All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 23, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand
01:06:26
Mainstream Media Covid Meltdown With Kit Klarenberg - #064 - Stay Free With Russell Brand
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So, I'm going to go ahead and start the video.
So, I'm going to start the video.
So, you're going to see the future.
I'm sorry.
In this video, you're going to see the future.
Hello there, you awakening wonders.
Thanks for joining us for Stay Free with Russell Brand.
We are exclusive on Rumble for the whole show, but for the first 10 minutes, we'll be available on YouTube and, today, Twitter.
Hello, Elon.
Give us a tweet, Elon.
Elon, give us a tweet.
We're talking about, well, today we've got it all.
We'll be talking about the evolving narrative around coronavirus and the proposed potentially centralised solutions and who they benefited and where there are problems and potential blockages around the evolving narrative.
Of course, we have to be somewhat cautious in the manner we talk about this while we are on several platforms.
Once on Rumble, oh, the gloves come off!
Once we're on Rumble, then we use the freedom of speech to bring people together, to convey love and truth.
Certainly not to turn people against one another.
We've got no interest in that.
We're talking about the Ukraine war a little bit with our guest.
We're going to be talking about how the media cope with the evolution of this story.
In a sense, the problem is if you politicise information, you have a problem when you need to de-politicise that information.
Once you have to extricate the information, for example if the story changes around certain medications and the success of certain measures, you find yourself in a position where you have to de-politicise something that was politicised.
A fascinating phenomenon for anyone that's interested in observing media techniques and the difference between information and propaganda.
We've got a fantastic guest on that note.
Kit Clarenberg is joining us to talk to us about how US and UK intelligence agencies carry out spying and sabotage the amount of MIC, that's Military Industrial Complex for the uninitiated.
Oh yeah, I've got all sorts of acronyms.
how they invested in early big tech enterprises and perhaps how the
relationship between the state, the military-industrial complex and big tech
organizations continues to this day. And of course the Twitter files
hello Elon, give us a wave, how the Twitter files how they made it pretty clear that there was a revolving
door and a somewhat porous relationship between deep state agencies
and Twitter with obviously explicitly the FBI paying millions of dollars to
Twitter for some control Pfizer having the ability to censor tweets, lots of
fantastic stuff.
We've seen the same with other social media platforms as well, haven't we?
The Facebook files.
Facebook files as well.
You name it, there's a file for it.
Gareth Roy, on-screen assistant, producer of the show, man of mystery.
Time now for our item, the system is fine, don't collapse into existential despair.
Anyone who knows anything about Joe Biden knows that he spends most of his time in African-American churches.
That's what he does.
There's plenty of evidence for it.
He's always done it.
He's always been in there.
I'm surprised they don't find files in Africa.
If you want to know where the rest of them files are, get yourself down some evangelical church down south.
There'll be bundles of them there underneath the pews.
Look at this in the prayer book!
What's going on there on the collection plate?
That's where he spends all his holiday time.
He's in there on holiday, Hunter's there tapping away on the laptop.
Hunter!
But for someone who spends so much time in black American churches, check out the way he carries on when he's in them.
He don't look like someone who's particularly afraid of the environment.
It reminds me, if anything, of how I behaved when I was watching a boxing match with P. Diddy and Jay-Z.
Let's have a look.
In a sense, at the moment I'd say he's been, he's at risk of being a little too static.
Yes.
At least move a digit or a hand or something.
A wrist.
You don't want to overcompensate.
No.
You don't want to, like, sort of pretend you're having a real, like, lot of spirits moving.
No, no.
Don't go too far.
Don't overcompensate.
But you've got to show you're interested.
How about faster hands, I'll be people!
Yeah, give them the old, you want them eyebrows!
That'll convince them.
Testify, testify!
Vamos a go with the versus pattern!
Take me up!
Why not look around in vague bafflement, like an AI robot scanning the room for data?
Come on, the power of the leg is here!
The power of the leg is here!
Fling up your hands, almost in despair, the entire scenario!
I'm all alone, feeling in the atmosphere, the atmosphere!
Aww, he's some type of...
I remember that feeling.
If you go to a disco for example, your first maybe school disco or something, you're a bit embarrassed because you didn't really know how to dance and you just stand there and watch everyone else.
What shall I do with my face?
Exactly.
Or if you go to a place where people are perhaps using mood enhancing chemicals and you do not use mood enhancing chemicals.
Which we don't.
And certainly we don't endorse them.
Just move your face around.
Certainly Joe Biden doesn't know what to do with his body language with these ongoing revelations.
I do want to hear a little bit more about that.
Oh yeah, I do want to hear because of course this is all predicated on the idea that Joe Biden is never out of evangelical churches.
Apparently long-time congregants of the church that he's talking about told the Washington Free Breakin' at the time that they didn't recall Biden attending the church.
The revelation came about the same time Biden was forced to admit he repeated claims about being arrested in an apartheid era South Africa were also untrue.
So the person who was with us said, I was never arrested, and I don't think Biden was.
And then Biden had to say, I guess I wasn't arrested, I was stopped.
So he just keeps telling these tales.
They're really interesting tales, aren't they?
They are.
I was always down in churches, were you?
Because people might have known, because you've been a senator for like 40 years, so you'd probably be recognised as the only white person in a center.
I know, probably I was over in South Africa, sticking up for Nelson Mandela.
That's what I was doing most of the time.
Well, no one remembers that happening.
Well, I don't remember it either.
Yeah, well, Joe, you don't remember much, darling.
Where the hell do you keep your documents?
To be honest, he may have put these documents there thinking that they were a filing cabinet, but they're strewn.
About six more classified documents were found during a 13-hour search of Joe Biden's Delaware home, a lawyer said.
If you're watching us on Twitter or YouTube, stay with us because we're going to be talking in a little bit about the ongoing distinction in the way these stories are reported.
For example, The reporting on the revelation that Biden had classified documents in his homes versus the Trump revelations.
And again, we got no skin in the game.
We believe in systems that are transcendent of establishment interests and true democracy for you, freedom for the individual, democracy for the community.
That's what we believe in, just in case you're interested.
Later, we're going to be talking as well about some of the profits, the reporting and misinformation around the coronavirus pandemic and the lockdown.
And again, the struggle that the media are having adapting to this narrative.
Here's a mainstream media outlet reporting on Biden's documents.
Now pay attention to the rather anodyne bureaucratic language that's used to describe this problem in this instance.
Check it.
Our most recent ABC News Ipsos poll says 64% of those in the latest poll, and that was before this latest discovery, believed he acted inappropriately.
Having those classified documents, was it appropriate or inappropriate?
That's the language you would use for if someone farted at a meal, like a silent fart.
