Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 13, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand

01:39:11

Israel vs Palestine: Tucker SLAMS Congress Over Reaction To Attacks - Stay Free #223

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I'm going to go ahead and get the computer.
	In this video, you're going to see the future.
	Hello there you awakening wonder wherever you are in this world amidst the omni-crisis that will not yield.
	Well done for continuing to transcend fear in a darkening space at a time of deep complexity.
	It's more important that we come together now than ever before.
	We must transcend this complex time by looking within and finding deep power Deep power that some would regard as holy is present with you now.
	Don't be afraid.
	We're going to keep going together.
	We're going to talk today about Canada's ongoing information and banking crackdown.
	Is Canada being used to pilot new degrees of tyranny?
	I will be speaking to a personal hero of mine later as well, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, I love this man.
	He was one of the first credible academics to speak out openly and clearly during the pandemic period and say, what you're doing doesn't make sense.
	He therefore exposed that what we were being told was science was actually its opposite.
	When you have someone like Dr. Fauci say, I am science, you know you are dealing with orthodoxy, hegemony.
	We're going to be all over the gaff.
	For the first part of the show, I mean, we'll be available on all platforms.
	That was a weird colloquialism to have used there for an international medium such as this and for an international community such as ours.
	What I mean to say is wherever you get your content, you can watch us now, but you're going to have to click the link in the description eventually and get Rumble and join us on Rumble.
	And if you haven't got the Rumble app yet, Get it now because if you subscribe to us on Rumble and turn on the notification bell, you'll be told every time we make content.
	You'll be told about our live streams.
	Fantastic live streams.
	Anyway, we've got a lot to talk about.
	And by the way, if you can support us by clicking the red button to become an Awakened Wanderer, it's more important now than ever.
	We do meditations together.
	We do Bible readings together.
	We're like people there.
	We're preppers, man.
	We're prepping now.
	We're not prepping.
	Well, we are.
	But we're preparing for something better than this.
	You know the system doesn't work.
	We tell you how every day.
	Over there, as an Awakened Wonder, we're going to explain to you the new solutions.
	We will discover together how we're going to get through this.
	The five ideas that are going to save the world.
	Five communities that are off-grid and out of the system that work better.
	These are the things we're going to learn together.
	You feel you don't fit in in this world?
	I know what it's like to feel that feeling I've felt in my whole life.
	You come with us.
	We'll work this out together.
	Now, Tucker Carlson has spoken out on the complex evolving situation in the Middle East.
	Particularly he's criticised Nikki Haley and Lindsey Graham.
	Both said support in Ukraine is in US national interest and both of them have used extremely
	vehement rhetoric with regard to this complex matter.
	I have too much respect for those that are personally harmed in this unprecedented, escalatory
	and difficult time to offer you strong condemnation, support or anything.
	I simply don't feel qualified.
	But Tucker is pointing out some interesting things that I think we can all agree on.
	Wherever you stand on this complex issue, and I suppose the only way forward is to appreciate that there are numerous positions, You have to recognise, as we discussed yesterday, that it's wrong for people in Congress to profit from this.
	We all agree with that, right?
	People in Congress shouldn't be investing right now in weapons manufacturers and energy companies to exploit their insider knowledge, should they?
	Let me know in the chat and the comments.
	Tucker points out that people in positions of political power should surely not be using incendiary rhetoric.
	What do you think about that?
	And perhaps more importantly still, do you trust them?
	Do you trust them on Ukraine-Russia?
	Do you trust them to handle this situation in the Middle East?
	Do you trust those institutions at all?
	The government?
	The legacy media?
	Do you trust them?
	Let's have a look at what Tucker Carlson is saying and let me know what you feel about what Tucker is saying on this subject.
	So there's a lot at stake in how we encourage Israel to respond to the horrifying Hamas attacks.
	Wisdom and long-term thinking are essential, but you will not be surprised to learn that is not what we are getting.
	Watch this person, for example, who happens to be the media's pick for President of the United States.
	This is not just an attack on Israel.
	This is an attack on America.
	Because they hate us just as much.
	And what we have to understand is, this is the reason that we have to unite around making sure our enemies do not hurt our friends.
	America can never be so arrogant to think we don't need friends, just like we needed them on 9-11.
	That's why Ukraine needs us when Russia's doing this.
	That's why Israel needs us when Hamas and Iran are doing this.
	And I'll say this to Prime Minister Netanyahu, finish them.
	Finish them.
	Hamas did this.
	You know Iran's behind it.
	Finish them.
	They should have hell to pay for what they've just done.
	This was an attack on America, she says, when in fact it was not.
	And for that reason, we must, quote, finish Iran, a nation of nearly 90 million people.
	What are we watching here?
	This is not sober leadership.
	She's a child, and this is the tantrum of a child.
	Ignorant, cocksure, bloodthirsty.
	Yet no one in Washington scolded her for it.
	In fact, they aped her hysteria.
	Here's fellow neocon Lindsey Graham just spelling it out and calling for the bombing of Iran.
	Notice that Tucker uses phrases like neocon to ensure we understand that transcendent of the presumed division between Democrat and Republican, there's a political movement that encompasses both of those sides, meaning you have very little when it comes to meaningful democratic purchase.
	So I've been on the phone all day to the Mideast and I've told our allies and people with connections to Iran.
	What I would do, I would tell Iran that if Hezbollah attacks Israel, we're going to come after you, the Iranians, and have a coordinated effort between the United States and Israel.
	Do you wonder that complex, tragic, awful as this situation is and continues to be, that there are people that are exploiting it?
	Do you consider that the people in Congress that are purchasing stocks in weapons manufacturers are exploiting this situation?
	Do you think that those that are pushing an agenda to increase expenditure on the Ukraine-Russia conflict are exploiting this situation?
	Do you think that politicians such as we have just been shown are exploiting this situation to increase Military tensions to increase military expenditure.
	Do you think if we investigated the funding of Lindsay there and Nicky there, we might find that there are donations from weapons manufacturers and other vested interests?
	I cannot enough convey to you my determination not to further impede on the broken hearts of people directly affected by this tragedy.
	What I urge is that those of us that are not directly affected, and in a way we are all directly affected, but not in the same way that people that are religiously, ideologically or personally connected to this issue.
	We have to consider, how is this being exploited?
	Cynically exploited by institutions that usually, when our emotions are a little more in alignment, even though that's generally hard these days, in this state of omnicrisis and generally escalate intentions, it's hard to remain sanguine and clear and focused.
	And yet those of us who can, surely must.
	And those that are directly affected and understandably hurt, furious, broken, grief-stricken and terrified, those people's feelings must of course be respected.
	But let me know what you think about Tucker's observation that the hysteria of Nikki Haley and the warmongering of Lindsey Graham might not be about the service of any of the people directly involved in the conflict, For have we not seen many times legitimate and real crises exploited to the advantage of powerful interests?
	Even in times of heightened emotion, surely we must remain present enough To observe what we have already learned about these exploiting interests, it's so vital that those of us that can stay present, do stay present.
	And pray for those that are currently unable to, due to their understandable grief, anguish and despair.
	To put Iran out of the oil business by destroying their refineries.
	Don't actually talk about the oil business.
	People are being murdered.
	This is a devastating, awful, awful situation.
	Let's get oil business, though.
	Let's take a minute's silence for the oil business.
	There are four major refineries in Iran.
	They're fixed targets.
	Oh, my God.
	That's not about the victims of the terrorist attack.
	That's not about people living in Gaza, is it?
	It doesn't matter.
	We should all be appalled by that.
	Are you appalled by this?
	If Hezbollah attacks Israel, I would make Iran pay a heavy price.
	What exactly would happen to the United States if we declared war on Iran and started blowing up their infrastructure?
	Lindsey Graham has no clue what would happen.
	He hasn't thought it through.
	He's almost 70 years old and he has no children.
	He doesn't care.
	Tucker Carlson is incisive, isn't he?
	What he does very elegantly, Tucker Carlson, is he's stating and expressing opinion.
	I think he's being very respectful, at least the bits that we're watching now and commenting on.
	And then he, like, gives Lindsey Graham such a massive dig for not having kids.
	What is that about?
	What is that about?
	But neither amazingly do most of his colleagues in Washington.
	They're as reckless as he is.
	Texas Congressman Dan Crenshaw took to social media to call for what he described as a war to end all wars.
	As if there is such a thing.
	Plainly, ordinary consciousness is being taken to its very limits.
	That's why it's worrying that progressive Gavin Newsom, governor of California, who has always presented himself as the future, plainly a person who sees himself as a potential president, let me know in the chat if you think he's being primed for such a role, has Vetoed the possibility of psychedelics being used therapeutically.
	There's a lot of complexity around this issue too.
	A lot of us think, oh man, you don't want those being exploited or falling into the hands of a big pharma or whatever.
	Because many of you know and sense that there are deeper realities than the material realities.
	If you believe in God, like I believe in God, you know there are great powers that are beyond any situation, any condition, any person, any political movement.
	And surely we must call upon those powers now.
	And one of the indicators that there are other layers, realms, and frequencies to reality are psychedelics.
	So luckily, Gavin Newsom, lockdown party-goer...
	is pretty keen to ban them.
	Governor Newsom has vetoed a bill to decriminalize the possession and personal use of magic mushrooms as well as other psychedelic drugs.
	Governor says the psychedelics may help people dealing with depression and mental illness, but the state must create clear guidelines for their use before they are legalized.
	The governor also vetoing a bill designed to legalize cannabis cafes in California.
	Yeah, that's right.
	We know back in 2016, we saw Governor Newsom here championing legalizing cannabis.
	Yeah, that's right.
	He's not that progressive after all.
	He uses the rhetoric of progressivism, but actually he seems to be quite authoritarian.
	I mean, remember when he sacked all those doctors for misinformation?
	Simply put, your family doctor had to tell you, agreed, Government positions on COVID, otherwise they risk being sacked.
