Here’s the News: Gain Of Function A BIO-WEAPON?! Fauci KNEW All Along?!
As more conspiracies become fact – such as the Wuhan lab leak theory was downplayed by the US government - was Fauci warned Gain of Function could be used as a bio-weapon? Support Me Directly HERE: https://rb.rumble.comWATCH me LIVE weekdays on Rumble: https://bit.ly/russellbrand-rumble Get your gold here: https://offers.americanhartfordgold.c...Call 866 505 8315 or text BRAND to 998899
Hello there you Awakening Wonders on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you download your podcasts.
We really appreciate you, our listeners, and want to bring you more content.
We will be delivering a podcast every day, seven days a week, every single day.
You'll get a detailed breakdown of current topics that the mainstream media should be covering, but if they are covering, they're amplifying establishment messages and not telling you the truth.
Once a week we bring you in-depth conversations with guests like Jordan Peterson, RFK Jr, Sam Harris, Vandana Shiva, Gabor Mate and many more.
Now enjoy this episode of Stay Free with Russell Brand.
Remember, there's an episode every single day to educate and elevate our consciousness together.
Stay free and enjoy the episode.
Thanks for watching.
The Wuhan lab leak was probably real.
Deep state agencies helped to downplay it and maybe even cover it up.
The COVID inquiry in the UK only asks questions that are basically irrelevant in an attempt to continue to control the narrative.
Otherwise, why don't they ask about the lab leak?
Why don't they ask whether or not lockdowns were successful?
Is it because they plan to use these techniques, lockdowns in particular, again?
Hello there you Awakening Wonders, thanks for joining me on this voyage to truth and freedom.
And it's a voyage where we have to avoid avalanches of deception, step over landmines of pure lies.
In the UK they're conducting a Covid inquiry but it's a very managed affair.
Also there are continuing revelations about Wuhan, the safety in that laboratory, the degree to which US health agencies are Let me know in the chat in the comments if you think that's what's happened and if you've noticed that when there's inquiries they deliberately only ask questions that lead down blind alleys.
Of course the COVID inquiry in the UK wouldn't be happening without independent media voices and independent minds like yours.
That's why the COVID inquiry will be a facade, a charade, Limited to just condemning one or two bad actors and one or two earnest mistakes.
What's needed is a true reckoning because as conspiracy theories become conspiracy facts, we're awakening to the role of independent media and independent politics and the necessity for radical change.
They can't allow that to happen.
So let's have a look at the most recent revelations around Wuhan and the fact that it's been deliberately downplayed.
And then we'll have a little look at some episodes from the UK COVID inquiry and you'll note how muted it is.
And if they ever get anywhere near the truth, people go, that's not what we're discussing.
Top US health official has admitted he and a team of other leading scientists deliberately chose to downplay suggestions the COVID-19 pandemic originated in a Chinese lab leak.
You and Fauci in those discussions just wanted to turn the rhetoric down.
Is that correct?
That was it.
The doco what really happened in Wuhan the next chapter also exposes extensive attempts to make the public think it was a natural virus.
For a moment try to recall the passionate enthusiasm around Anthony Fauci at that time.
The late night talk show parades, people dressed in vaccine costumes, the oh thank god for Fauci because you know Trump's such a lunatic.
When you analyse that news coverage now, there are a lot more questions that emerge.
If Fauci and the NIH deliberately intervened to suppress and control that information, why was it they were doing that?
What are the financial ties between the NIH and the pharmaceutical industry?
What other information is being concealed?
What health measures at Wuhan were ignored?
Where does Wuhan get its funding from?
Why was it so important to control that narrative?
Why are these questions still not able to be asked?
That's before we get into the area of adverse injuries and excess deaths and the impact of lockdown and the efficacy of lockdown and how quickly it was understood that lockdown wouldn't work and the voices in science like Peter McCulloch and Jay Bhattacharya that said from the beginning that lockdown would not All these questions were being asked by some people at the beginning of the pandemic and that information and those questions were censored by the same interests that are right now saying you should be able to censor information because of hate speech in Ireland, you should be able to censor in the UK because of safety, you should be able to censor in the EU because of hate speech or whatever it is.
They are desperate To prevent these kind of conversations and this kind of connection taking place because it is a threat to their control.
So the COVID inquiry will be a kind of performance and information will be meted out, dribbled out as slowly as possible so that we as a population, we as people, don't have the chance to organize or properly respond because the information just comes out so slowly, discredited, slowed down, bogged down in controversy, like they did at the beginning of the pandemic, like they're still trying to do right now.
