1
0:00:00 --> 0:00:05
I actually, yeah, I got to admit I thought it was great.

2
0:00:06 --> 0:00:07
Richie Allen.

3
0:00:09 --> 0:00:10
So just put.

4
0:00:12 --> 0:00:14
I'm the only one that thought it was great, but.

5
0:00:17 --> 0:00:20
Well, thank you for that.

6
0:00:23 --> 0:00:25
So David Martin, welcome.

7
0:00:25 --> 0:00:27
Thank you for being available.

8
0:00:27 --> 0:00:29
And there are lots of people who think you're great.

9
0:00:30 --> 0:00:34
So there are lots of people who missed you last week

10
0:00:34 --> 0:00:38
and they're so pleased that you're here with us today.

11
0:00:38 --> 0:00:41
So is there, Stephen Frost, good morning, good evening.

12
0:00:43 --> 0:00:44
I'm here in Melbourne.

13
0:00:44 --> 0:00:47
So let's get, David, you ready to go?

14
0:00:47 --> 0:00:49
I am indeed.

15
0:00:49 --> 0:00:52
I appreciate everybody's accommodation from last week.

16
0:00:52 --> 0:00:57
I had the misfortune of a very close business associate

17
0:00:57 --> 0:01:02
whose wife and two young children were in a car accident

18
0:01:02 --> 0:01:05
45 minutes before I was supposed to get on this call.

19
0:01:05 --> 0:01:09
And that had a way of disrupting the flow of the day.

20
0:01:09 --> 0:01:11
So thank you for accommodating.

21
0:01:11 --> 0:01:12
They're all fine.

22
0:01:12 --> 0:01:16
The car is not, and I'm no worse for wear.

23
0:01:16 --> 0:01:18
So here we are again.

24
0:01:18 --> 0:01:20
Wonderful, David.

25
0:01:20 --> 0:01:22
And Rose points out to me, Jim,

26
0:01:22 --> 0:01:27
if you could make that statement again on SIDS, please,

27
0:01:27 --> 0:01:29
because we didn't catch it on the recording.

28
0:01:29 --> 0:01:30
And it's a crucially important statement.

29
0:01:30 --> 0:01:34
And I kid you not, I have friends whose marriages broke up,

30
0:01:34 --> 0:01:38
Jim, on that point where the husband blames the wife

31
0:01:38 --> 0:01:40
for killing their baby.

32
0:01:40 --> 0:01:42
And they never got over it.

33
0:01:42 --> 0:01:45
So could you repeat that statement again?

34
0:01:45 --> 0:01:46
Sure.

35
0:01:46 --> 0:01:47
And welcome, David.

36
0:01:47 --> 0:01:49
It's good to be with you also.

37
0:01:49 --> 0:01:50
Indeed.

38
0:01:50 --> 0:01:53
So this is a whistleblower,

39
0:01:53 --> 0:01:58
a major police woman in a major US city

40
0:01:59 --> 0:02:01
who will remain anonymous.

41
0:02:01 --> 0:02:04
And she's investigated over 250 cases

42
0:02:04 --> 0:02:07
of sudden infant death syndrome.

43
0:02:07 --> 0:02:09
As you know, those occur typically

44
0:02:09 --> 0:02:11
in the first year of life.

45
0:02:13 --> 0:02:16
Typically, they peak at, I don't know,

46
0:02:16 --> 0:02:18
around four months of life.

47
0:02:19 --> 0:02:24
But this lady has proof that of the 250 cases,

48
0:02:25 --> 0:02:30
that 50% of the deaths occurred within 48 hours of a vaccine.

49
0:02:33 --> 0:02:37
And 80% of the deaths occurred

50
0:02:37 --> 0:02:40
within seven days of the vaccine.

51
0:02:40 --> 0:02:44
By the way, almost identical to the numbers

52
0:02:44 --> 0:02:49
that Peter McCullough and other experts rattle off

53
0:02:49 --> 0:02:54
about deaths after COVID vaccines, SIDS and SADs,

54
0:02:54 --> 0:02:58
sudden adult death syndrome, exact same numbers.

55
0:02:59 --> 0:03:03
What was more upsetting to me is the whistleblower

56
0:03:04 --> 0:03:07
has a pediatrician on her wavelength.

57
0:03:07 --> 0:03:09
They're not willing to come out.

58
0:03:09 --> 0:03:12
That says the American Academy of Pediatrics

59
0:03:12 --> 0:03:16
has instructed all the pediatricians nationally

60
0:03:16 --> 0:03:21
on how to point the finger and gaslight parents

61
0:03:22 --> 0:03:27
who complain of any complications from the vaccine,

62
0:03:28 --> 0:03:31
accusing them of shaken baby syndrome

63
0:03:31 --> 0:03:35
or rattling their baby or getting the state

64
0:03:37 --> 0:03:41
family services involved with investigating them.

65
0:03:41 --> 0:03:43
Apparently, that's their tactic.

66
0:03:43 --> 0:03:44
Wow.

67
0:03:44 --> 0:03:46
Thank you, Jim, for sharing that.

68
0:03:46 --> 0:03:47
That is extraordinary.

69
0:03:47 --> 0:03:51
And many people who are here will know people

70
0:03:51 --> 0:03:55
who've suffered from that situation.

71
0:03:55 --> 0:03:58
And for all of us to know that

72
0:03:59 --> 0:04:03
is with all of the information that we had on SIDS.

73
0:04:03 --> 0:04:05
And I went through it.

74
0:04:05 --> 0:04:07
As I said, I had friends with it.

75
0:04:07 --> 0:04:10
Please, we will act accordingly from that.

76
0:04:11 --> 0:04:14
Jim, I don't think...

77
0:04:14 --> 0:04:16
So could you clarify for the people watching the video

78
0:04:16 --> 0:04:17
afterwards what SIDS is?

79
0:04:20 --> 0:04:22
After the video or now?

80
0:04:22 --> 0:04:23
Now.

81
0:04:23 --> 0:04:25
Oh, yeah, sure.

82
0:04:25 --> 0:04:28
Sudden infant death syndrome has been...

83
0:04:28 --> 0:04:33
We've known about that for, you know, 40 years.

84
0:04:34 --> 0:04:39
But it is an occurrence where mom and dad

85
0:04:39 --> 0:04:43
will put the baby down and the baby will die

86
0:04:43 --> 0:04:46
unexpectedly, inexplicably.

87
0:04:46 --> 0:04:50
And we've known this for many, many decades.

88
0:04:51 --> 0:04:53
That's what it is.

89
0:04:53 --> 0:04:55
Death of unknown origin.

90
0:04:55 --> 0:04:57
Death of unknown origin.

91
0:04:57 --> 0:05:01
Jim, as you said, SADS and SADS is sudden...

92
0:05:03 --> 0:05:04
Infant.

93
0:05:04 --> 0:05:05
Adult death syndrome.

94
0:05:05 --> 0:05:06
Adult.

95
0:05:06 --> 0:05:08
SIDS and SADS.

96
0:05:08 --> 0:05:09
Thank you, Jim.

97
0:05:09 --> 0:05:11
Most important news.

98
0:05:11 --> 0:05:13
All right, everybody, let's get this...

99
0:05:13 --> 0:05:14
Pearl, SIDS.

100
0:05:15 --> 0:05:16
SIDS.

101
0:05:16 --> 0:05:18
Infant death syndrome.

102
0:05:19 --> 0:05:21
So, let's try to say, okay.

103
0:05:21 --> 0:05:22
Welcome everybody to Medical Doctors

104
0:05:22 --> 0:05:24
for COVID Ethics International.

105
0:05:24 --> 0:05:27
In today's discussion, this group was founded

106
0:05:27 --> 0:05:29
by Dr. Stephen Frost during the darkest days

107
0:05:29 --> 0:05:32
of the COVID scam responses over two years ago

108
0:05:33 --> 0:05:36
with a desire to pursue truth, ethics, justice,

109
0:05:36 --> 0:05:37
freedom and health.

110
0:05:37 --> 0:05:40
Stephen has stood up against government and power

111
0:05:40 --> 0:05:42
over the years and has been a whistleblower and activist.

112
0:05:42 --> 0:05:45
His medical specialty is radiology.

113
0:05:45 --> 0:05:47
I'm Charles Covess, the moderator of this group.

114
0:05:47 --> 0:05:49
I'm Australasia's passion provocateur.

115
0:05:49 --> 0:05:52
I practiced law for 20 years

116
0:05:52 --> 0:05:54
before changing career 30 years ago.

117
0:05:54 --> 0:05:57
And over the last 12 years, I've helped parents and lawyers

118
0:05:57 --> 0:05:59
to strategize remedies for vaccine damage

119
0:05:59 --> 0:06:02
and damage from bad medical advice.

120
0:06:02 --> 0:06:05
I'm also the CEO of an industrial hemp company.

121
0:06:05 --> 0:06:07
We comprise lots of professions here,

122
0:06:08 --> 0:06:10
including doctors, lawyers, homeopaths, journalists,

123
0:06:10 --> 0:06:13
scientists, filmmakers, professors, patent experts,

124
0:06:13 --> 0:06:17
peacemakers and troublemakers.

125
0:06:17 --> 0:06:19
And we're from all around the world.

126
0:06:19 --> 0:06:21
Many of us thought that vaccines were okay.

127
0:06:21 --> 0:06:23
Now, many of us proudly say, yes,

128
0:06:23 --> 0:06:26
we are passionate anti-vaxxers.

129
0:06:26 --> 0:06:28
And I count myself among that.

130
0:06:28 --> 0:06:30
And I'm now proud to say that,

131
0:06:30 --> 0:06:34
not that I'm ashamed to be an anti-vaxxer.

132
0:06:34 --> 0:06:36
If this is your first time here, welcome

133
0:06:36 --> 0:06:41
and feel free to introduce yourself in the chat

134
0:06:41 --> 0:06:42
and where you're from.

135
0:06:42 --> 0:06:44
If you publish a newsletter or a podcast,

136
0:06:44 --> 0:06:47
or you have a radio or TV show or written a book,

137
0:06:47 --> 0:06:49
put the links into the chat so we can follow you,

138
0:06:49 --> 0:06:52
promote you and find you.

139
0:06:52 --> 0:06:54
Most of us understand we're in the middle of World War III

140
0:06:54 --> 0:06:56
and that there are various battle lines

141
0:06:56 --> 0:06:58
as part of this war.

142
0:06:58 --> 0:07:02
Some of us believe we're in a continuation of World War II.

143
0:07:02 --> 0:07:04
Most of us understand the development of science

144
0:07:04 --> 0:07:06
and that the science is never settled.

145
0:07:06 --> 0:07:08
This meeting runs for two and a half hours,

146
0:07:08 --> 0:07:11
after which for those with the time,

147
0:07:11 --> 0:07:14
Tom Rodman runs a video telegram meeting.

148
0:07:14 --> 0:07:18
Tom puts the links into the chat if you are able to join.

149
0:07:18 --> 0:07:21
We'll listen to David Martin, our guest presenter,

150
0:07:21 --> 0:07:23
for as long as David wishes to speak.

151
0:07:23 --> 0:07:25
And then we have Q&A.

152
0:07:25 --> 0:07:28
Stephen Frost, by long established tradition,

153
0:07:28 --> 0:07:31
asks the first set of questions for 15 minutes.

154
0:07:31 --> 0:07:34
No censorship, it's a free speech environment

155
0:07:34 --> 0:07:35
with appropriate moderating.

156
0:07:35 --> 0:07:38
In fact, I say that point appropriate moderating

157
0:07:38 --> 0:07:40
because people think free speech means

158
0:07:40 --> 0:07:43
that they can talk whenever they want.

159
0:07:43 --> 0:07:45
And I was at a conference,

160
0:07:45 --> 0:07:46
a hemp conference last week for two days

161
0:07:46 --> 0:07:49
and there was a real troublemaker

162
0:07:49 --> 0:07:51
and the emcee was simply unable

163
0:07:51 --> 0:07:52
to control this troublemaker who said,

164
0:07:52 --> 0:07:54
this is a free speech environment,

165
0:07:54 --> 0:07:56
I can talk whenever I want.

166
0:07:56 --> 0:07:58
A foolish comment.

167
0:07:59 --> 0:08:01
If you're offended by a free speech

168
0:08:01 --> 0:08:04
is crucially important in our fight

169
0:08:04 --> 0:08:05
to preserve our human freedoms.

170
0:08:05 --> 0:08:09
And I think that important link is often forgotten.

171
0:08:10 --> 0:08:12
If you're offended by anything, be offended.

172
0:08:12 --> 0:08:13
We're genuinely not interested.

173
0:08:13 --> 0:08:16
We reject the offence industry

174
0:08:16 --> 0:08:18
that requires nobody to say anything

175
0:08:18 --> 0:08:20
that may offend another.

176
0:08:20 --> 0:08:24
We come with an attitude and perspective of love, not fear.

177
0:08:24 --> 0:08:25
Fear is the opposite of love.

178
0:08:26 --> 0:08:29
Fear squashes you, love on the other hand, expands you.

179
0:08:29 --> 0:08:32
And I want you, for those of you who are parents,

180
0:08:32 --> 0:08:36
when you say, I'm going to love my child

181
0:08:36 --> 0:08:37
and I'm going to discipline them,

182
0:08:37 --> 0:08:39
it's an interesting balance,

183
0:08:39 --> 0:08:42
this idea of what love actually means.

184
0:08:42 --> 0:08:46
These twice weekly meetings are not just talk fests.

185
0:08:46 --> 0:08:49
An extraordinary range of actions and initiatives

186
0:08:49 --> 0:08:51
have been generated from linkages made

187
0:08:51 --> 0:08:54
by attendees in these meetings.

188
0:08:55 --> 0:08:57
If you have a solution or a product or links or resources

189
0:08:57 --> 0:09:00
that will help people put the details into the chat,

190
0:09:00 --> 0:09:01
the meeting is recorded

191
0:09:01 --> 0:09:03
and is uploaded on the Rumble channel.

192
0:09:03 --> 0:09:06
Now, welcome to our guest presenter, Dr. David Martin,

193
0:09:06 --> 0:09:07
a true genius.

194
0:09:07 --> 0:09:11
I'm blown away by what David, just blown away.

195
0:09:11 --> 0:09:14
David is a genius and we thank you so much, David,

196
0:09:14 --> 0:09:16
for giving us your time, wisdom and insights.

197
0:09:16 --> 0:09:18
And again, thank you, Stephen Frost,

198
0:09:18 --> 0:09:21
for creating this group and for organizing David

199
0:09:21 --> 0:09:24
to present to us today.

200
0:09:25 --> 0:09:27
David, over to you.

201
0:09:27 --> 0:09:29
David, can I just say, so Stephen here,

202
0:09:29 --> 0:09:33
so thank you so much for coming on for the second time.

203
0:09:33 --> 0:09:37
It feels like that for me anyway and probably for you.

204
0:09:37 --> 0:09:41
I wondered, so I thought your speech to the European Union

205
0:09:41 --> 0:09:44
was absolutely brilliant,

206
0:09:44 --> 0:09:46
highlighting as it did the criminality.

207
0:09:46 --> 0:09:48
If you want to repeat that speech now,

208
0:09:48 --> 0:09:52
that's absolutely fine with me and with everyone

209
0:09:52 --> 0:09:54
or maybe you have something better.

210
0:09:55 --> 0:09:58
But if you have time, you can do what you like.

211
0:09:58 --> 0:10:02
Thank you, Stephen, and thank you all for taking the time.

212
0:10:02 --> 0:10:05
For those of you not familiar,

213
0:10:05 --> 0:10:09
there are two European Union presentations,

214
0:10:09 --> 0:10:12
one to the Parliament in Brussels,

215
0:10:12 --> 0:10:15
which was in May of 2023

216
0:10:15 --> 0:10:18
and one that I just did a few weeks ago in Strasbourg.

217
0:10:19 --> 0:10:23
The one in Brussels has much more to do

218
0:10:23 --> 0:10:28
with the specifics around the COVID platform.

219
0:10:29 --> 0:10:32
And the one in Strasbourg a few weeks ago

220
0:10:32 --> 0:10:35
has to do with the criminal organization

221
0:10:35 --> 0:10:39
of the World Health Organization and its roots,

222
0:10:39 --> 0:10:43
as I traced them back to 1913.

223
0:10:44 --> 0:10:49
The one in Brussels has just recently

224
0:10:51 --> 0:10:53
surpassed four billion views.

225
0:10:53 --> 0:10:56
So over half the world's population has seen that one.

226
0:10:58 --> 0:11:01
And the one from Strasbourg

227
0:11:01 --> 0:11:03
has just surpassed a billion views.

228
0:11:03 --> 0:11:08
So something about those two have done exceptionally well.

229
0:11:09 --> 0:11:14
And as I have committed in all of the presentations I make,

230
0:11:14 --> 0:11:16
I don't do the same thing twice.

231
0:11:16 --> 0:11:19
So Stephen, what I'm going to commend

232
0:11:19 --> 0:11:24
is if you haven't encountered either or both of those,

233
0:11:24 --> 0:11:26
I'll just commend you to look on pretty much

234
0:11:26 --> 0:11:31
any alternative media video location

235
0:11:31 --> 0:11:34
and you should be able to find

236
0:11:34 --> 0:11:36
both the Brussels event and the Strasbourg event.

237
0:11:36 --> 0:11:41
But I do want to build on the back, if we could,

238
0:11:41 --> 0:11:43
of the Strasbourg event,

239
0:11:43 --> 0:11:47
because we are actually actively in the pursuit

240
0:11:47 --> 0:11:50
of beginning the process of filing a series

241
0:11:50 --> 0:11:54
of criminal complaints against the World Health Organization.

242
0:11:54 --> 0:11:59
And as a result, I think it's helpful to begin

243
0:11:59 --> 0:12:02
kind of picking up where I left off in Strasbourg.

244
0:12:03 --> 0:12:08
The reason for that is that this present company

245
0:12:09 --> 0:12:13
acknowledged as part of the broader conversation,

246
0:12:14 --> 0:12:18
many of us have gotten appropriately concerned

247
0:12:18 --> 0:12:20
with the events that have unfolded

248
0:12:20 --> 0:12:22
over the last three and a half years,

249
0:12:22 --> 0:12:26
nearly now four, where we are clearly responding

250
0:12:27 --> 0:12:32
to a series of events that we see as fundamental

251
0:12:32 --> 0:12:37
injustice and fundamental violations of basic

252
0:12:37 --> 0:12:39
and appropriate human interactions.

253
0:12:39 --> 0:12:41
And that's a very appropriate thing to do.

254
0:12:41 --> 0:12:46
So I want to make sure we're very clear on my perspective

255
0:12:46 --> 0:12:49
that responding to a crisis is appropriate.

256
0:12:50 --> 0:12:55
My concern, however, is that if we respond to a crisis

257
0:12:55 --> 0:12:59
at the expense of looking at the fundamentals

258
0:12:59 --> 0:13:01
of what gave rise to the crisis,

259
0:13:01 --> 0:13:04
we're actually part of the problem.

260
0:13:04 --> 0:13:07
And by that, I mean the absence of consideration

261
0:13:07 --> 0:13:12
of the ecosystem into which these crises can emerge

262
0:13:12 --> 0:13:16
means that we substitute one crisis for another.

263
0:13:16 --> 0:13:18
And what we're trying to do is suggest

264
0:13:18 --> 0:13:22
that maybe there is a root of the tree of the problem

265
0:13:22 --> 0:13:25
that we should address, not just the branches called COVID

266
0:13:25 --> 0:13:28
or the branches called vaccines.

267
0:13:28 --> 0:13:33
And so the intent of my presentation in Strasbourg

268
0:13:33 --> 0:13:36
was specifically to highlight the fact

269
0:13:36 --> 0:13:41
that beginning in 1913, with the recent publication

270
0:13:42 --> 0:13:46
of the Flexner Report and with the empanelment

271
0:13:46 --> 0:13:49
of the Cold Spring Harbor Labs,

272
0:13:49 --> 0:13:54
which is where many of you will know Andrew Carnegie funded

273
0:13:54 --> 0:13:56
and developed the first eugenics office

274
0:13:56 --> 0:14:01
for the United States government in 1913.

275
0:14:01 --> 0:14:06
With that emergence of the convergence of two programs,

276
0:14:07 --> 0:14:11
the Rockefeller Foundation in the early 19-teens

277
0:14:11 --> 0:14:13
and then obviously the Wellcome Trust

278
0:14:13 --> 0:14:16
established in the 1920s,

279
0:14:16 --> 0:14:20
we had what was in fact a very bizarre,

280
0:14:20 --> 0:14:24
what I'm gonna call peristatal formation

281
0:14:24 --> 0:14:29
around the industrial pharmaceutical industry.

282
0:14:30 --> 0:14:33
Now, many of you know that I have gone on a historic rant

283
0:14:33 --> 0:14:38
that suggests that we have been a globe overtaken

284
0:14:38 --> 0:14:42
by drug dealers since 1604.

285
0:14:42 --> 0:14:45
And the reason I state that is because the evidence

286
0:14:45 --> 0:14:46
is nothing but that.

287
0:14:46 --> 0:14:50
If we go back and we look at the establishment

288
0:14:50 --> 0:14:52
of the British East India Company

289
0:14:52 --> 0:14:54
and the Dutch East India Trading Company,

290
0:14:54 --> 0:14:58
what we realize is that while we like to sugarcoat

291
0:14:58 --> 0:15:00
the stories around spice trade,

292
0:15:00 --> 0:15:04
the truth was that both of these organizations

293
0:15:04 --> 0:15:08
largely were built around opium and opioids.

294
0:15:08 --> 0:15:12
And we need to stop pretending like we have an economy

295
0:15:12 --> 0:15:17
in the last 400 years that is anything other than rooted

296
0:15:17 --> 0:15:21
in a grounding of the drug trade.

297
0:15:21 --> 0:15:23
And while we were warned in the 1960s

298
0:15:23 --> 0:15:27
to be aware of the military industrial complex,

299
0:15:27 --> 0:15:30
cunningly absent from the military industrial complex

300
0:15:30 --> 0:15:34
was the recognition that the military industrial complex

301
0:15:34 --> 0:15:38
is in fact built in service, are you ready for this,

302
0:15:38 --> 0:15:40
to the pharmaceutical industrial complex,

303
0:15:40 --> 0:15:44
which is the deeper and more grave concern.

304
0:15:44 --> 0:15:48
And most of us spend our time allegedly

305
0:15:48 --> 0:15:50
because we like to think of ourselves

306
0:15:50 --> 0:15:51
as open-minded and liberal

307
0:15:51 --> 0:15:55
and maybe potentially bordering on pacifist,

308
0:15:55 --> 0:15:59
we like to jump on the military industrial complex bandwagon

309
0:15:59 --> 0:16:02
without recognizing that it was in fact

310
0:16:02 --> 0:16:04
the pharmaceutical industrial complex

311
0:16:04 --> 0:16:06
that gave rise to the military industrial complex

312
0:16:06 --> 0:16:07
in the first place.

313
0:16:08 --> 0:16:11
We were defending the drug trade long, long, long

314
0:16:11 --> 0:16:13
before we were defending oil trade.

315
0:16:14 --> 0:16:17
We were defending the drug trade long, long, long

316
0:16:17 --> 0:16:20
before we were defending any of the other economic plagues

317
0:16:20 --> 0:16:21
of our time.