	So that doesn't sound progressive, does it?
	And he's also recently announced upcoming digital ID.
	Like, really, they're not progressive.
	They just sort of have a haircut or whatever and talk about caring about minority groups or disadvantaged people, but actually don't create policies that will in any way benefit people that are disadvantaged in any way.
	All they ever care about, it seems, is increasing authoritarianism.
	And they certainly don't want people voyaging into the depths of their psyche and discovering a deep unity between all the world's people and that love is a powerful resource that can be accessed in every individual and could ultimately be used to create new systems and new democracies.
	I have taken some magic mushrooms.
	I'm gonna hand myself in to Gavin Newsom right now.
	Now when it comes to psychedelics he says that more still needs to be done such as implementing more guidelines.
	Now this bill would have legalized or taken away those criminal penalties for anyone 21 and up in the state from possessing or using psychedelics such as magic mushrooms.
	Dr. Alia Ahmad is a psychedelic researcher and physician at Shaman's Healing Center in Sacramento.
	She says they are disappointed in the governor's decision after researching some of the positive impacts psychedelics can have on treating mental health disorders.
	What you've done there is you've made the mistake of thinking that Gavin Newsom and the government more broadly are interested in anything other than accruing more authority that can ultimately be used in the service of deep state and globalist corporate interests.
	As long as you bear that in mind, you'll never be disappointed again.
	Their legislation will always increase their ability to control individuals and let off the hook powerful corporations.
	That's why in the state of omnicrisis, ongoing war, lots of people profit from that.
	And people in Congress Invest in more war.
	That's why in a health crisis, pharmaceutical companies benefit.
	That's why in an energy crisis, where your energy bills go up, energy companies that are subsidized make record profits.
	So what they need is more and more ability to shut down dissent.
	No, as that's happening through censorship bills, more ability to control certainly the sort of consciousness and layers of consciousness and layers of reality that you explore that might possibly cause you to change your value system, all that's got to be shut right down.
	They want authority and absolute control and the way that they will legitimize that authority is through safety, through keeping you safe.
	Do you know who I'd like to keep safe?
	Like me and literally anyone other than the government, legacy media, financial system, Unelected globalist bodies that pass down regulation to individual sovereign nations.
	I'd like them out of the picture.
	And guess what?
	We can't do that unless all of us come together and are willing to put aside some of our many and sometimes glaringly obvious causes for division and opposition.
	My God, we better find a way to transcend.
	We better find a way to transcend because the enemy are organizing fast and the enemy is not each other.
	Also, X is being censored to within an inch of its life.
	Elon Musk's brave stand against censorship is now under attack from, of all things, the EU.
	Do you even know what the EU is?
	The EU's like a government for Europe.
	It doesn't even really properly make sense.
	No one really wants it anymore.
	It's ridiculous.
	It's untrustworthy.
	It's expensive.
	And they've judged X to be a hotbed for illegal content and disinformation.
	Thierry Breton, who's like just some sort of EU commissioner, Talks like, like James Gandolfini or something.
	He's written Elon Musk a letter saying, following the terrorist attacks carried out by Hamas against Israel, we have indications that your platform is being used to disseminate illegal content and disinformation in the EU.
	I remind you that following the opening of a potential investigation and a finding of non-compliance, penalties can be imposed.
	Do you see how this awful, terrible situation is being exploited by the weapons industry?
	It's being exploited by people that want to censor Media spaces, it's being exploited because people's emotions are understandably running over and people see that as a window.
	Look at what they do.
	Just try to remember.
	This is why we as individuals, we've got to do our best to find some different level of connection with one another.
	Please press the red button.
	Join us if you can.
	If you can't, it's so important that you download that app if you can.
	Stay with us if you can.
	Let's have a look at how Vera Jarova talks about the necessity for I don't know, censorship, probably.
	X, former Twitter, who is not under the code anymore, is the platform with the largest ratio of missed or disinformation posts.
	Who's deciding what's misinformation and disinformation?
	You?
	Who's going to make those kind of choices?
	The same people that have decided that saying, get a vaccine, if you get a vaccine, it stops right now, or that ivermectin is horseplay.
	Who's making the decision?
	Who do you trust?
	Do you trust the government?
	Do you trust the legacy media?
	Do you trust the EU?
	Do you trust the UN or the WEF?
	Why would you trust them?
	Some of them you fund, one way or another, if not directly through your taxes, through bizarre commercial arrangements.
	But do you trust them?
	I don't.
	The pilot also showed that disinformation actors were found to have significantly more followers than their non-disinformation counterparts.
	People seem to like people that don't like us and what we tell them.
	We not like this.
	Why don't we find any way of shutting down anybody who doesn't agree with us?
	We could just say whatever we want and then say their argument against what we're saying is a kind of disinformation.
	This is brilliant!
	In fact, if we can eliminate Elon Musk and his considerable wealth and evident principles, then we can control the whole world!
	Ah!
	Not funny!
	I mean, we can help people more, because you can see how we're helping!
	Look around at all of the help that's happening!
	Do you think that the imposition of online censorship is about Authoritarianism, managing information, managing dissent, presenting commercial opportunities to valued corporate partners, controlling the potential for oppositionist organizations in any country around the world, let alone global alliances that oppose the globalism itself, or do you think it's about they're worried that when you go online that you might be somehow vulnerable or hurt?
	What is it they've ever said or done in all history that leads you to think they care about your feelings?
	...tend and tend to have joined the platform more recently than non-disinformation users.
	Mr. Musk knows that he is not off the hook.
	You are not off the hook.
	You are still very much on the hook.
	We can still get your money.
	We can censor you.
	Because now we have the Digital Services Act fully in force.
	Oh my god, so you can't just opt?
	Remember when it was convenient for them to say, oh, they're private platforms?
	Do you remember that?
	They're private platforms.
	They can say what they want.
	They can ban Donald Trump if they want to.
	It's a private platform.
	Oh, right, they're not banning Donald Trump anymore.
	Regulate them!
	We will be enforcing that.
	We have our, I think, very well-equipped unit which will monitor and supervise what the platforms are doing.
	And as Twitter has been designated as the very large online platform, of course there are obligations given by the hard law.
	So my message for Twitter is you have to comply with the Hart Law.
	The only decision we have to make as individuals, people that believe in free speech, is do you trust these institutions or not?
	Do you trust them to make moral judgment?
	Do you trust them to discern what's misinformation and disinformation and what isn't?
	If the answer, like my personal answer, is no, I don't trust them, I don't trust them at all, then you have to, in one way or another, oppose This tyrannical tide towards centralised power and the closing down of free speech.
	We will be watching what you are doing.
	What's terrifying, additionally terrifying, about what Vera Jarová is saying is that laws are being passed all around the world to prohibit free speech.
	And as we have told you before, if you shut down free speech, then everything else is up in the air.
	Let's explain to you how that happens.
	Canada has already brought in online regulatory laws that mean that podcasts can be controlled and that online platforms can be fined if they report on information that the government deems to be misinformation.
	Oh, that was misinformation!
	However, let me show you already, in real time, what that's led to.
	In Canada, there's been an unprecedented spate of debanking people.
	That means shutting down the bank accounts of people who essentially you don't like.
	Presumably because they're Nazis.
	Although, in Canada, being a Nazi can literally get you a round of applause in Parliament.
	You know that.
	That's not my fault.
	That's their fault.
	They did it.
	So, people are getting their bank accounts shut down if they don't agree with the state.
	Why don't we know about that?
	That's weird.
	That should have been in the news.
	Yeah, I'll tell you why it's not in the news.
	Because the legacy media won't report it because they're in alignment with it, and independent media can't report it because they're being regulated and controlled.
	That's what What happens if you allow this type of legislation to be passed?
	If we don't all stand up together now, we're going to lose the possibility to stand together forever.
	Let's have a look at Canada.
	Dystopia pilot.
	Practicing laws and regulations that even five years ago would have been unimaginable.
	Here's the news.
	No, here's the effing news.
	Thanks for watching the Fox News News video.
	No, here's the fucking news.
	Canada's debanking people.
	What does de-banking mean?
	It means shutting down people's bank accounts.
	Why ain't I heard of that?
	Because Canada's also got online streaming laws that mean you can't be told the news.
	Oh, well, it's just Canada piloting dystopia.
	It's happening in other countries as well, like the UK.
	Oh, so is hell around the corner?
	Well, no, it's actually here.
	We've got to do something!
	So, Canada.
	It's not like Canada was a utopia, an Eden, a vision of a better world, even if they do have politicians called things like Justin Trudeau or Chrystia Freeland, the sarcastically named Canadian politicians.
	What's your name?
	Truth.
	Freedom.
	What's your policy?
	We're in charge.
	It's a strange and crazy place. I never looked at Canada as a sort of an outlier when it comes to like a perfect
	civilization.
	Although I will say, as an English person, you always think America's going a bit too far with the colonizing the world
	and the resource wars and all that kind of stuff.
	I'm talking about, you know, back in Iraq days.
	And I always think that Canada and Australia, well, they're not as bad as we are, trenched in tradition and the
	colonialism and all the blood on the hands of that stuff.
	But also they're not doing the new commercial version of colonialism that America's doing.
	Maybe Australia and Canada are some sort of slightly more neutered version of an anglophonic future, but now both those countries are essentially pilot schemes for dystopia, whether it's internment camps in Australia during lockdown or Canada's new online censorship bill, basically a censorship bill.
	We've got one of those here, of course, as well.
	But now, They're like literally debunking people.
	I don't like keep saying debunking because it sounds too much like debunking people.
	I debunk you, sir.
	How dare you?
	This maple syrup's perfect.
	It's not that.
	It's like they're shutting down people's bank accounts, usually because they don't agree with their views.
	Like with the famous trucker convoys, they started messing with people's money.
	When they start messing with your money, messing with your free speech, that's not good, is it?
	Let's get into it.
