Stay Free - Russel Brand - Do You Remember THIS?! | Wuhan Lab Leak, Vaccines & Lockdowns - STAY FREE #275

00:00:00.000 🎵Never the less they could not understand that I'm a black man🎵

00:00:04.000 🎵And I could never be a better runner🎵 🎵On the straight and narrow🎵

00:00:07.000 🎵Watch the bulls eye when I roll to you🎵 🎵Brought to you by Fyger🎵

00:00:10.000 🎵So I'm looking for the steal🎵 In this video, you're going to see the future.

00:00:29.000 Thanks for joining me for Stay Free with Russell Brand Conspiracy Theory to Conspiracy Fact and it is the mother of all conspiracies.

00:00:35.000 Remember when the pandemic revealed to us that in spite of saying what they cared about was the sanctity of human life and our duty to protect one another, it turned out that what they cared about was the centralization of authority, the ability to regulate and profit.

00:00:49.000 We are going to show you a voluminous account Of when conspiracy theories became conspiracy facts and how the state utilised, along with corporate power, the crisis of the pandemic to legitimise their power.

00:01:02.000 How far will you go when it comes to Covid?

00:01:06.000 Let me know in the chat what you think we ain't covered because we're going to talk about the Wuhan lab leak, we're going to talk about patient zero, the science around vaccinating pregnant women, And we're going to talk about lockdown data.

00:01:16.000 The first part will be available on YouTube, then exclusively on Rumble.

00:01:21.000 You've got to like and subscribe when you get there, and download the app if you can.

00:01:24.000 Plus, why not consider getting yourself a nice little hat, such as I'm wearing, as a kind of, I don't know, 2024 gift.

00:01:31.000 Now, our first conspiracy theory to conspiracy fact.

00:01:35.000 Remember Wuhan's patient zeros.

00:01:37.000 Now, after saying it came from a wet market or a raccoon dog, it was finally revealed that the first people who caught COVID were indeed scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

00:01:47.000 Well, who saw that coming?

00:01:48.000 Maybe the people who funded it.

00:01:50.000 Tell me if you can name one person on the news a lot who was involved in the funding.

00:01:55.000 Here's the news.

00:01:55.000 Wuhan.

00:01:56.000 No, here's the effing news.

00:02:00.000 What a voyage it is when the truth is continually concealed, undermined and denied by the most powerful institutions in the world, whether that's the state or the mainstream media.

00:02:10.000 Turn on your notification bell right now so you get our content when we make it daily and join us on Rumble.

00:02:15.000 Five days a week we make this show where we have interviews like the one we had with Matt

00:02:19.000 Taibbi and Michael Schellenberger where they broke this story for the first time outside

00:02:23.000 of their sub-stack that the first people that contracted coronavirus worked, by coincidence,

00:02:29.000 at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

00:02:31.000 Now there's no evidence that tells us that they hadn't just been in a bat cave for their 1.00

00:02:35.000 own reason, brushing up against bats, sniffing bats, maybe even licking bats.

00:02:40.000 But that, coupled with the fact that US taxpayers funded that research, starts to demonstrate

00:02:46.000 perhaps why particular narratives were amplified and others were undermined, withdrawn and

00:02:52.000 shut down.

00:02:53.000 This is an important conversation about power.

00:02:55.000 It involves some of the most influential institutions in the world.

00:02:58.000 What can we learn from this?

00:03:00.000 How can we prevent it happening again?

00:03:01.000 And I don't just mean more pandemics, I mean more global corruption.

00:03:05.000 Details on the origins of the coronavirus suggest that the virus escaped from a Chinese lab in Wuhan.

00:03:12.000 Of course it did!

00:03:12.000 It's so strange, isn't it, the way that this has unfolded.

00:03:15.000 Let me know in the chat if you already have a kind of fatigue around this, if you've stopped concentrating on it.

00:03:20.000 The way to keep yourself engaged and interested is by reminding yourself about what happened during that two-year period.

00:03:27.000 The way that information was censored.

00:03:29.000 The way that people were ridiculed.

00:03:30.000 The way that certain solutions were quite aggressively pushed.

00:03:33.000 The rhetoric on the news.

00:03:35.000 People should be shamed.

00:03:36.000 All of this is just months ago.

00:03:38.000 Months ago.

00:03:39.000 Now being revealed explicitly and plainly is you were right the whole time.

00:03:43.000 Fox News Chief Washington Correspondent Mike Emanuel tonight with the new report and the findings on who were the first to be infected.

00:03:52.000 Not only did we confirm that the virus came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.

00:03:59.000 Also, just at a glance, it doesn't look safe enough, does it?

00:04:02.000 It looks too old.

00:04:03.000 It looks like a terrible high school building.

00:04:05.000 They're not trying hard enough in there.

00:04:07.000 They're probably not washing their hands.

00:04:08.000 They're definitely not more than a meter and a half per side.

00:04:10.000 And I bet they weren't even vaccinated.

00:04:12.000 A new report on the online platform Substack says scientists at the lab in Wuhan were the first COVID-19 patients in the fall of 2019 while conducting controversial gain-of-function research.

00:04:24.000 The story names the scientists as Ben Hu, Yu Peng, and Yan Zhu.

00:04:29.000 Chinese scientists Ben Hu, Ping Yu and Yan Zhu were the first humans to contract COVID-19.

00:04:36.000 Don't be childish and don't try and do that.

00:04:38.000 Who's got COVID?

00:04:39.000 Who's got COVID?

00:04:39.000 What?

00:04:40.000 Zhu's got COVID.

00:04:41.000 It came from a Zhu now? 0.98

00:04:43.000 No, look, one's called Hu and one's called Zhu.

00:04:45.000 Don't be racist.

00:04:46.000 That was the problem in the first place.

00:04:47.000 FBI Director Christopher Wray told Brett Baer the Bureau's theory about COVID's origin back on February 28th.

00:04:54.000 The FBI has for quite some time now assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential lab incident in Wuhan.

00:05:05.000 Yet the White House Chief Medical Advisor during the pandemic has offered other explanations.

00:05:10.000 Totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.

00:05:15.000 We have an open mind, but it looks very, very much like this was a natural occurrence.

00:05:20.000 Be good if it was a natural occurrence, because that would mean it wasn't entirely my fault.

00:05:24.000 Dr. Robert Redfield was CDC director during the pandemic.

00:05:28.000 I'm very disappointed in how he's responded to this.

00:05:32.000 Largely, I think it's grounded in his advocacy for gain-of-function research.

00:05:37.000 Most scientists are exactly that, people that are interested in facts.

00:05:41.000 Science can lead to dogma because research and experimentation can lead to temporary conclusions that are then held on to.

