Good.
Okay.
So we got there, Daniel.
Yes, I was going to say, Daniel, I don't know whether anybody has observed that you
might be a budding orator.
Budding?
Yes.
Budding definitely.
Well, all fully fledged.
Can't decide.
If you don't know that you have a talent for speaking, then yeah, well, you know now.
Yes, some of those speeches are really great.
Yes, Daniel, you are an excellent speaker.
I've watched a few of her presentations.
So Daniel, we're in your hands, as Stephen said, so you can speak for 10 minutes or 40
minutes.
And then Q&A, everybody for questions, we do those via reactions.
Welcome particularly to new first time to our virgins to this group.
The reactions tab is where you put your hand up if you want to ask a question after Daniel
finishes speaking.
So Daniel, you can, you know, there's people here.
Everyone here is on your side and in honor of what you've done for those who know what
you've done.
So we are handing over to you and we look forward to hearing your wisdom, courage, journey,
story, and we look forward to asking you lots of questions.
But Daniel, if you're not comfortable, if you haven't got anything prepared and you're
short of something to say, which would be unusual for you, then we can go into discussion
mode.
We're very good at asking questions.
We can go on for hours asking questions.
Sounds good.
You know, what I'd like to share today is kind of how my thinking process has evolved
from pre 2020 to now.
And one of the first thoughts I had back in February, March and April of 2020 when this
whole this whole incident started was, is it possible that all the pandemic respiratory
viruses that I've seen, in fact, all the pandemic viruses in my lifetime were in fact a part
of a weapons development program?
And I think I was starting to explore that thought process around April 2020 because
if some organization was developing a biological weapon, the greatest enemy of a biological
weapon is the human immune system.
So what's the very first most critical, let's say DARPA or Deep State objective when developing
a biological weapon?
It's to develop some sort of virus or bacteria that can defeat the immune system.
And that was a very big deal during the AIDS epidemic here in Canada was one of the defining
features of AIDS or the HIV virus was how people's immune systems stopped working.
And a lot of the medical research that, you know, I that happened across my path before
medical school and during medical school was talking all about the immune system, CD4,
CD8 and T helper cells and how those were negatively affected by the HIV virus.
So then, well, if they finally succeeded in developing a virus, a strand of DNA and RNA
that was capable of hijacking the immune system, then the next step in a weapons development
program would be a delivery mechanism.
And unfortunately with HIV, it was a blood-borne and a sexually transmitted disease, which
was a very limited form of delivery when it comes to biological weapons.
So obviously the most ideal mode of mode of spread for a biological weapon would be airborne
because everyone has to breathe.
So then what was so there's AIDS in the 1980s, early 90s.
And I was in university and then medical school till 2004.
While I was in medical school, the SARS-1 epidemic happened.
I think that was in around the 2000s, where a lot of younger than usual people seemed
to have an exaggerated inflammatory response.
Nurses, doctors, health caregivers were dying of a viral pneumonia.
The thought crossed my mind well, was that the first test run of a viral vector for
carriage of an immune suppressing virus, except the mistake they made with SARS-1 was that
it was too deadly, that it caused symptoms too quickly and it would kill the host, right,
before the host got to spread SARS-1 to, let's say, an entire city.
So then after SARS, I think it was H1N1.
And I looked at that well, is that possibly they were trying a different viral vector
after the first SARS-1 coronavirus vector was just too deadly.
So then they decided to go with a swine flu or an avian, an influenza-based virus to see
whether or not they could get just the right amount of not making the virus too deadly,
having a very prolonged incubation period so that the host could spread the virus
without being too severely affected before dying of the disease.
And so, you know, not having any window into the CIA or Deep State or DARPA research plans,
I'm just trying to have to guess from what I observe.
Then there came the MERS epidemic.
And what was different about MERS was, whereas SARS and H1N1 were respiratory virus,
MERS seemed to have the added capability of spread through the digestive tract,
so diarrhea, vomiting, right.
And, you know, if you look at it from the window of a weapons development, well,
then you'd want your delivery mechanism to have as many different modes of spread as possible.
So not just airborne spread, to have waterborne spread and foodborne spread if possible.
So MERS seemed to fit that bill.
And the MERS epidemic might have been a test run of them testing that particular type of virus.
So then the final stage would be to combine the MERS, you know,
digestive tract vomit and diarrhea spread with one of the coronavirus airborne spreads.
And then finally assemble it together with HIV, which is the immune suppressant.
And to somehow get that chimeric virus to have such a long incubation period
that the host who will eventually die from it manages to spread it to thousands and thousands
of people before succumbing to the disease.
And that's what crossed my mind in April 2020.
Is this, this is the end.
This is the final step in DARPA's program where they're going to call a human population
with an airborne version of AIDS.
Because I think early in 2020, some group, I believe it was from India,
they analyzed the published sequences of the corona SARS-2, the COVID-19 virus.
And they found segments very similar or identical to HIV.
So the big controversy started by that research group in India was that
was coronavirus to an airborne modification of HIV, which would confirm an intentional development.
Right.
Because how are you going to get a bat to, you know,
endogenously combine a bat coronavirus with someone with HIV?
Like then someone with HIV would have had to get bitten by a bat and then got bitten by another bat
and then had that spread, spread around.
It just doesn't make any, it's so far fetched from a statistical probability standpoint that
it's essentially impossible that a bat would get AIDS from someone who has AIDS and then
recombine AIDS with a bat coronavirus within the bat.
And then that bat would start flying around and infecting people.
It doesn't make any sense.
So that article, if I remember correctly, was quickly withdrawn within a couple of months,
but it did put the idea into my head that the SARS coronavirus 2 was an airborne modification
of AIDS where the objective of the virus was to weaken the immune system before causing death
through viral pneumonia or a secondary infection.
So obviously that made me pretty worried in March and April, except here in North America,
we weren't seeing rampant mortality.
Actually, we didn't see any mortality increase, at least as far as the emergency department went.
The emergency department, in fact, was quieter than usual.
So then you had to think, well, did their weapons development program fail?
And then to think of it from a biological, first principle standpoint, if there's any
extremely harmful pathogen, whether it's a virus or a bacteria, the greatest enemy to a deadly
pathogen is evolution itself.
It won't spread very far.
So even if there's a very long incubation period, the spread of the SARS coronavirus 2
would be limited that the more deadlier variants would kill off the host too quickly,
and the milder variants would probably lose their pathogenic features that cause extreme mortality.
Because if you think of it from a systemic point of view, the virus actually, or any virus for
that matter, whether it's a chimeric man-made bio weapon or a naturally occurring virus,
no virus has in its own interest to kill the host.
In fact, for any virus, the goal of the virus, if the goal of that virus is to keep continuing
for generations and generations, is to spread but cause the host the minimal amount of
inconvenience.
Because if the virus causes the host to be laid up in bed all day until the host recovers, then the
virus isn't going to spread very far.
So there's a strong evolutionary pressure on viruses to be mild and highly contagious.
So going through the rest of 2020 and seeing how mortality wasn't really anything to remark
about with this SARS-CoV-2, then I was wondering, well, did the viral evolution happen that quickly?
Did something pathogenic that started in Wuhan or wherever it was first released go through the
first thousand rounds of viral evolution and then quickly revert as close as possible back to a
normal coronavirus, its natural state?
Because there's one observation that I had about genetic engineering that I read when, back when
a lot of farm crops were getting genetically engineered with like roundup, resistance, and
so they were making chimeric corn, chimeric soy with genes from other plants or animals or a gene
to resist the roundup pesticide.
And the thing is, naturally evolved features tend to be more stable than artificially spliced in
genes in that if, let's say a particular feature of corn, like corn being purple or purple corn,
if that genetic feature evolved over thousands and thousands of years,
that purple trait in the corn tends to be stable.
It can be turned on and off, but it won't unpredictably disappear.
If it disappears for one generation, it will reappear in the grandchild generation.
However, with spliced genes, when the first roundup gene modified crops started coming out,
one of the problems was the roundup gene would keep falling out of the genome of that particular
corn or soy plant in that artificially spliced in genes, sometimes the genome itself of whatever
organism that was spliced decides, you know, we don't like this gene and it hasn't been there
before, so we're just going to get rid of that gene in its entirety.
So what started off as roundup corn, genetically modified, would revert back to regular,
unmodified corn. And it was only after hundreds and maybe even thousands of generations of
repeated splicing that Monsanto was able to get the roundup gene to stably remain within the corn
genome. So a similar, I was wondering if there was a similar process going on with SARS-CoV,
that all the genes that were spliced into the coronavirus, giving it HID-like features,
giving it spike protein features, was the coronavirus itself naturally evolving those
features out because they are not natural to a normal wild coronavirus? Because the mortality
of SARS-CoV-2, this COVID-19 virus, just was not, you know, maybe there was high mortality in
Wuhan, but after it spread out of China, it was nothing remarkable. So that's kind of, you know,
if you want to look at it as a biological spiritual thing, you know, the virus is the virus and it
won't act, you know, it will act in the way it's acted before to coexist with the human species as
best it can. It has no reason to keep these extra features that humans added into the virus, spike
proteins, HIV proteins, etc. So then came, of course, the government overreaction to what was
a non-deadly virus. It was certainly non-deadly by the time it reached North America.
And then all of a sudden in the fall, there seemed to me, like, eventually this fall,
in the fall of 2020, I was hoping, well, people would wake up and realize this is not a deadly
coronavirus and everyone can go back to normal. But in the fall of 2020, the push with Operation
Warp Speed, this immense push from media, government to hype and create demand, and literally
just create demand through fear for an inoculation for a non-deadly respiratory virus. That was
the unexpected change in plan because if they had just forgotten about the virus, because it
had proven itself by the summer of 2020 to be not deadly, certainly not deadly anymore, even if it
was deadly at the beginning of 2020 and the end of 2019, it was certainly nothing to worry about.
And then what concerned me is everyone with a university biology knowledge
and evolution is one of the required courses in any university biology degree, is how
it was completely missing from the discussion. CNN, CBC, the BBC, all the news programs were
going on and on about how deadly this COVID-19 virus was and not a single one of the experts
was talking about what we know as evolution, is that no matter how deadly any virus starts out,
it will quickly evolve to be non-deadly and highly contagious because that's what's in the virus's
best interest. It doesn't want to kill its host. And that was completely absent from the bigger
discussion. I'm sure there's more than one member of parliament in Canada who did a biology degree
and it was dead silence. Everyone who held the knowledge of evolution failed to apply it to the
current situation, which was the COVID-19. And if they applied their knowledge to
virology and viral evolution, they certainly did not speak of it. So that was a very big clue for me
that there is something much bigger going on. This is not a chicken little situation where a few
experts decided that the Wuhan Coronavirus 19 was super deadly and that the whole planet had to go
under lockdown and that they had miscalculated their estimates of how deadly this virus was.
This was in fact something that pervaded media and government because people who were in media
and government should have had at least one expert speaking out about how the deadlier the virus,
the quicker it will evolve to be non-deadly. It's literally that simple and no one was saying
that. And then the whole push for the vaccines, these inoculations came around and
all caution seemed to be thrown to the wind. All the regulatory bodies, Health Canada and the
American version, the FDA, they said this virus, which was clearly not deadly, was so serious that
it warranted everyone possible to try and try this new mRNA injection. And then
so by the fall and winter of 2020, there was an immense push to stimulate demand for this injection
and how everyone was supposed to try this mRNA injection, that it was for the good of society.
