Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 23, 2024 - Stay Free - Russel Brand

01:07:06

“It’s All Happening In LOCKSTEP!” Meryl Nass & Andrew Bridgen On WHO & Excess Deaths -Stay Free #311

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Renegade MP cast out of his own party for asking questions about excess deaths, vaccine injuries and the social controls implemented during lockdown.
	It's going to be, I know because I've already had it, a fantastic conversation and along with him is Meryl Nass who has opposed the WHO treaty.
	She's a family doctor who was struck off for putting her patients ahead of globalist top-down edicts.
	You will be able to watch it on YouTube for about the first 15 minutes But after that we'll be exclusively available on our stream of Sweet Freedom.
	We're also going to be talking about the largest study into Covid in history and its astonishing revelations.
	You will be, you won't be baffled to learn, you will appreciate and understand that it is obviously, obviously what's finally been revealed is myocarditis, pericarditis, brain syndromes and even my favourite bit of this is there's a moment it says There's one particular disease it causes that may make it difficult for you to think and walk.
	It's extraordinary.
	So stay with us for the entire show.
	Here's my conversation with Andrew Bridgen and Meryl Nash.
	We're not going to show too much of it on YouTube, so get ready to click the link in the description because we're going to go into some fascinating areas with some very interesting people.
	Here's the conversation.
	Meryl Nash and Andrew Bridgen, thank you for joining me on Stay Free with Russell Brand.
	It's a pleasure to be here.
	We've got so many things to discuss.
	Primarily we're talking about individual freedom and we're talking about democracy and we're talking about institutional power and in particular lately I've been reflecting on a sort of new and emergent Kafkaesque style set of bureaucracies that are able, through the appearance of banality and the claim that they are protecting our individual freedom and preserving our safety, able to implement measures that would previously have been regarded as straight-up tyranny.
	And I suppose the area where both of you have a degree of shared expertise and understanding is this emergent WHO treaty, which I understand is just one piece of legislature that could be used to inhibit, control and limit national sovereignty and our freedom as individuals.
	Meryl, I wonder if you might start by explaining what this twin threat is?
	Yes, well, the WHO is made up of a bureaucracy and member states, and the member states send diplomats to the WHO, and this group has created two different documents, both of which are intended to be approved this May.
	And they will transfer considerable sovereignty over from the nation states to the WHO, to its Director General, and its bureaucracy.
	Now, why would we want to do that?
	The excuse is that we handled the pandemic so poorly last time that there's going to be more pandemics.
	We've got to have a structure in place to handle them better.
	How do they want to handle them better?
	More of the same.
	There has been no after-action look at what actually happened last time.
	The WHO really can't make any claims that it did anything right, and yet it wants to have greater control.
	It wants to be able to transmute itself from an agency that gives advice to one that actually governs the health of the whole world.
	Why is it and how is it that this issue has become regarded as the forum for lunacy and conspiracy theory when it seems that what you're discussing is government overreach or bureaucratic overreach, a lack of democracy.
	And I've even seen recently at the WF, irony of ironies, the head of the WHO, Claiming that the opposition to the WHO pandemic treaty is in itself a conspiracy theory.
	I don't even understand how claiming 5% of each nation's health budget, the ability to impose control and legislation, mandate vaccines.
	Am I right?
	Mandate lockdowns.
	That is what the treaty includes, isn't it?
	It's worse than that because it's not only for human pathogens.
	It can be for an animal pathogen.
	Or an environmental threat, something to do with climate change.
	Or the threat of any of those risks.
	And they've also, in the new documents, they've reduced the reporting time, mandating that every country would have to report any possible risk within 72 hours of discovering it to the WHO.
	And that could lead to a lot of false alarms and a lot of powers to the WHO.
	These two instruments would give the Director General of the WHO the ability to call something called a public health emergency of international concern for any of those reasons I gave earlier and he would immediately seize basically total control Under the one health policy where everything's affected by health, and that means the environment, food, business, and it's also over non-governmental stakeholders, so that's private businesses.
	They could shut down any business in the country for any reason at the whim of the WHO Director General.
	And not only does he decide when he calls this emergency and takes these enormous powers, and bear in mind, If you look at how they handled COVID-19, that was three years before they said the emergency was over, and then they carried on with the monkeypox emergency, so we still would have been under an emergency control.
	He also decides when the emergency is over, and I think having taken those sort of powers from our elected representatives in our parliaments, our democracies, it'd be a long time before we got them back, if ever.
	You know that we have got wonderful supporters, and we've got another sponsor right now, and I'd love you to stay for the entirety of this if you can.
	We can't continue to bring this groundbreaking content without the support of our fantastic sponsors, and by God, we are lucky to have them, especially given this simple fact.
	Did you know that you, yes you, I'm talking to you, are 80% water?
	No, what about hair and teeth?
	After all, you're water.
	And the kind of water you put in your body, therefore, it could be argued, affects 80% of your health and your life.
	But not all waters are created equally.
	Other kinds of water, such as tap or bottled, or even stink water, can be literally dead, acidic, or even poisonous.
	70 to 80% of the immune system is housed in your gut.
	Contaminated water, poor diet, and pesticides weaken your gut by nearly 20% in how it functions daily.
	Well, I'm here to tell you today about the Air Water Healing Eco Plus.
	You press the button here and it begins to infuse your water with hydrogen, ionizing your water and bringing it to life.
	This hydrogen-rich water goes down into your gut.
	You can even feel the difference in your energy levels as you drink this hydrogenated water.
	The Air Water Healing Plus increases its anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties.
	Additionally, it can increase energy, slow down the aging process, and improve muscle recovery after a workout.
	Over 1,400 studies prove that by neutralizing these harmful free radicals, hydrogen water has been proven to help regulate heart disease, diabetes, reduce wrinkles and skin issues, and it can even speed up wound healing.
	The UVC2 light kills 99.9% of harmful germs and bacteria, including E. coli.
	It also comes with a five-year warranty.
	Go to airwaterhealing.com and use the promo code brand for a discount.
	Plus, so they know I sent you there, it will make this advert a real success.
	Replace your bed, stinking, wretched, stink water, and feel your energy level surge.
	That's airwaterhealing.com.
	Promo code brand.
	Let me have a sip of this stuff right now.
	Do you know what?
	Just one sip of that and I feel powerful enough to bring down the globalist institutions that are tyrannizing us right now.
	It's very strange that these types of bills and measures appear to be increasingly imposed using vague and diffuse language that's deliberately, it seems to me, opaque and difficult to determine and define.
	The UK online safety bill similarly seems to be open to exploitation and easily utilised by a censoring government.
	The same for the legislation passed in Ireland, or that's proposed to be passed in Ireland, the Hate Speech Act.
	The EU has similar legislation.
	It seems that whether it's speech, individual liberty, Our ability to travel.
	There seems to be an increase in authoritarianism continually undergirded by safety.
	You're of course a physician, Meryl.
	Why in particular are medical emergencies and pandemics being used to assert control?
	Tell us a little bit about how you've gone from, I understand that you've lost your license to practice as a physician.
