All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 22, 2024 - Stay Free - Russel Brand
01:32:34
NEVER Seen Death Rate Like THIS! | Dr Pierre Kory On New Excess Death Data - Stay Free #310
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is a test.
Gorillaz out.
In this video, you're going to see the future.
We're just getting our hands to breaking news.
We've got a live shot there.
Hello there, you awake and wonderers.
Thanks for joining me today for Stay Free with Russell Brand.
It's a pretty exciting show that we've got ahead.
As well as talking about Trump's financial nightmares and the ongoing lawfare between New York City and Donald Trump, we're going to be talking to Dr. Pierre Khoury, who you might be familiar with from his Numerous appearances before Senate hearings talking about the handling of the pandemic and in particular the medical matters pertaining to it.
He's a fantastic guest and it's a fantastic conversation.
We're also talking about Article Pfizer, the new laws in France that prevent you from criticising, not France itself, but certain medical interventions and I reckon you'll be able to guess what they are.
For the first 15 minutes or so we'll stay with you On YouTube, as you know, ultimately our home is that stream of freedom that we call Rumble, where we remain in order to report ultimately on subjects like the ongoing trials of Julian Assange.
I'm glad you enjoyed our coverage from that hearing for the last couple of days.
It was very nice.
To be back here.
I want to say hello to you Awakened Wonders like Tolson718 and Jamie Jam and Beth in Wonderland and Land in Lizards and Kyle Rhino telling me to shut up and stop ruining the chat in Rumble because there's a vibe in there.
Hello Trish McLeod.
Hello Joey Doe.
Hello Doggods and Trowel Runner and all of you watching us on YouTube.
You are welcome as well but soon you will have to make the transition To remain with us.
It's a brilliant show today.
We're going to be talking a lot about censorship and how censorship is becoming more finely tuned even as it becomes more immersive and in some ways more monolithic.
The ways of legitimizing censorship are becoming ever more extraordinary and it's a sort of pertinent time to be talking about that.
Firstly, let's just cover the fact that Letitia James, the Attorney General of New York, saying she's going to seize Donald Trump's assets.
Do your own joke.
Including these buildings in New York if you can't pay the $355 million civil fraud case fine.
But this has generated a kind of spontaneous activism movement that, you know when people say, oh why is there not any interest in democracy?
People don't say They don't say that so much anymore do they?
That used to be one of the tropes.
People just are not interested in politics.
Well now people are interested in politics and we're seeing the rise of blue-collar movements and they are not behaving properly or appropriately or supporting their allocated parties because this is This blue-collar movement is obviously pro-Trump and that's an extraordinary phenomenon and worth examining.
You're going to see a lot of legacy media focusing on the attempts to pecuniate Donald Trump and that's, you know, the merits of that and the benefits of that, you're free to discuss there in the chat.
But what is interesting is the potential for him to generate extraordinary revenue through the sale of Truth Social.
Look at how CNN are covering that, ultimately admitting that their infatuation with Donald Trump is so extreme and extraordinary that Donald Trump has his own financial news section.
It's like Trump is a whole planet to them and has his own taxonomies within the subject of Trump.
Have a look.
Is there any good financial news for Trump?
Yeah, so very interesting.
And Audie, in fact, was the one who pointed this out to me.
Trump's truth social share worth.
So back in 2022, it was about 700 million.
Last year, it was less than 100 million.
But there's this idea, essentially, that truth social will, in fact, be able to go public.
And how much would Trump's shares be worth if it does, in fact, go public?
It could be upwards of $4 billion.
That's billion with a B, not million with an M.
Do you see sometimes how granular the news gets when dealing with its assumptions around your intelligence?
That's birth billions.
That's the big one.
Look, this is a zero.
This is how many zeros there are on this one.
Not the muff ones.
No, not that one.
Not the McDonald's one.
The Burger King one.
Now, of course, keep in mind that Trump can't sell these stocks for another six months.
But the fact is, we've had all this bad news for Trump.
This could be good financial news for Donald Trump.
Harry, and great to see you.
They're all friends.
Like that's some bad Trump financial news.
Here's some more Trump propaganda.
Now we've already learned that Russiagate was an extraordinary piece of discredited propaganda.
But it's still an idea that's being continually seeded and implemented.
Some time ago we commented on a famous Barack Obama speech at Stanford University where he
talked about the necessity for censorship because disinformation, even if you don't believe it, muddies
the water. I suppose this is an argument that's advanced because many of us would say
indeed this is one of our key points. Let me know in the YouTube chat, in the Rumble chat, in the locals
chat, what you think about this.
Is we can decide for ourselves what we believe to be true.
I've lost count of the number of times that we've reported on content here, then you tell us
in the chat that's not what we think, we disagree with you, that's a false flag, we believe this
and then we go back and forth a You know we've got differing views on a variety of political subjects, but a consensus can be achieved between us.
And indeed, what they claim of misinformation, that it's a problem even if you don't believe it, meaning that if your objection was, hey I'm a free citizen, I'm an adult, I'll decide for myself what I do with the information you give me.
I don't need you to censor and control information.
Precisely what they claim it's doing, muddying the water, creating distractions, even though it doesn't sort of really make total sense, is one of the tropes and tactics of the legacy media, i.e.
Nancy Pelosi continually saying that Trump might be in the employ, of Vladimir Putin prevents us from appreciating the despair and decay at the heart of our systems of democracy and the way that they are leading to cynicism, outrage, oppositionism.
To continue to propagate the idea that Putin is meddling in Trump's affairs and perhaps has him in his financial fraud perpetuates an idea that otherwise would have been long dismissed and we've got a brilliant piece of propaganda coming up for you later around excess deaths because now the excess deaths are accepted as an actual reality.
The UK system for recording excess deaths has literally been amended.
This is brilliant.
Because the maths didn't work, they changed maths itself or math in your accent.
Let's have a look at Nancy Pelosi still banging on about Russiagate when most sensible people have come to the conclusion that the problem with democracy is actually Nancy Pelosi.
Putin is probably the richest person in the world.
Well, that's just... Is he... Do we know that?
I mean, what, more than various Saudi Arabian monarchs and more than various... I mean, I don't know.
Can you just say that?
Can you just go onto the news at a time when people are saying, we've got to be careful of misinformation and just say... Like, you know, in Julian Assange's case, The other day, when people said, like, the CIA were planning to kill Julian Assange, Mike Pompeo has admitted that, it's widely understood, people went, hey, you can't just say that!
You can't just say things!
You can't just turn up on MSNBC in a delightful, rather Christmas-themed broach, and say that Vladimir Putin is the world's richest man, I've seen him with his top off, holding a rifle on horseback, he's got bum cancer, and he's the world's richest man.
Not verify anything.
Actually, you can if you're Nancy Pelosi.
I'm the richest person in the world.
How did he make his money?
Did he know someone that knew a lot about Apple stocks and shares and then tell his spouse, hey, why don't you invest in Apple?
I've got a feeling that Apple's going to go through the roof.
Buy high, sell low.
I can't remember.
Forget all these ratings that people have.
The richest person in the world.
Forget the ratings!
All these ratings!
Just trust me!
Why wouldn't you trust me?
I've already told you I'm in politics to help children every half hour while getting extraordinarily rich on a 200 grand a year salary and massing a fortune while my husband Paul Pelosi, when he can keep the burglars out of the house and keep the booze out of his mouth, seems to be doing very well, thank you very much.
He's also We all know who it is.
It's Trump.
Trump's evil.
I've got a chart here of people that I reckon's evil right now.
Evil!
A very sort of complex idea that theologians and philosophers long debate.
But is there such a thing as evil?
Can you have evil?
If God Is all of reality an omnipotent?
How can evil exist?
Does that mean that God is sanctioning evil?
No, I'll tell you what evil is.
It's Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump.
That's what it is.
And anyone that would vote for them.
And anybody that doesn't think MSNBC is great.
And anybody that would want independent media to inform them and give them the right to decide things for themselves.
That's evil.
Among the top three or four most evil people in the world.
It's got like a Champions League playoffs of evil.
What is this?
It's an extraordinary new game of guess who's evil.
What does he have on Donald Trump that he'd have to constantly be catering to Putin?
Stop!
They're going back to the wee-wee stuff, aren't they?
I feel like somebody's been wee-weed upon.
Telling Putin, go into these countries, NATO countries.
NATO was there to stop Russia, to keep Russia out.
It's harder to stop Russia if you keep going closer and closer to Russia.
All right, Russia is getting closer and closer to us.
Well, what you've done there is you've moved closer to it.
It's an issue of perspective, really.
I have been successful for nearly 75 years.
We will celebrate that security success.
And then we have, what's his name?
I usually have him nameless saying he does Voldemort.
Is it Voldemort is the name of the show?
This is children's television.
It's children's television.
I don't say his name.
If you say Donald Trump's name three times in the mirror, you'll turn orange yourself.
Your hands will shrink and you'll be fined $350 million.
To support NATO and encouraging Russia to invade NATO countries.
He who shall not be named.
I know Voldemort well, so there's another guy kind of like him.
What do you think?
We're all wondering this question, Speaker Pelosi.
What do you think Putin has on him?
I mean it's... Just inviting more speculation.
That's meant to be the news.
Why don't you make up some more stuff?
So many facts about what's going on over there.
Do you know that the 2014 coup involved the CIA?
Do you know that there are biolabs in that country?
What about the extraordinary relationship between Burisma, a Ukrainian company, and members of Hunter Biden's family?
There are indeed many things that need to be discussed about both Political organizations in your all-powerful country, the United States of America.
