Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.800 --> 00:06.400]  I'm Dave Champion. I'm sure it comes as no surprise to you that people are still saying incredibly
[00:07.280 --> 00:12.160]  bizarre nutty things about SARS-CoV-2, including one of the things that's shocking to me is they're
[00:12.160 --> 00:21.840]  saying even as all across the United States we've seen just massive freefall, collapse of the new
[00:21.840 --> 00:27.280]  daily infection numbers, there are people still telling others, oh no man, it's on the rise,
[00:27.280 --> 00:32.640]  numbers are going up everywhere. Okay, so I'm not going to say it because Facebook would probably
[00:32.640 --> 00:40.160]  say this is false and misleading, but Dr. Martin McCary, who is a prestigious MD at Johns Hopkins
[00:40.160 --> 00:45.680]  and is a professor there, he says that as of early January the United States hit herd immunity,
[00:46.400 --> 00:50.720]  and I agree with him. Okay, so one of the things that I've told you here before
[00:51.520 --> 00:57.360]  is that I imagine in time when there's enough rollout of the vaccines, when enough people have
[00:57.360 --> 01:03.680]  been vaccinated, the establishment is going to lie to your face and tell you that the reason the
[01:03.680 --> 01:08.880]  numbers collapsed was the vaccine, even though when you go back to January 7th when the numbers
[01:08.880 --> 01:14.640]  started to collapse and not even 1% of the U.S. population was vaccinated at that time. Nevertheless,
[01:14.640 --> 01:18.000]  they're going to tell you that, they're going to lie. You watch, you will see it, but it occurred
[01:18.000 --> 01:24.560]  to me as I was thinking that through that even when they try that lie, there is a pharmacological
[01:24.560 --> 01:29.920]  and physiological reason that can never be valid or true.
[01:37.280 --> 01:40.800]  I'm going to cover a few things in today's video, but I'll start with the issue of
[01:40.800 --> 01:48.080]  can the vaccines cause numbers to collapse? Now, I'm going to let you draw your opinion again
[01:48.080 --> 01:54.560]  because Facebook is, to say they suppress free speech and suppress facts would be an understatement,
[01:54.560 --> 01:58.560]  but I'm going to give you the facts. I can't state the conclusion because they'd again say
[01:58.560 --> 02:02.160]  this is a false and misleading presentation. I'm going to let you reach the conclusions.
[02:02.160 --> 02:08.160]  Okay, so the vaccine manufacturers have said, this is not me, it's them speaking,
[02:08.160 --> 02:14.800]  that after you've had the requisite two jabs of the vaccine, you can still become
[02:15.440 --> 02:20.480]  infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and you can still infect others. Again, that's the
[02:20.480 --> 02:28.000]  manufacturer talking, not me. Now, what the vaccine is supposed to do is it is supposed
[02:28.000 --> 02:34.640]  to prevent you from getting seriously ill with COVID-19 and I've discussed this before. If you
[02:34.640 --> 02:41.120]  were completely healthy, you have a robust immune process, such as somebody living in ketosis, the
[02:41.120 --> 02:46.720]  shot is probably irrelevant. If you were likely to get a little bit sick with COVID-19, you probably
[02:46.720 --> 02:52.320]  won't experience anything. If you were to get moderately sick with COVID-19, absent the vaccine,
[02:52.320 --> 02:56.960]  with the vaccine, you might get a little something. But the most important part as far as the vaccine
[02:56.960 --> 03:03.120]  manufacturers and the government are concerned is that you will not develop life-threatening
[03:03.120 --> 03:08.960]  levels of COVID-19. That's the pitch. Now, whether it's factual, I don't know. The manufacturers say
[03:08.960 --> 03:16.880]  that is so, the FDA says that is so. We'll see if that is so, but at least at this time, I'm going
[03:16.880 --> 03:21.360]  to give them the benefit of the doubt on that. It seems reasonable to me. When somebody says,
[03:21.360 --> 03:25.360]  Dave, the FDA said it's safe, why don't you just accept that? Okay, so I'm not saying the vaccines
[03:25.360 --> 03:30.560]  are not safe. Let me Facebook moderators on, to be very clear, I'm not saying that. But on the question
