This computer. So welcome everybody to medical doctors for
COVID ethics, international interesting things happening.
I was going to say, I actually think I don't know whether other
people agree with me that it's better when you give a an audio
description of what we're going to do rather than but it maybe
should be shorter than it was, because it was rather long. And
that's no criticism of you. There's a lot to say, but that's
my personal opinion. I don't know what others would say. But
it seems a bit weird, I think, just that video. And I don't
know whether people actually read it.
Let me let me do it this way. It's it's it's because I
observed, Stephen, some people saying I'm sick of listening to
it. But there are we have a moving population, Scott,
because some people come live, some people don't. I'm in
Australia, it's now 5am in the morning. So the poor Australians
are all watching by recording, except for me, I am not a
recording. So so let me do this introductory statement and
welcome in a shortened format to welcome people to the group
today. This group was founded in 2021 by Stephen Frost, with a
desire to pursue truth, ethics, justice, freedom and health. I'm
from Australia, I'm Australasias passion provocateur. I've been
a lawyer for 20 years, but then for 30 years, an educator and 11
years, a legal strategist helping people whose children
were damaged by vaccines before the COVID jabs arrived. There
are lots of profession, many professions here. And we're from
all around the world. And that expands as the viewers who are
watching the recording watch. So if this is the first time here,
welcome. And we asked that you show your name on the screen so
we know who you are. If you publish a newsletter or a
podcast, or you have a radio or TV show, or you've written a
book, put the links in the chat so we can follow you promote you
and find you. We meet twice weekly at least most of us
understand we're in the middle of World War Three. Some say
we're in a continuation of World War Two. So this meeting runs
for two and a half hours after which for those of you with time
Tom Rodman runs a video telegram meeting Tom puts the links into
the chat if you're able to join. We will listen to our guest Scott
Jensen for as long as he wishes to speak, which he suggests is
20 minutes, he can be with us for an hour. So we'll have 40
minutes of Q&A. And Stephen Frost asks the first series of
questions. There is no censorship. It's a free speech
environment. Free speech is crucial. Crucially important in
our fight to preserve our human freedoms. So the other issue I
wanted to raise with you is if you're offended by anything that
our guest says or that any of us say be offended. We're not
interested. This is an offense free zone. We will not be
limited and talking about offense overnight Barry
Humphries died. Well known all around the world Australia's
greatest comedian and he was canceled for daring to say that
men are men and women are women. So with the world that we live
in. Lastly, we come with the attitude and perspective of love
not fear. Fear is the opposite of love. So if you have a
solution or product that will help people put the details into
the chat. If you have links and resources, put them into the
chat as well. The meeting is recorded and is put up on the
rumble channel and they're welcome to our guests presenters
today. Dr. Scott Jensen who I've been a fan of for many years
Scott since I think, you know, in the early days, they were
attacking you and I thought, go Scotty Jensen. So it's great to
have you and thank you again, Stephen Frost for creating this
group and for organizing Scott to be with us today. So Scott,
welcome and over to you and Stephen, you want to say
anything to Scott before we get started?
No, only that we're very grateful to you, Scott for coming
on. And we're very sorry as well that you've been subject to five
investigations. I think it's the latest. That's absolutely
dreadful. And if we can support you in any way, please let us
know. We know we're in contact with just about everybody all
over the world who you know, you know, and we know. So we can put
you in touch with people if that would help you as well.
Thank you. And thanks so much for having me join your
conversation. Obviously, I would like to keep my comments as
pertinent as possible because I think we've all been doing our
homework. We've been paying attention. And I think we're all
asking ourselves those hard, profound questions. How did we
get here? I sometimes think of that movie about 2025 years ago,
The Truman Show. And I feel like my life has sort of become like
The Truman Show. I'm, I'm sort of being studied and evaluated
by by everyone. And, and many of the people that are my greatest
detractors are people I've never met. I certainly could not have
ever thought that my life would go in the path I've gone just to
give you a little bit of background on me. I'm a small
town kid. I grew up in a little town in southern Minnesota. I
was middle child of five. My mom was my best friend. My dad was
my hero. My single sister was a very bright lady and she beat me
up a fair amount of time. So I understood the pecking order. I
had three brothers. I went to a public school. I went to the
University of Minnesota. First, I went into dental school and I
enjoyed much of that, but I didn't really enjoy the teeth. So
I left them went to the seminary and then in the seminary, I made
the decision to go into medicine. I also asked my
girlfriend if she'd marry me and we've been together 45 years.
Mary has been the jewel of my life. She's a veterinarian and
just a wonderful partner. We've had three kids. My two daughters
are physicians and my son is a lawyer, but we love them just as
much as the doctors and that's important. And then I ran for the
Senate in 2016 because I was recruited to do so. It wasn't on
my bucket list. I'd done school board work in Minnesota for 10
years and I thought that I'd made an adequate contribution to
the arena and the community of politics. But in 2016, people
came knocking at my door. After a couple of months of resisting,
I finally said, Yeah, okay, I'll do it. Well, that was incredibly
successful. I ended up getting more votes than any other
Republican senator in the state and I was elected handily 68% to
32%, I guess. And two things happened when I was in the
Senate. The first, I would say, I had a chance to appreciate the
fact that I'm able to work with people who I disagree with. And
that was important. I was able to carve out common ground and
work from there. In 2019, I had seven bills that I was the chief
author on that I was able to get to the Senate floor. And every
one of those seven bills asked unanimously, with all the votes
coming from both Republicans and Democrats. And it was because I
had gone to both sides of the aisle and I talked to people and
I told them what I was trying to accomplish, and why I thought it
was reasonable. In 2019, my my wife had some health issues
arise. And so we made the decision together that I would
not run for reelection in 2020. So my one year, excuse me, my
one term, four year stint in the Senate was going to be enough.
Then COVID hit, obviously, in March of 2020. I had no idea that
I was going to become identified as some major league whistleblower.
