Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language Detected language: English [00:00.000 --> 00:09.760] After 11 years on YouTube, last week YouTube deplatformed or removed my channel from YouTube. [00:09.760 --> 00:16.160] They assert that it's because of continued violations of their medical misinformation [00:16.160 --> 00:17.760] policy. [00:17.760 --> 00:25.520] I want you to be the judge. [00:25.520 --> 00:36.880] The Doctor Reality Vodcast with Dave Champion. [00:36.880 --> 00:40.520] Before I get rolling, I want you to know this is the very first presentation in a brand [00:40.520 --> 00:41.520] new studio. [00:41.520 --> 00:45.360] I don't know if we have the audio components correct. [00:45.360 --> 00:48.920] So if it's a little hollow or echoey, please bear with me. [00:48.920 --> 00:51.480] We'll get that corrected if it turns out to be the case. [00:51.480 --> 00:53.620] Now back to YouTube. [00:53.620 --> 01:01.300] You will recall that not long ago in a legal battle, Facebook stated in a court filing [01:01.300 --> 01:06.200] that fact-checking is nothing more than the personal opinion of the person conducting [01:06.200 --> 01:07.460] the fact-checking. [01:07.460 --> 01:15.060] There's nothing more authoritative than that singular individual's personal opinion. [01:15.060 --> 01:22.340] So very clearly, when we get to things like YouTube's community standards, the same exact [01:22.340 --> 01:24.140] thing is true. [01:24.140 --> 01:28.100] Whoever ends up with the ball over at YouTube, okay, we're going to look at this video, we're [01:28.100 --> 01:34.700] going to look at that presentation, that person executes their own personal opinion. [01:34.700 --> 01:37.220] It's just internal fact-checking. [01:37.220 --> 01:40.100] Normally we think of fact-checking as something that goes out to the public. [01:40.100 --> 01:43.460] However, in this context, it's the same exact thing. [01:43.460 --> 01:49.400] The YouTube censorship employee who ends up looking at a particular video uses his or [01:49.400 --> 01:57.040] her personal opinion to declare that something is in alignment with, I'm going to get into [01:57.040 --> 02:02.960] this more deeply, but for right now I'll just say in alignment with the platform's standards, [02:02.960 --> 02:04.960] which by the way have nothing to do with science. [02:04.960 --> 02:09.040] They have nothing to do with factualness, accuracy, data, evidence, any of that. [02:09.040 --> 02:10.680] It's got nothing to do with that. [02:10.680 --> 02:16.160] But I think it's important to understand it's just somebody's opinion who works at YouTube. [02:16.160 --> 02:19.320] There is no hard standard. [02:19.320 --> 02:24.920] Furthermore, YouTube does not disclose which particular thing a presenter may have said [02:24.920 --> 02:32.640] or information they may have presented that is allegedly violative of their community [02:32.640 --> 02:33.640] standards. [02:33.640 --> 02:38.880] In other words, let's say I do a 23-minute presentation and in that I hit on 12 separate [02:38.880 --> 02:43.800] points and then I expand briefly on each of those 12 points. [02:43.800 --> 02:50.120] YouTube doesn't say which of the 12 points that it considered to be medical misinformation [02:50.120 --> 02:54.920] and in that brief explanation of each of those points, it doesn't point to any statement [02:54.920 --> 03:02.360] or any evidence or any data, nothing to substantiate its allegation that it constitutes medical [03:02.360 --> 03:03.360] information. [03:03.360 --> 03:08.480] They simply tell you, I'm de Cristo Santo, medical misinformation, and that's the end [03:08.480 --> 03:09.920] of it. [03:09.920 --> 03:15.900] You cannot effectively appeal because you have no idea specifically what you would be [03:15.900 --> 03:21.580] appealing about or for, and that's not an accident. [03:21.580 --> 03:25.840] Before I explain why that's not an accident, I want to let you know to stay with me because [03:25.840 --> 03:29.960] I have a solution to this that I'm going to get into later in the presentation. [03:29.960 --> 03:37.120] But why is it that YouTube doesn't inform somebody like me specifically what they believe [03:37.120 --> 03:40.000] constitutes medical misinformation? [03:40.000 --> 03:44.640] They don't disclose that because then somebody like me, who is knowledgeable and trained [03:44.640 --> 03:49.880] and skilled and understands the subject matter inside and out, could then appeal it based [03:49.880 --> 03:51.200] on that. [03:51.200 --> 03:55.660] That places their censorship employees in a really, really bad