318
0:16:21 --> 0:16:24
And it's critical that we start understanding

319
0:16:24 --> 0:16:28
that until we see the insidious nature

320
0:16:28 --> 0:16:32
of what there is in fact at the root of this tree,

321
0:16:32 --> 0:16:37
which is a fundamental value-based system

322
0:16:37 --> 0:16:40
that says that an intoxicated, inebriated

323
0:16:40 --> 0:16:44
and anesthetized humanity is the only way

324
0:16:44 --> 0:16:46
we can actually govern humanity.

325
0:16:46 --> 0:16:49
If we don't understand that that's where our root problem

326
0:16:49 --> 0:16:54
was given rise to, then everything we do as a derivative

327
0:16:54 --> 0:16:57
is going to unfortunately fail on the fact

328
0:16:57 --> 0:17:01
that we are not even examining our own history correctly.

329
0:17:01 --> 0:17:04
So having grown up in a pacifist home

330
0:17:04 --> 0:17:06
in a very religious environment

331
0:17:06 --> 0:17:07
where I was told that I was supposed to be

332
0:17:07 --> 0:17:10
where the military industrial complex,

333
0:17:10 --> 0:17:13
I find it fascinating that I never once was informed

334
0:17:13 --> 0:17:16
about the pharmaceutical industrial complex

335
0:17:16 --> 0:17:20
and its insidious roles that it has played.

336
0:17:20 --> 0:17:24
Specifically speaking, from the perspective

337
0:17:24 --> 0:17:28
of the United States, it's important for us to also realize

338
0:17:28 --> 0:17:30
that the funding of not just the first,

339
0:17:30 --> 0:17:33
but also the second bank of the United States,

340
0:17:33 --> 0:17:37
the very foundation of our economic system,

341
0:17:37 --> 0:17:42
were funded by opium traders, not militants,

342
0:17:43 --> 0:17:47
not DuPonts trying to sell gunpowder.

343
0:17:47 --> 0:17:49
Steven Girard, the funder and founder

344
0:17:49 --> 0:17:53
of the first bank of the United States was an opium trader.

345
0:17:54 --> 0:17:57
And the money he used to finance the first bank

346
0:17:57 --> 0:17:59
of the United States was opium trade money.

347
0:17:59 --> 0:18:03
It wasn't an agriculture complex.

348
0:18:03 --> 0:18:06
It wasn't slave trade or sugar trade or anything else.

349
0:18:06 --> 0:18:08
It was opium trade.

350
0:18:08 --> 0:18:11
The foundation of the very economic system

351
0:18:11 --> 0:18:14
underpinning the very formation of our country

352
0:18:14 --> 0:18:15
is the drug trade.

353
0:18:16 --> 0:18:20
And whether it's then or it is Nancy Reagan's war on drugs,

354
0:18:20 --> 0:18:23
which we were using to fund covert operations

355
0:18:23 --> 0:18:25
in Central America and Iran and Iraq,

356
0:18:25 --> 0:18:29
every single step we've taken has fundamentally ignored

357
0:18:29 --> 0:18:32
the fact that it was the criminal nature

358
0:18:32 --> 0:18:36
of the pharmaceutical industry that is in fact

359
0:18:36 --> 0:18:38
where a number of our problems give rise.

360
0:18:38 --> 0:18:41
And it was because of that that I pointed out

361
0:18:41 --> 0:18:44
that at the Bretton Woods Summit in 1944,

362
0:18:44 --> 0:18:48
when the multilateral agencies were first contemplated,

363
0:18:48 --> 0:18:50
and for those of you not familiar with the history,

364
0:18:50 --> 0:18:52
I encourage you to go back and read

365
0:18:52 --> 0:18:55
the presentations made at Bretton Woods.

366
0:18:55 --> 0:18:59
But every single one of them was actually paid for

367
0:18:59 --> 0:19:02
and sponsored by drug companies,

368
0:19:02 --> 0:19:05
not by military industrial complex companies.

369
0:19:05 --> 0:19:09
This was a drug dealing enterprise run by drug dealers

370
0:19:09 --> 0:19:13
for the purpose of advancing drug initiatives.

371
0:19:13 --> 0:19:15
And what makes that particularly problematic

372
0:19:15 --> 0:19:19
was the formation of what became the legal protections

373
0:19:19 --> 0:19:22
for UN affiliated organizations.

374
0:19:22 --> 0:19:23
And for those of you, once again, not familiar,

375
0:19:23 --> 0:19:28
please read the documents between 1944 and 1947.

376
0:19:29 --> 0:19:33
Because in 1947, when the UN affiliated organizations,

377
0:19:33 --> 0:19:36
then under the League of Nations were developed,

378
0:19:36 --> 0:19:41
in the charter of these organizations was an absolute,

379
0:19:42 --> 0:19:44
and by the way, when I say absolute,

380
0:19:44 --> 0:19:47
zero wiggle room whatsoever,

381
0:19:47 --> 0:19:51
an absolute amnesty for all criminal acts done

382
0:19:51 --> 0:19:56
under the auspices of any UN-chartered organization.

383
0:19:57 --> 0:20:01
It is impossible under a UN-chartered organization,

384
0:20:01 --> 0:20:03
and this is written right into the charter,

385
0:20:03 --> 0:20:08
to prosecute any crime committed by any person

386
0:20:08 --> 0:20:11
who is during the mission of the crime

387
0:20:11 --> 0:20:14
engaged in the activities sanctioned

388
0:20:14 --> 0:20:16
by the World Health Organization

389
0:20:16 --> 0:20:19
or by UN affiliated organization.

390
0:20:19 --> 0:20:22
It is illegal to even investigate

391
0:20:22 --> 0:20:24
the crime done by the criminal.

392
0:20:24 --> 0:20:26
And this is written into their own charter.

393
0:20:28 --> 0:20:30
As I asked in Strasburg,

394
0:20:30 --> 0:20:34
what type of organization has to write into its charter

395
0:20:34 --> 0:20:39
an absolute criminal amnesty for every single person

396
0:20:39 --> 0:20:42
doing every single thing under the auspices

397
0:20:42 --> 0:20:43
of that organization,

398
0:20:43 --> 0:20:47
if the intent was not to actually mask crimes.

399
0:20:47 --> 0:20:50
This goes beyond diplomatic immunity,

400
0:20:50 --> 0:20:53
goes beyond every form of sovereign immunity.

401
0:20:53 --> 0:20:57
This goes to a act and a guarantee

402
0:20:57 --> 0:21:00
that any commission of any crime,

403
0:21:01 --> 0:21:02
both cannot be prosecuted,

404
0:21:02 --> 0:21:04
but it cannot even be investigated.

405
0:21:04 --> 0:21:06
And this is in the charter

406
0:21:06 --> 0:21:08
of the World Health Organization.

407
0:21:09 --> 0:21:11
I highlighted that,

408
0:21:11 --> 0:21:13
and I have to say that in the room full of people

409
0:21:13 --> 0:21:16
in the parliament in Strasburg,

410
0:21:16 --> 0:21:19
it was a, you could have heard a pin drop moment.

411
0:21:20 --> 0:21:23
People didn't understand that this organization

412
0:21:23 --> 0:21:27
was chartered by criminals for criminal immunity.

413
0:21:28 --> 0:21:29
That's the reason why it exists.

414
0:21:29 --> 0:21:32
It does not exist for the advancement of how.

415
0:21:34 --> 0:21:37
Well, we've just lost him.

416
0:21:38 --> 0:21:39
This organization.

417
0:21:39 --> 0:21:40
He'll come back.

418
0:21:40 --> 0:21:41
He'll come back.

419
0:21:41 --> 0:21:45
This organization does not exist for,

420
0:21:45 --> 0:21:46
we'll get to that point.

421
0:21:47 --> 0:21:52
How about that for beautiful opening statements?

422
0:21:53 --> 0:21:55
Four billion viewers.

423
0:21:55 --> 0:21:56
That's not a bad number.

424
0:21:56 --> 0:21:57
Anyone got more than four billion viewers

425
0:21:57 --> 0:21:59
on any of their programs?

426
0:22:00 --> 0:22:01
Nobody that ain't dirty.

427
0:22:01 --> 0:22:03
I don't know how you do that.

428
0:22:04 --> 0:22:06
That's pretty impressive, isn't it?

429
0:22:07 --> 0:22:08
Pretty impressive.

430
0:22:09 --> 0:22:10
It's interesting.

431
0:22:10 --> 0:22:11
I'll just be just in there.

432
0:22:11 --> 0:22:14
I've just been searching for it on YouTube

433
0:22:14 --> 0:22:17
and on Google and mainstream media.

434
0:22:17 --> 0:22:20
You can't find his speech very easily at all,

435
0:22:20 --> 0:22:22
just to point that out to everyone.

436
0:22:22 --> 0:22:25
So it's already being withdrawn or hidden.

437
0:22:25 --> 0:22:27
So I don't know how four million people got to see it,

438
0:22:28 --> 0:22:29
but that's of interest.

439
0:22:30 --> 0:22:32
Yeah, interesting.

440
0:22:32 --> 0:22:33
Interesting, interesting.

441
0:22:35 --> 0:22:36
Yes, that's-

442
0:22:36 --> 0:22:38
Well, some of us watched it 20 times.

443
0:22:39 --> 0:22:41
Sorry, Stephen?

444
0:22:41 --> 0:22:43
Some of us have watched it 20 times.

445
0:22:45 --> 0:22:46
And they-

446
0:22:46 --> 0:22:47
I'm good, Thomas.

447
0:22:48 --> 0:22:51
So David Martin is an extraordinarily good speaker.

448
0:22:52 --> 0:22:53
Yes.

449
0:22:54 --> 0:22:56
Yes, he is indeed.

450
0:22:56 --> 0:22:57
And what a-

451
0:22:57 --> 0:23:01
I've often, I talk about the military industrial complex

452
0:23:01 --> 0:23:02
and it guides by thinking.

453
0:23:02 --> 0:23:05
And that's the first,

454
0:23:06 --> 0:23:10
that's such a wonderful shift

455
0:23:10 --> 0:23:12
in terms of going, okay,

456
0:23:12 --> 0:23:17
the military industrial complex is built on Big Pharma,

457
0:23:19 --> 0:23:21
the pharmaceutical industry complex.

458
0:23:21 --> 0:23:24
And right now I'm just reading the book,

459
0:23:24 --> 0:23:26
Empire of Pain,

460
0:23:27 --> 0:23:29
about the Sacklers.

461
0:23:29 --> 0:23:33
We talked about the Sackler Netflix series.

462
0:23:33 --> 0:23:35
This is giving a deeper complex,

463
0:23:35 --> 0:23:38
a deeper foundation, if you like, to this.

464
0:23:38 --> 0:23:41
Reading the book, Empire of Pain,

465
0:23:41 --> 0:23:45
it's an amazing, amazing story,

466
0:23:45 --> 0:23:49
brilliantly written that's really,

467
0:23:49 --> 0:23:53
and now as the stuff I've read in the last week

468
0:23:53 --> 0:23:54
from the Sackler family,

469
0:23:54 --> 0:23:58
and then what David Martin is talking about is amazing.

470
0:23:59 --> 0:24:00
All right, now-

471
0:24:00 --> 0:24:01
The big lie there, Charles,

472
0:24:01 --> 0:24:04
was Oxycontin was not addictive,

473
0:24:04 --> 0:24:06
when clearly it was.

474
0:24:06 --> 0:24:08
Yes.

475
0:24:08 --> 0:24:10
And the doctors went along with it incredibly.

476
0:24:10 --> 0:24:11
Yeah.

477
0:24:11 --> 0:24:13
I didn't even know about it.

478
0:24:13 --> 0:24:16
Hey, gentlemen, I once listened to a presentation

479
0:24:16 --> 0:24:18
by a special forces instructor

480
0:24:18 --> 0:24:21
who stated that the CIA was created

481
0:24:21 --> 0:24:25
for drug trafficking and human trafficking.

482
0:24:25 --> 0:24:28
So it kind of goes along with exactly

483
0:24:28 --> 0:24:29
what he was just saying.

484
0:24:29 --> 0:24:31
We actually look at it in reverse.

485
0:24:32 --> 0:24:34
Yes.

486
0:24:34 --> 0:24:35
Yeah.

487
0:24:35 --> 0:24:37
And on the children trafficking,

488
0:24:37 --> 0:24:42
has anyone got an update on sound of freedom numbers?

489
0:24:42 --> 0:24:44
I haven't seen anything in the media.

490
0:24:44 --> 0:24:46
We haven't talked about it for two weeks.

491
0:24:46 --> 0:24:47
Anyone?

492
0:24:48 --> 0:24:51
It's allowed to come to Norway next week.

493
0:24:52 --> 0:24:53
Very good.

494
0:24:53 --> 0:24:54
It's been in Australia,

495
0:24:54 --> 0:24:58
but no media attention given to it,

496
0:24:58 --> 0:25:02
except one film review in the Australian newspaper,

497
0:25:02 --> 0:25:03
but no debate around it.

498
0:25:03 --> 0:25:05
No politician said anything about it.

499
0:25:06 --> 0:25:07
All right.

500
0:25:07 --> 0:25:10
I just seem to get lost and come back.

501
0:25:10 --> 0:25:11
So I don't know what happened here.

502
0:25:11 --> 0:25:13
Welcome back, sir.

503
0:25:13 --> 0:25:16
So Charles remembers your last words, David.

504
0:25:16 --> 0:25:18
So what were they, Charles?

505
0:25:18 --> 0:25:20
You were fast food.

506
0:25:20 --> 0:25:22
You were fast food.

507
0:25:22 --> 0:25:23
I'm sorry, I didn't follow, but...

508
0:25:27 --> 0:25:29
So I just said that Charles remembers.

509
0:25:29 --> 0:25:31
Can I just have one person ask me a question?

510
0:25:34 --> 0:25:35
Yes.

511
0:25:35 --> 0:25:36
David.

512
0:25:36 --> 0:25:37
Okay.

513
0:25:37 --> 0:25:38
Yes.

514
0:25:38 --> 0:25:39
Can you hear me now?

515
0:25:39 --> 0:25:40
Yes, we can.

516
0:25:42 --> 0:25:43
Okay, good.

517
0:25:44 --> 0:25:47
So the point that I was making

518
0:25:47 --> 0:25:49
when for some reason the entire Zoom cut out

519
0:25:49 --> 0:25:54
was that we have a significant challenge

520
0:25:54 --> 0:25:59
in the legislative and in the structural nature

521
0:26:00 --> 0:26:04
of the early trials on malaria vaccination,

522
0:26:04 --> 0:26:07
which is the one that we should pay most attention to,

523
0:26:07 --> 0:26:10
which is that by the 1960s,

524
0:26:10 --> 0:26:14
the malaria injections were actually included

525
0:26:14 --> 0:26:16
in not only direct loss of life

526
0:26:16 --> 0:26:20
and many times in children under the age of six months old,

527
0:26:20 --> 0:26:23
but what is particularly interesting and problematic

528
0:26:23 --> 0:26:26
about the vaccination program

529
0:26:26 --> 0:26:29
and the World Health Organization throughout the 1960s,

530
0:26:29 --> 0:26:32
right up until 2018,

531
0:26:32 --> 0:26:34
is that we actually see clinical trials

532
0:26:34 --> 0:26:37
that were done frequently

533
0:26:37 --> 0:26:40
where the children receiving experimental malaria shots

534
0:26:40 --> 0:26:42
were being killed.

535
0:26:44 --> 0:26:48
But ironically, the definition of a control group

536
0:26:48 --> 0:26:50
inside the same trials

537
0:26:50 --> 0:26:54
was actually a cocktail of other vaccines.

538
0:26:54 --> 0:26:58
It was not a control group like a saline injection

539
0:26:58 --> 0:27:00
or a sugar injection

540
0:27:00 --> 0:27:03
or something that would be considered to be innocuous.

541
0:27:03 --> 0:27:06
We were actually killing children

542
0:27:07 --> 0:27:09
with the experimental malaria,

543
0:27:09 --> 0:27:13
but we were also killing children in the control group

544
0:27:13 --> 0:27:18
with a cocktail of things like MMR and DPT and other things.

545
0:27:18 --> 0:27:22
And so the issue is that we have this epic amount

546
0:27:22 --> 0:27:24
of destruction that was going on,

547
0:27:24 --> 0:27:29
and every single time there was ever any conversation

548
0:27:30 --> 0:27:34
around the fact that somebody should be held liable,

549
0:27:34 --> 0:27:36
the defense which was written into the charter

550
0:27:36 --> 0:27:38
of the World Health Organization was used.

551
0:27:38 --> 0:27:41
There can be no crime

552
0:27:41 --> 0:27:43
if the World Health Organization does it.

553
0:27:44 --> 0:27:48
And listen carefully, it can't be a crime if they do it.

554
0:27:48 --> 0:27:50
So killing people cannot be a crime

555
0:27:50 --> 0:27:52
if it's done under the auspices

556
0:27:52 --> 0:27:54
of the World Health Organization,

557
0:27:54 --> 0:27:58
which gives us this interesting window into 1984

558
0:27:58 --> 0:28:00
when Anthony Fauci gets appointed

559
0:28:00 --> 0:28:03
into NIAID in the United States,

560
0:28:03 --> 0:28:08
because there is no question that the Anthony Fauci.

561
0:28:11 --> 0:28:12
Wow.

562
0:28:12 --> 0:28:13
Whoa.

563
0:28:13 --> 0:28:15
Someone doesn't want him to talk.

564
0:28:15 --> 0:28:16
Oh.

565
0:28:16 --> 0:28:19
Yeah, someone doesn't want him to talk, correct.

566
0:28:19 --> 0:28:24
So Charles, so I don't think that David picked up

567
0:28:24 --> 0:28:26
where he left off.

568
0:28:26 --> 0:28:28
So it would have been good if you'd come up

569
0:28:28 --> 0:28:32
with the last words that you mentioned, but anyway.

570
0:28:33 --> 0:28:35
And the same thing now, you know.

571
0:28:37 --> 0:28:37
Yes, we're not.

572
0:28:37 --> 0:28:40
So I wonder who's knocking him off the internet

573
0:28:40 --> 0:28:41
or the Zoom call.

574
0:28:42 --> 0:28:45
We're at 1984, everybody.

575
0:28:46 --> 0:28:49
Yeah, and actually as he went off the first time,

576
0:28:49 --> 0:28:53
certainly there was a picture of George Orwell

577
0:28:53 --> 0:28:54
as he disappeared.

578
0:28:55 --> 0:28:58
Yes, that's Susan Danz has got that on her face,

579
0:28:58 --> 0:29:01
on her, what do you call it?

580
0:29:03 --> 0:29:04
On her screen.

581
0:29:05 --> 0:29:08
Yeah, but the point was that as he disappeared,

582
0:29:08 --> 0:29:12
because I was watching it on the big screen, you know,

583
0:29:12 --> 0:29:15
as he disappeared, at the moment he disappeared,

584
0:29:15 --> 0:29:20
just after the George Orwell's photo came up, momentarily.

585
0:29:20 --> 0:29:22
Yeah, same here, same here.

586
0:29:22 --> 0:29:24
So subtle hints, come on.

587
0:29:27 --> 0:29:29
What did you say, John?

588
0:29:30 --> 0:29:31
Maybe it's a subtle hint, you know,

589
0:29:31 --> 0:29:35
like when they drop things in movies.

590
0:29:37 --> 0:29:38
Yes, yes, yes.

591
0:29:40 --> 0:29:44
So, yes, Nfouchi in 1984.

592
0:29:45 --> 0:29:48
So we will wait and we're working on getting this,

593
0:29:48 --> 0:29:51
moving this platform to Cloud Hub everybody.

594
0:29:51 --> 0:29:56
And Truth Hub, we'll be doing these on Truth Hub shortly,

595
0:29:56 --> 0:29:59
so that we have the security,

596
0:29:59 --> 0:30:01
I'm doing it on a couple of other platforms

597
0:30:01 --> 0:30:05
so that I get good at it before we then go broadly

598
0:30:05 --> 0:30:07
onto this platform, Stephen.

599
0:30:07 --> 0:30:08
And the-

600
0:30:08 --> 0:30:10
Where did he say he was calling in from?

601
0:30:10 --> 0:30:12
Where's Dr. Martin at right now, physically?

602
0:30:12 --> 0:30:13
Don't know.

603
0:30:13 --> 0:30:14
We don't know.

604
0:30:17 --> 0:30:18
I think he's based in-

605
0:30:20 --> 0:30:22
I'm back again, clearly somebody's not overly thrilled

606
0:30:22 --> 0:30:23
about what I'm saying.

607
0:30:23 --> 0:30:24
Exactly.

608
0:30:24 --> 0:30:25
That's it.

609
0:30:26 --> 0:30:27
David, keep going.

610
0:30:27 --> 0:30:30
You got to 1984 and Fauci.

611
0:30:30 --> 0:30:33
Yeah, so 1984 and Fauci,

612
0:30:33 --> 0:30:36
and then we obviously have the anthrax attack

613
0:30:36 --> 0:30:38
with the associated,

614
0:30:39 --> 0:30:41
the associated PREP Act,

615
0:30:41 --> 0:30:44
which gave us the protection of medical countermeasures,

616
0:30:44 --> 0:30:48
which afford to all of the manufacturers

617
0:30:48 --> 0:30:50
of pharmaceutical companies,

618
0:30:50 --> 0:30:51
that same liability protection,

619
0:30:51 --> 0:30:54
which was in the National Childhood Vaccine Act.

620
0:30:54 --> 0:30:57
The reason why these background principles

621
0:30:57 --> 0:31:00
are so important in this conversation

622
0:31:00 --> 0:31:02
is that we have understood,

623
0:31:02 --> 0:31:04
and we must understand,

624
0:31:04 --> 0:31:07
that there is a requirement for us

625
0:31:07 --> 0:31:10
to build a legal framework

626
0:31:10 --> 0:31:13
to go after the World Health Organization,

627
0:31:13 --> 0:31:16
and NIAID, and its conspiring parties,

628
0:31:16 --> 0:31:19
not for the crimes that they are committing at the moment,

629
0:31:19 --> 0:31:23
which are unambiguously crimes,

630
0:31:23 --> 0:31:25
but we need to actually find

631
0:31:25 --> 0:31:28
both the basis for arguments,

632
0:31:28 --> 0:31:33
as well as the jurisdiction for the damage,

633
0:31:33 --> 0:31:35
which allows us to go after

634
0:31:35 --> 0:31:37
the World Health Organization's charter

635
0:31:37 --> 0:31:42
as an illegal act in 1947.

636
0:31:43 --> 0:31:48
The delegation of its domicile to Switzerland

637
0:31:49 --> 0:31:52
as an illegal act under tax evasion,

638
0:31:52 --> 0:31:56
the establishment of the racketeering

639
0:31:56 --> 0:32:01
in violation of the Clayton Act in the United States,

640
0:32:01 --> 0:32:03
the Sherman Act in the United States,

641
0:32:03 --> 0:32:06
and the anti-competitiveness acts in Europe.

642
0:32:06 --> 0:32:09
What we're trying to do is build a framework

643
0:32:09 --> 0:32:11
that allows us to prosecute something

644
0:32:11 --> 0:32:13
that cannot be dismissed

645
0:32:13 --> 0:32:16
under the charter of the World Health Organization,

646
0:32:16 --> 0:32:18
but goes after the root of the tree itself.

