You just have to say hi.
Sorry, David.
Hey, good to see you.
Good to see everybody.
Alright now, Celia, I've got your reels ready when you when you want to do that.
I'll make you a co-host just in case you want to share your screen and Kevin, I'll
make you a co-host as well if you want to share your screen.
And and Stephen, and then we'll get this show on the road.
I said, Kevin, in the introductions, I tried to get attract people, you know,
because some people may not have heard of Celia and realized why she's so
important.
But I don't know whether I hit the right balance.
I tried.
I didn't want to kind of over egg it, but I wanted to kind of sex it up a bit.
To use a term used about the Iraq war.
All right, you did well.
It was good.
OK, everybody, welcome to Medical Doctors for Covid Ethics International.
Welcome to today's discussion with led by Celia Farber and Kevin Corbett.
This group was founded by Stephen Frost, Dr.
Stephen Frost, during the darkest days of the Covid scam responses with a desire
to pursue truth, ethics, justice, freedom and health.
Stephen has stood up against government and power over the years and has been a
whistleblower and activist.
His medical specialty is radiology.
I'm Charles Covess, the moderator of this group.
I'm Australasian passion provocateur.
And my jacket is red because red is the color of passion.
I practiced law for 20 years before changing career 30 years ago.
And over the last 12 years, I've helped parents and lawyers to strategize
remedies for vaccine damage and damage from bad medical advice.
John Rappaport, we were talking about earlier,
points out that medical misadventure, bad medical advice is the third biggest
killer in America.
I'm also the CEO of an industrial hemp company.
We comprise lots of professions, including doctors, lawyers, homeopaths,
journalists, scientists, filmmakers, professors, peacemakers and troublemakers.
And we're from all around the world.
I don't see many gerontologists in this group one day.
We must get some of those to make sure that we live a long time.
Many of us thought that vaccines were OK.
Now, many of us proudly say, yes, we are passionate anti-vaxxers.
If this is your first time here, welcome and feel free to introduce yourself
in the chat and where you're from.
If you publish a newsletter or a podcast or you have a radio or TV show
or you've written a book, put the links into the chat so we can follow you,
promote you and find you.
Even if you've done it before, please do it every time because it's hard
to go back in the earlier chats to find your links.
Most of us understand we're in the middle of World War Three
and that there are various battle lines as part of this war.
Some of us believe we are in a continuation of World War Two.
Most of us understand the development of science
and that the science is never settled.
This meeting runs for two and a half hours after which, for those with the time,
Tom Rodman runs a video telegram meeting.
Tom puts the links into the chat.
If you are able to join, we'll listen to Celia and Kevin
for as long as they wish to speak.
And then we have Q&A.
Stephen Frost, via long established tradition, asked the first questions.
There is no censorship.
It's a free speech environment with appropriate moderating.
Free speech is crucially important in our fight to preserve our human freedoms.
If you're offended by anything, be offended.
We are genuinely not interested.
We reject the offence industry that requires nobody to say
anything that may offend another.
Now, one thing that happens in terms of a free speech environment
is if somebody says in the chat that homeopaths
or lawyers are all arseholes, then let them say it.
However, ad hominem attacks are not permitted.
So you start attacking people personally.
You will be removed from the group.
But people who entitle their opinions, they're allowed to say,
you know, we've had people say that the whole the whole
speciality of virology is a fraud.
OK, so did the virologist all get upset?
Good. If they did, good.
If they didn't, it's up to them.
That's nothing to do with free speech.
We come with an attitude and perspective of love, not fear.
Fear is the opposite of love. Fear squashes you.
Love expands you.
If you have a solution or a product or links or resources
that will help people put the details into the chat,
if you want to be added to the invitation list
or you have someone you'd like to recommend to be added
to the invitation list, please send me a direct message.
The meeting is recorded and is uploaded on Rumble Channel.
And now welcome Celia and Kevin, whom we thank so much for giving us
their time, wisdom and insights.
And thank you, Stephen Frost, again, for creating this group
and for organising Celia and Kevin today.
So Celia, over to you.
Thank you, Charles.
Hi, everybody. It's great to be here.
I am very honoured and I've been in the audience many times.
So to jump right in, I'm not obviously I'm not a scientist
and so forth, but I have and nor do I feel personally
that what I've written about for so many years now, let's see,
I started in 1987 going into 88.
I do not identify as one of the science interpreters.
I do not believe that what we have been dealing with
in the post AIDS now COVID era is science.
I think that it's an assault on science.
So what I do is I try to interpret.
I started in 1987 as a young journalist,
believing everything about AIDS and being at a periodical
where the editor wanted me to jump on the story and stay on it.
He said AIDS was the Vietnam of our generation.
So I did. That was Spin magazine.
1987 was also the year that Peter Duisburg
published his first paper that, as his scientific biographer said,
sealed his scientific fate thereafter.
I'll return to that in a little bit.
But I'm in a slightly unusual position in that I've been addressing
what seemed to be very complex scientific matters.
And I essentially started out in a pop culture forum, which was Spin magazine.
But what I like about that and what I'd like to kind of explain about that is that
what people call science was really was funneled
as propaganda through the mass media and hit the culture and the people and the street.
You know, as chaos, as destruction, as death.
And so I'm kind of close to the street level there trying to make heads or tails of it.
It was a gruesome, violent, horrendous and very long war.
I'm really happy to see some of my war buddies here.
David Rasnick. Hello, Dave.
You're probably muted.
Hi, Celia. I wasn't going to miss this one.
I'm so glad you're here.
And I'm actually seeing that you're here, that Vera is here.
And of course, Kevin, I decided just before it all began that I'm going to keep my.
What I'm going to say to a bare minimum,
so we have a lot of time to cross pollinate and talk and answer questions.
Let me say some basic things since 2020.
And, Dave, you may recall when I said to you,
do you see this thing coming down when I first said COVID is going to blow up?
And you said, oh, but it's a what did you say?
It's a it's a it's a pneumonia.
They can't they can't. It's a it's a pneumonia in China.
There's no way they can do it.
And I said not to be a best servicer, but I said I just had a feeling in my bones
that there was something jet black and sinister coming down the pike.
And you were one of the first people that I spoke to about it.
So you and I both were kind of brought back out from wherever we were.
Years after our AIDS war had been lost, we lost that war.
We didn't lose for lack of trying or for lack of being accurate and correct.
But we lost from the sheer violence and the impossibility of.
What? What they what they the opposition are extremely good at,
extremely good at is creating conditions of loathing and phobia around
contrarian positions inside of what we again, you know, I dispute the term science.
So when I use it, it's in quotation marks.
It's really social engineering.
It's economics, economic engineering.
And as we now know, it's depopulation.
But we have to call it science.
So that word will come up.
I always mean it in quotation marks.
What I the story like if I'm in my editor's office, it's 1987, 88, 89.
What's the story?
The story is that one elite scientist named Peter Duisburg stood up
when there was already a an overwhelming consensus in the media,
in the propaganda apparatus that the cause of AIDS had been found.
It was this heroic moment.
Robert Gallo, 1984 press conference.
So journalism should get its friction
and its excitement from.
Incongruity, contradiction, right?
We know this. It's not a story if a plane lands safely.
It's not a story if a dog bites a man, but if a man might bites a dog,
then you have something.
So for us at that time, at that magazine in 1987,
we did not think we were doing anything unusual, unorthodox, never mind.
Dangerous, heretical.
All these accusations that started to hit us.
I'll just say that in the very beginning, all we knew was, well,
this is a very interesting story that this top retro virologist is standing up
and saying, I don't agree. That virus.
In quotes is is harmless, like all other viruses of its class.
That is to say, retroviruses, it's harmless.
I wouldn't mind being injected with it.
The story broke out in a local to New York City
weekly, very high quality gay periodical called the New York native.
That's where it all began.
And that was that was in 1987.
I remember seeing the cover, stopping at the New York Times,
stopping on the street.
And it was Deuce Berg on one side and Gallo on the other.
And Deuce Berg was Gallo said HIV kills like a truck.
And Deuce Berg said, it's harmless.
I wouldn't mind being injected with it.
So basically, from that moment,
the reason I got so into this story was because I had an editor
and a publisher who thought the story was fascinating.
So we stayed on it month after month in a in a column.
It's been magazine.
And what we what happened after that initial interview
with Peter Deuce Berg, which was at the end of 1987,
was that we started to experience that we were in like a dark forest
and everything was changing all around us.
And things were starting to get
hostile and and strange things were happening.
Now, looking back, I see that we were infiltrated.
There were people at the magazine who were covertly.
True story. Cutting
quotes out of articles that they disagreed with,
particularly one article that we did, we started to get into,
as all so-called HIV dissidents did at this time, late 80s.
We started we we hurled ourselves against the AZT juggernaut.
And the AZT juggernaut was the first kind of like within the bigger war.
That was the first major battle.
And looking back, it's absolutely breathtaking,
absolutely the same as we're seeing in COVID to see that
they chose the most toxic drug imaginable
and the most inappropriate one imaginable.
But in our to treat this condition in our earnestness at the time,
we were still tackling it as bad science,
wrong science, fraudulent science.
There was a huge piece of this that we did not have.
And how could we? And that piece was
New World Order.
Grand agenda revolution
in the planning for 100 years, depopulation, all these things
that all of us talk about as part of our normal day now.
I people say to me, so, you know,
your work is important because it now seems that AIDS was a prequel to COVID.
And I was thinking about that today.
Yeah, it's a prequel.
But for some reason, I was thinking, is that is is that the word?
And I came up with another word.
I can be I can kind of be a stickler about words.
I think it was the crucible for COVID.
It was the place where the place in time and space and history,
where everything that they would need for COVID would have been forged.
So by that, I mean.
Revolutionary concepts, revolutionary meaning
everything that was known yesterday is now turned on its head today.
Everybody agrees today that what is true, that was not true yesterday,
is true as revolutionary creed, not as
classical science.
So that's why they were able to on one day all agree that so-called
retroviruses were harmless and were even used
in gene therapy as as vectors or messengers.
So they were absolutely agreed to be harmless.
And then the very next day after Gallo's famous press conference,
they were transformed or this one, this retrovirus HIV
was transmogrified into this lethal, ingenious killer
that could do so many things and had so many attributes.
And and and Kary Mullis said in one of the interviews I did with him,
Kary Muller, the inventor of PCR, he said,
the mystery of that damn virus comes from the billions of dollars
that they put into it.
You put billions of dollars into just about anything
and you can make it more and more mysterious.
So that what we were actually witnessing.
Half unbeknownst to all of us,
let me just identify what I mean by all of us.
We were an international group from very different backgrounds,
very different stripes and politics and persuasions.
And we came together saying, gathering around this thing,
this weird thing, Gallo's HIV theory.
And we all said, we don't see proof, we don't see sanity,
we don't see science, we don't see classical science,
and we also don't see.
Life extending medicine, never mind humanity in this thing.
So outside of all of us and we grew, we grew, right?
We were I remember when there were five of us and then 10 and then 15
and people came on board from all over Europe and from Africa.
And at a certain point, I think there were 2500 professionals
and scientists who were signatories to the opposition.
People were targeted, torpedoed,
discredited if they signed their names to opposing Gallo's HIV story.
I mean, sorry, theory.
In ways that would make your hair stand on end, there are so many stories
you would you would not believe we can't get to that many of them today.
But it was it was again, it was like a fact.
This is what they're good at.
There was a factory of discrediting vilification
and they very successful.
So scientists at the time, there were many, many, many, many
academic scientists, doctors, scholars, you know, who said,
this thing is so insane and it makes no sense.
But I have to make a choice.
I have kids to put through college.
I have a mortgage.
But I think what they also found was that.
There was a danger in not stand, not saying anything about it.
And there was a yet another danger in going with the HIV crowd
and being sucked into that, because they they just demanded sort of more
and more and more.
And people who went with the orthodox persuasion
were not permitted to to depart from it by one single.
Thought or word, no departure.
So it hardened into this.
Really strange.
Orthodoxy that was like set in stone, while at the same time
it was changing its mind at will all the time, infinitely.
So it's like rigid and elastic when they needed it to be elastic
and they needed to change what they said last week about when people would die
and so forth. They just changed it.
And I was kind of where from where I was writing and reporting.
What I was looking at was this was this whole thing as a
as a very dangerous cultural phenomenon.
I didn't see it as a disease.
I didn't see it as a dialectic, particularly about curing a disease.
But what you saw instead was disease as revolution, disease
as like something that changes the whole culture and everybody in it
changes the way people think about everything, each other,
intimacy, their future.
And all of this dark wizardry can be done, it turns out,
through so-called public health and so-called virology.
And I think that's what those of us who were dissidents at the time
were that that was the ground that we staked out.
We didn't know where it came from, this monstrosity,
but we knew it was a monstrosity.
So I'm going to pause there for a moment.
And I brought some reels today.
And the first one, I guess all I can say is I
you may laugh and you're allowed to laugh.
But what it is, is really early, really crude reels of AIDS propaganda
from television commercials.
They used to hire the top top
like advertising,
people who were very famous for advertising campaigns.
And they had them do they had multi, multi-million dollar budgets
and they had them do these commercials.
And believe it or not, these commercials, which are so absurd,
which you're about to see, and many of you probably remember some of them.
This is how HIV theory became entrenched in the culture.
So the average person walking on the street believed
that there was a new virus deadly.
Anybody could get it once you got it, you were dead.
And the consequences of that,
Kevin and I are going to get into that a little bit later.
