Everything Is Changing (with Kim Iversen) - #067 - Stay Free With Russell Brand
|
Time
Text
So, I'm going to go ahead and start the video.
So, I'm going to start the video.
Brought to you by Fyzer.
In this video, you're going to see the future.
It's a good person.
Oh In this video, you're going to see the future.
Hello there, you Awakening Wonders.
Thanks for joining me today on Stay Free with Russell Brand.
If you're watching this on YouTube, the first 10 minutes will be here, then we'll be over on Rumble with good cause because we're talking about new revelations from a Pfizer executive that it would only be responsible, frankly, to talk about on Rumble because they've not yet been verified.
If they become verified, I'm terrified.
It's extraordinary.
Big news.
Big, big news that will only be repressed in one way or another.
This better be Russians.
This better be Russian psyops.
He does look a bit Russian, yeah.
He seems to me like he'd come in straight out of Moscow.
We've got all sorts of stuff to tell you.
If you are watching us on Rumble right now, thank you so much.
We are now at 900,000 awakening Rumblers.
Hit that rumble button right now, and if you're not subscribed on rumble yet subscribe on rumble right now It helps us in ways that I'll never truly understand.
One thing I do understand is how to frame a proxy war.
One thing I do understand is how to enrich a military-industrial complex.
That's by crushing dissent, smearing dissenters, not allowing sensible debate, not considering the possibility of a nuclear apocalypse, not acknowledging NATO's responsibility in the exacerbation of this condition, continually reporting that Putin's some pants-pooping loon, which doubtlessly he is, because Biden is sending some tanks to Ukraine in order, I hope, to preserve the lives of Ukrainian people.
Let me know what you think about this story in the chat, in the comments.
But also, the company that he's chosen have good cause to be favoured by him, because, well, check it out.
Let's have a look at the story.
Biden sends tanks to Ukraine.
Let's have a look at that.
Let's have a look.
Thank you.
Biden sending 41 Abrams tanks worth $400 million to Ukraine.
White House adds to Zelensky's arsenal after diplomatic row with Germany.
Have a look at the company that's sending them, Abrams, is a subdivision of General Dynamics.
Let's have a look at General Dynamics and how much money they spend on lobbying.
Eight million, eight and a half million they spend on lobbying in 2022.
What are you saying exactly?
I'm just saying that when you find yourself in a situation where you suddenly need a tank, you're going to turn to your pals over at General Dynamics for your Not a Proxy War.
These are some of the questions I'll be talking to Kim Iverson about a little later.
She's joining us on the show today.
We'll be talking about this story.
We'll be talking about the potential Pfizer revelations, which may yet be Russian disinformation.
There's a lot of it about.
Man, Not sounding like they're looking for a peace deal at this point, is it?
I suppose if you've spent a lot of money lobbying to sell tanks, what you don't want is peace.
And sending tanks out there doesn't seem like a way to decrease tensions.
I don't know.
I'm not an expert in geopolitics.
After all, I'm wearing this thing on my head.
Have a little look at me.
Let me know in the chat.
Let me know in the comments what you think.
And remember, if you're watching this on YouTube right now, 10 minutes we click over.
We're talking about that Pfizer story responsibly and openly.
And we'll be talking to Kim Iverson, who's just a fantastic journalist and a brilliant contributor to this conversation in particular.
Here's the sort of thing that worries me about this, and I can't emphasise enough my compassion
for the people of Ukraine, people that are suffering in wars all over the world, but
in particular, obviously here, Ukrainian people and how their plight ought be amended and
how they ought be protected and how all of the world's powers ought be doing everything
they can to prevent this suffering from continuing.
Zelensky has of course become a global hero.
He adorns the front covers of many a magazine celebrating the current dominator culture.
Have a look at him.
This is the kind of speech that makes me think I'm right, because believe me, like any sensible
and awakening individual, I continually question my position.
Am I right?
What do I know?
I'm just a flawed person.
I've made mistakes.
I ain't perfect.
Maybe the world is the way that they portray it.
Do you ever ask yourself these questions?
God knows you probably have mental health struggles.
How could you not have a mental health struggle in this world that seems designed to exacerbate mental health struggles?
In a world where Biden will just glibly appoint a chief of staff that's made 400 million dollars from healthcare companies that have potentially frauded the American people.
Certainly they've settled out of court around fraudulent cases.
Who's sat on the board of a big tech company that's been spreading disinformation and they celebrate this appointment and they call it democracy.
When I see a speech like this from Zelensky...
And again, I'm not criticising him as an individual, and I'm certainly not being glib about the suffering of Ukrainian people, but listen to the way he lists the contributors to the rebuild of Ukraine after the presumed peace that may eventually yet come.
Please, God.
He lists these organisations as if it's NBA All-Stars, but check it out.
Check it, NBA All-Stars and Basketball All-Stars.
Yes.
Basketball All-Stars.
Oh, indeed.
Jordan, Kobe, all those lot.
It's not an area that I'm an expert.
Where is there an area where I'm an expert?
But listen, he lists these organisations, but when we tell you about these organisations that are being feted, oh man, check it out, listen to Zelensky.
Economic growth.
We have already managed to attract attention and have cooperation with such giants of the international, financial and investment.
That's already interesting language.
We have already managed to attract attention.
That's sort of quite Identifiable corporate language I would contest.
Now listen to the organizations that he's discussing.
These are the organizations that Ukraine have formed partnerships with.
Perhaps what you think right now is, Russell, you're incredibly naive.
Who other than corporate giants would be charged with the rebuilding and reconstruction of Ukraine?
But I would ask you this.
Do you not have concerns about global inequality?
Do you not have concerns about ecology?
Who do you think generate and create these conditions if not these global titans?
In fact, the very corporations that Zelensky is about to reify in his list.
world as BlackRock, JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs, such American brands as JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs.
These are not like heroes.
This is not like Nelson Mandela, Gandhi.
Let's have a look at some of the companies that he's already listed.
Let's have a look now.
Thank you.
JP Morgan, $402 billion.
US Virgin Islands sues JP Morgan over, uh-oh, Epstein sex trafficking scheme.
Total amount spent on lobbying, $2 million last year.
Let's look at the next corporation that was listed.
Goldman Sachs spent nearly $2 million on lobbying in 2022.
How they profit from war in Ukraine.
Loophole in sanctions.
Who else did he list there?
Did he mention BlackRock?
$112 billion dollars.
They're over there, aren't they?
Larry Fink's over campaigning in WEF or Easy Deals.
Spent two and a half million on lobbying.
I mean, these... Maybe you think I'm being naive about the nature of the world and the systems that govern and control us, but I don't think I am.
I'm questioning the nature of these systems that benefit from ongoing war and replacing diplomacy with yet more profiteering.
