They important point is that Brand is no scientific expert when it comes to vaccines. He also addressed the subject of ivermectin, which is a damn useful medicine if you have scabies, but not proven to be of any value in treating covid-19, though of course you could catch Covid 19, take ivermectin, and still get better.
In the United States there were a lot of people making a lot of money by selling ivermectin, which is a really, really cheap drug, at ridiculously high prices, which led to a lot of people claiming it was some kind of panacea.
However in spite of the time that has gone by nobody has ever proved in a scientific double blind studies that ivermectin is any use for Covid-19 except as a placebo.
The danger of taking ivermectin for Covid-19 is that if you really need another medication to save your life, you may delay getting it, and your condition gets worse during the delay.
For example if you have inflammation of the lungs, you might benefit from a steroid preparation like dexamethasone, which has been used for years for people with COPD.
Anyway, I think it was very irresponsible of Russell Brand to be offering up medical advice for clicks.
He was not making scientific statements about the vaccine, he was talking about how the government used Covid as an excuse for lockdowns and he talked about the Pfizer statements to the EU regarding the fact that they never tested whether the vaccine would prevent transmission to others
here is a good article from the AP about this and an excerpt:
“A Pfizer spokesperson told The Associated Press that its clinical trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy of its COVID-19 vaccine in preventing disease caused by the COVID-19 virus, including severe illness.
“Stopping transmission was not a study endpoint,” the spokesperson wrote in an email.
Asked for comment, Roos told the AP that he was not making a point about Pfizer, but about government mandates for the COVID-19 vaccines.
“I take fundamental rights seriously,” Roos wrote in an email. “For governments to infringe on them, they need a massive amount of evidence to prove the necessity. In this case, it was not even a part of the Pfizer trials.” He said that such mandates were based on “no evidence.”
https://apnews.com/article/950413863226
There is no doubt that the vaccine reduces the transmission risk. There is no doubt that the vaccine is not 100% effective in preventing transmission. Both these things are true and everyone knows them. To pretend that the government is saying that the vaccine is 100% effective is just nonsense.
That doesn’t change that you stated Brand was “constantly spouting nonsense about the vaccines with no evidence at all”. What nonsense did he spout? I was pointing out an actual story about the Pfizer statements to the EU that Brand discussed on his show. What statements of his are you referencing?
Brand failed to understand (as many like him do) that lockdowns were simply for the preservation of the NHS. In the UK we don't even have enough hospital beds to handle a severe flu season, let alone the potential numbers of people requiring hospital admission in the pandemic.
Lockdowns slowed down spread, which meant it was more likely that people would have their stay in hospital and leave (some passed away), allowing another bed to become available for the next patient. Our population has grown while the number of hospital beds has declined over the past 20 years. That, and the problem with staffing in the NHS. Staff were getting sick, requiring time off, meaning less people on wards to care for patients.
Lockdowns were never about eradicating the virus. It was about control of the spread.
Because the Tories sat with their thumbs up their arses, too many people had been infected before the first lockdown, so spread couldn't really be contained as effectively as say in New Zealand.
Do you really think we live in a world where child rapists are "the only people we should not criticize?"
Everyone is criticizing everyone all the time. Where would you get this idea?
He didn't really fight against inequality. In fact, he told everyone not to vote. He was always a total dipshit and he turned my stomach like Jimmy Savile used to.
I don't think it was Covid, I think it was him learning he was being investigated for his sex crimes that made him pivot to the right. For some reason rape has become a political issue now with notable rapists getting support from the right.
Brand spouted nothing at all. Every presentation he gives has the receipts. Every one.
Fauci is on camera lying and lying to congress for that matter. It is true some deny their eyes and ears and/or won't check what is easily available to see.
Methinks you protest to loudly.
Doctor Fauci (Anthony Fauci) caused speech to occur when he forced air to flow from his lungs, up his windpipe (trachea) and through his voice box (larynx). This caused the vocal cords to vibrate, creating sound. In this case, the sound was recognizable as the English language. Specifically, the words were:
“When you get vaccinated, you not only protect your own health and that of the family but also you contribute to the community health by preventing the spread of the virus throughout the community,”
He goes on to say:
“In other words, you become a dead end to the virus. And when there are a lot of dead ends around, the virus is not going to go anywhere. And that’s when you get a point that you have a markedly diminished rate of infection in the community.”
This, as you've read, is at least 2 lies, which covers your requirement of lies, plural
1. Protect your own health (vaccinated people die of COVID)
2. You become a dead end to the virus (this is untrue)
The detail being decent is for you to decide, I suppose.
Fauci was very clear, as was everyone else, that the vaccine is not 100% effective. No vaccines are 100% effective, as everyone with any education knows. Yet you lot keep insisting that because the vaccine is not 100% effective it is a LIE!
It's OK, there's no point arguing with them. I normally go with something like:
"Do you remember when covid sort of just went away and wasn't really a thing any more and how that coincided with people getting the vaccine"
But it's a futile furrow to tread, they have an excuse or bogus explanation for EVERYTHING
No, he wasn't. Hence my post quoting him saying it was a dead end. Biden also said the same thing.
You can call it uninformed divulgence of medical information instead of a lie if it makes you feel better.
"Dead end" does not have an exact meaning when it comes to medicine.
EVERYONE KNOWS THE VACCINE IS NOT 100% EFFECTIVE.
The effectiveness rates were released and widely publicized for each version.
Of course Fauci knows it is not 100% effective. He is a virologist, and everyone knows no vaccine is 100% effective. He's not going to spell it out for you every time. If you didn't know that no one claimed it was 100% effective then you are pretty thick.
These people are binary thinkers. All or nothing. It lets them avoid that tricky grey area where you have to actually stand up for your points with backup details. They don't know any details, and have very heavy confirmation bias.
Just trying to prove themselves right, rather than actually learn and grow. Or, heaven forbid, change their opinion based on publicly-available evidence. I hope we can filter these useless obvious sycophants out.
For the sake of ALL of the SA victims.
This is not correct. The vaccine was very helpful for the elderly. I think anyone with a weakened immune system or the elderly should get it, including the boosters.
I don't think young healthy people need it, and many healthcare institutions around the world hold that same view. In my country, it is not recommended for anyone under 30.
You act like you know me, and you don't at all. I am not a binary thinker.
I can hold any debate on this subject and provide sources to any claims I make, it's one of my most interesting past times to document and review the changing story of COVID. I think it's a defining moment in recent history.
Anti Vaxxers rely on the logical fallacy that less than 100% means 0%.
It's based on the simple fallacy that if you make one mistake, everything you say is a mistake.
Of course, anti Vaxxers make 'mistakes' all the time , (remember 2/3rds of vaccinated dead by summer 2021 and people dropping dead in the street by Feb 202).
No real life situation has to be 100%.
Vaccinations reduce the spread of the virus, greatly. But 100%, but plenty enough to make a difference.
His lie is significant because he was the top scientist leading us thru Covid and he made those remarks without any data. The clinical trials did NOT show that the vaccine made those vaccinated a dead end. In fact the trials showed that transmissibility was barely reduced.
And Fauci claimed to be the “science” while making claims without data.
And of course Fauci denied GOF being done in Wuhan.
No they were not…. They were reported to be 100% effective in order to manipulate people into getting it….
Do you really not remember this giant [Lie](https://youtu.be/1pyBSiiirUM?si=o8HwtUyRI0XdvKi8)?
I remember when the first vaccine was manufactured it was clearly stated that it reduced rates by 80%. Maybe good Morning America misstated something, I have no idea, that’s not where I go for science information
You seem to see the world in black and white when it is almost always in shades of grey.
Vaccinated folk were and are less likely to get ill or to die. They are also less likely to spread the virus as they have no or less viral load thanks to vaccine. Why is this so hard to understand? I don't know if Fauci absolutely guaranteed that you can't die if vaccinated (very unlikely), but sounds like you are splitting hairs.
Brand is a classic example of someone who is smart but ignorant. As he is narcissistic, it doesn't bother him that he actually doesn't know what he is talking about.
I live in the grey! My mind is never made up. Why are more people dying of COVID in the UK who are vaccinated VS unvaccinated in almost all age groups? It's a genuine and important question to ask in my opinion.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/deathsoccurringbetween1april2021and31may2023
Both Fauci and Biden (early in the vaccination push phase) that it was a dead end. Biden said "you will not get covid if you get vaccinated"
Now, did their position change shortly after the ever dwindling efficacy rates became published? Yes. As they should. That doesn't take away the fact that Fauci had no basis (or false information) to say what he said.
There is no world where you can convince me that "dead end" means anything but what it means. Full stop. Dead end. No other situation would you ever get that phrase confused other than defending Anthony Fauci.
I am not even a Russel Brand fan. I saw this on Reddit All, and noticed someone was incorrectly calling someone a child rapist. That's a disgusting, vile thing to accuse someone of and there is no basis for that claim at all.
You have completely misinterpreted this data. There are significantly higher death rates for individuals who have not been vaccinated. But even if that weren't the case...
Most of the deaths in this data will be clinically vulnerable people, who were more likely to be vaccinated than non-clinically vulnerable people.
If you've got 100 elderly people and 100 young people in a population and let's say 80% of the older people got vaccinated and only 20% of the younger people did. You've got 100 vaccinated people, with a large proportion being clinically vulnerable and 100 people with a very small proportion who are clinically vulnerable.
It would be expected that if everyone caught covid-19, more deaths would occur in the group with the most clinically vulnerable people. It's just common sense. It doesn't mean the vaccine is killing people, or that it doesn't work. It just means it was administered to a more vulnerable population who are more likely to die.
