Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 28, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand

45:35

Do You Remember THIS?! | Wuhan Lab Leak, Vaccines & Lockdowns - STAY FREE #275

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	🎵Never the less they could not understand that I'm a black man🎵
	🎵And I could never be a better runner🎵 🎵On the straight and narrow🎵
	🎵Watch the bulls eye when I roll to you🎵 🎵Brought to you by Fyger🎵
	🎵So I'm looking for the steal🎵 In this video, you're going to see the future.
	Thanks for joining me for Stay Free with Russell Brand Conspiracy Theory to Conspiracy Fact and it is the mother of all conspiracies.
	Remember when the pandemic revealed to us that in spite of saying what they cared about was the sanctity of human life and our duty to protect one another, it turned out that what they cared about was the centralization of authority, the ability to regulate and profit.
	We are going to show you a voluminous account Of when conspiracy theories became conspiracy facts and how the state utilised, along with corporate power, the crisis of the pandemic to legitimise their power.
	How far will you go when it comes to Covid?
	Let me know in the chat what you think we ain't covered because we're going to talk about the Wuhan lab leak, we're going to talk about patient zero, the science around vaccinating pregnant women, And we're going to talk about lockdown data.
	The first part will be available on YouTube, then exclusively on Rumble.
	You've got to like and subscribe when you get there, and download the app if you can.
	Plus, why not consider getting yourself a nice little hat, such as I'm wearing, as a kind of, I don't know, 2024 gift.
	Now, our first conspiracy theory to conspiracy fact.
	Remember Wuhan's patient zeros.
	Now, after saying it came from a wet market or a raccoon dog, it was finally revealed that the first people who caught COVID were indeed scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
	Well, who saw that coming?
	Maybe the people who funded it.
	Tell me if you can name one person on the news a lot who was involved in the funding.
	Wuhan.
	Here's the news.
	No, here's the effing news.
	What a voyage it is when the truth is continually concealed, undermined and denied by the most powerful institutions in the world, whether that's the state or the mainstream media.
	Turn on your notification bell right now so you get our content when we make it daily and join us on Rumble.
	Five days a week we make this show where we have interviews like the one we had with Matt
	Taibbi and Michael Schellenberger where they broke this story for the first time outside
	of their sub-stack that the first people that contracted coronavirus worked, by coincidence,
	at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
	Now there's no evidence that tells us that they hadn't just been in a bat cave for their
	own reason, brushing up against bats, sniffing bats, maybe even licking bats.
	But that, coupled with the fact that US taxpayers funded that research, starts to demonstrate
	perhaps why particular narratives were amplified and others were undermined, withdrawn and
	shut down.
	This is an important conversation about power.
	It involves some of the most influential institutions in the world.
	What can we learn from this?
	How can we prevent it happening again?
	And I don't just mean more pandemics, I mean more global corruption.
	Details on the origins of the coronavirus suggest that the virus escaped from a Chinese lab in Wuhan.
	Of course it did!
	It's so strange, isn't it, the way that this has unfolded.
	Let me know in the chat if you already have a kind of fatigue around this, if you've stopped concentrating on it.
	The way to keep yourself engaged and interested is by reminding yourself about what happened during that two-year period.
	The way that information was censored.
	The way that people were ridiculed.
	The way that certain solutions were quite aggressively pushed.
	The rhetoric on the news.
	People should be shamed.
	All of this is just months ago.
	Months ago.
	Now being revealed explicitly and plainly is you were right the whole time.
	Fox News Chief Washington Correspondent Mike Emanuel tonight with the new report and the findings on who were the first to be infected.
	Not only did we confirm that the virus came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.
	Also, just at a glance, it doesn't look safe enough, does it?
	It looks too old.
	It looks like a terrible high school building.
	They're not trying hard enough in there.
	They're probably not washing their hands.
	They're definitely not more than a meter and a half per side.
	And I bet they weren't even vaccinated.
	A new report on the online platform Substack says scientists at the lab in Wuhan were the first COVID-19 patients in the fall of 2019 while conducting controversial gain-of-function research.
	The story names the scientists as Ben Hu, Yu Peng, and Yan Zhu.
	Chinese scientists Ben Hu, Ping Yu and Yan Zhu were the first humans to contract COVID-19.
	Don't be childish and don't try and do that.
	Who's got COVID?
	What?
	Who's got COVID?
	Zhu's got COVID.
	It came from a Zhu now?
	No, look, one's called Hu and one's called Zhu.
	Don't be racist.
	That was the problem in the first place.
	FBI Director Christopher Wray told Brett Baer the Bureau's theory about COVID's origin back on February 28th.
	The FBI has for quite some time now assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential lab incident in Wuhan.
	Yet the White House Chief Medical Advisor during the pandemic has offered other explanations.
	Totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.
	We have an open mind, but it looks very, very much like this was a natural occurrence.
	Be good if it was a natural occurrence, because that would mean it wasn't entirely my fault.
	Dr. Robert Redfield was CDC director during the pandemic.
	I'm very disappointed in how he's responded to this.
	Largely, I think it's grounded in his advocacy for gain-of-function research.
	Most scientists are exactly that, people that are interested in facts.
	Science can lead to dogma because research and experimentation can lead to temporary conclusions that are then held on to.