I remember when you did that and I thought it was inappropriate.
Right, inappropriate.
Shouldn't have done it.
Also, 64% of the table thought it.
So what are you guys saying?
It's not really appropriate.
We're trying to enjoy this noodle bar.
I'm enjoying the noodle bar myself.
When they're talking about Donald Trump, and again, I know a lot of you guys, you're well into Trump.
We believe that we need genuinely new systems.
However, look at how they report it.
It's like the noise of helicopters.
It's like the opening titles of the A-Team.
Donald Trump!
Stunning new revelations about those documents recovered from Mar-a-Lago.
Some were handed over by former President Trump, others seized in that controversial FBI search of his homes.
How concerning is this to you?
We didn't know what the documents were.
Why did this happen?
Serious, dangerous territory.
And today, new reporting that members of the White House staff believe Trump flushed printed pieces of paper down the toilet.
He was wiping his butt on America's history.
He was flushing the flag down his laboratory.
Any lengths to create a distinction between two entities and certainly two events that Aren't particularly different.
Let me know in the chat.
Let me know in the comments if you're on Twitter watching this.
Tweet about how you feel the mainstream media presents these stories in ways that create like almost a cataclysmic difference, whereas there simply isn't an objective difference.
Now, we've got a lot of examples of how around the pandemic, reporting got a little bit out of hand because of the politicization of information.
If you're watching this on YouTube, you know what kind of censorship goes on there, you beautiful awakening wonder.
If you're watching this on Twitter, you'll know how deeply state organisations infiltrated and indeed paid for a degree of control over what's supposed to be a private public forum.
A private forum, at least it's privately owned, available to the public.
Now, when we're talking about the pandemic, all we want is objectivity, transparency and clarity.
I don't believe that anyone should take advice from someone who's not qualified, and I don't believe that we should be hectored or bullied into taking a certain course of action unless it's legitimate science, not corporatized science.
Do you remember, though, when Don Lemon said this?
I think we have to stop coddling people when it comes to this and the vaccine, saying, oh, you can't shame them.
You can't call them stupid.
You can't call them silly.
Yes, they are.
The people who aided and abetted.
So given the revelations that have been coming out over recent months, you know, pay attention to what the Twitter files have shown us.
Pay attention to the new emergence.
Do you think that how the media reported on the pandemic at the beginning was responsible?
Do you think it was transparent?
Do you think there was an agenda?
Unconscious biases?
not particularly in relation to this story of course I will clarify.
You know, do you think that how the media reported on the pandemic at the beginning
was responsible?
Do you think it was transparent?
Do you think that there was an agenda?
Unconscious biases?
Let me know in the chat, let me know in the comments, generate the content for yourself.
Do you think that Rachel Maddow, who I've, you know, I've got nothing against Rachel,
I think she's a lovely human being as a matter of fact, but do you think that Rachel Maddow
would have said this if the information we have now is accessible?
And do you think that this warrants a kind of an apology or redress?
It means that instead of the virus being able to hop from person to person to person to person, spreading and spreading, sickening some of them, but not all of them, and the ones that it doesn't sicken don't know they have it, and then they give it to even more people because they didn't recognize they were...
instead of the virus being able to hop from person to person.
There's a pretty enthusiastic endorsement.
And again, this is not criticism of Rachel Maddow.
It's saying that, oughtn't there be a more transparent
and clear conversation now, given some of the certainty and piety
that accompanied the onset of this pandemic, which however you regard it,
certainly created a good many financial opportunities and the opportunity for centralized authorities
to regulate and assert control, which is their de facto mentality, I would argue.
Have we got the Biden one or are we going to move on to this sort of sanction news story?
And Gareth, I can see that you're chomping at the bit to make one of your brilliant points.
Well, one point.
I mean, just to go along with what you were saying there, it's interesting that use of the word shame, isn't it, from Don Lemon there.
And yet you've got a situation now where we've literally found out that Covid-19 drug makers Pressure Twitter to censor activists pushing for a generic vaccine.
This wasn't about whether or not to have a vaccine or no vaccine.
It was a generic version, i.e.
one that wouldn't be profitable or as profitable for these big companies like Pfizer, etc.
When we talk about shame and shaming people...
Don Lemon should maybe not think about shaming unvaccinated people who are thinking for various reasons that they don't want to take some medicine.
But where's the shame for these companies?
I see what you're saying.
We don't need to get drawn on matters of vaccine efficacy, which is still subject to a good degree of censorship on certain platforms.
You can simply make the case But when we now know these organisations, whether it's the CDC or indeed in this case Pfizer, were removing unfavourable information like the promotion of generic vaccines, that's not anti-vax at all.
And in fact, there is a lot of examples now of reporting that's not remotely anti-vaccine.
Far from it.
Pro-vaccine, but just not pro-vaccine enough.
Not evangelical enough.
And again, this is our argument.
It's about the politicisation of information.
It's about making information overly incendiary, overly hyperbolic.
When even though we're accused sometimes of being conspiratorial, what we want is transparency, clarity, balance, individual freedom, community democracy.
We're not arguing for you to do anything in particular.
I don't know what's right for me.
Look at this card again, for God's sake.
They won't obviously shame Pfizer or any of these companies because they contribute quite a lot in advertising revenue.
It seems that continuing to condemn the individual, whether it's with regard to this story or other stories, is always favourable to making centralised and powerful organisations culpable for the influence and power that they assert over our social system.
This is a story.
Let's blow by dear old Joe.
I'm sure all of us can remember Joe Biden saying things that are pretty crazy.
There's a story now about this guy that bought a mansion on one of the quantitative easings for COVID payments.
You know they made all those payments in the States and he misspent the money on a bunch of mansions and stuff like that.
Now look at how they focus on an individual misusing an emergency funding package Presumably because it's exploiting, exploitative and profiteering for him to have taken advantage of such a program.
Have a look at how this is reported and then we've got some information about elsewhere.
Profits being made, power being consumed.
Check it.
Five, a mansion and expensive cars.
That's what the feds say a central Florida man bought with millions in PPP loans.
Fox 35 anchor Ray Vietta joining us live in the alert center.
So Ray, that man left the country.
That's right, Luann.
The U.S.
State Attorney says Don Sisternino was finally extradited from Croatia to Central Florida.
It's here where he'll be facing charges.
Those charges include wire fraud and aggravated identity theft from over a year ago.
Investigators say he went on a spending spree here in Seminole County.
Once he got his hands on over $7 million in loans from the Paycheck Protection Program, Investigators say he didn't spend a dime on qualifying expenses.
They say instead he brought a Lincoln Navigator, a Maserati, a Mercedes-Benz.
