Post

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

@VigilantFox

Jan 10, 2025 • 13 tweets • 7 min read • Read on X

Scrolly

Joe Rogan Shuts Down Mark Zuckerberg’s Bogus Claim About COVID

Mark Zuckerberg’s attempt to rebrand himself as a free speech absolutist seemed to be working—until he made this fatal error at the end.

🧵 THREAD

Mark Zuckerberg is making some big moves at Meta, and on the surface, it all looks great: elimination of fact-checkers, rollback of DEI initiatives, and less censorship.

Zuckerberg delivered a strong pitch for his renewed enthusiasm for free speech—until he exposed himself at the end.

Episode #2255 of The Joe Rogan Experience started off strong when Zuckerberg declared that modern censorship efforts are driven by ideology rather than a commitment to the truth.

He openly questioned Facebook’s role as the “truth decider” for billions, calling it a dangerous and ideological position to take.

“I kind of think after having gone through that whole exercise it’s something out of 1984, one of these books where it really is a slippery slope,” Zuckerberg said.

The conversation got even more interesting when Zuckerberg threw the Biden administration under the bus, revealing that they pressured his company to censor true information—and even memes—about vaccine safety.

“They pushed us super hard to take down things that were honestly true… they basically pushed us and said anything that says that vaccines might have side effects you basically need to take down,” Zuckerberg explained.

“They want us to take down this meme of Leonardo DiCaprio looking at a TV, talking about how 10 years from now or something, you’re going to see an ad that says, ‘If you took a COVID vaccine, you’re eligible for this kind of payment,’” Zuckerberg continued.

“We just said, ‘No, we’re not going to take down humor and satire. We’re not going to take down things that are true.’”

Zuckerberg made the argument that attempts to censor what are called “misinformation” and “hate speech” have gone “too far.”

He referred to Pete Hegseth’s belief that women shouldn’t serve in certain combat roles, explaining that such a statement would be censored under Meta’s old content moderation policies.

“Until we updated our policies, that wouldn’t have been a thing that you could have said on our platforms because it would call for the exclusion of a protected category of people,” Zuckerberg said.

“If it’s okay to say on the floor of Congress, you should probably be able to debate it on social media,” he argued.

As the conversation continued, Zuckerberg even suggested that the Biden administration is guilty of illegal acts to censor speech.

“I don’t think that the pushing for social media companies to censor stuff was legal,” he said.

“Having people in the administration calling up the guys on our team and yelling at them and cursing and threatening repercussions if we don’t take down things that are true is like, it’s pretty bad.”

While you’re here, don’t forget to follow (@VigilantFox) and hit the bell 🔔 for more threads like this one.

Bolstering his commitment to free speech even further, Zuckerberg praised UFC president Dana White, suggesting his addition to Meta’s board of directors will be exactly what the company needs to rise up and resist censorship efforts from outside forces.

“He’ [White] has got a strong backbone. And I think part of what the conversation that I had with him around joining our board was, okay, like, we have a lot of governments and folks around the world putting a lot of pressure on our company, and we need some strong people who are going to help advise us on how to handle some of these situations,” Zuckerberg explained.

“I could spend all my time doing that, but I’m not even a politician. I just want to spend my time building things. Right? So, I think Dana’s gonna be great.”

Zuckerberg’s interview was going exceptionally well—he was hitting all the right notes, earning nods of approval from Rogan where it counted most.

But the momentum came to a screeching halt when Zuckerberg made a COVID censorship claim that struck a nerve with @JoeRogan.

While Zuckerberg acknowledged he didn’t agree with the Biden administration’s harsh tactics to push vaccination, he argued that censoring voices and concerns about vaccine safety was done for the purpose of a greater good—suggesting it was free from “personal political gain.”

Rogan, armed with a deep understanding of what actually transpired during COVID, quickly set the record straight and exposed the glaring flaws in Zuckerberg’s claim.

“I still think it’s good for more people to get the vaccine,” Zuckerberg said. “I’m not sure in that case how much of it [censorship] was like a personal political gain that they were going for. I think that they had a kind of goal that they thought was in the interests of the country. And the way they went about it, I think, violated the law.”

