Peter, Jonathan, Jonathan, you want to share your screen or
just conversation?
Well, I will share my screen when I get get to the relevant
part.
All right, I'll make you I'll make you a co host. Yeah.
Welcome, Jonathan. Thank you for coming on.
All right, everybody. Welcome to medical doctors for COVID
ethics international in today's discussion with Dr. Jonathan
Engler. This group was founded by Dr. Stephen Frost and Stephen
has stood up against government over the years and has been a
whistleblower and activist his medical specialties radiology
don't come back with this ideas.
I'm Charles Coviss, the moderator of this group on
Australasias passion provocateur. I wear red because
red is the color of passion. I practiced law for 20 years
before changing career 30 years ago.
And over the last 12 years, I've helped parents and lawyers to
strategize remedies for vaccine damage and damage from bad
medical advice. I'm also the CEO of an industrial hemp company
and Stephen people want me to do a presentation on industrial
hemp as an enabler of getting off the grid. So we might do
that one day.
Yeah, sure.
We need to reward you in some way, Charles for getting up at
five o'clock in the morning twice a week.
Yes, it's not it's not fun.
In your winter as well. Yeah, great. Terrible. I couldn't do
that.
So we comprise lots of professions like me, including
idiots, you get up at five o'clock in the morning,
doctors, lawyers, homeopaths, journalists, scientists,
filmmakers, professors, peacemakers and troublemakers
from all around the world.
If this is your first time here, welcome and feel free to
introduce yourself in the chat and where you are from. If you
publish a newsletter or podcast or have a radio or TV show or
you've written a book, put the links into the chat so we can
follow you and promote you and find you just by the by Daniel
Estreland got a big review somewhere I was watching another
video, Daniel Estreland has spoken to us twice before. And I
bring to your attention his book on the Tavistock Institute, we
might talk about that just remind me to talk about it. The
Tavistock Institute, I think he gave us a link to his book. It's
for it's for free.
Yeah. Most of us, I think these days we have, I haven't read it.
And I, I don't know anybody who, who hasn't done your
work, but Daniel Estreland plays everything down. So I think he's
sitting on a lot of information.
So most of us understand we're in the middle of World War Three,
that there are various battle lines in this war. Most of us
understand the development of science and that the science is
never settled. Mr. Beding runs for two and a half hours. After
which for those with the time Tom Rodman runs a video telegram
group, Tom puts the links into the chat if you can join. We will
have Jonathan Engler, our guest presenter for as long as Jonathan
wishes to speak and then we have Q&A. Stephen Frost, by long
established tradition, asked the first questions. There's no
censorship. It's a free speech environment. If you're offended
by anything, be offended. We don't care. This meeting that
we're not, we reject the offence industry that requires nobody to
say anything that may offend another. That is the classic way
speech and the attack on free speech in Australia that's now
underway as it has been in a number of other countries is, is
evil at the highest, evil of the highest level. We come with an
attitude and perspective of love, not fear. Fear is the
opposite of love. Fear squashes you. Love, on the other hand,
expands you. If you have a solution or product or links or
resources that will help people put the details into the chat,
the meeting is recorded and is uploaded onto the Rumble channel.
And now welcome to our guest presenter, Jonathan Engler. And
we thank you, Jonathan, for giving us your time. And thank
you, Stephen Frost, again, for creating this group and for
organising Jonathan to speak to us today. Jonathan, welcome and
over to you.
Thanks very much. It's a pleasure to speak to such a large
international, internationally diverse group. I've been to one
of your meetings several years ago, but had no exposure to it
since then. So it's really great to get to know you all. I
haven't prepared any specific slides today, because obviously,
I was only contacted this morning to stand in for somebody
I think who'd let you down. So it's going to be relatively
informal. I thought I would just start off by just telling you a
little bit about myself. Obviously British, I studied
medicine originally, in Scotland in Abedin University, I then was
practising medicine for a few years before I got actually
dragged into industry. And I've been I was involved in drug
development in the big bad world of pharma, which wasn't quite as
bad or big, you know, 30 years ago. And I set up a business,
which was actually an IT business with a colleague, which
we grew into quite a large international business, which was
involved in clinical trial management. And we then sold that
business. And during my period in pharma, I actually had quite
a bit of regulatory experience, putting together submissions for
a cardiology drug actually presented to regulatory
authorities wrote reports to regulatory standards, and so on.
After we sold the business, I actually retrained became a
barrister, of all things, that's a lawyer who talks in
court, for those who don't know the difference between solicitors
and barristers we have in the UK. And did that for a few years,
but actually went back into into business after a few years. And
because I missed the cut and thrust of business, I've been
involved in a number of sort of healthcare related ventures. My
sort of involvement in what we're going to talk about today
kind of started in in May 2020, when I thought this is really,
really weird what is going on. It was Hancock standing up in
the British House of Commons saying, we are going for maximal
suppression until we can roll out our vaccines, which I think
was either the end of May or beginning of June. And that got
me really thinking that's something really, really weird.
Up to that point, I have to say I was late compared to some of
the people here, I did not see the scam that was unfolding
before us. And, you know, I was one of those people who stayed
home like a good person, I even clapped for the NHS once on a
Thursday night. And, you know, and that but that was all that
all turned in about May slash June 2020. And then I got in
involved, we formed the in the UK, we formed heart, which some
of you will have heard of, I co chair heart with Claire Craig
that many of you will will know, Claire and I speak on a daily
basis. And we also have the I know here tonight is is Anna
Anna Rainer, who is the I believe was assisting you with
coordination. She's coordinating helps us with our publications.
She without her there would be no heart bulletins, or emails go
out at all. And so in heart, we we produce regular bulletins.
But I'm also on the exec committee of Panda, which also
some of you will have heard of, which is the South African
resistance movement, want a better phrase, based out or
which is chaired by Nick Hudson, out of he's based in Cape Town.
So I have a broad understanding of many of the issues that we
face at the moment. And I could talk about many of them. I could
I can talk I can bore for hours, as I say, but I've decided to
sort of focus it in. I was trying to I was trying to work
out in short notice. How what how can I put some focus on what
on what I want to speak about? And so what I've decided to do
was I decided to show you a tweet that I tweeted yesterday,
and then explain to you what my thinking was behind it and why I
tweeted what I did, because some people will find what I tweeted
controversial, they may not agree with it. And Alex, and we
can have a talk about about the merits of what I said. So I'm
going to share my screen now. And yeah, so it all started off.
We can see that Jonathan good. Let me get rid of the videos.
Yeah, it all started off with me watching yesterday. You may know
this gentleman's JJ Cooey. Yes, he's absolutely brilliant. Yes.
So I watched him and you can see in the middle as Peter McCullough.
And this was an hour long interview with Peter, which was
just from from a week ago. And I watched this this interview. And
I was quite disturbed by the content of it. And I'll go on to
show you, you might say to me, why was I disturbed by it, I'm
going to show you the tweet that I tweeted, having watched this
video. And then we can talk further about the meaning of it.
So here we are. This is this is the tweet. This interview. I'll
read it out to you. This interview is, I'm afraid, an
example of well meaning, but inadvertently unhelpful noise.
Peter McCullough is quite clearly a really lovely guy and a
brilliant physician. I certainly want him as my doctor if I was
critically ill. I suspect from this interview, however, that he
has never entertained the notion that the shocking excess death
curves observed in New York City and northern Italy, which were
central to driving the scary virus narrative, were entirely or
to a large extent disconnected from the direct effects of the
virus. The above is notwithstanding, he acknowledges
that there were harmful practices carried out, he just
isn't joining the dots. He is clearly a true believer in the
need for pandemic preparedness. From minute 24, he even quotes
Tedros Gates, Hotez and Fauci, all saying that COVID-19 was a
warm up for the next bigger pandemic, which is bound to come
our way. While he clearly does not express full enthusiasm for
these individuals, he goes on to say that we should take those
utterances seriously. And we should formulate an approach
with four pillars of pandemic response, with committees to
advise on one contagion control, then talks a bit about nasal
sprays, two early treatment protocols, three hospital care, I
figure out which hospitals did best, and four vaccination. All
the time, this kind of talk reinforces the need for
preparedness. And the idea that the only problem was that we
didn't do it right last time. So what do we need if we didn't do
it right last time? More control, more planning, better
experts. Nope. What we actually need to prevent the next
pandemic is decentralization, governments getting the leap out
of our lives and staying out. I then followed that up with two
follow up tweets. I doubt Peter sees the similarities between the
COVID event and what happened a mere decade before. I then refer
the audience to an incredible article actually from Forbes
magazine from 2009, which talks about basically the fake swine
flu pandemic. And I also then refer to an article that somebody
brought to my attention in German, the English language
version of Spiegel, a German magazine, which is
reconstruction of a mass hysteria, the swine flu panic of
2009. And I've actually never seen this quote before. This is
Tom Jefferson, who you will know works with Carl Hennigan, was
formerly Cochrane collaboration. I think he's fallen out with
Cochrane. But he says here, quote from Tom Jefferson,
sometimes you get the feeling that there is a whole industry
almost waiting for a pandemic to occur. And so that's really the
sort of background to what I wanted to talk about. So
basically, I am of the view that we need to challenge extremely
vehemently the whole basis that there has been a pandemic. I'm
going to talk now about how how I came to that view. But before I
do that, I just want to acknowledge the fact that you
will see that screen by the way.
Yes, yes.
Can I just say it's very important what you're saying. So
we need people to hear. And for some reason, at least my when
I'm listening to your voice is very, very low. I can I can make
it out.