And indeed, when you consider the case of Julian Assange and the fact that Trump is the one that finally pressed the button on that espionage charge and didn't pardon him, there are doubtless questions that have to be asked there.
But you ain't gonna get them questions asked on MSNBC because they want to corral you into a tiny paddock of ignorance through censorship.
Sure seems like something, as you've said a few times, given that he refuses to criticize him, that he seems to be a fanboy of him.
Do you see how they all reacted when Jon Stewart, like, criticized Joe Biden?
Everyone just, like, went to the toilet in their own trousers with dread that such a thing could happen.
What we need, I suppose, is a degree of balance and utility and respect for one another's opinion, an ability to communicate openly, and none of these things are being granted to us.
Those of you that saw Mike Benz's conversation with Tucker.
Tucker's been having some important conversations lately.
A lot of people say the Putin conversation was important.
Some people say, no, no, when he spoke to Russell Brand, that's one of the defining moments of our generation.
But for my two cents, his conversation with Mike Benz is truly significant in outlining how the censorship industrial complex truly works.
And it helps us to Answer some questions that have been bothering me for a long time.
For example, someone that's like my age, and I am my age by a sheer coincidence, maybe it's a conspiracy theory, the idea that the liberal left were interested in free speech was a kind of defining idea.
How did that change?
When did the neoliberalist left, I suppose we'll have to call them, stop caring about free speech?
Well, this is something we can Let's have a look at that together.
This is an article from The Federalist, as you can see, and it's a line of inquiry we'll be exploring in more depth over the course of the week when we're looking at some of Mike Benzie's revelations.
How global censorship is a phenomenon that's emerged in the internet age and is a tool that is being used to control us all.
We're familiar with it because of the great work of Li Fang.
We know how logically AI censored and controlled our work.
We know how Madonna paid a lot of money to censor and control stuff.
We'd said as well as others, I suppose I'm just focusing on myself because of, you know, I am me.
Hey, just check out this from the Federalist.
You're going to love this.
This is brilliant.
It's going to help you to understand a lot of global ideas, or at least it helped me to understand them.
I hope it helps you, Ruby C. Kinglet, over there on the AwakendWonder chat.
I hope it helps you, Jude DeBrain, over in the Rumble chat right now.
And if you're watching this on YouTube, we'll be there for a few more minutes, but I want you to consider coming over.
Check this.
Among other things, free speech on the internet allowed US-backed groups to assert control over state-run media in foreign countries, making it much easier to overthrow governments.
Also, I like free speech when it caused disruption in places like Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya.
The high watermark of this way of deploying free speech online, Benz explains, was the Arab Spring in 2011 and 2012.
Now, I was really excited about that.
I was like, oh my god!
The internet's going to help people to organise and oppose the state.
And out of that, of course, came the Occupy movement.
And then things started to change.
There was, of course, you know, like there was, we were still living through the repercussions of the financial crash, but censorship changed radically around that time.
The Obama administration considered these kind of regimes to be problematic in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya.
They all began falling in the so-called Facebook and Twitter revolution.
So it was convenient for them to support free speech at that point.
During that time, the State Department worked closely with these social media companies to keep them up-to-date.
And running in those countries to be used as tools for protesters and dissident groups that were trying to circumvent state censorship.
Check out this though.
This is why this ongoing war is pivotal.
This is why the continuing condemnation of Vladimir Putin and the ongoing support of Ukraine's, let's face it, unwinnable war against Russia are significant and interesting and I say that with all respect for Ukrainian people and those directly affected in this conflict.
All that changed in 2014 after the US-backed coup in Ukraine toppled the government of Viktor Yanukovych and there was an unexpected pro-Russia counter-coup in Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine.
And that could have similar support from Russia.
You would have to include that if you were sensible and balanced and an analyst of these kind of events.
Later that same year, says Benz, when the people of Crimea voted to be annexed into the Russian Federation, that was the last straw for the concept of free speech on the internet in the eyes of NATO.
I don't like free speech anymore.
Free speech is very important.
Okay, we the people of Crimea would like to use that free speech to declare a new affinity with our ethnic brothers in Russia.
Do you know what free speech is?
It's hate speech.
We're going to have to have a lot less of that and start censoring it radically.
Now, this is where it gets interesting with regard to what Nancy Pelosi has just said about Putin.
In some quarters, that would be regarded as an unfounded piece of conspiracy theory.
Let's have a little look.
Oh, is it up already?
Government-backed censors who rigged the 2020 election.
This is amazing because, you know, look, I'm still on YouTube and talking about election rigging is a pretty controversial subject.
So I'll tread very carefully here.
And you know me by now.
I don't have a decided outcome in your country, certainly for how elections go.
It's your country.
You do what you want to do with it.
You've already kicked out Britain once.
But check this, and then Trump was elected.
From that moment, and indeed we know from the Russia collusion hoax, even before Trump was elected in 2016, the US foreign policy and defense establishments, which have done so much to censor and weaponize the internet overseas, turned their attention to American citizens.
Initially, their predicate for domestic surveillance was Crossfire Hurricane, the fatuous notion that Russia had infiltrated the Trump campaign and that Trump was a Russian asset.
Once that collapsed, they needed another excuse to spy on and censor Americans who held disfavored opinions or who spread misinformation, to put it in the parlance of the censorship industrial complex.
To do that, they had to get around the prohibition Against the CIA operating on American soil and they have indeed done that and that's what is significant about this time and we're going to be looking at that in more detail over the coming week.
We've got a really fantastic and amusing story about how the UK have literally meddled with the concept of arithmetic itself in order to, in my view, mask excess deaths.
Excess deaths are high since 2019 for some reason.
I don't know what's causing that.
I'll tell you what's causing it!
Math!
If only these numbers didn't add up the same way, maybe we could turn the calculator the other way around and look, it says boobless or shell.
This way, isn't that more fun?
Why do numbers have to be so restricted?
What is the Sesame Street?
Listen, you guys, if you're watching us on YouTube, we're going to be available for a few seconds now, so I'm going to need you to click the link and join us over on Rumble.
But before you go, stress might be the very reason that you cannot lose weight.
This is a word from our sponsors.
I've not gone mad.
If you have moderate to high stress, and Lord alone knows we do here reporting on these issues on a daily basis, this doctor formulated weight loss supplement called Lean could be your solution.
Chronic stress wreaks havoc on blood sugar which can cause your body to store excess fat.
We all know that.
Stress can also slow your metabolism which fuels weight gain and stress eating and sugar cravings.
Here's the good news.
The studied ingredients in lean have been shown to help maintain healthy blood sugar levels, help optimize metabolism and keep your appetite under control.
If your life is stressful and whose life isn't stressful under this crazy regime and you want to lose weight, add lean To a healthy diet and exercise lifestyle.
Don't use it in some crazy way.
Be careful.
Eat sensibly.
You'll get 15% off of this if you go to TakeLean.com and enter brand15.
That promo code will let them know that we sent you and it's good for our business.
Brand15 at TakeLean.com.
There's a link in the description.
Now I've got to say this fast like you do on a commercial.
Statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.
Why would you trust those guys anyway?
This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease and is not a substitute or alternative care from your healthcare provider.
Whoo!
Okay, check this out though.
If you want some genuine propaganda, this is beautiful.
This is one of the most beautiful things I've seen in a long, long time.
In the UK, they've realised, oh no, too many people have died in the last couple of years.
What about if we calculated with the new improved method?
Have a look at the first part of this, but I'm only going to show you the first part.
On YouTube, because this has got to be for our loyal supporters, and I'm going to speak so freely on this one, you are going to love it.
Just let's have a look at the first bit.
Check this out.
Instead of going, excess death is a problem, why don't we look into what's causing excess deaths?
They've gone, excess death is a problem, why don't we change maths so there isn't so many excess deaths?
During and since the coronavirus pandemic, we've generally seen more people die than we'd expect.
Yeah, we have, haven't we?
Have you noticed that in the chat?
More people are dying than we'd expect and they didn't die of Covid.
Was there anything else that could have been causing people to die?
They know this is a big story, that's the one.
Have we got someone in the office that we can use that hasn't got too much flamboyance or charisma that can make the idea that people are dying at unprecedented levels seem like quite a boring fact and something that's to do with maths We call these deaths, above average, excess deaths.
is not interesting and you shouldn't watch it or look at it.
And I don't mean that in a mean way about Jane, who's a human being with a soul
and who deserves love and respect.
We call these deaths above average excess deaths.
Yeah, a lot of excess deaths.
Different organizations have used different ways to calculate this.
I did, for example, has looked at how many people die on average, then looked if that,
the number this year is bigger, and then the deficit or surfeit would be the excess deaths.
Each with merit and particular uses.
But some of them made it look like too many people were dying.
So we had to come up with a new system.
Listen, we're going to stop doing this on YouTube.
I'm enjoying this too much.
Do the countdown if you can.
Listen, you've got to come with us because we've got Pierre Corry coming on the show in a second.
He is magnificent.
He's one of those people that makes you believe that It's not science that's broken.
It's not medicine that's broken.
It's the systems that are behind it.
It's that they have been co-opted.
Also, consider becoming an AwakendWonder because we make additional content every week.
And this week I'm talking about Amy Winehouse and the new film about her and the exploitation of figures in media.
See you in a few seconds.
Click the link.
Get over to Rumble.
See you.
Get over here, will ya?
All right, let's get back to that, um, that bit of propaganda.
No one does propaganda like the British do propaganda.
Australian propaganda is kind of, all right, now listen, we just got a bit of information.
