1
0:00:00 --> 0:00:01
Good.

2
0:00:01 --> 0:00:02
Okay.

3
0:00:02 --> 0:00:03
So we got there, Daniel.

4
0:00:03 --> 0:00:08
Yes, I was going to say, Daniel, I don't know whether anybody has observed that you

5
0:00:08 --> 0:00:11
might be a budding orator.

6
0:00:11 --> 0:00:13
Budding?

7
0:00:13 --> 0:00:15
Yes.

8
0:00:15 --> 0:00:17
Budding definitely.

9
0:00:17 --> 0:00:19
Well, all fully fledged.

10
0:00:19 --> 0:00:20
Can't decide.

11
0:00:20 --> 0:00:29
If you don't know that you have a talent for speaking, then yeah, well, you know now.

12
0:00:29 --> 0:00:33
Yes, some of those speeches are really great.

13
0:00:33 --> 0:00:36
Yes, Daniel, you are an excellent speaker.

14
0:00:36 --> 0:00:37
I've watched a few of her presentations.

15
0:00:37 --> 0:00:43
So Daniel, we're in your hands, as Stephen said, so you can speak for 10 minutes or 40

16
0:00:43 --> 0:00:44
minutes.

17
0:00:44 --> 0:00:49
And then Q&A, everybody for questions, we do those via reactions.

18
0:00:49 --> 0:00:56
Welcome particularly to new first time to our virgins to this group.

19
0:00:57 --> 0:01:00
The reactions tab is where you put your hand up if you want to ask a question after Daniel

20
0:01:00 --> 0:01:02
finishes speaking.

21
0:01:02 --> 0:01:05
So Daniel, you can, you know, there's people here.

22
0:01:05 --> 0:01:10
Everyone here is on your side and in honor of what you've done for those who know what

23
0:01:10 --> 0:01:11
you've done.

24
0:01:11 --> 0:01:18
So we are handing over to you and we look forward to hearing your wisdom, courage, journey,

25
0:01:18 --> 0:01:23
story, and we look forward to asking you lots of questions.

26
0:01:23 --> 0:01:27
But Daniel, if you're not comfortable, if you haven't got anything prepared and you're

27
0:01:27 --> 0:01:34
short of something to say, which would be unusual for you, then we can go into discussion

28
0:01:34 --> 0:01:35
mode.

29
0:01:35 --> 0:01:37
We're very good at asking questions.

30
0:01:37 --> 0:01:43
We can go on for hours asking questions.

31
0:01:43 --> 0:01:45
Sounds good.

32
0:01:45 --> 0:01:52
You know, what I'd like to share today is kind of how my thinking process has evolved

33
0:01:52 --> 0:01:56
from pre 2020 to now.

34
0:01:56 --> 0:02:03
And one of the first thoughts I had back in February, March and April of 2020 when this

35
0:02:03 --> 0:02:13
whole this whole incident started was, is it possible that all the pandemic respiratory

36
0:02:13 --> 0:02:22
viruses that I've seen, in fact, all the pandemic viruses in my lifetime were in fact a part

37
0:02:22 --> 0:02:24
of a weapons development program?

38
0:02:24 --> 0:02:32
And I think I was starting to explore that thought process around April 2020 because

39
0:02:32 --> 0:02:41
if some organization was developing a biological weapon, the greatest enemy of a biological

40
0:02:41 --> 0:02:45
weapon is the human immune system.

41
0:02:45 --> 0:02:54
So what's the very first most critical, let's say DARPA or Deep State objective when developing

42
0:02:54 --> 0:02:57
a biological weapon?

43
0:02:57 --> 0:03:04
It's to develop some sort of virus or bacteria that can defeat the immune system.

44
0:03:04 --> 0:03:13
And that was a very big deal during the AIDS epidemic here in Canada was one of the defining

45
0:03:13 --> 0:03:20
features of AIDS or the HIV virus was how people's immune systems stopped working.

46
0:03:20 --> 0:03:27
And a lot of the medical research that, you know, I that happened across my path before

47
0:03:27 --> 0:03:32
medical school and during medical school was talking all about the immune system, CD4,

48
0:03:32 --> 0:03:40
CD8 and T helper cells and how those were negatively affected by the HIV virus.

49
0:03:40 --> 0:03:50
So then, well, if they finally succeeded in developing a virus, a strand of DNA and RNA

50
0:03:50 --> 0:03:57
that was capable of hijacking the immune system, then the next step in a weapons development

51
0:03:57 --> 0:04:00
program would be a delivery mechanism.

52
0:04:00 --> 0:04:06
And unfortunately with HIV, it was a blood-borne and a sexually transmitted disease, which

53
0:04:06 --> 0:04:12
was a very limited form of delivery when it comes to biological weapons.

54
0:04:12 --> 0:04:21
So obviously the most ideal mode of mode of spread for a biological weapon would be airborne

55
0:04:21 --> 0:04:23
because everyone has to breathe.

56
0:04:23 --> 0:04:30
So then what was so there's AIDS in the 1980s, early 90s.

57
0:04:30 --> 0:04:36
And I was in university and then medical school till 2004.

58
0:04:36 --> 0:04:41
While I was in medical school, the SARS-1 epidemic happened.

59
0:04:41 --> 0:04:47
I think that was in around the 2000s, where a lot of younger than usual people seemed

60
0:04:47 --> 0:04:51
to have an exaggerated inflammatory response.

61
0:04:51 --> 0:04:58
Nurses, doctors, health caregivers were dying of a viral pneumonia.

62
0:04:58 --> 0:05:05
The thought crossed my mind well, was that the first test run of a viral vector for

63
0:05:05 --> 0:05:13
carriage of an immune suppressing virus, except the mistake they made with SARS-1 was that

64
0:05:13 --> 0:05:22
it was too deadly, that it caused symptoms too quickly and it would kill the host, right,

65
0:05:22 --> 0:05:27
before the host got to spread SARS-1 to, let's say, an entire city.

66
0:05:28 --> 0:05:33
So then after SARS, I think it was H1N1.

67
0:05:34 --> 0:05:40
And I looked at that well, is that possibly they were trying a different viral vector

68
0:05:40 --> 0:05:45
after the first SARS-1 coronavirus vector was just too deadly.

69
0:05:46 --> 0:05:54
So then they decided to go with a swine flu or an avian, an influenza-based virus to see

70
0:05:54 --> 0:06:02
whether or not they could get just the right amount of not making the virus too deadly,

71
0:06:02 --> 0:06:08
having a very prolonged incubation period so that the host could spread the virus

72
0:06:09 --> 0:06:13
without being too severely affected before dying of the disease.

73
0:06:15 --> 0:06:24
And so, you know, not having any window into the CIA or Deep State or DARPA research plans,

74
0:06:24 --> 0:06:27
I'm just trying to have to guess from what I observe.

75
0:06:27 --> 0:06:30
Then there came the MERS epidemic.

76
0:06:31 --> 0:06:37
And what was different about MERS was, whereas SARS and H1N1 were respiratory virus,

77
0:06:37 --> 0:06:44
MERS seemed to have the added capability of spread through the digestive tract,

78
0:06:44 --> 0:06:47
so diarrhea, vomiting, right.

79
0:06:47 --> 0:06:52
And, you know, if you look at it from the window of a weapons development, well,

80
0:06:52 --> 0:07:00
then you'd want your delivery mechanism to have as many different modes of spread as possible.

81
0:07:00 --> 0:07:07
So not just airborne spread, to have waterborne spread and foodborne spread if possible.

82
0:07:07 --> 0:07:10
So MERS seemed to fit that bill.

83
0:07:10 --> 0:07:17
And the MERS epidemic might have been a test run of them testing that particular type of virus.

84
0:07:17 --> 0:07:25
So then the final stage would be to combine the MERS, you know,

85
0:07:25 --> 0:07:32
digestive tract vomit and diarrhea spread with one of the coronavirus airborne spreads.

86
0:07:32 --> 0:07:37
And then finally assemble it together with HIV, which is the immune suppressant.

87
0:07:38 --> 0:07:46
And to somehow get that chimeric virus to have such a long incubation period

88
0:07:47 --> 0:07:53
that the host who will eventually die from it manages to spread it to thousands and thousands

89
0:07:53 --> 0:07:55
of people before succumbing to the disease.

90
0:07:57 --> 0:08:00
And that's what crossed my mind in April 2020.

91
0:08:00 --> 0:08:02
Is this, this is the end.

92
0:08:02 --> 0:08:09
This is the final step in DARPA's program where they're going to call a human population

93
0:08:09 --> 0:08:11
with an airborne version of AIDS.

94
0:08:11 --> 0:08:19
Because I think early in 2020, some group, I believe it was from India,

95
0:08:20 --> 0:08:28
they analyzed the published sequences of the corona SARS-2, the COVID-19 virus.

96
0:08:29 --> 0:08:33
And they found segments very similar or identical to HIV.

97
0:08:34 --> 0:08:40
So the big controversy started by that research group in India was that

98
0:08:40 --> 0:08:52
was coronavirus to an airborne modification of HIV, which would confirm an intentional development.

99
0:08:52 --> 0:08:52
Right.

100
0:08:52 --> 0:08:57
Because how are you going to get a bat to, you know,

101
0:08:57 --> 0:09:02
endogenously combine a bat coronavirus with someone with HIV?

102
0:09:02 --> 0:09:09
Like then someone with HIV would have had to get bitten by a bat and then got bitten by another bat

103
0:09:09 --> 0:09:11
and then had that spread, spread around.

104
0:09:11 --> 0:09:18
It just doesn't make any, it's so far fetched from a statistical probability standpoint that

105
0:09:18 --> 0:09:25
it's essentially impossible that a bat would get AIDS from someone who has AIDS and then

106
0:09:25 --> 0:09:29
recombine AIDS with a bat coronavirus within the bat.

107
0:09:29 --> 0:09:31
And then that bat would start flying around and infecting people.

108
0:09:31 --> 0:09:33
It doesn't make any sense.

109
0:09:33 --> 0:09:40
So that article, if I remember correctly, was quickly withdrawn within a couple of months,

110
0:09:40 --> 0:09:49
but it did put the idea into my head that the SARS coronavirus 2 was an airborne modification

111
0:09:49 --> 0:09:57
of AIDS where the objective of the virus was to weaken the immune system before causing death

112
0:09:57 --> 0:10:00
through viral pneumonia or a secondary infection.

113
0:10:01 --> 0:10:08
So obviously that made me pretty worried in March and April, except here in North America,

114
0:10:08 --> 0:10:11
we weren't seeing rampant mortality.

115
0:10:11 --> 0:10:17
Actually, we didn't see any mortality increase, at least as far as the emergency department went.

116
0:10:17 --> 0:10:20
The emergency department, in fact, was quieter than usual.

117
0:10:20 --> 0:10:28
So then you had to think, well, did their weapons development program fail?

118
0:10:29 --> 0:10:37
And then to think of it from a biological, first principle standpoint, if there's any

119
0:10:39 --> 0:10:48
extremely harmful pathogen, whether it's a virus or a bacteria, the greatest enemy to a deadly

120
0:10:48 --> 0:10:51
pathogen is evolution itself.

121
0:10:51 --> 0:10:53
It won't spread very far.

122
0:10:53 --> 0:11:02
So even if there's a very long incubation period, the spread of the SARS coronavirus 2

123
0:11:02 --> 0:11:07
would be limited that the more deadlier variants would kill off the host too quickly,

124
0:11:07 --> 0:11:16
and the milder variants would probably lose their pathogenic features that cause extreme mortality.

125
0:11:17 --> 0:11:25
Because if you think of it from a systemic point of view, the virus actually, or any virus for

126
0:11:25 --> 0:11:31
that matter, whether it's a chimeric man-made bio weapon or a naturally occurring virus,

127
0:11:31 --> 0:11:37
no virus has in its own interest to kill the host.

128
0:11:37 --> 0:11:44
In fact, for any virus, the goal of the virus, if the goal of that virus is to keep continuing

129
0:11:44 --> 0:11:51
for generations and generations, is to spread but cause the host the minimal amount of

130
0:11:51 --> 0:11:52
inconvenience.

131
0:11:53 --> 0:11:59
Because if the virus causes the host to be laid up in bed all day until the host recovers, then the

132
0:11:59 --> 0:12:01
virus isn't going to spread very far.

133
0:12:01 --> 0:12:08
So there's a strong evolutionary pressure on viruses to be mild and highly contagious.

134
0:12:09 --> 0:12:18
So going through the rest of 2020 and seeing how mortality wasn't really anything to remark

135
0:12:18 --> 0:12:26
about with this SARS-CoV-2, then I was wondering, well, did the viral evolution happen that quickly?

136
0:12:26 --> 0:12:34
Did something pathogenic that started in Wuhan or wherever it was first released go through the

137
0:12:34 --> 0:12:42
first thousand rounds of viral evolution and then quickly revert as close as possible back to a

138
0:12:42 --> 0:12:45
normal coronavirus, its natural state?

139
0:12:46 --> 0:12:56
Because there's one observation that I had about genetic engineering that I read when, back when

140
0:12:56 --> 0:13:03
a lot of farm crops were getting genetically engineered with like roundup, resistance, and

141
0:13:04 --> 0:13:11
so they were making chimeric corn, chimeric soy with genes from other plants or animals or a gene

142
0:13:11 --> 0:13:14
to resist the roundup pesticide.

143
0:13:15 --> 0:13:28
And the thing is, naturally evolved features tend to be more stable than artificially spliced in

144
0:13:28 --> 0:13:36
genes in that if, let's say a particular feature of corn, like corn being purple or purple corn,

145
0:13:36 --> 0:13:41
if that genetic feature evolved over thousands and thousands of years,

146
0:13:43 --> 0:13:47
that purple trait in the corn tends to be stable.

147
0:13:47 --> 0:13:53
It can be turned on and off, but it won't unpredictably disappear.

148
0:13:53 --> 0:14:01
If it disappears for one generation, it will reappear in the grandchild generation.

149
0:14:01 --> 0:14:11
However, with spliced genes, when the first roundup gene modified crops started coming out,

150
0:14:11 --> 0:14:17
one of the problems was the roundup gene would keep falling out of the genome of that particular

151
0:14:17 --> 0:14:26
corn or soy plant in that artificially spliced in genes, sometimes the genome itself of whatever

152
0:14:26 --> 0:14:33
organism that was spliced decides, you know, we don't like this gene and it hasn't been there

153
0:14:33 --> 0:14:36
before, so we're just going to get rid of that gene in its entirety.

154
0:14:36 --> 0:14:43
So what started off as roundup corn, genetically modified, would revert back to regular,

155
0:14:43 --> 0:14:50
unmodified corn. And it was only after hundreds and maybe even thousands of generations of

156
0:14:51 --> 0:14:59
repeated splicing that Monsanto was able to get the roundup gene to stably remain within the corn

157
0:14:59 --> 0:15:05
genome. So a similar, I was wondering if there was a similar process going on with SARS-CoV,

158
0:15:05 --> 0:15:13
that all the genes that were spliced into the coronavirus, giving it HID-like features,

159
0:15:13 --> 0:15:20
giving it spike protein features, was the coronavirus itself naturally evolving those

160
0:15:20 --> 0:15:29
features out because they are not natural to a normal wild coronavirus? Because the mortality

161
0:15:29 --> 0:15:36
of SARS-CoV-2, this COVID-19 virus, just was not, you know, maybe there was high mortality in

162
0:15:36 --> 0:15:45
Wuhan, but after it spread out of China, it was nothing remarkable. So that's kind of, you know,

163
0:15:45 --> 0:15:52
if you want to look at it as a biological spiritual thing, you know, the virus is the virus and it

164
0:15:52 --> 0:15:59
won't act, you know, it will act in the way it's acted before to coexist with the human species as

165
0:15:59 --> 0:16:07
best it can. It has no reason to keep these extra features that humans added into the virus, spike

166
0:16:07 --> 0:16:18
proteins, HIV proteins, etc. So then came, of course, the government overreaction to what was

167
0:16:18 --> 0:16:23
a non-deadly virus. It was certainly non-deadly by the time it reached North America.

168
0:16:24 --> 0:16:35
And then all of a sudden in the fall, there seemed to me, like, eventually this fall,

169
0:16:35 --> 0:16:39
in the fall of 2020, I was hoping, well, people would wake up and realize this is not a deadly

170
0:16:39 --> 0:16:49
coronavirus and everyone can go back to normal. But in the fall of 2020, the push with Operation

171
0:16:49 --> 0:16:59
Warp Speed, this immense push from media, government to hype and create demand, and literally

172
0:16:59 --> 0:17:09
just create demand through fear for an inoculation for a non-deadly respiratory virus. That was

173
0:17:09 --> 0:17:15
the unexpected change in plan because if they had just forgotten about the virus, because it

174
0:17:15 --> 0:17:21
had proven itself by the summer of 2020 to be not deadly, certainly not deadly anymore, even if it

175
0:17:21 --> 0:17:28
was deadly at the beginning of 2020 and the end of 2019, it was certainly nothing to worry about.

176
0:17:30 --> 0:17:37
And then what concerned me is everyone with a university biology knowledge

177
0:17:38 --> 0:17:47
and evolution is one of the required courses in any university biology degree, is how

178
0:17:49 --> 0:17:57
it was completely missing from the discussion. CNN, CBC, the BBC, all the news programs were

179
0:17:57 --> 0:18:06
going on and on about how deadly this COVID-19 virus was and not a single one of the experts

180
0:18:07 --> 0:18:15
was talking about what we know as evolution, is that no matter how deadly any virus starts out,

181
0:18:15 --> 0:18:23
it will quickly evolve to be non-deadly and highly contagious because that's what's in the virus's

182
0:18:23 --> 0:18:30
best interest. It doesn't want to kill its host. And that was completely absent from the bigger

183
0:18:30 --> 0:18:38
discussion. I'm sure there's more than one member of parliament in Canada who did a biology degree

184
0:18:38 --> 0:18:46
and it was dead silence. Everyone who held the knowledge of evolution failed to apply it to the

185
0:18:46 --> 0:18:52
current situation, which was the COVID-19. And if they applied their knowledge to

186
0:18:53 --> 0:19:01
virology and viral evolution, they certainly did not speak of it. So that was a very big clue for me

187
0:19:01 --> 0:19:11
that there is something much bigger going on. This is not a chicken little situation where a few

188
0:19:11 --> 0:19:18
experts decided that the Wuhan Coronavirus 19 was super deadly and that the whole planet had to go

189
0:19:18 --> 0:19:26
under lockdown and that they had miscalculated their estimates of how deadly this virus was.