	I'd love to know the legitimacy of that measure because I'm always aware, I don't know about you guys, because you're English you'll be aware of what my public profile is, the degree to which I am publicly attacked and how in some quarters ridiculed and derided.
	Of course you do!
	And I imagine that within your profession to lose your license must be the cause of great consternation and possibly even shame.
	So can you tell me how medicine is being weaponized, how the profession of professional care and medicine is being weaponized and what we saw in particular take place in the pandemic and how it has changed over this period since you've lost your license?
	Okay, that's a lot of questions.
	Just pick your favorites.
	All right.
	Like that WHO treaty.
	It's a pick-and-mix bill.
	Okay, so I think that elites, globalists, really wanted to gain much greater power over the world and the world's resources as well as the world's people.
	Now, how could they do that?
	They needed a multinational organization.
	Well, were they going to do it through the World Bank?
	Were they going to do it through the UN?
	The WHO is the most benign sounding.
	The WHO is completely unaccountable.
	You cannot take it to any court in the world.
	The people who work there all have diplomatic immunity, and there is no security council with veto power.
	So once the Director General gets a power, nobody can stop him.
	So that is why the WHO was chosen, okay?
	So to use the WHO, you need to use health.
	So doctors had to be controlled.
	How do you control the doctors?
	You make a few examples.
	You take away some careers.
	And you show them if they don't behave themselves, if they don't go along with the narrative, this can happen to you as well.
	So I had a completely clean record for over 40 years.
	I testified many times to the U.S.
	Congress, to states, written papers, given talks.
	I'm in Who's Who in America, Who's Who in the world.
	You know, I thought I was, you know, untouchable.
	But I treated people for COVID with hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, which is perfectly legal.
	But the state and federal government wanted people to think it wasn't.
	And I told the truth about vaccines because I happen to be a vaccine and bioterrorism expert.
	And so the board immediately suspended my license without any hearing, without hearing me say one word.
	On the basis that I had done these perfectly legal things.
	And they thought they could fool me and fool the other doctors into thinking I had committed a crime, but I knew I hadn't, because I had some legal experience already.
	And so then I demanded a hearing, and they had to find new charges against me, because those couldn't stick.
	Those things were illegal.
	So then they made up some new charges, which I hadn't done.
	And got a board of six members to convict me of those things, and so my license remains suspended.
	Now, before we answer the next question, I want to say to those of you on YouTube, please consider clicking the link in the description and joining us on Rumble, and indeed, becoming an Awakened Wonder.
	We do additional content every week.
	Like this week, I'm talking about Amy Winehouse and the new film about her, and the sort of sacrifice of Celebrities in particular, female celebrities at the altar of our crazed culture.
	Diana, Marilyn Monroe, Amy Winehouse, fated and ultimately annihilated by a devouring, unconscious, and you would say, perhaps some of you, demonic culture.
	The rest of the conversation with Andrew and Meryl is fantastic.
	You're going to want to join us for that.
	Click the link in the description.
	The term for this emergent phenomena is lawfare, I understand, to target enmity's ideological, enemy's ideological primarily, and to impose these kind of measures on them.
	When you were describing the lack of accountability within the WHO, the lack of oversight, the inability to regulate the diplomatic immunity of many of its members, it's pretty astonishing.
	I understand that a significant amount of the WHO's funding comes from the taxes of member states, but also there are significant private donations.
	What is the proportion of private donation that they receive?
	And doesn't this lack of oversight, coupled with the manner in which they receive much of their funding, leave the WHO open to exploitation?
	Absolutely.
	The WHO is not really run by its member states.
	They meet once a year.
	The WHO functions 365 days a year.
	So the dues from the member states only cover 15% of the budget.
	The rest, the 85%, is all voluntary.
	Now some of that comes from nations.
	But almost all of it is earmarked.
	So if Germany gives extra money, it may be to buy a German product, maybe a German vaccine, you see.
	And if the UK gives money, it's to do something the UK wants.
	75% of the entire WHO budget is earmarked.
	Some years, the year that President Trump tried to take the US out of the WHO and stop funding it for one year, Bill Gates was the number one top funder of the WHO and provided them about 11% of their budget.
	There are several agencies or organizations that Bill Gates founded, GAVI, CEPI, as well as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, all of which contribute to the WHO.
	And then there are many other secondary organizations that Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation contribute to, and then they secondarily contribute to the WHO.
	It sounds like quite a transactional organisation that's open to exploitation.
	And whilst I think all of us no longer fear the tag of conspiracy theorists regarding it somewhat as a badge of honour, it's certainly a slur that we are aware of.
	But what you have recounted are simple fiduciary and financial details that are easy to verify and track.
	With this new WHO treaty, there are concomitantly across the world numerous petitions where
	people suffocating from lack of democracy reach out in an attempt to prevent these measures
	being passed.
	The one in the UK has nearly reached its requisite 100,000 signatures, which will mean that there's
	a possibility that it will be debated in Parliament.
	An empty Parliament, Andrew, I'll warrant a scenario with which you are well familiar.
	Why is it so hard for us to be able to reject what appear to be bureaucratic, globalist, administrative bodies that don't seem to exist on the basis of any democratic legitimacy?
	We will have to have a vote of both Houses of Parliament on the new treaty.
	Well, it's called the Pandemic Treaty, the Pandemic Accord, and now it's apparently called the Pandemic Agreement, which no one's agreed to yet.
	But the amendments to the International Health Regulations, the second horse they're running in this race, and they don't mind which one wins.
	If one of them gets over the line, they've got their powers.
	That's being treated as the amendment to an existing treaty, and we're not debating it, and we're not going to vote on it in either House.
	The clauses to do with human rights are all removed from the international health regulations under this new amendment.
	And it's just replaced with a bland statement saying that the WHO will treat everyone with equity.
	Well, if it's treating everyone badly, that's still equity, isn't it?
	Yes, I suppose it is.
	And they don't mind which horse gets over the line.
	It's very, very clever how they're doing it.
	So it seems that it's been set up in order to succeed regardless of what objections it might face, and indeed it is facing a lot of objections.
	I think one of the things that's changed in recent years is that people have become attuned to different types of political manoeuvres that are way beyond the partisan politics that we're invited to see as defining our life.
	The politics of right and left are gone, Russell.
	It's now the politics of right and wrong.
	Good and evil, really.
	I'm assuming you're American, Meryl.
	I am.
	Ma'am.
	both in your country, the idea that there is a constituency for both the Republican
	Party and Democrat Party that is representative of 50% of the population. And I think it's
	even more pronounced in our country, Andrew, the idea that there's a significant number
	of people that would see Rishi Sunak to the solution of our problems and another constituency
	of people that believe that Kistama is the solution to our national and indeed now increasingly
	relevant international problems as this legislation demonstrates. It's a global issue that we
	are facing. All of our nations are seeing policies or I may say movements if you don't
	mind that could be seen as isolationist. But it seems to me that there's an appetite for
	people to control our own countries.
