When “Follow the Science” became a marketing campaign

0:00In this political Coliseum, we slay the rising beast with the faithful sword of truth that transcends hypocrisy and censorship. It's time to unleash yourself from the tyrants of media propaganda on the America Out Loud Talk radio network. This is Unleashed the Political News Out. Welcome. You are listening to Unleashed the Political News Out Loud here on America Out Loud. I'm Mayor Deb, your host. Kicking off the first Friday of the month and joining me today for two flags, one voice, is my co-host, Tony Nicolak. Tony is an attorney based in Sydney, Australia, and managing director at Ashley, Francina,

1:02Leonard, and associates. Our discussion today revolves around financial conflicts of interest within the peer-reviewed studies. For instance, when a pharmaceutical company has billions of dollars at stake in the success of the product that they are rolling out, and that same company also finances research that evaluates their product, we should all be asking who is independently checking the people producing the evidence. Now, I'm not going to say that industry-funded research is automatically a bad thing or fraudulent in every way. But what I am asking is does the public trust require more than simply saying the study was peer-reviewed and follow the science?

2:05I believe it requires knowing who paid for the study, who controlled the data, and then analyzed it, and whether or not those independent researchers can reproduce the conclusions once again. During treatment, the structure of tap water gets messed up. Yes, we have to purify water, but what are we doing to fix the water structure so the body can actually absorb it? That is why we created our lab-certified structured water devices. These devices restore water molecules back to their natural structure, just like a mountain stream, making them highly absorbable. That's not how much you drink, it's how much you absorb that counts. Better hydration, better energy all day. Get one for your home or on the go at chemicalfreebody.com, forthslashoutloud for an exclusive discount. That's chemicalfreebody.com forthslashoutloud. Your heart is the most crucial muscle in your body.

3:07Are you doing enough to keep it strong? Introducing the wellness companies break through healthy heart formula designed by Dr. Peter McCullough, now upgraded with Torin. This daily supplement supports cardiovascular health and works to protect cells against oxidative stress, packed with Dribose, to boost heart function, Torin to help maintain heart muscular health, co-enzyme Q10 and selenium citrate to help reduce risk of cardiac disease, and a vitamin B complex with Elkharnitine for energy and muscle support. Indoor by the wellness companies Chief Medical Board, this formula is your ally for heart health. Join your health now at TWC.HealthForthslashOut Loud and use code Out Loud for 20% off your first order plus free shipping. Have you been looking for a healthy snack for on the go? Well, not all energy bars are soft and sugary. Bear bars or a crunchy savory bar made from just six simple natural ingredients. Bear bars are plant-based, organic gluten-free, contained six grams of protein and are low

4:10temperature dried for unique crunch. Most energy bars are based on chocolate or fruit and are held together with serps or sweeteners. To learn more, just visit bearbar.com slash out loud. I'll never before has our American cultural, economic, spiritual and political fabric been more threadbare. While the America most of us have grown up with, and love is under a relentless and pernicious siege from those carrying the banners of socialism, communism, and Marxism. America out loud.News is the antidote to these poisonisms. America out loud.News is that place to awaken your heart, soul and mind to the out loud truth. Welcome back, everyone. Joining me now is my, what I'm going to call my Australian correspondent, Attorney Tony

5:15Nicolick. He is joining me for a new program that I'm launching here. Two flags, one voice. Obviously, I am from the US. I think there is so much that we have in common, even though we are two different nations. Tony, thank you so much for joining me today. I'm just trying to be with you again and having starting this season. It's very exciting. I think, you know, I really do think we, as a world, have so much more in common than we have in differences, you know, sure we have our cultural differences. But I think deep down, we all want the same thing, whether we reside in Australia or here in the States. We want a chance to have families. We want to be able to afford those families.

6:18We don't want our government infringing upon our personal and civil liberties. And I think that, you know, that's where we're at today. Absolutely. I think you've eloquently stated that at the end of the day, there are those mechanisms and let's say legal systems, institutional sort of differences. Accent. I love your accent, by the way. I lived in the US. So for me, it's not a big leap culturally. In terms of the Australia-slash US relationship, I have a deep respect for the US. Actually, I've got a son that lives over there, so many other families. So if I was to live in another country, it would be the USA. Yeah. Well, it is a country that I feel has unlimited opportunities for those who are willing to put forth the time and energy into whatever it is that they want to, you know, try to succeed with.