	A bank or other financial service provider Okay, well that's terrifying.
	Don't just say that as if it's alright while Justin Trudeau stands there covering his mouth and genitals simultaneously as if that prevents us from seeing what's truly happening here.
	Canada is meant to be a country that is a celebration of liberalism.
	What does liberalism mean these days?
	Let us know in the chat.
	Now, if you follow Jordan Peterson, you'll know that there are all sorts of extraordinary stuff
	with his license as a clinician that doesn't seem right.
	And what we can't fall into, and I beg you not to, I know a lot of you will love Jordan Peterson,
	certainly I love Jordan Peterson, but a lot of you will go,
	oh, Jordan Peterson, no, isn't he like sexist or whatever?
	Or Nigel Farage, who we'll be talking about later.
	I've had like actual arguments on TV with Nigel Farage and Spats,
	because I don't agree with him on a bunch of stuff.
	But I tell you what I don't think, that you should shut down Nigel Farage's bank account
	because you don't agree with him.
	I don't think that.
	I think Nigel Farage should be allowed to express himself freely in a democracy, and if in a democracy a referendum don't go your way, hey baby, democracy that you said you love.
	So when you start shutting down people's bank accounts, shutting down people's free speech, and when the rest of us go, I don't mind really because I don't agree with that person, what we are is sort of compliant with emergent forms of fascism.
	The Canadian government is cracking down on financial supporters of the illegal blockade.
	So if you are one of the Canadians who donated, should you expect your bank accounts to be frozen today?
	Well, no, because that's terrifying.
	Also, they just glibly refer to it as an illegal convoy.
	What do you mean, illegal convoy?
	Just for a minute, step back.
	If you don't agree with something that's happening in your country, your country that you live in, should you be able to protest without knowing what the subject is?
	What's it about?
	Is it something that I agree with?
	No.
	Well, you've got that.
	Have some principles.
	Alright then, yes, you should be able to protest.
	Right, so why is this protest illegal?
	Because we don't agree with it!
	An emailed comment from the Canadian Bankers Association says the required measures will be diligently implemented by financial service providers, but they don't expect them to impact the vast majority of customers.
	They also did not define what diligently implemented means.
	It just means they're going to try their hardest to shut down the bank accounts of people they don't agree with.
	And it won't impact the vast majority of customers.
	Or should I hope not?
	I mean, if the vast majority of your customers are going to have their bank accounts frozen, I don't see things going very well at the bank.
	Well, it's quite good, because we're keeping all their money!
	Canada's Minister of Finance, Chrystia Freeland, also announced that that order covers both personal and corporate accounts.
	But the Canadian Bankers Association said that we'll just have to wait and see how that plays out.
	Probably be alright.
	Now you might have noticed that this is a news report from a little while ago.
	The news that we're going to tell you is up to the second.
	But there is no mainstream media news or indeed online news on this because Canada have introduced an online safety bill that allows them to censor this type of information and we're introducing these kind of bills all around the world and you might have noticed that independent media voices are being vehemently attacked and shut down everywhere.
	Have you noticed that?
	Because I have.
	So look at what's going on.
	Hello!
	After three ministers, five years, and dozens of amendments, the Liberal government's controversial Online Streaming Act has finally become law.
	And there are some big changes coming for streamers.
	There certainly are.
	Everything you do is subject to new scrutiny and censorship and fines.
	You have seen that X were threatened with a fine just the other day.
	We'll be talking about that elsewhere.
	The law will require platforms to promote Canadian content, require streaming services like Netflix to pay to support Canadian media content like music and TV shows, and it will give the CRTC broad powers over digital media companies, including the ability to impose financial penalties for violations of the Act.
	That doesn't sound as good, especially if you can't pay those penalties because your bank account's been shut down.
	Do you know what I mean?
	When you get the government sort of calling up social media, comforting and saying, are you gonna demonetize that person?
	This is not liberalism.
	Liberalism is not authoritarianism.
	Are you noticing how words are changing their meaning?
	That is also not good.
	Free speech is an important value.
	Yes, but people are so hateful.
	What about the misanthropy at the core of that?
	If you allow people to Yeah well sometimes people aren't perfect but I'd rather endure a little of that than the alternative which is granting authority to institutions that we know are corrupt already and don't trust.
	So you've not heard about the debanking firstly because it's a stupid word and secondly because it's a ludicrous policy.
	If you're British you'll have heard about the Nigel Farage story.
	If you're Canadian you might not have heard of the debanking that's going on in your country because people aren't reporting on it because Because there's a censorship law in place that prevents the truth from being accurately conveyed.
	I'm not making this up.
	It's actually happening.
	You can look it up for yourself, but actually, we'll do it for you and save you a bit of time.
	A sweeping debanking wave has swept across Canada, affecting over 800 citizens in its tide since 2018.
	A number which includes hundreds who rallied behind the banner of the Freedom Convoy.
	Obviously.
	Data unearthed through an access to information request by Black Locks, not to be confused with Black Rocks.
	Please don't confuse them with Black Rocks.
	Reporter unveiled a disturbing pattern where 837 individuals found the doors of their banks slammed shut on them over a span of five years.
	The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada was brought into the loop through grievances lodged with regulatory bodies shedding light on financial strangulation that bypassed cases of validated terrorism and money laundering.
	Right, so terrorism and money laundering, that's a legitimate reason, I guess, to debank someone.
	As has often been pointed out, in many of the areas where censorship regulation is introduced, or new forms of regulation are introduced, we already have laws for that.
	Violence is already illegal.
	Terrorism's already illegal.
	Money laundering's already illegal.
	The new laws that you're legitimizing through the use of that language are actually redundant, because that stuff's already legislated against.
	And hold on, there's a whole raft of new powers that are going to affect Everybody.
	In a deeper dive into the numbers, it's revealed that the financial shackles tightened around 267 bank accounts and 170 Bitcoin wallets belonging to Freedom Convoy supporters ensnaring an estimated 7.8 million dollars.
	That probably means they won't be able to protest, so you won't be able to argue with the government.
	So the government is a liberal government that believes in freedom and helping people.
	No, no, that doesn't sound right, does it?
	Tyrannical!
	Yes, that's what it is.
	This exercise in financial censorship spun a web of scrutiny during a hearing on March the 7th, 2022, when Angelina Mason, representing the Bankers Association, testified.
	Mason outlined that while the Royal Canadian Mounted Police supplied a list of names, banks were also mandated by separate orders to exercise their judgment in identifying account holders for debanking.
	So I sort of asked, right, well, the police can have a little look, but they're busy, you know, they're mounted after all, they've got a tent to the horse, I suppose, and that hat can't be easy to look after.
	So would you, the bank yourself, just have a look around in people's accounts, see if there's any familiar names, see if there's anything that you don't agree with going on.
	We can't empower banks to do that, that's not what a bank is.
	How can banks make moral decisions about their customers when they make their money through investing in all sorts of nefarious activity?
	Weapons manufacturers, energy, have you ever looked into how banks are making their money?
	What their moral position is?
	Do you remember what happened in 2008?
	Do you remember how that banking crisis played out?
	And you know who supported them in that?
	The government.
	So the government and banks being arbiters of morality, like the same way as the media.
	Where are the media?
	I'm curious how moral you're letting the actual scum of the earth determine right from wrong.
	What do you think that's going to lead to?
	We have to work fast.
	We have to work smart.
	We have to recognize, I recognize now, this is not a game anymore.
	This is actually happening.
	A few years ago, maybe you'd see someone like Alex Jones or something, and you'd think, oh, come on, he's a sort of hysterical preacher.
	And perhaps archetypally, there is some of that in a character like Alex Jones, who, let me say plainly, I don't agree with everything he says, the same way as I don't agree with everything Nigel Farage says.
	But I do agree with people's right To speak.
	I do agree with people's right to disagree with me.
	I do agree with principles of justice and legislation and order and democracy.
	Ideas around which the argument is supposed to have been won.
	And the people and groups and parties that claim to most espouse and represent those values, guess what they're doing?
	They're at odds with those values.
	They're limiting those values.
	They're walking back those values and replacing them with authoritarianism.
	Just look at our hair and listen to a saying that we care about this group or that group.
	They don't care about anything.
	They care about power.
	And even if they do care about those things, they're not legislating in alignment with the principles they're discussing.
	They're legislating in an authoritarian manner.
	The outrage at the Nigel Farage-Coutts-NatWest debanking scandal in the United Kingdom does not align with the complete disinterest in Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's debanking of an entire political caste.
	In England, we do one person.
	In Canada, we're going to do an entire political caste.
	Nice one Canada.
	Banking, it has been argued in the halls of parliament, in the pages of major publications, is a human right in the modern world.
	De-banking, it follows, should be seen as an abuse of those fundamental rights.
	Unfortunately, it is clear UK parliamentarians only cared about the Farage de-banking scandal because they could see themselves suffering the same fate when they're voted out of office, which is likely to be This goes a long way to explaining why those same MPs who now make grand speeches about the human rights of banking said nothing and did nothing during the Covid years when their fellow Commonwealth nation, Canada, debunked citizens as punishment for protesting against the government.
	The government may not be on your team, the legacy media may not be on your team, but I tell you who's on our team and therefore yours...
	Sticker Mule!
	We've teamed up with Sticker Mule once more to create this limited edition sticker pack.
	You are gonna love this.
	There are... Wait a second, it's quite difficult to get in, but, you know, gotta keep these stickers safe.
	There are six stunning designs that are only available in this pack.
	Oh, ain't it exciting?
	They're all made with Sticker Mule's magic touch.
	Sticker Mule has 10,000 of these packs.
	That's right, 10,000 ready to deliver to your address Absolutely free, you can have it now.
	Like me, I've got this one, you can have one.
	Just go to stickermule.com forward slash Russell and fill out the form.
	It's really worth it.
	This one, part of my clothes now.
	Put it on your laptop, put it on your phone, put it wherever you want to.