All I did was read the emails that came from the Department of
Health in Minnesota. And I clicked on the link that they
provided to go to the CDC's information. And collectively,
the Minnesota Department of Health and the Center for Disease
Control were telling physicians, we're adjusting the way we're
going to do death certificates during COVID. And they went on
to talk about two things. One is, if you think it's reasonable,
that this death might have come about because of COVID, you can
put it down as a cause of death. But more concerning to me was
the specific comments that were made in regards to contributing
conditions. And basically, the Department of Health advised me
and all the physicians that if we felt COVID-19 had been a
contributing condition to the death, that we could go ahead and
put it down as the cause of death. I protested. I said, no,
contributing conditions have their own place on the death
certificate where they should be placed. There's a part two that
says contributing conditions. And that's where you put
contributing conditions. This email from the Department of
Health said, if it's emphysema, if it's asthma, go ahead and put
it in the contributing conditions section. But if it's
COVID, then go ahead and put it in the cause of death line. And
this is wrong. Because if you follow the CDC's instructions to
physicians for the last two to three decades, our obligation
when someone dies is to, the best of our ability, try to
identify the initiating factor, the initiating event that led to
a person's demise. That initiating event is the
underlying cause of death. Let's just take an example. If I have
a heart attack tomorrow, and a month from now, we learned that
the heart attack was so severe, and so much muscle was taken out
of commission, and I developed congestive heart failure. And
over the next six months, we find that my situation is
refractory to all of our best efforts, and that this is indeed
going to be terminal congestive heart failure. And I make the
decision to go on hospice and say my goodbyes and recognize
that this will be the avenue through which I depart the
earth. And then in the last 48 hours of my life, I'm exposed to
someone with COVID. And perhaps I have symptoms, perhaps I don't
perhaps I have a cough, but with congestive heart failure, I
likely would have had a cough anyway. And then I die. The way
this death certificate should read is that my underlying
cause of death was coronary artery disease, which led to
heart attack, which led to congestive heart failure.
That's what the underlying cause of death should be. In the
contributing conditions box, a physician could put COVID-19
possibly or something like that. But the bottom line is the
underlying cause of death, that process that brought me to
hospice with a ready acknowledgement that I was going
to pass was coronary artery disease. And to record it as
COVID-19 is going to corrupt the value of the disease registrar
that we keep. Virtually every country keeps a disease
registrar. I raised my hand I said, Hey, I don't know if you
realize what you're doing here, but this is not what we should
be doing. I was a sitting senator at the time, I was the
vice chair of Health and Human Services. And I got absolutely
no response from the Department of Health. I ended up
mentioning this email from the Department of Health and these
revised instructions on TV during an interview. And that
went wild. All of a sudden, I became very familiar with Laura
Ingram, and I started to get invited to a lot of different
programs. Drew, Dr. Drew, Tony Robbins, ultimately Tucker
Carlson, Rush Limbaugh came to my defense. But the bottom line
was, from the Department of Health in Minnesota, I got
nothing until two months later. I was identified and notified
by the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice that my license
was under investigation for the first time in my career. I had
been the family physician of the year in Minnesota in 2016. I've
been the recipient of a Bush Fellowship Award. I was a
recipient of a Mead Johnson Award as being an outstanding
resident in the United States when I was a resident in family
practice in the 1980s. I've had a wonderful career. This shocked
me. But what shocked me even more was I did not get to know
who my accusers were. They remained anonymous. And I was
advised that I had been giving reckless information regarding
COVID because I had been willing to compare COVID viral infections
to influenza infections. Bottom line is that was the first of
ultimately six investigations. The first one I responded to, I
decided I should be able to do this without an attorney. So I
prepared a 70-page response with articles, amendments and
addendums, a six-page personalized response from me as
to what I was thinking, when I said what I said. And a month
later, the allegations were dismissed. But then a month later,
I was advised again by the Minnesota Board of Medical
Practice, I'm under investigation again. Same thing happened. I
responded, they came back and said the allegations are
dismissed. I had about a six-month break and then I got a
letter from the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice. And they
said in this situation, they said a third investigation has
been initiated against your license. But we checked into it
and we've dismissed the allegations. So in this third
investigation, I was never even aware of the ongoing
investigation until after it was over, which I think may be
significant in the future for me. Fourth investigation came
through and I responded and it was dismissed. And then in
November of 2021, the fifth investigation was initiated.
This time, I responded and that wasn't good enough. The board
asked for more information. The Board of Medical Practice
requested copies of medical records. I de-identified those
medical records and I sent them in. Several of these records
indicated that I had treated a handful of patients with
ivermectin during 2021. During 2021, the National Institute of
Health on their webpage had changed their position
regarding the use of ivermectin. In 2020, they
had actively recommended against it. In 2021, they changed
the recommendation and said they could not determine whether
or not ivermectin had a role. They acknowledged that there
was in vitro evidence that it was helpful, potentially
against the COVID-19 virus. And the NIH webpage also identified
that studies had been released that indicated that ivermectin
might reduce mortality and length of hospitalization. In
2022, it's noteworthy that the NIH reversed the 2021 position
and in 2022, recommended against using. But getting back to the
Board of Medical Practice, I submitted my response and my
medical records of my patients that were de-identified in
December of 2021 and then for the next 13 months, I heard
nothing from the Board of Medical Practice. I was running
to be the governor of Minnesota, a state of almost six
million people. I was running against an incumbent, the
Democrat governor. During the course of that campaign, I was
painted as an extreme individual who was being investigated
repeatedly by the Board of Medical Practice and that claim
was used to question the legitimacy of me as a candidate
for governor of Minnesota. I lost the election and two months
later, the Department of the Minnesota Board of Medical
Practice notified me that and this time they notified me
through the Attorney General's office that my response did not
provide them the necessary information for them to dismiss
the allegations. They wanted to have a conference with me so I
requested that that conference be public, live streamed on
Facebook, in person, and recorded. I was allowed an in-person
conference. I was not allowed a copy of the recording they made.
I was not allowed to have it public. My wife could not be
there and they would not live stream it. We had a 90-minute
conversation that was intense and at times, fractious. Then
there was a 15 to 20-minute recess and then we went back and
reconvened and in a very truncated manner, the chair of
the Complaint Committee with the Minnesota Board of Medical
Practice advised me that all the allegations were being
dismissed outright, the case was closed, and I could leave.
You can imagine I felt good about that. My license was, if
you will, no longer in question, at least for the time being.
But this also was that moment in my life where I realized that
I couldn't be done. I could not just breathe a sigh of relief and
say, hallelujah, I'm glad that's over. I would be a fool if I
thought that there won't be another investigation. What will
I say next that someone might not like? If I tell you that a
cotton mask has an 18% filtration ratio, so wearing a
cotton mask or even wearing three of them will not
necessarily prevent you from acquiring COVID-19, if I say that
and you don't like it, are you going to be able to initiate
another investigation whereby the Minnesota Board of Medical
Practice as a regulatory agency for the state of Minnesota, as
this agency is weaponized by partisan activists who don't
like my politics, who don't like my free speech? So I made the
decision that we're going to sue the attorney general in the
state of Minnesota as well as the Minnesota Board of Medical
Practice. We're going to ask the courts to help identify with
precision where does that line exist with protected free
speech on one side and professional conduct as it
relates to the practice of medicine on the other side?
