This is your time.
And yeah, all right.
We're done.
We're ready to go.
Thank you for the volunteers who, if they if they get in later, I won't do the
intro because just in the interest of time.
But for those of you who want to see a standard intro, look at another recording.
And we're delighted.
Thank you, Stephen, for organizing Mike Yeaton to be with us and for going through
those logistical hurdles and Mike, we're in your hands and look forward to your
conversation and you and a.
Charles, can you do your normal speech so that it's the same as usual, even though
it's a bit later than usual?
Yes, I can.
I'll be I'll be quick.
So welcome to today's discussion of medical doctors for COVID ethics
international.
This group was founded by Dr.
Stephen Trust over three years ago with a desire to pursue truth, ethics, justice,
freedom and health.
Stephen has stood up against government and power over the years and has been a
whistleblower and activist.
His medical specialty is radiology.
I'm Charles Covessa, moderator of this group on Australasia's passion provocateur.
And we love passionate people in these meetings and everyone who comes here is
passionate.
I practice law for 20 years before changing career 31 years ago.
And over the last 13 years, I've helped parents and lawyers to strategize remedies
for vaccine damage and damage from bad medical advice.
I'm also the CEO of the industrial hemp company.
We comprise lots of professions here and we're from all around the world.
Many of us thought that vaccines were OK.
Now, many of us proudly say, yes, we are passionate anti-vaxxers.
If this is your first time here, welcome and feel free to introduce yourself in
the chat.
If you publish a newsletter or a podcast or have a radio or TV show or you've
written a book, put the links into the chat so we can follow you, promote you
and find you.
Most of us understand we're in the middle of World War Three and that the
medical science battle is only one of 12 battle fronts.
This is no time for us to be tired.
We are some four years into what I predict is a seven year war.
So we're only halfway through.
So re-gird your loins.
Most of us understand the development of science and that the science is never
settled and Mike Gidd and our guest today is a scientist.
I'm sure he knows that.
Some of us believe that viruses exist.
Some of us believe that they are a hoax and some of us are sitting on the fence.
This meeting runs for two and a half hours, after which, for those with the
time, Tom Rodman runs a video telegram meeting for those with the time to join.
We'll listen to Dr.
Mike Gidd and our guest for as long as Mike wishes to speak.
And then we have Q&A.
Stephen Frost, via long established tradition, asks the first questions for
15 minutes.
This is a free speech environment with appropriate moderating and no ad hominem
attacks.
You don't attack people.
We discuss ideas.
If you're offended by anything, be offended.
We are lovingly not interested.
We reject the offense industry that requires nobody to say anything that may
offend another.
We come with an attitude and perspective of love, not fear.
Fear is the opposite of love.
Fear squashes you.
Love on the other hand, expands you.
As human beings, our unity is our strength.
Being divided makes us weak.
These twice weekly meetings are not just talk fests and extraordinary range of
actions and initiatives have been generated from linkages made by attendees
in these meetings.
If you have a solution or a product or links or resources that will help people
put the details into the chat, the meeting is recorded and is uploaded onto
the Rumble channel.
And they're welcome to our guest presenter, Dr.
Mike Yead and famously renowned, we're at 100 limit on our meeting size.
Mike, that shows the how popular you are.
And thank you so much for giving us your time, wisdom and insights.
And Mike's CV for those watching the recording is on the show notes on this
recording that is on the Rumble channel.
And thank you, Stephen Frost, again, for creating this group over three years ago
and for organizing Mike to be with us today.
Over to you, Mike.
Charles, thank you very much.
A fantastic introduction and also really good to just hear about the group and
welcome. Welcome.
Thank you very much, everyone, for for connecting and listening to me.
Stephen, thank you. Thank you for the invitation to and of course, your
companionship over the years.
We've been speaking for a long time.
So so I'm Dr. Mike Eden.
I would describe myself as a career life scientist.
I trained in biochemistry and toxicology, my first degree.
That was an unusual training in that there were a couple of professors at
university who had specialized in understanding how it is mechanistically at
the molecular level.
People can be damaged by certain environmental chemicals, insecticides and
so on. So their interests have given birth to a course and I was a beneficiary.
So I call that mechanistic toxicology.
I'm English, so I don't like bragging, but it's worth saying that the university
awarded me the first class honors degree that was head and shoulders higher than
any other person had been awarded from the faculty at the time.
So I must have been doing something right.
It was a four year undergraduate training and I spent a year in the scientific
civil service, half of which was at the UK's top secret
chemical defense establishment at Porton Down, which used to be and is still now,
in my view, a biological weapons facility of some kind.
And I did a little bit of research there whose objective was to help protect
British and allied troops from organophosphorus nerve agents in a small way.
Then I worked at the forensic science headquarters in Aldermaston next to the
atomic weapons facility and I learned lots of analytical techniques from very clever
scientific civil servants.
And at the end of that year, I resolved not to join scientific civil service
because they all sounded very bored and frustrated.
So but I always wanted to do applied work.
And so I decided to take a PhD in the scientific civil service.
I did a very quick PhD.
I was offered to be sponsored by the M.O.D., the same people who had employed me for a
little while as an undergraduate.
And I did a very quick PhD.
I started, finished, rooted up and passed the VIVA in exactly 36 months.
And it was on the effect of opiates on respiratory function.
So I was looking at central and peripheral actions of opiates like morphine on various
reflex. And the goal was to see whether we could separate the receptors involved in
pain relief from those involved in cardiorespiratory depression.
Bad news is we couldn't.
But I used an interesting technique or two, which I was able to take into into an
industry. And most importantly, it taught me the scientific method of reading into a
subject, trying to join the dots, thinking of unanswered questions that were worth
answering to formulate them, convert them into experimental plans and then gain
agreement for those and then go and do them, trying not to drop tubes on the floor and
missing the time points and so on.
So I did a three year course, a three year PhD and learned how to do the scientific
the scientific method as we as we know it.
And then straight away after that, I joined I took I've taken two big jobs in so-called
big pharma. So the first seven years I was at the Wellcome Research Labs, which were
then acquired by Glaxo to form eventually Glaxo SmithKline.
And I only now realized how important that was.
And that was probably an event on the timeline of the plans, believe it or not, to the
event we're living in now. Why do I say that?
Well, it's because it liberated an enormous amount of capital which was used to to start
the really to fund the Wellcome Foundation.
And I believe the Wellcome Foundation is one of a triumvirate of bodies which have
corruptly altered the direction of biology research in the world for the last 30 years.
Anyway, so I left Wellcome and I was recruited, actively recruited by head of
pharmacology there had seen me give a speech said, you know, we're going to we would
like to expand a respiratory drugs research group here at Sandwich and Kent.
We'd like you to come. And I interviewed, loved it.
And I stayed 17 years.
And in addition to growing the group and working with over 200 people, we produced a lot
of experimental medicines that were still in progress at 2011 when the company closed
the entire facility.
At the time I left, I was worldwide head of research for allergy and respiratory diseases
for Pfizer, which at the time was the biggest research based drug company.
So it means I didn't get to decide make all the decisions, but I was expected to have an
opinion about everything in my area.
And I loved it.
It's really, really good fun.
Having left in 2011, I worked very hard to see if I could find other people interested
in the drugs that were in progress that Pfizer was willing just to put in the in the skip
the dumpster because they were liberating cash and reducing their internal research
footprint. Just just in parenthesis, all drug companies have realized they have no idea
how to industrialize the process of drug discovery.
It's more an art than a science that the methods you have to use to evaluate things are
scientific. But the idea is as much art as anything else.
And I did have the privilege of meeting Professor James Black, who invented both beta
blockers and H2 antihistamines back in the day when those things were considered valuable.
And although those drugs might not be wonderful now, he was a pretty smart guy and I think
honest. And I learned a lot from people like that.
So I tried to find new owners for the work I had been doing.
And I was really pleased that it was mostly acquired by the world's second largest
generic company called Mylan, who on the basis of the work I had been doing, formed
a UK subsidiary and acquired almost everything.
So the people went across and got jobs.
The work continued.
I'm proud to say they launched the products.
So I wasn't completely wrong, Mr.
Pfizer. The bits they didn't want.
I'll just I didn't think about doing anything with them.
But for the first year, having left Pfizer for 2011 to 12, I just I was just very lucky
people contacted me and said, we'd like you to consult if you'd like to do a day a week or
day a month, whatever it was.
So I started building a little portfolio of consulting clients, all startups, all biotechs,
mostly in the in the US.
And that happened probably because for 10 years at Pfizer, I did a job that nobody
wants to do, which was to review the external environment for any in licensing or
acquisition opportunities.
Pfizer was like lots of companies, as I mentioned earlier, was realizing they could
not invent drugs internally at the rate required to feed the machine and all the implied
growth rates that Wall Street wants to hear.
So it's like, what are we going to do?
It's like, OK, get these scientists if they can't invent stuff to run the radar on
everybody else's smaller companies and and so on.
And so there were two or three deals I did that and I think 10 billion in revenue.
So I had to be very persistent.
That taught me persistence right up to the board level.
And the particular example was Pfizer formed a relationship with Berlinger-Ingelheim for a
drug called Sporiva, which at the time of identification was in early phase two
trials. So I thought that that's a good drug.
I think it is. And so anyway, I proved influential.
I could and persistent really.
So and it's because I kept reviewing things.
I reviewed 100 opportunities, 97 of which we declined.
So not it's not fun.
But what I did and I didn't realize it at the time is I was getting a live teaching on how not to
do biotech and when it worked, how to do it.
So when I left Pfizer, I got invited back to consult to some of these folks who'd started
another company saying, you know, you were helpful.
A couple of them over coffee said, what are you going to do with all the stuff that's going to get
thrown away? And I said, no idea.
And they said, well, you should spin those assets out.
And I had no idea. But anyway, within a couple of weeks, I'd formulated an idea that, yeah, I could
probably do something with those compounds.
So I got together a small team, went to see someone, senior advisor, say, so I said, if I run if I
raise some private capital, will you at least in principle agree to negotiate to assign those
patents to me? And they said, yeah.
18 months later, I came back with a six million seed of investment from San Francisco.
It's an answer there. And ZRCO was born.
And I led as a CEO and we grew up to 25 staff, raised about 40 million US dollars, ran a
clinical trial, which was unbelievably positive.
We conversed a drug that was intended for asthma to a drug that could be used in atopic
dermatitis, a disease of inflammation and itch in the skin for which there were no oral
treatment. So this isn't once a day oral treatment.
And it looked fantastic.
And within a few months, Novartis, the big Swiss drug company, acquired my little company
for an obscene amount of money.
I only had a little shareholding at that time, but it was enough to retire.
And I did. That was 2017.
So I was enjoying early retirement when what I call the Covid era began.
And I think quite early on, I thought I was very frightened, like most people.
You were intended to be.
But I noticed this is very important.
I noticed significant public figures on the television that I knew because I've been
around so long that, for example, Sir Patrick Vallance was a former colleague at
Wellcome over 30 years earlier.
So I slightly knew these people and I noticed that he wasn't telling the truth.
So sometimes I spotted him saying things I knew were not true and I knew he knew them
because we had trained in the same university ecosystem at the same time.
So I thought, why are you lying?
Once you spot someone's telling a lie, you pay a lot of attention.
And then there was talk of lockdowns.
And I kind of knew this was nonsense.
I'll put it to people that for it not to be nonsense, you have to believe that people
without symptoms, that is well people, can give a disease they haven't got to other
people. Now, that isn't very likely, and it didn't happen.
But when you and of course, and then the other thing to say is it's quite complicated
that I did used to believe in the germ theory model of acute respiratory diseases.
So I don't anymore. But at the time I did.
And so I thought, well, this is crazy.
The people who are the best sources of infection are the people who were ill and the
people who were ill are already at home or in hospital.
And the well people can't infect other people.
So lockdown is stupid.
And I started reading the pandemic preparation plans of all the countries I could find,
starting with UK and then Germany and then France and America.
None of them mentioned lockdown.
And it was illogical.
And so I said to my wife, something horrible is happening.
So what do you mean? I said, there are all the countries are talking about making a
stay at home and explain to why it was mad.
And she looked very concerned.
I said, I'm really, really concerned.
And on the day then Prime Minister Boris Johnson said, I sorry to have to tell you,
you must stay at home.
Apparently, I was racing up and down the stairs all evening, muttering, we are in so
much trouble. And I knew we were.
I didn't know what the hell was happening.
But I knew that something serious was happening.
And let me put it to you, ladies and gentlemen, the only way all the countries of the
world are pretty much would do the same stupid thing that I knew was hopeless and
was not in their plans would be if there was a supranational plan, supranational
force above those countries.
You know, that I knew that that evening, I had no idea who they were.
And that's true. They didn't decide to do it on their own.
Someone told me to do it.
There's no way that could have independently all decided to do a stupid thing that was
out with their original plans that had been put together by, I think, sincere, careful
people. So I knew already in March something was happening.
I didn't know what at the time, as I've said, I thought that acute respiratory
diseases were caused by sub microscopic infectious particles called viruses.
I no longer believe that.
And what will come to the chase?
All I believe that a I believe that a fake emergency has been strung up sprung upon
us. I didn't think that early on, but probably in 2021, I encountered Professor
Dennis Rancourt or Denis Rancourt, and he had done a week by week analysis of all
cause mortality separately in each of the 50 US states.
And he'd been doing it for some time before the pandemic.
And so he started publishing in the summer of 2020 saying in no in no state, looking
at people dying in terms of sex, age and date of death.
When I when I do the plot, he said, I see no there's no sign of anything happening.
Up until the moment when a pandemic was declared, whereupon the world went mad.
And around so I didn't know, but I now know there was there was nothing happening prior
to the declaration of a pandemic.
And I think that means there wasn't one.
So it doesn't matter to me if there was a virus or not a virus.
There wasn't any public health emergency.
I think that's the thing to focus on.
And yet the world went crazy.
We were locked down.
We made the way wear masks, wash our hands, keep social distance, close most businesses
unless they were essential, not do international travel.
In some countries, closed schools and universities.
Everything went remote.
It's like that is so destructive on two fronts.
It's actually so destructive.
On two fronts, it's I'm enough of an economist to know that if you do that, every country
that does it will go bankrupt.
You can't you can't fund an economy by borrowings for months to years and not have
unbelievably serious consequences.
