The BOMBSHELL COVID Study that Changes Everything! With David Zweig
Russell chats to David Zweig, journalist for SilentLunch.net & the author of ‘Invisibles’ & ‘Abundance of Caution’. He was one of the Twitter Files journalists who helped lift the lid on the suppression of information. Together they talk about a bombshell COVID study that challenges prevailing narratives on mask mandates and lockdowns. Plus, as global leaders convene to strategise on pandemic preparedness, we question the underlying motives and potential implications for free speech and control. Follow David's work: https://www.silentlunch.net/ Support this channel directly here: https://rb.rumble.com/Follow on social media:X: @rustyrocketsINSTAGRAM: @russellbrandFACEBOOK: @russellbrand
Thanks for joining us today for Stay Free with Russell Brand.
Well done for transcending the fear.
Well done for avoiding the legacy media's attempts to fill you full of information that is not beneficial to your spiritual advancement.
Remember, we premiere every day, 12, Eastern Time.
Become an Awakened Wonder to get access to more content from us, meditations, Five ideas that will change the world.
Meaningful ideas.
Successful communities that have broken out of this system.
Deep spiritual readings, new ideas and arcane wisdom fused together.
Individual awakening, community reformation and even revolution.
That's what we're going to be discussing.
And we've got a guest that could join us in those spaces easily.
David Zweig is a journalist for SilentLunch.net.
He's the author of Invisibles and Abundance of Caution.
He's one of the Twitter Files journalists who helped lift the lid on the suppression of information that was taking place during the pandemic and the deep state intervention in public discourse that's come to define our age.
He's a fantastic journalist.
David, thank you so much for joining us.
Thanks for having me.
This is a conversation, or a subject at least, that we discuss continually on our channel. We
talk a lot about studies that reveal that during the pandemic period the information we were given
was biased and it's extraordinary how the biases often have a common trajectory.
It seems that many of the narratives on masks, lockdowns and other COVID measures were ineffective to the point of being misleading and potentially dishonest.
Can you tell us a bit about this David?
Sure, yeah, it's a broad topic, but specifically what I had written about not that long ago was a study that was published out of Imperial College of London where they did something called a challenge study, which is they purposefully infected participants in the study with SARS-CoV-2 to give them COVID, and then they studied them.
And these types of studies, you know, have certain ethical issues regarding them because you're purposely infecting the participants, but they got approval for it.
These were low-risk people.
And what they found was something really fascinating, which is that a very, very small percentage of them, it was something like 7% of the viral emissions from these participants occurred before they had symptoms.
What this means, and what I write about in my article on the study, is that much of the pandemic narrative was that every person walking around could be this unknowingly one-person WMD that each of us could potentially infect a zillion other people and we didn't even know it.
And the study doesn't disprove any notion that there are some people who may not have symptoms who could still infect others.
But what it found was that it's incredibly rare that people without symptoms even had the ability to infect anyone else.
And this really, as I explained in the piece, really kind of turns upside down much of the justification that was given behind all these measures that were imposed upon the citizenry during the pandemic.
Because they all were based on the idea that we better put everyone at home, make everyone wear a mask, make everyone quarantine, et cetera, et cetera, because we don't know who might be infecting other people.
And what this study found is that that really seems like it's highly unlikely that that was actually the case.
To try and offer some kind of good faith argument in a bad faith world, is it possible they simply didn't know that?
Even though I've heard elsewhere that there were forms of testing available that demonstrated that asymptomatic people were not contagious.
It's not the first time I've heard this.
Other studies have reached comparable conclusions.
Is it possible that it wasn't like this?
The worst case scenario is that coronavirus was used to pilot measures that would legitimize authoritarianism and prime various populations to be managed and controlled.
It also piloted the ability to censor social media spaces in a new Media environment where dissent is more possible, likely, mobile than ever.
How much can you control dissent?
And if it were to pilot those things, and of course I'm not suggesting it was, then I would say that they would have observed that it's a pretty effective level of control that's able to be asserted.