American propaganda comes in a variety of styles.
You remember the mad giddy array of dancing syringes, one for every demographic.
Hip-hop propaganda, gay propaganda, country propaganda, propaganda for children.
It was extraordinary.
It was extraordinary.
But Britain, they just sort of come out and tell you that maths isn't objective and we're changing the way numbers work.
For example, six and nine look a lot like each other, so we're just turning them upside down and back the front.
For example, for planning health interventions and identifying emerging threats.
In the spirit of continuous improvement, we've been working... Yeah, that's the spirit.
Continuous improvement.
Not in the spirit of masking the terrible number of excess deaths that have... Right, we're on rumble.
...been caused by vaccines!
Let's have it right!
All of a sudden, loads and loads of people that we didn't expect to die.
Could it have been vaccine?
The very fact that it's illegal to say that doesn't make me think, oh well it definitely can't be that.
That must be why they've made it illegal.
Working with independent experts and those across government.
Independent experts.
Let's have a little look at the funding.
And why are they spending so much money censoring people that are going, I'm a bit worried that these vaccines are causing adverse events and even deaths.
Whoa, we better censor that.
Why?
Why? Well because it's just, you know, definitely not true and stuff.
...to develop a common UK-wide approach.
Using our new approach, today's release estimates...
I wonder if you can guess, do you think that the new method for calculating
is going to mean that they announce that there have been less excess deaths or more excess deaths?
I.e.
what is the intention of this piece?
Is the intention to tell you, listen, Bloody hell!
Loads of people that we didn't expect to die, died!
Or is the intention, hello, there's nothing to worry about, why don't you carry on being obedient?
Don't get disgusted with the system and start causing terrible trouble and demanding new systems of government because actually not nearly so many people died as you first imagined by using your eyes and old-fashioned numbers before we tweaked numbers and made them a bit more reliable.
11,000 excess deaths in 2023.
It used to be 30,000.
It used to be 30,000.
They've just gone, oh yeah, but you know, people are always dying though, aren't they?
The way they gerrymandered, manipulated these numbers is beautiful.
Whoever did this, let's get them to start doing our accounts, I think.
Could you have a look at our books, please?
Because I'm sick and tired of giving half of everything we earn to a government that disgusts me to wage wars that I don't want.
All of that.
Oh, you don't pay your taxes.
Oh, we do!
We all do!
You have to!
While this is lower than our previous estimate, our new method accounts for the growth and ageing of the population.
Now, thanks for clearing that up.
Like, the growth and the ageing of the population.
Got it.
Got it.
These are key factors in understanding how many deaths we'd expect to see and whether the number of deaths is below or above this estimate.
Looking more closely at the last months of 2020, Can we look at this more closely?
Because it's making it look like we may have nearly mandated a medicine that killed people.
Can we keep looking at it till it gets smaller and smaller?
If you squint at the 30,000, it looks like 3,000.
But we can't really make everybody squint, can we?
Well, a lot of people are having Bell's palsy and stuff.
Some people are squinting through sheer lack of choice. Well that's good, so some of
them they're not going to be able to see the numbers. And then there's those people who've got other
brain diseases and a lot of people are going to have pericarditis. They're not going to have time
to look at this. Yes, yes, and then there's the myocarditis people, there's the people that are
collapsing all the time. Actually this is this is all good news. 23. There were actually negative
excess deaths, meaning fewer deaths than average being registered. Further back across the
pandemic, the trends and peaks in excess deaths are the same using the new method as they were under the
old.
Oh good, they're losing aren't they?
Because the very fact that they've had to produce this video shows you, oh no, excess deficit is coming down the pipe, you better get it ready.
Now you know from looking at the way that their censorship industrial complex operates in other areas that they do things like pre-bunking, debunking, say it's muddying the water.
You're going to hear a story, a crazy story by the way, about Hunter Biden's laptop that appears to reveal that Joe Biden's business interests intersect In his son's business interests in ways that were a little, well, I don't know, illegal.
When you hear that, that's Russian disinformation.
So just prepare, you guys.
Russian disinformation.
Everybody in their positions.
And action!
Let's go run a democracy, y'all!
Now this one is like, oh no, excess deficits coming down the line.
We've just had the biggest COVID study in history.
It's revealed myocarditis, pericarditis, all the things we've been talking about since the beginning of the pandemic don't Don't vaccinate during a pandemic.
Don't vaccinate children when it's completely unknown.
All that sort of information that's been in the ether that we've been discussing for a long while has now been verified by a study that they've participated in in project Mitigate This Information.
Dampen down the outrage of a global population.
Now what they're doing is excess deaths.
Uh-oh.
We better alter maths itself.
Somebody dig up Pythagoras.
That ain't no triangle.
It's important to note there are estimates of excess deaths.
Just that.
Estimates.
It's all just an estimate.
It's just your grandma.
It's just your freedom.
It's just democracy.
It's just the ability to think and communicate online.
It's just an estimate.
They can't be counted individually, unlike death registrations, which haven't changed.
It's the National Statistics playing our part in propagandising you.
Wow!
What an extraordinary story.
I hope you enjoyed that and I hope you're able to keep your grip on reality in spite of their ongoing attempts to control you.
We did a little poll earlier on.
Let's have a look at that.
The UK government has found a new way to report excess deaths in order to In order to keep you better informed, I've suppressed the number of people that have inexplicably died since 2020, or C was, I can't remember what was C, just to keep math fun.
And I even called it math to appeal to you, you mad Americans.
And of course, all of you worked out what that was about.
I think we did another version of it.
But listen, you don't want to listen to me.
Ranting and raving about my opinions on what went on in COVID.
Not when we've got Pierre Corry, a medical doctor, MPA, President and Chief Medical Officer of the FLCCC Alliance.
He's an author of the best-selling book, The War on Ivermectin.
And if you want to follow him, you can follow him on X, using the tag, at Pierre Corry.
This is a really helpful and brilliant conversation.
And in addition to this conversation, which I know you're going to love, We've also got a brilliant investigation into France's new article Pfizer, i.e.
if you criticize vaccines, it's illegal and you can go to jail.
Sometimes I feel like I'm making it up, but the truth is I'm not making it up.
It's just stuff that I've been informed.
By a team of researchers and producers that actually does confirm a lot of my pre-existing biases around the way the global establishment works.
So listen guys, if you're not a member of our AwakendWonder community yet, become a member now.
You can join monthly or annually.
I do additional videos.
I do impromptu appearances.
I answer your questions, but perhaps more important than anything, We're building a movement together because I think you recognize, don't you?
Isn't that why you're here?
That this is getting pretty serious and if we don't have a pretty large-scale spontaneous spiritual awakening, we're all...
So why don't you stay and enjoy our conversation with Pierre.
You do want to hear me rant orange, Tosh, but I'll tell you now, there's a lot of people in this room alone who don't.
So we're going to listen to a brilliant expert.
We're going to dive into this stuff in France.
And tomorrow's show is wonderful as well.
We've got Andrew Bridgen on and Meryl Nass.
We've got some fantastic stuff.
This conversation is going to make you smarter.
It's going to equip you with the information you need to have the conversations you're going to have to have as we break away from the mainstream, as we challenge our national institutions and as we become disobedient, awakened and active together.
Here's my conversation with the brilliant and rather beautiful Dr. Pierre Khoury.
I hope you enjoy it.
Pierre, thanks for joining us today on Stay Free.
Thanks, Russell.
It's an honour.
I first want to talk about excess deaths and the peculiar quirk that it is insurance companies that have contributed to the revelation of the extent of excess deaths because they needed to adjust their premiums to account for unexpected and unusual deaths.
Why is this, first of all, significant, Pierre?
Well, I think, you know, the actuarial industry, that's data that really there's no incentive to corrupt.
I mean, that's how they make their money, right?
So that's as accurate a data as it's possible.
They have to know what the death rates are, right, in order to price their products.
And they started talking about how they saw unprecedented rates of dying.
In fact, they said historically unprecedented.
They've never seen rates of death like this amongst young people, largely starting in 2021.
And in particular, that third quarter, and I don't know if you were aware of what was going on in the U.S.
in the third quarter of 21, but that's when all of the mandates proliferated.
So, university, healthcare, colleges, corporations.
And the most telling data comes out of the group life health insurance industry, because in the United States, those who have group life health insurance policies, it's essentially Fortune 500 companies.
Those are corporate employees.
They're historically the healthiest members of society.
Far and away the healthiest members dying at the lowest rates and suddenly they started dying at rates higher than the general U.S.
population, particularly young people.
That's extraordinary.
It's also peculiar to me that a revelation would come out of an institution or industry such as the one you have described because one imagines that what we would loosely call establishment interests or the preservation of the interests of the system would prevail against those kind of revelations.
But as you have explained previously in your many op-eds on this subject, often with incredible caution, That they haven't advertised or even sought to demonstrate what the cause of these excess deaths might be, simply that there are unprecedented excess deaths.
Now what's striking to people that operate in our space, that's independent media space, that's anti-establishment space, is that these kind of ideas, that we would see unprecedented and unusual excess deaths as a result of these medications, That was regarded as an outlandish peripheral and it's still not yet empirically demonstrable.
It's not demonstrably true that what's behind this is vaccine injury or vaccine related deaths or heart disease or a variety of other conditions.
But isn't it extraordinary to see information moving from the periphery, from what you would loosely call conspiracy theory, becoming verified either in the field of medicine or in this case the field of finance.
