Yeah, Kevin.
Hello, hi, how do you do?
Good evening.
It's our Hungarian in Australia.
He's overslept, we think.
Not at all.
Oh, here he is.
Hi, Charles.
Hello, Charles.
So pleased.
Oh, you're dead on time.
I'm sorry, but I've been up for an hour.
I thought you guys can have a nice bit of fun
while I'm working away.
Lovely to see you all.
It's Anzac Day in Melbourne this morning.
Yep.
Are you looking forward to shepherding the rabble, Charles?
I am, and ironically, I watched you, Kevin,
on the virus delusion last night.
Somebody recommended that five-part series,
and so there you were,
largest live on that show, which was excellent.
Thank you.
Charles, is that the one I sent to the group,
or is that another one?
No, it's another one.
Kevin, as an intro, just tell us about the virus delusion.
It's a five-part episode that I paid $12 to watch.
I watched the first episode.
It's directed by an American director called Mike Wallach,
and it's five, I think five two-hour long episodes.
I think each episode is actually longer than two hours,
so it's quite a substantial piece of work.
And Mike has interviewed lots of different scientists
with lots of different backgrounds
around this whole concept of the existence
or non-existence of viruses,
and it obviously comes in with COVID
and SARS-CoV-2 at the beginning.
And it's a very detailed archive of narratives
that run counter to the official public health narrative
with virus X causes disease Y.
So it's a very in-depth look at the whole area
that COVID has now dredged up for a lot of people.
I mean, for a lot of people involved in that video,
people like Celia Farber, the US journalist, and myself,
and we go back with this to the 1980s and 1990s
with HIV and AIDS.
So it does go back to those times,
but it does cover SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 in a lot of detail.
So I would encourage people to look at it critically,
and I'm not encouraging people to go and pay for it.
I only recently got access myself to see it,
even though I was in the film.
So, and I think these things are very much current,
these videos, these ways of talking about the science
outside the journals.
And I think films like Mike Wallach's
and like Andrew Kaufman's, Tom Cowan, Sam Bailey,
all the other scientists,
they're really doing what's called citizen science.
They're taking the science out of the journals
because we can't get in the journals anymore.
We're excluded.
And taking it into more of a public sphere
for a peer review process that is more widespread.
It's not confined to a narrow journal
and a subscriber list to that journal.
So I would encourage people to look at it
and to look at them critically,
not to accept what they're seeing in the film,
but to go away, use the films as tools
for their own self-education and learning.
Hmm.
Very good, very good.
That was a very good impromptu speech, Kevin.
Yeah.
All right, Stephen, can you make me co-host, please?
Sure.
And Kevin is here and welcome everybody from Melbourne.
As I said earlier, for those who've just joined,
it's Anzac Day in Melbourne, 25th of April.
Commemorating 1915 and Gallipoli and all of that.
So there's Dawn services all over the country.
And I think Dawn is at almost 6 a.m. today.
So as there is a Dawn service at Gallipoli,
when it'll be Dawn there on the 25th.
Welcome to all new people.
Stephen, we have new people coming.
Stephen Frost, I love your orange top, Stephen.
That is very outrageously.
It's a boxing t-shirt.
Yes, I'm worried that Stephen's a boxer, everybody.
So you just be nice to him,
because if he finds you large as, you know,
if you're not nice to him on this call.
So I'm Charles Skodis, I'm the moderator
that tries to keep this rebel under control.
But Stephen's done a great job in making this
twice weekly event happen.
And the way we run this process is,
Kevin's going to talk to us, our guest speaker talks to us.
And then Stephen traditionally asked the questions.
And first, than any other questions,
put your hands up on the reactions button.
The chat is a wonderful resource.
So the chat has ideas, insights.
And Kevin, the one question I have for you,
and Stephen's probably explained to you, is it's up to you.
You can speak for half an hour, an hour and take questions.
How long have we got you,
so that I can then moderate accordingly?
Well, I'll talk for about half an hour, 40 minutes max,
and then questions.
So hopefully, it's just gone 9, 2100 hours here in the UK.
So if we go to 2230, perhaps, then I'll depart.
That's okay.
Okay, good.
Hour and a half, we've got you, very good.
All right, I can plan accordingly.
Stephen, would you like to introduce Kevin?
Or, given everyone's here, Kevin,
there's 70 people on the call already, keen to hear you.
So everyone knows who you are,
and you can tell us your story in the journey.
So that means, you know,
whatever you want us to know about you that we don't know,
we'll find out from you.
Okay, it's all there on the internet anyway.
Yeah, I tried to get, capture is all,
in the introduction, in the invitation,
but I'm not sure I was successful.
It was good.
Thank you, thank you, welcome.
Please put in, if you're new today,
please put in the chat where you're from.
Kevin Corbett, welcome to Medical Doctors
for COVID Ethics, over.
And by the way, this is being recorded,
and then a lot of people will be getting
the recording afterwards.
So just be aware that we're talking current
and future recordings for posterity.
Yeah, Kevin, I used four adjectives, I think.
And one of them is my favorite adjective,
which is iconoclastic.
About you, I mean.
Well, that's very, very complimentary of you, Stephen.
Thank you very much for that introduction.
And I hope I live up to the descriptors.
But I think really, if I was to label myself,
I'd put myself under a health sciences label,
because I think that's a broader church.
My background was clinical nursing,
on top of that, a science and social science training.
So I have been trained as a health scientist
to undertake experiments, and as a social scientist,
to look at people's perceptions
and understandings of healthcare.
And that's been my career to date,
working across and inside different medical schools
in the UK.
I've worked in two medical schools in the UK,
the Hull York Medical School in Yorkshire,
and St. George's Medical School in London.
And in nursing faculties associated
with those schools of medicine.
So I've had a track record from within the mainstream.
Why I've started talking about this two years ago,
was 30 years ago, I undertook research
into people's experiences of HIV antibody testing.
And including within that,
people's experiences of PCR testing.
Because the HIV patients were in the 1980s,
some of the first patients that the PCR tests were used on
to calculate something called viral load.
So my research then showed that the viral load
was a load of nonsense really,
because it didn't really equate to any,
it didn't have any diagnostic specificity.
So it didn't translate to anything real,
other than a surrogate marker
to calibrate the antiretroviral drugs against.
And when SARS-CoV-2 started being talked about
in January 2020,
this rekindled my interest in the whole area.
And I read the Cormann-Drosten paper on the PCR for SARS-CoV-2
that came out in your surveillance.
And I could see from that paper
that there was no isolated virus,
no viral cultures that that test was developed from.
And they stated this in their paper in your surveillance.
Cormann-Drosten stated that it was built on,
the test was built on an in silico gene sequence,
not a gene sequence from nature,
not something cultured from the blood of human patients.
So again, this was like the 1990s and the 1980s with HIV,
exactly the same thing, but on a bigger scale.
And then in April 2020,
I wrote an academic paper that's on my website,
and I self-published it with an ISBN number
to document the date historically.
It's April 2020, and my paper was called,
Where is the evidence for the existence
of the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2,
and the validity of the tests?
So by April 2020, I was onto this issue
of there being no gold standard involving
isolated purified virus to underwrite the validity
of the PCR test for SARS-CoV-2.
And as part of that campaign, as it were,
I approached the professor of virology
in Pirro College London, Maria Zambon,
who was in charge of the British government's COVID testing.
And I asked her, what were they using for a gold standard
for the SARS-CoV-2, and was there any viral isolates?
I asked a whole load of questions,
and back came the replies,
there were no fieldwork material available.
This was all in silico model gene sequencing
based on what was in gene banks
and the capacities of the algorithmic infrastructure
that they were using, Cormann and Drosten,
and the Chinese were using to model a gene sequence.
So this is quite interesting to get this communication
with Maria Zambon back and forth.
We had several back and forths,
and I ended up putting this material into a format.
And I gave it to Christine Massey during 2020,
who was starting to coordinate
and collaborate with other people
and to put together all the FOIs across the world,
showing that there was no isolate,
no purified isolate for SARS-CoV-2.
So Christine was well onto this
before I was in contact with her.
So we were working in parallel really on the same thing.
And so were other scientists like Andrew Kaufman,
other medically qualified and other health scientists
were onto this like Dr. Sam Bailey, Tom Cowan.
So this was snowballing throughout 2020.
So this was my background.
I came into this through the science of testing
for SARS-CoV-2 based on my knowledge of this with HIV and AIDS
from over 30 years ago.
And it was exactly the same issues with HIV,
no purified virus.
Luke Montagnier admitted this.
The gentleman, the scientist who recently died,
who got the Nobel Prize for discovering HIV,
he later admitted that there was no purified isolate of HIV.
And that came out well after, 10 years after
the tests were patented and billions were made
on the back of those patents.
So this is the sort of circular,
the rotating history really, this whole area of viruses.
Now, I think with what's happened recently now,
winding the clock forward from 2020,
we're in a different ball game now,
but we're not really in a different ball game.
We're still, the axioms of this are that
there is no purified isolate of SARS-CoV-2.
There is nothing specific about the new disease
that's called COVID-19.
All the symptoms are generic.
They've just been re-bracketed as a new disease
based on pre-existing background conditions,
lung inflammation, et cetera.
This is not a new disease and this is not a new virus.
It's an absolute medical fraud that's happened.
And that's my belief based on my experience,
clinically, academically over the last 40 years.
Now, where we are now is we're in this situation
where we've had a lot of push from the authorities.
This whole fraud was developed
to push forward these injections,
these COVID vaccines so-called that are not vaccines,
they're injections.
There isn't really a complete comprehensive list
of what's in these injections.
There are indicative lists, but not comprehensive.
And there are many, many takes
on the whole COVID vaccine field, really.
There's the pro and the anti.
And I'm definitely in the anti-vax camp
and the anti-vax camp, the anti-injection camp.
However, within that camp, there's lots of debates
and there's a sort of balance here
between the COVID kill-shot camp
and the sort of pro-pharma camp, really,
that wants to treat COVID with pharmaceutical preparations
like either mectin or hydroxychloroquine.
So you've got this sort of Hobson's choice, really,
to quote a term that was coined to me
by William Houston in the States,
the COVID kill-shot versus the insecticide.
That's the Hobson's choice at the moment.
And so you've got a lot of debate on both sides of this.
You've got the authorities pushing forward
with injecting children now across the world
with these preparations.
And you've got the anti group
that's trying to promote other pharma products.
I mean, you've got the Gates Foundation
last February, 2021, announced a trial
of I think it's fluvoxamine and either mectin for COVID-19.
So they're pushing for the trial involving either mectin.
And then you've got the Gates Foundation funding,
the huge push towards pushing these vaccines,
these injections into the population.
So I'm a bit concerned really about this Hobson's choice
because I think that pointage by William Houston
is right there.
We're being pushed this alternative.
You see it in the anti-lockdown movement.
These very grandiose titled collections of doctors
and pro-COVID, pro-virus narrative medics
that are pushing these particular preparations
like either mectin.
And then you've got the authorities in those countries
pushing the COVID injections.
But really this is a Hobson's choice
because if you go back to the axioms of this,
there is no purified isolated virus.
There is no specific disease called COVID-19.
So if you come back to the whole,
if you're sort of like you're Randian and rational
about this and looking at the limits of virology
and you go back to the PCR tests
and whatever new generation of testing they're using now,
the reality is there's no gold standard for these tests.
There's no purified isolate to validate any of these tests.
And they're breaking all the rules of testing.
And this is where I'm very, very disappointed
in a lot of medical colleagues who've had medical training
because I'm not a medical doctor.
I'm a PhD in social sciences
and I'm a clinical nurse practitioner.
That's my background.
But I'm very disappointed that a lot of medical doctors
don't see through this because they're trained
to work a differential diagnosis and to diagnose people
based on symptomatology and history taking.
Nevermind medical tests.
Medical tests were never ever to replace
the clinical interaction between physician,
nurse practitioner and patient.
And that's what's been happening with this.
It's as if the whole theory of probability
on which medical testing is based,
for example, like Bayes theorem has been thrown in the bin.
The last hundred years of developing medical testing
has been thrown in the bin because medical tests
like the PCR tests, lateral flow, whatever,
they don't work the same way in any demographic.
They work differently, less or more efficacious
depending on the risk group of the population
that they're tested on.
And this is what has been thrown in the bin
in the last two years.
It's quite profound that they think that a PCR test
is the results are as effective or as accurate
in one group of patients as to another.
This is not the case.
And that's why these tests should never have been
fast tracked into health services.
They were given emergency use authorization in America
and this followed right through the EU
and nearly every other country.
And this should never have happened.
Tests are never fast tracked through like this.
Forget about pandemic.
This is a scamdemic.
It's a case-demic of false positive testing.
That's what's fueled the figures.
And the background is the existing mortality statistics
have been labeled and bracketed under COVID-19
when they should be attributed to other diagnostic groups
and other conditions.
So you've got a false labeling of generic symptoms
as COVID-19 underwritten by PCR testing and other testing
which is totally, totally wrong in my opinion,
totally scurrilous and should never have happened.
So to bring it up to date where we are with this
is we've got this Hobson's Choice
the population's being presented with
which is really no choice at all.
A Hobson's Choice is no choice at all.
It's a false choice.
It looks like a choice on the surface
but actually it comes down to Big Pharma
underneath both of these choices.
And I think that the last two years
would never have happened if we hadn't had the development,
the hyper development of something called
evidence-based medicine.
And for those of you that don't know this,
I'm surprised if there are any who don't,
but evidence-based medicine has been a movement
that's colonized every health profession
in the last 35, 40 years.
It emanated from McMaster University in Canada
and it was allied with the University of York in the UK.
And the whole point of evidence-based medicine
sounded really unique, sounded very believable
that we need to know what the research shows
so that we can implement it for patients.
And we need to know the quality of research studies.
So evidence-based medicine developed this hierarchy
of research methodologies, which at the top
put the randomized control trial as the gold standard.
And of course, that's one way of knowing
what is true and false,
but there are other research designs
that are equally valid.
But the RCT was put at the top with evidence-based medicine
and it displaced any other form
of scientifically verifying the truth.
So evidence-based medicine developed in the late 80s.
By the late 90s, it was in every healthcare profession.
You had evidence-based journals in nursing, medicine,
paramedical science, occupational therapy, physiotherapy.
Every profession allied to medicine was colonized
with this ideology of the randomized control trial
as being the only form of knowledge that is valid.
And from that came protocols and protocol-driven care,
protocol-driven medical practice, nursing practice, et cetera.
And with protocols, you've had lists
of what doctors and nurses should be doing
that became standards of care
that people could not deviate from.
So doctors and nurses in the last 20 years
have become robotic, automatic in their practice.
And the relationship, the patient-focused care
that I was trained in in the 80s and early 90s
was thrown in the bin.
And protocol-driven care has subsumed everything,
has superseded everything.
And of course, that's paved the way for telemedicine,
that's paved the way for Zoom calls
rather than clinical examinations.
And that's where we are now.
And that's why two years ago,
we had this epidemic of patients being put on ventilators
as a way of preventing transmission
in hospital and clinical settings.