Yeah, and this comes out literally a few days after we saw Boris Johnson over in Ukraine receiving an award and talking about how the UK will be with Ukraine for as long as it takes and that we have interest in being part of the reconstruction of Ukraine.
We had BlackRock announcing being part of the reconstruction.
This word that they keep using, reconstruction of Ukraine.
Then a few days later you find out that all these companies, the Goldman Sachs, the BlackRocks, all of those, that's now the plan.
That's the plan.
It's difficult not to see this as a new form of colonisation.
I hate to be cynical about this, or the privatisation of Ukraine.
Let me know what you think in the chat, let me know what you think in the comments.
I've struggled to hold in my head the narrative that what this is is, oh no, Russia have unprovoked attacked Ukraine, we must do something to help Ukrainian people.
Oh look, all the ways we're helping Ukrainian people are hugely profitable, in the same way that I can't see as a coincidence that the pandemic czar, Jeff Zients or Zientes has become the chief of staff who has
profited to an enormous extent from healthcare companies who have been accused of fraud,
who sat on the board of big tech companies. It's like the old woman who swallows a fly.
There's all of these revolving doors. There's nothing but a spectral spin of fractal interconnected organizations,
institutions that when we talk about the elite, this is the elite we're talking about, the corporate elite, the state
elite, and look at how they collaborate.
We gave you, I think we're talking in one of our presentations next week about BlackRock piloting or using Ukraine as a CBDB lab.
CBDC, yeah.
CBDC.
I get confused between cannabis oil and children's shows in Britain that are called CBBs.
Central currencies is what we're talking about.
If it was cannabis oil, we'd be advertising it.
If it was children's TV, I'd be on it.
I've said too many strange, strange things.
This is another of the things that Ukraine is being used to pilot.
I don't think a war-torn nation ought not be the scene and setting for profiteering, aid, care, compassion.
That's why they use words like aid, care and compassion, because we still, in spite of everything, in spite of all the attempts to cajole and control us, remain connected to our spirit, to the understanding of what it is to be human, what we're supposed to be doing here, awakening, helping one another.
We're not supposed to be here facilitating centralized control and authoritarian power and profiteering.
It's also why they use the word reconstruct as well, isn't it?
Because it doesn't actually, what does it actually mean, reconstruct?
What they should be saying is these companies are coming in to help or to restabilize or something.
But reconstruct suggests that, well, exactly what it is.
I mean, when you find out BlackRock have used massive amounts of capital to buy up single family houses in the US, you know, that is BlackRock doing something that is really preventing a lot of Americans from owning homes.
And now to celebrate the fact that They're going to be going in to reconstruct the Ukraine.
I don't see how that can be celebrated in the way that it is.
It's difficult, Gareth, to separate the demonstrable lack of ethics in acquiring real estate to a degree that manages and controls the market and prevents ordinary Americans having a home to live in.
It's like, over here in America we're doing this stuff, but in Ukraine, suddenly, with Mother Teresa!
Over Gordon Gekko at home out about Mother Teresa.
What kind of superhero is Black Rock, for heaven's sake?
Listen, we're gonna have to leave YouTube now because I feel the truth bubbling up inside of me.
The spirit is moving me.
I can feel it as well.
It's coming in now.
It's coming on strong, coming on strong.
Could be an adverse event.
We're gonna be talking about the Pfizer exec who potentially has revealed some extraordinary data
that we cannot talk about on YouTube.
It will be irresponsible until it's verified.
Rumble allows the spirit of investigation.
Rumble allows free speech.
Whatever you may have heard about this platform, we are here in order to tell you the truth so you can determine for yourself whether centralized authoritarian interests are operating on your behalf or on behalf of major corporations.
Join us there right now.
This is our ally, friend, associate, Tim Poole.
We've spoken to Tim Poole several times.
When we go to America soon, I want to go on Tim Poole's show.
I want to go on Joe Rogan.
I don't know why I'm giving you this Father Christmas list.
Bill Maher, Joe Rogan, Tim Poole, Lex Friedman.
We're going to go on a bunch of podcasts and all that stuff when we go to America soon to promote this.
That's why if you don't subscribe yet, subscribe right now.
It's great to see those subscriber numbers going up.
So check this out.
This is from Timcast.
Project Veritas releases video of Pfizer exec discussing mutating COVID-19 with directed evolution.
That is not a term I like very much either.
Directed evolution.
No.
sounds a bit sort of peculiar to me. Now we've been cautious about this for a number of reasons.
Project Veritas has some sort of right wing connotations, not that there's anything wrong
with being right wing, right wing, left wing, be whatever wing you want to be. But like
I think that that means it can be smeared in some quarters of the media. Also, it's
simply not been verified yet. And we generally like to be sure that the information we give
you is legitimate because we don't want to spread misinformation and disinformation.
We've had so many conversations this week, which we'll be showing you soon, that just
demonstrate that when they say misinformation and disinformation, what they mean is dissent.
They're not interested in, oh no, what if someone gets a bit of misinformation and accidentally eats a dog?
It's not that.
It's like what they're worried about is you thinking stuff that is not advantageous to their agenda.
Also, it'd be hard to accidentally eat a dog, wouldn't it?
If you eat a dog, it's deliberate.
It's gotta be.
It's so big and... You can't act unwieldy, the hair, you've got to cook it, you've got Prepare the animal.
You can't eat raw, are we?
We're not beasts.
So this video from Project Veritas is of Pfizer executive Jordan Trishton claiming that his company is exploring a way to mutate COVID-19 through directed evolution.
So I suppose that means, well, gain-of-function research is going on.
I suppose it throws new light on how the pandemic originated or how coronavirus originated, whether it was the Wuhan lab or that disgusting, dirty, old, little, old wet market.
I think the idea with this, isn't it, is that if Pfizer were involved in new viruses through gain of function, that then they would also have...
Amazingly, they would have the solution to those viruses in the form of new vaccines.
So it's a way of using the idea of pandemics and vaccines to line their pockets for decades and decades to come.
If the fire department said, do you know how we can be sure that we can put out more fires?
We could start them ourselves and then we would know where the fires are and exactly how to fight those.
Are we profitable these fires?
There's a lot of money in those flames, which seems to me to be an irresponsible way to go about protecting American people.
Shall we have a look at some of this footage before we go to our brilliant presentation, which is about profiteering on vaccines, as you might imagine, coincidentally, and later we're talking to Kim Iverson.
So we've got a great show coming up.
Let's have a look at this video.
Is it the reason we're being cautious in case this is just hocus pocus madness, this guy's an actor, this is disinformation, this is Russian psyops?
I think what we're trying to verify is that this guy is real, is one of the directors at Pfizer or whatever position he is at Pfizer, and I think there's a lot of people trying to do that activity at the moment.
We're looking at things like LinkedIn and all that.
Exactly and pages have been deleted and all sorts of things.
Really?
Which could suggest he's got so scared that everything's been deleted from it.
