Well, I'll lose the spontaneity then, but yeah, okay, I'll say it then.
So John Lukacs was talking about this guy, I can't remember his name now, but who they
couldn't have done it had he been alive.
And that's exactly the case with Carey Mullis, who's the inventor of the PCR technique, not
the test.
And he won the Nobel Prize for that, whatever you think of the Nobel Prize, but anyway,
he died in inverted commas in August 2019.
And they couldn't have done what they did in 2020 now, up to now, with him alive, because
he knew that you shouldn't, that no one in the world should use his technique to create
a test for a viral illness.
And so in my opinion, until proved otherwise, they killed him.
And they also killed, I think, Luke Montagnier, who said in Milan a week before he died, I
think it was a week or less than a week.
He said in Milan, that the unvaccinated would save humanity.
That's a big statement from a very famous Nobel Prize winner, Luke Montagnier.
You know, I have something that maybe you didn't know.
But what is it?
Don't drag it away from those two characters, because they are absolutely central.
No, this is as important.
The current 2023 or 2024 Nobel Prize winner just won his Nobel Prize in error.
In error.
He was lauded for, I'll bring it up.
I got to bring it up on a separate thing.
But he was given a Nobel Prize for like some kind of vaccine concoction, which is an if
introduction of alien form protein into the bloodstream.
And it says in the little description about it that I read that it was an effective solution
that cannot be.
John, stop there.
John, you've done exactly what they want.
You dragged attention from Carey Mullis and Luke Montagnier to this guy who no one ever
thought about.
You dilute the message, which is exactly what the lawyers tell you not to do, or told me
not to do.
I wanted to say, and by the way, this as well.
And by the way, you did.
They did this.
The M.O.D. did this.
The British M.O.D. did this.
And they did this.
And the lawyers finally persuaded me, because I realized that they were trying their best
for me.
They said, Stephen, it's very important in law not to dilute your most important point.
All right, we got it.
The future will belong to the unvaccinated.
That's the point.
John is on our side, but he drags us away from a very important point there to something
that nobody knows about, even in the group.
Never mind.
Yeah, OK.
That's good.
All right, everybody.
Welcome to Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International.
In today's discussion, this group was founded by Dr. Stephen Frost, who you just heard talking
over three years ago 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.
At this time, we remember Ryan Oformick, who is undergoing a show trial in Germany.
It's up to day 29.
More and more information is coming out on the Internet.
I urge all of you to share information about Ryan Oformick in this show trial by a corrupt
legal system in Germany and the corrupt German government that is out to shut Ryan Oformick,
just like they did with Kerry Mullis and Luke Montaner and others.
I'm Charles Covets, the moderator of this group.
I'm Australasian passion provocateur, and we love passionate people in these meetings.
I practiced law for 30, 20 years before changing career 31 years ago.
And over the last 14 years, I've helped parents and lawyers to strategize remedies for vaccine
damage and damage from bad medical advice.
I'm also the CEO of an industrial hemp company.
We comprise lots of professions here and we're from all around the world.
Many of us thought that vaccines were okay, and many of us proudly say, yes, we are passionate
anti-vaxxers and I'm certainly one of those and proud to be one.
If this is your first time here, welcome and feel free to introduce yourself in the chat.
If you publish a newsletter or podcast or you have written a book, put the links in
the chat so we can follow you, promote you and find you.
Most of us understand we're in the middle of World War Three and that the medical science
battle is only one of 12 battle fronts of this World War Three.
Most of us understand the development of science and 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're able to join.
We will listen to our guest presenter, Mr. James T. Royal with a R-O-Y-L-E, not an R-O-Y-A-L.
To James, for as long as James wishes to speak and then we have Q&A.
Stephen Frost, by long established tradition, asks the first questions for 15 minutes.
There's a free speech environment.
Free speech is critically important in our fight to preserve our human freedoms and we
do not allow ad hominem attacks unlike what they do in parliaments all around the world.
If you're offended by anything, be offended.
We're lovingly not interested.
We reject the offence industry that requires nobody to say anything that may offend another.
We also reject the triggering industry.
Don't you dare say anything, James, that may trigger somebody.
Total BS.
We come with an attitude and perspective of love, not fear.
Fear is the opposite of love.
Fear squashes you and enslaves you.
Love expands you and liberates you.
These twice weekly meetings are not just talk-fest.
An extraordinary range of actions and initiatives have been generated from linkages made by
attendees in these meetings.
If you have a solution or a product or links or resources that will help people put the
details into the chat, the meeting is recorded and is uploaded onto the Rumble channel.
And now everyone, welcome to our guest presenter, James Royal.
And we thank James for giving us his time, wisdom and insights.
And for the purposes of this recording, let me give you a short, quick
intro into James.
Just one second.
So James Royal has practiced as an attending general and colorectal surgeon in northeast
England since 2015.
He graduated from University of Birmingham Medical School and completed his surgical
training, developing his interest in teaching and training, completing a master's in medical
education after working as a teaching fellow at Warwick Medical School.
He was a founder member of the West Midlands Research Collaborative, designing and conducting
trainee-led multi-centre studies that have inspired similar collaboratives across UK
and abroad, changing the face of clinical surgical research.
James was awarded a travelling fellowship in robotic surgery in Hong Kong in 2013 before
becoming a national program advanced laparoscopic fellow in Newcastle in 2014.
Sorry, James.
Well done.
Laparoscopic.
His surgical expertise is in minimally invasive surgery, complex hernia, including abdominal
wall reconstruction and laparoscopic techniques.
He's now a trainer for the Sunderland Da Vinci Robotic Fellowship Program with an
ACP, GBI, FC, UK, now that included in that.
Since June 2021, James has been an active member of HART Group, H-A-R-T Group, writing
and contributing to articles and open letters, particularly challenging COVID vaccination
of children and vaccine mandates.
He's now on the Executive Committee of Doctors for Patients UK.
James has published papers on informed consent and recently contributed to an article on
medical ethics and informed consent and the link was shared with people.
We'll put that link into the chat.
James, thank you for being here.
We are in your hands for as long as you wish to speak.
Welcome.
And James has been a visitor previously, so he's not unused to the eclectic group of people
that meet here.
James?
Big word, Charles.
Thanks, James, for coming.
If you need any help, just let me or Charles or both of us know.
That's great.
Thanks very much.
Good evening, everyone.
So Stephen invited me to speak a few weeks ago, but I think actually a few weeks before
that, if people remember Ian McDermott was on and talking about the NHS and working in
that system and was asking me a few questions, I didn't really have time to stay and answer.
So we may get to some of that, I guess.
May I share my screen, Charles?
Yes, one moment.
You certainly may.
Done.
Thank you very much.
Let's try that one.
Great.
So apologies if some of my slides are obscured by your little windows and things.
I don't know whether you can...
No, you can change that.
Everyone, top right corner, depending on your view, click on the view and everyone can choose
their own view, James.
I've got a tiny little picture of you and I've got your whole screen there.
That's fine.
And I've lost it now.
I don't want to get that back then.
So James, some people like signing things, so I'm in this group even, and the Hope Accord,
is that still going?
Is that still going?
Yeah, the Hope Accord, yeah.
So how do they find that?
I'll probably do that at the end, actually.
All right, yeah.
I thought I'd bring some of my own experience and observations.
Working as a surgeon in a national health system during the COVID era, I'm going to very,
very briefly try and cast our minds back.
And then I want to talk about really my observations over the last two or three years
and the sort of clinical concerns that I've had.
And then not necessarily shared by others.
And I think possibly we all bring our own biases and possibly that influences the fact
that I'm looking for things that other people aren't looking for, if you catch my drift.
But I will endeavor to present objectively as I can.
All right.
James, I'd just like to say there's a very important group in the UK for doctors,
which was formed by Ayesha, who I think is on the call now.
But I'd like the group to know that James was one of the most common sense voices in this group.
I have to add generated an atmosphere of where people, doctors, very surprising to me,
felt able to say their innermost thoughts.
Okay, it's only doctors, UK doctors, but that's, I've never seen it before, open discussion about
everything. And the openness is encouraged.
And I haven't seen any bad words exchanged between, I think it's 150 doctors.
Is that right, James?
And James is one of the reasons that everything is so important to me.
And I think that's the reason why I'm so excited to be here.
And James is one of the reasons that everything is so reasonable, but it's not too reasonable,
if you understand me.
So the people are pushing the boundaries.
But there's, I have to say, great decency in the group.
Very angry, but very decent.
And it's a joy to see.
And it's great credit to Ayesha and others who,
well, I don't think there's been much censoring.
People realize that we need to stick together and pull together to defeat what has happened.
And anyway, I wanted to say that James, you were one of the most reasonable voices, always have been.
And you read all the posts and as far as I could see, and had an opinion on each post,
which you voiced.
No, thank you very much, Stephen.
Thank you.
You're very kind.
I noticed that.
And so I'd just like to obviously present a disclaimer first that these are my own views,
my own opinions based on observations, experience and external data and evidence.
And I may well be influenced and informed by others and data and our data sources.
And these views are not necessarily acknowledged or endorsed by my trust or the NHS.
I'm not representing my trust tonight.
I'm here in my own time in my own home.
No, I'm not speaking on behalf of the NHS in this presentation, but I am speaking as a fully
trained practicing specialist general and colorectal surgeon.
So just briefly an overview.
I want to quickly look back on the impact on service and health from my own perspective.
Obviously, this is only a kind of bird's eye view of my practice and my experience during COVID,
not necessarily of other areas of hospital or other organizations in different parts of the country.
And then I want to look at post 21, what I've seen, what I'm concerned about, new pathology.
And this phrase canaries in the coal mine, which obviously is
relevant to the Northeast because we have lots of coal mines.
And we we did have lots of coal mines.
But essentially, the canary was the one that smelled the gas before anyone else.
And were they they were the warning sign, really.
And then in summary, I'll just try and wind up some of some of what we've
said. So looking back to March 2020, when the pandemic was declared and then shortly after that,
lockdowns were declared.
And I had I was very fortunate that I was able to get in my car every day and drive to work.
And it was a very surreal experience because I was driving on empty roads.
And then I arrived in a hospital and I was largely walking down empty corridors,
which was quite an eerie experience.
But I must admit that contrary to the perception that was portrayed
relentlessly in the media, most of which was fear, porn, propaganda.
I didn't feel any sense of overwhelming panic when I was in hospital.
And I don't think most of my colleagues did.
There were certain areas of the hospital, such as the elderly care wards,
that were converted to dedicated Covid wards.
And then a whole floor of our hospital was dedicated to Covid wards
for a short period of time during that first and second wave.
And obviously, ICCU was very busy and expanded its footprint.
And that had the biggest impact on my own work and what I was able to do and not able to do.
So initially, all elective surgery was stopped, including day case surgery.
And we were required to do everything over the telephone.
