that report that's fantastic.
Sorry for the long.
Stephen, welcome to Stephen Frost's group.
Stephen is here.
Mickalai Rezak, welcome.
Stephen, please welcome Mickalai and Theresa,
are you through your good offices
that we've got Mickalai here with us today?
I understand, but Stephen first say hello,
then I'll go through some logistics
and we'll hear from Mickalai first.
Stephen.
Hi Mickalai.
I was trying to work out how to pronounce
your second name, is it Rasek?
I'll go for that, that's good enough.
I usually introduce myself as Dr. Razek.
It's actual not the correct pronunciation of my name,
but this is the easiest way to go with for Canadians.
How should it be pronounced then?
Rasek, the S-Z is like an S-H in English.
So it wasn't too far away.
No, no, I actually enjoyed it.
And the first one with a J at the end,
is it Mickalai?
Yeah, you got it, you got it.
It's the Polish way of spelling Nicholas.
Yes, okay.
Also not my pronunciation of my name,
but again, that's how I introduced myself my whole life
because that's what here people in Canada can handle.
The actual pronunciation is Mikołaj
and that seems to be quite difficult.
So I just go with Mickalai.
But Mickalai, it is M like-
Yeah, like Michael, that's right.
Yes, that's right.
Yes, because when you say-
Poland might be the only country in the world
that spells Nicholas with an M.
Oh, no, no, Hungary does the same.
Ah, oh, I didn't know that.
Look at that, okay.
Which country is that, Mickalai?
Poland.
Ah, yes, of course, yeah.
They like consonants in Poland, don't they?
They've got extremely difficult grammar.
Yes, we do.
It's actually one of the most difficult languages
in the world to learn because depending on a context,
you constantly have to change the end of
all of the words in a sentence.
So it's not like in English where you learn the word,
it's one word, in Polish it would be that same word
times 17 or something like that, it's ridiculous.
Yeah, so it's a way of separating the intellectuals from-
Is it, I don't know.
I don't know, the joke is Poland was occupied
throughout history so often, maybe this is our way to,
you know, minimize spies.
We don't know why, just ridiculously difficult.
Unless you're born into this language,
it's very challenging to learn a brand new.
Mickalai, have you seen that incredible video
of one of the truckers in Canada saying,
we're not even angry yet?
And then a Polish guy, Polish trucker comes on
and he can remember the Gdansk shipyard riots, you know?
And he said, so he explained what angry was.
So I was, someone was mentioning kid
when they met Terry Fox, right on, what a cool story.
I was a child in Poland when solidarity movement started.
That was the movement, it started in Gdańsk,
which is the port city of Poland.
And that's the movement that eventually helped to abolish
the communist regime in Poland.
And I actually did go to the support demonstration
in Edmonton, it was a lot of fun.
So I will echo what that one gentleman was mentioning.
It was basically giant street party.
I haven't seen this many happy people together in,
well, since start of pandemic.
And what was interesting, it was actually to see
a lot of solidarity signs.
So same as what we used in Poland,
but in English with the Canadian flag.
So I thought that was such an interesting parallel
to be witnessing that again, all over again in my life,
but now as an adult, as a kid, it didn't matter.
Like none of that mattered to me when I was a kid.
I was just, I wanted to play outside.
That's all that mattered to me, right?
Yeah, but we should actually copy their tactics.
And I did think of it at one stage
and then I forgot about it.
Because one of our best friends is Polish.
And she actually, she wasn't a political refugee,
but her father was because he was one of the leaders
of the Solidarity Movement.
And so he was one of Lech Valencia's right-hand men.
At the age of 15, when she was 15,
she later told my wife that she cried for a whole year
when she arrived in Sweden.
On the day that he was released from prison,
they left for Sweden from Poland for political crimes.
He was in prison for political crimes.
And they left with one suitcase, the whole family,
four children.
And she told my wife that she cried for a whole year
because she had to leave all her friends behind in Poland
and nobody understood her in Sweden
because she didn't speak English
and they didn't understand Polish.
But she trained as a doctor.
And strangely, she married my best friend
who's an Iranian refugee, political refugee.
Well, I can identify-
He trained as a dentist
at Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.
My parents immigrated to escape communist regime as well.
And I came to Canada without a single word of English.
And yes, it has somewhat delayed my personal growth,
I suppose, because you leave family behind.
And in a way, it's like suffering a form of amnesia
because all your memories that would have been re-triggered
because of the family members you see, where you live,
that's all gone.
So when I went back to Poland, many years later, actually,
I didn't go back to Poland for a couple of decades,
it was literally like coming out of amnesia
where suddenly there was a flood of memories
that I didn't realize I still had in the back of my head.
Just by seeing the streets where I grew up,
it's much better looking.
When I was leaving Poland, it was garbage
because all the money was siphoned away.
Everyone was living in poverty or almost everyone.
And yeah, totalitarian regimes, I'm not fond of.
So I am also proud of what the trackers are doing.
And the reason why is because in this context,
what they're truly fighting is whether people understand
this or not, and clearly media does not understand it,
is not to allow an accidental overreach of powers
because when that happens,
there can be a damage to society.
My family lived through it.
Exactly. It took 70 years to get out of it.
Incredible.
All right, David.
Yes.
Let's get Teresa who organized Mikolai.
Teresa, well done for introducing Mikolai
and how you know him, please,
before I give you a few logistics.
Well, as you know, I've been researching the spike protein
about as much as I can.
And Mikolai's excellent presentations on YouTube
have really helped me get to grips with it.
I'm not medically trained.
I've got a physics degree,
but he makes it simple just even for me to understand.
And I'm amazed with what he's saying
that he's still on YouTube.
Mikolai, you're smarter than YouTube.
This is-
He's been trained in Poland.
You had to fight communism in Poland too.
Yeah, exactly.
You had to be clever.
Yes, exactly.
You have to know how to bypass censorship.
So thank you for organizing that, everybody.
So I'm your moderator.
So here's the big picture.
Mikolai, for you as our guest speaker today,
Stephen, well done for organizing this group.
We meet twice a week.
Mikolai, so you're most welcome to join any time.
We'll go for two hours.
So we have a structured meeting for two hours
if because of huge question.
So you speak for 30 minutes, 40 minutes, thereabouts,
and then we'll moderate questions of you and discussions.
And then we have other discussions
and you're welcome to stay or go if you want to go.
And then at the two hour mark, it becomes,
it's like we have a formal church service
and then we go to the pub, then we go to the bar, okay?
And then it becomes free for all.
That's the type of structure.
So the people who are in the UK
can go to sleep at a reasonable hour
and that they know that structure.
And then the other creative conversation
comes from other places.
Secondly, the questions I moderate
and today we're gonna do slightly different.
We really wanna hear from people
who don't normally ask questions.
So don't be shy.
And I'm going to, Gary Finkelstein,
love to see your hand there.
He's got his hand up there already,
but then he'll ask a question at the end.
But I'm gonna give preference to people
who don't normally ask questions.
And we've got some interesting people on this call
that you'll enjoy speaking to.
And thirdly, as I said, my parents like yours,
like yours, Nikolai were from Hungary.
They were refugees from communism
who arrived in Australia in 1949.
And then, so in Hungarian,
Nicholas is Miklós with an M.
So there you are.
So it's the same structure as the Polish complexity.
Anyway, Nikolai Ruszek, welcome and over to you
for half an hour, 40 minutes, 45.
Would you like to share your screen?
Well, ladies and gentlemen,
I don't have that presentation ready
because I have no information as to
what is supposed to be structured here.
I literally find out, I knew this is coming
and then I found out and nothing more.
And then I got like three minutes prior.
Well, don't worry, Nikolai.
If you run out, have you got anything to say at the moment?
Because if you run out, we can organize questions.
We're good at questions.
Oh yeah, we can, depends.
Well, first let me know what is of interest to you
in terms of what content is of most interest to you.
My actual background and my specialty
is medical DNA testing.
However, I also work for a company,
startup company based in Edmonton, Alberta,
where we're developing ultra rapid COVID-19 test,
a test that can test you within literally seconds.
And so that's also my background
where I read a lot on COVID.
Also, is this being recorded by the way?
It is, yes, but it won't get published
without your permission.
So if I provide personal information
that I would not want to be shared,
do you want me to provide that information
or easier if I don't, for sake of simplicity?
Sorry, oh, I see about your firm, you mean.
My personal genetic information,
which normally should not be shared publicly,
but I can share with you
if it's not going to be shared publicly.
Your personal genetic information.
You mean your genetic code.
My genetic history of my, so I'll skip that.
It won't be shared publicly.
Okay, so my background also,
why my heavy interest in this pandemic
and researching it to quite an extent
is because obviously by being a proponent
of using medical DNA tests
so you can learn your predispositions,
obviously I decoded my own DNA
and I found out I have a genetic condition
that predisposes me to dying from pneumonia of all things.
So when the pandemic started,
I immediately started paying close attention
because, well, I didn't know if I'm gonna survive or not.
And like, I'm not afraid of dying, it is what it is,
but what are the precautions?
So the first month of the pandemic,
I probably did not leave the room
or my apartment, I should say.
And just started studying,
and like the information coming out from China
just looked horrible.
I remember when I first finally came out,
I came out at midnight where streets were empty
and it was so eerie and just so I can walk the streets
and not feel so weird.
But I started studying the information
right from the beginning.
And clearly I was also very much interested
in the vaccine as well.
So I am completely pro-vaccine person.
So just, I don't wanna be triggering everyone.
However, I am completely against mandates.
And right away when I started studying this information,
when it came to related to vaccines,
nothing was adding up.
And it created a sense of confusion in me
because I have spent number of years preparing myself
in order to launch my own business
about medical DNA testing.
And I took many years to prepare
in order to be able to actually deal with doctors.
What does it mean to be able to sell medical device?
What does it mean to deal with patients as clients
and so on?
And I learned a lot of background of what it means
to be able to deliver medical tests to a person.
And my entire business is actually built
around the idea of client informed consent.
So when vaccines came out,
everything seemed weird right away.
And my first red flag was the fact that
we adopted technology that has never been used before
based on extremely scant amount of scientific information.
And my background from medical genetics,
and just to fill you in, I have a degree in genetics.
And my undergrad degree is in genetics
and I have a doctorate degree in biochemistry.
So I'm not a medical doctor.
It just happened that I've been studying
medical published scientific information
my whole scientific career,
because everything you publish in terms of research
is almost always related to medicine one way or another.
And I was confused thinking like,
have I educated myself wrong?
This is not how we accumulate information
in order to approve any type of genetic test,
any type of information in order to be considered valid
in medical DNA testing.
It takes so much effort and repeat studies
before in medicine genetic testing is accepted.
And it's still only trickling in.
It's still not a standard, not a common standard at all,
which is why I bring it privately to patients in Canada.
And I was simply confused about that,
but I decided to, hey, listen, let's trust the authorities.
I'm just like a second rate scientist.
Obviously these people know better,
but I was shocked because ultimately vaccines were approved
based on results of a few hundred people, that's it.
And from results of a few hundred people, selected people,
we then expanded to vaccinating millions,
well, by now billions truly,
without any deep molecular understanding
of how these vaccines work.
And that's my personal interest.
Because my background in genetics and biochemistry,
molecular biology is what truly fascinates me.
And yes, we established that these vaccines are safe
from the appearance of clinical symptoms
within very, very short time.
And that same mantra that has been established
in the first two months of clinical trials
is now being repeated to this day.
Without actually establishing safety of these vaccines
for any longer duration than that.
I believe the last data that I might have seen published
in the scientific literature
may be extended up to six months.
And that's it, we still don't have a system
in being able to track what are the potential issues
related to vaccination.
The information is still slowly trickling out
as to what happens inside your body
once you get vaccinated.
I find it shocking that, and I'll pause right away,
I find it shocking that to this day,
we still don't know actually how much of the mRNA template
is used on average, meaning expressed,
used to produce the protein product.
We still don't know how long it lasts
in human body post-injection.
We still don't know where it is being distributed.
That's, I don't know, maybe I'm missing some information.
You have to understand COVID-19 is the most studied disease
probably in history.
We, in the last year long,
there's more than 100,000 publications published
on the topic.
Clearly I have read,
I've only read that tiny, tiny fraction of that, right?
But that's, as far as I understand,
no one knows this information.
We still don't know how long the spike protein lasts
post-vaccination.
There's now some hints, but that I've covered in my videos,
but a lot of that information is not being controlled.
So I see there's some hands up being raised.
So why don't I pause there and let's address
on those individuals in case those are questions.
Can I say, Charles, there is a Sam Seidy in Australia.
Steven, hang on.
I've spoken to Sam via chat.
So that's good.
I think that Sam would be the first questioner,
but before he does,
Theresa said that your knowledge around spike protein,
Mikolai, would you cover that broadly?
Give us a feel for that before we go to Sam
as the first questioner.
Okay, so the spike protein,
there's a lot of confusion on this.
So first of all, please appreciate that my primary focus
of interest in studies are the mRNA vaccines.
Because I'm actually fascinated with this technology.
And because of my field,
which is dealing with genetic disorders,
I'm obviously hoping that this technology,
once we perfect it, and we're nowhere near that,
once we perfect it, we will be able to use this technology
to treat some of the human diseases, genetic diseases.
And that hands my interest.
And actually also why I'm somewhat biased
to try to learn problems with this technology.
And it's not because I'm against the technology,
it's because I'm for the technology
and I want to know what doesn't work
so we can understand better
how we should fix those problems.
So then it's mRNA, of course, super brief background.
Think of DNA.
DNA is inside your cells.
Think of it as a repository of information.
It's a program code that evolved you from a single cell
to the multicellular organism that you are today.
And it's also a program code that runs you every day.
So us having this conversation
is dependent on that code as well, right?
But that's just repository of information.
It's housed inside the nucleus.
So think of nucleus as your filing cabinet.
In order to use this information,
you need to pull out files out of filing cabinet,
meaning we copied tiny fragments of that DNA
into what is called messenger RNA.
And done, messenger RNA is then taken out of the nucleus
and that is finally what is used as a template
to produce the product of interest, which are proteins.
And then think of proteins as tiny molecular robots.
And that's exactly what they are.
They are little robots
that do all of the work inside your cells.
So then, vaccinal mRNA tricks our cells into thinking,
oh, hey, this is just another mRNA that came out of nucleus.
Of course, there's some trickery going on there
to make sure that we can fool the cell.
And as a consequence, once the vaccine vehicle enters the cell
and there's a very clever designs behind it
so that it can fuse with the cell and deliver that messenger,
then the cell will take that information
and produce the spike protein, the little molecular robot.
Now let's talk about the spike, the protein.
So mRNA is just a template to produce the protein.
And the protein for the mRNA vaccines are identical
to what would be found inside a virus
with exception of presence of two mutations.
And two amino acid residues are mutated.
Amino acids are the building blocks of the protein.
So think of like Lego building blocks,
except they're all interconnected in a single long chain
and a long chain is then folded, folded, folded, folded,
and you get a three-dimensional entity.
And then two of these amino acids
somewhere within that protein were mutated.
And what that does is it affects
what the spike protein could do later on in its life cycle.
So normal spike protein,
you probably are aware of what its shape,
it looks like a, I always call it,
it looks like a Hercules club, right?
It has that bigger head and then there's a stalk below.
Now, eventually that head is used to interact
with the human receptors in order to initiate the contact
between the virus and the cell.
That head will be ripped off eventually.
It will literally come off.
And below that head,
and this is what a lot of people don't know,
are arms, they're folded.
They're literally like arms.
And these arms unfold, they will unfold, go up,
and these arms will latch onto the cell and grab the cell.
Literally they fuse with the membrane of the cell,
which is like the skin of the cell, if you will.
And because they fused with it and latched onto it,
those same arms then go back down.
And as they start going down,
they literally bring the cell closer
and closer and closer to the virus.
And eventually the membrane of the virus
fuses with the membrane of the cell.
And that's how a virus delivers its genetic material
inside the cell.
Now, these arms cannot fold up like this
in the vaccinal spike protein
because of these two mutations that have been introduced.
So that's the, and that is the only difference.
Meaning if you produce the spike protein,
that spike protein would not, from vaccine,
that spike protein from vaccine,
once the head is ripped off, those arms will not unfold
and that spike protein will not be able to latch on
to any adjacent cell.
However, everything prior to that, it looks identical
and therefore it could mimic in every way
what happens with the actual viral protein.
There could be differences, but we don't know
because no one is looking at this as far as I know.
No one is studying this.
So what could be the differences
when you produce a protein inside your cell,
once the protein is made,
it's also decorated on top with sugar molecules,
with specific type of sugar molecules.
So sugar is a very wide family of chemicals.
The ones we put into our coffee is just one glucose,
it's just one type.
And we decorate these proteins with sugar molecules.
That could be one potential difference
between the vaccinal protein
versus natural post-infection viral protein
is maybe how the sugar molecules are attached.
