1
0:00:00 --> 0:00:04
Peter, Jonathan, Jonathan, you want to share your screen or

2
0:00:04 --> 0:00:05
just conversation?

3
0:00:06 --> 0:00:08
Well, I will share my screen when I get get to the relevant

4
0:00:08 --> 0:00:08
part.

5
0:00:08 --> 0:00:12
All right, I'll make you I'll make you a co host. Yeah.

6
0:00:21 --> 0:00:23
Welcome, Jonathan. Thank you for coming on.

7
0:00:25 --> 0:00:28
All right, everybody. Welcome to medical doctors for COVID

8
0:00:28 --> 0:00:32
ethics international in today's discussion with Dr. Jonathan

9
0:00:32 --> 0:00:36
Engler. This group was founded by Dr. Stephen Frost and Stephen

10
0:00:36 --> 0:00:40
has stood up against government over the years and has been a

11
0:00:40 --> 0:00:43
whistleblower and activist his medical specialties radiology

12
0:00:43 --> 0:00:46
don't come back with this ideas.

13
0:00:47 --> 0:00:50
I'm Charles Coviss, the moderator of this group on

14
0:00:50 --> 0:00:55
Australasias passion provocateur. I wear red because

15
0:00:55 --> 0:00:59
red is the color of passion. I practiced law for 20 years

16
0:00:59 --> 0:01:01
before changing career 30 years ago.

17
0:01:03 --> 0:01:06
And over the last 12 years, I've helped parents and lawyers to

18
0:01:06 --> 0:01:10
strategize remedies for vaccine damage and damage from bad

19
0:01:10 --> 0:01:15
medical advice. I'm also the CEO of an industrial hemp company

20
0:01:15 --> 0:01:18
and Stephen people want me to do a presentation on industrial

21
0:01:18 --> 0:01:21
hemp as an enabler of getting off the grid. So we might do

22
0:01:21 --> 0:01:21
that one day.

23
0:01:22 --> 0:01:23
Yeah, sure.

24
0:01:24 --> 0:01:27
We need to reward you in some way, Charles for getting up at

25
0:01:27 --> 0:01:29
five o'clock in the morning twice a week.

26
0:01:30 --> 0:01:32
Yes, it's not it's not fun.

27
0:01:32 --> 0:01:36
In your winter as well. Yeah, great. Terrible. I couldn't do

28
0:01:36 --> 0:01:36
that.

29
0:01:38 --> 0:01:41
So we comprise lots of professions like me, including

30
0:01:41 --> 0:01:43
idiots, you get up at five o'clock in the morning,

31
0:01:43 --> 0:01:46
doctors, lawyers, homeopaths, journalists, scientists,

32
0:01:46 --> 0:01:49
filmmakers, professors, peacemakers and troublemakers

33
0:01:50 --> 0:01:51
from all around the world.

34
0:01:52 --> 0:01:55
If this is your first time here, welcome and feel free to

35
0:01:55 --> 0:01:59
introduce yourself in the chat and where you are from. If you

36
0:01:59 --> 0:02:02
publish a newsletter or podcast or have a radio or TV show or

37
0:02:02 --> 0:02:06
you've written a book, put the links into the chat so we can

38
0:02:06 --> 0:02:12
follow you and promote you and find you just by the by Daniel

39
0:02:12 --> 0:02:16
Estreland got a big review somewhere I was watching another

40
0:02:16 --> 0:02:21
video, Daniel Estreland has spoken to us twice before. And I

41
0:02:21 --> 0:02:25
bring to your attention his book on the Tavistock Institute, we

42
0:02:25 --> 0:02:29
might talk about that just remind me to talk about it. The

43
0:02:29 --> 0:02:33
Tavistock Institute, I think he gave us a link to his book. It's

44
0:02:33 --> 0:02:34
for it's for free.

45
0:02:36 --> 0:02:41
Yeah. Most of us, I think these days we have, I haven't read it.

46
0:02:41 --> 0:02:44
And I, I don't know anybody who, who hasn't done your

47
0:02:44 --> 0:02:48
work, but Daniel Estreland plays everything down. So I think he's

48
0:02:48 --> 0:02:50
sitting on a lot of information.

49
0:02:51 --> 0:02:54
So most of us understand we're in the middle of World War Three,

50
0:02:54 --> 0:02:57
that there are various battle lines in this war. Most of us

51
0:02:57 --> 0:03:00
understand the development of science and that the science is

52
0:03:00 --> 0:03:04
never settled. Mr. Beding runs for two and a half hours. After

53
0:03:04 --> 0:03:07
which for those with the time Tom Rodman runs a video telegram

54
0:03:07 --> 0:03:12
group, Tom puts the links into the chat if you can join. We will

55
0:03:12 --> 0:03:15
have Jonathan Engler, our guest presenter for as long as Jonathan

56
0:03:15 --> 0:03:19
wishes to speak and then we have Q&A. Stephen Frost, by long

57
0:03:19 --> 0:03:21
established tradition, asked the first questions. There's no

58
0:03:21 --> 0:03:26
censorship. It's a free speech environment. If you're offended

59
0:03:26 --> 0:03:32
by anything, be offended. We don't care. This meeting that

60
0:03:32 --> 0:03:35
we're not, we reject the offence industry that requires nobody to

61
0:03:35 --> 0:03:40
say anything that may offend another. That is the classic way

62
0:03:40 --> 0:03:44
speech and the attack on free speech in Australia that's now

63
0:03:44 --> 0:03:48
underway as it has been in a number of other countries is, is

64
0:03:48 --> 0:03:52
evil at the highest, evil of the highest level. We come with an

65
0:03:52 --> 0:03:56
attitude and perspective of love, not fear. Fear is the

66
0:03:56 --> 0:03:59
opposite of love. Fear squashes you. Love, on the other hand,

67
0:03:59 --> 0:04:02
expands you. If you have a solution or product or links or

68
0:04:02 --> 0:04:05
resources that will help people put the details into the chat,

69
0:04:05 --> 0:04:08
the meeting is recorded and is uploaded onto the Rumble channel.

70
0:04:09 --> 0:04:13
And now welcome to our guest presenter, Jonathan Engler. And

71
0:04:13 --> 0:04:15
we thank you, Jonathan, for giving us your time. And thank

72
0:04:15 --> 0:04:18
you, Stephen Frost, again, for creating this group and for

73
0:04:18 --> 0:04:22
organising Jonathan to speak to us today. Jonathan, welcome and

74
0:04:22 --> 0:04:23
over to you.

75
0:04:24 --> 0:04:29
Thanks very much. It's a pleasure to speak to such a large

76
0:04:29 --> 0:04:32
international, internationally diverse group. I've been to one

77
0:04:32 --> 0:04:37
of your meetings several years ago, but had no exposure to it

78
0:04:37 --> 0:04:41
since then. So it's really great to get to know you all. I

79
0:04:41 --> 0:04:45
haven't prepared any specific slides today, because obviously,

80
0:04:45 --> 0:04:50
I was only contacted this morning to stand in for somebody

81
0:04:50 --> 0:04:53
I think who'd let you down. So it's going to be relatively

82
0:04:53 --> 0:04:57
informal. I thought I would just start off by just telling you a

83
0:04:57 --> 0:05:04
little bit about myself. Obviously British, I studied

84
0:05:04 --> 0:05:10
medicine originally, in Scotland in Abedin University, I then was

85
0:05:11 --> 0:05:13
practising medicine for a few years before I got actually

86
0:05:13 --> 0:05:17
dragged into industry. And I've been I was involved in drug

87
0:05:17 --> 0:05:22
development in the big bad world of pharma, which wasn't quite as

88
0:05:22 --> 0:05:30
bad or big, you know, 30 years ago. And I set up a business,

89
0:05:30 --> 0:05:33
which was actually an IT business with a colleague, which

90
0:05:33 --> 0:05:36
we grew into quite a large international business, which was

91
0:05:36 --> 0:05:43
involved in clinical trial management. And we then sold that

92
0:05:43 --> 0:05:47
business. And during my period in pharma, I actually had quite

93
0:05:47 --> 0:05:51
a bit of regulatory experience, putting together submissions for

94
0:05:51 --> 0:05:54
a cardiology drug actually presented to regulatory

95
0:05:54 --> 0:05:59
authorities wrote reports to regulatory standards, and so on.

96
0:05:59 --> 0:06:03
After we sold the business, I actually retrained became a

97
0:06:03 --> 0:06:08
barrister, of all things, that's a lawyer who talks in

98
0:06:08 --> 0:06:11
court, for those who don't know the difference between solicitors

99
0:06:11 --> 0:06:16
and barristers we have in the UK. And did that for a few years,

100
0:06:16 --> 0:06:22
but actually went back into into business after a few years. And

101
0:06:22 --> 0:06:24
because I missed the cut and thrust of business, I've been

102
0:06:24 --> 0:06:29
involved in a number of sort of healthcare related ventures. My

103
0:06:29 --> 0:06:33
sort of involvement in what we're going to talk about today

104
0:06:33 --> 0:06:40
kind of started in in May 2020, when I thought this is really,

105
0:06:40 --> 0:06:45
really weird what is going on. It was Hancock standing up in

106
0:06:45 --> 0:06:50
the British House of Commons saying, we are going for maximal

107
0:06:50 --> 0:06:53
suppression until we can roll out our vaccines, which I think

108
0:06:53 --> 0:06:58
was either the end of May or beginning of June. And that got

109
0:06:58 --> 0:07:02
me really thinking that's something really, really weird.

110
0:07:02 --> 0:07:06
Up to that point, I have to say I was late compared to some of

111
0:07:06 --> 0:07:10
the people here, I did not see the scam that was unfolding

112
0:07:10 --> 0:07:15
before us. And, you know, I was one of those people who stayed

113
0:07:15 --> 0:07:19
home like a good person, I even clapped for the NHS once on a

114
0:07:19 --> 0:07:24
Thursday night. And, you know, and that but that was all that

115
0:07:24 --> 0:07:31
all turned in about May slash June 2020. And then I got in

116
0:07:31 --> 0:07:36
involved, we formed the in the UK, we formed heart, which some

117
0:07:36 --> 0:07:41
of you will have heard of, I co chair heart with Claire Craig

118
0:07:41 --> 0:07:45
that many of you will will know, Claire and I speak on a daily

119
0:07:45 --> 0:07:50
basis. And we also have the I know here tonight is is Anna

120
0:07:50 --> 0:07:53
Anna Rainer, who is the I believe was assisting you with

121
0:07:53 --> 0:07:58
coordination. She's coordinating helps us with our publications.

122
0:07:58 --> 0:08:04
She without her there would be no heart bulletins, or emails go

123
0:08:04 --> 0:08:10
out at all. And so in heart, we we produce regular bulletins.

124
0:08:11 --> 0:08:15
But I'm also on the exec committee of Panda, which also

125
0:08:15 --> 0:08:19
some of you will have heard of, which is the South African

126
0:08:19 --> 0:08:26
resistance movement, want a better phrase, based out or

127
0:08:26 --> 0:08:31
which is chaired by Nick Hudson, out of he's based in Cape Town.

128
0:08:33 --> 0:08:42
So I have a broad understanding of many of the issues that we

129
0:08:42 --> 0:08:48
face at the moment. And I could talk about many of them. I could

130
0:08:48 --> 0:08:53
I can talk I can bore for hours, as I say, but I've decided to

131
0:08:53 --> 0:08:55
sort of focus it in. I was trying to I was trying to work

132
0:08:55 --> 0:09:00
out in short notice. How what how can I put some focus on what

133
0:09:01 --> 0:09:03
on what I want to speak about? And so what I've decided to do

134
0:09:03 --> 0:09:08
was I decided to show you a tweet that I tweeted yesterday,

135
0:09:09 --> 0:09:13
and then explain to you what my thinking was behind it and why I

136
0:09:13 --> 0:09:17
tweeted what I did, because some people will find what I tweeted

137
0:09:17 --> 0:09:21
controversial, they may not agree with it. And Alex, and we

138
0:09:21 --> 0:09:23
can have a talk about about the merits of what I said. So I'm

139
0:09:23 --> 0:09:29
going to share my screen now. And yeah, so it all started off.

140
0:09:30 --> 0:09:36
We can see that Jonathan good. Let me get rid of the videos.

141
0:09:36 --> 0:09:42
Yeah, it all started off with me watching yesterday. You may know

142
0:09:42 --> 0:09:46
this gentleman's JJ Cooey. Yes, he's absolutely brilliant. Yes.

143
0:09:47 --> 0:09:49
So I watched him and you can see in the middle as Peter McCullough.

144
0:09:50 --> 0:09:54
And this was an hour long interview with Peter, which was

145
0:09:54 --> 0:10:00
just from from a week ago. And I watched this this interview. And

146
0:10:00 --> 0:10:07
I was quite disturbed by the content of it. And I'll go on to

147
0:10:07 --> 0:10:11
show you, you might say to me, why was I disturbed by it, I'm

148
0:10:11 --> 0:10:15
going to show you the tweet that I tweeted, having watched this

149
0:10:15 --> 0:10:20
video. And then we can talk further about the meaning of it.

150
0:10:20 --> 0:10:26
So here we are. This is this is the tweet. This interview. I'll

151
0:10:26 --> 0:10:28
read it out to you. This interview is, I'm afraid, an

152
0:10:28 --> 0:10:33
example of well meaning, but inadvertently unhelpful noise.

153
0:10:33 --> 0:10:37
Peter McCullough is quite clearly a really lovely guy and a

154
0:10:37 --> 0:10:40
brilliant physician. I certainly want him as my doctor if I was

155
0:10:40 --> 0:10:44
critically ill. I suspect from this interview, however, that he

156
0:10:44 --> 0:10:48
has never entertained the notion that the shocking excess death

157
0:10:48 --> 0:10:53
curves observed in New York City and northern Italy, which were

158
0:10:53 --> 0:10:57
central to driving the scary virus narrative, were entirely or

159
0:10:57 --> 0:11:01
to a large extent disconnected from the direct effects of the

160
0:11:01 --> 0:11:05
virus. The above is notwithstanding, he acknowledges

161
0:11:05 --> 0:11:08
that there were harmful practices carried out, he just

162
0:11:08 --> 0:11:12
isn't joining the dots. He is clearly a true believer in the

163
0:11:12 --> 0:11:17
need for pandemic preparedness. From minute 24, he even quotes

164
0:11:17 --> 0:11:23
Tedros Gates, Hotez and Fauci, all saying that COVID-19 was a

165
0:11:23 --> 0:11:27
warm up for the next bigger pandemic, which is bound to come

166
0:11:27 --> 0:11:31
our way. While he clearly does not express full enthusiasm for

167
0:11:31 --> 0:11:34
these individuals, he goes on to say that we should take those

168
0:11:34 --> 0:11:39
utterances seriously. And we should formulate an approach

169
0:11:39 --> 0:11:44
with four pillars of pandemic response, with committees to

170
0:11:44 --> 0:11:50
advise on one contagion control, then talks a bit about nasal

171
0:11:50 --> 0:11:55
sprays, two early treatment protocols, three hospital care, I

172
0:11:55 --> 0:12:01
figure out which hospitals did best, and four vaccination. All

173
0:12:01 --> 0:12:06
the time, this kind of talk reinforces the need for

174
0:12:06 --> 0:12:10
preparedness. And the idea that the only problem was that we

175
0:12:10 --> 0:12:14
didn't do it right last time. So what do we need if we didn't do

176
0:12:14 --> 0:12:18
it right last time? More control, more planning, better

177
0:12:18 --> 0:12:23
experts. Nope. What we actually need to prevent the next

178
0:12:23 --> 0:12:29
pandemic is decentralization, governments getting the leap out

179
0:12:29 --> 0:12:34
of our lives and staying out. I then followed that up with two

180
0:12:34 --> 0:12:40
follow up tweets. I doubt Peter sees the similarities between the

181
0:12:40 --> 0:12:44
COVID event and what happened a mere decade before. I then refer

182
0:12:45 --> 0:12:49
the audience to an incredible article actually from Forbes

183
0:12:49 --> 0:12:54
magazine from 2009, which talks about basically the fake swine

184
0:12:54 --> 0:12:58
flu pandemic. And I also then refer to an article that somebody

185
0:12:58 --> 0:13:01
brought to my attention in German, the English language

186
0:13:01 --> 0:13:05
version of Spiegel, a German magazine, which is

187
0:13:05 --> 0:13:09
reconstruction of a mass hysteria, the swine flu panic of

188
0:13:09 --> 0:13:12
2009. And I've actually never seen this quote before. This is

189
0:13:12 --> 0:13:19
Tom Jefferson, who you will know works with Carl Hennigan, was

190
0:13:19 --> 0:13:21
formerly Cochrane collaboration. I think he's fallen out with

191
0:13:21 --> 0:13:27
Cochrane. But he says here, quote from Tom Jefferson,

192
0:13:27 --> 0:13:30
sometimes you get the feeling that there is a whole industry

193
0:13:30 --> 0:13:37
almost waiting for a pandemic to occur. And so that's really the

194
0:13:37 --> 0:13:40
sort of background to what I wanted to talk about. So

195
0:13:40 --> 0:13:47
basically, I am of the view that we need to challenge extremely

196
0:13:47 --> 0:13:52
vehemently the whole basis that there has been a pandemic. I'm

197
0:13:52 --> 0:13:56
going to talk now about how how I came to that view. But before I

198
0:13:56 --> 0:14:00
do that, I just want to acknowledge the fact that you

199
0:14:00 --> 0:14:02
will see that screen by the way.

200
0:14:02 --> 0:14:03
Yes, yes.

201
0:14:05 --> 0:14:08
Can I just say it's very important what you're saying. So

202
0:14:08 --> 0:14:13
we need people to hear. And for some reason, at least my when

203
0:14:13 --> 0:14:17
I'm listening to your voice is very, very low. I can I can make

204
0:14:17 --> 0:14:17
it out.

205
0:14:17 --> 0:14:22
No, no, no, Stephen. It's fine for me. Totally normal. So my

206
0:14:22 --> 0:14:27
speaker, totally good. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Keep going. Jonathan.

207
0:14:27 --> 0:14:32
Yeah. Check your speakers, Stephen. Yep.

208
0:14:33 --> 0:14:39
I'll have a normal be here. Danny rankers website, can you?

209
0:14:39 --> 0:14:39
Yep.

210
0:14:40 --> 0:14:48
So before I go on to explain how I reached these conclusions, I

211
0:14:48 --> 0:14:54
need to acknowledge that Danny ranker basically worked this all

212
0:14:54 --> 0:15:00
out in June 2020. So this is basically, we're going to go

213
0:15:00 --> 0:15:04
through this paper, you can go to it, Danny ranker dot ca. He's

214
0:15:04 --> 0:15:09
got loads of papers there. And basically, in June 2020, he

215
0:15:09 --> 0:15:13
published this paper, all cause mortality during COVID-19, no

216
0:15:13 --> 0:15:17
plague, and a likely signature of mass homicide by government

217
0:15:17 --> 0:15:24
response. Okay, so I'm going to talk to you now about how I came

218
0:15:24 --> 0:15:28
to the conclusion that I came to. And I'm going to through a

219
0:15:28 --> 0:15:32
series of take you through a series of thought processes that

220
0:15:32 --> 0:15:37
I went through. And this is pandas, substack page. And this

221
0:15:37 --> 0:15:44
is, I started working with a rather brilliant guy in Panda,

222
0:15:45 --> 0:15:50
who is a geographer. And he alerted me to a few things. He

223
0:15:50 --> 0:15:54
doesn't wish to be in the forefront of things and wish to

224
0:15:54 --> 0:15:58
be in the limelight. So he's fed me some information, a lot of

225
0:15:58 --> 0:16:01
we've worked on together, and I formulated into a number of

226
0:16:01 --> 0:16:07
substack articles. And so the if we start off here in where the

227
0:16:07 --> 0:16:14
panic basically started in Lombardy, in 2020, this is a

228
0:16:14 --> 0:16:22
graph here of the regions in Lombardy and the total number of

229
0:16:22 --> 0:16:26
deaths in Lombardy. And what I will say, say to here is that

230
0:16:26 --> 0:16:30
there's two two very, very weird things looking at these

231
0:16:31 --> 0:16:37
these graphs. The first one is that all these regions here, the

232
0:16:38 --> 0:16:41
excess deaths kick off basically, similar completely

233
0:16:41 --> 0:16:45
simultaneously. And that is not at all what you'd expect with

234
0:16:45 --> 0:16:49
something spreading. In fact, with something spreading, you'd

235
0:16:49 --> 0:16:52
expect one region to light up, then the neighboring region to

236
0:16:52 --> 0:16:55
light up, then the neighboring region for that and then to all

237
0:16:55 --> 0:16:58
sort of light up and start burning at different times and

238
0:16:58 --> 0:17:02
then then basically fizzle out at different times. But here you

239
0:17:02 --> 0:17:06
have this incredibly narrow sharp peak of deaths, which

240
0:17:06 --> 0:17:10
occurs simultaneously. The other point is that the amount of

241
0:17:10 --> 0:17:14
death that's actually occurring is absolutely huge. So if you go

242
0:17:14 --> 0:17:17
back here, this this goes back obviously to 2017. So you can

243
0:17:17 --> 0:17:22
see the average kind of winter death here. And I think one of

244
0:17:22 --> 0:17:26
these was probably what they called a bad flu season. And you

245
0:17:26 --> 0:17:29
just look at the number of deaths there are happening here

246
0:17:29 --> 0:17:33
and then you look at actually what happened in spring 2020.

