Okay, Winston this time. Well done, remains of the day. Has anyone got the author yet?
Winston?
Yeah, who's the author? I'll have a look.
Someone will post it. Over to you Winston.
Oh, there we are. It's Kastuo Ishiguru. Guru.
Kastuo Ishiguru, yeah.
I haven't got a recording in my mind. I heard them saying the name quite a lot.
But I can't remember how you say it.
Ishiguru, that's it.
Winston?
Winston, you're on mute.
You muted Winston.
Hi Dr.
There he is, he's going there.
Dr. Nagase, nice to meet you. I tried to get hold of you some time ago, but I...
I wasn't able to get your contact information, so nice to meet you today and thanks for what was a wonderful tutorial between yourself and Charles, who was still in there.
I felt like I was kind of on a surfboard during your talk. You took me to great heights when you talked about medicine and artificial intelligence.
I agree, I agree wholeheartedly what you said there and with other things.
And then you dropped me when you talked about the law, which is some, you know, my questions relate to that.
When you did the Rumble interview, I forget who it was with, in which you discussed your situation with Dr. Boucher,
you said two things that I played and replayed and I needed to have clarified.
One was that there was a change in the law such that the judges are now the final arbiter of what is right and what is wrong.
Judicial lotus.
The second thing you said was that there was a change in the... with the news media that they no longer had to adhere to the truth or something to that effect.
I wonder if you could elaborate on that.
And I mean, I already have been looking at this and saying that something is wrong, that big, hard, bad men and women could get up in front of the world and lie and deny and hide things for whatever reason.
And for example, we could talk about your heart's content about murder and all the seeds of what's going on.
And nobody seems to take it on. So there seems to have been a change.
On the other side of the coin, we talk about this thing, the rule of law, a ridiculous thing, which seems to no longer apply.
Like there is no law except if somebody chooses to come after you.
So the law is seemingly applied very arbitrarily.
I am very angry and I can't tell from my accent that I'm not indigenous Canadian.
And so I, you know, I see things are happening in Canada that really concern me.
So I thought it might be an opportunity to get you to talk about some of that, would you?
So, yeah, I have to give so much credit to the lawyer Lucien Codier, who brought up a federal court challenge against the vaccine mandates because he asked me to write an affidavit for him.
And because who was the judge? He had his case.
A judge decided against his case. That was when was that?
That was at the beginning of this year. He lost his case.
So he's filed an appeal.
But the reason cited by the judge who decided against Lucien Codier's challenge to the vaccine mandates, the judge relied heavily on a Supreme Court decision from 2001 in Canada.
And the Supreme Court decision in 2001 in Canada was one that reaffirmed judicial notice.
So judicial notice is a tool of the law where a judge can declare an item as a judicially noticed.
So they can declare a statement or a belief to be a fact.
And from that point on, no evidence can be presented to the judge.
And from that point on, no evidence can be presented to to counter what the judge thinks is a fact.
And the reason why the Supreme Court reaffirmed that decision about judicial notice, which goes back quite far in Canadian legal history, is that judges need the ability to expedite legal cases.
And therefore, the judge has the right to declare something to be a fact if it's obvious and uncontroversial.
Otherwise, there is the possibility for legal cases to be unnecessarily delayed by lawyers arguing, for example, is water wet?
Or is the sky blue?
And if the murder occurred on a certain night when there was a full moon, was there in fact a full moon on that night?
And then the judge, in order to prevent any argument that there was a full moon, that a witness could have seen the suspect commit a murder,
the judge can just say, I judicially declare, I judicially notice that there was a full moon on that night.
And then from that point on, no lawyer, no one can bring any argument into that courtroom contrary to what the judge notices or judicially notices.
Right. But so then the American Supreme Court, they actually, they're a bit better than the Canadian Supreme Court because in the American Supreme Court system,
even if a fact is judicially noticed, if the conviction of a dependent is dependent on that judicially noticed fact,
the defendant's attorneys are still allowed to present evidence contrary to the judicial notice.
So, for example, let's say a murder case.
There was a full moon on the night of the murder, and therefore the witness claims to have seen the assailant commit a crime.
But the defense is allowed to present evidence that it was a cloudy night.
And in fact, there was, even though there was a full moon, the moonlight was not sufficient that the witness could identify the assailant.
So that is allowed in American courtrooms that you can challenge a judicial notice if someone's life is on the line.
In Canada, you can't. If the judge declares something to be a fact, anything that a lawyer tries to bring up, say, no, judge, you're wrong, you can't even say that.
You can't even bring it up in a courtroom.
So where that presents a big problem is when you have a judge who's not a scientist, a judge who's not an expert, a judge who collects his or her beliefs about the outside worlds through a television and mainstream media.
Such a mentally deficient judge can be can arrive at the belief that, you know, coronaviruses are deadly pandemics and that they are extremely dangerous.
And if that judge doesn't want to hear any arguments contrary to say, no, this covid-19 is in fact not any deadlier than any other flu virus, the judge can say, no, I judicially notice covid-19 is a deadly pandemic because that's what the WHO says.
And I'm judicially noticing that fact.
And from that point on, no one can present any evidence to the contrary in a Canadian courtroom.
So it sounds like in Canada, you cannot challenge God who sits in the courtroom.
But in the United States, you can challenge God a bit, although he's in the United States courtroom.
So, for example, God who sits in the courtroom in Canada says that the vaccine or the so-called vaccines do not cause death and are not associated with clots, do not create a problem, are good for you.
That is the end of that.
That's the end of that. Correct.
And just to make it a little bit easier, Winston, just I'll just share my screen just for the moment from one of the great law dictionaries.
There's the paragraph on judicial notice that Daniel beautifully expressed.
The act by which a court in conducting a trial of framing its decision will of its own motion and without the production of evidence recognize the existence and truth of certain facts.
OK, so now it was the idea of judicial notice.
So anyway, just give Winston, I just that's their law dictionaries can be sometimes useful.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I am getting quite an education today, I'm telling you.
But we're not we're not finished yet.
The other side is the other question I asked was about the media, the news media.
Yes, so that so what was interesting to me was when I was first looking through the Martins criminal law handbook in Canada for Canadian criminal law.
The first version I looked through was an old version from 1954.
And in the section talking about fraud and I think fraud was was I forget the actual section number, but there was an actual section that said it is a crime to willfully spread false news.
And I was like, oh my God, this is this is this is a godsend, right?
And then so I finally went to the library and was able to get a copy of the current criminal code in Canada.
And I went to the page to the section to find that exact section on it is a crime to spread false news, a crime in the criminal code.
And it was it was redacted like the that section that was in the 1954.
We appear to have lost the criminal code of Canada was and then so then I had to do spread of false news removed from the criminal code of Canada.
And it was removed from the criminal code of Canada by Bill C.
Thirty nine in twenty nineteen.
So until twenty nineteen news organizations, if they willfully spread a lie.
They could be convicted of a crime.
And then the law was changed by Parliament in twenty nineteen and that removed false news from the criminal code.
Well, I must thank you for what has been a tremendous education.
Thank you kindly. Thank you.
Thank you, Winston. Now we have Jeremy Willis, Daniel from Jersey.
Jersey is not a cow either.
Hi, Daniel. Yeah, many thanks.
You're very interesting chat tonight. Really enjoyed it.
Can you hear me all properly?
Yes, I can hear you fine. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. Two things.
Really interesting. I don't know if any of you lots on here ever read Ice Age Farmer,
but they've started using PCR testing for diagnosing bird flu and they're starting to decimate the poultry populations across the US and in the UK,
which is really, really alarming.
You know, it's sort of fitting in with their W.F. agenda.
And I just thought I'd mention that fact on here while we're here.
One of the things I was really interested in here you mentioned was what evidence have you got now that the spike is being incorporated into human genome and is being replicated?
Well, I don't have any evidence yet.
I mean, that's all theoretical just from basic principles of biology and reproduction.
Yeah. You know, the way to find out for sure is if you have a successful alive baby from a mother who's been vaccinated with the actual vaccine and not a placebo.
Yeah. Then if you do a DNA swab or a blood test on them and you find spike protein in their DNA, then you have discovered a hybridized human who's had...
You'd have to... I was just thinking about the DNA analysis. You'd have to have a lab that's actually looking for it, though, wouldn't you?
They're not looking for it. They're not going to find it. Is that correct?
Exactly. Exactly. Right.
And then most of the mothers who have been convinced into taking the vaccine while they were pregnant or took the vaccine before they got pregnant.
I mean, are they going to be willing to get genetic testing on their child to find out if their child is a mutant?
Right. You have the social factor there. I don't know how many mothers would be willing to go through with the process of finding an answer to that question.
My feeling is most mothers would rather not know if that...
Yeah. I saw you sort of resume a little bit at the beginning. What are the numbers you're finding on miscarriages and stillbirths?
Well, the actual numbers...
What's the actual data coming out? It's reliable, though.
Yeah, I think the most reliable data that I've come across was that from Thomas Renz in the US, where he had the military surveillance data for all of the health of the military troops.
And what he found was a 300% increase in miscarriages in American service members.
Now, being a service member in the military, I would imagine that the miscarriage rate amongst military service members is going to be higher than the average population.
Because they have to undergo training, they do firearms exercises, they deal with...
It's a physically intensive job. And just being part of the military, you're exposed to a lot of chemicals that the average person is not being exposed to, including depleted uranium and whatnot.
So I imagine the miscarriage rate amongst women who are in the American military is already higher than average.
And then what was found out when they queried the American database was after the vaccines were introduced to the American military, that miscarriage rates went up 300% on top of an already elevated miscarriage rate when compared to the general population.
So whether the actual increase in miscarriage rate compared to the general population is 600%, 700%, it's hard to say. But it's definitely higher than 300% if you're using the general population as the baseline.
So the numbers that were from... I think it was Waterloo, Ontario, that over six months, there was an 800% increase in miscarriages. We still don't have any baseline numbers for the women's hospital in BC.
I don't know anyone who's been able to come across the baseline miscarriage rates yet. We only have that anomalous report that there was 13 miscarriages over 28 hours, no, over 24 hours on one weekend. But again, we don't have a baseline to compare that one with.
That's just incredible that that data has not been collected at least somewhere in the world.
And so, you know, if the mRNA is interfering with the embryogenesis and causes a miscarriage, that's a tragedy in and of itself.
But the really big problem is the embryos that survived and what kind of babies they grow into. Are they going to grow up normal? Or did they get spike protein and unknown mRNAs integrated into their very genome?
And will they be infertile or will they be fertile but giving rise to genetically altered humans? We don't know. Right. And, you know, even if the vaccine is given before embryogenesis, before the woman ever gets pregnant, from the Japanese study, it seems to me that the lipid nanoparticles were designed to target the ovaries.
So the lipid nanoparticles are going to deliver their mRNA payload to genetically alter ovaries even before they're fertilized and turn into embryos.
I mean, this is terrific, isn't it? Yeah. That's what the implications I was thinking through. Thank you. Thank you very much, Daniel. It's great.
Thanks, Joey. Now, Daniel, before our next question, I'm very concerned about your health because you've been on here for three hours now and you have not gone to the toilet yet.
I should probably go and I can also fix myself a drink as well. Can we do that? You go and get a drink, go to the toilet, give you a two minute break before we have Glenn and please go and do that.
All right. I'll be back in a few minutes. Right.
While we're waiting for Daniel, Simon, can you give us, sorry, first, Ariana, can you just touch base on what you've just shared as breaking news? And secondly, Simon, can you give us an update on on post-JAB protocol collection of protocols that you're working on just to give us an update where you're at on that?
So, Ariana, are you there? I'm here. OK. All right. I'm just going to keep my camera off because it's quite late. All right. So Dr. Jane Ruby just shared on Telegram.
A group of scientists and microscopy experts have stepped forward this morning to vindicate Dr. Brian Artis and the snake venom warnings. Undiluted undiluted Pfizer vials, they say, actually reveals snake venom gland organoids and the blood of those injected has been showing.
What is this? Echinocytosis, Echinocytosis all along, directly related to snake venom poisoning. Furthermore, the scientists confirmed that there that other that other tests reveal that this is king cobra snake venom organoid material.
Yes. And she just got off the phone with Dr. Artis, who is now connected to this group. OK, so the organoid, these are glands from snakes that.
That they grow in the laboratory and they produce snake venom. And this is the end of the gland without the snake, so they can mass produce snake venom.
That's what she's talking about. So, boom.
That's more evident.
Thank you. Thank you, Arianna. Just wanted to bring that to people's attention and what you posted there. And secondly, Simon, how are you going on post-JAB protocol collection and putting into a place that we can share with people?
Yeah, I am actually I'm actually taking them all that are posted and comparing them to take basically what is mostly mentioned in all of them and linking them to all the pages, as well as I'm going through 14000 patterns on covert related protocols and see what they will they come up with.
And we will connect it to also the basic science of why it works and how it works and what it reads. It's just work, work and time. We still I hope to be ready somewhere in the end of next week.
Guys, I just Googled snake organoids and I've just posted a link in the chat that looks very, very interesting. I had no idea.
But what Arianna just said is right. They can actually grow snake organs or something in the lab.
Have a look. Another nice correlation is if you look at the I put a link also above in the chat, all the medical treatments for snake venom correlate very well with the
Everything which is proposed for COVID and vaccine treatments. So it's all chloroquine, ivermectin, frankincense, all of it, zinc. It's all in there. So it's very similar. If it's just similar, great. It can give us away. If it's the same, same inspiration.
Thank you. Thank you, Simon. Thank you, Teresa. Okay, we've got Daniel back. Glad you've had your comfort stop. That's good. And you know, don't give a go three hours without going to the toilet again. That means you're not drinking enough water. That's my clinical assessment. Glen Macco.
