“Why did this happen? Why all the Covid nonsense?”

Written by Canary in a Covid World on September 7, 2025. Posted in Current News

Jeffrey Tucker’s Opening Monologue on Trish Wood is Critical podcast, an essential Substack to follow.

Jeffrey Tucker is the Founder and President of the Brownstone Institute and writes a daily column for The Epoch Times. He is also one of the Canaries featured in Canary in a (Post) Covid World: Money, Fear and Power, where he contributes Chapter 22, Clean vs. Dirty: A Way of Understanding Everything.

On the Trish Wood is Critical podcast, Tucker opens with a powerful question:

“Why did this happen? Why all the Covid nonsense?”

His monologue offers an interesting insight into how all of this unfolded, and we thought it would be worth sharing here with our Canary community.

Tucker is one of the sharpest and most thoughtful voices exploring the deeper cultural, political, and economic forces behind what the world has endured since 2020. His reflections are a must-listen, and his writing in our Canary series goes even further.

It’s worth noting that Trish Wood herself is also part of the Canary community. In Volume 1, Canary in a Covid World: How Propaganda and Censorship Changed Our (My) World, she authored a striking chapter titled “Cruel Seasons” on how media manipulation shaped the pandemic response. A former CBC reporter and longtime anchor of Canada’s flagship investigative news program The Fifth Estate—a role she held for a decade, often described as Canada’s equivalent to 60 Minutes—Wood brings decades of journalistic experience to her work. Her podcast and her writing alike are indispensable for anyone trying to understand what truly happened.

Jeffrey Tucker’s Monologue

This is Jeffrey Tucker. I’m in for the great Trish Wood, and I’m very honored to have been chosen for this task.

Brownstone Institute was founded to deal with the problem of the lockdowns back in 2021. I’ve been writing about the Covid lockdowns since January 2020. It struck me at the time that nobody was really taking this on from an intellectual research point of view. What led to these lockdowns? Why did they happen? Who’s in charge? Why did they think it needed to happen? Since those questions weren’t being asked by any of the legacy institutions—in fact, most were entirely silent on the subject and still are to this day—Brownstone stepped into the breach to look into this issue.

I remember being on so many podcasts at the time. This went on for two or three years after Brownstone was founded. And the question everybody would ask me is, why did this happen? Why did we throw away 500 years of law and legislation? Why did we throw out the traditional pandemic playbook for Covid? How did it come to be that the courts stopped working? Why could we not hold weddings and funerals? Why were businesses shut? Why did we violate religious freedom? What was the thinking behind this? Who were the deciding agents?

At one point I even toyed with the idea of a video series where we would explore each theory: “Oh, it was the World Economic Forum.” “Oh, it was big tech.” “It was the digital retailers behind everything.” “It was just a typical case of a state power grab.” “It was a huge mistake stemming from a crazy theory that you could make a virus go away if you hide under the sofa long enough.” All these various theories were out there. But among them was the idea that the whole purpose of lockdowns was to prepare the population for the shots.

To tell you the truth, I didn’t believe it. I remember a podcast I was on in April of 2020. The host asked me, “What do you think about the idea that all of this is really about preparing the population for a vaccine, and the pharmaceutical industry was behind this the entire time?” And I said, “There’s no way. That can’t be true. That’s just impossible to believe.”

My one piece of evidence was an interview Anthony Fauci had done with The Washington Post a few weeks earlier—middle of February 2020—in which he said, “We don’t need a vaccine to get out of this pandemic. We just need social distancing.” Based on that one comment, I believed the vaccine was never really in the mix as a driving force for the lockdowns. Looking back, that was a thin bit of evidence.

As the years have passed, we’ve got overwhelming evidence that while many interest groups glommed on to the emergency and panic, the driving force from very early on—certainly since 2019 but really dating back many years, maybe 25 years—was the pharmaceutical industry. In particular, their desire to try out a new technology called mRNA.

Messenger RNA would not work like a traditional vaccine. It would deliver mRNA through lipid nanoparticles into the body to recreate the spike protein and supposedly trigger an immune response. This technology had been in development for 30 years and had never been able to get through normal approval channels at the FDA because of questions about dosage, efficacy, and safety. But in the emergency-use times of Covid, it sailed through under great pressure from the military—a point Secretary Kennedy has made many times.

Once you understand that, you’re presented with other strange features. The lockdowns began all over the world in March—U.S., Canada, Europe, Latin America—everywhere except a handful of places like Nicaragua, Zambia, and Sweden. The vaccine rollout didn’t happen until the middle of November. So it was likely the intention from the very beginning to keep us in lockdown for a full eight months.

Talk about an audacious plan. Has there ever been in history anything so outrageous, on such a large scale, and so clearly destined to cause tremendous damage—health, economic, social, psychological, legal—in every way you can imagine? This was the way. And yet that’s what they were doing, all to roll out a product.

But here’s where it gets interesting. If you believe natural immunity and exposure protect against respiratory viruses—and if you don’t, you’ve paid no attention to virology for the last hundred years—you know that exposure leads to robust and broad immunity. People understood this back in the Peloponnesian War. So how could you test a new product on a population already gaining natural immunity? By February or March 2020, plenty of people had already been infected since October, November, December. By spring or summer, the virus would be endemic.

