Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.000 --> 00:08.000]  A few days ago, Twitter banned and deplatformed Dr. Robert Malone, the father of modern mRNA
[00:08.000 --> 00:16.160]  technology, having been granted 10 patents for mRNA-related technology, which taken collectively
[00:16.160 --> 00:20.920]  is the foundation of modern mRNA technology.
[00:20.920 --> 00:25.920]  While Twitter never tells anybody why Twitter chose to deplatform a person, the last tweet
[00:25.960 --> 00:31.960]  that Dr. Malone put up contained a link to a very interesting video.
[00:31.960 --> 00:40.160]  I want to talk with you today about that video.
[00:40.160 --> 00:51.640]  The Dr. Reality Vodcast with Dave Champion.
[00:51.680 --> 00:59.680]  Dr. Malone's final tweet was a link to a video put out by the Canadian COVID Care Alliance.
[00:59.680 --> 01:10.680]  The video is utterly devastating to the means and mechanism used by Pfizer during its clinical
[01:10.680 --> 01:16.280]  trials as well as how its reports were structured when submitted to the FDA.
[01:16.320 --> 01:22.320]  I wish I could discuss all those details with you here today, but I can't because we're
[01:22.320 --> 01:29.280]  at a point now where platforms no longer care about the factualness of a presentation.
[01:29.280 --> 01:36.400]  They only care that it conflicts with an agenda, with a narrative that platforms have decided
[01:36.400 --> 01:40.800]  that they are going to protect via censorship.
[01:40.800 --> 01:46.960]  As an example, a week or 10 days ago, YouTube removed one of my videos and they claimed
[01:46.960 --> 01:49.960]  that it was removed because it violated their policy on medical misinformation.
[01:49.960 --> 01:50.960]  Really?
[01:50.960 --> 01:51.960]  Okay.
[01:51.960 --> 01:55.440]  I'm not aware that I put out any misinformation.
[01:55.440 --> 01:59.120]  So I went back and I pulled up the original footage from that video and I watched it from
[01:59.120 --> 02:01.800]  the very first second to the very end.
[02:01.800 --> 02:07.400]  And I watched it with an eye to, did I make any factual errors?
[02:07.400 --> 02:12.600]  Did I in fact say something, perhaps inadvertently, that could be construed as misinformation?
[02:12.600 --> 02:15.840]  The answer was no, absolutely not.
[02:15.840 --> 02:22.600]  As I watched and stopped and paused and evaluated each segment of the video, every single thing
[02:22.600 --> 02:25.520]  I said in the video was factual.
[02:25.520 --> 02:28.400]  I even quoted Anthony Fauci and other public health officials.
[02:28.400 --> 02:33.840]  In other words, it wasn't me saying it, they were saying it and all I did was bring to
[02:33.840 --> 02:38.800]  the attention of my audience the fact that these are the things said by Fauci and various
[02:38.800 --> 02:40.080]  other public health officials.
[02:40.080 --> 02:44.680]  In other words, it wasn't removed because it was non-factual, wasn't removed because
[02:44.680 --> 02:47.420]  it was in reality misinformation.
[02:47.420 --> 02:52.080]  It was removed because it was factual, hardcore facts.
[02:52.080 --> 02:55.780]  I quoted, I mean, how long would it take a fact checker to go back when I provide the
[02:55.780 --> 02:59.680]  exact wording used by Fauci and other public health officials, how long would it take a
[02:59.680 --> 03:04.320]  fact checker to go back and verify, yes, they did make those statements?
[03:04.320 --> 03:10.800]  So the reality is the video was removed because it was factual and someone at YouTube decided
[03:10.800 --> 03:17.340]  that when people of sound mind who have the ability to reason line all those facts up,
[03:17.340 --> 03:22.880]  it leads to a very apparent conclusion and somebody at YouTube decided they didn't like
[03:22.880 --> 03:23.880]  the conclusion.
