So welcome to today's meeting of Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International.
We've been going for almost five years.
This group was founded by Stephen Frost, a British trained medical doctor.
At this time, we remember two lawyers unlawfully incarcerated, one in Netherlands, one in German,
Arno van Kessel and Rainer Fullmich.
And we demand the release of both of those lawyers who have been fighting for truth,
ethics, justice and freedom.
We also mentioned Buttonheart Bear from the Forever Freedom movement so that we free children
from being trafficked for sex or slavery.
Trafficking of children is a multi-million human being evil endeavor.
I'm Charles Govess, your moderator.
I'm a passion expert, hence my red passion jacket.
This group is a blend of professions from all around the world united in pursuit of
truth.
And our mantra is medical truth now.
We want medical truth now.
And two books that have helped to shine a light on medical truth now, including the
fact that Bobby Kennedy is the secretary of Health and Human Services, is Aaron Ceres'
book Vaccines, Amen, and a more recent book, Forbidden Facts, by Gavin De Becker.
Both of these books, in my view, have put pressure on the CDC to change its website
to now confirm that there's no evidence for the CDC's long-held position, that there's
link between vaccines, children's vaccines, and autism.
That fraudulent statement that was put on the CDC website, the Center for Disease Control
in the USA, has been withdrawn after 30 years of fraud because there's no evidence supporting
the proposition that vaccines do not cause autism.
Many in this group once viewed vaccines as safe.
Now many know the truth that no vaccine has ever been properly tested for safety and efficacy,
as confirmed by Dr. Stanley Plotkin, who was deposed by lawyer Aaron Ceres, as he explains
in his book Vaccines, Amen.
We're in the thick of a global struggle.
We call it World War III.
We're five and a half years into this war.
I said it would be a seven-year war five years ago, and we've got at least two years to go,
and we have to fight and keep fighting.
So stay fit, stay healthy.
Do what you can to look after your magnificent, amazing, unique body.
No one's got your body.
Science we know is never done.
Anyone who tells you the science is settled is talking crap.
The science is never settled.
We'll hear from our guest presenter today, Dr. Liz Evans, for as long as Liz wishes to
speak, followed by Q&A.
And Liz has a hard stop at the one hour, 55 minute mark.
So we know that that's the case, Liz, that will happen.
Per tradition, Stephen Frost, as the founder of the group, opens the questioning for the
first 15 minutes.
This is a free speech haven.
Free speech is the key element in the preservation of your freedoms.
The communist playbook, which is being emulated by many Western governments, is to suppress
free speech in the name of protecting people's feelings.
And if you're offended, be offended.
If someone says to you they're offended by anything that you said, what you should say
to them is, well, I'm offended that you dare to say that you're offended.
Now we're both offended.
What do you think we should do?
Do not fall into the trap of apologizing because somebody is offended.
We choose love over fear.
Fear suppresses you, depresses you, minimizes you, love expands you, inspires you, helps
you grow.
These twice weekly gatherings are far from mere talk.
They have birthed real world actions and alliances.
So we're thrilled to welcome our presenter today, Dr. Liz Evans.
And let me tell you a bit about her.
She is from the UK and she's got a wonderful list of letters after her name, as you will
see in the show notes.
She's a lifelong Christian wife and mother of four children.
Liz, by the way, I've got five children.
So between us, we've got nine aged 16 to 23 years and one dog and her husband's currently
traveling around in Australia, which is where I am.
She's got degrees in medical sciences and physiology, MA from Gonville and Caius College,
Cambridge University, clinical medicine at Imperial College in London.
Not a very good name in this place, Liz, with Neil Ferguson coming from Imperial College.
She's a former National Health Service doctor, practiced as a doctor for a few years as a
general practitioner registrar and SHO level, then deregistered, got out of the clutches
of the medical system and moved into complementary medicine.
She's the co-founder and CEO of the UK Medical Freedom Alliance set up in October 2020.
That's a group of health care professionals, scientists and lawyers campaigning for an
individual's right to informed consent, bodily autonomy and medical choice to be upheld in
all circumstances.
United Kingdom Medical Freedom Alliance is the leading UK voice on medical ethics and
they've written over 70 open letters to policy and decision makers, regulators, government,
as well as running campaigns such as Time to Pause, Children's COVID Vaccines, Stop
the Who, NHS Back to Normal on COVID restrictions.
And for the record, I'm also chairman of the Alliance Council of Australia, which represents
over one and a half million Australians that is also working for very similar goals.
The Medical Freedom Alliance also provides resources for the public to educate and empower
them to challenge unethical medical policies and practices.
Liz, if you could put the website, which is UKmedfreedom.org, it'll be in the description
and the show notes as well, everybody.
Liz was a witness at the People's Vaccine Inquiry and she's a front facing member of
HART since its inception in early 2021.
She's a member of Children's COVID Vaccine Advisory Council led by Dr.
Ross Jones.
That council has written numerous letters since May 2021 to senior politicians raising
serious concerns about administration of COVID vaccines to healthy children.
Liz Evans has been on the Children's Health Advisory, Children's Health Defence of Europe
and Advisory Board since March 2021.
It's a wonderful contribution you've made to truth, ethics, justice, law and health.
Liz, thank you for joining us and thank you, Stephen Frost, for creating this group.
Over to you, Liz.
Thank you very much, Charles.
And I'm just hoping that I can make that tech work again.
So just bear with me and I'll get my slides up.
Yes, it's working.
I can see it coming.
Get excited.
That's it.
Very excited.
First slide.
We're going.
Super.
Thanks so much.
Good evening, everyone.
It's great to see so many people on this cold evening in England, but I'm sure it's not
the same elsewhere.
For the next hour or so, I'm going to present multiple ways that medical ethics are currently
being undermined and demolished.
And what can we do about it?
It's mainly UK focus, but I think I know we have an international audience here, so I'm
sure you will have similar issues in your own countries, which we can discuss in the
Q&A session after the presentation.
This is a massive topic.
There's lots to cover.
So just fasten your seat belts and we're going to dive right in.
So I'm going to start by summarizing what medical ethics are and why they are so important
in a civilized society.
They're grounded in a Christian understanding of humanity, that each person is a unique being
of infinite value to be treated with dignity, that we are born with certain God-given rights,
which are not granted by governments.
Medical ethics enshrine into law and professional codes of practice the doctor's duty to treat
every patient with autonomy and dignity, to seek to do good and to do no harm.
The ethical practice of medicine uses a patient-centered model where the doctor must act in the
best interest of their patient.
Informed consent must be obtained for all treatment after a full explanation of risks
and benefits and with no coercion.
Privacy and confidentiality are vital.
Now, all medical interventions carry a risk of harm, so there is a duty for the doctor
to act with care and proportionality.
And the ethical codes hold healthcare professionals accountable and protect vulnerable patients
from abuse.
Crucially, these codes cannot just be discarded in an emergency.
This is when they are most needed to protect individuals against panicky state decisions.
So it's been a busy five years since I co-founded the UK Medical Freedom Alliance in October 2020
to challenge initially unethical Covid policies.
And I'm sure you remember during the Covid era, government policies robbed people of their most
basic rights in the name of public safety.
Ethical and moral norms were violated, causing tremendous damage to our society and setting a
dangerous precedent.
Many of us have woken up to the attack on medical ethics over the last five years.
During the Covid era, the government has been trying to make sure that people who are not
ethical have the right to access basic moral ethics over the last five years.
During the Covid era, the government failed to uphold basic morality.
Policies violated fundamental ethical principles.
And these policies were enacted by healthcare professionals who abandoned their ethical codes.
The unethical was normalised with mandated medical interventions such as face masks, PCR tests and even Covid jabs.
We saw novel gene therapies recklessly rolled out to billions of people with no long-term safety data,
using coercion and lies and claiming that these products were safe and effective even for pregnant women and children.
Hospital patients and care home residents were denied visitors for months on end.
Dangerous one-size-fits-all protocols were used, both to treat Covid and to deny treatment to others
through blanket do not resuscitate orders and barbaric end-of-life protocols.
We saw children's needs sacrificed for adults, the elderly and sick were left to suffer and die alone.
And people lost jobs and livelihoods pushed into poverty for refusing to take a state-mandated injection.
The UK and Scottish Covid inquiries have heard harrowing testimony from relatives and care home managers
who presented compelling evidence of abuses and atrocities that went on behind closed doors
as care homes and hospitals banned visitors for months and even years, removing vital scrutiny and accountability.
We heard stories of appalling harm and even death.
Blanket do not resuscitate orders were implemented at the beginning of lockdown on all residents,
regardless of age or underlying health, and often without the knowledge or consent of the resident or family.
This was unprecedented and profoundly unethical, a one-size-fits-all approach,
denying the humanity and dignity of the individual.
These residents were often denied GP visits or transfer to hospitals when sick.
Instead, Covid-positive patients were put on NG163 end-of-life protocols, often without even seeing a doctor.
Food and fluids were withdrawn, starving and dehydrating patients,
and powerful sedatives and respiratory depressants like midazolamamorphine were given, hastening death, effectively euthanised.
What happened in care homes was described in the inquiries as a generational slaughter
and it appears that a large proportion of deaths in care homes were not from Covid as claimed at the time,
but were caused by the abuse of end-of-life drugs and protocols.
Discrimination and denial of medical care was also experienced by people with disabilities, including learning disabilities.
Many were told they would not be resuscitated if taken ill with Covid.
These protocols and practices echo something called the Liverpool Care Pathway,
which was abolished in the UK in 2013 following an independent review
showing that hospitals were using this end-of-life pathway to hasten the death of vulnerable patients without their knowledge or consent,
starved and dehydrated to death with the help of strong sedatives and opiates.
What happened during Covid shows that this abhorrent practice has continued
and a toxic and dangerous culture around end-of-life care putting vulnerable patients at risk.
