All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 6, 2024 - Stay Free - Russel Brand
01:10:30
EXPOSED: It Goes DEEPER Than We Imagined! | DISTURBING New Vaccine Info - SF 424
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I'm going to go ahead and run through the area and see what happens.
In this video, you're going to see the future.
Hello there you Awakening Wanderers, thanks for joining me today for Stay Free with Russell Brand.
One of the most extraordinary phenomena of the entire pandemic period was watching how conspiracy theories became conspiracy facts, how respected elected political officials ultimately Came to reveal and openly discuss, often with evidence and receipts, information that was being discussed online years before.
Why do you keep harping on about it?
Well, I keep harping on about it because it shows you exactly how institutional power, whether it's government or corporate, intercedes with the truth.
Today we're specifically talking about Big Pharma, Vaccines and lockdowns.
But what's unique about it is we're talking to a range of guests.
Rand Paul, the Senator.
Dave Martin, who's always been ahead of the curve on Big Pharma, its corruption, and even more esoteric and occultist components of that.
And Congressman Jim Jordan, who of course is over many of the house congressional hearings, as well as Senator Ron Johnson who's always been outspoken on this subject.
So between them you've got a good number of outsiders and insiders, radical political figures and outspoken commentators, As well as institutional political figures who are there by popular mandate, who nevertheless are now willing to speak out about the events of the last few years.
All in all, you're left asking this question.
They knew, and it's worse than we could ever have imagined, how did this happen?
Let's get into it.
Senator Rand Paul, thank you so much for joining me today on Stay Free with Russell Brand.
Glad to be with you.
I hear it's a really big program to be on.
So, you know, everybody wants to get on your show.
It is a significant cultural artifact.
We regularly have outspoken members of a worldwide resistance movement of which you have become a significant voice.
And now with your Book Deception.
In over 500 pages you have articulated what many people have felt, in fact due in no small part to your own investigations since the outset of the pandemic, that we have been subject to an unprecedented global deceit and that Anthony Fauci plays a central and key role in orchestrating this deceit.
What primarily is it that you want us to understand from this book about Anthony Fauci's role in the pandemic and its cover-up?
You know, I think we've never had a cover-up where the proof of the cover-up and the proof of the deceit, the proof of the lying, is so obvious in the words of the people committing the cover-up.
So we had Anthony Fauci and all these virologists publicly saying, you're crazy if you think this came from the lab.
It absolutely came from animals.
But you have them in private explicitly saying the opposite.
Not just hedging their bet, but absolutely saying, Wow, this is no conspiracy theory.
This looks like the most likely thing.
Some of these scientists were saying, ah, I'm 60-40, it came from the lab, or I'm 80-20, or I'm 50-50.
But in public they were saying, absolutely no way it came from the lab.
So it was a dishonesty on a level that we've never ever been able to prove by actually seeing in their own words how diabolically dishonest they were.
Yes, indeed.
In fact, not only were they giving us deception through omission, but also deception through commission, and deception through direct contradiction, and the management of information demonstrated a level of duplicity that we've seldom seen in public life.
I'm speaking in particular of Antony Fauci's intervention at various agencies, including the CIA, the management in particular of what was known as the lab leak theory, but increasingly seems like an undeniable Truth.
I wonder, for a moment, if we may take this broader, Senator, what do you think it does to the soul of a nation, to the spirit and morale of a nation, when a deception of this scale is practiced, when we almost see in real time ideas that were dismissed as conspiracy theories, i.e.
that gain-of-function research was dangerous, that dual-purpose research was taking place, That potentially America was involved in the funding of the research in Wuhan through groups like EcoHealth Alliance and DARPA and perhaps the figure of Peter Daszak is an interesting one to comment on here.
What do you think it does to America's spirit at a time where your country appears to be undergoing a great reckoning?
What does an event like this do to the country's soul?
What we saw for about three years as these public health officials came before committees was that they kept blaming the right wing and saying, you're responsible for vaccine hesitancy.
You're responsible for people distrusting their government.
And I pointed right back at them and said, absolutely not.
You're responsible because you've lied to the public.
You've lost your credibility.
And I don't think they ever truly grasped that.
But in the end, it's amazing to me how smart people actually are.
Because the elitist point of view is that the common man is too stupid to take care of himself, too stupid to make his health care decisions.
But interestingly with this, if you ask a poll of how many moms are vaccinating their six months old in the United States, it's like a handful.
You know, they're from the Act Blue Coalition or something, but they're not normal people.
But very few people are vaccinating their kids because they see no reason, it's not a deadly disease for kids, and they have read about that there's a possibility that my kid could have a side effect from the vaccine, but there's not much possibility that my kid could get very sick from the disease.
So I think the people have gotten smarter on this, but vaccine distrust and distrust of government has grown exponentially because of their dishonesty.
Indeed, we are seeing now on what we commonly refer to as mainstream or legacy media, it seems to me at least, an attempt to mitigate the unavoidable deluge of truth that they are now being confronted with.
I know that now Pfizer and the CDC have participated in the funding of a broad study that at least begins to acknowledge pericarditis, myocarditis, as well as other conditions and just how many yellow card and adverse injuries there have been as a result of this extraordinary product.
The politicization of this issue was, it seems, used to undergird a new orthodoxy that apparently
always had as its aim the kind of authoritarianism that doesn't think twice about censoring and
controlling information that is not advantageous to its previously concealed agenda.
Within the figure of Anthony Fauci, who lived through a kind of live hagiography during
this extraordinary period, we were able to see another curious aspect of American public
life, the unelected bureaucrat consuming and demonstrating power at a level that is difficult
to find a comparison for.
He was given an extraordinary ride in the media, Anthony Fauci.
I feel like I saw live song and dance numbers take place.
People even, in fact, sexualizing Anthony Fauci at points, taking him to... Please, please, stop.
We've got to stop there.
Stop!
I have the footage!
I have the footage!
I wonder what you feel is the role of the what has come to be termed the legacy media in creating this somewhat unaccountable hero Annie Fauci who's now just admitted that the figure of a six-foot separation we just pulled out of the air that masks weren't effective while previously having made the ludicrous claim that he, you know, I am science.
How did the media contribute to the creation of this figure?
So, just for fun, we will occasionally write op-eds that we submit to either the New York Times or the Washington Post, because they always reject them.
Every time they reject them.
We can't get anything published.
So we sent over to them a comparison between J. Edgar Hoover and Anthony Fauci.
Because there are similarities.
They both were in power about the same period of time, 40 some odd years.