“Well, there’s a bunch of problems with that,” Rogan retorted before laying out a quick history of the incentives behind censoring speech about vaccine safety.

“There’s the emergency use authorization that they needed in order to get this pushed through. And you can’t have that without valid therapeutics being available. And so they suppressed valid therapeutics. So they’re suppressing real information that would lead to people being healthy and successful in defeating this disease.

“And they did that so that they could have this one solution. And this was Fauci’s game plan. I mean, this is the movie Dallas Buyers Club. That’s Fauci in that movie. That was with the AIDS crisis. This is the exact same game plan that was played out with the COVID vaccine.

“They pushed one solution, this only one, suppressed all therapeutics through propaganda, through suppressing monoclonal antibodies, like all of it. And that was done, in my opinion, for profit. And they did that because it was extremely profitable. The amount of money that was made was extraordinary during that time,” Rogan explained.

So, what’s really going on with Mark Zuckerberg? Has he truly had a “come to Jesus” moment, recognizing the flaws of his past ways?

Time will tell, but voices like Stephen A. Smith aren’t convinced, suggesting Zuckerberg’s recent moves are more about self-preservation than a genuine commitment to free speech.

“You [Zuckerberg] went about the business of literally limiting conservative voices of vax skeptics along with other people,” Smith rebuked during a recent appearance on NewsNation.

The reason why Zuckerberg is making this free speech stunt now, Smith says, is because he is terrified of getting in Trump’s “path over the next [four] years.”

Smith concluded that Zuckerberg’s actions fall in line with political self-preservation, calling it predictable and calculated.

While it would be wonderful to believe that Zuckerberg is a changed man, one should remain skeptical about his true intentions.

After all, his company was behind some of the worst censorship crimes, like deleting vaccine injury groups when those people needed support from their peers the most.

@joerogan But that’s just me. Listen to the full conversation for yourself on @JoeRogan’s YouTube channel.

https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/1877565280013938833

@joerogan Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed this post, please do me a quick favor and follow this page (@VigilantFox) for more threads like this one.

In other news, Mel Gibson has made some bombshell medical claims. This could threaten the entire cancer industry:

https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/1877565280013938833

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

More from @VigilantFox

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

@VigilantFox

Jul 1

If you thought COVID was built on a web of lies, wait till you hear what they did with Alzheimer’s disease.

While Big Pharma poured billions into failed drugs and fake plaque theories, one neurologist quietly proved the decline could be reversed.

And he did it without a single pharmaceutical.

Dr. Dale Bredesen discovered Alzheimer’s has five root causes, not one.

And when you treat those root causes, patients recover. 🧵

This information comes from the work of medical researcher @MidwesternDoc. For all the sources and details, read the full report below.

midwesterndoctor.com/p/the-great-al…

In 1906, plaques in the brain were identified as the cause of Alzheimer’s disease.

By the 1980s, scientists discovered that those plaques were primarily composed of amyloid proteins.

And then in 1991, genetic mutations in a protein that gives rise to amyloid beta were linked to inherited forms of Alzheimer’s disease.

Read 30 tweets

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

@VigilantFox

Jun 29

At 17, Amy Tippins was dying of liver failure. A transplant saved her life.

After the surgery, she noticed “some of my traits had changed.”

Amy suddenly found herself drawn to hands-on home projects she’d never cared about.

“What gives?” she thought. So she tracked down the obituary of the stranger whose liver she’d received and discovered something staggering:

“Not long after surgery, some things about myself and some of my traits had changed… I really started to love projects like replacing flooring on my own. I never saw flooring being put in. I never saw anything like that being done.”

“I knew he was 47 and that he had been killed in a car wreck in Columbus, Georgia. So I went to the library and I started looking up obituaries for that time. And I backed into his obituary.”

“What I discovered is he was a police officer. He was 47, and his name was Mike. His sister told me that he did a lot of his own home renovation. He also liked to work with his hands. He liked to do projects.”

“When I found out who my donor was, it made a lot more sense on why some things about myself and some of my traits had changed after transplant.”

Is a donated organ just an organ? Or can it actually change who you are?