No, no, no, Stephen. It's fine for me. Totally normal. So my
speaker, totally good. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Keep going. Jonathan.
Yeah. Check your speakers, Stephen. Yep.
I'll have a normal be here. Danny rankers website, can you?
Yep.
So before I go on to explain how I reached these conclusions, I
need to acknowledge that Danny ranker basically worked this all
out in June 2020. So this is basically, we're going to go
through this paper, you can go to it, Danny ranker dot ca. He's
got loads of papers there. And basically, in June 2020, he
published this paper, all cause mortality during COVID-19, no
plague, and a likely signature of mass homicide by government
response. Okay, so I'm going to talk to you now about how I came
to the conclusion that I came to. And I'm going to through a
series of take you through a series of thought processes that
I went through. And this is pandas, substack page. And this
is, I started working with a rather brilliant guy in Panda,
who is a geographer. And he alerted me to a few things. He
doesn't wish to be in the forefront of things and wish to
be in the limelight. So he's fed me some information, a lot of
we've worked on together, and I formulated into a number of
substack articles. And so the if we start off here in where the
panic basically started in Lombardy, in 2020, this is a
graph here of the regions in Lombardy and the total number of
deaths in Lombardy. And what I will say, say to here is that
there's two two very, very weird things looking at these
these graphs. The first one is that all these regions here, the
excess deaths kick off basically, similar completely
simultaneously. And that is not at all what you'd expect with
something spreading. In fact, with something spreading, you'd
expect one region to light up, then the neighboring region to
light up, then the neighboring region for that and then to all
sort of light up and start burning at different times and
then then basically fizzle out at different times. But here you
have this incredibly narrow sharp peak of deaths, which
occurs simultaneously. The other point is that the amount of
death that's actually occurring is absolutely huge. So if you go
back here, this this goes back obviously to 2017. So you can
see the average kind of winter death here. And I think one of
these was probably what they called a bad flu season. And you
just look at the number of deaths there are happening here
and then you look at actually what happened in spring 2020.
It's completely off the charts. And in fact, if you look
specifically at Bergamo, this is just total number of daily
deaths in Bergamo, which is obviously the worst, said to be
the worst hit region. Again, you can see that the variations in
the total number of deaths that happen in an average winter are
really just minuscule. That they're, they're very, very low.
And then you have this event here in spring 2020, which is
completely off the charts. And as I point out in the article, so
the daily deaths in Bergamo usually bottom out in in the
sort of 20s, going to 30 or maybe up to 40 in the winter.
But in spring 2020, in the in three weeks after the start of
this pandemic, 336 people died in a week. And this is this is
it presented in percentage terms. So you can see there was
basically 1000% excess deaths in a number of weeks in spring
2020. And of course, in these terms, the flu, bad flu seasons
are basically invisible. And what the Panda colleague pointed
out was he said that he said the only other time when he has seen
something that looks like that was actually in France here in
2003. And I don't know who remembers it. I remember it was
actually in France 2003 on a family holiday. The heatwave.
They had this heatwave that killed 1000s of people. It is
said that the heatwave killed 1000s of people. And in fact,
here, here is the excess deaths for France. And this is 2003
here. And you can see that actually there is excess death
here of around 80%. So that stands out like a sore thumb,
but that's only 80%. What happened in Lombardy was 10 times
that. Okay, so that was barely doubling 80% excess death. We
had basically between eight and 10 times normal death in
Lombardy. Yet this was a national scandal in France.
Because what they discovered is that basically, the deaths here
were a lot of elderly people dying from neglect. This was
mainly elderly people in a tenement apartment blocks, who
had been left by relatives. There was clear association with
people who were in the upper floors, people with
comorbidities, and people basically died of neglect, they
died of thirst and heatstroke. And all that was needed to save
the lives of these elderly people, many of whom anyway,
would be pretty frail, but that's not the point. But many
of the things that would have needed to be saved were
basically regular fans cooling, and just normal social care and
regular giving plenty of drinking water. And if the
reason I point this out is the point that this was basically
neglect is that neglect and a change in the normal social care
and healthcare apparatus, which keeps elderly people functional
and alive was basically being completely disturbed. And my
hypothesis is, well, this is maybe what happened in the UK and
many other countries in that terrible period in April, March
and April 2020. I then wrote, we then wrote together we wrote
another article a few weeks later with the rather prosaic
title, with the unprecedented excess death curves in northern
Italy caused by the spread of a novel deadly virus. And in this
we went into a deeper dive in the in the actual data in northern
Italy. Northern Italy is Italy is interesting, it has a
statistics department in Italy where you can actually download
daily death data, all cause daily death data in very, very
small region, very, very small towns, cities and villages. And
this is quite unusual. I don't think they realize the Italian
statistics authority does not realize the power of this data.
It is probably the best most granular, all cause mortality
data that there is anywhere in the world. We've got a raised
hand. Peter, do you want to ask a question?
Oh, no. So we have a queue, Jonathan, I should have told you
that. And, but it doesn't mean to say that people aren't
listening to you. Also in the chat is stuff going on doesn't
mean to say that people aren't listening to you. Okay, fine. I
can't read the chat.
Questions come after your presentation. You can speak for
as long as you like.
Fine. So in this presentation, I thought we did was we downloaded
all the daily death data. And we put it into this in northern
Italy. And we represented it in this graphic here. And this graph,
the idea of this analysis was to work out whether or not there
was any evidence of the spread of a phenomenon. If you have a
hypothesis that a virus spread through northern Italy, causing
these waves of excess deaths, you should see what is called
autocorrelation. And autocorrelation is actually a
mathematical measure of the degree of clustering that takes
place. So the analogy that I draw in this article is if you
can imagine if you find a burnt out forest, it looks like a
burnt out forest, everything's burnt. If I said, did that
happen through the imposition of an event where everything burnt
at the same time? Or did it happen through the spread of
somebody leaving a barbecue lying about and then it spreads
in tendrils and one bit fires up and then the next bit fires up,
and in which case you would get clustering. And so we thought to
do the same analysis with all the data in northern Italy. And
in fact, if you look here at this data here, this is the
number of people dying from all causes in February. And it's the
percent expected. So based on what has happened over the last
few years, and you can see here that the colour, the way we've
chosen the colours here, these are the sort of light, bluey,
greeny colours are basically within what you, within a small
amount of what you'd expect. And if you go on to, I'm just going
to go on here, to what happened in March, you see this effect
here. And you might see what you might think is some clustering,
see some regions here with a high degree of number of deaths
with up to three, 400 times, 400% increased deaths. So at first
glance, you might think that this is clustering. And if
there's clustering, this supports the view that something
spread as opposed to something being imposed. But if you what
we did here was we created a mathematical model, we actually
analysed the data according to the provincial border, the
provincial area in which each small area resided. And when you
take that away, you basically take away virtually all the
clustering. I hope this is clear to people. But I'll just explain
this again, is that when you analyse, you look at the deaths
that occurred in March, in northern Italy, it looks like
there's a degree of clustering. But actually, when you account
for the provincial borders, there is no that cancels out the
clustering. What this means is that the number of deaths that
occurred in one of these small blobs was related, basically
could be predicted from the provincial area in which that
blob resided, and had much less or very, very insignificant
amount of relationship to the neighbouring districts around it,
which is the opposite of what you would expect if something had
been spreading across, across Italy, across northern Italy.
And this supports the view quite strongly that it was the
imposition of a set of protocols, a policy response,
which actually resulted in the deaths. I mean, this is aside
from obviously the, you know, the humongous scale of the number
of deaths that have been reported, which is another point
evidencing the fact that what happened here was highly
unusual and nothing to do with the spread of a virus. Okay. And
in fact, this is, this is, this was May, and you can see what,
if you remember, I said at the beginning that if you had a
forest fire, where everything started at a different time,
you'd expect everything to burn out at a different time. And in
fact, what we see here is that all the fires basically go out
at the same time. Well, that's very weird. You'd expect some
areas to linger on, you'd expect some areas to have been untouched
by the virus until later on and then be touched by, you know, a
late infected person in another region, and then to be a little
cluster somewhere else. That's not what happens at all in
northern Italy. Basically, everywhere lights up at the same
time, and everywhere goes out at the same time. And that is, is
basically just not at all what you'd expect from the spread of
a virus. I'm going to show you now the next article that I
wrote, which I wrote here, article here with Martin Neil,
Norman Fenton, and Nick Hudson, we co authored this together.
I'm not going to go into it in detail, I'm just going to show
you New York, because New York followed on from obviously from
what happened in there's the Bergamo data again, this is this
is New York here, but I'm going to show you another New York,
I'm going to show you this New York, because it's much more
impressive. So this is, this is basically excess mortality in
New York City, going back to 2015. And again, it's exactly
the same pattern, which is that your winters barely register.
Many people say a lot of people die in the winter, that's a lot
of people. But this here is a humongous number of people. And
again, we've got sort of excess death up to 600 700%, completely
unnatural. And the thing that you've got to think about when
you see a curve like that is what could spread if it was that
lethal, and that contagious? First of all, how can there be
any evidence of any spread prior to the emergency being declared?