So, Charles, would you run reel number one?
Yep. There we go.
At first, only gays and IV drug users were being killed by AIDS.
But now we know every one of us could be devastated by it.
The fact is, over 50,000 men, women and children now carry the AIDS virus
that in three years, nearly 2000 of us will be dead.
That in three years, nearly 2000 of us will be dead.
But if not stopped, it could kill more Australians than World War II.
But AIDS can be stopped and you can help stop it.
If you have sex, have just one safe partner or always use condoms, always.
There is now a danger that has become a threat to us all.
It is a deadly disease and there is no known cure.
The virus can be passed during sexual intercourse with an infected person.
Anyone can get it, man or woman.
So far, it's been confined to small groups, but it's spreading.
Man or woman.
So far, it's been confined to small groups, but it's spreading.
So protect yourself and read this leaflet when it arrives.
If you ignore AIDS, it could be the death of you.
So don't die of ignorance.
Mr. Reed? Mr. Reed? He's ready for you now.
Well, Michael, the results of your blood tests have come through
and we have found antibodies that indicate that you are HIV positive.
We have found antibodies that indicate that you are HIV positive.
And we have found antibodies that indicate that you are HIV positive.
The AIDS virus can live on dirty needles and equipment, so don't share.
Because just one fix with an infected needle
will really get you out of it.
When two people feel the way that your mother and I do about each other,
there's a strong desire to express that love.
Are you listening?
Dad, is this a sex talk?
Because if it is, I already know all about it.
Oh, you do? Uh-huh.
How well do you know all about it?
Well, enough. Well, enough.
I know you and your friends, you know it all. Just humor me.
You know about pregnancy? Uh-huh.
You know how I feel about responsibility? Yes.
How much do you know about AIDS?
Looks like we have a couple of things to talk about.
Joshua, someone can have the AIDS virus for a long time and not even know it.
Just a second.
Should we put the cahаться stewards over to the Edelman warder,
just so we'll remain unobservant when you send it over to the hospital?
Look at this happening.
Northern 71, two door,
Monaroid, in it tick,
350 jet, 350 turbo box,
Monaroid wheels, beautiful interior.
Okay, sorry, Celia.
Yep.
Okay.
So, what I, it's,
those clips to me, even though I was,
that was my story as I told you
that I had to deal with it every day
for years and years and years,
it still strikes me as time goes on,
so shocking that this event took place,
that these people got together
and decided that this was the way to,
that they would launch this attack,
this immense psychological attack on humanity.
And I remember most people at the time
felt like it's not a psychological attack.
They're trying to protect us.
What do you expect them to do?
They need to protect us.
And when it all petered out,
no pun intended, AIDS, and that did happen,
let's call it, I don't know exactly
where I would place the year,
but you will all be aware that people stopped
talking about it, talking about it,
whether a condom broke, whether they'd been tested.
And I've often said, when you look at a PsiOp,
a huge PsiOp like AIDS,
look at it at the back end of it.
Don't look at the front of it or the middle of it,
because it's at the end of a big PsiOp
that it disintegrates and you can see
what a bunch of lies it was to begin with.
So to put it very simply,
as you see in those incredible clips,
it wasn't esoteric refined immunobiology
or science of any kind.
It was blunt force weaponry,
basically horror films as medicine.
And what we object, what all of us AIDS dissidents
had different corners that we focused on.
John Lauritsen focused very much
on the fraud of the AZT trials, for example,
Michael Elner, Kevin and I were talking about
our late friend Michael Elner,
who founded a group called HEAL in New York City.
And HEAL, I remember their meetings very well.
They would get together in a room,
actually at Gay Men's Health Crisis.
And this was for people who were, they tried to,
people who are HIV positive
and were in the process of being scared to death
could go to that room, sit in that circle
and talk to people about the possibility
that they were not going to die,
that there was another side to the science.
So it was like an emergency support group
against the terror.
And what Michael Elner and HEAL and Tom DeFerdinando,
what they were saying to people was
the better part of this thing is a psychological attack.
If you can break free of the fear,
we can work to figure out why do some people get sick?
Am I gonna get sick?
Are you gonna get sick?
What is it that causes that?
But the fear and the terror,
that the fear porn was so massive
and it was considered part of the great and the good.
It was considered a good thing
to soak people in this kind of terror.
Those of us who were working to try to deprogram people,
whether it was in the media or in support groups
or in academic journals or anywhere,
what we were saying was this fear attack by itself
as is documented in, for example,
Voodoo is actually well-documented.
Now we know the mind affects the body
and gives commands to the body.
And what we were saying was you are scaring people to death.
It is an act of brutality and abuse.
This is very, very abusive, stop it.
What they were saying to us was
when you interfere with our public health,
our fear mongering,
you are undermining the safe sex message.
You're undermining the public health agenda.
And so guess who's killing people?
You guys are killing people.
You're killing people
because if they don't keep that terror alive,
they may not use a condom or they may blah, blah, blah.
And all the things that they initially said
could lead a person to use their word, contract HIV,
they were all phased out.
You'll all maybe you've seen the clip
on the internet of Tony Fauci
having said sometime in the 1980s
that casual contact in your home
between children and parents,
maybe a toilet seat, maybe a salad leaf.
It was unbelievable the ways they said you could,
I literally remember that it was like toilet seat terror,
again, salad leaf terror,
then people stopped eating in restaurants
and they were peddling all these stories in the media
and the crudest, crudest,
like B-level propaganda didn't require any proof of any kind
because the culture was behind it.
The culture was of it.
And the culture was there's a new virus, it's deadly
and all good people will do anything whatsoever
to stop it and to not get it
and to stop people getting it and be aware.
They use that word aware.
So awareness meant the opposite.
A lot of things meant the exact opposite.
To have AIDS awareness meant to fall in line completely
with the dominant spell.
So it meant to be under a spell
that you didn't quite, so that to be in a trance.
And when you're in a trance,
you're just repeating what you've been programmed with.
So, sound familiar?
What I wanna ask you to kind of think about
regarding those reels is,
first of all, the very extreme,
if I can say it very simply, sex,
sex leads, sex causes life.
And before this program,
I don't think that anybody associated sex with death.
So I feel like their big revolutionary blow, the first one,
was to turn that upside down and inside out
so that now sex was associated with death.
You can see also the very heavy-handed
revolutionary guilt trips and all those clips.
Don't die of ignorance.
You were supposed to grab that pamphlet,
that terrifying pamphlet with no science and no medicine
and no reality in it from under your door
and read it and absorb what it said.
And they gave people this superstition ideology
that if they did all those things,
they would be spared, right?
If they, whether it was the march or the walk
or the bicycle ride or the wearing the red ribbon
or the reading the pamphlet
or making your girlfriend get tested, all these things.
And again, like a revolution,
it went into every facet of society
and it fundamentally changed us at such a root level.
And what I didn't see that caused a despair in all of us,
we expected when the back end of the PsiOP fell off,
when heterosexual AIDS did not happen at all,
when all of their predictions fell flat,
90 million Americans were to be dead in North America
by 1990, you know, you don't need me to cite
these deranged statistics, but they were all repeated.
And the biggest platforms in media,
they were repeated at the United Nations,
they were repeated at AIDS conferences around the world.
And they didn't come true at all, not even close, zero zip.
And what did not happen was that people then said,
all of you people from CDC, WHO, FDA, Tony Fauci,
all of you have lied to us, you have not been correct.
So we're not gonna believe you the next time around.
Because what happened to end the AIDS dissent war
was that they attacked the AIDS dissidents
with such a blind fury that it deflected
from how wrong they had been about everything.
So they created in the public mind,
there's just this group of dangerous deranged people
who are saying that HIV does not cause AIDS.
Those are the people to watch out for.
So that became part of the witchcraft superstition,
watch out for those people and you won't get it,
you won't encounter the boogeyman.
So sadly, because they have the media,
they have the propaganda, they have all the money,
it fizzled and it got quiet.
And most of the world was caught completely off guard
when they launched the next one, which was COVID.
Because most people did not have it in their mind
what they had done in the crucible of HIV and AIDS,
or how wrong they were or how deadly it was.
In terms of how deadly it was, estimates,
estimates I've seen that many of us have,
you may be familiar with this,
but the estimate is that 300,000 mostly gay men,
at least were killed by AZT alone in the high doses
in the early years of AZT.
That's also a feature that we see in COVID.
COVID mimics AIDS in so many ways.
The idea of an expanding diagnosis, it could be this,
it could be that.
Remember how COVID started as pneumonia,
it was supposed to be in the lungs,
it was supposed to be difficulty breathing.
And it wasn't very long before COVID could be anything.
And people walking around saying,
yeah, my father-in-law got it.
Oh, he got the COVID, he got the COVID.
So people were calling everything COVID.
And back then people were, it was a little different.
AIDS was different because it still was bound
by the HIV test, which isn't a test for HIV.
The HIV tests say in the package inserts
that they can't test for the presence or absence of HIV.
But I think what they learned with HIV and AIDS
is that that one was kept on a leash in a sense.
It was kept quarantined by the HIV tests,
which were not as, they didn't produce
the same promiscuous results
as when they disastrously applied PCR to COVID.
So since I just said PCR, let's go to real number two.
This is a series of quotes from Carey Mullis,
who we knew and loved.
And needless to say, he would be screaming bloody murder
to see this today.
So we'll just look at a few things that he had to say.
Okay, hang on one second.
And.
You wanna say something, Sylvia?
Yeah, I just wanted to say,
I have no sense of time in general or right now.
So maybe tell me how you got plenty of time.
You may go for half an hour, got plenty of time.
Okay.
This chain reaction, or PCR,
is an invention I had in about 82, 83.
It's a way that you can produce
a little teeny piece of DNA,
a specific one out of the whole genome,
and make as many copies of it as you wanted to,
and there's no limit.
Now what I invented was a way
that you could use molecules to do the looking for you,
and they could start some little process
that would find the thing you wanted and copy it,
and keep copying it, and copy the copies,
and then copy the copies.
So you'd go from having one copy of it,
to two, to four, to eight, to 16, to 32, to 64, to 128,
on up to a million if you've done it 20 times,
and a billion if you've done it 30 times.
When you get a billion of them,
you've got as many copies of the thing you want
as there are little nucleotides,
or letters in the whole thing.
All right, it's got three billion.
You've got just about as many.
You can pick up any one you want to at that point,
and it's the one you want.
You take a haystack, basically, with a needle lost in it,
and you turn the whole haystack into needles,
and then you just take a handful.
That's what it does.
It's almost like magic.
If they could find this virus in you at all,
and with PCR, if you do it well,
you can find almost anything in anybody.
It starts making you believe in the sort of Buddhist notion
that everything is contained in everything else, right?
I mean, because if you can amplify one single molecule
up to something that you can really measure,
which PCR can do,
then there's just very few molecules
that you don't have at least one single one of them
in your body, okay?
So that could be thought of as a misuse of it,
just to claim that it's meaningful.
Vented by the AIDS dissident, Dr. Kerry Mullis,
PCR, the polymer's chain reaction,
is a technique that enables a scientist
to take a sample containing a minute amount of DNA
and replicate that DNA sequence
until there are a million copies.
One of PCR's first applications was to try to detect HIV.
According to Dr. Mullis, PCR amplifies whatever DNA
is in a sample,
regardless of whether that DNA belongs to HIV
or a contaminant,
and that there is no sure way to determine
which part of the amplified material could be HIV
and which part could be a contaminant.
It allows you to take a very minuscule amount of anything
and make it measurable,
and then talk about it in meetings and stuff,
like it is important.
See, that's not a misuse,
that's just sort of a misinterpretation.
There are no really good experiments
that would lead anybody
who is at least maintaining a healthy skepticism
to believe that HIV was responsible
for this series of, not series,
but kind of a loose confederation of diseases
that people are now willing to call AIDS.
It's a confederation of maybe 30 different diseases,
all of which have existed in one form or other
prior to the condition that we call AIDS
ever being pointed out,
and all of which have had some other explanation
at one time or other.
To say that all 30 of those are somehow caused
in at least some cases, called AIDS cases,
by a virus called HIV,
I think I haven't seen any evidence for that.
I haven't seen anybody trying
to bring evidence forth for that.
And he said he's been looking for that
since I guess the late 80s,
and he hasn't ever been able to find anyone
that can give him a paper that showed,
number one, isolation of HIV,
rigorous formal isolation of HIV,
and secondly, using Koch's postulates,
demonstrating that HIV is a causal microorganism.
Where is the original paper
that isolated HIV so that nothing else was present,
and they actually could go and find
what the proteins were and the nucleic acids were?
I think you won't find that paper
because it hasn't been published yet.
The first time I really questioned it,
I was working on a project where we were measuring HIV
in people's blood at this place called
Specialty Laboratories in Santa Monica.
I was just a consultant there,
and I came in about three days a month,
and we were working on that,
and at some point we needed to re-up our grant
from the NIH to work on that, and I had to write it.
And so the first line of that was,
HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.
And I wrote that, and then I said,
well, I need a paper, some kind of scientific paper,
to reference that statement,
because when you make a statement like that,
that's like a fact,
you need to say, here's how come I know that.
You put a little one,
if it's the first statement you've made,
and then you put down at the bottom of the paper,
you have a one, and you say,
here's a paper by somebody that describes
why that statement is true.
And so I said, well, what's that?
I don't even know, I think about, what is that paper?
Who do I go to for that?
And I looked around, I asked a couple of our
orologists at that company, and they said,
no, you don't have to reference that.