647
0:32:18 --> 0:32:21
And so the reason for this presentation,

648
0:32:21 --> 0:32:23
and the reason why I did the series of presentations

649
0:32:23 --> 0:32:27
in Europe was to take us on a journey

650
0:32:27 --> 0:32:29
through the criminality that started

651
0:32:29 --> 0:32:30
with the London Conference

652
0:32:30 --> 0:32:33
when we impaneled the first Nuremberg trial,

653
0:32:33 --> 0:32:35
and move from that through the charter

654
0:32:35 --> 0:32:37
of the World Health Organization,

655
0:32:37 --> 0:32:39
through the charter of the United Nations,

656
0:32:39 --> 0:32:41
through all of these other charters

657
0:32:41 --> 0:32:44
to build the legal framework to say,

658
0:32:44 --> 0:32:47
there are crimes we can prosecute,

659
0:32:47 --> 0:32:50
but we have to prosecute them at the root of the tree,

660
0:32:50 --> 0:32:53
not at the branch of the crime called COVID.

661
0:32:53 --> 0:32:57
And so what we have done in the last now two and a half months

662
0:32:57 --> 0:33:00
is we've galvanized a group of attorneys

663
0:33:00 --> 0:33:02
in the United States and in Europe

664
0:33:02 --> 0:33:05
to work together on going after antitrust,

665
0:33:06 --> 0:33:11
anti-competition, domestic and international terrorism,

666
0:33:11 --> 0:33:14
and tax evasion and tax fraud.

667
0:33:14 --> 0:33:17
Because when we understand that these crimes

668
0:33:17 --> 0:33:22
are not part of the protected class of crimes, right?

669
0:33:22 --> 0:33:24
Murder is a protected class of crime.

670
0:33:24 --> 0:33:28
Injecting people with a toxin is a protected class of crime,

671
0:33:28 --> 0:33:31
but the structural nature of these things

672
0:33:31 --> 0:33:33
is in fact not a protected class.

673
0:33:33 --> 0:33:36
What we are doing is we're putting this together,

674
0:33:36 --> 0:33:39
and thankfully, we now have a team

675
0:33:39 --> 0:33:42
that will likely begin the criminal prosecutions

676
0:33:42 --> 0:33:46
in Switzerland under tax fraud first.

677
0:33:46 --> 0:33:51
Because the Swiss courts are extremely sensitive

678
0:33:51 --> 0:33:56
to the black eye they got from the banking scandals

679
0:33:56 --> 0:33:57
of about a decade ago.

680
0:33:57 --> 0:33:59
When they started getting investigated

681
0:33:59 --> 0:34:03
for shielding tax fraud assets,

682
0:34:04 --> 0:34:07
we are actually ripping a page out of that playbook,

683
0:34:07 --> 0:34:09
and we are using that playbook

684
0:34:09 --> 0:34:14
to begin the prosecution of crimes in this instance.

685
0:34:14 --> 0:34:17
So I wanted to just give you guys the background

686
0:34:17 --> 0:34:22
of understanding how we are transforming our legal approach

687
0:34:22 --> 0:34:23
so that we actually go after crimes

688
0:34:23 --> 0:34:26
that are not protected class crimes,

689
0:34:26 --> 0:34:29
and we're going after crimes that in fact are prosecutable

690
0:34:29 --> 0:34:34
inside of both the European and US courts.

691
0:34:34 --> 0:34:38
I am optimistic that at long last,

692
0:34:38 --> 0:34:42
I now have a group of close to 20 lawyers around the world

693
0:34:42 --> 0:34:46
who see that this is an antitrust and tax evasion case

694
0:34:46 --> 0:34:49
if we're going to win the underlying structural problem,

695
0:34:49 --> 0:34:53
which is to break the back of the drug war that we're in.

696
0:34:53 --> 0:34:55
And that's kind of the highlights

697
0:34:55 --> 0:34:57
of getting us up to the moment

698
0:34:57 --> 0:35:00
of why I'm doing what I'm doing and where I'm doing it.

699
0:35:00 --> 0:35:02
And with that, I will actually be delighted

700
0:35:02 --> 0:35:03
to take questions.

701
0:35:05 --> 0:35:09
Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful thinking, David.

702
0:35:09 --> 0:35:12
Well done on putting a group of lawyers together.

703
0:35:12 --> 0:35:16
As you know, 99% of lawyers give the rest of them

704
0:35:16 --> 0:35:20
a bad name, but you're clearly picking on the 1%.

705
0:35:20 --> 0:35:22
So well done.

706
0:35:22 --> 0:35:26
And it is a wonderful reframe of thinking,

707
0:35:26 --> 0:35:30
even as you shared that the pharmaceutical industrial complex

708
0:35:30 --> 0:35:32
is the foundation of the industrial military.

709
0:35:32 --> 0:35:36
I go, wow, that is such a helpful idea.

710
0:35:36 --> 0:35:38
So thank you.

711
0:35:38 --> 0:35:40
As you know, first 15 minutes goes to Stephen.

712
0:35:40 --> 0:35:41
We've got plenty of hands up.

713
0:35:41 --> 0:35:43
So Stephen.

714
0:35:45 --> 0:35:47
So Martin, thank you so much.

715
0:35:47 --> 0:35:48
I can't see you now.

716
0:35:48 --> 0:35:49
Where are you?

717
0:35:50 --> 0:35:51
He's there.

718
0:35:51 --> 0:35:55
You can solve that, Stephen, but any of you can solve.

719
0:35:55 --> 0:35:56
Okay, hello.

720
0:35:57 --> 0:36:01
So David, I just wanted to ask you,

721
0:36:01 --> 0:36:03
so it's of interest to me this

722
0:36:03 --> 0:36:07
because I've never obviously thought of it

723
0:36:07 --> 0:36:09
as deeply as you have.

724
0:36:09 --> 0:36:11
And thank goodness you are thinking like that.

725
0:36:11 --> 0:36:13
But I should have done,

726
0:36:13 --> 0:36:16
because I was actually involved as a whistleblower,

727
0:36:16 --> 0:36:19
as a medical doctor in the British military,

728
0:36:19 --> 0:36:24
highlighting criminality regarding class A controlled drugs

729
0:36:24 --> 0:36:25
in the military.

730
0:36:26 --> 0:36:30
And that was in 2013.

731
0:36:30 --> 0:36:31
They took me out.

732
0:36:31 --> 0:36:35
They tried to, well, you know the usual tactics.

733
0:36:36 --> 0:36:39
They tried to deprive you of your money and your family.

734
0:36:39 --> 0:36:44
And in 2019, so five and a half years later,

735
0:36:45 --> 0:36:47
over five and a half years later,

736
0:36:47 --> 0:36:50
I withdrew my own appeal on access to justice grounds

737
0:36:50 --> 0:36:52
because I finally realized,

738
0:36:52 --> 0:36:55
and somebody should have sat me down to explain,

739
0:36:55 --> 0:36:56
but never did.

740
0:36:56 --> 0:36:59
I had five sets of brilliant lawyers in the United Kingdom.

741
0:37:00 --> 0:37:03
And somebody should have sat me down and said,

742
0:37:03 --> 0:37:07
you're never gonna win because actually against you,

743
0:37:07 --> 0:37:10
you've got the British military, the Ministry of Defense,

744
0:37:10 --> 0:37:12
i.e. the British government,

745
0:37:12 --> 0:37:14
the full power of the British government.

746
0:37:14 --> 0:37:18
Also the police who wouldn't investigate crime,

747
0:37:18 --> 0:37:21
but were very concerned about talking to me for about,

748
0:37:21 --> 0:37:23
from memory two years,

749
0:37:23 --> 0:37:27
and wouldn't give me a crime number despite my pleas.

750
0:37:28 --> 0:37:32
They couldn't justify that to my MP, member of parliament,

751
0:37:32 --> 0:37:35
at his office who called the senior policeman,

752
0:37:35 --> 0:37:38
I can't remember his name, otherwise I'd name him,

753
0:37:38 --> 0:37:40
but the senior guy at the,

754
0:37:40 --> 0:37:42
so he was a superintendent at Lancashire police.

755
0:37:44 --> 0:37:47
Not only was I fighting the British government, I realized,

756
0:37:47 --> 0:37:50
and the police, but I was also fighting the courts.

757
0:37:50 --> 0:37:53
And they were actually, they held a hearing,

758
0:37:54 --> 0:37:57
an appeal hearing without me present,

759
0:37:57 --> 0:37:59
without my lawyers present.

760
0:37:59 --> 0:38:01
And the reason they knew why we weren't there,

761
0:38:01 --> 0:38:02
we hadn't been informed.

762
0:38:04 --> 0:38:07
And so I withdrew my own appeal, but now listening to you,

763
0:38:07 --> 0:38:08
I realized that I was up against

764
0:38:08 --> 0:38:10
the pharmaceutical industry as well.

765
0:38:12 --> 0:38:17
Well, and in the UK, Stephen, the Wellcome Trust, in fact,

766
0:38:17 --> 0:38:22
does control the vast majority of what's done

767
0:38:22 --> 0:38:25
under what's called the industrial acts

768
0:38:25 --> 0:38:30
with respect to any part of the pharmaceutical review process

769
0:38:31 --> 0:38:33
in the UK.

770
0:38:33 --> 0:38:36
Beginning in the 1930s, the Wellcome Trust

771
0:38:36 --> 0:38:41
was the first one to create what ultimately became

772
0:38:41 --> 0:38:44
the UK equivalent of the FDA.

773
0:38:44 --> 0:38:48
They were the Fox governing their own hen house.

774
0:38:48 --> 0:38:50
But it's worse than that because if you go back

775
0:38:50 --> 0:38:53
and you read the charter of the British East India Company,

776
0:38:53 --> 0:38:56
the Hudson Bay Company, the Virginia Company,

777
0:38:56 --> 0:38:58
and the related companies set up

778
0:38:58 --> 0:39:02
in the early decades of the 17th century,

779
0:39:02 --> 0:39:04
what you realize is the crown itself

780
0:39:06 --> 0:39:10
is obligated to defend these criminal actors.

781
0:39:10 --> 0:39:12
And that is a grant that has never been superseded

782
0:39:12 --> 0:39:14
by any legislation.

783
0:39:14 --> 0:39:17
So you aren't just up against this theoretical

784
0:39:17 --> 0:39:22
amorphous bad guy, you are up against the very essence

785
0:39:22 --> 0:39:25
of the jurisprudence of the United Kingdom.

786
0:39:25 --> 0:39:29
This is in fact a, you don't get to come across

787
0:39:29 --> 0:39:34
the starting line, which is the reason why I began

788
0:39:34 --> 0:39:38
in the spring of 2020, saying that this is not

789
0:39:38 --> 0:39:40
a public health crime, this is not even

790
0:39:40 --> 0:39:44
a public health emergency, this is an antitrust

791
0:39:44 --> 0:39:48
and racketeering crime, and it needs to be treated as such.

792
0:39:48 --> 0:39:53
If we do not treat it as an organized crime,

793
0:39:53 --> 0:39:57
we will fail because the deck is stacked.

794
0:39:57 --> 0:39:59
So your point is exactly well taken,

795
0:39:59 --> 0:40:01
but this goes back to the charter

796
0:40:01 --> 0:40:03
of the British East India Company

797
0:40:03 --> 0:40:06
when we actually saw that being chartered in 1604.

798
0:40:09 --> 0:40:11
Yeah, so I forgot to say the most important thing, Dave,

799
0:40:11 --> 0:40:13
because I'm having to revisit things

800
0:40:13 --> 0:40:15
that are not really nice to think about for me.

801
0:40:17 --> 0:40:22
But so I became aware of a,

802
0:40:23 --> 0:40:25
a happening within the military

803
0:40:25 --> 0:40:27
regarding class A controlled drugs,

804
0:40:27 --> 0:40:29
and I knew that it was criminal.

805
0:40:29 --> 0:40:32
Straight away, I just knew, and I said,

806
0:40:32 --> 0:40:35
you need a police investigation.

807
0:40:35 --> 0:40:36
I didn't even think about it.

808
0:40:36 --> 0:40:38
I didn't think, oh, I'm a whistleblower here,

809
0:40:38 --> 0:40:39
I'm in danger.

810
0:40:39 --> 0:40:41
I didn't know what a whistleblower was.

811
0:40:41 --> 0:40:44
I just said what I should say in that circumstance

812
0:40:44 --> 0:40:48
as a medical doctor, you need a police investigation.

813
0:40:48 --> 0:40:50
And I was met by silence.

814
0:40:50 --> 0:40:54
And I said, I'm really confused why you're silent,

815
0:40:54 --> 0:40:56
why, oh, it was a nurse leading the investigation,

816
0:40:56 --> 0:41:01
by the way, a nurse leading a,

817
0:41:02 --> 0:41:05
a so-called investigation, internal investigation

818
0:41:05 --> 0:41:10
into a class A controlled drug, massive misappropriation

819
0:41:10 --> 0:41:13
in the military on an isolated camp in Lancashire.

820
0:41:13 --> 0:41:16
That's why Lancashire police had jurisdiction.

821
0:41:16 --> 0:41:18
But the thing about it was that

822
0:41:19 --> 0:41:20
but the thing about it was that,

823
0:41:20 --> 0:41:24
so it turned, so that was the, and you know, as always,

824
0:41:24 --> 0:41:26
when you come across something like that,

825
0:41:26 --> 0:41:28
and I was absolutely determined,

826
0:41:28 --> 0:41:30
but then they fired me three weeks later

827
0:41:30 --> 0:41:32
with no reason given by text.

828
0:41:34 --> 0:41:35
And that's outrageous, obviously.

829
0:41:35 --> 0:41:38
So I had lots of people helping me.

830
0:41:39 --> 0:41:44
And anyway, time went on, like years went on,

831
0:41:45 --> 0:41:47
and then eventually as the case became better known

832
0:41:47 --> 0:41:49
because I was the best represented

833
0:41:50 --> 0:41:54
employment tribunal claimant ever in the United Kingdom.

834
0:41:54 --> 0:41:57
I won't say who the lawyers were.

835
0:41:59 --> 0:42:01
But anyway, but they were very senior QC,

836
0:42:01 --> 0:42:06
but also a brilliant junior barrister.

837
0:42:06 --> 0:42:10
And the military officers approached me,

838
0:42:10 --> 0:42:11
who didn't know each other.

839
0:42:13 --> 0:42:15
And they were, so three of them approached me,

840
0:42:15 --> 0:42:20
asking me how did I think that the drugs,

841
0:42:20 --> 0:42:22
so they were ostensibly on my side,

842
0:42:22 --> 0:42:24
but maybe they weren't, I don't know.

843
0:42:24 --> 0:42:26
Asked me how I thought the drugs,

844
0:42:26 --> 0:42:29
the class A controlled drugs were getting into the country.

845
0:42:31 --> 0:42:32
And the way, you know,

846
0:42:32 --> 0:42:33
they have a way of asking these questions.

847
0:42:33 --> 0:42:38
And I just said, you mean that they coming on

848
0:42:38 --> 0:42:41
military planes and military ships, no checks?

849
0:42:42 --> 0:42:43
And none of them admitted it.

850
0:42:43 --> 0:42:45
They just said, think about it, Stephen,

851
0:42:45 --> 0:42:48
or words to that effect.

852
0:42:48 --> 0:42:49
Yeah. Any comments?

853
0:42:50 --> 0:42:54
Well, see, this is where if you go back

854
0:42:54 --> 0:42:56
and you look at, you have to understand,

855
0:42:56 --> 0:42:58
we've gone through the letters of Mark,

856
0:42:58 --> 0:43:01
which are the authorized piracy letters

857
0:43:01 --> 0:43:04
that the Crown can issue.

858
0:43:04 --> 0:43:08
And you find out that there are exemptions to taxation,

859
0:43:08 --> 0:43:10
there are exemptions to inspection,

860
0:43:10 --> 0:43:15
and there are exemptions to tariffs of all form

861
0:43:15 --> 0:43:16
that are authorized,

862
0:43:16 --> 0:43:19
which is part of the reason why I've said numerous times

863
0:43:20 --> 0:43:24
that this is actually the pharmaceutical industrial complex,

864
0:43:24 --> 0:43:25
not the military complex.

865
0:43:25 --> 0:43:28
The military is merely the agency

866
0:43:28 --> 0:43:30
through which it is being delivered.

867
0:43:30 --> 0:43:34
It is not in fact the military that's the point.

868
0:43:34 --> 0:43:39
The military is one of the points of the spear,

869
0:43:39 --> 0:43:40
but it is not the spear.

870
0:43:41 --> 0:43:45
The spear is the drug dealers ever since 1604.

871
0:43:45 --> 0:43:47
We have to just face it.

872
0:43:47 --> 0:43:47
Wow.

873
0:43:49 --> 0:43:51
Yeah, so playing into that, David,

874
0:43:51 --> 0:43:53
there was someone helping me in my case.

875
0:43:53 --> 0:43:55
I've just remembered now,

876
0:43:55 --> 0:43:57
who was a brilliant investigator of fraud.

877
0:43:57 --> 0:43:59
He was a medical doctor.

878
0:43:59 --> 0:44:00
He was completely fearless.

879
0:44:00 --> 0:44:02
I came to know this guy.

880
0:44:02 --> 0:44:06
He helped me in my case with the research and stuff.

881
0:44:07 --> 0:44:10
But I tried to persuade him to take on,

882
0:44:11 --> 0:44:16
he won against the US pharmaceutical companies

883
0:44:16 --> 0:44:19
who had tried to take him out,

884
0:44:19 --> 0:44:22
and twice they tried to take him out,

885
0:44:22 --> 0:44:26
and twice he felt that he was going to lose his house,

886
0:44:26 --> 0:44:28
but twice he survived.

887
0:44:28 --> 0:44:29
Absolutely brilliant.

888
0:44:29 --> 0:44:30
I can't remember his name.

889
0:44:30 --> 0:44:32
I don't know whether I should name him anyway,

890
0:44:33 --> 0:44:38
but anyway, point is that he was an expert on fraud,

891
0:44:39 --> 0:44:41
and this is, so I was wondering,

892
0:44:41 --> 0:44:43
why would the pharmaceutical industry

893
0:44:43 --> 0:44:46
try to take this guy out, you know, in the US,

894
0:44:46 --> 0:44:49
I was told, US pharmaceutical companies,

895
0:44:49 --> 0:44:52
trying to take out this medical doctor in the UK

896
0:44:52 --> 0:44:54
who was focusing on fraud?

897
0:44:55 --> 0:44:59
Well, it is, if you ever watch the film,

898
0:44:59 --> 0:45:03
Constance Gardner, and if you haven't, make sure you do.

899
0:45:03 --> 0:45:04
John Le Carre.

900
0:45:05 --> 0:45:06
But if you actually look at that,

901
0:45:06 --> 0:45:11
you'll see that there would be a plausible argument

902
0:45:11 --> 0:45:12
if you know the backstory of that,

903
0:45:12 --> 0:45:16
specifically if you know the backstory of William Haddad,

904
0:45:16 --> 0:45:19
who is a guy who everyone should know,

905
0:45:19 --> 0:45:20
and very few people do,

906
0:45:22 --> 0:45:25
you'll notice that he was part of the Kennedy administration

907
0:45:25 --> 0:45:27
at the time of Kennedy's assassination,

908
0:45:27 --> 0:45:31
and there may have been something about Constance Gardner

909
0:45:31 --> 0:45:33
that you ought to know if you think you know anything

910
0:45:33 --> 0:45:35
about the Kennedy assassination.

911
0:45:35 --> 0:45:37
So I will leave it at that,

912
0:45:37 --> 0:45:39
and I'll leave you all to consider

913
0:45:40 --> 0:45:45
that there may have been warnings that we did not listen to.

914
0:45:45 --> 0:45:50
Yeah, so David, so my view as a medical doctor,

915
0:45:50 --> 0:45:52
so I don't feel as a medical doctor

916
0:45:52 --> 0:45:54
that I can have an opinion, you know,

917
0:45:54 --> 0:45:56
that used to be the case,

918
0:45:56 --> 0:45:58
and I still feel that that should be the case,

919
0:45:58 --> 0:46:00
that I don't have to prove things beyond reasonable doubt

920
0:46:00 --> 0:46:04
or even have a peer-reviewed study to prove my instincts

921
0:46:04 --> 0:46:07
and hypothesize.

922
0:46:07 --> 0:46:12
So my view is that there is a real possibility

923
0:46:13 --> 0:46:14
that there was no pandemic,

924
0:46:15 --> 0:46:18
and that certainly I'm very doubtful

925
0:46:18 --> 0:46:23
that the diagnosis of COVID-19 is possible,

926
0:46:23 --> 0:46:25
and I wonder whether you think,

927
0:46:25 --> 0:46:26
whether you've ever thought,

928
0:46:26 --> 0:46:28
I know that you like to talk about Baric

929
0:46:28 --> 0:46:29
and the rest of them, you know,

930
0:46:29 --> 0:46:31
and the gain of function stuff in Wuhan,

931
0:46:31 --> 0:46:32
and you may well be right,

932
0:46:32 --> 0:46:36
but I wonder whether there's a possibility in your mind,

933
0:46:36 --> 0:46:39
because it's very important that we, you know,

934
0:46:39 --> 0:46:41
correct our course if there's any possibility

935
0:46:41 --> 0:46:44
that we might be wrong, including you,

936
0:46:44 --> 0:46:46
especially with these high-profile cases.

937
0:46:46 --> 0:46:49
Is there any possibility that they use

938
0:46:49 --> 0:46:54
the gain of function thing to play into the narrative,

939
0:46:55 --> 0:46:57
lead people astray with a kind of double bluff?

940
0:46:57 --> 0:46:59
Do you think that that's a possibility or not?

941
0:46:59 --> 0:47:01
Because my view is that the whole-

942
0:47:01 --> 0:47:04
Yeah, Stephen, if you've listened to my presentations

943
0:47:04 --> 0:47:06
at either parliament, you know the answer.

944
0:47:06 --> 0:47:11
This all was a bluff, but the part that's not a bluff,

945
0:47:11 --> 0:47:13
and this is the part that concerns me

946
0:47:13 --> 0:47:17
about the conversations about scientific epistemology

947
0:47:19 --> 0:47:22
and dogma, which is not what this is about,

948
0:47:23 --> 0:47:25
this was the creation of a weapon.

949
0:47:25 --> 0:47:30
In 2005, it was defined as the creation of a weapon

950
0:47:30 --> 0:47:34
when Ralph Baric said that he actually was

951
0:47:34 --> 0:47:36
using synthetic coronavirus

952
0:47:36 --> 0:47:39
as a bio warfare enabling technology.

953
0:47:39 --> 0:47:43
Now, I don't know how somebody can read that statement

954
0:47:43 --> 0:47:46
and come away thinking that I'm somehow advocating

955
0:47:46 --> 0:47:50
for a dogmatic view of a scientific theory.

956
0:47:50 --> 0:47:55
I'm simply saying that on the backbone of an architecture

957
0:47:55 --> 0:48:00
of a protein sequence, which is what that definition means,

958
0:48:00 --> 0:48:02
he built a biological weapon.

959
0:48:02 --> 0:48:06
There is no question that in 2014,

960
0:48:06 --> 0:48:10
at the National Academy of Sciences

961
0:48:10 --> 0:48:13
and at the proceedings that were published in February 2016,

962
0:48:13 --> 0:48:16
Peter Daschuk said we were gonna use that weapon

963
0:48:16 --> 0:48:21
to get the public to accept a pan-coronavirus vaccine.

