Everybody, we've got 40 people here. Welcome. Let's get this show on the road. Anna is ready to go.
I'll introduce her in a moment. So welcome to Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics founded by Stephen
Frost and his genius. I'm Charles Covess, your moderator in Australia. I wear my red jacket
because I'm Australasia's passion provocateur. Really is the colour of passion and all of us here
are passionate about freedom and truth and justice and the Nuremberg Code.
There are lots of professions here. If this is the first time that you are here, please
introduce yourself in the chat. You are most welcome. The chat is a wonderful resource.
Please put your name, properly describe your name so that we know who you are and we welcome you.
We are here in the spirit of exploration and discovery and the exploration of true science.
And I'm very much influenced by Michael Crichton, the writer's quote,
that when someone tells you the science is settled, reach for your wallet.
So most of us understand we're in World War Three.
We go for two and a half hours. So we have a presenter and then Q&A for the questions after
Anna de Busseret, a lawyer, is our presenter today. Use the reactions tab to put your hand
up for questions which we handle in order. After the two and a half hours, Tom Rodman
organises a video telegram conversation where it's less structured. If you have the time to
keep going, that's an opportunity to keep discussing. There is no censorship here. This
is a free speech environment, but there is proper moderation. So please understand the distinction
between being properly moderated and you thinking there's not free speech. Free speech doesn't mean
that you can talk wherever you'd like. So that's what moderation is about. But free speech is
crucial. And this discussion group encourages free speech, different ideas. And if you're upset
by anything that the speaker says, great, be upset. The speaker didn't upset you, you upset you.
So the other issue that happens in this discussion group is that somebody says,
I've got a solution to something and they put it in the chat. And somebody else says that solution
doesn't work. Well, go and have a private discussion elsewhere. But if anyone's got a solution,
put it in the chat. And if someone else thinks it doesn't work, put it in the chat. But you don't
have to have a ding dong argument because all you do is make a fool of yourself in front of all the
other people watching this war of words. So, you know, we're not going to censor anyone who puts
something in the chat. And I ignore quite frankly, the stuff. I love the chat and I ignore the
arguments that happen between people. But it's the exploration of ideas. I get such
wonderful insights from the chat. I hope you do as well. The our fundamental principle is
we aim to come from love, not fear. As you see, most of the world comes from fear. So this is a
place where we encourage coming from your soul, passion, love, not fear. Have an open mind.
I hope your self awareness increases through this journey. Because at the end of the day,
when you get a new idea, like Mark Bailey, who spoke to us last week, so the last Sunday night,
so many people get upset if somebody dares say something with which they disagree. And indeed,
on the C19 group today, you know, Jay Sanchez is coming out and saying that Robert Malone is
controlled opposition, blah, blah, blah. Well, he might have that opinion doesn't make it true.
So everybody, we're on a learning journey. Love, wonderful to have you here. Stephen,
well done for organizing this group and Anna de Boussoure from the UK. Welcome. We are in
your metaphorical hands. Thank you, Charles. Hello, everybody. And thank you for participating
tonight. So as you've read from my from the invitation, I'm a lawyer, but I'm also an
army officer with the British Army, although I'm not currently serving, still under a call up
liability for the next three years, but not currently posted. But when I look at the Nuremberg
trials, I come at it not just with a legal head on but with a military head on, you know, and with
an understanding of the law and customs of war. And so what I find interesting about the Nuremberg
trials is that it's interesting to find out how you could read those unless you actually did
understand the law and customs of war. If you were just reading them in isolation, because they have
to be put in the context of the legal framework at the time. But before I launch into that,
I wanted to say that, you know, what's really interesting about reading these trials is that
it's very clear that we've got the same problem then as we do now, which is that you had a whole
bunch of doctors who were either conscripted into the military or who were voluntarily in the
military, who were caught up in the war machinery, and were being asked to do all kinds of things
such as breach their medical ethics and resulting in the heinous crimes that we now are aware of.
And when you think about what's happening today, there are the same kind of parallels.
And if you look at acts of warfare, again, before we launch into what was actually being done by
these doctors, and take a step back, in warfare, there are means and methods of warfare that are
lawful and means of methods of warfare that are unlawful. And there are also restricted methods.
And the latest analysis from the two generals in America, General McInnery and Paul Valerly,
is that we are experiencing unrestricted warfare. And in fact, there were two Chinese generals,
I think they wrote a paper in 1991, about how a country with less military might could indeed
inflict war upon their enemy in unrestricted ways. And so what we're dealing with currently is all
kinds of means and methods of warfare being deployed against us, many of which are prohibited under
the various warfare conventions. But likewise, back in Nazi Germany, a very similar thing was
happening. So we have to ask ourselves how we've ended up in the same place today as we did then.
But in that context, with that context in mind, you know, what the German doctors were doing,
were either lawful or unlawful actually. They were either medically ethically appropriate,
or they weren't. Okay, so what we need to do is we need to understand that greater context,
because a lot of the German doctors were claiming, of course, that many of the things that they were
doing were either necessity, or they were, you know, lawfully following orders, following the
government's guidance, similar kind of thing today. So before I launch into it, though,
because what I propose to do is go through the, if I show it to you, this is part two, volume two,
and that's not all of it, of the medical cases, trials of war criminals before the
near military tribunals. And what it does is it starts off looking at the necessity
of the experiments that were being conducted by the Germans, the doctors rather, and then looking
at the usefulness of the experimentation, and then going into medical ethics as they were at the time,
asking both the defence and the prosecution their evidence on the general state of medical ethics
at that point in time. And then both sides give their evidence under cross-examination,
their documents that they're relying on, and then it leads into the judgement. So before,
and the sentencing. So that's the structure of it, and this runs to around
around 300 pages I've got here. So what I propose to do is to read the key sort of passages out of
each of those sections, so you get a good understanding of what the main arguments for
the prosecution and the defence are, and then the main points of the judgement. But given there were
something like 20 defendants, I don't propose to go through the evidence for each one, because
a lot of it is repeated. But also I think we ought to concentrate on the main defendant, Carl Brandt,
because he was charged with many of the offences and indeed found guilty and hanged. So I thought
we could go through his evidence, one of the others who got life imprisonment, and then one who was
not guilty, so that you could try and see the comparison about why one was found guilty and
hanged, one was put in jail, and then one was found not guilty. So that's what I propose to do.
But before I launch into that, first of all, does that sound helpful? But mostly, are there anything,
is there anything in particular you'd like me to focus on? Because what I'm proposing to focus on
are the arguments about the state of medical ethics at that time, and then how they were judged
in accordance with that. So Anna, let's ask Stephen, that sounds excellent with your planning,
and then if anyone has other elements, then they can put it in the chat and I'll bring it to your
attention as we go through, Anna, so that you're not distracted by having to read the chat. Stephen,
are you happy with Anna's planned course of action? Yes, that's fine, Anna. Maybe if you could
weave it in how the Neuronberg trials arose. Presumably, there were people saying in the
Second World War and before, oh, they can't do anything about this, but they did do something
about it. They conducted military tribunals and presumably they changed laws or made laws,
I don't know how it worked, but that would be very interesting. Yeah, well, so, okay, so essentially,
obviously, as we know, what happened was that during the war, there were increasing reports
of horrors being committed at various concentration and labour camps, and indeed, the House of
Commons issued a statement, I think it was in 1942 or 1943, acknowledging these reports
and condemning them, but acknowledging that until we'd won the war, we couldn't bring these people
to trial. And so, to a certain extent, it was a case of having to release the prisoners each
time ground was made and these camps were discovered. But ultimately, evidence was being
gathered all the time and then as soon as they were able to, the military tribunals were established
and various defendants were brought to trial under different categories, as we know. The main
military soldiers were brought to trial in the first set of tribunal hearings, but then the doctors
were the judges, media personnel, bankers, all different categories of people who were, you know,
considered to be main perpetrators of the main atrocities were brought to trial. So, what happened
was that whilst the legal framework to judge these people was already in existence for most of the
war crimes under the existing war conventions, there were new crimes that were defined because
under the existing legislation, there wasn't a definition that covered the kind of atrocities
that were occurring. So, what they created was a council law 10, I think it was called,
hold on, I'll just find it in the judgment, it sets it out quite clearly here. The jurisdiction
of the tribunal, this is on page 172 of the tribunal, so it says the jurisdiction and powers
of this tribunal are fixed and determined by law number 10 of the control council for Germany. So,
in other words, when the allies took over and put their government in place of the
the newly occupied territories of the winning country, they put in place this law number 10,
which allowed for certain crimes to be brought within the jurisdiction of the tribunal.
