 2020
of people in business suits just falling on their face
and supposedly dropping dead.
And that situation hasn't really been solved.
So there's just been all this weird propaganda
and the supposed advantage of mRNA is nowhere to be found.
And it's very difficult to compare countries.
But mRNA should have stood out
to at least a noticeable degree.
You know, we should have had some kind of like chart
that you could point to that says,
"Oh, you know, we had the better shot."
But that's not really happened.
There's no discernible difference statistically
between countries with the population
that has widely accepted Covid shots
and nations where citizens have skipped
the injection protocol entirely.
Russia had Sputnik, China had Sinovac
and they exported it broadly to their partners.
These vaccines have become, in my view,
nothing more than an extension of the power projection
of the state that creates them.
And it completely conforms with global alliance structures.
So for example, China, a very pro-China country,
there's no way that they're going to let Pfizer in.
Which is interesting because these countries, you know,
I get that nobody gets the government they deserve,
but this is supposed to be about everyone's health.
And it doesn't seem to be that way.
China's partners are using Chinese products.
Americans partners are using Pfizer, Moderna in Europe,
you know, they were using some other stuff in Oxford,
but also Pfizer, Moderna,
Russia's friends are using Russian shots.
Many created their own shots, Iran, Turkey, Cuba.
So how are we getting indoctrinated
with all this bad information?
And I think it's important to, especially 'cause we're at
an academic, you know, university, we need to sometimes
roll ourselves back to the first principles
of the situation.
And there's this term we've been inundated with
since the beginning of this era of hysteria
and that has been "Public Health Expert,' and the government
and big pharma love to refer us to public health experts.
So I've done some research on this topic,
and if you Google or Duck Duck Go or Bing
or whatever search engine you're using,
you Google what is a public health expert
and nobody really knows.
It's very interesting.
If you run an internet search, you get 40 different answers
from 40 different academic departments.
Answers range from professionals in the field,
struggle to define public health precisely,
to the art of preventing disease.
And these people are supposedly experts
at something that can't even be defined.
It's fascinating to me that since the beginning
of the Covid era, this big pharma, big government coalition
has demanded we listen to these experts, these people.
It's basically like, you know, the Halloween Horror Show.
When you have Fauci, you have Admiral Levine,
you have a fake doctor who leads
the World's Health Organization named Tedros,
who's like a puppet for the CCP and Bill Gates.
Supposed public health expert groups include
the CDC, WHO, Gates Foundation, all severely
corrupted institutions with specific narratives
that they want to pedal with bad incentives.
But these are the experts, you know, that was the tagline
forever was, "Listen to the experts."
But you know what exactly are these people good at it?
It remains undecided.
They told us that these lockdowns were the key...
when that didn't work, they said masks, you know,
everyone just wear them, curfews, physical distancing,
mRNA shots, and they had it all figured out.
They spoke with incredible confidence.
Most of these people were academics or epidemiologists,
which is a whole 'nother thing that is basically just like,
in my view, it's like a profession for people
that like to do math but don't want
to become a mathematician, and there's some kind
of like nexus in health there, but so how
could these highly touted experts
get everything so catastrophically wrong?
And I think that in America, there's a guy
named Anthony Fauci, who you may have heard of,
and he has a lot to do with this.
The fusion of big government and big pharma,
and I'm sure RFK Jr. spoke last night
completely unloaded on this guy.
So I'll keep it brief.
But since 1984, when Fauci became a big pharma king maker
through assuming the office did the NIAID
and, on an annual basis, he moves around,
he moved around billions of dollars.
He used political maneuvering through his bureaucrat status.
So Fauci was very smart not to become a political appointee
because then he was subject to being fired.
He was a civil servant, which made it so
that he was basically in charge without having
the official title of being in charge of the whole NIH.
And everyone knew that in order to get grant funding,
you had to go through Fauci.
So this totally corrupted the institution
for almost 40 years.
Any private or public health drug enterprise that received
government funding had to maintain good standing with Fauci.
You could cure cancer, but if Fauci didn't like you,
he could just say no.
So there's a huge problem there.
Fauci had the...
So I think where I disagree with some people is that
some folks just say you know, "Fauci wanted to get rich,"
you know, he is the highest paid bureaucrat,
which is all true.