They both accumulated power over that time and the power went to their head and they had their own personal fiefdoms.
This can happen whether you're FBI director or head of infectious disease.
Now you would have never thought the head of infectious disease would become so powerful.
But, you know, Bobby Kennedy's been pretty good at writing about this.
He writes, and I think has drawn more attention to this than many people, is that a lot of this happened after 9-11.
So after 9-11, there was a great deal of fear.
We passed the Patriot Act, taking away civil liberties in our country, but we also ramp up our arms trade.
And in our arms, armamentarian is bioweapons.
And we say, well, gosh, the enemy is making this and the enemy is trying to take Ebola and spread it through the air.
Well, we should do so we can learn how to counteract it.
And so everything is, you know, an escalation, the same as there's a nuclear arms race.
There's also a biological arms race that goes on.
But what happened is Anthony Fauci was head of like one twenty seventh of all of NIH.
His fiefdom grew in dollars to come to dominate all of NIH, and it's one of the reasons why in the end nobody knew Francis Collins' name and still don't, but they all knew Anthony Fauci's name.
One, he was a TV hog.
He loved the camera.
But two, his budget dwarfed all the other budgets.
And he also became somebody who routinely was visiting with the spooks.
And this is one of the things that I learned in the book is almost all these people granting scientific grants, you would think they're these just ivory-towered scientists who are like trying to cure disease for mankind.
They're meeting with the CIA and the MI5 and the MI6.
In England, Welcome Trust that was headed by Jeremy Farrar, who's a big player in all of this.
He's talking to his boss at Welcome Trust.
And oh, by the way, she's the former head of MI5.
So it's like all these people who are involved with science are also involved with intelligence, which really tells you there's a lot more going on here than they're letting us see.
Yes, but it was Bobby Kennedy's analysis that first helped me to understand that there'd been a historic teleology from declared international wars which were identifiable, like the Second World War, to the subsequent Cold War, to the War on Terror, To the war on germs and the war on ideas, all used to, I suppose, through a kind of diffuse subterfuge, legitimize more and more authoritarian measures, even though the enemy is becoming harder and harder to quantify.
Bobby Kennedy also, just on a side note, says that you should succeed Mitch McConnell.
He posted about that today.
Is that something that you would consider?
Uh, well, all I need is 25 votes.
If someone can find me 25 reasonable Republicans.
No, it's difficult.
It's a, it's a club.
You know, it's a very small club.
And if we have about 50, you got to have about 25.
The reason McConnell has been able to stay in power is that he goes to the corporate heads, the CEO heads of all the big business.
He gathers money, more money than you can put in a bag.
It's like $300 million he gathers.
A million, a couple billion at a time.
And then this money goes to support candidates that vote for him within the caucus.
And many of them are unable to raise money very well for themselves, they're not very well known in their communities, and they're deathly afraid of the voters.
This is something people don't quite understand or isn't reported as much as it should be.
Most of these incumbent senators are deathly afraid of their voters, including their own party.
They go home to their own conventions and they're booed at their conventions.
So the hardcore people who work in the political world, in the conventions of their state, they know these people aren't representing them.
So I routinely will put forward things that I know that no good person in this state supports, and then we'll try to let people know how their senator voted because they have no idea.
This disjunct between the electorate and the institutions that nominally serve them has become increasingly exposed.
One of the clear themes of the pandemic period was deep state intervention when it came to matters of media and the control of information.
It was Mike Benz that recently coined the term, which I think is interesting when people say democracy now, as in we must go to war in order to defend democracy.
They mean a set of institutions that are owned by elite interests as opposed to the process of elections via which the will of the people might have been expressed.
Do you feel that fissures have opened up during the pandemic period that are going to be very difficult to close?
You've already mentioned That trust in science and trust in vaccines has fallen radically, and it seems to me that there's an attempt to try to address and redress that, or create systems of authority that don't require public complicity.
Do you feel that there is a great mistrust in American public officials, in some part brought about by Anthony Fauci?
And I like your comparison to Hoover because, you know, Anthony Fauci liked dressing up in that mask that apparently did very little, and we know that Hoover had some interesting clandestine habits in that area also.
Yeah, I think that the thing I worry most about coming out of this is the idea that there's different standards of justice.
You know, one of the things that almost tore America apart back in the 50s and 60s was the idea that if your skin were black, you wouldn't be treated with equal protection under the law, that you were going to be treated differently according to your skin color.
We have gotten past that to a great degree over many decades, but now my fear is that people are being treated differently based on the shade of their ideology, whether what your beliefs are on vaccine or who you follow politically or whose podcast you listen to.
Because Anthony Fauci is clearly guilty of lying to Congress about the gain of function, about funding gain of function research.
He's guilty of lying in his own words, because we now have slack emails from February 1st, 2020, when he says explicitly they're doing gain-of-function research.
He lists the research, which is the research he had funded, and he says he knew they were doing it from the very beginning.
From the first email, this is the amazing thing of this cover-up.
The first email we have a record of is January 27th, 2020.
Fauci gets an email from his assistant, he says, wanted you to see this paper, this Gain of Function paper in Wuhan that we funded.
That's the first email, January 27th, and then the rest of the time is Fauci publicly saying, nothing to see here, we never funded Gain of Function.
But he never is prosecuted and won't be prosecuted.
But people from the previous administration who either were accused of lying or may have lied to Congress are still being prosecuted.
We'll be on YouTube for just a couple more seconds then you're gonna have to click the link in the description to join us exclusively on Rumble because this issue has taught us a great deal about censorship and the control of information.
Click the link, join us over there.
People who came to the Capitol on January 6th but never entered, that were milling around looking like this and didn't do anything, are still being pursued for jail.
But if you came here to protest Kavanaugh's, you know, about a hundred women lay on the floor and wouldn't leave.
They were trespassing in the Senate buildings and they were moved, but they were taken.
I don't know if any of them ever got a ticket, but none of them went to jail.
If they were booked, they were let go.
That's what typically happened to protesters in our country if you didn't hurt somebody.
But that's not what's happening with January 6th.
So people are worried that there's two standards of justice now, and that will lead to further problems.
It may lead to strife in our country.
We can't make this content without our partners.
Here's a quick message from them now.
Stay with us.
And now a word from our partners, Coca-Cola.
No, Pepsi.
No, it's not both.
Look, it's actually Airstek, the world's only scientifically proven electromagnetic field protection chip trusted by experts.
Airstek is now, can you believe this, an official partner of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, the UFC, giving support for world-class athletes who want to safeguard themselves from excessive electromagnetic radiation.
