Kim Iversen Left the Hill “Rising” Over Fauci Interview
By Mark Schwendau
If you are a thinking person simply wanting to know what the hell is really going on in this country and the world these days, odds are you have watched the streaming news service The Hill “Rising”. A big talent member of this news show was a personality by the name of Kim Iversen. Iversen is a lady who is a good old-fashioned journalist who still reports the news, popular or not.
She joined this news show about a year ago with the condition that she not be bridled or censored in any way. The Hill Rising (up to last month) seemingly went along with her demands.
Then came the Anthony Fauci interview of this July, and things changed.
Iversen had wanted to interview Fauci relative to inconsistencies in his Covid-19 pandemic narrative and things most of us have wanted explanations on but never got them. She wanted some simple straight answers from the man for her straight questions. Iverson thinks like most Americans think and is not some partisan hack in the news media just looking to bring somebody down with a “gotcha” interview question as the mainstream news media is now so famous for. She is not a journalist wearing a Big Pharma muzzle because they buy so much sponsorship air time.
So on a Sunday of last month, Iversen was informed The Hill had booked Dr. Anthony Fauci for an interview, but she would not be a part of it. Their explanation to her was that it was an early interview before she came in. They then told Fauci’s people that Batya Unger Sargon and Robbie Soave would be his interviewers. And Fauci, apparently, was okay with that.
However, the day of the interview was pushed back to later in the day. Iversen was at work and was expecting to be part of the interview since she was there. The producers of the “Rising” show told her since she wasn’t originally slated to be an interviewer run by Fauci’s people, she wasn’t going to be part of the Fauci interview segment.
Iversen told them that their decision would make her and “Rising” look bad to their millions of followers. She argued that without her involvement (due to her past history of questioning Fauci’s narrative), the interview would be questioned as a softball-type interview going easy on Fauci. So the interview took place, it did look bad, and had many people openly asking on social media platforms as the interview streamed, “Where’s Kim?”
Shortly thereafter, Kim Iversen made the decision to leave the show in response to this sequence of events.
Some people have falsely tagged Iversen as an extremist or conspiracy theorist. Her critics should immediately be suspect because you can be neither of those things for being only guilty of simply wanting to know the truth by asking good questions.
There are only three reasons people would be openly hostile and critical of such a person as Iversen:
- They are obsessive-compulsive about following a narrative and do not want anybody questioning that narrative.
- They are too stupid to have thought of asking the questions themselves.
- They are in on an actual conspiracy as useful idiots assigned to make sure everything goes as planned.
So, as one might imagine, Robbie and Batya’s interview of Anthony Fauci was just more of the same (MOTS) disgraceful adoration fawning all over a man who should be brought before the Nuremberg trial for Crimes Against Humanity.
After they had been criticizing Fauci for two years, the two of them seemingly were in a set boot-licking game plan by the show’s producers. Batya, Robbie, and many like them are up-and-comers in their media careers in the DC beltway. As such, their first objective is to maintain harmless journalistic styles so as to not make any enemies from the corporate ruling class of DC.
Iversen, on the other hand, was always there seeking the truth and trying to get to the reasons behind the actions. This made others so uncomfortable that some employees of The Hill were anonymously trash-talking her to other alternative news sources such as The Daily Beast. Some speculate that Iversen’s “Nothing is off limits or off the table” approach to interviews likely made it harder for The Hill’s reporters to get insider access.
Russell Brand recently conducted a very good interview with Kim Iversen:
Some of the things Iversen wanted to question Fauci about were the things she had talked about on previous shows:
The Covid-19 pandemic narrative versus natural immunity and herd immunity.
The vaccine response while Fauci banned the use of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine.
The lack of informed consent with the vaccines as well as the secrecy of their contents.
The mRNA drugs are being passed off as vaccines with unknown long-term side effects.
The lack of collection and documentation of vaccine-related injuries and deaths.
Fauci’s single-handed changes the definition of the word “vaccine” to fit his narrative.
The lack of informed consent before being administered the supposed vaccines.
The use of Nazi-style “mass formation psychosis” to brainwash the public into compliance.
You can follow Kim Iversen on her website.
Any thinking person has a need to ask hard questions for things they do not understand. Many REAL journalists, such as Iversen, want to know “Who, what, when, where, why and how?”
For example, Just this summer, a nurse was explaining to me how she felt politics and political pressure by LGBTQ+ has allowed the Red Cross to make changes as to who can donate blood in this country and not for the better.
From the website of “Human Rights Campaign”:
“In December 2015, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) moved from a lifetime ban on gay and bisexual men donating blood to a deferral of one year for any man who has had sex with another man during the past 12 months. According to the Food and Drug Administration, this pre-screening eliminates up to 90 percent of donors who may be carrying a blood-borne disease.
What is the current federal policy on gay and bisexual men donating blood?
On April 2, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it was updating its policy regarding blood donations from men who have sex with men (MSM), reducing the deferral period from 12 months to three months. Blood centers nationwide screen potential donors by asking a set of questions written to determine risk factors that could indicate possible infection with a transmissible disease, such as HIV or hepatitis. According to the Food and Drug Administration, this pre-screening eliminates up to 90 percent of donors who may be carrying a blood-borne disease.
On June 8, the American Red Cross implemented the changes to donor eligibility criteria announced earlier this spring by the FDA. They encourage individuals who believe they may now be eligible to give under the new guidelines to visit RedCrossBlood.org to learn more about donor eligibility requirements that help ensure the safety of both blood donors and blood recipients.”
So this begs the question; If somebody is engaging in risky sexual activity and infected with an STD, at what point is there blood safe to give as transfusions to others? When it comes to public health, the goal posts should never be moved due to political pressures but only by “THE SCIENCE”.
This begs the question of the CDC and Fauci:
If we are monitoring our nation’s blood supply relative to donors who practice non-traditional sexual relations as a national health risk, why are we not monitoring vaccinated blood donors as opposed to non-vaccinated blood donors?
As a “pure blood” I do not want a blood transfusion from somebody who is vaccinated with the Covid-19 “fauxcinnes”.
And for those who want to cruelly chastise me like they do Kim Iversen and say something like, “Good, then you can just die then!”
My response is, “Better to die quick than slow from myocarditis from the clot shot and suffer.”
For those in the know, myocarditis seems to be the number one lethal side effect of the Covid-19 supposed vaccines.
And for all the vaccinated reading this looking for hope, not all vaccine shots are created equal, and you can go check your batch shot out on the website: HowBad.Info to see where you stand with yours.
My point being; If you are going to discriminate in blood donations between those engaging in risky sexual practices leading to diseases (Monkeypox being the latest) and those in monogamous sexual relationships, maybe you had better start discriminating between the vaxxed and unvaxxed as well!
Kim Iversen is a thinker. I bet she would agree with me on this one.
Bottom line, we need to stop trusting the people we have been blindly trusting (Fauci), and start focusing on people asking good questions being ignored (Iversen).
Copyright © 2022 by Mark S. Schwendau
Mark S. Schwendau is a retired technology professor who has always had a sideline in news-editorial writing where his byline has been, “Bringing little known news to people who simply want to know the truth.” He classifies himself as a Christian conservative who God cast to be a realist. Mark is an award-winning educator who has published 7 books and numerous peer-reviewed trade journal articles some of which can be found on the Internet. His father was a fireman/paramedic while his mother was a registered nurse. He holds multiple degrees in technology education, industrial management, OSHA Safety, and Driver’s Education. His personal website is www.IDrawIWrite.Tech.