	It's your life, it's completely free.
	10,000 packs.
	Look at me, contemplating life, just trying my best.
	Fantastic, good old Stickermule.
	Stickermule, we loves ya.
	Okay, let's get back to this story about the Canadian government.
	Because I tell you what, you can't trust, do you know who should run Canada?
	Sticker mule.
	Come on, let's get into this.
	Giving police excessive powers to attack the finances of those attending peaceful protests shocked many, and yet the silence from leaderships around the world fell heavy on the air.
	Only the pages of the truly independent press were screeching.
	Only independent media can report on stories like this for now.
	That's being impeded by censorship laws around the world.
	The silence from the political class is understandable.
	It happened during a time when every Western government was engaged in the abuse of human rights and civil rights through various emergency powers and health orders.
	It was being normalised.
	We're now seeing, as many people said we would, post-Covid authoritarianism being normalised.
	The use of technology to extract people from mainstream culture normalised.
	If people don't get vaccines, they just shouldn't be allowed out.
	That's what it should be.
	If someone without a vaccine goes to a hospital, they should be refused treatment, right?
	It's time to normalise that stuff.
	Now look what's happening.
	Well, if someone, you know, protests about something, you should shut their bank account down.
	What?
	When did... That's... Haven't we had that argument already, like, in medieval times?
	And didn't we agree that what we were going to do is people are allowed to have different views from one another?
	Like, where are all those values gone?
	Where have they gone?
	What's happening?
	None of our leaders broke ranks observing the don't throw stones in a glass house ideology.
	The press are the ones who should have been pelting rocks at these glass houses but they kept quiet too because they too had threatened their staff with mandates or taken vast sums of money from Big Pharma.
	If citizens tried to speak on social media they were erased from platforms that were making a killing in pharmaceutical ad revenue.
	What a mess.
	The Russia-Ukraine conflict provided a well-timed distraction for Trudeau to wind back his emergency declaration and then not talk about it for months.
	While Trudeau scolded Russia for her authoritarian behaviour, his dictatorial leanings had already eroded Canada's democracy.
	To this, Trudeau blamed social media for spreading misinformation and disinformation which turned the people against the values and principles of democracies.
	Would those principles include the right to a peaceful protest, Trudeau?
	Or banking?
	So how can something as radical as shutting down people's bank accounts and empowering banks to shut down people's bank accounts, banks, happen without being reported on?
	Because there's already censorship laws in place in Canada and it's happening in the UK and it's happening in your country.
	Do you know how I know that?
	Because it's happening everywhere.
	For months, representatives of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government insisted that their plans to regulate big tech social media platforms wouldn't impact independent news outlets or podcasters.
	Oh, what?
	And those promises were lies?
	But it turns out that the government is in fact going to regulate content providers, not just big tech social media platforms.
	So they've got two ways.
	They can directly control the content of the creators, but also they can threaten the social media platforms themselves with fines.
	So they're basically introducing laws to allow them to control the information on big tech platforms.
	That's happened already, actually.
	While the government is preparing to regulate independent content providers, whether news or podcasts, it's preparing to subsidise more news media content.
	I wonder what type of news media content will get subsidised.
	I wonder if it'll be, like, favourable news.
	I wonder if it'll be news channels that don't go, hey, they're debanking your fellow Canadians because they disagree with the government.
	And that's not good, is it?
	Because we already know that democracy is ineffectual for two reasons.
	Both of the two parties that you can vote for are too similar to make a meaningful impact on the lives of ordinary people.
	Also, they are funded by the same interests and there are sets of global bodies that dictate, as you have seen in the last few years, their policies, whether that's on health, medical or censorship matters.
	And now, independent media organisations that point that stuff out are being shut down.
	What don't you have?
	You don't have democracy.
	You have a kind of spectacle.
	The federal government already gives $1.4 billion in direct support to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation compared to the $650 million it receives from commercial revenue.
	So it's not fair competition.
	That's state media.
	That's where you get propaganda from, is state media.
	Elon Musk recently said that many mainstream media providers are essentially state propagandist utilities.
	Now, in the case of this Canadian broadcasting corporation, what you have is state funding and commercial funding.
	So whose interests do you think they're representative of?
	The state, who provide funding?
	Commercial partners, who provide funding?
	Or you, Canadian people, who can have your bank accounts shut down if you don't do exactly what you're told?
	The Liberals are using two bills and a series of regulations to crack down on free speech online.
	C11, the Online News Act, and C18, the Online Streaming Act.
	While these bills worked their way through the legislative process, the Liberals repeatedly lied and said they were about targeting big tech and protecting and promoting Canadian culture.
	In fact, they were part of a deliberate effort to censor ordinary Canadians.
	They're not going to come out and say, we're going to censor ordinary Canadians.
	They say, oh, we've got Big Tech's got too much power.
	We have to shut them down.
	Meanwhile, what they have with Big Tech are partnerships.
	Partnerships, in the case of the United States, you know that they have military contracts, all manner of tech and data contracts with companies like Microsoft and Facebook.
	And now what they are doing is legislating new partnerships to control information and censor dissent.
	It's happening in Canada, particularly plainly observably now.
	This means it will be harder to express yourself online and digital first outlets will be disproportionately negatively impacted.
	Traditional outlets will be economically reliant on the Feds and their lobby groups are already mobilising to push the federal government for more support, so much for independent journalism.
	Even I was a relatively I'm a relative latecomer to YouTube.
	Been on there for like 10 years or whatever it is.
	And I noticed, and you will have noticed, that at the beginning, prominent independent YouTube voices were given quite large airs.
	It was like an ecosystem guided by the algorithm in which there was a kind of, I don't know, Darwinism, a kind of ecology that found its own way.
	But then there were some decisions made to promote what you might call legacy media within it.
	And now that's just blatantly happened, hasn't it?
	Now those sites are in lockstep with the government and legacy media.
	There's a war happening.
	There's a war happening for your attention, for your beliefs, for your faith, for your ideology.
	What they want from you is obedience, compliance, induced by fear.
	That's a very broad statement.
	I believe it to be true.
	What we want is to keep alive the possibility of change, of empowering individuals and communities outside of these establishment institutions.
	That's only going to happen, the good news is it can happen, but it's only going to happen with individual responsibility.
	The famous comment, the thing that I always hear in the chat, but what can I do individually?
	Resist.
	Now, the government says it's doing this to protect and promote Canadian culture, ensure legacy news outlets operate for a healthy democracy, and ensure marginalised voices are heard.
	In reality, Trudeau and the Liberal Party are doing this so they can spread disinformation and quash dissent.
	It's the opposite of what they're saying.
	Trudeau's crackdown comes at a time when the European Union, United Nations and World Economic Forum are all demanding harsh crackdowns on free speech.
	Wow, how weird.
	Some politicians are justifying the crackdown as part of fighting the war in Ukraine.
	You know how we're gonna fight the war in Ukraine?
	I don't know, by like sort of giving them stockpiled weapons you've already paid for
	and renewing your contracts with Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and other highly profitable big spending lobbying
	organizations.
	Oh yeah, we are like that, yes.
	But also though, you gotta shut up.
	The UN next month is co-sponsoring a pro-censorship event with the World Economic Forum,
	a private organization.
	They're trying to, like, turn it into Christmas, aren't they?
	Like, Christmas of anti-free speech.
	Ho, ho, ho, ho, ho!
	Just two ho's.
	Ho, ho.
	In fact, one ho.
	Ho.
	That's right.
	That's what you all are.
	They are creating a global coalition for digital safety.
	We've got to be safe.
	So first of all, they have to terrify you to the point where you're like, yeah, what's your number one problem?
	Is it that you can't afford food?
	Is it that you can't afford energy?
	Is it that you can't speak freely anywhere?
	I mean, even among one another, because you're scared the whole time that there's no sort of consensus and love between human beings.
	Oh no, it's like, I just don't feel safe online.
	I just, when I'm online, I'm like, ah!
	Oh, look, I just put it down.
	I'm fine.
	Look, this is overreach.
	It's manipulation.
	It's lies.
	It's not what they're telling you it is.
	It's an attempt to shut down your ability to form realities, actually.
	Realities, shared realities, where you go, wait, wait, what if...
	What if they're all lying to us?
	Wait.
	What if the state has ultimately been co-opted by globalist corporate interests?
	Yes, yes.
	Undergirded by the deep state.
	Keep going.
	And the media just amplifies and normalises the messaging of those people.
	And within democracy, there's no meaningful dissent or opposition to those ideas that both parties in any country, your one, my one, two parties, more or less the same, one goes up, one goes down, both crap.
	What then, if we aren't even able to use this new technology to go, hey, have you noticed this?
	Once that's shut down, it's over, it's over, it's over.
	Could it be that?
	Or is it?
	Like that, what I just described, or is it?
	They're really worried that you might get your feelings hurt while you're on the internet.
	Do you really, really, after everything they've done, think it could be that?
	Polling shows these efforts run contrary to Canadian beliefs.
	Yeah, that's not what actual people want.
	We can solve our differences through conversation, through communication, through honesty, through transparency, through redemption, atonement, salvation, openness, through values and principles that they are not interested in because it would end their establishment interests.
	One poll shows nearly half of all Canadians think Fed should rescind Bill C-18, the online streaming act.
	There's not going to be a vote on that then.
	Now more than 6 in 10 Canadians are concerned about the bill's impacts.
	Canadians are also showing how media savvy they are.
	They don't think big news organisations need government bailouts.
	Of course they bloody well don't.
	They're not bailouts.
	They're hush money.
	They're bribes.
	And they believe C18 will harm smaller outlets.
	Voters may soon too change how they view government promises as they learn that the Liberal Party lied when it said their plans to regulate big tech social media platforms wouldn't impact independent news outlets or podcasters.
	Eventually Canada must move to a regime where neither the big tech social media platforms nor users are in the government's censorship system.
