Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 2, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand

01:01:11

Fauci & Wuhan - What They’re NOT Telling You - #072 - Stay Free With Russell Brand

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	So, we're going to go ahead and start. We're going to start off with a little bit of a
	little bit of a walkthrough of the game.
	So, we're going to start off with a little bit of a walkthrough of the game.
	In this video, you're going to see the future.
	Hello there, you awakening wonders.
	Thank you for joining us.
	If you're watching us live on YouTube right now, know that we will be with you.
	We won't be you, you're you.
	I mean, unless there is a limitless consciousness expressing itself through us as individual nodes, that we're part of a giant network.
	I don't know how consciousness works.
	In fact, nobody does.
	What I do know for sure is that Joe Biden is a damn good dad and a very good boss.
	Ron Klain, departing Chief of Staff, knows that too.
	In a lacrimose announcement, he praises Biden's abilities as a father.
	We're going to be looking at that in a moment.
	Hunter Biden laptop revelations are abound.
	Lost in euphemistic language.
	Join us for the first 10 minutes while we're having a bit of a laugh here on YouTube, but once we click over onto Rumble, the home of free speech, that's what they're calling it, and certainly that's the reason we're there, so we can talk about the machinations of centralised power, the consent and consensus of the mainstream media in conveying narratives only that keep you, me, all of us in the dark, the inability for counter-narratives to simultaneously exist and be discussed Sensibly in an adult and empirical way in a climate where centralized corporate interests abide and govern.
	We're going to be talking about the Wuhan lab leak with a fantastic guest, Jimmy Tobias from The Intercept, talking about all sorts of stuff which couldn't be conveyed on YouTube because, as you know, YouTube's policy is set by the WHO.
	The WHO is funded.
	Number two funders.
	Let me know in the chat.
	Let me know in the comments if you know who the second biggest funder of the WHO is.
	Let me know.
	In unrelated news, in our item, here's the news.
	No, here's the effing news.
	We're talking about Bill Gates, not from a conspiratorial perspective, actually, not about his previous and past relationships.
	Those things are fascinating and interesting, but we're going to just track his investments throughout the pandemic.
	This guy has got Nancy Pelosi-like investments.
	Not Nancy Pelosi, Paul Pelosi.
	Why do I keep thinking that Nancy Pelosi and Paul Pelosi talk about the investments?
	It's not how it works.
	They lay there in grim cadaverous silence in that bed, glancing up, making sure that the house is secured.
	No one's on their way in!
	Before we get into that though, there's a time for sentiment.
	While you may not be able to afford energy, while you may be quaking under the weight of unpayable energy bills, true emotion is reserved for the expression of the changing of the guard within the White House.
	One plutocrat leaves, another plutocrat comes.
	Let's have a look at Rob Klain's departure speech.
	Learned everything I know about how to be a good father from Joe Biden.
	He is the best father I know and the best role model I know.
	And along the way, he's taught me a thing or two about politics and policy as well.
	He's learned everything I know about how to be a good father.
	Yeah, he's a great guy.
	It's incredible to see that amount of sentimentality and humanity.
	It's a common thing, you'll notice that when people in political office leave.
	It's like the thread that connects them to the Matrix is cut and they have this sort of gawping, yawning epiphany.
	He is just a man who wants to learn how to be a father from dear Joe Biden, who's track record in that area.
	Hey, you don't start questioning people's ability to parent, do you?
	Even if it's potentially an agent of the state.
	You probably want to question his business practices, you might say.
	Question their business practices.
	Certainly Ron Klain.
	Or the way that they keep files in garages.
	Get them in the silken wet southern garage.
	Ron Klain, whatever you think about him, I think he's sort of lobbied on behalf of mortgage companies and I don't think there's been any massive crashes around mortgages, subprime mortgages in the last 20 years that led to the rise of extremism and poverty.
	You're putting that all on Ron Klain, are you?
	I'm so sorry that your house was foreclosed!
	I should have lobbied on behalf of all... Sorry about Lehman Brothers!
	Sorry about the rise of different identities!
	Joe Biden has talked me to be the best corn pop boxer that money can buy!
	Have a look, though, at the geysers.
	If you think, oh, I don't want this cowardly lion sobbing sod as the chief of staff in the White House, look at who they've got.
	They've gone from one extreme to the other.
	Check out once more Jeff Zients.
	His name rhymes with science, and he's yearning for a winter of death.
	To be unvaccinated, you're looking at a winter of severe illness and death.
	For yourselves, your families, and the hospitals you may soon overwhelm.
	Off you go!
	He seems like a cheery chap who, of course, has made a $440 million fortune, by coincidence, from the health industry, from questionable health care firms.
	Might be the reason why the hospitals are overwhelmed.
	Could have something to do with the fraud that's been committed.
	Don't be so ridiculous.
	He's bloody unvaccinated.
	Sure.
	Unvaccinated, laying around in hospital beds with their adverse events and myocarditis.
	I'm talking about the unvaccinated there, Gary.
	I know, I know, I know.
	You've been very clear.
	Just to clarify, while we're still on YouTube, in other news, have a look at the headline that announces that Hunter Biden's laptop has... Hunter Biden's legal team went on the offensive Wednesday, demanding state and federal investigations into the dissemination of his personal material purportedly to be from his laptop.
	So this is a case like he's already He's always said, oh it might be my laptop, I don't know, it might be, but it does sound a bit like it is when they're talking about dissemination of his personal material.
	The dissemination of his personal material is what's got him into this jam!
	Keep that personal material!
	Stop disseminating!
	Leave it in there, for God's sake!
	Actually, Hunter Biden, as a fellow recovering addict, has nothing but my support and love.
	I'm more interested in the allusions towards corruption from the big guy, none of which are proven at this stage.
	Although one person who's not holding back on their perspective is everyone's favourite former president.
	Here he is.
	We have a president whose son's laptop from hell gets taken over and exposes massive corruption like nobody's ever seen before.
	Do you think the father, do you ever hear this?
	Do you think the father was upset?
	Actually, that's purely comedic.
	I'm speaking now just as a stand-up comedian that his practice here is like in creating a scenario where he normalizes it and domesticizes it.
	Do you think the father gets upset?
	He's inviting us in.
	Setting it up.
	Send it up sort of somewhat beautifully.
	This is no longer an analysis obviously of Trump's political views opposition and loads of you love him as a populist and surely equally as many of you question Donald Trump as a public figure.
	But here let's just look at him as an orator.
	Dad I left my laptop in a repair shop.
	I forgot to pick it up and this repair guy went a little crazy when he saw what was on it.
	What's on it son?
	Every crime that you've ever committed.
	Such a great out.
	Yeah.