So, article two of that said that each of the following acts is recognised as a crime,
in brackets B, war crimes, atrocities or offences against persons or property constituting violations
of the laws or customs of war, including but not limited to murder, ill treatment or deportation
or for any other purpose of civilian population from occupied territory, murder or ill treatment
of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private
property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages or devastation not justified by military
necessity. Okay, so very clearly in war crimes is murder and ill treatment etc of people,
now giving medical treatment or experimentation without consent lawfully given and they die
can amount to a war crime as you can see because it's either ill treatment or it's murder, prima
facie. So that's that one and then it goes on to say, oh actually here, sorry it hasn't got crimes
against humanity defined because the page is missing. This is the original one that I printed
off and it actually as I've gone through it there are several pages missing and one of those is that
critical one about crimes against humanity but it's essentially the same definition as it is now,
which is all the different ways that you can commit a crime such as torture, imprisonment, rape,
slavery, medical segregation. So they put those in the law council number 10 and that gave
jurisdiction to the tribunal to judge them on that basis. In fact, sorry here I have just found the
crimes against humanity, so sorry folks it's a bit of a... crimes against humanity atrocities and
offences including but not limited to murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation,
imprisonment, torture, rape or other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population
or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds whether or not in violation of the domestic
laws of the country were perpetrated. Okay so and then what they did was that it wasn't just people
who perpetrated they dealt with aiding and abetting so paragraph two of that part of the order says
that any person without regard to nationality or the capacity in which he acted is deemed to have
committed a crime as defined in this article if he was a a principal or b was an accessory to the
commission of any such crime or ordered or abetted the same or c took a consenting part therein or
d was connected with plans or enterprises involving its commission or e was a member of any
organization or group connected with the commission of any such crime so you can see that's very
broadly defined so that you can catch all the people in the chain of causation from the person
who you know promulgated the initial order all the way through to the people who executed it
and all the people involved in between. Anna this is a really crucial point and I think so we've
heard from many people as you know that the Nuremberg code doesn't apply but the fact is
and they didn't have a Nuremberg code before the second world war they had a kind of rough series
of rules which they abided by when it came to medical ethics but the point is that they did
have these trials and so when people say that the Nuremberg code doesn't apply at the moment
well it will apply in the future if it doesn't apply now you see what I mean? Yeah I mean that
that's um I'm going to go on to the bit about the what existed at the time of these trials because
there was in place a set of medical principles already but what the tribunal goes into is the
evidence both for the prosecution and the defense about the precise nature of those medical ethics
as they applied to live human experiments so what they did in the in the course of the trial was
that they engaged the expertise of a Dr Ivy from America who was asked to give his view on what
the governing principles were and he cites three initially including of course the first one is
the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential and the Germans give their
understanding of medical ethics and then between them all what they do is they identify what are
the generally accepted medical ethics at the time and out of that comes the 10 principles which then
become the Nuremberg code but if I take you through the um the tribunal's way of dealing with that I
think you'll find it really interesting because I will come on to that in more detail Stephen
because yes your essential point is that you know first of all the Nuremberg code wasn't a new idea
we there was already an existence in firm medical ethics but secondly the need for it was because
it was recognized that it wasn't in a easily read format and so one of the defendants makes the point
that that would be the job for the tribunal to actually put it in written form so that there can
be no doubt going forward and the fact is that the Nuremberg code then became enshrined in the
Geneva declaration issued by the world medical association in 1950 which bound all physicians
so it was the Nuremberg code you know on steroids and then in 1964 both the Nuremberg code and the
Geneva declaration were essentially enshrined in the Helsinki declaration and then the Helsinki
declaration has been enshrined in UK statute law in the medicines for human use clinical trials
regulations so certainly in the UK the Nuremberg code has effectively become enshrined in statute
law but it's also binding criminal case law I mean you know the the beauty of case law judgments
which is why they're such important reading is because the judges take the existing laws and
ethics and apply them to the particular circumstances of the case explaining as they do so how the law is
applied in that particular circumstance which you don't get from simply reading the penal code
or you know the the code of medical ethics and that's why case law is so important but it's also
why it's binding because you know if you have a similar set of facts such as today where you've
got medics in the NHS conducting live human experiments on people then you know the same
principles in this case would apply which is why case law is binding because the idea is that if
you spend all this time and trouble on deciding facts on the law then you don't necessarily want
to go through the whole exercise again because that's why it's binding on on other courts so
yeah I strongly refute the suggestion that the Nuremberg code isn't binding certainly in the UK
it is but yes if I can go through the actual judgment then and read you some bits out of it
I think that'd be very helpful so the bit about medical ethics
it starts with both sides giving arguments about whether or not experiments are necessary
particularly in the state of war so for example you had typhus outbreaks and you had soldiers
dying from infected wounds on the front or you know shipwrecked people not being able to survive
you know out on sea so they were doing all these experiments to sensibly help their own
soldiers and their own population to deal with the challenges including vaccination programs so
what you'll see is a number of the experiments that were being conducted that they're being
charged as crimes against humanity included funnily enough vaccination experiments and
in terms of arguing the necessity the evidence that's first that's put forward into in the
defense of carl brandt was the extract from the testimony of the defendant on examination so the
judge says witness this question of the necessity for an experiment is it your view that it is for
the state to determine the extreme necessity for such an experiment and thereafter those who serve
the state are to be bound by that procedure i think you can answer that yes or no defendant
carl brandt this trial shows that it will be the task of the state under all circumstances basically
to clarify this position question for the future what kind of answer is that question witness as i
understand your statements a moment ago they were that the physician having once become the soldier
thereafter must subordinate such medical ethical views as he may have when they are in conflict
with a military order from higher authority is that true and carl brandt says i didn't want to
express it in that form i didn't did not mean to say that the physician the moment he becomes a
medical officer should change his basic attitude as a physician such an order can in the very same
way be addressed to a physician who is not a soldier i was referring to the entire situation
as it prevailed with us in germany during the time of an authoritarian leadership
this authoritarian leadership interfered with the personality and the personal feelings of the human
being the moment an individuality is absorbed into the concept of a collective body every demand
which is put to that individuality has to be absorbed into the concept of a collective system
therefore the demands of society are placed above every individual human being as an entity
and this entity the human being is completely used in the interest of that society the difficult
thing and something which is hard to understand basically is that during our entire period
everything was done in the interest of humanity so that the individual person had no meaning
whatsoever and the further the war progressed the stronger did this principle thought appear
this was designated in the end as total war unrestricted warfare right and in accordance
the leaders of the state gave orders quite generally and demanded that orders be carried out
it was very tragic for a number of persons not only within the framework of these experiments
but also in other situations that they had to work under such orders without considering the
entire situation as it prevailed in germany one cannot understand the question of these particular
experiments at all now that's the main defendant carl brant's evidence on the necessity so in other
words he's saying that the the authoritarian leadership was such that you know you just took
the order and the you just accepted that it was necessary for the benefit of the collective
over the need of the individual now his evidence on that point is echoed by most of the defendants
all of whom incidentally pleaded not guilty to the atrocities and they all plead guilty on the same
kind of basis as carl brant which was oh it was necessary it was necessary to do all of these
experiments it was a state of war we you know the benefit of the collective was more important than
the individual and we were just following orders and that was essentially what each one of them
was saying so what the tribunal then does is that they ask the prosecution
dr andrew the witness the expert witness dr andrew ivy from america his view on the necessity
so this is the extract from the testimony of prosecution expert witness dr andrew ivy under
cross-examination dr servetus witness take the following case you are in a city in which the
plague is raging you as a doctor have a drug that you could use to combat the plague however you
must test it on somebody the commander or let us say the mayor of the city comes to you and says
sorry here is a criminal condemned to death save us by carrying out the experiment on this man
would you refuse to do so or would you do it now i need to interject here because one of the
defenses that was put forward was that they weren't really killing people they were taking
condemned prisoners and using them as an experimentation if they died they would have
been executed anyway because they were condemned to death that was one of their arguments which is
dealt with in great detail and basically that's an argument is rejected saying you can't take a
prisoner who you think has been condemned to death who might not actually be condemned to death
under the penal system and essentially execute them in the course of a medical experimentation
and say that was justified but anyway this is the question that he's being asked of dr ivy you know
here's a criminal experiment on them for the greater good dr ivy says i would refuse to do so
because i do not believe that duress of that sort warrants breaking of ethical and moral principles
that is why the hag convention and geneva conventions were formulated to make war a
barbaric enterprise a little more humane questions you believe that the population of a city would
have any understanding of your action answer they have understanding for the importance of
the maintenance of the principles of medical ethics which apply over a long period of years
in a short period of years physicians and medical scientists should do nothing with the idea of
temporarily doing good which when compared up carried out repeatedly over a period of time
would debase and jeopardize a method for doing good if a medical scientist breaks the code of
medical ethics and says kill the person in order to do what he thinks may be good in the course
of time that will grow and will cause a loss of faith of the public in the medical profession
and hence destroy the capacity of the medical profession to do its good for society the reason
we must be very careful in the use of human beings as subjects in medical experiments
is in order not to debase and jeopardize this method for doing great good by causing the public
to react against it so in other words the only reason you shouldn't do it is because otherwise
the public would lose faith in you a bit of a dodgy argument it says but witness do you not
believe that your ideal attitude here is more or less that of a single person standing against
the body of public opinion answer no i do not that's why i read out the principles of medical
ethics yesterday and that is why the american medical association has agreed essentially to
those principles that is why the principles the ethical principles for the use of human beings
in medical experiments have been quite uniform throughout the world in the past and they go on
to talk about the hippocratic oath and the importance of that and he goes into that in
more detail later on sorry i just want to get to there's so much to go through here
pages and pages of it so i've only you know called out the main bits and sometimes it won't sound
quite right to you because obviously it's not in the greater context but yeah so basically he's
essentially saying there that you know the principles of the medical ethics as put forward
by the medical american the american medical association were already in existence and had
been for some some time and we already know that of course and that's the point that you know the
urinberg code didn't come out of nothing it was already essentially in existence
um
but then we have um the extract from the closing statement of the prosecution under the section on
subjugation to medical experimentation as a substitute for penalties and this talks about
several of the defendants argued that medical experiments alleged that medical experiments
alleged as criminal upon concentration camp inmates were justified because they were a
substitute for penalty or punishment previously imposed on the experimental subjects and that's
the section where they talk about um the fact that you know that therefore it was justified
but it goes on to say here from the closing statement of the prosecution the proof in this
case has demonstrated beyond all doubt that the so-called criminal sentenced to death were very
rarely used in any of the experiments um there's been no proof whatever that criminal sentenced
to death by an ordinary court could possibly be executed in a concentration camp experimentation