This is a story that's designed to direct our ire at somebody who's exploiting a program that's meant to benefit people.
Those of you with memories might recall that at the beginning of the pandemic, Albert Ball, a CEO of Pfizer, said it would be unconscionable to glean profits from a situation that was ultimately a health emergency, where it is our social collective duty to aid one another in a difficult time.
Well, Pfizer CEO Albert Baller received 24.3 million in total compensation for 2021.
Let's have a look at Moderna and what they received.
Oh, this is about, listen, Moderna considers pricing COVID vaccine at $110, 4,000% markup.
And I suppose this is as it transitions from being a government purchase product to a consumer product.
It shows, I suppose, that the drive for profits certainly had an impact on the way that this
entire pandemic was handled.
And we'll be talking about that in more depth once we're only on Rumble.
And let me assure you, because it means a lot to me that you know this and that you
believe this, that when we're on Rumble, we're there because we want to speak openly, transparently,
free from censorship.
And we use that freedom not to drive people apart from one another, but to bring people together.
Those of us on the boundaries, those of us on the peripheries, we have more in common with one another than all of the centralized authorities that benefit again and again from various crises and benefit from keeping us in the dark.
Rishi Sunak, a former WEF stooge, is my understanding, whose wife's family have strong ties with Davos and the WEF through their tech corporation.
Who was one of the founders of the hedge fund that invested heavily in Moderna, refuses to say if he will profit from the Moderna COVID vaccine.
He was a founding partner of the sort of hedge fund that started it.
Stock market filings show that that one, I think they called Faleem, I can't say that right.
There's $500 million investment in the US-based company Moderna, which accounts for around 20% of the money it manages at about $2.5 billion.
And Gareth, didn't we do a story and haven't we got a presentation later this week about the Moderna booster shots and its lack of efficacy Again, we're going to dive deeper into the politicisation of this information because we have no view on what is right for you, for your family, for your health.
We do have a view on how the media and how powerful central institutions have handled this story.
Oh my God, and what's this now in Forbes?
40 new billionaires who got rich fighting COVID.
I think the point with the media, again it's a bit shown in the last clip that we showed there, a way of sensationalizing something that an individual is at fault for.
And yeah, of course what that guy did is abhorrent and terrible and that's like public money that, you know, should have been spent like that.
Yeah.
But when they're reporting on that and spending 10 minutes talking about it, they're also not reporting on how Big Pharma is fighting for tight control over COVID-19 vaccine production, limiting availability worldwide while reaping billions.
So this is the pushing when people have been pushing for low cost vaccines, that again is a pro-vaccine story.
But Big Pharma are pushing against it.
In the same way with like Biden and Trump, it's not matched, the reporting.
One person does this, the other does that.
And it's reported in a sensational way for Trump and a non sensational way for Biden.
Pushing for low-cost vaccines is not an anti-vax stance.
No.
That is a pro-vaccine stance, but anti-profiteering.
So we think that all of these opinions, and particularly all of the science, ought to be invited into the conversation.
Sadly, that is not the world we're living in right now.
We've got some fantastic stories now.
If you're watching this on Twitter or on YouTube, join us now on Rumble, where we can speak freely.
And I'm going to undo my cardigan a little bit once we go on Rumble.
I'm going to be telling people some pretty feisty home truths, I'll tell you that Gareth.
Join us now over on Rumble, see you there.
Gareth, I want to watch that CNN clip where we, yeah I love this, we're doing a presentation
on this later in the week.
This is a lovely moment where we see that, like Don Lemon among them, some CNN news reporters
are confronted by their own medical expert, their own medical expert who's essentially
explaining the shifting narrative to them.
And that narrative amounts to this, the news, the mainstream news, the mainstream media,
tell me if you agree, tell me in the comments, tell me in the chat there, smash that Rumble
Oh god yeah.
Smash it hard.
Do you think, if you agree with this, they could have just said, listen, we're not sure how effective these vaccines are yet, they might be helpful for certain people, particularly the vulnerable people, it seems the lockdowns are ineffective, it's good for you to do exercise, you should probably take some vitamin D, we're not sure about masks, natural immunity, Appears to be effective.
They've done no tests on transmission, so we don't know whether or not the vaccines prevent transmission.
Doesn't look like it does.
It's probably up to you and for all of us to go on a learning journey together in a unique situation.
What they actually said was, stay in your house for the next two years, otherwise you've basically killed your grandmother.
You might as well kick your grandmother to death in the corridor if you're not going to do exactly what we say.
That's mobilising emotion.
That's using shame, as you said.
Well, yeah, exactly.
I think that's the worst thing about it, is that it wasn't just Don Lemon and that one comment he made.
That was the general tone, wasn't it, at the time?
Yeah.
It was a kind of dividing people, creating a two-tier society that the media played a huge part in, obviously driven a lot by pharmaceutical companies and the sponsorship of these media companies.
But a lot of the issues that now the media will talk about, oh, why do we have this society in which everything's so fractured?
Well, you played a huge part in it during the pandemic.
You did it.
You broke society and now we've got a bloody world living in it.
Let's have a look at this.
Look at the mainstream media grappling with the problems that they have created through their undue politicisation of what always have been a medical issue.
Check it.
33 states are showing increases of up to 50% or more deaths this week compared to last week.
In a Washington Post op-ed, Senate Medical Analyst and former Baltimore Health Commissioner Dr. Lena Nguyen asks, are some of these Americans dying from COVID or with COVID dying?
From COVID with COVID is almost like the catchphrase of people that quite early on, and let me know in the chat if this was you, was suspecting that something was not right, that we weren't being told the truth, that figures were being managed and manipulated.
Now, from with COVID, that's on CNN.
Like the Don Lemon that was saying people should be shamed, That dude wouldn't be going, oh there's probably some management of figures that's going on to make it favourable so they can justify extreme measures, which in retrospect looks like what happened.
There was an advantage inflating the nature of the problem in order to get people to be compliant.
Now my personal opinion is that's a type of tyranny and a relationship with the state and the media that I don't want.
I don't want my role to be that of a child who has to be startled and spooked into compliance.
I want a kind of plain, transactional relationship with these agencies.
We're the government.
Do you need us to collect your trash?
Do you need us to paint the roads, run the schools?
Do you want any foreign countries bombed?
No, don't bother doing that.
Leave that alone.
And here's some information about this pandemic.
And the media, well, I demand balance from them.
That's what I require from them.
Yeah, but they don't want to provide it because it's not in their interest for us.
I mean, it literally isn't.
They benefit from these kind of extreme bifurcations of society.
They literally push for it.
Why do you think Don Lemon's saying something like that?