position. [03:55.660 --> 03:59.720] If the person were to say, this is medical information, and I were to say, well, wait [03:59.720 --> 04:03.040] a second, how can you say that's medical misinformation? [04:03.040 --> 04:06.680] Here's like six studies that say this, here's the latest thing out of Israel and so forth [04:06.680 --> 04:08.360] and so on. [04:08.360 --> 04:12.400] It would place their employee in a very, very difficult position. [04:12.400 --> 04:17.400] The employee would have to choose between siding with the evidence, siding with the [04:17.400 --> 04:25.520] data, siding with the science, and upholding what YouTube wants done, which has nothing [04:25.520 --> 04:28.520] to do with the data, the evidence, or the science. [04:28.520 --> 04:33.800] In order to prevent their employees from having that conundrum following the facts, the data, [04:34.800 --> 04:37.120] or just doing what their bosses say. [04:37.120 --> 04:42.280] They don't disclose to somebody like me what specifically they allege is medical misinformation [04:42.280 --> 04:47.440] because I could use that to effectively appeal, and they don't want that. [04:47.440 --> 04:52.400] A few moments ago I said, I want you to be the judge of whether I have offered any medical [04:52.400 --> 04:53.400] misinformation. [04:53.400 --> 04:57.920] So, I want to share with you a few of the things that are typically, I think, out on [04:57.920 --> 05:02.080] social media, at least by the platforms, considered to be medical misinformation, and I want to [05:02.080 --> 05:06.000] share whether I've spoken about those things or not, or to what extent. [05:06.000 --> 05:10.920] And again, I want you to be the judge of whether YouTube is being objective and principled [05:10.920 --> 05:16.040] and following data, evidence, and science, or whether there's another agenda. [05:16.040 --> 05:23.400] Okay, so, you know, one of the crazy things is a lot of people have said there is no pandemic. [05:23.400 --> 05:24.880] I've never been one to say that. [05:24.880 --> 05:30.400] Although, I have said, what was it, 12 or 13 years ago, the World Health Organization [05:30.400 --> 05:34.600] changed its definition of pandemic. [05:34.600 --> 05:41.040] The old definition of pandemic included something that's missing in the new version, and the [05:41.040 --> 05:46.040] old one said there had to be a substantial, this is my words, I don't remember now, 12 [05:46.040 --> 05:50.600] or 13 years ago, their precise language, but essentially the message was there has to be [05:50.600 --> 05:53.200] a significant number of deaths. [05:53.200 --> 05:57.360] There has to be a substantial number of deaths. [05:57.360 --> 06:02.280] If we look at the United States, which has a relatively high mortality rate from COVID-19, [06:02.280 --> 06:13.640] total deaths from and with COVID-19, the official numbers do not yet, have not yet quite reached [06:13.640 --> 06:21.440] three-tenths of 1% of the U.S. population. [06:21.440 --> 06:28.560] So I think it is doubtful that under the World Health Organization's previous definition [06:28.560 --> 06:33.120] of pandemic, and again, we have one of the highest mortality rates on the planet concerning [06:33.120 --> 06:34.120] COVID-19. [06:34.120 --> 06:38.040] So if we say that ours is one of the worst and most are better, then it would be hard [06:38.040 --> 06:43.680] to say that we're not even at three-tenths of 1% people dying from or with COVID-19. [06:43.680 --> 06:51.080] It would be hard to say that that is a substantial number of deaths for an illness-causing, [06:51.280 --> 06:52.280] highly contagious pathogen. [06:52.280 --> 06:54.680] It would be really tough to make that argument. [06:54.680 --> 07:00.720] So I have said that under the previous definition, it would be highly questionable whether the [07:00.720 --> 07:05.240] World Health Organization could have declared this to be a pandemic. [07:05.240 --> 07:08.920] Clearly under the current definition, it is. [07:08.920 --> 07:12.200] So did I spread medical misinformation? [07:12.200 --> 07:16.120] The next thing I think platforms readily consider medical misinformation, when somebody says [07:16.120 --> 07:20.320] there's really no such thing as SARS-CoV-2, which this or that, they make up a bunch of [07:20.320 --> 07:21.320] stuff. [07:21.320 --> 07:22.320] Have I ever said that? [07:22.320 --> 07:23.320] Of course not. [07:23.320 --> 07:25.600] That's absolute nonsense. [07:25.600 --> 07:34.000] There absolutely is a virus known as SARS-CoV-2, and despite this myth on social media that [07:34.000 --> 07:41.480] will