Chris sits down with Ivor Cummins, a prominent figure known for his expertise in health and metabolic science and his critical perspectives on the COVID-19 pandemic. Cummins recounts how his skepticism about the global response to COVID-19 was sparked by his examination of early data from the Diamond Princess cruise ship outbreak in early 2020. His analysis led him to conclude that COVID-19 posed a threat akin to a bad flu season, primarily impacting the elderly and vulnerable populations, which contradicted the widespread panic that engulfed the globe. As the situation unfolded, Cummins observed the rapid spread of fear and media-driven hysteria, particularly during his time at a nutrition conference in the U.S. in March 2020. He became increasingly aware that the response to the virus was not merely a public health issue but part of a larger, coordinated effort to exaggerate its impact and manipulate public perception.
A significant part of Cumminsâ analysis centers on the discrepancies in COVID-19 outcomes across different regions, which he attributes to various factors such as population health, pollution levels, and even vitamin D status. He critiques the mediaâs role in amplifying the narrative of an unprecedented catastrophe, especially through the selective presentation of distressing images from hard-hit areas like northern Italy. Cummins also raises concerns about the involvement of influential global organizations, including the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, in utilizing the pandemic to advance a broader agenda of societal control. He highlights initiatives like the âCommon Passâ universal vaccine passport as evidence of pre-existing plans for global biosecurity, suggesting these measures serve to centralize power and profit specific sectors, including Big Pharma and Big Tech.
Towards the end of the episode, Cummins expands his discussion to encompass broader societal issues, linking the pandemic to a perceived globalist agenda that undermines strong nation-states and traditional societal norms. He posits that movements related to climate change, mass migration, and the erosion of marriage, religion, and education are part of a long-term strategy by powerful elites to consolidate control. While he acknowledges the challenges posed by mass formation psychosis during the pandemic, where populations became compliant to extreme measures, Cummins expresses hope that growing public awareness of these manipulative tactics could disrupt the plans of those seeking to maintain control. Ultimately, the episode encourages listeners to question the mainstream narrative surrounding the pandemic and consider the broader implications of global events as part of a larger power struggle.
Iâve been following Ivor since his metabolic days.
Famous Bible character promised that the truth will set you free and instructed followers take on the disciplines of asking, seeking and investigating. Funny how that got cast aside and replaced with performance art called âthe narrative will set you freeâ.
One thing thatâs often overlooked in these discussions is the part of the timeline after the Event 201 and shortly before everything blew up.
Around October-December 2019 China was releasing propaganda videos (which everyone could see on Twitter and 4chan) showing people dying in the streets, corpses piled up in hospitals, people dropping dead in the middle of the street. Am I the only one remembering this?
To me thatâs the ultimate proof that China was actively involved in this and it wasnât just a âlab leakâ on their part. They were the ones who started this mass psychosis but I just canât figure out why would they do this. They didnât benefit from it at all. From PR perspective it was a disaster for them. Global economy suffered which means they suffered as well⊠weird.
I struggled to listen after the âpeak oil turned out to be totally wrongâ and âtechnologyâ comments. Anyone claiming to be data driven should know better. The narrative is VERY strong. I know, weâre all victims of the prop to some extent, but I just feel that itâs more about the refusal to accept the painful reality more than anything else. And if you donât, you find yourself very off course.
Ivor does tend to be very sceptical about any âdoom-ishâ narrative out there. To be fair, Doomberg also does not believe in âPeak Oilâ. So itâs not a âdone and dustedâ argument.
I would frame what is happening with Energy this way ⊠we are now at the point where the âcheap and easyâ fossil-fuel energy that has literally powered our very comfortable and safe society of the last seven decades is done ⊠And moving forward, itâs going to take more and more money to extract/produce the fossil fuels that we currently depend on. That means much less usable energy as money is a proxy for energy, so a lower ERoI. ie. The good times are ending.
