Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.480 --> 00:05.120]  I'm Dave Champion. I have long shared with you my observation that the U.S. media
[00:05.120 --> 00:12.400]  falls in line, begins walking in lockstep with whatever the government wants promoted, whatever
[00:12.400 --> 00:18.720]  message the government wants put out, if the government tells the executives at a media
[00:18.720 --> 00:24.480]  company this is a national emergency or the media perceives it's a matter of patriotism.
[00:25.120 --> 00:31.280]  That is no less true with SARS-CoV-2 and I want to share with you some questions
[00:32.320 --> 00:39.920]  that the media simply will not ask any government health official
[00:39.920 --> 00:44.240]  at any of the press conferences you have seen or will see.
[00:44.240 --> 00:57.840]  The reason you will never see these particular questions asked is because the answers to them
[00:57.840 --> 01:05.520]  would reveal how absolutely ludicrous and non-science-based 100 percent of the things
[01:05.520 --> 01:10.880]  these public health officials are saying actually are. Now I'm going to do this in the format of a
[01:10.880 --> 01:17.840]  reporter and then the answer by the public health official. So I've got my notes in my
[01:17.840 --> 01:21.840]  pen you know how the reporters always sit there and they've got the notes okay so I've got my
[01:21.840 --> 01:28.000]  notes in my pen that's going to be my reporter thing and then when I'm playing the role of the
[01:28.000 --> 01:37.120]  public health official yeah this is what I'm going to look like. The list of questions which if asked
[01:37.120 --> 01:41.760]  and answered would show how ludicrous these government health officials are being and how
[01:41.760 --> 01:47.360]  ludicrous the governors are being by following the advice of these idiots. I could ask endless
[01:47.360 --> 01:51.680]  questions but I've just picked some that I think are particularly poignant and I think you're going
[01:51.680 --> 02:00.880]  to find them poignant as well. Thank you Mr. Idiot Governor Health Official. My question for you is
[02:00.880 --> 02:11.680]  this can you cite for me any instance in all of man's history in which the action by any government
[02:11.680 --> 02:18.560]  has ever stopped the spread of a virus? Well you'll remember when we had the lockdowns we saw the
[02:18.560 --> 02:27.920]  numbers crash dramatically. Stop that's not the question I asked you. Lockdowns are a temporary
[02:27.920 --> 02:34.880]  artificial unsustainable construct that when you lift the lockdown the virus proceeds as it would
[02:34.880 --> 02:41.680]  have always proceeded had you not done lockdowns. What I'm asking you specifically sir is can you
[02:41.680 --> 02:49.600]  cite for me any single instance in all of mankind's history where the action of government any action
[02:49.600 --> 02:57.600]  by any government ever has stopped not simply hit the pause button for four or six or ten weeks
[02:57.600 --> 03:02.800]  can you when it has stopped the spread of a virus? Can you cite for me even one?
[03:03.680 --> 03:07.040]  Not off the top of my head but can I get back to you on that?
[03:10.720 --> 03:17.520]  Thank you Madam Moron. My question for you is can you cite for me any real world data
[03:18.400 --> 03:25.600]  not computer models showing lockdowns do anything to stop the spread of a virus
[03:26.560 --> 03:34.320]  over the long term? I'm not sure what you mean by real world data or long term. I'm confused by
[03:34.320 --> 03:44.960]  your question. Never mind. My question for you is this. The very first research done on wearing a
[03:44.960 --> 03:52.080]  mask during a pandemic was done in 1921 on the heels of the Spanish flu pandemic. The study found
[03:53.040 --> 04:00.320]  no evidence to suggest wearing masks slows or halts the spread of a virus and indeed determined
[04:00.320 --> 04:05.440]  that the unintended consequence of the California mask order was to increase the spread of the
[04:05.440 --> 04:12.400]  contagion. Can you cite any study in the last hundred years that has concluded wearing a mask
[04:12.400 --> 04:18.480]  slows or halts the spread of a virus? There have been a number of studies showing that
[04:18.480 --> 04:24.960]  masks prevent the expulsion of particles from the face and nose. Stop. That's not the question I'm
[04:24.960 --> 04:30.400]  asking you. You're down here at ground level. You're talking about saliva and mucus and particle
[04:30.400 --> 04:37.120]  size and viral size and bacterial size and cloth and versus other substances. This is all mechanical
[04:37.120 --> 04:44.960]  questions. That's not what I'm asking you. I am asking you whether you are aware of a single study
[04:45.680 --> 04:54.800]  from the 35,000 foot level. Over a hundred years, any study, even one, that has concluded
[04:55.600 --> 05:05.520]  that wearing masks slows or halts the spread of a virus. The answer is very simple, sir.