	But when science becomes commercialized, commodified, institutionalized, when they have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, when they have financial relationships with other nations, when they fund research that is potentially dangerous because it could one day be profitable, and I don't mean profitable to our species, profitable Commercially, you know how the pharmaceutical industry is run.
	You know how they lobby.
	Does the pharmaceutical industry have no interest in mind but for the health and well-being of ordinary human beings?
	Of course it doesn't.
	It's a commercial enterprise.
	If they can heal a few people along the way, that's fantastic.
	I'm not being reductive about science.
	I am reliant and dependent upon medical experts for the well-being of important members of my family, continually.
	And one of the One of the things that gives me faith in them is knowing that they are not driven by commercial objectives.
	Can we say the same about Anthony Fauci at this point?
	Can we say the same about the organizations and bureaucracies that surround the pharmaceutical industry, that funded this kind of research, that clearly push one narrative, presumably in order to avoid further analysis?
	I don't think we can, can we?
	Kansas Senator Roger Marshall says these latest revelations make China and Fauci look bad.
	That's the news.
	Wait a minute.
	These revelations make you look bad.
	No, that's not very scientific.
	Get out of here.
	Who?
	You.
	What?
	The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office is out with a new report which found that U.S.
	taxpayer dollars flowed to Chinese entities, including the Wuhan lab, ahead of the COVID-19 outbreak.
	Just spend a moment reflecting on the fact that during all that time you were watching funerals on YouTube, you were locked in your house, you were worried about whether to wear masks, you were worried about whether or not to take particular medications, you were blaming other people for not taking medications, you were wondering which news sources you could rely on, you were querying conspiracy theories versus facts, you were wondering what information should be safely censored.
	The whole time you were paying for the whole farrago.
	You paid for this?
	Well, no, you didn't pay for it.
	Who paid for it?
	No, look, they caused it, but they didn't pay for it.
	Phew!
	No, phew wasn't involved.
	US taxpayers supported research in three Chinese labs that included risky gain-of-function experiments with coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a new government report found on Wednesday.
	Maybe have risky gain-of-function research at Wuhan Institute of Virology, but could we vote on that?
	Wouldn't you like to be invited to participate in those kind of things?
	We're about to spend your money on gain-of-function research at a lab that we suspect might be a bit shady about the old window shutting and hand-washing.
	Are you down with that?
	Oh, no.
	How about a road?
	Not an option.
	You can bomb Afghanistan again.
	All right, bomb Afghanistan then.
	The National Institutes of Health and US Agency for International Development, USAID, provided 2.2 million, more or less, in grant funding to the Chinese research institutions between 2014 and 2021, according to the Government Accountability Office.
	The report shows 1.4 million in sub-grants allocated by the Manhattan-based EcoHealth Alliance went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology where hazardous research was conducted on bat coronaviruses.
	If you're going to do research on bat coronaviruses, it shouldn't be hazardous, should it?
	It shouldn't be risky and dangerous.
	You might think that 1.4 and 2.2 are relatively low figures, but the whole way that this has been handled, obviously, involves obfuscation and deceit.
	How do you feel about trusting those same bodies, those same organisations, that same system and mindset, with ongoing current issues right now?
	The way that you're conveying information on a host of stories, the way that you're taxed on a raft of issues, intersects with these same agencies, and certainly this same mindset.
	Today, the GAO confirmed that US taxpayer dollars awarded from the National Institutes of Health and USAID were ultimately used for research by entities in China, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was known to be doing coronavirus research, said House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Mike Turner.
	We have long argued that the American people deserve the truth about COVID-19's origin and continue to take concrete actions to declassify intelligence related to the pandemic.
	There's a broader argument to assess here, the role that we afford science, and particularly corporatized, pharmacological, medical science, and the institutions around it.
	Of course, throughout the pandemic, they were presented as the solution to the problem, whereas this narrative suggests that they are the cause of the problem.
	As long as the narrative remains, oh, it just emerges from nature.
	What's nature?
	It's like saying, this just happened because of luck, circumstance, chance, the way things are.
	And science has come in to solve it.
	Science has no moral quality.
	Science is simply the investigation of data and conclusions drawn from exploration, experimentation, and trial.
	But when science is purposed politically and economically, it is no longer science.
	It's just a set of tools to serve a political aim and an economic aim.
	And what we were arguing throughout the pandemic period is you're calling this science, but it's only an aspect of science.
	You're shutting down some voices, you're elevating other voices.
	Now we're reaching the point where it's becoming difficult to ignore the possibility that American taxpayer dollars were ultimately spent at a substandard facility that ...caused this pandemic through malpractice or negligence or whatever you want to call it.
	The funding figure may not reflect the full amount since sub-awards of fewer than $30,000 don't need to be reported in government records.
	It also shows you how bureaucracy is used to mask and conceal facts that there's one agency then another agency and a sub-grant.
	It's not clear is it?
	And given that something so significant has happened it's obviously an opportunity to review the way these funding procedures take place and whether or not you even want experiments of this nature taking place at all.
	A 2017 video aired by Chinese state-run television reportedly shows Hu watching a lab worker handle specimens while neither is wearing protective gear, according to Public.
	If they were worried about being infected in the field, they would need full body suits with no gaps, said Alina Qian, who co-authored the book Viral, the search for the origin of COVID-19.
