Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 24, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand

01:31:53

“Wait, They Did WHAT?!” Did Pfizer Give People A Different Vaccine?! - Stay Free #230

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I'm going to go ahead and do that. And then I'm going to go ahead and do the other one.
	I'm going to go ahead and do that.
	Bye, bye, dude.
	I'm rotting, so I'm looking for the sea.
	In this video, you're going to see the future.
	We've got a live shot there.
	Hello there, you awakening wonders.
	Thanks for joining me for Stay Free with Russell Brand today.
	Thank you for being a part of this movement.
	Thank you for believing in revolution.
	Thank you for being willing to take part in the change inside yourself that's necessary if we're gonna change the world.
	Thank you for not being one of the people that watches mainstream legacy media and says, Everything's as it seems.
	Let's do as we're told.
	Let's sit like larvae in our homes being pumped full of some synthetic sugary fluid rather than the honey of sweet truth.
	Sorry I was late you lot.
	Guess who I'm talking to?
	Jordan Peterson and we just did a fantastic Two hour long interview that if you are an awakened wonder and press the red button to become one, you can see straight away full two hour long conversation with me and JP.
	Fantastic.
	And SheBitesALot says we want Gareth.
	Gareth is just there.
	And Gareth will return in peacetimes.
	When we have peace, Gareth will return.
	So that is why we've got to work together.
	When we hit 20,000 live viewers, Gareth will return.
	And I'm seeing you now, there's nearly 11,000 when we get to 20,000.
	So if you're watching this anywhere other than Rumble, other than locals, I like to see you there in locals.
	I like you in my little community.
	I'm looking at the various screens where I can see you.
	Get over to Rumble.
	You might be watching this on YouTube now, and you can watch it for a while, but a little bit later, Dr. Bob Gill will be joining us.
	He used to just be a family doctor.
	Then the pandemic came around, and he realized that he, like many physicians across the world, was being lied to.
	And you would have realized that, I suppose, maybe during the Sackler crisis, the opioid crisis, where they said, Why don't you try a little bit of risk-free fentanyl?
	Try it.
	If one's good, 20's fantastic!
	And those very same companies and that very same ideology, come the crisis time of the pandemic, who did we turn to?
	The just, the judicious, the awakened, the enlightened?
	No!
	The peripherally, perennially, and dreadfully frightened.
	That's who we turn to.
	Pfizer, sweet lady Pfizer herself, entrusted with undue power.
	Well at least they're admitting, I can't even say it, you know what they're admitting right?
	Let me know in the chat if you can see that.
	Can't say it while we're still on YouTube and if you're an awakened wonder watching this on YouTube, if you got the notification, I suppose I'm grateful for even that because we know whose tune YouTube dances to.
	The government say demonetize, YouTube says let's do it.
	Not over on Rumble, where people speak freely, where we can unify together.
	So Dr. Bob Gill's coming up a little bit later, and my apologies for my tardiness, because I loves ya, and I should nary be late.
	Have you seen the breaking news?
	There's Trump's gagging order, we're talking about that.
	We're talking as well, of course, about Trump's former campaign lawyer, Jenna Ellis, pleading guilty in Georgia.
	What do you think about that, guys?
	Is that good?
	Is that good stuff?
	Oh, is it?
	Is that?
	Is this the final nail for Trump?
	Or will Trump, the perpetual phoenix, continue to rise?
	I think we've got that story here.
	And also we're going to be talking about Wikipedia and his funny joke.
	You know, Musk's funny joke.
	Did you see that?
	Wikipedia, that stuff.
	Love it.
	Oh, increase volume, please, it says here in the chat.
	So we've had stuff like that before, so I'm going to assume it's necessary.
	Get the volume up on the rumble stream, please.
	Can someone tell me they've heard that and give me a response time for that?
	Thank you very much.
	Now first of all, let's have a look at the Trump campaign lawyer, or at least a news
	report on that, over from our friends at their legacy media, baby.
	News that just came through out of the state of Georgia, moving to a different criminal
	case where Jenna Ellis, one of Trump's former attorneys, now joining Sidney Powell in pleading
	guilty.
	What do you read into that?
	That's right.
	Well, you know, Willie, we've seen four pleas so far in that Fulton County case.
	Three of them have come from people who behaved in a legal capacity.
	And I think going back to Michael Cohen, there's a lesson here that Trump didn't appear to have absorbed.
	Hell hath no fury like a former lawyer whose own legal fees were unpaid and then is left to hang in the It's like the old saying goes, hell hath no fury like a former... Queen McSteve, are you drunk, Russell?
	No, not for 20 years.
	For 20 years not drunk.
	That's not a catchphrase.
	That's never going to catch on, is it?
	Hell hath no fury like a lawyer not paid their fees.
	So I guess there's an indication.
	Still quiet, it says, Leggie23.
	Louder, someone's saying.
	Turn the audio up louder.
	Make it louder, please, says Leggie23.
	Can you tell me that you've got that?
	And how long it will be guys because it's super important to our audience lots of people asking for that on the chat 13,000 people with us now when we get to 20,000 we will parade Gareth around on roller skates Okay, so see you the rest of the story from it's from MSNBC.
	to see what they say.
	Win while that person is being investigated.
	That certainly seems to be what we're also seeing from Ken Chesbrough's plea, from Sidney
	Powell's plea, and now Jenna Ellis' plea.
	All three of them are believed not to have had their legal fees paid by Trump.
	And then as defendants and or people under investigation, their own legal fees, you know,
	in terms of their roles as defendants or investigative persons, weren't being paid.
	The poverty that that caused for all three of these people could have been a major factor
	in their decisions to plea.
	That's no good is it?
	If actually it's not about justice because they've not been paid their fees.
	So tell me, do you think this escalation spells the end for Trump?
	Put Y in the chat if you think this is the end for Trump or N in the chat if you think that Trump will prevail.
	And if we want to get our facts straight what better than a quick trip to Wikipedia where the truth is available to you uneditorialized except for in the view of course of Elon Musk who says that he'll give it a billion dollars if they change their name from Wikipedia to Dickipedia.
	I like this aspect of Elon Musk that's a pure prankster.
	Don't you?
	You know that he just wants to use money.
	But last time he did something like that, he ended up owning Twitter, didn't he?
	I'll just buy Twitter then.
	And then now he's got that Bloody thing.
	That albatross around his neck changed its name to X. Is this going to end up with Elon Musk owning Wikipedia with a bloody stupid name?
	Should he do that?
	Should it change it?
	The trickster in me rather likes the idea that Wikipedia will have to change its name begrudgingly to Dickipedia and still take itself seriously on their stationery.
	It'll be irritating for them.
	We had Larry Sanger on the show recently.
	You're familiar with Larry Sanger, you guys.
	He's one of the founders of Wikipedia who sort of disavows it now.
	He says it's become editorialised.
	He says it's become a tool of the establishment.
	He says it's lost its way and lost its objectivity.
	Here's a conversation we had with Larry Sanger.
	He wants a kind of decentralised but unified approach to the internet.
	A lot of you, I think you're basically saying no when it comes to Trump, that this won't be the end of Trump.
	Is there anything they could say about Donald Trump that would disrupt your love of Trump, who you see as the berserker?
	We've got some great Trump stories coming up, so stay with us.
	The berserker in the somewhat corrupted capital system.
	Okay, let's have a look at Larry Sanger now.
	You'll like this.
	I was talking to him about information, about how How editorialized the data we consume is.
	Even something like Wikipedia, which I suppose is meant to be a neutral source of information, is heavily editorialized.
	But I had a little fool around with him as well.
	He's absolutely adorable.
	I have to say, Wikipedia is not the only encyclopedia out there.
	And there is, I hope you're going to ask me about the solution, because there is a very clear solution.
	All right.
	Well, Larry, it would be quite remiss and almost unbearably recalcitrant for me now not to say.
	Larry, watch me do this because I'm a professional.
	Larry, this is very difficult for me to listen to.
	Almost inducing despair.
	If only there was some sort of solution to this centralised, authoritarian, highly censored and cultivated space.
	Is there?
	There is.
	There is.