People put on ventilators that didn't need to be
because this was anticipatory medicine,
which is what evidence-based medicines produced.
Anticipating, trying to prevent transmission.
This was the idea, aerosolized transmission
from SARS-CoV-2 by putting people on ventilators.
People who couldn't walk and talk
and whose oxygen saturation were fairly normal
or just below normal were electively intubated.
And that's what killed so many people two years ago.
And that's what's still killing people
in hospital settings where they're electively ventilated
when they don't need to be.
So here we are, we're in this situation
of a Hobson's choice,
and we're in the situation of protocol-driven care
and the transhumanist takeover of medical practice,
which is what SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19
are very good examples of.
Indeed, HIV 35, 40 years ago was the prodromal example
of this because patients were reduced in HIV clinics
to their viral loads, the PCR tests,
the T-cell counts, and their antibody tests.
And that was all the virologists
were interested in treating.
They were treating T-cell numbers and viral node numbers.
They weren't treating real patients.
They were treating abstract techniques, abstract numbers,
technocratic approach to healthcare
rather than caring for the human patient.
And that is exactly what COVID-19 is pushing forward,
not just for smaller groups of patients
like the HIV so-called epidemic,
but now everybody is the risk group for COVID-19.
And that's why you've seen in every health service
across the world, the reconfiguration,
the coordination of the health service
around these notions of COVID-19 as a new disease
that's respiratory in origin,
and that is transmissible through airborne pollution.
And therefore you've had this coordination
of every health service in every country
around free-aging respiratory symptoms.
So patients have been assumed to have SARS-CoV-2
presumptively when they've had a cough,
a temperature, a sore throat, very generic symptoms,
nothing new there, but absolutely wonderful
for creating fear and pushing forward this notion
of there being a pandemic,
because everybody suffers in a 12-month period
from a sore throat or dry mouth
or olfactory symptoms or a temperature.
It's a normal part of our bodily,
a cycle where we renew and where we throw out rubbish.
We get flu-like symptoms
when we're trying to detoxify our bodies.
These are all being bracketed as COVID-19,
marvelous for the figures,
wonderful for the statistics,
case-demic driven by testing,
getting everybody to test with lateral flow or PCR tests,
getting people to become basically hyper-neurotic,
hysterical really about this,
to the point where they won't leave the home
or when they leave the home to do the shopping,
they come back and they take a lateral flow test.
This is becoming normalized now
and it's creating the fuel for these pandemics.
So this is where we are, I think, in 2022.
We're in this situation where people are being pushed
either to the injections or to other pharma solutions
for something that isn't real, isn't materially there,
and has never been proved to be there,
SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.
We have to come back to the axioms of the whole thing.
And when we do that, we can see and reframe this
into a situation where we can see it for what it is.
If it doesn't exist, why are there injections to prevent it?
So what are in those injections?
What are manufactured and injected into people?
Older people, middle-aged people, and now children, right?
A lot of the anti-lockdown movement
is going hysterical about injecting our children.
Well, what about what's happened in the last year
with older people in care homes and residential homes?
I don't see many people jumping up and down about that.
So it's all right to stop injecting children.
So it's okay to inject older people in care homes.
And I was saying this 18 months ago
and being laughed at at Trafalgar Square
when we stood up and said that there were DNR orders
in the nursing homes,
DNAR orders, as they called them in America,
in the nursing homes in the UK.
And that was later borne out by research studies
like the Queen's Nursing Institute study
about the first lockdown.
And here we are now, 18 months later,
people jumping up and down about children, quite rightly.
They shouldn't be injected,
but nobody should be injected with these products.
These fast track products are only there to develop billions
for pharmaceutical industry
and to develop the career choices for people
that should know better.
And any doctor with a medical training
who's promoting any of these products,
whether it's COVID injections or other pharma products
or hydroxychloroquine. These are also damaging drugs. They have major effects. So I think
that we need to look critically at the whole spectrum of this, not just the COVID injections,
but also the corollary that's being pushed onto the population. Because I don't believe
there's a scientific basis for any of it whatsoever. We need to go back to pre-2020 and we need
to look at the whole Achilles heel of this, which is the PCR, lateral flow tests, and the science of
purification and isolation, which has not been undertaken. And to do that effectively, as I've
tried to do in the last two years, you have to go back and look at the virological literature,
which I've done. And some of it's in the film that Stephen Frost has sent around, the video
I've recently done, where we've looked, I've looked at the virological papers from the 80s and 90s,
where virologists themselves, from within the mainstream, had major concerns about the
geneticisation of their field, and that the whole push towards looking at gene sequences are not
purified isolates from real patients. And that debate was had in the 1980s and the 1990s
by lots of virologists and microbiologists like Kalischer, Fredrickson-Rellman. Some of the papers
are on that film that are cited. But there are more, there are many more, had great problems about
the fact that we're being pushed towards gene banks and uploading gene sequences as a solution
to human disease. And that is within the field of virology itself. So this whole push has happened
because of funding from big pharma and from very powerful vested interests that have moved virology
away from classical techniques towards very, very dubious, sophisticated, high-tech approaches,
which again are abstracted from the patient in the bed. And I have to bring this back to
the patient care that I was trained in, which started with symptoms, signs. Symptoms are what
the patient complains of and signs are what the clinician observes objectively and the history
that the patient gives. And that is the 99% of your clinical diagnosis. The testing was the cherry on
the cake. The testing is part of that, perhaps, but not always. And what this transhumanist,
this technocratic former medicine that came in with HIV in the 1980s and 90s,
what that's done with SARS-CoV-2 is to push it the other way. So now nearly 100% of your diagnosis
is to do with testing. It's got nothing to do with symptoms, signs, or history taking,
which is the patient care. So you can see that this is upended traditional medicine. This whole
40-year history of evidence-based approaches has completely turned upside down human medical
practice and human medical sciences. And that's what I find particularly evil about what's been
happening is that now this is being enshrined and this is being legitimized and it's being
institutionalized not only by the authorities and Big Pharma, but by the so-called
scientists that are supposed to be against this, some of them in the anti-lockdown movement,
who are accepting the existence of SARS-CoV-2 and the creation of this phony COVID-19 disease
category. And they're working with it as though they are real and valid terms and categories,
which they are absolutely not. And to talk about treating it as though it's something real
is quite bizarre really. And you will never overturn the masking, the social distancing,
and the COVID injections by not challenging the basis of this, which is the isolation
of the virus hasn't been done. It has never been purified. And there is no gold standard based on
virus isolates to validate these tests. And that is the key thing to attack. And once you attack
that and you show it for what it is, everything else looks very dubious. The injections,
the promotion of other drugs like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, and the COVID so-called vaccines,
the quacks scenes at Christine Massey Coins, the quacks scenes, because that's exactly what all of
these things are. They're quack approaches to health based on a technocratic order, which we're
going to have to fight probably on the streets at some point, but fight it we will. So that's what I
think. And I'm sure I've upset a few people by saying this, but that's exactly what I think.
And I believe in speaking the truth. I don't believe in pulling the wool over people's eyes.
And I think I'd like to look at things critically. And I like to look at them axiomatically and to go
back to the basics here. And the basics COVID-19 is the fact that SARS-CoV-2 is an algorithmic
construction of computers. It is not from human nature. It is not from nature. It's not from human
bodies. And that we need to look at. Why has that happened? Why has this been accepted? Why is it
accepted? Because we've had evidence-based medicine. We've had testing. You know, we're tested
till the cows come home, not just in medicine, but educationally we're tested. The whole human
population has been inured to this in the last 40 years. And this is why this has been accepted on
a widespread scale. Why people are going along and suffering these injections? Because they've become,
they've been made to be compliant and to be coerced into doing this. So that's what I think.
I hope that's been useful to hear this. And I'm very happy to answer questions.
I'm not reading the screen people have been putting on the screen because I haven't got my
glasses on. And I'm... Okay, no, Kevin, don't worry about reading it because there's lots of,
lots of wonderful comments in there. We'll get the chat to you. You know how to save the chat on
your computer, don't you? You'd have to tell me afterwards how to do that.
We'll tell you in a moment. But everybody, before Stephen goes first,
and this is a hot topic for this group, Kevin, and I love that you spoke your truth because
that's what lies at the heart of the work that I've been doing for 28 years, the freedom of
speech. Because without freedom of speech, we don't have freedom, everybody. The blocking of
freedom of speech is the beginning of the end of freedom. Now, I just want all of you,
and Christine, I saw you, Christine Massey, I saw you on the viral delusion video as well. So that
was, that was wonderful. I want you to honestly speak your truth. And I want a percentage,
everybody, there's 96 people on this call. And this is to put your mind into an appropriate
thinking space. I want you to put in there the percentage, the extent to which the whole
medical profession understands the functioning of the human body. Okay? In other words,
does the medical profession in its entirety know 100% of what's happening with our body,
or 1% or something in between? I want your honest answer, please. Simon DeWolf is going to do an
Excel spreadsheet. He doesn't know this yet. But I'm going to quote this number from this 100 people
here. And I've asked numerous experts about this question. And I'm interested, just put your
percentage number in the chat. There's no right or wrong. And I want all of you to stop thinking,
gosh, Kevin has said this, bang, I've got an opposing view. And let's have a shit fight. No,
we don't need a shit fight. What we need is to appreciate the different perspectives. And that's
what Stephen Frost has created here, this opportunity to explore these perspectives.
And I'm going to quote the aggregate number of this group percentage in all of my other speeches,
everybody. So your percentage assessment counts. So thank you for participating.
Charles, can I ask, so the question is, do you want us to put a percentage
for, so 50% if you think that doctors know it all or what, and when was it before the pandemic?
50% if they know half the functioning, 1% if they know it to a 1% degree, 100% if you think
the medical profession knows everything about the human body. Yes, but when though, was it before
March 2020 or after? Today. Well, they're absolutely hopeless now. Well, no, but that's,
you know, just use your intuition, everybody. They're almost 100% wrong, I would say at the
moment. Well, there you are. You do less than 1%. So my, and my point is, and I remind you of it,
that we have a spirituality, we have a spiritual, this group also subscribed, we have a spiritual
war on our hands. This is not a mechanistic scientific functioning of the human body.
And we are, that's what this group, Stephen, you've done a great job creating this group so
that we'll, we love to explore the possibilities. And Kevin, what you said about the viral delusion,
please repeat that just quickly before Stephen asks you the first questions of the value of
the viral delusion film as an alternative way of sharing scientific progress.
You mean you want me to repeat what I said earlier? Yes, because there was only half the people on the
call. Oh, I see. Well, just quickly. Mike Wallach, American directors created five episodes,
each episodes over two hours long. And he's basically through those five episodes,
he's interrogating the whole axioms of viral disease and the existential issues over
viruses, basically whether they exist or not. And he's interviewed lots of different voices,
lots of different medical professionals like Andrew Kaufman, Thomas Cowan,
virologists like Stefan Lanker. There's a whole group of, a whole spectrum of views that are presented.
And it's a very thorough interrogation. And I think if you're looking for quick sound bites,
it's a difficult one to look at, because each episode is two hours long plus. So they're
archives really. And they're also useful for people to do their own self-education, self-learning,
and to look at those films and to go away and do your own research. And I think that's what's the
most difficult thing I find at the moment is everything exists in sound bites. It's an Instagram
culture that we're living in. Quick, quick, quick, 10 second attention spans. And some of this you've
got to unpack over a period of time. It takes some time to do that. So I would encourage people to
look at those films as archives, they're tools for your own learning to take away, to replay,
and to go and do your own research. And of course, I think the group that we're talking to here,
of I've got 95 on the screen. Wow. Are people who do this anyway. I'm sure we all do this anyway.
But when we're giving it to other people, I think we need to help them with that sort of learning,
because what I see around me in the anti-lockdown movement, some people are struggling a lot with
this. And they're looking for quick answers in a few seconds or a few minutes. And you've got to
help people with their learning that takes longer. And it's a sort of deep dive learning,
really, that's important. So that's what I would say, that these are archival pieces of work,
Mike Wallach's films, that will go into the archive and hopefully into the historical record.
And they'll be there for people in years to come. Thank you beautifully expressed. Over to you,
Stephen, for the first questions. And then, Kevin, just to be aware, see all the hands up,
there are two after Stephen, there's two, four, five, six, seven, questioners. So you're the
extent to how much time you take on each answer. Just be aware, okay, in your own time frame. So
Stephen, over to you. Kevin, that was a really brilliant presentation. I think no one in the
world could have come up with what you said, all of it. It was a very wide view of the whole. We
talked about medicine earlier and virology and you managed to get it all in. And I don't know how you
did it. It was brilliant. And I'm glad we've captured it on video. And I hope you give us
permission to spread it far and wide. But anyway, we'll ask later. So I just wanted to ask you,
there are a few things I'd like to say. And I'll ask you a question at the end. So evidence-based
medicine has become a monster. I think you'd probably agree with that, but maybe you don't.
And testing people with deadly AZT who were not sick and had just tested positive
was wrong. And we've repeated the same thing again. And not only that, but we've psychologically
tortured the whole population of the world into fear and not being able to think about anything.
So the next observation was that you mentioned the old and vulnerable being offered the fourth
dose, I think it was. And my position as a medical doctor is that any medical doctor
worth the name should have been able to work out that the old and the vulnerable would be the first
people to tip over into death as a result of these dangerous shots. So that was wrong too.
And it was absolutely crazy that no doctors spoke out about that. Not to my knowledge. Testing was,
so how you do medicine, you need to get a diagnosis. That's the most important thing in medicine.
You take a history. History is incredibly important. You should know the diagnosis or have a damn good
idea at the end of the history. If you don't know, you carry on taking the history. And then you do
the examination. If you don't have a good idea what's wrong with the patient before you start
the examination, you're never going to find out what's wrong with the patient. So clinical
examination and then the test was no test should be done if you haven't got a diagnosis.
So you confirm the diagnosis with the test. You don't test to get the diagnosis.
Complete bastardization of medicine. So my question to you is this, is it possible that
virology and medicine were deliberately targeted by big pharma for big never-ending profits and by
others for achieving other agendas? Well I would say, I would have said a few years ago,
the answer to that would be no. But I'm afraid after the last two years I would say yes to that
question. And I would say there's good evidence. I mean yes is my opinion, you're right. There has
been a, you know, they've been colonized by vested interests. Virology had been corrupted by vested
interests. But it's not me saying this. If you look at a paper by Kalashur Etal, a microbiologist
who was talking on behalf of the whole group of arbovirus experts in 2001 and it's in the film,
I quote it in the film that you've sent around, the video you've sent around, and I can get the
reference to later if you want, the citation. Kalashur said that the reason for this push to
geneticization was vested interests, funding interests, were pushing the geneticization of
virology in the 1980s and the 1990s. And that's what created the ease, you know, it's performative.