on such person is to compound the crime of his initial unlawful detention as well as to commit
the additional crime of murder or torture as has been said by another tribunal exculpation from the
charge of criminal homicide can possibly be based only upon bona fide proof that the subject had
committed murder or any other legally recognized capital offense and not even then unless the
sentencing tribunal with authority granted by the state in the constitution of the court declared
that the execution would be accomplished by means of a low pressure chamber so in other words the
only way that you could justify doing that was if a sentence of the court had already said that they
could be killed in that way so again the the idea that the doctors in the third rike actually
thought that it was a reasonable thing to do raises very serious questions about um why they
considered that that would be ethical but when you go into the later evidence it becomes
quite clear why they um thought it was ethical and that what the defense defense does is produce
copious amounts of evidence to prove that in fact conducting live human experimentation in the way
that the german doctors were doing was uh had been conducted um for well since 1791 they've produced
on record um and by americans the brits the italians um all across the world in fact and what the german
doctors therefore say is that you should you know if you're judging us for doing things during a
war that you know you yourself have done in the first world war before then and therefore you're
condemning us unfairly essentially and so they put forward that argument um and carl brand again the
closing brief of the defendant
says this the indictment embraces certain medical experiments which are called war crimes and crimes
against humanity according to paragraphs 10 and 15 of the indictment these experiments are designated
as crimes as a violation of the general principles of criminal law as evolved from the penal law of
all civilized nations as well as violations of the national penal laws of the countries in which such
crimes were committed an indication of their punishable character was seen in the fact that
the experiments were carried out without the consent of the persons experimented on however
we must examine whether this consent of the person subjected to experiments is always necessary
or whether it can be replaced by an order of the state through the penal administration and further
if the same law applies to the execution of sentences on foreigners if consent to the to
the human experiment by the person experimented on can be replaced by an order of the state
then the person responsible for the experiment cannot be punished in cases where the experiments
were carried out through the official penal administration in accordance with the order
so i don't know if that basically makes sense to you but again they're arguing that consent doesn't
always have to be obtained it could be given by the state which again i think is a very dodgy
placement to come tom but that was their defense um sorry as i say folks it might seem a bit
disjointed because i'm having to go through so many pages of it here please bear with me um
so essentially what they then do the defense is that they then bring in loads of evidence to prove
the fact that there were all these sorry all these experiments being run by people
all over the world and i wanted to read you some of them because it's actually quite horrifying
so here we go so
yes here we go so this is the extract from the final plea for the defendant gherpard
evidence has now proved that in recent decades and even earlier numerous experiments were carried
out on human beings and moreover on persons who did not volunteer for such purposes in this respect
i refer to the statements of the expert you know witness in nearly all countries experiments have
been performed on human beings under conditions which entirely exclude volunteering in a legal
sense um
so hang on in view of the fact that a criminal event no the court for this reason will not
will also not overlook the fact that particularly during the last years even outside germany
medical experiments were performed on human beings who undoubtedly did not volunteer
and they go on to say in another one of the defendants one uh the extract from the final
plea for the defendant beagle book he says my learned colleagues have compiled a long list
of documents on human experiments especially from the western democracies um
here we go
sorry
yeah
well it's just it was really really horrifying actually i might have to put it together in a
separate one here we go medical experiments in other countries here we go the practice of
medical experiment and human beings in other countries was brought out by the defense in an
effort to show that the medical experimentation in which these defendants engaged was not criminal
okay so that what they say is that um one should compare among others the plague experiments by
strong in 1912 or 900 convicts including an experiment on 42 persons some of whom were
persons sentenced to death and the typhus experiments by hamdi on 153
there was here we go there's ones on children where they talk about the fact that
it was a particularly horrifying one where this stuff this chap has taken the
uh i'm sorry guys i wish it was much easier to read yes here we go a report on infectious
a report on infectious colitis observed in children so they quote this from 1885
confirmation of the suspicion of infection of the conjunctiva caused by
vaginal secretion by chance i had the possibility to inoculate the vaginal secretion of sick women
into the conjunctiva of three children patients who were in the final stage of the disease
two children died one and a half and two days after the inoculation without
showing any reactions the third child contracted conjunctivitis
which healed after treatment and died on the 10th day three moribund children and they use
examples like that all the way through from the end of the 18th century through to the first world
war of experiments all around the world essentially saying what we were doing was normal and indeed one
of the criticisms that comes out of the trial when you read about it later is that in many ways that
was correct that the german doctors were in fact doing what the british medical profession and the
americans had done in the first the first world wars and prior to that so that's the context of
their defense essentially that it was necessary that they were conducting it on prisoners who
were condemned to death anyway that loads of other countries were also doing the same thing
and essentially therefore that they were not guilty and they didn't feel guilty for any of the crimes
so what happens then is that there's then final pleas from everyone and it comes onto the judgment
and i think this is the bit that is most important
right so and this gives a bit of the context that you were asking for earlier as well
stephen so military tribunal one was established on the 25th of october 1946 under general order
68 issued by command of the united states military government for germany it was the first of several
military tribunals constituted in the u.s zone of occupation pursuant to military government
ordinance number seven for the trial of offenses recognized as crimes by law number 10 of the
control council for germany law number 10 was the one i read out earlier that defined war crimes
and crimes against humanity so by the terms of the order which established the tribunal
um the tribunal was ordered to convene at nuremberg to hear the cases as might be filed
on 25th of october the chief counsel lodged an indictment against the defendants copy of
the indictment was served on each defendant on the 5th of november
the trial was conducted in two languages it consumed 139 trial days
including six days allocated for final arguments during the 133 trial days used for the presentation
of evidence 32 witnesses gave oral evidence for the prosecution 53 witnesses including the 23
defendants gave oral evidence for the defense in addition the prosecution put in evidence as
exhibits a total of 570 affidavits reports and documents the defense put in a total number of
901 making a grand total of 1471 documents received in evidence so this was a substantial
trial as you can hear which is one of the reasons i'm having difficulty going through all the papers
get pages to get to the right points um but yeah then it goes into the jurisdiction and
there goes into the charge okay so these is this is how each of them were charged the indictment
were charged the indictment is framed in four counts count one the common design or conspiracy
the first count of the indictment charges that the defendants acting pursuant to a common design
unlawfully willfully and knowingly did conspire and agree together to commit war crimes and crimes
against humanity um now there was a technical point there in that um they weren't able to
fully pursue the conspiracy charge because of the way that the council number 10 law was drafted and
so they had to amend that charge slightly but essentially um it was basically the common design
that they were all in it together counts two and three war crimes and crimes against humanity
the second and third counts of the indictment charged the commission of war crimes and crimes
against humanity the counts are identical in content except for the fact that in count two
the acts which were made the basis for the charges are alleged to have been committed on civilians
and members of the armed forces then at war with the german reich whereas in count three
the criminal acts are alleged to have been committed against german civilians and nationals
of other countries um so essentially same crimes but different categories of people
um that were attacked essentially um now in terms of
sorry counts two and three alleged in substance that between september 1939 and april 1945 all
of the defendants were principals in accessories too ordered abetted took a consenting part in
and were connected with plans and enterprises involving medical experiments without the
subject's consent in the course of which experiments the defendants committed murders
brutalities cruelties tortures atrocities and other inhuman acts um it is a verb that such
experiments included but were not limited to the following and i won't read them all out they
include high altitude experiments freezing experiments but the main ones i've underlined
the vaccine experiments because of course that's what's happening today so c malaria
experiments from about february 1942 to april 45 experiments were conducted at the dacal
concentration camp in order to investigate immunization for and treatment of malaria
healthy concentration camp inmates were infected by mosquitoes or injections etc etc um over a
thousand involuntary subjects were used in these experiments many of the victims died and others
suffered severe pain and permanent disability the defendants carl brandt and lazer rostock
etc are charged with special responsibility for and participation in these crimes
and then we've got other experiments lost gas sulfonide bone muscle ones um and then there's
uh 176 hold on sorry um yes and then there's epidemic jaundice experiments
to investigate the causes of and inoculations against epidemic jaundice subjects were deliberately
infected some of them died um then they had sterilization experiments which again you know
the evidence is showing that these injections are sterilizing people purpose of these experiments
was to develop a method of sterilization which would be suitable for sterilizing millions of
people with a minimum of time and effort sound familiar these experiments were conducted by
means of x-rays surgery and various drugs thousands of victims were sterilized and
thereby suffered great mental and physical anguish there were spotted fever experiments
to investigate the effectiveness of spotted fever and other vaccines um numerous healthy
inmates were deliberately infected um as a result hundreds of persons experimented upon died
experiments with yellow fever smallpox typhus paratyphus a and b cholera and diphtheria will
also conducted experiments with poison in or about december 1943 onwards to investigate
various poisons upon human beings the victims died a result of the poison or were killed
immediately in order to permit autopsies um in september 44 experimental subjects were
shocked with poison bullets and suffered torture and death so those were some of the main categories
of the experiments um in addition to the medical experiments the nature and purpose of which have
been outlined as alleged certain of the defendants are charged with criminal activities involving
murder torture and ill treatment of non-german nationals as follows and i have to warn you one
of these is um uh pretty horrible hold on um this one in particular i think is horrendous um
um but 112 jews were selected for the purpose of completing a skeleton collection
um they their photographs and measurements were taken they were then killed um and the skeletons
kept between 42 and 94 and 44 the defendants bloom and rudolph brant were principals in
accessories to order abetted took a consenting part and connected with plans and enterprise
involving the murder and mistreatment of tens of thousands of polish nationals they were alleged
to be infected with incurable tuberculosis on the ground of ensuring the health and welfare of
germans in poland many tubercular poles were ruthlessly exterminated while others were isolated
in death camps within adequate medical facilities and then the the final one of the other commission
you know outside of experimentations was this one which we all know about the t4 program between
september 1939 and april 45 the defendants carl brandt bloom brackenhoven were principals in
accessories to ordered abetted took a consenting part in and were connected with plans and
enterprises involving the execution of the so-called euthanasia program of the german reich
in the course of which the defendants herein murdered hundreds of thousands of human beings
the program involved now personally i think what's happening at the moment is an updated version of
the t4 program this program involved the systematic and secret execution of the aged insane incurably
ill of deformed children and other persons by gas lethal injections and diverse other means in
nursing homes hospitals and asylums such persons regarded as useless eaters and a burden to the
german war machine the relatives of these victims were informed that they died from natural causes
such as heart failure german doctors involved in the euthanasia program are also sent to the eastern
occupied countries to assist in the mass extermination of the jews
counts two and three of the indictment conclude with the affirmation that the crimes and
atrocities which have been delineated constitute violations of international conventions which
indeed they do the laws and customers of war which indeed they do the general principles
of criminal law is derived from the criminal laws of all civilized nations which indeed they do
and the internal penal laws of the country and then count four is membership of criminal
organization which i won't go into because essentially what they were saying was that
if um you know they decreed certain organizations as criminal such as the ss and therefore if a
doctor was a member of the ss then account four was membership in a criminal organization but