And if If something as significant and as obvious as the adjustment of insurance premiums to account for, oh we can't insure you because you might die in your 30s or 40s in a way that's completely unanticipated or at least couldn't be anticipated 10 years ago, why would the FDA or a comparable organisation not be conducting a serious investigation into the phenomena of excess deaths?
I think that would open the door to admitting immense responsibility and liability for what we're talking about, Russell, which is that this is a humanitarian catastrophe.
I mean, in my most recent op-ed, we have data show that in the first nine months of 2023, 158,000 Americans died more than predicted, more than would be expected by stable rates of death.
158,000 Americans.
That's more than all the combat losses, including Vietnam and beyond, ever since.
And so this is a massive amount of Americans dying.
Our life expectancy dropped from 79 to 76 in the span of three years.
Who has to die for that to happen?
It's nothing but young people.
The rates, the most alarming rates are the 35 to 44 and 44 to 55.
incredible sudden spikes in death, really centered in the third quarter
and fourth quarter of 2021.
And you have to ask yourself what major societal event occurred at that time
that could possibly explain those deaths.
And it was not all COVID deaths.
We have the data.
You can't explain it with COVID.
And so I've not seen anyone with a credible alternative explanation
for a sudden spike in the healthiest members of the society.
And the other interesting thing about the data is, when you look at who is dying, it's essentially the white-collar workers died more than gray-collar that died than more than blue-collar.
So you have to ask yourself, what happened in the workplace, in the American workplace, in the third quarter of 21?
And that's the only answer I can come up with.
Well, that's extraordinary.
So it prevails more among the class of people that will have been mandated or at least compelled to take those medications.
At least that is a conclusion that could be drawn.
One of the things that's fascinated me, Pierre, has been the number of times that an evident pre-bunking took place.
The idea that it was conspiratorial to query The indemnity that the vaccine manufacturers were granted, that many people that operate again in these kind of spaces pointed out, was peculiar and cause for concern.
The Pfizer and Moderna being granted indemnity.
Now of course in the UK we're seeing now some legal actions against country, companies, excuse me, I sometimes get country and company mixed up.
I can see why that error, Freudian though it may be, occurs.
Like the AstraZeneca Um, you know, I've been found potential or at least being pursued legally because of blood clots and heart conditions.
There's been acknowledgement of myocarditis, of course, but when you piece together, even from a position of punditry rather than expertise, which is of course the position that you're assessing this from, It seems that when you look at the indemnity that was granted, the significance of the propaganda, the astonishing trope that people take vaccinations in order to protect the vulnerable and elderly prior to the revelation that there were no clinical trials against transmission.
So that was an entirely bogus argument from the beginning.
One of the things that some people, sociologists, pundits, epidemiologists said, is that we could potentially, in order to, at least the argument was, preserve and protect older people, be exposing young people to incredible risk.
And this data suggests that that's exactly what's happened.
Absolutely.
I mean, we know, even without the data on transmission, we already knew the severity of the illness, how young people fared, how really no young people were dying for COVID, yet we had experimental therapy rolled out in which exploded the VAERS database from day one.
I mean, I was first made aware of problems with, not problems with VAERS, but signals from VAERS.
The third week of January 2020, we already had several hundred deaths reported, which far exceeded the stopping point of any novel product.
And what has been happening since then?
Nothing but dismissal, distortion, and ignoring of all that data.
And it continues, as we're talking about today with this life insurance data.
Who's talking about it?
Who's investigating this?
That's what these op-eds are trying to call out.
We're trying to get the political class to understand.
That our society is sick.
We're seeing more dying of young people than we've ever seen before.
And there's no concerted look into this.
There's no public investigation.
I know in this country, MP Andrew Bridgen had a hearing about excess mortality.
I'm sure that was censored and debunked, like you said, pre-bunked or debunked.
And it's shocking.
And, you know, the last thing I want to say about this, Russell, is you mentioned kind of like some information coming from the world of conspiracy theorists and then more into kind of maybe mainstream.
The way in which I've learned to articulate it is I think of it as my goal throughout COVID has been bringing the private knowledge that us experts have gained and bringing it into common knowledge.
And that process without people like you and other independent media is nearly impossible because that dome of censorship around mass media, which is controlled by pharma, you can't bring When you put it in those terms, Pierre, it's sort of comparable to the kind of hold that institutions such as the Church held over the population in medieval times when esoteric information, in particular scriptural analysis, was kept from the general population.
in order to prevent their enlightenment and their awakening.
Perhaps we're seeing something comparable now.
We were discussing that it's interesting that the media, who of course in certain areas are very vigorous in their investigation and pursuit of certain targets, often dissenting voices, not only are they not interested in amplifying this type of story or investigating this type of story, these sorts of stories are being actively censored.
We know that Moderna spent a good deal of money, time and resources tracking our action.
We know that the Department of Culture and Media in this country spent significant money supporting a group called Logically AI that de-amplify and censor information in particular Around the pandemic period, it's the social regulations around it and of course the medical mandates and suggestions, if not mandates, around that time.
So not only are these stories not being covered, they're being actively controlled and censored That, I suppose, further suggests that there is something significant at play, something potentially epochal.
And indeed, that's why the conversation can't take place, because if the conversation did take place, what that conversation would lead to is a considerable reckoning.
Do you think that's true, Pierre?
100%.
I mean, I consider COVID to have been a war of information.
And it's really been a war against propaganda.
And, you know, I always have to remind myself and others, my favorite definition of propaganda, which comes from Professor Mark Crispin Miller, is he says propaganda is a story or a message.
To get you to think or act in a certain way.
And if you look at COVID, it's been nothing but these mass disseminated stories and messages that the vaccines are safe and effective, that you need to save grandma.
So much of this behavioral psychology that's been practiced on us to get us to do things that have really been directly opposed to our interests.
And that's why I'm here talking about it, because we're seeing death result.
This war of information, being fed bad information, essentially lies to propel the vaccine campaign, the competing pricey pharmaceutical products, the immense profits that they've gained, has been on the backs of scientific lies.
And also, like, lack of logic.
You know, to me, the thing that I think everyone needs to remind themselves is they, meaning the FDA, those in power, They disappeared natural immunity overnight.
Yeah.
Which is a bedrock of science.
We literally had countries around the world vaccinating people who just recovered from COVID.
And in many cases, they were being vaccinated with a spike protein from a variant that's two years old.
And so they're using old vaccines for people to recover.
Nothing made sense.
And I think people have to understand the corrupt control of our agencies, our medical journals, and the insane medical propaganda that was disseminated in order to support these campaigns and the immense profits that they realized.
You're right, we are engaging in an information war.
Because I recall, Pierre, that another of the tropes that I was aware of, again just because of outspoken experts who at that point perhaps weren't even aware of the risks they were taking, who pontificated, well beyond pontificated, that you do not vaccinate During a pandemic.
Why can't we discuss natural immunity?
Of course either Mectin will discuss in more detail.
But what's extraordinary is that not only are the lessons of this period not being learned, the mistakes are being doubled down on.
This country has just passed the UK online safety bill that facilitates unprecedented censorship, of course on the basis of protecting the vulnerable.
That's always how new tyrannies legitimize their further centralization of authoritarianism.
Canada has introduced comparable legislation, Ireland is trying to introduce unprecedented measures, and France has just made it illegal to criticise certain recommended medical measures.
But it's clearly, and it has indeed been dubbed the article Pfizer, Designed to prevent people from discussing or criticizing vaccines under threat of imprisonment of up to three years.
What does this tell us about the relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and the state and what appears to be taking place?
You must have speculated.
I mean, I know that you are a doctor, a scientist and a medical expert, but sociologically and in terms of power dynamics, something unprecedented appears to be taking place.
Well, you're right.
I'm not an expert in those areas, but I've sort of had to become one because after discovering certain scientific truths by looking at the totality of the evidence around numerous topics with COVID, I've had to be faced with regular lies being issued from medical journals, media, newspapers, and out of the mouths of health care agencies.
And so you're left asking yourself, what is going on here?
And like you said, it's a war of information.
But I mean, these are just abject lies and we have to call them out.
And you mentioned briefly the suspicion and sense that there were financial motivations
behind some of the policies, discussions and amplified messaging.
We have your book here, The War on Ivermectin.
For a while, Ivermectin was censored as a term.
Along with natural immunity, vitamin D, exercise, fresh air and good honest praise of nature and the Lord, Ivermectin became verboden in and of itself.
It seems that whilst we were told that the orthodoxy that was under attack was science itself, Fauci of course famously said, I am science.
And as is often the case, ordinary people were cast as idiots for their spirit of inquiry when precisely the opposite was true.
It isn't science that's being questioned.
It's the corporatization of science.
It's science as a subset of other imperatives.
Of course, true science would be an open analysis and examination of all of the data, including conflicting data, so that a proper conclusion might be reached.
How is the story of Ivermectin a good metric for understanding the corporatization of science, the co-opting of science, and the corruption of science?
Yeah and I think it's it is the example sort of like what I was just saying is that by becoming this expert I understood I had to look at what was wrong with society because I knew what the truth was around Ivermectin but you know I wrote the book The War on Ivermectin but one of my colleagues could have written the book The War on Hydroxychloroquine I mean that was the first war right and so there was a concerted effort to suppress and distort the evidence of efficacy For safe, available, repurposed drugs that are inexpensive and highly effective.
So you saw this concerted campaign to attack it in order to preserve those corporate interests.
Let me just tell you kind of the inspiration I had for the book.
Actually, when I first had the inspiration, I didn't have a book in mind, I had a lecture in mind.
But what happened to me is, you may know this, I gave a testimony in the U.S.