Seriously, I personally think all the countries of the world are technically bankrupt and
have been kept going by agreement with the central banks over led by the Bank of International
Settlement in Switzerland.
So I think they've agreed you're all broke, but we'll keep it going.
So financial damage was one.
There were individuals at the national level in damage in currency.
Also, individuals were bankrupted.
And then, of course, the third main factor was social dislocation.
You know, people whose whose lives were only kept meaningful because they were interacting
daily with with people who mattered to them became depressed.
And I'm sure many of them died.
Humans don't like isolation anymore than if you put a dog on it, turn the candle and leave
it for a few months, it'll probably be dead, even if you feed it every day.
And humans aren't very different.
So I believe there was not a public health emergency.
One was faked using lies, propaganda and this wretched PCR test, whether or not the
virus was a virus is irrelevant because there wasn't a public health emergency.
And then there were economic damage, which at a country level, individual level and a
social destruction level.
But where I really come in and where I I think I stand alone, which is very shocking,
what I'm going to tell you, but we know what I'm going to tell you that it is in my
opinion, the other another of the objectives of this fake pandemic was to incentivise over
5 billion humans on the planet to roll their sleeves up to receive an injection of a
material that was designed intentionally to to injure, kill and reduce fertility.
Now, a lot of people have got upset to me with me when I've said this.
I point out my entire career has been in the business of rational drug design, working
with colleagues. I put it to you that with the exception of natural products that can
be purified from a source, every synthetic drug, everything that's in a tablet or a
bottle or a spray or cream, every atom in there is in there because someone decided to
put it in there. And you only put things in there because they serve a function.
And coming right down to the level of the design of a of a molecule, it could be a
beta blocker or a steroid or this macromolecule we're told called modified mRNA,
that every single part of it is there for a reason.
And so in a sense, I can virtually lean over the shoulder of the designer, look at the
structure and think, what were you what were you up to?
And and I can I can name and I will at least three features of these molecules, which as a
35 year veteran of this industry, I am certain would not have gone forward if this was like
a drug I was involved in. And I know of other people who have identified two further
mechanisms. So what I'm saying, I'm going to justify that there are multiple independent
designed in toxicities in these injections.
And before I describe them, I will say that with Dr. Wolfgang Vodarg, I wrote an open
letter to the European Medicines Agency before any of these products have, quote,
authorization. So we couldn't know what the profile was.
But I detailed not all of them, but I detailed the ones I thought of the tie at the time,
saying, for goodness sake, you know, desist if you inject millions of people with this.
This is these are the kind of things I anticipate will happen.
Well, they have all happened.
They have all happened and more.
I we didn't I hadn't thought about cancer.
So I'm going to describe three things that are blindingly obvious.
And then I think what I'll do is I'll stop and take questions on the whole thing.
I recently wrote an open letter to the Metropolitan Police and it's on my sub stack.
If you look up Dr.
Mike Eden, sub stack is the only article there.
A friend of mine said I should put it out there.
And in that letter, I more or less laid out what I just what I've just said so far, who I am,
the backdrop and the awful allegations.
So the three things I'm going to pick out and there are many more, but these I think are so I think I
think you can't deny these.
So number one, if you express, if you force a human body to to manufacture something that doesn't
belong in the human body, it will be non self or foreign.
And that's what these products do.
They they provide a genetic instruction, messenger RNA.
It says, please glide into these cells and tell the cells to do what instruction is, which is to make
whatever is encoded.
If you do that, I believe based on simple immunological principles that have been known for at
least 60 or 70 years, that every cell that does that will mark itself now as foreign.
Your immune system plays nice with itself most of the time unless you're ill because your immune
system is constantly traveling around your body, T cells and so on, sniffing and sniffing and
sniffing. And it keeps spotting.
Yep, that's my. Yep, that's my. Yep, that's my.
What's that? And if it finds a cell that no longer is displaying the sort of I'm one of you symbols,
your immune system goes to war, attacks it and kills it.
This happens in at least two ways.
One is if you get an infection and no matter what kind your immune system will notice something is
wrong and attempt to save you from it by launching a lethal attack on the cells and tissues,
doing that non-self thing.
So what I'm saying is it's axiomatic.
That is must follow.
If you inject someone with mRNA encoding anything other than a protein that belongs in you, you
will trigger autoimmune attack.
And depending on the dose and the distribution and how long the stuff persists, you could get
mild symptoms or it could kill you.
But it will not be good and it will happen every time with everybody.
It's just a question of whether it would be seriously bad or not.
And that will depend on, as I say, dose distribution and your luck.
So that's the first thing. It's the wrong.
It's the wrong approach.
What do I mean by that? If you wanted to make a vaccine, I'm really now not happy with with
vaccineology at all.
But if we just go along with the original narrative, if you wanted to do that, you wouldn't
do it this way. You would do anything else.
Extract the pathogen and whatever.
Show that to immune system.
I know that doesn't work, but that would have been at least what people expected.
So why does this technology exist at all?
Dr. Robert Malone, I think, had patents for its invention.
Why does it even exist?
Well, originally, I think people just wanted to know if you could do it.
And perhaps that's where Dr. Malone's PhD research or postdoc research came in.
But I remember hearing about it 15 or 20 years ago in Pfizer.
And it was presented to me with a perfectly sound rationale, which I'm just going to
briefly explain.
It was the idea was that you could use the destructive power of your immune system to
kill tumours that you couldn't get to with surgery, so-called non-receptible tumours.
So like a certain brain tumours.
Most tumours have unique markers on their surface.
They are deranged, but they identify themselves with a different postcode on their
surface. And so if you could direct an mRNA sequence to that postcode and inject it, it
will mostly go to that tumour and your immune system will then kill it.
I don't know whether it works, but the idea is rather beautiful.
As a drug discoverer, I thought, that's pretty clever.
And it's called immuno-oncology.
It is a division of many drug companies.
There are biotechs funded to do this stuff.
So it does have a potential use.
But if you give it to healthy people and you force them to express something that
doesn't belong in their body, it cannot help them.
It's hopelessly inappropriate.
It's definitely designed to injure you.
That's number one. Number two.
I've only got three. Number two.
It's not just making your body make something that doesn't belong in you.
The question is, what did they choose to ask to make your body manufacture?
They could have picked anything from this so-called virus, the so-called SARS-CoV-2,
for which apparently we have the sequence.
So they could have had the messenger RNA encode and make your body make any of the
bits of that. So I put it to you.
The rule of thumb would be, don't make your body make something you know is dangerous.
The only known dangerous protein in this material, I don't know whether the virus is
real or not, but I know the sequence exists.
And if you convert that sequence into protein, the only bit that we know is poisonous is
the so-called spike protein.
It is of a nature for which there was much literature, published literature in the peer
review journals to show that these were kind of venom-like proteins that would activate
blood platelets, almost certainly would stimulate blood coagulation.
They were toxic to cardiac muscle and they altered damaged neuronal transmission.
And so not only do we have a technology that forces your body to make something foreign,
and I told you and no one has told me I'm wrong, that that will make your immune system
think it's invaded and attack your own tissue and destroy it.
It's the only way your body can save you from that perceived infection or tumor.
As I say, tumors are the other things that causes this derangement and your body probably
saves you from a tumor every other day that you never knew you had from like a solar, a
gamma ray went through you, damaged your DNA.
Your immune system noticed a deranged cell and killed it.
Good job. But not only did these materials force your body to make non-celled proteins,
which will lead to this autoimmune attack, but your body is now making something which I
knew and I can point to the literature.
It makes it makes something analogous to things already proven as toxins.
Well, guess what? My guess is, you know, depending on where it went in your body after
injection, how well it was taken up, how efficiently it was converted to protein and
how long that went on, which frankly is a crap shoot, a lottery for every single individual.
You could get blood clots, you could get heart injury, you could get neurological
conditions and you got all of those, didn't we, folks?
And they were predictable because they follow from the design choice.
And the last one I'm going to mention, there are many more, but I think three is powerful
because they're different and so obvious.
The third one, the mRNA products, Moderna and the Pfizer BioNTech, were formulated.
What does that mean? Usually the drug substance, the actual active is tiny, often so
small you can't see it.
It might be milligrams or even micrograms.
You have to bind it up with with fillers and, you know, things to bulk it up so you can
make a tablet or a spray or an ointment or an injection.
And that whole process is called formulation.
So you take the drug substance, the thing you've invented, and then clever people in
pharmaceutical sciences work out how to stabilise this molecule, how to make sure it's
pure, that it's stable, that it'll be released when it needs to be and so on and so
forth. It's very, very complicated, not my skill area.
But I learned quite a lot about formulations in the respiratory side.
So when I looked at this formulation, the formulation is lipid nanoparticles.
So it's a kind of grease, but it's a particular kind of grease formulated in a
particular way. And so I thought, well, yeah, I can see why you would protect this
vulnerable genetic material in this blob of lipid when you inject it.
The lipid will help it just slide through the wall of a cell, straight through the
wall of a...it'll go all around the body.
It's what it's designed to do.
So I was looking it up and I stumbled upon a 2012 paper and I read it with mounting
horror because lipid nanoparticles is one of a category of sort of macromolecule.
That means large molecule carriers, transporters, vehicles.
So they've been in use for quite a while.
And it was well known to people in the pharmaceutical science, the formulation end
that these particular macromolecules, lipid nanoparticles, have a propensity that
is are inclined to accumulate in the ovaries of every species tested to date.
And so I thought, well, I'm a toxicologist.
I can tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that if you have an observation in your
toxicology studies, you're not allowed to ignore it.
You have to assume that that's what's going to happen in humans unless you've got
data to show it doesn't.
So I am now faced with a formulation of horrible material, which I think is going
to damage people by an autoimmunity and a direct toxicity that's going to accumulate
in their ovaries.
Then some enterprising person wrote to the Japanese regulator and under their
Freedom of Information Act was able to obtain studies, distribution studies of
the Pfizer product.
And we translated it from the Japanese.
And they had studied its injection and distribution, I think, is either in rats
or mice.
And guess what?
It accumulated in their ovaries as predicted from the literature.
So these are not accidental.
The choice of mRNA is dangerous to healthy people.
Its original use was immunoncology for people who are beyond saving by chemo or
surgery.
I've got second thoughts about a lot of this stuff.
But then the spike protein, it's analogous to materials known to be toxic to human
cells and the maline cells.
And they made your body make it.
Finally, for now, they formulated a material already known by people in the
industry to lead to accumulation of the payload in the ovaries where it will do
the two things I just mentioned.
So I'll tell you a couple of other things.
The most common reason drugs fail in development, two most common reasons.
One is they don't work.
Medical hypothesis was wrong.
You put it in people with itchy red skin and you put it in the vehicle group and
a test group and it's blinded and so on.
It's all done properly.
That was the single experiment we did in my biotech.
You break the blind and damn it, both the groups are the same.
Your drug hasn't done anything.
So that's why it was so miraculous when ours did work.
But that's the most common outcome.
You're wrong.
We're not clever enough to work out what's going to happen.
And that's one of the reasons why the industry is not just failing.
It's failed.
It can no longer.
It can't make profit anymore.
It's a dead industry.
I don't think there's been any significant new products that I personally would have
been happy to have got behind.
They're like one million pound a patient, cancer, biologicals, which I've looked at
the data and they might give you a month.
I don't even trust the clinical data now.
I think they cheat.
So I think they're now at a point where they've got enormous financial resources and they
can't make money in the normal way and whatever.
And I think this is one of the motivations.
What's happened is it's provided enormous income for the pharma companies.
But as I say, those I was going to say that that's one of the two main reasons why we
fail.
One is we're wrong in the medical hypothesis and the drug simply doesn't work.
Now, sometimes you get a chance, another chance, because a different hypothesis comes up
and you find a use.
So the classic example is Viagra.
Its original use had been to relieve angina by relaxing blood vessels in the heart.
And it didn't do that.
People did not report improvements.
But the famous use that eventually was discovered was it dilates blood vessels in the
penis and helps men have bigger erections and billions of dollars were made out of it.
So you were wrong.
They were wrong in the medical hypothesis.
But another medical hypothesis was able to make use of the drug because it wasn't
obviously unsafe.
But the other reason drugs fail is because they're toxic either in people or in multi-dose
studies in rats, dogs, monkeys, whatever is required.
So I'm very sorry if there are people who are philosophically set against vivisection.
And I do understand that.
I grew less and less comfortable with that as I got older.
Nevertheless, someone has to be, as it were, the guinea pig and I don't want it to be
people.
So the main reason, the second main reason, and it's extremely common, unfortunately,
is that for reasons we were not able to anticipate the drug when taking the required dose for
long periods of time, if it was a chronic drug, produced unacceptable side effects.
So with the first one, medical hypothesis being wrong, my God, you would be grilled.
It's like you need to explain your medical hypothesis.
What's the evidence supporting that?
Is the counter evidence?
What were your peers doing?
How quickly could we test the hypothesis?
There was people all over it and rightly so.
The second one, everyone got a shot at it.
What do I mean?
Before you nominated a compound, we literally would have all hands meetings.
And your job was, if you've been in the industry, you may have an opinion.
You may spot something about the design of that molecule that triggers a thought where
you think, I've seen that before and it led to kidney toxicity in 1978 or something.
So we would go over these damn things.
And it was called like a structural alerts meeting or something like that.
Each drug company will have its own process.
Because what you don't want to do is five years down the road after $50 million has
been spent to find it fails for toxicity.
And someone goes, oh, yeah, I thought it would do that.
So seriously, that's what used to happen.
So I'm saying these products, if they were proper, would have gone through like a structural
alert review or a TOCS cross-specs review.
And anyone like me or anyone who'd been hired by me would have looked at this and thought,
no, you can't meet non-self.
It'll cause autoimmune reactions.
No, you damn well better not meet their bodies make that funny spike protein because that's
analogous to lots of venoms.
What the hell are you doing using this macromolecule lipid nanoparticles?
Do you not know it's going to accumulate in the ovaries?
So I'm promising you this would not have got out of the door.
So I'm going to take a long pause.
But just to say there are at least two other independent mechanisms of toxicity built into
these molecules.
I can't name them because I'm not a molecular biologist, but they are apparently.
There's a nuclear localization signal in the sequence, which means it's going to traffic
to your nucleus, which it doesn't need to be in.
And what was the other one?
Is that there is something called I think it's a partial SV40 promoter.