	So brilliant.
	And his little voice for Hunter Biden as well.
	The guy went a little bit crazy.
	It's pretty good isn't it?
	Yeah.
	I once watched a clip where when it was Clinton Hillary versus Trump they sort of asked them and it was actually sort of heartwarming a bit to say a nice thing about one another.
	Oh yeah.
	They challenged them can you say one nice thing and he said she don't quit and he said his kids love him.
	He's like his children love him.
	Don't you want to see a little bit of humanity?
	When you're caught up in the spectacle of contemporary politics, even though it is very theatrical and at points emotional, what it feels to me most of all is spiritually bereft.
	The hypocrisy and corruption, to me, point to a lack of real values.
	That's why it's so alienating for me and so encouraging when you speak to someone like Christian Smalls, the emergent Amazon union leader, We need a different type of politics, that's what I would say.
	of a felt experience, someone that's working at a factory in a zero-contract job and has
	become a union leader.
	We need a different type of politics, that's what I would say.
	And I reckon whether you like Trump or don't like him, the efficacy of his rhetoric is
	an indication that what we're missing is the emotional tombra, the ability of human beings
	to connect one another in an increasingly atomised world built on data, biometrics,
	control, surveillance, digital ID, total lack of trust, total breakdown.
	What do you think?
	Let me know in the chat, let me know in the comments.
	I think you're right about the humanity and I think you're right about what you said about Ron Klain before is that breakdown is like a moment that happens to politicians when they usually lose elections or quit their jobs and there's something it's that pent-up essentially having to lie about a system that is extremely
	broken and even in the lie of saying you know I've left I've left you in good hands with the
	next with the next chief of staff he knows that the next chief of staff has made 440 million
	dollars off fraudulent health care companies. Just one last lie then on to my crying then I'm
	out then I'm getting on my boat but with mortgage lobbying money and presumably some sort
	of state salary paid for by your tax dollars and in a way these are not indictments of any
	individuals but when you have a system built on the kind of values that it is you recognize that
	the individual character is less and less relevant than the individual character.
	That's something that was made clear to me by Yanis Varoufakis when he was talking about the EU after his party Soritza briefly looked like they could bring about radical social change in Greece.
	Then they met with the EU and it's like, you ain't doing nothing.
	You're paying them banks back, baby.
	This is after the 2008 crisis caused by all those subprime mortgages, of course, by coincidence there.
	And he said that even the most senior figures within the EU could only act in accordance with their role.
	So the system itself limits any potential for radicalism or change, or in another way,
	any possibility of democracy.
	You know that you would like to see money taken out of politics.
	You know that you'd like to see lobbying ended.
	You know that you want Congress people that don't own stocks and shares in the companies
	that they regulate.
	You know you want meaningful democracy where your vote influences the actions and expenditure
	You know that you want to have a spiritual connection to your country, to your community, to yourself.
	But what you don't want to see is an increase in centralized power.
	We've got a fantastic story coming up for you.
	Will it be later this week or will it be next week?
	I'm talking about Ukraine.
	Not only are they testing weapons in Ukraine, but they're looking at pushing CBDC, centralized banking digital currencies.
	But beyond that, It seems that in its post-war state, which people are already referring to in the reconstruction, you've seen Zelensky talking about Black Rock and JP Morgan.
	They're going to be piloting, this is according to our latest data and you can look this up for yourselves, digital surveillance, biometric technology, CBDC.
	So the Ukraine after everything is going to be a kind of piloting ground for all sorts of globalist techniques.
	Now at the moment, We make no claim that they're a centralised cadre of powerful individuals orchestrating all of this, but certainly the technology and infrastructure is being introduced to a degree that if ever there were such a cadre, we'd be in serious trouble.
	And I know some of you think that the cadre is already there.
	I think they've talked about Ukraine becoming 100% digital.
	100% digital?
	And that's literally from the Ukrainian government.
	That seems hard.
	It does seem.
	To be 100% digital.
	There's got to be a bit of it that's just some people trying to recover from a terrible prolonged proxy war.
	That's got to be at least part of it.
	Listen, we can't stay on YouTube forever because there's so many things we want to talk about that are subject to censorship.
	That's simply the reality.
	We are using this to bring about dialogue and rhetoric that will unify people from across the political and cultural spectrum.
	A humble aim for a humble man.
	So that's what we're doing here.
	We're talking to Jimmy Tobias.
	He's dug deep into Wuhan and the Fauci emails.
	Doesn't look good.
	Doesn't look good.
	A lot of crazy stuff on there.
	So you're going to want to click over and watch us on Rumble for that.
	But now to put a little smile on your face before we leave YouTube, a heartwarming story about prisoners who perhaps are imprisoned simply for the crime of being poor and addicted, you know that's a significant number of prisoners, are going to have to give up their organs in order to get early freedom.
	Oh Biden, he's been like, he's taught me how to be a father!
	Okay, that's all well and good.
	You're not operating in a country where prisoners are going to have to swap their kidneys for a day out in a park.
	Oh yeah, that's happening.
	We're doing that.
	Firstly... Biden said I think one of his pledges when he came in was he was going to cut the prison population in half and I'm almost fairly sure that it's gone up.
	What we're going to do is cut them down the middle.
	You misunderstood.
	We're going to cut them down the middle.
	We're going to eviscerate them.
	We're going to take out their precious, valuable livers.
	I know there's only one.
	And we're going to swap them for a lovely day out at Six Flags.
	You know how you used to have two kidneys?
	Yeah, I loved those guys.
	They helped me with dialysis.
	And how about...
	One kidney, six flags!
	What about SeaWorld, baby?
	Not all of those whales are monsters.
	Some of them had a good upbringing.
	In Massachusetts, Democrats have a bold new proposal for prisoners.
	Go on, donate your organs or bone marrow and get as little as a couple of months off your sentence.
	I don't know, isn't that already a Twilight Zone episode?
	Where you sort of go to, oh my god, ever since I've had this new heart, I'm experiencing terrible I'm afraid we accidentally darn gave you a murderer's heart.
	He's obviously not getting a couple of months off his sentence for murdering.
	I mean literally heartless murderer.
	How did they come up with it?
	What kind of brainstorming session?
	I'm sure there's other stuff going on at the moment.
	What do you mean?
	The brainstorming session?
	The brainstorming session for this.
	Where are we?
	We're in the Democrats.
	We are.
	The annual conference of some sort.
	We've got to come up with some novel ideas to get... Well firstly, what it indicates is that cumin orchids are a commodity now.
	Do you think it was Ron Klain?
	Do you think that's why he's leaving?
	I'm donating my tear ducts to a murderer!
