Stay Free - Russel Brand - March 30, 2023


YOU WERE RIGHT | New SHOCKING Vax Study! - #102 - Stay Free With Russell Brand


Episode Stats

Length

1 hour and 2 minutes

Words per Minute

180.1747

Word Count

11,345

Sentence Count

562

Misogynist Sentences

23

Hate Speech Sentences

7


Summary

In this episode of Stay Free With Russell Brand, Russell is joined by journalist Matt Taibbi to talk about the war on free speech, and why Hillary Clinton is running for president in 2020. Also, we re talking about Big Pharma and Joe Biden's broken promises to lower drug prices. And, of course, there s some new data on vaccine side effects, which is not allowed to be discussed on the show because it s not allowed on YouTube. Can you guess what that is? Can you tell us what it is, because we can t? And, as always, thanks for listening to Stay Free with Russell Brand. Stay Free, and Don t forget to Like, Share, and Subscribe to our new podcast, RUMBLE, wherever you re listening to podcasts. Stay free, and remember: you re not gonna want to miss it! In this video, you re going to see the future. In this episode, you ll get a special bonus episode exclusively on Rumble, where the whole show will be exclusively available on Rumble. You ll get to listen to the entire show exclusively on the podcast, so you ll be sure to stay free forever. Stay free! (and don t miss out on the next episode on Rumble! Stay Free, and stay free, stay ! - R.B. Brand Matt Taffet . R. B. . . . R. BRADY , R. , R, R. S. BILLY , and R. R. M. BON & R. JAMES is . , , TAYLORR. BORROW , M. J., , P. M., R. P. BOB , S. SON , J. J. S., M. E. , and M. A. BAY, , BOB, J. D. , AND SO MUCH MORE! , ENJOYING IT? , AND MUCH MORE? ...and so much more! ... , we ll be talking about the future, RUSSIA, RAAAAY, ROODS, RATE, RYAN PODCAST, RAY AND SONGS, BECAUSE WE'LL BE SEXUAL, RIDDLE, AND THE FUTURE, RULY, AND MORE!


