Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 30, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand

01:02:58

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

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

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

▲