247
0:17:33 --> 0:17:37
It's completely off the charts. And in fact, if you look

248
0:17:37 --> 0:17:42
specifically at Bergamo, this is just total number of daily

249
0:17:42 --> 0:17:45
deaths in Bergamo, which is obviously the worst, said to be

250
0:17:45 --> 0:17:49
the worst hit region. Again, you can see that the variations in

251
0:17:49 --> 0:17:53
the total number of deaths that happen in an average winter are

252
0:17:53 --> 0:17:58
really just minuscule. That they're, they're very, very low.

253
0:17:58 --> 0:18:04
And then you have this event here in spring 2020, which is

254
0:18:04 --> 0:18:08
completely off the charts. And as I point out in the article, so

255
0:18:08 --> 0:18:12
the daily deaths in Bergamo usually bottom out in in the

256
0:18:12 --> 0:18:18
sort of 20s, going to 30 or maybe up to 40 in the winter.

257
0:18:19 --> 0:18:24
But in spring 2020, in the in three weeks after the start of

258
0:18:24 --> 0:18:29
this pandemic, 336 people died in a week. And this is this is

259
0:18:29 --> 0:18:32
it presented in percentage terms. So you can see there was

260
0:18:32 --> 0:18:39
basically 1000% excess deaths in a number of weeks in spring

261
0:18:39 --> 0:18:49
2020. And of course, in these terms, the flu, bad flu seasons

262
0:18:49 --> 0:18:58
are basically invisible. And what the Panda colleague pointed

263
0:18:58 --> 0:19:02
out was he said that he said the only other time when he has seen

264
0:19:02 --> 0:19:07
something that looks like that was actually in France here in

265
0:19:08 --> 0:19:11
2003. And I don't know who remembers it. I remember it was

266
0:19:11 --> 0:19:16
actually in France 2003 on a family holiday. The heatwave.

267
0:19:17 --> 0:19:24
They had this heatwave that killed 1000s of people. It is

268
0:19:24 --> 0:19:27
said that the heatwave killed 1000s of people. And in fact,

269
0:19:27 --> 0:19:34
here, here is the excess deaths for France. And this is 2003

270
0:19:34 --> 0:19:37
here. And you can see that actually there is excess death

271
0:19:37 --> 0:19:41
here of around 80%. So that stands out like a sore thumb,

272
0:19:41 --> 0:19:47
but that's only 80%. What happened in Lombardy was 10 times

273
0:19:47 --> 0:19:54
that. Okay, so that was barely doubling 80% excess death. We

274
0:19:54 --> 0:19:58
had basically between eight and 10 times normal death in

275
0:19:58 --> 0:20:02
Lombardy. Yet this was a national scandal in France.

276
0:20:03 --> 0:20:08
Because what they discovered is that basically, the deaths here

277
0:20:08 --> 0:20:12
were a lot of elderly people dying from neglect. This was

278
0:20:12 --> 0:20:16
mainly elderly people in a tenement apartment blocks, who

279
0:20:16 --> 0:20:21
had been left by relatives. There was clear association with

280
0:20:22 --> 0:20:24
people who were in the upper floors, people with

281
0:20:24 --> 0:20:27
comorbidities, and people basically died of neglect, they

282
0:20:27 --> 0:20:31
died of thirst and heatstroke. And all that was needed to save

283
0:20:31 --> 0:20:34
the lives of these elderly people, many of whom anyway,

284
0:20:34 --> 0:20:37
would be pretty frail, but that's not the point. But many

285
0:20:37 --> 0:20:39
of the things that would have needed to be saved were

286
0:20:39 --> 0:20:44
basically regular fans cooling, and just normal social care and

287
0:20:44 --> 0:20:52
regular giving plenty of drinking water. And if the

288
0:20:52 --> 0:20:57
reason I point this out is the point that this was basically

289
0:20:57 --> 0:21:02
neglect is that neglect and a change in the normal social care

290
0:21:02 --> 0:21:07
and healthcare apparatus, which keeps elderly people functional

291
0:21:07 --> 0:21:14
and alive was basically being completely disturbed. And my

292
0:21:14 --> 0:21:19
hypothesis is, well, this is maybe what happened in the UK and

293
0:21:19 --> 0:21:24
many other countries in that terrible period in April, March

294
0:21:24 --> 0:21:30
and April 2020. I then wrote, we then wrote together we wrote

295
0:21:31 --> 0:21:35
another article a few weeks later with the rather prosaic

296
0:21:35 --> 0:21:39
title, with the unprecedented excess death curves in northern

297
0:21:39 --> 0:21:43
Italy caused by the spread of a novel deadly virus. And in this

298
0:21:43 --> 0:21:48
we went into a deeper dive in the in the actual data in northern

299
0:21:48 --> 0:21:51
Italy. Northern Italy is Italy is interesting, it has a

300
0:21:51 --> 0:21:56
statistics department in Italy where you can actually download

301
0:21:56 --> 0:22:01
daily death data, all cause daily death data in very, very

302
0:22:01 --> 0:22:05
small region, very, very small towns, cities and villages. And

303
0:22:05 --> 0:22:08
this is quite unusual. I don't think they realize the Italian

304
0:22:08 --> 0:22:12
statistics authority does not realize the power of this data.

305
0:22:12 --> 0:22:16
It is probably the best most granular, all cause mortality

306
0:22:16 --> 0:22:22
data that there is anywhere in the world. We've got a raised

307
0:22:22 --> 0:22:24
hand. Peter, do you want to ask a question?

308
0:22:25 --> 0:22:30
Oh, no. So we have a queue, Jonathan, I should have told you

309
0:22:30 --> 0:22:34
that. And, but it doesn't mean to say that people aren't

310
0:22:34 --> 0:22:39
listening to you. Also in the chat is stuff going on doesn't

311
0:22:39 --> 0:22:42
mean to say that people aren't listening to you. Okay, fine. I

312
0:22:42 --> 0:22:43
can't read the chat.

313
0:22:43 --> 0:22:46
Questions come after your presentation. You can speak for

314
0:22:46 --> 0:22:47
as long as you like.

315
0:22:47 --> 0:22:53
Fine. So in this presentation, I thought we did was we downloaded

316
0:22:53 --> 0:23:02
all the daily death data. And we put it into this in northern

317
0:23:02 --> 0:23:07
Italy. And we represented it in this graphic here. And this graph,

318
0:23:07 --> 0:23:11
the idea of this analysis was to work out whether or not there

319
0:23:11 --> 0:23:18
was any evidence of the spread of a phenomenon. If you have a

320
0:23:18 --> 0:23:22
hypothesis that a virus spread through northern Italy, causing

321
0:23:22 --> 0:23:26
these waves of excess deaths, you should see what is called

322
0:23:26 --> 0:23:29
autocorrelation. And autocorrelation is actually a

323
0:23:29 --> 0:23:35
mathematical measure of the degree of clustering that takes

324
0:23:35 --> 0:23:40
place. So the analogy that I draw in this article is if you

325
0:23:40 --> 0:23:47
can imagine if you find a burnt out forest, it looks like a

326
0:23:47 --> 0:23:51
burnt out forest, everything's burnt. If I said, did that

327
0:23:51 --> 0:23:58
happen through the imposition of an event where everything burnt

328
0:23:58 --> 0:24:01
at the same time? Or did it happen through the spread of

329
0:24:01 --> 0:24:04
somebody leaving a barbecue lying about and then it spreads

330
0:24:04 --> 0:24:08
in tendrils and one bit fires up and then the next bit fires up,

331
0:24:08 --> 0:24:13
and in which case you would get clustering. And so we thought to

332
0:24:13 --> 0:24:17
do the same analysis with all the data in northern Italy. And

333
0:24:17 --> 0:24:21
in fact, if you look here at this data here, this is the

334
0:24:21 --> 0:24:27
number of people dying from all causes in February. And it's the

335
0:24:27 --> 0:24:32
percent expected. So based on what has happened over the last

336
0:24:32 --> 0:24:35
few years, and you can see here that the colour, the way we've

337
0:24:35 --> 0:24:38
chosen the colours here, these are the sort of light, bluey,

338
0:24:38 --> 0:24:43
greeny colours are basically within what you, within a small

339
0:24:43 --> 0:24:50
amount of what you'd expect. And if you go on to, I'm just going

340
0:24:50 --> 0:24:55
to go on here, to what happened in March, you see this effect

341
0:24:55 --> 0:24:59
here. And you might see what you might think is some clustering,

342
0:24:59 --> 0:25:03
see some regions here with a high degree of number of deaths

343
0:25:03 --> 0:25:10
with up to three, 400 times, 400% increased deaths. So at first

344
0:25:10 --> 0:25:12
glance, you might think that this is clustering. And if

345
0:25:12 --> 0:25:15
there's clustering, this supports the view that something

346
0:25:15 --> 0:25:22
spread as opposed to something being imposed. But if you what

347
0:25:22 --> 0:25:26
we did here was we created a mathematical model, we actually

348
0:25:26 --> 0:25:33
analysed the data according to the provincial border, the

349
0:25:33 --> 0:25:38
provincial area in which each small area resided. And when you

350
0:25:38 --> 0:25:41
take that away, you basically take away virtually all the

351
0:25:41 --> 0:25:46
clustering. I hope this is clear to people. But I'll just explain

352
0:25:46 --> 0:25:51
this again, is that when you analyse, you look at the deaths

353
0:25:51 --> 0:25:55
that occurred in March, in northern Italy, it looks like

354
0:25:55 --> 0:25:58
there's a degree of clustering. But actually, when you account

355
0:25:58 --> 0:26:03
for the provincial borders, there is no that cancels out the

356
0:26:03 --> 0:26:07
clustering. What this means is that the number of deaths that

357
0:26:07 --> 0:26:13
occurred in one of these small blobs was related, basically

358
0:26:13 --> 0:26:16
could be predicted from the provincial area in which that

359
0:26:17 --> 0:26:22
blob resided, and had much less or very, very insignificant

360
0:26:22 --> 0:26:25
amount of relationship to the neighbouring districts around it,

361
0:26:26 --> 0:26:29
which is the opposite of what you would expect if something had

362
0:26:29 --> 0:26:32
been spreading across, across Italy, across northern Italy.

363
0:26:33 --> 0:26:36
And this supports the view quite strongly that it was the

364
0:26:36 --> 0:26:43
imposition of a set of protocols, a policy response,

365
0:26:43 --> 0:26:46
which actually resulted in the deaths. I mean, this is aside

366
0:26:46 --> 0:26:50
from obviously the, you know, the humongous scale of the number

367
0:26:50 --> 0:26:54
of deaths that have been reported, which is another point

368
0:26:54 --> 0:26:58
evidencing the fact that what happened here was highly

369
0:26:58 --> 0:27:03
unusual and nothing to do with the spread of a virus. Okay. And

370
0:27:03 --> 0:27:07
in fact, this is, this is, this was May, and you can see what,

371
0:27:07 --> 0:27:09
if you remember, I said at the beginning that if you had a

372
0:27:09 --> 0:27:13
forest fire, where everything started at a different time,

373
0:27:13 --> 0:27:16
you'd expect everything to burn out at a different time. And in

374
0:27:16 --> 0:27:21
fact, what we see here is that all the fires basically go out

375
0:27:21 --> 0:27:24
at the same time. Well, that's very weird. You'd expect some

376
0:27:24 --> 0:27:27
areas to linger on, you'd expect some areas to have been untouched

377
0:27:27 --> 0:27:32
by the virus until later on and then be touched by, you know, a

378
0:27:32 --> 0:27:36
late infected person in another region, and then to be a little

379
0:27:36 --> 0:27:39
cluster somewhere else. That's not what happens at all in

380
0:27:39 --> 0:27:42
northern Italy. Basically, everywhere lights up at the same

381
0:27:42 --> 0:27:45
time, and everywhere goes out at the same time. And that is, is

382
0:27:45 --> 0:27:48
basically just not at all what you'd expect from the spread of

383
0:27:48 --> 0:27:54
a virus. I'm going to show you now the next article that I

384
0:27:54 --> 0:27:59
wrote, which I wrote here, article here with Martin Neil,

385
0:28:00 --> 0:28:03
Norman Fenton, and Nick Hudson, we co authored this together.

386
0:28:03 --> 0:28:05
I'm not going to go into it in detail, I'm just going to show

387
0:28:05 --> 0:28:12
you New York, because New York followed on from obviously from

388
0:28:12 --> 0:28:16
what happened in there's the Bergamo data again, this is this

389
0:28:16 --> 0:28:21
is New York here, but I'm going to show you another New York,

390
0:28:21 --> 0:28:23
I'm going to show you this New York, because it's much more

391
0:28:23 --> 0:28:29
impressive. So this is, this is basically excess mortality in

392
0:28:29 --> 0:28:36
New York City, going back to 2015. And again, it's exactly

393
0:28:36 --> 0:28:43
the same pattern, which is that your winters barely register.

394
0:28:43 --> 0:28:45
Many people say a lot of people die in the winter, that's a lot

395
0:28:45 --> 0:28:50
of people. But this here is a humongous number of people. And

396
0:28:50 --> 0:28:56
again, we've got sort of excess death up to 600 700%, completely

397
0:28:56 --> 0:28:59
unnatural. And the thing that you've got to think about when

398
0:28:59 --> 0:29:04
you see a curve like that is what could spread if it was that

399
0:29:04 --> 0:29:10
lethal, and that contagious? First of all, how can there be

400
0:29:10 --> 0:29:15
any evidence of any spread prior to the emergency being declared?

401
0:29:16 --> 0:29:19
And of course, lots of people have now written about the

402
0:29:19 --> 0:29:22
existence of this, of the signature of this virus being

403
0:29:22 --> 0:29:28
found for months before this time. And also, why if it was

404
0:29:28 --> 0:29:31
this lethal, this contagious, why wasn't that repeated in other

405
0:29:31 --> 0:29:37
cities? And take another example, basically one on one

406
0:29:37 --> 0:29:41
side of the Canadian border, I the US side, there were there

407
0:29:41 --> 0:29:44
was very, very significant excess death in spring. On the

408
0:29:44 --> 0:29:47
other side of the same border, which has a lot of traffic over,

409
0:29:47 --> 0:29:51
by the way, and it's an airborne virus, there was virtually no

410
0:29:51 --> 0:29:55
there was no excess death at all in spring 2020. How on earth

411
0:29:55 --> 0:29:59
can this be this these are completely contradictory. And of

412
0:29:59 --> 0:30:03
course, we also know from Ian, Ian, it is his work, John Ian

413
0:30:03 --> 0:30:07
it is his work, which has looked at serial prevalence, we know

414
0:30:07 --> 0:30:14
that the lethality of whatever it is, is in the same ballpark as

415
0:30:14 --> 0:30:19
seasonal flu. But how can something that is in the same

416
0:30:19 --> 0:30:24
ballpark seasonal flu result in these kind of curves, it just

417
0:30:25 --> 0:30:31
does not stack up. So this is what how the theory sort of came

418
0:30:31 --> 0:30:35
to be to be formed. I'm just going to show you a bit just

419
0:30:35 --> 0:30:39
just out of interest in if any of you don't subscribe to Bill

420
0:30:39 --> 0:30:42
Rice, Jr. newsletter, that's worth sub stack, it's worth

421
0:30:44 --> 0:30:47
subscribing to and there they talk here, he's got an article

422
0:30:47 --> 0:30:51
here on officials intentionally concealed evidence of early

423
0:30:51 --> 0:30:56
spread because his theory is that US officials knew there was

424
0:30:56 --> 0:31:00
evidence of early spread. And they knew the significance of it

425
0:31:00 --> 0:31:06
to the narrative that if people knew this had been spreading for

426
0:31:06 --> 0:31:10
months before the emergency was declared, they would ask the

427
0:31:10 --> 0:31:15
question, how come this this virus could spread globally,

428
0:31:15 --> 0:31:20
completely unnoticed? And why do all the excess deaths kick off

429
0:31:21 --> 0:31:27
at the time that the emergency is declared? So this is the key

430
0:31:27 --> 0:31:30
point is why do all the excess death curves only kick off when

431
0:31:30 --> 0:31:35
the emergency is declared? And of course, the Occam's razor is

432
0:31:35 --> 0:31:39
that, you know, we look to parsimony in science, we look to

433
0:31:39 --> 0:31:44
the simplest explanation to be the default hypothesis. And the

434
0:31:44 --> 0:31:47
default hypothesis must be that it was the declaration of the

435
0:31:47 --> 0:31:52
emergency and the measures that were instituted at the at that

436
0:31:52 --> 0:31:56
time, which actually resulted in the excess deaths themselves.

437
0:31:57 --> 0:32:00
And that is rank or theory, obviously as well. And just a

438
0:32:00 --> 0:32:04
little bit of sort of back chatter here is that that we

439
0:32:05 --> 0:32:12
having published our article, this article here, this is the

440
0:32:12 --> 0:32:18
myself with Norman and Martin, Neil and Nick, we then had a

441
0:32:19 --> 0:32:27
article from in the Daily Skeptic from Will Jones, a

442
0:32:27 --> 0:32:35
defense of the virus theory. And following that, we actually

443
0:32:35 --> 0:32:42
published a rebuttal to that that will just refuse to publish

444
0:32:42 --> 0:32:46
which we were quite quite disturbed by. And on the same

445
0:32:46 --> 0:32:52
in the same vein, we've actually published an article on flu,

446
0:32:52 --> 0:32:58
but the disappearing flu story. And again, immediately steps in.

447
0:33:00 --> 0:33:03
Will Jones steps in with how do we know flu really did

448
0:33:03 --> 0:33:09
disappear. And we wrote a, a, he refused to publish our

449
0:33:09 --> 0:33:12
rebuttal to that but published an article that we put so we

450
0:33:12 --> 0:33:15
we published our own article, the Daily Skeptic are absolutely

451
0:33:15 --> 0:33:18
sure flu vanished, but they didn't actually look at any of

452
0:33:18 --> 0:33:24
our any of our evidence. And so, so that's kind of sort of, I'm

453
0:33:24 --> 0:33:30
going to stop sharing now. I think I've set out, in a sense,

454
0:33:30 --> 0:33:35
I've set out the the thesis. And why I'm going to go back now to

455
0:33:36 --> 0:33:46
the tweet, Peter McCullough tweet. So my point is that the

456
0:33:46 --> 0:33:48
excess death curves in particularly in Northern Italy

457
0:33:48 --> 0:33:53
and New York drove this narrative of a scary virus. If

458
0:33:53 --> 0:33:58
they're not true, then really the the whole pandemic narrative

459
0:33:58 --> 0:34:03
sort of falls apart. And it doesn't really matter whether or

460
0:34:03 --> 0:34:09
not it's a leaked virus, whether it lab or it came from a

461
0:34:09 --> 0:34:13
zoonotic origin, it's kind of irrelevant, because it wasn't

462
0:34:13 --> 0:34:16
that dangerous. And I believe that this is what a lot of

463
0:34:16 --> 0:34:21
groups and a lot of people, some of the people even on our side

464
0:34:21 --> 0:34:25
either either deliberately or inadvertently are gatekeeping

465
0:34:25 --> 0:34:29
this fact, which is that it really wasn't that dangerous.

466
0:34:29 --> 0:34:32
And that's the core point that I'm trying to get across. And

467
0:34:32 --> 0:34:35
the reason why this is important to get across is

468
0:34:35 --> 0:34:40
because we have a whole, as you must have spoken about on

469
0:34:40 --> 0:34:46
previous sessions is the whole WHO, the whole pandemic

470
0:34:46 --> 0:34:50
preparedness industry. So far, they they managed to siphon, you

471
0:34:50 --> 0:34:54
know, about three, four trillion out of taxpayers into private

472
0:34:54 --> 0:34:59
corporations, they want to do it again. And their main weapon

473
0:34:59 --> 0:35:03
for doing it again is to convince people that we had a

474
0:35:03 --> 0:35:07
we just escaped this pandemic, we've got another more serious

475
0:35:07 --> 0:35:11
one that could easily hit us. And for that reason, we need to

476
0:35:11 --> 0:35:19
be totally prepared. And well meaning though, he might be the

477
0:35:19 --> 0:35:24
messages from people like, like Peter, merely reinforce that

478
0:35:24 --> 0:35:27
narrative. So he basically talked about a pandemic, and

479
0:35:27 --> 0:35:32
he's talked about pandemic preparedness. And, you know, and

480
0:35:32 --> 0:35:38
he's even even that tacitly acknowledged the fact that the

481
0:35:38 --> 0:35:46
next one could be worse. And so, and of course, I saw this is

482
0:35:46 --> 0:35:50
the problem, I think, with a lot of the advocates of early

483
0:35:50 --> 0:35:56
treatment, who say things like, they say, early treatment, if

484
0:35:56 --> 0:35:58
only we had had early treatment, we could have saved

485
0:35:59 --> 0:36:03
millions of lives. I mean, this is really a nonsense, because

486
0:36:04 --> 0:36:07
millions of people, the lethality of this virus wasn't

487
0:36:07 --> 0:36:12
so such that it could cause on its own, millions and millions

488
0:36:12 --> 0:36:16
of deaths. Those deaths were caused by dystopia, a series of

489
0:36:16 --> 0:36:20
dystopian treatment policies. So to say that early treatment

490
0:36:20 --> 0:36:25
would have prevented a pandemic is, in my opinion, is the

491
0:36:25 --> 0:36:28
complete nonsense and quite a dangerous trap to fall into.