964
0:48:21 --> 0:48:22
There's no question of that.

965
0:48:22 --> 0:48:26
In 2016, there's no question that when they said

966
0:48:26 --> 0:48:30
the Wuhan Institute of Virology Virus Chimera Number 1

967
0:48:31 --> 0:48:32
was poised for human emergence,

968
0:48:32 --> 0:48:35
there is no question that that was a distribution

969
0:48:35 --> 0:48:37
of a biological weapon.

970
0:48:37 --> 0:48:42
I have said nothing but this from the beginning.

971
0:48:42 --> 0:48:45
This was a biological weapon attack.

972
0:48:45 --> 0:48:47
It was distributed.

973
0:48:47 --> 0:48:51
They said it in their own words.

974
0:48:51 --> 0:48:54
They said it on September 18th, 2019,

975
0:48:54 --> 0:48:56
that they were going to use a, quote,

976
0:48:56 --> 0:48:59
lethal respiratory pathogen to get the public

977
0:48:59 --> 0:49:04
to accept a universal vaccine platform by September 2020.

978
0:49:04 --> 0:49:06
That is what they said.

979
0:49:06 --> 0:49:09
And I am sick and tired of the number of people

980
0:49:09 --> 0:49:13
who believe that somehow or another I'm supporting

981
0:49:13 --> 0:49:15
a particular scientific narrative or not.

982
0:49:15 --> 0:49:19
What I'm saying is that they used an architecture

983
0:49:19 --> 0:49:22
of a protein that they turned into a weapon

984
0:49:22 --> 0:49:25
by their own admission, DARPA funded that weapon

985
0:49:25 --> 0:49:30
by its own admission in 2005 and persisted through 2019,

986
0:49:30 --> 0:49:31
continues to do that.

987
0:49:31 --> 0:49:32
And here's the point.

988
0:49:33 --> 0:49:38
You do not use the word accidental or intentional release

989
0:49:38 --> 0:49:41
of a lethal respiratory pathogen.

990
0:49:41 --> 0:49:43
Their words, release.

991
0:49:43 --> 0:49:45
That is not an accidental leak.

992
0:49:45 --> 0:49:48
That is not nature zoonotically transferring.

993
0:49:48 --> 0:49:51
When you say humans are releasing a thing,

994
0:49:51 --> 0:49:55
that is an active distribution of a thing.

995
0:49:55 --> 0:49:59
There never was a transmissible anything.

996
0:49:59 --> 0:50:02
There was a deliverable thing.

997
0:50:02 --> 0:50:05
And the deliverable thing is a biological weapon.

998
0:50:05 --> 0:50:08
And we need to use the criminal's own language

999
0:50:08 --> 0:50:10
to indict them.

1000
0:50:10 --> 0:50:13
We have seen throughout the last three and a half years,

1001
0:50:13 --> 0:50:17
nonsense about whether there's viruses or not viruses,

1002
0:50:17 --> 0:50:21
whether there's this or that, stop the nonsense.

1003
0:50:22 --> 0:50:26
This was and is a biological weapon attack against humanity.

1004
0:50:26 --> 0:50:29
And if we stop focusing on that,

1005
0:50:29 --> 0:50:33
and we start focusing on these nonsensical rabbit trails

1006
0:50:33 --> 0:50:35
that have nothing to do with the attack,

1007
0:50:37 --> 0:50:42
we would not be giving a Nobel Prize to the manufacturers

1008
0:50:43 --> 0:50:48
of a system that actually we know is a pro-oncologic system.

1009
0:50:48 --> 0:50:50
We would not give that Nobel Prize out

1010
0:50:50 --> 0:50:53
if we weren't doing the same thing that we did

1011
0:50:53 --> 0:50:56
when Obama got a Nobel Prize for the possibility

1012
0:50:56 --> 0:51:00
of transferring our assassination programs to UAVs.

1013
0:51:00 --> 0:51:02
We've got to stop bullshitting ourselves.

1014
0:51:02 --> 0:51:07
This is a weapon being brought against humanity, period.

1015
0:51:10 --> 0:51:12
Thank you, David.

1016
0:51:12 --> 0:51:14
So thank you for that explanation.

1017
0:51:14 --> 0:51:17
I think that you may not realize it,

1018
0:51:17 --> 0:51:18
but it's rather nuanced.

1019
0:51:18 --> 0:51:23
So I can understand why people are snapping at your heels,

1020
0:51:24 --> 0:51:26
not that I condone it.

1021
0:51:26 --> 0:51:27
Well, but here's the problem.

1022
0:51:27 --> 0:51:30
And I wanna be really clear about this.

1023
0:51:30 --> 0:51:33
I'm fighting a war.

1024
0:51:33 --> 0:51:36
And what I'm getting is friendly fire from idiots.

1025
0:51:37 --> 0:51:40
And that's not helping when you're fighting a war.

1026
0:51:40 --> 0:51:41
Exactly. When you're fighting a war,

1027
0:51:41 --> 0:51:44
the last thing you need is idiots

1028
0:51:44 --> 0:51:47
who are actually shooting you in the heels.

1029
0:51:47 --> 0:51:52
And I'm saying this with no equivocation.

1030
0:51:52 --> 0:51:55
If you wanna have a debate about scientific theory,

1031
0:51:55 --> 0:51:56
do it on your own time,

1032
0:51:56 --> 0:52:00
but don't do it during an active warfare campaign.

1033
0:52:00 --> 0:52:01
Absolutely.

1034
0:52:01 --> 0:52:04
We can talk about these things whenever the hell we want to,

1035
0:52:04 --> 0:52:06
but we'll do it over coffee cups

1036
0:52:06 --> 0:52:10
and we'll do it in Chatham House Rules conversations.

1037
0:52:10 --> 0:52:13
But don't do it while we're trying to actually

1038
0:52:13 --> 0:52:18
credibly bring a criminal case against a court

1039
0:52:18 --> 0:52:19
who are you ready for this?

1040
0:52:19 --> 0:52:22
Is not interested in a metaphysical conversation

1041
0:52:22 --> 0:52:24
about the nature of science.

1042
0:52:24 --> 0:52:27
I'm pointing out a crime.

1043
0:52:27 --> 0:52:30
And when we actually are addressing a crime,

1044
0:52:30 --> 0:52:33
we need to focus on a criminality,

1045
0:52:33 --> 0:52:37
not on metaphysical debates on reality.

1046
0:52:37 --> 0:52:39
There is a time and a place for both.

1047
0:52:39 --> 0:52:42
And I'm not interested in debating the metaphysics

1048
0:52:42 --> 0:52:46
of the death and destruction of millions of people.

1049
0:52:46 --> 0:52:49
Because if you don't think that the biological weapon

1050
0:52:49 --> 0:52:52
could have been derived from a coronavirus model

1051
0:52:52 --> 0:52:56
because you disavow a virus model, well guess what?

1052
0:52:56 --> 0:52:58
Real people are really dying.

1053
0:52:58 --> 0:53:02
And they're really dying because there is a series of steps

1054
0:53:02 --> 0:53:04
that have been taken from a model

1055
0:53:04 --> 0:53:07
that is ultimately making a weapon.

1056
0:53:07 --> 0:53:10
And if we're gonna debate on the metaphysics

1057
0:53:10 --> 0:53:12
of the design architecture of the weapon,

1058
0:53:13 --> 0:53:15
real people are gonna die and it's gonna be on our watch

1059
0:53:15 --> 0:53:18
while we're distracting ourselves with nonsense.

1060
0:53:18 --> 0:53:19
Absolutely.

1061
0:53:19 --> 0:53:21
Thank you very much, David, for clarifying that

1062
0:53:21 --> 0:53:24
because a lot of people need to hear what you said.

1063
0:53:24 --> 0:53:27
And by the way, just to make myself absolutely clear,

1064
0:53:27 --> 0:53:30
I have never ever criticized you.

1065
0:53:31 --> 0:53:32
No, it's fine.

1066
0:53:32 --> 0:53:34
I'm just saying, you know what?

1067
0:53:34 --> 0:53:37
Take your metaphysical arguments wherever you want.

1068
0:53:37 --> 0:53:38
I'm gonna fight the war.

1069
0:53:40 --> 0:53:41
Absolutely.

1070
0:53:41 --> 0:53:42
Thank you very much.

1071
0:53:42 --> 0:53:43
Thank you, Stephen.

1072
0:53:43 --> 0:53:44
Perfect timing.

1073
0:53:44 --> 0:53:46
15 minutes, very impressive, Stephen.

1074
0:53:46 --> 0:53:46
Great job.

1075
0:53:46 --> 0:53:49
All right, David, we've got a series of hands up

1076
0:53:49 --> 0:53:50
as you can see.

1077
0:53:50 --> 0:53:52
So we'll start with Rose.

1078
0:53:52 --> 0:53:53
They're all in order.

1079
0:53:53 --> 0:53:56
And remember everybody, I'll try and follow the order

1080
0:53:56 --> 0:53:58
because Zoom stuffs you around.

1081
0:53:58 --> 0:54:02
If you fart, then your hand goes down.

1082
0:54:02 --> 0:54:04
I do not take your hand down, all right?

1083
0:54:04 --> 0:54:06
So Rose, you first.

1084
0:54:06 --> 0:54:09
David, I'll go quickly because there's a lot of hands.

1085
0:54:09 --> 0:54:11
So I'm gonna go with a compliment, a statement,

1086
0:54:11 --> 0:54:14
and I have two questions for you.

1087
0:54:14 --> 0:54:16
One, I have so much tremendous respect for you.

1088
0:54:16 --> 0:54:19
I am so honored to actually be on the phone with you.

1089
0:54:19 --> 0:54:22
So you were the first whistleblower I listened to

1090
0:54:22 --> 0:54:24
in spring of 2020.

1091
0:54:24 --> 0:54:26
So I've been fighting in the healthcare battle

1092
0:54:26 --> 0:54:30
and I discovered I was a naive child

1093
0:54:30 --> 0:54:31
fighting as a healthcare consultant

1094
0:54:31 --> 0:54:35
on the illegal Title V of the ACA,

1095
0:54:35 --> 0:54:39
the 2009 High Tech Act, yada, yada, yada, yada.

1096
0:54:39 --> 0:54:42
So I'm coming from this standpoint

1097
0:54:42 --> 0:54:45
of I was a professional naive child

1098
0:54:45 --> 0:54:47
until I discovered that the government

1099
0:54:47 --> 0:54:50
had taken over healthcare in 2016.

1100
0:54:50 --> 0:54:54
So the one thing that I would ask or make as a statement

1101
0:54:54 --> 0:54:58
as instead of getting all just attorneys,

1102
0:54:58 --> 0:55:02
sometimes it takes a novice to look

1103
0:55:02 --> 0:55:06
to what is the little pebble that we can get out of the way

1104
0:55:06 --> 0:55:09
so that the boulder can roll down the hill.

1105
0:55:09 --> 0:55:14
So your strategy and your concepts are beyond impressive.

1106
0:55:15 --> 0:55:19
So what is the little nuance of the charter

1107
0:55:19 --> 0:55:22
that we can dismiss it, even if it's a comma out of place

1108
0:55:22 --> 0:55:27
or a misused word to get the little pebble

1109
0:55:27 --> 0:55:29
to make the boulder roll?

1110
0:55:29 --> 0:55:32
So the two questions I have for you are

1111
0:55:32 --> 0:55:35
there's a lot of debate back and forth

1112
0:55:35 --> 0:55:37
should doctors be held accountable

1113
0:55:37 --> 0:55:39
through all of this or not?

1114
0:55:39 --> 0:55:41
Because at the end of the day,

1115
0:55:41 --> 0:55:43
if we just go back to and say,

1116
0:55:43 --> 0:55:47
it was the big organizations we were duped my bad.

1117
0:55:47 --> 0:55:51
I want your opinion on when and how

1118
0:55:51 --> 0:55:54
should individual doctors or politicians

1119
0:55:54 --> 0:55:56
be held accountable.

1120
0:55:56 --> 0:55:59
And then the second question I have for you is

1121
0:55:59 --> 0:56:00
where are we winning?

1122
0:56:00 --> 0:56:03
Do you have a great story of where we're winning right now?

1123
0:56:04 --> 0:56:08
So beautiful questions both.

1124
0:56:09 --> 0:56:14
And I'm going to call your attention to

1125
0:56:15 --> 0:56:18
article five, section 13 of the chart

1126
0:56:18 --> 0:56:19
of the World Health Organization,

1127
0:56:20 --> 0:56:25
which is a very fascinating thing in that

1128
0:56:26 --> 0:56:31
there is no evidence that there was ever any legal authority

1129
0:56:32 --> 0:56:36
for an organization to grant itself as a corporation

1130
0:56:36 --> 0:56:40
sovereign immunity on its own behalf for its own sake.

1131
0:56:40 --> 0:56:45
And the pebble is that that particular section

1132
0:56:45 --> 0:56:47
of the charter, which for those of you

1133
0:56:47 --> 0:56:48
who want to pay attention,

1134
0:56:48 --> 0:56:52
it's article five, section 13 of the charter.

1135
0:56:52 --> 0:56:57
And in there, the grant of the absolute immunity

1136
0:56:57 --> 0:57:00
from any prosecution is actually done

1137
0:57:00 --> 0:57:03
without any legal binding authority anywhere.

1138
0:57:03 --> 0:57:05
And it has merely been recognized,

1139
0:57:05 --> 0:57:08
but it has never been authorized.

1140
0:57:08 --> 0:57:11
And so it's important for us to understand to your point

1141
0:57:11 --> 0:57:13
that that may very well be the pebble

1142
0:57:13 --> 0:57:18
that takes down the entire mountain because by fiat,

1143
0:57:18 --> 0:57:20
and it's not unlike what happened at Bretton Woods.

1144
0:57:20 --> 0:57:22
It's not unlike what happened with the formation

1145
0:57:22 --> 0:57:25
of most of these organizations.

1146
0:57:25 --> 0:57:29
We actually have a situation where a criminal conspiracy

1147
0:57:29 --> 0:57:32
was actually established and the criminals themselves

1148
0:57:32 --> 0:57:35
gave themselves a permanent out clause.

1149
0:57:35 --> 0:57:38
And that has a legal structuring concept

1150
0:57:38 --> 0:57:41
inside of the legal formation of what it means

1151
0:57:41 --> 0:57:43
to incorporate a business.

1152
0:57:43 --> 0:57:47
You cannot, under US law, incorporate any behavior

1153
0:57:47 --> 0:57:49
for the purpose of an illegal act.

1154
0:57:50 --> 0:57:53
And so we are taking that one apart.

1155
0:57:53 --> 0:57:56
And that is one of the angles that we're using.

1156
0:57:56 --> 0:57:58
But I think one of the things that's critical

1157
0:57:58 --> 0:58:02
is that we're trying to make sure that every argument we make

1158
0:58:02 --> 0:58:09
falls outside of any of the exemptions of prosecution

1159
0:58:09 --> 0:58:14
that are enshrined in any of the UN affiliated organization documents

1160
0:58:14 --> 0:58:18
so that we don't have a moral victory

1161
0:58:18 --> 0:58:21
that ultimately winds up being overturned

1162
0:58:21 --> 0:58:24
by an institutional grant of immunity.

1163
0:58:24 --> 0:58:27
And secondly, excellent, David.

1164
0:58:27 --> 0:58:29
Secondly, Rose's question was,

1165
0:58:29 --> 0:58:32
do you know somewhere where we are winning,

1166
0:58:32 --> 0:58:34
and Carla Deane put into the chat,

1167
0:58:34 --> 0:58:40
that the WHO funding has been blocked in the US Senate?

1168
0:58:40 --> 0:58:41
But David, that was...

1169
0:58:41 --> 0:58:44
Well, so we are making a lot of progress.

1170
0:58:44 --> 0:58:47
We're making progress in the Swiss courts already

1171
0:58:47 --> 0:58:51
with respect to at least having cases that we can file,

1172
0:58:51 --> 0:58:54
and there are a lot of cases that we can file,

1173
0:58:54 --> 0:58:57
and they're not getting dismissed for standing.

1174
0:58:57 --> 0:59:00
So there is some progress there.

1175
0:59:00 --> 0:59:05
And I have to say that the work that is being done

1176
0:59:05 --> 0:59:09
by Patricia Finn and her colleagues in New York,

1177
0:59:09 --> 0:59:15
I always have to point to as an outstanding evidence of persistence,

1178
0:59:15 --> 0:59:19
where now we see that not only is there progress being made,

1179
0:59:19 --> 0:59:23
as many of you know from the stuff that happened in the New York Supreme Court,

1180
0:59:23 --> 0:59:28
but there is in fact an ongoing pressure to suggest

1181
0:59:28 --> 0:59:32
that the distribution of the injections

1182
0:59:32 --> 0:59:37
by virtue of forced employment or employment termination threats

1183
0:59:37 --> 0:59:41
is a coercion that may very well fall apart.

1184
0:59:41 --> 0:59:44
And so I really acknowledge the work that she's been doing.

1185
0:59:44 --> 0:59:49
We are working very closely with the government of Florida

1186
0:59:49 --> 0:59:51
at the state level to actually move

1187
0:59:51 --> 0:59:54
the deceptive medical practices argument forward.

1188
0:59:54 --> 0:59:58
As many of you know, our Federal Trade Commission Act

1189
0:59:58 --> 1:00:01
makes it illegal to mislabel a product for the purpose

1190
1:00:01 --> 1:00:06
of misleading the public into believing that they're getting something.

1191
1:00:06 --> 1:00:09
And our argument is there is a legal definition of vaccination

1192
1:00:09 --> 1:00:12
that has never been changed in the law.

1193
1:00:12 --> 1:00:16
The vaccination terminology that CDC and FDA use

1194
1:00:16 --> 1:00:21
has been administratively altered, but the law has not changed.

1195
1:00:21 --> 1:00:24
Hey, Dr. Martin, I'm in Florida,

1196
1:00:24 --> 1:00:27
so I'm very interested in what you're just saying,

1197
1:00:27 --> 1:00:32
because we have been being squashed by the government here in Florida.

1198
1:00:32 --> 1:00:36
Specifically, they gutted SB 222,

1199
1:00:36 --> 1:00:40
and I tried to put forward a Care Freedom Act that is drafted,

1200
1:00:40 --> 1:00:43
that they have sat on and shelved for a year.

1201
1:00:43 --> 1:00:45
So I'm very curious who you're working with.

1202
1:00:45 --> 1:00:49
Well, that will be public relatively soon.

1203
1:00:49 --> 1:00:51
And when you see it, it will be very public.

1204
1:00:51 --> 1:00:55
But we're taking once again a non-traditional approach

1205
1:00:55 --> 1:00:58
using the Federal Trade Commission Act as the basis for an argument.

1206
1:01:00 --> 1:01:03
And David, you should know that Patricia Finney is on the call

1207
1:01:03 --> 1:01:06
and she put in the chat, thank you for your compliment.

1208
1:01:06 --> 1:01:09
Well, listen, of all the people out there,

1209
1:01:09 --> 1:01:13
I would say that between Patricia and George Wentz and one or two others,

1210
1:01:15 --> 1:01:18
you know, like with everything else,

1211
1:01:18 --> 1:01:22
a lot of people who don't understand that legal precedent

1212
1:01:22 --> 1:01:26
is in fact more the law than the actual code is the law.

1213
1:01:26 --> 1:01:31
And setting bad precedent, which is what a lot of attorneys have done,

1214
1:01:31 --> 1:01:33
has been unhelpful.

1215
1:01:33 --> 1:01:37
And I have to say that if you look at what Patricia has done,

1216
1:01:38 --> 1:01:42
we have somebody who's on the winning side of understanding

1217
1:01:42 --> 1:01:47
that setting bad precedent is the worst thing we could do

1218
1:01:47 --> 1:01:49
and making good precedent is the best thing we can do.

1219
1:01:49 --> 1:01:54
So, you know, I just salute the work that she's been doing. Absolutely.

1220
1:01:55 --> 1:01:57
Thank you. Thank you, David. Well done, Patricia.

1221
1:01:57 --> 1:02:01
And David, I think the other point for all of us to understand

1222
1:02:01 --> 1:02:06
is that the lawful definition or the definition at law of vaccines

1223
1:02:06 --> 1:02:08
has not been changed in the US.

1224
1:02:08 --> 1:02:09
That has never been changed.

1225
1:02:09 --> 1:02:12
So that's important, everybody. Please understand that.

1226
1:02:12 --> 1:02:15
Okay, Rose, thank you for that. Well done on your work.

1227
1:02:15 --> 1:02:16
Paul's next.

1228
1:02:21 --> 1:02:22
Paul, I see you muted.

1229
1:02:27 --> 1:02:28
Paul, you're muted.

1230
1:02:31 --> 1:02:36
Hi, everybody. Hi, Steve. Hi, David.

1231
1:02:36 --> 1:02:38
I've been following your work from the start pretty much.

1232
1:02:40 --> 1:02:41
Blown away by it.

1233
1:02:41 --> 1:02:42
And it's always been for me.

1234
1:02:42 --> 1:02:44
Paul, you've got a problem with your microphone.

1235
1:02:44 --> 1:02:46
You need to switch your video off.

1236
1:02:48 --> 1:02:49
What do I need to do?

1237
1:02:49 --> 1:02:50
Switch your video off, darling.

1238
1:02:50 --> 1:02:54
You need to switch your video off so more chance of us hearing what you're saying.

1239
1:02:57 --> 1:02:58
Is that better?

1240
1:02:59 --> 1:03:00
Much better, thank you.

1241
1:03:02 --> 1:03:07
And I remember, right, in 2020 when you were talking about the vaccine,

1242
1:03:07 --> 1:03:10
when I think even at this stage, the direct

1243
1:03:10 --> 1:03:12
that we all thought would work

1244
1:03:14 --> 1:03:17
in the US and everywhere else in the court system.

1245
1:03:17 --> 1:03:18
That's it.

1246
1:03:18 --> 1:03:20
Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul.

1247
1:03:22 --> 1:03:24
You've got an echo. It's an echo, Charles.

1248
1:03:24 --> 1:03:27
No, it's not. It's bad. It's bad interference.

1249
1:03:27 --> 1:03:29
We'll go to Albert and we'll come back to Paul.

1250
1:03:29 --> 1:03:29
Okay.

1251
1:03:31 --> 1:03:34
Dave, hi. Welcome to Eagle.

1252
1:03:34 --> 1:03:36
I'm the Bears guy and I got a question about the

1253
1:03:36 --> 1:03:40
1986 liability section act is something you taught me.

1254
1:03:40 --> 1:03:49
But right here in this section 300, I was AA-27 wondering if we can use it to go after

1255
1:03:49 --> 1:03:57
Secretary Becerra. But it says it, you know, he has, at least to me, it sounds like he has

1256
1:03:57 --> 1:04:00
some obligations here and he's got a lot of things to do.

1257
1:04:01 --> 1:04:05
You know, he has, at least to me, it sounds like he has some obligations here.

1258
1:04:05 --> 1:04:14
And he and it says the secretary, secretaries shall promote development of childhood vaccines.

1259
1:04:16 --> 1:04:24
Couple others. He says it shall make and assure improvements in and otherwise use the authorities

1260
1:04:24 --> 1:04:29
of the secretary with respects to licensing, manufacturing, processing, a bunch of other stuff.

1261
1:04:29 --> 1:04:32
And then adverse reaction reporting.