190
0:19:26 --> 0:19:34
This was in fact something that pervaded media and government because people who were in media

191
0:19:34 --> 0:19:42
and government should have had at least one expert speaking out about how the deadlier the virus,

192
0:19:42 --> 0:19:48
the quicker it will evolve to be non-deadly. It's literally that simple and no one was saying

193
0:19:48 --> 0:19:57
that. And then the whole push for the vaccines, these inoculations came around and

194
0:19:59 --> 0:20:06
all caution seemed to be thrown to the wind. All the regulatory bodies, Health Canada and the

195
0:20:06 --> 0:20:15
American version, the FDA, they said this virus, which was clearly not deadly, was so serious that

196
0:20:15 --> 0:20:24
it warranted everyone possible to try and try this new mRNA injection. And then

197
0:20:27 --> 0:20:37
so by the fall and winter of 2020, there was an immense push to stimulate demand for this injection

198
0:20:37 --> 0:20:45
and how everyone was supposed to try this mRNA injection, that it was for the good of society.

199
0:20:46 --> 0:21:01
And again, the second complete academic failure is the whole notion that if you inoculate 90% of the

200
0:21:01 --> 0:21:12
population, then 90% of that virus that is being targeted by the inoculation, 90% of that virus's

201
0:21:12 --> 0:21:21
environment has an antibody from that inoculation. So that gives the virus a very strong motive to

202
0:21:22 --> 0:21:29
evolve and be resistant to the inoculation. However, if you only inoculated the

203
0:21:30 --> 0:21:37
most minimum part of society that was at most risk of dying from this particular coronavirus,

204
0:21:37 --> 0:21:45
let's say the elderly who are in nursing home, and you limited the population inoculation to

205
0:21:45 --> 0:21:55
5 to 10%, then the coronavirus would only have a very minimal motive or evolutionary pressure

206
0:21:56 --> 0:22:03
to evolve resistance to the vaccine, because 90 to 95% of that virus's environment will not have

207
0:22:03 --> 0:22:13
spike protein antibodies. And so for public health in public health departments worldwide,

208
0:22:14 --> 0:22:23
to completely ignore this very, very basic evolutionary fact that if you want to prevent

209
0:22:23 --> 0:22:30
resistance to a vaccine, you want to limit the vaccination to the minimum possible presence in

210
0:22:30 --> 0:22:36
the population. And then you slow down or you prevent the virus from evolving or resistance

211
0:22:36 --> 0:22:45
to that vaccine. All of that basic biological teaching, all that basic biological knowledge

212
0:22:45 --> 0:22:52
was thrown in the garbage, thrown in the garbage, PhDs, masters, you know, officials who were in

213
0:22:52 --> 0:22:58
public health for decades for their entire careers, who are supposedly living and breathing,

214
0:22:58 --> 0:23:05
you know, population dynamics and evolutionary biology for viruses and bacterias who are on the

215
0:23:05 --> 0:23:13
alert, they've all turned into morons for the lack of a better word. They're trying to inoculate

216
0:23:13 --> 0:23:18
everyone. And so what kind of a

217
0:23:21 --> 0:23:30
governance structure or maybe not governance, what kind of organization could have that much influence

218
0:23:31 --> 0:23:39
that it could direct public health to act in a completely irrational manner? What kind of

219
0:23:39 --> 0:23:48
organization could silence academia on such a big scale and cause even the millions and millions

220
0:23:48 --> 0:23:55
of graduates who only have a bachelor's of biology to ignore their own knowledge that they spent,

221
0:23:55 --> 0:24:00
you know, three or four years in university learning, right? How is it possible that

222
0:24:01 --> 0:24:07
everyone with a bio, you know, a basic bachelor's of biology should realize that

223
0:24:08 --> 0:24:15
viruses quickly evolve to be non-deadly and the more you give, you change the environment

224
0:24:15 --> 0:24:21
of a particular organism for this example of virus, the more you change its environment

225
0:24:21 --> 0:24:25
to have a certain antibody, the quicker you're going to create resistance to that antibody.

226
0:24:27 --> 0:24:34
How is it that so many people who were intelligent enough to get a biology degree

227
0:24:35 --> 0:24:40
completely ignore the knowledge that they spent years learning? That was a big,

228
0:24:42 --> 0:24:48
that was, it was almost impossible for me to believe that this was actually happening,

229
0:24:48 --> 0:24:54
but it was happening. And then on top of that, then you had the push for these inoculations,

230
0:24:54 --> 0:25:02
untested and these inoculations had a terrible, terrible history when they were tested on animals.

231
0:25:02 --> 0:25:10
And then that brings me to another point is, you know, if I imagine, like I chose the route

232
0:25:10 --> 0:25:19
to become a medical doctor and I chose emergency medicine because that's pretty exciting for me

233
0:25:19 --> 0:25:27
and I really enjoy that work. But if I had chosen, you know, after graduating from McGill with

234
0:25:27 --> 0:25:35
a bachelor's of physiology and cell biology, if I had decided to undertake research and pursue a

235
0:25:35 --> 0:25:44
master's and a PhD, and let's say, you know, one of my PhD assignments was to research and develop

236
0:25:44 --> 0:25:55
gene therapy, MRNA and vectors. Well, what would be one of the first steps that you would take

237
0:25:55 --> 0:26:02
one of the first risks to consider from an overall systemic standpoint?

238
0:26:03 --> 0:26:09
And one of the first risks to consider is what happens when a gene therapy

239
0:26:10 --> 0:26:20
alteration of the genome is out of control. In fact, that would be before any gene therapy

240
0:26:20 --> 0:26:25
research gets off the drawing board. That's the very first consideration.

241
0:26:26 --> 0:26:34
Because I remember in the 90s, it was a big deal about how they were going to cure cystic fibrosis

242
0:26:34 --> 0:26:42
with an adenovirus gene therapy vector that all the patients who are suffering from cystic fibrosis

243
0:26:42 --> 0:26:50
because of a missing gene, they would be able to inhale this adenovirus with that contained the

244
0:26:50 --> 0:26:56
missing gene. And because the adenovirus was a DNA virus, it would go and infect the lungs of anyone

245
0:26:56 --> 0:27:04
who had cystic fibrosis. And it would insert that adenovirus gene that contained the missing gene

246
0:27:04 --> 0:27:10
for cystic fibrosis patients and it would give them what they were born without. But the

247
0:27:10 --> 0:27:18
consideration from that is, well, that's all well and good. You cured the cystic fibrosis patient,

248
0:27:18 --> 0:27:28
but is that cure a heritable cure? In that, will that cystic fibrosis patients who's been cured by

249
0:27:28 --> 0:27:37
gene therapy be able to, will they be passing on the lack of cystic fibrosis to their children or

250
0:27:37 --> 0:27:44
grandchildren? And the conclusion at that time was by and large no, because the adenovirus would have

251
0:27:44 --> 0:27:53
to get into the bloodstream and start altering the genes of the germ cells for that to occur.

252
0:27:53 --> 0:27:59
So by and large, even if a cystic fibrosis patient was cured of cystic fibrosis, they could still have

253
0:27:59 --> 0:28:06
children who would suffer from cystic fibrosis. But again, these are all very basic drawing board

254
0:28:06 --> 0:28:15
concerns that once you start using techniques that can have an alteration of the genome,

255
0:28:16 --> 0:28:25
what happens if that altered genome becomes a heritable trait? That is, it gets passed on

256
0:28:25 --> 0:28:35
to future generations. And that was basically, that was back in the 1990s. So the risks of

257
0:28:35 --> 0:28:44
a gene therapy affecting the entire human population through propagation over multiple

258
0:28:44 --> 0:28:53
generations, that's known about. It's impossible to ignore that risk when it comes to gene therapy.

259
0:28:54 --> 0:29:06
And for there not to be any studies that I know of that explored mRNA injections given to animals

260
0:29:06 --> 0:29:13
to see whether the mRNA injection given to the parental generation caused permanent

261
0:29:15 --> 0:29:22
heritable genetic changes in children and grandchildren generations from the parent

262
0:29:22 --> 0:29:31
who was inoculated. How that is missing from the published literature, it seems impossible to me.

263
0:29:31 --> 0:29:37
In fact, that was probably that would have been one of the first things to look at when they were

264
0:29:37 --> 0:29:45
first doing mRNA injections for SARS-1. Then for the animals that survived the mRNA injection from

265
0:29:45 --> 0:29:53
SARS-1, did those animals have children or grandchildren that had some kind of genetic

266
0:29:53 --> 0:30:02
alteration from the mRNA injection in the grandparents generation? In fact, that should

267
0:30:02 --> 0:30:13
have been the very first safety study, whether or not an mRNA can be passed on in subsequent

268
0:30:13 --> 0:30:19
generations, whether those genetic alterations are permanent in that species from that point on.

269
0:30:20 --> 0:30:26
And the fact that I don't see any of that in the literature makes me wonder if those experiments

270
0:30:26 --> 0:30:34
were done and then the results were silenced. And if those results were silenced, were they silenced

271
0:30:34 --> 0:30:43
because that would be the absolute reason why no mRNA, DNA or adenovirus injection should be

272
0:30:43 --> 0:30:55
given to anyone capable of reproducing. And that's the big situation we're at now,

273
0:30:55 --> 0:31:03
you know, since after the first rollout of these inoculations to elderly people in nursing homes

274
0:31:03 --> 0:31:11
who are past reproductive age, then there was this immense push all throughout 2021 to inoculate

275
0:31:11 --> 0:31:19
everyone. And by inoculating people of reproductive age, and especially by inoculating pregnant women,

276
0:31:21 --> 0:31:32
then that, you know, I came to this realization a little late, right, because I was still in the

277
0:31:32 --> 0:31:40
mindset of being an emergency doctor, not a cell biologist, but this is a genetic alteration of the

278
0:31:40 --> 0:31:56
human species. I can't see how that would, by at least the every researcher in the NIH, FDA,

279
0:31:56 --> 0:32:07
Health Canada, anyone with biological knowledge who participated in genetic research, in

280
0:32:09 --> 0:32:19
gene splicing research, in mRNA, DNA, CRISPR technology, they, every single one of those

281
0:32:20 --> 0:32:29
people in those fields should have had in the forefronts of their mind that genetic alterations,

282
0:32:29 --> 0:32:39
if given to people of reproductive age, can be inherited for the rest of that species existence.

283
0:32:39 --> 0:32:56
And, and I think that's the, that's the biggest systemic concern. This concern is, is bigger than,

284
0:32:56 --> 0:33:05
you know, people dying of blood clots and, and people dying early from cancer due to damage from

285
0:33:05 --> 0:33:11
either the spike proteins or genetic alterations from reverse transcribed mRNA.

286
0:33:12 --> 0:33:20
We're talking about a species-wide problem, more than just an individual problem,

287
0:33:21 --> 0:33:27
more than just a problem for groups of people like the elderly or the immune suppressed.

288
0:33:27 --> 0:33:35
We're talking about a problem that, that affects the entire future of humanity.

289
0:33:43 --> 0:33:46
So, yeah, if anyone has any questions so far, I can-

290
0:33:46 --> 0:33:54
All right, Daniel, the entire future of humanity. There's a, there's a nice line to stop on Easter,

291
0:33:55 --> 0:34:03
at Easter time. So, Daniel, thank you for sharing your innermost thoughts and the journey you've been

292
0:34:03 --> 0:34:10
on with us. Our tradition here, Daniel, is that Stephen asks the first questions. As long as he's

293
0:34:10 --> 0:34:17
got questions and then we go to hands, you'll, you will see hands are raised. How long have we got you,

294
0:34:17 --> 0:34:22
just so that I can somewhat manage the journey with you? How long are you here?

295
0:34:22 --> 0:34:28
As long as you guys want. This is, this is important. I'm happy to spend the rest of my

296
0:34:28 --> 0:34:35
afternoon. So, good. Excellent. Well done. Great news. So, everybody, please be patient. There's

297
0:34:35 --> 0:34:42
wonderful news, Daniel, because this is a discussion as well. So, delighted to hear that. So, I don't

298
0:34:42 --> 0:34:48
have to do much work moderating, but the hands, put your hands up in order. We've got some wonderful

299
0:34:48 --> 0:34:53
experts here and I look forward to the conversation. And Stephen Frost, over to you first,

300
0:34:53 --> 0:35:06
as tradition dictates. I'm sure, I'm sure. Sorry, I'm muted. I was muted. So, Daniel, thank you very

301
0:35:06 --> 0:35:13
much. That was really good. And as usual, you built up to a climax. So, in one sense, at least,

302
0:35:13 --> 0:35:22
you're predictable. But anyway, I wonder, because you're a medical doctor, aren't you? And so am I.

303
0:35:23 --> 0:35:27
So, the British government, I don't know whether this was repeated around the world, but I suspect

304
0:35:27 --> 0:35:35
it was, was talking when this nonsense started that, you know, follow the science. This is what

305
0:35:35 --> 0:35:43
the government officials were saying in what I later realized was a medical political alliance

306
0:35:43 --> 0:35:49
practicing human medical experimentation. So, they were saying follow the science, but I was

307
0:35:49 --> 0:35:54
saying to my family and to anyone who would listen, but there weren't many who would listen,

308
0:35:54 --> 0:36:01
apart from my family, and that it was the responsibility of doctors. In other words,

309
0:36:01 --> 0:36:06
it was follow the medicine, not follow the science. So, the things you've been talking about, you know,

310
0:36:06 --> 0:36:15
the people who you would expect not to miss things like, you know, if you have a deadly virus. So,

311
0:36:15 --> 0:36:23
following, let's assume that virology is, and actually it hasn't been hijacked by big pharma,

312
0:36:23 --> 0:36:30
you know, as a branch of microbiology, which is possible. But as far as I understood, throughout

313
0:36:31 --> 0:36:40
this pandemic, which wasn't a pandemic, anything that was deadly killed its host.

314
0:36:42 --> 0:36:48
And as you say, there's a very strong evolutionary pressure on any virus, and particularly if it's

315
0:36:48 --> 0:36:56
deadly, to become less deadly, more contagious. Because obviously, if it is very deadly, then you

316
0:36:56 --> 0:37:01
can't pass it on because it kills its host. So, and this was, you know, all doctors, whether it was

317
0:37:01 --> 0:37:08
right or wrong, that's what we knew. So, where, so the doctors should have known also, they should

318
0:37:08 --> 0:37:15
have known about that. They should have known about informed consent. And I was so frustrated,

319
0:37:15 --> 0:37:23
because I couldn't find anyone, scientist or doctor, who was interested in what was in these

320
0:37:23 --> 0:37:28
damned injections. And I made the point, well, if we don't know what's in them, because people

321
0:37:28 --> 0:37:32
were saying, oh, no, we can't say that, because they were worried about being discredited. Even

322
0:37:33 --> 0:37:40
in the group which I formed, there were, I won't mention any names, but well known professors

323
0:37:41 --> 0:37:47
in the group, who didn't want to talk about the lies which governments were telling populations

324
0:37:47 --> 0:37:54
worldwide. They didn't want to talk about what was in the vaccines, for some reason. Because if

325
0:37:54 --> 0:37:59
you don't know what's in the vaccines, and no doctor does still know what's in the vaccines,

326
0:37:59 --> 0:38:07
because of trade secrets, I think that has been, of Pfizer, who are convicted criminals, we know that,

327
0:38:10 --> 0:38:14
then you cannot obtain informed consent. And if you can't obtain informed consent,

328
0:38:14 --> 0:38:21
then as you know, that is in violation of the Nuremberg Code. But you mentioned another violation

329
0:38:21 --> 0:38:27
of the Nuremberg Code, which was, you knew, and I knew, and many other people knew about the absence

330
0:38:27 --> 0:38:33
of animal experiments. That is also, that's number three, I think, in the Nuremberg Code.

331
0:38:33 --> 0:38:41
There must be animal experiments preceding human trials. And they didn't want to do that, presumably,

332
0:38:41 --> 0:38:47
because the very reason that you gave that all the animals had died, or at least the fact that

333
0:38:47 --> 0:38:55
all the animals had died when they tried it last time. So, there were many, many, so we had

334
0:38:55 --> 0:39:02
Chris Whitty, who is a medical doctor in the United Kingdom, who was the chief medical,

335
0:39:02 --> 0:39:08
who is the chief medical officer of England and Wales, I think, I'm not sure, of the UK.

336
0:39:09 --> 0:39:19
And he was saying, when before Christmas, Omicron, Omicron in inverted commas came along,

337
0:39:19 --> 0:39:26
it depends whether you believe there was a virus or not. And, but there was, so he was saying,

338
0:39:26 --> 0:39:33
on television, I heard him lie to the British public by omission. He said, he talked about the

339
0:39:33 --> 0:39:41
highly contagious Omicron variant, but there was no mention of virulence. We were taught at medical

340
0:39:41 --> 0:39:46
school that you can't talk about viruses, you can't talk about the transmissibility of a virus

341
0:39:46 --> 0:39:53
without talking about the virulence. You can't just say, oh, it's highly, the common cold is highly

342
0:39:53 --> 0:40:01
contagious. But what matters is whether it's, and they nearly closed down the United Kingdom for the

343
0:40:01 --> 0:40:08
second Christmas going, and they backed off at the last second, but they nearly did it on the

344
0:40:08 --> 0:40:16
grounds of Omicron. And so what I'm trying to say is that contrary to what the public thought,

345
0:40:16 --> 0:40:20
i.e. that it was all about the science and everybody going down little rabbit holes,

346
0:40:20 --> 0:40:28
the primary responsibility was medical doctors. Medical doctors were trained to look at the whole

347
0:40:29 --> 0:40:35
and listen to their patients, all the facts, and then come to it, you know, with experience,

348
0:40:35 --> 0:40:40
you can do it, you can bring it all together and come to a diagnosis, because that's what doctors do.

349
0:40:40 --> 0:40:45
But they also should have been thinking about what you were talking about at the end,

350
0:40:45 --> 0:40:52
about the possibility of genetic manipulation of the human species.

351
0:40:52 --> 0:41:00
It was clear. I was asking the scientists, is there any possibility that people will be

352
0:41:01 --> 0:41:09
made infertile and also whether their genes would be affected? No answer. There was no interest in

353
0:41:09 --> 0:41:16
finding out either, because I couldn't understand it. I really couldn't understand it. And so,

354
0:41:16 --> 0:41:25
and even now, Daniel, if you're interested in the Nuremberg Code and medical ethics,

355
0:41:25 --> 0:41:32
I'd be very, very pleased to work with you, because I cannot find a doctor in the entire world

356
0:41:32 --> 0:41:40
who wants to talk about Nuremberg Code and the Nuremberg trials and medical political lines

357
0:41:41 --> 0:41:46
and all this. So anyway, that's what I want to say. So we had a complete...

358
0:41:46 --> 0:41:49
Absolutely. The Nuremberg Code has to be applied.

359
0:41:50 --> 0:41:53
Sorry? Yes, I agree. The Nuremberg Code has to be applied.

360
0:41:53 --> 0:41:59
Of course it does, yes. And more than that, I think something even stronger than that.

361
0:41:59 --> 0:42:05
Do you agree, Daniel, that there has been a complete corruption of the practice of medicine

362
0:42:05 --> 0:42:12
since March 2020? Of course, we now know, looking back, that it was building up before then. But

363
0:42:12 --> 0:42:20
since March 2020, nothing has made sense in the world of medicine. And my question to you is this,

364
0:42:21 --> 0:42:25
have the doctors and the medical profession been deliberately set up?