	I don't know what generates those kind of reprehensible notions, but when human life itself becomes a commodity, when everything is information, when you are little more than data points, when they are working on technology that will mean that you can be nudged and manipulated into behaviours that are favourable to the interests of the state, then all bets are off.
	Why not sell a person's kidneys?
	Why investigate whether or not the penal system is working?
	Why investigate the judiciary meaningfully?
	Why not make the whole process AI as is already happening in the Ukraine all of this stuff
	is underwritten by facts and by great reporting.
	Later we're talking to Jimmy Tobias about those Wuhan Fauci emails.
	Should we come, do you think we better come off of YouTube?
	Can do, yeah.
	We better get off YouTube because we're about to do this amazing presentation on Bill Gates.
	Not that story.
	On the other story about Bill Gates investing in BioNTech, selling his BioNTech shares.
	This is all stuff that can be tracked.
	His donations, not investment scale, donations to the World Health Organization.
	Don't invest in the World Health Organization.
	That's about health.
	How would you be invested?
	I mean, what would it achieve?
	What would you get out of it?
	Where could you ever make a profit?
	Exactly.
	How could you ever make a profit by giving the World Health Organization a bunch of money?
	I mean, all right, a little while later, they did try to globally mandate a product that Bill Gates had also invested in.
	Oh, I see what you're doing.
	You're taking one fact from there and a fact from there and putting them together.
	You conspiracy theorists, you're all the same, aren't you?
	Why don't you just sit down like an obedient little prisoner of the state and devour your mainstream media soup Here's the news.
	your mind with num non-entity mishap rubbish, sit still and be quiet, or you could watch
	this. Here's the news, no here's the effing news, join us on Rumble.
	Bill Gates is in the news again because of his questionable relationship with Jeffrey
	Epstein but it's the real Bill Gates conspiracy that he's able to manipulate the entire planet
	into a profit-making machine and call himself a philanthropist.
	Also, Jeffrey Epstein.
	What we want to talk about today is Bill Gates' ability to exert influence through organisations like the WHO to make incredible amounts of money in fields like medicine and agriculture, areas where he has no more expertise, really, than you or I. Except, actually, I can't make any money out of it, so he has got more than me.
	But what I mean to say is, how can, at the end of all this profiteering, Bill Gates look himself in the mirror and say, there is a philanthropist?
	Let's work it out together, shall we?
	Microsoft founder Bill Gates said he shouldn't have had dinners with Jeffrey Epstein during an interview with Australia's ABC 730.
	Yeah, I suppose not.
	I suppose don't have dinners with Jeffrey Epstein.
	I suppose that's what everyone's saying now, aren't they?
	All over the world, I shouldn't have dinners and flights and some of that other stuff with Jeffrey Epstein.
	Gates and Epstein met numerous times beginning in 2011 according to a New York Times report, but Gates told CNN he only had dinners with him for potential philanthropic opportunities.
	Gotta find some opportunities for philanthropy.
	Maybe that guy over there with those teenagers.
	Hey, Jeffrey!
	One of the issues that's dogged you is that of your relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
	Do you regret the relationship that you maintained with him against Melinda's advice and wishes?
	Oh, I've said that I'm... I mean, this is... You're going way back in time.
	I wonder what Bill Gates thinks of the interview.
	He's talking about stuff that hasn't happened yet or only describing things that are happening right now.
	Thanks for coming on the show, Bill.
	I see you're wearing, like, a black jacket and a white shirt and doing that squirmy face that people do when they don't want to talk about something.
	Oh, yeah.
	But yeah, I... New audience.
	I will say for the, you know, over a hundredth time, yeah, I shouldn't have had dinners with him.
	Um, Epstein had a way of sexually compromising people.
	Is that what Melinda was warning you about?
	No.
	No, I think she was worried about some of the philanthropy opportunities.
	That Jeffrey Epstein would create so many philanthropy opportunities that we'd be deluged.
	And I'd need that little paperclip guy from Microsoft Windows to get involved.
	Hey, you might want to try not going for dinner with this guy!
	No, I had dinner with him, uh, and that's all.
	And that you regret the relationship, the acquaintance?
	That I had dinner with him.
	All of us are naturally interested in salacious stories of this nature and the media obviously enjoys reporting on certain aspects of them.
	But what I think is very interesting about Bill Gates is he's managed to maneuver himself Into a position where he can go around the world telling us what medicines to use, funding through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the WHO.
	He also funds the WHO through secondary foundations that he funds, and then they fund the WHO.
	He invests in, in particular, in vaccines and then sells them.
	Almost Nancy Pelosi skill-like levels of when to invest and when not to.
	Sorry, did I say Nancy Pelosi?
	I meant poor Pelosi.
	Those are completely different people that don't even communicate about... God, that was crazy what I just did there.
	Putting Nancy Pelosi and Paul Pelosi together like that as if they sleep in the same bed and maybe chat about stuff.
	The US-based pharmaceutical giant Pfizer reported Tuesday that it brought in a record-breaking $100.3 billion in revenue in 2022.
	Good profits.
	Good year.
	How was 2022 for you?
	Oh, sorry to hear that.
	Should have invested in Pfizer.
	But what most people don't know are the two other companies behind the mRNA vaccines.
	Moderna and BioNTech are two biotech startups founded in 2008 and 2010, respectively, with the state goal of pioneering messenger RNA, m-r-n-a, therapies to the world of healthcare.
	These two companies are one of the success stories of the coronavirus pandemic.
	There are a few success stories.
	Interestingly, some of the world's most powerful interests did really well during that pandemic.
	BioNTech, which later partnered with Pfizer to develop mRNA vaccines, is now valued at over $46.33 billion.
	That's from 2021.
	With success comes the opportunity to raise more money.
	And investors surely didn't disappoint.
	Money started pouring in from the government, venture capitalists and private investors, including Bill Gates.
	Those investments came at a time when the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the second biggest donor to the WHO.
	The first biggest is like a country like America or Germany, you know, where people So now, let's break down the Bill Gates vaccine timeline, so we can understand how Bill Gates' views, Bill Gates' billions, and the narrative that the rest of us are forced to drink down like a cup of cold sick, co-align nicely.
	In 2011, Bill Gates said that vaccine investment offers the best returns, according to a report from Reuters.
	Vaccines are one of the best investments we can make in the future.
	So that's 2011.
	No one's worried about anything.
	We're all going on holiday wherever we want.
	If you wear a mask, it means that you're from Asia or you're Michael Jackson.
	September 2019.
	Bill Gates initially invests $55 million on a pre-IPO equity investment into BioNTech.
	Gates's investment in BioNTech may actually be higher.
	It's difficult to say because sometimes they invest in ways that are difficult to track via secondary organizations, as with the WHO.
