I actually, yeah, I got to admit I thought it was great.
Richie Allen.
So just put.
I'm the only one that thought it was great, but.
Well, thank you for that.
So David Martin, welcome.
Thank you for being available.
And there are lots of people who think you're great.
So there are lots of people who missed you last week
and they're so pleased that you're here with us today.
So is there, Stephen Frost, good morning, good evening.
I'm here in Melbourne.
So let's get, David, you ready to go?
I am indeed.
I appreciate everybody's accommodation from last week.
I had the misfortune of a very close business associate
whose wife and two young children were in a car accident
45 minutes before I was supposed to get on this call.
And that had a way of disrupting the flow of the day.
So thank you for accommodating.
They're all fine.
The car is not, and I'm no worse for wear.
So here we are again.
Wonderful, David.
And Rose points out to me, Jim,
if you could make that statement again on SIDS, please,
because we didn't catch it on the recording.
And it's a crucially important statement.
And I kid you not, I have friends whose marriages broke up,
Jim, on that point where the husband blames the wife
for killing their baby.
And they never got over it.
So could you repeat that statement again?
Sure.
And welcome, David.
It's good to be with you also.
Indeed.
So this is a whistleblower,
a major police woman in a major US city
who will remain anonymous.
And she's investigated over 250 cases
of sudden infant death syndrome.
As you know, those occur typically
in the first year of life.
Typically, they peak at, I don't know,
around four months of life.
But this lady has proof that of the 250 cases,
that 50% of the deaths occurred within 48 hours of a vaccine.
And 80% of the deaths occurred
within seven days of the vaccine.
By the way, almost identical to the numbers
that Peter McCullough and other experts rattle off
about deaths after COVID vaccines, SIDS and SADs,
sudden adult death syndrome, exact same numbers.
What was more upsetting to me is the whistleblower
has a pediatrician on her wavelength.
They're not willing to come out.
That says the American Academy of Pediatrics
has instructed all the pediatricians nationally
on how to point the finger and gaslight parents
who complain of any complications from the vaccine,
accusing them of shaken baby syndrome
or rattling their baby or getting the state
family services involved with investigating them.
Apparently, that's their tactic.
Wow.
Thank you, Jim, for sharing that.
That is extraordinary.
And many people who are here will know people
who've suffered from that situation.
And for all of us to know that
is with all of the information that we had on SIDS.
And I went through it.
As I said, I had friends with it.
Please, we will act accordingly from that.
Jim, I don't think...
So could you clarify for the people watching the video
afterwards what SIDS is?
After the video or now?
Now.
Oh, yeah, sure.
Sudden infant death syndrome has been...
We've known about that for, you know, 40 years.
But it is an occurrence where mom and dad
will put the baby down and the baby will die
unexpectedly, inexplicably.
And we've known this for many, many decades.
That's what it is.
Death of unknown origin.
Jim, as you said, SADS and SADS is sudden...
Infant.
Adult death syndrome.
Adult.
SIDS and SADS.
Thank you, Jim.
Most important news.
All right, everybody, let's get this...
Pearl, SIDS.
SIDS.
Infant death syndrome.
So, let's try to say, okay.
Welcome everybody to Medical Doctors
for COVID Ethics International.
In today's discussion, this group was founded
by Dr. Stephen Frost during the darkest days
of the COVID scam responses over two years ago
with a desire to pursue truth, ethics, justice,
freedom and health.
Stephen has stood up against government and power
over the years and has been a whistleblower and activist.
His medical specialty is radiology.
I'm Charles Covess, the moderator of this group.
I'm Australasia's passion provocateur.
I practiced law for 20 years
before changing career 30 years ago.
And over the last 12 years, I've helped parents and lawyers
to strategize remedies for vaccine damage
and damage from bad medical advice.
I'm also the CEO of an industrial hemp company.
We comprise lots of professions here,
including doctors, lawyers, homeopaths, journalists,
scientists, filmmakers, professors, patent experts,
peacemakers and troublemakers.
And we're from all around the world.
Many of us thought that vaccines were okay.
Now, many of us proudly say, yes,
we are passionate anti-vaxxers.
And I count myself among that.
And I'm now proud to say that,
not that I'm ashamed to be an anti-vaxxer.
If this is your first time here, welcome
and feel free to introduce yourself in the chat
and where you're from.
If you publish a newsletter or a podcast,
or you have a radio or TV show or written a book,
put the links into the chat so we can follow you,
promote you and find you.
Most of us understand we're in the middle of World War III
and that there are various battle lines
as part of this war.
Some of us believe we're in a continuation of World War II.
Most of us understand the development of science
and that the science is never settled.
This meeting runs for two and a half hours,
after which for those with the time,
Tom Rodman runs a video telegram meeting.
Tom puts the links into the chat if you are able to join.
We'll listen to David Martin, our guest presenter,
for as long as David wishes to speak.
And then we have Q&A.
Stephen Frost, by long established tradition,
asks the first set of questions for 15 minutes.
No censorship, it's a free speech environment
with appropriate moderating.
In fact, I say that point appropriate moderating
because people think free speech means
that they can talk whenever they want.
And I was at a conference,
a hemp conference last week for two days
and there was a real troublemaker
and the emcee was simply unable
to control this troublemaker who said,
this is a free speech environment,
I can talk whenever I want.
A foolish comment.
If you're offended by a free speech
is crucially important in our fight
to preserve our human freedoms.
And I think that important link is often forgotten.
If you're offended by anything, be offended.
We're genuinely not interested.
We reject the offence industry
that requires nobody to say anything
that may offend another.
We come with an attitude and perspective of love, not fear.
Fear is the opposite of love.
Fear squashes you, love on the other hand, expands you.
And I want you, for those of you who are parents,
when you say, I'm going to love my child
and I'm going to discipline them,
it's an interesting balance,
this idea of what love actually means.
These twice weekly meetings are not just talk fests.
An extraordinary range of actions and initiatives
have been generated from linkages made
by attendees in these meetings.
If you have a solution or a product or links or resources
that will help people put the details into the chat,
the meeting is recorded
and is uploaded on the Rumble channel.
Now, welcome to our guest presenter, Dr. David Martin,
a true genius.
I'm blown away by what David, just blown away.
David is a genius and we thank you so much, David,
for giving us your time, wisdom and insights.
And again, thank you, Stephen Frost,
for creating this group and for organizing David
to present to us today.
David, over to you.
David, can I just say, so Stephen here,
so thank you so much for coming on for the second time.
It feels like that for me anyway and probably for you.
I wondered, so I thought your speech to the European Union
was absolutely brilliant,
highlighting as it did the criminality.
If you want to repeat that speech now,
that's absolutely fine with me and with everyone
or maybe you have something better.
But if you have time, you can do what you like.
Thank you, Stephen, and thank you all for taking the time.
For those of you not familiar,
there are two European Union presentations,
one to the Parliament in Brussels,
which was in May of 2023
and one that I just did a few weeks ago in Strasbourg.
The one in Brussels has much more to do
with the specifics around the COVID platform.
And the one in Strasbourg a few weeks ago
has to do with the criminal organization
of the World Health Organization and its roots,
as I traced them back to 1913.
The one in Brussels has just recently
surpassed four billion views.
So over half the world's population has seen that one.
And the one from Strasbourg
has just surpassed a billion views.
So something about those two have done exceptionally well.
And as I have committed in all of the presentations I make,
I don't do the same thing twice.
So Stephen, what I'm going to commend
is if you haven't encountered either or both of those,
I'll just commend you to look on pretty much
any alternative media video location
and you should be able to find
both the Brussels event and the Strasbourg event.
But I do want to build on the back, if we could,
of the Strasbourg event,
because we are actually actively in the pursuit
of beginning the process of filing a series
of criminal complaints against the World Health Organization.
And as a result, I think it's helpful to begin
kind of picking up where I left off in Strasbourg.
The reason for that is that this present company
acknowledged as part of the broader conversation,
many of us have gotten appropriately concerned
with the events that have unfolded
over the last three and a half years,
nearly now four, where we are clearly responding
to a series of events that we see as fundamental
injustice and fundamental violations of basic
and appropriate human interactions.
And that's a very appropriate thing to do.
So I want to make sure we're very clear on my perspective
that responding to a crisis is appropriate.
My concern, however, is that if we respond to a crisis
at the expense of looking at the fundamentals
of what gave rise to the crisis,
we're actually part of the problem.
And by that, I mean the absence of consideration
of the ecosystem into which these crises can emerge
means that we substitute one crisis for another.
And what we're trying to do is suggest
that maybe there is a root of the tree of the problem
that we should address, not just the branches called COVID
or the branches called vaccines.
And so the intent of my presentation in Strasbourg
was specifically to highlight the fact
that beginning in 1913, with the recent publication
of the Flexner Report and with the empanelment
of the Cold Spring Harbor Labs,
which is where many of you will know Andrew Carnegie funded
and developed the first eugenics office
for the United States government in 1913.
With that emergence of the convergence of two programs,
the Rockefeller Foundation in the early 19-teens
and then obviously the Wellcome Trust
established in the 1920s,
we had what was in fact a very bizarre,
what I'm gonna call peristatal formation
around the industrial pharmaceutical industry.
Now, many of you know that I have gone on a historic rant
that suggests that we have been a globe overtaken
by drug dealers since 1604.
And the reason I state that is because the evidence
is nothing but that.
If we go back and we look at the establishment
of the British East India Company
and the Dutch East India Trading Company,
what we realize is that while we like to sugarcoat
the stories around spice trade,
the truth was that both of these organizations
largely were built around opium and opioids.
And we need to stop pretending like we have an economy
in the last 400 years that is anything other than rooted
in a grounding of the drug trade.
And while we were warned in the 1960s
to be aware of the military industrial complex,
cunningly absent from the military industrial complex
was the recognition that the military industrial complex
is in fact built in service, are you ready for this,
to the pharmaceutical industrial complex,
which is the deeper and more grave concern.
And most of us spend our time allegedly
because we like to think of ourselves
as open-minded and liberal
and maybe potentially bordering on pacifist,
we like to jump on the military industrial complex bandwagon
without recognizing that it was in fact
the pharmaceutical industrial complex
that gave rise to the military industrial complex
in the first place.
We were defending the drug trade long, long, long
before we were defending oil trade.
We were defending the drug trade long, long, long
before we were defending any of the other economic plagues
of our time.
And it's critical that we start understanding
that until we see the insidious nature
of what there is in fact at the root of this tree,
which is a fundamental value-based system
that says that an intoxicated, inebriated
and anesthetized humanity is the only way
we can actually govern humanity.
If we don't understand that that's where our root problem
was given rise to, then everything we do as a derivative
is going to unfortunately fail on the fact
that we are not even examining our own history correctly.
So having grown up in a pacifist home
in a very religious environment
where I was told that I was supposed to be
where the military industrial complex,
I find it fascinating that I never once was informed
about the pharmaceutical industrial complex
and its insidious roles that it has played.
Specifically speaking, from the perspective
of the United States, it's important for us to also realize
that the funding of not just the first,
but also the second bank of the United States,
the very foundation of our economic system,
were funded by opium traders, not militants,
not DuPonts trying to sell gunpowder.
Steven Girard, the funder and founder
of the first bank of the United States was an opium trader.
And the money he used to finance the first bank
of the United States was opium trade money.
It wasn't an agriculture complex.
It wasn't slave trade or sugar trade or anything else.
It was opium trade.
The foundation of the very economic system
underpinning the very formation of our country
is the drug trade.
And whether it's then or it is Nancy Reagan's war on drugs,
which we were using to fund covert operations
in Central America and Iran and Iraq,
every single step we've taken has fundamentally ignored
the fact that it was the criminal nature
of the pharmaceutical industry that is in fact
where a number of our problems give rise.
And it was because of that that I pointed out
that at the Bretton Woods Summit in 1944,
when the multilateral agencies were first contemplated,
and for those of you not familiar with the history,
I encourage you to go back and read
the presentations made at Bretton Woods.
But every single one of them was actually paid for
and sponsored by drug companies,
not by military industrial complex companies.
This was a drug dealing enterprise run by drug dealers
for the purpose of advancing drug initiatives.
And what makes that particularly problematic
was the formation of what became the legal protections
for UN affiliated organizations.
And for those of you, once again, not familiar,
please read the documents between 1944 and 1947.
Because in 1947, when the UN affiliated organizations,
then under the League of Nations were developed,
in the charter of these organizations was an absolute,
and by the way, when I say absolute,
zero wiggle room whatsoever,
an absolute amnesty for all criminal acts done
under the auspices of any UN-chartered organization.