And of course, lots of people have now written about the
existence of this, of the signature of this virus being
found for months before this time. And also, why if it was
this lethal, this contagious, why wasn't that repeated in other
cities? And take another example, basically one on one
side of the Canadian border, I the US side, there were there
was very, very significant excess death in spring. On the
other side of the same border, which has a lot of traffic over,
by the way, and it's an airborne virus, there was virtually no
there was no excess death at all in spring 2020. How on earth
can this be this these are completely contradictory. And of
course, we also know from Ian, Ian, it is his work, John Ian
it is his work, which has looked at serial prevalence, we know
that the lethality of whatever it is, is in the same ballpark as
seasonal flu. But how can something that is in the same
ballpark seasonal flu result in these kind of curves, it just
does not stack up. So this is what how the theory sort of came
to be to be formed. I'm just going to show you a bit just
just out of interest in if any of you don't subscribe to Bill
Rice, Jr. newsletter, that's worth sub stack, it's worth
subscribing to and there they talk here, he's got an article
here on officials intentionally concealed evidence of early
spread because his theory is that US officials knew there was
evidence of early spread. And they knew the significance of it
to the narrative that if people knew this had been spreading for
months before the emergency was declared, they would ask the
question, how come this this virus could spread globally,
completely unnoticed? And why do all the excess deaths kick off
at the time that the emergency is declared? So this is the key
point is why do all the excess death curves only kick off when
the emergency is declared? And of course, the Occam's razor is
that, you know, we look to parsimony in science, we look to
the simplest explanation to be the default hypothesis. And the
default hypothesis must be that it was the declaration of the
emergency and the measures that were instituted at the at that
time, which actually resulted in the excess deaths themselves.
And that is rank or theory, obviously as well. And just a
little bit of sort of back chatter here is that that we
having published our article, this article here, this is the
myself with Norman and Martin, Neil and Nick, we then had a
article from in the Daily Skeptic from Will Jones, a
defense of the virus theory. And following that, we actually
published a rebuttal to that that will just refuse to publish
which we were quite quite disturbed by. And on the same
in the same vein, we've actually published an article on flu,
but the disappearing flu story. And again, immediately steps in.
Will Jones steps in with how do we know flu really did
disappear. And we wrote a, a, he refused to publish our
rebuttal to that but published an article that we put so we
we published our own article, the Daily Skeptic are absolutely
sure flu vanished, but they didn't actually look at any of
our any of our evidence. And so, so that's kind of sort of, I'm
going to stop sharing now. I think I've set out, in a sense,
I've set out the the thesis. And why I'm going to go back now to
the tweet, Peter McCullough tweet. So my point is that the
excess death curves in particularly in Northern Italy
and New York drove this narrative of a scary virus. If
they're not true, then really the the whole pandemic narrative
sort of falls apart. And it doesn't really matter whether or
not it's a leaked virus, whether it lab or it came from a
zoonotic origin, it's kind of irrelevant, because it wasn't
that dangerous. And I believe that this is what a lot of
groups and a lot of people, some of the people even on our side
either either deliberately or inadvertently are gatekeeping
this fact, which is that it really wasn't that dangerous.
And that's the core point that I'm trying to get across. And
the reason why this is important to get across is
because we have a whole, as you must have spoken about on
previous sessions is the whole WHO, the whole pandemic
preparedness industry. So far, they they managed to siphon, you
know, about three, four trillion out of taxpayers into private
corporations, they want to do it again. And their main weapon
for doing it again is to convince people that we had a
we just escaped this pandemic, we've got another more serious
one that could easily hit us. And for that reason, we need to
be totally prepared. And well meaning though, he might be the
messages from people like, like Peter, merely reinforce that
narrative. So he basically talked about a pandemic, and
he's talked about pandemic preparedness. And, you know, and
he's even even that tacitly acknowledged the fact that the
next one could be worse. And so, and of course, I saw this is
the problem, I think, with a lot of the advocates of early
treatment, who say things like, they say, early treatment, if
only we had had early treatment, we could have saved
millions of lives. I mean, this is really a nonsense, because
millions of people, the lethality of this virus wasn't
so such that it could cause on its own, millions and millions
of deaths. Those deaths were caused by dystopia, a series of
dystopian treatment policies. So to say that early treatment
would have prevented a pandemic is, in my opinion, is the
complete nonsense and quite a dangerous trap to fall into.
Because of course, there wasn't really anything that really
needed early treatment, all that all that we needed to do was
carry on treating people with respiratory illnesses, as we've
always treated them in the past. And so that's really what led to
the trying to call out this whole notion that there was a
scary virus, and we need to be better prepared in in in future.
And so that's really kind of basically where I wanted to
end what I say, I have to take some questions. I'm not talking
about I've deliberately stayed completely off talking about
vaccination. I've got a lot I could say about that, happy to
come back and maybe talk a bit about what we've been doing on
vaccination. And the reason is because I'm really particularly
interested in this spring 2020. That is the genesis of the
narrative. And so I would say the phrase I would just say is,
is that stop searching for the origin of the virus and start
searching for the origin of the narrative. That's really where
and on that note, I think I'll stop talking for a bit and we
can have some some questions.
So Jonathan, what you've said is really important. You've come to
exactly the same conclusion as I we established that in emails
today. But I've come at it from a different route from the way
that medicine was practiced. And I knew, as you said, you know,
you're not is published the famous October 2020 paper, which
as far as I was concerned was proof that this I knew before,
you know, just from feeling that it was proof that this so-called
virus and viral illness was not not a concern, nevermind deadly.
And so in my opinion, what you've outlined is, is a kind of they
created a narrative to create fear. They deliberately
psychologically tortured populations around the world into
a state of Stockholm syndrome. And this is pure evil, as I see
it. And as you say, the deaths were due to the measures after
the emergency was declared by the WHO of all organisations. We
can't trust them. We couldn't trust them in 2009. We still
can't trust them. Everybody forgot 2009.
Yeah, it's absolutely I would. I mean, I'll circulate the links
to various material afterwards. And I'm sure Stephen will
forward it on. But it is worth reading the Forbes article from
2009 because it is absolutely uncanny how similar they were.
It seems to me that the the main differences between 2009 and
2020 were that they basically they they had there weren't the
deaths that occurred in 2009. So they were unable to scare people
sufficiently. In 2020, because the degree of dystopia and fear
was that much greater, they obviously started to have these
huge numbers of excess deaths. And that may be related to I
mean, obviously, you can be very conspiratorial about it and say
that they fixed the problem in 2009 and made sure people die,
died, or you could take a more charitable approach and say that
the the level of dystopia and fear was that much greater
because the PCR technology, I mean, one point I haven't heard
anybody say, which I think is important is that the PCR
technology was has come on hugely since 2009. And so is that
much more dangerous when misused. So they were able to
ramp it up much more cheaply, although it still cost a fortune,
ramp it up much more cheaply and much more quickly, which, of
course, enabled them to roll out this asymptomatic mass
testing, which has been falls into the category of pure, pure
evil. The asymptomatic mass testing.
Yes, I agree. Yeah. And so and I think in 2009 as well, another
difference was that they hadn't got control of the doctors, they
hadn't realized that Wolfgang Wodarg, who was a not only a
medical doctor in Germany, but he was also a politician. And he
was actually heading the Council of Europe's health
section, as I understand it at the time, and he made sure the
Council of Europe investigated the 2009 swine flu pandemic. And
the report is I sent it to you today. The report is there on
the internet.
Yeah, I mean, there's also you can find clips from, you know,
channel four, which is a British television channel, you can find
their documentary about it. Basically, you can find that on
YouTube, you can, as Stephen said, and I'll circulate this as
well, you can find this this European Parliament report,
actually European Commission report, I should say, which was
chaired by Paul Flynn, the Labour MP, who was actually the
Labour MEP, who was the what they call the rapporteur of that
committee, and that and was responsible for that report. It
makes quite astonishing reading.
Yes, exactly. So it looks to me that Wolfgang Wodog
single handedly broke the spell, if you like in 2010, and, and
made sure there was an investigation and the and the
the right conclusions were drawn. But very interestingly, I
didn't know about the report. I knew I remembered the swine flu
pandemic experience, I knew it was a fraud. I remember
thinking, why on earth we got a respiratory pandemic, you know,
respiratory viral pandemic in the middle of summer. And I was
working for the military at the time. And, and somebody was
telling us to remove blue tack from from the walls one
afternoon. And I went I decided, you know, because it was
difficult to resist the narrative in the military,
because if you did openly, you you maybe marched off the camp
later that day, you know, so I just decided to get myself lost
in the in the toilets for the afternoon, and nobody found me.
Yeah, I mean, another way of thinking about what happened in
spring, which is which I do lay out in one of those articles, I
said, imagine there was no virus at all. And but imagine for some
other reason, a government said, we are going to tell
everybody to stay home, we're going to tell them not to attend
hospital for any reason, because those are really dangerous
places. And we've got to save resources for the NHS. We're
going to stop you from exercising, we're going to leave
you cooped up, we're going to stop eating normal food, but you
can you can order takeout, and you can drink as much alcohol as
you want. We're going to put the fear of God in you. And we are,
if you have any form of respiratory symptoms, you're not
going to get any antibiotics, because it's almost certainly
viral. And just wait till you go blue before you come into
hospital. We're going to not let you visit any of your elderly
people who you know, who normally rely on you for the
social outrageous. Yeah, I agree with you. And we're, and we're
going to only talk to elderly, frightened, demented patients
with masks on one at a time and only for as little time as
possible because they are bio weapons. And imagine if you did
that, without mentioning a virus, people would be out on
the streets saying, this is outrageous, tens of 1000s of
people will die just from these measures. Absolutely. And of
course, 10s of 1000s of people did die from those measures.