They benefit from this in much the same way that, for example, politics in America benefits from having They applied a pro-Trump, anti-Trump mentality to a story that never deserved to have that inflection, that was always going to be a medical matter.
on the right because it benefits them. They're trying to create this society.
They applied a pro-Trump, anti-Trump mentality to a story that never deserved
to have that inflection, that was always going to be a medical matter. That's how
suddenly you get the liberal establishment fighting the interests of
Big Pharma and making Big Pharma into heroes. When was that, the
situation that Big Pharma were people that should be, institutions that should
be prized? It's only a couple of years ago that Pfizer were doing great big payouts.
It's not that long ago since the opioid crisis and suddenly it was
foreboding to question the Their intentions and their incentives.
Oh man, we've got to throw now to our presentation.
We're going to be taking an in-depth look at this story on our channel later this week.
It's a fantastic story.
You're going to love it, particularly when we combine it with the way that Moderna held back information about the lack of efficacy of their booster shot, presumably because if your booster shot ain't effective, you can't ask the government to give you five billion.
Dollars for it.
The FDA, of course, are the regulatory body that ensure that Big Pharma stay in check.
Bit of a problem.
Big Pharma funds them.
Now the FDA are, I believe, lobbying to bring in laws to restrict what doctors can advise their patients.
Once again breaking down relationships that While secular, have come to feel kind of sacred between us and physicians.
And once again, it's a place where you're starting to feel the creep of power into areas where it simply doesn't belong.
This is what we've got against centralized power and the WEF and all that stuff.
It's not like crazy conspiracy theory stuff.
It's like they're looking to create digital infrastructure.
We've got a fantastic story later this week about Tony Blair lobbying on behalf of these big tech platforms to ensure that all of us, you, me, everyone has to carry Digital ID, an agenda they had before the pandemic, an agenda they pushed during the pandemic, an agenda that they have now, even though much of the data suggests that people being tracked on the basis of whether or not they were vaxxed wouldn't have made any difference.
But now, let's have a look at this story about the FDA lobbying to be able to influence laws that will affect your relationship with your doctor.
Here's the news.
Here's the effing news.
Thank you for choosing Fox News.
Here's the news.
No, here's the fucking news.
You know who I hate?
Doctors.
Whether it's delivering babies or healing loved ones or being a friendly ear that you can rely on.
Thank God the FDA are pushing for a new bill whereby they'll be able to prevent doctors prescribing what they want.
I wonder if that will lead to more profits for Big Pharma because they've had a tough couple of years.
The FDA are pushing for a new bill which will prohibit your family doctor, if you're lucky enough to still have one, prescribing what they think's best for you in case it's at odds what benefits the profiteering big pharmaceutical industry.
Let's see how they're going to pull this one off those geniuses.
All of this seems a bit strange when Joe Biden claims we beat big pharma!
We beat Pharma this year!
How did you beat Big Pharma this year?
What kind of victory is it where they're profiting more than ever?
A little noticed provision of the omnibus spending bill could give the FDA power to ban off-label use of approved therapies.
Secreted within the 2023 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, 4,155 pages, oh god how boring, spending 1.7 trillion dollars that includes a record 858 billion dollars in military spending, oh god, oh it's so so boring I can't even focus on the corruption, the numbers are so big, is a 19 line section that could change the way medicine is practiced.
What I like when a seismic piece of legislation is being passed is to find it Created in a little-noticed piece of bureaucracy.
Literally, this will mean that your doctor will not be able to do what's best for you because they'll work for Big Pharma now.
And it's not like we saw during the opioid crisis the terrible negative effects of Big Pharma's influence on physicians, is it?
No, I'm being sarcastic.
That is what happened.
Physicians routinely prescribe drugs and employ medical devices that are approved and labeled by the Food and Drug Administration for a particular use, yet sometimes physicians discern other beneficial uses for these technologies, which they prescribe for their patients without specific official sanction.
The new legislation amends the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, to give the FDA the authority to ban some of these off-label uses of otherwise approved products.
This unwarranted intrusion into the physician-patient relationship threatens to undermine medical innovation and patient care.
The new provision was enacted at the FDA's urging in response to a decision by the U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
The case, Judge Rotenberg Education Center v. FDA, involved a 2020 final rule in which the FDA banned the use of an electrical stimulation device only in the treatment of self-injurious behaviors such as headbanging and self-biting.
I was misusing that device.
The court held that the FDA had the power to ban a medical device altogether under section 360F of the FDCA if it poses an unreasonable and substantial risk of illness or injury.
But barring a practitioner from prescribing or using an otherwise approved device for a specific off-label indication would violate another FDCA section which bars the FDA from regulating the practice of medicine.
So what they're looking for is a crafty, sly, insidious way to be able to intercede in your relationship with your physician.
And as usual, it's for your safety and for your benefit.
Oh my God, people are going to use this stimulating device for all sorts of ways.
And I suppose if we introduce new regulation, we'd be able to insist that you use our preferred medication however we wanted.
Therefore, Big Pharma, who who pay for the FDA by the way in a significant portion,
will be able to tell their shareholders that we're likely to get this amount of profit over the next quarter
because we're controlling what doctors are prescribing to their patient.
But that's just a side benefit, your safety first, eh?
The Omnibus Bill amends section 360F to allow a finding that a device can pose an unreasonable risk
for one or more intended uses and ban those uses while leaving it approved for other uses.
Since the new provisions lets the FDA skirt the ban on interfering with the practice of medicine
by banning devices for particular uses, the agency will likely claim this is a precedent, allowing
it to ban off-label uses of drugs as well.
Are you saying that the FDA may not be transparent and clear and keep patient care at the heart of all its policies, putting pharmaceutical profits ahead of the well-being of ordinary people?
Don't be so dis- Disgusting!
This is a problem for many reasons.
The statute gives the FDA the power without any public input to prevent patients access to off-label therapies even though their physicians and their patients have found the treatments to be beneficial or even essential.
Why would you want Big Pharma and a regulatory body that they fund interfering in your relationship with your doctor about your health?
Have they not found enough ways to extract revenue from you to To put your health second?
To put your well-being way, way behind their profits in their list of priorities?
Why is the bias moving even further in that direction while the President of America claims that Big Pharma has been beaten this year?
Let me know in the chat, let me know in the comments.
Yet, one in five prescriptions written are for an off-label use.
This indicates a degree of freedom that physicians currently have that will be foreclosed.
And also it just shows this is a licensing law.
This is not about medicine.
This is about licensing.
This is about profits, patents, the ability to extract revenue.
It's not about, oh God, what can we do to help people that have got cancer and diabetes and are addicted to opioids?
Well, we did addict them to opioids.
I know, but surely there's a profitable way to get them off them.
No, there isn't.
I'm afraid they're all dead.