So US Chief Medical Officer Anthony Fauci, at the time of course, what did he stand to gain by covering it up?
Well his agency had been among several United States agencies that were funding the research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
So Robert Kadlec, that health official, told us last night that Fauci would have been concerned for his own reputation and that of his institute.
If you'd said that those agencies were involved in the funding of Wuhan and that it was likely that the virus had emerged from the laboratory in early 2020, or midway through 2020, you would have been kicked off the internet.
You might even have been dragged out of your home.
If you'd have said, I wonder if these lockdowns work, I wonder if these masks work, that was akin to saying, you might as well fly a confederate flag.
That's the way that this was conveyed in the mainstream media.
Now, what they're saying is, that was correct.
If it eventuated that his agency had funded the very research that sparked this pandemic, and that is a live possibility.
That was one of the worst conspiracy theories.
Hey, what if Anthony Fauci is involved in the funding of the very research that led to the outbreak?
Why on earth would someone go to incredible lengths to cover that up?
And if we don't learn the lessons, if we don't start to regulate this very risky gain of function
research in laboratories globally, we could have another pandemic happen again. And that's what
the experts I speak to in this documentary warn. Now, the reason I think that this is connected
to the COVID inquiry in the UK and the lack of significant inquiry within that inquiry is
because they are still trying to keep their powder dry in a number of ways.
One, they don't want to entirely discredit the government, which is basically what should happen.
Not just, oh, this party or these few individuals.
entire institution. They don't want to entirely discredit the legacy media, which is totally
what should happen, and they don't want to prevent the opportunity of imposing those
measures again for a variety of reasons, because remember right now the WHO are pushing for
a treaty that would enable them to impose those measures on any member country in the
event of another pandemic, and the description or criteria for what a pandemic could be is
pretty loose, let me tell you. It would include giving them the ability to tax your country
or take tax from your country and to impose medical measures like vaccines or what they
call vaccines. This is not stuff I'm making up, this is simply stuff that in a few years
you might be able to watch on the legacy media, if the legacy media have to report on this
stuff because an independent media pushes them. If the censorship laws that are currently
being pushed are all successful, then the legacy media will not report on this stuff.
They only report on this stuff because independent media forces it.
We've narrowed down two scientists in China whose actual research might have started COVID-19.
We explain in this documentary how it could have been their work.
One of them, a Chinese military scientist, was working on a vaccine for COVID-19 back in October 2019.
And his research could have led to the pandemic.
He was then believed to be killed by the Chinese People's Liberation Army.
So what?
I mean, this is like a few years ago, you'd have to go to Alex Jones or David Icke to get that kind of information.
This is extraordinary.
Someone was murdered.
What are they going to tell us next?
That it was actually a weapon, that it's actual biotechnology that was being used potentially to create weapons, like in RFK's book that was basically banned when it was the number one seller in the New York Times.
They just went, there is no number one this week.
We are getting closer.
Unfortunately, there's been no international inquiry.
It shouldn't be left up to journalists to investigate this.
Perhaps this is all a terrible mishap and the Wuhan Institute of Virology just suddenly became a little bit slapdash and it was an error.
No.
Apparently, there have been concerns about safety in the Wuhan Institute of Virology for some time that was well reported and well understood, extraordinarily, and suspicions that this research is actually about bio-weaponry.
Which, when I first heard it a couple of years ago, I was like, oh no, that's a little bit far-fetched.
We're almost into clichéd conspiratorial territory.
What's next?
That UFOs are real and that the government killed JFK?
What my article uncovers is a almost decade-long trail of warnings issued by the Department of Energy to the National Institutes of Health and other government agencies This is significant because it's a report from Vanity Fair.
When this stuff was first reported on, it was like just passed around on the periphery of the internet.
The sort of thing that you would get kicked off of social media for.
These are the kind of arguments that the misinformation, disinformation bills are based on.
We can't have all this misinformation around COVID.
It's going to cost people their lives.
The misinformation was the stuff that the legacy media was peddling.
I don't want to be reductive, but I do want to draw your attention to the significance of the repression of the Wuhan lab leak.
These are extraordinary revelations.
And remember, we're still not at the point where the legacy media are able to talk about excess deaths and adverse events as a result of certain medications.
So imagine where we're going to get to.
About the risks of what's called dual use research of concern.