	That's all we've got time for today.
	We're going to have to... That's a joke.
	Matt, I'm part of the problem!
	He loved that.
	He loved that little joke.
	OK, so you guys, there's nothing, nothing that could sway you from your support of Donald Trump.
	I'm looking at the Rumble chat.
	In particular, we're at 17,000 now.
	We are so close to Gareth Roy being dragged around on a skateboard.
	Did we say skateboard or roller skates?
	He's going to be pulled out here.
	If that's what it takes, if that's what you want, if that's what's going to make you happy, we will provide it.
	For democracy and free speech, live on Rumble.
	If you're watching this on YouTube, Dr. Bob Gill coming up.
	Former family doctor turned radical crusader against the influence of Big Pharma.
	We'll be talking about a variety of subjects that YouTube would not permit.
	For now though, Donald Trump is critiquing the Capitol.
	Not politically though, I think from a real estate perspective.
	Let's have a look.
	You know, big in real estate, I always kept clean properties.
	I like clean, clean, well run, you know, tippy top we say.
	It's not a normal way to... tippy-top, tippy-top.
	Tippy-top.
	We want them to be tippy-top.
	Well, our capital is the opposite of tippy-top.
	It's a... The opposite of tippy-top.
	That's what I think we're all saying.
	Whereas we want a bit more of a tippy-top democracy, don't we?
	Or a republic.
	You guys decide.
	Shit house.
	Horrible.
	It's horrible.
	That's amazing.
	That is amazing.
	Why don't they understand that it is the personality that is powerful?
	That it is the power of charisma and personality that has raised him to a degree, to a point, to a plateau that they can't reach.
	You only need to see Biden speak.
	You only need to see his opponents speak to recognize that There's just a sense of personal connection, of emotional reality, of good humour.
	The automatons and who knows what forces lurk behind the masks, right guys?
	They can't compete with him.
	And Trump also believes it's his personality.
	Do you think he's a Gemini?
	Yeah, Conker306 on the Rumble chat.
	I also am a Gemini.
	We're at 18,000 now.
	We're so close.
	So close to Gareth being dragged around on a skateboard.
	Trump says his personality would actually prevent war.
	I mean, that is such an incredible claim.
	Is it true?
	And whether you're a Democrat, Republican or Independent, surely you'd roll the dice on that in the midst of the Omnicrisis.
	Is he the one man that could bring peace?
	Let me know.
	Yes, he could bring peace.
	Or no, he could not bring peace.
	In the chat right now.
	And then let's watch dear Donald Trump making that declaration.
	And I was the first president in decades who didn't start a war.
	Remember, Hillary said, he will start a war.
	No, my personality kept us out of war.
	She said, his personality will get us into World War III.
	No, my personality kept us out of World War 3.
	I'll be the next speaker!
	Woo!
	Kept us out.
	Kept us out.
	Personally, not even policies.
	It's not like it was as a result of, well I'd say this to Putin, I'd say that to Zelensky,
	this is how we would restore peace to the Middle East through this deal and that deal.
	No, simply the personality.
	We're getting tantalisingly close to the 20,000 guys.
	If there's anything you can do to elevate those views.
	And of course you believe that Trump, amidst his many other evident qualities, is a prince
	of peace.
	Now someone from the public space that I know you adore and love because Rachel Maddow, she has the exact opposite view of Donald Trump.
	She believes that if Trump were ever to be elevated again to high office, I think she says that he would execute the The press!
	I mean, do you think we have more free speech now, or less free speech now?
	Do you think that we have a better, more responsive media now, or a worse media now?
	Do you think there's more censorship under Biden, or more censorship under Trump?
	If you think there's more censorship under Biden, press B. If you think there's more censorship under Trump, press T. We're not getting to that 20,000.
	Gareth, you can put your top back on.
	Ultimately, if you listen to what Trump is saying, you don't just sort of regard him as a spectacle, but you listen to what he's saying.
	He's basically portraying a future for America, if he is put back in the White House, in which we don't have another election after that.
	Ever.
	Because the elections are all rigged, that the democratic process can't be trusted.
	That's all true though, isn't it?
	That's all true, I agree with all of them.
	That Congress should just work for him, the Justice Department should just work for him, that's a strongman form of government, that's not what we have.
	He'd cancel the news, like the news are done.
	That he wants to put MSNBC on trial for treason so that he can execute us.
	That's not true.
	That's the kind of hyperbole that they condemn in Trump.
	And sometimes Trump's hyperbole, I think this, is good humour.
	Like he's mucking around, he's playing around, he's joshing, he's having some fun with us, to use a variety of idioms to explain that.
	I've never seen more bees than I'm seeing in the rumble chat right now.
	And we're staying just beneath that 20,000 mark.
	Gareth, there will be no need for that harness.
	I can tell you that, my man.
	So we're going to watch Biden's speech in a minute on Bidenomics, which I do not like the sound of.
	Don't apply his name to an economic formula.
	That's going to be a disaster.
	After that, we can either cover One of two stories.
	And it's you that will decide.
	You being the ultimate determinants.
	You being those that pull the strings behind the scenes when it comes to this particular spectacle.
	Not the unhidden forces that govern our global elites.
	The set of corporate interests and three-letter acronym agencies across the US that dominate our systems.
	No.
	You.
	You are in charge here.
	We believe in you.
	We believe in democracy.
	Uh, when it comes to a simple matter of selecting a cliff, I mean, God, there's not much at stake, I suppose.
	Uh, do you want to see a story about the WEF's prediction that we're all gonna be soon- uh, soon-eating bugs coming true?
	Like, that bug thing, that was another conspiracy theory, wasn't it?
	Do you want to see that?
	If you do, press one.
	Or, do you want to see the skyrocketing demand for safe rooms?
	Apparently, everyone wants safe rooms, or panic rooms, as they used to be called, which I always thought was bad branding, because, you know, who wants to go in a room full of panic?
	So, if it's one for the- you'll- you will- you will- Good afternoon, folks.
	I'm not introducing me.
	enjoy it prediction that press one or if you want to see the safe room thing press two now joe biden
	has surpassed even his own low standards by messing up a speech even before it starts this time i'm not
	ignoring your chat i love you guys i love you in the chat okay so let's have a look at that number
	yeah here folks i'm not introducing me mark is i forgot mark
	I went straight to the podium.
	I apologize.
	No problem.
	Good afternoon.
	No, that's not a good start.
	Before announcing an economic policy that you've named after yourself, don't march to the podium instead of the man that was supposed to introduce you.
	What's going on?
	What's happening?
	That's not a good start.
	I don't trust Bidenomics anymore.
	If you're watching us on YouTube, remember Dr. Bob Gill is coming up and in our conversation we're going to be talking about Myocarditis, pericarditis, new studies, new revelations, the corruption during the pandemic period and how he went from family doctor to crusader.
	Outrageous.
	Now we've asked you, what do you want to see?
	The WF's prediction that we're all going to be eating bugs soon.
	Bug life coming, absolutely true.
	Or do you want to see about the safe rooms?
	We're going to go for the, because of your, I mean, it's a landslide.
	And let me tell you, you can rely on these elections.
	There's no meddling going on here, baby.
	You resoundingly requested the insect stuff.
	And remember, if you're watching us on YouTube soon, you're going to have to click over and join us.
	And if a thousand of you did that right now, you would get the happy sight of producer of the show marched around just because of the sweet nature of democracy.
	So if you're watching on YouTube, click the link in the description.
	You're going to have to do that before we get to Dr. Bob Gill.
	And if you are with us on Rumble, remember, consider becoming an awakened wonder because you get access to fantastic conversations like the one I've had with JP.
	Jordan Peterson just now and I tell you we go on a little journey, but for now you will eat bugs and you will be happy!
	Oh, that's their story.
	And is there a video to this?
	All right, so here we go.
	Here's the story.
	By 2050, the world's food supply will need to feed another two billion people.
	Insect farming.
	Farming them?
	They're the problems for the farm.
	An animal feed could offer an environmentally... Animal feed?
	I'm not eating animal feed and bugs.
	Could... An environmentally friendly... Friendly to the environment?