Oh, well.
Should we start selling coffins?
In some fields, off-label use is the rule, not the exception.
In oncology, the standard treatment for specific types or stages of cancer often includes the off-label use of one or more drugs.
And off-label uses are routine in pediatrics, where scientific, ethical, and logistical concerns preclude conducting large trials for approval in children.
Because a lot of people don't want clinical trials done on their children.
Allowing the FDA to ban certain off-label uses will impair clinical progress.
Off-label use enables physicians to assess their patients' unique circumstances and use their own evolving scientific knowledge in deciding to try approved products for new indications.
Substituting regulators' wisdom for the cost-benefit judgment of physicians and their patients will discourage attempts to use approved products in new and beneficial ways and deprive patients of valuable treatment.
But who cares about that?
The FDA has moved from an entirely taxpayer-funded entity to one increasingly funded by user fees paid by manufacturers that are being regulated.
The pharmaceutical industry funding alone has become so dominant that last year it accounted for three quarters, or 1.1 billion, of the agency's drug division budget.
And obviously that's going to impact the type of medications that are approved, the type of therapies that come to the forefront, and now with this new piece of legislation, the inability for your physician to prescribe to you what they think is best for your health.
Outrage of this nature first came to our attention when last year California Governor Gavin Newsom sought to intercede in what your doctor could tell you regarding your old friend coronavirus.
California lawmakers are looking to tackle medical misinformation head-on.
The state legislature approved a bill that could punish doctors for spreading false claims about COVID-19.
It's interesting to watch the creep from misinformation and disinformation being the domain of conspiracy theorists to the domain of doctors and physicians.
It's very easy to begin popularizing the term misinformation and disinformation when the image you have of the purveyors of this type of data is outlaws on the internet coming up with unsubstantiated theories.
But when it's like your doctor who you know and have a relationship with, if you have that Do you remember that we used to be invited to prize and cherish doctors and nurses and care workers as devoted people, dedicated to helping you and serving you?
But now that their advice and recommendations and medical expertise might be at odds with the pursuit of profit and the will and agenda of pharmaceutical giants, They have to be recast as villains and conspiracy theorists.
But of course when they say scientific data they mean approved scientific data and scientific data is more likely to have been approved if it leads to profit and we can see Now, how legislation is creating the conditions for only certain pieces of information to be prized.
That's why in an age where all of us have access to information in new ways, they have to create terms like misinformation and disinformation and pretend that there's such a thing as objective science that's simple and devoid of conflict.
What we're seeing over the course of the pandemic is new narratives that were suspected early on becoming more and more popularized because There were experts at the very beginning that said, whoa, whoa, whoa, this type of vaccine could be complicated.
But what was happening during that environment?
Lobbying, corporate interests, all those things rose to the forefront because of established relationships and patterns, because of the revolving doors, because of the conflicts of interest, and more importantly, the convergence of interest.
Now what they're trying to do is instantiate in law endless profiteering and trying to create conditions where dissent and opposing voices are automatically nullified.
Get that law coming down on those health officials.
the medical licenses of these health individuals if they are caught spreading that misinformation
and being proponents of that disinformation. And that's where the law really comes down
on health officials. Get that law coming down on those health officials. That's what the law's
there for, isn't it? Right now you've seen of course like Twitter discourse and other social
media discourse where these health officials or experts, you know, are able to freely tout
their opinion or speak about what the information they feel is the best.
Can't have experts touting their opinions just because they've dedicated their lives to learning what that opinion is formed on.
Do you remember it used to be like the war against drugs and the war against terror?
Now it's the war against doctors and experts.
Who are we gonna have wars against now?
Everyone!
And so this really would help put an end to that, especially if we're going into an era of more focus on public health outbreaks and messaging.
AB2098, signed into law by California Governor Gavin Newsom, qualifies spreading COVID-19 misinformation as unprofessional conduct and makes it punishable as such.
It declares that physicians and surgeons who disseminate or promote misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment, and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines should be subject to disciplinary action, which could result in the loss of the doctor's medical license.
Looking at some of the tests that the CDC are now undertaking for themselves, looking at some of the information that's available from Pfizer and Moderna's own clinical trials, it seems that these physicians who are being prevented from advising their patients according to their conscience or their own understanding were in fact in the right, at odds with this legislation.
Do you imagine that this new FDA-backed legislation might take us to a similar place, where centralized corporate power yield the stick over genuine expertise and real-life experience?
Doctors fearing loss of their livelihoods will need to hew closely to the government line on COVID science and policy, even if that line does not track scientific evidence.
If the evidence contradicts the required outcome of the pharmaceutical corporate elite, then they will simply punish physicians financially for going with their own consciences.
After all, until recently, top government science bureaucrats like Dr. Fauci claimed that the idea that COVID came from a Wuhan laboratory was a conspiracy theory rather than a valid hypothesis that should be open to discussion.
A loss of license would be career-ending for doctors who spend their lives caring for patients, but since examples cited in the bill are themselves misleading, even physicians who practice medicine responsibly or give public presentations grounded in solid scientific research on the evolving COVID science may face unjust license suspensions.
The ultimate effect of the bill will be to chill public criticism by California doctors of mistaken government public health diktats since few will want to put their licenses in the hands of the very public health officials with whom they disagree over the interpretation of science.
Even legitimate dissent from public health orthodoxy by licensed doctors may be excised from the public square as a consequence.
Worse, the widespread distrust Americans now have in public health institutions will only deteriorate further.
So we can see that as evidence emerges that what we were told with such certainty and confidence in the early days of the pandemic is demonstrably false, legislation and regulation emanating from the centre from corporate interests and agencies that are meant to regulate them will prohibit legitimate debate, prohibit dissenting voices and grant yet further opportunities to make profit and prevent doctors acting on their consciences in your benefit.
But the good news is, we beat Big Pharma this year!
Can you see how the system cooperates and corroborate one another's lies in order to maintain ongoing systemic abuse?
It seems to me that the system is willing to cooperate and corroborate one another's lies, whether it's the FDA, the pharmaceutical industry, or government bodies, or judicial bodies, in order to maintain a profitable situation in which dissent is impossible.
But that's just what I think.
Let me know what you think in the comments.
Let me know what you think in the chat.
See you in a second.
Thank you for choosing Fox News.
Good day.
No.
Here's the fucking news!
There you are.
Hopefully now you feel a little better equipped to deal with the complexity of the modern world.
The contradictions, the hypocrisy, the corruption, the inability of the mainstream media to responsibly report complex stories.
Because there's obvious evidence of a convergence of interest in so many cases, whether it's the presentation we just gave you, Or many of the areas of the obvious expertise of our next guest, Kit Clarenberg.