	She added that scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology conducted their research at a lower biohazard safety level of BSL-2, when we now know that the pandemic virus is even capable of escaping a BSL-3 lab and infecting fully vaccinated young lab workers.
	Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former director of NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, had denied to Congress earlier that year that US funding went to the controversial research project calling it a modest collaboration with very respectable Chinese scientists who were world experts on coronavirus.
	Now it looks like clumsy Chinese scientists who weren't wearing the proper lab gear explicitly funded and oh look Anthony Fauci's retired now so he's nicely out of the way.
	All of the obscuring obfuscation and doublespeak has led to Something that many people suspected right back in early 2020.
	That virus has come from a lab.
	That lab takes funding from American interests.
	The American government knows about this and they're pushing an agenda and a narrative that it's come from nature in order to avoid the responsibility for causing this in the first place.
	That doesn't mean that the whole thing was a conspiracy, although there are plenty of people out there who believe that it is.
	But you can sort of follow a trail from the inception of this disease to enormous profits and expedient actions for government that start to make it look like it was either a colossal mistake that we were lied about or worse than that.
	Let me know in the chat in the comments which you think it is.
	Fauci, who retired at the end of last year, tangled with Senator Rand Paul, in particular over the research, telling the senator during a May 11th 2021 hearing that he was entirely and completely incorrect that the NIH has not never and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
	Well that's a lie under oath isn't it?
	Let me know in the chat.
	Fauci has also repeatedly downplayed evidence of a lab leak and argued for the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 occurring naturally.
	Well there's two reasons why he might have argued for a natural emergence.
	One being that's because he genuinely believes that it's a possibility and another reason might be because if he is somehow culpable for the emergence of this virus. It would undermine his entire career, a
	career that many people argue has been smeared elsewhere with comparable errors that we can't
	go into now on this channel, but that we'd certainly go into on Rumble. The whole idea
	that science provided a solution to a problem caused by nature now looks increasingly unreliable.
	Increasingly, it looks like scientific experimentation underwritten by a corporate and commercial
	and profit-driven agenda has led to a crisis that affected the lives of everybody on the planet
	one way or another, and then we charged with coming up with a solution the same people that caused
	the problem in the first place, while allowing affiliated organisations to suggest to us the way
	that we should all conduct our own lives during that period.
	And the fact that we're being asked to just forget about it now, the fact that we shut
	down opposing voices that were trying to present views that we now know to be true, shows you
	that this can be used as a kind of scalpel to cut apart the corpse of a corrupt and decaying
	system, one that clearly is in need of much deeper analysis on the ongoing post-mortem
	of a system that appears to be dying before our very eyes.
	Now before we get into our next story about mRNA vaccines being good for pregnant and breastfeeding women, I'm going to have to ask you to join us on Rumble because, as you know, in another conspiracy fact, the WHO provide YouTube with their community guidelines.
	YouTube are also a member of the Trusted News Initiative, a set of big tech companies and legacy media outlets that come together to censor and control the public space where you have the opportunity and possibility to develop and participate in counter narratives that are antithetical to the interests of the powerful and they don't want that so watch the countdown we're leaving we're on our way click the link in the description join us over on rumble now
	Remember when they said, don't worry, it's the most tested drug in history?
	Well, it turns out the US government and the CDC may not have had enough scientific evidence before recommending mRNA vaccines to pregnant and breastfeeding women.
	Conspiracy theory to conspiracy fact.
	Here's the news.
	No, here's the effing news!
	Now during the pandemic and at its height many people were questioning the efficacy of vaccines and the plausibility of them being safe for breastfeeding and indeed pregnant women because how would you ever accurately clinically trial that?
	Now at the time it was very difficult to have those conversations because of online censorship of true information.
	Because of experts who had concerns and questions being censored, shut down, de-platformed, ignored.
	Extraordinary things went on during that period period, it's only a couple of years ago, let's not forget
	how that went down. Now new evidence has emerged that suggests that we were right to have those
	lines of inquiry. Let's have a look at the story now with a little more detail and see whether
	or not due process was undertaken by the CDC and American government before recommending mRNA
	vaccines and whether or not Facebook did indeed censor legitimate, truthful and helpful information.
	Today the CDC urged all pregnant women to get vaccinated. Tonight there's new guidance, the
	strongest yet, from the CDC urging women who are pregnant or plan to become pregnant to get
	the vaccine.
	Some official recommendations from the CDC.
	A continuation because last week we heard the Society of Maternal Fetal Medicine and ACOG issue their strong recommendations.
	Now we're hearing from the CDC about the importance of this vulnerable population recommending vaccination.
	This is based on new data.
	So no increased risks to be vaccinated while pregnant.
	It is crystal clear why we're hearing all our professional organizations recommend imploring women in all three trimesters who are considering being pregnant or breastfeeding get vaccinated.
	It couldn't be more clear.
	Thank you very much Dr. Jen.
	Couldn't be more clear.
	Concerted effort to convey one particular message without dissent, without inquiry and propose it as science or fact.
	Let's have a look at some additional information that might help us to review the level of certainty and confidence we just witnessed from the legacy.
	It is unlikely that the vaccine lipid would enter the bloodstream and reach breast tissue.
	The Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine assured mothers in a statement on the 14th of December 2020.
	If it does, it's even less likely that either the intact nanoparticle or mRNA transfer into milk.