i won't go into that at the moment because that's more detail so this is the key part of the judgment
now this is the bit that says the proof as to war crimes and crimes against humanity and then
permissible medical experiments so judged by any standard of proof the record clearly shows the
commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity substantially as alleged in counts two
and three of the indictment beginning with the outbreak of world war two criminal medical
experiments on non-german nationals both prisoners of war and civilians including jews and asocial
persons were carried out on a large scale in germany in the occupied territories these experiments
were not the isolated and casual acts of individual doctors and scientists working solely on their
own responsibility but were the product of coordinated policy making and planning at high
governmental military and nazi party levels conducted as an integral part of the total war
effort now that's the key point right when we're talking about unrestricted means of methods of
warfare how easy would it be to say oh we were conducting all these experiments you know necessary
experiments for the good of our country whereas in fact what you were doing was selecting multiple
people and just murdering them in inhumane ways you know essentially and saying oh we were doing
it for the greater good they were ordered sanctioned permitted or approved by persons
in positions of authority who under all principles of law were under the duty to know about these
things and take steps to terminate or prevent them so that's the you know the proof that they
happened they then talk about permissible medical experiments the great weight of the evidence
before us is to the effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings when kept within
reasonably well defined bounds conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally that's
what they had decided in the preamble what were the existing medical ethics about experimentation
you know was it normal to experiment on people and if so was it ethical and the answer was yes
provided it was within certain bounds so the protagonists of the practice of human
experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good
of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study all agree however that certain
basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral ethical and legal concepts
and this is where they set out the 10 principles of the nierenberg code number one the voluntary
consent of the human subject is absolutely essential this means that the person involved
should have legal capacity to give consent should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power
of choice without the intervention of any element of force fraud deceit duress overreaching or other
ulterior form of constraint or coercion and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the
elements of subject matter involved so as to enable him to make an understanding and enlighten
decision this latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the
experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature duration and purpose of the
experiment the method and means by which it is to be conducted all inconveniences and hazards
reasonably to be expected and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his
participation in the experiment the duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of
consent rests upon each individual who initiates directs or engages in the experiment it is a
personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity now that's
just the first principle of these 10 principles that were enunciated second the experiment should
be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society unprocurable by other methods or
means of study and not random and unnecessary in nature now i don't know whether we need to
go through the rest of the points do you want me to go through them all or do you all know them already
quick answer no the essence of it you've got but just quickly give us the other eight just rather
all right just quickly then um the experiment should be so designed and based on the results of
animal experimentation which again we know isn't happening at the moment this time around either
and a knowledge of the experiment should be so conducted to so as to avoid all unnecessary
physical and mental suffering and injury well that's been breached with the current set of
live human experiments number five no experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori
reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur well again we already have that
evidence except perhaps in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects
and that's the point that one of the you know that dr ivy was making he said well i've actually
participated in my own experiments and therefore it's ethical and that's one of the parts of the
newenberg code is that and the declaration of helsinki is you know just because a physician is
participating participating doesn't mean that the overall experiment is therefore ethical
the degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian
importance of the problem to be resolved by the experiment seven proper preparation should be made
and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote
possibilities of injury disability or death now i take issue with that because you know the
vaccine clinics are not providing individual clinical risk assessments for example and most
of the time they're only people are only monitored for a few minutes this specifically says preparation
should be made adequate facilities to protect the experimental subject in other words they should
be taken through the full clinical risk assessment beforehand but they're not number eight the
experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons and yet we have volunteers doing
these experiments on people the highest degree of skill and care should be required through all
stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment number nine during the
course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end
if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to
him to be impossible so for example the lockdowns the stay at home orders you know that's a live
human experiment people should have been able to say okay i've had enough i need to leave my home
now you know i've reached my limits instead of killing themselves for example number 10 during
the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment
at any stage if he has probable cause to believe in the exercise of good faith superior skill and
careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury
disability or death to the experimental subject okay so when you hear all of those i think you'll
all agree that they're all being broken at the moment with the live human experiments that are
being conducted on us and when i say the live human experiments i mean the lockdowns i mean the
masks i mean the testing i mean the the injections those are all live human experiments so it goes on
to say of the 10 principles which have been immunated our judicial concern of course is
with those requirements which are purely legal so they don't want to go into you know the
scientific methodology for example because that's not for them to comment on but about whether or
not consent is obtained that goes to the lawfulness of it so we find from the evidence and in the
medical experiments which have been proved these 10 principles were much more frequently honoured in
their breach than in their observance in every single instance appearing in the records subjects
were used who did not consent to the experiments in no case was the experimental subject at liberty
of his own free choice to withdraw from the experiment in many cases experiments were
performed by unqualified persons same as today were conducted at random for no adequate scientific
reason and under revolting physical conditions all of the experiments were conducted with
unnecessary suffering and injury but very little if any precautions were taken to protect or
safeguard the human subjects from the possibilities of injury disability or death in every one of the
experiments the subjects experienced extreme pain or torture and in most of them they suffered
permanent injury mutilation or death either as a direct result of the experiments or because of
lack of adequate follow-up care again that's happening now the lack of adequate follow-up care
obviously all of these experiments involving brutalities tortures disabling injury and death
were performed in complete disregard of international conventions the laws and customs
of war the general principles of criminal law as described as derived from the criminal laws of all
civilized nations and control council law number 10 manifestly human experiments under such conditions
are contrary to the principles of the law of nations as they result from the usages established
amongst civilized people from the laws of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience okay so
basically they are saying that well you heard what they said that they're condemning basically all
of the experiments because the evidence proved and you heard how much evidence was actually presented
to the trial over 139 days that that was the general case and therefore they then look at each
what each defendant did and judge them in relation to that now can i just before i just go through
the main you know finding against carl brandt what i find fascinating is that when they look at the
when they look at sorry page 88 page 89 oh yeah here we go so carl brandt was found guilty and
was hanged now when you look at the experiments he conducted and how many people died and you
compare it to the what we now think millions of people who have died from the current set of
experiments these ones pale into comparison they make it look like child's play the defendant carl
brandt is charged with special responsibility for and participation in freezing malaria loss
gas sulfanolamide bone muscle and nerve regeneration and bone
transplantation seawater epidemic jaundice sterilization and typhus experiments as alleged
under counts two and three of the indictment he's also charged in counts two and three with
criminality in connection with the planning and carrying out of the euthanasia program
of the german reich so on a killing spree some might say
so when it goes through the experiments it says for example under the sulfamide experiments
it was stated that 75 persons have been experimented on and the subjects have been
deliberately infected three died three died had he made the slightest investigation he could
have ascertained that such experiments were being conducted on non-german nationals without their
consent an inflagrant disregard for their personal rights and that such experiments were planned for
the future so again one of the reasons he was found guilty was because apparently he made no
investigation at all about whether or not these experiments were being conducted in accordance
with the principles that we've just read out the 10 principles it does not appear that at any
time he took any steps to check medical experiments on human subjects
occupying the position he did and being a physician of ability and experience the duty rested upon him
to make some adequate investigation concerning the medical experiments which he knew had been
were being and doubtless would continue to be conducted in the camps
the jaundice experiments eight prisoners have been condemned for the death of a man
eight prisoners have been condemned to death and they were experimented on lost gas
lost gas sorry lost mustard gas experiments 200 campmates were experimented on 50 of them died
euthanasia of course that's a much bigger one but here they talk about how the euthanasia was planned
so it said a budget was adopted the method of determining candidates for euthanasia was established
a patient's transport corporation was organized to convey the selected patients to the gassing
chambers questionnaires were prepared which were forwarded to the heads of mental institutions
one questionnaire to be accomplished concerning each inmate and then returned to the ministry of
the interior at the ministry who completed questionnaires were examined by so-called
experts who registered their professional opinions there on return them to the appropriate
office for final examination and orders were issued for those patients who by this process
were finally selected for extermination thereafter the condemned patients were gathered at collection
points from whence they were transported to the euthanasia stations and killed by gassing
now what i find disturbing about that is that there's evidence from the nhs that the do not
attempt to resuscitate pathways were put in place in covid that meant that any patient who turned
up at hospital had an automatic do not attempt to resuscitate order placed on them whether they were
aware of it or not and again the when it came to um you know who should be given a covid injection
it was obviously the people who were elderly severely disabled learning difficulties and in
fact the evidence shows that i think it was two-thirds more now i won't even quote the
precise figure but essentially that people in those categories have died at a far greater
rate than the other members of the population it's looking suspiciously like we have another
euthanasia program running in my view but i'd like to hear your viewpoints on that
so the evidence is conclusive that almost at the outset of the program non-german nationals
were selected for euthanasia and exterminated
carl brandt actually at the end says that he willingly took part in the euthanasia program
because he considered that they were mercy killings and that he stands by that and again
you have to understand the thinking of the german medical profession at the time which they the
defendants try and justify which was that they were incredibly good kind doctors and that most
of the people selected for euthanasia were going to die a horrible death anyway especially the
incurables and therefore it was essentially mercy killings now presumably one of the reasons why
carl brandt ended up being hanged because he shows no remorse for the euthanasia program
and so essentially it says here the we find that carl brandt was responsible for aiden and abetted
took a consenting part in and was connected with plans and enterprises involving medical experiments
conducted on non-german nationals against their consent and in other atrocities in the course of
which murders brutalities cruelties tortures and other inhumane acts were committed to the extent
that these criminal acts did not constitute war crimes they constituted crimes against humanity
the conclusion military tribunal one finds in a judge is the defendant carl brandt guilty under
counts two three and four of the indictment and as i say his the sentence was hanging so each what
happens with is that with each of the defendants they go through essentially the same process you
know they say who was this doctor how much authority did they have where were they taking
their orders from and what experiments were they involved in so the next defendant is dr hand loza
who gets life imprisonment he's charged with special responsibility for high altitude freezing
malaria loss gas etc um is the typhus experiments under counts two and three of the indictment
hand loza is charged with special responsibility for and participation in typhus experiments