365
0:42:27 --> 0:42:35
Oh, absolutely. You know, I first started having suspicions about the entire setup of the medical

366
0:42:35 --> 0:42:45
profession after about... Maybe starting after about five years of practice, and then certainly

367
0:42:45 --> 0:42:56
after 10 years of practice, a lot of the... I'd say 50% of what I had spent hours and hours of my

368
0:42:56 --> 0:43:02
time learning in medical school, it just wasn't working in practice, right? You know, you learn

369
0:43:02 --> 0:43:09
all these procedures, you try and learn some of the background research behind it, and the

370
0:43:09 --> 0:43:18
medications don't work, right? The medications we're being told to use, their efficacy is poor.

371
0:43:18 --> 0:43:32
And more and more, as I improved as a doctor, a lot of the things that the oldest doctors

372
0:43:33 --> 0:43:41
taught me in medical school, the ones who taught me about stuff that they learned, the things they

373
0:43:41 --> 0:43:49
did were way more relevant and efficacious than any of the garbage I learned in medical school of

374
0:43:49 --> 0:43:55
just ineffective drugs. It was just ineffective drugs, ineffective drugs. And then there was a

375
0:43:55 --> 0:44:02
few medical procedures that, you know, if they just reverted back to the way things were done in

376
0:44:03 --> 0:44:09
whatever, at the turn of the century, those procedures were actually more effective than

377
0:44:09 --> 0:44:19
the latest and greatest procedures, right? And, you know, as you gain experience, you start to see

378
0:44:19 --> 0:44:29
the holes in your training. And, yeah, it's just, it was mind-boggling. So even well before this

379
0:44:29 --> 0:44:39
pandemic, when they started pushing, what was that drug for H1N1, that antiviral, the useless one,

380
0:44:39 --> 0:44:49
is a Tamiflu. Oh, Tamiflu, yes. Tamiflu, right? Like, the efficacy of that was horrible. And in fact,

381
0:44:49 --> 0:44:54
you know, in my own observations, just seeing lots of emergency patients,

382
0:44:56 --> 0:45:06
out of, so of the three people that I ended up sending to the ICU from the emergency department

383
0:45:06 --> 0:45:15
because of H1N1 pneumonia, all three of them had been taking Tamiflu. And I was like, this is,

384
0:45:15 --> 0:45:21
this does not make any sense. If it's such an effective antiviral, why is it that, you know,

385
0:45:21 --> 0:45:29
100% of the patients that I sent to the ICU in one month were all on Tamiflu? And then I dug into

386
0:45:29 --> 0:45:35
some of the research, I think it was an Australian group that reanalyzed the approval data

387
0:45:36 --> 0:45:46
for Tamiflu. And it showed that people with comorbidities had an increase in morbidity and

388
0:45:46 --> 0:45:56
mortality if they were taking Tamiflu when compared with controls. But the increase in

389
0:45:56 --> 0:46:03
morbidity and mortality was not statistically significant. So if people were healthy and they

390
0:46:03 --> 0:46:12
took Tamiflu, they experienced anywhere between an 18 and 24 hour improvement in flu symptoms

391
0:46:13 --> 0:46:22
compared to controls. If people had comorbidities, they had an increased mortality and morbidity

392
0:46:22 --> 0:46:27
if they were taking Tamiflu, but it was not quite statistically significant.

393
0:46:27 --> 0:46:33
And I thought, well, that reanalysis of the approval data agrees completely with my

394
0:46:33 --> 0:46:41
anecdotal observations from the emergency department. So it's, it makes people feel better

395
0:46:41 --> 0:46:47
up to a day sooner for healthy people. And if you're unhealthy, it increases your chances of dying

396
0:46:47 --> 0:46:59
or ending up in the ICU. And I thought to myself, how on earth do government regulatory agencies,

397
0:47:01 --> 0:47:10
researchers approve such a stupid medication that doesn't work, that actually causes increased

398
0:47:10 --> 0:47:18
morbidity and mortality? How does that turn into some kind of prophylactic or early treatment for

399
0:47:18 --> 0:47:28
anyone with H1N1 symptoms? It just, it was mind boggling for me that it's so ineffective that I

400
0:47:28 --> 0:47:34
can observe it. And I'm just an N of one observing it as an emergency doctor that sees, you know,

401
0:47:34 --> 0:47:41
between 30 and 35 people a day, five days a week. So, you know, less than 200 people a week,

402
0:47:41 --> 0:47:45
I can observe it in my own data set in my own mind that it doesn't work.

403
0:47:47 --> 0:47:57
And yeah, so the question is, what has hijacked the medical educational system?

404
0:47:57 --> 0:48:06
What has hijacked the minds of doctors? And well, the first, the first suspect, the primary suspect

405
0:48:06 --> 0:48:15
is the pharmaceutical industry. But, you know, the question is, is it just the pharmaceutical industry?

406
0:48:15 --> 0:48:22
Has the medical education system somehow been

407
0:48:24 --> 0:48:29
poisoned by a wrongheaded philosophy? Yes, in my opinion.

408
0:48:35 --> 0:48:43
I think the wrongheaded philosophy is just the actual, the design, the structure, the goals that

409
0:48:43 --> 0:48:52
you are taught in medical school are fundamentally wrong. That we're not taking care of the body

410
0:48:53 --> 0:49:04
as a vessel that holds a spirit, right? We're not, the philosophy of medicine has been corrupted.

411
0:49:04 --> 0:49:05
Exactly.

412
0:49:08 --> 0:49:15
Very good. Thank you. Thank you. The philosophy of medicine has been corrupted. So everybody,

413
0:49:15 --> 0:49:23
please take, please take note. Now, Daniel, our next question, Stephen, can we go to the next question?

414
0:49:23 --> 0:49:32
The next question is from Peter Huger, from lawyer, ex-police officer from Wales.

415
0:49:34 --> 0:49:40
Peter, over to you. Sitting on his famous bed. And he's a lawyer, Charles.

416
0:49:41 --> 0:49:47
Yes, that's true, and a lawyer. Yes. Yes. Thank you, Charles. And thank you, Dr. Nagase.

417
0:49:47 --> 0:49:53
Thank you for all you do and for putting time aside to speak to us. It really is appreciated.

418
0:49:54 --> 0:50:01
As Charles alluded to there, my background is criminal investigation and law. Today,

419
0:50:01 --> 0:50:06
I did a bit of research and shared three links on various platforms that highlight

420
0:50:06 --> 0:50:14
grave contradictions in the UN and WHO claims. Now, I'll highlight the three and I have put them

421
0:50:14 --> 0:50:21
in at the start of this chat. In 2011, the UN reported, and I quote, 30 years ago, AIDS was

422
0:50:21 --> 0:50:28
deadly, spreading fast. Today, we have a chance to end this epidemic once and for all. So that was

423
0:50:28 --> 0:50:37
2011 time of the H1N1. Indeed, as recently as 2020, now this is the critical point,

424
0:50:37 --> 0:50:50
and I quote, the global HIV epidemic claimed 64% fewer lives in 2020 since its peak in 2004,

425
0:50:51 --> 0:50:57
and fewer people became newly infected with HIV than in any year since 1990.

426
0:50:58 --> 0:51:07
Yet this week, the UN now warns, and I quote, fast spreading HIV variant doubles rate of immune

427
0:51:07 --> 0:51:14
system decline. So these statements show that something serious has gone wrong with the gene

428
0:51:14 --> 0:51:20
Jabs in the spotlight with regards to, and put them in the spotlight with regards to VADES,

429
0:51:20 --> 0:51:26
as we call it, vaccine autoimmune deficiency. So would this not be a good starting point for

430
0:51:26 --> 0:51:35
you and other eminent experts to lead the charge on MSM and in medical journals? So there are three

431
0:51:35 --> 0:51:42
statements there that show something's gone critically wrong and the links are in the chat,

432
0:51:42 --> 0:51:48
and that would be a good start from an investigative perspective for somebody like yourself and others

433
0:51:48 --> 0:51:50
to call them out on it.

434
0:51:53 --> 0:52:02
I agree because from today onwards, we are, I suspect we are going to see an epidemic of all

435
0:52:02 --> 0:52:10
sorts of diseases that are going to explode. Just even in my last few months of practice,

436
0:52:10 --> 0:52:16
I was starting to see cancer patients. Within a month of their second Jab, they were having

437
0:52:16 --> 0:52:29
metastatic cancer. And the question, I guess, in my mind is, is this intentional and were these

438
0:52:30 --> 0:52:38
designed and created and distributed with malintent or were people just stupid?

439
0:52:39 --> 0:52:48
Right? And increasingly, I'm of the belief that everything about the design, rollout,

440
0:52:48 --> 0:52:56
and distribution of these Jabs has been very deliberate, very intentional. And one of the

441
0:52:56 --> 0:53:06
things that has been key in making me think this way was that study leaked that was written in

442
0:53:06 --> 0:53:16
Japanese that showed where the Pfizer injection accumulated within the body of rats. So for those

443
0:53:16 --> 0:53:22
unaware of the study, it was the study showed they injected the lipid nanoparticles from the

444
0:53:22 --> 0:53:29
Pfizer vaccine. And what they found that is when they injected into rats, within 48 hours, it

445
0:53:29 --> 0:53:35
accumulated within the spleen of the rat, the liver of the rat, and the ovaries. Those three

446
0:53:35 --> 0:53:43
organs held the highest concentrations of the lipid nanoparticles and the mRNAs encased within

447
0:53:43 --> 0:53:54
those lipid nanoparticles. So going back to cell biology, when you're designing a delivery mechanism,

448
0:53:54 --> 0:53:59
particularly one such as a lipid nanoparticle, once you have

449
0:53:59 --> 0:54:10
receptor ligand binding technology, which has been around in the cell biology sphere for

450
0:54:14 --> 0:54:20
almost half a century, like 30, maybe even 40 years, people have known that muscle cells have

451
0:54:20 --> 0:54:29
a certain receptors on the top of them. The outside of a muscle cell looks a certain way.

452
0:54:29 --> 0:54:36
And if you design a molecule, you can design molecules that attach specifically to muscle

453
0:54:36 --> 0:54:45
cells because muscle cells have certain proteins on their surface. So you can create antibodies

454
0:54:45 --> 0:54:50
that will only attach to muscle cells. You can create proteins that will only attach to

455
0:54:50 --> 0:54:56
muscle cells. And if you can create proteins that only attach to muscle cells, then all you have to

456
0:54:56 --> 0:55:00
do is attach that protein to the lipid nanoparticle and then the lipid nanoparticle

457
0:55:00 --> 0:55:08
will only attach to muscle cells. And the specificity, depending on the design of that protein,

458
0:55:08 --> 0:55:18
can be very high. Now, when this injection was first rolled out, the information was spread that,

459
0:55:18 --> 0:55:23
oh, the injection only stays in the muscle cells, only stays in the muscle cells. And then this

460
0:55:23 --> 0:55:28
Japanese study comes out showing that, no, the injection goes to the liver, spleen, and ovaries.

461
0:55:29 --> 0:55:36
Is that an accident? I don't think so. The likelihood of that being an accident is

462
0:55:37 --> 0:55:49
essentially zero. If there is no specificity of the lipid nanoparticle, it would preferentially

463
0:55:49 --> 0:55:57
stay at the site of injection and then spread in a nonspecific way to other organs of the body,

464
0:55:57 --> 0:56:05
but the highest concentration will be in the muscle. If there was a specific design of the

465
0:56:05 --> 0:56:10
proteins attached to the lipid nanoparticle to make that lipid nanoparticle stay in the muscle,

466
0:56:11 --> 0:56:17
then the highest concentration of that lipid nanoparticle should have been in the muscles

467
0:56:17 --> 0:56:24
of that rat that was given the injection. In fact, the exact opposite occurred. The highest

468
0:56:24 --> 0:56:30
concentrations of the lipid nanoparticles were in everything but muscle, ovaries, spleen, and liver.

469
0:56:32 --> 0:56:41
That cannot have been an accident. Proteins were attached to the surface of the lipid nanoparticle

470
0:56:41 --> 0:56:46
such that that lipid nanoparticle would float around in the blood until it found the liver cell,

471
0:56:46 --> 0:56:50
and then it would stick to the liver cell and release the mRNA into the liver cell.

472
0:56:51 --> 0:56:56
Proteins were attached to those lipid nanoparticles that the lipid nanoparticle

473
0:56:56 --> 0:57:02
would not attach to a muscle cell, it would attach to a spleen cell and then release its

474
0:57:02 --> 0:57:07
contents into the spleen cell. Proteins were attached to the lipid nanoparticles, making those

475
0:57:07 --> 0:57:14
lipid nanoparticles float freely around until they came into contact with an ovary cell.

476
0:57:15 --> 0:57:20
And then when it came into contact with an ovary, then it would release the mRNA into ovary.

477
0:57:21 --> 0:57:27
So what does that tell me from a biologic point of view? Not only was it a complete lie that the

478
0:57:27 --> 0:57:36
vaccine stays in the muscle, the vaccine was targeted through lipid nanoparticle and 30-year-old

479
0:57:36 --> 0:57:43
protein binding technology. It was designed to target the spleen, which houses the immune system,

480
0:57:43 --> 0:57:51
the liver, which is the detoxifying organ for the entire body, and the ovaries, which are the future

481
0:57:52 --> 0:58:02
generations. This was deliberately designed to deliver an mRNA payload to those three organs,

482
0:58:02 --> 0:58:06
your detox, your immune system, and your future generations.

483
0:58:06 --> 0:58:14
This is beyond the worst thing I could possibly imagine.

484
0:58:16 --> 0:58:27
So I think from a genetic point of view, we can make a pretty strong case that these injections

485
0:58:27 --> 0:58:37
were designed to cause harm to the human species. And over the next few years, we're going to see an

486
0:58:37 --> 0:58:45
explosion of cancers, immune deficiencies, of all sorts of illness amongst those who've been

487
0:58:45 --> 0:58:55
injected. And that will be the proof that not only were these injections designed to cause harm,

488
0:58:55 --> 0:59:05
that they did cause harm. And what I see is the Nuremberg Code is the starting point, because

489
0:59:06 --> 0:59:13
for something to be that deliberately designed, and for political and

490
0:59:14 --> 0:59:24
supranational organizations all to have a coordinated role in distributing and coercing

491
0:59:24 --> 0:59:32
people to take this injection that was designed from the very drawing board, it was designed to be

492
0:59:32 --> 0:59:40
harmful to humans. We're going to have to bring entire organizations, we might even have to bring

493
0:59:40 --> 0:59:49
the entire United Nations system to hold them accountable and to bring justice to them, because

494
0:59:49 --> 0:59:54
this is a crime on a planetary scale.

495
0:59:57 --> 1:00:03
Thank you, Daniel. A crime on a planetary scale. Many people on this call agree with you, and I

496
1:00:03 --> 1:00:08
certainly do. I'm a former lawyer, I'm a legal strategist, Daniel. It is a crime on a planetary

497
1:00:08 --> 1:00:16
scale. And as Ryan Afformick said last week, many judges are corrupted, not only doctors, not only

498
1:00:17 --> 1:00:22
farmers, and that's part of our challenge, but at least we understand what the challenge is.

499
1:00:22 --> 1:00:33
Theresa Clyde. Thanks, Charles. Hi, Daniel. Hello. You've kind of answered part of my question

500
1:00:33 --> 1:00:38
already, because I was going to ask you if you thought that the biological weapon could be

501
1:00:38 --> 1:00:44
sophisticated enough to be a two-part weapon. In other words, the virus that makes you so scared,

502
1:00:44 --> 1:00:52
you go and take the vaccine, which is actually the real problem. I was going to ask you a couple

503
1:00:52 --> 1:01:00
of things about it. First of all, are you aware that the British Prime Minister Boris Johnson

504
1:01:00 --> 1:01:08
is a depopulationist, he's a eugenicist? I would not be surprised that he's of the same

505
1:01:08 --> 1:01:13
ilk as Bill Gates. Yeah, he is. Bill Gates is very much like his father, who certainly was

506
1:01:13 --> 1:01:20
a eugenicist. Boris Johnson has published articles talking about the need to reduce

507
1:01:21 --> 1:01:27
human population, and his father, Stanley Johnson, has written a number of books and worked for the

508
1:01:27 --> 1:01:35
United Nations, specifically researching the need to reduce human population. He is a depopulationist,

509
1:01:35 --> 1:01:40
and there are actually video clips of him talking about how great it would be to depopulate the world.

510
1:01:44 --> 1:01:49
That's one thing certainly worth looking into. I'm sure a number of other world leaders are probably

511
1:01:51 --> 1:01:57
in that ilk. You're with friends here. We all kind of have come to the same realization that

512
1:01:57 --> 1:02:04
the vaccine is a biological weapon. Now, you said about bringing the United Nations to task over

513
1:02:04 --> 1:02:13
this, but isn't it a case of we've got to do it before they kill us? Absolutely. And given

514
1:02:14 --> 1:02:21
the population of people who have already taken the injection,

515
1:02:23 --> 1:02:31
we've already lost a major, major battle, and it'll be up to us, those who have avoided

516
1:02:32 --> 1:02:43
this injection, to carry on. And this might not even be a war that we can win in one generation.

517
1:02:43 --> 1:02:50
Daniel, did you know that Montagnier, before he died or was killed,

518
1:02:52 --> 1:02:56
he said that the unvaccinated would save humanity?

519
1:02:59 --> 1:03:08
Yeah, I'm 100% in agreement with that. Well, first of all, we have to survive.

520
1:03:09 --> 1:03:13
And I think that's going to be quite challenging, because as far as I know,

521
1:03:14 --> 1:03:22
when the United Nations World Health Organization gets all the member states together in May,

522
1:03:22 --> 1:03:29
which is next month, to sign the new pandemic preparedness accord, this means that all they

523
1:03:29 --> 1:03:35
have to do is create another pandemic, and they can basically take control. And their power will

524
1:03:36 --> 1:03:44
be over and above our own governments. And we all know what their attitudes are going to be like. So

525
1:03:44 --> 1:03:49
we have to somehow do something. Do you have any ideas about how we can actually

526
1:03:52 --> 1:03:58
bring this to the public awareness, snap people out of their brainwashing, their mass

527
1:03:58 --> 1:04:02
information, whatever you want to call it? Do you have any ideas? How would you go about it?

528
1:04:03 --> 1:04:16
Well, I think it's unlikely. But if nations, one by one, started resigning from the United Nations,

529
1:04:17 --> 1:04:24
refusing to sign United Nations treaties, and then started making bilateral agreements with

530
1:04:24 --> 1:04:28
other nations to say, we're no longer going to be a part of the United Nations system.

531
1:04:29 --> 1:04:33
We're going to make agreements with our neighbouring nations, and we're going to be

532
1:04:33 --> 1:04:39
our own independent bloc of nations. We're going to set up our own assembly of nations,

533
1:04:39 --> 1:04:41
and it's going to have nothing to do with the United Nations.