People, generally speaking, were compliant, although a lot of people weren't.
Generally speaking, they were able to control the narrative, although there are some significant events, and obviously over time, People's perceptions of COVID have changed but yet more curiously a lot of people don't seem to be acknowledging the significance and distance between where we were when we began this period and where we are now i.e.
most people think, "Yeah, but they didn't know that then."
People don't say, generally speaking, see this as an epochal event that defines new techniques
for population control. So where on that spectrum should we be, David? Well, I'm
reluctant to conjecture about the motives or about why they did these things, but what I feel
very confident doing is talking about the evidence that I found and what I've been writing about
for years related to, to me, the biggest thing, Russell, is...
The degree of certainty within which pronouncements were made by public health officials throughout the pandemic, starting from the very beginning with these projections from the models, many from Imperial College and other places, that were wildly inaccurate.
I don't know whether they were purposefully.
I'm not going to suggest that, necessarily.
But what we know is that much of the information was based on modeling, whether it's the amount of deaths that were going to occur, and then specific to the notion of asymptomatic transmission or pre-symptomatic transmission, which would be before one gets symptoms when they're infected.
Those were also based on modeling.
We were told somewhere between 30% and 50% There were studies showing that 30-50% of people who were infected could potentially infect others, but people who didn't have symptoms.
Again, this was conjecture.
This was based on modeling, these epidemiological studies.
What's powerful about this study, and by the way, as a side note, what's interesting is, Almost no one has covered this.
The little bit of news coverage on this study has been related to some other findings, which are interesting and important, related to the super spreader idea that there were some people in the study who seemed to project far more virus than others, but they ignored this element that I'm talking about.
A tiny tiny percent because this offends the whole thing.
So what's powerful about the study is it was an actual biological study on people rather than modeling studies with conjecture and you were asking before Russell about How much do we know early on, at least on this specific point?
I've also written about another study that's a really nice dovetail to this, and it came out of Stanford.
They developed a test, a specific type of PCR test, that not only could tell if someone was infected or not, but it could tell whether they were contagious or infectious.
The regular PCR test that hundreds of millions of people were taking could only tell you if you had the virus in your body.
It told you nothing, necessarily, about whether you could infect other people.
Stanford developed this test, I believe it was as early as the summer of 2020.
They talked about it with other institutions and no one cared.
So these two tests, the Stanford test and this challenge study from Imperial College, really, I think, make a very persuasive case that the narrative we were told and the justification for imposing these measures on society as a whole Rather than following the sort of classic advice of, if you're sick, stay home, we did this other thing that had tremendous consequences.
And it's very astonishing to me, but I've been astonished repeatedly over the last three and a half years, how little coverage there's been.
I'm not aware of anyone else covering this specific point other than me.
And to me, this is a complete bombshell.
It's really important.
And this is a biological study.
The distinction between biological studies and modelling being that biological means human subjects, certainly in this case, and modelling means a bunch of data is put into a computer and it sort of predicts what might happen.
Is that sort of a layman's way of understanding that?
That's right.
That's a very good basic way.
And much of what we were told, again, were these projections where people use sophisticated formulas to model, which means to estimate what they think is going to happen.
But as we know, models are built upon the inputs.
It depends what little widgets you put into the computer is going to dictate what comes out.
And those are built upon assumptions.
And there's a hard limit to the accuracy of a model because it's built very much on the subjective choices made by the modelers and on limited information versus you have this PCR test out of Stanford and you have this challenge study where they weren't using formulas but they actually looked at the biological markers in people.
So it's an entirely different, when you look at the hierarchy of evidence, this is entirely different.
So although this is a small study, and you know, every study has its limitations, I think it's incredibly important that they were looking at biological markers rather than just taking a guess.
And lo and behold, it appears that the guesswork that was happening was very off base relative to what these biological tests are showing.
When was that test conducted again, please?
The Imperial College test?
Yeah.
Well, the Stanford test began, I think, as early as the summer of 2020, and then it took them quite a while to actually run their study with it.