And face to face clinics, without seeing patients face to face,
it's extremely restrictive as a doctor in your ability to diagnose problems and to assess patients
properly and holistically.
You can't examine people.
So it was sensible to cancel elective surgery because I can't consent
to them for hernia repair if I've not examined them.
So we moved really to focus primarily and only on our triage of urgent referrals.
So in my specialty, that's colorectal surgery.
I'm interested in diagnosing colorectal cancers as soon as possible.
And for that reason, because most of our working resource was devoted to that,
we certainly didn't switch that pathway off.
And in fact, we probably saw and diagnosed more colorectal cancers during that lockdown period
than we normally would because that was where our focus was.
And that was the only pathway accessible to our GPs.
So things that perhaps would have been referred on a more routine basis were going,
were finding their way on through this pathway as well.
The GPs had adequate concern.
We did, in my trust, not cancel many cancer operations at all.
I didn't cancel any of mine.
One or two were deferred for one or two weeks when there was no HDU bed available.
That means a high dependency care bed or a level two bed.
But the vast majority of our cancerous sections in my hospital were done laparoscopically,
which is keyhole surgery.
So we routinely don't send our patients to high dependency post-op.
And that was great because it meant that we could carry on working.
We could carry on doing the cancer operations.
In other areas of the country where their policies were that all cancer operations go to HDU,
they had a big problem.
I suspect that in other areas of the country,
they may have had a much more significant disruption to their ability to operate on cancers.
But we didn't cancel many at all.
The other thing that was interesting in that period was where on earth did all the general
surgical emergencies go?
And it felt very quiet even on the emergency front.
Because if you remember, the public were relentlessly being told,
do not go to hospital under any circumstances unless you are at death's door.
Even if you have symptoms of COVID, you're not to come in until you're really desperate.
And so people very dutifully followed the rules, followed the guidance and didn't present.
So understandably, people with belly ache and abdominal pain didn't come to hospital.
And prior to COVID, the vast majority of our emergency admissions were probably
nonspecific abdominal pain that usually didn't end up requiring surgery and was usually nonspecific.
And there was no clear diagnosis.
That whole cohort of patients disappeared and doesn't seem to have come back since,
interestingly.
But we were scratching our heads wondering where all the appendicitis was, where all
the cholecystitis was, where the diverticulitis was.
And a fair chunk of those usually need an operation during that admission.
And I think the conclusion was that perhaps the GPs are managing these patients over the
telephone with antibiotics.
Reasonably successfully.
We were able to develop a green and red zone, which meant that we could ring fence our
elective ward, our elective beds for the first time ever.
And that was a bonus as we saw it because we previously always had potential pressures
during the winter with elective patients being canceled because there was no beds because
it was filled with medical patients.
We didn't have that anymore because of this ring fence.
Covid free wards.
We managed to retain that for quite some time afterwards.
And actually, our practice probably has changed a little bit.
Our pathways have become more streamlined.
So that was actually a bonus.
But what we did notice, obviously, was that it was a significant disruption to our preop
assessment, our ability to assess patients preoperatively, optimize them.
And that had a huge impact on our operations and probably our outcomes.
Interestingly, comparing the following winter, there was no catastrophe.
It was very quiet.
There was no need to expand the ICCU.
The problem the first year in the first November, December time, the first wave was that
as ICCU expanded because they were admitting a lot more patients and putting them on
ventilators, that took a lot of our theatre staff because they had the the the the the
skills to manage ventilators and support ICCU.
And so we weren't able to operate as much.
We couldn't do as much.
A lot of our theatres were shut down, but then we cancelled all our elective operating
apart from cancer.
So it kind of evened itself out.
So obviously, as predicted, as many of us would try to to suggest at the start and we
were shouted down by all sorts of people, medical and non-medical, that became experts
on this very quickly.
I found that really frustrating, actually.
I found that really difficult that I'd have trying to have conversations with friends
and say, how on earth can lockdown be a good idea?
It doesn't make sense to me.
It's going to be all hard.
No benefit.
But and I think that's obvious now to most people who are willing to acknowledge that.
But at the time, it was really difficult.
So now I think people realize and now I think they're recognizing that it was disastrous
in so many ways, as we all know.
But from a physiological point of view, this is how it affected our patients.
It made them anxious and made them afraid.
They had reduced activity to a house bound.
And most of the patients we operate on are already not healthy.
They're all we have an obesity epidemic.
We know that.
So they've already got metabolic syndrome and this just made everything worse.
But psychological stress, anxiety and fear affects our immune system, doesn't it?
And affects our ability to fight infection.
It stops our body functioning healthily.
So that's the reason why we're so worried about this.
It's going to have a knock on impact on anyone we try to operate on.
There was no exercise, fresh air and social isolation led to
physiological and psychological deconditioning.
Chronic vitamin D deficiency because people weren't able to go outside,
even though it was lovely sunny weather at the time, if you remember.
So many of us did go out and enjoy it as much as we could.
But I think there was already a chronic vitamin D deficiency in the UK, certainly.
So lockdown certainly made that worse.
And that also had a massive impact on immune function.
And we weren't able to pre-op assess and optimize our patients properly either.
So all in all, it was pretty catastrophic.
And this metabolic syndrome, which I've learned quite a lot about over the last few years and
my interest in nutrition and all things, holistic is obviously been one of the
more rewarding and more enjoyable parts of things about the last few years.
So I've learned a lot from lots of colleagues in different specialties.
And as Stephen mentioned, Dr. Spaces UK has been a lifesaver for me and for many others
who find themselves in these same positions of being a bit odd with the majority of people
and not seeing the world the same way, but actually finding a lot of encouragement from
one another and learning a lot from different specialties.
Metabolic syndrome, basically the analogy is if the patient can walk to a wall and their tummy
touches the wall before their nose, then they have metabolic syndrome.
They have central obesity, hydrocholesteroids, hypertension, and insulin resistance, all of which
are bad for surgery and health in general.
So consequently, I think most of that explains why I had five non-COVID elective mortalities.
Over that period, which was a huge shock, it was difficult to deal with.
I'd always had a very, very, very good mortality rate in my elective practice.
I'd only had one elective cancer death in the first five years as a consultant.
And this was six deaths within about six months.
One of them was attributed to COVID.
That was quite ironic because she successfully got through her cancer operation.
And after a few days in hospital, tested positive and was sent up to the COVID ward.
And I don't know what happened after that.
Well, I do know some of what happened after that, but obviously I wasn't able to be directly
involved in her care.
So three of those were classed as sudden post-doc cardiac deaths.
Right.
So now I'd like to talk about my observations since a certain time, which
was probably around March 2021.
And one of my secretaries came up to me one day and said,
why are all our scans coming back with clots?
And this was something I'd noticed, but I was pleased that someone else had noticed
because I didn't feel quite so on my own.
So one of my secretaries to see that was quite interesting.
So we routinely organize CT scans as a follow-up for our cancer patients.
They get annual CT in the first two years after an operation.
And many of these CT scans were coming back reporting bilateral,
so both lungs, clots, multiple vessels, sometimes quite often not symptomatic.
So not in respiratory distress, but lots of clots on their scalp.
And these were usually referred to as pulmonary emboli because that's what people talk about
when they see clots in the lungs.
But actually they weren't embolic because there was no DVT.
They were just spontaneous thromboses in the lungs.
The other thing I started seeing was lots of ischemic bowel.
And ischemic bowel is a difficult condition to diagnose.
And we often diagnose it late after the patient's been in for a day or two
because it's not that easy to diagnose.
The signs are quite subtle, but it's quite a rare condition as well.
But it was becoming surprisingly common.
I also saw lots of splenic bleeds
and had a lot of deaths associated with those presentations.
And over the next few months and into 2022 and 23,
we've observed really, I think, different waves or clusters of things.
So the first wave was these thromboses and these bleeds.
The second wave was an increase in nasty inflammatory and infective conditions.
So common conditions as emergencies in general surgery,
thinking things like abscesses, bendositis, colicistitis,
which is inflammation of the gallbladder, and pancreatitis.
But I was seeing nasty, severe cases of those.
And in a broader age category or broader age group than I would normally have seen it.
I'll talk a bit more about that in detail in a bit.
And then the third wave, which we're now seeing, is cancer.
And my impression is that this is cancer,
which looks very different from the colorectal cancer
that I'm very, very familiar with.
It's more aggressive.
It's a different biology.
It's affecting younger patients.
But across all age groups, including very elderly patients,
it's also very aggressive, which is not typical.
And also what isn't typical is recurrence,
surging back after a section, two or three years down the line.
Successful operation, didn't need chemotherapy,
and then suddenly they're coming back in and it's everywhere.
So the case patterns, firstly the thrombotic ones,
these are often incidental findings on surveillance scans.
Some presented with symptoms, but often it was unprovoked.
And that's odd in itself, unusual, without any risk factors,
without any obvious cancer or something else in the background.
Sometimes a huge DVT, which is a clot in the leg, deep venous thrombosis.
So a clot that starts in the leg goes all the way up into the abdomen and the P.
And often multiple bilateral thrombosis with no obvious source of embolus.
These sorts of clots are really striking, really obvious.
And they normally would happen with an obvious underlying cause.
And we were not finding an obvious underlying cause in these patients.
I'm just going to talk about mesenteric ischemia.
So mesenteric ischemia is where the blood supply is inadequate.
And mesenteric ischemia is inadequate blood supply to the bowel.
So if that happens, the patient gets really severe abdominal pain and very unwell.
And it's a life-threatening condition generally.
But it's quite difficult to diagnose.
It's not always that obvious.
Sometimes the signs are subtle.
Sometimes it's not seen on CT that easily.
But these patients would come in very commonly and they'd have small bowel ischemia.
But the odd thing was that the blood supply into the bowel was not affected.
So these were not big clots from the main three vessels into the bowel,
the different areas of the gastrointestinal tract.
These were ischemic bowel with no obvious clot.
And then the other pattern was multiple abdominal venous clots in the same patient.
And the triad that I was seeing was superior mesenteric, portal, and splenic vein thrombus.
The youngest patient I saw, 31.
No risk factors, no obvious predisposing cause.
And they'd often have PE as well, or some thrombus in the lung.
And a lot of those patients we could manage conservatively,
meaning we could just use bandages.
Conservatively, meaning we could just use anti-corregulation and dissolve the clots.
And they tended to get better over a few days.
So some of those didn't need operating.
But the typical biochemical features that were the hematological features we find would be
raised D-dimer.
That was something that I'd started looking for.
Raise fiber engine, low platelets.
And that in itself was something that had been identified as something called vits,
which was, I'll talk about in a second.
But these patients were having normal thrombovillia and hepatitic screens.
So there was no obvious explanation for it, essentially.
No insummuligacy, no pancreatic abnormalities.
So there was some research done.
There's a paper describing vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis.
And there were specific criteria that were stated by the American Society of Hematology,
where you would have to have some of these blood tests showing these particular
values to classify this condition.