But again, we don't really know,
it's not really studied in detail.
That could actually differentiate them
in how they behave afterwards
and how one is pathogenic versus the other
because there is now of course emerging evidence
that spike protein in itself is a toxic material.
So that's the background on spike protein.
Is that sufficient enough?
Excellent, thank you, Mikolai.
So remember everybody, I'm giving priority today
following conversation with Steven
to people who don't normally ask questions.
And remember in any group that you are in,
that people, it can be somewhat scary asking questions.
And so we wanna encourage everybody
who's not usually asking questions
to ask questions as well.
So Sam, tell us about you with your interesting background
and then I suggest ask your questions
rather than send them through in writing to Mikolai.
Welcome.
Hi, can you hear me okay?
Yep.
Good, I'm 10,000 miles away.
Okay, I'm a surgeon, but my background,
my previous background was in genomics.
I was at the, I was at Cambridge,
which is linked to the Sanger Center
doing genomic research into endometrial cancer
and that's how I got interested in the COVID thing
because as soon as they said mRNA, I went,
hold on a second, that's tricky stuff.
You've gotta know about mRNA and a lot of people don't.
And David Wiseman, I don't know if anybody saw this,
but David Wiseman highlighted this nicely
in the Senator Ron Johnson hearing the other day
when he held up a piece of paper and said,
how many of you people here know
about untranslated regions?
And a few people put their hands up,
but you've got a whole group of highly qualified doctors
in that room and they don't know
about untranslated regions.
So that's where we are.
And we're battling a technology that has great promise
in terms of cancer therapy.
And I don't have any doubts about that,
but in terms of managing infections,
possibly less promise.
So I did have some specific questions
that we haven't really looked at
and we are discussing offline in small groups.
And I thought it might be useful to bring them up to Miko
to have a chat.
Now, I did enjoy your video of you walking through,
talking about the spike protein in the nucleus.
And I think the reason we're here,
I think the reason Miko's here is because
the paper that he was talking about
showed that it was the spike protein itself,
not the mRNA or anything else,
but the spike protein itself,
which can get into the nucleus of the cell
and interfere with P53 and BRCA pathways.
Now, as an oncologist, that's a real problem.
We spend our lives fighting
with P53 and BRCA interference
because P53 and BRCA interference
causes ovarian and breast cancer.
So if you interfere with those pathways,
you've got a bit of a problem, not a problem now,
it's a problem in 20 years time.
So we don't know how much.
And the same can be said for COVID virus,
spike protein as a manufactured spike protein.
So it doesn't matter how the spike protein is made,
it appears to get into the nucleus.
And one of the things that came up
was am I able to share screens on this
or is that not possible, do we know?
Yes, you can, I'll give that to you, Sam, hang on.
Yes, you can.
So, let's see if this works.
So there was a document that came out
and I don't think they realized
that this document was coming out, this one.
It's called the Non-Clinical Evaluation Report
for the Comianati, which is an interesting name,
it will come to soon.
And,
Nico, I don't know if you saw this,
but this was, after your presentation,
I looked at this and I thought,
oh, well, this is potentially a problem
because the paper that you referenced
was spike protein in immune cells
getting into the, interfering with the P53
and BRCA pathway.
And what we have here in this picture, can you see this?
Yeah, good.
So what we have here in this picture is a hearth stain
which shows nuclei, the blue things.
The blue things are nuclei.
The red things are the endoplasmic reticulum,
which is where the spike protein is manufactured.
And this green, let me put the annotation on,
the green is where the spike protein
is being discovered in the cell itself.
So you can see, there's the nucleus there.
The spike protein is being produced here
and then ejected mostly this way.
But what they didn't realize when they published this picture
is that the spike protein is also here,
which is in the nucleus.
And that's not a great surprise.
One way or another,
the spike protein is being produced in that area
and then is by whatever mechanism can also happen
with the viruses can get into the nucleus.
So one way or another,
that spike protein is going to hit the nucleus
if it's produced next to it.
So my first question to Mika was,
what do you think about this?
Wow, if you can share that information,
that link, I would love,
this is actually the first confirmation that I see.
It's actually a public link,
but I'll put it in the chat now.
I would absolutely love it.
It's the first time I see a confirmation
of that sweeter study, which of course was also denied
as controversial because indeed
there are other studies published
that were not able to show spike protein presence
inside the nucleus.
So this is the first time I see a confirmation
and it's different.
This one is Vaxel spike protein.
So that's also would be the first of its kind
that I'm seeing, which is indeed problematic.
And I personally hate it.
I wish this wasn't happening at all.
Now, if spike protein indeed is getting inside the nuclei
and interfering with fixing damage DNA,
then one hopes that what this will do is
well, it will lead to so much genetic damage in such cells
that it will actually lead to committing the cellular path
towards suicide.
So apoptosis.
So then-
It's totally fine.
But if it's not, then that's deeply problematic
because if those cells can then subsequently divide,
we will be passing on genetic mutations
to the next generation cells,
which clearly can promote cancer development.
Not, I will grab the link while I have it,
but not news that we want to be seeing at all.
So that paper from Jang,
which was the one that you talked about
showing the effect of the spike protein
on P53 in immune cells,
that one has now got a warning on it
sort of being sort of expression of concern.
But the interesting thing about that
is the person who wrote the expression of concern
has nothing to do with that group at all.
That's right.
The warning is about something completely unrelated
to the content of the video.
It's ridiculous, but that's how it works.
Censorship works, right?
That way.
It doesn't have to be relevant.
No, great.
Well, maybe we'll talk offline.
We do need to get some-
But I can-
Looking at that information and saying,
well, is this a real problem
or is it not a real problem from an oncology perspective?
Well, you're confirming that it is a potential problem
because however, the problem will,
you as yourself will know,
the problem is not gonna show up
till five years or longer from now.
Clinical symptoms from cancers take years to show up
because-
Well, even that genomic mechanism takes 10, 20, 30, 40 years.
So we know that from our BRCA patients.
It is an issue.
I also am currently reviewing
a paper that was brought to my attention
that suggests another mechanism of action
of how vaccines could be promoting cancer development.
So I haven't finished reading it,
but I'm quite into it.
And it talks about use of exosomes
and how cells release exosomes with post-vaccination
with specific microRNA.
So I'm not sure if you're familiar with that.
If you are, then I'm not sure.
If you are, then I'll just mention that.
And that might be-
That was the next question.
That was the next question,
which I've just put the link to in here.
So the next link I've just posted is this one,
which I'll show again, the share screen.
And this is a really interesting sort of subject here.
Just give me a second.
Try again.
So this is the paper,
Quantum MicroRNA Assessment of COVID-19 Vaccine,
Hidden Potency of BNT162V2 SARS-CoV-2 Spike RNA
as MicroRNA Vaccine.
Now-
Huh, you are a wealth of information from me, sir.
That's incredible.
A lot of people don't know.
And it is a bit weird for me
because the name of this, the Pfizer one,
is, I don't know if people realize it,
it's not spelled with an mRNA.
It's spelled Co-mRNA-T, which is Co-M-I-RNA.
Right, M-I-RNA, yeah.
Yeah, so it's always been a bit odd to me.
Where did they get these names from?
And I think they've got an army of people
who can come up with names, but-
If I can-
Oscar.
Oscar, yeah.
I just wanted to let people know what microRNAs are.
Maybe if that's the case, super briefly.
So there are many types of RNAs that are being produced.
So RNAs is, remember, RNA is something
that is copied from your DNA.
Now messenger RNA is just a template to produce proteins,
but there are many other types of RNAs
that are being produced.
And microRNAs, think of them
as tiny little chemicals that can modulate
how other things are used inside your cell.
And that's basically how a cell can respond
to the outside environment very rapidly.
Just like epigenetics is an environmental response,
so is microRNAs.
So these are tiny little fragments of RNA,
and they can impact how the messenger RNAs are being used.
So they can impact to what degree you use a template.
So you can sometimes decrease the use of template
if you want to as a response to the environment.
So the template is introduced inside the cell,
but then microRNAs can go in there and start affecting.
And they have many functions,
and RNAs have themselves many, many different functions.
So that's just like one little background.
Think of it as a cell's personal,
one of cell's many personal languages that cell uses
in order to determine what do I do as a cell
in order to survive in this environment.
Yeah, great summary.
And then microRNAs are not something
that we know huge amounts about,
because they've only been around.
That's right.
The knowledge about these things
has only been around for maybe 15 years or so.
But they're basically like-
They were a surprise discovery.
Yeah, little fragments.
So I don't know if you can see my picture now,
but little fragments of RNA.
I think they look like bongs,
those things that you smoke through.
But there we are.
They've got a little end which can interfere,
and then these little stalks,
all of which can bind to RNA,
a bit like transfer RNA,
which are the little fragments of RNA
which bind onto mRNA to create your protein.
So they're shaped a bit like that.
And for the same reason,
they can interfere with the function of RNA
so they can increase it or they can decrease it.
And not much is known about them.
There's a handful of microRNAs
that we know have been linked into cancer progression
or regression.
So there are therapeutics being made or designed
for as cancer therapeutics,
which include microRNAs.
But as we all know,
most of the people sitting in this room, I guess,
will know that when you interfere
with any process in the human body,
you have to be sure that you're not getting
a knock-on effect on the other end,
which makes your therapeutic do exactly the opposite
of what you intended.
And I think we're all seeing those things happen, aren't we?
So I just wondered whether you had any handle
on the microRNA situation with the spike gene
or the mRNA version of the gene,
and I think you've answered that question.
So I think that's something we need to,
maybe we need to look at offline,
but it's certainly a possibility, isn't it?
Definitely. Give me some time.
I would love to read that paper
that you just provided the link to.
And as I was mentioning, a review just got published,
which talks about that as well.
There might be actually referencing that paper as well.
So it would be great to collage that knowledge
so that we can have a more appropriate,
deeper discussion on a molecular level.
So absolutely.
Of course, that's not what I want to be seeing.
Why? Because majority of our public is vaccinated.
We don't want to be seeing our population getting sicker
as an unintended consequence of this program.
And as you mentioned, when you introduce therapy,
you better know every aspect of it
because there can be surprise unintended consequences,
which is why clinical trials take years
before therapeutic is allowed to come to the market.
So that was two bits of four.
We're nearly there.
The next...
Guys, is this all right stuff?
Are we okay to carry on?
Yes, absolutely, Sam.
Sam, this is good because Nikolai was here for us.
And so with your knowledge,
all of the rest of us can learn from this.
And Nikolai, can you look at the chat
because there's some questions that might be relevant
as Sam is raising his stuff
in terms of Anna asked a question.
So you can be the judge of that,
but Sam, go on to your next.
I can answer Anna's question as an oncologist.
From what we are aware,
I should be able to take a chunk of somebody's cancer,
rub it all over me, put it in my mouth,
and nothing will happen to me.
And the reason for that is that you've got
different MHC proteins.
And so our body will just reject it completely
in the same way that a transplant will be rejected
unless it's a specific type.
So you could in theory get a cancer
from a very close relative with the same MHC,
but it's gonna be very, very unlikely.
So you can't get cancer from somebody else's cancer.
Otherwise, as oncologists would be
out of the game very quickly.
Yes.
You wanna go for the second one from Tom?
Yeah.
How many of these mRNA templates are in there?
Billions, literally billions.
Billions.
And the reason why is because the amount
that is normally when we are informed,
we're talking about, I believe this is from memory,
so I might have this reverse.
One of the mRNA vaccines is 30 micrograms of mRNA
and the other one is 100 micrograms.
Now, when it comes to one microgram of genetic content,
we are now talking about billions,
maybe even trillions of molecules, individual molecules.
So the amount is absolutely enormous.
I didn't do the calculations.
I could in theory, I could measure the molecular weight
of the mRNA and we could translate it based
on Avogadro's number to see what one microgram has
in terms of the amount of mRNAs, but it will be in billions.
It's a really, really large amount.
So I hope that answers Tom's question.
So is that in each nano lipid,
like how many are per nano lipid particle?
Is it one to one or is it many to one?
I do not know, but I would imagine no,
that it would not be one molecule mRNA
inside that one little vehicle.
I would imagine there'll be plenty.
I could be wrong about that, but I, as far as I understand,
within the little vehicle,
it's encapsulated with other lipids
and there should be a plethora of them in each vehicle,
but I actually don't know for sure.
So this is speculative answer on my part.
Okay.
Bear in mind now that you've,
Mikhail, I can refute this all not,
but I think you have a dawning.
A lot of people don't realize
that the lipid nanoparticles are used
and actually declared to be used in a specific way.
And we know it in the lab as transfection,
lipid transfection.
So lipid transfection is a mechanism.
So a normal cell can't get,
won't allow RNA, exogenous RNA into itself.
You have to push it in.
And in the lab, we do that with sometimes electricity,
so electroporation,
but other mechanisms of getting RNA into the cell
include chemicals.
And the most commonly used one is a lipid-based one
called lipofectamine,
or maybe they've advanced since then.
Mikhail, I don't know.
But lipofectamine 2000 and 3000, the trade names,
and they are pretty much the same
as the lipid nanoparticles.
So when you're getting a lipid nanoparticle with RNA,
that's basically a transfection reagent.
You're getting your cells transfected.
And that's the actual intention,
the declared intention of the mechanism of action.
So it's transfection of your cells
with an exogenous RNA or DNA.
Now the AstraZeneca and the J&J work in a different way.
They use a vector, another virus vector
to get that information into your cells.
But in the absence of that viral vector,
which is what the AZ uses,
the only mechanism to get RNA into your cells
is to use a transfectant.
And the lipid nanoparticle is not only a vehicle
to move the RNA around the body,
but the actual intention of it is to act
as a transfectant medium,
which is to push that RNA into your cells.
Correct.
And this, what has been one of the major stumbling blocks
in the development of the RNA vaccines
is to be able to properly create that vehicle
that would be able to enter the cell.
And they've done some phenomenal work
to be able to figure that out.
One of the major contributing factors
that helps these vehicles is the charge.
So the lipids that are made for the encapsulation
that holds the mRNA, those are synthetic lipids.
The majority of them do not show up in nature at all.
They don't exist in nature.
So they are specifically created
in order to be able to fool our cells
in order to be able to start interacting.
And it's based on charge.
So these are positively charged lipids.
And most of our cell membranes on the outside
are negatively charged.
Just for sake of simplicity,
just think of everything in nature
has a charge attached to it.
For sake of simplicity, you can think of it that way.
Everything in nature is regulated by two things.
Three-dimensional shape is one,
and it's electric charge is the second.
And that basically, as far as my scientific understanding
governs absolutely everything in biology.
So then these lipid molecules are negatively charged,
positive versus, sorry, positively charged
versus outside of the cells, negatively charged.
And that allows them to come into contact
and start the fusion process.
But that's not my area of expertise.
I've only studied a little bit.
I'm much more focused on what happens
molecularly post-vaccination.
There's another question from Lisa.
How long do these spike proteins stay in a body?
That's one of unanswered questions.
There's only two publications that I've seen.
One was that macrophages, which is one of your immune cells,
they can actually hold spike protein
for longer than a year.
That's one paper I saw.
And the other one I covered in one of my videos,
number 16, if you wanna keep track of that.
It talks about exosomes.
And they found that the length of exosomes
in post-vaccination with a spike protein embedded.
Exosomes is another little fat molecule
similar to what is used in vaccine.
And with a spike protein embedded in those exosomes,
they last up to four months,
at least for the entire duration of...
Oh, sorry, I have a phone call coming in.
I just need to inform them so they don't call back.
Thanks.
So we don't fully know yet,
but we're looking at four years in terms of exosomes,
four months in terms of exosomes,
and in terms of macrophages holding it in their compartments.
16 months was the longest time that I've seen.
And it's a shame that it's not studied in more detail.
Sorry, sorry, Sam.
I'm very good at getting rid of toxins.
Okay, good.
So just the next question now
relates to the untranslated region,
which is what David Wiseman was talking about.
And this is the World Health Organization,
our favorite people,
who document that David held up.
And this is the sequence of the fires.
There's another sequence for Moderna,
they are eventually in the public domain,
but by circuitous routes,
which I won't touch on here.
This is how the RNAs is organized,
any RNA is organized in this fashion.
And we have a cap.
And the RNA is read from the five prime ends
to the three prime ends.
So when you hear these nomenclatures,
that's what he's talking about.
And the UTR is supposedly the untranslated region.
So that's the bit that doesn't get translated into protein,
but it does have relevance in terms of what happens
and the relevance is these ends.
And again, Mika, correct me if you think I'm wrong,
but these ends in terms of RNA therapies
act as a kind of biological adjuvant.
You'll know that there's no adjuvant
as such in the mRNA vaccines.
All the more traditional vaccines have an adjuvant
to make the body react more efficiently
against the thing that you're trying to induce.
And I'm just, vaccines do, some vaccines do work,
so it is a mechanism that's tried and tested.
But this is different.