I think that has something that might be bad for oncological reasons.
And apparently you would not tolerate either of these two things in the product.
So that's fine.
So I'm going to ask you on the call, having heard me describe my history in training,
the processes we use, the most common reason for failure and what we tried to do to avoid it,
and my description of what I thought would cause harms and the fact that we wrote them down
before they were launched and then those things happen.
I'm going to ask you, is there anyone on the call, horrified though you may be,
that doesn't think as I do that these were designed intentionally to injure, kill,
and reduce fertility?
So I shall stop.
Mike, thank you so much.
And for those watching the recording who didn't get the note, Mike chooses not to have his video
showing at the moment because he's in holiday mode.
So thank you so much for articulating so beautifully.
You addressed us a couple of years ago and I've kept your notes.
And again, you articulate so well.
And many of us know that someone who truly understands their craft can articulate complex
ideas in ways that non-experts can understand.
So I'm very grateful to the way that you have done that.
So Mike, Stephen Frost gets the first 15 minutes and then we've got lots of hands up,
which is wonderful.
So, and Stephen, Stephen will have far more than 15 minutes, but anyway,
Stephen, are you ready to go?
Yeah, so, yeah, Charles, I'm sorry.
I want to say sorry for losing my cool a little before the meeting.
I didn't mean to be sharp with people who were trying to help me,
but I was just trying to concentrate on what I thought I knew was the correct thing to do
and what you also agreed most of the time, at least.
So I didn't mean ill towards whoever I snapped at, but I was really under pressure in my mind.
Sorry.
And as far as your presentation, Mike, it was just brilliant.
And if there were two people born for this crisis, I think you are one of them.
Oh, three, maybe.
Sukhru Bhakti is another and Archbishop Vigano is another.
So I agree with you on everything you've said.
You have you're so, how shall I say, precise in your use of English.
You may be shy, but you're incredibly articulate.
But most of all, what impresses me is you get your thoughts in order
and you're always logical in your thoughts.
But a lot of people, of course, including me now, think that what we need to solve this nonsense,
these Trojan horses, totalitarianism is a spiritual element,
and that doesn't always involve logic, as I'm told.
I agree.
I absolutely agree.
And I used to be embarrassed in saying what I'm going to say
because I'm a scientist and this isn't science.
But in the summer of 2021, I had an encounter.
And I think I took from this encounter an instruction to do what I'm doing.
That was it.
No promises.
It was like, you have to do this.
Good for you.
I mean, I was already committed, but it was a and also it had been a terrible time.
And as I started to discover what I've described to you,
which I hope I haven't been too cool about, I fell apart because I'd been a normie.
I fell apart because I'd been a normie until 2020.
I listened to the BBC for 41 years.
I got the Sunday Times every Sunday for about 25 years.
I kind of believe roughly what I was being told, bit sceptical every now and again.
So to follow the data as I did, so my head was following and my soul was screaming.
I describe it as psychological whiplash.
I think I had a mini I probably had a mini breakdown by the end of the year.
And I was climbing out of it again, past very, very dark thoughts.
And then one night, something appeared and it was like more or less,
here's a handful of courage and just get on with it.
And I've never felt frightened since that moment.
And that was that was God.
That was God.
Good for you, Mike.
I don't know whether you can remember because at the time I now realise you were
really psychologically tortured into a corner.
And so was I.
And I didn't.
I thought we were immune from this psychological torture.
And I happen to think, Mike, and I think you should know this because you're British as well.
I want to hold these bastards to account.
And I am also giving information to the police.
I wrote to the police.
I haven't published it.
Maybe I should.
But I kept it very, very tight so they couldn't gainsay what I'd said to them.
But I think, you know, your letter is absolutely brilliant.
Someone was saying to me the other day, trying to draw my attention even more to your letter.
And I will have a look at it again.
But so, Mike, the terrible thing in the United Kingdom is that actually it appeared to be better
than in France and other countries, you know, which had hard measures, should we say,
in inverted commas, which were never just because there was never any pandemic.
There wasn't even a disease called Covid-19, in my opinion.
It wasn't properly diagnosed.
And that's one of my strong points to the police because I am a medical doctor.
And even if no one in the world agrees with me, I have a right to a medical opinion.
No doctor.
You do.
Yeah.
And I don't want to prove it beyond reasonable doubt or beyond the
probabilities as in court of law.
And I don't have to, as a scientist, do enormous numbers of randomized control trials,
double-blinded or whatever.
But I'm trained as a doctor and my duty is to diagnose for the patient in the best way
possible using all my experience and all my, hopefully, good training.
And somehow or other, I think I did get a good training because when I was training,
we were told that even if you believe in viruses, which I'm not sure I do now,
I'm pretty sure I don't, a deadly virus cannot cause a pandemic.
And I was fascinated by that.
So I can't remember the name of the professor who taught us this,
but I remembered it.
And I found out Christmas is a time for me writing an email to all the people I
qualified with and challenging them.
And guess what, Mike?
I can't get a single person I qualified at Liverpool University with to engage with me,
even privately, even people I shared flats with.
They're that terrified of me.
That's the thing that I have to say that's made me,
so I think I've recorded something like 250 interviews, something like that.
And I would just comment, actually, it's important for me to mention in case anyone's
listening for the first time, it's no use Googling Dr. Mike Yead.
Please don't use Safari, Google, whatever they are.
Don't use the mainstream search engines, or at least don't only use them.
In fact, I invite people, there's a very interesting experiment,
I did it yesterday, so it's still valid.
Most people, including me, I thought that browsers or search engines were pretty much
a generic function.
You type in what you want to find, and they find it for you.
I didn't understand how it did it, but they're all about the same, right?
Well, they're not.
If you type Dr. Mike Yead into Google, and then just have a look at the first two or
three pages, you'll find that I'm a very famous anti-vax conspiracy theorist.
And you'll find articles from Reuters saying how wrong I am about all sorts of things.
If you type Dr. Mike Yead into minority search engines, of which there are dozens,
like something called Mojeek, M-O-J-E-E-K, or Yandex, Y-A-N-D-E-X.
If you put Dr. Mike Yead in any of the small ones, you get hit with about 50 of my presentations.
How interesting.
Now, that can't happen unless someone has decided to filter the search results,
which most people will get, because most people, most of the time, will use mainstream browsers.
And what you find is lies about me.
Why would someone go to the effort of lying about me and hiding things I have actually done?
And I think the answer is obvious.
They don't want you to hear from me.
Why would they not want you to hear from me?
Is it because I'm telling the truth?
It seems to me an elaborate piece of work that they would do that.
And of course, they may get rid of it now, I pointed it out, but
I would say that's the sort of thing that's quite useful.
You can show someone on their own phone and you ask them beforehand what would they expect to happen.
It's like it should be roughly the same, right?
Because if it's not, what use is a browser?
Is you just going to get random garbage?
So it should be roughly the same.
It's not even roughly the same.
Anyway, so one of the reasons people have said to me,
my sister in Australia who thinks I'm a conspiracy theorist,
the other day said, well, if any of the stuff you've said is true, Mike, why haven't they killed you?
I've got a perfectly good answer.
They don't need to do this medieval stuff.
If the person lives in the modern technological world,
they have IT tools that serve the same purpose.
They can censor and smear you easily.
And there's very little you can do about it.
So to those listening, I can't, I don't,
I think I cannot reach further than I have done.
It's not de Vietist.
Every now and again, we travel.
So we'll be in say Heathrow or St Pancras station or somewhere in a busy area of London.
And I'm routinely recognized once.
And I've kind of done like counting the size of crowds.
And my estimate is that I'm recognized by less than one in a thousand people.
Interestingly, that number is the same whether I'm in
Mexico, Florida, Arizona, France, Spain, London.
So the message has kind of got out there, but to less than 0.1%.
It's not a different number.
I'm not recognized more often now than two years ago.
And that's hard data, folks.
That tells me that I've worked and worked and worked
and not reaching more people than I was two years ago.
And I think the reason's obvious.
The alternative to interning me or killing me
is to turn the tourniquet on censorship.
So I will not be able to reach people.
So the people on this call, for example, the people in your circle, your family,
your workmates, your friends who perhaps think you're a bit nuts,
I'm never going to reach them.
You could wait 10 years and they'll never hear from me
because they're not looking for me.
And the mainstream media will never tell them the truth.
And so the hard thing I have to say to you is,
it's you.
If you do not manage to persuade them, we will lose
because there are very few people willing and able to do what I'm doing
and they have constrained me very effectively.
And I can see why they've done it.
And frankly, I'd prefer they did this than the alternative
because they would have otherwise killed me.
And so I'm optimistic, but I have to keep asking people that you have to do it, please.
You have to do it, please.
I cannot reach further than I have already.
My own empirical evidence says I am not.
And as a consequence, I don't really want to do a lot more interviews.
It's a waste of my life and I can't justify it to my family.
And it has a terrible impact on me.
And it's not useful.
I'm not reaching more people.
But if other people bottle any part of what you've heard and think,
right, I understand that bit.
And then you go forward with it.
That's the way we'll beat them.
We can save ourselves if we work together.
Yeah, sure.
So there are many others, Mike, who are less brilliant than you,
who can gain comfort from hearing your words
and be emboldened and do your work for you.
So you do fulfill a function.
So talking to this group, it may not appear many,
but there are many people who view the videos afterwards.
And I'm going to send a copy of this video to my MP
and also to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner,
accompanied by another letter to ask why I haven't had even an acknowledgement from the...
I copied in the Commissioner, but I sent it to the PC.
I think you did as well, Mike.
And I also copied in my MP.
So I've learned these tactics because the bastard state in the UK
targeted me in 2013 and took my job away from me by text with no explanation,
because I highlighted...
So I was a classic whistleblower, except I didn't know what whistleblowing was.
I highlighted criminality in the military,
of the British military with Class A controlled drugs.
And they were trying to cover it up.
And I told them there was no way they could cover it up,
that they needed to tell the police and that the police needed to investigate.
I was rather naive, but it was the truth.
And they're terrified of people who tell the truth, Mike.
But you do fulfill a purpose because you encourage other whistleblowers to speak out
and whistleblowers are absolutely key.
And especially the ones like you and me who survive the onslaught.
Sure, no, I do think what I'm doing is important,
but it won't be enough is what I'm saying.
And I've made this little speech 50 times.
I hope people do do something.
All I ask people is to do the best you can with what you've got where you are.
And keep doing it every day.
I wish I didn't, but I probably do 16 hours a day, seven days a week.
I can't stop, but I can't do anymore.
If you know what I mean, I can't make this be more effective,
but I can't stop either.
And so I'm begging you, everyone, if you're not doing 20 hours a week,
you're not helping.
Everyone can spare 20 hours a week.
Seriously, even if you're working, use your evenings to be active.
We will roll these bastards over.
If you do that, if you don't, we will lose.
Let me just say, let me just say that the people who have planned this,
and I never would believe I would be saying this,
but if you don't know of a lady called Katherine Watt,
she's an American paralegal, and she has researched going backwards
and found 60 years, evidence receipts of 60 years of patient,
obviously directed amendments to public health legislation in the US.
And she and I believe that that has happened everywhere in the world.
60 years, that's like three generations of politicians
have constantly edited public health laws to allow what happened to happen in 2020.
Because I won't describe it because I'm not clever enough,
but it's nothing like you think, and it's all legal.
What they've done is what she calls legal on paper.
It's obviously legal, but it's legal on paper.
And so she has found 10 major amendments to public health law,
which eventually allow this, that if the Health and Human Services Secretary
or the President says there is a public health emergency,
they just need to say those words, then a whole bunch of things are then allowed.
The military can impose what are called countermeasures
these injections are not vaccines, they're not even medical products.
They're not medical products.
The apparent interaction with the FDA is a pantomime.
They are medical products ordered by the military
under public health emergency as countermeasures.
They do not require informed consent any more than they need to give you
informed consent before they put down a barrier and push you off an area,
like a police investigation, seriously.
So they are legally countermeasures and they are treated no different than
grime tape.
They can push you away.
They can inject you.
They have to do anything.
And as long as every person is following the then prevailing law
of this medical emergency, of a public health emergency,
they can't even be prosecuted, even if they kill you.
Because the law says you may do all these things
at discretion of the Health and Human Services Secretary or and or President
in the event of a public health emergency.
So that's unbelievable.
But that's not the only one.
So that's Catherine Watt with a K, W-A-W-T.
Please let me finish.
Catherine Watt, K with a Catherine and then W-A-W-T, set substack.
Sasha Latipova, she's an American of Ukrainian extraction, very clever lady.
And she has pieced together how the public health law was used.
So she would combine my skills with Catherine's.
And if you read no one else, Sasha Latipova will combine the thing.
So and then the third person I would mention
is a retired financier called David Rogers Webb, now living in Sweden.
And he has discovered 60 years of subversion of private property rights law
in every country around the world, every country.
There are no exceptions.
What has happened is that things that you and I think we own
as owners, we're no longer the owners.
We have a contractual right called beneficial ownership.
They've invented the term.
It's all completely, you know, anyway, you don't own things anymore.
You are the beneficial owners.
What does that mean?
It means if there is a default, which there will be,
that's why they've broken the economy on purpose
and printed enormous amounts of currency.
They can announce that things are bankrupt.
They can announce that currency is no good for international trade.
And that will stop trade.
And then they will substitute a made up currency
called central bank digital currency.
I'm sure they have already prepared.
And you will hear in every country, every central bank
has been experimenting with this.
So it's not a conspiracy theory.
It's a conspiracy and there's nothing theoretical about it.
David Rogers Webb has identified the changes in the law
that means that you and I, everyone on the call,
will be deprived of what we think is our lawful property
if there's a big enough default.
And the beneficiaries are the senior creditors
who are the same people who run everything in the world.
You don't need to name them.
So that's what will happen.
Your houses, your cars, your bank account, your pension,
your stock investment portfolio will all vanish.
The computer will go off.
And even if it comes back on, they will have disappeared.
And you may think that sounds fantastical.
Go and bloody listen to David Rogers Webb.
That's what's going to happen.
So public health law, private property rights law,
and then there are numerous others.
I think we're all as wise to the global warming scam.
About 60 years, funnily enough.
It's about 60 years of propaganda and lies
and payments that have bent the public science
to a particular narrative.
Anyone who goes against it loses their position,
doesn't get grants, can't get published, is crushed.