	The fact is, it is unlikely that any one individual has more influence over the WHO than Bill Gates.
	Also know that this is a person that is investing in commodities that the WHO are later going to beyond recommend, borderline insist on.
	You remember the pandemic, right?
	January 2020, a Washington State resident becomes the first person in the United States with a confirmed case of 2019 novel coronavirus.
	Well done.
	Ruined it for everyone.
	August 2021.
	The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine receives FDA approval for people aged 16 years and older.
	January 2021.
	Gates says everyone who takes the vaccine is not just protecting themselves, but reducing their transmission to other people and allowing society to get back to normal.
	Let's just go through those claims.
	And obviously we're on YouTube right now.
	So you're going to have to do a lot of this work in your own mind.
	You're protecting yourself.
	Okay.
	You're reducing the transmission to other people.
	Okay!
	And you're allowing society to go back to normal.
	You can just use your own mind and memory to work out how true that all is.
	January 2021.
	Gates describes the mRNA vaccines as magic, saying they'll be a game changer in the next five years.
	Magic!
	Actual magic!
	That's the opposite of science, isn't it?
	Science is efficacy, empiricism, like we can prove this, we can repeat it.
	Magic is, I don't know how that happened, and yeah, maybe it is magic actually.
	Certainly there was some sleight of hand involved and a little bit of smoke and mirrors.
	And game changer?
	Yeah, I remember when the game changed to the game of hide and seek and stay in your own house forever.
	April 2021.
	Gates says in an interview that the US and developed countries shouldn't lift COVID-19 vaccine patent protection to share with underdeveloped countries.
	This has always been a problematic moment in the vaccine narrative, because if you believe that vaccines are the solution, then surely you'd want to share that solution with everyone.
	What is suggested to me by that is that the vaccines were at least in part about profit.
	And if you add to that the fact that he heavily invested in BioNTech just before the start of the pandemic, I mean, let me know in the comments, let me know in the chat.
	Do you think it's about profit?
	Obviously, when Bill Gates spoke, he said, oh, no, you can't just trust people in various third world developed... Don't call them third world, that's racist.
	Who else is racist?
	Not given a medicine.
	Gates' investment in BioNTech is now worth over $550 million.
	So at that point, the value in the stock had increased by 10 times if we assume the figure to have been $55 million.
	By the end of 2022, Gates reportedly sell some of his BioNTech stock, representing a huge gain for him over when he invested.
	So he profited from vaccines during the pandemic.
	January 2023.
	Gates tells the Lowy Institute think tank in Sydney that current vaccines are not infection blocking, they're not broad, so when new variants come up you lose protection and they have very short duration.
	Now if that sounds different from earlier in the year when he said they were magic and sparkly and twinkly and that they were Jesus in a syringe, that's because it does seem a bit different.
	But let's have a look at him saying that.
	The current vaccines are not infection blocking, Uh, they're not broad, so when new variants come up you lose protection, and they have very short duration.
	So you've sold your stock then.
	January 2023, BioNTech's value has dropped to 20.54 billion dollars.
	So, Bill Gates, among his many other skills, agriculture, buying up farmland, telling India what to do, telling Africa what to do, telling the world what to do, funding the WHO, inventing Windows, also now includes, he's a stock market genius!
	Either Bill Gates has Pelosi-style stock market timing, or there's something going on here.
	Do you think it's right, let me know in the chat, let me know in the comments, that someone who's so influential in the response to the pandemic, specifically saying that vaccines are the best thing in the world, also invests in and profits from vaccines?
	Do you think that that's philanthropy?
	Because I thought philanthropy was like being kind.
	It's like the Mother Teresa.
	She won't like making a fortune out of them tea towels, she won't.
	Philanthropy is supposed to be love of humankind and love and money seldom align.
	Let's see the figures behind Bill Gates' influence.
	The Gates Foundation is the second largest contributor to the WHO.
	As of September 2021, it had invested nearly $780 million in its programs that year.
	For an intergovernmental organization such as the WHO to be so reliant on private philanthropy, especially one whose leaders have personal interests and investments in healthcare, is problematic.
	Intergovernmental.
	That's a crazy way of saying globalist, huh?
	Intergovernmental.
	We're into that government and we're into that government.
	I didn't vote for you.
	Yeah, you don't need to.
	Private foundations resources tend to be more dependent on the stock market and other investments and could have financial interests that run contrary to their stated missions.
	Right.
	So they could be saying, on one hand, we're here to help people.
	And on the other hand, they could be making fortunes on the stock market that were somewhat induced by global conditions that they influence.
	Let me know in the chat.
	Let me know in the comments.
	This is Tim Schwab writing in The Nation.
	In 2020, the Gates Foundation reported a $40 million stake in CureVac.
	One of dozens of investments the foundation reports having in companies working on Covid vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics or manufacturing.
	It looks like the Gates Foundation invested heavily in the WHO who make recommendations when it comes to global responses to healthcare crises and similarly invested in a number of organisations that were working on vaccines.
	Now if you wanted to be incredibly optimistic you'd say well look they're super committed therefore To healthcare and vaccines.
	So they're like, right, we've got to have influence in the WHO.
	Plus, we've got to make sure there's a bunch of people working on vaccines.
	But if that were the case, you wouldn't keep hearing the word profit.
	Sorry, did I say invested in the WHO?
	I meant donate to the WHO.
	Investing is what capitalists do.
	Donating is what philanthropists do.
	And as you know, Bill Gates is a philanthropist.
	These investments amounting to more than $250 million show that the world's most visible charity and one of the world's most influential voices in the pandemic response is in a position to potentially reap considerable financial gains from the COVID-19 pandemic.
	How many of the people that were hero worshipped in that pandemic profited from it?
	Looks like Gates did.
	We know that Pfizer did.
	They want all of the money and they want to be patted on the back as they spend it.
	Revelations of the Gates Foundation's financial stake in COVID-19, which Bill Gates does not appear to have publicly disclosed in dozens of recent media appearances, speak to broader criticisms about the lack of transparency in the foundation's increasingly central role in the pandemic.
	I was at Jeffrey Epstein's house to work out a philanthropic response to any future pandemics and those waitresses, I don't know what they were doing, those meetings with Jeffrey Epstein, We're to discuss a surprise for your birthday and you ruined it!
	You're just like Melinda!
	Who are they accountable to?
	They don't even have a governance structure that's clear, notes Kate Elder, Senior Vaccines Policy Advisor to Doctors Without Borders.
	That is a philanthropic organisation and that's an alliance of doctors that go around the world responding to crises and emergencies.
	Those are the kind of voices that are important.