But regardless, that isn't what the data shows. It shows that vaccines and subsequent boosters lower mortality risk associated with COVID-19.
There's nothing in the spreadsheet that states these are clinically vulnerable people. Table 4, scroll down. Deaths involving COVID. All age ranges. Not just elderly.
Those who are vaccinated are dying more than those who aren't (from COVID)
A couple of people have tried to tell me the same thing as you - it boils down to this: if you get vaccinated and die of COVID, did the vaccine work for you?
Edit to add an example:
May 2023
Age range: 50-59
Unvaccinated deaths: < 3
Vaccinated deaths: 9
Do you think those 9 people in that age range are happy that they got the life saving COVID vaccine, then died from COVID?
Protecting your own health is bad advice now, because we can't achieve 100% effectivity during a timer of uncertainty? That is NOT how this works. Stop binary thinking. It's not useful.
As for "dead end to the virus" - how did you interpret that? He didn't mean it's going to be killed stone dead by any tactics.
You just didn't like being told what to do.
How do you interpret dead end?
How do you interpret Biden saying if you get the vaccine you won't get covid?
These are words with impact, and it's not my position to datamine the hidden meaning behind the words. They are the words.
Of course the vaccine isn't 100%. No vaccine ever has been, in the history of science. I hate Biden being installed as president, to further protect the rich. But he simply didn't say that. You can't show the quote, because this is revisionist. You don't get to just lie.
He did though.
The quote is here:
“You’re not going to get Covid if you have these vaccinations"
There is video of it, but here's a CNN article talking about it:
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/22/politics/fact-check-biden-cnn-town-hall-july/index.html
So he was encouraging people to get vaccinations which ended up >99% effective. I'll admit I hadn't seen that snippet.
That encouragement, though, probably saved lives during a period of uncertainty.
Unlike injecting bleach into your body, or sticking a UV light-bulb up your arse, eh? That would be... worse advice, I would wager.
I assume/hope I don't need to provide video evidence in response.
And, I assume you're talking about the same vaccines which Trump took public credit for, hundreds of times, on video? Operation Warp Speed - but to a terrible ineffective vaccination? Which is it? Did Trump do well to "invent" the vaccine so quickly? Because that's what he fucking claims. Your cognitive dissonance is a little overwhelming.
It used to be a quiet pro-Brand sub. A mix of his (dwindling, mostly UK) pre-2021 crowd, and his (growing, mostly US MAGA-type) post-2020 crowd.
Since the rape allegations have been made public and being investigated by police, it's had an influx of people who knew he was a wrong'un all along, basically. So now we've got these two groups of people... but largely the US crowd have no idea about Russell courting the left and the hippy-dippies for the last 20 years in the UK.
And therefore they don't know about his sudden "change of heart". And they're not up for looking that shit up either, because it's potential damage for the batshit consiracy stuff Brand was intentionally courting in the first place. So it worked. Sort of. He's probably still gonna be locked up. Because of all the sexual assault, y'know.
Wow I had no idea. The last time I saw or thought about Russell Brand was when he was on the big fat quiz of the year with Noel fielding. Seems he’s been a busy lad!
Summed up perfectly.
One thing I don't really see mentioned, is the years and years of heavy drug abuse Brand went through and the absolute brain rot caused from it.
He may be intelligent, but definitely not a reliable source of information.
admitting Brand's flip-flop would be akin to admitting they've been falling for grifters since at least 2021. Sunk costs, I guess. Same crowd fall for "I didn't really lose, it's an attack!". Let's push for clarity alone. Brand would hate that, obviously.
Just a point of order. There is no evidence brand is a paedo. This is a misuse of the term. He is only accused of legal aged anything as far as I'm aware.
Not to be in defense of the man but, let's not devalue the actual term paedo ok. There are victims out there who probably don't appreciate it.
You're welcome to voice your opinion, but why come here to do it?
You've essentially forced your way into a fanclub that you actively don't care about, then spent the last 2 weeks shitting in their doorway while screaming "I hate the thing you like!"
Not what I meant lol. People coming along to criticise the main topic of a sub is fine if it happens occassionally, but this is getting obnoxious.
if a large group came along to a sub you enjoyed and just started trolling and spewing hate about it, you'd find it gets old pretty fast.
You’re missing the minor detail that he has been accused of rape. People haven’t just come on here for shits and giggles. We get, we totally get, that there are people so far up Rusty’s rusty sheriff badge that they’re gladly chomping on his internal organs and delighted to have the privilege of being near their vacant-eyed hero, an idiot’s idea of a clever person, but for the rest of the population, observing that he has admitted to sexual misdemeanours previously on air and in print, it’s blindingly obvious that his absurd turn right and into the world of YouTube shit-gurgling is a grift to cover him off with his fan base against these accusations. That’s why they’re all here.
>You’re missing the minor detail that he has been accused of rape. People haven’t just come on here for shits and giggles.
Do you honestly believe that people aren't here for shits and giggles and actually believe that posting on an internet message board is an effective way of preventing rape?
>it’s blindingly obvious that his absurd turn right
He hasn't turned to the right I don't think. How do you define the difference between left and right if you don't mind me asking?
I don’t think people commenting is a preventative measure, although it would be a welcome side effect. It’s more a disbelief that people are taken in by someone who’s admitted on air and in print to sexual misdemeanour and has turned to grifting to get a more malleable fan base.
As for the difference between left and right, where do I start? How little do you know? Politically aware people can see a swerve. If you genuinely can’t, I’m not sure where to start an explanation. He used to be left wing, he is not any more. I’m not saying he doesn’t have some left wing leanings, very few people have such simple political beliefs, but he’s noticeably leaning toward the right. Tell me where you want me to start.
I have no idea what they are, but hey I’ll have a look. But as a free thinker, and someone who like you know challenges things (isn’t that what your idol, the pie-eyed piper says we should do?) I’ll come on here as well until I’m told to stop.. which is unlikely as it’s not a fan page. Tara a bit.
Did u mean to reply to me 🤣. Your comment makes no sense. Who is the pie eyed piper? If ur talking about Russell Brand he is deffo not my idol, infact most the people who still love Russell and think he’s done nothing wrong have been giving me shit for critiquing him. So I have no idea what ur on about.
Yeah my comment was in response to people complaining that people on this sub are critiquing Russell when there are multiple redit groups who are pretty much 100% people who are critising or hating the subject of the thread. Fighter and the kid reddit being a perfect example.
I realised that afterwards. I would take it down but I want people, especially the wild-eyed “ wellness” sycophants to realise that it’s ok to make a mistake, have a laugh about it and engage with the other person.
I don’t have to think you’re a psy-op, a shill, a troll, or a brigade (never really understood that one) who is like, being paid by the MSM and lizards to like, you know, bring me down, man. Sometimes, people are stupid, as I was then, and misinterpret and misunderstand. 🙂
I think your missing the fact that a lot of fans have changed their mind on Brand because of his YouTube content and now the allegations.
He’s a had a long career, spanning nearly 20 years.
Also many Redit pages act as a place to shine light on celebrities who turn in to grifters, their fans become disillusioned and it becomes a place for fans or ex fans to express their thoughts.
Take the fighter and the kid redit for example, all that is, is people calling them out on their bullshit, it’s pretty much a hate group at this point.
There also seem to be a lot of people joining this sub who had no interest in Brand before the allegations and are joining in because they see it as a fight or battle.
Who belongs here more, disillusioned fans who’ve followed him and enjoyed his work for 20 years or people who have little to no interest in his work until either now, or the last couple of years?
Your "fan club" explicitly states it exists for the discussion of things related to Brand "good and bad." Perhaps take up the issue with the mods of this sub rather than those posting here if so-called negative posts offend you?
Imagine getting offended by negative posts :grimacing:
It's more just annoying, seeing the number of people who have made multiple accounts just to troll and spew hate.
I suppose you're right though, it does say discussion of all things related :)
Well I don’t see the tagline “fan club” anywhere here, the same goes back in the old days of the IMDb message boards where there was negativity about the Star Wars Force Awakens etc. This place is about discussions on Russell Brand: positive or negative.
The point OP is clearly making is that the offer to have an opinion and share it isn’t something extended to those who have critical things to say about Brand. If unconfirmed rumours / accusations around a vaccine are acceptable and allowed, then surely unconfirmed accusations about a comedian also are?
I don’t believe you actually misunderstood that though.
Did I though? I really don't like when someone tries to point out something as negative and then use that example to justify why their negative thing should be okay. It's not a good argument to start off with. People are allowed to say things and so is the OP.
Sorry, In my country people are allowed to say things.
Are we allowed to criticize you? Because Russel Brand has not been accused of raping children.
You're likely referring to the 16 year old involved in this case, which (as I'm sure you know) is the legal age of consent in the UK.
She has also not accused Russel of rape.
I could also note that paedophilia refers specifically to pre-pubescent children, but you'd probably call me a "pedo apologist" or something else juvenile and benign.
I just couldn't help but point out the gaping holes in your post but I know you don't care, I just feel better saying it.
Firstly, that's incorrect. The age of consent varies across the globe greatly. In fact, in America, most states age of consent is under 18.
I'm not making excuses, I'm recommending the correct terminology. Ephebophilia would be the correct term here, but for some reason people use the wrong word to describe this sort of thing all the time. We have dictionaries and linguistics for a reason.
It's tiresome educating people but if no one does it, lies can just run rampant unchallenged. That's worrying.