It is impossible under a UN-chartered organization,
and this is written right into the charter,
to prosecute any crime committed by any person
who is during the mission of the crime
engaged in the activities sanctioned
by the World Health Organization
or by UN affiliated organization.
It is illegal to even investigate
the crime done by the criminal.
And this is written into their own charter.
As I asked in Strasburg,
what type of organization has to write into its charter
an absolute criminal amnesty for every single person
doing every single thing under the auspices
of that organization,
if the intent was not to actually mask crimes.
This goes beyond diplomatic immunity,
goes beyond every form of sovereign immunity.
This goes to a act and a guarantee
that any commission of any crime,
both cannot be prosecuted,
but it cannot even be investigated.
And this is in the charter
of the World Health Organization.
I highlighted that,
and I have to say that in the room full of people
in the parliament in Strasburg,
it was a, you could have heard a pin drop moment.
People didn't understand that this organization
was chartered by criminals for criminal immunity.
That's the reason why it exists.
It does not exist for the advancement of how.
Well, we've just lost him.
This organization.
He'll come back.
This organization does not exist for,
we'll get to that point.
How about that for beautiful opening statements?
Four billion viewers.
That's not a bad number.
Anyone got more than four billion viewers
on any of their programs?
Nobody that ain't dirty.
I don't know how you do that.
That's pretty impressive, isn't it?
Pretty impressive.
It's interesting.
I'll just be just in there.
I've just been searching for it on YouTube
and on Google and mainstream media.
You can't find his speech very easily at all,
just to point that out to everyone.
So it's already being withdrawn or hidden.
So I don't know how four million people got to see it,
but that's of interest.
Yeah, interesting.
Interesting, interesting.
Yes, that's-
Well, some of us watched it 20 times.
Sorry, Stephen?
Some of us have watched it 20 times.
And they-
I'm good, Thomas.
So David Martin is an extraordinarily good speaker.
Yes.
Yes, he is indeed.
And what a-
I've often, I talk about the military industrial complex
and it guides by thinking.
And that's the first,
that's such a wonderful shift
in terms of going, okay,
the military industrial complex is built on Big Pharma,
the pharmaceutical industry complex.
And right now I'm just reading the book,
Empire of Pain,
about the Sacklers.
We talked about the Sackler Netflix series.
This is giving a deeper complex,
a deeper foundation, if you like, to this.
Reading the book, Empire of Pain,
it's an amazing, amazing story,
brilliantly written that's really,
and now as the stuff I've read in the last week
from the Sackler family,
and then what David Martin is talking about is amazing.
All right, now-
The big lie there, Charles,
was Oxycontin was not addictive,
when clearly it was.
Yes.
And the doctors went along with it incredibly.
Yeah.
I didn't even know about it.
Hey, gentlemen, I once listened to a presentation
by a special forces instructor
who stated that the CIA was created
for drug trafficking and human trafficking.
So it kind of goes along with exactly
what he was just saying.
We actually look at it in reverse.
Yes.
Yeah.
And on the children trafficking,
has anyone got an update on sound of freedom numbers?
I haven't seen anything in the media.
We haven't talked about it for two weeks.
Anyone?
It's allowed to come to Norway next week.
Very good.
It's been in Australia,
but no media attention given to it,
except one film review in the Australian newspaper,
but no debate around it.
No politician said anything about it.
All right.
I just seem to get lost and come back.
So I don't know what happened here.
Welcome back, sir.
So Charles remembers your last words, David.
So what were they, Charles?
You were fast food.
I'm sorry, I didn't follow, but...
So I just said that Charles remembers.
Can I just have one person ask me a question?
Yes.
David.
Okay.
Yes.
Can you hear me now?
Yes, we can.
Okay, good.
So the point that I was making
when for some reason the entire Zoom cut out
was that we have a significant challenge
in the legislative and in the structural nature
of the early trials on malaria vaccination,
which is the one that we should pay most attention to,
which is that by the 1960s,
the malaria injections were actually included
in not only direct loss of life
and many times in children under the age of six months old,
but what is particularly interesting and problematic
about the vaccination program
and the World Health Organization throughout the 1960s,
right up until 2018,
is that we actually see clinical trials
that were done frequently
where the children receiving experimental malaria shots
were being killed.
But ironically, the definition of a control group
inside the same trials
was actually a cocktail of other vaccines.
It was not a control group like a saline injection
or a sugar injection
or something that would be considered to be innocuous.
We were actually killing children
with the experimental malaria,
but we were also killing children in the control group
with a cocktail of things like MMR and DPT and other things.
And so the issue is that we have this epic amount
of destruction that was going on,
and every single time there was ever any conversation
around the fact that somebody should be held liable,
the defense which was written into the charter
of the World Health Organization was used.
There can be no crime
if the World Health Organization does it.
And listen carefully, it can't be a crime if they do it.
So killing people cannot be a crime
if it's done under the auspices
of the World Health Organization,
which gives us this interesting window into 1984
when Anthony Fauci gets appointed
into NIAID in the United States,
because there is no question that the Anthony Fauci.
Wow.
Whoa.
Someone doesn't want him to talk.
Oh.
Yeah, someone doesn't want him to talk, correct.
So Charles, so I don't think that David picked up
where he left off.
So it would have been good if you'd come up
with the last words that you mentioned, but anyway.
And the same thing now, you know.
Yes, we're not.
So I wonder who's knocking him off the internet
or the Zoom call.
We're at 1984, everybody.
Yeah, and actually as he went off the first time,
certainly there was a picture of George Orwell
as he disappeared.
Yes, that's Susan Danz has got that on her face,
on her, what do you call it?
On her screen.
Yeah, but the point was that as he disappeared,
because I was watching it on the big screen, you know,
as he disappeared, at the moment he disappeared,
just after the George Orwell's photo came up, momentarily.
Yeah, same here, same here.
So subtle hints, come on.
What did you say, John?
Maybe it's a subtle hint, you know,
like when they drop things in movies.
Yes, yes, yes.
So, yes, Nfouchi in 1984.
So we will wait and we're working on getting this,
moving this platform to Cloud Hub everybody.
And Truth Hub, we'll be doing these on Truth Hub shortly,
so that we have the security,
I'm doing it on a couple of other platforms
so that I get good at it before we then go broadly
onto this platform, Stephen.
And the-
Where did he say he was calling in from?
Where's Dr. Martin at right now, physically?
Don't know.
We don't know.
I think he's based in-
I'm back again, clearly somebody's not overly thrilled
about what I'm saying.
Exactly.
That's it.
David, keep going.
You got to 1984 and Fauci.
Yeah, so 1984 and Fauci,
and then we obviously have the anthrax attack
with the associated,
the associated PREP Act,
which gave us the protection of medical countermeasures,
which afford to all of the manufacturers
of pharmaceutical companies,
that same liability protection,
which was in the National Childhood Vaccine Act.
The reason why these background principles
are so important in this conversation
is that we have understood,
and we must understand,
that there is a requirement for us
to build a legal framework
to go after the World Health Organization,
and NIAID, and its conspiring parties,
not for the crimes that they are committing at the moment,
which are unambiguously crimes,
but we need to actually find
both the basis for arguments,
as well as the jurisdiction for the damage,
which allows us to go after
the World Health Organization's charter
as an illegal act in 1947.
The delegation of its domicile to Switzerland
as an illegal act under tax evasion,
the establishment of the racketeering
in violation of the Clayton Act in the United States,
the Sherman Act in the United States,
and the anti-competitiveness acts in Europe.
What we're trying to do is build a framework
that allows us to prosecute something
that cannot be dismissed
under the charter of the World Health Organization,
but goes after the root of the tree itself.
And so the reason for this presentation,
and the reason why I did the series of presentations
in Europe was to take us on a journey
through the criminality that started
with the London Conference
when we impaneled the first Nuremberg trial,
and move from that through the charter
of the World Health Organization,
through the charter of the United Nations,
through all of these other charters
to build the legal framework to say,
there are crimes we can prosecute,
but we have to prosecute them at the root of the tree,
not at the branch of the crime called COVID.
And so what we have done in the last now two and a half months
is we've galvanized a group of attorneys
in the United States and in Europe
to work together on going after antitrust,
anti-competition, domestic and international terrorism,
and tax evasion and tax fraud.
Because when we understand that these crimes
are not part of the protected class of crimes, right?
Murder is a protected class of crime.
Injecting people with a toxin is a protected class of crime,
but the structural nature of these things
is in fact not a protected class.
What we are doing is we're putting this together,
and thankfully, we now have a team
that will likely begin the criminal prosecutions
in Switzerland under tax fraud first.
Because the Swiss courts are extremely sensitive
to the black eye they got from the banking scandals
of about a decade ago.
When they started getting investigated
for shielding tax fraud assets,
we are actually ripping a page out of that playbook,
and we are using that playbook
to begin the prosecution of crimes in this instance.
So I wanted to just give you guys the background
of understanding how we are transforming our legal approach
so that we actually go after crimes
that are not protected class crimes,
and we're going after crimes that in fact are prosecutable
inside of both the European and US courts.
I am optimistic that at long last,
I now have a group of close to 20 lawyers around the world
who see that this is an antitrust and tax evasion case
if we're going to win the underlying structural problem,
which is to break the back of the drug war that we're in.
And that's kind of the highlights
of getting us up to the moment
of why I'm doing what I'm doing and where I'm doing it.
And with that, I will actually be delighted
to take questions.
Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful thinking, David.
Well done on putting a group of lawyers together.
As you know, 99% of lawyers give the rest of them
a bad name, but you're clearly picking on the 1%.
So well done.
And it is a wonderful reframe of thinking,
even as you shared that the pharmaceutical industrial complex
is the foundation of the industrial military.
I go, wow, that is such a helpful idea.
So thank you.
As you know, first 15 minutes goes to Stephen.
We've got plenty of hands up.
So Stephen.
So Martin, thank you so much.
I can't see you now.
Where are you?
He's there.
You can solve that, Stephen, but any of you can solve.
Okay, hello.
So David, I just wanted to ask you,
so it's of interest to me this
because I've never obviously thought of it
as deeply as you have.
And thank goodness you are thinking like that.
But I should have done,
because I was actually involved as a whistleblower,
as a medical doctor in the British military,
highlighting criminality regarding class A controlled drugs
in the military.
And that was in 2013.
They took me out.
They tried to, well, you know the usual tactics.
They tried to deprive you of your money and your family.
And in 2019, so five and a half years later,
over five and a half years later,
I withdrew my own appeal on access to justice grounds
because I finally realized,
and somebody should have sat me down to explain,
but never did.
I had five sets of brilliant lawyers in the United Kingdom.
And somebody should have sat me down and said,
you're never gonna win because actually against you,
you've got the British military, the Ministry of Defense,
i.e. the British government,
the full power of the British government.
Also the police who wouldn't investigate crime,
but were very concerned about talking to me for about,
from memory two years,
and wouldn't give me a crime number despite my pleas.
They couldn't justify that to my MP, member of parliament,
at his office who called the senior policeman,
I can't remember his name, otherwise I'd name him,
but the senior guy at the,
so he was a superintendent at Lancashire police.
Not only was I fighting the British government, I realized,
and the police, but I was also fighting the courts.
And they were actually, they held a hearing,
an appeal hearing without me present,
without my lawyers present.
And the reason they knew why we weren't there,
we hadn't been informed.
And so I withdrew my own appeal, but now listening to you,
I realized that I was up against
the pharmaceutical industry as well.
Well, and in the UK, Stephen, the Wellcome Trust, in fact,
does control the vast majority of what's done
under what's called the industrial acts
with respect to any part of the pharmaceutical review process
in the UK.
Beginning in the 1930s, the Wellcome Trust
was the first one to create what ultimately became
the UK equivalent of the FDA.
They were the Fox governing their own hen house.
But it's worse than that because if you go back
and you read the charter of the British East India Company,
the Hudson Bay Company, the Virginia Company,
and the related companies set up
in the early decades of the 17th century,
what you realize is the crown itself
is obligated to defend these criminal actors.
And that is a grant that has never been superseded
by any legislation.
So you aren't just up against this theoretical
amorphous bad guy, you are up against the very essence
of the jurisprudence of the United Kingdom.
This is in fact a, you don't get to come across
the starting line, which is the reason why I began
in the spring of 2020, saying that this is not
a public health crime, this is not even
a public health emergency, this is an antitrust
and racketeering crime, and it needs to be treated as such.
If we do not treat it as an organized crime,
we will fail because the deck is stacked.