But people knew that this could be done, this specific type of PCR test.
And I spoke with several of the authors of that study, who are the researchers who worked on it, and I kept Pressing them, I'm like, but have you – didn't you talk to other people?
What happened?
Because I couldn't understand, why weren't hospitals around America and the world?
Why wasn't everyone using this test that you guys figured out?
Did you keep it a secret?
And they said, we shared the information with other, you know, academic institutions and they're just – for reasons I don't know, it just wasn't taken up.
And this would have had a dramatic effect on what we knew.
Instead of making a child stay home for two weeks, they could have said, boom, take this test.
Okay, according to our specific test here, you are not contagious, head back into school.
One needn't propose planned mendacity in order to make sense of some of the plain
and observable trends during this period.
But one thing that seems to be continually indicated is that whenever there is an option,
the authoritarian option, the option that allows the assertion of control is often selected.
The legitimization of authoritarianism from an apparent, and it basically amounts to aesthetic,
position of liberalism.
How can we, they, maintain a position of liberalism, hey we're here to help you, we believe in freedom, your freedom, while legislating and at least regulating maximum levels of authority in some cases and in this case unprecedented levels of authority.
We've never had shut down Nightlife, shut down restaurants, shut down football, shut down everything.
It was an unprecedented situation.
The origins of the virus, of course, are themselves subject to considerable controversy where most people now are erring on the side of it came from the place where it was discovered, where there was a lab that was studying viruses of that nature.
It seems extraordinary.
It's taken so long to even be able to publicly say that.
And throughout the pandemic, it appears that information like, you know, the Stanford study 2020 that has a test that could Immediately end the idea that if you're asymptomatic people or pre-symptomatic people couldn't be out and about.
People that have even got COVID but are shown to be non-contagious, they could be out and about.
What would the problem there be?
The problem would be there that you would need less authoritative measures.
Now again, to repeat the first part of what I was saying, you needn't infer or assume even that there is a sort of, this is what we'll do, style scheming at the core. But what you can say is that
there appears to be a convergence of interest. Pharmaceutical companies want to profit.
Governments want to regulate. Big tech companies and governments want to be able to control
information and manipulate and censor conversation and narratives. So it seems that
those biases throughout the entire pandemic, and due to the nature of it being a truly
global event, the effects were observably profound.
In a sense, the pandemic was revelatory.
It was just a lens that shows you how institutions will behave, how science will Manipulate information.
How we're told that we're looking at objective science when we're looking at bespoke science, the type of science that is funded, the type of science that is profitable, the type of science that is computer modelling.
You're never really told that.
You're never told it's sort of a form of binary conjecture.
You're told this is empirical information.
So I guess what I'm Getting at is and what we're all getting at and what the whole of this sort of pandemic period is revealing is that there was a degree of corruption and exploitation.
How did it take place and how is it going to be prevented from taking place again?
Because it seems really likely that in fact it's already kind of happening.
What possible thing could that be telling you about David?
What is it?
Because that was an alarm.
That wasn't a cook.
I had that set to go off right at this moment when you... Now listen, I've been very polite so far.
This is the bit where the whole conversation turns on a dime.
So I guess, yeah, like, you know, I would love to talk about some of the sort of the impact of some of the measures on young people, their psychological impact.
But, you know, I'm guessing that you're motivated to continue to study this because you think something extraordinary has happened.
Yeah, it's funny.
I've talked about this quite a bit with some friends recently that I'm completely sick of thinking and writing about and researching stuff related to the pandemic.
And yet at the same time, This is such a profound event that, you know, there are people who get a PhD and study, you know, the sartorial habits of monks during medieval times.
There are people who have all these niche things.
It makes sense.
There should be some people, you know, studying what happened, deconstructing the pandemic.
For a very long time to come, considering, you know, all the other things that people look into.
And it's such a fascinating lens through which to view so many other things in society.
And, you know, one of the things is, you know, sort of the broader idea is thinking about information.