	This seems to be on the rise as a understandable reaction to globalism and it's bringing about new taxonomies in politics as you have just suggested, Andrew.
	The idea that left and right are viable categories at a point when establishment versus anti-establishment Appears to be the most important argument means that there will be different types of alliances and we have to learn almost a new lexicon, a new vernacular, a new way of discussing politics.
	Would you say then, and if that is true, and I can see you're nodding Andrew, like if it is true, how are you as a person that's schooled in old-school representative democracies adjusting to these emergent dynamics?
	Well you go through a period of mourning when you realise what's really going on and you have to get over that and as someone who has conservative values one of the principles of conservatives I've always valued is we have to live in the world how it is not like not how we'd like it to be and this is how the world is and When you look at the strange decisions that our parliament and government have made, the same strange decisions have been made in parliaments around the world at the same time in lockstep, and that's around the Covid pandemic response, but also, you know, the sexualisation, inappropriate sexualisation of our children in schools.
	It's happening in Australia at the same time as it's happening here.
	Yes, and these censorship laws that are being passed simultaneously and indeed organisations like the WHO.
	Now one of the things that surely you are both united by is your concern around adverse events and vaccine injuries and the great phantom that stalks us all, excess deaths.
	Why is there, other than in Slovakia, is there any likelihood that we're going to see a serious investigation into excess deaths?
	And what's the most reliable data you've seen that excess deaths is something we have to take very, very seriously?
	A lot of questions.
	Well, I tried 26 times last year to get a debate on excess deaths before I got one.
	I spoke in an adjournment debate of half an hour On the 20th of October last year, having tried for 26 sitting weeks to get that debate.
	So you can only apply on weeks when we're sitting, so it was more than six months.
	Very few people there but I had a bunch of eminent scientists, all who've been Suspended, demonetised, sacked from their universities and we had an event in Parliament on the 4th of December.
	I managed to get 20 MPs there, 17 of them signed up and we managed to get a 90 minute backbench business debate on trends in excess deaths which happened on the 16th of January.
	And a number of MPs turned up for that.
	It was well subscribed and now I've got 24 MPs who have supported me and we've had a successful application for a three-hour debate in the Chamber of the House of Commons.
	Where that issue of excess deaths needs to be debated.
	But the problem is, the conspiracy of the Parliament is that I'm raising issues which the main parties don't want to talk about.
	If you have to think about it, it was very clever during the pandemic.
	So the SNP were in charge of the Covid response in Scotland, Labour were in charge in Wales and the Conservatives were in charge in England.
	So they've all got a vested interest in saying we did everything right.
	So they don't, none of them want to have that debate because ultimately they all know the truth that it was wrong.
	And even the COVID inquiry, which is, is a whitewash.
	They announced two weeks ago that the module four, which is to deal with the safety and efficacy of the vaccines has been postponed indefinitely.
	Certainly until after the next general election.
	Given that the rhetoric throughout the pandemic period was that we ought be following science, verifiable information, data that was reliable, how does it make you feel as a physician, no longer a physician while your license is revoked by these extraordinary forces, that these inquiries are being conducted in such a dubious manner that seem, as Andrew has suggested, designed to prevent useful conclusions being reached?
	How does that tally with your own understanding of empiricism?
	Okay.
	Well, first of all, the scientific method, you know, doesn't have fixed ideas.
	You're allowed to continue to examine questions.
	You need good data.
	The government, my government, your government, your government actually seemed to be providing reasonable data for longer than most, but stopped more than a year ago.
	Um, different Canadian provinces for a while seemed, looked like they were providing good data, then stopped.
	Um, it was even written up in the New York Times, which is not normally a reliable source of information, that the CDC was withholding massive amounts of data from the public.
	You know, we've had to sue the FDA to get data that is supposed to be in the public domain.
	So, what's happened is that, um, basically we have a uni-party, and this uni-party is a global uniparty in most of the developed countries of the world, if not all.
	We have people running these countries who appear to have been vetted by some supranational organization like the Bilderbergers or the World Economic Forum.
	We don't really understand how they got into position.
	But they seem to be uniformly incompetent.
	You know, people like Jacinda Ardern or the former leader of Finland or Justin Trudeau in France.
	There I draw the line.
	Have you not looked at that man's haircut?
	It's delightful.
	Before you leap to conclusions like that, that these are somehow globalist stooges with no interest in representing their populations and constituencies, I think this is astonishing.
	And you mentioned for a moment the FDA.
	I increasingly wonder if the funding of these organisations make them vulnerable.
	And whether it's the FDA, there's an alarm going off in here, or the WHO, it seems that these agencies operate in order to implement an unseen will that is absolutely antithetical to democracy.
	And that's before we get to the revolving door between pharmaceutical companies and the government.
	In our country, Andrew, Jonathan Van Tam, who was one of the voices of the pandemic, one of the voices we look to rely on, where does he work currently?
	I don't know.
	He's got a plum job at Moderna.
	What, Moderna?
	Hold on, weren't they making vaccines during the pandemic?
	And Rishi Sunak, what did he do for a living prior to becoming Chancellor?
	Oh, you mean the Salim Investment Fund through the Cayman Islands owns 11% of Moderna.
	What?
	So there's another connection.
	So Jonathan Van Tamen was the... and yet when people have...
	Reasonable people, scientists and committed politicians with whom I'm sure there'll be a raft of issues upon which we would disagree but fundamentally I think we agree with our rights to have free speech, the ability to debate and communicate.
	As you've said the principles of science require ongoing intrepid investigation, objectivity, free exchange of ideas and whether it's Jay Bhattacharya and the other great physicians who were silenced at the beginning of this debate or personal family physicians who wanted to do the best for their patients which is the Sacred bond, but it must exist in modern medicine.
	It's an obligation.
	Well, the science is never settled.
	Anybody who says to you the science is settled, that isn't the way science works.
	I mean, even doctors qualifying this week will know, they'll be told in medical school, that half of what you learned will be proven to be wrong within ten years.
	You need to keep learning.
	Even since the start of this conversation, Andrew, things have been debunked.
	There's debunking taking place all over the place, relentlessly.
	Andrew, one of the things that I feel is significant is that you are doing your best, for which
	I salute you and applaud you, to through the institutions of government, represent what
	appeared to be the will of your constituency in a much broader one when it comes to this
	significant era, which from my perspective, merely as a citizen and an observer and an
	interested party, appears to have been that the pandemic offered us a window into how
	institutional power operates, the relationship between the media and the state, the relationship
	between Big Pharma and the state, and perhaps most significantly of all, these globalist
	organisations like the WHO and their ability to implement power.
	Was this something that was astonishing to you?
	Was that your purview prior to the pandemic period?
	Because if it was, why the hell did you even become a politician?
	Because it surely must have been evident there's nothing you can do from within Westminster.
	Well, I'd got involved through a constituent in the Post Office Horizon scandal at a very early stage.
	The famous Post Office Horizon, which has defined the news cycle in the United Kingdom, where it's found that some faulty equipment meant that some postmasters, people that ran post offices and mail facilities, were wrongly convicted of financial crimes and theft and embezzlement, crimes they did not commit.