Another way of looking at things in in terms of whether we think
it's measures or virus is if you think about what the only
constant in what has happened is meant to be the virus. So the
virus is meant to spread across the world from Wuhan or
wherever. And that's that's the only constant thing. And yet we
see these massive differences, even in neighbouring towns,
neighbouring cities, neighbouring countries, we see
these huge divergences of, of how people of how they performed
in the pandemic. Well, I'm sorry, it's if we've got one
constant there, and we've got incredibly variable, social,
cultural, healthcare systems, attitudes, the amount of panic,
the amount of hysteria, etc. different political systems,
those are entirely variable, the amount of healthcare capacity
was important. Those are entirely variable things. So if
you've got these huge differences in outcomes, to my
mind, the starting point is that you've got its differences in
the responses, which account for the differences in outcomes, not
the virus and send the people who who come up with the the
virus, the scary virus theory for all you, they are they are
contorted, they have to go into contortions of explanations,
such as there were susceptibility triggers that hit
different places in different times, there were maybe genetic
variations in different populations that make them
differently susceptible. Well, I'm sorry, but no evidence of any
of these has ever been has ever been presented. No, absolutely.
The null hypothesis is that it is differences in the responses
between different locations, which resulted in different
amounts of excess deaths.
Oh, that's a wonderful summary, Jonathan, we'll make a
transcript of what you've just said.
As long as I can correct what I got wrong first.
Yes, we'll give you the chance to correct.
So take them. Yes, sure.
Absolutely. So go ahead, Charles.
All right, Jonathan.
I'm I've got some hands up on to go to the other one of the
issues I do want to talk about is going to be the the
observations as a medical as a pharmaceutical export and as a
barrister on the legal system. But I'll talk about that later.
Let's go to other questions. And then we'll we'll come back to
enforcement of our freedoms, because I liked what you said at
the end of your tweet, government get the fuck out of
our lives. But we'll talk about that in more particularity.
Peter Herger from also a lawyer and many other things from
Wales.
Yeah, thanks, Charles. I think I fit Jonathan into the
troublemaker category as well. A former police officer as a
sergeant walked out and discussed the figures game that
we were playing before we lost the public sort of ear as a
police service. We are now more a police force.
I got a couple of things I'd like to bring up with you and stop me if
I've gone too far. But really interested in your background
like mine. I'm an electrical electrical engineer as well before
I joined the police and then latterly a lawyer.
And I was I passed my barristers aptitude tests and was all
systems go but I got involved in a case and I saw how corrupt
the whole system is and I think that might be a chat for another
time. If I told you what I experienced, I think you'd be
quite shocked. But tonight, I'd like to take the focus really
from the search of origins or I've made some notes here on
narrative to the destination we hope to arrive at. And that
normally is enshrined in legal system, the judiciary and more
with the rule of law. So I've got three points really. First of
all, do you feel that the rule of law is dead or at least
suspended as the elite seem to have played played a blinder from
Blair in the early 2000s introducing the judicial
appointments committee and I've got a high ranking police officer
who was involved in that. Next colleague of mine is quite
interesting. But weakened our separations of power together
with the normally robust or previously robust House of Lords,
which has been reduced to a joke at this moment in time. So the
checks and balances on government, I'm sure you'll agree
have all but disappeared. So I think that's one of the big
problems we've got and I feel the rule of law is at very least
compromised, if not destroyed. Secondly, as an example of
judicial failings, the CQC reported two years ago, the Care
Quality Commission in the UK, referring to your point about
actions of government, etc. When they brought in the DNR orders,
they do not resuscitate orders for the elderly lock them in
homes, refuse to send doctors, refuse to send paramedics, and
they died. And I do agree with you. And I haven't really made
the correlation as strongly as you have. And I thank you for
that. The spike in deaths at that time before the jobs were
rolled out. Now the CQC normally that's the government's own
watchdog. If we had a functioning rule of law, or
checks and balances that would have been acted upon. And I
believe in our lifetime, we would have seen something come
of it. Nothing has come of that. So I'm worried about that. That
was my second point. And maybe it's something that we legally
should be pushing the CQC to find out what the hell they are
doing, and what their protocol is. And why are they there? If
they're not doing anything when we've got the evidence we have,
maybe another way from going through the courts, which at
this moment, I feel is not an option. So for instance, the
third point I had here was even MSM mainstream media leaking,
Matt Hancock's bragging WhatsApp messages, Jonathan, that Bill
Gates owes me big style for putting his chips in people's
arms. Dear God, if that isn't evidence of misconduct in public
office, possibly even corporate manslaughter because people
died from these jobs, I don't know what is but this week, they
rolled him out in the COVID inquiry, bragging at the work
he'd done and demanding earlier lockdowns, which caused the very
spike you've referred to. So just shows the shit state our
system is in at the moment. And my fourth point and last point,
have you looked into the precautionary principle which
enshrines EU law, environmental law, and does not need a
correlation between a direct correlation between a result,
which is possibly deaths, myocarditis, pericarditis, blood
clots, etc. And stipulates, I think it's, is it article 77 in
the functioning on the Treaty of the EU, that if there is any
likelihood of harm to the environment or people, whatever
they're doing shall cease. And obviously it hasn't. Nobody I
feel and I've spoken to many people in the EU lawyers,
Christine Anderson, Ivan Villebois Sincic, they should be
using the precautionary principle possibly as a vehicle
to try and get governments to task.
Right. I didn't, I didn't write those down. So if I miss
miss answering one of these, just nudge me. Just dealing with
the final point that you might raise first, while it's in my
head precautionary principle, we've actually got a good
article in heart this going out in the next few days on the
inversion of the precautionary principle, which you might find
find useful. The precautionary principle on its own is, of
course, potentially dangerous, because it can be sort of
weaponised and hijacked by some by our enemies in this process,
because they will say, well, we're actually we're taking
precautions to prevent the worst case scenario. And in fact, this
worst case scenario planning, which is tied into sort of
safety ism, as a very dangerous cultural element in our society,
is is to some extent, what what led people to to buy into and to
agree to all these, these ludicrous measures. So it
precautionary principle on its own is, basically, you have to
sort of handle with care because it is easily inverted and used
the wrong way. But but to answer your question is, is yes, I think
the regulatory system is is broken completely captured
basically under political control, not doing its job
independently. And in fact, I didn't add I didn't mention but
I am also part of the Perseus group, we've written the report,
which we've sent to, you know, all MPs and selected peers about
the MHRA's woeful conduct during the conditional approval of
these COVID vaccines. So yeah, I know how broken the regulatory
system is. And just dealing with a few of your other questions
briefly, because I think that's quite a lot of questions. The
first point you talked about rule of law, yes, rule of law
seems to be kind of suspended. But the I would also observe
that what has happened across the world seems to have happened
in the same way independent of the legal systems. So you've got
you know, constitutional, strong constitutional system in the
states, you've got sort of codified European style legal
systems, you've got despotic dictatorships, and I'm not
talking about the UK there, but it, you know, it, in some parts
of the world, and you've got our, you know, common law system,
the parliamentary sovereignty, and so on. And basically, all it
took was co opting the mainstream media with a fear
narrative to get everybody to do whatever they wanted. So we
can't, it, law is important, obviously, in the functioning
civilised society. But at the moment, looking to different
legal systems is probably not the answer that the answer to
what has happened is to dismantle the propaganda machine.
I don't have an answer to how to do that. But I'm just pointing
out that the same thing, basically the same playbook played
out across the world, irrespective of the prior
respect that we might have had for separation of powers and how
strong the constitutional system was, and so on.
What was your other questions?
I think you've touched upon most of them there, Jonathan, very
well. And I think we're of the same mind. And I think we, as
legal strategists, like Charles there, with all his experience,
myself, as you know, I was a CPS gatekeeper. So I've seen the
police side of it. And I've seen how to put a case together. And
latterly, as a lawyer, I've been involved in many cases of
differing kinds, we need to look for a way to circumvent the
lockstep that you refer to there, that the whole world is in this
this they've played a blinder, we've got to put them on the
back for what they've done to bring in this total stranglehold
on legal systems throughout the world, whether it is in an
unwritten constitution like ours, one of only three,
ironically, there's New Zealand ourselves, and of all people are
all countries, Israel, unwritten sort of common law
constitutions. It's amazing that they've managed to have a
stranglehold on everything. And you are right, it's fear. And the
problem we've got is that MSM is part of their stranglehold. And
how the heck when GB News are now being taken to court again,
for just supporting cash. It looks like Ofcom are going to go
for them as an entity now having got rid of you know, their
their mainstay presenter who was on our side. So and so so you
know, we're having these conversations every week and
thoroughly enjoyed yours and it's put a totally new slant on
many things for me.
By the way, I will I will just mention you. I know you talked
about Matt Hancock and the lockdown files. Well, I am a bit
cynical about the lockdown files. So you know, I see that
as very much as a limited a limited hangout. Absolutely.