	But now a pivotal new study reveals that this was always a lie.
	Isn't it curious how sometimes your intuition Your memory and your perception and understanding of reality had already kind of informed you that there would be risks when a novel to some degree experimental type of vaccine was being used across a population.
	That there would be perhaps additional complexity when it came to breastfeeding mothers or pregnant women that perhaps required further scrutiny.
	In the same way that we've subsequently learned that conversations around natural immunity were repressed, or vitamin D, or potential resolutions and solutions to COVID-19 that did not follow the prescribed course, we now know that some of those conversations were pressed and were controlled.
	Now it seems that this, one of the most sensitive aspects, one of the areas where the vulnerability is much more costly, is also being reviewed.
	The study, Biodistribution of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Human Breast Milk, found that trace amounts of mRNA were detected in 10 out of 13 lactating women in a 45-hour period after vaccination.
	Our findings demonstrate that the COVID-19 vaccine mRNA is not confined to the injection site, but spread systematically, the authors wrote.
	The study confirms previous results published in the Journal of the American Medical Association Pediatrics last year.
	The 2022 paper, Detection of Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Human Breast Milk, found trace mRNA amounts in 7 samples from 11 lactating women.
	Crucially, the new Lancet study concedes that mRNA vaccines do not stay in the arm.
	Initially, it was thought that the vaccine mRNA encapsulated in the NLP's lipid nanoparticles would remain localised at the injection site and quickly degrade, write the authors.
	However, several reports suggest that the NLP's mRNA can enter the bloodstream and accumulate in distant tissues.
	The authors further explain how vaccine mRNA is carried to mammary glands.
	For lactating mothers receiving the vaccine, our results suggest that the vaccine NLPs will reach the breast tissue, they write.
	Despite being excluded from the main vaccine trials, many pregnant and breastfeeding women were mandated to get vaccinated in accordance with CDC guidance.
	Does it not seem extraordinary to you that CDC guidance, as well as the media parroting this consistent message, did not have access to, and indeed the trials were not even undertaken, that could demonstrate the possible dangers or inconsistencies with that messaging?
	Does it not seem troubling to you that at that time, just a few short years ago, conversation was literally closed down?
	That there was uniform messaging, both in legacy media and on certain social media sites, where censorship was routinely undertaken, where deep state officials with direct contacts to some of these agencies were willing to censor, control, shut down and purge true information simply because it was inconvenient?
	Does this single story not demonstrate the necessity of absolutely questioning this type of information?
	The obvious intention to cleanse, control and dominate the media space in order to prevent reasonable conversations from taking place?
	Experts with valid opinions being heard?
	It seems to me extraordinary.
	This is just a couple of years ago.
	And what we're talking about now, symbolically, significantly, are mothers.
	The symbol, really, of the continuation of our species, the, in a sense, epicenter of many of our value systems.
	It seems casually unconscious that such a thing would be disregarded in this manner, but not at all surprising when we look at how the media has behaved regarding this issue and many others.
	The Lancet study demonstrates just how irresponsible and reckless the CDC's recommendations were.
	CDC encourages all pregnant people or people who are thinking about becoming pregnant and those breastfeeding to get vaccinated to protect themselves from COVID-19, said former CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky in August 2021.
	Walensky made a recommendation based not on science, but on faith alone.
	Oh my god, that's so extraordinary, isn't it?
	When you think how malign and neglected faith is, when you think how God or a belief in values and principles is regarded as some kind of hokey crap-pot superstition, and faith-based decisions were being made on the basis, or pretense at least, of science.
	Continually, people just chatting to their mates, what are you gonna do?
	Oh, we'll do the same thing then.
	Are you gonna let them have professional football?
	Nope.
	And she's like, okay, neither are we, neither are we.
	Science just operated, I believe, for much of this period as a kind of new orthodoxy to shut down opposition.
	It functioned in the same way that a medieval use of theology might have done.
	If you question this, you are a heretic.
	If you oppose these views, there's something morally wrong with you.
	It just seems astonishing to me that this information continues to leak out like breast milk.
	At that time, Pfizer and Moderna had not completed trials on pregnant women.
	Behind the scenes, in 2021, reports journalist Marianne De Marcy, Pfizer was scrambling to conduct a clinical trial of its vaccine in pregnant women.
	To this day, Pfizer data on pregnant and breastfeeding women is still incomplete and has yet to appear in a peer-reviewed journal or pre-print and has not been submitted to the FDA for evaluation.
	Moderna's trial is also ongoing and the company has not released its data.
	So as of today, there is no clinical trial data available.
	So what was this we were watching on the mainstream news?
	Absolutely, it's crystal clear.
	Every single channel saying the same thing.
	Opposition censored.
	No clinical trial data.
	And what was the refrain?
	What was the rhetoric?
	Follow the science.
	What science?
	It was essentially wishful thinking, authoritarianism, preferences, politicised.
	It was at odds with science at almost every step.
	And the people that questioned that were regarded as kind of crackpots, heretics and, as you know, conspiracy theorists.
	Demarcy reports that Pfizer's trial had major design flaws that would corrupt the data.
	Peculiarly, notes Demarcy, Pfizer planned to vaccinate all the mothers in the placebo group one month after giving birth to their babies, effectively getting rid of their control group.
	That doesn't seem very controlled.
