Bret Weinstein talks COVID jab mRNA tech ‘flaw’ with Tucker: ‘Up to 17 million people could have been killed’

If you’re familiar with evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein, you already know two things about the man: He’s extraordinarily intelligent, and he’ll take the truth over party politics any day of the week. Incredibly articulate, he chooses his words almost as carefully as he chooses the sources he cites.

So, when he says something, it is safe to assume he genuinely believes it to be the truth, uninhibited by an agenda or scripted narrative. And, if he later discovers he was wrong, he will be the first to admit it.

Weinstein has in recent years focused his impressive brain power on mRNA technology and the COVID-19 vaccines, and on Friday, he explained to Tucker Carlson the fatal “flaw” in Big Pharma’s “cash cow.”

“Nobody wants to be thinking about COVID anymore,” Weinstein told Carlson. “It was a traumatic and exhausting experience.”

“I don’t want to be thinking about COVID anymore either,” the former professor admitted. “But what I find is that every time I look away and move on to other topics, things move just out of our sightline and these things couldn’t possibly be more important. So I’m going to try to explain where we are and how we got here and what the implications are in the present that people are largely not noticing.”

Weinstein thought himself quite the expert on Big Pharma when the pandemic hit, but he said he “got schooled over the course of COVID.”

“What I’ve come to understand is something I call the game of pharma,” he explained. “If you think about what pharma is, we tend to imagine that it is an industry that is hell bent on finding drugs that will make us healthier.”

“That’s not what it is,” he stated. “In fact, pharma is healthy when people are sick.”

He described pharma as “an intellectual property racket.”

“It owns molecules, compounds, it owns technologies,” he said. “And what it’s looking for is a disease to which these things plausibly apply. And its profits go up to the extent that the disease is widespread, to the extent that the disease is serious, to the extent that competing drugs are unsafe or ineffective, to the extent that the government will mandate a drug, to the extent that the medical establishment will declare it the standard of care.”

“You’ve just described pandemic response,” Carlson replied.

“Well, that I did,” Weinstein said. “And that’s where I learned all of these tricks, was that basically every day of the year, pharma is engaged in portraying the properties that it owns as more useful than they are, safer than they are, and persuading the medical establishment, the journals, the societies, the hospitals, the government to direct people towards drugs they wouldn’t otherwise be taking.”

“So that’s what the racket is,” he said.

Weinstein continued:

And it is necessary to understand that because you need to realize that before COVID ever happened, pharma was expert at figuring out how to portray a disease as more widespread and more serious than it was, it was excellent at portraying a compound as more efficacious than it is, safer than it is.

And so when COVID happened, all of this occurred at a different scale. COVID was bigger than anything that had ever happened before, but none of it was new to pharma, and all of it was new to us in the public trying to understand what we were supposed to do about this ostensibly very serious disease.

I’m now going to put a hypothesis on the table about why things unfolded the way they did. And it involves that game of pharma. What was pharma thinking? Why was it so obsessed with making sure that we all took the so-called vaccines that were on offer? Why was it so obsessed with making sure that we didn’t take the alternative repurposed drugs that so many doctors claimed were highly effective.


The mRNA technology behind the vaccines is the “biggest pharmacological cash cow conceivable,” Weinstein said, adding that “it could allow you to reformulate every vaccine currently on the market.”

“And what’s more, the property in question would allow this whole process to be streamlined at an incredible level because effectively all you needed was a sequence, a genetic sequence from a pathogen, and you could literally type it into a machine and produce a vaccine that was already in use, but for the swapping out of the antigen in question,” he said.

Using “an mRNA message,” Weinstein explained, cells in the body are induced to “produce something that they did not produce in the first place.”

It’s easily a trillion-dollar technology, but it has a fatal flaw — literally.

“[T]he technology itself has a terrible safety flaw that, in my opinion, never would have gotten through even the most cursory safety tests,” Weinstein said. “And that flaw is that there’s no targeting of the lipid nanoparticles. The lipid nanoparticles will be taken up by any cell they encounter.”

If they “simply stayed in the injection site, as we were told when the vaccine rollout began,” that would be one thing.

But, Weinstein said, it doesn’t. We now know they can spread throughout the body to places like the heart and brain.

“Anything you inject in that space is going to leak out and it’s going to circulate around the body,” he said.

“The body’s response to seeing a cell of yours, which it recognizes as yours, that is producing an antigen, that is to say a protein that it doesn’t recognize is to assume that that cell is virally infected and to destroy it,” he explained. “That is the only correct thing for the body to do when it encounters a cell of yours making foreign protein.”

The mRNA vaccine technology “tricks your cells into producing foreign antigens, which the immune system cannot help but recognize as an indicator of infection. And it destroys those cells,” he told Carlson.

“[W]hatever tissue starts producing these foreign proteins is going to be attacked by your immune system,” Weinstein said.

Later in the interview, Weinstein circled back to his hypothesis.

Pharma, he’s deduced, “recognized that the thing that would bypass that obstacle was an emergency that caused the public to demand a remedy to allow them to go back to work and to living their lives.”

“That would cause the government to streamline the safety testing process so that it wouldn’t spot these things,” he said. “And indeed, one of the things that we see in addition to a lot more harm in those safety tests than we were initially allowed to understand, but also the safety testing was radically truncated so that long-term harms were impossible to detect.”

“So the hypothesis in question is,” he said, “‘Pharma used an emergency to bypass an obstacle to bring in incredibly lucrative technology, to normalize it in the public and the regulatory apparatus to sneak it by the things that would ordinarily prevent a dangerous technology like this one from being widely deployed.'”

It’s a lot to take in, and for many, Weinstein’s conclusions will only confirm what they’ve already surmised themselves.

The “toll” the pharma game has cost the world is, he said, “staggering”:

[H]ere’s what we know.

Joseph Fraiman and his colleagues, including Peter Doshi, did a an evaluation of Pfizer’s own safety data from its safety trials. And these trials were absurdly short. In fact, Pfizer only allowed one month before it vaccinated its controls and made it impossible to detect further harms.

And what they found was a one in 800 rate of serious adverse event. This is not minor stuff. This is serious harm to health. One in 800 per shot. That’s not per person. That’s per shot. One in eight hundred rate, which in one month, that suggests a very high mortality risk. And in fact, we saw mortality in the safety trials.


According to some researchers, up to 17 million people worldwide have died of the COVID vaccine.

“Just for perspective,” a stunned Carlson said, “I mean, that’s like the death toll of a global war.”

“Yes, absolutely,” Weinstein replied. “This is a great tragedy of history. … And amazingly there is no way in which it’s over.”

Melissa Fine


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Latest Articles