Or it might suggest, I don't know, I think that's the stage that we're at now.
You can check his profile.
We've been doing all that kind of stuff.
What we'll do is we'll wait for Matt Taibbi.
Or Barry Weiss.
Or Kim Iverson might have an update on this.
Kim will come in hard though.
You know how the virus keeps mutating?
coming out. She ain't playing Kim Iverson. She's deadly with that truth. She's truth
at the end of a stiletto.
She absolutely is.
That's what I say. So yeah, it seems like they're saying that they are... Wow. Okay,
should we see a bit more about Jordan?
You know how the virus keeps mutating?
Yeah.
Well, one of the things we're exploring is why don't we just mutate ourselves so we can
create, identically develop new vaccines, right?
You should.
I mean, what is the context of this?
What situation is this geezer in that he thinks that that's a legit chat?
I know, to boast about.
I mean, they've probably had a few drinks, you know, just in a busy restaurant.
I don't know.
Maybe if you'd been thinking about it in some evil meeting during the day, you might just want to... What did you do?
I work for Pfizer.
What did you do at work today?
Oh, well, we're thinking of mutating coronavirus so that we can preemptively come up with vaccines for a future pandemic and profit.
Oh, well, that's not right.
Oh, sorry!
I mean, medicine, like, for kids.
Yeah.
Yeah, like, it's too late now.
The genie's out of the bottle.
Sure.
The bat's out of the cave.
The virus is out of the lab.
The virus is out of the wet market.
Oh, wet market, exactly.
Could have been, we don't know where it comes from.
Could have come from that wet market.
Have you been down that wet market?
No, I wouldn't.
It's cruel.
It's just, it's slimy.
A market with all froth on the floor.
Bound to have viruses.
Dirty place.
That's where it all started from, Saucy Bar.
What do you expect?
Expect carrying on larvae down a whip market you do!
It's not your opinion, that's just want to make clear.
What is my opinion?
Someone takes that out of context, you're doing an impression.
That's an impression I was doing then of a miscellaneous and potentially fictional... Because that's what they want us to think, isn't it?
That's what they want us to think.
Obviously it came from the wet market.
Cause of all that.
Oh, I see.
Yeah.
I'm being silly.
All right.
Listen, we're going to be talking about this more with Kim Iverson, but now I've got a wonderful presentation based around a new report suggesting that vaccine makers didn't reveal information about the efficacy of their boosters.
The same boosters that you, if you're a taxpayer in America, Paid for.
And by the way, the fact that Moderna were, I think, 100% funded by taxpayer money when it came to... Correct.
I mean, there should be no profit at all, should there?
Let me know in the chat in the comments.
If an endeavor is funded by the taxpayer, on what basis are they extracting profit from it?
How is that fair?
And then looking at how much Moderna spend on lobbying, all your answers will come.
It's pretty clear that this is not conspiracy theory stuff we're talking about.
We're just exposing systemic corruption.
Here's the news.
Here's the fucking news, mate.
No, here's the fucking news!
Mainstream media are preventing their own medical experts from accurately reporting on potential COVID problems.
Meanwhile, they continue to repress information about vaccine efficacy.
This is what happens when you politicize information and create a category called disinformation, which essentially gives you the opportunity to censor.
Time for some truth!
One of their own medical experts, Dr. Liana Nguyen, came on the show to discuss potential excess deaths and the complications of that.
And CNN, because they have made the vaccine and coronavirus more broadly a political issue that is bipartisan and is attached to things like good and evil and rather peculiar and outdated ideas of ethics and morality, they can't have an honest and open conversation.
They've tied themselves up in knots.
Have a look at that conversation right now.
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 or with COVID?
Do you remember when the phrase from COVID or with COVID used to be the same as saying, I believe that lizards from another dimension are running the government?
Well, now it's just on CNN.
This shows you how the conversation is advancing and changing, and how the mainstream media and the establishment continue to grapple with the problems that availability of information presents us with.
But because it was politicised, because it was turned into an almighty, bipartisan, mind-control bonanza, it's impossible to have an honest and open conversation.
That's all we've ever advocated for.
No one sees the world the same way.
No one has the exact same set of criteria by which to live their lives.
Therefore, we all need to just be given the information to make the decisions for ourselves.
It should be no more controversial to make a decision based on what's best for you around certain medications than it is to say, I like tacos or I don't like tacos.
What?
You don't like tacos?
It's people that don't like tacos that's causing all this problem now?
This was something that was discussed by people like Brett Weinstein.
All these kind of things were out there from really early on.
And I suppose that people that are naturally cynical, or skeptical at least, about the machinations of power, like myself, thought, hmm, I wonder if what this is, is this grants government the opportunity to regulate and control, Big Pharma the opportunity to make money, the surveillance industry the opportunity to surveil and propose ideas that Digital ID that would never have been able to get off the ground without it, and these interests are converging.
But what I'm interested in is making evaluations based on available evidence and the fact that that has now become marginalised as a viewpoint is really difficult because information keeps coming out to suggest that all of the hysteria, this is a problem of the unvaccinated, if you're not vaccinated you're responsible for other people being ill, all of this stuff, because it doesn't seem like it was true, is starting to fall apart.
People have alloyed themselves to these ideas beyond what they should have done as a news organisation.
News is not supposed to be politicised in that way.
All of us have our biases, of course we do.
But when you're in the role of a news broadcaster, particularly for a mainstream media organisation, mass media, let alone taxpayer funded media in countries like mine, You have a responsibility to say, hey, this group of people think this, this group of people think that.
We don't have a moral perspective on that because it's not a moral issue.
What they tried to do is make it a moral issue by highlighting the areas where, if it were true, it could potentially be argued that it is moral.
But that's all sort of fallen apart, hasn't it?
Now we find ourselves in the position of having to extricate the politicization of this issue and pretending like it didn't happen.
Well, it did happen.
There's all of these shadows and echoes of the propaganda that went on in the last couple of years, and we're going to have to call it propaganda.
People are having trouble letting go.
They want to make it that... No!
No, shit!
I want to judge other people!
You can't.
Can you explain why you believe COVID deaths are being over-counted?
I think it's important for us to be intellectually honest in this case, and that includes recognizing that circumstances have changed.
At the beginning of the pandemic, we had a situation where there were many people dying from COVID pneumonia, including healthy young people were dying because of severe shortness of breath, difficulty breathing.
They were hospitalized because of it.
Then as a result of vaccines and as a result of A lot of people getting COVID and having some level of immunity to it, we're seeing far fewer cases of that kind of severe COVID and severe COVID pneumonia specifically.
So the doctor appears to be saying that vaccines were to some degree effective, that natural immunity is effective and that the problem simply isn't as bad anymore.
But it seems that there's an ideological attachment to some of these ideas that never ought to have been ideological.
It was a health and medical matter.
This, I would argue, is one of the problems when science becomes a subset of capitalism.