So, you know, you see this all the way through medicine. For example, Luke Montagnier in his
book Virus, which was his account of discovering, inventing the AIDS virus, but discovering it,
he said they moved to antibody testing because it's quicker, it's cheaper, you can do it in
disseminated form. To isolate or purify would take six to seven months, nine months, and then
it only works in a proportion of cases, he said. So it didn't work. They couldn't purify to
develop a diagnostic, but they could do it by synthetic production of so-called HIV antigens
into ELISA tests and Western blot tests. So this is what's wrong really, this whole
technological development of medical testing away from the patient's bedside, away from the real
person, abstracting the human into a set of surrogate markers that, you know, are portable
and transportable. It's crazy really when you look at it. But I think I would answer that question,
yes, it has been corrupted. That's not just Kevin Corbett saying it, but it's been corrupted.
That's not just Kevin Corbett saying it. There's people in the field of microbiology,
andrology in the 80s and 90s saying it in journal articles. Not me saying it 30 years later. So yes,
I think it has been corrupted. And how it's been misguided is through these performative and
highly reproducible tests like PCR, antibody tests, etc. That are very, very machine run.
They're cheaper now than they've ever been. They can be done by a technician. So you don't need a
physician to diagnose. And this is what they've done through doing this corruption is to completely
corrupt the whole diagnostic practice between clinician and patient. So it becomes a technical
operation that can be done at distance and away from the bedside.
Yeah. And Kevin, do you think that if people were to say, we don't want this type of medicine,
we don't want artificial intelligence medicine or online medicine, we don't want that. We want to see
doctors, but we also want them to get rid of this nonsense protocols, guidelines, evidence based
medicine, which the whole damn thing has become a real monster, in my opinion. And it was absolutely
essential to have that just as it was to target the world of virology to achieve what they have
achieved. And what they've achieved is injecting fear into the whole population of the world
when doctors should not be making patients fearful. It's just ridiculous.
Doctors are supposed to comfort people when they're ill.
Stephen, at a very basic level, could you ask anybody in the UK?
Wait a minute. Kevin, how do I? You've done it, Charles. Good.
What's their biggest problem when they go to see their general practitioner? And they always say,
the doctor's looking at the screen, not at me.
That's wrong as well. I agree. Yeah, it's wrong. They shouldn't have computers.
Yeah, but they're looking at the screen, which is telling them what the nice protocol is for
that diagnostic group. Yeah. So if patients are diabetic or they're COPD or whatever,
they're looking at what they should be looking at.
Not only that, but they're being jogged to look. So the damn computer tells them to look at this
and look at that. And you see, you don't need to train people through sort of 15 years of highly
expensive medical school to get to a GP level. You could train somebody from the street to do this.
And that's exactly why they've done it, so they can replace it with artificial intelligence.
And that's when you look at what's happening in the UK. And I only know the UK because I don't
live in any other country. But in the UK, they've taken people who are unemployed, no job, who are
waiting to get employment. And they've trained them to give these COVID injections to the public.
So they're not registered with the nursing council or the medical council. They can't be,
the public cannot complain to a professional regulator when they've got an adverse event.
And they can't complain to the government because the liability is covered anyway.
So this is part of the attenuation of our skills as clinical practitioners, having
ancillary people doing medical procedures. If you had a registered nurse giving an IM injection,
a COVID injection, whatever, or a physician, it'd be a different standard. They'd apply to it
to somebody off the job queue, off the street. And I'm not being judgmental about people who are
unemployed. I'm just showing how it's working. And that's part of what's happened. Telemedicine
sounded good at the beginning, 25 years ago when it came in, just as evidence-based medicine was
sold to us. We need to know what works and what's the best research design for this question.
Seems reasonable, can't complain about that. But 30 years later, it's become a monster.
And likewise, telemedicine is destroying people's jobs and it's not giving good outcomes. Because
with telemedicine, you're going to have so many false positives and false negatives,
right? Because you need to have the clinical in-situ hands-on experience with a patient to be able
to really work a differential diagnosis in favor of that patient. You cannot do it at distance.
Yeah, things on a screen look like one thing. In reality, they could be something quite different.
And this is what's happening with these tests. Yeah. Exactly. So the notion is, Kevin, that,
oh, doctors, you know what's been happening in the UK. You couldn't mention the word doctor.
Doctors were not allowed to wear name badges. They weren't allowed to wear white coats.
And in the end, you have doctors being termed as performers by bureaucrats in Wales and in England.
And the doctors don't say anything. I said, this is wrong. Doctors should be called doctors,
not medical professionals or medical performers. They should be called doctors. But the whole idea
was to undermine doctors in the eyes of the public. And they've succeeded. Well, I think you're right,
Stephen. But I think that's been happening across all the healthcare professions. We've had it in
nursing. We used to have two tiers of registration in this country, the state-enrolled nurse,
the practical nurse, and the registered nurse. And that became one form of registration. They
merged the two. Now they've re-emerged. They've separated it again. And we have so many ancillary
grades, healthcare assistants, nursing aides. And in medicine, you've got, now you haven't just got
doctors. You've got paramedics. You've got, well, they're quite useful. In fact, I'd rather have a
paramedic than a physician because they know what to do. A lot of physicians, in my experience,
wouldn't have very good practical skills. The paramedics are very good at hands-on. But what
I'm saying in medicine, you've got these grades now which are ancillary to medicine. Physicians
assistants, for example, which is an American concept. We've now got them here. And you hear
doctors complaining about this, just as the registered nurses complain about their ancillary
grades in nursing. So what they're doing is attenuating our skills, diluting them across
different occupational groups. And so nobody really has an identity. And that can be useful
on one level. You could work in an interprofessional clinical environment where doctors, nurses,
therapists all do the same work. They may have different epistemologies behind them, but they're
doing the same things. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about attenuation of
skills so that algorithms can do it, not people. And that's what's happening in medicine. That's
what COVID is really about, is getting rid of doctors and nurses and having robots doing it,
doing it at distance, doing it through IT, cheapening the process, making it more performative,
making it outcome driven, more volume can be dealt with at less cost. That's the equation.
Also, they undermined doctors and nurses by the notion that you can send off somebody off on a
training course. You have a job these days, you can go off, train, you can train to be a doctor
in two weeks, I'm sure, according to. But also, I think the world of virology has been set up
by Big Pharma through funding to produce exactly this scenario. And similarly, I think evidence
based medicine was set up by Big Pharma to undermine doctors, to get people to. But if the
public... Sorry. I mean, the thing is, look, I certainly agree with you there. I mean,
whether it was intentionally done as a sort of plan or whether it's organically emerged like that,
because what happens is vested interests coalesce together, birds of a feather flock together.
And, you know, when you look at the history of evidence based medicine, it always starts with
McMaster University in Canada and, you know, this idea that people don't know what research is any
good or what research design should be used to answer certain questions. And it sounds very good,
but the reality is behind that facade were these interests. And always, always, it's pharmaceutical
companies that are the interested parties. Now it's the IT monoliths as well as pharma.
They're working together. It's the digital, the digital reality, the digital partners.
These are the ones that are pushing this. The digital reality, the COVID passes, the genetic,
you know, markers, the biobank. When that came in, what was it, 20 years ago, all the social
scientists were rushing to get grants to research it. You know, they're very interested in this
because pharma was throwing money around to the universities. University of York, where I worked
at the time, 15 years, 16 years ago, had big money to do research into this, into the social science,
people's perceptions of biobanks and genetic marketing, genetic testing, et cetera. And so
this became the way that these forces, these interested groups, these vested interests,
colonised healthcare through funding. And this is interesting, Kevin, that just you talk about
digital has been pushed and pushed and pushed on several fronts. And so it's ironic that the
computer came between doctors and their patients. Well, yeah, but I mean, you know, we're part of it,
aren't we, today? I mean, the whole anti-lockdown movement relies on telegram and video and,
you know, all these videos. And we wouldn't have been able to do things worldwide without something
like that. I think we need to be careful about, you know, it's always, it's always, is the technology
intrinsically problematic or is it our application of it that's problematic? I think that we have to
be very vigilant about how we use computers, full stop. I think we've got a lot of questions,
Stephen. So let's, let's, um, Kevin, I have to, I have to keep Stephen under control as well,
because otherwise he'll keep chatting with you for good stuff. I'm enjoying the conversation,
but Stephen, we'll get to the questions. Sure. Then the, sorry, yeah, we're not,
sorry. That's, it's been most enlightening and the vigilance, I think coming to that point,
there's wonderful stuff with computers and there's shitty stuff with computers. So
we have to see what's the good bit and leave the bad bit out. All right. Gary Finkelstein in the UK.
Yeah. Hi, Charles. Thanks. Thank you. Look, I've got a very brief question. I just want to clarify,
because you had this analogy with the, I'm going to call it the flawed PCR testing and on an
isolated virus for the COVID-19 and the analogy was in the 80s and 90s with HIV.
Are you saying that, did I understand you correct that the HIV virus doesn't exist?
And are you saying that the SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn't exist? I'm saying that they haven't been
purified. So they might not exist, Gary. It's possible, but they haven't been purified. And
if Luke Montaigne admitted that on camera, I think he admitted it at least twice on two different
films when he was interviewed at length. And when you go back to the original papers,
it's quite interesting because Montaigne really, he got the Nobel, he had it so-called
before Gallo did really. I mean, he had it for a year. That's the story that came out. So
if the Nobel prize winner said that they hadn't purified it, they hadn't purified it.
So if it wasn't purified, then what are those tests based on? They're based on calibration
against the disease, against the symptoms. And that's why they don't work because they're not
calibrated against a real entity. They're calibrated against a set of symptoms. Okay, let me ask you
a different question and then I'm going to drop it. Oh, but just before you do that,
in 2020, Torsten Engelbrecht, a German journalist, published an article in
Off Guardian where he'd interviewed, I think, at least six authors of leading papers in journals
like Nature and Lancet, who said they'd isolated the virus and they all admitted that they hadn't
purified it. They detected something with PCR. That's not the same as purification virologically.
So my question is going to be, is that such a bad thing? Because he says the thing, if you know
there's a virus out there because of clinical diagnoses that you're seeing high volumes of
elderly people getting very, very ill with very low saturation levels and so forth.
But we haven't been able to fully isolate or fully purify the virus, but we know there's a virus out
there and we can, if you like, identify X percent of it genetically from genetic sequencing. So
we've got a very good... Isn't that better than doing nothing? And then you have people like
McCulloch and Marrick and others who can work on treatment protocols to try and help people who
catch this virus that's circulating, even if we can't purify it. We know that there's something
out there that's causing them sick. Well, I would say no to that question because
how do you know it's the virus but you can't purify it?
Yeah. Okay. Well, that's my question. I don't want to get so debated.
No, but I mean, that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? I mean,
people get ill for all sorts of reasons other than the virus, but the assumption is... I mean,
I think I remember reading one paper from the CDC where the sample was N equals one. It was one case
of somebody who'd been to China and had respiratory symptoms. And therefore, the whole
paper, the whole so-called isolation was only PCR detection of something that was assumed to be
viral. It was just a nonsense really. And no, I'd say no. I think you can do damage that way.
I think that assumption has been damaging that there's a transmissible virus. Go back to those
papers that I quoted, Frederiksen-Rellman, Kalash, Rattal, you know, a sequence isn't directly
equated to a transmissible agent. They don't equate. That's a false equation that the vested
interests that pushed us towards geneticisation in virology have glossed over. And that's been
glossed over at our peril. And we're now in this viral paradigm where disease that appears in a
population at the same time is seen as due to contagion and to a transmissible agent. And it
may not be that at all. And I would argue it isn't. And the other environmental exposures have been
grossly overlooked. I knew that with AIDS. The AIDS patients I looked after in the 80s and 90s
all had other etiologies that could have been used to explain why they're ill. Those are thrown in
the bin once they had an HIV antibody test. That was the heart of my question, my original question.
Thank you. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Gary. So, Kevin, in terms of time frame,
there's got 10 questions here. So I keep moving through. And thank you, Gary. Ariana, love.
Thank you. Hey, Dr. Kevin. I don't know if you remember me from on Twitter. You know,
we were kind of collaborating with Kate Shimerani was in my group.
I think you were in my group too, as well. WikiAnons, campaign group.
Well, I've been in the last week. So I haven't been on for over a week and a half.
They've banned me now. And it'll probably be a permanent ban. So I was banned a while ago. And
I kind of stopped following you just because I didn't have, you know, access to I've been on
telegram. But great work. You know, I've been following you since the beginning, like of this
scam DEMEC for the last two years, or I started, you know, two years ago, and really appreciated
you stepping up kind of early on before anybody else. And anyway, I wanted to address just what
Gary was talking about, about HIV and mentioned that, by the way, Kevin, I've been writing and
documenting a lot of articles. And I really encourage you to check out my website. It's
ambassadorlove.wordpress.com. I think you would get a kick out of the stuff I've been doing. But
I've been reading through the patents. And in the patents, I mean, basically discovered this whole
scam that Big Pharma has been running for decades, making people sick, making people chronically ill.
For example, HIV, it is a patented biological weapon. And they are coding people's cells with
it. And they've had this technology for a while. So that whole HIV, you know, the AIDS was was their
first test run of this technology. The HIV one is patented and owned by Anthony Fauci.
Right. It's not a virus at all. It's a biological weapon. And they've been using,
you know, they've synthetically created these proteins. They say based on, you know, patient
zero, whatever. But that's, well, anyway, sorry, you go ahead and-
No, that's exactly, exactly. I mean, this is the point. This is hard for people, I think,
for any of us to wrap our heads around, is that they're all chimeric, you know, artificially
created proteins. And now we have like the AI writing these bioweapons codes. When I look in
the patents, there is just a slew of poisons. Like, I don't think any human being could come
up with that. So, you know, the AI has, they programmed the AI and it came up with 40,000
bioweapons. So it's writing the codes. Then they've got artificial proteins, artificial
genetic sequences that mimic, you know, snake venom and other poisons. So this is their,
you know, they're just coming out with it all now. But what did I want to say? Oh, I wanted to ask
you if you have researched at all into monoclonal antibodies and if you-
No, not really. I mean, I've researched the general area, the molecular approach to,
you know, the molecular approach to illness. And, you know, there was this book, I can't remember
the name of the author, I'm sorry, hopeless at names, but it's called The Molecular Vision of
Life. You might have seen, you might have seen the book. And it's basically a science historian
and she's done this thorough analysis of right back to the First World War and the era, you know,
the sort of destruction of the medical schools in America and the push towards looking at things
through a molecular lens, the work of Pauling and all the other scientists in the 40s and 50s.
And then you've got the development of, you know, these tests really that come at the end of this,
or, you know, HIV would never have been identified. And I use the word identified,
because that's what very famous virologist Bernard Fields said in one of his last papers in Nature
in 94 before he died, was HIV has been identified and he's been moaning the lack of an AIDS virus.
He didn't say HIV has been isolated, he said identified. And that's exactly what they've
done with all of these viruses. You hear them talk about isolation, but actually what they
mean is PCR identification. Yeah, it's, they're looking at some sort of genetic print, looking
at some shadow, some surrogate of the vacancy that they think is there. They think there's this agent
there. They're looking at a surrogate, a shadow of it, not the real thing, you know. And when you look
at a shadow, you know, shadow could be all sorts of things in the material reality creating that
shadow could be lots of things. You know, if you look from an aircraft down on the ground, you know,
you can see a shadow. Is it an elephant or is it a tree or is it a house? You know, do you know what
I mean? This is the problem with these sorts of these surrogate technologies are not the way to do
healthcare and not the way to diagnose illnesses. You know, they completely allied the human.