Because clearly the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice has a
mission and jurisdiction in regards to professional conduct
as it relates to the practice of medicine. But in terms of free
speech, particularly as a sitting senator and as a
candidate for the highest office in the state of Minnesota, I
have to have the ability to share my opinion even if it
ultimately proves to not be accurate. So that's sort of where
we're sitting right now. Over the last three days, we took the
initiative to utilize crowdfunding as a funding
mechanism for our lawsuit. Within the next four weeks, we
expect to be filing our case in the district court, a federal
district court. In the first three days, our give send go.com
slash Scott Jensen page, we've received $125,000. I've been
incredibly grateful. We've had not a couple of big donors, but
thousands of people who said I'm going to give five bucks, I'm
going to give 50 bucks, I'm going to give 500 or I'm going
to get 5000. But where we're at right now is if I don't do
something more than what I've done so far, then I'm really not
standing up for the pub owner who has to have a permit from
the state agency in order for them to stay open regarding
their bathrooms and their kitchen. I wouldn't be standing
up for the hair salon stylist who has to have her or his
place of business permitted, licensed. I wouldn't be standing
up for nurses and physicians and dentists and professionals
across the world. Anybody who labors or whose livelihood is
governed by a regulatory agency, a licensing authority, a
permitting process, any of these folks, if it can happen to me,
it could happen to them. And these folks may not have all
that I had at their disposal. I mean, I had tools that not
everybody has. I'm a physician in good standing. I've had a
wonderful career. I was in the Senate. I was a legitimate
candidate for governor of Minnesota. I had over a million
people vote for me. I raised more money than any Republican
gubernatorial candidate had ever raised in the state of
Minnesota in the history regarding the governor's race. It
seems to me that the words of Esther 4, 14 in the Old
Testament speak to my situation. Have you considered
you're in the position you're in for such a time as this? At
some level, Steven, I have to believe that part of the reason
we're having this conversation together on a Sunday is because
for so many of us, for such a time as this is exactly why
we're together. Four years ago, we never would have thought
this could happen. Never. So what's my story? Why am I this
notorious rebel, this renegade, this extreme individual? Well,
I think it's accurate to say that I've always been a skeptic.
I was raised in my household. My dad was a lawyer and a judge.
We were raised to be skeptical. In the world of medicine, I
learned early on that I need to be skeptical of big pharma. I
need to be skeptical of the person who says I have the
answers and no one else does. I need to be skeptical of the
research articles I read. I don't know if you remember the
words of Carl Sagan, the astronomer, physicist and
scientist, but he said science requires uncompromising
skepticism. To a degree more. You might remember the words of
Goethe. None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who
falsely believe they are free. These giants are telling us, be
skeptical. I was. And for my skeptical narrative that I put
out there, I paid a price. I think I've been courageous, but I
think sometimes people give me more credit than they should. I
think sometimes people believe that courage is operating
without fear. I would disagree. I think courage is being brave
even when you are afraid. And I have been afraid. I don't want
to lose my license. I don't want to put my family through
ridicule. But courage was required. I think a part of the
reason that I'm here as well is because I had access to
information that not everybody had. I know how to read
medical journals. I receive 10, 20, 30 journals a month. I was
in the Senate and I was vice chair of the Health and Human
Services Committee. So I had access to data that was coming
across the desk. I had access to the Commissioner of the
Department of Health every day when I was there. When you have
access to information, I think you have an obligation to put
it out there. And I think I recognized the reality of the
day because there was this conflict in terms of what we've
lived through the last three years. There's this staged
reality. It's almost like theater. And then there's the
real reality where we think for ourselves. There's a story in
there. And actually this is from the United Kingdom. I don't
know if you've heard this story, but there's a fellow
named David Lodge. He's a playwright, a British playwright.
And on Friday, November 22nd, 1963, David Lodge was at a
theater watching one of his own plays being performed. In this
play, an actor comes out onto the stage with the radio,
bebop and some music while he's presenting for a job interview.
The audience chuckles. This actor puts his radio on the
stand ready for the job interview. Everybody's watching
that staged reality, that theatrical reality on stage
until all of a sudden that music coming through that radio
brought in by that actor was interrupted. And words like,
we interrupt this program to report that the president of
the United States, John Kennedy has been assassinated.
Quickly, that actor shut off the radio. But the world of
reality had intruded on that stage reality and they
couldn't go back. The audience was aghast and the play actors
and actresses could not recapture what they had worked so hard
to build. That's what happened in COVID-19. There's a staged
reality. There's a narrative we're all supposed to buy into.
And we're saying, no, people like you, you're puncturing that
balloon of theatrical reality. That's why we're here. At some
level, we don't get to ignore that information that we have
or have the ability to have. I remember in the fall of 2020,
I think it was Martin Kuhldorf and Jay Budachara and I think
Dr. Gupta wrote the Great Barrington Declaration. That
pierced that false staged reality for so many of us. I
think I was the first physician in Minnesota to put my name on
the Great Barrington Declaration. But that's one of the things
that has to happen and that's why we're here together today.
And then I think the other thing that I'm doing is I have
recognized, partly because I was in the Senate, partly because
I ran for governor, partly because I've been an everyday
in the trenches family doctor for 40 years, but I realized the
power of engaging across the board. I don't think I met any
of you folks face to face in person, but I feel at some level
we share a certain bond of brotherhood. And we know that we
have to engage across the board. We have to engage not just
within the state of Minnesota or within the nation of the United
States. We have to engage across the planet. We have seen trucker
convoys in Canada galvanize the rest of the world. We've seen
demonstrations in London and Paris energize people's spirits.