Yeah, it is notable, isn't it that the only mention of the of
the vaccines in these files was apparently that comment that was
meant to be a subtle dig at the mad anti vaccines, which is about
putting chips in people's arms. And that's clear. That's the
only mention really, I mean, that it is just ridiculous. So I
see the those ads very much as that's a sort of controlled
release, and very much is is wanted. What they you know,
that they seem quite happy at the moment for people to talk
about lockdowns. But they're not happy at all for people to talk
about novel pharmaceutical interventions that may have been
coerced into people. So I you know, I see very much it's and
it to be honest, that it's I feel the same way about the whole
lab leak storyboard. So you've got this whole situation at the
moment where suddenly, everybody is apparently able to talk about
or even encouraged to talk about the lovely as like they're trying
to convince you that suddenly you've discovered something that
you've discovered that something you always suspected was true
when you've discovered it. You know, you've thought about it
for a few years. And now even the mainstream media are
confirming it's true. Well, don't be taken for a fool. They
haven't lost control of the mainstream media, they've still
got it. And if you're reading, reading about lab leak in the
mainstream media, that is because the perpetrators of this
want you to read about that. And the reason they want you to read
about that is because that's plan B, they don't really care
whether you are afraid of pandemics, because it came from a
lab or it came from a zoonotic origin. They just care that you
are afraid.
Yeah, I agree totally. And I think they're still playing a
blinder, because they're feeding us bits. And as we jump up and
down there, they're just rubbing their hands. And it's a lot of
is just to deflect from the things they're doing, you know,
the other day, the Wagner thing 6.2 billion going missing.
Jonathan, thank you so much for all you're doing. And thank you
for speaking and addressing the points. Thank you, Charles.
Thank you, Peter. Jonathan, did you the article that you mentioned
is coming out in hearts? Could Anna put the title of the
article so people some people have asked to be able to find
it?
I don't think we've is Anna still here, but I'm not sure I
don't think we've actually published that one yet. Okay,
we'll have is Anna actually still here? Not sure she is. Oh,
we have. So she's going to put it in.
Terrific. Thank you, Jonathan. Thank you, Peter. Albert, welcome
the eagle Benavides.
Hey, Jonathan, it's pleasure to meet you. My name is Albert
Benavides. I created the VAERS aware dashboard. There's
interactive dashboard.
I saw you speak at that in one of the Panda presentation.
Great. Thank you, Jonathan. No need to then I don't need to
enter introduce myself any further. God bless you. Keep
fighting. I really appreciate you. Question. Did you? Do you
know that? Are you aware that in in VAERS and with vaccines,
that they are taking like up to two years to publish death
reports? Yeah, broadly. Okay. Because with that, I was I don't
know if you're familiar with this new Denmark study with the
blue, green, yellow dots. And some people have been a great.
It's a great analysis, a great study, but people have been
throwing a little bit of shade on it. And myself included only
in that only in the respect that the only only problem with it
was that it actually highlights the amount of throttling that
the purposeful delay of reports that are going on in VAERS
because now in hindsight, when you look at the yellow dots, the
place, the placebos, you say, Oh, my gosh, there's, there's
actually a lot of adverse events in there now. But they, those
reports weren't in there. When in the snapshot that they took
when they took a snapshot of VAERS and their analysis at that
time. So that's what I was trying to point out. But yeah,
with your regards to Peter McCullough, who I love the
gentleman as well. I asked him the same question here here in
this space. If he was familiar with the 65 oral polio death
reports that were deleted all in one drop, all in one update, but
it was in 2009. When when polio when death when deaths meant
something in 65 because he was the one that I heard it from, you
know, when there's 50 deaths, they'll pull a product off the
market. Which reminds me is that do you know if that's 50 deaths,
at least on paper, they'll pull it off the market? Is that like
per year? Or could that be just as soon as it gets to 50 deaths,
no matter how many years?
I'm not aware of the the particular rule or policy or
procedure that says that it's however many it's meant to be.
And of course, in I mean, unless people want to talk a lot about
vaccines and VAERS. I was planning to to focus in on the
on the narrative origin.
Okay, another time.
I think we're all on the same page here that, you know, that
we've had some, basically some very dangerous gunk being
injected multiple times into billions of people. And it's,
it's, you know, a terrible, terrible thing that's happened.
But we could we could if we go down, talking about those
products, we could spend many hours talking about those. I
don't know if people want to talk about those or what people
want to stick to talking about?
Yeah, no, another another time.
No, I agree with you, Jonathan. It's very important that you
want to focus on exactly what you've identified. I agree with
you.
Pleasure to make your Queens Jonathan say hi to Dr. Clare
Craig for me.
Will do.
Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you, Albert. And Claire Craig has presented
to us Jonathan in the past and her presentation to us be
interesting to go back, Stephen and maybe get Claire to come and
update her presentation to us. Jack from the US of A.
Yeah.
I wonder Jonathan, if you had considered an alternative
hypothesis, which I, I am considered closely. First of all,
all we have lived in a constant state of artificially induced
terrorism since World War Two. Here in the US anyway, we were
constantly bombarded with the image of the mushroom cloud.
And and kids were taught to hide under their desks in school and
all this kind of nonsense. And then of course, we had the
McCarthy hearing. So we're supposed to be terrified of
communists, we're supposed to be looking for communists. And a
lot of people lost their careers through McCarthy's insanity.
Then you move on up to 9-11 to the terrorism that was induced
by this false flag operation called 9-11. And then that was
immediately followed by what? By the anthrax scare, where several
people died from anthrax being mailed in letters and two of
them were mailed to Senators, Michelle and Leahy, who were the
co-chairs of the committee looking at, guess what, the
Patriot Act. So that intimidated them into withdrawing their
objections to the Patriot Act. And of course, Francis Boyle,
the international attorney who wrote the implementing
legislation for the bioweapons treaty in the United States, he
immediately said, Hey, wait a second, this anthrax didn't come
from Saddam, it didn't come from Bin Laden. And the only place in
the world that has that kind of weapons-grade anthrax is Fort
Dietrich, Maryland. So he was promptly prohibited from ever
appearing on mainstream television again, and has not
until this day still. So this has been one terror stimulus
after another. And the terror, and fear, fear of death, is the
one way you can basically control a population. You panic
them into a state of mortal terror, and they'll do any damn
thing you say. And the US government has used that
throughout my long life to keep the population under a state of
terror. So when I looked at your spikes, the spikes in your
graph, what they did was, obviously, I think, was to
concentrate the deaths, and I suspect it was something,
probably, some viruses, not the actual eventual virus, but
something else. There's no reason to assume this is all
from one source. There's something that happened in both
New York, and Milan, or Lombardy, more generally, which
are very dense populations that concentrated the deaths in that
one place. And of course, it was exacerbated by all the isolation
and the non-treatment and so forth. But still, that continued.
That continued. But the real deaths were concentrated at that
one moment. See, that's the kind of immediate event where you
have over-flooded, overcrowded and flooded hospitals, and not
enough ambulances and so forth. That's that single event, like
9-11. It was sufficient to scare the hell out of everybody.
Yeah, and actually, there is some, you could find some
papers on cardiovascular mortality following terrorism
incidents. They've analyzed, certainly, it has a high rate of
myocardial infarction, just from the stress following 9-11, for
example. And if you think about this going on for weeks and
weeks, and on and off for years, actually, I think we have
dramatically underestimated the ill effects of this on health.
Yeah. And we know that the CIA can deposit anything it wants,
anywhere it wants, anytime it wants. And one of the things
that struck me immediately is that this thing first broke out
in China, which is our number one economic rival, and then in
Iran, our number one target for regime change at that time. And
so I looked at Italy, because why Lombardy? Why would it break
out in Italy? It turns out at that time, the Italian government
was being controlled by people who were talking about breaking
out of the, leaving the EU and also leaving NATO. And Italy has
one of the three largest economies in Europe. And if they
left the EU, it could probably collapse the EU, which is pretty
shaky anyway. So I was one of the things I was looking at. So
I'm a psychologist. And so I wanted to look at that kind of
same kind of data that you gathered, I wanted to look at in
the United States. And I was looking particularly, we have a
fairly, I guess, unusual degree of rebelliousness among at the
state level that other developed so called developed countries
we've got 52 states, they all have governors. And it turns out
that there were a lot of states that did not comply with our
lockdowns. And so I wanted to compare states of comparable
demographics that did or did not comply with the lockdowns. And
we had, we had data on the deaths from the New York Times.
And we had data on whether or not and when they locked down or
didn't. And so I when I looked at that, I could not find any on
the East Coast where there were contiguous states, which did and
didn't because they all did the ones around New York. But I
found 26 states half of our country, where there were 13 and
1313 that did comply and 13 that didn't. And I looked at that.
And this is clear in May now when the so called the the the
fervid flattened and the 90 day thing had passed. So I found
there were there was no difference whatsoever in deaths
between the states that did comply and the states that did
not. And the total death toll for those 26 states on average
was just three deaths per 100,000 people. So they had to
have that spike to terrorize the population into what they
wanted to do.
Are you talking there, by the way, about what we might call
COVID labeled deaths or all causes?
Yes. Well, that's what I'm talking about. Yeah. So I mean,
which were questionable.
Yeah. Can I respond to just a few of the things you've just
said that I think need that you need to take caution over?
Yeah.
So the the first point is that I don't believe that looking at
any official COVID numbers is worth it.
No, I'm more aware of that. Yes.
Probably with them. And I think most people are on that on the
same page here. What people may not be on the same page here is
that it may be that it is not beyond the possibility that even
the total death numbers are massaged and are not true. They
can do that in a variety of ways from dealing with the way that
they deal with registration delay. They could outright
delete data, add data, move data. And the reason I say this is
because, and I'm not giving anything away here, because it's
a work in progress. If you follow on Twitter, you follow
Jessica Hockett on Twitter, who I work with in Panda quite a
lot. She set out a few weeks ago with the objective of actually
finding out where all the bodies went in New York. So she's been
FOIing various funeral homes and whether there were contracts
for refrigerated trucks to store bodies and everything. And this
is not a final view. But so far, it doesn't add up. So nobody's
saying that nobody died in New York. But the numbers of deaths
that were reported in those spikes, we're talking, you know,
eight to 10 times the normal number of deaths, the amount of
logistics involved in handling those dead bodies would have
required huge efforts and huge changes, and huge co opting of
resources. And there doesn't seem to be any evidence that that
happened to that extent. And so there is a suspicion that those
spikes that I showed you before are massaged or untrue in some
way. So total even total death numbers may not be that that
reliable. I mean, we know that basically, virtually every
single piece of data point is curated in some way before it is
released to the public for some purpose. So I don't know why we
would necessarily think that all cause mortality would be would
be reliable, necessarily.