But I think for Fauci it was about power.
You know, having spent seven, eight years in Washington DC
for these people it's mostly about power.
Yes, they do go eventually to cash out
at the likes of Black Rock or they have a nice chair
at Harvard or something but while they're in DC
they like to accumulate power and influence.
And the reason why Fauci stayed around for so long,
I think they said he was worth
about 12 and a half million dollars
when he supposedly left government.
Even though he is kind of like on salary there,
which is a whole separate issue.
But Fauci could have been way more wealthy
than he was when he left government.
I think when you have the power to make
or break massive corporations and industries,
that was the true appeal of Fauci gig
and that's why he loved it.
And you can see that in his emails with, you know,
the likes of Hillary Clinton and all these big wigs
in Washington that he loved just being able
to call them friends and being able to influence people.
And sure he bagged untold millions of dollars through
royalties, investments, and his record breaking salary.
But yeah, I don't think he was in it for the money.
He could influence whether products were going to make it.
He could sabotage production lines and lots of individuals
and corporations owe this man their livelihood.
And everyone knew that Fauci was the kingmaker.
So it was more important to get on Fauci's good side
than it was to create a good product.
And what's interesting is that
according to some recent reporting,
Fauci hasn't actually even left the government.
He is like, he's in this good old boys club at the NIH,
which is basically that you retire,
but you remain on salary.
And he has a full-time security detail that's billed
at over a million dollars a month.
And he's had that security details since 2020.
So he's incurred tens of millions of dollars
in taxpayer expenses.
You know, DC, it's like royalty out there
and Fauci believes himself to be, you know,
he needs the US marshals to go around with him
when he is at these red carpet award dinners
because it's really necessary.
For example, you know, it's not just Fauci,
it's the entire NIH.
This is what they do to reward the bureaucrats
who have spent their lifetime there.
There's an 85 year-old former chief of viral diseases,
Dr. Bernard Moss, he's still picking a paycheck.
Dr. John Bennett, who's another high ranking NIID official,
he's 90 years old, he's still taking a paycheck
and they don't actually do anything.
It's like all these no-show jobs, I suppose you could
make an argument that you'd rather them have them
doing nothing than, than sabotaging our lives.
But, and speaking of menaces to society,
how could we talk about big pharma and big government
without talking about Bill Gates?
'Cause he really brings those two things together.
I think there's no more successful force in bridging the gap
between big pharma and big government than Mr. Gates
through what he describes as public-private cooperation.
Somehow this software guy who also happens to believe
that there's too many people in the world.
So I don't think that he'd be a great healthcare ambassador
for anyone who's actually seriously concerned
about their wellbeing.
He's the most influential public health expert
other than Fauci, it's him and Fauci.
If you were doing like an NCAA tournament bracket,
they're both one-seeds for sure.
Bill Gates was so enormously influential in the early days.
If you recall during the early days
of the Coronavirus task force, everyone was saying
listen to the models, they were drawing models
about how to respond to a coronavirus.
And you had these supposed experts
at these academic institutions that would, you know,
draw some chart straight up and say, you know,
if we don't do this, everyone's gonna die in three months.
And it's like, that's what the model says.
And one of the premier modeling institutions
is called the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation,
which is funded entirely by Bill Gates and Deborah Burkes,
the former Covid task force manager
or whatever her role was.
She would meet with these Gates people
and then the Gates people would tell her,
"This is what's gonna happen
if you don't shut it down or mask."
And then basically she would demand that they do this
and the state governors would follow suit.
Of course in Florida, those of us who live there,
we were lucky enough to have Ron DeSantis who kind of like
balked at the trend within basically two weeks.
So as a Floridian now I'm so much appreciative
that there were some that defied the consensus,
but there was a huge problem with Gates World,
telling everyone that the world was gonna end
if they didn't listen to their models.
And Gates was smart about it because
he controlled these institutions,
but he didn't like shove it in anyone's faces.
So he was really operating behind the scenes.
And Gates does this very well, he's made tremendous inroads
through what he calls public-private partnerships again,
with these government health institutions.
And basically this is Gates.