534
1:04:44 --> 1:04:44
Sorry, go on.

535
1:04:46 --> 1:04:57
It's separatism in a very large scale. If all of a sudden, 100 out of the 200-odd nations in

536
1:04:57 --> 1:05:01
the United Nations all decided, you know what, we don't like anything the United Nations has done.

537
1:05:02 --> 1:05:08
We're going to shake hands and make agreements with each other. Independent of the United

538
1:05:08 --> 1:05:12
Nations, we're no longer going to be a part of that system. That would certainly cripple

539
1:05:13 --> 1:05:21
the United Nations system. Now, the question is, how can a population motivate their governments to

540
1:05:22 --> 1:05:29
take such a drastic action? Because ultimately, it's that drastic action that will collapse the

541
1:05:29 --> 1:05:36
United Nations and the corrupt bureaucracy that it has become, is that everyone who is anyone has to

542
1:05:37 --> 1:05:40
withdraw from that system, and then it will collapse on its own.

543
1:05:40 --> 1:05:52
You know, looking here in Canada, I mean, the way Parliament, the Senate, our government is arranged,

544
1:05:54 --> 1:06:01
it's hard for me to see how the Canadian government would take a courageous step

545
1:06:01 --> 1:06:09
and say, we're not going to be a part of the WHO. We resigned from the United Nations. I don't think

546
1:06:10 --> 1:06:18
any of our politicians are up to that task. Well, the presidents of Burundi, Tanzania,

547
1:06:18 --> 1:06:27
and Haiti all stood up to the United Nations, and they're all dead. Yeah. So then, you know,

548
1:06:27 --> 1:06:48
to have any hope in this, I call it a war, it has to be a movement that cannot be defeated

549
1:06:48 --> 1:06:58
by killing individuals. Because if, let's say, the president of Tanzania, he was able to lead

550
1:06:59 --> 1:07:05
Tanzania into being independent from all the WHO crimes that have been committed in Africa.

551
1:07:07 --> 1:07:17
But when an independence movement is reliant on a single leader, then, you know, we're dealing with

552
1:07:18 --> 1:07:24
organizations with unlimited money and theoretically unlimited power. So eliminating the leader

553
1:07:29 --> 1:07:39
is a piece of cake for them. However, then it leads me to think of, well, if

554
1:07:40 --> 1:07:47
independence movements, justice movements, accountability movements can be destroyed by

555
1:07:47 --> 1:07:54
destroying a leader, what is the chess move that defeats that strategy of continuously

556
1:07:54 --> 1:08:03
killing off the leader? Then the strategy would have to be to have something, have a movement,

557
1:08:04 --> 1:08:12
a chess game without any leaders. But then how can you organize and get people to work together

558
1:08:12 --> 1:08:22
if there's no leader? And the best answer I could come up with is have ideas. So as long as

559
1:08:24 --> 1:08:31
everyone is working towards the same idea, whether or not the leader is killed off is actually

560
1:08:31 --> 1:08:40
irrelevant because the people are moving in the same direction towards one cause to bring justice,

561
1:08:40 --> 1:08:49
to win freedom for ourselves, to win freedom for our bodies, to win the right to be guardians of

562
1:08:49 --> 1:09:01
our own physical vessels of our souls. And if everyone shares the same ideas and motivations,

563
1:09:02 --> 1:09:12
then hundreds of leaders, thousands of leaders can be assassinated and they will still lose

564
1:09:13 --> 1:09:19
because they can't kill an idea. They can kill leaders, but if every single person

565
1:09:19 --> 1:09:28
is holds the same ideals, then it's a guaranteed win. It's just a matter of time. They can't kill

566
1:09:28 --> 1:09:39
an idea. Easy to say, hard to implement, but I suspect that's going to be the winning strategy

567
1:09:40 --> 1:09:47
is every single person has to be capable of being the next leader because they all have the same

568
1:09:47 --> 1:09:54
ideas and that same motivation from the soul. Daniel, you just described this group.

569
1:09:54 --> 1:10:08
And we're only about 1,100 now all invited. But obviously if we've got 1,100

570
1:10:09 --> 1:10:15
and each of us finds 10, we can soon get to a large number.

571
1:10:16 --> 1:10:26
It multiplies exponentially. Sure. Yes. And then this group's been saying for months,

572
1:10:26 --> 1:10:31
and I've been saying for years, it's people power that's going to win this. And as Teresa says,

573
1:10:31 --> 1:10:36
if enough of us survive. And last Sunday, we had Jesse Romero here saying we've already won. It's

574
1:10:36 --> 1:10:43
now a mop up operation everybody. So at the spiritual wall level, it's the human spirit united.

575
1:10:43 --> 1:10:51
It's not an intellectual exercise we're talking about here. So it is the fear drives,

576
1:10:52 --> 1:10:58
as the Bible says, the perfect love casts out all fear. People at the moment, many are driven by fear.

577
1:10:59 --> 1:11:06
Our job is to get into love, into the spirit, into the human spirit. And that's what this group

578
1:11:06 --> 1:11:15
aims to do. We all have to help each other to articulate that vision of people unified.

579
1:11:16 --> 1:11:21
We can, there's a beautiful picture there everybody. If the leader gets knocked off,

580
1:11:21 --> 1:11:27
the leader gets replaced. That's the way it works. Teresa, are you done? Another question?

581
1:11:28 --> 1:11:35
I was just going to ask one last thing. Do you believe that 66% of humanity have already been

582
1:11:35 --> 1:11:49
chopped? Good question. I don't know if it's 66%, but certainly a large proportion. Whether that's

583
1:11:49 --> 1:12:00
50%, 45%, it's hard for me to say. But there's so much misinformation. We kind of have to work with

584
1:12:01 --> 1:12:08
with the possibility that it's anywhere from 30% to 66%. But we're still going to have to

585
1:12:08 --> 1:12:18
fight as if it was 66% that we have to be ready that two out of three neighbors might not be

586
1:12:18 --> 1:12:25
around in five years. And how we're going to survive in that type of a situation where

587
1:12:25 --> 1:12:31
there's food scarcity, there's economic uncertainty, and how we're going to,

588
1:12:34 --> 1:12:40
at least temporarily, I suspect they will have succeeded in depopulating the earth to some extent.

589
1:12:41 --> 1:12:48
And how we're going to work through that. Western civilization, I would say. I would say that we are

590
1:12:48 --> 1:12:54
the highest proportion of vaccinated. So it will be challenging, but we're not giving up. Are we,

591
1:12:54 --> 1:13:04
Stephen? No, I'll never give up. Thank you, Daniel. Giving up is not an option. Thank you,

592
1:13:04 --> 1:13:10
Teresa. John Stone, our resident journalist. Daniel, you must know John Stone.

593
1:13:11 --> 1:13:21
Hi, Daniel. Yeah, just to say, I had, not so long ago, I had the pleasure with a number of other

594
1:13:21 --> 1:13:32
people talking to a Tanzanian bishop who also sits in the Tanzanian parliament. And he was

595
1:13:32 --> 1:13:38
absolutely clear that although this poor man was killed, it didn't make any difference to Tanzania.

596
1:13:39 --> 1:13:47
They really made very little progress there. And that's, I think, obviously a favorite country

597
1:13:47 --> 1:13:57
to visit. I know Michael Yeaton keeps on going. They're all used to. And so, no, it's quite right.

598
1:13:57 --> 1:14:05
I think also that we're seeing changes in Europe. I'm sure, you know, it's an extraordinary thought,

599
1:14:05 --> 1:14:14
but there was a very, the German parliament voted down the government last week or the week before

600
1:14:14 --> 1:14:22
on mandates. The government was absolutely determined to have mandates, and there was a

601
1:14:22 --> 1:14:31
large majority against them. I think part of the reason is that actually a lot of German

602
1:14:31 --> 1:14:39
parliamentarians have probably become very scared about where all this is going. So, yep, I don't,

603
1:14:39 --> 1:14:49
I don't, you know, I do think we should, you know, we don't know what's going to happen in

604
1:14:49 --> 1:14:59
France next week. It's hard to be of an enthusiast for Marie Le Pen, but, you know,

605
1:15:00 --> 1:15:10
if Macron is a non-extreme alternative, then God help us. And I think that actually

606
1:15:11 --> 1:15:16
these policies are going to begin to look extremely unpopular very quickly.

607
1:15:18 --> 1:15:22
Now, that wasn't what I was going to say. I wondered whether you've noticed

608
1:15:22 --> 1:15:33
sort of some very peculiar anomalies in the narrative of the introduction of the vaccine,

609
1:15:34 --> 1:15:46
or whatever you, or what else, the jabs in 2020. First thing that I know was that

610
1:15:46 --> 1:15:55
the sequence was handed to the international community by this bat lady who runs the

611
1:15:56 --> 1:16:05
laboratory in Wuhan, and everybody just took it on trust. All, you know, all the major vaccine

612
1:16:05 --> 1:16:12
manufacturers seem to know exactly what to do within minutes. And this is most extraordinarily

613
1:16:13 --> 1:16:32
circumstance. And, you know, the next aspect is, since they were committed to such huge investments,

614
1:16:33 --> 1:16:43
they had to make sure that there was no effective treatment in the interim.

615
1:16:47 --> 1:16:58
So very clearly, this commitment had to be there, you know, that this was going to be the answer.

616
1:16:58 --> 1:17:03
Of course, Bill Gates told us it was the answer, and the British government were

617
1:17:03 --> 1:17:10
joined to the hip with an organisation called Gavi, who were extremely committed to this answer.

618
1:17:10 --> 1:17:25
And Boris Johnson did a fundraiser for Gavi in June. And very clearly, the cartel had moved in,

619
1:17:25 --> 1:17:35
and it was pushing everything aside. You know, I think obviously, then there's another very

620
1:17:36 --> 1:17:44
curious feature of this, that actually, during the year, there were plenty of warnings,

621
1:17:45 --> 1:17:53
journalism and BNJ, particularly there was an article by the editor of the BNJ, Fiona Godley,

622
1:17:53 --> 1:18:00
saying, well, we don't expect these things to work. They might reduce symptoms, but they're

623
1:18:00 --> 1:18:11
not going to stop transmission. And I know a lot of people sort of wrote critical, quite,

624
1:18:11 --> 1:18:15
quite sort of honest critical appraisals of these things saying, well, they're not going to be very

625
1:18:15 --> 1:18:36
much good. And of course, and also the vaccine companies were committed not to introduce these

626
1:18:36 --> 1:18:43
things prematurely. Now, what was this about? I think, well, I mean, I believe that what this

627
1:18:43 --> 1:19:00
was largely about was that it switched round more or less overnight when they managed to get rid of

628
1:19:00 --> 1:19:15
Trump. And as soon as they got rid of Trump, the shortcomings of these products were

629
1:19:15 --> 1:19:20
put on the carpet. We had this story the other week, we were with Walensky saying, well,

630
1:19:20 --> 1:19:28
when I saw it on CNN, I knew that these things were going to be all right. Then we went ahead.

631
1:19:28 --> 1:19:34
Well, you know, obviously, that, that again is a complete nonsense narrative. Why would the head

632
1:19:34 --> 1:19:45
of the CDC take her cue from a CNN story? But of course, the fact was that the public narrative

633
1:19:45 --> 1:19:50
was never really supposed to be based on facts at all. And yes, my thoughts.

634
1:19:50 --> 1:20:01
Well, the amount of international cooperation in this whole pandemic, it's incredible. It's

635
1:20:01 --> 1:20:08
coordination across nations, throughout governments, throughout public health departments in

636
1:20:09 --> 1:20:17
nearly every developed nation. It's coordinated across economic giants and corporate partners.

637
1:20:18 --> 1:20:25
Economic giants and corporations. And it's just absolutely incredible how,

638
1:20:27 --> 1:20:35
how massive a program this is that has been coordinated worldwide. And, you know, given that

639
1:20:35 --> 1:20:45
the medical, the medical industry, doctors, especially have been so discredited, because

640
1:20:45 --> 1:20:52
we have failed to inform the world of the dangers of these injections. This is something

641
1:20:52 --> 1:21:00
Dr. Sam Dubay and I discussed a couple months ago. Is this in fact a part of a greater plan

642
1:21:01 --> 1:21:08
to discredit human beings in medicine, doctors in medicine, you can no longer trust your doctor,

643
1:21:08 --> 1:21:13
because he told you, you had to get a dangerous injection, you can no longer trust a health

644
1:21:13 --> 1:21:22
minister, you can no longer trust public health. And given that's the problem, then the solution

645
1:21:22 --> 1:21:31
that Sam Dubay and I were speculating might be in the wings is AI driven medicine. And that is,

646
1:21:31 --> 1:21:36
what they will do is they will get people to say, hey, you can't trust your doctor anymore.

647
1:21:36 --> 1:21:42
He's not smart enough to read the scientific literature. But here, we have an artificial

648
1:21:42 --> 1:21:48
intelligence that stays up 24 hours a day. You don't have to call to get an appointment. It's

649
1:21:48 --> 1:21:53
always awake. You don't have to make an appointment to see your doctor. You just log on to your

650
1:21:53 --> 1:22:00
computer, put your face on a screen, and the AI will diagnose you based on your symptoms.

651
1:22:00 --> 1:22:08
And in addition to that, if you're wearing one of the body biometric devices like a Fitbit or

652
1:22:08 --> 1:22:14
one of these digital devices or a smartwatch, it can measure your heart rate and it can take a basic

653
1:22:14 --> 1:22:23
EKG and send it to this AI. And you can trust an AI because you can't trust your human being doctor

654
1:22:23 --> 1:22:29
anymore. Put your health in the hands of a machine. And in fact, one of the

655
1:22:33 --> 1:22:42
IT tech persons in Alberta Health Services back in 2016, he told me he was sent to a conference

656
1:22:42 --> 1:22:52
in France with Dassault Medical Systems. So this is the same Dassault military industrial company

657
1:22:53 --> 1:23:00
that builds fighter aircraft, tanks, missiles, warships. They have an entire division devoted to

658
1:23:01 --> 1:23:08
artificial intelligence, enhanced healthcare. And that should be a big red flag right there.

659
1:23:08 --> 1:23:15
Why is the major military industrial conglomerate of France, Dassault Industries,

660
1:23:16 --> 1:23:24
have such a great interest that it's willing to pay for a conference and an airplane flight from

661
1:23:24 --> 1:23:31
a province as small as Alberta, where the population of the entire province is five to six

662
1:23:31 --> 1:23:38
million people. Why are they willing to fly in tech persons from all over the world, from even

663
1:23:38 --> 1:23:45
the smallest provinces in Canada, to get educated about artificial intelligence in healthcare and

664
1:23:45 --> 1:23:51
how they're going to have to augment their computer networks in the hospitals and the

665
1:23:51 --> 1:24:00
computer networks within Alberta Health Services to handle the data loads that an AI-based healthcare

666
1:24:00 --> 1:24:10
system are going to create? And in fact, would that not be the most perfect bait and switch?

667
1:24:11 --> 1:24:18
Discredit all doctors. And then the only option left is a computer-controlled healthcare system.

668
1:24:18 --> 1:24:28
And they might even do something as diabolical as well. This machine is so smart, it will send you

669
1:24:28 --> 1:24:37
a package every week via Amazon drone delivery of a perfectly balanced set of vitamins and

670
1:24:37 --> 1:24:44
medications for your health. And it'll send you that regular like clockwork every week.

671
1:24:44 --> 1:24:49
The AI is continuously monitoring your blood pressure and heart rate, and it will make a

672
1:24:49 --> 1:24:56
customized set of medications for you once a week. And then of course, when you're no longer a useful

673
1:24:56 --> 1:25:03
human being, and you're getting close to retirement age, and the AI decides that you're a useless

674
1:25:03 --> 1:25:11
eater because your productivity has gone down, then the next package of perfect medicines for

675
1:25:11 --> 1:25:18
your own body is in fact euthanasia. And the AI will declare that you died of natural causes.

676
1:25:18 --> 1:25:22
Is that the dystopian future that they're trying to create for us?

677
1:25:23 --> 1:25:24
So Daniel, you want to write a book.

678
1:25:24 --> 1:25:30
I think it's turning strange.

679
1:25:33 --> 1:25:37
Obviously, this AI thing, I only think that one might say about it is how much

680
1:25:39 --> 1:25:47
the technological aspect of this is already as well as the human failure, there has been a huge

681
1:25:47 --> 1:25:57
technological failure and people, one hopes, will be aware of that too, for the humans to correct

682
1:25:57 --> 1:26:02
the technological failures. And of course, if they don't, yeah, I mean, if you look at, for instance,

683
1:26:03 --> 1:26:09
I've been watching the culture of, I watched particularly the culture of British Medical Journal,

684
1:26:09 --> 1:26:21
and we've recently changed editors. And of course, it's become ever more bureaucratic,

685
1:26:21 --> 1:26:32
ever more focused on the technological solutions. So this awful stuff that you're talking about

686
1:26:32 --> 1:26:36
is certainly on its way. I'd be slightly more optimistic in saying, well, you know,

687
1:26:36 --> 1:26:43
if the system is failing, then people will see that the technology cannot do it either. But sure,

688
1:26:43 --> 1:26:50
yeah, I mean, it's a dire prospect.

689
1:26:55 --> 1:27:02
Okay, just on that, John, thank you, AI. So that is a beautiful description of the AI

690
1:27:02 --> 1:27:07
future if we don't stand up. So that's a beautiful reason for standing up. Now,

691
1:27:07 --> 1:27:13
before we go to Christine, thank you, John. Airline pilots, I've got some interesting news,

692
1:27:13 --> 1:27:18
and I want to share this because what, Daniel, what happens is we, you know, for the main

693
1:27:18 --> 1:27:23
presentation, people have to go, we understand that. So I want to share this piece of information.

694
1:27:23 --> 1:27:28
And Simon, you're a pilot. I want you to dig this information out, please. Julie, my wife, tells me,

695
1:27:28 --> 1:27:38
Julie, who does the edits of these recordings, that in the Airline Pilots Association in 2019

696
1:27:38 --> 1:27:47
reported one pilot dying in 2020. I think 2019 there were six pilots dying in 2021.

697
1:27:48 --> 1:27:59
And 2021, 111 pilots have died. Okay, so one, six, 111. Simon, is the Airline Pilots Association.

698
1:27:59 --> 1:28:06
Secondly, working closely with Todd Kalander, everybody. And he's working closely with Theresa

699
1:28:06 --> 1:28:16
Long, the Surgeon General from US Navy in charge of pilots. Now, it looks like we've got a pilot

700
1:28:16 --> 1:28:22
to go public. Like Daniel, you've gone public because the problem is in Australia, you know,

701
1:28:22 --> 1:28:28
the airline industry has totally gone nuts because pilots, of course, are getting unwell,

702
1:28:28 --> 1:28:34
but they won't speak up. And the pilots who haven't taken the jab have been stood down.