00:05:49.000 But when science becomes commercialized, commodified, institutionalized, when they have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, when they have financial relationships with other nations, when they fund research that is potentially dangerous because it could one day be profitable, and I don't mean profitable to our species, profitable Commercially, you know how the pharmaceutical industry is run.

00:06:10.000 You know how they lobby.

00:06:11.000 Does the pharmaceutical industry have no interest in mind but for the health and well-being of ordinary human beings?

00:06:18.000 It's a commercial enterprise.

00:06:18.000 Of course it doesn't.

00:06:20.000 If they can heal a few people along the way, that's fantastic.

00:06:23.000 I'm not being reductive about science.

00:06:25.000 I am reliant and dependent upon medical experts for the well-being of important members of my family, continually.

00:06:32.000 And one of the One of the things that gives me faith in them is knowing that they are not driven by commercial objectives.

00:06:37.000 Can we say the same about Anthony Fauci at this point?

00:06:40.000 Can we say the same about the organizations and bureaucracies that surround the pharmaceutical industry, that funded this kind of research, that clearly push one narrative, presumably in order to avoid further analysis?

00:06:53.000 I don't think we can, can we?

00:06:54.000 Kansas Senator Roger Marshall says these latest revelations make China and Fauci look bad.

00:07:01.000 Wait a minute.

00:07:01.000 That's the news.

00:07:02.000 These revelations make you look bad.

00:07:04.000 No, that's not very scientific.

00:07:05.000 Get out of here.

00:07:06.000 You.

00:07:06.000 Who?

00:07:07.000 The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office is out with a new report which found that U.S.

00:07:07.000 What?

00:07:12.000 taxpayer dollars flowed to Chinese entities, including the Wuhan lab, ahead of the COVID-19 outbreak.

00:07:18.000 Just spend a moment reflecting on the fact that during all that time you were watching funerals on YouTube, you were locked in your house, you were worried about whether to wear masks, you were worried about whether or not to take particular medications, you were blaming other people for not taking medications, you were wondering which news sources you could rely on, you were querying conspiracy theories versus facts, you were wondering what information should be safely censored.

00:07:37.000 The whole time you were paying for the whole farrago.

00:07:41.000 You paid for this?

00:07:42.000 Well, no, you didn't pay for it.

00:07:44.000 Who paid for it?

00:07:45.000 No, look, they caused it, but they didn't pay for it. 0.75

00:07:47.000 Phew! 1.00

00:07:48.000 No, phew wasn't involved.

00:07:50.000 US taxpayers supported research in three Chinese labs that included risky gain-of-function experiments with coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a new government report found on Wednesday.

00:08:00.000 Maybe have risky gain-of-function research at Wuhan Institute of Virology, but could we vote on that?

00:08:06.000 Wouldn't you like to be invited to participate in those kind of things?

00:08:08.000 We're about to spend your money on gain-of-function research at a lab that we suspect might be a bit shady about the old window shutting and hand-washing.

00:08:17.000 Are you down with that?

00:08:18.000 Oh, no.

00:08:19.000 How about a road?

00:08:19.000 Not an option.

00:08:20.000 You can bomb Afghanistan again. 1.00

00:08:22.000 All right, bomb Afghanistan then. 1.00

00:08:24.000 The National Institutes of Health and US Agency for International Development, USAID, provided 2.2 million, more or less, in grant funding to the Chinese research institutions between 2014 and 2021, according to the Government Accountability Office.

00:08:38.000 The report shows 1.4 million in sub-grants allocated by the Manhattan-based EcoHealth Alliance went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology where hazardous research was conducted on bat coronaviruses.

00:08:49.000 If you're going to do research on bat coronaviruses, it shouldn't be hazardous, should it?

00:08:53.000 It shouldn't be risky and dangerous.

00:08:55.000 You might think that 1.4 and 2.2 are relatively low figures, but the whole way that this has been handled, obviously, involves obfuscation and deceit.

00:09:04.000 How do you feel about trusting those same bodies, those same organisations, that same system and mindset, with ongoing current issues right now?

00:09:13.000 The way that you're conveying information on a host of stories, the way that you're taxed on a raft of issues, intersects with these same agencies, and certainly this same mindset.

00:09:22.000 Today, the GAO confirmed that US taxpayer dollars awarded from the National Institutes of Health and USAID were ultimately used for research by entities in China, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was known to be doing coronavirus research, said House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Mike Turner.

00:09:39.000 We have long argued that the American people deserve the truth about COVID-19's origin and continue to take concrete actions to declassify intelligence related to the pandemic.

00:09:49.000 There's a broader argument to assess here, the role that we afford science, and particularly corporatized, pharmacological, medical science, and the institutions around it.

00:09:59.000 Of course, throughout the pandemic, they were presented as the solution to the problem, whereas this narrative suggests that they are the cause of the problem.

00:10:07.000 As long as the narrative remains, oh, it just emerges from nature.

00:10:10.000 What's nature?

00:10:11.000 It's like saying, this just happened because of luck, circumstance, chance, the way things are.

00:10:15.000 And science has come in to solve it.

00:10:17.000 Science has no moral quality.

00:10:19.000 Science is simply the investigation of data and conclusions drawn from exploration, experimentation, and trial.

00:10:25.000 But when science is purposed politically and economically, it is no longer science.

00:10:30.000 It's just a set of tools to serve a political aim and an economic aim.

00:10:34.000 And what we were arguing throughout the pandemic period is you're calling this science, but it's only an aspect of science.

00:10:40.000 You're shutting down some voices, you're elevating other voices.

00:10:44.000 Now we're reaching the point where it's becoming difficult to ignore the possibility that American taxpayer dollars were ultimately spent at a substandard facility that ...caused this pandemic through malpractice or negligence or whatever you want to call it.

00:10:58.000 The funding figure may not reflect the full amount since sub-awards of fewer than $30,000 don't need to be reported in government records.

00:11:05.000 It also shows you how bureaucracy is used to mask and conceal facts that there's one agency then another agency and a sub-grant.

00:11:12.000 It's not clear is it?

00:11:13.000 And given that something so significant has happened it's obviously an opportunity to review the way these funding procedures take place and whether or not you even want experiments of this nature taking place at all.

00:11:23.000 A 2017 video aired by Chinese state-run television reportedly shows Hu watching a lab worker handle specimens while neither is wearing protective gear, according to Public.

00:11:33.000 If they were worried about being infected in the field, they would need full body suits with no gaps, said Alina Qian, who co-authored the book Viral, the search for the origin of COVID-19.

00:11:43.000 She added that scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology conducted their research at a lower biohazard safety level of BSL-2, when we now know that the pandemic virus is even capable of escaping a BSL-3 lab and infecting fully vaccinated young lab workers.