He regularly participates or has his employees
direct policy meetings, which are convened
by entities within the National Institutes of Health,
and Gates., you know, he has them, he's compromised
a lot of these NIH committee members who are either directly
or were former Gates Foundation employees
and they vote on resource allocation,
NIH regulations policy and what Gates says basically
is that he provides, his people provide, or Gates directly,
or his people provide a roadmap for how he wants
resource allocation to look.
And they know that if they defy him,
no money is going to come.
So he creates this corrupting system where he brings these
government bureaucrats into the fold.
He sets up this 10, 20 million project and then basically
threatens to rug pull them if they go another route.
But Gates has seemingly moved on to the next crisis already.
If those of you who are aware, he recently
soured very much on these mRNA shots.
He sold 90% of his holdings in BioNTech,
according to recent filings with the SEC.
And suddenly, you know, he's been taking his private jet
around the world everywhere while saying that, you know,
carbon emissions are the biggest problem
and sold 90% of his stake.
And then suddenly he said like, you know,
basically that these shots aren't so good,
maybe we need some new research and and whatnot.
It didn't really work out as advertised.
And that was really the end.
So now Bill is talking about, you know, the earth is dying
and we need to save ourselves by destroying humanity.
So that's his new project. (audience titters)
(chuckles) blocking out the sun, forcing Africans
to eat only corn instead of industrialize.
I think Bill Gates is an awful guy and I think it...
(audience clapping)
And yeah, he's just moved on.
Like there's just...
I think that there will be accountability
for the elites, but the hubris is just shocking to me,
where you had billions of these shots
injected into people's arms and suddenly, you know,
the narrative changes and then it's like,
"Oh, you know, too bad, we're moving on to the next crisis."
So in Washington DC you have this revolving door
that a lot of you have heard of.
Basically, if you have an experimental drug
that needs rapid authorization from the FDA
in order to be sold to the masses, or you're looking
to siphon billions of dollars from the taxpayer,
today, you can basically buy yourself a former or current
government health commissioner and use
this public sector/private sector revolving door system,
which President Trump, to his credit,
tried to stop really unsuccessfully.
Hopefully, you know, if he gets a term two,
he will take another shot at it.
But we can take a look at the most blatant examples
of this revolving door with big pharma and big government.
I'm sure everyone's aware of Scott Gottlieb.
He's on the Pfizer board.
He's the ultimate personification of the revolving door
as a Wall Street Journal column,
CNBC, complete panic monger, compensated very well
to sell panic, to sell shots, earned millions.
He's on a million different boards.
People hire Scott Gottlieb because they need
their shot to get regulatory approval, he's the former
FDA commissioner and he makes it happen behind the scenes.
Today, you have the current director of drug evaluation
for the FDA, her name is Patrizia Cavazzoni.
She's an academic psychiatrist by background,
but she also worked for Pfizer.
So before entering her government role, she was in Pfizer,
Eli Lilly, and now she's clearing drugs
for the FDA as a psychiatrist.
So unfortunately, again, the Trump administration
tried to stop the revolving door, but I think it wasn't,
the executive order wasn't sticky enough.
We had Steven Hahn, who's, he now works
for a Moderna associated company,
but he was very much involved in operation Warp Speed,
former FDA commissioner, FDA commissioner during the time,
he was the guy that basically gave clearance
to Pfizer Moderna's shot.
But this isn't a new problem.
We can go all the way back to the Bush years, W.
Mark McClellan was the FDA commissioner from 2002 to 2004,
and he sits on the board of Johnson & Johnson.
So it's very much a systemic issue
that continues to bother us.
And in the...
Basically, sadly, everyone involved
with Operation Warp Speed, not everyone,
but so many people who were labeled as healthcare experts,
almost immediately upon leaving the administration,
they joined pharmaceutical boards.
Jerome Adams, former Surgeon General,
you'll find him on social media demanding
that everyone takes six boosters, wear three masks.
He's a true believer.
After leaving his post, he immediately joined
several pharmaceutical boards.
Dr. Burke, same thing, Dr. Robert Redfield,
former CDC director, they all cashed out
and they're all involved in Covid related industries
or they're Covid related treatments, injections, drugs.
I mean, there's just no shame in, in DC it's very clear.
So what I can leave you with is, right now in Congress,
there's a lot of rumblings about, you know,
"We're gonna hold China accountable for the lab leak."