That biology research that was being funded by the National Institutes of Health overseas could be misappropriated and possibly used for harm.
That's extraordinary, isn't it?
Dual use.
Even when we were reporting on UFOs, we noted that the CIA retrieve crashed UFOs and then give them to Lockheed Martin because Lockheed Martin don't have to keep as detailed records as government agencies.
Look here at this curious relationship between the NIH and foreign research laboratories for dual use products.
We are already so deep into conspiracy theory territory of 20 months ago that a COVID inquiry in the UK would have to be asking questions like, is this a bioweapon?
What's going on?
How much did you know?
Why are people that work for the government now working for Moderna?
That's what a serious inquiry would sound like.
But this is not a serious inquiry.
This is to aid the transition of power from one political party to another political party and say, well, that's that all dealt with.
Guess where we'll be in a couple of years.
But those warnings got even more specific As close to the pandemic as mid-2019, when the Deputy Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette warned an associate and advisor to Dr. Anthony Fauci specifically about the coronavirus research that was being funded at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Is it me or does the future feel more insecure and uncertain?
Wars, pandemics, lies, trickery.
My cats keep having kittens.
The last one's personal.
For those who are in the United States, there is a way to secure your hard-earned nest egg.
American Heart for Gold make it easy to protect your savings and retirement accounts with physical gold and silver.
With one phone call, they can have physical gold and silver delivered right to your door or inside a qualifying retirement account like your IRA or 401k.
American Hartford Gold is the highest-rated firm in the US with an A-plus rating from the BBB and thousands of satisfied clients.
Right now, they will give you up to $5,000 of free silver on your first qualifying order.
This offer is only for US customers.
866 505 8315.
That's 866 505 8315.
Or simply text "BRAND" to 99 88 99.
Get up to $5,000 of silver and protect your future in this crazy,
crazy world with some solid, precious metals, literally made in stars.
You know, the concern was that there were basically tools and techniques being used in that research that could be
potentially misappropriated for military use or for malign use by the Chinese government.
So I think what's significant here is that, you know, that research as well as the kind of research being funded was really of contention for almost a decade before the pandemic even began.
For ten years prior to the pandemic, people were going, you shouldn't be doing this, this is dangerous.
How then?
At very best, this shows incredible ineptitude and a connection between the NIH and Anthony Fauci prior to the pandemic and the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
We also know, it seems as a result of other whistleblowers, that Fauci went around various agencies saying, hey, listen, when you're reporting on this, don't talk about the lab leak theory.
Why was that?
It's racist.
It's racist.
Do you remember that?
You've got to say it came from a wet market.
Extraordinary.
Look at where we are now and contrast that with the mealy mouth and limited questions that emerge in the inquiry.
Could that be because ultimately the establishment is one mechanic and these legacy media interests, state interests, these government agency interests all align.
And if people got the Actual information that they should be privy to.
When I say people, I mean us.
We would become non-compliant and disobedient and would demand real change.
One of the scientists who stood alongside Boris Johnson in those Covid briefings night after night during the pandemic has questioned how much the then Prime Minister understood of what was actually going on.
Chief Scientific Advisor at the time, Sir Patrick Vallance, wrote in his diaries back then that Mr Johnson was bamboozled by the graphs Oh, so it's Boris Johnson.
Boris Johnson.
He was bamboozled by Grafton.
Oh, Boris Johnson.
Well, we've got rid of him now, so everything's OK.
Currently, we've got a prime minister whose wife has strong connections to the WEF, who happens to have invested in a hedge fund that invested in Moderna.
So that problem's been dealt with.
What they're presenting you is a paradigm where it's suggested you can solve this problem by shuffling the individuals within the very system that caused the problem.
We were not as well prepared as we should have been.
This is a British politician answering questions in the inquiry.
A fascinating thing occurs.
There is a significant body of judgment that believes that the virus itself was man-made.
Let's shut that down pretty swiftly because otherwise, hold on a minute, if it was man-made, it was made in a lab, can't trust the pharmaceutical industry, funded by Anthony Fauci, they did the lockdown anyway, we turned that guy into a hero, can't trust the state, can't trust the system, gonna need to dismantle the machinery of democracy and have to create new democratic communities that are decentralised but, you know, No, no, wait!
Stop!
Just answer these simple questions and we'll blame one or two bad apples and carry on with what we do best, tyrannizing people with lies and deception.
So, let's look at how the system maintains control and maintains narratives even while conducting inquiries.