And, you know, as one of the people who worked on the Twitter files and also some of the and my work in general during the pandemic, as someone who sort of has had a foot in two different worlds where I wrote for a lot of legacy media outlets for a number of years.
And seeing what type of narratives were acceptable, what type of articles were acceptable to write, and which ones were sort of outside.
And that same dynamic was also seen within the public health community repeatedly, because I somehow was able to publish a lot of articles that ran Contrary to what the narrative was, but I still had them in pretty mainstream publications.
It was a very unusual place for me to be in.
And what happened was, from very early on, I had doctors at prestigious institutions, epidemiologists, immunologists, all these different people reaching out to me privately saying, I agree with you, but I'm afraid to talk about this publicly.
And that profoundly affected me.
You know, this started happening in the spring of 2020, and it's something that I still think about on a regular basis, and that we can see the echoes of that in all these other areas.
So, I think, you know, even yourself, you know, working as an independent person on independent platforms, there is something really important and fascinating going on with our media environment.
And that, you know, as you well know, certainly in America, and I'm sure it's the case, you know, elsewhere, there is a relatively very small clique of people, most of whom went to the same college, you know, the same universities, they share the same thoughts, they go to the same cocktail parties, who all work at these small number of media outlets.
So there is this lack of diversity in thought and diversity in experience.
And it shows in how the media covers different issues.
And it shows also, same thing within the public health community.
Most of those people are within a very narrow type of socioeconomic experience as adults now.
And all of that matters in how studies are covered or not covered by the media.
And all of that matters in how public health people talked about things.
And to your point about this kind of broader authoritarianism, It may even have been well-intended, I think, by many of these people.
But nevertheless, this specific type of life experience, if you're making a hundred or a couple hundred grand a year, that's going to affect how you think about things versus the working class people who still Had to go out.
They were bad because they weren't able to just stay locked at home or the children who are in homes that weren't able to do zoom school or, you know, and the parents weren't able to look after them.
All of these things were very class related.
And the irony to me is that at least, you know, in America, they will call the left, which is typically associated with as being the party of people most concerned with people in the working class and the less privileged.
In fact, that same people on the left were the ones who imposed these measures that hurt the working class, that hurt underprivileged people the most.
Well, my personal feeling, and I recognize that that is not the same as science, Is that that class has become ultra conservative and while the rhetoric is a liberal rhetoric, i.e.
socially progressive kind of rhetoric and I would say things that often ideas that don't require a lot of sacrifice or meaningful economic change.
And if you are conservative, if ultimately you want to keep your 100 to 200 grand a year job, if you want to continue to be part of a sort of a media cartel, or perhaps that's a needlessly pejorative way of framing that, if you want to remain in that kind of lifestyle, in that kind of the world you described, same parties, same colleges, That's conservative.
If you're not like, yeah, I want to change this stuff.
I want this to actually progress.
I want it to alter.
I want to radically review society.
I want to decentralize power.
I want to challenge the establishment.
That's not what that class of people believe.
Clearly, plainly, evidently, we can see that now from the type of information that they convey.
The way that they willingly support any new emergent crisis, and in this poly-crisis time, each of these ideas suddenly occupies the centre of the frame.
You won't hear debate, you won't hear conversation, you won't see investigation.
Like you said, with the stuff that we've discussed already, there's no appetite to investigate that, convey it.
So what I feel is that we're living in a peculiar time when it comes for the ways even that we classify cultural identity because people that think of themselves as progressive and purport to be progressive are deeply conservative when it comes to that's most basic of facts.
They don't want things to change.
They don't want that.
They might want some superficial things to shift, but when it comes to actual personal experience,
they don't really want anything to change.
Now this idea of authoritarianism and the management of information,
notably in the obviously censorship, but also the way that language is selected
is a part of your work.
And I feel that you've written about it recently.
Where did you write about that?
Is it, are you on Substack, mate?
Or where are you?
That's right, yeah.
Well, my newsletter at Substack, it's just at silentlunch.net.