	Well, that was a big scandal.
	When it was a television program.
	No one cared about it until it was a television program.
	But once it became a successful television program, the entire political space and media space became temporarily obsessed because it's fait accompli.
	It's over now.
	No one's at risk.
	Tony Blair's probably done speeches for Fujitsu.
	Everyone's probably had their money out of it.
	So you knew about that prior to everyone talking about it.
	That's interesting.
	Well within a few weeks of being elected I was approached by a constituent who was Michael and Susan Rudkin and Michael Rudkin.
	Michael Rudkin's character is one of the stars of the program.
	He was the chair of the National Postmasters Federation.
	He's the man who went to Fujitsu's headquarters on an official visit, believes that he was mistaken for someone else, Shown everything, including Fujitsu IT engineers doctoring accounts in Horizon sub-postmaster systems without them knowing about it, questioned them about it, then they realised who he was, was thrown out of the building, drove back to Ibstock post office in my constituency, thinking about it, went to bed and the next morning his wife had mysteriously got a £44,000 shortfall on her computer and they were both prosecuted and discredited.
	And when he approached me, this was an unbelievable story, a conspiracy theory.
	But I looked at these two people who were clearly physically and mentally broken.
	They were raking up old wounds.
	They were convicted criminals, fraudsters, and they had nothing to gain.
	And they had previously had a blemishless track record.
	I went to other MPs and said, have any of you had a sub-postmaster who's run a post office for decades and then suddenly been accused of a massive fraud and says they're innocent?
	And mysteriously, there were these people.
	We formed a little group.
	We met with the post office and they were officious and always flanked by very expensive lawyers.
	We met with the sub-postmasters who were very grateful to anyone to hear their story and were very open.
	And I managed to ambush the post office that they said the system was perfect and bomb-proof, so they had to let me put a forensic accountant in.
	And I got a good forensic accountant, a contact of mine called Ron Warmington, a second site, and the moment he got in there Everything started to break open, but I told the government that the cabinet officer got to fund that investigation, because they said, no, we're going to let the Post Office fund their own investigation.
	I said, well, the moment they find something, they're just going to say, well, who pays the piper calls the tune.
	They're going to try and shut the investigation down.
	And that's exactly what happened.
	But Ron Warmington was a man of high moral standing.
	He withstood the battering the Post Office were giving him.
	He gave me the unredacted reports.
	And then we got a whistleblower from Fujitsu to come forward and he was one of the IT engineers that had met Mr. Rudkin.
	It was all true.
	Everything Mr. Rudkin said was true.
	But Andrew, currently in the UK, for those of you that are not familiar with UK politics, Andrew is being continually attacked.
	Cast out of your own party.
	Called a lunatic and a conspiracy theorist simply for asking questions about what's happened in the pandemic period and yet with this story of the day that people are very excited about because it's been televised and dramatized and there's grandstanding and desk thumping and something must be done Essentially a safe issue, other than the tragedies that is caused for those directly affected by it.
	You were involved on the ground floor.
	You spotted while other people were dishing out CBEs to postmasters, further contracts to Fujitsu.
	At that point, you were saying that there was something to see, that there was evident corruption, that there was exploitation, that you couldn't trust the legacy media's perspective on it, that Parliament ought be discussing it and more open to it.
	So it seems, to somewhat parent a question that you offered in Parliament recently, that there are echoes, shades and I would say comparisons to be made between this example of collaboration, corruption, whitewashing and what we've experienced in the last few years.
	And even just to hear that you had the integrity to get involved in that story before, it was something that was popular and people were all excited about.
	Must surely mean that people cannot question your integrity with the same glib certainty.
	Well, anybody watching, listening to this can go into Hansard back in 2015 and look in and type in post office Andrew Bridgen and they will find the full account that was covered in that television programme.
	I gave that account to the House of Commons nine years ago, word for word.
	That's amazing.
	And no one paid any attention.
	Has anyone given you any credit for it now?
	Like at your own party going, oh he was right about the post office, maybe he's right about the vaccines.
	Are you getting any kickback credit?
	I was right about HS2.
	I voted against that and said it'd be a disaster for 10 years and it was a disaster for 10 years and never happened.
	I'm going to start studying your voting record because I think you're the Nostradamus of the house.
	I was right about the modern slavery in the garment industry in Leicester as well but No, Andrew, don't show off.
	No.
	From 2014 onwards we knew, as soon as the fidget whistleblower came forward, we knew that everything Mr Rudkin said was true and that all, because post office were misleading in court, that no one could alter it and they could.
	Every conviction was unsafe on the basis of that.
	I went around to the BBC, ITV, Sky, Channel 4 News, The Times, The Telegraph, everyone else, and said, I've got the evidence, here's the story, all these people are innocent, this is the biggest miscarriage of justice in UK history, run this story and you'll get an award.
	And they all liked it.
	But nobody would run it.
	And that's exactly what's happening with the vaccine harms now.
	Of course it's precisely what's happening and yet of course, in my view, this is an even more serious issue because it's a global one, because of the medical impact and because of what it reveals to us about the nature of global power.
	Perhaps one silver lining that we might look to is the fact that now you don't have the Of course you do have institutional media that solely exists in order to amplify the message of the powerful, that accepts money from, for example, the pharmaceutical industry, and amplifies their message, that has an intrinsic relationship with the state, and therefore amplifies and normalizes their messaging.
	Thankfully, we have independent media now that grants direct access, currently, before these censorship laws take a stranglehold of the nation, and indeed the world, that can convey information openly and people can decide for ourselves whether or not we believe the information to be true.
	How have you found it, trying to convey some of these complex and challenging stories, both of you, Meryl, you as well, Andrew, of course, In a new independent media space.
	I know that you will have been smeared.
	I know you will have faced attempts to discredit you and that you would have been attacked.
	And yet, because what you are saying is, in my opinion, true, you will have found sympathetic listeners.
	And do you get a sense that more and more people are starting to understand the nature of truth?
	More and more people are coming together in order to oppose the establishment, willing to overlook what our distinctions and differences may be in recognizing that we have a common enemy at this point.
	Well, yes.
	I mean, I think the movable middle is moving in our direction.
	The problem is that there's a considerable number of people who are chained to the mainstream media.
	And nobody really talks about the fact that as long as you allow censorship, you cannot have democracy.
	You know, every single mainstream media is pumping out false narratives.
	And, you know, so we live in a totalitarian world right now.
	Why aren't the legacy media covering stories like this?
	Why are they not interested in excess deaths?
	Why are they not interested in venerated and sensible physicians being struck off?
	Why are journalists not interested in anything other than amplifying the agenda of the powerful, Andrew?
	Have you found any sympathy in the legacy media?
	Well, everyone on our side of the argument, Meryl's side, my side of the argument, we've all been Castigated, smeared, thrown out of our positions.
	That's whether you're a scientist, a doctor, or a politician.
	Or a comedian.
	There's nothing to laugh about here.