[03:23.880 --> 03:27.960]  It didn't matter that it was factual, it didn't matter that an intelligent person could come
[03:27.960 --> 03:28.960]  to that conclusion.
[03:28.960 --> 03:31.000]  They just didn't like the conclusion.
[03:31.000 --> 03:35.640]  Hence, despite the fact that the conclusion is rooted and based in fact, reality, data
[03:35.640 --> 03:41.280]  and evidence, they called it misinformation and removed it.
[03:41.280 --> 03:47.960]  In reality, it's hard to even factor how they use the word misinformation these days.
[03:47.960 --> 03:51.520]  For instance, in the case I just shared with you about the video being taken down, what
[03:52.520 --> 03:59.680]  is protecting an establishment narrative by removing factual critiques as to the accuracy
[03:59.680 --> 04:01.400]  of that narrative.
[04:01.400 --> 04:06.560]  But back to the video that got Dr. Malone deplatformed, I'm going to start by talking
[04:06.560 --> 04:09.540]  about something that's well familiar to me and then I'm going to bring it back around
[04:09.540 --> 04:11.640]  to his being deplatformed.
[04:11.640 --> 04:16.940]  As many of you know, I'm the author of Income Tax Shattering the Mist, which is an easy
[04:16.940 --> 04:22.980]  to understand breakdown of 130 years of law, which shows that Congress has never imposed
[04:22.980 --> 04:26.380]  the income tax on the vast majority of ordinary Americans.
[04:26.380 --> 04:30.100]  As an example, in my case, I haven't filed or paid income tax, federal income tax or
[04:30.100 --> 04:35.500]  state income tax since 1993 and here I sit and I'm probably one of the most vocal advocates
[04:35.500 --> 04:37.980]  for the truth about the income tax in the nation.
[04:37.980 --> 04:45.860]  It would be hard to estimate how many people have left the scam behind by actually understanding
[04:46.180 --> 04:50.860]  what Congress has really said, what the Supreme Court has really said, what internal IRS documents
[04:50.860 --> 04:53.780]  have really said that internal documents they thought the public would never get their hands
[04:53.780 --> 04:55.420]  on and so forth and so on.
[04:55.420 --> 05:03.620]  So with that as the framework, how much do you think the average accountant gets paid?
[05:03.620 --> 05:09.620]  How much do you think a person makes if they are an accountant and an attorney?
[05:09.620 --> 05:13.500]  How much do you think an attorney who's also an accountant makes if his or her area of
[05:13.500 --> 05:19.380]  expertise is structuring tax avoidance strategies for the ultra wealthy?
[05:19.380 --> 05:25.540]  The answer to that last question is millions of dollars a year.
[05:25.540 --> 05:27.880]  But here's the important part.
[05:27.880 --> 05:34.340]  Those professionals so thoroughly outclass the IRS examiners that would look at the tax
[05:34.340 --> 05:39.540]  returns of those ultra wealthy people that the returns of those ultra wealthy people
[05:39.540 --> 05:42.180]  are virtually never examined.
[05:42.220 --> 05:49.380]  The IRS can assign a team of examiners to look at the tax returns of, say, one particular
[05:49.380 --> 05:51.420]  ultra wealthy individual.
[05:51.420 --> 05:58.420]  They can examine those returns for a year or more and never see what's really there.
[05:58.420 --> 06:04.580]  The salary of an IRS examiner with years of experience tops out at $96,000.
[06:04.580 --> 06:09.580]  There is absolutely no way those people can compete on the same playing field with an
[06:09.580 --> 06:15.500]  attorney who got his accounting degree, as an example, from Georgetown and makes millions
[06:15.500 --> 06:17.500]  of dollars a year.
[06:17.500 --> 06:23.940]  Think of it this way, imagine if you had a junior high school basketball team playing
[06:23.940 --> 06:27.200]  basketball against the Milwaukee Bucks.
[06:27.200 --> 06:31.060]  Not only would the junior high school team not win the game, they would probably not
[06:31.060 --> 06:32.980]  get on the scoreboard.