	You know that during the pandemic all sorts of voices that were excluded, scientists, people that invented vaccines, it just went all crazy.
	And really the one consistent thing appears to be that the people whose voices were most lionised and prized profited from it.
	Increasingly I see There's actually less information coming from the Gates Foundation.
	They don't answer most of our questions.
	They don't make their technical staff available for discussions with us when we're trying to learn more about their technical strategy on COVID and how they're prioritising certain things.
	Doctors Without Borders would surely be one of the organisations you'd want an open dialogue with, that you would be backing and supporting and sharing information with, it seems to me at least.
	And Gates's priorities in developing and distributing a COVID vaccine, Elder says, are increasingly the world's priorities, as multilateral institutions like the World Health Organization have ceded leadership to a group of public-private partnerships where Gates provides key funding.
	These organizations, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, are working with the WHO to develop the largest and most diverse COVID-19 vaccine portfolio in the world.
	That doesn't sound like philanthropy, does it?
	When you read it, it sounds like monopoly.
	James Love, director of the NGO Knowledge Ecology International, says the foundation's decades of work on vaccines, along with its sprawling financial ties, allowed it to assert influence early in the pandemic.
	Gates's leadership in the pandemic has been widely, almost universally praised.
	But because Gates is not an elected representative or public official, just let me read that again, he's not an elected representative or public official.
	The details of his far-reaching influence and finances have largely eluded public scrutiny.
	You have an enormous amount of power that affects everyone around the globe, and there should be some accountability, some transparency, says Love.
	People are not asking unreasonable things.
	It's a charity.
	We're asking, can you explain what you're doing, for example?
	You see what you're doing?
	Yeah.
	Can you explain what it is?
	No!
	Stop it!
	Mind your own business!
	Bye, BioNTech!
	Can you show us what these contracts look like?
	Those contracts you've got, can we look at them?
	No!
	Those are private contracts!
	Now, Jeffrey, what are you going to have after your prawn cocktail?
	Would you help me with some of those?
	Uh, waitress, you're going to get a hell of a chill.
	Particularly since they're using their money to influence policies that involve our money.
	Yeah, right.
	If it involves our money, would you mind telling me what you'll do with our money?
	No!
	Mine's... Well, it is your business, but just fuck off!
	Jörg Scharber, executive director of the German advocacy group Buko Pharma Campaign, sees the Gates Foundation as having an ideological investment in this business model, pointing to many of the foundation's senior staff who come from the pharmaceutical industry, including the president of Gates' global health program.
	It's very interesting that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation board is made up from people from profitable pharmaceutical companies and experts in the field.
	Of course, obviously, you could argue that their expertise is necessary due to that endeavour.
	But it's curious that we just accept that.
	That it's not made up of other philanthropists and other people with experience in charity and helping people.
	And that the investments are inscrutable.
	It's kind of comparable to Zelensky inviting Blackrock, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs to be involved in the redevelopment or reconstruction of Ukraine.
	When you hear those names, when you hear those associations, you have to recognise that there are systemic biases, that there is a systemic agenda.
	You don't spend your whole life in Big Pharma and then go, oh right, I'm just going to grow a long beard and go around the world helping people.
	Doing what?
	Well, as it turns out, exerting influence over the WHO, investing in vaccine companies, making some charitable donations, which, you know, OK, where do they end up?
	Other organisations that are lobbying the WHO.
	I mean, it's very curious.
	It sounds a little bit like it's too much in alignment with the kind of profitable endeavours that Bill Gates made his fortune in.
	Other critics note how the Gates Foundation's endowment could benefit from the foundation pushing COVID vaccine development towards exclusive licenses.
	Again, that's not that philanthropic, is it?
	Bill Gates's tax records and investment portfolio bear scrutiny because of his leadership role in the pandemic, whose total cost to the global economy is in the trillions of dollars.
	Public understanding of Gates finances is also limited by the foundation's maze of inscrutable investments.
	What is this constant intrigue in the foundation's maze of inscrutable investments?
	Well, it's just that we can't scrutinise them.
	I said good day!
	While the Gates Foundation is a non-profit organisation, its endowment still generates billions of dollars in income.
	More money over the last five years than the foundation has given away in charitable grants.
	Hold on a minute.
	So they've got more money than they've given away in charitable grants and it's a not-for-profit organisation.
	What do we call that additional money then?
	I said good day!
	If the pandemic does end up delivering a financial windfall to Bill Gates or his foundation, it may pale in comparison to the political boost he's received as Earth's de facto vaccine czar.
	His widely lauded role in the pandemic already appears to have helped institutionalise and normalise his political power in other areas where the foundation works.
	When WHO was formed as an intergovernmental organisation, it would have been unimaginable that a private foundation could have such influence.
	Said Lawrence Gostin, Faculty Director for the O'Neill Institute at Georgetown University.
	It would enable a single rich philanthropist to set the global health agenda.
	And that's what's happened.
	So isn't the main point we're making here that Bill Gates has PR'd himself into this astonishing position and is the de facto earth czar of pandemics and agricultural expert and evidently an expert in computers and economics and all of these Fields, including the many, many fields that he owns literally in the United States of America, where philanthropy doesn't appear to be at the forefront of the enterprise.
	Profit appears to be at the forefront of the enterprise.
	Influence, control, power, these things are worthy of scrutiny.
	Most of us are becoming suspicious about the globalist agenda that appears to be being enacted, that was exacerbated by the pandemic that to a degree required at least global coordination.
	But that global coordination ought to have led to better health care, less deaths, benefit and care packages for ordinary people, rather than more and more opportunities to centralise wealth Bill Gates I think uniquely appears to be a figure that's widely regarded and reported on as being a philanthropist when there is another narrative that isn't being explained or presented to us.
	And I think that we ought be able to discuss that without being regarded as conspiracy theories.
	So whether or not he had dinners with Jeffrey Epstein, just a couple of dinners, just a couple of dinners with Jeffrey Epstein, The show also has a bunch of weird financial ties and relationships, aside from the more evident and lurid stuff.
	Or we just track Bill Gates' role throughout the pandemic.
	It seems that there are a lot of inquiries and questions that aren't being made in the mainstream media, where, curiously, Bill Gates also makes a large number of investments or donations, or whatever you want to call them, because I don't know why newspapers need bloody donations.
	Better be a business, aren't they?
	Anyway, it's all confusing.
	It's obviously too confusing for us.
	I suppose we ought do when it comes to it is hold these kind of people to account.
	Assure that all of the narratives available are reported and where possible have democracy.
	And you're not going to get that when you have powerful figures posing as philanthropists that are profiting potentially from pandemics.
	But that's just what I think.
	Let me know what you think in the chat.
	Let me know what you think in the comments.