So that's a lie too.
I personally, this is slightly more controversial.
I think there's 60 years of propaganda about overpopulation.
I personally don't think that's happened.
I think people talking in those terms,
it's the most anti-human argument I've ever heard.
It's like, who do you think should go then
if you think there are too many people?
Who is it you're going to kill?
Because I think they are absolutely determined,
organized, and it's irrational.
I think we're not overpopulated.
We're not damaging.
We're not committing global warming.
So why are they trapping us and beginning to kill us?
And I have no explanation.
There's no rational reason for them to do what they're doing.
And so I'm looking for an irrational one.
And I think in the end, it comes down to dark forces.
I've run out of explanations.
But it looks to me they are diabolical, literally.
Yeah.
They're in a deadly couple.
I think this is good and evil.
It's good and evil.
So those three people, Mike, we've had all three of those.
Catherine Watts, Sasha Latapova, David Rogers Webb,
Honours Guests, and I'm a friend of that.
It's fantastic.
Fantastic.
Yeah, that's great.
Well, then it means you can glue them together.
And although it will be shocking, find a way to explain to people.
So you can't just go in and tell them all this stuff.
But my wife tells me, and she is right, she says, you can't lecture people.
They are repelled.
Not because you're not believable.
You were very believable.
But because you were believable, it's horrifying.
She said, I've watched you talk to people and they go pale and they shrink and they move away.
And it's like they're frightened of what you're telling them.
She said, you can't do it.
She said, you can't do it that you can do it with a professional
who's trying to help because they kind of they will steal themselves.
You know, they're used to dealing with difficult things like police and army and
doctors and so on.
They're used to dealing with bad news.
But the average member of the public is not.
And she said, if you come up to them like that, they would just run away.
She said, you've got to ask them rhetorical questions.
Well, I'm no good at that, ladies and gentlemen.
So please go and do that because I'm not good at that.
I'm I get on my soapbox and I lecture and it repels people.
But you can do a better job with other people.
Thank you.
And the problem, Mike, is this and maybe you've noticed it and that when you talk to people
and you frighten them, unfortunately, they even know you're a good person and you're telling
the truth and a bit of them doesn't like the person they're hearing the truth from.
Absolutely.
Yet my own sister, who used to say she loves me and how are you, little brother?
She says you've lost your mind.
You are a conspiracy theorist.
You've been captured.
Don't ever speak to me again.
And that was that was very upsetting because she was she was my bloody hero when I was a kid.
She's five years older than me.
She has a PhD in fungal genetics.
She's a clever lady, but she thinks I'm crazy.
And I'm stopped.
I've stopped trying because she lives in Australia.
If I could go and speak to her, it might be different.
All my family in the UK are absolutely onside and they always were.
So my sister, my kids, their kids work.
Sorry.
Which city is she in?
She's in Adelaide.
All right.
I was thinking if she was in Melbourne, maybe Charleston.
Yeah, yeah.
I think so.
People have people have tried on my behalf and she really didn't like it.
She told me I understand that she thought I was stalking her.
It is understandable.
It didn't go well.
So I'm not I won't try.
I was just trying to save her, you know, but.
Yeah, I understand.
Anyway, Charles, can I just say this?
There's one thing I want to say.
Yeah.
So, Mike, as a medical doctor, I've observed that in particular in the United Kingdom,
our country where everything was rather soft, but these people like Boris Johnson were saying,
you must say at home, they must have known they must have known
as any doctor should have known that we're highly social animals, human beings.
And to lock people down, lock human beings down, they must have known was pure evil.
And I think the United Kingdom, we had to endure this bloody a nudge unit,
you know, whatever it's called.
I can't remember.
Behavioral insights team.
Yeah, yeah.
And that was the final, final nail for me.
I just observed it.
I thought I was immune to the psychological torture that was going on in every country
in the world, but particularly in the United Kingdom.
And we must we British men must hold our bastard government to account for this.
They did, which they must have known.
And if they didn't, they should have known was evil.
And why was it evil?
Because it was anti-human.
It was not right to lock people down.
We're highly social animals.
In the country should have been shouting like from the rooftops like I know.
And that's that's very depressing.
And the so I know a lot of people get very angry with our politicians.
And I do too.
But I never really thought that the elected politicians were in charge.
Even when I was a normie and I believe things, I thought you remember Blair used to think
about Blair's style.
I think it was called so for government.
And I think it really meant government by informal conversation.
And I'd watched enough of the British political comedy called Yes, Minister and its successor,
Yes, Prime Minister to to understand that white whitehall has run a significant part
of the world for, I think, four or five hundred years.
And I doubt they lost any lessons.
I imagine every lesson learned on the effectiveness of controlling people's behavior.
Incentivizing them to do things, incentivizing them not to do things.
I imagine those lessons have been have been learned and bottled and reused and amplified
nowhere better than Westminster.
You know, and so I don't think the 650 MPs have any significant power where it comes
to things like this.
They may be able to get a campaign going in their constituency for some particular thing.
But I don't I don't think the government's even faintly interested in what any or all
of the MPs say.
And I don't think that they are particularly well briefed.
They're not selected because they're clever and knowledgeable.
So but of course, what they act as, there was a bloody barrier between me through my
constituent, CMP Rosie Duffield, who's stupid.
I mean, I've written to and had many conversations with her office.
But they don't they're not interested.
That's not their job.
And you won't get people in Whitehall, you know, closest I've got is a couple of visits
up there with with Andrew Bridgen, you know, and he's not he's not in charge either.
I don't I doubt I doubt the prime minister.
I don't think Boris Johnson had anything to do with this.
I doubt he had any role in the planning.
I suspect he was told about it at some point.
And his job was to be the puppet that went out and told people what to do.
That's my guess.
I think there are a few people who my my instincts tell me were centrally involved.
I think I think Blair is centrally involved.
I think he's been a major criminal and people who run the Wellcome Trust, you know,
Sir Jeremy Farrar and his successors.
I'm pretty sure I've written this down, by the way, in the past.
By the way, in the past and usually what happens when you sound to people is you get
injuncted or prosecuted and it's not happened.
So it is a matter of fact that the Wellcome Trust, the National Institute of Health under
Fauci and the Bill and Linda Gates Foundation under Christopher Elias, who's the science
guy for Gates, those three people for Fauci and Elias were known to have met on an offer,
I think 30 years and between them, they controlled roughly two thirds of the private biomedical
research budget outside of drug companies.
And I think that means they have been able to shape the entire environment in human biology
for up to 30 years.
And so the literature says what they decided it to say, because if you're a professor or
a graduate student and you apply for a grant, you'll get one if you're a tier to whatever
the lines to take are and you'll know that from your provost and then from the minister
in Whitehall and your research needs to conclude with manuscripts that say this kind of thing or
it won't get published or only in a low impact journal.
And you just keep repeating the process over decades and the literature says what the
controllers wanted to say.
It's as simple as that.
I always knew I hated academia.
Now I know why I hated academia because it's got worse and worse.
And everyone I know professors of immunology and they say, oh, it's terrible.
I say, well, how can you tolerate being in this environment where you're not even really
doing research?
You're you're helping to shape an agenda and an environment that other people have created
for you.
And it's like they shrug.
It's like you have to get a company car, get full pension two years.
It's like, oh, yeah.
So I say to say this to people, if you're frightened of what will happen, if you speak out,
imagine what's going to happen if you don't speak out.
Do you think these people are going to go away having done what they've done?
Do you think this is over?
No, they will do either other things or this kind of thing again.
And just just very briefly, given you've heard from Katherine Walsh,
Sassilisipova and David Rogers Webb and me, I think the four things that are going to occur,
we don't stop them.
Let me tell you what I think will happen.
I think number one, a new event will trigger obligatory digital ID.
And at some point, you'll have to have it, for example, to get rations.
They'll make you have it.
Second, if the triggering event for this digital ID isn't a financial crisis,
then there'll be a financial crisis, as I described earlier.
It will destroy all sovereign currencies and steal all private wealth.
Then you'll have total dependence on the state.
If you haven't got your own resources and they will introduce central bank digital currencies,
then the media will continue to lie about things like waves of pandemics.
There'll be a…
The WHO will tell you there's a pandemic.
Far more will pretend to make mRNA, quote, vaccines.
Governments will mandate them if the WHO hasn't already done so.
Your digital ID that in step one you're made to take will depend…
Its validity will depend on you being jabbed.
No jab, no food.
No jab, no money.
No jab, no job.
No jab, no travel.
Your CDBDC will simply not work.
And then four, rinse and repeat until the population reaches the desired levels.
I think they're going to empty whole countries.
That's what I would do.
So what I'm saying is we have to stop at the step of obligatory digital ID.
I think that's the last thing they need us to choose to do.
If they make us successfully adopt digital ID,
they don't need our consent for any of the other steps I mentioned.
Right?
If you concede that you have to have a digital ID in order to enter or leave a facility,
make a transaction, buy food, get on a plane, fill your car.
If you accept that principle, they can do the things I've just said.
And they will do those things.
Of course they will.
I would.
If I was as diabolical as them, that's what I would do.
And so I say now to the people on this call,
my wife and I are not going to take a digital ID.
If it means we lose all our money, we will lose all our money.
We're not fucking taking a digital ID.
I would rather go to my grave as an analog man than take digital ID.
Because if you gain a digital ID, you don't gain a digital ID.
You lose your humanity and you become a QR code.
And you're controlled like a…
You become an avatar and you will be controlled and you will be taken to your death.
So don't take it.
You don't need digital ID.
They need you to take it in order to control you.
So don't concede it.
And the worse the punishment that they threaten you with for not taking it,
the more you'll know I'm right.
So please say to each other, say to other people, tell your boss.
I think it's like giving up smoking.
Tell everybody what you're going to do.
And I think if we can stop them and tell people digital ID will provide total control.
If not now, if you think, no, they wouldn't do that.
Well, what about in the future?
You're so sure that at no point in the future,
anyone ever wants to control you because they will be able to.
If you have to present it to any transactions like the mark in Revelation,
just don't take it.
That's about the most…
As I'm saying this to you, I'm feeling my power grow.
I'm not taking it no matter the consequences.
Good for you, Mike.
So, Mike, if you want to rest from all your work,
we live by the sea and you're welcome here anytime with your family.
Lovely.
We definitely should meet.
Are you in England?
Yes.
Wales, actually.
Depends whether you…
Oh, yeah, yeah.
Of course, yes.
The United Kingdom, yeah.
In the UK.
Thank you, Stephen.
Thank you.
It's lovely to speak to you.
Brilliant, Michael.
Thank you so much.
Thank you very much.
Is there any other…
Is there like a really important…
There are 11 people with their hands up.
Yeah, 11 people with their hands up.
Mike, are you on your phone, Mike?
No, I'm on a laptop.
Yeah, so maybe if you strike the screen,
you'll see there's 11 hands up,
so we've got lots of questions for you.
So the speed with which you get through them
will depend on the speed of your answers.
So there you are.
But wonderful, wonderful material.
And Stephen, you didn't take more time
because Mike was speaking, so I absolutely get that.
Yeah.
So, Charles, I think that Mike doesn't maybe know
how to get the view up so he can see the gallery, you know?
So he can see people who are posing.
So if you explain…
I can now.
Yeah, I can.
So you know how to do it, do you, Mike?
I can see that.
Yes, I can see a whole fluster of…
I thought they were like little gold stars,
but yeah, that's because my glasses aren't very good.
They're hands.
I see they are hands.
Okay, well, let's get through them.
Let's get through them, Mike,
because we've only got 50 minutes before we have to go.
So, Theresa, you were first.
Did you drop out accidentally or deliberately?
No, mate, I lost my signal.
Okay, go for it.
Well, I don't know.
You go first, and…
All right.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
It's just a quick one, Mike.
In 2021 and 2022 and 2023,
I've been saying to the various medical groups
that I'm a hanger on to,
that we have to write a kind of sucker punch letter
where you write not just to one police chief constable in the UK,
but to all of them.
The same letter.
On balance of probabilities,
there are 49 chief constables in the UK.
On balance of probabilities,
you'll probably have five chief constables
that are not vaccinated
or that have serious doubts about what's going on.
There are 32, or they were the last time I looked,
full-time coroners
and part-time coroners that supplement their work.
On balance of probability, you might have three coroners.
Now, it's no good writing to one, like the Metropolitan Police,
and expecting him to sort of stand up
when there's 48 other chief constables who aren't.
But if we approach all of them at the same time,
I agree.
And unite the ones that…
Five chief constables is a coalition.
Five chief constables can do anything, Mike.
Yeah, no, I agree with you.
I think that's great.
So I say to people,
somebody please use that stuff.
I'll tell you what has happened over the last four years
is I get lots of good suggestions of more work for me to do,
and I'm knackered.
Right?
So I want someone to say,
I'm going to take your letter and put 49 addresses on it,
and then you can just check it.
So, okay, and then I will send it.
That would be a great idea.
Because the idea that I will do it is that I just won't get to do it.
I'm just so…
I'm at a point where I recognise clinical depression.
Right?
I sometimes can't do anything, and I analyse why I can't do it,
and I've got to the conclusion it's like,
you're probably suffering from either trauma or depression.
So I'm sure there are lots of great ideas.
I'm telling you, I'm a wounded soldier.
So use me.
Please don't expect me to do more now.
Well, with the help of a couple of the doctors in the group,
and by cribbing from Ryan Cole's notes,
I hope you're still on the call line.
Yeah, it's a great suggestion.
I think it's a really, really good, really important idea.
I'm happy for somebody to take the idea of a letter
and just, you know, whittle it down to two pages,
send it to all of them.
Please.
I think really it's like the arrangement
at the top of the letter, as it were.
It's like, who the hell are we writing to?
If that was made clear, that would be,
that's the thing that would probably take a little bit of research,
but it's a really good project.
Basically, it's like saying,
I am writing to all of these named individuals.
So it's like a page, and then we can bung.
My letter's the easy bit, but I think it's a great,
I think it's a really important idea,
and we should bloody well do it within the next few weeks.
And to take it further, Theresa, to the DPPs, okay?
So the police, yes?
Yeah, yeah.
I just think that if you can, in confidence,
go to each of them and say, look, you're not alone.
We will unite you in confidence.
We will help you form a coalition.
They can take down one chief constable,
but they can't take down five or six.
Yeah, I agree.
Yeah, not all at once.