	And the example I'll give you is I spoke out on the 13th of December 2022 when the government We're being approached by the Medicines and Healthcare Product Regulatory Agency, the MHRA, 86% funded by Big Pharma, and supposedly the regulator to look after us in the UK, and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, who declared between them a billion pounds of interest in Big Pharma stock.
	That's astonishing.
	And they're our protectors and they recommended that the MHRA asked for permission from the government, authorisation to vaccinate healthy children down to the age of six months.
	And I knew that there was no risk to a healthy child from Covid but there was a risk from the vaccines and even the most pro-vaccine person I could persuade that these children, there's never been one of these that's died of Covid-19 but there will be some harm by the vaccines.
	And so I spoke out on the 13th of December.
	From that moment, I was cancelled by the mainstream media.
	I had a meeting with the grandees of the Conservative Party in January, when they suspended me.
	They're the sort of senior administrators.
	Yeah, well, very, very, very high up.
	At this stage, they've remained nameless.
	And I spoke for an hour and a half.
	Concerns about the vaccines, the science, and my degrees in biology, biochemistry, genetics and virology.
	I didn't know that!
	You're overqualified!
	You've got all of these degrees, you were there on the post office ground floor, oh my god!
	And also my concerns about NG163 and the midazolam and morphine scandal.
	We'll explain that, I don't know what that is.
	Euthanasia used.
	You know the vulnerable elderly who were in hospital who were cleared out in spring 2020 to make way for the expected first wave of Covid patients?
	Well I asked the government a long time ago how many of those were moved out into care homes and nursing homes and how many were dead within 7, 14, 28, 56, 72 days of on their death certificate Covid-19 and B other causes and the government came back and said we don't hold any of that data.
	That's extraordinary!
	Amazing!
	I'm afraid I have a pretty good idea what happened to them and I think most of them were put down as COVID deaths and they may well have been euthanized with midazolam and morphine which is a respiratory suppressant.
	Why would you give someone you think's got COVID a respiratory suppressant?
	And at the end of that hour and a half meeting I was told by the Conservative Party spokesperson, Andrew, there is currently no political appetite for your views on the vaccines.
	There may well be in 20 years time and you're probably going to be proven right.
	In the meantime, you need to bear in mind you're taking on the most powerful vested interest in the world with all the personal risk for you which that will entail.
	And I said, I think this meeting's over.
	Personal risk that entails, that sort of sounds like a threat.
	It's extraordinary when you enter into this space to see the kind of machinery that will work against you.
	I'm talking here specifically about groups like Logically AI, groups that are used to crush dissent online and amplify their messaging, again, the preferred messaging of what we have to call, for simplicity's sake, The establishment elite.
	Given these experiences, in particular the last one that you've just relayed, Andrew, and all of its redolent terror, do you feel that democracy itself needs to change?
	And do you think, and I'll ask the same question to you in a moment if I may, Merrill, that The British public have an appetite for a different type of democracy because certainly I see in America because we've seen a different class of political figure emerge for whatever you think of him.
	Donald Trump represents a strain of populism that is certainly novel.
	Bobby Kennedy who's tied his color to the mask to this issue way before anyone I knew was talking about it.
	I noticed that part of your expertise was contagions and you've sort of indicated bioweapons and Bobby Kennedy was the first person I heard talk about dual-purpose research and ideas that once belonged to the realm of conspiracy but now have to roundly be referred to as facts.
	Do you think that there is the Opportunity and possibility for new emergent political leverage and indeed change in this country.
	It's interesting that when I was expelled permanently from the Conservative Party for my views on the vaccines and retweeting a tweet from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Dr. Josh Gitsko, and a quote that said, a world-leading cardiologist told me that the rollout of the vaccines is the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust.
	I was declared as an anti-Semite racist.
	Anti-scientific.
	Okay, so is this, we're going to move towards Iraq.
	Well done telling me, well done for doing your job there, because that's for all of our time.
	Okay, so you would, so given that kind of rhetoric... Well, when that happened, I was expelled from the Conservative Party.
	Not one of my colleagues, who I'd served with for 13 years in the House of Commons, text me or rang me and said, this is bad news, Andrew, but I got a call from Robert Kennedy Jr.
	within an hour from America, a presidential candidate, and he said, this is disgraceful what they're doing to you.
	Yeah.
	So, in a sense, that indicates that what is happening now is a global response to globalism.
	Well, we've got to fight.
	We've got to fight where we are.
	There's nowhere to run.
	This is happening all over the world.
	There's nowhere safe.
	We have to stand and fight our own ground.
	That's extraordinary.
	I'm so glad that you're still a Member of Parliament and you still have the ability to raise these kind of questions and inquiries in that context.
	There's going to be an election soon and it'll be up to the people of North West Leicestershire but I've got a very good chance of holding my seat.
	Yeah, that'd be fantastic if that happens.
	What do you think about, Meryl, the way that the political landscape is shifting in your country?
	It seems that anti-establishmentism is on the rise, that people don't trust institutions anymore, don't trust democracy, don't trust the media, don't trust the judiciary, don't trust many of their institutions.
	Do you get a sense that radical change may emerge that could be positive?
	Well, more people are independents than have subscribed to a party in the United States.
	However, none of us think that the voting machinery is reliable.
	So we don't know if our elected representatives have actually been elected.
	And that is probably going to be even a bigger problem during this next presidential election when there is so much at stake.
	And I really am talking about a takeover of the world.
	That's why I'd like to announce that our show today is sponsored by Fujitsu, who are going to be making new voting machines, 100% reliable.
	If you vote whether you're living or dead, that vote will be registered for a candidate of the globalists' choice.
	We desperately do need democratic change in the UK and around the world.
	I mean, the symbol of the Houses of Parliament is the portcullis, the defender of the nation.
	When the drawbridge is down, you've still got the portcullis, the last defender of the castle.
	We have not defended anybody, and I'm really sorry about that.
	The system's not worked.
	The regulators, all the institutions set to protect public health and public interest have failed and we need something different, something better.
	Andrew, thank you so much.
	I'd like to thank both of you, Meryl and Andrew, for being so brave for the sacrifice that you've made in your various professions to speak openly and truthfully.
	It's literally the only chance that we have is to tell the truth to as many people as possible and allow them to determine for ourselves what direction we may go in subsequently.
	Thanks so much, Andrew.
	Thank you, Meryl.
	Thank you.
	Thank you very much for staying with us for that.
	You are going to love this story.
	The mainstream media have actually caught up to the idea of, well, adverse injuries, maybe not yet excess deaths, but many of the subjects that you've been discussing for a long time, many of the concerns that you've rightly had for a long time.
	I'm talking about you, the members of our Awaken Wonder community, you on our Rumble stream right now.
	You have been aware of these problems for a long while.
	Well, it's become so immersive that a strategy has had to be designed to mitigate the ongoing outpouring of true information that challenges mainstream narratives.
	The largest ever multi-country COVID study, even though it's funded in part by some people who have a definite vested interest in the outcome, has revealed adverse injuries.