I said, I have to reference that,
because I don't know where that came from.
How do I know that?
And it turned out that nobody knew it.
There wasn't a scientific reference,
like a paper that somebody had submitted
with experimental data in it,
and logical discussion, and said,
here's how come we know that HIV
is the probable cause of AIDS.
There was nothing out there like that, nothing.
So, yeah, over to you, yes.
The wonderful Carrie Mallis.
Yeah.
Well,
what I want to get into now, yeah,
I mean, may God rest his great soul.
And I think that's a great thing,
that we're all in this together,
and we're all in this together,
and he's a great soul.
I guess, you know, I was around,
I'm like the last Galapagos tortoise,
I was around for all this,
and maybe I should share some memories.
I was just thinking a moment ago,
what hasn't come out, hasn't come out,
is the climate back then,
and how they succeeded in,
how they succeeded in terminating this whole,
well, it was like a civilization.
It wasn't just a bunch of people getting together,
signing things in protest.
It was a very, very, I would say,
I felt extremely privileged to,
I had most of these amazing scientists,
largely to myself, because my colleagues in journalism
had been given very clearly the message
that to touch this story with a barge pole
is to ruin your career and possibly torpedo this very,
whatever, periodical or television show.
And I saw that happen,
it happened to a very good friend of mine
who was a producer at ABC.
He booked an interview with Peter Duisburg.
I was on that show as well,
and they terminated the show and he never worked again.
I mean, this was like the stuff that you read about
in a book like Stozyland by Anna Funder,
Stories from Behind the Berlin Wall,
completely invisible on the surface
of what we call Western society,
but operating with absolute violence and precision
to take out, and they caught everybody way up river.
They knew what paper or article was gonna come out.
They knew who was even interested.
They knew who was even trying to interview a Peter Duisburg
or a David Rasnik, and I witnessed this over and over.
They just, they got in, they got in at the magazines,
Cosmopolitan magazine,
maybe this wouldn't have been such a tragedy,
but it almost went under,
almost went under because they ran an article
by one Dr. Stephen Gould, if memory serves.
He was a psychiatrist and he put together his evidence
that there was no reason to think that HIV or AIDS
was spread through heterosexual intercourse
so that there would be a big explosion of heterosexual AIDS.
So how did it work?
Well, the activists, AIDS activist groups
and NGOs and charities, they all operated as one,
and they all had immense punch factor, right?
So when they were upset about something, an article,
or they would protest, and they did so physically,
and they did so very, very traumatically.
The ones we know about are the protests
in the Catholic churches with the throwing blood
and the throwing condoms at the cardinals and all of that.
These groups were the way that the system managed
to snuff out the truth about this whole matter
because nobody wanted to draw that kind of attack onto,
and again, this is before the internet.
So the attacks were physical.
They were people being screamed at and spat at
or had blood thrown at them and being called murderer,
murderer, murderer over and over.
So we became accustomed to that no matter what we knew
and had read and determined, it was still, I have to say,
an extremely disturbing and disorienting experience
to be told over and over again that you,
with your reportage, were you scientist over there
with your beautiful scientific paper and method,
you are contributing to death and murder.
And I think that was what took out most of the media.
The most editors, when told that they were gonna kill people
with this article that just seemed
like an interesting article, they're gonna drop it.
And so I think the lesson from that history
and the history that we're living now is to be
way more aware of the psychological warfare,
way more aware of the gaslighting and the guilt trips,
and to be aware of that is to be better prepared.
I said in the beginning that I don't think that,
okay, I take the position that correcting the science
does not get anybody out of the hell of all this stuff.
Because if I thought that they believed for one minute,
anything that they're saying, I might feel differently.
I think that our big miscalculation was actually
to address it and try to dismantle it
on the level of science.
What I now think it is, and this is essentially,
I use this word in the Christian sense of the word,
I think it's witchcraft.
And I'm gonna just read, what do I mean by it?
I mean, AIDS and COVID and everything that they did
to the human psyche around the world
in the name of those spectral pandemics,
whatever we wanna call them, words are very, very important.
And I try to walk back the words that they've tried
to induce us to use, right?
Like virus, like pandemic.
The reason I say it's witchcraft,
I came upon a definition of witchcraft by a minister,
his name was Derek Prince, a well-known
British Pentecostal minister.
And I wrote this down and it's been on my bulletin board
and it informs so much of what I perceive
in this whole thing.
And here's the quote, what is witchcraft?
Witchcraft in its essence is the attempt to control people
and make them do what you want by the use of any spirit,
which is not the Holy Spirit.
Charles, I'm trying to remember now, real three.
Truvada.
Oh, Truvada, yeah, we can skip that.
Okay, real four, I think is more of interest.
What was the title of real four?
Real four is COVID propaganda reel.
Yeah, okay, right, let's go to that.
Okay, so yeah.
Yeah.
Okay.
Just one second.
Yeah, so while you're doing that, I'll just say that
it's hard to find words to describe like how,
this reel you're about to see,
there is an absolute through line
and I'm struggling to find my words
because I feel like you don't need me to tell you this
and it goes without saying.
And sometimes when something is really glaringly,
glaringly, shockingly obvious,
it's hard to describe it
because it hits you over the head so hard.
So I think you'll all feel as I do.
Well.
It's unbelievable how similar
or how intact the gaslighting propaganda messaging
and witchcraft has been from AIDS to COVID.
Okay, Charles.
History, humankind has prevailed in our darkest moments,
coming together to face the very thing
that would extinguish our light.
This is not one of those moments at all.
This is a moment for pretty much the opposite,
for hiding, for laying low.
Napping is also good.
Saving humankind by really, really not getting near it.
Where playing games, staring at screens,
staring at anything, all are the stuff of heroes.
Every generation has its moment
where individual sacrifice makes way
for the good of those who will come after.
A higher purpose.
This one is ours.
COVID-19 can find you here.
When you're just trying to celebrate,
it can find you here.
When you're with your closest friends,
or even here, when you're spending time with family.
Wear a mask, stay six feet apart.
Don't host gatherings, even in your own home.
Protect the people you love.
Just so you know, we don't have the video.
It can be accompanied by laughter or tears.
It can celebrate victory or comfort defeat.
So Celia, we've just got the sound.
We haven't got the video.
Why don't we pause it for a second?
I'm sure everybody gets the idea.
Outrageous stuff.
Yeah, it's absolutely outrageous.
Exactly like with AIDS, where they go straight
for the jugular of everything that we need to be humans,
that we take for granted.
That's exactly, this is why I consider it witchcraft,
because I don't, no scientist present,
or anywhere would ever say that's part of my training
as a scientist to completely mess with people's psyche.
Again, it's like horrible, all these stuff.
It's unapologetic and it's not nuanced.
That's right.
And life is nuanced.
And it's mean, it's cruel, it's cruel.
It's cruel, yes, it's psychological torture.
It's psychological torture, thank you.
Exactly, exactly.
I wanted to segue real quick.
I'm not gonna be very long,
but I just wanna say briefly here that
there's an immense and very important
and now rip roaring dialectic about isolation of viruses,
whether it's that one or this one or all of them.
This is a book and I knew the author, she's gone now,
but Janine Roberts wrote a book here
called Fear of the Invisible.
How Scared Should We Be of Viruses and Vaccines, HIV and AIDS.
And it's a remarkable book.
What I love about it is that she tells a story
about what is going on in the cellular symphony.
She doesn't just say, this is what's not happening.
She, well, I'm gonna hone in on one chapter here.
Actually, I called Kevin this morning and I said,
did you read Janine's book?
And he said, well, I have it here.
And I said, well, read chapter 11
because I reread it this morning and it's staggering.
Chapter 11 is called fraudulent papers.
And it's, as far as I know, the most detailed breakdown
of what went on behind the scenes leading to Gallo's four,
repeat four papers called foundation papers
that were published back to back in nature in 1984,
seen as the bedrock and foundation why it was,
and by many still is, believe that HIV is the cause of AIDS.
What actually happens behind the scenes here
is that Gallo's lab technician is given by Gallo the sample
and most people know it was misappropriated
from Luke Montagnier and the Pasteur Institute.
So the sample, he's given the,
he does what virologists do
and he looks for, he looks for retroviral activity.
He's told by Gallo, there's gonna be a retrovirus
in this sample.
Gallo leaves the country.
The lab assistant, nickname Mika Popovic,
he does classical virology and he determines,
maybe if I'm wrong about any of this,
Kevin will correct me later,
but here's my layperson's analysis of this insane drama
that Mika, as he's known,
he doesn't find any retroviral activity
or presence in the sample.
And he says precisely that, and Gallo is out of the country.
Mika then seems to surmise
that he's gonna be in a lot of trouble
and he makes backup copies.
He goes away on a, he goes to visit his sister.
I'm pretty sure it was in Switzerland.
Gallo comes back and is livid, absolutely livid,
and commands Mika to come right back
and stop this visit to Switzerland or ski vacation,
whatever it was.
And he is then, Mika is then absolutely blasted by Gallo
and Gallo takes what Mika produced, lab notes,
and he rewrites it, radical, radical rewrite
in his own scrawl, furious scrawl.
Mika, are you crazy?
This kind of thing.
And I'll just read you one short passage here
from Janine's book, What Happens.
It was fascinating.
This is from Janine Roberts, Fear of the Invisible.
It was fascinating.
I'm sorry, let me stop for a second.
Janine obtained this whole documented record.
It was almost destroyed.
It was before the Dingell Committee investigated Bob Gallo.
I think the NIH itself tried to shred all of this.
And by some miracle, it was not shredded, it was saved.
It may have been by the Dingell Committee,
but somehow it survived.
And Janine Roberts got ahold of it.
So she read all this stuff and you can see the breakdown
in this book, Fear of the Invisible, but she wrote,
it was fascinating to see that his 13 page typed manuscript
had been absolutely covered in Gallo's scribbled comments,
redrafted paragraphs, and furious notes in the margins.
There were also two extra pages of his rough notes
added at the end.
Gallo had changed the title of the paper.
When published, it would claim that they had, quote,
isolated the virus, but there was no mention of isolation
in the title originally.
I was intrigued.
Isolation is said to be a key step
in the study of any virus.
I looked over the whole draft paper with care
and found there were no experiments in it
designed to isolate the virus for research purposes.
It was originally titled, Rescue and Continuous Production
of Human T-cell Lymphotrophic Retrovirus,
HTLV-3 from Patients with AIDS.
The new title read, Detection, Isolation,
and Continuous Production of Cytopathic Retroviruses,
HTLV-3 from Patients with AIDS and Pre-AIDS.
But where was the justification for calling the virus
cytopathic?
I knew that elsewhere, Gallo claimed that it killed T-cells,
but extraordinarily, I could not find, I'm sorry,
I could find no trace in this paper, as drafted or as
published, of any evidence produced to prove this,
despite this claim being made in its title.
So it goes on from there.
And what we're looking at, no less,
exactly as with SARS-CoV-2 and COVID,
is the astonishing fact that at the center of the labyrinth,
there is nothing.
There is no proof whatsoever.
And the history, if it is fruitful, if it is meaningful,
is the history of a whole lot of very hardworking, earnest
people all over the world coming up against this AIDS
apparatus and juggernaut, and trying in ways that,
in hindsight, didn't work.
This is the standard of proof you haven't proven.
So of course, they don't debate.
They don't have to.
What they do is attack, besmirch, terminate funding,
terrorize, shame.
They're a big, big, big shaming apparatus.
For people like us, how do you counter that?
How do you go up against that?
Well, that's a big question.
One of the things I want to bring Kevin in now,
basically, what we talk about, Kevin and I
have been friends since, I guess, sometime in the 1990s.
And what gets lost in all the talk about the wrong science,
the bad science, the fraudulent science,
the non-existent science, is the essence of what they did here,
which was they created a fake scientific pretext
for all manner of cruelty, and experimentation, and torture,
and debasement, and kidnapping, and murder, also.
And the people who got caught in the crosshairs
were the most vulnerable.
And when we tried to say, do you see what they're doing?
They're poisoning this mother.
They're kidnapping this child.
They're making this mother give her baby AZT.
The spell on people was, oh, but they're HIV positive.
So they're saving, as in like Liam Sheff's reportage
from the Incarnation Children's Center in the Bronx,
these children being hideously, indescribably tortured
by chemical torture.
And even then, even though it came out,
people would come to a certain point, yeah, that's really bad.
But they were HIV positive.
So what that meant in the public mind was they were already dead.
So we can't really feel anything for them.
And we can't really fight for them.
And this is all just the way it has to be, which actually kind
of leads to it's like a dark river that funnels
into a eugenics mentality, a depopulation mentality,
a euthanasia mentality.
And what Kevin and I have come around to is, oh, this is,
I'm going to wrap it up with this after decades of friendship,
is he realized as a nurse, as soon as AIDS broke out,
that he was in something very dark,
that he was not expected to help his patients.
He was expected to adopt the mentality
that they were already dead.
And so I'm going to hand it over to him and let him address that.
He has a very interesting piece of the history and a scientist
that most of us haven't heard of who coined the phrase death
making.
And death making is when inside of medicine,
the whole system conspires to do various things that make
the patient kind of, well, be given up on as already dead.
And then all the gears can start to turn so that person becomes
indeed dead and everybody agrees it's all for the best.
So now, after all these years, 35 years in this story,
I finally see it.
I can finally see it.
And it's just many, many roads lead to the same diabolical
entity, which is the spirit of eugenics and depopulation.