1262
1:04:33 --> 1:04:39
So, you know, with that, Dave, you know, I think they're in cahoots with each other,

1263
1:04:39 --> 1:04:46
the manufacturer and the CDC, FDA, they delete trial patients, they purposely delay the

1264
1:04:46 --> 1:04:52
publication of reports. I think that they strip and I think I can prove that they strip data out

1265
1:04:53 --> 1:05:01
of published reports like the age, the age field, the state location. So is this a weak part in the

1266
1:05:01 --> 1:05:07
armor of that liability act and do you find any value in that that we can go after them?

1267
1:05:07 --> 1:05:14
Yeah, Albert, thank you for that question. And just let's remember, the definition of adverse

1268
1:05:14 --> 1:05:20
event was changed in 2018. The World Health Organization changed the definition to be

1269
1:05:21 --> 1:05:27
something that had published evidence of being associative as a causal agent, which means that

1270
1:05:27 --> 1:05:33
at the time of the injection, there were no adverse events possible under the new definition

1271
1:05:33 --> 1:05:38
of adverse event following injection, which is pretty cool. You change the definition to mean

1272
1:05:38 --> 1:05:43
that you physically can't have them and then they don't exist. So you can lie by telling the truth.

1273
1:05:43 --> 1:05:49
And if you haven't seen my presentation in Strasburg, it's really important that you look

1274
1:05:49 --> 1:05:55
at that one. But remember that VAERS is another problem because VAERS is a standard only for

1275
1:05:55 --> 1:06:02
childhood scheduled vaccines. CICP is for adult injections for medical countermeasures. And they

1276
1:06:02 --> 1:06:07
played a bait and switch game with this particular situation so that they could constantly say,

1277
1:06:08 --> 1:06:14
once again, lying by telling the truth that they're not obligated to make VAERS correct for

1278
1:06:14 --> 1:06:20
the COVID shot because it wasn't a childhood vaccine scheduled shot, therefore not subject

1279
1:06:20 --> 1:06:27
to the 86 act, therefore not subject to anything else. But what does exist inside of VAERS is two

1280
1:06:27 --> 1:06:32
things that we need to understand. Number one is if there was a criminal fraud in the creation

1281
1:06:32 --> 1:06:38
of the emergency, that is an absolute silver bullet that takes everything out. We know that

1282
1:06:38 --> 1:06:44
there were criminal frauds and we know that that silver bullet exists. We just have to find a court

1283
1:06:44 --> 1:06:48
where we can shoot that bullet. And that's been a challenge. But the second thing and equally

1284
1:06:48 --> 1:06:56
important is under the 1986 act authorization, Congress was told how many adverse events were

1285
1:06:56 --> 1:07:03
expected as part of the injury and death rate of injections. And that number was actually part of

1286
1:07:03 --> 1:07:12
the authorizing legislation. And we know that Congress was lied to by the manufacturers when

1287
1:07:12 --> 1:07:20
they actually stipulated what the severity and consequence of adverse events are. And once again,

1288
1:07:20 --> 1:07:25
under contract law and under legislative law, if the opening condition or what we call the

1289
1:07:25 --> 1:07:33
conditions precedent were actually false and intentionally misleading, then the indemnity

1290
1:07:33 --> 1:07:39
protections go away. So it's called fraudulent conveyance under Crown law, it's deceptive

1291
1:07:39 --> 1:07:46
contracting in the US law. And Albert, there's a bunch of ways we can tackle it, but great point.

1292
1:07:46 --> 1:07:51
And yes, we can go after those things. Let's jump to the next question. Thank you. God bless you,

1293
1:07:51 --> 1:07:57
Dave. Thank you, Albert. Let's try Paul again. Yeah. Hi, Joe. I think I know what went on. I had

1294
1:07:57 --> 1:08:02
this external mic on. Can you hear me now, everyone? Yeah, we got you. Perfect. Hi, David. I don't know

1295
1:08:02 --> 1:08:07
what you caught and what you didn't, but I do remember in 2020, you were talking about going

1296
1:08:07 --> 1:08:13
the antitrust route rather than the direct criminal route. And also, whenever I've talked to

1297
1:08:14 --> 1:08:19
particularly lawyers in America, I always try to direct them to communicate with you.

1298
1:08:19 --> 1:08:28
And is it truth, justice, Sparta? Is that your legal kind of backup in Texas? No. That's not you?

1299
1:08:28 --> 1:08:34
Okay. No. I wasn't sure about that. But because I can see what's happened with all this precedent.

1300
1:08:34 --> 1:08:42
But do you feel, number one, that we will get sufficient courts and senior enough courts to

1301
1:08:42 --> 1:08:48
take these people down this going the antitrust route and the racketeering route? That's number

1302
1:08:48 --> 1:08:54
one. And number two question, totally different. I've been spiritual, but not religious. But

1303
1:08:55 --> 1:09:01
this is turning into, it's so obviously, a spiritual war, good versus bad. This is the obvious

1304
1:09:01 --> 1:09:05
thing that I heard you talking to an American guy with a beard, I can't remember his name.

1305
1:09:05 --> 1:09:12
And you said very clearly, they've lost. You are no doubt they've lost. Yeah, I was just waiting

1306
1:09:12 --> 1:09:18
for you to say, Okay, what? How have they lost? In what way have they lost? And this is what I'm

1307
1:09:18 --> 1:09:24
really hoping that you'll execute. Beautiful. So Paul, let me tackle both of the questions. The

1308
1:09:24 --> 1:09:29
answer is yes. Antitrust is the only way we're going to win because it's the only felony that

1309
1:09:29 --> 1:09:34
we can use to blow up the EUA. There is no other felony we have available because all the other

1310
1:09:34 --> 1:09:40
ones were done under World Health Organization authority. Therefore, they have the preemption

1311
1:09:40 --> 1:09:45
of getting away with it. But they don't have a preemption on antitrust and tax fraud, which is

1312
1:09:45 --> 1:09:50
the reason why that's the approach we're taking. Number two, and I like your spiritual warfare

1313
1:09:50 --> 1:09:56
question. I'm not a big fan of getting into eschatological debates any more than I am with

1314
1:09:56 --> 1:10:02
dogmatic debates on anything else. But let me say this. There is no question that when you have to

1315
1:10:02 --> 1:10:08
not only coerce a population into doing a thing, but then lie about the coercion, you're actually

1316
1:10:08 --> 1:10:15
on very existentially thin ice. Think about this for a moment. When we now have the official

1317
1:10:15 --> 1:10:22
narrative being nobody actually was ever forced to take the jab. Despite the hundreds and thousands

1318
1:10:22 --> 1:10:27
of hours of constant pressure, you have to do it or you lose your job, you have to do it or you

1319
1:10:27 --> 1:10:35
can't travel, you have to do it or anything else. Like a caged and dying animal, the narrative has

1320
1:10:35 --> 1:10:44
gotten so self-evidently false that we now have over 53% of the US population who's officially stated

1321
1:10:44 --> 1:10:53
it will not participate in an injection program at all. We have already won. They were pushing

1322
1:10:53 --> 1:11:01
nearly 60% acceptance and 70% acquiescence under threat. We're now at a situation where 53% of the

1323
1:11:01 --> 1:11:08
population say they won't even get a booster or flu shot. When I say we've won, what I'm saying is

1324
1:11:08 --> 1:11:15
that the intent was to enslave the human population into an absolute adherence to the

1325
1:11:15 --> 1:11:23
dogma of vaccines as the only way to manage health and they lost and they will lose more as we keep

1326
1:11:23 --> 1:11:29
the pressure on, but the war is already over. We're just mopping up the cleanup operation.

1327
1:11:29 --> 1:11:33
I hear that, which is obviously lovely to hear, but then when I look at the other stuff they're

1328
1:11:33 --> 1:11:41
going to bring in with the CBDCs and everything else... Paul, they'll only... Remember, they will

1329
1:11:41 --> 1:11:50
only succeed in introducing that which we acquiesce to accepting and if we decide to actually say no,

1330
1:11:51 --> 1:11:58
they will not be able to do it. This is up to the citizens of the world to go, not on our watch.

1331
1:11:58 --> 1:12:04
I hear the threats and I've always said apocalypses are tragically overrated.

1332
1:12:05 --> 1:12:12
Humans have always forecast them and they always disappoint. We have had apocalypses since the

1333
1:12:12 --> 1:12:18
second century and somehow or another we've been able to get amazing outcomes out of humanity

1334
1:12:18 --> 1:12:22
between now and then. We're going to survive this one just like we've survived all the other ones.

1335
1:12:23 --> 1:12:29
There is not an apocalypse except in our own fear-based mind control and if we don't have that,

1336
1:12:29 --> 1:12:36
we're going to be fine. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Paul. Brilliant. Just to be clear,

1337
1:12:36 --> 1:12:43
I just need to let you guys know I have 15 more minutes on my time availability. Okay, so tight

1338
1:12:43 --> 1:12:47
questions, tight answers. David, you're tight on the answers, so we'll be tight on the questions.

1339
1:12:47 --> 1:12:54
Thank you, Paul. Julie. Hey, David Martin. Thank you. I met you last year out at Glad Tidings.

1340
1:12:54 --> 1:13:00
Oh, indeed. We'll be back out there again in December. Yeah, first question. Okay, so back

1341
1:13:00 --> 1:13:04
out here in December. Yeah, and your beautiful wife Kim and you were dressed as George Washington.

1342
1:13:04 --> 1:13:09
It was amazing. You also introduced me to Stanford Graham and I've been working with him on getting

1343
1:13:09 --> 1:13:15
to sheriffs and getting victims from the COVID vaccine remdesivir poison cocktail. We're making

1344
1:13:15 --> 1:13:20
some progress, but can you speak to where that criminal complaint is at and then again, where can

1345
1:13:20 --> 1:13:26
people find your American Revolution movie to see? Thank you. So American Revolution will be re-released

1346
1:13:26 --> 1:13:31
shortly. It's actually on Vimeo right now, but you have to know how to get to it. It's not publicly

1347
1:13:31 --> 1:13:39
indexed, but that will change with respect to the criminal prosecution. We are looking for the case

1348
1:13:39 --> 1:13:46
in Tulsa, Oklahoma. We now have a very specific objective, which is if we can find

1349
1:13:47 --> 1:13:55
a patient and a family member participating in Tulsa, that's the jurisdiction that we need. So

1350
1:13:55 --> 1:14:02
Tulsa, Oklahoma, and if anybody can find anybody in Tulsa, we have the win that we need as long as we

1351
1:14:02 --> 1:14:08
get the body that we need. Thank you, Julie. Thank you. Thank you, Julie. Everybody else,

1352
1:14:08 --> 1:14:14
because we're tight on time, if you have suggestions for David, please put suggestions

1353
1:14:14 --> 1:14:18
into the chat. We'll share the chat with David when we get to the end of this program.

1354
1:14:18 --> 1:14:23
Perfect. All right. Insights that you get, just put them into the chat. This is for questions now

1355
1:14:23 --> 1:14:28
because we're tight for time. Thank you, Julie. Lars? And quick questions and not speeches.

1356
1:14:28 --> 1:14:38
Hi, David. Lars, good to see you. How are you? Good to see you. As you mentioned, my countrymen,

1357
1:14:38 --> 1:14:46
a couple of kilometers away from here, gave Kerikou and Weisman the Nobel Prize. Correct.

1358
1:14:46 --> 1:14:56
For introducing nucleoside-based modifications into mRNA vaccines. Is that weaponizing? Are they

1359
1:14:57 --> 1:15:06
actually making it more dangerous? And are they giving an award to making mRNA vaccines more

1360
1:15:06 --> 1:15:13
dangerous? And if that's true, what can we do to use? Yeah, two things, Lars. Remember that we

1361
1:15:13 --> 1:15:20
gave the Nobel Prize to CRISPR during the EUA. Remember that? Most people don't even remember

1362
1:15:20 --> 1:15:25
that that's what happened. CRISPR was around for 10 years. We gave them the Nobel Prize during the

1363
1:15:25 --> 1:15:32
EUA when the EUA was authorizing CRISPR. So A, number one, we got that problem. Number two,

1364
1:15:32 --> 1:15:37
the nucleosides that were introduced are we know to be pro-oncogenic. We know that they interfere

1365
1:15:37 --> 1:15:43
with interferon. We know that they actually interfere with tumor necrosis factor and a number

1366
1:15:43 --> 1:15:49
of other things. We know that. We gave the Nobel Prize for the specific purpose of calling the

1367
1:15:49 --> 1:15:57
hounds off of questioning the science behind what was added to mRNA. It is full-on weaponization.

1368
1:15:57 --> 1:16:04
There is no question about it. So then I think we should use the opportunity of the award ceremony

1369
1:16:04 --> 1:16:14
to bring this message out. Absolutely. Thank you. Absolutely. Thanks. Excellent. Yeah, we all want

1370
1:16:14 --> 1:16:20
to see that. Amy, you're muted.

1371
1:16:25 --> 1:16:30
Amy, quick. We'll go to John. Look, ask him and come back to Amy.

1372
1:16:34 --> 1:16:38
You're muted too as well, John. Come on, unmute yourself. If you want questions, be ready.

1373
1:16:39 --> 1:16:45
Yeah, I'm sorry. David, what, if any, knowledge do you have on the commercialization of the weapons

1374
1:16:45 --> 1:16:51
of electronic biological warfare? But what I'm referring to here is what appears to be a pay-to-play

1375
1:16:51 --> 1:16:58
industry that is centered around licensing access to AI-connected software that interfaces with the

1376
1:16:58 --> 1:17:05
human biosphere, that monitors, models, manipulates vital bodily processes by electronic means,

1377
1:17:05 --> 1:17:11
and uses data that's collected from covertly installed in vivo nanobiosensor technology.

1378
1:17:12 --> 1:17:17
So I know, number one, that there are about 1,100 patents right now covering that subject matter.

1379
1:17:17 --> 1:17:24
Most of them are funded in part by either DARPA, Inqutel, or a combination thereof. And what I also

1380
1:17:24 --> 1:17:31
know is that sole source contracting grants, John, have been granted to a series of parties I highly

1381
1:17:31 --> 1:17:37
recommend looking at the Inqutel last four years of funding records, because much of what you're

1382
1:17:37 --> 1:17:45
describing was done under the Intelligent Warfighter Program, which was allegedly done to monitor

1383
1:17:45 --> 1:17:53
real-time conditions of warfighters. And so what I would encourage anybody to do is look at the

1384
1:17:53 --> 1:17:59
Warfighter Readiness Program, which was the way in which most of this technology was not only first

1385
1:17:59 --> 1:18:05
introduced, but it has been tested and rolled out. But it's a great point that you raise and look at

1386
1:18:05 --> 1:18:10
the Warfighter Readiness Programs, because that's the terminology that is being used for that type

1387
1:18:10 --> 1:18:18
of technology. Okay, one last question. We recently heard from Dolores Cahill in this forum, who

1388
1:18:18 --> 1:18:23
believes the best way to succeed against these criminals is to abandon the legal system they

1389
1:18:23 --> 1:18:27
operate under entirely in favor of a common law approach. So she gave some compelling reasons for

1390
1:18:27 --> 1:18:33
this. A fair number of us are indulging in that, serving notices of liability and such to establish

1391
1:18:33 --> 1:18:41
precedents. What's your opinion of that idea? So once again, this is once again a space

1392
1:18:41 --> 1:18:49
that I place in the same regime as what I do about the dogma around scientific models, and that is

1393
1:18:50 --> 1:18:56
that there is a time and a place to actually organize what I would consider to be what the

1394
1:18:56 --> 1:19:03
Constitution of the United States contemplates as a moment in time where the public decides that the

1395
1:19:03 --> 1:19:09
systems that are in place no longer serve their intended purpose, and we need to reorganize.

1396
1:19:09 --> 1:19:14
And there is no question that the Constitutional Convention Program and the Convention of States,

1397
1:19:14 --> 1:19:22
quite specifically, is a pathway for us to do that, which is to incentivize a public reconstruction

1398
1:19:22 --> 1:19:29
of a failed government. So I agree in principle that this is something that is of value. But let

1399
1:19:29 --> 1:19:36
me make a comment with respect to do we actually have a pathway under common law approaches? And

1400
1:19:36 --> 1:19:45
the answer is we do not have any ability to disrupt the criminal hijacking authorized under the

1401
1:19:45 --> 1:19:53
emergency use authorization or under anything else by changing the legal venue and or jurisdiction

1402
1:19:53 --> 1:19:58
approach we're taking. That does not mean that there's no value in doing it. It simply means

1403
1:19:58 --> 1:20:06
that we will not have a pathway to disrupt the liability shields outside of the current legal

1404
1:20:07 --> 1:20:12
framework, which is the reason why we're doing it. So it's not an either or proposition. It's

1405
1:20:12 --> 1:20:18
probably a both and. But my approach is to make sure I'm fighting on a jurisdiction where

1406
1:20:18 --> 1:20:25
we can ultimately blow up the legislation. Thank you. Thank you, John. Amy, I'll unmute.

1407
1:20:25 --> 1:20:32
If not, Marvin next. Here's Amy. Go, Amy. Question. Hello. Thank you. I just was wondering

1408
1:20:32 --> 1:20:39
what role Israel plays in all of this. Israel was also founded in 1948. One way to look at Israel

1409
1:20:39 --> 1:20:45
is sort of a get out of jail free card for criminal gang runners. Of course, that's not

1410
1:20:45 --> 1:20:52
the regular people. They're used one way or another the way regular peoples of countries are used.

1411
1:20:52 --> 1:20:58
Cannon fodder, tax source, those kinds of things. So especially when you look at the way censorship

1412
1:20:58 --> 1:21:05
is being used to silence critics of the policy doctors with concerns, questions on YouTube and

1413
1:21:05 --> 1:21:11
other platforms, censorship was imposed very heavily, but of course was originally brought

1414
1:21:11 --> 1:21:20
out to silence criticism of Israel or anti-Semitism and as seen in trying in laws and countries in

1415
1:21:20 --> 1:21:24
Europe. So I think these things work together, but I'd just like to hear what your thoughts are.

1416
1:21:24 --> 1:21:30
Thank you. Well, so let's be very clear on the fact that anything that was done in the wake of

1417
1:21:30 --> 1:21:37
Bretton Woods in 1944 up until 1955 under the United Nations Charter and its establishment,

1418
1:21:37 --> 1:21:43
and that means anything that was done, that includes formations of states, that includes

1419
1:21:44 --> 1:21:51
the pillaging of the Pacific on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia that wanted to make

1420
1:21:51 --> 1:21:55
sure that it had access to resources. Regardless of what you do, if you look at the period from

1421
1:21:55 --> 1:22:03
Bretton Woods 1944 to 1955 and the formation of all the multilateral agencies and the states that

1422
1:22:03 --> 1:22:11
were supporting their formation during the period of time, all of them were actually done for

1423
1:22:11 --> 1:22:18
specific economic and social agendas and they had nothing to do with the cover story. There's not a

1424
1:22:18 --> 1:22:25
person on the planet who legitimately can say that Israel was formed because it was the will

1425
1:22:25 --> 1:22:32
of the people to actually do that. That was serving an agenda. Is there in fact a reason why

1426
1:22:33 --> 1:22:42
we should have a confidence that any of the acts done between 1944 and 1955 were done for the

1427
1:22:42 --> 1:22:47
largesse of humanity experiencing a greater expression of humanity? If any of us are

1428
1:22:47 --> 1:22:52
deluded enough to think that any of those were positive steps, we're fooling ourselves. And I

1429
1:22:52 --> 1:22:59
don't specifically isolate one or the other. What I simply say is that the derivative effects of

1430
1:22:59 --> 1:23:07
1947 had nothing to do with the cover story that was sold to the public. All of those stories were

1431
1:23:07 --> 1:23:15
lies to advance a control narrative, which is what we're now experiencing. And just to be clear,

1432
1:23:16 --> 1:23:22
anybody who doubts that can ask yourself the following question. Why would we allow a German

1433
1:23:22 --> 1:23:28
biotech company with an experimental gene therapy to roll out their product first in the state of

1434
1:23:28 --> 1:23:36
Israel if we actually cared about antisemitism? Nothing could be a dumber marketing program

1435
1:23:36 --> 1:23:43
than to inject a German population, sorry, an Israeli population with a German biotech.

1436
1:23:44 --> 1:23:52
Guesswork. That is the dumbest, most ludicrous business proposition ever put forward. And if

1437
1:23:52 --> 1:23:57
you actually don't see that as antisemitic, I don't know what it takes to see antisemitism.

1438
1:23:58 --> 1:24:03
Thank you, David. Thank you, Amy. Now I'm going to do a captain's call with Stephen. Jim Thorpe

1439
1:24:03 --> 1:24:07
goes next while we've still got David. Jim, and then we go back to Marvin.

1440
1:24:07 --> 1:24:16
David, can you please comment on the legality? I understand that it's illegal for the federal

1441
1:24:16 --> 1:24:23
government to enter into a cooperative care agreement like they did using, well, you know,

1442
1:24:23 --> 1:24:30
$5 trillion now. And if the cooperative care agreement with the NGO, such as the American

1443
1:24:30 --> 1:24:37
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, illegally impairs the constitutional rights

1444
1:24:37 --> 1:24:44
of its constituents, i.e. freedom of speech. Yeah. So listen, that is one of the many,

1445
1:24:44 --> 1:24:50
what I would call the, this is the interlocking directorate and collusion pieces of the Clayton

1446
1:24:50 --> 1:24:55
Act, which is what we're trying to attack right now, which is when allegedly nonprofits or

1447
1:24:55 --> 1:25:03
disaffiliated NGOs become an official contracting arm, then they also lose, Jim, their tax-exempt

1448
1:25:03 --> 1:25:09
status. Because if you're, as you very well know, if you are actually using your non-profit tax

1449
1:25:09 --> 1:25:17
exempt status for the advocacy of a political or a governmental message, you cannot do that under

1450
1:25:17 --> 1:25:23
a non-profit charter. And so what happened in the cases that you're pointing out to, and by the way,

1451
1:25:23 --> 1:25:32
many others, the non-profit status of an institution is directly obviated by the for-profit

1452
1:25:32 --> 1:25:38
commercial acquiescence to advancing a political message. So great point. And I would highly

1453
1:25:38 --> 1:25:45
recommend that once again, we go after the tax-exempt status as a primary, not as a secondary

1454
1:25:46 --> 1:25:50
approach to fighting this legally. But Jim, I have a whole bunch on that. I'd love to follow

1455
1:25:50 --> 1:25:53
up with you on that one. Thanks. Thanks, Jim. Marvin.

1456
1:25:56 --> 1:26:05
David, I want to ask you about this jurisdiction question. If you win a case law in Switzerland

1457
1:26:05 --> 1:26:17
and win a case law in Oklahoma, who enforces this? Are these case laws, these precedents you're

1458
1:26:17 --> 1:26:20
establishing? How is that enforced? Who does the enforcement?