	I'm part of the environment solution to impending food crisis.
	A source of protein and fertilizer emerging technologies could help bring insects back into the food system at scale.
	Now, I do... Braig's on the chat.
	You should try talking a little faster, Russell.
	I recognize sarcasm when I see it.
	I am, after all, English, the sweet home of sarcasm.
	Like, I do miss seeing an insect on a windshield.
	Who doesn't?
	Who doesn't miss that sight of All those little things, oh no, yeah, we're tantalizingly close.
	We're at 19,000.
	But if you YouTubers, you're gonna have to join us, you awakened one.
	Just get over here, we'll bring him out.
	But, I tell you this, I don't wanna eat them.
	I don't wanna eat them.
	Like the only insects, here are the insects I'll allow in the house.
	Ladybugs, because they're lovely, aren't they?
	You see them in the house, ladybugs.
	You don't think of them as the same as a cockroach.
	And maybe butterflies.
	You don't think of a butterfly as the same as a moth.
	Other than that, insects, they've got a bad rap.
	Right?
	You don't want them in the house.
	So it's the ladybug.
	Even them, I wouldn't eat a ladybug.
	I wouldn't eat a butterfly and be happy.
	I would consider that to be Klaus Schwab's recipes gone dreadfully awry.
	I think there's a big food company now, Tyson Foods.
	Surely Mike Tyson can't be involved in this.
	Not an awakened wonder like Mike.
	We're over 19,000.
	I can't believe that.
	This is incredible, the escalation.
	Just a few more of you on YouTube now who won't be able to watch Dr. Bob Gill anyway, because he's going to be saying things like, Well, I can't even say it.
	Like, a vaccine... Like, well, he is right.
	All right.
	Did you see that episode of The Simpsons?
	He goes, I want you to call back and say the opposite of everything you just said, like about Homer, and then he lets Bart and Lisa listen.
	Dr. Bob Gill will be telling him about how effective vaccines were, and how you should just take medications without any consideration, and that the clinical trial process was 100% reliable, that there was no clinical trial information that was kept back, and there certainly was no Appetite for profiteering.
	Dr. Bob Gill will be saying that.
	And so much more if you're watching this on YouTube.
	Make the jump.
	Make the jump to Rumble.
	Okay, let's have a look at Tyson Foods latest new product.
	Disgusting bugs between your teeth at a price that's right.
	Tyson has reached an agreement for a two-fold investment with Protix.
	It's a leading global insect ingredients company.
	That investment will support the growth of the emerging insect ingredient industry and expand What?
	Emergent insect?
	Don't try and make it sound nice, innit?
	Do you know what I like, honey?
	It's the emergent bug industry.
	They can't just say something's an industry and expect that people are going to get into it.
	That's not... That's eating insects.
	That's not good.
	That is normal.
	Crazy guy says the end is near.
	That is... Is that one of the... Locusts!
	It's in the Bible!
	It's in the actual Bible!
	Oh no!
	We're at 19,500.
	Gareth, I tell ya, we'll do it.
	We'll do it when we've made the exclusive switch.
	If we get over that 20,000 mark, bring your friends.
	Only 400 left.
	You're right, Raph.
	You're right, mate.
	Some of the names on here, I nearly read out the names and I'm like, whoa, I'm not reading that name out!
	Oh no, no you don't.
	Okay, let's have a look at the rest of these bug lies.
	Upcycle!
	Byproducts!
	Upcycle!
	Byproducts!
	Upcycle!
	Byproducts!
	Upcycle!
	Byproducts!
	Upcycle!
	Byproducts!
	Upcycle!
	Byproducts!
	Upcycle!
	Byproducts!
	Upcycle!
	Upcycle!
	Byproducts!
	Upcycle!
	Upcycle!
	Byproducts!
	Insect proteins and lipids, primarily to be used in the pet food, aquaculture, and livestock industries.
	Nah, I'm not eating that.
	What did you, what did you say, Gareth?
	You were saying?
	Yeah, that's where it starts there.
	Now listen, if you're watching us on YouTube, we're at 19,800.
	We're gonna have to leave you because Dr. Bob Gill is coming up.
	Oh, we're gonna go over the 20,000.
	We're about to go over 20,000 right now.
	Gareth, you better come around here and let me see your face.
	Join us on Rumble to see Gareth.
	Join us on Rumble to see Dr. Bob Gill.
	Join us to see about Trump's gagging order.
	Okay, so we've got to leave you, YouTube.
	We love you.
	Click the link in the description.
	We are way over 20,000 now, and we have a little something for you.
	Are we off, YouTube?
	Can we get confirmation of that?
	Because... Are we off?
	Stand by.
	We're still on YouTube.
	Get over here.
	Get over to Rumble.
	Get ready for it.
	Get ready for some free speech.
	We're here.
	We are here.
	We are free.
	Are you ready?
	Are we off YouTube?
	Because we're going to be telling you about Trump's gagging order.
	Former members of Trump's legal team are all pleading guilty.
	You know that now.
	But what position does that put Trump in?
	And is this gagging order, we'll be talking about this in a minute, about Deposing Trump, getting rid of Trump, making sure that he can't stand as an opponent to Biden, or is it about sweet lady justice herself?
	You'll have to tell me.
	Are we ready?
	Come here, look who this is.
	Here's a little person you may have missed.
	What on earth has happened that's so serious that you have to go and stand over there?
	I'm doing this now, aren't I?
	Working, working hard.
	There he is, Gareth Roy.
	He has come again.
	He has risen as prophesied.
	There's plenty more where that came from, let me tell you.
	Thanks for joining us over on Rumble.
	Remember, you can become an Awakened Wonder on Locals and you get I've realised now that the secret to our success is that man.
	If you want an hour of Gareth, you can just observe Gareth.
	If we have to put cameras all around Gareth's home and observe him, we'll do it.
	If that's what it takes to bring about democracy.
	If that's what it takes to bring about a spiritual awakening.
	If that's what it takes for us to overcome our divisions and unite against the centralising authoritarian forces that seek to control us all through our constant fissures and fractures, then we will put cameras in Gareth's house.
	But for now, let me tell you what we're going to do.
	We're going to tell you a little more about Donald Trump's ongoing legal travails.
	Is it about the observance of justice, Or is it about controlling the free speech of a political opponent?
	So if you think it's about controlling Trump, put C. If you think it's about justice, put J. And here's the news.
	No, here's the effing news.
	No, here's the fucking news!
	Trump's been fined for breaching his gagging order and former members of his legal team have pled guilty in the
	Georgia subversion case.
	But who is it that really subverts democracy?
	And is there any crime that warrants the closing down of free speech?
	And what is the agenda of Trump's opponents?
	To bring about justice or bring an end to Trump because they fear him?
	The question we're asking today is now that Trump's been fined for breaching his gagging order and former members of his legal team have pled guilty in the Georgia subversion case, where does that leave Donald Trump and his campaign to become president in 2024?
	And what is the agenda of Trump's detractors?
	Is it like they are objective guardians of democracy, righteousness and justice?
	Or is it that they fear Trump as an opponent and are just throwing a kitchen sink at it and trying to bring down Trump because they don't think they can beat Trump in the 2024 election?
	Now obviously most of you, I guess, presume that it's the latter.
	And because of a total lack of trust in what you might call The establishment, the legacy media, the judiciary, the state, careerist politicians who claim to be righteous but are plainly capable of the same corruption demonstrably in some cases.
	For example, Stacey Abrams denied an election result in Georgia not that long ago.
	The whole Russiagate hoax Was comparable to many of the things Trump's being accused of.
	So what is this story really about?
	I think it's a pretty strong case for saying that the establishment want to shut down all dissenting voices and remove any alternative to their globalist, corporatist agenda.
	Is that a fair argument?
	I mean, are you seeing that elsewhere?
	Let me know in the chat.
	Remember, we stream at these times every day on Rumble.
	Download the Rumble app and become a member of our community.
	It really helps us.
	And comment below.
	Let us know what you think about this story.
	Let's get into it in a little more detail.
	In the day's other headlines, a judge in New York fined former President Donald Trump $5,000 for violating a gag order in his civil fraud trial.