And it was acknowledged that this might be a very rare side effect of the COVID vaccines,
in particular the AstraZeneca vaccine.
That was the one that they did the research on.
That was the one they recognized the syndrome.
And in this study, for example, there were 200 night 4 patients evaluated, 170 definite,
50 probable cases of it.
All the patients who'd received the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine.
Age range was very broad, but the overall mortality was high.
And the most common cause of death was cerebral venous sinus thrombosis,
clots in the lungs, legs, and in the gut, as I've been describing.
And there are one or two very well-known examples.
And what was interesting was, I was seeing it, but no one else seemed to be recognizing
that this was happening.
Now, I think that in particular, I think what we've seen more later since this was all
discussed and in the press was that if people remember, we in the UK particularly, they
stopped advising the AstraZeneca vaccine for younger patients, particularly females.
But they continued to say that there was no such issue with the Pfizer and the mRNA vaccine.
It was only the AstraZeneca that had this clotting problem.
But I think that's not the case.
I think we know that.
But I think that's not the case.
I think we know that.
So this was a paper just to demonstrate this mesenteric ischemia that I was seeing,
where the conclusion of these authors was the same, that they were seeing segmental
infarction in the stomach or colon, where there was no obvious occlusion of the vessel.
So this wasn't a typical thrombus that we were used to seeing.
And the cause was quite different.
So what we're talking about really is lots and lots of micro thrombi in small vessels
that isn't seen in the big vessels on the scans.
And if you recall, that would fit with the pathological mechanisms that have been described
with COVID and spike protein.
It's micro thrombi.
It's lots of inflammation.
Lots of micro thrombi can lead to end organ dysfunction.
And that was described for the respiratory illness.
But actually, it's probably more relevant where there's potential production of spike
protein across the entire body with a high affinity for the ACE2 receptor
and endothelial inflammation and clotting.
So it's a wild leap to suggest that that's not a very plausible mechanism
for the things that we're seeing.
Now, we've all been accused of this.
And I struggle in discussions all the time where you can't possibly say it's due to the
vaccine because you can't prove it.
And you're never going to be able to prove it.
And correlation isn't causation.
Well, I'm quite happy to accept that.
And that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that I'm seeing unusual clinical case presentations that I can't explain
any other way.
And there's an obvious change that happened that does have a very strong, close temporal
association between introduction of experimental injections and sequelae.
And these criteria have been used for a long time in epidemiology to try and determine
whether it's just a correlation or whether there's actual enough strength findings to
attribute causation.
And Dr. Peter McCulloch and many others have looked carefully at the Bradford Hill criteria
and have stated publicly on many occasions that these criteria are more than adequately
fulfilled to suggest that there is a causal link between the injections and the sorts of pathologies
that we're seeing that we've never seen before.
So irrespective of that, early on, we were encouraged to fill in yellow cards.
And I think a lot of doctors have been reluctant to do that simply because they thought they
had to prove causality.
And if they couldn't prove causality, they didn't think we need to fill in a yellow card.
That's not true.
If you've got any concern or you noticed something unusual and it could be related,
then you're supposed to report it.
So I did start reporting them.
In the end, I reported about 20.
And then I gave up because it became abundantly clear in public discussions and discourse and
networks and groups that these yellow cards were largely being ignored by the MHRA.
We've written multiple public letters and largely been ignored.
And I was getting no feedback from any of the ones that I submitted.
But these are a summary of my early ones that I submitted.
Lots of the thromboses.
In five patients, multiple vessels affected.
These are the typical end organs affected.
So lung wedge, infarct, small bowel ischemia, half of them resected.
Colonic ischemia, just spontaneous out of the blue after a hernia repair.
Next day, whole colon's gone.
No explanation for it.
There was a patient who spent many weeks in the ICU.
No one could explain what happened to him.
He became rapidly and progressively sicker and more ill.
An obvious systemic inflammatory response, end organ failure.
But his whole, he went to the theatre.
And the findings were that the entire retrobaroneer was just infarcted.
Both kidneys gone.
Both kidneys infarcted.
So very, very odd and unusual case.
No one could explain it.
I had a conversation with ICU colleagues, couldn't explain it.
I felt there was probably enough to suspect the obvious cause,
but no one else was willing to go there and consider that.
Either condo infarction.
That's very, very odd and unusual.
Splenic wedge infarctions.
They're probably slightly less uncommon, but there was,
these were happening in quick succession.
And then a couple of cases of splenic artery rupture,
spontaneous rupture in young patients.
One I had to take to the theatre and do an splenectomy on.
And I did keep an eye on the D diamonds, platelets, APTT, vibranogen.
So most of these cases did fit the WITS criteria, at least some of them.
And when I reported them, obviously I had to get the details of their vaccinations.
I got the batch numbers.
And I'd come across a website called How Bad Is My Batch?
So I thought I'd have a look and see the batches that I was,
the patients I was identifying with problems, what their batches were,
and whether they were high on the league table for causing problems.
And sure enough, the vast majority of them,
the patients that I'd seen have adverse events,
the patients that I'd seen to have batches that had scored very highly for that.
Six patients shared seven high-risk batch codes.
And five patients was one, and one patient or three doses of high-risk batches.
The next case pattern that I found interesting was
affecting spleens and kidneys.
Splenic artery rupture requiring laparotomy and splenectomy.
I mentioned that already.
And infarction.
And the other thing that was interesting was huge clots,
saddle embolus in the aorta, or clot that lodged itself on the side of the aortic wall
and propagated from there.
I've never ever seen that before.
It just strikes me as incredibly odd that where you've got a systemic blood pressure
of 120 milligrams of mercury and the blood flowing directly down the aorta,
a reasonable velocity that you could actually form a clot on the side of the aorta that propagated.
But we saw quite a few of those on scans.
I mentioned that case already.
So I wanted to look for mechanisms of this because this is very bizarre.
And we needed some potential plausible mechanism to explain what was happening.
And these mechanisms were proposed by the late Dr. Arnett Burkhart,
who many of you will be familiar with.
And his great work on
cadaveric specimens of patients who sadly died and
whose relatives had insisted on independent postmortems because they felt that it was linked
to the vaccine.
And he'd initially gone to do this work to disprove the link and actually completely
changed his mind and found quite plausible mechanisms.
Some of the things he'd seen, he shared with 50 other pathologists and all acknowledged
that these were things that they'd not seen before.
So I borrowed some of his slides because I think they're quite interesting from a lecture
that is in the public domain.
There's screenshots.
This was from this particular election, March 22.
So they essentially developed an assay where an antibody would attach itself to the spike
protein antibody and they labeled that with immunohistochemistry so they could see it.
So they could then work out the distribution of spike protein in various different tissues
and organs.
They basically demonstrated that spike protein was present and highly concentrated in virtually
every organ of the body, which again was completely at odds with what we were told that it would
stay in the arm.
Of course, we know the technology was actually designed to distribute very easily through
the body as lipid nanoparticles inevitably will.
So it's no surprise really to those of us that are open minded about that.
And this is some of the tissues that were affected by his spike protein being deposited
in various different organs, particular blood vessels.
So coronary arteries.
This one you've never seen before.
A lymphatic tissue invading a spleen central artery with absolutely teeming with lymphocytes
there, which are the purple cells.
And then onion skin inflammation in the spleen arteries.
So this was almost like a vasculitis kind of picture.
And this is possibly one that explains the aortic phenomena where there was inflammation
affecting all layers of the aortic wall with disruption, inflammation and risk of rupture.
And I know Brian Cole presented some cases of that.
People who died of aortic rupture, which is again very unusual phenomenon.
Dr. Burkhart presented this diagram of inflammatory pseudo aneurysm, which was a nice way of showing
what probably was happening with the splenic artery patients that I'd seen where they were
getting an inflammatory pseudo aneurysm, which then spontaneously ruptured.
This slide I'm sure many of us are familiar with, but it just shows
we have a problem.
There is a huge signal compared to all previous reports in the alert systems, both the VARS
and the MHRA systems compared to previous adverse events.
The other thing that people have been saying is that there is a huge signal in the alert
system.
The other thing that people have suggested is that self-reporting is unreliable.
Well, this argument has been made before, but essentially it takes a long time to do.
It's a federal offensive found fraudulent.
Doctors can beat over 80 percent, although it can be done by patients.
So yes, it's self-reporting, but I don't think it's unreliable because I don't think people
do it unless they're very certain that it needs to be done.
And most people shy away from doing it.
So the fact that we've got that many completed should carry weight, really.
And the same applies to the yellow card system.
You can see how many events were flagged up to the MHRA compared to all of the vaccines
combined previously.
So moving on, we've talked about clots.
We're going to talk about another group, another wave, as it were, that I've seen
since the vaccine rollout.
Nasty cholecystitis, perforated infarctal gallbladers.
So cholecystitis is a common condition.
We see it all the time in general surgery.
Sometimes it's severe and we use intravenous antibiotics to get things to settle down.
Infarction is relatively uncommon, but we were seeing lots of infarctal gallbladers
that perforated patients became quite sick, needed emergency surgery.
There was a real wave or a cluster of those that hadn't been seen before.
Nasty appendicitis affecting middle-aged patients.
Again, patients presenting quite well, but actually surprisingly nasty appendix when
they actually had their operation.
Quite a lot of perforations, lots of abscesses.
And then a group of patients that seemed to come in with what was a sort of malcolytis.
So the left side of the colon inflamed, no obvious explanation.
Inflammation seen on CT settled down on its own.
There's a few references there for proposed mechanisms for that.
This is the group that I want to talk about, which I found most striking.
So pancreatitis is a life-threatening condition for a minority of patients.
It's not common, but it's quite severe in a minority.
Majority of patients, it's quite mild until they're in a state of panic.
Majority of patients, it's quite mild until this era.
The most common causes were gallstones and alcohol.
About 50% were gallstones, 50% were alcohol.
They accounted for well over 90% of presentations of pancreatitis.
There are a number of rare causes that we learned at medical school.
So drugs, dyslipidemia, various other things.
But only about 2% to 5% were what were known as idiopathic, meaning there's no cause.
We've done a recent audit in our hospital and idiopathic cases have changed to around 30%.
So we've started looking at the causes for those in more detail, looking for the lipids, looking for IgG4, autoimmune causes and so on.
But that's a significant change. So there's more idiopathic pancreatitis.
What is the most striking change is that necrosis in pancreatitis used to be quite rare.
A minority of patients, as I say, would develop severe pancreatitis.
They developed severe pancreatitis and over the course of a few days deteriorate and require ICCU support as they developed organ failure.
A small proportion of patients that go to ICCU with severe pancreatitis used to get pancreatic necrosis.
But it usually develops 7 to 10 days after the start of their admission.
What we're seeing now, what I'm seeing now, is a high proportion of patients that on admission,
on their CT, they have necrosis on their CT. Even if they look clinically well, it's been reported as necrosis on their CT.