7:20I want to jump right in to the conversations, things you've been posting on your LinkedIn account, talking about this financial conflicts of interest that lie within the pharmaceutical industry, funding, independent scientific reports and safety reports as well. We've been kind of following the Fauci files. I know we have a lot to talk about there, all of the information that's coming out now, six years later. People like you and I who spoke out against the government overreach during COVID were, you know, attacked, smeared, you know, sometimes even canceled. And, you know, here we are now. We're finding out, for example, that the six foot social distancing rule was just kind of a cherry-picked number and nobody is quite sure what, if any, science lies behind

8:24that. So, so let's start there. Let's start with all that's coming out with Fauci files. What are your thoughts? Well, I think it's incredible. You know, it was only what, a couple of years ago, we were all called conspiracy theorists, right? We were called misinformation specialists and we were ridiculed. We were told that, you know, these are the people you don't want to be around there. And yet we maintained the position that they weren't relying on science. And as you may recall, remember what they were saying at the time? And it is standard. A lot of people here, especially me, because I brought our cases against the government in relation to these. But it was the case where there were these dichotomous principles coming up where they kept saying, follow the science, trust the science. There is only one true source of information and that is your government. And I think that was the red flag. Let's be honest. That was the red flag right there. If that says anything, what do you think? How was it in the USA?

9:25Well, it was exactly the same. And it's very interesting. I've seen some really great media people talented put together clips all from all around the world, countries. And everybody was parroting the same exact language word for word. You know, this idea that somehow, you know, if follow the science, became so ingrained and stone. And when I learned science in school, science was something that was always being tested and re-evaluated and changing. And I always use the example. I mean, if we follow the science, we would not have ever discovered that there's these little microscopic creatures called germs that are transmitting diseases out there. We would still think that it was black magic or witchcraft, which at the time was what people were thinking.

10:26And then science is always evolving and changing. And when we start saying that, nope, this is not, this is the way it's going to be forever, that to me was a huge red flag. Oh, absolutely. And I think in addition to that, what we also get is this idea where we was one of the perhaps overriding issues was that there are many scientists all over the world and there is a scientific consensus. And as you were eloquently stating there, a consensus is not science. A consensus and a very aspect of science is as you stated, it's about questioning and continuing to question science. And we failed in that duty. And we started getting, and what really amazed me is the intellectuals of our nations. And we're talking highly intelligent people. I'll be very candid here and say many people, a lot smarter than myself, were just following

11:31this, this parody as you were suggesting there with the media. When I looked at whether it was Australian media, Canadian, New Zealand, USA, Europe, they were all saying follow the science. Let's not get trapped into the misinformation. And obviously there were those other messages that went on through COVID at that period, but that's not science. That is not science. Science was meant to be question. And it was meant to be always put on the pinnacle of this idea that nothing is settled. And they kept saying the science is settled. Yeah, the science, you know, that whole follow the science was just something that, as you said, there are so many people who are so much smarter than I am. And I just they blindly were following in to this, you know, propaganda I'm going to call it because that's really what it was.

12:33You know, for me, anyone who would want to argue that I would simply say, you know, here in the States and New York State, one of the things they were doing is they were giving a free burger and fries you could get at one point if you showed proof of getting the COVID vaccine. They're still doing stuff like that today. California, the state of California is doing a program where if you get the new flu shot, which by the way is also with the MRNA technology, you get a $20 credit for groceries. I saw one sign have been posted. So we're still doing this bribery of sorts to get people to partake in these experimental vaccines. Where are you at with that as a from a attorney's perspective? Well, first and foremost, I think if you're incentivizing people to do it, one, it's more of a camp, a marketing campaign, right?

13:36And that's where I see it. In terms of offering, I see that as an inducement, right? It is an inducement. And so there are a few issues here and one would be receiving a payment. You then receive that payment. That is almost effectively like you've consented. And if there are any injuries or anything that flow on from that, it's almost like a contract, right? So here we have consideration. I have used something. You give me something in return. I have now accepted that contract. And I think it's an ingenious, well, perhaps I could call it more of a negative sort of term, a melancholy type term, where the aspect here, which is I'm asking you to give something, I will give you something in return. However, in you receiving that, you have no right to legal recourse because you have just confirmed that you've accepted that. And it's just like entering into a cell phone or mobile phone contract where you say,