	Judge Arthur Engeron had ordered Mr. Trump to delete a social media post attacking a court staffer, but it stayed on the Trump campaign website.
	A defense lawyer called it an oversight.
	The judge said, quote, this is a blatant violation of the gag order.
	They should change the name because gag order doesn't sound like something that the goodies would do.
	We're gonna use a gag on you.
	A gag?
	Hold on, shouldn't I be able to talk?
	What about the gag?
	Defenseless youngsters were tied up and gagged in the living room.
	Now I suppose one of the big questions that emerges from this case is do you trust authority anymore?
	In order for a gag order to be imposed on someone, you have to, I suppose, loathe, mistrust the person upon whom the gag order is placed, and trust, admire and support the institutions that are imposing the gag order.
	But there's a strong suggestion, through polls not least of all, that every time Trump is penalised in this way, his support grows, his supporters Like him more.
	If you love Donald Trump, does this make you like Donald Trump any less?
	Does this make you think, oh bloody hell, he's violated a gagging order there.
	Plus his former legal team are pleading guilty.
	Or do you immediately think, oh well, the system is trying to shut down Donald Trump because Donald Trump, whether you like him or not, he's plainly not an establishment guy.
	He's plainly not part of that particular club.
	And pleading guilty from the former legal team members, well, They've clearly cut some sort of plea deal, presumably, to testify against Trump.
	Do any of you think, well, this is new evidence.
	Oh, no, I'm going to have to reframe my entire perspective of reality.
	I mean, who at this point watches the news and goes, yeah, that's reality.
	That's what's going on.
	Thank you.
	Everything is as it seems.
	I can now continue with my life in full trust of these institutions that have not done anything in the last few years to make me mistrustful of them.
	He stopped short of holding Mr. Trump in contempt, which could have meant jail time.
	Meantime, a co-defendant of Mr. Trump pleaded guilty in the Georgia election interference case and got five years probation.
	It also came after another lawyer, Sidney Powell, pleaded guilty Thursday to misdemeanor violations.
	So what is the agenda of the gagging order and the ongoing persecution of Trump?
	Is it to bring about justice or is it to end Trump's campaign and bid to become a candidate and indeed president in 2024?
	Does the derailment of Trump require his imprisonment or would a conviction in this matter lead to him not being able to be on the ballot?
	What is the agenda here?
	Because, plainly, after everything we've learned about, for example, Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaign and Russiagate and the Steele dossier and the Hunter Biden laptop and the impact that potentially would have made in the 2020 election, we can't just go, oh well, this is just what they say it is.
	You can't anymore, can you?
	So even if you aren't an ardent Donald Trump supporter, and even if you have doubts about these actions in Georgia, That still doesn't detract from the plain fact that you can't trust the Democrats either, who are plainly trying to create some censorship surveillance state, where the impediment of free speech, the curtailing, the censoring of free speech, the shutting down of free speech is an overall agenda, in particular with Donald Trump, but also everybody else as well.
	Last week, U.S.
	District Court Judge Tanya Chukkan, overseeing United States v. Donald Trump, issued a gag order prohibiting a leading presidential candidate, Donald Trump, from engaging in speech aimed at government staff, among others, during his trial.
	There is some disdain among conservatives for the former president, but if you're cheering on a judge who's inhibiting political speech on rickety grounds, you're no friend of the democracy or the constitution.
	Mr Trump may still vigorously seek public support as a presidential candidate, debate policies and people related to that candidacy, criticise the current administration, and assert his belief that this prosecution is politically motivated, Chookton explained.
	But those critical First Amendment freedoms do not allow him to launch a pre-trial smear campaign against participating government staff, their families, and foreseeable witnesses.
	Now that sounds reasonable and actually standard.
	But is that what this is really about?
	Is this about ensuring that justice continues with its unabated trajectory towards empirical demonstrable righteousness?
	Or is it to foreclose on the ability of Donald Trump to communicate effectively because he's a genuine threat to the system?
	Let's keep looking at it and work it out.
	Who is Chuck Tan to dictate the contours of a presidential candidate's political speech?
	What if one of the participating government staff or a family member is compromised by partisanship?
	Moreover, preemptively suggesting that without gagging, Trump will engage in a smear campaign is as prejudicial to the case as any of the inflammatory things Trump has thrown around.
	It implies that any accusation now aimed at the prosecutors is untrue.
	Trump contends that he is being railroaded by special counsel Jack Smith, the longtime federal prosecutor who works on behalf of Democrats and Joe Biden.
	You might believe that the special counsel is a chaste defender of lady justice, but there is ample evidence that partisan considerations are at play.
	Fears of a politicized Justice Department are real.
	As we speak, the head of the Democratic Party is being mollycoddled by the state in a very similar case involving classified documents.
	If you don't believe in the objectivity of the judiciary, then these kind of measures become unsustainable and non-applicable.
	They can't be applied.
	Unless you think that the Justice Department is independent, unless you ignore that there are whistleblowers within the CIA and FBI currently making claims about the Biden administration, it's difficult to think of these as objective organisations.
	It's the same with the media.
	You're at a point now where you, broadly speaking, do not trust the legacy media.
	You recognise that what they do is amplify propaganda, normalise the agenda of the powerful.
	You don't think, oh wow, look at this, there's nothing to worry about, or oh fantastic, this is terrifying.
	We're at a point where the objectivity of these institutions has been interrogated and found wanting so severely that it's almost impossible possible to sustain the idea that there is a justice
	department that is from a place of neutrality and justice making value judgments on Trump or Biden or you
	or me. What it appears I think to all of us is these institutions have been co-opted and are
	now subsidiaries and secondary to higher interests that are difficult for us to entirely assess. So
	at this point there is no real trust.
	You can't say, oh well if the Justice Department have gagged Donald Trump, obviously Trump must be saying things that are harmful to justice, the justice system that we respect.
	You have to always think, I believe.
	No, probably what this is, is they're trying to just destroy Trump because he's a genuine threat and they'll just use anything.
	They'll say anything.
	I mean, that is how the system appears to work to me at this point.
	Whatever the case, the Justice Department now plays a big part in Trump's campaign for the presidency and probably his legal case as well.
	If the state's accusations can be spread throughout the media before a trial, why can't the defendant speak openly as well?
	It would seem to be unfair that accusations and cases can be made almost a totalitarian media campaign.
	As Joseph Stalin said, quantity has a quality of its own.
	If every single news outlet is saying the same thing, condemning a person, particularly if that transcends other principles of justice like innocent until proven guilty, you have the right, I think, to question whether or not there's another agenda at play.
	If you bring that into a context where none of us really trust the legacy media anymore, we know that they lie, we've seen them lying, we've seen their value shifting, and you apply that To a story like this one, where the judiciary appear to be biased in the favour of a particular political outcome.
	Seemingly, that outcome being, we do not want Donald Trump running for president next year.
	And what's obfuscating that is, oh, look, he's done this now, oh, he's done that now.
	I'm obviously not in a position to say, there's no way Donald Trump would tamper in elections.
	Who knows what Donald Trump's capable of?
	But what is clear is the agenda of the powerful is being supported, it seems, by the judiciary and certainly by the media.
	What do you think?
	Let me know in the chat.
	In the name of fairness, Chuckton contends that Trump does not enjoy unfettered First Amendment rights because he might intimidate witnesses.
	It's already illegal to intimidate witnesses.
	Charge him if he does it.
	This is happening a lot around free speech issues.
	They're using ideas that everyone agrees with.
	Don't intimidate witnesses.
	Don't use hate speech.
	Don't have child pornography.
	All the things that we're like, yeah, of course, yeah, of course, yeah, of course.
	But there are laws already for all of that.
	You can use the existing laws to prosecute people for those ideas.
	When it's like, and because of that, why don't we shut down free speech?
	No, no, no.
	You've just artfully moved into a new territory, revealing an entirely different agenda.
	You want to control dissent.
	You recognize that the tendency of the world is to move apart into broader, wider, more democratic spaces, where a wider variety of opinions might be conveyed, where centralization is less likely, less plausible, and in order to ensure that the trajectory continues in the direction that the powerful would prefer, you have to manipulate the checker pieces around the board to say, ah, look, see, we have to shut down free speech because, you know, child pornography, intimidation of witnesses.