492
0:36:28 --> 0:36:30
Because of course, there wasn't really anything that really

493
0:36:30 --> 0:36:33
needed early treatment, all that all that we needed to do was

494
0:36:33 --> 0:36:37
carry on treating people with respiratory illnesses, as we've

495
0:36:37 --> 0:36:43
always treated them in the past. And so that's really what led to

496
0:36:43 --> 0:36:48
the trying to call out this whole notion that there was a

497
0:36:48 --> 0:36:52
scary virus, and we need to be better prepared in in in future.

498
0:36:53 --> 0:36:58
And so that's really kind of basically where I wanted to

499
0:36:59 --> 0:37:03
end what I say, I have to take some questions. I'm not talking

500
0:37:03 --> 0:37:08
about I've deliberately stayed completely off talking about

501
0:37:08 --> 0:37:15
vaccination. I've got a lot I could say about that, happy to

502
0:37:15 --> 0:37:18
come back and maybe talk a bit about what we've been doing on

503
0:37:18 --> 0:37:21
vaccination. And the reason is because I'm really particularly

504
0:37:21 --> 0:37:27
interested in this spring 2020. That is the genesis of the

505
0:37:27 --> 0:37:30
narrative. And so I would say the phrase I would just say is,

506
0:37:31 --> 0:37:37
is that stop searching for the origin of the virus and start

507
0:37:37 --> 0:37:41
searching for the origin of the narrative. That's really where

508
0:37:41 --> 0:37:44
and on that note, I think I'll stop talking for a bit and we

509
0:37:44 --> 0:37:46
can have some some questions.

510
0:37:46 --> 0:37:50
So Jonathan, what you've said is really important. You've come to

511
0:37:50 --> 0:37:55
exactly the same conclusion as I we established that in emails

512
0:37:55 --> 0:37:59
today. But I've come at it from a different route from the way

513
0:37:59 --> 0:38:03
that medicine was practiced. And I knew, as you said, you know,

514
0:38:03 --> 0:38:09
you're not is published the famous October 2020 paper, which

515
0:38:10 --> 0:38:14
as far as I was concerned was proof that this I knew before,

516
0:38:14 --> 0:38:21
you know, just from feeling that it was proof that this so-called

517
0:38:21 --> 0:38:29
virus and viral illness was not not a concern, nevermind deadly.

518
0:38:33 --> 0:38:37
And so in my opinion, what you've outlined is, is a kind of they

519
0:38:37 --> 0:38:41
created a narrative to create fear. They deliberately

520
0:38:42 --> 0:38:45
psychologically tortured populations around the world into

521
0:38:45 --> 0:38:50
a state of Stockholm syndrome. And this is pure evil, as I see

522
0:38:50 --> 0:38:55
it. And as you say, the deaths were due to the measures after

523
0:38:55 --> 0:39:00
the emergency was declared by the WHO of all organisations. We

524
0:39:00 --> 0:39:03
can't trust them. We couldn't trust them in 2009. We still

525
0:39:03 --> 0:39:06
can't trust them. Everybody forgot 2009.

526
0:39:06 --> 0:39:10
Yeah, it's absolutely I would. I mean, I'll circulate the links

527
0:39:10 --> 0:39:14
to various material afterwards. And I'm sure Stephen will

528
0:39:15 --> 0:39:19
forward it on. But it is worth reading the Forbes article from

529
0:39:19 --> 0:39:24
2009 because it is absolutely uncanny how similar they were.

530
0:39:24 --> 0:39:28
It seems to me that the the main differences between 2009 and

531
0:39:28 --> 0:39:36
2020 were that they basically they they had there weren't the

532
0:39:36 --> 0:39:41
deaths that occurred in 2009. So they were unable to scare people

533
0:39:41 --> 0:39:45
sufficiently. In 2020, because the degree of dystopia and fear

534
0:39:45 --> 0:39:48
was that much greater, they obviously started to have these

535
0:39:48 --> 0:39:52
huge numbers of excess deaths. And that may be related to I

536
0:39:52 --> 0:39:57
mean, obviously, you can be very conspiratorial about it and say

537
0:39:57 --> 0:40:01
that they fixed the problem in 2009 and made sure people die,

538
0:40:01 --> 0:40:05
died, or you could take a more charitable approach and say that

539
0:40:05 --> 0:40:09
the the level of dystopia and fear was that much greater

540
0:40:09 --> 0:40:12
because the PCR technology, I mean, one point I haven't heard

541
0:40:12 --> 0:40:15
anybody say, which I think is important is that the PCR

542
0:40:15 --> 0:40:23
technology was has come on hugely since 2009. And so is that

543
0:40:23 --> 0:40:26
much more dangerous when misused. So they were able to

544
0:40:26 --> 0:40:31
ramp it up much more cheaply, although it still cost a fortune,

545
0:40:31 --> 0:40:35
ramp it up much more cheaply and much more quickly, which, of

546
0:40:35 --> 0:40:38
course, enabled them to roll out this asymptomatic mass

547
0:40:38 --> 0:40:44
testing, which has been falls into the category of pure, pure

548
0:40:44 --> 0:40:46
evil. The asymptomatic mass testing.

549
0:40:47 --> 0:40:52
Yes, I agree. Yeah. And so and I think in 2009 as well, another

550
0:40:52 --> 0:40:56
difference was that they hadn't got control of the doctors, they

551
0:40:56 --> 0:41:00
hadn't realized that Wolfgang Wodarg, who was a not only a

552
0:41:00 --> 0:41:03
medical doctor in Germany, but he was also a politician. And he

553
0:41:03 --> 0:41:07
was actually heading the Council of Europe's health

554
0:41:10 --> 0:41:13
section, as I understand it at the time, and he made sure the

555
0:41:13 --> 0:41:18
Council of Europe investigated the 2009 swine flu pandemic. And

556
0:41:18 --> 0:41:22
the report is I sent it to you today. The report is there on

557
0:41:22 --> 0:41:22
the internet.

558
0:41:24 --> 0:41:28
Yeah, I mean, there's also you can find clips from, you know,

559
0:41:29 --> 0:41:32
channel four, which is a British television channel, you can find

560
0:41:32 --> 0:41:36
their documentary about it. Basically, you can find that on

561
0:41:36 --> 0:41:40
YouTube, you can, as Stephen said, and I'll circulate this as

562
0:41:40 --> 0:41:44
well, you can find this this European Parliament report,

563
0:41:45 --> 0:41:48
actually European Commission report, I should say, which was

564
0:41:48 --> 0:41:53
chaired by Paul Flynn, the Labour MP, who was actually the

565
0:41:53 --> 0:41:57
Labour MEP, who was the what they call the rapporteur of that

566
0:41:57 --> 0:42:01
committee, and that and was responsible for that report. It

567
0:42:01 --> 0:42:03
makes quite astonishing reading.

568
0:42:04 --> 0:42:07
Yes, exactly. So it looks to me that Wolfgang Wodog

569
0:42:07 --> 0:42:15
single handedly broke the spell, if you like in 2010, and, and

570
0:42:15 --> 0:42:19
made sure there was an investigation and the and the

571
0:42:19 --> 0:42:25
the right conclusions were drawn. But very interestingly, I

572
0:42:25 --> 0:42:29
didn't know about the report. I knew I remembered the swine flu

573
0:42:29 --> 0:42:32
pandemic experience, I knew it was a fraud. I remember

574
0:42:32 --> 0:42:36
thinking, why on earth we got a respiratory pandemic, you know,

575
0:42:36 --> 0:42:40
respiratory viral pandemic in the middle of summer. And I was

576
0:42:40 --> 0:42:45
working for the military at the time. And, and somebody was

577
0:42:45 --> 0:42:48
telling us to remove blue tack from from the walls one

578
0:42:48 --> 0:42:52
afternoon. And I went I decided, you know, because it was

579
0:42:52 --> 0:42:55
difficult to resist the narrative in the military,

580
0:42:55 --> 0:42:59
because if you did openly, you you maybe marched off the camp

581
0:42:59 --> 0:43:03
later that day, you know, so I just decided to get myself lost

582
0:43:03 --> 0:43:07
in the in the toilets for the afternoon, and nobody found me.

583
0:43:07 --> 0:43:10
Yeah, I mean, another way of thinking about what happened in

584
0:43:10 --> 0:43:14
spring, which is which I do lay out in one of those articles, I

585
0:43:14 --> 0:43:19
said, imagine there was no virus at all. And but imagine for some

586
0:43:19 --> 0:43:25
other reason, a government said, we are going to tell

587
0:43:25 --> 0:43:30
everybody to stay home, we're going to tell them not to attend

588
0:43:30 --> 0:43:33
hospital for any reason, because those are really dangerous

589
0:43:33 --> 0:43:37
places. And we've got to save resources for the NHS. We're

590
0:43:37 --> 0:43:41
going to stop you from exercising, we're going to leave

591
0:43:41 --> 0:43:44
you cooped up, we're going to stop eating normal food, but you

592
0:43:44 --> 0:43:46
can you can order takeout, and you can drink as much alcohol as

593
0:43:46 --> 0:43:52
you want. We're going to put the fear of God in you. And we are,

594
0:43:52 --> 0:43:55
if you have any form of respiratory symptoms, you're not

595
0:43:55 --> 0:43:58
going to get any antibiotics, because it's almost certainly

596
0:43:58 --> 0:44:02
viral. And just wait till you go blue before you come into

597
0:44:02 --> 0:44:06
hospital. We're going to not let you visit any of your elderly

598
0:44:06 --> 0:44:08
people who you know, who normally rely on you for the

599
0:44:08 --> 0:44:12
social outrageous. Yeah, I agree with you. And we're, and we're

600
0:44:12 --> 0:44:16
going to only talk to elderly, frightened, demented patients

601
0:44:16 --> 0:44:19
with masks on one at a time and only for as little time as

602
0:44:19 --> 0:44:23
possible because they are bio weapons. And imagine if you did

603
0:44:23 --> 0:44:28
that, without mentioning a virus, people would be out on

604
0:44:28 --> 0:44:31
the streets saying, this is outrageous, tens of 1000s of

605
0:44:31 --> 0:44:36
people will die just from these measures. Absolutely. And of

606
0:44:36 --> 0:44:38
course, 10s of 1000s of people did die from those measures.

607
0:44:40 --> 0:44:45
Another way of looking at things in in terms of whether we think

608
0:44:45 --> 0:44:49
it's measures or virus is if you think about what the only

609
0:44:49 --> 0:44:54
constant in what has happened is meant to be the virus. So the

610
0:44:54 --> 0:44:57
virus is meant to spread across the world from Wuhan or

611
0:44:57 --> 0:45:01
wherever. And that's that's the only constant thing. And yet we

612
0:45:01 --> 0:45:05
see these massive differences, even in neighbouring towns,

613
0:45:05 --> 0:45:07
neighbouring cities, neighbouring countries, we see

614
0:45:07 --> 0:45:12
these huge divergences of, of how people of how they performed

615
0:45:12 --> 0:45:17
in the pandemic. Well, I'm sorry, it's if we've got one

616
0:45:17 --> 0:45:22
constant there, and we've got incredibly variable, social,

617
0:45:22 --> 0:45:27
cultural, healthcare systems, attitudes, the amount of panic,

618
0:45:27 --> 0:45:30
the amount of hysteria, etc. different political systems,

619
0:45:30 --> 0:45:33
those are entirely variable, the amount of healthcare capacity

620
0:45:33 --> 0:45:37
was important. Those are entirely variable things. So if

621
0:45:37 --> 0:45:41
you've got these huge differences in outcomes, to my

622
0:45:41 --> 0:45:44
mind, the starting point is that you've got its differences in

623
0:45:44 --> 0:45:49
the responses, which account for the differences in outcomes, not

624
0:45:49 --> 0:45:53
the virus and send the people who who come up with the the

625
0:45:53 --> 0:45:58
virus, the scary virus theory for all you, they are they are

626
0:45:58 --> 0:46:01
contorted, they have to go into contortions of explanations,

627
0:46:01 --> 0:46:05
such as there were susceptibility triggers that hit

628
0:46:05 --> 0:46:08
different places in different times, there were maybe genetic

629
0:46:08 --> 0:46:11
variations in different populations that make them

630
0:46:11 --> 0:46:14
differently susceptible. Well, I'm sorry, but no evidence of any

631
0:46:14 --> 0:46:17
of these has ever been has ever been presented. No, absolutely.

632
0:46:17 --> 0:46:21
The null hypothesis is that it is differences in the responses

633
0:46:21 --> 0:46:24
between different locations, which resulted in different

634
0:46:24 --> 0:46:26
amounts of excess deaths.

635
0:46:26 --> 0:46:30
Oh, that's a wonderful summary, Jonathan, we'll make a

636
0:46:30 --> 0:46:31
transcript of what you've just said.

637
0:46:34 --> 0:46:36
As long as I can correct what I got wrong first.

638
0:46:36 --> 0:46:38
Yes, we'll give you the chance to correct.

639
0:46:39 --> 0:46:41
So take them. Yes, sure.

640
0:46:41 --> 0:46:43
Absolutely. So go ahead, Charles.

641
0:46:44 --> 0:46:45
All right, Jonathan.

642
0:46:46 --> 0:46:49
I'm I've got some hands up on to go to the other one of the

643
0:46:49 --> 0:46:52
issues I do want to talk about is going to be the the

644
0:46:53 --> 0:46:57
observations as a medical as a pharmaceutical export and as a

645
0:46:57 --> 0:47:00
barrister on the legal system. But I'll talk about that later.

646
0:47:00 --> 0:47:04
Let's go to other questions. And then we'll we'll come back to

647
0:47:04 --> 0:47:08
enforcement of our freedoms, because I liked what you said at

648
0:47:08 --> 0:47:11
the end of your tweet, government get the fuck out of

649
0:47:11 --> 0:47:15
our lives. But we'll talk about that in more particularity.

650
0:47:15 --> 0:47:19
Peter Herger from also a lawyer and many other things from

651
0:47:19 --> 0:47:20
Wales.

652
0:47:22 --> 0:47:25
Yeah, thanks, Charles. I think I fit Jonathan into the

653
0:47:25 --> 0:47:29
troublemaker category as well. A former police officer as a

654
0:47:29 --> 0:47:32
sergeant walked out and discussed the figures game that

655
0:47:32 --> 0:47:36
we were playing before we lost the public sort of ear as a

656
0:47:36 --> 0:47:39
police service. We are now more a police force.

657
0:47:41 --> 0:47:45
I got a couple of things I'd like to bring up with you and stop me if

658
0:47:45 --> 0:47:49
I've gone too far. But really interested in your background

659
0:47:49 --> 0:47:52
like mine. I'm an electrical electrical engineer as well before

660
0:47:52 --> 0:47:55
I joined the police and then latterly a lawyer.

661
0:47:56 --> 0:48:00
And I was I passed my barristers aptitude tests and was all

662
0:48:00 --> 0:48:05
systems go but I got involved in a case and I saw how corrupt

663
0:48:05 --> 0:48:08
the whole system is and I think that might be a chat for another

664
0:48:08 --> 0:48:12
time. If I told you what I experienced, I think you'd be

665
0:48:12 --> 0:48:17
quite shocked. But tonight, I'd like to take the focus really

666
0:48:17 --> 0:48:21
from the search of origins or I've made some notes here on

667
0:48:21 --> 0:48:26
narrative to the destination we hope to arrive at. And that

668
0:48:26 --> 0:48:29
normally is enshrined in legal system, the judiciary and more

669
0:48:29 --> 0:48:32
with the rule of law. So I've got three points really. First of

670
0:48:32 --> 0:48:35
all, do you feel that the rule of law is dead or at least

671
0:48:35 --> 0:48:39
suspended as the elite seem to have played played a blinder from

672
0:48:39 --> 0:48:42
Blair in the early 2000s introducing the judicial

673
0:48:42 --> 0:48:46
appointments committee and I've got a high ranking police officer

674
0:48:46 --> 0:48:48
who was involved in that. Next colleague of mine is quite

675
0:48:48 --> 0:48:53
interesting. But weakened our separations of power together

676
0:48:53 --> 0:48:57
with the normally robust or previously robust House of Lords,

677
0:48:57 --> 0:49:02
which has been reduced to a joke at this moment in time. So the

678
0:49:02 --> 0:49:05
checks and balances on government, I'm sure you'll agree

679
0:49:06 --> 0:49:10
have all but disappeared. So I think that's one of the big

680
0:49:10 --> 0:49:13
problems we've got and I feel the rule of law is at very least

681
0:49:13 --> 0:49:18
compromised, if not destroyed. Secondly, as an example of

682
0:49:18 --> 0:49:22
judicial failings, the CQC reported two years ago, the Care

683
0:49:22 --> 0:49:26
Quality Commission in the UK, referring to your point about

684
0:49:27 --> 0:49:31
actions of government, etc. When they brought in the DNR orders,

685
0:49:31 --> 0:49:34
they do not resuscitate orders for the elderly lock them in

686
0:49:34 --> 0:49:39
homes, refuse to send doctors, refuse to send paramedics, and

687
0:49:39 --> 0:49:42
they died. And I do agree with you. And I haven't really made

688
0:49:42 --> 0:49:45
the correlation as strongly as you have. And I thank you for

689
0:49:45 --> 0:49:51
that. The spike in deaths at that time before the jobs were

690
0:49:51 --> 0:49:55
rolled out. Now the CQC normally that's the government's own

691
0:49:55 --> 0:49:59
watchdog. If we had a functioning rule of law, or

692
0:49:59 --> 0:50:01
checks and balances that would have been acted upon. And I

693
0:50:01 --> 0:50:03
believe in our lifetime, we would have seen something come

694
0:50:03 --> 0:50:08
of it. Nothing has come of that. So I'm worried about that. That

695
0:50:08 --> 0:50:12
was my second point. And maybe it's something that we legally

696
0:50:12 --> 0:50:16
should be pushing the CQC to find out what the hell they are

697
0:50:16 --> 0:50:20
doing, and what their protocol is. And why are they there? If

698
0:50:20 --> 0:50:23
they're not doing anything when we've got the evidence we have,

699
0:50:23 --> 0:50:27
maybe another way from going through the courts, which at

700
0:50:27 --> 0:50:30
this moment, I feel is not an option. So for instance, the

701
0:50:30 --> 0:50:34
third point I had here was even MSM mainstream media leaking,

702
0:50:34 --> 0:50:39
Matt Hancock's bragging WhatsApp messages, Jonathan, that Bill

703
0:50:39 --> 0:50:44
Gates owes me big style for putting his chips in people's

704
0:50:44 --> 0:50:48
arms. Dear God, if that isn't evidence of misconduct in public

705
0:50:48 --> 0:50:52
office, possibly even corporate manslaughter because people

706
0:50:52 --> 0:50:56
died from these jobs, I don't know what is but this week, they

707
0:50:56 --> 0:51:00
rolled him out in the COVID inquiry, bragging at the work

708
0:51:00 --> 0:51:03
he'd done and demanding earlier lockdowns, which caused the very

709
0:51:03 --> 0:51:07
spike you've referred to. So just shows the shit state our

710
0:51:07 --> 0:51:11
system is in at the moment. And my fourth point and last point,

711
0:51:11 --> 0:51:14
have you looked into the precautionary principle which

712
0:51:14 --> 0:51:20
enshrines EU law, environmental law, and does not need a

713
0:51:20 --> 0:51:26
correlation between a direct correlation between a result,

714
0:51:26 --> 0:51:30
which is possibly deaths, myocarditis, pericarditis, blood

715
0:51:30 --> 0:51:37
clots, etc. And stipulates, I think it's, is it article 77 in

716
0:51:37 --> 0:51:40
the functioning on the Treaty of the EU, that if there is any

717
0:51:40 --> 0:51:45
likelihood of harm to the environment or people, whatever

718
0:51:45 --> 0:51:49
they're doing shall cease. And obviously it hasn't. Nobody I

719
0:51:49 --> 0:51:52
feel and I've spoken to many people in the EU lawyers,

720
0:51:52 --> 0:51:58
Christine Anderson, Ivan Villebois Sincic, they should be

721
0:51:58 --> 0:52:01
using the precautionary principle possibly as a vehicle

722
0:52:02 --> 0:52:05
to try and get governments to task.