And it's interesting to me that there's, the narrative's
changing a lot in DC but I don't really buy into that they
genuinely want to pursue the truth about what happened.
The people in charge right now are torn
between two premises, was Covid the result
of a lab leak event or a naturally evolving virus?
And you can't really talk about anything else.
So that's where the conversation is happening
and I think it's the wrong conversation to have
and both the US government and the Chinese government
don't want you to discuss really the origin story
for the panic itself because it involves
big pharma and the government and perhaps
they help to manifest that panic.
There's these stories now in the Telegraph in the UK
that have been coming out in recent days
where the British government is very clearly trying
to drive people into taking Covid tests and trying
to drive policy based on fear alone.
And it's been pretty shocking to me.
But regardless of what you believe,
it's pretty remarkable that we know basically nothing
about the real origin stories of Covid.
And I can leave you with some questions
and avenues of inquiry to pursue.
For instance, it would be nice to know
who was Patient Zero in Wuhan.
We haven't really ever figured that out.
Or, was Patient Zero in Wuhan or somewhere else?
Why isn't Fauci and the gang in interested in this question?
It would also be nice to know the process
through which the Chinese government uploaded
the Covid gene sequence to the internet
resulting in software that would produce
the Pfizer Moderna shots.
Again, you know, there's studies that these first cases
may be unrelated to Wuhan.
So all these government's timelines
and pharmaceutical companies timelines are off
by maybe months or years.
What was on with all those weird video productions
coming outta China?
You know, when we talk about big pharma and big government,
this is really a global issue.
Pfizer and Moderna, according to their own information
were reportedly working on mRNA Covid vaccines
almost immediately after the first reported case in Wuhan,
before anyone even got really sick from it.
And this is according to their own company timelines.
And, you know, the once claimed miracle cure
became enormously profitable.
So I wish that, I hope that the people in Congress,
and I think if we want to hold these people
truly accountable, I hope that, you know,
we see people like Bill Gates, Bourla,
the CEO of Moderna, Fauci and the like
to be held accountable.
But until then, I think the swamp will just continue
to move forward to the next crisis.
But if we hold them accountable for this crisis,
things may actually change, so,
I would just urge you to get in contact.
It could even be like, you know, in Florida we have DeSantis
empaneled the Supreme Court of Florida
to investigate pharmaceutical fraud in big pharma.
And I think that you can prosecute this case
on through several angles, but if we just kind of like
accept this institutional narrative
and we're all supposed to be mad about China,
mad at China now, but not at our own government,
I think that we'll drop the ball on that.
But I so much appreciate your time and for everyone
showing up and, and I'm happy to take
any questions you may have.
Thanks so much, everyone. (audience applauding)
-: Thank you Mr. Schachtel. -: Thanks.
-: Now time for Q&A.
If you have a question, please make your way
down to a microphone.
Student questions will be given preference.
-: Hi, thank you so much.
I think one of the questions I have is about compliance.
They can't be successful if we don't comply.
And I think we were all being groomed during this
to see how much can they get from us?
You know, how far can they push us until we push back?
And it feels like it was a grooming exercise
like the Event 201 where they were testing out models
and that's really what we lived through
was the model that they were doing.
So the next thing on the radar I feel
is this WHO Pandemic Treaty.
And I'm just wondering if you can speak to that
and the concern about that.
Cause I think it's a really important thing for all of us
to know about because that's the next exercise
in grooming and control. -: Hmm.
What's interesting about treaties is that even though
the government may decide to say that it's applicable,
it still doesn't supersede the Constitution.
So regardless of the United States having entered
some treaty or ratified some type of agreement,
I think that you can always, at least, you know,
you can at least appeal to the constitutional,
to the framework and if it's violated by, you know,
these international NGOs that are controlled
by private powerful actors and states,
then you shouldn't have to follow it regardless.
And I think that some folks in Congress like Thomas Massey
have taken a unique approach to that.
And I think that, but you're right,
especially I don't know if this was an exercise
to see how much they could get away with,
but regardless of that they got away with a lot
and it showed them that compliance
was easy to compel for sure.
Thanks for your question.