The human agency is elided, is attenuated and washed out of it. And all you're left with,
it's a set of markers. And that's exactly what virologists do. They look at HIV patients as
viral loads, T cell counts. That's it. They're not interested in anything else. And I had great
problems about this in the 80s and 90s, working clinically in the field of AIDS, but all the time,
the human was being aligned, you know, DNR orders, a good example of that. And in those days,
we couldn't get AIDS patients on a ventilator or an intensive care unit in intensive care unit,
ICU, because they weren't being offered it. They're being offered drugs and then terminal care,
dimorphine, and they were dead. And that was the 80s and 90s. And now it's the other way. It's
exactly the same equation, but it's gone the other way. You can't stop them putting people on the
ventilators. Yeah. So anyway, I'm not sure if that's answered your question.
Yeah, I would love to share with you my articles and especially about the monoclonal antibodies.
I'm looking for other doctors to take a look at it. I'll have a look at your website and
and I'll get in contact with you. Thanks so much. Good to meet you finally, face to face.
Thanks. Thank you, Ariana. Now the results of the question that I asked to the extent to which the
percentage extent to which the whole medical profession understands the functioning of the
body at 43 replies of those 43 only four are above 50%. 10 are in single figures. That means
33 of you consider the accumulated knowledge to be between 10 and 50%. 10 in single figures,
four over 50. So any idea, hey, we know all the answers and I enjoyed Kevin looking what Kevin's
talking about looking at the sheer number of things happening in the cell is so complex.
As Kevin rightly says, when you watch the viral delusion, you go, wow, how does somebody say this
is this? So next question, Kathleen.
Thank you, Charles. Hi, Kevin. Thanks for the presentation. I'm in Nebraska in the US and I've
been talking with several people about my concern for our blood supply. If so many people have gotten
these injections and have had COVID, what is the state of the blood supply with the red cross and
is it transmissible through blood products such as plasma and blood donations? Has anyone, and I'm
asking for all doctors, research into this. Do you know how it can be transmitted if that spike
protein is transmittable through blood donations? Because I think that there is a need to set up a
separate blood banking or some way for people to do networks, informal networks to say, okay,
if you go into the hospital, here's who you call to do designated blood donations, which you can
do through the red cross, but they don't like to do it. They kind of put up a little fight because
it is more work for them and your doctor has to be involved with that. But I see this as being a
real problem because at some point, some of us may need plasma transfusions or whatever. And if we've
been very diligent about not getting exposed, we could be exposing voluntarily. I think it's a very
topical area, this, because it's what we're left with. I mean, these are synthetic agents that have
been put into people that the manufacturers admit are transmissible. I mean, for example,
the Pfizer protocol did say about shedding, it did say quite clearly, and there's good evidence for
that. However, there's a lot of unknowns here. And how do you protect yourself in a population
from acquiring spike protein? You come into close proximity with people. There must be huge
potential there for contamination. It must be impossible to stop it. In a hospital setting,
you know, I don't know what the model for this would be, whether it's the model that
people religious beliefs like Jehovah's Witnesses had about transfusions, where you take your own
bodily fluids, you take your own blood supply, and you bank it for later you. That's essentially
with the red cross they have, it's called the designated donor program. However, if you're in
a car accident, you don't have the luxury. You can only have that as a luxury when you're having
cold surgery or some planned situation. And therefore, it's out of your control. I can't
see a way forward. I can't see our health services here in the UK even entertaining that, really,
because we have a more of a socialist type system where it's a waiting line system, really.
It's not really consumer sensitive in the way that yours is, more so perhaps than ours. And it may
be possible for private patients here to develop that sort of system where it will work up to a
point. But if you're out on the freeway and you're hit by a pan technicum, you're taken to the local
ER and you're unconscious, your wishes are going to go out the window unless they're recorded,
unless there's an infrastructure there that automatically takes that into account. I can't
see it working. And I think people are at risk for the unknowns. And there's a lot of unknowns here
about this spike protein. There's a lot of fear and uncertainty, I think, about it. So
where is the research that's being done on this? I would say there needs to be more basic research
on this and more awareness. But I think it's an area, really, where citizen science and
consumer pressure could come in and could facilitate. I think in the North American
healthcare, my understanding and experience has been that you are much more consumer,
patients much more of a consumer in the true sense of the word, in terms of paying for
the service. Whereas in the situation we are here in the UK, we suffer from, since the Second War,
war for having, I would say we suffer under socialist system, really, where it's, you know,
NHS, National Health Service in the UK is a sacred cow and people don't want to challenge it.
And they don't want it to be more consumer sensitive, because it's seen as an all-embracing
free gift, really, which it's not because we all pay for it. I would like to see more pressure on
these issues, really, about what people are actually at risk of through the blood supply.
Yeah. But you see, where do you stop with that? Because, you know, it's not just the spike protein,
there's other issues there as well. And I think it's a real hot potato.
If anyone has articles, I put my email address in there, KathleenArkouth at gmail.com. Anyone
who has articles or wants to reach out to me, I would love to, again, I'm starting to just dig
into this. And Julie, I see that you're on here somewhere. And I've spoken with her about it. So
just send me your articles. Thank you very much, Kevin. We appreciate it.
Kathleen, are you a doctor?
No, no, no, no, I'm not. I'm actually a mediator.
It occurs to me that there's probably no funding for anybody who wants to look into this.
Probably not very much. It's going to have to be private.
Yeah, private.
And Julie Stein is doing some work on this. We'll have time to go there. But Julie Stein is doing
some stuff. And I've spoken to Julie about that. And so, Kathleen, the work that you're doing there
is relevant. And also, someone might know, in terms of the Red Cross, I'm certain that there's not
a unanimous view that Red Cross is some saintly organization. I don't think, you know, there's
been suggestions put to me. I've never thought about this. But Red Cross is certainly not a
saintly organization. I think Julie's putting the note, Red Cross is extremely corrupt. We might
have a conversation about that. Thank you, Kathleen. James Winkle.
Hello. Can you hear me? Yeah. Okay, thanks. Okay, sorry. Yeah, Kevin, thanks for
speaking. Yeah, I think you bring up some really good points. I want to do, I guess,
just kind of get a reaction question. So I, of course, over the past couple of years,
it's been rough. And I think, you know, finding the truth in this thing is of paramount importance.
I do think we're on the same page on almost all the stuff. I think, I guess,
what I see at its core is, you know, this transhumanism, this almost, this attempt to
dehumanize. And, I mean, we're seeing this, certainly in America, and I'm sure everywhere else,
the transgender, we're trying to change people. We're trying to, and not say it's evil, we're
supposed to celebrate this. It's just very evil to me. And these vaccines, of course, I mean,
I think any physician doctor pushing these should be at minimum life in prison. I mean, it's just,
it's so evil. But I guess as far as, I guess I'll say, so I guess, I really like Charles' survey,
as well, because it does point to a humility, I feel, in this group, at least. Whereas,
I think there's just a big hubris in these, in the Fauci's, all these people that think they can
control the world and save the world with this, you know, vaccine or whatever. What I wanted to
ask, though, is, because in the purification of the virus, I have watched videos on with
Kaufman Cohen, and I have a lot of friends that are in that camp. I'm currently in a,
we're working on a clinical trial for Vax injuries in the microbiome. And, you know,
the PI has a next gen sequencing lab. And I'm, you know, very skeptical, of course, of all this,
with the like metagenomics and all that stuff. And however, just speaking with, you know, patients,
speaking with, you know, frontline doctors, there does seem to be, they all describe an unnatural
progression of this thing. So I'm personally on the side of, and I may be wrong, I feel there is
something, because I know coronaviruses have been looked at for bioweapons, and there's probably
some going on there. I just wanted your take on, I guess, some of that, because I guess the
the funny thing is, I was like, with that in mind, the purification thing, even how they
build these bioinformatics libraries, it's, it's very hard to prove. And I don't even think
you're ever going to get a purification. So is there, is it worth kind of what Gary said,
like going off that? Sorry, I'll let you go. I think it's, it's swimming against the tide,
isn't it? I think that's what you're going towards, what's what you're saying, really, because
it's all set up in this way. This is the paradigm, this is what we're told, that this is the modern
paradigm, this is how things are done. And when you push some virologists, you know, they say,
well, these are these are classical things you're talking about, they're archaic, they,
we don't need to do that anymore, because we've got genetic sequencing, we've got PCR testing.
It's, it's, it's the way science is done today. So that's a sort of displacement argument, because
it makes the opponent look out of date, and as though we're not modern, and we're, we're from
the arc, we're, we're passing. It's quite interesting that virology has developed in this way, because
it, you know, if you go back in the literature to the 1980s and 70s, the antecedents were there, but
it was a different field, and it was completely different. And when I worked in AIDS in the early
80s, it was before HIV, before HIV was so called, was HTLV 3 before 1986, and HIV or HTLV 3 was only
identified in 83, 84. So I was working in the early 80s, when it was an unknown acquired immunodeficiency
syndrome, no known cause, multifactorial. And it suddenly flipped into a viral disease from 84 onwards,
and the patenting of the tests created this. And you had generations of AIDS patients that were
created from the testing, not from any illness. They were constitutionally well, but they were
test positive. And so this is what bothers me about throwing out these arguments to do with
purification and isolation, and saying that they're not needed, and it can't be done.
You know, in one way, you could say, we've been misguided down a cul-de-sac,
and the end result is even further geneticisation, and testing and treatment, and more and more
accelerated variants, accelerated so-called vaccines, and drugs, drugs alongside this,
pharmaceutical preparations that are oral or injected. And this is what you're seeing now
with this Hobson's choice, you know, which is what the viral paradigm has developed.
No true choice, really, because the environmental concerns, the environmental exposures have been
thrown out. People's illness has got to be caused by a transmissible agent, and that's the way
epidemiology has been set up as well. And that's the way it's gone in the last 40 years, hand in
hand with Big Pharma and virology, is to create epidemics. Go and read the book called When AIDS
Began by Michelle Crossley, Routledge, 2000 and something, 1999, I think it is. Very good text,
one of the first CDC field workers in AIDS in the 1980s, and you could see how this epidemic of AIDS
so-called was constructed through the testing, and the technology, and the viral paradigm. So
I'm not sure if that answers your question, but I say it should be done, purification should be
achievable. The fact is nobody wants to do it. What happens if they can't purify it? It doesn't really
exist. Yeah, no, that's a good, I guess a quick follow-up is like, I don't, I mean, because I think
the, what was it, the only thing I've actually really seen is that like bacteriophage,
and I don't know, I just don't know, I don't know if, like, is it virology, can you purify it
in such a way? I mean, I think the problem we see, because the cellular environment is so unknown,
and so, you know, with, you know, a picture paints a thousand words, isn't it? You know,
so once you've got an electron micrograph or something, you've captured it, you know,
but is that what you think it is? Is that visual confrontation? Is it a model, or is it something
budding from a cell wall that could be all sorts of different things? And, you know, then you've
got to go into this whole electron microscopy field of looking at things down in an electron
microscope, and is that what it, you know, is it what you think it is? And, you know, you can look
up, there's somebody called, I think it's Harold Hillman, a medical doctor and a microbiologist,
I think he's dead now, UK, and he did all this work on, you know, reproductive electron microscopy
and looking at, you know, what are things, what we think they are, do ribosomes exist, you know,
because ribosomes are where the coronavirus is supposed to be assembled, isn't it? And, you know,
he questioned the basis of a lot of electron microscopy, and he was ridiculed and, you know,
ostracized in his field in the 70s and 80s. But I think this is the whole thing about
the virological approach to health, you know, the specificity of antibodies, you know, there's another
paradigm that we were sold, it's in all the textbooks, but the reality is not that,
there's no such thing as specific antibodies, you know. Okay, thank you, James, we're going to
keep moving. Yes, thank you, thank you. Relevant change to that, however, everybody, and what Kevin
is saying is a video of Dr. David Boyarsky on TED. It is a beautiful animation of what you just said,
Kevin, of the cellular environment is so unknown. He did an animation of what's going on inside the
cell. This was some six or seven years ago, and he said, maybe 10 years ago, and he said it was
instructed by Harvard Medical School, and I said, we know only a percent of what's happening inside
the cell. So he tried to then explain with his animation, please have a look at this, everybody,
because it is so incredibly complex, as you say, Kevin, it's a madness to say A causes B. So that
was just reinforcing, James, your question. Teresa? Hi. Sorry, I was eating. Hi, Kevin, great to see
you. My question is, I put in the chat a link that was to an article describing what happened on,
I think it was the 11th of January 2020. And it says there that it was an interview with Ralph
Barrack. He said that as soon as the Chinese released the sequence of the virus, he downloaded
it so that he could reverse engineer the virus and start working on it, which is an interesting
thing to do. I know that the technology exists to take a sequence in silico and build the virus.
But what do you think of that? I'll post it again now. What do you think of that?
Well, where is the basis in nature for that? That's what I had questioned.
And in silico, is in silico, does, has that come from nature? Has it come from a live patient?
Well, no, and nobody really checked that before they started working on these vaccines,
which makes them very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very,
well, that's the issue that when I looked at PCR in the 90s, I did it part of my PhD, I interviewed
people who had experience with viral load testing, and I would, there were HIV positive patients,
some would have viral loads in the hundreds, over a hundred thousand, and they'd have them repeated
at different labs. And some would have it repeated, you know, they'd had a viral load of a hundred
thousand, then another lab with another reference range said they had a viral load of 10. Yeah.
So in the space of a couple of weeks, because in those days in the 90s, PCR viral loads would take
two weeks, three weeks to do, they were much longer, they took longer to do the test. And so
in a space of a couple of weeks, they went from a viral load that was, you know, indicated they'd
be dying very shortly, according to the virologists, to a viral load that was more or most a viral cure,
you know, it's hardly any virus there, inverted commas. And so, but the person wasn't ill.
Yeah. There's no constitutional illness, they had no opportunistic infections,
they were really well, well, their weight was good, they were fleshed, they weren't cachexic,
they weren't slim, they'd had no diarrhea. And so what does it mean? You know, what did that,
you know, absolutely dreadful psychology behind those tests, or the impact of the psychological
impact was dreadful for people, unless they had a spiritual awareness that went above this and
superseded it, and they could just walk away from it, because it's alchemy, it was like an alchemy,
really, you know, I had patients on my caseload, one as a nurse specialist in the 1990s,
the early 90s, as an HIV nurse specialist, senior nurse, and this caseload of hundreds, had patients
that were diagnosed with the first HIV tests in the 80s, 84, 85, they'd be told they were told
they'd be dead in a year. And this is 10 years later, and they're well. And they would say to me,
I've never been ill, you know, but I've had to deal with this test result. I was invalidated out of
work, I was told to be dead in a year, I was given up my career, I took welfare payments, and I've
lived off those the rest of my life. I'm now in my late 30s, and I haven't had a career, haven't had
a life, but I've never been ill. I've never been unwell. And I've kept away from the antiviral
drugs, you know, so this is these these accounts are really important to me, because indicated to
me, what is the meaning of these tests? What are they for? They're not for wellness at all. I mean,
I don't think so. I was I'll tell you what I'm saying. Yeah, they're an excuse to get needles
into arms. So my question is, what's in the needle, Kevin? Well, who knows what's in these
injections? What the only indicative lists we've seen? Where are the published data on the
constituents? Right? I mean, do you remember and I'll finish very quickly, but Wodog and Yeeden,
Mike Yeeden and Wolf Wodog published a submission to the European Medicines Agency in 2020
about the Pfizer vaccine and what was in it? Yeah. Does everybody remember them? Yeah.
