Bret Weinstein in conversation with Neil Oliver

“I know the truth will out because that’s what the truth does. It’s become that cut and dried for me, it’s become that simple. Good and evil, right and wrong. What’s been done is wrong and wrong will not prevail. Right will prevail.” – Neil Oliver

Following their appearance at the 3-day ‘Better Way Conference’ in Bath in mid-May – where the other speakers included Robert F Kennedy Jr, Dr Robert Malone, Dr Peter McCullough, Dr Tess Lawrie and Geert Vanden Bossche - Bret and Neil got together for a chat.

Their conversation covers their journeys of realisation, their experience of the pandemic, the campaign that’s been waged on us all and where they think it’s going.

In the last 25 minutes or so, the two chat more generally about their work and views on life, history, humanity and the world, giving us a rather charming insight into who they are beyond this rotten scamdemic.

A few excerpts from the first part:

Realising something was rotten in the state…

Bret: “Heather and I got into this because we’re [evolutionary] biologists with a generalist toolkit, so we’re in a position to talk a bit about viral evolution, about the interaction of a vaccine with the immune system – these kinds of issues. And so it just seemed that we had a global crisis so it made sense to try to piece together what we were reading and make it intuitive for people so they could follow what was going on.

And there were some painful lessons early on – things that we didn’t understand but came to learn – but it was an invigorating process. But I’m realising now, as evidence emerges that we didn’t have – and it’s easy to miss these things, I don’t even know if anyone’s cataloguing them – that the whole thing was being set up not to be understood.

For example, the idea of an mRNA vaccine. You can tell me it’s mRNA and it’s packaged in lipid nanoparticles and the lipid nanoparticles pull it into cells because the surface of the cell is made of lipid and chemically they will tend to affiliate. And I get that. And I can intuit: okay, the mRNA gets into the cytoplasm and it’s gonna make protein and those proteins are gonna do something. And then I can know, okay, one of the things they’re gonna do, they all make spike protein but the spike protein has been modified so it lodges in the cell surface so the immune system can see it. That’s pretty elegant, right? You can imagine that working.

Here's what they didn’t tell me. They didn’t tell me they’d modified the RNA too. They modified the RNA in a way that makes it most unusual and prevents its breakdown. Now, I know why they did that and it’s a worthy experiment, but I won’t run it on a human. You wouldn’t want to inject a modified RNA into a person, not knowing what happens when a body is faced with this thing and can’t break it down, because what it means is that the spike protein is going to continue to be made.

Once you discover that they screwed up – they picked the spike protein and the spike protein actually turns out to be cytotoxic…and they’ve now created a template for it that won’t go away in a natural form.

How far in are we? We’re 16 months in and we discover, “Oh, when we said RNA, did we forget to tell you that we modified one of the nucleotides? Silly us.” Well, we’re just flying blind. It’s the craziest story where we have to wait to discover these things.”

Neil: “Because I’m a non-scientist and I don’t have the understanding that you have as an evolutionary biologist, I just had to go on gut. And I would have gone on gut until something better came along, but nothing came along that made me feel confident of setting aside my initial gut reaction. On the contrary, all the information that was coming from official sources was intensifying me feeling of threat.

And because it so quickly became a slanging match, we were suddenly in the playground, being bullied by big boys and girls, and I thought: this is so inappropriate. This is an emergency facing the entire world and, within minutes, the best tool at their disposal has been calling people names.

If there’s no credible, readily understood argument that can be made in a low, calm voice, to explain to me why I ought to take a part – if it’s already at the point where they just have to say, “If you don’t do it, I’m gonna hit you, and if that doesn’t work, I’m gonna hit you harder” – I’ve never got beyond knowing that that’s why something is wrong. They don’t have something that they can readily sell – it’s not something anyone would want to buy – so they had to force it on people because there’s something hinky about it. And once I realised that, once I felt that, I’ve never been persuaded otherwise.”

Ivermectin

Bret: “Take the example of what they did to the availability of Ivermectin. Ivermectin became almost impossible to get (in the US at least) from a pharmacy, which meant that they were taking pharmacists and they were getting between those pharmacists and the doctors who were writing their prescription, which means that they were not confident of their ability to compel your doctor that it didn’t work.

So, if their point is: “It doesn’t work and that’s why you can’t have it”, why are you strong-arming my pharmacist and my doctor? You should be able to convince them – they went to school for this. And if you can’t convince them, that’s not really my problem. You’re telling me your argument isn’t any good, and the only inference I can have is that there’s some reason you don’t want me to have this, that isn’t about it not working.”

Neil: “Somebody explained to me that if they acknowledge there’s anything at all that will mitigate the symptoms and all the rest of it, they can’t get the emergency use authorisation. And I thought, well that’s obvious, then! This is clearly the explanation for why Ivermectin became like trying to buy crack cocaine – it was that unavailable and it was that taboo. And once it was explained to me: they can’t allow that to be there because otherwise they can’t roll out the vaccines. Ivermectin, pretty much free. Vaccines, very, very expensive and profitable. You don’t need to be any kind of scientist to join those two dots together and work out what’s happening.”

---