So your point is exactly well taken,
but this goes back to the charter
of the British East India Company
when we actually saw that being chartered in 1604.
Yeah, so I forgot to say the most important thing, Dave,
because I'm having to revisit things
that are not really nice to think about for me.
But so I became aware of a,
a happening within the military
regarding class A controlled drugs,
and I knew that it was criminal.
Straight away, I just knew, and I said,
you need a police investigation.
I didn't even think about it.
I didn't think, oh, I'm a whistleblower here,
I'm in danger.
I didn't know what a whistleblower was.
I just said what I should say in that circumstance
as a medical doctor, you need a police investigation.
And I was met by silence.
And I said, I'm really confused why you're silent,
why, oh, it was a nurse leading the investigation,
by the way, a nurse leading a,
a so-called investigation, internal investigation
into a class A controlled drug, massive misappropriation
in the military on an isolated camp in Lancashire.
That's why Lancashire police had jurisdiction.
But the thing about it was that
but the thing about it was that,
so it turned, so that was the, and you know, as always,
when you come across something like that,
and I was absolutely determined,
but then they fired me three weeks later
with no reason given by text.
And that's outrageous, obviously.
So I had lots of people helping me.
And anyway, time went on, like years went on,
and then eventually as the case became better known
because I was the best represented
employment tribunal claimant ever in the United Kingdom.
I won't say who the lawyers were.
But anyway, but they were very senior QC,
but also a brilliant junior barrister.
And the military officers approached me,
who didn't know each other.
And they were, so three of them approached me,
asking me how did I think that the drugs,
so they were ostensibly on my side,
but maybe they weren't, I don't know.
Asked me how I thought the drugs,
the class A controlled drugs were getting into the country.
And the way, you know,
they have a way of asking these questions.
And I just said, you mean that they coming on
military planes and military ships, no checks?
And none of them admitted it.
They just said, think about it, Stephen,
or words to that effect.
Yeah. Any comments?
Well, see, this is where if you go back
and you look at, you have to understand,
we've gone through the letters of Mark,
which are the authorized piracy letters
that the Crown can issue.
And you find out that there are exemptions to taxation,
there are exemptions to inspection,
and there are exemptions to tariffs of all form
that are authorized,
which is part of the reason why I've said numerous times
that this is actually the pharmaceutical industrial complex,
not the military complex.
The military is merely the agency
through which it is being delivered.
It is not in fact the military that's the point.
The military is one of the points of the spear,
but it is not the spear.
The spear is the drug dealers ever since 1604.
We have to just face it.
Wow.
Yeah, so playing into that, David,
there was someone helping me in my case.
I've just remembered now,
who was a brilliant investigator of fraud.
He was a medical doctor.
He was completely fearless.
I came to know this guy.
He helped me in my case with the research and stuff.
But I tried to persuade him to take on,
he won against the US pharmaceutical companies
who had tried to take him out,
and twice they tried to take him out,
and twice he felt that he was going to lose his house,
but twice he survived.
Absolutely brilliant.
I can't remember his name.
I don't know whether I should name him anyway,
but anyway, point is that he was an expert on fraud,
and this is, so I was wondering,
why would the pharmaceutical industry
try to take this guy out, you know, in the US,
I was told, US pharmaceutical companies,
trying to take out this medical doctor in the UK
who was focusing on fraud?
Well, it is, if you ever watch the film,
Constance Gardner, and if you haven't, make sure you do.
John Le Carre.
But if you actually look at that,
you'll see that there would be a plausible argument
if you know the backstory of that,
specifically if you know the backstory of William Haddad,
who is a guy who everyone should know,
and very few people do,
you'll notice that he was part of the Kennedy administration
at the time of Kennedy's assassination,
and there may have been something about Constance Gardner
that you ought to know if you think you know anything
about the Kennedy assassination.
So I will leave it at that,
and I'll leave you all to consider
that there may have been warnings that we did not listen to.
Yeah, so David, so my view as a medical doctor,
so I don't feel as a medical doctor
that I can have an opinion, you know,
that used to be the case,
and I still feel that that should be the case,
that I don't have to prove things beyond reasonable doubt
or even have a peer-reviewed study to prove my instincts
and hypothesize.
So my view is that there is a real possibility
that there was no pandemic,
and that certainly I'm very doubtful
that the diagnosis of COVID-19 is possible,
and I wonder whether you think,
whether you've ever thought,
I know that you like to talk about Baric
and the rest of them, you know,
and the gain of function stuff in Wuhan,
and you may well be right,
but I wonder whether there's a possibility in your mind,
because it's very important that we, you know,
correct our course if there's any possibility
that we might be wrong, including you,
especially with these high-profile cases.
Is there any possibility that they use
the gain of function thing to play into the narrative,
lead people astray with a kind of double bluff?
Do you think that that's a possibility or not?
Because my view is that the whole-
Yeah, Stephen, if you've listened to my presentations
at either parliament, you know the answer.
This all was a bluff, but the part that's not a bluff,
and this is the part that concerns me
about the conversations about scientific epistemology
and dogma, which is not what this is about,
this was the creation of a weapon.
In 2005, it was defined as the creation of a weapon
when Ralph Baric said that he actually was
using synthetic coronavirus
as a bio warfare enabling technology.
Now, I don't know how somebody can read that statement
and come away thinking that I'm somehow advocating
for a dogmatic view of a scientific theory.
I'm simply saying that on the backbone of an architecture
of a protein sequence, which is what that definition means,
he built a biological weapon.
There is no question that in 2014,
at the National Academy of Sciences
and at the proceedings that were published in February 2016,
Peter Daschuk said we were gonna use that weapon
to get the public to accept a pan-coronavirus vaccine.
There's no question of that.
In 2016, there's no question that when they said
the Wuhan Institute of Virology Virus Chimera Number 1
was poised for human emergence,
there is no question that that was a distribution
of a biological weapon.
I have said nothing but this from the beginning.
This was a biological weapon attack.
It was distributed.
They said it in their own words.
They said it on September 18th, 2019,
that they were going to use a, quote,
lethal respiratory pathogen to get the public
to accept a universal vaccine platform by September 2020.
That is what they said.
And I am sick and tired of the number of people
who believe that somehow or another I'm supporting
a particular scientific narrative or not.
What I'm saying is that they used an architecture
of a protein that they turned into a weapon
by their own admission, DARPA funded that weapon
by its own admission in 2005 and persisted through 2019,
continues to do that.
And here's the point.
You do not use the word accidental or intentional release
of a lethal respiratory pathogen.
Their words, release.
That is not an accidental leak.
That is not nature zoonotically transferring.
When you say humans are releasing a thing,
that is an active distribution of a thing.
There never was a transmissible anything.
There was a deliverable thing.
And the deliverable thing is a biological weapon.
And we need to use the criminal's own language
to indict them.
We have seen throughout the last three and a half years,
nonsense about whether there's viruses or not viruses,
whether there's this or that, stop the nonsense.
This was and is a biological weapon attack against humanity.
And if we stop focusing on that,
and we start focusing on these nonsensical rabbit trails
that have nothing to do with the attack,
we would not be giving a Nobel Prize to the manufacturers
of a system that actually we know is a pro-oncologic system.
We would not give that Nobel Prize out
if we weren't doing the same thing that we did
when Obama got a Nobel Prize for the possibility
of transferring our assassination programs to UAVs.
We've got to stop bullshitting ourselves.
This is a weapon being brought against humanity, period.
Thank you, David.
So thank you for that explanation.
I think that you may not realize it,
but it's rather nuanced.
So I can understand why people are snapping at your heels,
not that I condone it.
Well, but here's the problem.
And I wanna be really clear about this.
I'm fighting a war.
And what I'm getting is friendly fire from idiots.
And that's not helping when you're fighting a war.
Exactly. When you're fighting a war,
the last thing you need is idiots
who are actually shooting you in the heels.
And I'm saying this with no equivocation.
If you wanna have a debate about scientific theory,
do it on your own time,
but don't do it during an active warfare campaign.
Absolutely.
We can talk about these things whenever the hell we want to,
but we'll do it over coffee cups
and we'll do it in Chatham House Rules conversations.
But don't do it while we're trying to actually
credibly bring a criminal case against a court
who are you ready for this?
Is not interested in a metaphysical conversation
about the nature of science.
I'm pointing out a crime.
And when we actually are addressing a crime,
we need to focus on a criminality,
not on metaphysical debates on reality.
There is a time and a place for both.
And I'm not interested in debating the metaphysics
of the death and destruction of millions of people.
Because if you don't think that the biological weapon
could have been derived from a coronavirus model
because you disavow a virus model, well guess what?
Real people are really dying.
And they're really dying because there is a series of steps
that have been taken from a model
that is ultimately making a weapon.
And if we're gonna debate on the metaphysics
of the design architecture of the weapon,
real people are gonna die and it's gonna be on our watch
while we're distracting ourselves with nonsense.
Absolutely.
Thank you very much, David, for clarifying that
because a lot of people need to hear what you said.
And by the way, just to make myself absolutely clear,
I have never ever criticized you.
No, it's fine.
I'm just saying, you know what?
Take your metaphysical arguments wherever you want.
I'm gonna fight the war.
Absolutely.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Stephen.
Perfect timing.
15 minutes, very impressive, Stephen.
Great job.
All right, David, we've got a series of hands up
as you can see.
So we'll start with Rose.
They're all in order.
And remember everybody, I'll try and follow the order
because Zoom stuffs you around.
If you fart, then your hand goes down.
I do not take your hand down, all right?
So Rose, you first.
David, I'll go quickly because there's a lot of hands.
So I'm gonna go with a compliment, a statement,
and I have two questions for you.
One, I have so much tremendous respect for you.
I am so honored to actually be on the phone with you.
So you were the first whistleblower I listened to
in spring of 2020.
So I've been fighting in the healthcare battle
and I discovered I was a naive child
fighting as a healthcare consultant
on the illegal Title V of the ACA,
the 2009 High Tech Act, yada, yada, yada, yada.
So I'm coming from this standpoint
of I was a professional naive child
until I discovered that the government
had taken over healthcare in 2016.
So the one thing that I would ask or make as a statement
as instead of getting all just attorneys,
sometimes it takes a novice to look
to what is the little pebble that we can get out of the way
so that the boulder can roll down the hill.
So your strategy and your concepts are beyond impressive.
So what is the little nuance of the charter
that we can dismiss it, even if it's a comma out of place
or a misused word to get the little pebble
to make the boulder roll?
So the two questions I have for you are
there's a lot of debate back and forth
should doctors be held accountable
through all of this or not?
Because at the end of the day,
if we just go back to and say,
it was the big organizations we were duped my bad.
I want your opinion on when and how
should individual doctors or politicians
be held accountable.
And then the second question I have for you is
where are we winning?
Do you have a great story of where we're winning right now?
So beautiful questions both.
And I'm going to call your attention to
article five, section 13 of the chart
of the World Health Organization,
which is a very fascinating thing in that
there is no evidence that there was ever any legal authority
for an organization to grant itself as a corporation
sovereign immunity on its own behalf for its own sake.
And the pebble is that that particular section
of the charter, which for those of you
who want to pay attention,
it's article five, section 13 of the charter.
And in there, the grant of the absolute immunity
from any prosecution is actually done
without any legal binding authority anywhere.
And it has merely been recognized,
but it has never been authorized.
And so it's important for us to understand to your point
that that may very well be the pebble
that takes down the entire mountain because by fiat,
and it's not unlike what happened at Bretton Woods.
It's not unlike what happened with the formation
of most of these organizations.
We actually have a situation where a criminal conspiracy
was actually established and the criminals themselves
gave themselves a permanent out clause.
And that has a legal structuring concept
inside of the legal formation of what it means
to incorporate a business.
You cannot, under US law, incorporate any behavior
for the purpose of an illegal act.
And so we are taking that one apart.
And that is one of the angles that we're using.
But I think one of the things that's critical
is that we're trying to make sure that every argument we make
falls outside of any of the exemptions of prosecution
that are enshrined in any of the UN affiliated organization documents
so that we don't have a moral victory
that ultimately winds up being overturned
by an institutional grant of immunity.
And secondly, excellent, David.
Secondly, Rose's question was,
do you know somewhere where we are winning,
and Carla Deane put into the chat,
that the WHO funding has been blocked in the US Senate?
But David, that was...
Well, so we are making a lot of progress.
We're making progress in the Swiss courts already
with respect to at least having cases that we can file,
and there are a lot of cases that we can file,
and they're not getting dismissed for standing.
So there is some progress there.