James, could you just define, you know, I know you imagine that all the people in the group and the people watching the videos understand words like infarction, thrombosis, necrosis.
But if you could just briefly inform people about particularly infarction, necrosis, that would really be helpful.
Yeah, infarction means death of an organ or a tissue in the body.
So it basically means the blood supplies fail to that organ and it's died.
Thrombosis is a blood clot and that's usually the cause of infarction.
And necrosis is just another word for dead tissue.
So an embolus comes off the thrombus and causes infarction, correct? And necrosis?
Correct. So an embolus is where a bit of clot breaks off the thrombus in the leg and sails up to the lungs and then causes problems in the lungs.
So necrolic pancreatitis means a portion of the pancreas has died or has been necrosed.
And sometimes it's recoverable and you don't normally even fight the entire pancreas.
But it's unusual, whereas now it's not so unusual.
And what's odd is seeing it on the scan as they first come in.
Yeah, I've talked about that, mentioned most of that.
And then a few of those patients die within 72 hours of admission, even though they look quite well and stable, just suddenly go.
Before they even really get to ICCU.
One recently did that.
One particular example that struck out was a lady in her 80s.
She did go to ICCU with necrosis on the pancreas, but she also had necrosis of a large part of the stomach, small intestine on the scan.
And I checked her spike antibodies and they were sky high, over 2500 on the titer.
And I checked when her last booster was, and it was less than two weeks prior to her presentation.
So I did a yellow card on that one and I thought that that was worth raising the concern about that that might be a plausible pathological mechanism there for that widespread ischemia that led to quite sudden deterioration.
So that's the thing I want to talk about is my observations of cancer and how that's changed since probably mid to late 21, I suppose.
The changes I'm seeing is that.
I'm seeing patients between one or three years after a curator resection suddenly coming back with aggressive multicycle occurrence.
It's not normal. It's certainly not common.
Obviously, patients do develop metastases later after you operate on them. I'm not disputing that at all.
It's the way it's happening. It's the aggressive nature of it. It's the fact that it seems to be everywhere, just out of the blue.
Unusual sites like a humoral head that just almost completely disintegrate with tumor with a CA of well over 5000.
Seeing lots of young patients have operated on three under on the age of 14 2022.
Now cancer in young patients is always aggressive. It's always a different biology to the older patients for obvious reasons.
They have a better immune system and for young patients develop cancer. It's got to be a pretty aggressive tumor.
It's got to be a pretty aggressive cellular biology disruption that's going to be a pretty aggressive tumor.
That's not unusual.
But I'm seeing the same aggressive abnormal biology in older patients as well.
Typically a patient in their 70s or 80s might develop high deficiency anemia and you'd investigate them and you might find a tumor in the right place.
But they would normally not have any symptoms other than the anemia.
They usually wouldn't have metastases and you could offer it on them if they were fit and well enough or perhaps offer them best supportive care if it wasn't going to.
They weren't going to be fit enough surgery.
But we're seeing quite regularly now that the cancer is getting worse and worse.
Where the liver mess are huge.
Where there's half the liver completely taken over by tumor.
And that's strikingly different from what I've seen before.
It's very depressing to see that happen.
And I think that's a very important point.
And that's strikingly different from what I've seen before.
It's very depressing to see that every week in the MDT.
And often, not often, but quite a few patients I've seen with synchronous cancers.
We had three at the same MDT where there were two cancers.
So synchronous means you get not one bowel cancer but two in the same colon in the same patients at the same time.
That's what synchronous means.
Now that was usually quite rare.
It's the main reason we would do a colonoscopy after making a diagnosis of a tumor.
Because you want to check the rest of the colon for a synchronous cancer.
But the recognized rate of that was usually around 3%.
So it's not common for this becoming common.
And there has been some work on this.
There has been some observational data.
There's been some research studies that have been presented looking at these changes in cancer that people have observed or noticed.
And one of my colleagues who's actually here tonight, obviously many people know Professor Angus Douglas.
He described his own observations of this where after patients having the booster, they were getting late recurrences.
Having been in remission for melanoma for many years.
And this was a new pattern that he'd not seen before.
And it struck him as quite odd.
But I think he felt that it was related to the boosters.
The most outspoken on this topic has been Dr. William Maccas, many of you will be familiar with, but also Dr. Ron Cole, pathologist in the US.
And he's presented multiple plausible mechanisms as to why this might be occurring.
And Dr. Paul Alexander as well.
Sadly, I clicked on this link earlier to check that it still worked and I discovered that this paper that I referenced has been retracted.
Also, I'd been quite hopeful that Curious was perhaps a different journal that was possibly more independent, but it looks that it's part of springing nature.
And attached to the website is an expression of concern that editors in chief have been made aware of several concerns regarding the scientific credibility of this article.
Comprehensive post publication editor review has been conducted to determine if any action is required.
So unfortunately, that's happened.
Because I think I'd certainly read that paper and I thought it helped.
It certainly provided some supportive evidence that there may be something going on.
How long was it before that was retracted, James?
Well, I think it came out in April. I think it was retracted in June.
So, yeah, it certainly had a lot of downloads by then.
But there are lots of potential mechanisms for why these particularly mRNA injectables might be causing cancers.
Or not necessarily causing cancer, but probably contributing to this accelerated biology.
And I don't think I'm necessarily seeing more cancers through the MDT or the MDT has got very busy.
The thing that's different for me is the different biology, the more aggressive nature of these cancers.
And these are lots of proposed mechanisms, but these are just some examples of what might be causing them.
I think probably you were familiar with that. We can talk about it later.
And this is why there's a problem. And if you look at graphs and trends over time, it's becoming chaotic.
And it's really the inflection is drifting from baseline and just seems to be going in the wrong direction.
And it's all coming at the same time period where that inflection, that change has happened.
There's no denying that this is happening.
There's no denying that this is happening. And even the mainstream media can't deny it.
But they're suggesting that there's no explanation for it.
So I just want to go through some of the more common things that have been proposed.
So the first suggestion is that lockdown has caused the change.
In my specialty, I don't think that's the case, because I think as I outlined, we didn't change
our two-week wait pathway. We saw and diagnosed probably more cancers during lockdown.
We operated on as many. We probably didn't operate in the same way. We didn't take as many risks.
We were a bit more risk averse in the way we operated, but we still treated cancer.
And I think that the stage migration concept that they're presenting late,
it doesn't really fit because what I'm seeing is they're presenting late now,
but lockdown was a long time ago. And these patients are presenting out the blue
with stage four cancer and then dying within weeks, having had no symptoms prior to that.
So it's a different biology that I'm seeing. I don't think lockdown really satisfactorily
explains it. And switching off screening programs, we're talking about cancer in young patients.
Well, screening programs don't start till age 60. So stopping screening programs,
it doesn't explain it either in the younger cohorts. There's a lot of interest in genetics
in the NHS and worldwide. Obviously, this is driven by the fact that we're seeing a lot of
constant searching for novel therapies and immunotherapy and lots of interest in different
chemotherapies. But it's been certainly proposed that cancer is a complex disease.
Epigenetics plays a role, but multiple toxic environmental toxins seem to be the main driver
for development of cancer. And typically, these inherited syndromes are around 3% of all
colorectal cancer, 8% of colorectal cancer in young people. So the genetic inherited syndromes
don't really explain this significant increase in my view. Poor diet has been proposed and sugar
and ultra processed foods seems to be talked about in the media at the moment. But
none of that is significant. In my view, none of that significantly changed.
Most of our patients already had a poor diet and sugar and ultra processed foods are not new.
The obesity epidemic isn't new. So again, major contributors to cancer, not denying that at all,
probably the most significant driver of cancer. But it's not new. So it doesn't really explain
a new significant change, temporal change. And then obviously, we've all seen the headlines of
every other possible thing that they can think of to cause it to explain it.
Most of which just sounds ridiculous. So yeah, in summary, we've accepted that lockdown harms
a significant broadened scope. And we're also concerned that these novel mRNA vaccines, it's
now, I think it's fair to say that it's abundantly clear that they're not safe. Now, correlation isn't
causation. But as I've tried to outline, I think there's enough of a temporal association to at
least say there are questions and concerns. It's also clear that they don't do what they promised.
And they've changed, they constantly change the tune and the narrative on what they are
supposed to do. But it's quite clear they don't do that either. So it doesn't make any sense to
continue to encourage them or push them. It's quite clear there's data to suggest that the
more boosters you have, the less effective and the more likely you are to get COVID anyway. So
why are we still pushing them if we've got clinical concerns?
There's unexplained ongoing excess mortality, which
governments still don't want to consider or look at. It's been going on since early 21. It's not
stopped. And surgical teams need awareness, increased awareness of it and early recognition
of acute mesenteric ischemia, complicated inflammatory emergency general surgical cases,
and early aggressive cancers and recurrences.
So yeah, that's all I've got really. But I'm happy to talk about the hope called again. So this is
something that we founded a few weeks ago. It's an international group of founders.
And we've really put together a document. We've written it quite carefully that we feel is
essentially doing three or four, five things. The first thing is to call out the immediate
suspension of the COVID-19 products for the reasons I've just outlined. And that there's
a growing body of evidence that suggests that they are contributing to an alarming rise in
disability and excess deaths. And that the association observed between these concerning
trends is now supported by additional significant findings. Second point is
that there needs to be an independent and thorough research done on the mechanisms and looking at
the data honestly and robustly and doing some research to try and work out why this is happening
and work out potential treatments. The third point we wanted to make is that the vaccine
engine needs to be recognised in the gas light. It needs to stop. And we need to try and provide
treatment and supportive multidisciplinary clinics to support those that have been injured.
And then fourthly, we need to acknowledge that medical profession has failed significantly over
the COVID period in basic medical ethics, particularly around informed consent
and allowing the rollout of these products, but also why did the medical
profession just go along with lockdown and all the other policies that had such a weak evidence
base or no evidence base with all the obvious harms of those interventions. And the fifth point
is about why did this happen? Why are we in this position? And what can we do about it?
And what should we be calling governments to do about it? So it's essentially a petition. It's a
public website that's dedicated for people to sign. You can sign it as a scientist. You can
sign as a doctor or as a member of the public. We're just hoping that we get enough signatures
that really the media eventually can't ignore. And we can then use it to try and
shine a light and leave us some much needed change. So yeah, that's all I've got. Thanks very much.
Very good. James, just keep that slide up there with the supporting organisations,
just in case people want to have a look at that. Everybody take a look.
Thank you. All right. So if you now stop sharing your screen, James, and we have Steven first.