1459
1:26:20 --> 1:26:25
Yeah, great question. And from a jurisdiction standpoint, the reason why we want to use

1460
1:26:25 --> 1:26:32
Switzerland for the tax and antitrust case is European courts are greatly sympathetic to going

1461
1:26:32 --> 1:26:40
after U.S. organized entities for competition rules, and Swiss courts love to actually defend

1462
1:26:40 --> 1:26:47
the legitimacy of their tax regimes. And if you can create inside of Switzerland a public backlash

1463
1:26:47 --> 1:26:54
against what appears to be a black eye on the brand of Switzerland, nothing is better to win

1464
1:26:54 --> 1:27:00
the hearts and minds of Swiss than to attack the credibility of Switzerland as anything other than

1465
1:27:00 --> 1:27:06
a criminal tax haven. We are actually studying, and we have used an enormous amount of resources

1466
1:27:06 --> 1:27:14
to study the public acceptance of how well we are going to prevail, not just in the courts,

1467
1:27:14 --> 1:27:21
but in the court of public opinion. And it turns out that Switzerland values itself as a country

1468
1:27:21 --> 1:27:29
that is not a criminal tax haven. That's one of its top brands. And so we've actually gone after

1469
1:27:29 --> 1:27:36
a group of pro-national groups in Switzerland to make it look like Switzerland is going to

1470
1:27:36 --> 1:27:41
get a second round black eye like they did with the banking crisis. So what we're doing is we're

1471
1:27:41 --> 1:27:48
going after places where we have a public rationale to actually attack the credibility of the brand,

1472
1:27:48 --> 1:27:53
in this case Switzerland. With respect to the criminal case, it turns out that Oklahoma has

1473
1:27:53 --> 1:27:59
very specific charters with respect to the sheriff's ability to impanel a grand jury.

1474
1:27:59 --> 1:28:05
Once again, a very nuanced piece of law, just like we did in our Utah case. The Utah case we

1475
1:28:05 --> 1:28:10
brought because the attorney general is required to prosecute the class three felony of practicing

1476
1:28:10 --> 1:28:15
medicine without a license. We actually got the government to admit that it was practicing

1477
1:28:15 --> 1:28:20
medicine without a license in Utah. Thus we have a prima facie class three felony against the

1478
1:28:20 --> 1:28:27
federal government in Utah. Every one of these things, Marvin, we're building specifically so

1479
1:28:27 --> 1:28:35
that we have a statutory crime that is the thing that ultimately is required under the charter of

1480
1:28:35 --> 1:28:41
that particular state or nation to pursue. That doesn't mean we're going to get, for example,

1481
1:28:41 --> 1:28:48
Sean Rays in Utah to pursue the criminal felony that he's required to pursue under the charter

1482
1:28:48 --> 1:28:53
because Sean Rays is compromised. But that doesn't obviate the existence of the crime.

1483
1:28:53 --> 1:28:59
So what we're doing is we're making sure that we pick jurisdictions where the defense of the thing

1484
1:29:00 --> 1:29:05
constitutes the affirmative admission of a crime. That's the trap that we're setting for the

1485
1:29:05 --> 1:29:09
incumbency. And thankfully, that trap is being snapped several times.

1486
1:29:09 --> 1:29:11
Thank you, Marvin. Glen?

1487
1:29:11 --> 1:29:13
And with that, Charles, I got to sign off.

1488
1:29:13 --> 1:29:18
I understand. All right. Thank you. A big round of applause, everybody, for David.

1489
1:29:18 --> 1:29:22
Thanks, guys. Appreciate it all. And if I didn't speak to your issue,

1490
1:29:22 --> 1:29:29
drop it in to Charles or to Stephen, and I'll be happy to address the hands that were left up.

1491
1:29:29 --> 1:29:34
David, could I just ask you one last question? Very quickly, how can we go after the Nobel

1492
1:29:34 --> 1:29:37
Committee? Because what happened yesterday was outrageous, in my opinion.

1493
1:29:38 --> 1:29:50
Well, this is something where I think that once again, there is a deceptive medical practices

1494
1:29:50 --> 1:29:57
equivalent statute in almost all the civilized world. And having the Nobel Committee officially

1495
1:29:57 --> 1:30:04
sanction what is unquestionably a willful act of biological weapons is a violation of the Geneva

1496
1:30:04 --> 1:30:09
Convention. And I think there's no question that we should go after them on a Geneva Convention case.

1497
1:30:09 --> 1:30:13
Very good. Can we speak about that? Very good. Thank you.

1498
1:30:13 --> 1:30:14
Thank you all. Take care. Thanks, David.

1499
1:30:14 --> 1:30:16
Thank you so much. Thank you.

1500
1:30:17 --> 1:30:22
All right. So what we will do while you've got your thoughts, questions,

1501
1:30:23 --> 1:30:28
you can send them as direct messages to Stephen or me, and I will forward them to David. If you have

1502
1:30:28 --> 1:30:37
suggestions, insights from this conversation, put them into the chat. We'll get David to get the chat

1503
1:30:37 --> 1:30:43
at the end of the two and a half hours. So that's the way. And then for those, we'll now have put

1504
1:30:43 --> 1:30:50
hands up now for questions, as I say, can be private, send a direct message to Stephen or me,

1505
1:30:50 --> 1:30:57
or public, because that might generate other thoughts. And we'll get this whole chat to David.

1506
1:30:57 --> 1:31:01
And now with hands up, we'll keep going through the hands and the comments and keep going through

1507
1:31:01 --> 1:31:06
the process for the next hour. And then Tom Rodman, for those who have more time. And Patricia Finn,

1508
1:31:07 --> 1:31:15
congratulations on, I really do think David, we all know David Martin is a genius. And the credit

1509
1:31:15 --> 1:31:21
that he gave to you and the compliments, I think everyone should note. And that's a great credit

1510
1:31:21 --> 1:31:27
to you. So you're in a tiny, tiny number of attorneys in the US who David thinks highly of.

1511
1:31:27 --> 1:31:42
So well done. All right. Janet. Hi. Yeah. Yes. My question to David, and I guess it's a question

1512
1:31:42 --> 1:31:52
to anyone else who thinks they can answer it. He was very clear that the virus bioweapon was released

1513
1:31:53 --> 1:31:59
deliberately. So my question is, what was the mechanism of distribution of the released

1514
1:31:59 --> 1:32:06
viral bioweapon? And is there any published documentation of the success of such a mechanism

1515
1:32:06 --> 1:32:16
of distribution? Or is it simply just a hypothesis? So I don't know whether anyone else has got any

1516
1:32:17 --> 1:32:25
My interpretation of what he said, but I think it should be clarified is that I can't speak for

1517
1:32:25 --> 1:32:31
David, obviously, because I can't get into his mind. And he's got a legal mind, which is difficult

1518
1:32:31 --> 1:32:37
to kind of. So anyway, the point is that I think that what he was suggesting was that using

1519
1:32:37 --> 1:32:43
their words, they were going to release a bioweapon. And they did release a bioweapon,

1520
1:32:43 --> 1:32:49
whatever that was. He wants to use their words, Janet. And I don't know what the answer to your

1521
1:32:49 --> 1:32:55
question is, to be honest. And I wish he would make that maybe he thinks he has clarified it.

1522
1:32:55 --> 1:33:01
Stephen, Janet, why don't you type that into the chat and we'll get it to David.

1523
1:33:04 --> 1:33:11
Question. So Janet, so in my mind, I'm thinking, what does he mean by this biological weapon? So

1524
1:33:11 --> 1:33:16
I think what he's saying is that he might be actually saying that there is no diagnosis of

1525
1:33:16 --> 1:33:22
COVID-19. And if so, we need to know that. But I think he's playing the lawyer's game of using

1526
1:33:22 --> 1:33:28
their words to fell them. And then, of course, what they did, in my opinion, was to use the

1527
1:33:28 --> 1:33:37
psychological torture to further the panic. So he said he said he said millions died. So I mean,

1528
1:33:37 --> 1:33:41
he's not just saying that, oh, OK, this is the narrative. I'm not sure he was saying that they

1529
1:33:41 --> 1:33:47
died of the so-called virus or illness, which, you know, well, he was there, wasn't he? He was

1530
1:33:47 --> 1:33:53
saying that. No, he wasn't. No, he wasn't. But we're going to I think I think you've got to be

1531
1:33:53 --> 1:33:59
very careful in your interpretation of his words. And so what's what's the Strasbourg and which, by

1532
1:33:59 --> 1:34:05
the way, which which one is longer? There's two recordings I did. I lost track of which was longer.

1533
1:34:07 --> 1:34:12
Oh, well, I hope that. So the second one was about the criminality of the World Health

1534
1:34:12 --> 1:34:18
Organization. The first one was more about the, you know, that was the short statement,

1535
1:34:18 --> 1:34:21
probably. Yes, that was a short statement, wasn't it, to the EU Parliament?

1536
1:34:21 --> 1:34:25
Well, no, they were roughly the same length. But if I had to say, I think the second one was longer

1537
1:34:25 --> 1:34:31
than the first. OK, thank you. Both were brilliant. But the second one was even more brilliant than

1538
1:34:31 --> 1:34:37
the first. I only saw the first one. Janet, I recommend you know, the second one is absolutely

1539
1:34:37 --> 1:34:42
stunning. That's why we got him on this call. Yeah. Well done.

1540
1:34:44 --> 1:34:49
Who shall I address it to, Charles? Who shall I address the chat to? Just email it to me, Janet.

1541
1:34:49 --> 1:34:53
Janet, your questions are very good. So email it to me and I'll send it to you.

1542
1:34:53 --> 1:34:59
No, but Janet, if you put it into the chat, it's a great question so that we, you know, as a group,

1543
1:34:59 --> 1:35:04
we're going to save the chat, can think about that, your question as well, because it really helps

1544
1:35:04 --> 1:35:10
articulate, you know, articulate our own thinking. Thank you. Yeah, go in the chat and send it to me,

1545
1:35:10 --> 1:35:16
Janet, and I'll get his attention and say you're a medical doctor. OK, OK, Hiko, that's I don't think

1546
1:35:16 --> 1:35:21
that's I don't think that's a term of of endearment these days, Stephen, to say you're a medical

1547
1:35:21 --> 1:35:27
doctor, because because doctors, more and more doctors are saying that. Janet, yeah, but Janet

1548
1:35:27 --> 1:35:34
is one of the doctors who's been on our side from almost the very beginning. I agree. No, I understand

1549
1:35:34 --> 1:35:39
that, Stephen, but, you know, where the doctors are not. I understand what you're saying. Yeah, I'm absolutely

1550
1:35:39 --> 1:35:46
disgusted with medical doctors all around the world. Yeah, and lawyers, you know, like,

1551
1:35:46 --> 1:35:54
I hold the lawyers. I haven't got much time for lawyers either. Yeah, correct. Hiko. Well, when I was

1552
1:35:54 --> 1:36:00
invited, Christine Andersen, to get together with David Martin, the rest in Bristol, I wanted to

1553
1:36:00 --> 1:36:08
ask him this question, but I didn't have the time, because I wanted to know after identifying all

1554
1:36:08 --> 1:36:14
the bio weapons of virus and spikes in the vaccines, I would like what his take was on 5G

1555
1:36:14 --> 1:36:23
and how can we say no to that weapon? We can say no to the vaccines and but how do we say no to

1556
1:36:23 --> 1:36:28
5G and the manipulation of that? And what's happening tomorrow?

1557
1:36:31 --> 1:36:32
What is happening tomorrow?

1558
1:36:34 --> 1:36:45
The top calendar was coming out with some news that should, this test should be used to

1559
1:36:46 --> 1:36:52
start some kill drops in the vaccinated,

1560
1:36:55 --> 1:36:57
release Marburg or something else.

1561
1:37:00 --> 1:37:08
Didn't hear it, didn't read it. Well, I hear that all the time. Marburg's been coming for a year now,

1562
1:37:08 --> 1:37:18
except it hasn't come. So, I'm just suggesting that it should keep away from mobile phones tomorrow.

1563
1:37:19 --> 1:37:25
Ah, I see what you mean. Yes. So, yes, okay. So, you mean that the damage is being done by the

1564
1:37:25 --> 1:37:30
radiation, but they're going to blame it on the virus? Is that what you're saying? Yeah.

1565
1:37:31 --> 1:37:38
I can add to that. It's Julie. I can add to that. So, tomorrow, October the 4th in the United States,

1566
1:37:38 --> 1:37:44
FEMA is having their test of their emergency alert system. They're going to ping every single

1567
1:37:44 --> 1:37:49
cell phone, every single TV, every single satellite dish that, you know, streams your direct TV or

1568
1:37:49 --> 1:37:53
whatever. So, everybody, Todd Callender for sure is coming out big on it. Turn everything off,

1569
1:37:53 --> 1:37:57
unplug everything and get yourself out to somewhere in the middle of nowhere if you can.

1570
1:37:57 --> 1:38:03
Because once they start pinging every single cell phone to test this emergency alert system

1571
1:38:03 --> 1:38:08
and every TV and every, you know, whatever, Bluetooth, et cetera, every single 5G tower

1572
1:38:08 --> 1:38:12
is going off like crazy. Just ask Anders probably what the potential harm is if you've got all this

1573
1:38:12 --> 1:38:16
heavy metal in your body. If you're vaccinated, people are going to have road rage they're

1574
1:38:16 --> 1:38:20
declaring. Kids in school, they want to take them out because they're surrounded by this 5G. So,

1575
1:38:20 --> 1:38:24
yeah, it's high alert for tomorrow. But they've kind of posted this already and let us know. So,

1576
1:38:24 --> 1:38:28
everybody's like, hey, it's probably going to be a big nothing. But if they see a big nothing,

1577
1:38:28 --> 1:38:32
they're going to try it again on October 11th. So, that's what the gist is with that.

1578
1:38:34 --> 1:38:38
Thank you. Thank you, Heiko. Amy.

1579
1:38:41 --> 1:38:47
Yeah, I just was personally privately attacked by someone named Sean, but it looks like they're

1580
1:38:47 --> 1:38:51
gone. And there's a different Sean who's in the chat. So, I don't know if you know who that is,

1581
1:38:51 --> 1:38:59
but I just, you know, it's not anti-Semitic to ask questions about Jewish supremacy or Jewish

1582
1:38:59 --> 1:39:04
leaders using the Jewish people. It doesn't mean every Jewish person agrees to it or is

1583
1:39:04 --> 1:39:09
guilty of it or certainly doesn't mean anyone should be harmed. But there needs to be honest

1584
1:39:09 --> 1:39:17
discussions about why, for example, why is Dr. Bakhti from Germany accused of anti-Semitism?

1585
1:39:17 --> 1:39:23
Because he was standing up to the COVID scam. Why is anti-Semitism used to shut down the truckers?

1586
1:39:23 --> 1:39:30
Because Hong Kong equals Heil Hitler, supposedly. Why, you know, why is the ADL allowed to censor

1587
1:39:30 --> 1:39:37
who can and cannot have a platform on YouTube or sell books on Amazon? You know, these are very

1588
1:39:37 --> 1:39:42
dangerous precedents. And we have to be careful not to be tricked into allowing a precedent to

1589
1:39:42 --> 1:39:47
go through because we have compassion. I hope we do have compassion for Jewish people. I hope we

1590
1:39:47 --> 1:39:53
have compassion for every person on this planet. But we can't allow these kind of fear tactics,

1591
1:39:53 --> 1:39:58
just like they used with the virus, to use a fear tactic about one group of people or another group

1592
1:39:58 --> 1:40:04
of people to silence and to take away important precedents about the exchange of information,

1593
1:40:04 --> 1:40:09
about honest questions and searching for truth. Without that, you do not have honest history,

1594
1:40:09 --> 1:40:15
honest news, honest science. So, you know, it is not anti-Semitic to try to understand what the

1595
1:40:15 --> 1:40:20
heck is going on. And I hope we do it all with compassion for each other. And I hope we don't

1596
1:40:20 --> 1:40:25
victim or blame or blame an entire group of people for things that their leaders do. I hope

1597
1:40:25 --> 1:40:29
as an American, I'm not seen as responsible for every bad decision my government has made because

1598
1:40:29 --> 1:40:34
there's been very, very many and very genocidal. So we need to be allowed to be honest. Anyway,

1599
1:40:34 --> 1:40:39
that's my little rant. Have a great day. That's an excellent, that's an excellent statement

1600
1:40:39 --> 1:40:45
because it really is a, it really is a problem. I've been facilitating groups, everybody, for over

1601
1:40:45 --> 1:40:57
30 years. And each one of you on this call is a weirdo. We play the game that we say we're unique.

1602
1:40:57 --> 1:41:03
No, Stephen Frost, you all know, is a weirdo. Heiko is a weirdo. Julie's a weirdo. Jeremy is a dentist

1603
1:41:04 --> 1:41:12
is a weirdo. Stop thinking that you have the mortgage on knowledge. Each one of us has been

1604
1:41:12 --> 1:41:20
brought up in a unique way. Eight billion of us uniquely. And Amy makes an excellent point. And

1605
1:41:20 --> 1:41:28
it's happening to all of us. It's happening to Bobby Kennedy. He's being labeled an anti-vexer.

1606
1:41:28 --> 1:41:34
He's been labeled an anti-Semitic. He's been labeled a racist. And quite frankly, I laugh

1607
1:41:34 --> 1:41:41
at the abuse hurled, hurled, hurled by each of you in the chats from time to time at others.

1608
1:41:41 --> 1:41:45
It's pathetic. It's like being in a schoolyard saying you're an idiot. You don't know what you're

1609
1:41:45 --> 1:41:50
talking about. So the interest in the, so each one of us has to think about, gosh,

1610
1:41:51 --> 1:41:56
what do I think about that? When I'm not interested in any of you, nor is Stephen

1611
1:41:56 --> 1:42:03
being offended. We're not in the offense industry here, but throwing words around in the chat that

1612
1:42:03 --> 1:42:12
you are a racist. You are whatever you understand what that means. And Dr. Sheeva's John Lukacs,

1613
1:42:12 --> 1:42:20
I'm so grateful to you for pointing us to Dr. Sheeva's 15 minute video on swarm tactics. Please,

1614
1:42:20 --> 1:42:26
everybody, watch it, understand it. It's a brilliant whiteboard presentation. John and I

1615
1:42:26 --> 1:42:34
have shared that widely because the goal of the million controlling the 8,000 million is to have

1616
1:42:34 --> 1:42:40
us having ship fights amongst each other. And you're a weirdo. If you like ship fights,

1617
1:42:40 --> 1:42:45
well, have a ship fight. I'm not interested in ship fights. I'm interested in freedom,

1618
1:42:45 --> 1:42:54
what this group is about. Freedom, truth, justice, health, ethics, morals. And throwing these words

1619
1:42:54 --> 1:43:02
around are just crazy stuff. So, Amy, well put. Stop throwing the label around. If you want a

1620
1:43:02 --> 1:43:09
great book on this, read Anthony de Mello on awareness. As soon as you label a person as

1621
1:43:09 --> 1:43:16
something, and I've labeled all of you as weirdos, all understanding ceases. I'm hoping that you

1622
1:43:16 --> 1:43:24
thinking of yourself as a weirdo stops you labeling people who are not the same as you.

1623
1:43:24 --> 1:43:30
That's the conversation. And I would love to have a two and a half hour discussion on, hey,

1624
1:43:31 --> 1:43:37
what is anti-Semitic? What is racism? What is all of that? Steven, we might find a philosopher

1625
1:43:37 --> 1:43:43
to help us do a conversation on that. All right, weirdos. Steven, do you want to say anything?

1626
1:43:44 --> 1:43:51
We'll get Jordan Peterson to talk to us about that. Yes. Yes. Beautiful. Yeah. Thank you. All right,

1627
1:43:51 --> 1:43:57
Amy. Well put. Labels are meaningless. In other words, other than the weirdo label, I claim

1628
1:43:58 --> 1:44:04
you can think of yourself as a weirdo and it'll free you up to say what you truly think, to say

1629
1:44:04 --> 1:44:09
what you truly believe. And the other thing that I have found for most, if I sat down with most of

1630
1:44:09 --> 1:44:17
you and challenged you with the question of what you actually believe, most of you would struggle

1631
1:44:17 --> 1:44:21
because I've been coaching people for 30 years. I said, what do you believe? Most people have no

1632
1:44:21 --> 1:44:28
idea what they believe. And yet your beliefs are driving your responses and your reactions in this

1633
1:44:28 --> 1:44:33
chat. So that's where self-awareness comes in. Think about what people think. It's all about emotions.

1634
1:44:34 --> 1:44:41
It's all about emotions. So as soon as you start calling people names like a child in a playground,

1635
1:44:41 --> 1:44:49
you've lost the argument. Yeah, correct. Very good. Jeremy, I'm going to call you a name. I'm going

1636
1:44:49 --> 1:44:54
to call you a dentist. Yeah. Thank you for the great compliment. I enjoyed that, Charles. I think

1637
1:44:54 --> 1:45:03
we're all in that part. Yeah, my comment was just that I posted up two things from Armstrong

1638
1:45:03 --> 1:45:09
Economics. And I know there's a conference going on somewhere with, he's going to be present with

1639
1:45:09 --> 1:45:17
a lot of the Tesla, Tesla-ary and Peter McCullough and people like that. I think it's in Sweden or

1640
1:45:17 --> 1:45:24
somewhere coming up, but he's a very interesting person to pay attention to. Who's that? Martin

1641
1:45:24 --> 1:45:29
Armstrong. The US government stuck him in jail for eight years for contempt because they wanted

1642
1:45:29 --> 1:45:38
his cyclical AI system Socrates, which basically predicts most things, including what's going on

1643
1:45:38 --> 1:45:44
at the moment. And the one nice thing about what he predicts is that these people will fail because

1644
1:45:44 --> 1:45:51
it goes so against human nature. Exactly. Yeah, my issue at the moment, it's just a case of how many,

1645
1:45:51 --> 1:45:57
how much damage they do and how many people they harm in the process. And where we're going at the

1646
1:45:57 --> 1:46:02
moment, which is, I think they're leading us to war. And I think it's inevitable, unfortunately,

1647
1:46:02 --> 1:46:08
because that's what these people seem to want. But my issue was just quickly researching what David

1648
1:46:08 --> 1:46:14
Martin said at the EEP parliaments. I saw it and it's great what he said, but you look for it on

1649
1:46:14 --> 1:46:21
the net. It's almost gone. How he got to say it's been seen four billion times, I don't know,

1650
1:46:21 --> 1:46:25
because it's not on YouTube. It's not easy to find on YouTube. Won't find it on Google,

1651
1:46:26 --> 1:46:31
Firefox. It's difficult. So you can see how they're censoring things. Then what I posted from

1652
1:46:31 --> 1:46:40
Armstrong is how the Western nations are bringing up, you know, bringing forwards safety online bills,

1653
1:46:40 --> 1:46:46
which basically means they want to censor us. So we already need to be starting to think how on earth

1654
1:46:46 --> 1:46:52
do we communicate, how do you get the message out there to the majority? And, you know, I

1655
1:46:53 --> 1:46:58
meet friends regularly on a Friday. They're all intelligent people, you know, some headmasters,

1656
1:46:58 --> 1:47:04
teachers, other professions. And these people are absolutely clueless. They drink the Kool-Aid. They

1657
1:47:04 --> 1:47:10
believe everything. They only watch, read the Sun or the Daily Express or the Daily Mail. They believe

1658
1:47:10 --> 1:47:16
everything they read on the ITV or BBC. And the majority of Americans are like that probably with

1659
1:47:16 --> 1:47:25
CNN and ABC. So I know you only need 10 or 15% of the population to say no, but it does seem

1660
1:47:25 --> 1:47:30
very difficult at times. And the politicians in the meantime with David's doing a marvelous job,

1661
1:47:30 --> 1:47:36
but the politicians are just totally ignoring the population. No one's voted for 20 mile an

1662
1:47:36 --> 1:47:44
hour speed limits or 15 minute cities or Agenda 2030. But these, the blob is and the bureaucracies

1663
1:47:44 --> 1:47:48
in the government, especially in the Western governments, are just carrying on regardless,

1664
1:47:48 --> 1:47:56
ignoring all of us. And, you know, obviously some malign forces are flooding Europe with immigration.