And I have to say that the work that is being done
by Patricia Finn and her colleagues in New York,
I always have to point to as an outstanding evidence of persistence,
where now we see that not only is there progress being made,
as many of you know from the stuff that happened in the New York Supreme Court,
but there is in fact an ongoing pressure to suggest
that the distribution of the injections
by virtue of forced employment or employment termination threats
is a coercion that may very well fall apart.
And so I really acknowledge the work that she's been doing.
We are working very closely with the government of Florida
at the state level to actually move
the deceptive medical practices argument forward.
As many of you know, our Federal Trade Commission Act
makes it illegal to mislabel a product for the purpose
of misleading the public into believing that they're getting something.
And our argument is there is a legal definition of vaccination
that has never been changed in the law.
The vaccination terminology that CDC and FDA use
has been administratively altered, but the law has not changed.
Hey, Dr. Martin, I'm in Florida,
so I'm very interested in what you're just saying,
because we have been being squashed by the government here in Florida.
Specifically, they gutted SB 222,
and I tried to put forward a Care Freedom Act that is drafted,
that they have sat on and shelved for a year.
So I'm very curious who you're working with.
Well, that will be public relatively soon.
And when you see it, it will be very public.
But we're taking once again a non-traditional approach
using the Federal Trade Commission Act as the basis for an argument.
And David, you should know that Patricia Finney is on the call
and she put in the chat, thank you for your compliment.
Well, listen, of all the people out there,
I would say that between Patricia and George Wentz and one or two others,
you know, like with everything else,
a lot of people who don't understand that legal precedent
is in fact more the law than the actual code is the law.
And setting bad precedent, which is what a lot of attorneys have done,
has been unhelpful.
And I have to say that if you look at what Patricia has done,
we have somebody who's on the winning side of understanding
that setting bad precedent is the worst thing we could do
and making good precedent is the best thing we can do.
So, you know, I just salute the work that she's been doing. Absolutely.
Thank you. Thank you, David. Well done, Patricia.
And David, I think the other point for all of us to understand
is that the lawful definition or the definition at law of vaccines
has not been changed in the US.
That has never been changed.
So that's important, everybody. Please understand that.
Okay, Rose, thank you for that. Well done on your work.
Paul's next.
Paul, I see you muted.
Paul, you're muted.
Hi, everybody. Hi, Steve. Hi, David.
I've been following your work from the start pretty much.
Blown away by it.
And it's always been for me.
Paul, you've got a problem with your microphone.
You need to switch your video off.
What do I need to do?
Switch your video off, darling.
You need to switch your video off so more chance of us hearing what you're saying.
Is that better?
Much better, thank you.
And I remember, right, in 2020 when you were talking about the vaccine,
when I think even at this stage, the direct
that we all thought would work
in the US and everywhere else in the court system.
That's it.
Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul.
You've got an echo. It's an echo, Charles.
No, it's not. It's bad. It's bad interference.
We'll go to Albert and we'll come back to Paul.
Okay.
Dave, hi. Welcome to Eagle.
I'm the Bears guy and I got a question about the
1986 liability section act is something you taught me.
But right here in this section 300, I was AA-27 wondering if we can use it to go after
Secretary Becerra. But it says it, you know, he has, at least to me, it sounds like he has
some obligations here and he's got a lot of things to do.
You know, he has, at least to me, it sounds like he has some obligations here.
And he and it says the secretary, secretaries shall promote development of childhood vaccines.
Couple others. He says it shall make and assure improvements in and otherwise use the authorities
of the secretary with respects to licensing, manufacturing, processing, a bunch of other stuff.
And then adverse reaction reporting.
So, you know, with that, Dave, you know, I think they're in cahoots with each other,
the manufacturer and the CDC, FDA, they delete trial patients, they purposely delay the
publication of reports. I think that they strip and I think I can prove that they strip data out
of published reports like the age, the age field, the state location. So is this a weak part in the
armor of that liability act and do you find any value in that that we can go after them?
Yeah, Albert, thank you for that question. And just let's remember, the definition of adverse
event was changed in 2018. The World Health Organization changed the definition to be
something that had published evidence of being associative as a causal agent, which means that
at the time of the injection, there were no adverse events possible under the new definition
of adverse event following injection, which is pretty cool. You change the definition to mean
that you physically can't have them and then they don't exist. So you can lie by telling the truth.
And if you haven't seen my presentation in Strasburg, it's really important that you look
at that one. But remember that VAERS is another problem because VAERS is a standard only for
childhood scheduled vaccines. CICP is for adult injections for medical countermeasures. And they
played a bait and switch game with this particular situation so that they could constantly say,
once again, lying by telling the truth that they're not obligated to make VAERS correct for
the COVID shot because it wasn't a childhood vaccine scheduled shot, therefore not subject
to the 86 act, therefore not subject to anything else. But what does exist inside of VAERS is two
things that we need to understand. Number one is if there was a criminal fraud in the creation
of the emergency, that is an absolute silver bullet that takes everything out. We know that
there were criminal frauds and we know that that silver bullet exists. We just have to find a court
where we can shoot that bullet. And that's been a challenge. But the second thing and equally
important is under the 1986 act authorization, Congress was told how many adverse events were
expected as part of the injury and death rate of injections. And that number was actually part of
the authorizing legislation. And we know that Congress was lied to by the manufacturers when
they actually stipulated what the severity and consequence of adverse events are. And once again,
under contract law and under legislative law, if the opening condition or what we call the
conditions precedent were actually false and intentionally misleading, then the indemnity
protections go away. So it's called fraudulent conveyance under Crown law, it's deceptive
contracting in the US law. And Albert, there's a bunch of ways we can tackle it, but great point.
And yes, we can go after those things. Let's jump to the next question. Thank you. God bless you,
Dave. Thank you, Albert. Let's try Paul again. Yeah. Hi, Joe. I think I know what went on. I had
this external mic on. Can you hear me now, everyone? Yeah, we got you. Perfect. Hi, David. I don't know
what you caught and what you didn't, but I do remember in 2020, you were talking about going
the antitrust route rather than the direct criminal route. And also, whenever I've talked to
particularly lawyers in America, I always try to direct them to communicate with you.
And is it truth, justice, Sparta? Is that your legal kind of backup in Texas? No. That's not you?
Okay. No. I wasn't sure about that. But because I can see what's happened with all this precedent.
But do you feel, number one, that we will get sufficient courts and senior enough courts to
take these people down this going the antitrust route and the racketeering route? That's number
one. And number two question, totally different. I've been spiritual, but not religious. But
this is turning into, it's so obviously, a spiritual war, good versus bad. This is the obvious
thing that I heard you talking to an American guy with a beard, I can't remember his name.
And you said very clearly, they've lost. You are no doubt they've lost. Yeah, I was just waiting
for you to say, Okay, what? How have they lost? In what way have they lost? And this is what I'm
really hoping that you'll execute. Beautiful. So Paul, let me tackle both of the questions. The
answer is yes. Antitrust is the only way we're going to win because it's the only felony that
we can use to blow up the EUA. There is no other felony we have available because all the other
ones were done under World Health Organization authority. Therefore, they have the preemption
of getting away with it. But they don't have a preemption on antitrust and tax fraud, which is
the reason why that's the approach we're taking. Number two, and I like your spiritual warfare
question. I'm not a big fan of getting into eschatological debates any more than I am with
dogmatic debates on anything else. But let me say this. There is no question that when you have to
not only coerce a population into doing a thing, but then lie about the coercion, you're actually
on very existentially thin ice. Think about this for a moment. When we now have the official
narrative being nobody actually was ever forced to take the jab. Despite the hundreds and thousands
of hours of constant pressure, you have to do it or you lose your job, you have to do it or you
can't travel, you have to do it or anything else. Like a caged and dying animal, the narrative has
gotten so self-evidently false that we now have over 53% of the US population who's officially stated
it will not participate in an injection program at all. We have already won. They were pushing
nearly 60% acceptance and 70% acquiescence under threat. We're now at a situation where 53% of the
population say they won't even get a booster or flu shot. When I say we've won, what I'm saying is
that the intent was to enslave the human population into an absolute adherence to the
dogma of vaccines as the only way to manage health and they lost and they will lose more as we keep
the pressure on, but the war is already over. We're just mopping up the cleanup operation.
I hear that, which is obviously lovely to hear, but then when I look at the other stuff they're
going to bring in with the CBDCs and everything else... Paul, they'll only... Remember, they will
only succeed in introducing that which we acquiesce to accepting and if we decide to actually say no,
they will not be able to do it. This is up to the citizens of the world to go, not on our watch.
I hear the threats and I've always said apocalypses are tragically overrated.
Humans have always forecast them and they always disappoint. We have had apocalypses since the
second century and somehow or another we've been able to get amazing outcomes out of humanity
between now and then. We're going to survive this one just like we've survived all the other ones.
There is not an apocalypse except in our own fear-based mind control and if we don't have that,
we're going to be fine. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Paul. Brilliant. Just to be clear,
I just need to let you guys know I have 15 more minutes on my time availability. Okay, so tight
questions, tight answers. David, you're tight on the answers, so we'll be tight on the questions.
Thank you, Paul. Julie. Hey, David Martin. Thank you. I met you last year out at Glad Tidings.
Oh, indeed. We'll be back out there again in December. Yeah, first question. Okay, so back
out here in December. Yeah, and your beautiful wife Kim and you were dressed as George Washington.
It was amazing. You also introduced me to Stanford Graham and I've been working with him on getting
to sheriffs and getting victims from the COVID vaccine remdesivir poison cocktail. We're making
some progress, but can you speak to where that criminal complaint is at and then again, where can
people find your American Revolution movie to see? Thank you. So American Revolution will be re-released
shortly. It's actually on Vimeo right now, but you have to know how to get to it. It's not publicly
indexed, but that will change with respect to the criminal prosecution. We are looking for the case
in Tulsa, Oklahoma. We now have a very specific objective, which is if we can find
a patient and a family member participating in Tulsa, that's the jurisdiction that we need. So
Tulsa, Oklahoma, and if anybody can find anybody in Tulsa, we have the win that we need as long as we
get the body that we need. Thank you, Julie. Thank you. Thank you, Julie. Everybody else,
because we're tight on time, if you have suggestions for David, please put suggestions
into the chat. We'll share the chat with David when we get to the end of this program.
Perfect. All right. Insights that you get, just put them into the chat. This is for questions now
because we're tight for time. Thank you, Julie. Lars? And quick questions and not speeches.
Hi, David. Lars, good to see you. How are you? Good to see you. As you mentioned, my countrymen,
a couple of kilometers away from here, gave Kerikou and Weisman the Nobel Prize. Correct.
For introducing nucleoside-based modifications into mRNA vaccines. Is that weaponizing? Are they
actually making it more dangerous? And are they giving an award to making mRNA vaccines more
dangerous? And if that's true, what can we do to use? Yeah, two things, Lars. Remember that we
gave the Nobel Prize to CRISPR during the EUA. Remember that? Most people don't even remember
that that's what happened. CRISPR was around for 10 years. We gave them the Nobel Prize during the
EUA when the EUA was authorizing CRISPR. So A, number one, we got that problem. Number two,
the nucleosides that were introduced are we know to be pro-oncogenic. We know that they interfere
with interferon. We know that they actually interfere with tumor necrosis factor and a number
of other things. We know that. We gave the Nobel Prize for the specific purpose of calling the
hounds off of questioning the science behind what was added to mRNA. It is full-on weaponization.
There is no question about it. So then I think we should use the opportunity of the award ceremony
to bring this message out. Absolutely. Thank you. Absolutely. Thanks. Excellent. Yeah, we all want
to see that. Amy, you're muted.
Amy, quick. We'll go to John. Look, ask him and come back to Amy.
You're muted too as well, John. Come on, unmute yourself. If you want questions, be ready.
Yeah, I'm sorry. David, what, if any, knowledge do you have on the commercialization of the weapons
of electronic biological warfare? But what I'm referring to here is what appears to be a pay-to-play
industry that is centered around licensing access to AI-connected software that interfaces with the
human biosphere, that monitors, models, manipulates vital bodily processes by electronic means,
and uses data that's collected from covertly installed in vivo nanobiosensor technology.
So I know, number one, that there are about 1,100 patents right now covering that subject matter.