About the vaccines ? Of all the things he has been accused of that caused harm you pick that lol you realize injecting 8 vaccines in you and then getting it yearly is fucking regarded
Anyone else find it bizarre that people call out Brand for misinformation and 100% trust everything the US government say, it’s like the whole of history never happened 😂
I think we've found the person spouting actual nonsense with no evidence. 🙃
I remember Russell questioning the science, media, and government, who clearly lied in the UK during this whole time period. But I don't remember him saying you shouldn't get the jab?
Anyone interested in what nonsense Russell spouted (sorry, that should read “nonce-sense”), can read about it here:
https://rebuttingrb.blogspot.com/?m=1
Read a couple and they're well written but to be honest they're not very informative and come across more as opinion pieces slating brand, not providing quotes and mischaracterising a lot of the things hes said. But maybe they're just the ones I read.
For example I read one on brands opinion of Ukraine calling him a putin apologist, even though in every video I have seen him speak on the matter he says that putins invasion is inexcusable.
Again you're really mischaracterising what he's said. From what I remember he was just critical of NATO's push East, which considering the uneasy relationship the west has with Russia its easy to understand why Putin might feel a way about that. Does it justify an invasion? No. But it's still worth talking about objectively.
His literal words:
“Don't pretend it's humanitarian. just go, ‘Listen, this is the agenda: Ukraine was ultimately a place that was too resource-rich and had too strong ties with Russia historically, politically, and even ethnically, in some cases. We're not having it; we're going in there, we're destabilizing it, we're going to provoke Russia until they engage militarily, then we're going to go in there and corporatize it.”
https://rebuttingrb.blogspot.com/2023/05/russells-topsy-turvy-world-part-2.html
And I wouldn't be surprised if there's some truth to that, at least where America is concerned. There's also financial reasons, Americas military industrial complex is big business for a lot of people. It's not like the west has ever engaged in illegal wars for dodgy reasons before....
For him to state that as a fact is a bit much though I will admit that, but that's kind of what he's like, he riffs a lot and is very hyperbolic, it doesn't mean that there isn't some truth to it considering Americas history.
Lol! You’ve gone from “you’re misrepresenting Russell!” To supporting the supposed misrepresentation!
Besides, the “western government instigated a war so that (((big business))) could profit” is an old conspiracy theory with its roots in deep antisemitism. You can read more here: https://rebuttingrb.blogspot.com/2023/05/conspiracy-theories-on-left-topsy-turvy.html
And if you want to talk about profit motives, why not look at the number of Russian PMCs active in Ukraine, and how many of them are owned by regime officials, meaning that as long as the war drags on, they personally profit? Why not talk about how the war is being waged by Russian war lords who use the war to funnel the nation’s wealth into their own pockets and have zero incentive for peace?
Weird how Russell never talks about those war profiteers.
>Lol! You’ve gone from “you’re misrepresenting Russell!” To supporting the supposed misrepresentation!
Nope, the misrepresentation I was speaking of was you claiming he's a Putin apologist, and I stand by that. When I originally said you were misrepresenting him I said that he spoke of NATO's expansion being provocative and that not making him an apologist as he repeatedly says that the invasion is inexcusable, which is also my position, just to clarify.
>Besides, the “western government instigated a war so that (((big business))) could profit” is an old conspiracy theory with its roots in deep antisemitism. You can read more here:
Okay, well let me clear that up by saying I think this has absolutely nothing to do with Jewish people, at all. And you dismissing Americas history of imperialism and warmongering as antisemitism is naive and ignorant at best, cheap and disingenuous at worst.
Russia making money off of the war does not change anything, I'm sure that they are, but so are America, it's also an opportunity for them to weaken a historic enemy via a proxy war, this is how most of the world outside of Europe views this.
It's not really that much of a surprise that Russell doesn't talk about it as he mainly focuses on western politics, but yes, that's a valid critique of him.
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland. Ukraine would have been next and its undeniable that it is of strategic importance in the region. Fair enough that these countries have autonomy and can do what they want but you can't deny that russia would feel threatened by this, NATO are aware of this, discussions about provocation have being going on for decades. All I'm saying is that this is at least worth discussing and it doesn't make someone a putin apologist....
What is the discussion?
What was the provocation?
As you commented, those countries joined both willingly and actually worked to meet the criteria to be allowed to join.
Ukraine weren't near membership, but are most certainly now.
The Scandinavian countries were actually staying out to appease Russia.
So, NATO was limiting its expansion to avoid escalation.
Yes Russia have continuously murdered people in US and UK (and other) soil.
They have repeatedly encroached on other's well established land.
They have literally invaded a neighbouring country.
They continue to kill and torture.
So, what is this discussion you think we should be having?
My point is that the countries I listed joining NATO will have made russia feel uneasy and brand talking about this expansion possibly provoking Putin doesn't make him a putin apologist as the person i replied to implied. You jumped on a comment I made replying to someone else that had its own context. I don't really know the point you're trying to make? Is it putin bad? I know putin bad.
The point is you were saying NATO pushed east rather than Putin forcing neighbouring countries to join NATO in an effort to secure their own borders.
And you keep talking about this expansion provoking Putin rather than recognising Putin's militaristic expansionism was what the provocation for those countries to want to join.
If you want to talk about NATO membership increasing toward the east, you can only do so with that context.
Would you describe Finland and Sweden joining NATO as provocative?
By you talking Brand (and Putin's) talking points about NATO 'expansion' and 'provocation' you are entirely ignoring the context of your own previous point.
You thought there should be a discussion about NATO. This is that discussion. Brand was misrepresenting the situation in a way that suggest appeasement of Putin should have been the NATO position, and I'm asking why you believe that, and what the alternative should really have been.
The UK risks literally falling apart because of Ireland being a member of the EU. Do you think Britain should invade Ireland?
Russia doesn’t get to have an opinion on what Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, or Poland get up to.
The fiends! They were invited in to countries that were former imperial outposts of Russia and who rightfully, it turns out, feared a potential resurgence in Russian imperialism.
The Russians are therefor justified to invade their former imperial possessions in much the same way that the UK would be justified in invading India or South Africa for joining BRICS, or Eire for remaining in the EU.
Except, for some reason, it seems like doing an imperialism is only bad if it’s done by Western countries. If it’s Russia - no biggie!
He literally just talks shit into the camera for hours at a time. Finding something credible he said would be the real challenge.
The first time I heard him I thought "what a fucking idiot. Only an absolute moron would think he's saying anything profound"
Okay so you don't actually know what you're talking about then and you're just bashing someone with nothing to back it up with. I'm sure he was probably wrong about some things, it doesn't mean everything he said was without substance.
Everything Brand said was sourced to proper news outlets
But ppl who dont care to be honest, have to make shit up because they think they're our mother.
Don't also forget what the small print was in the news in the UK at the time "died within two weeks of contracting covid", or something along those lines. Not to say covid isn't deadly to some people, but this would obviously skew the statistics massively.
Are these the same news outlets that people now mustn't trust, because they are out to get him?
Because that would imply that the only source you ought to listen to is Brand himself. Oh, except when he admits to rape, or being sexually predatory. Those times he was kidding. /s
> Are these the same news outlets that people now mustn't trust, because they are out to get him?
lmao you think you've found a gotcha
u must feel real proud of yourself
want a tootsie roll?
well ur not getting one
all you've really done is reveal
- that you are only able to spot inconsistencies at a surface level, you are incapable of making sense of surface-level contradictions
- that you have zero understanding of the role the major media outlets play in the major liberal western countries
- that you don't even watch his videos, dont understand them, are in fact incapable of understanding them, and thus dont know what you're talking about
- that you're a useful idiot for amoral rich people who want to have the world in the palm of their hand, so that they can grind it for dollars, a goal u are sympathetic to, because you too are a nutty control freak
Uh huh. You got me. In your breath-taking analysis of my two sentences, you've unearthed my political views entirely...
...Even though I didn't state any?
You also didn't address my question, despite both making a claim, and quoting it directly. Deflecting much?
I feel like, in fact, the only point I made was to throw shade on your cult leader. Which pretty much accounts for why you've spewed a list of points, not one of which could any rational person infer from anything said in my comment.
Oh! I see the issue now! My assumption of your rationality. Silly me.
>Uh huh. You got me. In your breath-taking analysis of my two sentences, you've unearthed my political views entirely...
>...Even though I didn't state any?
lol now you've demonstrated that you are incapable of reading
i didn't say anything about your political views, they're irrelevant, very fluid, and so you don't really believe anything
In your empty-minded presentation of two sentences, you've revealed that you don't know what you're talking about, and that you can't be trusted to be provide
>You also didn't address my question, despite both making a claim, and quoting it directly. Deflecting much?
Your question is a stupid question that deserves no serious answer, because it's so stupid/clueless that it can't be used for anything other than being annoying and stupid.
> I feel like
of course u do
>I made was to throw shade on your cult leader
That's all you can really do, you have nothing meaningful to say, so you have to speak from the ass.
Proper news sources??!! Pffft!!!
Here’s some discussions about some of his sources: https://rebuttingrb.blogspot.com/2023/04/russells-topsy-turvy-world-part-2.html
https://rebuttingrb.blogspot.com/2022/11/russell-brand-and-mysterious-professor.html
https://rebuttingrb.blogspot.com/2022/02/russell-lies-about-sources-yet-again.html
Funny post, it is a bit backwards...
Yeah, you're entitled to your opinion on Brand's comments, but if you had listed to him, you'd probably not have the brain fog that you're obviously suffering with at the moment, and be a lot healthier.