	So, people are being debanked.
	Not indiscriminately, but deliberately.
	Opponents and dissidents are losing the ability to have access to banking.
	Sometimes these decisions are being made by the banks themselves.
	Let's think for a moment about the morality of the banking system.
	Let's think for a moment about the morality of the government.
	Oh dear.
	Let's think for a moment about the morality of the legacy media who are being advantaged by the online censorship bills that prevent the banking regulations that are just being introduced that you can be debanked.
	It could happen to you.
	Do you mean it can't happen to you?
	Well, here's the way that it won't happen to you.
	Become an obedient little prisoner of the state.
	Never think anything they don't want you to think.
	Certainly don't do anything they don't want you to do.
	Sit still, be quiet, never protest, never think about a better version of reality, never think about what words like democracy, justice, media, truth, opportunity, freedom, but get those words out of your vocabulary or invert their meanings into the new prescribed meanings of your new centralised, authoritarian, globalist overlords as being piloted in Canada.
	That's what's happening right now.
	and it's coming to you, because it's already happening in the UK.
	No.
	It'll be happening everywhere.
	The only thing that can stop it is you.
	That's why it's so important that you press the red button and join our movement.
	Support us if you can, but if you can't, that doesn't matter.
	It's so much more important that we have your loyalty, your attention,
	your faith, your hope, your optimism, than anything else that you could give us.
	Let me know what you think in the chat, and I'll see you in a second.
	Thank you for choosing Fox News.
	Now, here's the fucking news.
	Joining me now is Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Professor of Medicine at Stanford University, co-founder of
	Illusion of Consensus on Substack.
	He's recently won in the federal court against the Biden administration for coercing social media companies to censor content.
	Plainly, as well as a scientist and a doctor, this man is a conspiracy theorist.
	Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, it's a great joy to meet you, sir.
	Thank you for coming on Stay Free.
	Thank you, Russell.
	Thank you for having me.
	I wonder, can you tell us, sir, what exactly did you express that was initially subject to censure?
	It was the Great Barrington Declaration.
	So it was an article, basically a proposal that I wrote with Sunetra Gupta of Oxford and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard in October 2020.
	I'm sure your audience has heard of this.
	I've seen you telling your audience this, so they don't need to be told so much.
	But basically the idea was that we knew it was older people that were really vulnerable to COVID.
	And that young people, especially children, were not particularly vulnerable.
	The argument was to lift the lockdowns and do focused protection of vulnerable older people.
	That led to a tremendous propaganda campaign, a campaign that essentially villainized me and Martin and Sunetra as if we wanted to kill vast numbers of people and we were calling for better protection of vulnerable older people.
	And it led to censorship.
	Like, we were kicked off of Facebook for a week.
	Google de-boosted our, you know, if you Googled us, it would be on page five and we have all the hit pieces above us.
	You know, that kind of thing.
	And then Twitter, of course, made it difficult to share.
	People lost their jobs for signing it.
	Oh man.
	Can you just remind me, when was that in the, you know, when was it chronologically?
	So that was October 2020.
	So we wrote it because the spring lockdowns had failed.
	It was really clear from the epidemiological data that the COVID was coming back in the fall.
	It had already come back in several places.
	And it was also clear that the establishment was going to push for these lockdowns that had already damaged the well-being of the children, of the working class, of the poor worldwide.
	And we thought it was a tragedy that we were essentially throwing away the futures of these vulnerable people in the name of protecting people against a deadly infectious disease, which actually didn't end up protecting anybody, these lockdowns, instead of actually just directly protecting the people that were most vulnerable.
	It's likely, of course, based on just what you've explained in the last couple of minutes, that we've yet to fully experience and appreciate the consequences of those actions.
	Can you tell me why, Doctor, you feel that what even a few years later seem like perfectly reasonable proposals, that if they had been followed, many economic problems, sociological, psychological, Problems may have been, if not entirely ameliorated, somewhat assuaged.
	Why was it met with such ferocity?
	Why?
	I mean, I think part of it is hubris.
	So you had a few people at the very top of these medical and bureaucracies, the social bureaucracies, that had taken on themselves this mantle of almost godlike authority.
	You remember Tony Fauci saying to some reporter, or maybe even just Senator Rand Paul, if you question me, you're not simply questioning a man, you are questioning science itself.
	I mean, who says that, Russell?
	I mean, let's think about the hubris of someone that says, I am science, in effect.
	You know, la science c'est moi, if you're like, you know, Louis XIV or something.
	And the idea that there would be credentialed people that would oppose them, that would say, look, you're saying that there's a scientific consensus in favor of lockdown when, in fact, just the very existence of the Great Barrington Declaration means there isn't.
	It means that you've just created an illusion of consensus to fool people into thinking that we ought to do what you say to do, rather than having a discussion and a debate, which is really what we owed the public.
	Claiming to be the physical embodiment of science, which is an ongoing, never-ending process of analysis, collaboration, accumulation of data.
	That is hubristic, you're right.
	And in fact, it's more akin to religious demagoguery than even scientific orthodoxy.
	The early period, or perhaps the pandemic in its entirety, functioned as a lens that revealed I think already present but concealed institutional behaviours and assumptions.
	Particularly too, it could be used to identify where convergent interests met and where a kind of unconscious systemic process unfolded that might not require every step malfeasance, deliberately applied evil, but certainly showed institutionalism That is worryingly unconscious.
	But there are points when it seemed quite deliberate.
	Now I suppose it's very difficult to prove that there was something nefarious unfolding, but can you tell me Can you tell me where you think you have identified the most concerning moments and decisions?
	Obviously the early attempts to censor, the denial of the existence of the Barrington Declaration.
	These are key moments.
	Are there other significant moments that start to suggest a tendency, if not a strategy or conspiracy?
	I mean, you saw this almost from the beginning of the pandemic, maybe even from the very beginning of the pandemic.
	The idea that this virus may have been the outcome of a research enterprise actually aimed at preventing pandemics, ironically.
	That idea was turned into a conspiracy theory.
	Even though it's a viable scientific hypothesis, it's likely even a true hypothesis.
	In 2020, anyone who brought that hypothesis up was essentially labeled as a fringe figure, a conspiracy theorist, a racist demon, because you're saying it might have been the Chinese that were involved in this.
	Which is a crazy thing.
	It's okay to say that because of strange Chinese eating habits in wet markets, that's how the virus emerged.
	But it's not okay to say that there was an intentional scientific effort, funded by Americans in part, but also conducted in China, that led to the virus.
	The latter is racist, but the former is not.
	But yeah, people who said that there might actually have been a virus that was created in the lab
	were deemed racist.
	That was a name conspiracy theorist.
	And it was by the same people that suppressed the Great Barrington Declaration
	using very, very similar tactics to deploy the press to smear and destroy the reputations of anyone
	that disagreed with the central powers that be.
	Actually, Russell, you said one thing I think is really important,
	is this confluence of incentives So I don't think it was a conspiracy theory in one sense.
	I think like, for instance, the pharmaceutical companies, they viewed this as a huge opportunity.
	I don't think they drove it, but it was like they jumped in, right?
	A lot of people who were, you know, in governments gained a lot of power from this.
	And again, I don't think they were conspiring.
	It's not a conspiracy to say that they jumped in to take advantage of the chaos.
	There's a lot that goes into exactly what led to this.
	I think a lot of it was opportunistic.
	But the central sin was hubris.
	And the central tactic was smearing and censorship of outside voices that criticized the people that were designing the pandemic response.
	If you are interested in centralizing authority and increasing authority, particularly beyond national sovereignty and the reach of democracy, there is going to be necessary censure because we live in a time where divergent, opposing and dissident voices now at least have the potential to be platformed and to gain incredible traction.
	And it seems to be a pretty prominent, evident and plain tactic that to Undermine the credibility of, as you say, dissenting voices.
	It's almost a uniform, observable strategy.
	If you cannot win the argument because it's unwinnable, because what's being claimed is true, let's take simply the case of the Great Barrington Declaration or, you know, the lab leak theory.
	Then what you of course have to do is undermine where those voices are coming from.
	And you're right, this extraordinary array of hypocritical tactics that are deployed suggest a kind of It would be on nihilism, beyond amorality.
	It's almost a kind of cynicism that really scares me, particularly given that I've had recently some experiences of how these institutions can function.
	Note the corroborating component that the media were willing to perform.
	Did you note that there was a great willingness in addition to the censor practice and social media spaces?
	...in legacy media sites to condemn, criticize you and frame you.
	Because even when you said that, even though this is stuff I know about already, when I just hear Harvard, Stanford, Oxford in relation to a scientific endeavor and, you know, furthering a discourse, I think, oh, well, this sounds pretty legitimate.
	How did they even bypass that?
	Well, I mean, they were almost immediately after we wrote the declaration, I started, there was pit pieces about me and Sinatra and Martin essentially accusing us of wanting to let the virus rip.
	The argument was that we were somehow being deeply irresponsible by wanting to just ignore the virus.
	Again, as I've said, even though we wanted focus protection.
	You saw story after story in mainstream media saying this, essentially pushing this propaganda campaign.
	There was a story in the Washington Post.
	There was a story in the New York Times.
	Story after story, essentially pushing this lie.
	What we wanted was a discussion of how to better protect vulnerable older people.
	And in fact, I did a And now, I'd already had experience with this, Russell, before this.
	In April of 2020, I'd written a study, which was basically showing that the disease had spread much more broadly than people had realized, even as early as April of 2020, using antibody evidence from blood in the population.
	And what we found was that the 50 cases, you know, for every single person that had been identified as a case, the infection fatality rose much lower.
	That led to a tremendous number of personal hit pieces against me.
	Allegations that I had taken money to change the study, which was an absolute lie, hit pieces against my wife, who had written an email to my kid's middle school listserv, encouraging them to join the study, because she'd committed the sin of saying that if you have a positive antibody, that might mean you are immune.