He's a British investigative journalist writing for Greyzone, and we're going to be speaking to him now about potential deep state and big tech involvement in the Ukrainian conflict.
Kit, thanks for joining us, mate.
It's my pleasure, Ross.
How's it going?
I feel okay.
Where are you now?
I'm in Serbia, the last free country in Europe.
God, bloody hell.
Why is that?
Why are you saying that?
Oh, well, it's not part of NATO or the EU.
I mean, it's surrounded by this swarming sea of US and Brussels satraps, so maybe it's only a matter of time.
They'll be in NATO.
Sooner or later, someone will provoke them or some resource will be discovered or some strategic reason will be uncovered why they need NATO's protection.
Nice country.
Be a shame if something happened to it.
Mate, can you tell us a little bit about Anomaly 6 and how Anomaly 6's tech has been used by British intelligence agencies and even potential UK involvement in that sort of rather seismic, symbolic and brutal bridge bombing in Crimea?
Sure.
Well, I mean, these two things are interconnected.
So, there's a U.S.
private spying firm called Anomaly 6, which is rather shadowy.
There's been virtually no acknowledgement of its existence in the media.
Its unique selling point is that it can track individual smartphone data signals, and then by carving through layers of allegedly anonymous data, it can pinpoint precisely a device's owner's identity, Where they live, their marital status, where they work, you know, in some cases, photos of their children and where these people go to school and university, which is deeply disturbing.
This is being deployed in the Ukraine proxy war by Britain's Defense Intelligence Agency.
It's being used to help the Ukrainians plan offensives, target shelling strikes, potentially even plan assassinations.
So, yeah, I mean, this is being done in typically British fashion, entirely secretly, without the public's knowledge or consent.
And, yes, the company delivering it is called Prevail Partners.
They're a private military company staffed by elite U.K.
Special Forces veterans, SAS, SBS.
Yeah.
There are a number of documents and emails that the Grey Zone has reported on which show
that Prevail Partners and this incredibly sinister individual called Chris Donnelly,
a longtime NATO and British defense advisor, were intimately involved in the planning of
Kirkbridge and were very, very, very keen to go far further than what actually transpired,
which was a fairly low-level truck bombing which caused minor structural damage to the
kind of civilian portions of that structure.
Initially they planned to use underwater drones and missiles to destroy its foundations.
There was talk of sailing a boat laden with ammonium nitrate underneath it and blowing it up.
It was the Beirut blast in 2020, which killed hundreds, injured thousands and caused untold amounts of damage to the local area in every way.
It was approvingly cited as a model to follow, which I would suggest that raises obvious questions about who or what lit the blue touch paper, so to speak, in that case.
But yes, so, I mean, it seems fairly clear that Britain has been heavily involved in, quote-unquote, pressuring the Biden administration.
Biden is perceived as very cautious, cowardly, if anything, for fearing this could escalate
into a nuclear war, which is a very obvious, if not inevitable, outcome of endlessly provoking
and escalating against a very well-armed nuclear power.
But these lunatics seem to subscribe to the idea that if Russia is suitably provoked,
it'll actually back down, and therefore it's necessary to engage in all sorts of incendiary
acts which are going to result in massive retaliations against the poor Ukrainian people.
As you grapple with this staggering information and also presumably observe the mainstream media's inability and unwillingness to report on this type of complexity, Do you sometimes feel sort of startled and terrifying?
One of the things we're talking about in today's show is the mainstream media's inability to recalibrate as data around vaccine efficacy in the inefficiency of lockdowns and changing information around the last couple of years and what we ought to do now as well as the huge profits made by pharmaceutical companies.
And it seems to me that almost everything has become imbued with an ideological perspective that prevents
clarity and transparency.
And the kind of reporting that you're doing over there at the Grayzone,
and we've spoken to a few of your colleagues, seems now to be a marginal interest,
hopefully not in terms of the amount of attention you get and the kind of people that get access to the information
you're reporting on.
But certainly in terms of the driving ideology of a truly intrepid spirit of investigation.
How do you deal with this, mate?
Because it doesn't seem like it's something that's going to get any better, although with the access to information that we have, aside from this You know, push for censorship built around this misinformation and disinformation stuff.
It seems that, you know, there are ways to get this information out there.
I guess what I'm asking you is, whether it's the pandemic, this conflict in Ukraine, there seems to be a sort of a template that's being applied of making everything ideological and simplifying the stories.
Are you a bit scared?
And what do you think we can do to oppose it?
Well, I mean, I think it's better to have tried and been right and failed than to have not tried at all.
And I think on issue after issue after issue, we've demonstrated at The Grey Zone that we've not only been far ahead of the curve in terms of getting to the actual truth of matters in the mainstream, but also we've been consistently on the right side of history.
We were, you know, from the very outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, warning that this was going to be weaponised for the purposes of social control and surveillance.
We were pilloried as COVID-denying anti-vaxxers and lunatics, and we lost a lot of allies as a result.
And now the mainstream media is slowly but surely acknowledging that, yes, this is precisely
what's happened all over the world, and it has created vast reservoirs of new illicit
sensitive data on private citizens, which, you know, spying agencies and security services
can exploit and draw upon at will without a warrant or without any oversight or without
anyone consenting to this.
So yeah, I mean, we are, to a certain extent, plowing the lonely furrow, although, I mean,
I've been very taken aback by the attention some of our recent output on the war in Ukraine
has generated.
You know, our reporting on the Kerch Bridge attack and the subsequent article in which
we outlined how this same kind of criminal nexus of spooks and war criminals in conjunction
with the Odessa security service were creating a secret partisan terror army to carry out
incendiary acts in and around Crimea.
It's got an enormous amount of attention the world over.
It was picked up in media as far afield as Croatia and Singapore and Belgium.
Of course, you know, the English-language media is silent, but that doesn't mean that we aren't seen as a threat and, indeed, a large number of people Don't read us and find our work invaluable and influential.
That's precisely why we're considered so dangerous and why there are ongoing efforts to malign
us as tools of the Kremlin or the Chinese Communist Party.
We aren't, although I would say that, wouldn't I?
I think that what this proxy war has demonstrated is a yes that any dissenting opinion is going
to be penalized and censored.
And in some cases, you know, in parts of Europe, people are ending up in jail for breaking with their government's line on what's happening in Ukraine, even if what they're saying is near factual.
But I think that this narrative seems to be running adrift now, like increasingly.
It is being acknowledged in the Western media slowly but surely that this is actually an unwinnable quagmire.
And I think even Ukrainian officials have admitted that, well, our job here is to fight NATO's war for them and bleed on behalf of, you know, Berlin and Paris and Washington and London.