00:11:57.000 Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former director of NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, had denied to Congress earlier that year that US funding went to the controversial research project calling it a modest collaboration with very respectable Chinese scientists who were world experts on coronavirus.

00:12:15.000 Now it looks like clumsy Chinese scientists who weren't wearing the proper lab gear explicitly funded and oh look Anthony Fauci's retired now so he's nicely out of the way. 0.99

00:12:26.000 All of the obscuring obfuscation and doublespeak has led to Something that many people suspected right back in early 2020.

00:12:35.000 That virus has come from a lab.

00:12:37.000 That lab takes funding from American interests.

00:12:40.000 The American government knows about this and they're pushing an agenda and a narrative that it's come from nature in order to avoid the responsibility for causing this in the first place.

00:12:50.000 That doesn't mean that the whole thing was a conspiracy, although there are plenty of people out there who believe that it is.

00:12:56.000 But you can sort of follow a trail from the inception of this disease to enormous profits and expedient actions for government that start to make it look like it was either a colossal mistake that we were lied about or worse than that.

00:13:08.000 Let me know in the chat in the comments which you think it is.

00:13:10.000 Fauci, who retired at the end of last year, tangled with Senator Rand Paul, in particular over the research, telling the senator during a May 11th 2021 hearing that he was entirely and completely incorrect that the NIH has not never and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

00:13:26.000 Well that's a lie under oath isn't it?

00:13:28.000 Let me know in the chat.

00:13:29.000 Fauci has also repeatedly downplayed evidence of a lab leak and argued for the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 occurring naturally.

00:13:36.000 Well there's two reasons why he might have argued for a natural emergence.

00:13:39.000 One being that's because he genuinely believes that it's a possibility and another reason might be because if he is somehow culpable for the emergence of this virus. It would undermine his entire career, a

00:13:50.000 career that many people argue has been smeared elsewhere with comparable errors that we can't

00:13:56.000 go into now on this channel, but that we'd certainly go into on Rumble. The whole idea

00:14:00.000 that science provided a solution to a problem caused by nature now looks increasingly unreliable.

00:14:05.000 Increasingly, it looks like scientific experimentation underwritten by a corporate and commercial

00:14:11.000 and profit-driven agenda has led to a crisis that affected the lives of everybody on the planet

00:14:16.000 one way or another, and then we charged with coming up with a solution the same people that caused

00:14:21.000 the problem in the first place, while allowing affiliated organisations to suggest to us the way

00:14:26.000 that we should all conduct our own lives during that period.

00:14:29.000 And the fact that we're being asked to just forget about it now, the fact that we shut

00:14:32.000 down opposing voices that were trying to present views that we now know to be true, shows you 0.85

00:14:37.000 that this can be used as a kind of scalpel to cut apart the corpse of a corrupt and decaying

00:14:42.000 system, one that clearly is in need of much deeper analysis on the ongoing post-mortem

00:14:48.000 of a system that appears to be dying before our very eyes.

00:14:54.000 Now before we get into our next story about mRNA vaccines being good for pregnant and breastfeeding women, I'm going to have to ask you to join us on Rumble because, as you know, in another conspiracy fact, the WHO provide YouTube with their community guidelines.

00:15:10.000 YouTube are also a member of the Trusted News Initiative, a set of big tech companies and legacy media outlets that come together to censor and control the public space where you have the opportunity and possibility to develop and participate in counter narratives that are antithetical to the interests of the powerful and they don't want that so watch the countdown we're leaving we're on our way click the link in the description join us over on rumble now

00:15:35.000 Remember when they said, don't worry, it's the most tested drug in history?

00:15:38.000 Well, it turns out the US government and the CDC may not have had enough scientific evidence before recommending mRNA vaccines to pregnant and breastfeeding women.

00:15:46.000 Conspiracy theory to conspiracy fact.

00:15:49.000 Here's the news.

00:15:49.000 No, here's the effing news!

00:15:53.000 Now during the pandemic and at its height many people were questioning the efficacy of vaccines and the plausibility of them being safe for breastfeeding and indeed pregnant women because how would you ever accurately clinically trial that?

00:16:06.000 Now at the time it was very difficult to have those conversations because of online censorship of true information.

00:16:12.000 Because of experts who had concerns and questions being censored, shut down, de-platformed, ignored.

00:16:18.000 Extraordinary things went on during that period period, it's only a couple of years ago, let's not forget

00:16:23.000 how that went down. Now new evidence has emerged that suggests that we were right to have those

00:16:29.000 lines of inquiry. Let's have a look at the story now with a little more detail and see whether

00:16:34.000 or not due process was undertaken by the CDC and American government before recommending mRNA

00:16:39.000 vaccines and whether or not Facebook did indeed censor legitimate, truthful and helpful information.

00:16:45.000 Today the CDC urged all pregnant women to get vaccinated. Tonight there's new guidance, the

00:16:50.000 strongest yet, from the CDC urging women who are pregnant or plan to become pregnant to get

00:16:55.000 the vaccine.

00:16:56.000 Some official recommendations from the CDC.

00:16:59.000 A continuation because last week we heard the Society of Maternal Fetal Medicine and ACOG issue their strong recommendations.

00:17:05.000 Now we're hearing from the CDC about the importance of this vulnerable population recommending vaccination.

00:17:12.000 This is based on new data.

00:17:14.000 So no increased risks to be vaccinated while pregnant.

00:17:18.000 It is crystal clear why we're hearing all our professional organizations recommend imploring women in all three trimesters who are considering being pregnant or breastfeeding get vaccinated.

00:17:30.000 It couldn't be more clear.

00:17:31.000 Thank you very much Dr. Jen.

00:17:33.000 Couldn't be more clear.

00:17:34.000 Concerted effort to convey one particular message without dissent, without inquiry and propose it as science or fact.

00:17:43.000 Let's have a look at some additional information that might help us to review the level of certainty and confidence we just witnessed from the legacy.

00:17:49.000 It is unlikely that the vaccine lipid would enter the bloodstream and reach breast tissue.

00:17:54.000 The Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine assured mothers in a statement on the 14th of December 2020.

00:17:59.000 If it does, it's even less likely that either the intact nanoparticle or mRNA transfer into milk.

00:18:05.000 But now a pivotal new study reveals that this was always a lie.

00:18:09.000 Isn't it curious how sometimes your intuition Your memory and your perception and understanding of reality had already kind of informed you that there would be risks when a novel to some degree experimental type of vaccine was being used across a population.

00:18:24.000 That there would be perhaps additional complexity when it came to breastfeeding mothers or pregnant women that perhaps required further scrutiny.