And that's where I've been doing pretty much all of my journalism now,
with the exception of a few other places like the Free Press.
And what was interesting to me is, regardless of one's views about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, what's interesting is, this is what I just wrote about a couple days ago, is I noticed that With with almost no exception, all of the elite American media has referred to Hamas as militants and rather than as terrorists.
And look, this is there's a lot of gray area regarding violent actions and how they are going to be defined or not defined.
But when you look at the actual definitions from the U.S.
government, from the FBI, in the penal code and and Canada is the same thing as well.
The European Council The actions did meet.
It's going after civilians, you know, doing violent acts to achieve a political end.
It was all these specific things.
It does meet that definition.
And it's interesting and similar to the pandemic, that there is this sort of uniformity that worries me.
How did it happen that ABC, NBC, CBS, The New York Times, Washington Post, NPR, PBS, that they all chose to Very, very assiduously avoid using the word terrorist, even though the government itself makes very clear definitions about what a terrorist is, and Hamas is listed as a terrorist group.
Again, someone may disagree, but You know, how this should be framed.
But to me, what's interesting is the sort of uniformity amongst a lot of these people.
And then the flip side of that is, why is it that during the pandemic, these legacy media outlets Oh, parroted the party line from the CDC, from Anthony Fauci, from public health officials, with a very rare exception, they would just amplify and project whatever the CDC told them.
They weren't questioning it.
They weren't digging into, well, maybe this isn't true.
So, why is it that some things, the legacy media, it's interesting which topics they will perfectly be aligned With the official statements and which topics they all choose as a group to go against the official statements.
It's something to think about.
I'm sure you have thoughts on that.
Yeah, I do.
I mean, I suppose you're saying that there are events and there has appeared to be almost instantaneous coordination and shared language.
Perhaps a less incendiary subject is around the pandemic.
Again, the response to Joe Rogan saying I took ivermectin.
Everywhere, horse-paced, everywhere, total uniformity.
So again, it's possible to talk about what is perhaps the most contentious and difficult subject to discuss in world events and, God, I sometimes think world history, actually.
And now, with this being coupled with the cultural environment that has been the last five, ten years, the possibility of having a conversation that's oriented towards It doesn't seem there's much appetite on either side to try and find a way to resolve even the most immediate consequences of this.
So do you think that the choice of the word militant or the choice of the word Horsepaced or any apparently coordinated media event where you see the same reporting everywhere with significant corollaries.
What do you think that means?
Are you aware of, for example, the Trusted News Initiative, where numerous global news organizations acknowledge that their primary enemy or competition, perhaps, is the independent media world rather than each other?
What do you think is behind it, David?
Well, I think they actually are fairly out in the open with some of these things.
Some of the descriptions I was reading in researching this recent piece, that when different news outlets talk about their style guides, every news outlet has a style guide for different words or how they're going to frame or talk about different things, they refer to each other.
It could be the New York Times saying, the Associated Press does blah, blah, blah.
Use each other as it's sort of this circular justification.
I mean, it reminds me of during the pandemic when my children's school district was making these decisions that were completely illogical, forcing them to have these plastic barriers on their desks for which there was absolutely no evidence that this, you know, had any benefit whatsoever.
Each child's head was inside these sort of horse blinders.
They were opaque on the sides.
They couldn't see out of them.
They were told to keep their head inside of these boxes.
all day long. And I talked with the administration of the district at the time. I said, look,
I'm a journalist who's been, you know, I talk to scientists every day. There's no evidence of this
and this isn't even recommended. Why are we doing this? And the response was, well, the other towns
near us are doing it too. Yeah.
And I think, and so that to me sort of speaks to this broader thing.
There's just perhaps human beings, you know, as a default, we tend to just look to the people around us as to what we're supposed to be doing.
And there's a small number of people in society for whatever, for good and bad are able to kind of step outside of that type of mindset.
But that to me I think explains a lot whether we're talking about pandemic actions or the media or otherwise.