We're all going to want that protection soon.
Elite athletes within the UFC are unique In their need to optimize their performance in 25 minute bursts.
Airstek understand the importance of optimal recovery and peak performance.
Trusted and used by pro athletes all around the world to elevate their game.
EMF modulation technology solutions help them train harder, recover faster and perform at their best.
And wouldn't we all benefit from that?
I know that I would.
I keep this one device here.
It's protecting me from that.
It's protecting me from a whole lot of things.
Get out Russian hackers!
Go to airstech.com forward slash pages forward slash russell dash brand there's a link and use the code RUSSELL30 for 30% off.
So click the link under this and use the code RUSSELL30 two s's two l's for 30% off this device.
Protect yourself from invisible fields of detrimental vibration.
Back to the content!
The question is, from atkarina14, as more and more evidence emerges that health agencies on a global scale misled and most likely harmed many people, what kind of actual accountability can there be given the scale of the offence?
Are you talking about harm from the vaccine?
Yes sir.
This has been a discussion for a long period of time, and we discussed this in the book.
Congress gave liability protection so there is no harm to be held to these people.
They can serve up whatever you want, and it'd be bad enough if it were voluntary, but it's being pushed on you.
Many people lose their jobs if they're not vaccinated, but if they're harmed by the vaccine, they have no recourse.
Now they set up some big vaccine database and then an ability to get some money from the government, but it's not the same because it doesn't chasten at all the companies.
And really the insidious part of this is that it's mandatory.
And then, you know, you got the former FDA commissioner, Scott Gottlieb is on the board of Pfizer, who is then calling Twitter to say, take down this article saying you might be harmed by vaccinating your children.
That's how bad it is that the former FDA commissioner is now on the board of Pfizer, is now telling Twitter to take down information on this.
So it's disturbing, but it's been going on since the 1970s.
My dad fought against it, was one of the few people to vote against giving liability protection to the vaccine manufacturers.
On the other side of it, they would argue, well, the government mandates these things.
Why should people sue us?
We're not mandating them.
The government's mandating them.
So the government should be responsible for it.
But if they're not responsible for their own products, I don't think they're going to work as hard to try to do no harm.
You know, to make sure that there's not a harmful aspect.
And these things were pushed out so fast, if they had been voluntary in every aspect, you could at least say people who were frightened could take them, people at high risk could take them, but they were pushed out and then pushed on healthy people who didn't need the vaccines.
And that really is a crime and somebody should be punished, particularly in the government, The Anthony Fauci's of this world who pushed nonsense and bad science on us that now he just throws up his hands and says, oh, well, we didn't really know.
We liked six feet, but we didn't really know why we said six feet of distance.
It was no science.
But on the children, I have gone directly at Anthony Fauci on the vaccine for children and said, does it reduce transmission?
No.
Does it reduce hospitalization or death?
And he says, well, we don't know.
And I say, well, the reason you don't know is that no child is going to the hospital or dying right now.
No healthy child.
There are exceptions to every rule, but no healthy child with no significant disease is going to the hospital and dying from COVID.
It is not a deadly disease for healthy children.
If your child has an illness, you talk to your doctor and you can make your own decision.
The vaccine isn't doing anything for healthy children.
And it's all it's doing is doing to the bottom line of Big Pharma.
So Anthony Fauci and his ilk have basically become salesmen for Big Pharma.
And this is sort of the tragedy of crony capitalism.
And I think we have to keep fighting it.
That was Senator Rand Paul, who's done more than probably anyone in the Senate, maybe Thomas Massey as well, you could argue, let me know in the comments and chat, to bring these issues to a wider audience and to give them the credibility that they warrant.
But when you want insight that borders on prophecy, you have to listen to Dave Martin.
Here he is.
What was unique about the pandemic?
Was it that many previously covert interests became temporarily visible, like the recent Aurora Borealis in Northern Europe?
Suddenly, something that is always there became visible to a new population.
Hang on a minute, the pharmaceutical industry and the state are operating in conjunction with these unelected bureaucratic bodies in order to centralise authority and generate profit?
Is that what it was?
Well, so I think there's two things that make the COVID situation somewhat dramatic, at least.
I wouldn't say unprecedented, but certainly dramatic, because we can actually make the argument that certainly the establishment of the Commonwealth was the legitimization of the British East India Company, and that company's 86% of its trade was opium.
Unambiguously, this is not a new phenomenon.
The difference probably is the degree to which the audacity of the direct suppression of civil and human rights was part and parcel of this exercise.
And I've seen it, as I've said many times, as a marketing exercise to see exactly how far the complicit population will go before they start pushing back.
Because I think that's really what it was.
I think this was a market test more than it was a substantive act.
And the fact is that the market test was to see how far humans are willing to allow themselves to be caged, curtailed, limited, delimited, everything else.
And I think that what we really did was we had a market test on humanity and humanity came with a, let's just say, not a passing grade.
Have you got any corroborating evidence to suggest that indicates or even proves that it was that?
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, listen, you only have to go to the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board Look at the decade of vaccines that they published in 2011.
They actually said that they were going to do this.
They said by 2020, we were going to have a universal acceptance, a universal vaccine mandate across the world on a universal platform.
And then in September 18th of 2019, they specifically said that there would be an accidental or deliberate release of a lethal respiratory pathogen.
This comes right out of their document, Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, September 18th, 2019.
And in that document, they said the purpose of it was so that by September 2020, the world would have a universal vaccine plan.
Period.
That's not an allegation.
That's an accusation because it's reading right out of their script.
So this is not putting the pieces together.
This is something basic.
I know it challenges a lot of people, but it's called literacy.
You just have to read their plan.
And if you actually, God forbid, read the words on the page, you actually see that this was nothing but a market test, which is the reason why we have Answer Corporation, ATI, Forsmarsh, and the companies that were involved in the rollout of this pandemic, we have them all setting up the marketing program, which was the launch of Event 201 and other things, where they actually told us exactly what was going to happen.
They told us what the media was going to sound like.
They told us what the marketing was going to sound like.
They told us all of these things in advance of this bullshit story of patient one in Wuhan.
All of this was theater to get the public to accept the next round of the drug trade.
And the next round of the drug trade is genetically modified humans.
Extraordinary.
I wonder if I might ask you the somewhat taxing favour that by the time we are doing this now for our community and locals, so if you come and awaken one day, you can join us for these conversations and put your questions to our treasured guests like Dave.
I wonder if by the time we stream this on Friday, if you could send us some links that we can post in the chat.
Absolutely!