00:18:32.000 In the same way that we've subsequently learned that conversations around natural immunity were repressed, or vitamin D, or potential resolutions and solutions to COVID-19 that did not follow the prescribed course, we now know that some of those conversations were pressed and were controlled.

00:18:47.000 Now it seems that this, one of the most sensitive aspects, one of the areas where the vulnerability is much more costly, is also being reviewed.

00:18:55.000 The study, Biodistribution of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Human Breast Milk, found that trace amounts of mRNA were detected in 10 out of 13 lactating women in a 45-hour period after vaccination.

00:19:06.000 Our findings demonstrate that the COVID-19 vaccine mRNA is not confined to the injection site, but spread systematically, the authors wrote.

00:19:14.000 The study confirms previous results published in the Journal of the American Medical Association Pediatrics last year.

00:19:20.000 The 2022 paper, Detection of Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Human Breast Milk, found trace mRNA amounts in 7 samples from 11 lactating women.

00:19:30.000 Crucially, the new Lancet study concedes that mRNA vaccines do not stay in the arm.

00:19:36.000 Initially, it was thought that the vaccine mRNA encapsulated in the NLP's lipid nanoparticles would remain localised at the injection site and quickly degrade, write the authors.

00:19:47.000 However, several reports suggest that the NLP's mRNA can enter the bloodstream and accumulate in distant tissues.

00:19:54.000 The authors further explain how vaccine mRNA is carried to mammary glands.

00:19:58.000 For lactating mothers receiving the vaccine, our results suggest that the vaccine NLPs will reach the breast tissue, they write.

00:20:04.000 Despite being excluded from the main vaccine trials, many pregnant and breastfeeding women were mandated to get vaccinated in accordance with CDC guidance.

00:20:14.000 Does it not seem extraordinary to you that CDC guidance, as well as the media parroting this consistent message, did not have access to, and indeed the trials were not even undertaken, that could demonstrate the possible dangers or inconsistencies with that messaging?

00:20:30.000 Does it not seem troubling to you that at that time, just a few short years ago, conversation was literally closed down?

00:20:37.000 That there was uniform messaging, both in legacy media and on certain social media sites, where censorship was routinely undertaken, where deep state officials with direct contacts to some of these agencies were willing to censor, control, shut down and purge true information simply because it was inconvenient?

00:20:54.000 Does this single story not demonstrate the necessity of absolutely questioning this type of information?

00:21:00.000 The obvious intention to cleanse, control and dominate the media space in order to prevent reasonable conversations from taking place?

00:21:09.000 Experts with valid opinions being heard?

00:21:11.000 It seems to me extraordinary.

00:21:12.000 This is just a couple of years ago.

00:21:14.000 And what we're talking about now, symbolically, significantly, are mothers.

00:21:18.000 The symbol, really, of the continuation of our species, the, in a sense, epicenter of many of our value systems.

00:21:25.000 It seems casually unconscious that such a thing would be disregarded in this manner, but not at all surprising when we look at how the media has behaved regarding this issue and many others.

00:21:36.000 The Lancet study demonstrates just how irresponsible and reckless the CDC's recommendations were.

00:21:41.000 CDC encourages all pregnant people or people who are thinking about becoming pregnant and those breastfeeding to get vaccinated to protect themselves from COVID-19, said former CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky in August 2021.

00:21:53.000 Walensky made a recommendation based not on science, but on faith alone.

00:21:57.000 Oh my god, that's so extraordinary, isn't it?

00:21:59.000 When you think how malign and neglected faith is, when you think how God or a belief in values and principles is regarded as some kind of hokey crap-pot superstition, and faith-based decisions were being made on the basis, or pretense at least, of science.

00:22:11.000 Continually, people just chatting to their mates, what are you gonna do?

00:22:14.000 Oh, we'll do the same thing then.

00:22:15.000 Are you gonna let them have professional football?

00:22:17.000 Nope.

00:22:18.000 And she's like, okay, neither are we, neither are we.

00:22:19.000 Science just operated, I believe, for much of this period as a kind of new orthodoxy to shut down opposition.

00:22:27.000 It functioned in the same way that a medieval use of theology might have done.

00:22:32.000 If you question this, you are a heretic. 0.93

00:22:34.000 If you oppose these views, there's something morally wrong with you.

00:22:37.000 It just seems astonishing to me that this information continues to leak out like breast milk.

00:22:43.000 At that time, Pfizer and Moderna had not completed trials on pregnant women.

00:22:46.000 Behind the scenes, in 2021, reports journalist Marianne De Marcy, Pfizer was scrambling to conduct a clinical trial of its vaccine in pregnant women.

00:22:54.000 To this day, Pfizer data on pregnant and breastfeeding women is still incomplete and has yet to appear in a peer-reviewed journal or pre-print and has not been submitted to the FDA for evaluation.

00:23:04.000 Moderna's trial is also ongoing and the company has not released its data.

00:23:08.000 So as of today, there is no clinical trial data available.

00:23:12.000 So what was this we were watching on the mainstream news?

00:23:15.000 Absolutely, it's crystal clear.

00:23:17.000 Every single channel saying the same thing.

00:23:20.000 Opposition censored.

00:23:21.000 No clinical trial data.

00:23:23.000 And what was the refrain?

00:23:24.000 What was the rhetoric?

00:23:25.000 Follow the science.

00:23:28.000 What science?

00:23:29.000 It was essentially wishful thinking, authoritarianism, preferences, politicised.

00:23:35.000 It was at odds with science at almost every step.

00:23:38.000 And the people that questioned that were regarded as kind of crackpots, heretics and, as you know, conspiracy theorists.

00:23:43.000 Demarcy reports that Pfizer's trial had major design flaws that would corrupt the data.

00:23:47.000 Peculiarly, notes Demarcy, Pfizer planned to vaccinate all the mothers in the placebo group one month after giving birth to their babies, effectively getting rid of their control group.

00:23:57.000 That doesn't seem very controlled.

00:23:59.000 Well, it does seem controlled.

00:24:00.000 It seems contrived.

00:24:01.000 It seems like eliminating the possibility that there would be a group available to show a lack of complexity.

00:24:08.000 I mean, why would you do that?

00:24:10.000 That seems like an odd anomaly.

00:24:12.000 I don't want to come across as a conspiracy theorist, but one might sense nefarious intention in such an action.

00:24:18.000 Regulators also allowed Pfizer to significantly reduce the number of women in the trial.

00:24:22.000 For this reason, we may never know the true results of the company's study on pregnant women.

00:24:26.000 Certainly if we do find out, it will be an accident.

00:24:29.000 It certainly won't be because of transparency, clarity, honesty and integrity.

00:24:33.000 It will be freedom of information requests.