And I would say that the point of the inquiry is to achieve the impression of inquiry rather than inquiry itself.
Look at the information that's already available.
Look at how that information was repressed and controlled.
Oh yeah, we were trying to help, we were trying to help.
Well, in trying to help, it seems that things were made a lot, lot worse.
So why is there not a proper interrogation inquiry now?
Is it because to have a proper inquiry you'd have to dismantle the machinery that created the problem in the first place?
The answer to that is yes.
Let's get into it.
What on earth is the point of the COVID inquiry?
Lockdown was arguably the most controversial policy to be implemented in British peacetime history.
It had huge ramifications for the nation's health, its economy and for an entire generation of children.
Let me know in the chat how quickly you were asking those questions and seeing those questions being asked online and being censored online.
The impact is still being felt with nearly 7.8 million patients languishing on National Health Service waiting lists.
Wednesday's autumn statement laid bare the stultifying effect it's had on the UK's growth rate and the eye-watering sums it has added to our national debt.
We needed a thorough investigation into whether the coronavirus cure was worse than the disease.
A forensic cost-benefit analysis of whether shutting down the country for months on end was the right policy.
But we haven't got that.
Far from it.
Instead, we've got an embarrassing merry-go-round of blame that is repeatedly failing to answer the central and most important question of all.
How many lives were actually saved by lockdown, and was it really worth it?
And you know, because you're informed, how obfuscated and confusing that data has always been.
People that died in extraordinary circumstances, like literal accidents, being marked down as having COVID at the time that they died, and therefore another COVID statistic.
You're already aware of that.
Remember, we're not straying into conspiratorial territory, although I can't even envisage what that Might be anymore.
What we're saying is, was the data managed in order to expedite certain decisions and outcomes that were favourable to what you might call establishment interests?
And for clarity, I mean the state's ability to regulate, the corporate world's ability to profit, globalist interests, ability to assert power beyond the remit of sovereign nations.
In June, researchers from Johns Hopkins University and Lund University examined almost 20,000 studies on measures taken to protect populations against COVID across the world.
Their findings suggested that lockdown in spring 2020, when compared with less strict policies adopted by nations like Sweden, prevented as few as 1,700 deaths in England and Wales.
To put that into context, in an average week there are around 11,000 deaths in England and Wales.
Flu deaths hit a five-year high of 15,000 in England last winter.
When you're dealing with death, it's obviously a very important subject.
And remember that when the coronavirus pandemic first began, there was this idea that we're protecting the sanctity of life, which is an important spiritual humanitarian idea.
All life is sacred.
Not at the very beginning, many of us questioned, but is sanctity of life the guiding principle elsewhere?
If sanctity of life were, then you would see a very different world, wouldn't you?
You'd see people cared for, treasured.
You wouldn't see army veterans homeless on the street, for example.
You wouldn't see people allowed to die because of the high cost of certain types of medical care.
So those questions were always present.
Now what we're starting to understand is that death was used to mobilise measures that were effective and successful, but for who?
Whose interests were being served?
Let me know in the chat, let me know in the comments.
The report's author said their study showed that the draconian measures had a negligible impact on COVID mortality and were a policy failure of gigantic proportions.
They concluded, the data are in.
The deaths saved were a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering collateral costs imposed.
The data are in.
Information we desperately lacked at the start of the pandemic we now have in droves.
Yet is any of it being properly poured over by the inquiry?
No.
Are any lessons being learned or meaningful conclusions being drawn?
It appears not.
This week, we've heard evidence from Sir Patrick Vallance, the government's former Chief Scientific Advisor, Professor Sir Chris Whitty, the Chief Medical Officer for England, and his deputy, Jonathan Van Tam, taking some time off from his new job at Moderna to participate in the COVID inquiry.
Even if you ask the question, where do you work now?
That would be a more meaningful inquiry, wouldn't it?
Let me know in the chat if you agree.
Sadly, it disclosed nothing we didn't know already.
Obviously!
That shows you the level of corruption we're dealing with.
An inquiry is designed to unveil no new information and to essentially create one or two, oh this person and this person.
We were told the government was woefully ill-prepared for a pandemic.
We will hear from the politicians next who will doubtlessly blame the scientists and on and on it will tirelessly go as the main protagonists desperately try to cover their backs.
Tens of millions of pounds of taxpayer money have been spent on this exercise so far and the British people are none the wiser.