	Which has turned out to be true, you know.
	And it was for me personally, as a scientist, I've just written papers and published them in journals all my life.
	I never faced that kind of media assault.
	I felt helpless to protect my family.
	For a month, I lost 30 pounds because I couldn't sleep.
	I forgot to eat.
	You know, in April, May 2020.
	And for me, it was a very, very difficult time.
	The power of the, essentially, the power of these conventional media sources to excommunicate you is tremendous.
	And I felt the full brunt of that before I decided I was just going to need to keep doing my job, which was to say what the scientific evidence said and provide health policy advice to the public.
	Sorry, go ahead, Russell.
	I was thinking about, like, yours is a name that I've heard from the beginning because it was a significant, it was a pivotal moment in spite of how it was handled, the Great Barrington Declaration, and your name, whilst I'm still never entirely confident, Jay Bhattacharya, like, was one of the names that was synonymous with the credible opposition to the dominant narrative, and for me, therefore, legitimised my own concern And an amateur analysis of how scientific orthodoxy was being mobilized to legitimize authority and it's almost at odds with what science is supposed to be essentially.
	It made me realize what dogmatism is and that dogmatism is not alloyed indecipherably or inextricably to religion or politics.
	Dogma means that you're willing to say stuff like, I'm science, if you argue with me, you're arguing with science.
	It's a kind of trait.
	It's a sort of a human trait.
	And to hear that you actually suffered in the way that you just described, obviously particularly because of recent experiences that I've encountered, shall we say, Like, it provides a sort of a, you know, you were right.
	You were actually right.
	What does it mean, like, to someone like you, who's a scientist, a career scientist at Harvard, whose previous life has never taken you into these sort of chasms and schisms of controversy, What does it tell you about how science can be industrialised, weaponised, deployed, defied, utilised in order to create conformity, oppression?
	It must terrify you.
	I mean, it really does.
	I mean, of course, I knew the power of science.
	I mean, that's one of the reasons that anyone enters science is because it is a powerful tool to learn about the physical world through this process.
	But I always viewed it as a fundamentally humble thing, right?
	If I am doing science, I have some idea.
	It's always a provisional idea.
	And it's tempered by data and by other critics who say, look Jay, you've thought of this wrong.
	This piece of data disagrees with how you think.
	And then I change my mind on the basis of those data.
	It's a fundamentally humbling thing if you're actually going to do science for a living.
	To see it turned into dogma, as you say, is a violation of basically every norm that I've lived by in my entire career.
	It basically means that I don't really need to know what the data say.
	I don't really need to be creative and think about different hypotheses.
	All I have to do is I have to just pay attention to what the most powerful people inside the scientific community say, and then I'll know the truth.
	As you say, it's not simply, it's not a matter of like a particular, you know, it's not a religious thing.
	It's not even just even a political thing.
	It is just, I think, is a common human thing to have that hubris.
	Even scientists themselves often have that hubris.
	When you get things right, I mean, it's like you feel like you're on the top of the world.
	You make some prediction and it comes out to be true.
	But then the next prediction you make is going to be wrong.
	I mean, you have to remember all the time in science that every idea may be met with a fact that disproves it, even if you had it, even if you're the brightest person.
	Even Einstein was wrong over and over again.
	Of course, he was right about some fundamental things.
	So I think that humility, the loss of it during the pandemic, was a real shock to me.
	But then to see how that power is used in the world outside of science, because the ability to distinguish between true and false, If you have an entity that can do that, the power is tremendous.
	It's far beyond what kings of ancient times had.
	It's analogous to what maybe the medieval church had.
	You say the distinction between which was true and false, but even within religious traditions, the best of religious traditions have at their center a fundamental humility.
	God is beyond us.
	We are not God.
	So it's every human endeavor, I think, faces this.
	But during the pandemic, it was deployed at scale to say, look, Jay from Stanford and Martin from Harvard and Sunetra from Oxford are wrong just because Tony Fauci says so.
	By the way, we discovered this was not just like an organic reaction.
	It was a specific organized campaign.
	Four days after we wrote the declaration, the head of the National Institute of Health, Francis Collins, wrote an email to Tony Fauci calling me, Martin Sinatra, fringe epidemiologist, F-R-I-N-G-E.
	The card that I made up says fringe epidemiology on it now.
	It's so it's it was one of these things where like the head of the National Institute of Health and then he called for a devastating takedown in an email to Tony Fauci.
	Devastating takedown.
	He used those words.
	And that led to the propaganda campaign.
	They used the control of what the press sees as true and false to smear us and destroy us.
	It's one of these things, if it's some random scientist doing it, even a prominent scientist doing it, that's one thing.
	But the head of the National Institute of Health controls $45 billion of money that And that amount of money essentially makes and breaks the careers of every biomedical scientist known in the U.S.
	and many scientists of note outside the U.S.
	It's very difficult to cross someone like that.
	If someone like that says, this guy's a fringe epidemiologist, let's do a devastating takedown, even a scientist that agrees with us is going to want to stay silent.
	It's unfortunate and ridiculous that they use the phrase devastating takedown because that's the sort of thing that people with evil intentions say.
	They don't say that.
	You look like the baddies.
	Let us do a draconian and wicked, I have a plan, a coup.
	It's ridiculous.
	Did you, were you surprised by how few people were willing to support you?
	Were you heartened by the support that you received?
	And did you, were there times, I mean, given that you just said you lost 30 pounds, you didn't sleep and you forgot to eat, which all seems pretty unscientific to me, as a matter of fact, you should have been paying attention in the lab of your life.
	I wonder, like, was it interpersonally challenging and did you get a lot of heat from Harvard and stuff?
	Well, yeah, so I'm actually at Stanford, but I got a lot of grief from friends of mine at Stanford.
	But on the other hand, almost a million people signed the declaration.
	I hope you signed it, Russell.
	There were tens of thousands of scientists and epidemiologists signed it.
	It created a community of people that found each other.
	Before that, I felt isolated and alone.
	As you said, Russell, for you, you heard it and it gave you a sense that you weren't crazy.
	There was some sense that what you were seeing with your own eyes could be true.
	It wasn't just some figment.
	That was one of the major goals of the Declaration, to tell people You know, lots of scientists are seeing what you were seeing.
	Lots of scientists are saying, look, look at the devastation we're causing to the poor.
	Like, you know, in Uganda, four and a half million children were out of school for two years because of the lockdowns.
	I mean, actually 15 million people, kids are out of school for two years.
	Four and a half million never came back to school in Uganda.
	And it turns out the UN did this report on this around Africa.
	It turns out a lot of those kids didn't come back because the little girls were sold into sexual slavery and the little boys were put into child labor.
	Because the reason is their families were put on the brink of starvation by the economic dislocations caused by the lockdowns.
	We put those poor families in this like devastating bind where they had to like essentially either do this terrible thing to their children or starve them.
	That's what those lockdowns were doing.
	That's the cruelty of the lockdowns.
	And a lot of scientists are saying, look, this is not even stopping the disease from spreading.
	Why are we doing this?
	Let's protect the elderly better.
	We weren't protecting them with the lockdowns.
	It was the opposite of science.
	And thank you for introducing me to a level of reality that I'd not Pondered because I was still somewhat selfishly looking at the lockdown for the personal inconvenience I'd endured and perhaps on occasion I would think of the psychological impact and the educational impact and their mental health and suicide and all of those other things that we were told not to think about or worry about when people were speculatively discussing those things and now to introduce to it rafts of almost inconceivable suffering
	For children in Uganda, that's a new component to consider.
	I thought the phrase I found myself using was, but in this instance, science is a subset of a different ideology, whether that's an economic ideology or an authoritarian ideology or sort of an unconscious ideology.
	It's a subset.
	Science is not freely functioning.
	It's science within censorship, so it's no longer worthy of the name, therefore.
	This idea of a subjugated science, a deployed science, does that seem right to you, Doctor?
	I mean, that's exactly right.
	You can't have science without the ability to speak to one another, to be able to freely, without undue influence.
	A lot of the distortions in science that we documented before the pandemic come from this.
	So like, for instance, the role that pharmaceutical money plays in scientific output.
	Huge, huge amounts of money poured into doing science that's essentially aimed at making sure that pharmaceutical companies do well, right?
	That's distorted science.
	That was known before the pandemic, and there's mechanisms in place to try to... You don't want to say, if you're a pharmaceutical company, you can't do science.
	What you want to say is, look, you have to declare that you are a pharmaceutical company-funded scientist, and now you can use that in your assessment of the scientific result.
	Right.
	I personally never taken any pharmaceutical company money.
	So I never I just because I wanted to stay independent of that.
	Wow, you realize then on some personal and ethical level that to take that money and this is not a judgment of obviously it seems like the majority I presume people were funded in that manner.
	But you personally made a choice that that would impede your ability to indeed be a scientist, and you were right about that.
	It's been proven.
	I wonder, Jay, what you think, if you'd like to explore further the necessity for discourse, conversation, account and narratives in the pursuit of true objectivity.
	And how that aligns with your recent experiences in federal court and the attempts to further curtail, legislate against free speech by the Biden administration.
	Tell us about that recent, and I understand you were victorious.
	The whole experience we've been talking about led me to the suspicion that this suppression of scientific speech wasn't simply an organic thing.
	That in fact there was a campaign organized by governments to suppress scientific discussion online.
	A lot of people suspected with social media is doing it, right?
	So YouTube, for instance, banning your video.
	I mean, last time I was on, Russell, you told me that you were only going to say approved things to put on YouTube and then the rest you'll put on Rumble.
	That's right.
	Why are there approved things for someone having a discussion about scientific matters to be put on YouTube?
	Why can't we just have that discussion?
	Scientific discussion requires there to be people disagreeing.
	One person will be right, one person will be wrong.
	It's normal.
	If you suppress things you always think are wrong, you're not going to have science.
	So the question is, why are these social media companies doing this?