Conventional medicine laughs at the idea. But is it really so crazy?

Let’s take a look at the evidence. 🧵

When organ transplantation became possible, doctors called it a miracle. And it is. Giving someone a second life through another person’s death is incredible.

But the full story isn’t quite so simple.

Oftentimes, something else seems to come with the organ. Something nobody signed up for.

The standard model is pretty straightforward. Your heart is a pump. Your kidney is a filter. Personality and memory live in the brain, and nowhere else.

Swap a failing organ for a healthy one and you’ve simply updated the plumbing, not the person.

But that’s been nothing more than an assumption.

For decades, a significant number of cases has been building up that say otherwise.

This information comes from the work of medical researcher @MidwesternDoc. For all the sources and details, read the full report below.

midwesterndoctor.com/p/the-mystery-…

Read 30 tweets

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

@VigilantFox

Jun 26

Before the hepatitis B vaccine was mandated for kids to attend school in almost all 50 states, the risk of a baby dying from hepatitis B was 1 in 7 million.

“That means you need to give 7 MILLION hepatitis B vaccines to prevent ONE death,” RFK Jr. says.

When you give 7 million vaccines to save one life, you’d better make damn sure it’s safe.

But is it really? Let’s take a look at the evidence. 🧵

Every newborn in America is pushed toward a Hepatitis B vaccine within hours of being born.

And that sounds completely normal to most people because the policy has been normalized for decades.

But when you take a close look at Hepatitis B, the risk group, the benefit math, and the forgotten safety record, the birth-dose policy becomes very difficult to defend.

Hepatitis B is a real disease.

Chronic infection can damage the liver, lead to liver failure, and increase the risk of liver cancer later in life.

That part is not the dispute.

The dispute is whether every newborn, including babies born to mothers who test negative for Hepatitis B, should receive the vaccine on their very first day of life.

Read 30 tweets

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

@VigilantFox

Jun 25

You may have missed this news recently - the health insurance system in America is so broken, that the Trump administration is quietly rewriting the Affordable Care Act and buried deep in a monstrous 1,000+ page document is a ploy to let health insurance companies start lending money to patients to pay for their medical care.

That's right: if you get hit with a devastating diagnosis or an unexpected emergency, your "insurance" company won't just pay the bill... they'll offer you a loan instead. So you can go deeper into debt to the very same industry that's already failing you.

Let me say that again. You pay health insurance so that you'll be insured in a time of a health crisis. Already, health insurers are denying nearly 20% of claims and out of pocket expenses keep rising. So instead of them paying your bill, which is what you pay the insurance for, they'll now be incentivized to deny even more bills or raise out of pocket expenses in order to cash in on the interest they'll be collecting.

A third of American households are already drowning in medical debt — and now insurers get to pile on even more, with interest. While these companies rake in billions in profits, everyday people will be trapped paying back loans for the care they thought was "covered." This isn't fixing healthcare.

This is turning your health insurer into your loan shark — and making an already predatory, dysfunctional system even more financially crushing for ordinary Americans. Classic "you get sick, you go broke" American healthcare — now with extra debt servitude.

On the plus side, there is a company that is providing a solution to this problem. CrowdHealth, a member focused health care company is saving Americans tens of thousands of dollars, and in May of this year 100% of medical bills were funded.

No loans needed. No exorbitant premiums. No crazy out of pocket expenses. A model that is actually working, is not throwing Americans into bankruptcy because of an unexpected health event, is saving people money, and getting them the health care they need.

Andy Schoonover from CrowdHealth joins us now to discuss.

A billionaire recently mused that the ultra-wealthy get the top doctors, the best lawyers, the elite tutors, and wondered aloud what it would take to give every American that kind of access. Andy’s answer is that it already exists, just not the way Reid Hoffman imagines it.

Inside CrowdHealth, your income doesn’t decide your doctor. “Whether you’re making $30,000 a year or $3 million a year, you have access to the same doctors.” Members up and down the economic ladder have walked into Mayo, MD Anderson, Stanford, Cleveland Clinic.