When pharmaceutical companies make more money from investing in their own stocks and shares, as Pfizer do, than making medical products.
When pharmaceutical companies act as a monopoly with such an incentive for profit, with such a duty to their shareholders, and let's call it the systems of profit to which they are attached, there's almost a detachment from the actual purpose.
What we are supposed to be doing is dealing with an illness.
I suppose what we have to decide is if the cost-benefit analysis is coming down in our favour.
Are lockdowns going to ultimately cause more...
The mainstream media are preventing their own medical experts from
accurately reporting on potential COVID problems.
Meanwhile, they continue to repress information about vaccine efficacy.
The primary cause of death.
The second is could it be the end of an OKTV server? The final third is just a recent app. The opening of C-Capital
Building.
It was seen as a heresy!
And heresy is the correct word, because once something takes on a kind of religious import, it denies reason and rational response.
They look really upset, don't they, back in the studio?
Lady in pale blue looking at the floor.
Don Lemon getting pissed off.
Brian Stelter, he's just off at Davos.
Fuck this shit!
Klaus, I'm coming!
And we need to give them the most accurate data possible so that they can better gauge their risks.
Most accurate data possible.
Where's the heresy?
Where's the problem?
Just a quick follow.
You're not suggesting that hospitals stop checking people, testing people for COVID if they come in.
That's right.
I think that there's a better way to do this.
And actually, one of the people that I interviewed was Shira Duran.
She and her colleagues came up with a different measure, which is using dexamethasone.
So dexamethasone is a steroid that's used to treat cases of severe COVID.
Don Lemon's put glasses on.
Next time he comes back, he'll be wearing a white coat, Pfizer badge.
And she and her colleagues found that in cases of hospitalizations that do not involve dexamethasone, It's very unlikely that the primary cause is COVID.
So they're reporting both the total hospitalizations with COVID as well as the total hospitalizations with dexamethasone.
Powder Blue touching it.
Get this woman off the air!
Yeah, I got Albert Baller on the line.
He is not happy.
And they found that about 30% of the current hospitalizations are actually for COVID as opposed to 70% With COVID.
So I think that's the kind of distinction that we need to be making.
So you're sort of saying that the mainstream media should tell the truth about the facts and let people decide for themselves?
I don't like that!
That helps hospitals better gauge what's going on in their own system and it allows people to understand their own risks a lot better too.
I talked to a lot of health officials about this who are actually kind of skeptical of this claim that you're making and I think one big thing has been what is the evidence Well, this is the reason why this kind of transparent reporting is going to be so important.
There is a way for us to look at death certificates and also to look at the medical records of individuals prior to their death.
And I think this needs to be separated into three categories.
One is the COVID as a direct contributor, the primary cause of death.
The second is, could it be a secondary contributing cause?
So for example, somebody with kidney disease, COVID then pushes them over the edge to have kidney failure.
That's COVID as a contributing cause.
And then the third is COVID as an incidental finding.
So somebody coming in with a gunshot wound or a heart attack and they happen to test positive.
Biggie Smalls today was killed of COVID by Tupac, but because of cosmic COVID justice, he later himself got COVID and died.
That percentage would have shifted over time as well.
In the beginning, probably a lot more people were dying with the primary cause of COVID.
That probably has shifted.
And I think, again, we need to understand this.
Another reason to understand this, too, is a lot of people are wondering when they should get a booster next.
When do we need a second booster or another booster?
And the only way we can know for sure is to understand who is getting severely ill and when.
Plainly, this expert is not an anti-vaxxer.
She's recommending vaccines during the report.
She's just not recommending vaccines enthusiastically enough.
That's what's happened now with the zeal, with the fervor, with the evangelism around this ideal.
It oughtn't be so extreme.
It's just some information.
But doesn't that change who should get boosters?
Doesn't it depend on your age and your conditions that you have, preconditions, anything like that?
Yeah, it does.
And that's what you should have said from the first place.
That's exactly right, and I think that's why we need to have this accurate accounting.
What's mad is them in silence, because it's like listening to people being told, you know what you've been doing for the last couple of years?
Yeah?
You went a bit over the top, didn't you?
Uh-huh.
You got a bit carried away, didn't you?
Yeah.
You thought you found a way of, like, hating people, didn't you?
Yeah, we thought we found a way of hating people and they couldn't do us for it because we was doing the right thing by hating people.
Yeah.
But you weren't, were you?
No, we wasn't.
We should have just said, this is a medicine, if it works or it doesn't, take it if you want it.
But instead, we did the Propaganda work of the pharmaceutical company!
Sorry!
If we find that the people who are getting severely ill are all individuals with certain underlying medical conditions, but not others, that allows us to better advise those individuals to take special precautions.
She's actually on her phone now.
I'm not even listening to this.
She's deleting her number from her phone.
Dr. Leanne Nguyen.
Delete block.
I'm saying that we need to have better data so as to focus our attention on these people who are truly vulnerable.
and allow others who have put their lives on hold to maybe resume a lot of things that they might be too scared to do
at the moment.
The case for objectivity becomes all the more apparent when you hear that continually studies are being released
that question the efficacy of either vaccines or booster shots.
And this is something that there can be a conversation about.
You can't say, don't have that conversation, I don't like it, it stops people doing what I want.
That's a form of tyranny.
Some vaccine advisers to the federal government say they're disappointed and angry that government scientists and the pharmaceutical company Moderna didn't present a set of infection data on the company's new COVID-19 booster during meetings last year when the advisers discussed whether the shot should be authorised and made available to the public.
Okay, so we're just discussing whether or not this profitable medicine should be authorized, one, and two, made available to the public so we can use their taxpayer dollars to buy it, therefore increasing the values of your product.
What do you think we should do?
I like what you just said, and it's all reasonable, and it's not like the vaccine's not effective or anything like that.
No, what?
Sorry, listen.
I just, could you, put Don Lemon on the TV, see what he's got to say.
That data suggested the possibility that the updated booster might not be any more effective at preventing COVID-19 infections than the original shot.
Or it doesn't do anything.
The data was early and had many limitations, but several advisors told CNN that they were concerned about a lack of transparency.
I was angry to find out there was data that was relevant to our decision that we didn't get to see, said Dr. Paul Offit, a member of the Vaccines and Related Biological Product Advisory Committee, a group of external advisors that helps the FDA make vaccine decisions.
Decisions that are made for the public have to be made based on all available information, not just some information, but all information.
Of course.
If you just give people some information, that's a form of lying.
That is lying by omission.
That's manipulating the data.
That's precisely what the mainstream media are being confronted with now.
A lot of the stuff they broadcast was true.
People are ill.
People are dying.
Some medications are effective in some situations.
But you can't just broadcast what's convenient to shareholders or to centralised establishment interests.
That's a form of propaganda.
And there is now a reckoning.