723
0:52:06 --> 0:52:11
Right. I didn't, I didn't write those down. So if I miss

724
0:52:11 --> 0:52:13
miss answering one of these, just nudge me. Just dealing with

725
0:52:13 --> 0:52:17
the final point that you might raise first, while it's in my

726
0:52:17 --> 0:52:19
head precautionary principle, we've actually got a good

727
0:52:19 --> 0:52:23
article in heart this going out in the next few days on the

728
0:52:23 --> 0:52:27
inversion of the precautionary principle, which you might find

729
0:52:27 --> 0:52:34
find useful. The precautionary principle on its own is, of

730
0:52:34 --> 0:52:39
course, potentially dangerous, because it can be sort of

731
0:52:39 --> 0:52:45
weaponised and hijacked by some by our enemies in this process,

732
0:52:45 --> 0:52:50
because they will say, well, we're actually we're taking

733
0:52:50 --> 0:52:57
precautions to prevent the worst case scenario. And in fact, this

734
0:52:57 --> 0:53:01
worst case scenario planning, which is tied into sort of

735
0:53:01 --> 0:53:06
safety ism, as a very dangerous cultural element in our society,

736
0:53:06 --> 0:53:10
is is to some extent, what what led people to to buy into and to

737
0:53:10 --> 0:53:15
agree to all these, these ludicrous measures. So it

738
0:53:15 --> 0:53:19
precautionary principle on its own is, basically, you have to

739
0:53:19 --> 0:53:22
sort of handle with care because it is easily inverted and used

740
0:53:22 --> 0:53:28
the wrong way. But but to answer your question is, is yes, I think

741
0:53:28 --> 0:53:32
the regulatory system is is broken completely captured

742
0:53:32 --> 0:53:35
basically under political control, not doing its job

743
0:53:35 --> 0:53:39
independently. And in fact, I didn't add I didn't mention but

744
0:53:40 --> 0:53:47
I am also part of the Perseus group, we've written the report,

745
0:53:48 --> 0:53:54
which we've sent to, you know, all MPs and selected peers about

746
0:53:54 --> 0:54:00
the MHRA's woeful conduct during the conditional approval of

747
0:54:00 --> 0:54:05
these COVID vaccines. So yeah, I know how broken the regulatory

748
0:54:05 --> 0:54:08
system is. And just dealing with a few of your other questions

749
0:54:08 --> 0:54:11
briefly, because I think that's quite a lot of questions. The

750
0:54:11 --> 0:54:15
first point you talked about rule of law, yes, rule of law

751
0:54:15 --> 0:54:21
seems to be kind of suspended. But the I would also observe

752
0:54:21 --> 0:54:28
that what has happened across the world seems to have happened

753
0:54:28 --> 0:54:32
in the same way independent of the legal systems. So you've got

754
0:54:33 --> 0:54:37
you know, constitutional, strong constitutional system in the

755
0:54:37 --> 0:54:41
states, you've got sort of codified European style legal

756
0:54:41 --> 0:54:45
systems, you've got despotic dictatorships, and I'm not

757
0:54:45 --> 0:54:50
talking about the UK there, but it, you know, it, in some parts

758
0:54:50 --> 0:54:53
of the world, and you've got our, you know, common law system,

759
0:54:53 --> 0:54:58
the parliamentary sovereignty, and so on. And basically, all it

760
0:54:58 --> 0:55:01
took was co opting the mainstream media with a fear

761
0:55:01 --> 0:55:05
narrative to get everybody to do whatever they wanted. So we

762
0:55:05 --> 0:55:09
can't, it, law is important, obviously, in the functioning

763
0:55:09 --> 0:55:13
civilised society. But at the moment, looking to different

764
0:55:13 --> 0:55:19
legal systems is probably not the answer that the answer to

765
0:55:19 --> 0:55:23
what has happened is to dismantle the propaganda machine.

766
0:55:24 --> 0:55:27
I don't have an answer to how to do that. But I'm just pointing

767
0:55:27 --> 0:55:31
out that the same thing, basically the same playbook played

768
0:55:31 --> 0:55:35
out across the world, irrespective of the prior

769
0:55:37 --> 0:55:41
respect that we might have had for separation of powers and how

770
0:55:41 --> 0:55:43
strong the constitutional system was, and so on.

771
0:55:45 --> 0:55:48
What was your other questions?

772
0:55:48 --> 0:55:52
I think you've touched upon most of them there, Jonathan, very

773
0:55:52 --> 0:55:57
well. And I think we're of the same mind. And I think we, as

774
0:55:57 --> 0:56:00
legal strategists, like Charles there, with all his experience,

775
0:56:00 --> 0:56:03
myself, as you know, I was a CPS gatekeeper. So I've seen the

776
0:56:03 --> 0:56:06
police side of it. And I've seen how to put a case together. And

777
0:56:07 --> 0:56:11
latterly, as a lawyer, I've been involved in many cases of

778
0:56:11 --> 0:56:15
differing kinds, we need to look for a way to circumvent the

779
0:56:15 --> 0:56:19
lockstep that you refer to there, that the whole world is in this

780
0:56:19 --> 0:56:22
this they've played a blinder, we've got to put them on the

781
0:56:22 --> 0:56:25
back for what they've done to bring in this total stranglehold

782
0:56:25 --> 0:56:28
on legal systems throughout the world, whether it is in an

783
0:56:28 --> 0:56:31
unwritten constitution like ours, one of only three,

784
0:56:31 --> 0:56:34
ironically, there's New Zealand ourselves, and of all people are

785
0:56:34 --> 0:56:38
all countries, Israel, unwritten sort of common law

786
0:56:38 --> 0:56:42
constitutions. It's amazing that they've managed to have a

787
0:56:42 --> 0:56:46
stranglehold on everything. And you are right, it's fear. And the

788
0:56:46 --> 0:56:50
problem we've got is that MSM is part of their stranglehold. And

789
0:56:50 --> 0:56:54
how the heck when GB News are now being taken to court again,

790
0:56:54 --> 0:56:58
for just supporting cash. It looks like Ofcom are going to go

791
0:56:58 --> 0:57:01
for them as an entity now having got rid of you know, their

792
0:57:02 --> 0:57:07
their mainstay presenter who was on our side. So and so so you

793
0:57:07 --> 0:57:10
know, we're having these conversations every week and

794
0:57:10 --> 0:57:13
thoroughly enjoyed yours and it's put a totally new slant on

795
0:57:13 --> 0:57:14
many things for me.

796
0:57:14 --> 0:57:17
By the way, I will I will just mention you. I know you talked

797
0:57:17 --> 0:57:24
about Matt Hancock and the lockdown files. Well, I am a bit

798
0:57:24 --> 0:57:27
cynical about the lockdown files. So you know, I see that

799
0:57:27 --> 0:57:32
as very much as a limited a limited hangout. Absolutely.

800
0:57:33 --> 0:57:40
Yeah, it is notable, isn't it that the only mention of the of

801
0:57:40 --> 0:57:46
the vaccines in these files was apparently that comment that was

802
0:57:46 --> 0:57:50
meant to be a subtle dig at the mad anti vaccines, which is about

803
0:57:50 --> 0:57:53
putting chips in people's arms. And that's clear. That's the

804
0:57:53 --> 0:57:59
only mention really, I mean, that it is just ridiculous. So I

805
0:57:59 --> 0:58:03
see the those ads very much as that's a sort of controlled

806
0:58:03 --> 0:58:08
release, and very much is is wanted. What they you know,

807
0:58:08 --> 0:58:11
that they seem quite happy at the moment for people to talk

808
0:58:11 --> 0:58:16
about lockdowns. But they're not happy at all for people to talk

809
0:58:16 --> 0:58:21
about novel pharmaceutical interventions that may have been

810
0:58:21 --> 0:58:26
coerced into people. So I you know, I see very much it's and

811
0:58:26 --> 0:58:30
it to be honest, that it's I feel the same way about the whole

812
0:58:30 --> 0:58:34
lab leak storyboard. So you've got this whole situation at the

813
0:58:34 --> 0:58:39
moment where suddenly, everybody is apparently able to talk about

814
0:58:39 --> 0:58:42
or even encouraged to talk about the lovely as like they're trying

815
0:58:42 --> 0:58:45
to convince you that suddenly you've discovered something that

816
0:58:45 --> 0:58:48
you've discovered that something you always suspected was true

817
0:58:48 --> 0:58:50
when you've discovered it. You know, you've thought about it

818
0:58:50 --> 0:58:53
for a few years. And now even the mainstream media are

819
0:58:53 --> 0:58:57
confirming it's true. Well, don't be taken for a fool. They

820
0:58:57 --> 0:58:59
haven't lost control of the mainstream media, they've still

821
0:58:59 --> 0:59:03
got it. And if you're reading, reading about lab leak in the

822
0:59:03 --> 0:59:06
mainstream media, that is because the perpetrators of this

823
0:59:06 --> 0:59:10
want you to read about that. And the reason they want you to read

824
0:59:10 --> 0:59:13
about that is because that's plan B, they don't really care

825
0:59:13 --> 0:59:18
whether you are afraid of pandemics, because it came from a

826
0:59:18 --> 0:59:21
lab or it came from a zoonotic origin. They just care that you

827
0:59:21 --> 0:59:22
are afraid.

828
0:59:22 --> 0:59:25
Yeah, I agree totally. And I think they're still playing a

829
0:59:25 --> 0:59:29
blinder, because they're feeding us bits. And as we jump up and

830
0:59:29 --> 0:59:32
down there, they're just rubbing their hands. And it's a lot of

831
0:59:32 --> 0:59:35
is just to deflect from the things they're doing, you know,

832
0:59:35 --> 0:59:39
the other day, the Wagner thing 6.2 billion going missing.

833
0:59:39 --> 0:59:42
Jonathan, thank you so much for all you're doing. And thank you

834
0:59:42 --> 0:59:45
for speaking and addressing the points. Thank you, Charles.

835
0:59:45 --> 0:59:49
Thank you, Peter. Jonathan, did you the article that you mentioned

836
0:59:49 --> 0:59:53
is coming out in hearts? Could Anna put the title of the

837
0:59:53 --> 0:59:55
article so people some people have asked to be able to find

838
0:59:55 --> 0:59:56
it?

839
0:59:57 --> 1:00:00
I don't think we've is Anna still here, but I'm not sure I

840
1:00:00 --> 1:00:03
don't think we've actually published that one yet. Okay,

841
1:00:03 --> 1:00:07
we'll have is Anna actually still here? Not sure she is. Oh,

842
1:00:07 --> 1:00:09
we have. So she's going to put it in.

843
1:00:09 --> 1:00:14
Terrific. Thank you, Jonathan. Thank you, Peter. Albert, welcome

844
1:00:14 --> 1:00:16
the eagle Benavides.

845
1:00:17 --> 1:00:23
Hey, Jonathan, it's pleasure to meet you. My name is Albert

846
1:00:23 --> 1:00:29
Benavides. I created the VAERS aware dashboard. There's

847
1:00:29 --> 1:00:31
interactive dashboard.

848
1:00:31 --> 1:00:35
I saw you speak at that in one of the Panda presentation.

849
1:00:35 --> 1:00:38
Great. Thank you, Jonathan. No need to then I don't need to

850
1:00:38 --> 1:00:43
enter introduce myself any further. God bless you. Keep

851
1:00:43 --> 1:00:52
fighting. I really appreciate you. Question. Did you? Do you

852
1:00:52 --> 1:00:57
know that? Are you aware that in in VAERS and with vaccines,

853
1:00:58 --> 1:01:02
that they are taking like up to two years to publish death

854
1:01:02 --> 1:01:10
reports? Yeah, broadly. Okay. Because with that, I was I don't

855
1:01:10 --> 1:01:13
know if you're familiar with this new Denmark study with the

856
1:01:15 --> 1:01:20
blue, green, yellow dots. And some people have been a great.

857
1:01:20 --> 1:01:24
It's a great analysis, a great study, but people have been

858
1:01:24 --> 1:01:30
throwing a little bit of shade on it. And myself included only

859
1:01:30 --> 1:01:34
in that only in the respect that the only only problem with it

860
1:01:34 --> 1:01:39
was that it actually highlights the amount of throttling that

861
1:01:39 --> 1:01:42
the purposeful delay of reports that are going on in VAERS

862
1:01:42 --> 1:01:46
because now in hindsight, when you look at the yellow dots, the

863
1:01:46 --> 1:01:50
place, the placebos, you say, Oh, my gosh, there's, there's

864
1:01:50 --> 1:01:54
actually a lot of adverse events in there now. But they, those

865
1:01:54 --> 1:01:58
reports weren't in there. When in the snapshot that they took

866
1:01:58 --> 1:02:03
when they took a snapshot of VAERS and their analysis at that

867
1:02:03 --> 1:02:10
time. So that's what I was trying to point out. But yeah,

868
1:02:10 --> 1:02:16
with your regards to Peter McCullough, who I love the

869
1:02:16 --> 1:02:20
gentleman as well. I asked him the same question here here in

870
1:02:20 --> 1:02:27
this space. If he was familiar with the 65 oral polio death

871
1:02:27 --> 1:02:32
reports that were deleted all in one drop, all in one update, but

872
1:02:32 --> 1:02:38
it was in 2009. When when polio when death when deaths meant

873
1:02:38 --> 1:02:43
something in 65 because he was the one that I heard it from, you

874
1:02:43 --> 1:02:46
know, when there's 50 deaths, they'll pull a product off the

875
1:02:46 --> 1:02:53
market. Which reminds me is that do you know if that's 50 deaths,

876
1:02:53 --> 1:02:56
at least on paper, they'll pull it off the market? Is that like

877
1:02:56 --> 1:03:00
per year? Or could that be just as soon as it gets to 50 deaths,

878
1:03:00 --> 1:03:02
no matter how many years?

879
1:03:03 --> 1:03:09
I'm not aware of the the particular rule or policy or

880
1:03:09 --> 1:03:13
procedure that says that it's however many it's meant to be.

881
1:03:13 --> 1:03:18
And of course, in I mean, unless people want to talk a lot about

882
1:03:18 --> 1:03:25
vaccines and VAERS. I was planning to to focus in on the

883
1:03:25 --> 1:03:27
on the narrative origin.

884
1:03:27 --> 1:03:29
Okay, another time.

885
1:03:29 --> 1:03:34
I think we're all on the same page here that, you know, that

886
1:03:34 --> 1:03:39
we've had some, basically some very dangerous gunk being

887
1:03:39 --> 1:03:42
injected multiple times into billions of people. And it's,

888
1:03:42 --> 1:03:47
it's, you know, a terrible, terrible thing that's happened.

889
1:03:47 --> 1:03:51
But we could we could if we go down, talking about those

890
1:03:51 --> 1:03:53
products, we could spend many hours talking about those. I

891
1:03:53 --> 1:03:56
don't know if people want to talk about those or what people

892
1:03:56 --> 1:03:58
want to stick to talking about?

893
1:03:58 --> 1:03:59
Yeah, no, another another time.

894
1:03:59 --> 1:04:03
No, I agree with you, Jonathan. It's very important that you

895
1:04:03 --> 1:04:07
want to focus on exactly what you've identified. I agree with

896
1:04:07 --> 1:04:07
you.

897
1:04:08 --> 1:04:12
Pleasure to make your Queens Jonathan say hi to Dr. Clare

898
1:04:12 --> 1:04:13
Craig for me.

899
1:04:13 --> 1:04:14
Will do.

900
1:04:15 --> 1:04:15
Thank you.

901
1:04:16 --> 1:04:19
Thank you. Thank you, Albert. And Claire Craig has presented

902
1:04:19 --> 1:04:23
to us Jonathan in the past and her presentation to us be

903
1:04:23 --> 1:04:26
interesting to go back, Stephen and maybe get Claire to come and

904
1:04:26 --> 1:04:30
update her presentation to us. Jack from the US of A.

905
1:04:33 --> 1:04:34
Yeah.

906
1:04:36 --> 1:04:39
I wonder Jonathan, if you had considered an alternative

907
1:04:40 --> 1:04:46
hypothesis, which I, I am considered closely. First of all,

908
1:04:47 --> 1:04:53
all we have lived in a constant state of artificially induced

909
1:04:53 --> 1:04:59
terrorism since World War Two. Here in the US anyway, we were

910
1:04:59 --> 1:05:02
constantly bombarded with the image of the mushroom cloud.

911
1:05:03 --> 1:05:07
And and kids were taught to hide under their desks in school and

912
1:05:07 --> 1:05:11
all this kind of nonsense. And then of course, we had the

913
1:05:11 --> 1:05:13
McCarthy hearing. So we're supposed to be terrified of

914
1:05:13 --> 1:05:18
communists, we're supposed to be looking for communists. And a

915
1:05:18 --> 1:05:22
lot of people lost their careers through McCarthy's insanity.

916
1:05:23 --> 1:05:32
Then you move on up to 9-11 to the terrorism that was induced

917
1:05:32 --> 1:05:37
by this false flag operation called 9-11. And then that was

918
1:05:37 --> 1:05:43
immediately followed by what? By the anthrax scare, where several

919
1:05:43 --> 1:05:48
people died from anthrax being mailed in letters and two of

920
1:05:48 --> 1:05:56
them were mailed to Senators, Michelle and Leahy, who were the

921
1:05:56 --> 1:06:01
co-chairs of the committee looking at, guess what, the

922
1:06:01 --> 1:06:06
Patriot Act. So that intimidated them into withdrawing their

923
1:06:06 --> 1:06:13
objections to the Patriot Act. And of course, Francis Boyle,

924
1:06:13 --> 1:06:18
the international attorney who wrote the implementing

925
1:06:18 --> 1:06:21
legislation for the bioweapons treaty in the United States, he

926
1:06:21 --> 1:06:24
immediately said, Hey, wait a second, this anthrax didn't come

927
1:06:24 --> 1:06:29
from Saddam, it didn't come from Bin Laden. And the only place in

928
1:06:29 --> 1:06:32
the world that has that kind of weapons-grade anthrax is Fort

929
1:06:32 --> 1:06:38
Dietrich, Maryland. So he was promptly prohibited from ever

930
1:06:38 --> 1:06:41
appearing on mainstream television again, and has not

931
1:06:41 --> 1:06:50
until this day still. So this has been one terror stimulus

932
1:06:50 --> 1:06:59
after another. And the terror, and fear, fear of death, is the

933
1:06:59 --> 1:07:04
one way you can basically control a population. You panic

934
1:07:04 --> 1:07:08
them into a state of mortal terror, and they'll do any damn

935
1:07:08 --> 1:07:13
thing you say. And the US government has used that

936
1:07:14 --> 1:07:21
throughout my long life to keep the population under a state of

937
1:07:21 --> 1:07:26
terror. So when I looked at your spikes, the spikes in your

938
1:07:26 --> 1:07:32
graph, what they did was, obviously, I think, was to

939
1:07:32 --> 1:07:39
concentrate the deaths, and I suspect it was something,

940
1:07:39 --> 1:07:45
probably, some viruses, not the actual eventual virus, but

941
1:07:45 --> 1:07:47
something else. There's no reason to assume this is all

942
1:07:47 --> 1:07:51
from one source. There's something that happened in both

943
1:07:51 --> 1:07:57
New York, and Milan, or Lombardy, more generally, which

944
1:07:57 --> 1:08:06
are very dense populations that concentrated the deaths in that

945
1:08:06 --> 1:08:11
one place. And of course, it was exacerbated by all the isolation

946
1:08:11 --> 1:08:15
and the non-treatment and so forth. But still, that continued.

947
1:08:15 --> 1:08:19
That continued. But the real deaths were concentrated at that

948
1:08:19 --> 1:08:23
one moment. See, that's the kind of immediate event where you

949
1:08:23 --> 1:08:30
have over-flooded, overcrowded and flooded hospitals, and not

950
1:08:30 --> 1:08:34
enough ambulances and so forth. That's that single event, like

951
1:08:34 --> 1:08:38
9-11. It was sufficient to scare the hell out of everybody.

952
1:08:38 --> 1:08:42
Yeah, and actually, there is some, you could find some

953
1:08:42 --> 1:08:46
papers on cardiovascular mortality following terrorism

954
1:08:46 --> 1:08:51
incidents. They've analyzed, certainly, it has a high rate of

955
1:08:51 --> 1:08:56
myocardial infarction, just from the stress following 9-11, for

956
1:08:56 --> 1:09:01
example. And if you think about this going on for weeks and

957
1:09:01 --> 1:09:07
weeks, and on and off for years, actually, I think we have

958
1:09:07 --> 1:09:12
dramatically underestimated the ill effects of this on health.

959
1:09:12 --> 1:09:19
Yeah. And we know that the CIA can deposit anything it wants,

960
1:09:20 --> 1:09:24
anywhere it wants, anytime it wants. And one of the things

961
1:09:24 --> 1:09:27
that struck me immediately is that this thing first broke out

962
1:09:27 --> 1:09:32
in China, which is our number one economic rival, and then in

963
1:09:32 --> 1:09:39
Iran, our number one target for regime change at that time. And

964
1:09:39 --> 1:09:43
so I looked at Italy, because why Lombardy? Why would it break

965
1:09:43 --> 1:09:48
out in Italy? It turns out at that time, the Italian government

966
1:09:48 --> 1:09:52
was being controlled by people who were talking about breaking

967
1:09:52 --> 1:10:00
out of the, leaving the EU and also leaving NATO. And Italy has

968
1:10:00 --> 1:10:04
one of the three largest economies in Europe. And if they

969
1:10:04 --> 1:10:08
left the EU, it could probably collapse the EU, which is pretty

970
1:10:08 --> 1:10:14
shaky anyway. So I was one of the things I was looking at. So

971
1:10:15 --> 1:10:19
I'm a psychologist. And so I wanted to look at that kind of

972
1:10:19 --> 1:10:22
same kind of data that you gathered, I wanted to look at in

973
1:10:22 --> 1:10:28
the United States. And I was looking particularly, we have a

974
1:10:28 --> 1:10:37
fairly, I guess, unusual degree of rebelliousness among at the

975
1:10:37 --> 1:10:42
state level that other developed so called developed countries

976
1:10:43 --> 1:10:46
we've got 52 states, they all have governors. And it turns out

977
1:10:46 --> 1:10:49
that there were a lot of states that did not comply with our

978
1:10:49 --> 1:10:55
lockdowns. And so I wanted to compare states of comparable

979
1:10:55 --> 1:11:02
demographics that did or did not comply with the lockdowns. And

980
1:11:02 --> 1:11:06
we had, we had data on the deaths from the New York Times.