Transcript

00:00:00.000 So, I'm going to go ahead and get started.
00:00:28.000 In this video, you're going to see the future.
00:00:48.000 In this video, you're going to see the future.
00:00:58.000 Hello, you Awakening Wonders!
00:01:00.000 Thanks for joining me on Stay Free with Russell Brand.
00:01:02.000 Wherever you happen to be watching this, maybe you're watching it on YouTube, the whole show will be exclusively on Rumble and you ain't gonna want to miss it because we're talking about Big Pharma today, Biden's broken promises to lower drug prices.
00:01:13.000 This is such a beautiful bit of footage of Biden being so sanctimonious and sincere about he's just a regular guy affected like all of us by those bloody fat cats in Big Pharma.
00:01:24.000 Sort of never mentioning he's the President of the United States during all of it.
00:01:28.000 It's fantastic.
00:01:28.000 You're going to love it.
00:01:29.000 Also, we've got so-called journalist Matt Taibbi on the show, talking about the War on Free Speech.
00:01:34.000 I'm so excited to speak to Matt.
00:01:35.000 I've not spoke to him since he had that... Is it Debbie Wasserman Schultz?
00:01:38.000 That woman in Congress.
00:01:39.000 This is my time!
00:01:40.000 This is my time!
00:01:42.000 So I'm going to say that to him during the conversation.
00:01:43.000 You should.
00:01:44.000 Yeah.
00:01:44.000 I'm going to ask him a question, like... You should hold that up and say that.
00:01:48.000 I'm going to go, yeah, this is what I'm going to do.
00:01:49.000 All right, Matt, tell us exactly why you appeared as a Republican witness and how the issue of free speech transcends normal political boundaries, because ultimately it will always affect all of us because we don't know who's in authority.
00:02:00.000 We've got, OK, so me and... I'm going to just go, it's my time, it's my time, it's my time, and then implicit, it's my time to shine like the girl boss queen I am deep down.
00:02:13.000 Once we're only on Rumble, we're going to be talking about, as usual, some new data on vaccine side effects.
00:02:19.000 Can you euphemistically tell me what that is?
00:02:21.000 No.
00:02:22.000 Because it's not allowed on YouTube.
00:02:23.000 Right.
00:02:24.000 Can't talk about that, but on Rumble, we can.
00:02:25.000 That's why we're on Rumble, for free speech, free speech that will unite us all.
00:02:30.000 The good news is Hillary Clinton is running.
00:02:34.000 Have a look at this.
00:02:35.000 Oh my God.
00:02:36.000 What is it?
00:02:37.000 It's Hillary Clinton.
00:02:38.000 She's running.
00:02:39.000 What?
00:02:42.000 What is the whole tone of this piece of propaganda?
00:02:45.000 This is obviously a piece of propaganda of some kind.
00:02:47.000 It's one of those probably sort of an online education facility of some description that hasn't gone to the trouble of investigating Hillary Clinton's past.
00:02:56.000 Or what young people are like.
00:02:58.000 Hey, I'm a young people person, so look at me!
00:03:00.000 You know what I love?
00:03:01.000 Hillary Clinton!
00:03:02.000 She's so cool and down with the cats and kids!
00:03:06.000 It's such a terrible misstep, a misinterpretation of what reality is.
00:03:11.000 And I suppose that's the fundamental problem, isn't it, with contemporary politics, is they live in a different reality.
00:03:16.000 They live in a different America, so their rhetoric and their presentations of what America's meant to be like seems like some sort of vacuous Aldous Huxley-esque What are you all upbeat about?
00:03:29.000 Is it the poverty?
00:03:30.000 Is it the desperation?
00:03:32.000 Is it the opioid crisis?
00:03:33.000 Is it the endlessly inculcated division that we're all experiencing?
00:03:37.000 It's all of that!
00:03:38.000 And have you heard?
00:03:39.000 Hillary's running.
00:03:40.000 That's not exciting.
00:03:41.000 It's not like a, I don't know, a Harry Styles album or a new form of skunk.
00:03:46.000 It's not going to cause any excitement in the corridors of academia, is it?
00:03:51.000 Running again?
00:03:52.000 I know, I heard that so crazy!
00:03:54.000 This is wild, she's running again!
00:03:56.000 But it's not wild at all, is it?
00:03:58.000 How many times has she tried now?
00:04:00.000 It's just, the response would be, really?
00:04:03.000 Again?
00:04:04.000 Why?
00:04:04.000 You know that woman who spent her whole doggone life trying to impose herself on us, whether it's by crushing the aspirations of Bernie Sanders, who was a populist representation of a traditional leftist movement, or whether it's Clambering over the complications, shall we call them, in her marriage.
00:04:22.000 Or whether it's starting up the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
00:04:24.000 Making up lies about Russia and Donald Trump.
00:04:26.000 Lying about Russia and Donald Trump.
00:04:27.000 You know that sort of relentless force for power that potentially has got all sorts of expressions in forms that we... Would we discuss that ever only on Rumble?
00:04:37.000 Like some of the, shall we say, the statistically high number of people that have taken unusual decisions after knowing the Clintons.
00:04:45.000 Shall we just call it that?
00:04:46.000 Is that euphemistic enough?
00:04:47.000 Well done.
00:04:48.000 Hey, look who's running again!
00:04:50.000 Look who's running people into an early grave!
00:04:53.000 It's the Clintons!
00:04:55.000 Again, that could just be euphemistic.
00:04:56.000 Yes.
00:04:57.000 And it was.
00:04:58.000 It was.
00:04:58.000 Not only could it be, it would be.
00:05:00.000 It was, it was.
00:05:02.000 So, um, look at this now.
00:05:03.000 Now we've got a bit of, like, Hillary Clinton... The whole joke of this is predicated on, oh, she's not running for office like she usually is.
00:05:10.000 She's literally running down a corridor in some little dolly boots.
00:05:14.000 And we're meant to think that's somehow adorable, when it's...
00:05:17.000 We're war criminal!
00:05:18.000 You think that's actually Hillary Clinton's kicking legs?
00:05:23.000 Well, if it was, that would be the most authentic part of this entire thing.
00:05:27.000 So let's hope.
00:05:28.000 If that was Hillary Clinton's actual tootsies, toes, toenails, and soles of her feet, bunions, corns, etc, and hey, we all get older, like, then that would be the only authentic thing.
00:05:39.000 Maybe that's why they did it.
00:05:40.000 They're like, well, 5% of this is actually real.
00:05:43.000 So we can stick with that.
00:05:44.000 Do you know what was real about this video?
00:05:47.000 Go on.
00:05:48.000 Those were feet.
00:05:49.000 What's not real is anything else.
00:05:52.000 The enthusiasm of the young people, the claims that this is a legitimate political voice rather than an institutional, like in a sense the epitome of the political class.
00:06:02.000 This is not about Hillary Clinton as a person.
00:06:03.000 It's not because I know Hillary Clinton as a mother and a wife and in some ways like Has succeeded in you know the narrative of a woman
00:06:10.000 succeeding in a male world is I think a significant and important
00:06:15.000 Narrative and I think worthy of celebration, but what also asked that she didn't get involved in any bombings
00:06:22.000 I would imagine God to tell you if you've got involved in loads of bombings that would for me that would undermine
00:06:26.000 the whole You go girl woman succeeding in a male world
00:06:30.000 I'd say, look, that is good, but I also want to consider if there's been any bombings, if you've funded bombings, if you've voted for wars, if you've accepted money for war criminals, if you've acted in ways that are undemocratic, we're going to have to include that in the story.
00:06:42.000 But so far, we don't know if that's true.
00:06:44.000 All I'm seeing at the moment is some authentic little tootsies running down the corridor.
00:06:49.000 Here I am!
00:06:50.000 Hillary, you're running again!
00:06:52.000 Well, I sure am, Karen.
00:06:53.000 I just got here early for the new class we're teaching together on foreign policy decision-making.
00:06:58.000 Okay, well, what are those decisions?
00:07:00.000 Bombs?
00:07:01.000 Of course!
00:07:04.000 That also isn't a good enough joke, is it?
00:07:07.000 The word running primarily means to move at pace, perambulated by your legs.
00:07:14.000 It's not like, you know, running in that way.
00:07:17.000 It's not a surprise.
00:07:18.000 It's not the sudden revelation of a previously concealed piece of information provoking laughter.
00:07:23.000 Also, the thing she's teaching is so ironic at this point.
00:07:27.000 Yeah, I'm teaching how to not blame Russia for stuff.
00:07:31.000 Classes don't start until September.
00:07:34.000 Yeah, but I wanted to be prepared, Karen.
00:07:36.000 You know, when it comes to crisis situations, you've always got to be prepared.
00:07:40.000 Certainly, you don't need to be as prepared.
00:07:43.000 Excuse my language.
00:07:45.000 Prepared?
00:07:45.000 I think you're more prepared than anyone to teach this course.
00:07:49.000 Now, what are we going to call it?
00:07:51.000 Inside the Situation Room.
00:07:53.000 Ugh, um, annoy you, just as some words.
00:07:56.000 Inside the Situation Room.
00:07:59.000 So pleased with itself.
00:08:01.000 Oh, I'm inside the situation, the room where it happened.
00:08:03.000 It's such a post-Hamilton, pleased with itself, liberal bit of crap.
00:08:08.000 Yes, and I'll cover the theory of political decision-making and strategy.
00:08:13.000 And I'll cover what it was actually like in the room during the Bin Laden raid, the Iran sanctions, the Ga- What was it like to simplify that issue and epitomize all of it in the figure of Osama Bin Laden when there are complex issues at stake to do with the historic clash between East and West, the representation of energy companies, gerrymandering and manipulation, the ongoing colonial impact Okay, but are you ready for whatever questions the students throw at you?
00:08:38.000 that is caused when a military acts on behalf of corporate interests.
00:08:41.000 Get out of the room! Get out of the room!
00:08:43.000 Sorry, I'm just gonna run out of here.
00:08:45.000 Look who's running again! It's Hillary!
00:08:47.000 She's running away from the truth!
00:08:49.000 She's running from the students! They've got questions!
00:08:51.000 She's changed into some rollerblades!
00:08:53.000 Inline ones, the nerd!
00:08:55.000 It's a ceasefire, you name it.
00:08:57.000 Okay, but are you ready for whatever questions the students throw at you?
00:09:01.000 Bring it on!
00:09:04.000 Here are some of those questions.
00:09:08.000 Oh.