So what we do here is we use different ends,
three primes and five prime ends
to produce a different amount of protein.
The protein that we're producing
is the bit from the gene sequence in the middle.
The five prime untranslated regions for these,
they're all using alpha globin,
which is a gene of hemoglobin,
and that's predominantly produced in the liver,
which might explain some instances of hepatitis.
The three prime, the other end of this,
the three prime untranslated region,
this gets really interesting.
Because it was described back at the time
as to what it is, and it's very unusual
because the Moderna one uses the other half
of the alpha globin gene.
It's been a well-known three prime,
has been used for a number of years in various experiments.
I don't think it's ever been used in a vaccine.
But this three prime here, I don't know if you can read this,
but it says, I'll read it now,
the three prime untranslated region
comprises two sequence elements derived
from the amino terminate enhancer of split, AES,
and the mitochondrial encoded 12S ribosomal RNA
to confer RNA stability and high total expression.
So what this actually is,
this amino terminal enhancer of split
is another one of these tumor suppressor proteins.
So whereas we were talking about ovarian cancer before,
AES pathways are involved in endometrial and colon cancers.
And the other name for this,
this is a very, it's a difficult name to remember.
So the other much easier name to remember
for this protein is Groucho.
So this is the Groucho pathway.
And that bit of the gene is taken from that gene,
the Groucho gene, and it's human RNA.
It's not a mouse RNA or anything else
that won't necessarily react with the human body,
it's human RNA.
And the other bit of that is mitochondrial RNA,
so the 12S ribosome from mitochondria.
So we're using, and we can do what we call
a BLAST comparison.
So if I go to BLAST online and see,
well, what is the sequence of this
and how does this compare to human RNA?
And as long as you can see this, hopefully,
this is a, these are both perfect matches
for the described sequences.
So what they've described is exactly what they've described.
And this first one is another name for Groucho,
and this one is the mitochondrial RNA.
So the question I've got for you, Miko,
is what do you think about, oh, sorry, let me just,
the rest of the story comes here,
which is really the clincher,
and I shouldn't let you down by finishing early.
The reason this was chosen was in this paper here,
which is by Hugo Sahin, who is the head of BioNTech.
And I'll just time that, this is this one, okay?
And the reason it was chosen was published here in 2019.
Sorry, I'll stop sharing and reshare.
And with that paper, which was published in 2019,
now working, molecular therapy,
on 27 April 2019.
That paper is called,
Improving mRNA-Based Therapy to Gene Delivery
by Expression-Augmenting 3-Prime UTRs
Identified by Cellular Library Screening.
And what that means is that they used a whole panel
of different 3-prime UTRs and translated regions
attached to an RNA to see which would produce
the most protein and the most effect in the spleen.
So it was specifically designed to see
which was going to be taken up the most by the spleen
and produce the most immune response, and this was in mice.
So this was done 2019 for the first time in mice.
Let's see if we can find any mice on here.
Mice are lovely creatures, we love mice.
There we go, there are the mice.
And you can see from this, hopefully,
that they were all taken up in the spleen.
And that was the untranslated region
that was chosen for the next vaccine candidate,
and that was in 2019.
So this particular untranslated region
has never been used before this rollout.
And the question I've got for Mika is,
what do you think about the consequences
of using human RNA in the 3-prime untranslated region
in this way?
Do you think there could be consequences?
Do you think it's a good thing, not a good thing?
Robert Malone was dismissing this last week as an issue,
and I don't quite know why,
because it's so new.
So I'll hand that over.
One of the reasons why is because
I think it's not yet fully even understood
as to how they work and what their true purpose is.
Yes, that's right, we know it is involved
in affecting how much a given product is made,
but really how it works is not even yet understood, I thought.
So I haven't studied that information in that detail,
that's just simply my general answer,
so I wouldn't be able to answer
your complex question, to be honest.
I will add though that my understanding is that
you're mentioning lack of adjuvant in these vaccines.
That's because the vaccine itself,
the charge apparently itself of those lipid vehicles
is an adjuvant in itself.
It stimulates the immune system in its own right.
So maybe that's why they're skipping
the typical traditional adjuvants
that are being added to vaccines.
But I wouldn't be able to answer,
that's too complicated for me to be able to go there,
because I haven't really studied RNAs in that complex detail,
and one of the reasons was also because it still
carries certain mystery behind it.
And that's the point that David Wiseman was making,
look, I've got a PhD, you're currently employed,
you're currently active in the field of genomics,
and we can't answer this question.
So if we can't answer this question,
then how can Robert Malone answer the question,
and how can the FDA, who's not used to dealing
with genetic genomic therapies, answer the question,
and how can the MHRA answer the question?
That's what they can't answer.
Sam, what did Robert Malone say?
I've actually got a video, but he basically,
he overtaught on David Wiseman,
who was discussing this issue,
and then later on, he at the end of,
so if you see the five hour thing at the end of the hearing,
he says, oh, well, I know about the three prime issue,
but I'm not worried about it, which is really dismissive.
And the reason, I think it was completely-
Why didn't somebody ask him about the animal studies then?
Well, I think in Malone's time, he, as I say,
the alpha globin and the alpha globin
and translated regions have been used for a long time,
so that is a bit more well-known,
even though it hasn't been rolled out into large trials.
So bear in mind, the vaccine therapy,
and as I said, the vaccine therapy idea for cancers is great,
but the risk-benefit ratio is completely different.
The reason that we're trying to develop
cancer vaccine therapy is because at the moment,
the alternative is the person dies.
So if we've got no chemotherapy agents that are effective,
the person dies.
So the risk-benefit ratio there is we give you something
that may affect you in 10 years' time.
It's no problem.
Thanks, give it to me, please,
because I'm gonna die in the next year.
So that's a completely different situation.
Where it comes to a preventative therapy,
we're talking about 1,000 times less risk
of the actual disease.
So it's a completely different ballgame.
So when they've rolled out vaccine therapies
for cancer in the past,
there've been a small phase one trials
of small numbers of people,
and we won't see the effect of the
untranslated regions problem if there is one,
and we don't know if there is,
within the noise of those treatments,
because there's a 20 to 70% death rate
in the people that you're treating
from the disease that you're treating them for.
So it's a completely different ballgame
when it comes to clinical trials.
Somebody asked me for the paper.
The mouse paper is actually online in molecular therapy.
I'll look for the link while I'm asking the last questions,
the last bits of it.
You'll be pleased to know for those
that don't like these conversations.
The last one is, I don't know if you've seen,
we've been discussing read through of the stop codons.
So when they're used in the mRNA therapies,
they've used pseudouridin instead of uracil,
which is the traditional component of RNA.
And there are a number of papers floating around,
which I can refer to.
I'll post in the link in a second.
But one in the main one in nature from Carrie Jovich,
I think, probably another poll.
Who, and by the way, my mother's Polish, so.
So who published that if you use pseudouridin
in your RNA, your stop codons don't work.
So you have this mRNA sequence
and you have the stop codon.
We should stop the translation of the mRNA into the protein.
So it should give you those amino acids
that you're looking for.
But instead of doing that, they don't work.
So therefore the mRNA keeps reading,
the ribosome keeps reading,
in which case what you will get is a protein
which includes your graft or protein fragments
and your mitochondrial ribosomal fragments.
And that could be a problem
if the body reacts to it, I guess.
Wow, okay, that I didn't know.
I'll give you the paper that's here.
Yeah, that is interesting because then you,
just like you said,
you'd be producing some form of a chimera,
but at the same time,
you most likely would introduce a stop codon by accident,
just because of the redundancy of genetic information.
But yeah, you'd be producing some sort of a chimera.
One would have to run it, well, check the sequence
to see if you were to read through,
is there accidental stop codon in that five UTR region?
Yeah, well, the problem is that all the nucleotides
coding to the stop codon don't work, all of them, all three.
Oh, I see, I see, that's right.
So even if you introduce a new one,
okay, yeah, right, then you'd still be reading through.
Well, then you're producing a spike protein
that would have on its terminus,
another protein attached to it,
fragment of a protein, very bizarre.
Okay, that's new to me, so that's fascinating.
So Sam and Mikhail, for that matter,
is there evidence, do you think there's enough evidence
of intent to cause harm here?
Because there were no animal studies
prior to the rollouts of the vaccination
in inverted commas in the UK,
on the 8th of December, 2020, I think it was,
or it could have been the 7th of December.
There were no animal studies, all the ferrets died.
I was told yesterday that there were mice studies
and chicken studies, is that correct?
Prior, all the animals died.
No, I think that is definitely,
I think that's a misinformation,
which is a combination of information.
So that the ferrets and cats that died
were in previous coronavirus vaccine studies.
So that's a different issue,
which is using more traditional technology.
And it is part of the reason
for justifying the mRNA approach,
because in the previous approaches
to coronavirus vaccine studies in animals,
particularly for pets, veterinary studies,
the animals did not do very well in those studies.
So you've got ferrets and cats.
Are we talking about the mRNA now?
No, no, no, definitely not, definitely not mRNA.
So mRNA studies, as I've said to you,
and in fact, if you can give me a second,
I should be able to post the link,
I'll do it in a minute.
The one that I showed you was from 2019.
The point of that animal study,
the mice study that you saw there,
that was the first time that they used
that three prime untranslated region
in any RNA candidate therapy.
So it was an experimental candidate,
that was the first time they used it.
So there was no time then to do animal studies
with that candidate, with animal studies,
with a long-term follow-up, say in monkeys or whatever.
That just cannot have happened.
You can do mice, mice, mice.
I do like mice.
Mice live a couple of years.
If you don't have a mouse,
you should get on there, mice are creatures.
Mice live a couple of years.
So in order to see a long-term follow-up on a mouse study,
you'd have to do older age mice.
And they're not that easy to get a hold of.
Most of the mice you get in the labs, young mice,
a lot of them are nude mice, which is what we use a lot.
And they last a few weeks and then they're terminated.
And the pregnancy turnover is quite fast.
So they can do pregnancy studies
in a matter of weeks or months.
But what they can't do in the pregnancy studies
in a matter of weeks or months
is look at the off-screen long-term.
So in the study that was actually published on the,
if you go into the TGA's Freedom of Information section,
you'll see some of these studies
because they were requested.
And so in those studies,
you'll see that what they did was,
for the pregnancy study for the BioNTech,
what they did was they looked at 22 mice.
Then at the end of the deliveries of the 22 mice,
they had so many pups, et cetera,
and they commented on what happened to the pups.
And there were one or two abnormalities
and some of that is normal.
And then they euthanized them, all the pups.
So there's no, and that was within a few days.
So there was no long-term studies
of what happens to those pups.
And they can't be,
because there was never the time to do that.
AstraZeneca was even worse
in that there was no animal studies at all
for the AstraZeneca vaccine before it was rolled out.
And that got them some criticism.
But that's, the absence of animal studies
is against the Nuremberg Code.
So the AstraZeneca, I think, went backtracked
and looked at animal studies there back in 2000,
I'm getting my years of them now, 2020.
And that may be one of the reasons
why the N501Y mutation appeared,
because if you make a new mouse model for SARS-CoV-2,
one of the necessary interventions for that mouse model
is to introduce a gene change,
which produces the N501Y mutation.
And we all know about the N501Y mutation,
because it was the famous UK strain,
which appeared around September last year,
which is around the time at which the protocol was made
for the N501Y mutation.
That's a different story.
And so the AstraZeneca were a bit behind the eight ball
on the animal studies.
I think, Stephen, that in principle, you're right,
but of course there's lots of Nuremberg Code issues
involved here.
So the animal studies for the finds are available on the TV.
Sam, can I ask you a very important question?
Why did Robert Malone cut off David Wiseman in public?
I think you'd have to ask Robert Malone that question.
Okay.
Or David.
When did Robert Malone first start asking questions?
It was September, wasn't it?
I think the first time I really heard about him
was when he came on board in Rome, whenever that was.
And he actually read the physician's guidelines.
And I remember thinking at the time,
hang on a minute, why is Robert Malone doing it?
We've hardly heard from him up to now.
He's the inventor of the mRNA vaccine.
Well, just to be clear,
he says that he's the inventor of the mRNA technology.
That's the wording that he uses.
Because Ugo Sahin is the inventor of this mRNA vaccine.
That's fair and square on him.
So if it works, that's his credit.
And if it doesn't work, then obviously that's the opposite.
So the technology that Malone is referring to
goes back to 1990.
And I have the paper, you can download it,
but it's Malone RW.
And it was basically just an investigation
of what happens if you inject RNA and DNA into a mouse.
And then they showed that if you inject
labeled RNA or DNA into a mouse,
that will get into the cells of the mouse
one way or another.
And that was without using lipid nanoparticles and stuff.
So it does happen without those additional technologies.
It's just that the transfection agent
and lipid nanoparticles make it more efficient.
I think Miko, is that right?
Yeah, that's right.
So, but however, he might've been the first one
to be able to demonstrate that this can happen
and will hence his claim to fame.
Yeah, I would say so.
So, but then this is very far from being able to say
that this is an inventor of vaccine technology
because we were finally moved.
And let's contribute it to the field.
There's no doubt.
Unless of course the people pushing the vaccines
wanted everybody to listen to Malone and nobody else.
So I'm very surprised that two scientists,
that Malone, it's very interesting
because Malone came onto our group here.
He didn't want to listen to anybody on the call at all.
He wasn't the presenter and he took over
and he wouldn't answer any questions.
I tried to ask him something.
He just carried on with what he wants to say.
So I'm very suspicious of Malone.
I think he's controlled opposition.
Anyway, look, Steven, we've got a number of questions.
I think I finished my questions for Mikhail.
I hope that's, I don't know if that's...
Yeah, I'm afraid I wasn't able to help you
with the RNA component, but that's partially
because my understanding is still unknown, simply unknown.
But obviously we're very cleverly designed
in terms of the selection process, right?
But indeed then imagine taking this experimental technology
and literally we are undergoing the biggest experiment
on humans ever undertaken.
And then Steven, in answer to your question,
was this deliberate?
I can only...
And Mikhail, you go first.
It's so hard to answer that.
You know what?
I try not to subscribe to these type of dark way of thinking.
And I purposely prefer to remain naive.
What I actually think was happening,
there is no, that there wasn't maybe a specific design
apart from true desire to help,
while obviously at the same time,
wanting to make a lot of money.
I actually believe that the inventors of this technology
thought they were doing humanity a grand service
and while at the same time wanting to get obscenely rich.
And I would have gone for the same purpose
if I thought I was about to help the humanity
while making good money.
As a consequence of that,
I would have wanted to participate in that project too.
What might not have happened is...
I don't think anyone understood
the unintended consequences afterwards,
which basically number one,
the technology was understudied
and number two was overused.
And I would agree with all that.
In terms of answering the questions, Steven,
you know that we can't answer the question.
What I can say is that my impression,
this is the point that David Wiseman
was trying to get across is,
we're having this conversation now.
We've got some PhDs and MDs in this group,
smart people, and we're having this conversation.
We're looking through a field of straw,
looking for an answer, which may be a needle.
And there is no way on earth that the FDA, the MHRA,
the TGA, the EMA, who handle normal chemical compounds
as their bread and butter, have any idea at all
what they were dealing with and how to assess it.
They have no idea about codon read-through.
They have no idea about protein elongation.
They have no idea about microRNAs.
They have no idea about 3' UTRs
and the possibility of cross-reaction.
They have no idea about any of that, and they did not ask.
But Sam, that in itself is gross negligence, manslaughter,
and misconduct in public office.
It's misconduct.
Look, I think any way you slice this,
unless those regulators come forward,
and bear in mind, you know, as you'll have seen
from the Freedom of Information request that's gone round,
those officers did not even look at the clinical record forms
of those trials.
They didn't look at one single clinical record form
to ascertain whether or not the data that was given to them
in a shiny brochure was real.
Not one.
So not only did they not know what they were dealing with,
they didn't take the additional steps,
because they could have argued,
well, we don't know what's in this,
and this is why it's gone through the biologics pathway
in the FDA so that they don't know what's in it,
because they don't care, because what they will say is,
okay, well, we don't know what's in it.
It's like taking tree bark extract.
We don't know what's in it, but if it works and it's safe,
all well and good, we don't act.
It doesn't matter to us.
We're just the regulators.
Our job is just to make sure it's safe.
But in order to do that,
they have to have looked at the clinical data thoroughly,
which means making sure that the clinical record forms,
44,000 record forms, matched the data they were given,
and it wasn't made up.
Did you know a criminal investigation was launched
by the Metropolitan Police
on the 20th of December of last year?
I do, but I don't know if it's been filed.
One of the two people named, the main people named,
was Dr. June Raine, who's the medical doctor at the MHRA.
Okay, well, that's interesting, because that...
And the other person named was Charlie Massey,
who is the chairman, sorry,
the chief executive of the General Medical Council.
Right.
I mean, I think, and I'm sad to say,
I think maybe that's the only way to go,
but that's for another day.