[03:30.560 --> 03:36.080]  of why wouldn't you automatically take the FDA's word for it, every single drug that's ever been
[03:36.080 --> 03:41.760]  recalled by the FDA was first approved as safe by the FDA. So we've talked about this gradient,
[03:41.760 --> 03:46.960]  right? So if you were likely to get severely ill, absent the vaccine, after the vaccine,
[03:46.960 --> 03:50.080]  you might just get moderately ill. If you were going to get moderately ill, absent the vaccine,
[03:50.080 --> 03:53.440]  with the vaccine, you might just get a little something. You might feel like you got a touch
[03:53.440 --> 04:04.240]  of the flu. However, if you go get tested, the PCR test is still going to pick up the RNA of the
[04:04.240 --> 04:12.240]  SARS-CoV-2 virus in your body. So that would not bring numbers down. It would bring them down in
[04:12.240 --> 04:17.040]  a little bit in the sense that some people wouldn't feel sick at all, so they wouldn't be predisposed
[04:17.040 --> 04:22.080]  to go get tested. But if you feel even a little sick, let's just say the only symptom you have is,
[04:22.080 --> 04:26.880]  wait a second, I can't taste or smell anything. I feel fine, but I can't taste or smell anything.
[04:26.880 --> 04:31.600]  I better run down and get tested. So the person goes out and has a PCR test. If the SARS-CoV-2
[04:31.600 --> 04:38.160]  virus is inside them, they're going to come up positive. So you would not have this collapse
[04:38.160 --> 04:42.000]  of new daily infections just from the vaccine. Like I said, this is a pharmacological and
[04:42.000 --> 04:46.800]  physiological explanation. And if somebody wants to prove me wrong, go ahead. But I think it's a
[04:46.800 --> 04:53.120]  pretty damn reasonable interpretation. I want to share with you something said by a reporter
[04:53.120 --> 04:58.400]  for the COVID Neurosis Network, otherwise known as CNN. I don't know how to pronounce her last
[04:58.400 --> 05:05.520]  name, so I apologize if I get this wrong. I believe it is a French derivation, but her name is Christine.
[05:05.520 --> 05:09.440]  I'm going to call it Maurice. It's there on the screen. You can take a look at the spelling.
[05:09.440 --> 05:13.520]  And in a CNN article authored by Christine, she says,
[05:13.520 --> 05:17.920]  the country is still nowhere near herd immunity levels.
[05:20.000 --> 05:23.760]  What? This was just published yesterday as I'm sitting here talking to you. Okay. So
[05:24.320 --> 05:28.400]  John Hopkins Professor Martin McCary, who I mentioned to you a minute ago,
[05:28.960 --> 05:34.240]  said in a Wall Street Journal article a week ago, the consistent and rapid decline in daily
[05:34.240 --> 05:41.040]  cases since January 8th can be explained only by natural immunity. And by that he means natural
[05:41.040 --> 05:44.800]  herd immunity because the other form of natural immunity would have only been applicable at the
[05:44.800 --> 05:51.680]  very beginning of the outbreak here, whatever we are, 12, 14, 15 months into it. Natural immunity,
[05:51.680 --> 05:56.240]  even when talking about the immune process, would not be even a relevant part of discussion. So he's
[05:56.240 --> 06:02.960]  talking about natural herd immunity. So the question is, who do you believe? Do you believe
[06:02.960 --> 06:10.480]  this yellow journalist, this propagandist writing for the COVID Neurosis Network, who from day one,
[06:10.480 --> 06:16.480]  its agenda has clearly been to gin up as much fear in the public as possible? Or do you believe the
[06:16.480 --> 06:22.080]  prestigious Dr. McCary? Well, actually, I don't want you to believe either one. I want you to
[06:22.080 --> 06:27.040]  take a look at the numbers for yourself and make up your own mind. What you're looking at is a graph
[06:27.040 --> 06:30.880]  compiled from the data concerning the United States new daily infections. And as you can see,
[06:31.520 --> 06:40.880]  from January 7th through February 21st, the United States has experienced a dramatic decline of 82%
[06:41.600 --> 06:47.360]  in new daily infections. So essentially, you're talking about an 82% reduction nationwide in six
[06:47.360 --> 06:54.080]  weeks. I'm going to go with Dr. McCary and say, yeah, that supports 100% herd immunity.