The information is coming out.
And now what we're being invited to do is just sort of forget about it and move on.
It's being presented in a different light.
We're supposed to just move past it.
But I would suggest that there's a lot to learn from the way that the pandemic unfolded and the way that the media behaved and the way the establishment behaved and the way that we all behave perhaps with regard to the conversation.
And all that was ever required was openness and transparency.
More than six months after the FDA advisors met, Moderna still has not released data from a randomized phase 3 trial comparing infections in participants who received the new booster with those who received the old shot.
So presumably that information was not advantageous to their explicit agenda to make money.
I mean that's what Moderna is.
It's not their fault is it?
That's what Moderna do.
So clearly what's required is a massive address of the way that the medical industry behaves.
Ultimately what you want is clinical trials that are conducted independently.
You don't want taxpayer money going to massive pharmaceutical companies.
It fogs the mind.
They can't can't think clearly anymore. If throughout this process it
had been made clear that any profits would be returned to the public, returned to the
taxpayers, then the whole thing would have been conducted a little more reasonably. The profit
motive has driven people crazy.
That's just my speculation, there's no evidence of that.
Together the new updated boosters from Pfizer and Moderna cost taxpayers nearly $5 billion
To put that in perspective, that's about the size of the annual budget for the state of Delaware.
On that basis, money well spent.
Just a joke, I've never been.
A former FDA scientist who helped run the agency's vaccine division told CNN that if he was still at the agency, he would have advocated for sharing the infection information with the advisors, even if it was made available only a short time before the meeting.
The company's failure to present this information at the FDA advisors meeting and the omission of discussion about the data at that meeting raises questions about the ability of the process to provide a full and transparent review of the data, he added.
About a month after the CDC advisors met, studies were released from researchers at Harvard and Columbia suggesting that the new vaccines didn't work any better than the original.
We essentially see no difference between the old boosters and the new about a month after the shot, said Dr. David Ho, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Columbia, whose team authored one of the studies.
Basically, it's like the Matrix films.
They should have stopped after the first one.
President Joe Biden and other administration officials continue to emphasize that the updated booster is the best way to avoid hospitalization or death from COVID-19, but nearly four months after its release, only 15.4% of the US population aged five and older has opted to get the shot, according to CDC data.
So presumably 85% of the population are sceptical about the information that they receive from their government and the mainstream media.
And given that this booster cost $5 billion, I wonder what is causing this cynicism, and more importantly, how on earth do they continue to control the narrative so So effectively, the CDC played a direct role in policing permissible speech on social media throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.
Confidential emails obtained by Reason show that Facebook moderators were in constant contact with the CDC and routinely asked government health officials to vet claims relating to the virus, mitigation efforts such as masks and vaccines.
The Facebook files reveal that the CDC had substantial influence over what users were allowed to discuss on Meta's platforms, Facebook and Instagram.
Meta gave the CDC de facto power to police COVID-19 misinformation on the platforms.
The CDC took the position that essentially any erroneous claim could contribute to vaccine hesitancy and cause social harm.
This was a recipe for a vast silencing across Facebook and Instagram at the federal government's implicit behest.
How many of you felt the information was being silenced, the conversation was being shut down?
Also, if Facebook is a de facto arm of the CDC, the idea that it's a private platform
where users can have a conversation is a misleading, disingenuous and simply untrue one.
It's ultimately a mouthpiece for a government agency.
And obviously the Twitter files seem to reveal similarly that infiltration by deep state
organisations and other government bodies and indeed corporate interests, if not absolute,
is somewhat substantial.
And all of our experience around this issue demonstrate that that's exactly what has happened.
That the thumb has been put on the scales, that one side of information was elevated, the other side was excavated and removed.
That is not democracy.
That is not freedom of speech.
It's not open communication.
It's not a conspiracy theory to ask questions, to have doubts, to demand access to all of the data, the right to make your own decisions, to speak freely about medical matters that should not have been politicised in the first place.
It should never have left the domain of utility.
You might want this thing.
It might help.
Particularly, it might help if you're in these categories.
If you're in these categories, we've got some concerns about it.
Obviously, it's up to you because we've not tested it on transmission, so it's just going to affect you, ultimately.
It's not a political matter.
Whether you're a Trump person or a Biden person, we don't believe in any political organizations because they continually let you down because of their affiliations with Big Pharma, Big Tech, Private, Finance.
You might not trust any of them at all.
Regardless, here are some facts.
Good luck.
Do what you want to do.
If they'd said that, I'd be out of a job.
Really all we're talking about is transparency, open adult communication.
Things are being needlessly politicized in order to create conflict so that people are confused and you can marginalize people and distract people and importantly that you are regarded by the powerful as a kind of big Hairy child that needs to be managed and governed, pacified and distracted rather than an autonomous free adult.
And if your entire culture and nation is built on freedom and liberty, individual freedom and the right to choose who you are and what you do, as long as you're not hurting other people, then I think we're at a moment of great reckoning.
And that is what people are trying to avoid.
They're trying to avoid the fallout of the mistakes that were made during the pandemic.
But that's just what I think.
Let me know what you think in the chat and the comments.
I'll be reading some of those comments in a moment.
See you then.
Here's the fucking news!
A lot of you in the comments pointing out that I very foolishly pressed one of the stings, the one I use when Gareth asks a question to our guests, the French horn one.
Specifically, in fact, where is that thing?
There, that guy.
Write this down after the video has been vaccinated.
Film what matters.
Good thing they weren't tubing it.
Craig Rock says, holy shit, Pfizer backwards is resifp.
Yeah, it is resifp.
Wait!
Wait!
You're onto them!
Wait!
Hey, guess what we've got now?
A fantastic guest.
I'm very excited.
This guest has joined us before and always elevates the conversation as well as creates, I would say, a kind of effervescence of energy, Gareth.
Kim Iverson is joining us today.
Kim, thanks very much.
Kim, you've got a Rumble show yourself.
Thanks, Kim.
Hey, it's good to see you, mate.
That's a hell of a background.
Is that the background you use on your Kim Iverson show on Rumble?
On Fridays, but I thought it would work well for you today.
I like that background.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thanks for having me on.
It's good to see you.
It's good to see you.
Hey, firstly, did you, did you, did you go to rumble?
Because when I had that conversation with you, I goes, you should go and rumble.
And if so, can I have some money, please, from someone.
100%.
Yes, it was absolutely that conversation.
So how much did I owe?
Did I say that I would owe you?
A small 50% of all revenue in perpetuity.
That's not too much to ask.
Although we are one of the few media organizations that are not corrupt, that can be relied upon to convey truth for reasons other than the generation of revenue and because of our long established relationships with other systemic and
institutional forces.
Kim, you must have seen that video of the Pfizer exec blagging about gain of function,
research, talking about the revolving door between the FDA and Pfizer and all of the things that we
suspect are going on appear to be true. Firstly, do you think this video is legit and what's your
take on it, mate? Yeah, I mean, I'm sure it's legitimate.