It's all ways to induce the whole system to render people,
take them from being alive to being dead without it seeming
that you killed them, without it seeming
that you robbed them of their life, of everything they had
a right to.
One thing that all cultures have agreed until AIDS hit,
it was assumed that every person walking around has the right
to be alive and believe that they're going to continue
to be alive unless there's some extreme mitigating circumstance.
But with AIDS and with COVID, that's the very thing
that they take.
They take our sense of the fact that we're alive
and there's no reason to think we're not going to be alive
tomorrow or the next day.
In other words, you can't call somebody and say,
you realize you're going to die next Tuesday.
That's considered a crime because it is known
to be a psychological weapon.
And these people do it as a matter of course now.
And they do it so that death comes closer
and life seems like a luxury.
Death comes closer and life seems like a luxury.
And it's all to induce us.
It's not just in people.
It's also in animals and pets.
It's in veterinary culture.
Everything is the slippery slope that life
is going closer to death.
And that so many people for so many reasons
should be considered virtually already dead.
So it's a kind of degradation of life.
And it happens very subtly but also very overtly.
So with that, I will, oh, Prometheus,
the ancient Greeks, Prometheus.
So they said, Prometheus said, I blinded them
to the day of their deaths so that they would aspire.
So in other words, not being made against our will,
aware of when some entity out there tells us we're going to die
is a very fundamental, considered
a very fundamental right in Western civilization.
Or it was before these people came along.
OK, Kevin.
So Celia, for me, you've really hit it on the nail there
because I think that's exactly what they did.
They made life seem impossible and death
came nearer for very many people three years ago.
And it has continued like that.
And I don't know how you managed to work that out,
that you managed to articulate it.
But I think you're right on the money there.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Sorry, Kevin.
Well, thank you very much, Celia, for inviting me to talk.
And what I'll say is, to be honest,
I started in the whole AIDS nursing, HIV nursing,
in 1987 on one of the first, I think it was the first UK ward.
And it was the one that was opened by Princess Diana.
And I knew nothing about the science.
I mean, I was just a staff nurse.
I just qualified.
Had only been qualified six months.
And I went to work as an RN.
The field attracted me because of the discrimination prejudice.
And Celia's referred to this already,
that the rank prejudice, the fear in the mid 1980s
was palpable.
It was on every media outlet.
It was in all the newspapers.
Patients dying with AIDS were on the front pages,
emaciated bodies, people with chaos, blemishes.
It was profoundly fear that was being produced and promulgated.
And I think I was attracted to it because I
was in charge of a ward one day.
I was working in general surgery after I qualified as an RN.
And we had a patient admitted who had been diagnosed HLTVL3 positive,
which was the terminology of the so-called virus before HIV.
And the nurses literally wouldn't on the ward,
people I was working with, everybody, just apart from me
and maybe one or two others, had this incredible,
it was like a social experiment.
They just wouldn't go near this patient at all.
They wouldn't do anything.
This was a nightingale ward, an open ward with some side rooms.
And the patient was put in one of the side rooms.
And totally unnecessary.
There's no need for this.
I could see this sort of mechanism that was cleaving people
against each other.
And so that was one of the reasons why I was attracted to this.
Because it was just incredibly powerful.
And I wanted to be part of it.
Of course, I wanted to help people.
Everybody goes into health care with these notions.
That was 1987.
I went to work on this AIDS unit.
And then it was 1996 that I encountered the UK version
of the distant groups that Celia mentioned in America.
In the UK, it was the Continuum magazine,
the editor Hugh Christie.
And they were publishing work by Celia, by Peter Juesberg,
by Eleni Papadopoulos, Eliopoulos, the Perth group,
and all the distant AIDS scientists.
And why I was doing, engaging with that magazine,
that was 1996.
So it's like nearly 10 years after I started
working the whole field.
So in those 10 years from starting to work in the field
and then waking up to the problems with the science,
there was nine years, really, nine years
of my clinical experience where every day it
was problematic working in the field on the AIDS units
in the 1980s.
No patient would get into an ITU,
into intensive care unit, hardly any.
You couldn't ventilate patients.
You couldn't intubate them.
People were coming in with all sorts of symptoms.
And they were basically being written off
or given toxic medications like AZT.
And of course, I was part of that at the time.
So I'm being honest with you all.
I was part of that cult, that mindset.
And I had problems with it from the get go.
And it was profoundly difficult working in that field
as a staff nurse, as a charge nurse,
and then as a nurse specialist.
And there were times when I was going
against the medical orders.
I was going against giving the medications,
the end of life medications that I thought
were being given too quickly or shouldn't be given at all.
I crossed through prescriptions.
I counted doctor's orders.
I got into a lot of trouble.
I was by no means a hero at all.
But probably destroyed my career in the end
by doing research for a doctorate in social sciences
on people's experiences of testing.
And it was at that point that I, having come with difficulty
through this field, started to look at the underlying science.
And Continuum magazine in London was a sort of beacon for this
because it published people like Celia.
I remember reading her spin articles.
I remember going to a shop in London that sold spin magazine
and ordering copies and trying to order back copies of her work.
And Celia was writing about people like Carrie Mullis
and Dr. David Rasnik, who's online tonight,
and all these people that were questioning
the fundamentals of this.
And this woke me up, as it were, to the science.
I've already been awake to the inhumanity, the care pathways,
in inverted commas, the terminal care, which was really profoundly difficult.
I'm getting into so much trouble trying to resuscitate patients
that wanted to live, who the medics and the system surrounding the patient
wanted to basically kill.
Either through inactivity, doing nothing, or writing them off with DNR orders,
or giving them toxic medications for all sorts of reasons.
And I can remember being in charge of the bronchoscopy suite
for the AIDS unit.
And my job was to repair patients with lung problems
that were having bronchoscopies for diagnostic purposes.
And the senior doctors at the time would be saying things to me like,
if they start deteriorating, we're not going to resuscitate them,
we're just going to let them go.
I was saying, well, we can't do that, because if you're going to give a treatment,
an investigation, like a bronchoscopy to diagnose and give a treatment,
you are actually ethically on dodgy ground,
because you're going to kill people by just letting them go if something happens.
And patients with pneumocystis or these so-called lung problems
associated with AIDS had very friable lungs.
They had a lot of pneumothoraxes during the bronchoscopies or post-pronchoscopy.
And my job would always be to intubate or to put in a chest drain,
help put in chest drain, so I had all the equipment there ready.
And these doctors were working with this terminal mindset
that almost these people are to be experimented on and to be allowed to
and would be let go, would die as a result of pneumothorax.
And as you know, if you get a mediastinal shift due to pneumothorax,
it can be, you can kill the patient very quickly.
So you have to put in chest drains quickly, you have to assist ventilation,
and you may have to intubate.
And they wouldn't do this, you see.
And I was, this is 1987, I was junior staff nurse,
and I found this totally utterly anti-everything that I was trained to do.
I remember going to the journals to try and find something to read on this.
And there was one article in the American Journal of Nursing in 1986,
and it was lead nurses in AIDS in the US talking about these issues
where they're having to push back on their medical colleagues
who are working with the terminal care, a death-making attitude to these patients.
And this was just profoundly supportive to me that I found something in the literature
to support my clinical experience and what I was going through
and what many of us on that unit were going through.
And every day was pushed back against the death-making.
And that term death-making, I only learned about in the last 10 years,
was a term that Wolf Wolfensberger coined.
He developed this term.
And he was a clinical psychologist who did all the work in the US
on normalisation of services for people with learning disabilities.
So he developed this whole approach to normalising care for people
in institutional settings so that the institutional systems wouldn't kill them,
wouldn't deny them support.
So this is going back to 1980s with AIDS.
This is what many of us were experiencing, not just me.
But I didn't understand the science or the lack of science at the time,
and not until the mid to late 1990s, through the work of people like Celia,
David Ransnick and all the other AIDS-distant scientists,
and reporters like John Lauritsen, John Rappaport and many others,
and editors like Hugh Christie that published these people.
And once that... Once I'd reached that sort of science critique of it,
it shifted, and I realised that I couldn't work in that field.
So after I did my PhD, I couldn't go back into the AIDS field.
And I started writing articles and publishing, or trying to publish,
to develop some sort of critique of this or expose what was happening.
And this became problematic, obviously.
I don't think my career suffered in the way that the lead scientists
like Peter Juesberg or the others did, or indeed as Celia suffered in journalism,
because I was able to manipulate my career into nursing research,
into non-HIV research areas, and to teach in the university setting.
So that's where I was.
Now, where the whole industrial complex around AIDS was profoundly problematic
was in denying voice to these, you know, censoring in journals
and coming down on you like a ton of bricks when you managed to get anything published
that exposed the issues.
And this, I think, is something very similar to what's happened in the last three years.
But the issue about what was at the core of this was this hexing of individuals,
this inculcation into the psyche that people were diseased from the get-go.
And I'd just like to show a clip, if I can share it, that clip, Charles, that you...
Ready to go.
Yeah.
Ready to go now?
Yeah.
I don't think we've got a sound on it.
Kind of a special category among viruses.
First of all, its genetic information is RNA, but that's not unique in what defines it.
The poliovirus is RNA, the fluence is RNA.
But what's unique about the retrovirus is that when it gets into the cell,
the RNA is, we call it transcribed into a DNA form.
So essentially, the RNA is converted to DNA.
That DNA form gets to the nucleus of the cell and then becomes integrated into the target cell DNA
so that the infection is forever.
Is that how long it is, Kevin?
Yeah, that's fine.
Lovely.
Kevin, is that only 53 seconds?
Yeah, that's fine.
Yeah.
I just wanted to show that because...
Are we back online?
Yeah.
That's the essence, not just of the key lie of virology, that there's a virus at the core of this.
But it's the key lie that was inculcated, it was promulgated, it was pushed into people's psyches,
that they are walking death, that they are dying from the get-go.
And this is the model that was projected into the services in the 1980s, the so-called care services.
This was the model that the doctors and nurses that were part of this, that promoted it, were using.
They were working with this model that doctors would say to me,
Kevin, there's no point putting these patients in intensive care because they're dead already.
They're like walking zombies.
And there's no point doing this because if you do that somewhere later down the line, they're going to die anyway.
So we'll give them this, we'll give them that, we'll give them X, we'll give them Y, but we won't give them Z.
And we'll just let them go peacefully with dimorphine or something similar.
And this was the model directly from that virological model that you just saw Robert Gallo talking about,
which was a nonsense because there's no such thing as HIV RNA anyway.
And the Perth Group's work showed that.
There is no isolate.
There is no virus underneath it.
It is a chimera.
It is a mirage that many people, Janine Roberts,
Krewston, the Perth Group and also Peter Juesberg have uncovered through investigative journalism, through science critique.
But it was that model that took hold through the propaganda that you saw and you heard Celia talking about.
It took hold of the public mindset, the science mindset, the medical mindset.
And it was this that I was pushing against for those first nine years before I discovered the so-called science was problematic.
This was the inhumanity that was profoundly difficult to counter.
Once people had gone through that portal and got that label of HIV positive, there was a social hex on them
that was very difficult for individuals to uncouple from to a greater or lesser extent.
And of course, the ideal is don't go through that door.
Don't test. You don't do it. Just don't do it.
But of course, it's like the Covid and the PCR tests and the last three years and the lateral flows and then the so-called vaccines.
It's very difficult socially for people to try to unlink themselves from that.
And this was the parallel back into the 80s and into the 90s.
By the middle of the 90s, I'd seen the caveats of the whole nonsense, the whole fraud, the big lie, the things that Celia were talking about.
What I was struggling against was some sort of amorphous.
It was this death making. It was this death making.
This whole idea of not just the virology, but the whole idea of contagion and the whole idea that people from the get go are, you know, no-hopers.
And this was the profound problem I had, not just as an RN, but then as an RN who trained in a scientific method
and became a nurse scientist, a health scientist, but also as a Roman Catholic, had profound problems over this.
And it wasn't just a question of not participating in abortion during surgery.
That was an easy one to get out of. But this was, you know, medical orders coming down.
You're in charge of the ward. There we are. This patient needs dimorphine IV now.
They're dying. And they get written off. And you have to at that stage oppose it.
You have to stand up and say, you're not going to do this.
You have to actually start, you know, doing something actively to counter this at a grassroots level.
And that's what gets you labelled. I remember being on a ward. It wasn't the AIDS ward.
It was another medical ward and had an AIDS patient who choked on a Mars bar.
He was going home the following day, had got over treatment for PCP pneumonia.
He's had two weeks of septum and his bone marrow was still intact.
There was very few of those, but he was going home the following day.
But he was choking on chocolate.
I went behind the screens to assist, lay him flat, take, suck out his esophagus with a suction device.
The ward's sister started to pull me back and saying, Kevin, just let him go.
He's AIDS. He's dying. He's going to die anyway.
And I remember pulling myself away from her and doing mouth to mouth on this patient
with the chocolate and all. And I was telling the other staff nurses to get the defibrillator.
This is death making in practice, you know, at that stage where if you don't do anything,
you're party to euthanasia, or actually you're party to murder.
And I think that having seen that, you know, at that level, that was 1988,
and then later on 1996, reading Peter Juesberg's work, Celia's work, David Rasnik's and the Perth Group's work.
Yes, you've got an understanding of what was wrong with the science, you know, the lies underneath this.
But, you know, if it's all built on a lie, that doesn't undo the harms that were done in response to that lie.