And again, the second complete academic failure is the whole notion that if you inoculate 90% of the
population, then 90% of that virus that is being targeted by the inoculation, 90% of that virus's
environment has an antibody from that inoculation. So that gives the virus a very strong motive to
evolve and be resistant to the inoculation. However, if you only inoculated the
most minimum part of society that was at most risk of dying from this particular coronavirus,
let's say the elderly who are in nursing home, and you limited the population inoculation to
5 to 10%, then the coronavirus would only have a very minimal motive or evolutionary pressure
to evolve resistance to the vaccine, because 90 to 95% of that virus's environment will not have
spike protein antibodies. And so for public health in public health departments worldwide,
to completely ignore this very, very basic evolutionary fact that if you want to prevent
resistance to a vaccine, you want to limit the vaccination to the minimum possible presence in
the population. And then you slow down or you prevent the virus from evolving or resistance
to that vaccine. All of that basic biological teaching, all that basic biological knowledge
was thrown in the garbage, thrown in the garbage, PhDs, masters, you know, officials who were in
public health for decades for their entire careers, who are supposedly living and breathing,
you know, population dynamics and evolutionary biology for viruses and bacterias who are on the
alert, they've all turned into morons for the lack of a better word. They're trying to inoculate
everyone. And so what kind of a
governance structure or maybe not governance, what kind of organization could have that much influence
that it could direct public health to act in a completely irrational manner? What kind of
organization could silence academia on such a big scale and cause even the millions and millions
of graduates who only have a bachelor's of biology to ignore their own knowledge that they spent,
you know, three or four years in university learning, right? How is it possible that
everyone with a bio, you know, a basic bachelor's of biology should realize that
viruses quickly evolve to be non-deadly and the more you give, you change the environment
of a particular organism for this example of virus, the more you change its environment
to have a certain antibody, the quicker you're going to create resistance to that antibody.
How is it that so many people who were intelligent enough to get a biology degree
completely ignore the knowledge that they spent years learning? That was a big,
that was, it was almost impossible for me to believe that this was actually happening,
but it was happening. And then on top of that, then you had the push for these inoculations,
untested and these inoculations had a terrible, terrible history when they were tested on animals.
And then that brings me to another point is, you know, if I imagine, like I chose the route
to become a medical doctor and I chose emergency medicine because that's pretty exciting for me
and I really enjoy that work. But if I had chosen, you know, after graduating from McGill with
a bachelor's of physiology and cell biology, if I had decided to undertake research and pursue a
master's and a PhD, and let's say, you know, one of my PhD assignments was to research and develop
gene therapy, MRNA and vectors. Well, what would be one of the first steps that you would take
one of the first risks to consider from an overall systemic standpoint?
And one of the first risks to consider is what happens when a gene therapy
alteration of the genome is out of control. In fact, that would be before any gene therapy
research gets off the drawing board. That's the very first consideration.
Because I remember in the 90s, it was a big deal about how they were going to cure cystic fibrosis
with an adenovirus gene therapy vector that all the patients who are suffering from cystic fibrosis
because of a missing gene, they would be able to inhale this adenovirus with that contained the
missing gene. And because the adenovirus was a DNA virus, it would go and infect the lungs of anyone
who had cystic fibrosis. And it would insert that adenovirus gene that contained the missing gene
for cystic fibrosis patients and it would give them what they were born without. But the
consideration from that is, well, that's all well and good. You cured the cystic fibrosis patient,
but is that cure a heritable cure? In that, will that cystic fibrosis patients who's been cured by
gene therapy be able to, will they be passing on the lack of cystic fibrosis to their children or
grandchildren? And the conclusion at that time was by and large no, because the adenovirus would have
to get into the bloodstream and start altering the genes of the germ cells for that to occur.
So by and large, even if a cystic fibrosis patient was cured of cystic fibrosis, they could still have
children who would suffer from cystic fibrosis. But again, these are all very basic drawing board
concerns that once you start using techniques that can have an alteration of the genome,
what happens if that altered genome becomes a heritable trait? That is, it gets passed on
to future generations. And that was basically, that was back in the 1990s. So the risks of
a gene therapy affecting the entire human population through propagation over multiple
generations, that's known about. It's impossible to ignore that risk when it comes to gene therapy.
And for there not to be any studies that I know of that explored mRNA injections given to animals
to see whether the mRNA injection given to the parental generation caused permanent
heritable genetic changes in children and grandchildren generations from the parent
who was inoculated. How that is missing from the published literature, it seems impossible to me.
In fact, that was probably that would have been one of the first things to look at when they were
first doing mRNA injections for SARS-1. Then for the animals that survived the mRNA injection from
SARS-1, did those animals have children or grandchildren that had some kind of genetic
alteration from the mRNA injection in the grandparents generation? In fact, that should
have been the very first safety study, whether or not an mRNA can be passed on in subsequent
generations, whether those genetic alterations are permanent in that species from that point on.
And the fact that I don't see any of that in the literature makes me wonder if those experiments
were done and then the results were silenced. And if those results were silenced, were they silenced
because that would be the absolute reason why no mRNA, DNA or adenovirus injection should be
given to anyone capable of reproducing. And that's the big situation we're at now,
you know, since after the first rollout of these inoculations to elderly people in nursing homes
who are past reproductive age, then there was this immense push all throughout 2021 to inoculate
everyone. And by inoculating people of reproductive age, and especially by inoculating pregnant women,
then that, you know, I came to this realization a little late, right, because I was still in the
mindset of being an emergency doctor, not a cell biologist, but this is a genetic alteration of the
human species. I can't see how that would, by at least the every researcher in the NIH, FDA,
Health Canada, anyone with biological knowledge who participated in genetic research, in
gene splicing research, in mRNA, DNA, CRISPR technology, they, every single one of those
people in those fields should have had in the forefronts of their mind that genetic alterations,
if given to people of reproductive age, can be inherited for the rest of that species existence.
And, and I think that's the, that's the biggest systemic concern. This concern is, is bigger than,
you know, people dying of blood clots and, and people dying early from cancer due to damage from
either the spike proteins or genetic alterations from reverse transcribed mRNA.
We're talking about a species-wide problem, more than just an individual problem,
more than just a problem for groups of people like the elderly or the immune suppressed.
We're talking about a problem that, that affects the entire future of humanity.
So, yeah, if anyone has any questions so far, I can-
All right, Daniel, the entire future of humanity. There's a, there's a nice line to stop on Easter,
at Easter time. So, Daniel, thank you for sharing your innermost thoughts and the journey you've been
on with us. Our tradition here, Daniel, is that Stephen asks the first questions. As long as he's
got questions and then we go to hands, you'll, you will see hands are raised. How long have we got you,
just so that I can somewhat manage the journey with you? How long are you here?
As long as you guys want. This is, this is important. I'm happy to spend the rest of my
afternoon. So, good. Excellent. Well done. Great news. So, everybody, please be patient. There's
wonderful news, Daniel, because this is a discussion as well. So, delighted to hear that. So, I don't
have to do much work moderating, but the hands, put your hands up in order. We've got some wonderful
experts here and I look forward to the conversation. And Stephen Frost, over to you first,
as tradition dictates. I'm sure, I'm sure. Sorry, I'm muted. I was muted. So, Daniel, thank you very
much. That was really good. And as usual, you built up to a climax. So, in one sense, at least,
you're predictable. But anyway, I wonder, because you're a medical doctor, aren't you? And so am I.
So, the British government, I don't know whether this was repeated around the world, but I suspect
it was, was talking when this nonsense started that, you know, follow the science. This is what
the government officials were saying in what I later realized was a medical political alliance
practicing human medical experimentation. So, they were saying follow the science, but I was
saying to my family and to anyone who would listen, but there weren't many who would listen,
apart from my family, and that it was the responsibility of doctors. In other words,
it was follow the medicine, not follow the science. So, the things you've been talking about, you know,
the people who you would expect not to miss things like, you know, if you have a deadly virus. So,
following, let's assume that virology is, and actually it hasn't been hijacked by big pharma,
you know, as a branch of microbiology, which is possible. But as far as I understood, throughout
this pandemic, which wasn't a pandemic, anything that was deadly killed its host.
And as you say, there's a very strong evolutionary pressure on any virus, and particularly if it's
deadly, to become less deadly, more contagious. Because obviously, if it is very deadly, then you
can't pass it on because it kills its host. So, and this was, you know, all doctors, whether it was
right or wrong, that's what we knew. So, where, so the doctors should have known also, they should
have known about that. They should have known about informed consent. And I was so frustrated,
because I couldn't find anyone, scientist or doctor, who was interested in what was in these
damned injections. And I made the point, well, if we don't know what's in them, because people
were saying, oh, no, we can't say that, because they were worried about being discredited. Even
in the group which I formed, there were, I won't mention any names, but well known professors
in the group, who didn't want to talk about the lies which governments were telling populations
worldwide. They didn't want to talk about what was in the vaccines, for some reason. Because if
you don't know what's in the vaccines, and no doctor does still know what's in the vaccines,
because of trade secrets, I think that has been, of Pfizer, who are convicted criminals, we know that,
then you cannot obtain informed consent. And if you can't obtain informed consent,
then as you know, that is in violation of the Nuremberg Code. But you mentioned another violation
of the Nuremberg Code, which was, you knew, and I knew, and many other people knew about the absence
of animal experiments. That is also, that's number three, I think, in the Nuremberg Code.
There must be animal experiments preceding human trials. And they didn't want to do that, presumably,
because the very reason that you gave that all the animals had died, or at least the fact that
all the animals had died when they tried it last time. So, there were many, many, so we had
Chris Whitty, who is a medical doctor in the United Kingdom, who was the chief medical,
who is the chief medical officer of England and Wales, I think, I'm not sure, of the UK.
And he was saying, when before Christmas, Omicron, Omicron in inverted commas came along,
it depends whether you believe there was a virus or not. And, but there was, so he was saying,
on television, I heard him lie to the British public by omission. He said, he talked about the
highly contagious Omicron variant, but there was no mention of virulence. We were taught at medical
school that you can't talk about viruses, you can't talk about the transmissibility of a virus
without talking about the virulence. You can't just say, oh, it's highly, the common cold is highly
contagious. But what matters is whether it's, and they nearly closed down the United Kingdom for the
second Christmas going, and they backed off at the last second, but they nearly did it on the
grounds of Omicron. And so what I'm trying to say is that contrary to what the public thought,
i.e. that it was all about the science and everybody going down little rabbit holes,
the primary responsibility was medical doctors. Medical doctors were trained to look at the whole
and listen to their patients, all the facts, and then come to it, you know, with experience,
you can do it, you can bring it all together and come to a diagnosis, because that's what doctors do.
But they also should have been thinking about what you were talking about at the end,
about the possibility of genetic manipulation of the human species.
It was clear. I was asking the scientists, is there any possibility that people will be
made infertile and also whether their genes would be affected? No answer. There was no interest in
finding out either, because I couldn't understand it. I really couldn't understand it. And so,
and even now, Daniel, if you're interested in the Nuremberg Code and medical ethics,
I'd be very, very pleased to work with you, because I cannot find a doctor in the entire world
who wants to talk about Nuremberg Code and the Nuremberg trials and medical political lines
and all this. So anyway, that's what I want to say. So we had a complete...
Absolutely. The Nuremberg Code has to be applied.
Sorry? Yes, I agree. The Nuremberg Code has to be applied.
Of course it does, yes. And more than that, I think something even stronger than that.
Do you agree, Daniel, that there has been a complete corruption of the practice of medicine
since March 2020? Of course, we now know, looking back, that it was building up before then. But
since March 2020, nothing has made sense in the world of medicine. And my question to you is this,
have the doctors and the medical profession been deliberately set up?
Oh, absolutely. You know, I first started having suspicions about the entire setup of the medical
profession after about... Maybe starting after about five years of practice, and then certainly
after 10 years of practice, a lot of the... I'd say 50% of what I had spent hours and hours of my
time learning in medical school, it just wasn't working in practice, right? You know, you learn
all these procedures, you try and learn some of the background research behind it, and the
medications don't work, right? The medications we're being told to use, their efficacy is poor.