Great to see Ivor being interviewed Chris. Iâd love to see a longer, âproperâ interview with him at a later date where you go over some pre-arranged topics for discussion so you can go deeper and not just be âOff the Cuffâ.
Also, as mentioned by Ivor, Alex Krainer is well worth talking to.
Do the new thorium nuclear reactors potentially support Ivorâs optimism? I mean if a safe reactor the size of a cargo container can potentially power a small city and China already has one working⊠do we need fossil fuels for power in the future? I know we still need em for roads and plastics⊠We already have EVâs, and You can easily fit a cargo container in a cargo plan or a cargo ship⊠seems like if its enough to power a small city⊠it can run a big enough engine to propel⊠now maybe weight would be a problem for the planes but not the ships⊠and American Airlines isnt ready to buy a fleet of C10âs ⊠but impossible doesnât seem 100% hereâŠ
All those things are interesting and relevant questions long term, but thatâs not what was said. âTurned out to be wrongâ was what was said. Further, weâre not just facing energy constraints, weâre facing limits to growth on all fronts. Without acknowledging this, magical thinking sets in, and of the reservation we go.
Have a look at Corbett Reports âChina and The New World Orderâ episode- you might find some answers to your question. Many of the same internationalist names can be found in the story of Chinaâs economic development
Hey Pipyman, it is possible the oil story is not what it seems- I have radically changed my lifestyle over the years because of the peak oil idea. Then when I learned more about the club of Rome, the amount of times theyve revised the projections and their connections to internationalists I wonder if I could have made different choices. Its ironic that permaculture was created in response to the limits to growth report by the club of rome and is now heavily into âClimate Actionâ
Limits to Growth and the Permaculture/Low-consumption-lifestyle response sort of like peasant training ideology. Which in the American self-reliance, nation of independent producers sense is a good thing, but on the other hand a life of reduced choices and John Steinbeck-ian style labour-especially if you donât start with any land in the beginning- which is most of us.
No, the oil story is not âwrongâ. All evidence points to this. The timeline is debatable. This is intellectually very simple and emotionally very hard. This is just a smaller part of the bigger story of growth. I donât care which questionable source states this, itâs still fact.
In addition, Naomi Wolfe is now publishing a book on her teamâs work. She said it turns out that Pfizer is partly owned by China. I remember finding it interesting that in New York in which sprang up many public locations for c@vid shots that they seemed to be run primarily by Chinese-American citizens, like what was that about? And that the vast majority of pharmaceuticals are produced in China. So if the vacs had been more âeffectiveâ then Chinaâs biggest sworn enemy would likely have been very badly damaged in many ways, which still eventually may end up being the case.
Ivor will not argue that you can have unlimited exponential growth inside a box.
But the oil story was that peak oil would occur somewhere around 2010, or 2012 at the earliest. I remember, I was there. That was wrong. Peter Schiff was also predicting hyperinflation at that time. He was also wrong.
Will hyperinflation happen eventually? Yes, all fiat hyperinflates unless terminated. Will the mining of natural oil from the earth peak? Yeah, obviously. Will consumption of oil peak? Assuming a finite universe, I guess so, but it could be a million years from now.
Inevitability doesnât make a human actionable story - and itâs wrong for all practical purposes. Pick a timeline and make a useful - and falsifiable - prediction like everyone else.
In my case, I think hyperinflation is really close now (before 2030), depending on threshold. I doubt if weâll hit Wikipediaâs threshold, but 100% per year qualifies for me. I think weâll get a peak cheap oil shockwave due to general idiocy, and itâll last 5-10 years until we get plenty of nuclear and associated electric production.
Itâs not wrong⊠Itâs just taking a little longer to play out. If you try and predict anything to the day, they are very likely going to miss it. As the cost of oil has been going up, supplemented by substantial releases of oil from strategic reserves, disrupting price discovery⊠yes, itâs delaying it slightly. Remember, oil has been around for 100+ years⊠so the forecast is off by a year, or five, is it wrong?