	Well, it does seem controlled.
	It seems contrived.
	It seems like eliminating the possibility that there would be a group available to show a lack of complexity.
	I mean, why would you do that?
	That seems like an odd anomaly.
	I don't want to come across as a conspiracy theorist, but one might sense nefarious intention in such an action.
	Regulators also allowed Pfizer to significantly reduce the number of women in the trial.
	For this reason, we may never know the true results of the company's study on pregnant women.
	Certainly if we do find out, it will be an accident.
	It certainly won't be because of transparency, clarity, honesty and integrity.
	It will be freedom of information requests.
	It will be people knocking on the door, demanding, can we have access to that data?
	Give us 75 years, will ya?
	Also, we're not sure what happened to JFK yet, but this bullet sure got around.
	Proponents of vaccine mandates may argue that none of this matters because there have not been adverse events in breastfeeding children.
	But one of Pfizer's own post-marketing surveillance reports contradicts this assertion.
	Due to legal action, the FDA was forced to release the report last year.
	It showed that in 133 cases of breastfeeding babies tracked down by the company, 17 experienced clinical adverse events and three of these events were reported to be serious.
	So that's some more information that challenges the legacy media narrative.
	Another Pfizer document released by the FDA under court order found that there were 215 cases of exposure via breast milk, maternal exposure during breastfeeding reported to Pfizer's voluntary pharmacovigilance database.
	Of these, 41 infants experienced adverse events and 6 experienced serious adverse events.
	Rather troubling.
	Many may correctly point out that none of this data is complete or conclusive, but that is precisely the problem.
	Yes, it's difficult, isn't it?
	Because there is no precise or conclusive information being offered, because conversation keeps being shut down, dissenting voices keep being censored, legitimate experts who are offering alternative views are being shut down, silenced, shadow banned, whatever resources are available.
	That does not inspire a great deal of confidence, does it?
	Let me know in the chat.
	Millions of women were compelled to get multiple doses of the mRNA vaccines under threat of losing their jobs, and in some cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and New York City, being excluded from public life through vaccine passports.
	Other women who willingly got vaccinated were told they would have no effect on pregnancy and breastfeeding, but experts did not actually have the data to assert this was the case, and they still don't have it.
	The mandate in pregnant and breastfeeding women to take an experimental medical product that had not completed clinical trials in their cohort undermined the bedrock principle of medical ethics, informed consent.
	The disregard for informed consent was not exclusive to mothers.
	It affected all women of childbearing age because regulators, doctors and officials were equally dismissive of women's concerns about menstruation.
	In 2021, many women noticed changes in their menstrual cycles after getting vaccinated, but health experts claimed that vaccines were not responsible.
	In May 2021, Dr. Paula Hillard, a pediatric and adolescent gynecologist of Stanford Children's Health, told the San Francisco Chronicle that it was biologically impossible for the vaccine to impact menstrual cycles.
	The virus, she claimed, was far more likely to change women's cycles.
	I've noticed many times that coronavirus conveniently appears to offer up the symptoms and effects that a potentially malign vaccine or offer up.
	You know what COVID does now?
	It's myocarditis, and it makes your breast milk taste the chemicals.
	So far, there's no data linking the vaccines to changes in menstruation.
	It does seem, based on the certainty of the mainstream media when it was relevant to encourage people to get vaccines, that there's potentially a bit of an agenda here, and certainly some questions that appear to require answering.
	And beyond questions, trials!
	Clinical trials that need to be undertaken in order to deduce what the truth of the situation might be.
	The next year, a large study in the journal Science Advances found that reports of changing cycles were far from anecdotal.
	42% of women in a survey of 39,000 reported that their menstrual cycle was heavier after vaccination.
	In October 2022, the European Union's drug regulator recommended adding heavy periods as a side effect of mRNA Covid-19 vaccines.
	So after an initial denial, it was demonstrably true that the denial was a little polyautonomy and conspicuously absent from the conversation.
	It seems that as long as big pharma and legacy media are able to effectively control the conversation, there can be no dissent, there can be no opposition, there can be no reasonable conversation in a territory and area where you would imagine that ordinarily there would be outcry and outrage about the protection of vulnerable people.
	And indeed, who isn't vulnerable when it comes to a potentially intoxicating and, according to this, untrialled medication?
	The Lancet breast milk study highlights the major flaws of the Covid-19 vaccine rollout and the ensuing mandates.
	Government officials, esteemed medical organisations, doctors from prestigious universities and experienced journalists told pregnant and nursing women that they should all get vaccinated and that there was no cause for worry.
	Only malign disinformation agents, they said, would suggest that there could be any problem.
	Dissent is akin to disinformation.
	Those two terms are becoming the same.
	Legislation is being passed to make it impossible to discern the difference between misinformation, malinformation, and just opposing views and dissent.
	This is yet another example of it.
	We can't have a conversation about, as we've seen earlier in the show, about Putin and whether or not Putin dabbled in previous elections.
	It's just passed off as a fact.
	We can't have a conversation about how we found ourselves supporting a proxy war between Russia and Ukraine and whether or not there were opportunities of peace that have been passed up.
	All of this is regarded as enabling or apologising.
	And the same with this issue.
	There is no issue where that template won't be applied.
	If you dissent, you'll be shut down.
	If you oppose, you'll be ignored.