And more and more, as I improved as a doctor, a lot of the things that the oldest doctors
taught me in medical school, the ones who taught me about stuff that they learned, the things they
did were way more relevant and efficacious than any of the garbage I learned in medical school of
just ineffective drugs. It was just ineffective drugs, ineffective drugs. And then there was a
few medical procedures that, you know, if they just reverted back to the way things were done in
whatever, at the turn of the century, those procedures were actually more effective than
the latest and greatest procedures, right? And, you know, as you gain experience, you start to see
the holes in your training. And, yeah, it's just, it was mind-boggling. So even well before this
pandemic, when they started pushing, what was that drug for H1N1, that antiviral, the useless one,
is a Tamiflu. Oh, Tamiflu, yes. Tamiflu, right? Like, the efficacy of that was horrible. And in fact,
you know, in my own observations, just seeing lots of emergency patients,
out of, so of the three people that I ended up sending to the ICU from the emergency department
because of H1N1 pneumonia, all three of them had been taking Tamiflu. And I was like, this is,
this does not make any sense. If it's such an effective antiviral, why is it that, you know,
100% of the patients that I sent to the ICU in one month were all on Tamiflu? And then I dug into
some of the research, I think it was an Australian group that reanalyzed the approval data
for Tamiflu. And it showed that people with comorbidities had an increase in morbidity and
mortality if they were taking Tamiflu when compared with controls. But the increase in
morbidity and mortality was not statistically significant. So if people were healthy and they
took Tamiflu, they experienced anywhere between an 18 and 24 hour improvement in flu symptoms
compared to controls. If people had comorbidities, they had an increased mortality and morbidity
if they were taking Tamiflu, but it was not quite statistically significant.
And I thought, well, that reanalysis of the approval data agrees completely with my
anecdotal observations from the emergency department. So it's, it makes people feel better
up to a day sooner for healthy people. And if you're unhealthy, it increases your chances of dying
or ending up in the ICU. And I thought to myself, how on earth do government regulatory agencies,
researchers approve such a stupid medication that doesn't work, that actually causes increased
morbidity and mortality? How does that turn into some kind of prophylactic or early treatment for
anyone with H1N1 symptoms? It just, it was mind boggling for me that it's so ineffective that I
can observe it. And I'm just an N of one observing it as an emergency doctor that sees, you know,
between 30 and 35 people a day, five days a week. So, you know, less than 200 people a week,
I can observe it in my own data set in my own mind that it doesn't work.
And yeah, so the question is, what has hijacked the medical educational system?
What has hijacked the minds of doctors? And well, the first, the first suspect, the primary suspect
is the pharmaceutical industry. But, you know, the question is, is it just the pharmaceutical industry?
Has the medical education system somehow been
poisoned by a wrongheaded philosophy? Yes, in my opinion.
I think the wrongheaded philosophy is just the actual, the design, the structure, the goals that
you are taught in medical school are fundamentally wrong. That we're not taking care of the body
as a vessel that holds a spirit, right? We're not, the philosophy of medicine has been corrupted.
Exactly.
Very good. Thank you. Thank you. The philosophy of medicine has been corrupted. So everybody,
please take, please take note. Now, Daniel, our next question, Stephen, can we go to the next question?
The next question is from Peter Huger, from lawyer, ex-police officer from Wales.
Peter, over to you. Sitting on his famous bed. And he's a lawyer, Charles.
Yes, that's true, and a lawyer. Yes. Yes. Thank you, Charles. And thank you, Dr. Nagase.
Thank you for all you do and for putting time aside to speak to us. It really is appreciated.
As Charles alluded to there, my background is criminal investigation and law. Today,
I did a bit of research and shared three links on various platforms that highlight
grave contradictions in the UN and WHO claims. Now, I'll highlight the three and I have put them
in at the start of this chat. In 2011, the UN reported, and I quote, 30 years ago, AIDS was
deadly, spreading fast. Today, we have a chance to end this epidemic once and for all. So that was
2011 time of the H1N1. Indeed, as recently as 2020, now this is the critical point,
and I quote, the global HIV epidemic claimed 64% fewer lives in 2020 since its peak in 2004,
and fewer people became newly infected with HIV than in any year since 1990.
Yet this week, the UN now warns, and I quote, fast spreading HIV variant doubles rate of immune
system decline. So these statements show that something serious has gone wrong with the gene
Jabs in the spotlight with regards to, and put them in the spotlight with regards to VADES,
as we call it, vaccine autoimmune deficiency. So would this not be a good starting point for
you and other eminent experts to lead the charge on MSM and in medical journals? So there are three
statements there that show something's gone critically wrong and the links are in the chat,
and that would be a good start from an investigative perspective for somebody like yourself and others
to call them out on it.
I agree because from today onwards, we are, I suspect we are going to see an epidemic of all
sorts of diseases that are going to explode. Just even in my last few months of practice,
I was starting to see cancer patients. Within a month of their second Jab, they were having
metastatic cancer. And the question, I guess, in my mind is, is this intentional and were these
designed and created and distributed with malintent or were people just stupid?
Right? And increasingly, I'm of the belief that everything about the design, rollout,
and distribution of these Jabs has been very deliberate, very intentional. And one of the
things that has been key in making me think this way was that study leaked that was written in
Japanese that showed where the Pfizer injection accumulated within the body of rats. So for those
unaware of the study, it was the study showed they injected the lipid nanoparticles from the
Pfizer vaccine. And what they found that is when they injected into rats, within 48 hours, it
accumulated within the spleen of the rat, the liver of the rat, and the ovaries. Those three
organs held the highest concentrations of the lipid nanoparticles and the mRNAs encased within
those lipid nanoparticles. So going back to cell biology, when you're designing a delivery mechanism,
particularly one such as a lipid nanoparticle, once you have
receptor ligand binding technology, which has been around in the cell biology sphere for
almost half a century, like 30, maybe even 40 years, people have known that muscle cells have
a certain receptors on the top of them. The outside of a muscle cell looks a certain way.
And if you design a molecule, you can design molecules that attach specifically to muscle
cells because muscle cells have certain proteins on their surface. So you can create antibodies
that will only attach to muscle cells. You can create proteins that will only attach to
muscle cells. And if you can create proteins that only attach to muscle cells, then all you have to
do is attach that protein to the lipid nanoparticle and then the lipid nanoparticle
will only attach to muscle cells. And the specificity, depending on the design of that protein,
can be very high. Now, when this injection was first rolled out, the information was spread that,
oh, the injection only stays in the muscle cells, only stays in the muscle cells. And then this
Japanese study comes out showing that, no, the injection goes to the liver, spleen, and ovaries.
Is that an accident? I don't think so. The likelihood of that being an accident is
essentially zero. If there is no specificity of the lipid nanoparticle, it would preferentially
stay at the site of injection and then spread in a nonspecific way to other organs of the body,
but the highest concentration will be in the muscle. If there was a specific design of the
proteins attached to the lipid nanoparticle to make that lipid nanoparticle stay in the muscle,
then the highest concentration of that lipid nanoparticle should have been in the muscles
of that rat that was given the injection. In fact, the exact opposite occurred. The highest
concentrations of the lipid nanoparticles were in everything but muscle, ovaries, spleen, and liver.
That cannot have been an accident. Proteins were attached to the surface of the lipid nanoparticle
such that that lipid nanoparticle would float around in the blood until it found the liver cell,
and then it would stick to the liver cell and release the mRNA into the liver cell.
Proteins were attached to those lipid nanoparticles that the lipid nanoparticle
would not attach to a muscle cell, it would attach to a spleen cell and then release its
contents into the spleen cell. Proteins were attached to the lipid nanoparticles, making those
lipid nanoparticles float freely around until they came into contact with an ovary cell.
And then when it came into contact with an ovary, then it would release the mRNA into ovary.
So what does that tell me from a biologic point of view? Not only was it a complete lie that the
vaccine stays in the muscle, the vaccine was targeted through lipid nanoparticle and 30-year-old
protein binding technology. It was designed to target the spleen, which houses the immune system,
the liver, which is the detoxifying organ for the entire body, and the ovaries, which are the future
generations. This was deliberately designed to deliver an mRNA payload to those three organs,
your detox, your immune system, and your future generations.
This is beyond the worst thing I could possibly imagine.
So I think from a genetic point of view, we can make a pretty strong case that these injections
were designed to cause harm to the human species. And over the next few years, we're going to see an
explosion of cancers, immune deficiencies, of all sorts of illness amongst those who've been
injected. And that will be the proof that not only were these injections designed to cause harm,
that they did cause harm. And what I see is the Nuremberg Code is the starting point, because
for something to be that deliberately designed, and for political and
supranational organizations all to have a coordinated role in distributing and coercing
people to take this injection that was designed from the very drawing board, it was designed to be
harmful to humans. We're going to have to bring entire organizations, we might even have to bring
the entire United Nations system to hold them accountable and to bring justice to them, because
this is a crime on a planetary scale.
Thank you, Daniel. A crime on a planetary scale. Many people on this call agree with you, and I
certainly do. I'm a former lawyer, I'm a legal strategist, Daniel. It is a crime on a planetary
scale. And as Ryan Afformick said last week, many judges are corrupted, not only doctors, not only
farmers, and that's part of our challenge, but at least we understand what the challenge is.
Theresa Clyde. Thanks, Charles. Hi, Daniel. Hello. You've kind of answered part of my question
already, because I was going to ask you if you thought that the biological weapon could be
sophisticated enough to be a two-part weapon. In other words, the virus that makes you so scared,
you go and take the vaccine, which is actually the real problem. I was going to ask you a couple
of things about it. First of all, are you aware that the British Prime Minister Boris Johnson
is a depopulationist, he's a eugenicist? I would not be surprised that he's of the same
ilk as Bill Gates. Yeah, he is. Bill Gates is very much like his father, who certainly was
a eugenicist. Boris Johnson has published articles talking about the need to reduce
human population, and his father, Stanley Johnson, has written a number of books and worked for the
United Nations, specifically researching the need to reduce human population. He is a depopulationist,
and there are actually video clips of him talking about how great it would be to depopulate the world.
That's one thing certainly worth looking into. I'm sure a number of other world leaders are probably
in that ilk. You're with friends here. We all kind of have come to the same realization that
the vaccine is a biological weapon. Now, you said about bringing the United Nations to task over
this, but isn't it a case of we've got to do it before they kill us? Absolutely. And given
the population of people who have already taken the injection,
we've already lost a major, major battle, and it'll be up to us, those who have avoided
this injection, to carry on. And this might not even be a war that we can win in one generation.
Daniel, did you know that Montagnier, before he died or was killed,
he said that the unvaccinated would save humanity?
Yeah, I'm 100% in agreement with that. Well, first of all, we have to survive.
And I think that's going to be quite challenging, because as far as I know,
when the United Nations World Health Organization gets all the member states together in May,
which is next month, to sign the new pandemic preparedness accord, this means that all they
have to do is create another pandemic, and they can basically take control. And their power will
be over and above our own governments. And we all know what their attitudes are going to be like. So
we have to somehow do something. Do you have any ideas about how we can actually
bring this to the public awareness, snap people out of their brainwashing, their mass
information, whatever you want to call it? Do you have any ideas? How would you go about it?
Well, I think it's unlikely. But if nations, one by one, started resigning from the United Nations,
refusing to sign United Nations treaties, and then started making bilateral agreements with
other nations to say, we're no longer going to be a part of the United Nations system.
We're going to make agreements with our neighbouring nations, and we're going to be
our own independent bloc of nations. We're going to set up our own assembly of nations,
and it's going to have nothing to do with the United Nations.
Sorry, go on.
It's separatism in a very large scale. If all of a sudden, 100 out of the 200-odd nations in
the United Nations all decided, you know what, we don't like anything the United Nations has done.
We're going to shake hands and make agreements with each other. Independent of the United
Nations, we're no longer going to be a part of that system. That would certainly cripple
the United Nations system. Now, the question is, how can a population motivate their governments to
take such a drastic action? Because ultimately, it's that drastic action that will collapse the
United Nations and the corrupt bureaucracy that it has become, is that everyone who is anyone has to
withdraw from that system, and then it will collapse on its own.