Hello, Dr. Daniel. Glad to meet you. Before I open, lay out my question. Are you familiar with the essay writer Julius Rochelle from Canada?
No, I'm not. I'm not familiar with that essay writer. Okay.
So I want to go back and highlight one of the couple different things you said. I'm a retired engineer. And as such, I, as part of product producing, have to deal with a lot of different disciplines of professionals. And I find it very heartwarming to have you walk through your sequence and the fact that even though you had a certain
core training that you, you went out of your way to, to investigate and drill down in so many other disciplines. And so successfully. At one point when you were describing your past and around warning colleagues, and the fact that you've been able to do it without being removed from your environment, you use the phrase approaching delicately delicately to avoid scaring them.
That, so that they could just wait and see. And, and that's that element of it is I feel very strongly as, and a lot of other people do of that's going to be crucial for us to attract a large amount of the population that are either unsure or fairly sure that they're in favor of the narrative.
But maybe suspicious a little bit and it's hard to draw them out that there's psychology elements that have been highlighted by Dr. David, Charles, Charles, who is part of a program called about reaching people that once you capture a, an idea set, you, you like to, to think of it in simple rules of thumb and things that are not in the same way.
And if you violate your rule of thumb, you'll have a tendency to react rapidly to and negatively to and therefore one has to draw out to thinking process.
I think that's very powerful and I'm working with a group and that happened to include Charles and Ray and Dr. Sam that bringing forward a large amount of the public, including those that that aren't completely with us yet.
We believe we can draw them toward us and and your help with that would be important.
My specific question though is,
we have had a tendency to overload the science parts of chemistry and biology.
I think under load the science part of psychology.
And one problem that presents is the chemistry and biology has a tendency to want to have lots of detail and lots of volume and and from a psychology viewpoint that becomes overwhelming and counterproductive toward convincing people.
There's been a variety of discussion of different psychology approaches.
The other problem that gets raised is around mass lying psychology.
For the moment, I don't like seeing it presented because it makes it feel like it's completely brand new. And therefore what's going on now can't be touched by the average psychologist.
My question to you is, in any psychology arena, addictions and specifically alcohol addiction is probably one of the most reviewed, tested, exercised, practiced and understood by the public.
Is it not reasonable that we take alcohol addiction recovery as something we could adapt to to the recover all of our fellow countrymen and world citizens that have been captured by a set of profound propaganda and perhaps move that forward so we can in fact engage a large part of the population in the actions to get everyone back to a world of addiction.
Get everyone back to a world of humanity.
Thank you.
I think that's a great idea to repurpose addiction psychology and to find ways to repurpose it, re-engineer it and apply it to the situation we're in, where we literally have people psychologically addicted to the idea that the vaccine is going to shield them from harm.
I think that's a great idea to repurpose addiction psychology and to find ways to repurpose it, re-engineer it and apply it to the situation we're in, where we literally have people psychologically addicted that by taking a vaccine and suffering the side effects that they're somehow doing something good for humanity.
You know, the self-aggrandizement, right?
It was like, oh no, I got the vaccine.
I did my duty to society.
How come you all anti-vaxxers, you know, you guys are shirking your responsibility?
I had to suffer through five days of high fevers and, you know, feeling like I was going to die after I got the Pfizer shot.
Literally, some people, they do, they think that they get the Pfizer shot.
They're miserable for a week.
They think they're going to die.
And then, you know, they finally somehow recover from the Pfizer shot.
And then they are the biggest, most vehement personalities trying to pressure everyone else around them to suffer through what they suffered through when they got the vaccine.
Right?
And using guilt to try and manipulate those into the other people, into, you know, doing things for them.
So I think, you know, particularly that's a very good point you bring up with alcohol addiction, that there's a tremendous amount of guilt, you know, particularly with, you know, actually, you know, narcotic addiction also, depending on how severely impacted family members and friends are.
But there is an incredible amount of guilt associated with addiction psychology.
So if we can somehow repurpose that or, you know, to turn it into our favor, right?
And somehow, I think this idea of love being the key that unlocks all these dark chambers that people's minds have been put into.
And I don't know how else to describe it is that, you know, like the initial reaction, if I encounter someone who's vehement that I should get vaccinated, I'm like, you're a moron for not being able to see what's going on around in the world, you know, before you.
Right?
Like, how can you not see it?
Right.
And but that's that's not the reaction you want that the other person is a moron.
Right.
Because that's actually not going to solve anything.
And so to remove that that own, you know, hate to say it, the judgment, the judgmentality that comes from within myself and to to get into a better mindset of how can I approach this situation with love?
Given that there's a high probability that they might be experiencing quite a lot of guilt for having taken a shot or coerced another family member into taking the shot after they took the shot.
But, you know, looking at the guilt aspect and what kind of pains the person who took the vaccine might be suffering.
That's that's a really important consideration.
And I think if we can strategize and think of ways to to wake people up and and use what we do know of addiction psychology to help us do that, I think that would be a.
It's that would be an important strategy to take from here on forward.
And it's something I think people can readily adapt because our opponents have targeted this at our families and our neighbors and to polarize us and to to get us fighting against each other.
I come from a civil war family.
I attempted some level of dialogue yesterday where where my my youngest daughter was a mediator between my wife and my myself as we were talking about my my older daughter, who is in deep conflict about it.
That that winning with love is a theme that I think can can be very powerful for us.
So I'll tell you a bit about my personal experience.
My wife and I were separated before the this pandemic happened, but you know, we've always had had a good relationship.
And she's a registered nurse.
And, you know, I told her from the fall of 2020 when they were starting to ramp up the hype about the vaccine.
And she said, you know, if if you if your boss pressures you into taking the vaccine, please just tell them to hold off and wait, because the last time they tried M.R.N.A. injections, it killed all the animals when the animals were re-exposed to the pathogen.
You know, as a registered nurse, she you know, I married her because she was smart and she was clever.
And so I know she understood what what I was bringing to her attention, like the evidence.
And but anyhow, in March or April of 2021, she went ahead and got the injection.
Despite, you know, my warnings to her for if I started in September, so over six months, despite six months of warning her, because I do see her every day that I'm in Vancouver, that I'm taking care of the kids with with my my time with the kids.
Despite that, she went ahead and got the injection anyway.
And I can't explain that.
Right.
Well, one of the things one of the things I find is many people, even if they have personal doubts and if their scientific mind should should acknowledge those personal doubts, they will often take that step purely as to be part of a social self.
So segment that whatever they view as as their people that they routinely interact with, they don't want to be doing things that either upset them or make life harder for them because of difficulty.
They can't go to a certain restaurant because it requires a vaccine passport or something like that, that that you give in in order to to to make your normal social life feel more normal, particularly after the long lockdowns.
Yeah, to not rock the boat, just to get along.
Yes.
And on that point, Daniel, because we're talking about unifying people and Glenn, I have the similar challenge, you know, with my adult kids, I had an instructive conversation yesterday because the question is, we don't know the answer, but what percentage of people are actually in fear versus you bring up the good point of guilt.
So those who believe the narrative versus those who have had the jab for the convenience factor, you know, it's they haven't bought into the Kool-Aid, but it's well, I've got to get my job.
I don't want it. I'm not scared of this thing. But the government said this job is OK.
So, so they're in this middle space, you know, where they're not. So I think that's something for us to consider, you know, and as David Harrell, I'm Harrell, I'm, I think the Greeks pronounce it's Sheryl, I'm this, you know, it's nonviolent communication.
So Rosenberg's book on nonviolent communication is very instructive for all of us, you know, that if we're coming from love, if we're talking love, we don't have to go hard.
Our job is to find out what space they're in, you know, whether they truly had the Kool-Aid or they're on this ambivalent space. So that's just for us to in each situation to think about.
Kathleen from Canada, I believe. Correct.
No, we can't hear you.
So, Dr. Daniel, I was actually thinking about contacting you. And then when I saw that your name was going to be you were going to be a presenter today, I thought, great, I can ask him this question.
I have a son who lives in BC, he lives in Surrey, BC, and he and his, his partner, she's expecting and she, I think, is due in June. Right. Both of them are not facts. Okay.
Obviously, they don't believe in the job.
Kathleen, you're very faint.
Okay.
Well, maybe I will take my earphone off just a second.
I'll take my earphone off.
We'll go to your audio settings and increase your.
Okay, just a second.
That's better.
Yeah, there you go.
Okay, I just took my earphone off. It wasn't, it wasn't providing enough energy. So, so anyway, she's due in June, she hasn't gotten the vaccination.
He hasn't gotten the vaccination. He isn't either. They don't plan on it. But what I'm concerned is that she goes into the hospital, and they make her, even before she gets into have the job before she has the baby.
Are they mandating that still? And is there a chance of she delivers and, and then they do a test on her and then they start giving the baby remdesivir? I mean, like, should I worry about that?
Or should she should she go and get somebody get a, I want to say, a nurse to deliver what he called, oh, geez, my mind is.
I think in BC.
I think in BC, there is still an option. If you have a midwife to deliver outside the hospital.
Okay, like to do something like a water birth into a bathtub.
I think that can be arranged. I'm not aware of the procedures.
Because the last time I was in an obstetrics delivery, I was in BC would have been maybe around 2013 or 2014 was the last time I worked at Squamish hospital that does deliveries from time to time.
But, you know, I would certainly be wary of women's hospital for certain. Right. Yeah.
So are they, I mean, does she I mean, are they going to mandate her to get the job in order to have the baby in the hospital?
Not that I've heard, but I haven't been in the obstetrics system in BC since 2013 or 2014.
Quite a while ago. So I think the safest bet as long as it's a pregnancy, it's not a twin pregnancy.
There's no high risk factors. Then try try doing a water birth at home.
Right. Well, maybe I, you know, so it would that be difficult to get a midwife or.
Depends where you are. Like, I would certainly, you know, if you actually made a request for a midwife who has not been vaccinated, I think you will, you know, you're almost guaranteed to have someone who's already on the same page.
Yeah. Right. Yeah.
Yeah. So anyway, I guess that's what I was concerned about. So so so that you look into it. Look into getting a midwife.
Certainly. Yeah, that's what I would think.
And in Canada, Daniel, I wonder whether you know the nurse who set up an alternative nursing system.
Well, Kathleen Lee might know the connection. Some of you said about you might know the connection of the nurse Kathleen that you might get in touch with.
You can remember the name of the Canadian alternative.
There was the Ezra nursing system.
Okay. Yeah, that that's Lana's organization.
But there's the nurse who started the organization, Christine or Kristen was her name. Remember Daniel.
I can't remember her full name, but she's appeared in numerous interviews. Youngish brunette.
I tried looking up the other day. I couldn't find it in my links, unfortunately.
But I'll be my family might know. Yeah, I think you might want to recruit an unvaccinated obstetrician as well, because, you know, we don't know the status of of the mother to be.
So it may be that she can't can't deliver naturally. So, and there are all kinds of problems which can occur.
Actually, Teresa mentioned a doula and I was just corresponding with an unvaxed doula just now on the phone, coincidentally.
So if you wanted to contact me about that, I can maybe have her refer someone to you in your area because you're in New Brunswick, right?
Well, I'm actually Nova Scotia.
But the patients in British Columbia is not like 45 hours away.
So that's OK. Well, we'll figure.
We'll figure something out.
Sure, there's a network there. OK. Yeah. OK.
Well, that's what I was wondering. Yeah, that sounds good.
The value of this the value of this network, everybody.
The other problem you posted here and Stephen Frost and co. will solve it.
Thank you, Kathleen. Teresa.
Hi. Hi. Hi. Yeah, I'm back.
I put my hand up again.
There's something I wanted to post in the chat and I was hoping for Daniel's opinion.
I just want to go and grab it.
Bear with me. I need to copy it and paste it in the chat. I'll do that now.
When you do before, Teresa, because it would scroll up the chat.
I want it there now. You can see it.
Daniel, can you see that message I just posted in the chat?
Yes, I can see it. Let me just open it up here.
It's too late.
My question is this. In the first link, you can see the the BLA approval letter that the FDA gave to Pfizer Biontech for their common
vaccine. It was approved on the 23rd of August 2021.
And do you remember there was that talk? I think Robert Malone was was speaking to it about them doing the bait and switch.
Three weeks ago, they renewed the EUA on the Pfizer Biontech, the original vaccine, which apparently is this.
Sorry, Cardin. You're trying to. Right.
They they renewed the emergency use authorization on the Pfizer vaccine that you can get.
Now, obviously, the commonality is one that you can't get in the States.
I don't know about Canada, but from the research that I've done everywhere that you can get it,
it's under some form of emergency use authorization or they call it, you know, a limited authorization or a provisional authorization.
It's never been approved in the one place it's been approved. You can't get it.
Now, it says in it says in the letters that commonality and the Pfizer Biontech COVID-19 vaccine, which is the original one that they rolled out,
are the same stuff, but legally different.
They can be used interchangeably. Now, from what I understand, the the expiry date on the vaccines should have elapsed by now.
So they were shipping fresh vaccines.
It should be commonality if it's the same stuff.
But three weeks ago, they renewed the emergency use authorization, which is some seven months after they supposedly approved the same stuff.
So, I mean, really, we've got them there.
Well, the other thing I see here is for the pediatric annual status report, post marketing study requirement,
the study completion and the final report is not going to come out till October 31st, 2023.
Yeah, and some studies on the myocarditis aren't going to be completed until 2025.
Yeah, no, this is this is so, you know, there's there's all of this going on.
But the one thing I can say.
And this is I don't know how else to explain it.
You know, I received through various means a sample of Pfizer and a sample of Moderna.
And they all have very interesting structures when left for, you know, four weeks or more under room temperature or like not quite room temperature.
They were left in a car. So anywhere from 30 degrees Celsius to like minus five, because it was still winter in the car when I first when I first received the samples and I just kind of left them in my car.