981
1:11:07 --> 1:11:11
And we had data on whether or not and when they locked down or

982
1:11:11 --> 1:11:15
didn't. And so I when I looked at that, I could not find any on

983
1:11:15 --> 1:11:21
the East Coast where there were contiguous states, which did and

984
1:11:21 --> 1:11:24
didn't because they all did the ones around New York. But I

985
1:11:24 --> 1:11:29
found 26 states half of our country, where there were 13 and

986
1:11:29 --> 1:11:35
1313 that did comply and 13 that didn't. And I looked at that.

987
1:11:35 --> 1:11:39
And this is clear in May now when the so called the the the

988
1:11:39 --> 1:11:45
fervid flattened and the 90 day thing had passed. So I found

989
1:11:45 --> 1:11:49
there were there was no difference whatsoever in deaths

990
1:11:50 --> 1:11:53
between the states that did comply and the states that did

991
1:11:53 --> 1:11:58
not. And the total death toll for those 26 states on average

992
1:11:58 --> 1:12:05
was just three deaths per 100,000 people. So they had to

993
1:12:05 --> 1:12:10
have that spike to terrorize the population into what they

994
1:12:10 --> 1:12:10
wanted to do.

995
1:12:11 --> 1:12:14
Are you talking there, by the way, about what we might call

996
1:12:14 --> 1:12:16
COVID labeled deaths or all causes?

997
1:12:16 --> 1:12:19
Yes. Well, that's what I'm talking about. Yeah. So I mean,

998
1:12:20 --> 1:12:22
which were questionable.

999
1:12:22 --> 1:12:25
Yeah. Can I respond to just a few of the things you've just

1000
1:12:25 --> 1:12:28
said that I think need that you need to take caution over?

1001
1:12:29 --> 1:12:29
Yeah.

1002
1:12:30 --> 1:12:37
So the the first point is that I don't believe that looking at

1003
1:12:37 --> 1:12:42
any official COVID numbers is worth it.

1004
1:12:42 --> 1:12:44
No, I'm more aware of that. Yes.

1005
1:12:44 --> 1:12:46
Probably with them. And I think most people are on that on the

1006
1:12:46 --> 1:12:50
same page here. What people may not be on the same page here is

1007
1:12:50 --> 1:12:56
that it may be that it is not beyond the possibility that even

1008
1:12:56 --> 1:13:00
the total death numbers are massaged and are not true. They

1009
1:13:00 --> 1:13:03
can do that in a variety of ways from dealing with the way that

1010
1:13:03 --> 1:13:08
they deal with registration delay. They could outright

1011
1:13:09 --> 1:13:14
delete data, add data, move data. And the reason I say this is

1012
1:13:14 --> 1:13:17
because, and I'm not giving anything away here, because it's

1013
1:13:17 --> 1:13:19
a work in progress. If you follow on Twitter, you follow

1014
1:13:19 --> 1:13:24
Jessica Hockett on Twitter, who I work with in Panda quite a

1015
1:13:24 --> 1:13:32
lot. She set out a few weeks ago with the objective of actually

1016
1:13:32 --> 1:13:37
finding out where all the bodies went in New York. So she's been

1017
1:13:37 --> 1:13:44
FOIing various funeral homes and whether there were contracts

1018
1:13:44 --> 1:13:48
for refrigerated trucks to store bodies and everything. And this

1019
1:13:49 --> 1:13:58
is not a final view. But so far, it doesn't add up. So nobody's

1020
1:13:58 --> 1:14:04
saying that nobody died in New York. But the numbers of deaths

1021
1:14:04 --> 1:14:08
that were reported in those spikes, we're talking, you know,

1022
1:14:09 --> 1:14:12
eight to 10 times the normal number of deaths, the amount of

1023
1:14:12 --> 1:14:18
logistics involved in handling those dead bodies would have

1024
1:14:18 --> 1:14:24
required huge efforts and huge changes, and huge co opting of

1025
1:14:24 --> 1:14:27
resources. And there doesn't seem to be any evidence that that

1026
1:14:27 --> 1:14:33
happened to that extent. And so there is a suspicion that those

1027
1:14:33 --> 1:14:39
spikes that I showed you before are massaged or untrue in some

1028
1:14:39 --> 1:14:42
way. So total even total death numbers may not be that that

1029
1:14:42 --> 1:14:45
reliable. I mean, we know that basically, virtually every

1030
1:14:45 --> 1:14:49
single piece of data point is curated in some way before it is

1031
1:14:49 --> 1:14:52
released to the public for some purpose. So I don't know why we

1032
1:14:52 --> 1:14:55
would necessarily think that all cause mortality would be would

1033
1:14:55 --> 1:14:57
be reliable, necessarily.

1034
1:14:58 --> 1:15:01
There are all kinds of manipulations went on with the

1035
1:15:01 --> 1:15:05
reporting instructions from our national data reporting system

1036
1:15:05 --> 1:15:10
and so forth. Very obvious manipulations for a tendentious

1037
1:15:10 --> 1:15:11
manipulations.

1038
1:15:11 --> 1:15:14
Correct. The other point that I just wanted to make was this

1039
1:15:15 --> 1:15:23
notion that people have that you can compare lockdowns versus no

1040
1:15:23 --> 1:15:28
lockdowns or lockdown stringency index and try and correlate it

1041
1:15:28 --> 1:15:31
to this that the number of deaths and this idea, I would just

1042
1:15:31 --> 1:15:38
caution people that whether you had there was a lockdown or was

1043
1:15:38 --> 1:15:42
not a lockdown is not necessarily relevant. And I'll

1044
1:15:42 --> 1:15:47
explain why. So it's not lockdowns that kill people. It's

1045
1:15:47 --> 1:15:49
not it wasn't in spring. I'm talking about spring 2020

1046
1:15:49 --> 1:15:51
specifically, I'm not talking about the longer term effects.

1047
1:15:51 --> 1:15:55
I'm talking about spring 2020. It wasn't telling people that

1048
1:15:55 --> 1:16:01
they can't go to the gym or they can't the New York Mets game

1049
1:16:01 --> 1:16:05
is cancelled. That's that's not what killed people. That doesn't

1050
1:16:05 --> 1:16:10
kill people. It's the specific ways in which the vulnerable

1051
1:16:10 --> 1:16:15
people, i.e. the elderly and frail were actually treated that

1052
1:16:15 --> 1:16:18
kills people. That's what you need to look down. And these are

1053
1:16:18 --> 1:16:21
not necessarily it is sometimes correlated to the societal

1054
1:16:21 --> 1:16:23
lockdown response, but isn't always. I'll give you an

1055
1:16:23 --> 1:16:30
example is people say things like, oh, well, Sweden, Sweden

1056
1:16:30 --> 1:16:34
had no lockdowns and look at them look at their excess deaths.

1057
1:16:34 --> 1:16:38
And Norway didn't. And look, they had much lower excess

1058
1:16:38 --> 1:16:40
deaths. But if you actually drill into that in detail, you

1059
1:16:40 --> 1:16:45
find the picture where Sweden actually in terms of the way it

1060
1:16:45 --> 1:16:50
handled its elderly in care homes was basically very similar

1061
1:16:50 --> 1:16:55
to the UK and the US was very dystopian. And that's what

1062
1:16:55 --> 1:16:58
actually matters because that's what accounted for the deaths.

1063
1:16:58 --> 1:17:02
And if you look at Norway, they were more in more sort of a

1064
1:17:02 --> 1:17:04
Germanic approach where you might say, well, they did they

1065
1:17:04 --> 1:17:08
bought into the lockdown thing, but they had a more enlightened

1066
1:17:09 --> 1:17:12
way of treating their elderly. And in fact, in Germany, for

1067
1:17:12 --> 1:17:15
example, Germany said, well, people say, well, they panicked

1068
1:17:15 --> 1:17:17
and they didn't have excess deaths in 2020. But the fact is

1069
1:17:17 --> 1:17:21
they have this incredibly decentralized, very well funded,

1070
1:17:21 --> 1:17:25
very sophisticated health system with huge overcapacity. And so

1071
1:17:25 --> 1:17:29
that their psychological stress on them would not have been

1072
1:17:30 --> 1:17:33
anywhere near anywhere else. And they wouldn't have felt the need

1073
1:17:33 --> 1:17:36
to change the policies in the way that for example, we did in

1074
1:17:36 --> 1:17:39
the UK and many other places in terms of treatment of the

1075
1:17:39 --> 1:17:42
elderly. So I was just saying that the picture is quite

1076
1:17:42 --> 1:17:43
complex.

1077
1:17:44 --> 1:17:49
Yeah, that's why I used and my analysis I used states that were

1078
1:17:49 --> 1:17:55
contiguous, that had very similar demographics. And the

1079
1:17:55 --> 1:17:59
point was that the lockdowns did not help. There was no difference

1080
1:17:59 --> 1:18:00
whatsoever.

1081
1:18:01 --> 1:18:01
Yeah.

1082
1:18:02 --> 1:18:07
And this is looking at 26 states. And with very, very low

1083
1:18:08 --> 1:18:14
rate of death, I mean, two, three people per 100,000, even

1084
1:18:14 --> 1:18:15
even with the phony reporting.

1085
1:18:17 --> 1:18:17
Yeah.

1086
1:18:19 --> 1:18:20
Yeah.

1087
1:18:22 --> 1:18:26
So I think, I think that the point is that they were very

1088
1:18:26 --> 1:18:32
successful at creating an emergency, the appearance of an

1089
1:18:32 --> 1:18:36
emergency, just like the mushroom cloud, just like 911,

1090
1:18:37 --> 1:18:42
to terrifying people by startling them with these, these

1091
1:18:42 --> 1:18:43
grim

1092
1:18:45 --> 1:18:49
videos of ambulances that are stacked up and can't get into

1093
1:18:49 --> 1:18:54
the hospital, etc. And I immediately, I immediately as a

1094
1:18:54 --> 1:19:01
psychologist, a long critic of American foreign policy. I just

1095
1:19:01 --> 1:19:06
saw it as a as a PsyOps right from the beginning. And started

1096
1:19:06 --> 1:19:09
accumulating lots and lots of evidence about that I have a

1097
1:19:09 --> 1:19:13
PowerPoint I put together that six chapters long just a

1098
1:19:13 --> 1:19:16
screen grabs I got over the first two years.

1099
1:19:17 --> 1:19:18
Wow.

1100
1:19:19 --> 1:19:20
Of actual documents.

1101
1:19:20 --> 1:19:21
I'm blocking it so early.

1102
1:19:21 --> 1:19:22
Yeah.

1103
1:19:23 --> 1:19:25
Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Jack.

1104
1:19:26 --> 1:19:29
Jack, do you have a you have a military background? Yeah.

1105
1:19:30 --> 1:19:35
Yeah, I was an army psychologist right out of grad school during

1106
1:19:35 --> 1:19:36
the Vietnam War.

1107
1:19:36 --> 1:19:37
Yeah.

1108
1:19:38 --> 1:19:42
So I started out as an army psychologist. And that's, that's

1109
1:19:42 --> 1:19:47
a great bureaucracy. I did my first professional paper from

1110
1:19:48 --> 1:19:51
clients there who were sent for evaluation.

1111
1:19:53 --> 1:19:54
And court martial.

1112
1:19:55 --> 1:20:00
I learned a lot there in that population about the military

1113
1:20:00 --> 1:20:05
and how it works and, and how it doesn't work. And I mean, that

1114
1:20:05 --> 1:20:09
that whole Vietnam War was another did I may even mention

1115
1:20:09 --> 1:20:14
that I mean, the Gulf of Tonkin never happened. And even if it

1116
1:20:14 --> 1:20:18
had what were what were our warships doing the Gulf of

1117
1:20:18 --> 1:20:23
Tonkin in the first place, you know, and had this our involvement

1118
1:20:23 --> 1:20:29
in the Vietnam War started 10 years under Edward Lansdale long

1119
1:20:29 --> 1:20:35
before we ever declared war. I mean, it's I am so used to this

1120
1:20:35 --> 1:20:41
complete deception, nothing but deception, nonstop deception by

1121
1:20:41 --> 1:20:44
our government throughout my entire life.

1122
1:20:44 --> 1:20:47
But just to just to make it clear to the people listening,

1123
1:20:47 --> 1:20:50
you do not hate America quite the opposite. That's why you're

1124
1:20:50 --> 1:20:51
pointing it out.

1125
1:20:53 --> 1:20:53
Correct.

1126
1:20:54 --> 1:20:58
Wait, what was the verb again? I don't do what I said you do not

1127
1:20:58 --> 1:21:02
dislike America or hate America. You're pointing these things out

1128
1:21:02 --> 1:21:03
because

1129
1:21:04 --> 1:21:08
I hate the government. Yes. And you know, people say, well, why

1130
1:21:08 --> 1:21:12
don't you leave? My rocket ball partner just said that last night

1131
1:21:12 --> 1:21:16
as a matter of fact, I said, because it's my country, and I'm

1132
1:21:16 --> 1:21:19
responsible. Yes. And who the hell else is going to do it?

1133
1:21:19 --> 1:21:24
There's not very many people that are. And we have been totally

1134
1:21:24 --> 1:21:29
gaslit. Not not just to the last few years, we have been gaslit

1135
1:21:29 --> 1:21:33
ever since World War Two and probably and before that, look

1136
1:21:33 --> 1:21:39
at Smedley Butler's book. General Smedley Butler, we we

1137
1:21:39 --> 1:21:44
first of all committed massive ethnic cleansing of our native

1138
1:21:44 --> 1:21:49
population called Indians. And then we expanded overseas with

1139
1:21:49 --> 1:21:53
the Spanish American war and it's gone on and on and on. You

1140
1:21:53 --> 1:21:57
know, we just had Fourth of July this week. And on my radio show,

1141
1:21:57 --> 1:22:03
I said, you know, the US may have been born in 1776 on this

1142
1:22:03 --> 1:22:09
day. But we were born into a family called the British Empire.

1143
1:22:10 --> 1:22:17
And we have never, never outgrown that family. We're still

1144
1:22:17 --> 1:22:25
we have basically taken over the role of the global empire. It's

1145
1:22:25 --> 1:22:28
it was said, you know, that the sun never sets on the British

1146
1:22:28 --> 1:22:32
Empire. Well, right now we have the entire planet divided into

1147
1:22:32 --> 1:22:37
areas of US command. We have Northcom and Southcom for the

1148
1:22:37 --> 1:22:42
Americas, we have Eurocom, we have Centcom for Asia, we have

1149
1:22:42 --> 1:22:47
Afrocom, we have Pacificom to try to surround China, try we

1150
1:22:47 --> 1:22:53
have surrounded China with unfriendly countries. We've

1151
1:22:53 --> 1:22:56
basically taken over the British Empire and done it even better

1152
1:22:56 --> 1:23:01
than they did. Or worse than they did. Anyway.

1153
1:23:02 --> 1:23:06
Yes, but what's going on is treason, both in the US and in

1154
1:23:06 --> 1:23:09
the UK, and many other countries.

1155
1:23:09 --> 1:23:14
Yeah, I know. Now they're even wondering whether it was MI6 or

1156
1:23:14 --> 1:23:20
the CIA that blew up the pipeline. And hardly tell them

1157
1:23:20 --> 1:23:28
apart. After all, James Bond was an agent of the Her Majesty's

1158
1:23:28 --> 1:23:29
Foreign Service, right?

1159
1:23:31 --> 1:23:33
Thank you. Thank you, Jack.

1160
1:23:33 --> 1:23:35
Have you seen that you must see the video if you weren't present

1161
1:23:35 --> 1:23:38
at the meeting, because it doesn't sound as though you were

1162
1:23:38 --> 1:23:42
of Hans, what's his name? Hans Jonathan?

1163
1:23:42 --> 1:23:44
Hans Benjamin.

1164
1:23:44 --> 1:23:46
And sorry, yes, Benjamin.

1165
1:23:47 --> 1:23:47
No, I don't think so.

1166
1:23:47 --> 1:23:49
Benjamin Braun worth having a look at.

1167
1:23:49 --> 1:23:51
Well, you must have a look at that, Jack, you'd be absolutely

1168
1:23:51 --> 1:23:52
fascinated by it.

1169
1:23:53 --> 1:23:55
Is that one of your Tuesday meetings?

1170
1:23:55 --> 1:23:56
Yes.

1171
1:23:56 --> 1:23:58
He was on Sunday.

1172
1:23:59 --> 1:24:01
And he was also on Tuesday.

1173
1:24:01 --> 1:24:02
Both are worth watching.

1174
1:24:03 --> 1:24:07
OK, Jack, if you put your link into your radio program, because

1175
1:24:07 --> 1:24:09
I didn't know you had a radio program, so put that in there

1176
1:24:09 --> 1:24:11
so people can also follow you.

1177
1:24:11 --> 1:24:12
Jonathan, you OK?

1178
1:24:12 --> 1:24:14
We've got plenty of questions coming.

1179
1:24:14 --> 1:24:17
So, you know, we'll keep you a good barrister, you know, with

1180
1:24:17 --> 1:24:18
with a judge, you're the barrister.

1181
1:24:19 --> 1:24:19
Janet.

1182
1:24:22 --> 1:24:22
Thank you.

1183
1:24:23 --> 1:24:28
I've just got a couple of anecdotes and then a couple of questions.

1184
1:24:29 --> 1:24:31
Yeah, March 2020.

1185
1:24:32 --> 1:24:32
Excuse me.

1186
1:24:33 --> 1:24:35
I I thought immediately it was a scam.

1187
1:24:35 --> 1:24:38
I'm a retired GP in the UK.

1188
1:24:38 --> 1:24:40
I thought it was a scam straight away.

1189
1:24:40 --> 1:24:42
And I got in touch with

1190
1:24:42 --> 1:24:47
a medical school friend of mine, I've known him ever since we qualified in

1191
1:24:48 --> 1:24:55
79, and he was in charge of looking after an old people's home in East England.

1192
1:24:56 --> 1:24:57
And I said, I think this is a scam.

1193
1:24:57 --> 1:24:59
And he said, well, you could be right.

1194
1:24:59 --> 1:25:04
He said, but normally at this time of the year, we expect four deaths

1195
1:25:04 --> 1:25:05
in the care home.

1196
1:25:05 --> 1:25:11
And he said, this year we've had 20, which is a 400 per cent increase.

1197
1:25:11 --> 1:25:14
And he couldn't explain that.

1198
1:25:14 --> 1:25:18
And he, you know, he's a very caring person who loves old people.

1199
1:25:18 --> 1:25:21
And I can't imagine he was writing up, you know,

1200
1:25:21 --> 1:25:23
prescriptions to kill them.

1201
1:25:23 --> 1:25:26
So something was going on and I don't know what.

1202
1:25:26 --> 1:25:28
And he couldn't explain it either.

1203
1:25:29 --> 1:25:31
My son,

1204
1:25:32 --> 1:25:36
one of his school friends was a hospital doctor in London at the same time.

1205
1:25:36 --> 1:25:40
And he because I was saying, Pete, this is a scam.

1206
1:25:40 --> 1:25:42
He got in touch with his friend.

1207
1:25:42 --> 1:25:43
He was a hospital doctor.

1208
1:25:43 --> 1:25:47
And this this lad said, I've never seen so many deaths.

1209
1:25:48 --> 1:25:51
Obviously, I don't know what was going on in the hospitals,

1210
1:25:51 --> 1:25:53
but certainly the junior doctors were seeing things

1211
1:25:53 --> 1:25:57
that they completely outside their experience and they couldn't explain it.

1212
1:25:59 --> 1:26:01
So that was just to to brief anecdotes.

1213
1:26:01 --> 1:26:06
I mean, in terms of saying that there was no pandemic,

1214
1:26:06 --> 1:26:08
because actually there were no excess deaths.

1215
1:26:09 --> 1:26:11
On the other hand,

1216
1:26:11 --> 1:26:15
it seems to be said that there were excess deaths

1217
1:26:15 --> 1:26:18
because of the lockdown and the other measures.

1218
1:26:18 --> 1:26:22
So I guess I'm just wondering, so were there excess deaths

1219
1:26:23 --> 1:26:25
due to lockdown or the measures or?

1220
1:26:26 --> 1:26:31
So if there were excess deaths, then it doesn't that falsify

1221
1:26:31 --> 1:26:34
the statement that there weren't excess deaths because there was no pandemic.

1222
1:26:35 --> 1:26:38
So that was just a sort of a slightly confusing thing.

1223
1:26:38 --> 1:26:40
And the other side, the last the last point is,

1224
1:26:40 --> 1:26:44
are you saying that there was a SARS-CoV-2 virus

1225
1:26:44 --> 1:26:47
or were you saying that there wasn't a SARS-CoV-2 virus?