00:09:08.000 As a supporter of the war in Iraq, what were some of your main achievements, Hillary Clinton?
00:09:13.000 Was it the escalating wars, greenlighting coups, and generally maintaining and expanding power around the globe?
00:09:19.000 Well, well, what is it?
00:09:21.000 Come back, Hillary!
00:09:22.000 Come back!
00:09:23.000 Would you say that generally you were more or less militarily aggressive than your Republican counterparts?
00:09:28.000 The answer to that, of course, is on most foreign policy decisions, including Libya, Clinton was in favour of equally aggressive action, if not more so, than former Bush appointee Robert Gates.
00:09:37.000 Question.
00:09:38.000 How did you package your hawkish policies publicly?
00:09:40.000 Answer.
00:09:41.000 Clinton and Obama got away with hawkish policies because they stuck to the language of humanitarian intervention and liberation.
00:09:46.000 Clinton helped assert the right of the US government to intervene in any country of its choosing, using the most brutal means possible to achieve its end.
00:09:54.000 As a mother, What's your drone policy?
00:09:57.000 Clinton was an enthusiastic supporter of Obama's decision to step up the use of drone warfare in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.
00:10:04.000 Clinton and the Obama administration sold the drone program as a precise and effective way to ruin weddings, sorry, to target terrorists with fewer risks of collateral damage.
00:10:13.000 But the numbers tell a different story.
00:10:14.000 During one five-month period of an operation, 90% of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets.
00:10:21.000 But only 90% of them were innocent people who shouldn't have been killed.
00:10:25.000 Think about that 10% who were the intended targets.
00:10:28.000 Think about that and dash down a corridor all pleased with yourself to present a course on truth and foreign policy.
00:10:35.000 What was your relationship with the military-industrial complex, Hillary?
00:10:37.000 That's one question.
00:10:38.000 God, bring it on.
00:10:39.000 This is a question I'd love to see answered.
00:10:41.000 What was your relationship with the military-industrial complex?
00:10:44.000 As Secretary of State, Clinton made it her business to make sure the world was open for U.S.
00:10:47.000 business.
00:10:48.000 From securing defense contracts for Lockheed Martin to brokering deals to build nuclear plants for Westinghouse, Clinton and her ambassador CEOs traveled the globe to bring foreign governments and U.S.
00:10:58.000 companies together.
00:10:59.000 We have to position ourselves to lead in a world where security is shaped in boardrooms and on trading floors as well as battlefields, Clinton said.
00:11:06.000 Surely you didn't take donations, though, from military contractors.
00:11:10.000 American military contractors and their affiliates who donated to the Clinton Foundation were awarded $163 billion worth of arms deals authorized by the Clinton State Department.
00:11:19.000 And governments seeking to buy arms got the same preferential treatment if they sent money the foundation's way, no matter their human rights record.
00:11:27.000 Clinton's department authorized $151 billion in Pentagon broker deals for 16 of the countries that gave to the Clinton Foundation.
00:11:34.000 But the main thing is that She is running down a corridor in a male-oriented world, bringing about the exact same or worse values that someone who happened to have a penis would have done anyway.
00:11:48.000 Hooray!
00:11:49.000 Hooray for that!
00:11:50.000 Plus, I think they had a cat, didn't they, the Clintons?
00:11:53.000 That's another adorable detail.
00:11:55.000 Wouldn't it be amazing if some of the students in her class actually asked some of those questions?
00:11:58.000 That's what I'd like to imagine was happening.
00:12:00.000 So if you're in that class, Ask those questions because in a way we're doing that as a sort of comedically aren't we Gareth?
00:12:06.000 That's our dedication to comedy because for us comedy is more than pretending to run down the corridor because the word run means run for office and also run down the corridor.
00:12:14.000 What would be lovely from a sensible serious perspective is to actually hear those questions answered like it will come down things like well the system is Essentially set up in this way so you have to accept these donations.
00:12:29.000 Ultimately I think the answers to those questions would leave you quite dispirited with the state of modern democracy in American globalism.
00:12:37.000 Certainly don't ask any questions about the war in Ukraine off the back of that.
00:12:40.000 Just that's the past and what's going on now is a completely entirely different thing.
00:12:45.000 What I like about the present is it hasn't No.
00:12:46.000 has no relationship to the past, has none of the same players involved, none of the
00:12:50.000 same institutional interests, and certainly isn't founded in the same mentality that brought
00:12:54.000 about those exact problems. It's not the same businesses, companies, profit motives, everything
00:12:58.000 basically exactly the same. Some of the same rhetoric, where you could literally light
00:13:02.000 that thing, whereas they take Harry Potter characters and Star Wars characters and just
00:13:07.000 go like, Harry Potter, Luke Skywalker, is met by an elder who's a bit of a mystic, Hagrid,
00:13:12.000 or, you know, Ben Kenobi. Ultimately, they have to fight their father, Darth Vader of
00:13:16.000 They go to a place to learn to become a wizard, Jedi.
00:13:18.000 So, you could just change the names!
00:13:20.000 That's what a system means, is it operates in a particular way regardless of the personnel that inhabit it.
00:13:25.000 Even if that personnel exchange represents a distinct, you know, bipartisan switch.
00:13:30.000 Won't make no difference.
00:13:31.000 Yeah, and you can do that in the way that these days these former presidents or political leaders in some form like Clinton and George Bush are being kind of reintroduced into society and reframed as these elders who should be teaching politics to kids or doing courses on painting like George Bush has done and kind of mates with Michelle Obama.
00:13:54.000 It does nice paintings, they're lovely watercolours.
00:13:57.000 Have you noticed, let us know in the chat in the comments, have you noticed how they're repositioning and repurposing war criminals and stooges of the system as a sort of avuncular, lovable, oracular elders that we're supposed to embrace and look to?
00:14:12.000 Because we're not super young, I'm sorry to admit, George Bush, that was the same as Trump.
00:14:19.000 Like, they were acting like that was the issue, but after a little bit of time and a whole lot of money, they're willing to go, look, we're all in the same team, really.
00:14:26.000 This is almost basically a bloody sport.
00:14:29.000 And this is when something like the ongoing corruption in the world of Big Pharma becomes incredibly relevant.
00:14:35.000 And we're not even talking about the craziness of the pandemic.
00:14:38.000 We're talking about Big Pharma's relationship with the state, a relationship it achieves not only through making huge donations to both parties, Not through the enormous amount of money that it spends on lobbying and people in Congress that own stocks and shares in the companies they're meant to regulate, but kind of a broader mentality that it is more important to serve corporate interests than to serve the interests of ordinary Americans who are paying too much money for drugs that they funded the development of.
00:15:05.000 Drugs that are sold abroad at a profit by those drug companies, even when people are writing letters about family members Dying of cancer for the want of drugs that cost up to $180,000 a year in the case of one prostate cancer drug.
00:15:23.000 The kicker, though, is that they're sold abroad much, much cheaper.
00:15:26.000 Absolutely, because they've been developed by America, so they're exportable and they're profitable in a way they would never be if you hadn't taxed the Americans both emotionally, spiritually, and literally, financially.
00:15:36.000 To watch Joe Biden use the familial, folky rhetoric of a kind of sort of uncle in Dungarees chewing on a bit of straw, kicking back on the stoop, sharing home truths with you, part of the heritage of Twain, some pastoral image of the great patriarch, and that's what we look to, isn't it?
00:15:56.000 We look to our leaders as a kind of Too many of you!
00:15:59.000 mother figure, some patriarch, elder, some chief, and they use the folksy rhetoric to
00:16:04.000 evoke that kind of atavistic response, all the while acting as the, in this case, disgusting
00:16:11.000 stooges of profiteering corporations.
00:16:15.000 Have a listen to this, it's gonna knock your little socks off, we'll help you get them
00:16:18.000 back on again, but, ahhh, the surcharge, have a look.
00:16:22.000 Too many of you, laying in bed at night like my dad did, staring at the ceiling, wondering
00:16:30.000 what in God names happens if your spouse gets cancer.
00:16:35.000 Thank you.
00:16:36.000 Are you going to have any money to pay for those medical bills?
00:16:39.000 Kamala Harris at the back is going, where's he going with this?
00:16:42.000 Sometimes... Oh, she just got asleep in this case.
00:16:45.000 I mean, I think with Kamala Harris, I don't know what her inner life is like.
00:16:49.000 I do remember in the primaries, there was a minute, unless this was propaganda, where
00:16:54.000 it seemed like Kamala Harris confronted Joe Biden about, hey, your record on race issues
00:17:00.000 ain't so good, and really had him on the back foot and seemed like an angry firebrand woman
00:17:05.000 that was really going to shake things up.
00:17:07.000 But as is often the case, once in a position of some authority, her morality was usurped
00:17:14.000 by expedience.
00:17:15.000 At the core of the issues that we would like to showcase to you here is the figure of this
00:17:21.000 dude, Bureka, like a congressperson, who while in opposition, lobbied furiously for legislation
00:17:32.000 that would prevent drug companies profiting from products that they had developed at taxpayer
00:17:39.000 expense.
00:17:40.000 But once he was in office, he did the exact same thing and worse.
00:17:44.000 It's extraordinary this.
00:17:46.000 It just shows you again and again how these institutions...
00:17:50.000 You're gonna have to sell the house or try to get a second mortgage on it.
00:17:54.000 I get it.
00:17:54.000 Here what bugs me is that Joe Biden positions himself as like a kind of Martin Luther King, almost civil rights