But when left at environmental temperatures for four to six weeks, the Pfizer and Moderna both when looked at under electron microscope formed complex structures, structures that looked like chips,
structures that looked like pyramid like crystals, structures that looked like fibers and structures that looked like spheres.
But when we put them under the electron microscope, the only elements that would show up were carbon and oxygen.
And anything biologic on this earth has a protein or and phospholipids for the cell membranes.
So phospholipids have phosphate in them and all proteins have nitrogen in them.
So anything that was biologic should have showed up some sort of a signal on the electron microscope as the sample contains nitrogen and phosphorus.
None of that was in any of the samples I looked at. Right.
And and the samples included spheres or eggs or whatever you want to call them.
And they were composed purely of carbon.
It had things that looked like insect legs, like if you were to take an insect leg and put it under electron microscope, it kind of looks similar to some of the structures we saw in the Moderna sample.
And but again, that structure was made just of carbon and oxygen.
There was no signs of nitrogen and phosphorus, which means everything we were looking at, whether it was something that looked like a microchip, something that looked like a little pyramid crystal, something that looked like a little pyramid crystal, something that looked like a little pyramid crystal.
Something that looked like an insect leg, something that looked like an egg.
All those morphologically different structures were all composed of just carbon and oxygen.
And this was from a sealed vial of Pfizer.
So then interesting.
So the question is, if there was actually any mRNA or DNA in that sample, that sealed sample of Pfizer, there should have been some nitrogen and some phosphorus showing up on the spectrum analysis from the electron microscope.
The samples of Moderna that I obtained, they weren't sealed in vial.
They were in a syringe.
So technically they are exposed to the environment through the tiny head of the needle, which is still open to the air.
But in those Moderna samples that weren't completely sealed, they still didn't have any evidence of biologic contamination.
There was no nitrogen, no phosphorus in the sample.
But then that's so there's no biologic contamination, but that also means there's no nucleotides in that sample of Moderna, even though it formed into this weird structure that looked like an egg growing out of a filament of a fiber.
So how do you get something that looks like a biological structure, but it's composed entirely of carbon and oxygen?
There's no nitrogen, no phosphorus, which means it's not a protein or a cell membrane made from a phospholipid.
It's unlike anything that I know in the biological realm of science.
Can I give you my theory?
No, I'm not medically qualified.
I'm just a physics graduate.
And I remember the very beginnings before I graduated of nanotechnology and, you know, nanocircuits and nanomachines.
And the structures that I've seen from the images that have been produced by various labs don't to me look like nanobots or nanomachines.
You'd expect some kind of, you know, doping different levels.
You'd expect something that looks like a very small circuit, and I don't see that.
So my theory is that I think what you could have been looking at there was a not a placebo, but it's got perhaps graphene oxide structures in it that self assemble.
I think that the process is called Tesla for Isis.
And I think that they're basically from mechanical harm to cause mechanical harm.
I know that you can use graphene to kill off microbes because apparently it penetrates the cellular skin of the microbe.
I can't remember that now.
So I've seen a video. It was a TED talk where a guy said that you can purify water by sticking these these graphene particles into the water.
And basically anything that's alive that's in there doesn't survive the process, which is quite nasty.
It comes back to what that doctor that was saying that the scientists that was saying the guy who was killed murdered.
He was talking about them being like tiny little razor blades.
Well, there's a TED talk that describes that mechanism.
And the other thing that I think it could be is that they are using these little structures to lodge in the the capillary walls and to actually start plots forming.
I think they could be seeding for plots.
So the things that look like eggs on the electron microscope pictures that I've been able to obtain.
The surface appears quite similar to carbon nanospheres.
And the strands that these spheres seem to be growing out of, at least on the Moderna sample, the strands could be carbon fibers.
Right. But again, there is nothing biologic about these structures.
And the funny thing is that the Moderna sample had the most they had something some things that appeared to be crystals, but they weren't salt crystals because there was no sodium or chloride in them.
They weren't carbon crystals because carbon crystals are either graphite or diamonds.
It just didn't have this crystal structure of a diamond.
They just looked like crystals that looked similar to salt crystals, but there was no salt in them.
It was pure carbon. And then there was a few instances where there was a little rectangular structure with all these dots on the surface of the rectangular structure that were arranged in a grid pattern.
And for the lack of a better word, the researcher and I, who we were looking at, we just call them chips because they look like a rectangle with dots on them in a grid.
What else would you call it? A chip.
But in the same Moderna sample, we would see these fibers with these egg-like structures growing out of the fibers.
And the egg-like structures look quite similar to a carbon nanosphere, except they're attached to a fiber.
And that was in the Moderna. And then the Pfizer samples would only grow into fibers and crystals, but again, composed purely of carbon.
So I don't think there was any mRNA in the two samples I received, one of Moderna, one of Pfizer, because if there was any mRNA in either of those two samples,
there should have been a nitrogen and a phosphorous signal showing up on the spectrometry from the electron microscope.
So, hang on, hang on. It was failing.
Hang on one second. Keep going, Theresa. But I have to go after four hours.
Stephen, it's 1 a.m. for you, Theresa, 1 a.m. for Stephen. I just have to go to my next meeting.
Daniel, lovely to meet you. Over to you, Stephen. And Theresa, back to you. I'll just bye everybody and I'll see you on Tuesday.
Thank you very much, Charles. Thank you for having me on.
Daniel, are you going now? No, no, no, I can't stay here for a bit longer.
Theresa, I just have to say I've got to go. And back to you, Theresa.
OK, thanks, Charles. Bye, Charles. Thank you.
That's right. OK. Yeah, that video, that TED talk, I posted it in a chat on signal.
So I'll go and find that and I'll post that into the chat. But I think it's a mechanical effect.
You've muted yourself, Theresa. Oh, sorry. Yeah.
Ray's just asked me to go and find that TED talk. So I'm going to go and find that.
But I do think that this is a it's a mechanical kind of harm that they're causing with these these graphene particles,
whatever it is that they assemble into. I think it's mechanical. I think it's it's to cause physical harm.
It's interesting that you didn't find anything in there apart from just the, you know, the graphene and the,
you know, the oxygen. It's presumably it was in a saline solution.
So there would have been sodium and chlorine.
Oh, well, that was the thing. If it was in a saline solution, as soon as it dried for for preparation for the electron microscope,
there should have been a whole bunch of salt crystals and a whole bunch of sodium and chloride on the on the electron microscopy signal.
But there wasn't any of this. So what was the what was the fluid? It was water.
I suspect it must have been dissolved in water.
This is this is this is unlike any I've never seen anything able to produce so many different types of structures made of just carbon and oxygen.
Do you have a theory on why they would inject people with that stuff?
I don't know why why this particular batch, which was just Moderna and Pfizer, was sent to Western Canada because there's no signs of any mRNA and at least in the two samples that I got.
So I don't know what kind of experiment they're doing.
I have to be suspicious that everything that we're seeing going on with the FDA and the approval of common R.T.
and whatever the mRNA that they claim is in the injections that are being in the emergency use authorized by the FDA.
I have to wonder if is this not just a song and dance to keep us occupied, to keep us looking at injections and debating injections and examining injections while something else is like a three ring circus?
Is our attention being drawn towards the minutiae of the FDA and the injections while they are doing something 10 times worse in a completely different sphere of society?
I've got no doubt about it. I think that this is only going to escalate.
We know too much. We know too much about the Medazolam, the Remdesivir.
We know about just so much. The mechanisms of the spike protein.
They're not going to let this go, are they? They're going to have to escalate.
Daniel, is it possible that these are more like simple carbohydrates that we're seeing in those?
I might add that I think we probably need to have a discussion on what you've been able to discover here.
My field of expertise, I would say, is elementary chemistry. That's where my training is at.
But geology and electron microscopy, I've more or less specialized in in the last 40 years.
So I'd be really interested in going through this material with you.
I'll send you the zip files of the electron, the X-ray diffraction spectroscopy, what we took out of the electron microscopy.
I sent them to Ray. I sent them to him.
I don't know that I've got them all though, is I think part of the issue because I think this frequencies are not all there.
Sorry. Daniel, were those the two emails you sent?
Yeah, those are just the photos. But I have a series of Word documents because this particular machine outputs the spectroscopy onto Word document files.
And then basically I went through all the Word document files and stripped off the identifying data and then changed the file format so it can't be traced back to a particular electrons by microscope machine.
But I have those in zip files and I can send those to you as well.
I haven't sent those out yet. And that has the actual spectrum.
The energy dispersive spectrometry is absolutely critical in doing these analyses.
And there are limits to what you can do with EDS, by the way.
So those are things that we probably should discuss offline.
So I got confirmation from the electron spectroscopy tech that the penetration of the XDS is about five micrometers.
So given that an E. coli is anywhere from point two micrometers thick to one or two micrometers thick and then between five and ten micrometers in length,
a penetration of five micrometers into any of the images we saw should be sufficient to detect any underlying nucleotides or proteins.
But the only things that were showing up on the XDS were was the very strong carbon signal, a very strong oxygen signal and the artifactual platinum palladium signals from when we coded the sample.
Some of the samples had a trace amount of silicon.
A couple of the samples had trace amounts of psyllium from the lanthanide series on the period.
I don't know what is sphulium doing there, right?
A few of the samples had trace amounts of calcium and magnesium.
But again, what I was looking for was nitrogen and phosphorus.
Did you happen to take the batch numbers and look them up under my bad batch to see either if they had really bad reactions or if they had virtually none?
When I get the samples back in my hands, I'll look up their batch numbers.
But when I looked it up initially when I got the samples, the samples of Moderna I had weren't noted in the how bad is my batch sample.
Like it seemed to be inert. No one had reported those batch numbers of Moderna before.
But again, the sample is not in my hands right now, so I'll have to contact someone just to get them to read the batch number off again.
I mean, that may be an indicator that it doesn't have any of the intended parts of the vaccine and therefore it didn't have any reactions.
There were no reports submitted.
It was purely a carbon graphene experiment for those particular batches.
Daniel, do you know what the amounts were made of in this particular case?
You would have to get that from the TACU random.
We can discuss this offline if you like.
Because I've got a good well over almost 45 years of experience with electron microscopy, scanning electron microscopy that you used here.
I've got a really good background in all of this.
There's a lot of technical issues that can arise and we want to make sure those are eliminated in order to make sure that we've got really good data out.
Super.
Well, we seem to run out of questions, Daniel.
All right.
That's been a pleasure talking with you guys.
So whenever you want me back on, just let me know.
Daniel, you're very welcome.
You're now on the list of invitees, so you're very welcome to join us.
So on Tuesday, I'm just trying to remember the name of the Dolores Carhill was speaking very highly of the author of Tavistock Institute.
And so I'm hoping to get him on Tuesday.
And then on Sunday, we've got Kevin Corbett, who you would really like.
Yes, I'm aware of Kevin Corbett.
Yeah.
So he's a nurse and he's a PhD and he's a brilliant speaker.
He can just talk endlessly, literally.
And his sense as well.
And all joined up.
So he's speaking about to us on Sunday.
And then I'm trying to get some Jordan Peterson.
Yes, we're trying to get him, but he's a he's a heavyweight.
Yeah.
Yeah, well, we want to have a good night.
If you're in a time zone for that, it's it's the sun has gone down.
I think the sun is probably going down in eastern Canada right now.
So thank you for staying up to listen to me.
I think Daria is trying to get a question to you.
OK, I'm throwing dog plays here.
Yeah. So, Daniel, thank you so much.
I'm sorry.
They got zoomies after their steak dinner.
But I want to go back to what they taught us in med school back when they taught us medicine.
And it has to do with decision making for testing and diagnosis.
And always the million dollar question was how is this test result going to change what you do?
And the answer is, yeah, I just want to know.
I'm curious.
Is that a good use of your time and the patient's resources?
And I'm glad you mentioned that we might be getting distracted by wanting to know because we're so curious what the evil demon is doing.
That that's the shiny effect they're dealing in front of us is, oh, you know, it's all this new new stuff about what's in there.
And we're missing what the other hand is doing, you know, the sinister.
And so I just wanted to ask you, I'm glad again, I want to thank you for mentioning that because I think you're right.
I really think we've got to look at knowing about whether there's venom or not or whether there's other poisons.
We know there's they're trying to kill us. We know that.
But how does that change what we do?
And like your work is going to continue with the legal system and educating people on that.
If it's is, is this the best use of our time or is it just that we have to know because we're so curious and that's just our nature?
But in the bigger picture, how does this help us to know precisely what which is blue cocktail?
They're showing that, you know, I've said this before.
It's kind of like we go from one batch to the eye of Newton to a frog in there along with some toxic spells.
So you could speak over water and do a crystal structure.
It's it's so you just don't know what kind of environment you think you're in.
You can be an effect and that could affect their functionality.
And if there's any evil intent or not, I know that sounds crazy.
A lot of people in here think of it, maybe it's talking like this.
But when you can specifically, whether it's electromagnetic force or something more, you know, unidentifiable.
But it's been proven to have people pray over water or curse at water and see the difference in structure that forms in water or other liquids.
I don't have that right at my fingertips. I have to look it up.
But anyway, I just wondered how you felt about that real quick.
The fundamental failure of what we call science today started with the separation of science from philosophy.
And the reason why I say that is one of the most fundamental rules of physics that were first taught is probably wrong.
And that's the first law of thermodynamics that of entropy.
And the reason why I say that is, is let's say you take an inanimate object like a rock and you expose it to energy.
Let's say the sun, for example, the energy from the sun will eventually hit the rock and it will knock molecules off the rock until eventually that rock will turn to dust.
So the simplified equation is energy plus inanimate object equals increased entropy, which is dust.
However, if you take an animate object, let's say a plant, you expose it to that same energy of the sun.
What happens is the entropy of the system decreases because that sun, that plant takes, you know, molecules that were disorganized.