-: Jordan, my name is Josiah Lippencott
and I'm a student here and I've appreciated your work
over these last several years.
You've done excellent reporting.
My question for you is whether you think it's even possible
to have government funded science at the federal level.
I mean, the constitution doesn't really provide for that
and maybe what you're explaining here today
is the reason why, but I just wonder if you could go into,
is this a kind of problem that just the only solution
is nuke it from orbit as a response?
(scattered chuckling and clapping rings)
-: No, I agree with you a hundred percent
that there's too many conflicts of interest
when the government gets involved.
Realistically speaking, I think that the best way
to approach this is to combat the federal bureaucracy
that continues to grow exponentially in Washington DC.
I think that a lot of these presidential candidates
will talk tough about, "O, I'm gonna shut down,
you know, this department, that department,"
but the best, I don't know if they'll have
the political capital to do that,
but for sure they should be able to do some damage
to the unaccountable civil service in Washington DC
and that should hopefully help roll back
the enormous funding and what they get away with.
I think that's probably the best path forward.
But I totally agree with you that science
should not be directed by the government
and it just leads to horrible things.
-: Thank you Jordan. You're amazing.
I've been following your Substack for quite some time.
Thank you for what you write and I love the fact
that you write on a lot of different issues
and that gives a really big picture to everything.
But my observation, and I was thinking about it
as you spoke, public-private partnerships
are really starting to look more and more like fascism.
Okay?
And I think Thomas Sowell would say the same thing,
but I wanna drop something if you don't know about it.
The NIST annual report, "Cybersecurity of Genomic Data,"
do you have that government report?
It's part of the White House Cybersecurity Initiative
right now, so I'll try to get that to you
one way or the other, but think about it,
what are PCR tests harvesting from everybody who takes one?
Your genomic data.
Okay, so it's just, I wanted to ask you about your thoughts
about the fascism piece and also the fact
that this beast is not gonna stop.
And I'm concerned how people are get swept up
with the extra arm of the media propaganda arm
that's controlling, as we heard last night, two thirds
of the population's thinking, and Mr. Kennedy
said to us last night, we were the one third
that weren't controlled. (both chuckling)
But anyway, but thank you.
I everybody follow his Substack, I'm serious.
"The Dossier" is amazing and Substack's just a gold mine
for all kinds of great information.
Thanks. -: Thank you.
I'll send the check in the mail,
(audience laughing) but no, no, I totally agree
that the rhetoric of our government is not aligning
with the ideology that they're pursuing, for sure.
And you're right with this public-private stuff going on,
and you have these extremely wealthy and influential
power players on Wall Street that are dictating
a lot of US policy.
And as a right-winger who's like pretty
traditionally conservative, you know, generally in the past
you've wanted to take a hands-off approach
to figuring out what the heck's going on with these
private institutions that are accumulating all this power.
But now, you know, as with the Pfizer example specifically,
they're really starting to encroach
upon our fundamental rights.
So it's creating a huge problem.
I mean, you can draw this line back to Obamacare
or even further where you have this fusion of corporate
and public interests and it's a huge problem in our country.
But I think there a lot of people are awakening
to this reality and hopefully this,
I'm not so optimistic about Washington DC but hopefully,
you know, on a more decentralized level,
people will start to combat on those fronts
and realize exactly what's going on,
that you can't really just take a hands-off approach.
And the problem isn't just big government.
There's this whole other side that you were talking about.
-: Hi Jordan.
Your Substack is great.
I won't encourage people to, to subscribe,
'cause then you get 10 emails a day about subscribing
to the paid subscription.
But that's okay. It's great publication.
I wanna put you on the spot just a little bit,
and if you could comment, it'd be great if you can.
I also understand...
We were served up this so sophistry of the bat
crapping in the soup at the wet market for the longest time.
And some people believed it.
I mean, there are no bats in Wu...
There are no bats within 900 kilometers of Wuhan, China.
Here's my question, that do you believe in your heart
that it could have been a lab accident
or was it done on purpose by the Chinese government
or other people to kill human beings and to test out
different power and control issues?
And if you don't want to answer 'em,
I apologize for the question.