not die, no matter how many times it's corrected, SARS-CoV-2 has been properly sequenced [07:41.480 --> 07:43.760] and identified by multiple labs. [07:43.760 --> 07:47.200] You can go on the National Institutes of Health website and you can read all about that. [07:47.200 --> 07:52.720] It has been properly identified and sequenced in its entirety. [07:52.720 --> 07:55.720] So these people who are saying that that's never the case, that it doesn't really exist [07:55.720 --> 07:57.840] because they've ever done that, that's nonsense. [07:57.840 --> 08:01.920] The SARS-CoV-2 virus is very much a real thing. [08:01.920 --> 08:05.520] So I've never said that it hasn't been sequenced, it hasn't been isolated, and so forth. [08:05.520 --> 08:08.640] All these things that people are saying, because those are not scientifically accurate, not [08:08.640 --> 08:09.760] factually accurate. [08:09.760 --> 08:16.960] So in saying it absolutely does exist, did I spread medical misinformation? [08:16.960 --> 08:20.520] Another crazy thing I see, I understand why platforms get upset about this. [08:20.520 --> 08:23.960] I don't believe in censorship, even if they're upset, but I understand why it would upset [08:23.960 --> 08:24.960] them. [08:24.960 --> 08:32.400] When people say that the mRNA vaccines are some sort of evil plot to reduce the population, [08:32.400 --> 08:37.360] to depopulate the earth, yeah, so this is such a nutty thing. [08:37.360 --> 08:40.800] No, I've absolutely never said such a thing. [08:40.800 --> 08:45.920] So if I never said it, was I spreading medical misinformation? [08:46.320 --> 08:51.360] How about this, people should not get vaccinated. [08:52.640 --> 08:53.600] Have I ever said that? [08:54.320 --> 08:55.360] No, I never have. [08:56.080 --> 09:03.120] I considered vaccination to be a personal choice after informed consideration. [09:03.120 --> 09:09.360] So for instance, as an example in my case, I'm robustly healthy, I'm not going to get [09:09.360 --> 09:15.040] into that today, but the vaccine brings absolutely nothing to the table for me. [09:15.040 --> 09:21.120] And I know because I had a T cell test, I don't know, 10 months ago now, and it came [09:21.120 --> 09:21.840] up positive. [09:21.840 --> 09:28.720] I know that sometime in the year or 14 or 15 months prior to that test, I was infected [09:28.720 --> 09:30.720] with SARS-CoV-2, and I was asymptomatic. [09:30.720 --> 09:32.560] I haven't been sick throughout this whole thing. [09:33.120 --> 09:37.840] So I know I have prior infection immunity, and I also am robustly healthy. [09:37.840 --> 09:42.720] So for me, knowing what I know about what causes serious illness and death from SARS-CoV-2, [09:42.720 --> 09:47.600] which then produces COVID-19, knowing what I know, there's absolutely no reason. [09:47.600 --> 09:49.920] And remember, we talked about informed decision making. [09:49.920 --> 09:53.920] There's absolutely no reason for me to get vaccinated now. [09:53.920 --> 09:58.720] I'm not going to tell anybody else whether they should or should not get vaccinated. [09:58.720 --> 10:00.400] That is not my place. [10:01.440 --> 10:07.520] I also have not taken up the mantle of condemning the vaccines for all these various things, [10:07.520 --> 10:10.160] reasons that people are out there condemning the vaccines. [10:10.160 --> 10:11.760] I've also not done that. [10:11.760 --> 10:13.120] Again, not my place. [10:13.120 --> 10:17.520] It's up to you to do the research and you to decide whether the vaccines are right or [10:17.520 --> 10:18.880] not right for you. [10:18.880 --> 10:25.360] So because I believe it's a matter of personal informed choice, is that spreading medical [10:25.360 --> 10:26.320] and misinformation? [10:27.440 --> 10:33.920] Actually, the way the establishment views the vaccines and the way that the big tech [10:33.920 --> 10:38.320] platforms are supporting the establishment narrative, perhaps that is saying that you [10:38.320 --> 10:39.760] should get informed and make your own decision. [10:39.760 --> 10:42.640] Perhaps they consider that medical misinformation. [10:43.280 --> 10:47.840] Did I say that masks do not work to halt or slow the spread of a virus? [10:48.480 --> 10:50.560] Yes, I absolutely did. [10:50.560 --> 10:52.400] Not only did I say it, I proved it. [10:52.400 --> 10:54.800] And I proved it in several different videos. [10:54.800 --> 11:00.960] The first one, I talked about the hundred years of mask research pertaining to viruses [11:01.520 --> 11:08.560] from 1920 through 2020 and the fact that in a hundred years of research being done