You know, looking here in Canada, I mean, the way Parliament, the Senate, our government is arranged,
it's hard for me to see how the Canadian government would take a courageous step
and say, we're not going to be a part of the WHO. We resigned from the United Nations. I don't think
any of our politicians are up to that task. Well, the presidents of Burundi, Tanzania,
and Haiti all stood up to the United Nations, and they're all dead. Yeah. So then, you know,
to have any hope in this, I call it a war, it has to be a movement that cannot be defeated
by killing individuals. Because if, let's say, the president of Tanzania, he was able to lead
Tanzania into being independent from all the WHO crimes that have been committed in Africa.
But when an independence movement is reliant on a single leader, then, you know, we're dealing with
organizations with unlimited money and theoretically unlimited power. So eliminating the leader
is a piece of cake for them. However, then it leads me to think of, well, if
independence movements, justice movements, accountability movements can be destroyed by
destroying a leader, what is the chess move that defeats that strategy of continuously
killing off the leader? Then the strategy would have to be to have something, have a movement,
a chess game without any leaders. But then how can you organize and get people to work together
if there's no leader? And the best answer I could come up with is have ideas. So as long as
everyone is working towards the same idea, whether or not the leader is killed off is actually
irrelevant because the people are moving in the same direction towards one cause to bring justice,
to win freedom for ourselves, to win freedom for our bodies, to win the right to be guardians of
our own physical vessels of our souls. And if everyone shares the same ideas and motivations,
then hundreds of leaders, thousands of leaders can be assassinated and they will still lose
because they can't kill an idea. They can kill leaders, but if every single person
is holds the same ideals, then it's a guaranteed win. It's just a matter of time. They can't kill
an idea. Easy to say, hard to implement, but I suspect that's going to be the winning strategy
is every single person has to be capable of being the next leader because they all have the same
ideas and that same motivation from the soul. Daniel, you just described this group.
And we're only about 1,100 now all invited. But obviously if we've got 1,100
and each of us finds 10, we can soon get to a large number.
It multiplies exponentially. Sure. Yes. And then this group's been saying for months,
and I've been saying for years, it's people power that's going to win this. And as Teresa says,
if enough of us survive. And last Sunday, we had Jesse Romero here saying we've already won. It's
now a mop up operation everybody. So at the spiritual wall level, it's the human spirit united.
It's not an intellectual exercise we're talking about here. So it is the fear drives,
as the Bible says, the perfect love casts out all fear. People at the moment, many are driven by fear.
Our job is to get into love, into the spirit, into the human spirit. And that's what this group
aims to do. We all have to help each other to articulate that vision of people unified.
We can, there's a beautiful picture there everybody. If the leader gets knocked off,
the leader gets replaced. That's the way it works. Teresa, are you done? Another question?
I was just going to ask one last thing. Do you believe that 66% of humanity have already been
chopped? Good question. I don't know if it's 66%, but certainly a large proportion. Whether that's
50%, 45%, it's hard for me to say. But there's so much misinformation. We kind of have to work with
with the possibility that it's anywhere from 30% to 66%. But we're still going to have to
fight as if it was 66% that we have to be ready that two out of three neighbors might not be
around in five years. And how we're going to survive in that type of a situation where
there's food scarcity, there's economic uncertainty, and how we're going to,
at least temporarily, I suspect they will have succeeded in depopulating the earth to some extent.
And how we're going to work through that. Western civilization, I would say. I would say that we are
the highest proportion of vaccinated. So it will be challenging, but we're not giving up. Are we,
Stephen? No, I'll never give up. Thank you, Daniel. Giving up is not an option. Thank you,
Teresa. John Stone, our resident journalist. Daniel, you must know John Stone.
Hi, Daniel. Yeah, just to say, I had, not so long ago, I had the pleasure with a number of other
people talking to a Tanzanian bishop who also sits in the Tanzanian parliament. And he was
absolutely clear that although this poor man was killed, it didn't make any difference to Tanzania.
They really made very little progress there. And that's, I think, obviously a favorite country
to visit. I know Michael Yeaton keeps on going. They're all used to. And so, no, it's quite right.
I think also that we're seeing changes in Europe. I'm sure, you know, it's an extraordinary thought,
but there was a very, the German parliament voted down the government last week or the week before
on mandates. The government was absolutely determined to have mandates, and there was a
large majority against them. I think part of the reason is that actually a lot of German
parliamentarians have probably become very scared about where all this is going. So, yep, I don't,
I don't, you know, I do think we should, you know, we don't know what's going to happen in
France next week. It's hard to be of an enthusiast for Marie Le Pen, but, you know,
if Macron is a non-extreme alternative, then God help us. And I think that actually
these policies are going to begin to look extremely unpopular very quickly.
Now, that wasn't what I was going to say. I wondered whether you've noticed
sort of some very peculiar anomalies in the narrative of the introduction of the vaccine,
or whatever you, or what else, the jabs in 2020. First thing that I know was that
the sequence was handed to the international community by this bat lady who runs the
laboratory in Wuhan, and everybody just took it on trust. All, you know, all the major vaccine
manufacturers seem to know exactly what to do within minutes. And this is most extraordinarily
circumstance. And, you know, the next aspect is, since they were committed to such huge investments,
they had to make sure that there was no effective treatment in the interim.
So very clearly, this commitment had to be there, you know, that this was going to be the answer.
Of course, Bill Gates told us it was the answer, and the British government were
joined to the hip with an organisation called Gavi, who were extremely committed to this answer.
And Boris Johnson did a fundraiser for Gavi in June. And very clearly, the cartel had moved in,
and it was pushing everything aside. You know, I think obviously, then there's another very
curious feature of this, that actually, during the year, there were plenty of warnings,
journalism and BNJ, particularly there was an article by the editor of the BNJ, Fiona Godley,
saying, well, we don't expect these things to work. They might reduce symptoms, but they're
not going to stop transmission. And I know a lot of people sort of wrote critical, quite,
quite sort of honest critical appraisals of these things saying, well, they're not going to be very
much good. And of course, and also the vaccine companies were committed not to introduce these
things prematurely. Now, what was this about? I think, well, I mean, I believe that what this
was largely about was that it switched round more or less overnight when they managed to get rid of
Trump. And as soon as they got rid of Trump, the shortcomings of these products were
put on the carpet. We had this story the other week, we were with Walensky saying, well,
when I saw it on CNN, I knew that these things were going to be all right. Then we went ahead.
Well, you know, obviously, that, that again is a complete nonsense narrative. Why would the head
of the CDC take her cue from a CNN story? But of course, the fact was that the public narrative
was never really supposed to be based on facts at all. And yes, my thoughts.
Well, the amount of international cooperation in this whole pandemic, it's incredible. It's
coordination across nations, throughout governments, throughout public health departments in
nearly every developed nation. It's coordinated across economic giants and corporate partners.
Economic giants and corporations. And it's just absolutely incredible how,
how massive a program this is that has been coordinated worldwide. And, you know, given that
the medical, the medical industry, doctors, especially have been so discredited, because
we have failed to inform the world of the dangers of these injections. This is something
Dr. Sam Dubay and I discussed a couple months ago. Is this in fact a part of a greater plan
to discredit human beings in medicine, doctors in medicine, you can no longer trust your doctor,
because he told you, you had to get a dangerous injection, you can no longer trust a health
minister, you can no longer trust public health. And given that's the problem, then the solution
that Sam Dubay and I were speculating might be in the wings is AI driven medicine. And that is,
what they will do is they will get people to say, hey, you can't trust your doctor anymore.
He's not smart enough to read the scientific literature. But here, we have an artificial
intelligence that stays up 24 hours a day. You don't have to call to get an appointment. It's
always awake. You don't have to make an appointment to see your doctor. You just log on to your
computer, put your face on a screen, and the AI will diagnose you based on your symptoms.
And in addition to that, if you're wearing one of the body biometric devices like a Fitbit or
one of these digital devices or a smartwatch, it can measure your heart rate and it can take a basic
EKG and send it to this AI. And you can trust an AI because you can't trust your human being doctor
anymore. Put your health in the hands of a machine. And in fact, one of the
IT tech persons in Alberta Health Services back in 2016, he told me he was sent to a conference
in France with Dassault Medical Systems. So this is the same Dassault military industrial company
that builds fighter aircraft, tanks, missiles, warships. They have an entire division devoted to
artificial intelligence, enhanced healthcare. And that should be a big red flag right there.
Why is the major military industrial conglomerate of France, Dassault Industries,
have such a great interest that it's willing to pay for a conference and an airplane flight from
a province as small as Alberta, where the population of the entire province is five to six
million people. Why are they willing to fly in tech persons from all over the world, from even
the smallest provinces in Canada, to get educated about artificial intelligence in healthcare and
how they're going to have to augment their computer networks in the hospitals and the
computer networks within Alberta Health Services to handle the data loads that an AI-based healthcare
system are going to create? And in fact, would that not be the most perfect bait and switch?
Discredit all doctors. And then the only option left is a computer-controlled healthcare system.
And they might even do something as diabolical as well. This machine is so smart, it will send you
a package every week via Amazon drone delivery of a perfectly balanced set of vitamins and
medications for your health. And it'll send you that regular like clockwork every week.
The AI is continuously monitoring your blood pressure and heart rate, and it will make a
customized set of medications for you once a week. And then of course, when you're no longer a useful
human being, and you're getting close to retirement age, and the AI decides that you're a useless
eater because your productivity has gone down, then the next package of perfect medicines for
your own body is in fact euthanasia. And the AI will declare that you died of natural causes.
Is that the dystopian future that they're trying to create for us?
So Daniel, you want to write a book.
I think it's turning strange.
Obviously, this AI thing, I only think that one might say about it is how much
the technological aspect of this is already as well as the human failure, there has been a huge
technological failure and people, one hopes, will be aware of that too, for the humans to correct
the technological failures. And of course, if they don't, yeah, I mean, if you look at, for instance,
I've been watching the culture of, I watched particularly the culture of British Medical Journal,
and we've recently changed editors. And of course, it's become ever more bureaucratic,
ever more focused on the technological solutions. So this awful stuff that you're talking about
is certainly on its way. I'd be slightly more optimistic in saying, well, you know,
if the system is failing, then people will see that the technology cannot do it either. But sure,
yeah, I mean, it's a dire prospect.
Okay, just on that, John, thank you, AI. So that is a beautiful description of the AI
future if we don't stand up. So that's a beautiful reason for standing up. Now,
before we go to Christine, thank you, John. Airline pilots, I've got some interesting news,
and I want to share this because what, Daniel, what happens is we, you know, for the main
presentation, people have to go, we understand that. So I want to share this piece of information.
And Simon, you're a pilot. I want you to dig this information out, please. Julie, my wife, tells me,
Julie, who does the edits of these recordings, that in the Airline Pilots Association in 2019
reported one pilot dying in 2020. I think 2019 there were six pilots dying in 2021.
And 2021, 111 pilots have died. Okay, so one, six, 111. Simon, is the Airline Pilots Association.
Secondly, working closely with Todd Kalander, everybody. And he's working closely with Theresa
Long, the Surgeon General from US Navy in charge of pilots. Now, it looks like we've got a pilot
to go public. Like Daniel, you've gone public because the problem is in Australia, you know,
the airline industry has totally gone nuts because pilots, of course, are getting unwell,
but they won't speak up. And the pilots who haven't taken the jab have been stood down.
But we now have a pilot who had a heart attack while bringing in an Airbus A380 in Texas,
had a heart attack. I think it's been reported. And it looks like we can get him to give his
testimony because he'll be out of the industry having had the heart attack. Now, the point is,
as a pattern interrupter, we've talked about this with mass hypnosis, that if the airline,
if one pilot speaks up, gives his testimony, says, absolutely, I've got all these friends,
they're all scared to speak, just like the doctors, if the airline industry is brought to a halt,
because that's the next big risk, how do you know the pilot that's taking your flight is not going
to die? And this testimony, we think we can get, and they will need all of your help, everybody,
to get that out in a big, big move, Stu Peters, all of the shows. But it's crucially important.