So post-Covid there's evidence of an ongoing and concerted effort from the powers that be
to completely eradicate traditional medical ethics.
We're seeing a controlled demolition by government policies and global agendas
of fundamental principles that have underpinned medical practice for millennia.
This slide lists some of the multiple threats to our medical freedom, bodily autonomy and the doctor-patient relationship.
We see the Hippocratic oath to first do no harm under attack from bills seeking to introduce assisted suicide
and to decriminalise abortion up to birth and by the ongoing abuse of end-of-life protocols
and do not resuscitate orders, undermining the sanctity of life.
The doctor-patient relationship is being undermined by one size fits all approach
through centrally driven protocols which steer doctors into prescribing often expensive drugs
and medicating the healthy with so-called preventative drugs.
Ethical doctors are vital to protect the public from greedy corporate interests
by putting their patients' interests and needs first, yet they are being systematically targeted and silenced.
The privacy and confidentiality of your healthcare data and medical records is no longer a given
as NHS health records are shared with outside agencies and private corporations
used to make money and target interventions.
The public are being corralled onto the NHS app which will likely be tied in with the proposed digital ID.
Then the concept of bodily autonomy that you alone have ownership and control over your body
has been undermined by a recent change to the UK law on organ donation
requiring you to actively opt out before you die to avoid forced donation against your family's wishes.
This is just one of several serious concerns around organ donation.
Then informed consent is being ignored as public health measures like water fluoridation and folic acid in flour
are imposed on the public, violating their right to refuse medical treatment.
In schools we see children fed pharmaceutical propaganda without parental oversight or consent
and undergoing public health interventions such as weighing and vaccination without parents present.
And despite the recent CAS report outlawing the use of puberty blockers and hormonal treatment for gender questioning children,
they have left a loophole which will allow these horrific sterilising drugs to be used in clinical trials on children as young as eight.
So in the UK we're currently facing the spectre of abortion up to birth and assisted dying,
threatening the sanctity of life and violating the Hippocratic oath that doctors must first do no harm.
In the middle of a beautiful June sunny week this year,
we saw one of the darkest weeks in politics for a generation with two key life or death votes.
A week in which MPs voted to radically change laws that protect our most vulnerable in society,
babies in the womb and the dying at the end of their lives.
Voting first to legalise the killing of unborn babies by their mothers by decriminalising abortion
and then voting to enable doctors to assist the terminally ill to kill themselves by supplying them with lethal drugs to take their own lives.
Both bills are now in the House of Lords for further scrutiny before becoming law.
So firstly looking at the horrific prospect of abortion up to birth.
On Tuesday 17 June MPs voted to decriminalise abortion for pregnant women
through a crafty last minute amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill.
After less than an hour of debate in the House of Commons,
MPs voted overwhelmingly to pass the Antoniazzi NC1 amendment,
decriminalising women who perform their own abortions for any reason and at any point up to and during birth.
This has not changed the Abortion Act, so doctors are still prohibited from terminating a pregnancy after 24 weeks,
except in certain exceptional circumstances.
After 24 weeks it is mothers who will now be allowed to abort their babies without medical supervision or help.
If this bill becomes law, backstreet abortions will effectively return to the UK, this time in a woman's home.
And Covid brought in easy access to abortion pills by post with no in-person consultation required and no proof of gestational age.
So the new amendment creates a serious risk of women procuring the pills under false pretenses to use late in pregnancy,
resulting not only in the destruction of viable babies but putting the mother in grave danger.
It's criminal that such a massive change in abortion law was brought about in such a casual way via a last minute amendment to an unrelated bill.
It sent a clear message to society that an unborn baby's life is not worthy of protection.
Botched self-administered abortions will inevitably lead to demands for women to be allowed proper medical care with doctor assisted abortions up to birth.
And our only hope at this point is that the amendment will be thrown out by the House of Lords.
There they had their second reading on the 16th of October and many peers made powerful speeches against Amendment 191.
It has since been announced that Baroness Monkton is leading a group of peers seeking to overturn it.
And another group of peers is seeking to reinstate in-person consultations to procure early abortion pills.
So we're hoping and praying that common sense will prevail and this diabolical plan will be thwarted.
In the meantime, tragically, Scotland have joined the quest for abortion up to birth.
A review of abortion law in Scotland was recently published recommending that Scotland scrap the 24 week abortion time limit,
allowing abortions for social reasons, including sex selective abortions right up to birth.
These proposals would leave Scotland with one of the most extreme abortion laws in the world.
And MSPs, the MPs in Scotland, have been inundated with letters of outraged opposition to these evil proposals
as the Scottish government begins a process of engagement with a range of stakeholders.
And back to June this year, three days after the abortion amendment was passed,
MPs passed the final vote on Kim Ledbetter's Termally Ill Adults End of Life Bill to allow assisted dying.
Now assisted dying is actually state assisted suicide, requiring the patient to end their own life
using lethal drugs or devices provided by their doctor.
As the bill stands, the doctor cannot assist if things go wrong.
Death is not guaranteed to be either quick or painless.
This bill would cross an ethical Rubicon.
Never in the UK have doctors been allowed to participate in deliberately ending life.
It would radically and permanently change the doctor patient relationship,
abolishing the requirement that doctors first do no harm and removing the sanctity of life
by accepting that some lives have less value and can therefore be terminated.
No longer could an individual assume that the state or their doctor will act in his or her best interests.
As death would be recognised as a legitimate treatment for suffering.
Now it's far cheaper to end someone's life than to prolong it with high quality palliative care.
So could this explain the pressure on this bill to be passed?
It's not hard to imagine the state putting psychological pressure on people to opt for assisted dying rather than long term care,
because they have become a burden on society.
This utilitarian scenario is already playing out in countries like Canada, the Netherlands and New Zealand,
where assisted dying has been legal for a while.
Assisted dying is not the answer to suffering in a broken health care system that can't cope with existing demands.
The solution to suffering at the end of life is more investment in high quality palliative care.
And there's a similar more extreme MacArthur bill going through the Scottish Parliament,
seeking to allow assisted suicide for anyone over 16 years who is terminally ill.
And a couple of weeks ago, the Health Committee there rejected many amendments that would have mitigated the worst aspects of the bill,
including those that would restrict eligibility to six months prognosis or less,
that would exclude a medical practitioner from initiating the discussion or encouraging the choice,
amendments to protect those with Down syndrome and anorexia,
and even rejecting an amendment to ensure palliative care plans are in place.
However, there is some cause for hope again that England's Lead Better bill will not become law,
as in the House of Lords there has been strong opposition to the bill by peers
who do have the constitutional power and authority to reject or block the bill,
as it's a private member's bill and not a government bill.
We saw 200 peers signing up to speak in the second reading debates in September,
and two thirds of them spoke against the bill,
making powerful practical, legal, ethical, philosophical and religious arguments.
Many pointed out, as we did, that the bill is poorly drafted with gaping holes and dangerous delegated powers.
So even if you were to support assisted dying in theory, this is not a safe bill to bring it in with.
And our former Prime Minister, Baroness May, gave a passionate speech against assisted suicide, branding it a license to kill.
She argued that people would feel pressure to end their lives
and that it sends the message that some lives are worth less than others.
She said, suicide is not OK, suicide is wrong, this bill is wrong and in my opinion it should not pass. Amen.
Following the debates, a dedicated select committee was set up to further scrutinise the bill,
which ended on the 7th of November,
and in that leading doctors, psychiatrists, social workers, disability advocates and lawyers
testified that the bill is dangerous and unworkable,
and even representatives of several of the royal colleges who are officially neutral on assisted suicide
highlighted major gaps in safeguarding and oversight.
Disturbingly, several proponents of assisted suicide, including our wonderful Chief Medical Officer, Sir Chris Witte,
argued that families who tried to dissuade loved ones from seeking assisted suicide would be guilty of coercion.
So the bill has now moved before the Committee of the Whole House
and nearly 1,000 amendments have been tabled by peers, which is absolutely off the scale,
making it likely to be a long process of debate.
So this positive development and the strong opposition in the House of Lords
leaves us really hopeful that the bill will either be voted down
or will fail to complete the remaining stages before the end of this parliamentary session,
which would mean the bill would fall.
So another area with questionable ethics is organ donation.
Now, The Telegraph recently ran this article bemoaning a shortage of organ donations
due to the increase in deaths at home since Covid.
Now, I wonder why that could be.
I'm not sure that what I'm about to say will help alleviate that situation
because I've uncovered serious ethical and safety issues the public must be aware of.
The first is the recent change in the way in which the public is being treated.
The first is the recent change to the law on organ donation in the UK.
So previously here, you opted in by carrying an organ donor card
or your relatives were asked in the case of a sudden death or accident.
The choice was yours and your relatives alone.
The new law requires you to actively opt out on the NHS organ donation register
to avoid forced donation against your family's wishes.
If you fail to opt out before you die, you are considered to have consented to donating your organs.
This fundamentally changes how your body is viewed when you die,
effectively making the state the owner of your body after your death.
This drastic change to the law has not been well publicised.
Many people are unaware of it or what they need to do to opt out.
This slide shows a couple of NHS adverts which were to alert the public, which I certainly hadn't seen.
To complicate the issue, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have different legislation
using different terms that all mean the same thing.
Wales was the first to bring in what they called deemed consent in December 2015.
Then in May 2020, England brought in an opt-out system for everyone over 18 years with capacity.
In March 2021, Scotland brought in deemed authorisation for everyone over 16 years.
And then in June 2023, Northern Ireland brought in the Organ and Tissue Donation Deemed Consent Act for over 18s.
And some of these laws are emotively named after children.
England has Max and Keira's law named after 9-year-old Max Johnson who needed a heart transplant
and campaigned for an opt-in system, sorry, opt-out system, and his donor 9-year-old Keira Bell.