1226
1:26:47 --> 1:26:52
And it was just other respiratory viruses that were mislabeled

1227
1:26:52 --> 1:26:54
because of the test.

1228
1:26:55 --> 1:26:56
Right.

1229
1:26:57 --> 1:27:04
Can I just ask you the anecdote when you referred to the care home person?

1230
1:27:04 --> 1:27:06
When when was that that those people died?

1231
1:27:07 --> 1:27:10
Yeah, it was it was around March, because as soon as I heard all this nonsense,

1232
1:27:10 --> 1:27:18
because I was awake with I mean, when when the swine flu pandemic started

1233
1:27:18 --> 1:27:24
or whatever it was, I remember going on to one of the doctors net forums

1234
1:27:24 --> 1:27:28
and saying to people, saying to this is when I was allowed on before I was banned.

1235
1:27:29 --> 1:27:32
I went on there and I said I said to the people that were on there,

1236
1:27:32 --> 1:27:35
I said, are any of you seeing these people?

1237
1:27:36 --> 1:27:38
You know, if you're on call, are you seeing any of these?

1238
1:27:38 --> 1:27:39
And they weren't seeing them.

1239
1:27:39 --> 1:27:41
They weren't seeing anybody with swine flu.

1240
1:27:41 --> 1:27:44
You know, that was my first kind of wake up because it was obvious

1241
1:27:44 --> 1:27:48
that what what we were hearing was not actually what people were seeing on the ground.

1242
1:27:49 --> 1:27:55
So as soon as this March thing happened, I just thought it's just this is just nonsense.

1243
1:27:55 --> 1:27:59
You know, I mean, the first point I make is that

1244
1:27:59 --> 1:28:03
just because people either died in care homes or presented to hospital very ill,

1245
1:28:03 --> 1:28:06
it doesn't mean to say that that's the tip of that.

1246
1:28:06 --> 1:28:12
That's the end point of the of the terror that happens in the community.

1247
1:28:12 --> 1:28:16
So if you've got all these people who switch light on here, it's a bit dim.

1248
1:28:17 --> 1:28:20
Yeah. If you've got

1249
1:28:20 --> 1:28:24
people who are terrorized for a few weeks in the community

1250
1:28:24 --> 1:28:27
and are not seeing doctors and are not being prescribed,

1251
1:28:27 --> 1:28:31
for example, broad spectrum antibiotics, if they have incipient chest infection

1252
1:28:31 --> 1:28:34
or something of that nature, then they're going to get they're going to get very ill

1253
1:28:35 --> 1:28:37
in the community and then they're going to present into hospital.

1254
1:28:37 --> 1:28:40
So what presented in hospital doesn't necessarily mean

1255
1:28:40 --> 1:28:43
that they should have presented in hospital in that way.

1256
1:28:43 --> 1:28:46
That's just the that they're the people who have been

1257
1:28:46 --> 1:28:51
effectively terrorized and mistreated by by the measures in society.

1258
1:28:51 --> 1:28:54
So that's the first point I make about about hospital presentations.

1259
1:28:55 --> 1:28:57
In terms of excess excess deaths.

1260
1:28:57 --> 1:29:03
So the point is that those examples I gave you were

1261
1:29:03 --> 1:29:06
completely extreme examples.

1262
1:29:06 --> 1:29:09
And the reason I put the New York and Lombardy,

1263
1:29:09 --> 1:29:12
the reason I pulled those out as examples is because.

1264
1:29:12 --> 1:29:16
Those were used, they were very, very short,

1265
1:29:16 --> 1:29:20
narrow spikes of huge numbers of deaths.

1266
1:29:20 --> 1:29:26
And that was not repeated in the majority of other places, in hardly any other places.

1267
1:29:26 --> 1:29:30
But the point I'm I'm alerting you to is the fact that those were used

1268
1:29:30 --> 1:29:36
and propagated by media, you know, mainstream media to drive a narrative.

1269
1:29:36 --> 1:29:41
And the and actually in raw numbers, those numbers of deaths that happened there,

1270
1:29:41 --> 1:29:46
they went into all the scary calculations of case fatality rates and so on.

1271
1:29:46 --> 1:29:49
And of course, if those were largely iatrogenic deaths,

1272
1:29:49 --> 1:29:54
that is a massive overestimation of of case fatality rates.

1273
1:29:55 --> 1:29:59
And we know that that's the case anyway, because we know that the the infection

1274
1:29:59 --> 1:30:04
fatality rate, even taken at its highest by the IANIDIS paper,

1275
1:30:04 --> 1:30:07
is in the region of seasonal flu.

1276
1:30:07 --> 1:30:10
I showed you what seasonal flu looks like.

1277
1:30:10 --> 1:30:13
If you look at those, you hardly see it happen.

1278
1:30:13 --> 1:30:18
If you look at a graph of total all cause mortality, you have it hardly figures.

1279
1:30:19 --> 1:30:20
And yet we see these spikes.

1280
1:30:20 --> 1:30:24
So the reason I pointed the spikes out was not to say there must be a virus.

1281
1:30:24 --> 1:30:26
They're causing that excess deaths, but to show that something very,

1282
1:30:26 --> 1:30:33
very unnatural happened there overall, of course, in certainly in the the UK

1283
1:30:33 --> 1:30:37
and Sweden, I mean, the levels of excess death that happened in 2020

1284
1:30:37 --> 1:30:41
are different across it, obviously across different countries.

1285
1:30:41 --> 1:30:44
But in the in Sweden

1286
1:30:46 --> 1:30:49
and I think also in the UK, I think definitely in the UK, actually,

1287
1:30:49 --> 1:30:56
it was the in terms of age adjusted all cause mortality in the UK

1288
1:30:56 --> 1:31:00
was, I think, the eighth worst

1289
1:31:00 --> 1:31:05
in the previous 20 in the 21st century, in the 20 years.

1290
1:31:06 --> 1:31:10
So that was just to put in in perspective, it was only the eighth worst total.

1291
1:31:12 --> 1:31:16
And Sweden, you'll have seen graphs of Sweden total,

1292
1:31:16 --> 1:31:19
you know, age adjusted all cause mortality in Sweden.

1293
1:31:19 --> 1:31:22
People do things like, you know, jumble up the years and say,

1294
1:31:22 --> 1:31:23
which is the pandemic year?

1295
1:31:23 --> 1:31:25
You basically you just can't tell.

1296
1:31:26 --> 1:31:28
I remember seeing that.

1297
1:31:28 --> 1:31:30
Yes. So 2020.

1298
1:31:30 --> 1:31:33
Yes, in some places, there were huge numbers of deaths

1299
1:31:33 --> 1:31:36
or should I say huge numbers of reported deaths

1300
1:31:37 --> 1:31:41
which were seemed to be used to drive a narrative.

1301
1:31:41 --> 1:31:44
Then there were

1302
1:31:44 --> 1:31:48
there were a large number of deaths attributed to Covid.

1303
1:31:49 --> 1:31:53
But the actual picture in terms of the amount of excess mortality

1304
1:31:53 --> 1:31:57
was, of course, not that great because the vast majority of people dying

1305
1:31:58 --> 1:32:02
were around the age of life expectancy

1306
1:32:02 --> 1:32:04
with multiple comorbidities and so on.

1307
1:32:04 --> 1:32:08
And that's why the total number of the excess mortality

1308
1:32:08 --> 1:32:11
was not actually that great.

1309
1:32:11 --> 1:32:14
So are you therefore saying that the lockdowns and the masks

1310
1:32:14 --> 1:32:18
and the social isolation, so on, didn't cause excess mortality?

1311
1:32:18 --> 1:32:20
Because that's the bit that I'm confused about,

1312
1:32:20 --> 1:32:23
whether it did cause excess mortality or it didn't.

1313
1:32:24 --> 1:32:29
In 2020, the lockdowns did cause

1314
1:32:30 --> 1:32:35
it did cause a small amount of unnecessary unnecessary deaths,

1315
1:32:35 --> 1:32:39
and it probably caused the premature deaths of quite a lot of people.

1316
1:32:39 --> 1:32:45
But within the overall, the amount of excess death in the UK was in 2020

1317
1:32:45 --> 1:32:47
was not actually that great.

1318
1:32:48 --> 1:32:51
Right. And was there a new virus?

1319
1:32:51 --> 1:32:54
Or was it other was it just other things mislabeled?

1320
1:32:54 --> 1:32:56
I mean, do we do we have any any sense on that?

1321
1:32:57 --> 1:33:01
Well, they're really what it boils down to is the fidelity of PCR testing

1322
1:33:03 --> 1:33:04
to answer that question.

1323
1:33:04 --> 1:33:06
And I don't myself have a firm handle.

1324
1:33:06 --> 1:33:09
I haven't got to the bottom of of

1325
1:33:10 --> 1:33:14
exactly how specific and sensitive PCR testing was.

1326
1:33:14 --> 1:33:17
My own view is that

1327
1:33:17 --> 1:33:21
we're dealing with endemic, an endemic coronavirus,

1328
1:33:21 --> 1:33:25
a sort of swarm of endemic coronavirus, which is constantly mutating.

1329
1:33:25 --> 1:33:31
And what we did by the PCR technology is effectively we kind of

1330
1:33:31 --> 1:33:35
it's a bit like a light beam

1331
1:33:35 --> 1:33:40
shining across a window with light streaming in.

1332
1:33:40 --> 1:33:43
You see dust, you know, you suddenly reveal dust, which was always there,

1333
1:33:43 --> 1:33:44
but you don't normally see it.

1334
1:33:44 --> 1:33:48
And so what PCR did effectively was just light up

1335
1:33:48 --> 1:33:52
and light up endemic coronaviruses, which are always present,

1336
1:33:52 --> 1:33:56
always going in and out of animals, into humans and back again.

1337
1:33:56 --> 1:34:01
And we normally they normally express themselves as either asymptomatically

1338
1:34:01 --> 1:34:03
or very, very mild illness.

1339
1:34:03 --> 1:34:07
And I believe that we basically have

1340
1:34:07 --> 1:34:11
first of all, we damaged the immune system of the population hugely

1341
1:34:11 --> 1:34:15
in 2020 with the measures and then obviously the pharmaceutical measures

1342
1:34:15 --> 1:34:17
damaged them even further.

1343
1:34:17 --> 1:34:22
But I believe we effectively lit up endemic coronaviruses,

1344
1:34:22 --> 1:34:25
which have been which are always evolving.

1345
1:34:26 --> 1:34:31
And that SARS-CoV-2 is basically just the name given to

1346
1:34:32 --> 1:34:37
the that virus, which has been mutating constantly.

1347
1:34:37 --> 1:34:39
And it was the name given at that time.

1348
1:34:39 --> 1:34:40
And of course, I should.

1349
1:34:40 --> 1:34:41
It's worth noting that

1350
1:34:41 --> 1:34:44
at it there, you know, there is considerable overlap

1351
1:34:44 --> 1:34:48
between this and other and SARS viruses and

1352
1:34:49 --> 1:34:49
SARS virus.

1353
1:34:49 --> 1:34:53
Interestingly, there was they stopped PCR testing.

1354
1:34:53 --> 1:34:58
They've nobody's done any testing for SARS viruses, no PCR testing at all

1355
1:34:58 --> 1:35:02
since 2010 when they declared that pandemic over.

1356
1:35:02 --> 1:35:06
So who knows what actually that's been circulating and causing

1357
1:35:06 --> 1:35:10
mild illness, being contributory to flu, causing some cold, some flu,

1358
1:35:10 --> 1:35:16
some severe respiratory infections in elderly and immunocompromised people.

1359
1:35:16 --> 1:35:19
And there was also a rage,

1360
1:35:20 --> 1:35:25
quite a vehement debate in 2020 in the International

1361
1:35:27 --> 1:35:29
Taxonomy Committee, I can't remember its exact name,

1362
1:35:29 --> 1:35:31
but there is a committee that is set up

1363
1:35:32 --> 1:35:35
where they decide to name viruses and

1364
1:35:35 --> 1:35:41
that it it was by no means a slam dunk that this would be called SARS-CoV-2.

1365
1:35:42 --> 1:35:44
There was sufficient similarity that some people said

1366
1:35:44 --> 1:35:47
that it was just an evolved version of SARS.

1367
1:35:47 --> 1:35:51
And there was clearly there were elements within that committee

1368
1:35:51 --> 1:35:56
that were pushing for this to be called to because they wanted it to be

1369
1:35:56 --> 1:36:01
probably because they wanted it to be regarded as a novel as a novel virus.

1370
1:36:02 --> 1:36:06
So the genome, the genome was investigated,

1371
1:36:07 --> 1:36:10
genome of the virus, as it leaving aside the PCR test,

1372
1:36:10 --> 1:36:14
which we know was was set at too high a level and therefore gave nine.

1373
1:36:14 --> 1:36:17
Yeah, well, there's there's some weird,

1374
1:36:17 --> 1:36:19
there are some weird things about the genome as well.

1375
1:36:19 --> 1:36:23
I mean, you know, the story is that they took some bronchiola

1376
1:36:23 --> 1:36:27
lavage fluid from a man in Wuhan

1377
1:36:28 --> 1:36:31
in on about December the 20th, I think it was.

1378
1:36:31 --> 1:36:33
Twenty nineteen.

1379
1:36:33 --> 1:36:35
And that's where they sequenced the virus.

1380
1:36:35 --> 1:36:37
Well, I mean, this just doesn't really make any sense.

1381
1:36:37 --> 1:36:39
I mean, if you think about it, because

1382
1:36:39 --> 1:36:43
first of all, the man in their 40s, this is not a man who would be ill

1383
1:36:43 --> 1:36:44
from this at all.

1384
1:36:45 --> 1:36:49
And secondly, why choose?

1385
1:36:50 --> 1:36:53
What is it that I mean, is it in somebody, particularly somebody

1386
1:36:53 --> 1:36:57
that age, the illness is kind of indistinguishable from any other respiratory

1387
1:36:58 --> 1:37:00
viral infection and

1388
1:37:01 --> 1:37:04
I'm calling bullshit on this story because I just can't think of a reason

1389
1:37:04 --> 1:37:07
why they should choose one person and take

1390
1:37:08 --> 1:37:12
a sample of bronchiola lavage and then sequence that.

1391
1:37:12 --> 1:37:15
And then, of course, this sequence gets sent around the world.

1392
1:37:15 --> 1:37:18
And before anybody has actually died outside China,

1393
1:37:18 --> 1:37:21
they apparently sequenced this in early January.

1394
1:37:22 --> 1:37:26
And it's just it's kind of science fiction type of story.

1395
1:37:26 --> 1:37:30
So I don't really know

1396
1:37:30 --> 1:37:34
the link between the sequence and this particular virus

1397
1:37:34 --> 1:37:36
and the PCR technology.

1398
1:37:36 --> 1:37:39
My sense is the PCR

1399
1:37:40 --> 1:37:44
technology, particularly cranked up to these kind of levels

1400
1:37:44 --> 1:37:48
that it was, is probably picking up all manner of genetic material.

1401
1:37:48 --> 1:37:55
And I'm yet to be convinced that it was picking up a discreet virus at all.

1402
1:37:55 --> 1:37:58
I mean, the other point worth making is that

1403
1:37:58 --> 1:38:03
and I will put the links into the material I circulate after.

1404
1:38:03 --> 1:38:05
Is this vanishing flu story?

1405
1:38:05 --> 1:38:07
Because the whole

1406
1:38:08 --> 1:38:12
narrative, one of the planks of the narrative is that flu

1407
1:38:13 --> 1:38:16
sort of disappeared from the face of the earth.

1408
1:38:16 --> 1:38:19
And that is due to this viral competition.

1409
1:38:19 --> 1:38:23
Again, I find this a bit sort of science fiction.

1410
1:38:23 --> 1:38:26
So you've got some some sort of in vitro.

1411
1:38:27 --> 1:38:28
You've got some

1412
1:38:29 --> 1:38:33
studies in individuals, which suggest that maybe the

1413
1:38:33 --> 1:38:36
interferon from one infection prevents

1414
1:38:37 --> 1:38:39
another viral infection at the same time.

1415
1:38:39 --> 1:38:40
It's actually quite weak.

1416
1:38:40 --> 1:38:44
If you if you read the articles that we wrote myself and Martin

1417
1:38:44 --> 1:38:49
Neil, you'll see that we've listed the holes in the story about disappearing flu.

1418
1:38:50 --> 1:38:51
And

1419
1:38:51 --> 1:38:54
even if this viral competition

1420
1:38:55 --> 1:38:58
theory in an individual whereby somebody says,

1421
1:38:58 --> 1:39:01
oh, you know, there's only room for one virus in the nasopharynx

1422
1:39:01 --> 1:39:04
and it takes over and wipes out the other, even if that's true,

1423
1:39:04 --> 1:39:09
I still don't understand how that is meant to extend to whole populations

1424
1:39:09 --> 1:39:11
across the whole world.

1425
1:39:11 --> 1:39:14
All their noses are interlinked so that it wipes out the flu virus

1426
1:39:14 --> 1:39:16
from everybody's nose simultaneously.

1427
1:39:16 --> 1:39:18
It just seems completely nonsensical to me.

1428
1:39:19 --> 1:39:23
The other point is that we make in the in the articles.

1429
1:39:23 --> 1:39:27
It's very important is that basically what people don't understand

1430
1:39:27 --> 1:39:32
is the extent to which the flu numbers is a completely

1431
1:39:33 --> 1:39:35
sort of modeled construct.

1432
1:39:35 --> 1:39:41
So every every year they say how many people died from flu or whatever.

1433
1:39:41 --> 1:39:45
It's not that we never test for PCR test people for influenza viruses.

1434
1:39:46 --> 1:39:47
It's just complete guesswork.

1435
1:39:47 --> 1:39:54
And so it we've coined the phrase or actually to give full credit,

1436
1:39:54 --> 1:39:58
it's Jessica Hockett coined the phrase that it's not viral interference,

1437
1:39:58 --> 1:40:00
it's human interference.

1438
1:40:00 --> 1:40:03
So, you know, I find the notion that

1439
1:40:04 --> 1:40:06
the flu disappeared

1440
1:40:08 --> 1:40:13
at exactly the same time as we started diverting all the resources

1441
1:40:14 --> 1:40:16
we have for testing into testing for SARS-CoV-2.

1442
1:40:16 --> 1:40:20
And flu disappeared, but SARS-CoV-2,

1443
1:40:20 --> 1:40:23
which is minting trillions for certain groups,

1444
1:40:23 --> 1:40:25
including the testing as well,

1445
1:40:25 --> 1:40:30
that that is just disconnected from the biological reality.

1446
1:40:30 --> 1:40:32
I just find it extraordinary.

1447
1:40:32 --> 1:40:36
Something very, very odd has gone on with the testing, in my opinion.

1448
1:40:36 --> 1:40:39
So and of course, there is a possibility there's co-infection.

1449
1:40:39 --> 1:40:42
I don't there's no seems to be no real argument against the flu.

1450
1:40:42 --> 1:40:48
There might be multiple viruses that are causing that regularly cause respiratory illnesses.

1451
1:40:48 --> 1:40:51
And if we just test for SARS-CoV-2 and you find that ka-ching,

1452
1:40:51 --> 1:40:53
we've got SARS-CoV-2 positive here,

1453
1:40:53 --> 1:40:57
they would never have tested or even considered co-infection with an influenza virus.

1454
1:40:58 --> 1:40:59
So, yeah.

1455
1:40:59 --> 1:41:06
Do you think that you think the PCR testing is a valid method of testing for infection?

1456
1:41:07 --> 1:41:11
PCR testing might be a valid way of finding matching genetic materials.

1457
1:41:11 --> 1:41:16
But I don't know whether that to what extent that reflects infection.

1458
1:41:17 --> 1:41:18
I don't really know.

1459
1:41:18 --> 1:41:24
And in fact, I think we know so little about viral disease,

1460
1:41:24 --> 1:41:26
how viruses interact with humans,

1461
1:41:27 --> 1:41:30
that I don't even know that we know really what an infection means.

1462
1:41:30 --> 1:41:36
So, you know, most people fight off respiratory infections at the mucosal level.

1463
1:41:36 --> 1:41:39
And so all this sort of antibody testing is,

1464
1:41:39 --> 1:41:40
is probably nonsense.

1465
1:41:40 --> 1:41:41
Absolutely, Jonathan.

1466
1:41:42 --> 1:41:43
Yeah, it was on the wrong side.

1467
1:41:44 --> 1:41:49
I wrote a rapid response to the British Medical Journal about the PCR testing

1468
1:41:49 --> 1:41:55
because I'd actually had a look at the manufacturer's instructions on the packets.

1469
1:41:55 --> 1:42:01
And they said it wasn't specific for a particular virus for SARS-CoV-2.

1470
1:42:02 --> 1:42:04
And it couldn't tell whether anyone was infected or not.

1471
1:42:04 --> 1:42:08
So they were all complete, as far as I was aware, the ones that were infected were all infected.

1472
1:42:08 --> 1:42:11
As far as I was aware, the ones that I'd seen were all completely useless.

1473
1:42:12 --> 1:42:17
Yeah, I mean, it's probably true to say that there was,

1474
1:42:18 --> 1:42:25
there was some link between positivity and symptoms.