It will take literally the dust from its environment and using the energy of the sun, the plant will grow.
So energy plus animate object equals a decrease in entropy.
Right. So entropy, according to the first law of thermodynamics, is always supposed to increase.
But that's only half the equation.
Entropy only increases when you are dealing with inanimate objects.
When you have animate objects, the rules of physics seemingly are reversed.
That energy plus an animate object results in a decrease in entropy.
So then how did that fallacy get taught in universities worldwide to become a law of thermodynamics?
Well, it's a false law.
It's actually that false law could only have occurred if physics was removed from the realm of philosophy.
Right. And then and then philosophical physics was turned into kind of a voodoo,
pseudo science called metaphysics.
In fact, my my assertion is that there is no difference between the divisions of knowledge and what we call the divisions of science.
Physics, chemistry and biology are, in fact, all one field.
And there is no field of the humanities versus the field of sciences.
It's actually only one field of knowledge.
Right. And philosophy is actually not any different from religion.
In fact, philosophy, religion, science and the humanities, what we all think of as separate divisions of knowledge are not, in fact, separate divisions.
And the very idea that knowledge can be separated into divisions of religion versus philosophy, sciences versus humanity is, in fact, the greatest fallacy imposed upon the human mind in this current age.
There are no differences in knowledge.
All knowledge is knowledge and to divide it into separate subjects is, in fact, a deliberate attempt to prevent the advancement of knowledge and the discovery of truth.
You sound like Jordan.
I don't know if that answered the question, but I think you want to tell us about to tell us stories, Greek mythology and stuff like that, like a muse.
Oh, you know, it's OK on the topic of Greek mythology.
OK, let's assume that this SARS COVID-19 virus is a chimera.
It's a combination of several different species of viruses.
So that's the current technology as of 2019.
Now, imagine in the future, after 50 years of development, today we're making chimeras of viruses.
What kind of chimeras are we going to make in in 2070?
Well, you know, given human.
Yeah, like, what kind of chimeras are we going to make in 2070?
Well, you know, given human.
Yeah, like, well, somebody's going to want to make a half horse, half human.
Right. And somebody is going to have a bad hair day.
And it's like, I'm going to I wish I had a head of snakes instead of hair.
Right. And the genetic chimeric technology that's in its infancy today.
50 years from now, somebody wants to have a head of snakes, just like Medusa.
They'll be like they'll go to their local genetics lab and say, turn my scalp into a head of snakes.
And they will splice snake genes into every hair follicle and they will have a head of snakes.
Right. And then so you think with the possibilities with genetic technology,
are those myths of, you know, Greek times of, you know,
Aristotle times of these fantastic creatures that were half animal, half human?
Are those really myths or could it have been possible?
For science. In a previous area?
All good questions to ask.
Stephen, can I say something here?
Sure.
I've noticed a pattern when we have our Zoom chats.
We get to a point where our guests run out of questions.
They valiantly got to the very end of the list of questions and then we thank them and then our guest usually leaves.
But we never actually say to our guests, do you want to stay?
Because the conversation continues.
You can stay if you want, Daniel.
I think it's about time I started making some food for dinner.
But, you know, these are all interesting questions to ask because from the fundamental start point,
what we know of as human history is about five thousand, eight thousand years old.
And eight thousand years ago, all of humanity was supposed to be just hunter gatherers and primitive farmers.
But from anthropological science, as far as we know, the human species is at a minimum fifty thousand years old.
And from current archaeology, a maximum of one hundred twenty five thousand years old.
So if there's only eight thousand years of known human history and from in the span of eight thousand years,
you go from hunter gatherer, primitive farmer to space age, nuclear age, genetic age in the span of eight thousand years.
But what we know as humans with abnormally big brains and having to use tools to survive in the environment,
because no human homo sapien is strong enough to fight off a bear with his bare hands.
Literally, we are dependent on tool usage for survival.
If tool using hominids existed fifty thousand years ago, what did we do for the other forty two thousand years?
Was there, in fact, you know, space age, genetic technology and nuclear technology in previous points in history that we are not aware of?
Because, you know, being bored for five hours is one thing to have no technological development for a hundred years after developing a spear pointed arrow is highly unlikely.
Like from the second homo sapien starts using tools, there is technological advancement of tool usage.
And from what we know of history, within eight thousand years of the start of tool usage, eventually the end point is space technology, nuclear technology.
And along with space and nuclear technology, eventually there's also concurrent with the genetic technology.
So at what points in human history that we aren't told about, have there previously been this triad of of of technologies, genetic space and nuclear?
And so what happened to those previous generations, those previous ages of human civilization that achieved high technology?
What happened to them? Where did they go?
And why did they leave us with these stories of minotaurs and cyclopses and and Medusa's?
Yeah. And the amazing thing about Greek mythology was I think they were passing down the stories for centuries without any alphabet.
So the Greek alphabet came about in I think the eighth century B.C., which is when the homo's Odyssey and homo's Iliad were written from memory.
But the stories have been around since I think it was 14th century B.C. or 13th century B.C.
I can't remember. But yes. So how did those stories survive for 500 years, 500 or 600 years with with nothing being written down?
And the argument goes because I did do a course online course at the University of Pennsylvania on Greek and Roman mythology and I got 98.5 percent.
But I'm not posting. But anyway, I was trying pretty hard and I took all the resets I could possibly take because I wanted to prove something.
And anyway, yeah, the argument was that they were so relevant.
The reason that they survived and they are still surviving and there's huge interest in them is because they are highly relevant today.
And but the other interesting thing for us is that we apparently as a species, we learn from stories.
We like to learn things through stories. And that gives us the clue to solving.
In my opinion, it gives us the clue to solving this nonsense now that you, Daniel and others, you know, in this group, we all ought to sit down and create our own narrative in order to get people out of this.
Crazy narrative that they are believing in now, because there's the interesting thing is we're so busy, busy analyzing that we don't actually create our own narrative.
And that's what we need to do in my opinion.
Well, there's a scary little story in the chat there.
I found the video about how nanomagnets, which presumably can be made of graphene oxide, can be used to lacerate microbes and thus purify water.
So it's in the it's in the chat.
If you scroll back just a little way, I think Ray Strom asked for it as well.
But Daniel, to go back to the laws of thermodynamics, the entropy, is entropy involved in the first law of thermodynamics?
Because I thought that was...
Oh, sorry, I might have got my laws of thermodynamics mixed up.
It's a second law of thermodynamics, isn't it?
It's the second law, sorry. It's the second law of thermodynamics about entropy.
Yeah, exactly. Entropy. Yeah.
I was interested in that.
I think that's what these nihilists like.
I think they thrive on that, don't they?
But the thing is, one thing that, you know, I think that we humans are incredibly arrogant.
And we, like all species, we must have a fatal flaw.
Because before us, before the human species came along, we were not able to do anything.
So we're the last in a long line of dominant species.
But we take ourselves incredibly seriously.
And the other thing, yeah, we might be clever.
But if we are changing the world so rapidly that we don't have a chance to adapt to the changing environment,
then we go under as a species.
And nobody seems to talk about that.
And I've never heard anyone talk about that.
But it seemed obvious to me as a medical doctor that that was the case.
That, you know, if you, you know, also from my own experience, you know,
that there's just too much to keep up with.
And if you don't understand the world you're living in and you tell and you need to be telling the truth,
that's why the truth is so important, then you don't survive.
And you just look at the world of computers, you know, even computer experts,
when you ask them, why did that happen?
Explain to me why that they can't do it.
They say it doesn't matter.
They can't explain it.
They just say, oh, we'll find another way.
So they avoid the question.
But my argument is, if you don't understand the world,
then you don't survive.
And you don't understand the world you're living in.
That means you're in a very vulnerable position.
And that's why the human speech is in such a mess,
because there has been too much change too quickly since, say, 1900.
So you said 8,000 years, Daniel,
but not much has happened during those 8,000 years until about 1900.
Or 1850, maybe, the Industrial Revolution.
It's a very exponential.
Things progress very slowly for millennia.
And then in the last few centuries, things progress to an end.
So what's the end point of that exponential equation?
Well, it is, in fact, a societal collapse.
You end up with a world of computers,
and that's what we see now, I think.
No, I think we end up with the Eloy and the Molots.
Could I ask you, Daniel?
So, for example, I don't know what the hell you're talking about.
So it's completely lost.
You know, with that one comment, I don't know what you're talking about.
It's H.G. Wells' novel.
It's a very interesting novel.
What are you talking about?
It's a H.G. Wells' novel.
Yeah, well, I haven't read it, so...
That's okay.
Which one? The Time Machine?
The Time Machine.
Okay.
Yeah, the Eloy are the people who live on the Earth's surface,
and they're a simple agrarian-type folk and peaceful.
I don't know if you guys sound familiar.
Are these like albino vampires that live beneath the ground,
and they sound a horn when they want to consume more of the Eloy?
And these Eloy just like zombies start walking towards the entrance,
and when they've picked out as many as they've got to be slaves or food for them,
then the gates close and everybody goes back to their pastoral lifestyle.
The guy from the past has a Time Machine,
and he gets sucked into this future time period,
and he goes, this ain't right.
And he's fighting to break it all up and wake up the Eloy
and get them to stop feeding the Molocs.
And it's a classic.
I saw it in the 60s.
There was a black-and-white movie on Frasier Thomas Family Classics that I watched,
and it freaked me out when I was like six years old.
It's just wild.
Daniel, Daniel is our resident neurosurgeon.
Retired.
Oh, wow.
She does free operations.
There's probably the biggest civilisations on this planet that were quite advanced.
I think that was the point.
Yeah.
Can I ask you, Daniel, the perpetrators of what's happening here,
how many years ahead of us do you think they are in their technology?
Because they've had trillion-dollar slush funds, you know,
for probably 80 years.
How far ahead of us are they?
For what they've revealed so far, I'd say maybe it's about 50 to 80 years ahead of us.
But again, it's hard to know.
You retained knowledge from a previous epoch of human civilisation
where there was genetic technology, space technology.
And the reason why I say space technology is because of the Hindu myths of celestial arrows, right?
And I don't know if any of you have seen that video of the Russian hypersonic missile,
but it looks awfully like a celestial arrow with a glowing arrowhead through the sky
because it's flying so fast.
So are the Hindu myths of celestial weapons, arrows from the sky, really myths?
Or are they just an accurate recount of what's happened in previous epochs in human society
where people had intercontinental ballistic weapons technology and hypersonic missiles?
And if you're standing on the ground and you look at these weapons coming from the sky,
they look awfully like celestial arrows.
So if you had some way of retaining that knowledge from previous epochs,
then literally the knowledge and technology is thousands of years ahead of our time
or thousands of years behind our time.
It's really hard to say one way or the other.
But then there's another idea, and it's more of a philosophical idea,
which is why I think it's so important to have philosophical thought as the basis of any science.
Just imagine as a human being, you go into the garden and you look at an ant.
The ant can see you, and you can see the ant,
but the ant can't comprehend what you can comprehend
because you're 10,000 times bigger than that ant,
and you have a much greater memory capacity and thought capacity.
So if you started, I don't know, watering the lawn, the ant would think,
oh my God, this is the great flood. This is climate change. This is whatever.
This is a catastrophe, right? But all you're doing is watering the lawn.
And the reason why the ant thinks that is because the ant can only think what an ant can think.
But by the same token as a human,
you can only understand what your brain is capable of understanding.
If you were to consider from just an extrapolation point of view,
are we capable of imagining a living organism that's hundreds of thousands
or maybe millions of times larger than ourselves
with a lifespan a million times longer than our lifespan?
What kind of thoughts would an organism that lives a million times longer than a human,
that has a body that's a million times larger than a human,
what kind of thoughts would that type of an organism have?
And what would that organism look like?
Approximately, the Earth is whatever, 20 or 30 million times the size of a human by mass.
Planets definitely last orders of magnitude.
They have lifespans longer than a human being.
So we can only imagine, but again,
the limits of our imagination are only what we're capable of thinking.
If we were to personify the planet as a living thing,
my thought is, well, the planet would think we're awfully entertaining,
all these civilizations of little creatures growing and collapsing, growing and collapsing.
Five minutes ago on a planetary time scale,
it was a bunch of whatever, dinosaurs that were growing and collapsing in a society,
and now there's these little things that are about one-tenth the size of dinosaurs,
and they build these little things that grow up into the sky,
and then they self-destruct, and then they come back again.
I mean, who's to know? What does a planet think?
A planet thinks whatever a planet thinks, but we're probably quite entertaining,
if I can put it that way, on a galactic scale.
The perpetrators, though, aren't they human? Aren't they amongst us?
Yeah, I think so. I mean, the people who seek to collapse human society,
they certainly do seem to have a belief system that is very egocentric,
selfish for the lack of a better word, parasitic, I guess, parasitic,
if you can imagine a belief system based entirely upon parasitism.
So they're seeing us now as useless eaters. They've shared us. They can't share any more.
But what they might be ahead of us on some things, they're behind us on other things.
So empathy, for example, and wisdom, for that matter.
I think they see us as the useless eaters now, though. I mean, we are consuming resources.
We are eight billion useless eaters consuming their resources.
And I think they've realized that all the low-hanging fruit is gone now,
and it's time to thin the herd. And I think this is exactly what they're doing,
because for a select few million, there's going to be a very bright future,
and the resources that they can conserve by knocking out all of Western civilization
and then picking off the third world at their leisure will probably last them for thousands of years,
during which time they can reach for the stars. And I think that's what they're doing.
They are pulling the plug.
They'll be tripped over by their own lack of empathy.
Well, I bloody hope so.
Daniel, do you think that they can see that there's going to be some kind of natural disaster,
perhaps a polar excursion, something like that, that they're preparing for?
Yeah, maybe.
And the timing is just that...
That might be one explanation, right?