[06:32.980 --> 06:37.020]  And that's the same kind of distinction between the kind of professionals I'm talking about
[06:37.020 --> 06:40.900]  and the competency level of IRS employees.
[06:40.900 --> 06:45.060]  Just as there is considerable disparity between the abilities of the kind of tax professionals
[06:45.060 --> 06:52.740]  I just talked about and the government employees at the IRS, there is a similar competency
[06:52.740 --> 06:58.960]  level disparity between the kind of people that Big Pharma hires to conduct clinical
[06:58.960 --> 07:05.820]  trials and then structure the reports that go to the FDA versus the government employees
[07:05.900 --> 07:08.780]  who work at the FDA.
[07:08.780 --> 07:14.780]  In other words, the people who provide those services for various pharmaceutical companies,
[07:14.780 --> 07:19.460]  those services again, being designing the clinical trials, operating the clinical trials,
[07:19.460 --> 07:25.220]  and putting together the reports that go to the FDA, those people thoroughly outclass,
[07:25.220 --> 07:31.940]  in terms of competency, the people at the FDA who are tasked with reviewing all of that.
[07:31.940 --> 07:36.000]  Let me share with you my impressions of the facts revealed in the video that presumably
[07:36.000 --> 07:39.140]  got Dr. Malone banned from Twitter.
[07:39.140 --> 07:44.740]  And as a side note, Dr. Malone appeared on the Joe Rogan podcast the very next day after
[07:44.740 --> 07:50.860]  the deplatforming, and he also presumes it was this video that got him deplatformed.
[07:50.860 --> 07:59.980]  The revelations in the video concerning the countless and serious problems with Pfizer's
[07:59.980 --> 08:04.460]  clinical trials, how they were structured, how they were run, and the subsequent structuring
[08:04.460 --> 08:09.980]  of the report that went to the FDA, leads me to believe that what Pfizer did is they
[08:09.980 --> 08:17.620]  put together, before they ever began the clinical trials, they put together a team of the experts,
[08:17.620 --> 08:24.620]  experts who understand how to design clinical trials to get where you want to go despite
[08:24.860 --> 08:30.580]  what might really be revealed in the clinical trial, who understand every loophole, dodge,
[08:30.580 --> 08:35.180]  and trick in the book for how to structure these clinical trials, how to collect the
[08:35.180 --> 08:40.820]  data and massage the data, and then how to structure the report in such a way that all
[08:40.820 --> 08:47.820]  of those known problems are obfuscated in the report that goes to FDA because all of
[08:48.820 --> 08:55.820]  this was done by these experts, experts who understand the system better than the people
[08:55.820 --> 09:02.820]  at the FDA who are reviewing all the data. It doesn't really matter if, say, the inspector
[09:02.820 --> 09:06.820]  general for the FDA conducts an investigation beginning in, I don't know, two and a half
[09:06.820 --> 09:12.820]  years from now, and in six months or 12 months after that, they release a report saying that
[09:12.820 --> 09:18.820]  Pfizer cooked the clinical trials, they cooked the collection of data, they cooked the final
[09:18.820 --> 09:23.820]  report, and the FDA was incredibly irresponsible and either failed to detect what Pfizer had
[09:23.820 --> 09:29.820]  done or knowingly, willfully, and intentionally looked the other way for the purpose of Pfizer
[09:29.820 --> 09:33.820]  getting its emergency use authorization for its vaccine so that it could make tens of
[09:33.820 --> 09:39.820]  billions of dollars. It doesn't matter if that conclusion is come to, say, four or five
[09:39.820 --> 09:46.820]  years from now because Pfizer will have its 60, 80, 90, 100 billion dollars in the bank
[09:46.820 --> 09:52.820]  by then. It was also my impression that the omissions and misrepresentations provided
[09:52.820 --> 09:59.820]  in the documentation from Pfizer to the FDA were structured in such a way that it may be
[09:59.820 --> 10:05.820]  difficult for investigators down the road, again, two, three, four, five years, to show
[10:05.820 --> 10:11.820]  intent. However, given Pfizer's criminal background, that wouldn't seem to be a big concern.