So this is what I do believe that you get, one can get sucked into the science arguments,
the binaries between, you know, different competing argumentation over the fundamental science.
And I'm not saying those are unimportant, but at the end of the day, it's the harms that are done
that are important to push back on at a granular level, as well as on a macro level, you know, writing and publishing about it.
But also the...
Kevin, listening to you, I wonder whether, you know, you were quite junior at the time, you'd only just qualified,
you hadn't got the experience, but actually what you were reacting against, in my view,
was you were being asked to practice medicine without ethics or nursing, the same thing, on that kind of ward you were on.
And exactly the same thing has been asked of us during the last three years.
Yes, it is. And I think the similarities with Covid, it's the other way.
You know, whereas with the AIDS patients in the 80s, it was so hard to get them into ICU.
You would push to get the central line in, you would push to get the...
all the support, the intravenous therapy, whatever, you'd push very quickly for that.
But you'd have to push, push, push every minute of the shift, right?
The other way with Covid was you couldn't stop people being ventilated in 2020.
There were pathways that were routine, but this is 30, 40 years after AIDS.
And so the death making was the other way.
The technology was more available and the Covid pathways were death making pathways.
I don't think that this is any different to...
and maybe I'll be shot down for saying there's a similarity here to the orders,
the medical orders that were given during the Nazi era in the hospitals and the care homes and the death camps,
where people thought they were doing the right thing.
The lockstep, the Gleitlsten, you know, the coordination across society was similar, I think.
And that's where all these things tie up.
That's the great similarity between Covid and AIDS is the lockstep, the coordination,
the mindset of contagion theory that was applied to the populations.
And, you know, we've uncovered this, the PSYOPs, the detailed application of psychological techniques here.
I don't think it's any drama to say that these were very similar to the Nazi era.
But I think coming back to what Celia was saying, you know, taking the science arguments alone isn't enough here, you know,
and then you get sucked into these binaries of virus, no virus or whatever.
The harms that are done in the name of the big lie, in the big lie of virology, is that there aren't any viruses,
there aren't any isolates of HIV or SARS-CoV-2.
There never were. At the centre of this is a great emptiness.
But at the centre of this is the evil of what I would say is death making, like a cult where people are hexed to death.
And that social, psychological operation will kill a lot of people.
And in the 80s, you would kill people by just giving them the antibody positive results.
People, not some people went out and killed themselves, but it would kill people's spirit,
kill their psyche for them to believe that they have got this infection and that they could then be contagious within the rest of the population.
That's the evil here. That's the evil.
And I think that bracketing the science arguments, looking at the harms, which I think what most people are doing,
is really the way forward because the harms are there, whatever, you know, the harms don't go away if you prove there's no virus.
The harms are still there. Social distancing, masking, death making, midazolam, dimorphin, all these instruments,
all these technologies of death making have harmed people and are continuing to do that.
The Covid injections, misnamed vaccinations, this is going on.
This is this is the I think the essence of of what the fight's about, really.
So there we go. I've just got to plug in my computer. Hang on.
Can I, Charles, can I jump in and say something?
I'll just say one thing, Celia. I think that the thing that's common to both stories is taking away of hope from human beings.
We were taught this at medical school. Never take, at our medical school anyway, never take hope away from the patient.
And of course, as students, we used to ask, why is that so important?
Well, if we were told by the professors, if you take hope away from patients, they will die.
And that's exactly what they did with the AIDS.
And that's exactly what they've done now.
And that's why people are stuck in a state of Stockholm syndrome.
Stephen, could I just address what you just said and what Kevin just said real quick?
Well, am I on? Yeah, very, very crucial.
We are right over the target right here or this this target at hand in this conversation.
And I want to give a little bit of historical context.
So in what I think one of the top, one of my most favorite interviews I ever did was with and Dave Rasnik knew him,
I think Kevin knew him to a wonderful science scientist named Richard Stroman.
And he campaigned around the world and later in his career against genetic determinism.
He was a geneticist. And to cut to the chase, what Richard Stroman told me in the year was 2000,
I was assigned, believe it or not, by Tina Brown to do try for Talk magazine, if anybody remembers.
And it never it didn't it didn't go anywhere because of what she called me and said, I'm sorry.
They called me and said, we'd like you to do an article on gene therapy.
And I said, well, I'm unlikely to come back with an enthusiastic article about gene therapy.
So I think you may be have the wrong reporter.
And they said, no, no, Tina wants you to do it.
So I went out to do an article about gene therapy.
And the first thing you ran into back then about gene therapy, I went to Penn State,
which was the epicenter of it.
And I walked in and the press office and the man said, running the press office, he said, well, we killed an 18 year old kid.
That was the first thing out of his mouth.
I mean, the press officer for Penn State and where the where this had all was like,
the epicenter of this research, that was Jesse Gelsinger.
He was 18 years old and he was he wanted to help science and he had a rare genetic disorder.
There aren't that many, but there are some, right.
As we know, and he had this one where he couldn't eat nitrites, he couldn't eat hot dogs and things like that.
And so he he elected to become part of a very tragic trial testing gene therapy.
So gene therapy was he was going to be injected with genetic materials that were supposed to repair this genetic defect.
Well, instead, he died a hideous death.
His his blood congealed, his organs shut down one by one.
Again, he was 18 years old and there was nothing particularly wrong with him.
But his death caused the field of gene therapy or so we believed to grind to a screeching halt.
His death was not seen as business as usual.
It was seen as what it was, a catastrophe, a disaster.
It caused a huge crisis in the field.
So in the process of that story, I got in touch with Richard Stroman, who was also an HIV dissident, but I'd never interviewed him before.
And he and for me, this was like time stopped when he explained this.
And it speaks to what you said, Stephen, and what Kevin was just saying.
So Richard Stroman said, we are in something called the machine model of biology and the machine model of biology was a very clear moment in biology that came in around the time of World War One, where they the.
If we have a blanket term for all these people who think like this.
Maybe it'll come to me, but let's just say that the forces that were coming together to that brought up, bring us to these nightmares where we are today.
They decided when they were conceiving of this machine model of biology that God had to be kicked out of biology.
And with God being kicked out of biology, out goes the miracle.
And Stephen, you spoke to having been taught that if you take hope from people, you're already part way to killing them.
And that was apparently against what you were taught in medical school.
Is that what you said?
Right.
Sure.
Right.
You don't take hope away from the patient as a doctor.
And if that means you have to massage the truth a bit, especially with some personalities, then I always did it.
But I'm not sure that my colleagues did.
Sorry.
Yeah, no, sorry.
I didn't mean to be so adamant about it.
I'm trying to.
So the machine model of biology, its first, I think, dark, horrific fruit, at least in the modern era is HIV AIDS.
So what does it hold?
The machine model of biology, Richard Stroman explained to me, is that we are machines.
We are like we are like we are machines.
And if we have a broken part, it may get replaced.
But there's like a ticking clock element.
There's no chance there's no.
And this ties into markets where he said, you know, you don't want any chance.
You don't want any miracle.
You don't want any surprises.
And this is what we see.
It closes in and it becomes claustrophobic and deterministic like a machine, exactly what it sounds like.
The machine model of biology cut straight to Yuval Harari.
You can all see him and hear him.
Right.
And he's literally standing up there saying that humans are hackable animals.
This is what they were going for to eliminate.
Richard Stroman called it the miracle.
Some may call it God.
There are many. But but what we know what we're talking about.
And that is the the thing that falls outside of this hideous factory mentality.
Right. And these people, it's not this is what they want.
It's it's it's what do we see in the Nazi?
All the Nazi Reich is all about the mechanization to create a mechanical death system inside of which there is no miracle.
There are no surprises.
It's a machine model of biology.
And that means we are machines.
We can't affect anything.
And then you have the doctor class who are supposed to be the machine tinkerers and the machine fixers.
And Stroman said when this thing came into biology, that was the that was the darkness.
That was the beginning.
And that.
Yeah, because the ethics go the ethics go out of the window and the humanity goes as well.
And the emotions, everything.
So all these people like Harari and Schwab and all the rest of them, Tedros, they never ever talk about emotions.
They talk about. So Tedros talks about public health.
Well, public health is another tyranny.
So when you create tyrannies, you have to have things in place to check those potential tyrannies.
And and that's true of doctors as well.
They have enormous power, influence over their patients.
And so the ethics are absolutely essential in with doctors, obviously.
And if you've got artificial intelligence as they want running medicine instead of doctors, then, of course, they get rid of.
All emotion instead of most of emotion as they've got now.
Stephen, just to add to what Celia said, the machine model in AIDS.
Yes, it's genetic, but the model, the machine model came out of the technology applied in AIDS.
The T cell counting, the viral load testing, the PCR testing, the creation of these concepts of T cell death and viral load increasing.
The this was the machine model of AIDS where people were put into virtual.
People's bodies were recreated virtually.
And it was a death making creation because the way the PCR worked, the viral load would go up and the T cell counts would go down.
And that indicated death.
And that was the model.
But that's not how you practice medicine, Kevin, you know that.
Well, no, no, exactly.
But that's what was that was what was foisted on the medical elite, the medical power base in the 1980s, along with along with the
asymptomatic status equaling equal infection and Celia's first edition of her book and her second one has a very good
appendix by Rodney Richards on the creation of that whole concept of asymptomatic equals infection.
And and this whole idea that T cell counting and PCR viral load are rational concepts.
They're not. They're totally irrational, but they were they were promulgated.
They were brought in.
They were given authority.
The industry got behind them because the money, because the profits and the medical profession actually had to swallow that.
They went along with it, even though at the time there were a lot of dissent, there's a lot of dissent, but the mainstream actually got behind it.
And therefore, this was the groundwork for, you know, the successive viral plandemics that didn't take off until Covid after HIV.
And this is quite important.
Without those technologies, it wouldn't have happened.
It was the technologies that facilitated it along with, you know, the individuals and the product champions like Robert Gallo and Montagnier and all the others, all the other big players that helped create this.
UK, we had Robin Weiss and others, Philip Morsimer and the public laboratory system that in America you have Fauci producing this.
So these key players and the technology were synergistic with the industry.
And this is what created this lefiophon, this behemoth, this evil empire, whatever we want to call it.
Just focusing on the science, I think Celia is absolutely right.
It's not enough. It never has been enough.
And getting sucked into binary debates and the caveats of testing isn't enough.
It skims the surface of it.
But Kevin, we've discussed that Covid-19 was a failure of diagnosis.
And I think, you know, I wasn't very interested at the time.
Well, I was interested in bits of it about HIV AIDS.
But I think that AIDS was also a failure of diagnosis.
And the whole thing about making technology and science God.
When they're bastardisations.
When doctors driven by ethics should be dictating how medicine is practised, not scientists who've never been to medical school,
and they've never seen a patient in their lives and certainly not artificial intelligence.
But that's my view.
I think you're right.
I think that the it is the essentially showing doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners, whoever does the diagnosis,
that these are bastardisations of the differential diagnosis.
It's a way of helping people wake up to the reality.
But I think Celia pointed to the reality of what you're actually dealing with here is much broader, bigger
and deeper spiritually than just the technology or the tests or the drugs.
What's underneath this, the underbelly of it, the dark underbelly of it is a spiritual evil.
It's it's it's it's you know, this is I think what's profound.
The mechanisation of death.
OK, the Nazis did this.
The T4, all the rest of it, doctors, nurses, health care professionals acting as though with a mindset that they're helping people,
but actually are terminating people.
And this is the evil that I saw.
I saw doctors and nurses in the 80s thinking they're helping people.
But I could see that somehow I could see it and others could because it doesn't always work.
This witchcraft doesn't work on everybody.
You could see at the edges of this, it wasn't working.
It wasn't doing they're not doing what they think they're doing.
They're actually doing the opposite, but they don't realise it.
Or if they do, they've made an accommodation with it.
But many don't realise this.
And I think this is the great evil that's happened is somehow the inversion has been very, very powerful.
And we've seen this in the last three years.
Eugenius, we've got five hands up, given.
Yeah, OK.
And Stephen hasn't started asking his questions.
Well, can I just ask one, Charles?
It's just one I wanted to ask Kevin and Celia.
So one of the things I was thinking about, you know, the AIDS thing and the propaganda
that was put out at the time, Celia, those films, I'd never seen those before.
Incredible. Those cannot be defended by any doctor.
I don't care what any doctor says.
Those films cannot be defended even in the interests of public health.
No, if that's what public health is about, scaring people to that extent and turning people against each other,
then we can't have that.
So what was the purpose of AIDS?
You know, all that nonsense.
And now this Covid nonsense, bearing in mind that I think that AIDS was a failure in diagnosis.
You know, the AIDS disease, the so-called disease, which actually was a basket of diseases
as far as I've been able to make out.
And then Covid-19, which was never properly diagnosed in my...
And I don't think AIDS was either at HIV.
I'm not sure about that either.
I don't think that was properly detected.
So what was the purpose of it all?
In my view, it was to drive doctors away from medical ethics and drive a wedge between doctors and their patients.
Trust. And also, I wonder, I'm really interested in Kevin.
We had a conversation about two months ago, Kevin, you and I, remember we discussed, you said to me,
interestingly, the virologists gained ground, but the immunologist fell back.
So as the virologists advanced, the immunologist died.
Isn't that interesting?
The human immune response is so complicated.
The immunologists were kings of medicine, you said then, and the virologists became the new kings.
So was the whole purpose of AIDS, the scam, which was AIDS, the scandal and the scandal, which was Covid,
was it to actually introduce this world of virology, which made possible in the populations' minds around the world
that deadly pandemics were possible?