00:18:00.000 activist fronting up to big pharma, when he's literally the
00:18:05.000 president. He's not an outsider.
00:18:06.000 Well, you're gonna have to sell the house or try to get a second mortgage on it. I get it. I get it.
00:18:13.000 With the Inflation Reduction Act that I signed into law, we're taking on powerful interest to bring health care
00:18:19.000 costs down so you can sleep better at night
00:18:23.000 with more security.
00:18:26.000 Elon, right, so the idea of taking on powerful interests, that sounds like odd rhetoric for a career politician who's currently the officer, commander-in-chief of the United States of America.
00:18:42.000 What offends me is the nature of this rhetoric when related to the administrative choices that are being made.
00:18:49.000 In particular, we're going to learn about something called the Bayh-Dole Act.
00:18:53.000 Let's have a look at that now.
00:18:55.000 For 40 years now, there's been a piece of legislation Well, that means that the government can waive patent exclusivity for drugs whose research was funded by federal government dollars, speeding the arrival of far cheaper generics to the market.
00:19:08.000 And yet, despite marching rights enshrined in the Bayh-Dole Act, federal officials have never exercised those rights, even as drug prices have skyrocketed.
00:19:17.000 They've never used it.
00:19:18.000 So what this means is, is if a pharmaceutical company is charging too much money for a drug,
00:19:23.000 they can say, you best charge a reasonable price for that, otherwise we're going to X
00:19:29.000 the patent and white label it, and everyone will be able to sell it at a reasonable price.
00:19:34.000 I won't say an obvious example of a drug that was readily and cheaply available because
00:19:38.000 it was out of patent a couple of years ago, because at the moment there are no clinical
00:19:42.000 trials because no one's paid for them to determine whether or not it is effective.
00:19:46.000 So that's a brilliant piece of legislation.
00:19:48.000 The point we're making here is, even when within the corrupt machine of government there
00:19:52.000 is a piece of legislation that could be utilised in the service of people, people that are
00:19:57.000 suffering, in this instance people who have family members or are themselves suffering
00:20:00.000 from cancer, then it is not utilised primarily because of lobbying and the amount of lobbying
00:20:06.000 dollars that's spent preventing the Bayh-Dole Act being used.
00:20:10.000 So this is when they can rescind the patent when a medicine is not available to the public on reasonable terms.
00:20:17.000 And what the Biden administration are saying is $180,000 a year is apparently reasonable terms for people with cancer to be able to afford.
00:20:26.000 Seems to me quite expensive.
00:20:27.000 I mean, obviously the price of life is high, but this drug called Xanthi, the Biden administration refused to force the manufacturer of a life-saving prostate cancer drug, developed completely with public funds, to lower its nearly $190,000 annual price tag.
00:20:43.000 As Gareth says, that would seem to me to be a legit target for the utilisation of that piece of legislation.
00:20:49.000 The patent holders of the prostate drug Xanti, whose ingredients were developed at a California
00:20:53.000 public university, have earned more than $20 billion from the drug.
00:20:56.000 So it's not like they ain't profited up till now.
00:20:58.000 The US Chamber of Commerce spent more than $80 million lobbying in 2022.
00:21:03.000 Pfizer spent $50 million.
00:21:04.000 A sort of a conglomerate lobbyist group called PHRMA, or I guess they want us to say that
00:21:09.000 like pharma, spent $29 million.
00:21:11.000 And Astellas, who make that particular drug Xanti, spent $2 million.
00:21:15.000 Look at that, a cumulative expenditure.
00:21:18.000 And what is that money about, really?
00:21:20.000 That money is to ensure the government do not act in your interest, but in the interest of the industries that truly fund them and truly control them.
00:21:28.000 Not all drugs are subject to negotiation.
00:21:31.000 Instead, the plan will kick off in 2025.
00:21:35.000 I suppose that this is about, like, when you hear Joe Biden say, uh, we beat Big Pharma this year, he is talking about legislation that will be passed to cap some drug prices.
00:21:46.000 But again, this is something that when you look into it, is not as exciting as it sounds.
00:21:50.000 What I've found to be the case frequently, is they find a piece of rhetoric that they can use, like, we've beat Big Pharma this year, posing themselves as little guys up against corporate Goliaths.
00:22:01.000 But, What is broadly speaking understood is that this piece of legislation will not meaningfully impact the pharmaceutical industry, and they'll find ways around it, they'll find loopholes, and they will continue to profit.
00:22:11.000 Yeah, and this isn't new for Joe Biden either.
00:22:13.000 So Biden was vice president when the Obama administration rejected Congressional Democrats' demand The government used the same power to lower the skyrocketing prices of medicine in America.
00:22:22.000 So he's got history of doing this, Biden.
00:22:25.000 Amazingly, when he's making those speeches about his father looking up to the ceiling and we beat Big Pharma, he doesn't then mention, oh, by the way, I'm sorry about when I was vice president, making sure that those skyrocketing drug prices couldn't be meaningfully affected.
00:22:39.000 Our system requires of us a certain type of amnesia.
00:22:43.000 Increasingly we are asked not to even recall the events of a week ago in order to sustain our faith in the efficacy and legitimacy of a state that operates entirely on behalf of corporate interests, only making concessions to us, When it becomes so obvious and galling that to not do it would be against their own self-interest.
00:23:01.000 The build back better idea, which emerged from centralist globalist force.
00:23:06.000 I mean, everyone was talking about that, weren't they?
00:23:07.000 Build back better.
00:23:08.000 It's like a pandemic catchphrase.
00:23:10.000 It's ultimately a piece of legislation that is designed to be ineffective.
00:23:14.000 This is why.
00:23:15.000 Not all drugs are subject to negotiation.
00:23:17.000 Instead, this plan will kick off in 2025 with a focus on the 10 costliest Medicare medicines, followed by 15 medicines in 26 and 27, and 20 medicines in 2028.
00:23:27.000 I imagine that time frame is to allow pharmaceutical companies to manage their losses, invest elsewhere, find alternative drugs and treatments, and to spread the cost.
00:23:36.000 You know what this reminds me of?
00:23:37.000 It reminds me of like when them banks went down Silicon Valley and all that.
00:23:41.000 They realized, oh no, we can't do another 2008 style bailout.
00:23:45.000 That looks bad.
00:23:46.000 So we're going to have to find more ingenious ways of bailing them out because we have to protect our partners in the financial industry.
00:23:53.000 And as has been explained, while there may not directly be a taxpayer bailout, banking fees will have to compensate for the losses endured by Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse and all of them.
00:24:05.000 We know now how these systems work.
00:24:07.000 So fundamentally what we have to demand are not incremental reforms, but radical and systemic changes.
00:24:14.000 Did you have something there?
00:24:15.000 Yeah, yeah.
00:24:15.000 So continuing up there.
00:24:16.000 So the caps will be tied.
00:24:17.000 So most drugs won't be affected by negotiations.
00:24:20.000 Only most though.
00:24:20.000 Most.
00:24:21.000 Yeah the caps will be tied to the rate of inflation and the rule would apply to commercial insurance coverage too.
00:24:26.000 That could ultimately entice drug makers to boost their products launch prices and as we have seen in 2022 pharmaceutical companies in the US raised drug prices 1,186 times.
00:24:34.000 So it's happening.
00:24:38.000 So there you are.
00:24:39.000 So it's, I would say, a piece of legislation designed to grab headlines and continue to appease the pharmaceutical industry.
00:24:48.000 Before we click over, well right, as I guess we should, we're going to have to leave YouTube now, because firstly I want to name that White label, off-brand medication that cannot be named on YouTube.
00:25:01.000 And also, what about the story about death and heart diseases and AstraZeneca and all that stuff?
00:25:06.000 I can't talk about that, can I, on YouTube?
00:25:07.000 I can only talk about that on Rumble.
00:25:09.000 Why is that?
00:25:10.000 Why is it that you're censored?
00:25:12.000 Local community guidelines, Russell.
00:25:14.000 You've got a guided community!
00:25:17.000 I'm being... I'm being naive and sweet.
00:25:20.000 Okay, listen, join us over on Rumble because I've got to talk about, like, while we're on the subject of the pharmaceutical industry, why don't we talk about what was essentially their gold rush, the pandemic era, where the government and the pharmaceutical industry, some might argue, operated...
00:25:34.000 Now, this is a story about young women had a 3.5 times higher risk of death from heart issues after the AstraZeneca jab.
00:25:42.000 Join us on local if you want, then I can read out your comments and all that kind of stuff.
00:25:46.000 Alright, see you later YouTube.
00:25:47.000 Rumble.
00:25:48.000 Now, this is a story about young women had a 3.5 times higher risk of death from heart
00:25:53.000 issues after the AstraZeneca jab.
00:25:55.000 Now this was a little while ago because the AstraZeneca vaccine, it was one of the early
00:26:01.000 vaccines in the space, wasn't it Gareth?
00:26:02.000 It was one of the first out of the gates.
00:26:04.000 It was known, first of all, as the Oxford vaccine.
00:26:06.000 That's when we were most pleased with it.
00:26:08.000 It was English.
00:26:09.000 It was academic.
00:26:10.000 Yeah, and then Bill Gates got hold of it.
00:26:11.000 Of course he did.
00:26:12.000 Bill's going to have a little bit.
00:26:13.000 Oh my, there's a little bit of money in that.
00:26:16.000 Let's see if we can all get involved.
00:26:18.000 So the Office for National Statistics analysed hospitalisations and vaccination records and death registrations in England among 12 to 29-year-olds to assess the impact of the COVID-19 jab and infection.
00:26:30.000 This is from The Telegraph, which is a British Well done to them for reporting on this subject, at least.
00:26:36.000 And it's another example of the way that the narrative is moving.
00:26:40.000 This is one of those things that, when AstraZeneca, when that vaccine was pulled, it was right early on, wasn't it?