	Their interest is to foster free discussion.
	These are not illegal ideas.
	Are there such a thing as illegal ideas?
	Their business interests would normally cut in favor of allowing this kind of speech, and yet they didn't.
	It turns out, so the Missouri and Louisiana Attorney General's offices approached me, Martin Kulldorff, Aaron Cariotti, another scientist, and asked us if we'd be willing to join any lawsuit against the Biden administration.
	That lawsuit in federal court led to discovery where we read the emails of a tremendous number of federal officials in the White House, in the CDC, in the Surgeon General's office, in the FBI, in the State Department.
	Basically, what the Biden administration did was that they would Contact social media companies.
	Give them a hit list for censorship.
	These are the ideas you need to censor.
	These are the people you need to censor.
	And they would then threaten the social media companies that if you don't censor these people and these ideas, we're going to regulate you out of existence.
	Often the threat was implied.
	And a lot of these social media companies, like Stockholm Syndrome, they would just say, oh yeah, what's the next thing we need to censor?
	Because they just didn't want to fight.
	Some of them fought back sometimes, but it was that whole censorship industrial complex, essentially.
	The judge called it a new ministry of truth.
	Wow.
	Using, quoting, directly quoting Orwell.
	And, you know, it was a federal judge that found this.
	Then it was the Biden administration that appealed it, saying that they needed to be able to censor to keep the public safe.
	And then a district court basically said, you can't do that.
	That violates the American First Amendment.
	I was and this is just this, by the way, all this just came out this this year, just in past this summer, actually.
	But the judge issued his ruling in July 4, 2023.
	So what we now see is part of the mechanisms by which the scientific discussion during the pandemic was suppressed, the policy discussion was suppressed, was by direct government policy.
	Governments decided, and I'm certain it's not just the United States government did this, I know the UK government was involved in this as well, based on reports I've seen from organizations like Big Brother Watch, you know, what you have is essentially a government policy in the West to suppress Dissident voices.
	Because they think that the dissidents are so dangerous to public health.
	At least that's the argument that they make when they're pressed on it in court.
	But it doesn't seem that the way that they behave generally is motivated by the desire to preserve, protect and improve public health.
	Otherwise you would not have made those decisions relatively early in the pandemic period that caused so much damage and even for children to be sold into sexual slavery.
	It seems that these choices were at best misguided and at worst malevolent.
	That dissidents and opposing their dominating narratives is being Gosh, I sometimes feel it's not even incrementally.
	In a way that appears to be coordinated, the possibility for dissent is being shut down.
	Legislation in the UK, the new, again, the sort of ludicrously and somewhat ironically named online safety bill in Canada, they've introduced new laws to control information in these type of spaces.
	And based on what you've just told us, and the kind of relationships between government and social media platforms, this legislation is merely enshrining something that's been
	happening less formally and will now happen to a far greater degree and the dangers that you've
	described, the evident, observable, actual danger that has taken place, the lives that have
	been lost, the lives that have been ruined, it feels like this is gonna get worse.
	Now, I understand that YouTube are using the WHO's medical guidelines now, not just for COVID, but for all diseases.
	The WHO is preparing a pandemic treaty that will allow them to further bypass national sovereignty, taking, I think, 5% of the budgets of Like of any nation that's a participant in the treaty and people's fears that the censorship is increasing, surveillance is increasing, globalism and by what I mean by globalism is that there are unelected bodies that are not tethered to nations and therefore are not democratically accountable are making decisions transcendent of democracies and so
	It's like this subject that we're discussing that used to just be about oh like the pandemic which we're already being sort of invited to forget and just move beyond because as I say of the Omnicrisis, of the endless wars, escalating wars, the whole just sort of climate of horror and fracture.
	It appears to me that this is a significant issue and it's one that is going to It's increasing in its power.
	These kind of measures are increasing in spite of your recent significant victory.
	I mean, I share with you the dread of the future if we allow this kind of infrastructure to stay in place.
	You mentioned the WHO.
	You know, the second largest funder of the WHO is the Gates Foundation.
	That guy!
	But doesn't he also invest in vaccines?
	Wait a minute!
	I mean, and the WHO, it's not as if they got things right all the time.
	During the pandemic, a few days after we wrote the Great Barrington Declaration, the Great Barrington Declaration is premised on the idea that if you get COVID and recover, you have some immunity, right?
	That's what herd immunity is based on, which is true.
	You get some immunity after you recover from COVID.
	The WHO changed the definition of herd immunity to exclude immunity after recovery from the disease.
	Only vaccines produced immunity in the definition of herd immunity, and they did that in response to the Great Barrington Declaration.
	The WHO put out misinformation over and over, information at odds with the scientific data over and over and over again during the pandemic.
	They downplayed the damage to the poorest places of the world.
	They recommended the lockdowns because in February 2020, they thought that what China did had worked, that the lockdowns would get rid of the disease everywhere if we just did what China did.
	The World Health Organization has a lot to answer for, and to have YouTube then say, okay, we're going to take this organization that failed so fundamentally during the pandemic and take it as our lodestar, the science itself, and we'll suppress everyone that disagrees with them.
	Well, you know, why even have science?
	I mean, that's one of these things where, like, you essentially are done, you know, you've created this epistemic bubble that cannot be pierced because you say this organization has a monopoly on the truth.
	It is really scary.
	I do think that the American First Amendment, before the Missouri v. Biden case, I had started to despair.
	During the case, and especially with the recent rulings, I'm starting to feel a glimmer of hope, Russell.
	I hope you don't talk me out of it, because I think I think the American First Amendment might be strong enough to shatter this whole regime.
	Do you think so?
	And I'm not trying to talk you out of hope.
	I need hope.
	I need your hope and I certainly need my own.
	I'm just looking at the article you wrote, I think, on Substack about your experience, I think, on arriving in America and becoming an American citizen, at least, and you talk about the First Amendment and how that it's Not only constitutional, but it's almost formative, and it's in some ways the crucible of all other American values, rights, and even perhaps even human rights.
	Can you sort of reprise what you mean?
	I got a little emotional when I wrote that piece, Russell.
	It was for Barry Weiss's sub-stack of Free Press.
	When the July 4th ruling came down from the judge saying that the Biden administration had violated my First Amendment rights, my free speech rights, I thought back to when I first arrived in the United States.
	I was four years old.
	My parents came from India.
	They came for economic opportunity.
	My dad was an engineer.
	My mom ran a daycare center.
	In India, it was much harder.
	But they also came in part because You know, the instability of political regimes in India is like the mid-70s, early 70s.
	Just shortly after we came, Indira Gandhi, the Prime Minister of India, declared an emergency.
	Essentially suspended Indian democracy through her opponents in jail.
	Suspended basic civil rights.
	Killed a lot of people, actually, that opposed her during a state of emergency that she declared.
	And I remember in my family, I was young then, very young then, but just the horror that this could happen in their home country, and also the relief that we were in a country that valued free speech, where that kind of suppression of dissident ideas could never happen.
	That for me was a formative value, like a sense of like, you know, the United States can stand as a bulwark against this kind of authoritarian power.
	And when the judge ruled in favor of the First Amendment in this case, it cracked open, I think, this entire enterprise.
	Because it doesn't take much, Russell.
	It just takes a few people telling the truth.
	that are heard widely, that then shatters the power of these authoritarians.
	I really very firmly believe that.
	It can cost a lot to the people telling the truth, of course, but that cost is part of how we renew our societies, that we bring these basic fundamental values back to our societies, fundamental ideas, you know,
	like the scientific ideas like we've been talking about, ideas of free expression.
	Those, I think free expression to me is the fundamental thing
	that allows even David to overthrow Goliath.
	It seems that we move in our conversations between the importance of the work that you do
	because it is empirical, because you're able to say, wait a minute, that's not true.
	I can prove it's not true.
	This is not conjecture.
	This is not modeling.
	This is not theology.
	This is, look, we can show you.
	And to, in a sense, what can be extrapolated from that and what can be observed when that kind of data is censored, shut down, ignored, attacked.
	So...
	It's interesting that the pandemic period had nestled within it so many little crises, sociological, ideological, philosophical, judicial, political, and even within the biological component, The cover-up of myocarditis and the administering of vaccines.
	There's the non-medical interventions.
	There's the social interventions.
	We're now beginning to go, OK, all right, well, the lockdowns were wrong.
	The masks didn't work.
	Social distancing was arbitrary.
	That's why people were having parties during it, because they knew it wasn't dangerous.
	They were just letting us know it was dangerous.
	An area of conjecture, of course, is Oh, now they have recognised that it is possible to impose levels of previously unimagined control on a population as long as they legitimise it.
	It is possible to destroy dissenting voices as long as you are able to use information that legitimises the destruction of those voices.
	When it comes to myocarditis and the increased rates of myocarditis in people that have taken vaccines and the way that information was initially framed, can you tell us what we have learned with that particular little lie?
	Now that is a little bit heartbreaking because when the vaccines were first introduced, they had run honest studies, like large-scale randomized studies.
	Tens of thousands of people enrolled in a control arm that included placebo.
	But you know, the thing about vaccines, when you go from tens of thousands to billions, you're going to learn things that you didn't know automatically.
	They're going to be people that have conditions that are a result of the vaccine sometimes that you learn about.
	The way that it's always been handled in the past is an honesty of like, okay, if you see these conditions in this group, you tell people in that group, maybe don't take this vaccine, maybe take a different vaccine, maybe You put it off and tell them to go talk to their doctor, decide what's best for them.
	A lot of nuanced discussion based on what you learn after the vaccine has been rolled out.
	One of the things we learned very early on in the rollout of this vaccine is that young men taking this vaccine have a higher elevated risk of myocarditis.
	Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle.
	And, you know, it can be deadly.
	It's not like it's a medine thing.
	Most people that get it, it goes away.
	But it's not something you want.
	And it can last a long time.
	It can be debilitating.
	It can even be deadly.