When you read what Wodog and Yeeden said was in this and what it would do, antibody
depends enhancement, all the rest of it. You know, how could you give that to old people?
How could you give that injection to anybody? Just reading that document as a doctor or a nurse,
that's say you're working in a vaccine and you're an RN and you read the Wodog Yeeden document,
and you've got to give this injection to people, you should immediately stop because
even if it's a pack of lies in that submission, it's worrying enough to make you think we
shouldn't be giving these injections to anybody, not adults, not old people especially, and not
young people, not children. But you know, this hasn't happened. The World Health Organisation,
the World Health Organisation say that they have now jabbed 67%, two thirds of humanity, by
by July, the beginning of July, they anticipate they will have done 70% and by December,
they're projecting that they will have injected three quarters of all of humanity.
Well, there we are. I mean, you know, we've all been saying this from the get go and
till we're blue in the face. But the reality is majority of people have gone along with it.
We cannot deny there has been a large number of people have either had the first or second
injection. I dispute whether it's going to last and that's repeated, the majority will take the
boosters. I think there's an attrition at each generation of these injections. Less and less
people are going along with it. But initially people did, because the media was promoting it,
the authorities are promoting it. We were seen as fringe and we were seen as conspiracy theorists.
We were denounced, still are. And we don't have access to the journals, to the medical journals,
to publish our view or the nursing journals. And therefore, we're fringe, you know, it's a fringe
occupation. If this vaccine is to COVID as AZT was to AIDS, then we're in trouble, aren't we?
Well, there's direct parallels there, not just with the COVID injections, but the other drugs
that have been touted now as well to AZT and the antireptivirals. And there's direct parallels to
the 1980s, because what happened with AIDS was drugs like AZT were pushed by big pharma and the
health public health authorities, but also money was siphoned off secretly to fund patient groups
to push the authorities for community trials of drugs. And I remember this, that the gay community,
especially, were being funded by pharma through backdoor routes, patient groups being funded,
and patient groups start saying to the government, we want this drug, we want this trial, we want
septum trial for AZT, want this drug trial on community trials, they call them in the States.
And so it looked like patient groups advocating for better treatments, but actually it was just
big pharma money, you know, washed through the gay community, pink washed, I'd say, through the gay
community. And it was just awful really, you know, and the advocate groups like ACT UP were pushing
for drugs into bodies. That was their mantra, drugs into bodies. Well, when I look around now,
I feel like I'm in a rerun of the 1980s, you know, except I'm like 40 years older, and I feel like
a hundred years old, really, because I don't think people have learned anything. And people are pushing
this drug and this ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine and fluoxamine, whatever. And then they want,
you know, the anti-vax, but they want these drugs, but it's all pharma at the end of the day. It's
all the same crap that people wanting to push into other people's bodies. And, you know, do we need it?
Does this thing exist or not? That's the existential question that's got to be answered.
And people like Stefan Lanker probably have already answered it, but the mainstream media and others
will not publish it. So I would say the existential arguments are key to this, right? And to stop this
genocide, this death, because this is what we did with AIDS patients. We gave them 1500 milligrams
of AZT every day. And they had AIDS. If they didn't have AIDS before they had AZT, within two
weeks to four weeks, they certainly did, because they're neutropenic in weeks with AZT, right?
And you can see AZT working. You look at the mean corpuscular volume in the blood results,
and you can see the change in the hemoglobin content and the morphology of the red blood cell.
And you can see that in the blood results. And that's how we checked to see where patients were
compliant with AZT. We looked at MCV and other markers. And you see, this is what's wrong with
this whole pharma approach to COVID, this so-called new disease, the inflammation of the lung,
you know, that could be a hundred million other things that are just re-bracketed, you know?
And I think doctors and nurse practitioners need to go back to school and learn about the differential
diagnosis to examine their patients, not through medical tests, but through interview, one-to-one
consults, history taking, signs and symptoms. And there's your diagnosis, not relying on these tests.
These tests are generating income for pharmaceutical companies, you know? PCR, the higher the number of
cycles you use, the more probability it's a positive. When it's a positive, it's a case,
case-demic. Positive PCR with COVID, and the patient's got no symptoms. There's still a case,
aren't they? No symptoms. I agree with everything you said. I disagree on one point. I think you're
saying that you think the uptake of the vaccine injectable is going to tail off. I don't think so.
I think the coercion is going to ramp up. I'm sure you're right. I mean, there's an attrition with it.
People get tired of it, but you're absolutely right, because the coercion is so strong through
the social political channels that people are almost pushed towards it. They almost can't help
taking it, you know? It's quite simple to see this. So my last response, and thank you for
answering in the depth that you did, is that I think that the AIDS pandemic of the 1980s was
the dry run for what they're doing now. Well, I think you're right, because the technology,
it was the progenitor technology for what they've got now. So it was a dry run in that respect,
retrospectively. Whether it was intended for that, I don't know, but certainly a kickstart.
It would never have happened. HIV, as opposed to AIDS, would never have happened
if the technology wasn't there. Yeah. If the technology wasn't there, it would never have happened.
Thank you, and I remind everybody that Bobby Kennedy, when he spoke to us, and his book,
The Real Anthony Fauci, has, I think, 200 pages on exactly what Kevin's talking about as well,
on AIDS and AZT and Fauci's role in that. So if you've got that book, you can get a lot of
that insight that Kevin's talking about today. So thanks, Theresa. Well done. Ted, Ted Benol,
a retired physician, are you? A radiologist? I am. I am retarded.
Now, I just want to make a comment or two, rather than go through a huge discussion, because
in essence, all of what you're saying about the regulatory capture and the funding and the,
you know, big pharma and all that stuff is correct, but we're missing the elephant in the room,
and that's the government. As long as the government has a voice in your health care,
their entire incentive is to use it as a way of aggregating power, and that's where all of this
comes from in the final analysis. Fauci is not an incompetent virologist. He is a highly competent
bureaucrat, and the bureaucrat, by definition, is the smartest person in the room. Congress said,
well, we need you to fix this. You go fix it, and Congress isn't willing to do the work to say,
here's what needs to be done. So you, as the bureaucrat, are now designated the smartest
person in the room, and you can do whatever you want, and Congress is never going to give you any
oversight unless you come back and say, look, well, I need this and this and this, and Congress says,
okay, we need to fix the problem, so we'll throw more money at it. In the United States,
the National Institutes of Health has a $41 billion annual budget that's larger than six
American states. It provides over half of the medical research funding in the United States,
and all of the peer review ultimately comes from people who get funded by NIH. That means peer
review is pure unadulterated garbage for the simple reason that it's funded by NIH, for NIH,
for the government, da da da da da, and with regulatory capture, big pharma is functionally
part of the government. Hence, they got the immunity on the vaccine. We can go on this for
hours and hours, but the basic idea is as long as the government has a hand in it, your health is
unimportant. Their power is all that matters. Yes, and Ted, as you're saying it, and Kevin,
I'll remind people that in 1975 in Australia, Ted, medicine became a menage à trois,
and similar to the UK, where Medibank was introduced, and suddenly it wasn't a doctor-patient
relationship. The government was the third party in the game plan. But are we saying though that
if you take the government out of it, then is the market, then there's the market that's left?
The market is left, and the market will do far better. If we look, for example, at the Pure
Food and Drug Act in 1906, the first big federal legislation on this, it was we have this problem
with patent medicines and adulterated medicines, and you have Sinclair Lewis's book, The Jungle,
where we have all of this spoiled food. And the government said, we're going to get in,
you have to have accurate labeling, and we can't have toxics and whatnot. Guess what?
H.J. Hines had already changed their formulation for ketchup. You in the UK would call it tomato
sauce. They had changed it in response to the scientific data that said they had stuff in it
that wasn't good. Other companies were following along. The government just jumped in with both
feet and took over. Instead of letting people understand that here's a good company doing a
good thing, we want to patronize them. The market always does a far better job than the government,
because its purpose is to make money, and it makes money by serving the customer.
Ted, I know that in America, the hospitals have almost acted like governments.
That's because of Medicare. We can do that at great length. I mean,
literally over half of all medical funding in the United States is federal.
I see. Well, even so, you would have expected that private hospitals, what we view as private
hospitals, might not have been following protocols which have killed Americans.
No, they follow the protocols because the Centers for Disease Control sets it up.
And if they don't follow the protocol of the CDC, even though CDC is out in the field as far as
medical health, all of a sudden the word goes over to the CMMS, which is the funding arm
from the federal government to the hospitals. Now we have inspectors coming in, and they can
take twice of what they paid you in the past three years. So it's a carrot and stick. It's
financially regulated. It's highly regulated, and it's more stick than carrot.
Well, they will lose funding.
You got it. And I mean, I look at the hospital I worked in is now metastasized in a thousand
directions, and these people are building huge, huge facilities everywhere. And just to give one
idea, if the hospital does a heart cath, I know this isn't virology, but if a hospital does a
heart cath, they get paid five or six thousand dollars. If the same procedure is done in a
private physician's hospital, for example, by the guy I played golf with earlier today,
he gets a thousand dollars for him and his office.
I think this is important because during the COVID, during the first year, there were a lot
of reports in the UK of the American hospitals being financially incentivized to put people
on ventilators. Oh, we have thousands of examples. Yeah, I mean, the same thing happened, you see,
the same thing happens in the UK, even though we have a so-called socialist health system, we
don't have the same sort of system that you have. The hospitals were incentivized, they would get
extra funding for those cases. So there was sort of hidden, hidden incentive that was financial.
Likewise, in the AIDS era with HIV patients, I'd have to report all my HIV positive patients
to the public health regulators because the hospitals that they were being treated in would
get a financial addition to their budget. So every doctor, every clinic, every hospital in the UK
would love an HIV patient because all they saw were the dollar signs, the pound signs. Exactly,
exactly. In the United States, the number is $13,000 for anybody who had a positive test. So you have
somebody come into the emergency room with an auto accident who dies before they can go anywhere,
quick before he hits the morgue, swab his nose. It's incredible, isn't it? I mean, it's so, it's so
blatantly immoral, unethical, everything you want to throw at it. But this is how the world runs,
you know, on money. And it's quite incredible. I mean, we had a system with the HIV patients where
there'd be double counting. So one patient would be known to different hospitals. So there had to be
a way of just unpicking that double count. So what they would do, they create a unique
number for each patient. And the number was through a system called Soundex code.
A code would be created through a Soundex machine where the patient's date of birth and their zip
code, as you call it in America, we call it postcode, would be aggregated together in some
sort of formula to create a unique number identifier. So if that patient went to, you know,
Edinburgh and went to London, we'd know it's the same person because Soundex code would follow them.
All of those things are nibbling around the edge. They're not addressing the real problem,
which is the involvement of government in a market. And medicine is properly a market.
Everything in the world is rationed. It is either rationed by price or by restriction.
And in the UK, you've hit the restriction side and you're trying to do various price things to
make it so you don't have to restrict quite so badly. Well, we're into rationing. I mean,
that's what our agency NICE is about rationing. Rationing to a population based on, you know,
the healthcare is paid through taxation at source of income. So people, money stolen off you when
you earn it, basically through taxation to pay for healthcare, healthcare that you don't want,
healthcare that's going to call you base. Up through 1967 in the United States, roughly
5% of our gross domestic product was spent on healthcare. At that point, Medicare was instituted.
Since then, we've seen a linear rise to where we're at about 17 or 18%. And the problem now is it
has become unsustainable. So rationing is being put in place. And the one agency which
rations more than any other is Medicare. Well, that's the same issue here in Australia.
So it's a wonderful business, Ted. Well, well pointed out. Thank you for that. We have to
move on. And I love those numbers. But that's an important number, Ted. Can you put that in the chat
in the US between the mid 60s to now, the budget spent has gone from 5% of annual budget to 17%.
I think that's an important number, everybody. The other issue that that leads to, I used to be a tax
lawyer for many years, is the hollowing out of the middle classes. And in America and in Australia,
and in the UK, a professional could survive and have four or five children, because the tax burden
was bearable. Now the tax burden is huge in many places. So that tax, that government behavior and
the government influence in all of this is very relevant. Ted, thanks for reminding us of that.
Daria is a retired neurosurgeon. Kevin is going to school us now because she's the schooler.
Hello. My dog might bark, so I may have to mute myself. Yeah, thank you so much for coming on.
This is amazing. I'm gonna, I have two devices going on. So I count for two people.
But I was trying to figure out a timeline going back. How far was this
racket there? There goes Tilly. Let me throw her a toy. Hold on. Anyway, it's like a toddler.
So the big question was, how long has this been going on as far as a commercialization of medicine?
And I put a little mini timeline in there, just the things in my recent memory. And that was 1981
was about the time the media throughout the AIDS epidemic, even though as you study, there had been
some illness, AIDS like for decades. As I think I looked at Wikipedia, it said all the way back to
1920. So now we're looking at a century of that, right? And then in 1984 is when the government
acknowledged the human genome project. And it didn't even get ramped up for a while past that.
And then in 1986, we have the Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. So I don't know, it seems like more
than just a temporal coincidence of all this stuff going on in the 80s. And then we have this huge
monstrosity of a, what do I call it? The human sacrifice industrial network. Yeah. But this
pharmaceutical medical industrial complex going on. But I don't, you know, obviously, I think we
have to go back to what the AAPS studied intensively after World War II is when third party payers
started getting involved in the doctor patient relationship. So really probably since at least
World War II, I think things have gone down the crapper because of that. And I didn't know what
your thoughts are. But I mean, are we looking at possibly this all happening, this industrialization
of medicine going along with the disconnect of the doctor patient relationship and the third
party payer? Because I think we have to go back there. Yeah, I think it's something historical that
you can, the antecedents go right back. And as you talk there, you were going back in time more and
more. Yeah. And it's like, as you look at it, the more antecedents you can find, you know, you can
go back to the Flexner report in America on the change in the epistemology guiding the medical
schools. And how far back do we need to go? It's all there if we want to look at it. And
what does this do for the here and now, you see, gives us great understanding of it historically.
But we're living in this paradigm. That's the right word. We're living in this technocratic order
that's been shaping around us for a long time, which I think is what you're saying.