Just the little the poorer notice that.
Your taxpayer dollars and your taxpayer pounds pay for research that ends up in the hands of pharmaceutical companies, which is then sold back to you, or your taxpayer dollars or pounds again pay for those measures.
It's an extraordinary, almost beautiful system, were it not for its cruelty.
Rather than asking difficult questions, as did the researchers at Johns Hopkins, or exploring important issues like the origins of the virus, the inquiry appears to be operating on the foregone conclusion that if we'd locked down earlier, longer and harder, we would have been better off, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.
The inquiry then is not only designed to not reveal new information, but to ensure that future lockdowns can be facilitated so it remains prominent In the minds of the British public and the global public that there will be more lockdowns if only we'd locked down earlier.
Well, that's convenient.
What you mean?
Lock people in their homes.
Find reasons to assert authoritarian, centralised control on populations.
You can almost see it coming.
It'll be for climate change.
It'll be because of some natural disaster or some new pandemic.
But they won't say in an inquiry, stop We're doing gain of function research right now.
Ban it.
Find the people that perpetuated it when it had already been exposed as dangerous.
Oh, that includes people like Charles Fauci.
Where's that inquiry?
That inquiry has yet to take place.
Let me know in the chat if you agree.
The probe seems to be firmly set within the bounds of a centrist political consensus that the dysfunctional government and its former prime minister messed it all up and should be held responsible.
Yet, even on this point, its exploration of the advice structure around Boris Johnson appears wholly inadequate.
We have heard virtually nothing on why scientists with opposing views on lockdown were shut out of the decision process inside Number 10.
Not only on Number 10.
Across the world.
Across the internet.
Scientists like Robert Malone, who contributed to the advent and invention of mRNA.
Peter McCulloch, whose wisdom is invaluable and has been ahead of the curve throughout this.
Jay Patacharia of Stanford.
credible scientists who had their reputations attacked, who were banned, who were censored.
It was revealed in the Twitter files the depth to which deep state agencies within your country,
the United States, went to shut down these voices.
And now we get to a public inquiry.
Let's get Jay Bacharya, let's get Peter McCulloch, let's get Robert Malone.
Where are they? Are they participating in the inquiry?
Of course they're not.
You've got Jonathan Van Tam, used to work for the government, now works for Moderna.
Hmm.
The inquiry appears obsessed with the importance of following the science.
It is unwilling to entertain the notion that some of that science may have been flawed or wrong altogether.
There has similarly been scant scrutiny of supposedly science-led decisions which seem to have been made on the basis of little or no evidence at all.
Is the inquiry going to examine the extent to which the modelling was wrong and unpick why it was so heavily relied upon?
The modelling suggested, oh no, to stop the spread you have to isolate people from one another, so they went with that.
If you look at the graphs of infection and hospitalisation and death, some have pointed out that to a large extent they seem to rise and fall in natural geometric curves.
The inquiry should therefore surely be clarifying which interventions worked and which didn't.
It should be sharing everything it knows about the efficacy of different measures, including social distancing, contact tracing and mask wearing.
Social distancing, that places the responsibility on the individual and offers the opportunity to control.
Contact tracing facilitates digital exploration and data harvesting and mask wearing.
I would say, look, I don't want to be too conspiratorial, ironically, about this, but measures of social control are inherently beneficial.
Just look at some BF Skinner stuff.
If you give people behavioral nudges, indeed, like they plainly did with young people.
You know, you were allowed into nightclubs if you have the medication, even though we now know that it was not clinically trialled, or clinically trialled at all in some cases, for transmission.
So what was the benefit of telling young people that they could go to nightclubs if they had been vaccinated?
What was the legitimacy of saying, in order to protect older, more vulnerable people, you should take the medication?
The answer to that rhetorical question is there was none.
So that's where we uncover the malfeasance, and that's where the COVID inquiry will not take you, because it's a type of performance, a type of theatre, a part of a spectacle.
Like I argue, much of this power is.
Should be drawing lessons from the care home scandal and explaining how we should protect the elderly and vulnerable in future.
That's indeed what Jay Bhattacharya said from the outset.
He said there are vulnerable communities who probably should get vaccinated, who should certainly be protected and shielded.
He said that, he was called a maniac, he was shut down.
You can go back and look at it unless those things have been raised from the internet.
It should be carrying out a comprehensive audit on how badly children were affected by lockdown, both educationally and psychologically, and drawing a conclusion on whether schools should ever be closed again.