Most of them are funded in part by either DARPA, Inqutel, or a combination thereof. And what I also
know is that sole source contracting grants, John, have been granted to a series of parties I highly
recommend looking at the Inqutel last four years of funding records, because much of what you're
describing was done under the Intelligent Warfighter Program, which was allegedly done to monitor
real-time conditions of warfighters. And so what I would encourage anybody to do is look at the
Warfighter Readiness Program, which was the way in which most of this technology was not only first
introduced, but it has been tested and rolled out. But it's a great point that you raise and look at
the Warfighter Readiness Programs, because that's the terminology that is being used for that type
of technology. Okay, one last question. We recently heard from Dolores Cahill in this forum, who
believes the best way to succeed against these criminals is to abandon the legal system they
operate under entirely in favor of a common law approach. So she gave some compelling reasons for
this. A fair number of us are indulging in that, serving notices of liability and such to establish
precedents. What's your opinion of that idea? So once again, this is once again a space
that I place in the same regime as what I do about the dogma around scientific models, and that is
that there is a time and a place to actually organize what I would consider to be what the
Constitution of the United States contemplates as a moment in time where the public decides that the
systems that are in place no longer serve their intended purpose, and we need to reorganize.
And there is no question that the Constitutional Convention Program and the Convention of States,
quite specifically, is a pathway for us to do that, which is to incentivize a public reconstruction
of a failed government. So I agree in principle that this is something that is of value. But let
me make a comment with respect to do we actually have a pathway under common law approaches? And
the answer is we do not have any ability to disrupt the criminal hijacking authorized under the
emergency use authorization or under anything else by changing the legal venue and or jurisdiction
approach we're taking. That does not mean that there's no value in doing it. It simply means
that we will not have a pathway to disrupt the liability shields outside of the current legal
framework, which is the reason why we're doing it. So it's not an either or proposition. It's
probably a both and. But my approach is to make sure I'm fighting on a jurisdiction where
we can ultimately blow up the legislation. Thank you. Thank you, John. Amy, I'll unmute.
If not, Marvin next. Here's Amy. Go, Amy. Question. Hello. Thank you. I just was wondering
what role Israel plays in all of this. Israel was also founded in 1948. One way to look at Israel
is sort of a get out of jail free card for criminal gang runners. Of course, that's not
the regular people. They're used one way or another the way regular peoples of countries are used.
Cannon fodder, tax source, those kinds of things. So especially when you look at the way censorship
is being used to silence critics of the policy doctors with concerns, questions on YouTube and
other platforms, censorship was imposed very heavily, but of course was originally brought
out to silence criticism of Israel or anti-Semitism and as seen in trying in laws and countries in
Europe. So I think these things work together, but I'd just like to hear what your thoughts are.
Thank you. Well, so let's be very clear on the fact that anything that was done in the wake of
Bretton Woods in 1944 up until 1955 under the United Nations Charter and its establishment,
and that means anything that was done, that includes formations of states, that includes
the pillaging of the Pacific on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia that wanted to make
sure that it had access to resources. Regardless of what you do, if you look at the period from
Bretton Woods 1944 to 1955 and the formation of all the multilateral agencies and the states that
were supporting their formation during the period of time, all of them were actually done for
specific economic and social agendas and they had nothing to do with the cover story. There's not a
person on the planet who legitimately can say that Israel was formed because it was the will
of the people to actually do that. That was serving an agenda. Is there in fact a reason why
we should have a confidence that any of the acts done between 1944 and 1955 were done for the
largesse of humanity experiencing a greater expression of humanity? If any of us are
deluded enough to think that any of those were positive steps, we're fooling ourselves. And I
don't specifically isolate one or the other. What I simply say is that the derivative effects of
1947 had nothing to do with the cover story that was sold to the public. All of those stories were
lies to advance a control narrative, which is what we're now experiencing. And just to be clear,
anybody who doubts that can ask yourself the following question. Why would we allow a German
biotech company with an experimental gene therapy to roll out their product first in the state of
Israel if we actually cared about antisemitism? Nothing could be a dumber marketing program
than to inject a German population, sorry, an Israeli population with a German biotech.
Guesswork. That is the dumbest, most ludicrous business proposition ever put forward. And if
you actually don't see that as antisemitic, I don't know what it takes to see antisemitism.
Thank you, David. Thank you, Amy. Now I'm going to do a captain's call with Stephen. Jim Thorpe
goes next while we've still got David. Jim, and then we go back to Marvin.
David, can you please comment on the legality? I understand that it's illegal for the federal
government to enter into a cooperative care agreement like they did using, well, you know,
$5 trillion now. And if the cooperative care agreement with the NGO, such as the American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, illegally impairs the constitutional rights
of its constituents, i.e. freedom of speech. Yeah. So listen, that is one of the many,
what I would call the, this is the interlocking directorate and collusion pieces of the Clayton
Act, which is what we're trying to attack right now, which is when allegedly nonprofits or
disaffiliated NGOs become an official contracting arm, then they also lose, Jim, their tax-exempt
status. Because if you're, as you very well know, if you are actually using your non-profit tax
exempt status for the advocacy of a political or a governmental message, you cannot do that under
a non-profit charter. And so what happened in the cases that you're pointing out to, and by the way,
many others, the non-profit status of an institution is directly obviated by the for-profit
commercial acquiescence to advancing a political message. So great point. And I would highly
recommend that once again, we go after the tax-exempt status as a primary, not as a secondary
approach to fighting this legally. But Jim, I have a whole bunch on that. I'd love to follow
up with you on that one. Thanks. Thanks, Jim. Marvin.
David, I want to ask you about this jurisdiction question. If you win a case law in Switzerland
and win a case law in Oklahoma, who enforces this? Are these case laws, these precedents you're
establishing? How is that enforced? Who does the enforcement?
Yeah, great question. And from a jurisdiction standpoint, the reason why we want to use
Switzerland for the tax and antitrust case is European courts are greatly sympathetic to going
after U.S. organized entities for competition rules, and Swiss courts love to actually defend
the legitimacy of their tax regimes. And if you can create inside of Switzerland a public backlash
against what appears to be a black eye on the brand of Switzerland, nothing is better to win
the hearts and minds of Swiss than to attack the credibility of Switzerland as anything other than
a criminal tax haven. We are actually studying, and we have used an enormous amount of resources
to study the public acceptance of how well we are going to prevail, not just in the courts,
but in the court of public opinion. And it turns out that Switzerland values itself as a country
that is not a criminal tax haven. That's one of its top brands. And so we've actually gone after
a group of pro-national groups in Switzerland to make it look like Switzerland is going to
get a second round black eye like they did with the banking crisis. So what we're doing is we're
going after places where we have a public rationale to actually attack the credibility of the brand,
in this case Switzerland. With respect to the criminal case, it turns out that Oklahoma has
very specific charters with respect to the sheriff's ability to impanel a grand jury.
Once again, a very nuanced piece of law, just like we did in our Utah case. The Utah case we
brought because the attorney general is required to prosecute the class three felony of practicing
medicine without a license. We actually got the government to admit that it was practicing
medicine without a license in Utah. Thus we have a prima facie class three felony against the
federal government in Utah. Every one of these things, Marvin, we're building specifically so
that we have a statutory crime that is the thing that ultimately is required under the charter of
that particular state or nation to pursue. That doesn't mean we're going to get, for example,
Sean Rays in Utah to pursue the criminal felony that he's required to pursue under the charter
because Sean Rays is compromised. But that doesn't obviate the existence of the crime.
So what we're doing is we're making sure that we pick jurisdictions where the defense of the thing
constitutes the affirmative admission of a crime. That's the trap that we're setting for the
incumbency. And thankfully, that trap is being snapped several times.
Thank you, Marvin. Glen?
And with that, Charles, I got to sign off.
I understand. All right. Thank you. A big round of applause, everybody, for David.
Thanks, guys. Appreciate it all. And if I didn't speak to your issue,
drop it in to Charles or to Stephen, and I'll be happy to address the hands that were left up.
David, could I just ask you one last question? Very quickly, how can we go after the Nobel
Committee? Because what happened yesterday was outrageous, in my opinion.
Well, this is something where I think that once again, there is a deceptive medical practices
equivalent statute in almost all the civilized world. And having the Nobel Committee officially
sanction what is unquestionably a willful act of biological weapons is a violation of the Geneva
Convention. And I think there's no question that we should go after them on a Geneva Convention case.
Very good. Can we speak about that? Very good. Thank you.
Thank you all. Take care. Thanks, David.
Thank you so much. Thank you.
All right. So what we will do while you've got your thoughts, questions,
you can send them as direct messages to Stephen or me, and I will forward them to David. If you have
suggestions, insights from this conversation, put them into the chat. We'll get David to get the chat
at the end of the two and a half hours. So that's the way. And then for those, we'll now have put
hands up now for questions, as I say, can be private, send a direct message to Stephen or me,
or public, because that might generate other thoughts. And we'll get this whole chat to David.
And now with hands up, we'll keep going through the hands and the comments and keep going through
the process for the next hour. And then Tom Rodman, for those who have more time. And Patricia Finn,
congratulations on, I really do think David, we all know David Martin is a genius. And the credit
that he gave to you and the compliments, I think everyone should note. And that's a great credit
to you. So you're in a tiny, tiny number of attorneys in the US who David thinks highly of.
So well done. All right. Janet. Hi. Yeah. Yes. My question to David, and I guess it's a question
to anyone else who thinks they can answer it. He was very clear that the virus bioweapon was released
deliberately. So my question is, what was the mechanism of distribution of the released
viral bioweapon? And is there any published documentation of the success of such a mechanism
of distribution? Or is it simply just a hypothesis? So I don't know whether anyone else has got any
My interpretation of what he said, but I think it should be clarified is that I can't speak for
David, obviously, because I can't get into his mind. And he's got a legal mind, which is difficult
to kind of. So anyway, the point is that I think that what he was suggesting was that using
their words, they were going to release a bioweapon. And they did release a bioweapon,
whatever that was. He wants to use their words, Janet. And I don't know what the answer to your
question is, to be honest. And I wish he would make that maybe he thinks he has clarified it.
Stephen, Janet, why don't you type that into the chat and we'll get it to David.
Question. So Janet, so in my mind, I'm thinking, what does he mean by this biological weapon? So
I think what he's saying is that he might be actually saying that there is no diagnosis of
COVID-19. And if so, we need to know that. But I think he's playing the lawyer's game of using
their words to fell them. And then, of course, what they did, in my opinion, was to use the
psychological torture to further the panic. So he said he said he said millions died. So I mean,
he's not just saying that, oh, OK, this is the narrative. I'm not sure he was saying that they
died of the so-called virus or illness, which, you know, well, he was there, wasn't he? He was
saying that. No, he wasn't. No, he wasn't. But we're going to I think I think you've got to be
very careful in your interpretation of his words. And so what's what's the Strasbourg and which, by
the way, which which one is longer? There's two recordings I did. I lost track of which was longer.
Oh, well, I hope that. So the second one was about the criminality of the World Health
Organization. The first one was more about the, you know, that was the short statement,
probably. Yes, that was a short statement, wasn't it, to the EU Parliament?
Well, no, they were roughly the same length. But if I had to say, I think the second one was longer
than the first. OK, thank you. Both were brilliant. But the second one was even more brilliant than
the first. I only saw the first one. Janet, I recommend you know, the second one is absolutely
stunning. That's why we got him on this call. Yeah. Well done.
Who shall I address it to, Charles? Who shall I address the chat to? Just email it to me, Janet.
Janet, your questions are very good. So email it to me and I'll send it to you.
No, but Janet, if you put it into the chat, it's a great question so that we, you know, as a group,
we're going to save the chat, can think about that, your question as well, because it really helps
articulate, you know, articulate our own thinking. Thank you. Yeah, go in the chat and send it to me,
Janet, and I'll get his attention and say you're a medical doctor. OK, OK, Hiko, that's I don't think
that's I don't think that's a term of of endearment these days, Stephen, to say you're a medical
doctor, because because doctors, more and more doctors are saying that. Janet, yeah, but Janet
is one of the doctors who's been on our side from almost the very beginning. I agree. No, I understand
that, Stephen, but, you know, where the doctors are not. I understand what you're saying. Yeah, I'm absolutely
disgusted with medical doctors all around the world. Yeah, and lawyers, you know, like,
I hold the lawyers. I haven't got much time for lawyers either. Yeah, correct. Hiko. Well, when I was
invited, Christine Andersen, to get together with David Martin, the rest in Bristol, I wanted to
ask him this question, but I didn't have the time, because I wanted to know after identifying all
the bio weapons of virus and spikes in the vaccines, I would like what his take was on 5G
and how can we say no to that weapon? We can say no to the vaccines and but how do we say no to
5G and the manipulation of that? And what's happening tomorrow?
What is happening tomorrow?