Mandy Cohen said that when they were deciding whether or not particular states or even regions were going to ban football they were just doing it by sort of peer-to-peer chat.
It wasn't well football I suppose the risk of football is this and based on this study or even this modeling it was just like are you going to ban it yeah all right we'll ban it as well.
It was so In a way it was a extraordinary social phenomena which again I cite as an opportunity to observe how power will behave and I think is part of a broader trend where crisis are used as opportunities and this used to be a sort of analysis of the left notably Naomi Klein's shock doctrine how
Deep state American organizations, CIA in particular, would induce or exploit crises in Latin and Central American countries in order to unsettle and then usurp democracy.
And many people claim that in 2014, comparable tactics were used in Ukraine to the eventual political advantage.
And it's just, God, I suppose the more it becomes difficult to discuss these things culturally and because of fear of censorship, because of fear of approbation, it's It seems like less and less likely that we're able to create spaces where, again, good faith, open-hearted communication can take place.
Now, of course, we're on Rumble with its commitment to free speech, which has sort of led to it being the recipient of much ire.
And in my country, the UK, even Rumble executives have They've said that they could be arrested if they continue to house or platform speech and content that the UK don't approve of as a result of new censorship laws that have been passed in this country that allow them to find platforms that don't follow their guidance.
Essentially, the state has managed to co-opt and find a way to manipulate big tech power and they've found ways of Cozying along quite nicely, I guess, allowing big tech to continue to monetize data through advertising and the state to utilize data through surveillance.
What's the significance of platforms like Rumble and X and do you feel that we're, you know, given everything you said about the legacy media and everything that you've said about the pandemic period, is it going to be important that platforms like X and Rumble make a commitment to free speech?
I mean, it's, dare I say, it's everything.
I mean, that, by the way, there are plenty of journalists who are very smart and do excellent work at legacy media outlets.
It's not to just paint this with a broad brush.
It's to say that what we don't want is to have a small group of people deciding
how the frame should be set around different narratives, whether that small group is the media or whether it's,
and certainly we don't want the government doing that.
And as I reported and as others like Matt Taibbi and Michael Schellenberger had reported
in the Twitter files when I was there and I was looking through,
there was evidence in the emails that I'm reading at Twitter from the government
who had basically their foot on the neck of these people at Twitter saying,
these are the type of people we don't want them speaking out on your platform.
This is the type of information we don't want to be said.
And I won't run through the list, but we all know the items that we were told were true
and turned out to not be true.
I guess I will run the list.
Whether it's from masks, the lab leak was a conspiracy theory until all of a sudden it wasn't.
And then here, as we started our conversation about asymptomatic transmission, This justification for the entire sort of non-pharmaceutical interventions that occurred, that shut down society.
All of these things were told with great confidence, with great certainty to the public.
This is what's true with a capital T. They were said that by the government, by these different officials, and many of these social media companies went along with that and censored people who didn't fall in line with that.
And the legacy media, by and large, went along with that as well.
They didn't have to be forced to do it.
They wanted to go along with that.
So the idea of one entity deciding what is or is not true is terrifying.
It doesn't mean there isn't all sorts of garbage that's put out there on social media.
Of course there is.
People need to have the option of being exposed to different ideas.
And by exposing people to different ideas and allowing that, I think it would enable an environment within certain professions, like public health, should there be some other large event that happens, where perhaps next time there won't be these physicians at places like Harvard and Columbia who are contacting me saying, thank you so much for writing that article that was critical of the CDC on whatever the thing is.
I can't talk about this at work.
I'm afraid to go public with this.
That's just deeply, deeply troubling to me, and it should be to most regular people.
That's why you've got to download the Rumble app.
Not you, David.
You can do whatever you choose.
You're free.
In fact, we're all free.
Freedom's what we believe in here.
If you download the Rumble app though and watch us there and turn on notifications, you will be notified every time we make a bit of content, not like on YouTube where it's arbitrary and simply may not happen.
It's more important you support us now than ever.