We've seen what happened in Australia and we're horrified to
see a lockdown in Australia look more like something you would
expect in some hyper structured communist country. This is what
we've seen. But we have not stopped engaging. We've engaged
with one another. And right now I made that decision. I am going
to engage the courts because I don't think I'm going to get
justice through conventional media. As far as I'm concerned,
80% or more of our major newspapers in the United States
lean left. As far as I'm concerned, big tech has worked
side by side with government to censor, suppress, and squash too
many people. So I'm saying I'm going to the courts and I'm going
to ask the courts, please help draw the line. Where do I get
protected free speech? And where does the Minnesota Board of
Medical Practice really have the jurisdiction? What does that
look like in terms of my professional conduct as it relates
to the practice of medicine? That's what we're doing. I'm also
asking that the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice be advised by
the courts that they are reaching beyond their
jurisdictional limits. So to me, it's been about being a
skeptic. It's been about courage. It's been about access
to information. It's been about recognizing the reality in which
we live. And it has been about engaging at all levels,
legislative levels, the courts with states, nations across the
globe. This is what we must do. I don't think that we have to, at
every turn, rehash all the things that were done wrong over the
last three years. But I know that I'm prepared to do that if
called on. I can talk to you about the damage and lack of
science that went in to policies that locked down businesses and
locked kids out of schools and locked nursing home patients into
their facilities, even though that facility had been infested
with active COVID-19. I think that the origin of this virus is
a legitimate question. And if you ask the question, that does not
make you a conspiracy theorist. I think that what we did to our
nursing home population, particularly in America, especially
in Minnesota, where we had nursing home frail patients die
alone without the touch of a loved one. When I think of the
goalposts being moved from a two-week lockdown so that we
could flatten the curve and not overwhelm health care facilities,
I scoff at that advice. I think of the mandates and the masks. I
think of the models. I think of so much of this, and it breaks my
heart. When I think of the epidemic of fear, when I think of
the impact on our educational systems, when I think of the
wrongheadedness of what we said about transmission, about
tracing, about tracking, about testing. When I think of PCR
tests being cycled 45 to 50 times, where Dr. Tony Fauci said,
at that point in time, all you're doing is catching dead
nucleotides. It grieves me. When I think of our immunization
programs where we took away the rights of people to think for
themselves, when I think of the way we bash natural immunity,
acting as if it was some edgy sort of out there, biologic
concept when it's been around for thousands of years. When I
think of the gain of function research that clearly was going
on, when I think of the sacrifices we asked our soldiers
to make, when I think of the way the American public health
scene scoffed at European nations in regards to
recommendations on social distancing. I certainly do give a
debt of gratitude to the United Kingdom for the data that they
put forth over the last three years, and Israel and Iceland
and thank heavens for Sweden for taking a different route. All
of these areas became labs literally that we could learn
from. Okay, I found this on the web. But anyway, these are the
things that are on my mind. But today, what I'd like to do is
you've heard my story. I wrote a book over the last two years.
The book is called We've Been Played, Exposing the Triad of
Tyranny. I don't think we could have been played without the
triad of big tech and big pharma and big government polluting
together. I think that government has expanded so rapidly
and intruded into our private lives so recklessly that it
could only happen with a certain intentional collusion. And I
don't think that makes me a conspiracy theorist. My book is
available at drscotjensenbook.com. And I think the message is
through patient stories, I'm able to explain how it is that
we've been played and patients have become pawns. But what I'd
like to do now, Stephen, if it's okay with you is I've told you
my story. And we've all read the articles and see the tweets and
see the Facebook and see the new data, because we have access to
information and we're trying to be responsible and put that out
there. But I think there's so much value in conversations where
people ask questions, because even in asking the questions, we
generally learn so much. So those are my comments. I
appreciate the opportunity to make them. And I'd be glad to
have a conversation and ask any questions I could answer any
questions I could.
Excellent, Scott. Congratulations on your courageous stand. And
we're honored to have you and Stephen. First questions go to
Stephen Scott, and then we've got other hands up. So we've got
a we've got Scott for about another 25 minutes, it seems to
me, Stephen, and everybody. So we'll be tight for questions and
go, Stephen.
Hmm. Well, I might have difficulty. But anyway, so Scott,
thank you very much for that brilliant speech. If that was
what it was, it was a speech, I think. And I, there's so I've
made so many notes, I can't read them all. And so that's not I
may have time later. But I just wanted to ask you. So you said at
the end that you think it's deliberate, I absolutely agree,
there is no way that what has happened in the last three years
was not deliberate. And worse than that, I think that
government set about psychologically torturing their
own populations around the world into a state of Stockholm
syndrome. And that explains what has gone on. That doesn't
excuse anybody. It doesn't mean that people are stupid for
believing the what was said by the mainstream media, for
example, and governments. But they were in the state of
Stockholm syndrome, they were they were intentionally got
there, I think. So in the United Kingdom, we have the nudge
unit, which is very, very important in this whole story. I
don't, I'm not aware of other countries which have an
equivalent of the nudge unit. But America and other countries
may have less visible nudge units, I don't know. But in the
United Kingdom, they were freely talking about the nudge
unit in the mainstream press. And I was thinking, wow, that is
amazing. There were, I cannot remember, I asked people to try
and find out because I haven't got time to do everything. But
find the names of the people on the nudge unit, so that we can
research these people to find any conflicts of interest, for
example. But I think the whole thing was a fraud from
beginning to end. It's absolutely outrageous what has
happened. And actually, what has happened is that they've
hijacked the proper practice of medicine. And that should be of
interest to every human being on this planet, not least because
of the Nuremberg trials, where seven doctors after being tried
at Nuremberg were hanged on the 2nd of June 1948, for human
medical experimentation. And this was human medical
experimentation. And any doctor who does not have a view on
human medical experimentation should definitely have a view on
just that. That is what was going on. This is a medical
political alliance. And we've been here before, there, if you
like, before with the medical political alliance, we had the
Second World War. And before the Second World War, doctors were
engaging in this kind of nonsense. We were taught at
medical school, I was taught at medical school. And I know my
fellow students, medical students were taught that every
doctor has the right to a medical opinion without proving
beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law, that what he's
saying is correct, and without endless peer review of
scientific studies. So the proper practice of medicine, as
far as I'm concerned, is all about medical ethics, medical
ethics haven't been talked about by the courts, by the media,
by doctors. That's the center of this. You cannot practice
medicine, in my opinion, without medical ethics. This was well
taught to us when I was at medical school. So what has
happened to all the other doctors? Because I can't find
anybody in North Wales, where I live in the United Kingdom, who
remembers about medical ethics. So I was talking about informed
consent. And nobody knew what I was talking about, it seemed.
And these were doctors. So I just wondered what you think. I'm
sorry to be so I'm outraged by what has happened. I've we, you,
Scott and I, and everybody on this call has been
psychologically tortured by our own governments. And until we
understand that, and that we all are in different stages,
possibly different stages of Stockholm syndrome, we will
never get to the bottom of what has happened to us in the last
three years. And why is that important? Because we need to
hold these bastards to account, so it never happens again. And I
don't want to make your court case more difficult than it is.
But I do want to offer you all the experts we have access to,
expert witnesses, potential expert witnesses. And if you
wanted to do that, if your lawyers wanted to do it, you
can flood the courts with evidence on our side.