And Northern Ireland has Dahi's law in honour of a little boy on the heart transplant waiting list since 2018.
So the main reasons given for changing the law are firstly the shortage of organs for donation
and secondly to allow more people to save more lives.
And the NHS cite that in England in 2018, 411 people died on the organ transplant waiting list
while around a thousand families refused organ donation.
So they argue that the law changes make decisions easier for grieving families.
In other words, there will be no decision to make.
And in a potential donor case, the specialist nurse speaks to the family who have a soft-out opt-out option
if no decision has been registered.
But if you have given consent, your family will be, quote,
encouraged to agree with your decision and crucially will have no legal right to override your decision.
Now, I'm hoping that we'll be able to hear this clip and the sound will work.
I have a clip here from an NHS training video showing a role-played situation
where the relatives of the dying patient have never heard of the change in the law.
They'd never discussed organ transplantation and they are shocked that the law assumes he has consented.
They appear reluctant in the first part of the video,
but this chilling minute at the end shows the nurse explaining how this works.
Now, let me know if you can't hear it. We'll skip on.
We can hear it, Liz.
I always think about it as making a decision, because like I said before,
the way the law works now is to try and take the pressure off families that find themselves in this position on this, obviously, the saddest day.
So what we'll be asking for is your support in helping us fill up the Comodoma.
I don't know. It sounds like a good thing.
I just think he's been through it already, you know.
It does sound like a good idea.
Yeah, of course. I need some time to think about it and then come back and answer your questions or concerns and we'll go.
OK.
So that was quite chilling.
And I would encourage everyone in the UK to record your decision on the NHS organ donor register
and ensure your family know about your decision and that any children over the age of 18 or 16 in Scotland have done the same.
And even if you are happy to donate, it's worth considering whether to opt out anyway.
So your family can make that decision within the context they find themselves in at the time, rather than the state making the final decision.
And this slide is just a brief aside on the topic of opting out a slide increasingly used in health policies.
Nanny NHS seems to think it knows best and consent is becoming an optional extra.
So here we see the latest opt out scheme devised by the NHS, this time regarding routine testing of A&E patients for HIV and hepatitis.
Now, it's unclear whether the revolutionary nature of this opt out testing, as Amanda Pritchard describes it in the quote on the slide, is the lack of informed consent.
The presumption that they can test whatever they want unless you've proactively opted out completely violates informed consent.
But back to organ donation.
Several commentators have recently raised serious disturbing concerns that organs may be being harvested from people who are not actually dead.
That brain death is not fully dead, certainly not in the way that is commonly understood in an irreversible and permanent state where life cannot be restored.
So death used to be defined as the irreversible and permanent cessation of heartbeat and circulation.
In other words, true biological death.
But this precluded much organ donation as without a working circulation, organs, especially the heart and lungs, degrade quickly.
The dead donor rule required that you were fully dead before organs were harvested.
Then in 1967, the world's first heart transplant was carried out by Christian Barnard using a donor with a severe brain injury.
At that time, the definition of death was whole body death.
So the doctor would have been expected to turn off the ventilator and wait for the heart to stop naturally before harvesting any organs.
I was shocked and appalled to discover that decades later, it was revealed that Christian Barnard had stopped the donor's heart himself by injecting potassium chloride,
killing the patient and enabling him to immediately harvest a healthy heart legally from a fully dead body.
Having not disclosed this criminal act, Barnard became an international sensation and playboy and even featured on the front of Time magazine.
So the following year in 1968, the Harvard committee redefined death to include neurological criteria with a new diagnosis of brain death defined as an irreversible coma with no respiratory function.
And they justified this expansion of the definition of death on utilitarian grounds.
Firstly, they wanted to reduce the burden on the patient, family, hospital and society from comatose patients.
But secondly, to facilitate organ harvesting from patients who didn't meet the dead donor rule because they still had a working circulation and biological functions.
This change in the definition allowed healthy organs to be procured more easily.
Now, in the UK, we have no statutory definition of death, but it's defined by the British Transplantation Society as the permanent loss of the capacity for consciousness and loss of all brain stem functions,
which can result from either the permanent cessation of circulation or from catastrophic brain injury leading to so-called brain death.
It doesn't need to be both. In donation after circulatory death, that requires only five minutes of continuous cardiorespiratory arrest to fulfill the dead donor rule.
But a person is unlikely to be fully brain dead after such a short time, so it's questionable whether that situation is irreversible.
And many people have been successfully resuscitated after cardiac arrest for far longer than five minutes.
And many argue that this constitutes a physician assisted death, violating both criminal law and the Hippocratic oath.
And in the summer of 2025, Kate Shimurani, the nursing ethics campaigner, began to raise the alarm that the organ donation protocols in the UK are unethical and dangerous,
as they are based on a legal fiction that brain stem death equals death.
She argues that neither the scientific literature nor clinical practice supports the claim that brain death is equivalent to death
and that there are many recorded cases of recovery and what was considered an irreversible situation.
She also points out that brain dead individuals maintain heartbeat, circulation, hormonal function and can even gestate fetuses.
And these NHS guidelines for retrieving organs from brain dead donors admit that spinal movements, which can appear, quote, purposeful, are reported in as many as 50% of brain stem dead patients.
The guidelines reassure doctors that this does not invalidate the diagnosis of death, but disturbingly, they are encouraged to give muscle relaxants to patients prior to organ retrieval.
And this paper even details the role of an anesthetist to provide sedation and analgesia to the donor during organ harvesting, stating,
So all very worrying, and if you want to investigate this further, Kate has published several excellent articles on her substack and Facebook page, which are well worth a read.
And then in the US in July this year, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s HHS announced that a four-year period of surgery is required to remove the organ from the brain.
And then in the US in July this year, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s HHS announced that a four-year federal investigation had discovered and uncovered serious ethical and safety violations in harvesting of organs there.
That hospitals had allowed the organ procurement process to begin when patients showed signs of life.
Senator, Secretary Kennedy said the entire system must be fixed to ensure that every potential donor's life is treated with the sanctity it deserves.
And he recently announced an agenda to reform the US organ transplant system.
So the federal investigation was triggered by the appalling case of Anthony T.J. Hoover, a man in his 30s who was admitted to hospital with a drug overdose.
After two days of being unresponsive and being declared brain dead, his family agreed to remove life support so he could have his organs harvested.
But as the procedure began, T.J. woke up and started thrashing around on the bed and visibly crying.
Staff members began to protest, but it was only when the procuring surgeon finally refused to participate that the procedure was stopped and Hoover survived, although with brain damage.
Subsequent investigations into Network for Hope, the organ procurement service, revealed 351 instances where donation was authorized but not completed.
And of these 73 had neurological signs incompatible with organ donations, i.e. were not even brain dead.
And of course, in the US, there were also significant financial incentives to maximize organ and tissue harvesting.
And the report described organ harvest teams as predatory, pressuring medical staff and families to expedite the procedure.
And shockingly, organs are even being harvested from euthanized patients in assisted dying programs in places like the Netherlands, Canada and Spain.
For example, in Quebec, in this paper, organ donation after made increased from 4.9 percent of deaths in 2018 to 14 percent in 2022.
And this paper on liver donation from made patients quotes Dr. James Shapiro saying that he hopes his study will allow a better understanding of the potential role of organ donation following made and how impactful it can be for saving lives of people in their final act of generosity.
And predictably, this has led to calls for similar practices in the UK should this assisted dying bill be passed, such as this 2025 BMJ editorial stating it would increase the availability of life saving organs.
And this former New Zealand MP spoke at the recent assisted dying bill select committee hearing in the House of Lords warning of the slippery slope that is being made in the UK.
And from the recipient's perspective, there are reports in the UK and elsewhere of coercion to have a myriad of vaccines to qualify for an organ, which completely violates medical ethics and is unscientific.
Now, this policy was successfully passed in the last two years, and it is now being used in the UK and elsewhere.
House Bill 4076 explicitly prohibits Texan hospitals from denying organ transplants based solely on a patient's vaccination status.
So in conclusion, while organ donation is a good idea, it is also a good idea to have a vaccine that is based solely on a patient's vaccination status.
So in conclusion, while organ donation is sold to the public as an altruistic life saving act, the reality is far darker with donors dehumanized to the status of spare parts, which is sometimes removed before death is complete, where organs are reviewed, are viewed as commodities to trade.
And with recipients held to ransom and coerced to take vaccines they may not wish to have.
So it's really worth considering whether you want to be to let your organs go after you die.
So just moving away from individual policies to the bigger picture, we have a lot of people who are not aware of the fact that organ donation is a form of
So just moving away from individual policies to the bigger picture, I'm sure you've noticed that our health care system is morphing before our eyes and not in a good way.
I wonder if you remember a time when you had a family doctor who knew your medical history and circumstances, who did home visits when you were poorly,
when GP receptionists were friendly and helpful, when you could get an in-person appointment within a day or two or an urgent one on the day,
when your doctor had time to talk to you in 15 or 20 minute consultations, when the prescription pad was not the first course of action,
when the doctor patient relationship was privileged and privacy and confidentiality were given.
This was a time when very few people were taking numerous drugs, when we only had a handful of vaccines during our childhood and none as an adult.
Compare this to today. Health care is now big business.
Pharma has hijacked health care systems to create a supremely wealthy and powerful global medical industrial complex,
pushing pharmaceutical products as the solution to and prevention for every ill.
True family doctors practicing patient-centred medicine are few and far between.
Most practices operate with no-name GP for each patient.
Patients are kept at arm's length from doctors with receptionists acting as fierce gatekeepers,
requiring patients to disclose medical symptoms and other highly personal information to even be granted an appointment.
Digital health care is heavily pushed with a high proportion of consultations done online or over the phone.