As you know, Steven, we are in your hands. Yeah. So I've got 15 minutes, James. I'll try and keep
to 15 minutes because Charles tells me off if I don't. So I have to say you're incredibly calm
in your delivery. And it belies, I think, the passion, which I sense in your posts,
you feel about this. But anyway, it's great to have someone who's calm. You said that you were
very, you felt quite calm in the hospital. Was that true of your colleagues? And eventually,
did they drag you down to their level? Were you kind of, you did say that there was one point where
you're getting questioned about everything and people who weren't doctors and even people who
were doctors who didn't know what they're talking about and wouldn't admit that no informed consent
was happening. And people were being deprived of the most basic things like their families with
them when they're ill in hospital. I mean, if you want someone to die, just isolate them in hospital.
That's a really good way to kill them. So the question is, why was that done? I just wanted
to ask you, in your opinion now, do you have any idea as a medical doctor in the United Kingdom?
And do you think that your colleagues have any idea what is in these injections?
Do you want me to address the first point first or just just answer that question?
So sorry, yes, if you can address, there were two questions, were there? I suppose
you reflected on that, I was calm and did I ever get dragged down and whatever, I suppose.
Well, the more important question is the second question, what's in these vaccines? Do we know
now? I don't think we do. No, I quite agree with you. I think we're only told what we're told,
aren't we? And that's whether we believe what we're told and so on. So yeah, I think it's very
difficult. I don't think anybody can give informed consent for something that they don't really know
what it is they're giving. Absolutely. So I think that's the bottom line, isn't it?
Yeah, exactly. That's the point. So don't you think it's a gross dereliction of any doctor's
duty to not know what was in these vaccines, so-called vaccines, which weren't vaccines,
and they still don't know. And yet they're able to say, oh, all these signals which are occurring,
which you're observing, you know, and thinking of hypotheses as to why they may be occurring,
which is what a doctor should do. Oh, no, we don't need to look at this, you know, but they don't
know what's in the vaccines. And they should have realised all these doctors in the UK and elsewhere
around the world, they should have realised that there was absolutely no informed consent if no one,
including all the doctors in the world, didn't know what was in the vaccines. So
I just wonder what you think. Yeah, no, I don't disagree with that. I did find it
quite disturbing and quite concerning that people were just so easily able to just believe what they
were told and just go along with it. But I mean, people have talked about this as a military-grade
psychological operation. I mean, the media that were so instrumental in this, the systematic and
centralised control of messaging policy, and the fact that we're in a very, very constrained,
complex medical system by design, I think, but I mean, essentially, it is top down,
policy driven medicine. And if you work in those systems, you follow whatever those
policy policies are. And I think most medics, when they're under pressure, and they're very busy,
and they've been made very stressed and anxious themselves, possibly from a personal health
perspective, or just because they're worried for their patients. Many of us were taken in by
the potential threat of this pandemic early on, and that just continued. And I think people just
wanted to follow the authority and trust in their own systems and their own policymakers,
that somebody had thought about it, somebody must have done the research, somebody must have done
the work, somebody must know what they're doing, somebody must have checked this, somebody must
have checked that. No, no, doesn't know, I've realised the last four years, you can quite easily
go along with, as a human being with, oh, yeah, someone must have done it, but actually, no one's
done it. And no one's taken responsibility in the whole wide world. And that's been a very big
surprise to me. Yeah. So, yeah, so, so it is curious, isn't it, that some many of our colleagues,
even now, don't want to ask any questions, when you've got a background of lack of informed
consent on a worldwide scale in breach of the Nuremberg Code. And what was taking place,
actually, was human medical experimentation, which was exactly, those are exactly the crimes
that the people, 29 people were found guilty at the Nuremberg trials for the doctors,
the doctors trial, that was, and of course, they had the ordinary Nuremberg trial for everybody.
Then they had the lawyers trial, the doctors trial was hidden, the lawyers trial was even less
known than the doctors trial. Yes, the lawyers trial. And, but these were very important trials,
because it was the United States of America, no less, who was actually running, prosecuting the
people in the doctors trial. And so there was lots of talk of human medical experimentation,
and how wrong that was. And yet, in 2020, that's exactly what happened. So how do we explain this?
How did the world go, including all the doctors in the world, just about, apart from you, me,
and a few others? How do we explain that everything went so wrong all at once? Was it fear? Was it
the psychological operation was, which was aiming at the fear? Or was it the, it seems to me that
fear is actually the most important point looking back and isolation as well of lockdowns, you know,
to isolate human beings, probably one of the most social animals on the planet,
was clearly wrong. And everyone, but especially doctors should have been understood this,
immediately. And felt responsible. The other thing, well, that's enough.
Carry on. If you've got an answer. Or thoughts.
The other thing James, to help me maybe, I, looking back, I look at evidence-based medicine,
and what, what's that, the Ferguson, you know, the epidemiologist, so evidence-based medicine and
epidemiology now look to me like they were constructs to allow what happened in 2020 to
take place. So evidence, oh, people say, oh, no, evidence-based medicine is great. No, it's not
great at all. Because actually it leads to taking the autonomy away from individual good doctors.
And that's exactly what happened. So I used to warn of this in 2015, even in 2010,
you know, after the Shipman public inquiry, where they found Shipman guilty effectively of
315 murders instead of 15, which he'd been found guilty of in a court of law in the United Kingdom.
Dame Janet Jones ran that inquiry. I think I found out that it wasn't run under oath,
which is surprising, isn't it? But effectively he was found guilty of 315,
300 more murders at the inquiry. So that's very interesting because Shipman was used as the
excuse for the appraisal system and revalidation and for every doctor to have a portfolio, like a
child at school. And I thought I was warning people there's something wrong here. I didn't
know what it was. But I said these protocols are wrong too. They're going to lead to tyranny.
And I was absolutely right, but I didn't realize how right it was. So do you see evidence-based
medicine as the problem? Well, it didn't start off as a problem. I think evidence-based medicine is
a good concept if you're actually asking, is there any evidence that what we're doing works,
rather than just the old days where you did it because you'd always done it or because you
were told it was a good idea or you're actually trying to find the scientific evidence to support
whatever intervention you wanted to. Yes, but if you've got people using evidence-based medicine
who have no idea about medical ethics or the importance of the autonomy of individual doctors
as far as the patient goes, the safety of the patient goes, then it's going to lead to the
medical tyranny which we saw. And it was always inevitable in my view. But anyway, it's a very,
it's a very, it's a very long sort of progressive journey that's happened. But
to continue on saying evidence-based medicine started right, but got hijacked and became
policy-driven medicine, which was much more... Well, that was the aim all along. That's what I'm saying.
You see? I mean, I think when I, you know, 20 years ago, when I was in training, we would enjoy
taking a paper to pieces. And there was this thing called critical appraisal and critical appraisal
of papers was something that you were examined on. And we made sports out of just trashing papers,
you know, because a lot of research, we could see that we could see that, you know, people would
write papers and there was flaws in the methods, there was flaws in the, you know, the research
and the results and so on. So this concept of critical thinking was nurtured and was encouraged
in medical training. And then that got lost. Exactly. It was always going to get lost.
And as this evidence-based medicine was taken out of our hands and become more centralized and we trusted in
organizations of professional researchers and NICE and these other institutions to do that
critical thinking, doctors stopped doing the critical thinking themselves and left and
trusted the system. I think to pick up on why in this particular case it was so...
In lockstep, I mean, everybody essentially went along with it. There are a couple of
important things. One is obviously the scenario and the psychological effect of the, you know,
the measures and the messaging and the narrative. But it's the fact that we're talking about
so-called vaccines. And if I can just refer to our article that we've written on medical ethics and
informed consent, my contribution to the paper is as a surgeon, I'm an expert in informed consent
because I do it for anybody I operate on and it's a very, very in-depth process. And it's not just
one conversation. It's not just a piece of paper. But what we're arguing in our article is that
we're not sure the same rigor is applied for pharmaceutical products as it is for surgical
procedures. And it's even less applied to this particular category of pharmaceutical interventions
known as vaccines, where the mantra safe and effective has been used since the 1930s probably.
Or even going back before then. So it's something that medical doctors have been indoctrinated
over decades that you just trust that vaccines are safe and effective. You just assume they are
because they always are. That's what we've always been told. So nobody even considers questioning
them. And that was the masterstroke of this. If you can call these mRNA injectables vaccines,
then people won't ask any questions. Apart from the fact that you can avoid indemnity to prosecution
and so on and so forth. That was the issue. Yeah. So it seems to me really dangerous, James,
to tell all the doctors in the UK, let's keep it to one country, but it's happening all over the
world, all the doctors in the UK that they've got to follow these guidelines and protocols,
protocols in particular, because what happens then? Well, inevitably, depending on when you
are trained exactly, you're going to follow the protocols and you stop thinking. And you don't
want doctors to stop thinking because one size does not fit all. And that's particularly applicable
to medicine and treating the patient in front of you. So it always seemed inappropriate. I used
to argue with one of the chief medical advisors of the medical defense union about this. And I
didn't realize how right I was. And there was he helping me against the general medical council and
trying to get me out of the general medical without it because I was terrified that they were going
to put a complaint in before I left, before I succeeded in leaving, which I had heard they did.
I wasn't terrified of them per se. I just wanted to live my life without the GMC
snapping at my heels and stopping me saying the things that I needed to say in 2020. So anyway,
I'm just thinking, what about virology and immunology? So when I was at medical school,
the immunologists were the kings of medicine. Now, the immunologists knew about the immune system,
the brilliance of the immune system. And then in the 80s, it was pointed out to me by
one of the guys who's an expert in the UK. So he's a nurse. He's a very able nurse. His parents were
very good nurses too. I can't remember his name now. Kevin Corbett. So he was telling me,
so he's an expert on HIV. He's a nurse, but he was hanging around with the doctors, the HIV
doctors in London, in the UK, when it was really big time. So he talks like a doctor. And he said
that he'd observed that the virologists were on the rise in the 80s. And he one day mentioned
that the immunologists were on the decline, had been on the decline as the virologists.
So do you think that was a double necessary construct? They had to get rid of the
immunologists to understood how brilliant God was, if you like, in creating the immune system,
not just for human beings, but for all animals. And the virologists were pushing that we're in
danger of endless deadly viral pandemics. So we needed to supplement the immune system because
God had forgotten about it. What do you think? Yeah, no, when I was at Medical Circle, I thoroughly
enjoyed immunology. I found it complicated, but fascinating. Absolutely. And it was,
it was, it was, yeah, it was one of those specialties that was really quite wonderful.
And one of the sort of discovery specialties, virology probably passed me by really, because
I'd left medical school and I was focusing on surgical training. I hadn't really realised just
how, how big and enormous an industry was becoming and or specialty and how germ theory was becoming
increasingly important. I think what you said first was correct, James, that it was, it's an industry,
isn't it? And it was intended to be an industry. That's why they brought it in, in my opinion.