1475
1:42:25 --> 1:42:28
You know, just talking to people around you,

1476
1:42:28 --> 1:42:33
when they got what I would call, you know, regular seasonal illnesses,

1477
1:42:33 --> 1:42:38
they did tend to test positive, but I'm actually more thinking about it.

1478
1:42:38 --> 1:42:42
I'm more talking about the, you know, the home tests, the lateral flow tests, the antigen tests.

1479
1:42:43 --> 1:42:49
So certainly it is measuring something, whether or not it is clinically useful, relevant,

1480
1:42:49 --> 1:42:53
and how sensitive, how specific it is for whatever virus,

1481
1:42:53 --> 1:43:00
whether you can draw these overarching global conclusions that they wish to draw from this data is a totally different question.

1482
1:43:00 --> 1:43:06
Well, Jonathan, the inventor of the PCR technique, Kerry Mullis, was absolutely clear.

1483
1:43:06 --> 1:43:11
And he absolutely hated Fauci and challenged him to meet him.

1484
1:43:11 --> 1:43:15
He said that my test, sorry, it wasn't the test he invented.

1485
1:43:15 --> 1:43:18
He invented the technique. He won the Nobel Prize for it.

1486
1:43:18 --> 1:43:23
It was a brilliant advance. And he got the Nobel Prize 10 years later.

1487
1:43:23 --> 1:43:29
I think it came into being 1983 and he got the Nobel Prize in 1993.

1488
1:43:29 --> 1:43:42
But the point is that he said that my these the PCR technique should never be used as a diagnostic tool for viral illnesses.

1489
1:43:42 --> 1:43:50
So he was on to Fauci. He said about Fauci, Fauci knows nothing, doesn't know anything about anything.

1490
1:43:50 --> 1:43:52
And I would say that to his face.

1491
1:43:52 --> 1:43:58
And he was dead in August 2019 with a mysterious pneumonia.

1492
1:43:58 --> 1:44:16
Yeah. So one of the other points that we make in the articles about the iatrogenic harm that I wrote with Martin and Norman and Nick Hudson is that never before have we used technology like this,

1493
1:44:16 --> 1:44:26
which first of all, you know, not really understood, well understood what it means, particularly when we're sort of cranking it up to these these levels, cycle threshold levels.

1494
1:44:26 --> 1:44:36
Never before we consider in the past using a readout from a technology like that to actually guide individual treatment.

1495
1:44:36 --> 1:44:47
It's it's it's basically it's just completely giving up the role of the doctor and completely severing the doctor patient relationship.

1496
1:44:47 --> 1:44:53
Absolutely, Jonathan. That's that's consistent with their wish to impose artificial intelligence on population.

1497
1:44:54 --> 1:44:56
Instead of doctors.

1498
1:44:56 --> 1:45:14
The point the point the point I'm going to make is that we must consider the possibility that as some of the respiratory deaths occurred actually occurred through bacterial pneumonia.

1499
1:45:15 --> 1:45:33
So we know that we know from even Fouchy wrote an article about the 1918 outbreak in which he said that or whether they dug up a load of bodies and did autopsies on them.

1500
1:45:33 --> 1:45:40
People who had died who had been who had been buried in very, very cold places like in northern Canada, but a well preserved tissue.

1501
1:45:40 --> 1:46:05
And they basically found that virtually all the deaths were due to secondary bacterial pneumonia and Fouchy wrote a paper which basically said that this is an important finding and means that antibiotic storage provision is the word should be a part of any future pandemic planning.

1502
1:46:05 --> 1:46:22
Now, the interesting thing about what happened in the last three years was if you had a positive test, you of course then went down a pathway where you basically depending on your doctor, but if the doctor was basically bought into the whole thing, it stay at home till you go blue.

1503
1:46:22 --> 1:46:35
Whereas in the past it would have been you've either got some incipient bacterial infection, or this will act to prevent secondary bacterial infection give you broad spectrum antibiotics.

1504
1:46:35 --> 1:46:42
And we know that broad spectrum antibiotic prescription halved in the places where I've seen data, which is UK and US.

1505
1:46:42 --> 1:46:47
It was basically a halving of broad spectrum antibiotic prescription.

1506
1:46:47 --> 1:46:57
Now if you combine this with the fact that in the UK certainly towards the end of 2020 of course people started becoming obsessed with face masks.

1507
1:46:57 --> 1:47:20
Now there's a study as a Japanese study in about 120 volunteers, where they took the cloth face masks from volunteers, and they grew potentially pathogenic bacterial colonies in something like 95% of cases and actually potentially pathogenic fungal

1508
1:47:20 --> 1:47:32
colonies in in virtually in 99% or it might even be in 100% nearly all the all of the face masks from this hundred and 20 odd people that they that they took samples from.

1509
1:47:32 --> 1:47:51
So it's sort of occurred to me potentially that, of course, by the way, these, but these organisms were all commensal organisms and we know that virtually all bacterial pneumonia are originate from the, from the mouth or nose, and they are bacteria that normally we live in

1510
1:47:51 --> 1:48:11
with, which have become pathogenic for some reason. So the situation in particularly it towards the end of 2020, particularly when masks started to be used where you've got people breathing in this through this damp mask with all these colonies potentially coming from their, you know, their own commensal organisms.

1511
1:48:11 --> 1:48:40
And then of course you've got weakened immune systems for all the reasons we've given to do with psychological factors etc etc not going out vitamin D deficiency and so on and so forth. And then of course you've got the fact that if they test positive, which of course they might well do incidentally or the cycle thresholds, or it could be just a, it could genuinely be this coronavirus lighting up positive, they would not be given antibiotics, because it's assumed to be a viral illness.

1512
1:48:40 --> 1:48:55
And so, you know, we don't die. The classical pathologies that that viral disease, you know, respiratory viral infections are not what kill people, it is secondary bacterial infection that kills people.

1513
1:48:55 --> 1:49:19
So, I think we must face the possibility that in, you know, particularly past the acute phase, particularly into what we might call a second or third waves of whatever we're talking about, is that bacterial pneumonia kill improperly treated or not treated at all responsible for a large number of deaths.

1514
1:49:20 --> 1:49:30
And interestingly, Jonathan, as I remember it, not only did flu disappear, but bacterial pneumonia disappeared too. That was the official story.

1515
1:49:30 --> 1:49:37
And, sorry, how could, how could bacterial pneumonia actually disappear. I didn't know about that.

1516
1:49:37 --> 1:49:44
It couldn't. How could they only by only by relabeling them as COVID.

1517
1:49:44 --> 1:50:05
So, the withholding of antibiotics was consistent with the previous war on antibiotics, you know, telling doctors to be over cautious in my opinion I always felt that in giving antibiotics to someone who is frail with a viral illness which could easily turn into a bacterial pneumonia.

1518
1:50:05 --> 1:50:25
So, I used to give prophylactic antibiotics broad spectrum as you said, that was reasonable as a medical doctor, and it's not reasonable for doctors to stop doing things that they think are reasonable, just because the authorities say that they shouldn't when they are the authorities.

1519
1:50:25 --> 1:50:40
By the way, I have heard it, you know, hypothesized that, you know, the whole super bug story is, is another piece of propaganda.

1520
1:50:40 --> 1:50:41
Yeah.

1521
1:50:41 --> 1:50:42
Yeah.

1522
1:50:42 --> 1:50:51
Because if you are, you're then basically inventing the need for expensive new antibiotics all the time.

1523
1:50:51 --> 1:50:54
Very good. Yeah. Interesting.

1524
1:50:54 --> 1:50:58
Let's keep going. Stephen because we're Janet we done with you.

1525
1:50:58 --> 1:51:02
Thank you for your questions, Janet. They're brilliant questions, Janet.

1526
1:51:02 --> 1:51:07
In the nicest possible way Janet I mean are we done with you.

1527
1:51:07 --> 1:51:10
Thanks.

1528
1:51:10 --> 1:51:19
Jeremy from Canada now Jonathan.

1529
1:51:19 --> 1:51:23
You muted Jeremy.

1530
1:51:23 --> 1:51:37
Sorry about that. Thank you again Charles and thank you Jonathan for your great presentation and your analysis of what actually took place in 2020, and things related to that.

1531
1:51:37 --> 1:51:39
Let me say off the top.

1532
1:51:39 --> 1:51:47
I fully agree with your description or tweet about Peter McCullough.

1533
1:51:47 --> 1:51:53
It's unfortunate that he always seems to have been three months behind.

1534
1:51:53 --> 1:52:13
Not that I'm qualified to assess that but after three years, he still is reluctant to take a stand against vaccines in general and particularly childhood vaccines, which I don't think is going to stand them in good stead for much longer.

1535
1:52:13 --> 1:52:30
The PCR test, which I think came on the scene in 1983, and it took him 10 years to achieve the Nobel Prize in 1993 for chemistry.

1536
1:52:30 --> 1:52:44
Backdrom and Ceptra. I believe when I, now in the interest of full disclosure I should tell you that my career was as a pharmaceutical sales representative for 34 years.

1537
1:52:44 --> 1:52:49
So in this group of luminaries I'm kind of like a paperweight or a doorstop.

1538
1:52:49 --> 1:53:12
And so I'm not sure why they put up with me but I do believe that when I started in 1984, Backdrom and Ceptra, trimethyprim, sulfamethoxazole, were genericized already, and had the potential to cause Stevens-Johnson syndrome, blood disorder, and kill a few people here and there.

1539
1:53:12 --> 1:53:19
But I guess the risk-benefit ratio was acceptable.

1540
1:53:19 --> 1:53:35
The reason I wanted to stick my oar in here was to give an anecdote which addresses the question as to how many people need to die before you pull something off the market.

1541
1:53:35 --> 1:53:41
So here's my experience. I spent my last 17 years in the area of multiple sclerosis.

1542
1:53:41 --> 1:53:54
So that sort of began for me in 2021. By 2009 we had a competitor come on the market. It was a product of Biogen called Tesabri.

1543
1:53:54 --> 1:54:01
I think on this zoom I can name names. Nataluzumab, which is a monoclonal antibody.

1544
1:54:01 --> 1:54:24
Unfortunately, it had the potential to awaken the J.C. virus, the John Cunningham virus, which could lead to what we could call turbo MS, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, which is an accelerated form of brain wasting or multiple sclerosis itself.

1545
1:54:24 --> 1:54:39
Now what happened was within about, as I recall, within about three months, this was interesting because it wasn't people who were getting Nataluzumab after the approval.

1546
1:54:39 --> 1:54:55
It was going back to the trials where it became evident that three people had, well, at least two had died and one had survived PML or progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, but was a vegetable.

1547
1:54:55 --> 1:55:06
So at that point, when they became aware that there were at least two deaths likely attributed to the drug, it was pulled from the market.

1548
1:55:06 --> 1:55:17
So that was two. That's probably the low end of when you pull things. But that was about three months after the marketing and the release into the market.

1549
1:55:17 --> 1:55:23
Two people evidently had died and one was reduced to a vegetable.

1550
1:55:23 --> 1:55:33
So it became a numbers game after that. Like how many people would you would be acceptable to get PML?

1551
1:55:33 --> 1:55:41
Now, to be fair, they were only going to use this product in people who have very accelerated MS.

1552
1:55:41 --> 1:55:49
So and that the existing therapies wouldn't likely do much for them, including the one that I had.

1553
1:55:49 --> 1:56:04
So eventually it did come back on the market and there was kind of an acceptable level of people who might succumb to PML in the neighborhood of about one in 500 to one in a thousand.

1554
1:56:04 --> 1:56:13
So it really depends on the situation. And I believe in this case, it only took two before they pulled it.

1555
1:56:13 --> 1:56:31
But I think my experience over all those years within the first year, if you saw 20 to 25 deaths, which could possibly be associated with drug, it got pulled in usually forever at that point.

1556
1:56:31 --> 1:56:33
So I thought that might be interesting.

1557
1:56:33 --> 1:56:40
Thanks. Thanks, Jeremy. Yeah, I think we're way past the point.

1558
1:56:40 --> 1:56:50
It's quite obvious that the regulators are completely captured and acting under orders of their governments, not independently.

1559
1:56:50 --> 1:57:00
Well, it's interesting that this happened in 2009 when the when the previous horny virus problem arose.

1560
1:57:00 --> 1:57:02
Yeah.

1561
1:57:02 --> 1:57:13
Thank you. Thank you, Jeremy. All right. I'm next. My hand was up. We'll go Sandra first and then me.

1562
1:57:13 --> 1:57:18
Hi, everybody. I want to thank you for that fabulous presentation.

1563
1:57:18 --> 1:57:22
I always learn a lot on these I'm really appreciative.

1564
1:57:22 --> 1:57:34
But one thing that kind of disturbs me that I hear I heard in this presentation, as well as in other ones, is that this was just a regular seasonal flu.

1565
1:57:34 --> 1:57:42
As a physician who's been in practice for over 30 years. This was not a normal seasonal flu.

1566
1:57:42 --> 1:57:58
How do you I'm so my question is this from what my observations were with my patients, the strokes that were induced the clotting issues the amputations, their neurological damage and the

1567
1:57:58 --> 1:58:05
cognitive dysfunction that were associated with the seasonal flu. If that's what people are calling it.

1568
1:58:05 --> 1:58:14
I think that was part of it but I do think there was something else that was released, leashed, whatever you want to call it under the public.

1569
1:58:14 --> 1:58:21
And so I'd like to know, Jonathan, what you think about that. Thank you.

1570
1:58:21 --> 1:58:48
So, the, I mean the first point to make is, we're dealing with, we're dealing with a population that has been, you know, treated tremendously differently to the host population has been abused effectively psychologically and physically for weeks and months.

1571
1:58:48 --> 1:58:57
Before the, you know, which change changes the situation completely in terms of what presents to the doctors.

1572
1:58:57 --> 1:59:08
The other point I'll make is that there is a history, what in swine flu and both swine flu and avian flu.

1573
1:59:08 --> 1:59:18
They were absolutely convinced during those episodes that they were dealing with a completely different virus.

1574
1:59:18 --> 1:59:38
And only to find that the, all the papers that said that it was completely different over the ensuing years were retracted or clarified. And in the end it settled down to, oh, it was a respiratory virus, like the other respiratory viruses.

1575
1:59:38 --> 1:59:51
And much of the data in relation to the clotting abnormalities, etc. has come from, has come from the illest patients of all in ICU.

1576
1:59:51 --> 2:00:02
The fact is for the vast, for the vast majority of people, either asymptomatic or very, very mild, effectively like any other respiratory illness.

1577
2:00:02 --> 2:00:11
If you talk to people in Africa outside of South Africa and Zimbabwe, they really have no idea what you're talking about.

1578
2:00:11 --> 2:00:17
So they basically, they call it, the whole thing they call white man's disease.

1579
2:00:17 --> 2:00:29
Or they say, we don't have that because we can't afford all those PCR tests, so we didn't have that pandemic.

1580
2:00:29 --> 2:00:39
So it's kind of confusing me how, if it's something so distinct and novel, how it can not affect certain regions of the world, but affect other regions of the world.

1581
2:00:40 --> 2:00:47
And to my mind, it must be something to do with the regions of the world, how they treated people.

1582
2:00:47 --> 2:00:54
Well, I mean, I've been treating patients, like I said, for over 30 years, and these were my patients. These are my personal experiences.

1583
2:00:54 --> 2:00:59
They were not given horrible treatments. Most of my patients did really, really well.

1584
2:00:59 --> 2:01:03
But we did, you know, I did see some of these very unusual symptoms.

1585
2:01:03 --> 2:01:05
And they're not.

1586
2:01:05 --> 2:01:11
Sandra, they were all terrified. All the patients were terrified when they came to see you.

1587
2:01:11 --> 2:01:16
Just to deal with a little bit with novelty as well.

1588
2:01:16 --> 2:01:21
People ascribe, people are making a jump.

1589
2:01:21 --> 2:01:44
Okay, so under what I think is happening is that we basically we've we have had a is that the coronaviruses, which have always caused illnesses, they have always caused respiratory disease and some and have killed substantial numbers of people, usually elderly and frail people in the past.

1590
2:01:44 --> 2:01:55
So for example, AC 43, which is common cold virus for most, there are you can read outbreaks of AC 43 in which, you know, quarter the residents of nursing homes have died just because of their frailty.

1591
2:01:55 --> 2:01:59
So coronaviruses kind of come and go in cycles and waves.

1592
2:01:59 --> 2:02:14
And I don't necessarily think that just because the symptoms of something are particularly novel, it means that we have been under some sort of bioterrorism attack.

1593
2:02:14 --> 2:02:16
I'll explain what I mean.

1594
2:02:16 --> 2:02:26
What I mean is, people are making this this jump between unusual symptoms, and therefore there must be something completely novel on the block.

1595
2:02:26 --> 2:02:30
Well, I mean, if you think about it in, in the past.

1596
2:02:30 --> 2:02:46
So, you know, five years ago, you would speak to people, they would say, I had this really weird bug laid me low, it gave me this symptom or whatever and said the symptoms of different viruses they think they do.

1597
2:02:46 --> 2:03:03
Different viral infections affect people in different ways and they come in cycles. So I don't necessarily think that just because there was something appeared to be different it necessarily means that it is that unusual within the grand scheme of the

1598
2:03:03 --> 2:03:18
And there's a huge amount of observation and confirmation bias in what whether we consider think novel things to be that novel depending on the time frame you look at.

1599
2:03:18 --> 2:03:34
For example, at the moment we've got, you know, having these reports from all over the world of the most extreme weather people have ever experienced, but we all sit here knowing that that's all around the world at any one time, you could find hundreds of people who are

1600
2:03:34 --> 2:03:50
experiencing the most extreme weather they have ever experienced. If you, if you take those people and amplify their voices and say, this is really really unusual, you will think that the whole climate is just collapsing around us but we are more enlightened and

1601
2:03:50 --> 2:04:11
that actually that that is a story of observation and confirmation bias. So those are kind of my responses to what you said is that, yes, there may have been something novel and unusual but the actual data in terms of infection fatality rates does not suggest it was particularly

1602
2:04:11 --> 2:04:13
harmful.

1603
2:04:13 --> 2:04:22
Okay, I think there were probably multiple types of things going on and it all got lumped together. But anyways, that's my experience I appreciate you responding.

1604
2:04:22 --> 2:04:31
I mean I don't rule out by the way I don't rely I know that JJ Coons theory is that there was some sort of some

1605
2:04:31 --> 2:04:34
releases of something. I don't know it seems.

1606
2:04:34 --> 2:04:47
I don't think that the story requires that necessarily so it doesn't meet the requirements of parsimony in terms of explaining I think it can all be explained by, by testing dystopia.

1607
2:04:47 --> 2:04:52
But maybe that maybe that explains some of what we've observed.

1608
2:04:52 --> 2:05:06
The data itself does not suggest that properly treated as we have always treated the respiratory viral infections that this was particularly dangerous.

1609
2:05:06 --> 2:05:15
Well I agree overall the situation was unusual but they're in my experience there was some very unusual cases that didn't fall into the norm.

1610
2:05:15 --> 2:05:18
But thanks for taking the time. I appreciate it.

1611
2:05:18 --> 2:05:28
Thank you so much. Thank you Sandra and you raise a point that's relevant I think, you know this this conversation these these meetings.

1612
2:05:28 --> 2:05:36
You know this is an exploration of potential ideas and, you know, this is real, I formed a view and I have to fight for it.

1613
2:05:36 --> 2:05:49
You know, and really, this is, this is a wonderful opportunity to express views express if you don't get the real challenge is not to get upset because people have different views about this stuff and we explore it.

1614
2:05:49 --> 2:06:02
That's what these meetings are leading to Jonathan and others and Sandra go, that's my view. Okay, that's an interesting one. And we get a gloss on it and no one's got the mortgage on truth.

1615
2:06:02 --> 2:06:13
That's why the failure of parliament in Australia, and many places around the world shutting down leaders made decisions without having dialogue.

1616
2:06:13 --> 2:06:19
And that's the that's the value of dialogue because not one of us knows all the answers.

1617
2:06:19 --> 2:06:22
So,

1618
2:06:22 --> 2:06:29
Sandra now, Jonathan I've got 27 questions for you but I'm only going to do a couple.

1619
2:06:29 --> 2:06:37
So, so the crucial element, so I was partly.

1620
2:06:37 --> 2:06:43
In fact, I helped create the health Alliance, Australia.

1621
2:06:43 --> 2:06:51
How have you been successful in shifting the average doctor's views.

1622
2:06:51 --> 2:07:06
Okay, so you shifted you were in a particular way then you shifted and a female hot so just did a tour in Australia, and he's been criticized roundly by some people in this group because he, how could he be smart and fall for the narrative but you're smart and you fell for the

1623
2:07:06 --> 2:07:12
narrative and then you woke up only briefly though in the case of Jonathan.

1624
2:07:12 --> 2:07:19
It's time is an illusion said Albert Einstein. Now, the, the question.

1625
2:07:19 --> 2:07:39
HAA in Australia but around the world you know the, the cat Lindley has produced a video Jonathan to help doctors come to this view that this was, you know this that that they said the way to get doctors to understand to be open to the possibility that they've been

1626
2:07:39 --> 2:07:56
scammed. They produced this video of other doctors and and not coming out harshly and saying oh you know perhaps. So, my question is, what have you found to be successful, if anything, because I can't see much evidence that most of the doctors are willing to admit that they

1627
2:07:56 --> 2:07:58
were wrong.