For example, in particular, the various documents that you've referred to that permit you to make those accusations, just so that we can learn together from the brilliant work that you've done in compiling these narratives.
I mean, it's extraordinarily significant.
So really what you're saying is that many of them, what seems to be the most outlandish
statements that could be located online at the commencement of the pandemic are closer
to the truth than what you would see on the BBC or NBC or the New York Times.
The people that are saying this is a staged event, this is a pandemic, this is a mass
marketed attempt to see if you can assert civilization control.
Now how do you tally that with something like the discovery that in Ukraine, through DIA, They are now monitoring and observing Ukrainian transactions and have tied digital identity to the ability to shut down bank accounts, causing some Ukrainian civilians that refuse the conscript to have their assets frozen.
Do you think that the control of finance, social credit scores, digital ID are part of this, you know, launch, as you very explicitly said, next phase of the drug phase, genetically engineered or altered humans?
Do you think part of that is civilian management through technological dictatorship?
Well, no question.
It's not by accident.
Dustin Moskowitz, the name I love to mention that nobody seems to ever bother to keep reciting, and I encourage people to do it.
But Dustin Moskowitz, the co-founder of Facebook and the guy behind paying for Event 201 and the guy behind paying for a number of other things, including his joint venture with the Wellcome Trust through Syncoven.
And a number of funding sources this program is about once again making sure that there is an ability to access a control mechanism on human beings and by genetically modifying people with mrna by doing all sorts of those kinds of manipulations and then by encouraging things like central bank digital currencies.
And all of the kinds of things we're supposed to track on our phones, the vaccine passport or the personal identity transactions, all of these things are meant to control and limit the ability for the free association and the free movement of thoughts and ideas and people.
If you're going to actually control and manipulate a population, what you have to do is effectively create house arrest for the non-compliant.
And it turns out that house arrest for the non-compliant is what I said in my interview in April of 2020.
I said this entire program was the launch of the universal house arrest program.
And what do I mean by that?
What I mean is that by creating, using, by the way, the only tool that can subvert constitutional rights, which is public health.
Public health was written into the law.
As the way of subverting constitutional rights and using public health as the means to do it, we have been placed under a virtual house arrest and the technologies that are enabling that are going to be increasingly rolled out, whether it's your 5G, 6G personal identity chips, whether it's the things that you wear, it's the personal devices that monitor your behavior, the personal devices that monitor your health status.
These are all meant to effectively Be the anklet on your leg for the criminal that you are if you think you are entitled to liberty.
We need to understand that the structure at its core, and this by the way goes back to something as simple as the criminal conspiracy that took over the United Kingdom Health Services in the 1920s and the 1930s, very specifically the Wellcome Trust.
Because the Wellcome Trust, which was the modern expression of the opium trade of the British East India Company, in 1941 set up what was called the Therapeutic Research Corporation in the UK, and that formed the basis for what would ultimately become the modern criminal organizations, the World Health Organization, And all of the stuff that the UN, League of Nations, and everything else did, as well as informing what became the FDA in the United States.
But go back and ask the question, where did all this come from?
And the answer is it actually came from the opium trade.
It's the modern expression of the British East India Company, which happened to be unified under the Wellcome Trust.
Nothing giant surprising about it.
All of that money, all of it, Came out of criminal drug trade.
I'm not going to sit here and let you blame Her Majesty the Queen, God rest her eternal soul, and Great Britain, after all of our endeavours, our incredible flag, the great things we've done, William Wilberforce, Shakespeare, some very, very fine people, and you, unavowedly, a member of one of our colonies, criticising us in this manner.
I know, it's disgusting.
It's disgusting when you actually have something as simple as, I don't know, the charter that actually puts it all in motion.
So you're saying that these, it's interesting because when you speak to people that have perhaps previously made an income in criminal ways, you know, organised crime, you have a version of that in North America, you have versions of
that around the world, and in Britain the sort of 19, post-1960s style gangster culture has an
incredible glamour to it, and in part what you always feel is this, aside from the, you know, violence
and the criminality, that it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that really these are people that
have bypassed systems that are supposed to repress and control them.
In a way when you describe the enterprises that have grown out of by your reckoning and you say you have the receipts
and we Totally want to see him and I completely love this stuff
There are just criminal enterprises that are taking place on a much larger scale that kind of
legislate in their wake to mask the criminal nature creating whatever
institutions or global entity is required to frame badge and provide
sigils and insignia that Legitimize well, we did this for the Queen of England. We
did this for a listen. I mean, it's hilarious You go to 1941, the Therapeutic Research Corporation, which was the Therapeutic Substances Act in the UK, and you go back and say, well, hold on a second.
You mean that the biggest drug company in the UK set up the regulator for the drugs in the UK?
So the company set up the regulator?
And continues to this day to fund the regulator.
It's brilliant.
It's so good because this is more creative than the mob could ever be.
Because this is not, we get a couple corrupt cops to look the other way.
This is, we hire the police force.
The police force are us.
And so this is actually one step further.
Remember, and I've said this many, many times, in the World Health Organization's founding charter, they wrote an absolute, absolute amnesty for all criminal acts conducted by themselves.
Russell, I don't know how you would feel, but if by fiat you and I just come to an agreement right now, wave our royal scepter and say, from now on, everything that Russell and Dave do are exempt from any prosecution of any kind in perpetuity, thank you very much.
A few people might raise their hand and go, I wonder if Russell and Dave are up to something?
Because it turns out that if you give yourself amnesty from all forms of criminal prosecution, including murder, by the way, let's get clear, it cannot be By law, no member of the World Health Organization, in the execution of anything they said they were doing in their own capacity as a World Health Organization, not a single one of them can not only be tried and prosecuted, they can't even be investigated.
Have you any... okay, of course... A statute!
I take your premise that even the implementation of such a piece of regulation or legislation, global regulation, and it's extraordinary to see how often global regulation is being proposed these days.
Of course we've discussed the WHO treaty, of course we've not touched on Australia attempting to implement a piece of censorship legislation that would by virtue Of their attempts, they say, to bypass the capacities of VPN, be international and global.
It's extraordinary.
So what you're saying, Dave, is that at the inception of the WHO, they granted themselves somehow amnesty.
Now, I wonder if there are examples in the history of the WHO of where that amnesty has been implemented or effective or where its boundaries might likely be tested.
Do you think in the pandemic period, Let's keep it really current.
At what points are there likely to have been actions generated by people protected by that
statuette that were they not offered those protections, they would have been prosecuted
for the type of crimes?
Let's keep it really current.