James, great. Thank you so much. It's very difficult for me to do this justice in a short
space of time. And I feel the pressure. And so I'll just let other people ask some questions and
then maybe I can think of some other ones. I'm just browsing through the chat. There's millions
of questions here. I'm not sure I can answer them all. Do you want me to just quickly flick
through and pick up some of the chat questions or? Well, there are people with hands up. So maybe
you should take those first. If you could make a note of those in the chat, because otherwise
you'll have to go all the way back, you know, which is not easy. Make a note. I can answer them all.
I probably haven't got time, but I'll try. Yeah. Okay. So I don't know why Charles is probably
having a snooze. So the first question as far as I can see it is Dr. Felicity Lillingston.
Yeah, I think she's a British doctor, but I'm not sure about that.
You muted Felicity.
Hello. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Yeah. Hi, James. I don't know if you remember me.
I approached you a while back about my son, Anthony. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Great. Well, he had
the resection just for everybody to be aware. My son after his booster developed severe anemia.
And I insisted he had colonoscopy. It was found that he had a, I don't know, carcinoma of his
transverse colon. They wanted to remove his whole colon because he was actually in America and
they're rather keen to get rid of everything there. But James very kindly talked me through
it all, calmed me down. And we only had the transverse colon resected. He then had follow-up
chemo and he's doing very well. I was able to obtain some samples of the tissue from the tumor,
which I sent off to Dr. Burkhart. And the results were quite revealing. If I can just read to you.
In particular, the case the spike protein was detected in the tumor
using immunohistochemistry in tumor cells, the nuclear capside being negative,
we have to assume that the spike expression was due to the two coronavirus vaccines and not due
to coronavirus infection. So Dr. Burkhart was able to say that the tumor cells contained these
spike proteins, which indicated to me that it was more than likely due to the booster vaccination
or his vaccinations. Have you had any more patients having this done, having the tumor cells
analyzed? In the UK, it's very difficult because it's difficult to get anybody to even
contemplate that there might be a problem or association with these mRNA shots.
And we've had discussions on our UK doctors groups. We've got a few pathologists in the group and
it's difficult for them to get permission from their seniors, their departments to even do
research studies into this. It gets shut down very quickly. You're just fighting red tape in a system
that doesn't want to contemplate there might be a problem. Are they doing it in America?
Is it Peter Cole? Ryan Cole has done quite a lot of work.
You don't know, you haven't heard any more. Or who else might be doing it?
Yeah, it seems extraordinary. I mean, I've kept the results in the hope that it's all going to
come out and we'll be able to prove this. Unfortunately, my son is still a little bit
in denial about it, which is very sad. My worry today was that you did mention that these cancers
that are being produced over the last few years tend to have a recurrence rate, which is worrying,
obviously, as a mother. Well, yeah, I don't know that we're going to see more recurrence.
And, you know, some of the aggressive recurrences I've seen have been in patients who had previously
had their primary cancers prior to vaccination. So they may be getting the recurrence as a result of
Oh, right. Okay. rather than. But yeah, I don't know that. Yeah.
Okay, thanks. I just wanted to know, you mentioned in your talk that these were coming back with
metastatic in bizarre places like, you know, the head of that, what was it you said, the, what is
it, the humerus, head of the humerus or something, you said there was an unusual metastatic,
you know, cancer there. So I'm just sort of, you know, obviously concerned and worried that
this might happen with my son or anyone I know. And I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know,
anyone else who's any of my patients who've recently been diagnosed with cancer.
Yeah. Okay. Well, thank you very much. And thank you for all you're doing.
Really admire you greatly. And thank you. No, thank you. Thank you.
Yeah. So Felicity is much more reasonable than I am. So it gets people to follow him.
Okay. Anyway, Mark, who I think is fair to describe you, you're a kind of
group generated activist, are you Mark? Sure. Absolutely. Thank you very much, James.
Right. I'm an IT. I was in, I worked for an international electronic test equipment company.
I was my last job was quality assurance. And I have a book here, Reckoning with Risk. I'll
put it in the chat by Geert Gieckrenser. And in that book, he explained that you needed to look
at the absolute risk reduction, not the relative risk reduction. So I actually took the Pfizer
information and I calculated it at 0.83%. Later, I spotted that in the Lancet, it was 0.84%.
So why would any doctor prescribe any vaccine or supposed vaccine or a medication that would only
give you an absolute risk reduction of 0.84%? That's just a, well, one question. I would like
to also point out that when the spike facts came out, I went to see my GP because the GP surgery
was now allowed to administer the booster. I have in front of me the spike facts leaflet.
You can't really see it, but anyway, I have it. And I challenged my GP and I said to my GP,
did you get informed consent to the people that you have jabbed? I wanted to know how did you get
informed consent? His reply to me was, Mark, I got the booster and I got the leaflet after I got
jabbed. I then said, this doesn't make sense to me. The leaflet has got 2,438 words. It would take
an average adult 12 minutes to read and they wouldn't understand everything because it's
written in jargon. Plus in the actual document, it talks about an increased risk of myocarditis
and pericarditis. And I challenged him. I asked him, what is the increased risk? He didn't know.
He then, I then went on to the duration of the product of the protection and it said,
as with any vaccine, the booster dose, blah, blah, blah, may not fully protect all those
who receive it and it is not known how long you will be protected. So I said to him, why the hell
would you give it to anybody if you don't know any of these answers? He walked away. I'd love your
comments on that. James, are you happy to answer that? I'm really trying to find words, to be honest.
I understand, yeah. I followed it up, James, with a letter to the two GPs complaining about this and
telling them that the GP surgery had a responsibility to ensure that they could not be
sued because we need the GP surgery and that they should not be administering these jabs.
Yep. It's pretty disappointing, isn't it, James?
It is. I think this all goes back to a period of time where people were not thinking rationally.
They were under immense fear, immense pressure, immense stress. They'd all been taking in,
they'd all been watching the news. They'd lost their ability to think critically. They weren't
thinking rationally. Well, I wasn't. They took the jabs themselves out of personal fear and then now
many of my colleagues, I think most people are in the position, unfortunately, that they've
jabbed themselves, they've jabbed their families, they've jabbed their children
with these products, as well as their patients. To face the horror of the reality that they might
have made a mistake is too big for them to contemplate, it's too big to deal with. So
they're doubling down and they're not able to engage, they're not able to see this rationally
and see this as you. We've always seen it objectively, but they haven't.
James, I even asked, have they actually filled in any yellow cards? The answer was no, but
the doctor had known that some people had a neurological issue. They sent them to Peter
Borough Hospital, but they didn't fill in the yellow card. They basically said that was the
responsibility of the hospital. I just can't understand how you could be so damn callous.
No, no, you didn't mean you, James. You're on our side. But Mark is saying how the doctors
could be so callous. But I think you're saying that the doctors had allowed themselves to be
raped essentially by these vaccinations, so-called, which weren't vaccinations,
and no one knew what was in them. I think the best thing to say, James, it was just an outrageously
massive mistake by huge numbers of doctors around the world, and God help them, because
they've got to live with it for the rest of their lives. People are going to be talking about this,
and the longer it takes to come over to our side, the worse it's going to be for them.
Yeah, but Stephen, we've had Alex Mitchell on the video, right, who had his leg amputated after
having the AstraZeneca. I showed him the injury to the doctor, and he said, how do we know that's
the vaccine? And yet he'd got a vaccine injury payment. You can't make this stuff up.
So Mark, it's a good doctor's job to hypothesise. You don't need quantities of scientific evidence
or legal advice to form an opinion as a doctor. It's very important with a sick patient that you
are able, as a doctor, to form a medical opinion so that you can act without looking for masses
of scientific evidence. So obviously doctors are trained in hypothesising, or should be, but of
course the evidence-based medicine took that all away. And so the real scandal is that doctors
allowed themselves to be lulled into a sense of security by evidence-based medicine, and they were
actually saying it was a good thing. No, it wasn't. It was always a bad thing, and it was always going
to lead to medical tyranny, which has been proved by the last four years. So sorry about that. If you
want to say anything more, James. Well, Stephen, let me just say, look, when I was working for IT,
I was, part of my job was to do a root cause analysis of any major incident that we had.
Now the first thing you would do is ask, has anything changed? Did anything change? Did you
change the programme? Did you change the material? Did you change, right? And if it's as plain as the
nose on my face, the thing is everyone was being jabbed. You cannot say there's no, you know, this
idea that there's no correlation is madness. It's total madness. The thing that changed is people
got vaccinated. Sure. And then they were raped, and then they couldn't recover from that rape.
That's my opinion. They couldn't recover from the rape. They had been compromised, and they lost
their self-respect, and they couldn't lead their own family out of it, never mind the British
population or the world population. And that's the truth. They were in a cult, and they couldn't get
out of the cult, and they still can't get out of the cult. And I hope they did this. But Stephen,
in the... But the reason I interrupted there, because I don't, I know you don't intend that,
because I know you're a good person, but it may look to some people that, you know, we're blaming
James for all. He's our guest. We're not. No, no, no, no, no. We're not blaming James. We're not
blaming James. We're not blaming James. But the problem is that the gaslighting that continues
to happen is having a mental problem, a mental issue on those that have been injured, and they
are taking their lives because they feel abandoned. And I'm so upset that we haven't actually got
anywhere with the government. I met with Stephen Barclay. James showed the graph, right, James,
you showed the graph where you had the great big spike. I showed that to Stephen Barclay. He wasn't
interested. He poo-pooed it. And in the end, he wasn't prepared to talk to Dr. Claire Craig about
the Pfizer trials, about the misinformation of the actual trial data. And I had to leave him by saying,
I'm looking you in the eyes. Any child that dies is down to you. And he just said,
I disagree. And that was the end of the conversation. And he is my constitutional MP,
constituency MP. I felt I'd let down the youth because I was unable to get him even to talk to
anybody who had an inkling of what was going on.
Yeah. So as you can tell, James, Mark couldn't tell a lie if he was trying to tell a lie. He's
incapable of telling a lie. He's a very good guy, straight down the line. And so is his wife, who
is Dutch. And they've attended, I think, all these meetings, haven't you, Mark? You must be the best
educated couple in the world about what's happened. But the thing is, the cult is not confined to
COVID and these vaccinations, Mark. You've got the Ukraine thing. People are so certain about
that Russia's terrible. Trump's another one. Oh, they hate Trump. How can you possibly support Trump?
Got all these, and then the climate change. And then you've got the number of cults going around.
The more uncertain things get in the United Kingdom, look at the mess the United Kingdom is
now with a completely compromised prime minister who looks, he's always terrified of his own
family, never mind the British population. And now I heard the other day from the chief
investigations officer, a journalist of the Daily Mail, what's his name, Kirstama Angela Rayner,
and what's the name, Yvette Cooper, who's married to Ed Balls, the ideal relationship
in inverted commas. They're all politicians, but those three families have got children who've been
taken over by the trans agenda, just like Elon Musk, except one of them is prime minister of
our country. I had no idea about that. So that has been kept very quiet, but clearly they know
about it at the Daily Mail and they haven't reported it to the British people. So we've got
a conflict of interest at prime minister level when it comes to the trans agenda. It's absolutely
outrageous. Why do I mention trans? Well, because these are Trojan horses for totalitarianism,
as was COVID, as is the Ukraine war, NATO, all the rest of it, pipeline explosion, energy crisis,
cost of living crisis, the BBC, they're all cults and they're Trojan horses for totalitarianism.