My view is that deadly pandemics are not possible for the simple reason that a deadly pandemic kills its host before it can become a pandemic by definition.
So I just wanted to know what you think of those points that I made, Kevin and Celia, if you can answer the question.
OK, shall I go first?
I'll jump in.
Shall I answer first, Stephen?
You go first, Celia.
OK.
Great question.
The question, what comes to my mind is this.
The establishment of virus as revolutionary tool, medium and weapon of global public health, that is established.
So diseases are local, am I right?
Generally speaking, there's a cholera epidemic in Romania because of a contaminated body of water and so on and so forth.
Whenever, and this is something Dave Rasnik and I spoke about and he taught me a lot about this, that map that you saw with Covid with a pshh all over,
that's not how diseases spread.
It's the technologies make it possible for there to be the appearance of an instantaneous global quote unquote pandemic.
So none of us are mystified what they what they achieved.
You only have to hear anything coming out of the mouths of Bill Gates, Tony Fauci, Yuval Harari, who's the other one?
The way that they speak, they give us the answers.
They they say every time they speak of their and it's with this kind of strange,
strange passion that they have, this lust for the next one and the next one and how bad it's going to be.
So first, let's establish that one of the revolutionary values of these people is that if you say, to your point, Steven, there's hope.
Maybe you'll be OK.
For example, Donald Trump in the beginning, before he whatever happened with him, he would stand up at those press conferences and say,
I want to talk about people who left the hospital.
People have recovered. And if you recall, he was of course, he's pilloried for almost everything he does.
But for that, he was pilloried by the lords and and leaders of the of the covid, you know, right.
And they were so familiar to me from the AIDS, right, that anybody who said what seems like a normal, hopeful, kind thing,
well, let's hope people do better. They are attacked because guess what?
The theory of like the virus weapon has to be kept.
The virus theory has to be kept alive and it is only kept alive if terror is never mitigated.
And that means bad news, bad news, bad news, bad news, which is completely alien to all forms of medicine.
Right. As you said, Stephen, as you try to say, well, we don't know.
Let's see what happens. Maybe it will be OK.
Not with these revolutionary virus dark.
Orders, it's like a dark order of dark virus that says there's never any hope.
It's mechanism, it's mechanistic, deterministic.
It spreads all of these ways. Everyone's going to die.
We have to just see that what they've achieved here is a is a global tyranny of virus,
do virus, doom, ism, you know, as an occult, as an occult global economic takeover weapon, if that makes sense.
And also, Kevin, you and then we've got six hands up now.
So very quickly, that clip of Robert Gallo, the essence of it is.
What was talking about here, which is that was the model, that was the idea, that was the mean it gets inside you.
There's nothing you can do. It takes you over and kills you.
And then it repeats it on every cell in your body. So no matter what you do, I work with virologists in 1987,
who would say this at meetings, there's nothing you can do.
They're going to die. They're time bombs. We're all going to die.
Yeah, exactly. It's crazy. It's just crazy thing to be saying. Psychotic behavior.
And this was elevated through the practice, we wouldn't call it discipline, of virology into a pseudoscience.
And it eclipsed real scientists, the immunologists who didn't get a look in with many AIDS patients by the end of the 1980s.
And by the 90s, virology was this edifice of industrial complex that was just you go to every bloody meeting across the world.
And it was just full of pharma, full of technology, full of tests.
And that is the problem. That's not medicine. That's not anything that we knew of before the 1980s. It's quite different.
Well said. OK, let's go on. Well said, beautifully, Celia.
Just what your journey that Stephen shared with you on the invitation to us all.
It occurs to me because Susan from Film Jedi put in there that Bobby Kennedy Jr.
accepts who killed his dad. You weren't killed for questioning the system.
Kevin wasn't killed for questioning the system. Stephen, you weren't killed for questioning the system.
JFK was. Celia, you might write an article on your substack really articulating the attacks that happened on you in this journey to give courage to other
people to push back. I'm just putting it as a suggestion. Number one. Number two, before we get to Gary.
I think it's important there is Lorraine here with please take a note of these websites because this is the action that's happening.
Millions Against Mandates dot org, everybody. So Kevin and Celia, please save your chat.
John Davidson here from BrokenTruth dot com.
And then I found I'm going to show this on the screen. This is this is so relevant.
Have a look at this, everybody. Who has heard of Citizen Go?
Well, check it out. Citizen Go dot org.
Seventeen and a half million people on our agenda, everybody.
Seventeen and a half million in one organization. I've never even heard of them. I've checked with people.
Now, George Christiansen has just left the Australian Parliament.
He's now the country head for Citizen Go in Australia, a new appointment.
So check that out as well. Three websites for us all of this enormous looking at that Celia, that wheel that's happening, you know, more and more people are awakening,
less and less people are taking boosters.
And I think all of us can have this great confidence and say, no, what you have to do with these guys,
with the psychopaths, the psychopaths to laugh in their face because they're shit scared of us.
So let's go to questions. Gary.
Thank you, Charles. Thank you, Kevin. Thank you, Celia, for joining us.
Let me just start with a very short preamble.
So the parallels between HIV AIDS and Corona COVID are pretty clear.
You know, the fear propaganda, questionable testing, questionable diagnoses, diagnosis of asymptomatic cases,
censorship of any dissent for the public narrative, dangerous treatment, compare Remdesivir with AZT, the use of ventilation, even the characters involved, a.k.a. Fauci.
My question is, I've got two questions and then I want to make a comment,
which is really what I was trying to understand is whether you believe the HIV virus actually exists or that the AIDS disease actually exists.
And if it didn't, did a lot of people who died in hospital, purportedly of AIDS, did they not actually die of AIDS,
but did they die of the treatment that they were given for AIDS?
Because it seems like the mortality for AIDS now is a lot less sinister than it was when all that fear propaganda was prevailing back in the 80s and even the early 90s.
So that's my question. Maybe I'll say why I'm motivated by that question, which is I once read, I actually didn't read it, but a professor, an actuarial professor at the University of Cape Town read it, read extracts to me.
He was reading an article from the Society of Actuaries who had done a mortality study and they looked at cases and what it took to actually get AIDS, the level of promiscuity of some of the cases.
And even some of those cases weren't even HIV positive.
It made me question the reliability of the testing and the diagnoses for AIDS, because if some people can be that promiscuous and not get it, then it boggles the mind.
And the other thing I want to ask you is, you know, I came across an oncologist recently who's been red-pilled, so to speak, at the start of the pandemic.
He was very pro-vaccine.
He realized that there were bigger things to fry than the COVID pandemic, more about starvation and all the rest and poverty all over in other parts of the world.
But he was, we need to do what we can to stop the spread.
But along the way, he realized that the virus wasn't as deadly as it was made out to be and the treatment wasn't as dangerous, wasn't as safe and effective as it was made out to be.
But, you know, he grew up in South Africa and his domestic help that he had there was purportedly died of AIDS.
They had a very high incidence of AIDS in South Africa.
And I think if you had to say to him that she didn't die of AIDS, you know, she died of the treatment that she was given for AIDS, I'm not sure he would find that easy to accept to understand.
So my question to, especially to Kevin, but, you know, Celia as well, you know, does this virus actually exist or does the disease exist?
Is that what you're saying?
Or we don't know for sure.
And is it a case that they were the people who died of AIDS should not have?
And finally, I just want to make a make a make a comment, so I don't have to come back to the to the to the question.
I just want to put it out there regarding this WHO, this World Health Organization Treaty.
Imagine what would happen to us all, what would have happened to us all in the 1980s if the WHO declared an AIDS pandemic.
All right, let me let me pass the microphone back with those two questions that I gave you.
Does the virus exist and did people die from the treatment rather than the disease?
Kevin, you you go ahead and answer that first, would you?
By the way, Kevin, you don't have to prove everything beyond reasonable doubt at the moment.
So what's your opinion as a.
My opinion is that there's no scientific proof.
That the human in immunodeficiency virus is a virus as defined by the Pasteur Institute in 19 the 1970s, where they defined what is a retrovirus.
Gallo and Montagnier completely redefined that criteria in the 1980s beyond belief.
There is no proof. AIDS treatments, the AIDS indicator diseases.
So called. Yes, they they existed.
Many of them predated 1984 in the medical literature.
Conditions like pneumocystis.
Pneumonia, if it is such a thing, new humanist pneumocystis, you're all the guys called now.
However, those were brought together under the umbrella of HIV in an erroneous,
bastardized way, bastardization of differential diagnosis, because they're brought together under this so-called fake test, the HIV antibody test.
And and and of course, the way that that methodology works, the way that magic works or witchcraft works,
is it will identify many people.
As HIV positive, they then get the label and then it's just a tautology.
It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The treatments. Yes, the treatments are toxic.
The early treatments were very highly toxic.
I don't know any patients that I was involved with in the 1980s or 1990s on the standard doses then of AZT who didn't develop neutropenia and developed all sorts of sequelae as a result of that.
I was woken up to that in the early 90s because I happened to work on one in one hospital.
I covered many special centers, but one center I covered the AIDS patients.
The HIV positive were dealt with by a hematologist who was skeptical of the science and AZT as a hematologist.
And he would say to me, I give them lower doses, lower doses of AZT than the standard protocol.
And when I looked at the longevity of his patients, it was an anecdotal finding.
They live longer than the ones under the special centers.
So I know that's observational bias. That's not really scientific in a true sense.
It was a sort of snapshot, but it didn't wake me up to the fact that people working in the system themselves were skeptical of what they were being told.
When a hematologist looks at people's blood and bone marrow, it's different to a virologist or to a standard physician.
And therefore I would say, yes, the treatments are toxic and killed a lot of people, if not many of them, after the late 1980s.
And also today, the so-called statistics show less toxicity.
But be careful here, because the protease drugs, the antiretrovirals today, these drugs are as toxic.
But the toxicity is masked by the way that, by the mindset that these things are benign.
And so when people develop cardiovascular problems or renal problems or liver problems as a result of these interventions, they're not linked to the drugs in the same way that the negative adverse effects of the Covid injections are not linked in the common mindset.
To the so-called vaccines that are attributed to other causes or to other etiologies.
And therefore they're not linked in the medical or public mindset with the intervention with the Covid injections.
So I think this is this is the issue that I see.
It's one of mindset and paradigm working together.
Delia.
I I I would say HIV is a I think Dave Rasnick gave me this term Frankenstein, Frankenstein virus, Frankenstein phenomena.
The there's no evidence of HIV existing as an as any kind of natural pathogen in human blood.
What I sometimes say is that doesn't mean that there's not an it that exists, which we've been talking about for the last two hours, which is a combination.
It's a synthetic Frankenstein quasi.
It's like a synthetic attack that comes from the attack from the diagnostic.
So that's a psychological attack with HIV and AIDS.
The person was generally already immune compromised if they tested positive, but not always.
So they were already a little bit rocky with their with their health because the test was designed to light up in the presence of somebody who was struggling with, for example, in Africa malnutrition.
All the things that will cause an HIV, an HIV test to light up positive.
So in essence, it's like I sometimes use the analogy of.
Well, actually got to get his Earl Connard, that famous poem.
It's very short and it's about a father and a son.
The son is very sick and the father is carrying the son on horseback through the woods.
And the boy is crying out that there's a creature trying to take him called the Earl King.
And the father says, this creature is not real, my son, there's no creature.
And the boy is saying, don't you see him, father, don't you see him?
And the father is galloping faster and faster.
He says, there's no creature.
And they get out of the finally they get out of the forest and the boy is dead.
And so it's open ended in the gota poem, what killed the boy?
And I come back to that a lot in all my years of experience.
It's almost impossible to separate out these deaths from the terror, the climate, the cofactors,
the bath houses, the drugs, the being gay men, being pushed to the peripheries of society,
being rejected, having emotional shocks, all this stuff causes the opposite of health.
And so what we want in our culture is a cause and effect, a binary thing.
What causes what?
Was there a disease called AIDS?
Yeah, absolutely.
A very extreme condition in primarily gay men who were in big cities in the late 70s, early 80s,
who were self-confessed participants in an extreme immunosuppressive lifestyle in the bath houses
with lots of drugs, lots of STDs, lots of antibiotics, no sleep, no nutrition, and so on.
And so on and so on.
I also have come to think lately that one or the other of the vaccine programs,
probably hepatitis B, could very well have opened the gateways to this first syndrome that was seen.
I used to think it was just multifactorial, but I've come to think the hepatitis B vaccine
may well have played a key role.
Thank you.
We'll go for another 25 minutes to a quarter or two if that's okay.
We've got a lot of hands up and we've got a good conversation going.
So if that's okay, we'll keep going.
Jeremy.
Thank you, Charles.
I'll make this a lot shorter than I was going to due to time.
Here's the situation.
I have a family member, brother-in-law who's gay.
And without going into a lot of background, he is not awake.
And he has estranged my wife from the family.
My wife has not been allowed to see or communicate with the family for the last three years.
Now, he's quite a brilliant guy.
He worked.
He's a computer guy.
He worked for Ted Rogers as a troubleshooter, computer wizard.
However, he's really dumb when it comes to the COVID narrative.
My thinking is as a gay person, and I've read Tony Fauci's,
the four chapters on Tony Fauci's involvement with AIDS from Bobby Kennedy Jr.'s book,
The Reliance on E. Fauci.
And I've just finished reading Inventing the AIDS Virus with Peter Duesberg.