Senate on the critical need for Ivermectin.
Actually, I saw that.
That was right near the beginning of it.
Oh, yeah, that's all just come making sense now.
And, you know, that kind of went viral.
It kind of brought ivermectin as a topic around therapeutics.
Yeah.
And very soon after that, my life and those of my colleagues in my organization started to go sideways.
No way.
What do you mean?
What happened?
Oh, I lost a job pretty immediately, my papers started getting retracted, that I'd passed peer review by expert scientists, four rounds of peer review, and just got retracted from the journal.
Oh my god.
Yeah, I hit jobs, started appearing in the media, fringe, quack, radical, anti-vaxxer.
Oh no.
And so I wasn't sure what was going on.
But here's my story, is that in March of 21, about four months later, I got an email from a researcher, actually an expert on vitamin D. His name is Professor William B. Grant.
Didn't know who he was.
Saw the email.
It was two lines.
It said, Dear Dr. Corey, what they're doing to ivermectin they've been doing to vitamin D for decades and included a link to an article called The Disinformation Playbook.
I think if you haven't seen the article, it's a very quick read.
I think your listeners and viewers would love to read that because I read it.
Where would we find this disinformation playbook?
Oddly, if you put that in Google, it gets you right to the article.
Not for long!
It's written by an organization called the Union of Concerned Scientists, and it's published in 2017, but it outlines these five tactics.
That industries deploy when science emerges that's inconvenient to their interests.
Wow.
And they're named after American football plays.
So it's the fake, the fix, the blitz, the screen, the diversion.
And then they give you these examples.
And I started to read it and I suddenly, it's like I got the teacher's edition to the modern world because suddenly everything made sense.
And I realized when I read that article.
Did you give yourself chills?
Little bit.
Like more chills and light bulbs.
End of usual suspects.
Oh my god!
Shit!
Oh no!
It's Kevin Spacey!
It's something on that, because it literally was a formative moment for me and in COVID.
Because I saw the descriptions of the tactics and I said, They've done that three times.
They did that yesterday.
They're doing that now.
And for instance, one of them is called The Blitz.
It's where they go after researchers who are producing the inconvenient science.
And for instance, one of the examples in that article about The Blitz, it's actually about the movie with Will Smith where he plays the pathologist who first described the disease that happened to retired American football players.
It's called chronic traumatic encephalopathy.
That pathologist wrote a paper, published the paper.
His life went sideways because he threatened the industry of the NFL.
By the way, the NFL industry is $9 billion.
Pharmaceutical industry, $1 trillion.
Oh, wow.
So basically myself and my colleagues, Professor Paul Merrick, who founded the organization that we run together, we've all lost our jobs, our careers.
This is what happens.
We get blitzed.
What's pretty fascinating is that one gets the sense that scientists are approaching these subjects apolitically.
And like, oh, listen, we've got this information you might be interested in.
Ivermectin as an antiparasitic could be useful.
You better shut the fuck up!
Then you realise that you've been living in a kind of illusion.
And it's astonishing, isn't it?
Because whether it's, say, the famous influence of the Sackler family over art institutions and their cultural influence and impact, For many years surely the world of art relished and reveled in the patronage, a long historic tradition of patronage between wealthy individuals and wealthy organizations and the arts and suddenly we are forced to recognize that oh the amount of investment that
Big Pharma makes in academia, the buildings, the studies, the clinical trials that are funded and perhaps more significantly the clinical trials that are not funded has always suggested control.
Control of the information.
These are the studies.
No one is conducting expensive trials into the efficacy of ivermectin because it's a generic and therefore not profitable drug.
I just did that thing where I tell experts the thing that they're experts on.
I do that as part of my job.
I go up to an expert and go, you know that thing you know a lot about?
I think you're pretty deeply studied, Russell.
I've listened to you before, so you're allowed.
Cheers, mate.
And like, no one's been doing studies into vitamin D. I remember, this is interesting because in a sense we saw that Joe Rogan exploded into a global figure even more than he had already during this period because I suppose just conversationally Like any autodidact with the forum he has.
We're saying, well, shouldn't we all be going outside and exercising and eating healthy and like with the kind of enthusiasm that you've described with some of your own papers.
I took ivermectin and anti-monoclonals or whatever that word was, you know, and it seems
to have worked a treat and was, you know, experienced the blitz and then the slurs and
the smears and the attacks.
But then, curiously, the calculation was made that, hold on a second, Spotify, the money,
leave this dude alone.
And it's interesting that it's, you know, back to an earlier part of our conversation,
it's the insurance industries who revelations that can't be ignored.
They've got to the point where they go, listen, we can't keep insuring people at the same rate because they're dying at an unprecedented rate.
So now what has to happen is somehow that has to be either nullified or ameliorated.
Uh-oh, the truth's out there.
Excess deaths is not a conspiracy theory.
It's real.
158,000.
If that had been a single event, If that had been caused by a group of people with accents and turbans, this would be a big story.
But when it's caused by Big Pharma, let's just pretend this isn't happening.
It's, you know, what you kind of articulated a few moments ago about that kind of deep corrupt control of the pharmaceutical industry.
I have to tell you, before COVID, I don't know what your knowledge was before.
I was not aware of the scope and the scale of the corruption.
Before COVID, I mean, if it was published in those journals, I mean, that's the best science and the best scientists.
American Medical Association, The Lancet, BMJ.
I mean, if it was published in those journals, I mean, that's the best science and the best
scientists.
I mean, that is scientific truth.
To get into those high-impact journals.
I freely admit that when this started, you're going to be shocked at this, Russell, but
I thought Fauci was like a sympathetic guy in a tough spot with a lot of critics.
I kind of almost felt bad for him.
I was like, oh, he's doing the best he can.
This is what I thought.
I thought, I've said this before, I thought the New York Times was the paper of record, the arbiter of truth.
You really want to know what's going on, you read the New York Times.
The evidence that I have amassed over these last few years is none of those things are true.
Those journals are so completely run by the pharmaceutical industry, as are the agencies and its leaders.
I mean, everyone is working, as well as the media, they're all working in the interests of a massive, rapacious criminal industry.
And it's transformed our world.
And I call our country the United States of Pharma.
The influence of the pharmaceutical industry in the United States is Unparalleled compared to any other industry at the level of legislation, media, like I said, science.
I used to think corruption and I used to think pharmaceutical corruption was like the free pens and trips and like the attractive drug reps who come into the offices and buy lunch for the doctors.
Like I thought it was a kind of marketing corruption.
Marketing.
You know, that's what I thought.
This is before COVID.
Now, now I go a lot, lot deeper.
That's what it seemed like.
I mean, even my references to the Sackler family, of course, then, I'm a recovering drug addict myself, but the people that were dying because of the various ultra fentanyls and opioids were, oh, these are just sort of drug addicts.
These are the kind of people we don't mind if they die.
Those sort of people, they're supposed to die.
This is almost population control.
It's convenient.
And like you say, the kind of somewhat innocuous presence of an attractive rep or a free bit of merch and a tidy pen has actually been exposed now as a veneer that concealed or at least distracted us from extraordinary control over the media, extraordinary control over the state, extraordinary control over our health and lives, unignorable corruption that amounts to an
inversion of the stated purpose of such an industry, the wellness and well-being and health of
Americans or the citizens indeed of the world.
I can't envisage a more pronounced corruption than making people sick in order to make money
rather than getting people healthy in alignment with, I don't know, the Hippocratic Oath.
That's the other realization, some of my awakening evolution is I now have to be – I now have
to accept that there are literal sociopaths at the tops of many different industries and
corporations who betray – show very little empathy for the common man.
You can show this immense data and see the death and destruction wrought by these policies and products.
They do not care.
And then, you know, your other point about this model of wanting to keep people ill.
Let's go back to that email about the disinformation playbook.
I've come to learn, looking at vitamin D science, they have been attacking vitamin D with the same tactics they use for ivermectin.
Because the book ivermectin was inspired by that, by that article.
And I kind of show, I decided that day I was going to document exactly what they're doing to ivermectin.
And I documented a wealth of references, citations for each one of those tactics.
But they've been doing these tactics for years.
Vitamin D especially.
Vitamin D, they have been doing studies for decades in numbers of disease models
where pharmaceutical industry consistently gives the wrong form of vitamin D,
too low a dose for vitamin D, too late in the disease model,
and then they'll do it in patients who aren't vitamin D deficient.
So they never really test the importance of vitamin D and then it gets as absurd as the normal reference levels for vitamin D is atrocious.
I think in our country it's 30 to 70.
I would never allow a patient of mine to have a vitamin D level of 35.
Minimum would be 50 and preferably much higher but they have...
Artificially reduced vitamin D levels, because I gotta tell you, vitamin D is the symphony of the orchestra of our immune system, as well as surveillance for cancer.
You probably wouldn't get cancer if your vitamin D level was over 100.
Oh my god!
This is as threatening as knowledge as you can be, and actually, when you look to see, does vitamin D make a difference in rheumatoid arthritis, in cancer, in any disease, and you know what you'll conclude?
That it doesn't.
Because you look at all the studies, they all cancel each other out.
For every positive study, they come up with a negative study.
And so, that is disinformation in science.
And that's one of the tactics which is called the fake.
You know, that's the fake, is it?
I'm gonna study this playbook thing.
It sounds bloody brilliant.
I suppose, in a way, if your business model and its success is entirely contingent on people being sick and, for example, regularly getting cancer, and there is a cheap and effective way to prevent people getting cancer, you do not want that getting out there.