The short 5 to 10 minute consultations mean that doctors far too often reach for protocols and prescribe a drug, so polypharmacy is common.
In the UK, the NHS app has been widely adopted, sold to patients as convenient and efficient.
On this app, you can book and manage GP and hospital appointments, order repeat prescriptions, register your organ donation decision,
access 111 for health advice and view your GP records.
However, a recent survey revealed 63% of the public are unaware that their health records and data are no longer confidential.
As part of public-private partnerships, they can be anonymised and shared with outside organisations,
including drug companies, for your good of course, unless you have actively opted out.
The NHS are even allowed to sell your data to the private sector for public benefit, as long as it's not for profit.
They say the data is usually anonymised, but that personally identifiable patient data can be used if there is a clear health benefit, but that's according to who.
And I was shocked to see this GP practice message recently effectively forcing their patients onto the NHS app
by withdrawing any other form of communication regarding important updates, and I suspect that this will become common practice.
The NHS budget is currently over £200 billion a year, making it a valuable pot of potential revenue for pharma.
They have successfully captured journals, academic institutions and regulators.
Alongside government lobbying, this allows them to get new drugs approved quickly and to influence the top-down protocols used by doctors to treat patients,
ensuring that their products are rolled out to as many people as possible.
This hijacking of our healthcare system and budget by pharma requires the erosion of medical ethics.
Their products are usually rolled out to the masses on one-size-fits-all protocols, removing decision-making from individual doctors for individual patients.
This de-professionalises doctors and exploits patients for profit.
Now when Jesus said that healthy people don't need a doctor, but only the sick, he was speaking metaphorically about sin.
But his words were a truism that would have been understood at the time, until very recently most pharmaceutical products treated sick people,
apart from a small number of vaccines given to babies and children.
Over the last couple of decades, however, pharma have shifted their focus to the far bigger market of the healthy,
developing and marketing preventative drugs and vaccines to be taken into the market.
They are now taking and marketing preventative drugs and vaccines to be taken repeatedly by healthy people,
on the promise of preventing an illness that you may never have got in the first place.
Statins, weight loss jabs and mRNA vaccines are a few examples.
A highly lucrative business model serving the bottom line of pharma, not public health.
And this has resulted in public acceptance of taking preventative drugs such as statins for life.
Products that promise better health and longer life, and claiming to reduce the risk of serious and common diseases that people fear most,
like heart disease, cancer and dementia.
There's also been an explosion in the number of vaccines offered to both children and adults,
claiming to prevent a myriad of often benign infectious diseases.
Hundreds more are being developed on the dangerous mRNA genetic platform.
And the biggest winners in this scenario are big pharma, with a guaranteed long term income stream with every new vaccine or drug added to the schedule.
Take statins as an example, recent NICE data suggests that seven to eight million UK adults currently take statins, costing the NHS a hundred million a year.
More are being targeted as the prescribing criteria gets wider, well beyond those with active cardiovascular disease and high cholesterol.
And then in January 2023, NICE published draft guidance recommended that even people at low under 10% risk of cardiovascular disease could also be offered statins,
which would make around 25 million UK citizens, that's out of 70 million, eligible to take these drugs long term.
Now, I'm sure you know that the scientific rationale for statins is highly contested.
The idea that lowering your cholesterol will reduce your risk of heart disease or improve your health and longevity is a paradigm which has created one of the most lucrative drugs for pharma.
Yet numerous published studies and books challenge this paradigm, including books by doctors such as Malcolm Kendrick and Nassim Al Hotra,
which interrogate the questionable science of lowering cholesterol, expose the serious risks and unpleasant side effects from statins and give natural alternatives.
And then moving on to weight loss drugs, which were originally developed to treat type 2 diabetes, but are increasingly being used to treat obesity.
But there are also wild claims that these miracles of science can prevent all manner of diseases.
These headlines show some of the outlandish claims for the healing powers of ozempic, monjuro and the like.
Claims that the jabs would halve the risk of cancer, treat depression, effortlessly reduce alcohol intake and even make healthy, slim people live longer.
A fountain of youth.
Not mentioned is the appalling side effect profile listed on this slide.
Serious life changing and even life ending conditions.
And every media report also failed to mention the ongoing class action ozempic lawsuit in the US against Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly.
Currently over 1800 claimants who have been permanently damaged by these dangerous drugs.
Some are suing the drug companies after developing blood clots that cause blindness.
Others developed gastroparesis or paralysis of the stomach, which may be irreversible even after stopping the jabs.
It is a physically and psychologically devastating condition.
Victims are left with constant nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, reflux, bloating, severe dehydration, nutritional deficiencies, blood sugar instability, severe weight loss and a poor quality of life.
There is no known cure.
And predictably the media hype preceded calls for a mass rollout of the drugs, including from the NHS medical director, Professor Stephen Powis, who called for a mass rollout like statins in June this year.
And the rollout has already begun, costing the NHS around £3,000 per patient per year.
With 3.4 million people currently eligible, this will be a huge cost to the NHS.
And an eye-watering 2.5 million UK citizens are estimated to already be taking them, mainly through private prescriptions.
So these are sold as a quick fix for a complex problem, creating a generation of people who will need regular injections for life just to maintain a normal weight.
Boosting the coffers of Big Pharma with a steady stream of taxpayers' money, but doing nothing to improve public health.
Are we sleepwalking into another public health disaster?
We're rolling out novel drugs with no long-term safety data to millions of people without proper informed consent.
We're overplaying benefits, underplaying risks and failing to address more natural solutions for obesity, such as dietary and lifestyle modifications.
Does this sound familiar? Safe and effective?
Now, children and babies have long been the mainstay of a highly lucrative and rapidly expanding vaccine industry.
Children in the UK are now routinely given tens of vaccines before they are 18, with more vaccines being added regularly to the extensive childhood schedule on this slide.
And it's worth noting that 50 years ago, children had far fewer vaccines and far less chronic disease.
And Big Pharma is gunning for children and babies in other ways, targeting this lucrative cohort with lifelong medication to prevent diseases they claim they are at risk of.
In June this year, our Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, made a chilling announcement that the NHS will map every newborn baby's DNA to,
to, quote, predict and prevent disease as part of what he called a revolution in health care to transform the NHS from a service that diagnoses and treats disease to one that predicts and prevents it.
Within a decade, the NHS plans to sequence the genome of every newborn to assess their risk of hundreds of diseases to give them then personalized health care, i.e. long-term expensive drugs.
This is a predatory move by Pharma enabled by the NHS to get customers for life and dressed up as putting the fluffy sounding personalized medicine at the heart of care.
So cost aside, which would be astronomical, imagine the emotional and spiritual impact of such a policy.
Words of death and disease being spoken over a beautiful, healthy newborn baby, putting anxiety and grief into the hearts of their parents at what should be the most joyful time of celebration.
Filling them with fears of cancer, dementia and other horrific diseases in their baby's future.
From modern day fortune tellers, tempting them with a panacea that will keep their child safe.
This is a very dark and evil agenda.
And Pharma's grip on our health care system is tightening, enabling ever more taxpayers money to flow into their coffers as more and more people, healthy people are put onto preventative drugs for life.
The UK is aggressively pushing this agenda with restreeting also promising personalized health MOTs to be offered to everyone approaching retirement.
So get the babies and get the old people, including genomic screening and AI interpretation.
And this is West Streetings 10 year NHS health plan released in July, setting out three major shifts in the way health care is delivered.
Moving from hospital to community, from analog to digital and from treating sickness to prevention.
It uses emotive language to set the scene that the NHS stands at an existential brink and has a stark choice to reform or die.
This disturbing document sets how the reimagining of the NHS will create a utopian, sustainable future of a patient controlled system.
With instant access to appointments, disease prediction and prevention, care in your home and even a doctor in your pocket.
Imagine that we are promised the most digitally accessible health system in the world.
Your NHS app functioning as the front door to the entire NHS.
AI will be seamlessly integrated into clinical pathways and be the trusted assistant of every doctor and nurse.
Disturbingly, patients will be routinely monitored through wearables.
The roles of life sciences and tech companies in service delivery will be expanded with an unhealthy and obsessive focus on accessing your genome.
A new genomic population health screening service is promised for all of us by 2030.
And I'm sure you will all be delighted about a new 600 million pound government partnership with the Wellcome Trust to create a new health data research service.
Your NHS data used for the common good.
Notably missing from this plan is any mention of ethics, informed consent or the doctor patient relationship.
So have no doubt that these ambitious and well funded changes in health care are part of a bigger plan to create a digital economy, cashless society and digital ID.
The health component is being pushed by supranational organisations like the UN, WHO and WEF with their pandemic treaty, IHR amendments, One Health Agenda and Pact for the Future.
If they have their way, you will own nothing, including your body and will be very unhappy.
And this WEF image can be found on the UK government's own website, showing how health care at the top of the wheel is integral to the whole digital control grid being pushed so aggressively by the global elites.
Through wearables, the NHS app, sharing of health records and much more.
Removing the privacy and confidentiality that has always been a core part of ethical medicine.
The public is being corralled into a form of digital slavery.
We must resist.
And ethical doctors are the key to this resistance.
A doctor who upholds his or her oath to first do no harm and their duty to put the interest of their patient in front of them above all other interests.
They stand between a vulnerable patient and a predatory health care system and provide vital protection for the individual against global vested interest.
Vested interests and unhealthy ideologies that have captured the regulators that should be protecting the public and upholding medical ethics.
Now, under the GMC's good medical practice guidelines, doctors must speak out when they see a risk of harm to patients.
Yet during Covid, most of the medical profession failed to speak out against unethical and unsafe policies, staying silent and complicit.
In stark contrast, good ethical doctors were threatened and punished for acting as their patient's advocate for treating Covid or for voicing vaccine safety concerns.