	Well, those things are already illegal.
	Laws already exist to cover all the other premises Smith has used to rationalise the gag order.
	That means the gag order is, by definition, unnecessary, right?
	The notion that a jury pool is going to be impartial in a trial involving a divisive former president who is not only a leading contender for the presidency but one of the most famous people on earth is absurd.
	And the notion a DC jury poll will be impartial when it comes to Trump is fantastical.
	There is little that can be done about it.
	But further gagging the defendant only feeds, at the minimum, the perception that this is all politically motivated.
	And I suppose that, the perception that this is all politically motivated, I suppose that points to a problem that's even larger than this extraordinary one at the centre of current American democracy.
	What do you think is the motivation behind various current wars?
	Is it what you're being told?
	Is it like, oh, we have to intervene in Ukraine-Russia conflict for humanitarian reasons?
	China are becoming more and more aggressive?
	The very reason you need to stop free speech, or the reason they need to stop free speech, whether it's Trump or you or me, is because there is the instant immersive and global ability to go, excuse me, what about the semiconductor business?
	More broadly than that, as I've said for a very long while, if the Democrat party were serious about opposing Trump, they would change.
	They would change and become more reliable.
	that they can't have that conversation anymore.
	More broadly than that, as I've said for a very long while, if the Democrat party was
	serious about opposing Trump, they would change.
	They would change and become more reliable.
	They would become more accountable.
	Let's say we recognise we've created Donald Trump for our lying, for our willingness to
	be the party of big donation, the party of war, and we're going to change that immediately
	We're so sorry.
	They're never, ever, ever going to do that.
	They can't do that.
	There'd be no point in them if they did that.
	So what they have to do is ensure that you don't have any alternative and ultimately we'll vote for them out of a kind of weary exhaustion.
	Establishment media informs us that the gag order is just narrow and meant to protect the integrity of the trial and the jury pool.
	In her Solomonic wisdom, Chuck Tan cut the state's request in half.
	A narrow gag order limiting free speech is still a gag order limiting free speech.
	The fact that Smith was seeking even broader limitations only makes Trump's claims more plausible.
	Smith has also argued that Trump should not be afforded special treatment because he's a candidate.
	He's right.
	No one's right to defend themselves or to engage in speech should be inhibited, not even during trials.
	Still, gag orders are almost always an unconstitutional prior restraint.
	For years, the ACLU and similar groups argued the same.
	We can't bring you this content without the support of Sticker Mule.
	And in fact, there'll be no point in bringing this content without Sticker Mule.
	They've created this limited edition sticker pack.
	There are six stunning designs that are only available in this pack.
	They're all made with Sticker Mule's magic touch.
	Sticker Mule has 10,000 of these packs ready to deliver to your address absolutely free.
	Just go to StickerMule.com forward slash Russell and fill out the form.
	It's StickerMule.com.
	dot com forward slash Russell get a free pack of amazing stickers you can adorn your clothes with them. They're
	fantastic Sticker meal damn loyal damn good company sticker meal
	Okay, let's get back to this then many people simply believe Trump deserves it think about the precedent
	administrations can now launch prosecutions against political rivals calibrated to take place in favorable
	cities and time to coincide with elections and then demand gag orders be implemented on
	those running for office if If you think they won't do it to others, you haven't been paying attention.
	Trump is a divisive figure.
	Even if you love Donald Trump, you know that, right?
	And you imagine that he's divisive because he's causing so much chaos, because he's not the usual type of politician that ascends these kind of spaces.
	But especially if you detest Donald Trump, Imagine just for a second, the philosopher's friend, the return of Christ and the, you know, the Christian's belief in the actuality of that.
	If Christ were to return and were to say, we're going to reorganize the world now in tune with ethical and spiritual principles that are based on fairness and justice and love and wherever we see injustice, We are going to address it and amend it.
	Therefore, I'm running for the candidacy of the Republican Party or as an Independent or heaven forfend as a Democrat.
	If Jesus Christ were to run, do you imagine that the establishment would go, Oh, this is good.
	Finally, Jesus is back.
	Let's get this guy in charge so that we can all be saved.
	Or do you think Then like last time round, they would go, shut that guy up now!
	Kill him, say whatever you have got to say to justify stopping this guy, because he's got an uncanny ability to make ordinary people realise they've not been voting in their own best interest for many, many years now, and that change is possible.
	So if you don't like Donald Trump, just imagine it were Jesus.
	And I'm certainly not making a comparison between Donald Trump and Jesus.
	That's a kind of a he might do.
	God love him.
	But just as an exercise, what would they do if Christ returned?
	Would it be, oh, thank God, the Lord, you have returned to save us all?
	Or would it be, oh no, how are we going to run the world now for financial imperatives and imperatives of dominion?
	How are we going to keep people suffering through lenses of fear and desire?
	How are we going to lower the expectations of individual people, turn people against one another all the time?
	If there's a figure here now that's saying whoever you are, wherever you're from, there is love within you, the possibility of awakening is available to you.
	you now, you are all welcome here. Let's put aside our material considerations and find
	the light within. No, they wouldn't be like, oh, this is good stuff, would they? They would
	kill that guy pretty swiftly. But before they killed him, I imagine they'd gag him. No wonder
	Donald Trump has to be gagged because let's face it, he is not a typical orator. Here
	he is comparing himself favorably to Alphonse Capone. And it's not often you think that
	Al Capone's full name is Alphonse, is it? Today, a judge put on a gag order. I'll be
	the only politician in history that runs with a gag order where I'm not allowed to criticize
	Where is Donald Trump right now?
	What is that backdrop?
	It's hay bales, isn't it?
	And why is there a children's book for sale next to this very serious thing that he's doing?
	Also though, there's this book for kids available now.
	Can you imagine this?
	Do you believe this?
	I'm not allowed to criticize people, so we'll see.
	We'll appeal it!
	We'll appeal it and we'll see but it's it's so on so unconstitutional The good thing is we have so much support.
	It's incredible.
	So and it just makes it even more so Look, I'm the only guy that ever got indicted.
	I got indicted more than Alphonse Capone.
	Did anyone ever hear about?
	That's the natural laugh.
	That's not the forced laugh that you see in many political situations.
	Oh, are we meant to... Is this where we do a standing ovation?
	Oh, are we meant to clap now when someone's going, That's just why America's bloody well brilliant!
	And you're like, oh god!
	Like it's a genuine laugh.
	Has anyone heard of Alfred Capone?
	It's like he understands comedy.
	Al Capone, if you look him...
	If you looked at him the wrong way, he was seriously tough, right?
	He's not even actually condemning Al Capone, is he?
	He was seriously tough.
	He's quite admiring of Al Capone.
	One of the things I feel about our sort of mad puritanical time is many aspects of humanity itself are being cut off.
	Like our nature.
	Our true nature is being questioned.
	Our sense of humour.
	Our love.
	Our connection to one another.
	It's almost like the state wants to undermine every aspect of a human being till everything is just material, rational little blocks.
	Till there's nothing natural or flowing or free or unquestioned.
	Till we're just blocked and locked in shame and doubt and fear.
	And a figure like Trump actually is extraordinary because he doesn't run on that pathway.
	He ain't ashamed.
	He's not afraid.
	He's like, you keep indicting the guy, he's still sort of making jokes, but he hasn't been taking it very seriously, does he?
	Sort of amazing, really.
	little scar in there. I'm sure it was a minor accident. But Al Capone, if you looked at
	him in the wrong way, if he didn't like you, you looked at him a little bit askance, he
	blew your brains out. He was only indicted one time. I've been invited, I've been indicted
	Four times.
	And in addition I have the civil trials that are all coming out of the Justice Department.
	They've weaponised the Justice Department and the FAA.
	I suppose the challenge is for Trump's opponents is many people find plausibility in Trump's claims.
	Even someone like me who years ago thought the idea of Donald Trump being president was risible and during his presidency had pretty serious questions about the nature of his presidency.