And I share it with you now so you can start thinking about it. And Simon, if you can dig out,
Simon is our patent expert, Daniel, researcher, many people here are great researchers,
but we have to help the pilots speak up because that's going to be a big patent interrupter.
I just want to share that. I'll keep you posted as soon as we can. Thank you, John. Chris,
and his next question. You muted, Christine. Thank you. Sorry. Dr. Negassie,
first of all, thank you so much, because you're so brave, and you're such an inspiration. And I'm
here in Canada, too. So I know how you've also been addressing the corrupt courts and that you
were even assaulted by a guard in the court, and still you keep going. So thank you, and God bless
you. So my question, I apologize, I missed the first half hour of the call. So I don't know if
you touched on this already or not. But I have a copy of an affidavit that you provided to a
gentleman named Lucien. I'm not sure how you say his last name, but... Oh, Kodier. Kodier, thank you.
So I have a copy because I gave him an affidavit, too, for his case where he was challenging the
injection mandate. And so your affidavit was focusing on these completely meaningless
and useless PCR tests. And I was really happy when I saw it, because you were mentioning how
there was the Corman-Drawston protocol that was widely adopted around the world and recommended
by the WHO. And then you talked about how there had been published this critique of that protocol
by about 20 different scientists in the health sciences and how they pointed out
10 major flaws with that protocol. So you were pointing out that Christian Drawston admitted
that they had developed their protocol without the benefit of having on hand the actual SARS-CoV-2.
And in fact, instead, they had used a computer-constructed in silico model of the alleged
virus. And at the time that the critique was published, the protocol was still based on an
in silico model of the alleged virus because it had never been updated using actual virus.
And then your final point, you said perhaps Drawston couldn't update the protocol because
SARS-CoV-2 did not really exist in nature, but in a computer file. So that was in November of last
year. And so I just wanted to ask you if you have seen anything since then that has convinced you
that this alleged virus actually exists.
So, you know, more and more, I am examining everything, including research that comes to
my attention with scrutiny. And more and more, I am reliant on my own personal observations.
So the only thing remarkable I can say is that in 2021, there seemed to be a viral pneumonia
going around that was different from any of the viral pneumonias that I've encountered in the past.
And the one defining difference seemed to me, at least from my, you know, my experience,
is that this viral pneumonia was a lot wetter than the usual viral pneumonia that it for some
reason caused, it just caused lots of fluid buildup in the lung. And as long as you got rid of the
fluid from the lung, the body would take care of it like any other viral pneumonia. And just one
week later, then everything, for the most part, returns back to normal. But the thing that I
noticed was that the virus was not actually in the normal state of the viral pneumonia.
And just one week later, then everything, for the most part, returns back to normal.
And now what is the sequence of this somewhat unique viral pneumonia? Is it, in fact, SARS-CoV-2,
or is it something that hasn't been characterized? I don't know, because I don't get to do a full
answer. So the possibility that the exact published sequence of SARS-CoV-19 is, in fact,
a real virus, I can't say one way or the other. There's a possibility that there's nothing that
exists that has the exact sequence, the published sequence of SARS-CoV-19. Or if it did exist,
it only existed for a brief period of time, at which point the virus through viral evolution
shed all its artificially inserted genes and reverted back to being a normal coronavirus,
which, you know, it's hard to personify a virus. But if you're going to personify a virus,
is it just wanted to go back to doing its usual thing, right? A gene spliced corn,
most of the time, if you leave it alone, will get rid of the spliced in genes and go back to being
a usual regular corn plant, because that's what living things like to do. They like to remain in
their mostly unaltered forms. So, you know, what exactly happened? It's hard to say.
If they made a SARS-CoV-2 virus in silico and then they transcribed it into being a real virus,
how long that artificial chimera would last in the natural environment?
My personal opinion is if there was a SARS-CoV-2 virus, nature would have either mutated it back
into being a regular coronavirus or got rid of it through attrition, because the artificial
chimeric virus of SARS-CoV-2, I don't suspect has any particular features that would make it
a successful part of the human environment as a virus that continues on for generations and
generations. It doesn't give human beings any benefit, and it causes harm. So it would probably
be eliminated from the natural world after a few hundred, or at least after a few thousand rounds
of evolution, which would probably occur within the first couple months of SARS-CoV-2 being
introduced into the natural world. So I suspect the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 being a virus
that exists today is very low. I think nature would have eliminated it a year and a half ago.
So then what are people going on and on about with Omicron variants and whatever K2 variants,
or whatever acronyms they've come up with? I think they're just making hay out of nothing.
They're finding whatever natural coronavirus is just circulating just because it's a part of the
natural world, just like everything else in the natural world, and they're just trying to
scream that the sky is falling because the naturally occurring coronavirus has some segment of
RNA that is similar to the Wuhan chimera that was created in 2019.
It's hard to know what's going on in the world right now. So by the sounds of it,
you haven't personally seen any scientific studies where the alleged virus was purified
and sequenced and characterized and studied with controlled experiments, that sort of thing,
to convince you that there actually was a virus.
Yeah, that the infected particle, alleged to be COVID-19, can in fact cause another COVID-19
infection, which results in the exact same particle and exact same sequence.
That due diligence, as far as I know, has not been done.
Correct. Yeah, the same as far as I know. It does not exist either. Okay, thank you so much.
Like I said, God bless you. Thank you so much for everything you're doing.
Great answer, Daniel.
Thank you. Thank you, Christine. And just by the by, so Daniel, it's wonderful to have you here,
not on a time frame, so that you can consider yourself among friends here and admirers. And
this is your Easter Sunday party, okay? So just look on us as your party buddies. You know,
there are plenty of people in the UK. Stephen's probably having a few gin and tonics, as best we
know, to get his quinine up. Therese has probably drunk about three red wines so far. So this is
party, you know, this is work and we're at the bar. So please relax, you know, we're not going
to hold you to deadly account if you say something, whatever. And so it takes the pressure off you,
so you can relax so you don't get tired while we're asking you all the tough questions. And Daniel,
while you can multitask, in the chat, there's some interesting, just a couple of questions that you
might keep following through and also save the chat because there's some great resources there,
Simon. Thank you for the pilot information. The one observation I make, Daria, on driving everywhere
instead of going with pilots is that motor cars are now so magnificent and comfortable with your
Beamer that you literally can drive, you know, go 2000 kilometres or 1200 miles is no big deal.
20 hours of driving and you're there like, to go to Melbourne or Sydney, a one hour flight
is now taking people five, six, seven hours because of the outrageous stuff. So you might
as well drive your car and the roads are better. So driving is a lot of merit to it.
But not an electric car. So is, Simon? Not an electric car. Indeed, that's part of Daniel's
AI plan. You know, you get an electric car in Australia and you get stranded because they turn
the internet off, number one, or your battery won't go anywhere. So there you are. That's the
next control mechanism. Now, Arianna is in Finland and is a regular on Stu Peter's show. And Arianna,
I've never understood how you got to Finland. Can you just give us a reminder as to how come
you're in Finland? Because you sound like a yank to me. Yeah, well, I'm from America. I'm from
California. But yeah, I met my ex-husband in Hollywood in, gosh, 1998. And then, you know,
the rest is history. We ended up, I left Hollywood and got into corporate finance. And then
we came to Finland to acquire advanced technologies. And that was another chapter.
I ended up having a couple kids who are Finnish. And so I stayed here.
But Daniel, hi, nice to meet you. Wayne Peters was going to introduce us. But anyway, here we are.
So I, you know, this AI thing, you know, how they're, the AI is like writing the protocols
for the hospital, right? And these protocols are killing people. I mean, some evil people
are programming the AI to, you know, to demicide the population. And what was I going to say? Oh,
yeah. So the doctors are like, going along with these protocols and making a lot of money. And,
you know, we know about the remdesivir because of the Dr. Brian Artis. But there's these monoclonal
antibodies. And this has been really bothering me. I've been reading the patents and documenting
the COVID quacks scenes and documenting the horrors in the patents. And clearly to me,
these patents were written by AI. It's so sophisticated. And there are so many poisons
in the patents. I mean, it's unbelievable things that you could take a month just to
translate them all. So that the monoclonal antibodies, there are a lot of really credible
doctors or, you know, well-known doctors, influencers who are pushing them and believing
that this is some antidote to the snake venom. And, but the monoclonal antibodies in the patents
specifically states that it is the vaccine. It is an mRNA. It codes the HIV. It uses chimeric
proteins. It's not approved for use in humans. It was never approved. It was never trialed.
It was passed under emergency use authorization. And I've got a lot of clients coming to me who
are injured from the monoclonal antibodies. Some of them are patients of well-known doctors who
I won't name here. And it's just really upsetting me because people are being injured by, and the
doctors are being fooled into believing that the monoclonal antibodies are doing something good.
So I was just wondering, Daniel, what you, if you know anything about the monoclonal antibodies,
what you think of them. And I'm looking for, you know, MDs, because I'm a naturopathic doctor.
I'm also a journalist, but I'm an ND. And I don't seem to have as much influence as a medical,
Western medical doctor. So I'm looking for Western medical doctors to get behind me on this and to
help me to sound the alarm and to try to educate, you know, the doctors on what this really is.
So what do you think, Daniel?
So theoretically, so I'll take the story back to just a regular production of antibodies. Let's
say we're trying to produce antibodies to snake venom, right? So we want to make snake anti-serum.
So what was traditionally done is they would take some snake venom from whatever, the deadly
rattlesnake or the cobra, they would take a little bit of venom and they would inject it into a horse.
And the horse would be like, whoa, this is venom. This is not a good protein to have in the blood.
And the horse's immune system would make antibodies against that protein.
When a natural process stimulates the production of antibodies, then you get something called
polyclonal antibodies. That means antibodies with all sorts of different shapes, but because
they're all different shapes, they attach to different parts of the protein. So for example,
if this was like a cobra venom, the polyclonal antibodies made by the horse would be to all
different parts of that cobra venom protein. And then you would take blood from the horse and you
can get a significant amount of blood because the horse is a big animal and the horse will
continue to produce these polyclonal antibodies for the rest of its life. Then you can periodically
take that horse's blood. You can separate out the antibodies and then you can package those antibodies
into a vial. And then you call that, you know, King Cobra antidote or rattlesnake antidote.
That's how anti-polyclonal antibodies are typically made.
Now, a monoclonal antibody is not like polyclonal antibodies. The monoclonal antibody is only one
antibody, one specific one. It's not a collection of different ones that attach to different parts of
an antigen, like a protein or a virus or a bacteria. A monoclonal antibody, they're all
one exact antibody and they all attach to just one part of a bacteria, a snake venom protein or a
virus. So from the drawing board, a monoclonal antibody, the more often you use it, the higher
its chance of failure, just from basic evolution. The more people that get monoclonal antibodies,
the more reason a virus has to just change that one part of the virus that the monoclonal
antibody attaches to. If there was a polyclonal antibody, that virus would be being attacked from
all different sides and that virus wouldn't have a chance to evolve resistance. But so it's very
difficult for any organism, bacteria, protein or virus to evolve resistance to a polyclonal antibody
because it attaches to multiple sites. Monoclonal antibodies only attach to one site.
And that means that the virus has a chance just by changing that one part of its shell
to evade the monoclonal antibody. So when you have monoclonal antibodies used regularly in a hospital,
then the speed of resistance increases with the amount you use the monoclonal antibody.
If you only use it once or twice a week, there's very low likelihood of resistance to that
monoclonal antibody happening. But if that monoclonal antibody is being used regularly,
then the speed at which resistance will develop is increased exponentially.