[06:54.720 --> 07:03.280]  Now I want to discuss the data that speaks to the efficacy or lack thereof of wearing masks
[07:03.280 --> 07:07.520]  during a pandemic, an epidemic, an outbreak, however you want to look at that. Again, I need
[07:07.520 --> 07:15.760]  to say, Facebook moderators, I'm presenting data. I'm not going to give a scientific conclusion.
[07:15.760 --> 07:20.960]  I'm just going to provide the data and I'm going to allow the audience to make up their own minds
[07:20.960 --> 07:25.760]  as to what the data actually means. So please don't say that this is false and misleading
[07:25.760 --> 07:30.720]  because the data is balls on accurate. In order to thoroughly investigate this,
[07:30.720 --> 07:36.880]  we're going to look at it from two different perspectives. Number one is the wildly fluctuating
[07:37.520 --> 07:44.880]  trajectories of new daily infections after states put statewide mask orders in place.
[07:44.880 --> 07:50.320]  And then the second part is we're going to look at consistent trajectory. In other words,
[07:50.320 --> 07:56.240]  no change in trajectory in places where the mask orders have been removed or where there
[07:56.240 --> 08:01.840]  were events where the media reported that there was virtually no mask wearing at all.
[08:02.560 --> 08:07.440]  So what happened to the numbers when nobody was wearing masks? For part one, I'm just going to
[08:07.440 --> 08:11.280]  look at three states. I could have looked at a bunch, but this would have been a very long video.
[08:11.280 --> 08:16.720]  What I did is I chose a state on the East Coast, a state that's sort of ish Midwest and then
[08:16.720 --> 08:21.440]  West Coast so that we're representing a fair segment of the regions across the United States.
[08:22.080 --> 08:25.600]  What you're looking at is a graph compiled from the data of the state of Massachusetts.
[08:25.600 --> 08:30.960]  The vertical black line, as you can see, is November 6th and that was when Massachusetts
[08:30.960 --> 08:35.840]  tightened up its mask order. Basically what the governor, he literally, I read his quote,
[08:35.840 --> 08:38.880]  he literally said this, this isn't a quote, but it's very, very close. He said,
[08:38.880 --> 08:42.640]  if you're out of the house, you need to wear a mask. So like remember, they're always talking
[08:42.640 --> 08:49.520]  about follow the science. That is so, has nothing to do with science. So like, yeah,
[08:49.520 --> 08:53.200]  you're walking your dog in the middle of nowhere, not another human being around,
[08:53.200 --> 08:57.680]  you're out of the house, wear a mask. There's no science to that. Let's say you go to a kid
[08:57.680 --> 09:02.320]  sporting event and you're standing, I don't know, at the edge of the playing field and there's no
[09:02.320 --> 09:07.840]  human being within 40 feet of you in any direction, have to wear a mask. Yeah, there's no science to
[09:07.840 --> 09:14.000]  that. So let's take a quick look at the incremental increases and decreases after the
[09:14.000 --> 09:20.800]  more strict mask order was initiated. So here, cases continue to go up and there's a plateau and
[09:20.800 --> 09:27.680]  whoa, what is that, right? That's not supposed to happen when you are wearing masks. And then we
[09:27.680 --> 09:36.560]  have a decrease here and then whoa, another one that's crazy. Oh yeah. And then this. So let's
[09:36.560 --> 09:43.840]  be clear, if we just generalize this, after they had this super strict mask order in place,
[09:44.480 --> 09:50.880]  this happened and then this happened. Yeah, that's what Dr. McCary has called herd immunity. This is
[09:50.880 --> 09:55.200]  a graph compiled from the data of the state of Illinois. You can see here again, the vertical
[09:55.200 --> 10:00.000]  black line is the date that the mask order went into place in Illinois. And of course, you can see
[10:00.000 --> 10:06.720]  a downward trend here and then we start seeing an upward trend there. We'll call this a plateau
[10:06.720 --> 10:15.600]  right there and then boom. What the hell is that, right? And then yeah, it goes down. So once again,
[10:16.640 --> 10:24.080]  you've got to have the red line to get to the blue line. That's the way herd immunity works.