Let me let me jump in there. I'm going to disagree with you
right off the bat on the issue of ethics. I think the problem
is that we do have ethicists out there. We do have ethics
decisions being made, but they're being made by a very
small group of elitists. I don't think that a lot of the stuff
that came out, particularly from the United States, was from
people in the trenches, from doctors in the trenches. You
look at people like Deborah Birx, who said, well, you know,
you don't die with it, you die of it. We look at Tony Fauci
calling people like you and I distractions. I think that we
have ethics out there, but it's all wrong, because the ethics
are being driven by an elite group of physicians in too many
situations, physicians who are served by the status quo. I
mean, we have a huge issue in America with the maintenance of
certification and board certification, because we've got
people who have their little academic administrative fiefdom,
where they live off of the fees and the dues coming from all the
in the trenches doctors. They do their thousand dollar, what do
you call these visits, these trips, and someone else is
always paying for these boondoggles. So I think we have
ethics out there, but I think we have the wrong people giving us
the ethics. We don't have the patient, the patient who wants
to have a conversation about hydroxychloroquine or
ivermectin, or what about an anti inflammatory? What about
monolukes? What about antihistamines? What about
steroids? I'm wheezing, I can't breathe. Do I really have to do
this binary choice, where I either get better on my own, or
I wait till I'm so damn sick that when I go to the hospital,
they say, I may well die. We don't have legitimate ethics
going on, but we have people out there telling us that they're
ethicists. So I think on the question of ethics, I think it's
out there, but I don't think it's working, because I don't
think it focuses on the patient. In terms of the Stockholm
syndrome, I absolutely agree with you. I think we're seeing
that over and over again. In terms of how do we go forward, I
think we're on the same page. We have to engage at all levels,
and that's what we're trying to do. But from my perspective,
I think we've got this collusion between government,
tech, pharma, and we have an awful lot of academics. The
medical profession in the United States will not recover in my
lifetime. We have absolutely fractured our relationships with
our patients. Our patients feel like they've been abandoned. We
have doctors who tell patients, you don't get to have that
conversation with me, because I don't want to have that
conversation with you. That's what's happening. But we should
get on to some other questions too. Sure. I just want to do, so
I do think that the name is in the group, ethics, so I do
think that that's important. We were taught at medical school
that it's up to each individual doctor to know about ethics and
to practice them properly. So medical ethics. And no doctor
could be, should be allowed to, sorry, should allow himself or
herself to be ordered to do something against those ethics.
So that's the point. So I think that evidence-based medicine
has been used by big pharma and their allies in this nonsense
to produce, to tell doctors that you have to do it like this. No,
doctors don't do that. We were taught that at medical school.
It's very important to have medical doctors thinking
independently. The only thing that medical doctors need to
think about, we were taught at medical school, was the patient
in front of them. Absolutely. I agree with you completely.
And I think that the patient needs to tell doctors what to do.
Let's move on to some other questions, because there's a lot
of hands up. Thank you. Go ahead, someone. Steven, do you want
to moderate? Okay, Randy.
I know it's good. Charles. Yep. Charles, it's up.
Okay, Randy.
Thank you, Charles. And thank you, Scott. I guess we call you Scott
for coming to talk to us. I've gotten that from, I've watched
you several times. I like your extremism, extremism. We need to
have more like that in the authorities or those that think
there are authorities. I watched your first video about the death
certificates in that same week. And I think that's a good
thing, in that same week that you had that. And I had the same
questions you had, having worked with the 3M medical division on
ICD-10 codes, well, nine codes at the time, and incentive
payments. It looked suspicious to me. My question is, what did
you believe about the medical system before the pandemic that
you no longer believe, and maybe pick out one of the ways that
we've been played that we can use that may resonate with our
friends?
That's a wonderful question. Thank you for asking that. About
eight years ago, I wrote my first book called Relationship
Matters. And what that book was about was individual patient
stories that highlighted the fracture that was going on
between patients and doctors, and how patients were feeling
abused by insurance companies and systems. But to get to your
question, what is it that, what jewel, because I love being a
doctor. I mean, I was in dental school first time in the
seminary. I was one of these doctors who told my kids, go be a
doctor. It's the best darn life. I feel like I've had the chance
to be sort of a Marcus Welby kind of guy. But so, re-COVID 2019
to now, what do I think we lost? I think somehow, that intense
experience that I had in medical school in my residency called
Grand Rounds, where we would get together as physicians and
banter about a patient's presentation, history, physical
medications, diagnostic tests, labs, imaging, and we would put
that together. And when we work that situation over trying to
come up with the correct diagnosis and the best plan for
that patient, we were not about holding hands and singing
kumbaya. We were relentlessly pushing forward what we thought
was best. And we got to. And someone would come up with an
idea where all of a sudden, you know, your point is a good one.
I didn't realize that. But we had conversations that existed
within the boundaries of civility, but didn't have to be
pandering. Today, I think we've lost that. Today, I have people
coming after me who I've never met, physicians who I know of
their reputation. They've never met me. They've never even
called me. I've called them. And they are on social media,
demanding that I lose my license. They have no basis for
that. They have they might have heard from someone that I said
this, they never bothered to call me and say, Scott, did you
say that? I think we've lost that ability within the
colleagues of medicine to disagree with one another, and
to keep going. And I think part of it is because we have these
artificial claims about science, we get this ridiculous
statement by Tony Fauci saying that if you don't follow him,
you're not following science. I think most of us have a base
level understanding that science is at one level, it's about
observing. It's about hypothesizing. It's about
measuring them, trying to come up with an experiment to prove
or disprove my hypothesis. That's what we've always been
about. But it seems like if we elevate that, we say, well,
listen, these masks that I'm being told to wear, people are
still getting the disease, or people are still transmitting
the disease. We couldn't even have that conversation. All of
a sudden, we were we were being vilified for being a number one
senator called me beyond irresponsible. And I did dinner
with the guy. And I thought, what does that mean? Beyond
irresponsible, because I'm questioning the efficacy of a
mask that some of our OSHA studies have indicated have an
18% filtration capability. How did we get to be so to me,
that's, that's the thing that we've lost that I treasured the
most. And I've told my both my daughters, I don't think we're
going to get it back in my lifetime. I think physicians have
absolutely fractured.
Sounds like the license have been weapon used as a weapon
against the thinking of physicians.
And you know, as well as I do that when a rubber band is
stretched beyond its normal capacity, it never returns to
the way it was.
Thanks, Brandon. Gonna keep going. Glenn, Glenn McCarty.
Hi, how are you glad to meet you. I'm mine's gonna touch on
spiritual and legislative. So hold on.
Glad.