Now then we get into the question of how are monoclonal antibodies created? So this is not
something that I know much about. I know how polyclonal antibodies are done because
they're made through a natural process. You take something that's bad, you inject it into a big
animal with a strong immune system and then you get polyclonal antibodies. To create monoclonal
antibodies, I suspect the most efficient way to create them would be to trick some other organism,
whether it's a bacteria, yeast or another animal, to trick that living organism into producing
monoclonal antibodies. Because in a normal situation, a living organism like a mammal
will produce polyclonal antibodies. So to get that mammal to only produce one particular antibody,
then you'd probably have to use some type of genetic engineering trick.
I imagine that would probably be the easiest in a cell culture. So then injecting mRNAs into a cell
culture and having the cells in the cell culture continuously produce one specific type of antibody,
like a miniature factory. So the use of monoclonal antibodies,
I think they should not be used on a wide scale. It could only be used if nothing else is working
and that's kind of a therapy to use as the last resort. Because if you only use it in 0.1%
cases, then the resistance to that particular monoclonal antibody, there will be low likelihood
of resistance. But then if you're producing something through a side process, like cell
cultures being infected with mRNA in order to produce these monoclonal antibodies, there's
always the possibility of contamination of your monoclonal antibodies with either the cell culture
cells themselves, which are usually derived from cancerous cell lines. Or you can have contamination
of the monoclonal antibodies with the original mRNA that was used to trick the cancerous cell line
into producing those monoclonal antibodies. But again, this is not something I'm an expert on
you'd have to like, you know, people who would know about contamination rates, and the production
process would be the cell biology engineers at these pharmaceutical labs that produce these
monoclonal antibodies. Here's what I found, just, you know, about I've been reading through the
patents on all the monoclonal antibodies, and it's horrifying, to say the least. In the
Regeneron patent, it talks about gene knockout. So that's a complete permanent deletion of genes.
Then I found also that all of the monoclonal antibodies are using the malaria parasite.
It's a genetically modified version. So it's part synthetic part organic. And they're actually
injecting parasites into people. This really concerns me. And in the studies when they develop
this technology, they were testing these malaria parasites on they were trying under the guise of
preventing malaria placenta, which is when, you know, a pregnant woman gets sick with,
I guess, a parasite that attacks the placenta and kills the baby. Interestingly, that's exactly
what we're seeing with these COVID shots, right? Like 80, 87% of pregnant women are losing their
babies. So why would that be in a monoclonal antibody? I don't know. And then another thing,
interestingly, this is being touted as a antidote to the snake venom, when the thermo fisher
monoclonal antibodies contain snake venom. So it just baffles my mind. And then one, another thing
I really can't understand is, well, all monoclonal antibodies target the T cells and destroy them,
just, you know, complete destruction of the T cells through cytotoxicity. And I don't understand
how any doctor can think that's a good thing. Like it baffles my mind. So I don't know, I just
wanted to bring that up to the group. So people are aware of these things. I am trying to sound
the alarm. I think that Dr. Zelenko is promoting monoclonal antibodies. We've got other doctors
like Dr. McCullough. A lot of doctors are inject, oh, American frontline doctors. They're in, you
know, they're all injecting these into people. And it's absolutely experimental. It is the same
technology as the... Well, just to correct you on a few things there. So how monoclonal antibodies
are supposed to work is that when you get a monoclonal antibody injection, it's just supposed
to be antibodies. There's not supposed to be any contaminants from the production of those antibodies,
whether those antibodies were created in a cell culture, I mean, genetically modified
trypanosomes that doesn't strike me as a particularly efficient way to create monoclonal
antibodies. So I don't know why they chose that particular production process to try and hijack
a parasitic organism to trick it to produce monoclonal antibodies. But
if you're getting a proper monoclonal antibody injection, the only thing in that injection should
be one antibody, just one type of antibody. And that's all that should be in there. So,
again, I don't know where the literature is coming in for trypanosomes being in the monoclonal
antibody injection. That seems very odd to me that if they're putting that in there, I don't know why
they're putting that in there. The other thing is when an antibody, it doesn't matter if it's
polyclonal or monoclonal, once it attaches to its target, it attracts a T cell because T cells are
attracted to the tail ends of an antibody. So anything that the antibody is attached to,
well, it actually should be macrophages or natural killer cells or neutrophils. They get attracted to
the antibody and whatever was attached to the antibody, then they release peroxidases in the
case of neutrophils to kill whatever that antibody was attached to. Antibodies should not, well,
any therapeutic antibody should not be targeting T cells. T cells should be attracted to antibodies
to try and kill whatever that antibody is attached to. So to design an antibody that attacks T cells,
that's not, well, that's an antibody designed to destroy the immune system. I don't know why
they would design something like that, right? Because what they're supposed to be designing
when you're using monoclonal antibody therapy is you design an antibody to attach to a particular
object and then the antibody, when it's glued onto the bacteria virus or snake venom, calls
over a T cell or some other immune system cell to destroy whatever it's attached to. That's what
monoclonal antibodies are supposed to do. Snake venoms, I know Dr. Brian Artis made quite the
splash with the snake venoms. From my perspective, snake venoms are neither here nor there
because venoms and biologic agents have been used in medical research for a very long time
as a starting point for a lot of therapeutic drugs. For example, if people need blood thinners
because they have a natural tendency to develop in blood clots, one of the blood thinners that's
used is based on leech venom, right? Because the leech wants to keep sucking blood, so it secretes
herudin, which is a protein that thins the blood. So pharmaceutical companies took the leech venom
and used that as a starting point to develop pharmaceutical blood thinners for people who
are getting blood clots for no reason that we doctors can find. Snake venoms, I don't know of
any medical uses of snake venoms, but I think from a theoretical standpoint, if you could develop
snake venoms or any kind of venom, jellyfish venom, insect venom, and you could develop
a version of that venom that targets cancer cells, that would be a pretty effective way. If you could
make the venom destructive to cells with cancerous mutations but not destructive to healthy cells,
I think that might have been something that's already being researched in the medical community.
I mean, to a certain extent, having an occasional exposure to small amounts of venom
may give you immunity, right? Like cobra handlers, sometimes they get nipped by their cobras that they
play with, and they don't need anti-venom because over the years of handling cobras, they've had
exposure to cobra venom. So it's just one of those things that's in the environment. I don't view any
protein molecule, venom, or poisonous mushroom as inherently good or evil. It's one of the things
that's in the natural world, that has its place in the natural world. But again, for a venom to be
present in a monoclonal antibody injection is highly unusual. I can't figure any rational reason
why they would put that into a monoclonal antibody injection. Yeah, thank you. I'm going to post my
article. I just wrote an article, Snake Venom Key Ingredient in COVID Vaccine Patents. I put,
you know, in parenthesis. But I have another article about the monoclonal antibodies as well.
I would love if you would read it. I mean, this is really concerning me. Like, I think the doctors
are being fooled because the concept of monoclonal antibodies sounds like it's something that should
be, you know, was supposed to be used for medicine and, you know, actually healing people.
But it has been tweaked and misused. And basically, the research that was done on monoclonal
antibodies was funded by DARPA and Bill Gates. And Bill Gates was saying last year on video that
he announced that the monoclonal antibodies would be the treatment for COVID-19.
That was like a year ago. And then there's this, you know, Anthony Fauci funded research with
Regeneron and the monoclonal antibodies and Remdesivir. And it didn't, it was, you know,
it was horrible results. But somehow the doctors are thinking that this is okay. I know they're not
reading the patents, but I just really, really want the word to get out because it is poison.
From what I can see, it is poison and people are coming to me injured. They are, the first signs
are fatigue, like extreme fatigue, and then they start getting aches and pains. And from here, we
don't know, I don't know the long term, you know, effects yet, but it's just really, it's really
awful that, you know, good doctors are recklessly injecting something that was never approved for
you. So there's one thing that there's another thing that I'd like you to consider and for
everyone to consider is that what's being advertised as being in the bottle is not what's
actually in the bottle, right? Because a monoclonal antibody, you know, unless it causes a hyperactivity
a hyperinflammatory reaction, it shouldn't cause any long term side effects. It should be gone and
gone within a week. So I wouldn't necessarily blame at this point, long term side effects on
for people who've received monoclonal antibodies as a problem with monoclonal antibodies.
My preference is I'd rather take polyclonal antibodies from a horse because I think they're
much more effective than a monoclonal antibody genetically created in a Petri dish.
But, and the reason I say this is I had the opportunity to send
a sample of Moderna and Pfizer in for scanning electron microscopy analysis.
And these vials were left out at room temperature between one and two months. So they weren't
refrigerated. And by the time they got under the scanning electron microscope, the only things
that were the only elements present in those samples were carbon and oxygen. So the vials
that were advertised as mRNA injections contained no mRNA because there was no traces of nitrogen,
no traces of phosphorus. And without any phosphorus or nitrogen, there's no nucleotides, there's no
phospholipids, there's no proteins. What was in like the unusual structures we saw in those
electron microscope pictures, which looked like chips, crystals, carbon nanospheres and carbon
fibers, all of that was just carbon. There's no protein, there's no nucleotides, there's no mRNA
and DNA in any of the samples that I checked out. So we have to keep in mind that regardless of
what we're being told is being used, like monoclonal antibodies from Regeneron, what might actually be
in the bottle is something completely different. And that's just my own personal observation.
Just one more quick thing I'll say before we move on to the next question.
People who have more questions. The people who are injured, I mean, they're injecting monoclonal
antibodies into healthy 30 year olds and they're becoming injured. They were healthy before,
they got this COVID, they got sick or poisoned. And then they were talked into this experimental
intervention, the monoclonal antibodies, and now they are fatigued, aches and pains, they're injured.
And they were- I wouldn't believe that on the monoclonal antibody.
I think they got something else. They were told they got, they were getting a monoclonal antibody,
but they got something else. They might've got a whole bunch of malaria parasites instead of a
monoclonal antibody. They might've got, who knows? They might've got-
And one of the reasons why exactly, because any injection by big pharma just can't be trusted
anymore. One of the reasons why people are temporarily better when they get these
monoclonal antibody injections is because in the patents it says some of the embodiments
contain hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine. Not all the embodiments, but some of them.
Because that is a medicine we know that kind of clears out some of the poisons, that would mean
that people are temporarily getting better long enough to fool the doctors, but then later they
start getting sick. Anyway, that's all. It has nothing to do with monoclonal antibodies.
People are being injected with something that's being called a monoclonal antibody and it's not.
Right. Interesting. But Daniel, if that's the case, they're not a failure of regulation, isn't it?
Yeah, the government regulators, they don't examine any of the- they don't do their due
diligence and examine any of the batches for contamination. No, the governments are getting-
they're reaping windfalls from collecting taxes from us and they're doing bloody nothing with it.
They're not even examining, you know, every fifth batch of this, that or whatever for purity.
Well, they wouldn't want to find evidence of crime, would they?
No, that's the thing. So do you remember the FDA? They said, oh well, was it Pfizer said that
58% or something, they could guarantee that what they said was the vaccine, was actually the
vaccine. And then they managed to come to an agreement with the FDA that 50% was acceptable.
So- Oh yeah, that's right. The amount of mRNA, that was actually mRNA for spike proteins.
Sure. And then the rest of the mRNA in the injection was unknown.
Exactly. Which of course brings me back to the informed consent thing, but also,
doesn't a regulatory body have a duty to know what's in these damned
injections in this case? I don't quite understand that.
Yeah. No, that was that one post from, I think it was a Moderna production line engineer was
saying that only one of the mRNAs in the Moderna injection was for spike proteins. There was two
other mRNAs that were coding for proteins that were related to ovarian infertility,
like premature ovarian failure. And the thing is, so why, so now we got to zoom out here and look
at the bigger picture. So the spike protein is known to cause DNA damage, inhibit DNA repair,
cause mutations. You have two other proteins that, like mRNAs that code for proteins that cause
infertility. What is the one seeming goal of all of these proteins that are supposedly in these
vaccines? It's depopulation and infertility. That seems to be the goal. Depopulation through cancer
and blood clots for the recipient and infertility for the recipient through alterations of genes
that code for normal ovarian function. And the thing is you'd never know what proteins,
what mRNAs are inside the injection unless you reverse sequence every single batch.