00:26:46.000 It was like, oh, that's a bit weird.
00:26:47.000 Are they saying that it's causing blood clots and stuff?
00:26:49.000 Oh, that is interesting.
00:26:50.000 It was one of those things that was kind of submerged.
00:26:51.000 Cos literally, as I remember it, and you let me know in the chat and comments if you remember, this was at the time I was saying, get that vaccine or you're gonna kill your grandma!
00:26:59.000 But that was when they were not only saying it was good for you, it's good for everyone!
00:27:03.000 Have an hamburger, have a milkshake, have a blowjob!
00:27:05.000 They were offering you all sorts of incentives to get these bloody things.
00:27:08.000 I don't think that last one was offered.
00:27:09.000 Sorry, that was an offer about I was exclusively in the brand household!
00:27:13.000 I was offering just to my wife, she remains unwilling to cooperate to this day.
00:27:19.000 So after one dose of a non-mRNA vaccine, which includes the AstraZeneca jab, there was evidence of an increased risk of cardiac death in young women, the ONS said.
00:27:29.000 Cardiac death would include cardiac arrest, could include cardiac arrest, heart disease and myocarditis, that's inflammation of the heart muscle, you should know that by now.
00:27:37.000 If there is a difference in the risk of death after vaccination compared to longer term, this shows a link to the jab, researchers say.
00:27:43.000 Most of the young people who received the AstraZeneca jab before April 2021 would have been prioritised due to underlying health conditions or because they were healthcare workers.
00:27:51.000 Therefore, the 3.5 times greater risk cannot be generalised to the whole population, the ONS said.
00:27:56.000 And what was pointed out earlier when we were putting this piece together is to remember When we were all talking about lockdown measures and we were talking about the near imposition of vaccines, but it was imposed if you worked in certain sectors, remember those people in New York that were kicked out of a job?
00:28:09.000 Remind us what kind of pressures you would have faced to take that medication, which may have been good for you, may not have been good for you, you determine for yourselves.
00:28:16.000 Remember when people saying, oh but are you noticing a lot of the people that are dying have got like comorbidities or they're obese or they had an underlying condition?
00:28:23.000 Don't you remember the rhetoric was, so what?
00:28:25.000 That doesn't mean they deserve to die!
00:28:26.000 And I remember thinking, no, that is a good point.
00:28:28.000 Just because I'm as old or ill, that doesn't mean they deserve to die.
00:28:30.000 That's a good point.
00:28:32.000 But when it comes to addressing the impact of the AstraZeneca jab, they are pointing out that you can't generalize the results across a population because they, in particular, are going to negatively impact people with comorbidities.
00:28:44.000 So it's another example of the way that the information is managed and manipulated.
00:28:48.000 Yet another example of the from COVID with COVID.
00:28:52.000 The whole way that this information has been managed in order to create the most beneficial results from those that seek to regulate and those that seek to profit.
00:29:01.000 If you're trying to understand this landscape and you go, were people able to benefit by imposing regulation as a result of this aspect of the narrative or were they able to profit as a
00:29:11.000 result of this aspect of the narrative? You can normally trace a line that leads you to
00:29:15.000 one of those two conclusions.
00:29:16.000 Yeah, I mean look, with all of this, I think it's, I mean for me it's about the lack of
00:29:21.000 access to information. I mean even going to the Moderna case, because obviously we've
00:29:26.000 had Rand Paul in Congress at the moment with the head of Moderna, billionaire owner of
00:29:27.000 in Congress at the moment with the head of Moderna, billionaire owner of Moderna at the
00:29:32.000 moment is pressing him on myocarditis and getting some more information on whether or
00:29:32.000 Moderna at the moment, he's pressing him on myocarditis and getting some more information
00:29:36.000 on whether or not Moderna actually hid this information.
00:29:37.000 not Moderna actually hid this information. And actually Robert M. Kaplan, Emeritus Distinguished
00:29:38.000 And actually Robert M Kaplan, Emeritus Distinguished Professor at the UCLA Fielding
00:29:42.000 Professor at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, was something that we actually talked
00:29:46.000 about earlier in this year, wrote that they'd found through studies a series of adverse
00:29:53.000 events for 1 in 800 vaccines, which was a lot smaller amount, or a bigger amount you
00:30:00.000 could say, than had been reported. Numerous vaccines have been pulled for a lot less,
00:30:04.000 1 in 10,000, 1 in 100,000 vaccines have been pulled previously. Exactly, but what he noticed
00:30:09.000 But what he said was that the analysis was hindered from a lack of data being made public.
00:30:13.000 So he said Pfizer, Moderna and the FDA have this data but have kept them hidden from public view.
00:30:16.000 And I guess that's the point with all of this is just give people access to the information.
00:30:20.000 Then they can make their own conclusions and we can have truth.
00:30:23.000 You can only assume that their non-cooperation is because the information would not present a favourable outcome.
00:30:30.000 If the information was favourable, they would give you the information.
00:30:32.000 That's an assumption, but I think it's a fair assumption.
00:30:35.000 For some deep analysis into current affairs, for a deeper understanding of truth, for a real look at the stories that dominate your media space, the propaganda that dominates our cultural life, the way that it is utilised by centralised forces of the financial industry, Big Pharma, the government, you have to spend serious, dedicated,
00:30:56.000 devoted time, which Gareth and I have done earlier today, and we are happy to present our
00:31:01.000 results to you right now. Here's the news. No, here's the effing news. Stay with us, because
00:31:06.000 Matt Tiber's coming up. He's a so-called journalist.
00:31:08.000 No, here's the fucking news.
00:31:14.000 You paid for the Moderna vaccine.
00:31:16.000 The Moderna vaccine apparently has some side effects.
00:31:19.000 Why doesn't the CEO of Moderna know about them or share those details literally in a Senate hearing?
00:31:26.000 Is there something to hide?
00:31:29.000 Rand Paul and the CEO of Moderna have been involved in a hearing where discussions around the efficacy of the Moderna boosters in particular and potential side effects including myocarditis have been discussed.
00:31:43.000 What's fascinating is the ongoing total lack of transparency and even when the machinery of government is engaged it's still possible for a billionaire CEO to talk about his own product as if it's something he's vaguely aware of.
00:31:56.000 Obviously starting those hearings has been established through legal discourse and legal advice, but how is it that we live within systems that are incapable of addressing an issue that's so significant that obviously requires transparency, that was funded by you, the American taxpayers, where there are clearly questions that demand I suppose we should be satisfied that at last someone is asking these questions publicly, but we still have to wait for the results.
00:32:22.000 Let's have a look at that hearing now, and we'll give you some additional details that you're certainly not going to get from the Moderna CEO.
00:32:27.000 Mr. Bancel, Moderna recently paid NIH $400 million.
00:32:31.000 Do you believe it creates a conflict of interest for the government employees who are making money now off of the vaccine to also be dictating the policy about how many times we have to take the vaccine?
00:32:46.000 Good morning, Senator.
00:32:47.000 Er... Why attempt to change the subject?
00:32:49.000 Good morning, Senator.
00:32:50.000 Have you noticed out there as the birds are singing in the trees what a wonderful day it is?
00:32:55.000 Don't try and change the subject.
00:32:56.000 Can we focus on whether or not we are being legitimately governed?
00:33:00.000 Whether or not agencies are receiving funds that prevent them from being objective?
00:33:03.000 Don't worry about the birds and the trees and stuff.
00:33:05.000 Indeed.
00:33:06.000 We recently made, before Christmas last year, a $400 million payment to the NIH for an old patent that they had developed, not related to COVID, but useful in the development of a COVID vaccine, to pay them for their work.
00:33:20.000 I suppose those are the kind of revelations that instruct us that systemic problems are what determine the outcomes of a seismic and cataclysmic global event like the pandemic.
00:33:34.000 The pandemic passed through our culture and revealed how our institutions behaved, revealed what the relationships between government and big business are, revealed the type of policies that will be favoured as a result of those relationships.
00:33:48.000 I still don't really understand why Moderna, given $400 million to the NIH, knowing what I know about the way those institutions function, that's likely to induce a favourable relationship between Moderna and a body that's supposed to be involved in its governance.
00:34:03.000 Do you think it creates a conflict of interest for the same people deciding the policy of how often we have to take the vaccine to also be making money the more times we take the vaccine?
00:34:13.000 Yes or no?
00:34:14.000 This is for the government to decide.
00:34:15.000 You have no opinion on whether or not it creates a conflict of interest.
00:34:18.000 Is there a higher interest or a higher incidence of myocarditis among adolescent
00:34:24.000 males 16 to 24 after taking your vaccine?
00:34:27.000 So thank you for the question, Senator.
00:34:30.000 First, let me say... First and foremost, I'd like to thank you for that question, and I like the way of your glasses, very low down on your nose.
00:34:37.000 It's very alluring, look.
00:34:38.000 I don't want to talk about my glasses and my nose!
00:34:40.000 Here, I suppose, Rand Paul is focusing on a specific and particular piece of scientific information.
00:34:47.000 In spite of the way we occasionally title our videos, we're not Prone to hysteria or sweeping judgments.
00:34:54.000 What we are advocating for, campaigning for, asking for, is transparency so that you can make a decision about any medication, in fact, based on whether or not it will be effective for you.