	The truth of vaccines is finally starting to permeate even the mainstream.
	This is the beginning of something significant.
	Or will this become just another propagandized and minimized matter?
	Here's the news.
	No, here's the effing news.
	The largest ever multi-country covid study has revealed, get this, that potentially vaccines cause adverse events.
	Does this mean that the truth about vaccines is beginning to permeate even the mainstream media?
	For surely now more than ever it's become evident that people that once existed on the periphery with marginal views were in fact the adults in the room.
	Those of you that were saying, have they had enough time to conduct these clinical trials?
	Are you sure there's not adverse events?
	Does natural immunity suddenly mean nothing?
	Are you supposed to vaccinate in the middle of a pandemic?
	All of those questions that sort of sounded reasonable at the time have now been officially deemed reasonable as a result of the largest ever multinational study that has revealed, as you already know, not as a result of this study because you knew already, that vaccines cause adverse events.
	I wonder, though, given some of the connections and funders of this study, whether this is damage limitation or how this will play out because the CDC are involved in this study, Pfizer
	are involved in this study.
	So I'd love to know in the comments what you think is happening strategically. Is it that
	there's been such a swell of information from independent media, from radical renegade Harvard
	and Stanford scientists that now the truth is unignorable and unavoidable. Let's get
	into it.
	It's a question so many people have wondered.
	Does the COVID-19 vaccine have an impact on my health?
	Yeah, so many people have wondered.
	I was like, are there men on the moon?
	I do wonder sometimes.
	Did we actually go to them?
	I mean, that flag looks strange.
	Is there more than one light source?
	Now we're at the point of acknowledging that people are going, excuse me, I had a bloody heart attack.
	I was a world-class athlete.
	Now I can't stand up straight.
	My face hurts.
	My lip isn't moving properly.
	Many people have wondered if they're being lied to on an unprecedented scale.
	Here's the news.
	You were!
	Now, the largest COVID study ever conducted is providing some answers.
	A link between the vaccine and heart and brain disorders has been uncovered.
	Oh, bloody hell!
	Armageddon, the apocalypse.
	What's interesting, and what will be interesting, is how this is seeded into the mainstream, how it is mitigated, and how it's offered as a kind of palliative, when really what I'd like to see at this point is world leaders and Albert Baller coming out and sort of standing with their hands crossed in front of their reproductive organs, saying, I'm very, very sorry, we lied on a massive scale about this product.
	What they'll do is, I suppose, Minimise this and use this as an example of transparency, but this is not an example of transparency.
	This is an example of what has had to happen as a result of constant pressure and the ongoing inevitable revelation of a medication that's this controversial and has had this degree of negative impact.
	If this could have been avoided, it would have been avoided, but it couldn't be avoided, and you participated in that, so well done.
	Researchers with Global COVID Vaccine Safety Project reached this conclusion after collecting data from nearly 100 million people across eight different countries.
	Today I spoke with a local medical expert who says the COVID vaccine still outweighs the risks.
	We also talked to everyday people about their attitude toward getting the shot.
	I'm going through a lot of mental and physical.
	Things now after and it wasn't like that before.
	Elizabeth Foster says she questions if the COVID-19 vaccine she took in
	2020 has anything to do with the decline.
	She says she's experiencing in her health.
	Let's for a moment pause and acknowledge that now you can have someone on the news saying, I'm worried that this vaccine's giving me headaches and making me feel not very well.
	Because it's not that long ago that actual news anchors went, you should be shamed if you ask questions about this vaccine.
	I think we have to stop coddling people.
	When it comes to this and the vaccine saying, oh, you can't shame them.
	You can't call them stupid.
	You can't call them silly.
	Yes, they are.
	Oh, seems that you've changed your perspective.
	Now, let's remember their tone and their temperament during the pandemic period.
	People were hysterical and ridiculous.
	It's irresponsible.
	You shouldn't be allowed to say that.
	Whole companies were employed to censor information online.
	Experts telling the truth, trying to pre-warn us.
	Excuse me, this could cause heart disease.
	You don't use spike proteins in this way.
	Excuse me, I actually invented this process.
	And this isn't how I intended it to be!
	Shut up!
	You are all hysterical vaccine deniers!
	You are killing people's grandmothers!
	Many of you will have seen the British Prime Minister and former Moderna investor Rishi Sunak pilloried on a TV news program by someone who themselves said that they're suffering from vaccine injury.
	It seems that the evidence is mounting at such a rate.
	that it's become unignorable. I spoke recently with Pierre Corey and you can see that interview
	in full on our channel, who is one of the people who very early on in this pandemic period raised
	the alarm about the nature of these treatments. This information has been available for some time.
	I'm fascinated to see how this is going to play out now that it's permeating these spaces.
	Foster still digesting the new data released by the global COVID vaccine safety project,
	which studied nearly 100 million vaccinated individuals across eight countries.
	The report specifically looked at the adverse effects of the Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca vaccines, finding the following.
	The study links vaccines to slight increases in neurological, blood, and heart-related conditions like myocarditis, pericarditis, and Guillain-Barre syndrome.
	What I suspect is happening here is that there has become increasing cynicism about vaccines more broadly and perhaps the medical establishment and pharmaceutical industry as a whole and that a measure has had to be undertaken in order to mitigate unprecedented cynicism.
	Because prior, if you recall, to the pandemic, companies like Pfizer were regarded with a good deal of suspicion.
	We're coming off the back of the opioid crisis that revealed that pharmaceutical companies, in particular Purdue Pharma, put their profits ahead of the well-being and welfare of their customers, were willing to influence, bias, manipulate physicians in order to prescribe medications that they knew were dangerous.
	That showed us a template that we could have observed at the beginning of this pandemic.
	Now that that template And I think what this study confirmed is pretty much what other smaller studies have said in the past, and that's the following.
	Number one, vaccines have risks.
	growing and I would say warranted mistrust of an entire industry.
	And I think what this study confirmed is pretty much what other smaller studies have said
	in the past and that's the following.
	Number one, vaccines have risks.
	I think only a fool would say vaccines don't have risks.
	Where was that kind of reasoned, balanced conversation at the time?
	Forgive me if I seem hyperbolic and outraged and evangelical.
	It simply disgusts me to a degree to see this information now framed in the spaces that were so obedient and compliant and propagandizing during that period and who contributed to whatever number it was, and you know, stay tuned, that were detrimentally affected by the propaganda and the unwillingness to have open discourse at the time when it was most relevant.
	Dr. Jonathan Cantor, who's an adjunct scholar at the Penn Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, reviewed the study.
	Cantor says the new research shouldn't erode anyone's trust in the vaccine, but instead prompt them to think about their own personal medical condition.
	Oh, think about your own personal.
	Do you remember how many times you watch dancing, vaccines, musical numbers?
	This isn't about you.
	You're socially irresponsible.
	And when people went, has it been clinically trialed for transmission?
	You're a conspiracy theorist!
	Now, where they're getting to is where we were, like, two or three years ago.
	So, you stay where you are now, because they'll get here.
	And their own need for protection.