14:40look, I'll enter into a $90 per month plan or a pay TV plan, whatever it is. Now, if you don't pay that bill, obviously there is some recourse here. It's a very similar proposition, isn't it? It's the case where you've paid for it, you've consented, you've taken it. That is a solidification of the consent process. And I also see that as an inducement in terms of undue influence. So you're going to get a lot of the community out there saying, well, hey, 20 bucks is 20 bucks. And when the cost of living, I don't know what inflation and cost of living over there, I'll turn to Australian dollars, Pacific Peso. It's almost worth nothing. And no disrespect to my colleagues, I think it's okay. But we're calling it the Pacific Peso because it's becoming more and more redundant. And so $20 means a lot. Yeah, you bring up an interesting point that I have not heard anyone up until now state. You talk about this idea of consent and almost a contract for people who did partake in

15:49getting that COVID vaccine and getting something in return, whether it was a free coffee and donut or a beer. There were so many. And I'd be interested if Australia was the same. Here there were so many different employees to get people to take that. Did you did you see that in Australia? And I want to just talk a little bit more about your idea about this consent and contract. And if you feel that perhaps that's why we haven't seen a lot of success for people who have sued over the coercion to receive that vaccine. Well, here in Australia, there were a few different elements to that. And it sort of took on a few different ideas. One was, for instance, they held this idea that unless you took the vaccine, you weren't allowed in public. Or there was a delayed stratification of how you were then able to re-engage in society.

16:54For instance, you couldn't go to restaurants until weeks later. So the young vaccinated were allowed. Many weeks later when I sued the government with respect to the religion that was the churches and synagogues to allow people to practice their religion, unlike the USO, we don't have those constitutional rights. We have the implied right, but the government, as any, it's like a driver's license, right? And that's the difference, a key cultural difference that we were talking about at the height of this meeting today, which was this, is that those cultural institutional issues, which are the US has a very rigid constitutional process. We have a constitution, but a lot of the issues here are really implied. And therefore, that becomes more like a driver's license. So I can give it to you and take it from you at any time I want. Whereas in the USA, there's more of a rigid approach to the constitution. And that's what we're lacking here in Australia. So when we look at the consent process and what we call the inducements, well, the inducement

18:00was largely your ability to integrate into society, able to go to the bars, able to go and see your relatives, your sick relatives, or your dying parents in hospital, or this was that powerful inducement. There were other inducements where, and there were more, there weren't as readily out there, such as the USA with respect to, you know, your burger and fries, although we are starting to see some memes come out now, because here in Australia, they're starting to inject the penguins with mRNA vaccines. And in relation to that, I put out a meme not long ago where seagulls were lining up to be vaccinated and the penguins were saying, well, unless I get vaccinated, I can't stand up. And they're the sorts of memes I'm putting out there, but they really are, they're going out there and they're doing this. The issue here in Australia was the social coercion. That was where it was at. And the court here said, well, it's a little bit of coercion, but it's not really coercion.

19:03My position was contrary to that and it still is and it remains so. And I think the Fauci files confirms that, which was that it was absolute coercion. There was nothing short of anyone having an informed choice or consent. If you didn't take it, you could not contribute to society. And secondly, you were terminated from your employment. Now, your livelihood and your children, people, and I still get it to this day, where they come home and they say, I only took it because I had to feed my family. I had to pay a mortgage. Now that is ultimate coercion to an extent that we've never seen before. Yeah, I hear the same thing here from so many individuals. And I'm curious, what was the uptake rate of that vaccine in Australia? Here in the US, I will say the numbers run around 84, 86 percent.

20:04I've seen when I do a search online that took it. What about in Australia? I would say it's relatively similar to what you've just stated there. Again, we've also had people prosecuted because they claimed they got it, but they didn't really get it. And I'm increasingly running into a lot of people. And they're literally saying to me, well, I just told them I got it, I didn't really get it. So we're those numbers. And statistically, we all know statistics, you've got a dark figure, which is the reported and the unreported. That is one we may not ever settle on. I would say safely around the area of what is reported, very similar to what you've articulated. I mean, I'm shocked that here we are talking about something that happened six years ago, where our governments, both the Australian and the US government, could put forth this campaign.

21:06And that's really what it was. It was a propaganda campaign to coerce individuals to put a substance into their body, who wanted no part of doing that. But they dangled these carrots of employment, feeding your family, paying your mortgage in front of people. And it really seems or well-earned to me that we have reached this point in our world, in our society. Precisely. And if you recall, or I think on our last episode, I spoke about Greg Hunt. He was our health minister for Australia at the time. And I believe there was February of 221. He literally came out and said, we're engaged in the world's largest clinical trial. They did not know. They did not know. We came out and such as yourself and so many people around the world, Professor Bada Chariot. So hang on a second, we just don't have the scientists.