	I'll see you in a second.
	Thank you for choosing Fox News.
	We're just the news.
	No, he's the fucking news!
	Some fantastic comments from you, love.
	Thank you so much for your support.
	Thanks for continuing to watch our show.
	We go from one controversial, potentially conspiratorial story underwritten with hard facts, to another story where facts are continually denied and thrown shade upon in order, I think, to control particular narratives or, more specifically, counter narratives.
	Even...
	Thanks for joining us, mate.
	these two stories as well. There's one guy, one little guy who stands
	astride these tales like a colossus. It's Bill Gates. But now to bring us this story
	in new and vivid light is Jimmy Tobias, an investigative journalist like me from The
	Nation and Intercept. Jimmy famously won a lawsuit against the NIH revealing secret emails
	between Fauci and other scientists discussing the Wuhan lab leak theory. Jimmy, thanks for
	joining us, mate. Thanks for having me on. Jimmy, real early on, prior to the public
	discourse being, in my opinion, heavily directed towards the natural origin theory, there were
	emails exchanged between Fauci, that dude from the WHO called FARA.
	Yeah, him.
	And representatives of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a charity by the way, they were exchanging emails about potential origins of the coronavirus pandemic.
	Tell me, what were your objectives when writing your recent article, mate?
	Yeah, well, you know, I sued the NIH to obtain these records and, you know, they were pretty eye-opening, newsworthy, I thought.
	And in writing this article, we were really just trying to lay them out in the context in which they were written so people could see what some of the most important and influential people who were, you know, directing the pandemic response were saying about the origins of the virus in the very early days of the outbreak.
	What conclusions have you drawn or what in particular did you find interesting?
	What in particular do you think was at odds with the broadly conveyed public message?
	Well, I mean, the documents show that Dr. Fauci in early 2020 was alerted to concerns, you know, among some of the world's top virologists that the virus looked potentially engineered.
	And what followed was a series of confidential calls and emails between Dr. Fauci, NIH Director Francis Collins, Patrick Vallance, who is the Chief Science Advisor to the UK government, and a group of other prominent scientists discussing the virus's origins.
	And early on, some of the scientists on these calls and emails really couldn't figure out how this virus was produced in nature, given some of its unusual features.
	I mean, they were stunned by it.
	They thought it may have come from a lab.
	Other people on these calls and emails disagreed and thought it looked like it came from nature, but These deliberations went on for more than a week.
	Pretty early in the discussions, they sort of discarded the idea that it was engineered and instead focused on an idea that it was sort of accidentally created and released from a lab via this type of laboratory process called serial passage experiments.
	And so during this time, they also started writing up drafts of what would become the very famous Proximal Origin paper, one of the best read papers in science history.
	And that paper ultimately found that the virus came from nature.
	So these conversations started on January 31st.
	By February 8th, one of the scientists involved, Christian Anderson of Scripps, Describe the focus of the group's work as an effort to, quote, disprove any type of lab theory.
	But even after all this debate, they still couldn't come down on one side.
	You know, they couldn't say it was a lab or they couldn't say it was a natural origin.
	I mean, they weren't ready to publish and then somehow between February 8th and early March.
	They overcame this uncertainty and published this proximal origin paper that came down very, very strongly on a natural origin site.
	And the documents don't really show how they overcame their uncertainty, how they went from, you know, this looks engineered, this looks like it could have been an accidental lab leak to, you know, The proximal origin conclusion, which was they said they don't believe any type of, you know, lab based scenario is plausible.
	So that's sort of in some what these documents show.
	This conversation is very heated, anxious, confidential conversation in January and February 2020.
	One of the participants in those conversations was Peter Daszak from the EcoHealth Alliance, who was involved in NIH-funded research in the Wuhan lab at that time.
	Obviously, there's no evidence to suggest that there's any corollary between those pieces of information.
	But given the natural origin theories preeminent and the lack of public contemplation, at least for the potential of
	a lab leak, it does seem that that's the very essence of a narrativized
	approach to data that could have perhaps been more equivocally presented.
	And it's difficult not to deduce that the reason that the information wasn't presented in a more balanced manner is
	because they would prefer that, broadly speaking, the public favored natural origin because
	of the lack of obvious culpability from the people in the field of pharmacological research.
	Does that seem like a reasonable set of assumptions, mate?
	Well, actually, Peter Adazig was not was not a participant in these conversations, but, you know, I think.
	When I wrote this article, I interviewed a variety of, you know, prominent experts and scientists.
	Some of them said, you know, this is just science at work.
	They had a conclusion.
	They collected data.
	They published this paper once they came to a conclusion, you know.
	Other people see it very differently.
	They see in these conversations a real effort to downplay any kind of lab theory, to downplay their deep concerns at the beginning.
	Um, and and, you know, one of the people I, I interviewed who who has that perspective is like, why, why, why did they do that?
	And, you know, these documents I got don't don't really show exactly how they overcame their conclusions.
	They're not a full view of what went on here.
	And so I think they're definitely.
	You know, more questions that need to be asked, whether that's from Congress, who's now investigating this issue, or other scientists.
	But, you know, the documents certainly raise the kind of questions that you're bringing up.
	Like, how did they get from A to B, especially given some of the unusual features of the virus that they were so deeply concerned about early on in these conversations?
	Additionally, it was obviously very difficult for you to gain access to this material.
	Similarly, that suggests that there is a kind of clandestine hue to this data.
	At very least, it seems to suggest that there ought be more transparency, but in spite of my error there in suggesting that Peter Daszak and the EcoHealth Alliance were involved in that particular email chain, there's some Evidence I understand of, if not collusion, communication between the NIH EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
	That, along with the amplification of the natural origin theory, when there isn't, as I understand it, Conclusive evidence that that is the case even on the basis of these emails suggests that there is a very least a preference for and even in the jump between a conversation that is multifaceted and multivalent to a unilateral and global response I suppose like you know when I'm trying to look at this from the most what do I want to say compassionate perspective I think what it is is
	They were deeply concerned about this pandemic, and they knew that there would have to be a unified
	response due to the nature of the pandemic,
	and they couldn't deal with the complication and confusion and the potential hit that their credibility would take
	if people were simultaneously digesting the idea that this was somehow involved human ineptitude.
	And we got a timeline, man, for the stuff that went on in Wuhan.
	I'm sure you're well familiar with that.
	Installing air conditioning units, ripping them out again, all sorts of weird stuff going on.
	I suppose, mate, because, gosh, I hope it's not just cynicism and reductivism,
	I feel that I have a tendency, at least, to direct people towards a condemnatory outlook
	of the players in establishing this narrative.