on [11:08.560 --> 11:18.080] viruses and masks, not one single study, not one on the planet, ever concluded that wearing [11:18.080 --> 11:22.400] a mask slows or halts the spread of a virus, not one. [11:22.400 --> 11:31.040] So it really wasn't until 2021 that the CDC came up with an incredibly flawed study [11:31.920 --> 11:35.520] alleging that masks do slow or halt the spread of a virus. [11:35.520 --> 11:41.040] And there is no credible information that that's true. [11:41.680 --> 11:48.880] I also did another presentation in which I showed, this probably goes back to late 2021, [11:50.080 --> 11:58.320] in the fall and winter of 2021, I took numbers from states that had very strict mask mandates [11:58.320 --> 12:04.080] and that from the reports I got from friends of mine who live in those locations, the percentage [12:04.080 --> 12:10.080] of people wearing masks was extraordinarily high, 98, 99% of the people were compliant with [12:10.080 --> 12:11.360] the mask mandates. [12:11.360 --> 12:18.640] And I showed that despite this near 100% compliance with the mask mandates, the number [12:18.640 --> 12:23.200] of infections rose exponentially. [12:23.200 --> 12:26.880] Some cases, I think it was Michigan, if I remember correctly, now going back off the [12:26.880 --> 12:33.200] top of my head, within six weeks, they saw an almost 15%, a 1500% increase in new daily [12:33.200 --> 12:33.920] infections. [12:33.920 --> 12:38.800] California had the same kind of dramatic increase, I think it was in a longer period of time, [12:38.800 --> 12:44.240] but I think it was 1100% increase with virtually everybody wearing masks and so forth. [12:44.240 --> 12:45.120] And then it went on and on. [12:45.120 --> 12:48.160] And I showed all of the data and all of the graphs with people. [12:48.160 --> 12:52.800] Again, the reports at that time, which is not the same thing that we would be saying [12:52.800 --> 12:57.440] today, the reports at that time that they had almost universal compliance with the mask, [12:57.440 --> 13:00.880] and yet new daily infections were soaring. [13:00.960 --> 13:07.680] That would be absolutely impossible if wearing masks halted or slowed the spread of a virus. [13:07.680 --> 13:11.200] So in light of 100 years of research and the data that I just spoke about, [13:12.000 --> 13:15.600] did I put out medical misinformation? [13:16.160 --> 13:19.520] Not if you care about facts, data, evidence, and science, that I didn't. [13:19.520 --> 13:22.640] But of course, platforms like YouTube, they don't care about that. [13:22.640 --> 13:29.520] The very fact that what I was saying conflicted with the narrative that the CDC wanted the [13:29.520 --> 13:35.840] American people to believe was enough for YouTube to say that's medical misinformation. [13:35.840 --> 13:39.600] I leave it to you to decide whether that was in fact medical misinformation. [13:40.400 --> 13:45.520] Did I claim that the not quite yet three-tenths of 1% [13:46.640 --> 13:51.040] that have died from or with COVID-19 was in some way a false figure? [13:51.680 --> 13:52.720] No, I did not. [13:53.680 --> 13:58.560] I do believe that that number of people have perished in the last two years. [13:59.360 --> 14:06.320] What I did advocate was that the United States change its approach and start doing some [14:06.320 --> 14:16.160] meaningful evaluation of whether people died with COVID-19 or from COVID-19, which is what [14:17.120 --> 14:19.600] many, many, many other countries in the world do. [14:21.040 --> 14:22.320] We don't do it here. [14:22.320 --> 14:23.520] You've all seen the stories. [14:23.520 --> 14:25.360] The guy dies in a motorcycle accident. [14:25.360 --> 14:26.880] He's nearly beheaded in the accident. [14:26.880 --> 14:27.520] Of course, he's dead. [14:28.400 --> 14:31.920] They test the corpse, and the corpse comes up positive for SARS-CoV-2, [14:31.920 --> 14:34.400] so they list him as a COVID-19 death. [14:34.400 --> 14:35.600] We've all heard these kind of stories. [14:36.320 --> 14:40.880] But there's a lot more subtlety than that sort of very plain example. [14:40.880 --> 14:45.200] If you take a look at somebody who's, say, I don't know, 72, 73, 75 years old, [14:45.200 --> 14:51.280] and they have four chronic diseases, and they were essentially crippled and incredibly sick [14:51.280 --> 14:57.200] to begin with from lifestyle choices that they've made, and then they contracted the [14:57.200 --> 15:00.960] upper respiratory causing virus called SARS-CoV-2, and they developed COVID-19, [15:00.960 --> 15:04.480] and that was the final straw, and the person