	At this point I now believe that what Donald Trump actually is, is a disruptor to establishment incentives, imperatives and overall agenda.
	I feel like even if you take your own opinion of Donald Trump and put it to one side, I like him, I love him, I hate him, whatever that is, if you look at him almost like it was chemistry, what happens when you put a droplet of Donald Trump into the establishment, He doesn't fucking like it!
	He doesn't like it!
	It's disruptive and destabilising to the establishment agenda.
	Whether it's from a war perspective, the fact that he just says mad shit all the time, that's, for me, what seems to be most significant about him.
	And then I know there's loads of you who think, well, no, his policies are about economics, his policies are about, you know, you let me know, but...
	Certainly, plainly, his claim that the Justice Department is being weaponised against him seems, at this point, more verifiable and true to me, because I don't believe in the moral legitimacy of the state at all.
	Do you?
	So, the question that we're left with is, are these gagging orders and trials about finding the objective phenomena that we call justice, or is it the weaponisation of the justice system so that establishment imperatives can continue unabated and unobstructed?
	Sometimes, whether it's COVID or Donald Trump or the war or any issue, if you place a subject to one side and observe the surrounding phenomena, you can come to a better perspective, you know?
	Because Trump is a divisive figure.
	COVID was a divisive topic.
	War is a divisive subject.
	But if you look at the behaviour of institutions around, if you look at the behaviour of the media, the judiciary, the state, you're sometimes able to see how they are converging around a subject.
	And I find it so difficult to believe that the incentives of the state, of the Democrat Party, of the legacy media, How can we help everyone?
	I'm not saying they are demonic forces.
	I'm saying that collectively the momentum is towards the preservation of a set of interests that aren't really in alignment with the lives of ordinary Americans or ordinary people across the world.
	That's why I use the Jesus Christ example.
	All of the values that coalesce around any spiritual practice are completely abandoned, it seems to me, when ensuring that the system functions in the way that's intended to.
	Do you trust the news?
	Do you trust the establishment?
	Do you trust these institutions?
	Unless the answer to those questions is yes, and basically it can't be, it never is, that would be madness, then you have to be open to the idea that this gagging order is about repressing free speech, not enabling justice to flow unimpeded.
	But that's just what I think.
	Let me know what you think in the chat.
	See you in a second.
	Thank you for choosing Fox News.
	Good day.
	No.
	Here's the fucking news.
	So, is that gagging order designed to ensure justice or in order to prevent democracy?
	Let us know and are you confident that comparable regulations wouldn't be deployed even if it were not Donald Trump but Jesus Christ returned to earth claiming that a new order could be established of decentralised legitimate democracies?
	What do you imagine the establishment would do?
	Welcome our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, or gag him double hard, lest he should unite us all.
	Surely now, as close as we're likely to get on this channel to a returning Messiah, is our next guest.
	NHS doctor, that in our country means the National Health Service, in the UK that means a general family doctor.
	But now, Public health activist, enlightened and awakened by events during the pandemic, Dr Bob Gill has become a prominent voice and ally for those of us, excuse me, that are questioning the way that the narrative unfolded during the pandemic.
	Thanks for joining us, Dr Bob.
	Great to be here, Russell.
	So, one of the stories that would be a great place for us to start would be this seemingly peculiar and surely not true claim that the version of the Pfizer vaccine that was initially tested and, as I understand, given to Pfizer employees was different from the initial round of vaccines released in the UK.
	Am I getting that right?
	Because it doesn't sound like it should be true.
	Yeah, that's right, Russell.
	There were two processes used to produce the mRNA vaccine.
	One was a quite expensive but a clean process, which was using our DNA to sequence RNA.
	And the second process, process two, which was used to mass produce the vaccine, was using E. coli and putting into E. coli plasmids and getting the E. coli to reproduce the mRNA.
	So it's a cheaper form of producing the vaccine.
	But the problem with that is you can get contamination.
	So you can get genetic material from the E. coli into your vaccine vial.
	Now, there's a very low threshold of tolerating contamination within vaccines.
	However, you know, researchers looked into this matter and found very high levels of contamination with DNA.
	Now the problem with DNA is it can potentially get incorporated into your own genome, and also the presence of DNA can actually spark anaphylaxis.
	That's when you get a severe allergic reaction.
	I don't know if you remember, but once the Pfizer vaccine came out, Later on, a week or two later, they started telling practitioners to keep the patients with you for 15 minutes, keep an eye on them for 15 minutes after the vaccine.
	Now, that was related to the potential reaction to the endotoxin from the E. coli contamination.
	So that's where that came from.
	And, you know, this research, initially done by Dr. Kevin McKernan, who's a very highly qualified, respected academic, whose whole life is devoted to, you know, researching these matters.
	He was part of the Human Genome Project.
	Highly credentialed person.
	Now, his work has been replicated in Japan, in Europe, in other units in the US and they've all found very worrying high
	levels of contamination.
	And you know, the problem was Pfizer didn't declare this to the regulator.
	So that's the problem.
	And later on, they were forced to declare it to the European regulator.
	So they've actually confirmed it themselves that this problem exists.
	It's been extraordinary the way that information has begun in the protean swamp of conspiracy
	theory and bubbled its way up through the various channels and valves to accepted medical
	data.
	For example, I remember hearing very early in the pandemic period posts that would definitely have been censored that the The problem with this vaccine is it has the potential to alter your DNA.
	I feel like that was one of the kind of stories I thought, oh, even for me, a person that's open to almost any anti-authoritarian narrative, that has no trust in the legacy media, that has very little trust in Big Pharma at all, no trust in the state, surely it doesn't have the potential to alter your genetics.
	I thought that was sort of highfalutin, but you're saying that that actually is one of those conspiracy theories that's kind of true.
	Yeah, there is a risk.
	So, you know, the DNA contamination poses several threats.
	It promotes clotting, it promotes immune dysfunction, and at some level it can promote cancerous transformation.
	Now that, if you have, you know, some of this DNA being Entered into into your own cells DNA, it can actually turn on the process of cancer.
	And if you add that in with immune dysfunction, then the risk becomes real.
	And that risk has been documented elsewhere.
	So, you know, this is coming from highly respected sources.
	If people want to look into this further, I suggest they look on the World Health Council's Twitter.
	And they've got a three hour lecture going into the detail of all of this most recent revelation and analyzing the implications.
	You're talking, I suppose, about SV40 DNA.
	That's specifically the name, is it, of the aspect of this malformant component that can induce, can be carcinogenic?
	That's right.
	So it was recognized this SV40, simian virus 40, a, you know, a strip of genetic code has the potential to be a cancer-promoting gene.
	It needs other factors to line up.
	But there is no rational explanation as to why this even got into the Pfizer vaccine.
	That is the problem with all of this.
	What is it doing there?
	Why is that contamination?
	Why is that sequence of code even in the vaccine?
	So it raises lots of questions about what's gone on in the production.
	What questions?
	What questions?
	Why shouldn't it be in there?
	What do you mean they can't identify what the function of that is?
	You can't explain why that was in the vaccine, you know, why that specific coding, which is recognized to be potentially dangerous, how did that end up in the vaccine?
	It wasn't required for the production of the vaccine.
	That's the problem.
	So between the testing and, you know, Albert Baller turning up on TV shows saying it's 98% effective, claiming it was a kind of wonder drug, that it was a moonshot, a few weird little things happened.
	They started using plasma out of E. coli that they hadn't previously been doing, and there's the odd introduction of SV40 DNA that promotes cancer.
	Are you saying that both of those things happened between trial-in and release?
	Yeah, they used a different, cleaner process for the trial and a cheaper mass production process for the vaccine that was rolled out to the public.
	Now, to use E. coli to produce mRNA in this way is not uncommon.
	The problem is the contamination issue.
	If your quality control isn't good enough, if you outsource the production to labs you've got no control over, that's where the problems arise.
	Yeah, I suppose you're alluding to the many stories about the lack of standards in many of the labs where clinical trials took place.
	They're almost too difficult to number and they're certainly difficult to locate due to the clandestine shrouding of these issues.