Sorry, James, I just wanted to help you a bit because I think I thought you were taking it a
little bit personally what Mark was saying, but I don't think he meant it like that. No, I didn't.
It's fine. And, you know, I completely hear what Mark's saying and his exasperation and his
frustration. I think we could spend all night discussing the in-depth complex psychology of
all of this. And I think we all know it. And we've been round and round and round and round
racking our heads as to the explanations. And I don't think we can really, you know,
personally account for anybody else's motives or thoughts or make any judgments at all. I think
the entirety of society has been deceived and has been led astray in one way or another. And
and it's very difficult to stay objective and see the reason all sorts of different areas. So
right. Mark was never led astray and he's not medical. I was never led astray. I knew straight
away that, OK, maybe I had a good training through my case, but I knew straight away.
Mark knew straight away. There are other people in the group who knew straight away. And so,
you know. But, Steve, we're a very tiny minority compared to the majority of the population.
I think where we're at now, and I think I'll probably just bring it back to
the article that we wrote that's trying to restore medical ethics and talk about these issues as to,
you know, looking at pharmaceuticals and vaccines in the same way that you would look at an operation
in terms of informed consent. I think it's just been a blind spot for medics for too long.
So, James, I hope you don't think I've made it difficult for you by saying the things I have
said today, but I'm very aware that people like John Lukacs and other people whom I work with,
they absolutely hate doctors now and with good reason, in my opinion. So the medical profession
needs to apologize. Good doctors need to apologize for what has happened. Oh, what's happened now?
Yeah, that's true. Well, I'm just going to share this in answer to all of that, really,
because I think this is our attempt to try and answer it. So,
and to try and help doctors find a way to come round. But it's not easy because psychologically,
so I acknowledge that you might have made a mistake or an error,
but actually this is a key part of it, in my view, is to try and.
James, I don't understand why people find it so difficult to admit they were wrong. Why can't
they just say I was wrong? It's human nature, Stephen. It's human nature. And I think there's
also this great fear that, you know, for many people, it's thinking that actually
people might not be on your side. The authorities, the government, they might actually be
not just incompetent. They want to hope that it's just incompetence, but it's way beyond that. We
know that. But it's too much for people. It's just too much. Yes, but the problem is if we don't get
them out of this damned cult, they're going to take us down with them in the next Trojan horse,
and the present Trojan horses for that matter. And I just give up, you know, because education
in this country is absolutely awful. People are so illiterate and innumerate. It's not just illiteracy.
It's innumeracy. They have no concept of what a billion is or a trillion, you know, so 90
billion. They don't know how many zeros are in 90 billion. They should do, in my opinion, or at
least the people who've been to university should know what 90 billion is, but they haven't got a
clue. They don't know how far it is to the sun. I don't know for certain. I've been told how far it
is, and it never changes. It's 93 million miles. Well, of course, it's always changing, but 93
million on average. The moon is 250,000 square. I just don't understand how people can operate
throughout their lives without actually having a picture, some kind of picture, of the planetary
system in which we live, the solar system in which we allegedly live, because I'm not sure that we do
you know, whether the whole thing, life is maybe a succession of illusions. Anyway, let's get the
next question. Anders Brunstad, he's in Norway. He's a 5G expert, James. Okay.
Anders, you're muted. Still muted.
Yes, we can see you, Anders, but we can't hear you. You're muted.
Hello, can you hear me now? Yes. Very good. So, I thank you, James, for a really brilliant
presentation of your research. I'm sitting here now with my
Polish friend who is invited to Norway, and he started to work for me for about 25 years ago.
So, we have a long history, and he got,
I would say, rather seriously wounded
by the first jab.
And my other friends, two, three others, they got really bad wounded
by the second and third jab in Poland. And I, you know, I tried to warn my boys, my girls,
my friends, but you know, there is a strong story that they trust the government, they trust the TV,
okay, I don't want to go there. Thank you for this presentation, James. I have,
I think you see more than 50%,
but I think you use the glasses of the medical doctors,
and these glasses have, maybe, then you need to clean them.
I believe that it is good advice to look at
the history of, if you go into cancer, if you go into many diseases, I will follow my,
I would say, my really good friend, Robert Oldham Young, in his statement that you really need to
understand beyond the observation what you see to understand what is behind what you see.
And I cannot speak
really out of my own research on everything, I can speak a lot out of Robert Oldham Young research.
I can say that what you have observed with vitamin D and these other related causes of
increased risk of disease is really accurate.
Corresponding, correlating to what was told us to be the type of correlation to
COVID, which is a joke. What you really saw is a correlation, in my opinion, to the dramatic fall
of the pH in people who got vaccinated, who got poisoned, who got radiated by 4G, 5G.
And in order to understand what you may not maybe understand, is to look into,
let's say, the science of what you may not be aware of, which is that
these poisoning of the jabs, of food, of so many different vectors are causing your blood,
your body to become not alkaline, the opposite. You get into the lower pH.
And I would say to you all, and in particular to Angus, that if you study the basic knowledge of
the book, the pH miracle of Dr. Robert Oldham Young, you will find that there is a very strong correlation
from pH to cancer to diabetes to many diseases. And these diseases like cancer are growing
very fast when the pH in the body drops below seven.
Andrisz, can I ask a question?
The question is, please, can you, along with the best specialists in the world, investigate
the role of the pH as the cause of growth of cancer and diseases? The body
does not want to be less than seven pH. This is measured not in the blood, but by the
interstitial fluid. And do you consider that the combination of the poisoning from
those different vectors, from let's say radiation, which is 4G, 5G, which is my specialty, to the
role of the vaccine, to the role of the bad food, everything. But what really happened?
The pH dropped dramatically, and the bodies of those who dropped are having a big risk of
being going from chapter two to four, meaning you go from
a cancer which can be cured to a cancer which is almost not curable. Do you consider that
all these factors are really material in why the super cancer is happening?
I think that the body is under an assault, an onslaught of multiple environmental
things all at the same time, which is creating a very complex mix, which is very difficult to
tease out, which is the most important factors. And so on, you mentioned radiation, obviously
massively increased over the last 10, 20 years, particularly with the mobile phones and the 5G
masks going up everywhere. I hate them. They just look evil and demonic. They just look
threatening. So I'm not disputing that 5G and 4G may well play a role in toxicity and tissue damage
and cellular damage. There are all sorts of factors that are involved in pathogenesis and
mechanisms of cancer and mitochondrial dysfunction and cellular radicals and so on and so forth.
It all plays a role, no doubt. I don't think there's one thing that you can correct or fix.
I don't think that there's any appetite or interest in identifying the correct cause
and stopping it. And one thing is not going to stop cancer. Correcting one thing isn't going to
stop cancer. This is a whole problem that our society faces, that we have this massive onslaught.
I think we can start by sorting out diet. We can start by sorting out obesity epidemic,
start by sorting out ultra processed food and so on that Callie and Casey
Means have talked about. So I think they're great places to start. We can reduce people's exposure
to radiation and mobile phones and masks and so on. Absolutely. But I do think there's a step
change with the mRNA. I don't know why. I don't know all the mechanisms, but there's multiple
potential mechanisms for how they might be causing the problems they're causing. It's not all about
spike protein at all. It's far more complicated and there's far more things that potentially
could be causing it or impacting on it. I don't think that's necessarily an answer, but I don't
think that it's all about pH either. If a patient has a pH of 7.0, they'll be very ill and they'll
be in ICCU because they'll be that acidotic. Normal physiology, the pH of the body will be
maintained very, very tightly in homeostatic mechanisms. If your pH starts to drop to 7.2,
7.1, you're very ill, you're very sick, you know about it. So you're not going to be walking
around normally with a pH of 7.0. That's not going to be what drives a cancer, for example.
I'm just thinking off the cuff. It's not something that I've ever considered, but you're describing
a condition where the entire body is very acidotic and inevitably your body systems are going to be
really struggling in those conditions. Thank you, Anders. Short comment, Steven.
As long as it's short, Andrew. Most people consider pH to be 7.2, 7.4, which is the level of the pH
in the blood. If you took the pH in your urine in the morning, you would find in many cases
between 5 and 7. And most people don't realize that the blood is protected zone. They are really
in the tight band and most sick people, they have a pH below 7 in the urine. And this is something
which it is very important to inform about because it's very easy to treat your pH to go up
to a healthy level, but you need to know about it and no doctor tells you about it.
Okay, thank you, Anders. We'll go on to the next and that's Daria, who, James, is our resident
neurosurgeon. Daria, and I think I'm right in saying she has re-found God in these times.
Is that right, Daria? That is correct. Oh, good. I had to get to the menu where I could unhook
everything. So, thank you. Daria is American. No, I live in Indiana. Thank you so much. I was very
interested to see that you were presenting because I was hoping to hear from a practicing surgeon
about what your experience had been. And I really appreciate you sharing that because
I know our local physicians at my hospital were very distressed that their livelihoods were
disrupted unnecessarily to do any elective surgeries for months on end. I believe my eye
doctor told me he was not allowed to bring an elective surgery patient in for six months.
And he was pretty fuming mad by the time I went in to get my contact lens prescription renewed.
But I do have a couple of questions for you specifically, and I believe Fizzy already asked
one of them. And I think Rose put a really helpful link in the chat about answering this
particular question, but it was what markers should be checked in every patient given the mRNA shots
for this COVID-19, supposedly, to prove the more causal relationship than just correlation.
In other words, if you have a clot or some unexpected or previously, like you were showing
on that graph, above the precedent of previous trends in a particular disorder to prove the more
causal relationship between the mRNA shots and the disease you're treating, like the cancers.
And obviously Dr. Burkhart was proving this, and likely that is why he is no longer alive.
So are these tests ever getting done? Is there any resistance on the part of clinics, labs,
and hospitals to obtain the clinical evidence? And if so, do the patients have alternative
options to seek these test results on their own? For example, like Fizzy was saying,
get the pathology and get it to a pathologist who is willing to run the tests. We're definitely
going to have to go with freelance clinicians like Dr. Ryan Cole here in the USA, who is currently
under prosecution, by the way, for persecution, I should say, by the Washington State Licensing
Agency. And they want to put him through a struggle session and everything else for him
to keep his license. So please keep him in your prayers. But this is happening to far more doctors
and people are aware. But that was the main thing, is people aren't even asking here in the USA.