They faced long GMC investigations and fitness to practice hearings.
Some like doctors Sam White, David Cartland, Anne McClaskey, Mohammed Adil and Jane Donoghan were sacked or struck off.
And those still being hounded by the GMC include doctors Asim Al Hotra and Sarah Myhill, leaving other doctors terrified to speak out.
Dr Ahmed Malik, who was thrown out of his private hospital and voluntarily gave up his license to practice, said on a recent podcast that the GMC has been weaponized to punish doctors.
And Dr David Cartland's story is a case in point.
I challenge anyone to read his latest book, Do No Harm, and not feel physically sick and moved to tears by his eye watering account of years of relentless persecution and harassment by internet trolls,
whose vexatious complaints to the GMC led to the most cruel and unjust Kangaroo Court fitness to practice hearing and his eventual striking off the medical register.
The perpetrators of this witch hunt against Dr Cartland seemed determined to not only destroy his career, but also his life as apparent revenge against his courageously outspoken stance on the Covid vaccine dangers.
And for selfish selflessly upholding medical ethics and patient safety and refusing to bow to the consensus.
And this slide shows how badly the regulators are failing the public and doctors.
These are just two of several appalling recent decisions by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service, who carry out the GMC fitness to practice hearings.
On the one hand, Dr Suhail Angum faces no sanction for leaving his anaesthetized patient on the table mid operation to go into another theatre and have sex with a nurse.
Yet Dr Sam White was struck off for speaking out about the harms of Covid policies such as face masks and Covid jabs.
And this is all part of a wider toxic NHS culture of silencing whistleblowers.
And this Telegraph investigation revealed that health care staff who raise concerns face serious harassment and bullying from NHS management through internal investigations, disciplinary hearings and legal battles and referral to their regulators.
This appears designed to break the whistleblower, to deter others from speaking out and to cover up the issue.
Dame Carrie McKeown, the chair of the GMC, even admitted that referrals can be used to intimidate doctors.
They know that, but she urged doctors to speak up anyway.
It's extremely dangerous for the public if doctors can't risk speaking out in their professional capacity and duty to raise patient safety concerns.
That's self evident and aren't allowed to use their clinical skills and experience to treat patients in the way they judge best outside of NHS protocols.
So we are faced with a stark and urgent choice between Hippocratic ethical patient centred medicine or technocratic dehumanising protocol driven medicine.
When doctors can't act autonomously and ethically and are instead mandated to follow top down, one size fits all policies and protocols, they are reduced to being agents of the state.
Patients are dehumanised and atrocities will inevitably follow.
I'm a Christian, as Charles said, and I believe we are in a spiritual battle against evil, against a coordinated push to remove the intrinsic value of each human life, creating a dystopian digital slave system.
This could be the biggest challenge humanity has ever faced and will require a strong collective resistance.
We must shine a light on the agenda and actions being rolled out and expose the lies, greed and anti-human ideology.
With hundreds of mRNA vaccines in the pipeline and the WHO seeking more power and control, we must urgently reestablish ethical red lines that can never be crossed by policymakers or healthcare workers, regardless of the circumstances.
So we clearly have a problem, but all is not lost. And I want to just leave you with a few ideas as to how we can turn things around.
There are two parts to this. Well, three. There's the doctors, there's the politicians and there's us.
Doctors need to reclaim their profession and return to patient centred medicine by applying ethical principles, moral values and interpretations to science.
They must reject the technocratic dehumanized approach of the NHS 10 year plan.
Instead, they need to relearn the art of medicine.
This is the observation, intuition, wisdom, experience, compassion and innovation of the individual doctor who must be free to act in their best clinical and professional judgment.
They need to listen to their patients and respect their patients autonomy and wishes.
Doctors also need to rediscover critical thinking and intellectual humility.
They must reject council culture and embrace debate and challenge policies and protocols.
Our political system is clearly corrupted and broken.
It's not serving ordinary people, but is collaborating with big corporations and unelected NGOs to serve their interests.
So we must deal with regulatory capture and corruption and make pharma liable for all harm caused.
We need new parties and honorable politicians to challenge the new normal and embrace a more humane version of how to run health care systems.
Systems that respect and honor the sanctity of each life by decentralizing health care decisions and policies and allowing individual doctors to practice ethical patient centred medicine.
Medical ethics must be put back at the center of political conversations and the framing of policies.
Crucially, politicians and bureaucrats have no place in the practice of medicine on individuals.
And we the people need to learn to say no.
We must reject technocratic medicine and we must demand that our doctors practice ethical medicine and it uphold our right to informed consent, bodily autonomy and medical choice.
And we must also empower ourselves and look beyond the pharma model to a more holistic approach to health care.
Empowering ourselves with the knowledge of how to live to maximize our health and minimize our need for pharmaceuticals.
The fourth important though.
Oh, sorry. And I'm going to leave you with some hope, which I will play shortly.
I know it's been a really heavy talk, but there have been really encouraging developments in the US where RFK Jr.
The head of HHS is beginning the fight back against the grip that pharma has on the health care system and policies.
So it can be done. And this little clip that I hope you can all hear as well.
I'm going to leave you with the words of Florida Surgeon General Dr.
Joseph Ladepeau from a recent speech announcing the end of all vaccine mandates in the state of Florida.
And I think this is a beautiful exposition of medical ethics and the limitation of a doctor and government's power.
Partnership Liz, Liz, before you stop before you play that.
Yeah. And you what you need to do is to you didn't take the share sound.
We could hear the other one was a bit muffled. So what you have to stop share.
Stop share. Yeah.
And then you start then press the share button again and enable sound.
You've got a short tick. They got it. Oh, yeah.
Share sound. Share sound. I've never seen that before. That's cool. Right.
And then start then start then press the share button and then we can hear it really clearly.
So hopefully we'll hear him now.
Actually, I might go back and go forward to him so we hear. Yeah.
The Florida Department of Health in partnership with the governor is going to be working to end all vaccine mandates in Florida.
All of them. All of them.
All of them.
Every last one of them.
Every last one of them is wrong and rips with disdain and and slavery.
Who am I as a government or anyone else or who am I as a man standing here now to tell you what you should put in your body?
Who am I to tell you what your child should put in your body?
I don't have that right. Your body, your body is a gift from God.
What you put into your body, what you put into your body is because of your relationship with your body and your God.
I don't have that right. Government does not have that right.
Thank you very much for listening, everyone.
And yeah, do visit our website UKMedFreedom.org.
We're very keen to expand our work that we're facing so many threats.
So please do consider making a small donation if you've appreciated this talk and subscribe and like our podcast on our Rumble and YouTube channels.
We're also on podcast platforms like Apple and Spotify.
We are on Twitter and Facebook and you can sign up to our email newsletter for important news campaign updates and calls for action.
So everything's on the front page of the website. Thank you.
Wonderful, wonderful Liz. So if you stop your share. Beautiful. Well done.
Excellent work. Now while Stephen's gathering his thoughts for the first set of questions, what you have beautifully articulated for us is the globalist depopulation agenda.
And so I want everyone who's just watched that to say this doesn't make sense.
Yes, it makes brilliant sense. What you have articulated for us, Liz, if you understand the globalist depopulation agenda.
And that's what's driving the bought politicians in the UK system and in all the systems.
They have been bought to implement the strategies of depopulation and it's up to us as humanity to understand that and stop looking.
How could you possibly pass laws and breach ethics in such egregious ways?
Well, you can if you've received money to behave that way.
And what we have to do is keep shining a light on that depopulation strategy because otherwise it's hard for the average person to believe that this is possible.
And for those who don't know, I've been following that it was Mike Adams who some 20 years ago, the health ranger, who was the first time I heard someone say the game plan of the globalists is to reduce the world's population to less than one billion.
And indeed many say to 500 million. And in that framework, the strategy of Big Pharma and the other question is to say, who are the shareholders in Big Pharma?
The 20 major pharmaceutical companies on the planet. All of us need to shine a light on that because that's where the clue is on why this whole drug infestation of humanity is driven.
Thank you, Liz. Wonderful work, Stephen. Well done for getting Liz over to you, Stephen, with your lovely red top.
So, yeah, Liz, that was a great speech or presentation.
I like the way that you're unapologetically pursue your autonomy as a doctor and say exactly what you think.
This is what doctors need to do. I like to think that you would not do anything that was even questionable, never mind illegal.
So when I say illegal, I immediately start to think that we give lawyers too much power because they don't understand ethics.
And you can't practice medicine without having an awareness of your responsibility as a doctor to never practice medicine without those medical ethics.
And of course, the whole thing about evidence based medicine, which the GMC and the MDU, the Medical Defense Union unquestionably just followed.
And I was thinking, hang on a minute, this is taking the autonomy of doctors away from them.
And that means that the ethics are going out of the window. So the whole thing was planned, in my opinion.
This was evil, as you've used that word as well.
And most importantly, I think we have to come to the conclusion that medical doctors have completely failed in their primary job, which was to look after patients.
And they've lost the plot. They don't understand what they're doing.
And I don't know how they can justify themselves.
But we have to sue these people as well, because people who kind of go along with the false narrative don't question anything.
They are the problem. They are our real enemies, the bureaucrats in the world who do follow orders, you know, unquestioningly unquestioningly because for the patients good when we know that's just a lie.
And so, um, plausible deniability is built into everything.
As you know, if you look at almost anything that's to do with the NHS is a cult.
And we as doctors need to tell the public that the NHS is completely broken and cannot be reformed.
We have to start again. And we have to start with people like you.
I think that you are, you know, although you're very kind of definite about what you think you have, you're humble.
And that's what's lacking. We have no humility these days as doctors.
And so I've been shocked recently trying to sort out what should have been a simple medical problem.
There are no proper doctors around.
There are no proper doctors around. Even the best doctors in the United Kingdom.