Okay, my question to you, Sam, my last call is,
would you be prepared to give, and you, Mickalai,
would you prepare, I know Mickalai may prefer
to hang around in the background, and that's fine,
but would you be prepared to give evidence
to the Metropolitan Police?
So I can help you there, Stephen,
for two reasons, maybe the same for Mickalai.
So number one, I'm a clinician, so as soon as I go on,
I'm asking these questions now, Mickalai is the expert,
because I know that these things exist
because of my training, but if I was to go as an expert,
I'd be useless to you, because that'd be,
so they'll just say, because I know what happens in court,
they'll just say, oh, well, you haven't been...
No, it's not court, it's a criminal investigation.
No, but I don't have standing
for a criminal investigation there.
But the second thing that will happen,
I'll tell you what will happen,
and this is why I have to use my words carefully as well,
and even with this being recorded,
I hope that people on this chat will not use this...
No, no, no.
Out of context, because as you will know, in Australia,
there is an edict which has gone out saying
that all registered doctors in Australia
are not allowed to give negative information
or information that could be construed as negative
about the COVID vaccines that is not scientifically based.
Now, everything I say has scientific merit,
and I'm sure Michalaj will agree with me there,
but if not, he should say so now.
Well, I think that, yes, the organization was in place
in order to profit the most,
as much as possible from any pandemic,
and I believe that was already pre-built.
Yes, it sounds conspiratorial,
but that's because we have to appreciate
that we knew there was going to be a pandemic,
and we knew that most likely it's going to be coronavirus.
That's why in the last two decades,
there was tons of preparation for the possibility
of coronavirus pandemic taking place,
and I think the system that we organized itself
in order to be able to take full advantage of it
in order to execute the use of vaccination properly
and then make lots of money off of it.
Nevertheless, I still believe
that this would not have been the population agenda.
Sorry if I disagree with anyone here.
I actually thought people were hoping to help
and make tons of money and maybe accidentally screwed up
by pushing this too far, but my simple explanation,
I agree, does not explain as to why vaccines are pushed
so heavily at the expense of anything else,
but I think that's simply justified by money
because one thing you could be doing is obviously treating
people with COVID-19 with some really,
really cheap therapeutics,
and those have been completely removed from the equation.
Why?
Because one, you need to pay quite a bit of money for,
and the other one, you pay pennies.
Yes, but there's another thing-
This is why we don't investigate-
Nikolai, there's another reason,
and that is that you can't get
an emergency use authorization, certainly in the US,
if you've got effective treatments.
Correct, correct.
Yes, and that's why I think a lot of it was people
were hoping we're going to be heroes and get rich.
No, but I think it's more than that
because lockdowns, the masks, the social distancing,
this is all human medical experimentation.
There's no precedent for it.
There's no medical justification for it.
I was saying that very early on,
and so the whole thing was a huge medical experiment,
and it was worldwide, and it came at the same time worldwide,
so it was clearly planned.
There was no way it was not planned.
Wait, I'll give you a different possibility,
I think, which you might be absolutely correct, Stephen.
I'll just give you another possibility to think.
One of the things, this is on an individual scale,
I think happens as well as on a population scale,
is when in a context of fear or paranoia,
such as we experience with this pandemic,
people throw logic and reason out the window
and start behaving and copying each other.
I actually think we started copying each other en masse,
whether this made any sense or not.
And in the same way, to support my argument,
I think we're about to see the reverse,
where we're about to start realizing,
okay, this was a mistake, this is an action embarrassment,
what we did, and we're going to start very rapidly,
start reversing, including mopping up the damage and so on.
So I think we're, and people will start copying each other,
our population societies will very quickly
start copying each other once again, in this case,
by throwing the mandates out the window
and try to fix the problems.
Well, Mikolaj, they've just done that in the UK.
Yesterday, they announced that they're not going to.
That's right, right?
And you can see how rapidly things are changing in Europe.
So you have now multiple countries that are simply saying,
no, we're done with this, done with mandates,
done with COVID-19 restrictions.
Come on, Stephen.
That's enough, Stephen, of questions from you.
Let's get into the other questions,
because Mikolaj will have to go
and then he won't answer the questions.
So Sam, if you'd drop your hand down, please.
Thank you for your contribution.
Gary Finkelstein, you're first.
And all of the hands up are normal questioners,
so we're going in order, Gary.
Okay, yeah, thank you.
So I had a quick question for Mikolaj,
which at the very start,
he said he was able to avoid the censor.
So I'm kind of keen to understand how he did that.
And for Sam, the...
Gosh, what was the...
I forgot my question.
Let's just stick to the first one.
It'll come to me in a second.
Okay, so two things.
Number one, I only discuss science
and what's presented in science
and I remove personal opinions
and I only stick to the science.
Therefore, I'm strictly talking about
what is already part of public domain.
And while I discuss it,
I try to avoid any type of language
that would be negative towards together,
that would be negative towards vaccination program.
So then a lot of the message is implied
and I get attacked for it,
because people are confused as to
where I stand,
I get accused for being anti-vaxxer and pro-vaxxer.
So that's the trick.
So public domain information without opinions,
I try, of course I'm opinionated,
but I try and it's not easy.
And then how I put the words together
so that I do not disparage vaccination program directly,
because then the video will be out.
Yeah, okay.
And I get it down for one video.
So my bigger question is,
I understand the gist that I'm getting from both of you
is that this is an experimental vaccine
and we're still learning and the data still coming out.
I mean, the flip side for some people,
they were facing a coronavirus,
which was very dangerous to them
if they were in certain age groups
and certain comorbidities.
So my million dollar question to you guys is,
are you in favor of the vaccine for some age groups
during the pandemic?
I mean, when the pandemic's behind us and so forth,
it might've changed,
but was there a time during this pandemic
where it was worth the risk to have the vaccine?
Personally, I would say absolutely.
And people, I think people are not stupid.
They can act stupid,
but overall, I think people in general are very smart.
I think people know this was experimental
and people still lined up
because of fear of what might happen.
I think if we vaccinated only high-risk group,
we actually might've been able to reach herd immunity
and clearly the vaccine,
whatever its long-term consequences might be,
remember who we were vaccinating at the beginning,
only healthcare workers,
and they should have had the freedom to say yes or no.
And then elderly individuals.
And then elderly individuals who are clearly
encompass the largest group of victims
of the disease, COVID-19 disease.
So even if there's long-term consequences,
you already happen to be at the end of life, right?
So then you want to survive the next few years,
irrespective of what might happen to you 15 years later,
where you're likely going to succumb to other problems
because of the fact that as we age,
well, that's what happens.
So absolutely I would have been for it and I was,
but the people who are not in a high-risk group,
they did not have to vaccinate themselves.
And I believe we might've created a mistake
where we unfortunately over-vaccinated.
And because of that, we altered the evolution of the virus.
And I do talk about that in one of my videos,
but again, it's a clever way of doing it.
Sam, do you agree with that?
I was hoping you wouldn't ask me that question.
So my view is a purely pragmatic and ethical view,
which is a bit like old Donald Trump's,
whatever, right to try.
So there was a pandemic, whether it was, you know,
manufactured or not, we know the answer to that,
but that's for another day.
And there were people that were scared of the pandemic.
And for those people, I mean, I sent some of our older staff
said, go and get your vaccine, go and get your vaccine.
But it's an investigational treatment.
So you never knew whether that was going to help you or not.
So the only possibility was,
did you feel better in yourself going to get that therapy?
And I'm completely on the side,
absolutely 100% of early treatments, 100%.
I wrote a paper with David Wiseman.
100% too.
Yeah, but that's not the question.
If you wanted to do this properly and ethically,
what you would have done is,
A, not create chimeric viruses in the first place.
But once you had created chimeric viruses,
is you release the treatments that we knew worked
for those chimeric viruses,
which is hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin,
the vitamin supplements, all those things,
and the vaccines that you've developed at short notice,
you let people choose what they want to use.
And what you don't do is tell people
what they have to put in their body
in order to go to work or go to the shop.
Okay, fine.
Just a quick yes or no.
I'm going to assume that you're not a fan
of the TGA's edict from the way you answered that question.
So for Australia, that's the APRA edict.
APRA edict was written, published on the 9th of March.
I am not allowed to say whether I'm in favor of it
or not in favor of it,
because that would be against the APRA edict,
and I would be deregistered.
What I am allowed to say is that we know
that APRA were requested by a freedom of information request
to show the emails behind that edict,
which came from the pharmacy board and have refused.
Wow, okay, thank you.
Thank you, Sam.
On that, I am Australian,
and I am involved with a number of doctors
being attacked by APRA.
I can speak out, I do speak out.
APRA is corrupt, criminal, conflicted.
TGA is corrupt, criminal, conflicted.
I am involved in a number of court cases.
I'm dealing with hundreds of doctors who refuse to be jabbed.
And I am in the business of using words,
just like Sam, you and Mickalai,
the words are magnificent words.
Like this is magnificent stuff.
But if you have the legal conversation here with the lawyers,
we could use words that people don't understand as well.
The word pandemic has been bandied around today, ad nauseam.
You all know the definition of pandemic
has been changed by the who, corruptly.
So this whole issue of, by the way,
I have documentary evidence in Australia
that will be used in court cases
that APRA claims it only regulates badly behaving doctors,
but it doesn't regulate doctors.
So they're fraudulent in their publications as well.
And I have a document that proves the fraud
behind the whole vaccination structure in Australia,
the NHS, the immunization handbook,
not the vaccination handle.
So everybody don't fool yourselves
that these regulators are behaving properly
because they're not.
Theresa, your question.
Hi, thank you, Charles.
Right, my question is, hang on, let me just, right, okay.
I've been following this from the start.
My first fears about the vaccine would be
that it would introduce some kind
of antibody dependence enhancement illness.
But I've been trying to learn about it for two years now.
I've learned from Dr. Sukharid Bhakhti
that what happens when you're injected
is that the mRNA doesn't stay in the injection site
like we were promised.
It travels, it gets into your bloodstream,
it gets into your lymphatic system,
where it causes your CD8 and CD4 cells,
your CD8 killer T cells and your CD4 H cell
to express the spike protein.
Can you mute Simon there?
So I learned that once they start to express
the spike protein, they start to look suspiciously
like viruses to each other.
So your CD8 and CD4 start to, they kill themselves,
they kill each other, antibodies are produced
that destroy them and antibody complements.
So your innate immune system begins to die off,
which prevents you from fighting cancers.
It also prevents you from fighting
opportunistic infections.
Now, at the same time, it would appear
that the spike protein, the very same spike protein,
is able to get into the nuclei of your cells
and basically interfere with your ability to fight cancers.
So at the same time as, well, sorry,
interfere with your ability to repair your DNA,
which can spark cancers.
So you can't fight cancer at the same time
as it's likely to be kicking off cancer.
Now, several people that I know have now died
of very sudden, very aggressive cancers.
My cousin, I begged her not to get jabbed.
She died within weeks of getting the vaccination, okay?
My auntie had a sharp pain in her chest.
She ended up collapsing.
She ended up in hospital.
She didn't live very long after that.
A friend's brother-in-law, he was vaccinated.
He seemed to be fine, no history of any illness,
collapsed in the kitchen, got taken to hospital.
They had scans and basically they said
he had stage four cancer.
He was riddled with it.
He was dead within three days, okay?
And I'm hearing so much of this stuff.
My friend Tammy, her mom and her mom's two sisters,
all three sisters went and had the Pfizer jab.
Teresa, what's the question?
Well, my question is, okay, if this thing,
I'm just gonna say, all three ladies have strokes.
Two of them are dead, one's in a wheelchair, okay?
This is happening to everybody that I know.
Everybody that I know knows somebody that's died
as a result of these vaccines.
We need to have this conversation.
So my question for you is,
if we know that it's preventing your ability
to fight cancers, if we know that it's increasing
your chance of developing cancers,
if we know that spike protein injected into macaque monkeys
cause Lewy bodies to be expressed in their brains,
if we know that half a percent of all the batches
appear to be quite severely cardio toxic,
doesn't it kind of look a little bit suspicious
that we're now all being coerced
into having this vaccination?
I would just like your thoughts on that
in this nice, safe environment amongst people
who kind of understand that there's more to this
than just greed and money.
It is crazy suspicious.
Everything from the start of last year is suspicious.
Look what's happening to doctors,
how doctors are being treated and abused
along the process.
Nothing is normal here.
We all know that.
Sure.
And we can keep saying it, keep saying it.
And I don't know what it's going to take.
I actually, but luckily the narrative is collapsing
thanks to an immune escape variant
in the shape of the Omicron.
But of course everything is bizarre.
We know this.
Doctors have never been mistreated
like they have been mistreated now, never.
It's bizarre.
The standard that have been dropped,
the standards, and this is why medicine and science
I find is so fascinating is because those are the areas
of human invention that along the way has created
the highest standard of ethics of treating another person
because of the ethics developed
in order to protect a patient from harm.
It's some of the grandest, the most beautiful ethics
we ever developed when it comes to regard
of proper treatment of another human person's dignity.
And so much of it has fallen apart in the context,
of course, that we have to react to health crisis,
but it makes no sense.
So it was never a health crisis.
Yeah, thank you.
Thank you, Dr. Raszczak.
You're a good man.
Keep doing what you're doing, okay?
You're helping millions.
And Theresa, that was...
Mikolaj, you haven't put your links to your videos there.
Please, you know, you get a whole bunch
of extra subscribers here.
So you really should put that in, Theresa.
So there's the answer.
I love your answer, Mikolaj.
It's crazy suspicious.
I love it, three words.
Well, Sam, you're not...
So Sam, I can speak up, you can.
So, you know, keep going.
I mean, if you wanna say something specifically,
but don't get into trouble.
From a genomics perspective and purely genomics,
back in February, 2020 was when Prashant Pradhan,
who's a very nice guy, you know,
I've spoken to offline, published his paper.
It's called the uncanny similarity of HIV one sequences
to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.
And at that time, I looked through that paper
and verified it myself and the blast searches.
Mikolaj can, I'm sure, do the same.
I don't know what his opinion is of that paper,
but I'm 100% sure that that paper is genuine.
And that was removed from the internet
by a combination of Twitter censorship
and attack on a news aggregator called Zero Hedge,
which published around it.
And Pradhan and his group had to go into hiding at that time.
That paper never got republished.
It's a great paper.
And my concern is if that paper had been allowed to stand,
which it should have been,
as a scientifically merited paper,
then the whole course of the pandemic would have changed
because we would know that it was a released vaccine,
that was a released virus that was manufactured.
The proof is in that paper.
The proof is even more emerged since
with the new paper that's come out from another group.
And so if that information was available at the time
and hadn't been sent off the internet,
we would be in a very different position
because we would then be allowed to speak freely
and the treatments would have been allowed.
And I think that's-
Dan, have you got a link to that?
Yeah, I'll post the paper and the thing.
Okay.
Which paper was that again?
And that's Pradhan's.
I'll try and throw a PDF in the chat.
Okay.
Yeah, you can put a PDF in the chat.
Oh no, I can link to the PDF.
Yeah, all the,
all the, you can now load the PDF document, either way.
Well done, Sam.
Thank you.
Thank you for that.
And, and Nicola, I think I love you.
I love those three words.
We're, you know, apostatical, four words.
It is crazy suspicious.
Thank you, Theresa.
Cordelia is next.
Cordelia is a path.
By the way, Nicola, we should give you a bit of a,
we didn't do that right at the start.
There's an interesting,
eclectic group of people in this group,
including scientists, physicists, doctors, lawyers,
ex-lawyers like me.
Police.
Dentists.
What else is there?
Police.
Police, ex-police.
Financiers.
Finances.
How does one join this group or is it per invitation only?
Clearly you guys discussed very fascinating material
for me as a scientist.
There's a number of links that I eagerly wait
to be able to now review.
So to me, this is very, very fertile ground
to be able to expand my knowledge for sure.
You are a member of the group by the fact
that you've been invited to speak.
So that means same Zoom link I'll be able to use
to join you guys in the future.
Actually unofficially, yes, it's the same Zoom link,
but the detail, we have meetings on a Tuesday,
sorry, a Sunday and a Tuesday.
So the Sunday one is at 9 p.m. London time
and the Tuesday one is at 8 p.m. Tuesday time.
Sorry, 8 p.m. London time, the Tuesday one.
And so I send out the invitations and I will include you
and some you get the invitations anyway, don't you?
Do you?
Wonderful.
Yeah, it does.
So, Mikola, you're now on the list.
Yeah, I knew you were gonna say yeah.
Yeah, so Mikola, you're now on the list.
Well done, Stephen.
Cordelia is a pathologist.
We've got a UK pathologist.
Hi, thanks.
Yeah, I just want to ask a question.
When the RNA is in the cell
and presumably there's no off button,
so how come then after a few months the antibodies go down?
Is it because the cells divide
and then the body clears itself off the RNA?