And something as sort of simple And as sort of almost flatly platitudinous as that is a kind of key that you can just unlock the corpus of this disgusting, cadaverous, parasitic, vampiric entity.
No wonder they're parasites.
No wonder they're anti-ivermectin, man.
Like, it just shows you the degree of corruption that we are confronted with.
Do you think, Pierre, that, uh...
Damage in science as a, excuse me, damage in the trust in science as a result of the behavior of bad actors using science as a kind of weapon has suffered.
Do you think people don't trust science in a way that's sort of more broad now?
100%, but I actually think that is a positive.
I think there's a huge portion of society now who realize the capacity for these authorities and these institutions of science to lie to us.
And I think that skepticism and that lack of trust is good, because it's going to protect people.
They're going to ask more questions.
They're not just going to blindly accept.
Did you see this thing where we had CEOs of pharmaceutical companies getting national prime time?
interviews on news that I've never seen that before. I'm an old lefty by the way, not anymore.
But I mean we used to hate big pharma and now we're giving them megaphones. And so here's
what I see in a lot of places I travel and lecture. I go to a lot of kind of medical
freedom conferences. So many people come up to me. They are terrified of going to their
doctor. They don't want to go back to their primary care provider who's literally going
to tell them to get the latest booster, which has no scientific or safety evidence for that.
And so they don't trust physicians. And I would say I feel bad for them because they
feel that I think they're very scared. They feel like they can't get to those physicians
who are awake and aware and is going to do fully informed consent and support them by
educating them, having that mutual collaborative debate or exchange about things instead of
these monolithic, you know, passing on these recommendations from these corrupt agencies.
And so, but I don't think that's bad.
I think that's a start of something new.
The more people are awake and aware of that the system is rotten and has been captured, the more I think we have an ability to start building, you know, a new one or a parallel one.
And I will say that's what my organization, the FLCC, is trying to do.
We're trying to be a source for Objective, conflict of interest free guidance on any number of areas of health.
We're not just, you know, addressing COVID.
We're actually addressing treatments for cancer, repurposed drugs for cancer, depression, diabetes, health.
And so we're hoping that that's going to start a movement towards people getting better information and taking better care of themselves.
In a real free society, people would be able to appoint your board as the board that guides their medical well-being, as opposed to corrupt organisations that are proven to take money, whether in the form of royalties or donations or funding, like the FDA or NIH.
We'd be able to say, oh, I don't, like as if it would be a football team or something, you just go, I'll go with these dudes because I trust them and I don't think that they are ultimately working for I'll tell you our organization has had incredible amount of support from all around the world.
Our protocols... Remember that's what we came together as five pulmonary and critical care specialists.
We saw the onset of a pulmonary and critical care disease enveloping the world and we built our first protocol in March of 2020 addressing the hospital phase.
Is pulmonary a relationship between heart and lungs?
Is that what that means?
It's the lungs.
The lungs.
Cardiology is hard and pulmonary is... Maybe it's respirology, maybe in the UK.
I think that's what they call it in Canada.
But pulmonary is what we call it.
And critical care is ICU medicine.
I'm an expert at dealing with life-threatening illness in the intensive care unit.
And both of those were true with COVID.
And we came together and all we sought to do is put together the most effective treatment protocols.
And I'll tell you, our first protocol did great in the ICU.
What was it?
We called it Math Plus.
It was centered around the use of methylprednisolone, which was a corticosteroid, which, by the way, I also testified in the Senate in May of 2020 about the critical need for corticosteroids.
And I did that at a time when every national and international health care organization was saying not to use it.
And after I gave that recommendation in a Senate hearing, I was harassed by my university.
They did not want me to talk to the press anymore.
I was accused of malpractice, of killing people.
And just want to record reflect, two months later, it became the standard of care worldwide.
So our early identification for the need of corticosteroids was correct, as was ivermectin.
But at that time, we also had ascorbic acid, which is vitamin C. So we had high dose IV vitamin C.
We had another important vitamin called thiamine, which we gave intravenously, and then heparin, which is a blood thinner.
So we had the anti-inflammatory components and the anti-cladding components very early on, and we saw patients do very well if they were treated early enough.
And we tried to put that out in media, but everywhere we went nobody wanted to talk about a protocol unless we did a randomized controlled trial first.
That's science today.
The culture must have somehow been thirsty for the edicts that were so blindly accepted.
There must have been some open wound for people to so willingly accept the mandates.
I don't mean just in terms of vaccine mandates, but the sort of mandated ideology.
It was extraordinary that people were so willing to foreclose on simple discourse and simple discussion to apply what would previously have been regarded as evangelical and religious mindsets to the antithetical subject of science, which is meant to be, this is not conjecture, this is not belief, This is empiricism.
We have measured, we have trialled, we have reviewed and analysed.
That process ought be uncorruptible.
Of course, as you have described in your Vitamin D example, if there are financial interests or interests of dominion, control and power behind this process of empiricism, what will be established is a method for conducting trials that have predetermined outcomes.
Wait a second, Russell.
You didn't read the Disinformation Playbook yet.
But the definition, one of the definitions of the fake is actually conducting trials with predetermined results.
And they are expert at that.
And I detail all of the ways in which they did that in Ivermectin.
Now, Ivermectin has a hundred controlled trials.
But I have a chapter in my book called The Big Six.
It was really six trials that turned everything.
They were large trials.
funded by big national health agencies, and the brazenness with the misconduct
and manipulations of those trials just to try to show that ivermectin didn't work.
They all succeeded at obtaining a non-statistically significant benefit.
They all concluded that ivermectin shouldn't be used.
But if you look at all the other trials besides those six, which are 100,
and you mass all the data together, you find incredible large magnitude reductions
in everything.
Death, hospitalization, time to recovery.
And so this whole thing of ivermectin, it was a disinformation tactic using trials with predetermined results published in the highest impact journals in the world.
The trials were so poorly conducted, there was so much fraud that was brazenly obvious from their methods, but yet they sailed to publication in those journals.
And that's really where I'm not the same physician anymore.
I'm completely estranged from medicine because now I'm aware of the deep level of corruption in what I used to venerate as the institutions of science.
We have been cast into a kind of desert, those of us that have experienced this, and you do not come out of that desert the same man.
A different man comes out.
After you've experienced these tactics, after you have been the subject of these powers, after you have awakened to the righteousness in not trusting corporatized science, not trusting legacy media, Not trusting the co-opted state, judiciary or any of its tools of power and control.
In a sense, you have to call upon something else to support you.
What are your views?
I would say it's my new network of colleagues and lay people that we've come together.
We understand these things that you just listed and we're looking for a better way.
We want to stay positive, open, honest, transparent, debate.
And I got to tell you, I love my life now.
I'd say the journey from my old life to this one was really rocky.
My academic career, which was a pretty celebrated career, ended and that was pretty rough for me.
But I like where I've landed.
I've landed with just the best group of people.
Awake, critical thinkers who are trying to do the right thing.
We're trying to help those that We've left behind.
I don't know about left behind is the right one, but those who are still, I think, a little too trusting of a lot of institutions that are lying to them.
And I feel bad for them.
I want to protect them.
That's what I'm trying to do here.
I was a medical educator all my life.
I'm trying to do the same, but now I'm doing it in sort of in society rather than in the bowels of a hospital or in a lecture hall in a medical school.
Yeah, because this is what's necessary.
Perhaps we will see that amidst the obvious corruption of this pandemic period, there was a kind of avatar at work, a force that needed various agents to act on its behalf, ensuring that precisely what you're describing takes place.
That which was esoteric becomes exoteric.
That which was inaccessible becomes plainly understood.
That which was concealed becomes revealed.
That sounds really like a mission.
I really think our numbers are growing and, you know, like my friend Del Bigtree says, we are winning.
He's been in this fight to bring out truth on various aspects of medicines and vaccines for many years and he's never seen a time like this.
I mean, the amount of people who've come into the fold who are aware and are continuing to fight to get these truths out is truly remarkable and I get to tell you, it's inspiring.
Yeah, it's exciting.
Thank you so much for writing this book.
We want to learn more about the FLCCC Alliance.
Let's do a post about that so we can learn more about it.
I presume there's a sort of a website where people can... FLCCC.net Excellent, we'll learn more about that.
Thank you so much for your fantastic work.
It's actually a pleasure to meet you.
As you were talking, I was like, oh yeah, I see those hearings on the telly!
I started to get excited about it visibly.
You'll be able to spot the moment.
Thanks so much.
Thanks Russell, I really appreciate it.
Thank you.
This is Pierre Cory's book.
Pierre Cory is precisely the sort of person we should be supporting.
Sometimes when I become despairing in this world, I remember Julian Assange.
I remember proper journalists like Chris Hedges.
I remember people like Pierre Cory.
I remember you and our collective power.
Now, France's article Pfizer is a controversial shift in health policy and free speech.
Those of you that have recently watched Tucker's conversation with Mike Benz will be aware that we are in an information crisis where censorship is becoming legislated in Favourably, in order to control information in spaces exactly like this one.
In order to control precisely the type of connection that you and I are creating right now.
France has just passed a law penalising critics of mRNA treatments, even though this huge study has just demonstrated how Right we are, to investigate the impact, in particular of the vaccines.
Will the law, dubbed Article Pfizer, set a precedent in the global health policy landscape and raise further questions about individual rights and state control, or will those questions be crushed?
Here's the news.
No, here's the epic news.
Thank you for choosing Fox News.
The news.
No, here's the fucking news.
Ah, vive la France!
Country of revolution, freedom, wine and pure sexiness.