conducted in the bukenwald concentration camp which was supervised by a certain dr ding
um there can be no question that in 1941 typhus was a potential menace to the german army and to
many german civilians the use of inadequate typhus vaccine was therefore a matter of prime
importance the distribution of vaccines to the weimark was in the within the control of hand
loza in the exercise of his functions he was also interested in typhus vaccine production
um so yeah it talks about how he gets the order to conduct these experiments um and two people died
and again i'm raising that because i'm not minimizing the fact that two people died i'm
just struck by the fact that each of these defendants were being held responsible for
these you know one two three eight deaths as well as the thousands of deaths but again in the context
of how many people are dying from these current experiments it just i just find it really quite
extraordinary that you know as people have said previous vaccines have been pulled after 50 deaths
and yet we're watching hundreds of thousands unfold it's doing my head in um
so hand loza in his superior medical position made no effort to investigate the situation of
the human subjects or to exercise any proper degree of control over those conducting experiments
within his field of authority and competence at the slightest inquiry being made the facts would
have revealed that in vaccine experiments already conducted it be involved deaths had occurred
both as a result of artificial infections by the lice um or but from infections by a variant virus
given to subjects after they had first been vaccinated with either the i can't pronounce
names of the vaccines whose efficacy was being tested had this step been taken and had hand loza
exercised his authority later deaths would have been prevented in these particular experiments
and these deaths not only occur with german nationals but also among non-german nationals
now again going back to the current situation you know in the uk it's the ccg the care commissioning
groups which are which comprise the local gps in an area who have commissioned
this vaccine to be rolled out and they're being rolled out in clinics typically not at the gp
surgeries they're being rolled out in clinics in places like schools and you know churches and
other places shopping centers and they're being run by volunteers we don't even know how many
qualified medical staff are actually there on site let alone going through individual risk assessments
and it's exactly the same criticism that the tribunal makes of hand loza and frant they knew
people were in these vaccination programs usually without their consent they knew that
people were being maimed and injured and yet they just let the vaccination programs continue
exactly the same as happening today so
yeah in connection with hand lozers responsibility for unlawful experiments
on human beings the evidence is conclusive that with knowledge of the frequent use of non-german
nationals as human experimental subjects he failed to exercise any proper degree of control over
those subordinated to him who were implicated in medical experiments coming within his officials
official sphere of competence this was a duty which clearly devolved upon him by virtue of
his official position had he exercised his responsibility great numbers of non-german
nationals would have been saved from murder to the extent that the crimes committed by or under
his authority were not war crimes they were crimes against his humanity conclusion military tribunal
one finds in a judge's the defendant's secret hands over guilty under counts two and three of
the indictment so that's you know life imprisonment and hanging for non-consensual experiments where
basically they didn't bother to exercise any supervisory power over it authority over it and
had they done so they could have seen that the experiments were unethical were causing harm and
they could have saved lives and they failed to do so and so they were found guilty of the result
rostock is the next one who's brought to trial now he's not he's found not guilty and the reason
for that is that the prosecution does not contend that rostock personally participated
in criminal experiments it vigorously argues however that with full knowledge that concentration
camp inmates were being experimented upon he continued to function upon research assignments
concerning scientific investigations the results of which were probably further experiments upon
human beings the prosecution then argues that his knowledge concerning these matters considered
together with the position of authority which he occupied in connection with scientific research
and the fact that he failed to exercise his authority in attempt to stop or check criminal
experiments renders him guilty as charged so he wasn't personally taking part in the experimentation
but because of his scientific research he must have known that harm would have happened and he
didn't do anything about it so that was the allegations made against him doubtless rostock
knew that experiments on concentration camp inmates were being conducted he presided over
the meeting of surgeons held in may 1943 and they heard statements that experimental subjects had
been artificially infected doubtless he knew that the experiments were dangerous and that further
experiments would be conducted however it does not appear that either rostock rostock or any
subordinate of his directed the work done on any assignment concerning criminal experiments
the record does not show that the position held by rostock vested in him any authority whatsoever
other than as above stated no experiments were conducted by any person or organization
which was to the least extent under rostock's control or direction so that's the difference
that yes he may have known about it and yes his work could have made him realize that um
you know criminal harm was going to occur but because he wasn't involved directly
they found him not guilty now i can't comment on that as to whether or not that was a fair
decision but that's where they drew the line and as i say there are all of the other defendants
as well going through exactly the same kind of process what experiments were they involved in
what authority did they have to put an end to them and therefore you know what duty was imposed
on them to do precisely that and did they fail in that duty overall seven doctors were sentenced to
hanging five doctors to life imprisonment one doctor for 10 to 10 years one to 15 years and
two doctors for 20 years so 16 were given sentences and the rest were found not guilty
so that is essentially in a nutshell as much as i could um you know the medical cases
as i say what strikes me about it all is firstly the fact that you know all of the doctors
pleaded not guilty because their view was either these experiments were necessary
you know as part of war or it was the um you know they were just following orders and they were
reasonable orders because of the first point necessity um the other point they make is that
you know they were they had a blind faith essentially um so one of them is saying that
you know everyone loved and adored hitler so much and believed that everything that he was doing was
for the benefit of people so when they when hitler ordered you know mass vaccination experiments he
thought it was for the greater good and never even questioned it um which again has bells ringing
for me because the number of people are saying similar things today we trusted vaccines we
trusted big pharma we trusted you know being told that these were safe and effective um a similar
kind of blind trust being uh expressed today as being expressed in those days as well um but
ultimately as you can see there was a code of medical ethics that these perpetrators weren't
upholding and again the same today the difference between then and now is that we've had 70 years
worth of more laws and ethics to clarify some of the um issues that people were contesting in those
days you know such as can you take a prisoner um and experiment on them on the basis that they're
condemned to death anyway um and consent issues about implied consent you know as someone's rolled
up their sleeve does it mean they're actually consenting even if they can't speak english and
say yes so all of those issues which some of the defendants were relying on as an excuse have now
been ironed out in um subsequent laws and medical ethics so whilst i find reading through this shocking
that there were doctors at the time who were claiming what they were doing was ethical it's
even more shocking to me now that not only if we have those judgments which no doctor i've
spoken to has read no lawyer that i've spoken to has read so what was the point of it all if
nobody actually reads it but as i keep saying in addition to that we've got copious more laws and
ethics so as stephen said and i'll wrap up now why and how are we still here how are we still
going through the same thing where medics from around the world are conducting live human
experiments as i say the um and it's all the same stuff so as a lawyer i find it very very
frustrating because when i read all of this it seems to me to be very clear that what's happening
today is a massive breach of law and medical ethics and yet here we are so i hope you found
that helpful um there's so much more that's in here that you would find fascinating to read i'm sure
um if you're that way inclined um but please do ask me questions very good very good anna
great job round of applause everybody thank you anna we'll come to the questions in a moment
good job now a couple of announcements before we get to stephen and q and a firstly
the meryl nass who has addressed us is before a kangaroo court of medical board in the u.s
and daniel craft and others are watching that so be aware of that um and it is quite interesting
so we haven't got time to go to that but it's on at the moment secondly
dan dan craft has come up with an idea that stephen and i support of helping shimon yanovitz get a
dark field microscope and so and so to enable shimon to keep doing his work the question is
in what way could we get a dark field microscope even a used microscope to shimon in israel so
so it's not just a question of you know throwing money at it there might be used microscopes
there might be a way that someone knows so dan will put his i'll put his contact details into
the chat but shimon's work is so important he is restricted with resources so dan came up with
this idea and stephen and i consider an excellent idea so let's see how we can help shimon get that
tool get that important resource so meryl nass helping shimon i'll put his daniel in there
and the third thing that's interesting before stephen asks his question is that in queensland
ana in australia a law is being brought in and the way that the law is structured in australia
is that queensland is the lead state for a change in the national health law and then other states
copy that so there's a somewhat uniform law amongst the states now this law is now saying
precisely what you've been dealing with it says that a doctor who gives advice contrary to the
government position is breaching the law and so here's the question we won't i just bring it to
everyone's attention that right now a law is being brought in that would make doctors ignore
the patient before them and follow orders now that's also what's happening in california
and so we'll have a we'll have a conversation let's do the questions first but be aware that
ana precisely what you're saying hey we're back here again where the state says you doctors
mustn't do this and you start to go what did nuremberg say the doctors just slavishly take
orders from government that's the point about medical ethics and morals and ana you talked
about morals and ethics it's happening now i'll bring it to your attention we'll have a discussion
a little bit later and there was one other thing that question was asked ana you mentioned a report
there's there's comments in the chat about a euthanasia report or a euthanasia exercise that
was happening now and people said what's the name what's the name that ana mentioned you mentioned
some name of some report if you can't think of it doesn't matter but if you can someone or if you
can't specifically remember don't worry someone will bring it to your attention can you remember
me the yes the euthanasia report no i don't know about ana what did ana mention can you remember
um i i know um ana mentioned there the um the government's dnr um yeah the cqc i put in the
in the chat there that the care quality commission in the uk actually provided a report in 2021
wear it and i quote verbatim um there were potentially avoidable deaths as a result of
the uk government actions but nothing has happened as a result of their own watchdog
finding them culpable and one of the questions or part of a two-part question i got for ana
will involve that later regarding the rule of law ana as we've discussed previously okay great
all right thank you peter for that insight everybody that was the report that ana
mentioned so in tradition here everybody particularly for new for new participants
steven is the founder of the group he and ana ana well knows this steven gets the first
first opportunity to ask questions and to explore ideas that have occurred
through the presentation steven over to you yeah thank you i know that was great um
um i uh would encourage people on the in the group to uh to have a look at what ana has been
talking about themselves um but i understand and that a lot of people won't be comfortable
doing that uh it was pretty hard to listen to ana but anyway um i agree with you that
what's happening now is actually worse than what happened in the second world war in terms of
numbers but also as you pointed out you know we had uh people who thought they had they were
widely read you know and uh so they should have known better than in the 40s or the 30s late 30s
i think it was um and um yes it's going on now and one of the things i thought of when you were
talking um i agree with you about the do not resuscitate programs that that could be an
updated t4 program and maybe they've used it as a blueprint i don't know but uh everyone's
all the time it's been the over 70s over 80s i think it was initially who are most at risk and
now denmark for example think they're very virtuous because they've said oh don't over
don't uh inject anyone under 50 i think you have to be over 50 to qualify for a
vaccination in denmark i think that's right but i've thought all the time that their claim that
the elderly were most at risk they're most at risk of every damn disease the elderly so why would you
create special rules in in this you know covid 19 alleged disease so um
um and also if you've given the vaccination a dangerous injection then they're the very
people who'll be tipped over the edge into death so you know it's like i've i haven't accepted the
the philosophy that you inject those people first you know it was made out to be a kind thing to do
precisely as i think carl brandt was arguing about euthanasia you know they were doing they
pretended to be kind to old people when actually they were doing exactly the opposite and therein
lies the true evil of what's happened i just wondered what you think about that yeah well i
think that's the whole point isn't it that you know you can you can describe as a mercy killing