[10:11.820 --> 10:19.820]  I think a crucial point to note is that neither Pfizer nor the FDA have attempted in any way
[10:19.820 --> 10:27.820]  to rebut even a single piece of data, the facts, the evidence provided in the video that got
[10:27.820 --> 10:37.820]  Dr. Malone deplatformed. So what specifically is in the video? Well, in order that I'm not deplatformed,
[10:37.820 --> 10:43.820]  I can't tell you these are the corrupt times we live in. I'm not even going to put a link to the video
[10:43.820 --> 10:51.820]  in the notes, but I will tell you what I'm going to do. Down in the notes, I'm going to give you the
[10:51.820 --> 10:59.820]  name of the channel on Rumble, where the video appears, as well as the full, correct, and proper
[10:59.820 --> 11:05.820]  name of the video, so you can go to Rumble, do a search, and watch it for yourself.
[11:05.820 --> 11:15.820]  Or, if it's easier, I'm also going to include a link to my MIWI profile, where I have pinned that video
[11:15.820 --> 11:21.820]  to the top of my profiles page. So you can just go to my MIWI profile. As soon as you bring it up,
[11:21.820 --> 11:25.820]  boom, it's going to be right there on your face. Just click on it and watch it. As I mentioned, the day
[11:25.820 --> 11:32.820]  after Twitter deplatformed Dr. Malone, he appeared on Joe Rogan's podcast. The interview is a bit more than
[11:32.820 --> 11:41.820]  three hours, and I want to tell you that it is riveting. If facts, data, and evidence matter to you,
[11:41.820 --> 11:47.820]  watch it or listen to it. Rogan, a few years back, signed an exclusive agreement with Spotify, so that's
[11:47.820 --> 11:52.820]  the only place you can catch it, and I'll put a link to that down in the notes.
[11:52.820 --> 11:58.820]  Speaking of valuing facts, data, and evidence, please help me to continue to be here for you,
[11:58.820 --> 12:05.820]  fighting back against censorship by going to DrReality.News and grabbing a copy of Income Tax Shattering
[12:05.820 --> 12:10.820]  the Miss or Body Science. Let me quickly also speak to the credibility of these books. Income Tax
[12:10.820 --> 12:16.820]  Shattering the Miss has been out for 12 years, and the vast, vast, vast majority of ratings have been
[12:16.820 --> 12:22.820]  five stars out of five stars. I've never seen a rating less than four stars, and I'll go out on a limb
[12:22.820 --> 12:28.820]  and say about 98% of the ratings that I've seen across the internet for Income Tax Shattering the Miss,
[12:28.820 --> 12:35.820]  about 98% are five star. When it comes to body science, 100% of the ratings that I have seen for body
[12:35.820 --> 12:41.820]  science are five star. Further, most of the people who read the kind of books that I write,
[12:41.820 --> 12:48.820]  they are the kind of people who do their own independent research, and many of the reviews of Income
[12:48.820 --> 12:52.820]  Tax Shattering the Miss and body science have said exactly that. The reviewers have said, I went through
[12:52.820 --> 12:56.820]  and I read the book, and then I went through it again, and I double-checked, I went out on the internet,
[12:56.820 --> 13:02.820]  and I verified the correctness, the factualness of all of the information in Dave's books.
[13:02.820 --> 13:10.820]  The point being, when people who do their own verification research give books five out of five stars
[13:10.820 --> 13:17.820]  over years and years and years, you can be confident what you're receiving is factual, is credible,
[13:17.820 --> 13:25.820]  and not only can you get this amazing life-altering information, but in doing so, again, you help me
[13:25.820 --> 13:28.820]  to continue to be here for you. Thanks.