I'm shocked have given up the practice of taking a good history and examining the patient because they think it's not necessary.
They start off with the tests and then fit the patient into the results of the test.
And there's a glaring lack of general physicians who understand the whole of medicine.
You know, the nearest you can get to a general physician these days is in the geriatrics field, you know, for elderly patients where you have something approaching what you might call the general physician.
But guess what? They lack power, political power.
And so they have no influence as far as I can see.
And yes, you do get one or two doctors, but they tend to be humble and they don't push themselves forward.
And as we know from the last five years, there are lots of people on our side who pushed themselves forward with no humility and even arrogance.
And so I just wondered whether you and the other thing is the ethics is absolutely central to the doctor's trial in Nuremberg.
And the Nuremberg Code arose from that.
And the American prosecutors did a wonderful job of holding those doctors to account in human medical experimentation.
And that's what we've been seeing in the last five years.
So the whole thing about lockdowns, I think the lockdowns are even worse than the injections, to be honest.
And so the notion that doctors could view all over the world that the policy was to isolate human beings when we're highly social animals, every doctor in the world should have known that there was wrong.
It didn't need to be explained or they didn't need to find proof.
They should have known. They should have felt it.
I did feel it. And I think you did.
So thank you very much, Liz.
The reason I asked you to speak was because I knew that you were incapable of telling a lie and that you probably through your regard for Christianity, you know, your religion, you will not, you will not tell a lie.
And you have great, I think you have a great reputation.
I think you come over as very authentic and this is what human beings, we need leaders and we need honest leaders.
There are very few of them.
So maybe you've got some comments you don't have to answer.
I don't know what the question was, to be honest, but the Nuremberg Code, I think it's a very good question.
The Nuremberg Code is very, very important because that was actually designed to be indirigible, never to be challenged again.
It was actually worded in that way.
And then they came along with the Helsinki protocols and all the rest of it, you know.
And then in 2021, I was talking about the Nuremberg Code.
And they said, oh, that doesn't apply in America.
I thought to myself, well, hang on, it was the American prosecutors who intended the Nuremberg Code to apply everywhere, always and forever.
Yeah, I mean, it doesn't have teeth, though, does it?
I mean, this is what because we all thought Nuremberg Code was a very good idea, but I think it's a very good idea.
Yeah, I mean, it doesn't have teeth, though, does it?
I mean, this is what because we all thought Nuremberg when we were starting to fight this.
But actually, you know, it's a convention.
It doesn't have legal power.
Well, the teeth have been taken away deliberately.
Yes. Yeah.
It's the but yeah, I think you're right.
I could see and I think it did help being outside of the medical profession when when lockdown started.
But literally within days, I was like, what the hell is going on?
Because I had a friend up the road who ended up in hospital and his wife was not allowed to visit him.
And I was just and no doctor had visited him for two weeks.
Nobody would see him. He was getting sicker and sicker.
And I was like, what's going on?
Like, since when have doctors hidden from patients since when have doctors been terrified of touching something?
You know, I remember taking blood on an HIV unit when I was a junior doctor and you only had to needle stick yourself and you would have, you know, given yourself whatever.
But you just accepted that was like it's like having a soldier going on to say, well, I'm not going on the battlefield because there's a lot of bullets out there.
I mean, correct. So that seemed very strange to start with.
And then when he went to hospital and she was never allowed to see him, he died in hospital.
She was home on her own for 16 days alone.
No family would visit her. And I was tearing my hair out because I was saying, what is going on?
This is you. This is there are red lines.
There are lines that you don't cross. Like everyone has to be allowed to be with their loved one when they're sick and dying.
You don't you can't keep people out.
I just couldn't understand why people weren't banging the doors of the hospital down.
So, yeah, exactly. So I thought that it was just so strange that period.
And now I realize it was gaslighting. You know, it was intended to be gaslighting for people like you and me, doctors like you and me who are vaguely trying to do the right thing.
But I concluded I had to come off. I had to resign from the General Medical Council first to take away my license and then take away my registration because I didn't trust them.
And I wasn't going to I didn't want to be have people snapping at my heels complaining about me to the General Medical Council and getting into endless arguments to the General Medical Council.
So I thought I'm going to get out of this. I cannot support myself staying in the medical profession because I'm ashamed of it.
But the GFC is completely corrupt. I mean, it is you know, the way it has gone after the only doctors who are standing up for ethics have been crushed and crushed in the most horrific way.
I mean, you know, I would recommend Dave's book to not only just to read it, but also to support him because obviously he has no career now.
He has no medical license. He's having to, you know, make ends meet. And he's written this book.
But Liz, I've had my career taken away from me. Yeah.
Many people have. But what happened to him in that court, all of his witness statements were deemed inadmissible.
None of his witnesses were allowed to speak. His own statements were deemed inadmissible.
He was not allowed to speak except for through his lawyer. He was allowed to be publicly displayed in this hearing.
None of his complainants. They were all anonymous. So effectively, it was not just a kangaroo court.
It was so obviously a kangaroo court. It was so cruel that, you know, you think they're not even pretending to be fair.
They're not even there's no pretense of like fairness. It was totally unjust.
And they it's like he's been wake fielded. But this is Wakefield on steroids because they have had police turning up at his house.
They've had, you know, I think it's an intelligence services thing.
They've been going, you know, sort of contacting, you know, children's school is like all these things.
There's just the intimidation like wanting to destroy him, not just his career, but him.
Yeah, because they want to send a warning to all the other doctors who may actually follow him.
Yeah, exactly. Which is what happened with Wakefield all those years ago.
But now it's happened with a few key people during Covid.
And so Liz, I knew that they were going to go for me because for the first time I never had any complaints.
I used to be asked by the appraisers of why have you got the so-called appraisers in the revalidation nonsense, you know,
with your portfolio as a as a as a doctor of many years experience, all of a sudden you're back to medical school again and you have to have your portfolio.
And I was asked, why haven't you got any complaints, Stephen? Everybody has complaints.
Well, I said, I'm sorry, but I haven't got any. And they wanted you to engage with them in a destruction of your own self.
That's what the revalidation was about. It was about destroying your will to practice as a doctor, I think.
And I felt that early on, I couldn't put it into words.
And, you know, I'm sorry I'm not really articulating very well tonight, but I get so upset about this when it comes to medical ethics and discussion of the medical profession.
I just think, how can any doctor continue in this system?
It's outrageous what happened. And we need to keep talking about this and the damned UK inquiry costing 200 million pounds, which is an expensive inquiry in the United Kingdom.
200 million pounds comes to the conclusion that the UK government should should have locked down earlier and harder.
And we must learn this lesson for the future. Outrageous. What an idiot. That woman is Baroness Hallett.
Yeah, but not just but it was the doublespeak, wasn't it? We should have imposed harsh restrictions to avoid lockdown.
It's like, what? What are you talking about? We should have done these these earlier harsh restrictions and that would have avoided a lockdown.
You're like, well, sorry, what's the difference? And it's that they're gaslighting us. You're right.
There was no medical justification for any of the measures. And indeed, there was no pandemic.
And the diagnosis of Covid-19 was very much in doubt that I don't think there was any just like AIDS.
There was no diagnosis. Anyway, thank you so much, Liz. I'm outraged about what has happened.
We have to hold these people responsible. I will join you in any venture you wish to further.
We have Richard Ammerling, who's an American doctor. He very rarely says anything wrong.
And Jerry Brady in Australia as well is very good. Thank you, Stephen.
Liz, I have to first say that I enjoyed every word of your presentation.
It was like music to my ears. The position who has fought for the past 40 years to try to preserve the semblance of independence of the medical profession,
which is indeed gone, but it wasn't always. And when I started practicing, most doctors in the United States were independent financially and intellectually.
And they gave it up. It was taken from them, but they also acquiesced and gave it up.
And for a physician to be ethical, you cannot be paid by a third party. You must be paid by your patient.
And as soon as doctors gave that up, they started to the slippery slide into lack of ethical practice.
And that is an essential component. If we're going to restore it, doctors have to get out of corporate and government practice of medicine.
They have to be able to practice according to how they see fit, which is Hippocratic.
So that's crucial. I know the NHS doctors are in sorry state. I mean, I have friends in the NHS.
They are held hostage by their pensions. Am I right?
I mean, they have these huge pensions that are being held over their heads that you're going to lose your pension if you don't step in line.
It's not just that rigid. It's a cult, unfortunately.
It is a religion. I mean, definitely.
Stephen and I totally agree that this cult, speaking of cult of evidence based medicine, was a crucial step towards the takeover of medical practice by pharma, which then went out.
They hired all these so-called thought leaders. They had them write practice guidelines.
They preselected the literature search that they went went through to have only favorable articles and they came up with guidelines to prescribe more and more of their drugs.
So I think we have to reject evidence based medicine. We have to go back to real science.
That's one of the something that I've been pushing for a long time.
By the way, ethics is sadly in decline.
Mandates say vaccine mandates do not excuse a practitioner from the duty to provide to get voluntary informed consent for everything that they do.
So you can have a vaccine mandate, but the practitioner is still liable to insist on to get to that they must get a voluntary informed consent.
So they're not excused by these mandates from these violations of ethics.
And I think common law that you're forcing a medical treatment on someone who who doesn't want it and is not consenting.
And one more point is that these preventive treatments such as vaccines and statins fall into that category, which you point out, are given to healthy individuals.
The standard for risk must be adjusted for the fact that they get either a theoretical benefit or zero benefit from this intervention.
Therefore, there cannot be even a shred of risk.
And there's no vaccine that can pass that test.
And I don't believe statins pass that test either.
So, so Richard beautifully beautifully stated.
Now, the comment is made by Hugh McCarthy, who's presented to us and Richard.
I'm wondering whether this is the same case in America as in Australia.