1628
2:07:58 --> 2:08:07
And a second question that ties into your closing point on governments.

1629
2:08:07 --> 2:08:25
And I want to mention a book, which I will after your answer, which CEOs in the UK or anywhere of major corporations have you seen come out like you have and I never I was always against the many people in this group always against and Stephen included,

1630
2:08:25 --> 2:08:34
which CEOs of big companies have come out and said the government was built was bullshitting us was gaslighting us. They're the two questions.

1631
2:08:34 --> 2:08:46
Alright, so what narrative have you found to be successful in shifting views, and have you found any CEOs because I've been looking and I can't find any

1632
2:08:46 --> 2:08:59
I mean, it's sort of a depressing answer to both questions really is that, I mean in personal in terms of narrative that's been successful in shifting opinions amongst doctors.

1633
2:08:59 --> 2:09:02
I'm not really aware of one.

1634
2:09:02 --> 2:09:11
It's, it's actually quite depressing and that most doctors in the UK, just, they don't want to know.

1635
2:09:11 --> 2:09:27
I think there's an element of, you know, they were complicit in it so they have an automatic psychological defense mechanism stops them from admitting it. If they admit it to themselves and not saying it publicly, because a lot of, of, you know, they encouraged people

1636
2:09:27 --> 2:09:42
to dive into the lockdowns the scare, you know, being terrorized and then being injected. So they're going to be very reluctant to admit, admit wrong. And of course they've got, they've still got in the UK.

1637
2:09:42 --> 2:10:00
And you know, you're employed by the NHS directly, and people you know you've seen what's happened to people that have spoken out. So, I'm not really aware of that much that has helped in terms of UK doctors, although it's possible that the patient pressure from

1638
2:10:00 --> 2:10:13
might be causing them to change their mind slightly. I think on the, it seems that the profession is a long way behind the general public, actually in the UK in terms of what of their view of things.

1639
2:10:13 --> 2:10:21
I was quite surprised. I read an article yesterday as somebody tweeted an article remember this from two years ago.

1640
2:10:21 --> 2:10:34
It's not relevant what the article was it was something to do with vaccination, but it was in the Daily Mail and I always, whenever somebody sends me an online article. I always like to look at the comments underneath, because they are usually absolutely fascinating

1641
2:10:34 --> 2:10:50
you can see public opinion evolving over time. And even two years ago, it's only in the Daily Mail which is a, you know, pretty middle of the road Middle England, very popular newspaper here. I know you've got the Australian version as well.

1642
2:10:50 --> 2:11:11
But the UK one, you know, the vast majority of people were deeply cynical and suspicious about the vaccination program that's two years ago. If you look at it now, you know, there is virtual, you know, ridicule of the government in every single comment in under any Daily Mail article or any

1643
2:11:11 --> 2:11:16
Daily Telegraph article. So it's moved to the Daily Telegraph.

1644
2:11:16 --> 2:11:26
Even the times, people have started to speak out. The Guardian, the readers are obviously a lost cause forever.

1645
2:11:26 --> 2:11:45
So, the, so I'm saying is I think the, what is going to happen is that it is people on the ground who are going to, they're the ones waking up and it's pressure from them that's going to cause any change in opinion within the profession, the profession won't lead it.

1646
2:11:45 --> 2:11:51
And then, and then, thank you for that and then CEOs of any major corporations.

1647
2:11:52 --> 2:11:54
I'm not either.

1648
2:11:54 --> 2:12:01
Yeah, I mean, because of course, major corporations have generally benefited hugely from what happened.

1649
2:12:02 --> 2:12:23
So, and major corporations generally are public companies and they have duties to their shareholders to increase shareholder value so it would be very difficult for them to speak out when actually they're basically they're at a party and they don't want the party to stop.

1650
2:12:23 --> 2:12:36
Yes, very good. Agree. So here's the book that I recommend to everybody called The Great Reset and the Struggle for Liberty by Michael Reckton-Wald, amazing background.

1651
2:12:36 --> 2:12:41
I'll put the chat in.

1652
2:12:41 --> 2:13:02
It's a masterful analysis of the last 506070 years and in relevance to what we're talking about today is in the last and the 360 pages, the great, he calls the grand refusal I call it the do not comply we in this group so do not comply that's the only way we're going to stop this fascism of the

1653
2:13:02 --> 2:13:10
of the collusion of government and big business, plus the ESG scam. Michael goes through this beautifully.

1654
2:13:10 --> 2:13:26
But the interesting thing that he says, Jonathan is to create your own communities which this is and many people on these calls are creating their own communities to be able to be independent of government.

1655
2:13:26 --> 2:13:44
And he put an interesting, he said, put extreme pressure on government representatives to do the following. Protect national sovereignty and individual rights will Peter who has already told us as we know in same in Australia, you know the courts are not protecting us but we need to pressure the representatives

1656
2:13:44 --> 2:14:01
to the representatives divest from the World Economic Forum and all these tentacles, withdraw from the UN and the World Holocaust Organization, withdraw state pensions from ESG index stocks.

1657
2:14:01 --> 2:14:22
So I encourage number eight encourage the defection of elites that we're talking to the CEOs, encourage the defection of elites from the globalist agenda. So here's a challenge for all of us identify elites who might oppose the agenda for moral, ethical or economic reasons, and appeal to them by writing

1658
2:14:22 --> 2:14:40
emails letters, and by putting this book into their hands. Interesting comment because, Jonathan you pointed I think a lot of these elites are horrified by what's happening. And so, perhaps we can identify them but that's what Michael rectonwald is suggesting I love it.

1659
2:14:40 --> 2:14:56
And then, number nine, Stephen you'll love this network with like minded individuals and spread this plan digitally and analog, analogically analogically analog and analogically.

1660
2:14:56 --> 2:15:19
So, very, very sensible plan and, and the communities that we build but but the globalist agenda is so clear. And it is, it is up to us we are in World War Three and this linkage is Jonathan that are happening from this meeting, a quite remarkable over the two years really

1661
2:15:19 --> 2:15:36
Yeah, people say, hey, this is just a talk fest. No, it's not, because none of you know and I don't know, Stephen doesn't know all of the stuff that happens because somebody has a conversation with somebody on this group and Jonathan, what you've shared here could lead to an amazing you could be the match that

1662
2:15:36 --> 2:15:41
starts a fire in lots of places. So, thank you.

1663
2:15:41 --> 2:15:55
Thank you for also loads of introductions I've lost count of the number of introductions. And I don't know what's happened as a here occasionally of six months down the road that something's come of those introductions.

1664
2:15:55 --> 2:16:15
Anyway, the famous Buckminster Fuller said it's the precessional impact of what you do the 90 degree impact when you're heading down a track, you don't know what that ripple effect is of what you do so 10 more 10 more minutes last questions to to Stephen Jonathan and thank you so much for being with us.

1665
2:16:15 --> 2:16:37
Thank you for those insights. So I would add one thing to the nine things I think you said, I think it's, I've only realized this recently, I was doing it, but I didn't realize why I was doing it so I was, but I've been very very careful to think about what I be honest about what I really think is the truth

1666
2:16:37 --> 2:16:41
about what and change my mind as necessary.

1667
2:16:41 --> 2:16:59
At different states and and also to bring to the foreground things which I think are important I think it's really important that everybody on this group and this group is very well educated, not by Charles and me but but by all of us you know, but they haven't possibly realized it so.

1668
2:16:59 --> 2:17:15
So we've heard all kinds of people in this group, and that is very helpful, but the point I was trying to say is that by speaking our honest perception of the truth at the time, and not being afraid of speaking it loudly.

1669
2:17:15 --> 2:17:23
But you have a certain power, and you found your allies, you find and your allies are extremely important in this.

1670
2:17:23 --> 2:17:33
So, um, but, so I don't do it so that I do think that's important but anyway, to get back to you, Jonathan.

1671
2:17:33 --> 2:17:37
In your opinion, it doesn't matter if you don't answer these questions.

1672
2:17:37 --> 2:17:39
For whatever reason.

1673
2:17:39 --> 2:17:41
You can just say, prefer not to add.

1674
2:17:41 --> 2:17:43
Was there a pandemic.

1675
2:17:43 --> 2:17:47
Yes or no.

1676
2:17:47 --> 2:17:49
Not a viral pandemic.

1677
2:17:49 --> 2:17:52
Correct. Yeah.

1678
2:17:52 --> 2:17:55
Yeah. So I agree with you.

1679
2:17:55 --> 2:17:58
So, there was no pandemic.

1680
2:17:58 --> 2:18:03
And this is what they, of course, are saying all the time.

1681
2:18:03 --> 2:18:12
How to manage the future pandemic so the next question is, just to qualify also that there wasn't even a pandemic.

1682
2:18:12 --> 2:18:24
Even, you know, if you accept the face value what happened, it had they use the definition that was in this is we've used for you know for time immemorial until they changed it for the swine flu.

1683
2:18:24 --> 2:18:27
Yes, exactly.

1684
2:18:27 --> 2:18:29
Yeah.

1685
2:18:29 --> 2:18:33
Yeah. So that's very important. What you've just said.

1686
2:18:33 --> 2:18:55
Are deadly viral pandemics or even pandemics of international concern, even possible given that at medical school I can remember being taught by professors that a deadly pandemic or even a, you know, a dangerous pandemic viral pandemic would kill its host.

1687
2:18:55 --> 2:19:01
So, our deadly viral pandemics possible.

1688
2:19:01 --> 2:19:05
I mean, in my opinion, no.

1689
2:19:05 --> 2:19:13
Exactly, because deadly viral and pandemic seem to be mutually exclusive to me.

1690
2:19:13 --> 2:19:17
Yeah, anyway, it's just food for thought.

1691
2:19:17 --> 2:19:32
Is there a wish from our enemies to kind of push a narrative, which says that few that deadly viral pandemics are not only possible, but they are the biggest threat to mankind ever.

1692
2:19:32 --> 2:19:42
And that we're going to have a succession of deadly future deadly pandemic this is really important because this is what we're being told now I think it's nonsense.

1693
2:19:42 --> 2:19:45
But

1694
2:19:45 --> 2:19:49
it's complete nonsense. And in fact,

1695
2:19:49 --> 2:20:17
even if you believe in the sort of pandemic potential of viruses, the dangerous pandemic potential viruses, they seems to me logical that the amount of population movement and intermixing and travel would by kind of spreading immune response and immune memory would actually

1696
2:20:17 --> 2:20:21
reduce the potential for future pandemic to not increase it.

1697
2:20:21 --> 2:20:23
Exactly.

1698
2:20:23 --> 2:20:38
So if you spread, if you spread people across, and everybody has some degree of immune memory and meets more antigens all the time to generate more immune response so it seems to me to reduce pandemic potential, whereas they keep on saying the amount of travel will increase

1699
2:20:38 --> 2:20:41
pandemic potential but I think that's the wrong way around.

1700
2:20:42 --> 2:20:57
Exactly, I agree with you. So, so, and what happens in viral, you know, epidemic, should we call it, or viral outbreaks well allegedly we were told that the virus becomes less less pathogenic, but more transmissible.

1701
2:20:57 --> 2:21:05
So any variants are always less dangerous than the original, whatever that was.

1702
2:21:05 --> 2:21:11
But we were left with, we were being fed this narrative in the UK. First of all, Delta.

1703
2:21:11 --> 2:21:25
And actually since you mentioned Peter McCullough, he was one of the most most responsible I'm not attacking him, because I agree with you, if you want a doctor, then Peter McCullough is exactly the kind of guy you want as your doctor.

1704
2:21:25 --> 2:21:29
Anyway, he was talking about Delta and Omicron.

1705
2:21:29 --> 2:21:44
I asked him, how are you diagnosing that, and he said something I could see he was discomforted but I, you know, he was the guest so I didn't want to kind of push it but he just said sequencing, and I just thought, wow.

1706
2:21:44 --> 2:21:59
And so, how are you dying. So, why would you be afraid of Omicron do you remember we didn't have a Christmas in in the UK. It took our Christmas away from us in. Well, they didn't take it away from us but yes, that was the threat.

1707
2:21:59 --> 2:22:13
You should remember the rule of six or the non we didn't observe, and never observed any of these measures. But anyway, poor population did, and they were wronged of their Christmas in 2020.

1708
2:22:13 --> 2:22:20
And then because of the Omicron variants and we've had Delta before that.

1709
2:22:20 --> 2:22:38
Allegedly, they were saying oh we're going to have to cancel this Christmas too and they were gearing up to to cancel Christmas and then along came, Mark Sexton the police officer and presents a report to the Metropolitan Police in London, which later they said they weren't going to

1710
2:22:38 --> 2:22:52
But the point of that in my opinion, because the whole atmosphere in the UK, in my opinion, change from before Christmas to after Christmas. Now that could have been the huge amount of alcohol I drank over Christmas now I'm joking there.

1711
2:22:52 --> 2:23:07
But it, I don't think I was imagining it, it was real, and indeed in January or February they announced in the UK. It was one of the first countries in the world to say that they were going to get rid of all the measures that was March 2022.

1712
2:23:07 --> 2:23:20
And I think there was a, there's a real possibility there was a connection between that report of 1000 pages which went of crime, which went to the Metropolitan Police.

1713
2:23:20 --> 2:23:31
But, you know, obviously what would the Metropolitan Police, they'd go to the first people they go to the government say we've got this report we're going to have to do something. So you're better, you know, we're up against people here.

1714
2:23:31 --> 2:23:43
They would never admit it of course we'll never find out. But I think there's a real possibility that that report was absolutely crucial in getting not only the UK out of this nonsense, but the whole world.

1715
2:23:43 --> 2:23:48
Having said that Denmark was very early out. So my friend Matt Spalsby.

1716
2:23:48 --> 2:23:57
He tells me that they were out in January of 2022. We were March.

1717
2:23:57 --> 2:24:05
But that was way ahead of a lot of countries. And so anyway, so, um, I just wanted to ask you a couple more questions.

1718
2:24:05 --> 2:24:16
You don't need to answer this one because this is could be very controversial but I just want to ask you anyway. Do you think that the NHS now, and maybe has been for a long time.

1719
2:24:16 --> 2:24:21
Do you think it's a cult.

1720
2:24:21 --> 2:24:26
I think the way it is treated is like a cult.

1721
2:24:26 --> 2:24:28
Exactly.

1722
2:24:28 --> 2:24:31
I'm not. I don't work for the NHS.

1723
2:24:31 --> 2:24:44
Obviously, and so I think I think it is, you know, I mean you only had to look at the opening of the 2012 Olympics.

1724
2:24:44 --> 2:24:46
Yes.

1725
2:24:46 --> 2:25:03
To see the, you know, prime example of the relationship to that to the NHS as a cult. So yeah, it's just completely above any discussion about whether it's the right structure to deliver health and might, you know,

1726
2:25:03 --> 2:25:14
When have large, you know centralized organizations ever delivered things better than small local organizations, never.

1727
2:25:14 --> 2:25:19
We've got one of the biggest organizations in the world.

1728
2:25:19 --> 2:25:25
So, in December of sorry I think it was November of 2020.

1729
2:25:25 --> 2:25:31
I had been talking to this person for a while I'm not going to mention his name but he's a very prominent journalist.

1730
2:25:31 --> 2:25:35
And I think in November or could have been October 2020.

1731
2:25:35 --> 2:25:45
I used to ring him to cheer myself up because I had kind of inflated idea that he might, you know, be the one person to move things.

1732
2:25:45 --> 2:25:53
And, but I just wanted to hang on to something as an individual myself and also to support my own family and.

1733
2:25:53 --> 2:26:00
And in one of these calls, which was intended to cheer me up he just said, Stephen.

1734
2:26:00 --> 2:26:03
In March 2020.

1735
2:26:03 --> 2:26:09
There was a global coup d'etat, and we can't do anything about it.

1736
2:26:09 --> 2:26:16
And then I, if you remember the fresh fields lecture of Lord Jonathan assumption.

1737
2:26:16 --> 2:26:18
Yeah.

1738
2:26:18 --> 2:26:27
The, the wonderful. I thought that was what I watched that I think about 10 times.

1739
2:26:27 --> 2:26:39
I've heard a lot of quotes from it, but some, but he didn't, he didn't say, you know, he was careful to not to say, well, not to say that it was planned.

1740
2:26:39 --> 2:26:44
So in my opinion there is absolutely no way that this was not planned.

1741
2:26:44 --> 2:26:48
And if it was planned it was pure evil.

1742
2:26:48 --> 2:26:53
What do you think.

1743
2:26:53 --> 2:27:02
I'm not sure.

1744
2:27:02 --> 2:27:20
There's a number of conversations that are difficult to answer difficult to address the other one is who is controlled opposition and who is not controlled opposition it's not black and white answer that there are people who are inadvertently helping the other side.

1745
2:27:20 --> 2:27:25
They're supporting certain narrative, the same in this question.

1746
2:27:25 --> 2:27:40
There are things that there are people jumping on the bandwagon and propagating the story for their own benefit. It doesn't necessarily mean that they were involved in planning it or it was, it was planned.

1747
2:27:40 --> 2:27:45
I mean, the other thing is, take for example, things like event 201.

1748
2:27:45 --> 2:27:54
You know, one view of it is they, what that shows you that they were, they were clearly planning it.

1749
2:27:54 --> 2:28:07
The contrary view to that would be something that goes along the lines of, well hang on. Firstly, they were actually planning something like that criminally, why would they tell everybody about it and make it so public.

1750
2:28:07 --> 2:28:28
Number two is, have you thought about the possibility that instead of that, actually being indicative of their plans that actually their participation in an event like that, and the participation of all the actors around that lays the groundwork for a situation in which something like this can catch fire.

1751
2:28:28 --> 2:28:37
So, you know, we've suddenly told all these people how important they are and how they can save the world from this deadly pandemic. We've got to do this. It's very important to counter misinformation.

1752
2:28:37 --> 2:28:46
And then we get a viral, an outbreak of something. And then once the conditions, yes, it will then just take off.

1753
2:28:46 --> 2:29:02
So they maybe use the cult problem, you know, the cult mentality, which operates apparently in just those circumstances. So you present the idea, they're in a crowd, people lose their heads in crowds because they want to be popular or whatever.

1754
2:29:02 --> 2:29:15
And, and, and, and then, you know, they, but the psychologists would have known ahead of that event 201 if that was the plan which you brilliantly have outlined now, it could well have been like that. Yeah.

1755
2:29:15 --> 2:29:32
One last call with actually one last question. So, in my, so was the, so I'm asking these questions, I know the answers in my mind, and I think you do too, but I want to help the people watching you know, now and in the future.

1756
2:29:32 --> 2:29:52
So, was the purported pandemic, a Trojan horse not only, you know, was it a Trojan horse to impose global totalitarianism. There are of course other Trojan horses.

1757
2:29:52 --> 2:30:08
I don't know. Well Michael, Michael rectum walls is absolutely yes so let's leave it at that. We have two and a half hours is up, and I, I, anyone watching this recording, I will come out and I'll argue in any court of law that it's absolutely deliberate, and the

1758
2:30:08 --> 2:30:25
evidence is absolutely clear. And Daniel Estrel and that's why we started Jonathan I don't know if you've seen his stuff but his book on the Tabberstock Institute, and the evil that has been led from that including the current, the whole, the transgender

1759
2:30:25 --> 2:30:39
bullshit that's happening, and the transitioning. So Daniel Estrel and I think he told us, Stephen he sold 8 million books I'd like to sell 8 million books, but quite frankly I must say. So look at that.

1760
2:30:39 --> 2:30:48
Well he's becoming Charles he's become a good friend of mine so I can introduce you to him, and also to Jonathan if you wish.

1761
2:30:48 --> 2:31:03
I answered on Jonathan's behalf because we don't. Thank you Jonathan so much. Our two and a half hours is up. It was brilliant to have you and Stephen thank you for organizing everybody thank you for being here thank you for all of the, all of the insights, Jonathan

1762
2:31:03 --> 2:31:11
have you saved the chat for yourself and Anna if she's still here but anyway save the chat because there's a lot of good, a lot of good stuff.

1763
2:31:11 --> 2:31:18
Thank you for having me I apologize if I didn't have a slide.

1764
2:31:18 --> 2:31:31
No, Jonathan you were, you were brilliant. So, you and I knew I was going to say thank you so much for answering the questions so conscientiously. It says a lot about you.

1765
2:31:31 --> 2:31:39
So this shines out you know your humanity to anybody listening to this I hope. So great. Thank you very much.

1766
2:31:39 --> 2:31:48
Thank you. Big round of applause everybody then Tom Rodman's group the telegram. The links are in the chat save the chat you can go to that Tom Rodman group for those who have more time.

1767
2:31:48 --> 2:31:53
Thank you see you again on Tuesday, and we'll look forward to being with you.

1768
2:31:53 --> 2:31:56
One on Stephen. Bye everybody.

1769
2:31:56 --> 2:32:00
Bye Jonathan. Thank you, Jonathan. Thank you. Thank you, Charles.

1770
2:32:00 --> 2:32:03
And everyone.

1771
2:32:09 --> 2:32:12
Thank you.