So in January, they hatch a plan to lock down the entire population for eight or nine months, keeping everyone immunologically naïve. People had to stay unexposed so they’d have only one choice: take the shot. That also explains why alternative therapeutics like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were pulled. Under EUA rules, maybe. But more profoundly, they didn’t want people to recover naturally and render the shot unnecessary.

Some people think the reason for pulling them was to comply with the strictures of the emergency-use authorization, which said an EUA can only be issued in the absence of any alternative therapeutic. But there’s an even more profoundly insidious reason: they wanted no alternative. They did not want people to get sick and recover, and therefore make the distribution of the shots a moot point. The virus was already endemic, so they had to keep the population in a state of complete panic between March 2020 and the rollout of the vaccine.

This explains so much. And yet there are still questions. Between yesterday and the release of this podcast, something finally began to break. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, associated with the CDC, has a great deal of influence on approving what shots go to whom. They don’t have decision-making power, but they can make very influential recommendations. When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. became the head of HHS, he fired the old ACIP committee and brought in a new one. They just met in June, faced with all the usual pageantry of these meetings—experts here, formalities there, the meeting comes to order, the committees deliver their reports.

Most of the members, some of whom I know personally, were taken aback by what transpired. One in particular spoke out about the data on the RSV shot, a monoclonal antibody—not quite a vaccine, but a shot for babies. He said in the meeting, “I just looked at this data since yesterday, and I’m seeing some safety signals that are quite suspicious. Based on these signals, I’d like more time to look at the data. But I’m just wondering: if I had a newborn child right now, would I be willing to give them that shot? The answer is no, I would not.”

He said this in the meeting, and you had to be there to see the shock on people’s faces. People are not allowed to say normal things like this in such settings. As a father, he would not give this shot to his kid. So he voted no. But the other five committee members voted yes.

As the months have gone on, we’ve had time to look more carefully at the studies. And it turns out this was a paradigmatic case of statistical fraud. They divided up the pool of test groups in such a way as to hide the signals. Once you pool the results properly, the signals pop out all over the place. They arbitrarily closed the window for investigation right before the signals began appearing. In several cases they even buried deaths from the shot in footnotes. In one case, they violated the study design by pushing a death outside the observation window.

This wasn’t just a mistake. This was scientific fraud. Journalist Maryanne Demasi and others at Brownstone began to examine these things and write stories. Even for me, chronicling the abuses of science for the last five years, these little innovations in statistical manipulation were new. You have to know exactly what to look for. Even the specialists on this committee were not prepared to dig into the details at the time.

Once the studies came out, one of the committee members, Robert Malone, was so alarmed that he wrote his own article saying: “I did not see this data at the time. I voted yes on these shots. I would take back my vote now.” He said he couldn’t disclose what was planned for the future, but it made sense that there would be another vote and another meeting on the RSV shot.

So you can see what’s happening. We’ve got a gradual unraveling of a full paradigm. And it’s not just about one study. It’s about the credibility of the CDC itself, the committees that serve them, the scientists who passed on these peer-reviewed papers, the journals that published them. Everything is suddenly in question.

Yesterday we learned that ACIP has established a new working group focused not on RSV, but on the Covid shots and the mRNA technology itself. They’ve issued a list of 12 questions this group will examine. We don’t know how long this will take—months, years. And yes, it’s frustrating and slow.

But think about it this way. We’re talking about an industry powerful enough more than five years ago to lock billions of people in their homes, violate their religious rights, prevent them from going to weddings and funerals, shut down and destroy millions of businesses, demoralize the largest swath of the world’s population—all to get people to accept their product. And when people resisted, they had enough influence over most states in the world to mandate that people take that shot. That’s how powerful it is.

Now, how do you get that kind of power? Where does it come from? It’s vast. It extends to media and tech, academia, NGOs, governments, retail outlets, pharmaceutical companies, doctors’ offices, journals, publishing—everything. The poison of this industry and the lies it has told have invaded every sector of what we once called the establishment. And now everything is at stake.

It’s inconceivable that you could just push a button and make it all go away—to withdraw the shots, ban mRNA, or have Nuremberg 2.0. Justice hardly ever happens in the real world. But what is happening now is still worthy of celebration. We’re finally seeing progress.

It may take another five or ten years before we fully understand everything that happened. And keep in mind, I’m only telling you what I know. What we don’t know is everything that has been classified: the role of militaries, the lab leak, whether it was deliberate, whether the leak was meant to create a market for these shots, whether anyone truly believed these shots would ever work, or whether the rollout was simply to test a new technology.

Once you process all this, it’s not possible to think about the world in the same way. It’s not possible to trust anymore. You keep asking profound questions: Who’s lying? Who’s paying whom?

This is where we are in the Western world today—all unleashed by Covid, which remains strangely taboo in the mainstream press. It is being discussed here, which is why you’re listening.

Why This Matters

Jeffrey Tucker’s words remind us of the urgency of asking hard questions and refusing to let the truth be buried. That is precisely why we created the Canary in a Covid World series.

Across two volumes, the books bring together 71 essays from many of the world’s most qualified and courageous voices—scientists, doctors, journalists, authors, and everyday people whose lives were forever changed. Together, they form a record that cannot be ignored.

source  canaryinacovidworld.substack.com

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.