There are many jobs in Australia, particularly for in the public service, bureaucrats and big business where you can't apply for a job without producing a vaccine.
And there are many other jobs in Australia, particularly for in the public service, bureaucrats and big business where you can't apply for a job without producing your covert updated covert jab certificate still today.
Wow.
It's it is it is it is just mind blowing and it's not being talked about.
And it's free and they still wear masks.
So the, the, the drug, the, the drug as a, as I put in Stephen, as we've often said, you know, when doctors say, why do you behave this way?
Their, their response for most of them is I've got a mortgage to pay.
So, Charles, what we went through was an alleged medical emergency, which was a free vaccine.
And so the justifications were always because it was a fraud and justifications, the medical justifications were none of them was justified.
And I understood that early on.
I was trying to tell my family and warn them.
But the point is that that's often missed.
It's the responsibility of doctors to explain this to the public.
Because you try and make these points if you're not medically trained, it's extremely difficult even for a doctor to explain what's gone wrong.
Never mind someone who isn't a doctor.
And so people have a go at the doctors.
But I've always said from the beginning in 2020 that I thought we would need doctors to explain this in simple terms.
And I've always said that.
And so outrageous and outrageous that they gaslit me, you, Liz and Richard and Jerry in Australia.
Outrageous.
No wonder we've been coming to these meetings twice a week for five years.
And I'm so sorry.
I'm so sorry.
Because we've been coming to these meetings twice a week for five years because they destabilised us deliberately in my opinion the bastards.
Sorry.
I mean another sort of piece of this is that of course the health care staff were treated the way they were treated from the very beginning was very clever.
First of all, they were put on this massive pedestal.
And so most of them were doing nothing, but they were being clapped and celebrated in the press by the people.
So imagine the shadow of the battle, the shadow of the battle, the shadow of the battle, the shadow of the battle, the shadow of the battle.
So imagine the shame and guilt of that about feeling like, oh, well, I haven't done anything
today, but everyone's telling me I'm a hero. And then so that shuts them up. And then they were
basically forced to wear this horrific PPE, which to work in that it must have been torture.
Then they were the first ones that were told they had to have the jabs and then they face mandates.
So in a way, they they were abused by the system. And of course, the abused become the abusers.
So I felt like it was very clever.
We all were, Liz. It took me a long time to realize.
Okay, come on, come on, come on. We got to move on. We only got Liz for 20 more minutes.
Sorry, I interrupted Liz then. Sorry. Go ahead, Liz.
So I was just going to say if you like, it was very designed to take away all of the doctors
and healthcare workers rights to their own bodily autonomy. You know, they were the ones who had to
step up for the jab first, even if they were like 20 years old, they were so in a sense that then,
you know, they were thinking, well, I didn't have a choice. Why should they then take away
other people's ethics? And so I think that was that was one bit. But then the other bit is,
of course, I've just been looking into access to medical school. You cannot set foot inside
a medical school on the first day without every single jab going. It's now a requirement.
Some places like Imperial, you still have to have a COVID jab to start your first day of medical
school. Now, that is your cohort. These are people basically being told you can't practice or learn
and go into this profession unless you do all of this and have all these jabs.
That's wrong. So we need to write to... Stop, stop. You've had your 15 minutes. Come on.
So, yeah, so I think that is a really worrying situation because you've got indoctrinated doctors.
That's why they are so evangelical about vaccines, because they all had to have them all to get into
medical school. They're having to have them every year to get the next job. So they are,
they're sort of paid up. They're not allowing anyone in who has not followed the protocol.
So you've already got these very protocolized people. And I think, Richard, you're absolutely
right about evidence-based medicine, because that came in just as I was training. And I think before
that point, you had doctors practicing medicine with their own clinical judgment and skills and
wisdom, and they use the art of medicine as well as the science. So it was always meant to be a
blend of art and science, because it's not just about science. It's about gut feeling, because
human beings are all different and you just get a feeling, don't you? And you're like,
do you know what? You remind me of this patient I saw where that didn't work, but this did.
And it's that side of things which a protocol cannot cover. But evidence-based medicine was
genius by the pharmaceutical companies, because then they said, taught us all to repeat as a mantra.
Randomized control trial is the gold standard. And that's what you have to have for evidence-based
medicine. Well, of course, that can only be a trial done on a drug, really. There's no other
intervention that you can do, which you can randomize and control. So it's like they're
calling it evidence-based, but actually it's just like drug trial-based. And then you will end up,
and then you first of all get the guidelines, and then they increasingly become protocols and
algorithms. And eventually, you can see where we're going. Doctors are not going to be needed
anymore. From what I can gather of my patients coming to me where they're coming, and I've said,
have you seen the doctor? Did they do this? And they're like, no, they didn't really talk to me.
And they did a few tests. And I'm like, what is going on? They haven't examined you. They haven't
heard this bit of the history. And this is really crucial. There's no curiosity anymore.
But the more that this goes on, the more they will be replaceable with a computer,
apart from surgeons, but the medics. And that's where we're going. They're basically removing
the human beings from healthcare, because that is a brilliant business model for maximum power,
control and money. No, I think you should say they're removing doctors from drug dispensation,
not healthcare. They're removing doctors from drug dispensation process. Richard, well said. Jerry,
we've got two, four, we've got four hands up, and we've got 18 minutes left before Liz has to leave.
Liz, I'm a doctor. I was a doctor. I'm retired 18 years now,
30 years of general practice, adult medicine. I've put a lot of things in the chat for you.
I'd encourage you after this to read what I put in the chat. Some very important things.
The first one is just the Canada Eugenics Program, which they've just revealed.
In that plan, they're planning to kill 14.7 million people. They're planning to save
$1.3 trillion by doing this. And they're targeting the elderly, the mentally ill, the suicidal,
the indigenous, and addicts, and the homeless. This is exactly what the Nazi Action T4 Program
did in 1939. So Canada is going down this road. I put in an article about this and also
a journal reference as well, which you can look at later. And people can also look up the Action
T4 Program. This is where the Nazis started killing their own children in 1939.
All of it was based on the idea that these children were not worthy of life.
The second thing I put in there, Liz, is an editorial I just wrote for CNN News. I'm the
editor and publisher of CNN News. And the headline in the chat is, Building a Global Nightmare on
False Assumptions. There was no pandemic of death. I'd like you to read that. It is obvious,
obvious from the EuroMOMO death statistics that the small, just a small spike of death in 2020
collapsed completely back to the normal range by May of 2020. There was no pandemic of death.
It was all over in eight weeks. And the death spike was not much different. It was about the same
as an influenza death spike. So I've put that in the chat. I put in the chat the fact that I
had a father-in-law in a hospital recently, in a regional hospital in Australia, and there were no
doctors to be found in the medical ward he was in. He had a stroke. And we visited him for four days.
And we could not talk to a doctor, even though I was telling them I was a doctor. There was no
doctor to be seen. But the word protocol was mentioned over and over and over again. And
in Australia, the hospital was full of relatives because there was no staff willing to actually
deliver any care. The relatives were there in their numbers, looking after their sick relatives.
It was amazing. I couldn't believe what was going on in this major regional hospital.
And I know the doctors are leaving. And I know that the doctors are not going to be able to
and I know the doctors are leaving. I heard a few weeks later that the four cardiologists in
that regional hospital all resigned on the same day. So we're heading already. We're already in
the world of no doctors. We're already in that world where people just follow protocols.
I put in the journal link to the Canadian thing. It's in the Journal of Death and Dying,
which you believe. But the article is there where they describe how many dollars they're
going to save by killing all these people. And then I've also put in an article I wrote on my
finance and economics, a sub stack, which is called Was COVID a Milgram Experiment?
I have no doubt now that COVID was a clearly planned and designed Milgram experiment,
where people were divided up under their intense fear to make decisions based upon authority
figures giving them instructions. And in that situation, people divide up into two groups,
the autonomous group who will not follow instructions, and the agentic group who will
follow instructions in the Milgram experiment to the point of actually killing people.
They'll kill people under these circumstances if the authority figure tells them to do so.
So I hope that will give you some understanding of what happened during the COVID phenomenon.
All of these things are going on and your presentation today was absolutely brilliant.
I thought it was just one of the best presentations I've ever seen on this program here.
Well done, I've got to tell you. Very well done. I'd like to get in touch with you because the last
thing I put in the chat is about a human rights legal case that I'm fighting here with a young
lawyer friend. And we are fighting for human rights of citizens in Australia not to be subjected
to vaccine mandates. We're into this case for nearly four years now, three to four years,
and we're coming to a crisis point in this. We must defeat the government, because if the government
wins our case, the people of Australia simply will have no human rights whatsoever. We will be living
in a Nazi concentration camp. They will experiment upon us. They are experimenting upon people,
as you already know. Canada is going to kill people for money soon. It's headed this way.
We have to all realise what's going on. So congratulations on what you're doing. I'm going
to try and contact you. My question is, how do I contact you? I think I'd love to help you.
I know a lot about this whole phenomenon. I'd really like to help you. So that's my question is,
how do I contact you, Liz? So my official is ukmedicalfreedomatprotonmail.com.
That's the one I use for work. ukmedicalfreedomatprotonmail.com.
Yeah, no, I'd love to hear from you. That's great. That's amazing. Thank you. Thank you,
Jerry. We're going to keep moving. Thank you. Good job, Mark. Thanks, Jerry.
By the way, Mark is in the dyeing business. That's why they call him Dyer.
Very good. Actually, yeah, well, we won't go there. Hi, Liz. We have been in correspondence
on and off under your banner. I just want to let you know I have Dr. David Cartland's book.