	What do you say to those folks who might have said, hey, we knew the vaccine was dangerous all along.
	Now here's the proof.
	There's no such thing as a drug that has an effect without a side effect.
	So everything has potential risk.
	The problem is, what is the risk of the thing that you are trying to prevent?
	And that's where it comes into play.
	So for example, if you have a, for parents, right, if you've got a healthy three-year-old who's had COVID four times already, Well then I'd say, I don't know what the benefit is that you're going to get from getting that vaccine today.
	Actually, an even bigger principle than a child that may have natural immunity is this principle.
	Open, reasoned conversation.
	Bodily autonomy.
	Free will, personal sovereignty, open-mindedness, a communal space of mutual trust and mutual respect, instead of propaganda, condemnation, shaming, supporting the agenda of the pharmaceutical industry, taking advantage of an opportunity to assert authoritarianism when it appears now it was not legitimate and it was incorrect.
	So even though it seems perfectly reasoned now to say, well if a child's already had it and children aren't dying of Covid, what would be the point?
	That's what everybody was saying.
	What they're trying to frame this as now is, oh there's a small risk of a whole bunch of stuff that people were talking about for ages.
	But in general, all, all facts, it almost goes without saying.
	It certainly did go without saying.
	I remember what they were saying and more importantly what they were singing and dancing and propagandizing.
	And I remember more importantly what they were extracting Acting.
	True information was censored.
	So it's not like, oh, you know, now we've had a little bit of time, we've done some studies, there may have been a few innocent mishaps along the way.
	Why did you need legal indemnity at the advent of this then?
	Why was so much money spent on organisations like Logically AI and various other censoring public voices that were outspoken on this subject?
	Mostly, certainly speaking for myself, Simply regarding personal sovereignty, bodily autonomy, open conversation, legitimate experts from across the spectrum of opinion being incorporated into the broader narrative, given that we're demanding unprecedented measures.
	You can't pretend now, all this ever was, is a few innocent hiccups along the way, as to be expected of all medicines outside it.
	I don't think so.
	So in a sense even this study is like and now for the international gaslighting study that will reveal small mitigating conditions without acknowledging the phenomenal thing that's just taken place.
	But if you tell me that you've got a you know 84 year old in a nursing home that somehow came out of a time machine and is now entering the world in 2024 and has never had a Covid vaccine.
	Well, I think actually we've got some bigger questions now.
	How does that time machine work?
	And can we use that to go right back to 2019 and say, right, you're going to hear some crazy stuff now, but just remember these principles.
	Bodily autonomy, personal sovereignty, clinical data.
	Let's have a look at when some of these things were patented, by the way.
	Could you tell us everything you know about dual use research?
	What the hell has been going on in Wuhan?
	Has Anthony Fauci ever been involved in any business dealings with the EcoHealth Alliance and DARPA?
	Seeing as how we're being so open and seeing as how we've got a time machine, let's get into the nitty gritty.
	Well, for that person, I'd say, well, then we really have to think about whether a COVID vaccine makes sense for them.
	And as you heard Dr. Cantor, they're saying, you know, his biggest takeaway, and mine too after doing the story, was that, you know, you have to look at your own personal risk and whether or not you have any contributing factors that could lead to, you know, some kind of complications.
	But I'm sure there are a lot of you who listen to that story, like me.
	I'm sitting there going, what has happened over the past couple of years?
	You know, I had the COVID shot, I had COVID, and then dealt with pericarditis, like, just this past Christmas.
	So, I never had heart problems before, so I wonder.
	Right.
	You know, now I'm going to be doing some more research to figure out what in the world.
	Don't do your own research.
	That'll make you a conspiracy theorist.
	Certainly don't broadcast that research, because if that information is true, it will be regarded as mal-information.
	Next week on News.
	Joy is unable to join us today because she mysteriously died of being, well, a little too obedient.
	How astonishing to watch the actual news reach the point that a lot of people are at at the very beginning.
	Personal autonomy, diligent inquiry, good-hearted in every sense of the word, open-mindedness, and clarity of communication.
	Instead, if you remember, what we got is Albert Baller on shows that were sort of vaguely like The View, being celebrated as if he was Justin Bieber with a syringe instead of a Winky Woo.
	And it's always good to check with your general practitioner, check with your doctor.
	These are the questions and conversations that you need to have.
	Oh, what?
	Conversations with your doctor?
	How many doctors were struck up I've met to this week?
	Dr. Pierre Khoury, Meryl Nash.
	Physicians are like, oh, I'm not sure that that's the right thing.
	You're a lunatic!
	You get out!
	Oh my God, what's going on?
	When you need to decide whether or not you want to get the COVID-19 shot, or any vaccine for that matter, based on your own personal Ha, that was amazing.
	The news finally catches up.
	Also, what's the point in keep funding Ukraine against a country that's got nuclear weapons?
	Why would they blow up their own pipeline?
	It just doesn't make sense that that bullet would bounce around like that before killing JFK.
	Shut that's enough!
	That is enough news!
	Here's a bit more information on that study.
	A new study on COVID-19 vaccines that looked at nearly 100 million vaccinated individuals affirmed the vaccines previously observed links to increased risks for certain adverse effects including myocarditis and Gillian Barr syndrome.
	They confirm that the shots made by Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca are linked to significantly higher risk of five medical conditions, including a nerve-wasting condition that leaves people struggling to walk or think.
	But otherwise, okay!
	What are the side effects?
	You may not be able to walk or think, but that cough that people have been getting, you don't need to ever worry about that, or think about it, or anything, again!
	Now just get out of the office!
	But the study also warned of several other disorders.
	Oh, not just walking and thinking.
	Several other disorders that they said warranted further investigation, including the links between a brain swelling condition and Moderna's shot.
	Good news, everyone.
	Among their discoveries was a twofold increase in the risk of a neurological condition known as Gillian Barr syndrome.
	An autoimmune disorder in which the immune system attacks the body's peripheral nervous system, leading to damage of the protective casing around the nerve cells.
	While it cannot be proven that the vaccine caused these events, there is some evidence the vaccine triggers the immune system to attack its own nerves.
	The vaccine didn't cause it.
	The vaccine was simply an innocent bystander while the nervous system turned on itself, the bastard.
	That'll be all that non-thinking.
	You should think before you walk.
	Okay.
	Meanwhile the study also confirmed a three-fold higher risk for a type of heart inflammation called myocarditis.
	I've heard of that.
	Myocarditis was seen most commonly in young men.
	It's believed to be related to immune response triggered by the mRNA vaccines by Pfizer and Moderna which work by instructing cells to produce the same protein that sits atop the coronavirus.
	There was a greater than 3.7 times risk of a condition called acute disseminated encephalomyelitis.
	Or thankfully, ADEM, which causes swelling in the brain and spinal cord that damages the protective covering of nerve fibers in the brain and spinal cord after the first dose of the Moderna vaccine.
	I wonder if Moderna included that in the reports they've been paying so much money for on disinformation and malinformation on the internet.
	Oh, it might cause some brain swelling.
	Shut up!