22:07It's not sealed. It's not eaten. Professor Bada Chariot was an expert in most of my cases here. The issue with respect to that comes down to the fact that we did not know and yet their representations as you were saying a moment ago, which was the propaganda. And it was a powerful level of propaganda. When we looked at the media, they kept parroting the same lines. And when you have a look at who are the investors in the media, well, they all come tracking back to similar investors who also invest in the pharmaceutical company. So it was a massive marketing campaign. The science is sealed. Do not question the science. They're marketing messages. They're not scientific messages. Yeah. And so let's segue now into this idea of the marketing. And then we have the funding. Where is the funding coming for these peer-reviewed papers?

23:09You posted something interesting on LinkedIn that talked about this very issue. And the findings were that 58.9% received at least one payment from drug or medical device manufacturers. And that 58.9% are researchers who are putting forth this peer-reviewed work for four of the world's most influential medical journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet J-A-M-A-N-B-M-J. And I don't have the meaning of those acronyms, but they are peer-reviewed journals that are published. So 58.9%, I mean, that's over half of the percentage of the individuals who are putting out these studies are being receiving payment from drug and medical device manufacturers. Troubling, isn't it? Oh, it's extremely troubling to help you on the acronyms.

24:12B and J, British Medical Journal, or JAMA, is Journal of American Medical Association, I believe. So just to clarify that point, but yes, 58.9%, that is remarkable. But if you break that down even further, what that means is nearly three out of every five peer reviewers. Okay. Now, let's just break this down. Let's take it out of the scientific world. Let's say we're a journalist or a lawyer and you're saying, well, you know, 58 or 60% of the stories on making out there, or 57 or 58%, or 59% of the cases that I'm running in court, are funded by the people who want me to say something they want me to say. Well, that's not necessarily, we're not saying it's correct. That's definitely not what we're saying. But what we are saying is there's a conflict and the conflict is the peer reviewers are in a position where they're being asked to test something for especially in this sense of a medication

25:15that is funded by the pharmaceutical company to do the research in the very independent state of where this researcher is supposed to do it. That opens up a whole different idea here of what science really means. Now, does science mean that we're independently assessing these or are we assessing these on the basis of who is funding? Let's take this back to a first principle. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Very good. Or as I always say, you can't fight the hand that feeds you. Absolutely. So in that, what we say is 54% of the entire group received what database classifies as general payments. They want to simply research payments. And that is another striking contrast. Now, we always got to conduct research. Let's be very clear. Someone has to pay for that somewhere. And what we've actually found here is something a

26:18lot more striking is where personal payments were going to some of these doctors and researchers. And we're not talking about small pieces of payment. We're talking some pretty decent, hefty payments going to some of these researchers. And remember, we're not talking just payments. We're talking about the value of the payment. And the value of the payment is a promotion. Right. We're talking about these more, there are more nuance type. So we're looking at promotions. We're talking about gifts. We're talking about key speaking roles that get you into a position to do something and get a payment. So you're not necessarily connected to the very research. Is that so there's this sense of distancing, but it all comes back to the funding. And that's the funding that we're talking about. So in one of the cases, and this was the university of Sydney

27:19here in Australia, by the way, great doctor, new and here and colleagues. And what they ended up finding with 34.3 million was in consulting fees. I believe 11.8 million in speaking payments that were unrelated to accredited medical education, 8.8 million in royalties in licensing. So we're looking at travel on a rare food bremages. We're talking grants. Can you see this whole world that's in the background of where these payments are getting through the door? Keynote speakers. And so we're not really looking at the essence of what the science is producing. We're looking at these grants and these grants is what university's thrive on. And we can see through this process of COVID, for instance, Deb, where all these universities were studying, but we kept saying, well, hang on, we're all the injuries. I represent it. So I'm just the other day. We've got a record payment

28:20and she was a nurse here in New South Wales. And she's now got a tube breathing through a tube through her neck. And for five years, she thought to have that recognized from the AstraZeneca vaccine. Now, we knew about this a long time ago, but the research wasn't showing it. Just a tragedy, no matter what scope we look through this at, we're going to take a break and stay tuned more to come with attorney Tony, Nicolik, two flags, one voice when we return. We wouldn't go a day without washing our hands, brushing our teeth and washing our nose. Well, wait, we wash our nose. Yes, the number one place where bacteria, viruses, and pollen enter the body is through the nose. So the average person breathes over 23,000 times a day. That's 23,000 opportunities for bacteria, viruses, and irritants to get into your nose and make you sick. For an extra layer of protection, wash your nose with clear. That is clear ex-LEAR.