1665
1:47:56 --> 1:48:01
Now, I think white people only make four to 7% of the world's population. It's actually,

1666
1:48:01 --> 1:48:07
we're quite a small group and you see the, it's almost like I've started to feel now that they're

1667
1:48:07 --> 1:48:15
trying to supplant the homegrown nations now and the generally the European populations.

1668
1:48:15 --> 1:48:17
Very small set of people.

1669
1:48:17 --> 1:48:24
Getting quite, getting an extreme view, but it's the sheer quantities which are coming in now

1670
1:48:24 --> 1:48:28
and the people are sponsoring them. They're being pushed in, they're being helped in. I don't know

1671
1:48:28 --> 1:48:35
whether it's this Soros or whatever, but it's difficult at times to see how on earth we get out

1672
1:48:35 --> 1:48:42
of this without a severe amount of bloodshed and, you know, a complete reordering of our society.

1673
1:48:42 --> 1:48:44
And it's treason, Jeremy, in my opinion.

1674
1:48:45 --> 1:48:46
Yeah, yeah.

1675
1:48:47 --> 1:48:49
Everything is undermining everything that we hold dear.

1676
1:48:50 --> 1:48:56
So there is no difference between the two parties. No, the Labour Party, the Conservative Party,

1677
1:48:56 --> 1:49:01
it's probably the same in Australia, probably the same in Canada. We don't see any difference.

1678
1:49:02 --> 1:49:04
How many of you have seen The Jones Plantation?

1679
1:49:06 --> 1:49:07
Film.

1680
1:49:07 --> 1:49:08
The what?

1681
1:49:09 --> 1:49:12
It's a movie. It's a high production.

1682
1:49:12 --> 1:49:13
Put that.

1683
1:49:13 --> 1:49:14
Jones Plantation.

1684
1:49:16 --> 1:49:22
Put the question in the chat. So we haven't seen the movie, so we can't discuss it.

1685
1:49:22 --> 1:49:28
Put it in. And explain, that's the other thing, that if there's a great movie,

1686
1:49:28 --> 1:49:33
it really helps me and each of us because we've got a fire hose of information.

1687
1:49:34 --> 1:49:38
You know, when we put a recommendation, hey, watch this movie, it's great to add,

1688
1:49:38 --> 1:49:43
because why should I watch that movie? And because we're weirdos, go, hey,

1689
1:49:43 --> 1:49:49
I'm really interested in that angle. So Jeremy, what you just shared with us, thank you.

1690
1:49:50 --> 1:49:55
And we heard David Webb, David Rogers Webb, I hope all of you have downloaded the great taking.

1691
1:49:55 --> 1:50:01
And Jeremy is an investment, is highly experienced in investments, and there are plenty of people on

1692
1:50:01 --> 1:50:09
this call. And Jeremy, is it Martin Armstrong that you're recommending that we have a look at in terms

1693
1:50:09 --> 1:50:12
of what for what reason just I lost that for the moment.

1694
1:50:12 --> 1:50:22
Oh, just a cycle analysis. He's, he's amazing. So it's is everything from his system predicted

1695
1:50:22 --> 1:50:30
Brexit, Trump being elected. Alex Crane is on air. Breaking of the Swiss peg. He's been around,

1696
1:50:30 --> 1:50:33
he's been written out of history by Bloomberg, but Alex might be aware of him.

1697
1:50:33 --> 1:50:38
Yep. Very good. And and what you shared also becomes a useful technique for all of us,

1698
1:50:38 --> 1:50:44
because we're grappling with this question of how do we how do we bring people who are

1699
1:50:45 --> 1:50:50
half awake across to our side? And that Jeremy, you raised that one of the techniques that I've

1700
1:50:50 --> 1:50:57
learned over the years, is you sit down with somebody who has an opposing view to you. And,

1701
1:50:57 --> 1:51:03
you know, in America and Australia, this left right debate is deliberate divisive tactics.

1702
1:51:04 --> 1:51:09
You sit down with somebody and say, Jeremy, give me give me five minutes, I want to understand what

1703
1:51:09 --> 1:51:16
you think about vaccines. I will shut up and listen to you for five minutes. And then I will

1704
1:51:16 --> 1:51:20
speak for five minutes and tell you what I think. I don't want to change your mind. I want to

1705
1:51:20 --> 1:51:27
understand what your view is, and vice versa. And you have this sharing of views. Most people,

1706
1:51:27 --> 1:51:32
as soon as you say a sentence in any conversation, I urge you to observe it.

1707
1:51:33 --> 1:51:40
Very few people, this is also site, PSI ops, very few people are unable to listen to anybody for

1708
1:51:40 --> 1:51:48
five minutes. And that's part of the strategy. And it's a powerful idea of face to face with somebody.

1709
1:51:49 --> 1:51:57
Why do you believe that? And listen. Next, thank you, Jeremy. The great taking everybody,

1710
1:51:57 --> 1:52:02
if you didn't hear about it the last time, please download it, read it. And Jeremy, before you go,

1711
1:52:02 --> 1:52:07
before sorry, before I go to Julie, can you give us a quick your perspective as an experienced

1712
1:52:07 --> 1:52:18
investor on what David Webb shared with us last week? Jeremy? Yeah, sorry, I wasn't able to listen

1713
1:52:18 --> 1:52:25
to David Webb. So I wanted to listen to it. I've really, you know, that's, that's, I'm saying more

1714
1:52:25 --> 1:52:32
and more I've read it, it's most relevant to us. And the particular issue that really sticks in my

1715
1:52:32 --> 1:52:38
mind is the dematerialization of share certificates, bonds and certificates of title to land.

1716
1:52:39 --> 1:52:44
Oh, yes, you need to watch that, Jeremy. Yeah, I'd love to. Yeah, worth watching.

1717
1:52:45 --> 1:52:48
Well, I'd be really depressed about your business interests then.

1718
1:52:48 --> 1:52:56
Well, the message is don't be don't get eliminate all debt, Jeremy, do not have debt, because that's,

1719
1:52:56 --> 1:53:03
that's what puts you to risk. Also, so you so even the people who think they own things,

1720
1:53:03 --> 1:53:08
they don't own them because they've been dematerialized. And they've been cross

1721
1:53:08 --> 1:53:16
collateralized as securities for other purposes. Yes. And the class, David Martin talked about the

1722
1:53:16 --> 1:53:22
protected class. And I think that's what David Webb said that the protected or the protected

1723
1:53:23 --> 1:53:29
financial entities have all these extra rights, Jeremy, that most banks don't have.

1724
1:53:30 --> 1:53:37
Well, when you have a moment, I want to read out some, some interesting emails. It won't take that

1725
1:53:37 --> 1:53:43
long about the school reunion, which I've mentioned to you before, I won't mention any names.

1726
1:53:43 --> 1:53:47
Well, you'll be you'll be you'll be read that after Julie, we'll go to Julie and then to you,

1727
1:53:47 --> 1:53:53
Stephen. Yeah, that's a great call today. I tell you, I loved seeing Dr. Martin. And you know, he

1728
1:53:54 --> 1:53:58
talking about calling each other names. I mean, he was pretty, pretty direct when he said, you know,

1729
1:53:58 --> 1:54:04
he's tired of the friendly fire from idiots not helping fight the war, right? He's like, we don't

1730
1:54:04 --> 1:54:10
need to have all this nonsense. And I just for those that follow us politics, we just ousted

1731
1:54:10 --> 1:54:16
Kevin McCarthy as speaker. So literally, it just ended in the votes 216 to 210. So Kevin McCarthy's

1732
1:54:16 --> 1:54:24
gone. That's a big win. That's a huge win for the Freedom Caucus. Then according to you and according

1733
1:54:24 --> 1:54:32
to him, say what? Why? Well, so so yeah, so you know, Kevin McCarthy, yeah, so we you know,

1734
1:54:32 --> 1:54:35
we had this issue at the end of September came in, we were going to have our government shut down

1735
1:54:35 --> 1:54:41
because we couldn't pass a budget. And so they made a deal over the weekend to do a continuing

1736
1:54:41 --> 1:54:46
resolution for 45 days to keep the government in operation. And it was a close vote. But one of the

1737
1:54:46 --> 1:54:51
things Kevin McCarthy did to his fatal flaw is he went and negotiated behind the Republicans back

1738
1:54:51 --> 1:54:56
with the Democrats to do something with the Ukraine money, which is our biggest one of our biggest

1739
1:54:56 --> 1:55:01
issues, right? We don't want this, you know, continuing funnel of money to Ukraine. But anyway, so

1740
1:55:01 --> 1:55:07
today, Matt Gaetz leading the Freedom Caucus, pulled his one ticket and said, we want to vote,

1741
1:55:07 --> 1:55:11
we want to bring your we want to you know, he raised his hand and said, I want to call

1742
1:55:11 --> 1:55:16
for your job. And so the first thing they tried to do, the Republicans tried to table the vote,

1743
1:55:16 --> 1:55:22
and that failed. And and so now they just literally did the vote. So Kevin McCarthy's gone. And so,

1744
1:55:22 --> 1:55:26
you know, we're tired of the establishment on both sides, retired of the establishment everywhere.

1745
1:55:26 --> 1:55:31
And the people are rising up. And this is a big deal. And Matt Gaetz is out front just surrounded

1746
1:55:31 --> 1:55:35
by people, the people are pissed. And we're done with this, you know, money flowing everywhere. And

1747
1:55:35 --> 1:55:40
we have no accountability. Nobody calling for hearings on COVID. Nobody calling for, you know,

1748
1:55:40 --> 1:55:45
accountability for all these bio weapons. So yeah, it's a big deal. It's a good good day.

1749
1:55:45 --> 1:55:49
I just wanted to quickly circle back to one of the things I asked David Martin about, which is

1750
1:55:49 --> 1:55:55
this case in Oklahoma. So and why that's critical is and again, I've been working with Stanford

1751
1:55:55 --> 1:56:00
Graham, who is the founder of Cardio Miracle. And he's an attorney working with Dr. Martin

1752
1:56:00 --> 1:56:05
on this case. And so we were trying to get to sheriffs, find these constitutional sheriffs

1753
1:56:05 --> 1:56:10
that we could, you know, help bring this case for. So they found one in Tulsa, which is a fabulous.

1754
1:56:10 --> 1:56:15
So the critical thing are finding these victims. And again, the victim, the ideal victim is like

1755
1:56:15 --> 1:56:21
finding a needle in a haystack, because they need to have died of the synthetic protein, right,

1756
1:56:21 --> 1:56:27
which is this virus. They need to have died of the synthetic gene therapy, which is this vaccine.

1757
1:56:27 --> 1:56:33
And then they need to have died of the treatment, which is this rem death of air run death is near

1758
1:56:33 --> 1:56:38
remdesivir poison. So those three things were architected by Ralph Baric and by Fauci. So

1759
1:56:38 --> 1:56:43
that's the kind of the wonderful, you know, person that the that needed to have died from all three.

1760
1:56:43 --> 1:56:49
So I've been pulling these reports out of theirs that show because I can sort and and search by

1761
1:56:49 --> 1:56:54
remdesivir and then they're vaccinated. And then if they got covid, then that's the, you know,

1762
1:56:54 --> 1:56:58
where the where the hospital made tons of money off that covid death certificate claim.

1763
1:56:58 --> 1:57:03
That's the victim they're looking for. And so I can hone in now to Oklahoma and then see if I

1764
1:57:03 --> 1:57:10
can find a genius IT guy to go because in that fairs database and I'll work with Albert too,

1765
1:57:10 --> 1:57:16
where, you know, I can see their birth date, their date of death, their sex, they're in Oklahoma,

1766
1:57:16 --> 1:57:21
they died of covid, they died of the vaccine, they died of remdesivir, but I don't see their name,

1767
1:57:21 --> 1:57:26
obviously. And and then we need but it's in the system. It's just they block it from public use.

1768
1:57:26 --> 1:57:31
So I'm sure it's there somewhere we could subpoena it and I can give that information or we can start

1769
1:57:31 --> 1:57:40
searching for the obituaries in Oklahoma. But that's the three things. Yeah. Can I just interrupt

1770
1:57:40 --> 1:57:46
you one second? Go for it. You're the man. I put this in the chat in Tulsa, Oklahoma,

1771
1:57:46 --> 1:57:54
in less than a month. Okay. This huge platform for the vaccine injury, the premiere of the movie

1772
1:57:54 --> 1:58:00
Shot Dead, Maggie and I are going to be out there is going to be there. And Taryn Gregson is the

1773
1:58:00 --> 1:58:08
premier and she's just ticket tickets are going on sale. And we can get you and David, definitely.

1774
1:58:09 --> 1:58:15
We could even start putting stuff out now. We're all 100% that's fantastic. Everybody here is

1775
1:58:15 --> 1:58:20
welcome. Over. Thank you, Dr. Thorpe. Amazing. But yeah, that's the key. And so this is where

1776
1:58:20 --> 1:58:24
when we talk about and Dr. Martin's always been very specific about his language, right? So

1777
1:58:24 --> 1:58:30
the architect of the synthetic protein DARPA funded, it's the deliverable biological weapon,

1778
1:58:30 --> 1:58:34
biological weapon attack against humanity. And there are all of these biological weapons. It's

1779
1:58:34 --> 1:58:40
the synthetic protein, the gene therapy injection, the treatment stuff. So yeah, it's fantastic. So

1780
1:58:40 --> 1:58:44
thank you guys for the call. I really greatly appreciate you inviting me. Well done,

1781
1:58:44 --> 1:58:51
Julie. Thank you for Julie before you go on the speaker issue. You have like,

1782
1:58:51 --> 1:58:57
do you have high confidence that a Republican will become the replacement speaker because

1783
1:58:59 --> 1:59:05
the risk they took, right? Yep. So you know, you're unsure at this point.

1784
1:59:08 --> 1:59:11
I mean, you have to think it's got to be a freedom fighter. I mean, I, you know,

1785
1:59:11 --> 1:59:16
I can't imagine they're going to, I mean, if they pick Jim Jordan, but Jim Jordan, who we love,

1786
1:59:16 --> 1:59:21
right. But he voted, he wanted to keep McCarthy. So, okay, what side, but Jim Jordan would be

1787
1:59:21 --> 1:59:26
fantastic, I think. You know, Matt Gates is a firebrand. So I don't think a lot of people

1788
1:59:26 --> 1:59:30
want to see him up there, but Loam Bovert. I mean, you know, you can't pick a Martin Taylor

1789
1:59:30 --> 1:59:33
Green. I mean, I don't know. Jim Thorpe probably has another, you know, other sense of it too.

1790
1:59:34 --> 1:59:41
Chip Roy would be terrific too. Follow up to Julie real quick. Check your chat. Gary Hawkins,

1791
1:59:41 --> 1:59:48
and I can help you with the bears also. Just check the chat pass. Thanks, Tom. Good job.

1792
1:59:49 --> 1:59:54
Good job. And this is a, this is the classic, I said this at the intro, for those of you who missed

1793
1:59:54 --> 2:00:03
it. None of us know what one linkage made during this conversation, these meetings. We don't know

1794
2:00:03 --> 2:00:09
the ripple effect of one link made between someone in this group with somebody else in this group.

1795
2:00:09 --> 2:00:15
And Stephen, you know, we don't need to know. The fact is that it's an opportunity in our

1796
2:00:15 --> 2:00:22
terms of a vast amount of connections being made and things happening as a consequence of people

1797
2:00:22 --> 2:00:29
meeting on this platform. So, there's another great example, Julie, you now have two more additional

1798
2:00:29 --> 2:00:35
resources of Tom and who is, who else is working with you Tom on that? Well, Gary is the main

1799
2:00:35 --> 2:00:42
person working. Yeah, me and you. Beautiful. Thank you. Hi. Could I say my name's Ellen Corley and

1800
2:00:42 --> 2:00:48
I could help. I do market research in the past and, you know, that you could just call around

1801
2:00:48 --> 2:00:56
and ask people, you know, qualitatively, you know, who they know. And so use the qualitative

1802
2:00:56 --> 2:01:02
telephone, you know, people's networks, you know. I know, like I'm thinking I could call this woman

1803
2:01:02 --> 2:01:10
in Tulsa and, you know, so generate that like a focus group. So, Ellen, Julie has put her email

1804
2:01:10 --> 2:01:17
address into, Ellen has put her email address in. So, get in touch with Julie and then a great

1805
2:01:17 --> 2:01:23
suggestion. Next item on our agenda is Stephen, please read these. I'm intrigued to listen to

1806
2:01:23 --> 2:01:28
these emails from your reunion because. Yeah, so it's pretty depressing stuff. I'll just read them.

1807
2:01:29 --> 2:01:36
Are you sure you want to depress us? Yeah, well, no, it's depressing on the one hand,

1808
2:01:36 --> 2:01:42
but it just shows you what we're up against, you know. So the second email I'll read is one of my

1809
2:01:42 --> 2:01:49
school friends who's a professor in a very well-known British university. And I won't say

1810
2:01:49 --> 2:01:58
the subject because he might be identified. So he is my friend, so, or was. Anyway, I won't go into

1811
2:01:58 --> 2:02:05
detail. I'll just read this thing. I hope you are well. Dear, I hope you are well. You wrote in your

1812
2:02:05 --> 2:02:13
email of 17 August 2023, so this year. Please see below. Quote, we expect all attendees to be up

1813
2:02:13 --> 2:02:20
to date with their COVID vaccinations. And if not, you are advised not to attend for your own sake

1814
2:02:20 --> 2:02:29
and for the well-being of others. This, so I'm telling you this. I may have read this out before,

1815
2:02:29 --> 2:02:36
but the point is I've got a reply and the reply is gaslighting big time, as you'll see. So this is

1816
2:02:36 --> 2:02:45
wrong. You should know this. I wrote to you on 15 September 2023. Please see below. You have not

1817
2:02:45 --> 2:02:52
had the good manners to reply. Furthermore, you deprived us all of meeting each other in 2020.

1818
2:02:52 --> 2:02:57
That was wrong too. There was no medical justification for doing that. And further,

1819
2:02:57 --> 2:03:01
you made things worse, whether wittingly or not, by playing into the false narrative fear propaganda

1820
2:03:02 --> 2:03:07
being put out about by governments around the world, including by the British government.

1821
2:03:08 --> 2:03:15
You then proceeded to preside over a system of a medical apartheid in 2021 and again in 2022.

1822
2:03:15 --> 2:03:21
You had no right to do that. And further, you did not understand the medicine sufficiently well,

1823
2:03:21 --> 2:03:26
if at all, to be able to justify in any way such an outrageous requirement.

1824
2:03:26 --> 2:03:35
So, and now in 2023, you want to do it again. You have no right to impose your will on everyone,

1825
2:03:35 --> 2:03:41
nor to discriminate or even to attempt to discriminate. In the circumstances,

1826
2:03:41 --> 2:03:47
you should write again to all invitees, making it clear that the offending paragraph above

1827
2:03:47 --> 2:03:55
has been removed. I am sad that you leave me with no choice but to write again.

1828
2:03:57 --> 2:04:04
But to write to you, my friend, in such terms, my friend in brackets, but this is a very serious

1829
2:04:04 --> 2:04:13
matter. Kind regards, Stephen. PS, as you know, I'm an experienced medical doctor and specialist in

1830
2:04:13 --> 2:04:19
diagnostic radiology trained in the UK and Sweden. I would be happy to brief you on the enormity of

1831
2:04:19 --> 2:04:23
what really happened in the last three and a half years, purportedly in the name of a medical

1832
2:04:23 --> 2:04:28
emergency, which in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, was enough, never anything of the

1833
2:04:28 --> 2:04:37
kind. These Council of Europe documents are relevant. There are two documents then,

1834
2:04:37 --> 2:04:43
and anyone can find these documents, except that this time, of course, the fraud was much more

1835
2:04:43 --> 2:04:51
damaging because the documents are about the 2009 swine flu pandemic fraud. I then go on to say,

1836
2:04:51 --> 2:04:59
I know the brilliant German doctor, sorry, keep going. I know the brilliant German medical doctor

1837
2:04:59 --> 2:05:05
in brackets, he was a prominent politician at the time in close brackets as Wolfgang Wodock,

1838
2:05:05 --> 2:05:10
who single-handedly forced the Council of Europe investigation into the swine flu pandemic fraud

1839
2:05:10 --> 2:05:18
of 2009. See report above. He is a friend of mine. In addition to briefing myself, I would be happy

1840
2:05:18 --> 2:05:27
to introduce you to him, DS. As I understand it, he put DS after PS. So just two seconds.

1841
2:05:29 --> 2:05:37
So that was on the 28th of September. So Charles, I've waited for a reply patiently, no reply coming.

1842
2:05:38 --> 2:05:46
And then I wrote last night, you know, so this was 2nd of October, when did I say? 2028,

1843
2:05:47 --> 2:05:54
okay, four days, it's enough time for him to reply. So this is the head of the steering group, I quote,

1844
2:05:55 --> 2:06:03
and then I sent another one last night. Nigel, you, oh sorry, you should read this.

1845
2:06:03 --> 2:06:15
And then there are two links. One is doctors for COVID ethics, the document,

1846
2:06:18 --> 2:06:25
hang on a minute. Oh yes, it's the, it's a document which Sukrit Bhakdi and Michael Palmer

1847
2:06:25 --> 2:06:34
and Sukrit's wife, Karina Rice wrote recently. So I just, I could have picked a thousand documents,

1848
2:06:34 --> 2:06:38
but I just chose that one. And then I put another one I'd never heard of before,

1849
2:06:39 --> 2:06:45
Blaylock, I can't remember his name now, but I think he's a medical doctor in the United States.

1850
2:06:46 --> 2:06:52
And this has been published. I noticed it. Keep going. Russell Blaylock. Russell Blaylock, yes.

1851
2:06:52 --> 2:06:57
So that I'd never seen it before. I just skimmed it and I thought, well, that's good enough.

1852
2:06:57 --> 2:07:05
And so I just sent those off. Can't regard Steven Nigel, sorry, you should read this,

1853
2:07:05 --> 2:07:11
forget the bit I've just said, you can maybe take that out Charles. So I got this this morning in

1854
2:07:11 --> 2:07:18
reply to that from not the person I was writing to, but the people I'd copied in. Because I'd

1855
2:07:18 --> 2:07:24
written privately to the head of the so-called steering committee. People really like to have

1856
2:07:24 --> 2:07:33
power in groups. So I'd written to him on his own, and then I gave him a chance and then I copied in

1857
2:07:33 --> 2:07:43
everybody. And so anyway, so one of the people copied in come pipes up, is stupid enough to pipe

1858
2:07:43 --> 2:07:49
up. And he says this, he's a professor in a very well known British university.

1859
2:07:51 --> 2:07:55
Dear Nigel, oh, sorry, I've said it again. Yeah, if you can take that out, Charles.

1860
2:07:56 --> 2:07:58
There's a million Nigels. We don't have to worry about that.