	And I guess it seems to me that you're much more, kind of, I don't know, balanced,
	and you don't leap to those kind of conclusions, huh?
	Well, you know, I'm interested in the documents.
	I'm interested in what else is out there.
	I think there definitely should be a continuing investigation among scientists and representatives of the public into what went on, you know, here and in relation to the origin.
	I don't think, you know, I don't think there's dispositive evidence on one side or the other.
	And so, you know, just yesterday, the Congress Launch investigation to this question was very I thought it was very sober and and balance sort of sort of investigation, but they're looking at these questions and no one.
	I don't think anyone has conclusive evidence, but but, you know, one of the things that stands out for me from these emails is.
	These some of the things they saw in the virus in its genome, you know, several of the scientists early on were puzzled by the presence in the virus's genome of a furin cleavage site, which is a feature that has not been found in other SARS related coronaviruses.
	And this plays a role.
	This furin cleavage site plays a role, an important role, in helping the virus infect human airways.
	And these guys, some of these guys, were just so bothered by its presence.
	You know, one guy was like, I just don't see how this, you know, I can't figure out how this happens in nature.
	It's stunning.
	And I don't see in these documents how they, you know, they started with this deep concern about this furin cleavage site.
	You don't really see how they overcame that before they published the proximal origin paper.
	And that paper, you have to understand, is like, It was extremely influential.
	It's been accessed millions of times online.
	It was cited by Dr. Fauci from the White House podium.
	You know, Dr. Collins wrote a blog post about it.
	You know, it was all over the news.
	And that paper was very, you know, it came down very strongly on the natural origin side of this debate.
	And it emerged from these discussions.
	So there's just a question, I think.
	If any of these folks have been willing to talk to me, and none of them were, that's what I would ask them.
	Like, how did you grapple with this?
	How did you overcome it?
	Because it's really not clear.
	And I think that outstanding question is one of the things that leads people to ask, like, what was going on here, you know?
	And as for the records themselves, yeah, I mean, it took a year-long lawsuit to get these documents, more than a year.
	They were heavily so, I mean, a lot of people were trying to get them.
	Congress tried to get them.
	NIH let them read the documents and take notes, but they couldn't keep full copies.
	So it wasn't until, you know, NIH kind of caved to our lawsuit that these were really released fully and publicly.
	And I do think, you know, that lack of transparency is concerning.
	And you see that in a lot of government agencies, but on a matter that's so important to the public,
	the fact that they dragged their feet like this is definitely cause for concern.
	And I've heard that from people in Congress and elsewhere.
	Yeah, a lack of transparency, dragging their feet, an unwillingness to reveal the information,
	ongoing censorship of any counter narrative, particularly in the early days of the pandemic,
	anybody talking about the potential of a lab leak theory was at risk of being censored
	and kicked off social media platforms.
	It happened again and again.
	And as you point out, Jimmy, the sudden tangential leap from genuine,
	what you say sound like sort of professional curiosity and wow, how has this occurred?
	This ability to attack the airwaves.
	We've never seen that in nature to, no, no, that's definitely a natural origin.
	A sudden truncating of inquiry occurred in conjunction with global censorship.
	And heavy redacting and control of these emails, which you have tenaciously acquired.
	And I suppose we're from different disciplines and backgrounds, and I suppose collectively we have an obligation to lean into our particular skill sets.
	Yours seems to be the unbiased analysis of various data.
	Mine is the emotional incendiary rousing of suspicion.
	Gareth, what do you want to bring to this conversation?
	Maybe a balance between the two.
	No, I just think it's really interesting what Jim is saying, that there are extremely prominent scientists that can't explain what they want us to think.
	So this idea at the time that there's simply no way that it could have been leaked from a lab, that it's a natural origin, and yet there are prominent scientists, and it didn't seem at the time like those Views were you know allowed to be discussed and it kind of seems like something that's happened a lot over the last few years in terms of experts in their fields being marginalized and You know Where as we're told kind of our conspiracy theorists But I think expertise not being allowed to kind of be present and spoken about doesn't seem like a great idea Does Jimmy?
	Yeah well I'll say you know one of the one of the scientists I spoke to for this story who is a computational virologist at a university around Philadelphia and you know he's sort of agnostic on the lab leak or natural origin question you know he said looking at these documents it started out as this fairly careful discussion where they're airing out these anomalies and And, you know, they say multiple times we don't have the data to resolve where this thing came from.
	But at some point, you know, he says he thought that, you know, there was such strong pressure that they went from let's just wait for more data to let's publish something, you know, that has a very strong opinion favoring one explanation over the other without acquiring new data.
	So I'm paraphrasing him.
	And his question is, why?
	Why did that happen?
	And, you know, if I if these folks had talked to me, I would have asked them some of these questions, you know.
	Neutrally, I just want to hear what they have to say about how they got from A to B on this very, very important paper.
	And, you know, there are other things going on, too.
	You know, I mentioned in the article that before these calls and conversations really kicked off, Dr. Fauci went to his deputy to find out what kind of funding arrangements the NIH had established with institutions in China.
	And just last week, the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services released a pretty scathing report about failures of NIH oversight on some of the grants that went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology,
	which is a leading center of coronavirus research in China, in the city where
	this virus first emerged.
	And among the things that that report found, that inspector general report, was that for more than
	a year now, NIH and the Ego Health Alliance, which was sort of a pass-through funding group that was
	doing work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, they've been asking the Wuhan Institute to provide
	them lab notes and other data about their experiments that were going on there with federal funding.
	And the lab has not been responsive.
	And so, this Inspector General report, you know, suggests that NIH consider banning the Institute from any, you know, future funds for research.
	But, you know, I think the fact that, you know, that Institute has been stonewalling the federal government is concerning, I think, to say.
	I think it's fair to say it's very concerning.
	and raises questions as do these documents.
	They raise a lot of questions.
	More than answering a particular question, more than providing dispositive evidence,
	I think they raise questions.
	And people obviously can interpret these things differently and I welcome them to do so,
	but I think there's more work to be done to investigate some of these questions
	and look into them further.
	And I think that's completely reasonable to do.
	Yeah, we saw that report as well.
	So they missed deadlines, ignored protocols, a dog ate their homework.
	Let's have a look at that timeline again, if we could, just to take us on what I call a little meander through Wuhan and some of the more anomalous facts.
	May I see the timeline?
	So in autumn 2019, the Wuhan Institute of Virology had a number of outstanding maintenance projects including environmental air disinfection system and hazardous waste treatment system.
	A notice of laboratory inspection was issued for September 2019.
	Shortly after in 2019, still September, the WIV, the Wuhan Institute, took their public virus database offline.
	Get that offline, it's about September 2019.