The spiritual side. I'm part of a group that fleet field is
moral compass has been lost by a large part of the world. And
specifically from a biblical viewpoint, the ninth amendment,
as well as Ezekiel 33 and 37. So the ninth commandment is that
thou shalt not bear fault with witness. And a lot of people
believe, well, it's okay, as long as I wasn't directly doing
the harm, I can sort of see it. And that's not, I don't think
what was meant by it in the biblical sense. And so
specifically, our group is wondering if you'd be willing to
work with us to, to present a somewhat of a summary or a mini
sermon on what the population could do to in fact, properly
follow the ninth commandment and and come forward with the
truth and to stop being a part of the problem and part of the
falsehoods going on, and that they can bring truth forward.
Well, thank you. And as I mentioned, I was in the seminary
before I went into medicine. And people oftentimes will tease
me, they call me 414. Because I've told people, well, chapter
four, verse 14 has really been the guiding post in my life over
the last four years. And they say, well, in what book? And I
said, well, many of them, I said, go to Exodus 414, it'll
say, and God's anger smolder. And that was when Moses was
declining the job offer God was giving him and say, hey, I don't
really think I'm up to the task. Let's have that my brother
Aaron do it, he could do it better. And then you go to Esther
414, and you read about for such a time as this. And then you
go to John 414, where it talks about, but he who drinks of the
water I give him will never thirst for the water I give will
spring into a well of eternal life. And then you go to Hebrews
414, which is why I think we're all on this program together,
sir. And that says, hold fast to the beliefs you profess. So
from my perspective, my spirituality weighs heavily in
terms of my actions over the last three years. But I'm also
aware of the fact that there are people that are agnostic or
atheistic, or of a different religious background than I am.
And we're all on the same page. So I've been hesitant to move
too deeply into the religious realm, per se, because to me,
this whole thing, the real victim in what's going on is not
Scott Jensen having his license investigated. The real victim
here is the patient, the person who needs healing, the person
who's suffering from depression, anxiety, perhaps an unchecked
cancer, congestive heart failure. I think if we want to
get back to what we should be doing, religious persuasion aside,
we just have to focus on the patient. And I don't think we
are. I think patients feel more like a pawn than they have in
my 40 years of medicine. So I appreciate very much your
commitment and your perspective and to utilize your faith based
background to bring to the fore those vital issues that need
to be raised up and elevated. But for me, I'm sort of trying
to go the path now of I'm going to go through the legal channels.
I'm going to the courts and I'm going to say patients have been
denied the opportunity to have me as their doctor and courageous
on their behalf, because my courage has been less because I
don't want to lose my license. And my patients know that there
are times where in the office, I've had to be political about
sort of shying away from some of their questions or some of
their requests, because I'm really not interested in losing
my license. And yet, I also think that I am in the position
I'm in for just such a time as this. And I do have an obligation
to stand strong and courageous, even at the potential risk of
personal harm. So every day I'm walking that balance. But in
terms of getting involved in religion, I speak to churches of
all backgrounds at different times. But thank you for what
you're doing. I appreciate it very much.
All right, just one other comment. And that's that right
now we do have part of as part of our program, we're going
under the brother name of Humanity Coalition. And our theme
right now is whistle for humanity, so that all those that
are guilty, they can step away, lead their companies that
where they're they're complicit with that activity, or become a
whistleblower. And, and we're specifically aligned with Warner
Mendenhall as a lawyer in a legal firm to for them to submit
those requests. Thank you. Thank you. God bless you.
Thank you, sir. One follow up comment, I just want to make
someone mentioned health freedom, and I'm a huge advocate
for health freedom. But when I think of health freedom, I always
think of four A's and the word ICE. And the four A's for me in
terms of health freedom, you have to have access, it has to
be available, it has to be affordable, and it has to be
accountable. And right now, if you look at what we did over the
last three years to patients, we need to push hard for
accountability. And then the word ICE always enters my mind.
And the word ICE ICE, there has to be informed consent. And
informed consent is not determined by a form or a
doctor. It's what does that patient need in order to make a
reasonable decision. And then the C in the word ICE has got to
be confidential. And in the United States, so much
confidentiality has been lost. Patients have been traced,
tracked against their will without their knowledge. There
is no confidentiality in the healthcare world of Minnesota
and the United States today as there was. And the E, the E
stems from the phrase in America, e pluribus unum, out of
many one. I get it. In caring for an individual, there may be
multiple stakeholders involved. Obviously, the patient, the
family, the pharmacist, the doctor, the nurse, all of these
folks are stakeholders in that person's healthcare equation.
But out of all those stakeholders, there has to be
one that is privileged to champion the healthcare. And
that has to be the patient. And in the United States, with our
insurance companies, our HMOs, our accountable care
organizations, all of these fancy ways to somehow minimize
the patient's wants, it is absolutely devastated the
patient's ability to be their own best champion. Patients
don't even realize sometimes what they're railing against.
But that's what it is. They feel like it's out of control, and
they don't get to choose. And they're they're horrified to
think of it. Next question. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you,
Glenn. Mark. Mark. Hi, Scott. Have you been in touch with Trey
Gowdy? I do not know Trey Gowdy personally. I have followed
him closely when he decided to not run for reelection. I
thought, what a loss for those hard conversations. I will
never forget the ability for Trey Gowdy to just land one of
those piercing questions. Because I think so oftentimes, we
make more impact when we ask the question than we pontificate
with the answer. But I don't have his personal information.
I'll be glad to give all of you my email right now. And if you
wanted to try to connect me with Trey Gowdy, I would I would
welcome that. I have certainly been on in contact with Jordan
Peterson and Peter McCall. And my email is smj2203 at gmail.com.
And I'll just give that to you one more time. It's smj as in
Scott Michael Jensen smj2203 at gmail.com. And if you'd like to
correspond with me, I'd sure welcome that. Thank you very
much. Thank you. Thank you.
Catherine.
Hello. Thanks for being here, Scott. It's really great
hearing you just like so many people here. I listened to the
very first time you talked about the death certificates and
it's a really powerful thing that you did there just simply
telling the truth. So what I'm here to ask you is about a
month ago, there was a COVID litigation conference put on by
Warner Mendenhall, as Glenn mentioned earlier, and I'm
working with him on a number of different things. But one of
the things that I'm working on him with is facilitating
communication between attorneys and experts and victims after
that conference to, you know, get things moving. One of the
things that has been a great deal of interest to many of
those attorneys who haven't yet been activated in the COVID
space simply because it's so new attorneys tend to be pretty
risk averse. And we're trying to figure out ways to empower
them to do stuff. But there's a lot of interest in defending
medical board licenses, and how to go about it legislatively,
legally, even in terms of contractual and all that kind of
stuff. So one of the things I was doing is arranging for a
working group on exactly these kinds of topics. And I was
wondering if you'd be willing to join us on that.