There are all kinds of manipulations went on with the
reporting instructions from our national data reporting system
and so forth. Very obvious manipulations for a tendentious
manipulations.
Correct. The other point that I just wanted to make was this
notion that people have that you can compare lockdowns versus no
lockdowns or lockdown stringency index and try and correlate it
to this that the number of deaths and this idea, I would just
caution people that whether you had there was a lockdown or was
not a lockdown is not necessarily relevant. And I'll
explain why. So it's not lockdowns that kill people. It's
not it wasn't in spring. I'm talking about spring 2020
specifically, I'm not talking about the longer term effects.
I'm talking about spring 2020. It wasn't telling people that
they can't go to the gym or they can't the New York Mets game
is cancelled. That's that's not what killed people. That doesn't
kill people. It's the specific ways in which the vulnerable
people, i.e. the elderly and frail were actually treated that
kills people. That's what you need to look down. And these are
not necessarily it is sometimes correlated to the societal
lockdown response, but isn't always. I'll give you an
example is people say things like, oh, well, Sweden, Sweden
had no lockdowns and look at them look at their excess deaths.
And Norway didn't. And look, they had much lower excess
deaths. But if you actually drill into that in detail, you
find the picture where Sweden actually in terms of the way it
handled its elderly in care homes was basically very similar
to the UK and the US was very dystopian. And that's what
actually matters because that's what accounted for the deaths.
And if you look at Norway, they were more in more sort of a
Germanic approach where you might say, well, they did they
bought into the lockdown thing, but they had a more enlightened
way of treating their elderly. And in fact, in Germany, for
example, Germany said, well, people say, well, they panicked
and they didn't have excess deaths in 2020. But the fact is
they have this incredibly decentralized, very well funded,
very sophisticated health system with huge overcapacity. And so
that their psychological stress on them would not have been
anywhere near anywhere else. And they wouldn't have felt the need
to change the policies in the way that for example, we did in
the UK and many other places in terms of treatment of the
elderly. So I was just saying that the picture is quite
complex.
Yeah, that's why I used and my analysis I used states that were
contiguous, that had very similar demographics. And the
point was that the lockdowns did not help. There was no difference
whatsoever.
Yeah.
And this is looking at 26 states. And with very, very low
rate of death, I mean, two, three people per 100,000, even
even with the phony reporting.
Yeah.
So I think, I think that the point is that they were very
successful at creating an emergency, the appearance of an
emergency, just like the mushroom cloud, just like 911,
to terrifying people by startling them with these, these
grim
videos of ambulances that are stacked up and can't get into
the hospital, etc. And I immediately, I immediately as a
psychologist, a long critic of American foreign policy. I just
saw it as a as a PsyOps right from the beginning. And started
accumulating lots and lots of evidence about that I have a
PowerPoint I put together that six chapters long just a
screen grabs I got over the first two years.
Wow.
Of actual documents.
I'm blocking it so early.
Yeah.
Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Jack.
Jack, do you have a you have a military background? Yeah.
Yeah, I was an army psychologist right out of grad school during
the Vietnam War.
Yeah.
So I started out as an army psychologist. And that's, that's
a great bureaucracy. I did my first professional paper from
clients there who were sent for evaluation.
And court martial.
I learned a lot there in that population about the military
and how it works and, and how it doesn't work. And I mean, that
that whole Vietnam War was another did I may even mention
that I mean, the Gulf of Tonkin never happened. And even if it
had what were what were our warships doing the Gulf of
Tonkin in the first place, you know, and had this our involvement
in the Vietnam War started 10 years under Edward Lansdale long
before we ever declared war. I mean, it's I am so used to this
complete deception, nothing but deception, nonstop deception by
our government throughout my entire life.
But just to just to make it clear to the people listening,
you do not hate America quite the opposite. That's why you're
pointing it out.
Correct.
Wait, what was the verb again? I don't do what I said you do not
dislike America or hate America. You're pointing these things out
because
I hate the government. Yes. And you know, people say, well, why
don't you leave? My rocket ball partner just said that last night
as a matter of fact, I said, because it's my country, and I'm
responsible. Yes. And who the hell else is going to do it?
There's not very many people that are. And we have been totally
gaslit. Not not just to the last few years, we have been gaslit
ever since World War Two and probably and before that, look
at Smedley Butler's book. General Smedley Butler, we we
first of all committed massive ethnic cleansing of our native
population called Indians. And then we expanded overseas with
the Spanish American war and it's gone on and on and on. You
know, we just had Fourth of July this week. And on my radio show,
I said, you know, the US may have been born in 1776 on this
day. But we were born into a family called the British Empire.
And we have never, never outgrown that family. We're still
we have basically taken over the role of the global empire. It's
it was said, you know, that the sun never sets on the British
Empire. Well, right now we have the entire planet divided into
areas of US command. We have Northcom and Southcom for the
Americas, we have Eurocom, we have Centcom for Asia, we have
Afrocom, we have Pacificom to try to surround China, try we
have surrounded China with unfriendly countries. We've
basically taken over the British Empire and done it even better
than they did. Or worse than they did. Anyway.
Yes, but what's going on is treason, both in the US and in
the UK, and many other countries.
Yeah, I know. Now they're even wondering whether it was MI6 or
the CIA that blew up the pipeline. And hardly tell them
apart. After all, James Bond was an agent of the Her Majesty's
Foreign Service, right?
Thank you. Thank you, Jack.
Have you seen that you must see the video if you weren't present
at the meeting, because it doesn't sound as though you were
of Hans, what's his name? Hans Jonathan?
Hans Benjamin.
And sorry, yes, Benjamin.
No, I don't think so.
Benjamin Braun worth having a look at.
Well, you must have a look at that, Jack, you'd be absolutely
fascinated by it.
Is that one of your Tuesday meetings?
Yes.
He was on Sunday.
And he was also on Tuesday.
Both are worth watching.
OK, Jack, if you put your link into your radio program, because
I didn't know you had a radio program, so put that in there
so people can also follow you.
Jonathan, you OK?
We've got plenty of questions coming.
So, you know, we'll keep you a good barrister, you know, with
with a judge, you're the barrister.
Janet.
Thank you.
I've just got a couple of anecdotes and then a couple of questions.
Yeah, March 2020.
Excuse me.
I I thought immediately it was a scam.
I'm a retired GP in the UK.
I thought it was a scam straight away.
And I got in touch with
a medical school friend of mine, I've known him ever since we qualified in
79, and he was in charge of looking after an old people's home in East England.
And I said, I think this is a scam.
And he said, well, you could be right.
He said, but normally at this time of the year, we expect four deaths
in the care home.
And he said, this year we've had 20, which is a 400 per cent increase.
And he couldn't explain that.
And he, you know, he's a very caring person who loves old people.
And I can't imagine he was writing up, you know,
prescriptions to kill them.
So something was going on and I don't know what.
And he couldn't explain it either.
My son,
one of his school friends was a hospital doctor in London at the same time.
And he because I was saying, Pete, this is a scam.
He got in touch with his friend.
He was a hospital doctor.
And this this lad said, I've never seen so many deaths.
Obviously, I don't know what was going on in the hospitals,
but certainly the junior doctors were seeing things
that they completely outside their experience and they couldn't explain it.
So that was just to to brief anecdotes.
I mean, in terms of saying that there was no pandemic,
because actually there were no excess deaths.
On the other hand,
it seems to be said that there were excess deaths
because of the lockdown and the other measures.
So I guess I'm just wondering, so were there excess deaths
due to lockdown or the measures or?
So if there were excess deaths, then it doesn't that falsify
the statement that there weren't excess deaths because there was no pandemic.
So that was just a sort of a slightly confusing thing.
And the other side, the last the last point is,
are you saying that there was a SARS-CoV-2 virus
or were you saying that there wasn't a SARS-CoV-2 virus?
And it was just other respiratory viruses that were mislabeled
because of the test.
Right.
Can I just ask you the anecdote when you referred to the care home person?
When when was that that those people died?
Yeah, it was it was around March, because as soon as I heard all this nonsense,
because I was awake with I mean, when when the swine flu pandemic started
or whatever it was, I remember going on to one of the doctors net forums
and saying to people, saying to this is when I was allowed on before I was banned.
I went on there and I said I said to the people that were on there,
I said, are any of you seeing these people?
You know, if you're on call, are you seeing any of these?
And they weren't seeing them.
They weren't seeing anybody with swine flu.
You know, that was my first kind of wake up because it was obvious
that what what we were hearing was not actually what people were seeing on the ground.
So as soon as this March thing happened, I just thought it's just this is just nonsense.
You know, I mean, the first point I make is that
just because people either died in care homes or presented to hospital very ill,
it doesn't mean to say that that's the tip of that.
That's the end point of the of the terror that happens in the community.
So if you've got all these people who switch light on here, it's a bit dim.