00:35:05.000 Something like a vaccine, might be beneficial if you belong to a particular demographic or you have very particular health concerns or a particular type of social life but the lack of transparency around it of course engendered suspicion and at this point even cynicism particularly when obviously it was so profitable and now at this late stage in the pandemic the ongoing theatricality and ongoing obfuscation shows you that there isn't nothing being concealed it's not like oh wow everyone was just trying their hardest
00:35:34.000 Clearly the very kind of things that we were discussing at the beginning of this pandemic, profiteering, looking for opportunities to regulate and legislate, exploiting the differences between people and people's natural and understandable fits, all of these things were happening and the people that raised those kind of concerns were condemned and subject to smearing campaigns.
00:35:51.000 We care deeply about safety and we're working closely with the CDC and the FDA to-
00:35:55.000 Pretty much a yes or no, is there a higher incidence of myocarditis among boys 16 to 24
00:36:01.000 after they take your vaccine? The data I've shown actually, I've seen,
00:36:04.000 sorry, from the CDC actually shown that there's less myocarditis for people who get the vaccine
00:36:10.000 versus who get the Covid infection. Paul told Fox News Digital after the hearing
00:36:15.000 that he was surprised about the discrepancy between Bancell's response and other statistics
00:36:19.000 on myocarditis that he's encountered.
00:36:21.000 Asked about why Bancel may have said what he did, Paul guessed maybe he just saw this as a business decision that might hurt sales.
00:36:27.000 I think most of us at this point recognise that that's a significant factor.
00:36:30.000 Let me know in the chat and the comments.
00:36:31.000 Previous studies showed mostly adolescent and young adult males develop myocarditis after the second COVID-19 shot.
00:36:38.000 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention then suggested waiting longer than usual between each dose to reduce the risk of developing myocarditis.
00:36:45.000 It seems at least one of the factors in their trajectory of decisions that they were making was the financial impact that curtailing, limiting, prohibiting, not recommending those medical procedures could have.
00:36:56.000 Let me know in the chat and comments if you agree.
00:36:58.000 Wednesday's Senate hearing addressed the planned price increase of the Moderna vaccine, with a single dose expected to cost about $130 once the US government stops buying the shot.
00:37:08.000 A 4,000% markup above the cost of manufacturing the shot, which experts have pegged at roughly $2.85 per dose.
00:37:15.000 Even in a world where we accept that a necessary part of transactional life, the way of capitalism and commodity, a 4,000% markup seems ridiculous.
00:37:28.000 We've also this week done a story about cancer drugs and the refusal of the current administration to use the Bayh-Dole Act to restrict the ability of cancer drug manufacturers to profit outrageously from drugs that could be sold a lot more cheaply.
00:37:43.000 The pandemic public health emergency is set to end in mid-May according to the US Department of Health and Human Services.
00:37:49.000 The government will therefore no longer buy and distribute the shots, and price negotiations will then shift to insurers and government health programs.
00:37:56.000 Ban Cell has an estimated net worth of $4.1 billion.
00:38:00.000 He defended the proposed price, telling the Wall Street Journal that he believes this type of pricing is consistent with the value of the vaccine.
00:38:07.000 What that means is, that's how much you can charge for it, because that's what we evaluate people will pay for it.
00:38:12.000 There are significant portions of American society that still mandate the use of this product.
00:38:17.000 So there are people, significant number of people, that will have no choice but to pay this price.
00:38:22.000 People in teaching professions, people in particular aspects of media, that will simply have to buy it.
00:38:27.000 That doesn't mean it's moral or ethical or reasonable.
00:38:30.000 All of those things, I suppose, are subjective.
00:38:32.000 What is not subjective is that they are maximising the opportunity to profit from this vaccine.
00:38:37.000 And I suppose what we're contesting is that that has been happening throughout the pandemic.
00:38:41.000 In 2020, Moderna admitted that 100% of the funding for its vaccine development program came from the federal government, which, despite its leverage, has refused to force the company to share its vaccine recipe around the world.
00:38:52.000 The fact is that the whole conversation, in a way, is entirely unnecessary because the drug itself was funded through taxpayer money.
00:39:00.000 The drug is, effectively, yours.
00:39:03.000 We shouldn't be discussing whether there's a 10% markup, a 20% markup, let alone a 4,000% markup.
00:39:07.000 You own it!
00:39:09.000 It was developed using the principles of socialism.
00:39:12.000 It's sold using the principles of zombie capitalism.
00:39:15.000 And I'd say beyond that, a kind of corporate gangsterism, because the people that pay this will probably have no choice, either as a result of fear, a medical condition or a job that demands they take it.
00:39:25.000 So essentially, it's money through menaces.
00:39:28.000 In January, some vaccine advisors to the federal government were disappointed and angry that
00:39:33.000 Moderna didn't present a set of infection data on the company's new COVID-19 booster
00:39:37.000 that suggested the possibility that the updated booster might not be any more effective at
00:39:41.000 preventing COVID-19 infections than the original shot.
00:39:45.000 US taxpayers spent nearly $5 billion on the new booster, which has been given to more
00:39:49.000 than 48.2 million people in the US.
00:39:52.000 So over time, you start to develop a case and an understanding that the motivation behind
00:39:56.000 many of the decisions has been profit.
00:39:59.000 That doesn't necessarily mean that the government or government agencies are directly culpable,
00:40:02.000 although in the cases where they receive money from these very pharmaceutical companies,
00:40:06.000 that makes it a little more likely.
00:40:08.000 But the fact is that in instances where transparency would not have been beneficial financially, transparency was withdrawn.
00:40:16.000 You're saying that for ages 16 to 24 among males who take the COVID vaccine, their risk of myocarditis is less than people who get the disease.
00:40:25.000 That is my understanding, Senator.
00:40:26.000 That is not true, and I'd like to enter into the record six peer-reviewed papers from the Journal of Vaccine, the Annals of Medicine, that say the complete opposite of what you say.
00:40:36.000 I also spoke with your president just last week, and he readily acknowledged, in private, that yes, there is an increased risk of myocarditis.
00:40:44.000 The fact that you can't say it in public is quite disturbing.
00:40:47.000 Robert M. Kaplan, Emeritus Distinguished Professor at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, wrote in September 22, that along with an international group of physicians and scientists, we published a study suggesting that the risk of COVID-19 vaccines may be greater than previously reported.
00:41:02.000 Using publicly available data from Pfizer and Moderna studies, we found one serious adverse event for each 800 vaccinees.
00:41:09.000 Some warn that our analysis might harm public health by stimulating more vaccine hesitancy.
00:41:14.000 Yeah, if some concerns are valid, remaining quiet could also result in harm and further erode public trust in science.
00:41:20.000 If the hesitancy is valid, then you have to be more transparent, not less, and acknowledge that the hesitancy is rational and logical.
00:41:28.000 That is the position that should have been taken from the beginning, particularly when the counterpoint was that these pharmaceutical companies were profiting enormously.
00:41:37.000 The hesitancy was regarded as the problem.
00:41:39.000 Not the lack of transparency.
00:41:41.000 That shows you on which side government agencies and the government itself tends to fall in a situation where they have the opportunity either to represent the people or their corporate partners.
00:41:50.000 We believe that scientists have a responsibility to report suspected hazards to authorities.
00:41:55.000 What's the alternative?
00:41:56.000 Consider a 1 in 800 risk of a serious adverse reaction in the context of other vaccines.
00:42:01.000 The 1976 swine flu vaccine was withdrawn after it was associated with Guillain-Barre syndrome at a rate of approximately 1 in 100,000.
00:42:11.000 In 1999, the rotavirus vaccine, Rotashield, was withdrawn following reports of interception in about 1 or 2 in 10,000 cases.
00:42:19.000 Regrettably, our analysis was hindered by an addressable problem.
00:42:22.000 The individual-level data that could confirm or refute our analysis have not been made public.
00:42:26.000 For example, we would have great confidence in our conclusions if we knew how often individuals experience multiple serious adverse events.
00:42:34.000 Pfizer, Moderna, and the FDA have these data, but have kept them hidden from the public view.
00:42:39.000 This information is essential to the understanding of the balance between vaccine benefits and harms.
00:42:43.000 We're calling upon Pfizer, Moderna and the FDA to release all information needed for a comprehensive assessment of these products.
00:42:50.000 In light of this information, even this Senate hearing is quite minimalist and shallow.
00:42:55.000 And whilst it's exciting to see Rand Paul asking questions that many of us have been mulling over
00:43:01.000 since the beginning of the pandemic, when you look at the withholding of vital data
00:43:07.000 that would have allowed the public and perhaps the media and indeed, perhaps the government
00:43:11.000 to form a more thorough perspective, it deepens the sense of concern.
00:43:16.000 All the while, the focus was on conspiracy theories, smearing unvaccinated people,
00:43:22.000 escalating and elevating the involvement of unvaccinated people instead of focusing on something
00:43:27.000 that's, I would say, a more clear and obvious administrative duty.
00:43:30.000 Make the powerful accountable to the public.
00:43:33.000 When Joe Biden gives sanctimonious and sentimental speeches about how he's standing up Two big pharma on behalf of his family and cancer victims everywhere while not using existing legislation that would prevent exploitative pricing of cancer drugs.