Or how does it work that the,
I mean, this is why we're supposed to have boosters
every four months or so, because the antibodies drop.
So how come the RNA is not active after a while anymore?
So this has nothing to do with the RNA.
So they're going to be independent mechanisms
because RNA lifespan, expected lifespan,
would have been mere hours.
We're talking about, now when you're discussing,
we're discussing the 5' and 3' UTR regions of those.
Okay, I didn't check the 3' but the 5'
which was consisted of the Globin UTR,
which was put in there in order to actually
expend the lifespan of the existence of mRNA.
And that's Globin, it's from Globin,
which is the gene used in red blood cells
so that we can carry oxygen.
And that's one of the longer living mRNAs
because red blood cells don't have nucleus.
So once that RNA is there, once it's gone, it's gone.
There's no way of producing more.
And so nature has devised a way so that it can last longer.
And we're talking about maybe between 24 to 30 hours
lifespan of that mRNA.
So then I would extrapolate, and I'm guessing
no one truly knows, is that that would be similar lifespan
of the mRNA of that vaccine.
Of course, there's a lot of shenanigans going on,
meaning there's a lot of manipulation going on.
There's the 3' UTR that Sam was mentioning,
plus there's different chemicals used
in the production of mRNA that are found in nature,
maybe they influence lifespan.
But the take home message here is that RNA
will disappear fast.
So it's the lifespan of the protein
that then appears to be very long lasting.
Now, in terms of the antibodies,
that's one of, don't fully understand it,
that's one of the mystery of the coronaviruses.
My understanding is that coronavirus antibodies
normally just don't last for a long time.
And that was understood prior to vaccination.
And it was understood that most likely,
if we're going to focus on vaccines related
to production of antibodies, they're not gonna last
for more than a few months because that was already known.
So whether it has to do with the fact that
the antibodies we're producing are mostly IgGs,
which are blood antibodies.
And blood antibodies are fantastic when you have,
where the virus, when you're trying to attack a virus
that needs to be transmitted through blood,
but that doesn't actually happen frequently with COVID-19.
Most of it is mucosal, the area of course
in your breathing area, right?
And those are different antibodies.
Maybe that's one of the reasons why the antibodies wane
because as far as I understand, we're not looking for IgAs,
which are the mucosal ones, we're looking for,
when we measure these antibodies, we're measuring IgGs.
So it's been known that they don't last long.
And it's not a surprise at all, in my opinion,
that in three, four months they're gone
because that's what we've always observed
with antibodies, IgG antibodies related to coronavirus.
That's at least my understanding.
Now keep in mind that all of my understanding
is just by reading literature here, literature there,
and I'm collaging that information together
as I go along.
And you know, they keep saying that the cause of disease
is much milder than the vaccination,
but how do they know that without a control group?
It's just a mystery to me.
Cause when they die from COVID after double vaccination,
nobody says, oh, it could have been much worse.
But why do they say it on BBC
when they haven't got a control group?
Well, I mean, this is a logical question in my opinion
is because clearly you wanting to understand
why media narrative is as it is,
is we're never gonna get to the bottom
as to why narrative is how it is
when it's sometimes divorced from science.
A lot of information is divorced from science,
from scientific information in my opinion.
Thanks.
In terms of mild disease and control group,
another giant mystery that makes no sense.
We destroyed control group, it's gone.
We will no longer be able to compare long-term effects
of this clinical trial, which is how, why?
That's no longer a clinical trial.
We have a clinical trial that lasted a few months,
boom, done, over.
But I mean, that's the most basic principle of a trial
is to have a control group.
That's right.
So if they've destroyed the control group, Cordelia,
do you think that's evidence of criminal intent?
Because I do.
Well, yeah, agree with you because that's-
It was argued on moral reasons though, right?
And the moral reasons is because we saw 95% effectiveness,
it would have been immoral to refuse this option
to the control group.
Although again, that doesn't make sense.
No, it doesn't cut it.
Because that's not how other clinical trials
worked ever before, right?
When you sign up for a clinical trial,
you consent to the possibility
that you might end up in a control group
because that's why we have to find out what works
and what are the long-term consequences.
A thousand pieces on the moral grounds was used.
But there's no-
There's an ethical consideration for clinical trials
where in the documentation there will be a opt-out
that if the treatment was found to be wonderful,
you will be offered it.
That's not that uncommon for the actual control,
for the actual randomized control trial.
I think what Cordelia might be talking about
is the control group in the general population,
the fact that there's so few now unvaccinated people
to act as a general control group
for pharmacovigilance studies,
which is what should have happened.
I'll put my hand up as the control.
Okay, thank you Cordelia.
Excellent, excellent point.
Mikolai Daria is next.
She calls herself Dr. Obvious.
Tell you why she's called Dr. Obvious.
Daria's from the US.
What part of the US, Daria?
I live in Indiana, just south of Indianapolis,
and I grew up near Chicago.
And you're Dr. Obvious because?
Because I'm an expert at seeing the obvious and stating it.
Thank you.
You're also a neurosurgeon, aren't you, Daria?
Yes, I'm a retired neurosurgeon
and a licensed pharmacist and licensed physician in Indiana.
I've been retired for eight years now.
You must have retired very young, Daria.
Well, I hurt my hand.
See the nerve damage left.
I couldn't use my hands anymore in surgery
because of nerve damage.
So I had to have carpal tunnel surgery on both hands.
And that happened in December of 2013.
So yeah, I really wanted to operate for another 20 years,
but 20 years was all bad days when you didn't do that job.
So I'm on sabbatical right now, I suppose.
Let's just call that.
Yeah, Mikko, I thank you for coming today.
This is fascinating, and I love your compassion
and your, I'm not sure the best word for this,
but just giving people the benefit of the doubt
and wanting to believe they have good intentions.
And that's great because it's a good starting point.
That would be our null hypothesis
in scientific methods, that all people are good
and that all people want for the better,
betterness of everyone, okay?
But in this particular case,
you had to make a mention earlier
for there being something more than money going on here
because you cannot justify geriatric genocide,
massive chronic illness escalation just because of money.
And when the recruitment of the government authorities
at all levels, the professional institutions at all levels,
even every social organization pushing vaccines,
I'm utterly, I want to throw up,
hearing the Vatican endorsing vaccines made with,
tested either with or developed with
aborted baby live cells, that's a deal breaker.
And the same thing with the Latter-day Saints
or the Mormons, same thing happened with them,
pushing the vaccine.
And again, when you mentioned the fear piece,
remember that fear piece was driven deliberately by,
and I said this two years ago,
I said this is criminal negligent homicide
to refuse any and all early treatment to anyone who's sick.
Normally a family doctor,
if somebody came in with an upper respiratory illness
would empirically give them some inhaled steroids,
empirically give them oral antibiotics.
Sure they take the specimen,
but they don't send them home to wait
for the test result to come back.
There's utterly no clinical precedent
or any justification whatsoever as a doctor.
I mean, if this were any other time
and that stupid prep act hadn't been signed by Trump,
now practice lawyers would be having a field day,
but no, they will all went to hibernate.
And I brought this question up when we had RFK Jr. out
and he emphasized the fact that almost all liability
for negligence, et cetera, was lifted for hospitals,
for doctors, for the drug companies
to behave in this malevolent way.
And I think Steven, you used the word malfeasance,
which is what it is.
And to me, having all these disparate groups
do this for money,
and obviously the mandates now for pushing vaccines
in hospitals are because of Medicare and Medicaid services,
CMS, in other words, if you take Medicaid money,
you have to make sure all your employees are jabbed.
And I'm telling you these big corporations
that have non-disclosure agreements for their employees
are actually telling their employees
that even if they have a legitimate exemption,
they're going to decide whether to honor it or not.
In other words, religious or medical.
In other words, no, if you have an exemption, you say no,
you shouldn't have to like write a thesis
as to why you're saying no to justify it.
And the Supreme Court even said,
if they have a medical or religious exemption,
they're exempt, period.
And yet that's not being honored.
So I think there is something more going on.
And you're right, we can't speculate about it,
but pretty much no people buy their fruit
if they're behaving in a way that is not compassionate,
not beneficial, is directly harmful.
They're causing harm and bargaining and blockading access
to ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine with,
what is it, over hundreds and hundreds,
maybe thousands by now, place for showing the benefit.
That is basically like forcing someone
to leave their door unlocked
and then unleashing a gang of robbers on the neighborhood.
You know, you're setting people up to be victims.
And ironically, that actually happened
when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans.
And they actually did that.
The police came in and disarmed the few people
that were still home that were protecting themselves
with their handguns and a video had gone around
showing the police wrestling an old revolver
out of an 80-year-old lady's hand,
pinning her up against the wall and taking her gun.
It was the only thing keeping people out of her house.
And shortly after they left, she was robbed.
So that's what's happening here.
As soon as those doctors started to refuse treatment,
and to this day are still bad mouthing
the early treatment regimens,
including empiric treatment
that they routinely used all the time
for other upper respiratory unspecified infections.
During flu season, during cold season,
you know, whatever you wanna call it, bronchitis.
Now they're refusing to give you anything.
They're all going to hell if they don't repent.
I'll tell you that right now.
And so no, that is the evidence, if you will,
circumstantial evidence, and I'm not a lawyer,
circumstantial evidence to me
that there's harmful intent here
above and beyond monetary recompense.
Especially since a lot of these decisions otherwise
are harmful to the businesses,
they're harmful to the hospitals, they're harmful.
In other words, these big established entities
are getting hurt monetarily as well.
Maybe not the hospitals as much,
if their reimbursement, the blood money they're getting
for letting people die and pushing their death out.
Killing them more likely.
Yeah, it's murder.
I'm calling them slaughterhouses, okay?
Hospitals have become slaughterhouses
when they're pushing this stuff.
And so I guess I'm asking you,
if you take it in consideration
and look at that totality of behaviors,
does that in any way affect your null hypothesis
of the presumption that people are basically good
and acting with good intention?
We can take this all the way back to Dr. Malone,
because one thing, even if somebody is evil,
especially like in the Bible, they talk about
the devil stating his intentions ahead of time
and that we see this a lot in people
that have malicious intent,
like the World Economic Foundation.
They've always stated what their plans are.
You'd be fool not to listen to them.
So whether Dr. Malone is a white hat,
a black hat or a gray hat character, it doesn't matter.
He has very intelligent, he's done a lot of hard science,
but what that told me at that Senate hearing
when he interrupted the other physician
is he was that uncomfortable about what that doctor
was saying to try and get him to divert the discussion away
from that important evidence.
And I don't know about you,
but when somebody tries to shout me down,
I look at him twice as hard.
And I think everybody looked at Dr. Malone twice as hard
when he did that.
And what I'd like to know is,
is there some internal correspondence, research, et cetera,
that Dr. Malone was involved in
that is now going to implicate his work directly?
Besides, we know about the spike pro, not the spike pro,
but the mRNA and also it looks like some of those papers
he worked on had to do with the nanoparticles.
So was it by intent or not?
Most researchers are compartmentalized.
They ask the Defense Department.
They'll look back to the Manhattan Project.
Nobody really knew what the other guy was doing.
They didn't all know they were working on
a world-changing deadly weapon.
Yet they were all doing their little parts.
And only the DOD brass really knew the whole story.
Even Oppenheimer, I think he kind of knew what was going on.
But when that first test bomb went off,
he quoted the great line,
"'I am Death, the Destroyer of Worlds',"
or something like that.
And so again, sometimes,
and I think maybe one of the things
that's affecting Dr. Malone now
is that he realizes how bad it was,
but he also realizes now that he's gonna at some point,
potentially be the scapegoat.
And I think that's why he's walking a fine line right now
and you can see the stress on him.
I don't know if anybody's a body language reader here,
but he's barely holding it together in my opinion.
And that's just an opinion on my part.
But I don't think he wants to be,
if he was controlled opposition,
I don't know particularly that he wants to be,
but he's very,
let's just say he's conflicted.
And if he has a gray hat, that makes sense.
But I got a feeling when people's past deeds
come back to haunt them,
they're going to behave in different ways.
And how many people don't repent
until they're on their deathbed?
There's even a term for it, deathbed confession.
So again, I just wanna know if going forward,
and you had your null hypothesis,
it's almost like of people being good,
we want everybody to be good.
But unfortunately, I think we're all flawed
and we're all susceptible to not being virtuous at all times
and some embrace this, but it's really scary
because if you take away anything that would be
sort of a curb on bad behavior and bad intent,
like liability, for example,
and you also release any barriers
to someone's lack of a conscience,
there is a possibility that they will become
actively and happily participating in the death of someone,
let's say in a hospital or suffering.
And it's not all the nurses,
there's a lot of upset nurses right now and doctors,
a lot of them leave,
but the ones that stay behind to help
are getting stressed out as well.
And why, here's another question.
Sounds like a good idea, I'm sorry, I always do this,
that's why Charles like, oh God, sorry again.
Anyway, on the surface, it sounds like a good idea
that you'd wanna inject all the nurses and hospital staff
at the beginning of a plague
because the hospitalized patients
are gonna be the more susceptible populations.
But now we're seeing personality changes,
behavioral changes in people and affect changes
that could potentially affect that natural compassion
that they had in conscience that kept them ethical.
So again, that's something else we need to keep in mind
and whoever's gonna research this,
I'd love to see that neuropsychiatric damage
caused by the vaccine central nervous system attack,
part of this.
Can I interject and say,
it's only a good idea to inject nurses and doctors
if they want to be injected
because they can make a risk assessment for their own body
and they are always at higher risk from the public
than they are to the public.
So it was always ethically the wrong thing to do
to force doctors and nurses
into having an investigational therapy
that was not proven to reduce the risk to other people.
I just said to Charles,
just a couple of other people with hands up,
I don't know if we might have to go soon.
So let's start to say hello.
Can I just jump in super quick for the doctors in the crowd?
I recently published an article about the idea
as to when we should consider basically
not forcing mandates as medical doctors.
And this came strictly from the people
who have reached out to me and the issues they experienced.
So I was wondering if I could share that.
It's a short article,
basically when to consider exemptions against mandates.
And there's medical doctors who would wanna let me know
if this is foolish or not.
Nikolai, before you do,
Peter Huga who has to go is in the UK.
He's got a specific question in chat.
Could you have, or Sam?
The one just a moment ago?
Yes.
He said-
Okay, so could I catch the illness
from a dead body spiking after death?
So this one, I don't know,
but here's the very weird observation
that I got from the video
I just recently made on menstrual cycles.
And there's been dozens of women who commented
that their menstrual cycle was affected
by being in vicinity, proximity,
prolonged proximity of vaccinated people.
Mix biologically, how do you, of course, explain that?
Could there be a transfer of information?
In theory there is because, look,
your existence does not stop with your physical body.
It extends beyond your body.
For example, you have a bacterial cloud around you
that extends probably like a meter outside your body.
There's chemicals that extend outside your body
that your body produce.
So you actually, you have a cloud,
chemical cloud around you that talks
and it has a specific message.
And others can come and in theory,
start interacting with that cloud and reading it.
In theory, we know we have a chemical cloud around us.
I don't know to what degree can we read that chemical cloud?
So then could we somehow be able to passing
on information related to presence of the spike protein
and reacting to it?
Obviously, I don't know, there's completely no proof to it
with the exception of these bizarre anecdotal statements
from women how their menstrual cycle has been affected
or their menses has been affected just strictly
by being with their vaccinated partners
while they remain unvaccinated.
Very weird.
So I don't know if anyone has a comment on that.
I just wanted to bring up to you that that's what I've heard
a lot in the comments to that YouTube video.
Okay, before Peter goes, has anyone got a specific view
on that otherwise Peter go to bed
because he's recovering and unwell Peter, is that helpful?
Yeah, thanks Charles.
Yeah, I wouldn't have asked the question
if I didn't think it was genuine.
I deal in facts as well.
And all I know is that, as I say, seven days ago,
I was in this van for five hours and I went down like a stone
and I've infected everybody around me, my whole family.
And I'm around dead bodies all the time
because I work for funeral directors.
And normally they're bagged, body bagged,
they're covered, we're careful.
I was sent in the wrong van this day, there was no divider
and the funeral directors that supplied the body,
I found out they just put a porous sheet over the body.
So as I was driving and the aircon was pumping
around this van, I'm sitting in it and eating my sandwiches.
And I just think it's too much of a coincidence.
The way I went down and I've had flu before,
this completely wiped me out.
So thank you very much.
I'm happy in the knowledge.
I believe that I was surrounded by a cloud that day.
Thank you.
Charles, Arianna Love is on the call, I think,
and would like to ask a question about gene deletion.
Well, we'll get to that in a moment.
We just have to be a bit quick.
Darius question has to be answered.
Mickalai wants to share something in this blend,
but Arianna, we'll be finished in the next 15 minutes,
everybody.
Sorry, the formalities.
So Mickalai, you're gonna share something?
Yeah, so here's an article that it's already up on my blog.