You know, there's no coincidence that so-called HIV was invented in the 80s as the technology
developed to create it. It's an artifact of the technology, the opportunities to create epidemics
based on genomic sequencing, based on this technocratic order applied to the human body
is amazing. And the amount of profit that's made from it is incredible. I mean, I have to say that,
having visited the United States and Canada for a lot over the last 30 years, I remember going into
any big store in the Midwest in America, and half of it would be pharmaceuticals. It's quite incredible.
Drugs into bodies was the mantra in the AIDS era of the act up group, the patient group
were funded by pharma to push the government to produce more drugs, basically drugs into bodies.
And that's exactly where we are now with COVID is look at all the trials that are happening now,
huge number, not just the vaccines, but drugs. It's all the same. It's exactly the same.
And the basic science, the classical science is not being done. Nobody's interested in it.
There's no money in it. You know, produce a study that shows this thing doesn't exist.
You must want your head examined, you know, because there's no incentive to do that.
So I think you're right. I think that the further you look, the more you'll find. And you'll go
right back a couple of hundred years. I think it goes further. It certainly goes back, you know,
before the germ theory was invented. It definitely goes back before that.
Yeah, well, thank you. Yeah, appreciate. Appreciate because I just wanted to wrap my
head around because that means the whole time I went to pharmacy school and I went to med school,
we were already underneath this cloud if you will. What you see, you see, you know,
different orders of propaganda, one new order of propaganda supersedes and destroys the other.
Like when HIV came along, suddenly antibodies are not protected. Yeah. That's how they argued with
HIV. If you're HIV antibodies, if you're HIV positive, you've got antibodies. Oh, but they're
no good. They're non-neutralizing. Yeah. And so the story gets shifted in favor of what? You know,
it's a biased science. Science is propaganda. It's the French philosopher Jacques Ellul said that.
You know, science has become the modern propaganda. And it is propaganda. What you read in the BMJ,
the Lancet and Nature is you have to look at it as propaganda, a lot of it, because it's not,
it's not, was it ever anything else? That's the big question. Was science ever anything other than
propaganda? But we just thought it was, you know, brought up, taught this notion of science,
the true experiment and the randomized trial and the whole epistemology, the methodology of science.
But really, is there ever such a thing? Are we misguided? Are we naive? You know, and Simon,
Simon DeWolf, Kevin points out that it's science is a religion. So there you are. There's the answer
to that question. Well said, Simon. Thank you. Thank you, Daria. Glenn, how are you doing? Very
well here, Kevin. We've got three questions, three left. And then Simon, Stephen Frost finishes last.
Okay. Great job. Great job. Glenn. Hi. My question is that focuses on where we've actually put so much
of our attention and to some degree, the range of approaches and the range of sciences. I'm a retired
engineer. As an engineer, I have to be dealing with lots of different disciplines, lots of different
phases, collection, requirement collections at the beginning, integrating teams for development,
getting to testing, getting to rollout, getting to marketing, getting to market feedback and
corrections. My concern here is that we've evolved the cycle of a couple of the sciences at the
danger of ignoring some of the others. So a lot is going on here around biology and chemistry.
A lot's being acknowledged as a problem of psychology, but how much effort is actually
being placed on the psychology? And are we overdoing the effort relative to
chemistry and biology, knowing that a variety of them are going to be extremely difficult to resolve
to a degree of certainty, especially when the government and the agencies are all corrupted
and captured? Shouldn't we be thinking more around shifting to the psychology side of things?
Unfortunately, David Charon-Lambas was on the call earlier. He has left. He has a group of
reachingpeople.net and has attempted some avenue there. But why is it that we're not seeing
a much greater degree of shifting to that, where even by your terms, the pheodemic and the
hyperneurotic and the crack scenes are all the big issue if we could actually resolve the psychology
part of it to get people off of where they are to thinking that they should be avoiding disease,
when the reality seems to be that you want to allow disease to occur and then deal with it.
You want your body to be optimized, but if you isolate your body from disease, eventually you
are reducing its effectiveness. You are handicapping and crippling the entire genome.
Why should we be heading down a path of weakening our species?
Well, I agree with you that the focus is disproportionately
away from the psychological. That is potentially a much more, I would probably say,
of an order more effective if we could capitalize on those sorts of interventions to prevent this
fraud proceeding. But it's a hard area to work on when you haven't got the channels in the mainstream
to reach people, to work on them, to readjust their psychology, to push back against the messaging
and the propaganda and the brainwashing. Because it's very endemic, not just in mainstream media,
but also socially through networks, contagion fear is very hard to stop. It works really well.
I mean, you saw that in history where contagion fear was released against groups of people,
one group against the other. Classic ones are in Nazi Germany, but there have been other examples
of that. It's very hard to push back against that. I think also the attack has been very, very
galvanized by the fact that spiritually, our spirituality has been colonized by biomedicine.
Biomedicine has become the modern religion and therefore it's subsumed a role in people's lives
that hundreds of years ago would be colonized by theological beliefs or spiritual beliefs.
And therefore there's a power there that's gone ahead. We call it the power of the white coat
in healthcare. You put a white coat on and you tell somebody to do something, they'll go and do it.
Because the power of the image, the persona, the biomedical persona is very, very, very
rich in power. It's been endowed by that culturally through a long time and it's very hard to push
back against that, I think. So I don't know what the solution there is. I think you're right. I
think psychological and maybe psychiatric approach would be a way of stymieing this and stopping it,
stemming it and maybe destroying it. But again, how one does that strategically is
very hard to envisage. But I think it's very powerful and it's a very powerful, effective
tool because when people realize mentally, they don't have to get involved with all these arcane
debates on isolation and purification. And they realize they've been sold this mantra that's wrong
or immoral or is destroying their spirituality. Then that could be like flipping a switch and
the circuit goes dead and you can do it that way. I think that's looking at
these theories about mass delusion, mass formation are very important. But they'll only work if people
have got some sort of sophisticated understanding. How you get that through the mainstream media and
onto the daily news broadcast, I don't know. Maybe it's something very similar to that
episode in history where I can't remember the actor, but he was reading HG Wells' War of the
Worlds. Do you remember the story? Who was the actor who did this in the 1940s? Orson Welles.
He created the mass panic by reading a chapter from HG Wells' War of the Worlds. And they had to
announce on the media that this was only a story and people running out, weren't they? People were
leaving their homes and packing up because they thought the world was being colonized by Martians.
But it's a similar sort of, it shows the power of the media, but how do you then readjust that?
Governments now have said, oh, we don't need to mask, you don't need to do this, but you still see
so many people now, it's endemic in their behavior. They're washing their hands with these
cancer-causing bacterials. They're wearing masks when the government says they don't need to.
It's all been done. It's all in place. People's behavior has been changed. To change it back
pre-COVID is going to be almost impossible, I think. Really do think it's almost impossible.
What we can do is subvert it, subvert it, the counter-narrative. The purification,
isolation is a medical counter-narrative to try and subvert it. But I think there are other avenues
that the questioner is right. There are other avenues and the psychological is another one to
do that with, I think. Well, one of the things that has some potential is to give the public
some things that they feel they can actually accomplish. One of the things that just came up
in some of it today and some of it earlier this past week is it looks like the FDA is about to
try again to force through six-month to four-year-old vaccines. In fact, two of them,
they're setting up to do both Moderna and retry of the Pfizer that failed, well, that got delayed
in February. Here's an area that as a minimum, the public can get engaged in submitting public
comments, but they potentially can also be a lot more active with physical actions and protests.
Yes. I mean, the FDA is a big building. It could be used as an attractor of a large crowd
as could the Pfizer headquarters just outside of Boston. Let's hope that people can think
out a little bit that there really never was a positive upside for anybody under 40 and certainly
not for babies. That finally will react to save the children. By the way, the timing on that is,
from what I understand, likely to be the first week of that.
I think if you're going down the psychological route to seed and try and stop this, to seed
different thinking, it's about what is health and what's the philosophy of health. It's not
based on contagion and pharmaceutical interventions and it's not reliant on that form of medicine.
This is what's fundamental here, is where people's philosophy of health comes from.
People have been inculcated these notions that health comes from a drug or a vaccine or
an injection, and it doesn't come from what they put into their bodies every day in terms of food
nutrition. This is key to our understanding of how to push back on this. I think that these are
an opportunity for reframing people's philosophies or helping them to reframe them into something
that's more sustainable and more conducive to health. This is what you're seeing with
the attrition of the morbidity and mortality associated with these injections.
I think there's an additional, likewise with the so-called unpatented drugs that are being
repurposed for COVID, there's a similar attrition, there's similar adverse events and mortality
associated with those that will come to light at some time in the future. People are going in one
way or the other. They're being pushed into this Hobson's choice, I think, which is a false choice,
a false dichotomy. To pull back from both of these and to think about what is health,
it's not pharmaceutically regulated, it's not due to a test, and it's not when a white coat tells you
you're well. This is what I think is important. I fully agree, and I think one of the problems is
around the definition and the words we allow them to trap us in. The notion of anti-vax is absurd
because of the different classes that are sub-elements to it. We should object at every
turn when anybody calls the resistance anti-vax, we should be saying we're pro-health. We're in
favor of the optimum path. I totally agree. It's a false polarity. It's been set up to create division
and it's been set up to label and prejudice. It's a dreadful term, that. It's like COVID denier.
I'm a COVID denier, I'm told. Thank you, Glenn. Language drives behavior. That's the point.
Language drives behavior. The other authority that comes, everybody, remind you of high vis
vest. If you're on the roads and you have a high vis vest, like a white coat, people will do as
they tell you. Now, I'm reminded of the Beatles with our next questioner. Love, love, love.
Arianna again, and then Jim. Hey, I won't keep you long, Kevin, but I just wanted to mention
because you keep bringing up the PCR kits. I found, well, I was reading through the patent
on these PCR kits and they're actually gene marker tests. So what they're, right, you know that.
Yeah. So they're testing for the cloning process to see how far along people are. And they can also
test for snake venom and other things. Yeah. I mean, you know, there's different generations
of these technologies and the original ones, the FDA's thrown out. Now they've got enough.
You know, next year there'll be another generation the year after, all more specific, more sensitive,
we're told. And, but the reality is they're all based on this false notion, I think, of
this is viral. This is from extracellular. This is intracellular. This is extracellular. This is
contagious. You know, I mean, that's the false notion. That's the epistemology guiding it.
And look at the money. I mean, look at the money here. Follow the money. I mean, there is no,
I mean, to think that I on my pension could do anything to dent this, you know, edifice of big,
big bucks. You know, it's incredible, the money. It's absolutely incredible. And that is what it's
all about. I mean, until that's pushed out, how do you destroy that? How do you change that? How
do you overturn it? My God, it's, it's naive to think you can just do it with a couple of papers
and a, you know, a few zoom calls and an anti lockdown movement. It's nothing compared to the
power of money, you know, and I think that that's, I don't know, I don't know how to do it.
Kevin, does it change anything that I was talking to Daniel Estulin, who's written books about the
Bilderberg group and also the Tavistock Institute. And so he's an expert on geopolitics, and he
advises governments in South America. And he told me that within 18 months, we've got 18 months
before there's going to be a huge financial crash. And so the money that we're talking about, you
know, that's driving everybody's behavior, there's going to be a financial crash. So it doesn't matter
how much money you've got, unless you're outside the system, or you've got gold, you're not going to
have a lot of money. No one is. So will that make any difference?
Well, it'll be superseded by something. I mean, you know, one monetary system will give way to another,
whether it's digital or whatever, there'll be some system.
Yes, well, the plan is to bring a digital system in.
Yeah, but the trick would probably be to put your money in, put it into what we used to call in
England, bricks and mortar, something material that the government can't take off your money.
The government can't take off you easily, or less. It's harder for them to take material things off
you. If it's a figure in the bank that's digital, it can be just wiped off. But if you've got three
properties that are built out of bricks and mortar, and have been there for a couple of hundred years,
it's quite hard for them to take those over, to push you out legally. It's going to be harder
than it is to wipe out your bank account, or to take half your digital currency in your bank account
because of the tax system. Then it will be to take your property, I think, or artworks. I don't know.
Also, his top advice as a place to live was Mexico.
Well, I don't know. I mean, the freest country in the world, he thought.
I think there are all these ideas floating around, and there's also a lot of fear-based
approaches about people being, you know, you've got to suddenly change your life from one day to
the next. It's not possible. I think it is possible to put your money into things that are more
permanent, and that it's more difficult for the government to take off you.
My question wasn't really about how we preserve our money. It was more that the notion that money
was going to be of great help when you're going to have a definite financial crash in the next
18 months. In other words, the 2008 financial crash was very, very serious,
but they had a little bit of time left, so you could kind of get things going again,
but it's only lasted 14 years because of these idiots running the whole thing.
Somebody's just put up on the screen, you know, put your money into food stock seeds and
what have you, sustainability and growing. That wasn't really my question.
What is your question? So money's driving everything. You were saying that. So there's
a huge amount of money and it's driving people's behavior, but if the whole damn thing's going to
crash, why are they so obsessed by money? Well, that money will be converted.
What I'm trying to say is maybe we should put out the narrative that there is going to be a
financial crash before it happens. Well, yes, but the thing is with any
financial crash, if you look at 2008-9, there were people that suffered.
There won't be any recovery from this one though.
Well, they said that before. That's been said so often.
The recovery will be a digital one. I personally think that that's a doom
narrative. No, but we need to stop it. That's the point. That's what I'm trying to say. We need to
warn people before they get their ducks in a row and decide now we're going to do it.
We need to warn people that this is the reality of what they're planning and that may get them to
think about what we've been talking about for two years. Well, I think that's a good strategy, but
I think we once got to be careful with the doom narrative. No, it's not doom. It's to kind of get
people thinking before the globalists are ready to pull the plug on the old system.
He also told me that Russia had to develop. It wanted to respond about Ukraine in 2014,
but it wasn't ready to. It was too dependent on the West, so it needed the eight years which have
passed to reposition itself with regard to the West so they could do it. They wanted to, because
obviously there was justification as well from Russia's point of view to do something about
Ukraine because effectively NATO installed a regime change if you like or coup d'etat in Kiev.
All right, come on, Stephen. We're going to let Kevin go. We've got two more questions and Alex
is going to have a quick one. Ariana, are you done? Yeah, I guess so. I forgot. I was going to say
something else, but I totally forgot. All right, Alex and then Stephen. Ariana's comment was really
interesting about the patents for the PCR. I think there's a whole approach to PCR in terms of
the genetic nature of what's happening that's really quite important and how this data is
being used without our knowledge I think is really interesting. How the tests are reported,
how they're archived, what research is going on behind the scenes
on the authority side because they're collecting amazing amounts of data from people through these
tests. They're harvesting biological material from people basically. And it's public, isn't it? It's
not even protected. They're selling it openly. Yeah, we're commodities basically that they're
profiting from and that's incredible. I mean, we've had this in the UK for a while. People haven't
realized that their data is, they are the product basically and their data is being used. It's being
harvested and it's being sold on. It's being profited from. There's no doubt that that's been
happening for a long time. This is just symptomatic of what's been developing for the last 20, 30 years.