00:43:47.000 You have to consider this information too.
00:43:49.000 It's quite clear that you don't need to make outrageous claims about the vaccines, their side effects or their efficacy.
00:43:56.000 The available information is enough to deduce that there's been a total lack of transparency from the start and it appears But one of the dominant influences throughout the decision-making process has been how to maximize profit.
00:44:09.000 COVID-19 vaccines are now among the most widely disseminated medicines in the history of the world.
00:44:14.000 They have cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, rivaling the annual US federal expenditure on biomedical research.
00:44:20.000 There is no legitimate reason why scientists and the public should not have access to the evidence that justified that purchase.
00:44:26.000 Yet evidence is being withheld, which adds uncertainty to our conclusions and leaves lingering questions about the scientific foundation for COVID-19 vaccine promotion.
00:44:35.000 Public posting of raw data is a reasonable response.
00:44:38.000 Open data is becoming the norm in science and is now required by many leading journals.
00:44:43.000 The time has come for the FDA and EMA to reopen their investigations and for Pfizer, Moderna and all vaccine manufacturers to provide the data that will allow scientists and physicians to address outstanding concerns.
00:44:55.000 It's difficult to appreciate and understand why at a time when there is a need for further investigation, deeper transparency, more clarity around the procedures that led to the decision-making during the pandemic, that what's actually happening is a propaganda campaign around misinformation, disinformation, malinformation, where independent journalists are being smeared and condemned, silenced and censored.
00:45:15.000 Evidently, Obviously, plainly, this case, this conversation, and this investigation have revealed to us that what's required is a more open discourse, more transparency, more ability for individuals to make choices for themselves based on authentic, transparent science when it comes to their own health and the health of people that they care about.
00:45:35.000 The idea that was being promoted at this time is censorship and the ability to smear and shut people down, when during such a globally significant event, the government and government agencies appeared to act on behalf of corporate interests, certainly didn't promote the kind of transparency that would have made the pandemic a much easier time for all of us.
00:45:52.000 It suggests to me that we need more hearings like this.
00:45:55.000 With more effective journalists allowed to speak more openly, that the financial industry needs to be regulated in a more rigorous, open, public and democratic way.
00:46:03.000 But that's just what I think.
00:46:04.000 Let me know what you think in the comments in the chat.
00:46:05.000 I'll see you in a second.
00:46:06.000 Thank you for choosing Fox News.
00:46:08.000 We're just a video.
00:46:09.000 No, he's the fucking news!
00:46:12.000 Thank you very much.
00:46:15.000 Now, having spent some time in the company of so-called entertainers and so-called radicals, why don't we invite onto the show a so-called journalist, the author of Hey Inc.
00:46:25.000 Why Today's Media Makes Us Despise One Another, that's a so-called book, and also he appeared ...as one of Elon Musk's stooges when releasing the vital information that... Cherry-picking!
00:46:38.000 Cherry-picked information that appeared when you look at it superficially to reveal that there was some collaboration between the deep state and social media.
00:46:47.000 All right, Matt, how's it going?
00:46:50.000 It's going great, Russell.
00:46:50.000 How are you doing?
00:46:51.000 Yeah, I'm okay.
00:46:52.000 Are you tired?
00:46:52.000 Are you all right?
00:46:53.000 Are you exhausted?
00:46:54.000 No, I'm good.
00:46:55.000 I was listening intently to your show there.
00:46:59.000 I love the Hillary Clinton stuff.
00:47:02.000 Isn't that a natural sitcom?
00:47:04.000 The Clintons?
00:47:06.000 Yeah, sort of a get a life type of thing.
00:47:10.000 Hillary Clinton on a bike delivering newspapers or something like that in the beginning.
00:47:15.000 Yeah, rolling her eyes, her adventures and misadventures.
00:47:20.000 Oh, Bill.
00:47:21.000 Bill, what's that by your fly?
00:47:23.000 Hey, what's all this dry cleaning?
00:47:31.000 And you, the Carlton, the doorman character, you know, who kind of appears regularly, all that.
00:47:35.000 I guess that could be, I don't know, one of the former, Bob Rubin or somebody like that.
00:47:44.000 Matt, you can try and entertain us all you want, but I know for a fact, did you, have you got more money now than when you were a little boy?
00:47:54.000 Right, so where did the money come from?
00:47:56.000 Corruption.
00:47:57.000 How can you be a Republican witness, which is a necessary part of the congressional procedure, and not call yourself, I use this word deliberately, a terrorist?
00:48:09.000 Yeah, I mean we're laughing about it, but in the moment I actually made a mistake.
00:48:14.000 I got so caught up in whether or not...
00:48:17.000 What she was saying to me was true, that I forgot to just say to her, it's none of your business whether I make money or not.
00:48:24.000 And you wouldn't ask that question of any other kind of journalist.
00:48:28.000 Like, did you get a book deal out of this story you're telling us about?
00:48:31.000 I mean, nobody would ask that question normally.
00:48:33.000 So that was absurd.
00:48:37.000 And the way they all use exactly the same phrases when they talk to you is, Is incredible.
00:48:46.000 In the case of that hearing, I think you're referring to, you know, the cherry pick spoon fed evidence.
00:48:53.000 I must have heard that a million times since the beginning of the Twitter files.
00:48:56.000 What I imagine must be interesting about an experience appearing at that congressional hearing is that something that, for me at least, usually feels abstract, like corruption, the way that information is manipulated, Yeah, it was a little bit of an eye-opening moment for me.
00:49:16.000 like sometimes we encounter these things, sometimes we're even personally subject to
00:49:20.000 it, but to actually be within the machine, did it make somehow more visceral, personal
00:49:26.000 and emotional your broad sense that there is entrenched corruption taking place?
00:49:31.000 Yeah, it was a little bit of an eye-opening moment for me.
00:49:35.000 I mean, I've obviously been doing this for a long time and seen a lot of crazy things
00:49:42.000 in my lifetime, so I'm not surprised when politicians are corrupt, but it was very
00:49:48.000 shocking the degree to which they didn't even think about engaging with the material.
00:49:54.000 It was just pure attack, attack, attack from the very, very beginning.
00:49:58.000 And then as you, as you noted, every time I tried to answer a question, it was just reclaiming my time.
00:50:04.000 You know how this works.
00:50:05.000 You don't get to talk, uh, over and over again.
00:50:08.000 And like, I, you know, that was a little shocking.
00:50:12.000 Yeah, I suppose the danger is that if it were not a subject that I were personally invested in, I wouldn't inquire.
00:50:20.000 And yet what is revealed is the MO of the institutions, that it presents itself as an
00:50:26.000 objective and investigative process, when in fact it's a propagandist and condemnatory
00:50:31.000 process that's in a sense designed to help us reach the favourable conclusions that it
00:50:39.000 has already predetermined as evidenced by the use of the phrases like spoon-fed and
00:50:45.000 cherry-picked.
00:50:46.000 They already have an agenda.
00:50:47.000 They don't listen to you.
00:50:48.000 They smear rather than investigate.
00:50:50.000 And I suppose this must be happening continually elsewhere and is symptomatic of a deeper malaise
00:50:55.000 that won't be as easy to observe elsewhere.
00:50:58.000 As the ongoing Twitter revelations continue to be released.
00:51:04.000 Do you feel that at this point, it's just further augmentation of the ideas of corruption that were sort of present in the first Imprature?
00:51:13.000 Or do you feel that it's sort of evolving?
00:51:15.000 Is there anything like new and interesting?
00:51:18.000 And how does it relate to things like our personal deal over here at Rumble, where we're subject to some attacks?
00:51:24.000 And sometimes I feel like, oh, well, yeah, I guess there are a lot of people that are right wing on this platform.
00:51:27.000 It's kind of difficult to deny.
00:51:29.000 and also that is allowed, people are allowed to be right wing, that's one of the things
00:51:33.000 people are allowed to be in the world. And what do you think about the sort of TikTok
00:51:38.000 congressional hearings, because they seem to also be sort of like an odd combination of utterly
00:51:43.000 inept and biased and corrupt, because all the things that are being alleged of TikTok are
00:51:49.000 applicable with the American state's relationship with US social media sites. Yeah, I mean,
00:51:59.000 we are still finding stuff that speaks directly to all the things that you're talking about.
00:52:05.000 it.
00:52:07.000 For instance, we found a whole bunch of communications just recently about In preparation for a hubbub they were all having at the Aspen Institute in 2021, where they were discussing ideas like the Restrict Act, which is being proposed for, you know, in response to TikTok.
00:52:26.000 There's, I guess, the European Digital Services Act or whatever they call it.
00:52:30.000 That's that they're thinking about for the EU.
00:52:34.000 All the ideas in both of these bills are sort of wish lists that have been passed around in this community for a long time.
00:52:41.000 The governments want absolute full and complete access to all data that these platforms provide and then they want a couple of other things that are really important.
00:52:52.000 They want They want to have the authority to come in and moderate, or at least be part of the process of moderation.
00:53:01.000 And they also want for people who are called, like, trusted flaggers, that's how it's described in the European law, they want those folks to have access to these platforms as well.
00:53:12.000 And what they mean by that are these sort of outside quasi-governmental agencies who Tell these platforms what they can and cannot print about things like vaccine safety, right?