	And simple and obvious basic questions about whether or not there are reliable clinical trials will will cause you to be called a conspiracy theorist when
	under ordinary circumstances a lack of clinical evidence to support breastfeeding mothers or be
	taken to medicine will be regarded as a significant piece of information.
	Consider becoming an awakened wonder.
	Joining our community.
	Get yourself a little bit of merchandise.
	Join our movement.
	Become part of this.
	Leave the old world behind and recognize this is the moment for us to awaken together.
	I remember lockdown.
	Best of all, it was all based on scientific data, except it turns out that they were political decisions, not scientific decisions, all along.
	Also in the US, a former FDA commissioner admitted that social distancing rules were made up.
	Arbitrary.
	Cogwash.
	Here's the news.
	No, here's the effing news.
	Chris Whitty, who was the UK strategist and scientific expert whose guidance was followed during the lockdown period here in this country, has revealed that he would not have recommended lockdowns without political intervention.
	Meanwhile, in the United States, a former FDA commissioner has said that social distancing rules were arbitrary.
	So remember how that whole discourse was conducted.
	Follow the science.
	This is what's necessary.
	You're not an expert.
	You're not a doctor, are you?
	That was the kind of rhetoric that was deployed throughout that period.
	Isn't it interesting to see that dismantled and fall apart?
	What is being revealed to us?
	What is being revealed as the real agenda behind it?
	I'm not interested in conspiracy theories.
	That's not true.
	I am actually interested in conspiracy theories.
	I don't think this is a conspiracy theory.
	I think what we are starting to be able to observe is either the conscious or unconscious biases of powerful interests and how they led to a set of measures and legislation that was either financially favorable to the corporate class or politically expedient to those already in government.
	Let's unpack it now.
	Scientists would not have proposed lockdowns without ministers suggesting them, the UK's most senior doctor said.
	Sir Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer for England, told the COVID inquiry he would have been surprised if scientists had included national shutdowns as part of the planning for a pandemic.
	It's interesting that lockdowns were a key component of the strategy when it wasn't derived from science.
	Where did it come from then?
	If scientists weren't proposing it, where did it come from?
	We were all assumed that there was a reason, not an abstract reason, a scientific reason.
	And this was the one I thought it was.
	You can't go out because it will lead to the disease spreading more rapidly and killing more people.
	Therefore, are you willing to compromise and stay in your house?
	The answer of any sane person is yes, of course.
	I don't want people to die as a result of my actions.
	So, yeah, I'm happy to stay indoors.
	Well, that wasn't ever scientific.
	So what was it then?
	Let me know in the comments what could have been the idea if it wasn't derived from science.
	If it doesn't come from science, I suppose we should be grateful that there is an inquiry.
	Not suggested, requested.
	should be grateful that there is an inquiry. Sir Chris said planning for such an extraordinarily
	major social intervention would not have occurred unless a minister had requested it. Not suggested,
	requested. Ask for it. Sir Chris said that lockdowns were a leap of imagination. That's
	not what you want in government, is it?
	OK, what are you doing now?
	I'm just using my imagination to leap around.
	You're not a poet.
	It's not Lewis Carroll.
	It's not Alice in Wonderland, is it?
	It's not Herman Melville.
	Wait a minute.
	What should we do?
	There's a national crisis.
	Well, I'm going to go firstly into my imagination.
	And once I'm in there, I'm going to start leaping and bounding like a poet rather than an administrator who's supposed to use taxpayer dollars or pounds in order to administrate favorably for the people that I was elected to serve.
	That's what they're meant to be doing.
	He's not leaping about in their imagination.
	He also claimed that a lack of radical thinking had hindered the country's planning for the pandemic.
	Of course what this pertains to is the idea that potentially lockdown in some ways may have caused more deaths than they prevented.
	If not specifically related to the pandemic, then related to heart disease, people missing cancer treatments, people ending their own lives, the impact on mental health and addiction more broadly, diabetes, operations being missed, the list goes on and on and on.
	It's not a leap of the imagination.
	It's just someone reading a list of potential consequences that were apparently overlooked, but not for scientific reasons.
	That's been revealed.
	So what's the other reason?
	Tell me in the comments.
	He became the latest senior figure to admit that the UK had a long-standing bias in favor of influenza when it came to pandemic planning and admitted there should be a separate plan for other types of viruses.
	That's a favorable way of looking at it.
	But whenever they're strategically looking at the idea of a pandemic, influenza is the template that they rely on, and in the event of an influenza-like virus, these measures will be useful.
	As Jordan Peterson says, never assume malfeasance when ineptitude will do.
	So perhaps these people that we're paying are just inept, rather than malfeasant, and didn't recognise that this is not influenza, it's not behaving like influenza, and measures that are required for influenza will not be successful in this instance.
	But, given that we know it wasn't scientific anyway, what else could it have been?
	Asked about some of the interventions used during the pandemic, Sir Chris said social measures such as quarantine and individual isolation were not new and some went back to the middle ages.
	Could we maybe put leeches on their skin?
	And maybe some of these people are witches.
	So if they float, I think that means they are a witch.
	And if they sink to the bottom, they wasn't a witch.
	Wait a minute, they're already dead.
	Ah, never mind.
	Let's just do that anyway.
	You can't say that something was scientific and followed the science when the ideas come from the medieval days when people didn't even understand stuff like germs and Atoms!