I'll send you some links to my articles. I'll send you an email. Thank you very much.
Stephen to do that. Yeah. Thank you very much. Love your speech. Thank you.
Kim, you're muted. Thank you. Hey, great talk. I have a question about the spike protein as it
relates to whatever was released at the Wuhan Military Olympic Games in October 2019. The Wuhan
Military Olympic Games occurred exactly at the same time that Goldman Sachs made a $1.5 billion
put on the world economy that came due on the third week of March 2020. They made $100 billion
on that $1.5 billion bet. That's 95 times their investment. Yes, this is a financial takedown.
The spike protein has been sequenced and it is now inside the vaccine and it may be in the exosomes.
Not arguing about the virus, but arguing about the spike protein as a bioterror weapon. In a book
called Rainbow Six by Tom Clancy, he said the virus was going to be invented and spread in
Olympic Games because it spreads out immediately. The vaccine would be far more deadly. This seems
to be playing out as Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six, just like Tom Clancy wrote a book about smashing
airplanes into buildings. The question is, is the spike protein real? Is it the bioterror weapon
that is being infused into our food by the CIA? Is it a racially specific bioterror weapon,
as the Russians are saying? Does it spare certain people, including the K26R who happen to be
the Rothschilds, George Soros, Larry Fink who owns BlackRock and others, including the head of
Homeland Security? Then if that spike protein is real, is the GP41 on the spike or GP120, the HIV
attachment site also on that spike protein? Will that cause racially specific T cell damage,
not necessarily AIDS, but needs to be treated with other medications, including possibly
hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin or black seed? Thanks. Well, that's a very good set of questions,
and I'm not sure I'm the right person to answer them. You mentioned certain people being
protected from it. Let's say you're right, and let's say it is a manufactured bioweapon and it
exists, spike protein, then how can you release that into a population, then surely it moves
through the whole population, you can't protect certain people from it. Would that not be correct?
Wrong. Each person has a specific, or each ethnic group has a specific ACE2 receptor.
The ACE2 receptor is what the attachment is for the spike protein that gets it into the cell so
it can replicate. If it repels that ACE2 receptor as the spike protein repels the K26R ACE2 receptor,
then it will not go into the cells, it will not replicate, it will not trigger the HIV portion,
or the GP41 or GP120, so it is racially specific bioterror. And so the Rothschilds may not be
affected, Klaus Schwab may not be affected, Uvel Harari, who is the futurist for the World Economic
Forum, may not be affected. This could indeed be a very racially specific bioterror weapon, so yes,
it can be. It could be. But spike proteins are not the only toxins. Yeah, but the thing is,
the spike protein, you're talking about something that's synthetically manufactured, aren't you?
This doesn't exist in nature. Yes, that's correct. It's synthetically manufactured.
There's, I mean, it's what's called a griffin or a chimera of SARS-CoV, excuse me, of SARS-1,
of, you know, if they could put some snake venom, whatever, in there, they could put some other
aspects of HIV in there, and it's all triggered. If you repel that first S1 segment, which is the
ACE2 receptor, then you can't get any of those other triggers. But you see, you mentioned the
GP41 and GP120. If you look at the work of the Perth Group, you know the Perth Group's work,
they question the specificity, they question whether these so-called HIV proteins
are actually viral, or whether they are human material, mislabeled as viral. Sure, whatever
it is, it's a GP41, GP120, that's not the issue. The issue is, is it on the spike protein,
and do you agree that that spike protein is a real entity, and that spike protein could have been
engineered by our intelligence or somebody's group to be... I'm sure that it could, I mean,
I think it's synthetically manufactured device, where GP120 and 141 are
AIDS-causing agents. I question... Well, I'd say they may be HIV-causing agents, but not necessarily
AIDS, and you may be able to neutralise those GP41. I think that AIDS is a result of oxidative
stress in the cell, and I think the Perth Group were right in the 1980s and 90s concerning the
Genesis, the etiology of AIDS, and its multifactorial environmental exposures cause
oxidative stress. Sure, and one of the things... With those AIDS risk groups, it's very clear
each risk group had a different set of stressors, and the Papadopoulos-Perth Group
rebuttal of the HIV-causes AIDS theory. They rebutted it, but their theory of oxidative stress
is a very, very profound one that impacts on everything that you've been talking about, and I
probably would say that I would go along with some of what you're saying. I think you've been
talking about exactly where the
bledOMAC,
would say that I would go along with some of what you're saying. I think it certainly is a
manufactured agent, whether it's racially specific, intentionally, I don't know. I mean,
and Moderna have said that this spike protein preferentially harms Blacks, Browns and even Europeans, Italians, Irish.
But the key is that they haven't gotten to the point, they are announcing that it spares the K26R.
Have they actually said that? I didn't realize that. They've actually said that, have they?
Yes, I believe so. And everybody who sees this sees the people who are dying.
So they see it's racially specific and they notice that some groups have not been harmed.
So my follow-on question is up and I've got to stop because there's so much background noise. Thank you.
Okay, thank you.
Charles, Kevin, Karen Kingston says there are seven spike proteins.
And Karen Kingston, if you remember, she was the one who spoke out from Canada, I think.
She'd been working in the pharmaceutical industry, I can't remember him, but she's pretty bright, I saw her video.
And she was talking about the patents and she'd been looking into the patents and she's come to the conclusion there are seven spike proteins.
Seven synthetic spike proteins.
I don't know, but presumably, yes.
Alright, Alex and then you, Stephen.
Good evening, Dr. Kevin. I'm one of the, I believe, the world's earliest vets. I'm not sure, I'm not medically trained, I'm actually an injured vaccine person.
The VITS stands for Vaccine-Intuced Thrombiotic Thrombothenia.
It's been classified from hematology task force from around the world.
I believe I'm the earliest survivor of it.
The question I was wanting to ask was, obviously, it kind of made me think about, similar to what you were mentioning, some of what you were seeing in the early days of HIV and AIDS patients.
My major problem is that my PF4 antibody, the negative PF4 has now become positive.
And for the last six months, that has not changed much. It's sitting at over 100% positive.
It has been managed now by thinners.
But I find it very interesting that the similarities between some of what we've seen in AIDS, supposedly, and what we're seeing now, particularly, I can only really comment on VITS because that's the subject that I know more about than any other.
But it seems to me that what has happened is impossible to have happened naturally.
So therefore, if the vaccine was created naturally, using a natural DNA source that they said it downloaded, how could it go so wrong?
Well, good point there. I mean, when you say naturally, you mean created from a virus, you know, a true virus. Is that what you're saying?
Yes, kind of. You know, if they're saying there was a virus, if they're saying there was, you know, that's the key, I suppose, isn't it?
Yeah, but the thing is, you see, there isn't one. And therefore, these so-called vaccines are immediately suspect because there is no SARS-CoV-2.
There's only genetic sequence in silico models. And depending on the testing technology in different parts of the world, there's no such thing as one full genome.
So that's why you get these variants, the artifacts of the technology. Therefore, what are these injections about? What's in them? What's their intention?
What's the intentionality? And all of that, I have to say, is totally questionable. One may argue totally sinister, but certainly scientifically questionable.
And I think, I mean, at them and they cannot, it cannot be undone. It's not like a drug where the bioavailability of the drug changes.
And you know, there's nutrition of the drug in your metabolism and a year later, you're drug free. It's not like that at all.
They're cell changing technologies in the main.
Yes, I've been like that.
Therefore, what's that about? You know, that's where the transhumanist agenda is.
The technocratic orders created this transhumanist agenda where we're altering people's cellular makeup, really, their genetic makeup is very, very, very questionable.
And all the adverse events, mortality, morbidity associated with that is intentional.
It is like a genocide, I think.
It seems that way now.
A gentleman on here, John Stone, did an article and I read it yesterday and actually reached out to John yesterday and spoke to him and he very kindly took my call.
Because he could actually, he could tell me on his report the date that it was first notified to the UK health regulator.
And I know that it was myself because I was the first in the UK to have actually survived.
When I say survived, the result of the implicate of what happened is I have an amputated leg from above the knee.
And I am going slightly blind in my right eye. They think microclots have exploded.
So I'm waiting on a scan. My medical situation is where it is. I'm not going to sit here and feel sorry. That's not what I'm here for.
It's more the fact that we know that there's 438 vets in the UK.
Sadly, 78 of them are fatalities, at least 360, including myself.
And that's just in the UK. We know the figures are.
Our health service struggled with this condition and still struggles with it because it's so horrific to deal with.
Have they attributed, I mean the people that treated you, have they attributed what's happened to you?
Yes, I was, the haematology, 100% solely caused only by the AstraZeneca vaccine.
And are you able to claim through the vaccine damage programme?
Oh, I could go on about that one. Yeah, there was a couple.
There was a claim submitted on the 23rd of April last year.
You know when they requested my medical records? On the 28th of February this year, after me calling them, I called for an update.
I was told in December they'd requested my records. So long story.
I called for an update in February. I was told they hadn't been requested.
I asked to speak to the manager, didn't get the call back.
Took to Twitter, social media and called them out. And they responded through social media.
A government agency wouldn't respond through an official government phone call, but they'll do it social media.
But that's a long story. I'm now at the stage where I'm waiting on that.
Alex, what did you say on social media, as you put it?
Basically, along the lines of abandoned after 10 months by my own government.
They don't care. They're not interested. No one wants to take part. I've called them. I called them every week for a few months.
We should write up your story. It should be published, you know?
I've been screaming from the rooftops for a year. No mainstream media wants to know.
I've been on the Sonja Poulton show, did an interview with Sonja Poulton.
I was on the Alex Jones show with Owen doing an interview.
Basically, that was on vaccine damage, on fit and what's happened to me in my life.
I'm probably the most vocal person at the moment that's actually been vaccinated and injured.
There's quite about seven or eight of us. Sorry.
Alex, are you in contact with Jackie Diboy?
Yeah, I was going to suggest that.
Sorry, who?
Are you in contact with Jackie Diboy?
I don't think so.
She's a filmmaker. She made the film A Good Death.
I got an email from her a couple of days ago and she said she's making another film.
She's not on the call tonight, I don't think.
No, but I mean, she's making another film and I think she'd be interested in your story.
I want people to be aware that there are people out there like me.
It's not the financial support, it's just I can't change what's happened to me.
Alex, I think what Kevin was suggesting was that we should write up your case for submission to the BMJ, for example.
We wouldn't get into the Lancet probably, but we could maybe squeeze it into the BMJ.
I would be happy for my story to be anywhere that's medically approved.
Is that what you're thinking, Kevin?
Well, I think some were.
Yeah, I mean, I don't know whether you get it into the BMJ, but some professional journal.
Because if it's been attributed to the vaccine by your physicians and the doctors treating you, that's very cool.
I mean, you've got hard evidence there.
Yes, it was classified by the haematologist specialist at East Kilbride, Fairmires University Hospital.
And solely because I have no underlying health conditions.
I was a scaffolder, COE rector.
I was supremely fit.
There was no reason that now we know.
I'm not going to go down through it all.
Now we know that the reality is that she'd never have been given any of these vaccines.
That's another day.
I see Dr. Kat Lindy down there.
Dr. Kat Lindy has been fantastic with me.
She's reached out to me, spoke to me.
To help me psychologically.
I'm fine.
It's a fight.
And that's the fight is to raise awareness that we're not going to go away.
The government has to accept and acknowledge that these things are causing deaths, horrific injuries.
I'll never work again.
Alex, I can put you in touch with Kevin and Jackie Devoy.
Yes, please, please send an email to me, though.
Yes.
Yes, I've got your email address.
I'll send you an email.
Okay.
All right.
So thank you.
Thank you, Alex.
Jerry Brady here also.
He'll put his email address.
He's been collecting stories.
And I've been recommending to people in Australia for everybody who's injured to do a one page statement and send it to their local, to their municipal, state and federal representatives so that they're swamped with these cases.
Of these adverse events so that there are people behind these rather than mere statistics.
As everybody knows, I think it was Joe Stalin who said one death is a tragedy.
A million deaths is a statistic.
I think somebody put that into the quote here.
So Alex, please.
And all of us.
Jerry is doing some work on that.
And we're because Kevin, there's 300 million people assessed as being injured.
And what Jerry's doing is collecting that as a cohort.
Okay.
Before we get to the last question, Stephen, who closes with this, I want to bring Kevin to your attention.
But also because this group's been talking a lot about it.
Certainly influenced by Jerry's thinking that the Nazis never surrendered at the end of World War II.
And in this weekend's financial review, here's the article.
Here's the article called Nazi Tycoons Dark History.
I'll put the details in there.
It's a new book, brand new, still on pre-release.
Nazi Billionaires, the Dark History of Germany's Wealthiest Dynasties by David de Jong.
Yes.
The relevance to what you were saying is one short paragraph.
It says, it leaves you awestruck at the power of greed.
With it seems to come an inability to feel shame.
So I urge that it's a beautiful summary in the financial review.
But anyway.
Where's the financial review published, Charles?
It was in yesterday.
Where is that published though? Australia?
It will be a global publication.
So I'll put the link in there and it's easy to get books now anywhere in the world.
But it ties in and it got an excellent review and gosh, the names in it and what they did.
They said at least 12 million foreign men, women, boys and girls were sent to work in Germany, of whom 2.5 million died.
2.5 million died.
And the killer paragraph at the last, paragraph between 2001 and 2006.
The German state and firms with a Nazi legacy began paying out to survivors.
The highest award was to the 300,000 slave laborers still alive.
It worked out at 6300 pounds each.
6000 pounds.
Alex.
So the people are still in control, these greedy people, Kevin, that you're talking about.
So I'll put that in the link.
Stephen, over to you. Last questions and then Kevin, you can go to bed.
So thank you very much for being with us. It's wonderful of you.
Yeah, great.
So, Kevin, I don't know whether you've seen that video or sorry.
Yeah, I think Bill Gates is talking and he's talking about depopulation and he either says he's talking about 500 million.
The problem with 500 million in the world is that there are 7800 million at the moment.
So obviously that's a huge reduction.
But he also took he has in other places talked about 10 to 15 percent reduction of the population.
If we do a good job with the vaccines, I quote, what does he mean by that?
Well, I don't know. I mean, it's interpretive, isn't it?
I mean, is he being direct directly ambiguous or, you know, I don't know.
I mean, yeah, undoubtedly these people are, you know, from their statements and just looking at it historically,
like Boris Johnson's father, they are eugenicists, are for population reduction.
Bill Gates Foundation has funded lots of sexual health programs about contraception, about reducing the population.
And, you know, eugenicism tips over into population control and vice versa.
They're very similar discourses and all the way through history, you know, it's been the same.
I mean, the Nazis were the same. It's about creating the pure bulk and getting rid of the infected elements in society that were destroying the gene pool.
So this is a discourse that's very, very current.
It's been we're in that era where this is with technology.
And you can see through abortion. Look at California now going to pass a law to extend abortion after birth.
So you'll be able to, you know, the child will be in existence, but death will be sanctioned by the state.
So a mother can't be prosecuted for harming the child. The child could be left behind.