Yeah. If you've got
people who are terrorized for a few weeks in the community
and are not seeing doctors and are not being prescribed,
for example, broad spectrum antibiotics, if they have incipient chest infection
or something of that nature, then they're going to get they're going to get very ill
in the community and then they're going to present into hospital.
So what presented in hospital doesn't necessarily mean
that they should have presented in hospital in that way.
That's just the that they're the people who have been
effectively terrorized and mistreated by by the measures in society.
So that's the first point I make about about hospital presentations.
In terms of excess excess deaths.
So the point is that those examples I gave you were
completely extreme examples.
And the reason I put the New York and Lombardy,
the reason I pulled those out as examples is because.
Those were used, they were very, very short,
narrow spikes of huge numbers of deaths.
And that was not repeated in the majority of other places, in hardly any other places.
But the point I'm I'm alerting you to is the fact that those were used
and propagated by media, you know, mainstream media to drive a narrative.
And the and actually in raw numbers, those numbers of deaths that happened there,
they went into all the scary calculations of case fatality rates and so on.
And of course, if those were largely iatrogenic deaths,
that is a massive overestimation of of case fatality rates.
And we know that that's the case anyway, because we know that the the infection
fatality rate, even taken at its highest by the IANIDIS paper,
is in the region of seasonal flu.
I showed you what seasonal flu looks like.
If you look at those, you hardly see it happen.
If you look at a graph of total all cause mortality, you have it hardly figures.
And yet we see these spikes.
So the reason I pointed the spikes out was not to say there must be a virus.
They're causing that excess deaths, but to show that something very,
very unnatural happened there overall, of course, in certainly in the the UK
and Sweden, I mean, the levels of excess death that happened in 2020
are different across it, obviously across different countries.
But in the in Sweden
and I think also in the UK, I think definitely in the UK, actually,
it was the in terms of age adjusted all cause mortality in the UK
was, I think, the eighth worst
in the previous 20 in the 21st century, in the 20 years.
So that was just to put in in perspective, it was only the eighth worst total.
And Sweden, you'll have seen graphs of Sweden total,
you know, age adjusted all cause mortality in Sweden.
People do things like, you know, jumble up the years and say,
which is the pandemic year?
You basically you just can't tell.
I remember seeing that.
Yes. So 2020.
Yes, in some places, there were huge numbers of deaths
or should I say huge numbers of reported deaths
which were seemed to be used to drive a narrative.
Then there were
there were a large number of deaths attributed to Covid.
But the actual picture in terms of the amount of excess mortality
was, of course, not that great because the vast majority of people dying
were around the age of life expectancy
with multiple comorbidities and so on.
And that's why the total number of the excess mortality
was not actually that great.
So are you therefore saying that the lockdowns and the masks
and the social isolation, so on, didn't cause excess mortality?
Because that's the bit that I'm confused about,
whether it did cause excess mortality or it didn't.
In 2020, the lockdowns did cause
it did cause a small amount of unnecessary unnecessary deaths,
and it probably caused the premature deaths of quite a lot of people.
But within the overall, the amount of excess death in the UK was in 2020
was not actually that great.
Right. And was there a new virus?
Or was it other was it just other things mislabeled?
I mean, do we do we have any any sense on that?
Well, they're really what it boils down to is the fidelity of PCR testing
to answer that question.
And I don't myself have a firm handle.
I haven't got to the bottom of of
exactly how specific and sensitive PCR testing was.
My own view is that
we're dealing with endemic, an endemic coronavirus,
a sort of swarm of endemic coronavirus, which is constantly mutating.
And what we did by the PCR technology is effectively we kind of
it's a bit like a light beam
shining across a window with light streaming in.
You see dust, you know, you suddenly reveal dust, which was always there,
but you don't normally see it.
And so what PCR did effectively was just light up
and light up endemic coronaviruses, which are always present,
always going in and out of animals, into humans and back again.
And we normally they normally express themselves as either asymptomatically
or very, very mild illness.
And I believe that we basically have
first of all, we damaged the immune system of the population hugely
in 2020 with the measures and then obviously the pharmaceutical measures
damaged them even further.
But I believe we effectively lit up endemic coronaviruses,
which have been which are always evolving.
And that SARS-CoV-2 is basically just the name given to
the that virus, which has been mutating constantly.
And it was the name given at that time.
And of course, I should.
It's worth noting that
at it there, you know, there is considerable overlap
between this and other and SARS viruses and
SARS virus.
Interestingly, there was they stopped PCR testing.
They've nobody's done any testing for SARS viruses, no PCR testing at all
since 2010 when they declared that pandemic over.
So who knows what actually that's been circulating and causing
mild illness, being contributory to flu, causing some cold, some flu,
some severe respiratory infections in elderly and immunocompromised people.
And there was also a rage,
quite a vehement debate in 2020 in the International
Taxonomy Committee, I can't remember its exact name,
but there is a committee that is set up
where they decide to name viruses and
that it it was by no means a slam dunk that this would be called SARS-CoV-2.
There was sufficient similarity that some people said
that it was just an evolved version of SARS.
And there was clearly there were elements within that committee
that were pushing for this to be called to because they wanted it to be
probably because they wanted it to be regarded as a novel as a novel virus.
So the genome, the genome was investigated,
genome of the virus, as it leaving aside the PCR test,
which we know was was set at too high a level and therefore gave nine.
Yeah, well, there's there's some weird,
there are some weird things about the genome as well.
I mean, you know, the story is that they took some bronchiola
lavage fluid from a man in Wuhan
in on about December the 20th, I think it was.
Twenty nineteen.
And that's where they sequenced the virus.
Well, I mean, this just doesn't really make any sense.
I mean, if you think about it, because
first of all, the man in their 40s, this is not a man who would be ill
from this at all.
And secondly, why choose?
What is it that I mean, is it in somebody, particularly somebody
that age, the illness is kind of indistinguishable from any other respiratory
viral infection and
I'm calling bullshit on this story because I just can't think of a reason
why they should choose one person and take
a sample of bronchiola lavage and then sequence that.
And then, of course, this sequence gets sent around the world.
And before anybody has actually died outside China,
they apparently sequenced this in early January.
And it's just it's kind of science fiction type of story.
So I don't really know
the link between the sequence and this particular virus
and the PCR technology.
My sense is the PCR
technology, particularly cranked up to these kind of levels
that it was, is probably picking up all manner of genetic material.
And I'm yet to be convinced that it was picking up a discreet virus at all.
I mean, the other point worth making is that
and I will put the links into the material I circulate after.
Is this vanishing flu story?
Because the whole
narrative, one of the planks of the narrative is that flu
sort of disappeared from the face of the earth.
And that is due to this viral competition.
Again, I find this a bit sort of science fiction.
So you've got some some sort of in vitro.
You've got some
studies in individuals, which suggest that maybe the
interferon from one infection prevents
another viral infection at the same time.
It's actually quite weak.
If you if you read the articles that we wrote myself and Martin
Neil, you'll see that we've listed the holes in the story about disappearing flu.
And
even if this viral competition
theory in an individual whereby somebody says,
oh, you know, there's only room for one virus in the nasopharynx
and it takes over and wipes out the other, even if that's true,
I still don't understand how that is meant to extend to whole populations
across the whole world.
All their noses are interlinked so that it wipes out the flu virus
from everybody's nose simultaneously.
It just seems completely nonsensical to me.
The other point is that we make in the in the articles.
It's very important is that basically what people don't understand
is the extent to which the flu numbers is a completely
sort of modeled construct.
So every every year they say how many people died from flu or whatever.
It's not that we never test for PCR test people for influenza viruses.
It's just complete guesswork.
And so it we've coined the phrase or actually to give full credit,
it's Jessica Hockett coined the phrase that it's not viral interference,
it's human interference.
So, you know, I find the notion that
the flu disappeared
at exactly the same time as we started diverting all the resources
we have for testing into testing for SARS-CoV-2.
And flu disappeared, but SARS-CoV-2,
which is minting trillions for certain groups,
including the testing as well,
that that is just disconnected from the biological reality.
I just find it extraordinary.
Something very, very odd has gone on with the testing, in my opinion.
So and of course, there is a possibility there's co-infection.
I don't there's no seems to be no real argument against the flu.
There might be multiple viruses that are causing that regularly cause respiratory illnesses.
And if we just test for SARS-CoV-2 and you find that ka-ching,
we've got SARS-CoV-2 positive here,
they would never have tested or even considered co-infection with an influenza virus.
So, yeah.
Do you think that you think the PCR testing is a valid method of testing for infection?
PCR testing might be a valid way of finding matching genetic materials.
But I don't know whether that to what extent that reflects infection.
I don't really know.
And in fact, I think we know so little about viral disease,
how viruses interact with humans,
that I don't even know that we know really what an infection means.
So, you know, most people fight off respiratory infections at the mucosal level.
And so all this sort of antibody testing is,
is probably nonsense.
Absolutely, Jonathan.
Yeah, it was on the wrong side.
I wrote a rapid response to the British Medical Journal about the PCR testing
because I'd actually had a look at the manufacturer's instructions on the packets.
And they said it wasn't specific for a particular virus for SARS-CoV-2.
And it couldn't tell whether anyone was infected or not.
So they were all complete, as far as I was aware, the ones that were infected were all infected.
As far as I was aware, the ones that I'd seen were all completely useless.
Yeah, I mean, it's probably true to say that there was,
there was some link between positivity and symptoms.
You know, just talking to people around you,
when they got what I would call, you know, regular seasonal illnesses,
they did tend to test positive, but I'm actually more thinking about it.