I've read it. I've actually posted a review on it. And what I've done is on the review,
I've actually posted the Spike Backs document, the leaflet, with all of my comments relating to
it, asking a whole bunch of questions, which my doctor was unable to answer. All right. On top of
that, I've also posted into the review, this is in the review. All right. I've also posted in the
review, a friend of mine who went to get the COVID jab, they weren't going to take it, but they were
doing, what am I going to be told? It's about a seven minute audio. And in it, you can see that
she was not given informed consent. And then in the end, she leaves. But again, it's evidence.
And I thought it would be good for you to know that I've posted it in there because I think
David's book is evidence. And anything that we can put in there is useful evidence.
Brilliant. That's great. Thank you. And Liz, I remind you of the evidence of this book as well.
Please remember. Yeah, I actually read that one. I'm going to write that down. Forbidden Facts.
Forbidden Facts, Gavin De Becker, and also on YouTube, you can see Joe Rogan having a conversation
with Gavin De Becker. Oh, I will definitely listen to that. Which is also wonderful to get into.
Everybody get hold of something. Brilliant, brilliant data. And every single claim made,
you know, there's see all those QR codes at the bottom, all fully referenced. Gavin is a
criminologist, not a doctor. Thank you, Mark. Good job. Sue, lovely to see you. Sue, who has
escaped from California. She's our California escapee. Liz?
Hi, Gavin. I just want to first thank you for your presentation. It was so comprehensive and
passionate. And I felt it was a good feeling to know that there's, it's always good to know
there's others that really have a good understanding of what's, what we've all been through. I'm not a
doctor. I'm a former RN, mortgage banker, and most recently, I was a county supervisor in
Sacramento County, California. And I was the chairman of the board in my board for in 2021.
So it was during the COVID era that a lot of my activities were centered on dealing with,
working with nurses and some doctors, police and firemen who knew about the situation. And
firemen who knew of my history and felt and knew about me through the press because of my
battles with the public health officer during that time and my unwillingness to, I guess,
go along with the program that they had laid out for us. And there's one thing that I noticed
while I was serving and I don't, I'm hoping this will contribute to this conversation. I don't hear
a lot about it. And that is that during that time, I kept trying to figure out why the doctors
would not help us. We kept trying to get exemptions. We were trying to get doctors that would
prescribe ivermectin or we couldn't get the help we needed. And a lot of the doctors were telling
me that Sue, if I write more than five exemptions, I'll get written up and I could lose my license or
I could lose my position with the hospital. And when I went to the hospital CEOs, the CEOs of the
hospitals basically had one answer and that was Sue. We have to get licensing. We have about 39
licenses that we renew every year and most of them are through the CDC, which hands down the
regulatory protocol to the CDPH. And if we don't meet their protocol, we won't get licensed and we
won't be a hospital. And so there was a framework that I considered had been captured and it was by
administrative government. People who are working with the CDC who are not physicians,
but they're setting regulatory framework for our treatment and for hospital licensing, etc.
And so the doctors, a lot of the doctors I knew were good people, but they were basically saying,
I can give up my job, but it's not going to do any good. And I saw them do that. My doctor,
Dr. Michael Huang, ended up losing his license because he helped thousands of people during
that time, not only treating vaccine injured, but exemptions and just helping people fight the fight
just to keep their job without having to wear the mask or get the shot. And so I think the point I
wanted to make, and I'll try to end it here, is that there's something that gets overlooked or
captured by corporate, a corporate administrative structure that has captured Western medicine.
And no matter how many good doctors you have, if not all the doctors at one time just say no,
you can't fight what's happening here. You almost have to collapse it to get it. I think a lot of,
I feel bad for the doctors because it's like, how do you fight that? You can't win even if you
sacrifice yourself. You don't perceive that you can win. I don't know if it's like this in the UK.
My question is, what are your thoughts? I mean, is that the situation that you're up against in the UK?
Yeah, I mean, I think you're absolutely right. The regulators, all of these different authorities,
in the UK, we've got the UK HSA, which is our public health, then we've got the GMC. They're
all captured, the MHRA, who are meant to be regulating the drugs. But when they're captured
by industry, these sort of global parasites have got their fingers in every single pie. I mean,
it's a very tight control structure. I think this is about not just money, this is about power and
control, isn't it? And yeah, like my friend David Cartland, he's done everything and he's stood up
and he's fought and you just see him just being destroyed by this huge monster. And yeah, you're
right. Unless every single doctor, but we almost do have to start creating, I think, parallel systems
where people take themselves out of that, maybe don't call themselves doctors, call themselves
healers or something, put away their prescription pads and just start a new system. Because I think
the current system has been so cleverly and carefully captured by this completely anti-human
global parasite class who are just destroying human beings. And they are evil, which is why they want
to destroy all that is good. So they want to destroy human life, they want to depopulate,
they want to control, they want to torture. And yeah, I think your experience is kind of
what I've heard from all over the world in different sort of the different systems work
slightly differently, but the power, you know, the power is coming in from the top.
Yeah. Well, thank you. Thank you for your contribution.
Thank you, Sue. Well said. And Liz, I've just decided that non-registered doctors call themselves
witches and wizards, because when you think of Lord of the Rings, it was the wizard who was the
way home. So we need wizards and witches. And they were previously put to death, as we know,
but much, you know, it's the whole term doctors, really, most of them are just drug peddlers and
they're trained. I'm still, I'm horrified that you can't go into medical school now in the UK
without updating all of your vaccines and your COVID shots. So I think if you take note of that,
because I'm going to do that in Australia too, for the aligned council, that's a very tip of the
spear issue. We have to shine, we have to stop any requirement for you to produce a COVID exemption,
sorry, a COVID compliance jab to get a new job. It's an outrage. Same with medical school. All
right, Anders, last question, because then Liz has to go. Very shortly, Liz. So thank you, Dr.
It was great to hear a fantastic presentation. I'm not a medical doctor, I'm a kind of analyst,
and I would just ask one philosophical question to you and to all of you. Don't you see that
the historical problem is that the medical doctors are living under the Rockefeller
medicine regime where you're supposed to issue drugs, medicine to solve problems or whatever
you call it. And is this not the base problem for all the medical practices?
A hundred percent. I mean, because obviously I now practice complementary medicine and I
every day help people to help their bodies to heal themselves. And I think this is what
Western medicine has lost sight of. We have this, we are fearfully made in the image of God. We
have this incredible body and immune system and the ability to heal and repair. And most of the
ingredients we need are natural and cheap or free. It's good quality food, it's good sleep,
it's reducing your EMFs, it's love, laughter, not taking pharmaceuticals actually. I think so many
people are sick because of all the chronic long-term drugs they're taking. So yeah, I think
we have everything we need and our healthcare, which maybe a hundred years ago, the doctor knew
about diet and really understood there were very few medicines that they would use. And yes, we do
need surgery sometimes. If I have appendicitis, I definitely want a surgeon. If I have septicemia,
I definitely want some antibiotics, but it should be the exception, not the rule that we have
pharmaceuticals and actually look well beyond the pharmaceutical model because that is actually
making everyone sicker. We're not improving public health and we're disempowering people.
And actually there's real joy and empowerment by starting to heal yourself by changing the way you
live your life and changing what you eat, changing how you sort of manage things and spending time in
nature and turning off your tech, all of that stuff. So yeah, I would definitely agree with
what you just said, Anders. Thank you. Excellent. Thank you, Anders. Good job.
All right. Last, Liz, you've got to go. Stephen, quick thank you, Liz. And then we'll have a free
for all after Liz goes. Stephen, are you there? Thank you for talking to us, Liz. Very good
presentation. But also I want to thank you for supporting David Cartland because I think you
understand what I had. This isn't a criticism, but sometimes he was his own worst enemy because
he played into the hands of the enemy by engaging, for example, with the General Medical Council. So
that gave them another opportunity to bully him. And but that wasn't just that wasn't the only I
think you know what I'm talking about. But I so I didn't realize that you're a friend of David. And
but I'm so glad that you as a doctor are supporting David Cartland because I think that,
you know, in a way they they understood his vulnerability, you know, to the torture,
the torture which they were demeaning him with. And they understood that he would react in a
certain way. And they played on it. It was really cruel. And I hope that you saw through that, Liz,
and that you befriended him. I had so much going on at the time, so I couldn't do it myself.
I kind of beat myself up about that, you know, but I understood that he needed help.
Yeah, no, he's got a lot of a lot of good friends sort of praying for him and praying with him. And
actually, I'm interviewing him tomorrow for UK column. So you can see, see that on UK column
at some point, when it's published in the next week or so. And they really did bully him. And
they were I mean, it was it was obscene. It was absolutely awful. Yes. Yeah, it was dreadful.
Yep. All right, Liz, great job. Everybody for having me. And the last Liz, the last point I'll
make, Stephen, the ties in or into that with the wizards and witches is the John Easterling,
who was the husband of Olivia Newton John before she died. He's known as Amazon, John, Steven,
John. And Steven, there are over 5000 plants identified so far in the Amazon that are all
healing plants. Yeah, you know, and so that's why it's called Amazon Johnny solve so many problems
by being a wizard with this. So anyway, Liz, thank you. Great job. Go back and we'll follow
your journey. Good. Excellent. And see you next time. See you. I'm afraid Charles, I'm not an
expert on wizards. Why you because we need you to become a wizard. All right, now I've got a
nine o'clock meeting everybody. So Stephen, over to you now. I'll stay logged in and I'll stop the
recording. So to make this a free for all chat, because I always at this point, so people feel
safe to say whatever they want to say. Okay. Well, yes, sometimes there are good points, but
but yeah, it's um, yeah. Yeah. Of course, when you switch it off, Charles, it really does go
pear shaped. Yeah, that's why we'll let it go pear shaped because I've just got to get this
other meeting and you'll have it'll be okay. I'll just little look. We'll pull it will stop the
recording and do that. Yeah, because that takes away the kind of Yeah.