Remember that in 2018, during the Ebola clinical trials run by the World Health Organization
in Africa, it was very clear that Remdesivir, the drug that was promoted by Dr. Deborah
Birx and Dr. Anthony Fauci as a drug for the treatment of COVID, remember,
That in 2018, the World Health Organization, in its infinite wisdom and high morality, decided that remdesivir was actually too lethal to inject into Africans.
And that is because the fatality rate of people exposed to remdesivir in the Ebola trials was 53%.
And the bad news about that number is that Ebola doesn't kill 53%.
You get over Ebola.
You don't get over remdesivir.
53% of the people given that drug died.
They were murdered.
And it was so egregious that the drug was pulled from the clinical trials because it was unethical by World Health Organization standards.
That's like saying that something's too hot by the devil's standards in hell.
Right?
That's what that is.
So let's just really be clear.
We're not talking about a high moral compass there.
We're talking about a holy shit.
When you're telling me that the World Health Organization's morality meter got pegged And they said in 2018 remdesivir was too deadly to use on Africans.
That's a whole new level of that feels like a line that probably shouldn't be crossed which is the reason why every physician who injected a patient with remdesivir anywhere in the world was at least committing negligent homicide if not willful murder.
And because it was a standard of care during an emergency You could kill people.
And by the way, that's not, once again, it's not an allegation I'm making, it's an accusation I'm making, because the facts were all available.
Every physician could have read the exact same documents I read.
Everyone could have read the World Health Organization's interim report, which said that regardless of viral load, people that got remdesivir were killed.
That means, Russell, the World Health Organization murdered people without Ebola In the clinical trial, murdered them.
Do you see that particular set of staggering crimes that is difficult to comprehend because of their scale?
As forms of genocide and mass corruption often are, as somehow pertaining to the type of themes you refer to in much of your discourse elsewhere.
Do you see that as being an outlier event, an anomaly, an aberration?
Or do you see that as being part of a broader scheme that the WHO is participating in?
There's no question that like any other theater of social engineering, the more egregious the crime to steal a page from Plato.
Remember, he talks about the fact that, you know, if a simple thief steals a loaf of bread, we call him a thief.
If an organized group of young people steal a bunch of loaves of bread, we call it Oliver Twist.
But there's a certain level at which a crime becomes so egregious that the sum of our emotional and spiritual awakening to the egregious nature of the crime is seared in its consciousness and we actually start marveling at its audacity.
We go from seeing a crime to pondering how somebody could have pulled it off.
Right, think of a serial killer, right?
One person kills one person, it's a murder.
One person kills ten people, we go, well that was effort.
One person kills a hundred people and we start going, let's do a discovery series on the mind of a serial killer.
But when one person kills a million people, we don't have a million moments of consternation.
We actually As Plato observed, we flip the crime on its head and we start marveling at its audacity.
And this is exactly the intent of what happened with COVID, because by marveling at the audacity of the fullness of the complicity of the horrific crimes that were done, We actually don't have a conscience to say every single person in a nursing home who was able to have a glass wall put between them so that they couldn't die in the arms of a loved one, every single person that was put into an ambulance and put on a respirator, which we knew was going to kill them,
Every single person who was put into a hospital and injected with remdesivir, every single one of them was a willful act of something that started in 1913 with the Carnegie Foundation, which was the eugenics program that is still absolutely alive and well at Cold Spring Harbor Labs.
And by the way, go back and look at it.
It was in the 1920s and the 1930s that Hitler was inspired by the work of the United States Eugenics Office.
So let's not sit here and pretend that this is some sort of shock.
Our willingness in the name of what we call public health and in the name of what we call science, our willingness to murder people, and I don't mean, oh it was an accident kind of thing.
I mean stuff like in 1920 when we went to orphanages and we poisoned children with radioactive oatmeal so that we could watch how they die.
In the United States.
That was not a, you know, concentration camp exercise.
That was funded by and supported by the Eugenics Research Office here in the United States.
That was injected digoxins.
That was injected all kinds of other toxins.
That was radiation exposure.
And we did that with impunity on, are you ready for this?
Orphans.
Yes.
In the 1960s, in the United States and in the UK, we had debates on whether it was ethical to use the incarcerated population for lethal drug studies because they were doing their time for society anyhow, so let's go ahead and kill them.
I was also fortunate to talk to Jim Jordan, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, who is an extraordinary contributor to this debate because he approaches it plainly, clerically, patiently and openly and even he's disgusted with the level of construction and corruption that's been exposed in these arguments.
Have a look.
I wonder when you went from thinking that what we knew about the pandemic did not warrant inquiry, that we should continue to follow the science, accept the narrative, accept the findings of the various regulatory bodies, whom are sort of epitomized really in the figure of Anthony Fauci, and perhaps the whole idea of government bureaucracy And bureaucratic power has come to be epitomized in the figure of Anthony Fauci.
At what point did you think, oh, this is not an honest actor upon whose expertise we can rely, but potentially the kind of face of the very kind of corruption the Republicans are notably interested in reducing?
I don't know if there's one exact point, but I would think it was probably when they were downplaying Natural immunity.
Like suddenly we've got the first virus in history where there's no natural immunity.
Really?
And then they just told us so many things that over time just turned out not to be true.
I remember we had Dr. Birx in front of a committee probably two years ago.
And I remember asking her simple question.
My turn to ask her and I asked her a question.
I said, Dr. Birx, when the Biden administration told us that the vaccinated couldn't get the virus, were they guessing or lying?
Because it's got to be, you know, did you not know, you're kind of guessing, or were you actually lying to us, which is even worse.
Because the truth is, what they told us turned out not to be true.
And you can go down, and I know you've covered all this before, but almost everything they told us turned out not to be true.
Didn't come from a lab.
Wasn't gain-of-function research.
Wasn't our tax money used in the Wuhan lab.
All those seem to me not be true.
Vaccinated can't get it.
Vaccinated can't transmit it.
Mask works.
Six-foot social distancing was based on science.
There's no such thing as natural... There's like eight lies right there.
So at some point, we're just like, why should we believe anything you tell us about this virus, right?
And the worst was, though, when they said to men and women in our military, you don't get the shot.
We're going to kick you out.
And they tried to say it to businesses.
If you don't have people get to get the vaccine, they can't work.
This is America, for goodness sake.
You can't do that.
When you describe it like that, Jim, it sounds almost like a coup took place, because how would power migrate away from the autonomy and sovereignty of individuals to these institutions that are unelected and yet publicly funded, having the power to make those type of decisions?
How did that happen?