Although now they're banning, criticizing medications that are recommended by the state, imposing potential prison sentences and 45,000 euro fines.
Ah!
Liberté, fraternité and just shut your bloody mouth!
Now, if you're watching this in France, don't for a second think it's possible and plausible to criticize or speak out against medications.
And let's face it, it means particularly and specifically recent gene therapies or vaccines or whatever you want to call them in that country.
Although you probably won't be able to call them anything soon.
You certainly will not be able to criticize them.
So what does it mean for the world and for France when laws are passed that seem just designed literally to prevent Pfizer's profit margin being negatively impacted.
It's being called Article Pfizer because it sort of seems to literally mean don't criticise Pfizer, even though it's written in sort of vague language.
Don't anyone criticise any medical measures recommended by the state?
What, like, people are going to say, oh, don't take your chemotherapy, love.
Or people are going to say, don't get a pacemaker fitted.
Although, ironically, heart disease and cancer are on the rise since around 2019, 2020 type time.
I wonder why these laws are being passed.
Let's get into it.
So firstly, this is a post by Dr. Kat Lindley on X.
Today a law was passed in France qualifying any opposition to mRNA LNP injections as a
sectarian aberration. It carries a penalty of up to three years imprisonment and €45,000.
It will not tolerate any criticism of the therapeutic treatments which will be recommended
or made obligatory by the state. Any person who dares to openly criticise these therapies
will be liable to fines and imprisonment. Seems like an astonishing piece of legislature.
So that's what's happening in France. But over in the UK, like Macron in France, we have a globalist leader in Rishi
Sunak.
And even if in the next election we change leaders, guess what we're getting?
Another globalist leader!
So perhaps legislation like this will be passed in the UK and maybe it's coming to the US.
If Canada haven't done it yet, I don't know what they're playing at.
Let's have a look.
Can the current Prime Minister think of anything he has promoted?
This is Andrew Bridgen, who's been talking a lot about excess deaths and complex subjects.
You can see him on our show Stay Free, link in the description.
Here he is, as usual, in Parliament, advocating for more stringency and analysis around the pandemic period.
That's all he's asking for, and he's treated as a kind of lunatic as a result.
Can the current Prime Minister think of anything he has promoted in partnership with huge businesses as safe and effective, which has ultimately harmed the British people?
You can hear the murmur of globalism in the background, whether it's in France, whether it's in Canada, whether it's in the UK.
There is an institutional opposition to open conversation around this subject and now legislation to prevent open conversation around this subject.
That's without even recourse to the censorship laws in Ireland, Canada, the UK.
Can you see what's happening?
Or are you just a conspiracy theorist?
And will he use this opportunity to correct that safe and effective statement or will he choose the same line as Tony Blair?
Sit back, do nothing and let the misery just continue to pile up.
Prime Minister.
Mr Speaker, to what he was more broadly insinuating, let me be unequivocal from this dispatch box that Covid vaccines are safe.
And in France you can't say anything other than that.
Mr Speaker.
And here is Rishi Sunak on GB News being questioned by a man who says he suffered from vaccine injury, which he wouldn't be able to say in France.
My name is John Watt, and I'm one of the COVID vaccine injured in this country.
I want you to look into my eyes, Rishi Sunak, and I want you to look at the pain, the trauma, and the regret I have in my eyes.
That person, in case you're not in the British Isles, is a Scottish person behaving in a very Scottish fashion, which is to say, emotional and aggressive, full-on, and in this instance, correct.
We have been left with no help at all.
Not only am I in here that's vaccine injured, there's another man over there whose life's been ruined by that COVID-19 vaccine.
I know people who have lost legs, amputations.
I know people with heart conditions like myself, Rishi Sunak.
He's so Scottish that this may not remain a verbal altercation for much longer.
And I say this as a man who is married to a Scottish person.
Why have I had to set up a support group in Scotland to look after the people that have been affected by that Covid-19 vaccine?
Why are the people who are in charge, who told us all to do the right thing, have left
us all to rot?
And left me and the thousands and the tens of thousands in this country to rot?
We're actually going to extradite you to France right now.
We were thinking Rwanda, but I think you'd be happier in France.
Okay.
John, thank you very much indeed for your question.
card system, there are over 30,000 people who have had an adverse reaction to that vaccine
and 200 deaths.
John, thank you very much indeed for your question.
Now, John, that's enough, even for GB News.
For you to start doing the right thing, Mr Richardson, that's under the air.
You've made a really strong point, John.
Prime Minister.
John Bullock, I'm very sorry to hear about your personal circumstances and you said someone
over here also seems to have suffered by a similar thing.
Now, obviously I don't know about the individual's situation.
Well, we just told you about it.
So you tiptoe through this little legal nightmare that you're in.
We're silenced, Russia.
We're silenced.
On social media and everything.
We are silenced.
We are the most silenced people in this country.
We're silenced in the press because my story in the press... Uh-oh!
There's another one!
...had to go to the government for comment, and they made... Forgive me.
Forgive me both.
Now look, we don't usually do this on GB News, and it's getting, he will not come back.
And the next one, who's just another version of him from the other party, he won't come here at all.
So please, don't ruin this for us!
No, no, no one, no one's saying, no one's saying you are.
Right, OK, I'm going to have to physically come in now.
We've lost the floor.
In a way, that's what democracy in conversation looks like.
People being able to express themselves, being able to express their emotions, being able to confront leaders with difficult truths.
And look at what it's like.
It's unusual, isn't it?
It's unfamiliar.
Rishi Sunak certainly don't seem to like it very much.
And, sir, you raised some very valid points, I'm sure.
What I've got to say is, though, we haven't got you on microphone.
And as you know, we've got to get through this.
I'm sure we can raise your points with the Prime Minister at a later date.
When?
When he's not Prime Minister anymore?
But in the meantime, Prime Minister... Yeah, no, I'm very happy to.
Yeah, no, I like stuff like this.
I'm used to having difficult conversations.
Like sometimes me and the wife talk about how much tax we should pay in this country and how much money Infosys should get from government contracts.
And it can get quite heated sometimes because sometimes she thinks I should give a bit more.
So there is a vaccine compensation scheme that's in place, as you alluded to, in the NHS.
Obviously, everyone individually will work through their cases.
It's difficult for me to comment on anyone's individual case.
I'm sure you'll appreciate that.
I'm very happy to go and look at the cases, and I'm sure you'll get them to the team here.
Well, there's 30,000 of them, so you better crack on.
I'm very saddened and shocked to hear that you've been silenced by anybody.
That is surprising to me.
God, I'm saddened to hear that you've been silenced.
It's almost as if we've been using proxy organisations like Logically AI to shut down any dissenting voices to anyone that's critical of vaccines.
It's like we've spent loads of money cleansing social media of criticism.
I don't know how the hell this keeps happening.
Why are all these people getting silenced?
It's almost as if we're funding it from your tax money and then pretending to apologise to you on the television.
That's government.
So please do get your details to Stephen and the team and I will happily take that away.
Get to Stephen and the team and we'll deal with that, sort of, never.
Of course you should be able to speak about your experience, what's happened to you, and as I said we have a compensation scheme in place for that and I'll make sure that we're working through that.
We've got a compensation scheme for these 100% safe vaccines.
Doesn't make sense, really, because 100% safe would mean you wouldn't need any compensation.
France!
Vive la France!
Stop the questioning!
I'd like to take this opportunity to announce that we are now part of the People's Republic of France.
So maybe zip it.
I think, look, the last thing I'd say is, you know, we went through a pandemic, like everyone else.
Some of us made a lot of money during the pandemic, unlike everybody else.
At the points when it came to the vaccine, those decisions were always taken on the basis of medical advice from our medical experts.
Good, and I suppose you've got the WhatsApp messages, do you?
You deleted them in factory settings, was it?
To tell us, as politicians, who are obviously not doctors.
Oh, and yet many doctors say that these decisions were made by politicians.
It's extraordinary.
You should do more of these forums.
You're good at them.
About how best to roll out the vaccine, what was in the public health interest, the priority order, how that should be done, who should be eligible.
And we got it basically wrong in every single one of those categories.
That was something that the doctors recommended on.
A lot of doctors were silenced and lobbied into silence and sometimes even struck off.
And that's something that we followed.
Now, obviously, if there are individual circumstances which haven't worked out... The phrase, haven't worked out, covers a multitude of sins there.
In particular, people who took that amputation stuff.
Sorry that hasn't worked out.
Aye, it hasn't worked too!
I got one less ligament when I fucking came here, you fucking banshot!
That hasn't worked out.
That's deaths, blood clots, waste of money, corruption.
Yeah, that really hasn't worked out.
How much money you got in that compensation scheme of yours?
You're gonna need it.
Then that's why we have the compensation scheme in place, and I'll make sure that we follow up on your cases.
If it's not worked out, we've got a compensation scheme again for a 100% safe vaccine, which in itself doesn't really make sense.
But what does make sense these days?
OK, Prime Minister, thank you.
Gents, both of you, do give us your details.
We will get that to the Prime Minister.
And as he said, he will, I'm sure, look at that for you.
In the meantime, let's move on to another question, sir.
Okay, so having watched that, would you say there is room for some conversation or no conversation?
Because in France, you are getting no conversation.
And given that this is a globalist issue, no conversation is a problem that could be coming to a country that you live in too.
So here's Brett Weinstein on the topic of France's new legislation.
France has now criminalized objections to the MRNA platform, exposing those targeted to ruinous fines and imprisonment.
It's obvious lunacy, and that it's happening in a Western nation should alarm us all.