Basically, I think what you're saying,
and I have thought of this, I've thought,
if we are effective, we'll force them to change tack.
It won't be easy for them.
I don't know that they'd be able to stop,
but they will be forced to change tack.
And I think if they're forced to change tack,
it'll wake a lot more people up.
So I think that's the catalyst.
We must do something to put them off their stroke, really.
Otherwise, they'll just keep going,
and they may well be on track.
I have no idea.
I haven't got a copy of the script.
I think it's a great idea, Theresa, really.
Thanks, Mike.
Okay, well done.
Excellent.
Yeah.
Thank you, Theresa.
Daria.
Mike, hi.
My name is Daria Schuller.
I'm a retired neurosurgeon and pharmacist,
and I've worked in the pharmaceutical industry
when I was moonlighting during college.
And I'm still involved with the United States Pharmacopeia
at my state of Indiana level as a delegate.
So I did share one handout in the chat.
So hopefully, if you need it, I can get it to you
if you're interested.
But they're not stopping.
This whole mRNA is going on full steam ahead.
And that's probably the most important message
I have to get to everybody here today,
that in the hopper is something close to over 300 drug products,
the vast majority of which are vaccines, okay?
And then fewer for the orphan drugs
and genetic disorders and cancer.
So this isn't stopping.
The only way it stops is when people say no.
And say if they hear mRNA, they should run screaming.
This is not a good technology for cancer.
I was dealing with this when I was at the Cleveland Clinic
and after with my patients that had malignant brain tumors
and the early neuroimmuno therapies that were tried.
I remember referring a patient back to the Cleveland Clinic
and didn't do well at all.
Didn't do well at all.
It's just like didn't even come close to stopping this disease.
But the thing that struck me,
and I want to use the word resonance
because it resonates back to us now that you're still here
and the things you said four years ago,
three years ago, you're still saying now.
And that rings a really loud bell
because you've been consistent the entire time.
And I understand that pharmaceutical side of it
and that's why I was very concerned about mRNA as well.
I saw the Reuters did one of the first hit pieces on me,
I think in March of 2021.
But I remember hearing an interview with you
and I can't remember who the host was,
but you were talking about, and I think Dr. Bender's,
I've seen this on his Twitter as well,
how you don't go vaccinating people during a pandemic
because if there's active infection
and then you introduce an injected antigen
that it could be catastrophic, which it was.
And I just wondered if you recall making that comment.
I think it was, I can't remember his name,
but there's a guy, others will remember,
but yeah, that may or may not be true.
Personally, I don't think there was a pandemic.
I'm not even sure pandemics are possible.
The Spanish flu, for example, this is not my research.
Unbelievable, there are a couple of descendants
of Yorkshire farmers who run a podcast
called the Sheep Farm Podcast.
And they are unbelievable.
These guys do family tree research going back to 1700s.
I'm sorry, the people who are doing this,
their descendants go back to that sort of period.
I mean, in fact, they may go back much further,
but we can find the receipts of all the influences
definitely back to there.
I've forgotten the train of thinking there,
but yeah, the pandemic stuff.
So the Spanish flu stuff is there wasn't a pandemic then.
It was nothing like what we've been told.
Something happened, I don't know what the something was,
and then they inserted information
into the literature afterwards,
which makes it look like there was a pandemic.
In other words, I am saying there's at least
a hundred years of rehearsal.
Now, people who understand formation
around the Federal Reserve are not surprised.
They go, well, we knew that.
I think it goes back.
Honestly, it goes back further than we can imagine.
I know some people who think it goes back to ancient Egypt,
but it definitely goes back to more than a hundred years.
So you're absolutely right.
Now, I personally don't,
the reason I wanted to intervene is
I don't think there are pandemics.
I think they're immunologically implausible.
I also think if they were possible,
we'd probably have gone from the planet repeatedly,
as would other species,
because wouldn't it also follow
that they could suffer from pandemics?
And yet they don't.
That's something that's not really provable, I don't think.
But the fact is there's so much fakery around it,
it makes me think, well, if it was real,
why wouldn't you just bloody do it?
The fact they have to fake it suggests to me that it isn't real.
But what is real is the fear
that if people believe it, then they're frightened.
Yeah, you need the fake science to prop up the fake news.
Absolutely, you do.
You need the fake science to go with the fake news.
So believing in pandemics, believing in contagion,
believing in bloody vaccines, you need all of this stuff.
And here's the thing, I think partly,
why all the long drawn out lies about climate change,
the long drawn out emphasis about the world's overpopulated
beyond its carrying capacity, I don't think that's true.
I think I've got an answer to that,
because three people have written to me, you know,
all by hand, you know, they've said something,
they all said something like, I think you're right,
but I think I understand why they are doing it.
It's like, we're destroying the world and we've deserved it.
So I've been written to by three people, they're not happy.
They're saying, this is what I've come to the conclusion,
that we've destroyed this world
and they are culling us in order to save it.
Well, it's not true, folks, we are not warming our climate.
We're not overpopulated and so on.
And so why are they doing it?
I think a lot of people give in because they think we deserve it.
Isn't that a terrible thing?
I've heard people say, well, dirty job, someone's got to do it.
When they finally got to realising, I'm probably right,
they've literally shrugged and said,
well, we brought it upon ourselves, folks.
I think it's diabolical, it's not true.
But I think it was designed years ago to bring about capitulation.
So don't give way on these other lies either.
I mean, I'm not an expert in those, I don't claim to be.
So Mike, absolutely, you and I have come to the same conclusion
that no pandemic has ever occurred, no pandemic can occur
and no pandemic will occur in the future.
We therefore don't need the WHO, even though we're bastards,
we don't need them.
So we need to get rid of the WHO because, not because it's evil,
because it is evil, but because we don't need them.
And that would be the ultimate humiliation.
I think the whole of virology and evidence-based medicine
was a construct to allow what's happened in 2020.
Yeah, I agree.
All right.
So we've come to it by different means without influencing each other.
So very good, both united in that conclusion.
And Mike, I just point out that Vera Sharov is here,
she's presented to us on the Spanish Flu.
So if you speed up the answers to your questions, Vera,
I'm sure we'll touch on her wonderful research on the alleged Spanish Flu.
So let's be quick, everybody, with the questions rather than too many,
because we've only got 45, 40 minutes left
and there's 12 hands up.
Go, Glenn.
Charles, no statements, questions, please.
Hey, Mike.
So glad to be speaking with you again.
In the call from God, I think that's tremendous,
and I'm in the same place with you there.
I also believe that we can save ourselves,
but I think it's a lot bigger count of people
that we need to be participating in,
that needs to get at least into the tens of millions
to hundreds of millions to be participating.
Now, you've done an excellent crime scene investigation
of going through the what's and the hows,
namely the what being a eugenics foundation theme
of we need to cull the earth.
And that goes back to the early 1900s, even the late 1800s,
when there was a formal international body that was pushing that.
And with that, we're now seeing the outcome of murder and infertility.
You're seeing the how by using poison and mental disease despair
as a way of eliminating the population.
What I'd like to call out is that too often we have a tendency
to say this is a big mob out there, and it's a giant syndicate,
but it's being driven at the very top by a very small number of elites.
Those elites do not include the WF, the WHO, the farmer CEOs,
the head of Hamas or the Rothschild family.
Those are all side players in much lower tiers
or not even actually involved to any degree.
This is all being done at the top.
The team I'm working with has been spending an enormous amount of time
of documenting that.
And if you look under my, you'll see the rumble.
We have a channel, L4ATV1.
We have produced two to four hour videos for the last 15 weeks
to document all of this.
I haven't been doing much marketing because we've been spending
all the time of getting information.
As part of partnering, I want to make sure that you're aware
or if you haven't been aware that you are,
that the significant contract out right now beyond David Rockefeller,
Alex Rockefeller, George Soros, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg,
Joe Biden is a key element of their attempt to attack and eliminate people.
And there is a contract that he has entered into with George Soros
and the Rockefellers to be paid.
This is President Biden to be paid $100 million per year
as part of opening up the borders and allowing all of the international effects
to happen in the US at their will.
So I'm simply saying that your theme around joining together
and working as a unit and doing that locally,
do you have other ideas of how we could form that group,
how we could manage that team and do it on a regular basis at least once a week?
Okay. So thank you, Glenn.
That was a comment.
Not interested in comments, questions.
We're tight for time.
It was a question around organizing a response effort.
Please let him answer.
Come on.
You took time.
I'm going to shout it up.
Questions, Albert.
All right.
No, Charles, he did ask a question at the end.
Okay.
I honestly, I'm sure you're right.
I'm well aware that very few people are involved.
Some people have asked me, well, if what you're saying is true,
half the prize or we don't know about it.
I've said, I think at minimum, you'd only have to have two people involved,
the actual person who did the designing of the mRNA
and probably the CEO or head of R&D.
You don't need anybody else.
So I'm sure most people in Pfizer think they've done great work and have saved the world,
except for the few people who are following me.
Unfortunately, I haven't been contacted by large numbers of former colleagues,
which is disappointing.
In the first year, I was written to by 30 colleagues
who said, can you more or less shut up?
And I just very briefly, because it's quite funny.
And I thought for a day or two, and I turned their letter over
because they'd sent me a physical letter and it all signed it.
And I wrote back and I said, I thought I had hired cleverer people with stiffer spines.
You're sincerely, Dr. Mike Heaton sent it back.
So, and no one has contacted me since.
So actually one guy, one guy I worked with in the biotech after leaving Pfizer contacted me to say,
oh shit, you're absolutely right.
So I have no idea, Glenn.
I have no skills or resources to train me to do any of such things.
We'd be better off getting people who are ex-forces.
I can brief those people.
I can't do this stuff.
I can brief those people, but I can't do this stuff.
All right.
So it's easy to do the things I can do.
But because I've had the opinion that it doesn't much matter who the who is.
Sorry, it doesn't matter who the perpetrators are.
Because am I going to do something different if I learn it is or isn't person X?
And the answer is no, I can't do anything to the QANT family if they're involved.
And I hope they aren't.
But if they are, I can't do anything different.
I don't know anyone who could do anything different.
If I tried to do anything that would even smack of doing something different,
I would be legally arrested.
So I don't really know what to do with the information you provided me with.
I'm not the person who can do anything with that.
I'm a retired, broken, bladded scientist, you know, partly living in England and Spain.
What can I do on that front?
Someone else can.
I think there'd be a different group of fairly gritty elderly guys who probably could do
something, but I'm not it.
I am happy to speak to those people at the right time.
Okay, that's the answer.
To be next witness, you mean, Mike.
Albert?
Yeah.
Hi, Mike.
Big fan, tremendous honor.
Nice to meet you.
I was wondering what your thoughts were on this monoclonal quasi vaccine that they're
pushing on the newborns, the Bay Fortis.
It's a monoclonal called Nersivimab.
And since you're a respiratory guy, have you ever?
I've never heard.
Yeah, I've never heard of it.
And before, without even looking at it, the answer is no.
That's my answer.
Awesome.
Hey, God bless you, Mike.
And you, Albert.
Thank you.
Hedge of protection can continue on you.
Thank you so much.
God bless you.
Great.
Thank you, too.
Albert is an expert on theirs.
I know.
I've seen you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Albert.
Anders?
Keep it short.
No statements.
Question.
Hello, Mike.
Nice to talk to you.
Can you hear me?
Yes, I can.
Yes, thank you, Anders.
Very well.
Nice to talk to you.
So I don't want to say a lot.
I just say that in my research, as you know, we have been in contact.
There is quite likely that we have been all deceived to believe that this mRNA
and this lipid nanoparticle is what they say it is.
And I'm not saying it is not.
But there is something magnetic in these jabs.
And we have found that there is graphene metals.
And these LNP transforms to become hydrogel.
And these kind of go together and they crystallize.
And you have antennas.
And you have an EMF event in the body.
And I don't need to preach on that.
But let's say I will just say you are most likely aware of Dr. Ana
Mihalcea, who has been doing good blood analysis to confirm that this is the case.
So I think it would be great.
I will just say I don't know anything about the sort of EMF side.
And I'm not going to dismiss it.
But I'm going to tell you right now, I don't even have school level knowledge
of the kind of physics involved.
So I'm not going to be the right person to work through.
I do not have.
What is it that Clint Easterwood said?
Man's got to know his limitations.
Right?
I'm not against you.
I don't know anything about it.
And there's no chance that I'm going to become sufficiently knowledgeable to be an advocate.
So I'm not your enemy.
I cannot be an advocate.
I'm just way off the pace.
That's my honest opinion of myself.
Okay.
So I fully understand your position.
So I'm not saying anything against it.
No, I'm not saying anything against it.
I just know so little.
I'm just massively off the pace.
I'm very narrow.
I know all about a spider's behind, but nothing about butterflies.
That's my problem.
Okay.
I will just say that it would be very good for all of you to see the research of Dr.
Ana Maria Mijacea because she has really found something outside the box.
And that will reveal something.
So I don't need to ask questions because my questions are about 5V.
So I will stop it there.
Thank you, Anders.
And Anna Mijacea has presented to this group as well, Anders.
Jim.
Thank you very much.
Great presentation.
Plausible deniability, making sure that these bad actors don't have plausible deniability.
We brought this information about the SARS-CoV-2 or our medications being made in China to our
Department of Defense.
They were all very interested in June of 2019.
In January of 2020 and March of 2020, when we told them the antidote might be hydroxychloroquine
or chloroquine, they may not have been as interested.
And we have documentation that shows that we brought this to as high a level as the joint
chiefs, notifying them that it was likely that hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine would
provide T cell immunity because it would prevent the initial binding of the virus.
Because it would prevent the initial binding of the ACE2 receptor.
There has now been a movie called Broken Truth or Epidemic of Fraud has put out showing that
hydroxychloroquine was meaningfully withheld not only this year, but not only in this
pandemic, but since 1600 as a weapon of war.
Can you provide, and I'll give you that evidence if you haven't already
seen Epidemic of Fraud, Didier Raoult is promoting the movie now.
Do you have evidence that shows that if we had all been able to get hydroxychloroquine as a
preventative before, or low dose, before this pandemic was started like in 2020 or 2019,
that we could have all developed T cell immunity and not had this immunocompromise and immunogenicity
of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, whether it be an original virus form or vaccine form?
Thank you.
So Jim, yes, there definitely was manipulation of availability of certain drugs.