That's an interesting question.
Any parent will be asking the same questions, I imagine.
Let me know in the chat how you were affected by that.
Fundamentally, it should be telling us whether lockdown worked and to an extent, rather than getting lost in a trivial maze of pointless tittle tattle and name calling, none of which proves anything about government efficiency or decision making, but does show you the function of government and its relationship with its own subsidiary agencies and inquiries and indeed the legacy media and global power more broadly.
It was estimated in 2020 that the average age of a death from COVID was 82.4 years old.
Any death is a tragedy and that means we should also be examining whether the young mums who succumbed to breast cancer because people were staying at home saving lives and protecting the NHS could have been avoided.
The inquiry should look as closely at excess deaths as it has COVID deaths.
And yet excess deaths is still a phrase that I feel nervous using.
We necessarily impose lockdown on the basis of provisional or hypothetical evidence.
Now that we have hard data, that should surely be the chief focus of the inquiry.
Or follow the science, as people used to say.
How accurate did the models turn out to be?
Did non-pharmaceutical interventions work?
Like vitamin D, sunshine, regular exercise, healthy eating and natural immunity.
How many lives did they save?
How many did they cost through missed medical procedures?
The deleterious impact of being cooped up inside and not least the lower life expectancy that tends to go with lower income.
We can now look at the overall death rates in countries that apply different levels of intervention.
Australia, where lockdowns were severe, seemed to have ended up with a higher excess mortality rate than Sweden, where restrictions were far lesser.
Does that suggest that lockdowns killed more people than they saved?
Surely it's worth at least asking.
Surely a legitimate inquiry would ask those questions, particularly when you see what the lag is behind independent media reporting, then legacy media reporting, then government inquiries.
It's almost as if they want power to ultimately be maintained and nothing to really change, and to be able to continue to deploy the same measures in the event of some other comparable crisis, rather than have a genuine inquiry which empowers people to make choices for themselves.
And if this was happening simultaneously to dissenting voices being shut down and smeared, and new censorship laws being introduced, then you'd really have to start getting suspicious.
More depressing is that the whole process teaches us about how Whitehall works.
In a crisis, the bureaucracy's first instinct is to centralise, regulate and ban, and then defend its stance regardless of changed circumstances.
Not just Whitehall, which is one of the power centres in the UK, but power across the world.
It could have said Washington there.
It could have said the WHO there.
It could have said any one of a number of very influential and powerful NGOs and the individuals that you know already fund those agencies.
The question of how to avoid lockdown was never asked of us, and I find that extraordinary, said Professor Mark Woodhouse of Edinburgh, one of a handful of dissenting voices at the inquiry.
Watch out, Mark!
Quite.
And now it seems it never will be.
What a wasted opportunity.
Although, of course, it was not a wasted opportunity.
It's a performance.
the same way that throughout the lockdown period and the pandemic era, there were several
the shaming and condemnation of people that were hesitant or suspicious about the medications
that were being offered, the shutting down of dissenting voices. I'm not just talking
about myself, although I am talking about myself. More importantly, I'm talking about
the legitimate scientific voices of Bacharya, McCulloch, a whole host of others, Dave Mine,
all voices that you can see on our channel every day.
Because what's being ignored in the inquiry is being undertaken by us in independent media and our movement.
And let me tell you, there is a high cost for it, but it's a cost worth paying because it's a cost that must be paid.
If you're interested in truth, you have to ask difficult questions.
You have to be willing to confront authority.
Otherwise, what you'll be given is COVID inquiries where people go, well, I don't think we're interested in that.
You'll have a legacy media that's like two years behind the curve only asking those questions in my humble opinion because independent media and you and your independent thought have already pondered the answers to those questions.
When did you first hear of some of the names that I've said?
When have you ever heard those voices on legacy media?
When have you ever seen those voices in a Senate Inquiry or Congressional Inquiry or indeed in the UK Inquiry?
So, the legacy media of course amplifies the message of the powerful.
The Covid Inquiry is essentially a piece of theatre.
The function of it is to ensure that these measures remain on the table for any future crisis where having authority, centralising authority, shutting down people's lives, controlling for, surveilling, censoring, social credit scoring all remain options for a power structure that is quaking, shaking and knows its days are numbered.
But that's just what I think.
Remember, we stream every single day.
You can join a chat that is bizarre, has a variety of views in it, some of them not to my taste, but all of them worth hearing in a world that values free speech.