I'm more talking about the, you know, the home tests, the lateral flow tests, the antigen tests.
So certainly it is measuring something, whether or not it is clinically useful, relevant,
and how sensitive, how specific it is for whatever virus,
whether you can draw these overarching global conclusions that they wish to draw from this data is a totally different question.
Well, Jonathan, the inventor of the PCR technique, Kerry Mullis, was absolutely clear.
And he absolutely hated Fauci and challenged him to meet him.
He said that my test, sorry, it wasn't the test he invented.
He invented the technique. He won the Nobel Prize for it.
It was a brilliant advance. And he got the Nobel Prize 10 years later.
I think it came into being 1983 and he got the Nobel Prize in 1993.
But the point is that he said that my these the PCR technique should never be used as a diagnostic tool for viral illnesses.
So he was on to Fauci. He said about Fauci, Fauci knows nothing, doesn't know anything about anything.
And I would say that to his face.
And he was dead in August 2019 with a mysterious pneumonia.
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,
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.
Never before we consider in the past using a readout from a technology like that to actually guide individual treatment.
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.
Absolutely, Jonathan. That's that's consistent with their wish to impose artificial intelligence on population.
Instead of doctors.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And we know that broad spectrum antibiotic prescription halved in the places where I've seen data, which is UK and US.
It was basically a halving of broad spectrum antibiotic prescription.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
And interestingly, Jonathan, as I remember it, not only did flu disappear, but bacterial pneumonia disappeared too. That was the official story.
And, sorry, how could, how could bacterial pneumonia actually disappear. I didn't know about that.
It couldn't. How could they only by only by relabeling them as COVID.
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.
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.
By the way, I have heard it, you know, hypothesized that, you know, the whole super bug story is, is another piece of propaganda.
Yeah.
Because if you are, you're then basically inventing the need for expensive new antibiotics all the time.
Very good. Yeah. Interesting.
Let's keep going. Stephen because we're Janet we done with you.
Thank you for your questions, Janet. They're brilliant questions, Janet.
In the nicest possible way Janet I mean are we done with you.
Thanks.
Jeremy from Canada now Jonathan.
You muted Jeremy.
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.
Let me say off the top.
I fully agree with your description or tweet about Peter McCullough.
It's unfortunate that he always seems to have been three months behind.
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.
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.
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.
So in this group of luminaries I'm kind of like a paperweight or a doorstop.
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.
But I guess the risk-benefit ratio was acceptable.
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.
So here's my experience. I spent my last 17 years in the area of multiple sclerosis.
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.
I think on this zoom I can name names. Nataluzumab, which is a monoclonal antibody.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Two people evidently had died and one was reduced to a vegetable.
So it became a numbers game after that. Like how many people would you would be acceptable to get PML?
Now, to be fair, they were only going to use this product in people who have very accelerated MS.
So and that the existing therapies wouldn't likely do much for them, including the one that I had.
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.
So it really depends on the situation. And I believe in this case, it only took two before they pulled it.
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.
So I thought that might be interesting.
Thanks. Thanks, Jeremy. Yeah, I think we're way past the point.
It's quite obvious that the regulators are completely captured and acting under orders of their governments, not independently.
Well, it's interesting that this happened in 2009 when the when the previous horny virus problem arose.
Yeah.
Thank you. Thank you, Jeremy. All right. I'm next. My hand was up. We'll go Sandra first and then me.
Hi, everybody. I want to thank you for that fabulous presentation.
I always learn a lot on these I'm really appreciative.
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.
As a physician who's been in practice for over 30 years. This was not a normal seasonal flu.
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
cognitive dysfunction that were associated with the seasonal flu. If that's what people are calling it.
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.
And so I'd like to know, Jonathan, what you think about that. Thank you.
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.
Before the, you know, which change changes the situation completely in terms of what presents to the doctors.
The other point I'll make is that there is a history, what in swine flu and both swine flu and avian flu.
They were absolutely convinced during those episodes that they were dealing with a completely different virus.
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.
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.
The fact is for the vast, for the vast majority of people, either asymptomatic or very, very mild, effectively like any other respiratory illness.
If you talk to people in Africa outside of South Africa and Zimbabwe, they really have no idea what you're talking about.
So they basically, they call it, the whole thing they call white man's disease.
Or they say, we don't have that because we can't afford all those PCR tests, so we didn't have that pandemic.
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.
And to my mind, it must be something to do with the regions of the world, how they treated people.
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.
They were not given horrible treatments. Most of my patients did really, really well.
But we did, you know, I did see some of these very unusual symptoms.
And they're not.
Sandra, they were all terrified. All the patients were terrified when they came to see you.
Just to deal with a little bit with novelty as well.
People ascribe, people are making a jump.
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.
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.
So coronaviruses kind of come and go in cycles and waves.
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.
I'll explain what I mean.
What I mean is, people are making this this jump between unusual symptoms, and therefore there must be something completely novel on the block.
Well, I mean, if you think about it in, in the past.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
harmful.
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.
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
releases of something. I don't know it seems.
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.
But maybe that maybe that explains some of what we've observed.
The data itself does not suggest that properly treated as we have always treated the respiratory viral infections that this was particularly dangerous.
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.
But thanks for taking the time. I appreciate it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's why the failure of parliament in Australia, and many places around the world shutting down leaders made decisions without having dialogue.
And that's the that's the value of dialogue because not one of us knows all the answers.
So,
Sandra now, Jonathan I've got 27 questions for you but I'm only going to do a couple.
So, so the crucial element, so I was partly.
In fact, I helped create the health Alliance, Australia.
How have you been successful in shifting the average doctor's views.
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
narrative and then you woke up only briefly though in the case of Jonathan.
It's time is an illusion said Albert Einstein. Now, the, the question.
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
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
were wrong.
And a second question that ties into your closing point on governments.
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,
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.
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
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.
I'm not really aware of one.
It's, it's actually quite depressing and that most doctors in the UK, just, they don't want to know.
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
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.
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
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.
I was quite surprised. I read an article yesterday as somebody tweeted an article remember this from two years ago.
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
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.
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
Daily Telegraph article. So it's moved to the Daily Telegraph.
Even the times, people have started to speak out. The Guardian, the readers are obviously a lost cause forever.
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.
And then, and then, thank you for that and then CEOs of any major corporations.
I'm not either.
Yeah, I mean, because of course, major corporations have generally benefited hugely from what happened.
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.
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.
I'll put the chat in.
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
of the collusion of government and big business, plus the ESG scam. Michael goes through this beautifully.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
starts a fire in lots of places. So, thank you.
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.
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.
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
about what and change my mind as necessary.
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.
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.
But you have a certain power, and you found your allies, you find and your allies are extremely important in this.
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.
In your opinion, it doesn't matter if you don't answer these questions.
For whatever reason.
You can just say, prefer not to add.
Was there a pandemic.
Yes or no.
Not a viral pandemic.
Correct. Yeah.
Yeah. So I agree with you.
So, there was no pandemic.
And this is what they, of course, are saying all the time.
How to manage the future pandemic so the next question is, just to qualify also that there wasn't even a pandemic.
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.
Yes, exactly.
Yeah.
Yeah. So that's very important. What you've just said.
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.
So, our deadly viral pandemics possible.
I mean, in my opinion, no.
Exactly, because deadly viral and pandemic seem to be mutually exclusive to me.
Yeah, anyway, it's just food for thought.
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.
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.
But
it's complete nonsense. And in fact,
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
reduce the potential for future pandemic to not increase it.
Exactly.
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
pandemic potential but I think that's the wrong way around.
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.
So any variants are always less dangerous than the original, whatever that was.
But we were left with, we were being fed this narrative in the UK. First of all, Delta.
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.
Anyway, he was talking about Delta and Omicron.
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.
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.
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.
And then because of the Omicron variants and we've had Delta before that.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Having said that Denmark was very early out. So my friend Matt Spalsby.
He tells me that they were out in January of 2022. We were March.
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.
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.
Do you think it's a cult.
I think the way it is treated is like a cult.
Exactly.
I'm not. I don't work for the NHS.
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.
Yes.
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,
When have large, you know centralized organizations ever delivered things better than small local organizations, never.
We've got one of the biggest organizations in the world.
So, in December of sorry I think it was November of 2020.
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.
And I think in November or could have been October 2020.
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.
And, but I just wanted to hang on to something as an individual myself and also to support my own family and.
And in one of these calls, which was intended to cheer me up he just said, Stephen.
In March 2020.
There was a global coup d'etat, and we can't do anything about it.
And then I, if you remember the fresh fields lecture of Lord Jonathan assumption.
Yeah.
The, the wonderful. I thought that was what I watched that I think about 10 times.
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.
So in my opinion there is absolutely no way that this was not planned.
And if it was planned it was pure evil.
What do you think.
I'm not sure.
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.
They're supporting certain narrative, the same in this question.
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.
I mean, the other thing is, take for example, things like event 201.
You know, one view of it is they, what that shows you that they were, they were clearly planning it.
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.
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.
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.
And then we get a viral, an outbreak of something. And then once the conditions, yes, it will then just take off.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Thank you for having me I apologize if I didn't have a slide.
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.
So this shines out you know your humanity to anybody listening to this I hope. So great. Thank you very much.
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.
Thank you see you again on Tuesday, and we'll look forward to being with you.
One on Stephen. Bye everybody.
Bye Jonathan. Thank you, Jonathan. Thank you. Thank you, Charles.
And everyone.
Thank you.