29:26Clear's drug-free nasal spray features xylitol, an ingredient proven to block adhesion of many nasty bacteria and viruses, and effectively clean, not just rinse like a saline, but wash your nose. Clear nasal spray quickly alleviates congestion, opens your airway and ensures your body's natural defenses are strong. Read the research studies for yourself at clear.com. That's xylir.com. Protect yourself from the pathogens and junk you breathe. Pick up a bottle for you and your family today. I'm Doug Evans, author of the Sprout Book. I want to share something that's powerful. You can grow your own food right on your kitchen countertop. Sprouting is an ancient method that turns ordinary seeds into living vegetables in just three to five days. No soil, no sunshine, no fertilizer. Just seeds, water, for under a dollar, a serving, you can grow nutrient dense packed greens anywhere. City apartments, dorm rooms, off the grid cabins. In a time when food prices are rising,

30:28Sprouting gives you control, abundance, and peace of mind. Join the self-reliance revolution. Go to thesproutingcompany.com. Slash out loud and use the code out loud for an exclusive offer. The conversation continues. I'm joined today with Australian attorney Tony Nicolick. And we are going to continue discussing where we left off. Let's talk about there is a pipeline of money that seems to be filtered into these research institutions as well as universities. And what's intriguing to me is that even though it may not be directly going into individual researchers' pockets, it is essentially getting into their pockets through the pipeline of a paycheck from the institution in which they are employed. And that is really raising some red flags

31:38for me because when you look at how much influence the pharmaceutical companies have on this research, it really raises the question, are they also influencing the outcome as opposed to us having a clear, truthful, transparent answer about the effects of whether it's a vaccine or a medication? What are your thoughts on that, Tony? But on at the end of the day, there are these, we were talking a little bit earlier about undue influence and influence and how things are influenced. Well, a lot of these organizations will they require funding to keep moving, right? And in order to get that funding, well, they're essentially at the back-end call of those who have the money, right? And as a consequence, we're talking, for instance, the Sydney University study established it studies anyway

32:41that over $1 billion US in research payments, 64.18 million would general payments, 34 million over 34 million with consulting payments and over $11 million, almost $12 million in continued medical education type, speaking compensation. So we're not talking small change here. No, we're actually talking pretty big money here. And for me, I realize that money seems to be what makes the world go around, right? How many people do all sorts of even illegal activities? I'm not calling this illegal. I'm just generalizing and saying illegal activities for the Almighty Dollar. But the problem with all of this and the bottom line for me is that I think a line was crossed by our governments. A line was crossed with society when the choice as to whether or not you

33:47would take this vaccine was no longer a choice. And for those who will sit there and argue, well, it was always a choice. I mean, it really wasn't because when you're telling people they can't keep their job, they can't go to a bar, they can't go to a restaurant, they can't visit their mother in a retirement facility unless they receive this vaccine, that is no longer a choice. And I want to now pivot into this pro-choice movement. I often ask myself where were all the pro-choice individuals when this vaccine was being forced into people were forced into taking it? You know, it seems that my body, my choice, was only a thing or tagline when it came to killing an unborn child. But yeah, there were crickets. I mean, and I'm speaking for what I saw

34:49here in the States. I'd like to hear what you, what happened in Australia. Maybe it was different there. So tell us, what was it like? Now, I was almost identical to what you were describing in terms of the way people reacted. And as you know, the power of propaganda, social inculcation, it was that slow, steady chip that... And let's take it back to what was happening at the Fauci Fals, but not just Fauci, some of the evidence coming out now, which is Professor Gupta, I believe, who was discussing with Governor Newman, I believe in California, just recently. And that was an interview in 2025 where he was suggesting to Governor Newman in this 2025 interview. And it's there for people to see where he was suggesting that, well, we don't really, we didn't really know what was happening and we're starting to see an