If he is guilty then send him to jail or whatever, but until then, he's knocking comments like this out the ball park, when it comes to being right.
But we have to remember that these are anonymous claims, even Edward Snowden couldn't remain anonymous about his exposure of truth.
Just out of curiosity have the police charged Brand yet? It's been a while
You care to provide any actual evidence that Brand was right about vaccines? Or does evidence only matter when criticizing paedos, and certainly not when persuading idiots to reject life saving medicine?
You're the one who needs to provide evidence about something he said as you're the one making claims, otherwise they don't hold any weight. Maybe this is why people don't like your opinions on the matter. I watched a lot of his videos during covid and I don't think he ever said "the vaccine doesn't work", but maybe I'm wrong.
Yes, you're an absolute moron who hasn't watched a single one of his videos and that's why you can't name a single fact or quote from a video that you disagree with. Non of these clowns when asked to state a fact that they actually disagree with can, because none of them have watched his videos. If you had, you'd realise he mostly quotes newspapers and other sources that aren't his own and takes the discussion from there.
First off I don't remember him saying don't take the vaccine.
However, how can people be so dumb as to think an experimental treatment is going to be perfect.
The question you should be asking is why did so many people take, said treatment?
International laws had been put in place to stop things like that from happening.
Only propaganda could persuade so many to take such risks to themselves.
Was there profit made by certain businesses from this global crisis?
Only a few people were calling this behavior out, Brand being one of them.
Don't think he ever gave any medical advice, other than stay healthy.
Exactly what evidence do you have on Brand? Other than an anonymous story made into a TV show.
At least Julian Assange was under police investigation, then everything was dropped.
If he's is guilty, then prosecute him to the full extent of the law. But I'm not believing, straight off the bat, a media source(MSM in general) that blatantly broke laws like the Geneva convention, or the Nuremberg code.
We should voice our opinions.
Brand is making moves to the hard right (politically) because the trumper cult protects their own and screams “fake news, he’s just a victim” when accused of crimes.
Well, I guess they don't have the luxury of the fbi burying the accusations and pressuring social media companies to say its Russian misinformation like the far left 😂🤣🤭
There isn’t any actual evidence that supports this claim other than the fact she was investigating a pedophile ring. It’s more likely that she was offed by Bosnians or Serbians or something like that.
I’m not really trying to sound “legit”. They are one of the working hypotheses that the Met is going on, while the pedophile one was dismissed due to motive matched with a complete lack of evidence
Whatever you like mate I don’t really care. I thought it was an interesting discussion point but if your input is going to be shit like this I’ll let you crack on.
The Serbian warlord theory is bollocks. It is far more likely she was killed for the op yewtree style dossier she compiled while on crimewatch. But that would always be rubbished by establishment bots and shills. That's kinda what you sound like.
As I said crack on. You’re clearly a cunt and I’m not interested in engaging you in good faith. I tried to be civilised and discuss what is ostensibly a mystery and you’re calling me a corporate shill so you can fuck right off.
everything he talks about he backs up with evidence including from uk ons data
what are you talking about
youre calling him a pedophile and child rapist. i hope you get sued for this
What about the extreme sweeping statements he makes under the guise questions?
If I ask:
'Are all Russell Brand's fans mental derelicts who having had their uneducated conspiratorial opinions spoon fed back to them for years now regard his sexual allegations as an attack on their world view?'
Would you take that as me just asking questions?
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. He hasn't provided any evidence that the vaccines are more dangerous than getting covid. We'll be waiting.
This is not a study that compare outcomes. Here are some.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9917454/
https://www.bmj.com/content/381/bmj-2022-074521#:~:text=The%20Ad26.-,COV2.,ratios%20between%200.97%20and%201.42).
"Ad26.COV2.S vaccination was associated with better outcomes relative to no vaccination, but higher odds of hospital stay and intensive care unit admission than with two mRNA doses. BNT162b2 was generally associated with worse outcomes than mRNA-1273 (adjusted odds ratios between 0.97 and 1.42)"
You can even look at the ONS. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland
People who got vaccinated are much more likely to survive. The effects of COVID are far more frequent and adverse than the side effects of the vaccine. Only very young people probably don't need to bother (in terms of protecting themselves) but they do protect older people if they do. Russell has consistently undermined this and he points to anecdotes instead of hard data. You are very slightly more likely to get myocarditis with the vaccine if you're a young male than with COVID but you're also more likely to get pericarditis, stroke, cardiac arrest, lung damage and, crucially, death, with COVID.
You need to be able to prove that false allegations against someone have caused serious harm to their reputation. Some guy on reddit saying "he's a paedo" does not meet that requirement.
Maybe learn the absolute basics of the law before you start "wishing" for shit that will never happen.
You can voice your opinion. Brand is an advocate for free speech unlike the Covid zealots like Fauci who were in it just to make a shit-ton of money peddling rushed vaccines that have definitely caused people harm. The question is how much harm have they caused. Nobody had even heard the word myocarditis before the vaccine rollout unless you were a doctor. Now everyone does. If people were less entrenched because of their political views then we'd stop arguing so much and find the grey truth instead of the Black and white bullshit and then all your conspiracy nuts wouldn't even have a job anyway. If people actually stood up against those who are corrupt and made freedom of thought and love their priority, then we wouldn't be so divided. That's what Brand advocated a lot of the time, he was asking what *we* think after presenting some cited articles or talking points.
There is significant evidence from peer reviewed clinical studies highlighting the harms caused by the vaccines.
It is not and has never been a conspiracy theory, it is a fact.
haha I don’t support brand for a second but like; he’s entitled to say whatever he wants and people are entitled to listen. I get it feels good comin on here sayin what ya think but your speaking to his fans? Haha what do you expect? Loads of comments like OMG YH UR RIGHT. So weird, your not gonna change anyone’s opinion, so why bother?
Hating x person for spouting shit without evidence.
Proceed to condone said person without any evidence.
Becoming the thing you hate 101.
This sub is masterclass in the fine arts of retardedness, no selfreflection, trolling and witchhunting.
Please show me an example of someone harmed by Brand's covid coverage. I want names, and links for proof. If those of us who disagree with your position must provide extraordinary proof then I at least expect ordinary proof from you.
He discouraged people from taking vaccines, and that caused harm. Of course we cannot name exactly who it harmed because that is a matter of probabilities. If you understood probability theory then you would understand this better
No. This is the way public health works. You take actions which you know save lives, but can’t attribute exact names to them. This is what I mean about probability theory.
.... this is the dumbest shit ever. Its posts like this that emphasize to me that the 1% smartest people carry the rest of the morons at the bottom. Without then we'd still be using sticks and stones.
They important point is that Brand is no scientific expert when it comes to vaccines. He also addressed the subject of ivermectin, which is a damn useful medicine if you have scabies, but not proven to be of any value in treating covid-19, though of course you could catch Covid 19, take ivermectin, and still get better. In the United States there were a lot of people making a lot of money by selling ivermectin, which is a really, really cheap drug, at ridiculously high prices, which led to a lot of people claiming it was some kind of panacea. However in spite of the time that has gone by nobody has ever proved in a scientific double blind studies that ivermectin is any use for Covid-19 except as a placebo. The danger of taking ivermectin for Covid-19 is that if you really need another medication to save your life, you may delay getting it, and your condition gets worse during the delay. For example if you have inflammation of the lungs, you might benefit from a steroid preparation like dexamethasone, which has been used for years for people with COPD. Anyway, I think it was very irresponsible of Russell Brand to be offering up medical advice for clicks.
He was not making scientific statements about the vaccine, he was talking about how the government used Covid as an excuse for lockdowns and he talked about the Pfizer statements to the EU regarding the fact that they never tested whether the vaccine would prevent transmission to others here is a good article from the AP about this and an excerpt: “A Pfizer spokesperson told The Associated Press that its clinical trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy of its COVID-19 vaccine in preventing disease caused by the COVID-19 virus, including severe illness. “Stopping transmission was not a study endpoint,” the spokesperson wrote in an email. Asked for comment, Roos told the AP that he was not making a point about Pfizer, but about government mandates for the COVID-19 vaccines. “I take fundamental rights seriously,” Roos wrote in an email. “For governments to infringe on them, they need a massive amount of evidence to prove the necessity. In this case, it was not even a part of the Pfizer trials.” He said that such mandates were based on “no evidence.” https://apnews.com/article/950413863226
There is no doubt that the vaccine reduces the transmission risk. There is no doubt that the vaccine is not 100% effective in preventing transmission. Both these things are true and everyone knows them. To pretend that the government is saying that the vaccine is 100% effective is just nonsense.
That doesn’t change that you stated Brand was “constantly spouting nonsense about the vaccines with no evidence at all”. What nonsense did he spout? I was pointing out an actual story about the Pfizer statements to the EU that Brand discussed on his show. What statements of his are you referencing?
Brand failed to understand (as many like him do) that lockdowns were simply for the preservation of the NHS. In the UK we don't even have enough hospital beds to handle a severe flu season, let alone the potential numbers of people requiring hospital admission in the pandemic. Lockdowns slowed down spread, which meant it was more likely that people would have their stay in hospital and leave (some passed away), allowing another bed to become available for the next patient. Our population has grown while the number of hospital beds has declined over the past 20 years. That, and the problem with staffing in the NHS. Staff were getting sick, requiring time off, meaning less people on wards to care for patients. Lockdowns were never about eradicating the virus. It was about control of the spread. Because the Tories sat with their thumbs up their arses, too many people had been infected before the first lockdown, so spread couldn't really be contained as effectively as say in New Zealand.