If there's any medical doctors who would wanna see
if there's any goof ups there,
because I'm not a medical doctor,
but this is my response to basically the collective trauma
I've been now exposed to as a consequence
of the YouTube channel going viral
and why mandates never ever having any exemptions
should never be allowed.
And these are some propositions as to when exemptions
should be considered.
And I just, because I wrote it and I'm a scientist,
not a medical doctor, if there's anyone who would volunteer
to wanna read it in case there's any goof ups there
that I could fix, let me know.
If it's good, then it's all good.
Mickalai, I don't think I have your email address.
Could you send it to me directly
or you can put it out in the chat maybe, I don't know.
Put it in the chat and Daria has got time
to consider your paper as well, Mickalai.
So Daria, I'm sure we'll look at that.
Now, Sam, you have to go and do some surgery.
Do you wanna say a quick goodbye
because you do have to jump?
And we will finish in 15 minutes,
for melodies and pub time.
Sam?
I'll just hang around in the background.
I'm working from home because we're in a pandemic
and it's really dangerous to go outside.
So today, it's my Advent Day.
And because the rules are such that it's really scary
and dangerous to go outside, then I'm working from home.
In the middle of summer in Australia, absolutely.
I must apologize
because I shouldn't really be wearing an N95 mask
for this Zoom.
Don't take my bad habits to heart, will you?
Very good.
Okay, so thank you for posting that.
So Mickalai, you will get some answers.
Daria's question.
Charles, could Daria ask her questions
because they're highly relevant
to these two genomics guys.
Yes, so Daria asked you the question, Mickalai.
Probably forgotten by now.
Quick Daria before we get to Glenn and Tom
and Theresa and Ariana.
Just real quick, looking at the totality of,
sorry, I had to find that word.
Totality of all the events globally,
the effects on society, the coordinated media assault.
And Dr. Malone mentioned the mass formation psychosis
that Matthias Desmet described.
We used to call it hypnosis.
It's basically hurting everybody off a cliff out of fear.
Yeah, anyway, taking that into consideration,
is there more of a possibility than not in these cases
that malicious intent should be even sought out
in terms of seeing, maybe they need to prove
they're doing this altruistically and not maliciously.
I mean, that's my question.
Maybe we have the wrong null hypothesis
and have to flip it.
Sure.
Assume everybody's evil and prove that they're good
by their.
Obviously I'm not naive about what kind of crimes
against humanity people can commit because I'm Polish.
So I will take this pandemic anytime
in comparison to what my grandparents had to go through.
So I'm fully aware how evil humanity can be to one another.
So, and despite that, I still think
what we are witnessing is more based on stupidity
due to fear and greed, but I could be wrong
because at the time when the worst crimes were happening,
imaginable in my own home country,
the rest of the world would be like,
no, that's not even possible.
All right, so I'm going to take this one.
I think anything's possible.
All right, thank you.
I think anything's possible.
Thank you.
Very good, Nikolai.
Great questions.
Glenn.
Hi, I want to look forward.
Nikolai, you mentioned around mopping up the damage.
And so from a forward looking viewpoint,
I'm curious if you think there are a variety of things
that we could do to dampen the damage that's going on now
with the vaccine injured.
But before you answer that,
on a simple case, especially since you've been working
on testing mechanisms, do you believe that there are
substantially better tests available now
for measuring both spike protein in humans,
as well as properly measuring the virus?
We know we have so many bad results
that completely contaminate the data
and make most of the data sets terrible.
Do you believe that anyone has gotten a much better test
that could have been effective?
I think PCR test is a fantastic test.
It's just been not used properly.
So it's a matter of how it should have been used,
meaning we don't go beyond certain CT threshold cycles
because you never see virus isolated
beyond certain CT threshold cycles.
We should have appropriately understood
what the false positive rate of any test is
that's never been documented at all.
And we also should have understood that
the positive result is only likely to be positive
within a given period of time,
as opposed to being able to grab a remnant
of a viral genetic information post infection
when you're no longer infectious.
So if we simply chose smarter parameters
of use of this test, this test would have been very, very good.
All right, let's not go too long on that.
I'm more interested in what you might have for ideas
of how we can mop up, whether there's anything from
kinds of better testing or kind of alternative mechanisms
that might reduce the amount of negative impact
from the vaccines that could help,
either after the fact, vaccine injured,
or things that could be done ahead of vaccines
to dampen the damage.
Yeah, the ironic thing is that in my thinking,
your best way to move forward
is to ensure you practice high quality lifestyle.
There's not going to be much you can do really
in terms of how you've already programmed your immune system
and being able to remove
if you still have spike protein circulating in you,
but you can still affect your quality of your immune system.
And that is always quality of lifestyle.
So I'm in medical DNA testing.
And I would always say, if you want to protect yourself,
first and foremost, exercise, don't smoke, diet.
Those are your biggest factors you can do
to influence the quality of your lifestyle.
And we all can be responsible for that.
And then I say, buy critical illness insurance.
And then finally I say, do DNA testing.
Those are the facets that I think of how we,
each one of us could, we can do to preemptively
and proactively protect our health.
And in this case, so yeah, take care of your food, exercise.
And you can still build up your innate immune system.
So when the waves are down, interact with people, right?
And so you can always have proper contact
and stimulate the immune system.
But apart from having some magic pill
that can start changing things, I'm not aware of anything.
So apart from the very, very basics
that we all sort of already know,
and we all should be practicing,
but discipline is really challenging aspect
to gain in life.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you, Glenn, for the question.
Tom, the Rodman.
Okay, this is on behalf of another member, another doctor.
Last week we were supplied with-
By the way, Tommy, your volume is very low.
Can you increase your output, please?
You're good on settings.
Thank you.
Is this better?
Yes, thank you.
Okay, hopefully it will stay up.
So there's a military doctor that's,
has been in this group for several calls.
And he refers to an August 2020 scientific paper,
which I'll post again in the chat.
So let me just, I'm just copying it.
Okay, it's my clipboard.
And so take, so there it is.
And I've deliberately, I have not shared that
because it seems pretty out there,
but it is from the National Library of Medicine, PubMed,
and it's two or three pages.
And from what I understand from this doctor,
the spike protein has an S1 and an S2.
It's like a dumbbell shaped.
And I haven't even looked up what an ACE2 receptor is.
So I have this cartoon model.
It's not in any way correct,
but there are acronyms for the various population types,
like Asians and Europeans and Africans.
And so these, the paper addresses
the relative electrostatic attraction
between the ACE2 receptor and the spike protein.
So I haven't done a lot of web searching
just to really vet this.
There hasn't been, I haven't made the time for it.
So do you have any comments on that?
And then the other-
The comments on what exactly?
Well, on the-
Electrostatic charge interaction?
Yeah, well, no, the ratio like-
Oh, there is a definite difference.
We know this already.
It's been very well studied.
Not only, and so there is a difference in distribution.
I have a blog article on that from early on in a pandemic.
There's a difference in distribution or expression
of ACE2 in populations and different ethnicities
can express it at different levels.
That's true.
And perhaps not surprisingly Caucasian populations
are the ones that have been hit harder
than the Asian populations.
We express more of ACE2 at appears,
as well as Temporis,
which is the enzyme required
in order to cleave spike protein.
Remember when I said that the head rips off?
Once it didn't rise, the ACE2 receptor,
the head will come off to reveal the arms,
these alien arms underneath
that will eventually unfold and grab the cell.
Well, you need a cut in order for that head to come off.
That's done by an enzyme called Temporis2.
Again, certain ethnicities express that,
more of that protein on their cell surfaces than others.
So there's definitely genetic component involved
in how susceptible you could be to infection than others.
Now, in terms of electrostatic charge,
of course that also plays a difference.
And the reason why is because Omicron,
one of the reasons why Omicron is so much more infectious
because the electrostatic charge surface
of the spike protein of the Omicron variant
is ideal for interaction with the ACE2 receptor.
And when it comes to the charge,
it's one of the best right now we have had
in the evolution of the spike protein.
So then, so remember I was telling you,
in a molecular world, molecular world is ruled by,
I mentioned two things,
which is the three dimensional shape fit
between the two entities,
as well as electrostatic surface of these,
and they have to match as well.
So you need to bring negative to positive
in order to match it.
And if you have some positive positive,
then they will repulse.
There's another third component,
which is the quantity as well that also rules the world.
But so three dimensional shape, electrostatic Omicron
is, looks ideal.
It's perfect shape, perfect charge
to grab onto the ACE2 receptor,
which is one of the reasons why.
One, the other one is of course that it also is perfect
when it comes to escaping neutralizing antibodies.
It's, but luckily for us, it's also been milder.
It's milder.
Are these trivial variations or are these significant?
And then the other question is,
if you had it, if you could redesign this whole thing,
would it be better to make,
I mean, is this spike considered active?
The spike is not a virus, it's a viral fragment.
Is it, is this an inactive viral fragment?
And does what I'm saying even make any sense?
They talk about an inactive virus vaccine.
So-
Different concept.
We're now getting hugely big and we've got three minutes.
Okay, I'm pass.
We can connect, but you're now,
you're marrying two different concepts by accident.
So we're talking about vaccine
where you actually vaccinate people with an actual virus.
And as opposed to here, we're inserting mRNA template,
completely different technology,
which has never been used before.
So then live attenuated virus versus inactivated virus,
that's the traditional approach we've been using in the past.
mRNA, what we're doing is to build this template
that's never used before, first time in humans.
Charles, would it be possible before Sam has to leave,
whether if Arianna could go before Theresa?
Yep, yep, cause Sam has to go in a couple of minutes.
So Arianna, you go and then Theresa and then John,
and then we'll wrap the four melodies.
Arianna.
Okay, thank you. Nice to meet you, Dr. Love.
Oh, thank you.
I'm a naturopathic doctor and a journalist
for the past 11 years.
I have a question for you.
I have three questions very quick.
The first one is,
have you read the COVID-19 vaccine patents?
No, I'm aware of it.
I've seen some of that information, but no.
Now keep in mind that this does not necessarily
have to be linked at all to the current pandemic,
because as I was earlier mentioning,
we knew that the likelihood of the future pandemic
being coronavirus was going to be very high
ever since the SARS original came out.
And we know that coronaviruses,
their presence in the animal reservoir
and how likely they could have been transferred,
we knew it's a very high risk.
So we've been preparing for this,
including patents for decades.
Okay, my second question is,
would you be willing to look at the patents,
look at my articles where they're highly referenced,
very well referenced with peer review literature
and has the direct links to patents
and information that is in the patents.
Would you be willing to look at that?
For sure, for sure.
Awesome, thank you.
So you can get my email, you can contact me.
And the third question really quick is,
are you aware that they're deleting genes in humans now
with the COVID-19 vaccine?
No, to completely, and I would love to see
if you have a scientific proof of that statement.
I do, thank you.
I have five articles, I'll send them to you.
But hang on, Mariana, can you explain that to me?
I thought the proof was more in the intent of the patents
or the possible intent of the patents.
It's in the intent, it's in the adverse reactions
of the vaccinated people.
The evidence is all around us.
And it's, see, the gene deletion causes all the symptoms
that we're seeing.
It induces AIDS, it induces myocarditis,
it induces blood coagulation because it dries up
the moisture glands in the body.
But Mariana, why don't you pose it as a question?
Well, I did.
Okay.
I asked the questions.
I mean, I'm very aware that they're deleting genes.
There's no question in my mind because I've read,
I've looked at the evidence.
But if you haven't looked at that.
I gotta tell you scientifically,
I would not understand how you could achieve that
with the mRNA vaccines.
CRISPR-Cas9.
So that's why I'm abusing, sorry?
They're using CRISPR-Cas9 technology.
Ah, if you use CRISPR-Cas9, for sure you could do that.
Then, but that's not part of this scheme though.
We have nothing to do with CRISPR-Cas9
here with these vaccines though.
So then-
Mariana, it's in the patents, so isn't it?
It's in all the patents in the Pfizer and the Moderna,
all of the major so-called vaccines that are being used.
They're, it's in their patents.
Yeah, it's in their patents.
But isn't that just to cut the sequences
into the product material
as opposed to injecting CRISPR into people?
They are injecting microspheres, micro bubbles, micro,
what is it?
It's, I forgot the last one.
It's microbeads that pass the blood-brain barrier.
They're in the patents.
And they've been identified under the microscope.
So there's plenty of evidence
that they are deleting genes in humans
and coding, adding complementary DNA, cDNA.
So they're genetically modifying people now.
And they're targeting-
Now keep in mind though,
if it is not scientifically published,
then in our world, it does not exist.
Right, so-
That's what I'm afraid of, yeah.
Just keep that in mind.
So then your information will most likely remain,
unless it's published, observed and documented
and published in the scientific literature,
it's simply going to remain speculative.
And I hope you're wrong.
It's what you're describing is, sounds horrible.
Horrible.
So I obviously hope you're wrong.
They're deleting, I believe-
Now, is it possible?
Yes, it is possible what you're saying completely,
because it's already been done.
China was the first country,
the first nation where we actually have birth
of genetically modified babies.
And that was in 2018 already.
And it created a massive scientific outcry against this.
We don't even know what happened to them,
but I wrote about this in my blog as well,
about genetically first designer babies we're talking about,
where they use CRISPR technology to,
but this was done in an embryo.
So what you're referring to would be,
you would only be able to target certain amount of tissue
and it would be localized.
So, but if you're mentioning-
Like embryonic cells.
Crossing blood, brain barrier.
But my goodness, I hope nothing you're saying is true.
Please read my articles.
It would be horrible.
Absolutely, I copied everything.
Thank you so much.
Yeah.
Okay, we've got two more quick.
Theresa and John and Sam, you're there, so you can go.
Thank you for your contribution, Sam.
You have to go when you have to go.
Theresa, next, we're over time.
Theresa, go.
Hi, thanks.
I'll try and keep it brief.
Have you heard of the science of magnetogenetics at all?
No.
Some such as that.
Apparently-
Magnetogenomics is a kind of,
it's another form of transfection mechanism.
Magnetogenetics.
It's a team managed to,
by injecting the substance into some, I believe, mice,
they managed to affect the mouse behavior.
They could, by using external electromagnetic radiation,
they could persuade the mice to groom, not groom,
mate, not mate, go to a certain area of the cage.
They can affect mice behavior with this technology,
and they call it magnetogenetics.
There were a few papers published about it.
Have you heard about it?
So the concept makes sense.
We're talking about not modifying genetics.
We're talking about modification of use of genetics.
Yeah, yeah.
So it just struck me that part of this agenda 2030
or agenda 21 that Klaus Schwab keeps going on about
is that by 2030, you'll own nothing, but you'll be happy.
And a lot of the scientists-
I'm already there.
A lot of the scientists and doctors are speculating
that perhaps they're actually going to be,
they're actually injecting something in these vaccines
that may be used to influence behavior in a very crude way.
And it certainly concerns me because although
I haven't had a COVID-19 vaccination,
I have had two flu vaccinations in the last three years,
well, four years, and they were because I was coerced
into having them for work.
I had two flu jabs, and now my sternum is magnetic,
and that greatly concerns me.
I've seen lots of videos.
I've got friends who actually found that their injection
site on their arm was magnetic after being vaccinated.
There is an explanation for that potential
for the injection site.
I would not know how to explain your sternum experience,
but for the injection site, remember,
you're injecting highly positively charged molecules
so that they can enter the cell.
So you could in theory, and I'm just extending that,
you could in theory then have a momentary change
in the electrostatic surface on your body
on the side of injection, so that if you took something
of the opposite charge, you could literally potentially
attach it to your skin.
Well, you'd have to be moving the magnet
or the metal next to your skin.
I think people are just sticking forks
and keys to their arms, which I found very interesting.
And, well, perhaps you might want to look into it.
I'll send you a link, but the only,
the last thing I was gonna say is just for fun and giggles,
go on YouTube or TikTok and look for pandemic babies.
It's really fascinating.
We're seeing neonates able to lift their heads.
And I don't know if it's a hoax.
If it is a hoax, it's a very elaborate one,
but it is really interesting.
Pandemic babies, babies able to turn over at two weeks.
Now we've discussed it in previous Zoom meetings
with doctors, because that's always a bit of fun
to sort of to go out on the fringe there,
but it is something definitely worth looking at
because if it's true, it's not a secret
they'll be able to keep for very long.
But I know it's fringe, but it's really, really interesting.
Yes, we've seen those videos
and Teresa has brought them to our attention.
It is fascinating.
And anyway, thank you, John, last question.
Thank you, Teresa.
And pandemic babies look, they're uplifting heads.
It also the question of human augmentation.
We should have a, Stephen,
we should have a topic on this whole question.
Ministry of Defense and its human augmentation plans.
That's a different topic, not for today.
John, your question.
Last question.
Can you hear me okay?
Yep.
Sorry, I was late to the meeting.
My question really is stems around the integrity
of the mRNA sequence that they're injecting into people.