Is it because... I'll just answer my own question, but I'll do it quickly.
It's your podcast, you're allowed to do that.
Well Jim, was it the exploitation of a crisis to legitimise authority that would have otherwise been immediately rejected by a discerning population?
Well said.
And do you not think that what's revealed during the period of the pandemic is a degree of corruption that's actually institutional?
You're making the argument for basic conservatism.
It's why you want a smaller government.
the regulatory bodies? And do you not think that they can never inspire the hearings that
you've already conducted? And as I said to you, I love your style. I like that you get
into people, wrestle that you are, but isn't the kind of reckoning that would truly be
required? Doesn't that kind of amount to the disbanding of some of those agencies and maybe
even the incrimination of some of those figures?
You're making the argument for basic conservatism. It's why you want a smaller government, bigger
the government, the more potential for abuse. I think a lot of this is driven by just raw
power at the end. I think Fauci sort of liked it all, liked all the...
.
Publicity, the prestige of it, the power of it, and I do think there were people in elected positions who tried to exploit it for political gain, particularly when it came to the election.
I think all that was a problem, but you're making the fundamental argument for why it's better to have smaller government, because smaller government typically means greater freedom for we, the people.
Jim, I believe in non-interventionism, and I believe in independence, and I believe in freedom.
Well, what I also believe is that the regulatory bodies that we do have ought to be functionally fit for purpose and the kind of hypocrisy and exploitation that is afforded when the FDA is primarily, not primarily, but significantly funded by the organizations and corporations that it is supposed to be regulated.
In a sense, isn't that Not just an over-preening and over-funded bureaucracy, but a far deeper problem.
Corporatization and commerce embedded into state institutions, Jim.
Fair question.
And what's the... political scientists have an agency capture?
Where it's, you know, the very entities that agencies are supposed to regulate and oversee become captured by those entities.
And you get this, what some people call it, this Stockholm Syndrome, where it's like, well, we're all working together here, but that may not be in the best interest of the consumer, the best interest of the citizen.
So that is, I think, a valid concern, and something I think many of us Many of us kind of suspected.
During the pandemic.
Yeah, because I'm an outsider.
I'm not from your country and I'm not from Capitol Hill, as you can plainly observe.
But the layman's perspective... You dress just like a congressman.
The layman's perspective on political corruption is that the overlap between commerce and corporatism and state has become so immersive and embedded that it's ultimately operating as one corrupt sort of tumor, almost.
I mean, we saw it in this area.
Because it was big government, big media, big tech working together to censor people who spoke out against what was going on in the government.
And it's like, that is a scary alliance.
And we saw that largely with people speaking out against COVID.
You said anything against the orthodoxy of the administration, you were censored.
And the example I always point to is the third day of the Biden administration, Third day, January 23rd, 2021.
There's an email from the executive office of the presidency of the White House to Twitter.
And it says, take down this tweet ASAP.
And the tweet was from RFK Jr.
And he said two sentences.
He said, Hank Aaron passed away after taking the vaccine.
He took the vaccine as an effort to encourage more black Americans to get vaccinated.
So he had maybe three sentences in there.
Every sentence is accurate.
Every sentence is true.
And the Biden administration was telling the third now.
Now think about this.
Take down a true statement, a true tweet, government pressuring big tech to do so, and the person they're trying to do this to is their opponent.
RFK was getting ready to run for president.
That is not supposed to happen in the United States of America, but it did, and that's the scary part.
And we saw, whether it was COVID or whether it's related to the election or other issues, that big government, big media, big tech, and I always say there's a formula.
I attribute this to the left.
The left will tell a lie.
Big media will report the lie.
Big tech will amplify and assist the lie.
And then when you tell the truth, they call you a racist or they call you something else.
And then by the time you're proven right, they've already moved on to the next lie.
So now we've been proven right, like the vaccinated can get it.
The vaccinated can transmit it.
The masks don't work.
We've been proven right on this, but they're already on to the next issue.
And that's a problem.
And it's something we got to stay on top of.
Ron Johnson, Senator of Wisconsin, was one of the first people to publicly raise questions from within the Senate when it came to how the pandemic was being managed.
It was very interesting to catch up with him at the RNC.
He said a few things that really surprised me.
See if you can spot what they are.
One of the reasons, Ron, that I was very excited and keen to speak to you is because you took a very particular and deliberate and almost extraordinarily outspoken stance during the pandemic period.
I believe that you even went so far as to suggest that the pandemic was augured, perhaps deliberately, in order to legitimise authoritarianism.
Would you explain that, if that is indeed your position, sir?
I don't think I ever went that far.
I know there are people that do believe that.
I just don't know.
I don't, you know, I have a very open mind.
None of this makes sense.
And that's, I think, really how I went down the path I went.
Very early on, none of it made sense.
The shutdowns made no sense.
I'm the guy who said that, you know, we tragically lose tens of thousands of people on American highways every year, but we don't shut them down.
And Anthony Fauci from the podium in the White House said, oh, that was way out there.
No, it's a very good analogy.
I held hearings as chairman of Homeland Security.
First and foremost, early in May, well, first in February, where I realized we don't make the precursor chemicals for drugs.
That's a vulnerability.
As soon as I heard about hydroxychloroquine, my first concern was, can we produce enough of them?
That was in March.
Then I held a hearing in early May with John Ioannidis, who did the analysis on the Princess Cruz, showing that, yeah, COVID can be deadly, but primarily if you're Elderly, or if you're certain comorbidities.
For the rest of us, we'll probably survive.
So that provided me a fair amount of comfort, also being a person of faith.
So none of this made sense.
These lockdowns were so destructive.
We were shutting down churches.
We were shutting down, you know, small stores.
People who invested life savings, but the big box stores got to stay open.
You know, none of this made sense.
We saw about a four trillion dollar transfer of wealth from The little people, from the working men and women of this country to the massive corporations, to the big tech social media giants.
It was all in their benefit.
When they sabotage early treatment, and they did, they sabotage early treatment, whether it's hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, bunesonide, there were a host of molecules that existed, corticosteroids.
Pierre Corrie, in my Mayme hearing, we had him come in.
He talked about corticosteroids.
He was vilified until a few weeks later, dexamethasone, actually, there was a study that showed it.
Of course, they always under-prescribed it.
The treatment of COVID patients in hospitals was abysmal.
People lost their freedom.
People lost their lives because they administered remdesivir where there was no evidence whatsoever.
There was evidence that would knock out kidneys.
It was withdrawn from an Ebola trial because it was more harmful.
So, again, I knew this because I was already connected to a large group.