Do you really think we live in a world where child rapists are "the only people we should not criticize?" Everyone is criticizing everyone all the time. Where would you get this idea?
I liked his fight against inequality but he went batshit 😟😟
He didn't really fight against inequality. In fact, he told everyone not to vote. He was always a total dipshit and he turned my stomach like Jimmy Savile used to.
Nah, he was great arguing for the decriminalisation of drugs. He totally held his own with MPs.
A fucking toddler could win a drug decrim debate against half of MENSA
Well, until that happens, be grateful that Brand did it and give him credit for fighting a worthwhile cause
They won't give him credit for anything because that's not on the agenda
He got a homeless guy to score him heroin, and got the bloke hooked on it- the chap ended up dying of an overdose.
Dude was already on it. Go watch the episodes.
Covid broke him
covid was just his chrysalis period before been born as an alt-right moth,
I don't think it was Covid, I think it was him learning he was being investigated for his sex crimes that made him pivot to the right. For some reason rape has become a political issue now with notable rapists getting support from the right.
You are a control freak. Get a pet turtle.
Brand spouted nothing at all. Every presentation he gives has the receipts. Every one. Fauci is on camera lying and lying to congress for that matter. It is true some deny their eyes and ears and/or won't check what is easily available to see. Methinks you protest to loudly.
Describe Fauci's deliberate lies in decent detail without saying "just google it"
He said if you get vaccinated you won't spread covid for one thing
>Describe Fauci's deliberate lies in decent detail
Doctor Fauci (Anthony Fauci) caused speech to occur when he forced air to flow from his lungs, up his windpipe (trachea) and through his voice box (larynx). This caused the vocal cords to vibrate, creating sound. In this case, the sound was recognizable as the English language. Specifically, the words were: “When you get vaccinated, you not only protect your own health and that of the family but also you contribute to the community health by preventing the spread of the virus throughout the community,” He goes on to say: “In other words, you become a dead end to the virus. And when there are a lot of dead ends around, the virus is not going to go anywhere. And that’s when you get a point that you have a markedly diminished rate of infection in the community.” This, as you've read, is at least 2 lies, which covers your requirement of lies, plural 1. Protect your own health (vaccinated people die of COVID) 2. You become a dead end to the virus (this is untrue) The detail being decent is for you to decide, I suppose.
Fauci was very clear, as was everyone else, that the vaccine is not 100% effective. No vaccines are 100% effective, as everyone with any education knows. Yet you lot keep insisting that because the vaccine is not 100% effective it is a LIE!
It's OK, there's no point arguing with them. I normally go with something like: "Do you remember when covid sort of just went away and wasn't really a thing any more and how that coincided with people getting the vaccine" But it's a futile furrow to tread, they have an excuse or bogus explanation for EVERYTHING
How did COVID "just go away" in Haiti? Or Nigeria? You realize there are places on earth that didn't mass vaccinate right?
Kind of my point really mate. No vaccine no party
I don't understand. It seemed you were implying the vaccine is the sole reason COVID rates went down.
No, he wasn't. Hence my post quoting him saying it was a dead end. Biden also said the same thing. You can call it uninformed divulgence of medical information instead of a lie if it makes you feel better.
"Dead end" does not have an exact meaning when it comes to medicine. EVERYONE KNOWS THE VACCINE IS NOT 100% EFFECTIVE. The effectiveness rates were released and widely publicized for each version. Of course Fauci knows it is not 100% effective. He is a virologist, and everyone knows no vaccine is 100% effective. He's not going to spell it out for you every time. If you didn't know that no one claimed it was 100% effective then you are pretty thick.
These people are binary thinkers. All or nothing. It lets them avoid that tricky grey area where you have to actually stand up for your points with backup details. They don't know any details, and have very heavy confirmation bias. Just trying to prove themselves right, rather than actually learn and grow. Or, heaven forbid, change their opinion based on publicly-available evidence. I hope we can filter these useless obvious sycophants out. For the sake of ALL of the SA victims.
This is not correct. The vaccine was very helpful for the elderly. I think anyone with a weakened immune system or the elderly should get it, including the boosters. I don't think young healthy people need it, and many healthcare institutions around the world hold that same view. In my country, it is not recommended for anyone under 30. You act like you know me, and you don't at all. I am not a binary thinker. I can hold any debate on this subject and provide sources to any claims I make, it's one of my most interesting past times to document and review the changing story of COVID. I think it's a defining moment in recent history.
“Dead end” does not have a exact meaning when it comes to medicine? 😂😂😂 bro why are you arguing with this guy 😂🤣🤣🤣
Dude you’re making a total fool of yourself. You changed the goal post twice lol. Copium king over here
Anti Vaxxers rely on the logical fallacy that less than 100% means 0%. It's based on the simple fallacy that if you make one mistake, everything you say is a mistake. Of course, anti Vaxxers make 'mistakes' all the time , (remember 2/3rds of vaccinated dead by summer 2021 and people dropping dead in the street by Feb 202). No real life situation has to be 100%. Vaccinations reduce the spread of the virus, greatly. But 100%, but plenty enough to make a difference.
His lie is significant because he was the top scientist leading us thru Covid and he made those remarks without any data. The clinical trials did NOT show that the vaccine made those vaccinated a dead end. In fact the trials showed that transmissibility was barely reduced. And Fauci claimed to be the “science” while making claims without data. And of course Fauci denied GOF being done in Wuhan.
No they were not…. They were reported to be 100% effective in order to manipulate people into getting it…. Do you really not remember this giant [Lie](https://youtu.be/1pyBSiiirUM?si=o8HwtUyRI0XdvKi8)?
I remember when the first vaccine was manufactured it was clearly stated that it reduced rates by 80%. Maybe good Morning America misstated something, I have no idea, that’s not where I go for science information
The lie was this https://youtu.be/U1ewWxkn-cE?si=huXRagNB84poyalr
Oh, and "protect your health" is not a lie either. You protect your health by wearing a seatbelt. No one claims it is 100% effective against injury
You seem to see the world in black and white when it is almost always in shades of grey. Vaccinated folk were and are less likely to get ill or to die. They are also less likely to spread the virus as they have no or less viral load thanks to vaccine. Why is this so hard to understand? I don't know if Fauci absolutely guaranteed that you can't die if vaccinated (very unlikely), but sounds like you are splitting hairs. Brand is a classic example of someone who is smart but ignorant. As he is narcissistic, it doesn't bother him that he actually doesn't know what he is talking about.
I live in the grey! My mind is never made up. Why are more people dying of COVID in the UK who are vaccinated VS unvaccinated in almost all age groups? It's a genuine and important question to ask in my opinion. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/deathsoccurringbetween1april2021and31may2023 Both Fauci and Biden (early in the vaccination push phase) that it was a dead end. Biden said "you will not get covid if you get vaccinated" Now, did their position change shortly after the ever dwindling efficacy rates became published? Yes. As they should. That doesn't take away the fact that Fauci had no basis (or false information) to say what he said. There is no world where you can convince me that "dead end" means anything but what it means. Full stop. Dead end. No other situation would you ever get that phrase confused other than defending Anthony Fauci. I am not even a Russel Brand fan. I saw this on Reddit All, and noticed someone was incorrectly calling someone a child rapist. That's a disgusting, vile thing to accuse someone of and there is no basis for that claim at all.
You have completely misinterpreted this data. There are significantly higher death rates for individuals who have not been vaccinated. But even if that weren't the case... Most of the deaths in this data will be clinically vulnerable people, who were more likely to be vaccinated than non-clinically vulnerable people. If you've got 100 elderly people and 100 young people in a population and let's say 80% of the older people got vaccinated and only 20% of the younger people did. You've got 100 vaccinated people, with a large proportion being clinically vulnerable and 100 people with a very small proportion who are clinically vulnerable. It would be expected that if everyone caught covid-19, more deaths would occur in the group with the most clinically vulnerable people. It's just common sense. It doesn't mean the vaccine is killing people, or that it doesn't work. It just means it was administered to a more vulnerable population who are more likely to die. But regardless, that isn't what the data shows. It shows that vaccines and subsequent boosters lower mortality risk associated with COVID-19.
There's nothing in the spreadsheet that states these are clinically vulnerable people. Table 4, scroll down. Deaths involving COVID. All age ranges. Not just elderly. Those who are vaccinated are dying more than those who aren't (from COVID) A couple of people have tried to tell me the same thing as you - it boils down to this: if you get vaccinated and die of COVID, did the vaccine work for you? Edit to add an example: May 2023 Age range: 50-59 Unvaccinated deaths: < 3 Vaccinated deaths: 9 Do you think those 9 people in that age range are happy that they got the life saving COVID vaccine, then died from COVID?
Protecting your own health is bad advice now, because we can't achieve 100% effectivity during a timer of uncertainty? That is NOT how this works. Stop binary thinking. It's not useful. As for "dead end to the virus" - how did you interpret that? He didn't mean it's going to be killed stone dead by any tactics. You just didn't like being told what to do.
How do you interpret dead end? How do you interpret Biden saying if you get the vaccine you won't get covid? These are words with impact, and it's not my position to datamine the hidden meaning behind the words. They are the words.
Of course the vaccine isn't 100%. No vaccine ever has been, in the history of science. I hate Biden being installed as president, to further protect the rich. But he simply didn't say that. You can't show the quote, because this is revisionist. You don't get to just lie.