The top calendar was coming out with some news that should, this test should be used to
start some kill drops in the vaccinated,
release Marburg or something else.
Didn't hear it, didn't read it. Well, I hear that all the time. Marburg's been coming for a year now,
except it hasn't come. So, I'm just suggesting that it should keep away from mobile phones tomorrow.
Ah, I see what you mean. Yes. So, yes, okay. So, you mean that the damage is being done by the
radiation, but they're going to blame it on the virus? Is that what you're saying? Yeah.
I can add to that. It's Julie. I can add to that. So, tomorrow, October the 4th in the United States,
FEMA is having their test of their emergency alert system. They're going to ping every single
cell phone, every single TV, every single satellite dish that, you know, streams your direct TV or
whatever. So, everybody, Todd Callender for sure is coming out big on it. Turn everything off,
unplug everything and get yourself out to somewhere in the middle of nowhere if you can.
Because once they start pinging every single cell phone to test this emergency alert system
and every TV and every, you know, whatever, Bluetooth, et cetera, every single 5G tower
is going off like crazy. Just ask Anders probably what the potential harm is if you've got all this
heavy metal in your body. If you're vaccinated, people are going to have road rage they're
declaring. Kids in school, they want to take them out because they're surrounded by this 5G. So,
yeah, it's high alert for tomorrow. But they've kind of posted this already and let us know. So,
everybody's like, hey, it's probably going to be a big nothing. But if they see a big nothing,
they're going to try it again on October 11th. So, that's what the gist is with that.
Thank you. Thank you, Heiko. Amy.
Yeah, I just was personally privately attacked by someone named Sean, but it looks like they're
gone. And there's a different Sean who's in the chat. So, I don't know if you know who that is,
but I just, you know, it's not anti-Semitic to ask questions about Jewish supremacy or Jewish
leaders using the Jewish people. It doesn't mean every Jewish person agrees to it or is
guilty of it or certainly doesn't mean anyone should be harmed. But there needs to be honest
discussions about why, for example, why is Dr. Bakhti from Germany accused of anti-Semitism?
Because he was standing up to the COVID scam. Why is anti-Semitism used to shut down the truckers?
Because Hong Kong equals Heil Hitler, supposedly. Why, you know, why is the ADL allowed to censor
who can and cannot have a platform on YouTube or sell books on Amazon? You know, these are very
dangerous precedents. And we have to be careful not to be tricked into allowing a precedent to
go through because we have compassion. I hope we do have compassion for Jewish people. I hope we
have compassion for every person on this planet. But we can't allow these kind of fear tactics,
just like they used with the virus, to use a fear tactic about one group of people or another group
of people to silence and to take away important precedents about the exchange of information,
about honest questions and searching for truth. Without that, you do not have honest history,
honest news, honest science. So, you know, it is not anti-Semitic to try to understand what the
heck is going on. And I hope we do it all with compassion for each other. And I hope we don't
victim or blame or blame an entire group of people for things that their leaders do. I hope
as an American, I'm not seen as responsible for every bad decision my government has made because
there's been very, very many and very genocidal. So we need to be allowed to be honest. Anyway,
that's my little rant. Have a great day. That's an excellent, that's an excellent statement
because it really is a, it really is a problem. I've been facilitating groups, everybody, for over
30 years. And each one of you on this call is a weirdo. We play the game that we say we're unique.
No, Stephen Frost, you all know, is a weirdo. Heiko is a weirdo. Julie's a weirdo. Jeremy is a dentist
is a weirdo. Stop thinking that you have the mortgage on knowledge. Each one of us has been
brought up in a unique way. Eight billion of us uniquely. And Amy makes an excellent point. And
it's happening to all of us. It's happening to Bobby Kennedy. He's being labeled an anti-vexer.
He's been labeled an anti-Semitic. He's been labeled a racist. And quite frankly, I laugh
at the abuse hurled, hurled, hurled by each of you in the chats from time to time at others.
It's pathetic. It's like being in a schoolyard saying you're an idiot. You don't know what you're
talking about. So the interest in the, so each one of us has to think about, gosh,
what do I think about that? When I'm not interested in any of you, nor is Stephen
being offended. We're not in the offense industry here, but throwing words around in the chat that
you are a racist. You are whatever you understand what that means. And Dr. Sheeva's John Lukacs,
I'm so grateful to you for pointing us to Dr. Sheeva's 15 minute video on swarm tactics. Please,
everybody, watch it, understand it. It's a brilliant whiteboard presentation. John and I
have shared that widely because the goal of the million controlling the 8,000 million is to have
us having ship fights amongst each other. And you're a weirdo. If you like ship fights,
well, have a ship fight. I'm not interested in ship fights. I'm interested in freedom,
what this group is about. Freedom, truth, justice, health, ethics, morals. And throwing these words
around are just crazy stuff. So, Amy, well put. Stop throwing the label around. If you want a
great book on this, read Anthony de Mello on awareness. As soon as you label a person as
something, and I've labeled all of you as weirdos, all understanding ceases. I'm hoping that you
thinking of yourself as a weirdo stops you labeling people who are not the same as you.
That's the conversation. And I would love to have a two and a half hour discussion on, hey,
what is anti-Semitic? What is racism? What is all of that? Steven, we might find a philosopher
to help us do a conversation on that. All right, weirdos. Steven, do you want to say anything?
We'll get Jordan Peterson to talk to us about that. Yes. Yes. Beautiful. Yeah. Thank you. All right,
Amy. Well put. Labels are meaningless. In other words, other than the weirdo label, I claim
you can think of yourself as a weirdo and it'll free you up to say what you truly think, to say
what you truly believe. And the other thing that I have found for most, if I sat down with most of
you and challenged you with the question of what you actually believe, most of you would struggle
because I've been coaching people for 30 years. I said, what do you believe? Most people have no
idea what they believe. And yet your beliefs are driving your responses and your reactions in this
chat. So that's where self-awareness comes in. Think about what people think. It's all about emotions.
It's all about emotions. So as soon as you start calling people names like a child in a playground,
you've lost the argument. Yeah, correct. Very good. Jeremy, I'm going to call you a name. I'm going
to call you a dentist. Yeah. Thank you for the great compliment. I enjoyed that, Charles. I think
we're all in that part. Yeah, my comment was just that I posted up two things from Armstrong
Economics. And I know there's a conference going on somewhere with, he's going to be present with
a lot of the Tesla, Tesla-ary and Peter McCullough and people like that. I think it's in Sweden or
somewhere coming up, but he's a very interesting person to pay attention to. Who's that? Martin
Armstrong. The US government stuck him in jail for eight years for contempt because they wanted
his cyclical AI system Socrates, which basically predicts most things, including what's going on
at the moment. And the one nice thing about what he predicts is that these people will fail because
it goes so against human nature. Exactly. Yeah, my issue at the moment, it's just a case of how many,
how much damage they do and how many people they harm in the process. And where we're going at the
moment, which is, I think they're leading us to war. And I think it's inevitable, unfortunately,
because that's what these people seem to want. But my issue was just quickly researching what David
Martin said at the EEP parliaments. I saw it and it's great what he said, but you look for it on
the net. It's almost gone. How he got to say it's been seen four billion times, I don't know,
because it's not on YouTube. It's not easy to find on YouTube. Won't find it on Google,
Firefox. It's difficult. So you can see how they're censoring things. Then what I posted from
Armstrong is how the Western nations are bringing up, you know, bringing forwards safety online bills,
which basically means they want to censor us. So we already need to be starting to think how on earth
do we communicate, how do you get the message out there to the majority? And, you know, I
meet friends regularly on a Friday. They're all intelligent people, you know, some headmasters,
teachers, other professions. And these people are absolutely clueless. They drink the Kool-Aid. They
believe everything. They only watch, read the Sun or the Daily Express or the Daily Mail. They believe
everything they read on the ITV or BBC. And the majority of Americans are like that probably with
CNN and ABC. So I know you only need 10 or 15% of the population to say no, but it does seem
very difficult at times. And the politicians in the meantime with David's doing a marvelous job,
but the politicians are just totally ignoring the population. No one's voted for 20 mile an
hour speed limits or 15 minute cities or Agenda 2030. But these, the blob is and the bureaucracies
in the government, especially in the Western governments, are just carrying on regardless,
ignoring all of us. And, you know, obviously some malign forces are flooding Europe with immigration.
Now, I think white people only make four to 7% of the world's population. It's actually,
we're quite a small group and you see the, it's almost like I've started to feel now that they're
trying to supplant the homegrown nations now and the generally the European populations.
Very small set of people.
Getting quite, getting an extreme view, but it's the sheer quantities which are coming in now
and the people are sponsoring them. They're being pushed in, they're being helped in. I don't know
whether it's this Soros or whatever, but it's difficult at times to see how on earth we get out
of this without a severe amount of bloodshed and, you know, a complete reordering of our society.
And it's treason, Jeremy, in my opinion.
Yeah, yeah.
Everything is undermining everything that we hold dear.
So there is no difference between the two parties. No, the Labour Party, the Conservative Party,
it's probably the same in Australia, probably the same in Canada. We don't see any difference.
How many of you have seen The Jones Plantation?
Film.
The what?
It's a movie. It's a high production.
Put that.
Jones Plantation.
Put the question in the chat. So we haven't seen the movie, so we can't discuss it.
Put it in. And explain, that's the other thing, that if there's a great movie,
it really helps me and each of us because we've got a fire hose of information.
You know, when we put a recommendation, hey, watch this movie, it's great to add,
because why should I watch that movie? And because we're weirdos, go, hey,
I'm really interested in that angle. So Jeremy, what you just shared with us, thank you.
And we heard David Webb, David Rogers Webb, I hope all of you have downloaded the great taking.
And Jeremy is an investment, is highly experienced in investments, and there are plenty of people on
this call. And Jeremy, is it Martin Armstrong that you're recommending that we have a look at in terms
of what for what reason just I lost that for the moment.
Oh, just a cycle analysis. He's, he's amazing. So it's is everything from his system predicted
Brexit, Trump being elected. Alex Crane is on air. Breaking of the Swiss peg. He's been around,
he's been written out of history by Bloomberg, but Alex might be aware of him.
Yep. Very good. And and what you shared also becomes a useful technique for all of us,
because we're grappling with this question of how do we how do we bring people who are
half awake across to our side? And that Jeremy, you raised that one of the techniques that I've
learned over the years, is you sit down with somebody who has an opposing view to you. And,
you know, in America and Australia, this left right debate is deliberate divisive tactics.
You sit down with somebody and say, Jeremy, give me give me five minutes, I want to understand what
you think about vaccines. I will shut up and listen to you for five minutes. And then I will
speak for five minutes and tell you what I think. I don't want to change your mind. I want to
understand what your view is, and vice versa. And you have this sharing of views. Most people,
as soon as you say a sentence in any conversation, I urge you to observe it.
Very few people, this is also site, PSI ops, very few people are unable to listen to anybody for
five minutes. And that's part of the strategy. And it's a powerful idea of face to face with somebody.
Why do you believe that? And listen. Next, thank you, Jeremy. The great taking everybody,
if you didn't hear about it the last time, please download it, read it. And Jeremy, before you go,
before sorry, before I go to Julie, can you give us a quick your perspective as an experienced
investor on what David Webb shared with us last week? Jeremy? Yeah, sorry, I wasn't able to listen
to David Webb. So I wanted to listen to it. I've really, you know, that's, that's, I'm saying more
and more I've read it, it's most relevant to us. And the particular issue that really sticks in my
mind is the dematerialization of share certificates, bonds and certificates of title to land.
Oh, yes, you need to watch that, Jeremy. Yeah, I'd love to. Yeah, worth watching.
Well, I'd be really depressed about your business interests then.
Well, the message is don't be don't get eliminate all debt, Jeremy, do not have debt, because that's,
that's what puts you to risk. Also, so you so even the people who think they own things,
they don't own them because they've been dematerialized. And they've been cross
collateralized as securities for other purposes. Yes. And the class, David Martin talked about the
protected class. And I think that's what David Webb said that the protected or the protected
financial entities have all these extra rights, Jeremy, that most banks don't have.
Well, when you have a moment, I want to read out some, some interesting emails. It won't take that
long about the school reunion, which I've mentioned to you before, I won't mention any names.