Early in 2020, I thought, as most people did, that the authorities were doing their best to
make sure that there were not alternatives to the vaccines.
Now, personally, you've heard Stephen Frost and I had an exchange.
The mail may not have been, I don't think it was a virus, but I don't want to die in a ditch over
it. There wasn't a public health emergency. There was not a pandemic. So in a sense, I don't think
I can answer your question because I don't think there was a pandemic.
Was there a spike protein?
I don't know. I don't think it's necessary that there was something, but
I know some of my colleagues think there was a locally released poison of some kind.
The problem with these things is that they're not provable or forcibable.
That is, you reach a position where you realize that you dig and dig and dig and you can't reach
your conclusion. And I have to say, folks, if you get to that position where logically you can't get
to a defensive position, please stop. You're just going to wear yourself out.
Or, for example, if people on either side of a debate don't agree the terms of the debate,
you must stop because you're just going to bash each other to death whilst allowing the
perpetrators to win. So, Jim, I don't think there was a pandemic. They definitely did
meaningfully withhold drugs that have been in use for a long period of time, and I think that was
bad. I don't know how meaningful that was in terms of people's illness, but it definitely was
a strong permissive force in terms of bringing out these, I think, intentional poisons, the
so-called vaccine. So, for whatever reason they did it, whether it was because it would have allowed
people to treat themselves or it was just to create their fear, I don't know. And they did do it.
So what I'm saying, I don't think there's a solution to say, if we could have had this,
it would have all been no problem because I think if we hadn't done any bloody testing,
there wouldn't have been a pandemic. So I don't think there was one. I think it was lies, propaganda,
and a rotten piece, a useless, a bad use of carromelosis technique to make people think
that there were infections where there weren't. That's my opinion. I can't prove it. And that's
why I didn't talk about it. I said there wasn't a public health emergency and people have been
jabbed with things that are definitely designed to injure and kill. Then I don't need to be in
dispute with anybody, I don't think. Anyway, so I probably didn't give you a great answer,
but it's because I've got a slightly different perspective on what happened.
S2 Okay. Thank you very much. And can you tell what people were dying of in the hospitals? Or
was it just a regular smooth like that? S1 Oh, yeah. No, they've been, I think they're
being killed. Honestly. Oh, just in just in one minute. In hospitals, there were internationally
a change in medical procedure, you do not ventilate people. You do not say sedate, intubate and
ventilate people with an open airway that's not obstructed. And they do not have an injured chest
wall. Correct, Stephen? Why would you do that? These people can ventilate on their own. If they
needed oxygen, you give them an oxygen mask, you do not stay intubate and ventilate. That's a that's
a great procedure. If you can't breathe. It's a terrible procedure. If you were a vulnerable person,
that will lead rapidly to death. I do know a lot about that is something we did in my form of
research. They were murdered in hospital, Jim. And then people were given remdesivir. They were now
sedated, they were not given treatments, and they just died. They were murdered by bloody doctors
and hospitals. In the care homes, they were given my dazzle am and morphine designed to help them
pass without suffering. Those are two components of the lethal injection used in some US states.
My PhD was in the effect of opiates on respiratory reflexes. Opiates depressed the respiratory drive,
as does my dazzle. I mean, in fact, they are synergistic. So in care homes, in my country,
people not even qualified to put a plaster on people were invited and some did pick up syringes
and jab to their elderly charges with high doses of my dazzle am and morphine and came back later
and put them in a body bag. They were murdered on mass, Jim. And in the community, doctors like my
ruddy family doctor, I want to say rude words at this point. She was she was told, oh, we were
told this is a virus and not to prescribe antibiotics. Huge numbers of people died in
the community, even young people of bacterial pneumonia or whatever that was. So they were
murdered, Jim. You don't need to, there wasn't a new disease. They were just murdered in hospitals,
care homes and the community in the ways I've just described. That's not in dispute. That was solved
in 2020. That's horrifying. If you didn't know that, you're probably absolutely horrified. I
met my wife's family doctor in the supermarket just before Christmas. And I veered away from
her. My wife says, Come on, have a word. I said, I don't dare speak to her. Anyway, I spoke to
him. She said, she said to me, Oh, my I've been following your work. I nearly bloody strangled her.
And I've said, Are you still injecting people with that stuff? She said, I'm only one of five
people in the practice. My voice doesn't count for anything. I said, You are murdering people.
And she kind of looked winsome and walked off and got in her brand new German car. It's like,
there are people in our community who are as bad as the good Germans in Germany. I just met one.
Well, that's what happened, Jim. There wasn't an illness. There was not a new illness. In my,
they might have poisoned some people in New York and Bergamo. I'm not even persuaded of that.
But if that's true, then it's true. But anywhere, everywhere else, nothing happened except
propaganda, lies, rotten tests, and then murderous procedures. That's what happened. That's a pandemic.
Our doctors murdered our colleagues and our parents, and they're still doing it.
Beautifully said. Thank you. Thank you, Jim. They're still doing it. They are. Okay, you're
doing very well, Mike. We've got four hands up and then Stephen, last couple of questions.
We've got 20 minutes to go. You okay for 20 minutes, Mike?
I can just do it. I'm starting to get in pain. Yeah, good. Okay, we'll be quick.
Okay, everyone, questions and Mike's answers. Janet.
Janet is trying to unmute, I hope.
We'll come back to Janet. Don't keep you waiting. Emmanuel, who presented to us last week,
Mike. I found myself. Okay, come on. Okay, yeah, just a couple of fairly short questions.
Going back to toxicology, I understand that the toxicity of remdesivir was already known before
COVID, yet it was still recommended. Yes. So my question is, what is the mechanism of its toxicity?
And was it also deliberately used to damage people? My second question is about the
AstraZeneca. I understand that the AstraZeneca vaccine was stopped from being used. Is that
correct? And why did that happen? Yeah. So remdesivir, my understanding is that it lowers
renal function. I don't actually know how it does that. I haven't looked, to be honest,
it might be known. And so here's my ghastly thought. And this came to mind after John O'Looney,
the funeral director in England. And he told me that he was receiving the deceased from hospital.
And they were in body bags. And he said, when I opened the body bags, it's full of fluid. And
I've never seen this before. And I said, what about people from care homes? He said, no.
And so here's my thought. They were given remdesivir intravenously in hospital or equivalent
drugs, which lowered their ability to clear fluid from their body because it reduced glomerular
filtration rate. And they maintained them on drips. And they just died from hypervolemic shock.
And then remember, they were already sedated and ventilated. So if I was murderous Fauci,
that's all I would need. I'd give them a drug. I'd get them in hospital. They're sedated and
ventilated. They'd be on a drip. OK, what do I need to do is knock them out of kilter. It's like
reduce GFR. That'll do. Stick them on remdesivir. They'll be dead in a week.
So I think that's what they did. Yes, it was known. There might be other toxicities. It looks a
horribly toxic drug, to be honest. The AstraZeneca drug, I always thought, even before it was approved,
I had this instinct that it was a sacrificial offering along with the J&J. I have a reason for
that. But I think they were particularly nasty. These are allegedly DNA vaccines that were not
delivered in lipid nanoparticles. And I don't know. I probably could think of it, but I can't think
of it right now. But I remember saying to my wife then, those things are so horrible that they're
going to get withdrawn. And it's going to create an open field for the mRNA products, which in my
opinion are all Pfizer. I think Pfizer, BioNTech, Moderna, I think they're all funded by military,
basically DARPA, which I think is like CIA, Black Ops money, DARPA, the Defense Project Research,
whatever it is. I vaguely began to wear during my 10 years of consulting, most of which was in
the Boston area. Boston is the biggest concentration of private biomedical funding. So venture
capitalists spend money on people who turn up and pitch a good story. I got most of my next round of
funding from there. But there's loads of funny looking biotechs just set back from the road.
You write the names down and do some Googling, you nearly always find out that their principal
funder is DARPA. And I think they're, I think they are CIA labs. I think that's what they are.
And so I think this, I think the drug companies are clearly, they're clearly guilty as hell.
I think their main role in this crime has been to white label products made by other people.
I think they've probably been made in deep state labs, and then they've been rubber stamped by a
couple of companies. And I think AstraZeneca and J&J were used as, I think they were used to provide
evidence that others have used against me. They've said, the regulators are very good, you know,
they remove the dangerous products, right? The AstraZeneca was withdrawn. That shows they're able
to withdraw dangerous products. It's like, yeah, but I knew they were going to do that, because it
was obviously more toxic. The other reason I thought that is the stupid woman that was allegedly its
inventor who got a damehood and was given a round of applause at Wimbledon in 2021. I did a bit of
research on her and she's a really stupid person. And everyone hates her. She never hires clever
people because she's so insecure. Anyway, so I reckon I thought it was a sacrificial product,
and then it went. With J&J, I don't know how it came about. But by amazing coincidence, the person
who was notionally in charge of it was a man I had worked with 10 years previously. And when his
company Johnson Johnson launched the product, I wrote to him to say, Matai, Matai Naman, you are
standing astride a product that's going to kill people. And we had a conversation by email. And
then he then he went dark and about three months later resigned with no reason given. No one ever
leaves an executive vice president position from a big drug company without reason, because most of
their payment, most of their compensation is deferred, stock options, restricted stock units
and cash. And I think he left $10 million behind. And I think he left because I drew his attention
to something he did not realize. And that drug was withdrawn from the market. Both of the DNA
products came and went. Anyway, I don't know, I can't prove any of this stuff. And it doesn't
matter if I'm right or not. The design of them is to injure and kill. But I come to believe that
they've just been shopfronts for stuff that was going on in the background. So I because they're
bad people, you know, they've those those enterprises, you know, that the money, if you've got guns,
money, intelligence, it's just the most powerful force which you've used for bad, which it is,
it creates this, this nexus which is which is foul. There's no need to, you don't need to widen the
net further and say get some bad actors in for drug companies, you know, you just need them to
put their labels on it and shut up. I think that's probably what they've done.
Mike, what was the name of the man and what was the name of the woman?
I can't, I will be able to find it because she got a damehood. And she said she's the AstraZeneca
woman. I know someone who knows her and she's not very clever. But that doesn't really matter. I
don't think I don't think I don't think her product was ever intended to be important. And I don't
think it has been. I think if you look at the if you look at the five, I think it's 5.4 billion
humans have been injected. I think all the gene based vaccines because I've no idea really what's
happening in the other parts of the world. I don't really know anything. Remember, they're lying to
us. Everything is unknown. Everything's untrustworthy unless you can verify it. But I think the vast
majority of people have been injected with the mRNA product. And I think that was always the intention.
That's what and furthermore, when you look around the world now,
you find announcement after announcement in country after country of Pfizer and Moderna
opening new factories to make mRNA vaccines, they say. Well, I've just told you that all of them will
be automatically toxic because they will induce autoimmune response to your body making non self
non human protein. Why are all these countries doing it? Because they're all part of that they
they probably don't know what they're doing most of them. But I'm saying that the
whoever is forcing this is now what what do you think is going to happen to all the vaccines that
they're making is my question. And so they're going to be put into people's arms if we don't stop them.
They're going to be put into people's arms if we don't stop them. And if you have multiple doses,
you will die. Okay, and so that's what I think. So we need to stop them. We do. Thank you, Janet.
We've got three questions to go then Stephen to finish Emmanuel who spoke to us last week, Mike.
Okay. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Dr. Yaden for a superb presentation. It's really a privilege to
hear you. I have two questions. One, how dependent was the Pfizer jab on being kept at sub freezing
temperatures to be dangerous? And then second, you know, there was an agreement between Pfizer
and New Zealand, which was one of the most difficult countries to be in during the
COVID operation, the lockdowns, etc. And yet, and the government will not release that agreement made
with Pfizer. Do you think there's anything in that agreement that would help to galvanize the normies
as it were, who can't really contend with this tremendous? So yeah, so the second part first,
I can't remember who it is. There were so many people, right? But I know some people have got
hold of oh, yes, it's my friend, retired policeman from England, Mark Sexton. I think he now has,
I think he's got three country contracts between country X, Y and Z and Pfizer, I think. And he
said, he's not an illegal scholar, but he said reading them, they look fundamentally the same.
So, you know, I don't know is the answer. By definition, I don't know what's in what we
haven't seen. But they're definitely abusive contracts. I mean, I did have nothing to do with
selling vaccines. But I know what a Pfizer, what boilerplate language, boilerplate means standard,
I know the kind of way they construct contracts. You know, they're pretty aggressive. And for
example, you would always have what's called an entire agreement clause, which means any agreement
pre existing between the parties written or verbal is hereby, you know, voided and replaced by this
one, you'll always find an entire agreement phrase, Pfizer always puts it in there. In case anyone
ever claims our well, we had to scream. So I know certain are, you know, the sort of anatomy of
these things. But I think it's so difficult, it'd be like 150 pages, probably. Imagine trying to
explain something in that contract to a normie, they won't get it. They're not, most of us are not
lawyers. And I'm not. And I but I learned a little bit because I was very interested when we were
negotiating one particular contract. And I'm like that. I just I love working with people who are
good at things. I keep asking them questions, and they keep speaking. So I picked up a little,
just a little knowledge to be dangerous. I think if we saw the contract, we would, we would know
these bloody things were abusive. I'm not sure that we would find it particularly helpful.
You know, if we explain that in subsection five two, it says, you know, the party, you know,
purchaser agrees to hold Pfizer harmless, it'll probably say that. It'll probably say Pfizer,
you know, part purchaser agrees to hold Pfizer harmless. That's normal. If you're selling
something, you always write the contract to say if you agree to buy from me, then provided we've done
all the things we said we should do, you will hold me legally harmless, you won't, you can't sue me
for having met the terms of the contract. So you'd have to find I've done something not in the
contract. That's just the way legal agreements are. So they'll it'll look horrifying. But I
don't know. I don't know that I would almost be able to persuade the man in the pub to get excited
about it. Even if I found a clause like that, it says purchaser agrees to hold Pfizer harmless.
Because I would say yeah, but I probably would have expected him to say that. They did in the
contract I looked at. Seriously, they all look all these contracts look abusive and both parties
fight back and forwards and they get something they can both agree. In fact, the only reason you
have a contract is not when you're friendly, when you're friendly, you don't need to contract,
you know, you supply they give you the money or whatever it is you supply they inject people,
you only need to contract when you fall out. That's the only time you need it. And so
this lawyer told me only time you're ever going to be looking at this again is when we're facing
court. So don't don't give them an inch. Because the time you'll be opening this page again,
is when they're suing us breach. So we have to write it in such a way that we'll win.