35:54unparaphraising, but we're starting to see that they weren't as effective and safe as what we were saying. But take that back to 2021 in a media interview where he was saying they are safe, they are effective, go out there and get the shot. Now, I don't know how far we need to go back in terms of understanding that a lot of these public officials made statements that are on the public record and they were all saying safe and effective, safe and effective. And that parody that we were discussing earlier, which essentially characterized how people felt, said it's pro-choice movement, they were just buying into the propaganda and it was powerful propaganda. Let's face it, like, you know, you couldn't get a burger and chips or a donut or a coffee or you couldn't go and see your elderly parents in an aged care centre or dying loved wanting hospital unless you got the vaccine. These were powerful compelling issues. And what they

37:00did was they bought right into their campaign. I don't know if it happened over there in the US, certainly happened here in Australia where the hospitals weren't as packed out as they were telling us and nurses and doctors were dancing in the hallways. So, Well, you know, it's funny that you bring that up in one of my social media feeds. I, somebody put together a brilliant clip of all of these doctors and nurses throughout the world, at different hospitals dancing. And I will just tell you, you know, anyone who is familiar with choreographing a routine can understand that it takes a lot of time and a lot of retakes and a lot of practice. There were some really well, you know, I would also say Disney land worthy dance recitals if you will that were put together in these hospitals when supposedly they were packed and overflowing with individuals who were sick and were dying with COVID. So, I just,

38:06it just isn't adding up to me. I mean, I've never gone into any of these hospitals during that time. I thank God because my understanding is that if you did go in, a lot of times we're finding now the treatment that the individuals received with the Remdesivir, for example, was actually more of a deadly cocktail than the virus itself. But I, you know, just back to the hospitals, I don't know, something isn't adding up with me. I would snort and look, I'll be quite honest with you, they're choreography standards are much better than me. I think I got too left feet when I dance. But I think the level of planning that went into those dance moves strongly suggests that they had a lot of time on their hands. Now, they could have been zooming at home saying, let's do this at this point and you know, they would have been some big old zoom. I can tell you one thing, I actually

39:06feigned and this is a bit of a past that I was liking under COVID detective at the time. And I literally went into the hospital and I went into the hospital and they tested me five times. Of those five times, they put me on the first, I think the first two were negative. Then the third one and the third, fourth and fifth were positive. So I ended up saying to the doctors at the time, I said, well, I'm not in a feeling of seeing it. I cannot say something. I feigned it to go in there. I was not sick. I did not see an overflowing hospital. I did not see any of this. Were there people in intensive care? Potentially there was. I wasn't in intensive care. I can't have tested that. I can have tested what I've seen and they were putting on PPE. But when I got in there, there was nothing and you know, they tested me and they came back and they came back again. It was like they wanted me to have COVID. And that's what I said to the doctor is like, you keep testing me. How many

40:08negative tests do I have to have? And that was one of the telling issues. And that's why I'm so staunch in my approach to this. I've seen it. I experienced it. But on that red disability, and I know Ron, Senator Ron Johnson, who is a lovely man, I met with him last September, actually in the USA in the heart, Senate Heart Building. He calls it run death is near. And that's his terminology. And I think it's sort of cotton on. But I ran a case here, and there was an emergency injunction in the New South Wales Supreme Court, where there was a doctor who was on a ventilator, and he's daughter brought the action and said, I think my father's dying. They've got him on all these different medications. Professor Bada Chari actually did an affidavit in support. So this is, this is like 2021. This is in the heat of what was happening. And there were a couple other doctors here that was assisting us. And the Supreme Court actually actually came out and we submitted one of the intensiveness, which is a urgent critical care

41:13trauma doctor from a hospital, a person, a jaw hospital here in Sydney. And he said, well, this patient has been on a ventilator for many months, and he's been given between four to 48 hours to live. And he's told us, please Tony, do what you can. I said, I'm a lawyer. I'm not a doctor. But I'll tell you what, I'll go to the court and I'll fight. And everything, as you know, Deb, everything was against anyone. The question is, we were anti-vaxxers. We were ridiculed. You name it, it was coming out. You're thick and fast. But we stayed the course. And what ended up happening was the Supreme Court held two limbs on so on. There was two limbs. One is they can't compel a doctor or a hospital to engage in treatment until you had a treatment. So you got law and then you got medicine, right? And those are clear lines that they suggested that. So I said, okay, if that's the case, well, let me take the doctor out because he was a father. And let me take the doctor out and