If we were to assume that they have some foreknowledge through classified NASA documents
and NASA studies and geological surveys that there's periodic cataclysms on the Earth,
they might have predictive abilities to gauge when the next planetary cataclysm happens,
whether it's via polar shift or via solar event.
Certainly that's within...
If I had access to all the classified data that NASA won't release to the public,
that would certainly be the first thing I go looking for.
The solar event could precipitate the polar shift.
And actually, it's very interesting because I know that the British Ordnance Survey
are having trouble updating the maps fast enough.
Oh yeah, the magnetic map of the world.
Where I am right now, for the first time I think in probably human history,
where I am right now in Pembrokeshire, Wales, the magnetic north is to the east of Grid North,
which it's never been before.
I don't think we're quite there in the east of England, but certainly in Wales and South Wales,
the magnetic north has really shifted.
And apparently it's on its way, I think, to Siberia, the North Pole is,
and the South Pole has already left Antarctica.
And if you look at all the top billionaires, you know, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Richard Branson,
they're all building rockets.
And in fact, Jeff Bezos is, I think he's hedging his bets because right next to where he's got his rocket launchers,
he's built a complex in the mountain, he's tunneling into the mountain.
So he's going up and down.
Yeah, Theresa, he's not going to get anywhere because it's 35 million miles approximately to Mars
and 35 million miles the other way to Venus.
Yes, but you can get off the earth while this cataclysm is happening,
survive for a few weeks or months until the polar ships have actually, because when it goes, it goes really fast.
Do you think that's the only danger?
Well, I think he might be thinking that. They all seem to be thinking along the same lines.
Let's build rockets.
Why do you think that they're any cleverer than we are?
They're human beings. Well, we think they're human beings.
I'm all for looking for their weaknesses.
I can't help but notice, but you know, the North Pole is moving.
Yes, the North Pole is moving.
You can even observe that on a GPS.
If you bought a GPS for your car more than 10 years ago, it has trouble.
The streets are always off by a few 10 to 15 meters.
So, yeah, I know the North and South Poles are shifting.
If it's just a magnetic shift, you and I have nothing to worry about.
However, if the magnetic shift is accompanied by a physical shift,
like the North and South Poles of the earth switch places,
that the North Pole ends up pointing downwards,
then we have a problem of oceans which carry their inertia to deal with,
in which case it would probably look surprisingly similar to a great flood,
like biblical times or other ancient religions that talk about life
starting from an oceanic world, like post-flood.
So, Daniel, could we maybe walk across the Atlantic then from Wales?
Depends how fast such an event happens,
if all the oceans end up in different places.
But again, like I said, the analogy of the ant to the human
versus the human versus the planet,
we don't know if a planet has its own thoughts,
because we don't live long enough and we don't have the brain of a planet.
If a planet has thoughts of its own, we probably wouldn't be able to recognize it.
Does the sun have thoughts of its own?
Well, I don't know. Maybe it does.
If the sun has a thought, what makes us believe as human beings
with the limited brains we have that we would be even able to recognize
a thought coming from a star?
What do stars think about? I don't know.
Suns say, hey, Jupiter, how are you doing this millennium?
I don't know what they talk about or what they think.
No, exactly.
So to a certain extent, it's all out of our hands,
but the true discoveries and truths might not be out of our hearts.
There might be a knowledge that you can retain even after your material body is gone.
Now we're getting into religion, philosophy.
But to divorce religion, philosophy, afterlife,
and thoughts bigger than were meant for the human mind,
I think at the very least we should keep an open mind
that there is an entire universe or world of understanding
that we can't even scratch the surface of.
But we can do the best with what we have.
And to a certain extent, regardless of what we do today, tomorrow,
or in the next 10 years, solar systems will continue to do
whatever solar systems will do.
And if humanity goes extinct because we failed to reign in
the parasitic members of our own species
or the destructive tendencies of the elite of our own species,
if we all go extinct, I mean, from a planetary scale,
what's Earth or Gaia going to think?
It's like, oh, well, that was the hominids.
Next species up. How about the squids?
Is it going to go back to this advanced squid society?
How far are they going to get?
How many thousands of years are they going to get before they either evolve
philosophically and spiritually to the point where they can have technology
without killing themselves?
Or are they going to suffer the same fate as humanity where
we develop the technology but not the spiritual awareness
to avoid using the technology to obliterate ourselves?
Yeah. And so the universe has been here for 13 billion years,
as far as I remember, if that's right.
And then the Earth has been here for approximately half that time,
six and a half billion years.
So, you know, the notion that human beings know anything much is just nonsense.
So the universe, so it's been around for 13 billion years
and it's still expanding.
And so the nearest solar system is four light years away.
So there isn't a planet that's inhabitable in our solar system.
If you want to go to the next solar system,
the nearest one is four light years away.
There are billions of solar systems in our galaxy
and there are billions of galaxies in the universe.
And so we don't know very much, actually,
and we take ourselves far too seriously, I think.
Right. And so then you have to, if we consider,
what was it, the first law of thermodynamics as a fallacy,
that energy can be neither created nor destroyed.
Well, if we take that as a fallacy,
then is it a deliberate fallacy that we've been led to believe,
or was it an intentional fallacy?
And if it's an intentional fallacy, to what end was that intent meant to serve?
Because as far as I can tell,
the Sun is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics,
that energy can neither be created nor destroyed,
because the Sun seems to be continuously creating energy.
Now, there was the theory that the Sun is a nuclear fusion reactor,
but that in itself is, you know,
when you think about it in the most simplest terms,
it's the most moronic idea ever,
that gravity could be so strong to fuse hydrogen atoms into helium atoms
in a reaction for nuclear fusion,
but the energy generated by that reaction,
the explosive energy, wouldn't just drive any further atoms apart.
That's an impossibility, that you have one force compressing materials,
but then in the act of compressing materials,
so much energy is generated that those materials are blown apart.
That's impossible.
Like the actual theory that we are taught in whatever,
solar system or science textbooks that the Sun is a nuclear fusion machine,
is wrong. It's technically impossible.
You can't have things collapsing upon themselves
and then generating so much energy that it lights up the whole solar system
without pushing all those elements that supposedly collapsed upon themselves apart.
So then how is the Sun generating energy?
This is one of the thoughts, it's like, you know,
physics thinks they know, but they really don't know anything.
They haven't come up with a convincing explanation or theory why
the Sun continuously generates energy,
because the gravitational model of nuclear fusion is impossible.
So then the first law of thermodynamics is wrong,
and the second law of thermodynamics is wrong,
is why were we taught in science to believe something that at its very base
was a false foundation? Was it to deceive us in some way?
And what was the deception intended to do?
Was it intended to create a false sense that resources are limited?
Because if there's going to be some kind of global catastrophe,
and if resources are limited, then obviously the solution to that equation
is to minimize use of resources.
And if it's human beings that are using resources,
then you might as well just kill off as many human beings as possible
to have the minimum possible number of human beings possible
to consume the least amount of resources.
But that equation only applies in a resource-limited universe.
And just from observing the Sun, the Sun does not seem to have any problems
with generating new resources out of nothing.
The Sun generates energy. The fusion model is false.
It's logically illogical, but logically it's impossible.
So the Sun is somehow able to generate energy and material in the form of solar wind,
which has iron, hydrogen, carbon.
Every element on the Earth is also being continuously released by the Sun in the solar wind.
If you don't have a resource-limited system,
then you don't have to go about killing everyone
just to conserve resources to survive the next cataclysm.
So why were we led into believing that the universe is finite
and that resources are limited?
That foundational belief may be false.
Who came up with the laws of thermodynamics? Was it Einstein?
Oh, was it Einstein? I don't know. It was someone, but I'm inclined to think that they're wrong.
It was Isaac Newton.
Newton, yes, exactly.
Well, maybe that was the best theory available.
And maybe the notion that we can come up with laws that govern these huge events is unlikely, isn't it?
Yeah.
There's no other way I can describe it as this as being beyond philosophy, beyond religion.
There is a whole other realm of thought that we haven't even touched upon yet.
Exactly.
So should we be optimistic, Daniel?
In the biggest possible picture, yeah, I think we should be optimistic.
And, you know, funny.
Did I ever did that story ever get out?
Because I told this quite early on when I was starting to do speaking tours
of the only thing that could be done to make the universe a better place.
And I was starting to do speaking tours of the only time I have witnessed the afterlife, not for me.
It was actually an emergency patient I was taking care of in Langley Emergency Department.
And it just so happened that I wasn't quite fast enough as an emergency doctor.
So by the time I got to the patient who was an elderly lady who was feeling ill
and her family were trying to get her to eat some food and drink some water to help her feel better.
What had happened by the time I got to her too late was that she had vomited.
But because she was ill and confused, she vomited and inhaled at the same time.
And of course, that caused a fluid blockage in the lungs.
And even though I suctioned her throat and mouth and put a breathing tube in her
and we did CPR to try and revive her heart and we ventilated her with a mechanical ventilator
to try and put some oxygen into the lungs.
She died. We tried to resuscitate her for 45 minutes and she died.
So I was a bit too slow. And I spent the rest of that emergency shift working like a mad man.
So, you know, there wouldn't be a second person who died on my shift because I got to them too late.
And so finally, just past midnight, I'd say, I finally cleared out the emergency.
I saw everyone who had a life threatening emergency.
The next 11 p.m. shift of doctor had come on and started seeing all the subacute patients
so I could take a break and finish off the paperwork from earlier in the day.
So I was sitting when I was standing at the stand up desk in the acute section of the emergency department
where all the resuscitations and life threateningly ill people are.
And I was filling out the death certificate for this patient who had just died.
And I felt someone looking at the back of my head.
And every other time in the emergency department where I've been working,
if you feel somebody looking at the back of your head, it's probably a nurse.
And she has some paperwork that you need to sign before you go home.
Because that's what happens. You know, if people need something for you,
they stare at the back of your head until you turn around and then you have to do their paperwork for them.
So and this was exactly one of the situations.
I was like, just wait, just wait. Let me just finish this death certificate.
And then I'll deal with whatever you have for me to do.
So I signed off on the death certificate. I turned around expecting to see a nurse or someone with some papers for me to sign.
And there was no one there.
But I was staring directly at the dead body of the patient who had just passed away.
And I thought, oh, well, I guess it was you that was staring at me.
But I didn't say that out loud, right?
Otherwise, the rest of the emergency department would think I'm daft.
But I thought, oh, I just saw it in my mind.
I was like, oh, it was you that was staring at the back of my head.
And then the question that popped up in my mind was somebody asked me what happened.
Right. And that's that's not a question I would ask of myself.
I know what happened. You know, I got there too late.
And by the time I got to the bedside, you had vomited and then you tried to take a deep breath in while vomiting.
And you inhaled your own vomit and you died.
So I know what happened. All the nurses who were helping me do the CPR and resuscitation know what happened.
The family members all knew what happened because they were at the bedside, you know, when this whole thing happened.
So then I was like, oh, well, it must be the dead person.
It must be you that's asking me what happened.
So I just I just told her in my mind, I said, well, you just died.
Right. And then the response was like, oh, it wasn't literally.
Oh, like when someone thinks, oh, that's what happened.
That was literally the thought that came into my mind.
And I was like, oh, and then they went away.
So then I thought to myself, I was like, well, I'm a pretty non-spiritual analytical person.
What happened there? Well, I certainly sensed someone looking at the back of my head.
I turned around.
And I recognize that whatever I felt staring at the back of my head was probably a dead body.
But then the dead body asked me a question. What happened?
I answered the question and then they seemed perfectly happy with the answer.
And then they went away. It wasn't the reason why I say they seemed happy with the answer.
It was like it was this sensation that, oh, that's what happened.
I got other places to go and places to be. I just got this sense of hurriedness.
It's like I've been waiting this long for you to turn around and talk to me and answer my question.
So you answered my question. I'm out of here. I'm not hanging around here anymore. Thank you very much. Bye.
And I thought that's an odd thought for me to imagine on my own. Right.
And that's that's certainly not a thought someone else in the room would have had.
I thought almost like, oh, well, we failed to bring that person back to life.
Then the second conclusion I could draw was, you know, undergoing resuscitation is probably quite a painful process
because you have a tube put into your trachea and you have air forced into your lungs.
And then you have somebody, you know, pushing, doing CPR, pushing your heart to get it to pump.
And usually in the elderly, there's usually more than a few broken ribs when you try and compress them and sternum to get their heart to circulate some blood.
So dying is probably a painful process.
But for some reason, whoever was staring at the back of my head asking me what happened didn't know that they died.
Otherwise, they wouldn't have hung around the emergency department waiting to ask the doctor what happened to their body.
Because if they felt all the pain of resuscitation, they wouldn't need to be hanging around asking the doctor what happened.
They would be like, oh, that really hurt. I just died.
I'm going to move on into the afterlife and be done with this world.
And I thought, oh, isn't that that quite a interesting realization?
And then I finished my paperwork and went home.
But then the greater realization from that, at least for me, was the living body is not the be all and end all of the soul.
That there's a part of the human body that I have no training in that continues after the living body or the human body is dead.
And if that's the case, and whatever that continues after the living or the human body is passed away, has enough presence to formulate a thought and ask me a question, accept the answer to the question, and go ahead and do other things.
Because that was the overwhelming sensation I got was like, OK, you answered my question.
I've got better places to be. Bye.
Right. So then then we have the metaphysical or religious consideration of the soul.
Yeah.
And that actually is a game changer. Right.
Because if you if the belief system people carry is that life is only the physical body, then there's all sorts of limitations.
And for the lack of a better word, untruthful philosophies that arise from that fundamental spiritual limitation that the only thing that exists is the physical.
Because then you'll have philosophies based on resource scarcity.
You will have a Canadian economics.
You will have zero sum equations that for one person to gain, another person has to lose.