I mean, the extent to which the Ukrainians themselves, let alone their proxy state supporters,
sorry, their proxy war supporters, are going to tolerate the state of affairs remains to
be seen.
But, you know, there is a changing tide, and that wouldn't happen if there weren't an increasing
number of people questioning what they're being told and making clear they know that
they're being lied to and they're not happy about it.
It's clear that there are various sets of convergent interests that are at least collaborating
in order to control the narrative.
Can you tell us a little bit about the relationship between big tech and in particular the US and UK governments, historically what that relationship has been, what the financial aspects of that relationship are in terms of current contracts, but also At the point of inception of many of these big tech organisations, if there is a financial relationship.
And after that, we have a very special moment where Gareth, the co-host of the show, will ask you what I'm calling Gareth's special question, where you will be sort of somehow spiritually obliged to say what a great question it is and how it's changed you as a journalist.
But first, could you do with my humble and boring question about the relationship between big tech and Western governments, please?
Sure.
Well, I mean, I think, you know, on a very basic level, you know, the Internet itself was conceived as a weapon, was intended to operate as a weapon, and indeed has, for, you know, the course of its existence, operated as a weapon.
You know, I mean, it's often said, if a service is free, then you are—an online service is free, then you are the product.
You know, that's true, but, you know, you are also the target and the victim.
You know, the origins and, you know, the cause of the success of major household tech brands such as Google and Amazon, Microsoft,
is to a large extent attributable to vast contracts with the US national security sector,
particularly in the wake of 9-11, when there was a global but also domestic scramble by the
US and its allies to equip themselves with high-tech systems of surveillance, of
tracking, of invasive software to keep a constant eye on what their populations and indeed target
populations overseas are doing at any one time.
Google's origins lie in the US intelligence community in the mid-90s, offering a grant
to universities to come up with a technology that would allow the CIA and the NSA and others
to monitor what individuals and groups were looking at online.
Sergey Brin, one of Google's founders, used to give direct briefings to representatives
of the CIA and defense contractors.
He would very cheerily appear at meetings wearing rollerblades and give a status update
on how Google was doing.
This is all public record, but it's completely hidden.
Amazon, likewise, the most profitable part of its business has never been, or at least
to a large extent, has rarely been.
It's not just the six-year consumer products.
It's the tens of or even hundreds of billions it has reaped from contracts with the National
Security Agency, with the CIA.
Now, what's really striking is that it is absolutely unprecedented for these agencies,
which are by their very nature very secretive and wary of outsiders, to outsource storage
of the vast amounts of private data they hoover up every day on citizens the world over via
their global dragnet, the Five Eyes finding network.
But, you know, Amazon seems to be highly trusted and has numerous contracts with these agencies
for doing just that.
Now, recently, I believe it was last year, there was something of a scandal where an Amazon Fire – I mean, it's their Internet of Things device, you know, that thing that constantly listens to you and you can give it orders to play certain songs or find things for you on Internet search engines – yeah, they downloaded their data related to their use of this device.
And it was a number of itemized and extremely well-archived recordings of them talking to
their device with the nature of their request and the time and date that they made it.
Now, one of the few rays of sunshine to arise from the Edwin Snowden revelations was the
NSA and CIA could not successfully or effectively categorize or order private data that they
collected.
And, you know, Amazon's consumer platform tends to suggest that they now can.
It's good, mate, because you speak so quickly, so rapidly, with such a beautiful vocabulary, that when you stop, I feel like if you were in the room, I might kiss you.
Now, it's time now for Gareth's special question.
Well, that's a lot of pressure.
Good.
No, Kit, we were talking today about an article that you... Don't try and bond with Kit about your earlier chat!
Let the question speak for itself!
Sure, sure, sure.
Yeah, about the relationship, I guess, with big tech and the war on terror, and how, at the moment, obviously, we're hearing a lot about ways in which we didn't know that agencies like the CIA and FBI have been involved in censorship of, you know, all sorts of things, including, you know, Facebook and Twitter.
But I think people, as you kind of spoke before, people don't really necessarily know how big the relationship between these companies and, you know, the Department of Defense and all these and military industrial complex are.
And I wondered, in line of the way that people are talking about Ukraine being used as a kind of weapons lab now for You know, missiles and all sorts of rockets.
Is there a way in which, and obviously you spoke about Anomaly 6, is there a way in which big tech is being used in the war in Ukraine in a way that kind of corresponds to what's happening with the weapons?
That's a kind of, in future we can look forward to, you know, more, even kind of worse uses for big tech and its alignment with these kind of companies like the Department of Defense, etc.
Sorry that was so long.
Oh, no, that's fine.
That's fine.
I mean, I think that it's important, again, to bear in mind that the U.S.
And it's assorted blackies, you know, in particular Britain.
They view every conflict, even, you know, kind of low-level civil unrest, as occurred
in eastern Ukraine for eight years, which was, you know, brutally cracked down upon
by post-Maydan coup authorities, including through the use of far-right militias like
the Azov Battalion, which, you know, contrary to the mainstream media's claims, has absolutely
not reformed itself and remains, you know, an intensely neo-Nazi organization to its
very core.
You know, they always see, they always keep a very close eye on these conflicts, because
then they're planning for the next one.
And, you know, a core component of this is how the war is sold at home.
I mean, you know, I think, as I mentioned, there is a huge sea change afoot at the moment in the way that the media is framing the war.
I mean, there was a remarkable incident last year when Nord Stream 2 was attacked and blown up, and the entire media, despite the fact there was no evidence indicating it was Russia, despite the fact it would make no sense for Russia to blow up its own pipeline, which it constructed at great expense and was a key source of government revenue—yeah, Moscow was blamed for this.
There was all sorts of frenzied speculation about, you know, why the dastardly Putin would want to do—you know, engage in an act of self-harm like this.
And, you know, now the media is slowly but surely admitting that, oh, actually, yeah,
we don't know who did it, and governments probably do know, but they're not saying.
You know, I mean, that's a very marked shift, because at the start of this conflict it seemed
that no matter how ridiculous a pronouncement made by the Ukrainian government or the U.S.
government about what, you know, the reality of the front line, of, you know, all of these
stories of, you know, unbridled Ukrainian heroism, you know, grandmas taking down Russian
jets with jars of pickles, you know, that was, you know, universally reported on as
incontestable fact.
There is a break in the matrix, you know, to a certain extent.
And yet, as I say, that is a result of people power.
We see a similar thing with COVID.
For 18 months, Western governments very successfully managed to terrify their populations into
submission, you know, compelling them to adhere to all of these, you know, potentially unscientific,
potentially even harmful COVID reduction measures.
You know, the effects of this linger on in the general population to a large extent.