My question is, how could I use, my thinking is that I would like to
approach my brother-in-law, who again is gay, with these stories from
authors who have given up everything to tell the truth.
How might I go about that, given that this guy is very, very super sensitive to any discussion
about the COVID narrative?
I don't know how he would react to being approached about what happened with the AIDS
situation.
He's my age.
He's in the 70s, and he's had the same partner for 40 years plus.
So any comment on how I might use either of those authors' stories on the AIDS situation
to approach him, to get through to him?
In my experience, if somebody is, as you described him on COVID,
let's say, revolutionary, orthodox by the book about COVID, they will be exactly the
same about HIV and AIDS, and it probably won't end well.
I would maybe ask you, why do you want to do this?
And why do you think it would lead?
I think that mostly people start to read and open their minds when they are ready to,
and rarely because somebody, whether it's in their family or elsewhere, I think it could
probably, my guess would be it would only lead to more trouble if you want to send him
the book or something, and if he's drawn to it, it would be because his soul is ready
to do that, and no sooner.
This is my conclusion about trying to open people's eyes.
It mostly doesn't work.
It starts when they're ready and then they find it, and it finds them and they find it,
if that's helpful.
One thing I'd add to that, I certainly support that, what Celia's just said, is as you get
to know him, or if you know him already, he might have some anomalies where the model
that he's inculcated, he's been given and he's incorporated, he's internalised, and
he's internalised, doesn't fit with his reality, his experience, whether he's positive or being
given drugs or whatever, and it's those anomalies in the model that are falsified through the
person's own experience that I've found are tangible areas of traction where you can talk
on a level, so you're not giving him Peter Juesberg's book and it's such a shock,
and it just gets dismissed because this guy must be crazy, but it's the tangible elements
in people's own lives that don't fit, like they were told that high viral load would mean that
they were ill, or they'd get ill very quickly, or they'd die, or low T cells meant that they
would get ill and they didn't, so it's where the model that they've been given doesn't work,
and they've uncoupled it, and there will be in everybody's experience these elements,
because when I interviewed people doing research, even in the 1990s, the people within the orthodox
services who believed in HIV, they believed in AIDS, but as you spoke to them, as you got to know
them over a period of time, there were lots of anomalies that they picked up where it didn't
quite fit, when they saw the sort of edges of something, they started seeing some sort of
underbelly through their own experiences, and it's those areas that you could work on,
but I think it takes time, and I would certainly say you can't help everybody all the time, you
can't make people see what you can see, people have to come to it themselves, it's a gradual
process of realisation, I think, and there's always a eureka moment, but you can't always
manufacture it with everybody, I'm afraid. No, I never had any concept of throwing a book at him,
would have to be much more delicate than that, I know that he lost many friends over the years,
and it's more a question of using the idea of what's in the books, I'm not throwing the books
at him, but I'll just leave it at that and let Glenn get on with it. And there's some suggestions,
asking questions, it's a great challenge for all of us on this call, and Bobby Kennedy said,
remember one of our calls December 2021, Stephen, he said a person of one persuasion needs five
different people telling him the opposite, and the fifth one finally triggers something, so
anyway, it's an interesting proposition, that's really stuck in my head as well. So thank you,
Jeremy, Glenn, we're going to be quick on these, everybody, don't make them long, short.
I'll be quick, it won't be instantaneous, so please don't anyone interrupt me while I'm
presenting my question, but I'm going to start out attempting to use scientific method,
and with a hypothesis, my hypothesis is that we are experiencing an epidemic of mind control,
and there's a variety of that being presented here, now I'm not saying this is with intent,
I believe there's the finest intent of both our speakers, they went through this experience,
they were with those patients, they saw what happened to them and how they died, but I believe
in some fashion, they have come under mind control, and we have seen this in our current situation,
where there are a variety of players that seem to have no other explanation other than it is mind
control, and now I'm going to give some evidence of it, that there's a lack of precise words,
and we know this happens all the time as part of standard Marxist rhetoric, is rather than work
with vocabulary that has precision, work with things that are completely vague and have no
precision and can't be precise, and instead end up the airwaves just get filled with things that
have no meaning and little value, and I'm going to use a variety of the phrases I've heard today,
one was a social hex, witchcraft, God kicked out of biology, I don't know how that is a
in any fashion a scientific method to anything, a machine model of biology, a machine model of aids,
something skimming the surface, the dark underbelly, I saw the evil, well if it was seen then what did
you see, tell us precisely what was in front of your eyes, the phrase synthetic attack,
the phrase virus doomism, the phrase revolutionary virus dark order, again I view these all as
dodging mechanisms looking to fill the airways and to prevent straightforward scientific method
and precise words to be used, because for me the precise one here is if ATZ was indicated as the
drug of interest, then someone please tell me what happened, if it was in fact a poison,
did that not happen to every single patient, was there never an upside that occurred to the ATZ
to cause it to be used over and over and over, thank you.
Kevin. I respect that comment, I respect what you're saying, I'm about euphemism and vagueness,
but okay first I'm just going to say no there was never any benefit by the chemical AZT which was
extremely toxic chemotherapy, the only way to understand how they could, now I documented in
my book here, serious adverse, this was reissued this year, serious adverse events in uncensored
history of AIDS, there are a few chapters in here about, now when I was an investigative journalist
and I, my job was to get all the precision you're talking about, which I do respect
exactly what happened, none of this talk that we're talking about today, I happen to think
it's very valuable because we're all trying to understand, we're trying to describe the dystopia,
the hellscape that we are in, but if you're asking me what exactly happened to the, why did
they approve it, what happened to the FDA, all of that is documented in a very different tone than
the tone I'm using today, so it's a matter of where is the precision and where is the broader
discussion, this is a broader discussion, precision does exist that answers all of those questions,
all we did for 30 years was go incredibly granular, forensic, precise on everything and still
we lost because that wasn't where it was happening, it wasn't allowing itself to be
deconstructed in this precise way that you're describing, you're talking about the real world,
that wasn't where it was, you see now I'm using this language again that you're objecting to,
but basically if you want to know the answer to those questions, one way you can start is go to
deuceburg.com, read all of his papers, Dave Rasnick who is with us as co-author on many of those papers,
all the scientific object, precise objection to everything that that went down does exist,
it's just that the history, people don't realize about this history, so this conversation is about
anyone who wants to go get the history, we're trying to help you understand how to go get the
history, this isn't a conversation about exactly cell by cell what they did and how they did it,
does that answer your question? Thanks Celia, thank you, Rose.
Hi, it's very nice to meet you Celia and Kevin, I think this is an important conversation of
starting with HIV, COVID because I think people need to be prepared for the next one that's coming
along, so I think it's a good linkage conversation for understanding. A couple points to clarity,
I do agree with clarity, we talk about HIV and AIDS and I think they need to be separated
because AIDS is more of a classification, it's you know acquired immune deficiency
and you could talk about the same thing with COVID attacking the CD4 versus the CD8,
it's like saying COPD but don't take this drug if you have asthma, COPD is a classification and asthma
is COPD, it's a form of COPD, so I think that's good on clarity of language and I'm not a
virologist and I'm not going to say that viruses don't exist because when we make blanket statements
I think that can be dangerous, however I do think some things are misappropriated to viruses, so when
I was doing a lot of research on my own over the last six months regarding nitric oxide, I found an
NIH article that basically said nitric oxide is effective against polio, so is polio really a
neurotoxin from chemicals as opposed to a virus, again I'm not going to say viruses don't exist
but I think it's good to break out individual conversations with specific circumstances,
so it's interesting that the conversation I just had today with the public of educating the lay
person who can't get into science of saying hey don't say coronavirus, don't say COVID, say spiked
protein and learn about the spiked protein and then I said you know the number one clue is use
your sense and logic and I said the number one thing in bioterrorism, health care, a police
incidence, whatever is, you mitigate fear, so just have natural instinct alarm bells if they are
pushing fear on the public and the other point is regarding remdesivir because I think it carries
over, when they first wanted to give it to patients in the hospital I researched it and I found an NIH
article that it was actually Fauci was trying to do his miracle drug for Ebola and HIV with remdesivir
and it got pulled from the trials because it was doing too much kidney and liver failure
and so then they resurrected it for COVID and I don't know how many people are aware of that
and I posted some of the on the chat so people can review that and then the last thing I wanted to
say is Kevin brought up great points as far as being like a young clinician versus a veteran
clinician because I think I was 21 when AIDS was discovered and came to the unit but all our
charge nurse told us was you know what just follow your your body and blood fluid you know don't stick
yourself with a needle like you you shouldn't and then just follow your protocols and that's all we
did there was no fear instituted and I was laughing on the chat when they were they were
talking about you know well don't take care of this patient because they're dying and I started
laughing because my first response that I'd always give to patients is hey guess what the old adage
is we begin to die the day that we are born so guess what we're all dying you know and then
we would just get our patients laughing so it is when you see previous training and previous
clinicians we were trained under oaths and ethics and tactile stimulation patients need touching for
healing and people just don't understand the new clinicians today are specifically taught
doctors and nurses are taught don't touch your patients don't do clinical diagnosing don't assess
them just run a bunch of tests and it is true and it is factual they're pushing for AI to do everything
because now in the US they're pushing that we're having digital nurses now in the hospital being
rolled out so it's the people at the bedside are basically walking skin suits with the machines
doing the work and a digital nurse access so I'll turn it over because I know somebody else probably
has another question thanks Rose Kevin and Sylvia's quick comment we've got we're doing well but great
great insights right and Stephen will love you that's exactly what it's about I forget your name
who just spoke but that that is where where it came from where it's going what it wants
total separate AI driven medicine since you know now I feel like I can't use these phrases that
help me clarify what the big enormous oh I forgot this I learned from a functional doctor that the
original term that that represented pharma actually does represent witchcraft so in
researching the word that came for pharma is is witchcraft well I think I think that actually
Celia defined what witchcraft was just to go back to the last comment that she did define
that her definition witchcraft was about control of people control but I think you're right Rose
that the AIDS nursing was the first virtual you know AI type nursing so you could look after people
in verticom is just by concentrating on their numbers the numbers the blood numbers the viral
load the CD4 count the antibody test results you didn't need to have the human in front of you
and this happened so many times to me I would have somebody who was really clinically dying
when you contact the virologists they the virologists would say they'd look at the blood
results you know miles away online on on the computer screen and they tell me this patient's
a viral cure and I'd say no come here come and come and clinically examine the patient you'll
see that they're dying they're dying and or vice versa vice versa they're dying on the blood results
and there's nothing wrong with them they're constitutionally well no illness and this is
the problem we don't talk about the constant in what disease right now they're researching a lot
of disease stemming from the imbalance of the parasympathetic in the in the sympathetic system
so when you put somebody in perpetual fight or flight of course their immune system is going to
go down exactly and you see this comes down to just quickly this whole issue that you know the
laboratory diagnosis of HIV antibodies um psychopathic effect that's what the virologists say these are
interpretive subjective not really measurable in a standard way and the laboratory phenomena
called virus is an artifact of oxidative stress and it was this that the the Perth group of
scientists keyed into in the 80s and 90s to explain aids to explain the antibody test results
and once you read those papers and it's very difficult to believe that there is such a thing
as HIV materially physically uh it's more of a spiritual chimera that's been conjured up
to use that word from nowhere from nothing material and I think this is this is where
Cecilia and I agree that this is a spiritual impact it's a spiritual assault rather than
anything physical it's masquerading as something physical but there is no evidence
no scientific evidence for it can there be any doubt that the drive is toward transhumanism if
anybody doubts that then nothing will make sense but if you see that and it's not hard to see then
everything makes sense but the way it does not make sense is if we look at our notions of medicine
and healing and life and death and why would they when we have Fauci bringing back remdesivir which
had such a deadly history AZT was so toxic they didn't even try to give it to human beings before
they dredged it up for immune compromised people how can anybody think that they're trying to do
medicine at any level with this we have to think in terms of what are they doing and why are we still
so naive that we're trying to make heads or tails of it when it is clearly a sinister
agenda very sinister and they're very open about what that agenda is all you have to do is listen
to them so what I'm saying now is at odds with what the previous speaker said about but it's not
precise it's not precise don't worry about that cilia don't worry about that because we're
discussing ideas at the moment so obviously yeah I agree with Stephen I'm not that
you find every single word that we use so don't worry about that all right
John come on John Bodrum we're gonna move okay uh hello cilia and Kevin uh welcome um I'm gonna
make some comments I'll end with a question I promise I'm gonna try to go fast you mentioned
citizen go I will mention one health if everybody here were to put in quotes O-N-E space H-E-A-L-T-H
if you're not familiar with it you will find a world health organization United States government
CDC plan that's been around for more than a decade it's in it's infiltrated everything
nobody seems to know about it Naomi Wolf's husband Brian O'Shea is the one who turned me onto it
and it's it's it's sinister and it's it's ubiquitous secondly I a bunch of people sent
me pictures of myself with my head back sleeping on this call Charles normally turns my camera off
when I do that um I apologize yeah um I I have been in a number of car accidents I have run
off the road several times throughout my career um I fall asleep in every business meeting after
lunch it's it's low blood pressure no other diagnosis they can't figure it out I can't stay
awake I had a couple I went to take care of my uncle he has a pericarditis, herbo cancer,
um lesions on his legs that won't heal and his cancer that was going to take 10 years is now
going to kill him in three months so he's on his way out and I had a beer over there and I just
fell asleep so I apologize I didn't fall asleep during celias I did during Kevin sorry Kevin I
couldn't possibly fall asleep during celias not that you were boring Kevin it's just that I I