703
1:28:35 --> 1:28:44
But we now have a pilot who had a heart attack while bringing in an Airbus A380 in Texas,

704
1:28:45 --> 1:28:50
had a heart attack. I think it's been reported. And it looks like we can get him to give his

705
1:28:50 --> 1:28:55
testimony because he'll be out of the industry having had the heart attack. Now, the point is,

706
1:28:55 --> 1:29:02
as a pattern interrupter, we've talked about this with mass hypnosis, that if the airline,

707
1:29:03 --> 1:29:07
if one pilot speaks up, gives his testimony, says, absolutely, I've got all these friends,

708
1:29:07 --> 1:29:12
they're all scared to speak, just like the doctors, if the airline industry is brought to a halt,

709
1:29:12 --> 1:29:18
because that's the next big risk, how do you know the pilot that's taking your flight is not going

710
1:29:18 --> 1:29:26
to die? And this testimony, we think we can get, and they will need all of your help, everybody,

711
1:29:26 --> 1:29:33
to get that out in a big, big move, Stu Peters, all of the shows. But it's crucially important.

712
1:29:33 --> 1:29:40
And I share it with you now so you can start thinking about it. And Simon, if you can dig out,

713
1:29:40 --> 1:29:45
Simon is our patent expert, Daniel, researcher, many people here are great researchers,

714
1:29:45 --> 1:29:51
but we have to help the pilots speak up because that's going to be a big patent interrupter.

715
1:29:51 --> 1:29:58
I just want to share that. I'll keep you posted as soon as we can. Thank you, John. Chris,

716
1:29:58 --> 1:30:09
and his next question. You muted, Christine. Thank you. Sorry. Dr. Negassie,

717
1:30:09 --> 1:30:15
first of all, thank you so much, because you're so brave, and you're such an inspiration. And I'm

718
1:30:15 --> 1:30:21
here in Canada, too. So I know how you've also been addressing the corrupt courts and that you

719
1:30:21 --> 1:30:28
were even assaulted by a guard in the court, and still you keep going. So thank you, and God bless

720
1:30:28 --> 1:30:35
you. So my question, I apologize, I missed the first half hour of the call. So I don't know if

721
1:30:35 --> 1:30:44
you touched on this already or not. But I have a copy of an affidavit that you provided to a

722
1:30:44 --> 1:30:50
gentleman named Lucien. I'm not sure how you say his last name, but... Oh, Kodier. Kodier, thank you.

723
1:30:51 --> 1:30:57
So I have a copy because I gave him an affidavit, too, for his case where he was challenging the

724
1:30:57 --> 1:31:05
injection mandate. And so your affidavit was focusing on these completely meaningless

725
1:31:05 --> 1:31:15
and useless PCR tests. And I was really happy when I saw it, because you were mentioning how

726
1:31:15 --> 1:31:19
there was the Corman-Drawston protocol that was widely adopted around the world and recommended

727
1:31:19 --> 1:31:27
by the WHO. And then you talked about how there had been published this critique of that protocol

728
1:31:27 --> 1:31:33
by about 20 different scientists in the health sciences and how they pointed out

729
1:31:34 --> 1:31:41
10 major flaws with that protocol. So you were pointing out that Christian Drawston admitted

730
1:31:41 --> 1:31:47
that they had developed their protocol without the benefit of having on hand the actual SARS-CoV-2.

731
1:31:47 --> 1:31:53
And in fact, instead, they had used a computer-constructed in silico model of the alleged

732
1:31:53 --> 1:32:00
virus. And at the time that the critique was published, the protocol was still based on an

733
1:32:00 --> 1:32:07
in silico model of the alleged virus because it had never been updated using actual virus.

734
1:32:07 --> 1:32:15
And then your final point, you said perhaps Drawston couldn't update the protocol because

735
1:32:15 --> 1:32:23
SARS-CoV-2 did not really exist in nature, but in a computer file. So that was in November of last

736
1:32:23 --> 1:32:31
year. And so I just wanted to ask you if you have seen anything since then that has convinced you

737
1:32:31 --> 1:32:34
that this alleged virus actually exists.

738
1:32:35 --> 1:32:44
So, you know, more and more, I am examining everything, including research that comes to

739
1:32:44 --> 1:32:53
my attention with scrutiny. And more and more, I am reliant on my own personal observations.

740
1:32:53 --> 1:33:04
So the only thing remarkable I can say is that in 2021, there seemed to be a viral pneumonia

741
1:33:04 --> 1:33:12
going around that was different from any of the viral pneumonias that I've encountered in the past.

742
1:33:12 --> 1:33:18
And the one defining difference seemed to me, at least from my, you know, my experience,

743
1:33:18 --> 1:33:25
is that this viral pneumonia was a lot wetter than the usual viral pneumonia that it for some

744
1:33:25 --> 1:33:31
reason caused, it just caused lots of fluid buildup in the lung. And as long as you got rid of the

745
1:33:31 --> 1:33:37
fluid from the lung, the body would take care of it like any other viral pneumonia. And just one

746
1:33:37 --> 1:33:42
week later, then everything, for the most part, returns back to normal. But the thing that I

747
1:33:42 --> 1:33:48
noticed was that the virus was not actually in the normal state of the viral pneumonia.

748
1:33:48 --> 1:33:54
And just one week later, then everything, for the most part, returns back to normal.

749
1:33:54 --> 1:34:03
And now what is the sequence of this somewhat unique viral pneumonia? Is it, in fact, SARS-CoV-2,

750
1:34:03 --> 1:34:09
or is it something that hasn't been characterized? I don't know, because I don't get to do a full

751
1:34:09 --> 1:34:16
answer. So the possibility that the exact published sequence of SARS-CoV-19 is, in fact,

752
1:34:16 --> 1:34:23
a real virus, I can't say one way or the other. There's a possibility that there's nothing that

753
1:34:23 --> 1:34:31
exists that has the exact sequence, the published sequence of SARS-CoV-19. Or if it did exist,

754
1:34:31 --> 1:34:38
it only existed for a brief period of time, at which point the virus through viral evolution

755
1:34:38 --> 1:34:45
shed all its artificially inserted genes and reverted back to being a normal coronavirus,

756
1:34:45 --> 1:34:51
which, you know, it's hard to personify a virus. But if you're going to personify a virus,

757
1:34:51 --> 1:34:58
is it just wanted to go back to doing its usual thing, right? A gene spliced corn,

758
1:34:59 --> 1:35:03
most of the time, if you leave it alone, will get rid of the spliced in genes and go back to being

759
1:35:04 --> 1:35:11
a usual regular corn plant, because that's what living things like to do. They like to remain in

760
1:35:12 --> 1:35:21
their mostly unaltered forms. So, you know, what exactly happened? It's hard to say.

761
1:35:22 --> 1:35:30
If they made a SARS-CoV-2 virus in silico and then they transcribed it into being a real virus,

762
1:35:30 --> 1:35:35
how long that artificial chimera would last in the natural environment?

763
1:35:37 --> 1:35:44
My personal opinion is if there was a SARS-CoV-2 virus, nature would have either mutated it back

764
1:35:44 --> 1:35:52
into being a regular coronavirus or got rid of it through attrition, because the artificial

765
1:35:52 --> 1:36:00
chimeric virus of SARS-CoV-2, I don't suspect has any particular features that would make it

766
1:36:00 --> 1:36:09
a successful part of the human environment as a virus that continues on for generations and

767
1:36:09 --> 1:36:19
generations. It doesn't give human beings any benefit, and it causes harm. So it would probably

768
1:36:19 --> 1:36:29
be eliminated from the natural world after a few hundred, or at least after a few thousand rounds

769
1:36:29 --> 1:36:36
of evolution, which would probably occur within the first couple months of SARS-CoV-2 being

770
1:36:36 --> 1:36:46
introduced into the natural world. So I suspect the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 being a virus

771
1:36:47 --> 1:36:56
that exists today is very low. I think nature would have eliminated it a year and a half ago.

772
1:36:57 --> 1:37:03
So then what are people going on and on about with Omicron variants and whatever K2 variants,

773
1:37:03 --> 1:37:11
or whatever acronyms they've come up with? I think they're just making hay out of nothing.

774
1:37:12 --> 1:37:18
They're finding whatever natural coronavirus is just circulating just because it's a part of the

775
1:37:18 --> 1:37:26
natural world, just like everything else in the natural world, and they're just trying to

776
1:37:27 --> 1:37:33
scream that the sky is falling because the naturally occurring coronavirus has some segment of

777
1:37:34 --> 1:37:42
RNA that is similar to the Wuhan chimera that was created in 2019.

778
1:37:45 --> 1:37:49
It's hard to know what's going on in the world right now. So by the sounds of it,

779
1:37:50 --> 1:37:57
you haven't personally seen any scientific studies where the alleged virus was purified

780
1:37:57 --> 1:38:02
and sequenced and characterized and studied with controlled experiments, that sort of thing,

781
1:38:02 --> 1:38:06
to convince you that there actually was a virus.

782
1:38:06 --> 1:38:13
Yeah, that the infected particle, alleged to be COVID-19, can in fact cause another COVID-19

783
1:38:13 --> 1:38:18
infection, which results in the exact same particle and exact same sequence.

784
1:38:20 --> 1:38:23
That due diligence, as far as I know, has not been done.

785
1:38:24 --> 1:38:31
Correct. Yeah, the same as far as I know. It does not exist either. Okay, thank you so much.

786
1:38:32 --> 1:38:34
Like I said, God bless you. Thank you so much for everything you're doing.

787
1:38:36 --> 1:38:37
Great answer, Daniel.

788
1:38:38 --> 1:38:45
Thank you. Thank you, Christine. And just by the by, so Daniel, it's wonderful to have you here,

789
1:38:45 --> 1:38:51
not on a time frame, so that you can consider yourself among friends here and admirers. And

790
1:38:51 --> 1:38:58
this is your Easter Sunday party, okay? So just look on us as your party buddies. You know,

791
1:38:58 --> 1:39:02
there are plenty of people in the UK. Stephen's probably having a few gin and tonics, as best we

792
1:39:02 --> 1:39:08
know, to get his quinine up. Therese has probably drunk about three red wines so far. So this is

793
1:39:08 --> 1:39:16
party, you know, this is work and we're at the bar. So please relax, you know, we're not going

794
1:39:16 --> 1:39:22
to hold you to deadly account if you say something, whatever. And so it takes the pressure off you,

795
1:39:22 --> 1:39:28
so you can relax so you don't get tired while we're asking you all the tough questions. And Daniel,

796
1:39:28 --> 1:39:34
while you can multitask, in the chat, there's some interesting, just a couple of questions that you

797
1:39:34 --> 1:39:41
might keep following through and also save the chat because there's some great resources there,

798
1:39:41 --> 1:39:47
Simon. Thank you for the pilot information. The one observation I make, Daria, on driving everywhere

799
1:39:47 --> 1:39:55
instead of going with pilots is that motor cars are now so magnificent and comfortable with your

800
1:39:55 --> 1:40:01
Beamer that you literally can drive, you know, go 2000 kilometres or 1200 miles is no big deal.

801
1:40:02 --> 1:40:07
20 hours of driving and you're there like, to go to Melbourne or Sydney, a one hour flight

802
1:40:07 --> 1:40:12
is now taking people five, six, seven hours because of the outrageous stuff. So you might

803
1:40:12 --> 1:40:17
as well drive your car and the roads are better. So driving is a lot of merit to it.

804
1:40:19 --> 1:40:28
But not an electric car. So is, Simon? Not an electric car. Indeed, that's part of Daniel's

805
1:40:28 --> 1:40:33
AI plan. You know, you get an electric car in Australia and you get stranded because they turn

806
1:40:33 --> 1:40:37
the internet off, number one, or your battery won't go anywhere. So there you are. That's the

807
1:40:37 --> 1:40:45
next control mechanism. Now, Arianna is in Finland and is a regular on Stu Peter's show. And Arianna,

808
1:40:45 --> 1:40:51
I've never understood how you got to Finland. Can you just give us a reminder as to how come

809
1:40:51 --> 1:40:57
you're in Finland? Because you sound like a yank to me. Yeah, well, I'm from America. I'm from

810
1:40:57 --> 1:41:09
California. But yeah, I met my ex-husband in Hollywood in, gosh, 1998. And then, you know,

811
1:41:09 --> 1:41:14
the rest is history. We ended up, I left Hollywood and got into corporate finance. And then

812
1:41:15 --> 1:41:21
we came to Finland to acquire advanced technologies. And that was another chapter.

813
1:41:21 --> 1:41:26
I ended up having a couple kids who are Finnish. And so I stayed here.

814
1:41:28 --> 1:41:37
But Daniel, hi, nice to meet you. Wayne Peters was going to introduce us. But anyway, here we are.

815
1:41:39 --> 1:41:47
So I, you know, this AI thing, you know, how they're, the AI is like writing the protocols

816
1:41:47 --> 1:41:55
for the hospital, right? And these protocols are killing people. I mean, some evil people

817
1:41:55 --> 1:42:06
are programming the AI to, you know, to demicide the population. And what was I going to say? Oh,

818
1:42:06 --> 1:42:14
yeah. So the doctors are like, going along with these protocols and making a lot of money. And,

819
1:42:15 --> 1:42:21
you know, we know about the remdesivir because of the Dr. Brian Artis. But there's these monoclonal

820
1:42:21 --> 1:42:28
antibodies. And this has been really bothering me. I've been reading the patents and documenting

821
1:42:29 --> 1:42:37
the COVID quacks scenes and documenting the horrors in the patents. And clearly to me,

822
1:42:37 --> 1:42:44
these patents were written by AI. It's so sophisticated. And there are so many poisons

823
1:42:44 --> 1:42:50
in the patents. I mean, it's unbelievable things that you could take a month just to

824
1:42:52 --> 1:43:02
translate them all. So that the monoclonal antibodies, there are a lot of really credible

825
1:43:02 --> 1:43:11
doctors or, you know, well-known doctors, influencers who are pushing them and believing

826
1:43:11 --> 1:43:20
that this is some antidote to the snake venom. And, but the monoclonal antibodies in the patents

827
1:43:20 --> 1:43:30
specifically states that it is the vaccine. It is an mRNA. It codes the HIV. It uses chimeric

828
1:43:30 --> 1:43:38
proteins. It's not approved for use in humans. It was never approved. It was never trialed.

829
1:43:38 --> 1:43:44
It was passed under emergency use authorization. And I've got a lot of clients coming to me who

830
1:43:44 --> 1:43:52
are injured from the monoclonal antibodies. Some of them are patients of well-known doctors who

831
1:43:52 --> 1:44:02
I won't name here. And it's just really upsetting me because people are being injured by, and the

832
1:44:02 --> 1:44:08
doctors are being fooled into believing that the monoclonal antibodies are doing something good.

833
1:44:09 --> 1:44:15
So I was just wondering, Daniel, what you, if you know anything about the monoclonal antibodies,

834
1:44:16 --> 1:44:25
what you think of them. And I'm looking for, you know, MDs, because I'm a naturopathic doctor.

835
1:44:25 --> 1:44:32
I'm also a journalist, but I'm an ND. And I don't seem to have as much influence as a medical,

836
1:44:32 --> 1:44:39
Western medical doctor. So I'm looking for Western medical doctors to get behind me on this and to

837
1:44:39 --> 1:44:48
help me to sound the alarm and to try to educate, you know, the doctors on what this really is.

838
1:44:49 --> 1:44:51
So what do you think, Daniel?

839
1:44:54 --> 1:45:03
So theoretically, so I'll take the story back to just a regular production of antibodies. Let's

840
1:45:03 --> 1:45:09
say we're trying to produce antibodies to snake venom, right? So we want to make snake anti-serum.

841
1:45:10 --> 1:45:15
So what was traditionally done is they would take some snake venom from whatever, the deadly

842
1:45:15 --> 1:45:20
rattlesnake or the cobra, they would take a little bit of venom and they would inject it into a horse.

843
1:45:21 --> 1:45:26
And the horse would be like, whoa, this is venom. This is not a good protein to have in the blood.

844
1:45:26 --> 1:45:31
And the horse's immune system would make antibodies against that protein.

845
1:45:32 --> 1:45:39
When a natural process stimulates the production of antibodies, then you get something called

846
1:45:40 --> 1:45:47
polyclonal antibodies. That means antibodies with all sorts of different shapes, but because

847
1:45:47 --> 1:45:52
they're all different shapes, they attach to different parts of the protein. So for example,

848
1:45:52 --> 1:45:59
if this was like a cobra venom, the polyclonal antibodies made by the horse would be to all

849
1:45:59 --> 1:46:05
different parts of that cobra venom protein. And then you would take blood from the horse and you

850
1:46:05 --> 1:46:10
can get a significant amount of blood because the horse is a big animal and the horse will

851
1:46:10 --> 1:46:17
continue to produce these polyclonal antibodies for the rest of its life. Then you can periodically

852
1:46:17 --> 1:46:23
take that horse's blood. You can separate out the antibodies and then you can package those antibodies

853
1:46:23 --> 1:46:29
into a vial. And then you call that, you know, King Cobra antidote or rattlesnake antidote.

854
1:46:29 --> 1:46:33
That's how anti-polyclonal antibodies are typically made.

855
1:46:35 --> 1:46:43
Now, a monoclonal antibody is not like polyclonal antibodies. The monoclonal antibody is only one

856
1:46:44 --> 1:46:50
antibody, one specific one. It's not a collection of different ones that attach to different parts of

857
1:46:51 --> 1:46:58
an antigen, like a protein or a virus or a bacteria. A monoclonal antibody, they're all

858
1:46:58 --> 1:47:05
one exact antibody and they all attach to just one part of a bacteria, a snake venom protein or a

859
1:47:05 --> 1:47:14
virus. So from the drawing board, a monoclonal antibody, the more often you use it, the higher

860
1:47:14 --> 1:47:21
its chance of failure, just from basic evolution. The more people that get monoclonal antibodies,

861
1:47:22 --> 1:47:27
the more reason a virus has to just change that one part of the virus that the monoclonal

862
1:47:27 --> 1:47:36
antibody attaches to. If there was a polyclonal antibody, that virus would be being attacked from

863
1:47:36 --> 1:47:43
all different sides and that virus wouldn't have a chance to evolve resistance. But so it's very

864
1:47:43 --> 1:47:51
difficult for any organism, bacteria, protein or virus to evolve resistance to a polyclonal antibody

865
1:47:51 --> 1:47:56
because it attaches to multiple sites. Monoclonal antibodies only attach to one site.

866
1:47:57 --> 1:48:03
And that means that the virus has a chance just by changing that one part of its shell

867
1:48:03 --> 1:48:11
to evade the monoclonal antibody. So when you have monoclonal antibodies used regularly in a hospital,

868
1:48:12 --> 1:48:22
then the speed of resistance increases with the amount you use the monoclonal antibody.

869
1:48:22 --> 1:48:28
If you only use it once or twice a week, there's very low likelihood of resistance to that

870
1:48:28 --> 1:48:35
monoclonal antibody happening. But if that monoclonal antibody is being used regularly,

871
1:48:35 --> 1:48:43
then the speed at which resistance will develop is increased exponentially.