	Another thing that seems pertinent to talk about, you and I both being in the UK right now, is the British politician Andrew Bridgen last night, or earlier this week, a couple of days ago I think, Raising the question of excess deaths in British Parliament.
	There's a few things I want to point out.
	Like this phenomena of excess deaths is one of the things that's been masked.
	Many people that were in this space questioning the way that Covid was being reported on noted that there appeared to be an attempt to attribute to coronavirus itself Adverse side effects that could potentially have been caused by the vaccine.
	This 60,000 additional deaths that took place in the United States, I think I'm right in saying between 21 and 23, as was pointed out in, tell me the name of that author when you get a minute, James, was pointed out in the book about excess deaths, was, you know, a Vietnam War worth of casualties.
	America lost as many young people in the Vietnam War over a 12-year period as it did in that Two year period to excess deaths.
	How come excess deaths is still a difficult subject to talk about?
	How come there was hardly anyone in Parliament, that's our form of Congress, when Andrew Bridgen raised the matter?
	What's going on with excess deaths?
	Is this going to be another of the strands around this period of time that's going to disclose important information to us?
	Well, I think that the politicians, unfortunately, have a vested interest in covering all of this up, don't they?
	Because they've followed the narrative of the drug companies.
	They've allowed us to do what amounts to a mass experiment, vaccinating the whole population against a virus which a lot of us had developed natural immunity to.
	So they were pushing this vaccine down our throat.
	And now that the chickens are coming home to roost, They don't want the impact of their decisions to be known widely amongst the public, so they might share some of these concerns.
	You know, Andrew Brigden and others have done a lot to try and bring this to the attention of politicians, and they're willfully being blind about what's going on here.
	Yeah, it does seem like that because of the many concerns, shall we call them, that sprung up around this period after the initial explosion of euphoria and excitement that accompanied the advent of the vaccine, which many media institutions tried to artificially maintain, When inquiry did begin, it was, I suppose, focused on the potential that the vaccine could have consequences that are worse than the problem that it was invented to solve.
	Now, As time goes on it seems that we're moving closer to that conclusion rather than further away from it.
	It did seem that there were a number of sudden unexplained deaths.
	It's another one of those subjects that people were discouraged from discussing even though it became almost anecdotally observable.
	The evidence of your own eyes when people were dropping dead on sports fields, young famous people dying and therefore being reported on, the number of You know the sort of the number of morticians and people working in various funeral services saying that they were seeing stuff that was Didn't make sense people within in our country their health service pointing out that deaths were being reported inaccurately At this point it's we've we've arrived now.
	We've arrived now at It seems to me a point where there needs to be a kind of reckoning.
	That even if you were to take this subject in isolation, away from the concerns around the military-industrial complex, the nature of legacy media, the obvious hypocrisy and corruption of the years leading up to coronavirus, but that period is simply revealed rather than created.
	So it seems that there's a necessity for a kind of a pandemic reckoning.
	But that's unlikely to take place, isn't it?
	When in this country and in America, broadly speaking, both political parties have a general alliance and very little appetite to hold to account the powerful interests that contributed to, if not caused, many of these problems.
	Yeah, I think you get to the heart of the matter.
	There is a distinct lack of accountability.
	There is no reckoning.
	We have a media that is docile and complicit, you know, repeating without question the political talking points.
	So you have a corporate capture of the state and you have a complicit media.
	So accountability becomes a rarity.
	You know, if we ever get close to accountability, it's normally lip service.
	How many public inquiries do we have where nobody goes to jail for major failings?
	You know, they get a rap on the knuckles and 20 years down the line we get close to the truth.
	This is a built-in design.
	It's not a flaw.
	That's the design of the system.
	to set up regulatory bodies that give the impression of independent oversight, but they're
	generally toothless and you appoint people from the very corporate interests that you're supposed
	to be regulating. So, you know, an idiot might make the, you know, anybody might make a mistake,
	but an idiot makes the same mistake again and again. You've got a 50% chance of being right,
	even as a fool, right?
	In a binary decision.
	But these people keep making the same decision, time and time again, and you can only conclude this is deliberate, this is part of the system.
	Yeah, another of the components of this has been the changing nature of reporting around myocarditis and pericarditis.
	That's another one of the subjects that just couldn't be discussed, that was regarded as a conspiracy theory.
	You know, when initial adverse events were reported or when anecdotally people talked about stuff like that, it was regarded as a kind of cultural heresy.
	But now Now Pfizer have been forced to confirm the increased risk of myocarditis in young males.
	What does that shift tell us?
	Are we likely to see further shifts?
	And at what point do these shifts become tantamount to admission of a failure of the whole project?
	Yeah, they've been dragged kicking and screaming to this point.
	You know, people like Peter McCullough have done a lot of work, you know, the famous cardiologist, done a lot of work raising the awareness about myocarditis with the vaccine.
	At the beginning, you know, people were conflating having the illness with the vaccine, but actually you can do specific tests which show that what was present on post-mortem examination, special stains can identify that the protein within the heart The genetic material within the heart was spike protein produced by the vaccine.
	So you can do very clever tests to find out, was it the virus or was it the vaccine?
	And it was work done by, I think it was a team in Germany that looked at post-mortems of people with sudden death.
	to look unexplained sudden death, to look was there myocarditis and what was the source of
	that myocarditis. So the hard work has been done and I think Pfizer's, you know, eventual
	admission of the problem is, I think, their way of managing their corporate image and corporate trust.
	If you give a little bit you may come across as having an ounce of integrity.
	And I think that's what's going on there.
	Yeah and they're obvious and it's hardly necessary to state that the financial, institutional, corporate and global structures that undergird these types of issues and these types of organizations are Never able to be fully interrogated and investigated, because if you were to, you would no longer be able to sustain this model.
	With Black Rock's Larry Fink showing support, or I think vocalising support, for the Labour leader Keir Starmer, who's the Leader of the Opposition, equivalent I suppose to the Democrats in this country, does that further Demonstrate the impossibility of ever addressing these issues for established democracy.
	If you put together Andrew Brigdon talking to an empty parliament with Keir Starmer essentially being verified by the, you know, global financial interests, should we say, for the sake of simplicity.
	How, through parliament, through congress, through conventional democracy, a democracy that many people believe to have been entirely corrupted, are we ever Able to have the reckoning that appears to be necessary.
	Well, you know, I'll just, um...
	read you a quote from Mussolini.
	Fascism should be rightly called corporatism as it is a merger of state and corporate power.
	That's what Larry Fink has demonstrated.
	He's given Keir Starmer his blessing.
	Why?
	Not because, based on some moral principles or righteousness, based on how he's going to maximize the return for his investors.
	That's what it's all about.
	So, you know, That's where the power comes from.
	It's money.
	And the politicians are looking for big backers because in due course, no doubt, after they leave politics, they want to cash up for their compliance with corporate power.
	So this is the belly of the beast, I'm afraid.
	And, you know, unless we get a critical mass of informed public, awakened public, There can be no reckoning.
	There can be no change to the system that is endemically putting money above the environment, above human life, above everything else.
	That is unfortunately the power.
	And the pandemic we have is of greed and of self-interest.
	That's the real pandemic.
	Yeah, and it's difficult to address that kind of pandemic without spiritual measures, without personal awakening, without a set of cultural values that very much are at odds with the current momentum.
	As well, I would say, Bob, with a culture that seems very fractured, where a lot of energy seems to be spent through the legacy media crushing dissenting voices and discrediting them.
	And ensuring that there is ongoing cultural conflict between people who in alliance, the kind of alliance that might be achieved if power were wherever possible decentralised and people able to run their lives culturally however they want to.
	It seems Very difficult to imagine that kind of awakening take place.
	So can you just for a moment talk on the importance of independent media?
	Talk for a moment on the kind of spiritual principles that appear to be somewhat lacking and need to be promoted, and how you have gone from being like a family doctor to someone who, like when you're talking and you're sort of quoting Mussolini, not favorably, not as a hero, but as a warning from history, Where do you see this journey going for you?
	So there's a few questions there.
	Independent media, spiritual values, and your personal journey.
	Because it sounds like you're going to get yourself in a lot of trouble.