Well, you'll be you'll be you'll be read that after Julie, we'll go to Julie and then to you,
Stephen. Yeah, that's a great call today. I tell you, I loved seeing Dr. Martin. And you know, he
talking about calling each other names. I mean, he was pretty, pretty direct when he said, you know,
he's tired of the friendly fire from idiots not helping fight the war, right? He's like, we don't
need to have all this nonsense. And I just for those that follow us politics, we just ousted
Kevin McCarthy as speaker. So literally, it just ended in the votes 216 to 210. So Kevin McCarthy's
gone. That's a big win. That's a huge win for the Freedom Caucus. Then according to you and according
to him, say what? Why? Well, so so yeah, so you know, Kevin McCarthy, yeah, so we you know,
we had this issue at the end of September came in, we were going to have our government shut down
because we couldn't pass a budget. And so they made a deal over the weekend to do a continuing
resolution for 45 days to keep the government in operation. And it was a close vote. But one of the
things Kevin McCarthy did to his fatal flaw is he went and negotiated behind the Republicans back
with the Democrats to do something with the Ukraine money, which is our biggest one of our biggest
issues, right? We don't want this, you know, continuing funnel of money to Ukraine. But anyway, so
today, Matt Gaetz leading the Freedom Caucus, pulled his one ticket and said, we want to vote,
we want to bring your we want to you know, he raised his hand and said, I want to call
for your job. And so the first thing they tried to do, the Republicans tried to table the vote,
and that failed. And and so now they just literally did the vote. So Kevin McCarthy's gone. And so,
you know, we're tired of the establishment on both sides, retired of the establishment everywhere.
And the people are rising up. And this is a big deal. And Matt Gaetz is out front just surrounded
by people, the people are pissed. And we're done with this, you know, money flowing everywhere. And
we have no accountability. Nobody calling for hearings on COVID. Nobody calling for, you know,
accountability for all these bio weapons. So yeah, it's a big deal. It's a good good day.
I just wanted to quickly circle back to one of the things I asked David Martin about, which is
this case in Oklahoma. So and why that's critical is and again, I've been working with Stanford
Graham, who is the founder of Cardio Miracle. And he's an attorney working with Dr. Martin
on this case. And so we were trying to get to sheriffs, find these constitutional sheriffs
that we could, you know, help bring this case for. So they found one in Tulsa, which is a fabulous.
So the critical thing are finding these victims. And again, the victim, the ideal victim is like
finding a needle in a haystack, because they need to have died of the synthetic protein, right,
which is this virus. They need to have died of the synthetic gene therapy, which is this vaccine.
And then they need to have died of the treatment, which is this rem death of air run death is near
remdesivir poison. So those three things were architected by Ralph Baric and by Fauci. So
that's the kind of the wonderful, you know, person that the that needed to have died from all three.
So I've been pulling these reports out of theirs that show because I can sort and and search by
remdesivir and then they're vaccinated. And then if they got covid, then that's the, you know,
where the where the hospital made tons of money off that covid death certificate claim.
That's the victim they're looking for. And so I can hone in now to Oklahoma and then see if I
can find a genius IT guy to go because in that fairs database and I'll work with Albert too,
where, you know, I can see their birth date, their date of death, their sex, they're in Oklahoma,
they died of covid, they died of the vaccine, they died of remdesivir, but I don't see their name,
obviously. And and then we need but it's in the system. It's just they block it from public use.
So I'm sure it's there somewhere we could subpoena it and I can give that information or we can start
searching for the obituaries in Oklahoma. But that's the three things. Yeah. Can I just interrupt
you one second? Go for it. You're the man. I put this in the chat in Tulsa, Oklahoma,
in less than a month. Okay. This huge platform for the vaccine injury, the premiere of the movie
Shot Dead, Maggie and I are going to be out there is going to be there. And Taryn Gregson is the
premier and she's just ticket tickets are going on sale. And we can get you and David, definitely.
We could even start putting stuff out now. We're all 100% that's fantastic. Everybody here is
welcome. Over. Thank you, Dr. Thorpe. Amazing. But yeah, that's the key. And so this is where
when we talk about and Dr. Martin's always been very specific about his language, right? So
the architect of the synthetic protein DARPA funded, it's the deliverable biological weapon,
biological weapon attack against humanity. And there are all of these biological weapons. It's
the synthetic protein, the gene therapy injection, the treatment stuff. So yeah, it's fantastic. So
thank you guys for the call. I really greatly appreciate you inviting me. Well done,
Julie. Thank you for Julie before you go on the speaker issue. You have like,
do you have high confidence that a Republican will become the replacement speaker because
the risk they took, right? Yep. So you know, you're unsure at this point.
I mean, you have to think it's got to be a freedom fighter. I mean, I, you know,
I can't imagine they're going to, I mean, if they pick Jim Jordan, but Jim Jordan, who we love,
right. But he voted, he wanted to keep McCarthy. So, okay, what side, but Jim Jordan would be
fantastic, I think. You know, Matt Gates is a firebrand. So I don't think a lot of people
want to see him up there, but Loam Bovert. I mean, you know, you can't pick a Martin Taylor
Green. I mean, I don't know. Jim Thorpe probably has another, you know, other sense of it too.
Chip Roy would be terrific too. Follow up to Julie real quick. Check your chat. Gary Hawkins,
and I can help you with the bears also. Just check the chat pass. Thanks, Tom. Good job.
Good job. And this is a, this is the classic, I said this at the intro, for those of you who missed
it. None of us know what one linkage made during this conversation, these meetings. We don't know
the ripple effect of one link made between someone in this group with somebody else in this group.
And Stephen, you know, we don't need to know. The fact is that it's an opportunity in our
terms of a vast amount of connections being made and things happening as a consequence of people
meeting on this platform. So, there's another great example, Julie, you now have two more additional
resources of Tom and who is, who else is working with you Tom on that? Well, Gary is the main
person working. Yeah, me and you. Beautiful. Thank you. Hi. Could I say my name's Ellen Corley and
I could help. I do market research in the past and, you know, that you could just call around
and ask people, you know, qualitatively, you know, who they know. And so use the qualitative
telephone, you know, people's networks, you know. I know, like I'm thinking I could call this woman
in Tulsa and, you know, so generate that like a focus group. So, Ellen, Julie has put her email
address into, Ellen has put her email address in. So, get in touch with Julie and then a great
suggestion. Next item on our agenda is Stephen, please read these. I'm intrigued to listen to
these emails from your reunion because. Yeah, so it's pretty depressing stuff. I'll just read them.
Are you sure you want to depress us? Yeah, well, no, it's depressing on the one hand,
but it just shows you what we're up against, you know. So the second email I'll read is one of my
school friends who's a professor in a very well-known British university. And I won't say
the subject because he might be identified. So he is my friend, so, or was. Anyway, I won't go into
detail. I'll just read this thing. I hope you are well. Dear, I hope you are well. You wrote in your
email of 17 August 2023, so this year. Please see below. Quote, we expect all attendees to be up
to date with their COVID vaccinations. And if not, you are advised not to attend for your own sake
and for the well-being of others. This, so I'm telling you this. I may have read this out before,
but the point is I've got a reply and the reply is gaslighting big time, as you'll see. So this is
wrong. You should know this. I wrote to you on 15 September 2023. Please see below. You have not
had the good manners to reply. Furthermore, you deprived us all of meeting each other in 2020.
That was wrong too. There was no medical justification for doing that. And further,
you made things worse, whether wittingly or not, by playing into the false narrative fear propaganda
being put out about by governments around the world, including by the British government.
You then proceeded to preside over a system of a medical apartheid in 2021 and again in 2022.
You had no right to do that. And further, you did not understand the medicine sufficiently well,
if at all, to be able to justify in any way such an outrageous requirement.
So, and now in 2023, you want to do it again. You have no right to impose your will on everyone,
nor to discriminate or even to attempt to discriminate. In the circumstances,
you should write again to all invitees, making it clear that the offending paragraph above
has been removed. I am sad that you leave me with no choice but to write again.
But to write to you, my friend, in such terms, my friend in brackets, but this is a very serious
matter. Kind regards, Stephen. PS, as you know, I'm an experienced medical doctor and specialist in
diagnostic radiology trained in the UK and Sweden. I would be happy to brief you on the enormity of
what really happened in the last three and a half years, purportedly in the name of a medical
emergency, which in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, was enough, never anything of the
kind. These Council of Europe documents are relevant. There are two documents then,
and anyone can find these documents, except that this time, of course, the fraud was much more
damaging because the documents are about the 2009 swine flu pandemic fraud. I then go on to say,
I know the brilliant German doctor, sorry, keep going. I know the brilliant German medical doctor
in brackets, he was a prominent politician at the time in close brackets as Wolfgang Wodock,
who single-handedly forced the Council of Europe investigation into the swine flu pandemic fraud
of 2009. See report above. He is a friend of mine. In addition to briefing myself, I would be happy
to introduce you to him, DS. As I understand it, he put DS after PS. So just two seconds.
So that was on the 28th of September. So Charles, I've waited for a reply patiently, no reply coming.
And then I wrote last night, you know, so this was 2nd of October, when did I say? 2028,
okay, four days, it's enough time for him to reply. So this is the head of the steering group, I quote,
and then I sent another one last night. Nigel, you, oh sorry, you should read this.
And then there are two links. One is doctors for COVID ethics, the document,
hang on a minute. Oh yes, it's the, it's a document which Sukrit Bhakdi and Michael Palmer
and Sukrit's wife, Karina Rice wrote recently. So I just, I could have picked a thousand documents,
but I just chose that one. And then I put another one I'd never heard of before,
Blaylock, I can't remember his name now, but I think he's a medical doctor in the United States.
And this has been published. I noticed it. Keep going. Russell Blaylock. Russell Blaylock, yes.
So that I'd never seen it before. I just skimmed it and I thought, well, that's good enough.
And so I just sent those off. Can't regard Steven Nigel, sorry, you should read this,
forget the bit I've just said, you can maybe take that out Charles. So I got this this morning in
reply to that from not the person I was writing to, but the people I'd copied in. Because I'd
written privately to the head of the so-called steering committee. People really like to have
power in groups. So I'd written to him on his own, and then I gave him a chance and then I copied in
everybody. And so anyway, so one of the people copied in come pipes up, is stupid enough to pipe
up. And he says this, he's a professor in a very well known British university.
Dear Nigel, oh, sorry, I've said it again. Yeah, if you can take that out, Charles.
There's a million Nigels. We don't have to worry about that.
Steven, that's me and everyone else. First of all, listen to this now. First of all,
congratulations to the two pioneering scientists who did the groundwork for mRNA vaccines and were
awarded the Nobel Prize yesterday. Isn't that an outrageous beginning? Yep. So that's what that's
how he starts. That's gaslighting. The articles Stephen refers to, the article Stephen refers to
should to my mind be completely ignored. They fly against the face of huge clinical and
epidemiological data sets that show the vaccines have saved many millions of lives, with unfortunate
major side effects restricted to a vanishingly small number of individuals. In the second article,
this guy, sorry, in brackets, who is he? Close brackets, promotes treatments with hydroxychloroquine
and ivermectin, both of which have been shown to be ineffectual against COVID in very rigorous
studies. Oh yeah, right. That's my comment. I have just read another piece in response to this article
by Blaylock saying it is one of the most unscientific articles the author had seen and it would not have
passed peer review. Well, it was peer reviewed because it was in the journal, the idiot. So anyway,
agreed. So he said agreed, an exclamation mark. Whoa. I meet a few times a year.
So we've got this kind of speaking from on high to me, you know, but he would do it to anybody
because this is how they are. Speaking from, and he's got absolutely nothing to back up what he said.
I meet a few times a year with dedicated, honorable, brilliant scientists and clinicians at
the Pasteur Institute in Paris. Oh yeah, right. This is one of the largest and world leading centers
for research into infectious disease, including COVID. I have not come across one of the large,
I have not come across one who just subscribes to the off the wall
anti-vaccination stance. Whoa. They are all completely committed to the use of the mRNA
vaccines, which they believe to be the transformative weapon against the disease.
Whoa. See these appeals to authority all the time. My daughter is a lecturer in public health in
Glasgow who works on long COVID across Scotland. Wait a minute, two seconds. I'm just trying to get
this down. She has access to detailed health data on many thousands infected with COVID,
uninfected individuals, including self-reporting of symptoms. Her own analysis completely supports
the widely accepted view about, I would say, but wrong view about the impact of COVID and the power
of vaccines. Sorry for going on so long about this. He's saying this to the, the, the, um, the
addressee. But if people don't take the vaccine, it could impact seriously on their health and
lifespan. What? This reminds me of the climate change denial community.
So this is one of my school friends. He's completely lost, isn't he?