	We're following the science.
	What science?
	Well, this is my lucky chicken.
	And this stick I use to determine whether or not there's evil demons and stuff.
	Oh, that sounds pretty scientific.
	I know!
	It's my favorite one of my lucky demon sticks.
	However he said that lockdown had not been considered in advance and that scientific committees would rarely plan for such extreme measures and subsequent measures was China as a very authoritarian centralized state tyrannical country were able to use a lot of stand in your house like you know get out of Tiananmen Square otherwise we're going to run you over type stuff and we went oh should we do that then but we're not Are we?
	Aren't we always claiming freedom, liberty?
	We're going to war with that country.
	Why?
	Well, they don't like liberty and freedom.
	And we love it, as you know.
	So when we see other people not doing it, we kill them.
	Particularly if they've got, I don't know, oil over there or if we can sell some weapons off the back of it.
	But the main thing always has been liberty and freedom.
	People have the first opportunity to bang people up in their houses when it's not scientifically necessary and there's no evidence to suggest it's something you should do and the ideas come from the Middle Ages.
	Starts to challenge the whole model, doesn't it?
	I would have thought it would be very surprising without this being requested by a senior politician or similar that a scientific committee would venture in between emergencies into that kind of extraordinarily major social intervention with huge economic and social impact ramifications.
	That's the dude that was in charge of the science now saying something that six months ago would have basically made you Joe Rogan's schizophrenic cousin.
	High on horse paste.
	So let's say again, it would be very surprising, without being requested by a senior politician, so someone basically like the leader of a country, a president or a prime minister, that a scientific committee, right that means people that are just interested in data, would venture in between emergencies into that kind of extraordinarily major social intervention with huge economic and social impact ramifications.
	The very things that we were talking about.
	Go back and have a look.
	Go check the date, go check our YouTube videos from that exact time and see what we're saying.
	You can rely on us.
	You can tell what we were saying then because it's on tape and it's on YouTube.
	Just about for now.
	Unless WHO guidelines, which YouTube use, means that it'll all be taken down.
	In which case, go to rumble.
	It's very difficult for the committees to go beyond a certain level unless they are asked to do so externally.
	So they don't even have the authority or power.
	So what was always framed as scientific was always, in fact, political.
	Now, you have to ask yourself, What forces do you think determine political outcomes?
	Ask yourself some questions about this.
	How are political parties funded?
	Where do they get their money from?
	Is there such a thing as lobbying?
	Who benefits from this?
	Do people in Congress own stocks and shares in certain organisations that they themselves regulate?
	Ask yourselves those questions and then, with the answers, just come up with your own ideas.
	Sir Chris was asked about written evidence from Matt Hancock, the former health secretary, as to whether there was focus on worst case scenarios.
	He was a health minister at the time.
	He was one of the people that was in charge.
	A bit like our, not like our Fauci, but he was in a guiding, leading role during the period.
	He said that lockdown would not have worked against many previous outbreaks or pandemics
	such as HIV, swine flu, plague and cholera, but was adopted around the world as countries
	struggled to stop Covid.
	It was kind of like a mass panic and a mass hysteria and that's being kind about it,
	because many of you will point out, won't you, in the comments that they've planned
	for events such as these, event 201, those things that happened in 2016 that gamed out
	this stuff.
	You'll probably be interested in what happened in those scenarios.
	But let's try our best to be kind and compassionate and say, well, everyone just sort of panicked
	and went into a hysteria.
	But all the while that the rhetoric was around science, shouldn't we have been saying, well, is this working?
	And is this effective?
	And what's happening in countries where they're not doing it?
	We should have used the data to reach conclusions that had the maximum benefit, risk-benefit mitigation strategies incorporated, and then regulate on that basis.
	Comments?
	The inquiry also heard from Sir Patrick Vallance, the former chief scientific officer, who said he regrets how long it took papers from SAGE, that was the body that was coordinating the response, to be made public.
	Oh, are you surprised by how long it takes for information to be made public?
	The real problem is Donald Trump and his little box of secrets, isn't it?
	Whereas regularly information is kept back.
	Why?
	To protect us or could there be some other reason the information is kept back?
	I think, in principle, the science advice, unless it's national security related, should become public, he said, adding, the advice took longer than it should to be published.
	So now we know it's political, it's not scientific, and it was, if not censored, it was contained and kept back.
	What does that start to suggest?
	Professor Dame Sally Davis, who was Chief Medical Officer for England from 2011 to 2019, before Professor Sir Chris Wee.
	Bloody hell, how many names has this guy got?
	Professor, Sir, Your Highness, Chris Whitty.
	Yes?
	Do what we fucking tell you.
	Told the COVID inquiry that lockdown damaged a generation of children.
	People were saying that at the time, weren't they?
	Are you exhausted?
	Scientists from Johns Hopkins University and Lund University examined almost 20,000 studies on measures taken to protect populations against COVID across the world and said their findings showed that the draconian measures had a negligible impact on COVID mortality and were a policy failure of gigantic proportions.
	But of course the nature of the pandemic is it had an international impact.
	There were many, many suggestions that were made and enforced, proposed, put forward aggressively, where people were shamed, shut down if they didn't toe the line.
	Another one was social distancing, right?
	Stand two meters back.