872
1:48:44 --> 1:48:50
Now then we get into the question of how are monoclonal antibodies created? So this is not

873
1:48:50 --> 1:48:55
something that I know much about. I know how polyclonal antibodies are done because

874
1:48:55 --> 1:48:59
they're made through a natural process. You take something that's bad, you inject it into a big

875
1:48:59 --> 1:49:08
animal with a strong immune system and then you get polyclonal antibodies. To create monoclonal

876
1:49:08 --> 1:49:16
antibodies, I suspect the most efficient way to create them would be to trick some other organism,

877
1:49:16 --> 1:49:25
whether it's a bacteria, yeast or another animal, to trick that living organism into producing

878
1:49:25 --> 1:49:34
monoclonal antibodies. Because in a normal situation, a living organism like a mammal

879
1:49:34 --> 1:49:43
will produce polyclonal antibodies. So to get that mammal to only produce one particular antibody,

880
1:49:43 --> 1:49:47
then you'd probably have to use some type of genetic engineering trick.

881
1:49:48 --> 1:49:56
I imagine that would probably be the easiest in a cell culture. So then injecting mRNAs into a cell

882
1:49:56 --> 1:50:04
culture and having the cells in the cell culture continuously produce one specific type of antibody,

883
1:50:04 --> 1:50:12
like a miniature factory. So the use of monoclonal antibodies,

884
1:50:14 --> 1:50:23
I think they should not be used on a wide scale. It could only be used if nothing else is working

885
1:50:23 --> 1:50:33
and that's kind of a therapy to use as the last resort. Because if you only use it in 0.1%

886
1:50:34 --> 1:50:44
cases, then the resistance to that particular monoclonal antibody, there will be low likelihood

887
1:50:44 --> 1:50:52
of resistance. But then if you're producing something through a side process, like cell

888
1:50:52 --> 1:51:00
cultures being infected with mRNA in order to produce these monoclonal antibodies, there's

889
1:51:00 --> 1:51:08
always the possibility of contamination of your monoclonal antibodies with either the cell culture

890
1:51:08 --> 1:51:16
cells themselves, which are usually derived from cancerous cell lines. Or you can have contamination

891
1:51:16 --> 1:51:24
of the monoclonal antibodies with the original mRNA that was used to trick the cancerous cell line

892
1:51:24 --> 1:51:30
into producing those monoclonal antibodies. But again, this is not something I'm an expert on

893
1:51:30 --> 1:51:36
you'd have to like, you know, people who would know about contamination rates, and the production

894
1:51:36 --> 1:51:43
process would be the cell biology engineers at these pharmaceutical labs that produce these

895
1:51:44 --> 1:51:52
monoclonal antibodies. Here's what I found, just, you know, about I've been reading through the

896
1:51:52 --> 1:51:59
patents on all the monoclonal antibodies, and it's horrifying, to say the least. In the

897
1:52:00 --> 1:52:09
Regeneron patent, it talks about gene knockout. So that's a complete permanent deletion of genes.

898
1:52:11 --> 1:52:17
Then I found also that all of the monoclonal antibodies are using the malaria parasite.

899
1:52:17 --> 1:52:28
It's a genetically modified version. So it's part synthetic part organic. And they're actually

900
1:52:28 --> 1:52:34
injecting parasites into people. This really concerns me. And in the studies when they develop

901
1:52:35 --> 1:52:46
this technology, they were testing these malaria parasites on they were trying under the guise of

902
1:52:48 --> 1:52:55
preventing malaria placenta, which is when, you know, a pregnant woman gets sick with,

903
1:52:57 --> 1:53:02
I guess, a parasite that attacks the placenta and kills the baby. Interestingly, that's exactly

904
1:53:02 --> 1:53:09
what we're seeing with these COVID shots, right? Like 80, 87% of pregnant women are losing their

905
1:53:09 --> 1:53:16
babies. So why would that be in a monoclonal antibody? I don't know. And then another thing,

906
1:53:16 --> 1:53:25
interestingly, this is being touted as a antidote to the snake venom, when the thermo fisher

907
1:53:25 --> 1:53:32
monoclonal antibodies contain snake venom. So it just baffles my mind. And then one, another thing

908
1:53:32 --> 1:53:40
I really can't understand is, well, all monoclonal antibodies target the T cells and destroy them,

909
1:53:41 --> 1:53:48
just, you know, complete destruction of the T cells through cytotoxicity. And I don't understand

910
1:53:48 --> 1:53:54
how any doctor can think that's a good thing. Like it baffles my mind. So I don't know, I just

911
1:53:54 --> 1:53:59
wanted to bring that up to the group. So people are aware of these things. I am trying to sound

912
1:53:59 --> 1:54:06
the alarm. I think that Dr. Zelenko is promoting monoclonal antibodies. We've got other doctors

913
1:54:06 --> 1:54:14
like Dr. McCullough. A lot of doctors are inject, oh, American frontline doctors. They're in, you

914
1:54:14 --> 1:54:19
know, they're all injecting these into people. And it's absolutely experimental. It is the same

915
1:54:19 --> 1:54:27
technology as the... Well, just to correct you on a few things there. So how monoclonal antibodies

916
1:54:27 --> 1:54:35
are supposed to work is that when you get a monoclonal antibody injection, it's just supposed

917
1:54:35 --> 1:54:41
to be antibodies. There's not supposed to be any contaminants from the production of those antibodies,

918
1:54:41 --> 1:54:49
whether those antibodies were created in a cell culture, I mean, genetically modified

919
1:54:50 --> 1:54:58
trypanosomes that doesn't strike me as a particularly efficient way to create monoclonal

920
1:54:58 --> 1:55:05
antibodies. So I don't know why they chose that particular production process to try and hijack

921
1:55:05 --> 1:55:11
a parasitic organism to trick it to produce monoclonal antibodies. But

922
1:55:13 --> 1:55:22
if you're getting a proper monoclonal antibody injection, the only thing in that injection should

923
1:55:22 --> 1:55:29
be one antibody, just one type of antibody. And that's all that should be in there. So,

924
1:55:30 --> 1:55:37
again, I don't know where the literature is coming in for trypanosomes being in the monoclonal

925
1:55:37 --> 1:55:45
antibody injection. That seems very odd to me that if they're putting that in there, I don't know why

926
1:55:45 --> 1:55:51
they're putting that in there. The other thing is when an antibody, it doesn't matter if it's

927
1:55:51 --> 1:56:00
polyclonal or monoclonal, once it attaches to its target, it attracts a T cell because T cells are

928
1:56:00 --> 1:56:07
attracted to the tail ends of an antibody. So anything that the antibody is attached to,

929
1:56:07 --> 1:56:14
well, it actually should be macrophages or natural killer cells or neutrophils. They get attracted to

930
1:56:14 --> 1:56:21
the antibody and whatever was attached to the antibody, then they release peroxidases in the

931
1:56:21 --> 1:56:32
case of neutrophils to kill whatever that antibody was attached to. Antibodies should not, well,

932
1:56:33 --> 1:56:41
any therapeutic antibody should not be targeting T cells. T cells should be attracted to antibodies

933
1:56:41 --> 1:56:50
to try and kill whatever that antibody is attached to. So to design an antibody that attacks T cells,

934
1:56:51 --> 1:56:58
that's not, well, that's an antibody designed to destroy the immune system. I don't know why

935
1:56:58 --> 1:57:02
they would design something like that, right? Because what they're supposed to be designing

936
1:57:02 --> 1:57:09
when you're using monoclonal antibody therapy is you design an antibody to attach to a particular

937
1:57:09 --> 1:57:18
object and then the antibody, when it's glued onto the bacteria virus or snake venom, calls

938
1:57:18 --> 1:57:25
over a T cell or some other immune system cell to destroy whatever it's attached to. That's what

939
1:57:25 --> 1:57:35
monoclonal antibodies are supposed to do. Snake venoms, I know Dr. Brian Artis made quite the

940
1:57:36 --> 1:57:43
splash with the snake venoms. From my perspective, snake venoms are neither here nor there

941
1:57:44 --> 1:57:51
because venoms and biologic agents have been used in medical research for a very long time

942
1:57:51 --> 1:58:00
as a starting point for a lot of therapeutic drugs. For example, if people need blood thinners

943
1:58:00 --> 1:58:07
because they have a natural tendency to develop in blood clots, one of the blood thinners that's

944
1:58:07 --> 1:58:12
used is based on leech venom, right? Because the leech wants to keep sucking blood, so it secretes

945
1:58:13 --> 1:58:20
herudin, which is a protein that thins the blood. So pharmaceutical companies took the leech venom

946
1:58:21 --> 1:58:27
and used that as a starting point to develop pharmaceutical blood thinners for people who

947
1:58:27 --> 1:58:38
are getting blood clots for no reason that we doctors can find. Snake venoms, I don't know of

948
1:58:38 --> 1:58:48
any medical uses of snake venoms, but I think from a theoretical standpoint, if you could develop

949
1:58:48 --> 1:58:57
snake venoms or any kind of venom, jellyfish venom, insect venom, and you could develop

950
1:58:57 --> 1:59:04
a version of that venom that targets cancer cells, that would be a pretty effective way. If you could

951
1:59:04 --> 1:59:11
make the venom destructive to cells with cancerous mutations but not destructive to healthy cells,

952
1:59:11 --> 1:59:17
I think that might have been something that's already being researched in the medical community.

953
1:59:18 --> 1:59:30
I mean, to a certain extent, having an occasional exposure to small amounts of venom

954
1:59:33 --> 1:59:40
may give you immunity, right? Like cobra handlers, sometimes they get nipped by their cobras that they

955
1:59:40 --> 1:59:48
play with, and they don't need anti-venom because over the years of handling cobras, they've had

956
1:59:48 --> 1:59:57
exposure to cobra venom. So it's just one of those things that's in the environment. I don't view any

957
1:59:58 --> 2:00:09
protein molecule, venom, or poisonous mushroom as inherently good or evil. It's one of the things

958
2:00:10 --> 2:00:16
that's in the natural world, that has its place in the natural world. But again, for a venom to be

959
2:00:17 --> 2:00:26
present in a monoclonal antibody injection is highly unusual. I can't figure any rational reason

960
2:00:26 --> 2:00:35
why they would put that into a monoclonal antibody injection. Yeah, thank you. I'm going to post my

961
2:00:35 --> 2:00:42
article. I just wrote an article, Snake Venom Key Ingredient in COVID Vaccine Patents. I put,

962
2:00:42 --> 2:00:49
you know, in parenthesis. But I have another article about the monoclonal antibodies as well.

963
2:00:53 --> 2:00:57
I would love if you would read it. I mean, this is really concerning me. Like, I think the doctors

964
2:00:57 --> 2:01:03
are being fooled because the concept of monoclonal antibodies sounds like it's something that should

965
2:01:03 --> 2:01:08
be, you know, was supposed to be used for medicine and, you know, actually healing people.

966
2:01:09 --> 2:01:16
But it has been tweaked and misused. And basically, the research that was done on monoclonal

967
2:01:16 --> 2:01:24
antibodies was funded by DARPA and Bill Gates. And Bill Gates was saying last year on video that

968
2:01:25 --> 2:01:30
he announced that the monoclonal antibodies would be the treatment for COVID-19.

969
2:01:30 --> 2:01:37
That was like a year ago. And then there's this, you know, Anthony Fauci funded research with

970
2:01:37 --> 2:01:49
Regeneron and the monoclonal antibodies and Remdesivir. And it didn't, it was, you know,

971
2:01:49 --> 2:01:57
it was horrible results. But somehow the doctors are thinking that this is okay. I know they're not

972
2:01:57 --> 2:02:03
reading the patents, but I just really, really want the word to get out because it is poison.

973
2:02:04 --> 2:02:10
From what I can see, it is poison and people are coming to me injured. They are, the first signs

974
2:02:10 --> 2:02:16
are fatigue, like extreme fatigue, and then they start getting aches and pains. And from here, we

975
2:02:16 --> 2:02:23
don't know, I don't know the long term, you know, effects yet, but it's just really, it's really

976
2:02:23 --> 2:02:31
awful that, you know, good doctors are recklessly injecting something that was never approved for

977
2:02:31 --> 2:02:36
you. So there's one thing that there's another thing that I'd like you to consider and for

978
2:02:36 --> 2:02:44
everyone to consider is that what's being advertised as being in the bottle is not what's

979
2:02:44 --> 2:02:52
actually in the bottle, right? Because a monoclonal antibody, you know, unless it causes a hyperactivity

980
2:02:52 --> 2:02:59
a hyperinflammatory reaction, it shouldn't cause any long term side effects. It should be gone and

981
2:02:59 --> 2:03:08
gone within a week. So I wouldn't necessarily blame at this point, long term side effects on

982
2:03:09 --> 2:03:15
for people who've received monoclonal antibodies as a problem with monoclonal antibodies.

983
2:03:16 --> 2:03:21
My preference is I'd rather take polyclonal antibodies from a horse because I think they're

984
2:03:21 --> 2:03:28
much more effective than a monoclonal antibody genetically created in a Petri dish.

985
2:03:30 --> 2:03:36
But, and the reason I say this is I had the opportunity to send

986
2:03:38 --> 2:03:44
a sample of Moderna and Pfizer in for scanning electron microscopy analysis.

987
2:03:44 --> 2:03:52
And these vials were left out at room temperature between one and two months. So they weren't

988
2:03:52 --> 2:04:00
refrigerated. And by the time they got under the scanning electron microscope, the only things

989
2:04:00 --> 2:04:07
that were the only elements present in those samples were carbon and oxygen. So the vials

990
2:04:07 --> 2:04:14
that were advertised as mRNA injections contained no mRNA because there was no traces of nitrogen,

991
2:04:14 --> 2:04:20
no traces of phosphorus. And without any phosphorus or nitrogen, there's no nucleotides, there's no

992
2:04:20 --> 2:04:28
phospholipids, there's no proteins. What was in like the unusual structures we saw in those

993
2:04:28 --> 2:04:36
electron microscope pictures, which looked like chips, crystals, carbon nanospheres and carbon

994
2:04:36 --> 2:04:44
fibers, all of that was just carbon. There's no protein, there's no nucleotides, there's no mRNA

995
2:04:44 --> 2:04:54
and DNA in any of the samples that I checked out. So we have to keep in mind that regardless of

996
2:04:54 --> 2:05:03
what we're being told is being used, like monoclonal antibodies from Regeneron, what might actually be

997
2:05:03 --> 2:05:10
in the bottle is something completely different. And that's just my own personal observation.

998
2:05:10 --> 2:05:14
Just one more quick thing I'll say before we move on to the next question.

999
2:05:15 --> 2:05:21
People who have more questions. The people who are injured, I mean, they're injecting monoclonal

1000
2:05:21 --> 2:05:27
antibodies into healthy 30 year olds and they're becoming injured. They were healthy before,

1001
2:05:27 --> 2:05:35
they got this COVID, they got sick or poisoned. And then they were talked into this experimental

1002
2:05:35 --> 2:05:41
intervention, the monoclonal antibodies, and now they are fatigued, aches and pains, they're injured.

1003
2:05:42 --> 2:05:46
And they were- I wouldn't believe that on the monoclonal antibody.

1004
2:05:47 --> 2:05:52
I think they got something else. They were told they got, they were getting a monoclonal antibody,

1005
2:05:52 --> 2:05:59
but they got something else. They might've got a whole bunch of malaria parasites instead of a

1006
2:05:59 --> 2:06:04
monoclonal antibody. They might've got, who knows? They might've got-

1007
2:06:04 --> 2:06:10
And one of the reasons why exactly, because any injection by big pharma just can't be trusted

1008
2:06:10 --> 2:06:17
anymore. One of the reasons why people are temporarily better when they get these

1009
2:06:18 --> 2:06:24
monoclonal antibody injections is because in the patents it says some of the embodiments

1010
2:06:24 --> 2:06:30
contain hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine. Not all the embodiments, but some of them.

1011
2:06:32 --> 2:06:38
Because that is a medicine we know that kind of clears out some of the poisons, that would mean

1012
2:06:38 --> 2:06:45
that people are temporarily getting better long enough to fool the doctors, but then later they

1013
2:06:45 --> 2:06:53
start getting sick. Anyway, that's all. It has nothing to do with monoclonal antibodies.

1014
2:06:53 --> 2:06:58
People are being injected with something that's being called a monoclonal antibody and it's not.

1015
2:06:59 --> 2:07:07
Right. Interesting. But Daniel, if that's the case, they're not a failure of regulation, isn't it?

1016
2:07:08 --> 2:07:13
Yeah, the government regulators, they don't examine any of the- they don't do their due

1017
2:07:13 --> 2:07:21
diligence and examine any of the batches for contamination. No, the governments are getting-

1018
2:07:22 --> 2:07:29
they're reaping windfalls from collecting taxes from us and they're doing bloody nothing with it.

1019
2:07:29 --> 2:07:37
They're not even examining, you know, every fifth batch of this, that or whatever for purity.

1020
2:07:39 --> 2:07:41
Well, they wouldn't want to find evidence of crime, would they?

1021
2:07:42 --> 2:07:54
No, that's the thing. So do you remember the FDA? They said, oh well, was it Pfizer said that

1022
2:07:55 --> 2:08:04
58% or something, they could guarantee that what they said was the vaccine, was actually the

1023
2:08:04 --> 2:08:10
vaccine. And then they managed to come to an agreement with the FDA that 50% was acceptable.

1024
2:08:11 --> 2:08:17
So- Oh yeah, that's right. The amount of mRNA, that was actually mRNA for spike proteins.

1025
2:08:17 --> 2:08:21
Sure. And then the rest of the mRNA in the injection was unknown.

1026
2:08:22 --> 2:08:29
Exactly. Which of course brings me back to the informed consent thing, but also,

1027
2:08:32 --> 2:08:38
doesn't a regulatory body have a duty to know what's in these damned

1028
2:08:40 --> 2:08:44
injections in this case? I don't quite understand that.

1029
2:08:45 --> 2:08:56
Yeah. No, that was that one post from, I think it was a Moderna production line engineer was

1030
2:08:56 --> 2:09:03
saying that only one of the mRNAs in the Moderna injection was for spike proteins. There was two

1031
2:09:03 --> 2:09:13
other mRNAs that were coding for proteins that were related to ovarian infertility,

1032
2:09:13 --> 2:09:23
like premature ovarian failure. And the thing is, so why, so now we got to zoom out here and look

1033
2:09:23 --> 2:09:31
at the bigger picture. So the spike protein is known to cause DNA damage, inhibit DNA repair,

1034
2:09:31 --> 2:09:41
cause mutations. You have two other proteins that, like mRNAs that code for proteins that cause

1035
2:09:41 --> 2:09:49
infertility. What is the one seeming goal of all of these proteins that are supposedly in these

1036
2:09:49 --> 2:09:56
vaccines? It's depopulation and infertility. That seems to be the goal. Depopulation through cancer

1037
2:09:56 --> 2:10:03
and blood clots for the recipient and infertility for the recipient through alterations of genes

1038
2:10:03 --> 2:10:13
that code for normal ovarian function. And the thing is you'd never know what proteins,

1039
2:10:13 --> 2:10:20
what mRNAs are inside the injection unless you reverse sequence every single batch.