[05:06.080 --> 05:14.320]  You can either say yes and here's a study or no. Which is it? Well, off the top of my head,
[05:14.320 --> 05:19.360]  I wasn't exactly prepared for that question, so I don't know that I can specifically answer
[05:19.360 --> 05:28.480]  the question the way you phrased it. Exactly. Thank you, state director of unhealth. My question
[05:28.480 --> 05:35.920]  for you is this. Anthony Fauci and many governors are saying going to restaurants is a primary cause
[05:35.920 --> 05:43.120]  of the virus spreading. Can you provide me with the name of a single person concerning whom you
[05:43.120 --> 05:49.680]  can scientifically prove was infected in a restaurant? I'm not sure I understand the
[05:49.680 --> 05:55.920]  question. Okay, let me see if I can clarify it for you. 8,000 people go to restaurants and
[05:56.800 --> 06:04.080]  800 of them, just for the sake of illustration, become infected. Can you prove to the public,
[06:05.120 --> 06:10.480]  the people who are going to be reading my article, can you scientifically prove that any of those
[06:10.480 --> 06:16.880]  800 people who happened to have gone to a restaurant became infected in the restaurant?
[06:17.760 --> 06:25.680]  Any of them? Even one? That's not really the way it works. So let me see if I understand you
[06:25.680 --> 06:31.840]  correctly. You're saying that you're right that those 800 people in the example I gave, that
[06:31.840 --> 06:39.920]  was 800 people were infected in the restaurant at which they ate, but you can't scientifically
[06:39.920 --> 06:46.320]  prove any one of them actually became infected in the restaurant. Is that what I hear you saying?
[06:46.320 --> 06:51.760]  I don't think you really understand epidemiology. Oh, I think I really do understand epidemiology,
[06:51.760 --> 06:58.640]  which is the problem we have here. So what you're asking the public to believe is that you're right
[06:59.600 --> 07:05.680]  that 800 people were infected because they went to restaurants, but you can't scientifically prove
[07:05.680 --> 07:12.800]  that even one of them, by name, this guy right here, I can prove scientifically he
[07:12.800 --> 07:18.720]  received, he became infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus in that restaurant. You're telling me you
[07:18.720 --> 07:26.560]  can't prove that even once, but we are to believe it 800 times without a shred of evidence simply
[07:26.560 --> 07:35.040]  because you say so. Thank you, dumbass public official. My question for you today is,
[07:35.920 --> 07:42.720]  a number of governors are punishing gyms and gym members by closing gyms or imposing requirements
[07:42.720 --> 07:49.200]  that are unrealistic when exercising. Can you provide me with the name of a single person
[07:49.840 --> 08:01.520]  you can scientifically prove was infected at the gym he or she attends? So you're asking me for
[08:01.520 --> 08:08.400]  a name of a person. I can't give you that because of patient confidentiality. How convenient. But
[08:08.400 --> 08:16.000]  let's do this instead. Why don't you reach out to that, we're just going to focus on one person,
[08:16.080 --> 08:23.600]  that one person out of hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people who go to the gym
[08:23.600 --> 08:29.520]  and who may have become infected with SARS-CoV-2, why don't we just focus, you focus on the one
[08:29.520 --> 08:39.760]  person you can scientifically prove became infected with SARS-CoV-2 while at the gym,
[08:40.640 --> 08:47.920]  and reach out to that person and ask permission to reveal their identity to me, a member of the
[08:47.920 --> 08:56.640]  media, so we can validate, we can explore, we can verify that you, Mr. Public Health Official,
[08:56.640 --> 09:01.920]  are actually telling us the truth because right now what you're asking us to believe is that there
[09:01.920 --> 09:09.360]  may be hundreds of thousands of people who are infected because they went to the gym, but yet
[09:09.360 --> 09:18.080]  you can't provide me with a single name where you can scientifically prove that gal got the SARS-CoV-2
[09:18.080 --> 09:24.080]  virus inside of her at that gym. You're asking us to believe something for which you're offering
[09:24.080 --> 09:32.320]  zero evidence. My question for you, ma'am, is numerous health officials have claimed
[09:32.320 --> 09:39.440]  the Sturgis bike rally was a super spreader event. Would you say that's factual? Yes, I would.