	And again, if this is in order to save lives, if this is scientifically verifiable information that's come from scientists, then of course we're happy to obey, right?
	Because human life is sacred and we're all here to protect each other.
	That's the way we run the world, right?
	In December 2021, one of former President Trump's commissioners of the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, told CBS's Face the Nation the six-foot social distancing rule created to slow the spread of the coronavirus was arbitrary and has decreased confidence in the pandemic response.
	Yes, when you present something as science that is in fact arbitrary, that will decrease the authority of the people that make those suggestions.
	If you say, do not stand any closer than six feet, that's scientifically because of the vapour you see and the spores, what they do.
	Let me show you a diagram, in fact.
	The spores will go from here and then just go, I made it up.
	That's what arbitrary means.
	They made it up.
	It was just made up.
	That will decrease people's trust in the authority.
	The six foot rule, Gottlieb said, was a compromise between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which had recommended 10 feet, and an unnamed political appointee in the Trump administration who called 10 feet inoperable.
	10 feet, that's too far.
	Nobody can do 10 feet.
	How about...
	Six!
	Yeah, I say six.
	Both the ten-foot and six-foot recommendations were unfounded.
	Take a leap.
	Even the ten was made up.
	I reckon ten feet.
	Why?
	I don't know.
	Ten.
	Ten fingers, you know?
	Ten original states.
	Ten.
	Who don't like ten out of tens?
	Lists of ten.
	Ten!
	Yeah, but isn't this meant to be about science?
	And show the lack of rigor in how the CDC made public health recommendations.
	We're going to make these recommendations based on numbers that we pulled straight out of the air.
	Here's one.
	Six feet away.
	What about 10?
	No, that's inoperable.
	Six.
	What about 32 feet?
	If I don't take 10, I'm not going to take 32.
	How about four feet?
	I don't like four.
	Four's unlucky.
	Six.
	Should we vote on six?
	What's the point in voting?
	It doesn't do anything.
	Hey, you can't say that.
	Many people assume they're all traces to some old studies on the flu, which found droplets won't travel further than six feet, Gottlieb said.
	Well, I got these old studies on the flu, and they say droplets don't travel further than six feet.
	Okay, well that'll do, I suppose.
	Oh, come on!
	I like ten!
	Ten!
	Ten!
	That film with Dudley Moore in it!
	Ten!
	The number, the Pele and Maradona war!
	TEN!
	The six-foot rule was probably the single costliest recommendation that the CDC made, Gottlieb said, because the whole thing feels arbitrary and not science-based, which lowers public confidence.
	Well, in our country, we're locking people in their house for the same reason.
	Feels like the sort of thing you might do.
	Superstition!
	Medieval laws!
	Old science papers!
	We were told this was science!
	Oh, these people!
	These people are idiots.
	These various anti-vaxxers and these conspiracy theorists and nutjobs that are not respecting science of numbers that we've made up and measures that we've gleaned from the medieval times.
	These idiots, these nutjobs, obviously ain't very patriotic and they deserve everything.
	We should shame them!
	We should shame them!
	How dare you not believe in our hocus-pocus superstitions of made-up numbers!
	So there you are.
	As we continue to review the impact of the last three years, the general medical, psychological, ecological, economic impact of that time, we now have further evidence to suggest that the scientific experts did not have the authority that was claimed.
	In fact, many of these decisions were political, some of them were arbitrary, some of them
	were made up on the spot.
	The very kind of things that were levelled at Canadian truckers and nurses who lost their
	job because of refusing to take certain medications and people that were cynical and suspicious
	and whole communities of minorities that are cherished when it's bloody convenient, they
	were cast out as nut jobs and voodoo practitioners when in fact much of the science was simply
	stuff that was convenient and made up.
	The word arbitrary suggests that it was random, lucky.
	But could there be another objective and agenda?
	I'm not saying there is because I like to base things on evidence and science.
	That's the difference between Us and them.
	When we say science, we mean science.
	When we say liars, we mean liars.
	When we say corruption, we mean criminals.
	When we say inquiry, we mean an inquiry that brings these people to the forefront in order that they may confront justice.
	A justice derived from a set of values and principles that mean something.
	Not just ways to establish dominion over people and extract profit from the world's population when it's convenient.
	Well I hope you enjoyed that journey from conspiracy theory to conspiracy fact.
	It's a journey that we undertook together as friends.
	I hope you're enjoying this weird new period at the beginning of the year.
	We got some fantastic content.
	We got the Pulitzer Prize winning Chris Hedges on the show on Tuesday talking about the conflict in the Middle East.
	He's got strong opinions.
	You know, join us and participate and let me know what you think.
	Callie Means is coming on the show talking about big food, big pharma, and big obese children being used as kind of poo pie for the FDA's experiments, but basically we're being fed bad food and bad drugs.
	You'll love it.
	And The great mother, Vandana Shiva, will be on the show discussing Bill Gates' big agriculture.
	They've got the same initial letters.
	And tyranny on the 4th of January.
	Remember, click the red awaken button to join our locals community to get early access to our interviews, readings, podcasts and solutions to global problems which will always come from decentralisation.
	Unified, decentralised opponents to the establishment, including our new members now, Sublime Sammy, DMS 0559, JustFlyOverCountry, JesusSquid606.
	Hey, I know that guy.
	Join us next week on Tuesday, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.

▲