The real threat to that access isn’t money. It’s bureaucracy. As government plans expand, the best doctors are quietly heading for the exits. Mayo Clinic recently dropped a slate of Medicare Advantage plans rather than swallow the government’s reimbursement rates. Andy’s read on the pattern is blunt: “Free markets tend to exit stage left and the government bureaucracy enters as the main character.”

His prediction is that within a decade the top doctors stop taking insurance entirely. CrowdHealth’s bet is that members who already pay doctors directly are built for exactly that world.

But cash-pay only matters if the money actually arrives when you’re the one in the hospital bed. So how does a crowd of strangers guarantee your bill gets paid?

Health insurance in America is broken.

Over 200,000 Americans go bankrupt because of medical bills every year—and many of them already had insurance. On average, 20% of claims are denied, leaving families stuck paying massive out-of-pocket costs after spending thousands on premiums.

But there’s an alternative.

CrowdHealth is a community-powered model that has helped members fund over 40,000 medical bills at a fraction of the cost of traditional insurance.

So far, 30,000+ members have been helped, saving an estimated $73 million in medical costs.

CrowdHealth isn’t insurance. It’s a way to step outside the broken system and take control of your healthcare.

Get started today for $99 per member per month for the first three months.

Go to joincrowdhealth.com/promos/pulse and use code PULSE.

Read 8 tweets

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

@VigilantFox

Jun 25

RFK Jr. once said: “They’re making $60 billion a year selling us vaccines, but they’re making $500 billion a year selling the remedies for the injuries caused by vaccines.”

“This is a really great business plan for [pharmaceutical] companies. You make people sick, and then you sell them the lifetime cure.”

This interview, which originally aired on September 17, 2020, was removed by YouTube for “medical misinformation.”

But was it really “misinformation,” or was RFK Jr. leading viewers to an inconvenient truth?

In just about every industry, a great product makes you rich beyond belief, except one: medicine.

The rules for enrichment work differently here. And the reason why is exactly what they don’t want you to know. 🧵

There’s a principle that I’m sure you’re familiar with: once you see it, you can’t unsee.

No industry built to solve a problem ever actually solves it. Think about it—a cure for the problem is a death sentence for the paycheck. The cancer charity that beats cancer has to close its doors. The dating app that finds you a partner just lost a paying user.

So problems don’t get solved. They get managed. Indefinitely.

And nowhere has this been turned into more of an art form than medicine.

We’re taught to see healthcare as a race toward cures. Brilliant minds, billions in research, all pointed at making disease disappear.

But that’s not how it works.

Let’s take a look at how the business model actually works. It’s actually pretty simple.

A cured patient stops paying. A managed patient pays forever.

When those two incentives collide, take a guess at which one usually wins.

Read 21 tweets

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

@VigilantFox

Jun 24

Did you know that the death rate from measles declined by 98% BEFORE the measles vaccine was introduced?

“This is all on the CDC website… That decline had nothing to do with vaccines.”

So, if vaccines didn’t do it, what caused that decline from 1900 to 1963?

The answer is better nutrition, better sanitation, clean water, etc., according to Attorney @AaronSiriSG.

Yet “science” wants you to believe that vaccines saved the day.

But that’s not even the biggest vaccine deception. It’s what happens before they approve these shots for human use. 🧵

Faith in vaccines is just that. Faith.

Complete trust. Allegiance to duty. Belief in something for which there is no proof.

Medicine has carefully crafted a myth that it and only it rescued humanity from the dark ages of deadly disease. The kind of disease that was lurking around every corner, ready to wipe us off the map for all of eternity.

And because medicine so valiantly rescued us from erasure, it deserves ultimate supremacy. It should never be questioned. It can do no wrong.

A central part of medical mythology is the belief that vaccines ended infectious disease. And because it is indeed mythology and its adherents are acting on faith alone, it requires no proof and can simply dismiss any and all evidence against that bold claim.

But the evidence is not lacking. Far from it.

Despite medicine’s best efforts to hide and obscure it, those seeking the truth can plainly see it.

In this short presentation, Secretary Kennedy lays it out for all to see. There is no evidence that vaccines were responsible for the decline in infectious disease that has so aggressively been credited to them.

It is pure mythology.