	Right?
	And so in young men, you see on elevated risk, there's a fight in the scientific literature about exactly how elevated it is.
	Maybe 1 in 2,000, 1 in 10,000.
	I mean, I believe anywhere in between there.
	And I think, but that's high enough to say, well, look, I'm going to give it to billions of people, including, you know, hundreds of millions of young men.
	I'm going to end up getting a lot of cases of myocarditis.
	And normally with vaccines, you want something to be so safe that no one would question not just that vaccine, but all vaccines.
	If you have a 1 in 5,000 risk of some severe outcome, you would probably be very careful with that vaccine for that group because you don't want to create this skepticism about all vaccines because you're seeing a subgroup of people hurt by this vaccine.
	That's what they did, by the way, in the United States with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
	When they saw an elevated risk of thrombocytopenia and clotting in older women and middle-aged women, they paused the rollout of the vaccine.
	My colleague, Martin Kulldorff, who wrote the Great Parenthood Declaration, disagreed with me about this, but I actually think it was probably the reasonable thing to do.
	You know, again, you could argue with me about this, whether I'm right or wrong.
	But the point is that's consistent with what we normally do with vaccines.
	As soon as there's a signal, we pause, we're careful about it.
	Because even relatively rare signals can undermine public confidence in all vaccines.
	That's why most of the traditional vaccines that are out there, we have a lot of confidence in it because they pull them every time there's something, just a few, one in a million cases of something, and they're very careful about it.
	With this vaccine, that caution was thrown to the wind, especially with the mRNA vaccines, and the signal was for young men.
	It should have led to a pause for young men taking the mRNA vaccines, and it didn't.
	Certainly vaccines have been cancelled on the basis of much statistically lower impact than that, I understand.
	And this sort of crisis of confidence in our institutions and science itself has to be halted at some point because in a way science is one of the few things that can prevent us becoming hysterical because I wondered As many people surely must, if you have felt that the kind of certainty that you've had in the institutions to a degree you participate in, if you consider at least science to be an institution, although I recognise there are many, many sectors within that, plainly the funding being a significant point of difference,
	I wonder if, like, you know, when you say something like, you know, vaccines historically have been like, you know, they're verifiably much safer.
	Is there anything that happened in the pandemic period that made you think, hold on a minute, I'm gonna have to review the trust that I'd bestowed on either other medical or legislative or regulatory, you know, like, for example, Andy Fauci.
	Most people didn't think about Andy Fauci very much prior to that.
	I feel like during the AIDS crisis, some people were like, whoa, he's, this guy's making some crazy decisions and many might argue some crazy dollars as well through some of those royalty arrangements.
	But Generally speaking, it's not something you think about.
	I wonder if you've had the opportunity, chance or inclination to review some areas that you previously would have considered that didn't require further analysis.
	I mean, it's funny, Russell, you ask that, because I actually have on my bookshelf somewhere a textbook that Anthony Fauci edited, from which I learned internal medicine.
	You know, it was, you know, before the pandemic, I had tremendous admiration for him.
	I had to revise that admiration considerably.
	I've been at Stanford for 37 years, first as a student, then as a professor, and the motto of the university is the winds of freedom blow, and they didn't blow during the pandemic.
	A lot of my colleagues I'm now deeply disappointed in I do think you have to resist the urge to say, everything I knew before was wrong.
	I don't think that's true.
	But it is absolutely an opportunity to revisit those things and try to understand some of the things.
	Why do I think those things?
	Do I still think those things in light of new evidence?
	We always have to do this.
	In any endeavor, we're going to take a lot of things for granted.
	Science has to take, by the way, when you do science, you take a lot of things for granted.
	I'm not going to revisit gravity.
	It's not like I have to take for granted certain things when I do science.
	And you're right.
	But I think part of science's genius is that we can go back and question even those foundational things.
	Most of the time, those foundational things are foundational for a reason.
	There's a lot of evidence behind them.
	But it's not wrong to go back and to look.
	And on vaccines, I actually worked on vaccine safety with the Food and Drug Administration in the U.S.
	before the pandemic.
	That kind of questioning happens all the time with vaccines.
	It's a normal part of why vaccines can be recommended at scale, is because as soon as there's a safety signal, you say, okay, well, even if it turns out to be just a statistical artifact, you still, with an abundance of caution, you pull the vaccine.
	Right?
	It's frustrating, but you do that because you want to make sure that the public sees vaccines as safe.
	It's the process by which you do that that allows the vaccines to be seen as safe.
	And I am completely in favor of revisiting.
	I mean, I think that's part of what we do.
	I suspect many of the vaccines we have that I think are quite essential, like the MMR vaccine, will see as essential even if we revisit.
	But maybe others won't.
	I don't know.
	I mean, this is a scientific process.
	Personally, I'm confident enough that I would give my kids those traditional childhood vaccines.
	But I can understand the desire to revisit, given how poorly our scientific institutions, our regulatory institutions did during the pandemic, to protect the health of the public.
	I can completely understand where that impetus is coming from.
	Yeah, because you start to question who's spending money to ensure that non-profitable drugs are promoted, that profitable drugs are rigorously explored.
	Where's that appetite coming from and what is this trend and what was revealed during that period?
	That's a very sort of open-hearted and open-minded answer.
	And I was thinking about like, you know, revisiting foundational principles and it Yeah, epochs are defined by those moments of revision and revelation, whether it's heliocentrism, if I'm saying it right, or in the nature of sub-particular reality.
	When those revelations are made, It defines our species, it defines our kind, it defines our time, and that's why the neutrality and objectivity of science has to be protected in the same way that something like free speech has to be protected.
	When science is a subset of financial interests and methods of dominion, then it's difficult to see how you're not going to end up in some kind of form of tyranny as a result of that, because of the biases accumulatively Will lead to the end of the ability for debate and the ability to undergird dissident voices in so many ways.
	Getting to the sort of not the heart of the matter but a significant part of the matter it seems that here it says Moderna and Pfizer made a thousand dollars of profit every second.
	They charge governments up to 24 times more than the potential cost of generic production.
	It seems that there were many systemic problems, plainly, between the kind of relationships
	between, let's just say, government and big tech, government and big pharma.
	It seems that what's needed is new capacity for regulation.
	And I'm saying decentralization of power, breaking up of monopolies in all the areas
	where they appear to be able to reign, to reduce, indeed, end the ability of companies
	of this scale to influence government through lobbying and other forms of funding.
	And these are the kind of ideas that need to be discussed in independent media and won't
	be discussed outside of it.
	Absolutely.
	I mean, I think that there's almost a revolving door, it seems like.
	I didn't really know this, really.
	I mean, I knew that it existed, but I didn't realize the scope of it before the pandemic.
	The regulatory agencies that are supposed to oversee and represent the public interest, you know, the Food and Drug Administration, the CDC, a lot of this, a lot of that has, there's this like revolving door with industry.
	There's a sense of where the regulators who are supposed to protect the public from the depredations of the pharmaceutical companies are often representing the pharmaceutical companies.
	You have former FDA chairs now on the board of big pharmaceutical companies.
	It just looks really bad.
	And it is really bad.
	You want an independent regulator And governments during the pandemic essentially became partners with pharmaceutical companies.
	You mentioned Moderna and Pfizer.
	Governments around the world, the contracts they wrote with them essentially said there's no liability if you have a bad product.
	entity ever has that deal.
	If you have a bad product, you're part of the deal of capitalism is that you are responsible for it.
	You have to make amends for it.
	You have to pay penalties for it, right?
	You have the wrong incentives in place if you don't have some possibility that if you do something bad, something bad will happen to you.
	And essentially that's what these deals with the pharmaceutical companies did, is they told the pharmaceutical companies, you can have a bad product and you don't have to pay the price for it.
	I can't believe it that I'd ever say we have to get back to capitalism.
	I didn't realize that we'd gone so far beyond it in so many areas where subsidized energy companies are able to profit in energy crises, pharmaceutical companies benefit in health and medical crises.
	Military-industrial complex organizations benefit in wars.
	Seems that there's some opportunity for real review.
	Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, thank you so much for joining us today.
	Thank you for your easy, effortless, or at least it seems effortless, ability to communicate complex ideas gently, and thank you for the plain morality of your position and the lack of hubris and presence of humility that's Most heartening for me.
	You suggested that somehow I could diminish your hope over the course of this conversation.
	Certainly you've lifted and increased mine, so thank you.
	Thank you, Russell.
	It was a real pleasure and honor to talk with you.
	There you are!
	Beautiful conversations can still take place even in this increasing omnicrisis, even in this fragmented and fractured space.
	That's why it's so important that you support us.
	If you can, become an Awakened Wonder and support these conversations.
	Also, support Dr. J. Support Dr. J by going to illusionofconsensus on Substack.
	Follow him on X, where he's Dr. J Bhattacharya.
	It's sort of how it sounds.
	We'll post the spelling in the description there.
	Next week on the show, we've got another fantastic week, and you're going to love this.
	You're going to love it, and I'm going to want you to join us, that's right, live to speak with Matt Taibbi.
	You know who Matt is.
	Larry Sanger, he's one of the founders of Wikipedia, who believes that Wikipedia's gone a little off track.
	And Asim Malhotra, a man for whom I had to invent a sign because of his ability to be loquacious.
	Click that red awaken button, become a member of the Locals Community.
	Here's just some of the things we're offering.
	Meditations, readings, ways to change the world.
	What's this community about now?
	What are we doing this for?
	Are we serious?
	Because, you know, you listen to Jay Bhattacharya for a moment and you think, uh-oh!
	Revolution required, and those of you that are supporting our movement this week include Tom Town, Great Candidate, Dean O'Dean 3, Brock 23, and Lila 16.
	Join us tomorrow, not for more of the same, no, not for that, but for more of the different.
	Until then, if you can, stay free.
	Switch on.
	Switch on.
	Man, he's switching.
	Switch on.

▲