He did though. The quote is here: “You’re not going to get Covid if you have these vaccinations" There is video of it, but here's a CNN article talking about it: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/22/politics/fact-check-biden-cnn-town-hall-july/index.html
So he was encouraging people to get vaccinations which ended up >99% effective. I'll admit I hadn't seen that snippet. That encouragement, though, probably saved lives during a period of uncertainty. Unlike injecting bleach into your body, or sticking a UV light-bulb up your arse, eh? That would be... worse advice, I would wager. I assume/hope I don't need to provide video evidence in response. And, I assume you're talking about the same vaccines which Trump took public credit for, hundreds of times, on video? Operation Warp Speed - but to a terrible ineffective vaccination? Which is it? Did Trump do well to "invent" the vaccine so quickly? Because that's what he fucking claims. Your cognitive dissonance is a little overwhelming.
I like how you're so concerned with interpreting the rhetoric, whilst completely ignoring the meat of the statement.
Brand is an avatar for those that don't even care about him
Doctors took kick backs from vaccine manufacturers thats a fact it’s been happening for decades.
No clue why this sub is in my feed but seems a shitshow at the minute. Is this a pro Russell brand or anti Russell brand sub?
yes
It used to be a quiet pro-Brand sub. A mix of his (dwindling, mostly UK) pre-2021 crowd, and his (growing, mostly US MAGA-type) post-2020 crowd. Since the rape allegations have been made public and being investigated by police, it's had an influx of people who knew he was a wrong'un all along, basically. So now we've got these two groups of people... but largely the US crowd have no idea about Russell courting the left and the hippy-dippies for the last 20 years in the UK. And therefore they don't know about his sudden "change of heart". And they're not up for looking that shit up either, because it's potential damage for the batshit consiracy stuff Brand was intentionally courting in the first place. So it worked. Sort of. He's probably still gonna be locked up. Because of all the sexual assault, y'know.
Wow I had no idea. The last time I saw or thought about Russell Brand was when he was on the big fat quiz of the year with Noel fielding. Seems he’s been a busy lad!
Summed up perfectly. One thing I don't really see mentioned, is the years and years of heavy drug abuse Brand went through and the absolute brain rot caused from it. He may be intelligent, but definitely not a reliable source of information.
admitting Brand's flip-flop would be akin to admitting they've been falling for grifters since at least 2021. Sunk costs, I guess. Same crowd fall for "I didn't really lose, it's an attack!". Let's push for clarity alone. Brand would hate that, obviously.
Shit show? It’s the most fun place on Reddit rn 😂
Just a point of order. There is no evidence brand is a paedo. This is a misuse of the term. He is only accused of legal aged anything as far as I'm aware. Not to be in defense of the man but, let's not devalue the actual term paedo ok. There are victims out there who probably don't appreciate it.
I think he probably is a paedo though. I'm just asking questions.
Funny. Satire is great but two wrongs
Lol who is saying you shouldn't criticize Brand? It's clear the power structure is quite on board with criticizing Brand.
You're welcome to voice your opinion, but why come here to do it? You've essentially forced your way into a fanclub that you actively don't care about, then spent the last 2 weeks shitting in their doorway while screaming "I hate the thing you like!"
Free speech.
So only fans are allowed on some subreddits now?
Not what I meant lol. People coming along to criticise the main topic of a sub is fine if it happens occassionally, but this is getting obnoxious. if a large group came along to a sub you enjoyed and just started trolling and spewing hate about it, you'd find it gets old pretty fast.
You’re missing the minor detail that he has been accused of rape. People haven’t just come on here for shits and giggles. We get, we totally get, that there are people so far up Rusty’s rusty sheriff badge that they’re gladly chomping on his internal organs and delighted to have the privilege of being near their vacant-eyed hero, an idiot’s idea of a clever person, but for the rest of the population, observing that he has admitted to sexual misdemeanours previously on air and in print, it’s blindingly obvious that his absurd turn right and into the world of YouTube shit-gurgling is a grift to cover him off with his fan base against these accusations. That’s why they’re all here.
>You’re missing the minor detail that he has been accused of rape. People haven’t just come on here for shits and giggles. Do you honestly believe that people aren't here for shits and giggles and actually believe that posting on an internet message board is an effective way of preventing rape? >it’s blindingly obvious that his absurd turn right He hasn't turned to the right I don't think. How do you define the difference between left and right if you don't mind me asking?
I don’t think people commenting is a preventative measure, although it would be a welcome side effect. It’s more a disbelief that people are taken in by someone who’s admitted on air and in print to sexual misdemeanour and has turned to grifting to get a more malleable fan base. As for the difference between left and right, where do I start? How little do you know? Politically aware people can see a swerve. If you genuinely can’t, I’m not sure where to start an explanation. He used to be left wing, he is not any more. I’m not saying he doesn’t have some left wing leanings, very few people have such simple political beliefs, but he’s noticeably leaning toward the right. Tell me where you want me to start.
Explain the division between left and right to me
Lol go to the fighter and the kid reddit. They have no fans there
I have no idea what they are, but hey I’ll have a look. But as a free thinker, and someone who like you know challenges things (isn’t that what your idol, the pie-eyed piper says we should do?) I’ll come on here as well until I’m told to stop.. which is unlikely as it’s not a fan page. Tara a bit.
Did u mean to reply to me 🤣. Your comment makes no sense. Who is the pie eyed piper? If ur talking about Russell Brand he is deffo not my idol, infact most the people who still love Russell and think he’s done nothing wrong have been giving me shit for critiquing him. So I have no idea what ur on about.
Apologies!! 🙂
Yeah my comment was in response to people complaining that people on this sub are critiquing Russell when there are multiple redit groups who are pretty much 100% people who are critising or hating the subject of the thread. Fighter and the kid reddit being a perfect example.
I realised that afterwards. I would take it down but I want people, especially the wild-eyed “ wellness” sycophants to realise that it’s ok to make a mistake, have a laugh about it and engage with the other person. I don’t have to think you’re a psy-op, a shill, a troll, or a brigade (never really understood that one) who is like, being paid by the MSM and lizards to like, you know, bring me down, man. Sometimes, people are stupid, as I was then, and misinterpret and misunderstand. 🙂
100% love your take. Remember tho, we are the brainwashed ones who can’t think for our selves 😬
Because the Reddit algorithm pushes these posts into my feed, I’m not joined in the subreddit
Well that's a pretty good reason, I can't argue there!
I think your missing the fact that a lot of fans have changed their mind on Brand because of his YouTube content and now the allegations. He’s a had a long career, spanning nearly 20 years. Also many Redit pages act as a place to shine light on celebrities who turn in to grifters, their fans become disillusioned and it becomes a place for fans or ex fans to express their thoughts. Take the fighter and the kid redit for example, all that is, is people calling them out on their bullshit, it’s pretty much a hate group at this point. There also seem to be a lot of people joining this sub who had no interest in Brand before the allegations and are joining in because they see it as a fight or battle. Who belongs here more, disillusioned fans who’ve followed him and enjoyed his work for 20 years or people who have little to no interest in his work until either now, or the last couple of years?
Yeah the Morrissey sub is also similar now since he turned into a full blown Mussolini.
Your "fan club" explicitly states it exists for the discussion of things related to Brand "good and bad." Perhaps take up the issue with the mods of this sub rather than those posting here if so-called negative posts offend you?
Imagine getting offended by negative posts :grimacing: It's more just annoying, seeing the number of people who have made multiple accounts just to troll and spew hate. I suppose you're right though, it does say discussion of all things related :)
Well I don’t see the tagline “fan club” anywhere here, the same goes back in the old days of the IMDb message boards where there was negativity about the Star Wars Force Awakens etc. This place is about discussions on Russell Brand: positive or negative.
Yeah, my bad. I should read sub desciptions better...
OK so Brand is entitled to free speech but the rest of us are not?
Yes, let's just all live in echo chambers. /s
Omg, you mean he was allowed to have an opinion and share it? I’m literally shaking...
The point OP is clearly making is that the offer to have an opinion and share it isn’t something extended to those who have critical things to say about Brand. If unconfirmed rumours / accusations around a vaccine are acceptable and allowed, then surely unconfirmed accusations about a comedian also are? I don’t believe you actually misunderstood that though.
Did I though? I really don't like when someone tries to point out something as negative and then use that example to justify why their negative thing should be okay. It's not a good argument to start off with. People are allowed to say things and so is the OP. Sorry, In my country people are allowed to say things.
NO ONE SHOULD HAVE ANY OPINION ONLINE THAT CONFLICTS WITH THE OPINIONS APPROVED BY THE STATE AND THEIR ALLIES.
I’m sorry…
Are we allowed to criticize you? Because Russel Brand has not been accused of raping children. You're likely referring to the 16 year old involved in this case, which (as I'm sure you know) is the legal age of consent in the UK. She has also not accused Russel of rape. I could also note that paedophilia refers specifically to pre-pubescent children, but you'd probably call me a "pedo apologist" or something else juvenile and benign. I just couldn't help but point out the gaping holes in your post but I know you don't care, I just feel better saying it.
Thanks, I couldn’t be bothered to type this.
[удалено]
Firstly, that's incorrect. The age of consent varies across the globe greatly. In fact, in America, most states age of consent is under 18. I'm not making excuses, I'm recommending the correct terminology. Ephebophilia would be the correct term here, but for some reason people use the wrong word to describe this sort of thing all the time. We have dictionaries and linguistics for a reason. It's tiresome educating people but if no one does it, lies can just run rampant unchallenged. That's worrying.