42:15take him to a hospital that we'll give him this treatment. And they were alternative treatments that we've all been talking about over the years. And they were those protocols. And they said, oh, no, look, high-level vitamins and the IVMAC, and all this, you know, that's just not approved. We're not going to do that. So I said, well, let us take him and let us have our way. You've said he's only got four to 48 hours. We've got nothing to lose. And that's on your own evidence. Anyway, the Supreme Court agreed. What ended up happening was some George started changing their practices slightly. Well, within a number of days, he was off the ventilator. He lived. He lived. And did anyone report it? No. Did anyone say anything about it? No. Did anyone want to ask us, you know, what were we pushing and what were we going for? No one said a word. So I totally agree with the principle that you just said that I believe that we dropped the button, not us, but the government dropped a ball in favor of the vaccines and in order to produce

43:23that required response. And one thing that came out glaringly in that, and that was this, is that for you to get provisional approval or emergency use approval, as the USA, we say provisional approval, was there could be no other alternative to the vaccine. You know what that means, Deb? And I can only assert this. I'm not going to say it because it's terrible. Is there was a commercial suicide and all those other drugs that could have potentially saved lives in order to progress what we call the clinical trial? Well, you know, we hear the hydroxychloroquine, you know, we hear about the Ivermectin. And do you think it's because those, the pharmaceutical companies, which is you and I both know are very powerful lobbying groups, do you think it's because there was really no money for them to make on those said drugs? They couldn't get a piece of that action.

44:27It's almost like a drug cartel, a medical mafia that we're talking about when we talk about these issues because, you know, the hospitals were getting monetary rewards when individuals were put on respirators. It was an automatic dollar amount, catching that, you know, went into the hospital account. So is it really, you know, the people that are in there that are we count on to help save our lives and to keep us healthy have really become this medical mafia. They are deciding based on the dollar amounts that are coming in the front door, what your life is worth to them as an entity, not to your family, for example. Yeah, I think you're touching up some incredible questions there. And one is I'll be very honest with you. I don't have the specific

45:27answer. How are we going to, if we were to go towards an inference, I think there is a very strong inference in so far as saying every other medication out there that potentially could indeed, in my view, anyway, save lives were put on the back burner in order to get their drugs through the door. Now, in terms of drug marketing and drug sales, well, once the drug loses that that protection of the going through its process of 25 years, and that's where that is the only drug chemical that or the compound that these companies can really tap into in terms of how they're going to progress with their sales. And so, in that's the intellectual property or the commercial in confidence that they talk about, right? Because it's the compound, they can only protect that for 25 years. After that, it goes to generic, right? And now there are a lot cheaper.

46:29And so what we end up seeing here is something a lot more volatile in the sense that okay, well, we can't make money out of this. What can we make money on? Well, let's bring something under the intellectual property guidelines and keep it commercial in confidence. And let's make billions and millions of dollars. And there were a number of medications that they brought out during COVID that they said did this. And there was those generic ones that were really hitting home real hard. Now, then we come back to those research articles who were talking about earlier, where they said a lot of these medications were really achieving those markers. And now we come back full circle. Haven't we did through this interview? As to, you know, when the person who's paying for the research, well, they get to decide what your variables are. They get to decide what you're testing. They give you the parameters of the testing. They tell you where the science is going to go. And basically, they give you the framework of what they want. And if they're looking

47:33at certain aspects, well, you're not going to get the result you want because they didn't look. Right. Very well said, Tony. And I want to just touch on this conversation, Rachel Wolensky, former CDC director, when the vaccine was rolled out, they were really pushing it on women who were pregnant or as they call them pregnant people. I don't know if they do that in Australia, but it's no longer politically correct to say pregnant woman. It's pregnant people. I don't know. Maybe you can explain that to me. But, you know, we're knowing we're hearing stories of women increase in stillbirths, increase in miscarriages, and somehow, though, this isn't tied into the rollout of the COVID vaccine, even though those numbers have increased since that rollout.