1040
2:10:20 --> 2:10:28
And you reverse sequence, that's a process that requires a full genetics lab and it takes some

1041
2:10:28 --> 2:10:36
time. So literally every single batch that Pfizer and Moderna sends out can have an mRNA coding for

1042
2:10:36 --> 2:10:46
a different protein. They could even stick an mRNA coding for a hyper protein. They could be

1043
2:10:46 --> 2:10:50
experimenting with different snake venoms. But they're not injecting the snake venom into you,

1044
2:10:50 --> 2:10:56
they're just injecting the mRNA that tricks your body into producing the snake venom.

1045
2:10:57 --> 2:11:02
And then what are they doing? What is Pfizer and Moderna doing? Are they just secretly keeping

1046
2:11:02 --> 2:11:07
track of people with certain batches to see, oh, well, people can tolerate this amount of snake

1047
2:11:07 --> 2:11:12
venom in their blood without dropping dead, but they can't tolerate twice the amount.

1048
2:11:12 --> 2:11:19
But Daniel, that's exactly what Craig Pardecoupa and Sasha, what's her name, Alexandra Latipova or

1049
2:11:19 --> 2:11:28
something. They were looking at the batches and they found evidence of lethal dose testing.

1050
2:11:28 --> 2:11:37
But if Pfizer only have to guarantee 50% of the contents of these injections, what's in the other

1051
2:11:37 --> 2:11:43
50%? So it's entirely possible that they're experimenting with lethal dose testing.

1052
2:11:44 --> 2:11:51
But another thing that I wonder about, so Pfizer were found guilty of false advertising,

1053
2:11:51 --> 2:11:59
had to pay a $2.3 billion fine. I think one of the largest fines ever in the history of,

1054
2:11:59 --> 2:12:09
I think it was the largest fine ever imposed by a US court. And I don't understand how,

1055
2:12:09 --> 2:12:15
if you have false advertising and Pfizer have been found guilty of that, so not only have they

1056
2:12:15 --> 2:12:24
had a previous, they've got a criminal record, but they're now repeating the process, it would

1057
2:12:24 --> 2:12:31
appear by not being able to guarantee the whole product. So you were saying earlier that the

1058
2:12:31 --> 2:12:38
monoclonal antibodies would only contain monoclonal antibody, but then you kind of changed tack because

1059
2:12:38 --> 2:12:43
you accepted that actually what Arianna was describing was unlikely to be due to the

1060
2:12:44 --> 2:12:50
monoclonal. And I agree with you because the symptoms she was describing were very, they could

1061
2:12:50 --> 2:12:57
cause virtually anything in medicine, you know, tiredness and aches and pains with it, Arianna.

1062
2:12:59 --> 2:13:07
So the question is, how can you have a fine for Pfizer for false advertising and then the FDA

1063
2:13:08 --> 2:13:15
colludes with Pfizer to allow them to just guarantee 50% of their injections, which by the way,

1064
2:13:16 --> 2:13:25
under emergency authorization, they just, it's an experiment, isn't it? And for which no informed

1065
2:13:25 --> 2:13:30
consent can be obtained in violation of the... Well, as far as Pfizer is concerned,

1066
2:13:32 --> 2:13:39
paying a fine is just the cost of doing business. To them, it's just like a sales tax or something.

1067
2:13:40 --> 2:13:48
Sure. It's, you know, a $4 billion fine, a $40 billion fine. If that's less than one-tenth of

1068
2:13:48 --> 2:13:55
your revenue, that's just the cost of doing business. Exactly. Right. And in fact, you know,

1069
2:13:58 --> 2:14:03
I think we should try and think in terms of the worst case scenario. Like what is the

1070
2:14:04 --> 2:14:09
military industrial complex? Do they have any morals? No, they just design things to

1071
2:14:09 --> 2:14:14
kill people and their research going goes into designing things that kill people better.

1072
2:14:15 --> 2:14:23
So if we have that type of corporate philosophy, is it possible that pharmaceutical industries

1073
2:14:24 --> 2:14:29
have a similar type of corporate philosophy? It's just they don't want to kill people so

1074
2:14:29 --> 2:14:37
quickly that they can't make a buck off of them first before they die. So to have a slow kill

1075
2:14:37 --> 2:14:47
would be the most profitable overall corporate strategy that you can drain a person's finances

1076
2:14:47 --> 2:14:57
because, you know, a chronic illness can be a continuous source of profit. And then, you know,

1077
2:14:57 --> 2:15:03
once a person has spent the resources that they spend their life accumulating, you know,

1078
2:15:03 --> 2:15:14
paying for cancer therapies or medications for chronic illness, then the pharmaceutical industry

1079
2:15:14 --> 2:15:18
has won. They've just decided instead of killing people right away, they'll just kill people slowly

1080
2:15:19 --> 2:15:28
to make more money before they die. And if we take that as the starting point of the organization

1081
2:15:28 --> 2:15:34
we're dealing with, then what would such an organization do? Well, that organization

1082
2:15:35 --> 2:15:45
would try and eliminate any obstacles to its overall corporate strategy to extract money from

1083
2:15:45 --> 2:15:52
people before they are killed off. So in order to implement that type of a strategy, they would have

1084
2:15:52 --> 2:16:02
to make inroads with regulatory authorities. And that is control who gets to be elected to be on

1085
2:16:02 --> 2:16:09
the board of the FDA, control the politicians who establish, you know, mandates and the legislation

1086
2:16:09 --> 2:16:19
under which the FDA operates, and, you know, have as much control as possible over the bureaucracy

1087
2:16:19 --> 2:16:31
within the FDA. So, yeah, if that's the overall strategy, then they could, their mechanism of

1088
2:16:32 --> 2:16:38
implementing that strategy would be through infiltration of government and regulatory

1089
2:16:39 --> 2:16:47
agencies, which seems to be the case with Health Canada, right? Health Canada has come out against

1090
2:16:47 --> 2:16:53
Ivermectin, has been issuing statements against the use of Ivermectin. Health Canada also came

1091
2:16:53 --> 2:17:01
out in support of giving injections to children, right? And so clearly the entire governmental

1092
2:17:01 --> 2:17:10
apparatus of Health Canada has been infiltrated and usurped by the pharmaceutical industry.

1093
2:17:10 --> 2:17:19
Yeah, so Daniel, would you say that, so you were saying earlier there's evidence of intent,

1094
2:17:19 --> 2:17:28
in your mind, you know, that they've chosen things to attack the liver, the spleen and the

1095
2:17:28 --> 2:17:34
ovary. So let's just, if we go a bit further than that, and so in the present context of great crimes

1096
2:17:34 --> 2:17:41
against humanity, doctors, in my opinion, should be doing what they're trained to do and looking at

1097
2:17:41 --> 2:17:46
the big picture, as you talked about, and yes, being aware of the science, but not getting going

1098
2:17:46 --> 2:17:51
down rabbit holes here and rabbit holes there, like the scientists do. Scientists haven't got a clue

1099
2:17:51 --> 2:17:58
how to practice medicine, because they haven't got the whole picture, and that's what a doctor is.

1100
2:17:58 --> 2:18:06
So a doctor in the present climate, in my view, should be thinking of the lethal possibilities of

1101
2:18:06 --> 2:18:21
the threat of damage to the genes and of sterility, and warning the public. They do not need proof

1102
2:18:21 --> 2:18:27
beyond reasonable doubt, as a lawyer would need in a criminal court, and they do not need to have

1103
2:18:29 --> 2:18:37
randomized studies. And so what do you agree with that, or do you disagree?

1104
2:18:38 --> 2:18:45
So in the present context, doctors, medical doctors, should be, that's what they're trained to do,

1105
2:18:45 --> 2:18:51
should be thinking of the big picture, what are the possibilities, what do we need to warn the

1106
2:18:51 --> 2:18:56
public about, and what do we need to tell the lawyers about, but they seem to have forgotten

1107
2:18:56 --> 2:19:04
it all, don't they? Why? Absolutely. You know, it's from the very, there has been an incredible

1108
2:19:04 --> 2:19:14
failure throughout medical schools worldwide to, I don't know, impart upon medical students and the

1109
2:19:14 --> 2:19:22
doctors that become of medical students that we always need to keep an eye on the big picture.

1110
2:19:22 --> 2:19:30
So not just the body system, the entire person. And, you know, if medical doctors were better

1111
2:19:30 --> 2:19:40
students of history, you know, we should realize that from time to time in history, that medical

1112
2:19:40 --> 2:19:47
doctors have a much greater role than just the overall wellness of the patient in front of them.

1113
2:19:48 --> 2:19:58
Sometimes we have to be the, you know, the messengers that say, no, society has to come

1114
2:19:58 --> 2:20:07
together and work together against an existential crisis of the human species. Right? And,

1115
2:20:09 --> 2:20:16
and, you know, doctors, like all the modern medical schools as prerequisites, they require

1116
2:20:17 --> 2:20:23
cell biology and biochemistry. Right? And so how is it that so many people who have been taught

1117
2:20:23 --> 2:20:29
the basics of cellular evolution, you know, ecosystem evolution, everyone has to have a

1118
2:20:29 --> 2:20:34
biology prerequisite to get into medical school. So, you know, about ecosystems, you know, about

1119
2:20:34 --> 2:20:42
evolution. Why is it that so few doctors are applying the basic principles of nature, that

1120
2:20:42 --> 2:20:51
a virus is a living organism, its environment is the human species. So it follows the same rules

1121
2:20:51 --> 2:20:57
of anything else in any other ecosystem, it can't destroy its environment. Right? And if

1122
2:20:57 --> 2:21:03
its environment changes, the organism has to change according to the environment. If everyone

1123
2:21:03 --> 2:21:10
has antibodies to the spike protein, the virus has to just get rid of the spike protein. Right? If,

1124
2:21:10 --> 2:21:16
you know, if the species destroys its environment, if the virus kills all its hosts,

1125
2:21:16 --> 2:21:21
then it kills itself. So it shouldn't destroy its environment, which is actually kind of a

1126
2:21:21 --> 2:21:26
philosophical lesson for us humans that we shouldn't destroy our environment because it's

1127
2:21:26 --> 2:21:33
only ourselves that are being harmed. But, you know, these basic principles of history,

1128
2:21:34 --> 2:21:43
philosophy and truth, right? These should always be in the back of a medical doctor's mind.

1129
2:21:43 --> 2:21:49
Exactly. And also, Daniel, the very, the thing that we were taught, we were taught about medical

1130
2:21:49 --> 2:21:55
ethics at medical school, and we had some really good teachers on it. And I never forgot what we

1131
2:21:55 --> 2:22:01
were taught. But guess what, we had a reunion recently for my year at medical school. And I

1132
2:22:01 --> 2:22:08
wrote an email because all the emails were there. So I just reply all. And I said that

1133
2:22:08 --> 2:22:15
would anybody like to join? Not a single one of them contacted me, even privately. I was shocked.

1134
2:22:16 --> 2:22:23
And so the point is, in my opinion, medical ethics, you cannot practice medicine without

1135
2:22:23 --> 2:22:28
medical ethics. And if the doctors don't know their medical ethics, they shouldn't be damn

1136
2:22:28 --> 2:22:37
well practicing as doctors. No, that should be a prerequisite for getting from graduating from

1137
2:22:37 --> 2:22:43
medical school. Unless you know the foundation you stand upon, you shouldn't be a doctor.

1138
2:22:43 --> 2:22:48
Exactly. And Daniel, in addition to that, understanding the importance of their role as

1139
2:22:48 --> 2:22:56
a doctor in warning the public about deviations of science and everything else that's going on

1140
2:22:56 --> 2:23:04
at the moment. All right. Thank you, Ariana. And thank you for the articles that you've shared.

1141
2:23:04 --> 2:23:10
And well done on all your great work and asking the questions. Now, Daniel, we have the man who

1142
2:23:10 --> 2:23:23
brought you here to us, Raymond. Daniel, what a pleasure it is to have you on with this group.

1143
2:23:23 --> 2:23:31
I just want to, I guess, start my comments by saying, I think you've got a taste of why Dr. Sam

1144
2:23:32 --> 2:23:42
and I have come to love this man so much. He's absolutely amazing. And it's not just because

1145
2:23:43 --> 2:23:53
just because he exhibits the kind of compassion and care for people. This is something, this is

1146
2:23:53 --> 2:24:00
a reputation, by the way, I'll just precede some, some my question with that. This is a reputation

1147
2:24:00 --> 2:24:10
that precedes him, by the way. In Alberta, he has functioned as a locum, a doctor who

1148
2:24:10 --> 2:24:17
serves in temporary positions in different localities. And I can tell you from my personal

1149
2:24:17 --> 2:24:25
contacts that he is dearly loved by the people that he has served. And that's exactly what he is.

1150
2:24:26 --> 2:24:37
He is a medical servant, bar none. It's an amazing thing. I'd also say that he is the consummate

1151
2:24:37 --> 2:24:45
the consummate doctor that Stephen keeps talking about. Absolutely to the core.

1152
2:24:46 --> 2:24:56
And I think one of the things that is quite apparent is that the the training and education

1153
2:24:56 --> 2:25:05
that he got failed to program out of him that compassion and care for patients. It comes across

1154
2:25:05 --> 2:25:12
absolutely so clear. And for Sam and I, it's an honor to call him a friend.

1155
2:25:14 --> 2:25:16
Absolutely, absolutely, Ray.

1156
2:25:19 --> 2:25:26
Sorry. But I'll, I'll just go on. Because for some of you, you may not be aware of

1157
2:25:26 --> 2:25:34
the legal challenges that that Daniel has encountered as well. And I was just wondering,

1158
2:25:34 --> 2:25:40
Daniel, if you could maybe give us an update on that. And maybe just even a brief comment,

1159
2:25:40 --> 2:25:50
if you would like, about Dr. Mel Burchette as well. Just just to let us know where where things are

1160
2:25:50 --> 2:25:57
at there. There are some exciting things happening. And, you know, we're on a we're on a crazy journey

1161
2:25:57 --> 2:26:06
here in Canada. So with regarding the case, Dr. Bruchette and I were trying to bring up against

1162
2:26:06 --> 2:26:14
the hospital for violating basic medical ethics by forcing Mel to take an anti psychotic medication

1163
2:26:14 --> 2:26:21
that's known to cause blood clots in the elderly. What happened is the Deputy Attorney General of

1164
2:26:21 --> 2:26:28
British Columbia, Dr. Not doctor, sorry, the Deputy Attorney General Grant Wong, used his

1165
2:26:29 --> 2:26:35
status as an attorney general to act as an intervener on the case. And so the hearing date

1166
2:26:35 --> 2:26:43
that we had scheduled was canceled by the Deputy Attorney General saying that, and the excuse he

1167
2:26:43 --> 2:26:52
offered was was, wow, it was so ridiculous. He said the likelihood of convicting hospital staff

1168
2:26:53 --> 2:27:03
for having purposefully and forcibly given Dr. Mel Bruchette harmful medications is is unlikely.

1169
2:27:03 --> 2:27:11
And because the the possibility for conviction is unlikely, he is intervening and issuing a

1170
2:27:11 --> 2:27:15
stay of proceedings that no further proceedings are to occur in the case of Dr. Mel Bruchette

1171
2:27:15 --> 2:27:21
versus the hospital. And this is so this is so ridiculous. He's not even a medical doctor,

1172
2:27:21 --> 2:27:27
and he's deciding that the likelihood of prosecution and conviction is low. Right. And

1173
2:27:27 --> 2:27:33
then the other ridiculous thing he said, Grant Wong, as an attorney, he said, and, you know,

1174
2:27:33 --> 2:27:40
it's not proven that that they intended to cause any harm or that any harm was done.

1175
2:27:42 --> 2:27:48
I was the one who spoke to Mel while he was having slurred speech. How can an attorney general who's

1176
2:27:48 --> 2:27:54
never spoken to the patient declare that no harm was done? Right. This is the Deputy Attorney General

1177
2:27:54 --> 2:28:00
of British Columbia. And then on top of that case, there was the case I had I was bringing up against

1178
2:28:00 --> 2:28:07
Justice Joanne Challenger for having taken the sheriffs into chamber and given the sheriffs an

1179
2:28:07 --> 2:28:14
order to forcibly assault and try and remove us from the courtroom so that she wouldn't have to

1180
2:28:14 --> 2:28:20
enter the courtroom a third time. Again, the attorney general dismissed those charges, said

1181
2:28:20 --> 2:28:27
the likelihood of conviction, a conviction against a judge is is highly unlikely. So the

1182
2:28:28 --> 2:28:34
the deputy attorney general is is issuing a stay of proceedings against the sheriffs and the judge

1183
2:28:34 --> 2:28:41
involved in that case because he doesn't think a conviction is possible. So my response to that

1184
2:28:41 --> 2:28:49
that letter from Attorney General Grant Wong was that as a deputy attorney general, he is employed

1185
2:28:49 --> 2:28:57
by the Crown and so that in matters involving the Crown, he is conflicted because just as the

1186
2:28:57 --> 2:29:05
judge is an employee of the Crown and the sheriff is an employee of that courthouse, they are all

1187
2:29:05 --> 2:29:14
effectively employees of the Crown. And so he cannot issue a stay of proceedings because he

1188
2:29:14 --> 2:29:22
is conflicted and given that he has issued a stay of proceedings, he himself is obstructing

1189
2:29:22 --> 2:29:27
justice. I still haven't had a response from the deputy attorney general to that.

1190
2:29:27 --> 2:29:41
Okay, so some of these cases may wind up being stalemated.

1191
2:29:42 --> 2:29:54
Or if the provincial court refuses to hear the case, then, you know, this is where I recently

1192
2:29:54 --> 2:30:00
have been talking about it is up to we the people to take the law into our own hands.

1193
2:30:01 --> 2:30:08
And we're not talking about the dystopian, you know, vigilante gangs type of law into your own

1194
2:30:08 --> 2:30:14
hands. It's like, no, we're, we're going to do the idea of justice. We're going to treat it with

1195
2:30:14 --> 2:30:21
respect. So we're going to set up our own courts with our own judges and have a fair procedure,

1196
2:30:22 --> 2:30:29
where, you know, people can be discovered for facts, what has been done, what they've done,

1197
2:30:29 --> 2:30:36
what they've failed to do, and that they can be tried by a jury. So if we establish,

1198
2:30:37 --> 2:30:40
and the first part of that would be establishing your own jurisdiction.

1199
2:30:41 --> 2:30:44
Now on a provincial scale, that's a pretty hard thing to do. But if,

1200
2:30:45 --> 2:30:50
if people could get together neighborhood by neighborhood, to establish their own

1201
2:30:50 --> 2:30:58
jurisdiction, their own area of land for which what they speak is enforced, then, you know,

1202
2:30:59 --> 2:31:05
neighborhood by neighborhood, maybe we can get together and finally form a, a regional court,

1203
2:31:05 --> 2:31:12
where there's a regional court, a regional judge that's appointed for cases, a regional jury.