And I realized I thought I'd hate to be a lawyer. I'm glad he's my lawyer. So I've got a long way
around the house. I don't know. It's possible. But legal contracts, I think will be a difficult
thing to use, because they're nasty, even when they're normal. And then what else I need to
say something else? Yes. Just just an honesty thing here. This this bit about freezing and
then not freezing. You know, initially, we were told they had to be at minus 80. Minus 80 is as
cold as you can commercially reasonably get. So they're research grades with research grade
freezers that you don't get them in the supermarket or even in a wholesaler. You'll get
them in research labs in hospitals and universities. They're difficult things. And I know I remember
thinking when they said, Oh, you don't need to put them in the minus 80. You can just keep them in
a domestic freezer. So I don't know is the answer. But the one possible explanation would be this is
pretending that they've made a real product because they haven't. They say they really haven't. It's
all pantomime. But if I pretend for a moment they made a real product, it would be something like
this, that they were so rushed on doing what's called the forced instability testing. That is,
you try and degrade something in order to work out what its shelf life is. You could do two things.
One is you can stick it in the in the storage condition and come back in a year and see if it's
still all right. And if it is, you come back in three years and see if it's still all right.
Now, I think I'm only half joking. You can see that's not a good way of getting a shelf life in
a new product. It's a very good way for one that you've been producing for 10 years, because you've
got the in life data. But with a new product, you still need to provide the pharmacy wholesalers with
some kind of storage half life, you know. And so what you do is you do something called forced
degradation. You deliberately stress the products and see. I could talk for ages on this. And it
could be that they started using a rigorous condition. And then as they got the results of
their forced degradation data, they said you don't need to keep it at minus 80. So it could be
innocent. Now, I don't think it's innocent, but they could they would be able to come back.
They would be able to come back with an answer. I'm not I'm not batting for these people,
but I think I could come up with a half decent answer, which would mean people that we were
talking to would get an air. That's that's not relevant. But I have to admit something at this
point. My friend Sasha Latipova is not convinced that people are even being injected with much mRNA.
She says, I'm not convinced that they've actually made what they have told us they've made. And this
is back to Anders point. That's why I'm not his enemy. I don't know enough to know if he's right.
But so Sasha says there's been analyses done, and they do find some mRNA in the vial,
but they find mostly broken fragments. And I think, see, I cannot distinguish now at this point
between whole thing is a faint, which is what Anders I think is saying, or if these are just
degradation products of because all we've ever got is used vials. They could have been like left out
in a desk for an hour, because by the time the vials empty, no one needs to take care of it
anymore. It's going in the bin. So you can see the problem here, we've got so little information,
and we're probably not going to get better information. So that's where I am. As I said
earlier, when I reach when I realize my shovel is not going to go into productive earth, I stop
because it's just going to wear me out. Follow the follow the trail where the where the evidence
said even if it's not true, you see the mRNA stuff, they've told us that's what they're doing.
As a subject matter expert, I've described how that's definitely intentionally dangerous. So
even if that's not what they're doing, they can't get out of it. I'll modify my story if I get enough
data. Meanwhile, they said this, I'm telling you that's dangerous. No question. All right,
I will take it. The nose on the Bible, I filed multiple affidavits saying exactly what I've said
today. Okay, thanks. Yeah, thanks, Emmanuel. Celia, we're not gonna have time for you because
we're tight for time. Sadly, put it in the chat. We'll pass it on to Mike. We've got Peter Vera
and then Stephen. We need to hear Celia. We need to hear what her question is. But anyway, she's last.
All right, go, Peter.
Hi, thank you very much for having me. And thanks a lot, Michael, for your presentation. It's always
extremely interesting. I've been following you for the last four years and I fully agree with you.
I'm not a doctor. I'm an economist and I've had the privilege, if you want, to work for at least
10 years with WHO inside and have seen a little bit how this organization, which is not really,
as you know, probably a UN agency, how it works. And what is now going on, you know, with the
pandemic treating and the international health regulation modification is just horrifying.
And what I was wondering is whether you know anything about it and you know whether this may
have a chance to go through or not. No, I only know what, there's a guy who's made it his life's work.
Everybody will tell me what his name is. Every day somebody puts out international health
regulations and WHO pandemic treaty related. James Roguski. James Roguski, you know,
gives the man a medal. So honestly, you can only follow a small number of things at a time.
And I think James has got this. So I always share it on my channel, but I have not had time to look
at it. But what I would say is, and I think Stephen said, these bloody things, pandemics are
not possible. They're immunologically implausible. Everyone knows, even if it's not true,
everyone has understood the model to be that very infectious things aren't very dangerous and very
dangerous things, you know, don't travel very well. Because if that wasn't true, as soon as something
really nasty that was both highly transmissible and lethal arrived in the world, everyone, you know,
it would wipe people out or it would knock the population back, you know, 90%. And that isn't
what seems to happen, at least not in the last millennium. So I don't I think it's just,
I think it's illogical. And here's the other thing, just very quickly, I can explain why even in their
own terms, it's mad. And that's why you can tell the person in the pub. WHO wants to take to itself
the power to call public health emergencies of international concern, and then, as it were,
orchestrate the response, including giving instructions to countries in lockdown here,
take these jabs. My objection, get the principle of just the practice. Something new has arrived,
some new emergency we're allegedly has arisen in the world. WHO doesn't know what the best thing
to do is. I don't know what the best thing to do is, neither do you or anyone else on this call.
But I tell you what, we probably all have very good ideas. Humans are brilliant at solving this
kind of problem. We solve it the best we do the best we can in our local area and communicate with
each other. That gives you autonomy. No one's doing it to you. It allows you experimentally
determine what is the best thing to do rapidly, then you can share that information. It also,
by the way, fits with the idea of autonomy of countries. If you take that power to the centre,
they won't know what to do. That's the problem. If a new situation arrived, arose, by definition,
they don't know what to do. How can they possibly give the best instructions? How will we know that
that was the right thing to do? How will we learn from the normal diversity of responses that will
teach us away from or towards particular courses of action? So straight away, it will fail. Even
if they were nice people, it will go wrong the first time you use it for the reasons I've explained,
and I'm not wrong. So and of course, they are nasty people and they plan to kill us, like I keep
saying. But you can see that you don't need to be a lawyer. You don't need to be a scientist. You just
need to think logically for two minutes and you realise that it's a novel situation. Why would
you have one guy in Switzerland who doesn't know the best thing to do to tell 192 countries what to
do? And how will you ever know it was the right thing to do if you don't have quite a lot of
autonomy and variation and good communication, which is what humans have done since the dawn of
time? So, you know, by the way, then wanting to draw the powers to the centre are highly consistent
with mine and others concerns that they want to take away your freedom and compel you to receive
injections that are dangerous. That's what they're going to do with it. So there you go. All right.
Anyway, that's that move. I think we should move on. Moving. Thank you, Vera, Celia,
Hoodie, quick announcement. Let's go. First of all, thank you, Michael. I have a question to you,
but that's you know what the question is and you know what the answer is actually.
But in terms of this, one of the things that I've observed right from the beginning is that local
people, ordinary people, not lawyers, not doctors, not scientists, many more of them have gotten it
and they are marching toward us. It's not a stampede. God damn, I wish it was. And
don't say that, you know, you're tired. I know you are, but you are being heard. And sometimes
even a portion of what you say gets into people, you know, to get you more out there, not just
talking to the ones that you are, which of course is one of the projects of my book. Books get to
some people and the book that I'm working on, which Mike is part of, and so are Sasha and David
Webb and a whole lot. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Everybody's in. I don't disagree. I just,
we, it's not, that's not enough is what I'm saying. Absolutely should do it. But if people think,
oh, that's great. They've got it. That will be a minute. That will be a fatal error. We, you know,
got to demand people pick up the bloody baton and run as well. Absolutely. That's why I say,
yeah. Look, and my floor, I've got a neurologist at Columbia University. Do you know that he's still
in masks? Now that is a real crime. We're talking neurology. He never picked up a real, anything.
Yeah, it's very depressing. I know, I know a doctor who, who's met specialists when he was still
allowed to practice. He's a foot surgeon and the person would say, oh, I'm really busy. And he
would say, my friend would say, well, you're busy. And he said, yeah, I've got really unusual,
whole bunch of neurological conditions. And he would say, do you know why that's happening?
The guy will like look at him slightly and say, well, obviously the vaccines. And then my friend
said, you couldn't say anything about it. He went, no. Right. They're good Germans. And you know what
I mean? They're really good Germans. Oh, yeah. They're all over the place. But I take your point
in England. The self-employed, we call them white fan man. They often drive around and
like a battered fan and they fix stuff. They fix electrics. They put fix your plumbing. They mend
your car, do your drive. Those people, when most of them were never fooled. I don't know why it is.
Some psychologist gave me an explanation, but I went for it. So I agree with you. I think what
they don't know is they don't know how bad this is. They know that they're being lied to, but they're
used to that. Some of them have told me we're always lied to, Mike. I'm used to it. So they never tell.
Yeah, they don't trust. They don't trust authority. They don't trust authority.
But so how to get them beyond the point of not trusting the man. And I'll just give you one tiny
example. In London, the mayor, Sadiq Khan, has greatly restricted the flow of ordinary people
driving their cars in London by imposing what's called the ultra low emission zone and then
expanding it, which is what they'll do. Eventually stop you moving around in your own private
powered car. That's what they will do. And the system operates on a series of automatic number
plate recognition, ANPR cameras, and they've been put up on hundreds of poles around
expanded London. At night, what I think are probably working class men in vans,
go out, put on a balaclava, get out their battery powered angle grinder, take the bloody things down.
And therefore, blade runners, these people, and they have taken down hundreds and hundreds and
hundreds. So that's good news, right? That's good news. These people know they've got to do something.
This wasn't me, but I was on March in London a few months ago with someone who understood what we
were talking about, these concerns. That person reached out to the head of the blade runners
because we thought, wouldn't it be good if we could combine them together? And unfortunately,
their disappointing answer was, we're not marching with a bunch of lunatic anti-vaxxers.
So I'll just give you this information. So the working class guys who are taking down the
Ulysses cameras think I'm mad. They're not about to be my, I want them to be my allies, but at the
moment, they're just concerned about car regulation. They're not interested in Jabs and
WHO and Bill Gates. Sorry to say that at the end, but that's the reality. We have to...
All right, Mike, we're going to keep moving. Vera addressed us two years ago this month,
and Vera posted the recording and the Q&A into the chat. It was a masterful presentation on the
Spanish Flu, Mike. So if you ever want some entertainment, what's a beautiful presentation.
I'd love to. Yeah, I'd love to. That'd be great. Thank you, Vera. Okay, Celia, then Hootie's going
to give us a quick report and then Stephen will say a quick farewell. Come on Celia. We're a big
fan of Celia, everybody here. Unmute yourself. Mike, tremendous presentation. Thank you. I'm a
big admirer of yours, and I especially appreciate your clarity of language. So important for
breaking the spells. I wanted to go to something you said in the beginning. I wrote down your
choice of words, the supra-natural... Did you say force? Supra-national force.
Yeah. Sorry, supra-national force that had all the countries marching in lockstep, which was so
shocking and terrifying. Now, I'm half Swedish, grew up in Sweden, but one doesn't have to be half
Swedish to have watched with great interest what Anders Tegnell did in Sweden. He did his own thing,
and then there was Maka Fuli in Tanzania. It did not end well for him. So one did see at least two
countries, maybe there were a few more step aside. I don't want to really take time to try to figure
out why they might have done that, but what I do want to ask you is this. Given that there was this
supra-national near perfect coordination of nations in the beginning, doesn't that
indicate that the WHO pandemic treaty that we are all dreading, May 24th, was already in force?
And if so, what do you think about that? And lastly, in other words, are they about to kick
in with yet another degree of supra-national force, or has it already been in place?
No, you make a very good point. That's a very, very good point. I think you're saying, just to
summarize back, there already seemed to be the levers of power, the networks of influence,
being able to dole out the orders and have them followed, that was already in place.
So in a way, I think you're saying, to what extent would it really make any difference if
there was or wasn't this treaty in place? I think that's one thing. That's right.
That's right. That's a good point. Do we have a fighting chance?
Well, we definitely always have a chance. Yeah, you know that. It's not over until it's over,
that's for sure. My first line in the sand will be when they try and make us have digital ID,
and I'm not having it. I know there will be very bad consequences. But I'm just saying,
it will come. And I want the people on this call to rehearse in front of the mirror,
that they're not going to take it. Because if 89 of you take it, think, well, I won't do the next
step. It's like, you've stepped into the killing machine. Sorry, Vera, to use that particular
phrase is very deliberate. Because what people need to hear right now is,
where have they failed? Where have the wheels come off? Where is their Achilles heel?
You mean as an individual? No, I mean, the big apparatus.
Oh, right. No, the perpetrators. Yeah, no, it's a great point. That's a very good point. I mean,
I think that if you're able, lots of people have been able to suss that things were wrong
from different perspectives. For example, I'm a massive fan of a singer called Ian Brown. He was
the lead singer of the Stone Roses and then had a long solo career. And in the summer of 2020,
he wrote a song called Little Seed, Big Tree. And when you read the lyrics, it's like,
he worked out all the stuff I've told you. And because of the time it takes you to
arrange, rehearse, get recordings and so on, he probably had written those lyrics in the spring
of 2020. Now, how did an uneducated man from Manchester work it out? I don't know, but he did.
If you look at the lyrics of Little Seed, Big Tree, tell yourself that the author didn't know
what was happening. And I promise you the explanation isn't because he's one of the
perpetrators. He's someone whose career was badly restricted because I think he turned down
the deal that lots of other people took. So yeah, so they've made look what I'm in brief,
lots of people spotted that it was mad and fraudulent. And I think it's a great question.