But it was because of people power.
I mean, there was one stage where it seemed like, I mean, at least in Britain they were
pushing towards a COVID passport system whereby you would need every six months to get a booster
in order to, you know, enter a shop to buy, you know, basic goods.
You know, they didn't get away with it.
But what about the next time?
because there will be a next time.
Kit Clarenberg, thank you very much for that fantastic download.
Thanks for joining us from Serbia.
You can find Kit's work on The Grey Zone and you can presumably follow him on social media
for the brief time before the deep state catches up with him
and extricates him from his terrifying freedom.
Kit, thanks, man.
Thank you.
Thank you.
That's lovely, mate.
It was lovely to speak with you.
It was a fantastic conversation there with Kit, another brilliant guest committed to bringing complex truths to you through us, and occasionally with Gareth's special question.
We've got some of your comments from the chat.
Mdevol about Joe Biden.
Come on, Joe.
Let the spirit move you, baby.
Yeah, you should have let that spirit move in.
And then, Don, Lemon, Justin, Valentine, the corporate media is holding up the boo cards for us now.
It's good to hear Kit exemplarise and unpack some of the things that we're experiencing when it comes to media reporting.
Well, he seems to think, in response to my big question, he seems to think the next issue that we're going to have to face is things like digital ID.
That's what I kind of took from that, what he was saying.
That's what they're pushing for, the way in which... Can we resist it?
Well, just us two.
Mainly us two.
Us two.
Okay, yeah, I'll resist it.
And everyone else, resist it as well.
Just go, I'm not having it.
I don't want a digital ID.
Oh, it's convenient.
It's safe.
You better buy things with the tip of your finger.
I already do buy things with the tip of my finger.
I'm like E.T.
out and about down the supermarkets.
Look at this.
Yeah, stuff about Blair.
We're doing stuff about Blair a little bit later.
And bought a mansion, man.
If I made two billion from a scam, says Craig Rock Sayers, and then paid a billion in compensation, how many sausages should I have with my breakfast?
The answer is booster shot.
And the MSM have made it impossible for good politicians to do much.
Got so much stuff to tell you there.
I really enjoyed that conversation with Kit We've got a fantastic show for you coming up over the course of this week.
So you've got to join us every single day.
You know the times.
Christian Smalls is going to be with us.
over there in Serbia. We've got a fantastic show for you coming up over the course of
this week. So you've got to join us every single day. You know the times. Christian
Smalls is going to be with us. He's the man behind the first ever Amazon union in the
So he is fighting against the forces that Kit Clarenberg was describing to us there.
And I'm very excited about this.
You're going to love this guest.
On Friday, Martin Goury, author of The Revolt of the Public, is joining us.
He's a former CIA agent who is outlined in a beautiful way that even I can understand how what we're experiencing now is centralized establishment powers inability to deal with the communication and information revolution that they have to create bifurcated fractured communities in order to assert control.
How both the reporting around the pandemic and the attempts to introduce mechanisms of control that Kit just spoke about during the pandemic are examples of this new dynamic that now we have the machinery Excuse me.
And the technology to resist and organize, and they can't allow that to happen.
He talks about how the revolts in Tunisia and Egypt were a demonstration of this new power, but as Adam Curtis pointed out, there is not yet an ideology to replace this, you know, I guess, progressivism in countries like ours, assuming you're in a sort of a Western-type nation.
And therefore it creates a vacuum into which groups like the Muslim Brotherhood can step in the case of Egypt.
Not that I'm suggesting that that ain't the answer.
I don't know.
But we reckon decentralisation, true democracy, localisation and new confederacies might be the way forward for us.
And we're determined to come up with new ideas, mostly by listening to you and getting great guests on the show.
You can also, if you're not a member of our membership community yet, join it because we have a new weekly show called Stay Connected, only available to members, where we answer your questions directly and respond to stuff that we simply couldn't put out even on Rumble.
Can you imagine?
You can't even put this stuff out on Rumble.
Wow.
That's where it's starting to get saucy now.
A bit rich for my blood, I'd say.
Do you want to see a trailer of it, Gareth?
Because it's breathtaking stuff.
Here is a little taste of Stay Connected.
Tell me whether or not you think this is worth paying a pretty penny for.
Hello and welcome to Stay Connected, our exclusive show for locals and the members of our community.
Those that want to stay free more freely.
Those awakening wonders that want to awaken more wonderfully and more immediately.
Parents!
They look like those big chocolate buns.
You know when they did the bigger version of chocolate buns?
They're my favourite chocolate buns, actually.
You keep them in the fridge, gal.
That's everything for me.
They look like those big chocolate buttons, you know when they did the bigger version
of chocolate buttons?
They're my favourite chocolate buttons actually.
Yeah.
You keep them in the fridge, gal.
That's everything for me.
That's a night in.
I mean, we now know that the vaccines didn't stop transmission.
Albert Buller, wearing the colours of Hull City, your football team.
Shearer's one of them where if you get a smile out of Shearer, you've done well.
You've done really well.
Bill Gates, for obviously being involved for a long time, his relationships go back to 2011.
That's it!
I love my shibinawa That's it, Papa needs some sugar!
Whoop! Whoop!
Duh duh duh duh duh duh!
Mmm, come on now, baby!
An additional charge for that, so you should be aware High energy.
Oh yeah baby, I'm high octane.
Like when you think of how serious I am with Kit Clarenberg.
That's alright.
So Tony, how did they blow up that bridge?
That was good, what a fantastic... Kids, come on!
Summarise that ever so well, Kit.
Thank you.
Answer the question, Minister!
Answer the question!
It's good stuff, if you ask me.
So yeah, join our community on Locals.
You'll get information about when we're doing live events.
You know we do a great big festival every year.
We get involved in activism, helping people through the Stay Free Foundation.
You can take part in polls for what we'll be talking about on Stay Connected every single week.
Also on there, you get my new stand-up special.
Brilliant stand-up special that, isn't it?
What are you laughing at for?
Polls?
That's your big selling point, is it?
We're going to do a poll.
Listen, don't tell your dad I told you this, but there's going to be a poll.
Imagine that!
That's the end of today's show.
We've got a fantastic week, so make sure you join us every single day, particularly tomorrow, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
It will start with an extra 10 minutes, but don't do that.
You can watch Cheers on videotape.
There's a link in the description to sign up.
Join us, that's the end of today's show.
We've got a fantastic week, so make sure you join us every single day, particularly tomorrow,
not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
Until then, stay free.
Got a tissue in my eye, I'm gonna have to...
Switch off.
Many switch it.
Switch on.
Switch off.
Many switch it.
Switch on.
Switch off.
Many switch it.
Switch on.
▲
Export Selection