liked her content all right um regarding I guess I'll say Glenn's comments but you you had said
you're trying to find language to get around don't let anybody censor you okay we we all have language
uh meant to provoke conversation or to just communicate I I liked your language in fact
it resonated so well with me it brought up memories of my first substack article um I don't
know if you know nick hudson from panda he told me I should start writing and prompted me to to
start writing over a year ago my first article is called contrary contrarianism in the times of
witchery and I go through what happened in 1692 Salem and there's a lot of parallels to what you
said um and that is kind of what's happening we the moral foundation being ripped out from under
us allows people to act in fear uh and that goes to there's a guy alpha omega on twitter
talking about cyanide and rice and gas and remdesivir and all that stuff he's a con artist
in charlatan he's gone after kevin mccurnin um tying him to robert malone and the mit human
genome project um if if anybody sees that stuff be aware of this guy is is bad for business making
us all look bad total chaos agent and all of our endeavors to bring truth to light uh it's really
bad and it's it's becoming pervasive so much so that stu peters uh I call him stush um is now
talking about cyanide and remdesivir and now to the point cilia and kevin I'm sorry uh here but
here's the question um it's just to cilia really um your your career seems to be centered around
aids and azt um you're a writer journalist I'm an engineer by the way and I haven't I was in sales
and marketing my whole career what other things have you written about that you're passionate
about besides this one issue are you are you focused on this one issue your whole career
and is are your other writings having to do with the public interest like caring about people
uh just a little bit more thank you yeah thank you for that I I have I'll say my substack just
once real quick why I write at cilia farber dot substack.com and it's a broad range I I'm not
interested in what causes aids and even then this is years ago here's what's frustrating you guys
um this dialectic and war was it began in 1987 and it was blighted and ended around 2008 that's a
very long time ago when we were we thought we had a chance to stop the thing it was it flew right it
flew in 1984 outstanding scientists thought it won't it won't keep flying it's got to crash
it's so insane but it flew and flew and it billowed and billowed all of this happened a long time ago
this book is reissued it came out first in 2006 and I'm being asked to address it because people
are shocked and disoriented three years into COVID and that's the only reason it seems like I'm
kind of obsessed about HIV and AIDS it was it was my my my my big assignment at the time and then
we all got sucked into this insanity and we saw that there was much more to it than bad science
and then people were killed people were attacked or there were all kinds of things that went on and
suddenly we were in a little mini dictatorship in the middle of what seemed like a free society
and from there I grew what I'm what I really write about I think is uh definitely spiritual
warfare but also I'm now as of 2020 seeing the beast system rise up and we had the tail or we
had the foot right and but we didn't know what the beast was so now we now we're all together in this
shock about the beast being on top of us and we have to get out from under it so AIDS is not
really my preoccupation it's this this whole thing of of human freedom human liberty spiritual
freedom health freedom all of it comes together and this was just like my gateway how I got into
it as a very young journalist my first ever story I didn't know what I was looking at
and now I do but if you'd like to see what I write about please come to my substack it's it's uh it's
it's free and uh it's celiafarber.substack.com thank you I'll go to the end of the line for
another question there won't be another question that's it we've got four more and we're finishing
uh Mark thank you uh hi Celia hi Kevin uh Kevin uh this is really a question for you um the uh
hemophiliacs in the UK uh apparently something like uh 1250 uh were diagnosed with HIV
after they had blood which was from the USA uh could you could you comment on that uh with
regards to you know uh what you were saying previously we're we're not sure about HIV
uh I think if you look at the science the scientific analysis of the Perth Group's work
of HIV which they they were able to demonstrate through their literature critiques of the AIDS
science that what what's called HIV is due to oxidative stress the antibody production
the proteins there's nothing specific to so-called HIV proteins the the the reverse transcriptase
is not unique to retroviruses it's found in human cells and this this is important as to
to reframe their so-called risk groups so the the proteins that the hemophiliacs were given
the manufactured proteins or the the proteins that were garnered from people in donations
in America and then shipped over the factor eight would would cause antibody positive test results
by nature of the proteins that were injected so I think this is an important issue to to explain
the so-called risk groups and the the creation of these risk groups is also important and to
look at Michelle Cochran's work in the United States which is able to demonstrate that these
risk groups were created by the CDC the model of illness that was projected into the first AIDS
cases by people like Mark Gottlieb these were creations of sexual risk as opposed to other risk
risk factors which were downplayed so they upplayed some things and downplayed other things
with gay men it was HIV it was sexual risk because of the hepatitis b trials that Celia mentioned
which undoubtedly seeded AIDS in many people because the nature of the proteins that were
injected in those so-called vaccines I think this is the this is the key thing that links it all up
and just to just quickly mention to the other speaker that's just asked a question about what
we've published on I've published on many other things other than HIV AIDS and I'll release this
to the group now on on the chat so you can look at my last university appointment and you can see
my publication record in peer review journals if you want I've published in mental health and
other areas of patient participation in healthcare right thanks Kevin Lorraine
three one three to go and then keep moving
you're muted Lorraine
sorry about that I thought they could unmute you okay I wanted to comment that the AIDS result
situation was largely resolved by AIDS patients who got into nutrition as I don't know if everybody's
familiar with the Dr. Joan Priestley she published in the journal of orthomolecular medicine on her
work basically she treated over 600 so-called AIDS patients and she eventually retired her practice
to go to Washington because her patients so she was just hand holding them she said they were all
really well they weren't getting sick and they didn't need her anymore they just had to continue
their treatment she mentioned that she was at an event in Washington DC happened to be sitting
next to Tony Fauci and she said to him that she wondered whether she wanted to tell him about
vitamin c and zinc benefit in treating AIDS patients his response to her was we are not
interested in wasting money on vitamins and disease and the bottom line here she also by the way did a
lot of recommendations like affirmations massage a lot of holistic treatments concepts one of her
criteria was she wouldn't accept as a patient anybody who would continue substance abuse they
could add they had to give up alcohol and any illicit drugs she made it clear that they were
always welcome to come back if they cleaned up for 30 days clean but other than that she didn't
want to spend time with them and I would just mention that we have the same thing going on now
with the COVID situation the bottom line is a disease is about either toxicity or nutritional
deficiencies and stress which aggravates of course nutritional status that's the the primary
drivers of disease and causing inflammation and inflammation is part of what actually disturbs
organs and tissues but unfortunately it is a war between natural things and pharma because the
bottom line is pharma can't patent anything natural and they are out to destroy any evidence
that anything natural which means nutrients does anything in terms of health so it's the same war
that went on with HIV it's going on with COVID and it will be going on in the future unless the world
wakes up which I think they're starting to because of COVID I think a lot of people have woken up
and begun to question pharma its motives and so forth so anyway I just wanted to mention that
because there's a lot of power wonderfully wonderfully articulated many of you have heard
I went to my first naturopath along the same line in 1965 Lorraine and so I've been practicing what
I was taught back then so and those principles haven't changed so thank you for the reminder
all of us Jim and then John and then Stephen last questions and we're done.
Hey thank you very much great conversation the issue of what is causing this damage to people
the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 in vaccine or modify excuse me in modified
vaccine or original virus form with an active gp120 gp41 what's causing what's causing this issue
my question is what caused the original HIV we know that the gp120 gp41 that is found on the
SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is similar to that of the HIV spike protein was that we have isolated
the spike protein and a guy named Jason McClellan put it in the virus excuse me in the vaccine
he modified it on a computer system called Longhorn at the University of Texas Austin
was there a spike protein involved in HIV and if so has anybody identified that original spike
protein and who invented the spike protein since we know that the spike protein and COVID was
financed by the US State Department according to Redfield Robert Redfield thanks.
Evan if there's no there's no natural this is not a natural
phenomena the the gp120 these so-called HIV proteins are not a natural virus that the
there is no essence that's viral from nature I'm sorry maybe I didn't maybe it wasn't clear
but I didn't say it was a virus I said it was a spike protein I didn't say it was natural I said
it was likely invented on a computer do you have and and so do you have the documents on who might
have invented it and on what computer system they designed the gp120 gp41 and on what computer
system it was modified into the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and I'm and I'm making a statement of
fact that the CDC director Robert Redfield said the US State Department had a hand in that.
Well I this is biotechnology run riot this is these are manufactured
phenomena they're manufactured they're not natural and interestingly Redfield is a veteran isn't he
of AIDS because Redfield did one of the first big papers in the 1990s on the so-called specificity
and sensitivity of the antibody tests or trying to say that they were and you see this is this is the
great con I don't like that word this is the great masquerade that's been done with this
biotechnology is to insinuate that these things are natural and undoubtedly they're not they're
manufactured phenomena that are being injected into people now who who actually created it well
I don't have the I don't have the audit trail on that I'm afraid I haven't looked into that.
All right we got to keep thank you Jim. I just wanted to say somebody should check out David
Martin he's got all the patents going back on the spike proteins associated with um uh COVID I don't
know I can't speak to AIDS but I'm sure he has that too David Martin PhD David Martin. But Celia
I think that the gain of functionality which they're pushing from various angles despite the
fact that it's oh so so illegal um in the United States I suspect that the gain of function narrative
is central to their story in that they want people to believe that man-made viruses and natural
viruses but particularly man-made viruses leaking from leaking in inverted commas from labs uh can
cause deadly pandemics and I don't think that is the case I don't think a deadly pandemic is
possible for the reason I stated earlier. Yeah I agree with you Stephen what we should let's all
take a step back when when Rand Paul grills Anthony Fauci in Congress about gain of function
and funding Wuhan what's being obliterated there is the fact that we have a whole system in this
country really amped up in AIDS of of perfectly legal mass murder in the name of a new viral
emergency fake virus that's the problem how do you get at that?
You discredit the world of virality, genomics, evidence-based medicine because medicine
shouldn't be based on evidence-based medicine it should be based on ethics not on evidence-based
medicine. These people must never get the wheel again they must never get the wheel. No they
shouldn't no but I think it's an industry so you're dealing with an industry of course you are
yes an industry it's on an industrial scale and the gain of function narrative emerged almost in
parallel with the COVID narrative in 2020 almost at the same time very soon after totally interesting
that to me. Yeah. That has emerged it's another time error it's another it's a double bluff in my
opinion absolutely so the project Veritas sting operation was a was a double bluff too because
actually what they were trying to say was that Pfizer were admitting to gain of function research
illegal gain of function research and in fact that was bolstering the narrative
that people should live in fear of deadly pandemics for the rest of their lives
and it's all about saving lives despite the fact that the lives aren't worth saving if you've got a
succession of lockdowns to to save those lives. Do you understand life is not worth living these
people never talk about emotions happiness they're not happy themselves they don't want anybody else
to be happy it's obvious that they have nothing to offer us and I don't understand why we listen to
them. I think we've been hijacked by them we're on a hijacked airplane and they've hijacked the
airplane. Yeah what does it matter if we're gonna die if life is so miserable under a succession
of yearly lockdowns for six months at a time it's just nonsense isn't it? Okay everybody we're
going to keep moving let me just quote from this Hillsdale in-premise paper I've mentioned it before
America's Broken Healthcare Diagnosis and Prescription from John Abramson who's been
lecturer at Harvard Medical School for 16 years I recommend it I'll put the link in the chat but
here's the quote entirely relevant to this and really this is the sticky idea that ties into
everything that's been said quote big pharma is comprised sorry Kevin on this industrialization
big pharma is comprised of for-profit companies the job of for-profit companies is to maximize
returns to their investors accusing drug companies of being greedy is like accusing zebras of having
stripes great metaphor they are doing their job and we're not going to change them so it's our
job not only doctors but the American people as a whole to insist on guardrails to ensure that the
pharmaceutical industry serves rather than harms public health okay brilliant brilliant article I
recommend to all of you John then Stephen we're finishing we're way over John. Hi guys uh Celia
I just would like to invite you to be on my show Broken Truth I think that this should this
information in your presentation today should be online and public for everybody so I just want to
make you aware that I sent you a direct message with my information and in terms of gain of
function research the terminology they use now is transformation I think so you look for that and
you'll find gain of function all over the place in the United States and that's obviously with that
thank you guys. Celia thank you so much for coming on I think you're a particularly powerful voice
and you're powerful because you're authentic and you're it's visible that you're struggling
yourself with trying to get to the truth and people will listen to you if you I know you've
been attacked severely attacked in the past but if you've got the strength to give interviews to
the guy who's just asked you for example I think it would help a lot of people because you're such
a good human being and it's obvious to everybody. Thank you Stephen thank you so much for all if I'm
findable and reachable I don't know where the links are and so forth but I can always be found
at Celiafarber.substack.com very happy to do interviews and I just really appreciate everybody
coming here and being here and listening to this really difficult dark stuff for hours on a what is
this a Sunday you know I mean it it means a lot to me I know it means a lot to Kevin too we had a
very long time of absolutely nobody wanted to hear anything we were saying so thank you all so much.
Great okay everybody thank you Stephen thanks for organizing. Kevin thank you.
You can go across to the Tom Rodman group there's the link for those of you who have time we've
been going for three hours and five minutes and some got on before the before the hour marks so
three hours and 15 but great information and on we go with the fight and all of us are in the fight
we're halfway through a six-year war in my in my assessment so no chance no choice of getting
tired everybody on we go. Thank you Charles thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you Kevin
bye thank you Charles everybody thank you Kevin God bless everybody thank you very much Celia
thank you very much good night everybody.