How can any self-respecting lawyer in California not speak out about that?
Well, I don't know, but this is the way society's gone, where human life is worthless.
That's not the point. It's just ridiculous to say that you can kill a child when it's born. That's not abortion.
No, it's not. It's murder. I mean, I personally think abortion is murder as well, but that's my own personal view.
But it's extending. You see, these categories extend and they only get bigger and bigger.
The premises get larger and larger. And, you know, they just change the rules to justify the immoral behavior.
It's incredible really how you could even think of such a thing. But now that that's going to happen, I mean, you know, it's murder basically.
But I've seen that happen in hospitals where, you know, where, you know, there's a termination and it's alive.
I mean, there's no such thing. This whole notion that the fetus is not living is a fiction put around by the pro-abortionists.
From insemination, it's alive and it's living inside you. And I've seen it's terrible. I've seen fetuses left alive.
I remember my mother talking about this in the 1960s where she had great problems with this at work because she was a Roman Catholic.
And, you know, the child's nearly, you know, six months gestation and is breathing independently, you know, and they're not doing anything to help.
You know, it's this murder basically. This is exactly what Jackie DeVoy has been talking about in her film, A Good Death, you know, and about the Madazlan murders and the diamorphine murders.
And, you know, this is it's the same spectrum. This is just murder, state sanctioned murder, whether it's happening preterm, post term, or it's happening to somebody who's in their 80s or 90s or even younger in a care home.
It's exactly the same thing. You know, it's just different aspects of it. It's a different symptom.
But also nobody seems to challenge, for example, the abortion thing in California.
How does Bill Gates get away with saying that? I've never. So I've heard him cited as saying that, but I've never heard any opinion as to what's wrong with him saying it.
So if we do a good job with vaccinations, with the vaccines, we'll get a 10 to 15 percent reduction in population somewhere else.
He said 500 million. Just crazy. If you don't challenge these things, you don't say, well, that's wrong.
Did he actually say that? Yeah, I'll try and find the video. I actually heard him with my own ears.
But I can't remember whether he said 500 million or 10 to 15 percent reduction.
I think it could be a Freudian slip. You see that it's a Freudian slip.
Yeah, exactly. Well, in his circles, of course, that's the kind of thing he would say.
And it slips out when he's talking to the public, forgets where he is.
So I just wanted to ask you about Kerry Mullis, because he's a victim of what's gone on, in my opinion.
He was killed. Well, he died in August 2019.
Apparently his wife has recently said at a cocktail party that he was definitely murdered or to use another word, actually.
Anyway, he said he wrote down the HIV virus is the probable cause of AIDS.
He then realized that he couldn't find a reference for that statement, which was a problem for him because he was pretty honest and he was an icon at last.
And so eventually he asked a load of people and couldn't find anybody who could give him a reference.
So he went up to Luke Montagnier, who, as has previously been mentioned on this call, won the Nobel Prize in 2008 for medicine for the discovery of the HIV virus.
And he asked Luke Montagnier whether he could provide him with a reference for that statement.
The HIV virus is the probable cause of AIDS. And he was apparently Luke Montagnier had loads of people around him.
He suggested two studies and Kerry Mullis knew them and rejected them.
And then he just walked off, apparently Luke Montagnier.
I just wondered what you think about the whole Kerry Mullis thing and what you've...
Well, I mean, I've, you know, I never met him personally.
I was in a group years ago in America where he was there and I think it might have been one of those talks where he was recorded.
But he was definitely a maverick and a bright man.
And I think that he must have had a huge emotional labor.
That's the word I'm using, thinking about an emotional labor about the fact that his invention really...
I forgot to mention that, yeah. Sorry.
It went ahead of him. You know, his invention of the PCR went ahead of him and in his lifetime was being abused.
I mean, it would be like making something like a work of art.
You know, I'm talking now as an artist, not as a scientist, but making a work of art that's beautiful.
You put it up on the wall or you stand it, it's a sculpture or something.
And then suddenly this work of art is transformed into something malevolent and evil.
He saw PCR being used in the 90s. You know, he was right in the 80s.
He developed this or he was instrumental in 18.
He invented it in 1983 and he won the Nobel Prize for chemistry in 1993 for that discovery.
You always get the Nobel later anyway. It always happens a lot later.
But by the 90s, he saw it being used with AIDS patients. He saw it being abused.
He saw it being, you know, people making billions out of it.
And so he must have had some sort of emotional labor and not a guilt, but maybe annoyed.
Maybe because he couldn't stop it. You know, it had gone ahead of him.
It became something else, you know, like a work of art.
Somebody buys it that, you know, you might have the intellectual copyright, but they actually own it.
You know, they own it. They can do what they like.
So I think that this is how he must have felt with it really.
Must have been quite an awful situation.
Why would he be killed? I don't know. Maybe he was.
Well, I'll tell you why, because he was categoric.
He was categoric that his discovery of the 8 PCR technique, not the test, should never be used for diagnosis of a viral illness.
Yeah, I know. I mean, right back in the 90s when I was doing my original work, I mean, the data sheets of the PCRs always said that these are not diagnostic.
They cannot be used to diagnose solely. They cannot be used as the sole basis for diagnosis.
And of course, always go to the data sheets of these products and the manufacturers are always very crystal clear, crystal clear about the limits of the tests and the technology.
The antibody test manufacturers, Abbott, Assim, all of them, I've looked at them all throughout the last 30 years.
They're always the data sheets of the things to look at, but the data sheets are not what's given to the public.
If the public understood the data sheets for these tests like lateral flow or PCR, HIV tests, they'd never go near them.
They know they were a tissue of lies and they're watertight data.
They're watertight legal documents, those data sheets.
They're very, I mean, the antibody test for HIV, the Abbott one in 97 said that is no gold standard for isolation of HIV.
It actually said that in the data sheet, you know. So what is this test then? What is this test?
It's a probability test based on whether you're gay, straight, black or whatever.
You know, that's basically what it's based on.
The optical density reading in the lab cannot be fully interpreted for the HIV ELISA unless they know who you sleep with.
Isn't that interesting? It's totally absolute Nazi medicine.
It's totally Nazi. It's totally judgmental.
It's totally unscientific and it's totally used to destroy people's sexuality and to destroy their persona and their psyche.
You know, to say you've got a deadly virus that you've transmitted sexually or you've acquired it sexually is the most awful thing for people to be told.
And that's what they've done. And now they're doing this to everybody, not sexually, but through their breathing, through their nostrils, through their lung fields.
This is what is being done. It's totally evil, really. Absolutely.
So Kerry Mullis really disliked Fauci and challenged him to debate on national television, which obviously that wasn't accepted.
And I think that Fauci was scared to death of this guy.
And clearly they couldn't have the guy who'd won a Nobel Prize for the PCR technique who was going around shouting from rooftops, essentially in the scientific world that his technique could not be used as a diagnostic test for a viral illness.
And guess what? Four months after he died, well, sorry, five months after, so August to January, they bring out the PCR test on 24 hours notice.
So it appears in Euro Surveillance and the WHO approve it the very next day.
But you see, King is...
Of course they had to kill him.
Well, I'm not sure about that. I mean, I would like to see the evidence of that, but I'm not saying it couldn't be possible.
But you go back to 2007 and MMWR, morbidity, mortality weekly report on the pertussis outbreak inverted commas that was diagnosed with PCR.
And it said that I think I printed it out for tonight, but it said the PCR should never be used as a diagnostic.
And the MMWR said that in 2007 because the New Hampshire outbreak, it was diagnosed at the Dartmouth thingy, Hitchcock Hospital was diagnosed with PCR.
And it's all false. It's completely false. They didn't look at the index patients. They didn't look at the symptoms. They just look at a test result.
Kevin, as you said earlier, the whole damn thing was based on this PCR test.
So why didn't doctors start thinking critically about what had been said by Kerry Mullis and realizing the significance of it and start looking at the PCR test?
Instead of that, they just go along with the whole damn thing and carry on with it.
Because medicine has become technical. It's become attenuated from classical bedside care to laboratories and through technical, through technicians.
And that's what they want. They want algorithms.
Kevin, we've forgotten to mention anything about medical ethics.
So exactly what you said, but actually in the total absence of medical ethics.
So in my opinion, and so and that's very important because as you as we've discussed previously, you know, between us, you can't practice medicine without without medical ethics.
But this is where the contagion fear comes in.
See, Stephen, because why they've why they've elided medical ethics, why they've evaporated it out of the equation is through fear, pandemic fear.
No, sorry. The doctors should have known better because there's no excuse.
Well, they've used the excuse of an emergency to do this.
No, they tried that. They tried that in the doctors trial in Nuremberg.
That's what they did in Nazi Germany. They used the emergency, the fear of the Jews.
The Jews had typhus. The Jews had this. That was the that's the mantra that was put around.
And that did it. So people turned on that group. People saw them as the enemy.
That's exactly what they've done here. And so medical ethics, you know, look,
I remember being on BBC Radio a year and a half ago in Scotland after a rally.
And I got onto BBC Radio on a Monday morning and I said the PCR blah, blah, blah.
Not a diagnostic useless test, blah, blah, blah. And we're talking about masks.
And I said that masks don't work. The research by the British Academy and the Royal Society showed the methodology is all flawed.
There's no proper RCT. After me, you cut me off.
The BBC did. And they got Professor of Public Health from Edinburgh University on.
And she said, Kevin Corbett's quite right about the research methodology for masks. It's all flawed.
But what do you do in an emergency? She said, it's like when you jump out of a plane.
Do you test the parachute before you drop? You know?
No, but. So they're using the emergency fear, the fear of, you know, what's happened, the emergency.
This is why it's really important to have people in high vis vests, Covid marshals, Covid passes.
It creates and legitimates the social context, the social reality of a pandemic.
So people get the message. And that's what's done this.
That's why they fast track drugs, tests, vaccines, blah.
But Kevin, in the whole history, in the long history of pandemics.
That's why medical ethics has been seen as a second, you know, it's soft. It's too soft. We don't need that.
We don't need ethics. When there's a war on, everybody's got to man up. And that's what they've done.
That's what they've done. I think it's wrong. I think every doctor and nurse, any health care professional,
who's given any of this stuff, vaccines, drugs, remdesivir, whatever, they should be tried in public.
And I think they should face, you know, the wrath of Khan for this.
But that's what's happened. And most of them have complied with it, like the Nazi doctors and nurses did.
They all went with it. Most of them went with it. Yes, they did go along with it.
But they had the Nuremberg trials and specifically, there was a doctor's trial.
The Nuremberg trials, Stephen, were just a few people.
The great majority of the doctors that did this in Nazi Germany went into the German Health Service.
Read Robert Lifton's book on the Nazi doctors.
Yes, I realize that. So you've got the Nuremberg trials, the doctors trial in particular.
And that was about human medical experimentation in the times of a medico-political alliance.
And that was and after the Nuremberg, the doctors, and this is really important because that was the birth, if you like, of medical ethics.
And it led to the Nuremberg code.
And the Nuremberg code was designed to be indirigible in when human medical experimentation was taking place in times of a medical political alliance.
And those doctors, they tried to wriggle out of it by saying that they were following orders and that it was in times of emergency.
But those two defenses did not help them. So times of war, emergency.
So those two and it's no excuse, in my opinion, medical ethics.
It's not an excuse, Stephen, but I think in reality what's happened is and you're speaking, you know, I sat on an ethics committee for years and an NHS trust.
So, you know, you just couldn't do anything.
Sometimes it takes years to get a study approved.
What they've done is they've turned all that over and thrown it in the bin in a couple of years through pandemic care.
That's the whole idea of the Nuremberg code though.
So that there was a code for the future and they throw it in the bin.
Well, they need to brush up their medical ethics then.
It's a poor second, you see, because the argument that there's a pandemic and people have got to be saved has pushed all that
precautionary principle approach into the bin. Nobody's talking about the precautionary principles.
That's why MHRA in America, all the regulators have approved all these quacks scenes and these drugs like Rendisivir, you know, Pro-drug.
And there's a whole load of others coming as well.
Major things in the pipeline, major technologies.
You know, what we've had so far with this Hobson's choice of COVID kill shot versus either, you know, insecticide like ivermectin.
This is nothing compared to what's coming down the line.
You know, huge technologies being rolled out.
For more reasons than medical ethics.
Exactly. But where is medical ethics in this? It's gone in the bin, unfortunately.
Unfortunately, there's only people like us talking about it.
Exactly.
And I talk medical ethics for you.
But until doctors take responsibility for what's happened and admit that they were wrong, then unfortunately the public will never listen to them again.
Never trust them again. They don't trust them now.
Any doctor, nurse or health care professional who's in any way being involved in this, either knowing it's wrong and done nothing and not stood up or is actively administered these, is ethically, morally culpable and should be tried.
Now, that's a hell of a lot of people to put on trial.
You know, for that to happen, you're going to need a mindset shift.
You're going to need an uptick, as they call it, in, you know, people waking up like us.
So much so that it caused a cultural revolution in society and you get a change in government, get a change in mindset, not just a change in government.
And people were a bit like you did in South Africa when apartheid was overturned.
Yeah, we had a cultural revolution that was profound.
And they had to have a truth and reconciliation commission to deal with the sociological impact of this.
I think we'll need another one.
I think it's coming. I think something will come.
This is a spiritual attack and I think the spiritual attack of this is probably the most profound and that will have the most impact in the long term.
The whiplash effect of it will be profound.
All right, Kevin, time for you to go to bed. Well said.
Excellent, Kevin.
Well done for being up till quarter past midnight for you, I think. Is that correct?
It is. And I said 10.30, didn't I?
Yeah, there you are. Well, Stephen, thank you, Kevin.
Everyone, please say thank you to Kevin. Congratulations.
And we'll send you through the links.
By the way, hang on, Kevin, got to save the chat.
Stephen will tell you how to save the chat now.
So if you go to chat, click on the chat at the bottom.
Hang on a second. I've got to find it.
Yeah.
And then if you just look down the right side of that sheet or whatever you want to call it, and you'll see three dots in the horizontal line or in a line, three dots, small.
At the bottom right corner of the chat.
At the bottom right. I've got send. It says send if you write in the chat.
I don't have any three markers.
No, they're tiny. So if you look very carefully below the last message and then you look. I can't read that.
It's only if you're on a computer. If you're on an iPad or something, you don't have it.
Okay, right. Well, in that case, I will send it to you.
I'll send it to you.
Thank you very much. Thanks, Kevin. Well done.
Good night. Thank you so much.
And Stephen, I have to go as well. So over to you over to who you want. Love to stay with you.
I've got a meeting three, 14 minutes ago. So great to be with you. Chat. Well done on the chat. Everybody. Brilliant. Brilliant insights and valuable, valuable resources, everybody.
So save the chat yourself if you don't if you have if you need it. Ask me for it. I'll send it through to people from time to time.
And Stephen over to you and have a beautiful Monday morning, everybody. Or in fact, yes, Stephen, you it's Monday and Daria and all you Yanks have a lovely Sunday evening.
You have a great day. Thank you, Charles. Thank you, Charles. Thanks, everybody.