[09:40.080 --> 09:46.080]  Can you then share with me the name of a single person who you can scientifically prove was
[09:46.080 --> 09:51.920]  infected by someone who attended Sturgis? I think it only stands to reason that Sturgis was a
[09:51.920 --> 09:56.800]  super spreader. I believe most people understand that. Perhaps people do understand that. Perhaps
[09:56.800 --> 10:00.800]  people don't understand that, but people's perceptions, the lay people out in the public
[10:00.880 --> 10:05.760]  and their perceptions of Sturgis is not what I'm asking you. You're the public health official.
[10:06.800 --> 10:12.000]  The model seems to be what you're suggesting is that hundreds of thousands of people went to
[10:12.000 --> 10:18.880]  Sturgis, that they became infected there. They then populated back to their communities across
[10:18.880 --> 10:25.520]  the United States where they infected thousands of people more. Is that the basis? Do I have the
[10:25.520 --> 10:32.000]  basic model correct? You do. Okay, great. So then with thousands, tens of thousands,
[10:32.000 --> 10:40.160]  hundreds of thousands, you would know I'm asking you for the name of anyone, anyone at all across
[10:40.160 --> 10:50.160]  the entire United States that you can scientifically prove that person became infected with SARS-CoV-2
[10:50.160 --> 10:56.880]  either at the Sturgis rally or became infected with SARS-CoV-2 from that person right there
[10:56.880 --> 11:03.520]  who attended the Sturgis rally. You're saying this is so and you're claiming that this is the
[11:03.520 --> 11:10.480]  science and the governor is claiming they follow the science. So can you scientifically prove what
[11:10.480 --> 11:18.640]  I just asked you to support via evidence? Do you have scientific evidence? Well, we don't have
[11:20.240 --> 11:25.280]  evidence in the way that you're asking. We don't have that kind of definitive hard evidence.
[11:25.840 --> 11:32.320]  If you don't have definitive hard evidence, then what are you basing this on? We're professionals,
[11:32.320 --> 11:39.760]  sir. We use various patterns that we're able to detect using technology that suggest that
[11:39.760 --> 11:44.720]  the Sturgis event was a super spreader. So what you're saying is, if I understand you correctly,
[11:45.280 --> 11:51.920]  Bob Simons from Oklahoma, he goes to Sturgis and then he comes back from Sturgis.
[11:53.920 --> 12:01.600]  At some point, he may have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 or he may not have been infected with
[12:01.600 --> 12:12.640]  SARS-CoV-2, but you detect that there are 21 new infections of SARS-CoV-2 in his town in the next
[12:12.640 --> 12:18.320]  30 days and therefore it's from Bob. Do I understand that correctly? Broadly speaking,
[12:18.320 --> 12:26.720]  yes. Great. We're making progress. So let's call it a dozen people in that town who tested positive
[12:26.720 --> 12:34.560]  for SARS-CoV-2 in the 30 days after Bob returned from Sturgis. Where is the evidence, the scientific
[12:34.560 --> 12:43.200]  evidence that even one of that couple of dozen people was infected by Bob? Can you present us
[12:43.200 --> 12:50.400]  with that evidence? No. Why not? That sort of evidence isn't available. Do you not realize
[12:50.400 --> 12:55.360]  that if you can't scientifically connect via evidence those couple of dozen infections in
[12:55.360 --> 13:00.800]  Bob's town, you can't connect them to Bob? You understand that completely undermines your claim
[13:00.880 --> 13:06.320]  that Sturgis was a super spreader? We don't see it that way. There you have it, my friends. No,
[13:06.320 --> 13:12.400]  I cannot predict word for word what these public health officials would say if asked these questions,
[13:13.200 --> 13:20.480]  but the answers that I gave you, while it may not be word for word, the factual content is the same.
[13:20.480 --> 13:25.280]  That would be the things they would, the kind of things they would say, and they would not be able
[13:25.280 --> 13:34.640]  to provide the evidence, which is incredibly important. I said in a recent post that this
[13:34.640 --> 13:42.880]  isn't even educated guesswork. This is the worst kind of supposition because it is not based on
[13:44.000 --> 13:48.960]  anything significant or substantial, but more importantly than that, because if you're an
[13:48.960 --> 13:53.440]  academic sitting in a lab and you want to create all these hypotheses and look at numbers and
[13:54.240 --> 13:58.640]  claim they mean something that is absolutely unprovable, fine, carry on.
[14:00.320 --> 14:08.400]  The problem is the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans are being destroyed
[14:08.400 --> 14:17.360]  by this trash, this pseudoscience, these pronouncements that have absolutely no basis in evidence.