Health Freedom is Not For Sale
On Rogan, Malone, and the monetization of “freedom.”
The latest Joe Rogan and Robert Malone interview inspired this post. My second in a series? I don’t really do series because then I’d have to write a bunch and publish them in some order. So this is just another post on the subject. See my first one here.
At around 36 minutes into the interview, Robert mentions that “the… lab leak hypothesis… is allowed. You’re allowed in D.C. now to talk about that.” As if this is some kind of victory. However, as many have noted, this is no victory—it’s just another example of disease mongering. 123
At around 49 minutes into the chat, Robert mentions Twitter. He says:
“The thing that catalyzed all of that was that Elon decided to pony up a good chunk of change and buy Twitter.”
Joe replies:
“Which I think is one of the most impactful decisions that any American citizen has ever made.”
And Robert agrees:
“Amazing.”
Joe says:
“If he didn’t do that, I think we would be really screwed.”
However, I think there is a mistake here too. Because after Elon purchased X, my experience is that it only got worse. I have experienced far more shadow banning there than I did prior to the purchase. Even after I paid for a premium account, my account was hidden for “sensitive content.” I was never told what “sensitive content” I had posted—so how would I know what to avoid posting in the future?
Robert mentions that he now makes his living on Substack. I have something to say about that too. I suppose he is suggesting that his Substack is about “health freedom,” and I have a question that he will never answer.
If you can make a living posting about health freedom on Substack, where is your motivation to actually succeed in delivering health freedom? If it’s delivered, you would be out of a job.
The online environment rewards people like Robert Malone who advertise for pharma. It doesn’t matter which drug they advertise. It’s also fine to discuss lab leaks because it validates the idea that people didn’t catch a cold in 2020—they caught a deadly novel virus, which may be even more dangerous due to it being man-made. Again, disease mongering. Advertising for pharma as well, under the guise of “health freedom.”
Later, he brings up ivermectin and Tess Lawrie. Tess Lawrie is a big advocate of ivermectin. But for some reason, he decided not to bring up midazolam4 and the deadly protocols used all over the world to treat this cold. If not for these deadly protocols, it’s unlikely we would have seen higher deaths than usual. But the deadly protocols amped up the numbers, which allows Robert and Joe to banter about gain of function.
Robert chose not to talk about the time he was in a video conference call with Tess Lawrie and four others, where she talks about a paper she submitted to the BMJ that was rejected. In her paper, she reviewed data out of Scotland and points out that:
“So it looks like people were dying at home and probably from cancer, circulatory disease, dementia, when they would have been in hospital. So it’s probably... I think what this shows is that there was a fallout from the lockdowns and all of that, but also that the respiratory deaths from flu and pneumonia and all the usual things were simply loaded up as COVID deaths and not pneumonia or flu. And of course, all deaths were registered as deaths with a positive PCR test. It was dying with COVID, not from COVID.”
I suppose this wouldn’t be something Joe and Robert will ever talk about—because that is not how Robert sees COVID. Remember, he had COVID and was “sick as a dog,” and after he took some Pepto-Bismol—presto—he had Long COVID.
Tess Lawrie clip came from this episode of the Defender:
Dictionary definition: Disease mongering (noun): A pejorative term for the practice of widening the diagnostic boundaries of illness and promoting heightened public concern about diseases or risk factors in order to expand markets for medical tests, treatments, or other health-related products, typically for the benefit of commercial sponsors such as pharmaceutical companies.
Medical textbook definition: Disease mongering is the process by which commercial or professional interests, often including pharmaceutical companies and affiliated clinicians or opinion leaders, deliberately expand the boundaries of treatable illness and intensify public anxiety about health conditions in order to increase demand for medical interventions. It may involve redefining normal human experiences as pathological, emphasizing worst-case scenarios, or promoting poorly validated diagnostic categories, thereby medicalizing everyday life and diverting resources toward low-value or unnecessary care.
https://www.medclinrese.org/open-access/excess-deaths-in-the-united-kingdom-midazolam-and-euthanasia-in-the-covid19-pandemic.pdf
It's infuriating to see this whole 'health freedom movement' reject real truths AND profit whilst doing so. I suppose therein lies an answer as to why they choose to focus on what they do. In an article i since unpublished to keep my stack inquiry focused i wrote about World Council for Health or Wealth as i called it.
''On the WCFH website they have various ‘solutions’ to treating ‘COVID-19’ and even ‘Long COVID’ using a combination of supplements and drugs like Ivermectin. Much of the information even available in 27 languages!'
Be 1 in 500 the most recent campaign
I couldn’t help but notice the WCFH slogan;
‘‘a community of change makers shaping the future’’
..which is eerily similar to the WEFs Global Shapers programme, a community of 8,000 young people in 165 countries and territories.
‘‘Founded 15 years ago on a bold belief that – given the platform, tools and trust – young people could shape the future of their cities and the world.’’
-World Economic Forum
Also last year Tess was travelling the world speaking at various events like Liberpulco where VIP tickets were on offer from $4000-$6500.
On and on.
How about the theory that convid wasn't totally a con or a cold, but a wave of radiation sickness caused by novel radiation? The lab leak talk would therefore still be a massive distraction, and all the testing and horrific treatments would stay misleading and horrific. But it would explain why some treatments did appear to be effective. They were interestingly often antiparasiticals. Not just Ivermectin and Hydroxochloroquine but also Artemisia Annua and CDS for example. Something was entering our bodies that should not have been there, even prior to the very obvious stuff. Or there was a combination of factors.