And you will have all these you'll have an entire belief system in society built on a false premise.
And that's kind of where I believe we are today.
We're in a society where the belief amongst the leadership is that the population must be controlled.
For one person to succeed, another must fail.
You know, for there to be enlightenment, there must be darkness.
And I don't I don't subscribe to that.
I think the actual nature of the universe is far beyond such a simplistic belief system.
I agree.
Daniel, have you seen the Swedish the famous Swedish film director Ingmar Bergman's The Seventh Seal?
No, I haven't seen that. I have heard that of that filmmaker though.
Yes, so I can't remember exactly because I haven't managed to get to the end of it.
But it because it's very depressing.
But sounds like you might enjoy it because you seem to.
So one of the characters in the in the film is I'm not sure it's called this, but death.
So essentially, so death is walking around talking to people.
So, you know, the kind of thing you might enjoy.
Well, that was certainly an enlightenment for me as I actually felt a lot better after speaking to my patient after she had died because.
I realized because I was I was I was a bit upset about it for the rest of my shift that, you know,
if I was literally about 60 to 90 seconds faster in just seeing patients,
I would have got to her before she vomited and inhaled or vomit.
Right. Because I had actually already written the order on her chart for her to have an NG tube because the X-rays that they actually did X-rays for her right at triage.
And then I looked at the X-rays like, oh, that's a bowel obstruction.
She has a bowel obstruction and G tube, NPO, IV normal saline with 20 KCL.
Right. And CT scan.
I wrote those orders on the chart and I put them on the orders rack in the emergency department.
And then I went to see the patient, except literally as I was walking to the patient, she aspirated.
And I was like, damn it, I don't know, 60 seconds quicker.
Or if I had seen the patient first before looking at the X-ray, it would have been a different outcome.
Yeah. And then so I kind of carried with that.
So that's why I worked like a mad man through the rest of my shift.
And then finally get to the end of the shift. I was like, oh, I was too slow, too slow or I mismanaged my time.
And then I get to meet my patient who basically just asked me what happened because my body's no longer working and you have something to do with it.
I don't know how she knew I was the doctor, but she knew I was the doctor because she waited till I was.
She waited to talk to me and then I answered her question and then she was she left the emergency department.
And I thought, well, isn't that nice? I finally got to talk to my patient.
Not when she was alive, but after she had passed, but I still got to talk to my patient.
So I felt better after that.
She did it for you. She knew that you needed to deal with that.
That's why she did that. That's why she came to you.
Maybe, maybe. I mean.
Because you didn't process that until she asked you the question and then you had a chance to process what happened.
Oh, no, she asked me what happened because it was a genuine question.
She actually didn't know what happened. So she asked me what happened.
She asked me what happened and I said, oh, you died.
And then and then it was just like, you know, if somebody gets something, you don't literally see a light shine above their head.
But it's kind of that type of a feeling. It's like, oh, that's what happened.
And then and then after that, she was like, thanks, Doc. I'm out of here. I got better places to be.
Yeah, but I think she needed you to actually say the words for her for yourself.
I think that's the biggest thing.
They come for that.
Yeah. So.
So then there is the big question.
Well, if life does not end with death, what is the meaning of life?
And that's that's an even bigger question.
So lots of questions here.
What's the bigger picture is reassuring.
Daniel.
What's that question?
What is the meaning of life?
Well, one of the answers I came up with and it was just based on just kind of a logical thought game based on the idea of creation.
So there was the Plato definition of justice as excellence of the soul.
So justice would be the most excellent thing, excellent thing that one can imagine.
So then.
If people, the natural world, the universe was created, then there is a binary choice.
Is the creator excellent or not excellent?
If the creator is.
Let's say the creator is not excellent and just created a very fanciful, complicated machine, a machine that operates like a clock.
Right. It's precise.
It's beautiful.
It functions without any hitches.
It's a perfect machine.
But then you think is that is a perfect machine, the most excellent thing imaginable?
Is it the most excellent idea imaginable?
Because let's say you create a perfect machine, you create.
Perfect human beings that do that follow the Ten Commandments to a T that have.
They're like robots.
Then really, what did you create?
You all you created was a machine.
And if that machine is populated by perfect biologic.
You know, human beings that always follow orders, then it's really just you just created a universe of machines and slaves.
Right. Because slaves always do what the masters tell them to do.
They don't have any mind of their own.
So is a universe of machines and slaves, is that truly an excellent creation?
What could be better than that?
Well, the most excellent creation imaginable.
Is.
Creating something that is.
Capable of.
Of thinking and acting on its own and maybe even at some point achieving the same.
Ideas and thought of.
The creator.
So what would that require?
That would require freedom of thought.
That what you create is so similar that it is so excellent that it can create.
Other things itself.
But you created your own equal.
Something something capable of imagining new things.
Having the freedom to do things that you did not expect.
Having the freedom to exceed.
One self, right? Like a parent has children.
What do you want for your children? You want your children to exceed yourself.
In every way possible, right?
Not just to be as good as you to be better than you.
So that would probably be an excellent creation.
A universe that can create on its own and exceed one's own wildest imaginations.
But then the downside of giving freedom is every now and then your creations, just like children.
Know they do things you don't expect in destructive ways.
But without that freedom to.
Without that freedom.
To excel, but also to fail.
There is no truly excellent creation.
So therefore.
If we were to take the assumption that we were created out of excellence by an excellent creator or the universe was created by an excellent creator, then.
One of the pillars of excellence is actually freedom.
And that the lessons of failure.
Are not for the purposes of failure, it's for the purposes of of growth and learning.
Where, you know, it just like if if, you know, one of my own kids did something bad.
It would not be for the kids do bad things.
They lie, they steal, you know, whatever it is, chocolates or whatever.
But that one's hope as a parent is that your creation will learn from its mistake.
You know, my kids will learn from any injustice like, you know, if Miles hits Sophia, you know, my son hits my daughter or they get into some kind of fight.
That they will learn from the injustices they have committed upon their sibling and not do that again.
And therefore.
Exercise their freedom.
In creative ways.
And if they for some reason exercise their freedom in destructive ways to learn from that and to not do that.
Again.
But these are just all rambling philosophical thoughts, these possibilities, things.
That I think about late at night that there's not necessarily any answer to.
But certainly.
It appears to me that.
Any type of system that is devoid of freedom is slavery.
And there's no beauty, there's no excellence, there's no justice in slavery.
Because.
The very principles upon which thinking creatures are built upon.
Is most likely freedom.
The freedom to create being the first freedom.
Daniel in the Western Democrats so called democratic societies.
Do you think that we are slaves?
That's a very good question.
Is the freedom we have truly freedom or an illusion of freedom?
And then if it's slavery, is it.
Not quite an absolute slavery like you know when I think about taxes, for example, our taxes, not.
A form of incremental slavery that it's your income starts tax starts at 20%.
It goes to 22% then 25%.
Then 30% then 37% then 48% and then all of a sudden.
In some countries, you know, the income tax rate is 55%, which means.
You know, greater than half of the work you do half of the time you spend in your day is.
Is being taken away from you.
So slavery becomes torture.
Yeah, slavery becomes torture.
And so I think it's very important that.
That the freedom and the justice that when you contribute to a city with property taxes, when you contribute to a government for, you know, a governmental structure to exist.
That it is done voluntarily.
And is a choice that you do to create something that will outlast you.
Let's say a parliament building you're contributing your your you know a certain portion of your economic day to the creation of something else, but.
The freedom to make that choice is what makes that whatever is built from the labor of others.
Is what makes the product.
Justifiable containing justice that it was made by choice.
Because if something.
Is made through coercion out of slavery.
Even though it might look like a beautiful skyscraper.
Is it's.
Existential worth.
Anything but garbage is in fact the structure, the building, the community, the city.
That is built out of freedom out of people freely giving their spare time to contribute to something.
Is that not contain within it.
The.
Like justice in the sense of, you know, if a city has a spirit, it is created with with the spirit of justice, as opposed to the, you know, a city created out of slavery.
Like Chinese cities maybe.
That's right. These empty cities ghost cities, right?
Like.
Whatever 100 story skyscrapers apartment buildings.
With virtual value and absolutely hollow inside.
Sure.
Have you have you read.
High rise and who's the author of that.
Oh.
It's late here.
So the author is.
I just can't remember now.
I should know.
And it's not.
I know him really well.
This guy.
He also wrote crash.
Have you seen the film crash?
So he wrote high rise and high rise begins with a famous line.
It says I was sitting on my balcony having my breakfast, eating my dog.
Reflecting on the events of the past six weeks, I think it was something like that.
And trying to work out what exactly went wrong.
That's paraphrasing.
What a great start to a novel.
It's brilliant.
Yeah, absolutely brilliant.
And the name of the novel is.
It's on the tip of my tongue.
I just can't remember at the moment.
Maybe somebody can put it in the chat.
But anyway.
Yeah, so he talks.
And the thing about this writer, he he concentrates on writing about so crashes the same.
It's kind of dystopia.
You know, it's high tech dystopia.
So the idea of this skyscraper was that every possible need would be catered for in this skyscraper.
But of course, but after within six weeks, the whole place had degenerated into civil war.
Because I presume because of man's flaws.
But to be honest, I haven't actually read the book.
I've read the reviews on Amazon.
My my children criticize me for not reading books.
I say, well, there's not enough time to read all the books I want to read.
So it's the next best thing is to read the reviews on Amazon.
Not that I like Amazon, of course.
But but what I was going to say, so China, for example.
And I wonder whether you say both your parents are from Asia.
I wonder.
So China, it's got a long history.
It's got a deep culture.
But that actually since Mao Tse-tung, the Chinese government, they've been going to China for a long time.
Mao Tse-tung came to power.
The Great March, wasn't it?
I must read about that.
Loads of people died during the Great March.
Millions.
Then they had the Great Leap Forward, which I didn't know about until about five weeks ago.
And that was 1958 to 1962.
And so it's variously estimated 15 to 55 million Chinese people died during the Great Leap Forward through famines.
Do you know?
I don't know whether you know about that.
Then the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, which I did know about, that was 1966 to 1976, which was the year that Mao Tse-tung died.
But but what I think is really amazing is that we know about the Chinese social credit system.
You know, they tell it, but it's more or less, you know, nothing to see there, you know.
We're not we're not allowed to criticize China.
But when I was talking to someone from China recently, I realized that this person, you know, I was seeing this friend of mine with different eyes in the context of what's happened over the last two years.
And so I started probing and asking about China.
And the answer I got was, oh, yes, but they have to control the population because it's so big.
And but the parents of this person were members of the Chinese Communist Party.
And so what really got my interest was that you're not allowed to.
So the BBC, for example, and the British government and the American government for that matter, they won't criticize China.
Oh, you can criticize Russia and Putin as much as you like, especially in the context of the Ukraine War.
But you can't criticize China.
And that's because Chinese economy is so important to the world, apparently, that we just forget all about China's.
And yet, you know, whether the globalists are controlling China or China's controlling the globalists, because there seems to be some doubts about that or that the roles might have been reversed.
So, you know, whichever it is, China, you know, when you think of it in the terms of what we are facing now, you know, possible social credit system, China is is really evil beyond belief.
And then you look at the videos on Twitter about Shanghai lockdown.
And it's just incredible. And you think, whoa, what a country.
How has it managed to escape criticism? Then you look at the Great Leap Forward and the Great March of Mao Zedong, the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution.
And you think, whoa, why are we not why are we fighting Russia and not China?
Yeah.
Look, I think the China was the test bed.
Sure.
How quickly can they roll out a totalitarian slave system and still succeed?
So in the one thing that you see, you see elements of that in Australia as well.
Right. You see you see the behavior of the Australian government to to the population of Australia.
It's horrendous.
Right. But I have no doubt that the same procedures and techniques that were developed to enslave a population during the Communist Revolution in China, the Cultural Revolution, they are being reapplied and modified to to other nations.
Sure.
And and and the question is, why does it seem like here in the Commonwealth that we aren't in quite as dire a circumstance as the Chinese?
And then there's this idea that, well, maybe we've been lulled into a sense of deception that we believe we have freedom because we get to vote.
But does the parliament actually do anything substantive to support freedom?
You know, while we were all watching movies, Netflix and entertaining ourselves, were we just entertaining ourselves with bread and circus?
While the Supreme Court in 2001 took up the authority of being the arbiter of what is true or not through judicial notice?
While we have been entertained believing our freedoms were secure, were they not actually being legislated?
Our free our own freedoms were being legislated into oblivion through the court system and through laws that were passed while no one was looking.
Well, there seems to be complete lack of knowledge that, you know, so amongst the generation of my children, there seems to be complete lack of knowledge about how freedom, if it does exist, how how it is achieved.
It doesn't drop from the skies. You have to fight for it like we're fighting now.
Yeah, it's amazing what's going on.
So for the first time, very soon after this started in 2020, I had heard, I started to hear Americans within America, Republicans saying that America was becoming communist.
And I thought, whoa, is that a kind of remnants of this of the Cold War?
And the red scare.
But yes, but then I realized that when Biden got in, that he's a big supporter of the Chinese system or seems to be kind of, you know, at every turn he's and that's the so the dam social credit system is a big support system.
The social credit system that we've been led to believe in China, which we've been led to believe is not so bad, you know, it's absolutely terrible.
People like you and me would not survive in that society.
We would have zero points within two days, I think.
Exactly. I'd be negative.
Yeah, exactly.
And we don't think I wouldn't want to live under a system like that.
I'd rather be dead.
To be honest.
So, and I think you'd be the same and most of the people on these calls would be like that.
I think, well, they might be slightly better than you and me.
So my thought is, is, was one of their experiments to see if they could implement a totalitarian system with less resistance.
If they kept the population well entertained with bread circus and a philosophy of hedonism for, you know, one and a half generations, and if, if one and a half generations of a culture based on hedonism and not a culture based on on truth and philosophy and self discovery.