	The study also found that after getting the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine, there were 1.9 and 3.9 times increased risk of traverse myelitis and ADEM, respectively.
	That's astonishing.
	And I think, according to Pierre Khoury, would warrant in any other medicine its withdrawal.
	Bell's palsy, which causes temporary weakness or paralysis of the muscles on one side of the face, had an increased odds of 1.05 after a first dose of the Pfizer vaccine, just Remember the hysteria that surrounded reluctance, hesitancy and even conversation at the period of endorsing and sometimes mandating of this product.
	When I see somebody out in the world who's not wearing a mask, I instantly think you are a threat.
	Or you are selfish, or you are a Covid denier, and you definitely haven't been vaccinated.
	There was also a 1.3 to 1.4 times greater risk of having a seizure following the first and second doses of the Moderna vaccine, as well as the fourth dose of the Pfizer vaccine.
	Every time you were taking an additional shot, you were increasing the risk of side effects, of course, we all know that now, while potentially incurring very little additional protection.
	After a first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine, there was a three times greater than expected risk of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis.
	The risk after the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine and after the second dose were 1.49 and 1.25 times higher.
	I feel that what this study does, given the nature of its backers, is provides mitigation, highlights the excessive and increased risk of AstraZeneca, which has already been publicly lambasted, and attempts to ameliorate this total mistrust and disgust that we feel towards that industry and all interfacing systems.
	That could be public health agencies, departments of health, government agencies, legacy media, propaganda, online censorship.
	It just revealed so much that this is beyond too little, too late.
	This is simply a revelation that you're better off trusting your own instinct and broad mistrust of authority than anything they ever tell you again.
	CVST is a rare but serious condition characterised by the formation of blood clots in the large channels that drain blood from the brain and deliver it back to the heart after the AstraZeneca vaccine.
	Also after the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine, there was a 1.07 times higher risk of thrombocytopenia, a condition characterized by a lower than normal number of platelets in the blood.
	After a third dose of CHAD 0x1, the risk notably rose to 1.95.
	Significantly higher than expected cases of pericarditis, inflammation of the sac-like structure that surrounds the heart, We're also observed following the first and fourth doses of Moderna's vaccine.
	The global COVID vaccine safety project is supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services.
	Several of the authors receive financial support from or have relationships with government agencies, including the CDC, the New Zealand Ministry of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, which they disclosed as potential conflicts of interest.
	I suppose the revelation of those conflicts of interest suggests that this is a pretty measured assessment of that data, i.e.
	when the CDC and Pfizer and everyone got together to say, look, this is actually now approaching fever pitch and potentially some significant and disruptive event.
	Let's ensure that we get favourable organisations and figures involved so that this information, even though it's now unavoidable because too many people have been negatively impacted, at least it will come out in a way that we can somewhat manage and it doesn't perhaps reach the full pitch of unmitigated disaster that is warranted.
	Several of the researchers also reported having relationships or having previously received payments from biopharmaceutical companies Gilead Sciences Inc, Abivy Inc, Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline.
	Pfizer told the New York Post in a statement that while it was not involved in this study, we welcome independent research and academic discourse to advance the study of COVID-19.
	Oh well, one thing we know about Pfizer, And Moderna is they welcome open discourse.
	Moderna have already been proven to be monitoring and censoring vocal opponents of their products, even when they're telling the truth.
	I know this from personal experience, even when you've said only true things like the vast profits they've been accruing, the members of their team that have been appointed from government agencies, the vast sums of taxpayer monies that they've received, the adverse events that their products Demonstrably cause they've been spending money censoring it and also government agencies have been contributing to censoring comparable information.
	This is the best possible presentation of an absolute global disaster.
	The global disaster you knew it to be.
	The evidence you knew it to be of hypocrisy and corruption.
	They're shutting the door after the horse has bolted and sort of saying that, oh, sorry that that horse bolted, when in effect they murdered that horse.
	Melted it down for glue and then sold that glue to you using your taxpayer dollars, if you want a complex analogy.
	Safety is a top concern for all of us.
	It doesn't seem like it.
	It seems like secrecy is a top concern and safety is dealt with a couple of years later when it's absolutely bloody unavoidable.
	All of us in Pfizer and BioNTech take reports of side effects that are potentially associated with our COVID-19 vaccine very seriously and censor them over many, many years.
	Since its initial authorisation for use in December 2020, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine has been administered to more than 1.5 billion people.
	That's 1.5 billion people!
	That's an extraordinary number and an extraordinary profit and an extraordinary delay before telling a small portion of an extraordinary truth.
	Has demonstrated a favourable safety profile in all age groups and has helped protect against severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalisation and death, the company added.
	Yeah, thanks for that.
	God, did we say thank you already?
	Did you not get enough dances on late night TV?
	Do you want some more people to get tattooed?
	When will you be happy?
	Money, cultural celebration, turning your disgusting brand into a kind of ideology?
	What do these people do?
	Well, also, Albert Baller would like each of you to massage his shoulders once a week.
	Well, I would, but my left hand's not working.
	So I can't think or walk?
	Well, I'll have to get there somehow.
	Moderna and AstraZeneca did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
	Either they were counting their money or counting their victims.
	I want you to hold in your mind what we just watched together on Legacy Media.
	Essentially, the kind of reasoned discourse that could have been available to us from the beginning had it not been for the deliberate, publicly funded and privately funded, illegal, in my view, and potentially more broadly, censorship that took place during the pandemic period.
	You were right.
	Not them.
	You were right from the beginning.
	I suspect that this massive study is an attempt to mitigate and control the information.
	I don't, at this point, expect transparency, clarity and largeness from organisations that have behaved so appallingly in the last three years.
	I feel that this is a point where we have to hold the line, stay clear and stay awake.
	That's if you're able to think and walk for some circumspect reason connected to self-preservation.
	But that's just what I think and walk.
	Let me know what you think and walk in the chat.
	See you in a second.
	No.
	Here's the fucking news!
	We have got... Thank you very much for joining us today.
	Next week we've got a fantastic guest.
	It's a guest you've asked for.
	Let me know who you think it is in the stream.
	It's Rand Paul.
	Rand Paul will be on the show on Friday.
	I want you to start preparing your questions now.
	I want you to send them in.
	If you are a member of Locals, you will be able to join us live for that conversation and pose questions to Rand Paul.
	So get ready, become a member of our community.
	You'll be able to watch our Amy Winehouse video where I talk about celebrity culture.
	You'll be able to see our Terrence McKenna video.
	All of these things are exclusive only for our members so that we can support our ongoing opposition to almost global, totally immersive, ubiquitous, and necessarily must be soon challenged Corruption!
	Some of our new members include PissedPatriot82, welcome on board, RealNoAgenda underscore OG, get here will ya, MidnightPro, Jdog77, 77 excuse me Jdog, and Michaman.
	Welcome, welcome to our movement.
	We're so glad to have you.
	Join us next week for Rand Paul, and therefore not more of the same, but for more of the different.
	Until then, if you can, stay free.

▲