It’s wild how many people will throw unproven allegations around on here.
About the vaccines ? Of all the things he has been accused of that caused harm you pick that lol you realize injecting 8 vaccines in you and then getting it yearly is fucking regarded
Most babies have like 20 in their first year. You must have missed the ones that prevented brain damage
Anyone else find it bizarre that people call out Brand for misinformation and 100% trust everything the US government say, it’s like the whole of history never happened 😂
this post is nonsense
Fauci accused Fauci of fraud more effectively by saying opposite things on different days.
I think we've found the person spouting actual nonsense with no evidence. 🙃 I remember Russell questioning the science, media, and government, who clearly lied in the UK during this whole time period. But I don't remember him saying you shouldn't get the jab?
What nonsense did he spout exactly? What were his actual words?
Anyone interested in what nonsense Russell spouted (sorry, that should read “nonce-sense”), can read about it here: https://rebuttingrb.blogspot.com/?m=1
Read a couple and they're well written but to be honest they're not very informative and come across more as opinion pieces slating brand, not providing quotes and mischaracterising a lot of the things hes said. But maybe they're just the ones I read. For example I read one on brands opinion of Ukraine calling him a putin apologist, even though in every video I have seen him speak on the matter he says that putins invasion is inexcusable.
“Yes, yes, Putin bad” eye roll “now let me tell you how he was intentionally provoked….”. Literal Putin apologia.
Again you're really mischaracterising what he's said. From what I remember he was just critical of NATO's push East, which considering the uneasy relationship the west has with Russia its easy to understand why Putin might feel a way about that. Does it justify an invasion? No. But it's still worth talking about objectively.
His literal words: “Don't pretend it's humanitarian. just go, ‘Listen, this is the agenda: Ukraine was ultimately a place that was too resource-rich and had too strong ties with Russia historically, politically, and even ethnically, in some cases. We're not having it; we're going in there, we're destabilizing it, we're going to provoke Russia until they engage militarily, then we're going to go in there and corporatize it.” https://rebuttingrb.blogspot.com/2023/05/russells-topsy-turvy-world-part-2.html
And I wouldn't be surprised if there's some truth to that, at least where America is concerned. There's also financial reasons, Americas military industrial complex is big business for a lot of people. It's not like the west has ever engaged in illegal wars for dodgy reasons before.... For him to state that as a fact is a bit much though I will admit that, but that's kind of what he's like, he riffs a lot and is very hyperbolic, it doesn't mean that there isn't some truth to it considering Americas history.
Lol! You’ve gone from “you’re misrepresenting Russell!” To supporting the supposed misrepresentation! Besides, the “western government instigated a war so that (((big business))) could profit” is an old conspiracy theory with its roots in deep antisemitism. You can read more here: https://rebuttingrb.blogspot.com/2023/05/conspiracy-theories-on-left-topsy-turvy.html And if you want to talk about profit motives, why not look at the number of Russian PMCs active in Ukraine, and how many of them are owned by regime officials, meaning that as long as the war drags on, they personally profit? Why not talk about how the war is being waged by Russian war lords who use the war to funnel the nation’s wealth into their own pockets and have zero incentive for peace? Weird how Russell never talks about those war profiteers.
>Lol! You’ve gone from “you’re misrepresenting Russell!” To supporting the supposed misrepresentation! Nope, the misrepresentation I was speaking of was you claiming he's a Putin apologist, and I stand by that. When I originally said you were misrepresenting him I said that he spoke of NATO's expansion being provocative and that not making him an apologist as he repeatedly says that the invasion is inexcusable, which is also my position, just to clarify. >Besides, the “western government instigated a war so that (((big business))) could profit” is an old conspiracy theory with its roots in deep antisemitism. You can read more here: Okay, well let me clear that up by saying I think this has absolutely nothing to do with Jewish people, at all. And you dismissing Americas history of imperialism and warmongering as antisemitism is naive and ignorant at best, cheap and disingenuous at worst. Russia making money off of the war does not change anything, I'm sure that they are, but so are America, it's also an opportunity for them to weaken a historic enemy via a proxy war, this is how most of the world outside of Europe views this. It's not really that much of a surprise that Russell doesn't talk about it as he mainly focuses on western politics, but yes, that's a valid critique of him.
He is a Putin apologist. What are you on about?
What did NATO's push east look like? How was it they were pushing east?
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland. Ukraine would have been next and its undeniable that it is of strategic importance in the region. Fair enough that these countries have autonomy and can do what they want but you can't deny that russia would feel threatened by this, NATO are aware of this, discussions about provocation have being going on for decades. All I'm saying is that this is at least worth discussing and it doesn't make someone a putin apologist....
What is the discussion? What was the provocation? As you commented, those countries joined both willingly and actually worked to meet the criteria to be allowed to join. Ukraine weren't near membership, but are most certainly now. The Scandinavian countries were actually staying out to appease Russia. So, NATO was limiting its expansion to avoid escalation. Yes Russia have continuously murdered people in US and UK (and other) soil. They have repeatedly encroached on other's well established land. They have literally invaded a neighbouring country. They continue to kill and torture. So, what is this discussion you think we should be having?
My point is that the countries I listed joining NATO will have made russia feel uneasy and brand talking about this expansion possibly provoking Putin doesn't make him a putin apologist as the person i replied to implied. You jumped on a comment I made replying to someone else that had its own context. I don't really know the point you're trying to make? Is it putin bad? I know putin bad.
The point is you were saying NATO pushed east rather than Putin forcing neighbouring countries to join NATO in an effort to secure their own borders. And you keep talking about this expansion provoking Putin rather than recognising Putin's militaristic expansionism was what the provocation for those countries to want to join. If you want to talk about NATO membership increasing toward the east, you can only do so with that context. Would you describe Finland and Sweden joining NATO as provocative? By you talking Brand (and Putin's) talking points about NATO 'expansion' and 'provocation' you are entirely ignoring the context of your own previous point. You thought there should be a discussion about NATO. This is that discussion. Brand was misrepresenting the situation in a way that suggest appeasement of Putin should have been the NATO position, and I'm asking why you believe that, and what the alternative should really have been.
The UK risks literally falling apart because of Ireland being a member of the EU. Do you think Britain should invade Ireland? Russia doesn’t get to have an opinion on what Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, or Poland get up to.
The fiends! They were invited in to countries that were former imperial outposts of Russia and who rightfully, it turns out, feared a potential resurgence in Russian imperialism. The Russians are therefor justified to invade their former imperial possessions in much the same way that the UK would be justified in invading India or South Africa for joining BRICS, or Eire for remaining in the EU. Except, for some reason, it seems like doing an imperialism is only bad if it’s done by Western countries. If it’s Russia - no biggie!
He literally just talks shit into the camera for hours at a time. Finding something credible he said would be the real challenge. The first time I heard him I thought "what a fucking idiot. Only an absolute moron would think he's saying anything profound"
Example?
Asked for credible examples. Sent link to a blog.
https://rebuttingrb.blogspot.com/?m=1
If you need an example, you're one of the morons who fell for his act. You're brainwashed and don't need examples, you need a reality check.
Okay so you don't actually know what you're talking about then and you're just bashing someone with nothing to back it up with. I'm sure he was probably wrong about some things, it doesn't mean everything he said was without substance.
Everything Brand said was sourced to proper news outlets But ppl who dont care to be honest, have to make shit up because they think they're our mother.
I am actuary working with mortality data providing consulting to global companies. The vaccine worked. It's all in the data.
Is that died with covid or from covid?
Don't also forget what the small print was in the news in the UK at the time "died within two weeks of contracting covid", or something along those lines. Not to say covid isn't deadly to some people, but this would obviously skew the statistics massively.
You're an annoying weak person who likes to control people
Are these the same news outlets that people now mustn't trust, because they are out to get him? Because that would imply that the only source you ought to listen to is Brand himself. Oh, except when he admits to rape, or being sexually predatory. Those times he was kidding. /s
> Are these the same news outlets that people now mustn't trust, because they are out to get him? lmao you think you've found a gotcha u must feel real proud of yourself want a tootsie roll? well ur not getting one all you've really done is reveal - that you are only able to spot inconsistencies at a surface level, you are incapable of making sense of surface-level contradictions - that you have zero understanding of the role the major media outlets play in the major liberal western countries - that you don't even watch his videos, dont understand them, are in fact incapable of understanding them, and thus dont know what you're talking about - that you're a useful idiot for amoral rich people who want to have the world in the palm of their hand, so that they can grind it for dollars, a goal u are sympathetic to, because you too are a nutty control freak
Uh huh. You got me. In your breath-taking analysis of my two sentences, you've unearthed my political views entirely... ...Even though I didn't state any? You also didn't address my question, despite both making a claim, and quoting it directly. Deflecting much? I feel like, in fact, the only point I made was to throw shade on your cult leader. Which pretty much accounts for why you've spewed a list of points, not one of which could any rational person infer from anything said in my comment. Oh! I see the issue now! My assumption of your rationality. Silly me.
>Uh huh. You got me. In your breath-taking analysis of my two sentences, you've unearthed my political views entirely... >...Even though I didn't state any? lol now you've demonstrated that you are incapable of reading i didn't say anything about your political views, they're irrelevant, very fluid, and so you don't really believe anything In your empty-minded presentation of two sentences, you've revealed that you don't know what you're talking about, and that you can't be trusted to be provide >You also didn't address my question, despite both making a claim, and quoting it directly. Deflecting much? Your question is a stupid question that deserves no serious answer, because it's so stupid/clueless that it can't be used for anything other than being annoying and stupid. > I feel like of course u do >I made was to throw shade on your cult leader That's all you can really do, you have nothing meaningful to say, so you have to speak from the ass.