Project Veritas always ends up winning their cases in court when they're sued, when people say that they're spreading fake news and they actually don't.
Whether or not this guy Jordan is actually, and I think his name is Jordan Tristan Walker, whether or not he's actually high up in the company, you know, I'm not 100% certain about that, but what he's talking about is not actually called gain of function.
It's actually directed evolution.
So what, so it's, It's kind of like gain of function in that they've been
doing this for a really long time and now the public is becoming aware of it and saying, wait
a minute, is this really a good idea?
So when it comes to, for example, gain of function, what they're trying to do is figure out
how viruses go from animals to humans, right? And they're trying, that's the basis of why
they're doing those experiments.
They're saying, well, we're just trying to learn more about the viruses so that in the future, when we have a virus jump from a bat to a person, we will be able to, you know, I don't know, they could list off all the things that they think they would be able to do based on that knowledge.
But we saw that that didn't really pan out exactly when it came to the pandemic.
So when it comes to directed evolution what they're trying to do in this is figure out how viruses mutate because you know every year the flu mutates and it changes and so they have to come up with a new flu shot and and what they're doing when they come out with that new flu shot is they're guessing on how the flu is going to mutate that year.
And so they're trying to get in front of it and then they're wanting to give you the flu shot and sometimes they get it wrong.
We know this.
So what they're doing now, what he's claiming is that they're doing this directed evolution over at Pfizer.
So they're trying to get ahead of COVID, figuring out how is it going to mutate.
So what they're doing is they're injecting this sort of like gain-of-function but a little bit different They're injecting the virus into monkeys.
They're allowing the monkeys to spread the virus all around.
And they're looking to see, okay, how is it mutating so that we can then formulate a new shot
to combat this new, what we think will be the new variation of it.
Of course, that could run totally amok the same way gain of function can run amok.
When you mess around with the virus, with gain of function, and you're actually manipulating it,
you could end up with potentially a COVID-19 pandemic, which many of us think is maybe what happened.
So when it comes to directed evolution, what they're doing is,
that obviously could be dangerous because if you're allowing it to spread
throughout the monkeys and not inside of humans, it could very well deviate in its evolution,
not the way that it would evolve inside of humans, but it could evolve differently in monkeys or rats
or whatever it is they're using to allow it to spread to then study how it evolves.
So you could end up with a much more deadly virus for humans that then of course escapes the lab and then goes and circulates all around and it's still COVID-19 but it's one that is potentially more deadly maybe deadly for younger groups like it's a very dangerous so first of all it's a very dangerous thing to be doing but they've been doing this a lot this has been going on for a long time with a variety of other viruses and other ailments not just viruses so
It's been going on for a while.
It's not new.
It's very dangerous.
And it also, you know, what he was saying is, well, then we could get in front of it and make money.
I don't know if they're making new viruses to, you know, I have a hard time believing that the scientists that are in the lab are thinking, how can we make a bunch of money?
I think that's the executives, right, that are sitting in the boardrooms.
So I don't know if the scientists are doing it from that perspective.
The scientists are probably thinking, well, Okay, we want to make sure that we're bringing out the best booster dose available that's going to combat the strain that's actually circulating.
So let's do this in that way.
But I'm sure the executives are thinking, great, then we can get in front of it and we could be promoting this and saying we've got the exclusive vaccine that's going to be for the latest.
virus that's coming out and of course this could all just completely backfire
and Big Pharma just has a bunch of money to make and there's a possibility that
this virus evolves itself away and do you think Big Pharma is going to be all
about that? I don't think they're going to be wanting this virus to evolve
itself out of existence. They're going to want to keep it going.
There are some, in a sense Kim, there are some areas for speculation that seem important.
The potential dangers of institutional thinking when pursuing such a potentially dangerous endeavour.
If profit is built into your model, Then, as you say, at the level of scientific inquiry, nothing nefarious need happen.
But when these institutions are governed and guided towards profitable experimentation rather than necessary experimentation, we're confronted, I think, with a series of potential moral and ethical problems.
And on an even broader scale, None of us are invited into the conversation about whether we want gain of function or advanced evolution or any of these areas that appear to be being pursued because they are profitable rather than they are necessary.
And this distinction between these spaces, which are often funded by taxpayers when required, and what is good for people seems to be an important one.
I don't understand how it's become so, you know, why there's such a Synergy and symbiosis when it comes to the funding will take your taxpayer money.
But when it comes to the agenda, it's directed towards what's profitable and is extracted from the process of democracy.
By which I mean simply, no one's asking us if we want this stuff done.
Whether or not this video is legit, we know the gain-of-function research is happening and the NIH admit that in shadowy, shady, vague places.
And I feel that it's a demonstration of the way that we are regarded as Subjects of the corporate state power structures rather than participants in our own communities and lives.
And that is the thing that troubles me most of all.
I want to talk now about some of the sort of powerful figures that occupy this space.
Bill Gates has spoken about potential future pandemics in a think tank, which usually, in my experience,
these think tanks amount to little more than corporate-funded endeavors to PR particular agendas.
And now that Anthony Fauci appears to be leaving the world stage, we
are in need of new villains in this space.
And I know that you're familiar with Jeremy Farah, who I feel is a scientist of sorts that
is stepping into the spotlight in this area.
We know he's at WEF and he has some interesting things to say about horizontal surveillance and other terrifying ideas.
What do you think about some of these figures, you know, and could you touch on them both?
Bill Gates and his role in pandemic response and new and evidently very influential figures like Jeremy Farrer and how this relates to digital ID programs and future pandemic responses.
Yeah, we're in a very scary space with these guys running everything.
You know, Bill Gates absolutely has an agenda.
His agenda is that, I mean, and it's hard to know, you know, why does Bill Gates have such an agenda?
He's already wealthy.
He doesn't need more money.
I think it's just really kind of a God complex.
He just wants to be known, you know, and we know this from his conversations with Jeffrey Epstein, right?
He wanted a Nobel Prize.
He's looking to be revered as some sort, he wants to go down in the history books,
not as a guy that is this tech giant, but a guy that saves the world in some way.
That's what it seems to me to be his actual agenda.
So he's wanting to stamp, you know, have his stamp on the world as the savior.
And that's obviously extremely dangerous when you have somebody with a God complex like that,
wanting to run things, because I think what he's discovered with this pandemic,
and as his latest statement coming out saying, nobody got an A, you know, like as if this was a test,
Was this a test?
What do you mean, we were being graded?
Like, oh, okay, so maybe this was a test.
Maybe this was something that, you know, that obviously makes people think those things.
But Bill Gates, you know, his agenda is to control things, to be able to say, oh, I stopped a pandemic.
It was my vision, my work, my funding that ultimately led to the end of this.