Yep. Sadly, they, I think that's nearly finished. Now, sadly, they, including non-experts such as
Nigel Lawson are given far too much air time and matched inappropriately with top experts and the
overwhelming consensus of the informed scientific community, including the Royal Society and the
U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Sadly, the conspiracy theorists in inverted commas
are raising doubts about the integrity of scientists and clinicians. Having worked in
the field for over 40 years while accepting there will always be a few bad apples, the vast majority
of my colleagues were passionate about finding the truth. Really, even if it went against their
hypotheses and hoped for outcomes. Enough from me. Sadly, I won't be joining the reunion. I support
your stance, Nigel. So all these people copied in? Don't care. So the next one, so then the person
who actually, um, was the target of my initial email, um, he then pipes up, listen to this.
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.
It's good to hear an assessment from a highly regarded medical professional based on the, quote,
overwhelming consensus of the informed scientific community, unquote. For the record, listen to this.
For the record, I had my flu jab last week and my COVID booster this morning.
You know, this is why, and I, you know, I never do what I did today, but you know, Jane Ruby,
I just, I couldn't hold it back. You know, that one. Hang on, hang on, hang on. So John, just to,
we'll come to, we'll come to that. But I thought you were commenting on what Stephen said.
I am kind of, it's all kind of the same vein though. It's like somebody thinks they know something,
you know, and it's not backed up by anything. It's just, it was said over here. And now I have to
repeat it, you know, because you heard it said over here, or maybe you heard it said over here at the
whole table of people over here. That doesn't lend it any more credibility than the first time they
heard it. So people, you know, are basing their judgments on a lot of very important issues on
how many times they heard the same bad opinion and there's no more. John, crucially, this guy is
supposed to be a scientist. He's a professor. Nearly. He's not. What about the last one where,
my daughter's this, she's, you know, working all over on COVID. Okay. So she's unemployed
and she's collecting all these statistics. No, John, I'm not arguing against you. I'm arguing
with you. I'm saying that he is talking like this. He's supposed to be a scientist. He doesn't quote,
he doesn't cite a single thing in the whole email. I know, but look, I'm going to, I'm holding back
a lot of information. I'm trying really hard to bite my tongue here because I need to do a lot
of reading so I can speak a little more intelligently about it. But there's a phenomenon that jumps out
at me that's very general that has nothing to do with anything specific. You're a doctor. Okay. So,
you know, I'm very careful, you know, not to just lambast doctors for being idiots or anything like
that. You have a specialty. All right. You went to school for it. You studied for it. Everything
that they told you, you did a good job. You got your A's and all that kind of stuff. All right.
But what we're dealing with here, I'm just learning what it really is. Okay. I came across
a piece of information that led to a lot more and I'm at the bottom of the rabbit hole now. I think
I can answer almost any question really accurately and I just don't want to make any mistakes or,
you know, let somebody else butcher it first. So I'm going to try to do a good job at this.
The problem with being a doctor and looking at, you know, the spread of this COVID thing,
whatever it is, is it is a whole bunch of fields that as a doctor you have, there's no crossover.
Okay. So you don't know that and the wool is being pulled over your eyes and all kinds of like
tricks. We don't want to speech. We want to hear what people think of those emails while they can
remember what they said. So if there's anybody else who'd like to comment, for example, Janet.
So I accept what you say, John. Look, most of my colleagues are idiots. I've accepted that and it's
really sad for me that the medical profession have made such an absolute fool of themselves,
but they have done and Janet would agree with me because she's one of the good ones.
Yeah, I mean, I certainly agree with you, Steve. I mean, I actually, in 2020, I actually had an
an e-letter published in the British Medical Journal showing that really these so-called
experts are really, they really have now succumbed to the sort of the status of a religion really.
I mean, I think that the author of that email that said that the people at the Pastor Institute
believed that this was a real pandemic, it just shows that it has sunk to the level of a
rather than actually knowing the basis of evidence. So you can see in the guy's language
that he actually doesn't have any evidence. He's simply treating it as a religion and I think
that's probably what's happened really. These people, they've sunk to that level with this.
There wasn't that, Janet. So this has happened before, where the opinion of someone else has
been sought by this very same head of the steering committee, you know, ridiculous. So he has sought
the opinion and then, but unfortunately for him, someone who was BCC'd in, blew his own cover.
So I was able to go back to this guy, the target of my emails and say, what on earth are you
playing at, Nigel? You're conspiring with others against me here. What I think happened here,
I don't know, so what I think happened here was that he knew that, so he tries to pass him off
as a doctor, you know, to the other people copied in when he is not a doctor. I know that.
So his first degree was in a science, I can't remember which, and it wasn't in medicine. So he
has no authority to speak as a doctor or as a medical professional. He's never seen a patient
in his life. Well, if he has, he shouldn't have. All right, let's go. Thank you, Janet. We've got
two more comments. We've got eight minutes to go. John, your point is taken. We're just going to
keep moving. Brad, Mark, sorry, and then Brad.
Hi, Stephen, you wanted to comment. I put in the chat a video, a link on YouTube to
Robert Murray Smith. It's a short little video on experts and I think everyone should watch it.
It's a very good clip. What is your opinion if you're prepared to share it with about that
outrageous email? Well, I shouldn't say that. Well, it was. The reason I put in the clip of
Murray Smith is he's talking about expertise. That's what you want. Expertise. You're not
interested in experts. You're interested in people who have expertise and the experts,
a person, that's a person. We're not interested in the person. We're interested in the expertise
that that person can provide and bring. In my opinion, Mark, it's not enough with the expertise
in a particular, you know, tiny branch of medicine. You need people who can actually use the
information that they have at their fingertips, you know, in an intelligent way. And very few
people seem to be able to do that. Very few people seem to be able to do that. They want to fall back
on protocols and guidelines now because they can't think any longer.
Now, that's what's all in that video. In the video clip, it's all to do with allowing people
to bring in their expertise, their opinions, and the people who are very humble are the people that
you want to keep. And Robert Murray Smith, if people are rude, he kicks them off his platform.
They don't last very long, right? And it's very good because they're basically gaslighting people
or they're pretending to be experts and they're not experts. There are other people who may not
be an expert, but they have expertise. They don't have a PhD or whatever, but they have expertise
because they've been doing the job or jobs for years. And he is welcoming their suggestions.
And it sounds to me like the person who's gone and got his flu jab and his COVID jab,
well, he's obviously brainless. Yes. He's the head of the steering committee.
Well said, Mark. Now, John, look, Arch, see, Mark makes a very good point. This madness
around qualifications that says if you don't have a qualification, you can't possibly have expertise.
That's the gaslighting that's also happening.
Qualifications that anybody bestowed upon me and look what I've been able to do. I mean,
that's the difference. That's it. So that's it. You let go. As soon as you say,
you haven't got a qualification. How could you possibly know anything? Like that's the game,
isn't it? Unless you come through our indoctrination process, we're going to make sure
that no one's going to listen to you. All right. Last comment by Brad, who's got plenty of
qualifications as a lawyer and as an experienced DOJ guy. Come on, Brad, give us the last one
because we're finishing in four minutes. Oh, thank you. What an honor and a privilege to
be on here today. I've really learned a lot. Thank you. It's a really stimulating,
intellectually stimulating conversation today. I'm going to try my best to be on every one.
I see it much more basic not being a guy of science. I see it as a group. There's a great
1960s movie, British movie about robbing a bank. I think it's cracking a safe or something. Everybody
gets together after it and they're going over their alibis with each other.
And as each person goes over their story, everybody's kind of like looking at them
suspiciously, you know, are you going to stay on the policy line? So I see it as a way to make sure
it's an enforcement mechanism where they're making sure that anybody that steps out of line is going
to get hazed. Is this really what it is? Professional hazing, you're being dehumanized.
It's an example for everybody else. But on top of it, they're just reaffirming that they're
staying with the standard policy line. It's a means of holding everything together. Exactly.
So Brad, I think there's an element of these people, you know, they're cowards themselves and
they can't envisage the possibility even that everyone is not a coward like them. So they think
that I'm actually afraid of receiving emails from them. So actually, I forgot to say I sent another
one this afternoon with just a link to the global research article called Jacuz, which I composed
together with, I think Janet helped me. Janet helped me, yes. So Michelle Shostovsky has always
been a great fan of that letter, of that article, the Jacuz one on the EUA, sorry, the
Eudra Vigilance figures, the VAERS figures and the MHRA figures in the UK. And so I sent them that.
I didn't say dear anybody, I just put the link there, essentially saying, you know,
you're lost. You know, I should perhaps have said you're lost and then put it, but anyway,
I hadn't got time. All right. Thank you for that comment, Brad. Very kind feedback. Thank you,
everybody, for being here. Tom Rodman has put the link into the Telegram video group, save the chat,
everybody, all of the wonderful links. There's another thing that's just occurred to me,
and Brad might be interested. I think that human beings, they want to be in a cult, I've concluded.
They want to be in a cult, and it doesn't really matter which cult, because human beings like to
be in a group, in a cult, if you like, because then they can just relax and think, oh, well, you know,
if I go down, go down with me, and then they can just go down with me. And I think that's a great
idea. Go down with me, and they get comfort from that. So, but the problem is, in a cult,
no one might be thinking, and well, all cults are deadly, in my opinion. Anyway, Brad,
that's what I think, human beings operating cults, and so they can't imagine anybody operating
independently, like many of the people in this group. And so they think I'll be terrified by
that kind of response, you know, and I just laughed at that. I thought, what a ridiculous,
I didn't even show it to anybody. Yep. Okay, John, Lucas, you had a quick comment?
Early on, there was a comparison that was made by a guy that was a cult-deep programmer,
and he threw up, like, you know, all the characteristics of a cult, and, you know,
it might have actually been an author we've had on here. I just can't remember who wrote it,
but it was brilliant. You know, it was just a perfect analogy, you know, side by side,
here's COVID, the cult of COVID, that meets all the criteria. Yes, the cult of COVID,
cult of COC, sounds like cock to me. That would be a good title for a book,
the cult of COVID, yeah, or the COVID cult. Stephen, Charles, I came up with a great
description of these people. Are you ready for it? Yeah. The branch COVIDians.
The branch COVIDians, very good. We all have a branch over here.
Okay, so last comment, because we're going, and that is, that is the etymology of the word
cult, Stephen. So you brought the word cult in. What's the etymology of the word cult?
Don't know. To cultivate.
Oh, yes. Cultivate minds. And to support. And, you know, it's a positive term that's been
deliberately used. So the people who want to form a group are branded a cult or conspiracy theorists,
because this group here, we're a cult of conspiracy theorists, you see, from their perspective.
So like grooming, then cultivate. Well, it's, well, you want to cultivate
your plants, otherwise they die. You want to cultivate human beings.
You know, grooming as applied to people who like children, you know.
Okay, so branch COVIDians, everybody. Paul, would you put that into the thing,
please, so that we've got it in the chat? Branch COVIDians.
All right, everybody. Lovely to be with you. Thank you, Stephen, for organizing, David Martin.
That's going to be well worthy of reviewing, particularly his first
20, 30 years, but even the answers to the questions. And remember that any questions
you have, Stephen, or I can forward them to David. And any suggestions you have for David,
he's totally welcoming of suggestions. So I couldn't make out on the call, Charles,
whether David was thinking that I was kind of obliquely criticizing him because I wasn't.
I didn't get that at all. No, you didn't. You didn't feel I had. Yeah. Okay. No, no, no, no.
All right, everybody. I'm paranoid then paranoid. Have a wonderful Wednesday. If you're in Wednesday,
have a Tuesday, a wonderful Tuesday night and look forward to being with you again on Sunday night,
Monday morning. And I say again, I'm so excited that I started at 6am these days instead of 5am.
That's very exciting. And soon it'll be. So when we go back an hour here, it'll be 5am.
7am. I mean, 7am. Sorry, 7am. So and that'll be the last week of October, Charles. Oh, good.
Beautiful. Yay. All right, everybody. See you later. Thank you for being here. Thanks, Stephen.
Okay. Thank you so much, everybody. And the Rodman Telegraph, for those of you with more time,
go across to the video conversation now. The link is in the chat. Read that article. I put up
more is coming. Thank you. Thanks. Okay, John. Thank you very much. Thanks, Louise. And take
care tomorrow all in the US. Yeah, Matt. Any good point as to what that means? We had a similar
event in the UK and everybody was worrying about it. And but I just forgot all about it and nothing
happened. Yeah, nothing. I didn't think it was interesting. I think it was a fear propaganda
exercise. Yeah. Yeah. Yes, Kelly, I can do that. I will do that.
Bye, Martina. Thanks, Charles. Thanks, Stephen.