If you can press the red button and support us directly, then please do.
But if not, it's so much more important we have your attention than anything else that you could offer us.
David, what do you think about this November the 14th meeting where global leaders are coming together to map a unified strategy for global pandemic preparedness, which seems like a good thing.
If there's going to be a global pandemic, we should be prepared.
What do you think that preparedness might look like?
Might it include censorship of counter narratives?
Might it include the increase of authoritative measures?
Might it be connected to the WHO's pandemic treaty where they want 5% of each nation's health budget?
What do you think is going on there?
I mean, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
The people who orchestrated the response during the pandemic are the same people who are now supposedly going to be orchestrating the preparedness and the plans for the next time something happens.
To me, that's emblematic of the entire problem that we're talking about here is that during the pandemic, there was this monomaniacal focus on this one thing of trying to limit the spread of one particular virus, but they didn't take in outside voices, you know, and I've focused very much, I'm writing a book about American schools during the pandemic right now, and I've focused very much on the idea that No one was talking to, in any sort of senior level, talking to economists, talking to psychologists, talking to all sorts of people who work in other areas of society where these interventions that they were imposing
We're going to affect everyone.
So there's this real interconnectedness between the different things we're talking about.
The idea of this specific focus on doing one thing, this kind of authoritarianism combined with the idea of not wanting these other outside voices, of bringing in different, you know, the idea that Anthony Fauci This is one man, one person with one perspective who doesn't have an expertise in education.
He doesn't have an expertise in the economy.
He doesn't have an expertise in all these other, but yet the decisions that he was making and pushing forth, those affected all these other things.
So, the thing I've written about a lot is the idea that there are all sorts of second order effects.
There are, you know, just like when you take a medicine, There are potential side effects.
Well, these non-pharmaceutical interventions put upon us have vast side effects and they were woefully understudied or not thought about enough before they were put into place.
And that ties into the idea of having the former Prime Minister of New Zealand and these other people who said, we're the one source of truth and these types of statements.
All of this bundles together into kind of this broader tapestry that obviously you're well aware of, that I think has all sorts of problems associated with it.
And we need to figure out a way of having more voices heard and taken seriously in all sorts of fields of endeavor.
David Swag, thank you so much for your terrifying insights, you harbinger of grim doom, but with sparkling eyes and fantastic hair.
Thanks for joining us, David.
Thanks, Russell.
You can follow David's work by going to silentlunch.net and sign up to his newsletter, which if I hadn't done, I'd be a lot less bright than I currently am as a result of David's work, and follow him on It's fantastic to speak to David.
What a fantastic, lovely guest he is.
I can still see him there.
He's messing around with his ear pods.
He's lingering in the environment.
Guess who we've got on the show tomorrow?
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who's just won a case against the Biden administration.
It's one of the names you will have continually heard At the advent of the pandemic, one of the first voices to criticise the way that things were going.
Now, I know it seems like it's a long way off.
I know it seems like it's for the way that time appears to move these days.
We're on this relentless hamster wheel of history.
There's no time to glance.
We get over one crisis, we're in another crisis.
There's a new war every day, a new horror unleashed on us.
But we must remain present.
We must remain able to absorb the information that we're receiving now.
Bear in mind the narrative of what we've just encountered.
Try to observe the apparent patterns of the powerful.
It seems that centralized authoritarian measures are being introduced everywhere.
And if you click the red button, the Awaken Wonders button, You get to join me.
We're doing book readings now.
We're doing Bible studies.
We are looking at the five ideas that are most likely to change the world, whether that's cryptocurrencies, new communities, new systems of food growing, and new energy.
How are we going to live beyond these systems?
This is it now!
No more mucking around.
I want to welcome our new supporters like Vincent Vero, 2022, Freecrumble, Plum Derosa.
Thank you for becoming Awakened Wonders.
It means the world to me that you have risen above the fear, that you are determined to educate and evolve yourself, that you believe that change is possible.
And this is where we are going to explore that change together.