And obviously that did not happen this time around.
COVID-19 just spread around.
There was nothing they could really do to stop it, as much as they tried absolutely everything.
Nothing worked.
It's not going to work.
Obviously, it's a virus.
But, you know, so that means in the future, he's going to go harder.
He thinks that Australia did a good job.
That's what he points to.
He says, well, if there is a country that did a good job, it's Australia.
Because they have these quarantine camps where they carted people away and shoved them against their will into these quarantine camps.
They had very strict vaccine requirements, passport requirements, and he thinks that's a good model going forward.
So that's very scary.
Bill Gates and his influence monetarily in all of these organizations.
Not only is he a large funder to the WHO as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, but he's also a large funder to the other organizations that are large funders to the WHO.
So he's got his hand everywhere when it comes to the response at the WHO.
And the WHO now appointing Jeremy Farrar, you know, this guy is all about more surveillance.
He thinks the answer is not just vaccines, he says, but really going hard on the surveillance measures.
And that's what Bill Gates was essentially saying.
He's saying that Australia did a great job because they had early he was he was talking about their ability to spot the virus early who had been infected and then get them into quarantine camps.
Well, that's what this guy, Farrar, is talking about, right?
He's saying when somebody walks into the room and they cough, it doesn't matter what the virus is.
We can spot it.
We can know.
We can go hard at it.
So these guys are in line, which is no surprise because Bill Gates is heavily funding the WHO.
So, of course, he would want the head scientist to be in line with his vision.
So Bill Gates is largely in charge of the health response around the globe, and the only hope we have is people being aware of this.
The more awareness we have, the more we can say, Wait a minute is Bill Gates.
The guy we really want to be in charge his vision, and because it's his money, it ends up being his vision.
Do we really want him to be that guy or You know, should we be actually handing this over to real scientists that really understand?
Like we saw with those that wrote the Great Barrington Declaration.
They were scientists without an agenda.
They don't have their money everywhere.
They're not making gobs of money on this.
If anything, they lost money on this entire pandemic.
And they're saying this is the appropriate response based on science.
We're not getting that.
We're getting these players who instead have these big money or God complex agendas.
And it's extremely scary.
And then they put people in at the CDC.
You know, here in the United States, I'm sure you've got guys over there in the UK that are also in bed.
And it's through all of their tentacles that are just out there.
You know, Bill Gates doesn't just fund the WHO.
He funds all of these different scientific labs.
It's extremely scary.
putting money into those Johns Hopkins and the University, the Imperial College of London,
right?
You've got all of these different places where that money's coming in.
So the people that are at those organizations who are supposed to be the scientists following
the science are also parroting what they need to parrot in order to keep their funding.
It's extremely scary.
I think that the next pandemic we're going to be looking at, maybe they're not going
to roll out a vaccine as quickly, but they're certainly going to be rolling out surveillance
very fast and potentially these quarantine camps carting us off.
You and I could be definitely, we'll be carted off first, would be my guess.
Well, you have to quarantine, that way you could shut up.
I think I can make a good go of it in the right quarantine camp.
I will start building a tunnel.
I've interviewed Tim Robbins and I know how to build a poster-oriented tunneling system with a Rita Hayworth image.
I'll find a way out, Kim, and I will include you in this potential escape.
When you see Bill Gates fetishize in authoritarianism, which is obviously the implementation of power, no point having power if you can't implement it, fighting the Australian response to the pandemic.
And you hear the economic and financial ties that he has, not only through, as you've just explained, the Bill and Gates Melinda Foundation, but secondary foundations that similarly are funding the WHO.
And then you hear Jeremy Farrar explaining how he would like to amend the current response to pandemics.
I'd love to have a look at that clip, by the way, guys.
And are you interested too, Kim, I'll ask you this again, after we have a look at Jeremy Farah, just so people can familiarise themselves with his face and his rhetoric, are you concerned about the way the use of the word pandemic is becoming more popularised and in fact more elastic and more plastic, like words like terror, words like war, new ways of heightening tension, Covid is not the only pandemic going on.
Let's have a quick look at Jeremy Farah and then we'll move on to getting Kim's opinion
on the mutation of the word pandemic, let alone the viruses that it's often used to
describe.
Look at Jeremy Farah.
Covid is not the only pandemic going on.
TB is a pandemic.
And I've argued very strongly against us setting up new vertical systems to deal with future
I would much rather we built the surveillance systems into horizontal ways of working, so that if you went in with your cough, whether it would be tuberculosis, or whether it be Covid, or whether it be influenza, or any of the other respiratory infections, that could be picked up in a horizontal system that's integrated into health systems in a strong way, and then that will be dealt with in the appropriate way.
Now our producer explained to me that the word horizontal means that across the board so no matter what it is they wouldn't be like vertically it means we're just looking for one particular condition or virus horizontally we're looking for everything in a sense it means sort of perpetual pattern it seems like the way that in Orwellian speech we talk about perpetual war if that can't be continually ...militarized in an increasingly unipolar world, and that appears to be the aim elsewhere.
It seems that the war has to be against ideas, ideologies, language, germs.
The war against germs.
It seems that this is a way of legitimizing authoritarianism, legitimizing surveillance, legitimizing digital ID.
So it's interesting to get to know Jeremy Farah.
Sir Jeremy Farrar, to give him his full title.
I believe that he's a figure that you're familiar with.
When you hear authoritarianism and surveillance in the same sentence discussed, of course I believe that was at the WEF, what kind of vision for the future do you think we're being offered, Kim?
Yeah, well, it looks like this is just a new way to, you know, it's definitely a control tactic, keeping people afraid.
As you've said, they've used all of these different words, terror, genocide, now pandemic.
They know what it takes to keep us afraid.
They know now what it takes to control certain segments of the population.
Not everybody fell for it, right?
But a lot of people did.
A lot of people, Even when you would say, look, you already got XYZ number of shots, and you still got COVID, and they say, yeah, but it works.
It prevented me from spreading it.
I mean, the smartest people I know lost their minds, where they weren't making any sense at all when they were speaking.
Because they were afraid.
So they know fear is such a great way to control a population.
And it feels like we're living under a new form of monarchy, right?
It's like back in the day, the knights would ride around on their horses and they would have their weapons.
And if you weren't behaving the way you were supposed to behave, then they would imprison you, you'd be punished, right?
You knew that you were being watched in some way in these small little communities.
And that, of course, has grown into police in cities and military occupations.
And Now they're transferring that over into the digital world.
They're surveilling us in a different way, and it's going to be through tech.
They know that this is the way to control people.
That is how they've always controlled people, starting from little villages all the way to these large now billions of people on the planet.
We just have too many of us.
Some people really think there's too many of us.
And in order to control us, they're going to be using now digital surveillance and fear.
And they've been doing it.
They've been grooming us for this.
And now here we are, and they've now seen that health.