Whether or not an atheistic hedonistic culture could make people so passive and brain dead that they can implement a totalitarian social credit system with little to no resistance.
I have to wonder if that's not one of the experiments that's going on on a societal scale.
Especially since the whole topic of Tavistock was brought up.
Tavistock has been very influential in, in culture today in modern culture.
Social engineering.
Tavistock Institute, you know, psychological experiments there and those are only the psychological experiments that we know of.
Like what is the Tavistock Institute, what are graduates of Tavistock Institute doing as executives in the music industry?
What is, you know, how deep do the Tavistock tentacles reach into all of society worldwide?
Well, apparently it's all about destroying the family.
Destroying. So, so a strong family produces strong individuals.
So if you think about someone who wants to control the world's population, the last thing you want is strong families.
So you attack the family by driving men against women.
So the two, the two parents and by dividing the generations.
So that the old, you know, the grandparents have lost confidence in themselves because they think to themselves, you know, on a superficial level, they see all these computers, you know, they don't understand them.
Their grandchildren understand them far better than they do and they're less than 10.
So the grandparents are kind of manipulated into thinking that they've got nothing to give their grandchildren, which is nonsense, you know, throughout human history.
Grandchildren have learned through their grandparents and their parents.
But now I come across parents who can't even protect their own children and not prepared to take any responsibility whatsoever about anything.
Never mind looking after their own children.
And that's what Jordan Peterson talks about.
Taking responsibility.
If there is an overall plan to enslave men and women, having people isolated as individuals where they have no strength within themselves, no strength within their family, no strength within their community, no strength within their church.
That would certainly be the, that would be their strategy, right?
To disassemble society from the church so people no longer go to the church to get to know their neighbors.
Disassemble communities where people are separated from each other with tall fences, good fences make good neighbors, kind of a philosophy.
Right. Everyone keep to themselves.
And once people are isolated in family units to start dividing the family units within themselves till eventually people are left isolated and alone.
And when, when, when hostages are left isolated and alone, the only authority they look towards is the state.
Sure.
Excuse me. Excuse me.
Isn't the purpose of the slavery simply to make us take the vaccine?
No. Yeah.
Well, right now it seems to be.
Yeah, I think it is.
I think what they're doing with the social credit system is building a slaughterhouse shoot around us so that we will have absolutely no choice but to go down it.
You won't be able to live. You won't be able to work unless you're vaccinated.
And I think it's the whole point. They don't want absolute totalitarian control over eight billion useless eaters.
They don't. We consume the resources.
They've got artificial intelligence to think for them.
They've got robots coming out.
Well, hang on.
We're on an interesting topic then.
And now I can't even remember what it was.
Well, I think you were you were going down that route of like describing how awful it's going to be in 30 years time when, you know, our children and our children's children are slaves.
I don't think our children and our children's children are meant to have a future.
That's the point. So there's no point talking about this, this dystopian future because that is as much a fairy tale as the the green beautiful future.
We won't talk about the future. We're talking about now the attack on families.
Yeah, it's a short term slavery. All they need to do is to get us to take the jab.
That's all they want. Once we've taken the jab, they can sit back and watch everything fall apart.
No, it's not just about the jab. It's about destroying humanity.
Well, I think if they don't succeed with the jab, they're going to try with something else.
Like their overall goal appears to be to destroy humanity, for the lack of a better word.
It's literally to destroy humanity. And whether it's this jab or the jab next year or the jab 10 years from now or a nuclear war or I don't know.
There's no.
It's not just about the job, though. I don't think it's just about the job.
It's a it's multifactorial attack.
Well, I think everything they're doing is all they're doing.
They're freaks. They're not. They're not. They're freaks. These people.
Yeah. And they want just to have that vaccine.
It's not just about that.
Well, I think it is.
No.
I think it is. I think I think they've already.
I would like to point out that we're going down the dark road and Stephen doesn't like it when we do this, Stephen.
So don't let them.
Oh, shit. Are we on the dark road, Kat?
We are.
So sorry.
Theresa, you've got far too much respect for these freaks.
I don't respect them.
They're always applauding their brilliance.
No, they're not brilliant.
They're just freaks.
That's the best.
If it's not if it's not if it's not about the vaccine, why are they trumpeting the fact that they've done 67 percent of humanity now?
By July, they will have done 70 percent.
And by Christmas, they will have they will have done three quarters of all of humanity will have had their first jab.
Theresa, you should be a propagandist for them.
Stephen, you're hearing what you want to hear.
Well, let me turn the argument around.
Let me turn the argument around.
In order to get people to take the vaccine, they've mobilized culture, government, society and the entire health system.
So they've mobilized all of society, including culture, in order to maximize the number the amount the number of people who take this injection.
Right.
And so if we're looking at a plan that started with was it who are those Germans that eventually their their philosophies turned into what was common.
This is called Marxism.
Lucifer.
Sorry.
Yeah.
So but the idea was to disassemble society, to leave people isolated as individuals so that individuals would look to the government as God.
So then you got that sweet.
That's all to take a vaccine or to take the next step to be acquiescent into a social credit system.
Then, you know, we've actually solved a big part of the puzzle.
It's like we know what kind of goal they're headed towards.
That's their overall goal is complete control, whether biologically through 5G and nanoparticles in an injection or through just simple psychological.
Coercion that everyone's an individual staring at their smartphone and because they are alone staring at their smartphone.
You know, the only God that exists for any intents and purposes is the state because the state controls power over life or death.
Right.
And so that seems to be the society that the elites are trying to herd us into.
But you know, we know what direction they're going into.
Now we have the choice to create a path, however difficult that it might be, away from that goal imagined by the elites.
Well, the so I think that their aim was to destroy humanity.
They think that they can escape it and that they can be immortal.
They're stupid enough to believe that.
They think that they can escape Earth when obviously with the distances involved, they can't possibly do that with the technologies available.
But they're not.
I don't know.
And they chose.
But the fact is from I've always said this from the beginning of this nonsense, this medical nonsense that we're going through now.
But to the public, it was always a medical problem.
And the only people who can solve a medical problem are medical doctors, because they're the only people trained to solve a medical problem.
You can have as many scientists as you like, but they can't solve a medical problem because they're not trained to do it.
And and the chances of you being able to solve a medical problem without the training zero, I would say.
And so I've said from the beginning that the people who are going to get us out of this mess are the medical doctors who are honest and have the courage to tell the people the truth.
Because one thing I've noticed is that the population around here anyway, they haven't had their doctors for the last two years and they're grieving for the loss.
Maybe you may think of doctors because let me ask you a question.
So don't interrupt.
So so these people are desperate for a lead in what they perceive as a medical situation.
And they they perceive it is a medical situation to them so far.
And so the only people who are going to be able to lead them out of that are medical doctors, in my opinion, good, honest medical doctors.
So let me ask you a question.
That is the challenge for us, Daniel.
We need to create our own narrative and get them out of this nonsense, because if we can solve the medical problem, then their whole agenda fails.
Even are you an anti-vaxxer?
You're just distracting from the from the conversation.
I'm trying to have a question.
Are you an anti-vaxxer?
So I'm asking you, I'm talking about medical.
Question to you know very well what my view is.
Are you an anti-vaxxer?
What do you mean by an anti-vaxxer?
Are you against vaccines now?
Well, let's put it this way.
After what's happened over the last two years, everything that I once believed I'm having to reappraise, including the vaccines.
Right.
What about you, Daniel?
Are you an anti-vaxxer?
Yeah, I'm actually an anti-interventionalist now.
I mean, with the exception of emergencies where a bone is obviously broken and needs to be set, or, you know, a heart attack where there's obviously a blood clot and needs to be thinned and broken up.
I think the human body is pretty, it's the more interventions that are put upon a human body, which is pretty well made, in my opinion, the more likely you are to screw things up.
So instead of getting a tetanus shot, I think a better way, instead of getting an inoculation against tetanus, is to go dig your hands in the dirt and, you know, get a couple of scrapes as you're digging a hole in the dirt for whatever reason.
Just to get some dirt under your fingernails, some dirt into your scrape or cut, and then, you know, get a good night's rest and then let your body figure out how to make antibodies to, you know, Clostridium, Tetani and any other bacteria that's in the soil.
Right.
Yeah.
So we've been lied to.
So, other perfect medicine, we don't know how much of it.
You don't need inoculation to be healthy.
In fact, in order to be healthy, my suspicion is probably the healthiest way to maintain the human body is to keep the human body in a natural environment as much as possible.
Yeah, I agree.
Right.
Under the fingernails.
Don't dump peroxide all over a cut or a scrape.
Just let it be for a bit.
Right.
Yeah.
Okay.
So, in another way, Daniel, so, if you, if you, so even a fit person, young fit person, say, 25 year old athlete or 20 year old athlete, whatever, if they go to, if they decide to go to bed for a month, after a month, even that very fit person will not be able to walk, because they haven't exercised their muscles.
So, in other words, in the lockdowns, when people are socially isolated and all this, their immune systems were not being exercised.
So, that wouldn't be surprising if their immunity collapsed.
Yes.
Well, this is the point I was trying to make.
And it's all actually a lot simpler.
We can, we can make certain deductions.
Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, they've all colluded to use the spike protein as an antigen for a series of gene therapy inoculations that aren't actually vaccines.
And since they've all colluded and they all appear to be poisoning us through these vaccines, you have to question all of Big Pharma.
Can you really trust the ones that are developing vaccines now?
Can you trust the ones that are developing therapeutics, you know, tablets for COVID?
And if you can't trust what they're doing now, can you trust what they were doing 10, 15, 20 years ago?
No, you can't.
So, basically, you have to now completely re-evaluate your standing with allopathic medicine.
Well, Theresa, I did say exactly that.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
You asked the question, so you don't listen to the answers.
Because most doctors I talk to, the first thing they say to me is, I'm not an anti-vaxxer.
Well, that is not being honest to themselves, because if they really think it's true, the only rational, logical way to be right now is to be an anti-vaxxer.
The only rational, logical way to be right now is to be an anti-vaxxer.
Theresa, you've got two devices on there, because your voice is echoing.
Yeah, it's probably...
Maybe it's my computer. Hold on, I'll turn down the volume on my speaker.
Can I say something?
I've been waiting for a long time.
Go ahead, Justin.
Well, thank you guys.
First of all, I want to say happy Easter, everybody.
You guys, this has been...
I've been...
I'm isolated from my family, disconnected through the different perspectives, and it's such a blessing and honor to be with all of you in this great thinking that's going on.
I really am moved.
Thank you so much.
Number two, I am a holistic medicine doctor.
I'm second generation.
I was raised on a nature commune off the grid.
Everybody was born at home, all the food was made at home, and natural medicine, holistic medicine was what was used.
The nearest medical doctor was three hours away.
So for me, it's second nature to know that natural ways of life are what keep us healthy.
When we were sick, we would sweat it out, we would take herbs.
And so I've been a practitioner for 30 years, and I did a 12-week program with people getting them on all healthy food and many modalities.
And 80% of the ones who had a disease was mostly recovered, and a lot of them came off their meds in literally three months.
So I have been shocked by the Western doctors not standing up in the last two years and protecting their patients as they should have.
Exactly.
As an acupuncture doctor, we're looked at as voodoo doctors because they discredited us, but we really have the oldest, most precious medicine.
And I saw the scam in this whole thing from the beginning because the numbers weren't adding up and people weren't being sick around me.
Our county was shut down for two years over 2,400 alleged deaths.
That's absolutely pure madness.
So what I wanted to say is that I think there's been a long-time hypnosis that has gone on, neuro-linguistic programming, subliminal programming, to believe these big pharma mafia cartels system that's actually poisonous.
And so what breaks mass hypnosis or mass formation?
What you were talking about empathy, joy, community, a sense of purpose, a sense of belonging, getting back to the natural ways of life, natural food, herbs, and avoiding toxic people and toxic things.
So I think the more we sing, we dance, these things that break the fear that they're in in their mass hypnotic state, the more that 40% that we need to reach will wake up.
I'm starting to see it happen.
I just think if we could start focusing on what we could do that's joyful and community driven and that fear that they're in, they're in a hypnotic state, they've been hypnotized by cult of the white coat man.
They're hypnotic and it's a scam.
I think that that is what I'm seeing is what I'm seeing with my patients. When I start singing when they're in the room, they start to get more peaceful.
I spend a lot of time outside hiking because it's the only place where things make sense. I'm in Silicon Valley.
And I know Reiner said that last week, turn off the television and get out to nature.
I just wanted to give that feedback from my perspective on what we could do that's positive that may, I believe in humanity, you know.
So, and I believe nature wins and God always wins. But we got to get back to natural ways.
Sure.
Thank you.
I often say to my children, to make a point, I say that if you take on nature with a capital N, you will lose.
That's correct. Yes, you will.
Because if you can't poison a well and then think you're going to have good fruit, it's not going to happen.
So a good example, and it's very common now. So even in my house, my one of my sons, I've got three sons.
So one of my sons and my wife were sitting at the table. I realized when I sat down that both of them were on the phone.
And I said, what? What are you doing? You know, we're going to eat and you're both on your phone, including you and Lenna, my wife.
This was you should know better. And you, William.
So and so these things, you know, is it natural to be sitting around a table looking at your phone?
No, it's not. It's natural to be talking to other human beings.
But it's not natural to be looking at your damned phone, talking to people who are not even there.
And I think we I think we have been brainwashed and in a hypnotic state and it's a hypnosis.
And so we need to do those things that break the hypnotic spell on those people around us.
So people, even in this group, are prepared to switch off the BBC, switch off CNN and all the rest of it.
In fact, most of the people in this group. But I am damn sure that many of them are looking at their phones instead of talking to the people sitting at the same table as them, even in this group.