Is there any proof or any documentation out there
showing that they may be injecting different mRNA strains?
Cause we're seeing a bevy of different organ involvement
manifestations rather.
That's kind of my first question.
My second question is this,
is the difference between the vaccine
which is producing the spike protein,
in theory, the spike proteins,
the same as the infected particle.
Why are we seeing different manifestations in that process?
And, you know, those are just two questions
that have been kind of beating my head around.
Cause we're ultimately looking for,
what is the purpose behind this?
It's definitely not to vaccinate the population
and to provide immunity.
So there has to be something else to it.
If you could answer those, that'd be awesome.
If not, no worries.
I really appreciate it.
And I also appreciate the meeting.
Thank you.
Who wants to, is it me or is it you, Sam?
I can add something.
You can go first, if you want.
So in terms of sequencing,
that actually would be very interesting.
As far as I know,
I don't think anyone has independently
been investigating the mRNA sequence.
Very simple to do though.
So this is actually interesting
because it will be very simple to do in theory,
to check the sequence of the mRNA
and whether that's been altered or not.
Of course it's not supposed to be altered, right?
It's therapeutic.
You're not supposed to be changing it.
And the goal is indeed to change it.
And that's what they're working on
in order to come up with a anti-omicron vaccine.
Now, in terms of the second one
and why you would be seeing differences of,
let's call it adverse events,
post natural infection versus vaccination.
Well, they're totally different processes.
So even let's assume they're identical.
They're not mRNA vaccines.
There's a very, very small change,
but there's still obviously major differences in that.
With natural infection,
you are responding with your immune system
to all of the viral proteins.
And with vaccination,
you're only responding to the spike protein.
And the quantities could be dramatically different.
Now, I don't know what the quantities are,
but the quantity of your body being exposed
to post natural infection to the spike protein
versus post vaccination could also be different.
And that could also result in different outcomes.
So that'll be my simple answer to those questions.
So the first question is,
has anybody sequenced this?
And to my knowledge,
there is a freedom of information request into the TGA
who are so far obfuscating the answer.
And the question was, what are the batch reports?
Can you provide the documents for the batch reports
of the batches that you have published on your website
as having been tested?
And this goes back to David Wiseman again,
that clip is so important for people to understand
what's happening at the federal drug regulators,
because they don't understand this technology.
And I keep banging on about this.
But none of the regulators have sequenced the batches
as far as I'm aware.
So in a normal circumstance for a drug regulator
will take hydroxychloroquine or whatever,
they know that the chemical composition is,
they put it through a mass spectrometer,
99.99% purity, signed off, no problem, easy peasy.
For this, you can't do that.
mRNA is so difficult to handle.
If you saw it, it degrades,
it becomes a different product.
The sequences go,
there is a paper that was published
that I have a copy of.
It was published in sort of a preprint format
and it is by, where is it now?
Did you do it?
Give me two seconds, sorry for the pause.
By Jiang and Shora, S-H-O-U-R-A,
and it's called,
Assemblies of Putative SARS-CoV-2 Spike Encoding
mRNA Sequences for Vaccines, BNT162V2 and mRNA1273,
which are the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
And that paper is from Stanford.
And that paper, they took the samples of the vaccines
and sequenced them.
And the Pfizer vaccine was fine.
It was completely 100% the sequence
that was published in the WHO documents.
The Moderna vaccine that I checked the sequence for
from that document is completely all over the place,
completely all over the place.
It's got deletions, it's got frame shifts,
it's just a disaster.
So the assumption there is that
the Pfizer one they got was still cold
and the other one they got, the Moderna one,
had been out of the fridge for a period of time.
So not only did the drug regulators
have to sequence the fresh product,
but they also have to take samples.
This is what they should be doing.
They should be going to the vaccination centers
and taking samples of the ones
that have been out of the fridge for an hour
that they are injecting
and making sure that those sequences are not degrading.
Because mRNA is complete,
and you know, Miko will testify to this,
mRNA is one of the most thermally unstable
biological products we have.
The only thing keeping it in its confirmation
is those lipid nanoparticles,
but they're not like the panacea.
So the idea you could just inject it at any temperature
was always problematic,
but it's never been investigated.
In terms of why it's having effects on different regions,
what you should be doing for respiratory virus
is taking a nasal vaccine,
and that's what a lot of places are developing.
And that's fine, you know, let's do it.
Because that will give you the IgA that you need.
Injecting, and Sushir Abakdi talks about this
quite eloquently,
injecting something into the arm
to give you protection in the lungs
makes no sense at all.
And it's okay if the clinical data showed that it was true,
then that would be fine.
But as we're finding out,
the clinical data that we see in the world
is not the clinical data
that the pharma companies produced
in their shiny brochures.
And there is also the bio-distribution issues,
which is in that document that I sent around,
the TGA evaluation report.
That document is really important.
It shows the bio-distribution of the product
in the spleen, liver, adrenals, and ovaries,
and it's in English as opposed to Japanese,
which is helpful.
Thank you.
Thank you, Sam.
Thanks. Okay.
Thank you for the question.
All right, Stephen,
we're now come to the end of the formalities.
It's now pub time.
You can all go to the pub.
Sam, I am removing you, Sam.
We're making you free as just a second.
No, we want Sam here.
Just a second.
We'll go there.
We'll remove you as co-host for the moment.
I will make Stephen,
there's a worry, we'll make Stephen the host.
And Stephen, would you think,
would you think I, Sam, and...
Yes.
So, Mikolai, thank you so much for doing this.
And also Sam, one last thing I'd really like to ask you about.
Well, there are two things actually,
the toxicity, the possible toxicity
of the cationic lipid particles,
which Michael Palmer talks about.
He's a biochemist and pharmacologist
and microbiologist in Canada.
He's German, but he's got an English name.
He's absolutely brilliant.
So Sukrit Bhakhti, who himself is brilliant,
said that he's the most brilliant student that he ever had.
He's a medical doctor.
He's an immunologist.
He's a microbiologist.
So he's a bacteriologist, a virologist,
and a parasitologist.
He's also a biochemist, a pharmacologist,
and a toxicologist.
And he referred, so he's done a four minute video.
I'll try and find the link,
but I won't be able to find it for the chat now.
I've posted the link in the chat.
You've just put it, great.
Thank you, Theresa.
So he's done a video and it really is chilling
when you listen to it.
So he is a medical doctor, remember.
So he says that my opinion as a medical doctor,
he's talking about the toxicity.
Well, he talks about several things in those four minutes,
but it's really chilling to listen to him.
The toxicity of the cationic lipid particles.
Do you know anything about that or not?
Myself, I don't.
And I'm wondering, it comes down to the question basically,
because indeed when the vehicle fuses with the cell membrane,
you're going to have these novel
and basically exogenous foreign lipids in our membrane.
But keep in mind, most likely those cells
will also be destined for destruction by the immune system.
Sure.
So I'm hoping that that would mitigate problems
associated with, potentially associated with these lipids.
Yeah, well, apparently he says in this video,
it's really interesting to watch,
but it's, and he says it so casually that it has a certain power,
but it's very difficult to find this video.
Theresa manages to find it every time I ask her.
But so I recommend that I'd be very interested
in what both of you think of that video,
of the bits that you understand.
And last question,
and this maybe is more for Sam than for you, Miklai,
but maybe you have views on it.
So as far as I know,
no one knows what the contents of the vaccines are.
No doctor in the world and no regulatory body knows.
The big pharma companies refer to trade secrets
as a reason why they can't disclose
the full list of contents of the vaccine.
My question to you in particular, Sam,
because I believe you're a medical doctor, is that right?
Yeah, I'm only a surgeon, which I don't make it count.
Yeah, but you're still a medical doctor.
So my question is this,
if you don't know what the contents of the vaccines are,
these vials, and then you've got different lots as well,
and we don't know what the contents of those are either,
obviously, then how on earth can you possibly obtain
informed consent from the patient?
Well, I mean, Steve, you and I know
that the informed consent process in 2022
is different from the informed consent process
for every single year from 1947 to 2020.
So I think you and I know the answer to that question.
Let's go back to the scientific basis
of what's in the product.
But Sam, has the Nuremberg Code been violated?
In my opinion, 100%.
Sure. 100%.
It's an investigation.
So the Nuremberg Code can't be violated
unless it's a research study, okay?
So that's where you'll get blowback
on the Nuremberg Code issue.
But this is arguably very easily a study.
The randomized trial does not conclude until 2023,
irrespective of whether they put people,
unblinded them or not.
Those trials do not conclude until 2023.
So until 2023 has elapsed,
those products are still under research trial protocols.
And the pharmacovigilance is, of course, a phase four study.
So there's no, it's very easy to say
it's an investigational product.
I don't say experimental
because it brings other things into it.
So I just say investigational.
And so from that aspect,
the Nuremberg Code has easily been breached.
The other code that is definitely breached
irrespective of whether it's an investigational product
or not an investigational product
is the UN Bioethics Agreement 2005.
Exactly. Absolutely.
100%.
But the point about the Nuremberg Code, Sam,
if you've read about the history of it,
it was all about human medical experimentation
and making sure after the doctor's trial in Nuremberg,
that a human medical experimentation never took place again,
as it did prior to the Second World War
and during the Second World War.
And the whole, so the Nuremberg Code,
we would talk to medical school,
it's the most important document in the history of medicine.
And also-
The problem with this is it's not legally enforceable.
So we went through the- Yes, it is.
New South Wales Supreme Court basically just ignored it.
Well, Anna de Buisere was on the other day
and she said that it's being incorporated into the law.
I can't remember the laws now,
but she's a lawyer and she knows all about this.
So, and I'm a doctor and I would say,
even if it's not incorporated into the law,
doctors have to obey the Nuremberg Code.
And if they haven't, then they're accountable.
They have to be held accountable.
100%, 100%, because it becomes an assault.
If a medical treatment is provided
under false pretenses, it's an assault.
And of course the doctors will say
that they were acting on protocols
and they were following orders
and it was all time-
That's what the German doctor said.
That, exactly, exactly.
Yes, so we get to the real heart of it here,
that this is absolutely, I just cannot believe it.
And this has been a stunning-
And here's a little tip here for you.
And it should probably stay in this small group.
There is a doctor in Chile, I think, or Argentina,
one of the South American countries,
who's so proud of his heritage, he changed his name.
His grandfather was a guy called Joseph Mengele.
And he is a researcher, he's a clinician researcher.
And he investigates, his subject of interest
is trypanozoma cruzii, the sleeping sickness organism.
And you can look him up,
you can look him up to trypanozoma cruzii research.
And his name, he changed his name,
I know this from Philippe Raffaelli,
but he changed his name by Dieppold,
because he was called, he was himself called Joseph Mengele.
And he changed his name by Dieppold to Jose Mengele.
So this is how these people work.
And Wolfgang Wodarg, he was talking to Reiner Fulmick
about the, they've recently come out,
there's a guy in Kingston upon Thames, Werdekampo.
What is it, Theresa, can you remember?
Anyway, he's, sorry?
Just repeat the question.
There's a Dutch guy in Kingston upon Thames
did the incredible research on lots and-
Oh yes, Craig Pardecouper or Craig Cooper.
That's the one, yes.
He's in our group.
Right, okay.
Oh, we'll have to get him to speak.
So anyway, he's done this incredible research
and Wolfgang Wodarg and Reiner Fulmick agreed
that the research on the lots,
there's intent, there's cooperation
between the big pharma companies,
between Moderna, J&J and Pfizer, I believe.
I'm not sure about the AstraZeneca.
And they both agreed.
So Wolfgang Wodarg was responsible
for exposing the swine flu pandemic fraud of 2009.
The fraud was conducted by the WHO, by the way.
And he exposed and stopped that fraud.
And he was a politician as well as a medical doctor.
And so, and because he had connections
at the council of Europe,
an investigation was conducted at the council of Europe
and he gave evidence to get with another doctor.
There may have been others,
but I've seen video footage of both of them.
Anyway, the point is that he has history.
He knows what he's talking about.
And he said, you're talking about Mengele,
and he said, it's like having a thousand Mengele's.
And Reiner Fulmick is very well-known lawyer,
both in the US and Germany.
Steven, Dr. Roschek has to leave.
Sure.
Yeah, I have to run for another commitment
and it's coming really close.
So I just want to say bye everyone
because it's a fantastic opportunity
to chat with you, have this conversation.
And I'm looking forward to all the information
that I'll get to study.
So thanks a lot for reducing my free time.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
And thank you.
It was a pleasure.
And hopefully I'll be able to join you in the future,
but you have to run.
So I'm gonna sign off, okay?
Very good.
So bye everyone and until next time.
Thank you.
Bye.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
God bless.
And thank you, Sam.
You were great as well.
Thanks to Sam.
Is Sam gone?
No, Sam's still here.
Do you mind throwing a sneak in a quick question?
I'll go on then.
I'm curious.
I don't know if you're aware that the Novavax vaccine
got approved in Israel a few days ago.
And it's been approved in Australia as well.
I was gonna say it's around the corner in Australia.
So it's happened in Australia too.
Do you know, I mean, I know it's not a mRNA vaccine,
but they effectively injecting a spike protein
that's been manufactured by a moth.
But there seems to be a whole bunch of other issues.
Sorry?
It's a recombinant protein vaccine.
And just on that approval thing, Sam,
it's been approved by TGA,
yet to be approved by a target,
or has that already happened?
Yeah, I don't know the answer to that,
but they're working hand in hand.
Just forget the idea that they're going to do anything
different from each other,
or different from what Pfizer tell them,
or their associated entities.
The head of vaccine surveillance in the TGA
was recruited on January the 31st, 2021,
which was two days before the Pfizer vaccine was approved.
His name is Michael Nissen.
He came from GSK, which merged in Pfizer in 2019.
There's a freedom of information request
showing his recruitment,
which was done in January of last year.
So the head of vaccine surveillance for the TGA
came from,
Sorry, I'll jump in with your question.
And Sam, I do have another question about that as well,
but I don't want to jump in on whoever was asking
the question before.
So I'll wait.
I mean, I just wanted to ask if we know a lot about it
and what we think about its safety so far.
I mean, I know it's early days.
There is an OspA document for what it's worth.
I've not read it yet.
It's on my list of things to do this week.
It's a protein vaccine.
I don't mind protein vaccines.
I think they're fine.
Mostly safe.
You can get the Yambari,
but in comparison to what we're seeing now,
much, you know, like a hundred times safer
than what we're seeing out on the street
from what this one's done.
I mean, they've got 700 deaths registered at the TGA,
which they deny a link to the vaccines.
But that's what the submissions have gone.
I've gone through the process myself
of submitting an adverse event.
So it's not something that a doctor would do willy nilly
or a general person can do willy nilly.
It's like the VAERS system in the US.
It's not something you just put bullshit into.
So those deaths should have been investigated.
And of course they haven't.
So we've never seen a safety signal like this
from any vaccine in the past.
And I like vaccines.
Nothing wrong with vaccines if they're done correctly.
I just don't like coercion.
So in terms of this,
you'd expect it to be behaving more like the other vaccines
that we've had, the ones that don't kill people.
And the downside, the worry of it is two things.
One is that there are these lipid nanoparticles again.
So those themselves have got toxicity,
well-documented toxicity studies.
And of course, contain things like PEG.
Different nanoparticles are different,
but you've got polyethylene glycol running around your body.
It's not the best thing in the world.
And the second thing is that the spike protein itself,
2B confirmation of spike protein
that Mika was talking about,
is not the spike protein on the virus.
It's a 2B confirmation.
It's a two-protein, abundant, augmented spike protein.
It's not the same.
And whoever tells you it's the same, it's not the same.
It's not.
It's a fusion, pre-fusion conformal protein.
It's a different structure.
And there is not one, so it was invented in 2017,
and there are patents on it,
and there is not one clinical study that shows
that the normal protein injected into the protein
is safe and effective.
Not one.
There isn't one single clinical study
that shows that that protein is safe.
Now it probably is,
but there isn't, no clinical study has been,
just like the three-prime UTR of the Pfizer vaccine,
there was no clinical study performed
to show that backbone was safe.
So they've invented all these different things
and said, oh yeah, this'll be great.
This'll be great.
We'll put all these together and just go for it.
And out of interest, how many people here?
12.
Just, how many of you know
what diethylstilbestrol is?
What, what?
Diethylstilbestrol.
Sorry, I'm absolutely not.
What, why, why is that?
Diethyl, you've got to look it up.
So diethylstilbestrol is one of the biggest
medical scandals of history on akindethalidomide,
but the significance of it is so important
because what happened was in the 1930s and 40s,
women who were going to adopt, they might miscarry,
were taking this drug to try and stop the miscarrying.
And it didn't affect them at all.
And it didn't affect the babies who were born fine.
But what happened was 10 to 30 years later,
the daughters of the women that took diethylstilbestrol
developed vaginal adenocarcinomas that were incurable.
Wow.