00:24:35.000 It will be people knocking on the door, demanding, can we have access to that data?

00:24:38.000 Give us 75 years, will ya?

00:24:40.000 Also, we're not sure what happened to JFK yet, but this bullet sure got around.

00:24:44.000 Proponents of vaccine mandates may argue that none of this matters because there have not been adverse events in breastfeeding children.

00:24:51.000 But one of Pfizer's own post-marketing surveillance reports contradicts this assertion.

00:24:56.000 Due to legal action, the FDA was forced to release the report last year.

00:24:59.000 It showed that in 133 cases of breastfeeding babies tracked down by the company, 17 experienced clinical adverse events and three of these events were reported to be serious.

00:25:09.000 So that's some more information that challenges the legacy media narrative.

00:25:13.000 Another Pfizer document released by the FDA under court order found that there were 215 cases of exposure via breast milk, maternal exposure during breastfeeding reported to Pfizer's voluntary pharmacovigilance database.

00:25:25.000 Of these, 41 infants experienced adverse events and 6 experienced serious adverse events.

00:25:30.000 Rather troubling.

00:25:31.000 Many may correctly point out that none of this data is complete or conclusive, but that is precisely the problem.

00:25:37.000 Yes, it's difficult, isn't it?

00:25:38.000 Because there is no precise or conclusive information being offered, because conversation keeps being shut down, dissenting voices keep being censored, legitimate experts who are offering alternative views are being shut down, silenced, shadow banned, whatever resources are available.

00:25:54.000 That does not inspire a great deal of confidence, does it?

00:25:57.000 Let me know in the chat.

00:25:57.000 Millions of women were compelled to get multiple doses of the mRNA vaccines under threat of losing their jobs, and in some cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and New York City, being excluded from public life through vaccine passports.

00:26:10.000 Other women who willingly got vaccinated were told they would have no effect on pregnancy and breastfeeding, but experts did not actually have the data to assert this was the case, and they still don't have it.

00:26:18.000 The mandate in pregnant and breastfeeding women to take an experimental medical product that had not completed clinical trials in their cohort undermined the bedrock principle of medical ethics, informed consent.

00:26:28.000 The disregard for informed consent was not exclusive to mothers.

00:26:32.000 It affected all women of childbearing age because regulators, doctors and officials were equally dismissive of women's concerns about menstruation.

00:26:39.000 In 2021, many women noticed changes in their menstrual cycles after getting vaccinated, but health experts claimed that vaccines were not responsible.

00:26:47.000 In May 2021, Dr. Paula Hillard, a pediatric and adolescent gynecologist of Stanford Children's Health, told the San Francisco Chronicle that it was biologically impossible for the vaccine to impact menstrual cycles.

00:26:58.000 The virus, she claimed, was far more likely to change women's cycles. 1.00

00:27:01.000 I've noticed many times that coronavirus conveniently appears to offer up the symptoms and effects that a potentially malign vaccine or offer up.

00:27:10.000 You know what COVID does now?

00:27:11.000 It's myocarditis, and it makes your breast milk taste the chemicals.

00:27:15.000 So far, there's no data linking the vaccines to changes in menstruation.

00:27:19.000 It does seem, based on the certainty of the mainstream media when it was relevant to encourage people to get vaccines, that there's potentially a bit of an agenda here, and certainly some questions that appear to require answering.

00:27:31.000 And beyond questions, trials!

00:27:33.000 Clinical trials that need to be undertaken in order to deduce what the truth of the situation might be.

00:27:39.000 The next year, a large study in the journal Science Advances found that reports of changing cycles were far from anecdotal.

00:27:46.000 42% of women in a survey of 39,000 reported that their menstrual cycle was heavier after vaccination.

00:27:52.000 In October 2022, the European Union's drug regulator recommended adding heavy periods as a side effect of mRNA Covid-19 vaccines.

00:28:00.000 So after an initial denial, it was demonstrably true that the denial was a little polyautonomy and conspicuously absent from the conversation.

00:28:08.000 It seems that as long as big pharma and legacy media are able to effectively control the conversation, there can be no dissent, there can be no opposition, there can be no reasonable conversation in a territory and area where you would imagine that ordinarily there would be outcry and outrage about the protection of vulnerable people.

00:28:26.000 And indeed, who isn't vulnerable when it comes to a potentially intoxicating and, according to this, untrialled medication?

00:28:32.000 The Lancet breast milk study highlights the major flaws of the Covid-19 vaccine rollout and the ensuing mandates.

00:28:38.000 Government officials, esteemed medical organisations, doctors from prestigious universities and experienced journalists told pregnant and nursing women that they should all get vaccinated and that there was no cause for worry.

00:28:49.000 Only malign disinformation agents, they said, would suggest that there could be any problem.

00:28:53.000 Dissent is akin to disinformation.

00:28:56.000 Those two terms are becoming the same.

00:28:58.000 Legislation is being passed to make it impossible to discern the difference between misinformation, malinformation, and just opposing views and dissent.

00:29:05.000 This is yet another example of it.

00:29:07.000 We can't have a conversation about, as we've seen earlier in the show, about Putin and whether or not Putin dabbled in previous elections.

00:29:14.000 It's just passed off as a fact.

00:29:15.000 We can't have a conversation about how we found ourselves supporting a proxy war between Russia and Ukraine and whether or not there were opportunities of peace that have been passed up.

00:29:22.000 All of this is regarded as enabling or apologising.

00:29:25.000 And the same with this issue.

00:29:27.000 There is no issue where that template won't be applied.

00:29:30.000 If you dissent, you'll be shut down.

00:29:31.000 If you oppose, you'll be ignored.

00:29:33.000 And simple and obvious basic questions about whether or not there are reliable clinical trials will will cause you to be called a conspiracy theorist when

00:29:39.000 under ordinary circumstances a lack of clinical evidence to support breastfeeding mothers or be

00:29:44.000 taken to medicine will be regarded as a significant piece of information.

00:29:51.000 Consider becoming an awakened wonder.

00:29:52.000 Joining our community.

00:29:53.000 Get yourself a little bit of merchandise.

00:29:55.000 Join our movement.

00:29:57.000 Become part of this.

00:29:58.000 Leave the old world behind and recognize this is the moment for us to awaken together.

00:30:03.000 I remember lockdown.

00:30:04.000 Best of all, it was all based on scientific data, except it turns out that they were political decisions, not scientific decisions, all along.

00:30:12.000 Also in the US, a former FDA commissioner admitted that social distancing rules were made up.

00:30:18.000 Arbitrary.

00:30:19.000 Cogwash.

00:30:21.000 Here's the news. 0.76

00:30:22.000 No, here's the effing news.