I would, but I would want to put a caveat out there. And
that's that I know attorney, and I sort of feel like the
attorney I'm using, I'm using a fellow named Greg Joseph, he's
my lead attorney, and we're building, we built out a legal
team now. But he is so much smarter than I am. So I've been
pretty clear with him. I said, you know, you know my story, and
you know that anytime you want, you can call me and I'll tell
you what my perspective is, what I thought I said and all
that. But I've given 10s of 1000s of comments and speeches
in the Senate and on the campaign trail. So I've
connected with Tom wrens, who's been prominent in the United
States, and Tom and I have done each other's podcasts, we have
each other's information. And my attorney, Greg Joseph is
getting more and more involved with those kinds of, if you
will, coalitions of the minds. When we file the papers in the
district court, I'm asking my attorney, Greg Joseph to be as
transparent as possible, I would like those to be put on social
media, so the world can consume the discussion and participate
in what does this mean? How important is this as we weigh
those scales of justice? But you have my contact information,
and I'd be glad to respond. But in terms of joining another
work group, I would have to decline just because I am still
practicing medicine four days a week. All right. Well, thank
you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Catherine, Theresa from
also from Wales, Scott. Hi, Scott, I don't know if you can
hear me. I may need to stop my video. I'm tethering to a
mobile phone. I hear you. Okay. I hear you just. Oh, thank you
for everything you're doing. My question is, I think it's clear
to all of us now that the spike protein in the SARS-CoV-2 virus,
if there is a virus, is the pathogenic part of the virus. And
it's also the antigen in all eight of the vaccines that were
brought to market in 2020. I don't think that was a
coincidence. Could you please comment on why that might have
happened? When I was in this, thank you for the question. When I
was in the Senate, one of the prohibitions we had was we did
not allow one another to speculate on the motivation of
another person. So I'm going to have to pass on why that might
be. But I do want to comment on what you said. I disagree with
you in that you said, I think we can all recognize or all agree.
I wish we could. I wish we could all agree that the spike
protein in and of itself has pathogenicity with it. I think
there's a lot of physicians in the United States who do not
recognize that emerging truth, that emerging scientific
explanation for so much of what we're seeing, whether you're
talking about post-vaccination syndromes in the first 30 days
or in the next 12 months. I think Peter McCullough has done a
wonderful job of speaking to that issue. This spike protein
that's being created by this quoted set of instructions that
isn't being degraded as quickly as we had been led to believe it
would be. This is causing horrendous problems because
whenever you have a molecule in excess in our bloodstream, our
bodies naturally tend to deposit it somewhere. We're not going
to let a given molecule alter our entirely our osmotic
pressure. We know that we make calculations on sodium,
potassium, and all of those things that go into our renal
function based on osmolality. We're not going to have spike
protein be able to circulate willy-nilly without limit. That
means if we're going to keep producing it, it's going to be
deposited in places and we're seeing that. It's unfortunate, I
think, that we have many physicians who have no idea that
the spike protein itself is pathogenic. Then when you
unleash your immune system to create antibodies to this
inundated force of spike protein, how in the world can we
not have major problems? I wish that we could get that message
out, but I'm afraid that people have literally shields around
their brain where they're not letting that thought even become
a possible consideration that the spike protein itself is the
problem. I shouldn't say is the problem, is a problem, because I
don't know that we know. I mean, like for me, when I had COVID,
I've had it twice. I have antibodies to both the spike
protein, but I also have antibodies to the nucleocapsid. I
don't know if we understand completely how this COVID-19
virus causes its manifestations. Certainly, the spike protein is
a big piece of it, but I think that the RNA of the COVID-19 virus
itself also probably has a few other tricks up its sleeve that
can cause inflammation, histamines release, spasticity of
the smooth muscles as well as the cardiac muscles, and
potentially it may even have its unique impacts on the electrical
purkinje system in the myocardium. I just don't think we know that
yet. Thank you. Next question. Thank you. Thanks, Theresa. Cordelia.
Yeah, hi. It's not so much a question, but a comment. A few
weeks ago, there was an article in the BMJ, a doctor, a pediatric
anesthetist, he was suspended for six months for using his wife's
travel pass on the London Underground. When I read that, I thought this is
something that should have been dealt with by the police or whatever.
You should have paid a fine or whatever punishment is appropriate,
but instead, the GMC gets involved and suspends him for six months. I
thought this is quite a harsh punishment considering it's nothing to
do with his medical performance, and in fact, all his colleagues supported
him. I think the GMC is on a mission to strike doctors off or suspend them
for very little. My theory is that this is to put the fear of God into
doctors so they just obey and comply. I don't know what your opinion is on
that, but I think the GMC, it's a lot easier for them now to suspend
doctors and strike them off for next to nothing. There has been quite a high
suicide rate of doctors being investigated and communication was really poor.
Let me jump in there. Your words are profound and the concern you express is huge.
I think one word in particular that you articulated really carries your message,
and that's comply. I think five years from now, when we look back on this,
we're going to see that so many of the efforts on the part of government,
public health, pharma, big tech, our licensing authorities, a lot of the efforts were focused
on compliance. The fact that 50 to 100 of us are having a conversation today,
arguably, we're not being compliant. We're actually speaking our minds. We're expressing
our mutual concerns. We're asking how we can address those concerns more effectively.
But compliance has been the absolute unspoken target of so much. When we look at social
distancing and we went from a meter to six feet in America, we were being told 32 feet.
It just doesn't stop. Compliance is something we're going to have to deal with. Going forward,
if public health can't help societies deal with public health crises without seeming to focus
on always wanting more control and compliance, public health will continue to be destined to
fail. Because while we may be at times too willing to behave like lemmings marching to the sea,
we are a different people across the globe today than we were three years ago. Absolutely.
Well, imagine a builder being caught on the tube train without a ticket or whatever.
He would still be able to work and just pay his fine. So it's just absurd that the GMC
gets involved with little things like that because it has absolutely nothing to do with
his performance at work. I just think it's a deliberate attempt to put the fear of God into
doctors to just- I've got five more minutes. Let's get to the other questions if we can. Thank you.
Thanks, Claudia. Chuck? Five more minutes, we're good.
Chuck? Okay, then I'll be very brief and I'm just going to read a couple of things. I'm from
Portland, Oregon, and I've posted in the chat an invitation to the doctors group to
help us to describe what a liberated medical system looks like. I'm with the Green Liberty
Caucus, Green Liberty Block. I'm about liberation. And so I'm going to ask Dr. Jensen to just give
us some highlights from his book on what the key reforms could look like. And that's really kind
of what I wanted to- and then I'll make a final observation that I am aware that doctors are not
asking patients who come in with weird symptoms if they've taken the vaccine or not. That is a
completely empty piece of diagnostic inquiry that docs are not doing. That is just a scandal
upon scandals and it's- we're in cognitive dissonance. I posted a link to Fran Schur's
essays from the A&E for Architects. So how do we liberate from big pharma?