Now, I'm in a group here,
I'm just talking to a group here of 12 highly educated people
half of which are doctors, and you've never heard of it.
And that's what I'm going to gobsmacked.
So if you guys haven't heard of it,
what do you think the possibility is
that the people making these rules
and public health policies have heard of it
when they're coercing and forcing pregnant women
who are working to, thanks Sam,
I've heard of it.
To get a therapy for which every single component
of that therapy that have been put together
has never ever been investigated
in long-term clinical studies, including pregnancy studies.
And all you've got is 22 mice
of which every single mouse that was produced
was terminated, was euthanated.
That's it.
That's your whole pregnancy study for this drug,
which has multiple components.
And if you don't know about diethylsulfur bistrol,
you better get looking at it.
I have heard the name,
but I can't remember what I knew about it.
So we've got still to this day,
looking at women doing colposcopies on women
who have had diethylsulfur bistrol exposure
in utero 60 years ago.
Did all the women get adenocarcinoma of the vagina?
I don't know the answer to that.
The daughters, I mean.
The daughters, yeah, I don't know the answer to that,
but they actually got different carcinomas as well,
depending on what age they were.
So the vaginal ones appeared as children.
So children were getting vaginal adenocarcinomas,
then you get cervical cancers about age 20s,
and then at 30s you get a uterine cancer.
And it was a specific type of cancer.
It was a clear cell adenocarcinoma.
By the way, Sam, there are 34 people
on the call at the moment.
No.
So.
But it's interesting, isn't it?
Because like most people know about thalidomide,
young people don't know about thalidomide,
but thalidomide was a bit more obvious
because the baby would be born deformed.
But a lot of people don't know also that in thalidomide,
the only minority of women that took thalidomide
had an affected child, like 1%.
It was a small minority,
so you didn't see the safety signal all this
because, oh, it's fine, yeah, yeah, take it, take it,
it's great.
And it only affected your offspring
if you took it between six and eight weeks.
Well.
Do you think they were using different batteries
or lots then?
For which?
For the thalidomide?
For the thalidomide, yeah.
No, no, no.
It was just if you took it between six and eight weeks,
and don't forget, everybody responds differently.
So it was a very, very, very, very, very, very, very,
so you can give something to a hundred people,
and only one of that hundred actually has the effect.
Sure.
This is how, and that's why the,
that's why the pharmacovigilance databases
were put in place.
In fact, the Invares was put in place
because Reagan said,
okay, we will give you carte blanche
to do your vaccine therapy because we need them,
and that was fine, okay,
we'll give you carte blanche, you'll have immunity,
but the counter is you have this database running,
and if you see a safety signal, you stop.
Yeah, well, Sam, we've got a situation now
where VERS, which is the US one,
the MHRA in UK,
and EMA in Europe,
the total number of deaths reported post-injection
is 62,000, I think,
and it's estimated that only one to 10%
of the deaths have been reported as deaths due to injection.
You know, I know all that,
but the problem is you've got judiciary
and doctors in public health in power
who are telling you you're crazy,
and it doesn't matter that the 62,000 deaths.
Well, it will matter when we've won this war
because it's a war as far as I can see.
Well, it is a war, but you have to listen to this thing.
You've got a problem, right?
This is your problem.
Even if you get a Nuremberg 2 going, which I hope you do,
and I hope there are people who get, you know,
criminally charged for the coercion.
Honestly, let me put this out there.
If you want to take a vaccine, I have no problem.
I've told people to go and take a vaccine
because they're shit scared of life.
Go and do it.
I don't have a problem.
My red line is where you coerce somebody
to have a medical treatment that they do not want, okay?
If you coerce somebody to have a medical treatment
they do not want, you accept liability
for every single outcome of that treatment.
That's it.
Yeah, I agree with you.
Okay?
So if you do that, if somebody has died after you have,
one person, if you as a public health official said,
you have got to go and get this vaccine
because you will not be allowed to work
if you don't get it, right?
Then that person dies,
you have committed manslaughter, minimum.
Minimum, yes.
You only need one person, but the problem is
who's going to run the trial?
Because what we found in the New South Wales
Supreme Court is all the judiciary is corrupted.
The guy who ran, the judge who ran
the first New South Wales Supreme Court case
that was Cassand versus Hazard,
that judge, his wife is an activist,
is a far left activist.
She changed her Twitter account a week before the trial.
The judge was imposed a week before the trial
and he's going for a federal court seat.
So there's no way he's going to rule against the government.
He dismissed the case.
But Sam, that's why we've gone to the police
because we didn't trust the courts.
No, I get it.
But the police will then go to the courts.
No.
We've also asked them to stop the vaccinations
while they're conducting a criminal investigation,
which at the moment will take them several years
to complete.
I don't think you should stop the vaccinations.
And that may be, you know,
what's the word, confrontational to you.
I don't think you should stop them.
What I think you should do,
what you would think should happen
is that not one person should be coerced
to take a vaccine that they don't want.
That's it.
It's just a basic principle.
But also, Sam, surely you have to obtain informed consent
as a doctor.
Yes.
Correct.
Nobody's being allowed the opportunity
to give informed, sorry, informed consent.
Nobody's, so how can we say carry on?
No, no, no, no.
No, no, no.
You don't get me.
I believe in the right to try.
I believe that you should be able to go
and get an experimental drug if you want it.
Now, I'm not gonna change
that fundamental principle of ethics
because I don't believe you should withdraw treatment
from people who want an experimental drug
in certain circumstances.
I believe in an individual's right to choose.
Now, now-
Hang on, Sam.
Nobody knows it's an experimental drug
because the governments of the world,
the regulatory bodies are all saying
that this vaccine is safe and effective
and it is not experimental.
You can go and look at all the fact checkers.
So how is anybody giving informed consent, Sam?
Not, I agree with you.
What I'm saying, you didn't let me finish.
What needed to happen was that the doctors
who should have been free to speak
should have been free to speak and not suppressed.
That would have solved the problem
because at the time it was rolled out,
you did not know and I did not know
that that vaccine was not going to be beneficial.
We did not know.
Sorry, we didn't know what?
I knew that it was highly unlikely
to be beneficial to anyone.
Ah, now you chose your words very carefully there, Stephen.
So I'm in a situation where somebody-
Sam, I would have said, okay, look,
I know and I've known for a long time
that nobody knows what's in these vaccines.
So given that leads on to
it's impossible to obtain informed consent.
Because the doctors don't even know.
They don't even know it's a trial half the doctors.
Correct.
Yeah.
So they're in-
What I'm saying to you is that,
so let's say you came to me, okay,
and you're in an age group that's at risk
and we've got a drug company saying,
we've got a drug here that we are saying
is going to protect you.
So at the beginning of the vaccine rollout,
that older person at risk came to me, okay,
and said to me, and if I was free to talk,
I would say, well, you've got an experimental vaccine choice.
You've got hydroxychloroquine ivermectin choice
if you get sick, this is what I believe in,
or you can do nothing.
We don't know what the correct answer is.
And that was the case in January, 2021.
As it got to June, 2021,
it was absolutely clear that it wasn't the case
and it wasn't doing anything.
And now we're in February, 2022,
if I was free to speak and somebody in that risk group
said to me, oh, should I get the vaccine?
I'll say, well, A, we don't know what's in it,
we never did, but B, we now have safety signals
that are very concerning and C,
we also know from the UK HSA data
that your risk of getting infection is higher.
That's all I'd need to say,
but I'm not allowed to say that.
Well, yes, but my argument is that
unfortunately, doctors have a huge duty to any society
and they have a duty to say to the patients
that actually, I can't give you the information
which allows you to give me your consent.
You're correct, correct.
So after that, after Edith-
But the point is, Sam, that I was gonna say,
sorry, I lost my problem.
So I was going to say that doctors
should not have allowed themselves to be silenced.
Correct, that's the whole crux of this issue.
So doctors are the most culpable in this crisis,
unfortunately, followed by the media.
No, no, I disagree.
Oh, so Sam, would you like to-
I'll be politely in that we can only act
within the restrictions that are placed upon us.
So I could go out tomorrow and say,
I don't believe in this, I don't believe in this.
What would happen is I'll be Wakefielded.
I would be Wakefielded.
So you tell me, is Andrew Wakefield
more influential now than he was before?
No, because they take his registration and nullify him.
So even good-
And there are hundreds of us, even good-hearted doctors
cannot just go out and say, we've got to stop this.
We've got to do what we're doing now.
Like we go in the background and we say,
oh, this is wrong, this is wrong.
It's not ethical, blah, blah, blah.
We can't just go out and say, no, no, you can't do that.
We'll go on TV.
We'll just take you out.
But the problem is your regulators.
Your regulators have been captured.
That is your problem.
Sure, I agree.
But unfortunately at the doctor's trial,
the doctors tried to argue that they were following orders
and there was times of emergency.
And doctors no doubt now would argue exactly the same thing,
but it didn't work at the doctor's trial.
No, I agree.
So from my perspective,
I've signed the Great Barrington Declaration.
I've got my signature on the doctors for COVID ethics thing.
So when the trial comes, I'm going to say, look,
I wasn't one of these people.
I tried to do my best.
I have signed these declarations.
So one way of going around this is to say,
if you can get the coverage is to say,
okay, let's go to every doctor on Twitter
that is pushing this on five-year-olds or pregnant women
and say, do you declare this now?
You could get a website going,
a declaration website of every doctor
on the opposite side from me
and the Great Barrington Declaration people,
the opposite side,
and get them to sign up that they 100% advocate
that this vaccine is safe and effective
at reducing disease from COVID-19
and is safe in pregnancy and is safe in children
and will not have long-term effects.
And you make that website and they have to sign it.
And you go to them on Twitter and say,
can you sign this website, please?
And nobody will sign it.
And then you've got the evidence there
that they were pushing some things
that they did not believe in.
That's interesting.
I've got evidence that I've signed two declarations.
I've signed a Lancetgate letter.
I've got various paper trails that said,
I did not push this on people.
If you want to get it, you get it.
If you don't want to get it, you don't get it.
Well, Sam, would you like to retract your statement
that you said earlier
that you think the vaccination should continue,
given that we've just demonstrated
that nobody's given an informed consent since the start?
Yes, you've complicated it a little bit in that.
All right, so the question is,
should the vaccination continue now?
That's slightly different from what happened last year.
Last year, I absolutely believed
that the vaccine should have been offered to people.
I don't have a problem with it.
My problem is that it should have been offered on the basis
that it was an investigation of therapy
that we don't know the long-term consequences of
and may not be effective.
That would be the right thing to do.
Well, it's interesting that-
But also because we didn't know the contents.
Eight weeks after they first vaccinated
women of childbearing age, okay?
Eight weeks after they started doing it,
because everybody during the trials was told
to use two methods of contraception.
So we know that the first time they vaccinated women
of childbearing age was about April going into May
in the UK, okay?
Eight weeks after that,
the chief midwife for the NHS England
went public and said that it's safe and effective
all pregnant women should be vaccinated.
Two months after that, the health minister for Wales,
what's her name?
Elinor Morgan.
She went public and said that this vaccine
is safe and effective and pregnant women
should all go and get the job, okay?
At that point, they'd only been vaccinating pregnant,
well, women of childbearing age for two months,
sorry, four months by that point.
So doesn't it take nine months to make a baby?
Shouldn't the whole vaccination program-
Theresa, you are preaching to the converted.
I'm gonna tell you something now.
I wrote to the Royal College in April last year
and outlined an eight point letter
as to why their information on their website
was inaccurate and could mean that the college
could be held liable in the future.
Nobody else has done that.
Now they ignored me and they wrote back to me,
but it doesn't matter because I've got that letter
and that letter has been sent to the lawyers in the UK
who are now following this pathway of criminal action, okay?
But what I couldn't do is I couldn't go on the internet
and say, you shouldn't do this.
Now that doesn't mean that I shouldn't,
that doesn't mean that that vaccine
shouldn't have been offered to people.
And I'll tell you why.
This is what happens to an individual doctor.
So you come along and you're pregnant, okay?
And you say, should I take this COVID vaccine?
And I say, I think you should have to be really,
really careful about taking any drug in pregnancy
that has not been investigated in long-term studies.
And they say, well, I'm really scared of getting COVID
and COVID has caused miscarriages or causes stillbirth.
So if I don't get this vaccine and then I have a stillbirth,
I'm going to blame you or I'm going to blame the advice.
So you can't actually win.
Because you don't know the answer as a doctor,
your only honest answer is to say, I don't know.
And therefore I'm not going to take
that opportunity away from you.
If you want to get it going.
But Sam, if you don't know,
you can't obtain non-form consent.
And that's what I'm saying.
You say the patient should be given the information
that this is completely untested, untried therapy.
And there are so many problems from the past
of untested, untried therapies in pregnancy.
And that's why I wrote to the Royal College
in April last year and said,
you can't say what you're saying on the internet.
What you have to say is it has not been tested.
And they did not change it.
So I'm honestly-
I don't understand why it pointed his patients
to the MHRA yellow card data.
That was a really sensible thing to do,
but he still got suspended, didn't he?
And you see it and see, can you see the problem?
So if nobody's outside that,
they'll just get suspended.
So it's gotta be pitchforks and torches then.
That's the only way we're gonna do it.
No.
If Stephen's criminal action fails, I mean, it may be.
But the argument you're picking with me
is that I said that the vaccine should have been allowed.
Well, actually, you lost me at-
You agree with vaccines,
that they're generally a good idea.
I personally know four children that were vaccine injured
within hours.
I mean, they became autistic or brain damaged
within hours of the MMR jab.
I personally, that's in my own family,
nevermind the autistic kids I used to work with.
We don't wanna be haranguing.
Yeah, but I just,
I think we've gotta reevaluate
everything we ever talked about medicine.
You can disagree with me as much as you want,
but I am, of the spectrum of people,
more on your side than 99% of the doctors.
And that's the problem.
I was a care worker.
Where were the NHS 100,000 when myself
and all my colleagues were being told
that we couldn't work unless we were jabbed?
I mean, this-
You're actually undercover.
Yeah, we've got a problem, haven't we, Sam?
Yeah.
Well, I personally think these are the greatest-
Sam, I think that these,
this is my opinion,
that these are the greatest crimes against humanity
ever committed.
I'm including not just the vaccinations,
but the social distancing,
the lockdowns,
the psychological trauma,
the brainwashing.
It's just awful.
The psychological torture of coercion
and the arbitrariness of these nonsense rules.
Now, and I think that's where we should,
that's where people should focus their energies
in terms of criminal action,
is about the coercion.
There are actions also going on to say,
you need to stop this vaccination rollout
until such and such criteria has been evaluated.
That's correct.
That's the correct thing to do.
So, I agree with you.
It should be stopped at the point of that.
That's where, if you haven't got this information,
you've got to pause until you've got this information.
Because your safety signal,
you've now got evidence
that your safety signal is too strong.
You didn't have that evidence in March last year.
Sam?
Yeah.
Quick question.
What would happen to a doctor if they recuse themselves?
In other words, they neither confirm nor deny it.
They neither advocate nor disparage the vaccine.
They just say, I don't give vaccines.
I don't give advice on vaccines.
By doing that, you're telling the patient
that you're very skeptical about them,
but you're not explicitly saying it.
Would the Australian regulator go after you
if you recused yourself?
Well, they haven't come after me yet,
but they would like to.
So, no, I don't think they can come after you
for recusing yourself.
Well, Sam, if they do come after you, then let me know.
Thank you, Scott.
We'll send Stephen to Australia.
I think they will try,
but you have to remember that
the way I look at it is I'm under an ethical duty
that is in their policies,
that my primary duty is to the care
of the patients and the public.
So I have been typed,
because David Wiseman gave a presentation
to the FDA on boosters,
and my name was on that paper,
because I helped him with some of the women's stuff.
And then I got targeted by the media
for existing in that paper.
In Australia?
So I submitted that document then
as a public interest disclosure.
And in Australia, if you make a public interest disclosure
and somebody comes after you, it's a criminal act.
So they can go to jail for two years.
Wow.
You don't have that in the UK.
You've got employment law,
which is what Sam White went under.
And you've got employment law disclosure acts,
but you don't have a criminal response.
Well, actually what Sam White won on in the end
was on a free speech issue.
Yeah, he only half won though.
Well, he won in the high courts.
No, no, I get that, but he only half won,
because they essentially won on a technicality, didn't they?
Well, yes, but I think the judge was quite clever
because he wanted to find in Sam's favor
and he found that technicality.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, and that's good.
But that again, relies on the judge, doesn't it?
So is Sam White back practicing
and able to speak freely?
That's the question.
I don't think he wants to work in the present NHS
and neither do I.
He speaks very freely.
He's got a telegram page that he's quite prolific on.
Oh, they're absolutely terrified of Sam White now, yeah.
Yeah.
But they'll come after him again.
But that's what I'm saying, that's the problem,
that's the problem, Steve, is the regulators.