And you reverse sequence, that's a process that requires a full genetics lab and it takes some
time. So literally every single batch that Pfizer and Moderna sends out can have an mRNA coding for
a different protein. They could even stick an mRNA coding for a hyper protein. They could be
experimenting with different snake venoms. But they're not injecting the snake venom into you,
they're just injecting the mRNA that tricks your body into producing the snake venom.
And then what are they doing? What is Pfizer and Moderna doing? Are they just secretly keeping
track of people with certain batches to see, oh, well, people can tolerate this amount of snake
venom in their blood without dropping dead, but they can't tolerate twice the amount.
But Daniel, that's exactly what Craig Pardecoupa and Sasha, what's her name, Alexandra Latipova or
something. They were looking at the batches and they found evidence of lethal dose testing.
But if Pfizer only have to guarantee 50% of the contents of these injections, what's in the other
50%? So it's entirely possible that they're experimenting with lethal dose testing.
But another thing that I wonder about, so Pfizer were found guilty of false advertising,
had to pay a $2.3 billion fine. I think one of the largest fines ever in the history of,
I think it was the largest fine ever imposed by a US court. And I don't understand how,
if you have false advertising and Pfizer have been found guilty of that, so not only have they
had a previous, they've got a criminal record, but they're now repeating the process, it would
appear by not being able to guarantee the whole product. So you were saying earlier that the
monoclonal antibodies would only contain monoclonal antibody, but then you kind of changed tack because
you accepted that actually what Arianna was describing was unlikely to be due to the
monoclonal. And I agree with you because the symptoms she was describing were very, they could
cause virtually anything in medicine, you know, tiredness and aches and pains with it, Arianna.
So the question is, how can you have a fine for Pfizer for false advertising and then the FDA
colludes with Pfizer to allow them to just guarantee 50% of their injections, which by the way,
under emergency authorization, they just, it's an experiment, isn't it? And for which no informed
consent can be obtained in violation of the... Well, as far as Pfizer is concerned,
paying a fine is just the cost of doing business. To them, it's just like a sales tax or something.
Sure. It's, you know, a $4 billion fine, a $40 billion fine. If that's less than one-tenth of
your revenue, that's just the cost of doing business. Exactly. Right. And in fact, you know,
I think we should try and think in terms of the worst case scenario. Like what is the
military industrial complex? Do they have any morals? No, they just design things to
kill people and their research going goes into designing things that kill people better.
So if we have that type of corporate philosophy, is it possible that pharmaceutical industries
have a similar type of corporate philosophy? It's just they don't want to kill people so
quickly that they can't make a buck off of them first before they die. So to have a slow kill
would be the most profitable overall corporate strategy that you can drain a person's finances
because, you know, a chronic illness can be a continuous source of profit. And then, you know,
once a person has spent the resources that they spend their life accumulating, you know,
paying for cancer therapies or medications for chronic illness, then the pharmaceutical industry
has won. They've just decided instead of killing people right away, they'll just kill people slowly
to make more money before they die. And if we take that as the starting point of the organization
we're dealing with, then what would such an organization do? Well, that organization
would try and eliminate any obstacles to its overall corporate strategy to extract money from
people before they are killed off. So in order to implement that type of a strategy, they would have
to make inroads with regulatory authorities. And that is control who gets to be elected to be on
the board of the FDA, control the politicians who establish, you know, mandates and the legislation
under which the FDA operates, and, you know, have as much control as possible over the bureaucracy
within the FDA. So, yeah, if that's the overall strategy, then they could, their mechanism of
implementing that strategy would be through infiltration of government and regulatory
agencies, which seems to be the case with Health Canada, right? Health Canada has come out against
Ivermectin, has been issuing statements against the use of Ivermectin. Health Canada also came
out in support of giving injections to children, right? And so clearly the entire governmental
apparatus of Health Canada has been infiltrated and usurped by the pharmaceutical industry.
Yeah, so Daniel, would you say that, so you were saying earlier there's evidence of intent,
in your mind, you know, that they've chosen things to attack the liver, the spleen and the
ovary. So let's just, if we go a bit further than that, and so in the present context of great crimes
against humanity, doctors, in my opinion, should be doing what they're trained to do and looking at
the big picture, as you talked about, and yes, being aware of the science, but not getting going
down rabbit holes here and rabbit holes there, like the scientists do. Scientists haven't got a clue
how to practice medicine, because they haven't got the whole picture, and that's what a doctor is.
So a doctor in the present climate, in my view, should be thinking of the lethal possibilities of
the threat of damage to the genes and of sterility, and warning the public. They do not need proof
beyond reasonable doubt, as a lawyer would need in a criminal court, and they do not need to have
randomized studies. And so what do you agree with that, or do you disagree?
So in the present context, doctors, medical doctors, should be, that's what they're trained to do,
should be thinking of the big picture, what are the possibilities, what do we need to warn the
public about, and what do we need to tell the lawyers about, but they seem to have forgotten
it all, don't they? Why? Absolutely. You know, it's from the very, there has been an incredible
failure throughout medical schools worldwide to, I don't know, impart upon medical students and the
doctors that become of medical students that we always need to keep an eye on the big picture.
So not just the body system, the entire person. And, you know, if medical doctors were better
students of history, you know, we should realize that from time to time in history, that medical
doctors have a much greater role than just the overall wellness of the patient in front of them.
Sometimes we have to be the, you know, the messengers that say, no, society has to come
together and work together against an existential crisis of the human species. Right? And,
and, you know, doctors, like all the modern medical schools as prerequisites, they require
cell biology and biochemistry. Right? And so how is it that so many people who have been taught
the basics of cellular evolution, you know, ecosystem evolution, everyone has to have a
biology prerequisite to get into medical school. So, you know, about ecosystems, you know, about
evolution. Why is it that so few doctors are applying the basic principles of nature, that
a virus is a living organism, its environment is the human species. So it follows the same rules
of anything else in any other ecosystem, it can't destroy its environment. Right? And if
its environment changes, the organism has to change according to the environment. If everyone
has antibodies to the spike protein, the virus has to just get rid of the spike protein. Right? If,
you know, if the species destroys its environment, if the virus kills all its hosts,
then it kills itself. So it shouldn't destroy its environment, which is actually kind of a
philosophical lesson for us humans that we shouldn't destroy our environment because it's
only ourselves that are being harmed. But, you know, these basic principles of history,
philosophy and truth, right? These should always be in the back of a medical doctor's mind.
Exactly. And also, Daniel, the very, the thing that we were taught, we were taught about medical
ethics at medical school, and we had some really good teachers on it. And I never forgot what we
were taught. But guess what, we had a reunion recently for my year at medical school. And I
wrote an email because all the emails were there. So I just reply all. And I said that
would anybody like to join? Not a single one of them contacted me, even privately. I was shocked.
And so the point is, in my opinion, medical ethics, you cannot practice medicine without
medical ethics. And if the doctors don't know their medical ethics, they shouldn't be damn
well practicing as doctors. No, that should be a prerequisite for getting from graduating from
medical school. Unless you know the foundation you stand upon, you shouldn't be a doctor.
Exactly. And Daniel, in addition to that, understanding the importance of their role as
a doctor in warning the public about deviations of science and everything else that's going on
at the moment. All right. Thank you, Ariana. And thank you for the articles that you've shared.
And well done on all your great work and asking the questions. Now, Daniel, we have the man who
brought you here to us, Raymond. Daniel, what a pleasure it is to have you on with this group.
I just want to, I guess, start my comments by saying, I think you've got a taste of why Dr. Sam
and I have come to love this man so much. He's absolutely amazing. And it's not just because
just because he exhibits the kind of compassion and care for people. This is something, this is
a reputation, by the way, I'll just precede some, some my question with that. This is a reputation
that precedes him, by the way. In Alberta, he has functioned as a locum, a doctor who
serves in temporary positions in different localities. And I can tell you from my personal
contacts that he is dearly loved by the people that he has served. And that's exactly what he is.
He is a medical servant, bar none. It's an amazing thing. I'd also say that he is the consummate
the consummate doctor that Stephen keeps talking about. Absolutely to the core.
And I think one of the things that is quite apparent is that the the training and education
that he got failed to program out of him that compassion and care for patients. It comes across
absolutely so clear. And for Sam and I, it's an honor to call him a friend.
Absolutely, absolutely, Ray.
Sorry. But I'll, I'll just go on. Because for some of you, you may not be aware of
the legal challenges that that Daniel has encountered as well. And I was just wondering,
Daniel, if you could maybe give us an update on that. And maybe just even a brief comment,
if you would like, about Dr. Mel Burchette as well. Just just to let us know where where things are
at there. There are some exciting things happening. And, you know, we're on a we're on a crazy journey
here in Canada. So with regarding the case, Dr. Bruchette and I were trying to bring up against
the hospital for violating basic medical ethics by forcing Mel to take an anti psychotic medication
that's known to cause blood clots in the elderly. What happened is the Deputy Attorney General of
British Columbia, Dr. Not doctor, sorry, the Deputy Attorney General Grant Wong, used his
status as an attorney general to act as an intervener on the case. And so the hearing date
that we had scheduled was canceled by the Deputy Attorney General saying that, and the excuse he
offered was was, wow, it was so ridiculous. He said the likelihood of convicting hospital staff
for having purposefully and forcibly given Dr. Mel Bruchette harmful medications is is unlikely.
And because the the possibility for conviction is unlikely, he is intervening and issuing a
stay of proceedings that no further proceedings are to occur in the case of Dr. Mel Bruchette
versus the hospital. And this is so this is so ridiculous. He's not even a medical doctor,
and he's deciding that the likelihood of prosecution and conviction is low. Right. And
then the other ridiculous thing he said, Grant Wong, as an attorney, he said, and, you know,
it's not proven that that they intended to cause any harm or that any harm was done.
I was the one who spoke to Mel while he was having slurred speech. How can an attorney general who's
never spoken to the patient declare that no harm was done? Right. This is the Deputy Attorney General
of British Columbia. And then on top of that case, there was the case I had I was bringing up against
Justice Joanne Challenger for having taken the sheriffs into chamber and given the sheriffs an
order to forcibly assault and try and remove us from the courtroom so that she wouldn't have to
enter the courtroom a third time. Again, the attorney general dismissed those charges, said
the likelihood of conviction, a conviction against a judge is is highly unlikely. So the
the deputy attorney general is is issuing a stay of proceedings against the sheriffs and the judge
involved in that case because he doesn't think a conviction is possible. So my response to that
that letter from Attorney General Grant Wong was that as a deputy attorney general, he is employed
by the Crown and so that in matters involving the Crown, he is conflicted because just as the
judge is an employee of the Crown and the sheriff is an employee of that courthouse, they are all
effectively employees of the Crown. And so he cannot issue a stay of proceedings because he
is conflicted and given that he has issued a stay of proceedings, he himself is obstructing
justice. I still haven't had a response from the deputy attorney general to that.
Okay, so some of these cases may wind up being stalemated.
Or if the provincial court refuses to hear the case, then, you know, this is where I recently
have been talking about it is up to we the people to take the law into our own hands.
And we're not talking about the dystopian, you know, vigilante gangs type of law into your own
hands. It's like, no, we're, we're going to do the idea of justice. We're going to treat it with
respect. So we're going to set up our own courts with our own judges and have a fair procedure,
where, you know, people can be discovered for facts, what has been done, what they've done,
what they've failed to do, and that they can be tried by a jury. So if we establish,
and the first part of that would be establishing your own jurisdiction.