[10:24.960 --> 10:28.880]  This is a graph of the data compiled from the state of Nevada where I live. And again,
[10:28.880 --> 10:33.600]  the vertical black line is the date that Governor Sisolak put the mask order in place.
[10:33.600 --> 10:40.960]  And then you see the numbers go up and then you see the numbers go down and then up and then up
[10:41.760 --> 10:49.040]  and then down and then up and then down and then up and then down. But again, looking at this in a
[10:49.040 --> 10:57.040]  general sense, you've got to have the red line to get to the blue line, herd immunity. The
[10:57.040 --> 11:05.680]  establishment narrative, of course, that masks work. Now, I guess works. Not sure when the
[11:05.680 --> 11:14.000]  establishment says that exactly how they define works. But when you look at those graphs and the
[11:14.000 --> 11:19.680]  numbers go up and then down and then up and then down, I'm just going to throw this out there.
[11:20.400 --> 11:26.000]  Facebook moderators, listen to the language carefully. It's almost as if, I'm not saying
[11:26.000 --> 11:33.680]  it doesn't work, it's almost as if people wearing masks doesn't matter. I'm not saying the masks
[11:33.680 --> 11:39.360]  don't work. It seems like in the real world perhaps masks don't actually have much of an impact.
[11:40.080 --> 11:45.200]  All right, on to part two, which is places where it was widely reported that during a particular
[11:45.200 --> 11:51.600]  event no masks were worn or a state where they've lifted the mask order. Now, as to the part about
[11:51.680 --> 11:57.360]  states lifting the mask order. Currently, there are numbers that I could present to you on one
[11:57.360 --> 12:03.040]  and that's because there's just one state lifted them recently. But enough time has passed for me
[12:03.040 --> 12:06.880]  to present the data to you. There are two more states that also got rid of their mask orders.
[12:06.880 --> 12:12.560]  I require a minimum 21 days post the lifting, post the termination of the order before I'm
[12:12.560 --> 12:16.640]  going to present the data to you because if I do it any less than 21 days, the data is pretty much
[12:16.640 --> 12:21.840]  meaningless and I don't want to waste your time. It was widely reported the crowds that got together
[12:21.840 --> 12:29.200]  for Super Bowl on February 2nd did not wear masks or social distance. I remember watching a CNN
[12:29.200 --> 12:33.600]  reporter. She's out, you can see the activity in the background. She's standing out outside of like
[12:33.600 --> 12:39.440]  a patio door or something and she's double masked and she's literally explaining to the CNN host.
[12:39.440 --> 12:45.520]  She's out on the site reporting from on scene and she's literally saying, I had to wear two
[12:45.520 --> 12:50.160]  masks because they're not wearing masks. And of course there was no social distancing. My people
[12:50.160 --> 12:54.560]  were like shoulder to shoulder. And I forget what jurisdiction it was. Was it Dane County?
[12:54.560 --> 12:58.480]  Or like the mayor was saying they were going to review all the tapes and prosecute all those people
[13:00.720 --> 13:05.360]  for not wearing masks or social distancing. Okay, so aside from all that craziness,
[13:05.360 --> 13:14.800]  what does the data show before Super Bowl Sunday and then there was Super Bowl Sunday when it was
[13:14.800 --> 13:20.400]  widely reported that masks were not worn and social distancing was not engaged in?