00:30:25.000 Chris Whitty, who was the UK strategist and scientific expert whose guidance was followed during the lockdown period here in this country, has revealed that he would not have recommended lockdowns without political intervention.

00:30:39.000 Meanwhile, in the United States, a former FDA commissioner has said that social distancing rules were arbitrary.

00:30:46.000 So remember how that whole discourse was conducted.

00:30:49.000 Follow the science.

00:30:50.000 This is what's necessary.

00:30:52.000 You're not a doctor, are you?

00:30:52.000 You're not an expert.

00:30:54.000 That was the kind of rhetoric that was deployed throughout that period.

00:30:57.000 Isn't it interesting to see that dismantled and fall apart?

00:31:00.000 What is being revealed to us?

00:31:02.000 What is being revealed as the real agenda behind it?

00:31:05.000 I'm not interested in conspiracy theories.

00:31:07.000 That's not true.

00:31:07.000 I am actually interested in conspiracy theories.

00:31:09.000 I don't think this is a conspiracy theory.

00:31:11.000 I think what we are starting to be able to observe is either the conscious or unconscious biases of powerful interests and how they led to a set of measures and legislation that was either financially favorable to the corporate class or politically expedient to those already in government.

00:31:26.000 Let's unpack it now.

00:31:27.000 Scientists would not have proposed lockdowns without ministers suggesting them, the UK's most senior doctor said.

00:31:35.000 Sir Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer for England, told the COVID inquiry he would have been surprised if scientists had included national shutdowns as part of the planning for a pandemic.

00:31:45.000 It's interesting that lockdowns were a key component of the strategy when it wasn't derived from science.

00:31:50.000 Where did it come from then?

00:31:52.000 If scientists weren't proposing it, where did it come from?

00:31:55.000 We were all assumed that there was a reason, not an abstract reason, a scientific reason.

00:32:00.000 And this was the one I thought it was.

00:32:01.000 You can't go out because it will lead to the disease spreading more rapidly and killing more people.

00:32:07.000 Therefore, are you willing to compromise and stay in your house?

00:32:09.000 The answer of any sane person is yes, of course.

00:32:11.000 I don't want people to die as a result of my actions.

00:32:14.000 So, yeah, I'm happy to stay indoors.

00:32:16.000 Well, that wasn't ever scientific.

00:32:18.000 So what was it then?

00:32:19.000 Let me know in the comments what could have been the idea if it wasn't derived from science.

00:32:24.000 If it doesn't come from science, I suppose we should be grateful that there is an inquiry.

00:32:28.000 Not suggested, requested.

00:32:29.000 should be grateful that there is an inquiry. Sir Chris said planning for such an extraordinarily

00:32:32.000 major social intervention would not have occurred unless a minister had requested it. Not suggested,

00:32:37.000 requested. Ask for it. Sir Chris said that lockdowns were a leap of imagination. That's

00:32:42.000 not what you want in government, is it?

00:32:44.000 OK, what are you doing now?

00:32:45.000 I'm just using my imagination to leap around.

00:32:48.000 You're not a poet.

00:32:49.000 It's not Lewis Carroll.

00:32:50.000 It's not Alice in Wonderland, is it?

00:32:52.000 It's not Herman Melville.

00:32:53.000 Wait a minute.

00:32:53.000 What should we do?

00:32:54.000 There's a national crisis.

00:32:55.000 Well, I'm going to go firstly into my imagination.

00:32:58.000 And once I'm in there, I'm going to start leaping and bounding like a poet rather than an administrator who's supposed to use taxpayer dollars or pounds in order to administrate favorably for the people that I was elected to serve.

00:33:10.000 That's what they're meant to be doing.

00:33:11.000 He's not leaping about in their imagination.

00:33:13.000 He also claimed that a lack of radical thinking had hindered the country's planning for the pandemic.

00:33:18.000 Of course what this pertains to is the idea that potentially lockdown in some ways may have caused more deaths than they prevented.

00:33:23.000 If not specifically related to the pandemic, then related to heart disease, people missing cancer treatments, people ending their own lives, the impact on mental health and addiction more broadly, diabetes, operations being missed, the list goes on and on and on.

00:33:35.000 It's not a leap of the imagination.

00:33:37.000 It's just someone reading a list of potential consequences that were apparently overlooked, but not for scientific reasons.

00:33:43.000 That's been revealed.

00:33:44.000 So what's the other reason?

00:33:45.000 Tell me in the comments.

00:33:46.000 He became the latest senior figure to admit that the UK had a long-standing bias in favor of influenza when it came to pandemic planning and admitted there should be a separate plan for other types of viruses.

00:33:57.000 That's a favorable way of looking at it.

00:33:59.000 But whenever they're strategically looking at the idea of a pandemic, influenza is the template that they rely on, and in the event of an influenza-like virus, these measures will be useful.

00:34:08.000 As Jordan Peterson says, never assume malfeasance when ineptitude will do.

00:34:13.000 So perhaps these people that we're paying are just inept, rather than malfeasant, and didn't recognise that this is not influenza, it's not behaving like influenza, and measures that are required for influenza will not be successful in this instance.

00:34:24.000 But, given that we know it wasn't scientific anyway, what else could it have been?

00:34:28.000 Asked about some of the interventions used during the pandemic, Sir Chris said social measures such as quarantine and individual isolation were not new and some went back to the middle ages.

00:34:38.000 Could we maybe put leeches on their skin? 1.00

00:34:41.000 And maybe some of these people are witches. 0.97

00:34:43.000 So if they float, I think that means they are a witch.

00:34:47.000 And if they sink to the bottom, they wasn't a witch.

00:34:49.000 Wait a minute, they're already dead.

00:34:50.000 Ah, never mind.

00:34:51.000 Let's just do that anyway.

00:34:52.000 You can't say that something was scientific and followed the science when the ideas come from the medieval days when people didn't even understand stuff like germs and Atoms!

00:35:04.000 We're following the science.

00:35:07.000 What science?

00:35:08.000 Well, this is my lucky chicken.

00:35:10.000 And this stick I use to determine whether or not there's evil demons and stuff.

00:35:14.000 Oh, that sounds pretty scientific.

00:35:15.000 I know!

00:35:16.000 It's my favorite one of my lucky demon sticks.

00:35:18.000 However he said that lockdown had not been considered in advance and that scientific committees would rarely plan for such extreme measures and subsequent measures was China as a very authoritarian centralized state tyrannical country were able to use a lot of stand in your house like you know get out of Tiananmen Square otherwise we're going to run you over type stuff and we went oh should we do that then but we're not Are we?

00:35:41.000 Aren't we always claiming freedom, liberty?

00:35:43.000 We're going to war with that country. 0.99

00:35:44.000 Why?