Yeah, I know the technology has has swung us away from from telepathy and other other intuition and other things, gifts that we have, like what the doctor was talking about with his patient.
Doctors have gifts and those have been numbed by technology and protocols that they have to follow.
I have a question on the telepathy thing. This is this is so how many people here experience their thinking about someone or and that person calls them or a lot.
Is this a common occurrence? Does it happen to nearly everyone here?
I thought that, you know, yes.
So here here's where I gave some thought about it from a theoretical standpoint.
We think we're advanced and we have high technology because we have written language.
True. But is there like if you were to devise a language that's better than written language, what would that be?
That would be telepathy. Right.
Because then you don't need to write anything down.
The thought you have, you can send to another person that other person can you can have a conversation without with another person without having to write anything without having to dial a phone number.
You just think of that person and that was like, oh, yeah, you got their thought.
There would be there would be no opportunity for fraud.
And the reason why I stumbled upon this thought process was the idea that was brought to me that a large majority, like maybe even 80 percent of the English language is has been written in a purposefully deceptive way.
And the example I usually give is, for example, the word declaration, as in the Declaration of Independence.
So we tend to think of from the common use of the word declaration is that it is a proclamation of independence.
And that's what the American the United States was built upon.
But if you break it down into its Latin roots, declaration means something completely different.
D is D is an un and then Clara, the Latin root is clarification.
So it's the D clarification and then so declaration D Clara Shun Shun can mean some kind of an object or thing.
So it's the D D clarification.
Document of independence.
Is that not a fraud? Does that not turn the entire document of the Declaration of Independence to a worthless piece of paper?
Like you're saying a lot of things, but the very first word on the document says this is the D clarification of independence from from the British Empire, which kind of nullifies the entire document.
So then you have to think, well, if languages can be designed with deception built in like a hidden coded deception built into the language, or is it possible to have non deceptive language?
So a non deceptive language would be something like three plus three equals six.
We're not correct about declaration.
Declaration comes from the Latin word declarasity, which means clear and something.
So you're not correct on that.
The way you find to take that word apart.
Now, I agree with you.
English is actually fifth language I learned in English is the worst language because it does not make sense when you actually try to translate it from different languages.
Because you guys use phrases to mean something that we actually have words for, but you are not correct about the declaration.
Just keep that in mind.
It's actually because I wonder if that was that's the other document that came up is the Canadian Charter of Rights.
And it starts with the word whereas.
But if you look at the Blacks law definition of whereas, it's very complicated.
But if you break it down into the prefixes and suffixes and their actual definition, it's an invalidating word.
Like, for example, if I were to say you, you are my friend, I would never actually say whereas you are my friend.
Because then you're attaching conditions to that friendship, which means is it really a true friendship?
So the fact that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says in the very first sentence, whereas Canada is founded upon this supremacy of God and the rule of law,
is that does that not invalidate the entire Canadian Charter of Rights by adding a whereas clause?
Right. And then going from the Blacks law definition of whereas, it's a repudiation of a past fact.
And then the actual the most complicated phrase in the definition of whereas is the very last line where it says it shall not vitiate a deed that is otherwise good or reasonable or something to that effect.
But if you break it down, shall not vitiate means shall not invalidate.
But then if you remove the negative from shall not, it shall validate a deed otherwise good and whatever reasonable.
But to validate, if you look at the definition of validate, to validate is to verify or attach conditions upon.
Right. So then you're looking at so it shall not in shall not vitiate a deed otherwise good.
If you translate it into in an equation like fashion, it means shall attach conditions to a deed otherwise good or reasonable.
So that means the entire Blacks law definition of whereas is a complete repudiation of everything that follows that word whereas.
And so that means that.
I really appreciate what you're talking.
There's one more thing I wanted to say that I noticed that Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum and the young global leaders, what they all are saying the same thing.
And they're speaking, they're speaking into existence, something that they are creating.
So they're casting a spell.
They're casting a spell.
And I think we need to now.
So then you have to get to the root of what is spelling.
What is spelling casting?
The thing that I'm thinking is that we need to start speaking into existence what we want.
What's our what's our mission?
You know, like peace, joy and right relationships.
I don't know what it is, but I feel like that's what's missing in us humans.
And we got to create something that people want to live into.
I've been saying for six months now we've got to create our own narrative that nobody else seems to think is important.
Well, what I've seen is I did I researched Klaus Schwab and Harvard a lot.
And and because I saw him saying we're going to be in this two day workshop, we're going to create the future we're going to live into.
And they they use all these social justice causes to suck people in.
But actually, so that they have they don't have good intentions.
And so we as humanity, we need to create a cause that we live into.
And I think that would help break the hypnosis.
Shasta, they're criminals and they're freaks.
I agree. I agree.
I think I know what I think I know one of the persons who helped create the education for it because he teaches business at the Harvard Law.
But anyway, it's a form of enrollment.
What you've just said now.
So we've just realized it together.
I think casting a spell that actually means something to people.
So these freaks have been casting a spell.
Even when they said that there's water that the piece the water is tested PCR and it's testing positive.
The PCR test anything.
I think they're casting a spell that they're going to poison people in that community.
And nothing nothing over the last two years has made any sense at all.
I agree with you.
Yeah, nothing.
Everything has been absolutely ridiculous.
And you know what?
They wanted it to make it ridiculous.
They wanted the maximum arbitrariness so that they they they what's the word they destabilized us.
There was there was something called human beings.
They've been setting this spell for there was a show in 1979 called Hamburg Syndrome only nine minutes.
It's exactly what's happening now.
It's only nine minutes long.
And in there they said we don't just we're not just going to kill him with a virus.
We're going to do also with radiation and parasites.
This was in 1979.
Then there was the 1992 Olympic opening ceremony.
Then the 2012 Olympic opening ceremony.
Yes.
They just they're they're casting spells that they do black magic.
We need to we need a future live into our start speaking being.
Well, I think I think we so we have to tell we have to get our narrative into story form.
But we need to include what's happening in Shanghai now because we tell people this is what you will be living in if you don't.
That's what I tell people.
I say you see what's happening in China.
That's what's coming here.
We don't do something.
That's what I thought.
It's I think we're going to have to try something different because that doesn't work.
I agree.
I don't know what it is.
Theresa, you are so negative and unbelievably negative.
I don't know why I've tried.
I just got something to say to Daniel.
OK, Daniel.
No, Theresa, we were in the middle of some positive.
Excuse me.
I'm about to go out.
I think if we do the replay, you've interrupted me to stay.
No, no, you're interrupting positive thinking here.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I think your negativity and we don't want to.
I'm having a side discussion with a physicist in Australia who is telling me that it doesn't matter what's happening in Shanghai because it's not happening in Australia and it's not going to come to Australia.
And I'm a paranoid idiot.
OK, that's what I'm dealing with on the one side.
Theresa, what do you think about creating a new narrative of our own?
I'm writing it.
Pardon?
I'm writing it.
At the moment?
I've been drafting it for weeks.
Every word has got to be perfect.
But I was just going to say to Daniel that...
So why don't you give us a preview of it then?
Sure.
When?
Pardon?
When?
Now we can all...
That's going to be difficult because I can't post an image.
Don't put Theresa on the spot like that.
Just let Theresa bow at us.
I have got a document.
There's a lot of people who will vouch for me with this.
What I was going to say to Daniel...
You were trying to formulate some kind of strategy then and you interrupted.
I want to congratulate our guest.
He has reached the point in the night where Stephen and I have our brawl.
This is actually a rite of passage.
If you get to this point in the chat, you are considered one of the gang.
They're like brothers and sisters.
You guys are cute.
That is true, Daniel.
I'm doing my final draft.
I've been working on this for bloody weeks.
But I'm writing you your narrative, Stephen.
It's a horrible one.
It's a sucker punch.
It's horrible.
Okay?
The great thing about it is that it's really natural.
Why is it horrible?
It's horrible because it actually is peer-reviewed papers referenced all the way through it.
They can't turn around and say it's not true.
I've gone into everything.
Can I say something?
Go on.
If you look at their 17 sustainable agendas, 17 things that they say that they're doing,
we need to look at that and we need to create our own because they've created NGOs that go with those sustainable topics
and they've sucked everybody into it, which is what sociopaths do.
They create sympathy and then they make people of the conscience do unconscionable things.
That's what's going on.
We have to create our own social things that we want, that we want to create and then create a narrative behind that.
We also need to form a list of the things we don't want and we don't want to live under a Chinese style social credit system.
Great.
I look forward to reading the very dystopian history of today because...
My document?
Daniel, I'll send you another document I've written to just show you the sort of lines that I'm going along, OK?
I've got your email address.
You put it in the chat.
So I'm going to bow out now because I have literally spent the last three weeks reading references to make sure that every single thing that I cite is correct.
The document has ballooned.
I've got 15 pages of references and I've gone with Oxford style because I just couldn't do the Harvard thing.
It was...
So I'll send you a two-pager.
Tell me what you think.
I'm going to spend all of tomorrow referencing as well and just checking things through.
Theresa, can you send it to me as well?
Yeah, do you want to be one of the proofreaders?
Yeah, I'll do that.
It's ballooned to five pages, but it needs to be cut down to two.
But I figured if I put everything...
So have you done it in simple language? So readability?
Yeah, yeah. I usually I try to aim for a reading age of about 12 because that's about the level of most politicians.
That's what the Sun writes. They're brilliant at writing at that age.
Why don't you leave it in five pages if there is enough information there?
OK, this is my thought, OK?
If you remember the big report that went to the police in Hammersmith, it was about, I don't know, 75, 80 pages plus ancillary documents.
It was a watch, right?
The police sat on it for a number of weeks and then they said no case to answer.
I don't think the police even looked at any of it.
If you want the police to look at it, you have to make it so ridiculously short that they've got no excuse not to read it.
Now, this started out as a letter to a HR department.
My idea was for somebody who wanted to refuse the vaccine, obviously it's going to get deferred up to HR.
So you write a letter to HR, which, supported by peer reviewed papers, shows all of the toxicities of the vaccine.
So at some point, that HR manager who's going to try and mandate now that you have the vaccine or you get the sack has to read that two page document.
And when they read it, the idea is that halfway through they feel sick because they realize that they've had the vaccine.
Now, that idea, I've translated it to, right, OK, well, we've got to send something to the police that the police are actually going to have to read.
And if you make it two pages long and full of all the bad news, they're going to be sitting there thinking, oh, my fucking I've had that jab.
Shit. OK. And that's you make it so short, so concise, so simple that they have got no choice but to read it.
They can't just sit on it because it's 2000 pages of, you know, printouts that nobody's going to look at.
OK. You make it so short, they've got no choice. They have to read it.
It's too short not to read. And then you put the sucker punch in that you leave them with the feeling of, oh, my God, what have I done?
And that's exactly the reaction I got from a taxi driver in five minutes.
Well, did you tell the taxi driver you were a doctor? Yep. Yeah.
That's powerful, because the last thing anybody wants to hear from a doctor is that they're going to die.
Well, I didn't say it like that. No, you wouldn't say it like that.
But I'm saying that's what we need to do with the sucker punch.
But he was so shocked. I didn't need to give him my telephone number, but I did do because I thought it was unfair to tell him in five minutes what I did tell him.
He was I could see the color drained out of his face.
So I thought I gave him a telephone number. Yeah. I mean, guess what?
He hasn't he hasn't used it yet.
So, you guys, can I say one thing? If anybody I think this I am not saying it's true, but I think it needs to be researched.
But if there is synthetic snake venom sequences in the vaccine, that is going to turn a lot of people off real fast.
So I think that needs to be researched as well as if it's been in the PCR swabs and in remdesivir.
Because I think that is a narrative that everybody would be afraid of.
And if it can be proven, it could really help. Yeah, exactly.
But it needs to be looked at and it should be put in front center.
I know I'm terrified of snakes. Yeah.
And this is why I'm even though a lot of stuff that normally I want evidence for.
But actually, I'm beginning to wonder whether you need evidence. You just need to put some.
No, that's it. You need to frighten them. Don't you, Stephen?
I think you're coming around to my way of thinking now. I like that.
No, I know what Mathias Desmond said. Yeah, we've got we've got to we've got to scare the shit out of them.
We've got to get them to actually be more aware of this vaccine.
We have to create a narrative.
Oh look, Cat's got some vaccine there.
No, it's just the I'd code. What I'm trying to say is be careful with the snake venom thing.
Please be careful with a freaking snake venom thing. Yes. Be very careful.
No, you're not. I'm not saying it's true.
I listened all day. You guys have bought lots of crap in these six hours.
So research every little thing you buy because it's not true. It is not true.
This can be debunked like this. But OK, OK. You know what?
I think we've got to give Cat a chance to speak.
She's had her hand up. Maverick's had his hand up.
Glenn's got his hand up. If you guys don't mind, maybe if we just move on.
And then I'd like to give Daniel at least the opportunity to bow out gracefully
because it's been a couple of hours since he said, I got to go make some food.
So and I know Daniel and I know he's a man of honor and deep compassion and commitment.
He's a lion in disguise and he's going to want to stay.
So can we can we just again? I'm sure everyone would understand if you want to leave right now.
You know, don't I know you feel obligated to stay and with good reason.
But if you if you decide to bow out now, I think everyone's cool.
And I just want to give you that opportunity.
Meanwhile, I know Cat has a lot to say.
Maverick has a really interesting report for trying to get back into Canada,
which he just did, and he was threatened with fine and jail time.
So I think everyone wants to hear that. And Glenn always has.
So, oh, you know what? I'm just going to leave you guys on in the background.
That sounds great. Why don't you do that?
You know, like I need to interject. I will raise a hand and I'll interject.
But by the way, Daniel, just so you know, the name of the author was J.G. Ballard.
It came to me. J.G. Ballard.
I had a non-vaccine induced brain fog.