Telling somebody you're afraid—you know, because with terror, you could say, well, you're afraid of the terrorists.
And people in the middle of the country might say, well, that's not really something that's going to happen to me.
That's people in New York or people in L.A.
or somewhere else.
So it's maybe harder to get them to feel like it's part of their daily,
what should impact their daily life.
But when you say health, when you show them a bunch of zombie movies and
then you say you might become one, that's you next.
Then suddenly a person says, my gosh, the last thing I want to do is catch this virus, it's
invisible.
This could harm me.
It could harm everybody around me.
I'm going to turn into the walking dead.
So they just have that.
They know that fear is the way to control us, and they know that people will comply.
We saw it.
We saw a lot of people around the globe.
More people complied than not.
That is very scary.
They just know they need to tweak it a little to get the rest of us.
It's interesting to note that Jeremy Farrer was one of the people that was included in the emails when the narrative was determined about the origins of the pandemic.
Initially, there were three potential stories.
Biogenetics, natural emergence, lab leak.
And when then it was determined that it would be a lab, that two of those theories would be extracted, leaving only natural origins.
Jeremy Farrer, as well as representatives of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, were included in those recently unredacted emails.
It's interesting, Kim, to hear you talk about fear and the escalation of fear.
It's interesting to hear you talk about the body.
In a sense, when it becomes about health and wellness, you're right.
None of us can be discounted.
I remember at the beginning of the pandemic how, of course, everybody felt concerned until it became, oh, well, this is something that's particular to particular groups of people.
That doesn't mean we oughtn't care.
Of course we should care.
And it was evident that people did care.
People were willing to be locked down.
People were willing to take experimental medication in order to protect the sanctity of life.
What I suppose many of us are querying is the way that this revealed that there is a desire, as you explained, to return to a kind of feudalism.
That we talk in terms of democracy, but power acts.
as if it's a top-down administrative system.
In order to achieve that in a world where communication is possible and information is available,
you have to create, you have to condemn dissenters, you have to control information,
and it seems that that is the project that's being busily pursued in order to create
new systems of feudalism, new sovereignty, to disempower people, even when it comes to our own bodies,
till eventually we're just locked into metaverses, disembodied, disconnected, no spiritual connection,
no anatomical connection.
Kim, thank you for describing that hell for us so articulately in front of a rather lurid Floridian backdrop.
What time is your Rumble show on every day, please, Kim?
It's at 6 p.m.
Eastern.
I go right before Glenn Greenwald.
His is at 7, mine's at 6.
So yeah, we're exposing the truth and talking freely on Rumble, which is why I made the move over to Rumble, because I could finally cover topics I was not able to cover in depth, as you know, on YouTube without getting slapped.
Over and over.
Thank you, Kim.
You're doing such a wonderful job.
You set such a brilliant example.
You're such a fantastic communicator.
You can follow Kim on Twitter at Kim Iverson Show.
You can watch Kim every day at six.
That's ET, and obviously it depends on where you are in the world.
You know how time works, right?
You know that you're on a spherical planet.
Although, are we?
We're on Rumble, man.
Let's entertain every conceivable theory.
We're all on Rumble simply to convey truth openly and honestly, to generate love, not hate.
Kim, thank you so much for being such a brilliant broadcaster and communicator.
It's great to have you on the show.
Thank you.
On tomorrow's show, we have yet another fantastic guest whose insights, brilliance and experience helped to shape the narrative for once in our favour.
Martin Gurry is a former CIA analyst and the author of The Revolt of the Public.
His book reveals that what centralised powers are dealing with is our new ability to access information in ways that exclude them.
Our new ability to organise in ways that is not dependent on them.
As our own Gareth Roy recently said, just 10-15 years ago, If you wanted to stop a revolt, it would have involved the military.
Now you can stop a revolt by shutting down people's bank accounts, descending people, smearing dissenters, and shutting down people's ability to communicate.
Martin Gurry is on our show tomorrow, and it's a fantastic way to wrap up the week.
You are not going to want to miss that.
You are going to want to be included.
Remember, sign up to Locals to get our exclusive new show, Stay Connected, where Gareth and I speak freely.
I mean, in a way, I'm not sure I wanted to sign up because you'll see what kind of a person I am when I relax and it's quite severely mentally unwell, I would say.
You had a sandwich in this one.
I had a sandwich.
I allowed my dog to be in here.
I made jokes about things I'm not sure you should make jokes about.
I allowed the comedy to flow because here we have to concentrate.
We're focused.
Even though this is Rumble and they won't censor us, we are so committed to bringing you the truth.
It is our mission.
It is our purpose.
Our connection to you is what defines us.
We do not have sponsorship from Big Pharma.
We do not have allegiances with Big Government.
But we have something far greater, far more powerful.
We have you!
900,000 of you.
901,000 I think as of today.
And if you're not a subscriber yet, subscribe now.
And if...
If there's any way that you would like to make this physical, I don't mean like that.
I mean, join us in the flesh.
I don't mean like that.
I mean, become part of this real community, this movement that we are building in order to represent you and to represent the values that you stand for.
Why would you not come to Community 2023?
I should have asked Kim Iverson, shouldn't I?
Yeah, she'll come.
She'll be along.
What about the quarantine bit where we was both going to be banged up in quarantine?
Do I have to go as well?
Gareth, I don't want you in there and have a piranha in the tank.
I want to be locked out.
You'll never see a man run onto the back of a police truck more enthusiastically.
Oh, what about me?
Oh, calm is coming now!
Oh, you shouldn't get vaccinated!
Take me with you!
Have a look at what we get up to on Community where frivolity and joy reign.
Music playing.
Singing in Portuguese.
Get your tickets for this conspiracy theorist hoedown.
Okay, well, we better wrap up now because it's getting late.
We've done a lot of work today, haven't we, Gareth?
I'm fighting against illness as well as the system and the establishment.
I think you've exercised it in that rant.
That rant gets me... I got myself... I got my gander up, didn't I?
Yeah, yeah.
Rant yourself well, the Russell Brand method.
What about when Steve-O came on here and he goes, you know, you guys, you like British Info Wars?
Didn't he?
I was into that.
Yeah, we like that, being a British Info Wars.
Why not?
Hey, so get your tickets to come and see us at russellbrand.com.
Remember to sign up to Locals to get our additional content.
It's really worth it if the comedic side of stuff, as well as me being glib and frivolous about quite serious subjects, Is what you're into and me sort of penalising Gareth, you know, just wherever I can find the opportunity.
That's the sort of stuff he's built around.
Anyway, join us tomorrow for Martin Goury.
This is going to tool you up.
This will equip you to have the conversations you need to have in a world deluged by misinformation, disinformation, deception and propaganda.
You need people like Martin Goury.
A shot of truth right in the arm.
No need for a booster shot, yo.
Join us tomorrow, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.