00:53:27.000 And then we found out more about that, where they're openly talking about censoring true information.
00:53:33.000 So yeah, we're still finding out a lot of stuff about this, and I think there is more to find, unfortunately, which is kind of disturbing.
00:53:42.000 I've not heard a Maxim more disturbing lately than a trusted flagger.
00:53:49.000 If someone comes to me claiming that they're a trusted flagger, I think I'd be more at ease with someone who announces themselves as a paedophile.
00:53:57.000 It just sounds like a disturbing thing to call yourself or to set up.
00:54:02.000 Yeah, no, I mean, but that's in there.
00:54:05.000 That's in the Digital Services Act.
00:54:07.000 If you look If you look at the bill, there's a whole list of things that would apply to the various different types of companies, and one of them is sort of access for trusted flaggers.
00:54:20.000 Twitter has its own language that's similar to that.
00:54:23.000 They have people they call trusted partners who determine for them, who are allowed to make determinations about content.
00:54:33.000 This is my time!
00:54:41.000 This is my time!
00:54:44.000 I'm reclaiming my time!
00:54:46.000 How dare you!
00:54:46.000 This is my time!
00:54:47.000 How much money did you make during that time you were talking to them?
00:54:50.000 Where did you get it?
00:54:51.000 You and that bastard Schellenberger!
00:54:53.000 A dangerous, dangerous, stinking terrorist!
00:54:55.000 And you don't wash properly either, I don't imagine.
00:54:58.000 Um, I'm, uh, Matt, it's, uh, we've...
00:55:01.000 Thanks it was good fun wasn't it?
00:55:02.000 I said I was going to do it at the beginning of the show and then I thought I'm not going to do it because I respect Matt too much but then I thought no it will be funny so I did do it.
00:55:08.000 That was my process.
00:55:10.000 But hey, the EU apparently are introducing legislation that means that what was covert
00:55:14.000 is now becoming sort of overt, where they're sort of saying, platforms like Rumble, we're
00:55:18.000 just going to shut them down and ban them from EU states, which doesn't include Britain
00:55:22.000 anymore as a matter of fact, so to hell with them.
00:55:25.000 But it's interesting, isn't it, that they are essentially just going to legislate against
00:55:32.000 free speech because they have to.
00:55:34.000 And one of the ways they can do that is by saying that free speech is a code for racism
00:55:38.000 speech or whatever and of course there is such a thing as racism and hate speech
00:55:42.000 but what we continually say is we want to use these platforms to tell the truth
00:55:46.000 and attack powerful institutions and also to have the ability to speculate
00:55:50.000 and have fun and joke and all those kind of things but not really to hurt people
00:55:54.000 I hate the idea that someone would be hurt as a result of my words so what do
00:55:59.000 you think do you think Matt, that we're going to see more and more overt
00:56:03.000 legislation and maneuvering to shut down the ability to communicate openly in the way that
00:56:09.000 these platforms facilitate.
00:56:11.000 Absolutely. That's one of their primary goals is to make it impossible for people to have
00:56:18.000 unfettered communication.
00:56:22.000 If you look at the Digital Services Act, it's a lot like the recommendations of the Aspen Institute, and it's got a lot in common with the Restrict Act here in the States.
00:56:32.000 When you look at the sections about giving the government access to data,
00:56:37.000 what they really mean by that is they want everything, every kind of content that's created on the platform
00:56:48.000 has to be done in a format that can be algorithmically searched.
00:56:52.000 So even video or if you have like, you know, something a conversational platform,
00:56:58.000 they have to be able to automatically generate a transcript quickly
00:57:02.000 so that whatever AI they're attaching to surveil and monitor people
00:57:08.000 has to be able to look out for keywords quickly.
00:57:11.000 And it's funny, we did a thing about this thing called the Morality Project, and they were upset.
00:57:17.000 One of the things they were upset about when they were reviewing COVID information was that a worldwide freedom rally that was held last year, I think, or two years ago in Europe, had been organized on Telegram.
00:57:29.000 Where they couldn't search it.
00:57:30.000 Where they didn't know it was coming.
00:57:32.000 And so, like, that's part of their thinking.
00:57:35.000 We don't want any more of those spaces where we can't search.
00:57:38.000 We want everything searchable and we want it instantly searchable.
00:57:41.000 So it continues to be about control and they continue to present it as about safety.
00:57:48.000 We're trying to protect you has become, it is actually, we're trying to control you.
00:57:53.000 When you say that about AI and a kind of pressuring to put data into searchable formats, it makes me feel that AI will of course be used to generate commercial
00:58:05.000 opportunity by creating very particular and bespoke advertisements, but also it's going to be utilized
00:58:10.000 to exert more control.
00:58:12.000 And while it might start as a resource that is accessible to all and fun for everyone,
00:58:16.000 it will quickly, like water, find its level as a tool of commerce and of the state.
00:58:23.000 So there is a, in spite of, however they frame the problems within platforms like TikTok
00:58:30.000 or Facebook or Rumble, free speech has to be a kind of absolute principle because the
00:58:36.000 alternative is...
00:58:38.000 ...is predicated on a centralised authority, and when you see even terms like cherry-pick and spoon-fed starting to emerge, or, you know, build back better, it's that these are the indicators that centralised authority is at work, and like you said, those various bills all bear the same hallmarks, so you have to have some absolute principles, don't you, Matt?
00:58:59.000 Yes, I think so, and I think what's really striking about all the people who are backing these censorship measures is that they have absolutely no understanding of what the principle of free speech is all about.
00:59:13.000 The whole idea that you could have a centralized sort of truth-deciding authority is completely counter to Every Enlightenment idea about what speech is for.
00:59:27.000 You can't have a government body that decides fact and fiction.
00:59:32.000 We don't believe that that's actually possible.
00:59:34.000 What we believe is that people freely discuss things and they arrive at a kind of truth together.
00:59:43.000 Factual truth is always a moving target in journalism, but as a society, you can't just decide what's true and what's not true, because as we learn, even scientific fact changes constantly.
00:59:54.000 So if you don't allow free speech, if you don't allow weirdos and people who are crackpots to have their say, you know, because they're right a lot of the time, like you just never know, right?
01:00:06.000 And the folks who want to Get rid of all of that are deluded and extremely dangerous people because what they believe is that they have all the answers.
01:00:18.000 We're the experts we know and never mind what you think.
01:00:24.000 Which is terrible.
01:00:25.000 Their certainty is terrifying and certainty is often an indicator of the psychopath, I would say.
01:00:33.000 Matt, thank you so much for joining us.
01:00:35.000 Congratulations on the tremendous work you're doing.
01:00:38.000 Thank you for enduring that awful experience and in doing so with such good grace and good
01:00:44.000 humor. Don't berate yourself for not saying it's none of your business Debbie
01:00:48.000 Wasserman Schultz who made you Lady Jesus. Was it Hillary Clinton? So and
01:00:56.000 thanks for being such a great asset for our show and a great person to work with.
01:01:00.000 Cheers Matt. Of course.
01:01:01.000 Thanks, Russell.
01:01:02.000 Have a good one.
01:01:03.000 Gareth, take care.
01:01:04.000 Take care, mate.
01:01:04.000 Oh, cheers.
01:01:05.000 Matt is the editor of Racket News on so-called aggregating news site Substack.
01:01:11.000 Thanks, you lot.
01:01:12.000 What a lovely man.
01:01:13.000 He's so great, isn't he?
01:01:14.000 And he's decent.
01:01:15.000 See, little things like saying your name, that's an indicator of his principles, values, awakeness.
01:01:21.000 So that's a person who's kind.
01:01:22.000 And the way they branded him in that hearing was disgrace.
01:01:25.000 And what's so ironic at the moment, literally listening to you two talk about, I guess, authoritarianism, is what we're talking about here, is Biden and Trudeau, literally of the day, uniting together against authoritarian regimes, you know, when they kind of met.
01:01:38.000 And it's just, it's so mad that they can be like, we're just against authoritarian regimes.
01:01:43.000 Oh, what about all these things that are going on at the moment?
01:01:46.000 No, no, that's different.
01:01:47.000 Don't ask that question!
01:01:48.000 We'll have you killed!
01:01:49.000 Don't you ever call me an authoritarian!
01:01:51.000 This is my time.
01:01:52.000 This is my authority.
01:01:54.000 Our authoritarianism is couched in a different type of language and weird, odd, perverted victimhood.
01:02:00.000 Hey, thank you so much for joining us on today's show.
01:02:04.000 Tomorrow, our guest is Callie Means, a whistleblower.
01:02:06.000 He blows whistles.
01:02:07.000 Who exposed his corruption in Big Food and Big Pharma.
01:02:09.000 If you saw him last time he was on the show, he was fantastic, talking about a new obesity
01:02:13.000 drug that's set to be the most profitable drug in the world.
01:02:15.000 You could check that out on Rumble now.
01:02:17.000 It's already up.
01:02:18.000 We're having a deeper, longer, stronger conversation with him a little later.
01:02:22.000 You should sign up to our locals community because you get my Brandemic stand-up special
01:02:26.000 free!
01:02:27.000 That's part of the deal over there, as well as ad-free content, access to a weekly show that me and Gareth do called Stay Connected, meditations, podcast... I mean, there's so much stuff on there.
01:02:37.000 I literally don't have time to list it all, not when we are so busy.
01:02:41.000 Please join us tomorrow, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
01:02:44.000 Until then, stay free.
01:02:45.000 Many switchin', switch on, switch off.
01:02:48.000 Many switchin', switch on, switch off.
01:02:51.000 I'm a man, you are a man.
01:02:54.000 Many switchin', switch on, switch off.
01:02:56.000 Switch on, switch on.
01:02:57.000 Man, he switchin'.