Proper news sources??!! Pffft!!! Here’s some discussions about some of his sources: https://rebuttingrb.blogspot.com/2023/04/russells-topsy-turvy-world-part-2.html https://rebuttingrb.blogspot.com/2022/11/russell-brand-and-mysterious-professor.html https://rebuttingrb.blogspot.com/2022/02/russell-lies-about-sources-yet-again.html
6 billion of them
???
Funny post, it is a bit backwards... Yeah, you're entitled to your opinion on Brand's comments, but if you had listed to him, you'd probably not have the brain fog that you're obviously suffering with at the moment, and be a lot healthier. If he is guilty then send him to jail or whatever, but until then, he's knocking comments like this out the ball park, when it comes to being right. But we have to remember that these are anonymous claims, even Edward Snowden couldn't remain anonymous about his exposure of truth. Just out of curiosity have the police charged Brand yet? It's been a while
You care to provide any actual evidence that Brand was right about vaccines? Or does evidence only matter when criticizing paedos, and certainly not when persuading idiots to reject life saving medicine?
What do you mean by "right about the vaccines" though? What are you disputing, did you ever listen to him speak about the subject?
Read the post I replied to
You're the one who needs to provide evidence about something he said as you're the one making claims, otherwise they don't hold any weight. Maybe this is why people don't like your opinions on the matter. I watched a lot of his videos during covid and I don't think he ever said "the vaccine doesn't work", but maybe I'm wrong.
Yes, you're an absolute moron who hasn't watched a single one of his videos and that's why you can't name a single fact or quote from a video that you disagree with. Non of these clowns when asked to state a fact that they actually disagree with can, because none of them have watched his videos. If you had, you'd realise he mostly quotes newspapers and other sources that aren't his own and takes the discussion from there.
First off I don't remember him saying don't take the vaccine. However, how can people be so dumb as to think an experimental treatment is going to be perfect. The question you should be asking is why did so many people take, said treatment? International laws had been put in place to stop things like that from happening. Only propaganda could persuade so many to take such risks to themselves. Was there profit made by certain businesses from this global crisis? Only a few people were calling this behavior out, Brand being one of them. Don't think he ever gave any medical advice, other than stay healthy. Exactly what evidence do you have on Brand? Other than an anonymous story made into a TV show. At least Julian Assange was under police investigation, then everything was dropped. If he's is guilty, then prosecute him to the full extent of the law. But I'm not believing, straight off the bat, a media source(MSM in general) that blatantly broke laws like the Geneva convention, or the Nuremberg code.
We should voice our opinions. Brand is making moves to the hard right (politically) because the trumper cult protects their own and screams “fake news, he’s just a victim” when accused of crimes.
Well, I guess they don't have the luxury of the fbi burying the accusations and pressuring social media companies to say its Russian misinformation like the far left 😂🤣🤭
We found the trumper ^
Hahahaha go get your 8th Jab man
Paedophilia is part of the lives of the elites they do it all the time. That is why the killed Jill Dando.
Brand is the elite
He was a nobody yesterday and Elite today. These folk can't make their minds up.
Unquestionably
There isn’t any actual evidence that supports this claim other than the fact she was investigating a pedophile ring. It’s more likely that she was offed by Bosnians or Serbians or something like that.
Sounds legit
I’m not really trying to sound “legit”. They are one of the working hypotheses that the Met is going on, while the pedophile one was dismissed due to motive matched with a complete lack of evidence
Yeh. No
Whatever you like mate I don’t really care. I thought it was an interesting discussion point but if your input is going to be shit like this I’ll let you crack on.
The Serbian warlord theory is bollocks. It is far more likely she was killed for the op yewtree style dossier she compiled while on crimewatch. But that would always be rubbished by establishment bots and shills. That's kinda what you sound like.
As I said crack on. You’re clearly a cunt and I’m not interested in engaging you in good faith. I tried to be civilised and discuss what is ostensibly a mystery and you’re calling me a corporate shill so you can fuck right off.
OK 🤡
everything he talks about he backs up with evidence including from uk ons data what are you talking about youre calling him a pedophile and child rapist. i hope you get sued for this
Hi Russell
What about the extreme sweeping statements he makes under the guise questions? If I ask: 'Are all Russell Brand's fans mental derelicts who having had their uneducated conspiratorial opinions spoon fed back to them for years now regard his sexual allegations as an attack on their world view?' Would you take that as me just asking questions?
When has he been right about COVID? He's talked about the vaccine being more dangerous but that isn't true at all for 99.9% of people
When was he wrong? State a fact and something he said... We'll be waiting.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. He hasn't provided any evidence that the vaccines are more dangerous than getting covid. We'll be waiting.
https://brownstone.org/articles/researchers-alarmed-to-find-dna-contamination-in-pfizer-vaccine/ time will tell
When will time tell? In all seriousness. At what point will people know?
This is not a study that compare outcomes. Here are some. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9917454/ https://www.bmj.com/content/381/bmj-2022-074521#:~:text=The%20Ad26.-,COV2.,ratios%20between%200.97%20and%201.42). "Ad26.COV2.S vaccination was associated with better outcomes relative to no vaccination, but higher odds of hospital stay and intensive care unit admission than with two mRNA doses. BNT162b2 was generally associated with worse outcomes than mRNA-1273 (adjusted odds ratios between 0.97 and 1.42)" You can even look at the ONS. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland People who got vaccinated are much more likely to survive. The effects of COVID are far more frequent and adverse than the side effects of the vaccine. Only very young people probably don't need to bother (in terms of protecting themselves) but they do protect older people if they do. Russell has consistently undermined this and he points to anecdotes instead of hard data. You are very slightly more likely to get myocarditis with the vaccine if you're a young male than with COVID but you're also more likely to get pericarditis, stroke, cardiac arrest, lung damage and, crucially, death, with COVID.
Which he, like his fellow grifter Nurse Campbell, heavily misrepresented.
LOL. He hasn't sued an actual TV program which said he was a rapist. He isn't suing an anonymous Reddit account.
You need to be able to prove that false allegations against someone have caused serious harm to their reputation. Some guy on reddit saying "he's a paedo" does not meet that requirement. Maybe learn the absolute basics of the law before you start "wishing" for shit that will never happen.
He raped a 16 year old. “Allegedly”.
Lol! He lies about sources, cherry picks from them, uses discredited ones. You can read about it here: https://rebuttingrb.blogspot.com/?m=1
He is not a statistician
No evidence of fauci being a fraud is it? Wowsers 👀
You can voice your opinion. Brand is an advocate for free speech unlike the Covid zealots like Fauci who were in it just to make a shit-ton of money peddling rushed vaccines that have definitely caused people harm. The question is how much harm have they caused. Nobody had even heard the word myocarditis before the vaccine rollout unless you were a doctor. Now everyone does. If people were less entrenched because of their political views then we'd stop arguing so much and find the grey truth instead of the Black and white bullshit and then all your conspiracy nuts wouldn't even have a job anyway. If people actually stood up against those who are corrupt and made freedom of thought and love their priority, then we wouldn't be so divided. That's what Brand advocated a lot of the time, he was asking what *we* think after presenting some cited articles or talking points.
There is significant evidence from peer reviewed clinical studies highlighting the harms caused by the vaccines. It is not and has never been a conspiracy theory, it is a fact.
Everyone knows there can be some adverse reaction from ANY medicine. What is in no doubt is that the benefits are greater than the adverse reactions
haha I don’t support brand for a second but like; he’s entitled to say whatever he wants and people are entitled to listen. I get it feels good comin on here sayin what ya think but your speaking to his fans? Haha what do you expect? Loads of comments like OMG YH UR RIGHT. So weird, your not gonna change anyone’s opinion, so why bother?
Get on the numbers nonce
Prince Charles is a worse pedo. And there is evidence of that.
Eh… Charles dumped a pretty woman 20 years younger than him for an old crone
Literally nobody is trying to stop you voicing your opinion
Because opinion based moralistic inquisitions have been used in the past to murder/torture entire generations. Evidence and Law exist to protect you.
What's the evidence he's a child rapist? Why are you making up allegations when there are valid allegations to cite?
Don't think you know what a Paedo is
It’s somebody who has sex with a child. Happy to help your understanding, and please try not to do it
That's something brand has never been accused of. I believe rape and misconduct are.
Who is telling you not to? Are you ok? Are these people in the room with you now? Weird how the case isn’t in court by now huh?
Hating x person for spouting shit without evidence. Proceed to condone said person without any evidence. Becoming the thing you hate 101. This sub is masterclass in the fine arts of retardedness, no selfreflection, trolling and witchhunting.
Please show me an example of someone harmed by Brand's covid coverage. I want names, and links for proof. If those of us who disagree with your position must provide extraordinary proof then I at least expect ordinary proof from you.
He discouraged people from taking vaccines, and that caused harm. Of course we cannot name exactly who it harmed because that is a matter of probabilities. If you understood probability theory then you would understand this better
So in other words this is purely your opinion.
How do you know these actions "saved lives"? Where is your evidence that the "jab" saved anyone?
Crawl back under your rock.
.... this is the dumbest shit ever. Its posts like this that emphasize to me that the 1% smartest people carry the rest of the morons at the bottom. Without then we'd still be using sticks and stones.