	The Lablan announced a contract competition to renovate their air conditioning system for approximately $660 million.
	Expensive.
	It's the World Cup of Air Conditioning.
	The announcement was later removed from the Chinese Ministry of Finance website.
	This, along with the inquiries that Fauci was making, sort of suggests that there was definite concern, both within the NIH and in the Wuhan Institute itself.
	Like, it's an extraordinary... That's the issue, isn't it, with all of this, is that when Fauci's questioned and is kind of so dogmatic about the origins of this and what it could be and what it couldn't be, and I guess what a lot of people, Jimmy included, are calling for is some transparency and discussion around this, rather than, as I say, the kind of dogmatic approach to, this is the only way it could have happened, even though all this new evidence is coming to light.
	Is Jimmy calling for transparency?
	Because I see you saying Jimmy's calling for transparency.
	Jimmy's done a lot of work.
	Congress couldn't get their hands on them files.
	Jimmy, though, he's a tenacious man.
	Well, Jimmy, what was it that made you start this inquiry in the first place?
	Why did you have this journalistic hunch in a profession now that's more determined by towing the line and keeping your mouth shut and being an establishment mouthpiece?
	Where do you get this intrepid spirit of inquiry from?
	And do you feel a bit pleased with yourself now that you've got it?
	Well, yeah, I'm really pleased we got these documents and it was a long fight.
	And, you know, I have to give credit to my FOIA attorneys who worked for me on a pro bono basis.
	They're amazing.
	They're based out of Chicago.
	You know, I got into this.
	I mostly cover wildlife and conservation issues, really.
	And, you know, that's sort of what initially drew me to this topic, because, you know, obviously, habitat degradation, wildlife trade issues are contributing to the rise of emerging infectious diseases.
	around the world.
	And I also do a lot of FOIA requests and kind of probe federal environmental agencies, especially.
	And so in 2021, the journalist Jason Leopold is also a great FOIA reporter, obtained a really large batch of Dr. Fauci's emails, and they were heavily redacted.
	And so in reading those, I saw sort of some of these conversations, but they were all, you know, behind black redactions.
	And so I filed some of my own FOIA requests, sort of targeting some of the communications that were in that larger batch from Jason Leopold.
	I mean, what I got back were a bunch of documents, but they were very heavily redacted.
	And so we sued over the redactions, and eventually NIH relented and released them, you know, last November, late last November, right before the Thanksgiving holiday, right before Dr. Fauci, you know, left office.
	So, you know, we didn't even have a judge order them to release them.
	They actually did it, according to my lawyers, of their own accord, but it's sort of unclear
	why they did it then after dragging their feet for so long about these redactions.
	Jimmy, thank you so much for joining us and thank you for your intrepid, tenacious work in revealing this important information to a wider audience and for your rather charming interest in nature and natural habitats.
	You're an adorable man.
	You can read more of Jimmy's work at JimmyTobias.com.
	He also writes for The Intercept, among other organisations.
	Jimmy, thanks for joining us, mate.
	Thank you so much for having me.
	It's lovely to meet you.
	Take care, mate.
	Thanks very much.
	Redacted emails of Antony Fauci's.
	I'm really worried that the Wuhan Institute of Virology is... Especially as I've received a large payment from... My friend Peter Daszak and he can help a lot.
	Dear Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates!
	I love you and your guys.
	These are the reasons.
	I went on a recent holiday to a lovely...
	We're the man who's first there because we're jok- EEEE!
	And second there, EEEE!
	Like my little joke?
	Yep, all jokes.
	All just jokes that you can make in a world when you're mucking about.
	Redacted jokes for a bit of fun to pass the time.
	He was very careful, wasn't he Jimmy?
	Oh God, like sometimes I like people to be a bit more gung-ho.
	I know, I know.
	But that's, I guess that's as an investigative journalist, you know.
	Well, I'll tell you this girl, as an investigative- I'll see investigative journalists.
	We're a tricky breed.
	Jimmy and I had an odds for many things.
	Don't always see eye to eye.
	I'm one of the more mavericks out there.
	Yeah, of course, I was pushing them to release them emails as well, but I only sent one email.
	Would you mind, awfully, if I could have a look at them emails?
	I didn't get a response.
	I just left it.
	Jimmy, he carried on.
	He's a persistent man.
	In the end, he got that scoop.
	Mark my words, gal.
	I'll get the next one because I'm sending plenty of emails out to all sorts of people, dividing all sorts of stuff.
	Soon it'll be along.
	Hey, well, what a show it's been, has it?
	Oh, it certainly has.
	Enjoyed yourself?
	I've had a lovely time.
	You've joined in?
	I know, it was nice.
	Joined in with Jimmy?
	I just thought, throw a question in there.
	People might like that, and if they do, why don't you watch our show Stay Connected, where me and Gareth show you the show behind the show, where we respond to your questions and inquiries, anything you want to know about how we compile this investigative great work.
	It's mostly I can tell you now, it's me, I do all of the work.
	But if you want a deeper look at how it's done, if you want to know how it is that sometimes we suddenly stop broadcasting in the middle of the stream, that's because of our fault, isn't it Gareth?
	Oh, one of the lads who works here, he suddenly just, he's off looking out the window eating a Cornish pasty, don't press the right button, he don't know what he's doing, the poor sod, he's staring around the place.
	Just looking at wildlife, he's like Jimmy.
	He's like Jimmy, he might be, oh look, a kingfisher, oh no, the stream's stopped!
	The stream's gone!
	I just thought I saw an otter!
	Never mind otters!
	Get the stream out there, is what I say.
	So you can see how we come up with this work.
	Also, we focus more on the emotional, mental health, spiritual aspects.
	You know, listen, we're going to have to sort our spirits out, aren't we, Gareth?
	If we're going to contend with an atrophying world full of the corrupt, governed by some of the most evil dominator cultural forces in history... Revolution.
	We've got some fantastic stories coming up for you next weekend, some amazing guests, and we're rounding off the week in what I would call great style, with an incredible flourish.
	I'll be speaking to Deepak Chopra, the spiritual teacher.
	Me and him will be talking about corruption, the mindsets behind corruption, How to actually deal with living in this world right now.
	We do a fantastic meditation.
	You'll enjoy that.
	Sign up to my locals community where you can see a very special meditation between Deepak and I. I call it a meditation.
	What made it special?
	I would say the erotic tension between Deepak and I, that raised it a couple of notches or maybe even three notches I'd have to say.
	Couple of centimetres?
	Almost certainly!
	Full mast, my man!
	Also, you want to join up to our Stay Connected community on Locals, where you get not only
	an additional show, you also get the joy, the glory of being the first to see my stand-up
	special that's coming up.

▲