48:34What are you hearing about that in Australia, if anything? Well, firstly, I do hear and hear there's a level of insanity when it comes to the biology of man, woman, whether we say people, I will always say man or one. That is the way I see it. And I'm not going to change that view. But in terms of the way we progress down here in terms of the fertility and issues like that, we did see certain changes. And you can see that in the literature. I have a good friend who's actually doing a PhD on that very topic right now. She helped be in the very first case that went to hearing here in Australia on the mandates. In terms of the fertility issues, I conducted a freedom of information on our therapeutic goods administration early on in 2021. And I said, well, the request through another party was, tell us what the adverse effects

49:39of these vaccines are. And they said, well, we don't know the genome toxicity, the cast and the vicinity or the fertility issues. There's the three markers. And what have we been seeing over the last six years? And they're saying safe and effective. So we were saying, well, how can you say it's safe and effective? And how can you say it's stopping transmission? What I am saying here is this is that women's health is pretty cool. And we're all here because a mother gave birth to someone, whether it's an male or a female. We have compromised their safety in the quest of a clinical trial. And that to me is reprehensible. That to me deserves prosecution. We have mothers who have, and I cannot imagine they're the pain and the suffering and the psychological tortuoma that a mother would go through having to see that. But to say that there was people in

50:41government and companies that induced that, that is a whole nother level of malevolence. Yeah, it is. You're absolutely right. Malevolence, I think, term is absolutely correctly used here. And I want to now ask this question, we have this worldwide propaganda campaign that was rolled out. Everyone was parroting the same exact language. People were no longer given a choice of autonomy over their bodies, but rather coerced whether it was through employment or social events. They were coerced into receiving this vaccine. To me, it seems as though there was a much bigger underlying reason for all of this. And when I put all of these facts together and what was done, I can only come to the conclusion that I think any reason a whole person would come to is that there was an underlying reason for this. And I think it was to see how easy it would be

51:50to coerce individuals into one corral, so to speak. So it was really a test. And if we look at it as a test, we know that roughly, I'm going to use the number 85% of individuals in the entire world filled this test. And there was, let's just be generous, let's say 25%, 25% passed, let's say 75% because we know there were outliers of people who got the fake vaccine cards or just lied and said they got it. So 75% got it, 25% didn't. It was a test, the majority filled. What does that mean when the real test or the next test is rolled out, can that 25% do you think in your opinion still stand strong or is that like what's going to happen or are we going to just all fill the next test because the push will be so much greater? You're good things. I think that a lot of people have

52:51woken up. So whether that 75% or 80% mark would hit again. And I do know some influential people, they walked out of a court and walked into a cafe, you know, from my morning coffee and there would be an ex-judge or a judge or a registrar of the court. And they would sit me down and they say, Tony, you all missed the necklace. You were right. You were right. And so I'm just thinking that maybe next round did not going to go as good to be quiet honestly. And to be, I don't have the stats. I think we should look into it actually. That would be a very interesting concept as to whether vaccine status and uptake, especially with the flu, has decreased. I think that would be because I'm seeing childhood vaccines decreasing. I'm seeing that. Well, that's what their preliminary research seems to suggest. Perhaps that's another topic I may look into. But that seems to be

53:53reducing. So people are starting to say, well, hang on a second. We're hoodling once. Let's not do this again because it's not really working. And in terms of the 75, 80% mark, well, I think that's going to definitely, well, in my view, it'll reduce. But one interesting point early on in the campaign, especially here in Australia, I certainly picked it up on the news. One of the news presenters, and I've been looking for it for a while now, but at the time, you know when you watch it and it's all new and all this stuff's going on, I didn't realise, but she said that Australia is seen to be a very compliant nation and they may go with the plan. So that to me was striking. And we were talking about propaganda earlier. I did, you know, when you were saying it, and that's what's bringing it up. Did you see anything like that over there? Well, you know, I hear agenda 2030, which is only four years away. And I think that

54:56a lot of this may, looks like it might be connected into that. And for example, here in the US, the medical code for those who have not received the vaccination, yes, you are medically coded as a Z28.310 patient. And that is an actual code that you will find in your medical record if you know where to look. So I think there is this idea of tracking, pinning the individuals who did not bow down to the tyranny. And I think that there is a much bigger picture at play here than maybe we all see and or know at this point in time. And on that note, Tony, we are running out of time. Boy, what a just a fact thought provoking conversation we just had here. And I just so appreciate your time. Your Tony will be joining me once a month here on America out loud news. We will be

56:03airing our show the first Friday of each month at 7 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Lots of great topics and insight from my correspondent down under. Thank you so much for joining me today, Tony. I appreciate it. And thank you and to all my US brothers and sisters out there hanging there because I think the information coming from both Australia and the USA will be telling because it just goes to show that whilst we are under two flags, there is certainly one way of moving forward. So thank you very much, Deb. And I look forward to next month. Sounds great. All right. Until next time, everyone, please just encourage you to be good to each other. Take care of your neighbor and most importantly, God bless.