This madness must be defeated in France, at the WHO, everywhere it arises.
So what exactly is going on in France?
And given there's an obvious requirement for conversation around vaccines, excess deaths, vaccine injuries, social policies during the pandemic, why are laws being passed that would prevent anybody from criticizing a government-mandated In an unprecedented move that has sparked widespread debate across France and beyond, the French Parliament has recently passed a law that introduces severe penalties for those opposing mRNA LNP injections or other treatments recommended by the state based on current medical knowledge.
I have to say current medical knowledge, that's in case, oh well it was the current medical knowledge then!
Yeah, well guess what the current medical knowledge is?
Current medical knowledge is this guy's got one less leg than he had this morning.
I'm sick of that bull!
As of today, criticism of such therapeutic treatments, when deemed obligatory or recommended by the state, could result in up to three years of imprisonment or a fine of 45,000 euros.
This bold legislative step, quickly dubbed Article Pfizer by critics, represents a significant shift in the balance between public health policy and individual freedom of expression.
There's a lot of it about, isn't there?
How often are we seeing government policies leading to repression or suppression of free speech?
Have you noticed it in your country?
I certainly have noticed it.
By God, I've noticed it.
In particular, censorship specifically of content we've been making.
The core of the controversy lies in the creation of a new criminal offence targeting individuals who encourage others to withhold from medical treatments that are considered appropriate according to the prevailing medical standards.
They have to always have, like, an adjective or a caveat, because they know that medicine evolves and changes.
That is the nature of science, even if there is nothing malfeasant at play.
The law specifically targets the resistance to mRNA treatment, positioning it as a cornerstone in the fight against future pandemics.
This move has been interpreted by many as an anti-democratic manoeuvre, stifling any opposition or critique of the state-endorsed medical treatments under the heavy hand of legal penalties.
Remember, the WHO treaty would mean that your country would have to provide 5% of your health
budget, that your nation would have to abide by WHO regulations, which just essentially
makes it legislation, whether that's mandated medicines or lockdowns.
And it's not even just pandemics, it could be climate related or terrorism, extraordinary
bill that should be opposed.
The passing of the law came with minimal debate within the parliament, a fact that has only
fuelled the outrage among its detractors.
Critics argue that the law not only undermines the democratic process by limiting the scope
of public discourse on health policy, but also prejudges alternative medicine and potential
whistleblowers who may have valid concerns about mRNA technology or other treatments.
I mean, certainly it seems, doesn't it?
But there are at least some valid concerns.
Or are there none?
Should there be a law that prevents those concerns being communicated?
Is that what you've learned in the pandemic period?
Do you know what I've learned in the pandemic period?
Dissent should continue to be shut down.
Expert opinion should continue to be censored.
Authority should be further centralised in the favour of governments and corporations.
Is that the message of the pandemic period?
Because that ain't the message that I received.
Labelled Article Pfizer, the law is seen as emblematic of a broader trend towards increasing state control over public health narratives and personal health choices.
The nickname itself, referencing one of the major pharmaceutical companies behind the development of mRNA vaccine technology, hints at the perceived alignment between government policy and the interests of Big Pharma.
What?
No, I never noticed.
Raising questions about the influence of pharmaceutical companies on health policy.
Furthermore, the timing and urgency of the law's enactment, with warnings of an imminent next pandemic and the positioning of mRNA technology as the sole solution, adds layers of complexity to the debate.
We can't bring you this paradigm-shattering content without your love and the support of our partners.
Today, it's the Wellness Company.
Now, you're probably going to travel soon.
Are you going to travel soon?
Are you allowed to travel soon?
If you do, lightheadedness from elevation changes to gut issues due to water quality.
If you ever had that happen, you never think about these things until they do.
And when they do, all you want is something to make it better.
That's where the Wellness Company's Travel Emergency Kit comes in.
Whether you're backpacking through exotic locations or jet-setting for work, this kit ensures that you will be prepared for any health situation.
How is it different from other travel kits?
I'll tell you!
This kit has everything you need to tackle unforeseen situations and unpleasant surprises.
Six versatile prescription medications.
Additional over-the-counter meds.
Key medical supplies such as iodine, gauze and bandages.
I'm gonna get one of these.
A comprehensive guidebook like having a doctor in tow no matter where you travel.
A reliable doctor, not like Fauci.
What's the catch?
Well, no doctor's going to stock you up on preventative travel meds, because they just won't do that, will they?
Especially now they've been co-opted by a big pharma, but the wellness company can.
Their seamless digital process removes the red tape and equips you with peace of mind before you travel.
Having this kit in tow means you avoid international hospitals, unexpected expenses and insurance headaches.
There's nothing worse than spending money on a trip that you didn't even get to enjoy.
Go to TWC.health forward slash brand and use code brand at checkout to save 10% and so they know that you came via us.
Travel smart, travel prepared with the Wellness Company's Travel Emergency Kit.
These kits, I'm sorry to tell you, are only available in the USA, but I'm glad to tell you it.
If you are in the USA, use our code, get that discount, let them know.
We send you.
Let's get back to the video.
The law raises critical questions about where the lines will be drawn between preventing harmful misinformation and preserving the right to free speech and open debate on medical treatments.
As France steps into uncharted territory with the enactment of this law, the international community watches closely.
The implications of such a legal framework extend beyond the borders of France, potentially setting a precedent for how governments around the world might seek to regulate public discourse on health and medical treatments in the future.
In conclusion, the recent enactment of the law penalising opposition to state-recommended mRNA treatments in France Marks a significant moment in the ongoing discussion about the role of government in regulating health policy and preserving public safety.
While intended to combat misinformation and protect public health, the law's critics see it as a concerning move towards limiting free speech and privileging certain medical treatments over others.
As the world continues to navigate the complexities of public health in an ever-evolving landscape, the debate over Article Pfizer Serves as a point and reminder of the tensions between collective safety and individual rights.
It also demonstrates that there can be no financial ties between political figures and organisations and corporations of that size and scale that you don't want when laws like this are being passed.
Any sense that it could be advantageous to Pfizer's bottom line or Pfizer's agenda.
We also don't want to feel the sense that there's a globalist agenda in which individual nations pilot particular pieces of legislation before they become immersive, ubiquitous and total, as seems to be the case with various censorship laws around the world, and now in this one, the further oppression of free speech, in order to achieve what goal?
There's so much misinformation about chemotherapy or heart tablets or asthma inhalers that people just start abandoning them.
Has there ever been a medical emergency of this variety ever before?
Do you ever recall like a huge movement opposing successful medical treatment?
Of course there have always been people that are critical, cynical, sceptical and inquiring around vaccines, and if you look at some of the information available in those quarters, it certainly is interesting to review, shall we say.
But the idea that the state, given their relationship with global corporations, has only your interests in mind In order to protect you, we're going to fine you and imprison you.
Oh, thank you very much, monsieur.
Doesn't make sense, does it?
And having seen that bit of footage of dear globalist Rishi Sunak pilloried by members of the British public, how do you imagine the globalists regard open conversation about these subjects?
If there are indeed 30,000 adverse events to discuss in the UK, is an open conversation what the establishment wants, or do they want total control of the narrative?
Why don't you look at the last couple of years and decide for yourself?
What do groups that censor online social media discourse really care about and to whose benefit is that being directed?
The censorship of important and significant voices like Jay Bhattacharya.
What is that about?
Protecting you?
Or is it about controlling a narrative?
What we've learned in particular in the ongoing discourse between Senator Rand Paul and Anthony Fauci about measures and suggestions and steps that were taken in the early pandemic period that might have been avoided and that were potentially not legitimate and certainly not successful.
Do you feel that what should happen now is a raft of law should be passed around the world to make it illegal for people to question and criticize?
Or do you think that we should be heading in almost exactly the opposite direction?
Certainly there's a need for discussion, even as the possibility for discussion is being foreclosed.
But that's just what I think.
Why don't you let me know what you think in the comments in the chat.
See you in a second!
Thanks for using Fox News!
Good day.
No.
Here's the fucking news!
We've taken you to a fever pitch of excitement.
I'm- I can't imagine that things could get any better other than by telling you that tomorrow Andrew Bridgen, renegade British MP cast out of his own party for raising vital questions about excess deaths and Meryl Nass, American doctor struck off for refusing to follow government edicts and protocols will be in the studio with me discussing the WHO treaty which will impose further globalist draconianism on your nation.
On your personal freedom.
That is our show tomorrow.
It is a fantastic conversation.
You're going to want to join us for it.
If you want to watch it immediately, click the red button and join Locals where you get early access to our interviews and content.
Sometimes you can join us for the interviews live and pose your own questions as well as regular readings from the Holy books!
And an ongoing discussion to solutions.
We also do an additional Here's the News every week.
This week, for example, I talk about the Amy Winehouse film and the impact of figures like Amy Winehouse on culture and how the culture uses and, in a way, kind of sacrifices figures like Winehouse, Princess Diana, Marilyn Monroe.
Celebrities more generally.
Sort of the function of the archetype, I suppose, of the fallen female.
You'll probably enjoy it.
I want to welcome some of our new members who will be watching that content because it's exclusively for our supporters.
That's why I want you to become one.
You can become one monthly or you can become one annually.
It's about the cost it would be for killing some ants in your home with a can of insect repellent and for that price you could be elevating your consciousness.
Like, Ironically, and Texaco51, and Al Brittani, and BuddyRo64, and Oodbuffalo.
Join us!
All of you!
Tomorrow, not for more of the same, we'd never insult you with that rubbish, but for more of the different.
▲
Export Selection