1861
2:08:01 --> 2:08:08
Steven, that's me and everyone else. First of all, listen to this now. First of all,

1862
2:08:08 --> 2:08:14
congratulations to the two pioneering scientists who did the groundwork for mRNA vaccines and were

1863
2:08:14 --> 2:08:21
awarded the Nobel Prize yesterday. Isn't that an outrageous beginning? Yep. So that's what that's

1864
2:08:21 --> 2:08:31
how he starts. That's gaslighting. The articles Stephen refers to, the article Stephen refers to

1865
2:08:31 --> 2:08:37
should to my mind be completely ignored. They fly against the face of huge clinical and

1866
2:08:37 --> 2:08:45
epidemiological data sets that show the vaccines have saved many millions of lives, with unfortunate

1867
2:08:45 --> 2:08:51
major side effects restricted to a vanishingly small number of individuals. In the second article,

1868
2:08:51 --> 2:08:59
this guy, sorry, in brackets, who is he? Close brackets, promotes treatments with hydroxychloroquine

1869
2:08:59 --> 2:09:06
and ivermectin, both of which have been shown to be ineffectual against COVID in very rigorous

1870
2:09:06 --> 2:09:13
studies. Oh yeah, right. That's my comment. I have just read another piece in response to this article

1871
2:09:13 --> 2:09:21
by Blaylock saying it is one of the most unscientific articles the author had seen and it would not have

1872
2:09:21 --> 2:09:27
passed peer review. Well, it was peer reviewed because it was in the journal, the idiot. So anyway,

1873
2:09:27 --> 2:09:35
agreed. So he said agreed, an exclamation mark. Whoa. I meet a few times a year.

1874
2:09:36 --> 2:09:44
So we've got this kind of speaking from on high to me, you know, but he would do it to anybody

1875
2:09:44 --> 2:09:51
because this is how they are. Speaking from, and he's got absolutely nothing to back up what he said.

1876
2:09:52 --> 2:09:57
I meet a few times a year with dedicated, honorable, brilliant scientists and clinicians at

1877
2:09:57 --> 2:10:04
the Pasteur Institute in Paris. Oh yeah, right. This is one of the largest and world leading centers

1878
2:10:04 --> 2:10:10
for research into infectious disease, including COVID. I have not come across one of the large,

1879
2:10:11 --> 2:10:15
I have not come across one who just subscribes to the off the wall

1880
2:10:16 --> 2:10:24
anti-vaccination stance. Whoa. They are all completely committed to the use of the mRNA

1881
2:10:24 --> 2:10:29
vaccines, which they believe to be the transformative weapon against the disease.

1882
2:10:30 --> 2:10:35
Whoa. See these appeals to authority all the time. My daughter is a lecturer in public health in

1883
2:10:35 --> 2:10:43
Glasgow who works on long COVID across Scotland. Wait a minute, two seconds. I'm just trying to get

1884
2:10:43 --> 2:10:50
this down. She has access to detailed health data on many thousands infected with COVID,

1885
2:10:50 --> 2:10:56
uninfected individuals, including self-reporting of symptoms. Her own analysis completely supports

1886
2:10:56 --> 2:11:03
the widely accepted view about, I would say, but wrong view about the impact of COVID and the power

1887
2:11:03 --> 2:11:14
of vaccines. Sorry for going on so long about this. He's saying this to the, the, the, um, the

1888
2:11:14 --> 2:11:22
addressee. But if people don't take the vaccine, it could impact seriously on their health and

1889
2:11:22 --> 2:11:28
lifespan. What? This reminds me of the climate change denial community.

1890
2:11:29 --> 2:11:32
So this is one of my school friends. He's completely lost, isn't he?

1891
2:11:32 --> 2:11:40
Yep. Sadly, they, I think that's nearly finished. Now, sadly, they, including non-experts such as

1892
2:11:40 --> 2:11:48
Nigel Lawson are given far too much air time and matched inappropriately with top experts and the

1893
2:11:48 --> 2:11:53
overwhelming consensus of the informed scientific community, including the Royal Society and the

1894
2:11:53 --> 2:11:59
U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Sadly, the conspiracy theorists in inverted commas

1895
2:12:00 --> 2:12:05
are raising doubts about the integrity of scientists and clinicians. Having worked in

1896
2:12:05 --> 2:12:12
the field for over 40 years while accepting there will always be a few bad apples, the vast majority

1897
2:12:12 --> 2:12:17
of my colleagues were passionate about finding the truth. Really, even if it went against their

1898
2:12:17 --> 2:12:26
hypotheses and hoped for outcomes. Enough from me. Sadly, I won't be joining the reunion. I support

1899
2:12:26 --> 2:12:36
your stance, Nigel. So all these people copied in? Don't care. So the next one, so then the person

1900
2:12:36 --> 2:12:45
who actually, um, was the target of my initial email, um, he then pipes up, listen to this.

1901
2:12:45 --> 2:12:56
I'm just trying to find it. Oh, here it is. And he says today, this was, uh, hi, Nick. Thank you for your illuminating response.

1902
2:12:56 --> 2:13:02
It's good to hear an assessment from a highly regarded medical professional based on the, quote,

1903
2:13:02 --> 2:13:09
overwhelming consensus of the informed scientific community, unquote. For the record, listen to this.

1904
2:13:09 --> 2:13:16
For the record, I had my flu jab last week and my COVID booster this morning.

1905
2:13:21 --> 2:13:27
You know, this is why, and I, you know, I never do what I did today, but you know, Jane Ruby,

1906
2:13:28 --> 2:13:35
I just, I couldn't hold it back. You know, that one. Hang on, hang on, hang on. So John, just to,

1907
2:13:35 --> 2:13:41
we'll come to, we'll come to that. But I thought you were commenting on what Stephen said.

1908
2:13:41 --> 2:13:47
I am kind of, it's all kind of the same vein though. It's like somebody thinks they know something,

1909
2:13:47 --> 2:13:54
you know, and it's not backed up by anything. It's just, it was said over here. And now I have to

1910
2:13:54 --> 2:14:00
repeat it, you know, because you heard it said over here, or maybe you heard it said over here at the

1911
2:14:00 --> 2:14:06
whole table of people over here. That doesn't lend it any more credibility than the first time they

1912
2:14:06 --> 2:14:13
heard it. So people, you know, are basing their judgments on a lot of very important issues on

1913
2:14:13 --> 2:14:18
how many times they heard the same bad opinion and there's no more. John, crucially, this guy is

1914
2:14:18 --> 2:14:24
supposed to be a scientist. He's a professor. Nearly. He's not. What about the last one where,

1915
2:14:24 --> 2:14:29
my daughter's this, she's, you know, working all over on COVID. Okay. So she's unemployed

1916
2:14:29 --> 2:14:33
and she's collecting all these statistics. No, John, I'm not arguing against you. I'm arguing

1917
2:14:33 --> 2:14:38
with you. I'm saying that he is talking like this. He's supposed to be a scientist. He doesn't quote,

1918
2:14:38 --> 2:14:46
he doesn't cite a single thing in the whole email. I know, but look, I'm going to, I'm holding back

1919
2:14:46 --> 2:14:50
a lot of information. I'm trying really hard to bite my tongue here because I need to do a lot

1920
2:14:50 --> 2:14:55
of reading so I can speak a little more intelligently about it. But there's a phenomenon that jumps out

1921
2:14:55 --> 2:15:02
at me that's very general that has nothing to do with anything specific. You're a doctor. Okay. So,

1922
2:15:03 --> 2:15:08
you know, I'm very careful, you know, not to just lambast doctors for being idiots or anything like

1923
2:15:08 --> 2:15:13
that. You have a specialty. All right. You went to school for it. You studied for it. Everything

1924
2:15:13 --> 2:15:17
that they told you, you did a good job. You got your A's and all that kind of stuff. All right.

1925
2:15:17 --> 2:15:25
But what we're dealing with here, I'm just learning what it really is. Okay. I came across

1926
2:15:25 --> 2:15:31
a piece of information that led to a lot more and I'm at the bottom of the rabbit hole now. I think

1927
2:15:31 --> 2:15:37
I can answer almost any question really accurately and I just don't want to make any mistakes or,

1928
2:15:37 --> 2:15:40
you know, let somebody else butcher it first. So I'm going to try to do a good job at this.

1929
2:15:41 --> 2:15:48
The problem with being a doctor and looking at, you know, the spread of this COVID thing,

1930
2:15:48 --> 2:15:57
whatever it is, is it is a whole bunch of fields that as a doctor you have, there's no crossover.

1931
2:15:57 --> 2:16:03
Okay. So you don't know that and the wool is being pulled over your eyes and all kinds of like

1932
2:16:05 --> 2:16:11
tricks. We don't want to speech. We want to hear what people think of those emails while they can

1933
2:16:11 --> 2:16:16
remember what they said. So if there's anybody else who'd like to comment, for example, Janet.

1934
2:16:17 --> 2:16:23
So I accept what you say, John. Look, most of my colleagues are idiots. I've accepted that and it's

1935
2:16:23 --> 2:16:28
really sad for me that the medical profession have made such an absolute fool of themselves,

1936
2:16:28 --> 2:16:31
but they have done and Janet would agree with me because she's one of the good ones.

1937
2:16:32 --> 2:16:40
Yeah, I mean, I certainly agree with you, Steve. I mean, I actually, in 2020, I actually had an

1938
2:16:40 --> 2:16:49
an e-letter published in the British Medical Journal showing that really these so-called

1939
2:16:49 --> 2:16:59
experts are really, they really have now succumbed to the sort of the status of a religion really.

1940
2:16:59 --> 2:17:06
I mean, I think that the author of that email that said that the people at the Pastor Institute

1941
2:17:06 --> 2:17:16
believed that this was a real pandemic, it just shows that it has sunk to the level of a

1942
2:17:17 --> 2:17:24
rather than actually knowing the basis of evidence. So you can see in the guy's language

1943
2:17:24 --> 2:17:29
that he actually doesn't have any evidence. He's simply treating it as a religion and I think

1944
2:17:29 --> 2:17:35
that's probably what's happened really. These people, they've sunk to that level with this.

1945
2:17:35 --> 2:17:40
There wasn't that, Janet. So this has happened before, where the opinion of someone else has

1946
2:17:40 --> 2:17:49
been sought by this very same head of the steering committee, you know, ridiculous. So he has sought

1947
2:17:49 --> 2:17:58
the opinion and then, but unfortunately for him, someone who was BCC'd in, blew his own cover.

1948
2:17:58 --> 2:18:04
So I was able to go back to this guy, the target of my emails and say, what on earth are you

1949
2:18:04 --> 2:18:16
playing at, Nigel? You're conspiring with others against me here. What I think happened here,

1950
2:18:16 --> 2:18:23
I don't know, so what I think happened here was that he knew that, so he tries to pass him off

1951
2:18:23 --> 2:18:29
as a doctor, you know, to the other people copied in when he is not a doctor. I know that.

1952
2:18:29 --> 2:18:38
So his first degree was in a science, I can't remember which, and it wasn't in medicine. So he

1953
2:18:38 --> 2:18:44
has no authority to speak as a doctor or as a medical professional. He's never seen a patient

1954
2:18:44 --> 2:18:49
in his life. Well, if he has, he shouldn't have. All right, let's go. Thank you, Janet. We've got

1955
2:18:49 --> 2:18:53
two more comments. We've got eight minutes to go. John, your point is taken. We're just going to

1956
2:18:54 --> 2:18:57
keep moving. Brad, Mark, sorry, and then Brad.

1957
2:19:00 --> 2:19:06
Hi, Stephen, you wanted to comment. I put in the chat a video, a link on YouTube to

1958
2:19:07 --> 2:19:16
Robert Murray Smith. It's a short little video on experts and I think everyone should watch it.

1959
2:19:16 --> 2:19:21
It's a very good clip. What is your opinion if you're prepared to share it with about that

1960
2:19:21 --> 2:19:29
outrageous email? Well, I shouldn't say that. Well, it was. The reason I put in the clip of

1961
2:19:29 --> 2:19:36
Murray Smith is he's talking about expertise. That's what you want. Expertise. You're not

1962
2:19:36 --> 2:19:42
interested in experts. You're interested in people who have expertise and the experts,

1963
2:19:44 --> 2:19:49
a person, that's a person. We're not interested in the person. We're interested in the expertise

1964
2:19:50 --> 2:19:56
that that person can provide and bring. In my opinion, Mark, it's not enough with the expertise

1965
2:19:56 --> 2:20:02
in a particular, you know, tiny branch of medicine. You need people who can actually use the

1966
2:20:03 --> 2:20:09
information that they have at their fingertips, you know, in an intelligent way. And very few

1967
2:20:09 --> 2:20:15
people seem to be able to do that. Very few people seem to be able to do that. They want to fall back

1968
2:20:15 --> 2:20:19
on protocols and guidelines now because they can't think any longer.

1969
2:20:19 --> 2:20:26
Now, that's what's all in that video. In the video clip, it's all to do with allowing people

1970
2:20:26 --> 2:20:34
to bring in their expertise, their opinions, and the people who are very humble are the people that

1971
2:20:34 --> 2:20:45
you want to keep. And Robert Murray Smith, if people are rude, he kicks them off his platform.

1972
2:20:45 --> 2:20:51
They don't last very long, right? And it's very good because they're basically gaslighting people

1973
2:20:51 --> 2:20:57
or they're pretending to be experts and they're not experts. There are other people who may not

1974
2:20:57 --> 2:21:03
be an expert, but they have expertise. They don't have a PhD or whatever, but they have expertise

1975
2:21:03 --> 2:21:11
because they've been doing the job or jobs for years. And he is welcoming their suggestions.

1976
2:21:11 --> 2:21:19
And it sounds to me like the person who's gone and got his flu jab and his COVID jab,

1977
2:21:19 --> 2:21:27
well, he's obviously brainless. Yes. He's the head of the steering committee.

1978
2:21:29 --> 2:21:36
Well said, Mark. Now, John, look, Arch, see, Mark makes a very good point. This madness

1979
2:21:36 --> 2:21:42
around qualifications that says if you don't have a qualification, you can't possibly have expertise.

1980
2:21:43 --> 2:21:46
That's the gaslighting that's also happening.

1981
2:21:49 --> 2:21:55
Qualifications that anybody bestowed upon me and look what I've been able to do. I mean,

1982
2:21:56 --> 2:22:04
that's the difference. That's it. So that's it. You let go. As soon as you say,

1983
2:22:05 --> 2:22:09
you haven't got a qualification. How could you possibly know anything? Like that's the game,

1984
2:22:09 --> 2:22:15
isn't it? Unless you come through our indoctrination process, we're going to make sure

1985
2:22:15 --> 2:22:19
that no one's going to listen to you. All right. Last comment by Brad, who's got plenty of

1986
2:22:19 --> 2:22:25
qualifications as a lawyer and as an experienced DOJ guy. Come on, Brad, give us the last one

1987
2:22:25 --> 2:22:31
because we're finishing in four minutes. Oh, thank you. What an honor and a privilege to

1988
2:22:31 --> 2:22:35
be on here today. I've really learned a lot. Thank you. It's a really stimulating,

1989
2:22:35 --> 2:22:39
intellectually stimulating conversation today. I'm going to try my best to be on every one.

1990
2:22:40 --> 2:22:45
I see it much more basic not being a guy of science. I see it as a group. There's a great

1991
2:22:45 --> 2:22:52
1960s movie, British movie about robbing a bank. I think it's cracking a safe or something. Everybody

1992
2:22:53 --> 2:22:57
gets together after it and they're going over their alibis with each other.

1993
2:22:57 --> 2:23:02
And as each person goes over their story, everybody's kind of like looking at them

1994
2:23:02 --> 2:23:09
suspiciously, you know, are you going to stay on the policy line? So I see it as a way to make sure

1995
2:23:10 --> 2:23:15
it's an enforcement mechanism where they're making sure that anybody that steps out of line is going

1996
2:23:15 --> 2:23:22
to get hazed. Is this really what it is? Professional hazing, you're being dehumanized.

1997
2:23:22 --> 2:23:28
It's an example for everybody else. But on top of it, they're just reaffirming that they're

1998
2:23:28 --> 2:23:35
staying with the standard policy line. It's a means of holding everything together. Exactly.

1999
2:23:36 --> 2:23:41
So Brad, I think there's an element of these people, you know, they're cowards themselves and

2000
2:23:41 --> 2:23:50
they can't envisage the possibility even that everyone is not a coward like them. So they think

2001
2:23:50 --> 2:23:55
that I'm actually afraid of receiving emails from them. So actually, I forgot to say I sent another

2002
2:23:55 --> 2:24:04
one this afternoon with just a link to the global research article called Jacuz, which I composed

2003
2:24:05 --> 2:24:13
together with, I think Janet helped me. Janet helped me, yes. So Michelle Shostovsky has always

2004
2:24:13 --> 2:24:21
been a great fan of that letter, of that article, the Jacuz one on the EUA, sorry, the

2005
2:24:21 --> 2:24:31
Eudra Vigilance figures, the VAERS figures and the MHRA figures in the UK. And so I sent them that.

2006
2:24:31 --> 2:24:37
I didn't say dear anybody, I just put the link there, essentially saying, you know,

2007
2:24:37 --> 2:24:43
you're lost. You know, I should perhaps have said you're lost and then put it, but anyway,

2008
2:24:44 --> 2:24:49
I hadn't got time. All right. Thank you for that comment, Brad. Very kind feedback. Thank you,

2009
2:24:49 --> 2:24:57
everybody, for being here. Tom Rodman has put the link into the Telegram video group, save the chat,

2010
2:24:57 --> 2:25:02
everybody, all of the wonderful links. There's another thing that's just occurred to me,

2011
2:25:02 --> 2:25:09
and Brad might be interested. I think that human beings, they want to be in a cult, I've concluded.

2012
2:25:09 --> 2:25:15
They want to be in a cult, and it doesn't really matter which cult, because human beings like to

2013
2:25:15 --> 2:25:22
be in a group, in a cult, if you like, because then they can just relax and think, oh, well, you know,

2014
2:25:22 --> 2:25:29
if I go down, go down with me, and then they can just go down with me. And I think that's a great

2015
2:25:30 --> 2:25:36
idea. Go down with me, and they get comfort from that. So, but the problem is, in a cult,

2016
2:25:36 --> 2:25:42
no one might be thinking, and well, all cults are deadly, in my opinion. Anyway, Brad,

2017
2:25:43 --> 2:25:49
that's what I think, human beings operating cults, and so they can't imagine anybody operating

2018
2:25:49 --> 2:25:55
independently, like many of the people in this group. And so they think I'll be terrified by

2019
2:25:55 --> 2:25:59
that kind of response, you know, and I just laughed at that. I thought, what a ridiculous,

2020
2:25:59 --> 2:26:03
I didn't even show it to anybody. Yep. Okay, John, Lucas, you had a quick comment?

2021
2:26:05 --> 2:26:10
Early on, there was a comparison that was made by a guy that was a cult-deep programmer,

2022
2:26:10 --> 2:26:15
and he threw up, like, you know, all the characteristics of a cult, and, you know,

2023
2:26:15 --> 2:26:21
it might have actually been an author we've had on here. I just can't remember who wrote it,

2024
2:26:21 --> 2:26:25
but it was brilliant. You know, it was just a perfect analogy, you know, side by side,

2025
2:26:25 --> 2:26:31
here's COVID, the cult of COVID, that meets all the criteria. Yes, the cult of COVID,

2026
2:26:31 --> 2:26:37
cult of COC, sounds like cock to me. That would be a good title for a book,

2027
2:26:37 --> 2:26:42
the cult of COVID, yeah, or the COVID cult. Stephen, Charles, I came up with a great

2028
2:26:42 --> 2:26:46
description of these people. Are you ready for it? Yeah. The branch COVIDians.

2029
2:26:46 --> 2:26:53
The branch COVIDians, very good. We all have a branch over here.

2030
2:26:53 --> 2:27:01
Okay, so last comment, because we're going, and that is, that is the etymology of the word

2031
2:27:01 --> 2:27:05
cult, Stephen. So you brought the word cult in. What's the etymology of the word cult?

2032
2:27:06 --> 2:27:09
Don't know. To cultivate.

2033
2:27:10 --> 2:27:19
Oh, yes. Cultivate minds. And to support. And, you know, it's a positive term that's been

2034
2:27:19 --> 2:27:25
deliberately used. So the people who want to form a group are branded a cult or conspiracy theorists,

2035
2:27:25 --> 2:27:31
because this group here, we're a cult of conspiracy theorists, you see, from their perspective.

2036
2:27:32 --> 2:27:37
So like grooming, then cultivate. Well, it's, well, you want to cultivate

2037
2:27:37 --> 2:27:40
your plants, otherwise they die. You want to cultivate human beings.

2038
2:27:40 --> 2:27:45
You know, grooming as applied to people who like children, you know.

2039
2:27:45 --> 2:27:49
Okay, so branch COVIDians, everybody. Paul, would you put that into the thing,

2040
2:27:49 --> 2:27:53
please, so that we've got it in the chat? Branch COVIDians.

2041
2:27:54 --> 2:27:58
All right, everybody. Lovely to be with you. Thank you, Stephen, for organizing, David Martin.

2042
2:27:58 --> 2:28:06
That's going to be well worthy of reviewing, particularly his first

2043
2:28:06 --> 2:28:10
20, 30 years, but even the answers to the questions. And remember that any questions

2044
2:28:10 --> 2:28:16
you have, Stephen, or I can forward them to David. And any suggestions you have for David,

2045
2:28:16 --> 2:28:22
he's totally welcoming of suggestions. So I couldn't make out on the call, Charles,

2046
2:28:22 --> 2:28:30
whether David was thinking that I was kind of obliquely criticizing him because I wasn't.

2047
2:28:30 --> 2:28:35
I didn't get that at all. No, you didn't. You didn't feel I had. Yeah. Okay. No, no, no, no.

2048
2:28:36 --> 2:28:41
All right, everybody. I'm paranoid then paranoid. Have a wonderful Wednesday. If you're in Wednesday,

2049
2:28:41 --> 2:28:46
have a Tuesday, a wonderful Tuesday night and look forward to being with you again on Sunday night,

2050
2:28:46 --> 2:28:52
Monday morning. And I say again, I'm so excited that I started at 6am these days instead of 5am.

2051
2:28:53 --> 2:29:01
That's very exciting. And soon it'll be. So when we go back an hour here, it'll be 5am.

2052
2:29:02 --> 2:29:10
7am. I mean, 7am. Sorry, 7am. So and that'll be the last week of October, Charles. Oh, good.

2053
2:29:10 --> 2:29:16
Beautiful. Yay. All right, everybody. See you later. Thank you for being here. Thanks, Stephen.

2054
2:29:16 --> 2:29:22
Okay. Thank you so much, everybody. And the Rodman Telegraph, for those of you with more time,

2055
2:29:22 --> 2:29:28
go across to the video conversation now. The link is in the chat. Read that article. I put up

2056
2:29:28 --> 2:29:36
more is coming. Thank you. Thanks. Okay, John. Thank you very much. Thanks, Louise. And take

2057
2:29:36 --> 2:29:43
care tomorrow all in the US. Yeah, Matt. Any good point as to what that means? We had a similar

2058
2:29:43 --> 2:29:51
event in the UK and everybody was worrying about it. And but I just forgot all about it and nothing

2059
2:29:51 --> 2:29:56
happened. Yeah, nothing. I didn't think it was interesting. I think it was a fear propaganda

2060
2:29:56 --> 2:30:03
exercise. Yeah. Yeah. Yes, Kelly, I can do that. I will do that.

2061
2:30:03 --> 2:30:21
Bye, Martina. Thanks, Charles. Thanks, Stephen.