[13:20.400 --> 13:26.560]  What happened after that? Again, you're looking at a graph compiled from the data out of the state
[13:26.560 --> 13:33.920]  of Florida. The black line once again is the Super Bowl Sunday. Now the red line to the left of the
[13:33.920 --> 13:38.080]  black line, that's about two and a half weeks. And to the right of the black line, that's about
[13:38.080 --> 13:41.760]  two and a half weeks. Now the important part here that you will note is that there is
[13:41.760 --> 13:49.200]  absolutely zero change in trajectory. Now on this trajectory thing, I want to be very clear.
[13:49.200 --> 13:52.480]  I should have discussed this in a video about a week ago and I failed to so I want to address it
[13:52.480 --> 13:57.920]  here. We happen to be at a point because of herd immunity where cases are plummeting. So when I
[13:57.920 --> 14:03.120]  give you the black vertical line and I show you that the trajectory hasn't changed, don't get the
[14:03.120 --> 14:10.000]  wrong impression that this is only an applicable thing downward. So if the opposite were true,
[14:10.480 --> 14:15.840]  if cases were going up, the trajectory was constant going up, and then say for the sake
[14:15.840 --> 14:22.160]  of argument there was a mask order, and the trajectory was unchanged after everybody
[14:22.160 --> 14:30.080]  suddenly put on a mask, I would also question the efficacy of mask storing in society during
[14:30.080 --> 14:35.040]  an outbreak. So it doesn't matter whether it's down or up, the question is if you have a thing
[14:35.840 --> 14:40.800]  and that thing, whether it's Super Bowl Sunday, whether it's ordering masks, whether it's getting
[14:40.800 --> 14:45.680]  rid of masks, if that thing doesn't alter the trajectory of new daily infections,
[14:46.960 --> 14:52.640]  a rational person has to question the efficacy. In a previous video I discussed North Dakota
[14:52.640 --> 14:57.760]  having gotten rid of its statewide mask mandate on January 18th. So let's take a look at what
[14:57.760 --> 15:02.160]  the data shows there. The solid black line, as you can see, is January 18th. That's the
[15:02.560 --> 15:08.720]  governor got rid of the statewide mask mandate, and the red line to the left of the black
[15:08.720 --> 15:15.360]  represents just shy of 30 days, and to the right of the black line is about 30 days.
[15:15.360 --> 15:21.600]  So you can see the trajectory was downward, the governor said you don't have to wear masks in
[15:21.600 --> 15:30.240]  this state anymore, and the trajectory remained unchanged. There is no way a rational person who
[15:30.240 --> 15:37.440]  understands mathematics and logic and reasoning can look at that sequence, trajectory, and then
[15:37.440 --> 15:43.760]  there's some sort of major change ordering masks, saying you don't have to wear masks anymore,
[15:43.760 --> 15:47.840]  or an event in which huge numbers of people got together without masks or social distancing.
[15:48.400 --> 15:54.640]  If the trajectory doesn't change, that has to call into question the establishment narrative
[15:54.640 --> 16:00.240]  we've been hearing for the last 12, 13, 14 months. It has to, Facebook moderators. I'm saying,
[16:01.120 --> 16:05.040]  based on the equation I've expressed here in the last couple of minutes, that one does have to
[16:05.040 --> 16:10.720]  question the long-running establishment narrative based on the data we've been seeing. But note,
[16:10.720 --> 16:14.720]  Facebook moderators, I am not saying, I assume you have to question it. I'm not saying what
[16:14.720 --> 16:18.800]  conclusions you have to come to. That's up for the audience to determine. I'm pretty sure if
[16:18.800 --> 16:24.720]  you're watching one of my videos, you have no problem finding for yourself, based on your
[16:24.720 --> 16:40.160]  rationality and your reasoning, what the conclusion probably may be, could be, or should be.