I wish it was larger, but a group of eminently qualified doctors and medical researchers that had a completely different view On COVID, and in particular, I got connected with Michael Yeadon, Senior Vice President of Pfizer in the UK, toxicologist, who was beside himself when he heard what his former colleagues were going to do.
He said, Ron, there's a long list of ingredients we do not put in injectables because they are toxic to the body.
When I heard my colleagues, who educated with me, know what I know, they were going to produce an injectable shot It was going to turn the body into its own manufacturer of toxins.
He was beside himself.
He couldn't believe they would do that.
And now they've been denying it.
So I knew early on that this was a potentially dangerous shot.
And quite honestly, now we know they did not do the type of safety testing on this.
They knew that it would body distribute all over the body.
They knew the impact if this were to, for example, attach the heart, go through the blood-brain barrier, attach the ovaries.
They had to know that.
And yet they were so hell-bent on this vaccine, this universal vaccine program, which by evidence, with Rick Bright and Anthony Fauci in late October, I think, of 2019, they were bemoaning the fact that we don't have a universal vaccine program.
Flu season just doesn't do it.
We probably need a pandemic.
Well, they got their pandemic.
I know that's a mouthful, but... No, I want to congratulate you on your pronunciation of hydroxychloroquine.
That took me a while.
Elegant.
Handled almost effortlessly.
Rolled off of the tongue.
In fact, nothing has been rolled out that effortlessly since the vaccine itself.
Then, your ability to relay that narrative so plainly and eloquently reminds me that there are many incredible facets, not least as you touched upon near the beginning of your rather lovely soliloquy, the wealth transfer from ordinary middle-class people to extraordinarily powerful business interests.
Now, I began by incorrectly implying or stating, in fact, that you had Suggested that the entire exercise had been malignly conducted and whether or not it was an engineered event is difficult to corroborate, but what does seem significant is that it granted powerful institutions the legitimacy to further centralize authority at a point where the inertia seems to be towards decentralization and maximal
individual sovereignty, maximum community electoral representation.
It seems like it functioned in a way of, forgive me Ron, I won't be, I won't be long.
Like me!
No, I'm gonna be, I reckon I'll do, it'll be a 10% as long as, as it should be, because I'm here to inquire of you and your wisdom.
I would like to say that when you look at the various institutions and interests that benefited, is it not possible to calculate how this event may have come about?
I think what we know almost for sure now, and I believe this very early on as soon as Tom Cotton talked about the Wuhan lab, and I was talking to computational biologists and other experts, this thing did not spring from nature.
This was man-made.
We know of our bioweapons research.
We understand how much we have funded.
By the way, Fauci, and this is according to Bobby Kennedy's book.
I love Bobby Kennedy.
I love him.
Fauci financed EcoHealth Alliance to tune about $14 million.
The Defense Department financed EcoHealth Alliance to the tune of about $42 million, and USAID, who Bobby Kennedy says is a CIA cutout, $53 million.
So Fauci's role in this was almost minor compared to our Defense Department and potentially CIA.
So again, this was obviously man-made.
Exactly how it was released, I don't know.
My guess is probably an accident.
But we have accidents in these biolabs all the time.
The minimum we should have done if we were financing this bioweapons research is we shouldn't have shared it with the Chinese.
We should have made sure it stayed in unbelievably safe and secure biolabs, and we didn't do that.
We were cavalier with it.
We were dangerous with it.
So, that's why Fauci, very early on, end of January, early February, went overboard to cover his tracks and make sure that any talk of a man-made chimeric virus was...
Crazy conspiracy theory.
He got away with it for quite some time, but the truth is coming out.
Ron, yesterday we spoke to Jim Jordan on this show.
It was a brilliant conversation.
Did you see it?
Did you like it?
Let me know in the chat, you beautiful lunatics, you.
And what was fascinating, or at least interesting to me, was that the idea that there are all these hearings that are conducted, but It seems to me unlikely that the reckoning that's required for an event of this magnitude and corruption of this degree is unlikely to be conducted.
And do you think that it calcifies the idea in the minds of many Americans and people around the world that corrupt elites are able to produce and conduct their hypocrisy without justice?
In short, Senator, Is the level of justice that is required ever likely to be enacted upon those who, if they did not perpetrate this event, and I'm certainly not suggesting they did, benefited from it, mishandled it, exploited it, covered it up, and in so doing created almost the perfect lens for us to understand the degree to which many of these regulatory agencies and institutions are corrupt and not fit for purpose?
It is my personal intent to make sure that happens.
Again, I'm in the minority.
All I can do right now is write oversight letters.
I've written over 60 about hot lots, about their standard operating procedure in terms of analysis of their veyor system.
So I've laid the foundation for my investigation should we gain the majority and I become chairman of the permanent subcommittee on investigations.
I have stronger power than I had as chairman of the full committee.
Part of the problem, I don't want to throw people under the bus, but problem with the house subcommittee on the coronavirus pandemic, Got a lot of doctors from the mainstream medical community.
I mean, they're all singing the praises of the vaccine still, that has saved millions of lives.
There's no study, there's really no science, true science, that shows the vaccine saved lives.
Now, I think maybe early on, when it was targeted toward the variant that was out there, it might have been somewhat effective, but these people are coming up with, they'll save 14 million lives, so let's give these people a Nobel Prize.
There's no hard science to back that up.
They're just saying it.
From my standpoint, to cover their tracks, I think there's some pretty good indications that because they sabotaged early treatment, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people died.
Because they used remdesivir, people died in hospitals.
And it's indisputable that the vaccine causes death, permanent disability.
And it's not just thousands.
I mean, on the VAERS system today, we're over 37,000 deaths worldwide.
24% of those deaths occurred on the day of vaccination or within two days.
Now, I know VAERS doesn't prove causations.
That's a correlation our regulators should have been aware of and concerned about in February, March of 2020.
And by the way, when I brought that up to Francis Collins in April of 2021, okay, Three or four months after the vaccine was granted emergency use authorization, I think at that point it was like 40 some percent of people were dying the day of vaccination or within one or two days.
Again, we were administering to elderly people that couldn't handle the assault on their body.
Francis Collins said, Senator Johnson, we have identified six people have died because of the J&J, because of clotting.
Senator, people die.
That's how cavalier he was and how unserious they were.
And now, by the way, last week in testimony before our committee on the origin and the dangerous gain-of-function research, I had the opportunity to question Dr. Redfield, and he admitted that they purposely downplayed and ignored the vaccine injuries because they didn't want to create vaccine hesitancy.