then died. [15:06.560 --> 15:11.840] Did the person die of COVID-19 or did the person die from lifestyle choices that gave the person [15:11.840 --> 15:16.400] four different chronic diseases and basically had that person very close to death store [15:16.400 --> 15:20.000] before they got infected with SARS-CoV-2 and developed COVID-19? [15:20.000 --> 15:23.680] I think we need to have a national discussion about that, and that's what I've advocated. [15:23.680 --> 15:28.400] So, in so advocating, did I present medical misinformation? [15:28.960 --> 15:33.040] I leave it to you to make that decision, but I'm guessing that the platformers [15:33.840 --> 15:39.520] say yes, because once again, that cut against the grain of what the establishment had decided they [15:39.520 --> 15:45.680] would do. The establishment narrative, that's the important part, the establishment narrative [15:45.760 --> 15:50.880] was if you test positive for SARS-CoV-2 and you died, then you are a COVID-19 death. [15:50.880 --> 15:56.480] Even if you were completely asymptomatic at the time you died, it needed to get logged as a COVID-19 [15:56.480 --> 16:01.680] death. So, yes, from the platform's perspective, since all they're really trying to do is [16:01.680 --> 16:06.400] protect the establishment narrative, I would say that probably is medical misinformation. [16:06.400 --> 16:11.600] I leave it to you to decide whether parsing what actually killed somebody, whether that's actually [16:11.600 --> 16:18.240] medical misinformation or being responsible. Did I make the claim that the virus was manmade? [16:18.880 --> 16:25.280] No, never. Let me explain why. I don't know whether it's manmade, neither do you. You may [16:25.280 --> 16:28.720] have an opinion about that, but you certainly don't know, and I'm going to tell you why you [16:28.720 --> 16:32.800] don't know. You don't know because there is no science existing on the planet Earth at this time [16:32.800 --> 16:38.160] that can distinguish whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus, I'm not going to spread this to a larger [16:38.160 --> 16:42.800] context than other viruses, I'm simply going to say there is no science in existence on the planet [16:42.800 --> 16:49.200] Earth between 2020 and 2022 that would allow anyone to come to a firm conclusion as to whether [16:49.200 --> 16:56.720] SARS-CoV-2 was manufactured by man, whether it was naturally occurring, whether it was modified [16:56.720 --> 17:00.960] by man, even if it was naturally occurring, the science simply doesn't exist to make those [17:00.960 --> 17:07.120] determinations. So why would I take a position on something we can't know? Did I take a stand or [17:07.120 --> 17:13.760] even talk about whether SARS-CoV-2 was, in humans, was a result of a zoonotic transfer or whether it [17:13.760 --> 17:20.720] was leaked from a lab? I didn't because, once again, there is no science on the planet Earth [17:20.720 --> 17:26.240] between 2020 and 2022 that could answer that question for us, and since there is no science [17:26.240 --> 17:30.960] that can answer that question for us, why would I, or anybody for that matter, but again we're [17:30.960 --> 17:36.640] talking about me being deplatformed, so why would I take a position on something that cannot, [17:37.360 --> 17:41.760] the answer to which cannot be concluded by science? Why would I take a position on that? [17:41.760 --> 17:48.480] By the way, I want you to note that when there is no science, I'm not talking about something. So [17:48.480 --> 17:55.520] when I do talk about something, there is science there. Medical misinformation? Did I say that if [17:55.520 --> 18:02.960] America was not the leading nation on the planet Earth in terms of lifestyle, chronic diseases, [18:03.920 --> 18:10.480] that the deaths from COVID-19 would be a small fraction of what they have been over the last [18:10.480 --> 18:19.440] 24 months? I did say that, and I proved it. I used the data offered by places like Italy, [18:20.560 --> 18:25.440] far more recently by people like CDC, although I believe CDC's number is not, it's not incredibly [18:25.520 --> 18:30.320] low, and so I took those numbers and I extrapolated those facts about the comorbidities, [18:30.320 --> 18:36.400] which comorbidity is almost always, not 100%, but almost always lifestyle chronic diseases. [18:36.960 --> 18:43.360] So I looked at lifestyle chronic diseases in terms of what is causing deaths from COVID-19, [18:43.360 --> 18:49.680] and then I took those numbers and I extrapolated and I showed, at the time I think the number of [18:49.680 --> 