something which actually is an intentional brutal killing depending on
in it and they've done it now in 20 since 2020 and they're doing it still
including denmark there's you know the supposed virtuous country who've done the right thing no
they haven't done the right thing they're still killing the old people yeah yeah and in fact
there's going on from the nuremberg trials in the 40s they brought some nurses to trial in the 60s
and one of them anna actually confesses to have killed over 5 000 children and these are typically
children in you know mentally disabled children i think they were in polish asylums but it's
fascinating because you listen to each of these nurses give their evidence and they're all saying
essentially the same thing or we thought we were doing a kind thing you know some of these children
had nobody to look after them if they went out into the community they'd have ended up on the
streets and you see how they're convincing themselves that you know these cold-blooded
murders were acts of kindness it's yeah disturbing and and the other thing that strikes me prior to
this so-called pandemic which was the pandemic nobody trusted or very few people trusted the
government and all of a sudden they're trusting the government quoting the government on everything
blindly crazy they didn't even like the government in this country and they didn't like um well they've
preferred the former prime minister to the present um but anyway um so when you're reading through
these papers anna what was the most shocking thing to you i think the normalization of how
brutal these experiments were the narrative that these doctors were running in their head
consistently throughout which was you know we're good physicians we're there for the love of
humanity and we just found ourselves in a difficult position and um uh don't we don't feel guilty
you know we can justify it to ourselves and in fact there's a certain amount of um
i think i'd call it whining really of you know being misunderstood
and i and i just but then on the other hand i do try and i try and give credence to what they say
which is you you can't sit there and judge us unless you are actually in that regime
experiencing it for yourself um and i think you know there must be a certain truth in that
there were a number of doctors who said that you know they tried to raise objections and
they weren't comfortable with it but you know they there was incredibly little that they
could actually do about it realistically and again i don't know how true that is because
people are using the same excuse today oh you know in the nhs oh it's impossible to say no
well is it really what's gonna happen someone got a gun to your head i mean in those days
literally people could get shot on the spot by you know the ss and etc but that's not happening now
so i don't understand how people can be saying things like you know well we were forced to do
the vaccination program we didn't have the choice well didn't you dr white walked away
dr jerry waters walked away but you know they haven't been murdered so yeah i don't know how
much of of that was the same then where they were saying that they felt they had to comply but how
much choice did they have i don't know and as one british doctor said to me um the last words he
ever said to me because i asked him about what he was going to do i won't mention the name um but i
respected him before he was involved in a huge fight and he said that he had he felt he had to
do it as a gp because they were queuing they were queuing in the streets for the injections for
vaccinations
so i have on that doctor since
crazy uh i've done a number of doctors have drifted away as well i was involved with
um you know in the junior song thing the junior you know we were supporting during the song
um doctors for song it was called um i just wanted to ask you about the uh the um people
who were hanged i think they were selected for death sentences rather than life imprisonment
because they were i think all the people who were murdered sorry um hanged were ss is that right
uh i'd have to check that point to be honest i haven't specifically done that
exercise to work out whether it was because they were ss
yes in the sentences it doesn't actually um
yeah i don't know i i read that somewhere yeah hang on hanging um membership of an organization
yeah he was yep membership of an organization membership of an organization yeah actually
that is true all of those were who were hanged were membership yeah membership of the criminal
organization and i think that once selected for life imprisonment were not members of the ss
in other words there were no ss members who would try to who got away with that but i'm
not absolutely sure about that no that seems to be right actually looking at it from that perspective
um oh no no no carl gentson what had membership of an organization declared criminal
and he got life imprisonment um
so and i wondered how did carl brandt come to prominence as the main defense with defense
defendant sorry how well how did carl brandt come to prominence as the main defendant
what what position did he occupy in hitler's germany um well i should give it give it to how
they describe it because as i understand it essentially he um ends up being given more and
more and more authority by um hitler as time goes on so that they essentially say that he
was only answering um to basically hitler in charge of everything but let me just quickly
have a look at that hold on give me a moment talk amongst yourselves
it's okay and i'll ask another time so because it's a very good question it's very important
because it is um it's just that sorry it's here we go um
yeah so basically they say that um carl brandt joined the national he became a member
he's promoted to the grade
major general
right hang on sorry during the month of april carl brandt was promoted to the rank of uber straff
and barnifura sorry for any germans out there that was probably horribly pronounced in the alimine
ss in 1940 he was transferred to the waffen um he received a grade equivalent to that of major
general in the waffen in 1943 and in 1944 was promoted to the grade of lieutenant general
having at some previous state been relieved as hitler's escort physician he was again
appointed as such in the fall of 1944 in 19 general is a three-star general isn't it major
generals too so he was invested with high authority over the medical services military and
civilian in german paragraphs three and four of this decree referring to carl brandt read as
follows i empower professor dr carl brandt subordinate only to me personally and receiving
his instructions directly from me to carry out special tasks and negotiations to readjust the
requirements for doctors hospitals medical supplies etc between the military and the
civilian sectors of their health and medical services so basically he's um you know broad
broad order from hitler is essentially the way that it's um so essentially what he was with
the surgeon general yeah uh i don't know whether they use that exact term the plane um hang on
because he then gets another order on 1943 signed by hitler's his authority was strengthened the
pleniple pleniple plenary for the medical and health services general commissioner professor
dr brandt is charged with centrally coordinating and directing the problems and activities of the
entire medical and health services yeah it doesn't one last question and law number 10 yeah seems
to be absolutely crucial um to us in the future because it's going to be something like that that
brings all the crimes which we've seen in the last two and a half years into the jurisdiction of
military court so what's your view well of course we now have in theory i i suppose it's in practice
the international criminal court because of course what happened after nuremberg
was that there were other military tribunals that were established for various other
heinous crimes that happened since the war but eventually there was a demand for an international
criminal um court to be permanently established to hear such crimes and i think it was established
was it 1990 or something um but um so the rome statute which governs the international criminal
court is now the um the law that sets out the crimes that uh fall within the jurisdiction of
the icc so crimes you know article six is um genocide i think article seven is crimes against
humanity and article eight is uh war crimes by warfare etc so that's kind of taken the um you
know the law council is peculiar to that time we've got updated laws now but the problem is
whilst the rome statute for example is enshrined in uk law into the in the international criminal
court act i think it's 2001 the harsh reality is that those crimes may fall within the jurisdiction
of the icc but how do you get the icc to actually engage and hear any of them you know we've made
two applications to the icc but one in april 2021 and the other one in december 2021 and
nothing's happened and those of other countries have also written and asked them to intervene
so then where do you bring those crimes into what forum but anna that's precisely why there'll be
military tribunals what you're thinking in the long run well yeah but then you see under the
armed forces act um the what it says is that certain crimes can be brought within the
jurisdiction of the courts marshals certain crimes have to be brought within the jurisdiction
of the civil courts and some you get a choice as to whether it's courts marshal or not
but with the more serious crimes um you know that has to be instigated by the director of
public prosecutions unless it's a court of military tribunal and to be honest i've looked into it and
it doesn't seem to me to be that clear as to who has the authority to determine this
and the reality of the icc is that they've brought very few prosecutions yeah exactly because uh
was the un behind the icc they were connected i think well and you know evidence is that the
judges certain judges have been brought off i don't want to make that allegation firmly but
there's plenty of evidence to show that you know like all of these um organizations they've been
captured sure and look at milosevic you know that's the look what happened there
and committed suicide but actually he was in their care or should have been and it should have been
protected but anyway um thank you on it all right all right now one other i've got a shocking
announcement for you everybody a truly shocking announcement we're having a another meeting
tomorrow night this is a shock this is the first time in human history that steven frost medical
doctors for covert ethics is having three meetings in a week so tomorrow same time as tonight or this
afternoon in the us or for australia in the morning uh is addressing us and steven considered
this to be so important that we're putting on another event so steven you watched this
presentation and you urge everybody to come and watch and look at uh sukker its presentation
correct yeah he made a speech in athens to the greek people it was absolutely brilliant so i
watched the whole of it yeah um so it's going to make the same speech to us tomorrow all right
everybody put it in your diaries the invitations will be coming in the next in the same time uh
it'll be 8 p.m uk time 9 p.m central european time 6 a.m melbourne time midday la time 3 p.m
new york time you can work the rest out yourselves everybody so and bornio will also be 3 a.m again
for poor leo all right so that's on your agenda everybody's coming maryl ness the recording will
be available on children's health defense dan craft has put his connections in there for shimla
let's get to questions we've got 45 minutes for questions and are you okay for 45 minutes
yep wonderful okay hyko you're up first oh sorry before hyko does dan is there anything you want
about how we want to help shimon by any chance are you okay
he looks okay good all right hyko thank you and i learned a lot again but uh is it possible to get
somehow the piece about the sterilization testing uh with vaccines uh for my new status somehow
okay next it's breaking up a bit i couldn't hear the start of i have three questions the first is
it possible to find out or get it in writing uh the part about the civilization experiments
in germany the sterilization experiment ana the civilization experiment sterilization
sorry that's what i was struggling to understand
what the the the bit of the judgment where it deals with the sterilization experiments
yeah is it possible to to learn more find out more about that somewhere
what the details of the experiments yeah i mean um i could send you the extracts that deal with it
yeah okay beautiful the others well i have been studying very much in german
it's german schools for 13 years and also read this reprint in the norwegian doctors association
paper about the njolnberg codexes but i couldn't find how they found out which of them of these
excuse ones were picked out to be rewarded with
the project paperclip did you find anything about that
oh well the fact that so many of these german doctors were ending up um brought over to america
only seven no a number of them i don't know how many but i yes no i do know about operation paperclip
and that they were well they do it mentions it to a certain extent in here about the fact that um
you know a lot of the work that was done by the germans was appropriated by the americans
um you know a lot of the research that was actually done during the war was then appropriated by the
americans as handy get the germans to do it blame the germans for it and then use use it for your
own purposes all right and the third one i i hope mark sex and others other were more lucky
as lucky as i was because i tried something like the same thing like in bristol in january
and uh what i wanted to uh find out on the batch numbers which of the vaccines in the vaccine
center were dangerous and delivered them to the police but uh the two got arrested
but after five hours we were free again and they said well you get a very hard
court case and a big fine and in june i got the letter uh case dismissed
oh
did you hear some how's mark and the others are doing now they were arrested right well yes i got
an update from one of the other military people who phoned me at about six this evening to say
that mark um one of the other vets called mickey p and um see steve have all been arrested for
aggravated trespass but the view is that they may have done that on purpose because having having
been sick of trying to deal with the police just you know walking away they think well get ourselves
arrested we're actually in the police station then it's not a lot like we can chew their ears off so
i'm going to be interested to see where it goes but you know the view the view our end is that we
just need to keep going to these clinics day in day out day in day out um until the police give in
because they're just stonewalling but the stonewalling is just getting more and more
ridiculous given the increasing evidence of the deaths and the harms exactly but it's very good
because this stand which we have in the center that led to uh uh of course papers writing about
and uh then the government was giving more money to extra security
bodies which had tents and watching this thing but now after one week later the center was closed
and then and the security police was uh saying we have to be careful for these right right wing
uh anti-busters they're getting more and more dangerous but it's going the right way
and now uh a lot of things are happening in connection with the uh the law of land
and uh yeah so uh so it's really going the right way thank you very much well thank you haiko as
well for keep on trying to close it down in norway it's music to my ears but you know again
these this trial makes it very clear doesn't it that the people who should be shutting it down
are the people who are actually involved in the trial that is themselves you know in this in the
case in the uk it should be the ccgs who should be shutting it down well i think the medical defense
union and the medical protection society and the general medical council should be speaking out
about the what we've been talking about tonight all right thank you haiko well done um peter for those
who don't know is is amongst other things a lawyer and what else are you peter just tell us
uh
originally uh an electrical engineer then police officer police sergeant including cbrn chemical
biological radiological nuclear and a few other things and then i did my law degree in my latter
life and deal with boring wills and trusts and powers of attorney at the moment but uh yeah like
like ana just trying to do bits like we all are and ana just thank you so much for all you do and
for just you know lifting that torch and shining brightly that's all we i think we can do at the
moment and my two questions or two points um actually revolve around that so we've discussed
the new remberg trial tonight and i think we all agree that something like a new remberg trial or
2.0 as everybody's saying um should be heard so how do we get um a hearing and preferably in a
proactive manner rather than new remberg which was proactive after it all happened we're still
in the eye of the storm with this and we need to stop the deaths so there's the multi-million
dollar question and i know it's difficult to answer but where do you see it because a lot
of people who aren't lawyers aren't police officers or been involved in prosecutions like you and me
will not understand how the hell we haven't managed it yet especially when we've got somebody like
reiner fulmich um with his german and uh sort of english contacts if he can't manage it there's a
massive problem and the second point was to do again with the care quality commission report in
2021 which to me typifies the fact that the rule of law and we've had this discussion you and me
previously um when i said that i felt the rule of law had collapsed you were adamant it hadn't and i
fully respect that but it's certainly sidelined at the moment for anybody who doesn't know
what the rule of law is um it enshrines the history of law going back to the year dot
where we're all equal in the eyes of the law nobody's above the law etc etc but it certainly
seems at the moment that the governments are above the law because they have somehow frozen
the rule of law even in british or in the uk law um they stopped the coroner's court they took the
powers of the coroner's court they stopped uh post mortems which would as happened in germany with
the pathology reports would have pointed out that 5g had a big effect on hypoxia which was wrongly
diagnosed as covid as well as everything else they burnt the bodies and burnt the evidence
so has the rule of law collapsed and how do we get the court case we need
preferably proactively ana well okay first of all the rule of law well first of all can i just say
it can't be uh proactive as opposed to retroactive because they've already been
in my opinion there've been about 20 million deaths around the world from these injections those are
just the short-term deaths not counting uh effects of sterilization possible sterilization and uh
long-term deaths medium-term deaths they're not included 20 million so far that's far in excess
of the numbers you're looking at for the uremburg trials isn't wouldn't you say ana absolutely
absolutely um yeah i mean going going back to the rule of law um the the point i make to people is
that the rule of law hasn't changed essentially you know it's it it says what it says and it's
i think especially in terms of medical experimentation and informed consent i think
our laws pretty much cover the situation fairly well it's not great because you can't find
the governing law in one easy document you have to look around and draw it from various sources
but the law as currently written does govern these um these live human experimentation pretty well
as in it defines them condemns them and provides for redress for them the problem we have with our
rule of law is that as i've established for the public record nobody's taught law at school
they haven't been for generations that includes doctors includes politicians and you know um the
police and therefore all the people who we turn to to uphold the rule of law can't uphold it
because they themselves are clueless about it so i don't think it's the rule of law that's at fault
or um lacking it's the people operating the rule of law right that's at fault now in terms of
process what that means in reality is this for example how do we you know you're saying how do
we bring things to court well take it on a a case by case basis you know you've got the case in
america in india rather where i think there are now two or three murder cases being brought
by parents on behalf of their child for dying from the vaccine so the first one i heard of was a
23 year old guy who died because he had to take the vaccine to take his train journey
and the mother is now suing the police over there for failing to investigate the crime
bill gates you know the train company etc and i think there's now another murder case launched
for that so that starts the ball rolling right because you've got somebody bringing an actual
murder case now what we've got in this country are people who have approached me for example
several of them saying i want to bring murder charges i'm convinced my um you know um brother
or whatever has died um as a result of the vaccine now practically speaking how do you prove
a the causation because we can't get post-mortems um autopsies being done the bodies are being
cremated quite often so how first of all how do you actually prove the causation in those
circumstances secondly going to the police clearly the police aren't um taking these
as criminal complaints so what does an individual do to actually start the process of bringing a
murder claim in those circumstances the advice i've been giving to people is please go and get
yourself a post-mortem for contact the coroner and go to the police right but even then even if
they get the ball rolling how do they have the money to bring legal proceedings and that's the
other major factor in that a number of people have said to me i'd love to bring a case and i've said
well even if i could act for you for nothing over the period of two or three or four years however
long it's going to take um i can't work for you on my own we would need expert witnesses court fees
etc so you better raise some money and that's usually the last you hear of people they say
can't afford it there's no crowdfunding for it so how do you actually get these cases off the ground
is a massive question i've been saying to people we need a you know a fund of money so that anybody
who presents as being willing to take standing in a case actually gets support from the community
to take that case because most people don't want to take standing most people don't actually want
to go through the pain of a court hearing so if we've got civilians who are prepared to do it we
ought to support them but you know that's why i think rhino ended up doing court of public opinion
because the same kind of barriers how do you actually get these cases into a properly convened
court and get a fair hearing and most of the lawyers are despairing because we're all struggling
with the same thing not that that's very helpful answer i'm afraid there's no i hope no i i think
yeah you you've answered i think from a an expert perspective what a lot of people are frustrated
with um we're all in the same boat with it and i had a case um i put a case together that
i presented to a chief constable friend of mine and i was hopeful and i went through my service
with this colleague we're really good friends and i got nowhere with it it was dropped basically um
she just told the party line which is the government line um and i put her around my mp i've put them on
notice of nolan principles um as was put in the chat by an ex-murder squad detective colleague
of mine earlier on ian humphreys uh you're looking at defenses against the persons act
all sorts of misconduct in public office etc uh everything has been thrown at them and they are
hiding per new remberg behind government government says it's okay we were just following orders
that's what they're doing all right well before we get too depressed about this i helped set up two
funds in australia i gave some advice on how to set it up in the uk and what it needs in the simple
terms just imagine one million people in the uk giving ten dollars a week each into a legal fund
entirely doable 100 000 a week ten dollars or ten pounds a week a million dollars a week coming in
to fund these cases just need somebody to organize health alliance australia has been set up to do
that and it is funding cases and in america some of you would have heard some five weeks ago warn
amendenhorst said over 16 000 cases are going through the court system and the other thing to
realize is there are many cases pushing back and there are notices of liability there are there is
no deniability available to these officials they will be they will be held to account so there are
many many cases happening we don't know all of them and then when there's a successful case
they get settled on confidential terms so we don't find out about it so all we do is don't despair
we keep going with the work that you're doing and that i'm doing that all of us here are doing
there's no stopping full stop because every person we talk to makes the differences bobby kennedy told
in december last year it takes five messages from five different people to wake somebody up
your message might be the first your message might be the fifth you don't know and as more and more
babies die as more and more athletes die as more and more people die of sudden death more people
will wake up so we know and the simple model is that the sheep will die the wolves will live
our job is to see how many sheep we can wake up so on we go that's why we're here two three times
a week thank you peter for your questions ana here's we've got a wolf here you're a wolf ana
and so is ana in fact all of you are wolves here on this call go ana peter peter's a wolf too
peter wolf hey there you are peter wolf steven wolf hi ana thank you so much for this information
i'm trying to understand so sasha latipova was talking about the fact that there have been
contracts uncovered that really showed that all the big pharma companies in the united states
are regulated and governed by the department of defense or fall under the department of defense
and that the department of defense has been contracting with other pharmaceutical sub
contractors who are regulated by the chinese communist party and so the fact that we are not
allowed to for example analyze the vials because it's federal property and it's classified for
civilian and military use meaning it meets classification as a weapon is is pretty concerning
and so my question is legally if we want military tribunal but the department of defense or the
military is actually involved in instituting this on the civil population how the heck do you get
anywhere oh spot on ana absolutely spot on i couldn't work out why for the whole of 2020 i
was being completely ghosted and stonewalled from all my military contracts by raising the
contacts by raising the alarm and then when toad calendar came out with the evidence that actually
this is a collaboration between the dod and the uk ministry of defense and the increasing evidence
that that's indeed the case no wonder the military have been ignoring me and you know others who've
been trying to blow the whistle and precisely that why would they bring military tribunals
and expose you know what's going on um now what from where i've been sitting the armed forces
2006 act applies here in the uk which to me as a soldier means this i have a duty to uphold the
law of armed conflict and if i become aware of any breaches i must report them into my commanding
officer the commanding officer then must report it to the military police and the military police
must investigate and i've kept keep going in to the military saying so all these reports i'm making
what's happening and i'm getting nothing and it's the same for the other military people i know who
are reporting it in and getting nothing so again the reality how do you how do you actually you
know progress this when you know that you're up against the people who are actually perpetrating it
a conundrum i'm sorry i don't have all the answers this is
they knew and and and everybody these people who are doing this evil the psychopaths we know just
go back if you don't stop asking the question who is doing this we know who's doing this just go back
and look at daniel esterland the game is clear the point is the people in queensland the people
around the world the vouchers of this world are doubling down because they know they will suffer
the nuremberg consequences when the people rise up so they they're getting ever more desperate
this has to and you're in you know you're in the you're in the war game if you look why would they
suddenly give up and say yes you guys all right because then we'd come hunting them so and and
that's why i say to people don't threaten them with hanging we might hang them but don't threaten
them with hanging because then they've got nothing to lose well also death penalty has been abolished
right yes in many cases that's correct that's correct all right avarie you muted avery
okay anna uh thanks for being here today and educating all of us on the details of the
nuremberg code especially the 10 points that you went through my question you is at our thursday
symposium medical martial law which todd calendar and many others helped put together
you know reiner fulmerich was one of the last guests who last speakers he mentioned he had
already filed in europe i'm just a little bit unclear as to who he filed against he said that
once that um went a little bit further down the road then he would bring that and bring that case
to america to file in in the united states so are you aware that he has filed for sure and who did
he file with i'm sorry every i i actually didn't hear rhina speak so i'm not sure what case he was
referring to as far as i was aware rhina's bringing several cases i knew that he was acting um for
uh professor bodak at some uh one point but i don't i'm not actually aware of which cases he's
issued i didn't hear his update maybe someone else in the group heard well the impression that i think
some of us had was that this was the big one you know the one that where he was going to go after
really the cabal if you would to just term it that way but i'd have to go back myself and listen to
exactly what his words were to to clarify but i thought this was his reference to having just
recently filed in europe a large case i mean a really really major case did he say what it was
abri so that's the thing i would have to go back i mean the impression i had was this was something
that he had been working on for as you know the past more than a year for sure and had been
discussing how it was going to be done eventually and this was it that this was filed in europe
and that once that went through um you know uh further down than if it was successful then he
was going to go ahead and file in the united states but i'd have to go back i mean it's all
in the symposium and we have a recording of the symposium also and in fact abri recording the
recording was released this morning i think yes i'll dig out the link or someone will have the
link on this call who attended the symposium but anyway in fact it went to the moderator so abri
you've got a link see if you can find it and put in the chat yeah what what i'll do charles is i
will forward the uh link because i've already downloaded it and forwarded it to a number of
people but i will go ahead and send a link to you momentarily off of my desktop and then you can
put it in chat if you don't mind and it's well worth watching it went for one and a half hours
one three quarter hours and then that was before it went in the breakout rooms there's excellent
information and i think you that's right in fact did you manage to get on because there were
technical problems yeah thank you i got on to the main symposium but i couldn't get then get out
into the breakout rooms so there's a problem all right every will give it every will give all of
you the links i hang about we'll put in the chat all right thank you avarie claire thank you
you
hi hi ana thank you for that very interesting presentation it's great to have a really good
legal mind on this i'm a medical journalist based in australia though i sound british
one thing i've done is read the public assessment reports for the three vaccines the uk public
assessment reports which were available very early on in the rollout this is what the mhra looks at
they have to write the logic of their decision does it help our case that there is evidence
in those that when they started the rollout so rather than trying to look for bodies and
prove they've killed does it help our case that those show quite clearly that
that the vaccines were distributed to many organs in in in mice and rats and that um you know they
were they were first in class genetic vaccines that we hadn't used before and there was no
evidence at all that they stopped transmission so does that help our evidence this was known
right at the beginning it's there in black and white in uk government documents well yeah
absolutely particularly given the risk benefit analysis right because as you say one of the
principles is that it must be for the overall benefit and not arbitrary etc um and did that
did that report also um mention the bio distributions study from japan no it doesn't
but it that's phisor isn't it mentions that um that more information has been given to the mhra
but it's not reported there they just say it goes went to the liver and they don't get but clearly
the mhra i think have been given that information but it's not reported on and and the other thing i
just want i i think um there's kind of you know the definition of vaccine was changed in 2021 to
make these these things be vaccines in fact vitamin c is now a vaccine it's anything that
helps the immune system um i think i'm sure this is um i probably someone more expert on this than
me but i think that this this meant didn't it that these could be evaluated as vaccines and if things
are evaluated as vaccines it's my understanding that there are far less rigorous tests required
for instance you don't need to do carcinogen um whether they cause cancer whether they can affect
the genome um and so because they were defined as vaccines even though they were gene therapy
they were they were pain they were able to play lip service to oh we're testing these but in fact
it was a slight of hand yeah so i i am i have written an article on this uh which i would like
to send to you anna um i've been trying to get it published in the uk mainstream media i'm working
through newspaper after newspaper being ignored um i'd like to send it to you and you might read it
that would be lovely yes please okay okay can i just pick up on that definition though one of
the first things i challenged one of the first multi-disciplinary group groups that i worked with
here in the uk heart the health advisory research team um and yeah one of the first um issues i
raised with them is that i the these products did not meet the definition as set out in um either
vaccines the legal definition of vaccine or indeed human medicine because what's happened is that
in the uk at least these were given temporary emergency um approval under regulation 174 of
the human medicines regulations um on the basis as you know that there were no other treatments
available etc now it doesn't the definition of a human medicine what these mrm rna technologies
they actually meet the definition of a medical device and a medical device um is should be
regulated under the medical devices regulations um and that falls within the consumer protection
regulations so my firm belief is one of the reasons that they you know wanted to avoid
it being called a medical device was because of proceed consumer protection was much much higher
and they couldn't get it through any kind of emergency approval when i raised that with um
the team at heart a number of them immediately said oh yes you know that's we thought about that
as well and indeed um antonietta gatti i think her name is um nanotechnology specialist from italy
she gave her professional opinion that this technology was in fact you know meeting the
definition of a medical device but they patent lawyer there keith johnson i think his name was
was absolutely furious and was adamant that you know these were properly defined and that you know
only a patent lawyer could say whether or not these were properly defined so it seems that
it's still an argument out for debate but i would take it i would take it to that argument i would
like to hear other people's opinion on is that because it was lipid nanoparticles is that their
argument that it's a device it's a very small device yeah because it's two parts basically
you know it has the lipid encapsulating it so that it can deliver its payload to the nucleus
intact yes or it's a device with two components in it right a bit like um you know um how the
you know like an insulin pump that kind of you could argue couldn't you that the the um
astrazeneca is a that's a virus delivering the dna but you're saying because the virus is a
natural thing and you're saying the lipid nanoparticles are sort of man-made a device
is that the argument certainly with the mrna ones i'm not so sure about the other types
that's delivered by a virus yeah the yeah yeah i should put a little um brief note together for
you all so that you can see the definitions and maybe as a group you can determine whether you
think you know which which that definition it best suits and therefore which regulatory framework
should be invoked thanks that's me done thank you thank you claire all right everybody now
stephen before we go to final questions and comments and we're tracking very well on time
well done all of you we've got 11 minutes to go then we can then the telegram group is available
tom rodman has put the link into there um anna can we touch on this question
and stephen my question to the two of you from what we have learned today
new legislation is coming in that is the same as military orders from hitler what do you say
anna and what do you say stephen the doctors should do come on here we are this is medical
doctors for covert ethics anna first you well i think it's very very clear on the um the analysis
conducted in the new york trials here of the medical cases that the overriding duty and
responsibility for the patient safety the individual patient safety rests with the
physician and the physician alone not with the government um not with you know anybody within
the military such as hitler um you know and um ivy the expert witness you know um repeatedly
brings everyone's attention back to the Hippocratic oath as evidenced for how long that
ethical principle has been in place at the physician's duty overriding duty is to the
individual patient um so i personally think there's no debate and the whole argument that
you know the government can order a medic to set aside the medic's own professional
um ethics oath and code of conduct is um you know entirely uh against the rule of law and against
our code of ethics and morals um and that must be the case because otherwise any individual
professional could be ordered to do something against their professional code and they wouldn't
have a choice about it i mean it's the same with solicitors right if the law society ordered me
to break my code of conduct i would be standing up and saying no it's you know i'd rather leave
and i'd rather not work as a solicitor than you force me as a professional to be in breach of my
own laws codes and conducts so that would be my firm view excellent stephen yeah i agree with
there are no circumstances where so the doctor is trusted by the patients
and his duty is to the patient and nobody can interfere in that relationship in my view
and certainly not in the present circumstances
but it's clear to me that any doctor who's worth the name should have realized that this was all
wrong all of it was wrong and they didn't so what happened clearly they were very well educated
so that so that does anybody want to argue the proposition that doctors should be simply doing
what the government wants them to do with their patients does anyone i can't imagine here but
but ana is strong on this stephen is i'm a i'm a lawyer i'm a legal strategist i'm strong on this
i cannot believe that doctors would there follow these new rules in california they should leave
the profession in droves that's what will stop this nonsense and as pamela norris says in the
chat just say no everyone in this group if they felt like it if they felt like making a difference
should write to the general medical council in the uk because they're trying to bring in
a new code of conduct conduct called uh what is it good medical practice i think and one of the
things is that doctors are expected not to oppose government policy or words to that effect not as
blatant as that but it's essentially doctors should not um well well the quainsland rule
out doctors must not not should not correct no it's outrageous it must be okay everybody so
there's the clear position steven last questions to you in the last seven minutes and then i
you have a closing comment but first steven do you have any closing questions before we finish
and then we can go to so and then maybe you and i can work together and uh write to the um general
medical council absolutely that'd be good wouldn't it for sure i'd love to do that i've been trying
to get to get to the gmc for years it's such and then publish it everywhere well everywhere we can
get it in tv news would do it fantastic so we'd need to um make it a good now there's one is
there's one issue that's relevant everybody to the merrill nass hearing um and the and the
anna you've mentioned to this group some dramas that you're facing but let's talk with merrill
nass and sam y and general medical council and these medical boards as a matter of law
natural justice says you should not have a judge who is biased
okay so so natural justice so just turn our minds to the moment say this whole idea of natural
justice what happens if natural justice is not followed anna because it's not being followed by
these medical boards they're biased they're they're fraudulent judges will do it rhinophomics
is almost all judges have been bought off but what's the consequence if there's no natural justice
what do you mean as in what's our what's our lawful redress or what do you think is an
what's our lawful redress that's that's yes that's the lawful redress is that ultimately we would
have the right to convene our own um court you know ultimately under common law if the current
court system is not giving us redress but the issue of course is is how um how that any kind
of decision from that is taken seriously and implemented especially by for the likes of for
example the police and this is where you know i think the lawyers in all the countries are falling
down with the same problem how do we actually either access the current court system with the
current police system um because we're being stonewalled and failing typically or establishing
our own with any credibility that will have any follow-through um the reality is of course in the
what's happened in previous cases is that when people haven't had redress through the courts
they have set up their own people's court and they've been judged jury and executor
executioner pretty much on the same day quite often and rough justice is handed out and the
job gets done and you know tribunals were set up after the war all over the world and that's what
happened that kind of justice so i can see that happening ultimately frankly you know
there has to be a proper redress otherwise people will take matters into their own hands
at some point and all over the internet people are talking about rising up and taking out arms and
taking into their own hands and having to be pulled back by others saying you know violence isn't the
answer but people are sharing images of guillotines and um you know they're baying for blood and for
justice so i can't see that suddenly dissipating so that's what's happened in the past isn't it
Anna that people have been forced to take the law into their own hands and Chalchewski was a victim
of that i think that's the one i always quote that's the one i quote you know they were protected
up until a few days before their trial from uh you know that when suddenly their inner circle
realized that they were protecting them no longer they were vulnerable they were lynched out of their
house and they were brought to trial i think christmas day morning weren't they and executed
in the afternoon the helicopter came down yeah i can't remember his wife's name was Alina was it
it was she had lots of shoes like Imelda Marcus yeah yeah all right and the comment is made
let's not generalize well we're not generalizing about all doctors we're talking about doctors
that are following orders and we're talking about doctors who refuse to see the evidence
and we're talking about doctors who refuse to stay informed well chance is it and uh we made
the point when you sign on a when you sign on a new phone contract or you sign up to use an
apple service there's 42 pages of regulatory terms that you consent to the fact that you don't read
them doesn't mean you're not bound by them so the fact that this information is available no doctor
can say i didn't know no doctor can say that and i i'm absolutely generalizing now so
anyway it's now time to go it's eight it's two and a half hours people on this caller in no doubt in
my opinion the huge majority of doctors have not done the right thing in the last two and a half
years correct correct so i think so the people who've done vaguely the right thing
are kind of one in 10 000 doctors i would say that's a rough guess
well there's 100 000 doctors in australia and they're finishing
it's an interesting question whether what percentage of stress
thank you yeah thank you very much all right i think it's fine i'm sending her we are going
everybody and uh thank you for being here it's