00:35:44.000 Well, they don't like liberty and freedom.

00:35:46.000 And we love it, as you know. 0.99

00:35:47.000 So when we see other people not doing it, we kill them. 0.97

00:35:50.000 Particularly if they've got, I don't know, oil over there or if we can sell some weapons off the back of it.

00:35:54.000 But the main thing always has been liberty and freedom.

00:35:56.000 People have the first opportunity to bang people up in their houses when it's not scientifically necessary and there's no evidence to suggest it's something you should do and the ideas come from the Middle Ages. 0.53

00:36:05.000 Starts to challenge the whole model, doesn't it?

00:36:07.000 I would have thought it would be very surprising without this being requested by a senior politician or similar that a scientific committee would venture in between emergencies into that kind of extraordinarily major social intervention with huge economic and social impact ramifications.

00:36:22.000 That's the dude that was in charge of the science now saying something that six months ago would have basically made you Joe Rogan's schizophrenic cousin.

00:36:30.000 High on horse paste.

00:36:32.000 So let's say again, it would be very surprising, without being requested by a senior politician, so someone basically like the leader of a country, a president or a prime minister, that a scientific committee, right that means people that are just interested in data, would venture in between emergencies into that kind of extraordinarily major social intervention with huge economic and social impact ramifications.

00:36:52.000 The very things that we were talking about.

00:36:54.000 Go back and have a look.

00:36:55.000 Go check the date, go check our YouTube videos from that exact time and see what we're saying.

00:36:59.000 You can rely on us.

00:37:00.000 You can tell what we were saying then because it's on tape and it's on YouTube.

00:37:03.000 Just about for now.

00:37:04.000 Unless WHO guidelines, which YouTube use, means that it'll all be taken down.

00:37:08.000 In which case, go to rumble.

00:37:09.000 It's very difficult for the committees to go beyond a certain level unless they are asked to do so externally.

00:37:14.000 So they don't even have the authority or power.

00:37:16.000 So what was always framed as scientific was always, in fact, political.

00:37:19.000 Now, you have to ask yourself, What forces do you think determine political outcomes?

00:37:24.000 Ask yourself some questions about this.

00:37:25.000 How are political parties funded?

00:37:26.000 Where do they get their money from?

00:37:28.000 Is there such a thing as lobbying?

00:37:30.000 Who benefits from this?

00:37:31.000 Do people in Congress own stocks and shares in certain organisations that they themselves regulate?

00:37:35.000 Ask yourselves those questions and then, with the answers, just come up with your own ideas.

00:37:40.000 Sir Chris was asked about written evidence from Matt Hancock, the former health secretary, as to whether there was focus on worst case scenarios.

00:37:46.000 He was a health minister at the time.

00:37:48.000 He was one of the people that was in charge.

00:37:49.000 A bit like our, not like our Fauci, but he was in a guiding, leading role during the period.

00:37:54.000 He said that lockdown would not have worked against many previous outbreaks or pandemics

00:37:57.000 such as HIV, swine flu, plague and cholera, but was adopted around the world as countries

00:38:02.000 struggled to stop Covid.

00:38:04.000 It was kind of like a mass panic and a mass hysteria and that's being kind about it,

00:38:08.000 because many of you will point out, won't you, in the comments that they've planned

00:38:11.000 for events such as these, event 201, those things that happened in 2016 that gamed out

00:38:16.000 this stuff.

00:38:17.000 You'll probably be interested in what happened in those scenarios.

00:38:19.000 But let's try our best to be kind and compassionate and say, well, everyone just sort of panicked

00:38:23.000 and went into a hysteria.

00:38:24.000 But all the while that the rhetoric was around science, shouldn't we have been saying, well, is this working?

00:38:29.000 And is this effective?

00:38:30.000 And what's happening in countries where they're not doing it?

00:38:32.000 We should have used the data to reach conclusions that had the maximum benefit, risk-benefit mitigation strategies incorporated, and then regulate on that basis.

00:38:41.000 Comments?

00:38:41.000 The inquiry also heard from Sir Patrick Vallance, the former chief scientific officer, who said he regrets how long it took papers from SAGE, that was the body that was coordinating the response, to be made public.

00:38:52.000 Oh, are you surprised by how long it takes for information to be made public?

00:38:55.000 The real problem is Donald Trump and his little box of secrets, isn't it?

00:38:58.000 Whereas regularly information is kept back.

00:39:00.000 Why?

00:39:00.000 To protect us or could there be some other reason the information is kept back?

00:39:03.000 I think, in principle, the science advice, unless it's national security related, should become public, he said, adding, the advice took longer than it should to be published.

00:39:11.000 So now we know it's political, it's not scientific, and it was, if not censored, it was contained and kept back.

00:39:16.000 What does that start to suggest?

00:39:18.000 Professor Dame Sally Davis, who was Chief Medical Officer for England from 2011 to 2019, before Professor Sir Chris Wee.

00:39:24.000 Bloody hell, how many names has this guy got?

00:39:25.000 Professor, Sir, Your Highness, Chris Whitty. 0.99

00:39:28.000 Do what we fucking tell you. 0.99

00:39:28.000 Yes? 0.99

00:39:29.000 Told the COVID inquiry that lockdown damaged a generation of children.

00:39:33.000 People were saying that at the time, weren't they?

00:39:34.000 Are you exhausted?

00:39:35.000 Scientists from Johns Hopkins University and Lund University examined almost 20,000 studies on measures taken to protect populations against COVID across the world and said their findings showed that the draconian measures had a negligible impact on COVID mortality and were a policy failure of gigantic proportions.

00:39:51.000 But of course the nature of the pandemic is it had an international impact.

00:39:54.000 There were many, many suggestions that were made and enforced, proposed, put forward aggressively, where people were shamed, shut down if they didn't toe the line.

00:40:03.000 Another one was social distancing, right?

00:40:05.000 Stand two meters back.

00:40:06.000 And again, if this is in order to save lives, if this is scientifically verifiable information that's come from scientists, then of course we're happy to obey, right?

00:40:13.000 Because human life is sacred and we're all here to protect each other.

00:40:16.000 That's the way we run the world, right?

00:40:18.000 In December 2021, one of former President Trump's commissioners of the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, told CBS's Face the Nation the six-foot social distancing rule created to slow the spread of the coronavirus was arbitrary and has decreased confidence in the pandemic response.

00:40:33.000 Yes, when you present something as science that is in fact arbitrary, that will decrease the authority of the people that make those suggestions.

00:40:40.000 If you say, do not stand any closer than six feet, that's scientifically because of the vapour you see and the spores, what they do.

00:40:46.000 Let me show you a diagram, in fact.

00:40:48.000 The spores will go from here and then just go, I made it up.