18:57.120] deaths from or with COVID-19 was somewhere in the range of, I don't know, maybe 500,000, [18:57.840 --> 19:01.840] and I seem to recall that, we're talking about a video that I did some time ago, I seem to recall [19:01.840 --> 19:10.960] that if we removed all of the people who died having one or more lifestyle chronic diseases, [19:11.520 --> 19:16.320] that instead of like half a million, it would have been more like 20 or 25,000, and I even went back [19:16.320 --> 19:20.880] into history and looked at the data from like turn of the century and chronic disease and so forth. [19:20.880 --> 19:28.000] So it was a very detailed, specific, data-driven conclusion in which I said, and I think it's [19:28.000 --> 19:33.440] common sense, I think anybody, if they're objective, would say yes. If most of the people [19:33.440 --> 19:38.000] who are hospitalized and eventually died of COVID-19 did not have one or more chronic diseases, [19:38.000 --> 19:41.440] they probably would have lived through this. I think it's just common sense, but I did the [19:41.440 --> 19:47.840] science side of it. So did I spread medical misinformation? Did I say that Anthony Fauci [19:47.840 --> 19:54.480] is not credible? I did, and I proved it again. What I did is I did several presentations on this [19:54.480 --> 19:59.920] over the last, say, 18 months, and in each one I took a statement, a public statement made by [19:59.920 --> 20:05.920] Anthony Fauci, and then I looked at the data leading up to that statement and the data after [20:05.920 --> 20:11.680] that statement. So we had a full, broad spectrum of the data with his statement placed in the [20:11.680 --> 20:16.560] middle. So in other words, there was historical data he should have known, and almost certainly [20:16.560 --> 20:21.680] did, and then there was the data after he spoke so we can compare to see if it was some sort of [20:21.680 --> 20:26.640] predictive statement, how accurate that predictive statement might have been. So I took that data and [20:26.640 --> 20:34.640] I took his public statements time and time again, and I showed that what he said did not match the [20:34.640 --> 20:41.600] data that was in existence leading up to the time he said it. And then in very many cases, [20:41.600 --> 20:47.920] the lion's share of the cases, when he made predictive statements, the things he said [20:48.560 --> 20:55.360] did not come to pass. If you're in a position of public trust and you are ignoring the data [20:55.360 --> 21:02.240] that exists before you say what you say, and then subsequent outcomes show that you were wrong when [21:02.240 --> 21:07.440] you said it because it wasn't in compliance with the data to begin with, that makes the person [21:07.440 --> 21:10.800] non-credible. And it doesn't matter whether it's me, it doesn't matter whether it's Anthony Fauci, [21:10.800 --> 21:16.560] that makes a person non-credible. And Fauci did that repeatedly. Did I say that the CDC had [21:17.200 --> 21:23.440] made itself non-credible over the last 24 months? I did. And again, I showed that. I pointed out [21:23.440 --> 21:31.840] various studies. You can't even use the word science. You can't even really use the word [21:31.840 --> 21:37.280] research because it was all contrived for PR purposes. These little tiny samples, you know, [21:37.280 --> 21:43.680] 12 people, nine people, without any of the proper scientific protocols you would want to have in [21:43.680 --> 21:47.520] research. And they would release to the public these studies, which were nothing more than [21:47.520 --> 21:53.440] political statements, PR statements. And then true research professionals would then write an op-ed [21:53.440 --> 22:00.160] and they'd say, look, this is nonsense. These studies have absolutely no scientific validity. [22:00.880 --> 22:06.880] So if people who've spent 20, 30, 40 years conducting research and know how it is [22:06.880 --> 22:13.760] properly conducted scientifically look at those contrived PR things, masquerading as studies that [22:13.760 --> 22:19.040] CDC released to the public for PR purposes and call them out for what they were, then clearly [22:19.040 --> 22:25.600] when I saw the same things that those research experts saw, I was calling it like it really was. [22:26.320 --> 22:32.080] When you look at a study that's so incredibly flawed, the results are utterly meaningless. [22:32.080 --> 22:36.240] And you say it's so incredibly flawed, the results are utterly meaningless. [22:36.880 --> 22:41.840] Is that medical misinformation? As I'm confident you can see, I didn't put out any medical [22:41.840 --> 22:47.760] misinformation. That's not why they deplatformed me. That's justification. In fact, they deplatformed [22:47.760 --> 22:54.720] me for just the opposite. The reason I was deplatformed is because when people viewed my [22:54.720 --> 23:02.000] content, they were left to make a decision. And that was, if I believe the champion is credible, [23:03.520 --> 23:11.040] then the government, and in broader terms, then the establishment is not. It left people with a [23:11.040 --> 23:19.040] conundrum. They had to decide whether the facts that I was presenting destroyed their faith in [23:19.040 --> 23:24.560] the government and the broader establishment's narrative. So it placed the average person who's [23:24.560 --> 23:31.280] viewing a video on YouTube from my former channel of having to decide whether the government, [23:31.280 --> 23:37.920] whether the broader establishment is credible or is not credible. And the answer was pretty clear. [23:37.920 --> 23:43.040] So that meant YouTube needed to get rid of my channel. And this is not the first time that [23:43.040 --> 23:49.840] this has happened. Facebook removed my Dr. Reality page that was 12 years of work and 145,000 [23:49.840 --> 23:55.600] followers. However, when Facebook took down my page, they provided a message, an email, [23:55.600 --> 24:00.320] in which they said, we have removed your page after 12 years with 145,000 followers. [24:00.320 --> 24:09.040] We have removed your page for three violations. One was a meme posted nine years prior to the [24:09.040 --> 24:16.880] takedown. And it was a concern to Hitler and Nazis. And I was urging people not to allow [24:16.880 --> 24:21.920] government propaganda to push them in the wrong or unhealthy direction as it happened to the [24:21.920 --> 24:26.720] German people in the years leading up to World War II based on Nazi propaganda. That was the [24:26.720 --> 24:32.560] message of the meme. Don't be like these guys. We're smarter. We can look back and see what history [24:32.560 --> 24:38.400] tells us. So don't allow yourself to be swayed in a negative direction like that. Facebook said that [24:38.400 --> 24:44.960] was violative of their dangerous individual and organization's policy, their community standard. [24:44.960 --> 24:51.040] So apparently to point out evil people and say don't be swayed by evil people is a violation of [24:51.040 --> 24:56.480] Facebook's community standards. The second reason they gave was another meme, very similar concerning [24:56.480 --> 25:02.080] Hitler and the Nazis and their propaganda. And the message was exactly the same as the first one. Don't [25:02.080 --> 25:09.200] be improperly swayed by government or party propaganda. Stick to your guns. Remain ethical. [25:09.200 --> 25:14.640] Remain moral. Do not be swayed in an unhealthy direction. That was the second [25:15.920 --> 25:22.880] violation. And the third one, which I find the most ridiculous, is you may be aware of JP Sears. He [25:22.880 --> 25:30.240] makes a lot of satire videos. They had flagged a JP Sears satire video that I had posted to that page [25:30.880 --> 25:39.600] as missing context. A satire video. So two incidents, nine years out, nine years before they [25:39.600 --> 25:44.480] took their action and two years before they took their action, were encouraging people not to allow [25:44.480 --> 25:48.640] government propaganda to sway them in an unhealthy direction. Those were violative of Facebook's [25:48.640 --> 25:55.120] community standards and a satire video by JP Sears. That was the justification they gave for removing [25:55.120 --> 26:00.480] a page that had been there for 12 years and had 145,000 followers. Does anybody really believe [26:01.040 --> 26:05.200] that those three reasons is why they would take a page down? No, of course not. It's absolutely [26:05.200 --> 26:09.920] absurd. They took it down for the same reasons YouTube just deplatformed my channel. The [26:09.920 --> 26:15.120] information was compelling enough. By the way, this happened probably six or seven months into the [26:15.120 --> 26:22.800] SARS-CoV-2 situation. So it was the same thing as YouTube. The information, the facts, the data, [26:22.800 --> 26:26.480] the evidence, the science, the things I was talking about were compelling enough that it would cause [26:26.480 --> 26:33.280] people to question whether the government and the broader establishment was non-credible. And again, [26:33.280 --> 26:38.160] the answer was clear. So Facebook decided they couldn't have any of that and they needed to get [26:38.160 --> 26:46.560] rid of