1204
2:31:13 --> 2:31:21
And then within that jurisdiction, we can try as fairly as we can, the, the, the criminals, right,

1205
2:31:21 --> 2:31:27
the attorney general who's, who's obstructing justice, the judge who's obstructing justice,

1206
2:31:27 --> 2:31:33
you know, the sheriffs who are, you know, all too eager to try and strangle hold me and, and,

1207
2:31:33 --> 2:31:39
and knock me out, right? Then we can try them in the fairest procedure we can,

1208
2:31:41 --> 2:31:48
and, and then establish a conviction, and then a warrant that should these individuals set foot in

1209
2:31:49 --> 2:31:56
our jurisdiction for which they have been tried for crimes, that we can arrest them.

1210
2:31:56 --> 2:32:02
I don't know if Canada's ready to take that step on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis, but

1211
2:32:03 --> 2:32:11
my hope is that if not within my lifetime, you know, in, in, in the future generations,

1212
2:32:11 --> 2:32:19
if we manage to keep the idea of justice alive, that eventually, you know, on a neighborhood by

1213
2:32:19 --> 2:32:26
neighborhood basis, people will rediscover the very philosophy of justice within themselves,

1214
2:32:26 --> 2:32:32
and act to be just people by being honest with themselves, truthful with themselves,

1215
2:32:32 --> 2:32:37
and truthful with their neighbors, and have groups of truthful neighbors with other neighbors,

1216
2:32:38 --> 2:32:45
trading without deception, and engaging in commerce, exchange of goods,

1217
2:32:45 --> 2:32:53
services in an honest fashion, and then when problems arise, establishing a regional court

1218
2:32:53 --> 2:33:00
to hear and try cases where a wrong has been done, and how that wrong can be corrected.

1219
2:33:03 --> 2:33:10
Daniel, because a lot of the individuals on this call may not be familiar with your,

1220
2:33:10 --> 2:33:20
your particular situation in the court system where you, you basically force their hand to

1221
2:33:21 --> 2:33:29
undertake particular protocols in response to the actions that you took. Maybe you could just very

1222
2:33:29 --> 2:33:35
briefly go through that to explain to those on the call, and then I'll just go through that.

1223
2:33:35 --> 2:33:39
I think it's a fascinating thing to look at. Dr. Cahill or Professor Cahill should have been on

1224
2:33:39 --> 2:33:48
this call to hear about this part of it, but I think it's a fascinating issue when it comes to

1225
2:33:49 --> 2:34:00
legal procedures within our courtrooms, especially within the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the,

1226
2:34:00 --> 2:34:07
procedures within our courtrooms, especially within the, what I would call Commonwealth nations.

1227
2:34:08 --> 2:34:15
Yes. So the, this was a few years before, maybe this was 2015 or 2016.

1228
2:34:17 --> 2:34:22
I was reading on some message boards about the law, the legal proceedings,

1229
2:34:22 --> 2:34:30
procedures that aren't secret procedures for the lack of a better word. And one of the posts that

1230
2:34:30 --> 2:34:38
I came upon, this gentleman had said there was a secret procedure, procedure with judges. And the

1231
2:34:38 --> 2:34:48
secret procedure with judges was that if you should stand under the first entrance of a judge into a

1232
2:34:49 --> 2:34:57
courtroom, you agree to stand under the judge. And this is based on like a deconstruction of

1233
2:34:57 --> 2:35:03
the word understanding. For the common usage, we think the word understanding means comprehension.

1234
2:35:04 --> 2:35:11
In fact, legally, it means a completely different thing. Understanding means you agree to stand

1235
2:35:11 --> 2:35:18
under. Understanding means you agree to stand under. So understanding God means you agree to

1236
2:35:18 --> 2:35:25
stand under God. If you say, I understand the judge, then it doesn't mean you comprehend the

1237
2:35:25 --> 2:35:32
judge. It means you agree to stand under whatever the judge decides to dictate. So there's a

1238
2:35:32 --> 2:35:40
difference between the word understanding and comprehension. So the first entrance of the judge,

1239
2:35:40 --> 2:35:48
if people stand, and by physical action, they agree to stand under the judge because the judge

1240
2:35:49 --> 2:35:56
platform is literally above where people are standing. And so through that symbolism,

1241
2:35:56 --> 2:36:04
even though it's not communicated in language, means that the gallery, the plaintiffs, the lawyers,

1242
2:36:04 --> 2:36:12
all agree to stand under whatever the judge says. And if you stand under the judge, then you agree

1243
2:36:12 --> 2:36:18
to stand under judicial law, which is for the most part case law. Another judge decides a case,

1244
2:36:18 --> 2:36:25
the case gets decided, and the current judge gets to use a case that's been decided in the past by

1245
2:36:25 --> 2:36:35
another judge and use that as the basis for that judge's decision. If a man or woman refuses to

1246
2:36:35 --> 2:36:43
stand under judicial law, what I was told on this post is the judge must exit the courtroom.

1247
2:36:44 --> 2:36:50
And when the judge exits the courtroom, when the judge reenters the courtroom, the judge has to

1248
2:36:50 --> 2:36:59
reenter under a higher authority. So if people stand when the judge reenters the courtroom for

1249
2:36:59 --> 2:37:12
the second time, they agree to stand under charter law. So charter law is not a case that's decided

1250
2:37:12 --> 2:37:19
by an individual judge in judicial law. Charter law is created by groups of individuals, right?

1251
2:37:19 --> 2:37:26
So corporate charters or provincial charters or national charters. So because groups of people

1252
2:37:27 --> 2:37:33
are at a higher level of hierarchy than an individual judge, the second time the judge

1253
2:37:33 --> 2:37:40
enters the courtroom, then they are stand, the judge themselves, they stand under

1254
2:37:40 --> 2:37:46
charter law. And when people stand under a judge who stands under charter law, the judge can no

1255
2:37:46 --> 2:37:55
longer use case law against you or in your favor. The judge has to rely on charter laws that were

1256
2:37:55 --> 2:38:03
passed by groups of people like parliaments or senates or national assemblies. Now in the case

1257
2:38:03 --> 2:38:11
of Mel Bruchet and the hospital, the British Columbia Hospital Act has a section in their

1258
2:38:11 --> 2:38:19
charter law called Section 51. And Section 51 of British Columbia Charter Law says that any

1259
2:38:19 --> 2:38:26
communications contained within a medical record are protected speech. And if it's protected speech,

1260
2:38:26 --> 2:38:36
then it cannot be used as evidence of a crime. So myself, Popeyes and Diana, we remained sitting

1261
2:38:36 --> 2:38:43
when the judge first entered the courtroom. We didn't want to be held against judicial law,

1262
2:38:43 --> 2:38:48
right? Because case law is an absolute mess. One judge decides another thing, the other judge

1263
2:38:48 --> 2:38:54
decides the opposite. And it just depends on the preference of the judge you're standing in front of,

1264
2:38:54 --> 2:39:00
whether he decides for or against you, because he has both options open within judicial law.

1265
2:39:01 --> 2:39:07
So then the judge exited the courtroom and then she re-entered the courtroom. And Popeyes and I

1266
2:39:07 --> 2:39:13
were thinking, yes, we're winning here. Now we forced the judge to enter the courtroom under

1267
2:39:13 --> 2:39:21
charter law. But the thing is, I know BC Charter Law has that poison pill, Section 51, where all

1268
2:39:21 --> 2:39:28
the documented crimes in Mel's medical records cannot be used as evidence. So Popeyes and I,

1269
2:39:28 --> 2:39:35
we remained sitting. Justice Joanne Challenger was infuriated because I think before

1270
2:39:36 --> 2:39:42
she attended court that day, she pre-read the British Columbia Charter Law because she knew

1271
2:39:42 --> 2:39:48
this case was coming up. It was a case related to hospitals where I was accusing the hospital of

1272
2:39:48 --> 2:39:54
committing a crime. And the proof I had of that crime was in the medical record. So she got up

1273
2:39:54 --> 2:39:59
on the bench and because we didn't stand up, she started screaming and yelling about how

1274
2:39:59 --> 2:40:05
Canada was the fairest and safest place in the world, the most wonderful place to be,

1275
2:40:05 --> 2:40:15
and how British Columbia was the most lawful place in the country. And the reason we all had

1276
2:40:15 --> 2:40:21
to stand up when she entered the courtroom for a second time was in honour of Canada and in honour

1277
2:40:21 --> 2:40:29
of British Columbia. And I was like, okay, we just have to stay sitting, right? Because if we refuse

1278
2:40:29 --> 2:40:37
to stand under charter law, that judge is supposed to exit the courtroom. And when the judge re-enters

1279
2:40:37 --> 2:40:45
the courtroom under the third time, that judge, by whatever secret oath that judges supposedly have

1280
2:40:45 --> 2:40:52
to swear to, the judge is now standing under the highest possible law. Law that is above the laws

1281
2:40:52 --> 2:41:00
created by judicial decisions, laws that are above that which is created by groups of men and women,

1282
2:41:00 --> 2:41:08
you know, making charter laws. The highest possible law is the law of the creator, a law that is so

1283
2:41:08 --> 2:41:17
prevalent that even in groups of people or tribes that were discovered by Western explorers, that

1284
2:41:17 --> 2:41:25
they would obey a code of conduct despite having no written language. And if groups of men and women

1285
2:41:25 --> 2:41:31
have a code of conduct but no written language, then that code of conduct could have only come

1286
2:41:31 --> 2:41:40
from the highest imaginable authority, which is the creator. So what I was told in this post from

1287
2:41:40 --> 2:41:49
2015 or 2016 was that if you manage to get a judge to enter the courtroom under common law or the

1288
2:41:49 --> 2:41:57
highest possible law, the law of God, then it doesn't matter what judicial case law says, it doesn't

1289
2:41:57 --> 2:42:05
matter what the charter of British Columbia Health Charter says. The law is the law that you don't

1290
2:42:05 --> 2:42:16
kill, you don't harm other people, and if a harm or a death to another person has occurred, the justice

1291
2:42:16 --> 2:42:24
is to have to make the victim whole again, to repair the damage that was done. It's just very basic

1292
2:42:24 --> 2:42:31
principles that even if you didn't read any book, that idea would be in your mind for the very fact

1293
2:42:31 --> 2:42:39
that we're human beings. But of course, the judge probably knew that and didn't want that to happen,

1294
2:42:39 --> 2:42:45
so the only option was to actually physically remove us from the courtroom before she re-entered

1295
2:42:45 --> 2:42:52
the courtroom. And so that's why I was assaulted, that's why Pope Poise and I were thrown in jail

1296
2:42:52 --> 2:42:58
in solitary confinement for three hours and that was the story.

1297
2:43:01 --> 2:43:03
That's excellent, Daniel. Thank you so much.

1298
2:43:05 --> 2:43:12
Thank you, thank you, Daniel, and well done on your courage, everybody. That's what it requires

1299
2:43:12 --> 2:43:19
to stand up against the system and we've talked about this before and Daniel, behind me is the

1300
2:43:19 --> 2:43:25
most accurate map of the world invented by Buckminster Fuller, and all of you should

1301
2:43:25 --> 2:43:32
understand who Buckminster Fuller is. There's a Buckminster Fuller Institute and he says don't

1302
2:43:32 --> 2:43:39
tear down the existing system, don't tell people what to do, create a new system, give them new

1303
2:43:39 --> 2:43:45
tools. Now what Daniel's describing, and I as a legal strategist, I assure you none of the lawyers

1304
2:43:45 --> 2:43:53
in practice get any of this training. I started law school in 1970, 52 years ago. None of this

1305
2:43:53 --> 2:44:00
stuff is taught at universities in the western world and so the learning that Daniel has shared

1306
2:44:00 --> 2:44:08
with us and Dolores Cale as well has shared with us is our sovereign rights as man and as woman

1307
2:44:09 --> 2:44:15
and the issue that is raised by people, say that's all bullshit, it doesn't work,

1308
2:44:15 --> 2:44:22
at the moment it doesn't work because Daniel experienced the force, not the power, the force

1309
2:44:22 --> 2:44:32
of the police. So with an alternative system and I can't go into it now but there are legal

1310
2:44:32 --> 2:44:38
provisions enabling all of you to set up, what Daniel in the community set up your own police

1311
2:44:38 --> 2:44:45
force, okay, so that when the police come, when anyone comes, you've got your physical resistance

1312
2:44:45 --> 2:44:51
force, not your attack force, your resistance force. So these principles are important and you

1313
2:44:51 --> 2:44:57
go I haven't got time to study this, great, well then die, stay asleep and die. That's the choice

1314
2:44:57 --> 2:45:06
that we have. So there is a recording of this conversation. Dolores, last week's Q&A is also

1315
2:45:06 --> 2:45:13
available with Dolores going deeply down the rabbit hole and at the Whistleray as well and

1316
2:45:13 --> 2:45:19
just because at the moment you might not have the force to stand up against it, know that what Daniel

1317
2:45:19 --> 2:45:26
is talking about is true and that the whole system of Canadian law, US law, Australian law, New Zealand

1318
2:45:26 --> 2:45:36
law has come from 800 plus years of development based on God's law and the promise of all kings

1319
2:45:36 --> 2:45:45
and queens of the United Kingdom of England that we will, we promise you in perpetuity these rights

1320
2:45:45 --> 2:45:52
that Daniel is talking about everybody. So, so, but if you don't have the courage to stand up for it

1321
2:45:52 --> 2:45:58
then it's meaningless. So that's where, that's what Daniel is showing us and reminding us

1322
2:45:58 --> 2:46:04
today and on Easter Sunday with, you know, with Christians, for Christians on the death of Christ,

1323
2:46:04 --> 2:46:10
the resurrection. So that's standing up for one's principles, that's what Stephen Frost

1324
2:46:10 --> 2:46:17
keeps talking about. So today's the reminder of those crucial principles. So Daniel, well done

1325
2:46:17 --> 2:46:25
for being the demonstration of that reminder. Now, Winston, the embodiment of it. Daniel,

1326
2:46:25 --> 2:46:32
can I just ask you, I don't know whether other people have ever said this to you because people

1327
2:46:32 --> 2:46:38
are not very good at encouraging generally, whether that's jealousy or whatever, I don't know,

1328
2:46:39 --> 2:46:47
but I think you are incredibly wise for someone who came out of medical school in 2004

1329
2:46:47 --> 2:46:54
and I'm just interested. So on a personal, so really I'm inquiring as what do you,

1330
2:46:55 --> 2:47:02
so if you accept that, is it something about your parents or one of your parents or who has influenced

1331
2:47:02 --> 2:47:13
you most in your life? You know, probably everyone I've met, you know, I don't have any brothers or

1332
2:47:13 --> 2:47:25
sisters. So, you know, like my inherent, my inherent sense of justice, I think I get from my

1333
2:47:25 --> 2:47:37
father. Right. It's unavoidable, right? If something is unjust, it just, it keeps,

1334
2:47:38 --> 2:47:44
I can't leave it alone. Same with me. And it relates to the soul. It's like,

1335
2:47:44 --> 2:47:52
if there's an injustice happening, my soul can't rest. It's literally that simple.

1336
2:47:53 --> 2:48:05
Yeah. And so are you, so you're in Canada, is your mother or your father Canadian and maybe

1337
2:48:05 --> 2:48:08
the other parents from another country? They were both immigrants. They both came to Canada in the

1338
2:48:08 --> 2:48:16
sixties. My father died in 2001. He died of cancer. My mom's still alive. She survived breast cancer

1339
2:48:16 --> 2:48:25
that same year. And so, yeah. And my mother and her relatives, which country did they come from?

1340
2:48:25 --> 2:48:32
Your parents? My father came from Tokyo. So he was born in Japan and he immigrated in the sixties.

1341
2:48:33 --> 2:48:39
My mother came from Busan, Korea, and she immigrated to Canada in the sixties as well.

1342
2:48:40 --> 2:48:49
Have you seen the film Tokyo Story? No, I haven't. Oh, you should watch it. It's brilliant.

1343
2:48:49 --> 2:48:54
So the film reviewers, you know, the people who look at films endlessly,

1344
2:48:55 --> 2:49:00
they absolutely love it. And so I think a lot of people say that Citizen Kane is the best

1345
2:49:00 --> 2:49:07
film that ever made, but the film reviewers, the people who, you know, review films,

1346
2:49:08 --> 2:49:15
they like Tokyo Story. It's in black and white. It's absolutely brilliant. I can't describe it.

1347
2:49:15 --> 2:49:24
It's just, it just sucks you in. I'll definitely look that up. Yes. Yeah.

1348
2:49:25 --> 2:49:32
So you come from three cultures, essentially. You've got three cultures. And how many languages do you speak?

1349
2:49:34 --> 2:49:40
Well, I'm only fluent in English, but I can get by with Portuguese. Like I can travel around Brazil

1350
2:49:42 --> 2:49:48
reasonably smoothly with Portuguese. I used to know French, but then when I learned Portuguese,

1351
2:49:48 --> 2:49:55
it was just too similar in my mind. So if I go to like Quebec or, you know, any French speaking place,

1352
2:49:55 --> 2:50:00
I try to speak French and they look at me weird and say, are you trying to speak French or something?

1353
2:50:00 --> 2:50:06
Because usually what comes out of my mouth is Portuguese. And then I speak Japanese, maybe at

1354
2:50:07 --> 2:50:13
about the level of an eight year old. So I can get by and travel from here to there in Japan

1355
2:50:13 --> 2:50:17
quite smoothly. But I can't have an adult conversation.

1356
2:50:17 --> 2:50:22
All right. How do the Japanese regard you then when you go to Japan?

1357
2:50:24 --> 2:50:31
Oh, they think I'm just a regular person until they try and engage me in an adult conversation.

1358
2:50:31 --> 2:50:38
They're like, oh, I mean, why is your vocabulary so limited? And why do you speak like an eight year

1359
2:50:38 --> 2:50:43
old? And I was like, well, because I'm only really fluent in English.

1360
2:50:43 --> 2:50:53
Yeah, and you're really, really fluent in that. Are you aware of the author of Remains of the Day?

1361
2:50:55 --> 2:51:03
He won the Nobel Prize in Literature. What's his name? Nobel Prize for Literature. He's actually

1362
2:51:03 --> 2:51:11
British, but he's originally from Japan. What's his name? Can't quite remember his name now.

1363
2:51:12 --> 2:51:18
But he won the Nobel Prize anyway. Brilliant novelist. He wrote Remains of the Day.

1364
2:51:18 --> 2:51:22
That's what I think that was the main one that he won the Nobel Prize for.

1365
2:51:24 --> 2:51:28
Yeah. Remains of the Day and Tokyo Story. I'll definitely look those up.

1366
2:51:28 --> 2:51:31
Yeah, exactly. Yeah.