-: No, no, I'm happy to answer the question
and I appreciate the shout out for the Substack,
(audience laughing) but by the way,
those emails are automated,
the ones upselling, I don't do 'em. (chuckles)
But the Chinese government,
I'm no fan of the Chinese Communist Party,
history of ruthless anti-human behavior.
The issue of course is the evidence trail slim to none
for, I mean, objectively thinking about a lab leak
makes more sense than someone ate a bat or a Pangolin
or whatever the latest one is.
But I'm not comfortable declaring that it's an authoritative
fact that either thing happened, but it makes more,
the lab leak scenario makes more sense to me.
The Chinese Communist Party has a history of genocide,
so you can't really rule anything out.
But I wouldn't make, like, I can't personally
make an accusatory statement on this front
because while my instinct says, you know,
it could be lab leak or some type of purposeful thing
to stir up the world's economy or, you know,
combat the US geopolitically, I can go down
a lot of thought trails there, but I wish that people
with a lot of power and influence could accumulate evidence.
So we can get those answers to the questions you have
and I hope that that helps.
-: Thank you. You packaged in a very nice package.
Many things I've watched with horror
over the last couple years.
I'll jump on your Substack, I'll live with the ads.
I have a question, sort of a request
on the constitutionality of the WHO thing.
The "Epic Times" just recently ran an article that said,
you know, they might sneak that through
because they wrote it to get around the constitution
and the Supreme Court approved something similar
a couple years ago.
So would you please look into that and tell us
what we need to do to stop it?
-: No, it definitely seems to be a very popular interest,
the WHO treaty and I'll do it.
I'll definitely take that under consideration,
start investigating it more because I have definitely,
you're not alone.
I have seen the trend on social media that a lot more people
not outside of Washington DC are talking about this issue,
which, you know, the people are more interesting
outside of Washington DC anyway, so for sure, for sure.
We'll look into it. Thanks.
-: Hi. You mentioned moving on to the next crisis.
Do you have any information on the question
of whether people who have been jabbed
with the mRNA vaccines should be allowed to donate blood?
-: Yeah, I don't wanna speculate.
So the problem with the mRNA issue is
that there's actually so few people who fully understand
the technology platform, and I certainly don't claim
to be one of them.
And one of the big problems we had during this era
was that so many people with credentials
next to their name, made authoritative statements
when they shouldn't have, when they should have had
the humility to say, "Yeah, a lot of these folks
are saying you should take it."
But I haven't seen any evidence either way
that you should or shouldn't take it.
Or this notion that because you have an advanced degree
and that you treat patients or that you work
at a prestigious school as a professor,
that you should be telling people what to do
with their health decisions when they fundamentally
did not understand this platform whatsoever.
I mean, there's very few people,
Robert Malone's one of them.
And even if you asked Dr. Malone, there's still a lot
of things he doesn't know about what's going on
with these in these injections and the mRNA platform.
So if he doesn't know, and the people who have worked
on this will be, what are the chances that, you know,
your your local public health professor knows?
I appreciate the question.
-: Hi, on Dr. Fauci, there was all the bio labs in Ukraine
and I think he was part of that and the ones in Wuhan.
Now back in 2000.
And when Trump became president in 2017,
he said there was gonna be a pandemic.
Fauci did. I don't know if you heard that.
And I was just wondering if this wasn't just Fauci's doing,
I mean, China wasn't upset about it.
They just happened to be the people who had the Covid
at the time when he released it.
-: Yeah, no there's certainly, there's this meme going around
that it shows the covers of "Time Magazine" over the years
and every single year there's a catastrophic pandemic,
there's a bird flu, there's a another coming crisis,
and these crises sell.
And so far none of them have lived up to the hype,
which is interesting.
But I think maybe your question was about
potentially them causing a crisis.
And again, like you've seen what these people
have done over the past few years.
They've treated human beings with absolute
contempt for their rights.
So the levels of their depravity remain unknown.
But there are a lot of interesting foundational questions
that I still have about this whole era
that are for sure yet to be resolved.
-: Hi, thank you for your speech today.
It was very enlightening.
You mentioned a little bit about accountability.
Unfortunately not all of us can go into politics
or medicine or law.
How would you advise the common American to take steps
to hold these people accountable for corruption
and corruption in big pharma and big government?