people who were credibly damaging the credibility of the non-credible government and [26:46.560 --> 26:52.480] the broader establishment. So the page had to go away. Is there a solution for this sort of [26:52.480 --> 27:01.280] suppression of free speech, this sort of communist censorship practiced by big tech at the behest of [27:01.280 --> 27:06.720] government? There is. I'm going to share two with you. Number one is between you and I. What is the [27:06.720 --> 27:10.640] solution between you and I if you'd like to continue to get my content? And then I'm going [27:10.640 --> 27:15.600] to discuss something I'm going to be doing very, very soon. So between you and I, if you would like [27:15.600 --> 27:22.640] to continue to get my content, there is a way around big tech platform communist type [27:22.640 --> 27:29.440] censorship. And that is I would encourage you to go to DrReality.News. That's my website. And [27:29.440 --> 27:35.920] subscribe to the newsletter. When you subscribe to the newsletter, you're not, I don't sell [27:35.920 --> 27:39.680] information like that. I don't give it to other companies. It's going to remain 100% confidential. [27:39.680 --> 27:43.360] I don't spam the hell out of you. You're not going to be, actually people have wondered whether they [27:43.360 --> 27:48.080] were subscribed because I don't send very much stuff out. But moving forward, what's going to [27:48.080 --> 27:53.040] happen because we don't know who's going to initiate censorship on any given platform in the future. [27:53.040 --> 27:59.200] So by signing up for the newsletter, each time I post some sort of meaningful content, you're [27:59.200 --> 28:05.680] going to get an email with the link to that content no matter where that content is posted. [28:05.680 --> 28:10.480] You'll be able to access it and view it and go through this process we've talked about today [28:10.480 --> 28:15.280] of determining who's credible and who's not and getting great high quality information. [28:15.280 --> 28:19.040] It'll just simply show up in your inbox. You click on the link and boom, you're there and you don't [28:19.040 --> 28:25.760] have to worry about big tech communist type censorship. Now, in the broader perspective, [28:27.360 --> 28:35.520] there is a solution, there's a national solution to prevent these platforms from engaging in [28:35.520 --> 28:42.080] communist China type censorship. What nation was it? I just read the other day, was it Poland? I'm [28:42.080 --> 28:48.480] not sure that's correct. Don't quote me on that. Just socked one of the big platforms with a [28:48.480 --> 28:55.360] multi-million dollar judgment for violating free speech. So there is a solution and I'm going to [28:55.360 --> 29:02.240] do a presentation about how we here in America, if we put enough pressure on our politicians, [29:03.200 --> 29:11.040] we can stop communist China type censorship by big tech in this country and we can restore [29:11.040 --> 29:17.760] in terms of what is the modern day town square, we can restore complete and total free speech. [29:17.760 --> 29:22.480] And to be clear, there's a lot of speech that I loathe. Let me be very clear about that. There's [29:22.480 --> 29:29.200] stuff I see and hear and I just, Jesus, you're kidding me, right? No, please don't say that. [29:29.200 --> 29:33.280] Don't put that out in the public sphere. Don't do that, okay? But that's a sentiment on my part. [29:33.280 --> 29:39.520] I find the message reprehensible or grossly inaccurate or what have you. And I don't want [29:39.520 --> 29:44.640] it out there. But the only thing worse than terrible information being put out by individuals [29:45.440 --> 29:54.640] is to have communist China type censorship governing what we in America hear and see. [29:54.640 --> 30:00.160] Now, if you value this kind of fact-based, evidence-based, data-based presentation in [30:00.160 --> 30:06.480] science, I want to encourage you to help me to continue to be here for you. Go to DrReality.News, [30:06.480 --> 30:10.320] grab yourself a copy of Body Science or Income Tax Shattering the Mist. I'm not going to go [30:10.320 --> 30:16.400] into detail. This has been a very long video. I will tell you this. You have my word that either [30:16.400 --> 30:23.360] one or both will be the most fascinating books you have likely ever read in your life and you also [30:23.360 --> 30:28.960] financially in doing so, getting this fabulous education, this incredible information. You [30:28.960 --> 30:41.760] help me financially to continue to be here for you with these sort of presentations. Thank you.