Now on a provincial scale, that's a pretty hard thing to do. But if,
if people could get together neighborhood by neighborhood, to establish their own
jurisdiction, their own area of land for which what they speak is enforced, then, you know,
neighborhood by neighborhood, maybe we can get together and finally form a, a regional court,
where there's a regional court, a regional judge that's appointed for cases, a regional jury.
And then within that jurisdiction, we can try as fairly as we can, the, the, the criminals, right,
the attorney general who's, who's obstructing justice, the judge who's obstructing justice,
you know, the sheriffs who are, you know, all too eager to try and strangle hold me and, and,
and knock me out, right? Then we can try them in the fairest procedure we can,
and, and then establish a conviction, and then a warrant that should these individuals set foot in
our jurisdiction for which they have been tried for crimes, that we can arrest them.
I don't know if Canada's ready to take that step on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis, but
my hope is that if not within my lifetime, you know, in, in, in the future generations,
if we manage to keep the idea of justice alive, that eventually, you know, on a neighborhood by
neighborhood basis, people will rediscover the very philosophy of justice within themselves,
and act to be just people by being honest with themselves, truthful with themselves,
and truthful with their neighbors, and have groups of truthful neighbors with other neighbors,
trading without deception, and engaging in commerce, exchange of goods,
services in an honest fashion, and then when problems arise, establishing a regional court
to hear and try cases where a wrong has been done, and how that wrong can be corrected.
Daniel, because a lot of the individuals on this call may not be familiar with your,
your particular situation in the court system where you, you basically force their hand to
undertake particular protocols in response to the actions that you took. Maybe you could just very
briefly go through that to explain to those on the call, and then I'll just go through that.
I think it's a fascinating thing to look at. Dr. Cahill or Professor Cahill should have been on
this call to hear about this part of it, but I think it's a fascinating issue when it comes to
legal procedures within our courtrooms, especially within the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the,
procedures within our courtrooms, especially within the, what I would call Commonwealth nations.
Yes. So the, this was a few years before, maybe this was 2015 or 2016.
I was reading on some message boards about the law, the legal proceedings,
procedures that aren't secret procedures for the lack of a better word. And one of the posts that
I came upon, this gentleman had said there was a secret procedure, procedure with judges. And the
secret procedure with judges was that if you should stand under the first entrance of a judge into a
courtroom, you agree to stand under the judge. And this is based on like a deconstruction of
the word understanding. For the common usage, we think the word understanding means comprehension.
In fact, legally, it means a completely different thing. Understanding means you agree to stand
under. Understanding means you agree to stand under. So understanding God means you agree to
stand under God. If you say, I understand the judge, then it doesn't mean you comprehend the
judge. It means you agree to stand under whatever the judge decides to dictate. So there's a
difference between the word understanding and comprehension. So the first entrance of the judge,
if people stand, and by physical action, they agree to stand under the judge because the judge
platform is literally above where people are standing. And so through that symbolism,
even though it's not communicated in language, means that the gallery, the plaintiffs, the lawyers,
all agree to stand under whatever the judge says. And if you stand under the judge, then you agree
to stand under judicial law, which is for the most part case law. Another judge decides a case,
the case gets decided, and the current judge gets to use a case that's been decided in the past by
another judge and use that as the basis for that judge's decision. If a man or woman refuses to
stand under judicial law, what I was told on this post is the judge must exit the courtroom.
And when the judge exits the courtroom, when the judge reenters the courtroom, the judge has to
reenter under a higher authority. So if people stand when the judge reenters the courtroom for
the second time, they agree to stand under charter law. So charter law is not a case that's decided
by an individual judge in judicial law. Charter law is created by groups of individuals, right?
So corporate charters or provincial charters or national charters. So because groups of people
are at a higher level of hierarchy than an individual judge, the second time the judge
enters the courtroom, then they are stand, the judge themselves, they stand under
charter law. And when people stand under a judge who stands under charter law, the judge can no
longer use case law against you or in your favor. The judge has to rely on charter laws that were
passed by groups of people like parliaments or senates or national assemblies. Now in the case
of Mel Bruchet and the hospital, the British Columbia Hospital Act has a section in their
charter law called Section 51. And Section 51 of British Columbia Charter Law says that any
communications contained within a medical record are protected speech. And if it's protected speech,
then it cannot be used as evidence of a crime. So myself, Popeyes and Diana, we remained sitting
when the judge first entered the courtroom. We didn't want to be held against judicial law,
right? Because case law is an absolute mess. One judge decides another thing, the other judge
decides the opposite. And it just depends on the preference of the judge you're standing in front of,
whether he decides for or against you, because he has both options open within judicial law.
So then the judge exited the courtroom and then she re-entered the courtroom. And Popeyes and I
were thinking, yes, we're winning here. Now we forced the judge to enter the courtroom under
charter law. But the thing is, I know BC Charter Law has that poison pill, Section 51, where all
the documented crimes in Mel's medical records cannot be used as evidence. So Popeyes and I,
we remained sitting. Justice Joanne Challenger was infuriated because I think before
she attended court that day, she pre-read the British Columbia Charter Law because she knew
this case was coming up. It was a case related to hospitals where I was accusing the hospital of
committing a crime. And the proof I had of that crime was in the medical record. So she got up
on the bench and because we didn't stand up, she started screaming and yelling about how
Canada was the fairest and safest place in the world, the most wonderful place to be,
and how British Columbia was the most lawful place in the country. And the reason we all had
to stand up when she entered the courtroom for a second time was in honour of Canada and in honour
of British Columbia. And I was like, okay, we just have to stay sitting, right? Because if we refuse
to stand under charter law, that judge is supposed to exit the courtroom. And when the judge re-enters
the courtroom under the third time, that judge, by whatever secret oath that judges supposedly have
to swear to, the judge is now standing under the highest possible law. Law that is above the laws
created by judicial decisions, laws that are above that which is created by groups of men and women,
you know, making charter laws. The highest possible law is the law of the creator, a law that is so
prevalent that even in groups of people or tribes that were discovered by Western explorers, that
they would obey a code of conduct despite having no written language. And if groups of men and women
have a code of conduct but no written language, then that code of conduct could have only come
from the highest imaginable authority, which is the creator. So what I was told in this post from
2015 or 2016 was that if you manage to get a judge to enter the courtroom under common law or the
highest possible law, the law of God, then it doesn't matter what judicial case law says, it doesn't
matter what the charter of British Columbia Health Charter says. The law is the law that you don't
kill, you don't harm other people, and if a harm or a death to another person has occurred, the justice
is to have to make the victim whole again, to repair the damage that was done. It's just very basic
principles that even if you didn't read any book, that idea would be in your mind for the very fact
that we're human beings. But of course, the judge probably knew that and didn't want that to happen,
so the only option was to actually physically remove us from the courtroom before she re-entered
the courtroom. And so that's why I was assaulted, that's why Pope Poise and I were thrown in jail
in solitary confinement for three hours and that was the story.
That's excellent, Daniel. Thank you so much.
Thank you, thank you, Daniel, and well done on your courage, everybody. That's what it requires
to stand up against the system and we've talked about this before and Daniel, behind me is the
most accurate map of the world invented by Buckminster Fuller, and all of you should
understand who Buckminster Fuller is. There's a Buckminster Fuller Institute and he says don't
tear down the existing system, don't tell people what to do, create a new system, give them new
tools. Now what Daniel's describing, and I as a legal strategist, I assure you none of the lawyers
in practice get any of this training. I started law school in 1970, 52 years ago. None of this
stuff is taught at universities in the western world and so the learning that Daniel has shared
with us and Dolores Cale as well has shared with us is our sovereign rights as man and as woman
and the issue that is raised by people, say that's all bullshit, it doesn't work,
at the moment it doesn't work because Daniel experienced the force, not the power, the force
of the police. So with an alternative system and I can't go into it now but there are legal
provisions enabling all of you to set up, what Daniel in the community set up your own police
force, okay, so that when the police come, when anyone comes, you've got your physical resistance
force, not your attack force, your resistance force. So these principles are important and you
go I haven't got time to study this, great, well then die, stay asleep and die. That's the choice
that we have. So there is a recording of this conversation. Dolores, last week's Q&A is also
available with Dolores going deeply down the rabbit hole and at the Whistleray as well and
just because at the moment you might not have the force to stand up against it, know that what Daniel
is talking about is true and that the whole system of Canadian law, US law, Australian law, New Zealand
law has come from 800 plus years of development based on God's law and the promise of all kings
and queens of the United Kingdom of England that we will, we promise you in perpetuity these rights
that Daniel is talking about everybody. So, so, but if you don't have the courage to stand up for it
then it's meaningless. So that's where, that's what Daniel is showing us and reminding us
today and on Easter Sunday with, you know, with Christians, for Christians on the death of Christ,
the resurrection. So that's standing up for one's principles, that's what Stephen Frost
keeps talking about. So today's the reminder of those crucial principles. So Daniel, well done
for being the demonstration of that reminder. Now, Winston, the embodiment of it. Daniel,
can I just ask you, I don't know whether other people have ever said this to you because people
are not very good at encouraging generally, whether that's jealousy or whatever, I don't know,
but I think you are incredibly wise for someone who came out of medical school in 2004
and I'm just interested. So on a personal, so really I'm inquiring as what do you,
so if you accept that, is it something about your parents or one of your parents or who has influenced
you most in your life? You know, probably everyone I've met, you know, I don't have any brothers or
sisters. So, you know, like my inherent, my inherent sense of justice, I think I get from my
father. Right. It's unavoidable, right? If something is unjust, it just, it keeps,
I can't leave it alone. Same with me. And it relates to the soul. It's like,
if there's an injustice happening, my soul can't rest. It's literally that simple.
Yeah. And so are you, so you're in Canada, is your mother or your father Canadian and maybe
the other parents from another country? They were both immigrants. They both came to Canada in the
sixties. My father died in 2001. He died of cancer. My mom's still alive. She survived breast cancer
that same year. And so, yeah. And my mother and her relatives, which country did they come from?
Your parents? My father came from Tokyo. So he was born in Japan and he immigrated in the sixties.
My mother came from Busan, Korea, and she immigrated to Canada in the sixties as well.
Have you seen the film Tokyo Story? No, I haven't. Oh, you should watch it. It's brilliant.
So the film reviewers, you know, the people who look at films endlessly,
they absolutely love it. And so I think a lot of people say that Citizen Kane is the best
film that ever made, but the film reviewers, the people who, you know, review films,
they like Tokyo Story. It's in black and white. It's absolutely brilliant. I can't describe it.
It's just, it just sucks you in. I'll definitely look that up. Yes. Yeah.
So you come from three cultures, essentially. You've got three cultures. And how many languages do you speak?
Well, I'm only fluent in English, but I can get by with Portuguese. Like I can travel around Brazil
reasonably smoothly with Portuguese. I used to know French, but then when I learned Portuguese,
it was just too similar in my mind. So if I go to like Quebec or, you know, any French speaking place,
I try to speak French and they look at me weird and say, are you trying to speak French or something?
Because usually what comes out of my mouth is Portuguese. And then I speak Japanese, maybe at
about the level of an eight year old. So I can get by and travel from here to there in Japan
quite smoothly. But I can't have an adult conversation.
All right. How do the Japanese regard you then when you go to Japan?
Oh, they think I'm just a regular person until they try and engage me in an adult conversation.
They're like, oh, I mean, why is your vocabulary so limited? And why do you speak like an eight year
old? And I was like, well, because I'm only really fluent in English.
Yeah, and you're really, really fluent in that. Are you aware of the author of Remains of the Day?
He won the Nobel Prize in Literature. What's his name? Nobel Prize for Literature. He's actually
British, but he's originally from Japan. What's his name? Can't quite remember his name now.
But he won the Nobel Prize anyway. Brilliant novelist. He wrote Remains of the Day.
That's what I think that was the main one that he won the Nobel Prize for.
Yeah. Remains of the Day and Tokyo Story. I'll definitely look those up.
Yeah, exactly. Yeah.