Chuck? Okay, so some people have posted in the chat that they're having trouble purchasing the
book at drscottsjensenbook.com. I could also have you reach out to my office at Catalyst.
The phone number there is 952-955-1963. And they can send the book out as well. They'll just ask
you for your credit card. It's 20 bucks. But 952-955-1963. But I thought that we were able
to sell them at drscottsjensenbook.com. But the last sentence in this book says this, Chuck,
and this is to me the way back because you're absolutely right in terms of what you're saying.
But I said this and I have some 35 chapters leading up to this. We got to follow our conscience,
free from fear, coercion, and deceit. We need to realize the power of shared voices and know this.
Alone, there's so much we cannot do. But together, there is so little we cannot do.
We have got to stick together. We have got to, and I'm seeing it. We started this givesandgo.com
slash scottsjensen three days ago. And we're seeing more physicians and nurses quietly donate
anonymously because they're concerned just as you and I are, Chuck. I mean,
this is unconscionable what's happened. And I have nothing more to say. Next question.
Well, I appreciate that. Thank you.
Okay. Jim, then Alison and then Stephen, and we're done. Jim.
Thanks very much, Dr. Jensen. Great talk. And I've been texting with you a little bit about the
origins, the background of what may be happening, who's really in control of big tech, big pharma,
and big government. Recently, there have been some exposures saying Anthony Blinken,
before he was even Secretary of State in October of 2020, called the lying spies to say the Hunter
Biden laptop was a Russian disinformation, Chinese disinformation or whatever, when it was real.
And now he seems to be the only person who could subvert us from this UN takeover of our health
care system, as James Rogacy has outlined. Zeke Emanuel or these HHS.
Yeah, we got to keep things moving.
Oh, yeah. So what are your thoughts on that in terms of the background of the underlying
people behind big pharma, big tech and big government? Thanks.
Well, I think one of the things that COVID has done is it has sort of,
if you will, peeled away a layer of protection for these people. We've seen an awareness
about big pharma. A lot of people thought big pharma was over here and tech was over here and
government was over here. I think there's an awareness today that we didn't have three years
ago that no, there is a collusion. And big tech did everything it could to protect the Hunter Biden
thing. We saw that. We're all seeing a change in Twitter with Elon Musk being at the helm.
I mean, to go into depth, Jim, with what you're asking about would be a 24 hour conversation in
and of itself. But I think for me, the thing that gives me a little bit of hope is the fact that we
are waking up. And even if it doesn't feel like we're recruiting people to take a different
perspective, maybe we'd like to grow our movement faster. Sometimes we don't get to choose the pace.
We just have to do that, which we can do. And giving up and quitting is just not an option.
Next question. Okay. Alison.
Hello, Scott. Thanks very much for your words. I'm a family doctor or I was a family doctor,
a GP in New Zealand. I'm just wanting to know, you know, our doctors in New Zealand are being
harassed with the same sort of languaging that everyone around the world is getting.
And I'm just wondering what you think the role of the Federation of State Medical Boards
and the International Association of Medical Regulatory Authorities is,
you know, coordinating the attack on doctors that's worldwide.
I think we have to use this as a springboard with what's gone on over the last years, what's
gone on to doctors in New Zealand and Australia, across the globe, what's happened to me.
When I was in the Senate, I actually did try to put forth a piece of legislation that would
limit the amount of power these physician federation boards would have, because
they have no checks and balances. And if I don't have my family medicine board certification,
I have trouble getting on some of the networks to take care of patients because insurance
companies are required. I have trouble getting hospital privileges. So these specialty federations,
whether you're talking family practice, internal medicine, general surgery, anesthesiology,
they've got a tremendous amount of power. And so in the United States, we're talking about creating
more of a generalized collect, catch all kind of Federation where we can all get board certified
without the political residual. And it's called AAPS. If you haven't heard of that, you might just
AAPS, American Association of Physicians and Surgeons. But I think this is a huge issue.
And I think while it's not really being the issue that's being discussed today,
as much as we would like, I think this is going to grow. It's not going to be linear. It's not
going to be just like it's going to sort of percolate along, and then it's going to take off.
And people are going to say, you know what, we have allowed these specialty boards to compromise
the kind of healthcare patients get because what they're doing is they're limiting the physician
from doing what the physicians know in many situations is best for the patient. So I absolutely
share your concerns. I appreciate your articulating it. We have got to grow this issue because quite
frankly, I am not impressed with these individual fiefdoms that these specialty
organizations have put in place. Thank you. Thanks, Alison. Last question to Stephen
Frost. And then, then Scotty, you can go and thank you so much for your time. Stephen.
So Scott, it's not really a question that are you aware that, well, this is a question.
Are you aware of the Council of Europe reports into the investigation which they were forced
to conduct by a medical doctor in Germany who was also a politician at the time, Wolfgang Wodarg,
into the 2009, and the Council of Europe have got this in a report on the internet,
swine flu pandemic fraud. Are you aware of that? And would you be put in touch with Wolfgang Wodarg,
the brilliant German doctor who is responsible for forcing that investigation? And the report
is sitting there. Nobody's noticed it. I'm just astonished. Yeah, I'm not aware of it, sir. Thank
you. And I'm going to pass on that one. I've got enough issues on my plate right now. But I mean,
I know that there are these issues all over the country. But I have one of my obligations is
my focus. So the last question, are you aware that some of my figures for the deaths from
injections short term are approximately 20 million as far as one can sell. And those figures are
based on the figures from theirs, from eudravigilance in the EU, and from the MHRA
in the UK with a combined population of 850 million. I think that's right. So a tenth of
the world's population and 20 million deaths, I estimate. And I actually published an article
in July 2021. And I drew attention to this and it was called Jacuz. And nobody noticed because
there was so deeply I would very much appreciate I can share the paper, not paper article with you.
It's based on official government. I've got to run I'm losing my battery on my iPad.
You've got my email. And Stephen and everybody. Honestly, Esther 414.
We're in the positions and we might not have anticipated it. But here we are. And it's for
such a time as this. And then we jump straight to Hebrews 414. We got to hold fast to the beliefs
we profess because I'm convinced that every one of the people on this call today, our focus is our
patience. Thank you. Sure. Thank you very much for coming to speak to us. Thank you. Thank you, Scott.