	Yeah, so, you know, independent media are clearly a threat to the narrative that corporate media generates.
	And that's why they're trying to shut people down.
	People as yourself, you know, other important voices out there are a real problem for them.
	So, you know, if you're getting attacked, you clearly you're doing something right.
	The spiritual point you make is important because the values we all share are to be able to look after ourselves, our families, and live a reasonably happy life.
	These are not unreasonable demands, but that is not allowed to happen.
	We don't have peace of mind.
	We don't have secure work.
	We don't have a welfare state or a social security system which is up to the needs that are out there.
	In order for us to not look up, not look at the people controlling this system, but to spend our time fighting each other, you need to generate these divide and rule narratives, be it on cultural issues, be it on trans rights, be it whatever.
	Every one of those narratives is used to divide the people at the bottom, so they don't have time or headspace to look up.
	When everybody, when all media are pushing a certain line, you need to smell a rat.
	There's a problem there.
	When you have the CIA pushing out memes about trans rights, you have to suspect what they're really up to, right?
	You know, we pay lip service to respecting the rights of women and children in Afghanistan, yet we're quite happy to bomb women and children in Gaza at the moment.
	So, these things don't add up.
	And where, you know, where there is no consistency in the application of stated principles, we need to be suspicious and start looking more critically into that matter.
	So where are you taking it yourself?
	Because it seems like it's going to be very difficult for you to sit in a surgery and just, you know, as a doctor say, well, here's your fifth booster shot.
	I mean, what are you saying to patients at this point?
	And how is your, the conflation of your roles as a doctor and as an activist balancing out now?
	So, you know, when Asim Malhotra, who you had on your show, I believe it was last week, he produced a paper looking at Pfizer's own research evidence.
	And he sent it to me before he published it.
	He said, what do you think about this?
	And once I read that, he said, can you give me a quote before we get it published, put it out in the media?
	I said, reading that, I cannot in any good conscience give anybody an mRNA shot.
	I can't do it anymore.
	So I had to stop.
	I would be a total hypocrite if I came on here pointing out the problems and concerns out there about myocarditis and the contamination, and then to carry on giving them, although there is a significant financial incentive to keep doing so.
	That is the problem.
	There are perverse incentives for us to act against our conscience, for us to be selectively and willfully blind about what's going on around us.
	And you know, I've reached the stage of my career that If they come for me, I'm taking that risk.
	I'm not prepared to do something.
	I came into medicine not to harm people, right?
	And if you come across enough evidence and concern that you might be doing harm, I'm not going to go there.
	I'm not going to be blind to it either.
	It's just not for me.
	And if that means losing my job, well, so be it.
	It's frightening though, isn't it Bob?
	It seems that in the United States, Biden's given a green light to corporate control in healthcare.
	United Health Group's enrolment growth over the past decade is solely from Medicare and Medicaid, with taxpayers significantly contributing to the company's profits.
	The Medicare programme has transformed into the insurance industry's primary revenue source.
	Tell me how Biden's posturing around Medicare and Medicaid is actually just another form of profiteering, corporatism and monetization of the health industry.
	Yes, so Medicare and Medicaid are state-funded health provision for those people who are left out of the insurance-based system because they're too sick or they're too poor.
	They can't make money out of those people.
	So the state has had to step in as a last resort.
	Now, when the state was providing that care itself, There wasn't money being siphoned away.
	But what's happened over recent years is they've actually appointed people from UnitedHealth and other healthcare companies to run the federally funded service.
	So the revolving door, we have the revolving door again.
	And what has that allowed?
	That's allowed them to bring in, to loosen regulation and to allow the insurance companies to come in and run what is paid by the taxpayer.
	So they can siphon yet more money into their own coffers.
	And that's what's happened in the UK.
	So, you know, legislation passed last year replicated the American managed care system in law, breaking these up into 42 funding units.
	And guess who's slipping in?
	The backdoor, UnitedHealth.
	So the plan is, whatever money is spent, be it through taxpayer or be it through the individual buying private insurance, these companies want a slice of the action.
	They're intermediaries. You don't actually need them to run a self-service.
	What you need is a hospital, doctors and nurses, and some drugs, right?
	You do not need insurance managers and CEOs and all these legion of administrators.
	They're totally unnecessary.
	But the growth of the intermediarization in healthcare is what's draining one in three dollars in the U.S.
	spent on healthcare is going out to these people who provide not one second of care.
	Now what a lunatic system that is that we have chosen to replicate in this country.
	Tell me about your documentary, Bob.
	I feel like you're covering in the film, The Great NHS Heist, how the corporatisation of our still nominally state-run welfare-oriented health service has been co-opted.
	And almost that's not something that's been voted on or even explained.
	What is the subject of your documentary, Bob?
	Yes, it's really to highlight, you know, what the NHS to corporations are a series of assets which are to be stripped or to be mined for the recurrent, you know, taxpayer funded money that comes in.
	So this is, to them, bags of cash.
	And, you know, what the government should be doing is protecting the public's interest with our taxes, but what it's actually doing is selling us out.
	So, you know, healthcare can be divided up into three assets.
	You've got the real estate, you've got the patient data, which is an increasingly commercializable asset, and you've got the funding.
	But the control of those assets now is very much transferred into the private sector.
	And in order for them to maximize profit, they do it through the denial of care.
	And what the film tries to do is to not make a humanitarian case, to not make an ethical case.
	We make an economic case for why this is a disaster, not only for the sick people, but for the economy in general.
	Because the more you waste on healthcare, the less you can do For, you know, investment in infrastructure or whatever it might be, because there's an opportunity cost.
	If you're wasting 30% on overheads and CEO bonuses, well, you're not spending it on delivering healthcare.
	So that is what the film explains.
	And it tries to merge the US experience with what's happening here to have a wider appeal.
	And, you know, in my dreams, I thought we'd be inundated with calls from Americans telling us, what the hell are you guys doing copying our crazy system?
	Right?
	I was inspired by watching Michael Moore's Sicko and, you know, that's what led me to do this.
	Why did it fall on me as a GP to do this in my spare time?
	Because of what we discussed earlier, the corporate media are doing a job of keeping us in the dark.
	That's all they're interested in.
	Bob, you're a really great ally and you're a great person.
	Thank God there are people in your position that are willing to take the risks and make the sacrifices that you're making.
	Thanks very much for coming on our show.
	Good luck with your documentary and good luck with your ongoing mission.
	Thank you very much, Russell.
	Keep up your great work, too.
	Certainly shall try to.
	Thank you, sir.
	Thanks, Doctor.
	Dr. Bob's documentary, The Great NHS Heist, is available now.
	We'll post a link right away and you can follow him on X, at DrBobGill.
	He's worth following because he's a doctor who's willing to confront authority and willing to say to him personally expensive and risky truth.
	On the show tomorrow we've got Neil Oliver who you might know from GB News, you might know as a public commentator.
	He's someone who appears to have really captured a lot of attention through his ability to analyse and explain many of the events in recent years and also So I feel like I look a bit like him.
	It's going to be interesting.
	I think he's Scottish.
	He's got a mellifluous, lilting accent.
	I think it's going to be a pretty good conversation.
	Join us for that.
	If you want to become a member of our community and get all sorts of additional content, press the red button that's on the screen now.
	You get early access to interviews.
	I do meditations with you.
	You get readings like we're going through the Bible now.
	Plus, we discuss how we might move on from where we are now.
	Seems to me pretty obvious.
	Awaken everybody that you possibly can.
	Find people in positions of authority and experience that are interested in living in a new way.
	Accumulate a new system adjacent to this current corrupt one and vivify it with our powerful spiritual energy and be willing to engage in this spiritual war like these people.
	These new awakened wonders are Creature61, welcome to the movement.
	John Gore, SOS, you're gonna love it here.
	Handsman, I could not love you more.
	Foobar123, how I love you.
	And where would we be without Enough Shit Fuckery?
	It's difficult to imagine a world without you.
	That is ingeniously spelt, but when pronounced, it amounts to little more than swearing.
	You are an awakened wonder.
	You're welcome with us.
	Join us tomorrow, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
	Until then, if you can,

▲