-: Yeah, I think for me,
the further you get away from DC specifically and the more
local you can get with your government,
like even if that comes to influencing your school board
somehow, or electing people to your school board
that you can trust, I think that the DC question
is a lot different than the local issue.
I think there's a lot of progress that can be made locally
on DC just kind of have to blow up the administrative state.
It's a very different, very different solution.
But yeah, I think you hold people accountable
through decentralization in your town, in your city.
Unfortunately in Washington DC is just like a lost cause.
Like, you're just gonna hear these people,
they're, they're gonna go on TV and say all these things
and never really do anything.
So I wouldn't get discouraged with them,
but I would, I would use my, my energies and capital
if you're gonna get involved in these issues,
to do so locally.
Like that's, that's a reason why like, I mean in Florida
we had a, a situation where DeSantis was basically
just like, I'm just gonna overrule these
like crazy school boards and whatnot.
But there was a lot of effective political leadership
outside of the state too, on a more local level.
So I think like, just basically don't get distracted
with Washington DC and do what you can
to impact your local community.
Yes?
-: So at the beginning of the year,
thank you for your talk by the way.
-: Thanks.
-: At the beginning of the year, it looked like the narrative
was starting to unravel and we were starting
to get more information, come out and be public about
what happened with Covid and then Project Veritas
let that video go with the Pfizer executive,
and then all of a sudden it felt like radio silence.
What happened to the slow exposure of this narrative?
'Cause it seemed like other things just took over
the narrative as soon as that video came out.
-: Yeah, so for sure there's been a departure
from the narrative and that's why like, I caution people
to get behind the "We're all yelling
at China now"-narrative.
And I don't know if that's, I think that it...
I have friends and acquaintances
on both sides of the Project Veritas issue.
And it, for me it's just, it's really
unfortunate series of events.
Like I'm not personally aware of any evidence on either side
that this was some type of like Pfizer campaign
to blow them up.
But it certainly seems weird that that happened
after their most successful story ever.
I don't know if the narrative shift
is directly related to Pfizer.
I wrote about this the other day that, you know,
there's a whole situation with us giving, well,
the American taxpayer giving over a hundred billion dollars
to fight this war in eastern Europe as a proxy.
And China is very much getting involved on that front too,
on the other side of the war.
And I think that for me, like that's why DC
is suddenly going all in on this China thing.
I think that they're kind of like threatened
by these big movements that are happening
with adversarial players.
The Veritas thing I think is definitely significant
and I wish that they were operating and functioning,
but it doesn't seem to be, I mean I think
that James O'Keefe will basically create
another organization that will be
just as good as Project Veritas.
So I'm actually more optimistic that he'll just,
the same donors will just probably follow him
and they'll get some good investigative journalism
up and running soon, hopefully once they get
the legal situation figured out.
-: We have time for one more question.
-: Thank you very much for the presentation.
I have a question.
There was a lot of information available
from the World Health Organization website
and also the VAERS database, which has a public front end.
You can go to it on any browser,
on any computer and download all the data
and analyze it yourself in Excel and all of that data
contradicted kind of the word that was coming out
from Fauci and the government.
So it was very easy to build an argument
and then take it to your local school board and say,
"Look at this."
Do you know of any efforts that are underway right now
to make that data no longer public or no longer available?
-: Well, I know that governments like to manipulate data,
like as I referred to these studies, you have Albert Bourla,
the CEO of Pfizer was saying after his shots came out
that they were a hundred percent effective,
which would meant that it served as a cure.
And remember you had all these people saying it was,
so you can, the problem with I think relying on studies
or statistics, especially when they come with,
from these NGOs or government agencies,
that they can be so easily manipulated.
And with the VAERS database,
it just kind of depends on the policy of the healthcare
bureaucracy, whether or not they want to bother with it.
So I think that this stuff can be helpful
to make an argument, but it can also work
as your worst enemy when someone pulls up the Harvard study
or whatever saying that, you know,
my latest pharmaceutical drug is going to cure
all the diseases in the world based on, you know,
these trials that we did with rats.
So it's like you can use, you can lie with statistics
and also tell the truth with statistics very easily,
I think, but I appreciate the question.
Thanks.
-: Please join me in thanking Mr. Schachtel.
(generous applause rings) -: Thank you.