Well, you can't tell the public the truth.
You can't let them have true, conformed incent.
And he said that there are a lot more injuries than what they're being reported right now.
So it's staggeringly corrupt, particularly hot off the heels of the opioid crisis, that one wonders if many of the large pharmaceutical companies should not just be regulated more efficiently, but actually demonopolized and broken down and bought into new systems of ownership that would perhaps steward these powerful organizations with a little more responsibility.
There's a report out today about Merck corruptly covering up the inefficacy of its mumps vaccine.
The mumps are, instead of actually fixing it, they spent all kinds of time and research
trying to justify the fact, no, this really is more efficacious than we thought it was.
So no, listen, our pharmaceutical companies have completely captured our federal health agencies.
They've also captured the media.
So that's why I call it the COVID cartel. The Biden administration, our federal health agencies captured by Big
Pharma, together with the media and social media giants. That is
the COVID cartel.
They're the one that sabotaged early treatment. They're the one that wanted and pushed the vaccine,
led by people like Bill Gates, who for some reason wants to vaccinate the world and every living thing on it.
He's very keen, isn't he, Bill Gates, to vaccinate people.
I think he should take more of these vaccines himself, to see if he can withstand them, and pipe down a little bit.
One of the things that perhaps we don't focus on enough is that the whole undergirding of the endeavor was that human life is sacred and if any of us individually or collectively can do things to protect one another, we will do it.
Whether that's take a particular medication or lock ourselves in our home or yield to authority in ways that would usually be inconceivable.
Are you heartened to any degree to learn that people still regard life with such a sanctity or do you think that was simply something that was exploited to further legitimize authority?
And on this idea of the sanctity of human life which underwrites the measures to protect human life and indeed much of the compassion underwritten authoritarianism of the neoliberal democratic movement, do you feel that what you and I talked about in the bathroom. I keep
mentioning situations that we talked in that sound really illegitimate. We were chatting in the
hotel, we were chatting in the bathroom, but in the bathroom you talked about some of them projects
you do to help people with addiction issues. I'm in recovery from addiction. Do you think that
this kind of genuine compassion, this idea of serving in the manner of our Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ, ought to be at the forefront of systems of government and authority in a way
that seems impossible when you're discussing this level of corruption? First, I believe most
people are good. Okay, America is a great country because Americans are good people.
The UK has been a great country because...
Britain's, you know, Anglo-Saxons are by and large good people.
Now, we've been led by some very bad people, by corrupt people, by stupid people.
Who like?
There's a bunch.
I think most Chinese people are good.
I think most Russians are good.
I think most Iranians are good.
I think most people trapped in North Korea are good people.
And the British?
It is British.
I love the British.
I work for a company.
They're run by the British.
I spend a lot of time over.
I love you, okay?
Thank you.
You're hard partying, like Wisconsinites.
You might drink it every now and again.
Yeah, too much.
But sometimes, I know.
Stock and roll.
I got that.
But no, again, people are good.
We need to elect better leaders.
We need to embrace the essential ingredients of what allows government to protect us, and that is called freedom.
I would say it's the essential ingredient.
It's allowed people to dream and aspire and build and create lives for themselves, better communities, better nations.
But the more essential, the higher value is truth.
And what I appreciate are those doctors who risked and lost their careers.
They were vilified.
And I appreciate people like you who've also used this format to tell people the truth.
I mean, you have been the light.
I did quite well, didn't I?
You absolutely have.
Oh, hey, you lot.
Didn't I do very well?
Excuse me, show me where's my bloody single?
Thank you very much.
Hey, listen, will you stay with us, Ron?
Because Marjorie Taylor Greene is here and will be joining us live.
We are going to have a real COVID showdown.
Would you like to join us?
You look exceptional today.
By the way, Marjorie is definitely one of the few people in the house Who has advocated for the vaccine injured, held unauthorized hearings.
Probably not to the, you know, the joy of the chairman of the committee, but she's shown some real courage as well.
She's one of those individuals.
We were talking about like the VARS events, the number of excess deaths.
We're talking about a good many things.
What type of reckoning is required and how likely is it that when it comes to criminal proceedings and genuine consequences, For people like Fauci, that that will be pursued.
And how far are you willing to pursue it?
Because Ron's actually prepared to pursue it quite aggressively, it seems.
Well, we've worked together, the Senator and I, because, well, you know, I'm one of those un-vaxxed people.
I just didn't buy into the whole lie that was, I felt, sold to us from the medical-industrial complex.
But really to break that system, we have to look deeper into why so many members of Congress
and elected officials are basically beholden to the different big pharma companies.
And that's because they're funded by them.
And that shouldn't hold elected officials in place.
But when you have many people receiving their donations that fill their campaign coffers from big companies
like Pfizer and Moderna and so forth, then it muzzles them in ways it shouldn't, right?
And luckily, um, gosh, approximately over 95% of my donations are small dollar donations.
So the only people I work for are the people that voted for me in my district and the American people.
And so that's very freeing for someone like me.
I don't have to worry about having money in my campaign to get reelected because I've had to depend on the lobbyists in Washington or the big industries that rely on government contracts or rely on government officials and unelected bureaucrats making decisions in order to empower them.
And I think that's extremely important, and that's a good conversation.
Let me quick add, because there's no doubt about there's a financial component of this, but I think even more at play here is the fact that whether it's doctors, whether it's members of Congress who have always pushed, for example, childhood vaccines, and they did videos on the, you know, get vax.
Listen, I support Operation Warp Speed.
I want to end this pandemic.
If there would have been a vaccine that would have worked, I'd have been happy to have it and support it.
But again, I talked to Michael Eden.
So the fact that people have recommended this or pushed it or mandated it, they don't want to admit that what they recommended, pushed or mandated could have killed somebody, might have permanently disabled them.
So they will never admit they're wrong.
The body count is way too high.
And from my standpoint, and now the American public, quite honestly, anybody who got vaccinated, They don't want to face the reality that maybe they've got a ticking time bomb.
I hate to say that, okay?
Everybody wants to just forget it and move on, but we can't because they want to use this mRNA platform for other things.
And in the end, you have to expose the truth to prevent further harm.
Thank you very much for joining us for this special.
We will be back tomorrow with a World War special.
How many fronts can this battle be fought on simultaneously?
Escalating tensions in Venezuela, Iran, throughout the Middle East.
In fact, of course, Ukraine and Russia continues.
But the greatest foe of all, the nation that causes most consternation and terror is China.
We'll be back tomorrow, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
Until then, if you can, stay free.
▲
Export Selection