It's a really good prompt to us to think about what's the sharpest thing for each of us that
made it obvious. The fact you're on this call, you didn't drift here, you came here. So I think
that's worth building on Celia. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. And enough. And many people
from different angles, Mike, well said and important question. All right, Hootie, quick
announcement by you, Mike will be interested in this as well. Hootie presented to us in January,
put the recording into the chat. Graham, you go. What is it? Say what he is, Charles. So he's a
landline pilot. He's a sect, Pontus pilot who refused to be jabbed. And Hootie, he's recording
or putting the check go, go Hootie, give us a quick Senate. He resigned, actually, Charles, he resigned.
Good man. I've heard of him from a friend in Australia already as a great man. So thank you.
Let's know on his head from me. If he's here. He's here. Speak up, unmute yourself.
He's not on my on my panel. He's here. He should be, Mike. He's there. Okay. Well, first of all,
thank you for allowing me to speak up at the last minute. And Dr. Michael, you, I have great
admiration for you. And our mutual friend is trying to tee something up. And when you're ready,
if you're prepared, I understand you're tired because I'm exhausted as well.
Look, I just want to touch quickly on what happened in the Senate Royal Commission hearings in
Australia in Canberra last Wednesday, John Larder, the SAC paramedic and I attended to give evidence
in the Royal Commission to the towards the structure of the Royal Commission.
And what before I went in there, I had nothing really prepared, but I sat in the car and I prayed,
and I asked for guidance on which way to take this. Now, what I've realized in the last three
or four years, as you would have Michael as well, is that a lot of a lot of people involved in
handing down these mandates and rules and regulations, they're corrupted, but they're
not just corrupted from a financial perspective, they're intellectually corrupted. A lot of them,
a lot of them really can't string a solid argument together. And sadly, some of those
are our elected representatives. So we have to look at them from a different angle.
In my life as an airline pilot, I was also a human factors facilitator or instructor. I used to teach
cabin crew, crew, how to solve a problem that a critical problem by critical thinking and teamwork.
Now this came about after an accident in the Everglades in Florida back in the 70s,
when the United Airlines DC team crashed into the Everglades because all the pilots and the
flight engineer were concentrating on changing a light bulb in the landing gear. I remember,
I remember reading it. Yeah, I remember reading. As a result of accidents like that, human factors
was a genre that was formed to make airline flying safer. And in that capacity, I also taught
medical surgical teams and Air Force crews that were sent to us on a subcontract basis to
participate in our course. What I realized in the in all of this was before I went into the
Senate hearing, I have to appeal to those people who don't have the common sense to listen to
arguments from us because they just want to follow a narrative that's been pre prepared for them.
I talked about Apollo 13 and whether people believe in the Apollo missions are not irrelevant.
But the scenario is this. There was an accident on the spacecraft on the way to the moon. And
as a result, Houston, we have a problem. And as a result of that call, a whole lot of people got
together to work out some solutions to get those astronauts home. Now, according to the story,
they use duct tape and cardboard basically to get a square peg to fit into a round hole and they got
them home. When I spoke to the Senate, I said that we're in a similar situation. When this so-called
pandemic was released upon the world, a whole bunch of people in the scientific arena race defined a
solution which was a vaccine. And while they were all in mass, racing defined some kind of a solution.
A whole bunch of other people like you, Mike Yeaton and Dr. Peter McCullough and Pierre Corey and
others were saying, all right, they're looking after this that far ahead of a solution. What have
we got in the cupboard that we can use now to save lives while we're developing that? And so a whole
bunch of you got together and you said, hey, Dr. Tess Laurie looked at Ivermectin and all these other
people came together with a whole bunch of solutions. And they went back to the authorities
and said, hey, while you're working on a vaccine, we've got solutions for you. Let's implement these.
Now in the Apollo 13 scenario, the mission controller said, yep, that's great. Let's do that.
But when it came to this COVID madness, not only were the doctors who were working on what we had
in the cupboard that was already available censored, so were their solutions. And that
led me to say in the Senate that we are at the pointy end of the worst human factors disaster
in global history because the solutions that are readily available now have been cancelled.
And my urgency message to the Senate was government, you must listen.
When I used to fly airplanes, if ever there was an emergency situation I was involved in
and I wasn't ticking all the boxes to get the airplane on the ground like the crew did in the
Everglades, I was trained to respond to a message from my copilot, captain, you must listen.
And that's what I went to the Senate. And there were two senators in the chamber, but several on
the call that weren't available to be there and to present those people, none of them asked a
question after that. They couldn't argue with it. Now, if we go in with the science and all the
other stuff, they would argue, they would come out and ridicule them, whatever. They could not
get over that because that's the real truth of what's going on. There are solutions readily
available. They have been ignored and those who were proposing them through pragmatism and reason
have been cancelled like yourself. And we have to appeal to these intellectually handicapped
politicians and bureaucrats that there are solutions and the people who have those solutions
should be brought out of the cupboard and into the light where they can participate in the debate
and get people well and get our countries back on their feet again. And I can honestly say that the
video of that presentation to the Senate is going viral. And I believe we need to look at different
ways of waking people up. And I believe that's one way of doing it. We have to stop saying people
have got to go to jail, people have got a hand. We've got to look to the intellectually handicapped,
stop running down rabbit holes in different directions and focus on the target. And I think
we can do it. And Michael Yeaton, you have done so much work and I congratulate you for that.
And I'm really concerned about you personally because you've done much more than most other
people and I thank you for it. So thank you. Thank you for saying that. And I think we're all doing
what we are, as it were, dropped into this moment in space to do, including, you know, your thing
you just said there, that there's such powerful work. It's like, Captain, you must listen.
That's great. I mean, because, yeah, I'm sure that that has saved lives repeatedly in a crisis.
So, yeah, maybe it's, you know, Mike, you must listen or whoever it is.
I think you're talking about, can we find ways to get additional or can we find ways to get allies?
At the moment, in the past, I've tried to inform them. And I think they don't really know what's
going on. The 650 elected members of parliament in Westminster, I think most of them do not know
what's going on. I don't think they've all been, you know, shown the script and told, you know,
this is your reward if you go. I don't think they know what's going on. I think they're not
expected to really participate, but to turn up, I think they call them lobby for that. You're
expected to turn up and go through the bloody lobby. If you're told to go through the iLobby
or the noLobby, that's what you do. And certain people get selected to get, you know, government
positions, and then they get more senior government positions. And so they're willing to be very
accommodating of their party. And so if someone like me points out your government, your party
is doing the wrong thing. It's just, you know, I know they know before they even hear me that if
it sets them against their party, it doesn't matter what I tell them, they're not going to do it.
Right. That's, but they are, and I think they also deselect people like you and me.
So we, people like you and me never get elected. Even if we wanted to stand,
they'd have removed us because it's like that hoodie guy sounds like he's going to be clever
and trouble. And so we've ended up with a whole bunch of bloody drones. I've noticed in your
Senate, you seem to have at least two people who have got their head screwed on and are brave enough
to speak about it. Antic is one of them and there's another guy. So I'm not looking at,
I'm not looking at politics. So. Renick and Malcolm, Michael Roberts, sorry, what's the name?
Malcolm Roberts, you've got some very well informed people who won't shut up and they are being heard.
I'm not looking at politics. I don't watch any mainstream media. I've seen them. So that whatever
they've managed to get around the world. And that's, so that's good. All right. We're 20 minutes over.
Woody, I know we're way over. But there's something that all. Steven, you must listen.
Just momentarily. Very good. I think seriously, I think what, something about what Celia said,
you know, there's already some vulnerabilities that, you know, rather than what me worrying about,
they have got awesome power. And if we're not bloody lucky and determined, they will roll us over.
But not over. And that's why I'm thinking there's probably they've made some mistakes,
which we need to capitalize on. And I think Graham has hit on some points, which is in every
legislature, there's a handful of people who are brave and clever. Imagine if we could get
them all together and let's say we had three from every one of 192 countries who are articulate
and brave and plugged in. You'd have whatever that would be. You probably have a thousand people.
I don't know. Can we do something? I don't want to form a one world team. One that's ever so
macabre and frightening. And also we provide an opportunity for us all to be wiped out at one time.
But there seem to be too small a number in any one country to get a breakthrough in any one country.
There's no point in us getting the bronze medal in every country. We've got to get gold somewhere.
I don't know how to do it, but I feel we've got to get gold somewhere.
Charles, you must listen. We can't let Michael go without a 22nd prayer. Please don't let us do that.
Okay.
Rana, who do you want to do it?
Braym is a wonderful communicator. He's an airline captain or was and I think he was
the most senior in Australia at the time he resigned. I don't know whether that's true,
but anyway, the point is that he's a wonderful communicator. He's incredibly trustworthy. He's
very sensible. And I think he's exactly the kind of guy who is able to put these messages out to
the public in language that they understand because he needed to do it when he was an airline
pilot. Thank you, Stephen. Okay, Hoody, go for your 20 seconds. Charles, can we have a question?
Stephen, we'll do it. We'll do the prayer and then your last question, Stephen. Okay, so
Hoody. Thomas Binder as well. He had his hand up before and he lost it because of people.
Yeah, we're way out of time. Thomas, quick question. Go. I haven't got people leaving,
Stephen. Come on, Thomas, go. Stephen asked me whether I wanted to say something so I rose my
hand. Hi, Mike. Great to hear you. Hi, Thomas. It's our time to meet you in person once. I hope we
can do this. I fully agree with everything you said. I think the most important things we have to
inform the public are three. First, there was no pandemic of a killer virus. There was mainly,
if not completely, an RT-PCR testing pandemic. Second, the whole mRNA vaccine platform is
basically flawed, so it must be banned. And the third is refused to accept anything that contains
digital in its name. Yeah, these are my two cents. Yeah, I absolutely, wholeheartedly endorse all
three of those things. Thank you. Thank you, Thomas. Thank you, Stephen. Okay, Stephen,
one question because then we'll have a closing prayer from Hoody and then we're going to go.
So, Mike, I noticed that you say that there was no pandemic, but you also say the formulation was
such that actually you know that it was a complete fraud. They used three different methods to kill
people. And in fact, I think you went on to say there were two more, which you had limited
knowledge of. I think it's extremely important from you to the people around the world hear
that message, that distillation, if you like. And then if they want to know more, you can provide
all the evidence. I am right now in a process where someone reached out to me to say,
we need to get what you've said down in writing. You need to speak to me and I will write the
bloody article. So I've actually had someone do exactly what I needed. They threw me the life
raft to say, grab hold of that. I'll pull you to the shore and then I'll record you speaking. I
will write the article. So it'll be me and the author. So we are going to do this in the next
couple of weeks. So we need wordsmiths and we need people like Celia Farber, who's a brilliant,
insightful author, expert on the AIDS virus. And she was thrown into that at a very tender age.
But I think that we need to play to our strengths. And so I'm talking from a medical
doctor's point of view. In my view, there was not only no pandemic, but there was no disease
called COVID-19. It was a fake disease. The PCR test we know was fraudulent. You wrote with William
Wolfgang Wood, I'll go think about that to the European Meds Foundation. So you understand that.
But I understand as a medical doctor and all doctors in the world should have understood that
it wasn't properly diagnosed this so-called disease. So the whole thing was a fraud. It was
a fake. And so there was no, and why was it so when, so they tried to say, oh, but you know,
so it wasn't even clinically possible. It wasn't possible to diagnose it clinically. That's the
point. So there was nothing that a medical doctor could hang his hat on and say that's COVID-19.
They tried to say, oh, loss of taste, loss of smell and all this nonsense. And seems everybody
in the world seemed to forget that when they had a cold previously, they lost their sense of taste
and smell and the same with, and then they say, oh, it was, it lasted longer with COVID. No, sorry.
There was no symptom that was pathognomonic for COVID-19. So the whole thing was a fraud.
And it's been done before. They did it with the swine flu. And Wolfgang Wood, they hear the
German hero. He forced an investigation at the European, at the Council of Europe, which is a
constituent part of the European Union. And the investigation is on the, the report of that
investigation is on the internet. It was a fraud. They did the same thing in 2020 and we're still
living through that nonsense. We need to expose these. Come on. But how many trials? No, we're
half an hour over. People are leaving in droves, Stephen. You don't care. I do. I don't care about
the people who leave because if they leave, they shouldn't have left. Come on. Come on.
I just nearly finished, Charles. So there was no COVID-19. There was no pandemic. There never was
a pandemic. Pandemics are not possible in the future. And no fear is necessary because they
use fear propaganda against all the populations around the world to promote this nonsense. This
Trojan horse for totalitarianism. We need to expose them. Okay. Thank you, Stephen.
Hoodie, closing prayer, please, for Mike and the group. Dear Lord, Father in heaven, we just call
on your Holy Spirit, Father God, to nurture the heart of Michael Yeaton, a man who has given so
much to bring so much truth at such great cost. Father, we know this is taking a toll on him and
we're all paying a price, but he is paying a very, very high price. Lord, we need to be
called to action. We need to find ways to penetrate the truth into the houses that make the differences.
So Lord, as we proceed further, we ask you to guide our every step. But most of all,
our prayer at this moment is that you would surround Michael Yeaton with angel swords drawn
to protect him, to watch over him and to cover him. And this is our prayer in Jesus name. Amen.
Amen. Well said. Thank you, Graham. Beautiful. So for those with the time, Tom Rodman has put
the link into the video group for those who have endless amounts of time to do that. Well done.
If you do, there's the link. Mike, thank you so much for being with us, Stephen. Thank you
for organizing, Mike, to be with us. And some very important information. Please watch the recording
for those of you who are live and we will see you again on Sunday night, Monday. Big round of
applause to Mike. Hopefully you can see us, Mike, that we're all clapping. Yeah, okay. Thank you very
much for inviting me and then putting up with me because as you can tell, I can not only talk for
England, but I can talk for anybody and not stop. But thank you very much. I've enjoyed the interaction.
Thank you, Mike. Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you, Mike. Enjoy the rest of your vacation.
Thank you. Thank you. Bye bye then. Thank you. Bye bye. Thank you so much.
Thanks, Charles. Thank you, Stephen. Great job. We got there. Woody, say your name.
I'm sorry. I just felt that it was such an important presentation. Yeah, yeah, no, it's okay.
And we wouldn't get another, well, we would get another chance, but you know, you can't
recreate the atmosphere of this evening and I think that we should all feel that that was
well spent. That was time well spent. Yeah, it was. Thanks for having me in there, guys. Thank you.
Bye bye. Bye bye, buddy. Thanks. Thank you so much to you as well for that prayer. Thank you.
All right. Bye, everybody. And to everybody who asked questions. Thank you.