00:40:50.000 That's what arbitrary means.

00:40:51.000 They made it up.

00:40:53.000 It was just made up.

00:40:55.000 That will decrease people's trust in the authority.

00:40:56.000 The six foot rule, Gottlieb said, was a compromise between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which had recommended 10 feet, and an unnamed political appointee in the Trump administration who called 10 feet inoperable.

00:41:08.000 10 feet, that's too far.

00:41:10.000 Nobody can do 10 feet.

00:41:11.000 How about...

00:41:14.000 Six! 0.76

00:41:16.000 Yeah, I say six.

00:41:17.000 Both the ten-foot and six-foot recommendations were unfounded.

00:41:21.000 Even the ten was made up.

00:41:21.000 Take a leap.

00:41:23.000 I reckon ten feet.

00:41:24.000 Why?

00:41:24.000 I don't know.

00:41:25.000 Ten fingers, you know?

00:41:25.000 Ten.

00:41:26.000 Ten original states.

00:41:28.000 Ten.

00:41:28.000 Who don't like ten out of tens?

00:41:30.000 Ten! 0.97

00:41:30.000 Lists of ten. 0.97

00:41:31.000 Yeah, but isn't this meant to be about science?

00:41:34.000 And show the lack of rigor in how the CDC made public health recommendations.

00:41:38.000 We're going to make these recommendations based on numbers that we pulled straight out of the air.

00:41:44.000 Here's one.

00:41:45.000 Six feet away.

00:41:46.000 What about 10?

00:41:47.000 No, that's inoperable.

00:41:49.000 What about 32 feet?

00:41:49.000 Six.

00:41:50.000 If I don't take 10, I'm not going to take 32.

00:41:52.000 How about four feet?

00:41:53.000 I don't like four.

00:41:54.000 Four's unlucky.

00:41:55.000 Six.

00:41:56.000 What's the point in voting?

00:41:56.000 Should we vote on six?

00:41:58.000 It doesn't do anything.

00:41:59.000 Hey, you can't say that.

00:42:00.000 Many people assume they're all traces to some old studies on the flu, which found droplets won't travel further than six feet, Gottlieb said.

00:42:08.000 Well, I got these old studies on the flu, and they say droplets don't travel further than six feet.

00:42:16.000 Okay, well that'll do, I suppose.

00:42:18.000 Oh, come on! 0.99

00:42:19.000 I like ten!

00:42:20.000 Ten! 0.97

00:42:21.000 That film with Dudley Moore in it!

00:42:22.000 Ten! 0.97

00:42:22.000 The number, the Pele and Maradona war! 0.97

00:42:25.000 TEN! 0.97

00:42:25.000 The six-foot rule was probably the single costliest recommendation that the CDC made, Gottlieb said, because the whole thing feels arbitrary and not science-based, which lowers public confidence. 0.97

00:42:35.000 Well, in our country, we're locking people in their house for the same reason.

00:42:37.000 Feels like the sort of thing you might do.

00:42:39.000 Superstition!

00:42:40.000 Medieval laws!

00:42:42.000 Old science papers!

00:42:43.000 We were told this was science!

00:42:44.000 Oh, these people! 1.00

00:42:45.000 These people are idiots. 1.00

00:42:47.000 These various anti-vaxxers and these conspiracy theorists and nutjobs that are not respecting science of numbers that we've made up and measures that we've gleaned from the medieval times. 1.00

00:42:57.000 These idiots, these nutjobs, obviously ain't very patriotic and they deserve everything. 1.00

00:43:03.000 We should shame them! 1.00

00:43:04.000 We should shame them! 0.94

00:43:05.000 How dare you not believe in our hocus-pocus superstitions of made-up numbers!

00:43:09.000 So there you are.

00:43:10.000 As we continue to review the impact of the last three years, the general medical, psychological, ecological, economic impact of that time, we now have further evidence to suggest that the scientific experts did not have the authority that was claimed.

00:43:24.000 In fact, many of these decisions were political, some of them were arbitrary, some of them

00:43:28.000 were made up on the spot.

00:43:29.000 The very kind of things that were levelled at Canadian truckers and nurses who lost their

00:43:33.000 job because of refusing to take certain medications and people that were cynical and suspicious

00:43:38.000 and whole communities of minorities that are cherished when it's bloody convenient, they 1.00

00:43:43.000 were cast out as nut jobs and voodoo practitioners when in fact much of the science was simply

00:43:49.000 stuff that was convenient and made up.

00:43:51.000 The word arbitrary suggests that it was random, lucky.

00:43:54.000 But could there be another objective and agenda?

00:43:57.000 I'm not saying there is because I like to base things on evidence and science.

00:44:01.000 That's the difference between Us and them.

00:44:03.000 When we say science, we mean science. 0.96

00:44:05.000 When we say liars, we mean liars. 0.98

00:44:07.000 When we say corruption, we mean criminals.

00:44:09.000 When we say inquiry, we mean an inquiry that brings these people to the forefront in order that they may confront justice.

00:44:15.000 A justice derived from a set of values and principles that mean something.

00:44:18.000 Not just ways to establish dominion over people and extract profit from the world's population when it's convenient.

00:44:25.000 Well I hope you enjoyed that journey from conspiracy theory to conspiracy fact.

00:44:29.000 It's a journey that we undertook together as friends.

00:44:31.000 I hope you're enjoying this weird new period at the beginning of the year.

00:44:34.000 We got some fantastic content.

00:44:35.000 We got the Pulitzer Prize winning Chris Hedges on the show on Tuesday talking about the conflict in the Middle East.

00:44:40.000 He's got strong opinions.

00:44:43.000 You know, join us and participate and let me know what you think.

00:44:46.000 Callie Means is coming on the show talking about big food, big pharma, and big obese children being used as kind of poo pie for the FDA's experiments, but basically we're being fed bad food and bad drugs.

00:44:58.000 You'll love it.

00:44:59.000 And The great mother, Vandana Shiva, will be on the show discussing Bill Gates' big agriculture.

00:45:07.000 They've got the same initial letters.

00:45:09.000 And tyranny on the 4th of January.

00:45:11.000 Remember, click the red awaken button to join our locals community to get early access to our interviews, readings, podcasts and solutions to global problems which will always come from decentralisation.

00:45:21.000 Unified, decentralised opponents to the establishment, including our new members now, Sublime Sammy, DMS 0559, JustFlyOverCountry, JesusSquid606.

00:45:31.000 Hey, I know that guy.

00:45:32.000 Join us next week on Tuesday, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.

Stay Free - Russel Brand - December 28, 2023

Do You Remember THIS?! | Wuhan Lab Leak, Vaccines & Lockdowns - STAY FREE #275

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript