Ray, we're going to stop. Good evening. Christine is here. Christine, hello. We're all waving
to you. You're the star of the show and we know how much in demand you are. So we want
to respect your time, even though we love talking amongst ourselves, as you know. And
it's great to have you back here again. I think this is your third time with us. So
that's wonderful. Wait, still connecting. Connecting to audio, you are.
Mouse problem, she says. I can't connect. Okay, we'll wait. That's okay.
Don't worry, Christine. So we can see you, Christine, but we can't hear you.
Tom, she's got some mouse problem. There's a rep running around in her mouse.
We'll lip read. We'll lip read. That's it. We'll lip read.
You can write on the screen. A little person doing sign language down beside her, you know.
Christine, if you try again, maybe go out and come back in.
Yes. So welcome, everybody. We'll do the formal start as soon as we get Christine back in with
us. I want to bring to your attention the Steve Kirsch newsletter called Sanity Check. And one of
the challenges that we all have is the fire hose of information that we're all getting.
It's a little bit like being a politician. Even the lowest level politician in Australia gets
bombarded by thousands of constituents. And most politicians, as Stephen has found, don't respond
to their constituents anyway. Here's Christine back. Can she get a little bit of information
she gets? Permute working. You want to try it on your phone, Christine?
The other, so the Steve Kirsch newsletter, I want to show that to you just to bring it to your
attention. It is masterful. And it's an excellent summary for all of you to share, all of you to
have almost printed out. So he said he did this as a sanity check to see where we're at. Are we
opposing the narrative sane? And Steve says, here's a list of data points that suggest that I'm sane
in no particular order. And he goes through one, three, four, CDC hides from the facts. Five,
the FDA's Peter Marks public is he'd do anything to reduce vaccine hesitancy.
There are no debates. Number seven, that's a big issue. The VAERS analysis is ignored. The large
number of black swan events, you know, hacking, so it's safe and effective. The messages from the
grave from high profile people, the Doug Brignol test. Remember that? The super fit guy, Brignol
challenged the vaccine and said, if he didn't die, people like me should apologize. He died
shortly after getting his latest vaccine. The died suddenly Facebook group had over 300,000 members
and was growing at 20,000 new people a day. Polling done through independent polling companies.
The only the book turtles all the way down. Embarmer statistics, insurance company data,
the McCullough assumption. This is important, everybody. If a healthy person suddenly dies
and there's no antecedent disease, it's the vaccine until proven otherwise. That's the rule.
Ignoring doctors who point out troubling safety statistics, extreme anecdotes, stories like six
stents, Wayne Roo's wedding. The fires of Ace Tree trial had more deaths in the vaccine group,
independent validation, Naomi Wolf's team. The people in charge keeping it wrong.
Prominent people who once promoted the vaccine are safe and effective are now realizing their
original based on trust. So I've seen Mel Hotchell, we've talked about him. Other countries are
admitting their mistakes. Top doctors are calling for an end to booster mandates in published papers.
A recent poll in Australia, my country showed huge dissatisfaction. I hear all the stories all the
time about doctors who privately tell people that they're very worried by what they're seeing but
keeping quiet to save their jobs. Okay. So what I'm saying is there are 30, 30 elements of sanity
checks. It's on the Steve Kirsch newsletter. It's a wonderful resource. All you have to do is print
that out, carry it in your pocket and when somebody says A or B, you just show them that.
So I would recommend using it. If you're not ready for the conversation, then you lose the
conversation when somebody says to you, oh, you're a nutcase. And so that's, that's what we have to do.
That's what we have to be ready for the conversation. If we want to fight for
truth, for justice, for freedom, which is why we're here. So useful resource.
All right. Now, have we got Christine back yet?
Visually, we have this. I'm not sure about the microphone.
So Christine, there you are. Okay. So welcome. You got two minutes. Okay. She'll be here with us
in two minutes. So has any, so the other thing to the other thing that this twice weekly meeting
gives us is tools each time again, tools and people come up with ideas. So, so each one of us
has to do what we see needs to be done in the way that we do locally. And then globally, we are
mixing meeting globally and the leaflets strategy, Mark Dyer has taken some steps. I've been delayed
by two weeks, but the leaflets strategy is being implemented so that we get the message out to
people who may be woken up and physical leaflets work. So Charles, it's Charles, it's my wife,
Hemmings, big push to get me to, to do it. She's, she's, she's the big push. Yeah. And look, if
there's 10% opposing this evil narrative, 10% of humanity, let's say there's 4 billion adults on
the planet. If 10% of people are on our side, that's 400 million people, which are very comfortable.
We have got 400 million people on our side. And particularly when you look at the low vaccine,
the low bio weapon take up in Africa, 400 million people just imagine.
So just imagine if, if 10% of that 10%, if 1% of humanity, that's 40 million people handed out
100 leaflets each physical leaflets work. And we just have to give those people on our side,
something to do. That's what this meeting helps us to do. Christine has you, I see where, so,
so my point is locally, you do what you see needs to be done. Everyone does, every one of us does it
locally. And then globally, we have consistent messages going out. And as, as brother Alexis
said on Sunday night, we're winning. They never expected this much pushback. Now, the fact that
we're in the middle of a war, don't despair our job. And that's why we come to these twice weekly
meetings. Our job is to maintain our own passion. Hence the red jacket read is the color of passion.
You are passionate for truth and freedom and justice and ethics. That's why Stephen started
this group. So, so there's no, it's all too hard. No bullshit. What about just think back to World
War Two, just think back to World War One, they were every one of those wars, you know, the soldier
on the fields was fighting for freedom. England didn't want to be taken over by Germany. Simple
as that. So Christine, are you ready? No. Don't worry, Christine. What about you?
That's all right, Christine will work it out. She's got, she's got, Lisa's wearing her red clogs.
So the other element that we have, we've got, we need some fundraising while we're waiting.
Shimon Yanovitz, we need just $3,000 more. Dan Craft has got some, has got a used piece of,
a used microscope that he can get for about $3,000 to pay the customs and the like for Shimon
Yanovitz. I bring it to your attention. I, the easiest way to do this is to send an email to
Daniel Craft. I'll put his email address. If, if 20 of us put in a hundred dollars each,
there's $2,000 or $150. Shimon, so if you are interested, send an email, I'll post
Daniel's email address, please. We need, we need that last piece. That's something practical that
we can do to help his work. Now, the other thing that, the other thing that I'm, that
this group gives us an opportunity to explore is what other ideas have you had
that people can be doing? And as a, you know, each one of us taking the steps has an impact.
What would you like to see happening? And I suppose I wonder if there's anyone here from Alberta.
I would love to see happening in Australia. What's happening in Alberta is, can anybody report on
the premier of Alberta, Ray, you know, the, and the, and the rebel news request to the new
premier of Alberta, who said that she promised if she gets into power, she will do certain things.
Ray? Yes, that's actually very exciting. What's happened even over the weekend.
Our premier, our new premier, Daniel Smith, and I just did a quick post in the chat there,
has now told Alberta Health Services, who have been linked with World Economic Forum,
that they will be disconnected. And she's essentially told the WEF to get lost.
Pretty amazing. She is undertaking some other major endeavours to reform
Alberta Health Services, collapse down the extremely bloated middle management system
that has existed there, which has just really hindered our end product in terms of health
services here. She is an absolute warrior. And she will become, I think, a really bright light
in the Western world. We're currently in the stage of promoting her wildly. I will put it that way.
Over the weekend, the United Conservative Party, which is currently the ruling party,
elected nine board members to its board. There are 17 board positions. Nine of those were open
for reelection for two-year terms. We took all nine of them. It was actually extremely amazing.
I'm currently positioned as the vice president of policy and governance, which will deal with a lot
of issues in terms of recommendations that go to government. We have a direct line with our premier,
which is just exceptional. And basically, that's the amazing good news from Alberta.
Great. Can I insert something here? Christine is showing up twice on my screen. One of them
looks like it's working. I just want to make sure she doesn't get lost. Okay, we got it.
Okay, keep an eye on her. Keep an eye on her. Yeah. So Christine had audio for a moment. She's
working on it. She'll speak up when she's able. Christine, can you speak? I can hear you, at least.
Can you hear me? Yeah, we can. Okay. We've got you twice, but that works okay. Christine.
Yeah, I'm using the phone for audio and basically the laptop for video. Yeah. Good. Christine,
thank you. Can I just ask Ray Charles? Ray, is Danielle Smith, the premier of Alberta,
the new premier of Alberta? She apologised for what had happened to the,
she apologised to the unvaccinated, I believe, and to the people who've been injured,
as I understood it. But is she the Danielle Smith who was in our group? That is correct. A year ago?
Wow. Yeah, I invited her to be part of this group. She readily accepted and, you know,
we correspond back and forth quite frequently. And so, you know, here's an example of our group
having a major impact on political positioning. Christine has been an amazing example as well.
I can't tell you how exciting it is to have someone like Christine
standing up in the European Parliament and presenting an exceptionally good logical case.
Premier Smith is doing the very same thing here in Alberta. We're just absolutely overjoyed with
what's happening. Ray, what's her background? Was she a journalist or a lawyer? I don't remember.
She was a journalist. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Wow. Very good. Well, I'm glad to hear Ray.
So watch for her over the next week. We're trying to get her position to appear on a major, major
media outlet here shortly. And so Rebel News said, you promised to apologise when you got into power.
You're in power. Will you apologise? And Danielle said, yes, we apologise. And Ray, as you see,
I just bring that to everyone's attention. Everybody who lost their jobs in the health
in any government position in Alberta is invited to come back and have their jobs back unjabbed.
Okay. That's correct. And we're also looking for compensation for lost revenues for those
individuals as well. Many of them were devastated by what happened. Yeah, that's true. And I just
heard that the Supreme Court of New York, they just issued an order today that all employees that got
laid off because they were unvaccinated have to be reinstated. And there will also be granted back
pay. Wow. What was that, Christine? New York. Oh, yes. That's right. I read that too. Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. So it's starting. It's beginning. We're just good. Yep. It's just sad to say. All right, Christine.
So let's get this show on the road. This wonderful show, the Stevens. See that as Ray says,
we are dropping seeds. And as the Bible says, some seeds will sprout and some seeds won't,
but there are many that are sprouting. There are so many pushbacks happening. So welcome everybody,
particularly first timers. If this is your first time, if this is your virginal visit, please
insert, please tell us about yourself. You're most welcome to share information about you.
Put your name, put your name up on the screen. So we know we'll have Chris, listen to Christine
as to what she's up to. This is a place of free speech, no censorship. And indeed,
Piers Morgan last night, Christine was interviewing Yay, formerly Kanye West,
and, you know, asking the question, well, what's the limits on free speech? And Yay says, what do
you mean? Free speech is free speech. And we're going to have someone else deciding what you can
say, what you can't say. This environment is a free speech environment with proper moderation.
That's how, that's how Stephen and I run it. And we, and we make sure we lovingly brutal here.
We come from love and not fear. And that's what this twice weekly meeting is about. Reinspiring
you to not be fearful and to fight for what you believe as Bobby Kennedy says,
what hill are you willing to die on? And there's another beautiful quote that said,
you know, I'd rather die standing than live kneeling. You know, I like that idea. So
Christine, you are a true warrior. Thank you for joining us. These meetings, everybody goes for
two and a half hours. Tom Rodman has set up another telegram video group for those who have more time.
And then Christine, we, as you know, we have Q&A after Christine's presentation. You can make your
presentation as long as you like, and I'm sure we'll have a healthy discussion. Thank you again,
Christine, for joining us and over to you. Yeah. Well, so first of all, I do appreciate,
of course, this space of free speech, because as I always say, or as it has been said before,
you can either talk about free speech or you have free speech. And as soon as you start talking about
free speech, then you no longer have it. It's as simple as that. Yeah. Well, so I really cannot tell
you any things, particular or spectacular news. The news I have, I've already put out in my videos.
I'm pretty sure you're aware of it. So it was, of course, that Pfizer did admit they never even
tested on transmission, which this entire lie was based on. So, and I did look into the
plan, the action plan of the EU commission. And there are some things that are rather concerning,
especially when they're talking about, it's all coming back. It's all in the plan for
fall, winter 2023. So it's all coming back like the non-pharmaceutical measures, like lockdowns,
wearing masks, mandates of masks, social distancing. They do want to avoid school closures,
because they did kind of realize by now that that was a really bad idea, since students are really,
yeah, they lost so much. There is discrepancy in their learning effort. So they do want to avoid
that, but everything else will still be on. They will continue to make a real hard effort to get
everyone vaccinated, starting by the ones who haven't even begun yet. They call them the
hard to reach groups. And they want to come up with special kind of communication strategies
and tactics to get these people in line as well. And of course, they're already coming out with the
new narrative as to what to label these people. So the ones that are not vaccinated or hesitant
about getting vaccinated, now even hesitant about getting the shot, the boosters or the updates,
how they call it now, that of course is linked to narratives about being anti-Western, anti-EU.
And of course, they dropped in the pro-Russian thing in there too. So if you don't get in line,
and if you don't do what your government tells you in terms of getting your boosters for as
many as they would tell you, then you are sure pro-Russian or anti-Western, whatever.
So that's still all going on. And then of course, what they do have in there. Oh yeah, the three
months, the German, Seck of Health, that was like a few months back, he was talking about,
it was no longer fully vaxxed, it was then freshly vaxxed. And the definition of being
freshly vaxxed is the last shot is no longer than three months back. So that idiot didn't come up
with that himself. It says it in the commission proposal of the EU as well. So we are talking
about now getting shots every three months, if that's their idea. And then of course, they do
want to systematically vaccinate pregnant women. And they include them in the so-called
risk groups among people over 60 years of age, or people with underlying conditions. So pregnant
women are now a risk group for COVID. So that's why they should get or have priority with this
new vaccine that's apparently coming out. I shouldn't call it a vaccine, it's really an injection.
So yeah, that's what they're doing. That's what they're planning.
As far as I know, there has been a WHO summit last week in Berlin.
I have received some information, but the information is, I haven't been able to review
the information yet. So I would not be able to speak on that in depth. But I could say
they will continue to push with everything. And what they're doing now is they're talking about
all these other kinds of pandemics that are going to hit us. So polio apparently is coming along
again. And they kind of blame that on the fact that the vaccine hesitancy has now spread
throughout the world. People don't trust the pharma anymore, don't trust the governments anymore.
Yeah, well, guess why. But they will continue to push that. And that of course means that
the authority that the WHO is supposed to get, which did not happen in July, it was luckily,
didn't go through then, but they will continue to push for it. And their narrative or argument now is
the reason that they weren't able to deal with COVID in a timely manner,
and kind of contemplating the fact that it's been going on for two and a half years now.
And the reason for that is, was the WHO simply did not have enough authority to address it in a
proper way. And then of course, the nasty national states, all demanding their sovereignty and
whatever. So that's what they will do next. And to get the governments all in line, to just endorse
the WHO to be equipped with more authority. So in future pandemics, the WHO can just take over,
and pretty much what they had planned on doing in the first place, they will continue to push that
now. This is cooking on a rather large flame, a small flame for now, because they did realize,
of course, they may have gone too far, may have been too pushy, may have taken it too far,
too hasty about it. So they will scale it down just a bit. But in the background, everything is
still continuing. And they will continue to do whatever they need to do to get everyone in line,
and to push their sick agenda. That's pretty much what I can say for now.
And Christine, can I ask you about the committee that started this latest
series of events for you and Christian Therese? I watched that, and I could barely do it, but it
was absolutely astonishing to me, the nonsense that they were talking about. And then you came
up and said, I demand that you declare yourselves incompetent. And I thought, great!
But she deliberately disobeyed the rules of the EU, as far as I could see.
Yes, she did. Even though, of course, this doesn't go any further than this group.
The point of order I raised, the article I based it on, I did kind of stretch it there too,
I have to admit that. I just needed to find, I mean, this specific article pretty much only
deals with competency issues among different committees. But, I mean, you know, they're doing
whatever they want. So I figured, well, that's what it says in the article. So I can base my point of
order on that. And my point really was to point out how ridiculous it all was, which it actually is.
And to get a way of getting my colleagues to understand that we cannot do anything in this
special committee, since we lack the authority to do anything, we cannot compel anyone to come in
there. We ask questions, if they choose to answer, they do, if not, they don't. So it's really a
ridiculous committee. And it was my way of pushing for a formal inquiry committee. And that's what
we will continue to do. And we, if we get it all done, meet all the requirements, we should be able
to get a vote on that in the December plenary, because the plenary will have to vote on it,
to actually form such a committee. So, like I said, we might be able to get that vote in
by December, the December plenary, and then we'll just take it from there. What we will also do in
that committee is to push to CEO, Pfizer, Pfizer CEO will be invited again. So this time, I reckon
the invitation to appear in this committee will be a little more sternly than the last time.
What we try to do also is to get Ursula von der Leyen in front of that committee.
That was debated today in an office meeting, you would call it behind the scenes.
And that that did not find a majority yet. But we will keep pushing so that she will have to
appear there too. So we can ask her some questions too. Christine, could you maybe explain for the
people who don't know about the text messages? She refused to release and also Albert Bollow,
Pfizer refused to release. But there were questions that Christine, I can't remember where I saw these.
Why can't you push to have... So instead of pushing Pfizer to release the contracts,
why on earth are the contracts not published by the EU? Yeah, that's just the thing.
They kind of like say it's trade secrets and they don't want to release their pricing
and all of that, which is a bunch of bogusness. I'm sorry, this is crap. I mean, we are elected
representatives and we cannot do our job because our job is to basically justify whatever was
decided here to our constituents and we can't do this if we don't have any information as to
what they actually agreed upon. So they kind of still hide behind that. We will continue to push
for that too. But about the text messages, that is really an interesting story. So the EU Commission
is obligated to release all relevant documentation or whatever deals they're striking with whoever.
And once they were asked to release those text messages, they simply said, well, no, they do not
fall under the regulation of having to be provided because they are not... How do they call it? Oh,
it's only short-lived documentation. So it's not really a document that they need to keep
and need to provide to the public, which of course is bogus. So the point is these text messages were
exchanged, that much is clear, prior to the actual negotiations of the contracts. God only knows
what CEO Borla and Funderlion hatched up together there. And plus considering that her husband
is part of a pharmaceutical company, I think they made like what, $3.5 billion on that deal,
if not more than $35 billion. I don't remember. So this is something really fishy going on here,
but she refuses to release those text messages since they, by her definition, do not
fall under the regulation of having to be provided. And so our idea was to get Borla in
because he was the other part of that text message conversation. So we wanted to ask him,
but he had agreed to appear and last minute he kind of pulled out because I guess they thought
where we were going with this. So he just dropped out and sent someone else.
But Borla Funderlion, she's been known in Germany too. She was a member of government there too,
in various positions. And this is not the first time that something like this is happening. The
last time it was involving emails, which when she was supposed to supply them or provide them,
they suddenly got deleted by accident, of course.
Just so you know, you can never delete emails. They're always available for a,
maybe difficult to get, but they can always be recovered.
Yeah, I know. I know. Well, like I said, that's just Ursula Funderlion, but on that text messaging,
we will get her because what has happened, the EU state attorney, they opened an investigation
into these matters now. They're investigating the EU commission and investigating Ursula Funderlion.
The Ombudspom, she is responsible for complaints from citizens about how the EU conducts their
affairs. And she complained and raised an issue with that. And also the agency that is
making sure that all the finances are correct. They also made an issue of this.
So it's getting kind of tight for Ursula Funderlion by now.
Yeah. So can I just ask you, Christine, so it's just been in the chat, well, I don't know,
so I think it's Michelle, is it? So she says that nothing can be deleted on the internet,
is actually deleted. Yeah. So you could push to get those emails published.
Well, that's kind of milked out. Yeah, that's still milked. That's done with.
Are there any emails between Funderlion and Brülo?
And I would think so. And they were probably provided as requested.
Okay. And there's nothing in those, of course. I haven't seen them, but the agencies that have
seen them, had there been anything in there, they would have raised the alarm on that.
Would they? So I think that the really important stuff is in those text messages,
knowing fully well that she would not release those. Correct. Yeah. So how do you know the
agencies would actually flag it up if they found something? Good question. But that's the agency
that it's their job, basically, to check that everything has been done correctly.
Yeah. Are they paid by the EU, Christine? Well, it's kind of like they are in charge of controlling
EU commission. So they would say something. They would. Is this the audit part of the EU?
Yeah, exactly. The seventh institution. Yeah. Yeah. So who is Dr Haas, by the way?
He was on the committee. Dr Haas? I don't know. No clue. He was the guy in front of you,
and you were concentrated on the chair, I think. But Dr Haas was to the right as you looked at them.
Oh, yeah. He was. He was in EU case, but he was pathetic. Yeah. Yeah. To be honest,
I don't remember. I really don't remember. You know, you just sit there, and there's so
many information dropping on you, you know, and it's like, at the end, I really will have to
recap what happened, you know, with the documentation I have from the committee.
But things are happening so fast, so quickly. It's really sometimes hard to remember. But yeah,
there was a guy that was just, you know, sitting there, and I was actually, I was getting ready
to ask him a question, but then it wasn't my turn even anymore. There was no time left for whatever
reason. So that sometimes happens whenever it's my time to ask a question. We suddenly had run out
of time. That happens too. So, yeah, but... What struck me listening to all that nonsense
was that there was so many damned regulations which he kept quoting. I know. And in addition
to that, all the different languages and people complaining they hadn't got it in, what was it,
Latvian? I can't remember which language, Slovakian? But it would be, oh no, Croatian it was actually.
And so the possibility for mix-ups was huge. Was it designed like that? Why didn't they have one
language like French or English, you know, instead of all the different languages of the...
Well, that's, I mean, that's the huge problem with the EU. We do not have a common language,
but yet they just, you know, think, yeah, well, but we rule them anyway. So when working here,
every member of every state has the right to have these committee meetings and
plenary meetings conducted in his language. And if that's not the case, then they will provide
translation for it. But it is a huge problem. But it doesn't work, does it? I'm sorry? It doesn't work.
So it's a multiple deniability then? Exactly. And, you know, even if you could translate a word
literally, it will mean different things in different languages, depending on how it evolves,
you know, the cultural context of it, whatever. So yes, it is a huge issue. I always call it,
you know, the Babylonian confusion. That's what it is. Yeah. But they're banking on that. That's
what they're banking on. They don't want people to understand them anymore. And people are not
supposed to voice their political will, you know, which we are supposed to implement here.
They aren't supposed to be able to communicate that to us anymore, because they don't care about
people. That's the problem. They do not care. It was total confusion to an onlooker.
So I was shocked at the level. And you were brilliant. And so was Christian Therese.
And Ivan Sinčić as well. You three were the ones who made the best speeches, all on our side.
And I just, whoa. So, yes, who was the chair of the committee? She was totally incompetent as well.
Oh, she is. She has a push over though. She really is. I mean, you know, we kind of figure it out by
now. If we say something and she interrupts or whatever, you know, we just blow her over.
And she usually just sits there and does nothing. And at one time it was like she reprimanded
Christian Therese for having spoken 20 seconds longer or 30 seconds longer than it was supposed
to. And then she was going on and telling him, well, the next time I will deduct 40 seconds from
your next speaking time. And then he went on for another three minutes telling her off how she is
not supposed to do this and how she cannot do this. So she's a complete pushover. Yeah, she is.
Is she Dutch? I'm sorry? Is she Dutch? Yeah, she is. Yeah, sorry, Belgian.
Belgian, yeah, Flemish Belgian. Yeah. Who is Mrs Small? Was that clarified?
Mrs Who? Small, the Pfizer executive. Oh, yeah, she was, she was, I think, the vice president of Pfizer.
Wow. Who was sentenced, who, Borla sent instead of coming himself. She was terrible. She was trying
to cozy up to the chair. I know. And the chair was allowing it.
I know. See, that's what I keep saying. I mentioned it somewhere before. The chair
considered to run or thought she should run this committee to protect them from our questions,
which is not her job. She is supposed to conduct a proper meeting. But, you know, she's always kind
of like, in the first couple of meetings. Oh, thank you so much for coming. She's saying.
I know. It's like, yeah, but she's like, in the beginning, when she didn't realize she was
basically outnumbered in that committee, because we all pushed to get on that committee.
She was like, really, you know, constantly looking at how she, how she can cut us off
when we're speaking. So it's like, yeah, she was, she was really annoyed by our presence.
And she was really nervous whenever one of us, she would have to give the floor to one of us,
because she knew, oh, this isn't going to go well.
Exactly. I'm terrified when you started to speak. Christine, she looked terrified when you started
to speak. I know. Yeah, she is terrified of me by now, because she knows she cannot shut me up.
She tries to, but she cannot shut me up. Good. But Mrs. Small, I noticed, was Welsh.
And I don't know what the qualifications were to be vice president of Pfizer, but she was just a
useful idiot, as far as I could see. Yeah. Yeah. I'm giving a giving a speech to the EU
about the importance of Pfizer in the last two and a half years. It was like a,
it was like an advertisement. I know. I know. I recommend everybody on this call watches it.
Yeah. But that's what that committee was supposed to be. It wasn't supposed to be a committee to
get answers for the people. It was a committee to find out at what, what did they do wrong
when failing to get people what they wanted them to do. That's what they were trying to find out.
How could they become better in dictating to people what to do? You know, that was,
was their objective. But we flew into hell. I don't usually comment on physical appearance,
but what a specimen the Welsh lady was. Looked as though she drank too much C2H5,
C2H5 OH to me. Sorin would like to speak. He said, can I speak?
Keep going, stay with your questions. And then we'll do the questions in the normal force.
Don't worry about that. So we think that Mrs Small is vice president of Pfizer of a section,
because if you remember, Mike Eden is a vice president, was a vice president too,
of the respiratory section, I think. So I just wonder whether she's just one of the vice
presidents, but I wonder how many vice presidents they've got. I can, I can chime in. There's
probably about 70. I had to write a lot of recommendations for a person to be promoted
to vice president. It can't be that high a position. No. Well, I think that lady would
have struggled to get a university degree, but maybe I'm harsh. Charles? Okay. Well, I haven't
finished, but never finished. Well, if you've got another couple, you've got a couple of questions.
If you've got a question, ask because we do the normal way. It's your privilege to ask the first
questions and then it's my privilege to ask the next question. And then we'll go to Peter Hooger
from Wales. I'm okay for the moment. Okay. Good. So, so Christine, what's your sense of your
colleagues, you know, in terms of earlier this year, there weren't many of you and, you know,
then we have stories like Alberta, we have the Australian government report from a very high
level bureaucrat about the amazing failings of state and federal governments in Australia
in the response. So, so what's, you know, with your EU colleagues, are the numbers on your side
increasing? That's the essence of what I'd like to understand. Yeah. Okay. It's in the beginning,
it was just really a very small minority. You know, you spoke to colleagues on the hallway
when you met them, but no one really wanted to say anything about it. So, and this whole thing
started with four, four of us, four MEPs, we started out. So there was Christian Turhasch,
that was Ivan Sinčić, that was myself and that was Francesca Donato. And yeah, it was just the
four of us. And then it just took off from there. And in the first few months, there wasn't
really much happening. They did take note of the fact that we, yeah, basically,
plow in all records on our social media, staff throughout the house, they contacted us.
And suddenly, you know, we walked through the building. I mean, there were people left and
right just acknowledging us, giving us thumbs up. And it was many staff though. And yeah, well,
then things started shifting. And we got these colleagues asking us about, you know,
what made us do it? And, you know, how do we get started? And what can they do to help us?
So we started expanding. So by now, we are 12 MEPs who are willing to show their face
in public and speak up about it. And but in the background, there is a lot more MEPs, but they're
not yet willing to speak up about it. They have concerns that their parties will not like them
anymore. They won't get reelected on the list. And you know, that whole thing. So this is happening.
But in this committee, this is actually rather unique, because usually, in the committees,
we are completely outnumbered. So you have like 38 committee members, and we're sitting there with
three or four people max. So on this committee, it's different, though. I wouldn't say that they
don't even have the majority anymore. They are way outnumbered. And it's now even MEPs from the
Greens and from the left that are critical too. But like I said, they face some repercussions
in their within their parties. They are doing a good job on the on the committee right now.
But behind the scenes, at least we've been told they have to answer to their party to their group
what they the kind of questions they ask in this committee meeting. But like I said,
the situation is not as desperate in this committee. And things are, in fact, changing.
And you kind of can see that because now when we walk through the building, we do not only get
recognition from staff who suffer probably the most from all of this madness, but from other MEPs as
well. So things are changing. Luckily, they do. I would have hoped to have this process starting
a little sooner. But it's better late than never, I guess. Thank you. That's wonderful. That's
wonderful news. And it's a beautiful example to all of us, just like Danielle Smith, that we just
keep at it. We keep at it. We get exactly. Now, one other one other issue that Peter Huger,
before we go to him, and he's a lawyer, Anna de Buisere has got her hand up, we'll get to her.
Christine, on this issue of of Pfizer contracts not being disclosed is relevant to all of us on
this call for our respective countries. And I urge all of you to be aware that under constitutional
law, there may well be some angles to take, because government says it's commercial in confidence.
This bullshit, it's total bullshit. Because if you're spending if you want government money,
nothing that none of your contracts should be commercial, it should be in confidence,
except a particular patent. And even if it's a patent, the patent is published. So as a matter
of constitutional law, all of us should do the exploration. I don't expect you, Christine, to
comment on that. But I really urge you to find lawyers who can attack that angle. I'm pushing
that angle here in Australia as well. Right. So so they cannot say, Oh, you're you as a taxpayer,
are not in charge to have that information. I know. I mean, we are we are pushing for that.
We are working on that. And the thing is, up until now, like I said, it's changing now,
but up until now, it was it was really difficult, because public opinion was not on our side on that.
So if we, you know, criticize that we hadn't been provided with the with the contents of the of the
contracts yet. And, you know, people were immediately labeling you as a covid yet.
And, you know, you're just trying to kill people. It just last week, we had a rally, a protest,
really. And there was a guy who was running around accusing all of us we had killed thousands and
thousands of people, you know. So it really was difficult. And as long as public opinion
is behind government, you can raise whatever issue you want. You can, you know,
ask them whatever they will not do it. They will start moving once public opinion pushes them to.
And that, you know, it's a long process. But I think we are getting there and we're seeing
first results. Excellent. Excellent point, Christine. Hence the leaflet strategy, everybody.
OK, Peter Hogan, next question, then Sorin. Brilliant. Thank you, Charles. And once again,
Christine, lovely to speak to you and thank you for everything you do. You don't realize how much
you lift our hearts and you give us hope because we are the little people that are being harmed.
And you are a big person that is representing us. Unfortunately, the people in our country, apart from
in Ray Strom's case at the moment, he's got somebody in high office
looking good and hopefully they'll help us, you know. But at the moment, we've got a problem.
And I think that in the absence of a military paramilitary or even a police coup, because our
government and parliament is inert, I feel that the very medium that is frustrating us,
mainstream media, the news, social media, Facebook, etc., with all their controlling
and their lies, but they are key in this war. We all know that they are controlled.
So, Christine, I'll give you an example. Sky News reported today that they've recognized the
Sir Christopher Chope MP. I'm sure you know him. His all-party parliamentary group, which convened
last week and it reconvened. It convened on the day that Liz Truss fell on her sword or was thrown
onto her sword. And that just covered the all-party parliamentary group hearing completely.
And then they had another one yesterday. I've heard nothing much from them.
Apart from today, Sky News reporting that the UK government will not open an inquiry into the
vaccine damage. I posted the link earlier. Now, the Daily Mail, however, they covered
Sir Christopher Chope's APPG, all-party parliamentary group, hearing his demands for
vaccine injury clinics to be held at hospitals, etc., the same as vaccine injection clinics.
So they are reporting a lot more at the moment. The truth, if you like, our side. So my question,
how can we, and I mean you and your people, and the more powerful people like the PM of Alberta,
how can they get more earth-shattering mainstream media coverage to wake more people up to the truth?
Ah, that's a good question. If I knew the answer to that, we didn't have any problems.
Is there any way, apart from I feel that the newspapers are moving slowly.
Yes, they are.
They have a very cultural saying in Britain called covering your ass. I think they're doing
that a little bit at the moment because they believe that public opinion is moving. So how
can we give it a kick up that ass, Christine?
Well, like I said, I mean, we've pretty much done all we could. So now it's really up. We need to
keep pushing, obviously. And we will do that. We will do that in the committee. On social media,
I mean, YouTube just deleted another video of mine. I got a lawyer involved and he wrote the
letter. And then the two videos they had deleted before, they just unblocked again. And now they
deleted the third one. So anyway, it's like, yeah, they're trying to do whatever they can to kind of
prevent from what's going to happen anyway, or to prolong it even. But the corporate
media, like the newspapers and TV stations and so on, I mean, they rely on people wanting to watch
them and wanting to read them. And I do notice a shift in there too. They are starting to report
on vaccine injuries and pretty much questioning what's going to happen. And I think that's
they are starting to report on vaccine injuries and pretty much questioning the measures,
the restrictions and all of that. They're starting now. We see the beginning of it.
My biggest fear only is that by the time that all of this will be out in the open and will be on
broad daylight, by that time, people will have completely other problems. And that's kind of
like what the governments are banking on now too, I think, with fall coming, not knowing how to pay
the energy prices, inflation, not knowing where to get food from. I was shopping last Saturday.
Usually I don't shop anymore. My daughter does something was missing. And I was just shocked to
see these stores. I mean, the shelves were emptied. They simply don't have stuff anymore to put on
the shelves. So in a few weeks, people will have other problems and they will no longer care
what the government did the past two and a half years. And by the time this next crisis is over,
people have forgotten. I mean, it's not the first time that something like this happens. People
forget. They always forget. And it's beyond me how anyone could forget anything like that.
I don't get it, but it will happen again. Yep. Well, when their children have died and their
grandchildren have died, they won't forget. And I bring to everyone's attention that the legal
system, whilst corrupted to a large degree with judges influenced by government and public opinion,
when the grandchildren of judges start dying, the judges will change their behaviour as well.
So, you know, and it is my view that every case, the lawyer for our side should be number one,
asking the judge to recuse themselves if they've taken the jabs. They should, and the argument
should be put. Doesn't matter if it loses. It should be put. Number two, lawyers on our side
must speak the truth. And Brother Alexis Buñolo on Sunday pointed out to us that what the Bible
says, the truth is a sword, but you have to pick it up. And if you don't speak truth in court,
you won't get the impact. And that truth is that counsel for our side has to point out to the judge,
Your Honour, the evidence shows that your grandchildren will die if they have this
bio weapon injected. And it doesn't matter if the judge says you are in contempt, doesn't matter.
And so each one of us doing these steps, just like Christine is showing us, helps the process. And
when more judges turn, because Christine, you're right, in Alberta, I wonder how the judges will
behave because of this shift of Danielle. You watch what that ripple effect is. Okay, on we go.
Sorin, welcome. This is your first time asking a live question. Is that correct?
Yes, it is correct. I've been here from the initial group,
doctors for COVID ethics. I think it was last year. And lately, I've been diluting my
participation due to other activities. Now, I'm from Israel, and I'm one of the founders of
a professional front for ethics. And one of our members is disclosed and then
showed the cover up of the Israeli Ministry of Health about the
side effects, severe side effects of the jab. And my question is, Christine, if you would like some
cooperation from her because she has a lot of information about the material of Pfizer and
some documents from the FDA and so on. And I know you have an ongoing investigation where there is
this lady from Romania, Laura Condruza, if I'm right. And maybe there's a place for some
cooperation between those two ladies. And then another question is,
beside the group of MEPs like you that are non-aligning with the narrative,
are there any governments at all that are trying to break out of this kind of siege?
And last question first, not that I know of. I mean, even thinking about governments that would,
you know, be rather more along my side of the political scale than others. And it would be
probably the Polish government, Hungary, Viktor Orban. But no, I couldn't say that they
said anything along the lines that whatever was done was not correct. So I don't, unfortunately,
I don't see any signs as far as European governments are concerned that they would
shift their opinion on that. I don't see any governments. Sorry. Yeah, about the documentation
or that contact you may have about having the FDA and Pfizer documentation. That would be great
if you could forward this to me. I will review it or have my colleagues do it,
you know, if it's above, basically above my pay grade even. So yeah, absolutely. I would appreciate
that. Can you leave me a contact? If you put your email address into the chat, sorry, and we'll make
sure that Christine gets it. Well, okay. If you could email me, sorry, and then it doesn't get
forgotten. Yeah. Okay. So in the chat or to send it to you? Just email me and remind me that you
want to speak to Christine and I'll just. Okay. Okay. Very good. Okay. Thanks. Bye bye. Very good.
And, and sorry, just before you do go, a question to you is being put to us that, you know, Israel
is being, is being, has been so overjabbed. It's being, you know, it's, it's the example to the,
to the globalist of how to wipe out a population. Is that true or what?
Well, it used to be true. It's not true anymore because the, the, a hesitancy has increased.
And if we had something like a 4.8 million individuals being vaccinated with the first
and second dose, a so-called vaccine, it's not a vaccine by, by far. Now it, even, even though it
was approved for children, six months to five years old, it is less, it is less than half a mil.
And really it's, it's, it's dropping, it's dropping and they don't really know how to do,
what to do. And now they're trying to combine it with a, with a flu shot to have a dual, dual,
so-called vaccine and about, and about the polio that was mentioned here before in Christine's
presentation. We had a short spike of polio eruption here, but it happened
it happened just after they, they had some, some, you know, see the oral, the stock,
the oral vaccine, they use it. So they had a short period of use and shortly after there was a burst
of, of cases. And then it was stopped again. It was the, the weakened virus. It wasn't the,
the dead, dead virus. So they're trying all kinds of tricks to lure people into getting the, the
jobs. It doesn't work. It doesn't work anymore. And next week we're going to have an election.
So we'll see all that is wonderful. Soren, that is wonderful news. Everybody.
That is wonderful news that just please note that huge jab hesitancy in Israel. Soren,
thank you for sharing that. Yeah. Also, but I also urge Christine to use, to use this information and
try to put this in, in, in the mainstream media, especially this, this candle that came out
when, when the ministry of health was exposed, was exposed by trying to cover up the
severe side adverse effects. Because we've been trying, Aaron's theory already mentioned it and
but he's in the United States. I guess you need some support in, in, in Europe. Well about the,
the adverse side effects. I have been commenting on that for, oh gosh, I don't know even how long,
because you can, you can actually see it in the data. When you look at EMA, there is,
you look just the first seven months of the, the mRNA rollout, you had 20 times more severe
side effects and 23 more, 23 times more death than all other vaccines combined over the last
20 years. But you can immerse it down to people's ears. It does not resonate. They don't get it.
It's being dismissed as fake news. It's da da da, whatever. And I mean, I've been saying this for so
long in committee. I don't know how many times I've mentioned. No, no, but Christine, what I meant is
we exposed, there was a zoom meeting, a secret, not secret, but it was supposed to be confidential
zoom meeting of the Ministry of Health seniors and somebody leaked it out. And it's leaked to us.
Okay. Okay. So we can, you can use this one. Okay. To show, to show
Okay. Yeah. This is something to, this, this we are trying to resonate because, you know,
it's the rumble, all the, the small media. Okay. But we need to resonate it and to bring it at
least to one or two mainstream media channels. Yeah. If you could get me that, then I will get
I will, I will, I will try and because it's in Hebrew and I'll try to see if there is something
with the, with the English subtitles. Okay. Okay. Excellent. Okay. I'll, I'll send, I'll send the
Stephen Frost my email address and forward it to you. Actually, you know what? I could just put my
email address in the chat right here. Okay. Christine, if you're happy to do that. Yeah.
Okay. So that's right, Christine, if you put your email in the chat, Christine,
that's the easiest of people can send that. Soren, wonderful news. Well done. Great to have you here.
Thank you. So James Gorgusky, another warrior. We're all warriors on this call.
Um, Christine, it's an honor to meet you here. I'm going to dive right in. Everything you've done has
been fantastic. And we're on the same team. I would like to bring you some evidence. I'm going to put
my information in the chat and hopefully you'll be able to save it. And I obviously now have your
email, you have mine. Hopefully the communication will continue. There's, it's highly unlikely that
it's highly unlikely that you're aware of what I'm about to say. If you are, that's wonderful.
The WHO actually Tedros just recently created a review committee essentially to take over the
negotiations that are supposed to be done by the delegates through the working group for amendments
to the international health regulations. This week, as we speak, they're having quote unquote,
private meetings to discuss 12, I'm sorry, 14 nations proposed amendments to the international
health regulations. Um, it's very clear that those documents are being kept hidden at the moment. Um,
one of the folks that I know in the UK just this morning got a FOIA request response saying,
yes, we have those documents. They do exist, but you can't have them.
And the most important aspect of it for you, I believe, is that the Czech Republic submitted
amendments on behalf of the EU. And so my request to you, if you would be so kind is to see if you
could obtain the documents that the WHO is obligated. And I have evidence that they clearly have
taken the 14 proposals from the 14 nations and shared it with all 194 member nations. So,
you know, every nation in Europe, it's not that the EU votes in the WHO, but yet the Czech Republic
spoke on behalf of the EU nations. And it's like, well, you know, where were those secret negotiations
giving the Czech Republic the okay to speak on behalf of all of Europe? Um, those documents
are currently being, um, discussed in private by a appointed review committee that arguably
Tedros has stuck into the middle of the negotiating process to try to control it,
where it's supposed to be a technical advisory committee that after all of the negotiations
have happened, then the review committee would advise on the dotting of the I's and the crossing
of the T's and all that sort of stuff. It appears that there may be some conflict amongst the 14
nations, North versus South, you know, colonialistic behavior via, you know, they're all fighting for
equity. And so my simple request, and, you know, I'm at your service, you've got my contact
information, if there's anything I can do to help you. Yeah, absolutely. One of the contact people
was at, I know someone very well who was at the Global Health Summit, so she can give you a report
or your staff report on all of that. The amendments proposed by 14 nations should be publicly available.
And if you could help make them public, that would be spectacular. Okay. And Christine, can I ask you,
Christine, can it possibly be constitutional or whatever it's called for the EU, for the, for the
Czech Republic to be secretly dealing with this on behalf of the EU? Did you know that? No, I didn't
know that. That's what I was just going to come back to. So if I understood that correctly.
The Czech Republic submitted these amendments on behalf of all EU member states or on behalf of
only 14 member states? No, there were 14 countries from around the world, the Czech Republic,
and all of the documents are in what I sent you. And if anybody has any questions, by all means,
anybody can call me anytime. I'd be happy to explain it and clarify and give them a briefing,
all that stuff. Four of the 14 submitted on behalf of a group of nations. The Czech Republic
submitted on behalf of, I'm not blaming the Czech Republic for doing anything bad. It's just that,
you know, they're speaking for a group of nations. Yes. James, I am from the Czech Republic. Maybe I
can explain. It's because the Czech Republic is presiding the European Union at the moment.
That may very well be why they chose. Yeah, they have the presidency for six months.
So one would think that there was some discussion. That doesn't give us the opportunity to secret.
Well, I don't know whether it's in secret. Okay. But that's what I'm sorry. I think the point is
this. 14 amendments. That's what you said were being proposed for 14 proposals from 14 nations
with multiple articles probably being amended in each. Right. Okay. So maybe the number 14 is
coincidental. So what was happening in July with the world, the WHO World Summit, they were going
to discuss 14 amendments to the WHO treaties, but it failed because due to public pressure,
because I've been all over that WHO renegotiation of the treaties, the United States withdrew 12.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no. I've been, I was the person who revealed all that.
Please understand. This is not about the treaty at all. It's got nothing to do with the treaty.
Oh, okay. There are amendments, nothing to do with the treaty. That's a decoy in many ways. Okay.
And I was actually the person who dug up the stuff about the Biden amendments. That was 13.
Okay. These are amendments that are now being discussed this week by a secret newly formed
committee that stepped into the negotiating process in front of the working group for
amendments to the international health regulations, which are scheduled to meet in mid November.
I don't want to bore everybody with all the details. By all means, reach out to me at any
point in time. Yeah. Those documents absolutely exist. They have been shared by
Tedros and the WHO with all 194 member nations, and they will not make them public.
Okay. And as a member of parliament, if the Czech Republic, the EU parliament,
if the Czech Republic is speaking for the EU, I would have have to imagine that they didn't tell
you. Okay. I will definitely be in contact with you about this one. Thank you. Thank you. It's
an honor. Appreciate it. Yeah. That's what I need to get on. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Charles,
for the time. Appreciate it. Well done, James, on all the work that you're doing. James is a
wonderful resource for you, Christine. And like previous meetings, James, Christine, you know that
we are here. If you need something, please send an email to Steve and we'll get the message out.
Okay. So we're all here to, because you get swamped the same way that we do with that fire
hose of information. Yeah. If you need help on stuff, please ask. Christine, if you need experts,
just ask me and I'll tell you whether we've got anybody in the particular field you're looking for,
experts, or maybe you just want to be put in touch with maybe 10 people. I could do that as well.
Okay. 10 people of my choosing. And then I could just see whether you like the ones I
have. So I think I put you in touch with the Garnet inside. So that's it. That's good.
Do you get that email, Christine? I might have. I haven't reviewed it yet though.
Okay. I've introduced you to artificial Garnet, I think, but hopefully it's come to you.
Okay. And so Christine, James Rogusky is an absolute go-to person for your staff and you
on who matters. Okay. And the 12 of you. So he's depth of knowledge on who strategies is excellent.
I'm here to serve. So don't be afraid to reach out. Okay. Excellent. Thank you.
All right. Jeff Pilot from the UK. He's not a pilot.
Thanks, Charles. Thanks. I'm not a pilot, but I am a scientist in the UK. So that's a by way
of introduction, Christine. And like everyone else has said, great work that you're doing in
the European Parliament. So I'm currently deep, had my head quite deep in a lot of data
regarding the vaccine. I'll take your lead and we'll call it an injection because I'm going to,
we'll be in court in the foreseeable future, trying to prevent my kids having the second dose
of the Pfizer jab as the ex-wife wants them to be vaccinated. So that'll be quite interesting to see
how it goes. And, you know, it will be not just fighting for this, the second dose of the Pfizer
jab, but also any subsequent jabs. And I'll take your advice, Charles, that you gave, you know,
to ask the church to accuse themselves if they've been vaccinated. I don't know how
that will go, but it's a good point. Christine, I'm just stunned, you know, with the data.
And there is, you know, I just have to ask a question direct. Do you believe this is just
a case of corruption and power and control, or do you think there's a darker depopulation of gender
replay? Because the number of deaths, side effects, it's just horrifying.
Yeah, I know. To be honest, I do not have an answer for that question.
It seems as though, I mean, it's kind of like, you know, the pharma industry, like I told that,
that from, what was her name? I don't remember. I don't consider them to be stupid, you know,
so they must have known that this stuff is not working. And it might possibly even be harmful.
But at least they should have known that it's not doing anything, at least not what they promised
it would do. So as far as their motive is concerned, yeah, they just wanted to make
money, obviously. So but the point is, did the governments know? And they are not stupid either.
So they must have known something. I mean, and considering how close apparently,
from the line is with Borla. I really don't see how she could not have known.
And there is going to be other government members, they must have known something.
So I don't know if it's just limited to them being corrupted, and just wanting, you know,
to make money of or if there is a really, really devious and evil agenda behind this.
And some extent, it must be an evil agenda, because just deceiving the people, you know,
wasting all of his taxpayers monies, putting their life at risk, that is that is evil in and of itself.
But is it truly a depopulation agenda? I don't know. I really don't know.
Me too. And I talked to, you know, friends, and I say, I hate to even think that. I really hope
it's not. Because I myself, I work in, you know, the pharmaceutical industry, I design clinical
trials. And I know how robustly we do it. And the standards we have to meet. And then when I read
that Pfizer gets approval following, you know, a few, I don't know what you call it, kitchen
experiments on a rice mice or rats, you know, it's, I know, stunning to see what goes through the FDA
for these injections. Yeah. Yeah. But I mean, they're so intertwined, you know, just to see that
that EMER, the European medicine, the medicines agency is what funded 86% of their budget is funded
by pharmaceutical companies. Hello? That's never been allowed. I know, of course not.
I mean, they're basically funding the agency that approved that approves their vaccines.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, as it turned a long time ago in the pharmaceutical industry, they,
I think the word is self policing, you know, the FDA, MHRA relied on the pharmaceutical companies
and self policing. And that's, that's great. If you've got reputable people doing that,
so listen, and the scientists do, but then when that data goes into the hands of the marketeers,
or, you know, a statistician that's asked to spin it in a certain way,
that self policing can easily be prompted. You already see that they, they, they have something
to hide. And you can tell just from them sitting in the committee, the way they answer the question,
the way they they swirl around the way, you know, they really feel really uncomfortable
having to answer those questions. And they're so concerned about, you know, choosing the right
words and not saying too much. And, you know, you can tell they are hiding something.
I agree Christine. Yeah. She was that Mrs. Small was absolutely terrified of the questions which
were coming, although she was trying to look calm. I know. There was this other, what company was
she from? Gosh, I forgot. That was the one I asked who lied that the pharmaceutical companies lie to
the government or the governments knew the truth and they lied to the people. I mean, the way she
answered my question, gosh, it hurt. It really hurt. She was stammering and stirring and you know,
who was that Christine? Was that small? No, no, that wasn't small. That was the committee before
Alexa Smith Klein. No, I've, what was the, what was the other pharmaceutical companies?
Oh, AstraZeneca you mean? Yeah. Her it was AstraZeneca. Right. Yeah. Well, if you get a chance,
just look at my videos. Yeah, it's terrible. Yeah. You're right. Because one of my good friends,
he has dinner quite a lot with one of the directors at Pfizer. I think she's a legal lady or something.
And he, you know, he asked her, he said, do you feel embarrassed? Yeah. And she said, yeah, you
know, a lot of us do. And I can't remember the age figure she put on it. But it was something like,
we don't believe anyone under the age of 30 or 40, I think it was 30, should be having this vaccine.
Yeah. Wow. Was that in evidence? No, no, no. This was around the dinner table.
He has her over for dinner quite a bit. You know, and he's. So why isn't she writing to her MP then?
I don't, I mean, you know, I think people want to protect their lives, you know, I think
people have got lives they want to. What is the point of protecting your life when everybody
around you is dying? I just don't get it. Honestly, I really don't. Neither do I. I don't know how these
people can look in the mirror. You know, it's not as if, you know, the side effect is, I don't know,
like a bad batch of coffee at Starbucks. No side effect. Yeah. People got any self-respect.
How on earth can you be happy if you have no self-respect? And if you don't,
but there's also the delusion factor. So I'm sorry, two things, two things, Jeff,
that's wonderful information. Everybody please remember Jeff has offered and Christine Jeff is
also a resource for you as is Craig Pardacouper, who will be asking a question shortly. But Jeff
and both Jeff and Craig have both offered their respective services to help you put data together
because these guys are great on data. Craig Pardacouper is a genius, Christine.
Yeah, but Jeff's pretty, Jeff's excellent too. Thanks Charles.
Jeff and Craig have both made that offer. Okay. So if you've got a case, you need data or Christine,
you want to do a presentation. These guys, you really get your staff to talk to them. So hey,
how do we present the information so it has an impact? That's number one. Number two, what Jeff
reminds me talking about videos, we've all seen the promos on the real Anthony Fauci movie made by
Jeff Hayes. Please everybody, it is worth, particularly this group, I watched it on the
weekend. It is a wonderful review of how all this came about and it will take you right back tonight
to 2020. And it's important. It's only an hour and 40 minutes. It will help. It just reminds us
of the journey that we've been on. And it will remind you of information that you know, it'll
bring it to the forefront and go, gosh, that's true. And I urge all of us to watch that movie.
It doesn't matter. I think, I don't know, it's probably going to cost $20 after the free viewing
to buy a copy. Well worth buying a copy and sharing it. Which one is it, Charles? Which one
are you talking about? It's the movie called the real Anthony Fauci movie. Oh yes, okay, based on
the book. Yes, very good. Yeah, it's very, very good. And it reminded me how I'm so into this
stuff that I had forgotten. That's the value of watching this one and a half hour movie while
you're having a glass of wine, Christine, and all of us. Jeff, can I ask you, are you in touch
with Sasha Latopova? No. Oh, you should be because she's got a hispy in the pharmaceutical
industry too, but she's absolutely brilliant. She works with Craig Bartekuper who's on the call.
Okay. So if you email me, Jeff, I'll put you in touch with Sasha. Okay, thank you. All right.
Thank you. Thank you, Jeff. Anna, our favourite lawyer from the UK, Christine. You've met before.
Anna, you're muted.
Sorry, yeah, my favourite's playing up there. That's why I haven't got the
picture on. First of all, Christine, thank you. I echo others. You're my absolute heroine.
I admire your work so much and your tenacity and your strength and courage, and I truly
appreciate it. So thank you. But the next question is, going back to what you were saying about this
commission proposals about 2023 and the fact they're going to reintroduce lockdowns and masking and
social distancing and the fact that they want to, you know, get everybody injected. How many of
these people are qualified lawyers who are in these meetings? You mean the COVID committee right
now? Yeah. When they're coming up with proposals, how many of them are qualified lawyers sitting in
those meetings? That was not done in the committee. This is a proposal, I was talking about an action
plan that was put out by the EU commission. Right. So same question. How many qualified
lawyers are in these meetings? I don't know. I have no idea. One of the things I'm finding,
Christine, is this basically. I'm sure this is the same for most EU countries.
Nobody in the UK has been taught law for generations at school. When they go into their job,
they're taught minuscule amounts of bits of law here and there. And it seems to me that the average
person doesn't take it upon themselves to educate themselves about the law. So in other words,
you've got all these people meeting and coming up with all these proposals and policies absolutely
clueless about the governing law. And so when they're there saying, oh, you know, we've got to
mandate, you know, forcibly injecting everyone, essentially, they don't seem to understand that
that amounts to a prohibited act of unlawful warfare, which invokes the right to self-defense
using reasonable force under the warfare conventions. So essentially, it seems to me that
what you've got is a bunch of non-lawyers coming up with these things that actually is a declaration
of war, which the people are hearing loud and clear as such, those of us who are awake,
to the extent that they are talking about civil war. Because if you come for someone
with a weapon in your hand, be it an injection, a knife or anything else, you absolutely have the
right to fight back. And if they're talking about entering into people's homes to get them injected,
the number of people I've heard who have said, if anyone even thinks about coming into my home,
they will be taken out. They will be killed. Right. Right. Now social media is full of
images and guillotines, ropes, you know, people are baying for justice and baying for blood.
And I think, well, this is this all could be sorted. If you actually had a bunch of lawyers
who knew the actual law, discussing these ideas and proposals and saying to the politicians or
the public health officials, don't you even think about doing that? It's a complete breach of the
law. That's kind of like what didn't happen now, did it? They were just talking about it. And I
mean, I remember, you know, the media, they were full of what they threatened to do to unvaccinated
people. You will not get treated in hospital. We'll kick you out of the healthcare system.
So if you should catch COVID, then you have to pay, you know, for it by yourself. I mean,
these were all threats. And yes, there were some talk about, you know, then we will force vaccinate
people. Yeah, there should be house visits and all. It was talk. It was just, but that's-
Sorry, Christine, it wasn't. In this country, it happened. People did go into their homes and,
you know, inject the vulnerable. And, you know, under the Coronavirus Act,
schedule 21 of it, they have the right to come into your home and take samples from you and etc.
Now, that act is unlawful. It's ultra-violet. They don't have the power to follow through on it.
So in that sense, it's a threat, but they've reportedly made it into law. And the thing is
that this is what they're trying to do. These people who are complete non-lawyers, total disregard
and disrespect and ignorance of the law and making up all this stuff. And because everyone else is
also clueless and lawless, they're getting away with it. Yeah, I know. But for us lawyers on the
sidelines, it is infuriating because, Christine, I'll say this one more thing. I'm on a bit of a
rant, sorry, but I have not yet met a single lawyer or a single doctor or a single soldier
who has actually read any of the Nuremberg judgments. Not a single one. Now, I have,
I've studied them extensively. I gave a presentation to this group, I think it was last week,
on the medical cases judgment. Because as you may know, I'm an army officer as well. So I have a
duty to uphold the law of armed conflict and to make sure everyone else is doing so. But when you
read those judgments, they absolutely govern what's been going on. But unless you've read
those judgments, you wouldn't understand the law and ethics that applied then and continues to apply
now, but has just been expanded on. Yeah, so that's where I cannot understand how, you know,
we the citizens are being made to suffer because whoever are making these decisions aren't, in fact,
lawyers. Where are the lawyers? Who's advising Ursula van der Leyen when she says we're going
to mandate vaccines? Who's told her that it's okay to say that? But Anna, the lawyers have been
pathetic in the UK too, and all over Europe and all over the world. In fact, you are the exception.
Well, I'm, I, the point is, the point is Ursula van der Leyen, for example, must have a lawyer
who is advising her on some of her statements, surely. So before she went out and said-
The lawyers in the EU, I think I'm right in saying Christine, they are anonymous and they have the
right to be anonymous. I don't know, is that right? They certainly were with the Data Protection Act,
which was, what was that, 2018, that law. What was it called? The data protection.
They had to change the whole internet, because of it. So those lawyers who drafted those laws,
that law, or whatever it's called, they were protected, their anonymity was protected.
GDPR. GDPR, yes, thank you very much. 2018, yes.
So the point is, Christine, we don't know, in other words, we don't know who the lawyers are
that are advising the likes of Ursula or the EU Commission. No, no. How do we find out? How do I,
for example, as a UK lawyer, get to speak to one of those lawyers about what the hell's going on?
You know what, I don't think you would be able to get that information, because they're not acting
as lawyers per se, they're staff. Yeah. You know, they were hired in their capacity to know the law,
but they are not acting as lawyers, so I don't think you have any,
you wouldn't get that information. In-house lawyers, I think they are, and they're like the
government's legal department. They used to be. Yeah, exactly. But it is like, yeah,
they work there, they're staff, you know. Sure. Thank you, Christine. I'm afraid the longer I do
my due diligence on this, the more despair I have, because I've met so many people in their
business. Anna, why don't you connect up with Christine as well? Yeah. Yes, we'd love to. I'd
love to. Sure, because we've seen the same thing in Germany. You know, there were a couple of
lawsuits against the mask mandates and all of that, or when they tried to forbid protests and
all of this. I mean, the judges, they basically, they did not do their job. Yeah. They completely
screwed up the very foundation on which they should pass judgment on. It's like, you know,
now the sheer possibility of something or someone getting possibly infected is enough to shut down
an entire protest. Yeah. It's ridiculous. It is ridiculous, but it happens. But I will say this,
though, that I'm getting increasingly frustrated and annoyed with people when they sort of say,
oh, well, you know, everyone else should be sorting this out. When in fact, if everyone actually just
read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, they
actually read it, that none of this would be happening, because each citizen would be perfectly
capable of citing and upholding their human rights, rather than expecting one judge to make a decision,
which nobody reads anyway. Nobody reads the judgments. Yeah, but see what they're doing.
They're redefining everything. So, you know, fundamental rights are now privileges.
And people just- But they can't do that because each human rights-
No, of course they can do this. But each member state has actually given an
undertaking in those human rights instruments to promote respect and uphold. So they can't
derogate from those and then diminish it to a privilege. Who the hell do these people think
they are? I know, but once again, once you've told people often enough that it's the government
that decides what fundamental rights you can exercise at this moment, then-
No, that's not true, though. But that's not true, you see. But that's because they're ignorant of
the law. And this is one of the problems. You know, that people are telling each other all
these nonsense statements. Exactly. But the people started to believe it.
So now they're on the mindset is, well, if the government tells me I can't leave my house because
I'm a threat for public health, then yeah, they no longer consider leaving their house as their
fundamental right. That's the problem. Well, what I'm doing here, Christine, is I've been
helping people understand their fundamental rights. So I just gave a talk last day, which
I'll share with the group, where I go through the history of our rights here in the UK,
which was many jurisdictions derive their fundamental rights from our jurisdiction.
And people realize that you don't get a group of bureaucrats at one point in time,
you can give or take rights. I'm 100%.
So George Orwell was talking about words and that you can't have a conversation
if you haven't got the words to express the ideas. And exactly the same thing. I've just thought of
it now, actually, if you've got people who've got no idea what the law is, including the legislators,
then they have conversations which you might as well not have. And actually, you could argue,
make things 10 times worse with total confusion with everybody thinking that they can put forward
their point of view and nobody knows what the hell they're talking about. Exactly. Exactly.
Which is why I bang on about the law, because the law hasn't been written by any of us. It's
not our opinion. It says what it says. But if you haven't actually read what it actually says,
then everybody's just expressing an opinion. It's not what the law actually says.
Yeah. Even if you have read it, then arguably people wouldn't be able to remember 10% of what
they've read. Yeah. But the thing is that the human rights instruments are dead easy to read.
They're written in plain English. They're not in complicated legalese. They're in very short
paragraphs. Most people have got a printer or they can access a printer. So I've said to people,
look, print off the key relevant articles, right? And put them in your handbag or pocket and cite
them from that. You don't even have to remember them. You know, the Magna Carta, when it was first
published, had to be published everywhere, right? So that people could actually cite it. They
didn't have to remember it. Well, even better than that, Anna, we can buy you a
20 t-shirts, say, with those points on them and you can walk around London.
Yeah, that's another idea. Leaflets, leaflets with all the links.
Great. Yeah. All right. All right. On we go. Now, sometimes people make the comment,
well, you know, what are we achieving? Well, that's like saying to a soldier who shoots in a war in
World War II, one soldier shoots another and says, well, what did that achieve? You know, and so each
step that we take matters. That's the point. Each time Christine speaks, it matters. Each time Anna
speaks, it matters. And none of us know the precise impact of what each one of us is doing.
That's why we have to keep doing what we're doing. You just don't know. Yeah, absolutely.
All right. Maverick, who lives in Canada, who's gone back home to France and is in France today,
Christine? Mrs Anderson, everybody. Nice to see you all again. I arrived in one piece,
in case you were wondering. And my father is out of trouble for those who knew. Mrs Anderson,
I noticed you a couple of times now. I've seen footage of you over the internet and a couple of
other deputies. And I'm pretty, pretty proud of you to see that we actually have some people still
in the government that are able to put their integrity before their careers. And that means
a lot to me, including, if I can mention him, Christian Therese, who, by the way, is doing a
great job, as you do, of releasing videos in English. So I have three little questions,
which one you already answered partially. So I'm just going to go very quickly through with it.
I've noticed that down. So yeah, you've been from Germany, representing Germany.
Are you, you happen to be aware of any police investigation on Ursula von der Leyen and Albert
Buller by the, over there, it's called the Bundespolizei, which is federal police. And if so,
I mean, maybe, maybe you know about it. That was my first question.
No, I'm not aware of any investigation, investigation from the Bundespolizei on
von der Leyen and Buller. All I know is about the EU state district attorney. She, or they open an
investigation on von der Leyen on the EU commission. Thank you. My second point,
where at this point, where the damage is done already, pretty much all across the world,
if you had any wishes, any wish would be granted to you. What is it that you will be awaiting
from the people in Europe? From the people in Europe? Yeah, European population.
I would just wish they'd wake up and they would stop trusting their governments. And they would
pretty much become what I always thought to be, you know, what democratic or citizens
democracies do, question their government and be critical of things going around them and not just,
you know, I don't know, follow and do whatever they're told. And yeah, what I, I guess what I
hope most for is that people would not start ratting out their neighbors and pretty much denounce
them and yeah, check up on them. Because there is, you know, some deadly virus going around,
you aren't supposed to invite guests to your house and stuff like that. So yeah, basically pretty much
things that are going on and are known to dictatorships. I really wish people would stop
doing that. Okay. Thank you. And if I, if I may say the, unfortunately, the history of both of
our countries has left many marks as far as rattling people out in that regard. And that's
unfortunate. Our government, even when I was part of the forces, and I've seen it firsthand under
the uniform, we did a great job at keeping the population divided and telling on one another.
My last and third point, I've reached out personally a couple of times to Christian
Teres without success. I know he's very busy, so no hard feelings there. You can tell Maverick said
hi. You answered this question and this point partially because I already have your contact.
And I have a document here that may actually interest you. Christian Teres mentioned recently
that the agreements started in 2017 between Moderna, Therapeutics and I don't know if he was
talking about the European Commission or the US government. However, I have here a document,
which is a confidential disclosure agreement from 2015. Would you like to hear what it is about?
Yes. In five lines. Yeah. Confidentially information disclosed under this agreement
is described as for the NIAID, which is National Institutes of Allergy and Infection
Diseases or DISEs, depending on which side you're on. For the NIAIDs, proprietary information and
data relating to the development of vaccine for HIV, influenza, Ebola, MERS and development of
broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies for preventative and therapeutic use. I said neutralizing.
Collaborator Moderna's proprietary and confidential information related to design and manufacture of
a messenger RNA platform and messenger RNA construct for treatment and prevention of disease.
And this is not 2017. It is 2050. There's about 166 pages. It took me four hours during my flight
from Toronto to here France to read it. If you're interested, you're more than welcome to have it.
It fell off a truck somewhere. I fell off a truck somewhere. Oh gosh. I love documents falling off trucks.
Yeah. The last one that I may send you as well. I think you have it. It's also confidential.
It's cumulative analysis of post-authorization adverse event report of PF07302048 BNT, which is
Standforce BioNTech 162B2 received throughout February 2021. So the pages that everybody was
looking at on the internet with the nine pages a side effect, that's all nice and dandy.
I like to see the first part of the document, including their, what they call a conclusion,
which is nothing about a conclusion for me. So if you want that as well, which explains the nine
pages of, excuse me, bullshit that is at the end, you can have it as well. And I think you
should show this to Christian Therese because the last ones that he received were redacted.
I have them not redacted. Okay. Excellent. Yeah. If you could send them to me, that would be really
great. I don't know what's going on with Christian Therese. I've been trying to get a hold of him
since last night to trying to get him on here. But I phoned his staff and even they didn't know
where he was and how to reach him. So I don't know what's going on with him. But that's all good. I
consider that you represent him since you guys are on the same team. Right. Yeah. But yeah,
I really appreciate if you could send that to me. Thank you. Yes, I will. Definitely.
Thank you so much. Thank you, Christina. Great work Maverick. Thank you. Thank you. Wonderful.
All right. Craig Pardigupa. You muted Craig. Craig's in Africa somewhere. We don't know his
country. I'm in a good country at the moment. Is Tanzania. Very good.
It was mentioned a bit earlier about Israel, the studies coming out of Israel regarding the
commission that was set up by the Israeli government to investigate the side effects
of the vaccines. And they found that 50% of the reported side effects lasted longer than six months.
So that means that the side effects were surprisingly persistent, which means in a takeaway
for the public that when people consider the vaccine, they've been told that they only last
maybe a few days. And they're not told that a large percentage of the side effects last more
than six months, which would obviously lead to people choosing not to have the vaccines,
because they'd realize that they would lose their job if you're sick for six months.
And no, there's no employer that could tolerate that because it would destroy their business.
So by emphasizing it's a new angle, because everyone's heard of side effects, but people are
just unaware of how long they last. So effectively, by pushing the persistence of adverse effects,
it would be a really good sound bite to give the message to people that taking the vaccine is not
a way to keep your job. It's a way to lose your job. It's not a case of no jab, no job. It's a
case of jab, no job. So I think it's a really interesting thing. And I've put a link in the
chat to the study, which I summarized in a PDF. So it's very bullet pointed, so you'd find it
easy to consume. And that was for Israel. You may not be aware of the...
I did a similar report for Belgium. Belgium, it's really interesting, the adverse effects in Belgium.
A huge percentage of the reports are disabilities. Comparing it to the UK, for example,
in the UK, 21% of the reports resulted in a disability. Whereas in Belgium,
93%, it was like an extreme number of disabilities in one country.
And it could again be used as a way of waking people up. So I can send you a link on that too.
So just so you know, Christine, Craig founded the famous website, How Bad Is My Batch?
So he's been looking at batches all over the world. And from his findings, we learned months ago
that there was... I think Ryan Offormik still holds up view that there's... and
Mike Eden, do they still hold up view, Craig, that you had proved intent to commit
crime? Well, intent to commit was fairly obvious since about February, because
the information about adverse effects was pretty obvious. I think by February,
more than a thousand people had died. And there were something like 42,000
adverse effects. And they knew that the vaccines were bad then, but they still didn't stop.
So then after that point, they knew. And anything after that was intentional.
Yeah, I mean, the batches do vary in toxicity.
The other thing I'd like to mention,
I would like to ask you, Christine, if people are waking up more in Europe.
In England, we have 50% of the population now rejecting the third vaccine, the third dose.
I think it was something like 70% took the first and second doses, but it's gone down another 20%.
So it's 50% now. So it's a 50-50 split in the population. And would you say that applies
through Europe? For Europe, I can't say. For Germany, I can say, though. In Germany,
there is... out of 83 million, there is still 18 million people completely unvaccinated.
And from all I can say, they will remain unvaccinated.
And yes, the uptake of now we're up to the fourth booster, I think,
that had dropped dramatically. At the third, that was still way up there in the 60s, I would say,
60%, a little more maybe. The fourth booster, now people were not taking it. It dropped like
way to 30% maybe. And now they're talking about a fifth one. And well, there is a
small percentage, they still believe in the whole shebang and they will get the sixth and the seventh.
They get the hundredth booster they have already. But no, the uptake here is very limited to now.
Now the uptake here is very limited to now. And I basically see the same thing happening
as you did in England. Thank you. Can I just... if Anna de Bruyce is still online, I'd just like to say
that regarding the need to educate about the law, which would produce greater
give people greater confidence in standing up for themselves, I would like to create...
to put the laws onto my website in a clear and distinct format so people can know what the laws
are. And currently, I get about 100,000 visitors a day. So that means that the laws will be
more well known, which would then strengthen people's ability to resist the infringement of
their rights. So I'll be happy to work with Anna de Bruyce to do that. And it would be like a
large section on the website devoted to clearly and distinctly laying out the principles of law
so that people can claim those rights and know how to act on them. Because one of the things
Anna was saying was that people just cave in and submit to whatever the government mandates based
on authority. But when they know the law, they'll no longer need authority because they'll be experts
in their own rights. And also the idea that people are intimidated by force. And when they see loads
of police charging into protests, they think that that is an exercise of law. But in fact,
being arrested, once you end up in a court of law, I would imagine that you'd have quite strong
a case to just have your cause, have the charges dismissed if you, for example,
had your right, knew your rights. So I think basically the real arena of the law is the court
rather than the street. And whilst the police might try to enforce the law, the most they can do is
put you into court when you'd win. So I think it's like a really good thing. I'd like to work with
Anna to do that because I think the laws can be made really crystal clear. It can be simplified
and made so clear and powerful. I think that's what I'd like to do. One of those that.
Well, I'd love to do that with Craig. And that's music to my ears. And thank you so much because
I've been deplatformed. And so, you know, I've only got a few thousand followers on my telegram
channel now because I've had to come off Twitter and Facebook, et cetera. And so, yes, as much
exposure as possible, because, you know, when I do teach people the laws in these sort of conferences
and workshops and stuff, I literally see them grow in front of me, you know, in confidence and
height and demeanor. And they say it's so empowering and has been incredibly helpful. You know,
I've had phone calls from people in the Caribbean, for example, who have said they couldn't access a
lawyer, but they use my material to win their employment battles. So, you know, if my hope is
to make the law as accessible for everyone as possible, because the vast majority of people
can't afford to pay a lawyer to explain the law to them. So it's an access to justice issue.
And it's in all our interests that, you know, as many of us as possible know how to uphold the law.
So we minimize the harm that we're causing to each other. Wonderful. Wonderful. Craig,
can you put your website? Can I just comment on that? Because I just thought of something,
you know, when you're speaking about the law, we had this happening in Germany
during various protests. And the people, they were literally not doing anything but standing there
and holding a copy of the German Kundgesetz, the German Constitution. That's all they were doing.
But you know what happened? They got arrested by the police.
Because the police aren't lawyers either.
I know. But the point is, that's what the people see. And that's intimidation, pure intimidation.
It is not about the law at this point. It is intimidation. It is showing the masses,
oh, if you stand there and you flash your Kundgesetz in my face, that's what's going to
happen to you. And the next time around, you know, it's going to be only what, not five people,
only two standing there with the Constitution, but thousands of people see it yet again. And these
pictures are being flashed all over the news. And you know, the next time there isn't going to be
10,000s of people protesting, it's only going to be five and then it's going to be 2000. And that's
how they do this. So I fully appreciate, you know, yes, we do have to educate people on the law.
But as long as we do not find any mechanism to break the official narrative, and yeah,
break the cycle of intimidation, which is really totalitarian, what they're doing,
we won't stand a chance. I agree. But what Craig was just saying, I think it was Craig,
about the fact that, you know, so you get arrested, you get intimidated, you get arrested,
you get roughed up a bit, and ultimately you end up in court winning. So what have the police
officers done, right? So people need to put on their big man pants and realise that, you know,
these people in uniform acting as the bullies in the playground, that's all they are. That's all
they are. They're not going to go around killing everyone. They're not even going to go around
seriously beating up everyone. So all they're going to do is shout and get in your face and
maybe rough handle you. I mean, is that really the worst? Is that the worst? And if that is the worst,
then really can't people stand up to that? And I think, you know, what we've done in the UK is we
veterans have gone out to the local communities and we've supported them in going to confront the
police and going to the hospitals and going etc. to show the civilians how you hold the line against
an armed person, but don't get stood down. And if that means being arrested, then fine,
go through the process. Once you're in the court, once you're in the police cells,
you can chew their ears off. And what we found was that the vets who were brave enough to go through
that whole process had an amazing time in the police station, because a lot of the people were
saying, you know, well done, and you know, we need more of you to sign up. And we're in a difficult
position because unless more of you stand up, you know, there's not a lot we can do. Right?
Right. I totally agree. Like I said, the point is just, you know, you will always only have
a very small minority of people that will stand up no matter what. And even if they get arrested,
you know, I'm kind of like that. So what let them? But the vast majority, however, unfortunately,
they just want to get by somehow. And they don't realize. I agree. I agree. But also the feedback
I get is that a lot of people want to do more, but they don't know how. They're avidly watching the
people who are on the front line doing these things. And then they're getting the courage up
and the protocols and the templates, get a gang together and they do it as well. So it's a ripple
effect. Right. So we don't need everybody. We only need a core group of people to show how everyone
else how to do it, how to stay calm, which I can't always do, I have to confess. But you know, how
to cite the law correctly, how to stand your ground if they do put you in a police wagon,
how to make the most of being then able to chew the ears off of the police and get as many of them
onside, etc. So you see it as a great big game of chess, and it's no longer something to be scared
of. Yeah, that's how we need to get people to think, I think, personally. Yeah, I totally agree
with you on that. When I look at the situation in law, I can see that obviously there's employment
rights which are being infringed. There are doctors rules and regulations such as do no harm to being
infringed. Probably also there's quite a few doctors regulations that are being infringed.
There's GDPR being infringed because people's, you know, they're bio biometrically taking people's
details and putting them into databases so that they can control payments. And the civil rights
being infringed. There's so many. It's interesting that on each of these levels, Anna, we could
formulate an approach which would then be be a tool for people to use in different situations,
like whether it's GDPR, employment, dealing with doctors who want to vaccinate you,
you know, children's rights. Each of these things is like has a body of simple principles associated
with it and giving people those tools would make them very much stronger in each of those situations.
Exactly my aim. And what I've done, sorry to interject because I'm getting really excited
at your enthusiasm and your willingness to collaborate, is that I've done what I've called
the applicable legal framework to the COVID-19 pandemic for want of a better title. And essentially
I've set out obviously its UK perspective. So, you know, that we'd have to get a team of international
lawyers to put together their country's stuff. But, you know, from the UK's perspective, currently
it runs to about 400 pages thus far. And it sets out all the laws that I've been able to identify
covering exactly all those different areas. Right. Now the idea of that document, whilst it's vast,
is that people can cherry pick the bits of law out of that that apply to their situation.
So it's a compendium, if you like. It needs more work and an index and, you know, links, etc. So
I'd be very grateful for some help on it because I've been trying to find people who can help on it.
But I've also, I'm in the middle of drafting because we hope to present it to the police this
weekend, a formal request for an investigation into the crimes that I'm alleging. Now the war
crimes team of the Metropolitan Police, the SO15 team, should be investigating these crimes, right,
because they include genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity. But I've listed around 35 crimes
and breaches of human rights violations. And what I've done is I've made the allegation of,
you know, which crime it is. So conspiracy to commit murder, for example, gross negligence,
manslaughter. Then I've cited the governing statute. I'm also doing the case law and any common law
that applies and any international law that applies. Again, so that anyone could take that
to their local police or to, you know, whoever with the right law being cited. Because when you
watch so many people going into the police station, onto the vaccine clinics, it's so frustrating
because you've got people, you know, the truth is, citing the law incorrectly and, you know,
halfheartedly and unable to follow through with proper submissions. And then you've got these
police who I now know only spend 16 weeks at policing college and goodness knows how little
of that is devoted to the law, also arguing points of law that they are also clearly clueless about.
And of course, the public are watching that thinking, well, some of these people must be
citing the law correctly. And none of them are. And so everyone's absolutely hopelessly clueless
about what really is going on with the law. And that includes the police and the military as well,
and the air force, because these people are being literally ordered to take vaccines which are
crippling them. And if we can bring the military and the other forces onto our side by protecting
them through giving them the principles of law, which actually defend them, then we've all,
we'll win their hearts and they will defend us when the time comes instead of trampling us.
So I think it's really important to give all these groups, especially in a sense,
the military and the police and the air force, the actual real laws to defend them.
Yeah, exactly that. And I'm working with a great team of veterans. And in fact,
last night at one o'clock in the morning, we were finalizing our conversation about next steps,
which was precisely that, that, you know, as a team of veterans who are recognizing these acts
as prohibited acts of unlawful warfare, we have a duty to uphold the law of warfare.
And so we must, you know, collaborate. We've been collaborating, obviously, all this time,
but, you know, people are finally now really wanting to do something because their loved
ones being affected, you know, it's been a lot of talk and not enough action.
They're all stuck in a cult. That's why.
Well, most of these people are retired and thankfully they're senior,
you know, so these are people in their 50s.
They're in a cult too.
No, no, no. But I mean, they've left the military for some of them for quite some time,
some of them for most of their lives, you know, they were in it when they were much younger.
So they've been a lot of them are being out for quite a long time.
All right, we're gonna move on. We've got only 15, 17 minutes. Craig, can you put your website,
please? Anna and Craig will liaise, Craig, your website so that we can all get the benefit of
sharing that as well. And well done.
Well done, Anna and Craig. I'll pass the email to Christine.
Excellent. Well done, Anna and Craig. James, and then Janet.
I'll be as brief as I can. When I raised my hand, I was going to ask a question or say some stuff
about the previous topic. But since Craig and Anna had that conversation, I just put all my
information again in the chat. Please reach out to me. Absolutely want to work with you on that,
as well as taking back the language. So thanks for that conversation. Please get in touch with me.
Christine, the news coming out of Europe for the last maybe two weeks or however long it's been
about this whole thing with Pfizer, and oh my goodness, you know, transmission and all that.
Probably many of the people here are already going to know what I'm about to say, but I'm
going to try to condense it so that it is something that the average person could repeat.
Anybody who actually read the publicly available Pfizer clinical trial documents
that were used by the FDA would have known in December of 2020 that the clinical trial
endpoints did not study death, did not study severe disease, did not study hospitalization,
did not study transmission. Anybody who spoke of those things afterwards was committing fraud.
The study didn't study those things, and that's not like FOIA requested document. This is publicly
available stuff that the FDA abused to approve things. The thing that everybody really seems to
just skip over is that the endpoints that they did study were simply diagnosis of COVID, which was an
abomination to begin with. It was a positive PCR test with no defined cycle threshold and no recorded
threshold, along with one other symptom, a cough, a fever, what have you. The key thing that
everybody just, you know, many people here probably know, but nobody's talking about, is the fraud was
self-evident in that if in the United States, if you got a jab and then you waited 30 days,
got a second jab and waited 13 days or 14 days, when they cut the line, if anything bad happened
to those people, they were counted in the unvaccinated category. That's just blatant fraud
on its face. The fact that the FDA approved that fraud, and it's been so maddening now,
oh my God, nobody knew. Everyone knew. I know. The fraud is prima facie. All you had to do is
look at the study. Yeah, they never claimed to reduce death, to reduce hospitalization,
to reduce transmission. And yeah, some of the Pfizer people mistakenly got into the media
and said those things. Okay. They said what they said in the study, and the FDA approved it
fraudulently. And then everybody in the media said whatever it is they said with absolutely no
scientific back. Yeah, I know all of that. And we knew all of that. The ones that from the
very beginning, if you will, started questioning the whole narrative. So yeah, I knew this vaccine
isn't going to stop transmission. This vaccine isn't going to stop you getting infected. I knew
all of that. The point is- They make it sound like Pfizer revealed something last week or two weeks
ago or whatever. Yeah, exactly. That's what I was just trying to get at. You just had eyes to see and
ears to hear. Right. No, the thing is, we knew that. Anyway, so that's all I really wanted to
say. Yeah, no, we knew that. But we had no way of getting it out to the people. I mean, we talked
about it for a long time. People would not listen to it. It was fake news, and we were killing people
by spreading this information. So we were not getting through. And the point is, we now had a
representative of Pfizer, and she in committee said, no, we never even tested that. So that is
getting through to people finally, because here is someone from Pfizer. It's not these nerds. It's
not these Nazis like me spreading fake news. Representative of Pfizer, and she answered the
question in such a way. That actually, we were capable of transporting to the people. And that
created huge shockwaves throughout the world. I don't know why they would not have listened to us
before. We had all the documentation. We had all the information. We knew all of that. We knew they
committed fraud the entire time. But once again, people would not listen to us. It's as simple as
that. And that's what I meant. And that's why stress, it's so important. We need to get through
to people. If one's public opinion starts shifting, then it's a whole other ballgame. But as long as
they control the narrative, and as long as they are capable of shutting you down, deplatforming
you, deleting your videos, doing whatever, for as long, they will have the upper hand. So you need
something which seems to be completely insignificant, as far as we are concerned,
because we knew all along. But we knew she said that I was am nailed it. I knew this was gonna
break it. That's the next nail in the coffin. You know, it's kind of like it's difficult.
And she laughed at the same time, Christine. She laughed at the same time.
Say again? She laughed at the same time. Yeah, I know. But you know, we didn't know that. No,
or whatever she said. Yes. Yeah, yeah. It's a no. Yeah, some really, but we knew I mean, she said,
I saw her. And I was like, damn, that was it. And we're gonna make something out of that one.
So, you know, that's kind of like the work we kind of have to do. You know, to pull it, it's like
picking their noses for, you know, a shred of information. But once we do get some, and she may
not even realize what you were saying at that point, to be quite honest. But I knew that that's it.
That is gonna gonna, you know, change the entire narrative now. And it did. It did.
Yeah, but it frustrated. I get that. And we're moving at the speed of science, aren't we?
No. What is that even the speed of science? Speed of light. I think. I know the speed of light. I know that.
186,000 miles a second. It's ridiculous. It's just crazy.
Yeah. All right. So, Janet, Janet, then Rh, who I presume is Russ, but Janet, you next,
Rh, then Stephen for final questions. I will give you a fair warning. I will leave at 11.30.
Well, it's gonna be. Yeah, we're finishing at 11.30. Yes. So go Janet. Great.
It's a very quick question for Anna, please. I think you said that in a war setting,
there was a right to self-defense. Now, here in Wales in the UK, the local police have been telling
people that there is no longer a right to self-defense in UK law. And I was wondering
if that is correct. Oh, the police love to make up whatever comes into their head.
That's absolute nonsense. So people have a right to self-defense in any situation.
Okay. In a war situation, right? It's a fundamental human right to protect yourself
from someone trying to hurt you. Right. Thank you. That clarifies. So what the law says is that you
can use a reasonable force to defend yourself. So if someone comes at you with a fist, you're
entitled to use your fist back at them. If they've got a knife, you're entitled to pick up a knife.
If they come at you with a fist, you can't pick up a knife. Right. But you have absolute right to
self-defense. And for the police to say that is absolute nonsense. And of course, you know,
they've seen people turning up and saying, we're going to arrest you. And I think they're beginning
to panic because, you know, the fact is there's more and more people realize that these are
bioweapons being deployed against them. You know, those are weapons being deployed. So they've got
the right to pick up a weapon. Yes. Do you have the right to self-defense if a police officer
attacks you without provocation? Absolutely, you do. And I've ended up in a fight with a policeman.
I can't remember who threw the first punch, but the two of us ended up on the floor fighting and
he called in three vans for backup. And absolutely. I know you should have called in the army.
I was the army. But it was one on one, right. And I, you know, he and I said to him, I absolutely
have the right to self-defense. But you know, the fact is he was bigger than me. And so he won.
But you know, you have the right to defend yourself if someone attacks you. It doesn't
matter who they are. Thank you. That's great. Thank you.
Thanks. Thanks, Janet. Russ from Canada.
Yes. Hi there. Thanks, Charles. And thank you, Christine, for raising awareness. Your
efforts have been extremely effective in breaking through the mainstream narrative. And for that,
I congratulate you. As some background, I spent 12 years in the Canadian Parliament and I've been
to the European Parliament a number of times. I just have some questions related to the process
that you used to set up this committee. Is it a standing committee or an ad hoc committee would
be my first question. The COVID committee is a special committee.
Okay. And is it, is there all party representation or is it just the members that we see at the news
conferences? No, it's an all party representation. It's by the groups, you know, the de Hont
procedure. So my group has three regular seats and we have three substitute seats. And ECR,
that would be where Christine Cherhasch is in and Rob Ross. They also have, I think, three regular
seats and three substitute seats. But we all decided we are all going to be there. So all six
of us are generally there. So, and yeah. But it's all our party representation. Yes.
Okay. And what reaction have you received from your colleagues, the other MEPs, as you've gone
down this path? I would imagine initially there was probably a lot of skepticism, but do you see
them persuaded or supporting your calls for action? Okay, I kind of want to split that up
between the reactions from members of my group, respectively my party. Within my party, there was
not an issue with that at all. They kind of saw it like that. They just thought I went a little
overboard with some of my statements. But now they've come to realize it was exactly the
right thing for me to do. And as you mentioned, I was capable of breaking our bubble, if you will.
I reached people that we would have never thought of reaching with those kind of messages.
So in my group, there is a few people, especially Italians. They had this nasty
Bergamo thing, which by the way, I will be going next week. So they were kind of hesitant. Well,
COVID is really bad and it's a terrible virus and we need to constrain it and we need to do
whatever we can. But in the other groups, especially the left and the green,
initially, they hate me anyway because I'm so outspoken and I usually trash their sick ideologies.
So they just looked at me the way they always did and now it was even worse because I was
somewhat making way and being successful. So they hated that even more. But it started,
like I said, shifting. And as I said earlier, in the beginning, it was really just staffed
in the building that saluted us and applauded us and were basically with us. But it's starting
to shift. Like I said, when I go through the building right now, there is a lot of MEPs from
other groups that don't particularly like me, but they respect me for what I've done.
And they kind of realize, maybe it's because they realized they would have never had the guts
to do that, just stand up and basically risk everything, being even ostracized in parliament.
So yes, I think it's a mixture of respect that I did do that. And now, of course,
I come to realize that, yeah, well, she kind of was right after all. So, oh well, we kind of
have to see how we get on her side or at least let her know that she wasn't completely wrong with that.
Where can you take it from here? Is there an opportunity to bring about legislative change?
Do you feel that you're approaching a majority in the chamber?
That's completely out of the question. Because, I mean, if you look at the House, there are 705
MEPs. And if things are going really well for us, really well, we have 120 votes in the House.
So on that particular issue now with COVID, depending on what is regarding, maybe with
the contracts, if there was ever a vote or something like that, we might reach possibly
180, maybe 200. That's it. Because then all the other MEPs, they want to be reelected,
and they will not upset their party lines, and they will not upset their groups. So they would
never vote against whatever Ursula von der Leyen said, or you know what I'm saying?
The party discipline takes over once again. So if I really had to put a number on it,
I would say 200 max. So there is no legislation. I mean, the new Parliament doesn't even have the
competence to propose legislation. Remember, we're the castrated circus here.
Right. So really, the best you can do is to use this to amplify the message, to communicate broadly,
and try to persuade as many. But there will be no legislative or even...
No, no. So what we can do is, like you said, raise awareness, wake people up, and hopefully
that will have enough effects into the member states, especially the ones that are critical
of government to begin with, like the Eastern European countries. They're generally more
skeptical of governments. So the effects will have to unfold there. That's pretty much the only thing
we can do. And of course, what we also do is we disturb their circles. They want to live in this
brilliant bubble here, champagne and whatever sandwiches. They don't like being disturbed,
and they don't like being exposed. And that's what we do. And what we will also push for is,
I mean, I keep telling people they should look at who voted for what in this place, especially when
it came to COVID and the digital green certificate, the COVID certificate, and all of that. They should
take note of who voted for that crap. And they should never ever vote for any MEP that was in
support of that ever again. So we're trying to build up pressure on the MEPs to stay within
their party lines, to increase the pressure on them. And if they don't change their position
because of conviction, well, at least let them do it. So they are in fear of being reelected.
Thank you so much for taking the time for this group and answering all these questions. I came
late, so hopefully it'll be recorded and I'll be able to catch the first part. I did send a private
message if you'd like to continue this conversation offline. We're hoping to do something similar.
Russ, if you'd like to be putting contact with Christine, just email me and I'll pass it on.
Okay, before I forget, could either Steve, could you copy the content of the chat and send it to me?
Because for some reason, I mean, this seems to be a wrapping device.
You can't save it on a tablet. That's good. All right, just quickly.
Christine, there'll be a video and maybe you'd like to submit the video to, I'm not sure what
I think of this guy, but he's got a massive audience on YouTube. So the events in European
Parliament, he did a, so John Campbell, his name is, he's a nurse. He called himself a doctor.
He is a doctor. I think he's a PhD. And a lot of people think he's a doctor. But anyway, so he's
kind of, he was promoting the vaccine and then he changed and the, you know,
he's trying to stay on YouTube. So it's very difficult to know where he is,
but he's got a massive audience. And so within three days of those,
him doing his, there were a million views and it was all about Christian Therese and you and
Ivan Sincic and more. So yeah, so there'll be a video of this and we need to
get the video of this to him because hopefully he'll do another video, which will attract another
couple of million this time, maybe. Oh, 31,000 comments on YouTube about this video.
Okay. And you need to read them because you know, some people on here are very
exercised by what's going on. But if you read those comments, you'll see 31,000 in three days.
Say the name again. It's John Campbell, Dr. John Campbell. As I say, I'm not sure what his position
is. Okay. But anyway, people seem to like him and now he's publishing what you've been doing in
European Parliament. Excellent. Yeah. Okay. So quickly, because we're tight. Thank you, Russ.
We'll get the chat to you and chat to Christine Craig quick because we've got to go.
Craig, you're muted, I think. Just want to say, I really love your idea of who voted for this crap
because basically that exposes the politicians who are making bad political voting. And by
threatening their voters base because they realize that by being exposed in that way,
people won't vote for them. So I think it's a brilliant idea to have a database or something
whereby people can see who voted for what crap, basically. And then they can, people can say,
my God, they voted for that. They're obviously useless. It's brilliant idea. I don't know how
legal it is for me to do it with GDPR, but I think it's really worth looking into to try and...
The voting records are open. So you're able to retrieve them from the EU Parliament. I know
they put it out. If you drop me a note, I'll get some of my assistants to assist you with that,
to find that. But that's public record. You can retrieve that. That's no problem at all.
I think I'm a great believer in exposing individuals in this thing, because most of
the bad actors are hiding behind labels and literally hiding behind masks. So it's kind of
it when you take away the mask, they didn't, they just, they just freak and it's like brilliant
strategy. Yeah. So great. Yeah, definitely. Are you going to... And the other thing, and so Christine's
staff will help you on that. The other thing to note, there may well be somebody who has already
done that work. If you have a search of someone might, amongst this group, might know that there
have been people who have been analysing who's voting for what. So maybe that work's already
been done. Christine, I've got three quick questions, Charles, very quickly. Christine,
would you like to give evidence to the UK inquiry into how the COVID-19 pandemic was handled by the
British government? Do I need evidence for that? I don't think so. You're a legislator in the EU
Parliament. I think, you know, you can give evidence to the British inquiry. So I don't know how it
works, but presumably you could, I could suggest that you give evidence. If you're prepared to do
it, that would be. But yeah, you know what? Why don't you... We should talk about this. Why don't
you call me? Yeah. So the EU investigation into Von der Leyen, the way the contract... I wanted to
ask you, do you normally see the contracts with big contracts that are awarded by the European
Parliament? This, by the way, was the biggest contract ever awarded by the EU, I think. Yeah,
might very well have been. Usually it's, yes, we are allowed to look at the contracts.
There are some portions redacted, of course. Okay. But that's, you know, minor parts and
really not crucial parts. But in these contracts, I mean, pretty much everything is redacted.
Exactly. Has that ever happened before with any contract? Not that I know of. It just so happened
it was the biggest contract ever. Exactly. I mean, they didn't as much as redacted the page
numbers. So you would not be able, you know, to see, oh, there's a page missing or, you know,
whatever. Or is it even all pages? I mean, seriously, yeah, they meant business this time
in redacting. Yes. And one last question. Do you have any idea, it doesn't matter if you don't know,
but do you have any idea how many deaths, in my opinion, that have been worldwide
due to these shots? How many deaths? Yeah. I'm sorry, didn't get that. Yes, yes, due to these shots.
So this is my- Due to these shots. I think you asked me that before, and I grossly underestimate
it because I cannot, I cannot, for the life of it, cannot come up with reasonable numbers
when it comes to estimates. I think you told me it was like, what, 20 million, something like that?
It is 20 million, yeah. Yeah. Oh. And that's arrived up with the 75,000 for the four, sorry,
three jurisdictions, Europe, USA, UK, combined population of 750 million.
Oh, sorry, 800 million. And the population of the world is eight, approximately eight billion,
called it. Right. So if we say that half of those eight billion got vaccinated, that's four billion.
And we're talking about, so, and it's 75,000 times. We think it's 1% that have been reported. It was
said to be one to 10%, but now people are kind of getting that down to 1%. And those are only the
short-term deaths, by the way, 20 million short-term deaths. We have no idea medium term or long term.
And all the people who will die younger than they would have done, have they not been shot. Yeah.
Yeah, that's true. Brain injury and heart injury. All right. Come on, Stephen, you'll keep talking
if I let you keep talking. Well, I think that's a pretty important point, Charles. We need to have
some idea. They're all, Christine's got the number, 20 million. And one of my friends has suddenly
developed cancer, of course, but he got jabbed for convenience. So we're all going to get these
turbo cancer experiences, aren't we? So, so that's another medium term deaths. Well,
okay. There'd be some short-term death. Most of them, there may be some long-term deaths, of course.
Yeah. But the plausible possibility, the longer the interval between the injection and their death.
Yeah. All right. Well, it's 11, it's 1140 for Christine. She has to go to bed. You have to go
to bed. Everybody has to go to bed. Yeah. Five o'clock tomorrow morning. Oh, yes. Sorry to hear
that. All right. Thank you, Christine. Everybody. Big round of applause for Christine. Great work.
Christine. Thank you again. Thank you so much for having me. Give them a hard time in Brussels.
Oh, I always do. You know that. With our love. With our love. That's right. Thank you so much,
guys. You have a good one. Bye. Thanks. Bye. Thank you. Bye. Bye. Thank you so much.
All right, everybody. That's it. Sunday. We've got Bishop Vagano, correct? Archbishop. Archbishop.
Yes, archbishop. So questions, please send them to me or to Steve. If you send them to me, then I can
coordinate them and send them off to the archbishop. Some, some, we've already got about 10 questions,
Stephen. So please, what would you and the archbishop wants written questions so that he knows what he's
going to be addressing everybody. So send the questions and we will forward them to the archbishop
before he addresses us. Thank you for being here. Thank you for the wonderful chat. Stephen, I will
send you the chat. Jeremy Forbes does a good job editing the chats as well. Thank you, Jeremy,
for that. Thank you for all of your suggestions and comments. And Daria, yes, people keep figuring
out we've got about another two days before we have to send the questions. So there's a bit of
time to do your thinking about the best questions. Stephen, again, well done for organizing this group.
Well done for starting this group when you did. And on we go, everybody. And there's no time for
despair. We don't despair. We fight the fight. Have a wonderful Tuesday night and Wednesday.
And I look forward to being with you. We all look forward to being with you all again on Sunday or
Monday morning for we poor people in Australia. Excellent, Charles. Thank you for getting up so
early. Yes, Charles. Twice a week. Consistently for a year, Charles. Very good.
Yeah, it's been a big journey. And as Daria says, surrender is not an option. And the sword of truth
is available for us, but we have to wield it. So don't just look at it, but wield it. Thanks, everybody.
Bye. Thank you. Bye.