For example, I talked to a lady who is a nurse at a breast cancer clinic, and I asked her if she's
taking vaccine histories from women and their young women who are showing up with double
primaries in their breasts. And she goes, No, we don't ask. I'm like, oh, he is so exasperating,
because you know, there has to be some link. And that along with that, and this is something to
think about, I'm, I bet we'll see more if we ask orthopedic surgeons. But since the mRNA shots are
administered in the deltoid muscle, are we seeing a disproportionate number of primary or metastatic
tumors in the humerus bone, as you said, was quite rare, because of the proximity to the injection
site and possible direct intra vascular injection into the supply, the arterial supply to the humeral
bone itself. In other words, that could easily happen, because most injectors of these shots
were not even following the most basic safety habit of withdrawing on the syringe to make sure
blood was not filling the syringe before injecting. And that was by design as well.
Clinicians were told and caregivers not to aspirate, just jab and move on. And that's why
people were dropping dead right there in the vaccine clinics at a high rate in some locations.
So thank you so much. But those were my specific questions. And just,
God bless you for just carrying on and persevering and being so stoic about it. Because
like Steve and a lot of us are very passionate and angry and emotional, and it's definitely
justifiable anger in this case. But to prevent it from happening again, somehow we've got to
break through the craziness and not let these totalitarian monsters continue on with their
democide. Thank you. It's not just that our biggest enemies are not the monsters themselves,
because they're ridiculous, but the reasonable people who go along with it and stay in the cult.
This is the real problem. So ordinary people who don't understand, who can't be bothered to
understand in many cases, or face up to reality, they are the problem. They are keeping us in this
tyranny, and they will get us into a full blown tyranny if we're not careful. And we need to call
these people out. We've had enough time for us to be kind to them. We need to get them out by other
means. It's not working. We're not breaking the cult. Well, you know, they're going to self select
themselves to death if they keep consenting to these vile treatments. So those that are
comfortable being gaslit and comfortable being brainwashed, it's like, okay, go ahead,
get your needles away from me, or, you know, you'll get a bigger hole in as a reward. So I
don't know what else to say. I mean, it's getting to the point where we have to fight for our lives
in some cases. But I don't know if they're going to be able to pull this off again, because now the
entire game plan has been exposed by their behavior and also by all the Freedom of Information Act
releases a document, which is probably just the tip of the iceberg of what's really out there.
So anyway, that's kind of my two cents right now. And I want to thank you very much. And hopefully
that fits in with what everybody else has been contemplating. But we definitely need to keep
everybody honest as far as the evidence based research. I think there is merit when it's done
with proper scientific method and academic and research scientific integrity. And both of those
things were flushed down the toilet because of grant money dictating a particular outcome of a
study. And what I found in a lot of studies I looked at was the data was completely not showing
what the conclusions were posted in the final publication. So the conclusions is what most
people have jumped to. And they won't even look at the research and see that the methods and
the results did not comport with conclusions drawn. And I've seen that over and over and over again.
And I barely scratched the surface of those studies. So I want to thank everybody. And Dr.
Herbie Rish can really pick those apart like butter. But to me, I'm flogging through them and
eventually go, wait a minute, that's not what this says. It's kind of the same exercise I do
with Bible study. It's like, what does the Bible really say? Have you got a question for James?
Have you got one simple question? Yeah, I did several. So I'll go ahead and mute my mic and
you guys go ahead and let's get some answers. Thank you. Thanks very much for your comments.
I hadn't really thought about whether that particular case with a humerus metastasis was
a consequence of direct injection. It's possible. But the mechanism of actual what's causing the
cancer that I was assuming that some cells of the primary have got into the humerus to then develop
the change. But it may be that it was a sarcoma or something completely different that was just
driven intrinsically after direct injection of the mRNA. I don't know. Very good. But it's
usually hypothesized about. Good, James. So Bobby Bounds, who is a data analyst,
and I'm not sure which country you're in, Bobby. Go ahead. I think you're unmuted.
Sorry, we can't hear you, Bobby. I don't know. You're unmuted, but we can't hear you.
Yeah. Do you want to sort that out and we'll go to John Lukacs and come back to you, Bobby? We can't
hear you and you are unmuted. Oh, now we can hear you. Yeah, sorry. I just switched to a different
microphone. Expensive one. This doesn't work. Yeah. James, given your experience, say you're a
curious person and you've got a little free time and you've got every death certificate for nine
years up through 2023 for a given jurisdiction, a US state or country, what have you. And you have
all the ICD-10 codes for every death and you want to see, you do a time series analysis
and you're curious. You just want to see if there's a pattern in the death certificates
that would support your clinical findings. You talked a lot about pancreatitis.
Can you tell me what sort of a query would be the first query in your mind that you'd like to query
ICD codes to see if it matched your clinical experience?
I'm not quite sure I understand your question or where you're going with this or what you're
trying to imply. Well, you know, death certificates are just records of those who died and
the progression of disease that led to the demise of the decedent. And so, you know,
they are an imperfect thing, but a lot of times that's all we've got when we're trying to see if
there's any kind of a pattern or, you know, based on what you've seen of those people in 2020, 2021,
2022 who died in your care. Could there be an interesting question in your mind that could be
answered by querying the death certificate ICD codes? I mean, you obviously have seen all of this
upfront and personal, so you may not have an interest in this, but people like myself, I don't
have the clinical experience, but I have access to the death certificates.
So can you think of a question? So Bobby, it's a really valuable resource to have that,
the death certificates. So as far as I know, you and John Bodwin are the only one who got death
certificates in the world. Is that right? I don't know. He's got several states. I have several
states. I have several states. But you're right. It's just a handful of independent researchers
who have petitioned in the U.S., have petitioned U.S. states, health departments to obtain death
certificates. And so I just did, while I was listening to James's excellent presentation,
I just ran some queries on pancreatitis, for example, for Nevada. And so is that the main
thing that you might, James, be interested in querying on to see if there was an unduly rise
of death due to pancreatitis beginning in 2021? Is that of any, would that be of any interest?
I can understand the context of what you're asking now. That makes sense.
Yeah, pancreatitis would be a good one to look for. I'm not sure the incidence or the mortality
rate has increased or whether it's just, you know, the presentation is different. You know,
the mechanism of, you know, the progression of the disease is different. It might be worth
interrogating that one, actually. It might be worth interrogating that one. I think the problem with
the ICD codes or the certification and so on and so forth is if you've got a medical establishment
that has a huge blind spot for the potential cause, then you're not going to get accurate
death certificates. Absolutely. In the sense that, yes, they might have written pancreatitis down,
death certificate, but they're not going to give you any more than, oh, they were gallstones or
alcohol or idiopathic. They're not going to say pancreatitis secondary to mRNA because they don't
recognise that that's a cause. And we haven't proven it as such. It's just correlations and
interesting patterns that we're observing. So that's the problem with interrogating that sort
of data is it's generated by a system with its own biases and its own interests and conflicts and so
on. But on the other hand, James, it's a pretty dramatic diagnosis, isn't it? So even if it's,
you say that it's much more aggressive in pancreatitis, the presentation is much more,
so lots of necrosis which never used to be there. Well, that suggests to me that actually,
if he did interrogate the death certificates and yeah, it was a reliable resource, but I think
pancreatitis is much more likely to be reliable because it's a very dramatic diagnosis, isn't it?
So doctors get excited with pancreatitis. It's a very, so I don't know. Anyway, are there any other
things that you think he should look into, Bobby should look into in your experience?
Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, look at certainly look at cancer, look at death rates,
look at ages affected and see if there's any obvious trends happening.
Yeah, well, that's interesting. Diagnosis to death, I think, as well, because I think what
we're seeing is that patients are dying within weeks, whereas they used to die, you know,
months or years after diagnosis, but because they're presenting with this aggressive stage four
dying very quickly. So there may be interesting trends to develop there.
Yeah, we've got data, as you may know, from the Czech Republic that allows us to quantify
the days to death from the last injection. So I don't know if that would be of any interest
to you if if 57 people in the Czech Republic died on the same day they took the injection,
would you in your professional opinion, would you attribute
knowing knowing nothing else about the patient's file, would you say, you know, almost all of those
deaths were attributed to the injection? And then the same question for day one after the injection
of the last injection, day two, day three, and so far out to 31 days, you know, and is that that
may not be of any interest to you. But, you know, obviously, the debate rages on and we don't have
the evidence that we need. If we had the patient chart, wouldn't that be the gold standard? I mean,
if we had every patient chart of somebody who died after taking a COVID injection,
we could really narrow down and quantify the level of the level of harm caused by the vaccine.
So that's kind of the endless search here is to we don't have the data that we need. So we try
so we try to use what we have to understand better what happened.
So, you know, I'll give you one example real quick. So GI bleeds went way up in 2020 and stayed high
in 2021. This is this isn't a vaccine thing necessarily, but this is a hospital iatrogenicide
concept. So there's a strong belief that patients who are hospitalized
were over administered corticosteroids, which made them die from a GI bleed.
So that's something you can flesh out in death certificates. Perhaps you could comment on that.
Yeah, I think the temporal association is the quickest reason people would discount the vaccine.
So if it wasn't within two weeks, they'll say it's not, it can't be the vaccine.
And the problem with the mechanism of action of this mRNA is we don't know enough.
But I think what we are observing is that people seem to be able to get all sorts of pathology
months or even years after the injection. And I suspect that's going to continue. So
I don't think that's a good enough excuse. But the most of the profession will
will not want to consider a correlation if there's no close temporal association with that
with that injection. It's just part of unfortunately, it's a part of a blind spot there.
I would definitely look at ICD-Co's instance of mesenteric ischemia because
as I say, this was quite a rare condition, but it seems to become really common.
So that would be one that you could definitely. Sorry, which ischemia?
Yeah, mesenteric ischemia. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thanks so much, Bobby.
John Luca. Bobby, if you want to email me and then maybe I can.
Steven, I've really got to go. I'm afraid.
We've only got six minutes left. Okay.
Well, I'd appreciate the meeting finishes at 1030. But unfortunately, I can't be here till
1030. I've got a lot of going on in the background right now. So I'm going to have to go. I'm afraid.
I've got I can do it in one minute. I could do it in one minute.
I'm sorry, James. Right now, you know how to get the chat. All right. I'll put it right there. So
it's real easy. Take those two things and make something count with it. That's all you need.
Okay. Show me you can do that.
Take that book and take that short summary that mostly I've posted in little bits and pieces
because it doesn't fit. Do something with that. Anything. Okay. Anybody but you. Thanks.
So, James, thank you so much for coming on. Yeah, really appreciate it. And I think it's really
good to have British doctors on this platform or whatever you want to call it. We've got access to
the very important language English, which goes all around the world. And, you know,
rightly or wrongly, a lot of people, although we have Britain hasn't got the power,
military power that once had, it still retains the influence despite the fact that we've got the
clown, Keir Starmer, as our prime minister and the rest of the government, not that the last
government was any better, but well, actually was slightly better than this law. But anyway,
thank you so much. Thank you everybody for listening. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.